English 622: Classical Rhetoric

From reading of rhetoric in the Renaissance I can sense that social factors can exert great influences on rhetorical trends. This reminds me of the rhetorical trend in today’s America. From the texts I usually read, like New York Times and CNN web pages, I can see many political discussions or practical tips for how to live better (in terms of finance, health or marriage life, etc.) Even articles in the column of “opinions” are often politics-oriented. I wander if such trends are also the results of social changes.

In study of rhetoric, according to Augustine, learning rules is not necessary. Instead, imitation of eloquent models can be an effective way to improve rhetorical skills. I guess both of these strategies are valuable but both have been discouraged to some degree in today’s writing classes. By encouraging creativity, people often deny the value of learning rules & imitating models. But it seems to me both of these practices can prepare students to write better. They serve as preconditions for developing personal writing styles and realizing potentials and creativities.

“A perfect orator must, above all, be a good man” seems to be Quintilian’s precondition for a good speaker. This reminds me of the nature of rhetoric, i.e. whether it belongs to techniques or ethos of the speaker. Admittedly, many good rhetorical techniques can be extracted from a good man’s characteristic speech (such as presenting facts in a faithful way). But I guess the one who can use such rhetorical techniques most successfully is not a good man, but a smart man who bear encyclopedic knowledge so lightly and wield the weapon of knowledge so skillfully.

From Kennedy’s introductions of Aristotle and Cicero, I can see both of them related “style” to choices of words (p. 90 & p.102). But if style refers to particular person’s use of speech or writing, I guess such personal choice can also include arrangement (not sure). Also, I noticed “style” has been reduced to a few pages of introduction of sentence-level completeness and conciseness in many writing handbook. I just wander whether this can fully cover the issue of style and what the historical development of “style” theory and pedagogy is like.

“Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears. “ (Shakespeare, King Henry V )

From Kennedy’s introduction I can perceive an emphasis on evidence in Aristotelian rhetoric. I guess this shows one of the western rhetorical traditions and such tradition comes from abundant oratory practices in ancient Greece. By comparison, in ancient China there were less such oratory practices. I ASSUME due to such social differences, traditional Chinese rhetoric was heading towards a quite different direction, and even went to such extremes as to look inward for philosophical introspection rather than outward for knowledge.

In public speaking Isocrates “agreed with others that one must start with native ability, which training can sharpen but not create.” He focused on the speaker instead of the nature of the art in teaching public speech. “The technique of a speech is neither morally good nor bad; only individuals are good or bad.” This seems to reveal that the art of rhetoric is always based on the personality of the speaker. I guess undue attention to the techniques of rhetoric without any association with personality may prove to be less fruitful in rhetorical research.

It seems to me plain and clear style often serves as an ideal method to give truthful expressions. By contrast, florid and verbose speech/writing often leaves me the impression of dishonesty in expression. In this case, I may take the former style as “good rhetoric” while the latter “bad rhetoric”. But how about an honest person who tries to use florid style to convey truthful meanings?

If oratory needs only some device instead of knowledge to produce persuasion, I wonder what such “persuasive device” could be. Isn’t it true that professional knowledge proves to be very (if not most) persuasive evidence? A doctor may not be so good at speeches, but his/her professional knowledge can offer concrete evidences to his/her speeches on medicine and make it very convincing/persuasive. In this regard, isn’t professional knowledge the best persuasive device?

On p. 33 Kennedy mentioned “sophists introduced a revolution in education.” “Students of the sophists, for the first time, were encouraged to engage in original composition” Before this, the principle activity in Greek school “seems to have been the “memorization and recitation of epic and lyric”. I wonder whether such trend of memorizing and imitating ancient writing still remain an important way of learning, even after sophists introduced the new method.

PS. Imitation of ancients was one of important Chinese writing traditions.