The
Art of Persuasion: Classical Rhetoric for Lawyers
Harold A. Lloyd
Spring 2023
(1-18-2023)
Involving the art of ethical persuasion, rhetoric is central
not only to the good practice of law but to good social
life as well. Litigation, negotiation, public
speaking as well as interactions with clients, colleagues, friends, teachers,
students, government, and all others encountered in daily life can benefit from
proper and effective rhetoric. Additionally, rhetoric is much more than style, though style is
an important part of rhetoric. The basic
principles of Rhetoric were refined by the ancient Greeks and Romans who understood
its critical role in good citizenship, good government,
and in the good life. In this
course, we will study these basic principles of
persuasion and their application to the materials set forth below, and we will
practice putting these principles into application with the hope of not only
improving legal skills but life skills as well.
In addition to the weekly readings and exercises set
forth below, you will present at least one speech (10 to 15
minutes) on a topic of your choice. These speeches are highlights of the class
for both the speaker and audience! I will also ask you to look for examples of rhetoric that
you find of interest (speeches or other items on the web, in movies, in
documentaries, etc.) to share in class. To help refine your interpersonal
rhetoric, I will ask you to do assignments (other than your speech) in teams.
As we study rhetoric, you will see that we communicate
with more than just words. Instead, you will see how we use other types of
signs in effective persuasion. This involves introduction to semiotics (the study
of signs), a study which can also be traced back to the ancient Greeks. To whet
your interest in this, think of Marc Antony’s funeral oration. He not only uses
words (one type of symbol) but also, among other things, points to Caesar’s
body and waives his will. This involves other types of signs that we will
rhetorically explore. (I’ll keep you in further suspense on this until we
discuss these matters in class!)
There will be no exam, and this class is pass/fail.
Class
Rules & Guidelines:
1.
The class is designed to be interactive and timely class attendance is required
unless excused by Prof. Lloyd.
2.
These guidelines and rules and class materials may be supplemented by others
from time to time.
Required Books:
Aristotle, “The Rhetoric and Poetics of Aristotle”
(Modern Library College Ed.) [AR]
“Cicero,” Rhetorica Ad Herennium (Loeb Edition, also
online) [RAH]
Lanham, “A Handlist of Rhetorical Terms” (2nd Edition)
[L]
Corbett, “Classical Rhetoric For The Modern Student”
(4th Edition) [Corbett]
Course Goals, Strategies, &
Outcomes:
1. Cultivate a theoretical and practical grasp of effective written, oral, and other persuasive communication.
Upon completion of
Classical Rhetoric for Lawyers, students should have a good theoretical and
practical grasp of:
·
Basics of the art of persuasion;
·
The branches and parts of classical
rhetoric;
·
The evaluation of (and connection with) a
particular audience;
·
The modes of persuasion;
·
The arrangement of arguments;
·
Framing and stasis;
·
The role of narrative in persuasion;
·
The role of commonplaces, maxims, and
metaphors in persuasion;
·
The invention of arguments and the role of
general and special topics in such invention;
·
Deductive vs. Inductive reasoning;
·
Fallacies of deductive and inductive reasoning;
·
Basics of style including types, virtues,
and schemes; and
·
Delivery of an effective speech.
·
How words operate as signs and how words are not the
only types of signs with which lawyers should have expertise.
2. Promote integrity, professionalism, and
ethical persuasion in life and in lawyering.
Upon completion of
Classical Rhetoric for Lawyers, students should be able to:
·
Understand a lawyer’s responsibilities and
ethical duties when engaged in communication and persuasion;
·
Use appropriate techniques for considering
diverse audiences in written and oral communication; and
·
Act professionally and ethically in
written and oral communications.
For the first
class, please do the assignments set forth in Section I below.
Syllabus
I: Introduction and Overview:
1. Glenn Beck and Aristotle: Beck & Nazi Tourette’s (shown in class); AR Bk II, Ch. 23,
Part 6, pp 145-146.
2. Various
definitions of Rhetoric: (Schedule I-2).
3. History Of
Rhetoric: Corbett, pp. 489-497
(classical rhetoric), pp. 538 (first
full paragraph) to 540 (first full paragraph)(modern rhetoric); L, pp. 197-198
(Chronology).
4. Branches and
Parts of Rhetoric: Corbett (Five Cannons of Rhetoric, Three Kinds of Persuasive
Discourse, and Current Relevance of
Rhetoric) pp. 17-26; L., pp. 164-166
(Rhetoric: The 3 Branches and the 5
Parts), pp. 171-174 (the parts of an oration) ; Richmond’s speech to his troops
in Shakespeare’s Richard III, Schedule I-4; RAH:
(Overview) Bk. I ii, pp. 5 (1st full Par.), 7, 9, 11 (1st 3 lines) [This is a
dual language book, so in references to its pages
you need only read the English translation, not the original Latin].
5. Gaging Your Audience: Corbett, pp. 6
(last two paragraphs)-15 (embassy to Achilles and analysis).
6. Initial Review: review the list of rhetorical terms
in Section XIII below as well as the summaries in Corbett on pages 409-411. Although we will study these
terms in detail in Sections XIII-XIV, it is good to begin thinking about them
now.
II: Understanding the Audience Continued: The Exordium (the beginning of the
discourse) & Insinuatio (indirect introduction, literally winding or
stealing into, L., p. 91)
1. Exordium/Connecting Speaker & Audience. Readings:
(Introduction and Ingratiating yourself with the audience): Corbett, pp.
260-270; RAH Bk. I iv-vii, pp.11-23; AR, Bk 2-Chapters 12-17 (pp. 121-128);
Anthony’s Funeral Oration, From Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar (shown in class); John
Kennedy’s speech to the Houston Ministerial Association (shown in class).
2. In-Class Exercises:
Be prepared to discuss the readings above. What do
you think of Aristotle’s view of audience connection? How might exordium/insinuatio analysis apply
to legal or business negotiation? Additionally, in light of the readings, plan to discuss Antony’s and
Kennedy’s speeches in terms of rhetoric and of connecting
with the audience. As assigned, selected students will prepare and deliver a 10-15
minute speech.
III. An Overview
of Persuasion and Proof
1. Modes of Persuasion—Artificial/Inartificial &
Ethos/Pathos/Logos. Readings: L, p. 23,
pp. 121-122 (Proof), p. 166 (Proof); RAH Bk. 1 x-xvii, pp. 33-55;
AR Bk1-Chapter 2 (pp. 24-30 to first
full Par.), Bk. 2, Ch. 1 (pp. 91-92);
Corbett (Three Modes of
Persuasion and Appeal to Reason) pp. 31-33 (up to “principles of definition”)
and pp. 71-84 (Ethos and Logos, i.e.
Corbett on the emotional and the ethical or character appeal); Speech of Pope
Urban II attached as Schedule III-1. AR Bk. 2, Chs. 2-11 (pp. 92-121) (on the
emotions); Lloyd Emotion Handout posted on Canvas.
2. In-class exercises: Be prepared to discuss the materials
above, including the use of Ethos and Pathos in the Urban speech As assigned, selected students will prepare
and deliver a 10-15 minute speech on a topic chosen by them.
IV. An Overview of
Arrangement: Organizing Issues, Proof
and Refutation
1. Arrangement, Readings:
Review again: L, pp. 171-174;
Corbett, pp. 256-292 (260-70 is a review
of what you have read before) ; RAH Bk.
III, at p. 189 (Par. 18) [arrangement of arguments]; Corbett, pp. 301-319 (Dr. King’s Letter From A
Birmingham Jail & Analysis).
2. In class exercises: In-class exercises: Be prepared to discuss the materials
above, including a discussion of
Dr. King’s Birmingham Jail Letter (Corbett, pp. 301-319), with particular focus
on the arrangement and refutation techniques used in Dr. King’s Letter
(Corbett, pp. 301-319). Do you agree
with Corbett’s analysis of how to order one’s strongest and weakest arguments
or with the advice on this point in RAH?
As assigned, selected students
will prepare and deliver a 10-15 minute speech. Use principles of rhetoric that you have
studied.
V. A Closer Look at Framing & Stasis (Issue)
1. Framing & Stasis or Status (Issue) Readings: Review again RAH Bk. 1 x-xvii, pp. 33-55 from Part III above; L,
pp. 93-94 (def. of “issue”); Corbett, pp. 124 (3rd full par.)-126 (through 2nd
full par.); Corbett, pp. 33-38 (on
definitions); Excerpt on Framing set forth in Schedule V-1; Two Redacted Lloyd
Articles on Framing Posted on Canvas;Lincoln’s Cooper Union Speech available here;
Review AR Bk II, Ch. 23, Part 6, pp 145-146.
2. Exercises: Be prepared to discuss the materials above, including a discussion of rhetoric and framing
in Abraham Lincoln’s Speech at Cooper’s Union.
As assigned, selected students will
prepare and deliver a 10-15 minute speech. Be prepared in teams to discuss other framing or stasis
issues that you find of particular interest.
VI. A Closer Look at Narration and Issues Framed
1. Readings:
Corbett, pp. 270-276; RAH, Bk. I viii-ix, pp. 23-29; AR Bk. 3, ch. 16,
pp. 207-210; Lloyd article on narration available here.
2. Exercises: Discuss the
principles and importance of
narration in light of the above readings.
As assigned, selected students will prepare and
deliver a 10-15
minute speech. In teams, please be prepared to discuss cases or other analyses
which you think were interestingly influenced by the adopted narrative.
VII. Conceptual Metaphor
Overview
1. General Reading: Lloyd
article on framing and evaluating conceptual metaphors available here. Also read: L. Simile (140), Metaphor (100-101); and 188-189(metaphorical
substitutions). We will also view a
video in class from “Madmen.”
2. Exercises: Be prepared to discuss the material above, including a discussion of the
nature and function of conceptual metaphors, how you think they might differ
from “stylistic” metaphor discussed later in this class, and how we can explain
conceptual metaphors’ frequent “inconsistencies.” As assigned, selected
students will prepare and deliver a 10-15 minute speech. In teams, please be
prepared to discuss uses of conceptual metaphors that you find particularly
interesting in cases or other materials you can find.
VIII. Rhetoric and Semiotics
1. Readings: Lloyd Semiotics
Article pages 861-891, 931-936,939-943 available here. A
more formal light overview of semiotics at this point in class should help
bring prior materials together as well introduce further rhetorical skills.
2. Exercises: Discuss the above readings including the nature
and types of signs, symbols lawyers may effectively use other than words, and
why good rhetoric and lawyering includes grasping the nature and usage of broad
ranges of symbols, icons, and indices (as defined in the readings). As assigned, selected students will prepare
and deliver a 10-15 minute speech. In teams, please be prepared to discuss
examples of symbol, icon, or index use that you find particularly interesting.
IX. Topics:
Inventing Arguments For Issues Framed
1. Readings: L, pp. 167-169; AR
Bk 2 chapter 23, pp. 142-155; Corbett: 84-130 (includes reviewing
previously-read portions of pages 94-96, 116-117 & 124-126), pp. 195-209 (Apology of Socrates).
2 Exercises: Discuss the above readings including the use of
general and special topics in the Apology selection (pp. 195-209) and critiquing
Socrates’ approach to his defense in his trial in the Apology. As
assigned, selected students will prepare and deliver a 10-15 minute speech.
X. Commonplaces, Maxims, & Inductive Reasoning
1. Readings on Commonplaces: Lanham on commonplaces
(pp. 169-170); RAH, Bk. II xxx, pp.147 (line 48) -151; Corbett on Maxims (pp.
116-117).
2.
Readings On Induction: L’s
definitions of Enthymeme (65-66), Inductive Proof (90), Analogy (10);,
Corbett on example. 60-62.
3. Exercises Discuss the above readings and bring in
examples you can discuss involving good or questionable commonplaces, maxims,
and inductive reasoning. As assigned, selected students will prepare and
deliver a 10-15 minute speech.
XI. Deductive Reasoning
1. Lecture on Aristotle’s four sentence types, the
square of opposition, the syllogism and the concept of distribution.
2. Readings: Corbett 38-62; L’s definitions of
“Canonical Syllogism,” “Categorical
Propositions,” “Enthymeme,” “Square Of Opposition,” “Hypothetical Propositions.” Anselm’s Ontological Argument attached as
Schedule XI-1. Brown
v. Board of Education, Schedule XI-2.
3. Exercises: In addition to
discussing above materials, bring written team
answers to Corbett exercises (pp. 51-52 and pp. 59-60) and be prepared to
discuss and defend the same and be prepared to discuss
the possible syllogistic form of Brown
v. Board of Education. As
assigned, selected students will prepare and deliver a 10-15 minute speech.
XII. Fallacies of Deduction & Induction
1. Readings On Fallacies: L, pp. 77-78, 168-169;
Corbett, 62-71; RAH, pp. 113-45;
2. In addition to discussing the above materials, bring to class in teams a
written analysis of potential fallacies attached in Schedule XII-2 and be prepared to defend your position. As
assigned, selected students will prepare and deliver a 10-15
minute speech. Be prepared in teams to discuss other examples of
fallacious reasoning that you find of particular interest.
XIII. Style (Types & Virtues)
1. Readings: L, pp. 174-177; Corbett, pp. 345-369. As you do these
readings also look ahead to various specific terms we will discuss in the next
class:
1. Parallelism: similarity in structure in a pair or series of
related words or phrases;
2. Isocolon: similarity not only in structure but in length;
3. Antithesis: juxtaposition of contrasting ideas, often in parallel
structure;
4. Asyndeton:
deliberate omission of conjunctions between related clauses;
5. Polysyndeton:
deliberate use of additional conjunctions between items in a series;
6. Anaphora:
repetition of the same word or words at the beginning of successive clauses;
7. Epistrophe:
repetition of the same word or words at the ends of successive clauses;
8. Anadiplosis: repetition of the last word of one clause at
the beginning of the following clause;
9. Climax: arrangement of words, phrases, or clauses in
an order of increasing importance;
10. Such other
devices as metaphors, similes, personification, and rhetorical questions.
(These definitions
are generally taken from Corbett’s summary on pages 409-411 which are included
in your readings for XIV below.)
2. Exercises: In addition to discussing the above readings in general, be
prepared to discuss types of style, the 3, 4, and 20 virtues of style, and
bring in as teams what you consider excellent or deficient examples of types
and virtues of style. As assigned, selected students will
prepare and deliver a 10-15 minute speech.
XIV. Style (Figures:
Schemes & Tropes)
1. Readings: L, p. 78 (the figures); Corbett, pp. 377-411,
pp. 459-472 (Kennedy’s Inaugural Address); RAH, Bk 4 viii-xi, pp.253-269
2. Exercises: In addition to discussing the readings generally, be
prepared to discuss Kennedy’s Inaugural Address (Corbett, pp. 459-472) in terms
of style. Also consider nature and effectiveness of the address in light of
all materials read and discussed in class to date. In teams, prepare,
bring to class, and be ready to present a short persuasive argument using as
many of the tropes and elements of style set out in the reading and above as
you reasonably can and identify the name of the device used. Treat this as an opportunity to have
fun. In a real world oration you would of
course want to be properly measured. Also be prepared to discuss in teams other
examples of scheme or trope usage you find interestingly effective or
deficient. As
assigned, selected students will prepare and deliver a 10-15
minute speech.
Schedule I-2
Some Classical
Definitions of Rhetoric.
A.
Corax of Syracuse. (5th Cent. B.C.) He was the first to propose rhetorical
rules for the form of speech; rules required a proem, narration, argument and
peroration.
B.
Sophists. The Sophists founded small, for-profit schools whose subjects included
rhetoric. Three of the best known Sophists in rhetorical history are Gorgias,
Protagoras, and Isocrates.
Gorgias. (b. ca. 480 B.C.) The Sophist
Gorgias believed that rhetoric affects the soul like drugs affect the body and
can thus cause pain, pleasure, fear, courage and altered states of mind. (See
his “Helen”). He stressed antithesis,
parallelism, and ornate style.
Protagoras. (b. ca. 490 B.C.) The Sophist
Protagoras famously claimed that “man is the measure of all things” and that there
are two contradictory arguments about everything. He therefore taught his students to argue
both sides of a claim. This bilateral
nature of rhetoric also applied to the influence of the speaker on the audience
and vice versa. He denied that there were
absolute things-in-themselves behind or apart from convention.
Isocrates. (b. 436 B.C.) Isocrates
stressed the use of good style, good thinking and good speaking (with proper
rhythm and sonority of prose) in the pursuit of opinions that have probable truth.
He also stressed the need for the orator to have a good moral reputation,
self-control and a well-rounded, liberal education and character. He is
considered one of the founders of liberal arts education and even Plato praises
him at the end of Phaedrus. He apparently wrote about rhetoric but did
not speak in public himself.
C.
Plato. (b. 427 B.C.) In his great dialogue, Phaedrus, Plato reacted against the
Sophists by incorporating the notion of truth into his definition of proper
rhetoric. Rhetoric thus involves the following:
Knowledge of truth. The presenter must
know the truth of what he speaks or writes about.
Definition. The presenter must know how to
define things properly.
Classification. The presenter must know how
to classify what he has defined.
Understanding of Mind. The presenter must
understand how the mind works.
Kinds of presentations. The presenter must
understand which kinds of presentations are most effective with different kinds
of minds.
Arrangement and style. The presenter must
know how to arrange and style his presentations in the way most effective for
the kind of mind addressed, i.e., offering to complicated minds elaborate and
stylistic argument and offering to simple minds simple presentations.
D.
Aristotle. (b. 384 B.C.) In his Rhetoric, Aristotle defines rhetoric as the
ability to discern in each case the available means of persuasion. (Bk. I, Ch.
2) Ethics and pragmatism are injected with the notion of “available” means. He
recognized that every-day life may not obtain more certainty than probability
and opposed rhetoric to dialectic.
E.
Rhetorica Ad Herennium. The author of the Rhetorica Ad Herennium defines the
art of public speaking as the capable discussion of matters which law and custom
have fixed for usage
of
citizenship so as to secure greatest possible audience agreement. (Bk. I, 2).
F.
Cicero. (b. 106 B.C.) In his early work, On Invention, Cicero generally accepts
Aristotle's divisions of rhetoric while defining proper rhetoric as eloquence
in defense of one's country's welfare. This theme of proper rhetoric as that
devoted to one's country's welfare continues through his later works. He also
stressed the need for a broad education.
G.
Quintilian. (b. ca. 35 A.D.) In his Institutio Oratoria, Quintilian defines the
orator as a good man who is skilled in speaking.
H.
Augustine. (b. ca. 354 A.D.) St. Augustine rejected classical rhetoric to the
extent it rested on merely probable empirical principles. Instead he used the Bible both as an
objective measure and as embodying the principles of rhetorical style.
I.
Ramus.(b. 1515) Ramus defined rhetoric as the study of style and delivery. He classed invention, arrangement, and memory
within dialectic and classed style and invention within grammar.
Schedule I-4
A good example of
a six-part classical structure is Richmond's deliberative rhetoric in Richard III where he wishes to persuade
his troops to fight against the evil Richard (the future Henry VII)
Exordium
God and our good cause fight upon
our side;
The prayers of holy saints and
wrongèd souls,
Like high-reared bulwarks, stand
before our faces.
Richard except, those whom we fight
against
Had rather have us win than him they
follow. . . .
Narration
For what is he they follow? Truly, gentlemen,
A bloody tyrant and a homicide;
One raised in blood and one in blood
established;
One that made means to come by what
he hath,
And slaughtered those that were the
means to help him;
A base foul stone, made precious by
the foil
Of England's chair, where he is
falsely set;
One that hath ever been God's enemy.
. . .
Proposition
Then, if you fight against God's
enemy,
God will in justice ward you as his
soldiers. . . .
Proof
If you do sweat to put a tyrant down,
You sleep in peace, the tyrant being
slain;
If you do fight against your
country's foes,
Your country's fat shall pay your
pains the hire;
If you do fight in safeguard of
your wives,
Your wives shall welcome home the
conquerors;
If you do free your children from
the sword,
Your children's children quit it in
your age.. . . .
Peroration:
Then in the name of God and all
these rights,
Advance your standards, draw your
willing swords.
For me, the ransom of my bold
attempt
Shall be this cold corpse on earth's
cold face;
But if I thrive, the gain of my
attempt
The least of you shall share his
part thereof.
Sound drums and trumpets, boldly and
cheerfully:
God and Saint George! Richmond and
victory!
Schedule III-1
Historical
Note: This speech was given by Pope Urban II in 1095 at Clermont, France and
effectively launched the first Crusade.
Speech of Pope Urban II (Robert The
Monk’s Version)
Oh, race of Franks, race from across the mountains, race
chosen and beloved by God as shines forth in very many of your works set apart
from all nations by the situation of your country, as well as by your catholic
faith and the honor of the holy church! To you our discourse is addressed and
for you our exhortation is intended. We wish you to know what a grievous cause
has led us to your country, what peril threatening you and all the faithful has
brought us.
From the confines of Jerusalem and the city of
Constantinople a horrible tale has gone forth and very frequently has been
brought to our ears, namely, that a race from the kingdom of the Persians, an
accursed race, a race utterly alienated from God, a generation forsooth which
has not directed its heart and has not entrusted its spirit to God, has invaded
the lands of those Christians and has depopulated them by the sword, pillage
and fire; it has led away a part of the captives into its own country, and a
part it has destroyed by cruel tortures; it has either entirely destroyed the
churches of God or appropriated them for the rites of its own religion. They
destroy the altars, after having defiled them with their uncleanness. They
circumcise the Christians, and the blood of the circumcision they either spread
upon the altars or pour into the vases of the baptismal font. When they wish to
torture people by a base death, they perforate their navels, and dragging forth
the extremity of the intestines, bind it to a stake; then with flogging they
lead the victim around until the viscera having gushed forth the victim falls
prostrate upon the ground. Others they bind to a post and pierce with arrows.
Others they compel to extend their necks and then, attacking them with naked
swords, attempt to cut through the neck with a single blow. What shall I say of
the abominable rape of the women? To speak of it is worse than to be silent.
The kingdom of the Greeks is now dismembered by them and deprived of territory
so vast in extent that it cannot be traversed in a march of two months. On whom
therefore is the labor of avenging these wrongs and of recovering this territory
incumbent, if not upon you? You, upon whom above other nations God has conferred
remarkable glory in arms, great courage, bodily activity, and strength to
humble the hairy scalp of those who resist you.
Let the deeds of your ancestors move you and incite your
minds to manly achievements; the glory and greatness of king Charles the Great,
and of his son Louis, and of your other kings, who have destroyed the kingdoms
of the pagans, and have extended in these lands the territory of the holy church.
Let the holy sepulchre of the Lord our Saviour, which is possessed by unclean
nations, especially incite you, and the holy places which are now treated with
ignominy and irreverently polluted with their filthiness. Oh, most valiant
soldiers and descendants of invincible ancestors, be not degenerate, but recall
the valor of your progenitors.
But if you are hindered by love of children, parents and
wives, remember what the Lord says in the Gospel, "He that loveth father
or mother more than me, is not worthy of me." "Every one that hath forsaken
houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or
lands for my name's sake shall receive an hundredfold and shall inherit
everlasting life." Let none of your possessions detain you, no solicitude
for your family affairs, since this land which you inhabit, shut in on all sides
by the seas and surrounded by the mountain peaks, is too narrow for your large
population; nor does it abound in wealth; and it furnishes scarcely food enough
for its cultivators. Hence it is that you murder one another, that you wage
war, and that frequently you perish by mutual wounds. Let therefore hatred
depart from among you, let your quarrels end, let wars cease, and let all
dissensions and controversies slumber. Enter upon the road to the Holy
Sepulchre; wrest that land from the wicked race, and subject it to yourselves.
That land which as the Scripture says "floweth with milk and honey,"
was given by God into the possession of the children of Israel Jerusalem is the
navel of the world; the land is fruitful above others, like another paradise of
delights. This the Redeemer of the human race has made illustrious by His
advent, has beautified by residence, has consecrated by suffering, has redeemed
by death, has glorified by burial. This royal city, therefore, situated at the
centre of the world, is now held captive by His enemies, and is in subjection
to those who do not know God, to the worship of the heathens. She seeks
therefore and desires to be liberated, and does not cease to implore you to come
to her aid. From you especially she asks succor, because, as we have already
said, God has conferred upon you above all nations great glory in arms.
Accordingly undertake this journey for the remission of your sins, with the assurance
of the imperishable glory of the kingdom of heaven.
When Pope Urban had said these and very many similar things
in his urbane discourse, he so influenced to one purpose the desires of all who
were present, that they cried out, "It is the will of God! It is the will
of God!" When the venerable Roman pontiff heard that, with eyes uplifted
to heaven he gave thanks to God and, with his hand commanding silence, said:
Most beloved brethren, today is manifest in you what the
Lord says in the Gospel, "Where two or three are gathered together in my
name there am I in the midst of them." Unless the Lord God had been
present in your spirits, all of you would not have uttered the same cry. For,
although the cry issued from numerous mouths, yet the origin of the cry was
one. Therefore I say to you that God, who implanted this in your breasts, has
drawn it forth from you. Let this then be your war-cry in combats, because this
word is given to you by God. When an armed attack is made upon the enemy, let
this one cry be raised by all the soldiers of God: It is the will of God! It is
the will of God!
And we do not command or advise that the old or feeble, or
those unfit for bearing arms, undertake this journey; nor ought women to set
out at all, without their husbands or brothers or legal guardians. For such are
more of a hindrance than aid, more of a burden than advantage. Let the rich aid
the needy; and according to their wealth, let them take with them experienced
soldiers. The priests and clerks of any order are not to go without the consent
of their bishop; for this journey would profit them nothing if they went
without permission of these. Also, it is not fitting that laymen should enter
upon the pilgrimage without the blessing of their priests.
Whoever, therefore, shall determine upon this holy pilgrimage
and shall make his vow to God to that effect and shall offer himself to Him as
a, living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, shall wear the sign of the
cross of the Lord on his forehead or on his breast. When,' truly',' having fulfilled
his vow be wishes to return, let him place the cross on his back between his
shoulders. Such, indeed, by the twofold action will fulfill the precept of the
Lord, as He commands in the Gospel, "He that taketh not his cross and
followeth after me, is not worthy of me."
Source:
Dana C. Munro, "Urban and the
Crusaders", Translations and Reprints from the Original Sources of
European History, Vol 1:2, (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania,
1895), 5-8
Schedule V-1
Framing and
Reframing
The
following stories and the following discussion of framing come from works that
are primarily about human psychology.
Still, these ideas are quite pertinent to rhetoric. First, two stories.
First,
we paraphrase a reframing story of a man with a steel garage. Neighborhood boys threw rocks at it several
times a week making a huge racket and disturbing the man. He located the boys, and he told them he
enjoyed the noise but would prefer that they rock the garage at least 5 times a
week. He would pay them each fifty cents a time, up to $2.50 per boy five
times a week. The boys complied, and got
paid for a week. Then the man told them
that he was sorry but he could no longer afford to pay them. Still he wanted them to continue their work
rocking the garage. The boys refused,
being unwilling to do the work for free.
This
reframing story is quoted from Change. The officer reframes the orders he has
received to shoot a number of men, women, and children.
During
one of the many nineteenth-century riots in Paris the commander of an army
detachment received orders to clear a city square by firing at
the
. . . (rabble). He commanded his
soldiers to take up firing positions, their rifles leveled at the crowd, and as
a ghastly silence descended he drew his sword and shouted at the top of his
lungs: “Mesdames, m’sieurs, I have orders to fire at the [rabble]. But as I see a great number of honest,
respectable citizens before me, I request that they leave so that I can safely
shoot the [rabble].” The square was empty
in a few minutes.
Paul
Watzlawick, John Weakland, and Richard Fisch, Change 81
Here
is an analytical discussion of framing and reframing from the book Change:
To
reframe, then, means to change the conceptual and/or emotional setting or
viewpoint in relation to which a situation is experienced and to place it in
another frame which fits the “facts” of the same concrete situation equally
well or even better and thereby changes its entire meaning. …
[C]lasses
are exhaustive collections of entities (the members) which have specific
characteristics common to all of them.
But membership in a given class is rarely exclusive. One and the same entity can usually be
conceived as a member of different classes.
Since classes are not themselves tangible objects, but concepts and
therefore constructs of our minds, the assignment of an object to a given class
is learned or is the outcome of choice, and is by no means an ultimate,
immutable truth. … A red wooden cube can
be seen as a member of the class of all red objects, of the class of cubes, of
the class of wooden objects, of the class of children’s toys, etc. … Class memberships of any object are
determined by the “opinions” that we have about it, the meaning and value which
we have attribute to it. Which of these
membership attributions is considered, overlooked, preferred, feared, etc., is
very much the outcome of choice and circumstance, but once something is seen as
having a particular meaning or value, it is very difficult to see that same
something in terms of its membership in another equally valid class.” Id at 97-98
Schedule
XI-1
Historical
Note: St. Anselm (died 1109) believed
that the existence of God can be proved a priori, that is by looking simply at
the definition of God himself with no need of experiential (i.e., a posteriori) proof. This was a subject of much debate both then
and now.
ANSELM'S ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT
The argument is given below in its original form
(translated by Jonathan Barnes).
From the Proslogium
Therefore, Lord, who grant understanding to faith, grant me
that, in so far as you know it beneficial, I understand that you are as we
believe and you are that which we believe. Now we believe that you are
something than which nothing greater can be imagined.
Then is there no such nature, since the fool has said in his heart: God is not?
But certainly this same fool, when he hears this very thing that I am saying -
something than which nothing greater can be imagined - understands what he hears;
and what he understands is in his understanding, even if he does not understand
that it is. For it is one thing for a thing to be in the understanding and
another to understand that a thing is.
For when a painter imagines beforehand what he is going to make, he has in his
undertanding what he has not yet made but he does not yet understand that it
is. But when he has already painted it, he both has in his understanding what
he has already painted and understands that it is.
Therefore even the fool is bound to agree that there is at least in the
understanding something than which nothing greater can be imagined, because
when he hears this he understands it, and whatever is understood is in the
understanding.
And certainly that than which a greater cannot be imagined cannot be in the understanding
alone. For if it is at least in the understanding alone, it can be imagined to
be in reality too, which is greater. Therefore if that than which a greater
cannot be imagined is in the understanding alone, that very thing than which a
greater cannot be imagined is something than which a greater can be imagined.
But certainly this cannot be. There exists, therefore, beyond doubt something
than which a greater cannot be imagined, both in the understanding and in reality.
Schedule XI-2
Brown v. Board of Education
347 U.S. 483, 492-95 (1954)
There
are findings below that the Negro and white schools involved have been
equalized, or are being equalized, with respect to buildings, curricula, qualifications
and salaries of teachers, and other “tangible” factors. Our decision,
therefore, cannot turn on merely a comparison of these tangible factors in the
Negro and white schools involved in each of the cases. We must look instead to
the effect of segregation itself on public education.
In
approaching this problem, we cannot turn the clock back to 1868 when the
Amendment was adopted, or even to 1896 when Plessy v. Ferguson was written. We
must consider public education in the light of its full development and its present
place in American life throughout the Nation. Only in this way can it be
determined if segregation in public schools deprives these plaintiffs of the
equal protection of the laws.
We come then to
the question presented: Does segregation of children in public schools solely
on the basis of race, even though the physical facilities and other “tangible”
factors may be equal, deprive the children of the minority group of equal
educational opportunities? We believe that it does.
To separate [high school
and grade children] from others of similar age and qualifications solely
because of their race generates a feeling of inferiority, as to their status in
the community that may affect their hearts and minds in a way unlikely ever to
be undone. The effect of this separation on their educational opportunities was
well stated by a finding in the Kansas case by a court which nevertheless felt
compelled to rule against the Negro plaintiffs: “Segregation of white and
colored children in public schools has a detrimental effect upon the colored
children. The impact is greater when it has the sanction of law; for the policy
of separating the races is usually interpreted as denoting the inferiority of
the Negro group. A sense of inferiority affects the motivation of a child to learn.
Segregation with the sanction of law, therefore, has a tendency to [impair] the
educational and mental development of Negro children and to deprive them of
some of the benefits they would receive in a racial[ly] integrated school system.”
Whatever may have been the extent of psychological knowledge at the time of
Plessy v. Ferguson, this finding is amply supported by modern authority. [Here
the well-known footnote 11 references books and articles demonstrating the
adverse education effects of segregation in schools.] Any language in Plessy v.
Ferguson contrary to this finding is rejected.
We conclude that
in the field of public education the doctrine of “separate but equal” has no
place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal. Therefore, we
hold that the plaintiffs and others similarly situated from whom the actions
have been brought are, by reason of the segregation complained of, deprived of
the equal protection of the laws, guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment.
Schedule XII-2
1
There are some great bargains listed in
the advertising for a sale at Acme stores.
But it says, “All items not available in all stores.” So I guess one can’t actually buy these
bargains at any of their stores.
2
John, a fifty-year old man from California,
was charged with possession of LSD. Arguing for acquittal, he told the judge that
his LSD habit did no harm, as he was too old to work anyway. Asked how he lived, he replied, on the
earnings of his mother.
3
No crows are interesting persons. Therefore, all crows are uninteresting persons.
4
My mother says my shoplifting is
wrong. That criticism’s absurd—I know
she often pads her expense account at work.
5
Members of the jury, the defendant is at
least guilty of manslaughter. When I
asked him, “Did you kill the deceased intentionally?” he answered, “no,”
thereby clearly confessing that he killed, though unintentionally.
6
All Shakespeare’s works can’t be read in a
day. Therefore, his Sonnet XXII cannot
be read in a day.
7
Of course he cares for me. He told me he does, and he wouldn’t lie to me
about that since he couldn’t lie to people he cares about.
8
A shrimp is a sea creature. Hence, a large shrimp is a large sea
creature.
9
If I increased your salary it would only
increase your unhappiness for money doesn’t bring happiness.
10 It’s
true to call you an animal. Calling you
a jackass is calling you an animal.
Therefore, I can truthfully say you are a jackass.
11 Since
all self-contradictory propositions are untrue, all self-consistent ones must
of course be true.
12 I
don’t understand why you think I should party less than 40 hours a week and
devote more time to study. You can’t get
a well-rounded education with your nose always stuck in a book.
13 This
parrot is yours. This parrot is a
mother. This parrot must therefore be your mother.
14 Sir,
we deserve a big pay raise now. They’re
not relevant, your claims that others work much longer for less than we
do. What’s relevant is the strike you’re
going to face if we don’t get our pay raise.
15 Acme bread is the best bread in the world. Therefore, you necessarily get the most for
your money when you buy Acme bread.
16 According
to our recent interview of 147 local voters, 113 approved the President’s
handling of domestic affairs, 89 approved his handling of foreign affairs, and
51 approved of both. Thus, a majority approves
of the President’s job performance.
17 We need more space on campus? Well, if each undergraduate spent every
second year working away from school, our current four-year undergraduate
program would expand to eight years thereby cutting undergraduate enrollment in
half.
18 Everyone here speaks English. These software instructions are in English.
Therefore, everyone here understands these software instructions.
19 How
can we make law school more compassionate and student centered in this awful
and competitive society in which we live?
We obviously have to reform our capitalistic society before we can
engage in any such educational reform.
Schedule XII-2 Continued
1 See how absurd and stupid it is to say: I should prefer non-existence
to miserable existence. He who says, I prefer
this to that, chooses something.
Non-existence is not something; it is nothing. There can be no real choice when what you
chose is nothing.
ST. AUGUSTINE, De Libero Arbitrio
2
If a friend of yours requests you on his
deathbed to hand over his estate to his daughter, without leaving his intention
anywhere in writing . . . or speaking of it to anybody, what will you do? You no doubt will hand over the money;
perhaps Epicurus himself would have done the same. . . . Do you not see that .
. . even you Epicureans, who profess to make your own interest and pleasure
your sole standard, nevertheless perform actions that prove you to be really
aiming not at pleasure but at duty. . . ? CICERO, De
Finibus
3 Everything that is in motion must be moved by
something else. If therefore the thing
which causes it to move be in motion, this too must be moved by something else,
and so on. But we cannot proceed to
infinity in this way, because in that case there would be no first mover, and
in consequence neither would there be any other mover; for secondary movers do
not cause movement except they be moved by a first mover, as, for example, a
stick cannot cause movement unless it is moved by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to stop at some
first mover which is moved by nothing else.
And this is what we all understand God to be.
ST.
THOMAS AQUINAS, Summa Theologica
4 From the moment when private property in
movable objects developed, in all societies in which this private property existed
there must be this moral law in common:
Thou shalt not steal. Does this
law thereby become an eternal moral law?
By no means. In a society in
which the motive for stealing has been done away with, in which therefore at
the very most only lunatics would ever steal, how the teacher of morals would
be laughed at who tried solemnly to proclaim the eternal truth: Thou shalt not steal!
FRIEDRICH
ENGELS, Anti-Dühring
5 We are what we all abhor, Anthropophagi and Cannibals, devourers
not onely of men but of our selves; and that not in an allegory, but a positive
truth; for all this mass of flesh which we behold, came in at our mouths; this
frame we look upon, hath been upon our trenchers; in brief, we have devour’d
our selves.
SIR
THOMAS BROWNE, Religio Medici
6 But, say you, surely there is nothing easier
than to imagine . . . books existing in a closet, and nobody by to perceive
them. . . . But what is all this, I
beseech you, more than framing in your mind certain ideas, which you call
books. . .and at the same time omitting to frame the idea of anyone that may
perceive them? But do not you yourself
perceive or think of them all the while?
This therefore. . . only shows you have the power of imagining or
forming ideas in your mind; but it does not show that you can conceive it
possible the objects of your thought may exist without the mind. To make out this, it is necessary that you
conceive them existing unconceived or unthought of, which is a manifest repugnancy.
BISHOP
BERKELEY, Principles of Human Knowledge
7 Now you might ask: When is the will right? The will is unimpaired and right when it is
entirely free from self-seeking, and when it has forsaken itself and is formed
and transformed into the will of God, indeed, the more it is so, the more the
will is right and true.
MEISTER
ECKHART, Treatises and Sermons
8 Nay, dearest Anna! why so grave?
I said you had no soul, ‘tis true!
For
what you are, you cannot have:
‘Tis
I, that have one since I first had you!
SAMUEL
TAYLOR COLERIDGE, “To a Lady”
This
Schedule is adapted from: Barker, “The
Elements Of Logic” (2nd ed. 1974)
No comments:
Post a Comment