Dramatic Adventures in Rhetoric

A Guide for Actors, Directors and Playwrights

Giles Taylor, Philip Wilson

• Publisher: Oberon Books
• Year: 2015
• ISBN:
  9781783198177
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Medien & darstellende Kunst
• Subtopic: Theaterregie und& Theaterproduktion

A practical, accessible and thorough guide to identifying and using rhetorical devices in drama, using examples from both classical and contemporary plays. An unprecedented reference and handbook for actors, directors, playwrights and teachers; written by practitioners for practitioners. Little has been written about how dramatists draw on rhetorical devices, and how a study of these can unlock a text for a performer or director, or indeed inspire contemporary playwrights. This book addresses in detail – yet in straightforward terms – the many different rhetorical forms used in drama, and enables the reader to identify and analyse them. Dramatic Adventures in Rhetoric may be read cover to cover, or it may be dipped into; it is both an analytic tool and a reference aid for use in the classroom or rehearsal room, revealing how careful study of language is one of the best ways of accessing the richness of texts both classical and contemporary.

Chapter 1 A Brief History of Rhetoric

TATTLE: Thou art a pretty fellow, and canst carry a message to a lady, in a pretty soft kind of phrase, and with a good persuading accent.

JEREMY: Sir, I have the seeds of rhetoric and oratory in my head.

William Congreve, Love for Love (1695)

In order to understand how rhetoric filtered into – and helped to shape – drama, it is necessary to take a whistle-stop tour through the key elements of the history of rhetoric, predominantly in classical times. It is not essential to read this section first, or indeed at all – you may want simply to plunge straight into the individual terms in Chapter 2 onwards. Here, though, we will introduce you to some of the main building blocks of rhetoric, as identified by classical practitioners in particular. Inevitably we will refer to the Greek and Latin words for things that relate to speech and speaking. We hope you will relish such words, but please do not be put off by them – they are, after all, only names.

Following this introduction, we will fast-forward through the centuries until we reach the Renaissance: a key era, and the true starting point of our linguistic adventure. For it was during this time that scholars began to rediscover classical texts and to translate them into English. Concurrently, we see drama begin to surface as an entertainment, rather than as an enactment of religious parables in morality plays.

First, though, let us rewind to:

The Origins of Classical Rhetoric

The story starts in ancient times, insofar as both the Mesopotamians and the Egyptians valued the ability to speak wisely and eloquently. Aristotle, amongst others, references poets such as Homer and Hesiod, who were creating poetry as early as the 9th century BC, as well as the great playwrights of the 5th and 6th centuries BC – Aeschylus, Sophocles and Euripides. They are cited as using clear stylistic techniques of logical, ethical and emotional appeal. These predominantly oral cultures remind us that rhetoric is, first and foremost, a spoken art.

While exact dates are difficult to pin down, it is generally accepted that it was not until the Greeks, and in particular the rise of the city-state of Athens in the 6th century BC, that rhetoric came to be seen as an art, worthy of study and systematic development.

Ancient Greece: The Sophists

Our first ‘cast’ (as it were) are The Sophists. Their name comes from sophia, the Greek word for wisdom – from which we derive our word philosophy, a lover (philos) of wisdom. Athenian law decreed, as part of its democracy, that any man could be called upon to speak in the Assembly, and to persuade his fellow countrymen on the merits, or otherwise, of a particular piece of legislation. In response to this new need for orators, and therefore for rhetorical skill, groups such as the Sophists began to emerge around the 5th century BC.

Like a troupe of travelling players, the Sophists were originally a group of itinerant teachers and poets from Sicily, where formal rhetoric is said to have been started by Corax of Syracuse and his pupil Tisias. The Sophists – for a small fee – would offer their expertise on democracy, the law, and even culture. While not in any way an organized movement, some groups did rise to prominence; especially those led by Gorgias (known as ‘the Nihilist’) and Protagoras (credited with the statement ‘Man is the measure of all things’).

In time, the focus of the Sophists’ work shifted to helping others to be eloquent in speech (not dissimilar to companies nowadays which draw on performance techniques to aid businessmen and women with their presentations). Their fees increased, too. Travelling from city to city, these orators would set up a shop in public arenas and teach young men the intricacies of public speaking by defining parts of speech, detailing styles of argument, and studying poetry. In short, these are the beginnings of what we understand as rhetoric.

Sophists proudly declared that they could win any argument on any subject – even without having prior knowledge of the topic. They famously drew on techniques that enabled speakers to undermine strong arguments and underpin weak ones. Overall, to them, the manner of speech was more important than its meaning.

Ancient Greece: Socrates and Plato

The Sophists’ lofty claims that they could answer any question, and have the upper hand in any debate, brought them into conflict with philosophers such as Socrates and Plato, who dismissed the Sophists as money-grabbing conmen who used language falsely to conceal and to deceive. These philosophers condemned Sophists for their reliance on emotion, and for their manipulation of the truth: what Shakespeare later referred to, in Love’s Labour’s Lost (c.1595), as ‘the sweet smoke of rhetoric’.

Here, a key fault-line opens up – as to whether rhetoric was a wise and honest skill, or a false and divisive art. The pejorative sense of a ‘sophist’ as someone whose arguments are elaborate but essentially devious comes from this time (and from it arises the word sophisticated – although the derogatory sense has since been lost).

In addition, Aristotle drew an important distinction between philosophy and rhetoric. He appreciated that rhetoric was valuable as a way of describing things truthfully, but only if it were based on reason. He determined, therefore, to regulate the elements of speaking, which he did in The Art of Rhetoric (4th century BC) – perhaps the first manual of our subject. In it, he defined rhetoric, as we mention in our Introduction, as ‘the art of seeing the available means of persuasion’. This is crucial.

One cannot underestimate the impact and influence of The Art of Rhetoric. For the next 2,000 years, it was a key text for those wanting to study rhetoric, and it remained on the curriculum at universities until the 19th century. Aristotle goes into great detail about many aspects of rhetoric, but for our purposes it is necessary only to understand about proofs and genres.

First, proofs. Aristotle identified three key means of persuasion, based on a trio of appeals: logos, ethos and pathos. Although these terms may seem familiar, it is worth taking a brief look at their core values.

Logos is taken from the Greek for ‘word’, and represents persuasion through reason. This approach centres on the argument, and draws on logic and rational explanation. Often, this was through the use of SYLLOGISMS and ENTHYMEMES. Key elements here are the clarity of the proposition, the logic inherent in its reasoning, and the effectiveness of the supporting evidence. Unsurprisingly, given Aristotle’s focus on truth, this was his favoured approach. Thinking of our own lives, don’t we tend to believe people whom we trust? While, conversely, if we don’t trust someone, do we not find it hard to accept their point of view? In terms of drama, it is interesting to consider the relationship not only between characters, but also between audience and actor in this regard.

Ethos is from the Greek for ‘character’ or ‘habit’, and means persuasion through the credibility of the speaker. Hence our word ethics – the study of concepts of right and wrong. Where logos concentrates on the facts and figures, ethos is concerned more with the style and tone of delivery. The speaker is not neutral in the telling: their knowledge of the subject and expertise in the relevant field, along with their personal integrity, reputation and good character, come into play here.

Pathos is the third proof, and comes from the Greek word that means both ‘experience’ and ‘suffering’. It appeals to the emotions of the listener, and arouses their interest and imagination, as well as their sympathy and desire to respond. Choice of words is critical here. Advertising would barely exist without the emotional appeals that are at the heart of the pathos approach.

Alongside these proofs or appeals, Aristotle set out three genres of rhetoric, based on the aim of the speech, the function of the audience, and on the viewpoint of time. This trio is: dikanikon, epideiktikon and symbouleutikon. We said we’d be introducing some Greek and Latin words! These three relate to different arenas of examination, and also to the past, the present and the future.

Dikanikon (dee-kan-ee-con – meaning ‘like a lawyer’) to determine what is just, based on what has happened in the past; this is judicial or forensic.

Epideiktikon (ep-ee-dayk-tee-con – meaning ‘showy’) to apportion praise or blame, based on how people should feel in the present; this is demonstrative.

Symbouleutikon (sim-bool-yoo-tee-con – meaning ‘counsel’) to consider what is expedient – a guide for the future; this pertains to debate.

Classical Rome: Cicero and Quintilian

In time, the Romans conquered the Greeks, and while they subsumed their new subjects into their empire, they also assimilated aspects of Greek culture – including rhetoric. As with many retellings of stories, the Romans both adopted and adapted Grecian rhetoric. Most notably, they put less emphasis on Aristotelian logic, and favoured instead a greater dependence on stories that were exciting and adventurous, told with great stylistic flourishes and drawing on striking metaphors. More theatrical, one might say.

In Rome, the great statesman Cicero wrote a number of crucial documents, including De Inventione (On Invention, 84BC), De Oratore (On Oration, 55BC) and Topica (Topics, 44BC). As with Aristotle before him, he went into great detail. However, perhaps the most important aspect is that he stated that a man, in order to be persuasive, must be knowledgeable in the law, ethics, politics, history, medicine, art and literature. Good for pub quizzes then!

There is also an important work entitled Rhetorica Ad Herennium (Rhetoric For Herennius, 1st century BC), which may or may not have been by Cicero. This focuses on elocutio (style of delivery), and sets up six steps in the structure of any argument.

The Six Steps of an Argument

1) Exordium A preamble to engage the audience and establish your credentials.

2) Narratio A succinct statement of the facts and the key argument to be made.

3) Divisio A point-by-point setting out of the argument.

4) Confirmatio The evidence to back up the argument.

5) Confutatio A consideration of the opposing viewpoint to bolster one’s own.

6) Conclusio A summary and conclusion.

Another key player in this Roman act of our story is Quintilian. Initially, he worked in the field of law and, like an experienced barrister, he honed and perfected his rhetorical skills in the courts. Later, he set up a school for teaching rhetoric, and wrote his masterwork Institutio Oratoria (Instruction of the Orator, c.95AD). This twelve-volume compendium covers all aspects of rhetoric, in considerable detail.

Quintilian developed and extended the five canons of rhetoric, first propounded by Cicero in On Invention, as a guide to creating and delivering a speech convincingly. Although, with regard to drama, we will be looking at the effects of word-shaping more than the source of the argument, it is useful to give a brief explanation of this.

The Five Canons of Rhetoric

1) Inventio Although the word suggests invention, this is less about ‘making up’ an argument and more about the search for the best way to persuade. Before formulating an argument, a speaker must define what information needs to be conveyed and how best to present it. Aristotle’s three proofs – logos, ethos and pathos (outlined above) – are critical here. Setting is important, too: is it a formal or an informal occasion? The timing of the argument is also crucial – not only the length of the speech, but the optimum moment in which to deliver it. Last, but very much not least, the audience must be considered – who they are, and what their hopes, fears, interests and needs are. Only once all this is mapped out can the argument be developed and refined.

2) Dispositio The arrangement of the elements of the argument into a coherent structure for maximum effect. The sections of this are drawn from the Six Steps of an Argument (outlined above).

3) Elocutio This word suggests elocution – that is, clarity of speech – but originally it was more about the style of delivery. This stage involves determining how best to present the argument, drawing on figures of speech and other rhetorical techniques. Also considered is how the em...