You know you've studied too much rhetoric when...

- Your lunchtime conversations involve complex debates about how Plato and Quintilian might respond to online writing courses

- You give advice to your friends beginning with, "Well, you see, Quintilian would say..."

- You get excited when you're having a conversation with someone, and you can actually quote Aristotle verbatim as a response

- You read sections of Cicero and think, "that's what she said!"

- Your MySpace messages consist of all the possible ways that Plato, Cicero, Quintilian, Foucault and David Bartholomae would all say "I disagree with you."

- You have a long, complicated answer when people ask, "what IS rhetoric, anyway?"

- You spend Thursday nights in a bar talking about what kind of beer Aristotle might have preferred

- You find yourself pondering how the world would be different if so many ancient texts hadn't been lost over the years

- You actually find yourself posting a blog like this one...*sigh*

Renaissance and you!

Renaissance rhetoric

Rhetoric during the renaissance was characterized for me by Peter Ramus. Ramus was a French humanist and logician. He didn’t care for the classical tradition and had a terrible knack for getting himself into trouble within the scholarly realm. Ramus, however, is not the focus of this post. He stands as a reference to a couple of ideas surrounding my ideas on the renaissance period.

The key idea behind this post is the erosion of the audience through the political structure in this time period. The majority of Europe was controlled by monarchies. Society was tiered in such a way that there were levels of importance among the citizenry. Each tier upward were more important than those below, both in respect and wealth (with few exceptions). The importance of this can be seen in the rhetoric that is produced. For example, Ramus believed that rhetoric was mere ornamentation, the ability to speak in a “pretty” manner. Why would he believe this? This “casting” of society led Ramus to have the impression that swaying the audience didn’t matter, since they had no say in how things were going to be done anyway.

Why did Ramus’ ideas on taking invention out of rhetoric have such an impact in his time?

What lasting impact on rhetoric did Ramus leave us with? What ideas of his are still existent in our society that boil up when talking about rhetoric with those who do not study it?

Are the social/political impacts on rhetoric more obvious during the medieval or renaissance period? The classical? Why?

Medieval R & Christianity

Education in medieval times was brought on by multiple factors all occurring at the same time. The division of the empire into two main parts pushed “barbarians” to invade Roman territory in search of resources needed for survival. While this was taking place, the Christian religion spread steadily through the state until it was made the official religion of the empire in 323 (Lanham 80). The transition to Christian society deteriorated classical learning institutions, wearing them down to a thread. Whatever teaching was being done was done so in Latin, which spread to Rome’s provinces before collapse.

The spread of Christianity across Europe brought with it and explosion of creativity. Non-Romance language speakers had to devote much greater effort to learn the forms and syntax and vocabulary of Latin. These apt pupils soon displayed their accomplishments through abundant composition. This “Christian” Latin had enriched the classical Latin literature (Lanham 80). Although Christian teachers recognized the usefulness of classical analytics, the pagan nature of the material made many weary of adopting it. St. Augustine demonstrated how to bend these classical pagan ideas to serve Christian purposes. In the ninth century, Charlemagne ordered the founding of schools to improve the education of clerics and the Latinity of documents (Lanham 81). Though war continued after Charlemagne’s death, foundations for lasting education and schools had been established.



Prior to professional education, entrenchment within the Bible taught people style and arrangement, most often before they learned to read or write. Oral recitation of the Psalms, as with Dhuoda (who wrote a handbook of moral instruction for her teenage son), taught sentence structure, ornamentation, and stylistic devices through imitation. This prepared those entering the academic arena by already providing them with useful tools to use for the rest of their education.






Why don’t we see a continuance of sophistic ideas with the spread of Christianity and the revival of education?



(98) Given Quintilian’s edict on memorizing syllables and the Christian idea of meditation over scripture, what is the purpose of memory in medieval rhetoric?



(100)With poetry's central position in educaton, how did they impact Latin prose?

Still, more Cicero

Once again, Cicero is taught most often throughout this time period. I was happy to learn that during the Renaissance teachers wanted to bring back Greek and early Roman rhetorical studies.

I was surprised that the classical ideas of rhetoric spread to the Jewish community in Italy. After all, they were oppressed and basically kept out of schools so I expected that they would have roughly the same amount of opportunities as the women. Eventually this introduction mentions women involves with rhetoric, but they could not do much more than just learn some of the basics. Once women were married they were confined to the home. Also, the education they received was slightly different than that of the boys.

Agricola’s work seemed like it would have been used quote frequently during our time. From the description is sounded like a cliff-note version of how to practice rhetoric. The Greeks or Romans never came across as lazy in their writing so it is interesting that since the Renaissance rhetoricians based a lot of their teachings off of Greeks and Romans that they might be making shortcuts. I’m not saying that Agricola is advocating for laziness, that section just brought a few questions to mind.

Although history is inevitable, I was disappointed when I started reading about science taking the place of rhetoric. In the very beginning of the introduction it states, “by the end of the period, people who were post interested in the power of language seemed most eager to rid this power of any taint of eloquence” (556). The discovery of science was unavoidable but it is unfortunate that finding answers through speaking or oratory skills were looked down upon.

Questions:

If rhetoric was just as important today as it was during the early Renaissance and was taught to the same extent, what would be different about our society? About our politics? About Oregon State University?

During the Renaissance Cicero was commonly taught to students; is he your top choice to teach your students of rhetoric? Why or why not? Why do you think Cicero was thought to be one of the best rhetoricians to learn about during the Renaissance?

How is Copia important for writing today? Is this something teachers should still focus on?

Which politician would Erasmus support? Why?

What do you think Ramus would have said about Obama and his rhetoric?

A Day in the Life of Renaissance Education, or "They liked Quintilian during the Renaissance, too!"

The Renaissance saw many changes in education from Medieval times. Not only was technology advancing (what with the Gutenberg’s printing press and all), but scientific thinking was becoming more enlightened. And even though the Church had a commanding presence over education and politics, it does not seem to be as harsh as it had been during the Medievalist period (well, except for that slaughter of protestants…). Still, because of the rise of scientific thought, intellectuals were beginning to look back at the classical works, particularly of Cicero and Quintilian, and recognizing their worth in a progressive system of learning.

What did this mean for students, then? Well, I was going to offer a “schedule” of possible events, but Murphy beat me to it! Still. I’ll do my best to differentiate myself from what he has written.

If you were a youngster in these days, say younger than seven, you would be attending a “petty” or “elementarie” school (Murphy 149) – reading, writing, singing, and just plain having fun. Sounds nice. Did they have these in Greco-Roman days? Or was this a product of the Renaissance? Murphy notes that an important emphasis was placed upon reading and writing even at this young age, and I’m wondering if this is when children would learn to trace letters (as Quintilian notes) to best understand what they are supposed to look like.

For older children, ages seven to fifteen, their days of singing and playing were replaced by the challenge of imitating prior writers. Much of the exercises that they would do mirrored what earlier rhetoricians called the progymnasmata (remember that from our midterm?). Notice especially in the schedules that Murphy offers that students were being lectured on Aesop’s Fables (imitating “fables” was one of the progymnasmata exercises), repeating prior work, and writing out the catechism in English (150).

The latter of these exercises, I believe, marks the profound difference between Renaissance and Medieval rhetoric. While Medievalists, such as Augustine and Jerome, believed that classical works were “salacious” and were a distraction from studying the Scriptures, Renaissance theorists had a more progressive outlook, and combined the study of classical rhetoric and religious teachings. This is emphasized in Murphy’s chapter when he cites that both Cicero and the Bible would be studied on the same day, much in the same way – thus showing how Renaissance education was becoming (however slowly) more tolerant.



Q. What’s missing in Renaissance rhetoric that was there in Medieval rhetoric?

Q. Murphy recalls the belief that “Cicero is first among the ancients” (158) in regards to what deserves to be imitated. But, given the fact that many of Cicero’s thoughts are derived from his Greek predecessors, do you believe that this is a legitimate honor to be bestowed upon him?

WR 493 Behind the Rhetoric: The Ciceronian Comeback Tour

Bizzell and Herzberg really missed their chance to be cool by passing on the opportunity to end the “Arts of Letter Writing and Preaching” section after the first sentence: “Letter writing hardly seems important enough today to merit a separate discipline” (444). Way to sell out to the scholars by passing on the comedy option, B&H.

Maybe that selling out is just very clever commentary, though. After all, my previous scope knowledge of the middle ages admittedly didn’t extend far beyond the time’s inundation with religion, an understanding of rhetoric marked by painful memories of reading Chaucer, and Monty Python and the Holy Grail. I was surprised to learn that in a time period known for its entrenchment in theocracy, logic and knowledge were still highly valued, and in the 12th century logic was even considered “the most important subject of study” (443). As has been pointed out many times already, this particular time period really, really loves Cicero—impressive, considering that it spans a thousand years.

However, it seems that early on—200s C.E. or so—the rhetorical pedagogy was more focused on emotions than knowledge and logic; Origen, a Christian teacher, developed sermon that “employed colloquial, emotional language to move the audience to understand and apply this meaning in their lives” (432). It is remarkable, then, that the Christian concept of faith and “how it is achieved or induced” moved within the next 200 years to become the subject of more logical examination, as it “was influenced by Greek rhetorical concepts of persuasion” (433). Maybe analyzing religion in this way contributed to its success, as it was shown to have each social, governmental, and scholarly merit, appealing to those moved to action by emotion and those moved by logical, technical argument.

The emphasis on Martianus’ seven necessary branches of education reflects Cicero’s importance in the Middle Ages, as they focus on linguistic, mathematical, and scientific studies alike (435). Isidore mimics Cicero’s and Quintilian’s writings about the definition of rhetoric, here too designated as “the science of speaking well: it is a flow of eloquence on civil questions whose purpose is to persuade men to do what is just and good…. The orator is the good man skilled in speaking” (436). This idea has endured now for thousands of years, and shows how those skilled in speaking are often respectable figures upon whom we may look with admiration. It is clear from the historical accounts in this section that rhetoric and its various pedagogies are of timeless importance.

In defense of the art of rhetoric—and as an aside, I can’t help but notice that rhetoric is almost exclusively referred to as an art when put in such terms at all—Alcuin, who was appointed to direct Charlemagne’s “palace of education,” defended the continued teaching of rhetoric with treatises to the Emperor of the West that drew “heavily on Cicero” and “[stress] the civic usefulness of rhetoric, especially for the conduct of government” (437-438). Rhetoric has long been identified as an essential and valuable art in relation to the upkeep of society, and as such even its aspects that are seemingly incongruent with the abstract or unproven parts of Christianity or faith-based religion in general have been shown to be applicable to those parts.

Rhetoric transcends the individual writings and teachings of influential rhetoricians; it has shown to be influential to the efficacy of most or all things where communication is essential. B&H were right to continue their examination of letter writing, as it, too, may be shown to be or have been important in society.

Second Blog for Tuesday

I wrote about the Renaissance.  I think I am supposed to write about the Middle Ages.  I'll cover some of this in class tomorrow, so I am not entirely sure what to say.

Most of the questions I pose below still stand.

I am not entirely sure what to say, since records are so scarce.  Murphy focuses on what little there is -- mainly the teaching of poetry and prose.  He looks at specific exercises, which is cool, but otherwise the information mirrors our other textbook.

Ramble On

I found it really interesting in our reading about how the university classes were taught in two different styles: the lecture and the debate. For a time when rhetoric was supposedly being put on the back-burner, I found it compelling that the debate (which sounded as described like a pretty exciting and involved discussion between teachers and students) is prevalent as a major teaching style. This is probably underlined by the fact that debate isn't very common at all in the education system as far as I can tell. Sure, we have class discussions all of the time, but a heated series of questions and answers? Sounds like fun. And like rhetoric.

I know, I know—dialectic is more like the question and answer theory than anything else, but Aristotle did say that rhetoric is the counterpart to dialectic. Because dialectic is also mentioned as an important part of medieval learning, it seems that perhaps they can be similar for the period. B&H regularly say that rhetoric is on the losing side for a while. In fact, I accidentally read the introduction to the renaissance rhetoric first, and in that section, rhetoric is having an even rougher time, being treated more and more like a science, and grouped as unimportant beyond certain practical applications.

I guess my question is, if I actually have to have a question at all, what did rhetoric ever do to deserve such treatment? Beyond that, what brought it back? The denouncement of classical ideas in a 'civilized' medieval period is no secret, even though, as mentioned by one of our peers, they denounced ideas then adopted them at the same time.

Back to the university thing, it was really interesting to imagine these class debates on whatever the issue would be, and to think about how, no doubt, especially studious learners would go home and try to find some really great ways to get others on their side or make especially potent remarks to the teacher or a peer. It makes me think that an open debate class would be especially fun, considering that an open sort of debate is pretty much key to most human interaction. Let's face it, when love to argue with each other.

And yes, I think all of my blog titles will be wittily applied Led Zepplin song titles.

Letter Writing, Italian Irishmen, and the Blog that Won't Paste

I'd like to begin my entry by noting that I had no idea that Saint Patrick was a Roman--this led me to realize that the last day of class for me this term is St. Patrick's Day, and, as I've mostly Italian blood flowing through me, I have more and more reasons for celebration on Monday the 17th.  

I have to wonder how education (certainly, the study of rhetoric) would be different today if more texts were preserved during--this is for Natasha--the Dark Ages.  Although I'm not so well informed that i can make any certain claims, I think the contemporary classroom may not be what it is today--perhaps based more on grammar and dialectic structures.  Would health education be different than it is today, considering the way in which classical rhetoricians held athleticism so high?

The section addressing the rise of the university in the 1200s made me wonder whether 800 years is not such a long time, or if we--Western society?  Humans?--are simply unable to rethink the structure of the university.  Could it be argued that our system is ideal, in spite of the humans rights violations and environmental damage taking place around the world?  I don't know.  Perhaps change is slow.  I surely don't have many answers.  B&H outline what appear to be the earliest teaching licenses and the division of secular studies within the university system, and it is all surprisingly familiar (442-3).  I wouldn't have thought such developments took place in the 1200s, and perhaps they disappear in Europe before they reemerge later in Western schools.

B&H note that "the rhetorical art of letter writing would become a formal discipline in the later Middle Ages" (435), and they revisit the subject at the end of the introduction.  I was surprised (sure, again) that a model letter was found that informed an abused wife on how to obtain assurances from an abusive husband (444).  This is interesting to me because letter writing seems to be a lost art, at least in the modern comp. classroom.  I think it has been replaced by, perhaps, How to Write a Good Business Letter, or How to Write a Professional E-mail, and this may be a natural and necessary evolution.  But, in a rare moment of feeling "old-fashioned," I have to say that I appreciate a well-crafted letter and believe/hope it still has a place in the world and in our classrooms.  Whether or not it was a great use of our time I suppose could be debated, but I included letter-writing units in my 9th- and 11th-grade classrooms, both personal and professional letters, and sent them out from the high school's main office.  (I brought the office staff doughnuts after they refused to let me help stamp the 100-plus letters.)  Students were excited when they received responses and I had to remind them that, yes, you may send letters on your own time to anyone you'd like.  And, no, I can't stop you from saying anything in those letters you write and send from home. 

Blog for Tuesday (anti-procrastination)

Murphy.  Chapter 5.  Renaissance Rhetoric and Writing.

This is early, but I was in the mood for a little more history.  I'm hoping I'm doing this assignment correctly; I may be editing this post later.

I love reading about historical pedagogy.  It is my favorite part of books dealing with Shakespeare.  This might be my favorite Murphy chapter.  Reminds me once again that I'm glad to live now -- in the first place, I have access to education; in the second place, I don't have to come up with 200 different ways to write something like "it's nice to hear from you."

Questions:

146: Murphy points out that rhetoric was was often over shadowed by philosophy and theology.  What is the difference?  Is there truly a difference between rhetoric and philosophy?  As we have seen, ancient philosophers certainly discussed the nature of rhetoric.

147: The Renaissance had access to texts people of the medieval era did not.  How might medieval rhetoric and/or education been different with access to these texts?  Since the Church Fathers often had difficulties reconciling pagan and Christian thought, would having access to, say, Cicero, made a difference?

155: What must writing instruction be like during a time when (English) spelling and grammar rules were not yet completely in place?  What was it like learning Latin grammar in such a situation? 

160: What sorts of "little speeches" have you/we picked up in out late twentieth/early twenty-first education?  Are these the sorts of figures Plato railed against?

168: Murphy says girls were educated for the private life, boys for the public.  The idea of the public and private spheres arose out of the late twentieth century.  Can we really claim Renaissance women only moved in the private (home) sphere when many worked in businesses and participated in the marketplace?  Or should a local economy be considered the private sphere?  Moreover, Murphy quotes Margaret King that women were educated to go nowhere and do nothing.  Humanists saw educated women as a vital part of Christianity -- and of educating others (children).  Would the patriarchy really expend resources to educate women if they were truly meant to do nothing with it?  And isn't it sort of a patriarchal notice to suggest that this (masculine)(grammar school/Jesuit school) education was the only kind worth having?  

--Natasha

Brethren, let us fail to give up our Cicero.

The Christian middle ages definitely had a love-hate relationship with classical learning. I was surprised, though, once I thought about it, how slowly a rhetoric of preaching had developed (see 444-445). I get how the medievals may’ve seen Roman rhetoric as a little bit irrelevant since, as Bizzell and Herzberg say, Roman law courts had disappeared (441). Probably all law courts had disappeared. But one would think more Christian leaders would have run with what Augustine came up with in regards to the art of preaching. All they had to do was take the insights of Cicero and Quintilian (though they didn’t have Cicero’s De Oratore) and adapt them to the new context of preaching. But I guess that’s easier said than done, especially due to the general political and therefore cultural instability of the time.

I was fascinated by the point that VTB mentioned in class and B&H mention here: Kinneavy’s thesis that “the Christian concept of faith – what kind of a belief it is and how it is achieved or induced – was influenced by the Greek rhetorical concepts of persuasion” (433). B&H don’t elaborate, but I assume they’re talking about the Greek verb pistis as “being persuaded or convinced.” “Faith” certainly has more emotional and psychological, as well as intellectual, connotations as “being persuaded.” Anyway, I’m curious to look into Kenneavy’s evidence.

I was also interested in how Cassiodorus placed rhetoric before dialectic, in his conception of the seven liberal arts (436). Like Martainus, he nudges rhetoric over to the English department, so to speak, and gives dialectic – presumably a more “substantial” art – over to the Philosophy department.

That’s one thing I noticed in reading this introduction: dialectic keep drifting or being deliberately pushed apart. The trivium placed them together in regular succession with grammar (grammar, dialectic, rhetoric). But many medieval scholars keep separating them. B&H point out R.R. Bolgar’s theory that the 12^th century renaissance would have flourish even more had not scholasticism come along, because scholasticism “elevated dialectic and generally subordinated grammar, rhetoric, and classical studies as mere preliminaries” (440-441). I think this might also be due to a split between theologians and pastors/priests. The former were focused on learning divine truths via theology, but very little on conveying those truths to the illiterate laity. The latter wanted to compose and speak their homilies well, in order to build up their flocks. But they had little cultural power. The average Christian didn’t study theology, let alone read the Bible. So there would’ve been a big gulf between the dialectic of the theologians and the rhetoric of the priests/pastors.

Jerome’s fevered dream is pretty funny. What a thing to worry about: being more Ciceronian than Christian. But it was a serious thing. Maybe if we remember how tenuous the Christian tradition was during the “dark” ages, it’s easier to see how people worried about whether and how much to listen to the classical take on things.

But I did love the line, “Yet even Jerome ultimately failed to give up his Cicero” (433). May we be found worthy to do the same. Amen!

Paradoxes in Medieval Rhetoric

In reading this introduction, I feel that there are many paradoxes in Medievalist thinking. What first strikes me is the loss of Greco-Roman philosophy and rhetoric because of its "salacious" (433) nature (was there something scandalous that I missed in my reading?). Jerome, for example, feels ashamed for studying Cicero because it does not align with Christian teachings; it is almost as if he views learning the Classics as a distraction from the "real" teachings of the Scriptures. This is where the paradox begins: although the Church has denounced the teachings of Greco-Roman scholars, many of the same ideals that those former scholars taught were revised and implemented in the teachings of the Church.

For example, Bizzell and Herzberg tell us that "what was known of classical rhetoric was generally known from extremely brief and schematic digests prepared by Church scholars or approved classical authors" (435). Then we find out that Martianus Capella produced a text that promoted the seven branches of liberal arts: grammar, dialectic, rhetoric, geometry, arithmetic, astronomy, and music (435). Is it odd, then, to note that these are primarily metiers studied by the ancient Greeks and Romans? (Seriously, if you had the power to pick and choose what you wanted people to learn from a particularly "scandalous" culture, would you modify and then reiterate what they had said? Hmm)

Furthermore, in the early stages of university learning, classes would be conducted in either lecture- or debate-format. The latter sounds a derivative of Plato, in which learning was achieved through conversation. We see this in his works through dialogue with another speaker. If a school (university) is being sponsored by the Church, why then might they have placed an important emphasis on Platonic learning by debating and attacking syllogisms? Doesn't this seem contradictory to the teachings they are striving to profess?

Delicious History

Intro to Med Rhet: 429-49; Intro to Augustine 450-54.

The rhetoric of the Med Rhet introduction is quite intriguing and worth analyzing on its own.  

Firstly, I spotted three minor errors (and there are probably more):  The authors use the term "Dark Ages" (434) without pointing out that no serious scholar uses that term anymore; the authors refer to dialectic as part of the trivium (435) -- I've never heard that term; I've only seen it as "logic"; the authors refer to the Battle of Tours (437), which is often more commonly referred to as the Battle of Poitiers.  At any rate, none of these usages are "wrong" per se, they just come across as very strange choices, especially for a high level college class.

The most striking thing about this introduction is just how teleological it is.  Like the use of the phrase "Dark Ages," this is very surprising to see in this sort of textbook.  Compared to life in modern America, life in the European Middle Ages was not great.  (An oft repeated phrase from that Renaissance thinker Thomas Hobbes comes to mind: life was "nasty, brutish, and short.")(But as our book points out, the thinkers of the Renaissance wanted to dissociate themselves from the previous centuries; this line of thinking was carried on by the Victorians.)

But to just focus on nothing but wars and such seems. . .dishonest.  As if the authors are going out of their way to show just horrible awful terrible life was -- the Greeks and Romans were great, the Renaissance was great -- but the time in-between -- awful, awful.  And the textbook does not do a good job providing links.  Sure, it lists what texts were used.  But even as the Christians derided pagan thought, they continued several rhetorical traditions -- namely, appealing to older/ancient sources and the idea that invention was not exactly about coming up with a new thought.  The medieval rhetoricians remained very Roman in this way.  Even Chaucer, at the cusp of the Renaissance, does this.  And even Shakespeare, firmly in the Renaissance, does it too.

Oddly, the authors do not use the term "Carolingian Renaissance."  They discuss it (437), yes.  They mention the "renaissance of the twelfth century" (438) -- another phrase I have never heard.  Strange.

Also, at the bottom of 445 and top of 446, the authors mention several women "religious."  However, Julian of Norwich and Margery Kempe were both lay women; they were not actually part of a convent or anything.  Also, their rhetorical tradition is a bit different from Hildegard's -- Julian and Margery were part of the mystic movement.

Edited to Add:  Oops, I was wrong about Julian .  She was an anchoress.

Meanwhile, Augustine.  I read his Confessions several years ago.  He mentions that Ambrose read silently -- and how weird this was.  It seems like an important thing for our textbook to mention.  Not only did our Classical authors compose out loud, and memorize -- they read out loud.  Everything.  Though, I find it strange this is not brought up much overall.  I did not learn that reading out loud was common until my final year of undergrad.

The moral of the story seems to be: question all textbooks.

--Natasha, BA English, BA Medieval and Renaissance Studies

Intro to Medieval Rhetoric

Somehow it doesn’t surprise me that Cicero was celebrated more so than any of the other rhetoricians from the classical time period. Every once in a while Quintilian or Aristotle are mentioned, but it seemed like whenever rhetoric was being taught, Cicero was at the center of the teachings. Jerome even dreams that he is too “Ciceronian” and he isn’t Christian enough. (I’m guessing they were slightly obsessed with Cicero.) After this dream he decides to “rely solely on the Bible and Christian commentary” (433) but it doesn’t end up working out for him. Augustine used his “Ciceronianism” to his advantage to study the Bible – something his mother also did.

Good thing the cathedrals started supporting grammar schools and not just song schools. (Imagine going to college to learn how to sing?) These schools studied seven basic subjects of the liberal arts.

In the twelfth century, students “were then encouraged to memorize and declaim the texts so analyzed, as well as to compose and declaim their own compositions in imitation of them” (440). This sounds a lot like what the Roman’s had their students do. Eloquence was also an important study – something from Cicero (and Quintilian).

Probably the most surprising piece of information from this introduction is the fact that schools weren’t just for the upper class. A lot more middle-class citizens were privileged enough to attend the same school which made the classroom more diverse than it was before. Also, of the seven subjects taught, the mathematical ones “tended to be neglected or omitted altogether at the university level; while of the three language-based arts, dialectic was dominant and regarded as the only ‘adult’ subject” (443). I wish it was still like that. It’s kind of strange to think about mathematical skills are usually valued more in our culture today than literary skills. Personally, I never liked math so I wouldn’t have minded if that part of my curriculum had been abolished growing up.