Rhetoric in European

Culture and Beyond

KAROLINUM

Ji Kraus

Rhetoric in European Culture and Beyond

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)

Charles University in Prague

Karolinum Press 2015
www.karolinum.cz
ebooks@karolinum.cz

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

4. FROM HUMANISM TO THE ENLIGHTENMENT

Rhetoric during Humanism and Renaissance .................................................... 134
Lorenzo Valla, a Renaissance Philologist ........................................................... 137
George of Trebizond ......................................................................................... 139
Byzantine Rhetoric after the Fall of Constantinople .......................................... 140
Rudolphus Agricola .......................................................................................... 143
Rhetoric in the Works of Desiderius Erasmus .................................................... 144
Philipp Melanchthons Authority of Protestant Rhetoric ................................... 148
Petrus Ramus and Omer Talon. The Tradition
of Philippo-Ramian Rhetoric Books ............................................................ 150
Francesco Patrizis Perfetta Rhetorica ................................................................ 155
5. BAROQUE RHETORIC IN SERVICE OF THE CHURCH .............................. 158
Soarezs Jesuit Rhetoric .................................................................................... 161
Caussins Figures, Symbols and Emblems ......................................................... 162
Jesuit Rhetoric in Bohemia and Poland. Bohuslav Balbn .................................. 163
Protestant Rhetoric and Preaching Textbooks ................................................... 164
Bartholomaeus Keckermann and the Gdask Rhetoric ...................................... 165
Vossiuss Rhetoric of Rhetorical Affects ............................................................. 166
Comeniuss Brethrens Rhetoric ......................................................................... 167
Religious, Political and Cultural Prerequisites
for the Rhetorical Boom in Russia and Ukraine ........................................... 172
6. SCHOLARLY COMMUNITY REPLACED BY THE REPUBLIC
OF LETTERS. PHILOSOPHY VERSUS RHETORIC
AT THE THRESHHOLD OF A NEW ERA .................................................... 177
Bacons Polemical Dialogue with Rhetoric ......................................................... 178
Hobbess Rhetoric as a Political Weapon ........................................................... 181
Bernard Lamys Cartesian Inspirations .............................................................. 182
7. TASTE NORMS AND CRITERIA IN 18TH-CENTURY RHETORIC ................. 186
Fnelons Rhetoric as an Art of Portraiture ........................................................ 187
Du Marsais and His Project of Philosophical Rhetoric ...................................... 188
Vicos Institutiones oratoriae and Project of a New Science ................................ 189
Rhetoric, Teaching Refined Taste (Bouhours, Rollin, Dubos) ............................ 190
Adam Smith and Scottish Rhetoric ................................................................... 192
Rhetoric in Spain and Gregorio Mayans y Siscar ............................................... 196
Philological Orientation of Rhetoric in Germany
Johann Christoph Gottsched ....................................................................... 198
Lomonosov and the Development of Classicism in Russia ................................. 200
8. RHETORIC IN THE 19TH CENTURY ............................................................ 203
Friedrich Nietzsche and the Philosophy of Rhetoric .......................................... 206
19th-Century Rhetoric in France. Fontaniers Semantic Theory
of Tropes and Figures .................................................................................. 208
19th-Century Rhetoric in England. Whately, Bain, Spencer ................................ 211

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

HISTORY OF RHETORIC AMOTIONLESS HISTORY?

The content of rhetorical formulas, the normal method of their arrangement

and the terminology used have not changed substantially for over two and
ahalf thousand years. The path man has taken from the theme of speech to
its acoustic and written representation has also remained unchanged. In September 1416, after an intensive search which enlivened their participation in
the Council of Constance, Humanists Poggio Bracciolini, Cincio Romano
and Bartolomeo Montepulciano discovered the manuscript of the complete
version of Quintilians Institutio oratoria (Institutes of Oratory) in the Abbey
of St. Galls dark cellar. This manuscript, which was more than thirteen-hundred years old, became for them and their contemporaries not only asource
of knowledge about the admired past, but also ahighly prestigious source
on the norms of contemporary literary language. Asimilar situation also
occurred one hundred years later when Bishop Gerardo Landriani found
Ciceros dialogue De oratore (On the Orator) among ancient manuscripts
in the north-Italian city of Lodi, atext which had until then been known
only in an incomplete and distorted version. The discovery was immediately
followed by awave of Ciceronianism, which resulted in numerous commentaries on Cicero as well as in the production of Cicero-inspired handbooks
cultivating the language and style of the cultural elite of the time. Umberto
Eco, arepresentative of modern semiotics, attributes an even longer span of
norm-setting influence to Aristotles Poetics and Rhetoric. Eco cites many theoretical and artistic works along with movements in modern linguistics and
literary criticism which are Aristotelian in their spirit, aims, results, and ambiguities.1 The listed sources include Poes Philosophy of Composition, Warren
and Welleks Theory of Literature, Russian Formalism, the Prague School,
New Criticism, the Chicago School and motifs in Joyces artistic work.
Rhetorics defiance of change throughout history is not only due to the
unexpected appearance of canonical works of Greek and Roman antiquity,
representing radically different historical and cultural contexts, however,

Introduction

/10/

what is even more striking is the unchanged format of rhetoric textbooks,

which have solidified over centuries. They lack original ideas, repeating
the same phrases, examples, anecdotes. In his La Rhtorique, ou les Rgles de
leloquence (1730), Balthasar Gilbert, ateacher of rhetoric in Mazarin College at the University of Paris, proudly announces that he is not presenting
unproven rules, but that instead he follows the steps of classical authors,
such as Aristotle, Cicero and Quintilian (Nous ne promettons donc pas ici des
Rgles que personne nait encore donn: au contraire, nous faisons gloire de ne
suivre, en cette matire, que les traces des Anciens).
The difference between rhetoric textbooks thus generally lies in accentuating different elements of exposition. The sum of these differences, in fact,
demonstrates an apparent shift through history. Rhetoric as apractical set of
instructions for effective communication is interspersed with the reflections
of contemporary philosophers and thinkers focusing on linguistic and literary style, the logic of the line of reasoning, the psychology of persuasion,
and the education of future intellectuals, politicians, advocates and officials.
Rhetoric teaches us how to compose texts as well as how to understand
both contemporary and historical literature, how to understand the norms
which determine the process of language stylization. Over the course of its
long history, rhetoric has ceased to be merely alanguage about alanguage
(ametalanguage) of exclusively public speeches delivered in political gatherings or before the court, and has changed into ametalanguage of stages
in the development of culture and civilization. It has thus become the key
to interpreting texts, works of art, communication activities and to understanding the principles of communication in general.
The very role of the cultural metalanguage, however, is itself subject
to change. The strategies essential to rhetorics art of composing an effectiveand appropriate speech or awritten work were applied wherever
style as aset method of choosing and organizing means of expression using
aparticular repertoire (words, colours, shapes, tones) was essential. Some
strategies and rules came to existence in the democracies of antiquity and
in imperial Rome, others in the Middle Ages, the Renaissance, baroque,
classical eras and yet others have been brought about in the present time.
Giorgio Vasari, an Italian mannerist and arts historian, added that this set
of rules also contains licences, intentional exceptions from the rules and
deformations.
The process of accepting or rejecting rhetoric textbooks displays considerably greater developmental dynamics than their form and organiza-

 /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/

rhetoric either in the number of its practitioners or in its immediate social

effects.3
We can find several reasons why, from the first half of the 17th century,
rationalism and enlightenment led, intentionally or subconsciously, first to
limiting the influence of rhetoric and later to its almost total demise:
(a) The character of expert and scientific, legal and political speeches
changed. Knowledge and conviction were no longer born in arguments, nor
were they based in the confrontation of alternative opinions and the ability
to convince the counterpart, but instead it was formed as aresult of atrain
of thought, which was based on rational judgement or the analysis of proven
empirical facts. The imagery arising from the application of rhetorical rules
and the dependence on canonical models gave way to the clarity and sobriety of style. This resulted in the emergence of new stylistic models. Science
was characterized by an increasing optimistic belief in the unlimited nature
of human cognition.
(b) Rhetorics decline can also be attributed to book printing and ageneral growth in literacy. As the market for books, encyclopaedias and specialized journals grew and as the role of human memory and spoken language
in official contact declined, rhetoric began to drown in asea of printersink.
(c) Originality became newly valued, and came to replace the imitatio
method, imitating recognized models. Romanticism created ademand for
stylistic innovation in fiction based on the innovative rendering of individual experiences. Science, on the other hand, was marked by efforts to form
ones own perception of the world based on empirically collected material
or on ones own logical assessment. At the beginning of the 16th century in
his Il Principe (The Prince), the Renaissance politician Niccolo Machiavelli
intentionally digressed from the established rhetorical model of the moralizing mirrors for rulers (speculum regis) and, with mathematical precision
elaborated astrategy for political struggle consistently aiming to achieve
aset goal: aper fas et nefas victory, avictory by any and every means.
(d) The unity of the international community of learned men fell apart.
The role of Latin was replaced by national languages, which gradually developed their own refined and literary forms. An international version of
Latin was no longer the ideal of the time, which was instead represented
by the distinctiveness of many languages and many cultures. It was also
through legislation that national languages gradually took up their place
in official public communications. Any attempt to refute this development
by constructing artificial languages for international communication failed.

 /13/

The return to asingle language of international communication did not

occur until the second half of the 20th century, when this role was assumed
by English.
(e) The birth of historical and comparative linguistics shifted researchers interest towards the study of the inner laws of language development,
primarily in phonetics and grammar. The rise of Indo-European studies and
historical-comparative linguistics as anew philological discipline striving to
discover the oldest documented or reconstructed stages of the linguistic system caused arevolution in learning about language and its laws. The regard
for the functionally differentiated linguistic discourse as the main object of
rhetoric began to disappear and an attempt to create an exact description
of the language took the place of older, normative approaches. As rhetoric
was fundamentally more limited to aset of practical advice and instructions,
it ceased to be considered an equal component of philological research and
gradually lost its scientific ambitions.
It was philosophers in particular who reacted to this development. John
Locke called rhetoric apowerful instrument of error and deceit, while
Kant criticized it for manipulation and rejected it as atool for critical communication, which was the mission of an independent thinker. Leibnitz and
his followers set out the idea of an artificial language, freed from the temptations of rhetorical imagery, polysemy and manipulation.
The above causes, which originated during the Enlightenment, have,
however, begun to lose their power since the second half of the 20th century
and, amovement accelerating at the threshold of the third millennium even
to the extent that each has been transforming into its very opposite. In this
context, the world marked by postmodern discourse has been witnessing
the return of rhetoric. There are several reasons:
(a) Specialized discourse has become rhetorized: it has been losing its
impartiality and objectivity, and reflects an effort to understand the openness and plurality of the world, to express apersonal attitude and apersonal
responsibility for the problem being addressed. Science has been increasingly lending more legitimacy to questions with alternative solutions which
are intelligible only within their respective contexts or paradigms. The conviction that scientific knowledges objectivity is an illusion has been gaining
strength. It is remarkable that this view is also held by representatives of
natural and physical sciences, not merely by those in social sciences. The
role of axiological statements, paradoxes, chance, probability, alternatives
and respect for different world views has been growing. There is anew phe-

Introduction

/14/

nomenon: an individual, subjective scientific style which intends not only to

describe and analyze, but also to persuade on issues which lack adefinitive
solution. This style is also often conditioned by the nature of the language,
national traditions and culture. In adirect continuation of the paradigms of
ancient rhetoric, philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche is the person who formed
the modern roots of this pluralist perception of reality.
(b) Thanks to television and numerous new information technologies,
public communication at the end of the century rediscovered the role of oral
discourse. The primary form of public communication by scientists, politicians, and representatives of the economic and financial spheres is usually
spoken; after all, the speed and readiness of the computer and communications technologies have, to alarge extent, erased the traditional differences
between the written and spoken language. As was the case of the audience
at Athens Agora or the Roman Forum, modern TV viewers can also register every gesture, every tone of voice employed by the people who speak
to them, wanting to persuade them, win their support, make the viewers
remember them.
(c) Intertextuality has become an important value: both authors and
interpreters of artistic or political texts use quotes, paraphrases, intentional
and unconscious allusions to other texts. Communication is thus enriched
by another type of context awareness: interdiscursivity, in other words, associating texts with established genre or stylistic models, simultaneously
in imitation and disruption of traditional means of expression. Imitatio, an
ancient rhetorical principle, has thus been revived and has become both
acommunication device and strategy.
(d) Media, particularly television channels, have created anew type of
supranational auditorium bringing events, whose consequences may affect the viewers at any moment, closer. As was the case of ancient Latin
or Greek, within this community there are also tendencies strengthening
the role oflanguages utilized in international communication; the status of
English has been growing stronger in reflection of the worlds increasing
globalization.
(e) The renaissance of rhetoric has also been supported by the turn towards communication in contemporary linguistics. Language is now more
often being studied in pragmatic, social, logical, psychological and philosophical contexts. It was the importance of context that was anticipated by
rhetorics accentuation of mastering the mutually permeating disciplines of
the trivium.

 /15/

It is therefore not surprising that the expression rhetoric, with its

many and often contradictory meanings, has lately been spreading quickly
through the languages of science, mass media, and everyday speech. There
is a growing and legitimate concern that every person understands and
judges this discipline differently. We can hear voices calling for modern
rhetoric, in terms of language, ideas and ethics, to be elevated to amore sophisticated form in public speeches and communication in general, but also
those that reject rhetoric as asynonym for ballast, bamboozling, insincerity
or intentionally false argumentation.
This discrepancy in the perception of rhetoric is partially due to its status
in the history of European education. The ability to communicate efficiently
was always perceived as an indispensable part of apersons and citizens
education, as the necessary first stage of mastering practical and theoretical
knowledge, as part of an active as well as contemplative life. However, rhetoric as aschool discipline often succumbed to routine and pedantry. These
increased particularly in periods in which freedom of speech as an inseparable attribute of democracy and aprecondition of astatesmans activity
and acitizens involvement had to give way to the rigid ceremoniousness of
speeches strengthening the idea of the unchangeability of the social order.
The contemporary renaissance of rhetoric as adiscipline whose content
and terminology have been preserved without major change for over two
and ahalf thousand years seems surprising. This is principally attributable
to the fact that it has been inspired not only by the effort to better understand the history of human communication, but also by the content of the
disciplines which are predominantly related to the modern development
of society, such as the theory of communication, media studies, marketing,
persuasive strategies, advertising, argumentation theory, speech act analysis
and others.
We have mentioned the causes for this renaissance, which can also be
seen in the rapidly growing bibliography of the discipline. We should add
the topicality of the issue and the historically preconditioned transformation
of rhetorics central theme: speech, oratio. Not only speech as the generally
understood result of the human ability to communicate and achieve understanding, but also as areflection of particular conditions which determine
the quality and efficiency of an utterance as to its content and function,
and further with respect to the situation in which acommunication act is
taking place. In accordance with the content of the fundamental summarizing work of ancient rhetorical culture, Quintilians Institutio oratoria, these

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/

according to Plato, be based directly on the orators responsibility for his

words and acts.
An ethical dilemma also arose in the relation between rhetoric and theology. Many Church Fathers, educated in the spirit of classical Greek and
Latin learning, painfully, even existentially, realized that this education
andculture was pagan and hostile. In this lies the dichotomy between their
proclamations against rhetoric and the need, which they plainly acknowledged, to use this knowledge in a preachers practice and for exegetical
exposition. This need was often accompanied by an admiration for both
beloved classical authors and for the power and appeal of their words. The
controversy over whether or not the Bible, and the New Testament in particular, should be included in the list of the canonical classical writers recognized as either rhetorical or linguistic and stylistic models, affected most
Christian authors in the 4th and 5th centuries. This controversial approach
is particularly symptomatic of St. Augustin, his contemporaries and close
followers, but it also appears much later. Even Comenius in his text AReport
and Lesson on Preaching, whose content and organization reveal consistent
knowledge of ancient models, outwardly turns away from rhetoric: And so
that who wants to speak from Gods place shall not use his own, or Ciceros,
or some courtly words, but words of the Holy Spirit.4
When speaking about the connections between rhetoric and ethics, we
must not neglect rhetorics role in achieving social consensus. This role had
anecessary precondition: the freedom of speech granting every citizen the
right to participate in public life and defend himself in court. Ancient rhetoric is rooted in Athenian democracy and in the political and judicial practice
of republican Rome. Consul Crassus, the main orator in Ciceros dialogue
De oratore says: nothing seems to me anobler ambition than to be 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. This art of all others has
ever found its fullest development in every free community, and more especially in states enjoying peace and tranquillity, and has ever exercised adominant influence (I.8). Any suppression of the freedom of speech led either
to the end of rhetoric or to its transformation into aset of instructions, into
superficial speech mannerism without much content.
In our effort to define rhetoric in this opening chapter, we naturally cannot avoid asearch for asatisfactory reply to the highly topical question of
whether the subjects of this discipline are orally delivered speeches exclusively or whether its rules apply across the entire range of persuasive com-

 /19/

munication, spoken and written, or even discourses carried out exclusively

in writing, such as diplomatic correspondence, historical documents, genres
of an artistic nature and others. The study of circumstances which led to the
birth of rhetoric as well as the study of the oldest classical texts leads us to
the conclusion that the beginnings of rhetoric are associated with the era of
Homers Greece, with its exclusively oral culture, but that it soon also included the written word. When linking Athenian rhetoric with the practical
activities of logographers, people who would compose speeches for their
clients (or even wrote them out entirely) and then helped them to memorize
the speech and practice its delivery, there is no reason to think that rhetoric
would focus solely on spoken language.
This development is to amuch larger extent linked with how Hellenistic
authors of rhetoric examined not only the advisory, judicial and celebratory
discourses, which were primarily shaped to be delivered orally, but also the
artistic, epistolary, historiographic, philosophical and scientific ones. The
gradual transition from the typically spoken, paratactically arranged sentence units, which were easier to remember, to amore demanding syntactic
structure which reveals the possible existence of aprimary written model
is evident in the languistic means. The study of ancient and later sources
reveals that many speeches by famous orators of Greek antiquity which have
been preserved in written form were never publicly delivered and thus were
intentionally created to be works of literature. Isocratess Panathenaicus was
said to have taken three years to write, while the completion of his Panegyricus, which was famous for its subtle argumentation and the elaborate
rhythmic structure of the text, allegedly took ten years. However, records of
preserved speeches must be generally understood as the outcome of later editing, either carried out by the author himself or someone else. Stenographical records of public speeches are somewhat more authentic. The history of
shorthand mentions, for example, Marcus Tullius Tiro, Ciceros secretary,
known for Tironian notes. Even in this case, the original text was linguistically adjusted and these adjustments affected both the factual content and
the stylistic effect of the speech.
Rhetoric became particularly closely connected with written texts at the
peak of the Middle Ages, when it was called ars dictaminis and when private
as well as official (diplomatic, in particular) correspondence was its subject.
Ars dictaminis or the art of letter writing (from the Latin verb dictare, which
means not only to dictate, but also to write and produce literary texts, cf.
dichten in German) emerged in Italy (in Bologna and Monte Cassino) in the

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/

If ancient and, later, Renaissance authors ever paid attention to dialogical

situations, rather than their language features, they praised the relaxed atmosphere and friendly spirit, which should prevail, the desire to explain mutual contradictions (to achieve harmony in dissonance), or the willingness to
accompany the conversation with aglass of wine, good food and the joy of
the surrounding beautiful countryside or architecture. This is suggested by
the names of dialogic genres: convivium, colloquium (inter nos), disputationes
matutinae, in Greek: symposion, deipnon (feast). Thus systematic expositions
in rhetoric textbooks utilized the language of dialogues (sermocinatio in Latin) to adopt only those fixed tropes and figures of speech which give the impression that the orator is the listeners equal, that he converses with them.
The classification of liberal arts (artes liberales) understood by ancient
authors to be mans intellectual creative activities pursued in his free time
determines rhetorics status. In its essence, this discipline, along with acting, dance, singing, recitation, sports achievements, is one of practical arts
(technai praktikai, artes in agendo positae), based on performing aparticular
activity (actio). In rhetoric, this activity is demonstrated through delivery,
whose effect is based on the acoustic properties of speech, gestures and
facial expressions. Efforts to preserve the delivered speech, and many authors even wrote texts without requiring they be delivered orally (Isocrates,
Lysias), included rhetoric among the arts targeting amaterial product (technai poitikai, artes in effectu positae). This product was apiece of work, opus,
created by an author, artifex, complying with certain rules, praecepta. Unlike
practical arts, in which the spectator or listener, spectator or auditor, encounters anarrative, which is only preserved in his memory, the reader of poetry,
along with the observer of sculptures, paintings and buildings, can return to
these works because they are always available to him. Finally, rhetoric also
belongs among the theoretical arts (technai theretikai, artes in inspectione rerum positae), which are based on observing and evaluating things. It focuses
neither on the actor, the orator, actor, athlete, nor on the artifex, the poet,
painter, sculptor, composer, as was the case in the previous categories, but
rather on the reader and listener (theros), who may be alay observer, but
also acritic or qualified researcher. The almost two-and-a-half-thousandyear development of rhetoric is thus marked by the alternating accentuation
of its affiliation with the first, second or third category of human skills.
The history of rhetoric is, in fact, ahistory of the culture of apublic
discourse. This also means that the contemplations of the first generation
authors of books on rhetoric with striking accuracy anticipated the content

Introduction

/22/

of disciplines whose paradigms were formed much later. Ancient rhetoric

gave rise, directly or indirectly, to linguistic and literary stylistics, biblical
exegesis and hermeneutics, the semiotics and the science of language communication, speech act theory and pragmatics, linguistics and text theory,
the knowledge which was attained by sociolinguistics, media studies, ethnolinguistics and psycholinguistics. Rhetoric is distinguished from these disciplines by aclear normative character, an effort to improve communication
and achieve efficient and aesthetically perfect speech. Aperfect orator, perfectus orator, is rhetorics ideal. When following the history of this discipline,
we learn more about him and his intention than about the very speech and
orators practice and about the paths along which it developed. However,
even the transformations of this ideal are based on experience and demonstrate how deeply human speech is anchored in the reality that surrounds us.
The title of this book, Rhetoric in European Culture and Beyond, begs two
more reflections, whose content Iwill here only present in brief.
The first is based in the answer to the question of whether rhetoric was
born exclusively from European antiquity or whether we should also talk
about rhetorical traditions outside Europe, sprouting from different sources. If we understand rhetoric as areflection of alanguage in its persuasive
role, which is historically contingent and which arose from aparticular cultural context, then it is truly aheritage of antiquity, which, however, overflowed Europes borders on many occasions. We should remember, at the
very least, Arabic commentators on Aristotles Rhetoric, the remarkable extent of Jesuit education based on rhetoric, which imbued areas from South
America to Portuguese Goa, as well as the revival of interest in rhetoric
at the end of the first third of the 20th century, which was primarily based
on works by North-American literary scientists and philosophers, as well
as onthe examination of poetic and rhetorical language in the school of
the Russian Formalists. However, if we identify the importance attached
to thenotion of rhetoric with speech practice, or more precisely with the
prevalent conventions and rules of the narrative and persuasive discourse,
then metonymical phrases, including Indian rhetoric, Arabic rhetoric, Chinese rhetoric, Japanese rhetoric, and Native American rhetoric, with their
many differences due to ethnicity, culture and system of logical thinking,
seem justified and can be supported by an extensive bibliography. The last
chapter in this book is devoted to this issue.
The second reflection is associated with the topicality of rhetoric as adiscipline, which for long centuries united European culture, thus aiding in the

 /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.

1. THE ORIGIN OF RHETORIC IN ANCIENT GREECE

THE SEARCH FOR TECHN

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/

speeches, often recognized as practical models for further speech making,

were preserved in libraries and even traded. Oldest among the canon of
ancient orators was Antiphon of Ramnos (ca. 480411 BCE), asupporter
of the oligarchic Four Hundred government, which was later overthrown.
His works were compiled by Caecilius of Calacte at the beginning of the
modern era. Three of his court speeches concerning murders, along with
15 speeches written for other occasions, have been preserved in full and
another 60 are known of either from fragments or by name. Antiphon was
also possibly the first orator who preserved his court speeches in writing
and sold them for money, as was ironically noted in Aristophaness comedy
The Wasps (422 BCE).
From the outset, however, rhetoric did not include all speech functions,
and instead primarily focused on those aiming to influence the audience at
aparticular moment and through particular circumstances surrounding the
speech. It was the orators task to take advantage of anything that could
help persuade the audience in the given situation. The earliest teachers of
rhetoric did not merely formulate the principles of an effective speech, but
also persuaded the audience that these principles could be learnt at school.
The Czech philosopher Jan Patoka characterized the dissemination of ancient rhetoric in the following manner: Educating people to enable them
to engage in political life, to provide them with an instrument for success in
this life primarily meant teaching them rhetorical skills, teaching them the
power of speech.6
Since its outset, rhetoric has been based on two fundamental prerequisites: freedom of speech, parrsia, and freedom to act, which allowed the
audience to lean towards the most persuasive of the possible behavioural
variants, towards the best of presented arguments, without being forced
to take aparticular stance. Rhetoric thus does not concern the domain of
irrefutable knowledge, apodeixis, or threats and verbal violence, instead it
focuses on the area of opinion, doxa. Stoic philosopher Zeno of Citium illustrated the difference between dialectic, whose realm consists of irrefutable
propositions, and rhetoric, which seeks what appears probable (eikos), by
comparing the symbol of afirmly closed fist (asuccession of logical proofs)
with the symbol of an open hand (the strategic arrangement of rhetorical arguments). The etymology of the Greek words peithein, to persuade,
and pistis, persuasion, are close in meaning to the Latin word fides, faith,
clearly expressing the extent of freedom and personal involvement which
distinguishes the subject matter of rhetoric from what aman perceives as

1. The Origin of Rhetoric in Ancient Greece

/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

1. The Origin of Rhetoric in Ancient Greece

/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/

their opponents, as it was they who, in their works, preserved statements of

the earliest Sophist exponents, albeit in escalated or ironical form. Harsh
condemnations of Sophists and their concept of rhetoric is an omnipresent
theme throughout Platos dialogues, who thus stands at the outset of longterm conflict between rhetoric and philosophy. In reality, however, the contradiction between the Sophists epistemological relativism and the constant
realm of Platos ideas attest to the fact that this concerns aconflict within
philosophy itself which has continued to the present day.
Only recently have researchers such as Hans Blumenberg7 credited the
Sophist merit with turning the attention of Greek philosophy from cosmogonic and metaphysical questions to everyday problems and free discussions
on civic matters. Blumenberg realized that as long as man strove to grasp
the world in its totality through philosophy and as long as he needed to
reassure himself of the existence of the unchangeable metaphysical truth,
sophistry must have represented adeterrent careless error in the matters of
spiritual life and morals.
PROTAGORASS AGONISTIC RHETORIC

Considering that rhetoric coalesced as a discipline relatively late, the

teaching of Protagoras of Abdera, representative of the first generation
of Sophists (some believe he lived between 485415 BCE, others between
500430 BCE), are not associated with rhetoric as techn, but rather with the
fact that this philosopher, for the first time in history, examined language,
logos, as an independent subject of research. Language loses its seemingly
unproblematic nature and becomes an important tool of framing strategic
behaviour. Protagoras does not consider meaning to be the reflection of
an unchanging concept of athing, rather that it takes on its own life and
changes in the process of communication and interpretation. In his teaching, Protagoras thus anticipated the thesis that the use of language is not
aneutral and transparent reflection of inherent semantics, but is instead
intentional or unintentional influencing, which is part of the battle (agn)
between the two participants in acontroversy. This leads to an interest in
cultivating dialectic skills in adiscourse which manipulates words and potentially even transform their meanings to their very opposite. This manipulation is applied in monologues as well as in solving aproblem through
dialogue, asking short, and often artful and leading questions, which later
came to be known as the Sokratikos logos.

1. The Origin of Rhetoric in Ancient Greece

/30/

Protagoras believed that rhetorical and political skills (aret) could be

acquired through systematic teaching and practice. This idea could be fully
developed only after rhetoric had elaborated its own system based on the
arrangement of speech, the semiotic relation between the form and meaning
of words, as well as the laws of dialectics. Protagoras favoured analogy as
amethod of argumentation.
Protagoras made aspecial contribution to Sophistic rhetoric with his
three claims. The first is the homo mensura maxim, the second is the notion
of duo logoi and, finally, the claim that an orator must be able to make the
weaker argument appear the stronger.
Czech philosopher Jan Patoka sees the importance of Protagorass claim
that man is the measure of all things (pantn tn chrmatn anthrpos metron
estin); of things that are not, that they are not; of things that are that they
are in that no matter what one chooses from reality, no matter whether
he means it in this or the opposite manner, every opinion will always be
legitimate in it.8 This potential for conflict is developed by another of Protagorass claims: every argument can be met with acounterargument (dissoi
logoi). However, this does not mean that both arguments are of equal value.
An orator has to ensure that the argument he supports does not ultimately
end in adisadvantage, even though it may be or seem to be weaker. This
is the origin of Protagorass frequently criticized requirement ton hett logon kreit poein, to make aweaker argument stronger. The attribute weaker does not necessarily mean, as Protagoras in particular and Sophists in
general were reproached, that it is afalse argument or an argument that is
morally unjustifiable. On the other hand, logos may become weaker due to
various external and unfavourable circumstances. And this is where the
importance of rhetoric, the art of orators logos, lies: making the issue at
stake valid under any circumstances,9 says Patoka highlighting Protagorass lawyers mentality and lawyers philosophy.
Protagorass claim regarding the contrast between stronger and weaker
logoi leads to the conclusion that any decision regarding the validity of either
one can only be made through aclash of arguments, through efficient work
(poein). This is where the art of persuasion through efficient speech, the art
of rhetoric, has its origins.
The homo mensura claim has also been subject to many analyses and interpretations throughout the history of philosophy (Taureck, 1995). While
in the past, many philosophers considered this to be one of the most ancient formulae of gnoseological relativism, contemporary scholars continue

 /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

1. The Origin of Rhetoric in Ancient Greece

/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/

ANCIENT RHETORIC AS AMODEL OF PERSUASIVE COMMUNICATION

Preserved extracts of Sophists works demonstrate that they were concerned

with educating people in order to play an active role in political life. Asuccessful politicians main tool was mastering the power of speech as had been
proved by Empedocles, aphilosopher and polymath from Acragas, who had
developed aliterary tradition of effective oratory which was once typical of
the wise old men in Homer and Hesiods works. It was Empedocless school
that Gorgias and Protagorass work was based on.
When comparing Protagorass and Gorgiass teaching of persuasive
speech, we can see one fundamental difference despite the many shared features. According to Protagoras, the speaker and listener can exchange roles,
their behaviour is based on symmetry represented by adialogue in which
each party tries to assert their view, each wants to dominate their partner
and opponent, to influence their opinion through the quest for the best possible arguments. Gorgiass orator, on the other hand, stands high above the
audience and is able to manipulate them thanks to his mastery of the art of
words and the ability to use logical proofs and paradoxes. The relation here
is one of asymmetry, along with amonologue characterized by the orators
virtuosity and the audiences speechless astonishment and admiration. It is
both the apparent and the hidden presence in both these models, adaptable
to any communicative situation, that concurrently anticipate the entire future development of rhetoric.
Sophist instruction was based on atechnique using the analysis and imitation of examples. This is also indicated in preserved texts, such as Dissoi logoi, acollection of opposing arguments, written around 400 BCE and
challenging the moral contrast between good and evil, beauty and ugliness,
justice and injustice, and Antiphons Tetralogy, acollection of court cases in
which arguments in favour of acertain view alternate with those against
it. The prooimia, examples of introductory speech sections and ascribed
to Demosthenes, represents asimilar textbook. Similarly, it is likely that
both preserved declamations by Gorgias had the function of paignion or jeu
desprit, sample texts for stylistic practice. Eristic exchanges (eris, wrangle,
strife) as described by Plato in his dialogue Euthydemos also frequently had
the character of paignia. Eristic practice focused primarily on the technique
of argumentation and finding solutions to logical paradoxes and polysemy.
The Sophists educational practice, which was based on the principle of
the capacity to learn Greek aret, along with their focus on the technical

1. The Origin of Rhetoric in Ancient Greece

/34/

aspects of persuasion, stylisation and logical formalism exposed rhetoric to

fundamental criticism from philosophers. This criticism is most relentless
and most forthright in Platos work.
PLATOS UNENDING DISPUTE WITH RHETORIC

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/

only through philosophical understanding. No speech contains absolute

truth, the most it can do is strive for truth, which is why it cannot be communicated in complete form, it may only stir up the listener to participate in
the search. Platos attitude to rhetoric is revealed in his Theaetetus dialogue,
in which he seeks an answer to the question of what knowledge (epistm)
is and how it is approached differently by the Sophists and philosophers.
The identification of real knowledge through personal experience, as professed by Protagoras, is deceptive because, based on sensory perception of
changing things, we can merely form an opinion, not acquire real and true
knowledge.
Despite his open hostility to rhetoric, Plato was deeply interested in its
technical aspects, particularly in dialectical thinking, the meaning of words
and the structure of speeches. This is demonstrated both in the stylistic and
compositional brilliance of his texts and examples of the speeches Socrates,
his main protagonist, delivers (such as the funeral oration in Menexenus or
the celebration of love in Phaedrus). In both the Cratylus and the philosophical digressions in the Seventh Letter, he argues against the claim that words
are the only and reliable means of knowing reality. This dialogue furthers
an old dispute brought forth from Sophists as to whether awords form is
predicated by its meaning or created by convention. In Plato, words are
not exact copies of things and so they do not represent the substance of
existence, and instead merely serve as one of the tools for learning about it.
It is thanks to Cratylus that we are fully able to understand Platos opinions
of rhetoric. For Sophists, words were something whose meaning was to be
constantly renewed, something also encroached upon by logical paradoxes
and semantic shifts. Words are employed more to influence listeners than
they are to label. Plato, however, is convinced that using linguistic means
acting in the service of the truth that is being discovered.
Plato voices his criticism of rhetoric most openly in his dialogue Gorgias,
seeing in rhetoric the danger that it can enable an ignorant person to be
more persuasive than aknowledgeable one. If aspeaker does not have true
knowledge of the thing itself, rhetoric becomes amere knack (empeiria),
equal to cookery, which simply produces pleasing and agreeable sensations
through flattery. Pleasure as aresult of ingratiating flattery does not, however, protect from lies and so it is not equal in meaning to good (agathon),
which is aspiritual value, an achievement of order in both the human soul
and universe. This notion of good can only be attained through dialectic
contemplation, based on modesty (sofrsyn) and far from the swings of spir-

1. The Origin of Rhetoric in Ancient Greece

/36/

it and passions that characterize Gorgiasian effusiveness. The end of the

dialogue rejects rhetoric on the grounds that, although it does attempt to
defend people against injustice, it is incapable of eradicating something far
worse: committing injustice.
Unlike Gorgias, Phaedrus, which was probably written later,13 acknowledges rhetoric as an option. In Phaedrus, Plato continues to reject the Sophists rhetoric, instead outlining aphilosophers rhetoric which enables the
soul to access the truth embodied in the ideas of justice, good and beauty.
An orator should not persuade their listeners of the existence of these ideas,
but rather lead their souls to recall them.
We shall endeavour to construct the techn of this ideal rhetoric based
on Platos dialogues. According to its strictures, an orator should be able to
dialectically define anotion, divide (diatemnein) it into genera and species,
understand both the role of definition and the logical relations between
notions (koinnia).
His teachings regarding the soul and varieties of human nature occupy
an important place in Platos system of rhetorical knowledge. In Phaedrus,
Socrates says Oratory is the art of enchanting the soul, and therefore he
who would be an orator has to learn the differences of human souls they
are so many and of such anature, and from them come the differences between man and man. Having proceeded thus far in his analysis, he will next
divide speeches into their different classes: Such and such persons, he
will say, are affected by this or that kind of speech in this or that way, and
he will tell you why. The pupil must have agood theoretical notion of them
first, and then he must have experience of them in actual life, and be able to
follow them with all his senses about him, or he will never get beyond the
precepts of his masters. But when he understands what persons are persuaded by what arguments, and sees the person about whom he was speaking
in the abstract actually before him, and knows that it is he, and can say to
himself, This is the man or this is the character who ought to have acertain
argument applied to him in order to convince him of acertain opinion;
he who knows all this, and knows also when he should speak and when he
should refrain, and when he should use pithy sayings, pathetic appeals, sensational effects, and all the other modes of speech which he has learned;
when, Isay, he knows the times and seasons of all these things, then, and
not till then, he is aperfect master of his art(Plat. Phaedrus 271c272b).
Socratess criticism of Lysiass paean to love in Phaedrus is aremarkable
example of the stylistic analysis of aspeech (many researchers agree that the

 /37/

quoted examples in reality represent aselection from several of Lysiass texts

compiled by Plato). Essentially, it is acomparative analysis as, throughout the dialogue, the same subject matter is addressed by Socrates himself.
His young partner in discussion, Phaedrus, at first does not hide that he is
thrilled by Lysiass composition, he has even copied the text and learned
it by heart. Socrates, on the other hand, only hesitantly acknowledges to
aportion of its merits, in which we are able to identify aspects of stylistic
evaluation used at the time: it is comprehensible (safe), concise (strongyla),
each word is chosen carefully and accurately (akribis)14. He is, however, not
satisfied with the arrangement, the structure of the text: Ithought [] that
he repeated himself two or three times, either from want of words or from
want of pains (Plat. Phaedrus235a).
To me he ostentatiously appeared to exult in showing how well he could
say the same thing in two or three ways (Plat. Phaedrus235a). Socrates
then presents his own elaboration on the theme and summarizes his perception on text composition, pointing out the importance of dividing according to different contexts and along natural formations, locating the
natural intersections, not breaking any part as abad carver might (Plat.
Phaedrus265c). Plato again summarizes his concept of rhetoric in Phaedrus
by emphasizing the necessity of aphilosophical base in the art of oratory:
Until aman knows the truth of the several particulars of which he is
writing or speaking, and is able to define them as they are, and having defined them again, to divide them until they can be no longer divided, and
until in like manner he is able to discern the nature of the soul, and discover
the different modes of discourse which are adapted to different natures,
and to arrange and dispose of them in such away that the simple form of
speech may be addressed to simpler nature, and the complex and composite
to more complex nature until he has accomplished all this, he will be unable to handle arguments according to the rules of art, as far as their nature
allows them to be subjected to art, either for the purpose of teaching or
persuading (Plat. Phaedrus277b277c).
It may not be surprising if we conclude our exposition on Platos rhetoric
by saying that its communication model is as asymmetric and unidirectional
as that of Gorgias. Unlike Gorgias, whose superiority is based in the magic
and virtuosity of speech, Socrates finds his confidence through dialectical
contemplation and an understanding of philosophy. The strategy of Socratesian reasoning, however, does not allow his partner to become an equal
participant in the dialogue, instead directing him to the pre-determined

1. The Origin of Rhetoric in Ancient Greece

/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

1. The Origin of Rhetoric in Ancient Greece

/40/

to instruction, and to human life in general. Since there is innate in us

the ability to persuade each other and to reveal to ourselves the things we
wish, not only have we put off the life of wild beasts, but we have come
togetherandfounded cities; we have established laws and discovered arts
(Nic.6).
The crisis in Athenian society, polarized into the rich and the poor and
under threat of attack from the Persians, compelled Isocrates to engage in
politics. In his speech On the Exchange of Properties and in Panegyricus, he
considers the art of the speech to be the basis of politics. It is the goal of politics to strive for social harmony (homonoia). With this faculty we both contend against others on matters which are open to dispute (amfisbetesimon)
and seek light for ourselves on things which are unknown; for the same
arguments which we use in persuading others when we speak in public, we
employ also when we deliberate in our own thoughts; and, while we call
eloquent those who are able to speak before acrowd, we regard as sage (eubuloi) those who most skilfully debate (dialechthsin) their problems in their
own minds (Isoc. 15.256). Thanks to man having mastered the power to
persuade and inform others of the goal of his efforts, he stopped living like
awild animal and started to live in communities, founded cities, formulated
laws and invented many arts. Thanks to speech he could contribute to the
social intellect, defined as logos. By learning to speak well (eu legein), man
opened aportal for philosophy in practical life and created the conditions
for mutual understanding (tou fronein eu) among all people.
In the history of rhetoric, Isocrates was the first writer to promote individual features of public speech. According to him, discourse which is true
and lawful and just is the outward image (eidlon) of agood and faithful
soul (Isoc. 3.7). Isocrates also paid due care to style. His stylistics is based
on the theory of aperiod (periodos is one lap of astadium) and periodic
style (lexis katestramen). Aperiod is subdivided into two parts or cola (klon,
member): protasis, building suspense, and apodosis, relieving suspense. He
thus ensures that aspeech is alogically linked succession of units (cola) that
are reasonably comprehensive in their ideas and sounds, in which acertain
rhythm is employed. Isocrates thus stands at the beginning of along line of
writers who tried to explain the eurythmy of prose in both theory and use
through their own practice, paying particular attention to the euphony of
the sounds of neighbouring words.
He also focused on the differences between spoken and written language
and between the instruction of oratory and the stylistics of written discourse.

 /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.

1. The Origin of Rhetoric in Ancient Greece

/42/

Aristotles conception of rhetoric expounded in three books on rhetoric

is afundamental constituent of his body of work. There is aparticularly
close connection between the explanation of style in his Rhetoric and Poetics;
his teaching on argument in Rhetoric can be understood through aknowledge of Aristotles works on logic: Prior and Posterior Analytics, Topics and On
Sophistical Refutations. The connection between rhetoric and ethics, and rhetoric and politics is for Aristotle no less important, convinced as he is that the
art of rhetoric is extremely valuable (chrsimos) in politics as it demonstrates
how to reach social consensus. Aristotle expounded his conception of rhetoric in the following works:
1. Dialogue Gryllos, or On Rhetoric, which he wrote when he was young. It
has not been preserved and its content is difficult to infer.
2. Rhetoric I, II, written at the end of his first Athenian period.
3. Peri lexes (On Words), atext which was originally independent, but later
renamed Rhetoric III. It was written approximately 15 or 20 years after the
first two parts which Aristotle likely reworked in the process of completing the work.
The Rhetoric to Alexander, which was found among his writings, is probably not his work, being often attributed to the Sophist Anaximenes of
Lampsacus (second half of the 4th century BCE).
Aristotle defines rhetoric as the discipline which searches for the persuasive qualities in everything. It is not ascience in itself (epistm), because
it does not have its own definite class of subject matter, it is amethodology, asearch for adialectic explanation and persuasively communicating
outcomes of learning. It is further evident that it belongs to Rhetoric to
discover the real and apparent means of persuasion (Rhet.1355b).
The claim that rhetoric is not ascience but an art, techn, is influenced by
Platos view that rhetoric cannot grasp the true essence of things, but only
the physical world of sensory perception, which can be expressed through
probable or contingent propositions. Therefore, Aristotle also thinks that
the goal of rhetoric is not to discover the truth, but rather to be apractical
tool in this quest and an aid in seeking proofs (pisteis) for it. Only having mastered this skill can aperson uncover the solution to acontroversial
issue (problma) through comparing and determining notions and judgements. The speeches that rhetoric concerns itself with are those which allow
for multiple explanations of asingle thing as no one deliberates about
them, if he supposes that they are such (Rhet. 1357). Aristotles concept of

 /43/

the contingent as the environment in which rhetoric judgements are valid

maybeunderstood as apolemic to those apparent in Platos attributes to
rhetoric.
Using dialectics and rhetoric, Aristotle develops three methods of searching for the truth and resolving controversial issues. The first method is
strictly scientific, apodictic (apodeixis), the second is dialectic and the third
rhetorical. All of them employ two basic mental processes: deduction (syllogismos) and induction (epagg). Deduction, inferring from the general to the
specific, with syllogism as the primary tool, is the central and most reliable
of these. Induction represents aprocess which is more illustrative and accessible, though it is less efficient in comparison to deduction: induction is
apassage from individuals to universals, e.g. the argument that supposing
the skilled pilot is the most effective, and likewise the skilled charioteer, then
in general the skilled man is the best at his particular task. Induction is the
more convincing and clear: it is more readily learnt by the use of the senses,
and is applicable generally to the mass of men, though reasoning is more
forcible and effective against contradictious people (Topics 105a).
The forms of deductive reasoning vary according to the above methods of argumentation in which they are used. The structure and content of
asyllogism is thus different in apodixis, dialectics and rhetoric, although in
all cases we are inferring aconclusion from premises. Asyllogism contains
three judgements: ahigher premise, alower premise and aconclusion. An
apodictic, or scientific and conclusive, syllogism (apodeiktikos, epistmikos)
contains necessary, evident premises. Adialectic syllogism comes to aconclusion based on what is merely probable (to endoxon), from what is based
on opinion (en ton kata doxan). Arhetorical syllogism (entymma) is rhetorical argumentations most common form. It differs from the other two types
in usually lacking one of the judgements, generally the higher premise. This
omission frees the speech from assertions which we believe might well be
boring for the audience, or which may be disputable, which would degrade
the value of the conclusion.
An example (paradeigma) may be the predominant technique of inductive reasoning in rhetoric: for rhetorical speeches are sometimes characterized by examples and sometimes by enthymemes, and orators themselves
may be similarly distinguished by their fondness for one or the other. Now
arguments that depend on examples are not less calculated to persuade, but
those which depend upon enthymemes meet with greater approval (Rhet.
1356b).

1. The Origin of Rhetoric in Ancient Greece

/44/

Aristotles ancient commentators believe that the main purpose of his

Rhetoric was to warn against deceptive arguments, sophisms and paralogisms. This type of argument, called elenchos, results from the inaccurate
use or misinterpretation of language (in lexical or syntactic ambiguity) and
from an intentional or unintentional breach of the rules of logic.
According to Aristotle, the type of argumentation used is determined by
the factual content of speech as well as its stylization and arrangement. The
answer to questions concerning the method of stylization and the qualities
of the author lies in Aristotles concept of the centre, wherein moderation
(mesots) is the mode which avoids extremes. This idea is expressed in his
teaching on moderation which leads to ablissful state for the soul and the
good. Aristotles doctrine thus returns to his predecessors teaching about
kairos and prepon:
Now feelings and actions are the objects with which virtue is concerned;
and in feelings and actions excess and deficiency are errors, while the mean
amount is praised, and constitutes success; and to be praised and to be successful are both marks of virtue (Nic. et. 1106b).
Adetailed exposition on style and composition in the third book of Rhetoric develops from the perspective of judging speeches anticipated in Platos
Phaedrus, the correctness and purity (hellnisms), clarity (safes), ornaments
and metaphors (kataskeu). These virtues of speech, which were emphasized by Theophrastos, Aristotles successor in the Peripatetic school and
the author of the stylistics textbook Peri hermeneias, became standards of
language evaluation which survived to the 20th century.
Aristotles analytical approach to rhetoric is most clearly manifested
in listing and characterizing the different types of arguments, rhetorical
proofs. He divides them into artificial (entechnoi) and natural (atechnoi).
Natural proofs are those available to the orator before delivering his speech
and they include indubitable facts, such as statements by eyewitnesses, confessions and contracts. An orator then must use these proofs in asuitable
manner and moment within the speech. The art of argumentation lies in
finding artificial proofs, which are based in the orators moral qualities; for
example, it is known about him that he is honest, that he always tells the
truth. Our conviction, pistis dia tou thous, is due to our trust in him as aperson, in the frame of mind he manages to create in listeners and, last but
not least, in the logic and style of his speech. In the first case, the nature
of theargumentisgiven by thos, in the second it is pathos, and in the third
logos.

 /45/

Arguments are sought in a system of commonplaces (topoi). Topos is

one of the key notions both in Aristotles Rhetoric and his other works on
logic. Its interpretations, and translations, are surrounded by ambiguity.
Aristotles commentators also draw attention to the different uses of this
concept in Rhetoric and Topics. According to Czech logician Karel Berka,
the topoi summarize certain logical processes, methodological instructions
and even quite practical procedures used to establish the nature of predication in the subject-predicate categorical judgment, to make aselection
of premises in dialectic argumentation and to carry out and regulate such
argumentation.16 The goal of Topics is to prepare in advance material (aset
of premises) andreliable proofs in the form of statements and propositions,
the blocks of thought, for aspeech, which are then used and adapted
by theorator according to the conventions of deliberative, epideictic and
forensic oratory.
An ideal orator, as this is what all ancient authors of works on rhetoric sought to build, is, according to Aristotle, a dialectician who understands his audience and can persuade them through the logic of his chosen argumentsin combination with the style of speech. Rhetoric itself is
justanelaborate, but in principle neutral, tool that the orator has at his
disposal.
It is a historical paradox that Aristotles Rhetoric, which represents
the culmination of persuasive discourses previous development and to
which Cicero reacts in his dialogue De oratore, met with little response in
late antiquity and throughout the Middle Ages. It was even unknown to
many medieval encyclopaedists and authors writing on rhetoric. It is only
thanks to Arabic commentators that this work was preserved. Among these
al-Farabi, who lived in the 9th century, was the most prominent.17 This
scholar whose knowledge of Plato and Aristotles works is based on translations produced by Syrian translators from Greek, especially commended
the political role of Aristotles Rhetoric and Poetics as arts that teach to persuade a number of listeners about public affairs of both theoretical and
practical nature using arguments and metaphorical speech. According to
al-Farabi, who was an advocate of Platos concept of the philosopher-king,
the consequences of philosophical research cannot be aprivate matter, but
as they are related to how man thinks about life, politics and religion, they
unceasingly attract public interest. Philosophy which does not reflect on
how to communicate and put into practice its conclusions is unthinkable
to him.

1. The Origin of Rhetoric in Ancient Greece

/46/

The second instance that Aristotles Rhetoric emerges from oblivion is at

the peak scholasticism, primarily thanks to Thomas Aquinas who initiated
the translation of Aristoles work, whom he simply called the Philosopher,
and its dissemination throughout western culture. The mid-13th century
witnessed two Latin versions of Aristotles Rhetoric translated directly from
the Greek original. The older, translatio vetus, probably translated by Bartholomew of Messina, has been preserved in only three extant manuscripts,
while the newer, translatio Guillelmi, produced around 1270 by William of
Moerbeke, has survived in 95 manuscripts. Some of the contemporary researchers, such as Murphy,18 believe that its fame was due to rhetoric being
ranked alongside works on ethic and politics, scientiae speciales, in examining
the practical implications of human activities. Asimilar interpretation can
be found, most notably in comments by Giles of Rome (1243 or 12471316),
or Aegidius Romanus, as he is called in Latin, aParisian scholar and later
an archbishop of Bourges, entitled De differentia rhetoricae, ethicae et politicae,
which analyses the moral implications of using rhetoric in everyday life.
Amore permanent return of Aristotles Rhetoric into the context of European thinking, however, does not occur until after 1443, when anew Latin
translation, entitled Aristotelis rhetoricorum libri III, was completed by George
of Trebizond, an influential humanist and disseminator of Greek culture.
This translation heralded awave of interest in ancient Greek manuscripts,
which appeared in Europe after the Arab conquest of Constantinople in
1453. The main centre disseminating knowledge of Greek was Candia
inCrete, from where many Greek scholars left for Italy. Aldus Manutius,
Venices printer and patron, played an important role in its dissemination
with his edition Rhetores graeci from 1508, acompendium of translations
of the great orators and authors of rhetorical exercises into Latin, which
proved to be essential for the future orientation of European humanism.
Manutiuss prints, distinguished by being produced in apractical small format, and thus replacing old codices, quickly spread around Europe. They
influenced the concept of language and speech communication for Desiderius Erasmus and Lorenzo Valla. This trend spread into the Czech Lands
thanks to the Czech humanist Jan Kocn of Kocint, who was introduced to
Greek rhetoric by Johannes Sturm, aStrasbourg-based teacher and school
reformer, and whose Aristotelis rhetoricorum libri III in latinum sermonem conversi, published in 1570 along with the Latin version of Hermogenes rhetoric, attest to the peak period of Bohemian humanism, being also affected
by adeep interest in Greek culture.

 /47/

ON THE ART OF PERSUATION IN RHETORIC TO ALEXANDER

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

1. The Origin of Rhetoric in Ancient Greece

/48/

in Aristotles Rhetoric, it is divided into proving and disproving, though in

Rhetoric to Alexander, its specification is rather vague as it does not only refer
to contractions in speech and behaviour, but also in the rest (alla kai tois
allois apasin). In the ensuing exposition, however, it specifies the rest, listing justice, law, the beautiful, useful, trustworthy, the orators nature and the
usual state of affairs. Enthymemes, in rhetoric commonly defined as ashortened form of syllogism, above all must be short and understandable to the
general listener.
Gnma, amaxim or expression of the orators opinion on general matters,
is the fifth means. There are two kinds of maxims: those which agree with
the overwhelming opinion (endoxos) and those which are in contradiction
to it (paradoxos). The use of maxims must be appropriate in order that they
may not degenerate into idle talk while at the same time winning the listeners trust.
Smeion, asign, being the sixth means, is amatter related to another matter and is not employed as aproof to induce trust in what the orator is saying. Smeion corresponds to what semiotics calls an index. Unlike the general context of phenomena, which is represented by the preceding categories,
in Rhetoric to Alexander, smeion principally expresses atemporal relation:
immediately preceding or following, or the likely expected co-existence of
two phenomena or events.
The last of the means of persuasion, elenchos, arefutation, is the only one
that takes place in the area of the necessary, anankain, or the impossible, m
dynatn, adynatn (arefutation is that which cannot be otherwise than as we
say it; Rhetorica ad Alexandrum 1431a) Therefore it cannot be challenged
or refuted by acontradictory statement.
Rhetoric to Alexander confirms Aristotles delimitation of rhetoric as adiscipline, in which there are few facts of the necessary type that can form
the basis of rhetorical syllogisms. Most of the things about which we make
decisions, and into which therefore we inquire, present us with alternative
possibilities (Ar. Rhet. 1357a). The dominant notion of the probable, eikos,
is not understood in connection with later mathematical notions of probability, but with human behaviour and acts, that is, with events which occur
ordinarily and frequently. Rhetoric thus deals with applying alternatives
and justified decisions made between them. Although the relation between
Aristotelian rhetoric and the philosophy of the end of the 20th century is only
rarely stated, it was in the above sense that the notion of the probable, the

 /49/

contingent, inspired the rise and content of such intellectual movements as

post-structuralism, deconstruction, discourse theory, new historicism, theories linked to Foucaults ideas on the relation of the language and power,
cultural studies and much more.

2. HELLENISTIC AND ROMAN RHETORIC

THE BIRTH OF HELLENISTIC PHILOLOGY

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

2. Hellenistic and Roman Rhetoric

/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/

words (prtai fnai). In his unfinished work, On Dialectics, St. Augustine

presents examples of onomatopoeic words which confirm the Stoics argument: tinnitus, ringing, hinnitus, ahorses neighing, balatus, asheeps baa.
The Latin word mel is as pleasant to the ear as is the honey and taste this
word signified. On the other hand, the hard sounding, cacophonic crux,
cross, evokes ameaning replete with methods of torture and executions.
Stoics, however, held that the grounding of the form in the meaning of the
word is also manifested in derived words and especially in figurative expressions, which are studied in rhetoric and poetics. The transformation of the
base word occurs on the basis of similarity (similitudo), affinity or proximity
(temporal, causal; vicinitas) or opposition (contrarium). Augustine, possibly
the most important source of information regarding the Stoics etymological theses, demonstrated the similarity in the meaning of words using the
example of the words crux, cross, and crus, shin, abone which resembles
the cross both in hardness and shape. Affinity is shown using the words
orbis, circle, and urbs, city, which is built on acircular plan or fortified with
acircular wall, while ashift based on semantic opposition in word roots is
demonstrated through the words bellus, nice and pretty, versus bellum, war.
Although some etymologies presented in the Stoics works lack afeeling of
linguistic reality, we cannot deny their authors efforts to understand semantic relations between words, which lay the foundations for the classifications
of tropes and figures in rhetoric and poetics.
Naturally, the Stoics also noted cases when there was opposition, an
anomaly between the form and the content of the word: for example, the
plural forms of Athnai and Thbai denote single entities, while the singular
forms of dmos, the people, or chros, choir, refer to aset of elements. Anomalies, disruptions to an expected regularity (analogy), commonly appear
in the system of declension, conjugation and word derivation. The contradiction between the supporters of anomaly and analogy escalated most
notably where philologists deliberately changed, and frequently incorrectly unified, language forms when publishing classical authors, particularly Homer, whose language was quite different from the Greek of the Hellenistic period. There were two contradictory philological streams within
the Stoics: Anomalists were based in Alexandrias Museion with its famous
library, while the rival Pergamon was the centre of Analogists. The debate
between these two streams remains topical in the current era. According to
Crates of Mallus (2nd century BCE), anomalies, exceptions and irregularities are inherent in language phenomena. This is due to the fact that we do

2. Hellenistic and Roman Rhetoric

/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

Hellenistic period rhetoric gained the character of awell-defined discipline

drawing knowledge from other trivium fields. However, as it gradually lost
its civic themes, regard for aspeechs content was replaced with an effort
to achieve asophisticated form with emphasis on its decorative elements.
Instead of trying to generalize aworld view from aphilosophical perspective, we can perceive an interest in detail, in capturing everyday situations,
in the individuals spiritual world. The circle of people for whom art, philosophy and rhetorical discourse are intended grew smaller. An orator no

 /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

2. Hellenistic and Roman Rhetoric

/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/

2. Status finitionis (issue of definition; definitional)

This issue follows apartial confession (feci, sed ). The accused states that
he did indeed commit the act, but in adifferent sense than claimed by the
prosecution (feci, sed aliud). The goal of this issue is to find adifferent definition of the act. For example, manslaughter rather than murder; theft, not
robbery; it was not apoison (venenum), but alove potion (amatorium).
3. Status qualitatis (issue of quality; qualitative)
This issue is also based on partial confessions, however, it focuses on the circumstances of the act and on presenting those reasons that justify or excuse
the act. The starting point is the answer feci, sed de iure (recte), Idid, but by
right. In this case, the judge must consider the circumstances and nature
of the act, answer the question of whether the defendant had justifiable
motives for his action (an iure, recte fecerit?).
4. Status translationis (issue of procedure; translative)
While the previous three issues concerned the event as heard in court (concerning the committed act, circumstances of this act, the accused person),
the fourth issue assesses the case itself. It is initiated by the judges doubts
as to whether he is able to understand and decide the substance of the dispute (an iure intendatur?). An effort to transfer (from which translatio) the
decision-making to another court or to adjourn it may be initiated by thedefendants statement denying the other partys right to judge, testify, speak
(non habes ius actionis), by the audiences objections or by the judge, jury or
orator proclaiming themselves unable to judge the matter.
Hermagorass explanation of the content of judicial speeches using stasis
later led authors to the generalization of stasis and its use in any speech, not
merely forensic. This generalization went in three directions:
1. The speeches on which rhetoric focused did not only concern issues
such as those addressed in courts, that is, those that were particular, practical, requiring a final answer (quaestiones finitae), but also abstract and
theoretical ones, which were left to philosophy, science or faith to answer
(quaestiones infinitae). For example, the question of whether the universe was
formed of aconcourse of atoms (an atomorum concursu mundus sit effectus?,
Inst. or. 7.2.2), relates to the first sphere, while contemplation regarding
what constitutes virtue to the second, moralizing reflections on how we
should live to the third and, finally, an authors doubt as to whether he can

2. Hellenistic and Roman Rhetoric

/58/

adequately address atopic such as acommon exordial topos of medieval

authors, is an example of the fourth stasis type.
2. The second direction of generalization on issues of stasis, led from
forensic oratory to the deliberative and epideictic. On the formal level, this
generalization is characterized by ashift in tense from past to future, in deliberative oratory, and to the present, in epideictic speeches, and by changes
in modality, such as the prevalence of plots expressing possibility and suitability in deliberative speeches.
Deliberative speeches thus replace the succession of statements fecisti
non feci an fecerit? with the successive faciendum (should be done) non
faciendum (should not be done) an faciendum? (should be done or not?).
The second issue represents the subject matter of an appropriate action that
thespeaker supports: faciendum faciendum, sed non hoc (should be done,
but not this) an hoc (quid) faciendum! (what should then be done!). The
third issue qualifies what constitutes appropriate action through the statements faciendum faciendum, sed respectu utilitatis (should be done but with
respect to certain usefulness) an faciendum respectu utilitatis?
Epideictic speeches, naturally, lacked the first concern, as the subject
being praised was known, but the second and third issues were profusely
developed, as may have been the fourth concern, expressing the speakers
worries regarding his own insufficiency.
3. The third method of generalization is based on the shift in the judged
acts modality. In order to answer the first issue (an fecerit?), it was necessary
to determine whether the act was the result of the perpetrators intention
or if it was conditioned by circumstances independent of the perpetrator.
The question was whether the culprit wanted to commit the act (an voluerit?). If the answer was affirmative, then inner motives (causae) stemming
from mental state, such as anger, hatred, fear, passion, and exterior motives
(consilia), lying for profit the offender expected from the act, were sought.
If the answer was negative, whether it was possible that the culprit could
have committed the crime (an potuerit?) was examined. In this instance, the
offenders physical condition and the acts objective conditions were investigated (facultas). Consideration of mutual relations between these modalities
determined the content of forensic speech and judgment.
Both the orator and judge were to choose in their speeches words that
would aptly capture the intent of their message. Ideally, the vocabulary
choice was to be appropriate in that there was to be alignment (aptum)
between the speakers intent (voluntas), the factual content of the chosen ex-

 /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.

2. Hellenistic and Roman Rhetoric

/60/

Hermagorass teaching about stasis, known only through the works of

later authors, represented amethod of searching for questionable points in
polemic speeches. Therefore, it was the grounds for the entirety of rhetorical
argumentation in both the legal context and outside it. This teaching was
transferred into medieval, mainly Byzantine, instruction of rhetoric thanks
to Hermogenes, who disseminated exacting explanations of argumentation
in Aristotles Topics.
RHETORIC IN ANCIENT ROME

As aresult of the gradual absorption of the Hellenistic states into Rome

before the beginning of our era (Macedonia in 148 BCE, Pergamon in
133BCE, Bithynia in 74 BCE, Syria in 64 BCE, Egypt in 30 BCE), Latin
began to prevail in works on rhetoric. Greek culture, whether uncritically
accepted or suspiciously rejected, had preserved its role as the mode used
in addressing philosophical, literary and scientific themes. Greek, however,
only gradually lost its role of the language of cultured communication, as
Greek teachers, who not only taught in Greek, but also followed Greek
literary models, had been arriving in Rome. Moreover, rich Roman citizens
and aristocrats sent their sons to study and gain experience in Athens and
other Greek cultural centres. This was certainly the case for Horace, Ovid
and Cicero. The golden age of Roman literature (8131 BCE), marked by
the dominance of Latin and Roman themes, give rise to acanon of classical
orators, among whom were those who grew to represent fineness and sublimity of style (Messalla Corvinus), as well as adherents to stylistic simplicity
and moderation (Gaius Julius Caesar; according to Tacitus summis oratoribus
aemulus, aworthy counterpart to the most prominent orators), at the peak
of which stood Marcus Tullius Cicero.
At first, the conditions for cultivating rhetoric in Rome were not favourable. Politically engaged oratory was represented by Marcus Porcius
Cato (234149 BCE), an exponent of ancient Roman virtues who stood
in opposition to Hellenistic cosmopolitanism. He managed to achieve the
expulsion of Greek rhetoric teachers from the city for atime. Cato intentionally minimized stylistic aspects: Rem tene, verba sequentur! Stick to the
topic, the words will follow. Being aStoic, morality was essential for him.
Through Quintilian, his notion of an orator as vir bonus, dicendi peritus,
agood man skilled in speaking, made its way into many later rhetoric textbooks.

 /61/

Catos opposition to Greek rhetorical practice was futile. Rhetoric, whose

instruction strictly adhered to Greek models, gained ever more popularity
as advocates of political and land reforms during the Gracchi brothers era
realized its significance. As Greek culture was linguistically inaccessible to
most members of the Populares party, which promoted these reforms, Latin rhetoric schools emerged. According to Suetonius, one such school was
founded by Lucius Plotius Gallus in the 90s of the 1st century BCE. Senators
Licinius Crassus and Gnaeus Domitius Ahenobarbus banned these schools
shortly afterwards, in 92 BCE, however, they could not prevent the spread
of rhetoric in Rome. This also created conditions for writing rhetoric textbooks, which provided the culmination of the knowledge that literature in
Greek had achieved.
RHETORICA AD HERENNIUM
(AD C. HERENNIUM DE RATIONE DICENDI LIBRI QUATTUOR)

Among ancient works on rhetoric, the one dedicated to Herennius, written

by an unknown author, is one of the most systematic and complete treatises. This text is shrouded in adeeper mystery: not only do we not know the
authors name, nor who is this Herennius it is dedicated to, we also do not
know the works original title nor the date of its completion. The less information, the more speculations; and this certainly applies to the body of literature attempting to solve this equation of four unknowns, which exceeds
athousand works. The belief that it was written by aCornificius, arhetor
mentioned by Quintilian (3.1.21 and 9.3.89) proved to be groundless. The
most recent theories, on the other hand, are inclined towards the founder of
the Latin schools of rhetoric, Lucius Plotius Gallus. The one improvement
in accuracy contemporary research has brought concerns the mysterious
works time of origin: between 86 and 82 BCE, with the earlier being more
likely. Considering that until the 15th and 16th centuries, most scholars attributed authorship of the work to Cicero, we are compelled to acknowledge
that the Herennian issue is one of the most puzzling problems in the history
of rhetoric. The first to raise doubts regarding Ciceros authorship was the
Italian humanist Raffaele Regio in his Utrum Ars Rhetorica ad Herennium falso
Ciceroni isncribatur in 1492. This interest in Rhetorica ad Herennium (Rhetoric
to Herennius), although it concerns exterior facts rather than the core of the
matter, is in unfortunate and stark contrast with the relatively small number
of contemporary editions of the original text and its highly terminologically

2. Hellenistic and Roman Rhetoric

/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/

b) Digression, excursion. The issue being heard is examined in detail either

to develop arguments or for stylistic effect;
c) Linguistically refined, poetic. This is less used in court as it is often employed in fiction or school compositions.
Narration should be brief (narratio brevis) and clear (narratio dilucida,
aperta).
The concluding section of Book 1 covers the content of forensic oratory
according to Hermagorass stasis teaching.
Book 2 (50 sections) treats those forensic oratory genres which focus
on the inventio and its most important component, argumentation the
search for and the construction of proofs. Invention is defined as asearch
for things (facts, proofs) that are true or probable and which make the orators speech more credible. The speechs introduction is considered aprecondition for successful argumentation and orators authority.
Book 3 (39 sections) includes deliberative (19) and epideictic (1015)
oratory, the arrangement of the speech (1619) and its delivery (2039).
The delivery comprises the sound characteristics (figura vocis) and facial expressions along with gestures (motus corporis). Voice consists of the strength
(magnitudo vocis), firmness (firmitudo vocis), and softness and suppleness
(mollitudo vocis). While the voices strength is something nature endows us
with, the other two qualities can be achieved through exercises focusing
on imitation (exercitatio imitationis) and declamation (exercitatio declamationis). Pronunciation and facial expressions vary depending on whether
it is an everyday, ordinary speech (sermo), apublic, argumentative speech
(contentio) or emotional oratory (amplificatio). An ordinary speech, mostly
part of adialogue, conveys everyday affairs in aneutral manner and is divided into dignified, instructive, informing and humorous (sermo dividitur
in partes quattuor: dignitatem, demonstrationem, narrationem, iocationem). An
argumentative speech can be moderate or heated and is used in polemics
and debates. An emotional speech is comforting or impassioned, aiming to
elicit agreement or outrage.
The conclusion of Book 3 expounds on the value of having agood memory (memoria), dividing it into natural (naturalis) and trained (artificiosa),
and providing exercises for training it.
Book 4 (69 sections) provides adetailed explanation of speech styles and
alist of rhetorical ornaments, tropes and figures. The styles (elocutiones) are
divided vertically into high and grand (grave), middle (mediocre), and low

2. Hellenistic and Roman Rhetoric

/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

2. Hellenistic and Roman Rhetoric

/66/

inductiveproofs, and in the second and more extensive section, deductive

proofs.
Cicero was an advocate of the republican legal system, apolitician and an
orator. He lived at atime when the Roman democratic system was marked
by numerous crises and through his speeches actively participated in the
political battles of the day. These crises went hand in hand with crises of the
political culture, political oratory and, last but not least, general morals. As
Cicero states in his dialogue Brutus, awell-established state is the outcome
of apublic forum and its associated rhetorical eloquence.
Forum is not usually found among apeople who are either employed in
settling the form of their government, or engaged in war, or struggling with
difficulties, or subjected to the arbitrary power of Kings. Eloquence is the
attendant of peace, the companion of ease and prosperity, and the tender
offspring of afree and awell-established constitution (Brut. 44).
Although Cicero entered public life as ahomo novus, the first in his family
who managed to attain ahigher, legal education, he rose through the ranks
of public hierarchy relatively fast, becoming aquaestor, aedilus, praetor
and, in the end, consul. While all political and legislative decisions were
made by the senate, politicians also had to win support for their positions
from people at public assemblies (contiones). Thus, asuccessful politician
and legislator also had to be an able and persuasive orator.
Ciceros forensic speeches are evidence of masterful and sophisticated arguments appealing both to reason and emotion. His political, philosophical
and literary works are of equal importance. Cicero stands as the first ancient
author whose ideas are available to us first hand, thanks to an extensive
library consisting of roughly one thousand letters. They contain reflections
on both public and deeply personal themes, on everyday worries, friendship, old age and death. His correspondence is avaluable key to the interpretation of not only his work, but also his personality, as he devoted many
pages to reflections on his oratory and the effects he managed to arouse
among his listeners.
Cicero considered oratory to be the highest of all human skills and the
most significant element in political practice. In the art of oratory and stylistic mastery was reflected everything human civilization had achieved.
Arhetor, therefore, had to master all disciplines that constituted human
knowledge, especially philosophy.
Cicero emphasized the importance of style and decorum, appropriateness
in speech, which was the result of correctness in all human activities. This

 /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

2. Hellenistic and Roman Rhetoric

/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

2. Hellenistic and Roman Rhetoric

/70/

associated with St. Augustine, particularly in his explanation of preaching

practice in On Christian Doctrine. Both these lines of reasoning, ancient and
Christian, reappeared in the Renaissance and the fortunate rediscovery of
the long-lost manuscript of De oratore (1526) became one of the most important milestones of European Renaissance culture.
QUINTILIANS INSTITUTES OF ORATORY

Marcus Fabius Quintilianuss (3596 CE) work presents asynthesis of all

the information on rhetoric that ancient thinkers had accumulated. Quintilian was the first state-employed teacher of rhetoric in Rome during the Flavian dynasty and an educator of Emperor Dimitians sisters grandchildren.
Dimitian also awarded him the title of consul, which attests to the social
recognition he achieved.
Quintilians handbook Institutio oratoria (Institutes of Oratory) in twelve
books is his masterpiece. His earlier text De causis corruptae eloquentiae (On
the Causes of Corrupted Eloquence) remains lost and is known only by name.
Institutes of Oratory is awork which had astrong impact on European humanist culture for over fifteen hundred years. It was admired even when it
was known from only afew preserved fragments, and its fame climaxed with
the discovery of an entire manuscript in 1416. Clear traces of its influence,
and frequently verbatim reproductions of many of the works explanations,
may be found in rhetoric textbooks up to the first half of the 19th century. At the time, however, Quintilian was condemned to oblivion for over
ahundred years until the surprisingly modern nature of his work was rediscovered thanks to recent interest in rhetoric and its tradition of studying
textual structures and the sources of humanist education. To commemorate
900 years since the completion of the Institutes of Oratory, aconference was
held in Quintilians home town of Calahorra in Spain (Roman Calagurris)
in 1996 and two issues of the Rhetorica journal were devoted to the same occasion. The Institutes of Oratory has recently also been newly published along
with its translation into modern languages and extensive commentaries.
Quintilians work, quite exceptionally revealing regarding the authors
personal sentiments and views of practices in rhetoric at the time of its writing, results from the predominant concern about the quality of instruction
of rhetoric in imperial Rome. Quintilians primarily intention was to preserve the best of what ancient rhetoric had achieved both in practical oratory and theoretical expositions on the role of effective oratory.

 /71/

Quintilians frequently quoted statement on the relationship between

rhetoric and philosophy, Philosophia enim simulari potest, eloquentia non potest,
philosophy may be counterfeited, but eloquence never (12.2.12),23 still
arouses agreat deal of discussion. Rhetorics merits include the orators civic
involvement, his grounding in everyday practice, which is the only criterion
for success in aparticular case. Quintilian thus expresses his desire that
he, whose character Iam seeking to mould, should be awise man in the
Roman sense, that is, one who reveals himself as atrue statesman, not in studious discussions, but in the actual practice and experience of life (12.2.7).
When writing the Institutes of Oratory, Quintilian believed that in imperial
Rome the study of philosophy no longer moves in its true sphere of action and in the broad daylight of the forum, but has retired, first to porches
and gymnasia and finally to gatherings in schools (12.2.8).
Quintilian strove to achieve the perfect balance between an orators
moral qualities and his perfection in oratory. This results in aclear, pure,
beautiful and apposite speech. Throughout the Institutes, he explains the
stylistic notion of aptness (prepon, aptum) of the speechs content and form,
the orators morality and speech style, emphasizing the happy medium,
ahealthy sense of finding moderation. All extremities that depart from this
medium, referring specifically to the affected new style, are asource of
evil and so should be avoided.
The balance between oratory and the orators moral qualities (according
to Catos definition quoted by Quintilian, orator est vir bonus, dicendi peritus,
an orator is agood man, skilled in speaking,12.1.1), emphasized by Quintilian, became not only asource of recurrent positive evaluation of rhetorics
ethical dimension, but also the subject of criticism, particularly during the
Renaissance. Some authors went so far as to repeat and emphasize the role
and attribute of vir bonus, while others omitted it from their description of
orators or criticized it as excessively moralizing. Critical voices were generally inspired by Gorgiass view of rhetoric as aneutral technique for winning
controversies. Gorgias was the point of departure for George of Trebizond
in his explanation of rhetoric of 143334, and after him there was also the
school reformer, Petrus Ramus, in his Rhetoricae distinctiones written in 1549.
Ramus supported his rejection by claiming that adherence to rhetorics rules
is as little connected with morals as is adherence to the rules of grammar.
The Institutes of Oratory represents abalanced exposition of the authors
views of ayoung mans education in the spirit of the best that ancient Roman culture had produced, of the role of teaching cultivated speech during

2. Hellenistic and Roman Rhetoric

/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/

away from contemporary political practice, drawing it closer to aesthetics

and the cultivation of stylistic values of speeches within an elaborate educational system. Ciceros polemic and controversial republican rhetoric thus
was only partly restored under the rule of emperors Vespasian and Domitian
and served instead for the promotion of other Roman virtues than those
prevailing at the time of its origin.
PLINY THE YOUNGER AND TACITUS ON THE ROLE OF RHETORIC IN IMPERIAL ROME

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-

2. Hellenistic and Roman Rhetoric

/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

2. Hellenistic and Roman Rhetoric

/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

Despite the frequent criticism by conservative and educated Romans, the

Greek teachers of rhetorics educational activities, as well as their treatises
and textbooks, were clearly successful. This was due to the fact that, unlike
Roman rhetoric, which focused on the legal environment, authors writing
in Greek followed the teaching of the most prominent representatives of
Greek philosophy: Plato in Neoplatonic schools; and Aristotle in developing the study of dialectics and logic, teaching about proofs. This connection
is demonstrated by Eunapius of Sardiss (ca. 345420 CE) book Lives of the
Sophists (Bioi sophistn), in which he describes the work of Neoplatonic rhetoricians and philosophers in the 4th century. Aldus Manutius published an
extensive anthology of Greek authors in Venice in 1508, and Ernst Christian
Walz collected nine volumes of Rhetores Graeci in Stuttgart and Tbingen
in 183236. The same name was also used for the three-volume edition by
Leonhard Spengel, published in Leipzig in 1854, 1856 and 1894. The great
number of texts devoted to rhetoric coupled with the growing number of
rhetoric schools established under the patronage of emperors even in the

2. Hellenistic and Roman Rhetoric

/78/

Roman empires more provincial towns, however, demonstrate that during

the Second Sophistic movement, rhetoric was not only marked by atendency to aliterary mannerism, but also represented the basis of qualified state
clerks formal education.
Criticism of rhetoric, based on Cato and Tacituss views, can be found
in Peri rhtoriks (On Rhetoric), written by Philodemus of Gadara, which
was preserved along with other works by the same author among the almost unreadable papyri discovered in Pisos ruined library in Herculaneum
(published by Longo Auricchio, 1977). Philodemus recognizes rhetorics
use in influencing the listeners feelings. In his view, rhetoric is not so much
concerned with the content of speech (dianoia) as it is with its form, with
the harmony of its sound (synthesis). Dionysius of Halicarnassus, ahistorian and rhetorician who worked in Rome for over twenty years, arriving
sometime around 30 CE, was one of the promoters of the Attic style. Several
of his texts have been preserved; most notably the collection of works on
famous earlier orators (Peri tn archain rhtorn hypomnmatistoi) and the
still highly-regarded stylistics textbook On the Arrangement of Words (Peri syntheses onomatn). In this, he defines style as the selection and arrangement
of language elements, particularly emphasizing the arrangement of not only
words, but also word segments (cola), sentences and suprasentential units.
He models his work on Isocratess conception of rhetoric, which unites care
for style with an emphasis on the moral and political maturity of the orators.
An exclusive focus on the stylistic aspects of oratory, heralding aesthetics later influence on rhetoric, characterizes the polemic concerning literary style between two of Dionysiuss younger contemporaries: Palestinian
Caecilius of Calacte, an advocate of Hellenistic rhetoric, and his unknown
counterpart, referred to only as Pseudo-Longinus. To this day, academics
disagree as to whether he was Cassius Longinus, arhetorician who lived
in the 3rd century and who wrote Techn rhtorik, which has been partially
preserved, or an unknown author, one or two centuries earlier than Cassius
Longinus. In his writings, Caecilius rejects the stylistic ornamentalism of
the Hellenistic period, advocating astrict return to the purity of the Attic style. He is also the author of the oldest authoritative canon of Greek
rhetorics classics, On the Style of the Ten Orators (Peri tou charaktros tn deka
rhtorn), featuring Demosthenes, Antiphon, Andocides, Lysias, Isocrates,
Isaeus, Lycurgus, Aeschines, Hypereides and Dinarchus. Caecilius expresses
his objections to the Asiatic styles mannerism in his work On the Differences between the Attic and the Asiatic Styles (Tini diaferei ho Attikos tou Asianou?).

 /79/

Aconfrontation between stylistic techniques in Demosthenes and Cicero,

Synkritis Dmosthenous kai Kikernos, endeavours to provide acomparative
stylistic analysis. His discourse on the stylistic-aesthetic theme, entitled On
the Sublime (Peri hypsous), is apolemic reaction to Pseudo-Longinuss text of
the same name, but sadly has not been preserved.
Pseudo-Longinuss essay On the Sublime preserved, and perhaps even
multiplied, its influence on our cultural history until the beginning of European classicism in the 17th century. The essay was published in 1674 and the
French translator, Nicolas Boileau, somewhat adapted the original Greek
text to suit his own perception of literary style. Nevertheless, the texts central thesis, that the most important thing about style is the effect it evokes
in the reader or listener, remained as stated in the original. In the spirit of
the original, the notion of the sublime refers to the extraordinary and the
marvellous which can strike us in discourse, making awork lift us up, ravish
us, transport us (cet extraordinaire et ce merveilleux qui frape dans le discours, et
qui fait quun ouvrage enlve, ravit, transporte). The sublime elevates the soul,
raises emotions and an author can only achieve his desired stylistic effect
if he arouses the same feelings in his audience that he himself is experiencing. The translators strategy is clear from these few words. The Hellenistic
perception of style is based on the search for such linguistic means that are
both fitting to the chosen theme and to what the rhetorician wants to convey
(kairos, decorum). Boileau, on the other hand, strives to emphasize the role
and taste of the texts recipient. The text acquires or loses stylistic qualities
depending on how the listener perceives it.
Pseudo-Longinus defines five sources of lofty style, based on the personality of amorally and linguistically mature orator: the faculty of grasping
great conceptions, stirring up great passions (pathos), the proper handling
of figures of diction, presenting an overview of tropes and figures, knowledge of the potential within language stylization, and, last but not least,
the ability to choose suitable everyday and unusual composition techniques
(synthesis, including the word order, rhythm and euphony). Boileaus translation emphasizes the first two, based on the participants experience in
communication, while neglecting the other three, which relate to the qualities of language and style.
The more we encounter calls for a return to classical authors and attempts to revive Atticism in Hellenistic rhetorical culture, the more urgently
we realize that the prevailing stylistic norm of this culture was characterized
by disrupting the principles of Attic styles moderation and its attempt to

2. Hellenistic and Roman Rhetoric

/80/

focus on extraordinary formulations, on ornate mannerism within rhetoric

declamations. The movement that was inspired by this mannerism, dominated by the Asiatic style, was known as the Second Sophistic. The Second Sophistic movement was active between 50400 CE when rhetoric was pushed
out of political life by imperial autocracy and out of courts by professional
judges and attorneys. The rhetoricians were restricted to schools of rhetoric
and genres were limited to epideictic and deliberative speeches, in which
the theme was clearly overshadowed by how the speech was composed and
delivered. The Second Sophistic movement is aptly characterized by two
treatises under the shared title Peri epideiktikon by Menander of Laodicea
(Menander Rhetor, 3rd century CE). It is in fact an anthology of examples
accompanied by detailed instruction concerning the composition of paeans
to the emperor (basilikoi logoi), speeches on life anniversaries (genethliakoi
logoi), wedding speeches (epithalamia) and others. Aphthoniuss rhetorical
and recitative exercises called Progymnasmata (ca. 400 CE), following up
the textbook by Aelius Theon of Alexandria (2nd century CE), gained great
popularity, especially in Byzantine rhetoric, but also in modern European
rhetorical traditions, thanks to its translation by Rudolphus Agricola from
the 15th century. The orator Libanius (4th century CE) or one of his pupils
is attributed authorship of acollection of thirty-one kinds of model letters,
Epistolimaioi charaktres.
Pre-Christian Greek rhetoric reached its peak in Libanius (314393 CE),
an aristocrat, intellectual and committed politician from Antioch. He was
aclose friend of Julian the Apostate, an emperor of the Flavius dynasty, and
established one of the most renowned schools of rhetoric in the Greek East,
where he held the position of aprofessor and proper Sophist. He managed to preserve his influence on public life under the Christian emperors
Constantine and Theodosius. Graduates from these schools, including some
Christians, later rose to high office in the empires administration. Thanks
to Libanius and his predecessor and teacher Ulpianus of Ascalon, editions
of Demostheness orations were published along with detailed comments,
which acted as classical models for style and argumentation. The extant
autobiographical speeches and correspondence (approximately 1600 letters
have been preserved), provide extensive information regarding Libaniuss
life and his forty-year career as ateacher, and, in general, the teaching methods and subjects in late antiquity. Libaniuss orations and letters, abundantly copied in his time, contain comments on both the method for dispensing
rhetorical instruction and on contemporary life in Antioch. They also be-

 /81/

came afrequently imitated model of rhetorical and epistolary styles in the

late antiquity.
The embodiment of the Second Sophistic managed to bring together formal linguistic means, argumentation and aesthetic rules for composing rhetorical texts and process these, producing asystem of didactically elaborate
school exercises. On the one hand, their works marked the end of Ciceronian and Quintilianean classicisms epoch, while on the other, it opened the
ancient world to the ideas of Judaism and Christianity, with their demands
for elaborating principles of persuasive discourse. The Second Sophistic
thus significantly affected views of the Cappadocian Fathers of Gregory
of Nazianzus, who was nicknamed Christian Demosthenes, Gregory of
Nyssa and Basil the Great, whose address To Young Men (Pros tous neous)
appeals to young Christians to learn about ancient culture as an abundant
source of moral maxims. Ancient rhetorical education also permeates the
activities of John Chrystosom, abrilliant preacher from the 4th century and
Libaniuss pupil.
In the realm of rhetorical themes, Hermogenes of Tarsus (155225) is
undoubtedly the most prominent among Greek-writing authors of late antiquity. His work principally influenced Byzantine rhetoric, where it overshadowed all other authors, including Aristotle. The Suda, an encyclopaedia
of literary history published in Constantinople in the 10th century, presents
Hermogenes as aprodigy whose rhetorical skills astonished Emperor Marcus Aurelius when Hermogenes was only 15 years old. At the age of 19, he
published atextbook on the art of rhetoric and his fame grew with time,
something which continues to the present day. Unfortunately, aged just
twenty-five he succumbed to mental illness, living the rest of his life in utter
mental helplessness.
Hermogeness work, or to be more precise, aset of five texts commonly
ascribed to him, is one of the genuine pillars of the Greek paideia. Although
the set of progymnasmata, or rhetorical exercises, is clearly imitative, this
very fact demonstrates that Hermogeness name was used to add glamour
to compilations by authors of far lesser importance. Its fame spread as far
as the Latin environment thanks to atranslation by Priscian. Hermogeness
work, in totality referred to as the Corpus Hermogenianum (its final version
dates from the 5th6th centuries), represents the foundation of authoritative
theories of style, argumentation and the arrangement of aspeechs content.
It includes the texts On Style (Peri iden), On Stases (Peri stases), On Invention
(Peri heureseos) and On Method of Forceful Speaking (Peri methodou deinottos).

2. Hellenistic and Roman Rhetoric

/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/

Syrianus, Marcellinos, Sopatros), attracts contemporary scholars, primarily

thanks to his consistent employment of binarism, so useful in the computer modelling of relations between individual components of court cases,
where even today it is astounding in its consistency and well thought-out
classification.24
Hermogeness work was introduced into the Czech environment in Latin
translations published between 15701577 by Jan Kocn of Kocint as aresult of his education under Johannes Sturm, aprominent teacher from Strasbourg. Particularly remarkable is Kocns introductory information about
Hermogenes, his appeal to study rhetoric as well as an appeal to the Czech
nobility to overcome their disinterest in education and to support children
of less wealthy parents in their studies.

3. RHETORIC AND MEDIEVAL CHRISTIAN CULTURE

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-

3. Rhetoric and Medieval Christian Culture

/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

3. Rhetoric and Medieval Christian Culture

/88/

authors intentions that motivated the choice of certain turns of expression

and arguments. In the Greek cultural tradition, formed by secular wisdom
(sapientia saeculi), communication is aresult of efficient and rationally-analyzed speech patterns. In contrast, in Judaism, which strives for spiritual
wisdom (sapientia spiritualis), it results from listening and reflecting on what
was heard. This is also demonstrated in an example of comparative semantic
analysis of Greek and Hebrew: the Hebrew equivalent of the Greek causative verb peith (Ipersuade) is shama, literally Iwill persuade someone to
listen. The Christian Middle Ages rhetoric gradually became asynthesis
of stylization and interpretation skills, the art of expressing oneself and of
better understanding events, stories and ideas.
In the Middle Ages, Christianity also adopted and adapted ethical principles reflecting the orators education, cultivating mores oratoris, morals
which shaped the orators personality as well as the effect of his speech. As
rhetoric, aboth normative and descriptive discipline, expanded its range to
include the entirety of verbal production, its importance in the system of the
seven liberal arts also grew. It became stylistic as well as poetic, it focused
its attention not only on orators and preachers speeches, but also on those
addressing artistic, scientific and theological matters.
Liberal arts, divided into literary disciplines, artes sermocinales (trivium) and scientific disciplines, reales (quadrivium), were taught from
the 5thcentury in schools which were established in monasteries and royal
courts. The very Greek word schol, school, is closely connected to the meaning liberal, containing the meanings of free or empty moments, free time,
breaking free from the everyday hustle and bustle, giving afree person the
opportunity to contemplate both the world and himself. In the human community, aschool creates aspace which is not governed by demands to satisfy
ones needs or the struggle for existence, aspace where expediency and servitude to practice are not important, and under the protection, instruction
and learning of which, and with ageneral care for nothing but truth, can
take place without any obstacles. Later, however, monastic schools ceased
to meet the demands placed on education and were replaced by cathedral
schools, which were located in large cities and were under the patronage of
one of the cathedrals canons. This canon, scholasticus, was assigned the care
of the schools development alongside the teachers education, and had the
right to appoint teachers to schools. The most important cathedral schools
were established in Paris, at Notre Dame, St. Victor and on Mont Ste. Genevive. Other centres arose in Angers, Meung, Tours, Bec-Helouin and,

 /89/

most notably, in Chartres, where natural sciences were advanced following

Arabic influences, which, along with the study of Augustines metaphysics,
paved the way for the burgeoning of European humanisms first wave in
the 12th century. In contrast, the school in Orlans emphasized the study of
grammar and rhetoric. From the end of the 12th century, education began to
be more secular and the cathedral schools were gradually transformed into
free communities of students and teachers, which later came to be called
universities. The first university was established by Frederick IBarbarossa
in Bologna in 1158. Between 1208 and 1209, the Parisian cathedral schools
were granted university status and, at asimilar time, Oxford University was
established, followed by several others in aquick succession: Padua, Naples,
Salamanca, Coimbra, Prague, Vienna, Heidelberg, Leipzig and Cracow.
Rhetorics ties to academic education were reflected in its practical application. The deliberative genre survived only in suasoria, school exercises
in rhetoric, in which the pupil was supposed to convince the listeners of the
correctness of acertain stance through the imitation of aparticular model.
The forensic oratory practice, controversia, started to draw inspiration from
literary texts rather than from reality.
In the Middle Ages, rhetorics doctrine also played afundamental role in
the codifying of the nature of scientific research. As previously mentioned,
amedieval scholar was accustomed to working almost exclusively with texts
read aloud. In his Confessions (VI. 3), St. Augustine expressed his surprise
over St. Ambrose as when he was reading, his eye glided over the pages,
and his heart searched out the sense, but his voice and tongue were at rest.
Ofttimes when we had come (for no man was forbidden to enter, nor was
it his wont that any who came should be announced to him), we saw him
thus reading to himself, and never otherwise. Scientific opinions were disseminated in lecture halls in schools, monasteries and libraries, wherein the
activity and escalated polemics of the texts delivered were reminiscent of
orators ancient platforms. Understandably, rhetorical rules and principles
concerning the selection of themes, arguments for their arrangement, stylization, memorization and, finally, delivery, spread into the genres of philosophical and scholarly literature. Scholarly topics were also the most suitable to demonstrate the interplay between rhetoric and dialectics (logic),
as emphasized by Aristotle, the supreme authority for medieval science,
though he was often quoted under the moniker Philosopher. Textually
strict logical composition was afundamental prerequisite for the stylization
of the key aspects of scientific literature: lectures (lectiones) and discussion

3. Rhetoric and Medieval Christian Culture

/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/

in the educational system Alcuin was steadily and systematically building

throughout Charlemagnes empire. The meticulous research qualities of several monastic centres is clearly evinced by De institutione clericorum, ahomiletics textbook compiled by Alcuins pupil, Rabanus Maurus.
In western European literature, the 7th9th centuries are marked by
deepening stylistic differentiation. The Asiatic mannerist style inspired the
Scotti, the Latin-writing members of Hiberno-Scottish missions, who were
instrumental in the literary flourishing during the Carolingian Renaissance.
Their writing is characterized by complex syntactic structures encompassing inversions, neologisms, onomatopoeic puns, acrostichons, anagrams,
chiasms, tmeses, oxymora, antitheses, hyperboles, allegories and many other figures and tropes. This style had its counterpart in astyle that adhered
to the sober expression introduced by the authors of Latins Golden and
Silver Ages.
In the 12th century, this opposition acquired anew dimension. Based on
classical models, novitas, modernitas, that is, ingenious or even filigree use of
language, came to life.
In late antiquity and particularly during the rise of large medieval empires and administrative areas, Latin began to manifest language oppositions which can be interpreted from astylistic rather than language perspective. These oppositions have their roots in the natural process of Romance
languages penetration (linguae rusticae, linguae vulgares) into both literary
and administrative texts. The mixing of regional (Romance) and classical
(Latin) elements is typical of the bilingualism which was so characteristic
of medieval scholars. The extent of regional variation being used differs
according genres and stylistic techniques, giving rise to both linguistic and
cultural dualism, in some multilingual territories this went so far as to effective pluralism. Being anormative rather than descriptive discipline, rhetoric reacted to this development in two ways. Regionalisms and foreign
elements, barbarisms, were sometimes viewed as modern, setting the rules
concerning the circumstances in which they could be used, while at other
times they were held to be unacceptable from the perspective of language
purism.
The expansion of the territory in which variations of medieval rhetoric
appeared soon exceeded the traditional borders of the Latin-Roman world.
The mixing of Latin and German terminology is typical of Nova rhetorica
by Notker Labeo (early 11th century), ateacher at the St. Gall Abbey, who
came to be nicknamed Notker Teutonicus for his efforts to simplify Latin texts

3. Rhetoric and Medieval Christian Culture

/92/

for his pupils. Tresor, an extensive encyclopaedic work by Brunetto Latini,

dating from 1265, is considered the oldest French book on rhetoric.
Adivision of rhetorical genres based on their practical use surfaced in the
11th and 12th centuries. Generally, there are three thematic areas:
The first is based on St. Augustines work and consists of the artes
praedicandi, concionandi, the art of preaching, homiletics, represented by
worksincluding Liber quo ordine sermo fieri debeat (1084) by Guibert of Nogent and De arte praedicatoria (ca. 1199), written by Alain de Lille (Alanus
ab Insulis).
The second group included artes dictaminis, the art of letter writing, with
instructions regarding writing official and private letters. The Benedictine
Abbey in Monte Cassino became the cradle of the dictamen handbooks, followed by Bologna and Orlans as important centres of letter writing. From
the late 13th century, rhetoric was also taught at the Vyehrad Chapter in
Prague thanks to the lecturing and literary activities of Henricus of Isernia,
from Italy, whom the Czech writer Vladislav Vanura called the mastermind of letters.
The third area, artes poetriae, artes versificatoriae, covers the borderline
area between rhetoric and poetics. The expression poetria, which appeared
around 1200, represents the instruction of verse writing and achieving the
stylistic effect through tropes, figures, composition and other means. The
works originating between 1170 and 1300 written by John of Garland, Geoffrey of Vinsauf (Galfredus de Vino Salvo), Vincent of Beauvais, Gervase of
Melkley and Matthew of Vendme became quite notably popular.
In its final stages, medieval rhetoric gradually but more consistently applied its rules to the works of literature as well as preaching in national
languages. Despite this, non-Latin books on rhetoric were still rather rare.
Apart from Notkers previously-cited textbook, amacaronic mixture of Latin and Old Upper German dialects, we could list atextbook of tropes and
figures in Occitan, Las Leys dAmors (Laws of Love) by Guilhem Molinier of
Toulouse (ca. 1330), explaining metrical composition and tropological rules
to the authors of troubadour poetry, or the oldest Latin-Czech dictamen
written by Pragues New Town notary, Procopius, with remarkably elaborate Czech terminology, dating to the mid-15th century. Despite this, Latin
did not relinquish its monopoly as the metalanguage of rhetoric until several centuries later, only slowly giving way to the national languages.
To conclude this periodization overview, allow me abrief remark. Our
information about medieval rhetoric is mostly, sometimes even exclusively,

 /93/

based on textbooks primarily intended for beginners. Only asmall number

of rhetoric teachers wrote down their lectures and so the same textbooks
and the same textual models would circulate around Europe, irrespective of
borders. Given this lack of information, which was once disseminated viva
voce, we have been reconstructing the magnificent structure of medieval
humanist culture from its most basic construction elements, such as extant
manuscripts and later textbook incunables. We can justify this by quoting
the oft-repeated sentence from the Quadripartitus collection of fables, dating
from the time when Charles IV founded the Prague University: Totus enim
mundus est sc(h)ola: the whole world is aschool.
However, this epoch provides yet more testimony: literary, philosophical
and theological texts, whose authors were shaped by their rhetorical education. Whether and to what extent these texts may be indicative of the academic, cultural and everyday behaviour of people in the epoch is aquestion
which is not, however, limited to only the Middle Ages.
RHETORIC AND THE SEVEN LIBERAL ARTS ALLEGORY IN MARTIANUS CAPELLA

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-

3. Rhetoric and Medieval Christian Culture

/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

3. Rhetoric and Medieval Christian Culture

/96/

later regarded as heretical, against the Manicheans, Donatists, Pelagians.

Both his Confessions (Confessiones) and his personal letters evince that he considered these fights to be serious matters, alternating between rational and
deeply emotional arguments in his speeches. He considered rhetoric to be
adoctrine simultaneously summarizing the rules of both the monologue
and the dialogue. Let neither of us assert that he has found truth; let us
seek it as if it were unknown to us both. For truth can be sought with zeal
and unanimity if by no rash presumption it is believed to have been already found and ascertained.27 Augustine derived the dialogical nature of
his speech from abelief that every discourse exists only as an incentive for
further speech acts and in reaction to those speech acts that have preceded
it. Only asummary of these acts of communication can produce understanding. Adiscourse is understood as adialogue with partners and with
ourselves. The purpose of the discourse is not merely to act as the sum of
meanings of individual words. On the contrary, it gradually emerges from
asuccession of questions and answers elicited by the use of these words.
The second cause that can explain Augustines intense rhetoricism can be
found in his pastoral activities. The community of believers which he addressed and in whose midst he lived, was populated by fishermen, sailors,
craftsmen, farmers and freed slaves. They mixed faith with the heresies and
superstitions engendered by paganism. In order to win these people over to
Christianity, apreacher had to apply escalated comparisons, play on their
affections, employ vernacular vocabulary, unusual metaphors and whatever
other linguistic means possible. The metaphorical nature and effusiveness
adopted from the Second Sophistic links Augustine to the other 4th century
Church Fathers style.
If viewing Christian rhetoric broadly as asearch for (and interpretation
of) the themes in the biblical text, ars inveniendi, and then as the art of conveying the results of such interpretation, ars proferendi, we could say that the
first three volumes of On Christian Doctrine, written prior to 397, are devoted
to the first group of issues invention, while volume 4, written in 426 after
considerable delay, is foczuses on the second field style (elocutio). In the
intervening period, Augustine compiled apractical handbook concerning
an explanation of the foundations of this new faith for converts, entitled
De catechizandis rudibus, or On the Catechizing of the Uninstructed. It
is written in epistolary form and addressed to Deogratias, Bishop of Carthage. These instructions intended for preachers reveal his dependence on
the ideas and wording of Ciceros Orator.

 /97/

The first three volumes of On Christian Doctrine present the conception of

theoretical hermeneutics, based on ancient rhetorical doctrines of judicial
speeches. They were clearly influenced both by Aristotles Organon, particularly On Interpretation, and by the Hellenistic doctrine concerning language
semiotics which had inspired Origens writings (Contra Celsum, Peri Achaion)
and Tyconiuss treatise Liber regularum. The source of Augustines recurrent
and emphasized effort to avoid obscurity (obscuritas) and ambiguity (ambiguitas) in text can be directly attributed to Ciceros De inventione. An accurate understanding of awritten text (interpretatio scripti), which for Augustine meant the interpretation of the Holy Scripture (tractatio Scripturarum),
includes two views: the objective or judicial, based on an effort to ascertain
the authors intention (voluntas), and grammatical or stylistic, based on the
exact wording of the written (scriptum) or spoken text (vox). Among Augustines predecessors, most notably Cicero and Quintilian, many focused
on correct reading, albeit applying adifferent approach. Ancient writers
consider the variety of interpretations caused by any ambiguity in the means
employed, by the conflict between scritpum and voluntas, by the conflict between laws, and many other aspects of rhetoric, to be achallenge to the discussion and exchange of arguments between equal opponents. Augustine,
however, only allows for one interpretation: that based on Gods mercy,
Caritas. In spite of this, an interpreter approaching the text in the spirit of
Caritas, might make amistake, albeit unintentionally. Erroneous reading
(allium sentit quam ille qui scripsit) likens him to man who has arrived at his
destination after along journey, having strayed from the correct path several times (1.36.41). The allegory regarding roads serves to explain one of
the main contradictions within his ethics system: the difference inherent
between the intentional choice of the wrong direction, which equals alie
(mendax); and going astray by mistake (fallax). Reaching the destination
when following the right path (Greek: methodos) is an interpretation in the
spirit of the authors intention (voluntas), while reaching the destination
having strayed from the correct path puts the pilgrim in danger both of not
avoiding his error in the future and in the failure to reach his destination
(understanding the right meaning of the text).
Augustines conception of alanguage sign is based on distinguishing
between two aspects of meaning. The first, semantic aspect corresponds to
the general meaning of the word (vox/scriptum), while the second, dianoetic, corresponds to what the author had intended when using the word in
its particular context. Similarly, he juxtaposes, and occasionally contrasts,

3. Rhetoric and Medieval Christian Culture

/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

3. Rhetoric and Medieval Christian Culture

/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/

commentary on Ciceros Topics, entitled In Topica Ciceronis commentariorum

libri sex, and Boethiuss own work De differentiis topicis libri quattuor, which,
known as Topica Boetii, gained immense popularity throughout the Middle
Ages, as can be evinced by the 170 manuscript copies from the 6th13th century which are now preserved in libraries across Europe.
Topica Boetii consists of four books. The first covers logic (ratio disserendi) and has two parts. The introductory part, ars inveniendi, describes the
role of commonplaces (loci, topoi) in the construction of propositions and
arguments (locus autem sedes est argumenti, vel id unde ad propositam quaestionem conveniens trahitur argumentum). Arguments differ according to the type
of discourse and Boethius mentions four different categories: in dialectico,
oratore, philosopho, sophista. The second part, ars iudicandi, covers inferring
(deriving) propositions (omnis ratio disserendi, quam logicem Peripatetici veteres
appelaverunt, in duos distribuitur partes, unam inveniendi, alter iudicandi).
The second and third books of Topics develop the potential of logical and
rhetorical argumentation. As was the case in late antiquity, loci (topoi) are
not understood to be models for literal imitation, but rather as methodological tools which help to invent (invenire) premises upon which arguments
are built.
Book 4 is crucial for understanding rhetorics position in the seven liberal arts system. It analyses the relation between rhetorical arguments (based
on the probable premises) and dialectical ones (based on premises that are
certain). Generally, premises are defined as rules for logical proofs, though
they do not require proof as they are evident and universal. There are agreat
number of rules, meaning that it is necessary to systematically explain the
differences (differentiae) between them (hence the works title). These maxims include statements such as What is included in asegment of awhole is
also included in the whole itself, If definitions of two matters differ, then
these matters also differ.
At the end of the fourth book, Boethius explains the differences between rhetoric and dialectic. The dialectic examines theses, which are general propositions, while rhetoric investigates hypotheses (Ciceros causae),
specific propositions whose validity is conditioned by place, time, speakers
personality, and type of audience. The dialectic alternates questions and
answers, while rhetoric focuses on amonologue. Adialectician strives for
victory in an argument, achieved through the use of suitable syllogisms,
while a rhetorician intends to persuade the audience through probable
proofs.

3. Rhetoric and Medieval Christian Culture

/102/

In kind with Augustine before him, Boethius also included rhetoric in

the system of the disciplines, pillars supporting the structure of European
education. There are, however, significant differences between these two
writers. For Augustine, rhetoric was primarily apractical tool for disseminating faith, while Boethius intended to theoretically define its relation to
dialectic and other disciplines. For Boethius, rhetoric was abridge between
grammar and dialectic, which ensures that eloquence would consistently
follow reasons wisdom. According to Augustine, rhetoric is based on the
refinement of the style and on fitting metaphors, while in Boethiuss view,
it sprouts from alogically constructed proposition. This high regard for
logic, and rational thought in general, is clearly demonstrated in Boethiuss
famous statement in aletter to Pope John I: fidem, si poteris, rationemque
coniunge (if possible, merge faith and reason). This statement is both at the
root of medieval learning and of the later history of scholasticism as adoctrine combining faith and science, theology and philosophy. For this reason,
Boethius, aphilosopher and Christian martyr, is considered the first thinker
in the history of medieval scholasticism.
CASSIODORUSS ENCYCLOPAEDIC VIEW OF CHRISTIAN WORLD

Thanks to Boethius, European scholars could use information explaining

the content of individual liberal arts in order to ensure asound basis in
preparation for more advanced study of philosophy and theology. Thanks
to Augustine, scholars were aware of the role rhetoric and dialectic played
in understanding the Bible and in the effective interpretation of its principles. The next generation of scholars, philosophers and theologians was
charged with the task of selecting the most important issues among the trivium and quadrivium disciplines and arranging them in acomprehensible,
easy to learn system. The compilations and collections of the 5th8th century encyclopaedists ought not to be considered inferior. Their deliberation
concerning what should be safeguarded from change and preserved from
the older culture, what should be newly interpreted through contemplation
and the means of expression typical of their time, all this underlay Europes
humanist future.
Boethiuss younger contemporary and student, Flavius Magnus Aurelius
Cassiodorus (ca. 490583), was predestined to fulfil this demanding task
thanks to his extraordinary erudition and, just as importantly, his longevity.
This high official of King Theodoric and an author of the history of the

 /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

3. Rhetoric and Medieval Christian Culture

/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

Like Cassiodorus and thanks to the effort of his predecessors, Isidore of

Seville (ca. 570636 CE), another encyclopaedist from this patristic periods
peak, did not have to search for the content of the disciplines included in
the system of liberal arts nor for what should be handed down to future
generations. Instead, both writers focused their energies on how these disciplines were interrelated and on the role of philosophy and theology in
education. Isidore is credited with elaborating acurriculum in which an
understanding of language (what today we would call the ability to communicate appropriately and effectively) was anecessary prerequisite for every
aspect of intellectual activity. This scheme was presented in his Etymologiarum sive originum libri XX, known in English as Etymologies or Origins. Unlike
Cassiodorus, Isidore does not distinguish between divine and secular
forms of knowledge, instead, he defines the path to education with the literary disciplines, grammar and rhetoric. At the beginning of the scholars
journey was dialectics, acting as adiscipline focusing on the laws of structured thought. This was aformulation followed by Europes first universities founders.
While Boethius considered rhetoric to be part of the dialectic, Isidore
believed it most closely related to grammar, whose study engenders the ability (peritia) to communicate properly (grammatica est scientia recte loquendi et
origo fundamentum liberalium litterarum; grammar is the science of correctness
in speaking, which is both the origin and foundation of the liberal arts). The
passages devoted to rhetoric (Book II of the compendium) cover rhetorical
genres in relation to the inventio: forensic, deliberative and epideictic, stasis types as defined by Hermagoras and methods of argumentation following Aristotle and Ciceros models. In the section on disposition, he covers
the arrangement of speeches: introduction, narration, argumentation and
conclusion (Partes orationis in Rhetorica arte quattuor sunt: exordium, narratio,
argumentatio, conclusio, 2.7.1), while the chapter on stylization (elocutio), referring to Rhetorica ad Herennium and Quintilian, provides an overview of
tropes and figures (schemata, figurae) illustrated with examples from Vergil,

 /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

The distribution of themes among the trivium disciplines eventually led

to the following distinctions: language correctness and interpretation of
literary texts were part of grammar; style, metaphorical language and the
composition of texts of rhetoric; argumentation and deriving conclusions
from premises of dialectics. Thus, within the trivium arose an opposition
between grammar and rhetoric as philological and literary disciplines on
the one side and dialectics as adiscipline focusing on the rules of correct
thinking on the other. It was with scholars from beyond the continent that
this trend reached its apex, with the newly visible scholars from England.
The area of the European scientific research based on the system of seven
liberal arts had expanded.
The first rhetorical tool which originated in this cultural sphere was Liber
de schematibus et tropis (Book of Tropes and Figures) by the Venerable Bede
(673735). That it was one of the most frequently quoted texts between 730
and the end of the 12th century attests to its importance in instruction in
grammar and rhetoric both in England and on the continent, particularly
in France and Germany.
Medieval authors presented figurative language, concentrating on
teaching the tropes and figures concurrently in grammatical and rhetorical textbooks. The most widespread textbook of Latin grammar was
written by Aelius Donatus (mid-4th century). Its first part, Ars minor, covered parts of speech, while the second part, Ars maior, which was intended for more advanced students, focused on harmful influences that other
languages (barbarisms) have on good Latin and presented an overview

3. Rhetoric and Medieval Christian Culture

/106/

of tropes and figures. Priscians Institutio de arte grammatica (prior to 526)

was amore demanding grammar textbook, emphasizing stylistics and meters. Priscianbecameoneof the main sources for Bedes stylistics-oriented
rhetoric.
Bede wrote his grammatical and rhetorical treatise on tropes and figures as atextbook for students of the monastic school in Jarrow, where he
worked as ateacher of grammar, mathematics and music throughout his
life. He also became famous as an exegete and translator of the Scriptures
(his exegetical works amount to 25 volumes and, thanks to his authority
in theological matters, he is often called ecclesiae doctor), with his History of
the English Church and People, Historia ecclesiastica gentis Britonum, garnering
high acclaim. According to Bede, science (scientia) should cultivate wisdom
(sapientia) in man, which should aid him in finding the path to knowledge
and true faith. Education aiming at wisdom, however, cannot be limited
to making the pupil knowledgeable (sciens) or skilled in practical actions
(peritus). Its aim is providing an educated man (prudens) with the skills to
navigate both the world and questions of faith, in order for him to be able
to participate in divine plans (omnis sapientia aDomino).
Liber de schematibus et tropis contains alist of forms within stylistic imagery, illustrated by examples drawn from the Scriptures (and, in one case,
from the Christian poet Sedulius). It includes atotal of 41 definitions of
tropes and 29 definitions of figures, which are exemplified through 122 textual extracts. The book is organized as adictionary of literary (rhetorical)
terms rather than written as acontinuous normative stylistic exposition.
Bede adopted many definitions from Isidores Etymologies, from Donatuss
grammar and from Priscian. He paid most attention, in exposition and examples, to metaphor and allegory as tropes which provide the keys to understanding both literal and spiritual interpretation of the Scriptures.
Bede believed that teaching tropes and figures was simultaneously part
of both grammar and rhetoric. The relationship between the orthography
and pronunciation of contemporary Latin, marked by local influences, is
the subject of De orthographia. Bede, however, wrote yet another work that
won much acclaim, De arte metrica. Based on his observations of contemporary declamations and on the grammarians experience, it presents aunique
analysis of speech rhythm in poetry as well as in high fiction. From the perspective of the acoustic organization of speech, Bede distinguished between
prosaic, metric and rhythmic texts. The third type is also found in the two
previous categories, which makes rhythmic stress the superior of the three.

 /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

In his Epistola generalis addressed to high church dignitaries, Charlemagne,

the King of the Franks, reminded them that it does not suffice that their
wisdom be based merely on the study of canonical texts, but that such study
should always be accompanied by eloquence which would facilitate the persuasive dissemination of the knowledge of faith and their efforts in research.
This task was initiated by Alcuin of York, ahigh state dignitary, ateacher at
Charlemagnes palace school and aforebear of European humanism.
Alcuin (originally spelled as Alch-wine, later changed to the Latinate
form of Flaccus Albinus) came from Yorkshire and acquired an excellent
education at the York school. Upon invitation from Charlemagne, he arrived at his palace school in 791 to teach liberarium artium sacrarium. This
school, which followed Charles from place to place on his monarchical engagements, had as its curriculum the formal and spiritual foundations of
future universities. Alcuins contribution to the cultural boom of Charlemagnes empire reached its peak after 795 when he became the abbot of
Marmoutier Abbey in Tours, which under his direction soon after became
a centre of education and science. In concert with his academic life, he
maintained afocus on political and state administrative activities. He lived
to witness the crowning of Charlemagne as sovereign of the Holy Roman
Empire.
Apart from many works on biblical exegesis, philosophy and ethics,
Alcuin also wrote two important philological pieces, Grammatica and De

3. Rhetoric and Medieval Christian Culture

/108/

orthographia, and apractical textbook of rhetoric, Dialogus de rhetorica et

virtutibus sapientissimi Regis Karli et Albini Magistri.
Alcuins rhetoric is written as adialogue between ateacher and apupil.
The pupils role is represented by Charlemagne himself, while Alcuin appears in the role of the teacher. The text follows Ciceros De inventione, along
with Rhetorica ad Herennium and Gaius Julius Victors rhetoric, although it
shortens some of the traditional expositions to suit its didactic purposes.
Abrief introduction (Chapter I) is followed by an exposition on the origins
of rhetoric, focusing particularly on its purpose and subject matter (Chapter II). Stasis theory and loci communes, with special regard to law (status
iuridicalis), are covered in Chapters III and IV, while Chapter Vpresents the
division of speech into parts (exordium, narratio, partitio, probatio, refutatio,
conclusio). Chapter VI analyzes the difference between rhetorical and sophistic proofs, Chapter VII covers arrangement (dispositio), while questions
related to style are explained in Chapter VIII. The practical focus of the
book results in arelatively large emphasis on the memorization of texts
(ChapterIX) and delivery (Chapter X), and thereby covers those aspects of
rhetoric which medieval authors, who primarily focused on the theoretical
aspects of the field, paid relatively little, if any, attention.
The concluding supplement on rhetorical virtues, which may be seen as
an attempt to compile amoral code for the Carolingian period, develops Cicero and Quintilians thesis of the necessity of correspondence between the
orators behaviour and speech, applying it extensively in moral philosophy
and law. This makes Alcuins book on rhetoric abreviary concerning ideal
behaviour and alearned mans essential educational handbook, including
the king himself. This genre of the ad usum delphini books inspired European literature many years after Alcuin.
From the relatively small number of preserved copies of Alcuins rhetoric, we may infer that it was atextbook primarily intended for schools
and the administrative wing across the Carolingian Empire. Nevertheless,
Alcuins work adumbrated further developments in rhetoric, in new conditions which we shall follow through three intertwining lines, those related
to preaching, legal administration, and stylistics and poetics.
ARTES PRAEDICANDI: ART OF PREACHING IN THE MIDDLE AGES

The development of the art of preaching (ars praedicandi), naturally enough,

primarily reflected practical needs. There was, however, another important

 /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

3. Rhetoric and Medieval Christian Culture

/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

3. Rhetoric and Medieval Christian Culture

/112/

these four methods of interpretation and the four wheels of avehicle, on

which every page of the Scriptures is based (quibus quasi quibusdam rotis volvitur omnis sacra pagina). The practice of following the four levels of textual
interpretation, later rejected by Luther, spread from Guibert to other works
on preaching as part of the quest for arguments (inventio), with Dante later
applying it to the reading of secular literature.
In the 13th century, Summa de arte praedicatoria, written by the Cistercian Alain de Lille (Alanus ab Insulis, 1202 or 1203), and largely adhering
to Gregory the Greats ideas, became awidespread textbook on the art of
preaching. In its 48 chapters, Alain distinguished three methods of influencing believers: preaching, praedicatio in verbo, epistles, praedicatio in scripto, and exemplary life, praedicatio in facto. As teaching should focus on the
polemics of sin, uprooting vices was more important than an appeal to lead
avirtuous life. Apreacher was expected to pay due care to his language in
order to make it accessible to the various subsets within an audience (he lists
atotal of nine) and avoid shallow language ornamentation, as the purpose
of asermon does not lie in increasing the preachers fame, but rather in
helping the audience. When preparing asermon, it is important to focus on
its purpose, its recipients and the time and place of its delivery. Alains texts
also contains what is possibly the oldest definition of the art of preaching:
praedicatio est manifesta et publica instructio morum et fidei, informationi hominum deserviens, ex ratione semita, et auctoritatem fonte proveniens (Preaching is
an open and public instruction in faith and morals, whose purpose is the
forming of men; it derives from the path of rational argument and from
thefountainhead of the authorities.).30
Of the various writers who compiled handbooks for preachers, Thomas
Waleys, aDominican and ateacher at Oxford University, exerted an influence on the Czech academic environment at the peak of the Middle Ages.
His text De modo componenti sermones cum documentis (ATractate on How
to Compose aSermon, Accompanied by Examples), dating from the mid14th century, was one of the fundamental handbooks on preaching used by
Stanisaw of Skarbimierz, aPolish teacher who lectured at universities in
Prague and Cracow at the turn of the 14th and 15th centuries. This work,
modestly characterized by its author as Opusculum ... continens artem quondam et quasi theoricam de modo et forma praedicandi, is divided into nine chapters, which develop modern approaches to preaching (iuxta consuetudinem
modernam). It holds that the door to effective preaching was to be opened
with four keys. The first related to preparation (assumptio) for the theme,

 /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.

3. Rhetoric and Medieval Christian Culture

/114/

The author, about whom little is known, had acomprehensive knowledge

of Aristotle, Cicero and Boethius, and his erudite comparisons of thematic
development methodologies in sermons corresponded to those taught in
Paris and Oxford.
The theme and methods for its development in the text, adominant focal point of ars predicandi textbooks, were central to John de Chalons text
Ars brevis et clara faciendi sermones secundum formam syllogisticam (ABrief and
Clear Handbook on Composing Sermons Following the Syllogistic Form),
dating from 1370. The writer, most likely abbot of the Cistercian Monastery
in Pontigny, France, differed from his contemporaries in adhering to Boethius rather than Cicero. His approach is generally of interest from amethodological perspective, though it was not very successful didactically, as he
attempted to elaborate such amethod of the central themes amplification
which would follow aset number of rules regarding textual stylization and
composition.
ARTES DICTAMINIS: THE ART OF RHETORICS NEW FACE

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

3. Rhetoric and Medieval Christian Culture

/116/

letters, which correspond to public speeches (oratio), while personal letters,

whose oral counterpart is private communication, are dealt with in several
brief notes. Julius Victor suggested that aletters style is determined by the
degree of closeness between the addressee and the writer, and their social
status (amicitia et dignitas).
Although the history of medieval rhetoric features many remarkable figures, Gaius Julius Victor and his rhetoric had remained the only source of
letter-writing theory until the 11th century. Instead of general rules, epistolography was dominated by Cassiodoruss extensive correspondence and
the refined style of Gregory the Greats models (stilus Gregorianus). Examples of these authors letters also represented the most frequently published
models in medieval grammar and rhetoric books.
The practical needs of secular and church administration gave rise to
collections of model letters presented as templates (formulae) in the 7th century. They primarily addressed administrative genres (contracts, letters of
credence, documents ensuring immunity), however, they also included celebratory (congratulatory) letters. The oldest were written in France, including Formulae Andegavenses from Angers (7th century), Formulae Arvensenses
from Clermont (8th century), and Formulae Turonenses from Tours (8th and
9th centuries).
Ars dictaminis originated in the Benedictine Abbey of Monte Cassino
in central Italy. The monastery expounded the ideology of its founder,
St.Benedict, through cultivating education, and collecting and copying old
manuscripts. In the second half of the 11th century, Alberic of Monte Cassino, alearned monk, used his own lectures to compile arhetoric book of Ciceronian style, intended to aid in composing letters and written documents.
This brief text of 1087 and entitled Dictamen radii (Glory of Composition)
focused primarily on rhetorical ornaments, hence its subtitle Flores rhetorici.
The fundamentals of this textbooks exposition (rudimenta doctrinae) were
followed up by amore systematic textbook Breviarium de dictamine, based
on Alberics earlier lectures.
Alberic, along with his followers, paid the most attention to the initial
part of written discourse (exordium), which included the opening salutation,
salutatio. Apart from this, he also covered the problem of grammatical errors, which he termed barbarisms. Breviariums text has been preserved in
two almost identical copies, one in Munich and the other in St Petersburg.
The first chapter defines the epistolary genre, covering mainly stylistic variants of opening passages (prologi epistolarum mulipliciter fiunt). The second

 /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

3. Rhetoric and Medieval Christian Culture

/118/

formula containing asons address to his father may be worded as follows:

venerabili et dilecto patri vel reverendo ac diligendo patri vel agenitori dulcissimo
... eius dilectus filius perennem cum fidelitate servitium vel quicquid patri peramans
filius vel quicquid domino subditus servulus.
The dissemination and popularity of ars dictaminis beyond Bolognas
borders can be demonstrated in Henry Francisgenas Aurea gemma, acollection of model letters, written in Pavia in 1119. The development of this genre
in Italy is characterized by extending the section containing model letters,
intended to be imitated or used for compiling new texts (reproductio), at the
expense of general stylization rules. Such works were written to equip astudent or other users with asimple manual (rudibus ministrare), consisting of
examples or brief definitions related to the compositional segments of letter
writing. Rationes dictandi, another rhetoric book circulating in numerous
manuscripts, written by an unknown author (ca. 1135), recommends the
following letter structure:
Salutatio (initial salutation, generally including an elaborate address
in the vocative case), captatio benevolentiae (along with the salutation, this
forms part of the exordium [proemium]; it is supposed to entice the addressees interest in and focus on the text), sometimes proverbium, aproverb serving asthe letters motto, narratio (the central content of the letter, or adepiction of the circumstances leading to the writers subsequent plea orrequest),
petitio (plea, request), conclusio (aconclusion containing various types of
closing formulas, valete).
Lively, polemic and on occasion boastful tones characterized works by
Boncompagno da Signa (11651240), ateacher from Bologna. He emphasized that he had written eleven rhetoric textbooks without ever reading
or imitating Cicero (nunquam enim memini me Tullium legisse nec secundum
alicuius doctrinam). Of his books, Rhetorica antiqua, sometimes known as
Boncompagnus and dating from 1215, was particularly popular, becoming
the foundation for the 13 books of Rhetorica novissima. This extensive rhetoric textbook, intended for law students, was highly critical of contemporary
legal practice and argumentation. As rhetoric was considered an indispensable facet of legal instruction, legal documents prevail among the examples
presented. The high status rhetoric enjoyed can be demonstrated by his
statement that rhetoric was the Empress of the liberal arts and the foster
daughter of the two arms of law (rhetorica est liberalium artium imperatrix et
utriusque iuris alumna). Boncompagno is also the author of Rota Veneris, the
oldest known collection of model love letters.

 /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.

3. Rhetoric and Medieval Christian Culture

/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.

3. Rhetoric and Medieval Christian Culture

/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

Beginning with Alberic, the instruction of rhetoric focused on composing

written documents, particularly those of certain genres. Despite this, the
need to include all that is related to cultivated and stylistically appropriate
language into trivium instruction was becoming more urgent. Over time,

 /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,

3. Rhetoric and Medieval Christian Culture

/124/

known as the Modistae (also called Modists or Speculative Grammarians),

were deeply influenced by the grammatical structure of Latin, though they
were mostly interested in the languages general laws. The differentiation
between abstract (deep) and phenomenal (surface) language structures had
its predecessor in Roger Bacon, whose Summa Grammatica (1245) contains
the statement that there is, in fact, only one grammar for all languages,
though it may differ in details (grammatica una est eadem et secundum substantiam in omnibus linguis, licet accidentaliter varietur). Consequently, views of
the Modistae turned grammar into the simple servant of philosophy as they
absolutized the idea that the language is an immediate and ideal expression
of the minds contents, disregarding the fact that languages real existence
lies in contact between people, in which communication occurs in various
situations.
The origin of poetrie, textbooks which represented asynthesis of grammar, the art of letter writing and poetics, dates from the early 13th century.
The core of the classical canon, wide-spread in manuscripts and incunabula,
included the extensive Poetria nova (2117 verses), along with longer or shorter versions of the texts Documentum de modo et arte dictandi et versificandi by
Geoffrey of Vinsauf, Ars versificatoria by Matthew of Vendme, John of Garlands De arte prosayca, metrica, et rithmica, also known as Parisiana poetria,
Eberhard the Germans Laborintus, and Ars poetica (De arte versificatoria et
modo dictandi) by Gervase of Melkley (de Saltu Lacteo). In central Europe,
Nicolaus Dybins commentaries, Declaracio Laborinti Eberhardi and Exposicio
Novae poetriae Ganifredi, achieved considerable popularity. This rector in the
Dresden school (rector parvulorum from 1369) was closely linked to Pragues
school of rhetoric. As most books on the art of letter writing are similar in
both content and mode of expression, the following exposition will focus
on particular features.
One of the most frequently published works of this type was written by
the Englishman Geoffrey of Vinsauf (Galfredus de Vino Salvo). He learned
the art of letter writing at Bologna University (11881190), then studied
and, possibly, lectured in Paris and later in the English town of Hampton.
His Poetria nova, often referred to as Galfredi rhetorica, ca. 1215, represented
asuccessful attempt to produce amodern and completely revised version of
Horatios Ars poetica, which subsequently became known as the Old Poetics,
Poetica vetus. More than 200 manuscripts and agreat number of printed versions, which continued to be reprinted up to the 17th century, attest to the
books extraordinary and enduring popularity, resulting from remarkable

 /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

3. Rhetoric and Medieval Christian Culture

/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).

3. Rhetoric and Medieval Christian Culture

/128/

Wheel of Virgil illustrating styles vertical classification modelled on Vergils three

main works: the Aeneis (high style), the Georgics (middle style) and the Eclogues (low
style). Each of these styles is characterized by particular figures (knight, farmer,
shepherd), names (Hector, Tripolemus, Tityrus), animals (horse, bull, sheep), tools
(sword, plough, crook), locations (city, field, pasture) and plants (laurel, beech, fruit
tree).

Another source of our knowledge of rhetoric in the High Middle Ages,

alongside books on preaching, letter writing and poetics, are several extensive encyclopaedic works. In his Speculum maius (The Great Mirror), Vincent of Beauvais (died before 1264) devoted the third part of the subsection
Speculum doctrinale (The Mirror of Doctrine) to grammar and the fourth to
logic, rhetoric (10 chapters) and poetics. Vincent drew his rhetorical knowledge from Cicero, Boethius and Isidore. In his exposition, Vincent focused
on stylistic and grammatical components, particularly on tropes and figures,
rather than on inventione. He considered elegance, coherence and figures
(elegantia, compositio et dignitas) to be indispensable to good style.
The classification of style into high, middle and low stemmed from many
practical examples. In Greek oratory, this was represented by Demosthenes,
Isocrates and Lysias, and correspondingly Thukydides, Herodotos and Xe-

 /129/

nophanes in historiography. Examples of all three styles can be found in

Ciceros speeches Pro Rabirio, Pro lege Manilia and Pro Caecina.
The high evaluation of rhetoric prevailed in Thierry of Charterss encyclopaedia of liberal arts, Heptateuchon (early 12th century), as well as in
works by his pupil, John of Salisbury (ca. 11151180). Johns Metalogicon
represents rhetoric as anoble and fruitful harmony of refined thought and
beautiful linguistic form. Those intending to disrupt this harmony became
public enemies (hostis publicus) and were railed against.
In the second half of the 12th century, Dominic Gundisalvi (Gundissalinus) wrote the treatise De divisione philosophiae, devoted, as the title suggests, to the classification of sciences, which were divided into the divine
and the secular. Secular sciences, controlled by human reason, were further
subdivided into two groups: eloquence (eloquentia) and wisdom (sapientia).
Wisdom was related to the theoretical discovery of the truth and to practical
skills. Eloquence is addressed by the disciplines which teach correctness in
speech and the use of ornaments: grammar, poetics, rhetoric and human
law (ad eloquentiam enim pertinent omnes que recte vel ornate loqui docent, ut
grammatica, poetica, rhetorica et leges humane). Knowledge of these disciplines
was also essential for those who wanted to pursue politics as part of practical
philosophy.
The classification of doctrines and the status of rhetoric within their system was also atheme in Ralph of Longchamps commentary on Alain de
Lilles Anticlaudianus (In Anticlaudianum Alani commentum; early 13th century). He differentiated between four scientific disciplines, which the divine
doctor prescribed against human ailments: philosophy, eloquence, poetry
and mechanics. Eloquence was then subdivided into grammar, logic and
rhetoric. Grammar teaches how to write correctly and how to understand
written texts, while logic elucidates the definition and classification of notions and argumentation in order to distinguish between the truth and alie,
and rhetoric focuses on persuasion. The ailment of silence and misunderstanding is fought per grammaticam orationem, per logicam argumentationem,
per rhetoricam persuasionem. Ralph continued Alans comparison of rhetoric
to the image of apeacock, in which according to orators, tropes and figures
embellish words and sentences in the same way as the angelic feathers adorn
the birds tail. Both the peacock and the orator wield ademonic voice capable of enchanting others.
Among the works on rhetoric, which originated in the High Middle
Ages, there is one more that deserves our attention: La battaille des sept arts

3. Rhetoric and Medieval Christian Culture

/130/

(The Battle of the Seven Arts), aFrench satirical composition written in

the first half of the 13th century by Henri dAndeli. This work promoted
the school in Orlans, which according to its authors surpassed both the
Parisian and Italian art of letter writing (Lombart dame Rectorique). DAndeli,
who advocated eloquence based on mastering grammar, depicted rhetoric as
alady accompanied by atroop of Lombard knights, whose tongues, though
sharp as lances, can only pierce dunces hearts (Molt iot chevaliers Lombard/
Que Rectorique ot amenez./ Dars ont de langues enpennez/ Por percier les cuers des
genz nices./ ... Par les lances de leur langages.).
RHETORIC IN MEDIEVAL BYZANTIUM

As mentioned in previous chapters, the history of rhetoric in the eastern part

of the Roman Empire was characterized by even less variability than in the
west. Interestingly, the name Byzantium, from the city of Byzantium which
later became Constantinople, was first used by writers in the 16th century. Its
Greek inhabitants called their state Basileia tn Romain, Roman Kingdom,
while in the west it was known by its Latin name of Imperium Romaniae. This
onomastic digression perfectly illustrates the blending of Greek spiritual
culture with the traditions of Roman political thought which were so typical
of the Byzantine Empire.
The authority of the texts which were part of the Corpus Hermogenianum
(Hermogeness rhetoric), along with Aphthonioss progymnasmata, Dionysius of Halicarnassuss stylistics and the firm use of stylistic features introduced by the Second Sophistic led later commentators to compose works
of almost identical form. Not infrequently, todays writers interested in the
style of medieval Byzantine monuments believe there was no difference
between stylistics, poetics, rhetoric and literary theory (Averinchev, 1984).
The periodizations of the history of Byzantine rhetoric37 are mostly based
on external milestones, rather than on the transformation of the prevailing
rhetorical doctrine itself.
In Byzantium, the instruction of rhetoric had been part of acomprehensive system of education for both religious and secular dignitaries (enkyklios paideia, based on paideumata eleutheria, liberal arts) from as early as
the 6thcentury. The development of rhetoric in the Byzantine Empire was
facilitated by rhetorical treatises by Hermogenes of Tarsus (2nd3rd cent.),
aprominent representative of the Second Sophistic, and numerous commentaries on these. Their collection, the Corpus Hermogenianum, was the

 /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-

3. Rhetoric and Medieval Christian Culture

/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/

ally represent apositive heritage; after the fall of Constantinople in 1453,

and in the preceding period of crises heralding this disaster, scholars left for
Europe to disseminate the teaching of the Greek classical authors. And it
was this doctrine that became one of the primary sources of the European
Renaissance as areturn to the firsthand rediscovery of antiquity.

4. FROM HUMANISM TO THE ENLIGHTENMENT

RHETORIC DURING HUMANISM AND RENAISSANCE

Rhetorical doctrine in the late Middle Ages, as explained in great detail in

many textbooks and encyclopaedias, placed more emphasis on memorizing
and the mechanical application of ready-made rules as opposed to asking
fundamental questions concerning its own real meaning. Both despite and
possibly because of this, many intellectuals, little satisfied with the speculative system of scholastic knowledge, asked the following alarming questions
with increasing urgency: Is an expression (oratio) in true harmony with what
man arrives at through his reasoning (ratio)? And thus can we understand
one another? Can reading ancient philosophers and orators aid us in our
contemporary active life? Can eloquence, as aproduct of the trivium disciplines study, lead humanity out of general chaos and into aharmony of
mutual relations? Does eloquence really guarantee wisdom? What images
ofancient thinkers does the Christian interpretation of their teaching render accurate or intentionally altered? Should rhetoric maintain its privileged position in the education and thus in the culture of the time period?
These questions acquired new urgency in the budding period of the Renaissance, which is commonly understood as arebirth of ancient heritage
as well as areturn to Augustine and Jeromes original questions concerning
the role of antiquity in the Christian world. It is symptomatic that many
answers were inspired by newly discovered texts whose existence was either
completely unsuspected or which were considered long lost. The father of
European Humanism, the poet Petrarch, discovered manuscripts of two
ofCiceros speeches as well as his letters to Atticus, while Petrarchs friend,
Coluccio Salutati found some of Ciceros previously unknown letters. Poggio Bracciolini discovered Ciceros speeches Pro Roscio Comoedo and Pro
Murena, and along with his friends, found acomplete version of Quintilians
Institutes of Oratory in St. Gals Abbey. The latter finding met with rapturous
enthusiasm among humanists (around forty copies which were made between 1418 and 1489 have been preserved to this day). Less than acentury

 /135/

later, the palaeographer Cosmas of Cremone, copied the newly discovered

manuscript of Ciceros dialogue, De oratore, abrilliant symbiosis of reflections on rhetorical theory and its practical effects, sharply contrasting with
the boring, repetitive prescriptions of rhetoric textbooks used at the time.
The dissemination of these old-new texts was greatly facilitated by the ever
increasing availability of the printing press.
Why did the study of Cicero and Quintilian stand at the outset of the
disciplines new conception? And why did rhetoric, affected by them, help
shape all of Humanist and Renaissance culture? There are several reasons.
The political and legal refinement of Ciceros forensic oratory, the persuasiveness of his dialogues as well as the moral demands Quintilian placed
on the orators personality directly inspired civic activities of the representatives of the Florentine Republic and other Northern Italian cities. Poggio Bracciolini served as asecretary of the Papal Curia and achancellor of
Florence. The office of the city chancellor was also held by other orators
and humanists with great rhetorical erudition: Coluccio Salutati, Leonardo
Bruni, Lorenzo Valla. At the beginning of the quattrocento, Bruni wrote
the first Humanist biography of Cicero, Cicero Novus (1415), as an example
of the ideal fusion of the active and contemplative life, so typical of the Renaissance. Biographies of ancient authors also gained immense popularity,
such as Scriptores illustres Latinae linguae (18 volumes, published between
14261437), by Paduas Sicco Polenton, emphasizing the political significance of Ciceros personal struggles. The study of ancient authors was one
of the highest criteria of erudition, but it also legitimized the humanist intellectuals right to the same social status their ancient models had held. This
was also related to the ever broadening scope of activities influenced by the
authority of ancient thought. The Renaissance thus gave rise not only to
arhetoric (aset of norms) of speech and literature, but also to arhetoric of
music, sculpture, architecture and painting.
The renaissance of rhetoric in Petrarchs time arises from yet another circumstance. The humanists became acquainted with Cicero not only through
his student-oriented expositions, as known from De inventione and Topics,
but they learned to perceive him as aversatile thinker and citizen. His preserved letters reveal Cicero as atruly human being, homo vere humanus, who
experiences the same feelings of friendship, love, pride, but also anxiety and
fear of death, as his readers and admirers. Cicero, and other ancient authors,
ceased to be an invariable source of rigid imitation, instead entering the
ostentatiously demonstrated solitude of humanists lives as partners and

4. From Humanism to the Enlightenment

/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/

the significance of private correspondence for intellectual education and

cultivation of moral maxims in ayoung man. Arefined letter, stylized in
adignified and fine manner (civiliter et mansuete) cultivates not only tact
and decorum, but also teaches the art of public behaviour and success in
polemical duels, behaviour towards ones rival as if he were agood friend.
Unlike the art of rhetoric, which focuses on asophisticated dispute even
at the price of perceiving good as evil and vice versa, correspondence between friends must distinguish benevolence from malevolence, awolf from
alamb, allowing the lamb to flee from the savagery of the wolf.38 Verapaeus
(De epistolis latine conscribendis libri V, 1592) and Filelfo (Octaginta epistolarum
scribendarum genera, 1484), Vives predecessors, considered letter writing to
be an important prerequisite for successful communication.
LORENZO VALLA, ARENAISSANCE PHILOLOGIST

Historians usually view humanism as aschool of thought which affected

orators and men of letters rather than philosophers. Nevertheless, the Renaissance period gave rise to several major humanist philosophers, of whom
Lorenzo Valla (de la Valle Lorenzo), areformer of university instruction of
the trivium disciplines, particularly stands out.
Lorenzo Vallas (14071457) work met with an extraordinary response at
the time, with his Elegantiae latini sermonis (The Elegance of the Latin Language) appearing in 59 editions between 1471 and 1536. Along with another
text, Dialecticae disputationes (Dialectical Disputations), it represents an important project of the Renaissance philosophy of language as well as acontribution to the explanation of the relationship between gnoseology and
the theory of grammar and social communication (scientia loquendi). The
contribution of Vallas philosophical work to modern linguistics, particularly in relation to works by Wittgenstein, Hintikka, Austin and Halliday, were
examined by Nancy S. Struever (1992), aleading Renaissance scholar from
the University of Baltimore, while the philosophical and theological aspects
of Vallas work were newly analysed by Salvatore Camporeale (1972), Hanna-Barbara Gerl (1974) and Charles Trinkaus (1970).
Vallas curriculum was not only related to teaching grammar and rhetoric
but it also offered essential criticism of philosophy instruction based on Aristotles doctrine and his terminology misused by scholasticism (superstitiosa et
calumniosa, Aristotelis vocabula in quibus cum vult videri argutus, mihi videtur potius arguendus; Aristotles vocabulary is superstitious and tricky, which when

4. From Humanism to the Enlightenment

/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

4. From Humanism to the Enlightenment

/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/

Empire put an end to Greek cultural influence in Europe, and consequently

also to the history of Greek rhetoric, more recent works appear to indicate
the very opposite.40 The early stages of the Renaissance were marked by the
prominent role played by educational centres in Rome, Padua, Florence,
Venice, Basil, Vienna, Leipzig and others, where Greek teachers, students
and publishers of ancient and contemporary classical Greek texts gathered
together. In 1576, Pope Gregory XIII reopened the Pontifical Greek College of St. Athanasius in Rome. The activities of these emigrant centres,
which focused mainly on educating Greco-Catholic priests, endured until
the recognition of independent Greece in 1829. As aresult, the West experienced asymbiosis of Greek and Latin rhetorical traditions which produced
many outstanding preachers and scholars. Apart from this, Ottoman rule,
which was relatively tolerant in terms of religion and culture, allowed Greek
schools on its territory.
It was in Constantinople (which the Turks renamed to Stambul, Istanbul) around 1450 that Matthew Kamariotes, aprofessor at the Gennadius
Scholarius Academy (named after an ecumenical patriarch appointed by
Mehmed II), compiled his manuscript, entitled Epitome ek tn tou Hermogenous, which explained Hermogeness work. It presumably became avery
popular and often hand-copied practical textbook of rhetoric (printed by
David Hschel in Augsburg in 1595).
The Greek College in Rome underwent many changes from the time of
its opening. At the order of Pope Gregory XIV it was transferred to Jesuit
administration in 1591 and accepted the ratio studiorum curriculum. This led
to Cicero replacing Hermogenes as the main source of study of theoretical
information and speech models, primarily his De inventione and Topics. The
colleges main role was the dissemination of faith around the Balkans and in
Eastern Europe. There was yet another, fundamental goal: boosting Greek
national awareness and care for language culture. The language of instruction was Demotic Greek, aspoken variant of the Greek language, which at
the time still lacked authoritative codification. Published works were thus
written in classical (Attic) Greek as were, naturally, also the quoted excerpts.
Rhetoric was taught by many prominent teachers, such as Theophilus Korydaleus (15701646), an advocate of Aristotle, who taught in Rome and
Padua, and who later as ahigh church dignitary, reshaped the Academy in
Constantinople. His instruction was based on Anaximenes of Lampsacuss
rhetoric (Rhetoric to Alexander). In cooperation with Nicodemus Metaxas,
Korydaleus published textbooks on rhetoric (Ekthsis peri Rtoriks) and on

4. From Humanism to the Enlightenment

/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

4. From Humanism to the Enlightenment

/144/

the subject of disposition. Invention finds axioms (maximae propositiones),

while disposition indicates how to generate other propositions derived from
these axioms.
Agricola attributed the formulation of the rules of invention and disposition exclusively to dialectic. On the other hand, rhetoric is adiscipline
which dresses the bare logical construction into persuasive words. Both
disciplines are closely related; rhetoric is amere empty vessel without logic,
while logic loses its persuasiveness without rhetoric. Agricola, the magnus
parens of modern textual theory, however, formulated their relationship in
yet another way. Logic teaches how to reveal the nature of the deep structure
of the text that carries the meaning (with syllogism being its basic element
according to Agricola), while rhetoric deals with the surface structure, the
expression, that dresses the meaning of the text. Therefore, todays linguistics, logic and philosophy also view Agricolas work as ahighly topical
source of inspiration.41
RHETORIC IN THE WORKS OF DESIDERIUS ERASMUS

Dialogue was the main form of communication in the humanist community,

with the letter being awritten form of dialogue. There was ageneral accord
concerning the high status of rhetoric, which was boosted even further by
scholars, writers, preachers and teachers frequent European travels, who
were convinced of the importance of their missions, whether they were missio rhetorica, politica, theologica or paedagogica. The cosmopolitan nature of
these travellers, whose main and true homeland was res publica litteraria, encouraged the last major surge of Latin as aliving language of international
communication and revived discussions in rebus rhetoricis.
The highest authority in these discussions was above all Desiderius Erasmus of Rotterdam (ca. 1469July, 12, 1536). His life was significantly affected by the Reformation, amovement that disrupted the harmony of the
ideological syntheses of the Renaissance epoch. Although their encounters
were accompanied by conflicts, the Renaissance as amagnificent attempt
to revive antiquity on the one hand and the Reformation as an attempt to
return to the original Christian community on the other are not mutually
exclusive; they complement each other remarkably.
Rhetoric held acentral position in Erasmuss programme of education
as outlined in his De ratione studii ac legendi interpretandique auctores (On the
method and study and reading and interpreting [classical, JK] authors), in

 /145/

which he explained the humanists fundamental method of work: reading

and interpretation of text. Having studied Latin grammar, astudent should
master rhetoric, meaning stylization, development (amplification) of the
main theme, presenting proofs, and tropes and figures. Ateacher should
explain every unusual word, saying, argument and historical parallel, as
they are all part of rhetoric, which is asynthesis of grammar, dialectic and
speech stylistics. When composing atext, the imitation (imitatio), based on
memorizing the commonplaces and understanding the texts read, plays an
important role. Imitation is also acreative process as it involves acareful
interpretation of tried and tested formulas, which can only subsequently be
placed in new contexts.
Erasmuss manifold contribution to rhetoric included the traditional subject matter of public orations (in De duplici copia rerum et verborum, known
as De copia), letter writing (De conscribendi epistolis), composing ceremonial
and occasional speeches (Panegyricus), everyday conversation (Colloquia,
Formulae familiarium colloquiorum), homiletics (Ecclesiastes sive de ratione concionandi) and atheoretical reflection on the influence of classical models
(Ciceronianus sive de optime dicendi genere). Paradoxically, the name of the
discipline became part of only one books title, and even that did not come
from Erasmus himself but from publishers of aselection of his thoughts on
rhetoric, Compendium rhetorices (1544). These works constitute agenerous
educational project aiming at Quintilians demand, albeit slightly altered,
Christianus (vir bonus) dicendi peritus.
The dialogue Ciceronianus (1529) is crucial for understanding the
essence of humanist views of language and textual interpretation.
Ciceronianus inspired many controversial ideas among Erasmuss contemporaries and followers, which even led to the use of the expression Ciceronianus as agenre of reflections on language and its role in certain communication situations. Although Erasmus admired Ciceros art of stylization,
he resisted imitating Ciceros measured sentence segments; Erasmuss style
is terser, more concise and quite distinctive. In his Ciceronianus, Erasmus
sharply criticized the exaggerated worship of the Ciceronian language and
style. The criticism is conveyed through the character of Bulephorus (reportedly expressing Erasmuss views), Ciceronian purists are represented
by Nosoponus. This work is the oldest deliberate attack against purism,
against petrifaction of language, against the fear of language development,
fear of words and expressions which are not found in Ciceros work. Erasmus presented adetailed analysis of the key notion of the Renaissance cul-

4. From Humanism to the Enlightenment

/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/

Erasmuss conception of education leading to mastering rhetoric, and

humanist thinking in general, is based on the art of debate, adialogue based
on asceptical assessment of the truth and non-dogmatically evaluating all
the consequences of atheme, even when contradictory, disputatio in utramque
partem. Participants in adebate include not only rivals holding different
views of the matter, but also, following the lawsuit model, impartial judges
and jury members, who assess the delivered speeches according to the rules
of rhetoric as taught in schools.
The Colloquia (The Colloquies, 1524) was a textbook of spoken Latin rather than a book on rhetoric (based on an older version, Formulae
familiarium colloquiorum, 1518, it was published 87 times during Erasmuss
lifetime). This collection of short witty sketches, often with moral lessons,
was imitated many times and inspired many aliterary work.
Ecclesiastes sive de ratione concionandi (On the Art of Preaching, 1535),
atextbook on preaching, was Erasmuss last and most extensive work (it
was reprinted twelve times within twenty years from its first publication).
The author found inspiration in sermons written by the Church Fathers
and earlier preachers, from Origen through Bernard of Clairvaux. It was
praised as awork on par with Augustins On Christian Doctrine even at the
time of its publication. Erasmus strove for preachers keen interest, expressed through apassionate rendition of the theme, arendition filled with
joy, hope, a
nxiety and love. Erasmuss concept of the history of preaching
is quite unconventional as instead of admiration, he expressed his criticism
of earlier preachers, particularly for their schematic approach to the subject
matter and histrionics. These are contrasted with an accurate depiction of
biblical events, metaphors and ideological consistency. The ideas expressed
in On the Art of Preaching became asignificant source of inspiration for both
Catholic and Protestant authors of textbooks on rhetoric and preaching up
until the 17thand 18th centuries.
Rhetoric provided Erasmus not only with recurrent themes for literary
work, but also with an arsenal of arguments for his polemics, distinguished
by stylistic refinement, diversity, gentle irony, but sometimes also acertain
hesitance accompanied by asurprisingly low degree of self-confidence and
firmness. Erasmuss fear of an escalated clash is apparent especially in his
polemics with Luther concerning the free will (De libero arbitrio diatribe sive
collatio). Erasmus disliked open assaults, instead he preferred questions,
weighing all pros and cons, the awareness that the conclusions reached are
not final, but merely more-or-less probable (satis probabile). He concluded

4. From Humanism to the Enlightenment

/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/

Melanchthon published his systematic rhetoric textbook atotal of three

times, although each time considerably revised and at adifferent length. Its
conception significantly influenced instruction at Protestant schools, mainly in Germany. In 1519, he published De rhetorica libris tres (Three Books
onRhetoric), in 1521, its shortened version, Institutiones rhetoricae (Training
in Rhetoric), and finally, in 1531, Elementorum rhetorices libri duo (Two Books
on the Elements of Rhetoric). Apart from these, in 1524, Melanchthon published Ciceros Topics with his commentary, which included his explanation
of Boethiuss De differentiis topicis. Both commentaries as well as all three of
his rhetoric textbooks focus primarily on textual interpretation, in keeping
with his lectures on the interpretation of Homer, St. Pauls Epistles and
Psalms. In Encomion eloquentiae (Praise of Eloquence), written in 1538, he
presented apolemical view of the role of rhetoric and education in the humanities in general, praising the role of ancient authors and that their writings contain all of the worlds wisdom (summa prudentiae). Its obviously
humanistic tone was very progressive among the adamant dogmatics of the
Reformation movement, which rejected the pagan world of antiquity, and
inspired similar rare symbioses of Renaissance and Reformation, such as
that found in the work of Melanchthons compatriot, the painter Lucas Cranach the Elder. Melanchthons rejection of the exclusion of science and education in general from the Reformations agenda inspired his Czech pupil,
Jan Blahoslavs Filipika proti misomusm (APhilippic Against the Enemies of
Education), agem of Czech polemical literature of the humanist era.
Melanchthons conception of rhetoric is marked by abalance between
understanding and interpretation of atext on the one hand and the ability
to spread the acquired knowledge in aforceful way on the other. His emphasis on the hermeneutics of this task was based on Luthers sola scriptura
principle (by Scripture alone). The focal point of education in the humanities lies in the ability to understand words and sentences and through them
also things. Articulate communication thus must be based on knowledge of
rhetoric as well as on knowledge of the world (insania est enim, non eloquentia, de rebus ignotis et incompertis dicere; speaking about strange and unknown
things is foolish, not eloquent). Rhetoric, however, should not merely aim at
an aesthetic ideal, but rather at instilling morals and principles of practical
behaviour in students. It was typical of Melanchthon that apart from the
traditional types of speeches legal, political and ceremonial, he also distinguished the instructive speeches (genus didascalicum, dialecticum) that
were to define notions and explain facts in an accessible, yet erudite manner.

4. From Humanism to the Enlightenment

/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

Petrus Ramus (Pierre de la Rame, also Anglicized to Peter Ramus;

15151572), acritic of Aristotles doctrine, was in his time considered to be
an encyclopaedic expert on all university disciplines. His life was particularly turbulent. His two treatises on logic (Dialecticae institutiones, Education in
Dialectic, and Aristotelicae animadversiones, Aristotelian Observations) were
denounced by aroyal decree and he was banned from teaching philosophy.
This was justified by his criticism of Aristotle, the Catholic Church and

 /151/

alleged superficiality (giving examples from poetic work in the texts on

logic). Although the Cardinal of Lorraine, his protector, managed to have
the ban removed, Ramus soon after converted to Protestantism, alternating
between Paris and exile, particularly in Holland and Germany, where he
also lectured. His last return to Paris turned out to be fatal; he was murdered on April 26, 1572, during the third night of the Saint Bartholomews
Day Massacre.
Ramus based his reform of the trivium instruction on Aristotles Posterior
Analytics, which was not very well known at the time. Ramuss argumentation in his Dialecticae institutiones lies in three of Aristotles axioms: lex veritatis (law of truth), lex iustitiae (law of justice, harmony) and lex sapientiae
(law of wisdom). According to the first one, adefinition can only be called
correct if it is true in every circumstance. This law, also called the de omni
rule, heralds Leibnizs necessary truths or truths of the reason, which
are based on the laws of logic, and Kants analytic judgments. Modern logic
calls these judgments logically true because they are valid in all admissible
interpretations of acertain logical model. Ramus demanded that all definitions of the content of liberal sciences had the status of correct definitions.
Thus, should dialectic be ascience concerning the search for and arrangement of arguments, then it concerns not only dialectical arguments, but
also rhetorical ones. Similarly, if rhetoric is ascience of persuasive communication, it is related to all types of speech, not only to the traditional ones:
forensic, deliberative and epideictic.
Following the law of harmony, Ramus excluded from liberal arts everything that did not result from its definition. If the relation rhetoric = science
about persuasive communication should be true, then it only has to include
the question of textual stylization (elocutio) and delivery (actio), while the
search for and organization of topics must be excluded from its scope and
included in dialectics. Asimilar division of roles was to take place between
rhetoric and grammar. Ramus believed that tropes and figures are means of
communicating well and persuasively (bene, ad persuadendum accommodate)
and therefore can only be covered by rhetoric. On the other hand, grammar,
whose role it is to teach proper communication (recte), should not include
anything but etymology and syntax. He rejected the mixing up of dialectic
(logic), rhetoric and ethic in Rhetoricae distinctiones in Quintilianum, his polemic against Cicero and Quintilian, written in 1549.
The third law aims to arrive at an arrangement of the subject matter that
would be logically well thought-out and didactically justified. Thus apred-

4. From Humanism to the Enlightenment

/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

4. From Humanism to the Enlightenment

/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,

4. From Humanism to the Enlightenment

/156/

history, language, rhetorical communication as well as other disciplines that

focus on man and his existence in asociety. Patrizi respected Plato and the
Neoplatonist philosopher Proclus, whose Elements of Theology he translated
into Latin.
Peripatetic discourse is acritical analysis of Aristotles authority, supported by scholasticism. It strips Aristotle as well as his followers and commentators of their untouchability. It is acritical reaction to the Council of
Trents decision to base university philosophy lectures on Aristotle and his
Thomistic interpretations.
Patrizi considered space, spatium, to be the first of the supreme natural
principles of existence, which includes the real world perceived through the
senses as well as the indefinite world of ideas. Geometry as ascience examining space thus applies both to the world of sensory perceptions and to
the world of ideas. (Patrizi alternated between geometry and mathematics,
which he understood more broadly, however, in both cases he aimed at an
ideal of science based on adeduction of propositions from aset of definitions, postulates and axioms.) The role of science is to define the essence of
its subject matter, to demonstrate its constitutive qualities and then to formulate findings about its subject matter using the deductive method (logical inferences, deriving propositions) in the form of necessary conclusions.
Patrizi followed these steps in his dialogues about rhetoric.
First he asked aquestion concerning the difference between art, ars, and
science, scientia, answering it still in the Aristotelian spirit: science is based
on true propositions and aims to attain certain knowledge. Art relies on
probable propositions, whose outcome is in the realm of the uncertain (possible). This line between truth and probability also exists within rhetoric.
Sophists and orators rhetoric is based on probability, while philosophers
rhetoric is based on certainties. (La qual contradittione, ha fondamento nel probabile, et non nel vero, che tengono del cose, sopra il qual probabile, erafondata la
Retorica de sofisti, et de gli Oratori, si come quella de filosofi, ha fondamento sopra
il vero). If we want to accept rhetoric as ascience, we must first analyze the
essence of language as afundamental tool of communication and conveying
the truth. The truth-value function of language works on two levels. The
first level (primo mondo) represents the metaphysical capacity of the human
intellect to speak truthfully, to name things in away that corresponds to
their essence. The second level has ahistorical dimension (prima antichita
del mondo) and Patrizi derived it from the mythological beginnings of humankind. In the languages of ancient Persians, Egyptians and Thracians,

 /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.

5. BAROQUE RHETORIC IN SERVICE OF THE CHURCH

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/

preserved sermons and in the architecture of churches and small buildings

in rural areas.
The mighty stream of auniform exposition of rhetoric was represented particularly by the Jesuit Ratio studiorum curriculum (dating from 1599,
which replaced the older version, Ordo studiorum from 1548, 1549 and 1551);
it remained in use until 1773. Its principal section (studia inferiora) covered
the instruction of grammar, rhetoric and poetics. It contained texts to study
and imitate, including, most importantly, Ciceros letters, which students
had to memorize. Astudent in aJesuit school proceeded from elementary
grades to the higher ones in the fara (or analogy) order, infima, grammatica,
syntaxis, poetics, rhetoric, philosophy, theology. The practical acquisition
of the trivium disciplines included poetry declamation and drama practice. The importance of the curriculum is best understood when realizing it
gave education to thousands of students on avast territory, from the Portuguese city of Coimbra in the west to Indian Goa in the east. In the 17th and
18thcentury, about aquarter of amillion students around Europe, Asia and
South America completed the Jesuit curriculum. Thanks to the fact that
the instruction was free of charge and of high quality, Jesuit schools were
often attended by children from poor families and even some children from
Protestant families. The Societas Jesu published agreat number of rhetoric
textbooks. Apart from the most prominent authors, who will be treated in
separate chapters, here are some other important names and titles:
Pedro Juan Perpia, 15101566, ateacher of rhetoric in Coimbra, Lisbon, Rome and Paris (De artis rhetoricae locis communibus); Ji Barthold
Pontanus of Breitenberg, ca. 15501614, born in Most in Northern Bohemia (hence Pontanus; most in Czech means bridge), who studied at
the Jesuit Academy in Prague and became ahigh-ranking church official
during the reign of Emperor Rudolph II (Rhetorica divina, oder Himlische
Redekunst, 1596, and collections of model texts Orationes synodales, sacrae,
bellica, funebres, 1606, and Aureum breviarium concionatorum, 1611); Louis
de Cressoles, 15681634, who in his Theatrum veterum rhetorum, oratorum, declamatorum in Libris Quinque focused on Sophists and their critics; Jeremias
Drechsel, 15811638, ateacher of rhetoric in Munich and Ingolstadt (Rhetorica caelestis seu Attente praedicandi Scientia); Martin de Cygne, 16191669,
ateacher who worked in France (St. Omer) and focused on poetics and
rhetoric (Ars Ciceroniana sive Analysis Rhetorica omnium Orationum M.T.Ciceronis); Ren Rapin, 16211687, ateacher of rhetoric in Tours and Paris
(Les reflexions sur leloquence, la poetique, lhistoire et la philosophie). The art of

5. Baroque Rhetoric in Service of the Church

/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/

In the search for hidden connections, Sarbiewski found inspiration in

Dionysius of Halicarnassuss claim that sounds (especially vowels) serve not
only as construction elements of signs denoting objects, but also as independent means of expressing emotions, aesthetic values and phonetic efficacy.
According to Sarbiewski, the vowel a evokes dignity and grandeur, e
represents euphony and softness, i fineness and delicacy, o in repetition expresses introversion, and u monumentality. Various repetitions and
combinations of sounds produce more complex emotions. These analogies,
despite being subjective and empirically supported by only afew selected
examples, had numerous followers in romanticism (Schlegel, Shelley, Mcha), symbolism (Baudelaire), modern poetry (Verlaine, Poe, Mayakovsky,
Brik) as well as in 20th-century linguistics (Jakobson, Fngy, New Rhetoric
represented by Groupe ). Schlegel added the perception of colours (a
is red, o purple, i sky-blue, e grey and u dark blue). Sarbiewskis
reflections on acumen thus formed atheoretical foundation for aline which
leads from the baroque poetry through to contemporary experimental poetry.46 Its synaesthesia is characterized by Baudelaires verses found in his
poem Correspondences:
Like those deep echoes that meet from afar
In adark and profound harmony,
As vast as night and clarity,
So perfumes, colors, tones answer each other.47
SOAREZS JESUIT RHETORIC

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

5. Baroque Rhetoric in Service of the Church

/162/

(inventio) and on affects, and supplied examples of 16 commonplaces (loci).

Soarezs view of affects as asource of the power (vis) of language is typical of Jesuit rhetoric. This demonstrates the strong influence of Ignatius of
Loyola, the orders founder, whose work Spiritual Exercises specifically aimed
at evoking emotions. This power allows the orator to persuade the souls of
his listeners, guide them to faith and afirm stance, or even action. Book II
focused on the arrangement of aspeech (dispositio) with special regard to
the introduction and choice of arguments. Book III, which was the most
extensive, dealt with the style (elocutio), covering individual language virtues (virtutes), particularly the purist notion of language purity (latinitas),
and examples of tropes and figures. It also contained brief information on
memory and delivery.
CAUSSINS FIGURES, SYMBOLS AND EMBLEMS

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/

Despite this condemnation, Caussins views were gradually permeated

by the baroque spirit, admiration for pathos, unusual expression, blending
of affects evoked by music, poetry, drama and architecture. His textbook
thus grew apart from classical Ciceronian models, suggesting atransition to
the new eloquence, to the baroque and mannerist style through presenting
numerous examples from relatively unknown works by the representatives
of the Second Sophistic (Libanius) and their Christian followers, Philo of
Alexandria, Gregory of Nazianzus, John Chrystostom and prominent figures of Byzantine rhetoric.
Caussins erudition inspired his younger contemporary, Franois Pomey
(16191673), who wrote practical textbooks, Le candidat de la rhtorique and
Le nouveau candidat de la rhtorique, which were sometimes published in one
volume alongside Caussins new rhetoric or aselection from it. Caussin was
also interested in hieroglyphs, emblems and symbols, thus opening the door
for mixing styles, which was typical of anew artistic view, mannerism. Of
Caussins contemporaries, we should also mention Ren Bary (La Rhtorique
franaise, Paris 1653) and tienne Dubois de Bretteville (Lloquence de la
chaire et du barreau, 2 vol., Paris 1689).
JESUIT RHETORIC IN BOHEMIA AND POLAND. BOHUSLAV BALBN

The knowledge of Caussins work influenced work of the Czech patriotic

Jesuit, historiographer and author of works on literary theory and rhetoric, Bohuslav Balbn (16211688). He summarized his experience with the
instruction of rhetoric in the Jesuit schools in Prague, esk Krumlov,
Jindichv Hradec, Kodzko County and Brno in two rhetoric textbooks,
Quaesita oratoria (1677) and Brevis tractatio de amplifcatione (1688), as well as
in the reflective tractate Verisimilia humaniorum disciplinarum (1666).
Similarly to Caussin, Balbn promoted the classicist rule of moderation
of all speech components and rejected any and all eccentricity and artificiality. In his textbook Quaesita oratoria, written in the form of adialogue
between ateacher and apupil, Balbn denounced everything that disrupts
Ciceros classical Latin: word play, the use of old-fashioned expressions,
unusual compound words and others. The textbooks first part, in which
the teacher answers the pupils fifty-three questions, covers the rules of the
classicist moderate style, while the second part, containing answers to thirty
questions, presents acritical, albeit not entirely denunciatory exposition
of the rules of the new eloquence. Balbn rejected the wit of the new elo-

5. Baroque Rhetoric in Service of the Church

/164/

quence even in his Brevis tractatio de amplificatione, published posthumously,

which repeatedly commended the moderation of Ciceros style. In his Verisimilia, he warned against the use of affectation in style, and urged the choice
of words pertinent to ideas and the use of corresponding language, gestures
and facial expressions. For Balbn the content was essential. When speaking to people, the priests mouth must be like adoor opening to aparticularly magnificent temple Yet most of the glory belongs to the things we are
being introduced to whereas the least belongs to the door and doormen.
Although we are grateful to them, we must express our admiration to the
other [that is, to the denoted facts, J.K].48
Balbns conception of style reflected his experience as apreacher who
must make himself understandable in order for his missionary work to succeed. He therefore highlighted the necessity to use language accessible to
his listeners. Aspeech should be clear and adjusted to morals, without any
exaggeration, pretence, allusions to myths, historical symbols and empty wit
as was said with Quintilian, we are witty only when there is need of wit to
understand us (Inst. or., 8.25).
Although Balbn seemingly adhered to Quintilians rule of classical moderation, many of his formulations in the Verisimilia and particularly in his
texts suffused with worries about the fate of the nation reveal his fondness
for Caussins baroque spirit, passionate polemics, keen interest in the subject of controversy, as well as style characterized by extremes rather than
neutral tones. Hence his rhetoric is distinctively baroque.
Similar baroque tendencies appeared in Polish rhetoric books. Zygmund
Lauxmins textbooks (Praecepta artis rhetoricae, Vilnius 1645, P
raxis oratoria,
Braunschweig 1648) emphasized mastering declamations and performing
in school plays. Orator extemporaneus (Vilnius 1640), a textbook written
Michael Radau of Braunsberg (16171687) and used widely in Poland, Lithuania and Bohemia, inspired Balbns books on rhetoric. The connection
between rhetoric and poetics characterized textbooks and tractates by Jan
Kwiatkiewicz (Eloquentiae reconditor, Pozna 1698, Marianus orator, Kalisz
1673, Orator peripateticus, Kalisz 1680, and Phoenix rhetorum, Cracow 1672,
which was the most widespread of all).
PROTESTANT RHETORIC AND PREACHING TEXTBOOKS

Rhetoric books conforming to this ideological movement are primarily

based on Ramus and Melanchthons works. Johannes Sturm (Sturmius,

 /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

Systema rhetoricae (Hanava 1614), an extensive treatise on rhetoric written

by the Prussian German Bartholomaeus Keckermann (1571/731609) in the
Ramian spirit was another influential textbook. Keckermann was aprofes-

5. Baroque Rhetoric in Service of the Church

/166/

sor in aCalvinist grammar school in Gdask and aproponent of Ramuss

method of separate instruction of logic and rhetoric. He used the analytical
method to present the subject matter, proceeding from the aim of the speech
to the rhetorical means. Keckermann paid special attention to thedoctrine
of affects and supernatural passions, which makes this Protestant scholar
part of the baroque culture. Apreacher should not appeal to the reason but
to feelings (animorum motio, motum cordis) and to the human will to think
and act. Communication does not have to be accurate but lively. An orator
or preacher should not merely instruct, but primarily appeal tothe souls
and hearts of his listeners, encouraging them to deeds through theurgency of carefully selected words. Audience and environment, which influence
speech, must be regarded with prudence and wisdom (prudenter). Rational arguments, pertaining to logic, are important, however, stylistic means
of dramatization, phonetic effects (euphonia), poetic ornaments, such as
prosopopoia (the author speaks for other people, contemporary or long
dead) and hypotyposis (picturesque description of events so that the listener could imagine them vividly), are equally relevant. Thanks to Keckermann we speak about the Gdask school of humanities, which also included J ohannes Martini (Institutiones rhetoricae, 1634) and Johann Mochinger
(Orator atque rhetorista, 1641).
VOSSIUSS RHETORIC OF RHETORICAL AFFECTS

The Dutch Gerhard Johann Vossius (15771649), arector of Latin schools

in Dordrecht, Leiden and eventually the Athennaeum illustre school in Amsterdam, was also aCalvinist. Vossius wrote four books on rhetoric: Institutiones rhetoricae (1606), De rhetoricae natura et constitutione (1621), Rhetorices
contractae, sive partitionum oratoriarum (1621) and Elementa rhetorica (1626).
They became very popular even outside Holland, especially in England,
which was due to the authors erudition and accessible treatment of the
subject matter. Elementa rhetorica was reprinted 22 times and translated into
the Dutch, Swedish and English before the end of the century. Rhetorices contractae became even more successful, being reprinted 33 times in Holland,
14 times in Germany and 7 times in Oxford, England.
Vossius took Aristotle as his model, quoting him most of all ancient authors, which contradicted Petrus Ramuss conception. Aristotles influence
is particularly obvious in the exposition of emotions and methods of evoking them. Vossius compared this appeal to the effect of drugs. He believed

 /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

5. Baroque Rhetoric in Service of the Church

/168/

them gracefully (elocutio) and 4. how to make them acute (pronunciatio).

Comeniuss emphasis on careful explanation of the theme was inspired
mostly by Melanchthon, while the overall arrangement of the subject matter by his teacher from Herborn, Johann Heinrich Alsted, who authored the
humanist-Reformation textbook of rhetoric, Philomela theologico-philosophica (Herborn, 1627). Comeniuss rhetorical explanations are distinguished
by the same features as his conception of language instruction in general:
aclose unity of the thing, idea and word alongside astrict servitude of rhetoric and preaching to the Reformation movements within the Church. No
matter how consistently his text follows Cicero and Quintilians principles,
he chose his examples from the Bible.
We shall now analyze the content and organization of the Report and
Lesson in more detail.
Part I, focusing on invention, covers the methods of the search for
thetheme. Comenius defined the theme as the main issue of the text
thatthe author wants to introduce, anything that is written or talked about.
It is introduced in the text by the following questions:
1. Analysim (analysis): How many?
2. Definitionem (definition): What?
3. Antithesim (countering this): Why this or that?
4. Causas (origin and cause): Causes, that is, from whom or what, for what,
how and why?
5. Effecta (what is caused by this): What has come out of this or could have,
or should have, should or may?
6. Circumstantias (circumstances): When, who, what before, along with or
after this, how long, how many times?
7. Similia (comparison): What is it or is it not similar to?
8. Exempla (example): Who has done something similar and when? What
happened to him?
9. Obiectiones (what could be objected to it): What is said against this or
what can be said against this?
10. Consequentia (what is all this to be used for): What profit do we have
from this?
11. Testimonia (testimony): What do others think, say, write?
The temporal organization of the theme (dispositio), covered in Part II, is
either based on the chronology of the conveyed event, and then it is called
textual (hypotheticus), or on the system classification, or articles of faith,

 /169/

called articular (theticus). Both arrangements abide by commonplaces (loci

communes), defined as some public propositions or rules about what should
or should not be believed or done. Commonplaces either result from the
text naturally, or must be derived. In the former case, they are achieved
either through inductive reasoning from apartial or singular statement, or
through deduction, concluding from the general to the particular or singular. Such conclusions are usually formulated by the orator. In the latter case,
the listener must arrive at the knowledge himself, either per bonam consequentiam, that is, based on similarity, opposition, the relation of the cause and
effect, and so on, or per allegoriam, finding the meaning which contains an
allegorical comparison. The rules that Comenius presents demonstrate his
reservations about baroque allegories.
Comenius divided the organized subject matter into individual points,
which form the structure of the speech, coining new, quite remarkable
Czech terminology.
1. exordium (approach)
2. tractatio textus, or the text itself, which includes
propositio (the principal matter, that is, the theme itself),
partitio (classification, or presenting the basic points),
declaratio (explaining the meaning),
demonstratio et amplificatio (demonstrating through examples, similar
cases),
applicatio (effect on the listeners),
3. conclusio (conclusion)
Comenius further expanded on the presented points (parts). Exordium
should not start long-windedly or digress from the theme. It can be relatedto the present persons (for example, to the orators or listeners experience), to the place or time of the speech, to acertain text, usually biblical,
or to aquote, which is further developed. The proposition (theme) should
be introduced in abrief and simple manner, without multiplication and
ornateness of words. It should not be so segmented as to confuse listeners, and neither should the orator succumb to the superstitious care for
dichotomy (this is an obvious attack against the Ramian rhetoric). The subthemes (parts) should not exceed four. Understanding is facilitated also by
layering the relations between these parts instead of merely placing them
side by side. When explaining the meaning, it is necessary to ensure that
the text does not contain obscurities. These lie in words, that is, in com-

5. Baroque Rhetoric in Service of the Church

/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

5. Baroque Rhetoric in Service of the Church

/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

The rise and development of rhetoric in Russia is marked by aremarkable

symbiosis of two influences, western (Latin) and Byzantine (Greek). This
symbiosis, which is naturally accompanied by the awareness of the irreconcilability of both extremes, can be exemplified by an escalated controversy
between Prince Andrew Kurbsky, aboyars ideologist, and Tsar Ivan the
Terrible, the proponent of the unlimited rule of tsarist autocracy. Their letters from 15631564 and 15771579 provide an excellent opportunity to
compare the Ciceronian, cultivated style of amember of the old Russian
nobility with the rulers Byzantine manner, marked by garrulousness, filled
with extremities and mixing traditional literary elements with vernacular
and earthy expressions.
The knowledge of Byzantine rhetoric spread around Russia as aresult of
the Second (post-Constantine-Method mission) South Slavic Influence,
associated with the arrival of Byzantine and South Slavic theologians, teachers and writers in Russia after the fall of Constantinople. This programme,
characterized by the slogan Moscow, athird Rome, was based on the idea
that after the fall of the Byzantine Empire and after the decline of Romes
supremacy over the Christian world, Moscow must assume the leadership
in secular and church matters, in dogmatics, politics and culture. This was
to be aided by the unification of the Russian and Greek Orthodox Church
(not only their content, but also the dogmatics and ceremonies). Russian
tsars and patriarchs were to become rulers, protectors and spokespeople for

 /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

5. Baroque Rhetoric in Service of the Church

/174/

text, its practice, memorization and orthodox imitation. The exposition of

the grammatical systems of paradigms, on the other hand, opened apath
to the creation of ones own speeches, to ambiguity and therefore to heresy.
Teaching languages as part of rhetoric was to lead to acertainty based on
existing texts rather than to speculations inherent in grammar.
Renate Lachmann, one of the most prominent experts on the Russian
history of rhetoric and an editor of fundamental texts, considers the import
of rhetoric to Russia as an attempt to regulate and unify official documents,
both spoken and written, within the prevalent system of culture. Nevertheless, she simultaneously points out that these efforts remained isolated,
without major influence on practical communication, which was particularly marked by language and cultural diversity, raznorechie and raznokulturie, as atypical attribute of the clash between the official culture and the
opposition culture, represented especially by the Old Believers. The same
holds true for the discrepancy between the official codification attempts
and the real language development as well as for the books of grammar
written at the time by Lavrentii Zizani (1596), Meletii Smotritsky (1619)
and an anonymous grammar book entitled Grammatiki slavenskiia pravilnoe
sintagma (of 1648).
The oldest Russian textbook of rhetoric comes from 1623 and its authorship is ascribed to the Bishop Makarios of Vologda. According to the
incipit, this text of 66 leaves is called Knigi sut ritoriki dvoi po tonku vvoprosekh spisany. The author of this textbook written in the form of questions
and answers drew inspiration from unknown Latin rhetoric books from the
Polish and Ukrainian environment. It was written in the Church Slavonic
of the Moscow variant, the language commonly used in the Russian cultural
sphere. The first book is devoted to invention (Oizobretenii del), while the
second to stylization (Oukrashenii slova). Rhetoric (sladkoglasie, krasnoslovie,
khitroslovie) is defined as the art of speaking and writing beautifully and
adequately (krasovito iudobno glagolati ipisati nauchaiet). This definition was
inspired by Demosthenes (khitrorechivyi grecheskii ritor, aproficient Greek
rhetorician) and Cicero (latinskii nachalnik khitroslovia, aLatin founder of
rhetoric). The expression khitryi expresses the focus on proficiency in the
rhetorical techn, or mastering rhetorical rules. The introductory part contains the usual classification: deliberative (nauchaiushchie), forensic (sudebnye) and epideictic (pokazuiushchie). This focus reveals the themes adorned
by rhetoric (ritorika zhe ktem delam pridaiot ipribavliaet sily slovesnye, kaby chto
rizu chestnu ili nekuiu odezhiu).

 /175/

According to Makarius, a theme adornment follows from the right,

meaning cultivated (istinnyi) language, an apt use of tropes and figures and
the harmony between the theme, the environment in which the speech will
be delivered and the language of the speech (decorum; prilichie). Tropes and
figures are afforded the most space, calling them vymysly. At the end, he
presents the theory of three styles (Otrech rodakh glagolania): high (vysokii),
middle (mernyi) and low (smirennyi). Only two brief remarks are devoted to
arguments, concerning pathetic proofs influencing emotions (vozbuzhdenie)
and factual proofs presenting logical compactness of the exposition (istinnoe
razmyshlenie dela).
Makarius rhetoric book was revised and expanded by Mikhail Usachev,
son of Ioann, in 1699. This version represents another step to the practical
solution of the relationship between the Church Slavonic language and Russian as arelationship between literary and spoken variants of the national
language.
Modern-day scholars (Vompersky, Graudina-Miskevich) distinguish between several areas in Russia and Ukraine where rhetoric was taught. The
Ukrainian and Belarusian area had their centres in the Kiev Mohyliansk
Academy and Chernigov, which were both of the Jesuit type, with prevalently Latin instruction and adistinct influence of Polish rhetoric books
written in Latin. The area had its most prominent representative of homiletic, legal and didactic literature in the figure of Theophan Prokopovich
(16811736), aproponent of Piotr the Greats reforms. His De arte rhetorica
libri X (continuing the scholars equally systematic treatment of poetics) is
the first comprehensive textbook of rhetoric in Russia, which contains adetailed exposition of the disciplines all five parts, based on sound knowledge
of ancient authors. The central term of Prokopovichs rhetoric is decorum,
harmony between the functions of the speech and selected language instruments corresponding to the style of the speech (genus dicendi). He emphasizes the difference between moderation (decorum), and unusual images
and wit (acumen). This difference reflects the clash between classicist and
baroque tendencies in literature. Prokopovich conceived his book as atool
not only for preachers, but also for state officials, judges and authors of
works on historiography. Asubstantial part of his exposition on rhetoric
was published in Russian as part of the official textbook of preaching, called
Dukhovnyi reglament (1721).
Moscow and its Slavic-Greek-Latin Academy represented another area
of Russian education, in which instruction first followed Greek teachers,

5. Baroque Rhetoric in Service of the Church

/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.

6. SCHOLARLY COMMUNITY REPLACED BY THE REPUBLIC OF LETTERS.

PHILOSOPHY VERSUS RHETORIC AT THE THRESHHOLD OF A NEW ERA

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

6. Scholarly Community Replaced by the Republic of Letters

/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,

6. Scholarly Community Replaced by the Republic of Letters

/180/

comprehended in that science which we call rhetoric, or art of eloquence,

ascience excellent, and excellently well laboured; 18.1).
Bacons term illustratio denotes the capacity for words to shed light on
the continuum of phenomena which come out of the shadows only by being
named, appearing in front of the reader and listener in pellucid clarity and
particularity. An emphasis on empiricism and fear of realitys distortion led
Bacon to demand that words were fundamentally related to objects rather
than to abstract ideas or other words. The distribution of light and shadow provokes the students imagination, which in turn affects his will either
through reason or affection. In this manner, rhetoric can be perceived as
astrategy to reveal the speakers intentions, whether he wants to tilt the
scales towards reason or affection. Bacon himself preferred reason, emphasizing that the affection beholdeth merely the present; reason beholdeth
the future and sum of time.And, therefore, the present filling the imagination more, reason is commonly vanquished; but after that force of eloquence
and persuasion hath made things future and remote appear as present, then
upon the revolt of the imagination reason prevaileth (18.4). If our will
exclusively followed reason, we would need only empirical data and logical
proofs to ensure efficient communication. In reality, this does not happen.
If affection resists proof, and imagination is not willing to join reason, then
even the most logical proof has no effect. This also supports rhetorics requirement, as adiscipline, to form itself into aconfederacy of imagination
with reason (18.4).
These reflections place Bacon alongside those philosophers who systematically engaged in disseminating knowledge beyond the limits of the scientific community. His highest virtue was clarity in thought and language.
Both aid in overcoming the conflicts engendered as aresult of people building distance between words and things instead of elucidating reality accurately.
Bacons effort to achieve apure and clear explanatory style was adopted
by the Royal Society, established in London in 1662. One of the Societys
founders, Thomas Sprat, denounced eloquence in his programme of language purism as the ill effect of the superfluity of talking as well as fatal
to Peace and good Manners. The meaning of what was under discussion
should not be lost in luxury and redundance. The English form of purism
as disseminated by the Royal Society is not particularly concerned with
foreign elements, although it rejects those originating in Latin (latinate diction), rather it promotes logical candour and semantic univocality in speech.

 /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

6. Scholarly Community Replaced by the Republic of Letters

/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

Oratorian Bernard Lamys (16401715) La Rhtorique, ou lArt de parler of

1675 became highly successful in France and abroad (it was translated into
English in 1676) particularly because its treatment of the subject matter was
based on the highly respected Port-Royal grammar and logic textbooks.
Many of Lamys readers believed that they were reading the third volume of
the Port-Royal collection, consisting of grammar, logic and rhetoric. Lamys
fondness for Descartes compelled him to leave Paris for Grenoble as he

 /183/

disagreed with the Oratorians shift towards Aristotelianism and Thomas

Aquinass doctrine.
Why was Lamys Rhetoric associated with the Port-Royal tradition? Antoine Arnauld and Claude Lancelot published Grammaire Gnrale et Raisonne in Paris in 1660 and the anonymous La Logique, ou LArt de Penser
was published in Paris in 1662 by Antoine Arnauld and Pierre Nicole. Both
books sprang from Antoine Arnauld, also known as le Grand Arnauld,
atheologian, brilliant polemicist, adherent to Cartesianism, opponent of
Jesuits and author of the polemical treatise Rflexions sur lloquence des prdicateurs. All of the authors were outstanding teachers in the small schools
which had been established in the Port-Royal Abbey near Paris in 1643. The
abbeys spiritual environment and the Augustine-oriented Jansenism cultivated there also inspired Blaise Pascals philosophy.
Pascals work is associated with rhetoric through his fight against the
Jesuit casuistry, which was most manifest in Provincial Letters and in the essay
The Art of Persuasion. Pascal constructed his persuasion strategy around an
effort to achieve understanding (la manire dagrer). He did not strive to
apply syllogistic figures, instead he searched for agreement through perfect
methodical proofs conveyed through words which are simple, artless, and
natural.
Lamys conception of rhetoric emphasizes the role of language as an instrument of thought and its accurate communication (La parole est le tableau
de nos penses, language is the image of our thoughts). The aesthetic of language lies in its purity (puret du language), which demands arelationship
of clear rationality between words and their meaning. Language abundant
in ornaments and stylistic mannerism deserves mockery. In contrast, tropes
and figures are legitimate where they captivate the listeners attention or
reflect the speakers state of mind. For example, the aposiopesis expresses
emotions so powerful that one cannot articulate words, while exclamation
(exclamatio) encapsulates astonishment, and apostrophe is used to seek help
and relief.
Lamys Rhetoric is divided into five chapters. Chapter Ipresents ageneral
description of language and its history. Alanguage signifier is the result of
acombination of the material aspect (vocalization) and the non-material
facet (communication aim, desseins). The combination of signifiers pertains
to grammar, which also includes correct language usage. The author intended to describe language rules rather than to prescribe them as rules to
be memorized. Lamy associated the rise of alanguage with an agreement

6. Scholarly Community Replaced by the Republic of Letters

/184/

concerning the referential meaning of the vocalizations used. Signifiers

aretheresult of this agreement or convention, with only avery few signs
being natural, based on amotivated relation between vocalization and sentiments.
Chapter II develops the idea that no language is rich enough to express
all potential meanings, and so tropes and figures are used to complete the
semantic potential of the language (to express the authors intention more
aptly and accurately), and thus are no mere ornamentation.
The content of Chapter III is truly remarkable, as it focuses on connecting (composition of) sounds and signifiers with the physiological laws
of communication. Lamy believed that there is harmony between motives
(vibrations of soul) which lead to language and the aural cadence of words.
Communication is persuasive only if it evokes corresponding vibrations in
the listeners soul. In the spirit of Descartess mechanistic psychology, Lamy
explains that admiration results in tensing muscles, love and hate in thinning or thickening of blood, while joy in an expansion in lung volume.
Book IV, devoted to style, also has aphysiological foundation. Lamy emphasizes that both the production and reception of stylistic values are highly
individual. Language style is based on an entire grammatical structure, not
just tropes and figures. Language style reflects ahuman soul and becomes
akey to the knowledge of ourselves.
Book Vsummarizes the Ciceronian division of rhetoric into five sections,
paying special attention to invention and its subsection, proofs. According
to Lamy, arguments deduced from evident facts are most powerful, however,
rational proofs in and of themselves do not suffice to persuade the audience. Emotions must be used carefully, as if treating amentally ill person
(phrnetique) from whom we must hide the drugs we administer. Rhetoric as
an art of persuasion should find such forms of speech which instigate the
desirable emotional response, which is desirable after the Cartesian certainty achieved by the orator. Lamy did not intend to write an ordinary manual
of rhetoric, instead he tried to describe the general rules of stylization in
persuasive speech. It is not based on the search for proofs (inventio), but on
Descartess mechanical psychology and on emphasizing the aesthetic functions of atext, including clarity, vividness, appeal to senses. This heralds the
18th-century French authors rhetoric of belles lettres.
Lamys rhetoric represents abridge between the rationalist (Cartesian)
approach to communication and incoming classicist doctrine. Lamy highlighted the broad scope of this work in his preface, claiming it was not

 /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.

7. TASTE NORMS AND CRITERIA IN THE 18TH-CENTURY RHETORIC

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

The influence of Boileaus ideas rapidly spread throughout France. In his

Letter to the Academy and Dialogues on Eloquence (Lettre lAcadmie, 1716,
Dialogues sur lloquence, 1718), Franois Fnelon (Franois de Salignac de
la Mothe-Fnelon, 16511715) rejected Aristotles Rhetoric for its tedious
rules, which he held to be curios rather than useful in practice. Further
to this, he praised Pseudo-Longinus for emphasizing languages emotional
aspects rather than simply enumerating rules and for preferring examples
to general exposition. Fnelon likened an orator to apainter; both must
depict both the subject and its environment so vividly and graphically as
to ensure that his spectators or listeners could see them in their minds eye.
He admired Demosthenes for his efficient and clear style. Demosthenes was
able to evoke sublime emotions in the audience which reflected the gravity
of the situation he was addressing. Fnelon criticized his contemporaries for
their flowery and witty styles, filled with plays on words (Plus un dclamateur
feroit efforts pour meblouir par les prestiges de son discours, plus je me rvolterois
contre sa vanit51). He did not entirely reject tropes and figures, preferring
to limit their use according to appropriate discourse types and genres. The
low style, which aimed to be as simple as possible, should teach and inform,
the middle style should persuade the audience, while the high style should
strive to evoke powerful emotions. Style should vary in relation to the theme
and purpose of communication. This also applies to delivery, which, coupled with facial expressions, reflected the orators state of mind.
Flenon was one of many authors who complained about the consistent
decline of language. He believed that French was not as fine as Greek or Lat-

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

Giambattista Vicos conception of rhetoric was diametrically opposed

to Du Marsaiss detailed classification of tropes and figures. In his inaugural lectures at the Department of Rhetoric at the University of Naples,
where he held the position of the royal professor of Latin eloquence, Vico
(16881744), ahistoriographer and scientific theoretician native of the city,
criticized Descartes for restricting himself to the epistemic aspects of scientific work, neglecting its main goal: the active striving for social good
(bonum commune). He presented the optimistic image of ascientist who, like
Amphion in his music, could, through the weight of scientific truth, grip
people, even against their will. This goal was achieved not only through
the logic of cognition, but also rhetoric, which taught how to disseminate
the outcome of cognition with force and vigour. Presenting indisputable
certainties was just one aspect of the purpose of ascientists work. Common

7. 18th-Century Rhetoric

/190/

sense (sensus communis) was no less important as the arbiter of phenomena

which were merely probable rather than truthful. He held that people only
strive for those truths which appear palpably true and appreciate justice
only when it is seen to be just. Poetry and eloquence thus existed as instruments for disseminating those principles that society should obey. Vico
explained the origin of rhetorical and poetic tropes in the chapter called
Principles of New Science Surrounding the Common Nature of Nations (Principi di
scienza nuova dintorno alla Comune Natura delle Nazioni), whose first volume
was published in 1725, with the second following at some point between
1730 and 1744. He reduced the myriad tropes to four, which include all
the others: metaphor, metonymy, synecdoche and irony. He saw tropes as
anecessary mode of expression of all the first poetic nations,53 explaining
the origin of figurative expressions: with the further development of the
human mind, words were invented which signified abstract forms or genera
comprising their species or relating parts with their wholes.54 Vico reversed
the relation of basic and figurative forms. First, there were figurative
forms and only through the course of alanguage development did their
meaning become more accurate and narrowed down to the literal.
Vico devoted his work Institutiones oratoriae (1711) specifically to rhetoric. In this, he adhered to the usual exposition scheme: Chapter I types
of eloquence; Chapter II invention; Chapter III disposition; Chapter
IV elocution; Chapter V memory and delivery. His own conception of
rhetoric, however, is not based on logic (which had been the usual content
of inventio), but on the principles of moral philosophy, which he explained
in his magnum opus, New Science.
RHETORIC, TEACHING REFINED TASTE (BOUHOURS, ROLLIN, DUBOS)

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/

In his lectures, Smith accentuated those properties of speech which were

related to aclear and comprehensible style. He considered rhetoric to be
acentral part of moral philosophy. His belief in the necessity of legal regulation of political and economic systems was grounded in the Stoics philosophy, aforce capable of overcoming the full gamut of liberal pressures. He
never published his lectures (he lectured for two years, until his departure
for the University of Glasgow), even ordering, on his deathbed, that his
notes were to be destroyed. Despite these injunctions, his expositions became amodel for similar lectures published by Smiths student, Hugh Blair.
Hugh Blair (17181800), a professor of rhetoric and belles-lettres at
the University of Edinburgh, the city of his birth, was aprominent literary figure whose influence spread far beyond the borders of Scotland. He
published Shakespeares work, English poetry and the Poems of Ossian, and
excelled as an inspired preacher. His book of lectures, informed by Smith,
Lectures on Rhetoric and Belles-Lettres of 1783, and Johnsons famous monolingual dictionary of English were to become the two essential works in
English philology of the modern era. Its success is clearly demonstrated
by the fact that before the end of the 19th century, it had been reprinted
fifty times in England and America and, shortly after its first publication,
it was translated into German (17851789), French (1797), Spanish (1798),
Italian (1811) and Russian (1837). Its English original was closely examined by the prominent Czech historian, Frantiek Palack, who went so far
as to copy the section addressing the style of historiographic works into
his notebook. The whole work inspired Palack to start compiling aCzech
aesthetics textbook, though he never finished this. He also recommended
Blair to his older contemporary, the lexicographer Josef Jungmann, who
took the Lectures as one of the sources of his Slovesnost, abook on poetic and
rhetorical eloquence. The Scottish scholar was attractive for Czech authors
principally for his efforts to cultivate the culture of asmall nation vis-a-vis
apowerful neighbour.
Blairs book of 47 chapters (lectures) ranges across themes of literary
taste, language, style, genres, eloquence and literary criticism, drawing not
only on Cicero and Quintilian, but also his French predecessors, Fnelon
and Rollin. His lectures on style clearly reflected the ongoing argument
among prominent Scottish thinkers, including David Hume, Henry Home
Kames, Thomas Reid, Alexander Gerard and George Campbell, who were
inspired both by French classicism and the founder of modern English
aesthetics, Hutcheson. The urgency of debates regarding the aesthetic and

7. 18th-Century Rhetoric

/194/

moral criteria of taste were linked to the boom of British parliamentarism

and public life in general. Similarly to Smith, Blair intended to instruct his
readers in the rules of proper stylization as well as to instil the principles
of good taste in the reading of fiction. His readership in the 18th century
consisted of new social elites, who were expected to be able to play an active role in public life, to master the art of natural intellectual conversation,
stylization readiness and refined aesthetic taste when judging various genres
of private and public discourse. Blair understood taste as the connection
between the natural delicacy and acquired correctness of judgements,
and so it was therefore amatter both of talent and systematic learning. Blair
did not perceive the goal to be simply in the instruction of persuasive and
agonistic speech, but in the cultivation of the ability to achieve cooperation
through arefined dialogue.
As was the case in most of other 18th-century authors of books on rhetoric
and language education, Blair paid great attention to issues related to language origin. Like most of his predecessors, he viewed alanguages development as apath from emotional reactions to areality expressing rationally
formed grammatical and denominative structures. What distinguished Blair
from others, however, was his rejection of language purism. In his view, the
English languages wealth was due to its ability to smoothly absorb apanoply of other languages.
George Campbell (17191796), aprofessor of theology at the University
of Aberdeen and Blairs contemporary, was another representative of Scottish aesthetic rhetoric. He was not primarily interested in rhetoric, despite
devoting apractical handbook, Lectures to Pulpit Eloquence, to it. He wrote
the textbook Philosophy of Rhetoric (1776) for his students to aid them in
defending their faith against sceptics such as David Hume (the text drew
on his lectures in the philosophical milieu at the University of Aberdeen). It
was, however, this work that ensured Campbell his place in history; over the
course of the 19th century, it was reprinted more then fifty times in England
and the United States.
In his rhetoric, Campbell defended the principles of common sense philosophy, which his friend Thomas Reid advocated in discussions on taste.
These principles, arising from the criticism of sensualism, were founded in
the doctrine of the instinctive truths of common sense, which do not originate in senses, but which explain other aspects of consciousness. Rhetoric
would be efficient if it corresponded to these instinctive truths. Rhetorical
(which was, according to Campbell, moral) evidence would convince the

 /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 political party system. Where individuals rights, guaranteed by social

agreement, are breached, there is no place for independence. Moral philosophy and rhetoric cannot be imagined but as part of political conflict
(moral philosophys importance is manifest from this circumstance, that
it not only points out personal duty, but is related to the whole business of
active life. The languages, and even mathematical and natural knowledge,
are but handmaids of this superior science).55
There is yet another rhetoric textbook that is close to the Scottish
authors works: A Course of Lectures on Elocution by Thomas Sheridan
(17191788), a school reformer of Irish origin. The Course of Lectures on
Elocution, acompilation of his lectures delivered at universities in Oxford,
Cambridge, Dublin, Belfast, London and Edinburgh, was published in London in 1762. Sheridan primarily focuses on delivery, thus covering correct
pronunciation and potential in intonation, gestures, pacing of speech and
similar matters. His book, along with Samuel Johnsons dictionary (1755),
played an importantrole in the stabilization and dissemination of modern
standard English.
RHETORIC IN SPAIN AND GREGORIO MAYANS Y SISCAR

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/

ensamientos literarios (1754). The most comprehensive and systematic treatP

ment of rhetoric is presented in his Rhetrica (1757).
Related to the previous works is aremarkable essay entitled Oracin en
que se exhorta aseguir la verdadera idea de la eloquencia espaola (Prayer of
exhortation to follow the true idea of Spanish eloquence). It is aclassicist
criticism of baroque style, whose exaltation, sophistication, unusual imagery and expressions opened the door to anew literary movement in Spain,
known as conceptismo.
Mayans wrote Rhetrica as part of acomplex project of language and stylistic education at the Academy in Valencia. This institutions brief existence
(17421751) did not discourage Mayans from writing an extensive Latin
grammar book (Gramtica de la lengua latina, 17681771).
Rhetrica consists of five books conforming to the Ciceronian model,
with the only deviation from the standard presentation being memory and
delivery treated within one unit. The last volume addressed less traditional
rhetorical genres, including adialogue, aletter, and adepiction of historical
events. The works conception displays aclear inheritance of Bacons conviction that invention (discovering that which is hidden from man) does not
belong to rhetoric, but must precede it. In contrast, the search for themes,
arguments and all that makes aspeech persuasive is inherent in rhetoric.
This difference inspired Bacon and Mayans to distinguish dialectical invention as the first stage of scientific knowledge and rhetorical invention as
the prerequisite for efficient argumentation and stylization. Mayans defined
argument as aspeech phenomenon which explained athings substance
succinctly and clearly. Despite this, the persuasiveness of argument does
not lie in the propositions content, but instead in the fitting and descriptive
manner of its expression. As such, Mayans devoted agreat deal of space to
linguistic and stylization means (their exposition fills the entire Book III,
encompassing 417 pages, atotal of almost one third of the entire work).
Their richness is illustrated by examples from Spanish literature (Mayans
favoured Alonso de Ercilla, Lope de Vega, Cervantes, Luis de Gngora,
Francisco de Aldana and Esteban Manuel de Villegas). In his work, forensic
and deliberative oratory is only briefly touched upon.
Thanks to Mayans, rhetoric in Spain grew to focus more frequently on
literary stylistic and linguostylistic themes. This development was endorsed
in the works by Mayanss followers: Antonio de Capmany published his
Filosofia de la eloquencia in Madrid in 1777 and Mariano Madramany y Calatayud his Tratado de le elocucin odel perfecto lenguaje y buen estilo respecto cas-

7. 18th-Century Rhetoric

/198/

tellano in Valencia in 1795. Influenced by Mayans and Spanish translations

of Blairs work, Francisco Snchez Barberos Principios de rhetrica ypotica
(Madrid, 1805) presented rhetoric and poetic as equals. Several later authors, such as Manuel de la Revilla (Principios generales de literatura e historia
de la literatura espaola; Madrid, 1884) held rhetoric to be an integral part of
domestic literary history.
PHILOLOGICAL ORIENTATION OF RHETORIC IN GERMANY
JOHANN CHRISTOPH GOTTSCHED

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/

torische Fragen (Leipzig, 1706), Oratorische Systema (Frankfurt-Leipzig, 1703),

Politischer Redner (Leipzig 1677) and others, are characterized by their clearly-arranged, systematic exposition and practical focus. They were intended
for young men who required mastery of refined speech in order to advance
in their careers. In his Philosophische Oratorie. Vernnftige Anleitung zur gelehrten un galanten Beredsamkeit (Leipzig, 1724), Johann Andreas Fabricius
(16961769) elucidated several goals of rhetoric: the proper choice of ideas
and corresponding expressions, the skill of arguing in favour of and against
aparticular solution to aproblem and the art of evoking emotions among
the audience.
Johann Christoph Gottsched (17001766) was indisputably the most
prominent and authoritative figure in German classicist rhetoric and literary
criticism. He published his Ausfhrliche Redekunst (Comprehensive Rhetoric) in
1736 in Leipzig, and lived to see it reprinted four times. Its extraordinary
success in Germany and abroad was due to its exact and apropos exposition
of classicist language and stylistic norms.
Comprehensive Rhetoric consists of two parts, with atotal of 700 pages.
The first and more general part explains the rules of eloquence, while the
second part, presenting examples, is essentially an anthology of model texts,
both original German works and translations from avariety of languages.
Gottsched was somewhat pedantic, but his observations were frequently
of great interest (for example, he pointed out that each public appearance
presents arisk for the orator, as he ventures into an area where he may win
regard, but also disgrace himself, wo man zwar viele Ehre, aber auch viel Schande einlegen kann).
Gottscheds main contribution was the demand for accord between language and reality. Only consistent imitation (Nachahmung, imitatio) of nature can produce aliterary work of perfection. Any deviation from nature
as an ideal model (Muster, Vorbild) results in the works fatal deformation.
Despite extensive personal antagonisms, Gottsched agreed with his contemporary, Johannes Bodmer, aGerman scholar from Zurich, who formulated
the principles of his imitationis poetics even more explicitly. He held that
painters, sculptors and poets should perceive the divine, human and material realm of nature to be the only valid prototype (Urbild) and thus the single
norm for their work. Advocating these principles, both Gottsched and Bodmer turned their backs on the relics of baroque stylistics and rhetoric and
tied creators to the strictly defined rules established by classicism. Belief in
the omnipotence of these rules inspired Gottsched to translate Racine and

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.

8. RHETORIC IN THE 19TH 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),

8. Rhetoric in the 19th Century

/204/

emphasizing the need to combine rhetoric and ethics. He defined rhetoric

as an art which allows afree person to influence the thoughts and acts of
other free beings. Adam Mller (17791829), Theremins contemporary and
amember of the German romantic poets circle, had an impact on the instruction of rhetoric in German schools. He presented his view of rhetoric in
his lectures, Zwlf Reden ber die Beredsamkeit und deren Verfall in Deutschland
(Twelve Lectures on Eloquence and Its Decline in Germany), which he delivered in Vienna in 1812. Mller believed that the disciplines decline was due
to an absence of an audience which would feel the inner cohesion that has to
cement members of acommunity and anation and which would be willing
to listen to an orator as aharbinger of great ideals of the time. An orator
must analyze and explain controversial issues, presenting theses and antitheses, and his soul must be ahigher instance in acontroversy, capable of arriving at asynthesis (die Seele des Rendners, die ber dem Streite der Glieder thront).
Paradoxically, it was Kants Critique of Pure Reason which revealed the
world of things-in-themselves that are unknown to us, thus conquering rhetorics fundamental antipode: the rationalist idea of an unlimited power of
reason-based argumentation. Kants idea that alogical order is only valid
in the realm of phenomena, that is, things as they appear to us, while leaving the area of things-in-themselves in aperpetual circle of ambiguity and
controversy, re-conquered the territory for disciplines rejecting the idea of
straightforward, unproblematic thinking. Rather than rhetoric, this area is
covered by hermeneutics, adiscipline which focuses on the act of understanding and search for (reconstruction of) the meaning that the author
intended to express.
The role of rhetoric in aesthetics and literature was addressed in many
texts representing awide variety of views. Despite the increasing loss of
prestige, the instruction of rhetoric based on Cicero and Quintilian preserved its central position in the humanities, affecting even the works of
authors who openly repudiated it. As astudent, Goethe wrote down quotes
from Isocrates, Cicero and Quintilian, while later, in his Doctor Faustus, he
warned against empty rhetorical effects that attempt to blind with glittering
words: Such er den redlichen Gewinn!/sei er kein stellenlauter Tor/Es trgt Verstand und rechter Sinn/Mit wenig Kunst sich selber vor;/Und wenns euch Ernst
ist, was zu sagen/Ists ntig, Worten nachzujagen?/Ja, eure Reden, die so blinkend
sind,/In denen ihr den Menschheit Schnitzel kruselt,/Sind unerquicklich wie der
Nebelwind,/Der herbstlich durch die drren Bltter suselt. (Seek thou the honest recompense!/Beware, atinkling fool to be!/With little art, clear wit and

 /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,

8. Rhetoric in the 19th Century

/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

Friedrich Nietzsche (18441900) held an absolutely unequalled position

among the 19th-century German writers lecturing and writing on rhetoric.
Although aclassical philologist by education, which he also taught at university (albeit his career as auniversity teacher was shortened by illness),
Nietzsches approach to the subject matter was distinguished by his awareness of awider context and his ability to address the issue and its context
through the prism of philosophy.
He taught the history of rhetoric at the University of Basel in the winter
semester of 1872 (the second part of the cycle intended for the summer
semester of 1874 was cancelled due to lack of interest among students).
To prepare for his lectures he also used, apart from the aforementioned
Volkmanns book, Friedrich Blasss Die griechische Beredsamkeit (1865) and
Die attische Beredsamkeit (1868), as well as Gustav Gerbers monograph Die
Sprache als Kunst (1872).
Unfortunately, only two students attended his class, one of whom, Louis
Keltenborn, preserved the content of Nietzsches lectures in his notes, which
he supplemented by his memories of the great philosopher, who would treat
both of his students to excellent Culmacher beer in silver cups along with
pretzels during the classes.
For Nietzsche, rhetoric was both atheoretical and apractical discipline,
whose prestige in antiquity and the prominent cultural role it had played
throughout European history was not demeaned even by Locke and Kants
attacks. He spoke on Aristotles definition of rhetoric as power (dynamis)
and pointed out Schopenhauers statement concerning the power of eloquence, which acts upon the listeners senses and minds, often even against
their will. Rhetoric is not meant to convey abstract truths and clear instructions, instead it imparts the orators feelings and ideas of things. Nietzsche

 /207/

also emphasized that classical education always culminated in the ability

to communicate effectively. He paid extensive attention to the relationship
between rhetoric and language, seeing them as equal because neither of
them conveys knowledge but opinions on it (Die Sprache ist Rhetorik, denn
sie will nur eine doxa, keine epistme bertragen). Therefore words are not mere
copies of things, but expressions of our attitudes to them. Language equals
rhetoric also because it reflects our conception of the world. Consciousness is intersubjective as it is dependent on language, social conditions and
fixed behaviour. Purity and distinctness are essential attributes of language.
Nietzsche distinguished between ordinary and figurative language, applying this distinction in his overview of tropes and figures. His claim that language originates in imagery and hence all words bear traces of figurativeness
was undoubtedly inspired by Gustav Gerber, who in turn adopted it from
Vicos doctrine and Rousseaus Essay on the Origin of Languages. Nietzsche
further presented aclassification of rhetorical genres, addressed the speech
rhythm, style, and concluded the lecture cycle with abrief history of ancient
rhetoric.59 Nietzsches lectures on rhetoric were reflected in many of his other works (Gay Science, On Truth and Lies in aNonnormal Sense). Nietzsche did
not understand metaphor as amere rhetorical ornament, instead he viewed
it as amethod of our understanding and formation of the world. In addition, every formulation of scientific truth is marked by subjective perception, scientists pathos, and thus represents one of many existing rhetorical
conceptions. This plurality encourages our choice and raises our awareness
of existence of many alternative realities. Nietzsche thus came to aremarkable conclusion; if each discourse is produced by a different persuasive
strategy, then its veracity and purpose cannot be measured through objective criteria (which are nothing but amyth), but rather through individual
concerns of each participant in communication. Interpretation is important
because communication through language is essentially synecdochical; we
cannot ever express some facts in their entirety because language can only
convey the most prominent qualities of things and our attitudes to them.
Nietzsches view of language gave rise to his epistemological relativism
and his doctrine concerning the power of human will. If our consciousness
and our ethics are grounded in language, then they cannot ever be grounded in the certainty of absolute truth. This made Nietzsche aparadigmatic
philosopher of post-modernism, an inspiration for theoreticians of mass
communication and some members of Poppers methodological school in
science, particularly Paul Karl Feyerabend, whose work, Against Method: Out-

8. Rhetoric in the 19th Century

/208/

line of an Anarchistic Theory of Knowledge (1988), accentuates the need to create

alternatives even to the most widely recognized scientific theories.
Theoretical interest in the art of style is reflected in Nietzsches very own
philosophical works. As is frequently the case with declared attitudes towards language, this is not in direct correlation. For Nietzsche, the Atticist
style represented astylistic ideal as its effect was founded in expressing ideas
in amoderate, brief, natural and factual manner. His own work, however,
especially the best known of his texts, Thus Spoke Zarathustra, demonstrates
awide range of stylistic nuances, including the simplicity of private conversation and the pathos of public oration. Despite this multifariousness,
Nietzsche admired and most frequently employed the classical high style,
albeit with asubjective tinge, intended to express the will to power (der Wille
zur Macht), an instinct, which he placed above all others in his philosophical
system.
19TH-CENTURY RHETORIC IN FRANCE.
FONTANIERS SEMANTIC THEORY OF TROPES AND FIGURES

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/

preserved), was aprofessor of general grammar, literature and philosophy

at the University of Ardche. His textbooks, Manuel classique pour ltude
des tropes ou lmens de la science du sens des mots (AClassical Manual for the
Study of Tropes, or Elements of the Science on the Meaning of Words,
1821), and Trait gnral des figures du discours autres que les tropes (AGeneral
Treatise on the Figures of Speech Other Than Tropes, 1830), herald the
20th-century linguistics view of the textual study and language semantics.
The topical nature of these works is best demonstrated by their inclusion in
the context of modern day literary science (the 1977 Flammarion edition,
Paris, contains aforeword by Grard Genette, aprominent representative
of French structuralism).
Unlike other rhetoricians limiting rhetoric to elocutio (la rhtorique restreinte), such as Blair and his French contemporaries, Fontanier believed
that individual words and their meaning, not coherent language discourses,
were the main subject matter of rhetoric. According to him, every word had
asimple, usage-based meaning (le sens littral) and aderived meaning (le
sense spirituel). The simple meaning is the meaning that is expected, while
the derived meaning is adeviation from this expectation, being based on
intended modifications of the simple meaning and to some extent also aresult of the texts interpretation. Fontanier reiterated Augustine of Hippos
classical statement that clinging to the literal meaning kills aword, while understanding its semantic modifications vivifies it, la lettre tue, lesprit vivifie.
Derived meanings, that is tropes and figures, were not invented by grammarians or orators, but are inherently present in language (this view was
also held by Nietzsche and many 20th-century authors). Hence, there are
more figures used in amarket place in aday than during several academic
sessions.
Fontanier divided figures in the broad sense of the word into tropes and
figures in the narrow sense of the word. Figures are expressions which have
digressed from simple words. Tropes, that is semantic substitutions of one
expression for another, are the most important figures. Figures have constant qualities; an expression may only become afigure when used in aparticular context.
Formally, there are asingle-word tropes (properly speaking) and multiword ones (improperly speaking). Relating to the content, tropes can be
divided into three species: relations of correlation, par correspondence (metonymy); relation of connection, par connexion (synecdoche) and relation
of resemblance, par ressemblance (metaphor). Fontanier further subdivided

8. Rhetoric in the 19th Century

/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

8. Rhetoric in the 19th Century

/212/

Lords. Elements of Rhetoric, inspired primarily by Aristotles Rhetoric, presents

rhetoric as apart of logic, thus paying most attention to finding and arranging arguments and syllogisms. Rhetorical argumentation is to persuade (the
art of influencing the Will) by appealing to reason and emotions. Apersuasive
style is characterized by clarity, energy (or vivacity as emphasized by Whatelys Scottish predecessors) and elegance (moderation). The book enjoyed
long-term popularity thanks to its presentation of text composition, specifically of the development of themes through coherently linked propositions.
Alexander Bain (18181903), ateacher and later arector at the University of Aberdeen, was an outstanding researcher in psychology (The Senses and
the Intellect, 1855, and The Emotions and the Will, 1859) as well as asuccessful writer on rhetoric (English Composition and Rhetoric, 1st edition in 1866,
2ndedition, expanded and published in two volumes in 1886/87). Bain was
influenced by his compatriot David Hartleys doctrine on the association of
ideas, and by Wilhelm Wundt, aGerman psychologist. For Bain, rhetoric
represented ascience of effective speech making. This efficiency, in English
aesthetics theoreticians works often referred to as agood impression, results
from acorrespondence between aspeechs function (informative, persuasive
and entertaining) and relevant functions of the human mind (thinking, will
and emotion). Every stylistic instrument is related to acertain psychological
effect, based on different types of association (similarity, facts, contrast and
others).
Although rhetoric, specifically style and composition, formed amere
segment of the extensive work of Herbert Spencer (18201903), Bains
contemporary and promoter of Darwinian evolutionism, his influence on
Anglo-Saxon stylistics and aesthetic has remained strong to this day. It is
particularly his essay The Philosophy of Style (1872), which was to become part
of the extensive Principles of Sociology he intended to compile, that is most
frequently cited in this context.
Spencer believed that all human activities arise from the necessity to defend ones existence and preserve mankind. There are only two exceptions,
art and play, which however employ the same principles of behaviour, usefulness and economy. They even influence the communication between the
author and the recipient of atext. If areader or listener must pay extensive
attention to language as avehicle of communication and to apoor composition, he pays much less attention to the content of the speech. Tropes
and figures are only acceptable if they briefly and aptly express what would
otherwise be conveyed in alengthy and less clear manner. Rhetorics only

 /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

In Slavic countries, especially in the Czech Lands and in Poland, rhetoric is

usually part of acomplex linguistic and literary education which includes
stylistic, rhetorical and literary topics. In Poland, this tradition was established by Stanisaw Konarski (Osztuce dobrego mylenia koniecznej dla sztuki
dobrej wymowy, On the Art of Correct Thinking As aPrerequisite for Proper
Speech, 1767, continuing the older Opoprawie wad wymowy, On Error Correction in Speech, 1741) in the 18th century. In the 19th century, it was further
developed in textbooks of the Polish language written by other authors;
Tomasz Szumski, J. Rymarkiewicz, L. T. Rycharski and others (Zaniewska,
1991). The prominent role rhetoric played in the history of Polish literature
can be evinced by Karel Mecherzyskis Historya wymowy vPolsce (History
of Rhetoric in Poland; Cracow, 185659) in three volumes, and Historya wymowy kaznodziejskiej (History of the Art of Preaching; Cracow, 1864), written
by the same author.
As concerns 19th-century Czech books on rhetoric, whether focusing
on language or literature, particularly Josef Jungmanns Slovesnost (Art
of Eloquence), asystematic textbook of poetic and rhetorical eloquence,
excelled as to the scope and thoroughness of exposition. Josef Jungmann
(17731847), alexicographer, poet and translator, conceived it originally as
acollection of model literary texts, both original and translated, arranging
them according to their purpose, subject matter and style. The second
edition of 1845 (and the third, following shortly after, in 1846) differed significantly from the first; the theoretical introduction had been considerably
extended and the number of model texts was expanded as well. The author intended to encourage the rising Czech society, strongly marked by
German-Czech bilingualism, to read extensively and to write and speak on
national science, culture and politics. The unfavourable conditions for such
efforts in the Czech cultural context of the time are best characterized by

8. Rhetoric in the 19th Century

/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

8. Rhetoric in the 19th Century

/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.

9. RHETORIC IN THE 20TH CENTURY

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-

9. Rhetoric in the 20th Century

/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/

syncretistic publication Grundriss der Rhetorik. Geschichte Technik Methode

(3rd edition in 1994) by Gert Ueding and Bernd Steinbrink. In the 20th century, anew scientific superpower appeared on the stage of rhetorical research: the United States. The United States astonished not only in its complex approach to the discipline, but also by its own remarkable traditions,
grounded both in American historys fight for democracy and in the theoretical works by Ivor Armstrong Richards, Richard McKeon, Kenneth Burke,
who in turn inspired contemporary scholars, such as Nancy Struever, James
Murphy, George Kennedy and Thomas Conley. Extensive space has been
devoted to rhetoric in The Quarterly Journal of Speech, established in 1915.
Aspecialized journal, Rhetoric and Philosophy, has been published since 1968.
In 1977 Zurich, Brian Vickers initiated the foudation of the international
Society for the History of Rhetoric (ISHR), which issues Rhetorica, ajournal
whose editorial staff is primarily in the US. New research in rhetoric has
become part of university research centres in Canada (Judith Rice Hendersons works on Renaissance rhetoric and epistolography and various other
scholar67) and in Mexico (H. Bristain, 1997). The end of the millennium
witnessed aremarkable publishing achievement in Europe; eight volumes
of Historisches Wrterbuch der Rhetoric, edited by Gert Ueding and co-initiated by Walter Jens (published by Max Niemeyer Publishing Company in
Tbingen since 1992). This was the product of international collaboration
among researchers from many countries. Max Niemeyer also publishes the
Rhetorik international yearbook, edited by J. Dyck, W. Jens and G. Ueding.
International collaboration from many researchers resulted in the extensive
Encyclopedia of Rhetoric, edited by Thomas O. Sloane and published by the
Oxford University Press in 2001.
The 1960s were notable for the development of rhetorical studies in
Slavic countries. Valuable findings were presented by researchers from Poland (Jerzy Axer, Jakub Zdzisaw Lichaski, Helena Cichocka, Mirosaw
Korolko), the former Czechoslovakia (Czech scholars represented by Tka,
Nechutov, Kopeck, Kraus, Svato, and philosopher Vclav Blohradsks
essays on the role of rhetoric through the prism of postmodern philosophy;
Slovak academics included Mistrk, Kuklica and koviera), Russia and the
Ukraine (in his edition of Muravievs Institutiones rhetoricae, Oxford, 1995,
Andrew Kahn included an extensive bibliography of works on rhetoric in
Russia and the Ukraine), Bulgaria (Donka Alexandrova), and the former
Yugoslavia (Sreten Petrovi). Given that present-day number of biblio
graphical entries on rhetoric has reached tens of thousands, they can only

9. Rhetoric in the 20th Century

/220/

be properly recorded in an electronic database. It is heartening that many

researchers have recently refocused their output, with translations into
modern languages of original texts and including commentaries on these.
Thanks to accessibility of these texts, the remarkable structure of rhetoric in
20th-century culture has been opened to researchers in social sciences many
disciplines.
RHETORIC INSPIRATION FOR LANGUAGE, LITERARY
AND PHILOSOPHICAL DISCOURSES

There was an exception to the general decline in interest in rhetoric in the

early 20th century: Russian Formalists, who focused on examining the differences between poetic and practical language. (Here it should be noted that
these researchers employed the term poetic language in the Aristotelian
sense to describe the language of non-fiction, sometimes even prose and
oratory in general). The Russian Formalist school included many prominent
scholars: Viktor B. Shklovsky, Boris M. Eikhenbaum, Osip M. Brik, BorisV. Tomashevsky, Vladimir Propp, Yuri N. Tynianov, Roman Jakobson. Of
these, Roman Jakobson was particularly influential, with his impact being
felt by scholars focusing on modern developments in rhetoric, and it was
thanks to him that this schools ideas developed in the fruitful environment
of the Prague Linguistic Circle in the 1920s and 1930s68 and, after World
WarII, also in the United States, where Jakobson had emigrated.
The Russian Formalists were distinguished not only by being inspired
by rhetoric, which is unavoidable in any intentional or unintentional examination of communication and discourse, but also especially for their
openly proclaimed allegiance to rhetoric. Rhetoric facilitated their search
for answers to two questions at the root of language discourse: Which tools
(corresponding to the system of rhetorical tropes, figures, commonplaces
and arguments) participate in language discourse structure and what is their
overall effect, ustanovka, of the entire discourse? The connection between
these two questions was crucial for Russian Formalists, as they considered
form to be tangible (oshchutimaia forma) and to provoke acertain excitement, such as an aesthetic effect. We should not ignore the fact that they analyzed, among others, the works of apoet whose verses include aparticular
rhetorical appeal, Vladimir Mayakovsky. (In fact his own insight into the origin of one of his essays [Kak delat stikhi, 1926], similar to Poes Philosophy of
Composition, is in line with the theoretical treatises of his Formalist friends.)

 /221/

Russian Formalists functional approach to language discourse is not

exclusively limited to poetry, and covers other forms. In his article Teoriya
formalnogo metoda (1927), Eikhenbaum (18861959) postulated an interest
in rhetorical language, closest to poetry of all forms of practical language
as it uses figurative devices and emotional appeal. This was partly inspired
by his differentiation between two equal elements of language description,
Ohrenphilologie and Augenphilologie, which was based on the analysis of Lenins newspaper essays and speeches, published in aspecial issue of the
LEF Futuristic journal (Zhurnal levogo fronta iskusstv) in 1924. In this analysis, agroup of authors (Shklovsky, Tynianov, Eikhenbaum, Yakubinsky,
Tomashevsky and Kazansky) declared that the instruction of rhetoric must
be reintroduced to schools in response to the contemporary situation in rhetorical discourse, characterized by the current de-canonization of rhetorical
means (Shklovsky). The journals contributors contended that the limited
number of external rhetorical devices which served to evoke the effect of
style-free language in Lenins speeches was illusory as their simplicity and
austerity, as had been the case in Tolstoys works, result from acalculated
stylistic intention.
One of the themes that Russian Formalists associated with rhetoric was
textual composition.69 In this context, Vladimir Propps Morfologiya skazki
(Morphology of the Folk Tale, 1928) is generally regarded to be the most
well-known text. Propp reduced ahundred folk-tale plots to 31functions
(narrative invariant components) of character actions (variable). These
functions, corresponding to the ancient loci communes, are arranged in
astandard manner throughout the text according to how they correspond
to specific situations, such as the hero is leaving his home, the hero is
forbidden to do something, the ban is breached and others.
While Formalists and the researchers inspired by various aspects of
their work (Vinogradov, Likhachev, Lotmans Tartu School in Estonia
and others) took apositive position towards rhetoric (with Lomonosovs
lasting influence playing adecisive role), the members of the Prague Linguistic Circle rejected it. Despite the obvious and numerous connections
(particularly evident in the works of the aesthetician Jan Mukaovsk; Bohuslav Havrnek, who developed the theory of standard language; Vilm
Mathesius, most notably in his works on functional sentence perspective;
and more prominently in works by Roman Jakobson), they associated
rhetoric principally with apurist and unilaterally normative view of language.

9. Rhetoric in the 20th Century

/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/

present in human experience. Poetry, in particular, is ademonstration of

the unending polarity between basic and derived meanings. Thus, it allows
for the simultaneous perception of distant phenomena and their often paradoxical connections. Atexts ambiguity is areflection of the readers unique
plurality of experience. Richards demonstrated this in his essay How to Read
aPage: ACourse in Effective Reading with an Introduction to aHundred Great
Words, written in 1943, which remains an excellent example of close reading
of demanding texts.
Richards primarily focuses on close reading. He is interested not only
in what is expressed explicitly, which he calls neutral exposition, but also
and more importantly in that which is only hinted at, unuttered, that which
is paradoxical, marginal, ironic. The genesis of his fascination with polysemy can be discerned during his stay in Beijing, where he learned some
Chinese. His book Mencius on the Mind (1932), devoted to the psychological
views of Chinese philosopher Mencius, first presents this thinkers original
text alongside atranslation into English and then reflects on the semantic
subtleties of his message, which is constantly in danger of misinterpretation.
Richards understood his new rhetoric of language ambiguity to be the
starting point of language instruction. His book On Interpretation in Teaching
strives to re-establish the traditional trivium as the nexus of grammatical,
ideological and rhetorical facets of language. Richards found many pupils
and followers in the United States: W. Empson, Seven Types of Ambiguity,
1930; W. C. Booth, The Rhetoric of Fiction, 1961; Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Assent, 1972; The Company We Keep. An Ethics of Fiction, 1988; Paul de
Man, Semiology and Rhetoric, in: Allegories of Reading, 1979.
Richard McKeon (19001985), philosopher of communication and culture, was one of the foremost members of the Neo-Aristotelian Chicago
School, whose beginning is associated with the publication of the essay
collection Critics and Criticism: Ancient and Modern (1952). The authors who
contributed to this collection, which had been initiated by the literary scientist Ronald S. Crane, agreed that the potential of those methods which
had not been fully developed, or which were currently marginalized should
be examined through various art-related disciplines. Works containing the
elements of these methods included Aristotles Poetics and Rhetoric, which
McKeon published with his accompanying commentary.
During the interwar period, the University of Chicago became an extraordinarily fruitful environment. The academic staff included personalities such as Rudolf Carnap, aGerman who espoused logical semantics,

9. Rhetoric in the 20th Century

/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.

9. Rhetoric in the 20th Century

/226/

After the war, Burke wrote AGrammar of Motives (1945), ARhetoric of

Motives (1950), The Rhetoric of Religion (1961) and Language as Symbolic Action (1966). In Grammar, he described communication using the traditional
five question words: who, what, where, how and why, or for what purpose.
Communication was modelled on drama explaining aparticular event based
on where (in which scene) it took place, who set it in motion, to what end it
was, etc. Philosophical movements differed from each other in their higher
regard for certain questions. Materialism highlighted the scene, pragmatism
the purpose, idealism the initiator of the action, realism the action itself.
In ARhetoric of Motives, Burke demonstrated the bases of appeal, persuasion and communicability of language signs and signifiers, along with their
semantic potentials. Identification, as the works key thesis, represents an
element which unifies different interpretations of the same word and motif,
and through this also represents different (social, political and cultural)
communication contexts. Burkes effect on post-war American philosophy
continues to be of fundamental importance.
This short selection of scholars indicates that, quite apart from alarge
number of practical works, the United States has long maintained astrong
tradition of theoretical and philosophical interest in rhetoric and its history,
with the current principal ambassador being Nancy S. Struever of John
Hopkins University in Baltimore. Her books, Language of History in the Renaissance: Rhetoric and Historical Consciousness in Florentine Humanism (1970),
and Theory as Practice: Ethical Inquiry in the Renaissance (1992) and Rhetoric,
Modality and Modernity (2009) cover awide range of rhetorical issues and
their cultural associations in ethical, historical and philosophical contexts.
Walter J. Ongs research into the relationship between oral and written
culture both in history and in the current information technology era is
particularly valuable. He links the upswing of rhetoric in the Western world
with the polemical (agonistic) nature of spoken language in Western culture, where the conviction prevailed that alanguage discourse is designed
to prove or refute the correctness of an argument face to face with an opponent. He references Quintilians doctrine of commonplaces (loci communes),
in which the arguments available in the specific instance are already settled as asupport for memory when speaking without written notes. Thus,
in proving and developing aparticular thought procedure, arhetorician
reaches for the pre-prepared definitions, causes, consequences, oppositions
and similarities among the myriad of options open to him.

 /227/

RHETORIC SINCE THE MID-20TH CENTURY IN GERMANY AND AUSTRIA

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

9. Rhetoric in the 20th Century

/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/

demonstrates his extensive scientific and organizational activities. Asimilar

theme has also been addressed by Detlev Dormeyer, University of Mnster,
in his book Das neue Testament im Rahmen antiken Literaturgeschichte.74 Heinrich F. Plett produced asynthesis of his numerous works on the general
issues in rhetoric in his Systematische Rhetorik. Konzepte und Analysen,75 which
included arich bibliography. The significance of this scholars life-long
work, aleading expert on Renaissance rhetoric, is highlighted in Rhetorica
nova, published in homage to his 70th birthday.76 Heinrich F. Pletts works
represent the apex of the symbiosis between rhetoric and literary science,
which in Germany began with Curtius, Lausberg and Dockhorn.
THEORY OF ARGUMENTATION IN THE WORK
OF CHAIM PERELMAN AND STEPHEN TOULMIN

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

9. Rhetoric in the 20th Century

/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/

it was possible to subject ethical norms to rational analysis or whether this

was necessarily limited to merely subjective judgments and feelings. The
quest for an answer resulted in The Uses of Argument (1958), which became
especially popular in the United States. Toulmin focused on argumentation
in the class of opposing views, being more interested in claims that meet
with scepticism than in absolute premises and inferences. He sought the
potentiality of their justification and warrant, utilizing classical rhetorics
loci communes.
Pereleman and Toulmins works inspired further development in the theory of argumentation within rhetoric, new rhetoric and textual linguistics
most particularly in France (especially the school of Oswald Ducrot and his
collaborators, and recently also Marion Carel who has addressed the theory
of argumentation in ordinary language (argumentation dans la langue)), in
Germany (P.-L. Vlzing, J. Kopperschmidt, J. Habermas), in the United
States where a great number of practical argumentation textbooks have
been published, at the University of Gteborg in Sweden (R. Hirsch), at the
University of Yerevan in Armenia (G. A. Brutians remarkable Argumentacija
of 1983), in England (Walter Nash, Rhetoric. The Wit of Persuasion, 1989)
and many other countries. The development of and contemporary research
into the theory of argumentation are the main themes of the encyclopaedic
work entitled Fundamentals of Argumentation Theory. AHandbook of Historical
Background and Contemporary Developments written by F. Eemeren, R. Grootendorst and F. S. Henkemans and published in 1996.
RHETORIC IN THE SECOND HALF OF THE 20TH CENTURY IN ROMANCE COUNTRIES

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

9. Rhetoric in the 20th Century

/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-

9. Rhetoric in the 20th Century

/234/

tine and automatic, there is something we gain in return: the understanding

of new connections.
We have previously mentioned that the French-language scholars focus
on la rhtorique restreinte; elocutio. Conditions for this were created by Farals
edition of medieval poetic and rhetorical texts (Les arts potique du XIIe et
XIIIe sicle, 1924). Medieval rhetoric has been examined by Paul Zumthor
(Rhtorique medievale et potique) and J. Kooyman (Grammaire, Rhtorique,
Potique dans les manuscrits mdivaux des bibliothque publique de France, 1969),
while modern rhetoric is the subject of Marc Fumarollis Lage dloquence
(1980) and works by Pierre Kuentz, Aron Kibdi Varga, R. Tomassone and
others. Laurent Pernot (ed. Actualit de la rhtorique, 2002), ascholar from
Strasbourg, engaged in the systematic study of rhetorics Greek founders
and their attitudes to examining dialogue.
Rhetoric has also been extensively studied in Italy (Renato Barilli, Rhetorica, Milan 1979, Ernesto Grassi; the history of rhetoric is represented by
G. Calboli and A. Pennacini), in Spain (T. Albaladejo) and in Romania
(Vasile Florescu, Retorica si neoretorica. Geneza, evolutie, perspective, 1973,
translation into French in 1982).

10. OTHER RHETORICAL THEORIES AND OTHER CULTURES

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

10. Other Rhetorical Theories and Other Cultures

/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,

10. Other Rhetorical Theories and Other Cultures

/238/

however, hampered by the nonexistence of borders between the areas of

eloquence which belong to the disciplines such as rhetoric, poetics, logic,
grammar, stylistics, and in the broader sense even to philosophy, politics,
state administration, ethics, philology and historiography. This is reflected
in the recent attempt at describing rhetoric in Ancient Egypt, whose first
canon, as determined by the author, was the obligation to adhere to the
rules of silence and ceremonial behaviour.80 The constitution of rhetoric
as adiscipline in the traditional European sense in the East, in Africa and
in Central and South America was associated with the arrival of Christian
missionaries, with European political, cultural and technological influence,
with the beginning of colonization, with modern educational systems, and
since the end of the 19thcentury, primarily with the mass expansion of traditional and new media.
The oldest preserved doctrine of the art of speaking originated in the
vast and ethnically and linguistically differentiated territory of India. The
classical Hindu doctrine was based on an elaborate system of grammatical
and philological knowledge collected in the Brahmanas, texts which explained the meaning of the ancient Vedic ceremonies through etymology
and semantics (ca. 2nd millennium BCE). Over the centuries, their language
(Sanskrit) had lost its comprehensibility and required commentary. Understanding Sanskrit (literally arefined speech, the cultivated language of the
sacred Vedic texts) was facilitated by the oldest extant scientific description
of the language written by Panini. Panini lived in the 5th century BCE, in
the era when the usage of Sanskrit had decreased in favour of the commonly
used Prakrits as an expression of the increasing dialectical differentiation of
what was originally asingle language. Although Panini referred to his predecessors several times, his own contribution to the general theory of grammar that is effectuated through his thorough, yet concise description of this
highly inflected Indo-Aryan language, has been considered afundamental
and inspirational achievement in the development of the discipline to the
present day. Paninis older contemporary, the legendary sage Bharata, authored the Natya Shastra, atheoretical treatise on poetry, drama and music.
It is the attention devoted to the language of sacred and artistic texts that
attests to the unique nature of ancient Indian philological works (prevalently written in Sanskrit) which can be characterized as treatises on poetics or
rhetoric. Bharata and Paninis continuators developed terms such as alankara (ornament, ornamentation of expression), riti, marga (style), a
uchitya
(decorum), dhvani (lit. abell, impressiveness), rasa (taste), prasada (clarity),

 /239/

udaratva (ormanentation) and madhurya (sweet, persuasive tone). Scholars

in literature, stylistics, rhetoric and aesthetic paid the most attention to the
various qualities of the style and the related numerous tropes and figures
(their classification and definitions were part of the Alankara Shastra discipline) as tools for enriching the semantic and phonetic potential of the language. Vamana, an influential author from the 8th century of aliterary style
doctrine, characterized the style as the soul (atman) of awork, while tropes
and figures (alankara) represented its body (sharira).
Ancient authors divided tropes and figures (alankaras) into two categories and developed detailed terminology for each of them. The first category units, shabdalankara were related to word forms, while the second
categoryunits, arthalankara, to semantic shifts. The first category included
phenomena such as alliteration, repetition of words or syllables, plays on
words, while the other contained similes, metaphors, hyperboles and others.
The classification of stylistic phenomena as well as the boundaries between
their elements, whose numbers amounted to several hundreds, differed
from author to author. Nevertheless, the sense of meticulous philological
description of literary and sacred texts that these authors demonstrated in
their works is as remarkable as was Paninis description of grammar. The
terms dhvani (style) and rasa (taste) are part of essential categories of stylistic theory and speech practice as well as of the description of Indias modern
languages even today.
The practical demonstration of eloquence, the art of persuasion through
specific language means as well as intentionally unexpressed meanings,
can be found in both of the oldest literary monuments of the pre-Buddhist period, the Mahabharata and the Ramayana, written in the 4th century
BCE. K
rishnas entreaty to mythical Prince Arjuna in the Bhagavad Gita,
areligious, philosophical and didactic digression from the main epic, Mahabharata, represents atypical example of the deliberative and argumentative genre.
Dravidian languages (with Tamil being the oldest known language), prevail throughout the southern part of the Indian Subcontinent. The oldest
extant evidence of the Tamil language, literature and social contact norms is
represented by the hand-written manuscript of the Tolkappiyam. It covers the
behaviour and language conventions in private and public environments,
in the rulers court and other milieus. The language description contains
semantic explanations, explanation of metaphors, prosody as well as adescription of conversation topics based on everyday situations. This literary

10. Other Rhetorical Theories and Other Cultures

/240/

monument was continued by medieval treatises with detailed analyses of

grammar and stylistics.
In monotheistic religions, such as Judaism, Christianity and Islam, the
art of speech production has been associated with the ability to understand
and clearly interpret texts since the very beginning. The Old Testaments
ancient Hebrew and Aramaic texts, associated the orator with the key figure
of apreacher (koheleth in Hebrew), apromoter and interpreter of the only
true faith. This is demonstrated in the book of Ecclesiastes:
The preacher sought to find out acceptable words:
and that which was written was upright, even words of truth.
The words of the wise are as goads,
and as nails fastened by the masters of assemblies,
which are given from one shepherd.
Experts on the Old Testament and Hellenistic rhetoric somewhat influenced by the New Testaments formulations point out many stylistic devices,
especially tropes and figures, which can be found in Aristotle and Quintilian
as well as in the Bible. These include word repetitions and their semantic
gradation, syntactic and rhythmic parallel structures, rhetorical questions,
hyperboles and others. Some of them can be explained as intentional imitations or adirect influence, while others through general laws of astylized
ceremonial discourse.
Most researchers in the discipline which could, with some reservation, be
termed as Old-Testament Hebrew rhetoric (Zulick, Lundbom, Muilenburg),
agree that the specific nature of Hebrew is of essence as it does not contain
accurate equivalents to the crucial verbs of Greek rhetoric, to persuade
and to argue. The expression for persuasion, pathah, whose phonetic form
corresponds to the Greek peitho only by accident, is strongly marked by
anegative connotation of seducing, cheating and deceiving.
Semantically neutral examples are rare, for example in Proverbs (25:15):
By long forbearing is aprince persuaded (yeputteh),
and asoft tongue breaketh the bone.
The verb pathah is used as meaning to outwit, deceive in the description of the encounter between King David and Commander Abner (Second
Book of Samuel 3:2425):
Then Joab came to the king, and said, What has thou done? behold, Abner came
unto thee; why is it that thou hast sent him away, and he is quite gone? Thou knowest

 /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

10. Other Rhetorical Theories and Other Cultures

/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/

Al-Jahizs theological and philosophical approach to the interpretation

issues was also accompanied by methodological consequences which exceeded the Islamic orthodoxys bounds. In his Kitab al-Badi (Book of the
Novel and Strange), Ibn al-Mutazz (end of the 10th century) presents the
rules of poetry, artistic and didactic texts and counsels on understanding
these rules.
Unlike the prevalently Arabic-language cultures, Chinese does not possess an accurate equivalent of the term rhetoric in the European sense of
the word, or of the word philosophy. It does not have adiscipline that
would correspond with rhetorics scope. The expression xiuci (language
care) is relatively modern and is related to stylistics and rhetoric only to
some extent. Scholarly efforts to define the category and timeline of Chinese rhetoric discipline must be regarded with reservation. Nevertheless,
the art of speaking well and persuasively was important for Chinese culture
and was part of the necessary qualification in state administration and politics, moral philosophy, psychology and teaching. There is, however, asignificant difference between European rhetoric and the Chinese demands on
the mastery of public speech. Ancient rhetoric and traditions that stemmed
from it viewed their subject matter as an agonistic discourse, pitting logical
arguments against each other, which would lead to the victory of one of the
contending parties. Adialogue in Chinese culture, on the other hand, is
characterized by an incessant effort to maintain consensus among the participants and their subordination to the commonly recognized authority, to
respect their hierarchy, to suppress contradictory stances. This may be one
of the reasons why rhetoric as an art that is essentially antithetic did not
have favourable conditions for its development in China.81
The demands placed on the notions of rhetoric and rhetorical nature
in the traditional European understanding is defied by the very nature of
the Chinese language. Words and sentence structures usually do not transfer themeanings captured in dictionaries, instead they inspire readers or
listeners to find their own meanings. Metaphorically, they sow the seeds
of meanings, rather then offering the already ripened fruit of unequivocal
understanding. Chinese lacks an expression for syllogism as atool that leads
from premises to aunconditional conclusion.
I. A. Richards, afamous literary theoretician and author of many works
on semantics, lectured at the University of Beijing in the 1930s. When studying the work of Confuciuss pupil, Mencius (3rd century BCE), he came

10. Other Rhetorical Theories and Other Cultures

/244/

tothe conclusion that Menciuss language is much closer to poetry than to

ascientific and philosophical discourse, afinding which he presented in his
work Mencius on Mind (1932). The meanings of his words are characterized
by alarge degree of implicitness, their interpretation must be based on the
overall moral goal of the work rather than on alogical coherence and justification of the communicated facts. When analyzing Menciuss language,
Richards proves that the process of persuading in Chinese does not draw
on facts and logical coherence of the text, but rather on an apt estimation of
the addressees mental qualities.
The nonexistence of an independent discipline which would gather the
knowledge of persuasive and efficient speech throughout the vast area of
theChinese civilization, however, did not prevent many scholars, armed
with the knowledge of European rhetoric, to apply its categories to Chinese
externally. These attempts and classifications are largely artificial, yet their
authors should not be denied the ability to carefully analyze the discovered
evidence, albeit using classification criteria that are quite remote from the
Chinese tradition of language and stylistic description. An effort to interconnect an overview of ancient and Chinese rhetoric is traceable in the treatise Xiouxi xue fafan (An Introduction to Rhetoric) of 1932, whose author
Chen Wangdao studied the Western rhetorical system during his studies at
the Waseda University in Tokyo. Rhetoric is construed as part of the history
of Chinese literature also by Karl S. Y. Kao, who included an independent
section, entitled Rhetoric, in the extensive encyclopaedic handbook Traditional Chinese Literature, published in 1985. In 1994, Ulrich Unger published
Rhetorik des klassischen Chinesisch in Wiesbaden. The first chapter presents
abrief description of the most prominent Chinese authors and literary monuments related to the art of persuasive discourse (rhetorisch organisierte Texte)
accompanied by examples, while the second, more extensive chapter contains adetailed overview of Greek and Latin tropes and figures with an accurate account of the occurrence of corresponding examples in the Chinese
classical monuments. Mary M. Garretts treatment of rhetoric demonstrates
her understanding of the specifics of Chinese literature. She contributed the
Chinese Rhetoric entry to the Encyclopedia of Rhetoric (ed. Thomas O. Sloane)
in 2001 and authored the essay Reflections on Some Elementary Methodological
Problems in the Study of Chinese Rhetoric, published in the collection Rhetoric
in Intercultural Contexts (Thousand Oaks, California) in 1999. The developments in Chinese prose from the perspective of its rhetorical functions are
described by Christoph Harbsmeier in his essay The Rhetoric of Premodern

 /245/

Prose Style, published in The Columbia History of Chinese Literature by Victor

H. Mair.82
The oldest examples of persuasive eloquence (you shui) in the Chinese
environment come from stories describing the activities of advisers travelling from one court to another and aiming to persuade (bian shui) the ruler concerning official and private issues, thus ensuring amore permanent
status in his court. They were able to educate and influence their audience
through witty dialogues, sophisms, quotations, argumentation, play on
words, riddles, paradoxes and idioms. We know about these advisors activities from afew anecdotes, whose rendition and interpretation differed based
on whether they were preserved and told by the Confucianists, Buddhists or
Taoists. This is the origin of atypical pragmatic feature of the Chinese rhetorical tradition, an effort to achieve success in persuasion through careful
examination of the recipients psychology, assessment of the particulars of
the situation in which the conversation takes place.
Confuciuss (551479 BCE) philosophy (after Chinas unification by
the Han dynasty in 206 BCE, adominant doctrine of Chinese philosophy
and political culture) differed from major religious systems in placing more
emphasis on man and his ethical dimension and mutual understanding between people than on faith in gods or asingle god. The rule of amoral
elite became an ideal political model. Authoritative canonical texts of the
past (such as The Book of Documents) were read as behavioural models and
norms rather than as instructions revealed through divine wisdom. The personal morality maxim, cheng (generally translated as sincerity, genuineness,
authenticity, humaneness) thus roughly corresponds to ancient rhetorics
complex of qualities (virtues) expressed in the notion of decorum (appropriateness). Cheng is concurrently also understood as amoral principle of
the entire universe, which metaphysically exceeds the scope of rhetorical
communications ancient definition. In Confuciuss conception, shared also
by Buddhists and Taoists, the ability to persuade does not stem from the
language but from the orators intellectual qualities and his audiences readiness.
The Warring States Period (ca. 480221 BCE) saw the formation of
semi-feudal city-states in China, which developed their own military and
civil bureaucracies, and educational systems. The controversies concerning
politics and morality began to demonstrate the logic of the short-lived Mohist schools of thought, based on paradoxes and sophisms. Mohists, Mozis
followers (4th and 3rd centuries BCE), focused on the interpretation and

10. Other Rhetorical Theories and Other Cultures

/246/

solution of various problems using semantic, logical and rhetorical analysis

of the language of the disputing parties, irrespective of the status and moral qualities of their representatives. The exclusively sophistic nature of the
Mohist views, gradually limited the influence of this school and so it did
not establish itself in the further development of the Chinese philosophical
thought despite its inspiring ideas.
Arevolution in the history of the Chinese civilization and the first steps
towards the unification of the country are associated with the beginnings
of the Qin era (the first Qin emperor assumed power in 246 BCE). The vast
territories required achange in the logistics and language communication.
The role of written documents, especially legal and official documents in
addition to military orders, increased particularly in the state administration. This in turn led to areform facilitating aunification of the script. This
period also produced an extensive encyclopaedia Lshi chunqiu compiled
by agroup of scholars led by Minister L Buwei. Many of its themes that
could be included in rhetoric, even respecting the specifics of the Chinese
philosophy, are elaborated with regard to practical use in official communication.
The countrys centralization further deepened during the reign of the
ensuing Han dynasty (206 BCE220 CE). Although power was entirely concentrated in the emperors hands, administrative documents were addressed
to and written by the members of both the governing and intellectual elites.
At the same time, an educational system was developed including ademanding system of exams for officials, which was put into operation during the
Tang dynastys reign (618906 CE). The manner of announcing imperial
edicts, court rulings, appeals to the emperor, scholarly correspondence,
commentaries to official documents and other official functions was also
elaborated in great detail and well established. Mastering this style was an
important part of clerical education and state exams. The specific requirements for exams were modified over time, and the requirements for the
official document style partially changed. During the Tang dynastys rule
there was an official, parallel style, characterized by artificiality, in which
the ornamental form eclipsed the content.
Liu Hsiehs (ca. 560ca. 620) theoretical treatise Wen-hsin tiao-lung (The
Literary Mind and the Carving of Dragons) presented an overview of rhetorical figures and their effects which originated in this era. Apart from similes,
hyperboles, quotations, factual and verbal parallelism, he devoted special
attention to irony and achieving acomical effect of the speech (hsieh-jin).

 /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)

10. Other Rhetorical Theories and Other Cultures

/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/

Okabe, historian of Japanese rhetoric, listed a total of 145 original and

translated works on rhetoric that were written in the Meiji era between
18681912. Irrespective of the substantial dependence on Anglo-Saxon
models, an emphasis on both the orator and the audiences psychology
and morals, supported by the Confucianist tradition, played an important
role in interpreting rhetorical art. The most frequently quoted and translated authors included Hugh Blair, Richard Whately, George Campbell,
John Whitherspoon, while William Gladstone, William Pitt the Elder and
the Younger,and George Washington represented widely recognized models of oratory.
The above exposition has construed rhetoric both as aspecial type of
eloquence marked by its persuasion function and as its written and theoretical description. From this perspective it is doubtful whether we can talk
about rhetoric in societies that Walter Ong (2006) termed primarily oral,
societies of the fleeting world of language sounds, without the knowledge
of their writing systems, or even without an awareness that written discourse
could exist. Oral societies held that the word is not merely aproduct of
thinking, but that it acquires magic power by becoming an event. Hence
aperson endowed with the ability to name an event, to speak persuasively,
to captivate and influence his audience gained aspecial status and authority.
These people associated rhetorical skills with knowledge of mathematics,
meteorology, astronomy and medicine.
Later documents describing activities of these authorities rulers, military leaders, various advisors, shamans, Druids and medicine men pertain
mainly to ethnology and anthropology as they primarily provide information concerning their language behaviour and only indirectly do they address the content and form of the discourse. Those records preserved in
the form of poems represent asubject matter for the history of literature.
Their relation to the history of rhetoric is only marginal. Yet it is these that
inspire the search for an answer to two important questions. Firstly, to what
extent has the content of the rhetorical doctrine been marked by oral culture
and the rules of spoken discourse to today, and what was transferred to the
outset of the written discourses domination of the human civilization. And
secondly, to what extent did the invention of typography, several hundreds
years later, contribute to rhetorics becoming an independent discipline
which from the 15th century dominated education and filled libraries in Europe and far beyond.

10. Other Rhetorical Theories and Other Cultures

/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

Umberto Eco, Thoughts on AristotlesPoetics, Fiction Updated. Theory of Fictionality, Narrativity

and Poetics (TorontoBuffallo, 1996), 232.
Ren Descartes, Discourse on the Method (Oxford, 1937), 10.
Walter J. Ong, Orality and Literacy (London and New York, 2005), 106.
Jan Amos Komensk, Zprva anauen okazatelstv. Opera omnia 4 (Praha), 11106. Quote
translated by Petra Key.
Ernst-Robert Curtius, European Literature and the Latin Middle Ages (Princeton N. J., 1953)
Patoka, Jan: Sokrates. Pednky z antick filozofie. Sttn pedagogick nakladatelstv, 1990, s. 35.
Hans Blumenberg, An Anthropological Approach to the Contemporary Signification of Rhetoric,
After Philosophy. End or Transformation? (Cambridge, 1987).
Jan Patoka, Sokrates. Pednky zantick filozofie. (Praha, 1990), 541. Quote translated by
PetraKey.
Ibid., 55.
Heinrich Gomperz, Sophistik und Rhetorik. (Leipzig, 1912).
Wilhelm Nestle, Vom Mythos zum Logos. (Stuttgart, 1942).
Wilhelm Windelband, Platon, 4th ed. (Stuttgart, 1905).
For discussions on the chronological order of both dialogues, cf. Wilhelm Kroll, Rhetorik, in
Pauly-Wissowa, Real-Encyklopdie des classischen Altertums, Suppl. VII ( Stuttgart, 1940), 1039ff.
These values of discourse language, still valued today, were later primarily developed by adherents
to aplain style, Atticists. With reference to PlatosPhaedrus, Dionysius of Halicarnassus praised
Lysias for linguistic accuracy (akribeia), clarity (safneia) and concise presentation of ideas
(tstrongylizein ta nomata).
For more information, cf. Luciano Canfora, Storia della letteratura greca (RomaBari, 1994).
Aristoteles, Topiky, Introduction by Karel Berka (Praha, 1975), 9. Quote translated by Petra Key.
Muhsin Mahdi, Alfarabis Philosophy (New York, 1969).
James Murphy, Rhetoric in the Middle Ages. AHistory of Rhetorical Theory from St. Augustine to the
Renaissance (Berkeley, 1974), 98ff.
Published by M. Fuhrmann under the title of Anaximenis Ars rhetorica, Bibliotheca Teubneriana
(Leipzig, 1966).
Pierre Chiron, propos dune srie de pisteis dans la Rhtorique Alexandre, Rhetorica 16,
no.4 (1998): 349391.
Eugene Bahn, Interpretative Reading in Classical Rome, The Quarterly Journal of Speech 23
(1937): 208221. Translation from Czech into English by Petra Key.
Cf. Inst. or. 7.6. The letter and the intent of the law.
Barbara Cassin, Philosophia enim simulari potest, eloquentia non potest, ou le masque et leffet.
Rhetorica 13 (1995): 105124.
Bernard Schouler, La classification des personnes et des faits chez Hermognes et ses
commentateurs, Rhetorica 8 (1990).

 /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

E. Bizer, ed., Rapsodiai en Paulu ad Romanos 1529 (NeukirchenVluyn, 1966).

For details, cf. R. Dean Anderson Jr., Ancient Rhetorical Theory and Paul (Kampen, 1996).
St. Augustine, Against The Epistle Of Manichaeus Called Fundamental (3.4).
Cassiodorus, Variae, trans. S. J. B. Barnish (Liverpool, 1992), 2021.
Cf. Ann W. Astell, CassiodorussCommentary on the Psalms as an Ars Rhetorica, Rhetorica 17
(1999), 3775.
Summa de Arte Praedicatoria, in Opera Omnia, vol. 210, Patrologiae Latinae, n.d., p. 111; Alain
of Lille, The Art of Preaching, transl. and ed. Gillian R. Evans, Monastic Studies Series 28 (Piscataway,
NJ, 2010), 1617.
James Jerome Murphy, Rhetoric in the Middle Ages, AHistory of Rhetorical Theory from St. Augustine
to the Renaissance (Berkeley, 1981), 227.
William D. Patt, The Early Ars Dictaminis as Response to aChanging Society, in. Viator, Medieval
and Renaissance Studies, ed. Robert L. Benson (Berkeley, 1978), 141.
Vclav ern, Staroesk lyrika, 2nd ed. (Praha, 1948). See esp. chap. 5, Pm romnsk vlivy.
Juristi dikttoi poeti. Henrikus de Isernia, 235ff.
Jana Nechutov, CzechLatin Literature in the Middle Ages before 1300 (Brno, 1997).
James J. Murphy, Trends in Rhetorical Incunabula, Rhetorica 18 (2000): 393.
William Michael Purcell, Ars Poetriae, Rhetorical and Grammatical Invention at the Margin of Literacy,
(Columbia, SC, 1996), 124125.
Kustas (1970), Conley (1990), Kennedy (1983), Cichocka (1988), CichockaLichaski, (1993).
Nancy S. Struever, Theory as Practice. Ethical Inquiry in the Renaissance (Chicago and London, 1992),
43ff.
Ibid., 98.
Cf. esp. Thomas M. Conley, Greek Rhetoric after the Fall of Constantinople. An Introduction,
Rhetorica 18 (2000), 265294.
Cf. F. Akkerman A. J. Vanderjagt, eds., Rodolphus Agricola Phrisius, Proceedings of the
International Conference at the University of Groningen, 2830 October 1985.
Wilbur Samuel Howell, Logic and Rhetoric in England, 15001700 (New York, 1956), 164. For
more information on Petrus Ramus, see Frank Pierrepont Graves, Petr Ramus and the Educational
Reformation of the Sixteenth Century (New York, 1932), and Walter J. Ong, Ramus and the Decay of
Dialogue (Cambridge, Ma., 1958).
Johan Huizinga, Hollandische Kultur im 17. Jahrhundert (Mnchen, 2007).
Published by Stanisaw Skimina, Wykady poetyki (WrocawKrakw, 1958).
Cf. Michel Foucault, Les mots et les choses (Paris, 1972), 3240; Renate Lachmann, Die Zerstrung
der schnen Rede (Mnchen, 1994), 101ff.
Cf. Max Bens, Theorie der Texte (KlnBerlin, 1972).
Selected Poems of Charles Baudelaire, trans. Geoffrey Wagner (New York, 1974).
Bohuslav Balbn, Brevis tractatio de amplificatione. Quote translated by Petra Key.
Harwood, John T.: The Rhetorics of Thomas Hobbes and Bernard Lamy. Southern Illinois
University 1986, p. 108
Oeuvres compltes de Boileau Despraux, tome second (Paris, 1821), 330.
Fnelon, Lettre sur les occupations, in Oeuvres de Fnelon, tome quatrime (Paris, 1848), 496.
Csar-Chesneau Du Marsais, Des tropes (Paris, 1730).
Giambattista Vico, The New Science of Giambattista Vico (Ithaca, 1984), 131.
Ibid.
Howell, Wilbur Samuel: Eighteenth Century British Logic and Rhetoric. Princeton, N. J., 1971,
p.671-691.

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/

Arthur Schopenhauer, The Art of Controversy (New York, 2007), 7.

Faust. ATragedy by Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, trans. Bayard Taylor (London, 1871), p. 28.
Stephen Gill, ed., William Wordsworth, The Oxford Authors Series (New York, 1984), 597.
Cf. Joachim Goth, Nietzsche und die Rhetorik (Tbingen, 1970); Sander L. Gilman, Carole Blair,
David L. Parent, eds., Friedrich Nietzsche on Rhetoric and Language (Oxford, 1989).
Voltaire, Henriade. An Epic Poem in Ten Cantos(London, 1732), 79.
Josef Jungmann, Slowesnost (Praha, 1846). See esp. Preface VI.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Eugen Hadamowsky, Propaganda und nationale Macht (Oldenburg, 1933).
Cf. Proceedings of the Canadian Society for the Study of Rhetoric, 1991/2.
Tom Glanc, ed., Formalistick kola aliterrn vda rusk (Praha, 2005).
Older research declaring this connection thus lay the foundations of modern narrative structure
theory, is related, as demonstrated by Lubomr Doleel (Occidental Poetics, 1990), to Otmar
Schissel von Fleschenberg, aGerman classical philologist.
See Ji Lev, ed., Zpadn literrn vda aestetika (Praha, 1966), 142.
Cf. also Robert Weinmann, New Criticism avvoj buroazn literrn vdy. Historie akritika
autonomnch interpretanch metod (Praha, 1973).
Timothy Crusius, Kenneth BurkesAuscultation. ADe-struction of Marxist Dialectic and
Rhetoric. Rhetorica 6 (1988).
Cf. collection Toposforschung. (Fischer Verlag: Frankfurt a. M, 1972).
Detlev Dormeyer, Das neue Testament im Rahmen antiken Literaturgeschichte (Darmstadt, 1993).
Heinrich F. Plett, Systematische Rhetorik. Konzepte und Analysen (Padeborn, 2000).
P. L. Oesterreich, T. O. Sloane, eds., Rhetorica Nova (Leiden, 1999).
Roland Barthes, The Semiological Challenge (New York, 1988), 43.
Cf. e.g., http://humanities.byu.edu/rhetoric/silva.htm
Thomas O. Sloane, ed., Encyclopedia of Rhetoric (Oxford University Press: 2001).
Cf. Michael V. Fox, Ancient Egyptian Rhetoric, Rhetorica 1 (1983): 922.
Iwould like to extend my sincere thanks to Olga Lomov, the Head of the International Sinological
Centre of the Chian Ching-kuo Foundation at Charles University, Prague, for both bibliographical
and practical aid in the development of the Chinese rhetoric exposition.
Christoph Harbsmeier, The Rhetoric of Premodern Prose Style, The Columbia History of Chinese
Literature (New York, 2001), 881908.

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/

Bristain, Helena. Diccionario de retrica y potica. Mxico, 1997

Bitzer, Lloyd F. Aristotles Enthymeme Revisited. The Quarterly Journal of Speech 45
(1959): 399408
Blass, Friedrich. Geschichte der attischen Beredsamkeit. Leipzig, 18871898
Blumenberg, Hans. An Anthropological Approach to the Contemporary Signification of Rhetoric. After Philosophy. End or Transformation?. Cambridge, 1987
Boethius. De topicis differentiis. Translated by Eleonora Stump. Ithaca N. Y., 1978
Bonheim, Helmut. Bringing Classical Rhetoric Up-to-Date. Semiotika 13 (1975):
375378
Braet, Antoine C. Variationen zur Statuslehre von Hermagoras bei Cicero. Rhetorica
12 (1994): 239259
Brettschneider, Karl Gotlieb Bindseil, Heinrich Ernst (ed.). Philippi Melanchthonis
opera quae supersunt omnia (Corpus reformatorum). Halle/Braunschweig, 1844
Bryant, Donald C. Rhetoric. Its Function and Scope. The Quarterly Journal of Speech
39 (1965): 401424
Burke, Kenneth. The Rhetoric of Hitlers Battle. On Symbols and Society. ChicagoLondon, 1989: 211231
Cahn, Michael. Reading Rhetoric Rhetorically. Isocrates and the Marketing of Insight. Rhetorica 7 (1989): 121144
Calboli, Gualtiero. Cornificiana 2. Lautore e la tendenza politica della Rhetorica ad Herennium. Bologna, 1965
Camporeale, Salvatore I. Institutio oratoria, lib. 1, cap. 6. 3 e le variazioni su tema di
Lorenzo Valla, sermo e interpretatio. Rhetorica 13 (1995): 285300
Canfora, Luciano. Storia della letteratura greca. RomaBari, 1994
Carr, Thomas M., Jr. Descartes and the Resilience of Rhetoric. Varieties of Cartesian Rhetorical Theory. Southern Illinois, 1990
Carter, Michael F. The Ritual Functions of Epideictic Rhetoric. The Case of Socrates
Funeral Oration. Rhetorica 9 (1991): 209232
Chaignet, Antoine douard. La rhtorique et son Histoire. Paris, 1888
Cichocka, Helena. Historia i funkcia retoryki w Bizancjum. Retoryka w XV stuleciu,
teoria i praktika retoryk pitnastistowiecznej. Edited by M. Frankowska-Terlecka Wroclaw, 1988
Cichocka, Helena. The Study of Byzantine Rhetoric in Central and Eastern Europe.
Selected Problems. Rhetorica 11 (1993): 4350
Chiron, Pierre. propos dune srie de pisteis dans la Rhtorique Alexandre.
Rhetorica 16 (1998): 349391
Clarke, Martin L. Rhetoric at Rome. A Historical Survey. 3rd ed. LondonNew York,
1996
Classen, Carl-Joachim. Ars rhetorica. Lessence, possibilities, Gefahren. Rhetorica6
(1988): 719
Classen, Carl-Joachim. St. Pauls Epistles and Ancient Greek and Roman Rhetoric.
Rhetorica 10 (1992): 319344
Classen, Carl-Joachim. Die Rhetorik im ffentlichen Leben unserer Zeit. Die Macht
des Wortes. Edited by C.-J. Classen H.-J. Mllenbrock, Marburg, 1992: 247267
Cole, Thomas. The Origins of Rhetoric in Ancient Greece. Baltimore, 1991
Conley, Thomas M. Rhetoric in the European Tradition. ChicagoLondon, 1990
Conley, Thomas M. Aristotles Rhetoric in Byzantium. Rhetorica 8 (1990): 2941

 /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/

Fritzman, J. M. Blumenberg and the Racionality of Rhetoric. Rhetorica 10 (1992):

423435
Fumaroli, Marc. Lage de lloquence. Rhtorique et res litteraria de la Renaissance au seuil
de lpoque classique. Geneva, 1980
Garrett, Mary M. Reflections on Some Elementary Methodological Problems in the
Study of Chinese Rhetoric. In International and Intercultural Contexts, edited by
Alberto Gonzales and Dolores Tanno. Thousand Oaks, Calif., 1999
Geissler, Heinrich. Comenius und die Sprache. Heidelberg, 1989
Geissner, Helmut. Rhetorik. Mnchen, 1973
Gelenius, imon Suick. Rtorika. Manuscript of the Prague National Museum IV.
D.54, sine anno
Gerl, Hanna-Barbara. Retorica perfetta. Francesco Patrizis Ideal einer geometrischen Rhetorik. ein Blick auf die Methodologie des 16. Jahrhundert. Rhetorica6 (1988): 335354
Goetch, James Robert, Jr. Vicos Axioms. The Geometry of the Human World. New Haven,
1995
Goth, Joachim. Nietzsche und die Rhetorik. Tbingen, 1970
Grabar-Passek, Mariia Evgenevna (ed.). Pamiatniki pozdnego antichnogo oratorskogo
iepistoliarnogo iskusstva IIV veka. Moskva, 1964
Grassi, Ernesto. Rhetoric as Philosophy. The Humanist Tradition. Pennsylvania, 1980
Graudina, Liudmila Karlovna, and Miskevich, Galina Iustinovna. Teoria i praktika
russkogo krasnorechia. Moskva, 1989
Graver, David A. (ed.). Landmarks in Western Oratory. Wyoming, 1968
Grimaldi, William M. A. Studies in the Philosophy of Aristotles Rhetoric. Hermes
Einzelschriften 25. Wiesbaden, 1972
Gwynn, Aubrey. Roman Education from Cicero to Quintilian. New York, 1966
Habermas, Jrgen. The Theory of Communicative Action I, II. Boston, 1984
Halm, Karl (ed.). Rhetores latini minores. Leipzig, 1863
Hammond, Mac. The Philosophy of Alfarabi and its Influence on Medieval Thought. New
York, 1947
Harbsmeier, Christoph. The History of Premodern Prose Style. In The Columbia
History of Chinese Literature. Edited by Victor H. Maire. New York, 2001: 881908
Hartman, Robert. Political Style. The Artistry of Power. ChicagoLondon, 1995
Hatsch, Edwin. Griechentum und Christentum. Zwlf Hibbertvorlesungen ber dem Einfluss
griechischer Ideen und Gebruche auf die christliche Kirche. Freiburg, 1892
Haubrichs, Wolfgang (ed.). Perspektiven der Rhetorik. Zeitschrift fr Literaturwissenschaft und Linguistik 11, 43/44. Siegen, 1981
Henderson, Judith Rice. Erasmian Ciceronians. Reformation Teachers of Letter-Writing. Rhetorica 10 (1992): 273302
Hotopf, W. H. N. Language, Thought and Comprehension. A Case Study of the Writings of
I. A. Richards. London, 1965
Howell, Willbur S. Logic and Rhetoric in England 15001700. New York, 1956
Huizinga, Johan. Hollndische Kultur im 17. Jahrhundert. Mnchen, 2007
Hunger, Herbert. Die hochsprachliche profane Literatur der Byzantiner. Mnchen,
1978
Jaffe, Samuel Peter. Nicolaus Dybinus Declaracio oracionis de Beata Dorothea.
Studies and Documents in the History of Late Medieval Rhetoric. Wiesbaden, 1974

 /259/

Jamieson, Alexander. Generic Constraints and the Rhetorical Situation. Philosophy

and Rhetoric 6, 1973: 162170
Jungmann, Josef. Slowesnost. Nauka o wmluwnosti prosaick, bsnick i enick se sbrkau
pklad snevzan i wzan ei. Praha, 1845
Kahn, Andrew. Muravev, Institutiones rhetoricae. A Treatise of a Russian Sentimentalist.
Oxford, 1995
Kallendorf, Craig. Machiavelian Rhetoric. From the Counter-Reformation to Milton. Princeton, 1994
Kallendorf, Craig (ed.). Landmark Essays on Rhetoric and Literature. Cambridge,
1999
Kao, Karl S. Y. Rhetoric. In The Indiana Companion to Traditional Chinese Literature.
Vol. 1. Edited by William H. Nienhauser, Bloomington, 1986
Kastely, James L. Rethinking the Rhetorical Tradition. From Plato to Postmodernism. New
HavenLondon, 1997
Kayser, Wolfgang. Das sprachliche Kunstwerk. BernMnchen, 1961
Kennedy, George A. The Art of Persuasion in Greece. Princeton, 1963
Kennedy, George A. The Art of Rhetoric in the Roman World. Princeton, 1972
Kennedy, George A. Greek Rhetoric under Christian Emperors. Princeton, 1983
Kennedy, George A. A New History of Classical Rhetoric. Princeton, 1994
Kennedy, George A. Classical Rhetoric and Its Christian and Secular Traditions from Ancient to Modern Times. Chapel Hill, N. C., 1980
Kennedy, George A. The Earliest Rhetorical Handbooks. American Journal of Philology 80: 169178
Kibdi Varga, Aron S. Rhtorique et Littrature. 2nd ed. Paris, 2002
Kirby, John T. The Great Triangle in Early Greek Rhetoric and Poetics. Rhetorica8
(1990): 213228
Knape, Joachim. Philipp Melanchtons Rhetorik. Tbingen, 1993
Komensk, Jan Amos. Zprva a nauen o kazatelstv. Opera omnia 4, Praha: 9120
Kopperschmidt, Josef. Allgemeine Rhetorik. Eine Einfhrung in die Theorie der persuasiven
Kommunikation. Berlin, 1973
Kopperschmidt, Josef. Sprache und Vernunft, vol. 1. Das Prinzip vernnftiger Rede,
vol.2. Argumentation. Stuttgart 1978, 1980
Kopperschmidt, Josef. Schanze, Helmut (ed.). Nietzsche oder Die Sprache ist
Rhetorik. Mnchen, 1994
Korolko, Mirosaw. Sztuka retoryki. Przewodnik encyklopedyczny. Warszawa, 1990
Kowalski, Jerzy Wlodzimierz. De arte rhetoricae originibus questiones selectae. Lww,
1933
Kowalski, Jerzy Wlodzimierz. De arte rhetoricae. De Coracis arte. Lww, 1937
Kraus, Ji. Rhetorik und die Entwicklung der Philologien der Nationalsprachen.
Philologica Pragensia 1 (1997): 411
Kraus, Ji. The Influence of Blairs Lectures on Czech Aesthetics and Rhetoric in
the 19th Century. Listy filologick 118 (1995): 260266
Kuznetsova, T. I. Strenikova, I. P. Oratordskoe iskusstvo vdrevnem Rime. Moskva,
1970
Lachmann, Renate (ed.). Die Makarij-Rhetorik. Wien, 1982
Lachmann, Renate (ed.). Feofan Prokopovich. De arte rhetoricae Libri X. Bhlau, 1982
Lachmann, Renate. Die Zerstrung der schnen Rede. Mnchen, 1994

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

Adalbert. See Samaritanus, Adalbertus

Adler, Mortimer, 224
Aegidius Romanus, 46
Aeschines of Miletus, 55, 78
Aeschylus of Cnidus, 55
Afer, Victorinus, 86, 103
Agricola, Rudolphus, 80, 139, 143144,
153
Ahenobarbus, Gnaeus Domitius, 61, 76
Akkerman, Fokke, 253
Alanus ab Insulis. See de Lille, Alain
Albaladejo, Tomas, Jr., 234
Alberic of Monte Cassino, 116117, 122
Alcuin of York, 51, 90, 107109
Alexander de Villa Dei. See Alexander
ofVilledieu
Alexander of Villedieu, 123
Alexandrova, Donka, 219
Alsted, Johann Heinrich, 168
Ambrose, Saint, 89, 95
Amyot, Jacques, 154
Anaximenes of Lampsacus, 42, 47, 141
Anderson, R. Dean, Jr., 253
Andocides, 78
Antiphon of Ramnos, 25, 33, 78
Antonius, Marcus, 68
Aper, Marcus, 74
Aphtonius, 80, 90, 130, 131, 132
Aquinas. See Thomas Aquinas, Saint
Arbusow, Leonid, 227
Aristarchus of Samos, 51
Aristotle, 9, 10, 11, 17, 22, 26, 4147, 48,
52, 60, 62, 65, 77, 81, 89, 97, 99, 100,
103, 104, 114, 137, 140, 141, 150, 151,
155, 156, 166, 178, 179, 181, 182, 187,
188, 206, 212, 214, 220, 223, 224, 236,
240
Armin, J. von, 52

Arnauld, Antoine, 183

Astell, Ann W., 253
Augustine of Hippo, Saint, 18, 51, 53,
70, 89, 90, 92, 9499, 102, 103, 109,
110, 111, 134, 147, 183, 209
Augustine, Aurelius. See Augustine
ofHippo, Saint
Austin, John Longshaw, 137
Averinchev, Sergei, 130
Avvakum, 173
Axer, Jerzy, 219
Bacon, Francis, 11, 177, 178181, 197
Bacon, Roger, 124
Bahn, Eugene, 252
Bain, Alexander, 211, 212
Baker, Houston, Jr., 250
Balbn, Bohuslav, 163164
Barilli, Renato, 234
Baron, Auguste, 208
Barthes, Roland, 231, 232, 254
Bartholomew of Chlumec, 65
Bartholomew of Messina, 46
Bary, Ren, 163
Batteux, Charles, 192
Bede of Jarrow. See Bede, the Venerable
Bede, the Venerable, 84, 90, 103,
105107
Blohradsk, Vclav, 17, 219
Bene da Firenze, 119
Bens, Max, 253
Benveniste, mile, 232
Bergson, Henri, 227
Berka, Karel, 45, 252
Bernard of Clairvaux, 147
Bernard of Meung, 114, 119
Betz, Hans Dieter, 87
Bharata, 238

 /265/

Bizer, Ernst, 253

Blahoslav, Jan, 149
Blair, Carole, 254
Blair, Hugh, 193194, 195, 198, 202, 209,
214, 249
Blass, Friedrich, 206
Blumenberg, Hans, 29
Bodmer, Johannes, 199
Boethius, 51, 90, 99102, 103, 104, 114,
128, 143, 149
Bohuslav, Master, 121
Boileau-Despraux, Nicolas, 79, 186,
187, 201
Boncompagno da Signa, 118, 119
Bossuet, Jacques Benigne, 142, 208
Bouhours, Dominique, 190191
Bracciolini, Poggio, 9, 134, 135
Bretteville, tienne Dubois de, 163
Brik, Osip Maksimovich, 161, 220
Brixiensis, Albertanus Causidicus, 121,
122
Bruni, Leonardo, 135
Brutian, Georg Abelovich, 231
Buffier, Claude, 188
Burke, Kenneth, 219, 225226
Caecilius of Calacte, 25, 78
Caesar, Gaius Julius, 54, 60, 68
Calboli, Gualtiero, 62, 234
Campbell, George, 193, 194195, 249
Camporeale, Salvatore, 137
Canfora, Luciano, 252
Capella, Martianus, 90, 9394, 126
Caplan, Harry, 62
Capmany, Antonio de, 197
Carnap, Rudolf, 223
Carpenter, Thomas, 211
Cassian, John, 111
Cassin, Barbara, 252
Cassiodorus, 84, 90, 99, 102104, 105,
110, 116
Cato, Marcus Porcius the Elder, 60, 61,
71, 75, 76, 78
Cato, Marcus Porcius the Younger, 75
Caussin, Nicolas, 162163, 164, 176, 201
Celsus, 97
Ceriol, Fadrique Furi, 155

ern, Vclav, 120, 121

Chalon, Jean de, 114
Chen Wangdao, 244
Chiron, Pierre, 252
Chrysippus, 51
Chrystosom, John, 81, 85, 131, 163, 173
Cicero, Marcus Tullius, 9, 10, 18, 19, 20,
38, 39, 45, 54, 55, 56, 60, 61, 62,
6570, 72, 73, 74, 76, 79, 81, 82, 84,
85, 90, 94, 95, 96, 97, 99, 101, 103,
104, 105, 108, 110, 113, 114, 118, 122,
127, 128, 129, 134, 135, 136, 140, 141,
143, 145, 146, 149, 151, 159, 163, 164,
165, 168, 174, 188, 193, 200, 204, 251,
Cichocka, Helena, 219
Claret. See Bartholomew of Chlumec
Classen, Carl-Joachim, 86, 87, 218, 228
Cleanthes, 51
Clement of Ohrid, 173
Comenius, 18, 148, 167172, 214
Confucius, 243, 245
Conley, Thomas, 142, 219
Constantine (St. Cyril), 172
Constantine the Presbyter, 173
Constantine, Saint, 82, 84
Corax, 31
Crdoba, Martn de, 120,
Cornificius, 61
Cosmas of Cremone, 135
Cox, Leonard, 153
Crane, Ronald Salmon, 223
Crassus, Lucius Licinius, 18, 61, 68, 76
Crates of Mallus, 53
Cressoles, Louis de, 159
Croce, Benedetto, 205
Crusius, Timothy, 254
Curtius, Ernst Robert, 84, 227229
Cygne, Martin de, 159
Cyprian, Saint, 85
Cyril of Alexandria, 85
Cyril of Jerusalem, 85
Cyril, Saint. See Constantine (St. Cyril)
Damodos, Vikentios, 142
Dante, 112, 117
Datus, Augustinus, 139
Day, Angel, 154

Name Index

/266/

Demosthenes, 27, 33, 65, 78, 79, 80, 128,

132, 174, 187
Derrida, Jacques, 41, 233
Descartes, Ren, 11, 17, 177, 181, 182, 184,
189, 230
Diogenes Laertius, 51
Diogenes of Babylon, 51
Dionysius of Halicarnassus, 27, 78, 130,
161
Dobrovsk, Josef, 215
Dockhorn, Klaus, 227, 229
Doleel, Lubomr, 254
Doleel, Lubomr, 254
Domarion, Louis, 208
Donatus, Aelius, 105, 106, 123, 127
Dormeyer, Detlev, 254
Doxapatres, John, 82, 132
Drechsel, Jeremias, 159
Dryden, John, 181
Du Marsais, Csar Chesneau, 188189,
208, 211, 232
Dubois, Jean, 232
Dubos, Jean-Baptiste, 190, 191
Dybin, Nicolaus, 65, 122, 124
Eberhard of Bthune, 123
Eberhard the German, 124, 126
Eberhard, Johann August, 203, 214
Eco, Umberto, 9
Edeline, Francis, 232
Eikhenbaum, Boris Mikhailovich, 220,
221
Empedokles, 31, 33
Empson, William, 223
Ephialtes, 26
Erasmus of Rotterdam, See Erasmus,
Desiderius
Erasmus, Desiderius, 46, 86, 136, 139,
143, 144148, 165
dEtaples, Jacques Lefvre, 86
Eustatius of Thessalonica, 173
Ewing, Thomas, 211
Faba, Guido, 119
Fabri, Pierre, 154
Fabricius, Johann Andreas, 199
Farabi, Abu Nasr Muhammad al-, 45, 236

Faral, Edmond, 234

Fnelon, Franois de, 187188, 193,
208
Fenner, Dudley, 154
Feyerabend, Paul Karl, 207
Flacius Illyricus, Matthias, 150
Florescu, Vasile, 234
Fngy, Ivan, 161
Fontanier, Pierre, 188, 203, 208211,
232
Fortunatianus, 69, 90, 103
Foucault, Michel, 31, 49
Fouquelin, Antoine, 154
Fox, Michael V., 254
Francisgena, Henry, 118
Fuhrmann, Michael, 252
Fumarolli, Marc, 234
Gadamer, Hans-Georg, 17, 218
Galfredus de Vino Salvo. See Geoffrey
of Vinsauf
Galileo, 177
Gallus, Lucius Plotius, 61
Garrett, Mary M., 224, 247
Gelenius (Jelenius) Suick, Simon, 153
Gellius, Aulus, 55, 77
Genette, Grard, 209, 232
Geoffrey of Vinsauf, 92, 124, 125
Geometres, John, 132
George of Trebizond, 46, 71, 139140,
143
Gerard, Alexander, 193
Gerber, Gustav, 206, 207
Gerl, Hanna-Barbara, 137
Gervase of Melkley, 92, 124, 125, 126
Gervase of Tilbury, 120
Gilbert, Balthasar, 10
Giles of Rome, 46
Gill, Stephen, 254
Gilman, Sander L., 254
Glanc, Tom, 254
Goethe, Johann Wolfgang, 204, 228
Goliatovsky, Ioanniki, 176
Gomperz, Heinrich, 32
Gorgias of Leontini, 31, 32, 33, 37, 38,
39, 71, 139
Goth, Joachim, 254

 /267/

Gottsched, Johann Christoph, 198200,

214, 218
Grassi, Ernesto, 234
Graudina, Liudmila Karlovna, 175
Graves, Frank Pierrepont, 253
Gregory of Nazianzus, 81, 85, 131, 163
Gregory of Nyssa, 81, 85, 131
Gregory the Great, 109, 112, 116, 127
Gregory XIII, Pope, 141
Gregory XIV, Pope, 141
Guibert of Nogent, 92, 111112
Gundisalvi, Dominic, 129
Gundissalinus. See Gundisalvi, Dominic
Habermas, Jrgen, 218, 228, 231
Hadamowsky, Eugen, 217, 254
Halm, Karl, 206
Harbsmeier, Christoph, 244, 254
Hartley, A. M., 211
Hartley, David, 212
Hartmann, Johann Adolf, 200
Harvey, Gabriel, 154
Harwood, John T., 253
Havrnek, Bohuslav, 221
Hegesias of Magnesia, 55
Henders, Judith Rice, 219
Henricus of Isernia, 20, 65, 92, 120121
Herennius, 20, 61, 62
Hermagoras of Temnos, 5660, 63, 68,
82, 104
Hermogenes of Tarsus, 46, 60, 7783,
90, 130, 132, 140, 141, 165, 252
Hierocles of Alabanda, 55
Hilarianus. See Hilary of Poitiers
Hilary of Poitiers, 127
Himerius, 131
Hobbes, Thomas, 177, 178, 181182,
253
Homer, 19, 33, 53, 84, 86, 132, 149, 162,
178, 181, 228
Horace, 60, 84, 85, 160, 170
Howell, Samuel Wilbur, 253
Hugh of Bologna, 117, 123
Huizinga, Johan, 253
Hume, David, 193, 194
Hutcheson, Francis, 192, 193, 195
Hyperius, Andreas Gerhard, 165

Ignatius of Loyola, 162

Isidore of Seville, 84, 90, 93, 103,
104105, 106, 110, 128
Isocrates, 19, 21, 3841, 65, 69, 78, 128,
204
Jahiz, al-, 242, 243,
Jakobson, Roman, 161, 220, 221
Jamieson, Kathleen H., 237
Jan of Steda, 120, 121
Jens, Walter, 219
Jerome, Saint, 85, 134, 146
Jindich Vlach. See Henricus of Isernia
John Kyriotes. See Geometres, John
John of Damascus, 173
John of Garland, 92, 124, 127
John of Gelnhausen, 120
John of Salisbury, 129
John of Tilbury, 120
John the Exarch, 173
Johnson, Samuel, 193, 196
Jungmann, Josef, 122, 193, 213216, 254
Junius, Melchior, 165
Kahn, Andrew, 219
Kames, Henry Home, 193
Kant, Immanuel, 13, 17, 151, 203, 204,
206
Kao, Karl S. Y., 244
Karamzin, Nikolay Mikhailovich, 200
Kayser, Wolfgang, 228
Keckermann, Bartholomaeus, 165166
Keltenborn, Louis, 206
Kennedy, George, 219, 253
Kherobosk, George, 132
Kibdi Varga, Aron, 234
Kincaid, Lawrence D., 237
Kinneavy, James L., 87
Klinkenberg, Jean-Marie, 232
Kocn of Kocint, Jan, 46, 83
Konarski, Stanisaw, 213
Konrad of Zurich, 120
Kopeck, Milan, 219
Kopperschmidt, Josef, 228, 231
Korolko, Mirosaw, 219
Korydaleus, Theophilus, 141, 142
Kraus, Ji, 219

Name Index

/268/

Kreisky, Porphyry, 176, 200

Kroll, Wilhelm, 252
Kuentz, Pierre, 234
Kuklica, Peter, 219
Kustas, George L., 253
Kvetnicky, Fedor, 176
Kwiatkiewicz, Jan, 164
Lachmann, Renate, 174, 253
Lamy, Bernard, 182185, 187, 253
Lancelot, Claude, 183
Landriani, Gerardo, 9
Latini, Brunetto, 92, 119
Lausberg, Heinrich, 218, 229
Lauxmin, Zygmund, 164
Lawrence of Aquilegia, 119
Leibniz, Gottfried Wilhelm, 13, 151, 177
Leichoudes, Ioanikios, 142
Leichoudes, Sophronios, 142
Lev, Ji, 254
Libanius, 80, 81, 85, 163,
Lichaski, Zdzisaw Jakub
Likhachev, Dmitry Sergeyevich, 173, 221
de Lille, Alain, 92, 112, 129
Liu Hsieh, 264
Locke, John, 13, 17, 45, 177, 178, 181, 189,
192, 206
Lomonosov, Mikhail Vasilyevich, 176,
200202, 221
Lotman, Yuri Mikhailovich, 221
L Buwei, 246
Ludham, John, 165
Ludolf of Hildesheim, 120
Luther, Martin, 86, 98, 112, 147, 148, 149, 150
Lysias, 21, 32, 36, 37, 78, 128, 252
Machiavelli, Niccolo, 12
Macrobius, 84
Madramany y Calatayud, Mariano, 197
Mahdi, Muhsin, 252
Makarios, 174, 175
de Man, Paul, 223
Manutio, Aldo, 46, 77, 143
Marbod of Rennes, 123
Marcellinos, 83
Marrou, Henri-Irne, 11
Martini, Johannes, 166

Masen, Jacob, 160

Matamoros, Alfonso Garcia, 155
Maternus, Curiatius, 74
Mathesius, Vilm, 221
Matthew of Vendme, 92, 124, 125
Maurus, Rabanus, 91, 103, 109, 110, 111
Mayakovsky, Vladimir, 161, 220
Mayans y Siscar, Gregorio, 196198
McKeon, Richard, 219, 223225
Mecherzyski, Karol, 213
Melanchthon, Philipp, 86, 139, 143,
148150, 153, 164, 168
Menander of Laodicea, 80
Menander Rhetor. See Menander
ofLaodicea
Mencius (Ming-), 223, 243, 244
Menecles, 55
Merke, Thomas, 120
Messalla, Corvinus, 60
Messalla, Vipstanus, 74
Metaxas, Nicodemus, 141
Meyfart, Johanes, 198
Meynet, P. Roland, 87
Minguet, Philippe, 232
Mistrk, Jozef, 219
Mochinger, Johann, 166
Molinier of Toulouse, Guilhem, 92
Molo of Rhodes, 67
Mommsen, Theodor, 67
Montano, Benito Arias, 155
Montepulciano, Bartolomeo, 9
Morris, William, 224
Morzillo, Sebastian Fox, 155
Mosheim, Johann Lorenz, 200
Mozi, 245
Muilenburg, James, 240
Mukaovsk, Jan, 221
Mller, Adam, 204
Murphy, James J., 46, 122, 219, 252, 253
Mutazz, Muhammad ibn Jafar al-, 243
Nash, Walter, 231
Nechutov, Jana, 121, 219, 253
Nestle, Wilhelm, 32, 252
Nicole, Pierre, 183
Nietzsche, Friedrich, 14, 17, 206208,
209, 233, 254

 /269/

Norden, Eduard, 206

Notker, Labeo, 91, 92, 110111
Ockham, William of, 138
Oesterreich, Peter Lothar, 254
Ogden, Charles Kay, 222
Okabe, Roichi, 249
Olbrechts-Tyteca, Lucie, 229
Oldmixon, John, 191
Ong, Walter J., 226, 249, 252, 253
Onulf of Speyer, 123
Origen, 52, 84, 97, 111, 147
Ozaki, Yukio, 248
Palack, Frantiek, 193
Panaetius, 67
Panini, 238239
Papabasilopoulos, Anastasios, 142
Parent, David L., 254
Pascal, Blaise, 157, 177, 183, 208
Patoka, Jan, 25, 30, 252
Patn, Bartolom Jimnez, 196
Patrizi, Francesco, 155157
Patt, William D., 253
Paul II, Pope, 158
Paul, Saint, 85, 86, 87, 95, 98, 149
Peacham, Henry, 154
Perelman, Chaim, 218, 229230
Prez, Juan, 155
Perpia, Pedro Juan, 159
Peter of Blois, 119
Petrarch, 134, 135, 136
Petrovi, Sreten, 219
Philo of Alexandria, 111, 163
Philodemus of Gadara, 78
Photios of Constantinople, 131, 132
Pietro della Vigna, 120
Pire, Franois, 232
Planudes, Maximus, 132
Plato, 11, 17, 18, 24, 26, 27, 28, 29, 31, 33,
3438, 39, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 52, 68,
77, 84, 99, 140, 156, 252,
Plett, Heinrich F., 218, 229, 254
Pliny the Elder, 146
Pliny the Younger, 7374, 77
Plotinus, 100
Poe, Edgar Alan, 9, 161, 220

Polenton, Secco, 135

Plitz, Karl Heinrich Ludwig, 214
Poliziano, 146
Polycrates, 27
Pomey, Franois, 163, 201
Pons of Provence, 119
Pontanus of Breitenberg, Ji Barthold,
159
Popper, Karl, 207
Porphyry (Plotinuspupil), 100,
Priscian, 81, 106, 123, 139
Proclus, 156
Procopius, 92, 122
Prodicus, 38
Prokopovich, Theophan, 175, 176, 201
Propp, Vladimir, 220, 221
Protagoras, 28, 2931, 33, 34, 35,
Psellos, Michael, 132
Pseudo-Longinus, 78, 79, 165, 186, 187
Pseudo-Menander, 131
Purcell, William Michael, 253
de Quincey, Thomas, 205
Quintilian, 9, 10, 15, 16, 56, 60, 61, 62,
69, 7073, 74, 75, 77, 97, 104, 108, 134,
135, 136, 138, 139, 145, 146, 151, 154,
161, 164, 168, 188, 191, 193, 198, 204,
214, 226, 232, 240, 251
Racendytes, Joseph, 132
Radau of Braunsberg, Michael, 164
Ralph of Longchamp, 129,
Ramus, Petrus, 71, 143, 150153, 164,
166, 179, 253
Rapin, Ren, 159
Reid, Thomas, 193, 194
Reinbeck, Georg, 214
Revilla, Manuel de la, 198
Richards, Ivor Armstrong, 219,
222223, 243, 244
Ricoeur, Paul, 17, 218,
Robert of Basevorn, 113
Rollin, Charles, 190, 191, 193
Romano, Cincio, 9,
Rousseau, Jean-Jacques, 181, 207, 233,
Rufus, Curtius, 200
Russel, Bertrand, 224, 230

Name Index

Said, Edward, 236

alda, Frantiek Xaver, 217
Salinas, Miguel de, 155
Salutati, Coluccio, 134, 135
Samaritanus, Adalbertus, 117
Snchez Barbero, Francisco, 198
Snchez de las Brozas, Francisco, 196
Sarbievius. See Sarbiewski, Maciej
Kazimierz
Sarbiewski, Maciej Kazimierz, 160, 161
Scaevola, Quintus, 68
Schiller, Friedrich, 227
Schissel von Fleschenberg, Otmar, 254
Schlegel, Karl Friedrich Wilhelm von,
161
Schopenhauer, Arthur, 203, 206, 254
Schouler, Bernard, 252
Secundus, Julius, 74
Sedulius, 106
Seneca the Elder, 55
Seneca the Younger, 51, 72, 93, 136, 146,
154
Serebrennikov, Ambrose, 201, 202
Severianus, Julius, 69
Sheridan, Thomas, 196
Sherry, Richard, 154
Shklovsky, Viktor, 220, 221
Simeonachis, John, 139
Skouphos, Francis, 142
koviera, Daniel, 219
Sloane, Thomas O., 219, 237, 244,
254
Smith, Adam, 192193, 194
Soarez, Cyprian, 160, 161162
Socrates, 11, 28, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38
Sopatros, 83
Spencer, Herbert, 211213
Spengel, Leonhard, 77,
Spinoza, Baruch, 177, 224
Sponcius of Provence. See Pons
ofProvence
Sprat, Thomas, 180
Stanisaw of Skarbimierz, 112
Stanisaw Skimina, 253
Stapulensis, Jacobus Faber. See
dEtaples, Jacques Lefvre
Steinbrink, Bernd, 219

/270/

Strabo Vopiscus, Gaius Julius Caesar, 68

Struever, Nancy J., 137, 219, 226, 253
Sturm, Johannes, 46, 83, 139, 164, 165
Sturmius. See Sturm, Johannes
Suetonius, 55, 61
Sulpicius Rufus, Servius, 68
Sumarokov, Alexander Petrovich, 200
Syrianus, 83
Szumski, Tomasz, 213
Tacitus, Publius Cornelius, 60, 7377
Taleus Audomarus. See Talon, Omar
Talon, Omer, 150, 152, 153, 154
Tate, Nahum, 181
Taureck, Bernhard H. F., 30
Tertullian, 85
Teutonicus. See Eberhard the German
Theodore the Studite, 131, 132
Theon, Aelius, 80,
Theophrastos, 44
Theremin, Franz, 203, 204
Thierry of Chartres, 129,
Thomas Aquinas, Saint, 46, 183,
Thomas of Capua, 119
Thomas of Salisbury, 113
Thukydides, 128
Tibinus, Nicolaus. See Dybin, Nicolaus
Tisias, 31
Tobias of Bechyn, 121
Todorov, Tzvetan, 232
Tomashevsky, Boris Viktorovich, 220,
221
Tory, Geoffroy, 154
Toulmin, Stephen Edelston, 229,
230231
Toynbee, Arnold, 227
Trapezuntius, Georgios. See George
ofTrebizond
Trebatius, 65
Trinon, Hadeline, 232
Tka, Josef, 219
Tyconius, 97
Tynianov, Yuri Nikolaevich, 220, 221
Tzetzes, John, 132
Ueding, Gert, 219
Unger, Ulrich, 244

 /271/

Usachev, Mikhail, 175

Uspensky, Boris Andreyevich, 173
Vair, Guillaume du, 154
Valla, Lorenzo, 46, 86, 135, 137139
Valle, Lorenzo de la. See Valla, Lorenzo
Vmana, 239
Vanderjagt, Arie Johan, 253
Varro, Marcus Terentius, 51, 93
Vergil, 84, 85, 104, 128,
Vickers, Brian, 218, 219
Vico, Giambattista, 17, 177, 189190, 205,
207, 253
Victor, Gaius Julius, 90, 108, 115, 116
Victor, Sulpicius, 69
Victorinus, Gaius Marius. See Afer,
Victorinus
Villemain, Abel-Franois, 208
Vincent of Beauvais, 92, 128
Vives, Juan Luis, 136, 137, 139, 155, 196
Volkmann, Richard, 27, 206
Vossius, Gerhard Johann, 166167
Waleys, Thomas, 112, 113

Walker, John, 211

Walz, Ernst Christian, 77, 205
Warren, Austin, 9
Weaver, Richard, 224
Weinmann, Robert, 254
Weise, Christian, 198
Wellek, Ren, 9
Whately, Thomas, 211212, 249
William of Moerbeke, 46
Wilson, Thomas, 154
Wimpheling, Jakob, 139
Windelband, Wilhelm, 32, 252
Witherspoon, John, 195
Wittgenstein, Ludwig, 31, 137, 230
Wundt, Wilhelm, 212
Xenophon, 27
Yakubinsky, Lev Petrovich, 221
Zamora, Juan Gil de, 120
Zeno of Citium, 25, 51
Zulick, Margaret D., 87, 240
Zumthor, Paul, 234