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!