As we just completed our synthesis assignment, I find myself wishing we would have read Boethius, prior to last week. He and Aristotle seem to mirror one another's ideas. In the middle of An Overview of the Structure of Rhetoric and after drawing several connections to Aristotle, I could not help but think, "this guy is just trying to rip-off Aristotle and take credit for his ideas!" Though this could be true, he does add several very interesting points, points that lure me into the text. These points include (but are not limited to) the parts of rhetoric, the parts of oration, and the faculty of rhetoric. I found myself immersed when reading about these topics. Not because it was my first time reading them, it was because I began to view them in a completely different manner.
Although Boethius writes about the exact same things as Aristotle, his writing style is so different that it caused me to think about the topics in a different way. Since my synthesis paper was about Aristotle's three "types" of rhetoric, Boethius' expansion practically took me to a different realm, in a way. For example: "It makes no difference whether the matter is treated in a judicial manner, in a deliberative manner, or in a demonstrative manner; invention, arrangement, style, memory, and delivery must all be present" (p. 489, col. 2, sec. 5). Aristotle's "types" of rhetoric, though important, are broad. Boethius dissects these parts and shows that they are made-up of the same materials. Just as any human, no matter what they look like–they all require oxygen to breathe, tongues to taste, noses to smell, eyes to see, and ears to hear. Though different in appearance (types), the small things (parts) make them effective. "It is absolutely necessary that wherever rhetoric is to be used, they (the parts) must be present as well" (p. 489, col. 2, sec. 5).
Of course he continues to build off of these "parts", which he refers to also as "faculties". He goes on to say that each faculty needs "a tool to accomplish what it can do" (p. 489, col. 2, sec. 5). These tools can be viewed as our tongues, noses, eyes, and ears in order to provide the proper functions. The same goes with rhetoric. Boethius refers to the tool as oration, which is where he starts to pull away from my thoughts on the matter. Though oration is indeed a tool, I do not think that it is the tool. I view it as an old overused tool within a toolbox. Though it is has many functions and is very effective, it is not the only tool for the parts. In Boethius' time, oration may have been like grandpa's universal wrench: many uses, fits different sizes, and is very popular. However, from a contemporary viewpoint, there are many more effective tools. Writing, pictures, videos, and oratory are all consistently used and are definitely powerful tools for persuasion in our day. After all, the "duty is to speak in such a way as to persuade" (p. 490, col. 1, sec. 7).
The term 'tool' threw me for a loop when I was reading through the text. He uses it first on the first column of p. 489, where he states "That tool (that allows the faculty to exist) is oration." Then, in the opposite column, he states "Now the parts of rhetoric, being parts of a faculty, are themselves faculties.; therefore the tools which work in the entire oration must also function in each part of the oration, and so they must be present in order to work." In the case of this latter quote, I *think* he is using 'tools' and 'parts' (as in 'the six parts of rhetoric') interchangeably. Which confused me, and still leaves me with a suspicion I may be missing something. But in the first case, where the 'tool' is oratory, and it is being used 'by rhetoric', I mentally associated this term with 'framework'. Rather like we need a skeleton for all of our parts to be housed in, rhetoric needs something in which those five pieces can exist, and be expressed through. I was led to comment on this post because linking that tool of oratory to its modern 'replacements' (photographs, videos, writing, etc), both solidified and stretched my original notion of tool=framework.
ReplyDeleteI found it thought-provoking when reading to think of oratory using and expressing those five parts of rhetoric Boethius outlines (invention, disposition, style, memory, delivery). I found it *much more fascinating* returning to the idea when reading your post, thinking about how the modern examples you list can all express those same rhetorical constituents like (and perhaps better) than oratory can, as well as thinking ahead, to all the things we have not even considered or invented yet, which could be rhetorical merely by being a 'tool' or 'framework' for rhetoric's bits.