Delivery and Memory

Delivery and memory are very important conventions in rhetoric that come into play often. Chapter 12 in ARCS played heavily (or so it seemed) off of the understandings of imitation in chapter 11. Mentioning that ancient rhetors used writing merely to aid them in their memory and delivery abilities as a secondary tool rather than a primary one because according to them, “spoken discourse was infinitely more powerful and persuasive than was written composition” (ARCS 325). Writing was still an emerging technology at least for uses in rhetorical conventions. Hypokrisis (or delivery in ancient Greek) came to later mean actor or the one who acted and this draws an interesting light towards what I mentioned in my last post about plagiarism and imitation. Here it seems that in classical times, delivery was based on memory of imitation which helped one to invent. This chapter also focused on ancient memory systems since it used to be much more important in the day today, whereas now we are externalizing our knowledge as a society. A naïve version of myself might have once argued that this would decrease our memory and science has shown that it does. However, I think that society’s ability to reference information is tenfold beyond what it was before. The internet has allowed us to focus less on the ability to memorize or imitate the actual material but rather now  people are more prone to focusing on the importance of being able to find the material. Education these days (though it may have also been this way in the past) is fully based upon teaching people to find the answers, not necessarily to remember them or invent them. However, this is only my personal opinion and may be a bit of a tangent. What do you guys think about referencing versus memory these days?

Imitation

Chapter 11 focused on Imitation as a means of learning and many ancient scholars noted the ability to imitate as a distinguishing characteristic of humans. This method of learning has been around forever and continues today. However, what I found interesting was that imitation used to be the accepted way of learning something and/or memorizing it. This was because before the advent of text or at least before the implementation of text, people were living in an oral based society and imitation was the only means of learning something.  This meant that people in classical times had an amazing ability to improve and reference their memories. This is especially apparent as noted in ARCS since even the people in classical times that were familiar with text and literate still referred to their vast memory for invention. Additionally, I was unaware of this, but silent reading is a newer phenomenon that was not practiced until recently. The ancient rhetors believed that reading aloud improved ones memory and rhetorical capabilities, but also allowed one to understand the rhythm and style of a piece better. It is important to note that now, instead of imitating or copying, “since ancient times, people have copied out passages from their reading that they wished to remember or to consult later” (ARCS 302).

The issue with this subject that pops into my head relating to modern society is that of plagiarism. Though it may sound unrelated, the reading states that imitation “enables rhetors to recognize and use patterns that they might not otherwise notice” (ARCS 312) and states that using these patterns in ones own writing makes them second nature. However, though the end may be justifiable, the means to get there are not acceptable by today’s standards. By that I mean that if somebody employed patterns found in others work through paraphrasing or other such forms of imitation it may cause one to accidentally copy another’s work without giving credit. I would ask why this wasn’t an issue in classical times, however, I’m sure it was. Today with the internet people are much more able to copy others work, but unlike classical times, it no longer ignites a learning process. This is because of the ever so popular Ctrl C and Ctrl V buttons on computers which allow one to merely copy and paste from works. Even reading a piece and then writing a summary right afterwards can sometimes lead to inadvertent plagiarism, however I feel that the reason it was acceptable in classical times was that in copying someone else’s work it was probably difficult to not at least retain some of it, whereas in modern times imitation is synonymous with laziness due to the luxuries that our technology affords us. 

Style and Ornament

Chapter 10 focuses on style and how ancient rhetoricians devoted a whole section of rhetoric to the arrangements of word which they called style. What I found interesting here was the notion that style is able to be changed and added upon more so than the mere inherent ability to compose something. This reading suggests that the ability to rearrange words to form different styles is something to be used as a persuasive tool. Though it isn’t a surprising statement, when I think of style I think of someone’s natural or inherent abilities and ways of writing or delivering. Though it can be changed, does one ever truly stray from the style of rhetoric that they are comfortable with over time? With the advent of text came the ability to edit and review ones words, and printing them allowed for the composition and structure to be truly broken down and analyzed/categorized. This may have been done on personal levels for rhetoricians, however “no one knows for sure when style emerged as the third cannon of rhetoric” (Crowley 250). Additionally, the onset of text in the modern world allowed for people to learn others styles and systematically understand them.

Another aspect of this reading that was very interesting was that of ornament. Though it is the last in a line of other facets of style, ornament is something that is unusual or extraordinary. Though there was and still is a great amount of debate as to what the terms of ornament mean (Figures of thought, speech, and tropes) they are the part of one’s style that seemingly adds the ever so important oomph. It can be seen here as the part of style that isn’t fully understood at least in classical times. Yes it is easy to put terms to the phenomena of style, but at least in my experience and understanding each person has a noticeable style. This style may follow guidelines of structured style, however, each person differs in their style no matter how much structure and revision is done. Again only my opinion, but something to think about. 

Essay 2- The Church and Printed Text

Saul Greene

11/4/14

English 360-01

The Church and the Advent of the Printed Text

I personally have never experienced an oral based society, and neither have any alive today. At least not your average Joe. People today have only been exposed to text based interaction and communication. Granted there are still elements of orality that exist, but nothing like the days before mainstream text. Now someone can pick up a book written hundreds of years ago and read the author’s thoughts. Text originally allowed for an aftermarket audience, in fact many written texts were sermons or compilations of sermons.  Text still does allow for an aftermarket appeal, but in many ways now more than ever, text is seen as a primary medium to reach an audience instead of an aftermarket model.  So if text changed society in such a profound way then it must have changed rhetoric. Text has changed the art of rhetoric in many ways, however none as profoundly as politics. Politics of classical times were very different from what we see today, in fact for much of the time leading up to the Renaissance the Church was the authority figure. In classical times, there was no separation of religion and state, in fact it wasn’t really present in European politics until the end of the 18^th century. We may think of the reformation as a religious movement, but it was just as much political because the church was a powerful force in governing much of Europe. Printed text originally began as a form of an aftermarket information system, however the church and those alike eventually started to use this aftermarket material as a primary database of sorts for their message, in addition to their use of propaganda as a transition into the use of text over orality.

Our technology golden age is allowing us to use text to download our thoughts in order for a limitless number of others to upload it and even possibly make it their own. This comes with many benefits and many pitfalls. Text changes the way that people interpret rhetorical information, and the way that institutions convey said information. It also causes delivery to become a much more important rhetorical convention. Our text based society has no problem with the framework of using text as the main medium of communication and knowledge, but when printable text first emerged there was a bit of a learning curve for society. Though the advent of print forced the church to give up control of texts and the unilateral ability to control what reached the people the church entered the textual based world quite effectively and efficiently with great success.  Rhetoric through the use of text became a gateway for both the church to attempt to reach people through text and for people to communicate with the masses against the church. Though it may seem that there was the church and those against the church, it was in fact a bit more complex than that. Most people of the time believed in Christianity, there was no doubt about that, however, the opposition was between different sects of Christianity. The devil was in the details so to speak. The onset of text and more importantly literacy, which allowed people to be able to read the text was a groundbreaking change to the way that information was dealt with. The Jesuits taught people to read the bible for themselves in order to aid the individual in their own understanding, rather than having to merely hear or be told the contents of a printed text. Print also "standardized and preserved knowledge which had been much more fluid in the age of oral manuscript circulation" (Briggs & Burke, 2002). Before printed text people weren’t able to express their ideas on a personal level, and the distribution of bibles led to the emergence of new interpretations and formed new sects with partially differing beliefs. This had a snowball effect and was what caused the opposition between certain sects of the church.

When using the word “text” some may become confused since text and writing has been around for thousands of years. However, mass produced text and writing was not available until the creation of the printing press. It would change everything, and Elizabeth Eisenstein wrote on just that subject in The Printing Press as an Agent of Change and The Printing Revolution in Early Modern Europe. These books illustrated the printing presses functions such as the ability to standardize something and retain it as a document forever. They go into detail about how these functions fueled much of the renaissance, and the Protestant Reform. Eisenstein’s works showed the importance of the printing press and how both the church and society adapted to the use of the printing press.

The church jumped on the opportunity to be able to mass produce texts seeing as when the printing press emerged, “Church officials had already hailed the new technology as a gift from god” (Eisenstein 145) because of the ability to use it as previously mentioned in an aftermarket appeal. The Church could now say something and reiterate it later on in printed texts so that it reached more people than just those present at the time.  This helped them in a long term sense when it came to transitioning onto text being a primary source of information. In fact the Church was a large part of the transition. The printing press was also beneficial for those in opposition with other churches of the time.  It was a way of allowing ones arguments to be heard by the masses and it also fueled “the first movement of any kind, religious or secular, to use the new presses for overt propaganda and agitation against an established institution” (Eisenstein 145). Rhetoric is all about reaching the people that one is trying to persuade. Before this revolution, one’s ability to gauge an audience merely depended on the people present. With the advent of mass texts came a larger challenge in reaching ones audience since it would be hard to determine all who would read the text over time seeing as text is permanent and can be around long after one’s own time. This is one of many ways that the implementation of text affected and changed rhetoric.

An interesting aspect of text based rhetoric that Eisenstein touches on is propaganda. The ability to spread lies and deceit to the masses was capitalized by all who were able at the time since it had such a profound rhetorical appeal. However, since the transition to literacy had only recently began, certain reformers who claimed to be revolutionaries “left ineradicable impressions in the form of broadsides and caricatures” (Eisenstein 145) as propaganda to reach the masses since most were not literate immediately after the emergence of the printing press. Printing presses could be used to make mass produced posters and pamphlets of propaganda caricatures and such. Even today some of the most effective rhetoric is presented in the form of pictures and visuals. However, in classic times the idea of political correctness existed only in avoiding insulting the church for one’s safety. Peter Ramus was a good example of someone that did not follow the guidelines for being politically correct in his time eventually being exiled and killed. These days one can lose a great deal of credibility and appeal if the audience does not find a work to be politically correct because our society values equality and democracy (where everyone supposedly has a voice) rather than the status quo of classical times which was a monarchy based society and equality was accepted as being nonexistent. 

Though any church could now arguably print their bible the use of print wasn’t necessarily used to spread the love of god and his message, rather, text was used in many cases to supposedly shed “the light of true religion to a god fearing people”( Eisenstein 147). This was their ethos or credibility, god. God was who the church always called on for their sense of divinely affirmed credibility. The fear of god was much easier to put forth to society rather than the love of god mostly because there were many other “revolutionaries” of the time who preached about the good that their ideas had to offer. The church relied upon their past credibility throughout history and their pathetic appeal in a sense. The pathetic appeal however would not be one of a positive nature, but rather the previously mentioned a fear of god.

One of the most basic aspects of the printing press and rhetoric had to do with reaching the people. Sure a picture was universally understood, but what about texts that were formed from words? People needed to read the texts in their own language to be able to truly receive the message that was being conveyed. This was why Eisenstein mentions the importance of translation to the spread of the bible as a text. The advent of text affected not only rhetoric on the level of the specific text, but also the ways that people communicated and worked with one another rhetorically. By that I am referring to the necessity to translate and share ideas between different editors and translators. Hearing others ideas and beliefs became more socially acceptable since printed text allowed and required people to hear one another’s ideas. Even if the person translating did not agree with the text being translated, one had to at least show a certain level of submission to others ideas, even if only to gain a great enough understanding to translate the piece. This was mostly due to the fact that a translation and a transliteration are different things. Sure anyone could transliterate each word of a piece into their language but in a translation the ideas and undertones must carry over also. Though it may seem simple, translating a text into a different language was also in essence translating the text into a different culture. This is made especially difficult by the fact that rhetorical styles and focuses may differ between texts and cultures.

Overall when assessing the affect that text had on rhetoric it is important to note the political scenario of the times. Printed text originally began as a form of an aftermarket information system, however the church and those alike eventually started to use this aftermarket material as a primary database of sorts for their message, in addition to their use of propaganda as a transition into the use of text over orality. The advent of the printing press allowed for change to occur and rhetoric to evolve into something that would never be the same, it was only however due to the fact that there were winds of change already blowing that the printing press took such hold. There is no doubt that text creating a change in rhetoric would occur, but the political and social scenario of the time fueled the progression and evolution of rhetoric in text.  This is the case for many iconic technologies, the internet or one is the example of a new medium in modern times with which to use rhetoric and it has also definitely changed rhetoric in many ways. These days we still see the conflict between the use of rhetoric for pro and anti-political issues, however with the separation of church and state there are differences between modern and classical times. This is made especially apparent by the fact that the church has not done a great job adapting to a world based on the internet as they did with the transition from oral based literacy to text based literacy.

Works Cited

Briggs, Asa and Burke, Peter(2005) A Social History of the Media: from Gutenberg to the Internet(second Edition) Polity, Cambridge.

Eisenstein, Elizabeth L. The Printing Revolution in Early Modern Europe. Vol. 1. Cambridge [Cambridgeshire: Cambridge UP, 1983. 145-185. Print.

The Enlightenment Era: John Locke and Mary Astelle

The reading focuses at first on the general changes associated with the enlightenment era in which related to rhetoric. Suggesting the enlightenment era as one which greatly influenced modern rhetoric the reading suggests that “the rhetorical theories of the enlightenment are intimately linked to the intellectual and social developments that shaped the modern world” (Herzberg 792) such as the advent of text. There are still elements of oral literacy that exist today, but nothing like the days before mainstream text. Now someone can pick up a book written hundreds of years ago and hear the author’s thoughts. As I stated in my essay concerning how printed text changed rhetoric, text originally allowed for an aftermarket audience. It still does, but in many ways now more than ever text is seen as a primary medium to reach an audience instead of an aftermarket model.  The reading then goes on to talk about John Locke and his essay concerning human understanding. Though I found his philosophy rather interesting and the subject matter to be very relatable to what we have been learning, the reading of Mary Astelle interested me much more.  Text allowed for people to be anonymous in many cases. Though this sounds like a counterintuitive notion, there were many times throughout history (especially around the time that text arose) that having ones name associated with a controversial issue, speech, or text could mean serious repercussions.

Mary Astell`s A Serious Proposal to the Ladies, Part II is just one example of a piece that would not have reached the masses and been influential had she not had the ability to use text as her medium. Astell was a part of the upper middle class until her father died. Since she wasn’t married and the remaining sum of her father’s wealth was put into her brothers schooling, Astell suffered decreased circumstances with her mother and aunt. However, when her mother and aunt died, Astell moved to London in order to pursue a profession as a writer. Though she had trouble at first, she eventually wrote A Serious Proposal to the Ladies, Part II which actually resulted in a positive benefit since her ideas were followed and in some light admired for implementing change for women’s education. And though she was a woman in a time dominated by men, when she created a proposal for reviving women’s education, her “proposal established her reputation for wisdom and eloquence well beyond her immediate circle” (Herzberg 842). Since she was a woman many of her books “made her the butt of satire from misogynists of the day, both on stage and in print” (Herzberg 843). This was because her use of text to reach the masses also allowed for those in disagreement to pick apart her arguments without her own ability to really defend herself. This is a recurring theme with the emergence of text in rhetoric. How do we truly understand a context and meaning of something if not received directly from the author?

Bizzell, Patricia, and Bruce Herzberg. The Rhetorical Tradition: Readings from Classical times to the Present. 2nd ed. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2001. Print.

Arrangement: Getting it Together

This reading focuses on arrangement and its role in rhetoric. The reading suggests that ancient rhetors agreed arrangement was the second part of rhetoric and second only to invention. This is all fine, but my opinion differs. Though I agree that arrangement is important I feel that there is an argument to be made that it is more important than invention. Firstly, on a side note any invention requires arrangement in itself in my opinion since the formation of rhetorical proofs stems from arranging extrinsic proofs in a manner that facilitates the furthering of intrinsic proofs.

That said, obviously arrangement isn't all that comes into play. Invention is also important, however I feel that the invention comes from the arrangement. Not the other way around. Though I have not fully been able to develop this idea I feel that arrangement in its most basic form is what creates not invention. We arrange letters into words and arrange words into sentences and so on. Ideas are arranged to invent something and the differing arrangement of ideas causes new rhetorical inventions. We use extrinsic proofs arranged properly to create logic, and form intrinsic proofs. I understand this is a bit of a generalized understanding that doesn't account for all factors but it seems like something is there.

Additionally, the reading suggests the more literal meaning of arrangement which would be introduction, narration, proof, and conclusion. This form of arrangement has different sub categories in each, however it seems a bit too literal. When I read something, and even more so when I hear something the arrangement is what I look to first. The invention or idea at any point in a speech or paper is never fully complete until nearing the end of the presentation. However if one were to look at it as a way of using check points to reach the invention we see the interdependence begin to form. Just like we spoke of in class today about the box office. One cannot know going into something what their opinion of it is. Again I understand that this idea isn't perfectly polished but it seemed more appropriate than merely regurgitating the words of the assigned reading onto my blog.

Extrinsic Proofs and the Ancient Rhetors

This section talks about extrinsic proofs and how Aristotle divided proofs into intrinsic or extrinsic. Intrinsic was invented by the speaker whereas extrinsic has to do with fact and testimony along with other empirical evidence. Though it may seem like a long shot I instantly was curious if Peter Ramus agreed with extrinsic proofs. Obviously one cannot contradict fact, however the chapter mentions that Aristotle is often credited with the distinction between extrinsic and intrinsic evidence. This interested me since last week we read that Peter Ramus objected to Aristotle’s views of the way rhetoric should be structured, however it seems impossible to picture rhetorical proofs in any other way. The innate nature of humans to reason that Ramus mentions is highly based off of both extrinsic and intrinsic proofs. He gained his Master of Arts degree using a thesis ridiculing Aristotle and other classical philosophers. Once graduated he began to teach students in colleges and gained quite a following. Ramus attacked Aristotle and scholasticism. His claim was that ability to reason was innate and one didn’t need to learn from Aristotle or other classical sources (Herzberg 675).He said it was a waste of time to study the classical readings and texts because a person’s own thought process and pursuit of knowledge is what’s important. This is all fine, but what if Aristotle and the classics were a way for people to understand intrinsic proofs rather than just stringing extrinsic proofs together.

Additionally, I was very interested in the section about evaluation of data. It seemed to exclaim that evaluation of data is an action based both extrinsically and intrinsically and that all rhetors must understand who compiled the evidence for facts and who compiled the ideas for concepts. This only further enforces the checks and balances that the ancient rhetors seemed to use on one another in contrast with the free nature of Ramus`s views where one reasons for and by themselves. Could be nothing but I found it interesting.