inventio to the rescue

I've re-discovered old rhetoric notes from a book of mine called "Classical Rhetoric for the Modern Student" by Edward P.J. Corbett. I wrote out nice notes on Word and this much that I am posting seems like it would be helpful as yet another perspective.

Classical Rhetoric For The Modern Student

Pg. 16
Classical rhetoric was associated primarily with persuasive discourse. Its end was to convince or persuade an audience to think in a certain way or to act in a certain way. Later, the principles of rhetoric were extended to apply to informative or expository modes of discourse, but in the beginning, they were applied almost exclusively to the persuasive modes of discourse. ….the four forms of discourse: Argumentation, Exposition, Description, and Narration.

Pg. 17
By the time Cicero came to write his treatises on rhetoric, the study of rhetoric was divided, mainly for pedagogical convenience, into five parts: inventio, dispositio, elocutio, memoria, and pronuntiatio.

Pg. 17-23
The Five Canons of Rhetoric
Inventio is the Latin term (heuresis was the equivalent Greek term) for “invention” or “discovery.” Theoretically, orators could talk on any subject, because rhetoric, as such, had no proper subject matter. In practice, however, each speech that orators undertook presented a unique challenge. They had to find arguments that would support whatever case or point of view they were espousing. …Inventio was concerned with a system or method for finding arguments. ….

Aristotle recognized two kinds of arguments or means of persuasion namely, non-artistic or non-technical and artistic. These modes of persuasion were not really part of the art of rhetoric; they came from outside the art. Orators did not have to invent these; they merely had to use them. He identified five kinds of non-artistic proofs: laws, witnesses, contracts, tortures, oaths. The second general mode of persuasion was artistic proof – “artistic” in the sense that they fell within the province of the art of rhetoric: rational appeal (logos), emotional appeal (pathos), and ethical appeal (ethos).

The method that the classical rhetoricians devised to aid the speaker in discovering matter for the three modes of appeal was the topics. In rhetoric, a topic was a place or store or thesaurus to which one resorted to find something to say on a given subject. Aristotle distinguished two kinds of topics: (I) the special topics; (II) the common topics. The special topics were those classes of argument appropriate to particular kinds of discourse. In other words, arguments used exclusively in law courts; others confined to public forum; others appearing only in ceremonial addresses. The common topics were a limited stock of arguments that could be used for any occasion or type of speech.
Aristotle named four common topics: (1) more and less (the topic of degree); (2) the possible and the impossible; (3) past fact and future fact; (4) greatness and smallness (the topic of size as distinguished from the topic of degree.

The second part of rhetoric was dispositio (Greek, taxis), which may be translated as “disposition,” “arrangement,” “organization.” This was the division of rhetoric concerned with the effective and orderly arrangement of the parts of a written or spoken discourse.

The third part of rhetoric was elocutio (Greek, lexis or hermeneia or phrases). For the classical rhetorician, elocutio meant “style.” Style is a difficult concept to define, although most of us feel we know what it is. The classification of styles yielded great discussions deriving various terms for kinds of style, but there was a fundamental agreement of three levels of style. There was low or plain style (attenuata, subtile); the middle or forcible style (mediocris, robusta); and the high or florid style (gravis, florida). The plain style was most appropriate for instructing (docendi); the middle for moving (movendi); and the high for charming (delectandi).

The fourth part of rhetoric was memoria (Greek, mneme), concerned with memorizing speech. The fifth division of rhetoric was pronuntiatio (Greek, hypokrisis) or delivery.

Pg. 23-24
The Three Kinds of Persuasive Discourse
All rhetoricians distinguished three kinds of orations, and this tripartite classification is well-nigh exhaustive. First there was deliberative oratory, also known as political, hortative, and advisory, in which one deliberated about public affairs, about anything that had to do with politics. More generally, however, deliberative discourse is that in which we seek to persuade someone to do something or to accept our point of view. Aristotle maintained that political oratory was always concerned about the future (the point at issue is something that we will or will not do); its special topics were the expedient and the inexpedient; and its means were exhortation and dehortation.

Second, there was forensic oratory, sometimes known as legal or judicial oratory. This was oratory of lawyers in the courtroom, but it can be extended to cover any kind of discourse in which someone seeks to defend or condemn someone’s actions. Forensic oratory, according to Aristotle, was concerned with past time (like court trials); its special topics were justice and injustice; and its means were accusation and defense.


Third, there was epideictic oratory aka demonstrative, declamatory, panegyrical, ceremonial. It is the oratory of display, as exemplified by the Gettysburg Address. In this kind of discourse, one is not so much concerned with persuading an audience as with pleasing it or inspiring it. Ceremonial discourse is concerned primarily with the present and its special topics were honor and dishonor and its means were praise and blame.

II
Discovery of Arguments
Pg. 27-31
Formulating a Thesis
The beginning of all discourse is a topic, a question, a problem, an issue (these can be said to be the subject of the discourse). The subject must be converted into a thesis; it must to use a term from logic, be stated in the form of a proposition, a complete sentence that asserts or denies something about the subject. For example, “A democracy cannot function effectively if its citizens are illiterate.” Now we have a theme or a thesis to write about – a precise notion of what we are going to say about the subject of “democracy.”

The Latin rhetoricians used a formula, referred to as status or stasis, for determining the point issue in a court trial, a formula that might help students decide on a thesis. The formula consisted of three questions that were asked about the subject of dispute or discussion:
An sit (whether a thing is) – a question of fact
Quid sit (what is it?) – a question of definition
Quale sit (what kind is it?) – a question of quality


Pg. 31-38
The Three Modes Of Persuasion
Aristotle said that we persuade others by three means: (1) by the appeal to their reason (logos); by the appeal to their emotions (pathos); (3) by the appeal of our personality or character (ethos). We may use one of these means exclusively or predominantly, or we may use all three.

Principles of Definition
Exposition and argumentation often turn on definition. Exposition, in fact, is a form of definition. In order to explain something, we have to tell what a thing is or describe it or enumerate its parts or demonstrate its operation. …..An essential definition is one that designates that which makes a thing what it is and distinguishes that thing from all other things; in other words it is one that spells out a thing’s fundamental nature. ….One of the tests by which we can determine whether we have arrived at an essential definition is to see whether we can convert the proposition – that is, interchange the subject and predicate terms without destroying the truth of the proposition. For example, the proposition “A man is a rational animal” is true. When we convert it to “A rational animal is man,” this also is true. Another test, “Man is a biped animal” is true, as well, but when we convert it to “A biped animal is man” we find this to be false, because, wherein man is bipedal there are numerous other bipedal animals. In an essential definition, the subject and predicate are equivalent terms.

Aristotle has shown us how to formulate an essential definition. We put the “thing to be defined” (the definiendum) into a genus or general class and then give the differentiae or the specific differences that distinguish this thing from every other thing comprehended in the same general class. Examples: “Man is a rational animal;” “animal” is the genus, and “rational” is the differentiae. “An automobile is a vehicle that runs on four wheels,” “vehicle” (genus), “runs on four wheels” (differntiae), but obviously this differentiae is not sufficient to distinguish an automobile from other vehicles that run on four wheels.

Other Methods of Definition

Synonyms
We often resort to this method in the case of adjectives, nouns, and verbs. Although a synonym can illuminate the meaning of a strange word, it does not really inform us about the mode of being of that word.

Etymology
Closely allied to definition by synonyms is definition by reference to etymology. A study of etymology can throw light on the meaning of words, can suggest subtle shades of meaning, and can serve as a mnemonic device – especially for those who have knowledge of the parent languages.

Description
Another method of definition, frequently used to convey a notion of a complex organization or mechanism, is the extended description. These descriptions often mention the genus and several of the properties and accidents of the thing to be defined, but the definition is presented in discursive prose rather than in the tight, unitary phrases that a dictionary uses. Comparisons analogies, metaphors, and similes are frequently employed to facilitate definitions by description.

Example
A method especially useful in defining abstractions is giving an example. The dubious syntax, “Honesty is when…” is usually a signal that we are about to get a definition by this method.

Here are three rules that should govern our attempts to define terms:

The defining terms should be clearer and more familiar than the term to be defined.
The definition should not repeat the term to be defined or use synonymous derivative terms.
The definition, wherever possible, should be stated positively, not negatively.

Pg. 38-39
The Syllogism

The syllogism was a schematic device that Aristotle invented to analyze and test deductive reasoning. The syllogism reasons from statements or propositions called premises. The square of opposition presents schematically the four kinds of categorical propositions – that is, propositions that either assert or deny something, without conditions or alternatives proposed.

The A-proposition (All men are mortal beings) is a universal affirmative
The E-proposition (No men are mortal beings) is a universal negative
The I-proposition (Some men are mortal beings) is a particular affirmative
The O-proposition (Some men are not mortal beings) is a particular negative

When we ask about the quantity of a proposition, we are seeking to determine whether the proposition is universal or particular – that is, whether a statement is being made about a whole class or about only part of a class. When we ask about the quality of a proposition is affirmative or negative – that is, whether the predicate asserts something about the subject or denies something about the subject.

Pg. 42
The following syllogism has become Exhibit A in almost every elementary book of logic:
All men are mortal beings.
Socrates is a man.
Therefore, Socrates is a mortal being.

The syllogism is made up of three categorical propositions, the first two of them being called premises, the last one being the conclusion drawn from the premises. The categorical syllogism is built on three terms: a major term, a minor term, and a middle term. Here are the simple criteria for picking out these terms:

The major term is the predicative term of the conclusion (“mortal beings”).
The minor term is the subject term of the conclusion (“Socrates”).
The middle term is the term that appears in both of the premises but does not appear in the conclusion (“men” and its singular form “man”).

The syllogism is made of three propositions: a major premise, a minor premise, and a conclusion. The major premise is the proposition that contains the major term. The minor premise is the proposition that contains the minor term. The conclusion is difficult to define – it just is the conclusion.