Otis M. Walter’s informative article “Plato’s Idea of Rhetoric for Contemporary Students: Theory and Composition Assignments” suggests several ways Plato’s theory of rhetoric can be incorporated into a contemporary college writing classroom as a definition assignment. Examining the concept of transforming values rooted in Plato’s theory of rhetoric, Walter asserts that as an adequate definition of a word determines a person’s effective rhetoric, so the adequate use of a definition assignment within the composition classroom can aid students in improving their own rhetoric and, therefore, their own writing skills. Providing three variant levels of definition assignments, Walter posits that basing an assignment on Plato’s theory of rhetoric can lead to improved critical thinking skills, writing improvements and better class discussions. Walter’s demonstration of the actual assignments that incorporate Plato’s theory of rhetoric directly address an audience of college teachers seeking various ways of incorporating classical and historical rhetoric into their composition classes. His purpose in this article is not only to posit that teaching classical rhetoric can work in today’s classroom, but to exhibit various ways in which his audience can use classical rhetoric in their instruction.

Walter’s article proves helpful on many levels to an instructor unsure of ways to incorporate classical rhetoric into a composition classroom. His detailed look at the theory of rhetoric Plato presents provides a means for readers unfamiliar with the theories of Plato to fully grasp the concept. In addition, the extensive examples Walter uses throughout his article solidify not only Plato’s theory, but also the theory inherent in creating rhetorical assignments. Walter’s decision to present not only the methodology behind the assignments, but the schematics of actual assignments allows novice instructors the chance to see how the methodology of classical rhetoric translates into physical assignments that can be used in their own classroom. Another helpful aspect of this article emerges in Walter’s decision to present various levels of difficulty within his assignments allows for the comprehension of how the assignment can be developed from the very basic to the most complex using the same methodology and theory. Overall, Walter’s article, from the in-depth examination of Plato’s theory of rhetoric to the implementation of this theory in current composition assignments, easily becomes an important text for new rhetorical instructors.

Socrates’ selection of the location cannot be considered accidental. In Phaedrus’ first moments of conversation with Socrates, he explains that Lysias has told him that walking on the open roads is “more invigorating than walking in the colonnades” (227a). The two enter into a brief discussion of Phaedrus’ sedentary morning and his discussion with Lysias. Just after Phaedrus tells Socrates of the topic, Socrates recommends they walk the Ilissus and find a quiet spot. Socrates’ states that the stream is “delightful at this hour of a summer’s day” (229b). At this point, though it appears that Socrates is only choosing a place of solitude for their discussion; a serene location for a master to hear his student’s speech about love.

However, as Socrates continues to expound on the location, his choice becomes apparent. Socrates is enthusiastic about the choice of location and considers it a “delightful resting place with this tall, spreading plane, and a lovely shade from the high branches of the agnos.”(230b). The location still appears just serene, but as Socrates continues with his discourse on the location:

Now that it’s in full flower it will make the place ever so fragrant…And then too, isn’t the freshness of the air most welcome and pleasant and the shrill summery music of the cicada choir! And as crowning delight the grass, thick enough on a gentle slope to rest your head on most comfortably” (230c)

Fragrance is generally associated with the allure of love. Additionally, the cicada choir adds music and ambiance to the discussion. Now, Socrates has not only chosen a place of beauty physically, but a location that has the ambiance one would expect a couple of young lovers would seek out for an afternoon tryst. Socrates already knows that Phaedrus will be reading Lysias’ discourse on love and has now taken the young man to a location reflective of this topic. Could Socrates have chosen this location as a place only to hear the discourse; he does discuss resting on the grass. However, could he not also be intending to set the mood for the discourse itself. What better place to discuss the topic of love than in a location where the environment places one in the mindset for love?

Protagoras presents two dialogues to the reader that expound upon Plato’s educational philosophies. The first dialogue occurs between Socrates and Hippocrates and the second takes place between Socrates and Protagoras in front of an audience. Through these dialogues, Plato has the opportunity to express his views on two three specific topics: education, virtue and knowledge.

Education, introduced in Socrates’ response to Hippocrates’ desire to pay Protagoras for an education, exemplifies Plato’s two problems with the Sophists. Early in this dialogue, Socrates reveals his disdain for the Sophists and their choice to teach students a portion of each subject instead of making them masters in one specific area (312). Socrates then expresses his hesitancy to the Sophists’ teachings, telling Hippocrates that “knowledge cannot be taken away in a parcel. When you have paid for it, you must receive it straight into the soul. You go away having learned it and are benefited or harmed accordingly” (314b). For this reason, the ambiguity of what Protagoras can teach his students worries Socrates because there is no way of gauging the amount of benefit or harm that will come from the teachings. While the emphasis Plato places on education is apparent here, its full impact on his thesis in Protagoras does not become apparent until his dialogue is complete and the reader has comprehended the impact education has upon virtue.
Throughout Protagoras, Plato seeks to answer the question of whether or not virtue is teachable and if so, how to teach this concept to a student. Protagoras argues that virtue is comprised of justice holiness, wisdom, temperance and courage (349b) and that courage alone is different from the other aspects of virtue (349d). Socrates, however, proves that only knowledge can provide a person with the skills needed to become virtuous. Through a series of questions, Socrates asserts that no matter how courageous a man is, this courage stems from his knowledge of his specific field. Protagoras continues to hold to the idea that courage lies in a person’s soul and that only when the soul is nurtured properly can he master the pleasures that lead him away from virtue. It is this point that Socrates uses to connect the importance of education with the potential a person has to become virtuous.

Through the dialogue Protagoras and Socrates have in regards to virtue and knowledge, Plato’s underlying meaning becomes evident. This belief, simply stated, is that virtue parallels knowledge; therefore, the entire dialogue has been attempts to not only examine education and virtue, but to exemplify Plato’s idea that education is essential to virtue. For Plato, a person must have a specific training in his education since this specificity leads to confidence and courage. In the eyes of Plato, it is essential that the scholar focus on a specific area of training since knowledge is the only way that a man can overcome the pleasures that lead him to stray from the virtuous life.

Though the reading is dense, I think Plato’s message is easily reached with completion of the dialogue. For Plato, the key to aiding a man in maintaining a virtuous life lies in the education and guidance he receives from his teacher. If a man is to overcome the pleasures of life, he must have the proper education to aid him in recognizing the pleasures so that he may consciously overcome them. Ultimately, only a scholar has the tools to create a virtuous man and this task only occurs when a student receives enough training in a specific area of study.

Finally, I would like to close with two questions that I have in regards to reading Protagoras. I’ll post on the responses these questions received (hopefully) Tuesday.

1. Early in Protagoras, Socrates expresses a view that the Sophists cannot be trusted becuase they have no specialty in their studies (313b-c). Is this view of the Sophists the common view held by the Greek?

2. There was one point in the dialogue that confused me and I’d like some clarification on this area. When Socrates provides the history of the Spartans and the secret battle that ensued in Sparta between physical strength and intellectual strength, he implies that the knowledge of this is essential to comprehending what Simonides says. Did Socrates hold to the belief that in order to understand a person’s writing, one must be knowledgeable to the history and culture in which the writer lived?

While this was not my first reading of a Plato text, ( I read The Republic at some point in my educational career) it was the first time I had read anything dealing with his ideas of rhetoric and oratory skills. Phaedrus is a great text for anybody beginning studies in the field of Rhetoric and Composition; Plato lays out in this text the ground rules for both learning Rhetoric and teaching composition and rhetoric in a classroom. While I must say that Lysias’ discourse on love was a bit dense for me to sit through, I have gained quite a bit of good material from the discussion between Socrates and Phaedrus in which they dissect Lysias’ speech and Socrates’ impromptu speech. What follows is a brief summary of the text and the concept that stood out the most to me. (Keep in mind that this is not the only concept in the text, but I want to keep this post under 2000 words, so I’m sticking to one specific concept and a generalizati0n).
First, a brief rundown of the most important points in the text (according to my annotations)

• Phaedro reads Lysias’ argument that a man is better off choosing a friend than a lover since a friend will keep your best interest in mind while a lover only wants you to be happy
• Socrates presents his argument for the friend who will want you to better yourself as opposed to the lover who wants to keep you as you are.
• Discussion of good and bad speech writing
  • Persuasion depends on the audience
  • cannot have effective persuasion without truth and you must know the truth before beginning the speech.
• the rhetor must know which words are ambiguous and define them with specifics in terms of how they will be used in the speech
• there must be specific material and organization in an effective speech
• Procedures to speech writing
  • make point of what the speech is about
  • divide speech into specific parts
    • “right arm, left arm” (more below)
      • topic must be adequately proportioned
• order of speech or essay
  • preamble
  • exposition
    • direct evidence
    • indirect evidence
    • probabilities
    • proof
    • supplementary proof
  • conclusion
• too many teach fractions of rhetoric and present it as the full art
• necessary for the rhetor to know the types of soul in order to move audience appropriately
• importance of ethos of speaker
• written words need author’s ethos to support itself

For those of us who teach composition, this is not much more than a refresher in the skills we teach daily to our students. However, I did find one specific Plato teaching that works well with the development of argumentative writing in the classroom. I’m certain I’ll be getting more out of this text when we cover it in class, so check back then for our lively discussion summary.

Here is the part of my blog that I’m going to deem the “point and application” (I”ll do this as often as I can depending on what I come across in the reading).

Point: Plato writes “any discourse ought to be constructed like a living creature, with its own body, as it were; it must not lack either head or feet; it must have a middle and extremities so composed as to suit each other and th whole work” (510).

Application: As I so desperately seek to teach the importance of structure to my composition students, I never seem to come up with an idea that adequately details both how to consider the structure of an argument as well as provide them with an example that will remain with them. Voila! All I needed to do was consult the ancient Greeks (who would have thought that!). Eureka! Now I know exactly what I need to do. In Plato’s idea, it becomes clear that the head and feet form the introduction and conclusion while the body itself is comprised of arms and leg, which immediately serve as the body of the essay. While my first thought was that this may not amuse (and therefore stick with) my students, I soon realized that if I set the stage for multiple arguments and counterarguments, I could quickly make a point in class by making each a set of arms and legs. Each arm serves as a specific point to make in the argument, so I could begin by drawing my hideous stick figure on the board and adding extra arms on either side to show them how each argument alone stands in the essay. For counterarguments, we need legs and since the we, as humans, have two arms and two legs then our creature’s arms must be equivalent to his legs. This way we see how each arm corresponds to a specific leg and how that specific leg directly supports the arm.

Hamilton, Edith and Cairns, Huntington. Plato: Collected Dialogues. NJ, Princeton: 1989.