Branches of Oratory

Judicial oratory - Purpose is to accuse or defend. Past Tense

Deliberative oratory - Purpose is to extort or dissuade. Future Tense

Epideictic oratory - Purpose is for praise or blame. Present Tense

virtues of style

Virtues of Style
The virtues of style are of early date, developed by Theophrastus and Demetrius (disciples of Aristotle) and later by Cicero and Quintilian. However, they are not as consistently carried forward in the rhetorical tradition as other major categories. Still, they are useful in organizing the various concerns taken up under the heading of style; in illustrating the relationship of rhetoric to grammar; and especially in setting positive terms against which to understand the many varieties of rhetorical vices. It is useful to understand the virtues of style as "norms" of style, which can be deviated from productively (as virtues) or unproductively (as vices).

Authors and literary passages exemplifying these stylistic virtues were the object of rhetorical analysis within rhetorical pedagogy. By means of imitation, students were taught to appreciate and assimilate the various virtues of style (and to avoid corresponding vices)

The virtues of style include.

Correctness
Clarity
"Evidence"
Propriety
Ornateness



1. correctness or purity
latinitas, sermo purus
{hellenismus}


Correctness or purity is that quality of style by which one speaks or writes in a manner consistent with a given language's norms (consuetudo, usus). In other words, one adheres to the conventions of vocabulary and syntax, grammar and usage, that predominate in that tongue. Those conventions, not incidentally, are largely derived from the usage of educated persons and especially from literary authorities.

Correctness or purity was considered with respect to single words (verba singula) and to groups of words (verba coniuncta). Deviations from the customary use of words or groups of words could be either a grammatical vice or a rhetorical virtue:

Deviations from correctness
as grammatical
vice
as rhetorical
virtue
of single words barbarismus metaplasm
of groups of words soloecismus schema or figura
Sources: Arist. 3.5; Ad Herr. 4.11.12; Quint. 8.1.2; Trebizond 65v-66v



2. clarity
perspicuitas
{saphaneia}

Clarity (perspicuitas), closely related to correctness or purity (above), is that quality of style by which language is intelligible. This involves using the proper names and terms for things, and following a straightforward style in arranging words. It may perhaps best be understood in terms of its opposites: clarity is a lack of ambiguity (ambiguitas, amphibologia) and the absence of obscurity (obscuritas).

Clarity is measured in terms of how clear our speech seems to our audience, or how well it appeals logically to the understanding (see logos). Thus, clarity can be aided by a variety of rhetorical strategies or figures that render speech more orderly and therefore more clear (such as some forms of repetition or figures of reasonong).

However, figurative language may in fact impede clarity, rather than help it, and there is a natural tension between this qualitiy of style and the quality of ornateness (below). Quintilian describes various rhetorical figures which, when taken too far, reduce clarity and bring about obscurity.

Clarity is a qualitative term, naming a property that is at times simply the achievement of a golden mean—for example, naming verbal expression that is neither too brief (threatening obscurity and ambiguity) nor too long (threatening tedium and inattention).

Vices Threatening Clarity
obscuritas
adianoeta
amphibolia
skotison
Sources: Quint. 8.2; Trebizond 65v



3. "evidence"
evidentia
{enargeia}

"Evidence" does not mean logical proof, but as the Latin root of this word suggests, it refers to that which comes before the eyes. If clarity is that quality of style that measures how well language reaches the understanding, then "evidence" measures how well language reaches the emotions (see pathos) through vivid depiction. Indeed, the Greek term for this quality of style, enargeia, also names a set of figures dedicated to vivid description.

This quality of style can be achieved not only through figures directly devoted to description, but through various means of amplification, division, and climax.

Sources: Quint. 8.3.61-71


4. propriety
aptum, decorum
{to prepon}

Although listed as a quality of style, propriety is of course a controlling principle for all of rhetoric, known better by the Latin term decorum. With respect to style, it is necessary that the words be aptly fit to the subject matter.



5. ornateness
ornatus
{kataskeue}

This quality of style refers to the various aesthetic qualities of language so fully illustrated among the various figures of speech. It approaches to some degree the canon of delivery, since ornateness also considers the sound and rhythms of words in their oral and aural dimensions. Ornateness aims at producing delight or admiration in the audience, and may thereby jeopardize clarity.

Like clarity, ornateness is a quality of both single words and groups of words, and some of the same choices that might threaten clarity may improve ornateness—for example, the use of old, coined, or metaphorical words.

"KAKOU KORAKOS KAKON OON":

Rhetoric & the Story of Corax vs. Tisias

(adapted)



The Scene: "Corax and his pupil Tisias were reputedly the first Sophists. Like many young men with an appetite for worldly success, Tisias sought training from Corax in the hope of being able to sue his way to wealth and influence. Wishing to make sure he was not duped by his teacher, Tisias contracted to pay Corax only after he had actually won a law suit. On this condition his training commenced and soon enough was over. But Tisias became complacent. Years went by and Tisias brought no suits against anyone. Corax had been willing to wait to be paid, but not forever, so he brought a suit against Tisias to recover his fee" -- Britannica.com



Tisias: Your Honors, I stand before you today in humility of spirit and purity of motive. I ask only that you listen patiently and judge rightly in issuing your verdict.

Your Honors, I charge Corax for failing to teach me well the art of Rhetoric. The proof of this charge is here before us today. For if I should lose my case, it will surely prove that I was not taught Rhetoric very well. And this being the case I should NOT have to pay the tuition. For no one should have to pay for services that weren't rendered according to what was promised.

On the other hand, if I win the case, it shows that I had enough sense and talent to figure out the art of Rhetoric out on my own, despite the negligence of my instructor. But even this is not necessary to my case. For a ruling against Corax, is a ruling for me. And a ruling for me means I do not have to pay tuition. In either case, then, I should NOT have to pay tuition.



Corax: Your Honors, I, too, stand humbly before you. I, too, recognize, in years far more experienced than that of my adversary, your outstanding record of prudent and just decision making on behalf of those whose cause is just. We are indeed fortunate to gain a hearing before you. This, then, is my case.

I have given Tisias the very best education in rhetoric of which I am capable, on the condition that he would at some point in his career pay my tuition. This he has not done. Now, if you rule against me -- that is if Tisias does in fact win his case -- it serves to show that I taught him Rhetoric well, in which case he should be required to pay my tuition. If, however, Tisias does not win his case, that would show him to be a poor, or rather bad, student. (We already know he is poor.) Those who are wise well know that a teacher is not to be faulted if, in discharging his services well and faithfully, the student is simply too stupid or too lazy (or too both) to take advantage of those services, expertly rendered.

But even this is unnecessary to my case. For a ruling against Tisias is a ruling in favor of me. Such a ruling would, of course, mean that Tisias must pay my tuition. In either case, then, my tuition should be paid.

At Issue: Has Tisias won or has Corax won?

Top Rhetorical Devices
Since rhetoric dates back to ancient times, much of the terminology used to discuss it comes from the original Greek. Despite its ancient origins, however, rhetoric is as vital as ever. The following list contains some of the most important rhetorical devices to understand:

Alliteration, a sonic device, is the repetition of the initial sound of each word (e.g. Alan the antelope ate asparagus).
Cacophony, a sonic device, is the combination of consonant sounds to create a displeasing effect.
Onomatopoeia, a sonic device, refers to a word that emulates the real-life sound it signifies (e.g. using the word "bang" to signify an explosion).
Humor creates connection and identification with audience members, thus increasing the likelihood that they will agree with the speaker. Humor can also be used to deflate counter-arguments and make opposing points of view appear ridiculous.
Anaphora is the repetition of certain words or phrases at the beginning of sentences to increase the power of a sentiment. Perhaps the best-known example of anaphora is Martin Luther King Jr.'s repetition of the phrase "I have a dream."
Meiosis is a type of euphemism that intentionally understates the size or importance of its subject. It can be used to dismiss or diminish a debate opponent's argument.
Hyperbole is an exaggerated statement that conveys emotion and raises the bar for other speakers. Once you make a hyperbolic statement like “My idea is going to change the world," other speakers will have to respond in kind or their more measured words may seem dull and uninspiring in comparison.
Apophasis is the verbal strategy of bringing up a subject by denying that that very subject should be brought up at all.
Anacoluthon is a sudden swerve into a seemingly unrelated idea in the middle of a sentence. It can seem like a grammatical mistake if handled poorly, but it can also put powerful stress onto the idea being expressed.
Chiasmus is a technique wherein the speaker inverts the order of a phrase in order to create a pretty and powerful sentence. The best example comes from President John F. Kennedy's inaugural address: "Ask not what your country can do for you— ask what you can do for your country."
Anadiplosis is the use of the same word at the end of one sentence and at the beginning of the subsequent sentence, forming a chain of thought that carries your audience to the point you’ve chosen.
Dialogismus refers to moments when the speaker imagines what someone else is thinking, or speaks in the voice of someone else, in order to explain and then subvert or undermine counterpoints to the original argument.
Eutrepismus, one of the most common rhetorical devices, is simply the act of stating points in the form of a numbered list. Why is it useful? First off, this devices makes information seem official and authoritative. Second, it gives speech a sense of order and clarity. And third, it helps the listener keep track of the speaker's points.
Hypophora is the trick of posing a question and then immediately supplying the answer. Do you know why hypophora is useful? It's useful because it stimulates listener interest and creates a clear transition point in the speech.
Expeditio is the trick of listing a series of possibilities and then explaining why all but one of those possibilities are non-starters. This device makes it seem as though all choices have been considered, when in fact you've been steering your audience towards the one choice you desired all along.
Antiphrasis is another word for irony. Antiphrasis refers to a statement whose actual meaning is the opposite of the literal meaning of the words within it.
Asterismos. Look, this is the technique of inserting a useless but attention-grabbing word in front of your sentence in order to grab the audience’s attention. It's useful if you think your listeners are getting a bit bored and restless.

Examples of Rhetorical Devices
Rhetoric isn’t just for debates and arguments. These devices are used in everyday speech, fiction and screenwriting, legal arguments, and more. Consider these famous examples and their impact on their audience.

“Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.” –Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back.
Rhetorical Device: Anadiplosis. The pairs of words at the beginning and ending of each sentence give the impression that the logic invoked is unassailable and perfectly assembled.
“Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.” —President John F. Kennedy.
Rhetorical Device: Chiasmus. The inversion of the phrase can do and the word country creates a sense of balance in the sentence that reinforces the sense of correctness.
"I will not make age an issue of this campaign. I am not going to exploit, for political purposes, my opponent’s youth and inexperience." –President Ronald Reagan
Rhetorical Device: Apophasis. In this quip from a presidential debate, Reagan expresses mock reluctance to comment on his opponent's age, which ultimately does the job of raising the point of his opponent's age.
“But in a larger sense, we cannot dedicate, we cannot consecrate, we cannot hallow this ground.” —Abraham Lincoln, Gettysburg Address.
Rhetorical Device: Anaphora. Lincoln’s use of repetition gives his words a sense of rhythm that emphasizes his message. This is also an example of kairos: Lincoln senses that the public has a need to justify the slaughter of the Civil War, and thus decides to make this statement appealing to the higher purpose of abolishing slavery.
“Ladies and gentlemen, I've been to Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan, and I can say without hyperbole that this is a million times worse than all of them put together.” –The Simpsons.
Rhetorical Device: Hyperbole. Here, hyperbole is used to humorous effect in order to undermine the superficial point of the sentence.