Week of October 27, Thursday Blog Post

Mary Astell is perhaps the first rhetor I have came across this semester that began her career by publishing anonymously. Although she was writing during the Enlightenment era I understand that woman rhetors were still not common and as a result were forced to either write anonymously or through a male name if they ever wished to get published. Nevertheless, I appreciated the change she tried to instill by proposing the foundation of a woman’s college. In my opinion, this attempt easily marks women’s first attempts at striving for an education. Along with her college proposition, her Serious Proposal to the Ladies, Part II was a powerful call to action for woman that I found encouraging. Not only does Astell provide an inspiring proposal to woman, but she also dictates that woman are capable of turning an advantage into demonstration of ability towards woman. Astell asks woman, “Why does not a generous Emulation fire your hearts and inspire you with Noble and Becoming Resentment?” In her proposal she claims that the only reason men have created a prejudice towards woman is because woman themselves have allowed this to happen. If they want equality then they essentially have to demand it. Unless woman begin to start demanding change they are going to continue to being condemned in foolishness and shame.

            In chapter four of her text Astell introduces her philosophies. Primarily, she instills upon the idea of natural logic. The manner in which she introduced her opinion slightly implied that as a rhetor she has been proven wrong in the past. Again, Astell is the only rhetor I have read to actually admit wrongdoings in the sense of philosophy. She claims that if your argument is eventually challenged and corrected by another “the most we can say for our selves when the weakness of our Arguments comes to be discover’d is that we were mistaken thro Rashness or Ignorance.” Personally, I believe this idea damages her credibility as a rhetor since it demonstrates that she has argued falsely before.

Week of October 20 Thursday Post

Prior to reading the ninth chapter from Ancient Rhetorics for Contemporary Students I assumed that I would generally be reading a simple chapter of how to arrange an argument altogether, in other words, elementary and obvious parts of writing. When kairos was included I started to understand the importance of this chapter. I especially enjoyed how kairos was utilized to simplify the argument of arrangement. It seems like kairos would be an obvious rhetoric to plan for when creating an argument, however just like an aptitude test, one cannot necessarily plan for it. Unless a rhetorician understands every member of her or his entire audience they will always need to plan for the worse and or unexpected. Prior to the reading I never appreciated how important an introduction or insinuation was until reading Cicero’s claim of honor being the only case in which no introduction is needed. Today, honor is not specifically entailed with speakers. As a result, Cicero claims that a rhetor must use “the introduction to convince his audience that his position on the issue is important to them.” Since elementary school I was taught to follow this strategy, to write an introduction that will grab the reader’s attention.

            Furthermore, the different types of cases a rhetor may face surprised me simply because I never realized that different situations can be categorized. The kind of cases that are possible helped me understand why today persuasive writing includes an introduction, narration, partition, confirmation, refutation, and a conclusion like Cicero’s discourse; because it prepares your argument for any unexpected difficulties. If the six-part discourse is done correctly then there can be no ambiguity. The issue cannot be obscure because it is detailed in the partition. Perhaps the issue can still be mean or difficult depending on the audience, still that is why argument is raised; to persuade an audience to follow your ideals.

Week of October 13, Thursday Post

After reading the little biography of Peter Ramus I can finally say that I am thankful that at least this rhetor did not believe in the same ideologies as cliché philosophers like Cicero and Aristotle. In fact, I appreciated the fact that he wrote entire books attacking the rhetorics of both Aristotle and Cicero. What surprised me most about Ramus’ biography was that he was banned from teaching his own books and basically his own rhetorical opinion altogether. I assumed that the populace like in today’s society would at least welcome diverse opinions. I understand not everyone agrees on certain topics today, but at the least we allow and acknowledge different perspectives when it comes to debatable topics. That is another interesting factor about Ramus situation; he was not able to defend his works. Instead his works become illegal to read and is not allowed an opportunity to present a contradictory perspective and challenge Aristotle and Cicero’s theories.

            In the analysis of Ramus’ analysis of one of Quintilian’s arguments I am able to understand the type of rhetor Ramus is. Personally, I perceive him to be an arrogant rhetor, which is amusing to read about. He simply disagrees with Quintilian’s ideology and corrects his ‘mistake,’ like he is some sort of teacher correcting a student’s paper. I will add that I agree with his contradiction to Quintilian’s concept of the ideal rhetor. There are in fact certain limitations in which an orator can be defined as; and those limitations are outlined by the qualities of the art in which they perceive. An example is given by denoting that “Rhetoric gives no precepts on virtue; therefore the orator cannot be defined as virtuous.”  Conclusively, I appreciate a new opinion that is different and even contradicts that of Aristotle and Cicero’s ideas.

Week of October 20, Tuesday Post

In the Ancient Rhetorics for Contemporary Students Chapter eight addresses Aristotle’s ideology of extrinsic proof that is ultimately defined as empirical evidence such as testimony, facts, and data. In reading this chapter I found it harder to believe in the proof we try to pass off as extrinsic proof in today’s rhetorical era. To elaborate, I believe Cicero is mentioned by stating that extrinsic proofs “rely chiefly on the authority granted by the community to those who make them.” Today, this does not seem to be the case, well in a sense. The way in which we manage to grant authority to other scholars is by simply accepting their work as extrinsic proof. In a collegiate setting we are taught to grant authority to those that possess a degree in a field of study. The research these ‘granted’ professors conduct or any research students investigate is never challenged. When writing a research paper for a class I usually look up a couple of sources, quote a few lines off of them, cite the author, and continue to turn in my work. By doing so, today, I grant authority to the author regardless if her or his work is truthfully extrinsic proof.

            Furthermore, I also want to address the portion where the reliability of extrinsic proof is questioned in this chapter. In regards to extrinsic proof I believe the ancient rhetoric has evolved from reliable individuals to reliable written documents. As a result, the manner in which we interpret written documents can ultimately affect the so-called extrinsic proof we believe to understand. The problem arises with the relationship the reader has with the author. If we are unfamiliar with the author, which is usually the case, then we do not fully comprehend their writing the way they intended it to be. The imitatios we recently did in class are a prime example. Many of us believed to have imitated a speech by an ancient rhetor, but how successfully did we accomplish that? I personally had to look up someone else’s interpretation of my selected speech because I was unaware if I was deciphering the content similarly.

            Overall I believe extrinsic proofs today are more like intrinsic proofs; because the rhetor is the individual who usually creates the empirical evidence.

Brutus Imitatio Speech

Brutus Speech

Be patient till the last. Romans, countrymen, and lovers! Hear me for my cause, and be silent that you may hear. Believe me for mine honor, and have respect to mine honor that you may believe. Censure me in your wisdom, and awake your senses that you may the better judge. If there be any in this assembly, any dear friend of Caesar’s, to him I say that Brutus' love to Caesar was no less than his. If then that friend demand why Brutus rose against Caesar, this is my answer: not that I loved Caesar less, but that I loved Rome more. Had you rather Caesar were living and die all slaves, than that Caesar were dead, to live all free men? As Caesar loved me, I weep for him. As he was fortunate, I rejoice at it. As he was valiant, I honor him. But, as he was ambitious, I slew him. There is tears for his love, joy for his fortune, honor for his valor, and death for his ambition. Who is here so base that would be a bondman? If any, speak—for him have I offended. Who is here so rude that would not be a Roman? If any, speak—for him have I offended. Who is here so vile that will not love his country? If any, speak—for him have I offended. I pause for a reply.

ALL

None, Brutus, none

BRUTUS

Then none have I offended. I have done no more to Caesar than you shall do to Brutus. The question of his death is enrolled in the Capitol. His glory not extenuated wherein he was worthy, nor his offenses enforced for which he suffered death.

Enter Mark ANTONY with CAESAR’s body

Here comes his body, mourned by Mark Antony, who, though he had no hand in his death, shall receive the benefit of his dying—a place in the commonwealth—as which of you shall not? With this I depart: that, as I slew my best lover for the good of Rome, I have the same dagger for myself when it shall please my country to need my death.

ALL

Live, Brutus! Live, live!

FIRST PLEBEIAN

Bring him with triumph home unto his house!

SECOND PLEBEIAN

Give him a statue with his ancestors!THIRD PLEBEIAN

Let him be Caesar!

FOURTH PLEBEIAN

    Caesar’s better parts

Shall be crowned in Brutus!

FIRST PLEBEIAN

We’ll bring him to his house with shouts and clamors.

BRUTUS

My countrymen—

SECOND PLEBEIAN

    Peace, silence! Brutus speaks.

FIRST PLEBEIAN

Peace, ho!

BRUTUS

Good countrymen, let me depart alone.

And, for my sake, stay here with Antony.

Do grace to Caesar’s corpse, and grace his speech

Tending to Caesar’s glories, which Mark Antony

By our permission is allowed to make.

I do entreat you, not a man depart,

Save I alone, till Antony have spoke.

Brutus Imitatio 

A Hype up speech for your peewee football team after you’ve just finished firing their coach

Be patient with me. Fans, Trainers, Players; listen to what I have to say and be silent so you may listen. Believe me for my honor, and respect my honor so you may believe what I say. Be wise to allow yourself to be the better judge. If in the audience there are any dear acquaintances of our good friend Michael to them I say Michael’s friendship to me was no less than his. Why is he gone now? Because he wasn’t good.

Would you rather live in eternal glory or parish a failure. He’s a good man, I feel bad for the guy. He was average, and I respect that. As he was welcoming, I appreciate him. But, as he suffered defeat, I had to let him go. We feel sorry for the man, joy for his time with us, honor for his grace, but we had to let him go, because, well, he sucked. I mean really guys, do you enjoy this failure. Please, speak up if you enjoy failing. Who here is so comfortable now that they do not want to be victorious. If this is you then speak up. Who here is so proud of losing like this for your community, for your families, for your brethren. If you are proud of losing then speak, for it is you who I have offended. I will pause for a reply.

None? Then we can agree that I have offended no one. I’ve done no more to Michael than you’ll probably do to me. The glory he earned will not be diminished, and neither will the reasons why he is not with us anymore change.

Here you all are mourning the loss of him. But guys this wasn’t because of you. You guys had nothing to do with his suckingness, there’s nothing you could have done to help him suck less, but we will benefit from his loss, through a new start. This is all I have to say. As I blackballed Michael for your betterment, I expect the same execution when all of you do not need me anymore.

Now, Gentlemen, Good Gentleman, I know you want victory. So tonight fight for honor, tonight fight for the man beside you, fight for your parents, fight for your future, fight so that you can survive. Tonight, lets go out there and win this peewee football game.

Imitatio Reflection

The original text I decided to use for my imitation was Marcus Junior Brutus’s speech from William Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar. In the novel, Caesar is the newfound dictator of the Roman Empire. After being a witness to Caesar’s growth of power, Brutus is persuaded to join the conspiracy against Caesar for the reason being that he was gaining too much power and demonstrating his king-like abilities as a ruler. In fear, and in my opinion jealousy, Brutus, along with the other senator conspirators, decided to assassinate Caesar. After the assassination Brutus gave the speech that I choose to make an imitation of in order to justify the conspirators murder of Caesar.

            In analyzing the original speech I had to reread and evaluate the passage numerous times in order to understand the early roman type of English that the speech was written in. With each sentence I also decided to annotate the intended message Brutus was trying to perceive. Ultimately, I concluded that Brutus was trying to convince the public of Caesar’s ambition. To which Brutus utilized to prove that Caesar’s tyrant was becoming a thing that eventually would not be able to be controlled or stopped. Not that he murdered his best friend for his own betterment, but for the good of Rome; was the justification he finally claimed.

            Interpretation of the speech was a key element in being able to successfully imitate Brutus’ words. As a result, I decided to seek different interpretations of the speech. My ideology was that perhaps I was reading Brutus’ speech in a different limelight that it was not intended to be read as; and, as I mention before, the interpretation of the speech would ultimately help me write a better imitation. By comparing other interpretations of Brutus’ speech to the interpretation I deciphered I believed it to be a better opportunity that would essentially result in a final translation of Brutus’ speech. In order to do so, I compared my translation to a website called Sparknotes’ modern text interpretation. What I discovered was a close similarity between the two that helped me realize a final translation to Brutus’ speech.

            After finally deciphering the speech I selected, it was time to begin forming my imitation of the speech. In selecting an overall topic I knew I wanted to relate my imitation to something bizarre, something that my audience would not expect me to relate it to. Keep in mind Brutus’ intentions are to convince the Empire of Rome that he killed Caesar for their betterment of Rome, and partly to convince them not to murder him or any of the other conspirators. To have this intention, but completely reverse the situation in which you would utilize this speech limited the ways I could interpret it into. Regardless, I was set on a humorous imitation from the start. Essentially, it is a chief reason why I chose to use Brutus’ speech; because I wanted to reverse the overall explanation for my speech from a serious explanation to a hilarious explanation, at least through the reader’s eyes, not to the intended audience in the speech. The intended audience in the speech is supposed to comprehend this as a serious speech.

            In decided my topic I decided to go with speech to a peewee football team that explained why their couch got fired and why I am replacing him. In a sense it has the same intention as Brutus’ speech. Brutus kills Caesar in order to rule the Roman Empire while I fire the head coach of the peewee football team in order to become the head coach. The situation is similar, yet still extremely different, however this is why I went with this topic; because no is expecting this form of rhetoric to be orated to a bunch of eight year olds playing football. Can you imagine if I actually gave this speech to a peewee football team? The reactions would be hilarious to watch. The kids would obviously be sad that Coach Michael is gone and the parents would be confused as to why I decided to use this speech out of everything else I could have said. To reiterate, my intentions aimed towards humor for the reader.

            Furthermore, I intended my imitation to be vague and general. If I would have hinted at the fact that I was giving a speech to a peewee football team the ending would not be as funny as it was intended to be. The way I see it the last sentence in my speech is the punch line to a hilarious joke, simply because it builds a curious momentum that raises the question as to who Michael is and who the narrator is talking to.

            In the process of step two I realized substituting main words in my speech gave me the element of surprise. By using words like failure, glory, victory, and honor the reader is not expecting me to conclude with “lets go out there and win this peewee football game.” If I were a stranger to my speech I would assume some sort of war or at least something that does not relate to kids. The language I use is not elementary and would probably only be understood to adults, which makes it that more of a plot twist.

            For my final paragraph I took a few lines out of the movie Immortals and imitated them to relate to my speech. The lines I imitated are from an army general hyping his troops for a battle that will decide the fate of their lives. In relation I used it to pump of a bunch of kids before a meaningless peewee football game. The imitation was unnecessary, but I decided to fit it in because it gave the punch line that much more of a surprise.

            Overall I enjoyed the imitatio project. It taught me that ancient rhetoric can be translated into diverse manners and be used for any situation that ranges from a hype of speech for troops before a war to a hype up speech for kids before a football game. Nevertheless the ability to translate ancient rhetoric to modern times is extremely lenient and can ultimately be a benefit.