Post 6 - How the Bible Changed Rhetoric

Fellow Classmates,

A trend that I am now seeing in our course readings and discussions is a shift from “what rhetoric is” to “what rhetoric does---i.e., what rhetoric’s place is in society.” In reading Herrick, Chapter 6, we are informed of the shift toward---and dominance of---religious rhetoric in Christian Europe, as evidenced specifically by Murphy’s quote on page 132 in Herrick: “the middle ages did not produce any major original works on secular speaking…”

I find this shift particularly interesting because of the parallel I see with Cicero’s ideas of rhetoric: he fused previous Greek philosophies in Rome---skill and wisdom, power and justice---drawing from both the Sophists and the non-Sophists. And he added his own new nuggets---like preemptive rebuttals and increased pathos appeals. Overall, in Rome, rhetoric was a means to social/political advancement.

In European-Christian rhetoric, we see yet another “mash up” idea, drawing largely from the Roman view of rhetoric and, to a lesser extent, the Greek view of rhetoric. Thanks to Augustine, we see moralness and justice emphasized (though in a Christian light), but, we also see a pursuit of ultimate truth. And, we also see some new things: like truth and knowledge as products of the divine (not capable of being man-made, but only “realized” and shared) and an increased use of metaphor. Overall, in Europe, rhetoric can be though of as means toward more/religious advancement.

However, the biggest transition that I was able to derive from the reading was the shift from long, cohesive, well-memorized oratories to fractionated ones in which the rhetor need only borrow individual pieces from the phronesis of the time which is also pointed out by Bizzell and Herzberg (see page 451)---namely things from Scripture. The rhetor allowed those sentences to stand on their own (sententiae), placing a great deal of stock in both the presumed ethos of the text and the audience’s valuation of the verse(s). Thus, Scripture, in Christian-Europe, was the ultimate authority, containing the highest koina. To me, because these arguments relied so heavily on the audience participation/agreement to fill in the gaps, making them part of the argument, I see, perhaps a stronger enthymemic-type approach than was present in earlier rhetoric.

I think this shift would have not have been possible without Scripture. For the first time, rhetoric had a single “book of authority” from which all arguments could be made. This constant was not evident in rhetoric previously. But, having this constant, made warrants easier to build and it allowed for an increased use of pathos, through both metaphorical and literal appeals, because of all the stories contained within the Bible. However, even with the common treatise in place, Augustine still prized eloquence and delivery---but only in a “connecting with the audience sense”---his logos was the Scripture verses themselves. Those were the truths.

So, I suppose my take-home point in this musing is that for the first time in rhetoric, we are seeing a defined/shared truth. If the audience is Christian, they believe in the Bible---thus, any number of arguments can be made logically and that logic can be made more enticing/easier to follow with eloquent delivery. If, however, the audience is not a Christian, that “bringing them into the fold” require a whole other approach. But, once they are in and believe in that shared warrant, then they, too, can be influenced by Scriptural references. So, for me, having that shared system (the Bible) from which make arguments from makes this different from the rhetoric we’ve looked at before.

Best,
Cris

Blog 5 - Cicero---Let's Not Forget Him!

Hello Classmates,

For my Web board this week, I would like to share some thoughts on Cicero. Indeed, as indicated in my last posting, we can see that he built on some of Aristotle’s ideas: he did more with pathos, and he formally introduced the idea of building a preemptive rebuttal right into the text/speech (addressing counter point). But, we also see some dissention from Aristotle’s views, too: particularly Cicero provides a slightly different take on the idea of the traits of an orator (eloquence + subject-matter knowledge---an expansion of and increased weight on---the orator’s ethos---something perhaps more similar to Isocrates and Plato). And, in his text De Oratore, we even see some Sophist ideas remerging, as rhetoric’s use in judicial power begins to parallel rhetoric’s use in legislature. I suppose it was only a matter of time when we would see hybrid of the non-Sophist and Sophist theories. So, using a contemporary label, generally used in music numbers, the best way I can think of to describe Cicero’s approach to rhetoric is as “mash up” of ideas.

I did a search for Cicero and found some really thought-provoking quotes of his that I wanted to share because, though I am not sure he is the originator of such ideas, there are some modern complements to those that can be traced back to at least him:

For example, “Thus in the beginning the world was so made that certain signs come before certain events. Cicero De Divinatione. i. 118.”  To me, this speaks to the idea of cause and effect---which is fundamental to science and the idea of process.

“You, boy, who owe everything to a name. Cicero Philippic 13.11.” Though I am not sure of the context, to me, this suggests the idea of nepotism and reminds me of the notion of “old money”.

“Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system. Cicero Pro Murena 36.” There’s a lot that can be said about this quote, but, to me, in short, is casts a shadow on our ability objective and equitable in all situations. As humans, we have emotions, and sometimes we let those guide us over reason----even those with power are subject to them. And, in the process, we might not see the big picture or what’s good for the many.

So, why did I share these?  I guess, I wish only to make the following point in support of Herrick’s (2005)’s position (check out the bottom of page 93):  When we hear “philosophy” or “rhetoric”, many of us think of Plato, Socrates, and Aristotle. But, we mustn’t forget their Roman counterpart, Cicero. Though perhaps not as well as known as the names of the others, he did offer up some ideas and pearls of wisdom that still resonate today.

Best,

Cris

Blog 4 - A Little Reflection and a Little Metaphor

Fellow Classmates,

In reading Rhetoric, by Aristotle, I became acutely aware of two things: first the shift that our discourse will be taking in response to the piece, and, secondly, how truly fundamental Aristotle’s writings are to current rhetorical understanding and teaching.

So far, as a class, we’ve looked at rhetoric in terms of groups, functions, and intent: the Sophist vs. the nonSophist, profiteering vs. justice, skill building vs. knowledge building, etc. The piece missing from our discourse pie, in my opinion, is the “how” behind the method (if you are willing to concede at least for a moment that “rhetoric” is a method)----the "technique". And, to me, it is that gap that Aristotle’s Rhetoric is particularly responsive to. It is three books that collectively outline a variety of strategies and considerations, in a somewhat systematic fashion, for use in building an argument. And the real treat, in my opinion, is that these attributes (like logos, ethos, pathos, the three speech types, the four key rhetorical questions, etc.) have all survived the test of time, laying the necessary groundwork for current persuasion discourse. Overall, I see Aristotle’s work in terms of “categorization” (the appeals and the speech types) and “considerations to be mindful of” (the key questions) as shifts not only towards developing a systematic sort of approach to argumentation and means to persuasion----but, also, as giving roots toward customization of an argument to audience----not just situations or topos---as demonstrated through Artistotle's increased valuation of pathos.

Though this next thought is independent of Rhetoric, it is crucial for my enthymeme. After Aristotle, we see that Cicero picked up Aristotle’s torch and improved upon his ideas (at least in my opinion). Two notable examples are the further increase in the valuation of pathos, which was no longer locked to the introduction as Aristotle had asserted (perhaps used on as a means to prep the audience?), but now Cicero asserted that sprinkling pathos throughout the essay/speech would be a better approach (meaning it would lead to more persuasion). And, secondly, the idea of a preemptive rebuttal built on foreseeing an audience’s objections, called “counter point” in modern day writing, too, has it origins with Cicero.

So, for me, in using metaphor to articulate and summarize the “story” of “rhetorical development,” so far, I offer the following Christian-Rhetoric comparative metaphor for consideration, posed only as an academic exercise----it is not meant to offend. In the beginning there was law, which I will dub “the time of the Sophists” but, when Christ came, there was grace----and clarity. Thus, I see, as Aristotle as the Messiah of Rhetoric, with his forerunner John-the-Baptist equivalent being Plato. And Cicero is perhaps a counterpart to Paul in this metaphor, carrying the message though never having met Aristotle face to face. Thus, in extending that metaphor, again, purely for academic enjoyment, who would you argue is the false profit (the forerunner for “the beast”) and, moreover, who would be the “beast”/the “anti-Christ” in terms of rhetoric? 

Best,

Cris

Blog 3 - My Little Sophists

Fellow Classmates,

Well, you know you’re in a PhD-level course when you’re asked to read selections by Gorgias, Isocrates, Plato, and Aristotle all in the same week. Though I haven’t yet completed all the readings, I would like to offer a few observations for consideration in relation to Isocrates’s “Against the Sophists.” To me, the approach seems very logical: after a brief introduction, Isocrates attempts to dissolve the credibility of the Sophists via three rationales: (1) if the speech they were selling were as goods it claims to be, the cost would be incalculable (p. 72); (2) the idea of charging for lessons seems both inappropriate and hippocritical (p. 72-73); and (3) the quality of the lessons were questionable (p. 73). Thus, with these ethos “holes” poked, deflating some of the heed paid, then the audience is somewhat more open to the two positions that Isocrates then advocates: (1) He wants the charge/misinformed teachings to stop (p. 73), and (2) he wants rhetoricians to be more moral (p. 75). Further, Isocrates suggests that looking inward in a key to understanding rhetoric (p. 74). Thus, to me, from this analysis (and my reading Plato’s Phaedrus), an overall, take-home message I got from is that rhetoricians have a responsibility to use their talents in a positive way; they need to be equally critical of their own works as they are of others; they must be moral. However, despite the criticisms cited here against the Sophists, as TCers, we do see the advent of formalized education in rhetorical theory, and I think their recognition of the limits/lens associated with "truth" still holds water today. So, right or wrong, ill-intended or not, these are are still our forefathers in rhetorical education. And, in giving them the benefit of the doubt---at least for the moment----hindsight is always 20-20.

Cheers,
Cris

Posting Number 2 - Thoughts on the Introduction Chapters to The Rhetorical Tradition

Greetings Classmates,

Today I had the good fortune of being able to complete one of my readings for class tomorrow. The second one is still vying for my time against everything else, which I will cumulatively summarize as “life.” Not to worry, though, I will have the second reading finished---and annotated---in time for class tomorrow.


So far, I have read the two introductory chapters for The Rhetorical Tradition, by Herzberg and Bizzell. Though I had trouble keeping of rhetoricians’ names and views straight, initially, I diagrammed things out, and, at least for the moment, I have a working idea of who did what and how. And, moreover, I feel like I have at least some working idea of how rhetoric has shifted over time. However, just to be clear, my current understandings would not equip me for competition on Jeopardy---but maybe by the end of the course? But, right now, I am able to ask more-informed questions and see down paths I wasn’t even aware of before.

The shift is of particular interest to me. I didn’t appreciate the change until I had completed the reading. I knew about the shift from orality to literacy, though. Prior to the reading, I had viewed rhetoric as a lens for every communication situation. And, for some reason, I thought it had always been that way. Until this reading, I didn’t realize that “classic rhetoric” only initially encompassed only three outlets: legal/forensic, political/deliberative, and ceremonial/epideictic; rhetoric was locked into formalized/public modes only (see page 2). If I understand the reading correctly, it wasn’t until the renaissance period in which the term “rhetoric” was formally expanded to include personal discourse—like letters, conversations, etc. (which also coincides with the oral-to-written shift I mentioned previously) (see page 8). Also, if I understand the reading correctly, that is when formalized punctuation marks and grammar really caught on (see page 8)---perhaps adding something new to “frosting” that is “style” (see page 6). Moreover, I had thought only rhetoric in terms of “audience” and “purpose”---I had not considered ideas of “truth” or “knowledge construction” until I read this.

I am looking forward to what I hope will be a 4-course dinner in rhetoric tomorrow night!

Best,
Cris