Post #13: Memory, 19th Century Rhetoric Intro, and Whatley

The textbook, ARCS, views memory as a cannon of rhetoric. It also sees memory as an almost counterpart of kairos, they both require "attunement" and recalling the events. The ancient rhetorician Quintilian saw "tappable memory" as a system of signs and symbols that would help in triggering one's memory of the argument at hand. Although the current memory systems aren't as used as the ancient ones, cultural memory is still a phenomenon. In cultural memory, the writer needs to know crucial events and knowledge pertaining to the argument. Ancient memory systems, however, contain mental construction of images, the notion of literal "place", i.e. a house or a street, and the placing of a memorable item.

The 19th century rhetoric saw a development in women's rhetoric. It was by this time that most of the population, men and women included, were literate and attended formal schooling in atleast the elementary to secondary levels. This increase in literacy led women to further their education, especially in the sense of Protestant Christianity. Women who pursued the study of rhetoric learned of the classical spirit and it's application in public and civic issues. It is this awareness and knowledge that gave women a rhetorical and public voice, however progressive it may have been.

At this time in history, the rhetoric of men of color also came about. Men of color, like Apess, called for unity against white supremacy and the abolition of slavery. Such warranted ideas called for rhetorical strategies that would help in facing hostile audiences. One African American, a man named Frederick Douglas, took his self-taught knowledge of the European American tradition to speak for African American cause, as well as women's rights. By becoming so knowledgeable, even President Lincoln was persuaded to lend him an ear.

Richard Whatley altogether changed the face of 19th century rhetoric. He viewed syllogism as linguistic reasoning. Stating that rhetoric was of Aristotelian fashion, he had also noted that rhetoric had not gone through very significant changes. Whatley stated that logic was necessary and that science and logic were foundations of said arguements. Yet funnily enough, he also claimed that logic was the basis for religious argument, and often questioned the logic and science behind the New Testament, much to the dismay of others.

Post #12: Research Essay

Bushra Zaman

English 360 Section 1

Essay #2- Final Draft

Question #1

The great thinker Aristotle defines rhetoric as the ability to find, in any given situation, the available means of persuasion. During the renaissance rhetoricians would gather in coliseums to argue and listen to each other’s speeches. During those times they did not have any official form of government, hence all stately problems were addressed in said manner. Yet as time drew on and such meetings had begun to be recorded, it was found that writing and print had started to compliment oral speech. For without it, we would not have a solid recollection of what occurred. The work titled “Orality and Literacy,” by Walter Ong, states that oral expression cannot exist without verbal expression, and vice versa.

In this day and age, it is difficult to not see how Ong’s theory strikes true in rhetoric. When a text is read out loud, it is adapted into sound, which is derived from spoken language itself. Oral culture in turn leads to verbal production, and speech is then recorded and written down. The turning of such a tide brought about a whole new way of thinking in the world, starting with the renaissance and leading into the enlightenment period. This meant that written text had been broadened in its availability to other classes, and eventually led other peoples to revolt for a chance and a say in their own history.

Oral speech and its style brings about many different interpretations. For example, tone and change in style brings about different levels of persuasion. At a young age, people are socialized to adapt to a certain way of communicating; speech becomes a learned behavior, showing the difference between the right and wrong ways of speech by society’s standards. It is from this that oral speech is recognized as the more personal form of communication. However, without its humble beginnings of written language and text, oral speech would not hold the same connotations.

In written speech, it is key to have all the ideas available; for, without it, one’s speech is incomplete, and therefore their argument does not exist or is very weak. The advantage with written speech is relative to its abundant knowledge as well as the history behind the language itself. Without such knowledge, it would be impossibly difficult to move forward. When inspecting written and oral speech’s views on rhetoric, it is key, especially, to examine which is dominant today.

Ong relates his work to Aristotle’s “Art of Rhetoric,” forming the idea that rhetoric in itself is a production of writing. “Rhetorike, or rhetoric, basically meant public speaking or oratory, which for centuries even in literate and typographic cultures remained unreflexively pretty much the paradigm of all discourse, including that of writing” (9). Here one may see that Ong is drawing a strong connection between rhetoric, oratory speech, and writing. While it may be quite clear that all of these are connected, by delving deeper, one can see that before man had even come to think of oratory speech and writing, rhetoric was above all. Similar to that of the renaissance, it was the only way in which language and thought was communicated, not leaving very much room for the thought of written texts until later in history. It was not until much later in history, somewhere around the 16^th century, that the relationship between oral and written language had built its foundation. There was no doubt that oral art was conceived without writing, whether consciously or subconsciously. Written and oral language have developed rhetoric of today to great lengths, going above and beyond by drawing upon the ideology of the technological world.

Ong explains the concept of “secondary orality,” which is the new present day orality that is sustained by the technological culture. This “secondary orality” is a new orality that relies upon the workings of telephone, radio, television, and other types of electronics that rely upon writing and print for their survival. “Today primary oral culture in the strict sense hardly exists, since every culture knows of writing and has some experiences of its effects. Still, to varying degrees many cultures and subcultures, even in a high-technology ambiance, preserve much of the mind-set of primary orality” (11). Here Ong is seen comparing today’s “secondary orality” to “primary orality,” stating that due to the world’s views on, and increasing usage of technology, no aspect of life is untouched, especially the use of oral and written language. This corresponds to “primary orality,” which Ong states is “a culture totally untouched by any knowledge of writing or print” (11).

Walter Ong’s work, “Orality and Literacy,” detail the idea that oral and written language cannot exist

simultaneously without one another. Although the world had known oral language to have been bred first, written

language slowly started to develop in and on its own. Writing and print had slowly grown to form as one, each

making a mark on the works of rhetoric.

Post #11: Style, Vico, and Sheridan

Ancient rhetors referred to style as the different arrangements of words one could have. While ancient rhetors may have used such tropes and figures of speech to exaggerate their argument, modern rhetoricians draw upon such ideals to engage the audience. In order to truly persuade a reader or audience, one must have that initial connection to them. This truly comes from the use of one's langauge, their personal style. This will have the audience walking away with an impression of what the rhetor truly wants, truly values.

The son of a bookkeeper, Vico saw himself as an autodidact, one who is self-taught and free from the prejudices of the academic world. He truly believed that he had learned more spending time in his father's shop than in school. However, Vico's goal was to unite humanism with modern science. By truly studying the origins of language, one can see the social changes coming about around us. Hence, language affects the socialization of society, as well as the individual.

Thomas Sheridan, on the other hand, believed in fixed rules for the use of language. By establishing such rules, one would see improvement in the self, as well as in education as a whole. Sheridan believed that rhetoric should be equal to that of natural conversation, citing a strong correlation between verbal and nonverbal communication.

Post #10: Arrangement, Madeleine de Scudery, and Erasmus

When it comes to rhetoric, arrangement of one's argument is almost as important as the argument in itself. Arranging one's argument consists of selecting what is to be said, and deciding what order would utilize it's persuasiveness. In modern times, arrangement, such as flow of one's argument is highly important. However, to ancient rhetors, the concern lie in the actual presentation of the argument.

Madeleine de Scudery's firsthand contact with rhetoric, as well as the development of her own style, was born in the "salon". In the salons those of wealthy and bourgeoisie background would gather for written and spoken amusement. When it came to the women of the salon, they would have to be imaginative and witty, but also have a verbal depth. Literary disputes, poetry contests, word games, and current literature were all covered in the salons. And it is from these that de Scudery found the inspiration for her works. The rhetoric of the salon was that of a natural eloquence. Birth and ranking were important, but if one could easily present and persuade others with the utmost of ease, with a natural verbal air about them, they would be set.

Although Erasmus' upbringing was centered on the ideals of the church, he had hoped to escape in order to pursue humanist studies. Erasmus wholeheartedly believed in the value of education. As a follower of Quintilian, he believed that rhetoric was the key to analyzing Greek and Latin texts. Gifted in syntactic structure, he believed in bending of language itself; there are a handful of ways in the English language alone, where one could word things differently but come out with the same result.