Renaissance Rhetoric

Linda Daly
Eng 615
Doug Eskew
09/12/09


Renaissance Rhetoric


Conley discusses the decline of rhetoric in education in the Middle Ages to the first decades of the Renaissance. He describes a reaction against classical learning in the tenth century in the face of invasions and fears of the arrival of the Antichrist and end of the world because of the arrival of the Millennium of the year 1000 (86-87). A man of letters named Gerbert of Reims did not write on rhetoric but did advocate that theology not be studied until after a through systematic grounding in liberal arts, including mathematics and astronomy (87). He did embrace Cicero’s ideas on the importance of eloquence and science of morals to be considered for men in public affairs in order to be persuasive (88).

Conley goes on to describe another man in the church, a German named Notker Labeo, who translated Boethius and Aristotle, as well as Terence and Virgil. He wrote about eloquence involving both comprehension and artistic transformation, understanding the substance, material, which comprise all things and deeds which may give rise to controvesia and the ars or scientia that shapes one’s treatment of the controversia (89). They are complementary and represent two sides of the same thing (89). The novel aspect of his work was a concentration on invention, eliminating discord through discourse, or rhetorical sweetness (89-90).


By the end of the 11th century and first half of the twelfth, Cicero and Boethian dialectical influences began to be felt with treatises on the rhetoric of letter writing, poetic composition and preaching that continued into the thirteenth century 991). As time went on rhetoric followers were divided in approach to rhetoric. There was an emphasis on rhetoric as needing to be useful in life, such as legal cases, where rhetoric was equated to eloquence learned from rules being put to use for society or the cult of humanity (92). Eventually in the twelfth century jurisprudence was considered an independent study, which was served by rhetoric, rather than rhetoric being the underpinning of logic.

There continued to be study of the use of rhetoric in the art of letter writing, preaching and grammar. The art of letter writing and preaching both involved persuasion amid a formulated system of presentation or decorum (94-97). Cicero’s influence regarding eloquence, as well as Basevorn’s system—“almost a calculus—of invention and amplification (97).” Basevorn’s ideas were not in favor in the fourteenth century, as the focus of preaching was on moving and edifying rather than simply instructing. But over time rhetorical theory incorporated Boethian in the teaching of preaching, while universities promoted a notion of eloquence based on the Ciceronian ideal (97). In terms of writing letters, decorum based on style was argued about but a format based on Cicero’s influence held sway (93-94). In terms of grammar it is important to realize that the definition of grammar in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries included the art of speaking correctly and the explanation of poetry (98). Poetry was considered oral discourse (98). In the teaching of poetry it became apparent that there was an attention to style and to prose, metrics and rhythm that paid attention not only to style, but to amplification, abbreviation and ornamentation, Ciceronian in content and spirit (99).

Aristotle was taught in universities in ethics courses and rhetoric was dialectic rather than Ciceronian, losing its importance in universities until well into the renaissance. Remember that dialectic themes are universal, with a force derived from abstract propositional themes, a thesis or question without circumstances (980). Rhetoric deals with hypotheses; questions framed by circumstances, such as person, place and time, as well as cause and are continuous (80). Rhetoric seeks to persuade, while dialectic seeks to have victory in disputation (80). So while I was thinking of rhetoric, as an oral debate, it is actually what forms composition, oral or written and Cicero’s emphasis on eloquence also embraces realities that one forms hypotheses about, rather than dialectic universal questions not based in the realities of person, place, time. or cause.

Switching over to our readings in Matsen, we learn about the basic techniques of rhetoric formulating the basics of compositional techniques (251). Greek, Roman and Augustine. Myths, comparisons, narratives, comparisons, topics, paraphrasing, a counter statements and confirmation are some of the major elements of a successful composition. Whether a political speech, or a novel, persuasion is the center of the work.

Aphthonius of Antioch in the fourth century A.D. wrote a Progymnasmata in Byzantine times, later translated in the fifteenth century to become influential in the use of teaching composition based on rhetoric, including the following elements: fables; narratives; a reminiscence about a person; gnome, (declaratory statements urging onto something, or averting it); refutations; confirmations; Koinos Topos (amplifying inherent evils); Encommmium (inherent excellences); invectives; comparisons; Ethopoeia (an imitation of a proposed person); Elpharasis (descriptive composition, bringing things clearly into view); thesis (a logical examination of any matter under consideration, political and theoretical); and law (266-288).

Matsen’s next chapter is on style, part of a five point canon on rhetoric that included invention, arrangement, style, memory, and delivery. Written style might vary from oral and was acknowledged by authorities or critics such as Dionysius, Demetrius, Longinus and Hermogenes. Dionysius and Demetrius both wrote more about style used in oral speech, with an emphasis on sound.

Dionysius, who was born in Asia Minor but produced his life’s work in Rome described smooth sentences that are complete and euphonious, rhymic, exemplifying noble, splendid and free thought, while rough sentences were “unpolished, plain spoken, unembelished with archaism and the patina of age as it’s beauty (289).” He believed that the best rhetoric had both styles (289). He goes onto say to compare rhetoric with performing arts, describing it thus: “The science or oratory is a sort of music which differs quantitatively not qualitatively from the vocal and instrumental king; words too have their melody and rhythm, their variation and propriety, so kind; words too have their melody and rhythm, their variation and propriety, so that in oratory too the ear is delighted by melody, educed by rhythm, gratified by variety, and everywhere seeks what properly belongs (300). As I also have a degree in Art, specifically painting, I would have to say that many of the same principles apply to pleasing the eye with variation, unity, movement, transitions, texture built up and colors that bleed effortlessly into one another, drama created with contrast, etc.

Demetrius concluded that there were four styles: plain, elevated, elegant, and forceful (289). He embraced the criticisms of Cicero on styles that had faults but unlike Dionysius, felt that there was a place for spontaneity (289). He lived over a hundred years later than Dionysius and was an Athenian who wrote about plain and grand styles, while considering the other two to be intermediaries between the two (310). He writes about the importance of being concise and frequently is so in his writings (315). He equates it with force, vigor and energy. In his writings, he often employs such tools, for example, “It has already been said that the figure of abruptness has a forcible effect.” It was this abruptness that I found off putting, as my mind resisted embracing his words and I had to reread his works several times to begin to get the gist of his writing.

Longinus wrote on what made good writing, particularly evaluating inspiration, or greatness of thought (289). This made me wonder about whether inspiration and spontaneity were similar concepts? He was considered basically a father of innovative literary criticism (289). It is unknown if he is the Longinus of the third or first century, but some evidence to suggest that his works do go back to the first century, because of his words about government ad literature. I was very taken with his pronouncement that “great writing does not; it takes the reader out of himself (323).” Many times I have found my most memorable reading has been when I am transported to another life, another time or place, forgetting my own situation and being absorbed by another. The description of narration in Homer’s Odyssey being a byproduct of old age compared to the youthfully written action and energy being produced in Homer’s Iliad was also thought inducing, as I hope that I can write with vigor even though I have passed from youthfulness into late middle age. Does age really have to define one even in writing?

Hermogenes also examined what made writing good, looking in depth at the particular kinds of style and comparing them, which may have some links to Plato’s ideai or forms, as he looks at and subdivides seven styles in to twenty concepts of style (290). His seven styles included clarity, grandeur, beauty, rapidity, character, sincerity and force. Because order, metrics, cadence and rhythm have such an effect on composition, he goes onto classify style under the following headings, “which denote those factors through which a particular style is produced: thought, approach, diction, figures, clauses, word order, cadence and rhythm (339). For example, when I write in response to a literary work of fiction, I can close my eyes, block out specifics and respond to the memory, images and rhythm the work left me with in creative thought, prior to going back and picking out specific examples to further explain and delineate my arguments. Whereas, in this class, I find I have to pick out examples and record the highlights, before I can really think about what I have read, as it is so dense. My style of writing therefore becomes very different. That which is written from my thought prior to honing in on specifics is much stronger, as it has elements of beauty and grandeur that I can evoke through use of the five senses in presenting my thoughts. The way I find myself responding to this work gives me clarity, as doors are finally opened, which my mine wants to leave shut until I force myself to consider and consider again the information being presented. To make myself distinct, as Hermogenes describes distinction as a unique attribute of effective clarity (346-348), consider that I just do not get Matsen at first, but with repetition and familiarity, the words achieve meaning.

Going onto the actual readings for this week in Matsen, we have Augustine who lived from a.d.354-430 and was a teacher of rhetoric before embracing Christianity (360). He wrote about how to discover the truths in the bible and to express or teach what they have learned through Ciceronian principles: to teach, to delight, and to persuade (360). It is through rhetoric though that Faith can be taught, “to conciliate the hostile, to arouse the careless, and to inform those ignorant of the matter in hand, (362-363). Eloquence is teaching and persuasion must precede instruction, thus it becomes clear that to teach the Faith, the skills of rhetoric are necessary (366-367). Part of rhetoric is to please and part of Christianity is to be docile to God (370). Augustine became of the belief that prayer would help to achieve eloquence, as was God’s presence with us (370-372). Style may vary in modulation to achieve a pleasing quality, but are not worthy of use unless persuasion in achieved (374). Clarity, wisdom, truth has to be understood, regardless of the style, to be persuasive (374). It is the goodness of the speaker, as preachers of truth do no wrong, because “God is theirs, and to Him belong the words which they speak; and they make these, too, their own, though they were not able to compose them, if they compose their lives in accordance with them (378).” The power of prayer therefore renders an eloquent speaker, as the truth is told through God. Can God really make us all eloquent is we are true believers? Why do people even listen to non-believers or academics?













Works Cited


Conley, Thomas M. Rhetoric in the European Tradition. Chicago: The University
of Chicago Press, 1990. Print.

Matsen, Patricia P.; Rollinson, Philip; & Sousa, Marion. Reading from Classical
Rhetoric. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1990.