Did Susan Jarrett Peg Aristotle Right as a Logos Snobor Was He Just Ahead of His Time for SeparatingLiterature and Poetry from Rhetoric?
I definitely see both aspects as I read through Book3. Arisotle continually divides and subdividesrhetoric and in the third book seems to focus onStyle, Arrangment, and Delivery. Part of thesedivisions serve to provide a common way of thinking,common vocabulary and such for the newly created area of rhetoric but also cause those on the fringes (non-logos users) to be excluded from the creation. At the same time he is moving language (especially oratory communications) into 2 distinct classes: creative literature and purposeful rhetoric.
He looks at form and almost immediately makes a comparison between oratory and play/ ordinary speech. He insists oratory should be different from tragedy and rhapsody and poetry as well as everyday speech. He also comments on the apects of voice in oratory. The elements of tone, rhythm, pitch, and volume canbe varied in giving a greater effect on the audience but at the same time he compares this negatively toacting. He negatively says that “those [performerswho give careful attention to these] are generally theones who win poetic contests; and just as actors aremore important than poets now in the poetic contests.” Once again he reiterates his dislike of the use ofpoetics in rhetoric. Though he compares delivery to acting, he goes on to say that these are artisticelements and have a great effect on audience. I also think it is insightful yet limiting that each personof a category, age, gender, etc., can only speak fromthat specific set of virtues of that group. I see thepoint that it is part of our ethos, but he seems tosay that we cannot argue something that is not in ourcharacter or morals. Like Tim points out, he doesseem to be contradicting himself, but I agree with Tim that using them rhetorically and conspicuously (asopposed to excessively and badly) that they can improve oratory. But he is definitely making a separation from the ‘lower’ uses of speech in playsand everyday speech from the ‘higher’ rhetoric. But aren’t these differences used in professional writing-we want to sound educated and actually interesting to our audience but we have to be careful of getting too creative and having our audience forget the purpose.
When discussing style and tropes, he remains consistent in moving away from poetic speaking and towards ‘professional’ speaking. His major rationale in preference for the metaphor, is that simile is used in poetry. In Dr. Shea’s class we talked about why high school teachers make such a big deal between the difference between the explicit simile and the implicit metaphor, and this may be the reason why. Aristotle himself makes such a difference when the actual difference is not so striking. Another area he spends time enumerating the differences between effective oratory style and poetics is diction. He defines lexis, word choice or diction, and goes on to enumerate, in his typical style, the uses and misuses of lexis. He often compares it to poetry, that we should mimic the rhythm but not the meter of poetry. So both in style and delivery he moves from poetry and the beauty of words into using the beauty of the words as a tool to convey a meaning-- an important distinction between the purposes of the genre.
So though he is privledging certain members of his society, Aristotle is also beginning the separation of language into literature/poetry/creative writing and rhetoric/professional writing. As we see in ourEnglish programs today, that distinction remains.
3 comments:
In addition to the distinction between literature/poetry and rhetoric/professional writing that remains in our English programs, many of Aristotle's instructions on good writing also remain in our modern education. In 3.2.4, Aristotle says, "As a result, authors should compose without being noticed and should speak not artificially but naturally." He continues in 3.2.5, "Since speech is made up of nouns and verbs, and the species of nouns are those examined in the "Poetics," from among these one should use glosses and double words and coinages rarely and in a limited number of situations." That advice applies to today's writing instruction. Our teachers and professors tell us to use familiar words and avoid overusing multisyllabic words. In Book 6, Aristotle advises his students to be concise - advice that is repeated in modern English classes. Conciseness is also valued in professional writing. Newspaper editors will cut exccessive verbiage from their writers' articles. Chapter 8 - Rhythm in Prose - has, I believe, also influenced how we use our language. Aristotle writes, "The form of the language should be neither metrical nor unrhythmical. . . . Thus speech should have rhythm but not meter, for the latter will be a poem." Although Aristotle becomes more technical in his approach than we are today ("The paean is a third kind of rhythm... for it has the ratio of three to two..."), we try to write sentences that flow, we try to avoid "clunky" sentences, and we try to avoid run-on sentences. Although there have been deviations in the past in what was considered good writing, the Aristotelian concepts of good style are still in use and influencing the prose we read and write today.
Interesting, Anurhada. After reading Jarratt and some of the other critiques of Plato and Aristotle, I’ve been surprised at just how much Aristotle differs from Plato. As Kennedy points out in his intro, Aristotle is more relativistic, more accepting of a speaker’s (or writer’s) role in “getting the advantage,” as Plato negatively defined a rhetor’s role (I think).
I don’t know if these things are truly related, though they feel like they are from my modern point of view. That is, the way Aristotle uses what is essentially fiction as evidence. When he does give examples of the ideas he’s expressing, they’re from Homer or Euripides or another poet or playwright. But can fictional characters be used as practical examples of speech? Is this a break in logic? I suppose this only proves Pernot’s point that Homeric epic was profoundly influential in rhetoric and in the Athenian Culture overall. Still, why wouldn’t Aristotle, a man so logical and practical that he could bore a stone to thoughts of suicide, cite more “real world” examples? And does his reliance on texts instead of spoken words (I guess there’s overlap here when quoting a play?) place him at odds with Plato’s Socrates in the speech vs. writing debate?
This is not a real blog, but just a way to get in to the site to try to figure out the problem with signing in.
Post a Comment