The Term Eloquence as It Relates to Rhetoric - Essay Example

THE TERM ELOQUENCE AS IT RELATES TO RHETORIC The term Eloquence as it relates to Rhetoric June 24, 2009 The term Eloquence as it relates to Rhetoric Statesmen, politicians, lawyers, generals, philosophers down the ages, from ancient Greece and Rome to modern day politicians, have been admired for the eloquence, oratory and rhetoric. Eloquence is the art of public speaking and not an aimless uttering of words or’diarrhoea of words and constipation of ideas but it is about the power of moving people with words. This paper examines the oratory of Cicero, Socrates and examines the rhetorical work of Cicero and how the concept has changed with times. The Oxford English Dictionary defines Eloquence as "The action, practice, or art of expressing thought with fluency, force, and appropriateness, to appeal to the reason or move the feelings. Also concr. eloquent language. Primarily of oral utterance, and hence applied to writing that has the characteristics of good oratory. In modern use: the notion of impassioned utterance is more prominent". History has produced a number of statesmen and philosophers who were physically weak and frail old men, but who with their sharp tongues and a nimble mind, would speak so sublimely in a simple and lucid manner that even the meanest despot would think twice before acting in haste. Eloquence is a tool and a facilitator that helps an ordinary speaker to become an orator. An orator would again use strong rhetoric to force out an issue in his own favour. In short, eloquence, rhetoric and oratory are interlinked. Eloquence when combined with oratory becomes powerful and when the two combine with rhetoric, the combination can become deadly and powerful, moving armies to inaction and turning the speaker from a position of weakness to a position of strength. The Oxford Dictionary emphasises this point and when Marc Antony speaks out to the citizens of Rome he begins with ‘Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears, for I have come to bury Caesar and not praise him’. In all probability, if Marc Antony had become a tirade of anger and wrong doing or even treachery against Brutus and this gang, then the crowd would not have rose to punish Brutus and the history of the world would have been different (Rawson, 1978). Eloquence is not about using very high blown language or even using complex terms and ideas and it is not about brow beating an audience into accepting a high sounding speech that they do not understand. Rather it is using ordinary words and phrases and combining them to force the audience into thinking on a different track. It is not about rabble rousing though leaders down the ages, have used it for waging mutiny among a howling crowd of angry mutineers, as it happened in the French revolution. Eloquence is about mixing the facts and thoughts and saying great things in a simple manner. History has seen some great orators who were highly eloquent in speaking in simple words, yet conveying a whole range of emotions. Two of the most famous orators are Pericles a politician from Athens who delivered a famous funeral speech for heroes who died in the Peloponnesian War of 431 BC and the speech by Abraham Lincoln in the Gettysburg address where he makes dedicatory remarks and historians have made comparisons on certain similarities between the two orators. So while Pericles says "reputations of many brave men should not be imperilled in the mouth of a single individual" (Cartwright, 1997), Lincoln says “[w]orld will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here" (Wills, 1992) Thus, in the preceding paragraphs, the meaning of the word eloquence, as defined by the Oxford Dictionary has been examined and explicated. Examples of speeches by Pericles, Marc Antony and Lincoln from the 18th century have been examined and these speeches are regarded as the best examples of the art of eloquence, of speaking with brevity and lucidity. The next sections will discuss the rhetoric of Cicero and Socrates used eloquence and rhetoric in the arguments. Cicero (100 BC, Book 1, Para 1) celebrates eloquence since according to him, eloquence led human beings out of a brutish life into a civilized existence as citizens. According to him, it was eloquence that cities are established, wars fought, alliances and friendships are formed due to the power of eloquence. Again Cicero is careful in linking the value of eloquence and wisdom when he says “[w]isdom without eloquence is but of little advantage to states, but that eloquence without wisdom is often most mischievous, and is never advantageous to them". Cicero was trying to bring in the concept of Rhetoric that is the art of using logic for persuasion. Cicero dwelled harshly on using eloquence for the evil and bad of the society and for the nation. According to him, eloquence and oratory were like the medicines that a physician used to cure sickness and heal wounds. The physicians studied wounds so that they can be cured and thus an orator study a happening and use eloquence to what he believes is just and fair. "[J]ust as we say, that it is the duty of a physician to prescribe for a patient in a way calculated to cure him; and that his end is to cure him by his prescriptions. And so we shall understand what we are to call the duty of an orator; and also what we are to call his end; since we shall call that his duty which he ought to do, and we shall term that his end for the sake of which he is bound to do his duty". (Cicero, 100 BC, Book 1, Para 3). Cicero speaks of three styles that are borrowed from Hellenism called the grand that stirs emotions; the middle that persuades through pleasures and the plain or subdued style that proves points and each style has an appropriate function. Cicero dwelled at great lengths on eloquence and the art of rhetoric that he both admired and was against because according to him, oratory and rhetoric often took off on fruitless pursuits and questions such as finding out the size of the sun or finding out the shape of the world. Such pursuits did not help the state and the self. Therefore to sum up, Cicero often used his nimble tongue and adeptness at words to vanquish his opponent Marc Anthony in the senate (Cicero, 100 BC, Book 1, Para VI). The story of Socrates on the other hand is rather tragic and where Cicero used oration, eloquence and rhetoric to escape from tragedy, Socrates seems to Rhetoric for his own peril. This is best seen in the dialogues with Crito, the rich businessman and his friend who has come to meet Socrates in the jail. Socrates has been sentenced to death and Crito is of the opinion that Socrates can easily escape since his friends can bribe the sycophants and there are other cities to welcome him. Crito even brings up arguments that Socrates owes a duty to his children and since the sentence is unjust, it is Socrates’ duty to escape. However, Socrates uses Rhetoric and persuasive eloquence to show that to escape would be dishonouring the laws of Athens. "For he who is a corrupter of the laws is more than likely to be corrupter of the young and foolish portion of mankind. Will you then flee from well-ordered cities and virtuous men? and is existence worth having on these terms? Or will you go to them without shame, and talk to them, Socrates? And what will you say to them?" (Plato, 360 BC). Socrates rebuts each and every argument that Crito puts up to persuade Socrates, but the rhetoric and eloquence of Socrates is very deep and he conjures up futuristic image as a law breaker and that further, all his own followers would be labelled as renegades. The rhetoric used here is the middle path that shows the pleasures and pains that one endures in breaking laws. According to Socrates, it was his duty to stay in the city, refrain from escaping and ensure that justice and laws were carried out. At the time of this incident, Socrates was 70 years old and the philosopher argues that the judges would very well point out that it was Socrates who himself had drawn up the laws and he had enough time to go to another city if he Socrates did not like the laws. But, he refused to leave the city and continued to remain and it would be unacceptable if he attempted escape now. Hence the refusal to escape from jail (Plato, 360 BC). The paper has thus explicated the various points and arguments about eloquence, oratory and rhetoric. The works of Cicero and Plato has been examined to find out how they regarded these terms. Eloquence according to Cicero was the one feature that lifted man above the beasts who roamed the jungles like animals, fed, and even bred like animals. Again, Cicero points out that eloquence should always be accompanied by wisdom and should have the power of good and should not be used for an evil or unjust purpose. Socrates on the other hand used logic as the best manner of expressing eloquence. The philosopher believed in using simple facts and underlying arguments to create a web of Rhetoric that was impossible to break. The rhetoric was accompanied by eloquence and good oration but the tragedy was the Socrates used rhetoric to condemn himself to death, turning down the chance to escape from the prison with the help of Crito who has come to meet him. References Cartwright, David, 1997. A Historical Commentary On Thucydides. University of Michigan Press Cicero Marcus Tullius, 100 BC. Rhetorical Treatises On Invention. The Best Kind of Orator. Translated by H. M. Hubbell. Harvard University Press. Plato, 360 BC. Crito, Scene. The Prison of Socrates. Translated by Benjamin Jowett, 1994. Retrieved 24 June 2009 from http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/crito.html Rawson Beryl, 1978. The Politics of Friendship: Pompey and Cicero. Sydney University Press Wills, Garry, 1992. Lincoln at Gettysburg: The Words That Remade America. New York: Simon and Schuster. Read More