To help clarify some of the main ideas in the readings for Wednesday (for yourself and for the benefit of your classmates) pick any one of the questions below and answer it by commenting on this post. Just be clear about which question you're answering. If you disagree with an answer that has already been posted, or think you have a better one, feel free to offer it--just take care to be constructive and collegial in doing so.
As always, support your claims with direct quotation from the text.
1. What is Sprat's main objection to "eloquence"?
2. Why is "the general constitution of the minds of the English" a factor in the Royal Society's favor?
3. What are Boyle's reasons for believing the information he is offering about "Amber Greece" (ambergris) is accurate? Are those reasons justified in your opinion?
4. Does Hooke follow Sprat's recommendations about refraining from "eloquent" language? Does his prose style support or undermine Sprat's exhortations?
5. What does Hooke's writing convey that his images do not? Why does he need the proverbial "thousand words" in addition to his pictures?
6. What sentences (if any) are so difficult to understand as to be incomprehensible? What specifically seems to trip you up in the sentence?
Deadline: Wednesday (9/9), start of class.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
11 comments:
Sprat believes that "eloquence" is a very manipulative force. He believes that despite the fact that "(it) were at first, no doubt, and admirable instrument in the hands of wise men, when they were only employed to describe goodness, honesty, obedience, in larger, fairer, and more moving images; to represent truth.." (2176) it has become a very dangerous tool. Historically eloquent men were trustworthy and insightful and therefore would use speech as a means to spread truths and valuable information. Sprat however, now sees eloquence as a deceptive tool men use to persuade the people toward certain beliefs, and goes so far to say that it poses a danger to society. People believe the eloquent speaker and trust him when often times they should question the message being preached. Sprat writes, "We all value one another so much upon this beautiful deceit and labor so long after it in the years of our education that we cannot but ever after think kinder of it than it deserves" (2176). People in general equate eloquence with wisdom and honesty. Sprat is trying to warn against this tendency.
I disagree. Sprat claims that eloquence is a deceptive and beguiling tool used by manipulative people. However, any form of writing, eloquent or not, has enormous potential of becoming dangerous. Sprat's main objection to eloquence is not that it is being used in a harmfully persuasive manner, but he sees it as a tedious and inconvenient form of writing unsuitable for the Royal Society's use. For example, Sprat said "They have exacted from all their members a close, naked, natural of speaking; positive expressions; clear senses; a native easiness; bringing all things as near the mathematical plainness as they can" (2177). Sprat, himself, writes in an eloquent manner and here he is writing in a eloquent form deceiving people into buying the Royal Society's style of writing. Sprat is not trying to warn , but earn his place among the Fellows.
Sprat initially admits that, while in the context of “describ[ing] goodness, honesty, obedience... [of] represent[ing] truth... and [of] bring[ing] knowledge back again to our very senses," eloquence was, "no doubt, an admirable instrument in the hands of wise men" (2176). However, due to his understanding that no such men continue to exist with such an unadulterated faith of responsibility, Sprat overtly expresses his disdain towards the present and corruptible use of eloquence in, what was then, the modern society of the 1600s. “Eloquence ought to be banished out of all civil societies as a thing fatal to peace and good manners” (2176), he admonishes; implicating that his view towards eloquence is now of the negative persuasion. Furthermore, he argues that this “vanity of speaking” (2176) is, in essence, an evil of impracticality, and deduces that society simply ought to engage in a communication capable of translating a "sound[er] simplicity... [an] unaffected sincerity... [and an altogether] universal modesty" (2177). Sprat believes that even the most diminutive presence of eloquence will lead “the fancy [to] disgust the best things, if they come unadorned” (2176), or, in other words, if they come without eloquence. Because Sprat is fully convinced that society is no longer capable of utilizing eloquence, which he now describes as the "vicious abundance of phrase, trick of metaphors, [and] volubility of tongue,” for the usage in which he regards eloquence only appropriate for (…to "describe goodness, honesty, obedience... to represent truth... and to bring knowledge back again to our very senses," etc. (2176).), Sprat concludes that eloquence is a malicious tool that will manipulate society with its impressive decor, and wasteful "noise" of superfluity and should be resigned in its use absolutely.
4. In my opinion, Hooke is following Sprat's recommendations about refraining from "eloquent" language. He wants to make his work available to the masses, and using common language is an easy way to do this. Also, as I was reading through Hooke's work, I noticed it was a smoother read for myself. I was able to read through it in a linear fashion rather than doubling back to make sure I was retaining the meaning of the words I was reading. Because of this personal fact, I also believe Hooke's language to not be concerned with eloquence as much as it is concerned with conveying the message. Hooke calls us to look at Nature in "more plain and easy ways" (2184) so I gather from passages like that, that he would find it reasonable to write in "more plain and easy ways" as well.
Question 5. In respect to the observation of a flea, Hooke's writing is efficient in describing what a static picture cannot: the function of the flea's parts. For example, the legs of the flea can be 'folded together' compactly and when necessary for mobility, he can "spring them all out, and thereby exert his whole strength at once" (p 2187). The drawing of the eye (K) and cavity (L) are aided with the explanation of the "thin film" he moves along this cavity, which is covered by small hair, and is thought by Hooke to be the ear of the flea. These movements need to be explained, as the picture cannot help but omit the actions of its object. The biters used to 'pierce the skin and suck the blood out of an animal' would be needlessly labelled if Hooke did not mention their utility (p. 2188).
5. I strongly agree with Julia's post. I think that Hooke's opening sentence to "Observation 53. Of a Flea" captures his eloquent writing and desire to write. "The strength and beauty of this small creature, had it no other relation at all to man, would deserve a description" (2187). The fact that Hooke is describing a flea through a picture and words attests to his talent to give a non-human a human like quality. There is detail in the picture that matches the descriptions some of which Julia pointed out.
It is like Hooke is giving a voice to the flea or that the flea is describing how his small body functions.
And to address question 6 about confusing lines, I don't necessarily find the titles of the sections we read confusing but I do think they are a bit wordy...I sometimes find myself reading for the simplified meaning.
For instance:
from Micrographia
Or Some Physiological Description of Minute Bodies Made By Magnifying Glasses with Observations and Inquiries thereupon
It is such a fancy way to say "I'm describing a body via magnifying glass and here are my observations..."
Just my own observation!
In response to question 3, I believe that Boyle is so eager to believe the accuracy of the Dutch journal's explanation for the origin of amber greece because it adhered to the societies' preferred method of collecting data. The journal explains that amber greece is a vegetable production, but it is actually produced in the intestines of the sperm whale. Boyle makes sure to note that the data was, "not written by a philosopher to broach a paradox or serve a hypothesis, but by a merchant..." The fact that it was written by a merchant appeals to the society because a merchant deals only in concrete observations, while a philosopher deals in abstractions. Since it was the goal of the society to stray from abstractions, raw data collected by "merchants" or tradesmen was highly sought after. I believe it is foolish to assume that just because a "merchant" has honest motives (as opposed to a philosopher, whose motive is to manipulate) that their data is accurate. The societies eagerness to universalize their collection of knowledge lowered their standards for evaluating the validity of the data.
3. Boyle had many reasons to believe that the information in the Dutch journal concerning "amber greece" was true. To start with, he obtained the article from a "very intelligent gentleman," who obviously knew Boyle well enough to know of his curiosity on the subject (2180). This man, "who understands that language [Dutch] very well," was responsible for translating the journal from Dutch into English so that Boyle could understand it (2180). Furthermore, the manner in which the data was collected was seen as admirable in the eyes of the Society, who viewed natural observations by "everyone from a mariner to a virtuoso" were capable of contributing "indispensable information" (2178). As such, the fact that the information came from the observtions of a merchant, who deals with fact, rather than a philosopher who deals with theories and assumptions, adds to its credibility. Finally, the very fact that the information is appearing in the journal leads to its accuracy for Boyle: "And it appears by the paper itself that the releation was not looked upon as a doubltful thing" (2180). Boyle not only trusted the human source and the journal the article was published in, but also the methods in which the data was collected. Each of these fell within the Royal Society's new and simplified manner of scientific exploration.
Adding to what has been said about question 5 I can see why it was necessary that Hooke explain exactly what is being depicted in the needle and hand written period. If it wasn't for his eloquent language and similes, usage of imagery and comparative language then the reader would have a hard time deciphering exactly what the magnified image represents. The tiny holes he describes, the rust, and the blunt tip all add to the wonder of what the "naked eye" (2186) cannot perceive. It is with this description that Hooke can give a positive outlook on the science of Micrographia and how many invisible things of nature can be discovered.
Post a Comment