Today’s plan:
- Secondary source presentations
- Tracing the Legacies of the Greeks
- Break
- Stasis Theory (and a little bit of Johnson’s Rasselas
Tracing the Legacies of the Greeks
For this part of class, I would ask you to think about the Ancient Greek theorists we explored over the past 10 weeks. For each, identify a passage from the text that speaks (constructively or critically) to that theorist:
- Plato
- Aristotle
- Gorgias
- Isocrates
Two things we should tease out:
- Cicero’s complicated relationship to “philosophy”
- Cicero’s utter disdain for “rhetoric”
Stasis Theory
My previous notes on Cicero’s text are available on the wikibook. I want to pay special attention to stasis theory.
In the long passage in I.xxxi provides an overview of the major elements of Roman rhetoric. Note: Crassus later stresses that none of this outline is “new” (in other words, he is simply highlighting the basics). Distinct to Cicero (since we did not explicitly hit upon this in our study of the Greeks), is his discussion of stasis theory:
First, it is the business of an orator to speak in a manner adapted to persuade; next, that every speech is either upon a question concerning a matter in general, without specification of persons or times, or concerning a matter referring to certain persons or times. But that, in either case, whatever falls under controversy, the question with regard to it is usually, whether such a thing has been done, or, if it has been done, of what nature it is, or by what name it should be called; or, as some add, whether it seems to have been done rightly or not. (pg. 40, I.xxxi).
Antonius discusses stasis a bit more in Book II, adding:
There are in all, therefore, three sorts of matters which may possibly fall under doubt and discussion–what is now done, what has been done, or what is to be done; what the nature of a thing is, or how it should be designated; for as to the question which some Greeks add, whether a thing be rightly done, it is wholly included in the inquiry what the nature of the thing is” (pg. 114, II.cxxviii).
Crassus goes into more depth regarding conjectural stasis in Book III:
But to conjecture they return again, and divide it into four kinds; for the question is either, “what a thing is” as “whether law among mankind is from nature or from opinions?” or “What the origin of a thins is,” as “What is the foundation of civil laws and governments?’ or the cause and reason of it; as if it is asked “Why do the most learned men differ upon points of great importance?” or as to the possible changes in any thing; as if it is disputed “Whether virtue can die in men, or whether it be convertible into vice?” (there is more here, too, on definition and consequences, see pg. 225, III.cxxix).
Richard Lanham, in his Handlist of Rhetorical Terms, explicates: “Cicero argued that the whole matter [stasis, issue, schematizing what an argument was about] was contained in three questions: does it exist? (Sitne?); what is it (Quid sit?); what kind of thing is it? (Quale sit?). For Lanham, this is the root of the modern “journalist’s litany, Who? What? When? Why? Where?” (93). Lanham credits Hermagoras with articulating four different types of theses related to stasis:
- Conjectural, dispute over a fact, WAS the deed done?
- Definitional, dispute over a definition, what KIND of deed was done?
- Qualitative, dispute over the value, quality, or nature of an act, was it a LEGAL deed?
- Translative, dispute over moving the issue from one court of jurisdiction to another, are we trying the case in the right court.
- Procedural, dispute over what must be done NEXT
To Lanham’s list I might add one more:
Each of these theses emphasizes a different mode of evidence–for instance, a conjectural thesis seeks to present physical evidence. A definitional or translative thesis, however, will need to provide discursive evidence (to demonstrate the legitimacy of a definition based on standards already established). A qualitative thesis is the most open to exploring circumstantial evidence, since it often makes contextual justifications for negative definitions. Think of defending a wife accused of murdering an abusive husband. Clearly, stabbing him in the chest is murder in the eyes of the law books–the discursive/textual frameworks–but can be qualified as self-defense and thus valued as a justified act. Similarly, qualitative arguments can change the ways in which we define things.
Homework
We are reading Quintilian for next week. I’ve also decided that it is time to read Lanham’s essay “The Q Question.” Lanham’s essay is about 45 pages, and it is daunting in a few places. To be fair to your time, I will encourage you to examine the outline of material on pages xxxii-xxxiii and be selective in your reading of Book 1 (which deals with what we might call primary school).
