An Analysis of Lectures on Rhetoric and Belle's Lettres: Looking at the Famous Work by Hugh Blair

This work is a compilation of almost 50 lectures that Hugh Blair gave on all aspects of the art of communication, rhetoric and oratory during his time as a teacher. There is not enough time in a three hour class to summarize all of them, so the best way to get the gist of what Blair was trying to say is to do an overview of the entire work. There are some universities that have entire classes devoted to the study of just this one work.

Blair had complete lectures on everything from eloquence to conduct to pronunciation to delivery and even an entire section devoted to metaphors. While many of his lectures focused on communication as a general proposition, or in everyday life, he also had a good number of lectures that focused strictly on poetry as well, illustrating his attempt to understand all forms of communication. He stated that this was an examination of, "the most distinguished species of composition, both in prose and verse."

The main reason for publishing this work was that Blair believed that if there were unauthorized copies floating around, then his legacy as a professor at the University of Edinburgh (where he was the Chair of Rhetoric) would be threatened. Most secondary sources on Blair note Lectures as the former professor's most important work. Some opinions state that this work makes Blair truly the first great theorist of written discourse due to the in depth nature of the lectures.

As a strict overview, Lectures is an illustration of Blair's understanding of both modern and classical theories of language. Throughout the work, Blair draws from other theorists such as Cicero and Quintilian to make his points. He was truly revolutionary though as he also used works of some of the theorists of his time to illustrate how communication can both stay the same and change throughout the centuries.

A key part of this work is that it may have been the first comprehensive guide that was published for written discourse, instead of oratory. Even though he does write about one's discourse in speech as well, he often compares the two and does focus in great length on the written word.

Along with the lectures, Blair also published Belles Lettres which illustrates a quest for upward mobility and social success for his students. He believed that it was extremely important for students to have an education in literature as well as theory because it would help to elevate their social status. He also believed that this went hand and hand with two of his larger lectures about virtue and morality due to the fact that all three are essential traits of one who wants to move up the social latter.

One of the points that is consistent through his works is that he claims a person must have virtue and a natural good personal character to be a good speaker or writer. He writes at length about that fact that one's true ideals shape their speech more than any education would ever be able to.

Perhaps the issue that Blair spends the most time on is eloquence as he presents three different lectures just on that topic. He considered eloquence of popular assemblies to be a different topic entirely than eloquence of the bar (or in court) or eloquence of the pulpit. While there were some similarities between the three, Blair felt it important to illustrate the differences to his students so they could excel in all platforms.

Popular assemblies: In this form, Blair believed that one's style had to be modified to meet those of the more common people. The argument also had to be presented in a more general manner, in order to keep the listeners involved. Even though that is the case, he did claim that the speaker, or writer, has to be careful to make sure they are still getting their point across.

The Bar: One could use more complicated language and style here because they were trying to form an argument in front of a more educated audience. This type of rhetoric should be the most organized, because it may be the most important in one's life depending on the situation.

Pulpit: This is where he believed eloquence was the hardest to reach because the reader or listener is expecting eloquence as soon as they open the door, or the cover of a person's work. Blair claims that one has to truly choose their language and style carefully in this sense and to make sure that every statement exudes the meaning they are trying to get across.

One of the qualities that Blair believed to be inherent in a person and not really something that could be taught was the taste of one's language. This, he believed, was important because it meant that one could naturally recognize the situation and would know how to react and speak to and about it.

It is evident in many parts of his work that Blair believes that the principles of rhetoric evolve more from the principles of nature than from anything else. This is no more evident than in his section on taste, when he states that the power of beauties of nature and art often give the same uplifting feeling. Taste was truly important to Blair as he claimed it was the foundation to rhetoric and that there was nothing more elementary (meaning pertinent) to the success of one's spoken or written word than their taste.

Like many of the other theorists, he also focused on language, which he believed to be extremely important for a good writer or speaker to have a good grasp on. Since he founded much of his lectures on eloquence, he stated that the language of the normal person was not the kind that would exude eloquence, although one is always to be cognizant of their audience.

Style, also, was very important to Blair. Since he was dealing more with the written word than any theorist before him, the style he lectured about had its differences. He stated that what may sound good in a speech, may not necessarily be good style when written down and one has to know how to modify their style when they are moving from one medium to another in order to stay on the same level.

Another important part of this work is Blair's analysis of the history of written discourse. Although he is believed to be the first real theorist to base his ideas primarily on the written word, Blair does give a good basis for where he got his ideas from in these works. Before this time, there was not a reliable history of any sort about this topic, so this is another way in which Blair was a pioneer.

Blair divided up the types of writing that he deemed to be important into four categories.

The first was historical writing. Which, as the title suggests, is when one is writing about history or events that have occurred in the past. This writing style is unique, he claims, due to the fact that one has to be very careful about the way they are presenting their facts and their argument since they are expecting their writing to be understood as the absolute truth. He claims that responsibility lies on the writer and they must be trusted to be able to carry the writing out to the most truthful extent.

The second kind of writing was philosophical writing. This writing had to be much different because one was trying to convince others of their own ideas. This mean that they had to sound eloquent while at the same time putting their idea in language that the people who they wanted to understand it could understand it. His critique on this kind of writing would have held true to those who were trying to make an argument about something or were proposing their own theory.

The third kind of writing he speaks about is fictitious history. While fact was very important to Blair, he did believe that things like fictitious history were important because they did serve a purpose (mainly entertainment although also some what educational). Writers in this situation would have to be careful to stay close to the truth, while still telling the fictitious story they want to get across. This means, according to Blair, that they must write in a style that is still respected, but that also makes it obvious that the writings are not all truthful.

The fourth kind of writing is poetry, where he also wrote about plays and the role of other entertaining works. In some ways, Blair felt these were the most important and the hardest to be good at because so many people were attempting them at that time. He felt anyone could be a decent poet, but to exude eloquence in this manner was truly a skill that not many possessed.

While Blair supported many of Aristotle's ideals, he did turn some heads by dismissing the idea of the trope as a figure of speech. Blair believed that a play on words such as this was not eloquent and was in no way the correct style to use in any type of writing or discourse.

Overall this work brings together the most elemental parts of literary and rhetorical theory while doing it in a way that is easy for people to understand. By putting it in a form such as this, Blair was able to make it so that no one would forget his teachings, which seemed very important to him.

Thoughts on the work: As stated earlier, Blair provides the audience with a prospective that they had never been introduced to before. While revolutionary in its day, it is still pertinent in today's world. The work is very repetitive and at times seems to overdue some of Blair's main points, but if one is to take his ideas at the surface, many of them are still important today. He probably challenged the ideas of the theorists that came before him more than anyone else in his time, which is still interesting, but he did not have to take the length that he did to cover the subjects that were present. It is certainly more useful to communication than not as it does make very valid points on topics still relevant today.

Information in this piece comes from Hugh Blair's work Lectures on Rhetoric and Belle's Lettres.