Quintilian's Institutes of Oratory

Reading Grassi's Rhetoric as Philosophy with graduate students right now. His emphasis on what he refers to as Italian Humanism (rhetoricians and scholars from Cicero to Vico) and his use of metaphor as a proof, making him challenging for students brought up in analysis and critique. As we were discussing his short book the other night I realized how incomplete my reading in Cicero and Quintilian is. So, I am listening to Quintilian's Institutes of Oratory for the next few weeks.

Here's a taste of what he has to say in the Preface, where he addresses Plato's concern about rhetoricians devoid of virtue, echoed by Kant and Locke. Note that Quintilian's insistence that the "perfect orator" be a good man, and that ethics is as much the purview of rhetoric as philosophy is based on the need for orators to be citizens, that is, involved in public affairs:  


"We are to form, then, the perfect orator, who cannot exist unless as a good man, and we require in him, therefore, not only consummate ability in speaking, but every excellence of mind. 10. For I cannot admit that the principles of moral and honorable conduct are, as some have thought, to be left to the philosophers; since the man who can duly sustain his character as a citizen, who is qualified for the management of public and private affairs, and who can govern communities by his counsels, settle them by means of laws, and improve them by judicial enactments, can certainly be nothing else but an orator" (9).

The First Deconstructionist?

“Plato is mounting an effort to destroy time by using writing to kill all the voices of the past while at the same time using it to preclude its use in the future. After Plato, there will be nothing but continuing repetitions of Plato” (7) Neel, Jasper. Plato, Derrida, And Writing. Southern Illinois University Press. Carbonedale, ILL: 1988.

 
Jasper Neel  argues, quite vehemently, that Plato is the first deconstructionist because he argues for and against the same position, illustrating the illusionary nature of language in Phaedrus, where there will be "nothing but continuing repetitions of Plato."

Whether Neel's critique of Plato's motives is on point or not, another dialogue, Cratylus, seems to reveal a deconstrutive Socrates. 

The title of the dialogue is itself deceptive, since Cratylus hardly says a word until the last section. Prior to that, the dialogue takes place almost exclusively between Socrates and Hermogenes, who complains to Socrates that Cratylus has claimed that Hermogenes is not a true son of Hermes, which he sees as an insult. Socrates explains Hermes true nature to Hermogenes, his first act of deconstruction: “the name Hermes has to do with speech,and signifies that he is the interpreter (ermeneus), or messenger,or thief, or liar, or bargainer.” (Always ready to get a dig in at rhetoric, or at least speech makers.)

Throughout the dialogue, Socrates uses etymology to explain the archaic, and thus true meaning of certain words. Though Socrates employs a referential model of language throughout, this can be seen as a typically deconstrutive move, since the true meanings of the various words are controlled by Socrates.

Socrates bemoans the tendency to add or subtract letters from archaic words, thus disguizing the original meaning. Here is an example of his method:

Soc. Yes, my dear friend; but then you know that the original names

have been long ago buried and disguised by people sticking on and

stripping off letters for the sake of euphony, and twisting and bedizening

them in all sorts of ways: and time too may have had a share in the

change. Take, for example, the word katoptron; why is the letter r

inserted? This must surely be the addition of some one who cares nothing

about the truth, but thinks only of putting the mouth into shape.

And the additions are often such that at last no human being can possibly

make out the original meaning of the word. 

Socrates explains in detail, too much detail for a blog, the way to discover the original meaning, which he says was developed by "legislators." Of course, he argues, legislators can be wrong. Consquentally, there can be true names and false names. What I find fascinating, is that if legislators came up with the names, they can do so for ulterior motives, thus providing one of the most important underpinnings of post-structuralist critique, a conspiracy that must be revealed through the method.

Soc. And yet, if you are permitted to put in and pull out any letters

which you please, names will be too easily made, and any name may

be adapted to any object.

The method is useful, explains Socrates, because you can so fluster your opponent that he gives up.

Soc. Yes, very likely. But still the enquiry demands our earnest attention

and we must not flinch. For we should remember, that if a person go

on analysing names into words, and enquiring also into the elements

out of which the words are formed, and keeps on always repeating this

process, he who has to answer him must at last give up the enquiry

in despair. 

No conclusion, no agreement is reached. The unreliability of language is exposed.

The first deconstructionist? (The typical answer to this question is, "You decide." But, with deconstruction, agency, like language, gets lost in the shuffle.) 

Coming back after Plantar Fasciitis

I feel like I'm back. I've been running every other day for the last ten days with no pain. I'm keeping it simple, trying hard not to go overboard. I can remember when I first started running, I had to discipline myself in so many ways, to get up early, to complete the full distance in long runs, to stay on the right pace in fast runs. Now, I have to discipline myself to hold back. It feels good to run for the first time in four months, and I just want to run. Every day my foot feels a little better, during the run, after the run, on my rest day. I'm holding myself to a routine: 


On running days: stretch, walk at least a half mile, keep the pace comfortable (IE don't look at the Garmin, which might push my to, well, push harder), one hour of running (distance and speed doesn't matter; just run comfortably), walk for a half mile, then stretch again.

On non-running days: stretch my tendons as often as I can remember, massage sole with golf ball (my son and daughter looked at me like I was crazy until I made them try it. The oohs and ahhs were testament to how good it feels. Then, your feet tingle for ten minutes afterwards. You can feel the circulation improving.)

Socrates or Gandhi?

I listened to "Crito" this morning for what may have been the tenth time, perhaps more. (Summary: Crito visits Socrates in prison and tries to convince him to escape into exile. Socrates will have none of it. He will obey the law--if not the people.) If this summary isn't detailed enough for you and you decide to catch up on your Socratic Dialogues on wikipedia or Spark Notes, you'll be told that this dialogue contains the seeds of Rousseau's "Social Contract." Perhaps. Probably. Every time I listen to Crito, I can't decide if I buy Socrates's argument--oh, not for me. I'd wave goodbye to Athens and be on my way to Thebes.

There's no doubt that as described in "Crito," that Socrates made the harder choice, though for him it was neither harder nor a choice. By his own understanding of ethics, it was entirely necessary for him to obey the law, even though the law be wrong. It is not the choice Gandhi would have made. Both admirable men. Both doing what they were sure was the right thing. Diametrically opposed to each other.

Does it make a difference that Gandhi opposed colonial rule? To a certain extent; I think Socrates might have accepted the difference had he not seen these as Athen's laws, but laws imposed from afar. Interesting, though, that Gandhi's goal was similar to Socrates's, not to throw off British rule--important, but actually a prereq to his real goal--to revive the spiritual lives of the people of India. And that was Socrates's goal as well, to make Athens a virtuous city. You're call as to which either were successful.