@liluug

CONTENTSTwo Species of Style In Aristotle I

Richard L. Lanigan, Southern Illinois UniversitySolipsim, Self-Identity, and Lanrguage 5

Steven Bartlett, University ol Calilornia at lrvituR. W. Sella,rs' Episternology: A Third Version of CriticalReal ism-OrIsI tAFirst?. . . . . . . . 11 . -

Donald G. Lewis, Jr., Bucknell (JniversityOnCertainty . . . . . . . .22

Ronald L.'Barnette, Calilornia Stote College at Long BeachAn Aesthetic Analysis of "Acquainted With The Night.. . . . 32

Margaret Pepin, (Jniversity of New MexicoADialogue: HegelandWhitehead . . . . . 3g

Betty A. Sichel, Hofstra University

JOURNAL OF PHI SIGMA TAUNATIONAL HONOR SOCIETY FOR PHILOSOPHY

MAY, 1968 VOL. l0 NO. I

CITATION FORM

Richard L. Lanigan, “Two Species of Style in Aristotle”, Dialogue: Journal of Phi Sigma Tau, Vol. 10, No. 1, ( May 1968 ): 1-4. ISBN [none]

PDF EDITION © 2016 Richard L Lanigan International Communicology Institute Washington, DC 20003-3377, USA ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

DIALOGUE \PK tNG. 1968

TWO SPECIES OF STYLE IN ARISTOTLERichard L. Lanigan

S out he rn I llinois U nia er sity

IThe rhetorical species of style is suc-

cintly defined in the opening pages ofBook III in the Rhetoric.

Style to be good must be clear, as isproved by the fact that speech which failsto convey a plain meaning will fail to dojust what speech has to do. It must alsobe appropriate, avoiding both meannessand undue clevation. . . .a

In the discussion that follows in BookIII, Aristotle details the orator's activ-ity of selecting language that is bothclear and appropriate to achiwing per-suaston.

Clear language is that which avoidsthe obscurity of several potential im-plications and secures for the listeneran understandine of the actual ideabeing entertained- by the spea-ker. Suchexpressive clarity is achieved (1) bythe use of current and ordinarv words.and (2) by words that vary from typi-cal usase.s The surface contradictionsuggested by Aristotle in these two cat-egories quickly disappears with further-explication.

Current language is exemplilied bythe employment of regular terms orproper nalnes; also, one is to use meta-phor and its related species of simileand proverb. Necessarily, the speakeravoids any display of bad taste. Com-pound words, strange or inventedterms, unseasonable epithets, and inap-propriate metaphors are shunned.6However, Aristotle does not mean to

^.1' Aristotle, Problemata, VoL VII oI Thc Works ol Aittotle, -translated into English under the editonhip oISir David Ross,(12 vols.; oxford: At the clarendon rres, i92a-tss2;, grol.gi-bii;.1. Hereinafter all refer-ences to Aristotelian works are to the Rms edition.

---2' Richard McKeon, "Aristotle's Conception of Language and the Arts of Language,,' Classicel philology

XLI (January, 197), p. ,18.3. Harold- Skulskv, "Aristotle's Poeties Revisited," lournal ol the History ol liteas XIX (April, l95B), p. f5g.4. Rhetoriea, 1404b.1-5.5. Ib;d., 1+04b.5-7.6. Ibid., 1405b.35-1407a. 15.

Eumaeus, it is strange this dog lieson the dung-hill. His lorm is good; butI am not .rure if he has speed of footto match his beauty, or if he is merelywhat the table-dogs become which mas-ters keep for shoza.

Oovssev, XVII, 307-31 1.Aristotle's concept of style or diction

emerges progressively from the Rhet-oric and the Poetics as a determinatestatement of the differentiae to befound in correct and impressive ex-pression. Language is taken to be thematerial that the productive arts ofrhetoric and poetry mold into their re-spective ends: persuasion and pleasure.lYet, the material affinity is not to betaken as a forccast of a specified meth-odology or form for rhetoric and poeticalike. As McKeon suggests, "althoughthe styles of rhetoric and poetic ma-keuse of similar reso,urces of language,the virtues and problems of rheioriialstyle are the ionverse of those ofpoetry."'

Even though Aristotle defines stylegenerically as the use of clear and ap-propr;ate language, the rhetorical styieano tne poetrc expresslon are converseprocesses of movement between poten-tiality and actuality. For the mosi part,rhetoric attempts to build from the po.tential to the actual, while poetry im-aginatively_ utilizes the actual'to suggestthe potential. These are the "ruldJ ofparticipatiorr" that define the poeticand rhetorical arts.3 To be sure,- Aris-totle has created two species of style.

DIALOGUE

imply that clarity cannot be secured byavoiding common usage.

Freedom from meanness or the useof unusuaf words is not an atternpt tofind a verbal xenolith. Rather, Aristotlemaintains that a literary or more re-fined mode is always preferable to acolloouialism. Such word choice ac-complishes a clarity that partales ofcorrectness and lends itself to impres-siveness. fn short, two methods of gain-ing clarity in speech are proposed witha view toward a linguistic use reflect-ing the particular and actual as op-posed to the universal and potential,i.e., the cornmon word or the locution.

Appropriate language is marked inan expression with a compatible emo-tion, a correspondence to the subject athand, and by rhythm.T The ernploy-men( of appropriate diction movesnaturally toward two categories: free-running or continued delivery, or peri-odic er<pression.8 A sense of the "ap-propriate" can be felt by making a po-tential expression actual throush theuse of embtion. That is, an "oritrage"becomes real when described withwords of "anger." In this light, thelanguage must correspond to the sub-ject: "solemnity" must accompanyweighty matters, and so on. As to rhy-thm, paean is most preferable since itdeparts from the language of ordinarypeople (iambic) and adapts better tothe spoken word than does the heroic.e

In the Metaphysics Aristotle explainsthat "Where there is no product apartfrom the actualitv. the acualitv is pre-sent in the agents;' and he later iddsthat "form is actuality."to Conjunc-tively, the Philosopher states that "Theproper definition of the primary kind

7. Ibid., L4{fra.fi-lngz.25.8. I bi.l., 1n9a..25-1410b.3.9. l6td., 1408b.32-1409a.24.lO. M etaphysica, 1050a.34-1050b. l.ll. Ibid.,1U20a.5.12. Rhetorica, 1355b,26.13. Ibid., 1356a.21-25.14. Gerald F. Else, Aistotle's Poetics: The Argument (Cmbridge, Mechusetts: Havrd Univemity Prw,

1957), p. 563.15. Ralph Pomroy, "Aristotle and Cicem: Rhetorial Style," Western Speech lournal XXV (l{inter, 196l),

p. 32.16. McKeon, op. cit., pp, 4545.

SPRING, 1968

of potency will be 'a source of changein inothei tiine or in the same thinequa oiltet.'"11 In this context, Aris-totle's idea of rhetorical style becomesapparent. For, if "rhetoric may be de-tined as the faculty of observing in anygiven case the available means of per-suasionr"l2 then the "means of persua-sion" are the forms of persuasion.Necessarilv. the active conviction ofthe listener can be achieved by usingone or more of the forms.l8

The success of moving from the po-tential to the actual, i.e., the success ofpersuasion., depends upon how the lan-guage or matter reflects the form. Ifthe language is clear and appropriate,the best form will emerge from theoreferable matter: this is eood rhetori-ial style. Similarly, unsuita-ble and mis-understood language reflects bad style.Thus, Else rightly concludes that "Thepublic speaker has to produce what-ever efficts he produc6s through hisspeech alone . . . ."t4 An excellerrt sum-mary of the present analysis is providedbv Pomerov in his discussion of theEhetoric.

. . . For Aristotle a style persuades whenit exposes arguments, relates them to needsand interests of a particular audience, andinduces that audience to accept and actupon them. This is the reason that Aris-totle's doctrine stresses clarity and appropd-ateness.l5

Pomeroy is seconded without majorreservation by McKeon in the aboveanalysis of style as an element in therhetorical act of persuasion.lG

Not to be overlooked is an interest-ing, but dubious, analysis offered byThonssen. He agrees with this writer

DIALOGUE

that Aristotle's intent wit-hin the con-cept of style is to actualize the poten-tial. However, Thonssen appears in-correct in attributing more importanceto the matter or activity of persuasionthan to the form or stylistic procedure.For, it is precisely the method that dis-tinguishes the trvo species of style. Thisshortcomins of 'Ihonssen is best viewedwithin the iontext of his own thinking:

. Art which makes possible suchdefinite adaptations, as the Aristotelian con-ception in the Rhetoric does, must bear thestamp of functional irnplication. The en-tire invention emphasis reveals the factthat Aristotle streises function more thanform, and to that end he is more inter-ested in the activity occasioned by rhetor-ical means than he is in the methodolog-ical procedure by which the activity isaroused.l?

Thus, Thonssen attempts to justifystyle as a species, not a genus. Thejustification is highly questionable atbest.

In brief summary. Aristotle distin-guishes the species 'of rhetorical styleas the use of clear and appropriatelanguage to achieve an actualization ofwhat is potential. Here, the orator as-certains how his speech can persuadean audience to undertake a particularact as opposed to the alternative, avail-able acts. That is, one potential ismade actual. The more erudite the useof language in the process of persua-sion. the more impressive and correctthe ityle will be.

I IThe definition of poetic style or dic-

tion appears within the first few linesof Chapter XXV of the Poetics.

(1) The poet being an imitator just like17. Lester 'fhonssen, "A Functional Interpretation of Aristotle's Rhetoric," Quarterly Journal ol SPeech XYI

(June, 1930), p. 307.18. De Poetica. 1460b.6-14.19. Aristotle, The Poetics, traulated by W. Hmilton FyIe (The Loeb Classical Library; Cambridge, Masn-

chusetts: Haryard Univenity Pres, 1953), pp. xiii-xiv.20. Else, op. cit., p. 565.21. Skulsky, oP. cit., p. 156.22. Lane Cooper, The Poetics ol Arislolle: Its Meaning and Influence (New York: Cooper Square Pub-

lishers, Inc., 1963), p. 43.

SPRING, 1968

the painter or other maker of likenesses,he must necessarily in all instances repre-sent things in one or other of three aspects,either as they were or are, or as they aresaid or thought to be or to have been, oras they ought to be. (2) All this he doesin language, with an admixture, it may be,of strange words and metaphors, as also ofthe various modified forms of words. sincethe use of these is conceded in poetry.18

From the above quotation it is plainthat clarity and appropriateness inpoetry are the converse of the sameelements in rhetoric. Hence, poetic styleis to be the use of clear and appropri-ate language to achieve pleasurethroueh imitation.

Apfropriateness is a correct and im-pressive imitation (through language)of what is factual, historical, or hypo-thetical. The spectator finds the trag-edy or epic appropriate in "the plea-sure of havins one's emotions stirrednot by the facts of life but by their ar-tistic representation."le Second, thecontrast of the poetical and rhetoricalsense of appropriateness with respect tohistorical events is well stated by Else:

. . . The dramatic persons are not boundto rhetoric. They are not orators makinga speech before an assembly or a law court,but human beings like ourselves. They canspeak from the heart, and we respond tothem "from the same nature," as one hu-man being to another.2o

Lastly, the poet seeks appropriatenessin the presentation of a "hypotheticalclass of events and individuals."2t Thescene created "represents ideal, nothistorical tmth; not what happened,but what is likely to happen, a se-quence of events that is credible or in-evitable."22 This is to say, the poetic"acf.)al" is an imagined entity that ful-

DIALOGUE

fills the "potential" in an imaginedreality. And, the imagined reality isvariously based upon fact, history, orhypothesis.

Clariw. as the second differentia ofpoetic siyle, is also a mirror contrastwith rhetorical expression. The poetuses uncommon words and unfamiliarmetaphors. He can modify and inventwords. Language is "imagined" be-cause it is necessarily required to con-form to the imaginative process beingdescribed, viz. the plot. "Poetic 'argu-ments' or plots are statements of actionin narrative or dramatic form and aredependent, therefore, on the verbal ex-pression of tlought as representationsof character."23 Yet, one might wonderabout the place of poetic expression inlight of Aristotle's frequent commentthat all art imitates nature. Is not theact of imitation the actualization ofnature's potential, and not conversely?

Skulsky contends that the answer tothe above question is "yes." He statesthat "art is an oreanized activitv in-dulged in for its oin sake involving a'thing made' within the framework ofconventional n-rles, a thing which isactualized in its being experienced."2aBut ironically, Skulsky's contention is adescription of Aristotelian rhetoric, notpoetic. As McKeon contends, "Art imi-tates nature; the form is joined in thematter of the art."25

This is to say, imitation posits anevent. character. etc. as actual. Thenthe plot proceeds to express how thatac tu al i ty progresses imaginativelytoward the potential to be achieved.26McKeon concurs, "For while a poetmay imitate that which is, or the ac-tions of men, or other poets, he pleasesrather than imitates audiences."21 Te:l.-ford goes a step further by indicating

23. McKeon, op. cit., p. 198.24. Skulsky, Ioc. ait.25. Richrd McKeon, "Literary Criticism and the Concept ol

XXXIV (Augut, 1936), p. 19.26. Physica, 201b.25-35.27. McKeon, Modern Philology, op. c;t., p. 32.

Imitation in Antiquity," Modern Philology

28. Kenneth Telford, Aristotle's Poetics: Translation and Analysis (A Gateway Edition; Chicago: HenryRegnery Co., 1965), p. 137.

29. De Poetica, 1451a.35-1451b.1.30. Metaphysica,1043a.11-30; cf., below n. 31.

SPRING, 1968

that the use of imagination is the "free-dom" that the poet needs "to make hisown decisions without prejudice to theachievement of the function of thatspecies."28 In short, Aristotle deter-mines "that the poet's function is to de-scribe, not the thing that has hap-pened, but a kind of thing that mighthappen, i.e., what is possible as beingprobable or necessary,"2e

To sum up, poetic style utilizes clear,appropriate language to evoke pleasurethrough imitation. Yet, the language isan imagined actuality that projectstoward tJre potential. If the audienceof spectators grasps the potential andpleasure is derived therefrom, the styleis good. With a contrary effect, thestyle is bad.

I I IWhat then can be said about the

genus of style in Aristotle's Rhetoricand Poetics? SWle is to be defined asthe use of language to achieve clarityand appropriateness of expression.Style is "good" when clear, appropriatelanguage is impressive and correct. Yetthese genelic statements must beamended to define what is clear, ap-propriate, impressive, and correct in agiven langu age art. In rhetoric theclear and appropriate expression, whenimpressive and correct, will actualizethe potential to achieve persuasion.soYet in poetic, language is employed'topotentialize the imagined actual to givepleasure.sl The species of style becomethe definitions of prose and poetry. Inshort, "The whole treatment of stylein the two treatises reflects the ten-dency of prose to clarity and to thestatements of ordinary speech and thetendency of poetry to distinction andthe use of uncommon modes of e><pres-sion."32

31. Ethica Nicomachea, 1103a.25-1103b.1; cf., above n, 30.32. McKeon, Classical Philology, op. cit,, p. 49,

4