Oftentimes we define the term Renaissance as "a rebirth" of classical ideals, texts, and beliefs. For this reason, I was not at all surprised of the influence that Cicero and Quintilian had on this time period. I was, however, interested in how important the argument to emotion became.
As many of us teach high school students, we all know that there is nothing more fierce, or kind, or crazy, or lost than a high school (usually sophomore) girl. These girls' emotions and horomones are running wild and sometimes, usually in a moment of whatever the opposite of epiphany is, do something really dumb for the sake of their emotions. But it's not over yet. Two minutes later, after their blow up, walk out, tantrum, or giggle fit they are in a completely different emotional state. This boggles many, and is a great representation of how emotion changes continuously.
Even though we, educated professionals, are far from this high school phase (as HS boys aren't much better), our emotions do change on a regular basis. The line from Rhetorica ad Herennium that says "The Appeal to Pity must be brief, for nothing dries faster than a tear" is a warning (Matsen 167). Pity is one of many emotions, but it too changes and leaves the mind quickly.
So, if Renaissance rhetoricials and philosophers were trying to "[move] the heart" they were moving the heart to something that would be lost quickly.
So, did those of the Renaissance have longer emotional spans than we do now? Is it because of MTV, Marilyn Manson, cell phones and Game Boy that we are not only more suicidal, dumb, and illiterate, but also more emotionally unstable? Were these appeals to emotion why philosophy became popular? Or am I off my own rocker? We'll find out.
Trebizond was also interesting. He was the first to say deliberately that rhetoric was "indifferent to morality" (Conley 115). This will make for interesting discussion as we have spent so much time debating the topic of whether or not it is necessary for an orator and rhetorician to be a good man.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I wonder if people of that time paid less attention to their emotions - after all, they were pretty busy keeping themselves alive. Our 21st century existence seems to me to be very self indulgent.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you Cathy. During the Renaissance, the world was opening up to people--a world previously unknown to them. They wanted knowledge and to know more about the world around them. With the invention of the television, radio, and internet, everything is readily accessible to us thus creating a society that is just plain lazy.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Cathy. The entire focus of our society is "ME." We are constantly analyzing ourselves and our emotions and training our children how to recognize certain emotional patterns and behaviors. I would venture to say that this most likely did not occur during the Renaissance. They simply did not have the luxury of letting their emotions rule as much as we do. They were emotional creatures, certainly; however, my guess would be that they were not as aware or as swayed by their emotions as we are...at least individually. The "mob mentality" was alive and well, I think.
ReplyDeleteI am not sure if we can jump to the conclusion that the Renaissance individual was any less emotional than we are today. If you look at the theatre that comes out of this time period, you see characters that are completely motivated by their emotions and seek nothing more than their own self gratification. Theatre can serve as indication of the society that spawned it, so there must have bene somone, probably a wealthy someone, who these characters were based on.
ReplyDelete