Perelman brings up the issue concerning what value a text has beyond its temporal setting. One might argue, for example, that "all discourses automatically become literature once they cease to exert a persuasive effect, and there is no particular reason to distinguish different genres of oratory" (1388)."

Courses such as "The Bible as Literature" come to mind. Is, for example, the Bible mere literature given that its information is dated and intended for an audience that's been deceased for 2,000 years? Or, one could argue that the message is still applicable to modern day people, and that its persuasive effect is still strong? The Gettysburg Address is another example. We can either view it as literature, or at least a curious document to be studied, or we can still try to derive some value from its persuasive elements. If nothing else, a dated or no longer applicable text can be of value for its style and rhetoric. By that I mean we can learn how to craft current discourse by studying past successful discourse.

Since this course deals with some historic documents (examples of rhetoric), and because Perelman provides many examples or references of such work, I think it's also important to consider the value that studying older conceptions of rhetoric provides the current PhD student. Has the meaning of rhetoric changed? Has our conception of it changed? Also, have its positive and/or negative connotations undergone modifications? These are all questions we can ask ourselves that are not necessarily answered in the readings, but the more we read about rhetoric, the better we can attempt to sort out these issues.

Bethany