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.

Post #9: Extrinsic Proofs, Thomas Wilson, and Margaret Fell

At the beginning of the semester Aristotle introduced us to two types of proofs: intrinsic, and extrinsic. Extrinsic proofs are those that are not made up, but instead found in the rhetorical situation. Examples of this include data, facts, testimony, and witnesses. However, according to Cicero, extrinsic proofs relied upon the authority that from which they came. We find extrinsic proofs in the form of politics and law. This type of proof serves as key to all rhetoric because it provides the audience with real proof that is derived from the case at hand.

Thomas Wilson was a renaissance rhetorician whose view of dialectics was very similar to that of Aristotle's. The only difference that was clearly marked in Wilson's work, was that dialectic could achieve logic, and that rhetoric was subordinate. In Wilson's "The Arte of Rhetoric," the process of finding and developing arguments was discussed, with an emphasis on law and politics. Wilson put special emphasis on the audience's attention. To him, style was key in depicting ethical appeal. This can be seen in Wilson's personal work, because instead of sticking to Latin, he chooses to write in English, showing a real connection with rhetoric. Wilson also saw language as a means of social mobility.

A key figure in renaissance rhetoric was Margaret Fell. She believed that the time period provided better conditions for women, especially in education. Educational opportunities increased for women through the means of the Protestant church. Co-ed education was inducted to society, emphasizing that all Protestants, regardless of gender, needed to write religious texts. This practice of co-ed education was not for the women to question their positions through the means provided, but rather to make them into better Christians. Margaret Fell was a Quaker convert. And like other Quakers, such women were the first to publicly speak on issues. She was known as an architect of the Quaker faith, supporting women's egalitarian position in society, and their promotion of this in the Quaker faith. Fell believed that she didn't need formal rhetorical training because she was speaking the word of God.

Post #8: Imitatio Response

Bushra Zaman

English 360 Section 1

Imitatio Response Rough Draft

Tuesday, October 4, 2011

The process of writing my Imitatio was one that has most definitely influenced my rhetorical experience. When reading Gorgias, I had been pulled in by his use of ethos. The Encomium of Helen is an epideictic speech, and in it Gorgias uses the argument of humanity to rally for Helen, appealing to the audience’s emotions. In trying to find a classical rhetorician to imitate, I had come to a cross roads. None had pulled me in to their readings until I had come upon Gorgias’ work. However, once that path was crossed, the rest of the process was quite a bit smoother.

When searching for an ancient rhetor, I had decided upon Gorgias and his Encomium of Helen. None of the other rhetors had quite drawn me in the same way as Gorgias and his stance on Helen’s innocence. Although Gorgias had drawn upon ethos, it was his way with logic that really persuades the audience. It is due to this combination that Gorgias develops a strong relationship with the audience. I have always had a great interest for anything that revolved around the world of ancient Greece, especially the wars. However, I had never really put such a vast thought into Helen and the allegations towards her. Her portrayal in mediums such as movies and television shows a much skewed version of her true character.

Yet, what I enjoyed so much about Gorgias’ Encomium was the vast number of ways in which he went about defending her innocence: due to the gods, physical force, love, or speech. Since the Encomium is classified as an epidictic speech, one of the three species’ spoken of in Aristotle’s rhetoric, it is used to give praise or blame. Gorgias is seen, in a sense, as doing both. Initially, he chooses to praise Helen for her immense beauty, and for the efforts that she has taken in gathering knowledgeable men so that they may hold council for the purpose of rhetoric. Gorgias also aims to blame and also to blame the men who were not only responsible for starting the Trojan War, but also responsible for anointing Helen as a scapegoat, because of her beauty. This practice of epideictic speech, and the rhetoric that which Gorgias uses, can also be seen today in the cases of law, through trials. When a jury is trying to decide the fate of the perpetrator, they often either praise or blame the defendant or the plaintiff. In the cases of the defendant and the plaintiff, the lawyers representing both parties are often seen praising or blaming the other side.

Gorgias was referred to as the father of all Sophists. His works were said to be used as teaching modes of rhetoric; he had wished that students memorize and take from his work as much as possible. In essence through his works, Gorgias truly believed that any side or point could be argumented for, no matter how irrational. He saw this skill as the epitome of a great rhetorician. Gorgias had a habit of attuning his style to his voice and the plethora of speech he chose to use. It was this said style and voice that caused his audience to listen. Due to this, I had no actual trouble reading the Encomium of Helen. My troubles, however, lied in the actual assignment at hand.

The one challenge that I faced in the process of writing my imitatio was actually understanding the assignment as a whole. I had to really focus in on the language of the assignment posted on the blog to fully understand it. When I initially read the assignment, I had thought that our purpose was to merely do an imitation of the original, and not simulate it around an actual current real world example. Instead, when presenting my speech, did a close reading of the Encomium of Helen and presented that in class. I now better understand the assignment after hearing my peers’ speeches and since this is the editing process, am able to revise my original work in order to fit the expectations of the assignment itself.

Post #7: Imitatio- The Encomium of Helen

Bushra Zaman

English 360 Section 1

Imitatio

The Encomium of Helen

Tuesday, September 27, 2011

Helen, Queen of Sparta, was accused of a great deal. It is said that she fueled a war, resulting in many deaths and an oratory battle that is unsolved to this day. But what do we truly know of the accusations against her? I am rooted in the belief that all were quick to judge and point their fingers at her, without properly considering other arguments. I am here today to ensure that her humanity be rightfully hers again by rebuking those against her. Helen of Troy is not to be blamed for the actions of the Trojan War but rather to be pitied for the actions against her.

Helen was a great beauty bred from the gods. She was the daughter of Zeus, father and overseer of all gods, and Leda, Queen of Sparta. Helen’s birth was a result of the working indignation of Zeus himself. The god of all gods had long planned his daughter’s conception. As a product of the gods, it is only logical to state that the matter of Helen’s workings in the Trojan War was of the gods’ preplanned intentions. Humans and even demigods, including Helen, were easily influenced by the workings of Zeus and his siblings. Helen just happened to be caught in the net of Fate, a game all of us are mere pawns in.

To truly know what occurred during the events leading to the Trojan War is impossible. But when considering the severity and brutality of such times, when women were viewed as sheer play things for men, we can deduce that Helen was the assaulted, not the instigator. Helen was just another merciless victim in the hands of a barbarian. Therefore, it should be the responsibility of the law to punish the barbarian who had taken full advantage of Helen for his assault and the suffering he inflicted upon Helen her. For Helen was not just grieved with pain after this wrongdoing but also taken from the place she knew as home and forced to live among a people who wished only ill on her kingdom. We should direct our detest, therefore, at the one who robbed her, not Helen.

We must also note that Helen was persuaded by speech. Speech itself is a very powerful mode; it can evoke the deepest and greatest of emotions from those who are open to it. Poetry, which the great Prince had recited to Helen, is a form of speech with rhythmic structure. Poetry absorbs the soul, bringing out a physical pain from the person it is inflicted upon, similar to the effect of drugs on the body. Such persuasion can only come as a result of setting a false argument, or a lie. This false argument, spoken by the Prince, marks him as guilty. And it is only right for him to be punished for drawing out Helen and marking her as the perpetrator in this great battle of which she is innocent, and had been beguiled by poetry, and thus held powerless.

Let us then come together and bring Helen’s name to peace (Apostrophe)! I implore that we all look at this conflict through another lens, the lens of Helen’s innocence. Take into account my arguments that clearly depict her as the victim and not the accused and let us rightfully give back her humanity!

Bizzell, Patricia, Herzberg, Bruce. "The Encomium of Helen." The

Rhetorical Tradition. 2nd. Boston, MA: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2001. Print.