CM: Legacy rhetoric RHETORICAL LEGACY
This whole idea of this from the start. Now we are already immersed in Teckn Rhetorik .
Book I, chap. 2, Rhetoric of Aristotle:
"Rhetoric is the ability to consider each question which may be unique to persuade."
De Oratore, Cicero, Book I, chap. 31, § 137 -> that this is the product of precepts:
"So I learned that the first duty of the speaker is talking and then to persuade the matter of eloquence is to issue a general notion ... "
short, a deeply practical dimension.
He also has 3 duties copresent:
Docere (logical proof)
volving (proof pathetic)
delectare or placere
If it fails one of the three, it may not persuade.
I The five parts of rhetoric.
literal translation from the Latin -> good translation would be "split". Quintilian distinguishes 5 while Aristotle has only 4.
1/The inuentio.
We'll have to methodically go for ideas.
-> Should define the debate. Already, thesis or hypothesis?
-> Should qualifying 'cause.
-> Looking for arguments. Is within the topical -> it's a "store", a space that places orders = fundamental schemas of reasoning that are available all the time. What will be most relevant? We'll have to choose. It is an Aristotelian concept. They are operating as if they are formulated.
a) A first distinction commonplace VS specific place.
(The Latin words c munis).
It means that this kind of argument is transverse, not specific to a genre or a particular category.
specific locations: + particularly unique to any particular genre.
type of speech -> better place
court -> right / wrong
deliberative -> happiness preferable useful / useless
demonstrative -> beautiful / ugly
The notion of commonplaces has nothing to do with how it is used normally.
b) Classification logical places extrinsic / intrinsic sites.
intrinsq Places = those which are the responsibility of the eloquence of the speaker.
Places = extrinsq those from elsewhere, which is not itself guarantee but on which we can rely.
2 / dispositio.
= composition, mep matter.
It is therefore the construction phrase structure of speech. The tradition concerning the extremely varied. Here, we will be more on the Latin tradition qu'aristotélicienne.
The oratory we have chosen for this speech = speech judiciary -> organized into sequences, whose main steps are:
- the exordium:
is as the preamble. It allows the mep speech conditions. Goal: To attract the goodwill of the audience ( captatio beneuolentiae ) and build credibility.
For this, we must start from the idea as the speaker for our good. It's time to please, to seduce (etymology: to bring itself ...).
- narratio:
must be clear. It's time Docere.
- the refutatio:
is a step argument for a good +. Refute, argue it in reverse. Here, one is still in the Docere.
- The confirmatio.
(Regardless of the order between refutatio and confirmatio long as it's PROGRESSIVE! He must hide, according to the Nestorian available, the weak argument by framing it between two strong arguments.)
We quickly thought, to keep audience attention, should make such courses digression = = > way into the placere.
- the peroration:
His goal is not to produce a logical syllogism. Goal is to move from intellectual assent to the enthusiasm. It draws together, we will make the amplification and, more importantly, it adds to the emotion (pathos search then).
3 / elocutio (lexis = Aristotle).
is the stage of the development discourse. Designed by the Romans as the dress of a skeleton. We go from QQC to the disembodied flesh.
It was very like DVPE chapter: large Aristotle and even more imp. in Latin textbooks.
the heart: the concept of actum.
= convenience. But this thought is pluralistic.
This step may give rise to manuals on anything but her.
De + posterity great! We constantly reuses concepts from there: a stylistic category is in. There's even more:
- Agenda lexicon: word choice, their difference, the exotic, the semantic precision.
- on the order of the sentence structure (période. ..), the phrases (the cola Greek), the pace and number, syntax.
- on the order of sounds: it is well - developed, and almost forgot! - In our modern world. This is for example the question of euphony against the cacophony, seeking the causes (hiatus) and reflections on the harmony of its binding -> capital to read the verses.
- Figures: huge undertaking taxonomy (competition Latin / Greek, eg antanaclasis = diaphora).
a ° tripartition styles.
Aristotle does not know: it dates back to Cicero. Combination of several things. Originally, u no style. to another -> in theory, ok, but in practice there is a tropism toward the sublime style -> at a time, to the seventeenth, there was a desire to + + +-style way.
¤ low style: humilis ( comes from humus, earth) or tenuis (= does not help much)
No ornaments.
is bright to the point.
Is based on a very simple, one seeks the natural, the nearest of ordinary language -> seeking membership in this probability.
Most: energy, strength of conviction.
The -: drought, meanness.
¤ style medium / mediocre floridus (including humanists use the word).
Hosts ornaments provided it is free (not euphony.). Dedicated to the descriptions, the narrative with dialogue (see Plato's Phaedrus prologue), the fictions.
The -: frivolity possible!
¤ elevated style: heroic or sublime (sub / Limis: above threshold, or Grau)
Most worked the 3 is inside that can be deployed head eloquence.
The -: risk of swelling or coldness rhetoric => He has made quite a treasure, and nothing happens, true failure ("failure" on the side of volving).
b ° Wheel of Virgil.
See SCEM poly TD.
It is found in graphical form from the M-A. Virgil pk ? PCQ was considered the poet most complete. We may decline the various elements of this wheel -> systematic reflection on the literature. + In this diagram excellent mnemonic.
had also begun to do with the 3 main characters of The Iliad -> inside, there is a variation of styles depending on the characters.
4 / Memory.
seem exotic today with written culture.
In oral culture (which lasted until the end of the Ancien Regime), the memory training is essential: it must be remembered without any notes!
therefore had to develop mnemonic devices ( found nothing there on it before the Rhetorica Herennius.
What is the principle? Visual but both mentally.
Must identify a space that one can restrict a to visit its always in the same direction. At every place of this course are placed in sequence one after another in different places. But how to remember words, not only plan? In each place, to represent an image that will only have to verbalize.
(Ex witness's thinking of goat testicles!)
When the actio , there is more than mentally retrace!! We understand how St. Thomas Aquinas was 5 to dictate things at the same time.
Mini bibliog ':
See Yates, The Has Memory.
see Wikipedia's article on "The Art of Memory
"
5 / The actio , performance.
Is every time a single thing -> Think eloquence body, voice -> there are 4 things: the height, power, tone and flow.
All paraverbal is committed to: facial expression, gaze, Soucila inflection, gestures posture, but especially the hands -> cf. Tables -> everything was coded! It is a true semiotic gesture.
Manifestations of expr. Physical: crying, blushing, laughing => expr learn these heads of the passions of the soul for the speaker.
See Quintilian (we do not find this idea in Aristotle)
see Mathieu-Castellani The rhetoric of the passions.
See Lucie Desjardins The speaking body.
II 3 kinds of speech.
This typology has a pragmatic basis -> everything is related to context, purpose and context in which it operates. It was introduced by Aristotle and never questioned even if not always gender equal (if only in passing that Fed. To Empire in Rome!). Only the demonstration continues.
1 / judiciary.
Institutional framework: the court.
Public Justice is established.
speaker Activity: acknowledge (indictment) or defend (advocacy)
public
Activity: judge -} we arrive at a sentence. Facts
concerned: those of the past.
preferential locations: just and unjust. Fashion
favorite deductive.
style most suitable: low, humble (but not rule).
2 / deliberative.
Setting: meeting (policy).
Target: body citizens.
Activity orator recommend or advise. Facts
concerned: those of the future.
Preferred method: inductive.
preferred style: rather the sublime.
3 / epideictic (or demonstrative).
Setting: conference room, declamation.
audience: spectators.
speaker Activity: praise or blame.
Audience: applause or not.
fact as this.
preferential Places: beautiful or ugly.
Preferred mode of amplification.
Style privileged rather the means.
The latter has a great power by reaffirming the values of a society.
III evidence.
The first big difference between technical evidence (we discuss here) and extra-technical evidence (not here). These are the 3 technical evidence that will link the Roman tradition to the 3 duties of the speaker.
-logical proofs: those within a discurisve rationality, it urges the content of the talk: Docere.
- proof Ethics succession of ethos, ie of the figure of speech that he built, it is in say placers.
- evidence pathetic notes of pathos, which agitates us, how he arouse emotions of his audience. We're in it. MOVERS.
For all the rhetorical tradition, these three proofs are equally valid. That said, there is every suspicion of Port Royal, but it is marginal. And could deepen + logical proof, so there are a refinement of reasoning, because of the dialectic.
1 / logical proof.
a ° The forms of argument.
ID for a membership transfer of premises (endoxal) -> ccl, we can distinguish four main types and possibly a fifth.
¤ syllogism: struct. basis for any logic. But ps is the priority mode of the Rhaeto.
¤ enthymeme: form in which this is the arg. most often.
¤ épichérème: is a versio amplified syll. : There will be 3 proposisions needed it. But instead of a gaunt form, it will articulate the reasons for emphasizing the premise. Real educational value -> very operative in oral.
¤ sorites: could be closer to the previous one because it is a Sunday in magnified and justification of syll. MS will make gradual substitution of predicates to obtain the predicate will conclude. So we will defer the final predicate. It will feel like being stuck if we admitted 1, 2, 3 ... -> We will not result in not only goal.
NB the arg. or hypothetical supposition (= arg. ad absurdo ). It is a bad arg. but ... it is very practical in a controversy!
b ° modes of reasoning.
It's a reminder.
¤ reasoning by example: induction From = case overall.
¤ deductive reasoning: that's where the syllogism and enthymeme.
c ° The types of logical proofs: intrinsic vs. extrinsic.
is a questionable classification: Various models have been developed. Here, it is based on the logic Bossuet.
¤ places Intrinsic will be the most numerous.
- evidence etymology or derivation: can be based on the history of a word etc.. (The classical centuries, it could be quite specious, not. Étymos with false).
- evidence définction or Division: divided the word -> it, super usual.
- proof by genus and species: we will think in detail in properties of the genus and species (=> reflection on hypernyms / hyponyms).
-proof by the clean and the accident = own which is definitional and consubstantial. = Evnt particular accident (eg, be patient.). Please do not treat the accident as the clean or it is a fallacy!
-proof by similarity or dissimilarity.
- evidence by proportional comparison: we will compare what is most likely. This is the argument a fortiori.
-evidence of the cause or effect / / a priori or retrospectively.
- contrary or inconsistent evidence: if x incompatible with y, we can not move x and y together.
-rather than quantity.
town of the best.
Bossuet had understood that there was an intermediate location ...
¤ place intermediate example.
Intermediate will take as its base QQC ext. the logos.
Bossuet shows the difference between example and illustration, but also the model. He distinguishes also various examples, those from history, from those of fiction and, for Aristotle, those based on a mythology.
¤ extrinsic sites.
Bossuet calls "places of authority from" God and man! If this is not the same plane, they are comparable in their operation: faith in its etymological sense of fides, ie of the trust. It is therefore not debatable unless rebel ...
- divine authority: Based on the Bible and the Patristic (Fathers have an authority sufficient). It still belongs to art since the common culture, so this is not debatable!
- human authority:
* force the laws, judgments.
+ * General Authority: feelings of mankind, "laws of nature" (ie killing)
* the authority of the sages.
* fame.
d ° The question of sophistry.
ATT. there is a difference with a failure of logic, which is not intentional!
Here there is a TRUE DECEPTION is voluntary. It looks like the truth, but that does is ps.
See Franz Van Dorst Eenieren and Rol Grosten The new dialectic: pragmatic fallacy argument.
Some examples:
-Arg. ad hominem: demolish the thesis of the opponent rather than what he di on but himself to discredit what he said.
- Arg. ad baculum: (= stick!) Arg. by the threat: prohibit the adversary to speak using intimidation.
- Arg. ad misericodiam : ie-d involving the mercy of another.
- The "slippery slope" : you use the arg. the other for manipulation.
2 / Proof ethics.
Eastern SUBJECT order -> ethos in question is that of the speaker. Must intervene to make the speech -> that's why we can look for markers of ethos.
a) In the Greek tradition.
Aristotle completely discursive -> a-moralist position completely neutralized because the question of sincerity. It has defined 3 data:
Probity: often translated as "virtue." Ridge is polysemous Greek. Word for word, is the quality -> where a polysemous word translation into Latin virtus .
Prudence, Judgement: Phronesis , cap 'analysis, intelligence in Greek -> judicium.
Benevolence: eunoia ( mind the general sense, with affect) -> have the right spirit -> beneuolentia. must give the image of qqun who does not seek its own interest but that of others.
See Rhetoric of Aristotle.
The hypocrisy is entirely possible -> cf. good example. in Racine's Athalie (III, 4).
b) In the tradition of Latin mores.
Manners oratories.
The difference does not analyze but where the position of Aristotle is fully discursive, social status has also its place! This is a pre-discursive ethos which can immediately give credibility to the speaker -> it's a pre-supposed. We find the idea of vir bonus. We understand that the Christian tradition will resume the Christian tradition will resume that tradition: the Christian orator will credit it is given from on high! From there, we could add a component 4EM:
modesty: (Attn not meanness!). This is a utterance position.
3 / Evidence pathetic.
As a subjective -> this time concerning the provisions of the audience. There is thus a sort of bet at the beginning ...
He will try to provoke the passions that are conducive to its purpose.
a) Theorizing.
To produce a treatise on rhetoric, he needed a treatise on the passions -> + they are for a particular age, there are plenty of differences. Two different aims:
- rhetoric: it seeks to the cause!
- poetic for making characters who are credible.
b) Reconciliation ethics evidence / proof pathetic.
The two are subjective. ethos is a mediator for the production of pathos MS plans are different.
Write rewrite IV: the preparatory exercises.
junction point between Rhaeto and literary. There are plenty of tracks and what was practiced throughout rhetoric. The idea is that we do not create scratch -> it's still a form of rewriting. The invention is not created.
Imitation entrusted to the great models. There are 3 ways to imitate.
1 / A component epideictic.
-> praise: and, for the more advanced, the paradoxical praise. (See entire literary tradition around it ... Praise paradox of Gorgias to Molière P. Dandrey).
-> blame.
2 / A component descriptive.
-> the ekphrasis: it is a genre in itself. eg description of the shield of Achilles in The Iliad . We will stand in the middle of the stage as if we were there -> notion of enargeia . This is particularly linked to the figure of hypotyposis. When you go to the end of the end, one wonders if this is true (see "Night Effect" in Saturnian Poems of Verlaine's not true, the description of a table).
3 / A discursive component.
-> the éthopée : give a speech to an entity, a character to build a character. An ethical image for this character. See the kind of the Heroides.
-> the prosopopoeia: is impossible to hold a speech by the narrator (or dialogue of the dead).
END!
