English 5361: Week 5 Post – Roman Rhetoric

Romans seemed to have a taste for all things Greek. We really shouldn't be surprised considering the similarities in their gods that they also picked up Greek Rhetoric. Rome's famous rhetors added their own spin to the mix of course, and the Roman's managed to shape the form in which Rhetoric would be taught for centuries to come. Cicero and Quintilian may well have been Rome's most famed rhetors.

Cicero list five canons of rhetoric: invention, arrangement, expression, memory, and delivery. Despite being credited with the advancement of the five Canons, Cicero clearly admits that he was not the first to discover them.

Invention means finding valid arguments that succeed in conveying the rhetor's point. Arrangement is the skill of putting those arguments that the rhetor worked so hard to invent in the proper order to have the proper impact. Expression was the skill of presenting those arguments, which the rhetor has dutifully invented and arranged, in the proper words to have the desired impact. Memory was the ability to remember those carefully selected words in the proper order for the proper arguments. Perhaps in the world of the teleprompter, memory seems less important, but the for these ancient rhetors, it was essential. Delivery is the skill of control: the rhetor must control his/her voice and demeanor so that he/she does not blow the carefully invented, arranged, expressed, and memorized argument.

I suppose one could say of the 5 canons that you can't have one without the other. They build on each other, providing a step-by-step method of speaking well.

Quintilian, our next famous Roman rhetor, was more of a teacher than Cicero, which may be why he did not meet such a horrific fate. Quintilian espoused a most rigid plan for the education of a rhetor, beginning with the choice of mother for the child. Quintilian indicated that a successful rhetor would have an educated mother and a well-spoken nurse, so that he could be brought up properly from infancy. This may have been one of the strangest reasons for a step forward in the education of women, but it could be considered a step. If the mother needed to be educated to produce intelligent children, then at least that implied that he believed that the mother could be educated. Some of the Greek teachers did not even accept women in their schools.

My ideas for my assignment are in the previous post. Please give me any feedback that you can. I could use it.

English 5361: Week 4 Post – Aristotle and the First Assignment

As I drove into work this morning, I suddenly realized that I never posted this week's blog. So, before I present the text, I want to apologize for being late. I am generally much more reliable than this, but this semester, I am losing my mind. I think that if I knew before I registered that I would be launching a new journal, I would have taken the semester off. Again, I apologize and ask that you stick with me. Next week, I will be on time.

Despite Aristotle's early training to despise Rhetoric under the tutelage of Plato, he developed a more balanced viewpoint on the art of Rhetoric. Perhaps, since Aristotle did not have the murder of a beloved teacher clouding his vision, he could look at Rhetoric with a more detached eye than his mentor. Unlike Plato, Aristotle does see Rhetoric as a techne; he notes "Rhetoric is the counterpart of Dialectic" (p 179 of Rhetorical Tradition and 75 in The History and Theory of Rhetoric). As the counterpart of the very important art of dialectic, Rhetoric must too be important. Herrick notes that Rhetoric is more of an art for public consumption, while Dialectic is a "more private activity involving briefly stated questions and similarly brief answers" (p 75). So Aristotle elevates what his teacher sought to denigrate, terming Rhetoric an art instead of a knack.

Despite Aristotle's apparent acceptance of the art of Rhetoric, his viewpoint on the Sophists was less than positive. Herrick notes that that art of rhetoric "deserves better" than the "shallow" techniques in use by the Sophists (p 74). Therefore, it appears that Aristotle hoped both to defend the Rhetoric and to improving the quality of to-date Rhetorical works. In his approach he makes several points:

1. Rhetoric is an Art (techne)
2. Rhetoric is Useful
3. The Enthymeme is a type of syllogism

These points serve both as a defense of Rhetoric and as an extension of exiting viewpoints.

Assignment Option#1-Rhetorical Philosophy Statement. Create a piece of rhetoric, such as a philosophy statement citing key rhetors, or such as a persuasive document using tools from a specific rhetorical tradition or lens (and explaining those choices), or such as a scene from a movie or a professional situation analyzed rhetorically.

I have been struggling with the meaning of assignment 1, so much so that I forgotten what I need to do otherwise. Today, I hit upon an idea, related to something I am doing at work. The Journal of Combinatorial Chemistry is being relaunched as ACS Combinatorial Science. The statement announcing the change is, in part, a document persuading existing authors and readers that the new journal will retain all that is good about the old one, while bringing the punch and excitement of a new modern journal with an extended scope. I propose to evaluate the notice at http://pubs.acs.org/page/jcchff/acsccc.html for its Rhetorical content. I have not gotten so far as to determine if I should look at this through a particular Rhetor's eye or not. What do you think?

English 5361: Week 3 Post – Sophistic or Platonic?

Is it Sophistic or Platonic? Sophist or Platonist? Some other pair of terms? I have to wonder if I am using the correct terminology. When I told my husband I had to decide if I was more Platonic or more Sophistic, he asked Platonic toward whom? Another meaning of the word, I suppose.

The answer to that question is that I do not know. I’m not sure that I can squarely put myself in one camp. I am not a social constructionist, which may make me an outlier in the department. But you will forgive me I hope; I am, after all, a scientist and my brain is wired to seek for the truth or fact underneath something. I will agree that our laws, religions, and moral codes of conduct are socially constructed. In that, I may be more of a Sophist. However, I do believe that thinks like gravity really exist, regardless of what word is used and on that measure, I reject social construction and believe in a higher truth. So, that would make me more Platonic.

I do not currently teach for money, though I have in the past when I taught Microbiology and Introductory Biology labs at The Ohio State University and when I worked in student tutorial services. Since I have taught for money, that lends itself toward Sophistry. While I believe that things can be taught, I also believe that some people have more of an innate talent for certain fields. I will never be a professional athlete or a mathematician, though I seem to have quite a talent for cooking and a hunger for scientific knowledge. In my belief in innate talent, I am more Platonic.

I suppose to sum up, I am both and neither. I cannot say that I have completely Sophistic or completely Platonic views. I hope for the Utopian vision, but doubt that we can even pull ourselves together enough to create the Semantic Web or agree even of what should or shouldn’t be done to those to break our societal mores.

English 5361: Week 2 Posts - Respond to the reading and future of Rhetorical Theory

The introductory readings for the course show one thing very clearly: rhetorical theory has a long and complicated history. These readings show very clearly the challenge that will be presented by surveying this vast historical field in one semester. Thank goodness this isn't a shortened summer semester class.

Each time period and theorist made a mark on modern rhetoric with centuries of history, debate, conflict, and agreement leading to the modern field. How will the field change in the future? This is difficult to say. In ancient times, rhetoric applied to the oratorical tradition. Then it was, perhaps reluctantly, applied to the written word, that so-called imperfect form of communication with debate centering on lack of memory and inability to question the author.

Now, we are looking at the rhetoric of images or visual rhetoric. Some say that visual rhetoric is not really a rhetorical field and others write books about the rhetoric of imagery. I'm sure that eventually the field will come to an agreement on this through debate, conflict, and eventually agreement, as it has with similar expansions in the past.

What will be next? The rhetoric of the computer desktop? The rhetoric of thoughts? I can't tell, but it will be exciting to find out.