The Enlightenment

The Enlightenment seems to bring about a shift in rhetoric's purpose from that of civil discourse to more private interests and communication. Where traditional doctrines of knowledge-making or discovering truth stem from innate or received divination, the rhetoricians and philosophers of the Enlightenment emphasized that the ability to discover knowledge resided in perception.

Locke extends Bacon's tenets that truth could be discovered in the physical world with knowledge being possible if we understood the discovery process. He puts forth the idea that words are signs of ideas and the act of reflection, relating ideas to one another, is how we acquire knowledge. Not a fan of style and delivery, Locke represents a more philosophical and introspective approach to rhetoric and knowledge-making.

Hume and Sheridan, on the other hand, approach knowledge acquisition from a more relativistic view. Both emphasize the importance of style, although Sheridan takes presentation a bit far with his emphasis on elocution. Hume tries to temper an extreme relativistic view with touchstones--claiming some things (art in particular) are simply clearly better than others--and taste--believing some people are simply "more sensitive and knowledgeable" than others. The parameters that Hume employs on rhetoric relate the importance he places on knowing the tolerances of the audience, an idea that reflects back to Cicero.

Blair's quote, which opens Chapter 8, blends the strategies of both Locke's and Hume's philosophies. Language is best served when we "convey our ideas clearly to the minds of others . . . in such a dress, as by pleasing and interesting them" (p. 174).

Erasmus

I had not read Erasmus before this class, but I feel like I am very familiar with his philosophy. The emphasis on the creation of both (quality) words and ideas is the foundation of most composition classes. His development of the idea of copie--"an abundantly varied flow of speech that impresses with its energy and inventiveness" (Bizzell, 583)--seems to be the goal of all composition instructors.

Erasmus reaches back to classical rhetoric in his reference (and deference) to Quintilian suggesting that if Quintilian had had the opportunity to "set out his recommendations in full" (598), he would not need to have written Copia. His suggestions, however, are well-stated. Book I reminds me a bit of Joseph Williams' Style in his call to "compress and abridge" what is being said. The idea of clarity-brevity-sincerity seems to have its foundations here. Also, the expression of the richness of both expression and subject matter are still prevalent in current theory.

What most caught my attention, however, was the pedagogy that he describes. In "Exercises to Develop the Powers of Expression," he explains the need for deliberate practice of expressing ideas in a variety of sentence structures, but what most surprised me was his insightful observation that this activity is best accomplished within a group--peer teaching. It reminded me of the video we watched at the end of class last week, where students were most curious, driven, and successful in learning when left to their own devices. His emphasis on practice has also made its way into today's pedagogy as students are continually reminded that if they do not practice the sentence variety, vocabulary, and word choice they're taught--if they only "learn" it for the lesson--the style will not present itself when they need it. I also like his cautionary note, something we again share with students, that word choice is important, but it must fit the occasion. How many of us had thesaurus-laden papers from students who thought it would be "clever" to choose two or three new words in each sentence from the first entry in the thesaurus? Although a bit overdone, his practical demonstration is one of the "best practices" for almost any classroom. Modeling expectations and examples provides a specific goal for students and helps clearly establish the criteria the instructor is looking for.

Erasmus also expresses the importance of arrangement--reaching back to Aristotle advising to "take care not to throw the proper order of the various parts into confusion by mixing everything up in an indiscriminate chaos of utterances" (610). The advice to "prevent tedium in the reader or hearer by skillful arrangement, appropriate allocation, and elegant disposition" (610) is still to be heeded today.

I like the quote that Herrick uses to open his chapter on Renaissance Rhetoric:

There is nothing more pleasing to God who governs the world than men united by social bonds. . . .

---Petrarch

Petrarch sums up rhetoric's return to a more social, more interactive role than it had been relegated to during the middle ages. Scholasticism emphasized an authoritarian and closed approach to learning, and although instruction was rational and orderly (something unlike the MOO, I imagine), much of the content used for instruction was taken out of context, therefore, losing its original meaning. Where the Middle Ages valued rhetoric for sermons and letter writing--again emphasizing one-sided forms of persuasion--rhetoric gains status in the Renaissance as "an aid to moral contemplation and personal refinement" (p. 156) as well as "a means of winning political power through argument and persuasion" (p. 157).

Rhetoric, in fact, becomes a tool for the responsible citizen as many humanists believed that one had a responsibility for civic involvement, the idea of vita activa. In terms of today's politics, I would like to think we are more humanistic in our approach to civic duty, but watching the many of the news programs, we see examples from all affiliations that seem to exemplify more of the scholastic approach--senteniae taken out of context (without the excuse of centuries separating the original text from the portrayed snippet).

Another part of the reading I noted this week was the humanist's ability to use rhetoric as a tool to discover truth or knowledge and still maintain a religious belief. Valla, in particular, rejects the middle ages' approach to religion which was to "correct error" in the corrupt mind. Conversely, he saw rhetoric as a means to make religion more public and active, creating a belief system, like that of the responsible citizen where one was expected to engage.

Elaborate, yet Exact

This week's readings reminded me of an odd mix of the late Baroque/Rocco period and Calvinism. Since I am an expert in neither area, my connections may be flawed, but reading about letter writing conventions during the Medieval period brought to mind largesse and overdone characteristics of Baroque and Rocco art.

The initial definition of a letter or epistle seems straight forward enough:

a suitable arrangement of words set forth to express the intended meaning of its sender. (Anonymous, B&H, p. 497)

Even the parts of a letter seem to roughly coincide with the style of rhetoric we have discussed thus far. I was even trying to make the connection of "the Securing of Goodwill" (B&H, p. 497) to Cicero's insistence that the rhetor connect with his audience.

However, in a matter of about eight lines, although structure is still clearly defined, the flourishes overtake the greeting. The simple number of "appropriate" salutations is overdone, much like the art of the later period. Salutations are almost colossal in their introductions. My favorite is "A Pupil to His Teacher":

To Mrs. Fontaine, by divine grace resplendent in Ciceronian Charm, John, inferior to his devoted learning, expresses the servitude of a sincere heart." (p. 501)

It might be interesting to trace the evolution of the above to "Hey, Ms. F."

On the other hand, sermons take on an incredibly tight structure with little room for deviation. "Indeed it is considered incorrect if one puts in his theme a quotation from another translation than the one commonly used" (p. 532). The preacher becomes a horse with blinders, limited to pre-approved ideas he is permitted to use to share with his parishioners.

I thought, however, element's of Cicero's rhetor might still emerge from the preacher in the 2nd ornament of preaching--winning over the audience. But only one technique appears to attempt a genuine connection with the audience--opening with something subtle and interesting. The remaining techniques induce fear tactics and deceit--if you "hear the word of God" from the preacher, you're predestined--one of the elect.

I can see some connections with sermons and letter writing to our earlier rhetors, but much of the content and style seem to be gone.

St. Augustine and Reconciliation

During the middle ages, rhetorical studies seemed to take on two extremes. First, those trained in the scholastic method, using senteniae to build arguments, appeared to be playing a rhetorical form of "Russian roulette." Maybe the arguments they crafted were insightful or led to new ideas, but the grounds on which the arguments were formed were, at best, questionable. Since the premises used for debate were removed from their original context, the value of the information gleaned would seem doubtful.

On the other hand, St. Augustine approached rhetoric with very unique insight. Despite being predominately Sophistic in my own philosophy, I miss the "one" "true" answer that Plato's philosophy provides. St. Augustine, however, rectifies this dilemma. His re-creation and ownership of rhetoric's purpose and method incorporates the best of both worlds. I also like the fact that he incorporates Cicero's addition to rhetoric, "to teach, to delight, and to move" the audience towards the truth.

However, the potential problem in St. Augustine's rhetorical philosophy is still the issue of power and control. St. Augustine takes the selfishness of the Sophists and Plato's pagan idea of truth and cleverly crafts it into a tool to spread Christianity. His main premise is that "[t]he happiness of all people can be achieved if all can e brought to understand and accept the truth of the gospel" (Herrick, p. 128) . Rhetoric is the technique through which a preacher "corrects . . . the errors of the mind" of those who do not accept the gospel and prepares "truthful messages for maintaining the health of souls now put into a receptive attitude" (p. 127). Being a Christian, I do see this strategy as clever, but a non-Christian may rightfully use a different adjective.

So with St. Augustine, I like how he has seemingly reconciled two diametrically opposed sides of rhetoric. But what is still a concern is the audience's ability to discern the premises and arguments that are presented. Until the rise of the educated populace, it seems even more important that character, stressed by most of the rhetoricians we've studied thus far, be a necessary characteristic of the preacher, speaker, or rhetorician