I think Antonius is just regurgitating what Aristotle said and trying to make it seem original.

There is no way a rhetorical "mechanic" could have conceived, written, and delivered the "I Have a Dream" speech. There's a reason that, 44 years after the occasion, King's speech is considered to be the most powerful and necessary speech in the history of our nation, and it has nothing to do with the ability of a mechanic. No rhetor, following ANY systematic equation for engineering effective rhetoric, could have come even close to duplicating what that speech accomplished. A rhetorical mechanic could certainly craft something as predictable as a State of the Union address, but an issue as personal and immediate as civil rights requires a speaker with experience of what he is talking about (the subject required/s a profound ethos). Sure, maybe even George Wallace could have written and delivered a speech on the same topic that MLK did. But would he have been as effective? Would his personal experiences have provided him the credibility necessary to galvanize a movement with his words? There are some matters that defy categorization and systematization. These are typically subjects in the artistic realm, of which the synthesization of emotion, history, and hope into a coherent, moving speech may be most resistant to any kind of instruction manual-formulation.

I concur with the discussion leaders in saying that even though Antonius covers a substantial amount of Aristotle's province of rhetorical tools, describing what makes an effective rhetorician, it is improper and unsuitable to think of Antonius as a modern day Aristotle. Not only because of his lack of experience as a rhetorician but also because he is not coming up with new & innovative ways to use these tools or even "new" tools at all, but rather he only references them; those of which come from Aristotle. That, alone makes him out to be a follower of Aristotle as opposed to a "modern day Aristotle."

Despite Antonius' affinity for Aristotle, it seems to me that Crassus, in fact, bears a much greater resemblence to Aristotle than does Antonius. Aristotle, like Crassus, emphasizes the "holistic" orator--an orator whose success is derived not from practice and the mastery of strategem but rather an orator whose success is internal, so to speak. A good orator requires virtue: virtue, in Aristotle's view, is not separable into discrete units but rather a single quality that directs one's every action. A virtuous person is a virtous orator--he has the requisite knowledge, wisdom, sense of justice, etc--of a good orator. Likewise, a virtuous orator is a virtuous person, because a virtuous orator has all the qualities that would make one virtous. Therefore, Crassus view that an orator must essentially master everything to be good is synonymous with Aristotle's view that a virtous orator (or author, shoemaker, poet, craftsman) are indistinguishable.

To start with, I don’t like the way this question is phrased. The idea of a "modern-day Aristotle" is going to mean different things to different people. I think you are trying to bait us. Now, to answer the real question, I think that it is fair to say that Antonius is a "modern-day Aristotle" according to my own preconceived notion of what a "modern-day Aristotle" is. It seems that Crassus would like a rhetorician to be able to do the things Aristotle/Antonius talk about without spelling it out. Crassus would prefer it if the ability to be a good rhetorician was innate, I think.

I wouldn't go so far as to call Antonius another Aristotle, rather, more like a deeply influenced person. Besides Antonius' own admission of liking Aristotle's views on rhetoric, his own ideas clearly indicate the similarity between the two. But he isn't completely Aristotelian because like Mallory pointed out, it seems as if Aristotle places more value on avoiding an ill use of rhetoric. That is not so clear with Antonius, who only briefly mentions the necessity of winning his audience's heart in order to make one's argument effective, thereby leaving the means unjustified. Are they moral or not? Finally, because judgment and then adjustment must be made on an audience's emotion/s (which will differ all the time), I cannot label Aristotle nor Antonius as being "mechanical."

In response to heaths comments about Aristotle, he did write that "men do have a sufficient instinct about what is true, and usually do arrive at the truth" (p.180), meaning that generally, if a man is seeking to persuade others of some point and has acquired sufficient knowledge to argue that point, he will believe in its merit. However, I do think that his idea of the term "rhetorician" being either a description of moral purpose Or knowledge of the art (a trained speaker or a tricky speaker) implies Aristotle believed excellence in oratory did not absolutely necessitate the passionate belief of the speaker in the subject. This may be an insufficient response to the idea you proposed, but it was what I could find on the topic.

Although Antonius covers ample territory of Aristotle’s rhetorical tools in describing what makes an effective rhetorician, it is inappropriate to consider Antonius as a modern-day Aristotle because of his self-admitted lack of experience as a rhetorician. In following the methods of Aristotle, Antonius is simply conjecturing as to how he would instruct a young man in the ways of rhetoric – by studying and employing the topics and with practice, practice, practice! But, as he is not an experienced rhetorician, he is simply a man educated in the means of persuasion taught by Aristotle. He is a follower of Aristotle’s methods, but not an Aristotle himself. And since he does not have the experience of Crassus, he has not deduced his own unique tools beyond the most practical ones already known by him (a.k.a. Aristotle’s).

Of course, Antonius respects and follows Aristotle’s methods, but he seems to be much more focused on praising the natural talents, style and eloquence of the rhetorician than Aristotle was - placing them on a higher level of importance than technical proficiency. For a legal example, Antonius believes that effective style can convince an audience to side with an argument based on the spirit of the law, rather than to the letter. Similarly, Aristotle presents numerous techniques and considerations to be utilized and observed when faced with arguments based on Emotions, but these are technical definitions that Antonius does not believe need to be memorized to deliver an effective argument. In other words, a skilled speaker can deliver an effective speech without studying these definitions, instead making use of natural intuition, eloquence and practice.

As far as Aristotle making the rhetorician into a mechanic, I do not believe that Crassus would define him as doing so. Crassus describes Antonius’ description of an orator as a “mechanic” because Antonius looks upon the orator as a tool of society serving a specific function; the orator should be trained in the ways of oratory and practice such in order to convincingly deliver information discovered and researched by specialists in other fields. In other words, the orator must have a common knowledge about what s/he will be speaking about, but it is not up to the speaker to be an eclectic specialist in many areas, as this takes away from the time an orator could work at perfecting their craft. On the other hand, Aristotle’s tools are not necessarily a “training manual” for the convincing transfer of information, more than a technical means of defensive analyzing and responding to opposing viewpoints. The tools that Aristotle presents are available not only for the orator, but for anyone, and they may be used as such. Thus, Aristotle leaves the tools at the disposal of the orator to use at their own disposal, but he is by no means limiting the orator to a mechanical position in society by providing technical means of argumentation. I believe that his is the factor that Crassus fails to see. I hope this made sense and provokes some further discussion!

Crassus accuses Antonius of "gratifying that singular liking of yours for contradiction" by "making our orator something of a mechanic" rather than following along with his "loftier ideal" (p. 320). I feel that neither Antonius nor Aristotle is making the rhetorician anything of a mechanic. Antonius seems mostly to like the way Aristotle has set forth the techniques necessary to master oratory, and Antonius himself recognizes the role of emotion in good oratory: "men decide far more problems by hate, or love, or lust, or rage, or sorrow, or joy, or hope, or fear, or illusion, of some other inward emotion, than by reality, or authority, or any legal standard [. . .]" (p. 328).

I can certainly agree with Crassus' belief that Antonius is fixated on the "mechanics" and formulaic parts of oratory. According to Antonius, the orator is "calculated to convince" (319). He talks about how the influential Demosthenes was unable to speak without stuttering, but with practice and perseverance he succeeded. Antonius even mentions that he believes that Crassus' findings concerning the arts and other areas do not affect the "strict business" of oratory. If this is the case, then I can understand why Crassus believes Antonius has a narrow view of what an orator is required to do.

I also agree with Mallory in saying that Aristotle's ideas laid the foundation for a lot of ideas that would follow. As a result, it is not necessary that Antonius is a modern day Aristotle, but rather, he is influenced by his predecessors ideas.

This discussion reminds me of an episode I watched on a tv show called "The Office". In this episode, one of the characters (Dwight) has to give a speech at a sales conference. His coworker Jim gives him advice on how to give a good speech. In this clip I found on youtube, you will notice how Dwight's actions go along with Antonius' idea that the orator needs to be "on fire" . Enjoy!

http://youtube.com/watch?v=UqDkV4fd8Nw

I agree with Malorie that Antonius respects Aristotle and he definitely uses Aristotle's methods as a base for his own ideas. I don't think Aristotle makes the rhetorician a "mechanic" exactly, but I do believe he gives the reader a practical place to start. Antonius is the perfect example of this, for he draws on Aristotle's methods, yet he adds his own spin on rhetoric. Like Malorie was saying, I also thought it was interesting how Antonius thinks it necessary to "not merely [inflame]" the audience, but to be "on fire yourself" when attempting to evoke emotion from the audience. He takes Aristotle's teachings on the importance of emotion in rhetoric, and he creates his own ideas about the subject. I also think that it is far less likely for an audience to be moved to emotion if "the assailing speaker is not himself aglow with passion." I feel that certain emotions are contagious and if the speaker is passionate or angry about something, he can transfer that emotion to his audience.

It is true that Antonius discusses many of the tools in Aristotle’s Rhetoric such as the distinction between artistic and inartistic proof, manners of inventing ethical appeals, topical invention, and manners of inventing pathetic proof. I don’t think that it is completely fair to say Antonius is a modern day Aristotle though because rhetoric is an evolving field that can not stay the same forever. I think that Aristotle’s laid the foundation for many important tools used in rhetoric but rhetoric has certainly evolved since Aristotle’s time.

At the beginning of book II in Cicero’s De Oratore, the rules of practice for rhetoric are mentioned. In this, the Greeks are described as the “original school of oratory.” It says, “The Greeks, from whose works the method and tendency of the oratory of every generation may be understood.” This sums up the point I was making earlier in that all of the foundational skills the Greeks laid about rhetoric is universally recognized throughout generations and also cultures.

According to Antonius, facts must either be established by evidence or argument. This notion is similar to Aristotle’s original tool of distinction between artistic and inartistic proof. Antonius says, “For purposes of proof, the material at the orator’s disposal is twofold, one kind made up of the things which are thought out by himself, but depend upon the circumstances and are dealt with by rule, for example documents, oral evidence or informal agreements; the other kind is founded entirely on the orator’s reasoned argument. In other words, one form of proof is black and white or already spelled out for the orator with concrete evidence or facts and the other kind of proof requires more abstract thought and creativity or more digging for the proof.

It is clear that Antonius respects Aristotle. He even mentions him in regards to his insight and ability in argument of Carneades. He says that Aristotle “surveyed the concerns of the art of rhetoric” more so than the other true professors of this art.

Perhaps the biggest parallel between Antonius’s and Aristotle’s view on rhetoric is their belief of appealing to the ethos of the reader. Antonius says much about this subject. According to him, “nothing in oratory is more important than to win for the orator the favor of his hearer, and to have the latter so affected as to be swayed by something resembling a mental impulse of emotion, rather than by judgment or deliberation.” Antonius believes that the way to go about obtaining the favor of the audience is mainly by the orator appearing eloquent and virtuous. He says, “For by means of particular types of thought and diction, and the employment besides of a delivery that is unruffled and eloquent of good-nature, the speakers are made to appear upright, well-bred and virtuous men.” It seems that appearance of being eloquent and virtuous is more important than actually being that way, which brings up an interesting question about truth.

One point I noticed, which I haven’t seen discussed before, is that Antonius believes that “the speaker must himself feel the emotions he wishes to excite.” I know we talked about this briefly in class, but I really liked the way Antonius put it. He says, “Moreover it is impossible for the listener to feel indignation, hatred, or ill-will, to be terrified of anything, or reduced to tears of compassion, unless all those emotions, which the advocate would inspire on the arbitrator, are visibly stamped or rather branded on the advocate himself.” I think that this tool could also go hand and hand with the notion of appearance. I don’t necessarily think that the orator has to whole-heartedly believe what he/she is arguing for as long as it seems like he does.

While there are many of Aristotle’s tools mentioned by Antonius, there are also little twists and differences within Antonius’s beliefs that prove that the original tools have evolved since Aristotle’s time. Overall, I don’t think it’s fair to say that Antonius is a modern Aristotle. It is fairer to say that Antonius, like others, was inspired by Aristotle’s original tools and used them as a foundation to build his own ideas of rhetoric.