'Images of Perfection'
Texts: Cicero, 'Of Oratory', Richey Edwards explains his Holy Bible

Song lyrics, while often obviously rhetoical, lack a certain validity within Cicero’s definition of oratory. Cicero makes a point in ‘Of Oratory’ to distinguish between eloquence and rhetoric, eloquence being the purely artistic form of language, the purely aesthetic, and rhetoric being (in its most stripped form) the purely through-oriented goal of bringing an audience to conviction (p. 207). The lyrics of the Manic Street Preachers have a tendency to bypass their audience entirely by being too poetic, thus requiring explanations, which are even more obviously rhetorical since they are less aesthetic versions of the song lyrics themselves. In describing his art, Richey Edwards makes his own thought process as a rhetorician apparent.

The most important point to bring up regarding Edwards is not a lack of eloquence – an element of style that predominates throughout his art, and even his life – but his refusal to perform a change of language which Cicero deems so natural and necessary to the practice of oratory. Eloquence itself is difficult to define. Cicero does so by proclaiming that ‘good speakers bring… a style that is harmonious, graceful, and marked by a certain artistry and polish’ (p. 207). However, in addition to this, he writes, ‘For all the kinds of language we ourselves [orators Crassus, Antonius, and Scaevola] use in public speaking are changeable matter, and adapted to the general understanding of the crowd’ (p. 215). These points can be combined to mean that an orator must be artistic and intriguing enough to keep the audience’s attention, but not so oblique as to lose all connection. For it remains that people cannot connect very well with an argumentative point unless it sustains some kind of relevance to their own lives; otherwise it is seen as an airy impossibility, rooted in nothing. Antonius explicates this in a reflection of Crassus’ argument, bringing the point to a more realistic resolution, in the tradition of his realistic debate: ‘I held anyone to be an accomplished speaker who could deliver his thought with the necessary point and clearness before an everyday audience, and in accord with what I might call the mental outlook of the average human being’ (p. 213).

The inherent problem with this requirement for oratory is that an ‘ideal’ orator, skilled in everything, is not an ‘average human being’, and thus, like Edwards, does not think like one. It is difficult to know how to dumb yourself down, so to speak, when your mind is mired in knowledge that most people do not have. Of the song ‘Archives of Pain’, Edwards writes, ‘Bentham’s “Panopticon” – visibility is a trap. Foucault – savagery is necessary. Is revenge justified? Nothing in common with Manson or Dahmer cult and its current fashionability. There is no glory in innocent death.’ While perfectly eloquent by Cicero’s vague standards – even rhythm and random reference fall perfectly in their own poetic line – the ‘average human being’, or ‘the crowd’ that Cicero speaks of would be wondering what on earth brought Edwards to the conclusion that there is ‘no glory in innocent death’. It is a highly educated individual who can even recognize the references to Bentham and Foucault, and an obscenely literary one who comprehends their relevance to innocent death. Edwards obviously relates his ideas to one another on a different plane than most people – both in reference and in style. Short, choppy sentences and incomplete thoughts prove that what Edwards considers to be ‘explanatory’ of his lyrical poetry remains in the realm of his above-average mental capability. One can occasionally grasp a strand of what he is conveying, as in the explication of the lyric for ‘She is Suffering’: ‘In other Bibles and Holy Books no truth is possible until you empty yourself of desire. All commitment otherwise is fake/lies/economic convenience.’ Even so, it takes someone familiar with doctrines of Buddhism, and other religions in which ‘salvation is purity’, which Edwards speaks of, to personally connect with the rhetoric his is communicating. If an orator must fully understand every matter on which he speaks, then he will be, in effect, speaking to himself.

Richey Edwards, however, reinvents the role of the perfect rhetorician by taking this very route of extreme education and putting people into a state of awe instead of understanding. It is difficult to deny Edwards’ intelligence on a great deal of political, cultural, and literary matters, just as Cicero requires for the ideal orator: ‘… the complete and finished orator is he who on any matter whatever can speak with fullness and variety’ (p. 208). While the nature of the phrase ‘any matter whatever’ can be debated extensively, a temporary, sensical definition will be given: it must the canon of someone who is universally considered to be ‘well-read’. Edwards’ canon includes everything from popular films (‘Edward Scissorhands Avon Lady’) to the cult of fashion (‘Kate – Moss, Kristin – McMenamy, Emma – Blafour, Karen – Sky Agony Aunt’) to the Bible (‘Liviticus used by homophobes to justify their hatred’). His status of being incredibly knowledgable and well-informed has never been called into question. The question is whether his words make enough basic sense to enough people to mean something, for Edwards refuses to bow to the lowest common denominator, as Cicero assums is natural for the orator to do.

Edwards revises the role of the ideal orator by becoming someone people truly view as an ideal: uncomprehending of some of his decrees, or at least utterly confused by them, many choose to believe that his superior knowledge is proof that he must be right. Edwards is just oblique enough, and entirely poetic enough, to get his audience slightly perplexed but nevertheless impressed by what he says. A great orator, therefore, must make an impression. In ‘Of Oratory’, Scaevola implies that Cicero’s ideal of oratory is essentially impossible in reality: ‘… if such a [man] there should be, or indeed ever has been, or really ever could be…’ (p. 210). If there ‘ever really could be’ an ideal orator, he or she would, like Edwards, simply infuse the populace with an overarching sense of awe rather than understanding. And as the public is wont to do, they would most likely deify the orator, who would be given a state of ultimate glory through ultimate knowledge. Richey Edwards himself gave rise to a group of fans known as the ‘Cult of Richey’ who, ignorning every other member of the Manic Street Preachers, essentially worshipped Edwards as an icon, too brilliant and perceptive to truly be a part of this world.

Antonius and Scaevola claim that the notion of an ideal orator is impossible, that such an eloquent and omnisicent individual is entirely unable to exist. The impossible logic of an omniscient person existing is well illustrated in Richey Edwards, for the fact remainds that he was severely depressed, self-injuring, anorexic, and alcoholic. Such a wealth of knowledge takes its toll on any person; the treatise that ‘ignorance is bliss’ may be a cliché, but it manifests itself in the truth more often than not. Cicero decrees that an all-knowing and artistic rhetorician be someone to aspire to, but this is not a real human being, nor can it be. Richey Edwards vanished in 1995 and has not been seen in over eight years. Perhaps his disappearance ultimately proves that the perfect orator is a myth, an ideal, someone who can only be imagined for the purposes of comparison.


back to essays