In Class Responses
On Telemachus: I am glad you have made the point that "men can leave, and leave things in their wake." It is extremely interesting to me that Odysseus can leave for 20 years and Telemachus does not seem to resent him. Telemachus aims to seek him out, and that provides a lot of insight into the drive Telemachus has as a character. Telemachus is not reckless in his decisions, but rather is thoughtful and approaches situations with more levelheadedness than his father, Odysseus. In my opinion, Homer is presenting Telemachus as a foil to Odysseus.
On my initial feelings about Odysseus: Continuing on my rants, I do not like Odysseus. Yes, he is a very deep and complex character, but he is stuck in self-induced cycle of self destruction. It is possible that this aspect of his character is caused by the trauma he has experienced throughout his history. In the Odyssey, Odysseus presents himself as prideful, and this fatal flaw is the cause of the death of his men. Cyclops Polyphemus is representative of the beginning of the spiral of bad decisions and pride that is the catalyst of Odysseus's' fate over the next decade of torture.
My final feelings about Odysseus: Almost 20 books later, I finally like Odysseus. The meeting with Telemachus and Odysseus was bittersweet, and I think it was necessary that Odysseus is introduced as a beggar. In his first introduction, Odysseus is described as "godlike" in appearance, but when meeting Telemachus he is instead described as a man dressed in rags. This strips down the true character of Odysseus to the context of him as a father. He is not "godlike", but rather just a man in rags returning to his son.
On the Qur'an: Since the Qur'an is a corrective, what can be said about newer religions such as Islam? I am not a theological expert by any means, but it is just interesting how different religions have different interpretations of similar accounts. (This is an edited version of the in class response I submitted, but I would like to include Dr. Glass's response to this.) In his response, Dr Glass said "An excellent example, and a very similar situation of theologically later revelation amending, adding to, or correction earlier revelation. The great difference between Islam and Mormonism is that Mormonism doctrinally remains open to new revelation Islam is closed."
On Francesca and Paolo: Does Francesca resent Paolo? We discussed at the end how she does not reference him by name. Does she feel that what she did was wrong because she catered to her own desires? Is that why her punishment is to be back to back with him, not facing him? The object of her desires is not to be seen throughout her eternal punishment, but rather away from her view as a permanent reminder? I will likely read this canto again as a reminder of how obsessed with this canto I am.
Exam Sample
On the structure of the second circle of Hell and the fifth canto: Within the flock of souls, Dante specifically requested to speak to Francesca. The story of Paolo and Francesca is not told in Inferno, but their story is incredibly tragic. Francesca was an Italian that was alive around the same time as Dante, and Dante was familiar with her story. She was married to Giovanni and was engaged in a forbidden love affair with his brother, Paolo. Paolo is responsible for their murder in a crime of passion, a sin for which he is damned to one of the deepest circles of hell for. Francesca speaks in vulnerable reflection of how love is inescapable, and how love lead her and Paolo to death. However, at no point in this canto does she mention Paolo by name. I do know that it is referenced that Paolo is present in canto five and is loudly weeping as Francesca speaks. This presents an interesting narrative on those in circle two as to how their punishment impacts their feelings about their actions on earth. It is speculation, but it is a possibility that this is meant to express the regret that Francesca feels for her actions.
This assignment was an essay that would serve as a rhetorical criticism of a speech. I chose Mario Cuomo's "A Tale of Two Cities', which serves as a commentary on the state of poverty and injustice in our nation. Throughout this rhetorical criticism I was able to make a commentary on the value of this speech in terms of Aristotle's artistic proofs.
Rhetorical Criticism: “A Tale of Two Cities”- Mario M. Cuomo
Mario M. Cuomo’s speech, “A Tale of Two Cities” is a vivid example of the masterful oratory of the former governor of New York. Cuomo was the child of Italian immigrants, a native of Queens, New York, and a democratic politician who served three terms as the governor of New York. Delivered almost 40 years ago at the 1984 Democratic National Convention in San Fransisco, Cuomo’s words on the state of inequality and poverty in our nation ring true today. Within this speech, Cuomo offers criticism of President Ronald Reagan’s perspective of the United States as a “Shining City on a Hill” (para. 3). Cuomo rebuts this point, and claims that the United States is more like “A Tale of Two Cities” because of the divide between the upper and working class (para. 6). This speech is directed towards President Reagan’s claims and the failures of the Republican party and presents powerful examples that utilize Aristotle’s three artistic proofs. This rhetorical analysis argues that Aristotle would have liked this speech because Mario Cuomo’s powerful words utilize the three artistic proofs of persuasion as presented in Aristotle’s on Rhetoric.
As outlined in Aristotle's on Rhetoric, the three entechnic, or artistic proofs of persuasion are ethos, pathos, and logos. These artistic proofs are furnished by the speech and “invented” by the words of the speaker (Aristotle 37). In on Rhetoric, Aristotle states to “let rhetoric be [defined as] an ability, in each [particular] case, to see the available means of persuasion” (Aristotle 37). The first proof, ethos, helps build the speaker's credibility and character and is primarily communicated by the speaker's words in the speech. Ethos is developed during the speech “in the character of the speaker” rather than formed by prior assumptions (Aristotle 37). The second proof is known as pathos, which is reflected “through the hearers when they are led to feel emotion” and aims to evoke a certain emotional response from the audience (Aristotle 38). The third proof is known as logos, which reveals something in the speaker's argument “by showing or seeming to show something” and utilizes evidence and logical reasoning to build a credible argument (Aristotle 37). Aristotle believes that these artistic proofs are designed to act as modes of persuasion for the audience and are essential to exploring practical solutions that are likely to be encountered in politics and law.
By giving his audience insight into the challenges his parents faced as Italian immigrants, Cuomo utilizes Aristotle's artistic proof ethos to build his credibility. Throughout the speech, Cuomo provides vivid examples of challenges that those in the working class face to build credibility for his argument against President Reagan's claims. He states, “There is despair, Mr. President, in the faces that you don't see, in the places that you don't visit in your shining city’ (para. 5). Later in the speech, Cuomo reveals why he is passionate about this subject. He remarks that “the struggle to live with dignity is the real story of a shining city. And it’s a story... that I didn’t read in a book, or learn in a classroom. I saw it, and lived it, like many of you” (para. 51). He recounts that his father would “work 15 and 16 hours a day” and taught him “about faith and hard work by the simple eloquence of his example” (para. 51). He relates aspects of his own personal life and upbringing to those experienced by his audience, and it provides backing for his statements in support of the working class. These statements build his ethos by strengthening his connection to the audience through his own experiences.
Cuomo utilizes Aristotle’s artistic proof pathos to evoke an emotional reaction from the audience through passionate proclamations to his audience. He rejects President Reagan’s model of “survival of the fittest” and philosophy that “the strong [the wealthy] …will inherit the land” (para. 9). He then presents a powerful rebuttal in the form of a reflection on the Presidency of Franklin Roosevelt (para. 10). He passionately states:
“Ever since Franklin Roosevelt lifted himself from his wheelchair to lift this nation from its knees -- wagon train after wagon train -- to new frontiers of education, housing, peace; the whole family aboard, constantly reaching out to extend and enlarge that family; lifting them into the wagon on the way; blacks and Hispanics, and people of every ethnic group, and native Americans -- all those struggling to build their families and claim some small share of America” (para. 11).
His words are powerful and contribute to the emotional buildup of the speech. This is reinforced by his statement that those at the 1984 Democratic National Convention are there to “remind ourselves where we come from and to claim the future for ourselves and our children” (para. 12). In the speech's video, the pathos of this statement causes the audience to erupt in thunderous applause. The word “ourselves” put him in the shoes of the audience and reinforces the fact that he agrees with his audience. He also utilizes the common background shared by most audience members, the quality of being American, to rouse the crowd and create a repose. Cuomo builds an emotional connection with audience members who share the same experiences as him or come from similar backgrounds by using the word “ourselves” and evokes an emotional response from his listeners.
Cuomo utilizes Aristotle’s artistic proof logos to build evidence for his argument against President Reagan’s claims. In the body of this speech, Cuomo references President Reagan’s request for the American people to “judge him on whether or not he has fulfilled the promises he made four years ago” and offers a criticism (para. 22). He offers remarks that the national budget, which was at a “200-billion-dollar" deficit in 1984 because of President Reagan’s fiscal policy (para. 23). He states:
“The President's deficit is a direct and dramatic repudiation of his promise in 1980 to balance the budget by 1983. How large is it? … It is a deficit that, according to the President's fiscal adviser, may grow to as much 300 billion dollars a year for ‘as far as the eye can see.’… that is almost one-half of the money we collect from the personal income tax each year goes just to pay the interest” (para. 24).
The deficit presented is evidence of the inadequacy of President Reagan’s fiscal policy and is a part of his proof of the “Republic record” that as a Democrat, he finds fault in (para. 31). The projections help solidify the evidence backing his argument and relate it to the audience. In this context, Cuomo’s logos prove that those he is criticizing are inadequate.
It is made clear through this criticism of “A Tale of Two Cities” that this speech displays an effective use of Aristotle’s three artistic proofs as outlined in Rhetoric. Therefore, Aristotle would have approved of this speech because of Cuomo’s use of artistic proofs. By relating his experiences to those the audience may have faced, he can build his ethos or credibility. He builds emotional connections with his audience by utilizing pathos. Finally, he presents statistics that effectively prove his point or logos. This speech is a strong contribution to society because of Cuomo’s strong use of Aristotle’s artistic proofs to make a profound impact on his audience. Overall, Mario Cuomo made a strong connection with his audience and created a rousing atmosphere by utilizing Aristotle’s artistic proofs.
Works Cited
Aristotle. On Rhetoric: A Theory of Civic Discourse. Translated by George Alexander Kennedy, Oxford University Press, 1991.
Cuomo, Mario M. “A Tale of Two Cities.” 1984 Democratic National Convention. 16 July 1984, San Fransisco, CA. American Rhetoric, 25 August 2020. Transcript https://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/mariocuomo1984dnc.htm
As a freshman in college, I did not come into my college experience expecting to learn what I have. In Great Works, I was able to expose myself to classic works that will help to build the foundation for my education over the next four years. This course is very well constructed, and I honestly think that every college student should have to take a course similar to this at the beginning of their college education. Public Speaking an Rhetoric was a class that made a significant impact on me as a student. Dr. Van Horn was my first introduction to the Department of Mass Media and Strategic Communication, which I ended up transferring into by the end of the semester. This class reinforced my own abilities as a public speaker and helped me realize that I enjoy studying communication, which became my major. I did not include an artifact, but Mathematical Inquiry showed me how mathematics has evolved as a study over thousands of years of development. These courses have expanded my understanding of how the academic community has evolved, and I am grateful that I had the opportunity to take them.