English 622: Classical Rhetoric

I know everyone tends to get down on Ramus for destroying (or seriously hampering) rhetoric. Typically, we claim that his version of rhetoric impoverishes the tradition for subsequent generations, up through the Current-Traditional rhetoric of the 1950s.

Reading through Chapter 9 of Kennedy, I was struck by how the Medieval rhetors seem to want to consolidate the classical rhetorical traditions into curricula and training rituals. The monks want to pick the best training methods for other monks, and teachers want to choose the best of the rhetorical tradition to help their students. It might be how Kennedy writes it, but I feel like in the Medieval Age, we really see some of the classical rhetoric being truncated and reduced according to the needs of students of different forms.

From reading of rhetoric in the Renaissance I can sense that social factors can exert great influences on rhetorical trends. This reminds me of the rhetorical trend in today’s America. From the texts I usually read, like New York Times and CNN web pages, I can see many political discussions or practical tips for how to live better (in terms of finance, health or marriage life, etc.) Even articles in the column of “opinions” are often politics-oriented. I wander if such trends are also the results of social changes.

When reading this week's chapters in Kennedy, I noticed that same old theme: the rise and fall and rise of the importance of rhetoric as a topic of study, and people worried that students can’t write. Rhetoric is one of the seven liberal arts, then it's reduced to a yoke between dialectic and grammar. Then since Charlemagne wanted his people to be more literate rhetoric gets more respect. Then it's back in the dumps until it makes a comeback in some of the Medieval universities in the 1300s.

In Christine de Pizan’s “The Treasure of the City of Ladies” I picked up on what I would describe as a pacifist rhetoric for women. For example, de Pizan makes statements that women should reply in a manner that will pacify those who previously had some grievance, rebellion, or quarrel in mind (546), and she also claims that “the good lady will wish to work to make peace” (547). What is interesting about these arguments is that she basically claims that men are incapable of such pacificist rhetoric “for they are by nature more courageous and more hot-headed” than women (547).

As I read this week, I could tell it was the end of the semester because my patience is really waning and poor Peter Ramus was the primary victim of my impatience. While I can see Rick’s point, that Ramus was loosening the bonds from the classics, I just felt like his piece was such a step back.

When reading Pisan, I was struck by her assertion, "the moral sciences, which the virtues, indeed, there is not the slighest doubt that moral education amends and enobles them [women]. How could anyone think or believe that whoever follows good teaching or doctrine is the worse for it" (545). It was interesting, and a bit dangerous I might add, to take such a stance as this regarding not only the education of women, but education in general. It was still a faux pas at this time to argue that anyone had a right to education, especially women.

The political advise that De Pizan offers in her text to women of means, and women who have access to power, was perhaps the most interesting aspect of her for me. In "How the good and wise princess will make every effort to restore peace between the prince and the barons if there is any discord" Pizan reminds the ladies that war is ugly and terrible, and that women often get the shortest end of the war stick. Therefore she advises the ladies on how to appeal to everyone present, and use her skills with words and persuasion to slow down the massacre. For example,

I may have to come back and revise this post, but I'm wondering specifically about all of the contextual stuff at this time. As I think our readings have suggested (and like usual maybe I missed something), it seems like the printing press, the protestant reformation and Ramus are all happening relatively around the same time. I do find it interesting that part of what comes out of the reformation is the idea that anyone can have a direct line to god and Ramus is arguing seems to me to amount to anyone's ability to do rhetoric.

I'm never sure exactly how to approach this part of the course. In the Renaissance, we see a sudden explosion of text as people begin casting off scholasticism and begin benefiting from the invention of the printing press. To me, the writers of this age seem to be struggling to come to terms with their newfound independence from the classics.