Post-Structuralism seems to be talking about structure and the lack of it. Interpretation such as psychoanalysis and Marxism or questioning what goes into interpretation and validity of interpretation. There is also a question of history and struggle and the attempt to move away from struggle. It seems political at first blush but I cannot help but look at the work of Toni Morrison and see elements of these literary positions in her work, as well as present day politics.
The history of slavery and the struggle to overcome racism and move away from slavery seem to be the interpretation of history of the African American people. Morrison though identifies this racism as internal to the African-American psyche, as it moves as a struggle between people within the African-American community, as a condition of class, sexism and skin color. Poverty, emotional deprivation, family secrets and personal successes and failures interact together in a continuing effort to define a people,relationships and characters.
The struggle of freedom and the success of Obama are also interesting in terms of post-structural views on racism in our culture, the African American people and perhaps Obama himself. Obama's own statements that racism is not behind the anger against some of his attempts to change policies such as health care to me is an example of this post-structural argument because of the avoidance of a struggle and attempt to reconstruct other's views of the black man as President. Is this the post-structuralist world that we have entered?
Morrison seems to be saying that the cultural struggles over racism are behind the lack of black cultural identity. Obama seems to be trying to move away from recognition of such a struggle. I think Morrison is right and Obama as a highly educated, light skinned, privileged black man raised in a white family calls upon some of the perceptions of Morrison's character, Jadine, in Tar Baby. If Michelle is more of Morrison's character, Son, transformed by her education and position to perhaps what he ran to in Paris, what has been her personal struggle in their relationship? Son and Jadine seem to have a failed relationship because of these cultural struggles. We know that Obama and Michelle have had their own personal and relationship struggles. Are American politics now struggling with a failed or successful administration based on racial identity issues?
Sunday, September 27, 2009
Sunday, September 20, 2009
Structuralism
English 615
Professor Eskew
09/19/09
Structuralism
Barry tells us that theorists distrust any idea, which is generalized, (totalism) as factual (35). It is suggested that if the reader of theory is having difficulty with a concept of theory, that the reader come back one of the following points of theory:
“Politics is persuasive,
Language is constitutive,
Truth is provisional,
Meaning is contingent,
Human nature is a myth (35).”
As the author moves on to discuss structuralism and what structuralist critics do. I was particularly taken with the idea that a structuralist may analyze prose narrative, as a complex of recurrent patterns or motifs.
Having recently read Toni Morrison’s Sula in another class, I could see that way of analyzing her work as valid and meaningful. I could also see it as very workable for such author’s works, such as Walt Whitman’s Song of Myself and numerous other authors. Recurrent themes of ancestry, culture, freedom, identity, destruction and remembrance play out in Sula, as well as Whitman’s The Song of Myself, in theme and character, with the help of imagery and situational context, while building suspense and a wandering plot within the unity of a life unfolding.
Instead of the liberal humanist focus on moral significance and wider interpretation, there is an attempt in structuralist theory to look at a kind of diagram of the narrative focused on pattern, design and symbol (50-51). I was excited by the idea that the parallels, echoes, reflections/repetitions, contrasts and patterns outlined by Barth could be found within the structure, plot, character, situation and language of literature (51). Also the ideas that there were codes underlying our understanding of literature seemed to hold so much promise (49-50).
The other codes involved action in the proairetic code; enigmas providing questions and suspense in the hermeneutic code; common knowledge in the cultural code; a theme or character suggested in the connotative code; or themes and parings in the symbolic code (49-50). So how can I use this complex information successfully in analyzing literature, was my question?
Well I can go back to the first paragraph and the points of theory that can help with concepts. The statement that meaning is contingent seems the most applicable to me, as it is such a highly understandable idea that is true in almost all situations, while the other theory points seem more limited in their focus. However if truth affects our attitudes and actions in all situations, not to mention knowledge, as suggested by I.A. Richards in “Poetry and Beliefs,” perhaps the statement that truth is provisional will tell me more in our analysis of literature (24). But the simple truth is that I prefer to look as meaning being contingent, because it is less abstract and real to me.
As I moved onto interpreting and explaining, the thought that the discontinuity, not the continuity, is the character of literary art is stunning (111). However, I see this in the characters and literature of say Sula and Song of Myself, as Sula is as generous, as she is destructive and Walt Whitman contains a multitude, full of differences and incongruities. If literature is overloaded with meaning and, attributable perhaps to something yet unknown as Lotman suggests (104), that works for me, as the characters of Sula and of Whitman in Song of Myself defy a complete knowing, as every explanation is met with another question. Sula is defined by psychological traits of being a narcissist, undercut by the realities of racism, sexism and childhood emotional traumas and deprivation. Whitman is defined by success in newspapers, marked by homosexuality, the tragedies and conflagration of the civil war, proud of freedom, worn by the care of his brother and an embracer of the future. These works are neither naïve or sentimental, such as Schiller suggests (300), although Whitman at first blush may seem to be so, until one reads more carefully and sees the ugliness and rawness of life that he captures. Morrison’s murders, suicides and grim tales of racism also could hardly be called naïve. Knowing who the author is and their life experiences, as well as intent, I have always found useful, but if one looks only at the literature as a document, both Sula and Song of Myself are works with a central point of reference,(as Brooks maintains is the work of a formalist critic to find)such as the effects of trauma and discrimination in Sula, or the force of life and free will in Whitman (28-29).
But why attempt structural analysis if literature is marked by discontinuity, an overload of meanings and unknowns? Our readings seem to be saying that every argument can be countered by another. Truth—where is it in these works? In the literature of Sula and Song of Myself, perhaps it is in the spirit that is revealed within the contradictions, which brings us back to truth being provisional.
Works Cited
Barry, Peter. Beginning Theory. 3rd ed. New York: Manchester University Press, 2009.
Morrison, Toni. Sula. New York: Plume, 1982. Copyright & originally published:
New York, Knopf, 1973. Print.
Newton, K. M., Ed. Twentieth Century Theory: A Reader. 2d ed. Brooks, Cleanth. “The Formalist Critic.” New York: Palgrave, 1997.
Newton, K. M., Ed. Twentieth-Century Theory: A Reader. 2d ed. Culler, Jonathan. “Semiotics as a Theory of Reading.” New York: Palgrave, 1997.
Newton, K. M., Ed. Twentieth-Century Theory: A Reader. 2d ed. Derrida, Jacques. “Structure, Sign and Play in the Discourse of the Human Sciences.” New York: Palgrave, 1997
Newton, K. M., Ed. Twentieth-Century Theory: A Reader. 2d ed. Lotman, Yury M., “The Content and Structure of the Concept of ‘Literature.’” New York: Palgrave, 1997.
Newton, K. M., Ed. Twentieth-Century Theory: A Reader. 2d ed. Peckham, Morse. “The Problem of Interpretation.” New York: Palgrave, 1997.
Newton, K. M., Ed. Twentieth-Century Theory: A Reader. 2d ed. Richards, I. A, “Poetry and Beliefs.” New York: Palgrave, 1997.
Perkins, G. & Perkins, B., Eds. The American Tradition in Literature. Vol One. 11th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2007.
Richter, David H. Ed. The Critical Tradition: Classic Texts and Contemporary Trends. 3rd ed. Boston: Bedford, 2007.
Professor Eskew
09/19/09
Structuralism
Barry tells us that theorists distrust any idea, which is generalized, (totalism) as factual (35). It is suggested that if the reader of theory is having difficulty with a concept of theory, that the reader come back one of the following points of theory:
“Politics is persuasive,
Language is constitutive,
Truth is provisional,
Meaning is contingent,
Human nature is a myth (35).”
As the author moves on to discuss structuralism and what structuralist critics do. I was particularly taken with the idea that a structuralist may analyze prose narrative, as a complex of recurrent patterns or motifs.
Having recently read Toni Morrison’s Sula in another class, I could see that way of analyzing her work as valid and meaningful. I could also see it as very workable for such author’s works, such as Walt Whitman’s Song of Myself and numerous other authors. Recurrent themes of ancestry, culture, freedom, identity, destruction and remembrance play out in Sula, as well as Whitman’s The Song of Myself, in theme and character, with the help of imagery and situational context, while building suspense and a wandering plot within the unity of a life unfolding.
Instead of the liberal humanist focus on moral significance and wider interpretation, there is an attempt in structuralist theory to look at a kind of diagram of the narrative focused on pattern, design and symbol (50-51). I was excited by the idea that the parallels, echoes, reflections/repetitions, contrasts and patterns outlined by Barth could be found within the structure, plot, character, situation and language of literature (51). Also the ideas that there were codes underlying our understanding of literature seemed to hold so much promise (49-50).
The other codes involved action in the proairetic code; enigmas providing questions and suspense in the hermeneutic code; common knowledge in the cultural code; a theme or character suggested in the connotative code; or themes and parings in the symbolic code (49-50). So how can I use this complex information successfully in analyzing literature, was my question?
Well I can go back to the first paragraph and the points of theory that can help with concepts. The statement that meaning is contingent seems the most applicable to me, as it is such a highly understandable idea that is true in almost all situations, while the other theory points seem more limited in their focus. However if truth affects our attitudes and actions in all situations, not to mention knowledge, as suggested by I.A. Richards in “Poetry and Beliefs,” perhaps the statement that truth is provisional will tell me more in our analysis of literature (24). But the simple truth is that I prefer to look as meaning being contingent, because it is less abstract and real to me.
As I moved onto interpreting and explaining, the thought that the discontinuity, not the continuity, is the character of literary art is stunning (111). However, I see this in the characters and literature of say Sula and Song of Myself, as Sula is as generous, as she is destructive and Walt Whitman contains a multitude, full of differences and incongruities. If literature is overloaded with meaning and, attributable perhaps to something yet unknown as Lotman suggests (104), that works for me, as the characters of Sula and of Whitman in Song of Myself defy a complete knowing, as every explanation is met with another question. Sula is defined by psychological traits of being a narcissist, undercut by the realities of racism, sexism and childhood emotional traumas and deprivation. Whitman is defined by success in newspapers, marked by homosexuality, the tragedies and conflagration of the civil war, proud of freedom, worn by the care of his brother and an embracer of the future. These works are neither naïve or sentimental, such as Schiller suggests (300), although Whitman at first blush may seem to be so, until one reads more carefully and sees the ugliness and rawness of life that he captures. Morrison’s murders, suicides and grim tales of racism also could hardly be called naïve. Knowing who the author is and their life experiences, as well as intent, I have always found useful, but if one looks only at the literature as a document, both Sula and Song of Myself are works with a central point of reference,(as Brooks maintains is the work of a formalist critic to find)such as the effects of trauma and discrimination in Sula, or the force of life and free will in Whitman (28-29).
But why attempt structural analysis if literature is marked by discontinuity, an overload of meanings and unknowns? Our readings seem to be saying that every argument can be countered by another. Truth—where is it in these works? In the literature of Sula and Song of Myself, perhaps it is in the spirit that is revealed within the contradictions, which brings us back to truth being provisional.
Works Cited
Barry, Peter. Beginning Theory. 3rd ed. New York: Manchester University Press, 2009.
Morrison, Toni. Sula. New York: Plume, 1982. Copyright & originally published:
New York, Knopf, 1973. Print.
Newton, K. M., Ed. Twentieth Century Theory: A Reader. 2d ed. Brooks, Cleanth. “The Formalist Critic.” New York: Palgrave, 1997.
Newton, K. M., Ed. Twentieth-Century Theory: A Reader. 2d ed. Culler, Jonathan. “Semiotics as a Theory of Reading.” New York: Palgrave, 1997.
Newton, K. M., Ed. Twentieth-Century Theory: A Reader. 2d ed. Derrida, Jacques. “Structure, Sign and Play in the Discourse of the Human Sciences.” New York: Palgrave, 1997
Newton, K. M., Ed. Twentieth-Century Theory: A Reader. 2d ed. Lotman, Yury M., “The Content and Structure of the Concept of ‘Literature.’” New York: Palgrave, 1997.
Newton, K. M., Ed. Twentieth-Century Theory: A Reader. 2d ed. Peckham, Morse. “The Problem of Interpretation.” New York: Palgrave, 1997.
Newton, K. M., Ed. Twentieth-Century Theory: A Reader. 2d ed. Richards, I. A, “Poetry and Beliefs.” New York: Palgrave, 1997.
Perkins, G. & Perkins, B., Eds. The American Tradition in Literature. Vol One. 11th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2007.
Richter, David H. Ed. The Critical Tradition: Classic Texts and Contemporary Trends. 3rd ed. Boston: Bedford, 2007.
Sunday, September 13, 2009
Renaissance Rhetoric
Linda Daly
Eng 615
Doug Eskew
09/12/09
Renaissance Rhetoric
Conley discusses the decline of rhetoric in education in the Middle Ages to the first decades of the Renaissance. He describes a reaction against classical learning in the tenth century in the face of invasions and fears of the arrival of the Antichrist and end of the world because of the arrival of the Millennium of the year 1000 (86-87). A man of letters named Gerbert of Reims did not write on rhetoric but did advocate that theology not be studied until after a through systematic grounding in liberal arts, including mathematics and astronomy (87). He did embrace Cicero’s ideas on the importance of eloquence and science of morals to be considered for men in public affairs in order to be persuasive (88).
Conley goes on to describe another man in the church, a German named Notker Labeo, who translated Boethius and Aristotle, as well as Terence and Virgil. He wrote about eloquence involving both comprehension and artistic transformation, understanding the substance, material, which comprise all things and deeds which may give rise to controvesia and the ars or scientia that shapes one’s treatment of the controversia (89). They are complementary and represent two sides of the same thing (89). The novel aspect of his work was a concentration on invention, eliminating discord through discourse, or rhetorical sweetness (89-90).
By the end of the 11th century and first half of the twelfth, Cicero and Boethian dialectical influences began to be felt with treatises on the rhetoric of letter writing, poetic composition and preaching that continued into the thirteenth century 991). As time went on rhetoric followers were divided in approach to rhetoric. There was an emphasis on rhetoric as needing to be useful in life, such as legal cases, where rhetoric was equated to eloquence learned from rules being put to use for society or the cult of humanity (92). Eventually in the twelfth century jurisprudence was considered an independent study, which was served by rhetoric, rather than rhetoric being the underpinning of logic.
There continued to be study of the use of rhetoric in the art of letter writing, preaching and grammar. The art of letter writing and preaching both involved persuasion amid a formulated system of presentation or decorum (94-97). Cicero’s influence regarding eloquence, as well as Basevorn’s system—“almost a calculus—of invention and amplification (97).” Basevorn’s ideas were not in favor in the fourteenth century, as the focus of preaching was on moving and edifying rather than simply instructing. But over time rhetorical theory incorporated Boethian in the teaching of preaching, while universities promoted a notion of eloquence based on the Ciceronian ideal (97). In terms of writing letters, decorum based on style was argued about but a format based on Cicero’s influence held sway (93-94). In terms of grammar it is important to realize that the definition of grammar in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries included the art of speaking correctly and the explanation of poetry (98). Poetry was considered oral discourse (98). In the teaching of poetry it became apparent that there was an attention to style and to prose, metrics and rhythm that paid attention not only to style, but to amplification, abbreviation and ornamentation, Ciceronian in content and spirit (99).
Aristotle was taught in universities in ethics courses and rhetoric was dialectic rather than Ciceronian, losing its importance in universities until well into the renaissance. Remember that dialectic themes are universal, with a force derived from abstract propositional themes, a thesis or question without circumstances (980). Rhetoric deals with hypotheses; questions framed by circumstances, such as person, place and time, as well as cause and are continuous (80). Rhetoric seeks to persuade, while dialectic seeks to have victory in disputation (80). So while I was thinking of rhetoric, as an oral debate, it is actually what forms composition, oral or written and Cicero’s emphasis on eloquence also embraces realities that one forms hypotheses about, rather than dialectic universal questions not based in the realities of person, place, time. or cause.
Switching over to our readings in Matsen, we learn about the basic techniques of rhetoric formulating the basics of compositional techniques (251). Greek, Roman and Augustine. Myths, comparisons, narratives, comparisons, topics, paraphrasing, a counter statements and confirmation are some of the major elements of a successful composition. Whether a political speech, or a novel, persuasion is the center of the work.
Aphthonius of Antioch in the fourth century A.D. wrote a Progymnasmata in Byzantine times, later translated in the fifteenth century to become influential in the use of teaching composition based on rhetoric, including the following elements: fables; narratives; a reminiscence about a person; gnome, (declaratory statements urging onto something, or averting it); refutations; confirmations; Koinos Topos (amplifying inherent evils); Encommmium (inherent excellences); invectives; comparisons; Ethopoeia (an imitation of a proposed person); Elpharasis (descriptive composition, bringing things clearly into view); thesis (a logical examination of any matter under consideration, political and theoretical); and law (266-288).
Matsen’s next chapter is on style, part of a five point canon on rhetoric that included invention, arrangement, style, memory, and delivery. Written style might vary from oral and was acknowledged by authorities or critics such as Dionysius, Demetrius, Longinus and Hermogenes. Dionysius and Demetrius both wrote more about style used in oral speech, with an emphasis on sound.
Dionysius, who was born in Asia Minor but produced his life’s work in Rome described smooth sentences that are complete and euphonious, rhymic, exemplifying noble, splendid and free thought, while rough sentences were “unpolished, plain spoken, unembelished with archaism and the patina of age as it’s beauty (289).” He believed that the best rhetoric had both styles (289). He goes onto say to compare rhetoric with performing arts, describing it thus: “The science or oratory is a sort of music which differs quantitatively not qualitatively from the vocal and instrumental king; words too have their melody and rhythm, their variation and propriety, so kind; words too have their melody and rhythm, their variation and propriety, so that in oratory too the ear is delighted by melody, educed by rhythm, gratified by variety, and everywhere seeks what properly belongs (300). As I also have a degree in Art, specifically painting, I would have to say that many of the same principles apply to pleasing the eye with variation, unity, movement, transitions, texture built up and colors that bleed effortlessly into one another, drama created with contrast, etc.
Demetrius concluded that there were four styles: plain, elevated, elegant, and forceful (289). He embraced the criticisms of Cicero on styles that had faults but unlike Dionysius, felt that there was a place for spontaneity (289). He lived over a hundred years later than Dionysius and was an Athenian who wrote about plain and grand styles, while considering the other two to be intermediaries between the two (310). He writes about the importance of being concise and frequently is so in his writings (315). He equates it with force, vigor and energy. In his writings, he often employs such tools, for example, “It has already been said that the figure of abruptness has a forcible effect.” It was this abruptness that I found off putting, as my mind resisted embracing his words and I had to reread his works several times to begin to get the gist of his writing.
Longinus wrote on what made good writing, particularly evaluating inspiration, or greatness of thought (289). This made me wonder about whether inspiration and spontaneity were similar concepts? He was considered basically a father of innovative literary criticism (289). It is unknown if he is the Longinus of the third or first century, but some evidence to suggest that his works do go back to the first century, because of his words about government ad literature. I was very taken with his pronouncement that “great writing does not; it takes the reader out of himself (323).” Many times I have found my most memorable reading has been when I am transported to another life, another time or place, forgetting my own situation and being absorbed by another. The description of narration in Homer’s Odyssey being a byproduct of old age compared to the youthfully written action and energy being produced in Homer’s Iliad was also thought inducing, as I hope that I can write with vigor even though I have passed from youthfulness into late middle age. Does age really have to define one even in writing?
Hermogenes also examined what made writing good, looking in depth at the particular kinds of style and comparing them, which may have some links to Plato’s ideai or forms, as he looks at and subdivides seven styles in to twenty concepts of style (290). His seven styles included clarity, grandeur, beauty, rapidity, character, sincerity and force. Because order, metrics, cadence and rhythm have such an effect on composition, he goes onto classify style under the following headings, “which denote those factors through which a particular style is produced: thought, approach, diction, figures, clauses, word order, cadence and rhythm (339). For example, when I write in response to a literary work of fiction, I can close my eyes, block out specifics and respond to the memory, images and rhythm the work left me with in creative thought, prior to going back and picking out specific examples to further explain and delineate my arguments. Whereas, in this class, I find I have to pick out examples and record the highlights, before I can really think about what I have read, as it is so dense. My style of writing therefore becomes very different. That which is written from my thought prior to honing in on specifics is much stronger, as it has elements of beauty and grandeur that I can evoke through use of the five senses in presenting my thoughts. The way I find myself responding to this work gives me clarity, as doors are finally opened, which my mine wants to leave shut until I force myself to consider and consider again the information being presented. To make myself distinct, as Hermogenes describes distinction as a unique attribute of effective clarity (346-348), consider that I just do not get Matsen at first, but with repetition and familiarity, the words achieve meaning.
Going onto the actual readings for this week in Matsen, we have Augustine who lived from a.d.354-430 and was a teacher of rhetoric before embracing Christianity (360). He wrote about how to discover the truths in the bible and to express or teach what they have learned through Ciceronian principles: to teach, to delight, and to persuade (360). It is through rhetoric though that Faith can be taught, “to conciliate the hostile, to arouse the careless, and to inform those ignorant of the matter in hand, (362-363). Eloquence is teaching and persuasion must precede instruction, thus it becomes clear that to teach the Faith, the skills of rhetoric are necessary (366-367). Part of rhetoric is to please and part of Christianity is to be docile to God (370). Augustine became of the belief that prayer would help to achieve eloquence, as was God’s presence with us (370-372). Style may vary in modulation to achieve a pleasing quality, but are not worthy of use unless persuasion in achieved (374). Clarity, wisdom, truth has to be understood, regardless of the style, to be persuasive (374). It is the goodness of the speaker, as preachers of truth do no wrong, because “God is theirs, and to Him belong the words which they speak; and they make these, too, their own, though they were not able to compose them, if they compose their lives in accordance with them (378).” The power of prayer therefore renders an eloquent speaker, as the truth is told through God. Can God really make us all eloquent is we are true believers? Why do people even listen to non-believers or academics?
Works Cited
Conley, Thomas M. Rhetoric in the European Tradition. Chicago: The University
of Chicago Press, 1990. Print.
Matsen, Patricia P.; Rollinson, Philip; & Sousa, Marion. Reading from Classical
Rhetoric. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1990.
Eng 615
Doug Eskew
09/12/09
Renaissance Rhetoric
Conley discusses the decline of rhetoric in education in the Middle Ages to the first decades of the Renaissance. He describes a reaction against classical learning in the tenth century in the face of invasions and fears of the arrival of the Antichrist and end of the world because of the arrival of the Millennium of the year 1000 (86-87). A man of letters named Gerbert of Reims did not write on rhetoric but did advocate that theology not be studied until after a through systematic grounding in liberal arts, including mathematics and astronomy (87). He did embrace Cicero’s ideas on the importance of eloquence and science of morals to be considered for men in public affairs in order to be persuasive (88).
Conley goes on to describe another man in the church, a German named Notker Labeo, who translated Boethius and Aristotle, as well as Terence and Virgil. He wrote about eloquence involving both comprehension and artistic transformation, understanding the substance, material, which comprise all things and deeds which may give rise to controvesia and the ars or scientia that shapes one’s treatment of the controversia (89). They are complementary and represent two sides of the same thing (89). The novel aspect of his work was a concentration on invention, eliminating discord through discourse, or rhetorical sweetness (89-90).
By the end of the 11th century and first half of the twelfth, Cicero and Boethian dialectical influences began to be felt with treatises on the rhetoric of letter writing, poetic composition and preaching that continued into the thirteenth century 991). As time went on rhetoric followers were divided in approach to rhetoric. There was an emphasis on rhetoric as needing to be useful in life, such as legal cases, where rhetoric was equated to eloquence learned from rules being put to use for society or the cult of humanity (92). Eventually in the twelfth century jurisprudence was considered an independent study, which was served by rhetoric, rather than rhetoric being the underpinning of logic.
There continued to be study of the use of rhetoric in the art of letter writing, preaching and grammar. The art of letter writing and preaching both involved persuasion amid a formulated system of presentation or decorum (94-97). Cicero’s influence regarding eloquence, as well as Basevorn’s system—“almost a calculus—of invention and amplification (97).” Basevorn’s ideas were not in favor in the fourteenth century, as the focus of preaching was on moving and edifying rather than simply instructing. But over time rhetorical theory incorporated Boethian in the teaching of preaching, while universities promoted a notion of eloquence based on the Ciceronian ideal (97). In terms of writing letters, decorum based on style was argued about but a format based on Cicero’s influence held sway (93-94). In terms of grammar it is important to realize that the definition of grammar in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries included the art of speaking correctly and the explanation of poetry (98). Poetry was considered oral discourse (98). In the teaching of poetry it became apparent that there was an attention to style and to prose, metrics and rhythm that paid attention not only to style, but to amplification, abbreviation and ornamentation, Ciceronian in content and spirit (99).
Aristotle was taught in universities in ethics courses and rhetoric was dialectic rather than Ciceronian, losing its importance in universities until well into the renaissance. Remember that dialectic themes are universal, with a force derived from abstract propositional themes, a thesis or question without circumstances (980). Rhetoric deals with hypotheses; questions framed by circumstances, such as person, place and time, as well as cause and are continuous (80). Rhetoric seeks to persuade, while dialectic seeks to have victory in disputation (80). So while I was thinking of rhetoric, as an oral debate, it is actually what forms composition, oral or written and Cicero’s emphasis on eloquence also embraces realities that one forms hypotheses about, rather than dialectic universal questions not based in the realities of person, place, time. or cause.
Switching over to our readings in Matsen, we learn about the basic techniques of rhetoric formulating the basics of compositional techniques (251). Greek, Roman and Augustine. Myths, comparisons, narratives, comparisons, topics, paraphrasing, a counter statements and confirmation are some of the major elements of a successful composition. Whether a political speech, or a novel, persuasion is the center of the work.
Aphthonius of Antioch in the fourth century A.D. wrote a Progymnasmata in Byzantine times, later translated in the fifteenth century to become influential in the use of teaching composition based on rhetoric, including the following elements: fables; narratives; a reminiscence about a person; gnome, (declaratory statements urging onto something, or averting it); refutations; confirmations; Koinos Topos (amplifying inherent evils); Encommmium (inherent excellences); invectives; comparisons; Ethopoeia (an imitation of a proposed person); Elpharasis (descriptive composition, bringing things clearly into view); thesis (a logical examination of any matter under consideration, political and theoretical); and law (266-288).
Matsen’s next chapter is on style, part of a five point canon on rhetoric that included invention, arrangement, style, memory, and delivery. Written style might vary from oral and was acknowledged by authorities or critics such as Dionysius, Demetrius, Longinus and Hermogenes. Dionysius and Demetrius both wrote more about style used in oral speech, with an emphasis on sound.
Dionysius, who was born in Asia Minor but produced his life’s work in Rome described smooth sentences that are complete and euphonious, rhymic, exemplifying noble, splendid and free thought, while rough sentences were “unpolished, plain spoken, unembelished with archaism and the patina of age as it’s beauty (289).” He believed that the best rhetoric had both styles (289). He goes onto say to compare rhetoric with performing arts, describing it thus: “The science or oratory is a sort of music which differs quantitatively not qualitatively from the vocal and instrumental king; words too have their melody and rhythm, their variation and propriety, so kind; words too have their melody and rhythm, their variation and propriety, so that in oratory too the ear is delighted by melody, educed by rhythm, gratified by variety, and everywhere seeks what properly belongs (300). As I also have a degree in Art, specifically painting, I would have to say that many of the same principles apply to pleasing the eye with variation, unity, movement, transitions, texture built up and colors that bleed effortlessly into one another, drama created with contrast, etc.
Demetrius concluded that there were four styles: plain, elevated, elegant, and forceful (289). He embraced the criticisms of Cicero on styles that had faults but unlike Dionysius, felt that there was a place for spontaneity (289). He lived over a hundred years later than Dionysius and was an Athenian who wrote about plain and grand styles, while considering the other two to be intermediaries between the two (310). He writes about the importance of being concise and frequently is so in his writings (315). He equates it with force, vigor and energy. In his writings, he often employs such tools, for example, “It has already been said that the figure of abruptness has a forcible effect.” It was this abruptness that I found off putting, as my mind resisted embracing his words and I had to reread his works several times to begin to get the gist of his writing.
Longinus wrote on what made good writing, particularly evaluating inspiration, or greatness of thought (289). This made me wonder about whether inspiration and spontaneity were similar concepts? He was considered basically a father of innovative literary criticism (289). It is unknown if he is the Longinus of the third or first century, but some evidence to suggest that his works do go back to the first century, because of his words about government ad literature. I was very taken with his pronouncement that “great writing does not; it takes the reader out of himself (323).” Many times I have found my most memorable reading has been when I am transported to another life, another time or place, forgetting my own situation and being absorbed by another. The description of narration in Homer’s Odyssey being a byproduct of old age compared to the youthfully written action and energy being produced in Homer’s Iliad was also thought inducing, as I hope that I can write with vigor even though I have passed from youthfulness into late middle age. Does age really have to define one even in writing?
Hermogenes also examined what made writing good, looking in depth at the particular kinds of style and comparing them, which may have some links to Plato’s ideai or forms, as he looks at and subdivides seven styles in to twenty concepts of style (290). His seven styles included clarity, grandeur, beauty, rapidity, character, sincerity and force. Because order, metrics, cadence and rhythm have such an effect on composition, he goes onto classify style under the following headings, “which denote those factors through which a particular style is produced: thought, approach, diction, figures, clauses, word order, cadence and rhythm (339). For example, when I write in response to a literary work of fiction, I can close my eyes, block out specifics and respond to the memory, images and rhythm the work left me with in creative thought, prior to going back and picking out specific examples to further explain and delineate my arguments. Whereas, in this class, I find I have to pick out examples and record the highlights, before I can really think about what I have read, as it is so dense. My style of writing therefore becomes very different. That which is written from my thought prior to honing in on specifics is much stronger, as it has elements of beauty and grandeur that I can evoke through use of the five senses in presenting my thoughts. The way I find myself responding to this work gives me clarity, as doors are finally opened, which my mine wants to leave shut until I force myself to consider and consider again the information being presented. To make myself distinct, as Hermogenes describes distinction as a unique attribute of effective clarity (346-348), consider that I just do not get Matsen at first, but with repetition and familiarity, the words achieve meaning.
Going onto the actual readings for this week in Matsen, we have Augustine who lived from a.d.354-430 and was a teacher of rhetoric before embracing Christianity (360). He wrote about how to discover the truths in the bible and to express or teach what they have learned through Ciceronian principles: to teach, to delight, and to persuade (360). It is through rhetoric though that Faith can be taught, “to conciliate the hostile, to arouse the careless, and to inform those ignorant of the matter in hand, (362-363). Eloquence is teaching and persuasion must precede instruction, thus it becomes clear that to teach the Faith, the skills of rhetoric are necessary (366-367). Part of rhetoric is to please and part of Christianity is to be docile to God (370). Augustine became of the belief that prayer would help to achieve eloquence, as was God’s presence with us (370-372). Style may vary in modulation to achieve a pleasing quality, but are not worthy of use unless persuasion in achieved (374). Clarity, wisdom, truth has to be understood, regardless of the style, to be persuasive (374). It is the goodness of the speaker, as preachers of truth do no wrong, because “God is theirs, and to Him belong the words which they speak; and they make these, too, their own, though they were not able to compose them, if they compose their lives in accordance with them (378).” The power of prayer therefore renders an eloquent speaker, as the truth is told through God. Can God really make us all eloquent is we are true believers? Why do people even listen to non-believers or academics?
Works Cited
Conley, Thomas M. Rhetoric in the European Tradition. Chicago: The University
of Chicago Press, 1990. Print.
Matsen, Patricia P.; Rollinson, Philip; & Sousa, Marion. Reading from Classical
Rhetoric. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1990.
Monday, September 7, 2009
Roman Rhetoric
Class: Literary Theory 615
Instructor: Doug Eskew, PhD
Student: Linda Daly
Date: 9/6/09
Roman Rhetoric
The art of oratory has apparently inspired great debate in society from it’s beginning. An argument is after all a disagreement, a controversy, used in politics to develop cohesion. At the base of politics is power and as the saying goes absolute power does corrupt. Cicero did lose his life for a reason. As Conley discuses the idea of stasis, translated as strife or immobility (32), the context of rhetoric as a serious debate becomes clearer. Adversaries with words who have often shifted in history to physical violence.
Conley discuses at length the educational approaches to rhetoric in the classic age and summarizes history and the pervasiveness of Greek rhetorical philosophy handed down from Isocrates continuing to hold sway in the educational teachings of Cicero and others. Conley goes on to describe the power or dynamis of the speaker and a great and virtuous man “worthy of speech” is at the center of Greek rhetorical theory with the goal of paideia being eloquence (32). I do not think lightly of two “gents” in a fight as eloquent. Some of the most effective lawyers that I have seen have been far less eloquent than crafty and vicious with words, yet most politicians retain more of a veneer of eloquence shown to the general public than their profession is particularly known for. And then Conley raises the issued of “translative statis” (35) questioning for example whether the court is competent or not as blame is shifted or justified, brings forth the whole notion of shifty eyed lawyers in sharp relief getting off wanton murderers or angels of mercy, giving relief to those who are truly innocent.
Rhetoric is described by Conley as having traditions and schools of teaching philosophies, dominated by Isocrates goal of social cohesion (69). Style and scripture also became interesting ways to consolidate rhetoric as a part of a valued education according to Conley (67). Ideal models and values were used by orators as a form of creating cultural identity as much as solidarity in war in Byzantine society according to Conley (68). Pattern, shape and a precise curricula to teach rhetoric were very important to the science and art of rhetoric. Conley describes Cicero teaching a five-part syllogism , while Hermogean argument had four principle elements that could be developed along six separate lines supported by as many as a couple of hundred arguments. (56). Types of style or idea combined thought approach, and diction and composition involving figures, clauses, word order and prose rhythm produced stylistic effects such as clarity, grandeur, beauty, vigor, character, sincerity and decorum according to the Byzantine Hermogenes’ On Invention, a book Conley says was used for centuries to teach rhetoric (57). But it is the Greek Isocratean influence and ideal of the eloquent speaker, as an educator and leader in society that has held sway over western rhetoric until the beginning of the Middle Ages in the Latin West—and beyond, according to Conley (46). Whether this is from the sway of Cicero and Pliny, among others, whom Conley describes as embracing the idea of consensus or the rightness of the ideal of eloquence is hard to say but their influence is not forgotten (42).
Matsen too describes rhetorical training, discussing the need for methodical training (213) in the faculties of Invention, Arrangement, Style, Memory, and Delivery (163). Matsen described a perceived expert having virtue charm and dignity; a wit recognized by common people as a great orator (175). Matsen also discusses the success of young orators versus older ones and how the formulas for the one does not work for the other, as more weight and authority are required of older orators versus the rapid speech or balanced youthful orator (178-179). Even as he said that I felt a need to use examples and citations to buttress my arguments, whether for this class or another.
I thought that it was interesting that Matsen described a conjectural argument not being able to take place from the same pint of view and system of classification as definitive and conjectural. These are not subcategories but areas of scope that have to be considered in the equitable and legal and with the equitable, absolute right and wrong and assumptive comparisons are drawn (181-183). I am interpreting this as you cannot make an assumption and define it at the same time as an absolute right or wrong and use these effectively in rhetoric? I like Matsens warning that the audience should be familiar with the facts of a case and both sides to be able to fully appreciate the speeches used to persuade an audience (223).
Towards the end of our reading for this week Matsen captured some of my thoughts that oratory by attorneys can be a devious art, describing it as devoid of discipline, off-hand and overbearing at times, a goal for unbridled populace, citing the price paid by Cicero in his death (249). He also states that in preparing an audience for what is to come, the orator dissembles, sets a trap and may deliberately disguise a precept (223), encouraging the student to read the speeches carefully. Matsen ends the chapter with classic orators taking exception and even denouncing the other, while smiling and asking for further treatment of other ideas, an eloquent discourse to be sure (250).
Works Cited
Conley, Thomas. Rhetoric in the European Tradition. Chicago: The University of
Chicago Press, 1990. Print..
Matsen, Patricia; Rollinson Philip & Soust, Mario. Readings from Classical Rhetoric.
Carbondale, Illinois: Southern Illinois University Press
Instructor: Doug Eskew, PhD
Student: Linda Daly
Date: 9/6/09
Roman Rhetoric
The art of oratory has apparently inspired great debate in society from it’s beginning. An argument is after all a disagreement, a controversy, used in politics to develop cohesion. At the base of politics is power and as the saying goes absolute power does corrupt. Cicero did lose his life for a reason. As Conley discuses the idea of stasis, translated as strife or immobility (32), the context of rhetoric as a serious debate becomes clearer. Adversaries with words who have often shifted in history to physical violence.
Conley discuses at length the educational approaches to rhetoric in the classic age and summarizes history and the pervasiveness of Greek rhetorical philosophy handed down from Isocrates continuing to hold sway in the educational teachings of Cicero and others. Conley goes on to describe the power or dynamis of the speaker and a great and virtuous man “worthy of speech” is at the center of Greek rhetorical theory with the goal of paideia being eloquence (32). I do not think lightly of two “gents” in a fight as eloquent. Some of the most effective lawyers that I have seen have been far less eloquent than crafty and vicious with words, yet most politicians retain more of a veneer of eloquence shown to the general public than their profession is particularly known for. And then Conley raises the issued of “translative statis” (35) questioning for example whether the court is competent or not as blame is shifted or justified, brings forth the whole notion of shifty eyed lawyers in sharp relief getting off wanton murderers or angels of mercy, giving relief to those who are truly innocent.
Rhetoric is described by Conley as having traditions and schools of teaching philosophies, dominated by Isocrates goal of social cohesion (69). Style and scripture also became interesting ways to consolidate rhetoric as a part of a valued education according to Conley (67). Ideal models and values were used by orators as a form of creating cultural identity as much as solidarity in war in Byzantine society according to Conley (68). Pattern, shape and a precise curricula to teach rhetoric were very important to the science and art of rhetoric. Conley describes Cicero teaching a five-part syllogism , while Hermogean argument had four principle elements that could be developed along six separate lines supported by as many as a couple of hundred arguments. (56). Types of style or idea combined thought approach, and diction and composition involving figures, clauses, word order and prose rhythm produced stylistic effects such as clarity, grandeur, beauty, vigor, character, sincerity and decorum according to the Byzantine Hermogenes’ On Invention, a book Conley says was used for centuries to teach rhetoric (57). But it is the Greek Isocratean influence and ideal of the eloquent speaker, as an educator and leader in society that has held sway over western rhetoric until the beginning of the Middle Ages in the Latin West—and beyond, according to Conley (46). Whether this is from the sway of Cicero and Pliny, among others, whom Conley describes as embracing the idea of consensus or the rightness of the ideal of eloquence is hard to say but their influence is not forgotten (42).
Matsen too describes rhetorical training, discussing the need for methodical training (213) in the faculties of Invention, Arrangement, Style, Memory, and Delivery (163). Matsen described a perceived expert having virtue charm and dignity; a wit recognized by common people as a great orator (175). Matsen also discusses the success of young orators versus older ones and how the formulas for the one does not work for the other, as more weight and authority are required of older orators versus the rapid speech or balanced youthful orator (178-179). Even as he said that I felt a need to use examples and citations to buttress my arguments, whether for this class or another.
I thought that it was interesting that Matsen described a conjectural argument not being able to take place from the same pint of view and system of classification as definitive and conjectural. These are not subcategories but areas of scope that have to be considered in the equitable and legal and with the equitable, absolute right and wrong and assumptive comparisons are drawn (181-183). I am interpreting this as you cannot make an assumption and define it at the same time as an absolute right or wrong and use these effectively in rhetoric? I like Matsens warning that the audience should be familiar with the facts of a case and both sides to be able to fully appreciate the speeches used to persuade an audience (223).
Towards the end of our reading for this week Matsen captured some of my thoughts that oratory by attorneys can be a devious art, describing it as devoid of discipline, off-hand and overbearing at times, a goal for unbridled populace, citing the price paid by Cicero in his death (249). He also states that in preparing an audience for what is to come, the orator dissembles, sets a trap and may deliberately disguise a precept (223), encouraging the student to read the speeches carefully. Matsen ends the chapter with classic orators taking exception and even denouncing the other, while smiling and asking for further treatment of other ideas, an eloquent discourse to be sure (250).
Works Cited
Conley, Thomas. Rhetoric in the European Tradition. Chicago: The University of
Chicago Press, 1990. Print..
Matsen, Patricia; Rollinson Philip & Soust, Mario. Readings from Classical Rhetoric.
Carbondale, Illinois: Southern Illinois University Press
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
