Rhetoric in praise of silence: The ideology of Carlyle's paradox

Abstract

The alleged death of rhetoric in nineteenth century, so often cited by historians of discipline, has always seemed paradoxical to Victorian scholars familiar with social conflicts of that century and volumes of deliberative discourse to which they gave rise. These comments on demise of rhetoric generally construe it as an academic discipline or as use of stylistic devices-definitions which have so limited research that Donald C. Stewart remarked in 1983 that the most notable feature of scholarship in nineteenth-century rhetoric is its relative absence (153).1 However, recent studies by James Berlin and Susan Jarratt have broadened investigation of rhetoric's history to include discussions of relationship between language, knowledge, and society.2 Jarratt's proposed revisionary history would investigate implicit theories of rhetoric in any texts which explore relation of knowledge to language as well as roles of community and authority in establishing truth and prescribing ethical behavior (Toward 11-14; Naming). In this essay, I wish to trace a theory of rhetoric and its ideological implications in work of Victorian prophet Thomas Carlyle.3 When estrangement between upper and lower classes caused by rise of capitalism became central subject of deliberative discourse, Carlyle gained a large readership through his incisive social criticism.4 His writing influenced an entire generation which included John Stuart Mill, Charles