October 13

The unclear nature of Renaissance Rhetoric was rather interesting to me.  Renaissance rhetoric is unclear in that it has a lack of a clear beginning and lack of a comprehensive history.

I also found the Italian city-states taking advantage of political opportunity interesting.  This point was especially interesting because in their attempts to become "more vigorous, independent, and fiercely competitive" they emphasized rhetoric and trained people in the professions of such.

The inability of some being unable to be properly appreciated because of inability to read in the original language was also interesting.  The book specifically mentions Aristotle and how his "original eloquence could not be appreciated because no one could read him in Greek."  I wonder if the language really makes that much different?  We read Aristotle today, we have even read him in this class, in English though, and I wonder if we are really missing much by reading in English rather than Greek?  Is it an issue with translation, in that it was improperly translated back then, or is it that certain ideas cannot be properly communicated in any but the original language?  .

Another portion of the reading which stood out somewhat was the idea that Renaissance rhetoricians used classical rhetoric in order to better understand and improve their own rhetoric.  Originally it mentions that they used certain works for training.  It then mentioned that a deeper thinking was later introduced which lead to Renaissance rhetoricians to further explore their own creative powers.  It seems that rhetoric began to be a challenge of understanding the past and how their own work should reflect the influence of their predecessors.