Science, Theology, and Rhetoric

What I find most interesting about this week's reading is how rhetoric has broken into different branches and starts to evolve to include theology and science; the precursor to separation of church and state? Prior to the Renaissance period, rhetoric focused primarily on speech and how the spoken language influenced people. But during this time, philosophers and rhetors have dissected this "art" into a science to include more than just the educated and privileged aristocrats. At the beginning of chapter five Conley states "...the conviction that knowledge ought to serve practical ends. Human learning ought to have some utility for life; education should instruct not only the intellect but also the will; and the only effective means of conveying truth is by persuasion and eloquent discussion, not by logical demonstration." (110). This seems to be the theme throughout the Renaissance. Logical demonstration was not the goal of rhetoric, but offering purpose to existence was.

During this time in history, there was a lot of conflict. In times of conflict, people look to leaders - who should be educated and well-versed - for guidance and support. Therefore, leaders looked to the old wise folks for guidance to influence and ease the public. It seems Quintilian and Cicero had the greatest influence for the rhetors of the Renaissance. The idea that the leaders looked to the ancients is found on pg. 113, "Most of those Florentines, who could by virtue of their education and standing call themselves 'humanists' were not just scholars but politically active men. Many of them were professional orators who were esteemed because they advocated a code of civic duty, gave education a genuine relevance to political life, and were themselves accomplished speakers, as close as could be imagined to Quintilian's vir bonus dicendi peritus."

But what I really see happening here is that the general public is being allowed an education. Elitism still exists, but it is not as prominent when it comes to education. "...a liberal education, the possession of technical skills that made the active life feasible, and good character" are things all men and women could attain (114). One did not have to be eloquent in order to be wise. As was discussed in class weeks past, what does it mean to be morally good and is a good orator steeped in morality? The impression I get is that Conley believes one cannot be morally good and be a politician at the same time. Evidence of this can be found on page 115, "...devoid of the requirement that the orator be a good man, in the moral sense. Rhetoric was, rather a pragmatic political art indifferent to morality."

As to what I said at the beginning of this blog, what interests me most is the inclusion of theology and science. Breaking something down into its simplest forms is what makes it so easy to understand. Looking at the parts of the whole (metonymy and synecdoche) and the relationships between parts (metaphor and irony) are what help the hearer/audience interpret the message. I think a good orator and morally right orator is one who can do this and have the audience understand what the message is. To be virtuous and true is to be able to talk to the audience. It shouldn't' t matter the discourse, the message should stay the same. That is where the oxymoron of a morally good politician is difficult to understand. When something is put in its simplest form, it is easy to understand, therefore, easy to argue. Eloquence does not get in the way of wisdom.

Augustine states in Matsen on pg. 372, "...although our teacher is necessarily the spokesman of great subjects, he need not necessarily always speak in grand style, but in a subdued manner when something is being explained, moderately when a thing is being criticised or commended; but when something ought to be done, and we are speaking to those who ought to do it, although they do not wish to, then the matter which is an important one, should be stated in the grand style, and in a manner adapted to move their hearts." To move the heart is the ultimate goal of rhetoric. How one goes about doing that is based on the discourse. Tone, inflection, vocabulary, etc. all play a role in moving the heart. But what I see as being true and virtuous is keeping the message the same no matter the audience.

So to sum up, rhetoric has transformed from the ancients, but the ancients have not been forgotten. They sometimes are not recognized or credited by the new philosophers and rhetors, but they have influenced the Renaissance period. Rhetoric transformed to include theology and science, but isn't the goal virtually the same?