Response #13

The introduction to nineteenth-century rhetoric was especially enlightening to me. As we have progressed through rhetoric's history, I have had less and less background information on the subsequent periods leading up into modern rhetoric. The Rhetorical Tradition explains the disregard for figures and tropes pertinent to the Classical Period during the nineteenth-century, and focuses on Richard Whately's contribution to the field. His piece, "Elements of Rhetoric, Comprising an Analysis of the Laws of Moral Evidence and of Persuasion with Rules for Argumentative Composition and Elocution" is said to surmise what were the current trends of rhetoric of the time. If anything, I think that the wordy title alone exemplifies a shift from the expressed desire for concision in language between Locke and his Enlightenment contemporaries.

Though Whately was in agreement with Locke's stance on language, he also employed classical techniques in his arguments that I believe Locke would argue only serve to obscure the message and thus keep the audience from the simple truth. On the other hand, Whately discredited the use of emotion as a valid appeal in argument as well, which proves a continuation of the importance of logic in rhetoric's ongoing evolution. 

The nineteenth century also saw the group of who was allowed to be a practicing rhetorician diversify to include both women and people of color as a reflection of the progressively less homogeneous state of North America. This, I believe, markedly shows the way that rhetoric became more accessible over time. Where at first it was entirely limited in scope to elitist white males during the Classical Era who underwent a very specific education, it slowly expanded its scope and the requirements of rhetoric became less stringent- that, and the rise of literacy undoubtedly were significant factors in who could use rhetoric and for what. That said, the minorities who could use rhetoric did not do so without repercussions, as was the case for many African American males who tried to use the art of persuasion. Frederick Douglass was the most notable example provided, as he was at the forefront of the proponents of abolition and produced a significant amount of strong rhetoric during his time.  

Response #12

Chapter 10 of ARCS covered the elements of composition and ornament, going into specific detail on the elements that constitute good rhetorical style: correctness, clearness, appropriateness and ornament. To relate back to the reading on Locke, the discussion on clarity in ARCS focused on the ideas of Quintilian and how a rhetorician did not have to be entirely concise with the use of circumlocution. Circumlocution is the name of the concept Locke spoke disparagingly of his work as it pertains directly to speaking around the point you want to make. It reminded me of his references to liquor and gold and how the loose definitions of these terms detract from the perfection, or correctness, in communication. The term circumlocution I feel is just another word for euphemism. There are various ways that clarity can be obscured in language, such as colloquial and obsolete words and jargon.

Where I think that Locke would rule out the use of these terms altogether, I would agree with Quintilian's stance that there are occasions to implement them, for instance when the rhetorician knows that the audience is generally familiar with field specific terms. Using jargon in the appropriate forum can help to build a speaker's ethos with the audience. In other words, the simplest expressions are not always the most powerful and concision should not always be favored over more specific terms.  

On another note, I also found the discussion of treason to be compelling because it was categorized as ornamentation. I would never have considered the investigation of treason to fall under the scope of rhetoric, but it is entirely applicable now that it was brought to my attention. The rhetorical questions posed to the individual foster a dangerous rhetorical situation in which the person's life hangs in the balance of rhetorical devices such as the antistrophe and the epithet. This made me realize the vast extent that rhetoric stretches in our society that I feel often goes unnoticed because of its translatability into so many different fields.     

Response #11

The Rhetorical Tradition details a significant shift of ideals in the field of rhetoric during the Enlightenment, which reflected in many ways the prioritization of a quest for perfection. John Locke embodies this spirit with his criticisms of the use of rhetoric in learning, and insistences that it only muddies the root of knowledge that credible scholars should be striving for. The debate between excessively ornamental language and direct prose finds Locke on the side of the latter, as in his the excerpt from his work An Essay Concerning Human Understanding when he elaborates upon the imperfection of words.                                                                        

According to Locke's theory, people all possess the same principal ideas and it is only through the filter of language that these thoughts become individualized. In other words, there must be perfection in the original idea and this perfection is obscured through the lens of personal memory and diction. I found this to be a particularly fascinating concept, one that was only enhanced through Locke's discerning between the civil and philosophical use of language. Though Locke was not by any means a rhetorician himself, he did seem to think rhetoric was valuable in its own context. That said, he clearly believes that rhetoric presents the forum for failed perfection in communication because of the way that unspecific language breeds doubt and insecurity in ideas. Civil communication on the other hand is to the point.

I also thought that Locke's examples presented an intriguing array. For instance, his discussion of the words 'liquor' and 'gold' as obscure because of their various uses in language reflect the depth of Locke's perspective. When it comes to perfection, he argues that simple ideas are the easiest to construe through language. This seemed to be common sense to me, and I would question Locke in his conclusions. Is simplicity the equivalent of perfection? By limiting the scope of perfect communication to a base level of exchange does not in my mind present the opportunity for intellectual stimulation. Locke claims that language is abused by figurative speech, but I think that philosophical banter is an essential part of intellectual progress, as it can bring about truly creative ideas. They may not always be perfect, but I would argue that imperfection can be refined and built upon, and rhetoric in this way, obscurity should not be labeled entirely negative. 

A Classic's Criticism: Socrates' Objections To Writing and Its Effect on Rhetoric

Hannah Hollmann

B Condon

360.01

Oct 20th, 2011

A Classic's Criticism: Socrates' Objections To Writing and Its Effect on Rhetoric  


The advent of writing and print have changed the dynamics of rhetoric, as it was known in the Classical period, entirely. In its origins, oral rhetoric was defined as the art of persuasive speaking, and further, the instruction of proper speech construction. Whereas writing initially served as a utilitarian function in regards to trade and recording history, and when it began to be enacted as a way for authors to write down their ideas, the gravity of the differences between written and oral rhetoric became blatantly clear. In author Maryanne Wolf's book Proust and the Squid, she extrapolates some of these key differences while covering the famous ancient Greek rhetorician Socrates' three profuse objections to the written word. As opposed to oral rhetoric, the written word becomes controversial in its effect on rhetoric because of the perceived distance between the author and the reader that lessens the importance of accountability. 


Socrates arguably stands as one of, if not the most profound of vocal critics of written historical rhetoric- and if not that, he was certainly the most eloquent. In Wolf's book, she details his three objections to written argument. The first of which establishes the idea that writing severely limits the accountability of the author because of its inflexibility. While he taught during the fourth and fifth century BCE, Socrates emphasized organic dialogue as the ideal form of rhetoric. The credibility of rhetoric relied on the notion that if a listener disagreed with or needed clarification on one of the points made by the rhetorician, they could ask them face to face and receive an immediate response, thus strengthening the power of the spoken word. There, it would become clear how developed an argument was, and it would continue to evolve for the mutual benefit of those present. Words on a page, as Socrates would argue, only lie there. As stated in his first objection to writing (the inflexibility of the written word), they cannot respond to questioning and are fixed in the moment that the author published them. As Wolf puts it, "The inflexible muteness of written words doomed the dialogic process Socrates saw as the heart of education" (Wolf 73). In this sense, the static nature of written rhetoric versus oral rhetoric renders it less accountable. The author is not physically present, so the argument belongs to a disembodied voice that cannot readily respond to questioning.



To explore the concept of lost accountability further, it can be argued that writing limits the need for the author to be connected in a binding manner to their ideas. Authors do not need to memorize their words, and with the lack of strenuous memorization that accompanies oral argument, the longer the text, the more the distance increases between the author and the argument. For example, while it is time consuming to memorize arguments in the style of the ancient rhetoricians, it is also time consuming to write extensively, and in that sense, it is nothing to write volumes and lose your point in the middle. Especially with the absence of the high value the ancient Greeks placed on the act of memorization through the use of various strategies and mnemonic devices considered. This leads into another of Socrates' objections to writing directly. 


The use of memory techniques among the ancient Greeks of Socrates' time puts a clear emphasis on the distinction of how oral argument was regarded within society. It was worthwhile to memorize argumentative strategies, because they contributed to the effort to preserve and foster collective knowledge. Wolf explains, "Just as Socrates probed his students' understanding in dialogue after dialogue, educated Greeks honed their rhetorical and elocutionary skills, and prized above almost everything else the ability to wield spoken words with knowledge and power," (Wolf 58). Therefore, the lack of memorization involved in writing, as Socrates saw it, denoted underhanded motives that did not have the interest of the public at heart. That said, while Socrates' perception of writing was inherently critical due to his aforementioned points, it is useful to acknowledge the contrasting effect that reading has on the brain.



Along with her analysis of Socrates' objections, Wolf goes into depth on the scientific aspect of how language and reading affect the mind. Reading physical words on a page engages the reader's mind on various levels that elude spoken argument. Written argument accesses the brain directly, whereas it is easier for audience members to disconnect with an orator if their communication is ineffective in evoking the right level of attention. Though there are only one or two authors to any given text, their words may be interpreted thousands of ways by the wide array of the individuals who read it. Thoughts are directly translated into the reader's brain and nuanced by their own personal experiences and associations with the words (Wolf 10). Continuing with Socrates' view, this puts an invasive tint to writing, as whether or not one agrees with the ideas that they read, they cannot refuse being influenced by them to some degree. Hence, written rhetoric becomes something sinister as it seeps into the brain, using the reader's mind in ways that they are unconscious of. The dynamic of rhetoric is consequently altered between one of mutual, consented engagement (oral rhetoric) and the reader's decision to become influenced by a faceless author they have no direct contact with (written rhetoric).     



By extension, an author has multiple variables under his or her control unseen to the reader. When a rhetorician is speaking, the listener has a general idea of why the speaker chose their location and time to speak, and can gain insight into the nature of the speaker's intentions through their expressions, tone, and gestures. On the other hand, there are a lot of decisions made when it comes to written rhetoric that elude the reader. For instance, was there rhetoric behind the author's choice of publication? What was it published for? Was there consent? All of these questions can alter the implications of an argument, and yet, they are largely overlooked because generally readers do not approach a written text from an angle of scrutiny. This point ties back to the overlying concept that an individual cannot be held readily accountable for written argument in comparison to the tangibility of spoken argument. Conversely, the barrier between the author and the reader must be considered in the subtext of the advancements that have occurred in print since Socrates' time.                                                                                                            


Widespread print, which manifested after Gutenberg's invention of the printing press in 1436, enabled authors to spread their ideas on levels that had been previously unheard of. In the past, writing was generally limited to the narrow scopes in which it was produced and often a laborious process that much of the population did not have time to partake in. However, as Wolf asserts, "The alphabet and other writing systems did away with most of those constraints, thereby enlarging the boundaries of what could be thought and written by more people," (Wolf 65). While oral rhetoric was a skill specific to the elite members of society in ancient times, written rhetoric became available to a larger quotient of people, who did not have to adhere to the rigorous training that classical rhetoricians underwent to express their ideas. Socrates believed that the increased accessibility of written rhetoric, when paired with the inaccessibility of the author, would enable the likelihood that individuals would misinterpret the author's ideas (Wolf 73). Thus, writing becomes more of a detriment than an aid to the learning process; people would misuse the knowledge they acquired because they lacked contact with the actual origin of the idea.                                  


Another effect on rhetoric from the shift to print materialized in the lack of importance placed on memorization and the use of mnemonic devices that were crucial to the practice of ancient rhetoricians. In this sense, Socrates was completely founded in his second objection to writing- the fear that writing would lead to the destruction of memory. Socrates attests to methods that would be considered extremely taxing in today's society. The academies that existed for the instruction of rhetoric in the past are nonexistent in modern society, reflecting a shift in priorities that manifested in the modern proponents of rhetoric. These proponents include arguments that are broadly tailored to fit within a certain framework to be digested readily and easily by the mainstream. The modern age moves at a fast pace, one in which individuals need their knowledge to be delivered promptly and easily accessible, usually with the aid of technology. For instance, the standard televised debate in America features two figures of severely contrasting viewpoints that argue against one another in brief points that rarely stray from the commonplaces ascribed to their specific parties. In this way, the public can easily discern whose side they are on, even if they are only able to view the debate within a small increment of time. This perpetuates the decreased attention span of today's society that Socrates feared. The classical age was the era of oral rhetoric that emphasized the importance and technique of the speaker. Oral rhetoric now bears the negative connotations associated with the deeds of politicians and other significant people in society's spotlight. Rhetoric in the sense that Socrates knew it has lost its forum. 


For all of the faults that Socrates found within the scope of writing, there is no denying the extensive implications that it has had on rhetoric and its place in society today. Written rhetoric is accessible on an incredibly vast scale, made possible by the advent of the printing press, and further so through the continuing improvements of technology and media since the classical era of rhetoric. While it is true that oral rhetoric provides for a dynamic sense of learning, which has no substitution in print, as evidenced in Wolf's text, writing accesses the mind and pushes it to develop in other significant ways, though there is no counter to Socrates' lamentation of the destruction of memory through writing. To surmise, Wolf poses a provoking question: "Can a deep examination of words, thoughts, reality and virtue flourish in learning characterized by continuous partial attention and multitasking?" (Wolf 77). This quote truly epitomizes the contrast between written and oral rhetoric, as it frames Socrates' objections within the modern age.

Response #10

The development of the salon described in the Rhetorical Tradition's section on Madelene De Scudery as a venue of rhetoric was certainly intriguing to me, as it does not correspond with my perceptions of rhetoric at all. When I envision rhetoric as employed by figures of the past it is always in the context of the classical era. The forums are always serious, with direct correlations to the formal education that the rhetoricians received at academies on the techniques to speaking effectively. As it states in the Rhetorical Tradition, "The salon was a sort of adjunct to the French court, or the place to which courtly conversation of the sort described by Castiglione migrated under Louis XIV, in whose presence even the most circumspect and complaisant speech might be dangerous" (764). With the advent of the salon as a forum of rhetoric, the notion that rhetoric can be engaged casually along with light conversation was particularly illuminating as it revealed the progression of rhetoric from the classical period to the Renaissance, reinforcing it again as a constantly evolving field.

I also enjoyed the insight into the career of a well-established woman author in rhetoric. Though she used her brother's name in her first attempts at publishing, she was able to establish herself through the merit of her extensive volumes, establishing a distinct form of rhetoric that the text classifies as "private discourse with public implications" (766). In her eloquent piece, Of Conversation, Scudery personifies Conversation, Transactions and various elements of speech to emphasize the value of well-executed conversation. Her aptitude for salon rhetoric is made clear in the sheer delight she takes in iterating the points that make a truly skilled conversationalist. In her opinion, conversation should be a joy and not the source of stagnation in a room. Wit and poignant discourse that is pleasant to listen to but not superfluous, engaging but not weighted, are evidently the standards of speech that she prizes above all else. Finally, by specifically addressing the audience as "women" and "ladies" she fosters a sense of sisterhood, that I would imagine was generally unmatched during the Renaissance.     

Response #9

The subject of the reading in ARCS evaluated the value and purpose of extrinsic proofs in rhetoric. Extrinsic proofs were described as testimony and facts that are often considered to be beyond reproach in legal cases in society today. I thought that the skepticism with which some ancient rhetoricians handled these proofs to be extremely wise, and certainly I agree that extrinsic proofs should not be taken at face value. There is too much objectivity in human nature to count on a purely empirical stance in cases that very well could have excited a number of emotions and experiences in the witness. The various examples featured in the chapter exemplify this point, such as the Supreme Court case dealing with hateful speech that involved a burning cross. Controversy to such an extent is unlikely to merit emotionless testimony from witnesses directly involved in the happenings.

The reading also defined the difference between community and proximate authorities, which was a new concept to me, though I feel that it was simply relabeling certain people in society in a rhetorical lens. Community authorities wield a high level of ethos that make them credible in the context of a specific community, and proximate authorities are eyewitnesses to certain events. Proximate authorities are directly related to the aforementioned legal cases in that they are the ones who provide testimonies. I think that it is a mistake to take such testimonies at face value, without giving any consideration to possible biases. To me, the priority placed on empirical evidence, and the general understanding that it is usually without reproach in America's court system today is not the most pragmatic manner to deal with cases. All evidence should be extensively evaluated.

The notion of empirical evidence as absolute leads into number 3 of the rhetorical activities in the chapter as it relates to biased arguments. 3. The example argument of "I'm a Catholic so I should know the Catholic meaning of abortion" lends unmerited weight to the idea that just because an individual fits within a certain distinction they automatically assume all of the knowledge and standpoints of that group. I feel assumptions of this nature are unrealistic and can lend a positive or negative advantage to a person depending on the situation because they do not have to define their arguments themselves. The ancient rhetors would undoubtedly refute such arguments for lacking clear rhetorical values. 

Response #8

The discussion of humanism featured in the introduction to Renaissance Rhetoric was, I felt, a fascinating development in rhetoric's history. The struggle between scholasticism and humanism exemplifies rhetoric as a consistently evolving field with numerous philosophic approaches. For instance, a parallel can be drawn between the tension created between the Asiatic style and the Atticus style of rhetoric. Like language, rhetoric can be approached from a number of different directions and I think that the competing ideals reflect the extent to which rhetoricians engaged wholeheartedly with their subject. There is no single cut and dried formula that exists where rhetoric is concerned, and while this provides freedom for individuals to cultivate their own ideas, it also establishes a platform for debate. This, I believe, is key to why rhetoric is such a nuanced, hard to pin down in a single thought, subject. It is dynamic, and changes with the input of the minds that contribute to it, just as diction various from person to person.

On another note, Petrarch's embodiment of the ideas of Renaissance Rhetoric was essential because they challenged what was become a fixed and arguably limiting way of practice in rhetoric: Scholasticism. Petrarch's humanistic approach to classical rhetoric made it possible for individuality to take root once again, whereas Scholasticism confined scholars to specific guidelines in which originality could only stagnate. Scholasticism, in its seemingly misguided approach to Aristotle reflected the lack of focus on style and stride toward the favoring of logic and science in intellectual thought that will take hold again after the period of Petrarch's humanism.  

Also, I found it interesting that Petrarch was not able to find a teacher to educate him in Greek so that he might read the classics himself. I think he was valid in wanting a full, primary understanding of the classics in order to construct his own ideas with the forefathers of rhetoric at their base. Why was Petrarch unable to find a teacher fluent in Greek? The text also states that intellectuals proceeding Petrarch voiced this same desire, also in vain. I wonder if Petrarch's ideas would have been significantly influenced if he had been able to learn Greek to utilize in his studies, and what profound effect, if any, this would have had on the concept of Italian Renaissance humanism.