왜 삼손 방문객들은 실패하는가? 아리스토텔레스의 『수사학』과 『투사 삼손』
Why Do Samson's Visitors Fail? Samson Agonistes in the context of Rhetoric
0
조회
0
다운로드
0
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
In Book 1 of Rhetoric, Aristotle introduces the three genres of rhetoric:deliberative/ political, epideictic/ ceremonial, and forensic/ judicial. Here he also discusses in detail the three modes of persuasion that the orators of each of these genres must comparatively rely on: those grounded in credibility (ethos), in the emotions and psychology of the audience (pathos), and in patterns of reasoning (logos). The purpose of this article is to find out why the three visitors fail in winning Samson through discourse in the framework of Aristotle's three genres and modes of persuasion. The essential elements of epideictic speaking, praise and blame, are the concerns of Manoa. He is appalled at the present condition of his son, which is the temporal focus of the genre. But he can't accomplish his purpose of visit because he makes some mistakes in understanding the present feelings of Samson or sympathizing with his emotions (pathos). Dalila attempts to make some specious excuses for her betrayal by citing many examples and maxims that are the chief rhetorical devices of deliberative oratory. Though she argues that her goal of visit is setting him free and happy with her in the future, her end can't be attained due to his firm distrust of her feigned remorse and wonders in her change (ethos). Harapha is considered to be a forensic speaker in that many important terms of his discourse have much to do with the Law. The object of his visit seems to prove Samson's past actions due by the Law to capital punishment. The reason he can't achieve this object is that his frequent use of subjunctive mood, arbitrary judgments, and vague threats are not appropriate for deductive reasoning of a judicial speech (logos). In brief, each of Samson's visitors can be said to choose an apparently fit kind of rhetoric for his or her intention of visit, but the incompatibility of their modes of persuasion with the relevant genres of rhetoric makes them leave the stage without gaining their ends.
Abstract
In Book 1 of Rhetoric, Aristotle introduces the three genres of rhetoric:deliberative/ political, epideictic/ ceremonial, and forensic/ judicial. Here he also discusses in detail the three modes of persuasion that the orators of each of these genres must comparatively rely on: those grounded in credibility (ethos), in the emotions and psychology of the audience (pathos), and in patterns of reasoning (logos). The purpose of this article is to find out why the three visitors fail in winning Samson through discourse in the framework of Aristotle's three genres and modes of persuasion. The essential elements of epideictic speaking, praise and blame, are the concerns of Manoa. He is appalled at the present condition of his son, which is the temporal focus of the genre. But he can't accomplish his purpose of visit because he makes some mistakes in understanding the present feelings of Samson or sympathizing with his emotions (pathos). Dalila attempts to make some specious excuses for her betrayal by citing many examples and maxims that are the chief rhetorical devices of deliberative oratory. Though she argues that her goal of visit is setting him free and happy with her in the future, her end can't be attained due to his firm distrust of her feigned remorse and wonders in her change (ethos). Harapha is considered to be a forensic speaker in that many important terms of his discourse have much to do with the Law. The object of his visit seems to prove Samson's past actions due by the Law to capital punishment. The reason he can't achieve this object is that his frequent use of subjunctive mood, arbitrary judgments, and vague threats are not appropriate for deductive reasoning of a judicial speech (logos). In brief, each of Samson's visitors can be said to choose an apparently fit kind of rhetoric for his or her intention of visit, but the incompatibility of their modes of persuasion with the relevant genres of rhetoric makes them leave the stage without gaining their ends.
참고문헌 (15)
- 박우수, "수사적 인간" (1995), 민
- 박우수, "수사학과 문학" (1999), 동인
- "Rhetoric"[URL]
- Asals, Heather, "Rhetoric Agonistic in Samson Agonistes", Milton Quarterly, 11(1), pp.1~4 (1977)
- Berkeley, David S., "Dalila as Amphisbaena", Papers on Language and Literature, 19(1), pp.87~92 (1983)
- Carey, John, "Milton: Complete Shorter Poems" (1971), Longman
- Cox, Rosanna, "Neo-Roman Terms of Slavery in Samson Agonistes", Milton Quarterly, 44(1), pp.1~22 (2010)
- Hughes, Merritt Y., "Paradise Regained, the Minor Poems and Samson Agonistes" (1937), The Odyssey Press
- Jacobson, Howard, "Milton's Harapha", American Notes and Queries, pp.70~71 (1986)
- Masson, David, "The Poetical Works of John Milton, Vol. III" (1896), Macmillan
- Radzinowicz, Mary Ann, "Toward Samson Agonistes" (1978), Princeton UP
- Revard, Stella P., "Dalila as Euripidean Heroine", Papers on Language and Literature, pp.291~302 (1987)
- Verity, A. W., "Milton's Samson Agonistes" (1951), Cambridge UP
- Waddington, Raymond B., "Melancholy Against Melancholy: Samson Agonistes as Renaissance Tragedy, In Calm of Mind" (1971), P of Case Western Reserve U
- Wolfe, Don M., "8 vols. Complete Prose Works of John Milton", pp.1953~1982, Yale UP