Quote: "Thus when Antonius, in his defense of Manius Aquilius, exhibited on his breast, by tearing his client's robe, the scars of the wounds which he had received for his country, he did not trust the power of his eloquence, but applied force, as it were, to the eyes of the Roman people, who, it was thought, were chiefly induced by the sight to acquit the accused" (Bizzell and Herzberg 386).
The above quote is intended to illustrate that oratory or rhetoric is not merely the art or worker of persuasion, for one can be persuaded by other means, such as a compelling action or visual.
Question: Taking Glenn's argument for the remapping of rhetoric into account, how might Quintilian's privileging of oratory over all other forms of rhetorical practice work to exclude other rhetorical practices from history? If oration against the emperor "could be fatal" (Bizzell and Herzberg 359) in Quintilian's Rome, then could "[applying] force...to the eyes of the Roman people" become a rhetorical act for those rendered voiceless by the Roman Empire?
the act or rhetoric is set and will be the same act in any case. And if done correctly a goal is achieved that accompanies the fundamental act of rhetoric. The only difference is the motive.
ReplyDelete