Cicero and Westboro

Cicero illustrates many points in which the rhetor has a great amount of responsibility. For instance: "No man can speak, without the direst disgrace, on a subject which he has not mastered" (322). Reflecting Aristotle's ideas, it is fair to say that many great rhetoricians favored this idea that one should never speak on a matter of which he does not know everything without being mistaken for a fool. Cicero also speaks on how it is the rhetor's duty to first secure the "favor of the audience" (328). "Now nothing in oratory... is more important than to win for the orator the favor of his hearer, and to have the latter so affected as to be swayed by something resembling a mental impulse of emotion, rather than by judgement or deliberation" (328). A question this rises for me, however, is the practicality of being able to win the favor of ALL of the hearers... or is it a more reasonable goal to aim for the favor of MOST of our hearers?  Cicero then goes on to highlight on the importance of a positive demeanor when addressing a crowd, "It is very helpful to display the tokens of good-nature, kindness, calmness, loyalty, and a disposition that is pleasing and not grasping or covetous, and all the qualities belonging to men who are up-right" (329).

All of these points bring to mind for me the use of rhetoric by Westboro Baptist Church. For the most part, the members of this church are related to the founder, Fred Phelps. They employ a rhetoric that is aggressive, abrasive, and for the most part, ignorant and unfounded. Their public outcries are rarely successful in bringing in new members. To me, this is a perfect example of how Westboro slights their responsibility as a rhetor and consequently, how to NOT gain public favor.

You like me!

Cicero certainly understood the need to secure the favor of the audience and spends a great deal of Book II of De Oratore expounding upon this need. 

While Cicero seems to have adopted much of Aristotle’s ideal of striving for truth and knowledge, he does not seem to be above creating a sympathetic character if it is to the orator’s benefit. “Now nothing in oratory, Catulus, is more important than to win for the orator the favour of his hearer, and to have the latter so affected as to be swayed by something resembling a mental impulse or emotion, rather than by judgement or deliberation. For men decide far more problems by hate, or love, or lust, or rage, or sorrow, or joy, or hope, or fear, or illusion, or some other inward emotion, than by reality, or authority,or any legal standard, or judicial precedent, or statute." (328).

Cicero is definitely on to something here. We all know that being likable and creating empathy are hugely important in the court room or on the campaign trail. Juries are less likely to acquit an individual they despise even if strong evidence of a crime does not exist. And certainly voters aren’t clamoring at the polls to elect a candidate they can’t “connect with” even if they have similar beliefs. 

And when was the last time you went to a sappy chick flick that didn’t have likable characters. As an audience we don’t even seem to be bothered if the characters are completely unbelievable and unrealistic. Cicero acknowledges that creating a likable character from whole cloth is not ideal but sometimes ya gotta do what ya gotta do. “Now feelings are won over by a man's merit, achievements or reputable life, qualifications easier to embellish, if only they are real, than to fabricate where non- existent." (329).

De Oratore book II and III

Cicero's approach to rhetoric in book II is similar to that of book I. In the section labeled "The speaker must himself feel the emotions he wishes to excite;" (330) Cicero talks about evoking emotion within his readers. He claims to truly evoke positive or negative emotion within an audience, the orator himself must also align with those emotions; "I give you my word that I have never tried, by any means of a speech, to arouse either indignation or compassion, either ill-willed or hatred, in the minds of a tribunal, without being really stirred myself.." (330) This speaks to me as audience member and an orator, because I think it is often times hard to evoke emotion in an audience unless the orator speaks exceptionally well and expresses his or her idea thoroughly. An author speaking about her new book embodies that emotion, and the credibility of the feelings she is attempting to evoke.

Cicero draws on the importance of the relationship between orator and audience on page 328; “ Now nothing in oratory, Catulus, is more important than to win for the orator, the favor of his hearer” (328). While this speaks to all orators, this stands out most in the context in which it was written.  Cicero himself, has won throughout book I,II, and III, the attention of Catulus, his “hearer”.

Copy and Influence

I found the opening of Book II held an interesting contradiction from Rhetorica ad Herennium.  The anonymous author of the latter work disagrees strongly with Cicero's views of copying.  While in the Herennium the author disparages the use of excessive quotations and influences, Cicero deems copying "a rule for practice."  I am quite inclined to agree with Cicero on this matter.  In Analytical essays good quotations can be extremely helpful in both clarification emphasis.  Perhaps, the anon author would claim quotations can't qualify as proofs like hard evidence,but they can still add emphasis and lucidity.  I find Cicero's opening to Book II even more pertinent as a creative writer.  "We show the student whom to copy, and to copy in such a way as to strive with all possible care to attain the most excellent qualities of his model."  I feel that there was a marked change for the better in my writing when I began plagiarizing shamelessly.  Drawing on other places for style, anecdotes, themes and methods can be truly effective ways to enrich your own personal voice and prose.  Cicero goes on to explain how through extensive practice outside elements, bits that have been copied, can be seamlessly folded into one's own work.  He concludes his advice on copying with a pertinent note.  His advice is to "be watchful in making [your] choice," of who to copy.  This is particularly difficult advice to follow because matters of style and prose are largely subjective.  Emulating good writing is difficult enough, but the important subjective task of choosing writers to copy makes the challenge even greater.

Different look at pathos

When we talk about pathos it's usually referring to the emotions the writer/speaker is trying to invoke in his or her audience.  While it is obvious I rarely think of the emotions of the speaker and the effects they have.  Cicero's section The speaker must himself feel the emotions he wishes to excite made me think of the speakers who are masters of manipulating the emotions of their audience.  Ones that quickly come to mind are Martin Luther King Jr, John F Kennedy, and Adolf Hitler.  Speakers with very different goals all had the emotions they wished to excite, "visibly stamped or rather branded on the advocate himself." (330 left column).  I feel this is a very important aspect of pathos which is often overlooked and rarely taught in schools.  Even in our class the reading of the Little Mermaid speech was set apart from the others by the speaker's emotions yet we barely touched on its effect.  While words have the ability to stir up emotions seeing how much the orator cares about those words could make the difference between going to war or not.

Means of securing favor of audience

I find it particularly interesting that Cicero warns against impassioned rhetoric here in favor of sounding "calm", "gentle", and "mild". He says that an audience is more easily won by someone who seems level and in control of his or her emotions. "But attributes useful in an advocate are a mild tone, a countenance expressive of modesty, gentle language, and the faculty of seeming to be dealing reluctantly and under compulsion with something you are eager to prove."(329) Basically, a calm, concise delivery is key here.
However, in the very next section, Cicero begins to talk about the importance of inspiring emotion into your audience, leaning them to agree with your own point by inspiring good feelings about it and by spreading bad feelings for the opposing opinion. This may be my own opinion here, but I feel like wild, impassioned speaking where the orator loses his/herself in the passion of the delivery is one of the most powerful tools available to any orator in order to inspire emotion.
It is rather hard to inspire indignance without raising your voice..

Copy Cat

Whether or not you are a country music fan, if you’ve been in Montana long enough, you may have come across the song, “Watching You” by Rodney Atkins, which is dedicated to that phenomenon of a child’s tendency to copy whomever he looks up to. Even though I don’t normally listen to country, I immediately thought of this song after reading these words: “we show the student whom to copy, and to copy in such a way as to strive with all possible care to attain the most excellent qualities of his model” (320). Antonius (who I think is speaking) adds that in the process of copying someone else, people will also easily pick up that other person’s faults (such as the boy in the video picking up his father’s swear words). I agree with him, and I don’t think this caution should be taken too lightly, even though it does seem common-sense.

Look at the activities or skills in which people commonly what to excel: sports, business, art, music, etc. Those who “make it to the top” in those areas do so by imitating the masters. Basketball players watch hours of footage from professional games; businessmen study the history and organization of successful corporations; artists learn the brush techniques of famous painters; musicians memorize the solos of expert performers. Even in our class, we sought to imitate different Aristotelian examples and the style of Gorgias’ “Encomium of Helen.” Yet throughout our copy-cat endeavors in rhetoric, we are bound to pick up practices that are probably less than ideal. However, I don’t know exactly what those might be yet, or even perhaps what to watch out for. What do you think are the aspects of rhetorical technique or theory that we might want to guard against?  

Cicero the Snarky Scholar

   While I missed Friday to chase ghosts in Bannack, you were all discussing Cicero. I haven't got the notes from Ian yet (Ian -- you did tell me you would take notes for me!), but based on the blog posts I've read so far, you all adored Cicero. I didn't necessarily dislike Cicero, but I did notice something that I haven't seen anyone make note of yet:

Cicero was a freaking asshole!

   I understand that this was a method of him exerting his ethos as an orator. He made others look bad so that he looked good (at least, that's what I got out of it.) I found myself giggling at his disses. Seriously! This guy was all:

Except, to the other dudes in De Oratore. I don't think Jon Snow was present.

Okay. Now that we've gotten that out of the way -- Let's take a look of some of my favorite burns:

   "For my part, if just now I were to want a complete novice trained up to oratory, I should rather entrust him to these untiring people, who hammer ay and night on the same anvil at their one and only task, for them to put into his mouth none but the most delicate morsels -- everything chewed and exceedingly small -- in the manner of wet nurses feeding baby-boys." (326).

Because, how could we possibly be entrusted to be intellectual beings if we are not a) boys, b) fed small amounts of information so as to be considered capable of understanding it, and c) Cicero is so far above where we lie on the academic spectrum.

 "Again, we see that the discovery of what to say is wholly insufficient, unless you can handle it when found." (328). 

"Socrates himself not having left a single scrap of writing. This is the source from which has sprung the undoubtedly absurd and unprofitable and reprehensible severance between the tongue and the brain, leading to our having one set of professors to teach us to think and another to teach us to speak." (335-6)

I'm going to go ahead and assume that Cicero was not a fan of Socrates.

"Moreover, the Stoics, of whom I by no means disapprove, I nevertheless dismiss..." (336). 

While he seemed to like the Stoics more, he wouldn't consider himself a "fan."

"...and by having brought into public life an amount of talent of which I am myself conscious..." (338).

But, God (A.K.A. Cicero) knows that Cicero knew the value of himself and his own work. This dude really knew what he was all about.


   The thing that kills me about these burns is that, in the context of when they were said, I'm sure few people were shocked other than the ones who were unfortunate enough to land on the other side of Cicero's opinion. If we were to say stuff like this in oratories, papers, etc, we would be immediately written off. What fascinates me is Cicero's lack of humility in his establishment of ethos, though he seems to rely heavily on appealing to pathos in his audience. In modern times, I feel like a much more delicate balancing act of humility in pride is put into play. Cicero was all about the pride. Make no mistake about that. Just take a look at the last paragraph of De Oratore:

"Consequently let us for our part allow your old Mr. Raven to hatch out his own chicks in the nest, so that they may fly abroad as annoying and tiresome bawlers, and permit some Pamphilus or other to sketch out a subject of this importance on his tapes, like a nursery game, and let us for our part within the narrow limits of the debate of yesterday and today unfold the function of the orator in its entirety, provided it be granted that the subject is so extensive that it might be supposed to fill all the volumes of the philosophers, books which non of those gentlemen have ever had in their hands." (339).

Well, done, Cicero. Well done. 

Acquire wide knowledge... or just create it?

Though perhaps a slightly atypical view of Cicero's De Oratore, I keep coming back to the Sophistic notion of the creation of knowledge within it. It might seem at first this writing shuns the notion; Cicero talks extensively about the importance of wide, honest knowledge for an orator to be effective. (Among numerous other places, pg. 312, "...that by the spoken word no man can kindle the feelings of his hearers, or quench them when kindled...unless he has gazed into the nature and the depths of everything, including human characters and motives..."

And yet repeated references instead lend a nearly godlike power to orators.

On page 313 Antonius voices that "the orator however by his words greatly magnifies and exaggerates the grievousness of such things as in everyday life are thought evils and troubles to be shunned, while he enlarges upon and beatifies by his eloquence whatever is commonly deemed delectable and desired..."
Though presented as more a method of the orator to an audience's pathos, it rings in a parallel context with notes of the creative writer embellishing and readjusting reality (or, even further removed, his or her perception of reality) into a new creation. In this case, however, the consequences are a bit direr, as this is not a work of fiction, but a speaker of perceived authenticity, spreading a personal view as truth.

On page 316 he continues of law: "...that learned lawyer was bound to come off victorious, who had been upheld, not by his own dexterity but by a stranger's, that is to say, not by legal knowledge but by eloquence..." In this example I feel what is essentially being demonstrated is that one individual's 'translation' of reality (i.e., the orator's understanding of the lawyer's situation) is taken to be the general truth when another, perhaps even more 'knowledgeable' translation (in this case the lawyer who obviously knows the letter of the law backward and forward).

These examples point to some of the reasons why I think I'm feeling that the overarching opinion within the voices of De Oratore is not that knowledge makes for a good rhetor, as is outwardly displayed, but instead that eloquence and rhetoric make knowledge, through the ability to spread opinions or views (whether wholly true or not) as the more readily accepted general truth than truth itself. (See Mitch's most recent post, on science writing and writing about science, too.)


(ps. As many others are focusing on the scope of pathos in this text...
 Interestingly, on page 330 the discussion focuses on emotions needing to be authentically felt by an orator for an audience to feel them also. In some ways one could look at this as an orator being able to present a personal or false view as truth, but only if he or she personally believes it. Of course, the waters only muddy from there, as actors and liars {maybe the best orators of all?} can fake this so called 'required authenticity of belief', to achieve the same end as honest believers.)

Cicero, Psychology, and the Individual

Like everyone else, I really enjoyed reading about Cicero's focus on pathos; his insistence on the importance of appealing to the audience's emotions definitely strikes a universal and contemporary chord. It seemed very psychological, as though Cicero were trying to invade the brains of his audience, which is another instance of audience dictating the success of rhetoric and the influential role they play in the relationship between them and the orator."Now nothing in oratory... is more important than to win for the orator the favor of his hearer, and to have the latter so affected as to be swayed by something resembling a mental impulse of emotion" (328). While he continually makes references to mental reactions, does he think about the psychological reaction? Is there a difference between the two? I wonder what Cicero would have to say after taking Psych 101.

While he appeals to his audience on a deep emotional level, Cicero tends to treat his audience as one collective body, rather than as individuals. "... I scent out with all possible keenness their thoughts, judgments, anticipations, and wishes, and the direction in which they seem likely to be led away most easily by eloquence" (329). How does he do this if each audience member is different, as there is no possible way that each individual member of the audience harbors the same values and ideas? By drawing on overarching, general themes? By picking out one or two values (love, hope, or jealousy, to name a few from page 333), that are seen as universal to all? We can never satisfy every single person in our intended audience, though the talented Cicero sure makes us believe so in De Oratore.

Plato and Cicero

We’ve covered a ton of material up to this point, and De Oratore has been the most enjoyable for me so far.  Part of my reasoning for this is the user-friendly layout of the piece, letting us know the thesis before each article; it’s been a huge help in breaking down some of the density in these selections.  However, the main likeable factor in De Oratore is how it addresses the main issues of the orator, knowledge, and persuasion as defined in previous texts.  This post will focus on the similarities and differences between De Oratore and Gorgias.

Plato vs. Cicero- In Gorgias, Socrates basically says that oratory is not the acquisition of an entire body of knowledge, but rather that it is the art of persuasion.  In contrast, Cicero claims that the ideal orator “needs a wide education.” (299a, heading)  I find both of these points to be necessary for a successful orator, however I side a little more with Socrates on this.  A skilled persuader can coax an audience into believing that he is knowledgeable even if he is not, but a solely knowledgeable person has no tools to convey their knowledge without persuasion.

Plato in alliance with Cicero- Both figures consider whether or not oratory is an art form, and they agree that it is not.  In Gorgias, Socrates states that, “it is not an art, but a habitude, since it has no account to give of the real nature of the things it applies, and so cannot tell the cause of any of them.” (98b) In support of this, Antonius reasons that oratory cannot be considered an art because it is reliant upon opinion more than it is reliant on knowledge.

     

The Emotional & Ethical

I found De Oratore to be one of the most pleasant reads we’ve had thus far, and I found myself more able to relate. Similar to other posts on Cicero, I, too, was drawn toward the use of pathos in rhetoric. At first, I was especially drawn toward the fact that "the speaker must himself feel the emotions he wishes to excite" because I think that gives the orator ethos in itself; doing the research to know which emotions to use and which emotions would be most effective could be pretty tricky. I find ethos and credibility to be tied to eloquence in this sense. Tracing back to our discussion on Friday, using eloquence and the emphasis on education and learnedness allows for the orator to be more of a common person and to empathize with his audience, putting the audience on the same plane as himself (where the orator is as affected by his speech as he wishes his audience to be).

 I also liked that, on page 333, the heading was "Rules and cautions for emotional oratory," because emotions do have the power to swing a person, and the orator must be careful not to rely too heavily on emotions to persuade the hearers: "For, if you glorify the doing of something ruinous or unprofitable to your particular audience, hate is engendered."  One should not employ pathos if it is to compensate for not having enough knowledge on the subject to use logos or ethos; pathos should be "awakened if the hearer can be brought to apply to his own adversities," which also returns to the topic of knowing one's audience. And, as Antonius told us, "nothing in oratory ... is more important than to win for the orator the favor of his hearer" (328).

Cicero and Emotions

“Moreover it is impossible for the listener to feel indignation, hatred, or ill-will, to be terrified of anything, or reduced to tears of compassion, unless all those emotions, which the advocate would inspire in the arbitrator, are visibly stamped or rather branded on the advocate himself” (p. 330, column I).

The appeal to pathos has been a topic of discussion throughout previous readings, and I’m sure it will continue to be. As we have seen already through other discussions, different rhetoricians held varying opinions about the appeal to pathos, but it was always a focus just like ethos and logos. As I read the above quote I had to agree with the fact that I am more likely to believe what someone is saying, or a point being made, if the tone of the oratory matches the emotion(s) being portrayed. “The orator must bring considerable knowledge to the rhetorical situation, even knowledge well beyond what the particular situations calls for” (p. 35). Knowing how to persuade an audience through pathos, as well as ethos and logos, is a way of bringing considerable knowledge to the rhetorical situation.

From the readings we have done I do understand the importance of ethos and logos, but for me I find I can relate to pathos more. Maybe that is because as a human I am forced to feel emotions whether I want to or not and am easily persuaded by my emotions. But as an “ideal orator” my response to the rhetoricians’ approach to pathos would be desirable.

The Appropriate and Audience

Of the texts we have read so far, I think that Cicero's work has the most interesting take on style and its connection to audience. In Orator, Cicero tells us of what he sees as the three styles of speech (plain, middle, and vigorous) but notes that "the man who controls and combines these three varied styles needs rare judgment and endowment" (339). This is because "nothing is harder than to determine what is appropriate" (Cicero 339). Cicero then specifically notes that this difficulty occurs both in speaking and in writing both poetry and prose (339).

When speaking to any audience, it is vital to first determine what type of audience it is and then adjust style accordingly. If the style chosen is inappropriate, the speaker or writer is doomed to alienating the audience before he or she even begins. And that is an issue of the utmost significance. In De Oratore, Antonius explains that "nothing in oratory ... is more important than to win for the orator the favor of his hearer" (Cicero 328). If a speaker uses the same style for a political speech on television that he does while chilling with his friends at the local pub, his audience is likely to be surprised and disgruntled. Not much favor won there. And so the impact of the entire speech declines significantly.

Now that I either have taken or am in the process of taking all of the writing courses required for graduation plus a few, I feel rather secure in saying that, for me, the writing major has been more about addressing the appropriateness and audience issue than anything else. We have devoted almost no time to grammar and specific details about certain kinds of writing are usually forgotten. However, what I try desperately not to forget is how each piece of writing must be adjusted for its intended purpose and audience, just like the graphic included in this post indicates. All the types of writing we do and all the different audience scenarios we are given have helped me learn how to adjust my writing in this way. For an example, check out my own or other posts. My diction, grammatical constructions, and other elements of craft are utilized differently here than they would be in, say, a research paper. Because y'all don't want to read that here, and I know it.

We Know What Makes a Good Orator, but...

One thing that struck me in the sections that we found interesting on Friday was the fact that we looked at what makes a good orator; however, we merely touched upon the "pressures" that go into this type of speaking. The section that I found something to speak to the topic of such pressures lie in Crassus' and company's discussion upon the requirements of the orator (Bk. 1: XXV). Cicero writes, "For there is hardly a soul present but will turn a keener and more penetrating eye upon defects in the speaker than upon his good points. Thus any blunder that may be committed eclipses even those other things that are praiseworthy" (305). This also relates to the discussion about one’s reputation in society, which still seems relevant today in the public sphere of news and politics. One example (though it changes for the better in the end) could be found in King George VI and his stammer; to wit, the Commonwealth and the British Empire looked upon his failures to speak effectively within public and airwave-based settings. While much of this occurred early within and prior to his career on the throne, it remains important to identify that while his good points may have been present, the delivery and "blunders" as Cicero marks, seem to eclipse it and affect public opinion. 

While reading through Cicero, I was often reminded of Gorgias and his thoughts concerning language and their powers that can ensnare people’s emotions. It made me think about constructing and manipulating our language use for the specific purpose at which one speaks. in the last reading Orator, Cicero goes into detail what type to use that’s highly dependent upon one’s audience and the occasion. These elements seem to coincide with what Aristotle stated before but without as many classifications. I thought it was interesting how he subdivided and made distinctions within them, especially in his first section that marked the effectiveness which seems to be connected with the language use and intent. “He will not represent the State as speaking or call the dead from the lower world, nor will he crowd a long series of iterations into a single period” (341: left hand column). “A speech of this kind should also be sprinkled with the salt of pleasantry, which plays a rare part in speaking” (341: left hand column). To this end, I am reminded even more of Aristotle’s Rhetoric and his theories about emotions and the inciting of them through speech which Cicero continues to do in Orator. 

Jargon and Emotions

Although Cicero presents a wide range of rhetorical topics that could be easily discussed, one in particular stood out to me: “Now nothing in oratory … is more important than to win for the orator the favor of his hearer, and to have the latter so affected as to be swayed by something resembling a mental impulse of emotion, rather than by judgment or deliberation” (p.328, Column 1). The more I am around other people, the more I realize that they are emotional wrecks, meaning: they use their emotional judgment with regards to everything. 

Logic seems to rarely enter the minds of readers when their emotions are involved in decision-making. This does not necessarily mean that they will make bad decisions, but I do believe they can be easily persuaded. According to the internet (which is always reliable), Plato stated “All learning has an emotional base” (Plato). If so, which I believe it is, the audience’s emotions may be one of, if not the most important aspect of oratory.  

I realize that ethos and logos are very important and can have powerful effects of persuasion upon an audience, but I do not believe they are always the most effective. For example: in science writing, there are many articles written by scientists themselves and others written by science writers. The articles written by scientists usually contain a specific jargon, rarely understood by the public majority; the ones written by science writers usually dumb-down their work and add a special flare of emotional tidbits to excite their readers. The first usually effects other scientists greatly, due to the use of logos and ethos; the second, full of pathos, has the ability to effect nearly all readers.

To further illustrate this topic, Ed Yong, a writer for discover magazine, adds:

Whenever I compile my list of weekly links, I usually end up with more articles from mainstream news sources than I do from science blogs. When I do link to blogs, I tend to go with those written by professional journalists and science writers than those written by scientists. That’s not a reflection on the quality of their writing. I do it simply because I write this blog for a general audience and I want to direct them to material of a similar type. And a lot of science blogs can be far too opaque for the average reader (Ed Yong).

This example does not go into complete detail about pathos, logos, and ethos—but it does portray the effect jargon has on an audience. In fact, jargon might be the main factor that keeps pathos from affecting the audience. 

How to Fake It?

"Now feelings are won over by a man's merit, achievements or reputable life, qualifications easier to embellish, if only they are real, than to fabricate where non existent" (Cicero 329, top left column).

Cicero believed that one of the purposes and functions of oratory and rhetoric was to 'manipulate human feelings and capture good will'(Forest of Rhetoric). If we are to understand that these are the 'ends', to reference Aristotle, then Cicero claims that one of the ways we achieve that in book one is through the use of the appeals, which in the quoted section above he describes- insinuating that perhaps we are to adapt our speech (or composition) to fit the circumstances of our need, creating an ethos, perhaps, that is undeserved? He goes on in the same section to say that manners of achieving this is through a mild tone, modesty, gentile language choice and 'seeming to be dealing reluctantly'. I just can't get over how manipulative and deceptive these sound- no wonder Cicero was the best lawyer in Rome!

Though I concede that I can understand his point about emphasis on certain...attributes... I still get the vibe from this portion of that text that he seems to be overly concerned with reaching that 'end' and not enough concerned with truth... What would the Sophists say?

*
On another note entirely, Orator was not assigned but I still really liked it and felt compelled to comment:
On pages 341 and 342 of Cicero's Orator there is a really nice conversation about the difference between Allegory and Metaphor (Metonymy/Hypallage) that explains the classical roots of the use of figures of speech- fascinating stuff! Probably the most detail I've ever wanted to know about word transfer, though I appreciate that his rhetoric is straightforward and that we are working under the "how-to" genre that remains clear and (relatively) concise.
For the rest of you who are still interested, I like this site for more on parts of speech because "a gorilla with a banana is a gorilla with appeal": http://www.funbrain.com/grammar/