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.