Argumentation

, Volume 21, Issue 2, pp 129–149

Revolutionary Rhetoric: Georg Büchner’s “Der Hessische Landbote” (1834) – A Case Study

Article

Abstract

In this paper, the political pamphlet “Der Hessische Landbote” by the eminent German author, Georg Büchner (1813–1837), will be positioned within the context of its political and historical background, analyzed as to its argumentative and stylistic structure, and critically evaluated. It will be argued that propaganda texts such as this should be evaluated by taking into account both rhetorical perspectives and standards of rational discussion. As far as argumentative structure is concerned, a modified version of the Toulmin scheme will be used for the description of three passages of the “Landbote”. As far as stylistic techniques are concerned, Büchner’s strategic use of some figures of speech, especially parallelism, metaphor and metonymy will be examined. As to the critical evaluation, the recently developed concept of “strategic maneuvering” within Pragma-Dialectics, the typology of argumentative dialogues established by D. Walton, and sets of critical questions will be used to assess the status of the arguments within the “Landbote” as potentially fallacious ones.

Keywords

(emotional) fallacies Georg Büchner political propaganda strategic maneuvering Toulmin’s model types of argumentative dialogue 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aristotle: 2002, Rhetorik, transl. and comm. by Chr. Rapp, Akademie Verlag, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  2. Balzer, B.: 1992, ‹Liberale und radikaldemokratische Literatur’, in V. Žmegač (ed.), Geschichte der deutschen Literatur, Vol. I/2, Hain, Frankfurt/M., pp. 277–335Google Scholar
  3. Böhme, H.: 1987, ‹Georg Büchner oder Von der Unmöglichkeit, die Gesellschaft mittelst der Idee, von der gebildeten Klasse aus zu reformieren’, in Katalog der Ausstellung: Georg Büchner, Stroemfeld/Roter Stern, Frankfurt/M./Basel, pp. 8–15Google Scholar
  4. Büchner, G.: 1834, Der Hessische Landbote. Erste Botschaft [Offenbach: Preller]. Faksimile des Originals, Beilage zu: Katalog der Ausstellung (1987), Georg Büchner, Stroemfeld/Roter Stern, Frankfurt/M./BaselGoogle Scholar
  5. Cicero: 1976, De oratore/Über den Redner, ed. by. H. Merklin, Reklam, StuttgartGoogle Scholar
  6. van Dijk, T. A.: 1980, Textwissenschaft, dtv, MünchenGoogle Scholar
  7. Doury M.: 2004, La classification des arguments dans les discours ordinaires. Langage 154, 59–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. van Eemeren, F. H. (ed.): 2002, Advances in Pragma-Dialectics. SicSat, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  9. van Eemeren F. H., R. Grootendorst: 1992, Argumentation, Communication, and Fallacies. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJGoogle Scholar
  10. van Eemeren F. H., Rob Grootendorst: 2004, A Systematic Theory of Argumentation. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  11. van Eemeren F. H., R. Grootendorst, F. Snoeck Henkemans: 1996, Fundamentals of Argumentation Theory. Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJGoogle Scholar
  12. van Eemeren F. H., P. Houtlosser: 2002a, Strategic Maneuvering with the Burden of Proof. In van Eemeren F. H. (ed.), Advances in Pragma-Dialectics, SicSat, Amsterdam, pp. 13–28Google Scholar
  13. van Eemeren F. H., P. Houtlosser: 2002b, Strategic Maneuvering: Maintaining a Delicate Balance. In van Eemeren F. H., P. Houtlosser (eds.), Dialectic and Rhetoric: The Warp and Woof of Argumentation Analysis. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp. 131–159Google Scholar
  14. van Eemeren F. H. and P. Houtlosser: 2003, ‹More about Fallacies as Derailments of Strategic Maneuvering: The Case of Tu Quoque’, in The [CD-rom] Proceedings of the IL@25 Conference at the University of Windsor, University of Windsor, Windsor, OntarioGoogle Scholar
  15. van Eemeren F. H. and P. Houtlosser: 2006, ‹Strategic Maneuvering: A Synthetic Recapitulation’, in F. H. van Eemeren and P. Houtlosser (eds.), Perspectives on Strategic Maneuvering, Argumentation 20(4), 381–392Google Scholar
  16. Franz, E. G.: 1987, ‹Im Kampf um neue Formen. Die ersten Jahrzehnte des Großherzogtums Hessen’, in Katalog der Ausstellung: Georg Büchner, Stroemfeld/Roter Stern, Frankfurt/M./Basel, pp. 38–48Google Scholar
  17. Freeman J. B.: 2005, Systematizing Toulmin’s Warrants: An Epistemic Approach. Argumentation 19(3), 331–346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gilbert M. A.: 2001, Emotional Messages. Argumentation 15(3), 239–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hauschild, J. Chr.: 1987, ‹»Gewisse Aussicht auf ein stürmisches Leben«. Georg Büchner 1813–1837’, in Katalog der Ausstellung: Georg Büchner, Stroemfeld/Roter Stern, Frankfurt/M./Basel, pp. 16–37Google Scholar
  20. Hauschild J. Chr.: 2000, Georg Büchner. Rowohlt, ReinbekGoogle Scholar
  21. Kienpointner M.: 1992, Alltagslogik. Frommann-Holzboog, StuttgartGoogle Scholar
  22. Kienpointner M.: 2005, Racist Manipulation within Austrian, German, Dutch, French and Italian Right-Wing Populism. In Saussure L. de, P. Schulz (eds.), Manipulation and Ideologies in the Twentieth Century. Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 213–235Google Scholar
  23. Kienpointner M.: 2006, Die Argumentationsmuster der Neuen Rhetorik. In Kopperschmidt J. (ed.), Die Neue Rhetorik. Studien zu Chaim Perelman. Fink, München, pp. 211–226Google Scholar
  24. Kienpointner, M.: in print, ‹Zur Revolutionsrhetorik von Georg Büchner, Rosa Luxemburg und Wladimir I. Lenin. Eine vergleichende Analyse’, to appear in E. Hoffmann, et al. (eds.), Festschrift R. Rathmayr, Lang, BernGoogle Scholar
  25. Kopperschmidt J.: 1980, Argumentation. Kohlhammer, StuttgartGoogle Scholar
  26. Lakoff G.: 1987, Women, Fire and Dangerous Things. Chicago University Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  27. Lakoff, G.: 2005, Don’t Think of an Elephant! Chelsea Green, White River JunctionGoogle Scholar
  28. Lakoff G., M. Johnson: 1980, Metaphors We Live by. Chicago University Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  29. Mannheim K.: 1929, Ideologie und Utopie. Cohen, BonnGoogle Scholar
  30. Mayer, Th. M.: 1987, ‹Die >Gesellschaft der Menschenrechte< und Der Hessische Landbote’, in Katalog der Ausstellung: Georg Büchner, Stroemfeld/Roter Stern, Frankfurt/M./Basel, pp. 168–186Google Scholar
  31. Perelman Ch., L. Olbrechts-Tyteca: 1983, Traité de l’argumentation. La Nouvelle Rhétorique. éditions de l’Université de Bruxelles, BruxellesGoogle Scholar
  32. Plantin, Chr.: 1998, ‹Les raisons des émotions’, in M. Bondi (ed.), Forms of Argumentative Discourse, Clueb, Bologna, pp. 3–50Google Scholar
  33. Schaub, G. (ed.): 1976, Georg Büchner, Friedrich Ludwig Weidig: Der Hessische Landbote. Texte, Materialien, Kommentar, Hanser, MünchenGoogle Scholar
  34. Schmid, K.: 2001, ‹Jesaja/Jesajabuch’, in H. D. Betz, et al. (eds.), Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart 4th ed., Vol. 4, Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, pp. 451–455Google Scholar
  35. Toulmin St.: 1958, The Uses of Argument. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  36. Toulmin St., R. Rieke, A. Janik: 1984, An Introduction to Reasoning. Macmillan, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  37. Wagner, G. W. J.: 1831, Statistisch-topographisch-historische Beschreibung des Großherzogthums Hessen, 4. Bd, Statistik des Ganzen, Leske, DarmstadtGoogle Scholar
  38. Walton D. N.: 1992, The Place of Emotion in Argument. Pennsylvania State University Press, University ParkGoogle Scholar
  39. Walton D. N.: 1996, Argumentation Schemes for Presumptive Reasoning. Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJGoogle Scholar
  40. Walton D. N.: 1998, Ad Hominem Arguments. University of Alabama Press, TuscaloosaGoogle Scholar
  41. Walton D. N.: 1999, Appeal to Popular Opinion. Pennsylvania State University Press, University ParkGoogle Scholar
  42. Walton D. N.: 2005, Deceptive Arguments Containing Persuasive Language and Persuasive Definitions. Argumentation 19, 159–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Weiss D.: 2005, Stalinist vs. Fascist Propaganda. In: de Saussure L., P. Schulz (eds.), Manipulation and Ideologies in the Twentieth Century. Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 251–274Google Scholar
  44. Wiest, E.: 1987, ‹Die Lage der Darmstädter Bevölkerung im Vormärz’, in Katalog der Ausstellung: Georg Büchner, Stroemfeld/Roter Stern, Frankfurt/M./Basel, pp. 49–55Google Scholar
  45. Zarefsky, D.: 2006, ‹Strategic Maneuvering through Persuasive Definitions: Implications for Dialectic and Rhetoric’, in F. H. van Eemeren and P. Houtlosser (eds.), Perspectives on Strategic Maneuvering, Argumentation 20(4), 399–416Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of InnsbruckInnsbruckAustria

Personalised recommendations