Mike Calou
Commentary Week Five
In the excerpt from the “Study Methods of Our Time”, Giambattista Vico is comparing the study methods of the ancients with the modern (18th century) methods. Vico says that the ancient methods had merit. The art of “topics” is disregarded (14). Traditional topics is the art of finding the medium or middle term. Medium is what the Latins called argumentum, or the reasoning used during the discussion of a subject. Vico states further that the modern student does not learn the ars topica and therefore the art of argument is lacking. Vico cites an expert in philosophical criticism as proof that something has been lost over the years in the art of oration. Vico says that when philosophical experts are confronted with a dubious point they say “give me some time to think it over” (15). Is Vico implying that orators had better oratory skills and they could respond quicker to dubious points (15)? I think Vico is saying that thoroughness is a lost skill. It is unfair to blame Cicero for having insisted on many a point of little weight (16). Cicero was good at what he did because he mastered the ars topica or in other words he knew the lines of reasoning of the subject he spoke about.
Vico’s line of thought continues with a discussion about truth and the fact that orators can persuade their audience with untruth because whereas truth is one, probabilities are many, and falsehoods numberless. Is Vico saying that the youth of the 18th century were being incorrectly taught? Is he saying that the ancient art of ars topica was not being introduced to students anymore? I think so. These are similarities to the questions that are being asked today about our 20th century educational system. Vico says:
At the very outset, their (students) common sense
should be strengthened so that they can grow in
prudence and eloquence. Let their imagination and
memory be fortified so that they may be effective…
When I was reading the work of Giambattista Vico, I was struck by the similarities with the writing of Quintilian. Although Quintilian wrote fifteen hundred years before Vico they both see a common problem. Quintilian says in Book 2:
Do we not know that it was a kind of exercise among the ancients, suitable for improvement in eloquence, for pupils to speak on theses (ars topica), commonplaces, and other questions (without embracing particular circumstances or persons), on which causes, as well real as imaginary, depend? Hence it is evident how dishonorably the profession of rhetoric has abandoned that department which it held originally and for a long time solely.
Vico is writing about modern (18th century) study methods being inadequate and the ancient methods or ars topica being adequate. Quintilian writes that the modern (1st century) methods are not adequate but the ancient methods were adequate.
The argument (rhetoric) about the best methods to employ with the current generation of students has been going on for a long time (100-2009c.e.). The reason why we read the ancient philosophers and rhetoricians is to make some sense of “the best way” to teach. I think that Quintilian, Cicero, and Vico were all correct: the ars topica is the starting point. If a topic or argument is well stated and all lines of reasoning are explored, then the topic cannot be disputed.