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