The Rise of the Figures

Here's a brief overview of the texts we've read as they relate specifically to style, and more specifically figurative language. (Citations aren't properly formatted yet.) I'm not sure yet if this will make it to my final essay, so I thought I'd post it here.


Style, the third of the five canons of rhetoric, is the arrangement of words to vivify and clarify expression. Style as an intentional rhetorical strategy can be traced back to the Sophist Gorgias, whose compositions were drenched in four figures: antithesis, isocolon, parison, and homoeoteleuton. Gorgianic rhetoric was, in fact, so stylized that it is often “characterized as overly antithetical and symmetrical and overly alliterative and assonant” (Bizzell and Herzberg 42). Despite his fervent and sometimes clumsy attempts, Gorgias’s use of figures initiated a rhetorical trend that others refined into a tradition. Aristotle made plain the importance of style, saying “For it is not enough to know what we ought to say; we must also say it as we ought” (Rhetoric III.1). He claimed that the virtue (aretê) of style is clarity, the primary aim of speech (Aristotle, Rhetoric III.2). While Gorgias and Aristotle employed a handful of figures, Greek and Roman rhetoricians continued to expand the catalog of figures. The first-century text Rhetorica ad Herennium describes 45 figures of diction (10 of these are separated into a special category) and 19 figures of thought, making it the earliest extant detailed treatment of figures. Cicero briefly takes on the topic of style in De Oratore, admitting that there was then a “very minute species of knowledge” (trans. Calvert 181) on the subject.  Cicero suggests figurative language “may give compactness and coherence, and a smooth and equable flow, to language” (trans. Calvert 187). Quintilian synthesized theories of rhetoric in Institutio Oratoria, adding a strong component of moral philosophy in his discussions of style, insisting that a “good speaker be a good man,” but that such goodness could be taught.

Aristotelian or Platonic Office Space?

My workplace office is Aristotelian, but my home office is Platonic.

At work, everything is tethered to reality that can be categorized and linked logically. For example, I advise about 185 English majors, and I often determine which students need what messages according to categories such as emphasis areas, anticipated graduation date, likeliness to be in academic jeopardy, and so on. I have to keep meticulous records of registration information, progress toward graduation, etc. I have come up with systems of categories to help me revise or refine lists and stay current and efficient.  My books are shelved thematically, and sometimes chronologically; folders are color-coded and labeled; the stapler, pencil sharpener, hole-puncher, and telephone are lined up neatly; and I have a dual monitor computer for better functionality. 

Furthermore, at work, I tend to approach the psyche in terms of capacities, or what it can do. I tend to see spaces, people, texts, and objects mostly according to their utility. And, people tend to see me according to what I can do, which I don’t begrudge in that space. Categorization and utility, after all, are part of the commonplaces of work spaces.

My home office certainly that must, by requirement, occasionally be Aristotelian, but it is mostly Platonic. There, my thinking is often dualistic, trying to reconcile the real with the unreal, the knowable with the unknowable. And, in my home office I am free to think circuitously and contemplate almost endlessly. I am able—however, rarely and only briefly—to step outside the cave and see the sun.

My home office is also my bedroom, so in that way, we could say that at least my bed is Aristotelian in one sense: There, my brain is a grey lump of useless matter.

The Poetics & Shakespeare

The question: Does Castelvetro offer new insights on Aristotle?

My answer: No. The introduction gave us our first clue that Castelvetro was an unreliable interpreter/mediator between Aristotle and Castelvetro’s audience because he aims to align himself with Aristotle but, in fact, offers a meandering rather than parallel interpretation.

Castelvetro offered an interesting perspective on the Poetics and drama nevertheless. As I read “The Poetics of Aristotle Translated and Explained,” I found myself stopping to compare Castelvetro’s interpretation/supplementations to English Renaissance theatre, wondering how much his translation and interpretation influenced the Elizabethan playwrights. I can think of particular violations by the three most well-known playwrights—William Shakespeare, Christopher Marlowe and Ben Johnson—but I can also think of particular instances that adhere to the Aristotelian tenets of tragedy and comedy. I know it seems dumb, but I’ve been familiar with Aristotle’s Poetics almost as long as I’ve been familiar with Shakespearean literature/theatre and never until reading Castelvetro had I considered the influence of the former on the latter. The Comedy of Errors, I believe, follows Aristotle’s unities of action, time, and place. And, The Tempest might as well. However, most of Shakespeare’s plays violate all three rules of unity; although, many do conform to other aspects, such as letting the audience know a summary of events that already took place outside of the limited boundaries of action, time, and place. In other words, Shakespeare often has characters report historical or biographical summaries to keep help the audience make sense of plot while keeping the action, time, and place contained.

Beyond the unities, I’ve been contemplating how Elizabethan plays use catharsis, tragic flaw, and fear and pity. I’m thinking of Macbeth, Hamlet, and Titus Andronicus respectively.

Aspasia: Discussion Notes for Monday, March 3

The following notes are taken from The Rhetorical Tradition (B/H), Rhetoric Retold by Cheryl Glenn (Glenn) and a book chapter titled “Aspasia: Rhetoric, Gender, and Colonial Ideology” by Susan Jarratt and Rory Ong (J/O). Because there is so little known about Aspasia, and because we only know her vicariously through her contemporaries and historians (we have no known primary texts authored by Aspasia), there is much debate about whom she was, what her contributions were to rhetoric, and in what ways she ignored, diffused, or crossed gender boundaries. These notes, then, form a picture of Aspasia, but they may not be factual. I’ve divided the notes thematically, and have included questions for Monday’s class discussion at the end. I am open to moving the discussion beyond the questions I offer; this is merely a starting point.

Biography

·         Born in Miletus (Asia Minor), daughter of Axiochus (Athenian political figure and aristocrat). Miletus is thought to be the birthplace of Western philosophy where “Milesian philosophers . . . sought to explain the natural world through abstraction and physical law rather than divine agency and anthropomorphic mythical figures” (J/O). While there isn’t any explicit connection to Milesian philosophers, we can assume Aspasia was strongly influenced by their teachings.

·         Born about 470 BCE and died about 400 (note that her birth and death dates closely match Socrates’s)

·         Lived with Pericles (they couldn’t marry because she was a foreigner), which was probably a “unique” (J/O) arrangement in mid-5^th century BCE Athens

·         Mother of Pericles the Younger, who was awarded Athenian citizenship at Pericles’s urging, which is ironic since Pericles initiated Athenian law that only gave citizenship to children of two Athenian parents

·         After Pericles’s death, she married a sheep dealer; her influence led him to later become a political leader

·         She was famous/infamous for her sexual prowess

·         Some believe Diotima, the female teacher in Plato’s Symposium, is a representation of Aspasia

·         Like Socrates and Aristotle, she was charged with impiety, but Pericles fought the charges and she was acquitted

Contributions to Rhetoric

·         Famous teacher of rhetoric who fraternized (yes, I used that word intentionally) with famous 5^th century BCE Athenian philosophers and politicians

·         Some scholars argue she wrote some speeches that have been attributed to Pericles, most notably the funeral oration (which we see unreliable evidence of in Menexenus); and some contend she inspired the Socratic Method

·         Plato associates Aspasia with the sophists; however Aspasia and Plato agree on several primary points; for example, they each taught that belief and truth are not necessarily the same, that rhetoric can obscure truth, and that public rhetoric has political potential (Glenn 43)

·         B/H note that Menexenus could be read multiple ways, including one that has Aspasia testify against her own rhetorical abilities; or one that playfully illustrates Socrates’s deference to her

·         She arrived in Athens, probably age 30, already well educated; she was influenced by and influenced Milesian and Athenian philosophy

·         She valued reflective learning

·         “Aspasia treats her interlocutors as her intellectual equals, not attempting to knock them down with agonistic argument but rather gently drawing them toward her own point of view by means of premises they provide and endorse” (B/H 59)

·         Aspasia’s salon was a place for “doing” rhetoric

·         “Aspasia takes each interlocutor through a series of analogous questions, leading each to an embarrassed aporia, an admission of dissatisfaction with his or her spouse.” This method is related to the Socratic method and to Protagoras’s method of questioning, a “practice of generating contradictory propositions (dissoi logoi) on any subject” (J/O).

·         She influenced Cicero; her lesson on induction is the centerpiece for his argumentation chapter in De inventione (see page 64 of B/H for exerpt)

 

Gender Boundaries

·         Pericles’s friends were bothered that she lived with Pericles in the main house rather than in the women’s quarters; they thought this was an affront to gender assignments

·         She probably paid taxes, which was highly unusual for women

·         She often held egalitarian social gatherings in her home; men and women (sometimes the men’s wives) had lively philosophical discussions, rather than having slaves or prostitutes ‘entertain’ the men

·          Best known and most influential of the few women who were able to actively participate in an otherwise oppressive social, academic, and political system; Sappho is as well known, but her contributions were literary

·         Women were either slaves or not slaves (“the word free simply has no meaning here” [J/O]), and their roles were clearly defined and normalized; because Aspasia so notably and publicly stepped beyond her assigned role (not only as a woman, but also a metic), she was despised by the general citizenry of Athens

·         Thucydides writes that Pericles celebrated Aspasia as the ideal woman, even advising her “Your greatest glory is not to be inferior to what God has made you,” which gave Aspasia license to ignore many of the strictures placed on most women.  Compare this to Pericles’s pronouncement about women in general, which was that “The greatest glory of a woman is to be least talked about by men, whether they are praising . . .  or criticizing” (qtd. in Glenn 38).

·         She gave advice to men about rhetoric, yes, but about their personal lives too. Notably, Athenaeus calls her Socrates’s “preceptor in love” and describes how she gave Socrates advice on how to woo Alcibiades, the young man of Socrates’s desire (see “From Deipnosophistae” B/H 65).

 

Questions for Discussion

1. Plato’s Menexenus—which contains Plato’s version of Socrates’s version of Aspasia’s version of Pericles’s funeral oration—suggests Aspasia was a colleague to the great Atheno-androcentric thinkers of 5^th century BCE Athens. To what do you attribute her acceptance into such an elite circle? What evaluation do you give her and her contemporaries for her non-standard inclusion among the great thinkers?

2. Page 61 of B/H has Socrates saying that “even the pupil of very inferior masters….might make a figure if he were to praise Athenians among Athenians”…    Does this suggest that Plato thought Aspasia was an inferior master, but Athenians were attracted to her praise of them? Is Plato suggesting this is how she beguiled Socrates?

3. As Menexenus prods Socrates to share what he overheard Aspasia rehearsing, Socrates says to him, “…you will laugh at me if I continue the games of youth in old age.” What does Plato mean to suggest?

4. What interpretations can we draw from Plato’s rhetorical choice to have a non-Athenian woman articulate the themes of rhetoric and democracy? Is Plato being ironic, satirical, serious, or playful? Do we trust Plato’s interpretation? Do we trust Aspasia’s?

5. By Aspasia’s inclusion in Menexenus and his treatment of her, is Plato expanding or devaluing the possibilities for females/metics in Athenian culture and Western philosophy?

The Suasory Seuss

 http://vstream.dixie.edu/DSC/Play/8a2f5568f6cd42159194bd13578a06341d

Cupid is Stupid & Other Platonic Thoughts

Why is “love” used as an example in Plato? What is true and false rhetoric?

Love is a universal topic, the subject of which was ubiquitous among philosophers and poets, so Plato had a lot to draw from, calling up not only Phaedrus and Socrates’ dialogue, but the contributions--presented vicariously--of others as well. Additionally, the lovers/nonlovers,  passionate/dispassionate, dithyrambic/hexameter binaries can serve as a samples or metaphors for any subjects that share similar binaries. However, we should remember that love is not really the subject of Pluto’s Phaedrus. Rather, the topic actually seems to be rhetoric. In other words, Plato’s Phaedrus—to play on a Raymond Carver short story title—is not a matter of what we talk about when we talk about love, but instead a matter of how we talk when we talk about love.

Socrates says to Phaedrus that he is “fond of learning” (BH 140), and that, though he typically learns in the city from the city people, he trusts that Phaedrus has led into nature because there something to be gained beyond the city walls. In this act, the teacher is showing that he is willing to be taught. In this way (among others), Socrates sets himself apart from the Sophists. Phaedrus begins reading a speech on love first given by Lysias.

Nonlovers don't have the same expectations lovers impose on each other. Rather, their Platonic (my word, not Lysias's) love affords them the freedom to speak freely, without the burden of not-yet-realized regret, the kind that is particular to lovers when passion ceases. Lysias contends that passionate love breeds insanity and vanity. Furthermore, passionate love is ephemeral and easily replaced by the next desirable person to come along; however, Platonic love—or Divine Eros—is stable and constant. Whereas lovers create poor—maybe even hostile—conditions for learning and betterment, nonlovers are the bedrock for non-obligatory negotiations where one can pursue matters of self-interest. Phaedrus, quoting Lysisas, continues to extol the virtues of friendship and the vices of passionate love.

Socrates doesn’t disagree with Lysias. After all, one who is as fond of learning as he must concede that Platonic relationships are the only sort that could cultivate environments for learning. Passionate love impedes knowledge-making endeavors. Socrates does, however, disagree with Lysias’s rhetorical style, contending that he has surely heard better rhetoric on the subject (though he can’t recall where or by whom). This maneuver is a teaching strategy employed by Socrates, one that reminds me of Stanley Fish's "How to Write a Sentence." Socrates, like Fish, basically says, "Let's not worry about the content right now, and instead let's focus on the style."

Upon Phaedrus’s urging, Socrates, like an evangelical preacher overcome by the spirit, delivers a dithyrambic sermon that begins by comparing love to gluttony and drunkenness. It serves a man nothing to be in love because man is a jealous creature, and will, therefore, do everything in his power to keep his lover more pale, less nourished, less knowledgeable, less desirable, and less wealthy than himself. In this way, passionate love is a metaphor for any passion or desire where excess takes over a man’s ability to develop his best possible self.

Socrates, in an expert teaching moment, then goes on in his second speech to persuade Phaedrus further that not only his style but also his content is superior to Lysias's. Phaedrus can see by contrast how that with which he had earlier been so enamoured pales in comparison. We see in Plato's Phaedrus an example of true rhetoric, wherein the student and teacher have a dialogue almost as equals, wherein the student is persuaded through reason, example, alignment, and participation.

Teachers are Penultimate Sophists

At first the question “Are teachers penultimate sophists?” didn’t make sense to me. I couldn’t derive even a semblance of meaning from it and immediately thought “Did he mean ultimate? Are teachers ultimate sophists?” I could at least answer that. But, after some contemplation, I like the original question better.

My attention is drawn to the adjective, not the noun, in this question, but first I have to make a case that teachers are sophists. They are, or at least the good ones are. They teach the strategies of good rhetoric. They teach their students to use good timing, to make themselves as credible as possible, to think about arrangement and delivery. They teach students to add flavor to otherwise bland ideas. Sophistry carries with it a connotation of manipulation, which itself carries a negative connotation. But manipulation is actually a neutral term; the motive and result of manipulation should be evaluated and perhaps contested, but not necessarily the manipulation itself. Think of a parent who uses euphemistic language to soften tragic news for a child. That’s a manipulation without intent to deceive for personal gain, and shouldn’t be classified synonymously with a malicious deceit. At any rate, teachers may teach the strategies for manipulation, but few teach sophistry as it’s commonly (mis)understood, as the craft of deception.

Now on to the adjective: penultimate. I understand the word penultimate to mean second to last. Teachers as penultimate sophists means their students would be the last of the sophists, but then those students would eventually become the teachers, or the penultimate sophists. In other words, the question could be rephrased in this way: “Is education perpetuating sophistry?” We have no choice but to answer yes. We have 2500 years of sound evidence that teachers are, indeed, penultimate sophists.