Revisiting Cicero: Atticist vs. Asiatic

According to the Bizzell text, Cicero, in his work, Brutus, claimed that there are two standards of style: "Atticist" and "Asiatic" (284). The Atticist "distrusted the influence on later Greek rhetoric on Roman Culture" --(think of the word "Greeklings"); "[t]hey argued for the purity of diction and simplicity of syntax;" "[t]hey wished to establish a standard 'Latinity' for Roman oratory" and would resolve question of grammar and usage by referring to the earliest Latin authors" (284). This sounds very similar to me to the movement in the U.S. to standardize English and make it the official language of our country. There are some hardcore, self-proclaimed traditionalists out there who hope to establish a one-language country and force out foreign influence, reverting to the old isolationist doctrine once followed before our involvement in World War I. Although there was no push (that I'm aware of) to force everyone to speak English during that time, the idea of resisting foreign influence and creating a strong American identity was very popular. Actually, with the problems we are having in controlling the "immigration" across our southern border, this movement is once again gaining steam. The integration of other languages and styles into English is something that English language Atticists do not want.

To return to the Bizzell text and Cicero, the "Asiatic stylists...sought epigrammatic terseness or florid emotionalism, after the manner of the Greek Sophistic Movement" (284). Although the text claims that "Cicero vehemently denied affiliation with the Asiatics because he saw them as ignorant of philosophy," he did not agree with the Atticists' style because he felt they "limited the rhetorician's resources. Let the usage of contemporary, educated men and women--not ancient models--set the standard, he argued" (285). Considering this, I think it would be interesting to see where Cicero would stand on the language issues that we face today. I believe that we should not limit ourselves in terms of the evolution of our language, whether that be the integration of other languages or the morphing of language to suit region and/or culture in modern America. Some may argue that Cicero's claim that contemporary usage must indeed be an educated usage, but I believe that the current language shifts are informed changes, informed by the powerful influence of cultures, both foreign and domestic. Let today's people set the standard, argued Cicero. So why fight it?

Augustine and Plagiarism

As noted in the Bizzell text, in Book IV of On Christian Doctrine, Augustine encourages those who could not find anything to say to use others' speeches because his logic was that truth belonged to God, not the speaker. Of course this is a deviation from his predecessors, mainly the Sophists. For them, truth was created by words. I can say that I don't necessarily disagree with Augustine, considering his religious principles, but I do not agree with the way some went about conveying the truth. If one should buy into the idea that truth belongs to God and that associating truth with the rhetor could place the emphasis on the rhetor and not God, one could see how Augustine wholeheartedly believed what he believed. However, I do not see the harm in citing the person from which the articulation of the ideas originated as long as the emphasis is on the idea that the message is God's. This way, one can give credit to the rhetor for arranging the argument and to God for divinely inspiring the rhetor to do so. The message would still belong to God. In considering that Jesus was a teacher who employed rhetoric, he is credited today in the things that he taught, but the message is still credited to God. Now, I do understand that using Jesus as an example presents a dash of trickiness when one refers to the Trinity. However, we still credit the writers of the many gospels from the Bible with the explication of the things they taught in spreading the Word of God. The message or the Word is still credited to God, but when refering to the Gospel of Paul, we say: "Paul said..." So, maybe Augustine had the right idea, I just think that he thought things through completely, or maybe he was too weary of the confusion that may be created in attempting to cite authors in the study of religion. Either way, it is possible to cite authorship and still convey the origin of the Truth.

Enthymeme

There's a commercial for Budweiser Select beer running on television right now that advertises the beer having 99 calories and zero grams of trans fat. The statement, "Step Up to the Next Level," appears at the end of the commercial.

claim: Budweiser Select has less calories and trans fat than other beers.
reason: It has 99 calories and zero grams of trans fat.
Unstated premise: Drinking Budweiser Select will help you lose weight as opposed to drinking other beers.

Also:

claim: Budweiser Select is above the premium level of beers.
reason: It has 99 calories and zero grams of trans fat.
Unstated premise: Drinking Budweiser will raise one's status to the "Next Level," thus making one sexier because of loss of weight from consuming less calories and fat and providing one with a better image.