ENG 695
Medieval and Early Modern Rhetoric
Spring 2007

Guide Questions for Classical Rhetoric Review

How was rhetoric defined--why, when, and by whom?

Why did rhetoric flourish in ancient Hellas and later in Rome?

Who were the practitioners of rhetoric?  Who the "consumers"?

How did the conflict between rhetoric and "philosophy" develop?  Who "won"?

What was the relationship between oratory and rhetoric in written form?  Was one more important than the other?  Who practiced each mode most notably?

How was discourse involved in the education of young men in Greece and later in Rome (and in the wider Hellenic and Roman worlds)? How was what we now call "rhetoric" a part of this larger concept and practice of discourse?

What legacy did the ancient rhetoricians and teachers leave to succeeding ages?

How was rhetoric defined--why, when, and by whom?

By Gorgias, Isocrates, and other sophists as "speech" or "eloquence," even "philosophy." Plato was the first to call it "rhetoric," in a slightly pejorative sense.  But Plato's term stuck, as did his definition of philosophy.  Rhetoric--or whatever you call it--was considered as an art that reflected and even enabled cognition (phronesis).  This was Isocrates' view, who connected the term phronesis with "practical wisdom," or the power of right action in the public community.

Plato and Aristotle differed from the sophists and each other, although they both took a more "philosophical" approach to discourse: Plato thought rhetoric useful within the philosophic program of the search for eternal truth (rhetoric could be used soul-to-soul for teaching and persuasion when a philosopher sought to enlighten a young disciple; and it could conceivably be used in a properly-run commonwealth where philosophers ruled persons of lesser ability to encourage the populace to obey laws and follow the leading of their philosophical rulers). 

Unlike Plato, Aristotle ranked rhetoric equal with dialectic; he considered the public sphere, where decisions had to be made on the basis of probabilities, as important as the contemplative world of the philosopher.  Thus rhetoric was for him a branch of discourse related to, and indebted to, dialectic, yet with its own sphere of influence (politics and law) and its own preferred way of establishing probable truth (logos).  Aristotle also had a practical concern for the end result of rhetoric measured in the effect on an audience.

See Greek Definitions of Rhetoric/Discourse/Philosophy for further details

Roman theory (Rhetorica ad Herrennium, Cicero, Quintilian Institutes) relied on Greek antecedents, possibly linking through Hermagoras (2nd century BCE--usually combined together into an eclectic body of theory and lore. Generally, for both Cicero and Quintilian, the overall view of Isocrates prevailed, while the technicalities of Aristotle attracted interest especially in stasis theory and topical invention.  RH provided an exemplar of the Greek techne or handbook that often originated in the Sophistic tradition.

Rhetoric for Romans was mainly defined as a forensic activity, but with strong deliberative and ceremonial aspects. Quintilian insisted on extending the Isocratic view that the orator was necessarily a good man, speaking well.  Oratory was a practical art, able to deal with anything that came to the attention of the orator.

Why did rhetoric flourish in ancient Hellas and later in Rome?

The reasons for rhetoric's popularity were somewhat different in these two times and places.  The Greeks enjoyed for a time (in the 5th and 4th centuries BCE) a democratic civil government and legal system where citizens had to make decisions affecting the well-being of individuals and the commonwealth.  The practice and later preceptive art of public speaking grew out of a need and became an institution.  Rhetoric helped persons (rhetors) offer options for decisions about what to do in the future (deliberative rhet.) and provided a framework for carrying out legal proceedings and establishing what had been done in the past (forensic rhet.)  It also gave a structure to public ceremonies and worked to hold the community together by reminding it of its common values through the praise or blame of prominent individuals or institutions (epideictic rhet.).

For a time (several hundred years before about 30 BCE) Rome also enjoyed a popular form of government (republic) and carried out legal proceedings to maintain equity and civil order.  Since Greek civilization was admired, Romans adopted and developed Greek rhetorical theory to give structure and power to Roman public discourse.  They continued to develop the legal side of eloquence (esp. invention using the stasis theory) while after Cicero's time political oratory declined as its scope was severely limited by autocratic emperors.  In both Greece and Rome, eloquence flourished because of a widely acknowledged need (that was apparent because of the structure of society) to systematize natural oral ability.  In Rome, rhetoric might be said to have perpetuated itself long after its public usefulness had worn thin--through the educational system that focused on oratory as its "higher learning."  Rhetoric flourished because it had become very teachable, with a significant body of theory underlying an impressive superstructure of teaching methods; and it was taught because it had flourished.

Who were the practitioners of rhetoric?  Who the "consumers"? 

In Greece, practitioners were the sophists, who taught it (Gorgias, Lysias); other, more philosophical professors (Plato, Aristotle; Isocrates); politicians and rulers (Pericles, Demosthenes); and anyone who was part of a legal proceedings.  Also, professional "logographers" practiced rhetoric in written form, preparing speeches for trials at law.  They were early professional writers.  In Rome rhetorical practitioners were also teachers and politicians; Rome also had a class of lawyers who used the theories of rhet. most consistently.  Consumers?  This is kind of a dumb question.  Obviously many of the practitioners were the "consumers" of rhetorical theory.  But if consumers are mainly "audience," then much of the Greek and a large portion of the Roman populace were consumers of public discourse in one of its facets.  Almost universally, those engaging in public discourse were male.

How did the conflict between rhetoric and "philosophy" develop?  Who "won"?

Largely, it seems, as a rivalry between different philosophical and educational theorists in 4th c. BCE Athens--Plato and Aristotle on the phil. side, Isocrates and sophists on the other.  This could be seen as a conflict between learning for the "public good" and "academicism"; also a clash of epistemologies: philosophical rhetoric looked for truth and knowledge outside the human mind; the sophists looked at human discourse as a way to understand, define, and agree on what was true and real.

In Rome, philosophy was second to practicality--oratory as practical art flourishes. Quintilian admits that phil. and rhetoric have parted company and attempts to integrate philosophy into the person of the orator, who should use it in context of moral virtue

What was the relationship between oratory and rhetoric in written form?  Was one more important than the other?  Who practiced each mode most notably? 

Although both Greece and Rome were essentially oral cultures, writing was pervasive and important as a dimension of communication, record keeping, and educational practice.  Isocrates was said to be primarily a rhetorician in writing; and it was common for speeches written by logographers to be read (or memorized) in Athenian legal proceedings.  It must have also been used as a teaching/learning mode.  Plato relied on writing to further his program, even as he denied the legitimacy of writing as a medium for human thought and discourse. Romans also used writing to prepare speeches, but their most developed teaching on it is in Quintilian's Institutes, where it is an integral part of learning and practice.  Clearly, Roman orators were expected to be writers as well; and Greek speeches often had a beginning in a written text.  However, the mode of delivery was usually oral, and writing was used to represent oral language, not as a medium purely itself (unless we consider Plato's work, so literary and crafted).  So students, teachers, would-be orators (logographers), and orators themselves all made significant use of writing, within the bounds that the current inscription technology would allow.

How was discourse involved in the education of young men in Greece and later in Rome (and in the wider Hellenic and Roman worlds)? How was what we now call "rhetoric" a part of this larger concept and practice of discourse?

The teaching of rhetoric was the main reason why schools were founded at first (esp. Isocrates' school 390 BCE)  Elementary education was taught by tutors or slaves, but rhet. provided the higher ed curriculum, although probably at a few centralized locations (Athens, Syracuse).  In Rome, education was more systematized, with the advanced curriculum again consisting of rhet. theory and practice.  In both cases, the purpose of education was generally to produce wise and good civic leaders or lawyers; discourse was seen as the heart of this education and these vocations.  Practically, however, rhetorical education secured a large literate class for the purposes of the Empire.

Roman education systematized and expanded Greek education tremendously; schools were far more widespread than Athenian ones--and Roman schooling even outlasted the empire.  Rhetoric remained important throughout late antiquity, but slowly gave way to dialectic as the central discourse art.  Plato's popularity with Christians (and the relative unpopularity of other pagans) contributed to this trend. 

What legacy did the ancient rhetoricians and teachers leave to succeeding ages?