English 622: Classical Rhetoric

I enjoyed reading Quintilian, since, as Morgan and Karen pointed out, he seems to be a rhetor whose teachings on teaching are closest to our current teachings. And although we may quibble about the importance of the rhetor being morally fit, it is not far from the expectations we have of teachers now. In South Carolina, for example, my sister was not allowed to be seen in town consuming alcohol...to ensure she was a good moral guide to her students.

Some random thoughts:

Rick commented in his blog that in Cicero, we see the first attempt at a comprehensive overview of rhetoric. This is true, and I think it's part of the reason I noticed so much intertextuality. I not only had the sense that Cicero was familiar with Aristotle and Plato (and therefore Socrates), but he goes at length to offer what I might call a lit review.

so i was totally on the same page with tom as i read book 3--the section on bringing-before-the-eyes was really intriguing to me. in part, because i've read a little bit of wittgenstein, barthes, and fleckenstein, all of whom have something to say on the relationship between image and text. they would all argue, i think, that text calls to mind image(s). or that to say the word tree is to call to mind an image of a large plant with a brown trunk, branches, and green leaves.

I'm laughing at mark pepper's post about Aristotle right now--well, mostly laughing, sometimes coughing. My sentiments about Aristotle were sort of the same, but I actually was kind of tickled by his lengthly lists and oh-so-sure attitude towards everything that could possibly happen ever. ever ever ever. Okay, maybe I felt stifled at first, but it was really great when he got to the parts where he told you how to manipulate the system.

While reading Isocrates, I've been struck by the difference in tone and style (as compared to Plato or Aspasia). I've been trying to pin down how or why I feel like Isocrates is different, but I'm having a hard time really articulating it.

In the introduction we read, the author claimed that "Isocrates' prose has generally been admired for its smoothness and charm." I'm not so sure I agree. Smoothness? yes. But charm? I don't think I buy that.

In his post, Rick mused,
"Perhaps this dialogue more than others makes me wonder what Plato is saying about himself and his view of philosophy and education."

i've read gorgias before and like many have heard and read countless remarks on and discussions of "socratic dialogues." i was particularly struck, this time around, by socrates' insistence on dialogue as the mode of fleshing out arguments. this has prompted me to reflect on the concept of mode versus genre. is the dialogue a method, a mode, a genre?