This post is a continuation of my focus on Renaissance Teaching Methods. Through my studies I have discovered that in order to engage with literature on the level that I described in my post on Renaissance Teaching Motivations, I have to “graduate” my comprehension of the terms used in the study of language. Knowing that this difficulty presents itself, this post offers the first half of a few definitions before diving into my discoveries:Some General Terms for Analysis
Progymnasmata: A large practice set, structured to follow the progression of a pupil from the analysis of fables and proverbs, to the compound creations of Thesis and Law that is performed before the student actually writes anything of their own. The practice set begins by introducing the student to a target rhetorical product. (the emphasis of the units study [for instance a proverb, comparison, Thesis]) A detailed analysis of the sample text is then performed together with the student. The student then imitates the key features from the target text in a recreation of it. the student’s work is then analyzed in comparison to the sample for accuracy. The process is repeated for the various units of writing. It sounds like drudgery, but the results would facilitate a tremendous depth in understanding the components that form a given text. (not only the parts of speech) It is lengthy process but the detail, and most importantly the process that the Progymnasmata contains, is at least in part what produced Shakespeare. Shouldn’t there be a greater emphasis on this model in our learning process today? All I seem to see are essays. We review texts, (rarely apply specific tools of analysis to them, but generalize where we ought to be specific) and write essays. (based on those generalities) Is it any wonder then that we still find ourselves looking back so that we can find ‘great’ literature?
Rhetoric: There are several important aspects to this term that should be understood for what they represent because they add substantially to the understanding of “rhetoric.” In the “Rhetoric Review” an article by J. David Fleming provides a succinct explanation of the relationship between the concept of rhetoric and the character of the individual. He states: “The word rhetoric discloses this focus on character in its very etymology, derived as it is from a Greek word meaning neither the art off speech nor speech itself (nor the art of persuasion nor persuasion itself) but rather the art or skill of the rhetor.” Therefore, learning the practice of good rhetoric is learning to become that type of person, and the effect of good rhetoric can be seen in the oration or writing of the individual. The rhetor becomes the source of the skill, not necessarily through the set of specific linguistic constructions. The study of rhetoric then, is really the study of the character of an individual as manifest in their works. Analysis of Grammar: Think Yoda. I start with this command to emphasize a point of grammatical analysis.
Not only was attention paid to the parts of speech that each word occupied, but the organization of these parts was as much a principle concern. As much as I love the conjunction train I think that we have lost some of the focus in modern teaching regarding the effect that alternating word order can create. I said think Yoda, and you probably started to structure sentences in what you would call “reverse” because of that connotation. A critical question to ask at that point is why? You say: “to sound like Yoda.” So then I say: “What does the way Yoda talk make him sound like?” You might say many things at this point, but it is very likely that you will say something to the effect that: “Yoda sounds wise.” The construction of the sentence implies an argument. This, my dear reader, is the power of properly understanding the function of grammar. You don’t have to craft a clever euphemism to be memorable. The order of the parts of speech can yield tremendous results, if focused on their attention you are.Analysis of Argument: In Dr. Burton’s article “Renaissance Composition” he very clearly describes this segment of the teaching model. I have considered giving my interpretation for this definition as I have done above, but honestly, I think that Dr. Burton’s definition is extremely accurate and insightful:
The line between the discipline of logic and that of rhetoric was blurred; figures of speech and other rhetorical strategies were in many ways continuous with these more abstract logical categories of proof. For example, “metaphor” and “simile” are figures of speech that operate on the basis of employing comparisons; “comparison” is itself a standard argumentative strategy and as such was one of the common “topics of invention.” Similarly, the figure “synecdoche” (referring to a whole by naming its part), correlates with the logical category known as “part/whole.”
This continuity with rhetoric is what has been lost today in textual analysis. We are more ready to trace ideas and their logical relations than to see how the verbal form is constantly and often unnoticeably echoing or varying those more abstract dynamics of meaning.
I love the emphasis on discovering the forms of argument that are working in a text. I wish that there was a stronger emphasis on this in teaching today. There are so many alternate ways to frame a thesis that are simply not taught anymore, and this leads current students to consider language as a limited tool for expression, particularly in light of the Youtube revolution. While film text is an innovative form of interpretation with its own benefits, I think that a more focused understanding of the types of linguistic arguments available would extremely diminish the repetition of the modern scholastic essay.
Analysis of Rhetoric: This form of analysis is fairly well represented in modern pedagogy. This is the aspect of analysis wherein the student identifies the various tools of language that are employed within a text. I think this is more directly taught in relation to prose. Poetry seems to be the practice and proving ground for the bulk of rhetorical figures that are in use today. While this approach conserves the amount of time it would take to yield similar results from verse, we see the fallout of this limited method of teaching in the monotonous five part essay prompt: introduction, body paragraph one, body paragraph two, body paragraph three, and conclusion. The student begins to believe that their only recourse in verse is to fall into a pattern of predictability. They lose focus of the other awesomely important elements of rhetorical analysis inherent in the study of Summary. Despite this failing, there appears to be an even coverage of the emphasis on analysis of audience regardless of the text being studied. I imagine that this is most likely attributed to the argument of the “intention of the author” and the “death of the author.” The two forms of rhetoric that I am talking about here, prose and verse, deserve a more fluid cross interpretation. We praise Shakespeare for his ability to do this; we must be diligent in fostering this if we wish to ever produce texts of similar merit.
I had every intention of continuing on to the definitions for the process of genesis in Renaissance literature; however, this post is becoming rather lengthy and so I will stop with these terms for now. I didn’t mean to inculcate my opinion in each definition, but I did. I drew extensively from three sources for this post. And they are listed in my sources, along with many others that I have used thus far. Hopefully, developing this common language will make our forthcoming exercises with specific passages of text easier to understand. I look forward to posting them, as I have already begun to work them out.
