Reflective Mapping (A Foundation)

Full disclosure: the ancients and I have never gotten along. It’s not that I can’t read texts that immediately relate to the beeps and boops of computers and videogames I find so soothing in my own scholarship or research, but rather because I find myself in a persistent struggle to make sense of how these texts which seem so embedded in context relate to my experiences here and now as a teacher and scholar of rhetoric and composition. For every important and intriguing line to me, a dozen more seem so hopelessly embedded in context that it becomes difficult for me to focus as I read on what is or is not important. This is probably much more a criticism of my own twitchy tendencies when I read than anything else, mind you, but I nonetheless find this persistent tension when I read ancient texts (or really, any that are not from the latter 20th century); how does this embedded text that feels so divorced from my reality relate to me, my students, or my studies? Despite some disconnects in format, I found the trace exceptionally rewarding this last week for precisely that reason: by applying a terministic screen to my reading of Aristotle and Quintilian, I was able to identify passages of interest far more easily than would have otherwise been possible for me as a reader. Also, while the process of mapping or schematizing may have fell short of the intended goals of the trace, I found it helpful to see the ways in which these texts differed. Specifically, the focus on genre in Aristotle, and the focus on Style in Quintilian.

Starting with Aristotle, I found his attempts to lay out the genres and types of rhetoric particularly interesting. While I began with a genuine struggle to relate as Aristotle discusses at length his Topics starting on page 187, seeking out examples of genre in his work was exceptionally helpful. The obvious examples of interest in this case came from his discussion of Ethos, Pathos, and Logos and the genres of oratory (Political, Forensic, and Ceremonial) Aristotle lays out.  Again, while these may seem like small gains from the reading, in my own personal wrestling with Aristotle, these were actually rather significant gains. I’ve always been perfectly aware of the terminology, but seeing them in Aristotle’s work was endlessly helpful and grounded my reading, so that even in times where his Topics seemed completely devoid of classroom practice (say, a discussion on Food Supply on page 187), I was able to situate these ideas spatially cooperatively with Sarah. One concern I had throughout my reading of Aristotle’s work, however, was the consistent nagging feeling that Aristotle was all too willing to present rhetoric as a means for victory in arguments and cases…. and yet, did not seem especially concerned with its end use. On page 203, Aristotle is all too willing to suggest that “revenge, too, is pleasant” and yet, not overwhelmingly concerned with whether or not the argument being made is “right,” but rather, that whosoever is using rhetoric must do so to win their case, not for any other purpose. I found myself a bit unsettled by that (and, perhaps, some of this may be the result of genuinely struggling with reading these ancient texts). I’m not sure that I necessarily agree entirely with Quintilian’s assessment that rhetoric can and only should be used “well,” but nonetheless found it troubling how Aristotle seemed content to lay out a series of ways in which necessarily “bad” things like revenge can be construed as good when the situation mandates it. It seems… dangerous, for want of a better term.

That said, moving to Quintilian, I found myself in a similar position of unease when sifting through his discussions of the relationship between teacher and pupil. While these were interesting passages, I again struggled to make real connections to my position in the field, as a teacher. While Aristotle provides some of the basic and fundamental concepts we discuss to this day when teaching and analyzing rhetoric (ethos, pathos, and logos), Quintilian at first provided few such glimpses to me as a reader. Upon reading the text through the lens of genre and style, however, I found myself able to pull information out that I found genuinely interesting (again, a relatively small gain to some, but for my tumultuous relationship with reading the ancients, a massive boon on my part). The process of mapping (as opposed to tracing… whoops!) made clear the contributions of Quintilian to Style as opposed to Genre, where a clear shift in depth of content exists. As Quintilian is building on the work of Aristotle and Cicero already, additional musings on genre were not nearly as important, and the shift to Style aids in finding value in his work on my end. On page 402, we see some of Quintilian’s judgments on “good” and “bad” style, laid out as binaries such as weak/concise, careless/simple, tripping/dignified, and tumid/great. I’m reluctant to embrace such simple types of binaries, and don’t expect to start switching my approach to grading over to “tumid/great” anytime soon, it is nonetheless possible to see these elements of Quintilian’s work far more clearly when examined through this lens, one relevant to my own experiences working with students. I may not be seeking out a rhetoric instructor for my child, but as the rhetoric instructor for the children of plenty of people, finally seeing connections between his work and the field at large (and seeing it in relationship to the contributions of Aristotle) is illuminating for me.

In this way, as a reader who genuinely struggles to see connections between both Aristotle and Quintilian (and genuinely struggles to grasp their content), I was far better able to make connections between their work and terms and stances I’m familiar with (genre and style). I’m not meaning for this blog post to serve as simply a reflection on the process of attempting a trace, but would rather use this as a chance to say that as someone who struggles to identify content so deeply embedded in ancient contexts, the value of examining these texts through a specific terministic screen is not lost on me. I gravitate towards works I see more as practical to my interests and studies, so grappling with largely theoretical pieces has routinely proven challenging for me. The context of ancient rhetoric only further divorces me from the important content, and seeing these texts through the lens of my own mapping has provided a crucial tool for examining these texts which I know will inevitably prove essential for me. I tend to think of these sorts of readings in an extremely archaeological sense: I feel like I am uncovering and examining relics that are undoubtedly interesting, but not sure what to do with them otherwise. This process has helped me to see the roles of both Aristotle in laying out foundations for genres (and the accompanying complications with audiences) and Quintilian’s contributions to understandings of style. I’m anticipating this will serve as a foundation for view both these texts and future readings in this class and look forward to returning to these perspectives in the coming weeks and building on them.