Poor Quintilian

As I started reading Ramus’ Arguments in Rhetoric against Quintilian it was quite obvious that he had no problem attacking Aristotle, Cicero and Quintilian about their views on rhetoric. “Yet now Quintilian follows Aristotle’s and Cicero’s confusion of dialectic and rhetoric. Indeed he makes it worse by fabrications of his won, and by including in his teachings all the disputes concerning all the arts he had read or heard something about…” (p. 681, second column) “Thus, just as I previously attacked the Aristotelian obscurity in Cicero, so now in almost the same way I shall attack it in Quintilian” (p.681, second column). Ramus does not “beat around the bush” towards his disagreements with Cicero, Aristotle, and Quintilian making his approach a little harsh, at least to me, since these men had no way of defending themselves or their ideas on rhetoric.

Even though Ramus could come off as a little harsh, he did make some good points. I was especially drawn to his point where he disagrees with Quintilian’s definition of an ideal orator. Quintilian was all about “a good man skilled in speaking well” whose character was “justice, courage, self-control, prudence, likewise knowledge of the whole philosophy and of law, a thorough acquaintance with history, and many other attributes worthy of praise” (p.683, second column). I remember being frustrated with the term “good man” when we read Quintilian, so to see Ramus think that this definition of an ideal orator was “useless and stupid” was a bit of an eye opener (p.683, second column). Ramus goes on to say, “A definition of any artist which covers more than is included in the rules of his art is superfluous and defective. For the artist must be defined according to the rules of his art…” (p. 683, second column).

In an idea world Quintilian would have been able to support his views on rhetoric and (most likely) challenge the attacks Ramus was making, so even though this reading was one sided I found it to be interesting because of the good points Ramus was making against Quintilian.

Ramus Owns Quintilian

The beginning of Arguments in Rhetoric Against Quintilian is somewhat calm. Ramus does not hesitate to rip into Aristotle, Cicero, or Quintilian, but he does so calmly at first. He begins by pointed out areas of praise for Aristotle and Cicero. At this point I began to think: "oh, he's going to take the high road." Yet, as soon as he mentions Quintilian, all hell breaks loose. Based on his introduction, he seems to build Quintilian up before he knocks him all the way down. Ramus then proceeds to Quintilian's claims and removes every ounce of dignity Quintilian may have had: " ... in no one of these parts does he fit in the moral philosophy of rhetoric. In fact this man was sadly lacking in knowledge of dialectic" (p.684, col. 2).

 I wish Quintilian was around to respond to Ramus. Ramus continues to tear apart every ounce of Quintilian's claims on rhetoric, when Quintilian was not able to defend himself. I enjoyed this piece at the beginning, but the further along it went the less I liked it. When someone's viewpoints are attacked and re-attacked, I usually like to hear a defense and counterattack (which may be one of the reasons I'm pursuing law). With Quintilian unable to respond, however, I grew bored with this text rather quickly. Though Ramus, time after time, introduced solid points, I found myself looking for a defense measure, repeatedly.

Just a Fancy Way of Saying Hello

I can't look at this text without Charlotte's Web coming to mind immediately. When Charlotte first greets Wilbur, she does so by saying to him "salutations." When the pig is confused, Charlotte explains "salutations" as just a fancy way of saying "hello." The "salutations" are an envelope device that opens as Wilbur and Charlotte first meet and closes as Wilbur witnesses Charlotte's eggs hatching and greets the three spiders that stay behind with him with "salutations."

In The Principles of Letter Writing, a guide is presented to give writers an example of how they should give "salutations" to one another. Depending on the status of the speaker and the status of the recipient, the greeting changes. The Pope, who is always speaking to his inferiors (because he has no superior but God), has but one "Universal Salutation," while the salutations that a bishop may have necessity to write are varied based on whom he is writing to.

In a way, this is the English equivalent to a linguistic element of certain other languages. In Japanese, for example, one's whole manner of speaking must change depending on whom one is speaking with. Let's look at a simple salutation: Good Morning.

If I were talking to Sabrina (and it were morning, instead of afternoon when I usually see her), I would greet her by saying :
"Ohayoo" (like Ohio with a long "o" at the end). Because Sabrina and I are both students, and therefore equal to one another. No honorifics are necessary.

If I were to give morning salutations to Dr. Ryan, however, it would be very rude of me to simply say "Ohayoo" to her. I would be equating her with myself. For this, an honorific is used, and I say:
"Ohayoo Gozaimasu" (The "u" at the end is unvoiced)

The same concept is at work in The Principles of Letter Writing. Anonymous is delineating a guide with which one may avoid social blunders when writing letters(specifically to one's superiors).

Letter Writing

Letter writing for our medieval rhetors is integral to understanding these thinkers today. Evidence of this lies in ars dictaminis. Herzberg and Bizzel discuss the importance of this selection in their introduction: "[letters as discussed in text] were intended to move people to action, to persuade in a special sense. "(494) While this may seem like a 'duh' statement, it really speaks to the direction of rhetoric at that time. Already the byproduct of numerous classical orators, rhetoric and its many children fan out in a modern light during the medieval period. Our anonymous author offers a guide similar to Cicero's, an arrangements of thoughts to refine and sharpen an orator’s skills. The prescriptive format of each section speaks to our anonymous authors influence derived from Cicero, and in turn, many other classical orators. Something that stuck out in this piece, that resonates with rhetoric's versatility, can be found on page  496: "By the term 'accordance with circumstances' we mean a method for the more experienced writers. It is an apt accordance, a set of words ordered in a way different from ordinary syntax; it must by all means be made harmonious and clear, that is, like a flowing current." This quote illustrates the variety of ways true and viable rhetoric can be employed in different circumstances, however only an experienced orator will be able to apply rhetoric 'like a flowing current' in the right situations.

The Principles of Letter Writing Are Among Us Today!

Last fall, I took a class called “Professional Communication Fundamentals.” We had an entire unit on business letter writing, and interestingly, the salutation and securing of goodwill were two major components of these letters.

In fact, my professor told the class that if we include the appropriate greeting and manage to build goodwill throughout the letter, our chances of “getting what we want” (or, effectively persuading) increase significantly. Building goodwill in a business letter, we learned, involves carefully arranging information—the specific facts or details—based on their content and the overall message the writer wants to convey. What we learned in class closely echoes what Anonymous wrote in Principles of Letter Writing:

“The Securing of Goodwill in a letter is a certain fit ordering of words effectively influencing the mind of the recipient.” (502, VI)

For example, how do you build goodwill in a negative message? If you must tell an employee her position will be “phased out” in January, you should do so tactfully. This requires arranging the letter so the negative information appears in the middle of the paragraph.

Business cat has no regard for building goodwill.

Imagine you were the one receiving this letter. Would you want it to begin, “Dear Ms. Byrnes, effective January 1, your position will be phased out.” Um, no.

BUT--If the letter began, “Dear Ms. Byrnes, I want to encourage you and thank you for your hard work and dedication at The Writing Center…” then, got to the bad news…it would still sting, for sure, but the writer has attempted to build goodwill. Hopefully, then, I will not run around town slandering my former employer.

I can definitely see The Principles of Letter writing as a precursor to my business communication textbook. Though the style and length of our salutations have evolved, the emphasis on writing an appropriate greeting and building goodwill remains.

Sexist Salutations.

   I had a blast reading The Principles of Letter Writing, mainly because I was wondering what these posts would look like as a Facebook status or a Twitter update. Honestly. Just think about it. "Salutations of Delinquent Sons to the Same Parents..." in Facebook form. It becomes much less of a "My parents SUCK," forum to a: "Mom and Dad, I'm so sorry and I send you good fortune. And stuff." Entertaining -- truly!

   However, I couldn't help but think about how each of these Salutation forms are incredibly male-dominant. I understand that during the time period, women were still struggling with the right to education and we won't see more women until the end of our dive into this section, but it still made me chuckle at their audacity to title these sections the way they did.

   "The Emperor's Salutations to All Men"
   "Principally to Monks"
   "Salutations among Noblemen, Princes, and Secular Clergy"
   "The Salutation of a Teacher to His Pupil"
   "The Salutation of a Pupil to His Teacher"
   "Salutations of Parents to Their Sons"

   Even within the specific salutations guided towards both  parents from their son, the salutation is directed towards the patriarch:
 
   "Another example: "To N----, most beloved lord," or "dearest father," or "relation," or "brother," or "comrade,"..." (501, emphasis added).

   This is something I want to continue to think about -- both the modern implications of these texts in terms of digital multi modality and the feminist reading of the texts. I'm still unsure of which I want to continue with for my paper, but I know that they are both interesting for me. I'm not sure if you all noticed yet -- but I'm a Feminist.

Know your audience, know yourself

In order to be a successful orator one must masterfully manipulate the art of ethos, pathos, and logos.  However, this mastery changes based on the orators beliefs as well as the audience.  Boethius states: "The orator must look for his goal both in himself and in his audience.  In himself, because he must be able to say upon completion of the act that he has spoken well---that is, that he has spoken in a way calculated to persuade; in his audience, because he must in truth have persuaded them." (406 left column).  Knowing your audience is something rhetoricians we've read have talked about but this "looking for our goal in our audience"  takes a slightly different angle than I've considered before.  Instead of simply knowing our audience in order to successfully persuade them we must view the audience as if we've already successfully persuaded them.  This helps create a visualization of our goal.   If the orator is unable to visualize the effect he wishes his words to have then he'll never have the confidence to actually see it.  Visualizing our success is something which can go beyond rhetoric and be applied to any goal we may have.