Assignment 1: Chapter 3

According to the textbook, neo-Aristotelian, or traditional, criticism is a method of critiquing that involves studying an artifact from the different angles of the five long-established canons of rhetoric, namely invention, organization, style, memory, and delivery.
Analyzing an artifact entails three central steps, the first of which is to recreate the context in which the artifact occurred. Recreating the context requires focus in three areas: the background of the rhetor, the occasion in which the artifact was presented, and the audience that first saw and felt the impact of the artifact. Studying the background of the rhetor informs the critic of the rhetor’s motivations and training (rhetorical skills), as well as what sort of factors might have influenced him/her to create the artifact. Learning about the occasion teaches the critic about any outside influence the rhetor might have been subject to, including general public feeling about the topic at that time period, and just what exactly triggered, and then followed, the act. Finally, studying the audience clues the critic in to what strategies would have best persuaded that particular crowd, as well as what they were likely to know or feel about the topic.
The second step of analyzing an artifact is to apply the five canons to the work itself. Having already studied up on the context, the critic is now dissecting the artifact itself, peering through the different lenses of the five canons of classical rhetoric.
The final step is to assess the impact of the artifact on the audience. To accomplish this step, the critic must have determined the rhetor’s goal in producing the artifact, and must now decide whether or not that goal has been met. This requires observation of the audience; how did they react initially, and how do they react after a period of time? The effect on the audience will reveal whether or not the artifact successfully achieved its goal.
The phrase that continually repeats throughout the discussion of traditional criticism is “the canons of rhetoric.” There are five of these canons, and they each approach the artifact from a different direction, offering a thorough analysis of all possible angles. The first canon is invention, or the creation and finding of source material. This canon deals with the question of whether or not the rhetor possesses and presents credible and persuasive evidence. The second canon is organization, which studies the way the arrangement of the artifact emphasizes the intended topic. The third canon is style, which deals primarily with choice of language; did the language create the intended response in the audience? The fourth canon is memory, which looks at whether or not the rhetor had a good mastery over his/her subject materials. The final canon is delivery, which observes the way the rhetor’s voice and physical gestures affected the audience.