Traditional Criticism

Hill, F. I. (1972/2009). The ‘traditional perspective;’ Critical essay: Mr. Douglass’s fifth of July. In J. A. Kuypers (Ed.), Rhetorical criticism, perspectives in action (pp. 39-59). Lanham, MD: Lexington.

F. I. Hill wrote the article The “Traditional” Perspective in 1972; later edited in 2009. This article was meant to inform readers about how to apply traditional criticism through the use of the theory of rhetoric. It was divided into two sections; the first being an overview of traditional criticism, and the second being the application of this in his critical essay of “Mr. Douglass’s Fifth of July”. This paper works to summarize the ideas presented in Hill’s article (1972/2009), and analyze his perspective and if he was able to implement all the aspects of traditional criticism.
Summary
In first section Hill defined traditional criticism as the twin tasks of explication, of what went on when speakers engaged listeners or readers, and evaluation, on how well the speakers performed the task of changing these receivers’ understanding of reality (p. 39). He wrote that a successful traditional critique requires the following steps: 1) recreation of the context, which is the physical setting of an event and the need to utilize rhetoric (p. 40-41). 2) The recreation of the audience, which discusses to whom the message is directed towards and how the speech is constructed to adhere to the audience (p. 42). 3) The description of the source of the message is the ethos: credibility of the speaker (p. 44). 4) The analysis of the message described three key terms: invention, disposition, and style. Invention is “finding the appropriate materials for the discourse” (p. 46) Additionally, invention discussed the ethos, logos, and pathos. Disposition is the arrangement of the materials in the message. Style is the use of language to make the material coherent and convincing (p. 45-49). Finally 5), the evaluation of the discourse analyzed the effect of the speech (p. 50). These five steps formed a successful traditional critique. In the second section Hill utilized the steps outlined previously to form a traditional critique of “Mr. Douglass’s Fifth of July.” The critique began with the description of the historical context in which his speech was presented. Hill explained that there were two audiences: the intended audience being the “abolitionists, their sympathizers, and their friends” (p. 51), and the general public who later received the message via written documentation (p. 51). He then described Douglass as the spokesman, who was a well-known speaker with a significant ethos; he was previously a slave. Subsequently, Hill addressed the disposition of the speech by explaining that Douglass organized his message by contrasting the “then and now” (p.52) he then summarized Douglass’s speech. Hill discussed Douglass’s pathos and ethos. He stated that because Douglass experienced slavery, the audience could not question him (p. 55-57). Hill claimed that the language of Douglass’s address is the ‘grand style’ because of its zealous use of emotion and series of rhetorical questions or figures (p. 57-58). He ended this section by evaluating the effect of the speech both to the intended audience and the general public (p. 58).
Analysis
Hill successfully outlined and implemented the five steps of creating a traditional critique. He defined each of the steps utilizing historical language and put it into modern context in order to make it relatable. He showed how each step is significant and must interact with each other in order to fulfill the requirements. His use of contemporary examples aided in explaining the concepts thoroughly and provided clarification of how the steps should be utilized when preparing a critique. Hill utilized the five steps, described earlier, in order to critique Douglass’s speech. This critique was able to tie together and cohesively illustrate the importance of all the different steps in one example. Hill’s specific examples from Douglass’s speech and the historical context with which he provides, constructs a clear example of a traditional critique. Hill concluded his article with his personal comments on his own essay and his explanations of its possible pitfalls. He explained that the essay was “more of a journey through the stages of traditional criticism than a regular style academic paper” (p. 58) By creating this journey, Hill was able to create a conversation that was “accessible for those new to criticism to read” (p.58). As readers, we liked the progression of Hill’s article in that we were clearly comprehend why he organized the article in a conversational way. We liked that Hill used well-known contemporary examples throughout the article because it made the article relatable. We also found that his cookie-cutter step outline of “formulaic criticism” made it so that we can now take his steps and apply it to our own works of traditional criticism (p. 58-59). Hill’s article provided a successful overview of traditional criticism by highlighting the steps required and incorporating thorough examples. The critical essay provided at the end it integrated all the steps needed for a well-written traditional criticism.