Discussion Post Required + 2 Responses – Urgent. A+ Work Required. Real every Single Instruction

Instructions and Grading Rubric Attached

Respond to Post 1 and Post 2 + Main Discussion Post.

3 Attachments are Required.

Need it in 12-13 HOURS

Please dont BID if you cant manage in 12-13 HOURS

ENGL 570

Discussion Board Grading Rubric

0 points
Not present and/or no requirements met.

0 points
Not present and/or no requirements met.

Advanced

Proficient

Developing

Not Present

Points Earned

0 points
Not present and/or no requirements met.

0 points
Not present and/or no requirements met.

0 points
Not present and/or no requirements met.

Page 2 of 4

Rhetorical Views: A Follow-up On Cicero’s View

COLLAPSE

Top of Form

Vivian Listner

Eng. 570-BO1

Liberty University

Professor Holt

2/19/20

                                                                     Rhetorical Views: A Follow-up on Cicero’s View                                             

Cicero knew about the demands it took to be a rhetorician. He was diverse in his thinking. For example, he fought for justice in every sense of the word. He viewed it as a way into future generations’ thinking. His “posterity” (Kennedy, A. George, 1994, p.128) kept him on high ground. He never stopped believing in the hype. Though he broke chains of “wisdom” so-to-speak, rhetoric for Cicero was an art form at the very least. He was defining the terms himself. He would even compose letters to friends (128). He might have been considered shrewd or “pompous” (128) but he took matters seriously. His had a “gift” (129). He used an “extension” (129) of ethos (130) to make rhetorical decisions. As it seems, he ordered “character” (130) as a means to great knowledge of justice and promise. He was profoundly viewing rhetoric in terms of what was good, or what helped the people fight for justice.

The “promise”, was followed by Quintilian on how or what makes rhetoric useful. Through Quintilian’s book, “Institutes” he informs/enlightens the reader on two components for further thought. As in education, we must owe it to ourselves to understand the power of knowledge. For Quintilian speech was a form of education.  In other words, refining our innate knowledge. Two, a well-rounded education was vital to the cause. Without certain aspects of education in its full form, rhetoric is misunderstood. Also, it must take on a “real-life application” (Butler, H.E., 2001, pp. 363) hence the form of a profession. The three offices are: “Indications” (362), which bring about the “promise” (or future generational promise). “Style” plays a vital role in any speech given by the “mature orator” (363) also play a role in a speech. “Art” will be skillful at best. It is about how to redefine an action through one’s own gift(s) in a profession. The “necessary orator’s” (363) speech must profit his/her good sense of being good. His quality of mind is shaped by the posterity he/she holds.

a. Perhaps moral obligation is a given considering that Cicero was all about the sense of one’s self being good, and promising. He was an idealist thinker with so much information. Yet, he dwelled neatly on the premise of taking rhetoric to the public through continuous thought on the subject. He also re-challenged that thinking. For example, he definitively spoke about the good nature of the public as listeners. Perhaps the speech “speaks for itself” (mine). In other words, promotes an obligation within the words of the speech.

Perhaps, a speech is more of a gift. Perhaps Cicero found it “complex” (132) to begin with. He must’ve known about obligation through his notions of making core decisions on truth. He was viewing this subject as a means to profit the listener, not the orator. In a way, that could be viewed as being moral. He was an alibi. Example:

“Cicero’s defense of Roscius has three parts, combing stasis of the fact with that form of stasis quality that shifts responsibility for the action to another person ultimately responsible for guilt” (130). Another example of Cicero’s goodness: “Who stood to gain?” (130)

3) Quintilian placed more depth on education because he must’ve sensed that the public would gain more from a knowledgeably wiser person. This prompts my understanding that his view of rhetoric was about the public, not the orator. This links up with Cicero’s views on “goodness” and “justice.” “Fathers have high hopes for their sons for a reason” (363). In Quintilian’s major works, the “Institutes” he brought about consensus that education makes a good, prosperous orator. He/she makes use for the public as listeners.

“Children view it as mimicry” and “should read aloud poets works…”

These are just a few examples to attach to my case: That he was looking to make “better, honest people” out of rhetoric.

Questions: How do we know what is good and true on the listener’s behalf? What makes rhetoric a promise?

                                                                References

  Cicero, M. “Institutio Oratoria” (trans. Butler. H.E.). In Bizzell, Patricia, Herzberg, Bruce (2001). The rhetorical tradition: Readings from classical times to the present. (2nd ed., pp. 363). Boston, MA: Bedford/St.Martin’s.

Kennedy, George, A., (1994). A New History of Classical Rhetoric. (pp. 130-132)

            Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.  

Bottom of Form

Pragmatism vs. Idealism: The Roman Rhetoricians

COLLAPSE

Top of Form

Roman orators Cicero and Quintilian, though their ideas at times overlapped, posited two different ideals of rhetoric. Cicero, who died years before Quintilian was even born, was the premier orator of Rome at a pivotal moment in Roman history, and thus his understanding of rhetoric was oriented around the state. Like Aristotle, Cicero advanced  a fairly pragmatic definition of rhetoric, emphasizing its persuasive appeal and its stylistic concerns over its ultimate purpose. He did note that rhetoric has the moral capacity for “testing truth,” but his primary concern lay with the qualities of excellent rhetoric, and thus he did not emphasize the ethical dimension of rhetoric (trans. 1942, p. 325). In Cicero’s conception, rhetorical excellence married knowledge to style; the perfect orator was “he who on any matter whatever can speak with fullness and variety” (trans. 1942, p. 297). In order to accomplish this goal, a rhetorician had to be educated in the arts and sciences as well as in speaking, and this broad education—the forerunner to a modern liberal arts degree, in a sense—made the rhetorician eminently versatile. Given the political instability that overshadowed Cicero’s own career, his emphasis on excellence seems shrewd. If the rhetorician devoted himself to excellence rather than to a moral or political stance, his talents were an asset rather than a liability in the event of a regime change. Cicero may have emphasized excellence rather than morality for the sake of expedience. 

Quintilian, on the other hand, was fundamentally idealistic in his approach to rhetoric. He famously understood rhetoric as excellent speaking by good men; indeed, he argued that only good men could truly be considered orators (trans. 1856, p. 385). Wicked men, he conceded, might borrow the tools of rhetoric and wield them with skill, but the audience, recognizing the incongruence of the man’s character and his words, would ultimately reject him. In order to produce men of character, Quintilian argued, excellent education was necessary, and it ought to begin as soon as possible. An excellent educator would not only pass on the skills Cicero championed but also an understanding of “what is honorable and good” (Quintilian, trans. 1856, p. 366). If this moral education began early in a young man’s life, he would have a sound foundation on which to build a reputation and a career, and he could continue growing in goodness throughout his life. Quintilian believed that, by genuinely embracing virtue, an orator could move others to do so as well—a worthwhile calling for anyone to pursue (trans. 1856, p. 420). Only the orator who was both good and well-spoken could shape culture for the better.

I found a great deal of food for thought in the writings of both men. For Cicero, my question deals with what he terms “vigorous language” (trans. 1942, p. 329). He says that such language is not always wanted; in what situations would he recommend its usage? 

Regarding Quintilian, my question is somewhat more philosophical. He argues that, since the soul is divine in its origin, it should not be enslaved by the earthly body (trans. 1856, p. 420). When I read this, I couldn’t help thinking of Paul’s argument in Romans 6-7 that deals with slavery to sin. Even though we as Christians ought to regard our bodies respectfully, to what extent can we agree with Quintilian’s argument here? Does his point here align with truth? 

References

Cicero, M. (trans. 1942/2001). De Oratore (E. W. Sutton & H. Rackham, Trans.). In P. Bizzell & B. Herzberg (Eds.), The rhetorical tradition: Readings from classical times to the present (pp. 289-339). Boston, MA: Bedford/St. Martin’s.

Quintilian, M. (trans. 1856/2001). Institutes of oratory (J. S. Watson, Trans.). In P. Bizzell & B. Herzberg (Eds.), The rhetorical tradition: Readings from classical times to the present (pp. 364-428). Boston, MA: Bedford/St. Martin’s.

Bottom of Form

ENGL 570

Discussion Board Forum 4

Cicero and Quintilian

*
Note: Not all Discussion Boards are identical across courses. Read all instructions in the prompt.

General requirements:
Every Discussion Board post must be at least

600 words minimum
. The post needs to include one to two questions for further thought.

Each reply must be

250 words

minimum
. The reply must attempt to answer the other student’s question(s) and add one additional follow up question for further thought.

Discussion Board Forum 4 Prompt:

Both Cicero and Quintilian place importance not only on eloquence in rhetoric, but they also stress rhetoric as connected to some form of character. For Cicero, he seeks the “ideal-statesman” whereas Quintilian pursues the “perfect orator.” The different nouns used for each partially indicates a distinguishing feature in their approaches.

For this week’s post, address the following:

1) How does Cicero define/understand rhetoric? How does Quintilian define/understand rhetoric?

a. Again, using his words here would be too easy, so you must explain his definition
in

your own words
. This is an excellent practice for graduate level assignments, and it reflects a student’s interpretation of original works.

2) One area Kennedy notes as “missing” in Cicero’s work is the moral responsibility of the orator. Why might this be missing from Cicero’s view of the orator and rhetoric?

a. Think about why he can speak on the “ideal” yet not connect that to the use or performance of rhetoric by that person.

b. Give examples to support your answer.

3) Why does Quintilian place more emphasis on lifelong education of the orator, and what might this reveal about his view of rhetoric?

4) You must reference specific passage(s) from the assigned reading using APA format. You may quote or summarize, but specific page numbers must be provided.

5) Include one or two questions you have about the assigned readings for this week (Use specific pages numbers as you reference parts of the reading).

Review the Discussion Board Grading Rubric before submitting. Your post must be at least
600 words
,
include 1-2 questions for further thought, and reference the assigned readings using APA format
.
Your reply to another student’s post must be at least 250 words, attempt to answer the other student’s post, and include one follow up question for further thought
.

Order an Essay Now & Get These Features For Free:

Turnitin Report

Formatting

Title Page

Citation

Outline

Place an Order