The Oldest Extant Rhetorical Contribution to the Study of Fallacies (Cicero On invention, 1.78–96, and Rhetoric to Herennius, 2.31–46: Reducible to Hermagoras?)

The Oldest Extant Rhetorical Contribution to the Study of Fallacies

(Cicero On invention, 1.78–96, and Rhetoric to Herennius, 2.31–46: Reducible to Hermagoras?)

1. Introduction

The revival of the study of fallacies since Hamblin's modern classic Fallacies (1970) has signified a renewed interest in the history of this field. If we consider Aristotle the founding father, then three classical disciplines may be said to represent the origin of the study of fallacies: logic, dialectic, and rhetoric. Aristotle included in his logical, dialectical, and rhetorical writings a version of his list of fallacies: Prior Analytics 2, 16–21, Sophistical Refutations, and Rhetoric 2.24. With respect to the three classical disciplines, modern fallacy theorists display a greater interest in logic and dialectic. This holds true for both historical research and modern theoretical development, which is clearly more logically and/or dialectically oriented (for example, Hamblin himself, Woods and Walton, and Van Eemeren and Grootendorst: overview in Van Eemeren 2001).

This predilection for logic and dialectic is understandable, since rhetoric focuses only in part on argumentation and is basically a popular discipline. In another respect, however, rhetoric would appear to be quite appropriate for the study of fallacies (and for the study of argumentation in general). In logic, where everything centers on the formal relation between premises and conclusion, many aspects of the argumentative situation are disregarded. While in the dialectical approach this is not as apparent, in this case we are still dealing with more or less artificial situations, debate contests without real social relevance. Only the rhetorical approach concentrates on normal argumentation in important social settings. Even if one cannot expect profound learning, rhetoric has the advantage that where argumentation is concerned, it does not tend to abstract a great number of factors.

Two major considerations call for the rhetorical approach. First, assuming that further research into this subject will produce sufficiently interesting results, the history of this field can be substantially expanded. Contributions based on the classical rhetorical point of view could be combined with insights from the classical logical and dialectic approaches, both in overviews and in case studies of specific fallacies. And second, the relatively recent modern study of fallacies, historical-rhetorical research is of more than mere historical interest. It can also complement the dominant logical and dialectical approach and, in particular, enrich the detailed studies on specific fallacies, especially "rhetorical" ones.

See, for example, the treatment of ad hominem in recent studies. First, writers addressing the origins of the study of fallacies tend to disregard classical rhetoric, preferring to focus on logic and dialectic. For example, in their examination of the roots of the argumentum ad hominen, Nuchelmans (1993) and Chichi (2002) do not discuss the oldest extant rhetorical handbook, the Rhetoric to Alexander, dating from around 340 BC. This represents a lost opportunity, for the book is full of recommendations for speakers on how to respond to various forms of the argumentum ad hominen, in particular the tu quoque variant. Second, in the much-debated modern issue of the existence of acceptable forms of ad hominem (see, for example, Van Eemeren and Grootendorst 1992a) the rhetorical perspective emerges as more relevant than the logical or dialectical point of view. The ad hominem is not a matter of logic, whereas this kind of attack appears far more frequently in rhetorical discussions than in dialectical ones.

Although the contribution of the classical rhetorical approaches may go beyond mere historical interest, the present article is on the whole historically oriented. Before discussing the actual relevance of classical rhetorical contributions for the study of fallacies, it must first be established whether the expected contributions do indeed appear, and what their scope is. My comments on the relevance of the results for modern research will be reserved for the concluding section.

The considerable...