Campbell

We are now getting into the realm of rhetoricians with whom I am more familiar. Although I had not read Campbell’s rhetoric studies before, I was familiar with his name due to his reputation as a great thinker in Christian theological history.

The main interest I found when reading the selection was a point we discussed in class as well: Campbell’s assertion that grammar is “always particular and local” (906). He says that a universal grammar would exist only in conjunction with a universal language. (Was there universal grammar before the Tower of Babel, Mr. Campbell?) Having read some of Noam Chomsky’s investigation into the Language Acquisition Device he believed is inherent in all humans as well as his conclusions (or at least, what I thought were his conclusions) about an underlying common grammar—a universal grammar—for human language, I was somewhat surprised to see that the question had been addressed long before Chomsky tackled it. I wondered at first if maybe it was simply a question of definitions; I’d like to find out more about how Chomsky and his fellow theorists defined grammar. And as a comp/rhet student, I’m sure I will.

Judy’s written question posed in class left me struggling with an answer. Briefly stated, she remarked that our text says that Campbell was the “first modern rhetorician” and had “made the first real advances” since Aristotle. Then she asked Why and How?

My response at first was, “It’s Bizzell and Herzberg’s responsibility to support that statement, right?” It’s a big claim, and I didn’t come up with big reasons why they made it, so I’m curious what I overlooked. I had noted what I called my “guesses,” however. First, they say Campbell argues that “rhetoric must address all the mind’s faculties” in order to persuade (898); topoi, syllogism, and the stages of composition are not needed. In their place, he establises two stages of persuasion: excite the passion of the audience, then connect the desired action to gratification of that passion (899). He also talks about scientific concerns, saying they are pretty straightforward—a series of axioms. This topic is timely because of the scientific breakthroughs of the day. Kairos. He differentiates between moral and demonstrative (scientific) evidence because moral almost always has “contrariety in proofs” (913). That's all I came up with. What am I missing?