Erasmus and his position in Rhetoric

When I began reading Book I of "Ecclesiastes" by Erasmus, there was one point which struck me the most was that there seemed to be a connection to both the Platonist ideas and Sophistic viewpoints apparent in Erasmus and his thoughts. At one point on the first page he states "Of all traits of the preacher, the most important for persuasion is to love what you are preaching" (Erasmus 586), and as I have been focusing all of my papers on ethos this term, I realize I have not heard something so honest come from either the Platonist or Sophistic writing. There is much talk of good and moral creatures preaching to the people, there has bee argument between the two of who is more right, but this is the first time that I can remember when one has stated that either way, the preacher will be the most convincing when they love what it is they are speaking about. Does this make their ethos more believable, more trustworthy when a speaker truly believes in what they are saying? I know that the big question in terms of ethos is how to you know when someone is being honest with you about who they are, but my question is how do you judge someone as good or bad when they truly believe in what they are saying, whether it be termed just that in a certain society, who is to judge this? Thoughts?

Secondly, I also thought it amusing that women were not allowed to learn for fear that men might not be able to control them when they learned the true impact a well-thought out argument could have. I am reading about Margaret Fell and on Thursday I will be discussing more about this.

Woman Humanists...Other Notes of Interest

Although I enjoyed what I have read (both in the book and the blogs), I felt the women during this time period needed a quick "shout-out." The four noted in BH are Isotta and Ginevera Nogarola, Cassandra Fedele, and Laura Cereta. They all broke into their respective intellectual circles through the men they knew by writing to them. Although their ideas were accepted it was only when they were younger, or virginal, as BH noted, "hence no threat to mature men." It's this repitition of history that I always find interesting; first with Aspasia, these four, and now many others are relegated to obscurity due to gender. I was raised in a rather matriachal setting so I am always curious as to why males in power become so insecure over female intelligence. Why does this happen? A good example of obscurity is Cereta's existence who wrote letters to other humanist during her marriage (1484-1486). She tried to publish her letters in 1488 but received little or no recognition, after the rejection from the literary world and after the death of her father, she devoted herself to sacred studies. If Augustine can do the same thing, devote a part of his life to manicheasm and then convert to christianity, and still be widely noted as a rhetorician then why can't Ceretta?

Renaissance - The Church

Simon, about the Church in Mid-evil/Renaissance times you said, “I also wonder why, after so long, ancient ideas of rhetoric were able to resurface during the Renaissance. To me, it seems as if the Middle Ages were "dark" because the Church, no doubt trying to look out for itself, tried so suppress so many resources people had for learning, not the least of which was rhetoric.”
I’d like to add a little bit of thought here, if I could.

When we studied the “Dark Ages” in a class I took before, we talked about how the main focus in Western Europe at this time was generally just surviving. Aside from the very wealthy, people lived in small villages and worked hard subsistance-farming to have enough to eat. I think that the Bizzell and Herzberg text does a good job of showing how life here focused on what the Church was doing. Even though this ethnocentric view may have lot out a lot of what was going on in other cultures, the fact that they did very much supports the fact of how much life was centered around the Church.

Basically, I’m just restating what we alrady know, but obviously the Church had a lot of control over people and what they were allowed to learn. But I think this ties in really well with how a discussion of how much things changed in the Renaissance.

In the Introduction to Renaissance Rhetoric, B&H say, “Scholasticism was commmitted to a version of Aristotelian empiricism that stressed the knowledge of external reality rather than emphasizing the mind’s power to reimaging and shape reality.” Basically, people had been told “All things come from God. Look at what God had done. Everything we have was given by God.” They de-emphasized the importance of what the human mind had or could come up with because, if everything was from God, what need was there to further the mind in other areas, it would lead to nothing.

It seems that during the Renaissance, however, that this view of thinking was kind of “turned inside out” and instead of suggesting that “God created this and that and that’s how it is…” people now had the option of thinking outside the box they’d been placed in by the Church. And with the rise of Humanism, people started to focus on their own value and capacities and not as much on the Church. Focus turned back on finding the truth and to the “good,” leading back to Cicero.

As Simon said, the church eventually did have to conform to these new Humanistic learning standards – broadening the scope of education to include training in classical rhetoric and focusing on individual talent (B&H 565) or it would have, do doubt crumbled.

It brings up and interesting question, though. Obviously many people did turn away from the Church; either to form new churches or just turned away completely. But I wonder if still others, upon being allowed to broaden their scope of education and allowing opposing viewpoints to come in may have actually noticed themselves believing more in the power of God and in the Church. I wonder if this sort of “test of faith” actually strengthened their loyalty.

KJ

The Renaissance, cont'd

I find it interesting that the Renaissance educational model had so much in common with the ancient Greeks and Romans. It's somewhat ironic that Humanism, the first great intellectual movement of the Renaissance, is credited with opening new fields of study in literature, history and science, yet the movement itself is so deeply rooted in the classical Greek and Roman learning.

Perhaps it's no coincidence that an educational structure so deeply rooted in the study and use of language produced Shakespeare.

I think it's also important to recognize who was excluded from Renaissance education - namely, everyone other than upper-class boys. Without schools of instruction that were accessible to the public, most people were unable to afford to hire private tutors for their children - especially following the ravaging, war-torn circumstances of the Middle Ages. Many others were offered only a very basic, elementary level of education. Thus, although the Renaissance is generally thought of as a time of learning and newfound discovery, it seems to have remained a limiting, stultifying period for a significant number of people.

For me, one of the most interesting sections of the text relating to Renaissance rhetoric is the discussion of Ramus and his rejection of Scholasticism. According to Bizzell, "he was one of the first academics to publish his works in the vernacular - French, in his case." It seems that this recognition of the vernacular as a medium for learning must have played an important role in making education more accessible to the masses, for one would no longer need to learn Latin or Greek to engage in the educational process.

The Renaissance

Hello! You know, I really like blogs, and I wish I used mine more.

As with akinney and Michael, I have always had a love of the Middle Ages and the Renaissance. In fact, my favorite classes have always been medieval lit courses, or Celtic mythology, or Shakespeare. In fact, I am writing my thesis on Sir Thomas Malory's Morte Darthur and its connections to J.R.R. Tolkien's The Silmarillion, which actually, now that I think about it, has some rhetorical elements to it, too. It's everywhere, isn't it? I also attend Renaissance faires whenever I can, and have a great time at them. (If you haven't been to Shrewsbury, the local summer faire, you should check it out.) My mind, for some reason, is drawn to the past, and particularly to medieval Europe. I have also taken a few courses about religion, so don’t be too surprised if this post deals with that a lot. Anyway, on with the rhetoric discussion!

So, we are talking about the rhetoric of the Renaissance. I find it very interesting that, after so many years (centuries even), thinkers could rediscover these classical works and start learning from them again. It just blows me away, to be honest, that ancient Greeks and Romans could be studied and followed so intensely after having been buried for so long. It makes me wonder if this could have happened before. Could there have been a great rhetorician before the time of Corax and Tisias? Could it have been suppressed, just as the Christians did in the Middle Ages, only to be revitalized by the Greeks? As unlikely as it sounds, I don't see why it couldn't have happened that way.

I also wonder why, after so long, ancient ideas of rhetoric were able to resurface during the Renaissance. To me, it seems as if the Middle Ages were "dark" because the Church, no doubt trying to look out for itself, tried so suppress so many resources people had for learning, not the least of which was rhetoric. Why was rhetoric dangerous to the Church? Because, if people had the knowledge to use rhetoric, they could see through the Church's ploys and resist conversion. So, when people outside of the Church were able to access the classical texts and understand what they meant, it opened a whole new way for them to resist the Church. This is what allowed Martin Luther to create one of the first Protestant faiths, after all. Is that what the Renaissance is all about, then? The ability to fight the Church? In some ways, it could be argued that this is what the “Enlightenment” referred to.

What I found most interesting, though, was the Church’s “conversion” to using many of the same educational methods that were being used in the secular arena after these classical texts became public again. It was, after all, the only way the Church could remain competitive, for lack of a better word, with the secular world. In other words, if the Church had not adopted some of these same educational ideas and techniques, it could easily have crumbled. The fact that the Church remained so adaptable during this time could be one of the only things that kept it from crumbling. In some ways, the current papacy could learn a few things from the Church of the Renaissance.

Well, I hope that I have offered some ideas for discussion and conversation. I would be interested to hear what you think about the ideas I have presented

Until next time…

Where are the Arabs?

I usually have trouble reading summaries of histories or historical movements because I see things that are omitted that I think are hugely important. In the case of this introduction, I’m left asking, “Where are the Arabs?” Bizzell and Herzberg did a lot with the few pages they allocated to this “Introduction,” but they didn’t really discuss the Arab contribution to rhetoric and learning.

I was a history major (as well as English) as an undergrad, and took a few Western Medieval History classes. If it wasn’t for Arab thought, Arab translations of ancient Greek and Roman texts, and Arab contributions to the study of education, European thought would have been a bit different. The editors do note that the Crusades led to the “introduction into Europe of Arab scholarship on classical learning, especially the teachings of Aristotle” (439). However, beyond “the contact with classical learning facilitated by the Crusades” (439), the editors don’t actually mention what Arab scholarship said or how it affected European thought. This is a gross inadequacy of this text. Unfortunately, I am too far removed from my undergraduate course to recall specifics of what we read, and also unfortunately not home to consult my history texts, so I cannot do much better than the editors in illuminating this relationship right now.

When I read the lines quoted above, I become pretty upset. The Crusades, perhaps one of the most atrocious acts, lasting four centuries, committed by Europeans, is exalted by these editors (though subtly) as a means towards reintroducing Europe to the European tradition.

As I began reading this introduction, I was actually pleased with how fair the editors seemed, especially in comparison to Murphy’s book, which I found very ethnocentric at times (in specific, I am thinking of his description of “the fifth Christian century” [Murphy 50]). However, I think it’s a huge injustice to the Medieval period to exclude discussion of Arab thought and influence.

While I’m on my “we need to be inclusive” high horse, I’ll also point out the editors’ treatment of pagans, whose “incursions plagued Europe” (438) despite the fact that the pagans constituted, at times, half of Europe. Bizzell and Herzberg make the Christian-Greco-Roman-centric assumption that Europe, throughout history, is defined by only the parts that are under Greek influence, the Roman empire, or Christian (depending on the era). I am not asking for a discussion of pagan influence on the rhetorical tradition (because perhaps it was minimal or nonexistent), but rather a fair treatment of pagans, who probably “plagued” the Christian parts of Europe no more than the Christian parts of Europe “plagued” each other.

When (if?) I get some time, I’ll try to post some stuff on the blog about Arab influences on Medievel European thought.

The Not-So-Dark Ages

I have been fascinated with the “Dark Ages” since I was a teenager, and if I could remember everything I’ve read and studied, I’d be an expert on the subject, but my memory works like a sieve. Unfortunately, I didn’t have the money to go after a degree in Medieval History. I would have loved that. Anyway, it’s always fascinating to see this dark period illuminated—no pun intended—through closer study. The Christian Church, in my opinion, took enormous advantage of the fall, or rather the slow crumble, of the Roman Empire, and in the ensuing void and chaos, took control and imposed some authority over the people of Europe and Britain. There was already a network in place, established by the Catholic Church, of monasteries and churches, as well as officials. The church was the main source of literary resources, and very few people outside of it could read or write. Also, the church, and in particular the adventuresome Irish monks, managed to salvage some of--- was it Constantine’s?—library. If not for them, we would probably have little or nothing left from the Roman ages of glory. Nothing in writing anyway. If it hadn’t been for very strong rulers like Afred, Charlemange, and dozens of others that I can’t think of, the church would probably be all powerful today, but these rulers contributed greatly to the literacy of the period in their own ways, without bowing down to the church's authority. During the dark ages, however, it was the only steady source of authority. The big question, as far as I can tell from our readings, was how to interpret the ancients, and whether their work could be used at all when those who wrote it were pagan. Augustine, interestingly, found great value in the work of Cicero and others, but he saw them as perhaps happening on their knowledge by happy accident, or by God’s mysterious grace to undeserving pagans. At any rate, he was very influential in bringing the wisdom of ancient Greece and Rome into the church.
I also find Saint Patrick’s adventures fascinating, and I’d like to learn more about Bothius. Who was the church figure who developed the Cistercian abbeys? Was he the one who had monks flagellating themselves?
The developing, newborn universities are a subject for study too. They remind me a great deal of the way the Sophists taught, without formal buildings for students to gather in. Dialectic seems to have held onto its pride of place for quite some time.
I’m looking forward to the lecture, because it’s very difficult to make sense of so many centuries in just the brief space in this introduction. And certainly, reading the intro to Augustine doesn’t give us more than the smallest taste of what he was about.

A Collage of Citations

Dr. TB asked in the previous post for me to post about my k-log. A k-log (knowledge blog) is a blog used to blog knowledge, usually research of some kind. Last quarter in English 595: Language, Technology, and Culture, I set up A Collage of Citations, which I used to blog research for that class. I've started using it for thesis ideas and for this class as well. Additionally, I've started using it to track some ideas and such that interest me or are related to my research, even if in a tangential way.

If you want to see some of the things I've written for this course, you can click on "Writing 593 (Winter 2006)" under "Categories" on the right, if you go to the blog.

Welcome to the Blogosphere, Historians of Rhetoric

I hope you haven't had any trouble accepting your class blog invitation. If you do, let me know, and I can send another invitation. Sometimes things just go wrong, and it takes a couple of tries.

As you will see, there are entries in the archives from the last class--grammar--that used this blog. Yours will be added on top.

I'd like to invite you to start blogging about the course whenever you would like. You do not have to wait for the assigned week. If something connected to the readings is on your mind, go ahead and get the conversation going.

I'd like to know how you liked "It is the Name of the Wing" by Frank Gaspar that I sent out on Blackboard. Sam, I especially thought it might connect with your paper on memory.

I'm off to another meeting, so I'll close for now. Michael, do you have a K-log going for this class? If so, would you post the link so other students can see what you are doing?
--Vicki TB