Essay 2 by EwokABdevito Lyrics
Rhetoric in Thoreau's "Civil Disobedience"
Henry David Thoreau begins "On The Duty Of Civil Disobedience" as a sermon of rebellion and a sentiment of the times. He adopts a quote that's been mistakenly attributed to Jefferson, but more readily found in the mouths of America's budding political factions. All at once Thoreau shows himself to be on the pulse of a collective attitude invoked by a people's swirling fancy in the wake of new possibilities. Without reserve, Thoreau logically augments the "Jefferson Zeitgeist" quote into a paradoxical statement, albeit a thought provoking one that forces the reader to re-evaluate their position on the role of government. The employment of paradox is less of a rhetorical device and more of an honest representation of inner conflict that sets the tone of his argument. He endeavors to separate from the state in as many ways as possible, yet still manages to attain influence in matters concerning its government. A regular Lucifer, Thoreau speaks from his heart, as a persecuted man, and no amount of freedom could satiate him. His writings reflect a personal struggle with freedom.
Thoreau was heavily influenced by Eastern thinking and this can be seen in his propensity for aphorism. In fact, the aloofness of his character requires that he veil his true intentions with an air of mysticism. This phrase becomes the nucleus of the document: "Let every man make known what kind of government would command his respect, and that will be one step toward obtaining it". On the one hand it is a statement about the responsibility of volition, how the people must assert their will to enact a change. But on the other hand it is a warning that when the will of a people gathers and spreads like wildfire...revolution is eminent. More often than aphorism, Thoreau punctuates his less savory statements with small disclaimers, example: "In fact, I quietly declare war with the State, after my fashion, though I will still make use and get what advantages of her I can, as is usual in such cases". Such a disclaimer only serves to cushion the blow from such an aggressive outlook. Effectively framing himself as a parasite, he blinds the reader with a flash of truth, but only in passing; it may as well be the glint off his pearly whites.
Thoreau then begins to interrogate the reader with a flurry of rhetorical questions. Launching a veritable siege, the reader must endure a volley of leading questions that culminate into an array of incredibly confusing diction: "It is not desirable to cultivate a respect for the law, so much as for the right. The only obligation I have a right to assume is to do at anytime what I think right. It is truly enough said that a corporation has no conscience; but a corporation of conscientious men is a corporation with conscience.. Thus the reader falls into a perplexing pitfall that may be described as a chiastic knot. Immediately thereafter the reader faces another wall of rhetorical questions which produce the effect of sodium pentathol. In a state of vulnerability the reader becomes more susceptible to incredulous statements. To put this in perspective Thoreau assembles a chain of 39 unanswerable questions to keep the reader in a constant state of bewilderment.
Drawing on religious imagery Thoreau alludes to Christ and the Spear of Destiny with this passage: "Is there not a source of blood shed when the conscience is wounded? Through this wound a man's real manhood and immortality flow out, and he bleeds to an everlasting death. I see this blood flowing now." A spear would be stuck into the side of those on the crucifix to determine whether they were dead or not. Thoreau compares Christ's ordeal to a natural "agenbite of inwit", foreshadowing disaster, but offering no tourniquet. This idea then segues into an analogy about man's relation to the state, based off of Christ's relation to Caesar. Christ was put to death for insubordination! This is a troubling analogy to say the least, should we literally follow in the footsteps of Christ? If Jesus' image were put on a coin and one were to refuse to spend it... would they be protesting the state or the church? How can this analogy do anything for an attentive reader who will never walk in the sandals of Christ? Would Thoreau be singing this tune if the laws were more severe?
Thoreau goes on to brag about his "night in jail", like a child trying to gain favor in his classmates eyes by telling them the horrors of juvenile hall. The ethical reader should be cautious when exploring Thoreau's wondrous night of sensory speculation. He speaks with a little too much fervor, a febrile naivety that wants to share his experience with the world. Thoreau makes two statements in near succession that destroy his credibility: "However, the government does not concern me much, and I shall bestow the fewest possible thoughts on it" and "Statesmen and legislators, standing so completely within the institution, never distinctly and nakedly behold it". We are presented with the fundamental paradox of Thoreau; how can a man who gives no thought to government have a legitimate opinion on how it should be assembled?
chiasmus
Henry David Thoreau begins "On The Duty Of Civil Disobedience" as a sermon of rebellion and a sentiment of the times. He adopts a quote that's been mistakenly attributed to Jefferson, but more readily found in the mouths of America's budding political factions. All at once Thoreau shows himself to be on the pulse of a collective attitude invoked by a people's swirling fancy in the wake of new possibilities. Without reserve, Thoreau logically augments the "Jefferson Zeitgeist" quote into a paradoxical statement, albeit a thought provoking one that forces the reader to re-evaluate their position on the role of government. The employment of paradox is less of a rhetorical device and more of an honest representation of inner conflict that sets the tone of his argument. He endeavors to separate from the state in as many ways as possible, yet still manages to attain influence in matters concerning its government. A regular Lucifer, Thoreau speaks from his heart, as a persecuted man, and no amount of freedom could satiate him. His writings reflect a personal struggle with freedom.
Thoreau was heavily influenced by Eastern thinking and this can be seen in his propensity for aphorism. In fact, the aloofness of his character requires that he veil his true intentions with an air of mysticism. This phrase becomes the nucleus of the document: "Let every man make known what kind of government would command his respect, and that will be one step toward obtaining it". On the one hand it is a statement about the responsibility of volition, how the people must assert their will to enact a change. But on the other hand it is a warning that when the will of a people gathers and spreads like wildfire...revolution is eminent. More often than aphorism, Thoreau punctuates his less savory statements with small disclaimers, example: "In fact, I quietly declare war with the State, after my fashion, though I will still make use and get what advantages of her I can, as is usual in such cases". Such a disclaimer only serves to cushion the blow from such an aggressive outlook. Effectively framing himself as a parasite, he blinds the reader with a flash of truth, but only in passing; it may as well be the glint off his pearly whites.
Thoreau then begins to interrogate the reader with a flurry of rhetorical questions. Launching a veritable siege, the reader must endure a volley of leading questions that culminate into an array of incredibly confusing diction: "It is not desirable to cultivate a respect for the law, so much as for the right. The only obligation I have a right to assume is to do at anytime what I think right. It is truly enough said that a corporation has no conscience; but a corporation of conscientious men is a corporation with conscience.. Thus the reader falls into a perplexing pitfall that may be described as a chiastic knot. Immediately thereafter the reader faces another wall of rhetorical questions which produce the effect of sodium pentathol. In a state of vulnerability the reader becomes more susceptible to incredulous statements. To put this in perspective Thoreau assembles a chain of 39 unanswerable questions to keep the reader in a constant state of bewilderment.
Drawing on religious imagery Thoreau alludes to Christ and the Spear of Destiny with this passage: "Is there not a source of blood shed when the conscience is wounded? Through this wound a man's real manhood and immortality flow out, and he bleeds to an everlasting death. I see this blood flowing now." A spear would be stuck into the side of those on the crucifix to determine whether they were dead or not. Thoreau compares Christ's ordeal to a natural "agenbite of inwit", foreshadowing disaster, but offering no tourniquet. This idea then segues into an analogy about man's relation to the state, based off of Christ's relation to Caesar. Christ was put to death for insubordination! This is a troubling analogy to say the least, should we literally follow in the footsteps of Christ? If Jesus' image were put on a coin and one were to refuse to spend it... would they be protesting the state or the church? How can this analogy do anything for an attentive reader who will never walk in the sandals of Christ? Would Thoreau be singing this tune if the laws were more severe?
Thoreau goes on to brag about his "night in jail", like a child trying to gain favor in his classmates eyes by telling them the horrors of juvenile hall. The ethical reader should be cautious when exploring Thoreau's wondrous night of sensory speculation. He speaks with a little too much fervor, a febrile naivety that wants to share his experience with the world. Thoreau makes two statements in near succession that destroy his credibility: "However, the government does not concern me much, and I shall bestow the fewest possible thoughts on it" and "Statesmen and legislators, standing so completely within the institution, never distinctly and nakedly behold it". We are presented with the fundamental paradox of Thoreau; how can a man who gives no thought to government have a legitimate opinion on how it should be assembled?
chiasmus