Republican Orators from Eisenhower to

Trump 1st Edition Andrew S. Crines

Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmass.com/product/republican-orators-from-eisenhower-to-trump-1st-editi
on-andrew-s-crines/
 RHETORIC, POLITICS AND SOCIETY
GENERAL EDITORS: A. Finlayson; J. Martin; K. Phillips

REPUBLICAN ORATORS FROM

EISENHOWER TO TRUMP

Edited by
Andrew S. Crines and Sophia Hatzisavvidou
Rhetoric, Politics and Society

Series editor
Alan Finlayson
University of East Anglia
Norfolk, United Kingdom

James Martin
Goldsmiths, University of London
London, United Kingdom

Kendall Phillips
Syracuse University
Syracuse, New York, USA
Rhetoric lies at the intersection of a variety of disciplinary approaches
and methods, drawing upon the study of language, history, culture and
philosophy to understand the persuasive aspects of communication in all
its modes: spoken, written, argued, depicted and performed. This series
presents the best international research in rhetoric that develops and
exemplifies the multifaceted and cross-disciplinary exploration of prac-
tices of persuasion and communication. It seeks to publish texts that
openly explore and expand rhetorical knowledge and enquiry, be it in
the form of historical scholarship, theoretical analysis or contemporary
cultural and political critique. The editors welcome proposals for mono-
graphs that explore contemporary rhetorical forms, rhetorical theories
and thinkers, and rhetorical themes inside and across disciplinary bound-
aries. For informal enquiries, questions, as well as submitting proposals,
please contact the editors: Alan Finlayson: a.finlayson@uea.ac.uk James
Martin: j.martin@gold.ac.uk Kendall Phillips: kphillip@syr.edu

More information about this series at

http://www.palgrave.com/series/14497
 Andrew S. Crines
Sophia Hatzisavvidou
Editors

Republican Orators
from Eisenhower
to Trump
Editors
Andrew S. Crines Sophia Hatzisavvidou
University of Liverpool University of Bath
Liverpool, United Kingdom Bath, United Kingdom

Rhetoric, Politics and Society

ISBN 978-3-319-68544-1    ISBN 978-3-319-68545-8 (eBook)
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-68545-8

Library of Congress Control Number: 2017957576

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2018

This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the
Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of
translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on
microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval,
electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now
known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are
exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information
in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the pub-
lisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the
material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The
publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institu-
tional affiliations.

Cover illustration: GL Archive / Alamy Stock Photo. Kristoffer Tripplaar / Alamy Stock
Photo. Mark East / Alamy Stock Photo

Printed on acid-free paper

This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by Springer Nature

The registered company is Springer International Publishing AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
 Acknowledgements

This edited collection grew out of a workshop at the University of

Liverpool in 2016. We are grateful to that institution for supporting the
event. I would also like to thank Stuart Wilks-Heeg for speaking at the
event.
This volume represents the final edition in a long project dating back to
2012. The project has produced four volumes, each examining the ora-
tory and rhetoric of leading figures in a political party.
As this is the final edition, I would like to thank all those who have sup-
ported this project throughout.
I would also like to thank Alan Finlayson, James Martin, and Kendall
Phillips who have successfully edited a pioneering series of books examin-
ing rhetoric, politics, and society, of which this and Democratic Orators are
a part of. I would like to thank the Political Studies Association for their
financial support, and also special thanks to Tom Brook.
Finally, I would like to dedicate this final volume to my mother, Patricia
Crines, who passed away in 2012. She was and continues to be a source of
great inspiration in my life, and whilst I miss her every day she has always
remained with me and will continue to do so. Thanks also to my father,
Harold, and my brother, Darren.

Andrew S. Crines

v
 Contents

1 Introduction   1
Andrew S. Crines and Sophia Hatzisavvidou

2 The Oratory of Dwight D. Eisenhower  11

Mara Oliva

3 The Oratory of Barry Goldwater  41

Andrew Taylor

4 The Oratory of Richard Nixon  67

Pete Woodcock

5 The Oratory of Ronald Reagan  87

Matthew W. Klingbeil, John Clyde Russell,
and Mary E. Stuckey

6 The Oratory of Robert Dole 105

Jerry L. Miller

7 The Oratory of George H.W. Bush 129

Matthew Lakin

vii
viii Contents

8 The Oratory of Dan Quayle 151

Timothy Heppell

9 The Oratory of Newt Gingrich 175

Gregory Koger

10 The Oratory of George W. Bush 193

Jon Herbert

11 The Oratory of Condoleezza Rice 225

Clodagh Harrington

12 The Oratory of John McCain 245

Kenneth Fernandez

13 The Oratory of Sarah Palin 271

Sophia Hatzisavvidou

14 The Oratory of Donald Trump 291

Andrew S. Crines and David P. Dolowitz

15 Conclusion: Oratory and Rhetoric in Republican

Party Politics 319
Sophia Hatzisavvidou and Andrew S. Crines

Index 323
 Notes on Contributors

Andrew S. Crines is Lecturer in Politics at the University of Liverpool. He holds

the 2017 PSA Richard Rose Prize and is a Fellow of the Royal Historical Society.
He is also the co-editor (with David S. Moon and Robert Lehrman) of an edited
collection entitled Democratic Orators from JFK to Obama (Palgrave, 2016), the
co-author (with Timothy Heppell and Peter Dorey) of a book entitled The Political
Rhetoric and Oratory of Margaret Thatcher (Palgrave, 2016), and the co-editor
(with Richard Hayton) of two volumes in oratory in Conservative and Labour
Party politics, respectively (Manchester University Press, 2015). He is also the
author of several academic articles in leading national and international peer review
journals such as the Journal of Common Market Studies, British Journal of Politics
and International Relations, and Parliamentary Affairs, amongst others. He
tweets at @AndrewCrines.
David P. Dolowitz is Professor of Politics at the University of Liverpool and has
published extensively in journals such as the British Journal of Politics and
International Relations, Regional & Federal Studies¸ Policy Studies Review, and
Journal of Political Ideologies, amongst others. He is also the author of a series of
books, such as Politics on the Internet (Routledge, 2004), Policy Transfer and
British Social Policy (Open University Press, 2000), and Learning from America:
Policy Transfer and the Development of the British Workfare State (Sussex Academic
Press, 1998).
Clodagh Harrington is Chair of the American Politics Group of the Political
Studies Association (PSA) and is also a member of the PSA, American Political
Science Association, and British Association for American Studies. Her most recent
publication Obama’s Washington: Political Leadership in a Partisan Era (University
of London, 2015) brings together essays from both sides of the Atlantic to dis-
sect policy decisions and challenges facing the current administration. She is a

ix
x NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS

contributor to radio, television, and print media in the UK and abroad on the
subject of US politics.
Sophia Hatzisavvidou is Leverhulme Early Career Fellow at the University of
Bath. She works on a project that studies environmental rhetoric, and she has pre-
viously taught rhetoric at Goldsmiths, University of London. She has published
widely in academic journals such as Political Studies, Social Movements Studies, and
Global Discourse, amongst others. She is also the author of Appearances of Ethos in
Political Thought (Rowman and Littlefield, 2016).
Timothy Heppell is Associate Professor at the University of Leeds. He has pub-
lished 10 books, 20 book chapters, and over 30 journal articles, covering a range
of themes about political leadership. These include two books on leadership
selection—Choosing the Tory Leader (Tauris, 2007) and Choosing the Labour
Leader (Tauris, 2010). He has also published on opposition leadership, editing
Leaders of the Opposition (Palgrave, 2012) and co-authoring (with Kevin
Theakston and David Seawright) a report for the Centre for Opposition Studies
entitled What Makes for an Effective Leader of the Opposition (2015). In terms of
the transitions from government to opposition and vice versa, he has edited
(with Kevin Theakston) How Labour Governments Fall (Palgrave, 2013) and
(with David Seawright) Cameron and the Conservatives: The Transition to
Coalition Government (Palgrave, 2012). His more recent work has focused on
Conservative Party including an analysis of its post-war history in The Tories
(Bloomsbury Academic, 2014) and a leadership focused offering in The Political
Rhetoric and Oratory of Margaret Thatcher (Palgrave, 2016) which was co-
authored with Andrew Crines and Pete Dorey. His latest book is Cameronism:
The Politics of Modernisation and Manipulation which will be published by
Manchester University Press in 2017.
Jon Herbert is Senior Lecturer in US Politics and Associate Dean for Learning
and Teaching at Keele University. His primary focus is the US Presidency; he has
published on presidential oratory, foreign policy, presidential strategy, leadership
in historical time, and the imperial presidency. He co-edited Assessing the George
W. Bush Presidency (with Andrew Wroe, Edinburgh University Press, 2009) and
has recently joined the editorial team for Palgrave’s Developments in American
Politics series.
Matthew Klingbeil is a doctoral student at Georgia State University in Atlanta,
Georgia. His research interests include presidential rhetoric/the presidency,
American political discourse, and criminal justice and prison reform. He currently
serves as an editorial assistant for Quarterly Journal of Speech.
Gregory Koger is Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of
Miami. After earning his B.A. at Willamette University, Koger worked as a legisla-
tive assistant in the US House, then earned his Ph.D. from UCLA in 2002. He
 NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS
   xi

specialises in legislative politics and political parties. He is the author of Filibustering:

A Political History of Obstruction in the House and Senate (University of Chicago
Press, 2010), which won the 2011 Fenno Prize for the best book on legislative
studies. Koger has also published research articles on parties, lobbying, and
Congress. His next book, Strategic Party Government, is co-authored with
Matthew Lebo and is forthcoming with the University of Chicago Press in 2017.
Matthew Lakin is a doctoral graduate of Oriel College, Oxford, where he
researched political theory and conservatism. He has published in journals such as
Global Discourse and the Journal of Political Ideologies, and he currently teaches at
Whitgift Boarding School, London.
Jerry Miller is Professor and Associate Director for Undergraduate Studies at
Ohio University where he specialises in political advertising, communication and
gender, political communication, and debate. He has published extensively in aca-
demic journals such as American Behavioral Scientist, Political Communication,
White House Studies, and Contemporary Argument and Debate. He is also the co-
author of When Stereotypes Collide: Race/Ethnicity, Gender, and Videostyle in
Congressional Campaigns (Peter Lang Publications, 2005).
Mara Oliva is Lecturer in Modern US History at the University of Reading. Her
research interests are in US political history, US foreign policy during the Cold
War, and the US presidency. She is currently completing a monograph entitled The
Eisenhower Administration, American Public Opinion and the People’s Republic of
China. She is also author of several articles in leading peer-reviewed journals.
John Clyde Russell is a doctoral student at Georgia State University in Atlanta,
Georgia. He is currently researching distinctive styles of political communication
of American right-wing political communications.
Mary E. Stuckey specialises in political and presidential rhetoric, political com-
munication, and American Indian politics. She is the author, editor, or co-editor of
12 books and author or co-author of approximately 80 essays and book chapters.
She has received the Michael M. Osborn Teacher/Scholar Award, the Rose B. Johnson
Award (with Zoe Hess-Carney), the Roderick P. Hart Outstanding Book Award,
the Marie Hochmuth Nichols Award, and the Bruce E. Gronbeck Political
Communication Award. She has served as editor of the Southern Communication
Journal and is editor-­elect of the Quarterly Journal of Speech. Her current book
project is on the rhetoric of political change.
Andrew Taylor is Professor of Politics at the University of Sheffield. His most
recent books are The European Union and South East Europe (Routledge, 2103)
and State Failure (Palgrave, 2013), and he is currently working on a study of the
relationship between organised labour and the Conservative Party since the early
twentieth century in British politics. He has published work on the oratory of
xii NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS

Stanley Baldwin, of Lyndon Johnson, and Barry Goldwater. He is currently

working on insurgent conservatism as a rhetorical strategy pursued by conserva-
tives seeking to change radically the status quo.
Pete Woodcock is Head of the Division of Criminology, Politics, and Sociology
at the University of Huddersfield, where he has lectured in politics since 2005. He
was educated at the LSE and the University of Southampton, and he has written
on a variety of topics such as popular culture, the novels of Daphne du Maurier,
and pedagogy and politics.
 List of Figures

Fig. 3.1 Goldwater texts tag cloud 53

Fig. 11.1 Gallup approval poll 235

xiii
 List of Tables

Table 2.1 The sample is not exhaustive, but it is meant to

represent the complexity of Eisenhower’s oratory 27
Table 2.2 The sample is not exhaustive, but it is meant to show
Eisenhower’s wide range of rhetorical devices 31
Table 3.1 Goldwater’s rhetoric. Top 30 words 54
Table 12.1 20 Most frequent word stems used in all three debates 258
Table 12.2 Survey items capturing Source-Credibility 262
Table 12.3 Student perceptions of John McCain’s speech 263
Table 12.4 Independent sample T-tests 263

xv
 CHAPTER 1

Introduction

Andrew S. Crines and Sophia Hatzisavvidou

Introduction
The Grand Old Party has been blessed (and frequently cursed) by com-
manding orators and rhetoricians. Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan, G.W. Bush,
and Trump have each—in their own distinctive ways—used political
speech to advance not just Republican Party politics but also their own
vision for what the United States should be. Indeed, most recently figures
such as Reagan, G.W. Bush, and Trump have each stepped outside of what
could be considered the ‘mainstream’ of conservative thought in order to
push forward an alternative conception of Republican politics. Needless to
say, they often come into conflict with their respective mainstreams (and
opponents in the Democratic Party), yet through using commanding
and/or dominating speech, they have been able to reshape the discourse
around their vision. There are various rhetorical strategies which have
been employed—indeed, repetitive tropes, use of stories, rhetorical
­witnesses, and a rhetorically constructed ethos that strives to appeal to their

A.S. Crines (*)

University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK
S. Hatzisavvidou
University of Bath, Bath, UK

© The Author(s) 2018 1

A.S. Crines, S. Hatzisavvidou (eds.), Republican Orators
from Eisenhower to Trump, Rhetoric, Politics and Society,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-68545-8_1
2 A.S. CRINES AND S. HATZISAVVIDOU

respective audiences. Such techniques reflect the broader traditions of

conservative speakers and leaders who have been able to detect and shape
the mood of their audiences through convincing oratory and rhetoric.
The agenda of this volume is to ask how?
Because ‘oratory has long been a highly prized political skill’ (Leach
2000: 1) in American party politics given the presidential system, it is
unsurprising that academic and political interest focuses on the perfor-
mance of leading individuals. Indeed, such individuals often emerge as the
focal point of their respective parties, facilitated in part because of the high
visibility of the Office of the President. This by no means prevents other
leading figures from attracting attention. For example, Goldwater, Dole,
Quayle, Gingrich, Rice, McCain, and Palin have not secured the presi-
dency (despite some attempts to do so), yet they carved out visible profiles
for themselves that attracted (or continues to attract) popular support.
However, the presidential system compels leading orators to take their
message beyond the party and towards the American middle class.
Rhetoric and oratory are vital ingredients in a healthy democratic
system—it is a fact that ‘has long been recognised, with the art of ora-
tory being admired, analysed and taught since the age of Athenian
democracy’ (Crines and Hayton 2015: 1). The art of commanding and
convincing rhetoric represents the means by which a leading orator
may persuade, navigate, and shape the relationship between those who
govern and those who are governed. In the United States especially,
this relationship represents a keystone (constitutionally protected prin-
ciple) within the democratic system. Indeed, the process of communi-
cation represents the very fabric of American politics which compels
presidents and leading figures to listen and respond to the citizenry.
Understanding this principle of American politics is fundamental to
understand the constitution, rhetorical style, and the respect held by
many for the Office of the President and the unique place that leading
speakers come to hold. It is an assumption that freedom of speech is
hardwired not only into the American political system but also those
who participate in it.
Whilst oratory and rhetoric are vital to the health and vitality of the
American political system, little exists within the existing literature that
provides a systematic analysis of leading Republican Party leaders. Instead,
the focus tends towards analysing presidential leadership (see Greenstein
2009). Given the significance of rhetoric and oratory, this is a surprising
omission. However, a previous volume—Democratic Orators from JFK to
 INTRODUCTION 3

Barack Obama—does provide a systematic analysis of leading figures in

the Democratic Party, yet no volume exists on the Republican Party.
Consequently, this volume addresses the omission.
We should also briefly clarify the reasoning for the figures under discus-
sion in this volume. Needless to say, many examples of Republican Party
oratory exist, yet the selected 13 figures have been selected due to their
significance on conservative politics in the United States during their
respective historical periods. Eisenhower represents something of a shift in
the styles of rhetoric in the post-war period. This was mostly facilitated by
the changes in broadcast technologies (from radio to television) which in
itself affected how noteworthy politicians communicated with their respec-
tive audiences. As a consequence, styles of rhetoric became shorter, more
available to larger audiences, with a more accessible form of language rela-
tive to the longer and more deliberative forms of speech prior to these
changes in broadcasting technology. Indeed, prior to the speedy develop-
ment of television in the 1950s, political messages were communicated
through slower mediums such as print media, infrequent radio broadcasts,
or public meetings.
The onset of television changed the rhetorical style, thereby enabling
communication with much larger audiences. Yet, it would be remiss to
discount the impact of the more recent advances brought by the internet
on political rhetoric. Most of the figures under discussion in this volume
were restricted to television or print media, yet more recently social media
has had a noteworthy impact on Western political discourse. Few embody
this change more than Donald Trump, who uses social media (particularly
Twitter) to reshape reality through his political rhetoric. This represents
something of a sea-change moment (similar to television) and the rhetori-
cal style and quality of democratic discourse. Indeed, as Chap. 14 observes,
Trump’s rhetoric often subverts many of the conventions of discourse
which the other 13 figures were constrained by. In turn, the quality of
American democracy faces a significant shift.
The main focus of this volume is the impact of political rhetoric and
oratory upon leading figures within Republican Party politics. These ora-
tors affected the development of Republican Party politics at a grass-roots
and/or elite level. These are representative samples of shifts and drivers in
conservative rhetoric in the United States, and are by no means exhaus-
tive. Consequently, this volume takes a broader view of what is meant by
effective Republican Party leaders—we do not constrain ourselves to sim-
ply presidents.
4 A.S. CRINES AND S. HATZISAVVIDOU

Moreover, this volume acknowledges the distinction between rhetoric

and oratory as a means of conducting an academic analysis. In its most
simple terms, ‘rhetoric’ here means the content of a speech, whilst ‘ora-
tory’ means the delivery of a speech. Each is vital to garner political suc-
cess; however for the purposes of the academic analyses within this volume,
they are taken in isolation. We concern ourselves with the style of delivery
(oratory) as employed by the figures themselves, whilst acknowledging
that the rhetoric itself will likely have been produced by others (such as
speechwriters). In concert with each other, we evaluate how leading
Republicans construct and deliver an effective oration.
Furthermore, we frame our analyses within rhetorical traditions. To do
this we employ the modes of persuasion as developed by Aristotle (2004).
Specifically, these are ethos (appeals to character/credibility); pathos
(appeals to emotion); logos (appeals to logic, reason, empirical evidence).
The modes of persuasion represent a systematic framework through which
each of the following chapters revolves. These are asymmetrical and may
be used in differing proportions depending on the political/historical
context faced by each figure, audience expectations, and individual styles
of delivery. The academic value of the modes of persuasion will be consid-
ered in more detail in the next section.
By using this common analytical framework, this volume examines the
oratory and rhetoric of 13 leading Republican Party figures from
Eisenhower to Donald Trump. To ensure greater intellectual cohesion,
each chapter also draws out the oratorical skills in three core arenas of
engagement. These are (i) the Party, (ii) the wider support base, and (iii)
the American people. Consequently, this volume adopts a systematic
framework which is flexible enough to reflect the various contexts of each
figure, whilst being cohesive enough to represent a clear analytical
approach as a means of capturing something of the flavour of each figure
under discussion.

The Academic Study of Oratory and Rhetoric

The academic study of communication in the United States is an estab-
lished yet expanding subfield of political analysis. Before proceeding it is
worth to briefly reflect on Schumpeter’s argument in Capitalism, Socialism,
and Democracy that ‘the democratic method is that institutional arrange-
ment for arriving at political decisions in which individuals acquire the
power to govern by means of a competitive struggle for people’s vote’
 INTRODUCTION 5

(Schumpeter 1976: 269). Furthermore for Riker, who argues in The Art
of Political Manipulation, that rhetoric can be used ‘to show the logical
weakness of an opponent’s intellectual position. It persuades by revealing
the opponent’s weakness and implying thereby the speaker’s strength’
(Riker 1986: 7). Both arguments suggest that the purpose of political
rhetoric is to advance the prospect of individual democratic success within
the deliberative process.
These are joined by Monroe and Ehninger’s Principles of Speech
Communication (1964), Steven Lucas’s The Art of Public Speaking (2011),
and Robert Lehrman’s The Political Speechwriters Companion (2011) as
examples of valuable research that explain the rhetorical relationship
between the governed and the governors. Furthermore, George Campbell
notes that the theory of rhetoric is the ‘art or talent by which discourse is
adapted to its end. The four ends of discourse are to enlighten the under-
standing, please the imagination, move the passion, and influence the will’
(Golden and Corbett 1990: 145). Compelling the audience to some form
of action is a key objective of effective communication. Regardless, these
interpretivist concepts are designed to appeal to the passions of an audi-
ence, which are arguably essential elements of human nature. Indeed, ‘not
until human nature is other than what it is, will the function of the living
voice – the greatest force on earth among men – cease’ (Ward Beecher
quoted in Howard 2010: 172). Henry Ward Beecher goes on by arguing
that ‘I advocate, therefore, in its full extent, and for every reason of
humanity, of patriotism, and of religion, a more thorough culture of ora-
tory and I define oratory to be the art of influencing conduct with the
truth set home by all the resources of the living man’ (Ibid.). This is an
abstraction, of which rhetoric is a fundamental component, in the under-
standing of the human condition and what Riker described as the art of its
manipulation.
We should also remember that in his seminal text, The Rhetorical
Presidency, Jeffrey Tulis analysed the various yet growing uses of rhetorical
strategies by American presidents (Tulis 1987). In his work, he argued
that rhetoric ‘is a profound development in American politics. The prom-
ise of popular leadership is the core of dominant interpretations of our
whole political order, because such leadership is offered as the antidote for
“gridlock” in our pluralistic constitutional system’ (Ibid.: 4). This reflects
on not only the growth of rhetoric but also its need in order to be an effec-
tive leading figure in American politics. Furthermore, this need has led to
a style of governance that has replaced the need for effective policymaking
6 A.S. CRINES AND S. HATZISAVVIDOU

with a need to be (or appear to be) popular. This is particularly evident

with Donald Trump, yet has been a feature of his predecessors. Speaking
about Reagan, Tulis reflects on this changing style of presidential leader-
ship by noting that Abraham Lincoln ‘made relatively few popular
speeches’ and that they are ‘different in character from today’s addresses’
(Ibid.: 5). It must be noted, however, that audiences have particular
expectations that need to be met in order to attract the support Schumpeter
argues is vital in order to attract the support needed to be able to govern
(Schumpeter 1976: 269).
The growing emphasis on the individual’s need to communicate effec-
tively over recent decades has led to the need for leading politicians to
present a likable persona. This likable persona is related to ethos, which
they can use to attract support for their arguments. Gaffney and Lahel
noted that ‘because of the emphasis, in reality and in political science, on
acutely personalised leadership itself … as an agency of political change’,
politicians use a likable persona that is vital for a leading figure to ‘modify
his political identity’ (Gaffney and Lahel 2013: 484, 498). This persona
appeals to specific target audiences who in turn then lend them their sup-
port, either electorally or through more visible forms.
Richard Toye also analyses rhetorical styles by connecting the theories
of rhetoric and oratory throughout history with contemporary political
actors. By doing so he rightly argues that ‘the idea of rhetoric as a distinct
branch of knowledge had its origins in Athens in the second half of the
fifth century’ (Toye 2013: 7). Toye’s insightful analyses of political rheto-
ric draw contemporary inspiration from their classical roots, thereby locat-
ing our understanding of oratory within the works of the Sophists:
Protagoras, Gorgias, Prodicus, Hippias, and Thrasymachus. These repre-
sent core classical thinkers in the study of political rhetoric and oratory,
and so by placing our contemporary understandings within their works,
we are able to conceptualise styles of communication within the ancient
scholars of classical philosophy. One of the core drivers of our understand-
ing was (and remains) Aristotle, who identified the modes of persuasion
discussed earlier. These modes of persuasion are still used in contemporary
scholarship, such as by Atkins et al. (2014), Crines and Hayton (2015),
Hayton and Crines (2015), Crines et al. (2016), and Charteris-Black
(2005), amongst others.
Furthermore, it is worth remembering that Aristotle considered that
‘of the modes of persuasion furnished by the spoken word there are three
kinds. The first kind depends on the personal character of the speaker; the
 INTRODUCTION 7

second on putting the audience into a certain frame of mind; the third on
the proof, or apparent proof, provided by the words of the speech itself’
(Aristotle 2004: 8). For Toye, Aristotle’s conception of political rhetoric
represents ‘a remarkable effect to deal systematically with the problem of
rhetoric, and the categorisation he devised was to have long significance’
(Toye 2013: 14). Each of these three vis-à-vis ethos, pathos, logos are the
modes of persuasion used throughout this volume and enable valuable
insights into the political worlds and the relationship between political
elites and the citizenry. It is also worth remembering that ‘rhetoric is a
social phenomenon, and its reception depends on the norms in operation
in the society in which it is delivered (Ibid.: 109).
The academic study of rhetoric can also be used to ‘underscore the
importance of speech as a form and mode of political action in its own
right and highlight how the study of political speeches is of importance
and interest for a range of concerns’ (Finlayson and Martin 2008: 446). In
academic terms, an appreciation for ‘political rhetoric offers a rich seam
for those seeking both to interpret and explain the interplay of tradition,
innovation, ideology, action, performance, strategy, and rationality (Ibid.:
466). Consequently, a scholastic appreciation for the vitality and impor-
tance of political rhetoric facilitates a clear yet distinctive approach to ana-
lysing political debates and particular ideological agendas that seek the
support of respective cleavages in democratic society. As Atkins and
Finlayson rightly argue ‘there is not yet a single, systematic overarching
research programme focused on political speech (Atkins and Finlayson
2013: 162). Consequently, a multiplicity of methodological approaches
has emerged to examine rhetoric and oratory, which include qualitative
and quantitative research methods.
It is worth reflecting that rhetorical techniques represent the lifeblood
of the communicative process between politicians and the electorate. As
Glover (2011) reflects, ‘watch a good or even moderate speaker in a politi-
cal meeting or on television and you will notice that the applause tends to
follow the use of [Aristotle’s] rhetorical devices’ (Glover 2011: 95).
Furthermore, Glover notes that the language/meaning of specific words
can change their meaning through a process of tropes (changes to an
accepted understanding of a word) and schemes (changing the delivery of
words to make them more appealing (Ibid.: 91). Such shifts in the mean-
ing of language reflect the changing contexts in which they are being used.
The purpose of this book is to shine light on how 13 leading Republicans
have used rhetoric and oratory to gain Office and/or political advantage.
8 A.S. CRINES AND S. HATZISAVVIDOU

Structure of the Book

The approach of this book is to consider 13 representative, individual case
studies of leading Republican Party rhetoricians. Specifically, Dwight
D. Eisenhower, Barry Goldwater, Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, Bob
Dole, George H.W. Bush, Dan Quayle, Newt Gingrich, George W. Bush,
Condoleezza Rice, John McCain, Sarah Palin, and Donald Trump. Of
these 13, six have held the Office of the President of the United States.
The others have been (or remain to be) high-profile figures within conser-
vative politics in the United States and have helped shape the development
of the ideological debates and/or divisions within the Republican Party. It
is also worth noting that a number of those under discussion have them-
selves been considered in contention for the Presidency. As such, each of
these figures are worthy of consideration as leading conservative figures.
In Chap. 2, Mara Oliva argues that Eisenhower deserves more credit
than is often given for his rhetorical style, but acknowledges they were not
always effective. In Chap. 3, Andrew Taylor looks at Goldwater’s failure to
be electorally persuasive, but successful as a political mobiliser. In Chap. 4,
Pete Woodcock examines the unique circumstances faced by Richard
Nixon with particular reference to his personal (ethos-building) story. In
Chap. 5, Matthew Klingbeil, John C. Russell, and Mary E. Stuckey pres-
ent a fascinating discussion of Ronald Reagan’s reputation as ‘the grand
communicator’ and his long-standing impact upon the conservative move-
ment. In Chap. 6, Jerry L. Miller discusses Robert ‘Bob’ Dole’s argumen-
tative style of political rhetoric. In Chap. 7, Matthew Lakin examines
George H.W. Bush’s presidency as one ‘ill-prepared’ for the role. In
Chap. 8, Timothy Heppell looks at Dan Quayle’s issues as Bush’s running
mate and how his lack of a public profile hindered his ability to connect
with his audiences. In Chap. 9, Gregory Koger presents an insightful eval-
uation of Newt Gingrich’s style of communication. In Chap. 10, Jon
Herbert discusses George W. Bush’s style of rhetoric and oratory and
notes a number of the difficulties this presents. In Chap. 11, Clodagh
Harrington evaluates Condoleezza Rice’s position within the Republican
Party and how she ‘stood out as an icon’ during the Bush presidency. In
Chap. 12, Kenneth Fernandez discusses the long rhetorical career of John
McCain with appeals to his character as an orator. In Chap. 13, Sophia
Hatzisavvidou looks at Sarah Palin as the ‘celebrity politician’ and her role
as a popular figure within US conservatism. Finally, in Chap. 14, Andrew
S. Crines and David P. Dolowitz discuss the rhetorical controversies sur-
rounding the current president of the United States, Donald J. Trump.
 INTRODUCTION 9

Conclusion
The links between the electorate and politicians within a healthy demo-
cratic system are fundamental to maintaining a meaningful dialogue
between the ruled and the rulers. In terms of the American political sys-
tem, such a relationship has been borne out of constitutionally assumed
rights that enshrine freedom of speech, preserving open dialogue and clear
channels of accountability. The purpose of this volume is to show how that
relationship functions within the Republican Party. By focusing on 13 rep-
resentative samples, this volume charts the changing nature of that rela-
tionship. At the time of writing, the relationship is under strain from the
onset of social media and the apparent yet ironic disconnect this seems to
have created between the ruled and the rulers. However, similar observa-
tions were made when television became an avenue of communication. It
is hoped that this volume may add a new understanding to that relation-
ship and with it a new perspective about the changing face of US politics
more broadly.

Bibliography
Aristotle. 2004. The Art of Rhetoric. London: Penguin Books.
Atkins, J., and A. Finlayson. 2013. …“A 40 Year Old Black Man Made the Point
to Me”: Everyday Knowledge and the Performance of Leadership in
Contemporary British Politics. Political Studies 61 (1): 161–177.
Atkins, J., J. Martin, A. Finlayson, and N. Turnbull. 2014. Rhetoric in British
Politics and Society. Basingstoke: Palgrave.
Charteris-Black, J. 2005. Politicians and Rhetoric: The Persuasive Power of
Metaphor. Basingstoke: Palgrave.
Crines, A., and R. Hayton. 2015. Labour Orators from Bevan to Miliband.
Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Crines, A., T. Heppell, and P. Dorey. 2016. The Political Rhetoric and Oratory of
Margaret Thatcher. Basingstoke: Palgrave.
Finlayson, A., and J. Martin. 2008. “It Ain’t What You Say…”, British Political
Studies and the Analysis of Speech and Rhetoric. British Politics 3: 445–464.
Gaffney, J., and A. Lahel. 2013. Political Performance and Leadership Persona.
Government and Opposition 48 (4): 461–505.
Glover, D. 2011. The Art of Great Speeches and Why We Remember Them.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Golden, J., and E. Corbett. 1990. Rhetoric of Blair, Campbell, and Whately.
Evanston: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Greenstein, F. 2009. The Presidential Difference. Princeton: Princeton University
Press.
10 A.S. CRINES AND S. HATZISAVVIDOU

Hayton, R., and A. Crines. 2015. Conservative Orators from Baldwin to Cameron.
Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Howard, G. 2010. The Dictionary of Rhetorical Terms. Bloomington: Xlibris.
Leach, R. 2000. The Decline of Political Oratory?. Paper for the Political Studies
Association – UK 50th Annual Conference, 10–13 April, London.
Lehrman, R. 2011. The Political Speechwriters Companion. Washington, DC: CQ
Press.
Lucas, S. 2011. The Art of Public Speaking. New York: McGraw-Hill Education.
Monroe, A., and D. Ehninger. 1964. The Principles of Speech. Chicago: Scott
Foresman.
Riker, W. 1986. The Art of Political Manipulation. London: Yale University Press.
Schumpeter, J.A. 1976. Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy. London: George
Allen & Unwin.
Toye, R. 2013. Rhetoric: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Tulis, J. 1987. The Rhetorical Presidency. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
 CHAPTER 2

The Oratory of Dwight D. Eisenhower

Mara Oliva

Introduction
On 4 November 1952, Republican Dwight David ‘Ike’ Eisenhower
became the 34th president of the United States with a landslide victory,
ending the Democratic Party’s 20-year occupancy of the White House.
He also carried his party to a narrow control of both the House of
Representatives and the Senate. His success, not the party’s, was repeated
in 1956. Even more impressive than Eisenhower’s two landslide victories
was his ability to protect and maintain his popularity among the American
people throughout the eight years of his presidency. When he left the
White House in January 1961, his approval rating was 65 per cent (Gallup
Polls 2016). His rhetoric played an important role in preserving this popu-
larity. Indeed, it was one of the tools he most frequently used to retain
flexibility and manoeuvrability. These in turn allowed him to implement
what he believed were the right policies without compromising his stand-
ing among the American people. Yet, his rhetorical and oratorical skills are
still poorly understood today.
The historiography has sufficiently discredited the orthodox school of
thought of the 1950s and 1960s that mocked this president for his verbal

M. Oliva (*)
University of Reading, Reading, UK

© The Author(s) 2018 11

A.S. Crines, S. Hatzisavvidou (eds.), Republican Orators
from Eisenhower to Trump, Rhetoric, Politics and Society,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-68545-8_2
12 M. OLIVA

ambiguities and lacklustre style (Barber 1972). Eisenhower’s staff accounts

and revisionist historians, such as Stephen Ambrose (1984) and Fred
Greenstein (1982), have clearly shown that ‘Ike’ intentionally projected a
friendly image and muddled grammar to divert unwanted attention to
some of his policies and retain the freedom to choose his options. Among
the scholars of this period, the one who certainly offered the most ground-­
breaking assessment of Eisenhower’s rhetoric is political scientist Martin
Medhurst (1993). Medhurst argues that the president successfully used
his rhetoric as a weapon to wage the Cold War. He used it especially dur-
ing crises to effect change or modification in the existing situation and to
influence the beliefs, attitudes and actions of both domestic and foreign
audiences. In his view, Eisenhower was a master of rhetoric.
In the last 20 years, a post-revisionist wave of literature has tried to strike a
balance between these two extreme schools of thought. Scholars like Ira
Chernus (2003) and Chris Tudda (2006) acknowledge that the president was
often, not always, an effective speaker. But his rhetorical strategy, however
skilfully implemented, created a paradox. As Eisenhower claimed he wanted
peace, he needed to wage war ‘rhetorically’ in order to maintain national unity
and support for his foreign policy. By doing so, he exacerbated the already
hostile public feelings towards the enemy, made the Union of Soviet Socialist
Republics (USSR) more insecure and thus peace more difficult to achieve.
This chapter agrees with the post-revisionist school of thought.
Eisenhower deserves more credit for his rhetorical skills than previously
acknowledged, but on the other hand, his communication strategies were
not always effective. The chapter also argues that thus far scholars have
predominantly focused on the Cold War discourse. Analyses have looked
at how the international context affected Eisenhower’s rhetorical content
and how, in turn, the president tried to influence domestic and foreign
audiences through his words. But, although it is almost impossible to sep-
arate rhetorical content from how it is said, the literature still lacks an
adequate understanding of Eisenhower’s oratorical choices. By looking at
Eisenhower’s major speeches from 1945 to 1960, this chapter aims at fill-
ing this gap. In particular, it will focus on four research questions:

1. How did Eisenhower’s oratory and rhetoric include Aristotle’s pri-

mary modes of persuasive appeal: ethos, pathos and logos?
2. What did he want to achieve through his oratory and rhetoric?
3. How did he exploit the rising power of the media, especially TV?
4. What characterised his oratory and delivery?
 THE ORATORY OF DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER 13

Eisenhower’s Ethos and Pathos

Aristotle (1991) argued that an effective orator must generate credibility
with their audience through their ethos by showing their personal charac-
teristics and experience. He also believed that pathos, the ability to evoke
an emotional connection with the audience, was the most powerful per-
suasive tool (Leith 2011: 47).
Eisenhower’s ethos was already firmly established well before he entered
the political arena. As Supreme Allied Commander in Europe during
World War II, he became an international hero by defeating Hitler and the
Nazi regime. Through the media reports of the conflict, he connected
with millions of Americans who came to know Eisenhower not only as a
strong military man but also as a far-sighted and determined leader.
Between 1944 and 1945, they heard his firm but compassionate voice
reassuring them over the progress of the war in many radio-recorded pro-
grammes. His friendly smile appeared in several newsreels produced by the
US Army Pictorial Service and distributed in movie theatres across the
United States. By the time he returned to the United States in June 1945,
Time magazine had already dedicated him four covers, including ‘Man of
the Year’ in January 1945 (Time 1945).
His triumphant return was welcomed by huge crowds and celebrations
all over the United States. In Washington D.C., he was invited to address
a joint session of Congress. During the speech, the first of many,
Eisenhower spoke extemporaneously of the courageous men and women
who had fought for freedom and peace, two themes which would become
a staple of his rhetoric during his political career. Declaring:

In humble realisation that they, who earned your commendation, should

properly be here to receive it, I am nevertheless proud and honoured to
serve as your agent in conveying it to them. (Eisenhower 1945a)

He won his audience over by showing humility and praising soldiers,

officials, allies and the American effort at home. According to a reporter
covering the event, Eisenhower received a ‘tremendous ovation, everyone
is standing up on their feet’ and the largest applause for anyone who has
ever addressed Congress (Ibid.).
The following day, he flew to New York where thousands of people,
from LaGuardia airport to Washington Square, lined the parade route to
welcome ‘Ike’. NBC reported that Eisenhower’s homecoming was the
most widely publicised event since Lindbergh came back from Paris.
14 M. OLIVA

There were more than two million people outside City Hall, where he was
made honorary citizen of New York City. Though tired, Eisenhower
never seemed to lose his famous grin. On 22 June, his hometown of
Abilene, Kansas, held an old fashion, non-military parade featuring scenes
of the Abilene Eisenhower he had known when he was a boy. One sign
read: ‘Welcome to our hero!’ (Kansas Historical Society 1945). But in
addressing the crowd, Eisenhower declared:

I am not a hero, I am the symbol of heroic men…it has been my great hon-
our to command three million Americans and women in Europe.
(Eisenhower 1945b)

For the next three years and a half, Eisenhower delivered more than
124 formal speeches. The public loved him and invitations poured from
every corner of the country. The image that these speeches created was
one of a humble man who talked more like a soldier than an officer. As he
told an audience at Norwich University in Vermont, on 9 June 1946:

I am here in the name of millions of Allied fighting men, authors of memo-

rable victories in the Mediterranean and in Western Europe. I will never be
able to express the greatness of my pride in their accomplishments. So I am
unable to make them, or you, understand the depth of my humility when a
great institution such as this calls me to act as their representative to receive
tribute to their soldierly virtues. (Eisenhower 1946a)

He often spoke of the importance of teamwork:

Many accomplishments in these two past years can be attributed not to any-
one nation or man, but to the fact the all of us had our sights trained on a
definite goal and we pulled together as a team. (Eisenhower 1945c)

Though he had seen the horrors of war first-hand, his message was one
of optimism: ‘courage, devotion, drive, sacrifice, discipline, mutual help,
loyalty’ (Eisenhower 1946b), as these were the values ‘Ike’ projected and
was associated with.
As argued by Medhurst (1993: 5–16), this image was reinforced by the
publication of three best-selling books. In 1945, Kenneth S. Davis wrote
the first full-length biography of Eisenhower, Soldier of Democracy (Davis
1945). The book painted a picture of Eisenhower as a humble man,
­dedicated to service and duty and devoted to the protection of democracy.
 THE ORATORY OF DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER 15

Just one year after, Harry Butcher, Eisenhower’s naval aide from 1942 to
1945, published his memoir, My Three Years with Eisenhower (Butcher
1946). In his portrayal, Eisenhower emerged as a man very considerate of
other people’s opinions and feelings but also a brave strategist and leader.
Similarly, Eisenhower’s own memoir, Crusade in Europe (Eisenhower
1948), reinforced what a compassionate but also courageous and astute
decision maker he was. As Ambrose wrote, the book was greeted with
‘almost unanimous critical acclaim and praise for its author’s modesty, can-
dor, fairness, tact and general humanity’ (1984: 237). The following year,
the book spun off into a TV series. Aired by ABC, it was the first docu-
mentary produced for the TV. Many of the 126 episodes featured on-­
camera and narrated segments that Eisenhower recorded. It received a
Peabody Award and one of the first Emmy Awards for best Public Service,
Cultural and Educational programme (Allen 1993: 16; Internet Movie
Database 2016).
In 1948, Eisenhower became the president of Columbia University,
and a few years later, he was appointed as the first North Atlantic Treaty
Organisation (NATO) Supreme Commander. These prestigious appoint-
ments, combined with his successful military records, showed the American
people that ‘Ike’ could lead in many diverse fields, from military command
to education, from administration to diplomacy (Medhurst 1993: 18).
They also perfectly positioned him as the ideal candidate for the 1952
presidential election.
Whether he wanted the job or not has been the subject of debate
among historians. Regardless, it is true that both parties wanted him
because both knew he could win. According to Ambrose (1984: 228), in
1947, President Truman told ‘Ike’ that he would run as his vice-­presidential
nominee, if Eisenhower joined the Democratic Party. The 1948 Republican
candidate, Tom Dewey, told Milton Eisenhower that The General’s popu-
larity among the American people was so great that ‘he was a public pos-
session’ (Halberstam 1993: 209). On 23 June 1952, Eisenhower
announced he would run for president as a Republican.
After easily securing the nomination, Eisenhower fought one of the
most brutal campaigns of the twentieth century. The campaign drew
entirely on his ethos and his ability to connect with voters through his
warm smiles, plain talk and heroic image. It was the last whistle-stop cam-
paign. He travelled 45 states with his special train nicknamed ‘Look Ahead,
Neighbor!’. It was the first media campaign. Citizens for Eisenhower
designed and paid for a series of one-minute television ads entitled
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
The passage in Genesis “Whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall
be taken on him seven-fold,”[131] has been variously interpreted.
Cosmas Indopleustes renders it thus, “Whosoever slayeth Cain will
discharge seven vengeances;” that is, he will deliver him from those
calamities to which he is subject when living.[132]
But Malala renders it otherwise; he says it is to be thus understood:
“Every murderer shall die for his sin, but thou who didst commit the
first homicide, and art therefore the originator of this crime, shalt be
punished seven-fold; that is, thou shalt undergo seven punishments.”
For Cain had committed seven crimes. First, he was guilty of envy;
then, of treachery; thirdly, of murder; fourthly, of killing his brother;
fifthly, this was the first murder ever committed; sixthly, he grieved
his parents; and seventhly, Cain lied to God. Thus the sin of Cain
was seven-fold; therefore seven-fold was his punishment. First, the
earth was accursed on his account; secondly, he was sentenced to
labour; thirdly, the earth was forbidden from yielding to him her
strength; fourthly, he was to become timid and conscience-stricken;
fifthly, he was to be a vagabond on the earth; sixthly, he was to be
cast out from God’s presence; seventhly, a mark was to be placed
upon him.
The Mussulmans say that the penitence of Cain, whom they call
Kabil, was not sincere. He was filled with remorse, but it was mingled
with envy and hatred, because he was regarded with disfavour by
the rest of the sons of Adam.
Near Damascus is shown a place at the foot of a mountain where
Cain slew Abel.[133]
The legends of the death of Cain will be found under the title of
Lamech.
“Half a mile from the gates of Hebron,” says the Capuchin Friar,
Ignatius von Rheinfelden, in his Pilgrimage to Jerusalem, “begins the
valley of Mamre, in which Abraham saw the three angels; the
Campus Damascenus lies toward the west; there, Adam was
created; and the spot is pointed out where Cain killed his brother
Abel. The earth there is red, and may be moulded like wax.”[134]
Salmeron says the same, “Adam was made of the earth or dust of
the Campus Damascenus.” And St. Jerome on Ezekiel, chap. xvii.,
says: “Damascus is the place where Abel was slain by his brother
Cain; for which cause the spot is called Damascus, that is, Blood-
drinking.” This Damascus near Hebron is not to be confused with the
city Damascus.
 VII.
THE DEATH OF ADAM.

According to a Mussulman tradition, Adam was consoled for the loss

of Abel by the discovery of how to make wheat-bread. The story is
as follows:—
The angel Gabriel was sent out of Paradise to give him the rest of
the wheat-grains Eve had plucked from the forbidden tree, together
with two oxen, and various instruments of husbandry. Hitherto he
had fed on roots and berries, and had known nothing of sowing
grain; acting under Gabriel’s directions, he ploughed the land, but
the plough stuck, and Adam impatiently smote one of the oxen, and
it spoke to him and said, “Wherefore hast thou smitten me?”
Adam replied, “Because thou dost not draw the plough.”
“Adam!” said the ox, “when thou wast rebellious, did God smite thee
thus?”
“O God!” cried Adam to the Almighty, “is every beast to reproach me,
and recall to me my sin?”
Then God heard his cry, and withdrew from beasts the power of
speech, lest they should cast their sin in the teeth of men.
But as the plough was still arrested, Adam dug into the soil, and
found that the iron had been caught by the body of his son Abel.
When the wheat was sprung up, Gabriel gave Adam fire from hell,
which however he had previously washed seventy times in the sea,
or it would have consumed the earth and all things thereon. In the
beginning, wheat-grains were the size of ostrich eggs, but under
Edris (Enoch) they were no bigger than goose eggs; under Elias they
were the size of hen’s eggs; under Christ, when the Jews sought to
slay him, they were no larger than grapes; it was in the time of Uzeir
(Esdras) that they diminished to their present proportions.
After Adam and Eve had been instructed in all that appertained to
agriculture, Gabriel brought them a lamb and showed Adam how to
slay it in the name of God, how to shear off the wool, and skin the
sheep. Eve was instructed in the art of spinning and weaving by the
angel, and she made of the wool, first a veil for herself, and then a
shirt for her husband.
The first pair brought up their grandsons and great grandsons, to the
number of 40,000 according to some, and 70,000 according to
others, and taught them all that they had learned of the angel.
After the death of Abel, and after Cain had been slain by the
avenging angel, Eve bore a third son, named Seth, who became the
father of the race of the prophets.
Finally, when Adam had reached his nine hundred and thirtieth year,
the Angel of Death appeared under the form of a goat, and ran
between his legs.
Adam recoiled with horror, and exclaimed, “God has given me one
thousand years; wherefore comest thou now?”
“What!” exclaimed the Angel of Death, “hast thou not given seventy
years of thy life to the prophet David?”
Adam stoutly denied that he had done so. Then the Angel of Death
drew the document of transfer from out of his beard, and presented it
to Adam, who could no longer refuse to go.
His son Seth washed and buried him, after that the angel Gabriel, or,
according to some accounts, Allah himself, had blessed him: Eve
died a year later.
Learned men are not agreed as to the place of their burial; some
traditions name India, others the Mount Kubeis, and others again,
Jerusalem—God alone knows![135]
Tabari says that Adam made Seth his testamentary executor.
“When Adam was dead, Gabriel instructed Seth how to bury him,
and brought him the winding sheet out of heaven. And Gabriel said
to Seth, ‘Thou art sole executor of thy father, therefore it is thy office
to perform the religious functions.’ Then Seth recited over Adam
thirty Tebîrs. Four of these Tebîrs were the legal prayers, the others
were supererogatory, and were designed to exalt the virtues of
Adam. Some say that Adam was buried near Mecca on Mount Abui-
Kubais.”[136]
According to the apocryphal “Life of Adam and Eve,” Adam before
his death called to his bedside all his sons and daughters, and they
numbered fifteen thousand males, and females unnumbered. Adam
is said to have been the author of several psalms; amongst others,
Psalm civ., Benedic anima mea, and Psalm cxxxix., Domine
probasti; as may be gathered from the 14th, 15th, and 16th verses:
“My bones are not hid from thee: though I was made secretly, and
fashioned beneath in the earth. Thine eyes did see my substance,
yet being imperfect; and in Thy book were all my members written;
which day by day were fashioned, when as yet there was none of
them.”
The Arabs say that when Adam dictated his last will and testament,
the angel Gabriel descended from heaven to receive it, accompanied
by sixty-two millions of angels, each provided with clean white
sheets of parchment and pens, and that the will was sealed by
Gabriel.[137]
Tradition is not agreed as to the place of Adam’s burial. Khaithemah
says that Adam was buried near Mecca on Mount Abu-Kubais. But
the ancient Persians assert that he was buried in Ceylon, where his
sepulchre was guarded by lions at the time of the war of the giants.
[138]

But the most generally received tradition is this:—

The body of Adam was taken by Noah into the ark, and when the ark
rested on Ararat, Noah and his sons removed the body from it, and
they followed an angel who led them to the place where the first
father was to lie. Shem or Melchizedek—for they are one, as we
shall see presently—being consecrated by God to the priesthood,
performed the religious rites; and buried Adam at the centre of the
earth, which is Jerusalem; but, say some, he was buried by Shem
along with Eve, in the cave of Machpelah, in Hebron. But others
relate that Noah on leaving the ark distributed the bones of Adam
among his sons, and that he gave the head to Shem, who buried it in
Jerusalem. Some, taking this mystically, suppose that by this is
meant the sin and punishment of Adam, which was transmitted to all
the sons of Noah, but that to Shem was given the head, the Messiah
who was to regenerate the world.[139] S. Basil of Seleucia says:
“According to Jewish traditions, the skull of Adam was found there
(i.e. on Golgotha), and this, they say, Solomon knew by his great
wisdom. And because it was the place of Adam’s skull, therefore the
hill was called Golgotha, or Calvary.”[140]
With this a great concourse of Fathers agree; whose testimony has
been laboriously collected by Gretser in his famous and curious book
“De Cruce.” And this tradition has become a favourite subject for
artists, who, in their paintings or sculptures, represent the skull of
Adam at the foot of the Cross of Christ.
The apocryphal “Testament of Adam” still exists.
The tomb of Eve is shown at Jedda. “On entering the great gate of
the cemetery, one observes on the left a little wall three feet high,
forming a square of ten to twelve feet. There lies the head of our first
mother. In the middle of the cemetery is a sort of cupola, where
reposes the navel of her body; and at the other extremity, near the
door of egress, is another little wall also three feet high, forming a
lozenge-shaped enclosure: there are her feet. In this place is a large
piece of cloth, whereon the faithful deposit their offerings, which
serve for the maintenance of a constant burning of perfumes over
the midst of her body. The distance between her head and feet is
four hundred feet. How we have shrunk since the creation!”[141]
The bones of Adam and Eve, says Tabari, were taken by Noah into
the ark with him, and were reburied by him.
This article may be fitly concluded with the epitaph of Adam,
composed by Gabriel Alvarez, and published by him in his “Historia
Ecclesiæ Antediluvianæ,” Madrid, 1713.
“Here lies, reduced to a pinch of dust, he who, from a pinch of
dust, was formed to govern the earth,
Adam,
the son of None, the father of All, the stepfather of All
and of himself.
Having never wailed as a child, he spent his life in weeping,
the result of penitence.
Powerful, Wise, Immortal, Just,
he sold for the price of disobedience, power, wisdom, justice,
immortality.
Having abused the privilege of Free-will, which weapon
he had received for the preservation of Knowledge and
Grace,
by one stroke he struck with death himself and all the human
race.
The Omnipotent Judge
who in His Justice took from him righteousness, by His Mercy
restored it to him whole again:
by whose goodness it has fallen out, that we may
call that crime happy, which obtained such and so great
A Redeemer.
Thenceforth Free-will, which he in happiness used to
bring forth Misery, is used in Misery to bring forth
Happiness.
For if we, partakers of his pernicious inheritance, partake
also of his penitential example, and lend our ears
to salutary counsels,
Then we (who by our Free-will could lose ourselves) can be
saved
by the grace of the Redeemer, and the co-operation of our
Free-will.
The First Adam Lived to Die;
The Second Adam Died to Live.
Go, and imitate the penitence of the First Adam;
Go, and celebrate the goodness of the Second Adam.”
 VIII.
SETH.

When Seth had ascended the throne of his father, says Tabari, he
was the greatest of the sons of Adam. Every year he made the
pilgrimage to the Kaaba, and he ruled the world with equity, and
everything flourished during his reign. At the age of fifty he had a
son; he called his name Enoch and named him his executor. He died
at the age of nine hundred.[142]
Seth and the other sons of Adam waged perpetual war against the
Divs, or giants, the sons of Kabil, or Cain.
Rocail was another son of Adam, born next after Seth.
He possessed, says the Tahmurath Nâmeh, the most wonderful
knowledge in all mysteries. He had a genius so quick and piercing,
that he seemed to be rather an angel than a man.
Surkrag, a great giant, son of Cain, commanded in the mountains of
Kaf, which encompass the centre of the earth. This giant asked Seth
to send him Rocail, his brother, to assist him in governing his
subjects. Seth consented, and Rocail became the vizier or prime
minister of Surkrag, in the mountains of Kaf.
After having governed many centuries, and knowing, by divine
revelation, that the time of his death drew nigh, he thus addressed
Surkrag: “I am about to depart hence and enter on another
existence; but before I leave, I wish to bequeath to you some famous
work, which shall perpetuate my name into remote ages.”
Thereupon Rocail erected an enormous sepulchre, adorned with
statues of various metals, made by talismanic art, which moved, and
spake, and acted like living men.[143]
According to the Rabbinic traditions, Seth was one of the thirteen
who came circumcised into the world. The rest were Adam, Enoch,
Noah, Shem, Terah, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, Samuel, David, Isaiah,
and Jeremiah.[144] The book Schene Luchôth says that the soul of
righteous Abel passed into the body of Seth, and afterwards this
same soul passed into Moses; thus the law, which was known to
Adam and in which Abel had been instructed, was not new to Moses.
[145]

The Little Genesis says, that Seth was instructed by the angels in
what was to take place in the world; how its iniquity was to grow, and
a flood was to overwhelm it; and how the Messiah would come and
restore all things. Seth was remarkable for the majesty and beauty of
his appearance, as he had inherited much of the loveliness of
unfallen man. He married his sister Azur, or, according to others,
Noræa or Horæa. Suidas, under the heading ‘Σήδ,’ says: “Seth was
the son of Adam: of this it is said, the sons of God went in unto the
daughters of men; that is to say, the sons of Seth went in unto the
daughters of Cain. For in that age Seth was called God, because he
had discovered Hebrew letters, and the names of the stars; but
especially on account of his great piety, so that he was the first to
bear the name of God.”
Theodoret thus refers to the verse,—“And to Seth, to him also there
was born a son; and he called his name Enos: then began men to
call upon the name of the Lord,” or as our marginal reading is, “then
began men to call themselves by the name of the Lord.” “Aquila
interpreted it thus, ‘then Seth began to be called by the name of the
Lord.’ These words intimate his piety, which deserved that he should
receive the sacred name; and he was called God by his
acquaintance, and his children were termed the sons of God, just as
we are called Christians after Christ.”[146]
The origin of this tradition seems to be the fact that Seth was the
name of an ancient Egyptian deity, at first regarded as the giver of
light and civilization, but afterwards identified with Typhon by the
Egyptians, who considered Seth to be the chief god of the Hyksos or
shepherd kings; and in their hatred of these oppressors, the name of
Seth was everywhere obliterated on their monuments, and he was
regarded as one with the great adversary, Typhon; and was
represented as an ass, or with an ass’s head.[147]
Abulfaraj, in his history, says that Seth discovered letters, and that,
desirous to recover the Blessed Life, he and his sons went to Mount
Hermon, where they served God in piety and continence, and
associated not with the people of the land, nor took to themselves
wives; wherefore they were called the sons of God.[148]
Flavius Josephus relates that after the things that were to take place
had been revealed to Seth,—how the earth was to be destroyed, first
with water and then with fire,—lest those things which he had
discovered should perish from the memory of his posterity, he set up
two pillars, one of brick, the other of stone, and he wrote thereon all
the science he had acquired, hoping that, in the event of the brick
pillar perishing by the rain, the stone one would endure.[149]
Freculphus adds that Jubal assisted the sons of Seth in engraving
on the columns all that was known of the conduct and order of the
heavens, and all the arts then known.[150]
The stone pillar was to be seen, in the time of Josephus, in Syria.
Anastasius of Sinai says that, when God created Adam after His
image and likeness, He breathed into him grace, and illumination,
and a ray of the Holy Spirit. But when he sinned, this glory left him,
and his face became clouded. Then he became the father of Cain
and Abel. But afterwards it is said in Scripture, “He begat a son in his
own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth;” which is
not said of Cain and Abel; and this means that Seth was begotten in
the likeness of unfallen man and after the image of Adam in
Paradise; and he called his name Seth, that is, by interpretation,
Resurrection, because in him he saw the resurrection of his departed
beauty, and wisdom, and glory, and radiance of the Holy Spirit. And
all those then living, when they saw how the face of Seth shone with
divine light, and heard him speak with divine wisdom, said, He is
God; therefore his sons were commonly called the sons of God.[151]
As Seth was an ancient Egyptian Sun-god, the origin of the myth of
his shining face can be ascertained without difficulty.
To Seth were attributed several apocryphal writings.
 IX.
CAINAN SON OF ENOS.

“And Seth lived an hundred and five years, and begat Enos: and
Seth lived after he begat Enos eight hundred and seven years, and
begat sons and daughters: and all the days of Seth were nine
hundred and twelve years: and he died. And Enos lived ninety years,
and begat Cainan.”[152]
Alexander wrote many epistles to Aristotle, his preceptor, in which he
narrated what had befallen him in India. Amongst other things he
wrote: “After I had entered the Persian region, which is a province of
India, I arrived at some islands of the sea, and there I found men,
like women, who fed on raw fish, and spake a language very like
Greek; they said to me that there was in the island the sepulchre of a
most ancient king, who was called Cainan, son of Enos, and who
ruled the whole world, and taught men all kinds of knowledge, and
had demons and all kinds of evil spirits under his control. He, by his
wisdom, understood that the ever-blessed God would bring in a flood
in the times of Noah; wherefore he engraved all that was to take
place on stone tables, which exist there to this day, and are written in
Hebrew characters. He wrote therein that the ocean would, in that
age, overflow a third part of the world, which took place in the
lifetime of Enos, the son of Seth, who was the son of Adam, our first
parent.
“In the same island, Cainan built a most extensive city, surrounded
with walls; and a great marble citadel, in which he treasured jewels
and pearls, and gold and silver in great abundance.
“Moreover, he erected a tower, very lofty, over a sepulchre for
himself, to serve as his monument. This tower can be approached by
no man; for it was built by astronomical art under the seven planets,
and with magical skill, so that every one who draws near the wall is
struck down with sudden death.”[153]
 X.
ENOCH.
 1. THE TRANSLATION OF ENOCH.

Enoch, or Edris,[154] as he is called by the Arabs, was born in

Hindostan, but he lived in Yemen. He was a prophet. In his days
men worshipped fire, being deceived by Eblis. When God sent
Enoch to his brethren to turn them from their false worship, they
would not believe him.
Idolatry began in the times of Jared, son of Mahalaleel, and it spread
to such an extent that, when Noah was born, there were not eighty
persons who worshipped the true, and living, and only God. Jared
fought Satan, the prince of demons, and captured him, and led him
about in chains wherever he went.
Enoch knew how to sew, and was an accomplished tailor. He was
the first to put pen to paper; he wrote many books. He had in his
possession the books of Adam, and for ten years, instead of
sleeping, he spent the night in reading them.
He instructed men in the art of making garments; Enoch showed
them how to cut out the skins to the proper shape, and to sew them
together; and how to make shoes to protect their feet.
And then, when the people had derived this great blessing from him,
they were ready to listen to his books; and he read to them the
books of Adam, and endeavoured thereby to bring them back to the
knowledge of the true God.
When he had spent many years in prayer, the Angel of Death
desired to make a compact of friendship with him. He took on him a
human form and approached him, saying, “I am the Angel of Death,
and I desire thy friendship. On account of thy great piety, thou
mayest make me a request which I shall accomplish.”
Enoch answered, “I desire that thou shouldst take my soul.”
The angel replied, “I have not come to thee for this purpose; thy time
is not yet arrived at its appointed close.”
Then Enoch said, “It is well; but take my soul away for a little space,
and then return it to my body, if God so wills.”
The angel said, “I cannot do this without God’s consent.” But he
presented the supplications of Enoch before Allah, and God,
knowing what was the design of Enoch, granted the prayer.
Then Azrael bore away the soul of Enoch, and at the same instant
the Eternal One restored it to him. After this, Enoch continued to
praise and pray to God; and the Angel of Death became his friend,
and often came to visit him.
Years passed, and Enoch said one day to the angel, “Oh, my friend!
I have yet a request to make.”
Azrael answered, “If I can grant it, I will do so readily.”
Enoch said, “I would see Hell, for I have undergone death, and I
know its sensations. I would know now the torments of the lost.”
But the angel answered, “This I cannot grant without permission from
the Almighty.”
God heard the prayer of Enoch, and He suffered Azrael to
accomplish what the prophet had desired. Then the Angel of Death
bore away Enoch, and showed him the seven stages of Hell, and all
the torments inflicted there on sinners: after that he replaced him
where he was before.
After some while had elapsed, Enoch again addressed Azrael, and
said, “I have another request to make.”
The angel answered, “Say on.”
Then said Enoch, “I desire to see the Paradise of God, as I have
seen Hell.”
Azrael replied, “I cannot grant thy petition without the consent of
God.”
But the All-Merciful, when he heard the request of his servant,
consented that it should be even as he desired. So the angel bore
Enoch into Paradise. And when they had reached the gates, the
keeper, Ridhwan, refused to open, saying to Enoch, “Thou art a
man, and no man can enter Paradise who has not tasted death.”
Then Enoch replied, “I also have tasted death; the soul that I have
will dwell eternally with me; God has resuscitated me from death.”
Ridhwan, however, said, “I cannot do this thing and admit thee
without the order of God.”
Then the order arrived from Allah, and the angel of the gate refused
no more; so Enoch entered; but before Enoch and Azrael passed the
gates, Ridhwan said to the prophet, “Go in, and behold Paradise, but
be speedy and leave it again, for thou mayst not dwell there till after
the Resurrection.”
Enoch replied, “Be it so;” and he went in and viewed Paradise, and
came out, as he had promised; and as he passed the threshold of
the door he turned and said to the angel, “Oh, Ridhwan! I have left
something in there; suffer me to run and fetch it.”
But Ridhwan refused; and a dispute arose between them.
Enoch said, “I am a prophet; and God has sent me thirty books, and
I have written them all, and I have never revolted against God. In
those books that God sent me, I was promised Paradise. If it be
necessary that I should have undergone death, I have undergone it.
If it be necessary that I should have seen Hell, I have seen it. Now I
am come to Paradise, and that is my home; God has promised it to
me, and now that I have entered I will leave it no more.”
The dispute waxed hot, but it was terminated by the order of God,
who bade Ridhwan open the gate and re-admit Enoch into Paradise,
where he still dwells.[155]
 2. THE BOOK OF ENOCH.

The Book of Enoch, quoted by S. Jude in his Epistle, and alluded to

by Origen, S. Augustine, S. Clement of Alexandria, and others of the
Fathers, must not be passed over.
The original book appears from internal evidence to have been
written about the year 110 B.C.[156] But we have not the work as then
written; it has suffered from numerous interpolations, and it is difficult
always to distinguish the original text from the additions.
The book is frequently quoted in the apocryphal “Testament of the
Twelve Patriarchs,” which is regarded as canonical by the Armenian
Church, but the references are for the most part not to be found in
the text. It was largely used by some of the early Christian writers,
either with acknowledgment or without. The monk George Syncellus,
in the eighth century, extracted portions to compose his
Chronography. This fragment in Syncellus was all that was known of
the book in the West till the last century. The Jews, though
remembering the work, had lost it in Hebrew; but it was alluded to by
the Rabbis down to the thirteenth century, and it is referred to in the
Book Sohar, though the writer may not have read the book of Enoch.
Bruce, the African traveller, was the first to bring it to Europe from
Abyssinia in two MSS., in the year 1773. Much attention was not,
however, paid to it till 1800, when De Sacy in his “Magasin
Encyclopédique,” under the title “Notice sur le Livre d’Enoch,” gave
some account of the work. In 1801, Professor Laurence gave to the
public an English translation, accompanied by some critical remarks.
Since then, the book has been carefully and exegetically examined.
The version we now have is Ethiopic.
The Book of Enoch consists of five divisions, or books, together with
a Prolegomena and an Epilegomena.
After the introduction (caps. 1-5), which describes the work as the
revelation of the seer Enoch concerning the future judgment and its
consequences, with warnings to the elect as to the signs; the First
part (caps. 6-16) opens with an account of the fall of the Angels, their
union with the daughters of men, and the generation of the Giants.
Connected with this, and divided from it by no superscription or sign
of change of subject, is an account of a journey made by Enoch, in
the company of the angels, over the earth and through the lower
circles of heaven, during which he is instructed in various mysteries
hidden from the knowledge of men, and a great deal of this
wondrous information is communicated to the reader.
This description of a journey, which is itself divided into two parts,
unquestionably belongs to the original book, and the historical
portion, narrating the procreation of the Giants, is an interpolation.
The Second portion of the book (caps. 37-71), with its own special
superscription and introduction, is called “The Second History of
Wisdom.” It continues the history of the voyage. The first portion
contained the description of the mysterious places and things in the
earth and in the lower heaven; the second portion contains an
account of the mysteries of the highest heaven, the angel-world, the
founding of the kingdom of the Messias, and the signs of His coming.
The close of this portion contains prophecies of Noah’s Flood, and
accounts of the fall of the Angels, their evil life and their punishment.
The whole account of the Flood, which comes in without rhyme or
reason, is also a manifest interpolation.
The Third portion (caps. 72-82), also under its own heading, is on
“The Revolution of the Lights of Heaven,” and describes the motions
of the planets, the duration of the seasons, and the number of the
days of the months, and the great winds of heaven. With this part the
voyage of Enoch closes.
The Fourth part (caps. 83-91), which has no superscription, but
which is generally designated as “The Book of the Dream History,”
contains the visions shown Enoch in his youth, which, in a series of
pictures, gives the history of the world till the end of time. This part
closes with some words of advice from Enoch to his sons.
The Fifth and last part (caps. 92-105) is “The Book of Exhortation,”
addressed by Enoch to his family against sin in all its forms, under all
its disguises, and concludes with an account of certain presages
which should announce the birth of Noah.
The Talmudic writers taught that Enoch at his translation became a
chief angel, and that his name became Metatron. In the Chaldee
version of Jonathan on the words of Genesis v. 24, it is said, “And
Enoch served before the Lord in truth, and was not among the
inhabitants of the earth, for he was translated above into the
firmament, through the word of the Lord; and He called him by the
name of Metatron (the great writer).” And in Rabbi Menachem’s
Commentary on the Five Books of Moses, it is written, “The Rabbi
Ishmael relates that he spoke to the Metatron, and he asked him
why he was named with the name of his Creator and with seventy
names, and why he was greater than any prince, and higher than
any angel, and dearer than any servant, and more honoured than all
the host, and more excellent in greatness, in power, and dominion
than all the mighty ones. Then he answered and said, ‘Because I
was Enoch, son of Jared. This is what the holy, ever-blessed God
wrought,—when the races of the Flood (i.e. the sinners who lived at
the time when the Flood came) sinned, and did unrighteously in their
works, and had said to God, ”Depart from us,“—He took me from
that untoward generation into the highest heaven, that I might be a
witness against that generation. And after the ever-blessed God had
removed me that I should stand before the throne of His Majesty,
and before the wheels of His chariot, and accomplish the
requirements of the Most High, then my flesh became flame, and my
arteries fire, and my bones juniper ashes, and the light of my eyelids
became the flashing of lightning, and my eyeballs torches of fire, and
the hair of my head was a flame, and all my limbs were fiery, burning
wings, and my body became burning fire; and by my right hand
flames were cleft asunder; and from my left hand burnt fiery torches;
but around me blew a wind, and storm, and tempest; and before and
behind me was the voice of a mighty earthquake.’”
The Rabbi Ishmael gives further particulars which are enshrined in
the great Jalkut Rubeni.[157]