Research Essay #2

Katherine Lee 11106264

English 360, Section 1

October 24, 2011

Research Essay 2

Historical Alteration of Rhetoric

            The field of rhetoric, both in its oral and written form, is and has been constantly changing, which is emphasized in Patricia Bizzell’s The Rhetorical Tradition, Walter Ong’s The Orality of Lanugage, and represented within Peter Ramus’ From Arguments in Rhetoric Against Quintilian. The transition of oral rhetoric during the classical era to written work in the Renaissance era, have truly altered the world of rhetoric. Overall, the time period of the Renaissance, ranging from the fourteenth to the seventeenth centuries, is responsible for the more flexible influx of style and writing, which modern society is more accustomed to versus the oral traditions stemming from the classical and medieval time periods. As more academic scopes and ways of communication were being explored during the rise of the Renaissance, the stress upon the skill set of ancient oration and rhetoric lost its zeal, as writing became more paramount and more of an influential way to convey thought, feeling, and argument.

Historical writing is an enriching example of these said changes, and are examples of how culturally different time periods have altered rhetoric and its influence on the masses of people in society as a whole. Though the medieval time period, spanning for a thousand years, was a true introduction to the survival, as well as development of the world of rhetoric after the fall of Rome, the rise of the Renaissance was one of the most pivotal turning points for scholastic study as a whole. Society was transitioning from solely relying on oral speech to experimenting more with the production of written works. While the Roman Catholic Church was still a hugely deciding factor for many cultural aspects within medieval society, the emergence of the Renaissance during the fourteenth century until the seventeenth century changed the intellectual world entirely. Perhaps, the largest and most beneficial aspect in this alteration of language is “the relationship of study itself to writing,” because a given audience is able to retain words within a page, rather than focus upon the easily forgotten arguments made within oral rhetoric (Ong 8). It is also easily arguable that what is verbally spoken faces the threat of becoming lost in translation, contributing to the notion of an apophatic description, because “you cannot without serious and disabling distortion describe a primary phenomenon by starting with a subsequent secondary phenomenon and paring away the differences…you can never become aware of the real differences at all,” without the physical, written language, and this belief contributed to the decrease in the usage of oral rhetoric (Ong 13). The introduction of new scopes of rhetoric, including humanism, the salon society, and the stress on the importance of the written word, was becoming hugely popular (Bizzell 555). The Renaissance was designated entirely for discovering individual intellect, and there was a huge stray from the Roman Catholic Church, and “approaches to studying literature, history, and science” was developing (Bizzell 555). The broadening of human interests in various important topics is responsible for these great rhetorical shifts during the Renaissance period.

During this time period, the spread of Scholasticism, or the importance of divine truth and educational thinking, was fluctuating throughout Italy. The study of style and language was becoming far more important, as professions within areas of law and other notable subjects, required a higher, more realistic level of thinking. Rather, language and writing was becoming more sophisticated. Scholars, including Francis Bacon, demoted “rhetoric to a technical skill that will simply help the one who knows convey knowledge by scientific means,” and this ancient practice of persuasion and oration was seen as very limiting (Bizzell 575). As Walter Ong, author of The Orality of Language argues, “writing, commitment of the word to space, enlarges the potentiality of language almost beyond measure, restructures thought, and in the process converts a certain few dialects into ‘grapholects,’” or the shift into a “deep commitment to writing” (Ong 7-8). This emphasizes the importance of the written word, as societal conversions to a more humanist and fluid way of thinking was evolving through written rhetoric and societal events such as the salon society. The spread of Scholasticism, and its necessity for unearthing divine knowledge, impacted rhetoric, because orality was entirely elusive and inconsistent with true, factual evidence. This alone emphasizes the true change from the classical era’s ideas and usage of oral speech to convey an issue or argument. Since rhetoric was a more artistic style based off of one’s own general spoken thoughts, this field of oral intellect did not prosper well during the time period of the Renaissance. Because writers and orators were able to use a higher level intellectual thinking, this time period in many ways demoted rhetoric, because there was a higher necessity for a spread “in the generation of knowledge by scientific means,” rather than just speaking and writing based off of religious ideas or mere human thoughts (Bizzell 575). While rhetoric and the general, practiced style of argument from the classical and medieval eras was important in paving the way for the evolution of the written word, society was always interested in expanding the knowledge available to them, which is completely evident within the written texts derived from the Renaissance era.

Perhaps, the most interesting of writers to come from the Renaissance period was Peter Ramus, who strayed completely from the teachings of classicism, and questioned the orally based intellectual movement entirely. Ramus believed that “the ability to reason was innate in normal humans. One did not need to learn it from Aristotle or any other classical source,” which shows a huge difference in the world of rhetoric, which was once a field where the teachings of Aristotle and the like held a great deal of weight on the development of oration throughout history (Bizzell 675). Although the field of rhetoric during the Renaissance time period was still an area of study within the universities, it was seen more of a tool “consisting only of style and delivery,” as well as “style and delivery” based off of the morals of the speaker than a necessary area of study. Instead, the focus swayed to working on language as a whole, namely on the development of writing. Such is the case with Ramus’ ten topics of “causes, effects, subject, adjuncts, opposites, comparisons, names, divisions, definitions, and witnesses” in order to further oneself in the world of knowledge (Bizzell 676). Rhetoric then became more of an elementary area of intellect.

Ramus attempts to undermine the whole premise of rhetoric, as he clearly outlines in his Arguments in Rhetoric against Quintilian, which criticizes the works of Aristotle, Cicero, and Quintilian. Oral tradition seemed far from Peter Ramus’ good graces, as he states in his speech, “I wish that the scholars of rhetoric and dialectic would heed my advice and would sometimes think of the truth and usefulness of their subjects instead of tenaciously and obstinately quarreling over matters…” which emphasizes the lack of truth or validity to oral argument (Bizzell 682). Walter Ong also emphasizes that “the greatest awakening to the contrast between oral modes of thought and expression and written modes took place not in linguistics, descriptive or cultural, with in literary studies…” further supporting the notion that after the Classical Era, scholars were far more occupied in the study of writing (Ong 6).

In Arguments in Rhetoric against Quinitlian, Ramus also argues “Artistotle’s logic both lacked many virtues and abounded in faults. He left out many definitions and partitions of arguments; instead of one art of invention embracing the ten general topics…he created unfathomable darkness in his two books…” (Bizzell 681). Rather than being a time period that focused on the ideals of the medieval and ancient time periods, including the importance of oratorical skill, it inspired new, enlightened ways of thought; while “political oppression increasingly confined rhetoric to the study of style and to the declamatory rhetoric of the Second Sophistic,” Ramus focused on the importance of syllogism, eloquence, and syntax when developing actual written text (Bizzell 681-683). Ramus puts great stress upon the importance of being able to demonstrate oneself as a good dialectician, and to provide physical, written work, such as Walter Ong emphasizes within his essay. It can be concluded that during the time period of the Renaissance, it was becoming more of a foreign concept to focus on the classical teachings of rhetoric and to focus on more set rules of language in order to build a cohesive and strong argument. Arguments in Rhetoric Against Quintilian truly demonstrates the shift in intellectual importance that was occurring during the time of the Renaissance.

During this period of intellectual growth and scholarly pursuit, many of the classical teachings were being openly questioned, which shows a huge shift in attitude towards what was important in society during the classical and medieval eras, as rhetoric was completely losing importance with regards to orality. Ramus makes further claims within his Arguments in Rhetoric Against Quintilian, stating that Aristotle and Cicero believed “the stirring of emotions and passions” in order to appeal to a sort of moral philosophy, was what the practice of rhetoric emphasized (Bizzell 695). Because of the more definite stress upon structure as well as the use of proper language, artistic language during the Renaissance, such as that of Quintilian, Aristotle, or Cicero, was not viewed as something that was educational or even functional for the changing time period.

The Renaissance brought upon a huge shift in intellectual thinking, and the need for more educational basis for various theories and arguments was becoming more prevalent. As these new ideas and educational theories were spreading throughout Italy during the fourteenth century and onward, the humanist movement helped pave the way for writing to become more developed and socially important. Although the teachings of ancient rhetoric lost a great deal of zeal amongst Renaissance Italy, writing would not have been able to evolve into what it was becoming without the basis of the classical teachings. As texts and writing were becoming far more widespread, the whole scope of rhetoric was drastically changed. Linguistics itself evolved into an intellectual field that included far more than just the practice of orations. It allowed for new theories to be created, new intellectual processes to be examined, and d deeper, more sophisticated level of thinking, influencing the power of the written word, as oral speech lost its huge rhetorical power.