Jacob Craig Dr.

Yancey Rhetorical Theory + Practice 1/21/2013 SRR Rhetoric Summarize|| Aristotle sets out to craft a theory of rhetoric and a handbook for the practice of rhetoric. For Aristotle, the domain of rhetoric is the public sphere, so to practice rhetoric is to give speeches to audiences in order to move (persuade) that audience. And for Aristotle, to study rhetoric is to study modes of persuasion. In order to do rhetoric, to observe available modes, the rhetor has to know what they are. So Aristotles work catalogs modes of persuasion and under what circumstances a mode of persuasion might be used. This work focuses on the three appeals, the three genres, *example* and *enthymeme*, and the canons (with a section focused on delivery). Books one and two help the speaker generate arguments with general and special topics and kinds of knowledge for occasions. Book three discusses with shaping the argument for delivery and delivering the argument. The organizing principle of the work seems to be the appeals. Most of this work enumerates and classifies arguments, examples, and topics. His enumeration is broad; it includes: good things, relatively good things, virtue, noble things, and pleasant things. His catalog is categorized by occasions (genres). For example, when delivering a speech in a courtroom, it is important to understand vice and base things and pleasant things. When bringing praise, it is important to understand good things. Likewise, in some cases example is appropriate where in others, enthymeme. Respond|| I was interested in one of Aristotles earliest statements, rhetoric is not bound up with a single definite class of subjects (1372). And before that Aristotle notes that No other of the arts draws opposite conclusions: dialectic and rhetoric alone do this (1348-49). When I came across these lines, I started to think some of the domains of this course, writing pedagogies and the discipline at large. And more specifically, I started to think about what people suppose writing classrooms and Composition Studies do or should do. Aristotle almost seems like the point of departure between the way CS understands its work and the way other people could understand CS. Some hold (students included) that CS is interested in the teaching of style and grammar. Or when rhetoric is introduced to some FYC students, they make the leap to *mere* rhetoric. There is a lot of ground to cover if the gap begins at Aristotle. The other point I wanted to make about these lines is that there is a difference between a multiplicity of subjects and a lack of content. It seems like since someone could say there is a rhetoric to X (whatever X might be) and come with some proof to start an argument, a person might think that if everything has a rhetoric, rhetoric isnt very substantial. They might say that it is nonessential, because it doesnt appear to be essential to any one thing; *if everything is important, nothing is*. But in reading Aristotles work, I dont see that. There is a limited number of modes. The use of modes is tentative to the study of relations, audiences, and bodies of knowledge. And to study those modes is to make a start at studying rhetoric. Reflect|| Aristotle is very systematic and hierarchical. He has lots of genus/species categorization happening. The introduction set up a couple readings of these hierarchies. In one reading, the appeals are the organizing principle. In another, the difference between example and enthymeme were the organizing principles. But thats not what I saw, but my frame may be partially influenced by the rhetoric in the culture assignment and Bitzer. I saw the organizing principle in Aristotle being domains and occasions. What I mean is that he offers long lists of materials that a person might employ in a particular occasion. In the courtroom and when doing forensic rhetoric, there are witnesses. In the senate or in a political/policy-making occasion, there are arguments that pertain to the good. And then there is another kind of list, the general list. It is distinctive from the other lists,

because it is defined as not being defined by special occasions and domains. Rather than appeals or kinds of reasoning, I think Aristotles genres are genera in the work, because his genres are defined by occasions and purposes of speaking in those occasions. The other point I want to make/question is Aristotles use of the word material. Positions, arguments, approaches, subjects, topics, kinds of reasoning, and audiences expectations are materials from which someone builds more material. I am doing some reading around about cultural/historical materiality, and Aristotles use of the word material to describe patterns, probabilities, and beliefs seemed different than the works that Ive read so far.