The Etymologies of Isidore of Seville - Pot-pourri

i. Rhetoric and its name (De rhetorica eiusque
nomine) 1. Rhetoric is the art of speaking well in civil
cases, [and eloquence (eloquentia) isfluency(copia)]
for the purpose of persuading people toward the just
and good. Rhetoric is named from the Greek term
, that is, fluency of speech, for in Greek
means “speech,” means “orator.” 2. Further,
rhetoric is connected with the art of grammar (Grammatica),
for in grammar we learn the art of speaking
correctly, while in rhetoric we understand how we may
express what we have learned.
ii. The founders of the art of rhetoric (De inventoribus
rhetoricae artis) 1. This discipline was invented by the
Greeks, by Gorgias, Aristotle, and Hermagoras, and was
carried over into Latin culture by Cicero and Quintilian
[and Titianus], 1 but so copiously and variously that it
is easy for a reader to wonder at it, but impossible to
grasp it fully. 2. Forwhileonehasatreatiseonrhetoric
in hand, the sequence of its content as it were clings
to the memory, but when it is set aside all recollection
of it soon slips away. Accomplished knowledge of this
discipline makes one an orator.
iii. The term ‘orator’ and the parts of rhetoric (De
nomine oratoris et partibus rhetoricae) 1. Anorator
therefore is a good man, skilled in speaking. A man’s
goodness is based on his nature, his behavior, his training
in the arts. One skilled in speaking is grounded in
artful eloquence, which consists of five parts: invention,
arrangement, style, memory, pronunciation (inventio,
dispositio, elocutio, memoria, pronuntiatio), and of the
goal of this office, which is to persuade of something.
2.Further, this skill in speaking is based on three things:
one’s nature, instruction, and practice. Nature, from
one’s native wit; instruction, from acquired knowledge;
1 This ‘Titianus’ is probably an artifact of scribal error.
2 Causa may often be translated as “(legal) case,” or “(rhetorical
or legal) argument,” or “cause.”
69
Book II
Rhetoric and dialectic
(De rhetorica et dialectica)
practice, from diligence. And these are things that are
looked for not only in an orator, but in any person with
regard to his craft, in order that he might accomplish
something.
iv. The three kinds of arguments (De tribus generibus
causarum) 2 1. There are three kinds of arguments:
deliberative, demonstrative, and judicial (deliberativus,
demonstrativus, iudicialis). The deliberative kind treats
questions of expediency in life, what ought or ought
not to be done. The demonstrative is the kind in which
apraiseworthy or reprehensible person is displayed as
such. 2. Judicial, in which a decision for punishment or
reward is rendered according to the deed of that person.
It is called ‘judicial’ because it judges (iudicare) aman,
and its decision shows whether a praiseworthy person
may be worthyofareward,orwhetherapersonsurely
charged with a crime may be condemned or freed from
punishment.
3. The deliberative kind is so called because in it one
deliberates (deliberare) concerning some matter. There
are two types of this kind, suasion and dissuasion, that
is, concerning what ought to be sought and what ought
to be avoided, what ought to be done and not done. 4.
Suasive argument is further divided into three topics: the
decent, the useful, and the possible. This differs somewhat
from deliberative argument in that suasive argument
has to do with another person, whereas deliberative
argument sometimes deals with oneself alone. Further,
in suasive argument two things are especially effective:
hope and fear.
5. Demonstrative argument is so called because it
describes (demonstrare)some particular thing, either by
praising or by blaming. This class has two species: praise
(laus) and blame (vituperatio). The sequence of praising
is divided into three periods of time: before, during, or
after the act or person being praised. 6.Before, as (Vergil,
Aen. 1.605):
What such happy times brought you forth?