CONSTRUCTIVE RHETORIC. INTRODUCTION. 1. Rhetoric as a Science and Rhetoric as an Art. Before we begin our actual work, it will be useful to have a clear idea of what we expect to accomplish. We are to deal with Rhetoric. The word Rhetoric, however, has a somewhat vague meaning in many minds, and even those who have more exact ideas on the subject sometimes differ from each other. I read, for example, of a certain book, that on such and such a foundation "the author piles a structure of magnificent logic, and makes it glow with all the fires of rhetoric." Here the critic obviously felt that Rhetoric was a matter having no connection with the plain, ordinary disposition of one's ideas in the most effective manner, that it was rather a something to be subsequently applied, something glowing, blazing, fiery,—a sort of gilding, perhaps. And with an idea not so very different, Cardinal Newman said,' "These are not the words of rhetoric, gentlemen, but of history." And just as the other writer felt that Rhetoric was merely something to be added to one's writing as an outside ornament, so Newman, here, feels that Rhetoric is something opposed to actual fact, something fantastic, unreal, false. I need hardly say that it is not with any such idea in mind that I propose to you the study of Rhet 1Idea of a University, p. 13. Although Newman understood the real art of Rhetoric better than most men. oric. We shall not pursue the study with a view of gaining the power to ornament our writing with brilliant, glittering superficiality, we will leave that kind of Rhetoric to any one who still cares for such exhibitions. Our desire at present is to learn to express ourselves in writing, and to express ourselves well, comprehending in that last word a great deal; and we take the term Rhetoric as a convenient name for the discipline which we undertake to that end. But even in the more scholarly use of the word there has been some variation. Not to mention the views of the ancient rhetoricians, Dr. Campbell, for instance, defines Rhetoric as 66 the art or talent by which the discourse is adapted to its end." On the other hand, Rhetoric has been treated ' as the science of the laws of effective discourse." Not a few writers on the subject have defined it as an art and treated it as a science. 66 This is one great cause for the vagueness which some of you may feel in the matter. You are not quite clear in your minds whether Rhetoric be a Science or an Art. Now the difference between these two things is not hard to grasp. We use the two words glibly enough, and in general with a fair notion of their meaning. When we talk of Science, we think perhaps of the work of Darwin or Huxley, who were biologists; and when we talk of Art we may have in mind Velasquez or Rembrandt, who were painters. And Biology and Painting are very typical examples, one of a science and the other of an art. For Biology in itself implies merely knowledge; biological facts and theories may be applied to many useful ends, but in itself Biology is a system of knowledge. Now a system of knowledge is the very thing that a painter usually lacks; he can paint a picture, but he can rarely tell you just how he did it. He has systems of Perspective, Anatomy, Composition, perhaps; but with all these there is always much that is unexplainable in his work. Art, then, is not a matter of knowledge alone, nor even mainly of systematized knowledge. When we speak of Science and Art together, we mean that Science concerns itself about the knowing, without especial reference to anything being done; while Art concerns itself chiefly about doing, caring for knowledge, not for itself, but only in so far as is necessary to have the thing done well. Bearing this distinction in mind, then, we can see that Rhetoric may, if we choose, be regarded as a Science. We may study good writing just as we study plants or animals or stones or anything else. But as far as the science is concerned, we go no farther. The botanist knows a good deal about plants, but he could never make one. Nor could the zoologist or geologist make an animal or a stone. In like manner he who regards Rhetoric as a science only, is not necessarily able to write well. Good writing interests him and he studies it; he does not pretend to be a writer himself. It is a frequent slur on critics that they are men who could not themselves attain eminence in the art for which they profess to lay down the law. But there is a weak point here: a man may reasonably enough know a great deal about a thing and never be able to make the thing he knows about. In other words, Science does not necessarily imply skillful doing; as Science, it concerns itself with knowledge alone.' I think, however, that we should agree that such a science is hardly our first aim in studying Rhetoric. We want to write. Everybody, nowadays, wants to be able to write easily and well. Effective discourse (that's a technical 1 It does not follow that the scientist too may not have his own art. Wholly aside from the knowledge acquired, one may attain a very great skill in handling the materials. Even in mathematics, pure science as it is, there is the art of solving problems distinct from the knowledge of the problems solved. And every Scientist who is not content to rest upon what has been done for him by others must to some degree be skilled in the Art of Discovering Truth, |