English 622: Classical Rhetoric

When reading Pisan, I was struck by her assertion, "the moral sciences, which the virtues, indeed, there is not the slighest doubt that moral education amends and enobles them [women]. How could anyone think or believe that whoever follows good teaching or doctrine is the worse for it" (545). It was interesting, and a bit dangerous I might add, to take such a stance as this regarding not only the education of women, but education in general. It was still a faux pas at this time to argue that anyone had a right to education, especially women.

When reading the Plato earlier in the semester I was constantly struck by proto-Christian themes and tones that pervaded to the text. Socrates, at times, we almost like a proto-Christ figure, and after I read Augustine I have a better understanding why I related to the teachings of Socrates so strongly. Augustine seems to be very heavily influenced by the neo-Platonists, and this leads me to believe that their teachings were very influential on the early church, and are passed down in the traditions of the early church.

Once again I find myself thinking along the same lines as Mark Hannah. I guess great minds think alike...

Anyway, I think that Quintillian is much too hard on the rhetorical use of what somebody else might have said, or mimesis. To me, there are two kinds of genius in the rhetorcial arts: those of inventive (Epistemic)ways of making knowledge, and Interpretive which is relating to, involving, or providing an interpretation or explanation of knowledge. Both can be equally valuable ways for students to use writing.

When reading Cicero's book II and III, I came away with some of the same feelings as Mark Hannah. His post is proof positive that the early bird gets the worm so to speak. However, I came away with a different sense of the reading than Mark did.

The most interesting aspect of the last reading (that someone has not already discussed) is Aristotle's use of study of character. The look at proto pyschology was interesting, but Aristotle provides a a sketch of the moral character so that one can have reference point when selecting topics to persuade each of the three types of effects on character. It was like a "how to guide" to persuading those with more power and influence than yourself. It was almost like reading a proto version of The Prince by Machiavelli.

When reading Aristotle I liked that he seem to strike a nice middle pass between the transcendental rhetoric of Plato and Socrates, and the pragmatic rhetoric of Isocrates, and others. He does not seem concerned with what happens in the after life, but how to be happy while you are here. He also adapts some of the Socratic philosophy of restraint, and self control.

First, I would like to begin with a question. Why is it called the Encomium on Helen when it could be the Encomium to Theseus?

In praising Theseus, Isocrates hopes to accomplish a dual purpose. First, he seeks to establish the practically of wisdom. He seeks to show that all human acts should be of practical use to humans, and that only a proper education in practical wisdom can achieve this. Second, he seeks to establish a syllogism that will help strengthen the foundation of his argument. His syllogism is basically as follows, in my view:

Theseus is the greatest hero.

When reading Plato I constantly see parallels and likenesses between Socrates and Christ. I was going to pursue this as my first conference paper, but I realized after conducting some preliminary research that this has been done to death. However, one aspect of Phaedrus did interest me, and it relates to power and representation. In the Prologue to Phaedrus, John Michael Cooper argues, "Socrates criticizes severely those who take their own writing seriously—any writing, not just orators’ speeches. Writings cannot contain or constitute knowledge of any important matter.

In reading Gorgias I was very interested in Socrates views of oratory. Socrates seems to slam oratory in several places. Socrates claims, “Oratory doesn’t need to have any knowledge of the state of their subject matters; it only needs to have discovered some device to produce persuasion in order to make itself appear to those who don’t have knowledge that it knows more than those who actually do have it” (804).

Whats up, dudes and dudettes. My name is Terry Peterman. I hail from the great state of Texas. My research interests are gender studies, literary and rhetorical theory, and politics of writing.