P. 1
Hobbes e a Retorica

Hobbes e a Retorica

|Views: 7|Likes:
Published by Priscila Vogt

More info:

Published by: Priscila Vogt on Oct 08, 2011
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





Hobbes, Aristotle, and the Materialist Rhetor Author(s): Mark E. Wildermuth Source: Rhetoric Society Quarterly, Vol. 27, No.

1 (Winter, 1997), pp. 69-80 Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3886214 Accessed: 26/08/2010 13:38
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=taylorfrancis. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Taylor & Francis, Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Rhetoric Society Quarterly.


second. of The materialistunderpinnings Hobbes's thinking are evident in his Short Tracton First Principles (1630) which he composedjust a few years before the in Briefe (1637) appeared print. but philosophiesupon theoriesof which also testify to the impactof new materialist persuasionin the seventeenthcentury.As MiriamRiek indicates. First.an equally be classified as Aristotelian. This.Hobbes. and thereby limits the power of rhetoricin concurrencewith his conservativepolitical ideology. 1630).As he limits the role of passion in his new rhetoric.the Briefe shows that politically and philosophically. ARISTOTLE. given that the treatise is eclectic. Hobbes embraces a materialmodel of the mind which causes him to question the capacity of the passions to cooperatewith reasonand effect the ends of persuasion. and. Nevertheless.causes Hobbesto reconfiguresignificantaspects of Aristotle'srhetoricaltheory:most notablythe psychology of audienceresponse informingthe originalRhetoricandthe functionandapplicationof the commonplacesor topoi. I argue that Hobbes's materialism. to whatdegreecan Hobbes'srhetoricaltheory However.the ShortTractclearly RSQ: Rhetoric Society Quarterly Volume 27. AND THE MATERIALIST RHETOR Studies of Thomas Hobbes's A Brief of the Art of Rhetorique(1637) have focused primarilyon two questions.Rameanor counterreformist?l important relatedquestionhas been raisedby JohnT. more remains to be said regardingother significant differences betheories. Wildermuth HOBBES. In short. Hobbes de-vocalizes the topoi. to what extent does the Briefe influencethe rhetoricimplementedby Hobbes in laterphilosophicalworkssuch as Leviathan(165 1).which is evident not only in the Briefe (1637) but in his Short Tractof First Principles (c.Hobbes also convertsthe commonplaces into a matrixof static expositional strategiesthat have considerablyless potential thanAristotle's system for generatingproofs that draw on both reason and emotion for creatingarguments. Moving away from Aristotle's conception of organicism. points him towarda differentconceptionof materialityfromthatespoused in Aristotle'sphilosophy. uses materialistphilosophy and rhetoricto develop a system of coercive discourse for maintainingthe statusquo of the regulatedcommonwealthhe feels is the best form of government.which is what the treatisepurports be? Harwoodnotes additions and deletions to Aristotle's Rhetoric in Hobbes's adaptationthat underscore differencesin Hobbes'sandAristotle'spolitics andin theirrelativefaith in the capacityof eloquence to exert a positive influence on society (13-23). borrowing from many sourcesof theory.Mark E. Number I Winter 1997 69 .differencesthatnot only help tween Hobbes's andAristotle'srhetorical illuminate how rhetoric evolved between Aristotle's and Hobbes's times. de-rhetoricizes Aristotle's theory of the passions. Harwoodin his 1986 edition of the Briefe: namely.By embracinga materialisttheory of the mind and the discourse it generates. in turn.to what extentdoes the Briefe succeed as an interpretato tion of Aristotle. from the beginning of his career.

to be moved by the species of an externallobject. Hence. I). The Short Tractis often overlooked by Hobbes scholars (only one modernedition exists) but it requiresclose scrutinybecause.Hence the currentdebateover whether ."A Necessary Cause is that which cannot but produce the [particular] effect" and "A Sufficient Cause is that.70 RHETORIC SOCIETY QUARTERLY shows that an interestin motion and materialityintrudesupon the early period of "non-scientific" humanismdescribedby Leo Straussas preceedingHobbes's adoptionof Euclideangeometryandhis conversionto the Paduanmethod(Riek 20-23.Hobbes argues. 13-14). I would add that the Tractalso lays the basic groundworkfor a conception of materialitythat is completely unlike anything we see in Aristotle'sphilosophy-so much unlike it. The Tractmakes clear that long before De Corporeand Leviathanare published." says Hobbes. or by motionreceivedby another" (1.moveth it either by active power in it self. Hobbes makes clear how living things are subjectto materialistlaws of motion when he describes his anti-Aristoteliantheory of perception.they too are subjectto laws of cause and effect and sometimes play the role of the Patient.As some modernAristotelianscholarsargue. in fact. all things may be classified eitheras Agents "whichhaththe power to move" or Patients"which hathpower to be moved"(1.and consequentlythey themselves are moved locally" (III. in the Tract. that the Tractthus demonstrateshow Hobbes must inevitablydevelop a fundamentally differentpsychology of audienceresponse in the Briefe.The key to understanding any phenomenonis studyingthe basic cause and effect relationshipswhich produce its inherentbehavioror nature.Animal spirits can move the body but they do so partlybecause of "Motionreceived from another.for "Whatever moveth another.it demonstrates keenly interestedin Aristotle's humanistpsychology. Hobbes neverthelessrefutes Aristotle's theory of perception(70). Strauss 170). "Nothingcan move it self.9). After a thoroughexaminationof sensation according to a method of analysis and synthesis that seems to prefigurehis later more fully of developed adaptation the Paduanmethod. as Riek thateven if StrausscorrectlyassertsthatHobbes was indicates. which hath all things requisiteto producethe effect" (I. Even living things can be analyzedin such a fashion. Hobbes conceives of the world as being composed of non-living matter which must be acted upon to create motion. concl. for althoughtheir"animalspirits"give them of the appearance being self-moving agents.5).3-4).that sense is caused by motion. thatit can acquireformaltraitsof objectsperceived. concl. We perceive species which emanate materiallyfrom objects-in contradistinctionto theAristotelian theoryof perceptionwherespecies areperceivedwhen the organ of perceptiontakes on the form of the object without its matter.the eye literally going red when a red object is perceived. supposed to be present"(III.Aristotleimplies thatmatteris alive in some sense.Hobbesconcludes in the Tractthat "actualSense is a Motion"for "itappearesthatSense (Sensus) is a passivepower of the Animal spirits. as he would laterin the opening threechaptersof Leviathan.

to everything."then "Understanding a power) is a passive power in the Animal spirits to be moved by the action of the brain qualifyed" (III. (II. to which all things are moved. in fact. 7). who defines Good to be that. The psychology of the mind and the model of humanperceptionin the Tract are considerablyless developed than the model of mind presentedin." And. concl.6) Hobbes cannot be sure how this takes place-but he is certain that "bodyes continuallysend out so many substantiallspecies" and such "species affect the eye" (II. anticipatesHobbes's laterdescriptionof memory and fancy as decaying sense in chapterthree of Leviathan. cites Aristotle as his source for this theory:"Thisdefinition agrees well with Aristotle. Understandingand sensation represent the two basic faculties of the soul and they are both moved "by the species" emanatingfrom objects (III. which hathbeen metaphoricallytaken.Moreover. with regardto human .2 such problemexists for Hobbes who clearly states in the Tractthat species are emitted physically by materialobjects which must re-supply themselves in some fashion in orderto keep emanatingspecies: we may probablyimagine.and whatsoever is desirable is Good" (111. We comprehend a thing "when we have the Phantasmaor Aparition of it.while he may describedesire and perhapseven passion operatingmuch as Aristotle does.3In the TractHobbes defines good as thatwhich is pleasurable:"Goodis.by convertingother bodies or species adjacent.. 7). say Leof viathan-but the materialistunderpinnings Hobbes's subsequentmodels of mind are being sketched out here. corollary to concl.7).RHETORICSOCIETYQUARTERLY 71 Aristotle'spsychology is compatiblewith modernformalistpsychology which No is grounded. Hobbes. for example. Certainly. "Whatsoeveris Good is desirable. 4). sending out fewer. which send out most species. Human understandingis thus defined as "a Motion of the Animal Spirits. concl. but is properlytrue"(III. 6). concl.6). 6). are manifestlyand sensibly suppliedwith fuell: so otherbodies.like Hobbes's theories. fully describe the functions of fancy and judgment here as he does later-but he does indicate that the mind operateson phantasmsthat remain in the mind This after the externalobjects causing them are gone "as in Dreames"(111.the model of human behavior attendant upon the theory of mind and perceptiondescribedin the Tractanticipates that of Leviathan and other late works. concl. . 10).seems not to realize that. This action creates a Phantasmain the sensorium via "the action of the object [perceived]upon the Patient"who observes the object (III. by the Action of the brayne. in a more modern materialism. may have a supply of nutriment. concl. qualifyed with the active power of the externall object" (III.2). however.thatwhich hathactive power to attractit locally" (III. that as Fyery bodies..Hobbes.Hobbes does not. since the "Phantasmis the action of the (as braynequalifyed on the Animal spirits.into themselves .

Hobbes seems unsureto what degree appetite and will can affect the animal spirits-but suggests that they have less affect on them than "the species of externalobjects"which produce desire and motion (III.There is no possibility for a direct.2). Strauss59-65.Logic is privilegedas a meansof understanding world-but thatsame logic revealsmanto be essenthe tially a creatureeasily motivatedby desire createdprimarilyby visual stimulation when species emanatefrom the materialworld.At the same time. especially in his early career.Thorpe86-90).must ask himself how can of persuasivediscoursetakeadvantage humanstrengths weaknessesto mainand tain public order?Scholarslike Zappen(85). Rather. concl.but there is a distinct physical or materialboundarybetween the Patientwhich receives and the Agent which causes the motion.Hobbesdescribesways to subordinate passion to reason.72 RHETORICSOCIETYQUARTERLY motivationandbehavior. his intentionbeing to reconfigureAristotle'sRhetoricin such a way thatits methodof using reasonand can passion for argumentation be revised to suit the politics and aims of the materialistrhetor.cannot fully resolve the conflict between reasonand rhetoric-although he eventuallyunites praxis and theory in Leviathanby subordinatingrhetoricto logic. butno such implicationis discerniblein the Tract.As he does later in his career. Hobbes finds himself caught between his confidence in reason and his acknowledgementof the irrational. the model of the mind points to the power of images (phantasms) with regardto stirringhumandesire. when consideringthe role of rhetoric.thus . passion and action.the mainmetaphors the the mind and its operationsare materialistic: mind is like a physical body being operatedupon by externalforces. Nevertheless.2). The mind's phantasmsare but analogs of the outside world. The methodology of the treatise implies that Hobbes has the same faith in logical analysisandcompositivemethodthathe evinces in his late works.what emerges in the Tractis a model of the mind which points to its passivity as a materialobject among (yet physically distinct from) otherphysical objects which passively obey the laws of motion.he neverthelesshas radicallyrevisedAristotle'smodel for of the mindandits modes of perception. as the political philosophyof his Thucydydes(1629) shows (Riek36-44. Some Hobbes scholarsarguethateventuallyHobbesembracesa theoryof the mind which shows thatthe mindreconfiguresrealityas it perceives(Green 110. Hobbes."the similitudeor image of some externallobject"(111.Ever concerned with maintainingorder in the kingdom. whereinthe mind takes on the logos or forms of things as if objects themselves constitutea kind of semiotic thatcan be assimilateddirectlyby the understanding (74). Hobbes's model suggests thatmind and reality work by the same laws of causation.ForHobbes. Watkins 29). Johnston(214) andVictoriaKahn (187) arguethat Hobbes. Riek 141-143. Hobbes engages the problemon a theoreticallevel in the Briefe.unruly natureof humanitythat reason reveals and which rhetoricianssometimes exploit to the detrimentof the political order. more organicconnection between mind and reality-as suggested by Robinson's reading of Aristotle's theory of perception.

speakerappearesunnaturall distracted" As so the minde of the Hearer"(111.Furlogic thatresiststhe irrational rather thanon rigorous betweenpathosand logos some he thermore. Hobbes makes clear that while pathos is part of rhetoric.could have nothingto say" (I.showinga cleardistrust humanirrationality.First. eliminatesthe possible cooperation of thetopicsandtheirrole in making description scholarssee impliedby Aristotle's enthymemes(Conley300-315. seems less concerned about style than emotional content. expressing the same doubt about the mind's ability to process informationde- . p.Hobbessimplifiesand altersthe role of topics in creatingaropinionshere guments.1)..Envy.or otheraffections. Harwoodsays in note 3.3-5.For example.7. unlikeAristotle who offers fewer warningsagainstpassionate discourseas he proceeds. a Rhetoricianin well orderedCommon-wealthsand States. no such discussion appearsin Aristotle's text at this point-although Aristotle does warn against using a confused style to convey emotion in 111.2). 1).butthe theory still makespossible the rhetoricalflourishZappenand otherssee enlivening the logic of Leviathan.1.RHETORICSOCIETYQUARTERLY 73 to enablingrhetoric cooperatewith logic andpoliticalscience.1). chiefly in Proofes.which are . where it is forbiddento digresse from the cause in the hearing. Hobbes.unlikeAristotlewho. Hobbesshows his concernaboutemotionto the very end of the thirdand final book of his Briefe. thatproceedesfromour invention..but chiefely in Proofes"(I. rhetorically. His reconfiguration of rhetoricis sometimesfraughtwith paradox. The emphasis on logos is necessaryto maintainorderfor "If thisArt consisted in Criminations only. Hobbesinsiststhat"Thebeleefe. He concedes thatemotion may play a role but insists "ThatRhetoriqueis an Art consisting not onely in mooving the passions of the Judge.Pitty.1). however.partly from the passions of the hearer:but especially from the proofs of what we alledge"(1. Hobbes says rhetoric"consisteth. Even as he moves into chaptertwo.seems to expandits role in ways suggesting (at least to some scholars)that reasonand emotion can cooperateas equals.Grimaldi147-151).He betrayshis fearof relyingtoo muchon commonly-held side of humannature. Syllogismes"(I. as he begins the thirdbook.it is inferiorto otherkinds of proof. Aristotle certainly shows some concern that pathos can be implemented irresponsiblywhen he says that "it is wrong to warp the jury by leading them into anger or envy or pity" (Rhetoric1. aftershowing initialdisdainfor pathosin the Rhetoric. the dinatespassionto reasonthroughout Briefe. in realizesthatreconfiguration at least two The Briefeof theArteof Rhetorique Hobbescarefullysuborof ways.comes partly from the behaviorof the speaker. 108 of his commentaryon the Briefe. and the skill to stirreup Judgesto Anger. In Book I of his rhetoric. the minde of the and and. Hobbes indicates that each gesture in a speech should proceed "all from one Passion" because when "thereappearemore passion then one at once. as is "themindeof the speaker.Feare.as we will see later. Second.3 [1354a]) but he isn't nearly as adamant aboutthe statusof pathos as Hobbes.

Hobbes also ignores certainconnotationsof Aristotle'swordprotaseis in discussing propositionsfor emotional proofs in Book 11. the opposite.Hobbes does not even attempt interpret to suchpassages. "to a person feeling strong desire and being hopeful."Moreover. to the one who is hostile. . then C shall not move A.6 121).74 RHETORIC SOCIETY QUARTERLY scribedin his ShortTract.pathos and behaviorconstitutea kind of seamless organiccontinuumfor Aristotle. As Kennedy asserts in his commentaryon Aristotle's Rhetoric(n. and consequentlyC shall not be perceiv'd"(III.A mind confrontedby a rhetorwho might be exciting many appetitesand aversionsvia pathos could easily become overwhelmed by this information overload.Such a techniquethereforewould defeat the rhetor'spurposes."Likewise.being contentwith his paratactic diagramsof causes andeffects of humanbehaviorand audienceresponsewhere reason operatesindependentlyof emotion except when clouded by it.it appearesthat it will come to pass and will be good.extremelysubtleinteraction between rationaland non-rational forces motivatinghumanbehavior:"boththe just and the unjust(andotherssaid to act by theirhabitualcharacter) do thingseither will throughreason or emotion. because A is moved alreadyby B. Hobbes alludes to the relatedtopoi of the greaterand the lesser when he says people naturally "takethe greatergood ratherthanthe lesse. the opposite" (11.But ignoring such implicationsconforms with Hobbes's approachto the topoi which he seeks to simplify and modify in orderto furtherseparatereason and emotion." Hobbes puts it (111.Aristotlesees a complex. Even when the passions are used properly. where does Aristotleuse such deprecatingtermsas Hobbes.8 [1378a]. but to an unemotionalperson and one in a disagreeablestate of mind. Unlike Hobbes.concl. . the latterthe opposite.When discussing the colors of good and evil. for example.the main effect seems manipulaas tive."theresurely are consequences of having specific charactersor emotions. "to one who is friendly. for good reputationsand sentimentsin regardto his pleasuresfollow immediatelyand equally from the temperateperson from his temperance"(I. if B is the greater force than C.2[1377b-78a]). to leave "inebriated No[the speaker's]Hearers. the strongerAgent. the termprotaseis implies thatpathetictopoi might serve as the basis for enthymemes. if something in the future is a source of pleasure.10.9). the psyche will cancel out partof the overloadof sensory data simply by failing to perceive the least appealing agent: ".Aristotleimplies at times that there exists a kind of internallogic for emotions which themselves often seem coloredby rationalprinciplesof judgment. .9-10 [1369a]).Hobbesstatesin the Tractthatif the mindof subjectA comes underthe influence of two sources of desire.6).In Book II Aristotlesays. but the formerwill do good things by characteror emotion. Hobbes's paratacticillustrationsof topoi do not capture-nor do they seem intended to approximate-the complex quality of topical logic that points to an underlyinggenerativerhetoricalprinciple. B and C.the personaboutwhom he passesjudgmentseems to do wrong in a small way. Human character.

For example.. By contrast. [And it necessarily follows] that acquisitionof greatergood thana lesser one and of a lesser evil thana greaterone are goods. if such strategiesconstituted molds into which the matterof discoursecould be poured.of the first two principles. Things are productivein three senses. Aristotle sees the oratoreffecting a conversionin the auditorthrough .32 [I 382a]). ratherthanthe greater" the such commonplacesdoes not approach complexityof Aristotle'sillustration showing how the logic of lesser and greateris connectedto the generativeoperations underlyingsuch commonplacethoughtprocesses: Things 'follow upon' anotherin two senses.3 [1362a]) the Aristotleis genuinelyinterestedin articulating operationswherebyknowledge is socialized and vocalized throughthe commonplacesof civil discourse. But this analysis of the partsof andthe lesser Evill.QUARTERLY RHETORIC SOCIETY 75 (63).4.that would make us appeareEnemies to him" (74). then. some as being productiveof health. many and Few. are taken Comparativelyto the Most of the same kind" (47). however.Hobbes holds such discourse at a distance and offers an objective analysis of (material)causal factors motivatingcertain types of behavior and discourse.and how we would answer our Adversary.some as food is productiveof health . knowledge is subsequentto learning.. when describing commonplaceson hate and anger.the first principleof the greaterthing is greater"(7.6. Hobbes can continue to subordinatepassion to reason and find convenient means of exploiting pathos without impairing logic.Hobbes says the commonplacesshow "how the Judge or Auditor may be made Friendor Enemy to us. and how our Adversarymay be made to appeareFriendor Enemy to the Judge.6 [1364a]). Hobbes describes a typology of topics that seems geared to classify as certain commonplacestrategiesparatactically. judge or a defendantthatcan influencethe largelypassive emotions of the audience.but living is simultaneouswith health. describes general modes and principlesfor creating argumentsthat can be applied in manycontexts:"Andif therearetwo causes.almost regardlessof the specific rhetoricalcontextor situation:"Greatand Little.Hobbes simplifies Aristotle's strategyin order to renderthe topoi into a meansof creatinga visual image (or species) of the speaker. either simultaneaouslyor subsequently.for example. Aristotle. On these premises it necessarily follows that both the acquisitionof good things and the eliminationof evils are goods. it is evident thatit is possible [for a speaker]both to demonstrate people are enemies and friends and to make them so when they are not and to refute those claiming to be and to bring those who throughangeror enmity are on the other side of the case over to what ever feeling he chooses" (11. (1.and conversely. But for Aristotle such emotions seem to cooperate with and augmentmore rationalthinking:"From that this. By reconfiguringthe Aristotelian apparatusof the commonplaces. whatcomes fromthe greater cause is greater.

he must make him apt to indignation. 11 as "Thisconcludes an accountof how the emotions are created and counteracted. Aristotle.and opposite feelings from the opposite. Aristotle directs his proofs to an auditor whom he percievesas an instinctivelymoralbeing whosejudgmentsareshapedby thought and feeling simultaneously. describes in detail the relationbetween pity. Kennedyindicatesthatone could eitherinterpret the final sentence of section 7 in Book II. unlike Hobbes.4.so thatthey are similarlyuseful [to a speaker] in counteractingfeelings of pity" (II.76 RHETORIC SOCIETY QUARTERLY demonstrationand by tapping into the psycho-logic of the emotions.from which are derived pisteis related to them"or one could add the clause "andthe topics from which they are derived"(n.and shew that his adversaryis unworthyof the Good. as Kennedysays in note .for the presenceof evil causes no pain" (11. which happens to him" (82). for one who is malicious is also envious.Aristotlegives more detailedaccountsof how emotions operatein proofs than does Hobbes in parallel sections of his treatise. 9.By contrast. ThroughoutBook II.Aristotle'sdiscussion emphasizesthe link between moral judgment.32 [1381a]).5 [1386b-1387aD).Aristotle seems to describea kind of dialectical(perhapsdialogical)interaction betweenemotions. and worthyof the Evill. indignationand envy.says Aristotle.This no doubtresults in partfrom Hobbes's desire to presenta brief outline of the Aristotelian method. pathos and ethos: "All these feelings come from the same moral character.This does not contradictHobbes's that openingstatement logicalproofis thehigherformof argument-but it clearly illustratesthe theoreticalparadoxfaced by the materialistrhetorwhose logic underscoresthe irrationaland passive natureof the auditor." Therefore.89 162).Johnstonand Victoria Kahn see at work in Leviathan. he discusses the link between emotion and the perceptualapparatus in ways suggestingthatemotion is judgmentalyet needfulof supportfrom logic in order to perceive the immoralnatureof evil: "Painfulactions [inflicted by one personon another]are all perceivedby the senses.then. If the latterclause is added. An even more telling passage is one which Kennedypoints to in his translation of Aristotle as a source for contentionregardingthe relationbetween emotional and rationalproofs.and as if in anticipationof the rhetorical and logical strategiesZappen. for when someone is distressedat the acquisitionor the possession of something. necessarily he rejoices at its deprivationor destruction. but Hobbes's deletions are telling. but the greatestevils-injustice and thoughtlessness-are least perceived. moralpsycho-logic appearsin Hobbes who insteaddescribesa kind of causal chain for manipulating judge's indignationto preventhis compasthe sion from affecting his judgment:"Whosoeverthereforewould turnaway the compassion of the Judge.Hobbes manipulates feeling for a logical purposebut not neccesarily by appealing to the reason of the auditor. In the section on indignation. for example. But no similar conception of an emotional. an interactionthat informs moraljudgment."all these things are hindrancesto pity and differ for the reasons mentioned. Unlike Hobbes.

the Briefe revealsitself to be the blueprintfor a theoryof discoursewhich would eventually be implementedby Hobbes to describe a state wherein.Hobbes deletes this entire passage in Book II. undergoesa transformation thatmakes it.13 of his treatise 11 which parallelsBook 11.but these influences cannot fully account for what in particular spurredHobbes's eclectic method.21that maxims. rhetoricwould no longer be necessary (190).Thomas Hobbes frequentlyputs his own distinctive markupon the systems of thinkingfrom which he borrows. Significantly.he simply deletes any advice on combiningthem with pathos.The same may be said of Aristotle'sRhetoricwhich.can also workon the emotions:"An can play a role in constructing exampleof a maxim with pathosis if someone in angerwere to say thatit is a lie thatsomeone shouldknowhimself' (11.Hobbes clearly concedes that emotional arguments cannotbe eliminatedfrom rhetoric. as some have argued.Aristotle'sRhetoricis still consideredby manytheoreticiansto be the seminal text for rhetoricaltheory. emotion would play a partin the basic ratiopremisesfor enthymemes.21. of the Rhetoric. Ramusandthe reformedrhetoricsdoubtlessshapedmuch of Hobbes's thinkingaboutrhetoric." nal apparatus generatingproofs.When placed in its properconin text with Hobbes's early materialistphilosophyas articulated the ShortTract. in Hobbes's hands. this raises the possibility that "topics about emotions are to be regardedas Hence.13[1395a]). however. which enthymemes. Such deletions most likely were not solely the resultof Hobbes's need to keep his own treatisebrief. is of interestnot only for what it teaches us about the new rhetoricsof the seventeenthcenturynor only for the text's significantinteractionbetween philosophyandrhetoric. Hobbes also eliminatesAristotle's statementin 11. producea concise adaptation of to andclearly muchof the style andformatting the Briefe can be attributed the rise of the printculturewhich Ong describes (148).butmaintainsthatthey are Not surpristo be kept subordinate the rationalaspects and aims of argument. AlthoughHobbesagrees that maxims can be used alone or in enthymemes(11.perhapsoperatingsimultaneously on the auditor. perhapssuggesting thatreasonandemotion for play equally significant roles in persuasion.22). nor can they be ascribedonly to the possible influence of As Rameanor reformedAristotelianrhetoric.a useful theoryof discoursefor creating the kind of philosophy espoused in Leviathan. to ingly. The Briefe. manyof the Hobbes scholarscited above have shown.but Hobbes'sBrieferepresentsa seminalattemptto updateand translatethattext for an audiencewhich continuesunconsciouslyto separateitself from the very dif- .Hobbes's treatisealso points to the difficulty of reclaiming the classical rhetoricalheritagein modern times when a has differentsense of materiality replacedAristotle's.4 Neither Galileo's methodnorEuclid'sgeometryresistHobbes'stendencyto reconfigurethe thinking of othersto suit his own rhetoricaland political purposes. Nevertheless. as the works of many scholars indicate. as Victoria Kahn says.ClearlyHobbes intendsto whichcan be useful to his pupilWilliamCavendish.QUARTERLY RHETORIC SOCIETY 77 89.

Rhet. For detailed discussion of Hobbes on human behavior. "IsAn AristotelianPhilosophyof Mind Still Credible?" Essays on Aristotle's De Anima. Thorpe22-23. Gloucester. CharlesKahn 359-379. Martha C. Leo Straussarguesthatthe real basis of Hobbes's thinkingis his own experience (x). "Hylomorphism Functionalism". Nussbaumand Putnam27-35."Pathe Pisteis:Aristotle.WilliamMathie 281-298. Alan and Julius Moravciski.Thomas. Code and Moravciski 129-145. Kennedy. Sorabji 195-225. Walzer 81-85). 2.II. while Arnold Green. Burnyeat. looking over a long traditionof Hobbes scholarship. Mass: Peter Smith.JamesZappen65-91. Martha C.see Gert 16-20. and Essays on Aristotle's De Anima. we must work to comprehendbetterthe ideology. 1992. 57-73. 1992. must necessarilybe influencedby our presentistbias. 129-145. QuentinSkinner 1-61. Cohen S. Trans."ExplainingVariousForms of Living".Much workremainsto be done as we attemptto evaluateAristotleand the rhetoricaltraditionthat succeeded him. William Sacksteder30-46. Marc. As debate concerning the theoretical and ideological value of Aristotle's Rhetoric is renewed (Neel 85-90. King 194-196. .Essays on Aristotle's De Anima. Oxford: ClarendonP. and Conley.78 RHETORICSOCIETYQUARTERLY ferentoral and classical culturewhich gave birthto rhetoric. 4. Whiting 75-91. Works Cited Aristotle. Nussbaum and Amelie OkensbergRorty. See David Johnston.M.Oxford:ClarendonP. University of Texas of the Permian Basin Notes 1. Burnyeat 15-26. arguesthatHobbes'seclecticism is so distinctivethatHobbesstandscloser to the presenttime thanto any interveningperiod (ix). Nussbaum and Amelie OkensbergRorty. 1978. 1991. Code. psychology and epistemology informing Aristole's Rhetoricbefore we praise it.No text betterillustratesthe difficultiesandrisks involvedin reclaimingthatclassical heritagethan Hobbes's Briefe of the Arte of Rhetorique. Strauss 133-134."Hermes110 (1982): 300-3 15.On Rhetoric:A Theoryof CivicDiscourse.morality and principles of pleasureand aversion. Ed. MarthaC.GeorgeA. like Hobbes's. New York:OxfordUp. Gert.Oxford:ClarendonP. 2-11. 3. 1992. If we are to do more thanread Aristotle throughthe lens of hindsight. it should be noted thatour perceptionsof Aristotle. Thomas Hobbes's De Homine and De Cive. VictoriaKahn 155-192. as Hobbes sometimes does. Ed. Nussbaum and Amelie OkensbergRorty. Bernard. Watkins150-151. condemnit or adaptit to our present purposes. 15-26.F. Cohen 57-73.

Daniel N. Jean Bernhardt. CourtTraiteDes PremiersPrincipes/Short Tracton the First Principles de 1630-1631.MarthaC. 1975. William I.TheGoldenLandsof ThomasHobbes. Kahn. Nussbaum and Amelie OkensbergRorty. "Aristotleon Thinking. Rorty.N. Studies in the Philosophy of Aristotle's "Rhetoric". TheAestheticTheoryof ThomasHobbes. Rev.Rhetoric. Cambridge: CambridgeUP. Nussbaum and Amelie OkensbergRorty. MarthaC.Elsa M.W.Oxford:ClarendonPress. Leviathan. 195-225.A Briefe of the Arte of Rhetorique. Aristotle'sPsychology. 1992.Hobbes'sSystemof Ideas. Johnston.Theory Writing America Walzer.Princeton:PrincetonUP."Essays on Aristotle's De Anima Ed. Miriam.Leo. The Rhetoricof Leviathan.TheIdeology of Order."Intentionality Physiological Proceses. London:AveburyPublications.Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Walter Ramusand theDecay of Dialogue. Carbondale and Edwardsville:SouthernIllinois UP.1968. Detroit:WayneState University P. Cambridge: UP. 1974. Strauss. Ed. 1977. New York:Columbia:UP." Essays on Aristotle's De Anima.1993. Sorabji. -. and in Arthur. Mathie. 1985. 1986. Arnold W. Ithaca: Cornell UP. Oxford:ClarendonP. Martha NussbaumandAmelie Okensberg C. 1991. John Harwood.Oxford:Clarendon P."Hobbes:Philosophicaland RhetoricalArtifice". "Reasonand Rhetoric in Hobbes's Leviathan"."Proceedings of the BritishAcademy76 (1990): 1-61. Nussbaum. and HilaryPutnam. The Political Philosophy of ThomasHobbes: Its Basis and Genesis. Martha C. Sinclair. . RichardTuck.William. Hobbes.ClarenceDe Witt. Ong. Trans. 1992.CharlesH. "ThomasHobbes: Rhetoric and the Constructionof Morality.Richard. King. Trans.Prudenceand Scepticismin the Renaissance. RhetoricSociety Quarterly26 (1996): 81-85. 1966.RHETORICSOCIETYQUARTERLY 79 Green. . Preston. Thorpe.New York:Routledge. J. 1992. Ed. New York: Russell and Russell. Watkins. 1986.Quentin. Robinson. by JasperNeel.David. Sacksteder. New Brunswick:Transaction Publishers.Wiesbaden: Steiner.J.The Rhetoricsof Thomas Hobbes and Bernard Lamy.Ed. Harvard 1958.Interpretation 14 (1990): 281-298. Kahn. William."Changing Aristotle'sMind. Hobbes and Human Nature. Ed. Riek."Essays on Aristotle's De Anima. Grimaldi.Philosophy and Rhetoric 17 (1984): 30-46. Thomas. Jasper. Skinner. 359-379.Victoria."WrongAbout Aristotle's Voice"Rhetoric Society Quarterly26 (1996): 85-90. 1964.of Aristotle'sVoice:Rhetoric. 1988. Neel. 1989.Chicago:U of Chicago P.

80 RHETORIC SOCIETYQUARTERLY Whiting.JamesP. "Aristotelian RamistRhetoricin ThomasHobbes'sLeviathan:Pathos versusEthos and Logos. Martha Rorty. NussbaumandAmelie Okensberg P.Jennifer. . 75-9 1."Rhetorica 1 (1983): 65-91. C. Ed. and Zappen."LivingBodies."Essays on Aristotle'sDeAnima.Oxford:Clarendon 1992.

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->