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.
What is good? Well, good is right. What is right? Well, right is correct? What is correct? Well...So on and so forth. The concept of good both so simple and so complex and is viewed in so many different ways through the lenses of so many different beings.
ReplyDeleteI feel that your relation between the ideas that the good have of good and the ideas that the evil have of good is very interesting. It makes me think about the concept in relation to rhetoric. What makes a good rhetor? It's obvious to me that the answer to that question varies upon different individuals. I think it would be really intersting though to observe as students of rhetoric, what we feel is "good."
I like the point you raise about good being relative and undefinable in concrete terms. I think thug that to some degree "good" is perceivable in the same manner by any human being, that level of good which is core and does not require any contemplation. There are some acts in which we know innately to be good or bad.
ReplyDeleteFrom an oratorical standpoint, I believe the text is somewhat correct. Did Hitler speak with eloquence, bringing people to his cause with sincerity alone and without "showy charms?" No. He yelled. He spoke with robust energy and a tone the bestowed fear upon his listeners. Yes, he certainly believed he was speaking good and truth, but had he actually been, his gusto and anger would not have been necessary.
It's very interesting to compare Hitler's speeches with Roosevelt's fireside chats of the same era.