Enthymeme (EN-thuh-MEEM, from Greek en- = in + thymos
= mind) means literally "having in mind." This etymology
informs the discussion in Aristotle's Rhetoric,
which identifies enthymemes as the kind of argumentation
proper to oratory. Aristotle does not fully define the term,
but he describes it as "a sort of syllogism." As distinct from
"the syllogism of strict logic" used in dialectical
argumentation, the enthymeme is looser, more inferential. The
orator omits to state certain claims which he assumes that his
hearers will readily supply: "The enthymeme must consist of
few propositions, fewer often than those which make up the
normal syllogism. For if any of these propositions is a
familiar fact, there is no need even to mention it; the hearer
adds it himself" (1.2, trans. W. Rhys Roberts). People already
have such things "in mind," so the speaker can work his
persuasion in an relaxed, common-sense way, not in the exact
manner of a logician.
Enthymemes of this sort are used all the time to persuade
someone to think or do something. A wife tells her departing
husband, "Take an umbrella, dear––they say it could rain this
afternoon." She does not feel it necessary to state the
implicit proposition, often called a "minor premise," that
people who get caught in the rain without umbrellas get wet.
The Dude tells the debt collector pushing his head in the
toilet that he is not the Lebowski with a wife named Bunny:
"Do I look like I'm fucking married? The toilet seat's up,
man!" He sees no need to point out that wives train their
husbands to keep the seat down. Mark Antony says of Caesar, "I
thrice presented him a kingly crown, / Which he did thrice
refuse. Was this ambitious?" (JC 3.2.96-97). It goes
without saying, he assumes, that no ambitious person would
turn down an offer of kingship.
In each of these examples, the speaker states the conclusion
that he or she wants the hearer to accept (take your umbrella,
I'm not married, Caesar wasn't ambitious). Bloom's strategy is
different. Instead of saying that it's payday, so you can pay
back that loan, leaving out the minor premise (the cashier's
still in the office), he leads with that premise ("If you
want to draw the cashier is just going to lunch"),
omitting both the major premise and the conclusion. Such
indirection is typical of the insecure and deferential Bloom,
and he pays for his timidity: Hynes never returns his money on
June 16. But even if Bloom's rhetorical craft is inept, Gilbert
is right to call this sentence an enthymeme, since it attempts
to persuade implicitly, with a truncated argument. And Joyce
listed the technique of Aeolus as "Enthymemic" in the
schema
that he gave to Gilbert, so one would expect to find at least
one example of this device in the chapter.
Sam Slote (who discusses only this one rhetorical figure in Aeolus
in any detail, briefly mentioning several others) parses its
logic differently: "By saying 'if you want to draw money' (the
initial premise), Bloom is trying to get Hynes to acknowledge
the unstated and implied minor premise, in order to repay
me. The logical consequence of these two premises is
that you should go to the cashier now. Of course Hynes
would like to avoid repaying Bloom and so the performance
fails to persuade him towards this action." This seems to me
mistaken in several ways, the chief one being that it confuses
the conclusion of the syllogism with its middle premise. Bloom
does not want to persuade Hynes simply to visit the cashier,
but to repay what he has borrowed. He does fail in this
purpose (Hynes would rather buy drinks in Barney Kiernan's),
but not because, as Slote suggests, he cannot convince Hynes
to "go to the cashier now." The novel suggests that
Hynes needs no convincing on that score:
— Did you? Hynes
asked.
— Mm, Mr Bloom said. Look
sharp and you'll catch him.
— Thanks, old man, Hynes
said. I'll tap him too.
He hurried on eagerly towards
the Freeman's Journal.
That Hynes does indeed draw his salary is shown unambiguously in
Cyclops, when he stands a round and explains that he got
the money from the
Freeman at Bloom's urging: "Sweat of
my brow.... 'Twas the prudent member gave me the wheeze." If
Bloom had directly stated the actual conclusion of his
syllogism––
please repay me today––Hynes might have found
it harder to deny him.
Seidman
finds one more enthymemic expression in Aeolus: the
professor's "We are liege subjects of the catholic chivalry
of Europe that foundered at Trafalgar." He observes that
MacHugh's sentence masks an implicit premise: "if the combined
fleets of France and Spain had not been defeated at Trafalgar,
Napoleon would have invaded and defeated England." This seems
plausible. MacHugh is trying to instill in his hearers the
lamentable conviction that Irish Catholics might have been
part of a larger European order of Catholic aristocratic
powers. He states the major premise: France and Spain lost to
Admiral Nelson. He omits the minor one: if they had prevailed,
a path to conquer England would have lain open to Napoleon.