Post 6 - How the Bible Changed Rhetoric

Fellow Classmates,

A trend that I am now seeing in our course readings and discussions is a shift from “what rhetoric is” to “what rhetoric does---i.e., what rhetoric’s place is in society.” In reading Herrick, Chapter 6, we are informed of the shift toward---and dominance of---religious rhetoric in Christian Europe, as evidenced specifically by Murphy’s quote on page 132 in Herrick: “the middle ages did not produce any major original works on secular speaking…”

I find this shift particularly interesting because of the parallel I see with Cicero’s ideas of rhetoric: he fused previous Greek philosophies in Rome---skill and wisdom, power and justice---drawing from both the Sophists and the non-Sophists. And he added his own new nuggets---like preemptive rebuttals and increased pathos appeals. Overall, in Rome, rhetoric was a means to social/political advancement.

In European-Christian rhetoric, we see yet another “mash up” idea, drawing largely from the Roman view of rhetoric and, to a lesser extent, the Greek view of rhetoric. Thanks to Augustine, we see moralness and justice emphasized (though in a Christian light), but, we also see a pursuit of ultimate truth. And, we also see some new things: like truth and knowledge as products of the divine (not capable of being man-made, but only “realized” and shared) and an increased use of metaphor. Overall, in Europe, rhetoric can be though of as means toward more/religious advancement.

However, the biggest transition that I was able to derive from the reading was the shift from long, cohesive, well-memorized oratories to fractionated ones in which the rhetor need only borrow individual pieces from the phronesis of the time which is also pointed out by Bizzell and Herzberg (see page 451)---namely things from Scripture. The rhetor allowed those sentences to stand on their own (sententiae), placing a great deal of stock in both the presumed ethos of the text and the audience’s valuation of the verse(s). Thus, Scripture, in Christian-Europe, was the ultimate authority, containing the highest koina. To me, because these arguments relied so heavily on the audience participation/agreement to fill in the gaps, making them part of the argument, I see, perhaps a stronger enthymemic-type approach than was present in earlier rhetoric.

I think this shift would have not have been possible without Scripture. For the first time, rhetoric had a single “book of authority” from which all arguments could be made. This constant was not evident in rhetoric previously. But, having this constant, made warrants easier to build and it allowed for an increased use of pathos, through both metaphorical and literal appeals, because of all the stories contained within the Bible. However, even with the common treatise in place, Augustine still prized eloquence and delivery---but only in a “connecting with the audience sense”---his logos was the Scripture verses themselves. Those were the truths.

So, I suppose my take-home point in this musing is that for the first time in rhetoric, we are seeing a defined/shared truth. If the audience is Christian, they believe in the Bible---thus, any number of arguments can be made logically and that logic can be made more enticing/easier to follow with eloquent delivery. If, however, the audience is not a Christian, that “bringing them into the fold” require a whole other approach. But, once they are in and believe in that shared warrant, then they, too, can be influenced by Scriptural references. So, for me, having that shared system (the Bible) from which make arguments from makes this different from the rhetoric we’ve looked at before.

Best,
Cris