I found Astell’s discussion on morality in speech and
writing particularly interesting. Like Nathaniel, I couldn’t help but revert to
Quintilian when I read “The way to be good Orators is to bee good Christians”
(855, right column). As we progress in our study of the history of rhetoric,
it’s fun to see themes resurface in new contexts. This concept of a “good man
speaking well”—or woman, in this case—brought such a lively discussion to class
a few weeks ago that I thought it worth revisiting.
This line really got me: “Besides, by being True Christians
we have Really that Love for others which all who desire to perswade must
pretend to; we’ve that Probity and Prudence, that Civility and Modesty which
the Masters of this Art say a good Orator must be endow’d with” (855, right
column).
I feel like this idea of “we have the goodwill that other
orators pretend to have” came up in previous class discussions. Maybe it was
when we discussed Quintilian, but I remember debating whether orators must
truly be “good” or whether they can simply act “good” to persuade their
audience (if anyone has notes on this discussion, please chime in!) Regardless,
Mary Astell must have had this discussion, too, because she acknowledges that
there are some fakers out there.
Interestingly, ethos from personal character emerges as far
back as Aristotle’s Rhetoric: “Persuasion is achieved by the speaker’s personal
character when the speech is so spoken as to make us think him credible. We
believe good men more fully and readily than others” (182, left column).
I had some question marks scribbled next to this entire
paragraph. If speech “is so spoken to make us think him credible,” then why
does the orator’s character matter if he can produce an affectation of
goodwill? But then he says “we believe good men more fully”…but how do we know
if they are good? Or does it matter at all?
If you’re Mary Astell, the answer is simple: Christianity! Also, it's super cool that we've moved on from a "good men" to men and women!
Ok, I should stop here before I start writing a new
synthesis paper on Aristotle, Quintilian and Astell’s views on ethos from
personal character. Happy Monday, everyone!
I have also had those types of feelings regarding "good [wo]men speaking well". How do we truly know if the speaker is good at all? There have been countless individuals throughout history who were obviously NOT good men, but were some of the most persuasive orators in history. So good, in fact, that entire nations followed after them. Does that then qualify them as "good"? Not a chance, but the thought is nice at least. Astell, however, adds a bit more clarification to this thought, "if he can produce an affectation of goodwill". If the speaker can persuade the hearer that they have good intentions, then appears the "good [wo]man". Hitler, for example, may be one of the best (or worst) examples of this. To people in Austria, he offered them health care and many other perks in order to gain their trust (goodwill) and swayed thousands: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/02/10/825553/-Kitty-Werthmann-Distorted-Memories-of-Anschluss
ReplyDeleteHere is one of many sources that provides the statement of an Austrian woman. So interestng!
Maybe another angle to take this discussion about 'good (wo)men speaking well' is that, to be effective or to be taken seriously by the crowd (to impart ethos, one might say), you don't necessarily have to *be* good—as Mitch notes, history is tossed with horrible men and women speaking well. But if we think about their contexts, we can see that in the moment, the people to whom these villains were speaking believed or were persuaded that those speakers were good, credible, and noble. Not everyone was fooled; those that weren't likely thought the orators' mendacious speeches disgusting. But those that were taken, of course thought themselves taken by nothing but noble men and causes.
ReplyDeleteI think also, Kerry, that it's important to realize that as encouraging as the shift from 'men' to 'men and women' seems, the 'gymnastics' (as Kate would put it) all these women have to go through is a solemn testament to the fact that this is a long, hard haul, and certainly not the general view by this time. But the fact that Astell was published is certainly a sign to a rising shift, and one we can be very thankful for, leading as it has to the preservation of texts like these.