English 622: Classical Rhetoric

I'm never sure exactly how to approach this part of the course. In the Renaissance, we see a sudden explosion of text as people begin casting off scholasticism and begin benefiting from the invention of the printing press. To me, the writers of this age seem to be struggling to come to terms with their newfound independence from the classics.

In preparation for today’s class, I felt like I was reading On Christian Doctrine (Teaching) from a whole different light. Since I last read On Christian Doctrine, I have been doing quite a bit of research on St. Patrick and Ancient Irish Rhetoric. Augustine and Patrick are essentially contemporaries, living at two different ends of the Roman Empire. Augustine is mostly living in Northern Africa, though he spends most of his formative years in Italy, especially in Milan. St. Patrick is from Britain originally, but spends the majority of his life in Ireland as both a slave and a bishop.

Each time I read Longinus, I find myself wondering why we don't teach sublimity or elevation to our students. It's as though we are so concerned about teaching invention and organization that we have little left to teach them how to write in an elevated style. Instead, we exclusively teach them "plain style."

I'm sure reading De Oratore is quite a chore and a bore for some people. It’s long and long-winded, making it tough reading when other course work and research are going wanting. But, much of this reaction to this text is our own fault. I don’t think Cicero ever intended De Oratore to be read as we are reading it for this class. We plow through the text, reading a book or two at a sitting. Cicero probably intended the book to be read and studied in parts or perhaps even read out loud to a group.

As I mentioned before, Jasper Neel is rather hostile toward Aristotle. He calls him just about every name in the book. According to Neel, Aristotle is a spy, a traitor, a slave owner, a political operator, an apologist, etc.

If you can stand back from the seemingly endless taxonomies in Aristotle's Rhetoric, an interesting vision of his understanding of rhetoric begins to emerge. As Covino points out, Aristotle is preaching the rhetoric of "power over" (in contrast to Isocrates' logos hegemon, which I would see as "power with.") In our egalitarian times, I'm sure most of us would like to identify with the "power with" understanding of rhetoric, but we need to put Aristotle in a historical context to understand his "power over" rhetoric.

All right, I’ll admit that Isocrates is not as exciting for me as the Sophists or Plato. I am reluctant to make this admission, because I believe Isocrates is the preeminent seminal figure to Western rhetoric and education. In many ways, he is responsible for defending and promoting rhetoric, which he calls philosophia, in the form that we have now. He is also the founder of Western concepts of education. That said, his writings offer only small gifts, which require a great amount of work to recover.

Like many devoted readers of Plato, I think this is his best dialogue. Here in this dialogue, we see Plato at his rhetorical best, as well as his enigmatic prime. This dialogue is the one in which Plato seems to be stepping clearly out of the shadow of Socrates. Socrates becomes more human with more obvious flaws than in prior dialogues.

With this response, I would like to venture into territory that seems uncertain to me. Specifically, the role of women in ancient Greek rhetoric is hard to discern, and I don’t want to fall into the usual sexism that grips classical studies. We witness that sexism in the editors’ introductions to the Menexenus and the Symposium. In the Menexenus, Socrates must be mocking Aspasia (right?) because he is recounting her speech. And in the Symposium, Diotima must be a construction (right?) because Socrates would never use a real woman to say such important things.

I've read the Gorgias countless times, and this is my fourth time reading the Menexenus. Fortunately, I always enjoy reading the Gorgias, even though it is decidedly negative about my chosen field of study, rhetoric.

Often, commentators on the Gorgias see it as moving step-by-step from a centrist position to a polar position, as Socrates takes on three opponents who are successively more extreme in their views.