The Philosophy of Rhetoric

by George Campbell, Professor Emeritus Lloyd F. Bitzer (Editor)

Here, after a quarter century of additional study and reflection, Bitzer presents a new critical edition of George Campbell’s classic. Bitzer provides a more complete review and assessment of Campbell’s work, giving particular emphasis to Campbell’s theological views, which he demonstrates played an important part in Campbell’s overall view of reasoning, feeling, and moral and religious truth. The Rhetoric is widely regarded as the most important statement of a theory of rhetoric produced in the 18th century. Its importance lies, in part, in the fact that the theory is informed by the leading assumptions and themes of the Scottish Enlightenment—the prevailing empiricism, the theory of the association of ideas, the effort to explain natural phenomena by reference to principles and processes of human nature. Campbell’s work engages such themes in an attempt to formulate a universal theory of human communication. Campbell attempts to develop his theory by discovering deep principles in human nature that account for all instances and kinds of human communication. He seeks to derive all communication principles and processes empirically. In addition, all statements in discourse that have to do with matters of fact and human affairs are likewise to be empirically derived. Thus, his theory of rhetoric is vastly wider than, and different from, such classical theories as those proposed by Aristotle, Cicero, and Quintilian, whose theories focused on discourse related to civic affairs. Bitzer shows that, by attempting to elaborate a general theory of rhetoric through empirical procedures, Campbell’s project reveals the limitations of his method. He cannot ground all statements empirically and it is at this point that his theological position comes into play. Inspection of his religious views shows that God’s design of human nature, and God’s revelations to humankind, make moral and spiritual truths known and quite secure to human beings, although not empirically.

Genres: Philosophy

504 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 1868

About the author

Rev Prof George Campbell DD FRSE was a figure of the Scottish Enlightenment, known as a philosopher, minister, and professor of divinity. Campbell was primarily interested in rhetoric, since he believed that its study would enable his students to become better preachers. He became a philosopher of rhetoric because he took it that the philosophical changes of the Age of Enlightenment would have implications for rhetoric.

Reviews

[Erin · Rating 4 out of 5]

I just wrote a paper comparing Campbell to Giambattista Vico and contrasting Aristotle's ideas to both of them. Fun times in grad school!

Campbell understands the social side of rhetoric. He sees the audience as individuals and feels that the orator has to be aware of who the audience is comprised of, unlike Aristotle. Campbell uses Quintilian's ideas to establish the relationship between the rhetor and the audience and he writes about rhetoric in writing and speech. Campbell writes of the varied and unpredictable audience. In order to persuade effectively, Campbell believed that the orator should adapt his or her discourse to the needs of the audience, for as he states: "whatever be the ultimate intention of the orator, to inform, to convince, to please, to move, or to persuade, still he must speak so as to be understood, or he speaks to no purpose." He also writes of the needs of the audience and such needs include enlightened, please, imagination, removed passion, and influence the will. He see these five characteristics as being more important than the three appeals of argument that Aristotle argued for.

Campbell recognizes the need for speakers to understand the audience. Campbell writes, "the difference between one audience and another is very great, not only in intellectual but in moral attainments" (240). He continued his argument by saying that a rhetorician needs to speak about different topics according to the audience.

[Mary · Rating 3 out of 5]

“Testimony of the poet goes for nothing. His object […] is not truth, but likelihood” (89) seems to be the most useful phrase for my own project here, but then again, the time period isn’t quite right. It is interesting to me that Campbell is often seen as an old fuddy-duddy (and those last several chapters on grammatical style and idioms are dauntingly stuffy), but he makes a good point that English can be just as rich a language as Latin. It reeks of empire, of course, but there’s also some right-to-language here, even if that language must be dominated by a certain social class that can be “reputable, national and present” (154).


–And that’s another thing, he sure makes a big deal about being present for someone who uses “hath” all the time…!

[Linda · Rating 3 out of 5]

Written in 1776, this book is Reverend Dr George Campbell’s fourth publication (his second was titled ‘Dissertation on Miracles’). My reading of this 400-page book primarily concentrated on the chapters which related to metaphor (as well as ambiguity, symbols and meaning).

It became evident that whilst many of his ideas are dated (for example he refers to theology as one of the most important sciences), they form part of the Scottish Enlightenment movement, and appear to be heavily influenced by Locke’s Essay on Human Understanding. Campbell’s humanistic approach to study means that rhetoric was more than a mere speaking-tool. As he states in his introduction: “Grammar too, in its general principles, has a close connexion with the understanding, and the theory of the association of ideas.” This language-ideas-mind theory appears to be a very early precursor to linguistic research in the 1900’s and what would later be called Cognitive Metaphor Theory.

For Campbell (a clergyman at the pulpit as well as a writer), language has two key purposes – to be understood, and to be engaging. Metaphor assists both purposes; as ‘an aid of the imagination’ it can be used in conversation as a ‘subservient’ means to an end in order to ‘elucidate a subject or excite admiration.’ Metaphor draws on associations and similarities between two items or ideas which, he believes, must be not too close, and not too remote, but just right. For him, we know they are at their best from the joy gained when the resemblances we recognise ‘escapes the notice of the generality of the people.’ Metaphors greatest risk however, is if the language is too imaginative, too far off-topic it will be considered ‘foreign’ at best, and ‘insidious’ at worst.

[Note he appears to adopt the more modern version of catachresis as an ‘abuse’ or far-fetched metaphor rather than the ancient version of a ‘necessary-metaphor’ as a response to lexical poverty.]

He also notes that once a metaphor has been widely adopted, it’s figurative ability to conjure an image before the mind’s eye is gone, the metaphor is obsolete, and now that it is considered literal, it should also be considered a proper term and can no longer be considered a metaphor. Elsewhere however, he notes that word usage is fluid, that what was once figurative can become literal, or figurative anew in a new way, (and I would contend that, that which became literal can become figurative again – suggesting language can be seen to be 'tidal').

A good quote to give you a sense of his writing style and his attitude, is his explanation as to why we should study rhetoric; “this study, properly conducted, leads directly to an acquaintance with ourselves; it not only traces the operations of the intellect and imagination, but discloses the lurking springs of action in the heart.”