As I was reading through St. Augustine’s text for this week, I could not help but notice that a lot of the main points Augustine was making in Book IV were continuations on many of the same themes we have been reading about and discussing throughout the semester. First, like Aristotle, there is the idea that rhetoric is neither naturally good nor naturally bad. As Augustine points out, “[s]ince rhetoric is used to give conviction to both truth and falsehood, who could dare to maintain that truth, which depends on us for its defense, should stand unarmed in the fight against falsehood” (101). In other words, the use of rhetoric once again points back in some fashion to orator’s purpose and can be used to for either good or bad purposes, immoral or moral actions, and can also be used to persuade people into accepting falsehoods.
The second aspect of Augustine’s text that I noticed was a continuation and slight alteration on how to provide Rhetorical training or how one should learn to use rhetoric or speak eloquently; which is a topic often addressed by Plato, Isocrates, Aristotle, and Quintillian last week . According to Augustine, “eloquence is picked up more readily by those who read and listen to the words of the eloquent than by those who follow the rules of eloquence … even those who have learnt the rules and speak fluently and stylishly are not all able to consider them as they speak in order to make sure that they are following them” (102-103). In other words, like Quitillian, imitation plays a large part in Augustine’s rhetorical training when it comes to eloquence because anyone can study the rules of rhetoric, but not everyone who studies rhetoric will be able to deliver their speeches with eloquence.
The third aspect of Augustine’s text that I noticed was a continuation of the discussion regarding the purpose and aim of rhetoric. It seems that there is somewhat of a cross over in Augustine’s theory where a true orator possesses both wisdom and eloquence. As Augustine points out, “those who believed in teaching the art of rhetoric; wisdom without eloquence was of little value to society but that eloquence without wisdom was generally speaking a great nuisance, and never beneficial” (104). In other words, an orator must be able to speak well, but what the orator says must be found through wisdom, which seems like a cross between Plato, Aristotle, and Cicero. Then there is the aim or goal of rhetoric. According to Augustine, “[t]he general function of eloquence, … is to speak in a manner fitted to persuade, and the aim is to persuade people, by speaking, of what you are trying to put over; so in any of these three styles the eloquent speaker speaks in a manner fitted to persuade, and if he fails to persuade he has not achieved the aim of his eloquence” (140). Which may mean, according to Augustine, that if a clergyman cannot persuade his followers to accept the “truth” of God, than the orator has failed and may have even failed God.