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