Praeteritio

Praeteritio (pronounced pry-te-rit-ee-oh) is an ironic and clever rhetorical device. It is Latin for “omission, passing over,” and is also known by its less common Greek name, paralepsis. 

Malcolm X in 1964, after his pilgrimage to Mecca

One of the chief effects of praeteritio is humor based on the irony of declaring not to say something while saying that very thing you promise not to say. However, it can be anything but comedic.

It can also be used to say things without saying them, including threats.  Let’s look at two examples, namely Mark Antony's famous speech at the funeral of Julius Caesar and Malcolm X. 

What is praeteritio?

Praeteritio is a rhetorical device where the speaker describes what they will not say and, in the process, ironically does just that. It combines false modesty with humor and taking jabs at an opponent. The most famous example of the device is its use by Mark Antony in Caesar's funeral speech.

1. Mark Antony’s Speech at Caesar’s funeral

The first is Mark Antony’s speech at Caesar's funeral. Let’s take a look at the relevant parts of the speech in full. Shakespeare, Julius Caesar, Act III, Scene 2: 

I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him.

The evil that men do lives after them;

The good is oft interred with their bones;

So let it be with Caesar. The noble Brutus

Hath told you Caesar was ambitious:

If it were so, it was a grievous fault,

And grievously hath Caesar answer’d it.

Here, under leave of Brutus and the rest–

For Brutus is an honourable man;

So are they all, all honourable men–

Come I to speak in Caesar’s funeral.

He was my friend, faithful and just to me:

But Brutus says he was ambitious;

And Brutus is an honourable man.

He hath brought many captives home to Rome

Whose ransoms did the general coffers fill:

Did this in Caesar seem ambitious?

When that the poor have cried, Caesar hath wept:

Ambition should be made of sterner stuff:

Yet Brutus says he was ambitious;

And Brutus is an honourable man.

You all did see that on the Lupercal

I thrice presented him a kingly crown,

Which he did thrice refuse: was this ambition?

Yet Brutus says he was ambitious;

And, sure, he is an honourable man.

I speak not to disprove what Brutus spoke,

But here I am to speak what I do know.

You all did love him once, not without cause:

What cause withholds you then, to mourn for him?

The entire speech is praeteritio, with two main themes — 1. the righteousness of Caesar and 2. the villainy of Brutus.  Antony claims “I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him.” Then he proceeds to heap praise on Caesar. Anthony declares “For Brutus is an honorable man” and then proceeds to show just how villainous Brutus was for assassinating Caesar. 

Brutus planned for the entire speech to be nothing but a design for violence. He wanted to stir the Roman mob into riot and mutiny against the murderers of Caesar to upset the power balance, which after Caesar's death was fully in favor of Brutus and the conspirators.

O masters, if I were disposed to stir

Your hearts and minds to mutiny and rage,

I should do Brutus wrong, and Cassius wrong,

Who — you all know — are honorable men.

I will not do them wrong. I rather choose

To wrong the dead, to wrong myself and you,

Than I will wrong such honorable men.

The above excerpt is an excellent example of praeteritio. Antony declares every intention of stirring violence and mutiny against Julius Caesar's conspirators in the negative, with the ironic effect of whetting the crowd's appetite for violence against the conspirators even more. He refers to the rabble as "masters."

And for good reason. In times of turmoil in Ancient Rome, a riotous crowd was even more dangerous than a well-armed and well-financed army. They were masters who were used and manipulated effectively by Antony to win power back from Brutus and the conspirators.

2. Malcolm X (1962):

Malcolm X was a Black leader and activist who frequently spoke out against the lack of civil rights and police abuse against African Americans. His style and methods frequently contrasted with that of another Civil Rights leader of that time, Martin Luther King. 

King is famous for giving us one of the most famous examples of anaphora with the “I have a dream” speech. The speech works for King; however, with that type of rhetoric, there is a significant chance of things going wrong, as the style is too high or “lofty.” It might turn off listeners. 

In the case of Malcolm X and his speeches, there is no such risk. He speaks plainly and isn’t afraid of shielding his listeners — especially White listeners — from the threat of retaliatory violence they are courting in their bad treatment of African Americans. Here is an excerpt from one of his speeches: 

And I for one as a Muslim believe that the white man is intelligent enough, if he were made to realize how black people really feel, and how fed up we are, without that old compromising sweet-talk. Stop sweet-talking him. Tell him how you feel. Tell him what kind of hell you been catching, and let him know that if he’s not ready to clean his house up, if he’s not ready to clean his house up…he shouldn’t have a house. It should catch on fire and burn down.

The veiled threat at the end of the speech can hardly be described as veiled. Nonetheless, what goes unspoken is the threat of open revolt or rebellion — riots that burn the house down. Praeteritio is the most effective when there is a common understanding between listeners. In the 1960s, there would have been a common understanding between Black Americans and White Americans — the threat of Black violence and riots against racial injustice.

Therefore hearing or seeing that speech delivered by Malcolm X at the time would have had either a sensational or chilling effect, depending on who was watching it:

Despite King frequently being contrasted with Malcolm X as being more peaceful and nonthreatening, the political crisis became so bad in 1966, one year after Malcolm's death, that he too was making veiled threats like Malcolm X, although more politely:

Martin Luther King, interview with Mike Wallace (1966):

I would say that every summer we’re going to have this kind of vigorous protest. My hope is that it will be nonviolent. I would hope that we can avoid riots because riots are self-defeating and socially destructive. I would hope that we can avoid riots, but that we would be as militant and as determined next summer and through the winter as we have been this summer.

Why writers use praeteritio

Praeteritio is used for many effects. Let’s take a quick look at them. 

1. To gain credit. The device tends to protect the speaker against charges of being too bold, rude, or gossip-prone. Lincoln was a big fan of this method. For example, Lincoln, speech at Springfield (1858):

He then quotes, or attempts to quote, from my speech. I will not say that he wilfully misquotes, but he does fail to quote accurately.

2. To let the imagination of the listener do the work. By leaving things unsaid the listener has to figure it out for themselves. This can create a closer connection with the ideas being expressed. 

3. To protect one’s self after making controversial statements. By not fully saying something, it is hard to get accused. For example, in the case of the Malcolm X speech, no one could accuse him of asking Black folk to riot by setting things on fire. He would have simply responded that the house in question was metaphorical. 

4. Amusement. Lastly, the irony in praeteritio is first and foremost ironic humor. Saying something while declaring that you have no intention of doing so is by definition funny. 

Examples of praeteritio

Trollope, The Last Chronicle of Barset (1867):

Am I to suppose that you intend to lower yourself by marrying a young woman who cannot possibly have enjoyed any of the advantages of a lady's education? I say nothing of the imprudence of the thing; nothing of her own want of fortune; nothing of your having to maintain a whole family steeped in poverty; nothing of the debts and character of the father, upon whom, as I understand, at this moment there rests a very grave suspicion of—of—of—what I'm afraid I must call downright theft."

Paine, The American Crisis (1783):

There are many other modes of retaliation, which, for several reasons, I choose not to mention. But be assured of this, that the instant you put your threat into execution, a counter-blow will follow it.

Lincoln, debate with Stephen Douglass at Jonesboro (1858): 

I don't know any other way to meet it, except this. I don't want to quarrel with him — to call him a liar — but when I come square up to him I don't know what else to call him, if I must tell the truth out.

The first example from Trollope is a classic example of saying exactly what you announce not to say. The second example from Paine is a variation of the veiled threat. And the last example from Lincoln is Praeteritio being used for comic effect while feigning politeness. 

References

Farnsworth, W. (2010). Farnsworth's Classical English Rhetoric. David R. Godine. 

---

Cite this EminentEdit article

Antoine, M. (2024, October 11). Praeteritio. https://www.eminentediting.com/post/praeteritio