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?