Invention concerns finding something to say (its name derives from the Latin invenire, "to find."). Certain common categories of thought became conventional to use in order to brainstorm for material. These common places (places = topoi in Greek) are called the "topics of invention." They include, for example, cause and effect, comparison, and various relationships.

Invention is tied to the rhetorical appeal of logos, being oriented to what an author would say rather than how this might be said. Invention describes the argumentative, persusive core of rhetoric. Aristotle, in fact, defines rhetoric primarily as invention, "discovering the best available means of persuasion." An important procedure that formed part of this finding process was stasis.

http://rhetoric.byu.edu/

invention

  Use Invention in a sentence

in·ven·tion

 

 

1.  the act of inventing.

 

2.  U.S. Patent Law. a new, useful process, machine, improvement, etc., that did not exist previously and that is recognized as the product of some unique intuition or genius, as distinguished from ordinary mechanical skill or craftsmanship.

 

3.  anything invented or devised.

 

4.  the power or faculty of inventing, devising, or originating.

 

5.  an act or instance of creating or producing by exercise of the imagination, especially in art, music, etc.

 

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/invention?s=t 

Teachers Learning and Learners Teaching

First of all I would just like to say how grateful I am that the further away from historical texts we get, the more I can understand! Hooray! I am beginning to read each sentence only two to three times over before moving onto the next, which in comparison to the six to seven times I was reading a sentence in Aristotle is pretty damn good!

Second of all, what I took from this reading, which I am not even sure is accurate, is interesting parallels among teachers and students and the characteristics both positions hold in order to create the dynamic that the relationship requires. This brought up a lot of interesting ideas for me, I couldn't really just pick one because my mind doesn't work that way so I would like to hop around a bit to get my thoughts on the page however messy they may be.

First I thought about his first chapter which suggests that young boys should begin the learning process of teachings similar to his much earlier. I thought this was so interesting because it made me think about the way that translates into our education now. I remember in my linguistics class last semester, my professor was explaining to our class how the subject material that we would be learning in that class would be completely brand new to us, and pretty difficult. However, it was material that used to be taught to 3rd graders less than a decade ago...this shocked me! Is this a reoccurring trend in academia? Subject matter in certain areas of study become diluted or delayed as time goes on? I couldn't believe that Quintilian suggested the same ideas about schooling and this was thousands of years ago!

Secondly I felt that it was very interesting how Quintilian equated the word grammar with the word literature like they were synonyms. Why would he do that? This is not true according to what I know in the study of English. Perhaps those who would want to comment upon my blog post could enlighten me. Grammar = Literature, interesting...no doubt they are both two very important facets of English and rhetoric, but the same thing? I don't see that at all, but it is very possible that I am interpreting this language wrong.

I was also very interested at how Quintilian felt that he could define what the ideal student was, and how the perfect teacher should be. In a time of such philosophic thinking I found this language to be so straight forward and felt that it explained things so directly. In the chapter where Quintilian describes how a teacher can teach effectively teach the art of public speech and what that teacher to do in order for the students to learn the most that they can, I thought it was so interesting how the "last but not least" example of hot to teach most effectively was to not be too "harsh or reproachful," it seems like at that time in our history, there was war, disease and famine running rampant throughout man societies and Quintilian doesn't want teachers to be too mean, it actually seems a little funny.

Mostly, this section made me think about teaching and learning and the effects each have on each other and all of the intricate ways the two relationship can be woven together. It makes me think about our own professor and how she must feel being a collegiate teacher of rhetoric, and it makes me wonder how if when she reads blog posts like this from students with thoughts from every direction, can she keep learning new things about a concept as old and concrete as rhetoric? We as teachers are always being taught, and we as learners are always questioning our own ideas in order to make sense of others.

Goodness.

What I can't help but pay attention to in any of these classical works is the emphasis all the authors place on the "good" - whether that be in relation to man, subject matter, etc. For the sake of this blog post, we'll stick with "good" in relation to a man who wishes to be an orator.

"But a bad man must of necessity utter words at variance with his thoughts; while to good men, on the contrary, a virtuous sincerity of language will never be wanting, nor (for good men will also be wise) a power of producing the most excellent thoughts, which, though they may be destitute of showy charms, will be sufficiently adorned by their own natural qualities, since whatever is said with honest feeling will also be said with eloquence." (416)

Many people have had their own honest feelings; in addition to people like Gandhi and Augustine, there are Hitler, Osama bin Laden, to name a few. People who honestly believe that what they are speaking is the truth - and who have been eloquent enough to mass huge followings behind them. Good, it seems, is relative to every person and how they see the world. It's fine to pick a working definition of a word like good, they way Quintillian does, but it'll never work in the real world.

And according to the above quote, I don't know that many of us would make the "good" cut, because I know very few people who have never had a variance between their words and their thoughts at some point.

Let Him Be Perfect

The Teaching of Rhetoric

I like that Quintilian pays particular attention to the study of rhetoric and of (as he says) the decline in the teaching of rhetoric. He states, “the rhetoricians, especially our own, have relinquished a part of their duties, and that the grammarians have appropriated what does not belong to them” (364). Quintilian is going to sort all of this out. This statement also kind of reminds me of Cicero, where he felt that rhetoric was not given as much credit as it should have, and that rhetoric dealt with a lot more things that people supposed – and also the idea that rhetoric has been traded for philosophy for some people; rhetoric deals with representing truth but not TRUTH.

Anyway, this piece comes off kind of preachy. Quintilian has several passages that start and go on sort of like this:

“Let him adopt, then, above all things, the feelings of a parent towards his pupils, and consider that he succeeds to the place of those by whom the children were entrusted to him. Let him neither have vices in himself, nor tolerate them in others. Let his austerity not be stern, not his affability too easy, lest dislike arise from the one, or contempt from the other” (366) and etc. etc.

It's almost like he's praying for change.

I do, however, find his views on the teacher very endearing, as the synopsis at the beginning states that he wrote this after he had lost one of his own children – and so it emphasizes that the teacher is extremely important for the child. He also mentions that a good parent will make sure that his child studies from a good teacher, and that “[pupils] are to love their tutors not less than their studies, and to regard them as parents, not indeed of their bodies, but of their minds” (379). I really like that – although I'm sure it was much easier for teachers back then, who had much fewer students, and had the ability to be with them through their learning as a parent is there for them through life.

Definition of Rhetoric

In the middle sections, Quintilian struggles to find a definition for rhetoric that he likes, but finally he settles on “the definition that oratory is the science of speaking well” because it “agrees excellently for it embraces all the virtues of oratory at once, and includes also the character of the true orator, as he cannot speak well unless he be a good man” (389). I like the effort that Quintilian makes in reaching this definition, because he then is able to use it to combat counterarguments to the different aspects of rhetoric in later chapters.

In his own writing, Quintilian shows that it is very important to be considerate and “go slow,” not to rush the meaning during the process of writing. He is constantly focused on doing well, right off the bat, and not having to redress his claims or try and do much correction, such as a “perfect orator” would do.

We see this in one section where he is seeking to discuss “how” and “what” to write, and he states again, in prayer-like incantation:

“Let our pen be at first slow, provided that it be accurate. Let us search for what is best, and not allow ourselves to be readily pleased with whatever presents itself; let judgement be applied to our thoughts, and skill in arrangement to such of them as the judgement sanctions; for we must make a selection from our thoughts and words, and the weight of each must be carefully estimated” (404).

Not only must the process of writing and practicing rhetoric be done well, but it must be done well and from the goodness of our hearts as is seen through our character, which he later goes on to describe, which for the sake of time I won't go into.

Essencially, I feel like Quintilian is conducting a literature review or even doing his own sort of synthesis essay in that he is discussing the different claims against rhetoric as well as setting out to define terms in respect to the problems presented and the history of the practice, along with his own ideas about teaching and what he wants to present about rhetoric. 

Eloquence = Oratory

The "Rules of Rhetoric" equate to eloquence/oratory, which Augustine refuses to discuss in the beginning of Book IV but then proceeds to only discuss. "I wish to put down the hopes of readers who... think that I am going to set forth the rules of rhetoric..." (p.456, Ch. 2) he says, but then speaks for thirty(ish) pages about the roles of eloquence (in either abundance or in lack and when and how and for what purpose to choose which) in Christian oratory. Eloquence, he defines as "adroit oral practice in the use of a large vocabulary and rich diction...".  Along with this definition of eloquence, he states "...result in what we term eloquence, or oratory" or, that eloquence and oratory are two terms for the same thing (p.457, Ch. 4). Notice how, as an instruction, this definition utilizes what he terms the "low style" of oratory.

So, at this point, what happens if we read the rest of Book IV remembering that when he refers to eloquence, he refers to oratory as a whole? Up to this point in our readings, I have taken eloquence to be apart from, or a part of oratory (and writing, of course). With this connection, however, oratory (and writing, of course) becomes eloquence. A problem arises when we consider his instructional voice in the plain style, which seems to be intentionally devoid of eloquence. We can answer this by looking at eloquence as a measurable thing. That is, a lack of eloquence is a measure of eloquence.

He further urges that eloquence of the Christian orator (writer) exists not only in his/her words, but in his/her acts, and that living a good life is eloquent, even if the speech lacks eloquence of form, or that, “he should prefer to please through his matter rather than through his words”(p. 483 Ch.61). To the other extreme, eloquence is acceptable as a means of persuasion, even if the speaker is evil, provided that the words are Truth (p. 482 Ch. 59). Does this view of extremities invalidate ethos as a necessary in Christian oratory? 

Rules for (Rhetoric) Teachers--95 CE

Both of my parents are teachers; as far back as I can remember they had a plaque on the wall in our house. It was titled, 'Rules for Teachers-1871'. There were some different expectations in 1871 than now. Of the 14 rules, my favorites were the rule that specified teachers must haul wood every day to heat the schoolhouse, whittle feathers for quills to suit students' preferences, and allowed single teachers 1 evening a week for 'courting purposes'.

The entire time I was reading Quintilian, I was thinking of this plaque. I think it is mostly because Quintilian is laying out his own set of rules for rhetoric teachers. And I have to say on a purely theoretical level, I think he's got some really great points. Who doesn't want a teacher that is an expert, virtuous, and instructs in a way that stimulates the pupil to individual creative thought? Where I get I hung up is at trying to start defining some of these things. What is virtue? Could we have a good rhetorician or teacher who didn't follow Quintilian's precepts? And is Quintilian's definition of virtue the 'right' definition (is there a 'right' definition, or simply a definition that is right for the person)?

On the subject of virtue Quintilian has a firm opinion, one that I'm not completely on the bandwagon with:

'First of all, then, we have to consider what rhetoric is.......The first and chief difference of opinion on the subject is, that some think it possible even for bad men to have the name of orators; while others (to whose opinion I attach myself ) maintain that the name, and the art of which we are speaking, can be concede only to good men'.

I have trouble attaching moral stipulations to rhetoric. If it is the art of speaking well (my current working definition), both good and bad men can use rhetoric, for good and bad purposes. The moral lies not with the subject, but with the human that it is produced through.

A Higher Purpose

The point that Quintilian never stopped pushing is that the orator, above all things, must be a good man, and only then can he speak well. Although Quintilian does believe that men can be born good, he also means that the man must study virtue. Virtue in his time was very cut and dry. There were very certain characteristics that were considered virtuous, which were decided among the philosophers of the time. Back then, people openly believed that there were certain things that were right or wrong, and men could learn them form teachers.

There is no doubt that times have changed dramatically. I don't think that people care about being good men anymore. Relativism is widely accepted philosophy in this world of growing tolerance. A lot of people think that what is right for me might not be right for you, that we are different, and that therefore, morally right and morally wrong mean different things for each individual. I think it's bogus. It's an excuse to act like animals.

I've been contemplating on what the world would look like if all of our politicians were good men. If they never lied, if they never had hidden agendas, if they cared more about the people they govern than they care about themselves. If they cared about hunger more than they care about their next pay raise. If they cared more about the common health than undeserved bail-outs. It looks like a pretty awesome place huh?

For these reasons, I think Quintilian was right about the good men. It's too bad that most people are easily fooled by the speeches of bad men. I think rhetoric was meant for a higher purpose than deceiving. However, that seems to be its chief use in the world of politics today.

Chapter four, section six

I found Quintilian to be a little easier to read than past text, and I am attributing that to the headings at the beginning of each chapter that break down the different numbered parts.

Chapter four was one of my favorite parts of Institutes of Oratory, in particular I liked sections 4-8 and picked sections six to focus on of my post. I really liked “Let that age be daring, invent much, and delight in what it invents, though it be often not sufficiently severe and correct. The remedy for exuberance is easy; bareness is incurable by any labor.”  I would like to know what “bareness” meant during Quintilian’s time? Could it have meant boring, because when I read this section and really try to chew on its point, I come up with boring.  But then why would one want to stifle or cure their exuberance, is exuberance not a catalyst for individuality and invention. I would have thought by now and from what I have read of Quintilian that he would be for exuberance, invention and individuality. I guess I don’t agree with Quintilian on this point as much as I thought I had when beginning this post. Section six drew me in because of the first part and it advises to be daring, inventive and delighted. But on the contrary it seems as if no of this behavior is actually encouraged. The more I think about this passage the more questions I come up with and seem to not be able to find the answers for which is becoming very frustrating.

This leads me to read back in the fourth chapter, seeing the lines right before my first quote: “Hence there is strength; while a child that has the outline of all his limbs exact commonly portends weakness in subsequent years.” Upon trying to reference this quote and make sense of what I have started out to I again have come up with more questions. What does it mean for a child to have its limbs outlined? And how will he portend weakness in the following years? 

In the Public Eye

     After reading through Cicero from De Oratore, rereading at some spots, I am noticing the evolution of rhetoric from its uncertain origins to what it has become in the modern world.  At times I still have trouble understanding every point our authors are trying to make because their explanations are based on examples of an ancient everyday life I am entirely unfamiliar with.  That being said, there are a number of things to take away from this piece.
     By my understanding, Cicero's rhetoric was a collaborative effort between those who work to inform and include the public, allowing their intellectual capacity and gift of voice to be their only selfless motivation.  In other words, the general public is what makes up the society in which we live.  Those select few with specific oratory capabilities are responsible to distribute their knowledge to the majority population.
     I agreed with many of Cicero's arguments of what the proper orator should embody.  One of the most basic was his assertion that orator's be perceptive of their audience, realizing each person understands the same topic differently.  A legitimate orator must be able to explain their stance in multiple different ways as to make sure everyone understands what they initially were attempting to set forth.  Just typing this makes it sound confusing.  Speakers hope for a certain response, but often get something entirely unexpected.  By Cicero's definition, this is not a good orator because the speaker was unprepared for the rebuttal.  I think of those ink portraits they use in psychology, the subjects being asked what they see in the drawings.  Each person sees what they want to see, almost always something different.  I think this can be applied to this discourse as described by Cicero.  An orator must be prepared for a response they had not thought of themselves.
     I liked Cicero's means by which to be prepared for this instance and many others.  He emphasized the need for an orator to dive into their community culture, coming to understand all different realms and sects of people by what subjects they are driven by.  He states, "[f]or if everyone who, while outstanding in some art and capacity, has embraced another art as well, is thereby to create the belief that such subsidiary knowledge is a specific part of that wherein he excels" (312).  In this statement, I think he is trying to say there is no end to knowledge, regardless of one's mastery on any subject or school of knowledge.  There is always something new to learn and experience.  In this absorption, one must take their knowledge and apply it elsewhere to know its true value within society.  What is one without the other?  This question can be applied to any number or relationships.
     These ideas help me to understand Cicero's idea of the rounded argument and its ability to persuade.  An orator must be aware of his audience, for many almost certainly do not share the same educational backgrounds, economic standings, or general interests and motivations.  An orator must have experiences outside his own specialty to even have what he needs to make an argument for all to understand.  His argument(s) will be acknowledged based on its delivery, its worth determined only after the fact.
     Many of these ideas remain prevalent today.  I think of political speeches, acceptance speeches, cause promotion or even public apologies.  Paula Deen anyone?  None of these will be considered genuine or taken seriously if they don't follow some of Cicero's now-ingrained rules of eloquent speech and overall understanding of the topic being spoken upon.

How Sarah Palin Breaks All of Cicero's Rules

"I certainly used to regard virtue as being taught to mankind by training and persuasion, not by threats, and force and even terror" - Cicero (317)

Living in a post-9/11 world we are constantly seeing the world through "terrorism colored glasses." What is wrong and right, as Cicero states is being taught through this constant fear of terrorism. It has leaked into all aspects of life, but especially those dictated by social institutions such as the government. In the 2008 campaign Sarah Palin defied most of Cicero's rules on how to be a good rhetor, which created a mockery of herself but also revealed the importance of rhetoric in leadership at such a hot-button time.

During her interview with Katie Couric, Sarah Palin made many mistakes a vital error according to Cicero who states, "For nothing stands out so conspicuously, or remains so firmly fixed in the memory, as something in which you have blundered" (307). In her defense Sarah Palin was brought onto the presidential campaign rather hastily, giving her a lack of time to overview issues/history/laws that might have been brought up. Cicero declares, "For excellence in speaking cannot be made manifest unless the speaker fully comprehends the matter he speaks about" (296).

The root of grand speaking, or rhetoric, in Cicero's texts links back to having knowledge of both laws, and a multitude of subject matters. His rules of rhetoric rely on three main principles, "Thus for purposes of persuasion the art of speaking relies wholly on three things: the proof of our allegations, the winning of our hearers' favor, and the rousing of their feelings to whatever impulse our case may require" (324). Sarah Palin often lacked proof of allegations, not because she did not have evidentiary support but her claims were often muddled and confusing leading her to a lack of saying anything directly. According to the Toulmin model she might have data but she lacks a warrant or a claim. In terms of winning the hearer's favor she was often mocked and ridiculed throughout the press and throughout different political parties. By becoming a laughing joke she destroyed her ethos, which was lacking in the first place given her position in comparison to most of Washington D.C. And finally she roused feelings within the audience  but not the ones she intended to, rather than inspiring a nation she caused fear, terror, and sympathy. Living in a world driven by fear of terrorism and international policy, our ethics are shaped around these notions, and by mimicking that sense of fear within our own leaders, Sarah Palin failed at performing Cicero's ways of speaking or performing rhetoric well.

As Cicero points out, "Stupidity finds no apology" (306).

Are good orators rare?

"Nothing therefore is more rarely found among mankind than a consummate orator; for qualifications which professors of other arts are commended for acquiring in a moderate degree, each in his respective pursuit, will not be praised in the orator, unless they are all combined in him in the highest possible excellence.”

These are the words of Antonius. It seems to me he is stating that to be an outstanding orator is a challenge greater than being excellent in any other field, which, at first glance, is not an easy statement to believe. Really? It is more difficult to be a good speaker than a good doctor? A good physicist? A good civil engineer, who literally holds the safety of entire populations in the quality of his work? Surely, to merely speak of phenomena, rather than actually create and execute them, is by no means as difficult.

I don't think any rationale being can equate the challenges of being a surgeon with the trials of being a public communicator. But I don't think think this was what Antonius meant to do It is the "consumate" part of his statement that renders it plausible. A surgeon can learn his incredibly hard task over a period of twelve to fifteen years, after which point he could be a staff member at a hospital. Sure, he'll keep on learning and gaining experience but, for the most part, he IS a surgeon, a binary thing. Thus, there are a great many surgeons, and a relatively large number we'd refer to as "good" surgeons.

Now let us look at our present-day orators--newscasters, comedians, authors, filmmakers. How many of these do we consider good? There are not very many. An orator does not simply obtain a degree in oration, do an internship, and then be considered by anyone to be an orator. Rather, she must gain the respect of the society, they must collectively consider her to in fact be an orator. This takes great time and great skill, and is an ever evolving learning process. She must constantly adapt.

So though anyone can say they are an orator, can even have a degree in a communication related field, a very select few are considered by the people to actually be our societies orators. There is only one John Stewart, Steven King, Quintin Tarantino.

Persuasion v. Knowledge

I was most intrigued by the arguments between Scaevola and Crassus concerning the methods an uses of rhetoric by orators. I agree with Scaevola when he says "I can cite more instances of damages done, than of aid given to the cause of the state by men of first-rate eloquence..." (294) and I do not agree with Crassus when he says "For excellence in speaking cannot be made manifest unless the speaker fully comprehends the matter he speaks about" (296). Eloquence is something that is not dependent on knowledge (except of speaking persuasively). I think of the former CEO of the company my dad works for: the CEO was an excellent speaker and so traveled to conferences and gave speeches on their products (bio-medical devices) and my dad would always hold his breath in hopes that no one actually learned in science was in the audience because he lacked a basic understanding of terms and functions. However, he was almost always applauded and gained the company grants and donations despite his confusion. There's also the videos on Youtube where people are questioned about who they will vote for: the interviewer asks if they agree with such and such policies of either Obama or Romney, and the interviewees whole-heartedly agree with policies of the opposite candidate if only the name of the candidate they support is attached to it. This is because political speeches are nowadays (in my opinion) dependent on buzzwords that appeal to the masses and crafty phrasing with content geared towards the demonizing of the opponent with little relevance to actual issues. Therefore, an eloquent speech without knowledge of subject matter would not be "the sport of universal derision" (296) as Crassus says. I believe (through our readings) persuasion is much more dependent on the knowledge of the audience than the knowledge of the speaker and so persuasion only needs the orators knowledge of the audience. I enjoyed Book 1 the most because of the back and forth and the discovery through argument because it makes clear that no matter how knowledgeable you may be on a subject (in this case rhetoric) you will always find an opponent and so the most important thing is knowing the beliefs of your opponent and how you can use them to your advantage. Crassus' assertion that rhetoric is dependent on knowledge of the subject matter is obviously important, but is not the crucial point.  

The Intangible Rules of Rhetoric

Cicero’s De Oratore at long last confirmed what I have suspected for a long time: that there are no hard and fast rules to rhetoric.  Every rhetor or rhetorician will frame the art differently, depending on his or her particular lens of interest.  

Within his text, Cicero presents a group of people in discussion about the requirements of good oratory and orators; all members of this group (even members like Sulpicius and Cotta) seem to possess at least some knowledge about as well as strong opinions on this subject.  They all make what I would deem both good and bad points, but what is most evident is that no “litmus test” is commonly employed to determine whether or not a certain piece of rhetorical theory is “right” other than how well it gels with one’s own reasoning. 

For example…Crassus claims that an orator must be a master of the law, while Antonius insists that an orator only needs the help of persons who versed in the law by trade (315).  I’m sure that any individual gifted with the ability to persuade through argument follows an individual strategy based on his or her preexisting talents.  Surely such strategies are also modified to suit varying arguments and rhetorical situations.  As is encapsulated in a heading on page 304, “there is not a science” to oratory “in the strict sense, but experience can furnish it with a set of rules.”  I have no doubt that this proper “set of rules” varies from orator to orator (although I did appreciate the approbation of nervousness before speaking provided by Crassus on page 306).  

Earlier, I was frustrated by the ambiguity of rhetoric, and wished for more concrete rules.  Presently, I’m intrigued by how creative rhetoric could possibly be, and think I understand why I more often hear it called an “art” than a “field.”      

Powerful Words

There is one quote right at the beginning of Book 1 that caught my eye: "In every free nation, and most of all in communities which have attained the enjoyment of peace and tranquility, this one art has always flourished above the rest and ever reigned supreme. For what is so marvelous as that, out of the innumerable company of mankind, a single being should arise, who either alone or with a few other can make effective a faculty bestowed by nature upon every man?"

At the beginning of the class (I think? It might also have been the Digital Rhetorics class...), we discussed the interplay between rhetoric and power. I find this relationship fascinating--what power, as writers and rhetors, do we really have? How much can we truly change just with words? And is it the rhetoric itself that is so powerful, or just the fact that rhetoric touches and can be used in any other field of study?

I don't really have answers to any of these questions yet, but I think they're interesting to think about. It especially came to light for me reading this quote from Cicero, who was hounded and killed for his political influence (and therefore power and danger), which came through his use of words and rhetoric.

Fear of public speaking

It was interesting to come across Book I chapter 27, where Antonius discusses fear associated with public speech. I typically fall into the ranks of the quiet ones (or at least that is what I want to do). It is an act of forcing myself to utterances in classroom settings while class is in session. I have gotten much better at it than I used to be. And my fear has reduced as well (probably thanks to old age and cynicism). I had never considered before reading this that this fear could affect professional speakers as well (ancients included). 

Antonius pretty well nailed the processes behind this fear too. First, and I'm paraphrasing (I hope correctly), that this might be the speech where things go wrong and second, that by flubbing up the speech, we be branded stupid by our hearers (a famous example can be found in the last paragraph). He calls it a justifiable fear, which is not comforting to me. It means that things can and do go wrong (I agree) and that when they do, the speaker is branded redorkulous. For me, I’m afraid I’ll always probably suck at oratory, for my tongue remains fat and cumbersome but wants to work faster than my brain (which is off topic, thinking poetically). Practice can answer some of that question, but practice isn't always an option (notice that Antonius doesn't offer any advice to supplement his observation?).

To make matters worse, Antonius a bit further on describes the requirements of orators as having, “the subtlety of the logician, the thoughts of the philosopher, a diction almost poetic, a lawyer’s memory, a tragedian’s voice and the bearing almost of the consummate actor”(Bk.I Ch. 28). Bringing this back to the classroom setting, I know that is not what is required for adequate class participation, but I remember the days when I felt inadequate to offer anything of use because I lacked some of the natural abilities Antonius listed.

In the grander scheme of this topic, I wonder what demands modern rhetorics hold to orators. I suppose that is up to the hearers. I mean, if this guy can win two terms, and speech is still a factor in the public arena of the world of politics, those demands must have lightened up a little... right?

Rhetoric is a science...

After having read through the portion of the text that we needed to, I kept coming back to this passage.  So far, everything that we have read, up to this point, has seemed "hypothetical" and what if.  I made mention of it in my last post, but where Cicero stands out is his stance of fact.

In true rhetoric you can't make something up, lest you come off looking like an ass.  Like science you have to have fact and that fact has to be some basis of truth that is organized into a semblance of structure that is not only agreed upon but able to be replicated, discussed and articulated.

A true rhetorician can't / won't just jump into rhetoric and expect to be perfect from the get-go.  There has to be trial and error, and from what we've seen from Plato and moving forward, there seems to be a grooming period in which a pupil will simply listen to the master.  Questioning seems to be a mechanism simply for the master to continue hearing the sound of his own voice.  There needs to be a legitimate amount of base knowledge before someone can be considered an experienced rhetorician/

But at a time when little was written down it appeared that there was intense study done in the practice of discourse because it was so important that the next in line, the next pupil, absolutely had to have the facts down, lest important knowledge be lost.

Science is much the same way in that there has to be an intense period of study lest the important facts be lost, and through that period of study there needs to be repeated practicing lest the pupil not be fully aware of the power of the science / rhetoric.

Like science, rhetoric needs to be able to be challenged.  There has to be a form of discourse that allows for the expression of dissenting ideas and a way to test those dissenting ideas such that either the tests are repeatable.

What is interesting is that on page 303 Cicero then almost questions himself with the question of "Is there a science of rhetoric?"  I am going to interject my own answer to that question and say that YES, there is.  It's the structured and formatted way in which we approach both science and rhetoric that allows for the approach that we now use.

You Can't Major in Everything

The biggest underlying theme that I noticed in De Oratore was how wide of a topic rhetoric is. Cicero's elders were engaged in a lengthy argument about just how much an orator must study in order to be great. Crassus is of the opinion that great orators are extremely rare, because they must be exhaustively educated in all arts and sciences in order to be great, and they must also have a natural talent. Nobody else who was engaged in the argument seemed to be in agreement with Crassus. They thought that if one was properly educated in the techniques of good oratory, and had talent, that whenever a certain situation arose, in which they were not fully educated on, they could research the topic before giving the speech; that mastering all arts and sciences is not a practical expectation.

As a writing major, I have actually given a lot of thought to this argument in the past. As a writer (and a wanna-be rhetor/rhetorician) I specialize in the techniques of writing. But if I have limited knowledge in other fields, what the hell am I supposed to write about with eloquence? People across different disciplines have to write in order to do their job. But my only job is to write.

That being said, I am educated in more than just the field of writing, and I do have things I want to say and write. It's just that I have more on my plate than the average Joe. I'm not only becoming an expert in the field of writing, but I need to study the things I will write about if I want to persuade anyone or, much less, even be coherent.

I think that Crassus really overshot the mark with his unrealistic expectations. I side more with the other elders. When I need to write about something I am not educated about, I will research it. I certainly don't have the time to major in everything at MSU.

How long will it be before I can call myself a Rhetor?

Oh, Cicero. So many expectations.

I'm kind of in between the points that Crassus and Antonius make. For one, I don't think that it's ever really completely possible to do everything that Crassus wants us to do: study all the topics anyone ever thought worth studying until we have a total understanding of their natures and of how to bring up evidence in any possible situation; but it's not like that's a bad thing to strive towards.

Antonius is much more realistic in terms of understanding the limits that certain people may have, whereas Crassus is much more idealistic, speaking of “The Orator” like he is a myth yet to be born into mortality (I say “he” there but would like to be gender neutral, but these men obviously aren't).

I was surprised at how much more Cicero focused on using pathos in argument; he writes, “Now nothing in oratory … is more important than to win for the orator the favor of his hearer, and to have the latter so affected as to be swayed by something resembling a mental impulse of emotion, rather than by judgment or deliberation” (328).

It seems that an orator can do this in two ways, firstly: “A potent factor in success, is for the characters, principles, conduct, and course of life, both of those who are to plead cases and of their clients, to be approved, and conversely those of their opponents condemned” (328). In essence, we're talking about ethos here. Cicero goes on to write about how the orator should position himself as someone trustworthy, calm, kind, loyal, and of good disposition, and that “the very opposites of these qualities must be ascribed to our opponents” (329). While Cicero likes to believe that he is taking all of these ideas straight from Aristotle, I feel that he is very much twisting it by putting a much larger emphasis on a conscious and deliberate decision to create your character as someone “seeming just,” whereas Aristotle recognizes the enormous power that ethos has on an audience, but wishes for sound judgment over the emotional-like appeal of ethos.

Secondly: “But closely associated with this is that dissimilar style of speaking which, in quite another way, excites and urges the feelings of the tribunal towards hatred or love, ill-will or well-wishing, fear or hope, desire or aversion, joy or sorrow, compassion or the wish to punish...” (329). Straight up pathos. Cicero also talks about how this can be difficult, depending on the position and feelings that the audience brings to the table, but I feel like this is less of a direct appeal to emotions, and more of an appeal to find common ground in emotion. The logic of the argument unites the audience to feel a certain way, together, which can help them get past whatever issues they have (which you might say makes them think less logically) and get problems solved.

The big emphasis on emotion really made me wonder – is this really a correct way to make an argument? I suppose it brings me back to a discussion in WRIT 371, where we were talking about how there is a preconception that an argument should not be judged by who is speaking it, or what the motives for speaking it are, etc; when indeed these are the very things that can sway the audience to see our argument more closely resembling the truth than another's – but our society goes to lengths to deny it and to attempt to say that it really was other things that led us to believe a certain person.

One obvious example of this is the Nixon – Kennedy debates in the '60s, the first debates ever televised. Nixon chose to wear no makeup, and ended up looking old, sickly, harsh; whereas Kennedy was young, wore makeup, looked great on stage and won the audience over by his “charm.” Nixon actually won the debate in terms of points or however they do that, but Kennedy was the one that ended up in office.

I guess I'm just not sure if I'm frustrated by the fact that we can't get away from emotional appeals as humans, and that it will always be something that greatly affects us, unless we take great care. I do know, however, that I agree that the orator should be fully committed, emotionally and mentally, to the cause which he speaks – as Cicero says, “no man can be a good poet who is not on fire with passion, and inspired by something very like frenzy” (331). We just have to be able to channel it. 

Every Dog Has His Day

Well, I don't know if you all have noticed, but I am kind of a pathos junkie. Whenever I'm reading a text by one of these bigwigs I'll be like, "yes... but where is the emotion?" Finally, with Cicero, it seems I have found my champion. This crusader of emotion and audience stirred me to the core and brought me to some interesting revelations. For the first time it seems like we have someone who has embraced the connection between logos and pathos and seems to side more with the necessity of pathos and ethos than the facts and logic that goes with logos.

In a perfect world where we are all robots, the premise of only thinking through logic and reason makes complete sense. Yet, sadly, this is not the case and we have this squishy body, with these things called feelings, which usually tend to take over our brain. When we come into contact with the world, we encounter it through our senses, and our feelings are the first things that process the world.

When someone is talking, we process their words and relevance to us through our feelings. An example of this is in Cicero's section on compassion, where he writes, "Lastly compassion is awakened if the hearer can be brought to apply to his own adversities, whether endured or only apprehended, the lamentations uttered over someone else, or if, in his contemplation of another's case, he many a time goes back to his own experience" (334).

We process words and their logic by how they make us feel. Whenever I read an essay, it seems that I always pay more attention to what I currently believe, placing more emphasis on those sections than the others. I shape my text in a sense from my own preconceived notions. This is not to say that I don't acquire new material because I do, or I would never have come to school in the first place, but whenever I do acquire new intel, I do it through my own personal lens which shapes the text I am reading. Now, this brings me to the question of audience that I have and am curious about.

My question is, how does the audience in writing and oral presentations differ? Throughout this essay, I was picturing the court scenes and the two men, Crassus and Antonius, waging war for the connection and hearts of the audience. It seemed that Antonius won through his clever tactics and knowing when to use delicacy and when to push for a stronger emotion. But, the way that he was able to do this was to guide the audience towards a conclusion through careful demonstration, a calm voice, and logical proofs, leading to the establishment of his client's character and the connection of emotion to the argument. In this day and age though, we usually don't read an essay from start to finish, especially if doing research. Instead, what we do is pick the sections that we are most interested in and include them into our vision, much like what I have done with my dedication to pathos. Coincidentally the text might be misconstrued and the message completely warped by the individual's previous perception.

So, with oral presentation I can see how the audience can be influenced and it seems that Cicero was the master at it, but in writing, I wonder how much effect emotion has? We definitely see the effect of active versus passive voice, the effect of a passionate writer, but does this even matter anymore? If we are all going right for the individual facts of the argument, rather than the broad concept, does pathos even matter? And if so, do we have to change our presentation in order to express this emotion?

Cicero

It's funny to realize that while I enjoy going round and round on a topic in active discussion, gaining new insight and ideas, I have the hardest time staying interested in recorded conversation - until I actually realized that this was what Cicero was doing. Phaedrus had been very easy to read for me because of the conversation style.

De Oratore  touched on many different points that he has deemed important to rhetoric; points that continually circle back to the main topic - and it did feel that way, as though everything kept being repeated in a different manner of speaking. Since the idea that I have in my mind of rhetoric and the classical idea of rhetoric that we have been studying currently seem to differ so much, I was very happy to find this passage:

"But the truth is that this oratory is a greater thing, and has its sources in more arts and branches of study, than people suppose." (Cicero, 291)

While he is speaking directly about oratory in this passage, the idea extends directly into how I feel about rhetoric: that if the time is taken to peel back the different layers of vision aimed at all different walks of life, you will be able to see how it finds it's way into each of them. And I'm starting to see if it in my own day-to-day doings.

Cicero's Habits

In the brief description of Cicero, it says he apprenticed for a noted lawyer Quintus Scaevola and later on it describes how Cicero’s own style was classified. His style was “characterized by amplification –naming the same thing tow or three different ways in succession, adding elaborating or qualifying clauses, and otherwise developing the periodic sentence pioneered by Isocrates.”  I can’t help thinking that Cicero may have developed some of his style from Quintus Scaevola. Lawyers today talk in this manner, they amplify names, say facts two or three times and elaborate to there greatest ability, all in hopes of swaying the jury. All of these technics are known to assist in the convincing that a certain belief is correct and to give the speaker credibility by repetition.  

            Also I believe Cicero developed habits from Scaevola because he later says he, “aims to evoke heightened emotion and at the same time to explore every facet of an idea –in Cicero’s view, stylistic ornateness contributes to the development of content.” It is highly debated if it is proper to bring emotion into an argument, however lawyers often do just that; they explore every fact of a case while playing on the juror’s emotions.  I do agree with Cicero’s belief that “stylistic ornateness contributes to the development of content.” I see it as a lawyer building a series of pictures to create the action he or she is defending. The style and finesse that he or she puts on the argument or image will determine how believable it is, regardless if the facts are true.

I wanted to conclude my post with something from the final part of book one, however I found that section very confusing.  In particular I did not understand: “So by you account the learned lawyer, in and by himself, is nothing but a circumspect and sharp kind of pettifogger, a crier of legal actions, a chanter of legal formulas a trapper of syllables; but, because the orator in Court often employs the aid of the law, you have therefore associated your legal knowledge with Eloquence, as a little maid to follow at her heels” (315).  If anyone can break this down for me it would be much appreciated.