The principle of distribution here is the specific effect to be produced by discourse in the mind of the hearer. It is the same principle that determines the mode of discussion in any particular discourse, and will be more fully exhibited in the sequel.

CHAPTER V.

OF THE DEPARTMENTS OF RHETORIC.

§ 35. RHETORIC, as the Art of constructing Discourse, embraces two processes which are in many respects distinct from each other. The one consists in the provision of the thought variously modified as it may be by feeling and the moral state in its proper form, and is founded more immediately on Logic. The other consists chiefly in the provision of the appropriate language, and rests mainly on Grammar as its foundation.

The two great departments of the art of rhetoric, accordingly, are INVENTION and STYLE.

In many of the most popular treatises on rhetoric in the English language, the first of these processes, invention, has been almost entirely excluded from view. Several causes may be assigned for this deviation from the uniform method of the ancient rhetoricians. The most important one would seem to be the neglect into which logic has fallen; or, perhaps more exactly, the cause is to be found in the hitherto immature and unsettled views of modern writers in this sci

ence.

Another cause is the change that has taken place in logical science since the times of the Grecian and Roman rhetoricians, which renders their systems of rhetorical invention, founded as they were, to a great extent, on their peculiar logical views, inapplicable to present modes of thought. Their system of topics is thus, for this and other reasons, wholly unsuited to our times.

The art of invention, moreover, is more essentially modified than style by the particular department of oratory or the kind of discourse to which it is applied. Hence the ancient systems of invention which were constructed in strict reference to the modes of speaking then prevalent, are illadapted to present use. The systems of Cicero and Quintilian, for example, are for the most part illustrated from the peculiar practice of the Roman bar. Modern writers on rhetoric, in following the great ancient masters in the art, have hence been reduced to this alternative, - either of leaving out entirely this part of the science, or of constructing an entirely new system. They have, for the most part, in the English language at least, decided on the former branch of the alternative, and have generally excluded almost entirely from their works the consideration of invention.

The perversion and abuse of ancient systems in the schools of the middle ages have undoubtedly further contributed to bring this branch of rhetorical science into disrepute and neglect.

It cannot, however, be doubted, on a candid consideration of the matter, that invention must constitute the very life of an art of rhetoric. It respects the soul and substance of disthe thought which is communicated. One of the most eminent of ancient rhetoricians, Quintilian, justly says, "Invenire primum fuit ESTQUE PRÆCIPUUM." And one

course

of the most eminent of modern orators, Webster, to the same effect remarks : "All true power in writing is in the idea, not in the style; an error into which the ars rhetorica, as it is usually taught, may easily lead stronger heads than mine." It is in invention that the mind of the learner is most easily interested and most capable of sensible improvement. It is next to impossible to awaken a hearty interest in mere style independent of the thought, as the futile attempts to teach the art of composition as a mere thing of verbal expression have proved. Composing when thus

taught must necessarily be regarded as a drudgery and be shunned instinctively with strong aversion. It is otherwise when the thought is the main thing regarded. There is to every mind a pure and elevated pleasure in inventing. There is a pleasure in expressing thoughts that have sprung into being from one's own creative intellect; of embodying them in appropriate forms of language. How different are the feelings with which a schoolboy contemplates the task of writing a composition which must contain so many words, whatever be true of the ideas, and the work of writing a letter to communicate some conviction of his own mind, some wish, some intelligence! It cannot be questioned that it is to the exclusion of invention from our systems of rhetoric that the neglect into which the art has fallen is chiefly to be ascribed. The prejudices against it are also mainly to be attributed to this defective and incorrect view of the art.*

*It is worthy of note that the most popular system of rhetoric now in use in the English language, that of Dr. Whately, owes nearly all its excellence and its reputation as an original work to the circumstance that it embraces, in the First Part, a brief and imperfect view of this branch of the art.

FIRST GENERAL DIVISION.

INVENTION.

GENERAL VIEW.

CHAPTER I.

OF THE NATURE AND PARTS OF INVENTION.

§ 36. RHETORICAL INVENTION is the art of supplying the requisite thought in kind and form for discourse.

§ 37. It embraces Invention Proper or the mere supply of the thought, and Arrangement or Disposition.

The propriety of regarding Arrangement as a part of the process of invention and not as a department of rhetoric, coördinate with Invention and Style, may be seen from several points of view.

In the first place, the principle of division that has been adopted, by which rhetoric is regarded as embracing the two elements of invention or the supply of thought, and of style or the expression of thought in language, at once compels to this treatment of arrangement. The two elements of thought and verbal expression are both essential elements, and are the only elements, of discourse. It would be unphilosophical to introduce another principle of division, which would be necessary in order to admit disposition or arrangement as a distinct constituent part of the art of rhetoric.