English 622: Classical Rhetoric

In Christine de Pizan’s “The Treasure of the City of Ladies” I picked up on what I would describe as a pacifist rhetoric for women. For example, de Pizan makes statements that women should reply in a manner that will pacify those who previously had some grievance, rebellion, or quarrel in mind (546), and she also claims that “the good lady will wish to work to make peace” (547). What is interesting about these arguments is that she basically claims that men are incapable of such pacificist rhetoric “for they are by nature more courageous and more hot-headed” than women (547).

Building off my post from last week about Quintilian, I saw in Augustine’s writings too an emphasis on imitation; however, it took on a different flavor. For example, with Quintilian, we saw him argue that imitation is not enough and that one should excel those who s/he imitates. Augustine, on the other hand, makes the opposite claim regarding imitation. Specifically, he claims that one should imitate within one’s ability (103). So, here we see an argument for limiting one’s imitations rather than the Quintilian claim to excel those one imitates.

In our readings this semester, I have been interested in what each of our authors has said about epistemologies and how rhetors go about creating/finding/using knowledge in their speeches/writings. Quintilian’s discussion of imitation in this week’s readings raised a question for me as to whether or not we can consider imitation as epistemic. In answering this question, I found myself saying yes and no.

In Books 2 & 3 of Cicero’s De Oratore, I found his discussion of what it takes to be the “complete orator” to be very interesting. In particular, his reminding the reader of Socrates’ divorcing of the “tongue from the heart, a division certainly absurd, useless, and reprehensible” (209) made clear to me how and why rhetoric came to be known as the dappled discipline. Specifically, on (213-4), Cicero describes the real power of eloquence in that it touches on and affects many different things in life.

In this week’s readings regarding Aristotle’s “Rhetoric,” I kept coming back to the idea of body rhetoric. My exposure to body rhetoric is limited to Debbie Hawhee’s IDIS lecture last Fall, and as I am not in the body rhetoric class this semester, I cannot provide any references that describe how body rhetoric is theorized today, but in Aristotle’s work, especially in his discussion of fear and how humans experience it, I sense that the body was an important aspect or area of consideration in classical rhetoric.

In the opening sections of Book 1, Kennedy introduces the Greek term endoxa, which means commonly held opinions. When we were introduced to certain Greek terms earlier this semester, doxa was one of them, and my understanding of it was that it means opinion, conjecture. Now, without getting too semantic here, I struggled with seeing a distinction between the two as they both refer to opinion. However, after considering them more closely, I do see a distinction between them in that endoxa has more of a community focus whereas doxa has an individual focus.

When reading Antidosis, I was struck by what I saw as Isocrates’ inconsistent use or feelings about the past (and things that happened then) and the present (and things that are occurring now). To help explain, I list here four different quotations from Antidosis that brought this inconsistency to my attention.

In the Phaedrus, Socrates introduces for the first time (at least in our short 4 week time period in this class) the notion of natural ability. Prior to the Phaedrus, I sense that Socrates, in describing how to be a good rhetor, leaves the door open for any type of person to become a good rhetor. To achieve this status, all one needs is to seek out and discover truth and be virtuous. However, in the Phaedrus, Socrates shifts the equation a bit and adds natural ability as a prerequisite to becoming a good rhetor.

When reading Gorgias, I thought a lot about what Socrates' criteria were for something to be deemed as good oratory. (I'm reluctant to use the word "good" here as I feel like I'll be asked to defend what is is I mean by the term...). Anyway on p. 847, Socrates discusses the differences between good and bad oratory.

Hello all, my name is Mark Hannah, and I am a second year rhet/comp PhD student. I originally am from Poseyville, IN, which is a small town in southwestern Indiana near Evansville. Prior to coming to Purdue I worked as a tax attorney and tax consultant for three years. Regarding my educational background, I have a Masters degree in English from Northern Illinois University, a JD from DePaul University, and a BA from Wabash College which is just down the road from Lafayette in Crawfordsville, Indiana.