This week's reading delved into what I felt was the mechanics of rhetoric. In the RT, I learned that Cicero specialized in legal oratory, what I classified according to Aristotle's system as forensic speech. It was further stated that ethos is essential to winning cases, and I think that is a concept that holds true to this day. There is a vast emphasis placed on appearances, and how the audience perceives a rhetorician is crucial to their success in argument- especially in a court setting when a jury is being addressed.
The aforementioned mechanics came in the form of the ARCS chapter's covering of logical proofs, all of which I was familiar with to an extent. It was useful to refresh and analyze my chosen speech for the components illustrated, from the easily spotted similes and metaphors, to maxims and enthymemes.
To return to RT, the section on Cicero brought up the debate between two styles of rhetoric: Asiatic versus Atticist. Upon learning of the differences between the two groups, I thought it was interesting that Cicero refused to associate himself with either, even though he was sometimes categorized as Asiatic, which would detract his standing as a viable rhetorician in the eyes of others. This struck me, because while the Asiatic style was faulted for overflowing with ornamentation and losing sight of the argument in the process, I think that the incorporation of stylistic tools such as similes and metaphors renders speech more compelling and are likely to hold an audience. That said, I have not personally studied Asiatic style so my opinion on the matter is broad, and I do think there is an extent where a rhetorician can be excessive to the point that the argument loses its strength and is buried beneath elegant language. The trick, I think, is to find a balance between the two purported styles, Asiatic and Atticist, where firm logic is aided by stylistic devices. Ideally, the rhetorician should be exercise eloquent conviction without being dry.
The historical background that was provided in class today provided me with the insight I needed on the differences between Atticist and Asiatic style. Now my question is why Asiatic rhetoric was termed as such when the Sophists originated in the same general area as the Classical Greek Rhetors associated with Atticist style.
ReplyDeleteI also thought that this section within The Rhetorical Tradition was helpful, and it is so clearly evident that the concept of ethos and forensic speech that were developed so long ago have had a great and huge impact on the world even still today. I was also confused about the Atticist and Asiatic styles of rhetoric, and the classroom lecture left me slightly unclear about the development of these styles as well as what they truly aim to do. I felt as if the text did not delve very deeply into these less commonly taught methods of rhetoric, and I cannot understand the stylistic devices within these two different styles.
ReplyDelete