SCIENCE OF RHETORIC: AN INTRODUCTION TO THE LAWS OF EFFECTIVE DISCOURSE BY DAVID J. HILL, LL.D., PRESIDENT OF THE UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER, AND AUTHOR OF HILL'S hese rules, of old discovered, not devise, Por NEW YORK: CINCINNATI -:- CHICAGO 808 H553 PREFACE THIS book is not designed as an introduction to English composition, but rather as a systematic presentation of the laws of discourse, for advanced classes. Most of the text-books on Rhetoric take a one-sided view of the subject. Dr. Whately has treated Rhetoric as a branch of Logic, making it "the art of inventing and arranging arguments;" Dr. Blair treats it as department of applied Esthetics, as if it were a pureîy critical art; Dr. Theremin regards it as belonging to Ethics, as if eloquence were a virtue. This little work aims to explain the whole theory of effective discourse, for whatever purpose, and in whatever for it may be used. The specific province of the rhetorician is to render given ideas effective in producing mental changes in others. Rhetoric treats of thought militant. Logic furnishes conceptions which are formally true; Esthetics, conceptions which are beautiful; Ethics, conceptions which are just Rhetoric takes these conceptions and establishes them in the mind of another. Rhetoricians have frequently regarded Invention as a part of Rhetoric. Invention implies the production of acre particular kind of thought, conditioned by the nature of the subject-matter. What propositions are 175698 to be maintained by the lawyer, the theo ogian, the scientist, or the critic, must depend upon the facts of law, theology, science and criticism. The methods of investigation are different in the various departments of thought. Hence no truly useful rules can be given on this subject. The truth has been forcibly stated by John Stuart Mill. He says: He says: "Invention, though it can be cultivated, cannot be reduced to rule; there is no science which will enable a man to bethink himself of that which will suit his purpose. But when he has thought of something, science will tell him whether that which he has thought of will suit his purpose or not." Disposition has often been made a distinct division of Rhetoric. The arrangement of matter contributes greatly to the effectiveness of discourse, but is so conditioned by the nature of the subject-matter, that it cannot properly be made a distinct department of hetorical science. The parts of a Description, Narration, Exposition, or Argument should be arranged according to the specific laws of these different kinds of discourse. Disposition has been treated in connection. Hitre different kinds of with the different classes of ideas, and not as a distinct topic. No recognition is taken of the traditional division of a Discourse into (1) Introduction, (2) Division, (3) Narration, (4) Explication; and (5) Peroration. This is regarded as mechanical and conventional. There is often nothing to divide, or nothing to narrate, or nothing to explicate. All this depends upon the nature of the subject-matter. As a rule, the less conventional the division of a discourse the better. It has been customary to introduce into works on Rhetoric some discussion of Taste, Beauty, Sublimity etc. These topics belong strictly to Esthetics, a division of science well worthy of the attention which is now bestowed upon it by advanced educators, and which will soon co-ordinate with Logic and Ethics as a study in the college curriculum. It is as reasonable to discuss the nature of truth or of right in a text-book on Rhetoric, as to admit the discussion of Taste, Beauty and Sublimity. Surely there is as good a reason why our sentiments should be true and just, as why they should be beautiful. Elocution has long been regarded as a part of Rhetoric, but it is by itself too important and extensive. subject to be treated as a division of rhetorical science. t does, indeed, contribute to render spoken discourse more effective, but so does elegant chirography or clear typography improve the effectiveness of writter thought. Rhetoric treats of discourse in general, not of written or spoken discourse in particular. It has been common in treatises on Rhetoric to give some account of the Origin and Progress of Language. There is no reason why this subject should be treated of in connection with Rhetoric, since language is neither a more nor a less perfect instrument of expression from our knowing its origin and history. The Science of Language is now an independent department of knowledge, and deserves attention as such. Rhetoricians have frequently included the Forms of Composition as a part of their science. It is evi dent that completed literary works, such as epics, dramas, histories, novels, etc., belong to Literature, and their classification pertains to the critical section of that department. If it be claimed that Rhetoric treats of the means whereby these forms of composition |