Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
KAROLINUM
Ji Kraus
Reviewed by:
PhDr. Svtla mejrkov, DrSc.
Mgr. Ji Luke, Th.D.
Published by Charles University in Prague
Karolinum Press
English translation by Petra Key
Editor Martin Janeek
Cover and layout by Zdenk Ziegler
Typeset by Karolinum Press
First English edition
Charles University in Prague, 2014
Ji Kraus, 2014
Translation Petra Key, 2014
ISBN 978-80-246-2215-6
ISBN 978-80-246-2588-1 (online : pdf)
CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................ 9
History of Rhetoric A Motionless History? ..................................................... 9
1. THE ORIGIN OF RHETORIC IN ANCIENT GREECE ............................................ 24
The Search for Techn ...................................................................................... 24
Protagorass Agonistic Rhetoric ........................................................................ 29
First Teachers ................................................................................................... 31
Ancient Rhetoric as a Model of Persuasive Communication .............................. 33
Platos Unending Dispute with Rhetoric ........................................................... 34
Isocratess Programme of Rhetoric in Service of Political Culture ...................... 38
Aristotle as Ancient Rhetorics Pinnacle ............................................................. 41
On the Art of Persuasion in Rhetoric to Alexander ................................................ 47
2. HELLENISTIC AND ROMAN RHETORIC .................................................... 50
The Birth of Hellenistic Philology ..................................................................... 50
Rhetorical Instruction in the Hellenistic Period ................................................ 54
Hermagoras of Temnos and the Stasis Theory .................................................... 56
Rhetoric in Ancient Rome ................................................................................. 60
Rhetorica ad Herennium (Ad C. Herennium de ratione dicendi libri quattuor) ............ 61
Ciceros Perfect Orator as a Citizen, an Advocate of Law and a Politician .......... 65
Quintillians Institutes of Oratory ......................................................................... 70
Pliny the Younger and Tacitus on the Role of Rhetoric
in Imperial Rome ........................................................................................ 73
The Second Sophistic and Hermogeness Rhetoric as a Stasis System ................. 77
3. RHETORIC AND MEDIEVAL CHRISTIAN CULTURE .................................. 84
Rhetoric and the Seven Liberal Arts Allegory in Martianus Capella ................... 93
Augustine of Hippo Preacher, Rhetorician, Polemicist ................................... 94
Topica Boethii Rhetoric in Service of Dialectics ................................................ 99
Cassiodoruss Encyclopaedic View of the Christian World ................................. 102
Isidore of Seville and the Origin of Scholastic Education .................................. 104
Rhetoric as Part of Grammar: The Venerable Bede ............................................ 105
Alcuin of York: a Teacher of Wisdom and Eloquence ........................................ 107
Artes Praedicandi: The Art of Preaching in the Middle Ages .............................. 108
Artes Dictaminis: The Art of Rhetorics New Face .............................................. 114
Artes Poetriae: Theory and Practice of Written Discourse .................................. 122
Rhetoric in Medieval Byzantium ....................................................................... 130
Jungmanns Slovesnost as Rhetoric for Readers Edification and Taste ................. 213
9. RHETORIC IN THE 20TH CENTURY ............................................................ 217
Rhetoric Inspiration for Language, Literary and Philosophical Discourses ..... 220
Rhetoric in the United States against Barriers in Communication ..................... 222
Rhetoric since the Mid-20th Century in Germany and Austria ............................ 227
Theory of Argumentation in the Work of Chaim Perelman
and Stephen Toulmin .................................................................................. 229
Rhetoric in the Second Half of the 20th Century in Romance Countries ............. 231
10. OTHER RHETORICAL THEORIES AND OTHER CULTURES .................... 235
EPILOGUE ....................................................................................................... 251
NOTES ............................................................................................................. 252
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY ........................................................................... 255
NAME INDEX .................................................................................................. 264
INTRODUCTION
Introduction
/10/
/11/
tion. Philosophy, science, school and, last but not least, the legal systems
which have since the 17th century in most European countries gradually
replaced direct confrontation between the plaintiff and the defendant with
an elaborate system of evidence procedure, have changed their rational and
evaluation attitudes towards rhetoric. The identification of 14th16th-century humanist principles with rhetoric is simultaneously being replaced by
rationalist efforts to free the thinking subject from the hindrances laid in
the path of the processes of cognition and communication by the metaphorical languages of rhetoric and rhetorical argumentation open to various
conceits. It is these hindrances that Francis Bacon, Baron Verulam, had in
mind when he warned against the idols of the marketplace arising from the
intercourse and association of men with each other. In his introductory
narrative to the Discourse on the Method, Ren Descartes denies that rhetoric
should have any role in the education of ayoung man or in the process of
arriving at the truth:
I placed a great value on eloquence, and I was in love with poetry,
but Ithought that both of them were gifts given to the mind rather than
fruits of study. Those who have the most powerful reasoning and who direct
their thoughts best in order to make them clear and intelligible can always
convince us best of what they are proposing, even if they speak only the
language of Lower Brittany [language of uneducated people, JK] and have
never learned rhetoric. And those who possess the most pleasant creative
talents and who know how to express them with the most adornment and
smoothness cannot help being the best poets, even though the art of poetry
is unknown to them.2 Descartes statement is an anticipation of the revolt
represented by romanticism in art one hundred years later, arevolt directed
against the binding norms of discourse which can be memorized, against
the norms which tie down the originality and unique character of an individual and his style.
The relationship between rhetoric and philosophy in particular was subject not only to numerous antagonisms throughout the course of history,
but it also experienced transformations in how it was regarded by society.
Henri-Irne Marrou, aFrench historian focusing on European education,
characterized its beginnings in this way: The study of rhetoric dominant in
all western cultures until that time had begun as the core of ancient Greek
education and culture. In ancient Greece, the study of philosophy, represented by Socrates, Plato and Aristotle, for all its subsequent fecundity, was
arelatively minor element in the total Greek culture, never competitive with
Introduction
/12/
/13/
Introduction
/14/
/15/
Introduction
/16/
conditions also include the personality of the orator (his knowledge, experience, talent, psyche, moral qualities), the nature of the audience, the system
of language and argumentation means the speaker has at his disposal and,
last but not least, functional and thematic differences between individual
types of speech, be they to inform (docere) or amuse (delectare) the listener
and thus inspire an action or aparticular stance (movere).
Ancient society perceived rhetoric primarily as an art (techn in Greek, ars
in Latin) which taught, according to asystematic set of rules or based on an
imitation of classical models (mimsis, imitatio), everyone, even those who
were not endowed with anatural talent for speech-making, to be successful
in expressing their opinions in agiven situation, whether at an advisory
assembly, in court or on other occasions. The dominant position of rhetoric in the education of acitizen as afundamental part of ancient cultural
heritage, however, also places the system of rhetorical knowledge not only
among practical skills, but also among scientific disciplines. From its very
outset, rhetoric acted as techn, experience acquired through practice, and
empeiria, routine, but also as an important element in the effort to learn
about and explain reality as epistm, scientia. That ranked it, along with
grammar and logic (dialectics), among the necessary preconditions for the
study of philosophy and, later, theology. Quintilian characterized rhetoric
as bene dicendi scientia (further specifying ad persuadendum accommodare dicere), that is, as apurpose to speak in order to persuade. The word bene,
meaning well, expresses arelatively free choice of stylistic means, compared to grammar, where the adverb recte, correctly, in the definition recte
dicendi scientia, clearly aims at the criterion of language correctness: without
stylistic and rhetorical licenses. Unlike other scientific disciplines, rhetoric
was closer to the sphere of practical activities; it did not only focus on adidactically oriented description and explanation of its main components:
language correctness, style, methods of logical argumentation, psychology
of the speaker and listeners, etc., but also on contemplation and practical
instruction. These were related to many things, including the method of
teaching rhetorical skills, the ethics of persuasion, cultivating political and
judicial practice.
An effort to explain what rhetoric in fact includes, what is the scope of its
knowledge and what is its purpose within the former system of basic liberal
arts (trivium), does not always lead to univocal results. This is primarily due
to the changeability of rhetoric in periods of social development, from its
outset in the ancient polis to the present day. In antiquity, in the medieval
/17/
educational system and, with even more intensity, in the spiritual life of the
European Renaissance, rhetoric was acentral element in the education of
ayoung man and future intellectual, it assumed aprominent position in the
theory and practice of preaching and also served as akey to interpreting
biblical texts and fiction. It was Cartesian philosophy and, in the arts, the
romantics revolt against the binding norms of the style of the time that
brought about its decline and later its almost complete demise.
There are several other reasons why it is difficult to define the content
and meaning of rhetoric more precisely. Their source must be sought in
the controversies surrounding the ethical qualification, and often also disqualification, of the discipline which, rather than striving for truthfulness,
focused on the probable and trustworthy in the communicated matter, on
the orators artistry in being able to take advantage of the immediate situation to persuade listeners and influence their opinion. In the sense of
Platos interpretation of sophism, expressed primarily in Gorgias, rhetoric is
understood as peithous demiurgos, the creator and confirmer of the conviction, and its main role is psychagogia tis dia logn, the ability to lead (but also
mislead) human souls by means of words. This is also asource of conflict
between philosophy and rhetoric, the conflict that Plato raised throughout
his oeuvre. The more philosophy focused on metaphysical questions and
eternal and unchangeable certainties, the more dramatic the controversy
between philosophy and rhetoric became. The paradox of the ethical dilemma of rhetoric lies in the fact that the vast majority of authors of books on
rhetoric and rhetoric textbooks repeatedly emphasized the fact that an orator cannot survive without reliable knowledge of the matter he was to talk
about. Philosophical, dialectical knowledge and high ethical standards thus
appear to be necessary preconditions for producing an effective speech. On
the other hand, even philosophers were aware of the fact that without attention to their own language and their manner of speaking, in other words
to rhetoric, they could not effectively convey the results of their learning.
Thus, among philosophers we can find both opponents of rhetoric, such
as Plato, Descartes, Locke and Kant, as well as thinkers willing to admit
it was auseful or neutral tool for communication, such as Aristotle, Vico,
Nietzsche, Ricoeur, Gadamer, Blohradsk. After afirm rejection of rhetoric as adangerous weapon of sophist persuasion, Plato himself was willing
to admit, in Phaedrus, to the possibility of real rhetoric, of philosophers
rhetoric which would talk to ahuman soul through clear and perfect expositions on the just, the beautiful and the good; these expositions should,
Introduction
/18/
/19/
Introduction
/20/
12th and 13th centuries and became an essential part of instruction for church
diplomats and the newly emerging city patriciate. The art of letter writing
was also promoted by the Italian-born founder of the rhetorial tradition in
the Czech Lands, Henricus of Isernia, at the end of the 13th century.
Our contemplations on rhetoric thus lead, in accord with the extant development which started in antiquity, to the gradually wider understanding
of the discipline, whose demands accompany alearned person throughout
his or her life and runs the full gamut of communication requirements.
What we have left to think about is whether rhetoric focused exclusively
on monologues (spoken or written) or whether it also included everyday
dialogues. The suggestion to an answer can be found in Ciceros De oratore,
in which one of the figures says: [] not to be always thinking of the
forum, its courts of justice, public meetings, and senate, what greater enjoyment can there be in times of leisure, what greater intellectual treat than
the brilliant discourse of aperfect scholar? (I.8). Clearly, Cicero and many
of his followers also cared for the cultivation of everyday language: sermo,
conversation, which they distinguished from aspeech intended for awider
public, and contentio, argument.
We may thus assume that in antiquity and in later authors, there was
something that could be called rhetorica sermonis. Rhetoric textbooks which
systematically adhere to the classical structure demonstrate that this indeed
is the case. The unknown author of Rhetorica ad Herennium (Rhetoric for
Herennius) ascribes four properties to sermo: dignity (dignitas), clear explication (demonstratio), ability to narrate (narratio) and facetiousness (iocatio).
From the end of the 16th century, these very qualities were included in the
education of noble ladies, who organized and cultivated conversation in
the newly emerging salons. Generally speaking, with the exception of these
rather general recommendations, the theme of private conversation defied
systematic rhetorical codification in its very essence. According to Cicero,
these conversations do not constitute the subject matter of rhetoric, but
rather of ethics and an effort to achieve spiritual harmony and friendship
between people. Speech (in the sense of sermo) is anatural ability, which
distinguishes humans from animals, while cultivated speech, eloquence
(eloquentia) is an extension of this, the result of systematic education and
long-term cultivation. The personal character of private conversations did
not exclude highly demanding themes, because after all dialogue, albeit
naturally in the form of artistically treated fiction, has always been an important genre of artistic, philosophical, theological and scientific literature.
/21/
Introduction
/22/
/23/
formation of an international community of learned men. The key to participation in this community in Europe for many centuries was principally the
knowledge of Latin. However, even after this was gradually replaced by national languages, rhetoric did not cease to fulfil its integrationist role. Before
this, it had instilled order in individual genres, stylistic and composition
techniques, had passed on the traditional loci communes.5 Along with this,
it also formed an educational system which enabled students to effortlessly
change schools and universities, thus strengthening their awareness of an
integrated community of intellectuals.
Rhetoric in itself has not only been the result of integration tendencies
in European thinking and communication, but also greatly contributed to
their formation. It was based in the four main pillars of European thought
the Greek love for wisdom, the Roman belief in justice, embodied by the
system of Roman law, the Judeo-Christian notion of religious belief and
the Renaissance trust in man and in the power of his creative skills. In this
sense, rhetoric, open to future development, never ceased to serve as the
key-stone to the arch of European education and culture, which continues
to rest on these pillars.
The capacity to use the power of words to tell astory and to persuade others was highly respected throughout antiquity, the foundation of European
education. Although the spread of the word and concept of rhtorik, rhetoric, was associated with Platos dialogues, rhetorical skills were esteemed as
early as the Homeric period of Greek history. In Homers Iliad and Odyssey,
the rhtr, rhetor, also sometimes called the rhtr mythn, the narrator of
ancient stories, was ahighly regarded authority, who could, like the sage
Nestor, speak in public, give advice, captivate, win general consent and admiration. This is also related to the words rhsis, rhtra, speaking, narration,
utterance, speech discourse, and rhtos which refers to what has been said,
uttered, or named. Rhetoric was the art of mastering the word, logos, as well
as adiscipline which rationally reflected on the different uses of the logos,
captured its laws and attempted to codify them through an arranged set of
rules.
Documents regarding life in ancient Greece and the earliest references
to political and judicial speeches make manifest that the rise of rhetoric as
adiscipline focusing on techn, persuasive speech making, is many decades
older. It is particularly Thucydidess History of The Peloponnesian War which
demonstrates that ancient politicians and military leaders made speeches.
This is undoubtedly true of Pericless speech over the fallen (epitafios logos)
during the wars first year. The authenticity of the preserved extract is, however, questionable and it was likely the subject matter of later stylization.
Speeches by politicians and leaders, which very likely lacked written preparation, were thus preserved only in paraphrase. In Phaedrus, Plato uses the
character of Phaedrus to claim that: the greatest and most influential
statesmen are ashamed of writing speeches and leaving them in awritten
form, lest they should be called Sophists by posterity (Plat. Phaedrus 235).
On the other hand, speeches delivered in court were preserved in many
collections and their authorship ascribed to famous logographers. These
/25/
/26/
necessary and thus immutable. The etymology of the Latin verb persuadere,
to persuade, provides yet another perspective on the essence of rhetoric: the
assumed Indo-European basis svads, sweet, pleasing (corresponding to the
Slavic root sladk-, English sweet or German sss), evokes an activity related to
delight and intoxicating illusion, something rhetoric has been reproached
for since Platos time.
The prestige of an appropriately delivered speech and, to the same degree, an awareness of the effects of words, cultivated by reciting rhapsodies
and ancient drama, these are the foundations from which rhetoric sprouted
in the 5th century. Impulses for its formation arose from two significant political transformations within Greek society: from Ephialtess justice reform
and Cleistheness democratic constitution, which enacted anew system of
city administration. Both changes caused an unprecedented surge in civic
activities fundamentally connected with increased demands for political and
judicial oratory.
These demands became manifest most notably in judicial practice. In
462 BCE, Ephialtes, the leader of the democratic party in Athens, introduced the institution of jury and appellate courts, hliaia, which replaced
the judicial power of the traditional aristocratic council, areopagus. After
the establishment of hliaia, the traditional aristocratic council which was
made up of life-members, archons, it was assigned the duty of making decisions concerning capital crimes. The hliaia had 6,000 drawn jurors (hliastai) who made decisions in councils (discateria), with the number of jurors
for individual hearings ranging from 201 to 1501. They did not have any
specialized judicial education and could only be informed about the case
from the speeches delivered by the prosecution and defence. The jurors
had to swear that they would be impartial (homoios) and that they would
not allow personal relationships or animosities to affect their judgement.
The prosecutor and defendant were not only to provide aconvincing description of the case, but also to apply and interpret any pertinent laws. In
each lawsuit, views and opinions were to be presented by the individual and
nobody was allowed representation. The only help to be used was that of
apaid expert,logographer, who wrote the speech and rehearsed its delivery
with the client.
This was the origin of the oldest types of court speeches (dikanikon
genos): accusation (katgoria) and defence (apologia). As Aristotle states
(Rhet. 1359b), they concern actions that have or have not occurred in the
past and it is the role of the hliastic court to judge these actions from alegal
/27/
perspective as just (dikaion) or unjust (adikon). This genre may be exemplified in the literary form represented in both Apologies of Socrates (Skratous
apologia) by Plato and Xenophon, and the Sophist Polycratess Prosecution
of Socrates (Skratous katgoria).
The most typical expression of Athenian democracy was advisory political oratory (to symbuleutikon genos). In his stylistics textbook, Dionysius of
Halicarnassus defines rhetoric as dynamis technik pithanou logou en pragmati
politiko telos echousa to eu legein (an artistic faculty of persuasive discourse
in political matters, having the goal of speaking well). Political rhetoric
in Athens was used at assemblies (ekklsia), in which all citizens of good
character participated at least forty times ayear. The themes of such political speeches concerned the future, and it was the assembled citizens task
to judge their content with respect to what appeared beneficial (felimon)
or harmful (anofels) to the community. Demosthenes Speech Against Philip
the Macedon is aclear representation of the harsh polemic genre of political
speeches.
The above-mentioned genres, which R. Volkmann, the author of asynthetic history of ancient rhetoric (1895), calls pragmatikon, are contrasted
with the epideictic oratory (to epideiktikon genos), that is, celebratory and
defamatory speeches. They are characterized by their level of literacy, afocus on the aesthetic value of the speech and occasionally even acertain
playfulness and jocularity related to the topic, often strikingly trivial or
employing unusual linguistic or stylistic means as an intentionally stylized
counterpoint to the seriousness of the speech. There are two types of epideictic speeches: praise (epainos) and denigration (psogos). They focus on
what the orator considers beautiful (kalon) or ugly and ripe for condemnation (aischron). The epideictic genre included panegyrik, the praise of public
figures, institutions and community virtues, enkomion, those more intimate
praises usually delivered during feasts, epithalamion, speeches given at weddings, genethliakon, aspeech delivered to mark abirthday, and epitafios logos,
afuneral oration. Many of these were designed primarily to win favour, to
promote (protreptikon logos, from the Greek work protrep, to urge, win someone for something) and it was their task to entice aliking for various people,
sciences, arts, philosophical views and other matters.
It was this epideictic genre that gave rise to the association, which has
been raised and condemned so frequently over the course of history, of
rhetoric with verbal magic, the irrationality of affecting through speech
and creating illusions. In The Republic, Plato claims that the desire to create
/28/
pat, an illusion, among the audience, is what rhetoric and magic have in
a
common. Rhetoric as arationally developed skill, techn, is contrasted with
the commonly used and misused view of speech which acts like apowerful ruler (dynasts megas) capable of manipulating people, akin to deceit
inspired by unearthly beings (entheos epoidos), magical power (dynamis) and
sorcery (goteia). Both principles, the factual and magical, are ever-present
in the semantic field of rhetoric and the contradiction between them inspires
numerous reflections on the role of the word in human community.
The modern view of rhetorics history is marked by significant changes
in the perception of the role of celebratory speeches in ancient society. They
were originally perceived as unimportant as they did not urge the audience to make weighty decisions or engage in activities, as was the case with
judicial and political speeches, but merely to think about methods used
in depicting the topic and the aesthetic values of the linguistic means employed. This effectively made the orators role closer to that of playwrights
or actors. Epideictic speeches also generally lacked the controversial character of opposing views, and the listener was not enthralled by the duel of
ideas, agn, but rather by the speakers stylistic virtuosity, sometimes lapsing
into mannerism. Aspeech delivered on afestive occasion became asocial
ritual. In ritual, what is said is necessarily subservient both to the moment
and time in which it is said and the methods the speaker uses to convey this.
Speech in itself becomes an important social act, and it is through this act
that the audience realizes the cohesion of its shared values, which combine
to delineate the communitys fate and future. The epideictic genre gave birth
to Greek patriotism and awakened the awareness of allegiance to their ancestors ideas while simultaneously pinning their hopes in the generations
to come. The epideictic genre may be illustrated by Thucydidess impressive
rendition of Pericless funeral oration over the fallen in the Peloponnesian
War (Thuc. 2.36).
Due to the emergent social reality, free Greek citizens had no choice
but to face the pressing need to learn the art of oration, to master the most
important tool for political success logos, the art to prove, the power of
speech. This task was assumed by travelling teachers of rhetoric, Sophists
(sofistai, promoters of the principles of practical wisdom), who innovated
teaching, being the first to charge fees. In Platos dialogue Meno, Socrates
claims he knew of asingle man, Protagoras, who made more out of his
craft than the illustrious Pheidias, who created such noble works, or any ten
other statuaries (91d). What and how Sophists taught we only know from
/29/
/30/
/31/
to search for the link between the Sophists and Wittgensteins theory of
language-games which determine the grammar of alanguage and, hand in
hand with this, human behaviour in the world. Michel Foucault also claims
allegiance to Sophist teachings in his belief that every social system creates
its discourse in order to gain and secure power. Phrased generally, Protagorass claim that man is the measure of all things is most clearly supported
by those philosophical movements that are based on the assumption that
man is not able to mirror or represent real things as such. The world is
accessible to him only through his social experience, through his measure.
FIRST TEACHERS
Corax and Tisias are considered to be the first teachers of rhetoric. They
were both from Sicily, where the tradition of Empedocless impressive rhetorical art was undoubtedly still alive while they taught there. The demo
cratic revolutions in Acragas (472 BCE) and Syracuse (466 BCE) created
unusually favourable political circumstances for rhetorics rise. Corax is
often ascribed authorship of the art of oratorys oldest textbook, while
Tisias is believed to have divided speeches into three parts: introduction
(prooimion), the treatise (agn, struggle) and conclusion (epilogos). The main
body of the speech, the treatise, was further subdivided into adescription
of the event (digsis) and justification of orators viewpoints (pistis). This
first era also witnessed the rise of teaching the three essential prerequisites
for m
asteringrhetoric;natural talent, mastering the rules of rhetoric and
practice.
The practices of Sicilys orators spread to Athens thanks to Gorgias of Leontini (ca 483380 BCE), who arrived there in 427 BCE, having been sent by
his community to head adelegation seeking assistance in their fight against
Syracuse. The mission was not successful and Leontini was destroyed by
its more powerful neighbour within three years, however Gorgiass arrival
in Athens was of immense significance for the history of rhetoric and thus
for the overall cultural development of ancient Greece. In Athens, Gorgias
gained not only agreat deal of money and many pupils from his teaching,
but also many opponents. Plato regarded him as someone who sees that
likelihoods are to be more esteemed than truths, who makes small things
appear great and great things small by force of words; who talks of what
is new as though it were old, and of what is old as though it were new
(Phaed.276a). Gorgias is remembered in history as an orator rather than
/32/
as aphilosopher. Of his work, only afew textual fragments and two declamations, Encomium of Helen (Helens enkomion) and Defence of Palamedes
(Palamdous apologia), have been preserved.
Both declamations, the first of which is atribute to, the other adefence
of literary characters, may merely be examples of model texts for rhetorical
practice, their goal being to prove that aperson who has mastered the art
of logos can speak highly on the topic at hand, or, conversely, completely
dishonour it. In reality, what the two declamations concern is not atribute to abeautiful woman or adefence of Odysseuss adversary, but rather
atribute to and defence of speeches and the art of rhetoric. It is the magical
power of logos that is able to refute even such adeeply rooted belief as the
general conviction that it was the beautiful Helen who was guilty of starting the Trojan War. Both declamations are characterized by Gorgiass use
of conventions distinguished by effusiveness and closeness to the poetic
rhythm of speech, including paronomasia (repetition of the same or similar
word roots), antithesis (the use of opposites to formulate paradoxical conclusions wherein the opposition of expressions is heightened by assonance
and rhyme), parison (afigure based in the use of the same number of words
or syllables in adjoining text segments). Gorgiass exalted stylistics may be
contrasted with that of Lysias, an orator and logographer, whose speeches,
quite probably composed as models for practice in schools of rhetoric, are
characterized by ashift towards the simple vernacular and straightforward
and natural expression.
Later quotations in Sextus Empiricuss works also reveal the focus of
Gorgiass philosophical work On Non-existence or On Nature (Peri tou m
ontos peri fyses), aparadoxical escalation of the principles of Eleatic dialectics. According to ancient authors, its content centres on three sceptical
claims: Nothing exists. If anything did exist, we could not know it. If
we could know that something existed, we would not be able to communicate it to anyone else. The German researcher Heinrich Gomperz10 does not
consider these statements to be astarting point of the compact philosophical concept of relativism, but as an attempt to demonstrate alternatives the
art of rhetoric may offer to man; after all, Gorgiass contemporaries called
him an orator rather than aphilosopher. For, as Wilhelm Nestle11 and Wilhelm Windelband12 point out, it cannot be ruled out that in wording his
claims, Gorgias intended to ridicule and disparage the subject of research
along with the metaphysical focus of philosophers who opposed both rhetoric and Gorgias.
/33/
/34/
Plato devoted two of his dialogues, Gorgias and Phaedrus, to rhetoric and the
possibility of mastering its principles. In reality, however, his argument with
Sophists pervades his entire body of work. He calls into question the notion
of the orators competence and its relation to general civic and human competence. Using Socrates, the main character in all his dialogues, Plato asks
to what extent the rhetorical aret can not only teach aperson the techniques
of convincing speech, but also make him good in the sense of the Greek
agathos, which includes the meanings of beneficial for the community and
just. What Plato was searching for was consistent liberation of the notions of aret and agathos from Sophistic relativism. If he concedes anything
to rhetorics legitimacy as adiscipline whose goal it is to induce opinions
(doxazein) through speech, it is only when it is subordinated to philosophy.
Philosophy is the only discipline that should lead people, through recollection (anamnesis) to the eternal and motionless world of Forms and Ideas, to
true wisdom as the highest good. It must be conceded that even philosophy
may need rhetoric. Within Platonic paradigms, because truth cannot be
communicated, philosophy has to use foreign and auxiliary means to convey
its principles. They may be myths that embody metaphysical notions including live images and pictures, or rhetorical performances which in themselves
cannot fully convey their philosophical content, but they can encourage and
inspire learning.
Plato refuted rhetorical ontological validity, as it only creates the illusion of truth rather than truth itself, as well as epistemological validity as
it only examines opinions and fails to search for true knowledge. Similarly,
he rejected the Protagorass model of speech communication between two
equal partners and their arguments, as this model also lacks ethical values,
with its sole purpose being to make aweaker logos stronger. In Phaedrus,
he says of Protagoras that he can put awhole company of people into and
out of apassion through his mighty magic, and is first-rate at inventing or
disposing of any nature of calumny on any grounds or none (Phaed.267c).
Plato holds that the truth does not arise as the result of mutual agreement and exchange of opinions, rather that it exists apriori and is accessible
/35/
/36/
/37/
/38/
goal. That is why in the dialogue Theaetetus, Socrates remarks that from his
mother Phainarete he inherited techn maieutik, the art of obstetrics, which
he understands metaphorically as the ability to help bring ideas to life based
on his own intentions. Protagorian argumentation cannot offer an escape
route from this circle enclosed by the maieutic method.
ISOCRATESS PROGRAMME OF RHETORIC IN SERVICE OF POLITICAL CULTURE
At the end of Phaedrus, Socrates predicts apromising future for the young
Isocrates, whose intellect demonstrates anatural inclination to philosophy.
Three and ahalf centuries later, Cicero confirms the legitimacy of this projection with the following words of appreciation: Then behold ! there arose
Isocrates, the Master of all rhetoricians, from whose school, as from the
Horse of Troy, none but leaders emerged, but some of them sought glory in
ceremonial, others in action (De or. 2.22). Emphasizing the content of and
involvement in civic affairs, Isocratess texts are in truth extensive political
treatises, which resemble delivered speeches only because of their numerous
digressions and comments related to the art of rhetoric.
If we understand the development of rhetoric in ancient Greece as the
gradual formation of the principles governing the rhetorical techn, then
Isocrates deliberately turns away from this development. He rejects the rules
of techns rigid application as he is convinced that the study of rhetoric depends on both the pupil and teachers particular qualities, as well as on the
uniqueness of each speechs context.
Isocrates, aleading promoter of Panhellenism, was born in 436 BCE in
Athens to the family of arelatively wealthy flute maker. He received agood
education, studied under the Sophist Prodicus and later Gorgias, and as
ayoung man worked as alogographer, aprofessional speechwriter. The
legend of his not becoming an orator due to his weak voice may be considered an anecdote. Anecdotes were occasionally told about other orators
for didactic reasons. This may, however, explain why he wrote his speeches
for the specific purpose of being primarily read and studied. In his Address
to Philip, King of Macedonia, he explains: But you will be in the best position to discover with accuracy whether there is any truth in what Isay if
you put aside the prejudices which are held against the sophists and against
speeches which are composed to be read, and take them up one by one in
your thought and scrutinize them, not making it acasual task, nor one to be
attacked in aspirit of indifference, but with the close reasoning and love of
/39/
knowledge which it is common report that you also share (Isoc. 5.29). Isocrates is said to have died very old, aged 98, in 338 BCE, by which time he
had been acontemporary, critic and competitor to practically all concepts
and schools associated with the beginnings of Greek rhetoric.
Of Isocratess body of work, six judicial speeches, fifteen festive speeches
and nine letters15 have been preserved. He did not attempt to create asystematic method regarding the general theory of persuasive speech in textbook form, instead he explained his views on rhetoric in his speeches Against
the Sophists (Kata ton sofiston), On Exchange of Properties (Peri antidoses) and
Helen (Helen). It is these writings which will serve as the basis for our exposition.
Isocrates understood the notion that people had the ability to learn rhetorics art in afundamentally new way. For Sophists, rhetoric was aparticular
brand of generative theory of text, according to which the pupil had to
learn asystem of pre-set abstract principles in the form of rules (techn).
This knowledge and appropriate application would lead him step by step
to asuccessful universal result. Isocrates disagreed, saying that discourses
that are of general applicability, and trustworthy, and of asimilar nature,
can only be composed and uttered with the aid of avariety of forms and
suitable expressions that are hard to learn (Hel. 11). He thus developed
Gorgiass notion of kairos as asense of apinpointing the right moment for
and the right manner of speech. Closely related to kairos is prepon, which expresses an intuitive aptitude for satisfactory speech stylization. The content
of these key notions of ancient rhetoric corresponds to the Latin expression
of decorum, spread mainly through Ciceros works. Isocrates thus lacks the
arrogance of imagining that learned rules may once and for all equip apupil
to solve all his future problems concerning the stylization and delivery of
aspeech. Instead of acompact theory, Isocrates favours the patient education of future orators based on ateachers moral responsibility for his
pupils, his care for their universal development and for the cultivation of the
individual, creative talents within each pupil. Isocrates thus deconstructs
rhetorical techn and replaces it with the personality of the rhetorician and
textual interpretive plurality from the audience.
In 390 BCE, at approximately the same time that the Platonic Academy was established, Isocrates opened his own school of rhetoric in Athens,
where his pupils spent four years in preparation for practical life. In order
to distinguish himself from the Sophists teaching, Isocrates characterized
his instruction as the study of philosophy. It was rhetoric that was central
/40/
/41/
He spoke against teachers who did not recognize that afacility in written
stylization (epistm tn grammatn) is limited to mere technique of writing,
using the same letters for the same purpose, while the content and form of
spoken discourse is different for each orator. For it is only an orally delivered speech that can contain kairos, acarefully calculated harmony between
the situation of communication and the chosen style of speech and how it is
delivered. This is also related to the awareness that the language of sounds
reflects the personality of the speaker in amuch more accurate manner than
writing might, that sight (reading) isolates aperson, while sound (listening)
integrates him. This notion would later be developed by phenomenology;
Merleau-Ponty states that as we can see only what is coming from one direction, our perception is thus incomplete, while sound surrounds us. Isocrates
developed the idea, first expressed in Platos Phaedrus, of written discourses
inadequacy, which was repeated, two and ahalf millennia later by Ferdinand
de Saussure in his Course in General Linguistics. Isocratess rhetorical practice,
focusing on writing and the subsequent long-term refining of his speeches
(let us here recall the anecdote regarding his vocal insufficiency), however,
enables us to understand the distinctiveness of the written form of language,
as it was formulated by the Prague Schools linguists in the 20th century
and, from the 1960s, in Derridas grammatology. Despite these remarkable
anticipations of the theory of persuasive speechs future development, we
regard Isocratess emphasis on educating the perfect orator, aperson of
high morals who can speak well and convincingly, to be this rhetoricians
greatest contribution. This ideal is also the goal of humanity studies, upon
which all European pedagogy and efforts to establish political and language
culture are based.
ARISTOTLE AS ANCIENT RHETORICS PINNACLE
Aristotle was not nearly as famous ateacher as Isocrates, though he surpassed his rival as an author who completed the work of his predecessors in
giving ancient rhetoric asystematic form.
Aristotle was born in 384 BCE in Stagira, southern Macedonia, and
in 367 BCE he commenced his studies at the Platonic Academy, where he
stayed until his teachers death in 347 BCE. It is possible that he left Athens
because of the Greco-Macedonian conflict and did not return until 335 BCE
when he established his own school, lykeion. He taught there until 323 BCE,
when he was accused of impiety and went into exile, dying ayear later.
/42/
/43/
/44/
/45/
/46/
/47/
Rhetoric to Alexander is believed to be the work of Anaximenes of Lampsacus, who lived between 380320 BCE.19 Afresher analysis of the work
with relevant bibliography, written by Pierre Chiron, was published in the
journal Rhetorica.20 Both concept and terminology used are essentially that
of Aristotles first book of Rhetoric, devoted to the relation between rhetoric
and dialectics, that is, the art of argumentation. Its subject matter, according
to most of the examples presented, are primarily judicial speeches, those of
accusation and defence.
According to Rhetoric to Alexander, the main goal of aspeech is to gain
trust, in other words, the ability to persuade the listener, usually judges or
jurors. There are seven means of persuasion (pisteis) that Aristotle lists in
his Rhetoric when explaining artificial proofs (pisteis entechnoi), for while
the indisputable facts that are given in advance, the orator has to construct
other proofs himself.
Eikos, the first of these means, can be translated as the contingent, possible, probable, trustworthy, or that which agrees with general views. All of
these definitions are the opposite to propositions which are always true. The
eikos, contingence, category is one of Aristotles primary features of rhetoric as afield of practical wisdom, which usually and normally occurs with
ahigh level of predictability, typical of human behaviour and decision-making, including, in the sphere of prevalent views and habits, particular interests and emotions, mentally conditioned phenomena, politics, and morals.
The second means of persuasion, paradeigma, an example, is characterized by its correlation to apast event, similar or contrary to what we want
to speak about. Rhetoric to Alexander distinguishes two types of examples:
kata logon, as expected, and para logon, contrary to what is expected. In the
first case, the orator wants to increase the probability of his proposition,
while in the second case, he strives to demonstrate the negative consequences of the proposition he is opposing.
The third means, tekmrion, an index, an affirmative proof, is defined as
aproof of contradiction in the opponents speech or acts. It is most commonly used in court in the plaintiff or defendants speech. It is used to
undermine the audiences belief in the opponents statements, which thus
appear as erroneous or incoherent.
Similar to tekmrion, the fourth means, enthymma, is based on exploiting contradictions, enantisis, in ones opponents speech or behaviour. As
/48/
/49/
The loss of Greek independence and the ensuing Macedonian rule after the
battle of Chaeronea in 338 BCE resulted, among other things, in aradical
change in the status and content of ancient rhetoric. The city-states, whose
political life had been a rich source of subject matter for the rhetorical
genres of deliberative and forensic oratory, ceased to exist in their original
form, and were absorbed into the Hellenistic empires. Although these new
dynasties reduced the economic and political significance of many centres
of Greek civilizations, Athens in particular, it allowed them to disseminate
their m
ethod of thinking to other, vast, areas which were also marked by ancient, but often quite different, cultures. The clash of these diverse streams
frequently had apositive impact on the ideological development of Greece,
Macedonia, Egypt and other North African regions, Palestine, Syria, Asia
Minor, Armenia and Persia, becoming one of the principal reasons that ancient philosophy, science, education and art played such an important role
in other developmental stages of European, Western Asian and North African culture.
This cultural influence, however, should not be perceived as one-sided.
Hellenistic empires experienced aunique mixing of domestic mythical and
philosophical ideas with the Greek metropolises imported culture, giving
rise to anew synthesis which reconciled the incompatibility of what had
originally been completely different civilizations. Speculative Greek philosophy was influenced by the sophisticated empiricism of Greco-Babylonian
agriculture, astronomy and mathematics. In the Hellenistic era, both science
as awhole and individual scientific disciplines were shaped as independent
phenomena. Sciences split from philosophy was caused not only by an increasing sophistication and the demands of social understanding, but also
by political factors. Hellenistic empires were often artificially formed and
were based on unstable bonds, their zeniths were limited to short periods
of time: for Ptolemaic Egypt, it was the 3rd century; for the Seleucid Em-
/51/
pire, the turn of the 3rd and 2nd centuries BCE; for Pergamon the first half
of the 2nd century BCE. Irrespective of the brevity of their existence, these
empires were remarkable for their wealth and love of science and culture.
The rulers took pride in supporting scientists and artists and over time this
became apolitical necessity. Civic involvement and patriotic sentiments, so
typical of the Greek cities throughout the classical period, were fading away.
These virtues were replaced by cosmopolitanism and an emphasis on areas
of private interest. Generous subsidies from rulers and the wealthy were
important for the development of the sciences and arts as they facilitated
the establishment of libraries and museums, the collecting and interpretation of ancient texts, works focusing on grammar and vocabulary, as well as
fostering poetry and rhetoric.
The study of language, the stylistics of written and oral texts, poetics and
rhetoric, were all cultivated in Hellenistic schools of the Stoics, the Peripatetics and in Neoplatonic Academies. Students were instructed in acomprehensive education system, enkyklios paideia, divided into seven liberal arts.
The core of these were the trivium (three paths) and included grammar,
rhetoric and dialectics. These were later extended to include arithmetic, geometry, music and astronomy, called the quadrivium (four paths). This educational system survived from antiquity, through the Middle Ages and into
the Renaissance. The terms trivium and quadrivium are of alater origin,
with the first probably being coined by Alcuin of York, the other by Boethius. Liberal arts are first mentioned in Senecas Letter 88, which presents an
educational programme emphasizing the need for the comprehensive education of free citizens who have no requirement to undergo special training to
facilitate profitable business, but who have understood their duty to acquire
the prerequisites for active participation in public life.
When designing educational programmes, Hellenistic philosophers consistently evaluated the content of the disciplines taught. The Stoic schools
contribution was undoubtedly the most systematic of these. They focused
on the trivium, which formed the necessary logical and philological foundation for the study of other liberal arts. The Stoics oldest representatives
included the schools founder, Zeno of Citium (336264 BCE), Cleanthes (331232 BCE), Chrysippus (281209 BCE), Diogenes of Babylon
(240150 BCE) and Aristarchus of Samos (217145 BCE). We have remarkably accurate information about their views, albeit through the works of
their commentators, Diogenes Laertius, Marcus Terentius Varro, Aurelius
Augustine, the Christian philosopher known as Augustin of Hippo, as well
/52/
as from Origens texts and several others. These comments are available
in the four-volume compendium entitled Stoicorum veterum fragmenta, published by J. von Armin in Leipzig between 19031924.
The Stoics were the first to separate individual scientific disciplines from
the collective of knowledge and philosophy. Their most general classification of sciences included logic, physics (natural sciences), and ethics. The
term logic comes directly from the Stoics and essentially corresponds
with what Aristotle called analytics, the study of the rules of apposite thinking, expression and interpretation of texts. In the Stoics approach, logic
also included grammar and rhetoric (epistme tou eu legein), and dialectics
(epistme tou eu dialegesthai). The broad conception of grammar, emphasizing semantic and functional aspects of the language at the expense of the
description of the language form, drew grammar closer to rhetoric, in which
the Stoics chiefly focused on the study of tropes and figures. Grammar included explanations of canonical literary texts, etymology, parts of speech
and syntax. Alongside this, Stoic schools also paid attention to linguistic
semiotics, asubject which was covered by dialectics, and correctness in language, which became asource of the controversy between the Analogists
and Anomalists.
The Stoics ideas regarding language were based on Platos dialogue
Cratylus, which ignited the controversy about whether the phonetic form of
aword is motivated by its meaning (fysei) or whether this is apurely conventional correlation (thesei). Unlike Aristotle, the Stoics were strict adherents
to the motivated form of the sign (smeion), whose functioning (smeiosis)
lies in that the signified (to smainomenon), the notions and judgments, determines the signifier, the language form (to smainon). What they had in
common with Aristotle, though, was that they also distinguished between
the notion and the thing in its actual existence (referent).
Stoics refuted the legitimate objection that consistent application of the
fysei principle would, in fact, exclude any differences between languages
by making aremarkable claim, doubtlessly of interest to contemporary sociolinguists. They interpreted the language variation as aconsequence of
different natural and social conditions in which individual nations lived
and which in turn formed the differences in their mode of thinking and
speaking.
In the Stoics teaching, the inner and natural relationship between the
signifier and the signified in the structure of the sign does not relate to
theentire body of vocabulary, but primarily to the base, to the underived
/53/
/54/
not acquire languages from rules, but through imitation and observation
(paratrsis) of real speech and usage (syntheia). The Analogists teaching,
on the other hand, proved fruitful in cases when they managed to formulate
rules which could explain exceptions and incorporate these into the system
of existing knowledge concerning language.
During his military campaign in Gaul, Gaius Julius Caesar wrote atext
entitled De analogia, an extreme explanation of the theory of regularity in
linguistic phenomena. Caesar took to extremes the Greek Analogists efforts
to achieve aunified language norm, eliminating exceptions, variant pairs,
synonymy and homonymy. As was the case of similar language reformers
who came later, it is typical of Caesar that in his own works he avoided the
consequences of his proposals.
Cicero, who advocated the notion of adequacy of speech discourse in
contrast to the Analogists, raised asharp polemic countering Caesars views
in his dialogue Orator (47), and his arguments are quite contemporary with
regard to the language purism which survives to the current day: What am
Ito say is the reason why they forbid us to say nsse, judicsse, and enjoin
us to use novisse and judicavisse? as if we did not know that in words of this
kind it is quite correct to use the word at full length, and quite in accordance
with usage to use it in its contracted form. And so Terence does use both
forms, and says,Eho, tu cognatum tuum non nras? And afterwards he
has,Stilphonem, inquam, noveras? Siet is the word at full length; sit is
the contracted form. One may use either; and so we find in the same passage,Quam cara sint, qu post carendo intelligunt, Quamque attinendi
magni dominatus sient. Nor should Ifind fault with Scripsere alii rem.
Iam aware that scripserunt is the more correct form; but Iwillingly comply
with afashion which is agreeable to the ears.
RHETORICAL INSTRUCTION IN THE HELLENISTIC PERIOD
/55/
longer spoke to his fellow citizens with political appeals, instead he turned
to private life in an attempt to produce aesthetic delight both through the
language and stylistic rendition of the text and the delicacy of logical arguments. Ahistorian characterized the abstract and artificial character of
Hellenistic oratory and the later Roman oratory of Latin literatures Silver
Age (during the Flavian dynasty) by saying:
Large halls were rented for speeches on illusory topics, and in them
crowds of people were crammed to listen to their favourite orators. Orators
and their admirers would also meet in public baths where for many hours
abstract ethical, moral and legal problems, presented with acute passion and
with convincing urgency, were analysed. Rhetorical novices attended these
gatherings to study the intricacies of delivery of words capable of heightening emotional excitement among audiences.21
In speeches and the fiction of the Hellenistic and Roman periods, two
extremes of expression prevailed. Alongside the traditional, plain Attic style,
whose laconism was even favoured by some Roman orators in Latin, was
the Asiatic style (genus orationis Asiaticum) which developed under the influence of authors from Asia Minor. Reportedly developed by Hegesias of
Magnesia (3rd century BCE), it was spread by orators from the area, Ciceros teachers Menecles and Hierocles of Alabanda in Caria, Aeschylus of
Cnidus and Aeschines of Miletus. Over time, several variants of the Asiatic
style were created. The most moderate was the Rhodian variant, which was
farthest from the pathos and ornamentation of Asia Minor. The form of
the Asiatic style corresponded to the Hellenistic periods general character.
It was asuitable means of expression for such things as festive speeches
and school exercises elaborated in great detail. Progymnasmata, based on
imitating model texts, represented an elementary form of these exercises.
More advanced students learned to write declamations (declamationes) on
contrived topics of deliberative and forensic oratory. Declamations consisted of both easier, suasoriae, treating historical or mythological themes, and
more demanding topics, controversiae, which were variations on forensic oratory concerning complicated cases. General issues of aphilosophical or
moralistic nature were addressed in the thesis genre (theseis). We know about
education in rhetoric, the content of the exercises and the classical models
it was based on, from numerous Roman writers, particularly Seneca the Elder (the ten-volume Controversiae Oratorum et rhetorum sententiae divisiones
colores, 1st century CE), Suetonius (De grammaticis et rhetoribus, first half of
the 2ndcentury CE) and Aulus Gellius (20 books of his encyclopaedic work
/56/
Noctes Atticae, second half of the 2nd century CE, in which he expressed his
admiration for Latin authors of the Archaic period). The content and tone
of these writings indicate that their authors recognized the central position
taken by care for language education within the school system, one of the
most important legacies the ancient world bequeathed to European culture.
HERMAGORAS OF TEMNOS AND THE STASIS THEORY
Rhetoric focused not only on language discourse, but also on constructing its content within the teaching of inventio, the discovery of arguments.
Inventio is based on an explanation of stasis, the issues of speech, which is
believed to have been invented by the Greek orator Hermagoras of Temnos (mid-2nd century BCE). Hermagorass writing on forensic oratory has,
however, not been preserved, rather we have information regarding it from
the works of his Roman and Greek interpreters, most notably Cicero (De
inventione, Chapters 711), the author of Rhetorica ad Herennium (Book II),
Quintilian (Inst. or., Chapter 7) and Hergomenes (Peri stases).
Stasis (Lat. status, constitutio) may be characterized as an issue concerning
the factual content of ajudicial speech which arises before the judge and
defendant during the participants first confrontation in adispute. Both
the Greek term stasis and the entirety of agonistic rhetoric were based on
wrestling and originally stood for the initial position of athletes in aboxing
match.
The accusation, which was expressed through you did this (fecisti),
could be answered by the defendant confessing, I did (feci), denying,
Idid not (non feci), or partially confessing, Idid, but (feci, sed ).
While an open confession of guilt led directly to ajudgement and was quite
uninteresting from ajudicial practice perspective, the other two replies (non
feci; feci, sed ) represented the beginning of legal proceedings whose course
could be determined by individual stasis styles. Later Roman law commonly
distinguished between four types of stasis (quattuor status generales):
1. Status coniecturae (issue of fact; conjectural)
The answer denying guilt (non feci) brings forth the question of whether the
accused committed the act (an fecerit?). It is an issue which should lead to
determining the relation between the person who committed the act (auctor)
and the act itself (factum), or to exposing the true culprit, to answering the
question of who actually committed the act (quis fecerit?).
/57/
/58/
/59/
pression (res) and the form of the expression (verba). The relation between
the verba and the res was understood in two modes. The goal was either to
name the thing, to find an accurate expression or term to express it (res est
manifesta, sed de nomine non constant, there may be no doubt about the thing,
but no agreement as to the term to be applied to it; Inst. or. 7.3.4), or on
the other hand, to determine and find the factual content of the word or
expression based on its form (est certum de nomine, sed quaeritur quae res ei
subicienda sit, there may be no doubt as to the term, there is aquestion as to
what it includes; Inst. or. 7.3.4).
An orator was expected not only to name the thing (phenomenon, act,
event), but also to classify it and judge in relation to aparticular context,
and in forensic speech, in relation to the legal norm (lex). There were two
types of forensic speeches that focused on determining to which norm
athing should be related. The goal of the first type, genus rationale, was
to name and thereby generalize the facts of the case, so that it could be
resolved through either punishment (poena) or reward (praemium). The second category of forensic speeches, genus legale, was based on the wording
and intention of the law and was specific to individual cases. Apart from
justice, genus rationale was applied in disciplines which utilized descriptive,
declarative statements, but also included evaluative and normative statements, such as explanations concerning grammar, poetics, historiography
and others, while genus legale, prevailed wherever the case in question concerned the interpretation of atext and finding all individual cases to which
it could be applied. Such disciplines included textual criticism, biblical exegesis and particularly philological explanations of the language of laws
(scriptum legis), which examined the legislators intention embedded within
the text (voluntas legumlatoris). Philological analysis followed two principles.
The first (ratio) was grounded in the linguistic correctness, and logical and
contextual coherence of the text, while the second (consuetudo, usus) was
based on the practical use of the language and such understanding of the
text that corresponded to the experience of ageneral and competent evaluator.22 Equality of all free citizens before the law (aequitas) was an important
prerequisite for the interpretation of the law as it allowed each participant in
the legal proceeding the right to justify their understanding of what the law
prescribed. Equity was thus placed alongside, and often above, the letter of
law and in this way removed legal harshness and, in the spirit of anatural
sense of law, brought forth new possibilities in the interpretation of legal
texts in unusual and extraordinary cases.
/60/
/61/
/62/
demanding translations into modern languages. The small circle of its editors has so far only consisted of Friedrich Marx (Teubner, Leipzig 1894),
Henri Borncque (Paris 1932), Harry Caplan (Loeb, London 1954), Gualtiero Calboli (Bologna 1968) and Guy Achard (Paris, Les belles lettres 1989).
The medieval attribution of Rhetorica ad Herennium to Cicero was based
on manuscripts from the 4th and 5th centuries which contained this work
bound with the De inventione textbook, which Cicero, aged 19, wrote as
an introduction to an intended five-volume textbook of rhetoric. He was
undoubtedly inspired by his notes from his Rhodian teachers lectures. Medieval authors called this brief text Rhetorica prima (vetus) to distinguish it
from the Rhetorica ad Herennium which was called Rhetorica secunda (nova).
At this juncture, it should be emphasized that Rhetorica ad Herennium, along
with Cicero and Quintilians works, represented one of the main information sources about rhetoric for agreat length of time, primarily due to the
systematic treatment of the disciplines individual components and their
consistent classification.
The work is divided into four books, which contain:
1. Rhetorics division into parts (according to Peripatetics) of inventio
(search for subject matter), dispositio (arrangement), elocutio (style), memoria (teaching about memory) and pronunciatio (delivery);
2. Division of speeches into forensic, deliberative and epideictic (after Aristotle);
3. Pre-Aristotle division of speech elements into exordium (introduction),
narratio (narration, description of the event), divisio (structure of the
speech), confirmatio (presentation of arguments), confutatio (refuting arguments) and conclusio (conclusion).
Book 1 (27 sections) opens with adedication to Herennius, who had
expressed awish to be educated in the art of rhetoric. Greeks are criticized
for boasting philosophical knowledge in works which were expected to provide practical information, only to show off in front of their audience. Most
attention is paid to forensic oratory. The orators main task is to provide
acredible description of the event because persuasiveness is not based on
truth, but instead on probability. If the facts are not true, more effort is
needed to achieve credibility. There are three types of the description of
facts (narratio):
a) Partial, favouring. The judge and audiences favour should be garnered
for the orators intention;
/63/
/64/
and simple (attenuatum). The first style intends to prompt to action, reflection, achange in attitude (movere), while the second is used to amuse (delectare) and the third to instruct (docere). Style should demonstrate language
correctness (latinitas) and logical clarity (explanatio). These virtues, together
called elegantia, are bracketed together with composition (suitable combinations of sounds, words and syllables, compositio) and dignity (dignitas),
expressed through figurative means, tropes and figures. When presenting
them, the texts author had made it his goal to replace the established Greek
terminology with Latin terms and the examples used are taken exclusively
from domestic literature. The distinction between lexical (verborum exornationes) and syntactic (sententiarum exornationes) ornamentation is also original. The text lists forty-five lexical figures (figures of diction), which are
related to the language of the speech, and nineteen syntactic figures (figures
of thought), which are associated with the conveyed meaning.
The figures of diction included homoioptoton and homoioteleuton (similiter cadens and similiter desinens; referring to the same sounds in neighbouring words), polyptoton (annominatio; various word forms from the same
root), hypophora (subiectio; an invented dialogue in amonological text),
asyndeton (dissolutum; astructure where conjunctions are omitted), hyperbole (superlatio), synecdoche (intellectio), metaphor (translatio), metonymy
(denominatio) and allegory (permutatio) to name just afew. Of the figures of
thought we can cite antithesis (contentio), simile (similitudo), personification
(conformatio), emphasis (significatio), and dialogue (sermocinatio) among the
various possible tools.
Rhetorica ad Herennium is aremarkable testimony to the naturalization
of rhetoric within the Roman context. An anonymous author presents
awell-arranged exposition which summarizes the knowledge of Greek authors, although he is distinguished from them through his emphasis on
domestic public life and examples taken from domestic literature. Acontemporary reader may find many interesting points here, including, for the
first time in history, the word partes being used to indicate apolitical party
(2,43), the delineation of the scope of grammar, ars grammatica (4, 17), and
the distinction between natural and customary law (2, 1920). The text is
written in straightforward, accessible Latin (sermo plebeius) which often contrasts with the elaborate style of the presented examples.
Thanks to its accessible style and clear arrangement, the Rhetorica ad
Herennium became an essential textbook in the Middle Ages, the model for
many later adaptations and the foundation for liberal arts terminology. It
/65/
also served as the underpinning base for the oldest rhetoric textbooks in the
Czech Lands, written by Henricus of Isernia (late 13th century) and Nicolaus
Dybin (mid-14th century). At approximately the same time, Czech lexicographer Bartholomew of Chlumec, known as Claret, used it as asource for his
Vokabul gramatick (Grammatical Dictionary). Its 478 verses contain Czech
terms he attempted to coin for the liberal arts disciplines, which include
grammar and rhetoric.
CICEROS PERFECT ORATOR AS ACITIZEN,
AN ADVOCATE OF LAW AND APOLITICIAN
Marcus Tullius Cicero (Jan. 3, 106Dec. 7, 43 BCE) was the Roman republics greatest orator as well as the most important author of works on
rhetoric, aman whose influence was cardinal to the fields further development. In Ciceros conception, rhetoric is anecessary part of political activities, aposition similar to Isocratess. Unlike the author of Rhetorica ad
Herennium, Cicero had been instructed by Greek teachers of philosophy
and rhetoric, and was an admirer of Greek culture. For him, the connection
between rhetoric and philosophy was anecessary prerequisite for educating
the perfect, active citizen and orator.
Cicero was an orator and politician throughout his entire life, though
he did not begin to pen his views of rhetoric, with the exception of his
early text De inventione (ca. 9080 BCE), until after he returned from exile
in 58BCE, and was forced to shun public life for the rest of his days. His
dialogue On the Orator (De oratore ad Quintum fratrem libri III) is his most influential work, written in 55 BCE, while the short treatise entitled Divisions
of Oratory (Partitiones oratoriae), which explains rhetoric through the form of
questions and answers, dates from 54 BCE. The dialogue Brutus seu de claris
oratoribus, presenting ahistory of Roman oratory, and the dialogue Orator,
ad Marcum Brutum, which defines the ideal orator and focuses on types of
rhetorical stylization, both date from 46 BCE. This dialogue is complemented by the contemplation On the Best Kind of Orators (De optimo genere oratorum), acelebration of Demosthenes and areflection on translation options
for his famous speech On the Crown. Ciceros text Topica, thematically close
to rhetoric and written in 44 BCE, popularizes, after arequest by the lawyer
Trebatius, the search for proofs according to Aristotles Topics and Rhetoric.
De inventione, which Cicero wrote in his youth, is devoted to the theory
of argument presentation and accompanied by examples; in the first part
/66/
/67/
emphasis formed the basis of all later waves of classicism. Ciceros teaching
on decorum was related to his conception of style. Following his teacher,
Molo of Rhodes, Cicero rejected not only simplicity, but also the terseness of Atticism and the artificiality of Asianism, instead leaning towards
awell-balanced manner of speaking, which reflected the authors personality, the audiences expectations and the languages natural laws.
Cicero, however, also aroused agreat deal criticism. The weightiest was
formulated by Theodor Mommsen, aGerman historian, according to whom
Cicero was merely asuperficial politician without any insight into the essence of the matter, lacking any vision into the future, who did not rise
above an eclectic pack of views and empty moralizing. Neither did Mommsen appreciate Ciceros style, rebuking him for acalculated effect, lack of
keen interest and deeper conviction.
This criticism may, however, be countered by pointing out that for Cicero, philosophy was an advisor and consolation in misfortune and that he
considered its study to be only aprerequisite for his successful legal and
political practice, rather than his main focus. He was mostly influenced
by the Neoplatonism of the new Academy and the Stoics views, primarily
those of his teacher, Panaetius. Cicero adopted his call for education to
produce abeautiful, harmonious person, capable of fulfilling his duties,
and for amodification of the teaching of the logos, which is not given to
man from outside or from above, but which originates from within himself
as a desire to become closer to the ideal. For Cicero, this ideal is represented by vir bonus and orator perfectus, anexus of morally cultivated man,
orator andpolitician, capable of captivating the minds and emotions of the
audience.
The main significance of Ciceros work does not lie in philosophy, although he preserved valuable and otherwise inaccessible positions of Greek
thinkers and significantly contributed to the establishment of Latin philosophical terminology. Cicero became one of the most widely known and
quoted figures of antiquity thanks to his works on rhetoric as adiscipline,
reflecting the theory and practice of Roman law and politics in that tumultuous era, marked by the end of republican Rome.
De inventione, which Cicero wrote at the age of nineteen, represents
acomprehensive and instructive overview of rhetoric, demonstrating the
high level of knowledge and complexity Roman schools had achieved. The
first book defines rhetoric as part of politics, and focuses on special issues
(causae) for which particular answers are sought. It is this that distinguishes
/68/
it from philosophy, which covers those general questions (quaestiones generales) that do not have definite answers. Causae appear in three speech types:
forensic, deliberative and epideictic. Furthermore, it explains the five parts
of rhetoric: inventio, dispositio, elocutio, memoria, actio. The second book is
avaluable starting point for the theory of Roman law, and contains the stasis
theory based on Hermagoras of Temnos.
The dialogue (disputatio) De oratore represents the peak of Ciceros maturity in relation to rhetoric. It takes place in Lucius Licinius Crassuss villa in
Tusculum at the end of 91 BCE, which Cicero holds to be the heyday of the
Roman republic. The characters in the dialogue, whose environment clearly
refers to Platos Phaedrus, are based on real people. Crassus is given themost
to say, representing as he does Ciceros ideas. Alongside Crassus,the text
also features Marcus Antonius, Quintus Scaevola, Julius Caesar, Strabo Vopiscus and Sulpicius.
The first book, representing the first day of discussion, is devoted to
Crassuss reflection on the definition of rhetoric and the knowledge necessary in asuccessful orator. The knowledge of rules (praecepta) does not
suffice as asuccessful orator must also possess acertain talent (ingenium),
moral integrity and lead an exemplary life. The second book, and the second day, presents Antoniuss exposition of the history of Greek and Roman
oratory, covering inventio, stasis, loci communes, the speechs arrangement and
the orators memory. In the third book, Crassus introduces the question of
rhetorical style, not focusing merely on accuracy (nor has anyone ever extolled aspeaker for merely speaking in such amanner that those who were
present understood what he said; though everyone has despised him who
was not able to do so; 3.14). An orator must also pay attention to aesthetic
values, to speak distinctly, explicitly, copiously, and luminously, both as
to matter and words; who produces in his language asort of rhythm and
harmony those also who treat their subject as the importance of things
and persons requires, are to be commended for that peculiar kind of merit,
which Iterm aptitude and congruity (3.14). Antonius warns against dividing
thinking and speaking and so he rejects the belief that one teacher should
teach the pupils to think and another to express these thoughts in suitable
language. Both aspects of speech, content and form, are important as the
form of our language follows the nature of our thoughts. The accord between these two aspects, aptum, springs from the balance between the orators nature, his political and philosophical views, and his natural talent and
mastery of rhetorical knowledge.
/69/
According to Cicero, whose conception represents asummary of his predecessors knowledge, it is an orators task to (a) find the speechs theme
and justification (inventio), (b) divide the main theme in asuitable manner
and arrange the arguments (divisio), (c) find the proper form of his speech
(elocutio), (d) preserve the speech in his memory (memoria) and (e) deliver
it eloquently (actio, pronunciatio). An orator is successful if he has managed
to win the audiences favour, presented the substance of the matter, demonstrated where the heart of the dispute lies, justified his own propositions and
refuted those of his opponent. He finds the main prerequisite for all these
goals in asuitable style.
In his teachings on style, most notably developed in the dialogues Brutus
and Orator, Cicero rejects the extremes of the two main currents of ancient
oratory Asianism and Atticism. He criticizes the Asiatic style, aby-product
of the Hellenistic periods abandonment of rhetorics civic role, as insincere
mannerism, but he also admonishes Roman imitators of Greek Atticism for
their blandness and lack of expression.
Later theories of style preserved and cleaved to Ciceros comments regarding the vertical division of style into high, middle and low. The low
style is associated with Atticist terseness of expression, while appreciating
its linguistic accuracy, purity and the selection of adequate means; it should
not lack humour nor asense of irony. Its opposite is the high style, distinguished for the use of the emphasis, where relevant, of thoughts and emotions (amplificatio). In the spirit of Isocrates, Cicero developed atheory of
periodical and rhythmic speech. Rhythm (Lat. numerus) is aresult of not
only alternating long and short syllables, but also of the choice and arrangement of words, and aparallel construction and the scope of sentences. It is
particularly pronounced in the clause, the concluding part of the sentence
which represents the culmination of the meaning, as can be seen most clearly in Ciceros judicial speeches and polemics.
Thanks to the meticulous attention Cicero paid to the style of his speeches as well as his philosophical contemplations on effective oratory, he was
both an exemplar to his contemporaries and grew to become one of rhetorics titans. In his model, rhetoric became adiscipline representing asynthesis of all types of education, moral qualities and commitment for both acitizen and apolitician. Ciceros ideal, orator perfectus, was further developed
in Quintilians Institutes of Oratory as well as in the works of other authors
of the late Hellenistic period (Fortunatianus, Sulpicius Victor, Julius Severianus and others). In the context of Christianity, Ciceros ideas came to be
/70/
/71/
/72/
this education, of Greek and Latin literature, themes which are reflected in
the arrangement of the work.
Book 1 focuses on achilds upbringing both within his family and during
his early schooling, while Book 2 examines the content and functions of
rhetoric as ascience and an art. Books 311 explain the technical aspects
of rhetoric, concerning the orators qualities, rhetorics rules and grammar,
and present analyses of texts written in accordance with these rules. Within
this section of the work, book 10 is of particular importance for literary
historians as it contains assessments of Greek and Roman authors. Book
12 defines the model of aperfect orator as aman of great moral qualities,
educated in philosophy and rhetoric. Quintilians orator is adefender of the
innocent, aconsistent advocate for truth over falsehood, afighter against
crime. Primarily, however, he teaches people to avoid error and leads them
to proper judgement of public affairs (12.1.26).
Quintilians reformist activities spring from his effort to preserve the
knowledge of rhetorical theory in its original and undisturbed form. It is
for this reason that the Institutes of Oratory became an essential book for all
future supporters of classicism. This, however, does not mean that their
author would only look back at the past with nostalgia. On the contrary,
he believed in the power of an education which would ensure the survival
of great models: tot nos praeceptoribus, tot exemplis instruxit antiquitas, ut possit
videri nulla sorte nascendi aetas felicior quam nostra, cui docendae priores elaboraverunt, Antiquity has given us all these teachers and all these patterns for
our imitation, that there might be no greater happiness conceivable than to
be born in this age above all others, since all previous ages have toiled that
we might reap the fruit of their wisdom (12.11.22).
In Quintilians harmonious assessment of earlier authors, there is one
harshly critical declaration against the philosopher Seneca (10.1.125130).
He criticizes Senecas unbalanced, distinctive style, recounting his experience during the dramatic events in Neros Rome. Seneca himself characterized his style in Letter 75, addressed to Lucilius, by saying: haec sit propositi
nostri summa: quod sentimus, loquamur, quod loquimur, sentiamus: concordet
sermo cum vita ... let us say what we feel, and feel what we say; let speech
harmonize with life (4). This view is absolutely foreign to Quintilians moderate world, based in the relatively peaceful period of Flavians rule.
Quintilians Institutes of Oratory is the first expression of arenaissance in
rhetoric, refuting the ideas of its decline in imperial Rome. Although their
author consistently tried to restore Ciceros ideas, his model moves rhetoric
/73/
Pliny the Youngers literary work illustrates how the austerity of classicist
regulation induces the search for exceptions and licenses, and so the tendency to mannerism and stylistic ornamentalism was born with little difficulty
as early as in classicist era. In his letters, Pliny the Younger (61 or 62113),
an orator and author of commemorative poems and epigrams, Quintilians
pupil and follower, gives testimony of how the speeches delivered in court
(their actual delivery, actio) differed significantly from their versions adapted for literary purposes (oratio): they were much more extensive and exhibited acare for stylistic refinement. This is because the author was aware that
while judges and jury are interested in factual descriptions of what happened, experts (eruditi) who would familiarize themselves with his speeches
in literary form would be able to appreciate the thought-out selection and
arrangement of the stylistic and argumentative methods accompanying this
adaptation.
Plinys admiration for Cicero, which was greater than Quintilians, is
marked by the fundamental difference between political rhetoric at the time
of the republic and the judicial rhetoric required during the imperial period.
This could be the reason for Plinys tendency to use Asiatic speech styles,
characterized by an effort to overturn the readers expectations, which Pliny
learned under another of his rhetoric teachers, the Greek Nicetas of Smyrna.
This tendency is demonstrated in his Panegyricus ad Traianum (Panegyric in
Prase of Trajan), in his thanks (gratiarum actio) to Emperor Trajan for awarding him the office of consul. The style of the Panegyric exhibits the use of
many striking stylistic devices expressing admiration for the greatest ruler,
Trajan, in stark contrast to the denunciation of his polar opposite, the hated
Domitian, through the use of many contrary rhetorical attributes along the
axes of optimus-pessimus, aliquando-nunc.
Not only did Pliny himself consider the Panegyric to be an illumination of
his views of rhetoric, he even composed aspeech as astylistic model of epi-
/74/
deictic speeches. Many statements from this speech have come to be used as
clichs and platitudes through various rhetoric selections and anthologies,
and their knowledge was aprerequisite for aperson seeking to boast of their
humanistic education.
Tacituss Dialogue on Oratory (Dialogus de oratoribus) represents amoralizing contemplation on the rhetoric of imperial Rome. Tacitus himself
(ca.55120 CE) was an admirer of and expert on ancient Roman rhetoric. He shared Quintilians conviction regarding the necessity of cultivating
oratorys classical values, particularly moderation, and also of educating an
orator who has asound knowledge of philosophy and is an irreproachable
citizen. Before he ultimately became the first historian, he was known as an
attorney and excellent orator.
The dialogue is believed to have been written during Emperor Trajans
reign, between 96 and 105 CE. The author chose the popular form of afictitious discussion between real-life figures. The dialogue features Curiatius
Maternus, who, having become disenchanted with contemporary rhetoric,
turned to poetry, Marcus Aper, from Gaul, asupporter and advocate of
the modern rhetorical style, Julius Secundus, also from Gaul, awriter and
Tacituss rhetoric teacher, and, crucially, Vipsanus Messalla, originally an
orator, later an author of texts on history which were an important source
for Tacituss History.
The Dialogue on Oratory, consisting of 42 relatively short sections, is set
approximately twenty years before it was written, atime when Rome was
ruled by Emperor Titus Flavius Vespasianus. The dialogue centres on adebate between the two main styles of eloquence, between rhetoric and poetry,
and within this framework, between the classical austerity of the Roman republics old authors and the ornate style of the imperial periods modern orators. With passion, Tacitus complies with the traditional form of presenting
reasons pro et contra, describes contradictory views of contemporary as well
as earlier orators, explains their moral qualities and political stances. The
properly conducted dispute, respecting the opponent within the dialogue,
proceeds to reveal the true causes of the decline in oratory in post-republican Rome during the consolidation of imperial power, while simultaneously
heralding the first manifestations of its crisis.
The Dialogue on Oratorys form and choice of topics evokes Ciceros writings on rhetoric, though differing in the ethos of its reflections. Cicero
writes about rhetoric at its zenith, devoting a great deal of space to the
technical aspects of oratory and emphasizing the necessity of combining
/75/
rhetoric and philosophy. Tacitus, on the other hand, is witness to the decline
in importance of forensic and, vitally, deliberative oratory, and so leaves
aside instructions for delivering the speech, principally focusing insteadon
theimportance of the orators civic involvement, on voicing his opinion
onthe consequences of the evident conflict between old republican virtues
and elegance of style, so prevalent in his time, and characterized by lightheartedness arising from the relatively peaceful era of the Flavian reign.
Tacitus wrote his Dialogue less than half acentury after Quintilian, though
over this time, the the noblest and most sublime of tastes (opus maximus
et pulcherrimus; Quint. 2.17.3) had lost in its significance, something for
which there were many reasons, most generally linked to the political crises
of the period, but also resulting from the different paths education, morals
and theentire paradigms of cultural norms were taking. Tacitus was aware
that the character and type of oratory must change with the circumstances
of the age and an altered taste in the popular ear (par. 19) and sought the
roots of these changes. Like his contemporaries, he strove for improvement
in contemporary society through the restoration of earlier republican virtues, personified in both Catos. However, he understood that times had
changed and that old Roman virtues were, in truth, merely amixture of
reality, authors and historians fiction, in addition to being the products
ofmyths and legends. Tacitus did not share Quintilians belief in the omnipotence of education, asking the pressing question of what this education
was like and which teachers provided it. As the situation compelled him
towards scepticism, in education he valued morality higher than knowledge.
Speeches were supposed exhibit care for content, which required asimple,
unaffected form. So much better is it for an orator to wear arough dress
than to glitter in many-coloured and meretricious attire. Indeed, neither for
an orator or even aman is that style becoming which is adopted by many
of the speakers of our age, and which, with its idle redundancy of words, its
meaningless periods and licence of expression, imitates the art of the actor.
Shocking as it ought to be to our ears it is afact that fame, glory, and genius
are sacrificed by many to the boast that their compositions are given with
the tones of the singer, the gestures of the dancer. Hence the exclamation,
which, though often heard, is ashame and an absurdity, that our orators
speak prettily and our actors dance eloquently (par. 26).
Tacitus, reflecting his status as an excellent writer, never rejected abeautiful style, though he insisted that it should not lapse into being an end
in itself, degenerating into needless frills, into an empty chime. Ahealthy
/76/
rhetorical style (sanitus eloquentiae) was required to serve its main purpose:
to speak beautifully and persuasively. Tacitus (par. 30) adhered to Ciceros
definition of an orator as aman who is able to hold by your eloquence the
minds of men, to captivate their wills, to move them to and fro in whatever
direction you please (... qui de omni quaestione pulchre et ornate et ad persuadendum apte dicere pro dignitate rerum, ad utilitatem temporum, cum voluptate
audientium possit; Cic. De or. 1.8.30).
In this manner, Tacitus does not criticize the beauty of style, but rather the declamatory mannerism of rhetorics teachers. Denouncing Hellenism-inspired education, based on dealing with minute philological
problems, he follows the effort of Cato the Elder to emancipate Roman
republican o
ratory from its Greek influence, of the anonymous author of
Rhetorica ad Herennium, as well as from the anti-Greek sentiments of learned
Romans. Tacituss school reproached derisory declamations on themes detached from life, and he castigated the indifference to teaching active citizenship: But in these days we have our youths taken to the professors
theatre, the rhetoricians, as we call them. The class made its appearance
alittle before Ciceros time, and was not liked by our ancestors, as is evident
from the fact that, when Crassus and Domitius were censors, they were ordered, as Cicero says, to close the school of impudence. However, as Iwas
just saying, the boys are taken to schools in which it is hard to tell whether
the place itself, or their fellow-scholars, or the character of their studies, do
their minds most harm. As for the place, there is no such thing as reverence,
for no one enters it who is not as ignorant as the rest. As for the scholars,
there can be no improvement, when boys and striplings with equal assurance address, and are addressed by, other boys and striplings. As for the
mental exercises themselves, they are the reverse of beneficial. Two kinds of
subject-matter are dealt with before the rhetoricians, the persuasive and the
controversial. The persuasive, as being comparatively easy and requiring
less skill, is given to boys. The controversial is assigned to riper scholars,
and, good heavens! what strange and astonishing productions are the result! It comes to pass that subjects remote from all reality are actually used
for declamation. Thus the reward of atyrannicide, or the choice of an outraged maiden, or aremedy for apestilence, or amothers incest, anything, in
short, daily discussed in our schools, never, or but very rarely in the courts,
is dwelt on in grand language (par. 15).
Tacituss Dialogue on Oratory is aprofound reflection on the purpose and
social role of rhetoric within ancient Rome. The protagonists convincingly
/77/
prove that the development of rhetorical style and the scope of an orators
activities are primarily based on ethics, the source of all matters associated
with politics, education and aesthetics. This reading also links the Dialogue
to the whole of Tacituss historiographic work, which together forms aremarkable unity.
After Quintilian, Pliny and Tacitus, it is incumbent upon us not to neglect arepresentative of the archaic trends in the development of Roman
rhetoric, Marcus Cornelius Fronto (ca 100160 CE), one of Emperor Marcus Aureliuss teachers. His work exhibits the mannerism of the Hellenistic
period in the very names of his speeches, including Praise of Sleep, Praise of
Smoke and Dust. In his language, Fronto makes great use of archaic words
and phrases, along with forgotten words and expressions from ancient Roman authors on whom he was an expert (rerum litterarumque veterum peritus).
His mannered style, elocutio novella, found its readers and audience from
among sophisticated people and even had its imitators. Among these, the
most notably adept at this was the encyclopaedist Aulus Gellius, author of
apoetic composition entitled Attic Nights, who disdained those who did not
share his admiration for the past and ancient Roman virtues. He termed
such people semi-educated, novicii semidocti.
THE SECOND SOPHISTIC AND HERMOGENESS RHETORIC AS ASTASIS SYSTEM
/78/
/79/
/80/
/81/
/82/
On Style defines style as an idea consisting of three elements: the idea, ennoia; the authors approach to the subject matter, methodos; and the selection
of language form, lexis. Hermogenes considers the expression deinots, in
essence corresponding to Ciceronian notion of decorum, mastery, to be the
basis of his expressive conception of style and defines this as eis deon kai kata
kairon, related to what is necessary and what is considered adequate. According to Hermogenes, deliberative speeches employ ademanding method of exposition (drimyts), with awell thought-out composition, in which
individual statements are closely connected. Festive speeches (panegyrikoi)
are characterized by longer sentences, whose linking is looser, and an abundant use of imagery. Hermogeness attempt to classify qualities arising from
aforceful style is remarkable. He determines greatness (megethos) as the
most important of the positive values of style, which is due to festive diction
(smnots), brilliance (lamprots), richness of expression (peribol), roughness
in speech (trachyts), vehemence (sfodrots) and maturity (akm). The style
endemic to individual genres and orators arises from the combination of
these values.
The arrangement of speech is achieved by the segmentation of the text
into syntactic semantic units, which are elementary, cola, and complex, periods. From the semantic perspective, the most important cola, usually those at
the end of periods, known as clauses, are characterized by prosodic qualities.
The core of Hermogeness exposition is grounded in the systemization of
Hermagorass earlier teaching on the stases of speech. The path human intelligence takes from the formulation of aproblem (subject matter) to finding
persuasive arguments to solve it is extremely well calculated. Hermogeness
method of exposition is consistently based on dichotomy, which makes it
easy to learn. Each theme for judicial speeches is presented as ageneral
(problma) or particular problem (ztma), which consists of several elements. These are of two types: concerning people (prosopa) or concerning
things (pragmata), that is, people or events involved.
The questions of the first type seek an answer to the question of who is
the person being talked about, what are his qualities and what is his relationship to other people. The questions of the second type are understood
to determine whether the dispute has the character of ajudicial case, whether it has asolution, whether it may be related to ageneral principle of law,
whether it is related to the past or the future, whether the accused admits or
denies his guilt or transfers it to someone else, among others. Hermogeness
minute semantic analysis, followed by later commentators (Doxapatres,
/83/
During late antiquity and the early years of Christianity, rhetoric strengthened its role as anorm for public and refined literary communication, based
both on traditions and newly formulated ethical and aesthetic principles.
In codifying this norm, the canons of established literary models played
an important role. The oldest of these was written in the early 5th century
by Macrobius, an adherent of Neoplatonism. His work Somnium Scipionis
(The Dream of Scipio) introduced the four basic models to be imitated: Homer, the genesis and source of all divine inspiration; Plato, the bearer
of mystic truth; Cicero, an experienced expert on ancient wisdom; and
Vergil, the most experienced figure in all areas, an ideal in rhetoric and
poetics (Curtius). This selection of authors demonstrates the absence of
afixed boundary between fiction and non-fiction. Through the era, this canon underwent changes, making Vergil, Horace, Terence, Juvenal, Persius,
Lucan, Statius, Prudentius, Cassiodorus, Isidore of Seville, the Venerable
Bede and, crucially, the Scriptures an inspiration for themes, stylistic models and norms. From the 4th and 5th centuries, Greek ceased to be the lingua
franca of the learned community in western Europe, and so Greek authors
were usually read in Latin translations, excerpts (sentences and florilegia)
and commentaries.
The authority of the rhetorical norm even influenced the first Christian
authors and preachers, though they often criticized rhetoric for its pagan
origin. Unrelenting disputes as to whether rhetoric, and the entirety of ancient culture, should be used to spread Christianity or universally rejected,
inspired sincere opinions alongside empty proclamations and expressions
of diplomatic moderation. One of early Christianitys greatest philosophers,
Origen, places theology high above liberal arts and philosophy claiming
that what the pupils of the philosophers say about geometry and music,
grammar, rhetoric, and astronomy, viz. that they are the handmaidens of
philosophy, we may say of philosophy itself in relation to Christianity
(13.1). The controversies concerning the role and importance of rhetoric
continued until the Edict of Milan, issued in 313 by Emperor Constantine
/85/
the Great, which first established religious tolerance for the Christian religion. Christianity was proclaimed to be the only religion in the empire
shortly after in 381 under Emperor Theodosius. Greek Patristic theologians
of the 4th and 5th centuries, Basil the Great, Gregory of Nazianzus, Gregory of Nyssa, Cyril of Jerusalem, John Chrystosom and Cyril of Alexandria
were all interested in problems relating to the peoples piety in Christian
communities. However, they viewed it through the prism of the intellectual
Hellenistic education and methods of thinking, which they had adopted
from their teachers, including the example of John Chrystosom, agreat
preacher, who had been apupil of Libanius, the last pagan orator. Rhetoric was the formative element in Greek Patristic theologys works, which
principally inspired the orthodoxy of the eastern Greek part of the Christian world.
Despite this, the rhetorical question asked by the Christian thinker Tertullian (2nd century) in his Prescription against Heretics (De praescriptione haereticorum) What indeed has Athens to do with Jerusalem? What concord is
there between the Academy with the Church? What between heretics and
Christians? (chap. 7) certainly implies anegative answer. In his letter to
Lady Eustochium, St. Jerome contrasted reading the Book of Psalms and
Horace, evangelistic texts and Vergil, Paul the Apostle and Cicero. He escalated his anti-rhetorical arguments by stating that it is impossible to drink
from Christs and devils chalice at the same time. In contravention of this,
however, he revealed to the same addressee that it was his knowledge of
rhetoric that helped him to convey better even the most difficult passages
when translating the Scripture.
This animosity of the first Christian thinkers towards rhetoric was escalated due to rhetoric in early Christianity being dominated by the mannerism of the Second Sophistic. Although some Christian authors were willing to tolerate it during public gatherings or in court, they rejected it in
preaching the word of God when believers expect vocis pura simplicitas, non
eloquentiae, the simplicity of expression, not eloquence, as St. Cyprian, an
influential Church Father emphasized (Ad Donatum, mid-3rd century).
Despite this, Greek and Latin rhetorics influence on the style and argumentation in the earliest Christian texts should not be underestimated.
There are interesting parallels to be found in the Jewish tradition, where
the Old Testament prophets were usually preachers spreading the joyous
news with amighty voice (Psalm 68). This power of the spoken word is
demonstrated by the three pillars supporting the vault of Jewish and Chris-
/86/
tian services: prayer, reading the Scriptures and their interpretation. Each
of these represents an act of communication in the circle of believers, as well
as between man and God.
New Testament texts dependence on the compositional and stylistic
principles of Greek rhetoric are demonstrated through the words of Philipp
Melanchthon, a great theologian, about the apostle Paul: Est mirabilis
quedam simplicitas in Paulo, coniuncta cum maiestate, sicut etiam in Homero.
Paulus si ineruditus homo fuisset, non potuisset tam ornatum contexere exordium, in quo magna verborum emphasi utitur (There is amiraculous simplicity
in Paul [in the apostle Pauls style, J. K.] connected with majesty, like in
Homer. If Paul was an uneducated person, he would not be able to compose the exordium in such an ornate manner, with such an emphasis on
words).25 In his epistles, Pauls inspiration by the style, composition and
argumentation of Greek rhetoric and epistolography is aconstant subject
of study for both rhetorics historians and researchers in biblical studies and
textual criticism. Attention is particularly paid to Pauls Epistles to the Galatians and Epistle to the Romans, which anticipate the later theological (and
scholastic) effort to explain Jesuss teachings through rational research.26
Similarly, Luke the Evangelists historical style became asubject of interest. Alarge number of studies focus on the unity, emphasized by St. Paul,
between the word itself (gramma) and the intended message determining
this word (pneuma). This relation, based on the Jewish tradition of religious and legal thinking, is related to the distinction developed in ancient
rhetoric between awords material form (Greek: rhtos, Latin: vox/scriptum)
and its meaning (Greek: dianoia, Lat.: voluntas). Potentially the oldest work
concerning ancient rhetorics influence on the books of the Old and New
Testamentswas written by Victorinus Afer, an orator of late antiquity. The
same theme wassubsequently, in the humanist period, addressed by Lorenzo Valla, Desiderius Erasmus, Jacques Lefvre dEtaples (Jacobus Faber
Stapulensis), Martin Luther, Huldrych Zwingli, John Calvin (for adetailed
bibliography, see Classen, 1992). The modern study of rhetorical and hermeneutic analysis of New Testament texts has its own 18th-century predecessor in Benedictine St. Hayd of Freiburg, whose thesis Introducio hermeneutica
in Sacros Novi Testamenti Libros was published in Vienna in 1777. Chapter7,
Section2, Tropi et figurae, focuses on style, while Section 3, Institutiones analytico-hermeneuticae in singulos Novi Testamenti libros speciales, covers argumentation methods. Many contributions to this analysis have been the result of
the current renaissance of rhetoric. From these, we must cite the numerous
/87/
s tudies by Roland Meynet, the synthetic theses by Carl Joachim Classen (cf.
eg., St. Paul Epistles and Ancient Greek and Roman Rhetoric, 1992), H. D.Betz
(bibl. see Classen), Margaret D. Zulick (1992), James L. Kinneavy and many
others.
Christian authors began to view rhetoric more positively when evangelists started to address ordinary people and ecclesiastic elites at the same
time, combining common, spoken language and refined, literary language
patterns. Many church writers who were educated through ancient culture,
began to adapt rhetoric to their needs, applying and developing it as they
felt most fitting.
Medieval rhetoric focused on written texts even more than late antiquity had. In this period, whose beginnings were marked by reading aloud,
however, the difference between written and spoken texts was not as considerable as it later became, in the early stages of the development of written books and, particularly, book printing. The script (both in the original
sense and metaphorically to indicate the Scriptures) arouses respect and admiration. The etymology of the Greek word grammatika and its literal Latin
translation litteratura are derived from an expression meaning both aletter
and the script in general, reflecting that grammar and literature derived
their rules and principles from written documents. Model canonical texts
represented aspiritual unity of people to whom they were addressed and
those who identified with their content and wording. Attention is principally focused on the written word, be it its stylization or interpretation, and
sothe revolutionary moments of medieval history were inspired by changes
in the preferred method of reading, known as orthodox, heterodox or completely heretical.
Along with the Christian worldview, developed during the dramatic assimilation of Hellenistic and Judaic cultures, the traditions of ancient rhetoric based on rational analysis of textual stylization blended with the art of
speculative interpretation of sacred texts, apractice which had been cultivated by the rabbis when reading Talmud. Despite alevel of convergence,
there is asubstantial difference between the two approaches. In the communication model of ancient rhetoric, the orator, artifex, is the key element.
He stylizes his speech according to aparticular strategy, often resorting to
manipulative techniques. On the other hand, in the model formed by Hebrew biblical culture, the interpreter and his insight into the narrated events
form the focal point. This insight is part of the hermeneutic acquisition of
the text being part of an interpreters effort to ascertain the basis of the
/88/
/89/
/90/
expositions: questio and quodlibet. These were characterized by the consistent use of the deductive method, employing syllogisms and proceeding
from authorities statements, often of acontradictory nature, to formally
unequivocal conclusions.
Although the arrangement and concepts of medieval rhetoric actually
adhered to the ancient and primarily Ciceronian model, it was much less
unified and compact, in comparison. Rhetorics consistent lack of development, discussed at the beginning of this exposition, was most striking
in the Byzantine Empire, the former Roman empires eastern part. Hermogenes and Aphthoniuss influence in practical exercises (progymnasmata)
remained so strong that rather than focus on the adherents, it is more apt to
discuss their commentators, astate of affairs that lasted until the last years
of the Paleolog dynasty and the fall of Constantinople.
Development in the west was apparently more diverse, showing signs
of alevel of logical periodization. In the 4th century, Fortunatianuss Artis
rhetoricae III and Julius Victors Ars rhetorica were indicative of ancient rather
than medieval views of rhetoric, expanding rhetorical scope to encompass
the genres of public and private correspondence and historiography.
The early years of medieval historys development are associated with
two important figures, St. Augustine and the last Roman, Boethius, whose
works can be understood as an attempt to complete, while at the same time
revising, the Ciceronian conception of discipline in style and argumentation
so prevalent at the time. The doctrine of seven liberal arts was introduced
into medieval Christian tradition through the allegorical and descriptive
poem On the Marriage of Philology and Mercury by Martianus Capella, dating
from the first half of the 5th century.
Between the 5th and 10th centuries, several compendia were compiled,
each attempting to define more exactly rhetorics place within the system of
school and scientific disciplines. The most widely used publications included Cassiodoruss encyclopaedia Institutiones divinarum et humanarum litterarum (An Introduction to Divine and Human Readings) with its fundamental
exposition of the seven liberal arts in the 6th century, Isidore of Sevilles
compendium Etymologiae sive Origines (the Etymologies, also known as the
Origins) from the 7th century, and Liber de schematibus et tropis by the Venerable Bede, an English monk and theologian, in the early 8th century. This
periods peak is undoubtedly represented by Disputatio de rhetorica et de virtutibus sapientissimi Regis Karli et Albini Magistri by Alcuin of York, an English
scholar and diplomat of the late 9th century. This text was used as atextbook
/91/
/92/
/93/
In the first quarter of the 5th century, Martianus Capella of Carthage, apagan author, wrote alengthy poem entitled De nuptiis Philologiae et Mercurii
(On the Marriage of Philology and Mercury), which, for medieval authors, was
to become afrequently cited source on the seven liberal arts. Capella discussed them in the generally accepted order: grammar, dialectics, rhetoric,
geometry, arithmetic, astronomy and music. Since antiquity, the standard
number of these disciples had varied several times. At one point, Seneca
talked about five disciplines (omitting rhetoric and dialectics), while grammarian Marcus Terentius Varro, the author of Disciplinarum libri novem
(116 BCE), mentioned nine (adding architecture and medicine to the usual
canon). Other authors, including Isidore of Seville, counted law as being
among the arts (iurisprudentia).
At the beginning of this extensive composition, constituting some five
hundred pages, in which sections in verse were alternated with those written
in prose, Capella describes the wedding of Mercury (the symbol of rational
intelligence and practical entrepreneurial spirit) to awise maiden, Philology, who, thanks to this union, is transformed into agoddess. She is borne
into the heavens by two boys, symbolizing Work (Labor) and Love (Amor),
and two girls, Epimeliad, the personification of diligence, and Agrypnia,
symbolizing curtailed sleep and the intellectuals nocturnal work. The gath-
/94/
ered gods, philosophers and poets gave Philology seven liberal arts, each
personified as afemale figure. Grammar is agrey-haired old woman, whose
lineage originates in Memphis and stretches back to Osiris. In her hand,
Grammar holds aknife and file, to cut and file out grammatical mistakes
and then place them in an ebony box. The motif of afile, lima, is related to
the ancient tradition of the language and stylistic cultivation, refining and
polishing of the text, whose continuation is to be found in rubstones,
dictionary and grammar handbooks, particularly popular throughout the
baroque and Enlightenment periods. Standing beside Grammar is Dialectic, apale woman with her face set in amerciless expression, concealing
arguments, symbolized by venomous snakes coiled around her arm, under
her clothes.
In the compositions Book 5, Rhetoric is presented as ayoung girl in
stark contrast to the other two figures. Her clothing is embellished with
rhetorical tropes and figures (schemata et figure), she is carrying aweapon in
her hand (following artistic symbolism, this is usually depicted as aspear
or sword) to drive away enemies. She looks like aqueen whose gestures
can arouse either delight or awe and wielding her weapons is invariably accompanied by thunder and lightning. This picturesque introduction creates
acontrast to adry and somewhat epigonic exposition of rhetorical doctrine,
adopted from and supplemented by several examples from Cicero. Asimilar
compositional structure, an allegorical introduction followed by afactual
segment predominantly consisting of definitions, is also followed in various
parts of the work devoted to other liberal arts.
The flowery and stylized introductions to the chapters of Capellas composition serve to illustrate the root of iconographic tradition, which found
expression in the sculpted decoration of cathedrals (Chartres, Pisa) and
secular buildings (Zwengss sculptural allegories of liberal arts in the Kuks
Chateau park in North-Eastern Bohemia), reaching its peak in illustrated
prints of the European baroque and mannerism. Despite its popularity
among contemporaries, Capellas work as the primary source of information
regarding individual liberal arts disciplines was to soon be outmoded and
superseded in the first Christian encyclopaedists works.
AUGUSTINE OF HIPPO PREACHER, RHETORICIAN, POLEMICIST
An analysis of Book 4 of St. Augustines De doctrina Christiana (first published 426) might mislead readers into believing that they are, in fact, be-
/95/
ing presented with Ciceros exposition of style, whose examples had been
adapted to the needs of Christian preachers. In reality, however, this first
Christian book of rhetoric is not only apresentation of systematic theology, but also an expression of Augustines remarkable concept of language
and communication in general. Though it is difficult in some places to distinguish the authors personal contribution from knowledge adapted from
Hellenistic philologists, no theory of language semiotics can be judged complete without being included in his gaze.
Augustine of Hippo (354430 CE), akey figure in western Christianity,
was the first to realize that in the heated debate concerning whether rhetoric, being the most prominent aspect of their ancient cultural heritage, was
an acceptable tool for the disseminators of Christianity, it would not suffice
merely to take ageneral stance. Instead, he believed that anew rhetorical
doctrine, one that would meet the current demands of the church, should
be elaborated. Thus, in one of his letters, he resentfully rejects the argument
denying effectiveness in speech by referring to Proverbs (10:19): In the
multitude of words there wanteth not sin: but he that refraineth his lips is
wise. We can also find the opposing argument in Augustines writing when
quoting St. Pauls First Epistle to Timothy (4:1213): be thou an example of the beleevers, in word, in conversation, in charitie, in spirit, in faith, in
puritie. Till Icome, give attendance to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine.
It should be emphasized that Augustine himself was an outstanding
preacher; in his epistles, he referred to his preaching several times. It was
an outcome of his activities as alawyer and rhetoric teacher in the North
African city of Thagaste, part of the old Roman colonies and distinguished
through its relatively high quality of culture and education. After his stay in
Milan, where he converted to Christianity and where he was baptized by his
patron, St. Ambrose, he again left for Africa, where he became apriest and
eventually abishop in the Mediterranean city of Hippo.
The apparently surprising fact that St. Augustine, unlike other Christian
thinkers, did not shun the exalted stylistics in speech typical of the Second
Sophistic can be explained in two ways. The first is due to his passion for
polemics. The school of thought, from which arose medieval Catholicism,
originated in the tumultuous controversies concerning the nature of human
salvation, the nature of original sin, the relation between God the Father
and God the Son, and the genesis of good and evil in the world, among
a multitude of other issues doctrinal import. Augustine argued against
representatives of movements which, to varying extents, pronounced views
/96/
/97/
/98/
reading to capture the meaning of the text (spiritualis) and reading to focus
on the material, sonic or graphical form (corporealis, carnalis). Augustine
believes that understanding does not take place where the reader overestimates the literal meaning at the expense of the figurative (intellegentia
carni subicitur sequendo litteram, 3.5.9). This does not mean that literal meaning should not be considered important, on the contrary, the path to revealing the true meaning starts with the letters, words and sentences bound
in the text. Over athousand years later, this postulation was expounded
byLuther, who adhered to the sensus litteralis, believing that the spirit of
theScripturespringsonly from the correct and literal understanding of the
text.
According to Augustines doctrine, alanguage sign contains two oppositions. The first is based on the relation between spiritual (voluntas) and
material (vox/scriptum) elements, while the second is dictated by the relation between the signifier (verba) and the signified (res). If the essential
symmetry of these relations is broken, the text loses its ability to communicate. However, even the ambiguity of the message, obscuritas, may reflect
divine will, as it restrains human pride and brings the joy of overcoming
obstacles on the difficult path to understanding. This difficulty is especially due to less familiar (ignota) or ambiguous (ambigua) words. In order to
understand, we must familiarize ourselves with the issue at hand (res), the
circumstances of its origin (cognitio historiarum) and the authors intention
(scriptorum intentio).
Interpretation-related difficulties are also the result of the contradiction
between words used literally (proprie) and figuratively (figurate). While Augustine cautions against understanding figurative expressions literally, he
issues far sterner warnings against understanding what is meant literally as
figurative or allegorical.
Augustines fear of distorting the meaning atext should fully convey is
strongly linked to his conception of alanguage style, elaborated in Book 4
of On Christian Doctrine, which is based on the vertical division of style into
high, middle and low. For all of these, Augustine unearthed models for imitation, imitatio, in the Bible, particularly in Davids Psalms and Pauls Epistles. The high style is to be used whenever the preacher wants to move his
audience to act or to inspire them to adopt anew stance on an issue of belief; the middle style is employed when he intends to delight and captivate,
and, finally, the low style is used in instruction. Christian preachers should,
therefore, master all three styles (ut doceat, ut delectat, ut flectat, 4.17.34).
/99/
Unlike Cicero, who associated great themes with only the high style, Augustine is convinced that for adisseminator of faith, no theme is little or lowly.
Whether the facts of divine law are discussed in public or in private, whether
we talk to acommunity or to our closest friends, whether it is amonologue
or adialogue, an independent interpretation or apolemic treatise, all words
used by the speaker regarding faith are equally important. This, however,
ought not to imply that only the high style should be employed in such
instances as these. The style does not depend on the theme, but rather on
the speechs purpose. Apreacher should, therefore, choose asubdued style
when he wants to teach, amoderate one when he is giving praise or blame,
or astyle suffused with emotions and imagery when he wants to persuade
and to induce his audience to act (4.19.38). As adiscourse usually features
all these functions, the use of stylistic means alternates, just as the sea ebbs
and flows (sicut maris aestus alternet, 4.22.51).
Book 4 of Augustines On Christian Doctrine, for many centuries an essential handbook for preachers rhetoric, significantly contributed to maintaining Ciceros authority in the Christian world. The ideas included in this
works four books, however, continue to serve as inspiration for modern
philology in language, semiotics and hermeneutics.
TOPICA BOETII RHETORIC IN THE SERVICE OF DIALECTICS
When Anicius Manlius Severinus Boethius (ca. 480524 CE) held high office in the court of Theodoric, King of the Ostrogoths, he received aletter
from the king, written on the kings behalf by his friend, and possibly pupil,
Cassiodorus, which contained the following words of praise:
Ihave learnt that you, clothed in your great learning, are so knowledgeable in this art which men practise in customary ignorance, you have
drunk from the very spring of science. For, at long distance, you so entered
the schools of Athens, you so mingled in your toga among their cloaked
assemblies, that you turned Greek theories into Roman teaching. For you
have discovered with what deep thought speculative philosophy, in all its
parts, ispondered, by what mental process practical reasoning, in all itsdivisions,is learnt, as you transmitted to Roman senators every wonder that
the sons of Cecrops [Athenians] have given the world. For it is in your translation that Pythagoras the musician and Ptolemy the astronomer are read as
Italians; that Nicomachus on arithmetic and Euclid on geometry are heard
as Ausonians [Italians]; that Plato debates on metaphysics and Aristotle
/100/
on logic in the Roman tongue; you have even rendered Archimedes the
engineer to his native Sicilians in Latin dress. And all the arts and sciences which Greek eloquence has set forth through separate men, Rome has
received in her native speech by your sole authorship. Your verbal splendour has given them such brightness, the elegance of your language such
distinction, that anyone acquainted with both works would prefer yours to
the original.You have entered aglorious art, marked out among the noble
disciplines, through the four gates of learning. Drawn in by authors works,
you have come to know it where it sits in the inner shrine of nature, through
the light of your own genius; it is your practice to understand its problems,
your purpose to demonstrate its wonders.28
It is unlikely that we will ever fully understand why Theodoricus, the
otherwise equable King of the Ostrogoths, who supported Roman education, sent Boethius, aformer consul and the highest officer within his administration (magister officiorum) into exile and later, according to legend,
had him executed on October 23, 524. Sources concerning this tragic event,
which was undoubtedly related to the kings court in Ravenna and the powerful Emperor of Byzantium, lead only to speculation. However, the ethos
of Boethiuss last work, Consolatio philosophiae (Consolation of Philosophy),
written in prison, continues to appeal to readers fifteen hundred years after
it was written.
We shall now return to the quotation from the kings letter. It not only
praises the addressees merit in elaborating the quadrivium disciplines, the
four gates of learning, but also his role as an interpreter of and commentator
on Greek learning in general. This was all the more valuable as this knowledge was somewhat unique in the western part of the country.
The idea that philosophy and dialectics cannot exist without paying
attention to language (rhetoric), and that rhetoric cannot function without alogical arrangement in speech, was particularly topical in the 4th and
5thcenturies. These were the decisive years concerning what was to be adopted from ancient culture, what should be opposed and what should be
left to slide into oblivions shadow. Boethius devoted his entire life to this
task, suggesting asolution in several works, divided according to the expected erudition and understanding of readers.
The first of these is atranslation of and commentary on Plotinuss pupil,
Porphyry (2nd half of the 3rd century), entitled In Isagogen Porfyrii commenta,
which contains an introduction to Aristotles dialectical terminology. Another text, atranslation of Aristotles entire Organon, was followed by his
/101/
/102/
/103/
Goths established, after retiring from the court, the Vivarium Monastery in
Calabria in 540, where at his behest, ancient manuscripts were collected and
copied. It is no coincidence that this took place only eleven years after the
decline of the Platonic Academy. Once again, there arose aneed to create
apeaceful, independent refuge for independent research, aplace that would
be secluded from everyday hustle and political tensions; in other words,
those adverse phenomena which were so typical of the royal court of Theodoric and his descendants.
In order to make the wealth of the library accessible to the monks spending their time in the Vivarium, Cassiodorus compiled atwo-volume encyclopaedic handbook Institutiones divinarum et saecularum litterarum (The
Foundations of Spiritual and Secular Disciplines). This was an incentive for
similar synoptic works, which went on to inspire other prominent authors:
Isidore of Seville, Bede of Jarrow (the Venerable Bede), Alcuin, Rabanus
Maurus and others. The special attention Cassiodorus paid to rhetoric is
also evinced by asmaller text, an overview of biblical tropes and figures,
In psalterium expositio (Exposition of the Psalter), in which he developed
Augustines thesis that stylistic models need not be sought in pagan authors
as all that is required for understanding can be found in the Bible. This text,
quite neglected by early researchers, has recently been receiving deserved
attention29 as aprincipal Christian exposition of ancient theory of forensic,
deliberative and epideictic rhetorical genres.
Institutiones is divided into two parts. Reflecting Jesuss life, the first has
thirty-three chapters and is devoted to the divine disciplines, particularly
the exposition of the Old and New Testaments. The second part interprets
the content of the seven liberal arts, thus creating amedieval interpretation
of the Hellenistic concept of comprehensive education, enkyklios paideia. It
begins with the trivium disciplines, considering grammar to be their foundation (origo et fundamentum liberalium litterarum). Rhetoric, which stood
in second place (bene dicendi scientia in civilibus quaestionibus), is reduced to
asearch for themes and arguments (invention). Cassiodorus builds on Fortunatianus (C. Chirii Fortunatiani artis rhetoricae libri III), Victorinus and Cicero.
Dialectics is defined as afield which teaches how to distinguish truth from
alie (vera sequestrat afalsis). Referring to Aristotle, Boethius and Victorinus,
he explains the forms of syllogism and loci communes. He also distinguishes
between the arguments used by poets, orators, philosophers and lawyers.
The formulations in Institutiones are extremely brief, generally being
framed as definitions, and thus this work serves as an introduction to the
/104/
study of more specialized texts. Despite, or perhaps because of, this it furnishes us with as aclear idea of what Christian authors considered necessary
and topical in ancient literature, and what, thanks to them, aided in the
formation of culture across the upcoming centuries.
ISIDORE OF SEVILLE AND THE ORIGIN OF SCHOLASTIC EDUCATION
/105/
Cicero, the Bible, and avertical classification of styles: humile, medium, grandiloquum. Isidore, however, disregarded the concluding sections of rhetoric:
memorization and delivery.
To some extent, Isidores encyclopaedia attests to the declining quality
of education in the period that historians frequently term the Interim or
Dark Ages. While Cassiodorus composed his work as an introduction to
more specialized study, Isidore compiled abrief, though not always clearly
arranged, selection of information which replaced this study. Despite this,
Isidores Etymologiae remains an oft-quoted text, which provided the fundamental framework for formal scholastic education throughout several subsequent centuries.
RHETORIC AS PART OF GRAMMAR: THE VENERABLE BEDE
/106/
/107/
For this reason, speech rhythm can exist without meter, but meter without
rhythm is unthinkable (rhythmus per se sine metro esse potest, mentrum vero sine
rhythmo esse non potest). Bede thus contributed to the formation of prosody
as an independent field of study within philological disciplines.
Bedes grammatical and rhetoric texts were the first to voice the view
that poetic language (and also, broadly speaking, high prose, most notably
the language of the Old and New Testaments) stands in opposition to the
language used in everyday situations. Poetic language is distinguished by
applying specific rhythmic and metric schemes, as well as tropes and figures
which, in the process of text stylization and reception, are perceived as intentional deviations from aneutral manner of speaking. Bedes reduction of
rhetoric to elocutio, primarily grammatical and stylistic themes, also found
many followers.
ALCUIN OF YORK: ATEACHER OF WISDOM AND ELOQUENCE
/108/
/109/
cultural impetus that contributed to this fields growth: the flowering of educational activities in monasteries during the reign of Charlemagne and his
successors. The abbeys in Tours, Saint Gallen and Fulda, famous for their
rich libraries and intensive copying of old manuscript, were particularly important in spreading an unprecedented variety of manuscripts. This wasat
least partly facilitated by Carolingian minuscule, anew font, which was
easier to read. Inevitably, many of them focused on the trivium disciplines
and thus also on both old and new works on rhetoric.
The beginning of this preaching coincides with the rise of Christian
communities in ancient Rome. Reading from the Scriptures became an important part of aservice, followed by ashort informal commentary on the
text that had been read, often along with an appeal to lead aChristian life.
As the communities grew and became more official, apulpitum, or asmall
portable table for the Bible, was removed from the altar (ambo) and became
anarchitecturally independent element: the pulpit. Preaching in the form
of an informal dialogue, referred to as homiletics from the 4th century, remained in use. This term later came to refer to preaching in general.
Augustines tractate On Christian Doctrine remained the standard text of
the art of preaching until the end of the High Middle Ages. Linking Scriptural interpretation to the source of all topics appropriate for preaching and
the necessary conditions of preaching activities with the rhetorical question
of stylization and delivery thus delineated the content and arrangement of
all subsequent works in this genre.
Another reason for the development of the art of preaching came from
Pope Gregory Is (540604) work Regula pastoralis (The Book of the Pastoral Rule), apractical handbook containing advice on church administration, and the religious and secular duties of priests among many other
matters. Extensive sections were also devoted to the preparation and delivery of sermons; something that was based both on the authors personal
experience and on that of his contemporaries, rather than on general rules
as had been de rigueur. Interestingly enough, it emphasizes the need to
adapt ones speech to suit the audience, presenting a somewhat unique
classification of its types as dictated by age, gender, personal habits and
social roles.
One of the most wide-spread innovations in rhetoric for preachers was
written by Alcuins pupil Rabanus Maurus (ca. 776856), known as praeceptor Germaniae, the Teacher of Germany. He studied in Tours which,
after becoming acquainted with Alcuins work, he left for the monastery in
/110/
Fulda, where he was later appointed abbot. Towards the close of his life, he
was amade bishop of Mainz, his hometown. Isidores Origins inspired him
to write asimilar encyclopaedic work, De universo, and he was also aprolific
writer of works of biblical exegesis.
His work De clericorum instructione libri III expounded on the role of the
trivium and quadrivium in preachers education. The question of preaching
and rhetoric was addressed in Book III. Rabanus Maurus based his writing on the Ciceronian tradition as interpreted by Augustine, complemented
with awealth of practical experience, both his contemporaries and his own.
The book was intended for preachers and those who teach the art of preaching. It stated that apriest who wants to become agood preacher should
not only be aman of virtue, but also study diligently in order to master the
discipline.
Rhetoric and other liberal arts were addressed in the 39 chapters (capitulae) of Book III. Following Augustines De doctrina Christiana, it focused first
on questions related to the understanding of the Scriptures, then on grammar, rhetoric and dialectics. Grammar is defined as the art of explaining
atext and correct speaking and writing (grammatica est scientia interpretandi poetas atque historicos et recte scribendi loquendique, III.18). When defining
rhetoric, Rabanus Maurus followed Isidores teaching (bene loquendi in rebus
civilibus) although he emphasizes the significance of this discipline in the
life of the church. Dialectics was considered the foremost discipline with
the justification that it teaches people how to teach. As concerned apriests
education, he added that, thanks to dialectics, we learn to overcome the
subtle pitfalls of heresy.
Although Rabanus Maurus generally adhered to the ideas and formulations within Augustines De doctrina Christiana and Cassiodorus and
Isidores encyclopaedias, the role of his works differs from these sources in
one respect: he did not intend to convey classical authors theses nor to explain the content and the role of the discipline. Instead he strove to provide
young pupils, young German clergymen, with factual and practical advice
to aid them in their search for appropriate topics for homilies, through to
their efficient stylization and powerful delivery.
Asimilar pragmatic intention characterizes Nova rhetorica, atext written
by Notker Labeo (9501022), amonk and teacher in the St. Gall Abbey. In
his efforts to present classical culture and essential information regarding
rhetoric to readers whose Latin knowledge was rather poor, Notker went
even further than Rabanus Maurus. For his achievements both in dissemi-
/111/
nating basic rhetorical terminology in the German environment and for the
language he used to construct his explanations, in which he mixed Latin and
High German (Hochdeutsch), he came to be known as Notker Teutonicus.
It is only with great difficulty that Notker can be placed in association
with one of rhetorics three lines of development as outlined above; he differed from Rabanus Maurus and other contemporaries by not only dealing
with the art of preaching and with that rhetoric which principally focuses on
monologues. Notker also addressed the clash of ideas in adialogue, seeing
arole for rhetoric in its ability to overcome conflict and achieve understanding and consensus (dehin einnga) through effectively sweetening ones
speech (rhetoricam dulcedinem). He accommodated both aworks concept
and structure to meet this goal. The first part of Nova rhetorica contains an
explanation of the nature of rhetorics subject matter (materia), emphasizing
contradiction in the texts interpretations, the contradictions between the
authors intention and the texts wording, and the varieties of controversial
cases and arguments, among others. The second part covered stylization,
elocutio. Notker Labeo believed that studying the art of rhetoric should
equip monks with criteria for orientation in the acquired knowledge and
for aselection and understanding of texts which could be found in monastic
libraries at the time.
Guibert of Nogent (10531124), aBenedictine monk and later an abbot
in the Abbey of Nogent-sous-Coucy, produced atext whose practical goal
was demonstrated through its very title Liber quo ordine sermo fieri debeat
(ABook on the Way aSermon Ought to be Given). It is fundamentally
areflection on the book of Genesis and on how to present the mystery of
the four levels of scriptural interpretation to the audience. This theme had
previously been addressed by many church authors: Philo of Alexandria,
Origen and Augustine. The first, historical, level explains the stories as they
are depicted in the text. The second, allegorical, level is based on references,
proceeding from the events described towards the events being represented,
thus revealing the secret of the church. The third, tropological, level concerns the remedying of human nature through understanding the textual
metaphors. The fourth, anagogic, level describes the highest meaning of the
text and reveals its secret to the human soul. Following this pattern of interpretation and following an example adapted from John Cassian (4th century), the name Jerusalem may be interpreted in four ways: historically as
the city of Jews, allegorically as Christs church, tropologically as ahuman
soul and anagogically as the City of God. Guibert used an analogy between
/112/
/113/
the second to its introduction (introductio), the third to its division into parts
(divisio) and the fourth to its elaboration (amplificatio, dilatatio). Asermons
theme ought to have been based on the Scriptures, in the ex tempore case
on Gospels, and Waleys devoted an extensive amount of attention to it,
including its terminology (dicitur enim thema in Graeco, quod nos vocamus materiam in Latino). He distinguishes between the main theme of preaching
(prothema) and auxiliary or partial themes (antethemata), and expands on
their interlinking and following up.
Waleyss text is interesting for presenting anumber of detailed practical instructions. The author did not enforce them, yet he indicated that
he himself had verified their efficacy (credo tamen quod iste modus sit melior,
Ithink it is better this way). He states, for example, that apreacher should
prepare his performance in solitude to avoid mockery and ought to practice
his voice and gestures, pretending trees and stones were his audience. His
avowal that the stylization and delivery of aspeech attract no less attention
than the speechs content is remarkable for its modernity. Aspeech which is
too long and too long-winded revolts listeners ad nauseam, leading them to
reject it as astomach would reject alarge quantity of fatty food.
The didactically well-arranged general rules for the preparation of asermon and the advice based on Waleyss personal experience combined to
facilitate the dissemination of this short work both across England and
throughout the continent.
Summa de arte praedicandi by Thomas of Salisbury, aParis-based theologian and sub-dean of Salisbury Cathedral, represents the combination
of Oxford and Parisian homiletic traditions. This text, dating from the
1230s, was significant for its emphasis on the rhetorical (Ciceronian) doctrine in preaching (ideo valde necessaria est doctrina orationis ad officium praedicatoris). It analyzed partes orationis (exordium, narratio, partitio, confirmatio, refutatio, peroratio) and partes artis (inventio, dispositio, elocutio, memoria,
actio). Apreacher should not only be an accomplished interpreter of the
Scriptures,but also the master of both the debate (disputatio) and the monologue.
Forma praedicandi, written by Robert of Basevorn (ca. 1320) and being of
considerable length (25 sheets of the folio format), was widely disseminated
in its time. It was used as apreachers manual as it contained the Scriptures,
their commentary, alist of examples for preachers, concordance and alphabetical indexes for easier orientation in the Scriptures, model sermons for
arange of occasions and ashort description of rhetorics role and function.
/114/
Apart from its primary meaning to dictate, the Latin word dictare also carries other connotations: to stylize, to produce literature. This activity thus
results in adictamen, awritten work, adocument.
Ars dictaminis, the art of writing documents, dictamina, of acertain genre
(frequently official and personal letters, or public and legal documents),
evolved as an independent field of rhetoric in the 11th century, evincing
the gradual dissemination of written culture during the High Middle
Ages. In ageneral sense, the expression dictamen, which occasionally also
includedthe exposition of speech rhythm, was used for arhetorical activity
per se.
In his frequently quoted text Summa dictaminis from the late 12th century, Bernard of Meung defined dictamen as aliterary account brilliant with
the beauty of words and adorned with colours of thoughts31 (dictamen est
literalis editio verborum venustate eggregia, sententiarum coloribus adornata).
Medieval authors defined dictamen as awork in awritten form, most often
an epistle (letter) whose writers and addressees were individuals or institutions. Thus, ars dictaminis was aset of rules for writing letters and drafts for
speeches; or using the prism of metonymy, it was ahandbook containing
such rules. Adictator was ateacher of dictamen rhetoric, but also apractitioner who composed various documents and texts in secular life or for
/115/
church services. Dictamina were collections of model letters, often part of ars
dictaminis textbooks. This thematic cycle is related to the notion of cursus,
which refers to the rhythmic organization of atext, particularly the laws of
prosody employed in the concluding clauses of textual passages.
Ars dictaminis works demonstrate two contradictions which characterized
medieval rhetoric as awhole. The first contradiction, whose ancestors had
been clearly evident since antiquity, juxtaposed rhetoric as anorm focusing
exclusively on practical use (rhetorica utens) on the one hand, and as atheory (scientia, rhetorica docens) of communication in general and persuasive
communication in particular on the other. The strictly practical orientation
of ars dictaminis originated in the abbey in Monte Cassino, Italy, with Bologna and other North-Italian cities (Pavia, Arezzo) becoming later centres
for its practice. The theoretical orientation, characterized by linking rhetoric to other trivium disciplines, especially grammar and partially dialectics,
was advocated by French authors in Orlans, Tours, Meung and Paris. The
difference between these two approaches reflected the practical demands
placed on the art of letter writing. In Italy, its doctrine served the growing
needs of both monastic communities and city-state administration, with letter writing only assuming aprominent position in instruction at Bologna
Universitys Law School. In France, as well as in England, Germany and
Spain, in contrast, the art of letter writing was associated with academic
instruction in grammar, stylistics and document composition, and drafts
for speeches, rather than with the immediate needs of notarial and administrative practice.
Occasional statements these books authors made on the art of letter
writing reveal the existence of another and more momentous conflict, concerning the character of instruction at the newly established universities:
whether it would be exclusively ecclesiastical or would also include secular
subjects and employ lay teachers. Although this controversy concerning the
content of the studium generale did not become of great import until the
11th14th centuries, some of the ars dictaminis textbooks provide interesting
testimony regarding the divide in opinion.
Aletter (document, epistle) is agenre which attained perfection and
achieved popularity as far back as in antiquity, although it was not until the
orator Gaius Julius Victor in the 4th century that special attention began to
be paid to the rules of stylization. One of the closing chapters of his work,
Ars rhetorica, is called De epistolis. It differentiates between official (negotiales)
and personal, friendly letters (familiares). It pays more attention to official
/116/
/117/
part, dealing with grammar, examines the factual and stylistic consequences of lexical and grammatical variation (sentence transformers). The third
part (De rhithmis, Consideratio rhithmorum) heralds the ars dictaminis authors
systematic concern about elaborating anormative doctrine which would
establish rules for the rhythmic delivery of aspeech (ars rhithmica). This
was to create acertain phonetic effect, particularly in the closing phases of
sentential-semantic units. Adistinctive style of rhythmic delivery was typical
especially among the Roman Curias official documents (cursus Romanae
curiae). As Alberic limited his exposition to the rhythm of sung hymns, we
may assume that the delivery of rhythmic prose found its models in this
very genre. The phonetic qualities of texts, related to the notion of cursus,
were later elaborated by Dante both in his own poetry and in his theoretical
work, De vulgari eloquentia.
In the 12th century, the centre of ars dictaminis shifted to Bologna, with
Adalbertus Samaritanus, the author of Praecepta dictaminum dating from
11111118, becoming its prominent exponent. The text contains rhetorical prescriptions (pracepta) and aset of model letters. Sections containing
polemics with Alberic (aspera et spinosa dictamini Alberici monachi insolubilia,
Alberics unsolvable, hard and thorny documents) attest to the fact that the
art of letter writing was also taught in secular schools for future notaries
(notarii, protonotarii) and city officials. Adalbert called himself adictator, an
expert in grammar, rhetoric and dialectics.
Hugh of Bologna, one of Adalberts followers, stated that his Rationes
dictandi prosaice (11191124) brought the works of many together into
one corpus the rules of composition32 (ex multorum gestis in unum corpus
colligerem). Written works are divided into prosaic and metrical corpora. The
metrical schema is determined by the number of feet, number of syllables,
stress or quantity, rhyme or acombination of prose in verse and regular
prose.
Regarding letters, Hugh provides adetailed analysis of the status of both
the writer and the addressee. Whether the writer addresses his superior, inferior or someone of the same social status, all is reflected in the selection of
linguistic means. This criterion plays the most important role in the initial
part of aletter, the exordium, which includes two subsections: salutatio and
proemium. Model letters contain anumber of variants (including apapa ad
imperatorem, ab imperatore ad papam, ab episcopo ad papam, apapa ad episcopum, ab episcopo ad subditos, asubditis ad episcopum ... ad magistrum, ad patrem, ad amicum, and ad militem, civitas ad civitatem). An introductory letter
/118/
/119/
Bene da Firenze, Boncompagnos rival, was one of the few Italians who
advocated the French-style art of letter writing (Gallicorum elegantissima de
epistolari doctrina). His eight-volume Candelabrum (ca. 1220) contains acoherent exposition on grammar and style. Among the wide range of Bolognas teachers, Guido Faba (ca. 1190ca. 1240) was perhaps most influential, considering the number of preserved copies of his works, with Rota
nova, acollection of lectures he gave at Bologna University, becoming most
famous. The most well-known of them was undoubtedly Rota nova. In an
allegorical prologue, he likened his legal studies to work with ahammer
and anvil in asmithy. These heavy tools and unfavourable environment had
caused that he became lame, half-blind and half-deaf; he lost the feel for
language and refined expression. This could only be reacquired through
asystematic study of rhetoric.
Italian efforts to formalize letter writing reached their peak in Lawrence
of Aquilegias Institutiones rhetoricae et stylisticae variae. Lawrence, who taught
in schools in Naples, Bologna and Paris, claimed that in letter writing, the
form is more important than the content (melius ex forma quam materia reinformanda), striving to compile asuccession of elementary instructions which
would allow anyone to write aletter that was both proper and correct. This
essentially meant combining model textual and sentential segments presented in charts to achieve aproper whole. These charts are contained in
another of his works, Universis tabellionibus civitatis Bononiae dominis edita
ad utilitatem rudium. The refined epistolary style of the Roman Curia was
brought to perfection by Thomas of Capua, apapal diplomat, whose extensive Summa artis dictaminis sive de arte dictaminis epistoles secundam stylum
curiae, with many examples, dates from 1239.
Unlike the previous textbooks, French texts on ars dictaminis focused
on expositions related to general education, most notably concerning all
ofthe trivium disciplines. Bernard of Meung (Summa dictaminis dating from
the mid-12th century) was one of the most influential authors, followed by
his contemporaries, an unknown author of Summa dictaminis aurealianensis,
Peter of Blois (De arte dictandi rhetorice) and Pons (Sponcius) of Provence.
The oldest French ars dictaminis textbook, Li Livres dou Trsor, was written by
Brunetto Latini in 1260, who became afundamental contributor to general
encyclopaedic literature. Many of these authors subordinated the exposition of the ars dictaminis principles to grammar, which was understood as
abroad subject that included information about literary text interpretation,
tropes and figures, and speech rhythm.
/120/
From the 12th century, the number of authors focusing on ars dictaminis
also increased outside Italy and France. De moderno dictamine (1405) written by Thomas Merke, ateacher at Oxford, expanded the exposition of
aletters essential parts by dividing them into obligatory and facultative.
Following the traditions of the oldest shorthand system, the Tironian notes,
new and economical methods of written text notation were presented by
another Englishman, John of Tilbury. His Ars notaria (ca. 1174) offers instruction on how to write down aspoken text sufficiently quickly (velocitatem dicendi docere). Of the authors from German-speaking areas, Ludolf of
Hildesheim and Konrad of Zurich were most read. Ludolfs Suma dictaminis
(1239) presents brief definitions of essential ars dictaminis terms alongside
model letters. Konrads Summa de arte prosandi (1276) is atypical rhetorical
textbook following the form type; the user could thus easily fill in specific
information using the necessary grammatical form. Rhetorical tradition was
also established in Spain, where it was influenced by French works focusing
on grammar (Juan Gil de Zamora, Dictaminis epithalamium, 1275; Martn
de Crdoba, Breve compendium artis rhetorice, first half of the 14th century).
Another collection of model letters, Summa dictaminum, was compiled
by Pietro della Vigna (ca. 11901249), aprothonotary of the Kingdom of
Sicily and asecretary to Emperor Frederick II. Pietro della Vignas influence
spread beyond the kingdoms borders, reaching as far as the Luxembourg
administrations Prague court. This environment also gave rise to anew collection of forms, Summa cancellariae Johannis Noviforensis, compiled by Jan
of Steda, the head of Charles IVs office, and to Collectarius perpetuarum
formarum, asimilar work written by John of Gelnhausen.
The Czech Lands rank amongst the territories with a long history in
the art of letter writing, which was to adegree thanks to the letter mastermind of Henricus of Isernia, as he was called by the Czech writer Vladislav
Vanura. Henricus of Isernia, an Italian born near Naples and known in the
Czech Lands as Jindich Vlach (Henry the Italian), studied either in Pavia
or Piacenza under Pietro della Vigna, anotary of the Roman-German Stauff
familys office in Sicily. Henricus came to Prague around 1270, after having
been invited by Provost Peter to become ateacher of grammar, rhetoric and
logic in the Vyehrad Chapter school. From 1273, he worked as anotary
(an office administrator) for King Pemysl Otakar II, initially taking care
of royal official documents, though this was later expanded to include civic
documents. Czech literary critic and historian Vclav ern33 found aconnection between his administrative, and potentially diplomatic, activities
/121/
and the Bohemian Kings ambitions to acquire the imperial crown, aclaim
strengthened by his mothers lineage from the Stauff family. Extensive literature on Henricus of Isernia, whose origin and identity are still bones
of much contention (he is sometimes thought to be Jindich Kvas, who
wrote official documents), was presented by Jana Nechutov in her paper
Czech-Latin Literature in the Middle Ages before 1300.34 She also drew
attention to his polemic text Invectiva prosothetrasticha in Ulricum Polonum,
in which he criticized his contemporary, Ulricus Polonus, afamous teacher
and commenter on rhetorical texts, grammatical and stylistic errors. He rejected Ulricuss factual style, defending the intricate imagery and complex
sentences of his letters and documents. That Henricus of Isernias stylistic views had asignificant impact in Czech literature can be documented
through the work of his followers, including Master Bohuslav, the author of
fictitious letters belonging among the correspondence of Queen Kunhuta,
Pemysl OtakarIIs second wife, and acollection of models by Tobias of
Bechyn, the bishop of Prague from 1278 to 1296.
Along with his model letters (formae epistolarum et dictaminum), Henricus
of Isernia wrote letters of invitation to study rhetoric and compiled the textbook Epistolare dictamen. He also founded acontinuing tradition of rhetorical education in Prague, whose goal it was to improve Czech pupils Latin
by adding Sicilian sophistication and melodiousness (maneriem cancionis).
This tradition was developed during the reign of Emperor Charles IV in
the slowly-formed circles of learned men around Bishop Jan of Steda, and
after the universitys foundation in 1348, also through resident and visiting
teachers in Pragues general studies (studium generale).
When examining Italian influences in older Czech literature, Vclav
ern called attention to yet another area of Henricus of Isernias humanistic interests: compiling model letters of courtly and romantic correspondence among members of afictitious circle called Noble Venus Sacred Court
(Sacrum Veneris almae palacium). This activity, characterized by its extensive
vocabulary and elaborate imagery, was inspired by Ovids Art of Love, which
was disseminated in many translations and versions in the late Middle Ages.
The Italian influence on awareness and understanding of rhetorical and
humanist culture in the Czech Lands can be demonstrated via yet another
interesting example: aCzech translation of De loquendi et tacendi written by
Brixiensis, Henricuss slightly older contemporary, which was made more
than two centuries after its authors death. During his imprisonment in Cremona, Albertanus Causidicus Brixiensis (born between 11901200, died ca.
/122/
1250) wrote several reflection tractates for his sons, including De loquendi et
tacendi, aseveral-page long discourse dating from ca. 1245. The oldest printed version comes from Denever in the Dutch province of Overijssel, 1490.
The Czech translation (Knky odnm mluven amlen mistra Albertana,
kter jest napsal e latinsk synu svmu, ponaj se astn) was published by
printer Mikul Bakal in Plze in 1502. It is not certain whether Bakal
also translated this text, as in his History of Czech Literature, Josef Jungmann, a19th-century Czech lexicographer, wrote of an unknown translator.
Brixiensis focused on moral lessons related to the content of spoken discourse and ayoung mans upbringing, rather than on apractical exposition
of rhetorical rules. The text is fundamentally acommentary on both numerous and frequently-published quotations from ancient authors, and those
more primary quotations from church authorities and the Bible. The widespread dissemination of this work is evinced by James J. Murphys statement
that by 1501 it had been published atotal of forty times, of which it was
thirty-eight times in Latin, once in Dutch, once in German;35 Murphy does
not list the Czech edition as it was more recent than the period in question.
Rhetoric in Prague was associated with other authors, such as Nicolaus
Dybin, the author of several commentaries and adictaminum Viaticus dictandi. He will be discussed further in connection to medieval rhetorical books
of the artes poetriae type.
Ars dictandi, written by Procopius (ca. 14001482), ahistorian, notary
and, for aperiod of time, aprofessor at Prague University, represents the
oldest book on the art of letter writing in the Czech language. It offers
instruction on writing letters for reading aloud and provides model letters.
The exposition of aletter structure, following Ciceronian and Italian authors models, is notable for the authors effort to develop Czech terminology. This set of rules became the respected stylistic and compositional
norm for official and private correspondence for agreat period of time,
with acquiring good style becoming the necessary intellectual equipment of
modern learned men.
ARTES POETRIAE: THEORY AND PRACTICE OF WRITTEN DISCOURSE
/123/
this gave rise to adiscipline which included the art of proper speaking and
writing (grammar) and the application of the various ars dictaminis models
to written communication. The development of care for the rhythm and
phonetic aspects of speech as part of the art of letter writing suggests that
many documents were meant to be read aloud and that the difference in the
composition of written texts and those intended for reciting in public was
initially considered unimportant. Although ars dictaminis textbooks devoted
most space to letters and administrative documents, especially as concerns
the number of examples presented, the existence of documents representing
other genres cannot be neglected. Hugh of Bologna, for example, distinguished between dictamen prosaicum, dictamen metricum and dictamen prosimetricum, the latter being amixed type. Metrical documents are further
subdivided into quantitative (carmen) and accentual.
The rise of anew, more complex discipline was facilitated by grammar
itself. From antiquity, it combined language correctness (ars recte loquendi /
scribendi) and an interpretation of classical texts (poetarum enarratio). Rhetoric also grew closer to grammar in reflection of the fact that both disciplines
dealt with metaphorical language: tropes and figures. However, the most
significant link between the two disciplines lay in the consistently normative
attention, focusing on the stages of text production. This approach to grammar, supplemented with rhetorical (stylistic) textual facets was represented
by Donatus and Priscian in the early Middle Ages, by Alexander of Villedieu
(de Villa Dei), who wrote the grammar book Doctrinale, and Eberhard of
Bthune, whose Graecismus is considered atypical medieval grammar book
focusing on teaching this cultivated style.
The development towards greater complexity across the discipline had its
counterpart in its reduction into alist of tropes and figures. This tendency
was represented by Onulf of Speyer, amaster at the Speyer Cathedral school
(Colores rhetorici, 11th cent.) and Marbod of Rennes (De ornamentis verborum,
between 1035 and 1123), both of whom used the Ad Herennium book of
rhetoric as their model. Onulf introduced adescription of 26 Herennian
figures, accompanied by 24 examples in hexameters, which aimed to facilitate understanding of the Early Church Fathers texts. Marbods text also
contains an analysis of the same figures.
Grammar, however, also grew closer to dialectics (logic) through examining modes of meaning (modi significandi) of phenomena in language.
This philosophical, and fundamentally non-normative aspect of grammar
(grammatica speculativa), evolved in the 12th century. Its representatives,
/124/
/125/
pedagogical skill; this work, intended for advanced university students, was
written in verse to facilitate memorizing its rules.
Galfredi rhetorica consists of seven sections: aforeword, an exposition
on presenting the subject (materia) in apoetic manner, adisposition, an
amplification and abbreviation of the text, an overview of rhetorical ornaments (tropes and figures), information on memory and rendition, and
aconclusion. Text composition is briefly mentioned in the introduction,
being compared to building foundations for ahouse and to respecting the
natural order. As this order proceeds from the general to the particular, it is
expedient to begin with premises formulated as proverbs. The amplification
and abbreviation are likened to working wax, during which the warmth of
stylistic skills aids in shaping the subject to ensure the desired effect. Geoffrey of Vinsauf in particular expands on the stylistic methods of textual amplification as these have the greatest influence on its stylistic effect: periphrasis, simile, apostrophe and the presentation of opposites. From astylistic
perspective, conversion is defined as the systematic method of modifying an
expression in search of its most appropriate and euphonic form.
Matthew of Vendmes Ars versificatoria (before 1175) strives to help students avoid stylization errors when composing poetic texts. This work, characterized by agreat number of examples (often to the detriment of general
rules), contains grammatical expositions complemented with elements of
poetics. The openly lascivious nature of some of the presented examples
allows the present-day reader to examine our ancestors schooling.
Gervase of Melkleys Ars Poetica is undoubtedly the most interesting of
books on poetry written in the 12th and 13th centuries. It consists of three
parts; the first examines general features of prosaic and poetic discourses,
the second represents asystematic approach to semantic, syntactic and phonetic composition of texts, which is entirely unique in the description technique used, and the third, expanding on the art of letter writing, presents
general rules and models for writing letters.
Melkley distinguishes between four sets of composition rules. The first
set is based on the prohibition of constructions considered incorrect (prohibitiones), the second on tolerating them (permissiones), the third on obligatory rules (praecepta), and the fourth on recommended strategies (consilia).
The first three sets of rules are based on medieval grammar, while the fourth
is rhetorical. Adiscourse, that is, atext used in aparticular communication situation, consists of statements whose themes are developed (generated and amplified) according to three principles, or commonplaces (loci
/126/
communes): identity (identitas), similarity (similitudo) and contrast (contrarietas). Each of these principles utilizes specific means of expression based
on the shift from the neutral (in the sense of basic, conventional) meaning
or form of expression. These means principally include tropes and figures.
Melkley also pays attention to the dialogue, which he understands as the
relationship between aquestion and an answer (questio et responsio). Asking
questions about the meaning of the premise and its subsequent justification
is known as rationatio and it is asubcategory within dialogue. The type of
dialogue in which the answer is inferred from the nature of the question
asked is termed subiectio.
Gervase Melkleys textbook is characterized by rational and clear exposition, which was also facilitated by the use of straightforward Latin, the clear
arrangement of the exposition and, last but not least, the consistent application of Latin names for tropes and figures. This was largely in response to
the insufficient knowledge, or even complete lack of knowledge, of Greek
among his contemporaries. The author presented avery well thought-out,
though simultaneously rather demanding exposition, which may have been
the reason for its relatively low use and, subsequently, for the small number
of preserved copies.
If Melkleys Ars poetica can be considered the most theoretical of all the
High Middle Ages poetics textbooks, the first printed book in this genre,
Eberhard the Germans Laborintus (prior to 1280), can be seen as the most
significant from the perspective of cultural history and literary associations.
As its title suggests, Eberhard did not present a ready-made manual of
knowledge, instead from the depths of the labyrinth, he produced the key
to understanding ateachers advice, enabling students to unlock the path
into this knowledge and experience, apath students could follow at any
time, the path to the discovery of the words that would open the gate to
this very path. Ultimately, even the word-play evoked by the works title is
enigmatic. Labor (-habens) intus means (having) work (by which the author
most probably meant toil, drudgery, and misery) inside. But inside what?
The answer is suggested by the philological form: alabyrinth leading to the
mastery of the trivium.
Instead of information on grammar, poetics and rhetoric, Laborintus
provides an insight into medieval schools, their teachers and instruction
in the trivium subjects. The 1005 elegiac verses composition represents an
allegory, with the main characters being Grammar (verses 135254) and
Poetry (verses 2551005). Unlike Martianus Capellas allegory, Eberhard
/127/
presents Grammar as amature woman with breasts full of the milk of universal knowledge.
In the introduction, Mother Nature mourns the fate of those of her children who are predestined to become teachers, as their lives will be condemned to poverty and drudgery, having to spend their days studying Donatuss grammar, with no time to read the best of past and contemporary
authors. Before crossing the schools threshold, afuture teacher must master
his discipline perfectly:
Sit tibi mandati formula grata mei,/ Disce prius, quam dogma seras; si ducere aecum/ Vis, videas; primo te rege, deinde tuos/ Aetatis cera doctrinae prima
sigillum/ Leniter accipiat, pollice ducta levi. May my method of giving instructions be pleasing to you. Acquire knowledge before you establish asystem of teaching; if you wish to lead the blind, have vision yourself; first be
amaster of yourself, then of your pupils. Mildly and with gently pressing
thumb imprint the seal of learning upon the plastic wax.36
The path through the labyrinth is facilitated not only by coherent pedagogical advice, but also through steady steps, from grammar to rhetoric, from rhetoric to stylization and composition. All of these aspects
contributedto its popularity among contemporary students, teachers and
publishers.
De arte prosayca, metrica, et rithmica (after 1229) written by John of Garland, agraduate from Oxford University and aprofessor at the University
of Paris, is particularly interesting for its approach to style. In the spirit
of V
irgil, Garland elaborated on the vertical classification of style: high
(gravis), middle (mediocris) and low (humilis). Following Cicero, he distinguishedthe styles of literary fiction, the historiographic style of ancient stories and theargumentative style of dialogues which take place in the theatre
and in real life. He also defined and named four styles after distinguished
icons: Gregorianus (after Pope Gregory the Great), Tullianus (Ciceronian), Hilarianus (after Hilary of Poitiers, one of the Church Fathers) and
Isidorianus (after Isidore of Seville).
Most notably, the vertical classification of style illustrated by the Wheel
of Virgil (rota Virgilii) became abinding norm. Three of Virgils poems
became models for the three types of style: the Aeneid for the high style, the
Georgics for the middle style and the Eclogues (or Bucolics) for the low style.
There was anorm common to all styles: aharmony between the works content and the means of expression used to convey it (see the Wheel of Virgil
below).
/128/
/129/
/130/
/131/
main source of rhetoric in Byzantium. Aphthonioss progymnasmata (praeexercitamenta in Latin), written at the turn of the 4th and 5th centuries, contained elementary principles along with models of forensic, deliberative and
epideictic texts, an explanation of argumentation basics and an overview of
tropes and figures. Model texts from Menanders Peri epideiktikon, 1st half
of the 3rd century, were frequently cited, as were Pseudo-Menanders widely
disseminated imitations.
The importance of rhetoric in Byzantium was underscored by the fact
that the high style of religious and secular documents was becoming more
distant from daily and normal communication (documented, for example,
in the medium of written accounts of folk legends) and so it had to be artificially cultivated. Byzantines especially favoured the enkmion, aspeech
praising aperson, acity or athing (e.g., Himeriuss encomion on Constantinople), and the related funeral oration genres: amonody (alament as an
expression of grief), consolatory speech (paramythtikos logos) and epitaphios
(remembering the dead), as well as welcome speeches (prosphntikoi logoi),
wedding orations (epithalamioi logoi), coronation orations (stephanotikoi
logoi), thanks-giving orations (eucharisterioi logoi) and many others. Stylistically, encomia are characterized by ekphrasis (an extended description) and
syncrisis (comparison, confrontation of people, things or events). In presenting arguments, Byzantine authors were particularly fond of ergasia, the extrapolation of the thesis by stretching arguments through added sentences
or sentence segments. These devices can be found as early as in the works
by classical writers of Greek Christian literature and preaching: Athanasius,
Gregory of Nazianzus, Gregory of Nyssa and John Chrystosom.
The decline of literature and art during the Iconoclast Controversy,
730843, accompanied by wars and aschism, was followed by aperiod of
cultural boom during the reign of Basil Iand his successor Leo the Philosopher, also known as Leo the Wise, in the 9th century. This was primarily
marked by the intensive copying of classical texts, which were published
as acollection entitled Parisinus Graecus in 1741 and again in 1983. This renaissance was particularly personified by Theodore the Studite (759826),
areformer of monasticism and an author of many encomia, and Patriarch
Photios of Constantinople, who wrote two extensive texts: Lexicon (possibly originally known as Lexen synagog), adictionary of Attic Greek and
ahandbook of the high style, and the Bibliothk, subtitled Myriobiblos, an
annotated bibliography characterising the content, language and style of
about 300 books. The stylistic evaluation and the notion that stylistic refine-
/132/
ment and rich metaphors enhance the power of the word were most notably
and strongly influenced by Hermogenes. Inspired by fights against iconoclasts, both Theodore the Studite and Photios expressed their belief in the
power of education and art. The high value ascribed to books (ahuman
soul dies without books), which can be found in Photioss letter to Basil
Iis clearly reflected in the Old Slavonic poem Proglas, written by his pupil,
St.Constatine. Usta bo, jae sladka ne jujot, jako kamna tvoret e lovka.
Pac e sego dua bezbukvna javljajet se v lovcech mrtva. (Amouth that
cannot taste sweetness, turns aman into stone. Ahuman soul lacking books,
however, appears to be in humanity dead.) The role of rhetoric in education
and public life was emphasized by the 10th-century Byzantine encyclopaedia
Suda (Suidas). The Byzantines held speech cultivated according to classical
models as theexpression of human perception and understanding of the
world, with the orator being amodel teacher, awise politician, astatesman,
and an enlightened official. The instruction of rhetoric became akey-stone
prerequisite for strengthening both state power and church orthodoxy. In
concert with respected ancient authors, such as Homer or Demosthenes, the
influence of Judaeo-Christian religious, philosophical and literary sources was gaining strength. Gods word conveyed by amorally indisputable
speaker became the highest authority in Byzantine rhetoric.
In the 10th and 11th centuries, Aphtoniuss progymnasmata were commented on by John Geometres (also called John Kyriotes) and John Doxapatres
(Prolegomena eis tn rhtorikn). The norm-setting role of rhetoric was further
boosted by Maximus Planudess Prolegomena ts rhetoriks and the anonymous Epitom rhtoriks (also known as Rhetorica Marciana) in the 13th and
14th century. In the 14th century, Joseph Racendytes, aphilosopher and encyclopaedist, placed rhetoric above other secular sciences, as it represented
the immutable prerequisite for the study of theology. Compositions in verse
presenting the art of rhetoric were written by Michael Psellos (Peri rhtoriks,
11th cent.) and John Tzetzes (Epitom rhtoriks, 12th cent.). Rhetorics arrival
in Russia is closely linked with the treatise written by George Kherobosk,
alibrarian in Constantinople (Byzantine sources differ as to the time of his
activities), whose brief exposition on rhetorical ornaments has been preserved in the Russian translation (OObrazech, On Figures) in Izbornik of
Sviatoslav (Sviatoslavs Collection) of 1073.
To the modern reader Byzantine rhetoric surfaces from the depths of
time as asynonym to grandiloquently exalting and pompous texts concealing shallow insincerity. Nevertheless, Byzantine rhetoric and science gener-
/133/
/135/
/136/
friends. This solitude was not empty, but filled with books and an intense
experience of friendship. After all, Petrarch himself turned to Cicero, as well
as to Seneca and Quintilian, in several of his fictitious letters.
In the period of humanism, letters became agenre which endowed rhetorical culture with new life. Instead of impersonal texts presented in textbooks, compendia and encyclopaedias and based on certain selected classical authorities, they represented an individuals subjective, often highly
original dialogic statements with apolemical edge. Humanists correspondence, focusing on an unremitting revelation of both the author and the
addressees authentic experiences, thus anticipated the role which essays
and scientific or literary journals would play several centuries later. Petrarch
himself approached his letters (Familiares, Seniles) as adialogic discourse
introducing excitement to the university environment filled only with rigid debates. The dissatisfaction with the poor quality of communication in
academia resulted from the fact that although formal university lectures
and debates could present traditional rhetorical doctrine, they could not
give answers to the fundamental questions concerning life and civic duties.
Vitam ego tuam carpsi, no ingenium, non linguam (Ihave learned from your
life, rather than from your talent or language), wrote Petrarch to Cicero.
For humanists, rhetoric was not the goal in itself (terminus), instead it became apreparatory study, ameans (transitus), setting out the path to both
an individuals virtuous life and to asocial consensus. Being affected by the
Renaissance discovery of individuality and irreproducibility of each person,
the outset of humanism to some extent changed the nature of rhetoric. Attention was no longer paid to publicly delivered speeches, oratio, but to the
impressiveness typical of aprivate, yet stylistically refined dialogue, sermo.
The writer of the text was no longer aself-confident expert trying to persuade, becoming instead afriendly advisor appealing to the reader or listener to think about the contradictory consequences of the topic covered. This
led to the popularity of the suasoria (giving advice) genre. Ahumanist with
education in grammar, rhetoric, dialectic, history and moral philosophy,
found his calling as ateacher in an educational system imbued with wisdom
and tolerance, in which the mastery of monologic statements gave way to
expectations brought to life by letters and dialogue.
During the Renaissance, letters started to be studied from the theoretical
perspective, which reached its peak in the work of Desiderius Erasmus. In
his De conscribendi epistolis (1592), Juan Luis Vives (14921540), aSpanish
humanist and one of the proponents of modern psychology, emphasized
/137/
/138/
he wishes to seem acute, to me seems merely arguable.39) Valla strongly opposed artificial language as well as empty philosophical terminology, such
as ens, entitas, quiditas, haecceitas, identitas. Vallas criticism followed up the
negative attitude of William of Ockham (12981349), aleading advocate of
Nominalism, towards an unnecessary multiplication of metaphysical notions,
expressed in his statement known as Ockhams razor entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem; entities are not to be multiplied beyond necessity.
Of Quintilians three speech principles, ratio, or logical correctness, auctoritas, or imitation of canonical models, and consuetudo, Valla regarded the
third one, consuetudo, or natural usage of speech as supreme (consuetudo vero
certissima loquendi magistra, utendumque plane sermone ut nummo, cui publica
forma est; usage however is the surest pilot in speaking, and we should treat
language as currency minted with the public stamp; Inst. or., 1.6.3). Valla
used Quintilians simile of speech and coin (oratio nummus) to emphasize
the need for aconstant exchange of values (mercatura), which in translations
surpasses both territorial and language borders. Usage is the supreme judge
of language correctness but also in supplying confidence in communication
(nec tam grammatice quam latine loquendum; we should speak not so much in
agrammatical as in aLatin manner). Poor language is aprison whose bars
prevent us from escaping into the surrounding world. Valla held decorum,
or virtue based on harmony between people and objects, acts and words, as
the supreme value of human speech.
Dialectical Disputations contains many ideas that were rediscovered by
modern-day linguistics. Valla used the term enuntiatio, utterance, for asentence in context and in an act of communication, likening the link between
anoun and averb to the relation between aman and awoman; enuntiatio
to ahouse, domus; alogically arranged complex of utterances to acity district, vicus; atext (oratoria) to acity, urbs. The meaning of units on lower
linguistic levels can be understood in the context of the higher units and,
subsequently, in the entire context of communication. Grammar is aproject
for describing words and at the same time aproject of the world defined by
these words. The communication dynamics has an impact on the semantics
of the used words and utterances. For example, the expression vita, life, is
essentially anoun, but aspeech may accentuate its dynamic (actio) or relational (qualitas) meanings. Interpretation is thus not based on aclear match
between an object and the denoting expression, but rather on the ability
of the human soul (lux animi) to explain the discovered truth, or better yet
acertain part of it, through syntactic structures and to approximate it. Val-
/139/
las emphasis on the inventio as the central, dialectical part of rhetoric found
its followers among the most prominent teachers of the humanistic epoch:
Vives, Sturm, Melanchthon, Agricola, and particularly, Erasmus.
Valla went down in history primarily thanks to his Elegantiae latini
sermonis, which were published and copied repeatedly, thus giving rise to
aRenaissance tradition of an independent genre bordering on normative
grammar books, stylistics and rhetoric textbooks as well as monolingual
dictionaries. Based on grammar (typically Donato or Priscians text), the
elegantiae (compendia grammaticae) focused on the intricate peculiarities
of linguistic description, which distinguished them from the systematic
grammar books covering the entirety of etymology and syntax. At schools
they became asubject of study of pupils who had learned the elements of
grammar, however, they were also used in practice (by lawyers, but also for
writing letters in general). In the 16th century, elegantiae were also written
by Erasmus (Paraphrasis in Elegantiae Laurentii Vallae), Augustinus Datus
(Elegantiae) and Jakob Wimpheling from Alsace (Elegantiarum medulla orato
riaque praecepta in ordinem redacta).
GEORGE OF TREBIZOND
The rediscovery of Greek culture as another significant source of the Renaissance concept of the world has been mentioned earlier. After the fall of Constantinople in 1453, and in fact long before it, many prominent representatives of Greek science, philosophy, literature, law and state administration
began to leave for Europe. This was accompanied by enthusiastic interest
in manuscripts brought by these thinkers. The reintroduced instruction of
Greek instigated adevelopment of translation theory and practice, and rhetoric witnessed ashift towards textual interpretation.
George of Trebizond (his last name is derived from the name of aBlack
Sea port in todays eastern Turkey, originally part of Byzantium, between
12041461 the Trebizond Empire) was the first and most famous promoter
of Greek rhetoric. Born in Crete in ca. 1395, he probably studied in Candia under the rhetor John Simeonachis. Upon an invitation by Francesco
Barbaro, he arrived in Venice in 1416, where he learned Latin. He taught at
universities in Padua, Florence and Rome and became famous as an unrelenting polemicist. He was one of the first to speak against Quintilians view
of an orator as apromoter of morality, vir bonus, in the name of Gorgias
conception of rhetoric as aneutral tool that can be used pragmatically for
/140/
any purpose. Following along illness resulting in aloss of memory, as Michel de Montaignes Essays mention, he died in Rome in ca. 1473.
George of Trebizond wrote perhaps the most detailed Renaissance work
on rhetoric, Rhetoricum libri quinque (Five Books on Rhetoric, 14331434),
combining Hermogenes and Ciceros ideas. It was thanks to him that Hermogenes, the highest Byzantine authority on rhetoric, was introduced to the
West, although he scarcely referred to this source explicitly.
The first of the five books presents rhetoric as adiscipline of paramount
importance, explaining the activities of aman-citizen (rhetorica est civilis
scientia), adivision into legal, political and ceremonial oratory, and the role
of introductory sections of aspeech. The second book covers the statutes,
while the third presents, in great detail albeit in aslightly chaotic manner,
the classification of argumentation types and their stylistic and compositional rendition. Unlike the second and third books, which focus specifically on
forensic oratory, book four concentrates on deliberative and epideictic oratory and on general issues of speech composition as well as on memorizing
and delivery. The fifth book, on elocutio, is essentially astylistics textbook,
based on an overview of tropes and figures, and on Hermogeness evaluation of language styles. Eloquence is considered to be one of mankinds
rare gifts and it is eloquence that makes rhetoric asupreme discipline, ars
humanitatis. George of Trebizond introduced Hermogeness category of semnotes, or grandeur (afestive tone, which arouses admiration and excitement
among the audience) into western conceptions of style.
As late as adecade after the completion of his magnum opus, George
of Trebizond started to work on his Latin translation of Aristotles Rhetoric,
which he presumably had not been familiar with. He undertook this deed
in response to Georgius Gemistus Pletho, another Greek emigrant and his
former pupil, who in Florence delivered alecture praising Platos teaching,
which had not been sufficiently known among western scholars. In his lecture, Pletho also attacked Aristotle, whom he held to be overrated. George
of Trebizond thus conceived his Latin translation of Aristotles Rhetoric and
his introduction to it as adefence of this philosopher and as an effort to
achieve asynthesis of Greek and Latin cultural traditions.
BYZANTINE RHETORIC AFTER THE FALL OF CONSTANTINOPLE
In contrast to older views, which held that the subjugation of the former
Byzantium along with alarge part of south-eastern Europe by the Ottoman
/141/
/142/
letter writing (Peri epistolikn) in London in 1625, which were frequently copied by hand and later reprinted in Meschopolis (todays Albania) in 1744, in
Halle in 1768 and in Venice in 1786.
Unlike Korydaleus, whose textbook focused primarily on inventio and on
persuasive speech in general, Techn rtorik (published in Venice in 1681)
written by another influential Greek author, Francis Skouphos (16441697),
emphasized style. Intended primarily for church purposes, Skouphoss
work is remarkable for being written in Demotic Greek instead of classical
Greek, as it was closer to the language of church services. It should also
be noted that he mainly quoted western preachers, particularly Bossuet.
Saints were attributed qualities derived from Greek mythology (St. George
as Agamemnon, St. Athanasius as Heracles killing the Hydra of heresy).
The world of classical antiquity was thus mixed with the contemporary pathos of baroque culture in atruly fascinating manner. Furthermore, all this
took placeinsouth-eastern Europe, areal crossroads of many languages
and cultures.
Apart from these extensive texts, Thomas Conley mentions many manuscripts which were preserved in the library collections of former Greek
centres. Anastasios Papabasilopouloss Rtorik leucheimousa (Rhetoric in
White) was published in 1702. Having studied in Padua, Papabasilopoulos later returned to his native Ioannina in north-western Greece, where
he held the office of ametropolitan. He also taught rhetoric in Tarnovo,
Bulgaria. The 100-page textbook, part of which was published by Kournoutos in Athens in 1956, was written in modern Greek as aset of apupils
questions followed by the teachers short answers. The Leichoudes brothers from Cephalonia, Ioannikios (16331717) and Sophronios (16521730),
who graduated from schools in Venice and Padua, wrote several theological
treatises on and textbooks of grammar, logic and rhetoric. Their activities
demonstrate the international and ecumenical nature of philological education in Europe at the time. In 1685, they were invited by the Russian Tsar
Fiodor Alekseyevich to teach at the multilingual Slavic-Greek Academy in
Moscow. The brothers later contributed to the opening of the Greek school
in Novgorod. Vikentios Damodos (17001752), also native to Cephalonia,
wrote two works, Techn rtorik (in Demotic Greek), in the form of questions
and answers, and apractical rhetoric textbook (Praxeis kata sintomiam eis tas
rtorikas hermneias), which were both preserved in manuscript. Neither of
them was printed before their authors death, however their popularity can
be proven by the number of manuscripts found in monastic libraries.
/143/
It was thanks to George of Trebizond, his many Greek followers and his
outstanding editors, namely Venices Aldus Manutius and Basels Johann
Froben, that after along break, humanist culture started to gain sustenance
from Greek sources and that knowledge of Greek again became anecessity
for learned men. Knowledge of Greek was also associated with the most
versatile figure of European humanistic culture, Desiderius Erasmus. However, before analysing this great thinker, his no less great model, Rudolphus
Agricola, should be addressed.
RUDOLPHUS AGRICOLA
Rodolphi Agricolae Phrisii De inventione dialectica libri tres (Three Books Concerning Dialectical Invention), written in 1515, significantly influenced the
concept of rhetoric of the most prominent reformers of humanistic education in the 16th century, Desiderius Erasmus, Philipp Melanchthon and
Petrus Ramus. Agricolas expositions on dialectic were renowned in German universities, as well as in Paris and Cambridge. Rudolphus Agricola
(14441485), born in the Low Countries, played an important role in the
history of logic, rhetoric and logical semantics. Having graduated from universities in Erfurt and Leuven, he lived in Italy between 14591479. He
spent the last six years of his life teaching at the University of Heidelberg.
His works, particularly the selection entitled Opuscula and his magnum opus
De inventione dialectica, were published posthumously, with the latter being
printed more than forty times before the end of the 16th century.
Agricolas scholarly interest in the trivium disciplines focused particularly on logic (dialectic). Dialectic (not rhetoric) also included the study
of the search for arguments (invention) and their arrangement in the text
(disposition). Agricola paid the most attention to invention, which he understood in the spirit of Ciceros Topics and Boethiuss De differenciis topicis.
Invention is aprerequisite of methodically arranged knowledge, whose axioms are not based on certainty but on probability. Invention focuses on producing ameaning, context, rules and arguments. Locus, the commonplace,
represents aguideline on the path to this production. Agricola defined it
as an attribute one thing shares with another. Thanks to this attribute it is
possible to find what is probable about the thing, non ergo aliud est locus,
quam communis quaedam rei nota, cuius admonitu, quid et quare, re probabile
sit, potest inveniri. Invention presents aset of commonplaces as an inventory,
from which individual arguments are selected. Their logical arrangement is
/144/
/145/
/146/
ture, imitatio, indicating that he aims at flexible and modern Latin able to
meet all the demands placed on it by every new epoch. Paradoxically, only
after this attack against mindless Ciceronianism, did this great Roman orator and moral philosopher become one of the Renaissance humanists, primus inter pares. Despite his criticism of the dead norm of Ciceronian Latin,
Erasmus did not cease fighting for the classicist notion of language style.
He subjected any exaggerated rhetorical effects (argutiae sophisticae) and
histrionics in general (grandiloquentia, declamatoria affectatio) to harsh criticism, finding these phenomena, as had Quintilian, especially in Senecas
work.
Ideas expressed in the Ciceronianus were anticipated in Erasmuss different work, Opus de conscribendi epistolis (Treatise on Letter Writing, published by Johann Froben in Basel in 1522; although apirated, unauthorized version, Libellus de conscribendis epistolis, published by John Siberch in
Cambridge, was available as early as 1521). Erasmus placed letters between
afriendly, intimate dialogue and apublic oration. Similarly to the quattrocento humanists, he rid letters of complicated formulas arising from the status of the writer and the addressee, aheritage of artes dictaminis, instead emphasizing their role as acultivated dialogue between two distant partners.
Letters were not to be written in the low style as they often contained noble
ideas. Among the models, which apart from Cicero also included Pliny the
Elder, Seneca, St. Jerome and Poliziano, Erasmus held the highest regard
for Pliny, whose style appears to be light and improvised, despite being
aresult of awell thought-out effort of stylization and great talent.
Erasmus approximated the traditional scope of rhetoric most in his De
duplicii copia rerum et verborum (also known as De utraque verborum acrerum
copia, loosely translated as On the Fullness of the Conveyed Matter and
Words, in 1511; between 1511 and 1536, Erasmus revised it three times and
published atotal of sixty times). Erasmus illustrated the seemingly simple
but apt characteristic of style as apossibility to express the same idea in
different ways by one-hundred-and-fifty synonymic variants of the sentence
tuae litterae me magnopere delectaverunt (I was very delighted by your letter) and two-hundred-and-fifty variants of the sentence semper dum vivam
tui meminero (Iwill think of you until Idie). Seemingly, this was apose and
word play, however, it allowed the student to understand the languages
potential, its richness and the variety of its possible effects. This method of
teaching style later became amodel for modern authors, such as Raymond
Queneau, who used it in his Exercises in Style, 1947.
/147/
/148/
his treatise by stating that aman is aspiritual being who can freely stand
up for avirtuous life, that is, in favour of the good and against sinful acts.
In the fundamental controversy between the papacy and Luther, Erasmus
wanted to be aspectator rather than apartaker, an intellectual evaluator
rather than afighter. Luthers statement (De servo arbitrio, On the Bondage
of the Will, at the same time published also in German) was an aggressive
assault aiming to eliminate Erasmuss view as well as the methods he used to
support this view. His criticism of Erasmus was grounded in his conviction
that Erasmuss concept of free will gave man the sovereignty appertaining
only to God. Luther did not assess the weight of individual arguments, his
world is clearly black-and-white, either God or Satan. Human will cannotbe on the same level as mans desire for salvation, and therefore it cannot
befree, but it must unreservedly submit to it. The clash of Renaissance and
Reformation was never as unconciliatory as in the polemical battle over the
Free Will between Erasmus and Luther.
PHILIPP MELANCHTHONS AUTHORITY OF PROTESTANT RHETORIC
The voices filled with humanism and belief in mans intellectual abilities
were even heard from among the Reformation thinkers. Philipp Melanchthons was one of the most convincing.
Philipp Melanchthon, born Schwartzerdt (14971560), Luthers friend
and teacher, wrote many texts on rhetoric, dialectic and the role of education in the Protestant world. His treatise Loci communes rerum theologicarum
(Commonplaces in Theology) of 1521 was translated into Czech as early as
1545 and became one of the main sources for Comeniuss preaching theory
and practice.
From the age of 21 (1518), Melanchthon taught rhetoric (that is, the
theory of textual interpretation), Biblical studies, Greek and Hebrew at
theUniversity of Wittenberg. His lecture method, which he had used in his
original works and commentaries, was based on acareful textual analysis,
which preceded students own stylization. According to Melanchthon, the
purpose of rhetoric does not lie in teaching young people how to express
themselves independently, but in the ability to wisely evaluate and understand texts. Teaching (and memorizing) the rules was thus eclipsed by work
with texts according to the maxim advocated by the humanistic teachers of
rhetoric, reliqua usus docebit, experience will teach you the rest (that is, usage
and acultivated feel for the language).
/149/
/150/
The main prerequisite for explaining Scripture is knowledge of the language, primarily though of the original language of the Bible. Melanchthon
therefore urged that atrue expert should be appointed to the Department
of the Hebrew Studies at the University of Wittenberg: Matthias Flacius
Illyricus (15201575), asupporter of Luther. Flaciuss fundamental hermeneutical treatise, Clavis scripturae sacrae (Key to the Sacred Scriptures) of
1567 proved that claiming the Scriptures to be ambiguous and dark was
an act of blasphemy. Ambiguity does not come from God, but from our
insufficient knowledge of the language. The key to the Holy Scriptures is in
mastering the letter, gramma.
Melanchthon placed agreat emphasis on mastering dialectic, to which
he devoted his treatise Erotemata dialectices (Questions on Dialectic), written
in 1548. Dialectic equips the speaker with themes and proofs as well as with
the ability to organize these speech elements. It also teaches how to connect
arguments, reveal and refute false views and bring the mistaken partner to
the right conclusion. By relating invention and disposition to dialectic and
by limiting the rhetorics scope to stylization and delivery, Melanchthon
and Petrus Ramus, became reformers of trivium instruction (this reform is
thus sometimes known as Philippo-Ramian reform). Both scholars newly
formulated the status of grammar, rhetoric and dialectic within the system
of humanist education. These disciplines strove to help understand the linguistic aspects of atext, subsequently moving on to the content, and finally
arriving at an active approach to the world. Rhetoric is dominated by the
dialectical aspects, which are part of the inventio. The study of grammar and
lexis is conditio sine qua non because language is not atransparent instrument
for expressing unequivocal meanings, but acreative tool which constructs
these meanings, often in arather complicated manner.
PETRUS RAMUS AND OMER TALON. THE TRADITION
OF PHILIPPO-RAMIAN RHETORIC BOOKS
/151/
/152/
icate of ascientific proposition should first refer to the class of the closest
superordinate notions before being related to more general classes. Hence
the proposition that aplanar figure with three angles is ageometrical figure
is factually correct, yet it is incorrect from the methodological perspective
as the closest function of figures with three angles is atriangle, while the
notion of ageometrical figure if of ahigher order. On the other hand, if we
want to define acertain class by enumerating its parts, then we should proceed from the most general propositions to those with anarrower meaning.
For example, rhetoric is first defined as an art of persuasive communication,
then as adiscipline consisting of two parts, stylization and delivery, this is
followed by determining the content of these parts, and so on.
The core of Ramuss method lies in the third axiom. The progression
from defining the closest and most apposite towards the most general and
vice versa is, in his view, consistently dichotomous. It is asuccession of
steps, during which one always decides between two options. Ramus and
his pupils emphasized the dichotomous method of presentation by diagrammatic branching of their exposition, which distinguishes their treatises and
textbooks at first sight.
Ramus divided the methodological procedures into natural and artificial.
Natural procedures are based on the objects nature and on the gradation
of its parts importance, while the artificial ones conform to the listener or
reader, with the prevalent criterion being didactics. The natural method is
typical of scientific texts, while the artificial is associated with didactic or
popular writing. Both methods can be used in poetry and oratory, however,
the artificial method is preferred, as in Ramuss words avexatious and
mulish auditor,42 cannot accurately take in ideas according to the ascending
or descending level of generalization. The audiences attention can only be
captivated by an attractive style based on unusual tropes and figures, or on
an enthralling delivery.
Although Ramuss treatises on dialectics and method include numerous
expositions concerning rhetoric, he did not write abook specifically on
rhetoric. This was accomplished by his direct pupil and compatriot, Omer
Talon (Audomarus Talaeus, 15101562). His Institutiones oratoriae (The Education of an Orator) of 1544 includes Ramuss foreword, which emphasizes
the need for associating invention, disposition and memorizing with dialectic, while limiting the rhetorics subject matter to stylization and delivery.
The structure of Talons Institutiones follows Ramuss method. Rhetoric is defined as the art of speaking well and with elegance. Astyle is an adornment
/153/
of speech, expressed through tropes and figures. Tropus represents atransformation of the words primary meaning into anew, metaphorical one. The
tropes include metonymy (the cause is expressed by aconsequence and vice
versa, asubject by an attribute and vice versa), irony (the use of contrast),
metaphor (external, often random similarity) and synecdoche (awhole is
represented by its part and vice versa). Afigure is any deviation of alanguage expression from its common form. Figures originate either within
words (e.g., by repetition, omission or deformation of sounds or syllables)
or within sentences (repetition, omission or rearrangement of words). Delivery, which teaches how to convey the text to the listener, is divided into
the theory of pronunciation (influences the hearing) and the theory of body
language (influences the sight). According to Ramus, memorizing does not
pertain to rhetoric as memory should be trained through the logic of correct
thinking, which makes it part of dialectic.
Ramus and Talons method of dichotomous classifications influenced
a Czech handwritten textbook by Simon Gelenius (Jelenius) Suick,
ateacher from esk Brod and author of the oldest textbook on logic written in Czech (the manuscripts of rhetoric and logic have been preserved and
are stored in the National Museum in Prague under the signature IVD54).
Suick defined rhetoric as the art of the good adornment of speech, dividing it into two parts, elocutio, an adornment of speech through tropes and
figures and pronunciatio, ornamental thinking, speaking. The first part,
containing definitions of tropes and figures with examples, is quite long and
detailed. The second part is extremely short, less than one sheet. Delivery is
presented as follows:
Postava tla m podle pirozen bti vyzdviena azhru patc, naproti tomu
semotam se vikln akejklovn jest mrzut, ... obliej jest obrazem mysle, oi jsou t
mysle ukazatelov, ... leva ruka nem nikdy sama hnut initi. (The body posture should be naturally straight, looking upwards; swaying and fidgeting
are annoying, the face reflects the mind as do the eyes, the left hand
should never move alone.)
Suicks rhetoric probably served as aprivate aid to students (and perhaps even some teachers) with poor command of Latin. But the very fact
that it was written in Czech at least partially fulfilled the demand, asserted
mainly among the Protestants, to develop both fiction and non-fiction in
national languages.
This requirement was perhaps most extensively satisfied by English authors, influenced particularly by Melanchthon and Agricola: Leonard Cox
/154/
(The Arte or Crafte of Rethoryke, 1530, 2nd ed. 1532), Thomas Wilson (Arte
of Rhetorique, 1533, 1560), Henry Peacham (The Garden of Eloquence, 1577,
1593), Richard Sherry (ATreatise on Schemes and Tropes, 1550, 1555). The
Ramian method was followed by Gabriel Harvey (Rhetor, 1575, Ciceronianus,
1576) and Dudley Fenner, who wrote textbook The Artes of Logic and Rethorike, 1584, intended for Ambassadors, Captains, and Ministers. These
books, which were quite popular among students and university teachers,
were also used by lawyers on an everyday basis, afact known both from
historical documents and from alarge number of copies bearing marks of
frequent use. In 1586, Angel Days English Secretorie, apractical handbook
of the epistolary style, was published for the first time. The author sees the
stylistic ideal in comeliness in delivrance, aptness of words and brevity.
The books last chapter, Partes Amatorie or of Love, teaches how to write love
letters, proving to be an interesting testimony of love life in Elizabethan
England.
Centres for publishing rhetoric textbooks in national languages gradually sprung up in other countries, including those where the traditional
Latin culture prevailed. In 1521, Pierre Fabri published his explanation of
rhetoric as an essential art for politics, Grand et vrai Art de pleine Rhtorique.
This work reflects the effort to ensure the prevalence of arefined national language (langaige rommant) in literature and public life of Renaissance
France. This effort was promoted primarily through the codification of
French, which originated in the publishing and printing house of Geoffroy
Tory (14801533) and the French Academy, established in 1635. The Ramian
conception of rhetoric in Omer Talons work was used by Antoine Fouquelin
in his textbook La Rhtorique franoyse (1555). Abrief summary of rhetorics
history and subject matter can be found in the fifteen chapters of Projet
deloquence royal, compiled for the future King Henry III by Jacques Amyot,
atranslator of Plutarch (1578). The role oratory played in French political
culture is demonstrated by Guillaume de Vairs De lloquence franaise et des
raisons pour quoi elle est demeure si bass (On French Eloquence and the Reasons Why It Remains on Such aLow Level, 1595).
The first department of rhetoric in Spain was established at the University of Salamanca as early as 1403. Spanish rhetoric was also marked by the
efforts to shape anational language (lengua castellana), considering arefined
language (polizia de el hablar) and refined, impressive (sweet) eloquence
(polidai dulze elocuencia) to be equal. The prestige of rhetoric in Spain derived from admiration for Seneca, born in Crdoba, and Quintilian, born
/155/
in Calagurris (el sabio orador Castellano Quintiliano), who inspired the wide
range of rhetoric books written by Spanish authors: Fadrique Furi Ceriol,
Sebastian Fox Morzillo, Benito Arias Montano, Alfonso Garcia Matamoros,
Juan Prez and, perhaps the most important of them, Juan Luis Vives. The
first book on rhetoric in the mother tongue, Rhetorica en lengua castellana,
was written by Miguel de Salinas and intended primarily for preachers.
FRANCESCO PATRIZIS PERFETTA RHETORICA
The spread of national languages at the expense of Latin even in intellectual communication, however, was not limited to Transalpine humanism. In
1562, Francesco Patrizi (Petris in Croatian, 15291597), born on the Dalmatian island of Cres, published his reflections on rhetoric, Della retorica dieci
dialoghi (Ten Dialogues on Rhetoric), which follows up his works in the
humanities disciplines (Della historia, 1560, Della retorica, 1562, Della poetica,
1586). His extensive work covered many fields of study (philosophy, theology, mathematics, law, medicine).
Patrizis career was atypical example of ahumanist scholars life story.
Since his childhood, Patrizi had accompanied his uncle, agalley captain of
the Venetian Republic, on his journeys around Europe. He studied in Ingolstadt and Padua, worked as asecretary and tutor in Venice. He mastered
Greek during his stay in Cyprus and also stayed in King Philip IIs court
in Madrid. Later he worked as aprofessor at the Department of Platonic
Philosophy at the Duke of Ferraras court, aposition which was especially
established for him. Upon an invitation from his pupil, Cardinal Aldobrandini, the later Pope Clement VIII, he transferred to the University of Rome
in 1592, where he died five years later.
Patrizi went down in the history of humanist philosophy primarily
thanks to his discussions, Discussionum peripateticarum libri, the extensive
Nova de universis philosophia, published in Ferrara in 1591, and his unfinished
essay Lamorosa filosofia (Philosophy of Love). He was particularly interested
in methodology and gnoseology, attempting to reconcile the deductive reasoning of speculative Platonic thinking with experience acquired through
the senses and the Aristotelian method of inductive proofs (demonstratio).
As he believed in the primacy of deduction, he strove to guide humanist
philosophy away from rhetorical thinking towards the geometrical method
of deducing conclusions from irrefutable axioms. Mathematics and geometry represented universal sciences whose rule are applicable to philosophy,
/156/
/157/
the ideal correlation between things and words was layered with the magic
power of the word over the world of people and things. Language helped
create, influence and change the world without losing its primary, truth
value. However, after the decline of language (la gran ruina del linguaggio
humano), this truth was lost and avague, unclear language prevailed. The
good, bonum, as the final purpose of rhetorical discourse is impracticable
unless it is based on the prerequisite of the certain and true (verum) in the
sense of formal correctness of the system of axioms. The new ideal rhetoric (retorica perfetta), which would become atrue science (scienza), should
therefore re-establish the one-time unity of words and things, which would
allow the language to once again become the tool of true cognition. This
will simultaneously overcome the traditional imperfect rhetoric, vacillating
between practical experience (isperienza) and propositions based on probable premises.
The path to ideal rhetoric is difficult. The turbulent time of political
transformations most favourable to the development of rhetoric disrupts
the stability of things as well as the stability of language. This hampers
the axiomatization of rhetoric and its more scientific nature (scientificazzione
della rhetorica). The syntactic and semantic vagueness of the language, its
changeability in time and the endless number of possible metaphorical associations make the geometric apriori view more distant rather than closer.
This, however, hinders not only rhetoric but also other sciences based on
language, philosophy and history.
The significance of Patrizis search for certainty (certitudo) of cognition,
which would methodologically relate sciences dealing with man to those
focusing on nature, went far beyond the humanist era. The ensuing development of science and philosophy, dominated by Cartesianism, confirmed
the views sceptical to the scientific status of rhetoric. This conflict between
geometrical reasoning and rhetorical casuistry reached its peak in Blaise
Pascal. In the 17th and particularly in the 18th centuries, rhetoric, reduced
to style, became part of an aesthetic canon of classicism, in education it
was merely astylistic supplement to the instruction of national languages.
Instead of politics and justice, rhetoric became adomain of philological
disciplines, literature and linguistics.
In his book, Dutch civilisation in the seventeenth century, Johan Huizinga contrasts Dutch urban culture with the peak culture of the European baroque,
which he characterizes as follows: Splendour and dignity, the theatrical
gesture, strictly applied regulations, and aclosed educational system were
the rule; obedient reverence to church and state was the ideal.The rule
of monarchy was worshipped: each individual state advocated autonomy
and ruthlessly self-interested nationalistic policies.Public life in general was
conducted in an elevated language that was taken entirely seriously.Pageantry and display predominated in spectacular ceremonial events. The
restoration of faith took graphic form the highly resonant, triumphal imagery of Rubens, the Spanish painters and Bernini.43 In 1540, Pope Paul II
approved the establishment of anew religious order, the Society of Jesus,
whose work spread far beyond European borders. The Jesuits set it as their
goal to fight against the Reformation and to prepare the Church for this
fight through fundamental reforms, in which preaching played asignificant
role. In 1550, Giacomo Vignola started the construction of Il Ges, the main
Jesuit church in Rome. Following the instructions of Cardinal Alessandro
Farnese, the orders protector, Vignola created aconcept of alarge one-nave
interior in which the word would resound harmoniously, without distractive
echoes. The prominent role of preaching was also reflected in the status of
rhetoric in the system of Jesuit education. At the time, however, rhetoric
played an equally significant role in the educational systems of the Benedictines, Piarists and Oratorians.
According to bibliographical sources, around eight hundred rhetoric
textbooks were published in Europe between 15001700, with many of
them being printed more than once. This production was clearly intended
exclusively for intellectual elites, which in fact also constituted the audience for rhetorical communication. Nevertheless, there was one important
exception: preaching, whose social role continuously grew with the development of Reformation and anti-Reformation movements. The baroque
emphasis on evoking emotions among the audience is reflected not only in
the outward histrionics, but also in serene religious fervour of some of the
/159/
/160/
writing private and public letters whose instruction was based on Liber de
conscribendi epistolis (1589) written by the Spanish Jesuit Bartolom Bravo
and which was repeatedly published in Spain and Mexico, gained immense
popularity as anecessary prerequisite for mastering composition, good style
and eloquence. As the core textbook for the instruction of rhetoric, written by Cyprian Soarez, did not contain any practical exercises, it would be
complemented by Jacob Masens practice books, Palaestra oratoria (1659),
Palaestra styli Romani (1659) and Excertationes oratoria (1660).
The baroque period witnessed amore intensive mutual convergence of
rhetoric and poetics, which originated as early as in Horaces On the Art of
Poetry. Rhetoric featured anew, original and surprising means of expression.
The role of figurative speech was on the increase, poetics bore rhetorical
features, intensifying its effect on readers and listeners. Sophisticated and
rampant rhetorical and poetic ornaments, known under the Italian term of
concetti, became typical for the specific transitional baroque period of mannerism. The baroque-mannerist concetti rhetoric was characterized by acumen, or wit, which was alicence to break rules, aprinciple of disturbing the
expected norms, iudicium and decorum. Concettism had an important representative in the figure of the Spanish Jesuit Gracin, whose treatise Arte de ingenio, tratado de la agudeza of 1642 (revised as Agudeza y arte del ingenio, 1648)
represents the outset of new eloquence, arevolt against classicism. Gracin
believed that asurprising image, an intellectual play with words disrupting
the readers expectation was acore stylistic element. The new eloquence was
known as Marinism in Italy, Gngorism in Spain and prciosit in France.
The relationship between stylistic rules and poetic or rhetorical licence
was analyzed in detail by Maciej Kazimierz Sarbiewski (Sarbievius in Latin)
from Poland. His tractates, De acuto et arguto sive Seneca et Marcialis, De figuris
sententiarum and Characteres lyrici44 heralded the concettist revolution in the
interpretation of the rhetorical and poetic notions of similarity (similitudo)
and comparison (comparatio), originating in the 17th century.45 This revolution was based on the aesthetic and gnoseological idea that there is not
asharp borderline between similarity and comparison, instead that these
two qualities are each others condition, that one transforms into the other
as aproduct of play, illusion, imagination, dream, allegory or theatrical performance. And this type of transition represents the figure of acumen, conceptus, anew order of things, apunch line, surprising connections, which are
used not only to captivate and astonish the viewer, but also to demonstrate
the new potential of knowledge.
/161/
Cyprian Soarezs De arte rhetorica (Cypriani Soarii de arte rhetorica libri tres.
Ex Aristotele, Cicerone, et Quintiliano praecipue deprompti) was the most widespread textbook of rhetoric in Jesuit schools. This two-hundred-page work
written in 1562 was reprinted many times, there were numerous imitations
as well as shorter versions made and referred to as Summa, Tabulae, Compendium and others. This textbook, whose various editions were usually supplemented with model texts by classical authors and comprehensive definitions
and tables with the used terms (Tabulae), was written in clear, accessible
Latin, consistently adhering to the Ciceronian and Quintilian tradition. It
was to provide pupils with elements of eloquence in Latin, to teach them
effective expression and to cultivate the ability to read and understand classical works, both secular and religious. The first book presented the canons
of stylization (partes artis), contained an exposition on the search for proofs
/162/
One of the textbooks used in Jesuit schools that enjoyed high authority
was De eloquentia sacra et humana libri XVI, an extensive book on rhetoric
(of about athousand pages) written by Nicolas Caussin, aprofessor in the
Jesuit colleges in Rouen and La Flche. Caussin (15801651) was awriter
of extraordinary erudition and extensive preaching practice. Thanks to his
supporter Cardinal Richelieu, he became Louis XIIIs confessor, though
due to the court intrigues in which Richelieu participated and which he
probably even initiated, Caussin was later forced to emigrate to England.
After the death of Louis XIII, he returned to Paris, where he ardently engaged in academic controversies surrounding the university. Caussins work
was amodel for many books of sermons based on rhetorical principles.
Caussins rhetoric textbook is remarkable for presenting examples from
an unusually broad number of ancient, medieval and Byzantine authors.
Some of Caussins statements reveal the prevalence of classicist criteria. He
rejected style characterized as pompous (inflatus), overtly sweet (cacozelus),
cold (frigidus), bacchanalian (parenthyrsus), pedantic (scholasticus), earthbound (humilis), abrupt (abruptus), lax (lentulus) and dry (scissus). Caussin
depicted abad orator (malus orator) with sarcasm, claiming that he is no less
distant from amoderation of style and aneed to respect the listeners than
the Caucasus or the Ganges are to us. Such an orator resembles Homers
character of Stentor, whose voice was as powerful as fifty voices of other
men, holding in his hand agilt-edged book full of Latin quotes, which he
had never read, and using gestures of awrestler or fencer.
/163/
/164/
/165/
15051589), aprofessor at universities in Paris and Strasbourg, school reformer, expert on Hermogenes and author of De universa ratione elocutionis
rhetoricae (1575), was an important representative of this movement. Sturm
earned high esteem from Erasmus who wrote that he was inter eloquentes
scientissimus et inter scientissimos eloquentissimus (the most erudite among
the most eloquent and the most eloquent among the most erudite). In the
spirit of Hermogenes and Pseudo-Longinus he analyzed such attributes of
style as festivity, magnificence, grandeur and mystical spirituality. Sturm
was replaced in the office of the Rector of the Strasbourg University by
Melchior Junius, the author of Methodus eloquentiae (1592). Melchior believed that apart from political, judicial and theological discourse, rhetoric
also includes scientific, medical and mathematical discourse. According to
Melchior, effective communication arises from acareful choice of words,
which should be clear (illustria), serious (gravia), accurate (plena), resonant
(sonantia), original (inusitata) and figurative (figurata). A student learns
style as the ability to aptly combine the above categories of words through
cultivating positive personal qualities, knowledge of the matter, study of
grammar andrhetoric, imitating classical authors as well as oral and written
exercises.
Andreas Gerhard Hyperiuss De formandis concionibus sacris, seu de interpretatione Scripturarum populari Libri II (1555) became one of the most
widespread rhetoric textbooks. The work of Hyperius, who was aprofessor
of theology in Marburg, achieved considerable popularity thanks to its English version, The practice of preaching, otherwise called The pathway to the pulpit:
Conteyning an excellent method how to frame divine sermons (1577), translated
by John Ludham. Hyperius distinguished between two types of theological
texts: popular, intended for laymen, and demanding (scholastici), for people
with atheological education. He primarily devoted his work to the latter.
He based his exposition on Cicero, using an original, five-part classification
of sermons into doctrinal, based on the exposition of the Scripture, argumentative, refuting the wrong views, instructing, teaching the maxims of
Christian life, remedial and consolatory.
BARTHOLOMAEUS KECKERMANN AND THE GDASK RHETORIC
/166/
/167/
that the impressiveness of speech was also partially due to the body language, or even body eloquence (sermo corporis, corporis eloquentia), however,
magnitudo (the greatness and importance of the theme of the speech) and
praesentia (the ability to evoke the feeling of an immediate participation in
the theme, for example, the preacher can make Jesus seem closer and more
visible using suitable words) were most important.
In Rhetorices contractae, Vossius defined the differences between rhetoric
and dialectic. He believed that rhetoric primarily dealt with persuasion (persuasio), while dialectic focused on probable matters and avictory in controversy. Dealing with dialectical questions (questiones) was based on learning
about the issue, solving rhetorical questions on practical deeds. Dialectic
thus became the subject matter of epistemology, while rhetoric focused on
adescription of effective speechs stylization. The link between these disciplines lies in the fact that dialectic is anecessary part of the rhetorical inventio.
COMENIUSS BRETHRENS RHETORIC
Comenius (Jan Amos Komensk in Czech; 15921670) introduced rhetoric to the Moravian environment of the Czech Brethren through his work
Zprva anauen okazatelstv (AReport and Lesson on Preaching, ca. 1651),
written in Czech. Originally it was only preserved in ahandwritten version
made by Josef Gera, being published for the first time by Josef Liboslav
Ziegler in 1823 under the title Zprva anauen okazatelstv, sepsan roku 1651
od Jana Amosa Komenskyho, kterto rukopis pro jeho dkost avzcnost pepsal
Josef Gera, duchovn past crkve evanjelick vyznn helvtskho prosetnsk na
panstv kunstatskm vMarghrabstv moravskm lta Pn 1807 (AReport and
Lesson on Preaching, Written in 1651 by Jan Amos Comenius, the Manuscript of Which Was for Its Rareness Rewritten by Josef Gera, aPastor of
the Evangelic Church of the Prosetin Helvetic Confession at the Kunstt
Estate in Margraviate of Moravia in Anno Domini 1807). Apart from this,
Comenius addressed rhetoric also in the third part of his Eruditionis scholasticae atrium, rerum et linguarum ornamenta exhibens, called Ars ornatoria,
sive grammatica elegans (Ornate Art, or Elegant Grammar), which contains
an overview of stylistic ornaments and commonplaces explained from the
pansophic perspective.
The structure of the Report and Lesson follows the usual scheme of four
sections; 1. where to find an abundance and variety of issues and language
(inventio), 2. how to arrange them artistically (dispositio), 3. how to adorn
/168/
/169/
/170/
plicated misuse of language ornaments, or in the speech, that is, the use
of allegories which are incomprehensible to the listener. If we do not understand asection in the text, we must look at its vicinity and into the authors
intention (The meaning of the words should suit the matter addressed),
or compare it with the meaning of similarly sounding places (rob Peter to
pay Paul), or consult an authority.
To support his propositions, an orator selects arguments, 1. from his
own text, 2. from other texts, 3. from catechism, 4. from ones intellect,
5.from examples, 6. from parables. As the orators arguments must be comprehensible, he should proceed from things that are known and easy to
understand. He must pay attention to the application of propositions, that
is, how he would present them to the listener, during the very preparation
of the speech. He must particularly emphasize that which is essential for
the understanding of the text. Comenius called such places emphases, cores,
flowers, pearls and stars, and recommended the they should be presented,
explained, focused on and imprinted in the listeners minds more carefully
than others.
Language used must be contemporary. Not using current language is
like ploughing, but leaving the field unploughed, like threshing, but leaving
wheat unthreshed, that is, threshing the ground, walls, collar beams or straw
without reaching all ears. The conclusion of the speech is no less important
than the introduction; it should be brief, concise and contain repetitions
(asummary of the main ideas) and amessage (what the listener should
remember from the speech).
Comenius addressed the language aspects of speech in Part III, called
On the Beauty of Preaching. Agood style requires sound knowledge of
the theme. (If you study the matter well, the speech will follow easily.)
Brevity is another important value. (Whatever you are presenting, do it
briefly and the work will be rewarding As what is discussed at length,
blows away with the wind.) Richness of expression and things is no less
important. Comenius often referred to Horaces maxim varietas delectat, variety results in loveliness. He believed that the essence of style was based
on adorning things and adorning words. Things are adorned through
uniqueness, the novelty of what is talked about, pertinence, or their
relation to the moment of speaking, and clarity, or illustrating what is
discussed. Clarity can be achieved through merisms (enumeration of something) and hypotyposes (arendition of circumstances that is so clear as to
convince the listener that he is not listening but watching things).
/171/
Adorning things is achieved through adding, substituting and harmony. The orator can add epithets (Comenius recommends the use of fitting
epithets), synonyms (when something is being explained) and periphrases
(where it suits the thing). Substitution can be simple (substituting one
word for another, such as synonyms) and flowery, through tropes (when
using aword with adifferent meaning, yet somehow related). Comenius
lists atotal of five tropes: irony, metaphor (the most flowery trope), synecdoche, metonymy and hyperbole. Adorning words by harmony is achieved
through figures, which include anaphora and epistrophe (arepetition of
the same word at the beginning, or at the end of asentence or averse segment), climax (gradation of the meaning) and paronomasia (etymological
confrontation of words or play on words). Figures are defined as an artificial arrangement of words to ensure apleasing effect.
Apart from word figures, Comenius lists ten sentence figures, giving examples and Czech equivalents of the terms:
1. exclamatio, exclamation (with an overview of exclamatory interjections),
2. interrogatio, question,
3. aposiopesis, asudden breaking off,
4. correctio, correction,
5. apostrophe, turning from the audience to something or someone else,
6. prosopopoia, speaking as another person,
7. addubitatio, suggestion of doubt,
8. communicatio, rendering something to the listeners to judge,
9. occupatio, bringing up asubject by denying it should be brought up,
10. concessio, concession or acknowledgement of the validity of an opponents point.
Section IV, called On the Power and Keenness of aSermon, focuses
on delivery. Comenius urges that the word preached should lodge in the
listeners minds and move them. Apreacher should speak as if writing,
that is, in accord with the authority of the Bible, seriously, to persuade the
listeners that he is only interested in the truth, candidly, with parrhesia,
freely and openly, in alively manner, not monotonously, focusing on the
necessary things, pointing out the substantial things, with inner conviction (to speak truthfully and perceptively, to be exemplary in everything
and free from taint) and last but not least, with piousness.
The Report and Lesson was written by apreacher, who, being an exile,
lived far from his religious community. His thinking was thus influenced
/172/
not only by the deep piousness of the Czech Brethren as aspecial branch
of the Hussite faith, but also by the various versions of spiritualism which
permeated the Freemasons environment, with whom Comenius often interacted during his foreign stays. Thus he was also ahumanist equipped with
encyclopaedic education and sound knowledge of the rhetorical theory and
practice as elaborated in antiquity as well as by its Christian successors.
Comeniuss conception of preaching, his conviction of the need of language
instruction and an effort to develop an ideal language of international communication is permeated with the unity of three human activities, thinking,
speaking and acting. This unity revives the ideals of ancient rhetoric, which
Comenius ostensibly denounced, professing the authority of the biblical
text and its careful hermeneutical reading.
RELIGIOUS, POLITICAL AND CULTURAL PREREQUISITES
FOR THE RHETORICAL BOOM IN RUSSIA AND UKRAINE
/173/
all eastern Christians, including those who lived under Turkish rule. Russia,
however, also strove for arapprochement with western Europe, particularly
through closer contacts with the Balkans Slavs and Ukraine. Western influences, originating particularly in Poland, Lithuania and Ukraine, intensified
most after 1654, when Russia formed aunion with Ukraine following the
Russian victory in the war against Poland.
Literature and education became involved in this unification efforts. Liberal arts (svobodnyje khudozhestva) were taught in monastic and later also municipal schools, Russian was permeated with lexical and phonetic elements
from other languages (particularly South Slavic), the script was reformed.
Stable genre and stylistic models of literary monuments were created, with
the basic written form being Old Church Slavonic with strong Byzantine influences and with gradually penetrating features of ancient Russian. Dmitry
Sergeyevich Likhachev, ahistorian of Russian culture, considered historical
and encyclopaedic works to be the most important models. These included
works such as Domostroy, Great Reading Menaea, Illuminated Chronicles and
Book of Degrees (Stepennaya kniga). Russian culture became acquainted with
the essential canon of the art of rhetoric through texts such as Zlatostruy (an
Old-Slavonic translation of John Chrystosomoss sermons, written during
the reign of the Bulgarian Tsar Symeon /893927/, perhaps by him personally), Shestodnev (texts and translations by Symeons contemporary, John the
Exarch, who translated John of Damascuss sermons), sermons by Clement
of Ohrid, Constantine the Presbyter, orator Eustatius of Thessalonica and
others.
Supporters of state church reforms, with Patriarch Nikon being their
main proponent, soon ran into awave of opposition, represented by the
Old Believers movement. These opponents of the reforms were sharply opposed to any foreign influences, which they saw as dangerous for the ancient
Russian piousness and traditional forms of spreading the faith. Protopope
Avvakum, aleading proponent of the Old Believers, urged his listeners not
to chase after rhetoric or philosophy as neither an orator, nor aphilosopher
can be Christian. He simultaneously denounced the instruction of the trivium as its content transfers only external wisdom (vnieshniaya mudrost) and
warned against wit (ostroumie).
The literary historian Boris Uspensky pointed out an interesting clash
between the metasystem of grammar and rhetoric in connection with
theRussian literature of the late Middle Ages and the Early Modern Age.
The instruction of rhetoric took precedence as it focused on the canonical
/174/
/175/
/176/
later switching to the western Latin school model. The instruction of rhetoric was based on Soarez, Caussin and Prokopovich. As little distinction
was made between grammar, rhetoric and poetics, Fedor Kvetnickys Clavis
poetica was frequently used. This introduction into the trivium disciplines,
written in the first half of the 18th century, is characterized by the fancy for
baroque ornamentation, for example practicing poetry in the form of visual
images, carmina artificiosa. The Ukrainian monk Porphyry Kreiskys Artis
rhetoricae libri tres, preserved in amanuscript made by Mikhail Vasilyevich
Lomonosov, Kreiskys pupil and later polyhistor, dates from 1733.
Nauka albo sposob zlozhenia kazania (1653), arhetorical book written by
Ioanniki Goliatovsky, comes from Velikii Novgorod (Novgorod the Great),
however, this rhetorical movement reached its peak in Lomonosovs work,
which was in use throughout the entire period of Russian classicism.
Two contradictory movements in modern-age science and philosophy, rationalism and empiricism, have one thing in common: acritical scepticism
towards rhetoric, which rapidly grew into its radical rejection.
The roots of this development can be found in the nature of the various
areas of human knowledge, each of which requires aspecific manner of analyzing and finding proof, as well as in relationships among members ofthe
scholarly community. The beginning of the 17th century witnessed the birth
of several major philosophical systems (ranging from the Cartesian and Baconian, through the philosophies of Locke, Hobbes, Leibniz, Spinoza and
Pascal), whose ideologies gave rise to agrowing number of disciplines in the
natural sciences (the Cartesian geometrical system of coordinatesand reflex
action theory, Galileos astronomy, Newtons mechanics, Leibniz andNewtons elements of differential and integral calculus). The precise nature of
data in the natural sciences inspired the entire work of Thomas Hobbes, an
exponent of the study of society, state and politics; John Locke, atheoretician of the state and law; the logician and philosopher Baruch Spinoza,
creator of amagnificent ethical system based on the geometrical method
(more geometrico); and Giambattista Vico, aphilosopher and historian. These
philosophers considered the origin and rise of science to be that which conferred true certainty in an insecure world full of the wars that defined their
century.
What was these scholars relation to rhetoric? Firstly, we must remember
that they each received asound education in this discipline (Descartes in
the La Flche Jesuit College, Bacon and Hobbes at Cambridge). However,
the method of instruction in these schools provoked in them uncertainty
regarding rhetoric rather than an admiration for it. This distrust of rhetoric,
expressed by Descartes at several points in his Discourse on the Method, developed into its radical denouncement as apowerful instrument of error and
deceit in the work of John Locke.
Despite this opposition, all of these authors were consummate stylists.
It is well known that Francis Bacon, Lord Chancellor and Lord Keeper of
/178/
the Great Seal, was abrilliant orator and his Essays (The Essays, or Councels,
Civill and Morall) are asupreme example of an aphoristically condensed,
imaginative and argumentative style. Thomas Hobbes, an expert in Latin
and Greek, translated Aristotles Rhetoric and agreat deal of Homer. Almost
all these men held acritical stance in regard to rhetoric, as they wanted to
replace the academic world of words about objects by revealing the true
substance of the actual objects.
This rejection was most forceful in John Lockes Essays, which was written around 1670, but remained unpublished until about twenty years later.
Locke believed that words do not signify objects as such, but rather merely
our ideas about them. Communication, therefore, does not provide information about the real world, but only about the individual worlds of its participants. Rhetoric aggravates this situation as it introduces both metaphorical
and consciously inaccurate expressions into the already questionable referential stability of asign.
17th-century science was characterized by significant genre transformations within its discourse. The relationship between teacher and student,
reflecting the relationship between authorities and their admiring or critical commentators and interpreters was renegotiated as the mutual communication between equal members of scientific communities. In addition,
this communication generally took place outside traditional institutions,
monasteries and universities, through personal encounters and, ever-more
frequently, through correspondence, book publishing and the newly-established scientific journals. In professional literature, the theme addressed
dominated the need to approach listeners. Despite this, however, even these
texts used traditional rhetorical strategies implying an appeal to benefactors, afear of censorship and respect for authority.
BACONS POLEMICAL DIALOGUE WITH RHETORIC
Among the 17th-century philosophers, it was Francis Bacon, later Lord Verulam, (15611626), who directly addressed rhetoric and the possibility of
comprehension in his The Advancement of Learning of 1606. In 1623, Bacon
published an expanded version of this work in Latin under the title of De
dignitate et augmentis scientiarum (Dignity and Advancement of Learning).
The process of learning about reality is explained through traditional
rhetorical components: invention, disposition, memory and stylization.
These sections, albeit somewhat modified as to content and extent, cov-
/179/
er the learners path from first becoming acquainted with empirical data
through mental processing and relating to previous experience, to the eventual outcome of effective communication.
In the chapter on invention, Bacon builds on Aristotles doctrine of natural and artificial proof. Invention searches either for new and unknown
information or, by means of remembrance and suggestion, for what humankind has forgotten or what has been depicted in different context. Both
of these modes of invention are based on the sensory perception of reality
and on logical reasoning. This is the basis of Bacons criticism of commonplaces as mechanical thought schemata, which are separate from experience
and,as such, cannot capture the distinctiveness of the examined phenomena. Fitting the outside world into aclosed environment means opening
oneself to errors which jeopardize true learning, critical thinking and any
possibility of communication.
Bacon considered judgement, the second stage of learning, to be equal
to the traditional definition of logic, which consists of an exposition on the
methods of inductive reasoning, deduction (varying modes of syllogism)
and errors, normal within the scope of human learning. Bacon included criticism of these errors in his later work, New Organon, which further develops
his thesis. He held that idols, resulting from scholasticism and Ramian rhetoric, hampered learning. Rhetoric is closely related to two types or errors.
Idols of the Market Place produce an ambiguity in words, which throw all
into confusion, and lead men away into numberless empty controversies and
idle fancies, while Idols of the Theatre represent fictitious artificial worlds,
which people blindly adopt through tradition, credulity, and negligence.
The subsequent chapter of The Advancement of Learning addresses memory. Bacon did not reduce it, as had been customary, to be the simple mnemonic reproduction of commonplaces (as traditional rhetoric did) or rules
for the arrangement of themes (as Ramus did), instead he considered it to
be along-term process of retaining knowledge, based on the previous experience of both mankind and each person.
The fourth stage of rational knowledge consists of language stylization
and delivery. Bacon labelled this stage tradition (communication), which
contains the organ of tradition (language), the method of tradition (natural
and artificial arrangement of the communicated themes) and finally, the
illustration of tradition (the art of efficient communicating the outcome
of mental activities). Bacon likened this illustration of tradition with the
excellently well-laboured art of rhetoric (the illustration of tradition,
/180/
/181/
These purist attitudes reached their peak with the classicists interventions
(John Dryden, Nahum Tate) in the language (and, on occasion, the plots)
of Shakespeares dramas. The purist wave thus affected English not only in
the realm of professional language, but also in the sphere of belles lettres,
preaching, scriptural translation, among many others. It is beyond doubt
that echoes of this puritanism have persisted both in the language itself and
in the attitudes of people towards it.
HOBBESS RHETORIC AS APOLITICAL WEAPON
Thomas Hobbes (15881679), Descartess disciple and aseminal theoretician of both state and law, understood rhetoric to be apolitical instrument
in the fight for power.
Hobbes received excellent education in mathematics and geometry as
well as in classical literature and humanities. When he was fourteen, he
translated Euripidess Medea from Greek into Latin, at eighty-four, wrote his
own biography in Latin verse and aged eighty-seven, he translated Homer
into English. He also translated Thucydides to illustrate the faults of the
democratic system.
Hobbes steadfastly adhered to the belief in the sovereign power of the
state. He held that people were naturally endowed with the ability to enter into conflicts and wars. The only path out of this situation was via the
transference of power to aruler. He goes on to evoke fear in people, while
simultaneously inspiring them into joint actions, which lead to increased
prosperity in conjunction with private activities ensuring abetter life for
the hard-working and capable. (Covenants, without the sword, are but
words.) People can refuse to obey their ruler if the ruler cannot ensure
their safety. Unlike Locke or Rousseau, Hobbes did not understand this
as acovenant between the citizens and the ruler, but rather as covenants
between citizens themselves who agreed to bestow power on the ruler. In
Leviathan, he advocated power being held in the hands of asingle ruler, believing that multiple people can reign only if this is supported by tradition
or positive and fostering circumstance. Although the ruler may be despotic,
the worst despotism is better than anarchy. He held that the civil war in
England occurred because power was split between the king, the lords and
the people.
As the private tutor of Lord Cavendish, Hobbes compiled acompendium of Aristotles Rhetoric entitled ABriefe of the Arte of Rhetoriqve (1630; with
/182/
the edition of 1651 titled Compendium of the Art of Logick and Rhetorick in the
English Tongue). This work reflected the eras general interest in Aristotles
Rhetoric as an aspect of political strategy. Book II was especially popular,
covering as it did the various types of human nature and emotions, such as
anger, fear, outrage, and envy. Hobbes, however, arranged these qualities
hierarchically with desire and fear being the most important emotions.
In his Briefe, in The Elements of Law, in the treatise On the Citizen and in
Leviathan, Hobbes presented rhetoric and the art of persuasion as the foundation of politics. Convictions and opinion result from passions (appetitus)
set into motion by human will. Everyone wants to promote their stance, to
make people believe what they say (Eloquence is nothing else but the power of winning belief of what one say). In democratic states, effective orators
attain the status of rulers. The fate of these states is decided by the language
the orators wield. Leaders of rebellions, though they be of little wisdom,
must be eloquent. Hence, rhetoric is also athreat for all types of state.
The strategy of Hobbess selection from Aristotles Rhetoric is entirely
subordinated to his conception of the state in tandem with the paradigms
of the times stylistic norm, as regulated by the Royal Society. This norm
is suffused with classicist demands. Hobbes explained Aristotles idea of
stylistic moderation and the ideal middle as follows: The virtues of aword
are two. The first, that is be perspicuous, the second, that is be decent, that
is, neither above nor below the thing signified, or neither too humble nor
too fine.49
From Hobbess perspective, rhetoric can only be positive if it allies itself with the state power, though this must be based on each individuals
autonomy. As only the states authority can safeguard one from damage
caused by others, it can put astop to bellum omnium contra omnes, war of all
against all.
BERNARD LAMYS CARTESIAN INSPIRATIONS
/183/
/184/
/185/
only intended for orators, but also for poets, historians, philosophers and
preachers. He was interested in all forms of speech which intended to engage, something which ranges from the literary, scientific, philosophical
and rhetorical discourses to the social (conversational), legal, theological,
declamatory and theatrical.
Though the second half of the 17th century saw Latin give way to national languages, this did not disrupt unity within the community of learned
men who were influenced by their rhetorical education. This was partly due
tothe increasing role of translation, as translators often accommodated both
the content and forms of contemporary discourse into the new environment
and time, sometimes to the detriment of accuracy, but often pro bono. One
of these translations laid the foundations of the dominant stylistic norm
and taste perspectives for the incoming epoch of classicism. In 1676, Nicolas Boileau-Despraux (16361711) published his French translation (what
would today be called an adaptation) of Pseudo-Longinuss On the Sublime
(Trait du Sublime) alongside his own texts (Oeuvres diverses). It was no coincidence that the translation of the text, ascribed to the 3rd-century Greek
author Longinus, was published in the same year as LArt potique, Boileaus
classicist manifesto in verse.
For Boileau, Pseudo-Longinus represented an authority (which he altered to suit his ideas) on theoretical orientation in style and its effects.
Although primarily focusing on language style, the On the Sublime treatise
became a general taste norm of the 17th and 18th centuries. The balance
between art and nature, and between the sublimity of emotions and the
choice of effective methods for their expression, dominated not only art,
but were also respected as abehavioural norm among both the nobility and
the cultivated liberal bourgeoisie. Reason became the supreme arbiter of
aesthetic taste, social and personal morals, and was strongly linked to clarity
and transparency in communication. Astyle can be considered sublime if it
accommodates what must be said under the given circumstances and in the
given environment. In expression, anything superfluous, missing from or
distorting content goes against the classicist norm. This norm returned life
to Ciceronian decorum, which corresponded to the French biensance. Boileau
remarks: ... pour bien juger du Beau, du Sublime, du Merveilleux dans le Discours,
il ne faut pas simplement regarder la chose quon dit, mais la personne qui la dit, la
maniere dont on la dit, et loccasion ou on la dit, enfin quil faut regarder, non quid
/187/
sit, sed quo loco sit (to be able to judge what is Beautiful, Sublime, Marvellous
in adiscourse, we must not only pay attention to what is being said, but
also to who says it, how he says it and on what occasion he says it, non quid
sit, sed quo loco sit not what it is, but under what circumstance it is).50
For those who wrote on rhetoric and literary style, On the Sublime shifted
attention from the rules of textual production to formulating maxims for its
evaluation. The treatises author, as was the case in Lamys Rhetoric, considered style to be paramount only if it was capable of evoking admiration for
the sublime in the audiences emotions. Boileau thus often employed terms
denoting emotions, such as admiration, pleasure, expectation and astonishment.
FNELONS RHETORIC AS AN ART OF PORTRAIT
7. 18th-Century Rhetoric
/188/
in, and that French itself was continually being sullied by adopting words
and expressions from foreign languages. He believed that this degeneration was best prevented through the natural character of alanguage, careful
study of its rules, completed with practical exercises.
Claude Buffier (16611737), aJesuit of Polish origin, was ahighly respected representative of 18th-century French rhetoric. His Treatise on Eloquence (1728) was asomewhat unique rhetoric textbook divided into two
parts. The first of these, which was rather extensive, covers the rules for
developing eloquence, the composition of aspeech (with special attention
paid to the introduction) and its affects. The second part focused on rhetorical genres. This parts closing chapters contain his commentary on Aristotle,
Cicero and Quintilians rhetoric, complete with examples from their texts.
From afresh perspective, Buffier divided eloquence into true and imaginary
(external). Imaginary eloquence referred to fecundity, expressing ahigh degree of skilfulness in language. True eloquence is based on atalent in evoking understanding and emotional experience through words, and can be
cultivated through practical exercises and instruction in the rules that govern rhetoric. Having mastered the rules, we can learn to use logical proofs,
however, true persuasiveness stems from the power of the orators emotions.
DU MARSAIS AND HIS PROJECT OF PHILOSOPHICAL RHETORIC
Csar Chesneau Du Marsais (16761756), aFrench encyclopaedist and language theoretician famous for his works on general grammar, secured his
place in rhetorics history thanks to his systematic and richly documented treatise on poetic and rhetorical tropes. His almost four-hundred-page
work entitled Des Tropes, ou des diffrents sens dans lequel on peu prendre un
mot dans une mme langue (On Tropes, or On Different Meanings of aWord
in the Same Language, 1730) was reprinted anumber of times in France
and translated into English and German. It also became the basis for much
commentary and later for arevised and updated version, prepared by Pierre
Fontanier, professeur des grammaires gnrales, in 1818, 1821 and 1827.
The thoroughly deserved attention these works enjoy thanks to modern-day
structuralist work on semantics and discourse theory supports the opinion
that Du Marsaiss theory of tropes was 18th-century rhetorics most important contribution. As aconsequence of this move, rhetoric paid less attention
to the persuasive aspects of discourse, instead focusing on stylistic, literary
and semantic aspects.
/189/
On Tropes is divided into three sections. In the introduction, Du Marsais claimed allegiance to the Cartesian method of the geometrically exact
defining, deriving and classification of terms. The first section contained
definitions of tropes and figures. Broadly speaking, tropes and figures are
based on ashift in meaning which results in new ideas (Les Tropes sont certains
sensplus ou moins diffrents du sens primitif, quoffrent, dans lexpression de la
pense, les mots appliques de nouvelles ides52). Unlike Locke, who perceived
tropes as asource of confusion in human communication, Du Marsais was
convinced they helped enliven the ideas and theories being communicated and in themselves enriched the language. The second section contained
adetailed list and classification of tropes. It pays special attention to the
aspects of classification; tropes are related to the corresponding principal meaning based on similarity, opposition, cause, effect, among others.
Thethirdsection covered thought processes which beget these shifts in
meaning.
The painstaking care inherent in the material gathered (which is, in truth,
aremarkable anthology of French classicist literature) reflects the authors
belief that tropes and figures are not marginal language phenomena or obstacles to communication, but anecessary prerequisite for the functioning
of language and human communication in general. It is for this reason that
Du Marsais approached his theme as agrammarian striving for the rational
description of language as afunctionally balanced system.
VICOS INSTITUTIONES ORATORIAE AND PROJECT OF ANEW SCIENCE
7. 18th-Century Rhetoric
/190/
Rhetorics reduction to linguistic means and language style (elocutio) and its
increasing focus on cultivating itself as the refined arbiter of literary taste
inspired many French authors. Reflecting French cultures leading position
in learned circles, their works spread both in the original French versions
and in translation around Europe.
Dominique Bouhours (16281702), aprofessor at the universities in Paris
and Tours and amember of the Society of Jesus, wrote several works which
were notably popular throughout the 18th century (Penses chrtiennes). He
devoted two extensive treatises to rhetoric, written as adialogue, amode he
frequently favoured: Les entretiens dAriste et dEugene (1671) and La manire
/191/
de bien penser dans les ouvrages desprit (1687). It was the latter that proved to
be particulary successful; it was reprinted more than twenty times in France,
its German translation was published in Augsburg, the Italian translation
in Bologna and Rome, the English version was adapted by John Oldmixon
and published in 1728 as The Art of Logick and Rhetorick.
The dialogues title suggested inspiration by the Port-Royal environment, however, in reality Bouhours primarily strove for arefined and clear
manner of communication, which took into consideration the peculiarities
of the literary genre. The characters in the dialogue, Eudoxos, an expert on
classical literature, and Philantes, an admirer of new literary movements,
exchange their views of various topics related to rhetoric and stylistics over
the four days spent in Eudoxoss country residence. They discuss whether
aknowledge of facts and truth is sufficient precondition for correctness in
thought, under what conditions the sublime is degraded to the pompous
and vacuous, the relation between clarity (clart) in thoughts and their expression in speech. Both participants support their arguments by demonstrating their extensive knowledge of authors ancient, French, Italian, Spanish and Portuguese.
The role of rhetoric in the instruction of language and literature and its
need for reform were the subject matter of Trait des tudes: De la manire
denseigner et dtudier les Belles-Lettres (17261728), written by Charles Rollin (16611741), ahistorian, teacher and rector of the University of Paris.
Intended for teachers rather than students, the tome was reprinted twenty-seven times in France, and translated into Italian, English, German and
Russian. Rollin was concerned with the practical application of rhetoric in
everyday life, in law and preaching. He considered rhetoric to be an integral
aspect of grammar and strove to achieve asimple, transparent style, all the
while stressing that this was particularly difficult to learn. Inspired by Quintilian, Rollin upheld the belief that every honest person (honnte homme)
should be educated through refined communication. This education was to
be open to any person, irrespective of origin.
Adeparture from the 18th-century classicist canon was represented by
Jean-Baptiste Dubos (16701742), ahistorian, diplomat and permanent secretary at the French Academy. In his Reflexions critiques sur la posie et sur la
critique (1719), he developed aCartesian idea of conditioning mental states
through the physiological transformation of both the speakers and audience
of rhetorical communication. Unlike his contemporaries, he rejected the noetic and didactic roles of art. He believed that aliterary work was to amuse
7. 18th-Century Rhetoric
/192/
and evoke excitement. Taste was not an outcome of rational analyses, but
of talent and emotions.
The 18th century in France was rhetorics greatest era. It became asource
of inspiration for the rest of Europe, most notably in Scotland, England,the
Iberian peninsula, Italy, Germany, Poland and Russia. Charles Batteux,
theauthor of one of the increasing range of rhetorical textbooks, characterized this period with the phrase Le talent sappelle leloquence, lart rhtorique
(which translates loosely to when speaking about talent, we mean eloquence, when speaking about art, we mean rhetoric). It is remarkable that
after France, it was Scotland, acountry that has not been mentioned in connection with the history of rhetoric that became the main locus of rhetorical
cultural expansion.
ADAM SMITH AND SCOTTISH RHETORIC
In 1748 Adam Smith, who today is more associated with economic theory than rhetoric, started his cycle of lectures on rhetoric and fiction at the
University of Edinburgh. He intended to present the rules of language correctness, the stylistic adequacy of speech, appropriate argumentation, the
psychological credibility of speech and orator, among other topics.
The connection of the author of An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of
the Wealth of Nations to his lectures theme is surprising not only because of
the distance between the two disciplines of rhetoric and economics. Within
his theories lies amuch greater discrepancy. While Smiths economic theory
is based on the notion of natural liberty, inspired by Lockes doctrine of
human rights as the fundamental prerequisite for every individuals freedom, aquestion arises as to whether the economic and political principle
of laissez-faire, which the liberal Smith advocated in relation to the state, is
compatible with the nature of rhetoric, afield based on intervention in favour of asingle opinion advocated by the orator. The answer can be found
in the doctrine of Smiths teacher, Francis Hutcheson, aleading representative of Scottish aesthetics and moral philosophy (Inquiry into the Original of
Our Ideas of Beauty and Virtue, 1725). Hutchesons postulation of an impartial
spectator or disengaged arbiter led Smith and his followers to the perception of rhetoric not as aclash of conflicts, but as adiscipline cultivating the
ability to seek civilized alternatives to barbarian violence through logical
argumentation. This ability could be refined through aesthetic taste and education, leading to understanding the higher and divine order of all matters.
/193/
7. 18th-Century Rhetoric
/194/
/195/
listener because it would not reject anything that was in accord with common sense.
Campbell was particularly adept at systematizing rhetorical expositions.
His fine analysis resulted in his classifying preaching into explanatory, controversial, instructive, persuasive and pathetic modes, which sits beside his
definition of style and linguistic means, corresponding to each category. He
regarded purity, perspicuity and vivacity to be positive qualities of style. Purity results from grammatical correctness of expressions, perspicuity arises
from precision in atexts arrangement, while vivacity, the most esteemed of
these qualities, lies in the authors ability to influence the audiences imagination. Campbells text also contains interesting words of admonition towards orators who used neologisms, barbarisms, obsolete expressions, syntactic errors (solecisms) and other such devices. The number of examples
illustrating this criticism demonstrate Campbells perceptive observation of
rhetorical practice. It must be added that Campbell strove for purity in
English as anational language, and so he included regional variation in his
denouncements, particularly Scotticisms. He urged preachers to Acquire
adialect which will make you understood all over the British Empire! He
denounced regional variation in public speeches not only as it impeded the
quality of language, but also and principally for hampering understanding.
The rich rhetorical traditions evident in the United States are associated
with another Scotsman, John Witherspoon (17231794), aCalvinist preacher and Blairs contemporary at the University of Edinburgh. His posthumously published work, Lectures on Eloquence (Philadelphia, 1800), adhered
to the Ciceronian conception of the discipline (five sections of rhetoric,
avertical style classification, three types of speeches, political, judicial and
preaching, which replaced the traditional ceremonial oratory), supplemented with themes of the Scottish Enlightenment (taste cultivation, sublimity
of style). In 1768, Witherspoon left for the British colonies and became the
rector of Princeton University in New Jersey. His political involvement is
most clearly underscored by his signing the Declaration of Independence.
James Madison, the author of the American Constitution, was one his students.
Witherspoons activities in politics significantly affected the traditions
of Scottish moral philosophy (and rhetoric as part of this). He resolutely
departed from Hutchesons (and Blairs) idea that an educated citizen must
be an impartial arbiter of taste, instead placing emphasis on political oratory, on solving conflicts through public debates and active participation in
7. 18th-Century Rhetoric
/196/
The rich history of Latin rhetoric in Spain (associated with names such as
Juan Vives and Francisco Snchez de las Brozas) was continued by authors
who considered instruction of rhetoric in the vernacular to be anecessary
precondition for national literature and cultural life in general to flourish.
Eloqunecia espaola en el arte (1604), written by Bartolom Jimnez Patn
(15691620), ahumanist and proponent of Ramian reforms, is the oldest
document demonstrating these efforts. However, it was Mayanss Rhetrica,
published in Valencia in 1757 (and reprinted in 1786 before the authors
death), that represented the most significant contribution to the Spanish
cultural history.
Gregorio Mayans y Siscars (16991782) rich opus united two important
traditions, typical of 17th18th-century Spain, with staunch Catholicism on
the one hand and Enlightenment rationalism arising from humanist ideas
and the contemporary discoveries in natural sciences on the other. Thanks
to his assiduous nature and longevity, Mayans was an exceptionally prolific
author. His collected works included five extensive volumes devoted to rhetoric, literature and education. Rhetoric is the subject matter of La eloquencia
espaa (1731), El orador christiano (1733) and informs the greater part of
/197/
7. 18th-Century Rhetoric
/198/
Authors of German rhetoric books in the 18th and early 19th centuries took
an important step towards rhetorics inclusion in the field of disciplines
which focus on the language of fictional and non-fictional texts, issues of
language and style, aesthetics and semiotics. These authors were interested
in the art of speaking regarding its outcome, the stylistic qualities of language discourse, as well as the process and production of texts with logical
and stylistic cohesion. Speech production, however, is not merely regulated
by internal language aspects, its adherence to grammatical and stylistic principles, but also by the context of the speech, ethical principles (honestum)
and principles of taste and aesthetic adequacy (decorum).
Authors of German texts on rhetoric between the 17th and 19th centuries
abandoned the arrangement of the text as asequence of its parts (dispositio
partialis) in favour of an arrangement of the text as awhole (dispositio principalis, totalis). Many expositions demonstrate the conviction that atext was
not created through addition, as asimply linear arrangement of isolated
sentences, but as ahierarchical structure of relations. This revived Quintilians call for aspeech to form acoherent, sophisticated whole (corpus sit,
non membra). Unlike the baroque rhetoric textbooks focusing on the imitation of model examples, Enlightenment authors strove to create clear rules
for generating texts within clearly delineated rhetorical and literary genres.
Rhetorical genres were most frequently employed in schools (particularly university departments), courts, parliament and political gatherings in
general, salons of higher (though no longer exclusively aristocratic) society
and, principally, churches.
In the 17th and 18th centuries, agreat number of both practical and literary rhetoric textbooks were written in Germany. Their baroque style, relying
on tropes, figures and evoking affects among the audience, is typical of
Johannes Meyfarts Teutsche Rhetorica (1634). Christian Weises works, Ora-
/199/
7. 18th-Century Rhetoric
/200/
write aplay, though the failure of both attempts demonstrated the limits of
consistently rational conception of literary work.
LOMONOSOV AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF CLASSICISM IN RUSSIA
During the reign of Catherine II in the 18th century, controversies surrounding Russias cultural orientation gradually reached their peak. In the cultural elites education, Latin was giving way to living languages, especially to
French. Devotion to France and its language was promoted by the leading
representative of Russian classicism Sumarokov, also known as Russian
Bualo. In his essay Epistol ostikhotvorstve, he further developed his predecessor Tredyakovskys idea that Russian culture must draw level with French
culture through the rapid adoption of classicist principles. Both positive
and negative aspects of this development, often derisively termed gallomania (galloliubiye), influenced Russian aristocratic society and national literature until the beginning of the 20th century. This reached apeak under the
influence of Karamzins sentimentalism, which both facilitated the penetration of French and heightened its impact on literature in the area of lyric
poetry and the minor genres, including short stories and gallant literature.
Given these circumstances, the content and language of the rhetoric textbook written by the polymath Mikhail Vasilyevich Lomonosov (17111765)
is relatively surprising. Unlike his contemporaries, who drew inspiration
from French classicism, Lomonosov drew on the Ciceronian model ofrhetoric and Latin authors. Remarkably, he presented the first version of his
Rhetoric (Kratkoye rukovodstvo k ritorike na polzu lyubiteley kransorechiya
sochinennoye, 1742) to academics in the Russian language. Following its rejection, he expanded and revised the text, though its final version (Kratkoye
rukovodstvo kkrasnorechiyu, 1748) was also in Russian. The book became very
successful, as demonstrated by Lomonosov living to see its two reprints, in
1759 and1765.
Lomonosov had prepared himself for writing Rhetoric for many years,
in truth since the end of his studies. He studied the theme at the Slavic-Greek-Latin Academy in Kiev, where he was astudent of the Ukrainian
monk Porphyry Kreisky. He continued his studies in Marburg under Johann Adolf Hartmann, professor of Roman oratory who lectured on Cicero
and Curtius Rufus. He absorbed yet more information from Johann Lorenz
Mosheim, the author of atextbook on preaching, Heilige Reden ber wichtigen Wahrheiten der Lehre Jesu Christi (Hamburg, 1732) and from Gottsched,
/201/
both German, as well as from the French authors, Pomey, Caussin, and,
primarily, Boileau.
Although Lomonosovs Rhetoric is in fact unfinished, the first part (Kniga pervaya, vkotoroy soderzhitsya ritorika, pokauzujushchaya obshchiye
pravila oboyego krasnorechiya, to yest oratorii ipoezii, Book I, presenting
general rules of both types of rhetoric, that is oratory and poetry) functions
as acomplete whole. We know of his intention to compile two further books,
on practical oratory and verse theory, from his personal correspondence.
The uniqueness of Lomonosovs conception of rhetoric primarily lies in
his doctrine of three styles, which had to overcome properties specific to Russian. Lomonosov distinguished between three layers of language elements,
Church-Slavonic, general Slavic and vernacular Russian. Church-Slavonic
expressions (lexical, phonetic and morphological) pertained to the high
style and were used in heroic epics, odes, and speeches on serious topics.
The low style was associated with words of Russian origin, both standard
and regional, and was used in personal letters, songs and comedies. The
middle style, the most frequently employed of the styles, principally utilizes general Slavic and Russian elements, although several Church-Slavonic
aspects could also be discerned. This was the language of drama, eclogues,
elegies and letters. Lomonosov gave asuperb practical demonstration of
this division in several long odes he wrote. This doctrine also distinguished
Lomonosovs conception of rhetoric from his Russian predecessors who
wrote in Latin (Theophan Prokopovich) and those who worked in varieties
of Church-Slavonic (Makarius).
Lomonosov was not only apoet, but also an exacting grammarian. In
his Rhetoric and several other works, he adhered to the theoretical principles
of classicism, while simultaneously not completely eschewing the baroque
tendencies in Russian literature at the time. They were manifested in logical paradoxes and flowery language (vitiyevatye rechi), in tropes and figures
(vymysly), which attracted attention and aroused strong emotions through
their juxtaposition.
Rhetoric was also significant due to the extraordinary number and variety
of examples, which included not only ancient and Renaissance writers, but
also Lomonosovs contemporaries and the authors own poems. It is thanks
to Lomonosov that Russian classicism became an important phenomenon of
18th-century culture and asource of inspiration for further development and
interest in rhetoric in Russia. The post-Lomonosov period produced Ambrose Serebrennikov (17451792), aprefect at the Moscow Spiritual Acade-
7. 18th-Century Rhetoric
/202/
my and translator of Miltons Paradise Lost from its French version. His Kratkoye rukovodstvo koratorii rossiyskoy, sochinennoye vLavrovskoy seminarii vpolzu
yunoshestva, krasnorechiyu obuchayushchegosya (Moscow, 1778) drew on Lomonosovs theory of three Russian styles. Serebrennikov, however, believed
that an understanding of learned peoples contemporary language usage,
which was the main criterion for stylistic purity, was superior to the study
of classicist rules. Classicist tendencies can also be traced in textbooks by
Nikolai Fyodorovich Koshanskii (17811831), Obshchaya retorika, 1829, and
Chastnaya retorika, 1832, which Pushkin cited as having affected his style.
Alongside the numerous books on rhetoric written in Russia, translations
from French and English (most notably Blairs work) were very popular.
These works contributed to the rich tradition of Russian oratory (especially
forensic oratory) and preaching through to the end of the 19th century, at
the same time playing their part in the formation of conceptions of language
and literary style which gave rise to Russian Formalism at the beginning of
the 20th century.
Towards the end of the 18th century, rhetoric had become part of the social
elites curriculum in many European countries, which was facilitated by
18thcentury educational reforms. Young men and women were instructed in
refined aesthetic taste and correct usage of national languages in their written and spoken forms. The textbooks used at the time included expositions
on general rules of poetic and rhetorical eloquence as well as model texts
in various genres.
The reinforcement of rhetorics status in the university departments of
languages and literatures went hand in hand with protests against its cultural conservatism and the social elitism of its norms. The latter was represented in Fontaniers textbook of tropes and figures intended for the finishing
school of noble young ladies, or atext by Johann August Eberhard, who
presented his exposition through the character of Lord Rssler who instructed his married daughter, Lady Drivers on the notions of the sublime
and the beautiful, along with presenting practical stylization skills.
Rhetoric, however, also became atarget of philosophers escalated attacks. In his Critique of Judgment, Kant rejected the flattering art of rhetoric
(Schmeichelkunst), which instead of reasoning persuades and manipulates
through mere illusions. According to Kant, an art which takes advantage of
human weaknesses is not worthy of any attention (Rednerkunst /ars oratoria/
ist, als Kunst sich der Schwchen der Menschen zu seinen Absichten zu bedienen ...
gar keiner Achtung wrdig). Fichte and Hegel (Bezzola, 1993) had asimilarly
negative attitude to rhetoric. Arthur Schopenhauers Eristic Dialectics, published only after the authors death with aselection of his texts in Parerga and
Paralipomena, rendered ironic comments on the sophistic manipulation of
the audience. For Schopenhauer, eristic dialectics was the art of disputing,
and disputing in such away as to hold ones own, whether one is in the right
or the wrong per fas et nefas.56
Franz Theremin (17801846), aprofessor of homiletics from Berlin, defended rhetoric against philosophers attacks in Die Beredsamkeit, eine Tugend, oder Grundlinien einer systematischen Rhetorik (1814, 2nd edition in 1837),
/204/
/205/
sense/Suggest their own delivery;/And if thourt moved to speak in earnest,/What need, that after words thou yearnest?/Yes, your discourses, with
their glittering show,/Where ye for men twist shredded thought like paper,/
Are unrefreshing as the winds that blow/The rustling leaves through chill
autumnal vapor!)57
Although his own style boasted numerous rhetorical ornaments, Thomas
De Quincey, an English essayist of the first half of the 19th century, claimed
that the age of rhetoric, similarly to the age of chivalry, was amatter of the
past. Romanticism shattered the rhetorical conception of poetic language
as an extensive, yet finite number of language ornaments, tropes and figures. Poetics and rhetoric shared adiscourse in which the referential role of
language overlapped with others intending to captivate, amuse or move its
recipients to action. However, romantic poetics rejected afixed repertoire
of rhetorical instruments. According to Wordsworth, who formulated the
theoretical foundation for this rejection in his discussions with his friend
Coleridge, the language of poetry is based on everyday language (poetic language is aselection of language really used by men ... alanguage which actually constitutes the natural conversation of men under the influence of natural feelings58).
Coleridge, however, demonstrated that this differs in its role in the semantic
status of statement and in the choice of expressions. At the end of the century these views, heralding the 20th century functional and structural poetics,
were contradicted by Benedetto Croce in his Aesthetics (Estetica come scienza
dellespressione e linguistica generale, Milano-Palermo-Napoli, 1902). Croce
considered rhetoric and poetics of poetic forms to be useless disciplines as
he believed that style can only be determined by the works content and the
effect only by its idea. The language of words (as well as the language of
tones, colours and lines) is based on intuition rather than on adidactically
arranged system of rhetorical rules. Similarly to Vico, Croce believed that
language equalled poetry as they are both related to acts of creation.
Paradoxically, in the 19th century and often even later, classical philologists, the only guardians of the heritage of ancient rhetoric, were those who
attenuated the discipline instead of promoting its full-fledged existence in
modern European culture. Yet, it was they who should be merited with
the popularization and interpretation of works whose extent and significance have been relevant and worthy of admiration up to this day. Between
18321836, Christian Walz published acollection of texts under the title
of Rhetores Graeci, ex codicibus Florentinis Mediolanensibus. Leonhard Spengel
began publishing the monumental Rhetores Graeci in 1853 (Vol. Iin 1853,
/206/
Vol.II in 1854 and Vol. III in 1856). This was continued by Karl Halms
selection of texts Rhetores latini minores (Leipzig, 1863). From 1857, Friedrich Blass et al. began publishing the extensive series Forschungsberichte ber
Rhetorik. Richard Volkmann, from Silesia, compiled asynoptic overview of
ancient rhetoric, Die Rhetorik der Griechen und Rmer in systematischer Uebersicht (Munich, 1872, translated into Polish by L. Bobiatyski, Warsaw, 1993).
Eduard Norden published his monumental Die antike Kustprosa, in Munich
in 1898.
FRIEDRICH NIETZSCHE AND THE PHILOSOPHY OF RHETORIC
/207/
/208/
The nature of instruction of rhetoric at French universities is best demonstrated in two inaugural lectures delivered by Abel-Franois Villemain
(17901870), aprofessor at the Sorbonne, and published as part of his collected writings (Discours et mlange littraires, Paris 1888) as Discours prononc
louverture du cours dloquence franaise (1822) and Discours prononc (1824).
Villemain assumed that university students were familiar with the rhetoric of
Latin antiquity and that university lectures were to focus on French classical
literature and rhetoric, which reached their peak in the 17th century at the
age of the refined taste during the reign of Louis XIV. French classical
writers, in his opinion, included Fnelon, Bossuet and Pascal.
Frequently reprinted textbooks, such as Rhtorique franaise (1st edition
in 1804) by Louis Domarion, Manuel abrg de Rhetorique ou de composition
oratoire (1st edition in 1850) by Auguste Baron and Nouvelle rhtorique, extraite
des meilleurs crivains anciens et modernes (1st edition in 1827) by Joseph-Victor
Leclerc, were based on asimilar instruction concept. Modern-day French
structuralist stylistics and literary theory was however most significantly
inspired by Pierre Fontaniers work, drawing on an older system of tropes
and figures elaborated by the encyclopaedist Du Marsais in the 18th century.
Pierre Fontanier, whose lecturing and research activities reached their
peak in the first third of the 19th century (biographical data have not been
/209/
/210/
each of these categories into genera and types, providing detailed commentary and examples from French classical literature to each of them.
Apart from simple tropes, Fontanier also distinguished mixed tropes,
syllepses, which are based on alternating basic and derived meanings. This
can be illustrated by the meaning of the word Rome in the following verses
of La Henriade: Rome enfin se dcouvre ases regards cruels, / Rome, jadis son
temple et leffroi des mortels, / Rome, dont le destin, dans la paix, dans la guerre,
/ est dtre en tous les temps maitresse de la terre (And now with cruel Eyes She
Rome regards, / Rome, once her Temple, and the Dread of Kings. / Rome,
destind in all Times, in Peace and War / To reign, and to be Mistress of the
World. / In Ages past, by Conquests she prevaild).60 In the first verse, Rome
refers to the buildings set in alandscape, in the second to the abode for its
residents and in the third it is used as asymbol of dehumanized state power.
Unlike single-word tropes, the multi-word ones represent textual elements of varying scope. Based on their meaning, Fontanier divided them
into three groups:
a) Figurative tropes add striking features to an idea, thus preventing the
recipient from missing it; e.g., personification and allegory.
b) Reflective tropes are intentionally indefinite and enigmatic, thus moving
the recipient to think deeper about the meaning of the speech; e.g., hyperbole, allusion (historical, moral, mythological, etymological hints),
association, reticence and paradox.
c) Opposition tropes conceal ameaning contradictory to what was actually uttered; e.g., praeteritio (something is said whilst saying you are not
going to mention it), irony, epitrope (an announcement with an implicit
threat) and contrefission (concealing the authors desire or wish).
The exposition on figures other than tropes in Fontaniers second book
evinces his sense for capturing subtle nuances in meaning between the analyzed categories. He explains not only the fundamental groups of alarge
number of semantic shifts and modifications of the phonetic form of words,
but also their mutual overlaps that reflect the complexity of the lexical and
semantic levels of poetic and rhetorical language.
Fontanier also addressed the causes at the origin of tropes and figures.
Occasional causes result from the contradiction between the relatively limited vocabulary and the infinite number of phenomena which are expressed
through vocabulary. Occasional tropes and figures prevail in the ordinary
language which is driven by an effort to describe things unknown to aman
/211/
in his everyday life. This is effectuated through analogy and generalization based on typical and generally known attributes. Genetic causes at the
origin of tropes and figures, on the other hand, are controlled by human
intellect. They make use of imagination, wit (lesprit) and passions. While
the occasional semantic shifts gradually lose their oddity and become part
of the neutral vocabulary layer (they become lexicalized), genetic shifts preserve their unique character and intentional use in the text.
Fontanier believed that tropes and figures were intended to supply
(a)dignity and grandeur, (b) conciseness and vigour, (c) clarity and persuasiveness, (d) interest and ability to convey the content of the speech to
the reader or the audience. These vehicles are thus likened to numerous
mirrors which can enlighten an object and present many of its facets, but
concurrently also distort it or change its proportions. Thanks to tropes and
figures, aspeech can be made more lively and its content more topical. They
stimulate both the texts author and its recipient.
Fontaniers work, limited exclusively to elocutio (la rhtorique restrainte),
is aparamount example of the observation and classification capacity that
neo-classicist rhetoric achieved. However, as the disciplines further development followed apractical direction, Du Marsais and Fontaniers ideas
were not fully appreciated until the structural semantics and stylistics of the
second half of the 20th century.
19TH-CENTURY RHETORIC IN ENGLAND. WHATELY, BAIN, SPENCER
In England, the knowledge of proper English has been atraditional component of aesthetic and language education as well as anecessary precondition
of agentlemans education. This however does not focus merely on language correctness but also on the stylistic adequacy of the speech to aparticular situation, the accuracy and impressiveness of adiscourse both in public
and in private conversation. This was facilitated by anumber of rhetoric
textbooks, many of which gained immense popularity and were reprinted
several times. Among the most popular were John Walkers Academie Speaker
(1802), Thomas Carpenters The School Speaker (1813), Thomas Ewings Principles of Elocution (1815) and A. M. Hartleys The Oratorical Class-Book (1824).
Richard Whatelys Elements of Rhetoric (1826) were possibly the most
popular textbook both in England and abroad (particularly in the US and
Japan). Richard Whately (17871863) was originally ateacher at Oxford
University, later the Archbishop of Dublin and amember of the House of
/212/
/213/
purpose is efficient streamlining of the audiences attention to prevent misunderstanding. Asimple style is ideal. In the spirit of Darwin, those authors
who express their ideas vaguely cannot survive. The loss of energy in the
communication system (according to Spencers mechanistic terminology
caused by inertia and friction of the vehicle) leads to acollapse and misunderstanding. It is aquestion whether Spencers economic conception of
style should not be more fittingly called anti-rhetoric or anti-stylistics.
JUNGMANNS SLOVESNOST AS RHETORIC FOR READERS EDIFICATION AND TASTE
/214/
his note on political and judicial oration in which he regrets that there is
no opportunity for them.
The question of Jungmanns models is quite interesting. He referredto
some of them in the introduction: The author of this work has striven
topresent well-known things in alogical order and where possible to build
the entire building on asingle foundation. Some ideas are his own, others
he owes to Reinbeck, Plitz, Eberhard and many others.61 Other sources
included especially Quintilian, Comenius (his Report and Lesson on Rhetoric
influenced Slovesnosts terminology), Gottsched and Blair. His explanation
why it was impossible to present amore complete list presented in the introduction could be related to the disciplines entire history: the person surrounded by classical texts sees the impossibility of himself being original.62
Quintilian especially inspired Jungmanns introductory definition of eloquence: Eloquence (eloquentia) is the ability to speak or write about everything in agood manner, adequate to the laws of eloquence. Whoever speaks
and writes in this way is known as eloquent, abook or rule teaching to speak
or write in this manner is called the doctrine of eloquence.63 Jungmann also
adopted Quintilians idea that eloquence (rhetoric) should cover all subject
matters and the entire range of speeches, both public and private.
The influence of Aristotle, mediated by Gottscheds pupil, Plitz, is apparent in the connection of aspeech style with the nature of the human
soul. There are three types of nature (dispositions); the first, cognitive (or
introductory), corresponds to alogical connection and division of notions.
It refers to science and belles lettres. The second, emotional, is characterized
by grace and depth of emotions, having its realm in poetry. And finally, the
third, endeavouring (persuasive), strives to transform ideas and emotions
into true actions. The latter is applied in rhetoric.
Each of these types of eloquence has its supreme idea; it is truth in belles
lettres, beauty in poetry and the good in rhetoric. They are related to specific impulses; belles lettres result from the work of ideas, poetry from emotions and rhetoric from efforts. Belles lettres strive to instruct, poetry to
amuse and rhetoric to inspire action. Rhetorical prose aims to transform
what is thought into action through words.64
The structure of Jungmanns Slovesnost corresponds with the exposition
scheme of classical rhetoric. The introductory information on language in
general and on the laws of Czech are followed by the exposition on the notion of eloquence. Jungmann considered factual and linguistic correctness
to be the supreme law of eloquence. Man should use it to speak and write
/215/
in order to satisfy his soul and mind through the beauty and efficiency of
language.
Further chapters focus on the traditional parts of rhetoric. The well-elaborated section on invention analyzes the laws of thinking, with its terminology being based on the logic of Jungmanns friend Antonn Marek. Arguments, divided into proofs (logical), delightful (aesthetic) and persuasive
(rhetorical), are analyzed according to commonplaces (loci communes). Rhetorical topics include syllogism, entymema, induction, dilemma, sorites, that
is an accumulation of syllogisms or entymemas, amplification, congeries,
incrementum, gradation and refutation.
The exposition on the disposition is much shorter as most themes related to composition were treated in the previous section. In accord with the
Ramian tradition, he distinguished between the exterior, or natural, order
(where the thing that is first in time and nature has priority65) and interior,
or artificial (starting from the end, the effect, or introducing the reader into
the middle of event).
The section on elocution covers the logical, grammatical and stylistic
correctness of awork. Astyle is characterized by lightness, that is the logical arrangement of awork, power, which is related to the seriousness of the
theme, and loveliness, that is anatural expression of emotions, expressed
through tropes and figures.
The last section, on delivery, defines poetic delivery (elocution) and rhetorical delivery (declamation), briefly presenting aspects of refined pronunciation.
Jungmann devoted a detailed exposition to rhetorical genres, dividing them into religious and secular. With respect to the subject matter, he
further subdivided religious speeches into dogmatic, ethical and mixed,
with respect to the forms, into preaching, homiletic exposition and festive
speeches. Secular speeches include political, military, judicial, academic,
funeral and celebratory speeches.
Jungmanns Slovesnost is arepresentative work of the second, higher stage
of the National Enlightenment, which was amovement of primarily linguistic nature in the Czech community. While the first stage witnessed the
creation of significant works on grammar (special merit goes to Josef Dobrovsk, whose grammatical codification was based on the developed Czech
of the humanist period), the second stage focused on vocabulary, scientific
terminology and, last but not least, genre and stylistic differentiation of the
national language. Josef Jungmanns Slovesnost played asignificant role in
/216/
the second stage thanks to its introductory, theoretical (and terminologically demanding) part as well as the rich repertoire of both excerpts and more
extensive texts, which where translated by Jungmann himself if domestic literature could not provide asufficient number of suitable examples. He thus
demonstrated the importance of eloquence as an inseparable element in the
nations education and the foundation of its future independent existence.
Jungmann believed that only refined eloquence could change alanguage
into acultivated instrument of communication and amethod of expressing
logically justified ideas of truth, aesthetic ideas of beauty and ethical ideas
of the good. We may not be making asweeping generalization when saying
that Jungmanns well thought-out and careful classification heralded the
20th-century linguistic and stylistic view of alanguage discourse and its roles
in modern communication. What clearly links Slovesnosts theoretical section and modern-day linguistics is Jungmanns term auel (purpose), which
signifies those language functions and their effects that are based on the
communication purpose (function) and the nature of the used language
instruments. Further theories of language description took the course suggested by the meaning of this term.
In the late 19th century, rhetoric ceased to be an integrated discipline consisting of various elements of language communication and disintegrated
into multiple branches of more restricted scope. The social prestige of rhetoric was significantly damaged by its gradual removal from secondary and
tertiary school curricula in most European countries. The subject matters
traditionally associated with rhetoric were absorbed into other disciplines:
mother tongue instruction, elements of poetics and aesthetics, and, to
amore limited extent, into others including literary criticism, law, theology,
pedagogy and political science. Persuading and winning over the audience,
rhetorics traditional focus, was to alarge extent appropriated by new disciplines: communication theory, text linguistics, pragmatics, mass media theories, political propaganda theory, advertising and marketing among these.
The general public regarded the scope of rhetorics roles in asignificantly
reduced manner, merely associating it with handbooks and rules of successful and correct public presentation and denying its functions beyond
the purely utilitarian. The attribute rhetorical has increasingly been more
commonly associated with formality, alack of ideas, pretentious language
and insincere emotions. When Frantiek Xaver alda, arenowned Czech
literary critic, labelled the poetry written by Svatopluk ech and Jaroslav
Vrchlick, two prominent Czech poets, as rhetorical, he intended this to be
interpreted as an unforgivable sin.
The first half of the 20th century, however, demonstrated an even graver
misuse of language discourse forms in Nazi propagandas brown rhetoric.
This was principally rooted in the written and oral discourse of the Nazi
leaders, however, it also garnered significant theoretical and pseudo-theoretical attention among both its promoters and opponents. Of the many texts
addressing this, we should mention at least Eugen Hadamowskys book on
Goebbelss political propaganda, Propaganda und nationale Macht,66 which
contains chapters on controlling public opinion through press and radio,
on monopoly in news reporting and other topics of interest. Although this
theme represented only asingle aspect of the language of politics and po-
/218/
litical propagandas many forms, it shattered peoples trust in the reliability of words, with their power being demonstrated in awholly monstrous
manner. Later, an effort to re-establish this trust was noticeable across various spheres of language communication including science, poetry, politics,
media and standard daily communication. Language as acommunication
tool and an expression of both individual and collective position, its sign
structure and rich functional differentiation attracted new attention, some
of which drew inspiration from the past.
Echoes of rhetorics ancient heritage thus also affected the 20th century.
Its renaissance was primarily evident in the disciplines that share rhetorics
subject matter. Knowledge contained in the works that we have presentedin
this book, enrich and sometimes influence the most recent developments in
linguistics, literary criticism and philosophy. Unfortunately, the desire to
establish rhetoric as an authority and the foundation for bold analogies and
unjustified generalizations has often led to errors and inaccurate interpretations, as aresult of which classical authors have often been interpolated
into contexts that range from somewhat distant to entirely foreign to their
original theses.
Both despite and because of this, these authors have become aliving
part of the present day discourse, as expressed in its rediscovered element.
We encounter the term rhetoric across a wide range of its meanings,
both in everyday life and when reading purely academic texts. Rhetoric
has gone so far as to reclaim its theme: rhetoric itself and its history. In
the early 1960s, Heinrich Lausberg published his two-volume Handbuch der
literarischen Rhetorik, which presented an image of rhetoric as aremarkably
comprehensive and structured system of knowledge, rendered through the
careful selection of quotes from classical authors works. Chaim Perelman,
aBelgian philosopher of Polish origin, discovered the rhetoric of argumentation which won him respect among philosophers. Rhetoric and philosophy were singularly reconciled in the works of prominent thinkers, such as
Paul Ricoeur, Hans-Georg Gadamer and Jrgen Habermas. Rhetoric was
rediscovered by the representatives of French structuralism and Groupe
authors, associated with the University of Lige, in Belgium. The significance of rhetoric in the past and present is explained in the book, In Defense
of Rhetoric (1988), by Brian Vickers, an English academic working in Zurich,
as well as in erudite essays by Carl Joachim Classen, aclassical philologist
from Gttingen University. An informed insight into the history of rhetoric
and its structure is presented in Heinrich F.Pletts works as well as in the
/219/
/220/
/221/
/222/
Opposing stances prevailed in the related, though geographically distant, offshoot of European structuralism, the American school of New
Criticism (it should be noted that the expression criticism is fundamentally
equal to literary science and that the new criticism movement originated in
England in the early 1920s). Sonia Biani,70 aCroatian literary scientist,
highlighted that its members made the highest effort to base their literary
criticism on the literary text itself, on acomprehensive examination of its
aesthetic effect on amind excited by the literary work.71 There were several
authors among the New Critics and their followers, members of the Chicago
School of literary criticism, who devoted many valuable essays to rhetoric.
Thus, the ensuing remarks are devoted to them.
RHETORIC IN THE UNITED STATES AGAINST BARRIERS IN COMMUNICATION
Ivor Armstrong Richards (18931979), aBritish linguist and literary scientist, was originally counted among the semantic aestheticians of the Cambridge School. Between 19281930 he lectured at the University of Beijing,
and in 1939 began working in the United States. The majority of his output
focuses on semantics. One of his best known works, The Meaning of Meaning
(AStudy of the Influence of Language upon Thought and the Science of Symbolism),
aprogrammatic work on linguistic semantics and practical language instruction, written in co-operation with C. K. Ogden (18891957), impacted on
English instruction around the world.
Richardss aversion to the precise definition of word meanings is the
fundamental thesis that permeated his entire work. Influenced by gestalt
psychology, Richard understood words to be co-operative elements in an
organism, which acquire new meanings and new semantic nuances each
time they are used. Ambiguity and the language users reactions thus form
the essential basis of semantics.
Richards considered rhetoric to be adiscipline which brought order into
the flow of semantic shift and ambiguities, while simultaneously teaching
readers to understand the message and to acquire the values inserted into the
text by its authors. This theme is treated in two of his works from the 1930s:
The Philosophy of Rhetoric (1936) and On Interpretation in Teaching (1938). The
first of these focuses on metaphor and differences between the referential
and emotive meaning of aword. Metaphor is aphenomenon inherent in
language and in understanding the world in general, as each formulation
of anotion is based on its association with another notion that is already
/223/
/224/
Bertrand Russel, whose engagement there was only brief, William Morris,
founder of modern semiotics who lectured there for many years, Richard
Weaver, aphilosopher of conservative values, philosopher Mortimer Adler,
author of The Ethics of Rhetoric (1953) and the chief editor of the Encyclopaedia Britannica, and Richard McKeon.
Aside from his dissertation on Spinoza, McKeon did not write any extensive monographs. He did, however, author alarge number of treatises
and essays, many of which focused on rhetoric (Rhetoric: Essays in Invention
and Discovery, ed. M. Backman, Woodbridge, CT: Ox Bow Press, 1987). For
McKeon, reality was astatue on which one drapes language like aRoman
toga. Thanks to rhetoric, language is perceived actively, as aheuristic instrument which aids in the formulation of scientific theories, arts, facts, values and cultural concepts. His work with Aristotles texts brought McKeon
to the conclusion that texts have no inherently fixed meanings, rather they
become the source of contradictory interpretations whose philosophical and
methodological backgrounds differ. McKeon does not present relativism
(there is only one truth), but in rhetoric and its system of commonplaces he
searches for systematic support for the justification of differences (there are
many ways to express truth). This prepares the ground for discussion and
the examination and defence of ideas as the necessary precondition for true
knowledge. In his essay APhilosopher Meditates on Discovery, he intended to
replace the metaphysics of the primary principles of human existence with
the metaphysics of primary principles of discourse. These principles include
necessary language ambiguity for the discussion and revelation of unknown
facts. Aphilosophical impasse arises from different observers range of perspectives. Matters must be defined, formulated and various solutions need
to be supported by coherent argument.
McKeon believed that the goal of philosophical instruction (with rhetoric as its fundamental component) was to educate moral and insightful
people, capable of active participation in meaningful and cooperative
communication, and aware of the barriers hampering understanding. His
primary intention was to elaborate the rules of such communication. At
the International Congress of Philosophy, held in the Mexico City in 1950,
McKeon set forth the challenge of defining the central tenets in ethics and
politics in order to prevent misunderstandings which would threaten to develop into global conflicts. He proposed that adictionary of terms which
arise when discussing and debating views and opinions, and which reflect
different traditions within various cultures (including law, history, morality,
/225/
democracy, freedom and dialectics) is in need of elaboration. Such adictionary, however, should not only be used by philosophers, but also by the
rest of the population in praxis. Statesmen, he believed, would especially
benefit from such awork. Although some of the projects early outcomes
were published, ageneral ideological consensus was unthinkable given the
mood of the 1950s, and so the dictionary was never published. McKeons
essays have, however, remained topical and pertinent thanks to rhetorics
current renaissance.
Kenneth Burke (18971993), doyen of American rhetoric, devoted his life
and work to the continuous struggle breaking down barriers to understanding in daily communication, politics and fiction. This theme appeared as early as in his first book, acollection of essays entitled Counter-Statement (1931),
which presented his contributions to The Dial, the avant-garde journal on
culture and politics he edited. He construed rhetoric as an art of form which
was not constructed to demonstrate emotion, but rather to evoke it in the
audience, satisfying their need for knowledge. Eloquence (communicativeness) overlapped with psychology and form. In the early 1930s, during
the Great Depression, Burke abandoned his formalistic approach to the language of poetry and instead engaged in acloser study of political discourse.
This is evinced particularly in his unpublished essay Auscultation, Creation,
and Revision (the Rout of the Esthetes, or Literature, Marxism, and Beyond).72
Burke analyzed this discourse through dialectics and rhetoric. His approach to both these disciplines is analogical to Bakhtins polyphony (heteroglossia) and close to Hegels conception of non-dogmatic speculative
reason (Vernunft), which is never expressed through unilateral propositions.
The pathos in Burkes texts was in his reaction to the Stalinist version of
Marxism and its rhetoric, which unequivocally divided the world into us
and them, and in which an individuals freedom must be subordinated
to events designed for the masses. Burke considered the escalation of these
antitheses to be Marxisms fundamental weakness. Dialectics is the unity
of oppositions, not merely their mutual exclusion, as Burke demonstrated
in works on communication, Permanence and Change (1935) and Attitudes
Toward History (2 volumes in 1937). All these texts revolve around one fundamental idea: Language must not divide people, but lead them to understand
each other, and thus to abetter life. Whether words redolent in social and
artistic appeal resonate at all in the world dominated by alienating technology requires examination. For Burke, rhetoric represented the linguistic and
psychological instruments used to achieve this resonance.
/226/
/227/
Authors writing in German were the first to return to the theme of rhetoric
in the mid-20th century. In Gttingen in 1948, Leonid Arbusow published
his Colores rhetorici (Eine Auswahl rhetorischer Figuren und Gemeinpltze als
Hilfsmittel fur Uebungen an mittelalterlichen Texten), arelatively short treatise
citing abundant medieval texts. This work was later expanded and reprinted
by Helmut Peter (1963). The role of rhetoric and rhetorical commonplaces
was at the heart of Klaus Dockhorns extensive treatises, Wordsworth und die
rhetorische Tradition in England (1944) and Die Rhetorik als Quelle des vorromantischen Irrationalismus in der Literatur und Geistesgeschichte (1949). Dockhorn
construed rhetoric to be philosophys partner and rival in the process of
uncovering reality and in educating young people. Its effort to instil confidence in its audience is based on three governing elements in language communication: the orators moral strength (thos), the rational and emotional
effects on the audience (pathos) and knowledge of the matter in question
(pragma). Ancient rhetoric continued to inspire and eventually found itself
included in modern literary and aesthetic conceptions (Schillers differentiation between grace [Anmut] and dignity [Wrde], Hegels aesthetic of literary
genres and others).
Ernst Robert Curtius presented adetailed analysis of loci communes (topoi) and their role in European literature in his classic work, Europische
Literatur und lateinisches Mittelalter (1948). Curtius had been working on
thebook before World War II and it was intended to be aprotest againstthe
growing danger of Nazi ideology and the erection of barriers between historical epochs, nations and cultures. The book analyzes the unifying influence of ancient Roman heritage on the ideological continuity of European
literature. Curtius found the first expressions of this continuity in Charle
magnes reign and, through textual analysis, demonstrated the power of
this influence, which continues to the present day. Topics, as ageneral norm
for creating and interpreting literary works, were considered an ideological
keystone of cultural Europeanism. Curtiuss ideas drew on Bergsons doctrine of creative inherent movement of history, Jungs theory of archetypes
originating in the ancient mythological, religious and cultural practices, as
well as on Toynbees philosophy of history.
Curtius interpreted topos as an instrument enabling the search for and
artistic stabilization of the works motifs. Topics behave in the same manner
/228/
as heuristics and ars inveniendi, the topoi have appeared in various literary
genres from antiquity through to medieval and modern literature, creating
awarehouse (Vorratsmagazin) of instruments facilitating artistic and non-artistic creation, argumentation and stylization.
Curtiuss explanation of topics provoked astormy discussion.73 The beginning of the topos controversy resulted from the double aspect of topics as
understood by ancient authors. Essentially, as Wolfgang Kayser (1961) elucidated, the topos doctrine contains two divergent aspects. The first is based
on the Greek tradition of judicial and political speeches and corresponds
to the general structure of an argument, while the second, drawing on the
Hellenistic rhetorical tradition of ceremonial speeches, is associated with an
image, motif, metaphor, allegory, example. Curtius considered the second
meaning to be the fundamental interpretative aspect, abasic denominator
and the point of departure for European literatures, which he considered
to be variations of formal and ideological invariables which had originated
in antiquity. Rhetoric thus creates afine web of intertextual relationships,
allusions and citations, in which the present is no more than acontinually repeated past. Thus, it is impossible to fully understand Joyce without
Homer, Shakespeare without Plutarch, Racine without Euripides, Goethe
without Michelangelo. Aquarter of acentury after Curtiuss book was first
published, the conscious use of intertextuality and interdiscursivity had
grown to be one of the foremost construction principles of postmodernism.
Rhetoric has long been popular in the German-speaking environment.
Its scientific foundation is reflected in its extensive dictionary, Historisches
Wrterbuch der Rhetorik, which was published by Niemeyers publishing
house and included a wide array of multipage entries, accompanied by
arich bibliography. Rhetorical argumentation and the democratic system
as asociety of rational argument were the subject matter of philosopher
Jrgen Habermass life-long work, amember of the Frankfurt Schools second generation, (most notably his Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns of
1981), and contained in Josef Kopperschmidts works on the theory of argumentation (Allgemeine Rhetoric. Einfhrung in die Theorie der Persuasiven Kommunikation, Kohlhammer publishing house, 1973). In Argumentation, written
in 1980, the role of argumentation in everyday life (Alltagsargumentation)
was analyzed in theoretical and practical works by the Austrian researcher,
Manfred Kienpointner.
The multi-faceted work of Carl Joachim Classen, whose most recent texts
focus on the relationship between rhetoric and New Testament texts, clearly
/229/
While for Curtius, topos served primarily as an artistic and literary tool,
Chaim Perelman (19121984), a Belgian philosopher of Polish origin,
placed it firmly at the core of his works on argumentation in science and philosophy. These proved to be so enduringly popular that Perelman andLucie
Olbrechts-Tyteca, his long-term collaborator and partner, are sometimes
considered to be the founders of New Rhetoric.
Their first joint work, a selection of their journal contributions entitled Rhtorique et philosophie: Pour une thorie de largumentation en philosophie (1952), was followed by La nouvelle rhtorique: Trait de largumentation
(1958), apublication that can be cited as the turning point in the disciplines
development. Both works centre on the question of rational argumentation
in value and normative judgements, which Perelman first addressed in his
early work entitled De la justice. Both scholars construct their argumentation
along four dialectical principles.
The principle of wholeness is based on the belief that all spheres of human activity form aunified whole, an organism, which consists of constituent, mutually related parts. The second principle, duality, espouses that
the process of cognition is asystem open to all future discoveries and experiences. The third principle, openness to revision, requires that questions
concerning both the foundations of science and propositions derived from
these foundations are asked. Ascientist must constantly employ this principle in his own propositions. Finally, the fourth principle, openness to responsibility, holds that propositions and theories are not purely scientific,
but that they reflect the nature of the subject at hand while simultaneously
/230/
addressing the audience (cest en fonction dun auditoire que se dveloppe tout
argumentation). This principle furnishes the system of scientific and philosophical knowledge with an ethical dimension and man with the awareness
of responsibility for his own actions.
Both Belgian scholars believed that argumentation surpassed the borders of logic and included all elements inherent in communication: author,
recipient and the overall form of communication (including rhetorics commonplaces). The books three chapters, Les cadres de largumentation, Le point
de depart de largumentation and Les techniques argumentatives, first define the
commonplace (locus) as ageneral premise, and then formulate the rules
for deriving conclusions from this. The set of commonplaces serves as areservoir (magasin) of argumentation paradigms available to the speaker. Unlike logic, which works with general schemes, rhetoric constructs asystem
of particular and pre-elaborated quasi-logical arguments (liaisons) which
constitute the ideological coherence of textual segments (they express, for
example, aconnection between parts and awhole, cause and effect, similar
and opposite propositions). Rhetoric defines space for free choice between
alternatives of rational human decision-making, thus adding social and
communicative aspects to the theory of argumentation.
Perelmans argumentation theory is marked by his polemic against Descartess rejection of rhetoric. Descartes understood argumentation to be
acoherent system of truthful propositions based on evidence and targeted
at asingle, justified conclusion. Perelman, on the other hand, focused on
probable and acceptable propositions, whose justification is evinced in the
process of communication by consensus (adhesion) among the participating
partners, though this consensus can include several alternative solutions.
The difference does not lie in quality, where argumentation based on evident judgments is of ahigher order, but rather in the discourse functions.
Descartes absolutized apodictic judgments, typical of the natural sciences,
while Perelman is concerned with value and normative judgments, prevalent
in law, philosophy and the social sciences.
Stephen Edelston Toulmin (born 1922), aBritish philosopher and logician, followed asimilar course to Perelman. Among the Cambridge school of
ordinary language philosophers (G. E. Moore, B. Russel, L. Wittgenstein),
his works were rather atypical, though they proved to be highly inspirational for the future development of rhetoric and non-classical logic. Toulmin
addressed value judgments as early as in his dissertation of 1948 (An Examination of the Place of Reason in Ethics, published in 1950). He askedwhether
/231/
The controversial attitude to rhetoric on the part of both researchers and lay
public in the 20th century was best expressed by Roland Barthes: Rhetoric
is triumphant: it rules over instruction (enseignement). Rhetoric is moribund:
limited to this sector, it falls gradually into great intellectual discredit.77 Reality, however, demonstrates that the contradictions go much deeper. They
concern not only the contradiction of the infinite sources of thought that
rhetoric, both as an academic and university discipline has yielded along
with current rhetorical practice, but also the difference in both individual
and collective stances, which are frequently radical, which philosophers and
representatives of other scientific fields hold towards rhetoric.
Roland Barthes believed that rhetorics contemporary renaissance was
due to what he perceived to be instruction which could be interpreted as
/232/
aprocess of cultivating and maintaining anorm-setting authority. This is related to the system of language instruments, their classification, particularly
across rhetorics wide range of tropes and figures (langage figur), and to the
argumentation techniques (langage argumentantif). The norms (ensemble des
recettes) allow for assessing language and argumentation tools as being used
either appropriately or inappropriately. Rhetorical norms, however, are not
only associated with the rhetorical sphere of techn, but they also encompass culture and ethics. Abreach in these norms results in antirhetoric,
black rhetoric (rhtorique noir), or ludic practice (pratique ludique) which
employs the obscene, illogical, grotesque, burlesque, carnival and surrealist. Thanks to its norm-setting authority, rhetoric becomes asubcode within the general cultural code for Gothic, Renaissance, baroque, mannerist,
modern and postmodern culture. Only romanticism, with its emphasis on
an individuals behaviour not limited by anything and on his experiences,
remained beyond its authoritys control, although it did not shun past rhetorical norms or its own inspiration, which drew heavily on rhetoric.
Contemporary French-language authors interest in rhetoric was also inspired by Fontaniers subtle classification of the semantic nuances of tropes
and figures, as elucidated by the classicist Du Marsais. The functions of
tropes and figures popularity in the 1960s was inspired by Roland Barthes
(Lanalyse rhtorique in: Littrature et socit, 1967, Rhtorique de limage in
Communication review, 1964), Tzvetan Todorov (Tropes et figures as asupplement to his grammar of the Decameron, 1967) and Grard Genette (La
rhtorique et lespace du langage, 1964, Figures, I 1966, II 1969, III 1972).
Asynthesis of these works and astructuralist reading of rhetoric can be found
in amonograph by the members of Groupe (symbolizing the Greek prefix
met- in expressions such as metaphor, metonymy or metabole), Rhtorique
gnrale (Paris, 1970) authored by J. Dubois, F. Edeline, J. M. Klinkenberg,
P. Minguet, F. Pire and H. Trinon. General rhetoricians believed that all
tropes and figures form astructure of relationships interconnected through
transformations in basic and derived forms and meanings. Hjelmslev and
Benveniste held that authors distinguished between the forms of expression and of content, and examined the transformations within each of these
groups. These transformations are called metaboles and are construed to be
deviations of phonological, graphical, morphological, syntactic, semantic
and content phenomena from their basic and neutral versions. The operations which facilitate these shifts are elucidated in Quintilians Institutes of
Oratory: diminution, amplification and substitution (permutation). The pars
/233/
pro toto synecdoche thus represents the diminution of meaning, while rhyme
and alliteration represent amplification on the phonetic level. Hyperbaton
(adisruption of natural word order) is substitution on the syntactic level,
while the introduction of acharacter that should provide amotive for the
main characters actions (Sancho Panza Don Quijote, Sganarelle Don
Juan, Colonel Luk vejk) illustrates amplification on the content level.
General rhetoricians demonstrate the stylistic potential of metaboles in
poetry, the language of advertising, newspaper headlines, in reference to
baroque poetry metagraphs and phonetic permutations in modern poetry, including poets such as Robert Desnos, Raymond Queneau, Jacques
Prvert. In accord with the traditional synaesthetism of rhetoric, they also
encompass fine arts and film. The Groupe conception of rhetoric constructs
it as amethodological support of modern stylistics and semiotic.
Rhetoric was the focus of Jacques Derrida, one of the most sagacious
contemporary French philosophers, from the 1960s. His philosophy of deconstruction is related to rhetoric through the theory that European-type
languages not only create the logic of aparticular perception of the world,
but they also contribute to its distortion. Language is not the humble servant of the conveyed meaning, but rather attracts attention during the
process of communication. Unlike Saussure, Derrida (De la grammatologie,
1967) emphasized the role of written language and written texts (criture),
particularly typical of the romanticism era, in which the reception of the
written word became anormal phenomenon for the first time in history.
Referring to Rousseaus essay On the Origin of Languages, Lvi-Strauss and
Nietzsche, Derrida maintains that script is intended to make communication permanent and open it to new interpretations which had previously
been overlooked or considered marginal from the traditional perspective.
Being freed from any external terminological conventions, only these active
interpretations can recover the lost opportunity of understanding. This is
explained in that they open the mind to understanding alternatives, to the
other, that which is unusual and different from the perspective of our existence.
Derridas most systematic examination of rhetoric (which, in line with
many of his compatriots, he reduced to elocution) was put forth in his essay
La mythologie blanche (1972). Here, he focused on metaphor in philosophical
discourse, using the notion of usure, aFrench word signifying both gain
from investment (usury) and loss due to its consumption. This illustrates
that although the price we pay for using metaphors is them becoming rou-
/234/
The previous chapters have been based on the historical fact that the Mediterranean antiquity, ancient Greece and Rome, were rhetorics only cradle.
This assumption is associated with aremarkable paradox. Although rhetoric originated as aset of requirements and rules for aprimarily spoken
discourse, its formation as asophisticated discipline has been exclusively
linked to the dissemination of the written discourse since its very outset.
It was not until after rhetorical rules were given their authoritative written
form that rhetoric became acomprehensive system of knowledge and concurrently also asubject of discussions, disputes, controversies and imitation. And most importantly, for centuries it was adominant part of school
curricula as well as of the guidelines for the preparation and delivery of
official speeches, for letter stylization and other literary activities. This role
prevailed from antiquity through to the Renaissance and baroque.
Ancient rhetoric was not only a product of language practice, whose
rules had been preserved and transferred through the power of tradition,
be it by imitation, memory or in writing, but also an elaborate theoretical
system whose well-developed and quite abstract terminological apparatus
was not constituted until the outset and dissemination of written discourse.
As evidenced by both very old and quite new dictionaries and textbooks,
this effort to term and classify all rhetorical deviations from the common
language was characterized by an unparalleled verbal prodigality. The jungle of rhetorical ornaments, tropes and figures (silva rhetoricae) must have
seemed as impenetrable to the students of rhetoric who had to memorize
them as it is to our contemporaries whose work is facilitated by anumber
of dictionaries and encyclopaedias as well as modern technologies, namely the Internet.78 When examining cultures other than those that stemmed
from the Mediterranean sources, one must wonder whether they also had
acorresponding system of knowledge and terms (and potentially aspecial
name for the discipline). If so, the question arises whether the outcome has
been preserved in the form of theoretical discourses, practical handbooks,
dictionaries, textbooks or merely as an orally distributed skill and decorum
/236/
adhered to only by very limited elites. It must also be taken into consideration that as aresult of Alexanders expansion, the borders of the Hellenistic
world, and hence also the system of rhetorical knowledge, spread as far as
the border with India and China and that the unique ideas of the art and
impressiveness of the spoken word throughout the vast territories encompassing Europe, North Africa, Near and Far East have influenced each other
many times. These contacts were facilitated by prominent figures, such as
the Arab scholar al-Farabi, who was one of the most renowned medieval
experts on Aristotle, or religious systems, such as Buddhism, which represented an important connection between India and Far-East territories, such
as China, Korea and Japan.
The differences between the cultures did not necessarily result in their hierarchy. It would be amistake to derive from an absence of elaborate and recorded theoretical and didactic reflections on the art of language discourse
in some civilization centres the ideas of aprivileged position of that which
Edward Said, atheoretician of the post-colonial discourse, calls imperial
and colonial Eurocentrism. The oldest preserved book, which contains the
Chinese text of the Diamond Sutra, was printed as early as 868CE, actually
over half amillennium before Gutenbergs invention of the printing press,
and the ancient Manichean texts from the 3rd century of the common era
penetrated from Mesopotamia and Persia as far as China and Mongolia,
and in the southward direction to Egypt. Acollection of model letters from
the 9th century, which was discovered in the Dunghuang manuscripts, originating in the border areas between China and Turkmenistan, contains such
rhetorical (or dictaminis, to be more precise) sections as Lay letters to the
Buddhist and Taoist Monks or Private letters to relatives on fathers or mothers
side. Also the oldest pre-Columbian manuscripts from Mexico and South
America written in the Mayan script undoubtedly had their fixed methods
of didactic narration and rhetorical impact. The sacred Book of Counsel,
Popol Vuh, of the Quich Maya of Guatemala, containing legends, prayers,
myths and historical records up to the Spanish conquest, represents another
specific model of the art of eloquence, which is still waiting to be examined in detail. Being aware of this factual and historical incongruity, we will
apply the term rhetoric to this art, albeit conditionally.
The study of the history of rhetoric outside the Euro-Atlantic culture was
not inspired merely by the postcolonial criticism of the callous Eurocentrism and white Christian Europe as defined by the Neo-Marxist Edward
Said in his works, such as Orientalism (1978), Culture and Imperialism (1994)
/237/
and The World, The Text and the Critic. In the globalized world, interconnected with adense network of various communication media, it is impossible
to see the developments of the Western and Eastern cultures as separate
or as one being dominant, while the other permanently inferior. This has
naturally also been reflected by the researchers in the history of rhetoric. In
1988, Kathleen H. Jamieson, aprofessor at the University of Texas at Austin, organized an international conference in Hawaii themed Rhetoric: East
and West. In 1987, the collection Communication Theory: Eastern and Western
Perspectives, edited by D. Lawrence Kincaid, was published in San Diego.
Afundamental shift in the conception of rhetorics history and scope was
heralded by Encyclopedia of Rhetoric, edited by Thomas O. Sloane,79 which
contains entries on African American, Chinese, Arab, Indian and other rhetorical discourses. Specialized exploration into the rhetoric of individual
languages, ethnic groups and cultures in South and Central America, Africa,
Australia, the Pacific region, among the aboriginal cultures in the American
and Canadian north and others have given rise to aremarkable, yet still
sporadic bibliography in this field.
The questions of the universal nature of rhetorical knowledge cannot,
naturally, be answered in full. Nevertheless, it is also indisputable that every
language community develops its own doctrine of an aesthetic, magical or
argumentative language discourse, albeit this often radically differs from
our ideas based on Greek and Roman rhetoric. This primarily stems from
the fact that these doctrines generally lack the original Greek rational and
analytical reflection of the persuasion process using an elaborate terminological system. On the other hand, most of them have in common an effort
to possess an exclusive, ritualized or archaic language form used for public speeches, which concurrently conserves the existing power relations in
the society and hampers changes in the official interpretation of written
or orally transmitted texts, both sacred and profane. Such exclusiveness
is sometimes underlined by the use of other than domestic, everyday language or graphic system, as was the case of Sanskrit, Persian as the court
and administration language in medieval India, classical Chinese in China or the Chinese script in Korea, Japan and Vietnam. The differences are
sometimes expressed through gestures, intentional silence, the mandatory
distance between speaking persons and other means. Argumentation was
primarily based on arguments drawing on examples and those serving as
abasis for the views of the highest church or secular authorities. The urge
to find an apposite equivalent to the term of rhetoric in these doctrines is,
/238/
/239/
/240/
/241/
Abner the son of Ner, that he came to deceive (lpattoteka) thee, and to know thy
going out and thy coming in, and to know all that thou doest.
Asimilar, yet more sexually charged example can be found in Samsons
enemies instructions to Delilah (Judges 16:5):
Entice (patti) him, and see wherein his great strength lieth, and by what means
we may prevail against him, that we may bind him to afflict him.
The same word is used to mean rape in Exodus (22:16):
And if aman entice (yepatteh) amaid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he
shall surely endow her to be his wife.
The above examples generally suggest aconsiderable distrust in the Old
Testament texts to the profane methods of persuasion as they can be marked
by deceit, tricks or dishonest intentions. This means distrust towards expressions which, despite their sophisticated structure, lack faith. True faith and
persuasion can only be achieved in the minds of those who can listen to the
true doctrine. This activity corresponds with the Hebrew word shama, which
includes meanings such as to hear, listen, pay attention as well as to agree
with what Iam listening to, to be obedient, or to encourage obedience,
as can be evinced in Mosess two exclamations in Deuteronomy (5:1, 6:4)
Hear, OIsrael. The difference between the word of God which must be
trusted and the act of persuasion and argumentation in everyday language,
whose sincerity should be doubted, is typical of Old Testament texts.
The linguistic region of the Near East, dominated by Arabic, has aspecific expression for rhetoric, balghah. This discipline focuses on fasahah, the
art of speaking well, achieving purity and perfection of language. The text
of the Quran, written in the form of rhymed prose, represents an example of
rhetorical refinement. It features rhetorical figures such as elaborate similes
(parables), metaphors drawing on human activities (during the Last Judgement, everyone will receive their accounts), surrounding living organisms
and inanimate natural objects (pagans as spiders who weave their fragile
houses).
The language ideal of perfect speech is frequently commended in the
classical story collection, One Thousand and One Nights. Its main and repeatedly highlighted theme is the impressiveness and beauty of words, eloquence and sweetness of expression, which must win and captivate the
/242/
listeners. In the frame story, these qualities even save the life of the main
narrator, Princess Scheherazade. During atest before Harun ar-Rashid, one
of the characters, the cultured slave-girl Tawaddud, proves not only asound
knowledge of the Quran, but also of philosophy, grammar, rhetoric, poetics, law and music. Similarly to other monotheistic religions, Islam also
associates the art of speech both with speech production and with the art to
accurately explain the sacred text and prove that the orator or preacher understands it well and is able to transfer his understanding onto his audience.
According to the Quran (96:15), during his first apparition, Archangel
Gabriel commanded Muhammad:
Read: In the name of thy Lord Who createth,
Createth man from aclot.
Read: And thy Lord is the Most Bounteous,
Who teacheth by the pen,
Teacheth man that which he knew not.
The history of Arab rhetoric is thus closely linked to the history of the
Qurans exegesis. The late 9th-century Islam philosopher al-Jahiz emphasized the need to protect the Quran not only against enemies of the faith,
but also against its incomprehension by the people to whom even that which
is comprehensible must be explained, that which is visible must be clarified
and that which is obvious must be justified. Al-Jahiz believed that naturalness is the head of accurate understanding of Qurans language, while the
body, on which the interpretation is based, is represented by rhetoricians
experience. Its grandness is supplied by the wings of familiarity with tradition, it is adorned by grammar, winning its fame through acareful selection
of words.
Al-Jahiz represented the Islamic critical Mutazilite movement (from Arabic ana mutazilum minkum, Iseparate from you, mutazila means separating
from something), which considered naming things and their attributes to
be asubjective expression of the human mind, and therefore changeable
with time. The written text of the Quran is also awork of human mind and
as such must be constantly explained. The Mutazilites therefore focused on
the interpretation of the allegorical meaning of words and on argumentation which should teach rational and critical reading of the sacred text. This
however ran into amajor interpretation problem due to the exclusiveness
thesis concerning the uniqueness of the words in the Quran, which cannot
be randomly varied or replaced.
/243/
/244/
/245/
/246/
/247/
During the reign of the ensuing Song dynasty (9601279), the parallel
prose was replaced by alooser, old style, drawing on ancient literary models, including the historiography of the Han Period. New rules were formulated after the new Ming dynasty (13681644) assumed power, resulting in
the compilation of the pa-ku wen (eight-legged essays), whose knowledge
was required at the civil service exam until 1905 when the exam was abolished. Supervised by teachers, students learned pa-ku wen through model
essays. In the pa-ku wen form, some techniques of the parallel prose and the
rules of composition of Tang poems were revived. It provides an accurate
definition of argumentation steps, the extent and ratio of individual parts
of the text, the selection of language and stylistic tools. These rules were so
strict that in everyday situations, the expression pa-ku wen became synonymous to awitless text produced by amechanical imitation of amodel.
The Tang dynasty period was also marked by the culmination of the Buddhist impact on Chinese spiritual culture, whose roots were in the 1stcentury
CE. From the rhetorical perspective, this included such interesting genres of
Buddhist texts as sermons, interpretation of the sacred sutras, religious disputations and recorded everyday conversations (y-lu) on various, namely
religious and philosophical themes.
In the late Ming Dynasty Period (13681644) and at the outset of the
Qing dynasty, Chinese culture encountered the unfamiliar art of casuistry and argumentation, introduced by the Jesuit missionaries. Changes also
marked the trade relations with the West, which gradually rid China of its
isolation even in culture, art and language effectiveness. In the 20th century,
mass media played agradually more important role in the transformation of
the scene of public communication. This was accompanied by the developmentof the school system and education in general as well as by the translation of foreign authors into Chinese. Attention has also been paid to the cardinal differences, relevant also in Chinese, between the style of written and
orally delivered discourses, as illustrated by the famous saying: my hand
writes, my mouth speaks. According to Mary Garrett, deeper knowledge
of the contemporary situation in rhetoric in China has been hampered by
little interest on the part of both Chinese and foreign sinologists in the study
of the rhetorical dimensions of modern texts, apparent particularly when
compared to the number of works on Chinese poetics and Chinese theatre.
The development of the public and official speech style in Korean (in its
literary refined form known as hanmun, with the Sino-Korean transcription)
/248/
had been strongly influenced since its outset by Chinese culture, its script
and the features of prevailing genres and information on them. The first
attempt at educations democratization took place in 1443 in compliance
with the decree issued by Emperor Sejong (reigned between 14181450) of
the Yi dynasty. This was associated with an orthographical reform aiming
to replace the Chinese characters with aphonetic alphabet which better
corresponds to the Korean phonological system. Consequently, the high literature genres and historiographic texts were written in hanmun, while folk
poetry, novels, short stories, journalistic and rhetorical texts (for practical
use) were written in phonetic alphabet. Hanmun was thus associated with
the Buddhist and Confucianist ideology, with higher culture and education
as well as with the elite rhetorical genres which still employed imagery adopted from classical Chinese.
Unlike China and Korea, rhetoric in Japan was a new phenomenon,
drawing almost exclusively on Anglo-Saxon model texts. The fact that rhetoric in the Japanese environment had previously been non-existent is in part
due to both Japanese culture and the very nature of the Japanese language.
Beginning with the Heian period (from the end of the 8th century), which
was considered to be the flourishing period of classical Japanese culture,
aesthetic criteria of behaviour prevailed over the ethical in the Japanese imperial court; speech ornamentation and verbosity were considered to be attributes of poor taste, while literature and the art of letter writing, in which
many female authors asserted themselves, were associated with aneconomical style, subtle allusions and aposiopesis.
The need for rhetoric appeared in connection with the modernization
of the Japanese society in the Meiji era (Enlightened Rule) beginning in
1868. The meaning of the expression Meiji also included the unification of
the country and its economy. The Imperial Oath of April 8, 1968, promised
an establishment of deliberative assemblies on awide basis and the solution
of all state-related matters through public discussions. This was followed by
the establishment of political parties, voices calling for universal suffrage,
and activities of student rhetorical and discussion circles.
To facilitate education in public oratory, Meirokusha, an academic
(enlightened) society was established in 1873, which was to mediate the
knowledge of public presentation, discussion, meeting chairmanship
and rhetoric to students and young intellectuals in general. Yukio Ozaki published the first textbook of public rhetoric (Kokai enzetsuho). Roichi
/249/
/250/
Several obvious facts speak in favour of positive answers to these questions. Rhetoric adopted the dominant role of memory and related mnemonic devices from oral cultures. Training memory was not only asubject of an
independent part of the rhetorical doctrine, but and primarily, it became
anumbrella field to which many principles of speech stylization were subordinate, specifically word repetition, speech rhythm, rhythmic and syntactic
parallelism of speech structures, asystem of commonplaces (expressions
fixed in memory) and epithets. They were all to aid the orator in making
his speech persuasive, making references to the authorities and maintaining
smooth speech.
After the spread of book printing, the capacity to express the rhetorical
nature of atext and to emphasize rhetorics status within the educational
system was strengthened. Along with textbooks, alarge number of readers
could use books containing texts by prominent authors and orators from
history, collections of quotations and commonplaces (florilegia). The system
of tropes and figures was enriched by the graphical arrangement of words
and the text in general on the page, the instruction of rhetoric was facilitated
by ingenious tables and charts, prominent painters and sculptors participated in the development of rhetorical iconography. Thanks to this, we can
construe rhetoric as asynthetic cultural code which shapes the process of
speaking and writing, listening and reading, which encompasses language
communication in its complexity and historical changeability. Concurrently,
it is acode which also lends an ear to voices silenced by the savagery of
European civilization, as polemically expressed by Houston Baker Jr.
EPILOGUE
The above exposition of the history of rhetoric is based on the idea of aconstant disturbance of the borders between rhetoric and other disciplines that
focus on man and his social existence. In fact, during the search for the
meaning of rhetoric (and human communication in general), the borders
are not only disturbed, but also newly created. Alibrary catalogue arranged
by the subject no longer associates books on Cicero and Quintilian with
modern practical handbooks on public speaking. However, even the theory
of rhetoric itself has not preserved its integrity. The rise of new scientific
disciplines has resulted in the rhetoric of politics, science, philosophy and
poetics being viewed as distinct fields of study rather than astarting point
for generalizing syntheses. This development is absolutely legitimate with
regard to the growing demands on mans language abilities and skills and it
is pointless to object to it. Alack of awareness of the connections between
the individual stages of rhetorics history and individual cultures are far
more dangerous. In view of this danger, the previous chapters focus on the
elements that link these stages rather than on those that distinguish them.
The exposition on 20th-century rhetoric differs from the preceding chapters,
in which rhetoric was partly viewed in relation to rhetoric textbooks, as it
intentionally focuses on rhetoric as atheoretical discipline. Generally speaking, in our exposition we have intended to face the disintegration which, in
our opinion, hampers understanding of European culture. This includes
the general neglect of some territories, authors, ideological movements and
works which can only appear marginal from anarrow point of view. The fact
that the art of formulating and interpreting ideas produced by the human
spirit was taught in the same manner at the University of Salamanca as well
as at universities in Bologna, Prague, Oxford, Coimbra and Kiev is so important for European cultural history that we should never lose sight of it.
However, it is also areason for which we will repeatedly return to rhetoric
even in the new millennium.
NOTES
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
/253/
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
Notes
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
/254/
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY
English translations of fundamental classical works and authors (Aristotle, Plato, Cicero, Quintilian, Ad Herennium, etc.) can be found among the volumes of the Loeb Classical Library
published by the Harvard University Press throughout the 20th century.
Abbott Don, Paul. The Influence of Blairs Lectures in Spain. Rhetorica 7 (1989):
275279
Abbott Don, Paul. Mayans Rhetorica and the Search for a Spanish Rhetoric. Rhetorica 11 (1993): 157179
Adamov, Yevgenii Artemevich. Vydaiushchiesja oratory drevnego mira i srednikh vekov.
Moskva, 1961
Alexandrova, Donka. Retorikata na drevnite. Sofia, 1983
Amyot, Jacques. Projet dloquence royal. Paris, 1992. See esp. prface de Philips-Joseph
Salazare.
Arbusow, Leonid. Colores rhetorici (Eine Auswahl rhetorischer Figuren und Gemeinpltze als
Hilfsmittel fr Uebungen an mittelalterlichen Texten). 2nd ed. Helmut Peter. G
ttingen,
1963
Augustine. On Christian Doctrine. Indianapolis, 1958
Axer, Jerzy. Tribunal-Stage-Arena. Modelling of the Communication Situation in
M.Tullius Ciceros Judicial Speeches. Rhetorica 7 (1989): 299311
Babkin, Dmitrii Semenovich. Russkaia ritorika nachala 17 v. Trudy otdela drevnerusskoi
literatury. Vol. VIII. Leningrad, 1951
Backman, Mark (ed.). Rhetoric. Essays in Invention and Discovery by Richard
McKeon. Woodbridge, 1987
Bahn, Erwin. Interpretative Reading in Classical Rome. The Quarterly Journal of
Speech 23 (1937): 208221
Baldwin, Charles S. Ancient Rhetoric and Poetic. Gloucester, Mass., 1959
Baldwin, Charles S. Medieval Rhetoric and Poetic. New York, 1928
Barnard, Howard Clive. The Little Schools of Port Royal. Cambridge, 1913
Barner, Willfried. Barockrhetorik. Untersuchungen zu ihrer gesellschaftlichen Grundlagen.
Tbingen, 1970
Barthes, Roland. Lancienne rhtorique. Aide-Mmoire. Communications 4 (1964):
4051
Barthes, Roland. Analyse rhtorique. Littrature et socit, Bruselles (1967): 3145
Beetz, Manfred. Rhetorische Logik. Prmissen der deutschen Lyrik im bergang um
17.und18, Jahrhundert. Tbingen, 1980
Bender, John Willberg, David E. The End of Rhetoric. History, Theory, Practice. Stanford, 1990
Bennet, Lance. The Function and Adaptation of Notkers Rhetorica. Rhetorica 7
(1989): 171184
Selected Bibliography
/256/
/257/
Conley, Thomas M. Greek Rhetoric after the Fall of Constantinople. An Introduction. Rhetorica 18 (2000): 265294
Cousin, Jean. tudes sur Quintilien. Paris, 1936
Cranz, Edward F. Quintilian as an Ancient Thinker. Rhetorica 13 (1995): 219230
Crusius, Timothy. Kenneth Burkes Auscultation. A De-struction of Marxist Dialectic and Rhetoric. Rhetorica 6 (1988): 355379
Curtius, Ernst-Robert. Europische Literatur und lateinisches Mittealter. 3rd ed. Bern,
1961. (Engl. transl. European Literature and the Latin Middle Ages. Princeton
N. J., 1953)
Delcroix, Maurice Hallyn, Fernand, eds. Introduction aux tudes littraires. Mthodes
du texte. Gembloux, 1993
Dobrosielski, Marian. Logika i Retoryka. Zeszyty Wydzialu Filosoficznego Uniwersytetu
Warszawskiego (1957): 422434
Dockhorn, Klaus. Macht und Wirkung der Rhetorik (Vier Aufstze zur Ideengeschichte der
Vormoderne). Bad Homburg Berlin Zrich, 1968
Doleel, Lubomr. Occidental Poetics. Tradition and Progress. London, 1990
Dominik, William J. (ed.). Roman eloquence. Rhetoric in Society and Literature. LondonNew York, 1997
Dostlov, Rena. Zur Entwicklung der Literrsthetik in Byzanz von Gregorios von Nazianz zur Eusthatios. Beitrge zur byzantinischen Geschichte im
9.11. Jahrhundert. Prague, 1978: 143177
Douglass, Rodney B. Aristotelian Orientation to Rhetorical Communication. Philosophy and Rhetoric 7 (1994): 8088
Eco, Umberto. Thoughts on Aristotles Poetics. Fiction Updated. Theory of Fictionality,
Narrativity and Poetics. TorontoBuffallo, 1996: 229248
Eden, Kathy. The Rhetorical Tradition and Augustinian Hermeneutics in De doctrina Christiana. Rhetorica 8 (1990): 4563
Eemeren van, Frans. H. Grootendorst, Rob Snoeck Henkemans, et al. Fundamentals of Argumentation Theory. A Handbook of Historical Backgrounds and Contemporary
Developments. Mahwah, N. J., 1996
Einhorn, Lois J. Richard Whatelys Public Persuasion. The Relationship between his
Rhetorical Theory and his Rhetorical Practice. Rhetorica 4 (1985): 5165
Faral, Edmond. Les arts potiques du XIIet du XIII sicle. Paris, 1923, reprint 1971
Fey, Gudrun. Das ethische Dilemma der Rhetorik in der Antike und in der Neuzeit. Stuttgart, 1990
Fontanier, Pierre. Les figures du discours. Paris, 1977. See esp. introductory word by
Grard Genette.
Fox, Michael V. Ancient Egyptian Rhetoric. Rhetorica 1 (1983): 922
France, Peter. Rhetoric and Truth in France Descartes to Diderot. Oxford, 1972
France, Peter. Quintilian and Rousseau. Oratory and Education. Rhetorica 13
(1995): 301321
France, Peter. Rhtorique et Potique chez les Formalistes Russes. Rhetorica 6
(1988): 127136
Frankowska-Terlecka, Malgorzata (ed.). Retoryka w XV stoleciu. Studya nad tradycjami,
teori, praktyk retoryki pitnastowiecznej. Wroclaw, 1988
Fraser, Veronica. The Influence of the Venerable Bede on the Fourteenth Century
Occitan Treatise Las Leys dAmors. Rhetorica 11 (1993): 5161
Selected Bibliography
/258/
/259/
Selected Bibliography
/260/
Laplace, Marcelle. Platon et lart dcrire des discours. critique de Lysias et dIsocrate. Rhetorica 13 (1995): 115
Lausberg, Heinrich. Handbuch der literarischen Rhetorik III. Mnchen 1960. English transl. Handbook of Literary Rhetoric. A Foundation for Literary Study. Leiden,
1998
Likhachev, Dmitrii Sergeevich. Poetika drevnerusskoi literatury. Leningrad, 1967
Lichaski, Jakub Zdzislaw. Retoryka od redniewiecza do baroku. Warszawa, 1982
Lomonosov, Mikhail Vasilevich. Kratkoe rukovodstvo kkrasnorechiiu. Lomonosov
VII, Trudy po filologii. Moskva, 1952: 89387
Lomonosov, Mikhail Vasilevich. Kratkoe rukovodstvo kritorike na polzu liubitelei
sladkorechiia. Lomonosov VII, Trudy po filologii, Moskva, 1952: 1979
Lu Xing. Rhetoric in Ancient China. Fifth to Third Century B.C. E. A Comparison with
Classical Greek Rhetoric. Columbia, S. C., 1998
Mack, Peter. Renaissance Argument. Leiden, 1993
Mack, Peter (ed.). Renaissance Rhetoric. New York, 1994
Mahdi, Muhsin. Alfarabis Philosophy of Plato and Aristotle. New York, 1969
Malcovati, Henrica (ed.). Oratorum Romanorum Fragmenta Liberae Rei Publicae. 4th ed.
Turin, 1975
Marrou, Henri-Irne. Saint Augustin et la fin de la culture antique. Paris, 1949
Marrou, Henri-Irne. A History of Education in Antiquity. New York, 1956
Marx, Friedrich. Incerti auctoris de ratione dicendi Ad Herennium libri 4. M. Tullii Ciceronis Ad Herennium libri. Leipzig, 1894, 1964
Mathauserov, Svtla. Drevnerusskie teorii iskusstva slova. Praha, 1979
Matthes. Dieter. Hermagoras temnitae testimonia fragmenta. Leipzig, 1962
Meynet, Roland. Quelle rhtorique dans lpitre aux Galates? Le cas de Ga 4,
1220. Rhetorica 12 (1994): 427450
Meynet, Roland. Avez-vous lu Saint Luc? Paris, 1990
Meynet, Roland. Histoire de lanalyse rhtorique en exgse biblique. Rhetorica 8
(1990): 291320
Migne, Jean-Paul. Patrologia latina. Paris, 1844
Michel, Alain. Les rapports de la rhtorique et de la philosophie dans loevre de Ciceron.
Paris, 1962
Michel, Alain. Le dialogue des orateurs de Tacite et de la philosophie de Cicron. Paris, 1962
Michel, Alain. La parole et la beaut. Rhtorique et esthtique dans la tradition occidentale.
Paris, 1994
Mikkola, Eino. Isokrates. Seine Anschaungen im Lichte seiner Schriften. Helsinki, 1954
Milovanovic-Barham, elila. Three Levels of Style in Augustine of Hippo and
Gregory of Nazianzus. Rhetorica 11 (1993): 125
Mistrk, Jozef. Rtorika. 2nd ed. Bratislava, 1981
Monk, Samuel H. The Sublime. A Study of Critical Theories in XVIII Century England.
Ann Arbor, 1960
del Monte, Alberto. Retorica, stilistica, versificatione. Turin, 1957
Morier, Henri. Dictionnaire de Potique et de Rhtorique. Paris, 1961
Murphy, James J. Rhetoric in the Middle Ages. A History of Rhetorical Theory from
St.Augustine to the Renaissance. Berkeley, 1974
Murphy, James J. (ed.). Medieval Eloquence. Studies in the Theory and Practice of Medieval
Rhetoric. Berkeley, 1978
/261/
Murphy, James J. (ed.). Renaissance Eloquence. Studies in the Theory and Practice of Renaissance Rhetoric. Berkeley, 1983
Navarre, Octave. Essai sur la rhtorique greque avant Aristote. Paris, 1900
Nechutov, Jana. esko-latinsk literatura stedovk do r. 1300. Brno, 1997
Nestle, Wilhelm. Vom Mythos zum Logos. Stuttgart, 1942.
Oesterreich, Peter L. Metaphysik und Rhetorik bei Kant, Fichte und Schelling. Darmstadt,
1997
Oesterreich, Peter L. Sloane, Thomas O. (ed.). Rhetorica movet. Studies in Historical
and Modern Rhetoric in Honour of Heinrich F. Plett. LeidenBostonKln, 1999
Okabe, Roichi. The Impact of Western Rhetoric on the East. The Case of Japan.
Rhetorica 8 (1990): 371388
Ong, Walter J. Ramus Method and the Decay of Dialogue. Cambridge, Mass., 1958
Ong, Walter J. Orality and Literacy. The Technologizing of the Word. LondonNew York,
1988
Parks, Patrick E. The Roman Rhetorical Schools as a Preparation for the Courts under the
Early Empire. Baltimore, 1945
Patoka, Jan. Sokrates. Pednky zantick filozofie. Praha, 1990
Pazourek, Frantiek J. Dleitost a djiny umn enickho. Velk Mezi, 1907
Perelman, Chaim Olbrechts-Tyteca, Lucie. The New Rhetoric. The Treatise on Argumentation. Notre Dame, Ind., 1969
Perelman, Chaim Olbrechts-Tyteca, Lucie. The Realm of Rhetoric. Notre Dame, Ind., 1982
Pernot, Laurent. Rhtorique de la conversation, de lAntiquit lpoque moderne.
Actes de la table ronde de Paris, 4 juin. Rhetorica 11: 351446
Pernot, Laurent (ed.). La rhtorique des arts. Paris, 2011
Pernot, Laurent (ed.). Actualit de la rhtorique. Paris, 2002
Petrovi, Sreten. Retorika. Teorijsko i istorijsko razmatrjane. Ni, 1975
Plett, Heinrich F. (ed.). Rhetorik. Kritische Perspektiven zum Stand der Forschung.
Mnchen, 1977
Plett, Heinrich F. Systematische Rhetorik. Konzepte und Analysen. Mnchen, 2000
Plett, Heinrich F. Literary Rhetoric. Concepts Structures Analyses. LeidenBoston,
2010
Plett, Heinrich F. (ed.). Renaissance Rhetorik. Renaissance Rhetoric. BerlinNew York,
1993
Polak, Emil J. Medieval and Renaissance Treatises and Form Letters. A Census of Manuscripts Found in Eastern Europe and the Former U.S.S.R. Leiden, 1993
Porter, Stanley E. (ed.). Handbook of Classical Rhetoric in the Hellenistic Period,
330B.C.A. D. 400. Leiden, 1997
Ptassek, Peter. Rhetorische Racionalitt. Stationen einer Verdrngungsgeschichte von der
Antike bis zur Neuzeit. Mnchen, 1993
Purcell, William M. Identita, Similitudo, and Contrarietas in Gervasius of Melkleys
Ars Poetica. A Stasis of Style. Rhetorica 9 (1991): 6791
Purcell, William M. Eberhard the German and the Labyrinth of Learning. Grammar,
Poesy, Rhetoric, and Pedagogy in Laborintus. Rhetorica 11 (1993): 93118
Quadlbauer, Franz. Die Antike Theorie der genera dicendi im lateinischen Mittelalter. Wien,
1962
Regel, Vasilii Eduardovich Novosadskii, Nikolai Ivanovich (ed.). Fontes rerum
byzantinarum. St. Peterburg, 18921917
Selected Bibliography
/262/
Ricoeur, Paul. Interpretation Theory. Discourse and the Surplus of Meaning. Fort Worth,
1976
Richards, Ivor Armstrong. Mencius on the Mind. New YorkLondon, 1932
Richards, Ivor Armstrong. The Philosophy of Rhetoric. New YorkLondon, 1936
Roberts, Phys W. Greek Rhetoric and Literary Criticism. New York, 1963
Roberts, Phys W. (ed.). Dyonisius of Halicarnassus. On Literary Composition. Cambridge,
U. K., 1910
Romilly, Jacqueline de. Magic and Rhetoric in Ancient Greece. Cambridge, Mass., 1974
Rynduch, Zykmunt. Nauka o stylach w retorykach polskich XV wieku. Gdask, 1967
Schanze, Helmut (ed.). Rhetorik. Beitrge zu ihrer Geschichte in Deutschland vom
16.20. Jahrhundert. Frankfurt a. M., 1974
Schiappa, Edward. Protagoras and Logos. A Study in Greek Philosophy and Rhetoric. South
Carolina, 1991
Schnell, Uwe. Die homiletische Theorie Philips Melanchthons. BerlinHamburg, 1968
Schopenhauer, Arthur. Eristische Dialektik oder die Kunst, Recht zu behalten. In 38 Kunstgriffen dargestellt. Frankfurt a. M., 2005
Schouler, Bernard. La classification des personnes et des faits chez Hermognes et
ses commentateurs. Rhetorica 8 (1990): 229254
Schulte, Hans-Kurt. Orator. Untersuchungen ber des Cicero Bildungsideal. Frankfurta.M., 1935
Schwartz, John A. Rycenga, Joseph (ed.). The Province of Rhetoric. New York, 1965
Skinner, Quentin. Reason and Rhetoric in the Philosophy of Hobbes. Cambridge, 1996
Szklenar, Hans. Magister Nicolaus Dybin. Vorstudien einer Edition seiner Schriften. Ein
Beitrag zur Geschichte literarischen Rhetorik in spteren Mittelalter. MnchenZrich,
1991
Slavk, Franriek Augustin. Blahoslav Jan. Vady kazatelv a Filipika. 2nd ed. Praha, 1902
Sloane, Thomas O. Schoolbooks and Rhetoric. Erasmus. Copia. Rhetorica 9 (1991):
113129
Sloane, Thomas O. On the Contrary. The Protocol of Traditional Rhetoric. Washington,
D. C., 1997
Sloane, Thomas O. (ed.). Encyclopedia of Rhetoric. OxfordNew York, 2001
Souek, Stanislav. Komensk jako teoretik kazatelskho umn. Praha, 1938
Spengel, Leonhard von. Rhetores graeci III. Leipzig, 18541894
Stark, Rudolf. Rhetorika. Schriften zur aristotelischen und hellenistischen Rhetorik.
Hildesheim, 1968
Sttzer, Ursula. Deutsche Redekunst im 17. und 18. Jahrhundert. Halle, 1962
Struever, Nancy S. Theory as Practice. Ethical Inquiry in the Renaissance. Chicago and
London, 1992
Struever, Nancy S. Rhetoric, Modality, Modernity. Chicago, 2009
Suss, Wilhelm. Ethos. Studien zur lteren griechischen Rhetorik. Leipzig, 1910
Taureck, Bernard H.-F. Die Sophisten zur Einfhrung. Hamburg, 1995
Testard, Maurice. Saint Augustin et Cicron. Paris, 1958
Thesleff, Holger. Platonic Patterns. Las Vegas, 2009
Todorov, Tzvetan. Littrature et signification. Paris, 1967
Tka, Josef. Studie a prameny krtorice a kuniverzitn literatue. Praha, 1972
Tka, Josef. Prask rtorika. Praha, 1987
Ueding, Gert. Klassische Rhetorik. Mnchen, 2000
/263/
Ueding, Gert. Moderne Rhetorik. Von der Augklrung bis zur Gegenwart. Mnchen, 2000
Ueding, Gert (ed.). A Historical Dictionary of Rhetoric. 11 vol.. The Hague, 2013
Ueding, Gert Steinbrink, Bernd. Grundrisse der Rhetorik. Geschichte Technik
Methode. Stuttgart, 2011
Ulman, Lewis H. Things, Thoughts, and Actions. The Problems of Language in Late Eighteens-Century British Rhetorical Theory. Carbondale, Southern Illinois, 1994
Unger, Ulrich. Rhetorik des klassischen Chinesisch. Wiesbaden, 1994
Uspensky, Boris Andreyevich. Otnoshenie kgrammatike i ritorike vDrevnei Rusi
XVIXVII. Literatura i iskusstvo vsisteme kultury. Moskva, 1988: 208224
Vickers, Brian. In Defence of Rhetoric. Oxford, 1988
Vickers, Brian. The Atrophy of Modern Rhetoric, Vino to De Man. Rhetorica 6
(1988): 2156
Volkmann, Richard. Rhetorik der Griechen und Rmer. Mnchen, 1901
Wackernagel, Wilhelm. Poetik. Rhetorik und Stilistik. Halle 1873, reprint. Hildesheim/
Zrich/New York, 2003
Ward, John O. Ciceronian Rhetoric in Treatise, Scholion, and Commentary. Turnhout,
1995
Wenig, Karel. Djiny enictv eckho 13. Praha, 19161923
Woods, Marjorie C. (ed.). An Early Commentary on the Poetria nova of Geoffrey of Vinsauf.
New York, 1985
Zulick, Margaret. The Active Force of Hearing. The Ancient Hebrew Language of
Persuasion. Rhetorica 10 (1992)
Zumthor, Paul. Rhtorique medievale et potique. Poetica 1 (1971): 4682
NAME INDEX
/265/
Name Index
/266/
/267/
Name Index
/268/
/269/
Name Index
/270/
/271/