Hello,

the reason why vir bonus was so important to Cicero and Quintilian during the time when Rome changed from a republic to an empire is due to the fact that single men, or single governments, were now beginning to effect the path of the nation, and the people had less of a voice. The importance of good rhetoric no longer applied to the population, but to powerful men in the government.

Cicero was especially afraid of this, as he insinuates constantly, and rather negatively, toward Caesar. This is very clear during De Orate when cicero writes, “Ye there is no doubt that, even from our state alone, we could produce an endless list of absolutely outstanding leaders in war, but could name barely a few who have excelled in oratory.” He fears that few “good men,” as in ones who excel in civic virtue and oratory, will be involved in government and bring Rome back to a republic.

Quintilian, in his works, carries on a similar line of thinking. To him, a good man was one who excelled in oratory and spoke well, especially from an early age. Yet, also, that same man must not abuse his talents, and instead use those skills for ethical use only. He too felt the need for knowledgable orators, or “wise men,” in the government spheres. If the “wise men” did not use their talents ethically, then they could lead the nation astray through their oratory because of how powerful it was in government and nowhere else.

Hello,

In regards to rhetoric and the history of rhetoric I learned that the question of “what is rhetoric” is very difficult to answer, or cannot be answered at all. That being said, I feel like I have a much, much, better understanding of what rhetoric is, and how to effectively use it to form an argument. Studying the past and historical writings greatly enhanced this as well.

For the exam, I learned that simply exposing myself to the material, and writing down as much as I can on the study guide is what works best for me. Similarly, I learned that one does not have to stress to much about being perfect when writing on a test. That the teacher knows you don’t have resources available, and that you are working off your brain. This is a bit of a stress reliever.

For the paper, I learned that I need to allow myself more time for final edits. I had the paper done in a timely manner, but went to the writing center the day before, and had things to fix that I just did not have time to do. Furthermore, I have realized that I have a ton of ideas, and sometimes when I write something, I am insecure that my audience knows what I am saying. Because of this, I over emphasis sometimes, and can be repetitive.

For the class, I think what is most helpful and effective are the class lectures. The readings are very dense, and when reading them before class I usually miss what is intended to be learned from them. However, after class I have a much better understanding of the material, and when I go back to the reading, I get much more out of it. So, bottom line, the lectures help me personally the most.

Hello,

Hopefully this link works

Spartan Paper-1n9r9gv

Hello,

I think to a very small extent P.Soc actually does start to accept rhetoric and its benefits to mainly education, but society as well. It is hard to discern in the text, but multiple times he refers to sophists, not by name however, as remarkable and capable people. He also is much more accepting of Phaedrus’ arguments than that of Gorgias, who he just seems to bully.

However, I believe that he is still very reserved about rhetoric, and quite skeptical. For example, pages 506-507 P.Soc really delves into the danger of sophists and public rhetoric. He truly seems to fear the idea of a uneducated and unqualified person, who can win an argument through deception however, mis leading the public.

I believe he liked rhetoric’s contribution to education, but despises its ability to easily hide the truth of an argument and subject matter.

Edit to add: The biggest difference comes on page 517 when Plato points out that unlike before, he no longer believes that rhetoric, which he saw as deceptive towards a soul, could now possibly affect the soul in a positive way, but the soul must be known by the rhetorician. Rhetorician is the study of the soul now.

Hello,

Natural talent was most likely an important consideration during the time for a few reasons.

One, this was a time in history when upper class citizens had very clear and dominating status over the middle class or lower class. There was no mixing of classes, and this could easily have made it seem as if an intelligent person, with “árete” would seem like they could only be born with it. Then, against the norm, sophists came in from other countries and began teaching it. It was against the norm.

Two, democracy is founded on the idea of commonality. That everybody has an opinion, and that everyone should be able to voice that opinion. This went against “árete,” and there were certain influential upper class people who believed this idea to be true. In order for each person to gain a voice, the ‘natural’ gift of discussion had to be investigated and debated.

Three, during this time, Isocrates, and many other existing rhetoricians believed that the success of the polis was more important than the individual’s prosperity. So, the whole idea of every person being capable of developing and learning “árete” would be a threat to the polis in the minds of Isocrates and other existing rhetoricians.

We see this today in the classic idea of “is a leader born or made?” This is a common question, especially in Military Institutes like VMI. It is important to consider weather or not the teaching and lessons we learn can actually work to make more able citizen leaders. Leaders are needed today, we must have them at all levels, and knowing whether they are born or made is important in finding those leaders for positions today.

Furthermore, we have a deeply divided society that, I would believe, Isocrates would dislike immensely. We are extremely individualized as a society. Most people work towards prosperity and material things for themselves and not others, or the “polis.” If we maybe took a step back from the more individual basis in which we live on, maybe listen to Isocrates a bit, we could possibly have a more unified and prosperous nation as a whole. I am not saying eliminate competition to succeed on the individual level, but rather, have people work for a different goal, that of making the polis better, possibly at the sacrifice of individuals.