Rhetorica ad Herennium
Okay, Anonymous- you have some serious contradiction going on in this essay. In the beginning of Book IV, we broach the idea in which the author argues in favor of a rhetorician creating his own examples, on the terms that it will "ratify his skill and suit the lesson more aptly than anything borrowed"(241, 244). He goes on to then use but also scrutinize Greek discourse. It is claimed that throughout the essay he also borrows from Greek sources, but does not cite them-- therefore not giving them rightful credit. Would he defend himself here and say that this was not plagiarism, but instead he was merely modifying thoughts to 'suit' his discourse?
"...futhermore, does not the very prestige of the ancients not only lend greater authority to their doctrine but also sharpen in men the desire to imitate them"(243)? So.... wouldn't this add credibility to our own work? Wouldn't this shift unto us the authority of their argument, and provide the new rhetorician an augmented sense of Ethos because they could pull from an inter-texual document something that does work to support their own claim- rending it not superfluous, but instead, reliable?
The use of examples here are very interesting, in a text that is understood to act almost as a ruimentary 'guidebook' for rhetoricans. I think more modernly now, we would dispute the first three pages of this text, understanding that these are parts of classical rhetoric that have evolved and changed throughout the development of our writing system and education. In Kelsey's post she phrased it as Anonymous trying to say "you do you", but what if you're not credible or authoritative? In what other ways can a writer then gain Ethos?
No comments:
Post a Comment