As mentioned previously, most of today's rhetorical studies have re-centered on Aristotle. The return to Aristotle, or as some call it a return to Aristotle's Dialectic, was a long process that was initiated in response to the presumption of Church oppression during the Renaissance and Reformation (McCroskey, 2016). However, this was prefaced by the Renaissance and Reformation which embraced a return to Cicero and Quintilian and their focus on liberal arts education (McCroskey, 2016).
Liberal Arts and The Trivium of Rhetoric(s)
The history of Rhetoric is the history of how we study and perceive messages—which is a central point of Communication Studies. In fact, the division in Rhetoric between tool and philosophy is one of the factors that led to the differences between the viewpoints that dominate our contemporary communications fields. During the height of the Roman Empire, as Rhetorical studies were combined with other fields, the Roman educators and later the Roman Church identified Rhetoric as one of the core academic fields of study. These core fields reflect the full education espoused by both Cicero and Quintilian (Bizzell & Herzberg, 2001a).
During the middle ages rhetorical studies were divided into two approaches very early in the long history of the field: the Platonic and the Aristotelian approaches. In the early middle ages, studies of Rhetoric were actually split into 3 categories and called The Trivium (McKeon, 1942). Borrowing from Aristotle, the Trivium was composed of: Rhetoric, the text or words used in the message; Dialectic or Logic, the philosophy or ethical goal of the message; and Grammar, the structure and composition of the message. These three categories were also three of the Seven Liberal Arts (Abelson, 1906; Atwill, 2009; Parker, 1890):
The liberal arts tradition has been at the center of Western rhetoric since medieval times. This is the core of all basic education standards. They reflect Cicero and Quintilian's goals for well-rounded education, as well as center on Aristotelian ideals (Abelson, 1906; Atwill, 2009). The seven liberal arts are seen as on the key early efforts in the return to Aristotelian rhetorics and the return to a dialectical (logic-driven) approach to rhetoric (Atwill, 2009). This re-turn is directly contrasted to the Platonic turn of the Church and the Second Sophistry.
Using more contemporary language (Dundes, 1964; Lucas, 1988; Widdowson, 2008), we can tie this three-way split in Rhetoric to the three Research Paradigms:
Rhetoric is the study and creation of a message's text and is focused on the content created by the speaker, author, or producer of the message, including the symbolism, meaning, theme, and production goals.
Grammar is the texture or composition of the message. Studies of Grammar focus on the components of the message, including transmission, feedback, structural mechanisms, and other measurable aspects.
Dialectic is the context of the message, including the culture of both audience and producer, the impact of the location and historical era, and the implications of the message for the audience and producer.
"Scudo della Trinità" by Fabio Daziano is licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0. The image reflects the Trivium of Rhetoric noted on The Spanish Steps in Rome.
These three approaches to Rhetoric lend themselves to the research paradigms in Communication Studies in very specific ways. Take a look at how the Rhetorical Tradition is utilized in contemporary research (Merrigan & Huston, 2015):
Rhetoric or text-based studies are interpretive in nature. These studies look at how a producer constructs a text to convey a particular message. The goal is to understand the text or message in its own right and to understand the authorial intent of the message.
Grammar or texture-based studies lend themselves to social scientific or behavioral approaches. These studies look for generalizable patterns in messages, as well as in message production and consumption. The texture of a message can be compared to other messages and used to determine predictions about behaviors and attitudes of audiences and producers.
Dialectic or context-based studies generate critical ideological concerns. These studies are focused on the implications and inherent biases of a message. Understanding the context of a message helps us understand what impact the message may have, whether the message is harmful or helpful, and how well suited a message is to the audience.
Each of these approaches reveals something of significance about a message. Each of these approaches is also limited, unless a researcher takes into account perceptual possibilities from more than one of these paradigms at once (Merrigan & Huston, 2015). After all, if we take into account the history of Rhetoric, we realize that all three of these perspectives are aspects of the same core concept. For this reason, much current Communication Studies research is done from creative perspectives that seek to blend aspects from each of these three paradigms to give a more complete story of the message being studied.
Enter Humanism
The fourteenth-century Italian Poet Francesco Petrarch is generally associated with the beginning of the Renaissance. He was interested in the classical notion of a fully-trained individual, reflective of Cicero and Quintilian's approach (Bizzell & Herzberg, 2001f). He investigated the classical literature and rhetoric and argued that the Church had been hiding much philosophy that conflicted with church beliefs from the people of Europe. After becoming familiar with the work of Aristotle, Petrarch began to promote the reunification of what had come to be seen as two fields: Philosophy and Rhetoric. Petrarch and others of this era argued that Aristotle, Plato, and Socrates had generated thought and action together through Rhetoric, and that the more recent reduction of Rhetoric during the Second Sophistic to artistic craft had reduced to simple, repeatable patterns (Seigel, 1966; Vickers, 1990). These critics might have failed to generate much change, except the world was quickly changing. As the politics of Europe became less and less centralized, the ornate and eloquent language Cicero had promoted within the Roman Empire became suspect, and the focus of Rhetoric for political and social leaders began to return to logic and Aristotle’s Dialectic. A new Philosophy of Rhetoric would follow.
Petrarch, the man who named the "Dark Ages" as a time when classical rhetoric, art, and philosophy was lost or buried by the Church, was one of the first to actively move his studies away from Church Rhetoric and toward a “new” philosophy we call Humanism. The focus of Humanism is on what human beings can accomplish and how we can change or create a better world (Baxandal, 1986; Seigel, 1966). The Church’s Rhetoric was often focused on Heaven and the Afterlife—drawing upon Plato’s idealism and Augustine's rule of truth. Humanism was instead focused on the here and now—and the arguments of humanism were developed from the standpoint that if you give people good information they will come to good conclusions. Logic and evidence were valued as supportive material.
Humanism is focused on human achievement and human will, in contrast to Augustine's and the Church's focus on God providing will and truth. Petrarch inspired the movement by reinterpreting Classical texts, and promoting the use of modern Italian rather than Latin in written rhetoric and translations. This had the impact of allowing far more people to read both classical and contemporary rhetorics, as few outside of the Church at this point read, wrote, or spoke Latin or Greek (Bizzell & Herzberg, 2001d). He further argued that as humans became exposed to this knowledge base, they could build on it and achieve uniquely human accomplishments, becoming the premise of humanism.
Building on Petrarch's work, Desiderius Erasmus sought to blend Christian doctrine and humanism. He would famously disagree with many of Martin Luther's claims, yet was distrustful of the sophistic tendencies within the church's preaching methods (Bizzell & Herzberg, 2001b, 2001d). Erasmus also was skeptical of the Latin translations of the Bible, publishing the first Greek text version. Erasmus focused on classical rhetorical forms, and promoted a balance of dialectical and artistic form. He generated what he called an "abundant style" with rich usage of language echoing the best of sophistry, yet without ignoring the forensic goals of well researched and logical focus (Erasmus, 1512/2001).
Unlike Erasmus' attempt to reinforce Christian doctrine with humanism, another Italian humanist, Lorenzo Valla, furthered the scope of humanism with specific critiques of Church rhetoric. Significantly, Valla "produced new Latin translations of Platonic dialogues and proved philologically that the Donation of Constantine, on which the Roman Catholic Church based its claim to temporal power in Italy, was a forgery" (Bizzell & Herzberg, 2001d, p. 559). He was also the first to compare Latin translations of the Bible with the original Greek texts, finding many inconsistencies, and opening the way for critical biblical scholarship.
Gutenberg’s invention of the printing press (approx. 1440) also had a profound impact on Rhetoric (Eisenstein, 1979; McLuhan, 1962). Now, messages could be reproduced and printed, and spread quickly throughout Europe. Written arguments, unlike Cicero’s Oratory, had to rely far more on well-constructed arguments that would hold up among multiple wider and unknown audiences. While speakers could adapt their messages to particular audiences, and use performed artistry to enhance or disguise a message, written messages cannot be so easily adapted (McLuhan, 1962).
The combination of Humanism and the increase of reading materials made possible by the printing press had a profound impact on Europe and the way the Church's role was perceived (Eisenstein, 1979; McLuhan, 1962). As translation and dissemination of information spread, the ability for the Church to maintain its significant role in the interpretation of the Bible was challenged, and alternative interpretations would greatly impact rhetorical norms.
The spread of literacy meant that not only were written rhetorics reaching a larger audience, so were copies and translations of the Bible. A primary concern for those active in what would become the Reformation was to make current translations of the Bible more accessible to everyday audiences, rather than monitored and interpreted by the singular Roman Church (Griffiths, 2001).
"Das Zeitalter der Reformation" by Fredrich Eduard Eichens, engraver, Library of Congress Photos/Prints/Drawings Collection is in the Public Domain. The image illustrates the impact of Humanism on the Reformation: note the focus on how many men (and one woman, Elizabeth I of England) and their collective, often political, and sometimes personal goals were associated with the shift to a Reformed Church in Europe.
Martin Luther was heavily influenced by the Renaissance and humanist rhetoric, and in the push toward dialectic theory and rhetoric. The rise in comparisons between classical and contemporary rhetorics impacted Luther's viewpoints and insights regarding religious rhetorics (Flood, 2001). Luther prepared his own German translation of the Bible, influenced by Erasmus' earlier publication of the Greek texts (Griffiths, 2001). Luther's significant rhetorical critique of the Roman Catholic Church, his 95 Theses, included a number of criticisms of Church practice and doctrine that did not match what he found in Scripture. Among the most famous were his criticism of Papal indulgences and repentance (Luther, 1517/1915).
Re-Enter Aristotle and Forensic Argumentation
As the Scientific Revolution approached, a movement of Rhetoric away from flowery speech and artistry and toward solid argument construction intensified. Humanism is particularly significant because it had an impact on the development of the Reformation. For some, the distrust of the Church led to the beginning of the end of an era that valued and emphasized the use of flowery, overly-emotive, and artistic rhetoric reminiscent of sophistry. For others, a blending of the artistic and philosophic aspects of rhetoric were key. The focus on logic-driven rhetoric with forensic value rooted in evidence collection became a key means of conveying an argument.
It is the work of Petrus (aka Peter) Ramus that truly exemplifies this version of a re-turn to Dialectic and Aristotle. Ramus was highly suspicious of the “high” style of Rhetoric based on Cicero and Quintillian’s work. Instead he promoted what he called “Plain Speech”—devoid of emotionality, flowery language, and most of the values associated with Sophistry. His Plain Speech was adopted by the Calvinist movements within the Reformation as a means of distinguishing themselves from the stylized artistry of Catholic ceremony. The Puritans who settled at Plymouth Rock embodied this ideal, as did the Quakers who settled in the American Colonies.
Ramus disagrees with Cicero and Quintilian in how they frame the Canons (Ramus, 1549/2001). For Ramus, Cicero and Quintillian had simplified dialectic too much as logic. Returning to Aristotle, Ramus places value in the dialectic over the art of rhetoric, and argues that only what he sees as the final two Canons, style and delivery are the domain of the art of rhetoric. Invention, arrangement, and memory all rely on Aristotle's dialectic, meaning both the motive of the speaker and the logic that drives the content (McCroskey, 2016).
The goal of "plain speech" reflects the focus on dialectic. Ramus argues that humans have the logical capacity to understand rhetorical messages and determine the truth in a speech on their own (Ramus, 1549/2001). Therefore artistry is not as important as a well-constructed argument (Bizzell & Herzberg, 2001e). Scientific methodology and mathematical logical premises became a core goal for this type of Rhetoric. Ramists, those who approach speech from this perspective, believe that our logical minds will lead us to a logical conclusion, and we won't be swayed by the tricks of sophistry and other false messages. Therefore, if we use plain speech, without flowery words and artistic distractions, we can lay out the truth for audiences who will willingly believe.
Thomas Wilson was less focused on exclusively promoting the forensic value of arguments as he saw the need for audience participation. Wilson focused on variables in audiences, once again reflecting Aristotle. For Wilson, the audience would best relate to an art form that spoke to the epistemological concerns: or lived experience in concert with their ideologies (Bizzell & Herzberg, 2001f). For Wilson, emotion is a key element for reaching an audience, and artistically packaging the message to gain audience motivation is necessary (Wilson, 1553/2001). However, he does not argue against dialectical logic, but explains that rhetoric conveys logical truths best when packaged to meet an audience's artistic style preferences. Consider how art forms that appeal to particular audience groups function. For Wilson, the philosophical and ideological concerns of an audience are met through art and literature (Wilson, 2001). The elements in those artistic expressions that speak to the ideology and philosophy of the audience should therefore parallel the rhetorical style used in a public argument. This ultimately means that the text of a speech or argument should match the context of the audience. Wilson's arguments will lead to the epistemological concerned rhetorics associated with the Enlightenment era.
Francis Bacon provides our final treatise on dialectical rhetorics.
Bacon's push for inductive scientific reasoning led him to discuss a new style of rhetoric, focuses on making public arguments. His argument canon was rooted in his rationale, "The duty and office of rhetoric is to apply reason to imagination for the better moving of the will" (Bacon, 1690/1893, p. 310). In other words, persuasion should be grounded in reason and evidence, reflecting a new forensic attitude.
Bacon's ideal of reasoning is that evidence collection should provide the basis of arguments. His precept he also applied to rational thought, both for individuals and for audiences, holding that rational minds would be swayed by evidence-based reasoning. This aspect of his work echoes and builds on Ramus' rhetoric. Bacon also provides a list of fallacy-driven faults in logical reasoning, or Idols. "In his analysis of the false ideas that he calls "Idols"..., he maintains that reason and the senses are warped by common preconceptions, personal predilections, the ambiguities of language, and the misrepresentations of the philosophical system" (Bizzell & Herzberg, 2001c, p. 737). Bacon's Idols reflect both personal philosophy and psychological factors, and argumentative challenges.
Bacon's Idols can be discussed as four primary categories of logical fallacies. These four categories are:
Idol of the Tribe: Too much emotion, as in allowing the emotional response to blind the senses from fact and logic. This can also reflect speakers stirring an audience up with too much pathos.
Example: The mob running after Frankenstein's monster with pitchforks and torches rather than recognizing or listening to an argument that the monster did not kill the girl in the story. Or Gaston stirring up the village against the Beast.
Idol of the Cave: Too much personality, drawn from Plato's allegory of the Cave, wherein we are trapped in our own mindsets, i.e. wearing blinders to alternative beliefs and possibilities. This can also reflect charismatic speakers swaying an audience.
Example: Cult members in Jonestown drinking the flavor-aid.
Idol of the Marketplace: Sloppy or ambiguous language, reflecting empty rhetoric and language that can change meaning from one audience to the next.
Example: A snake oil salesman selling "empty" bottles or placebos.
Idol of the Theatre: Untested knowledge supported by distraction, or a theory or information that cannot be proven with evidence so slight-of-hand or tricks are used to distract the audience from the lack of credibility.
Example: "Do not look at the man behind the curtain, I am Oz, the great and powerful" (Langley et. al., 1939).
In application to rhetoric, the idols represent traps of rhetoric that a speaker can intend for the audience, as well as traps into which a speaker can inadvertently fall.
References
Abelson, P. (1906). The seven liberal arts: A study in mediaeval culture. New York: Teachers' College Columbia University.
Atwill, J.M. (2009). Rhetoric reclaimed: Aristotle and the liberal arts tradition. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Bacon, F. (1893). The advancement of learning. London: P.F. Cassell & Company, Limited. Original work published 1605. Project Gutenberg. Retrieved from http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/5500
Baxandal, M. (1986). Giotto and the Orators: Humanist observers of painting in Italy and the discovery of pictorial composition. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.
Bizzell, P., & Herzberg, B. (2001a). Classical Rhetoric: Introduction. In P. Bizzell & B. Herzberg (Eds.), The Rhetorical Tradition: Readings from Classical Times to the Present (2nd ed., pp. 19-41). New York: Bedford/St. Martins.
Bizzell, P., & Herzberg, B. (2001b). Desiderius Erasmus. In P. Bizzell & B. Herzberg (Eds.), The Rhetorical Tradition: Readings from Classical Times to the Present (2nd ed., pp. 581-596). New York: Bedford/St. Martins.
Bizzell, P., & Herzberg, B. (2001c). Francis Bacon. In P. Bizzell & B. Herzberg (Eds.), The Rhetorical Tradition: Readings from Classical Times to the Present (2nd ed., pp. 736-739). New York: Bedford/St. Martins.
Bizzell, P., & Herzberg, B. (2001d). Medieval Rhetoric: Introduction. In P. Bizzell & B. Herzberg (Eds.), The Rhetorical Tradition: Readings from Classical Times to the Present (2nd ed., pp. 431-449). New York: Bedford/St. Martins.
Bizzell, P., & Herzberg, B. (2001e). Peter Ramus. In P. Bizzell & B. Herzberg (Eds.), The Rhetorical Tradition: Readings from Classical Times to the Present (2nd ed., pp. 670-680). New York: Bedford/St. Martins.
Bizzell, P., & Herzberg, B. (2001f). Renaissance Rhetoric: Introduction. In P. Bizzell & B. Herzberg (Eds.), The Rhetorical Tradition: Readings from Classical Times to the Present (2nd ed., pp. 555-580). New York: Bedford/St. Martins.
Bizzell, P., & Herzberg, B. (2001f). Thomas Wilson: Introduction. In P. Bizzell & B. Herzberg (Eds.), The Rhetorical Tradition: Readings from Classical Times to the Present (2nd ed., pp. 698-702). New York: Bedford/St. Martins.
Dundes, A. (1964). Texture, text, and context. Southern Folklore Quarterly, 28(4), 251-265.
Eisenstein, E.L. (1979). The printing press as an agent of change, vols. I & II. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Erasmus, D. (2001). Copia: Foundations of the abundant style. In P. Bizzell & B. Herzberg (Eds.), The Rhetorical Tradition: Readings from Classical Times to the Present (2nd ed., pp. 597-627). New York: Bedford/St. Martins. Original work published 1512.
Flood, J.L. (2001). Martin Luther's Bible translation in its German and European context. In R. Griffiths (Ed.). The Bible in the Renaissance: Essays on Biblical commentary and translation in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries (pp. 45-70). New York: Routledge.
Griffiths, R. (2001). Introduction. In R. Griffiths (Ed.). The Bible in the Renaissance: Essays on Biblical commentary and translation in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries (pp. 1-8). New York: Routledge.
Langley, N., Garland, J., Morgan, F., LeRoy, M., Ryerson, F., Haley, J., Bolger, R., ... Baum, L. F. (1939). The wizard of Oz. Hollywood, Calif.: Metro Goldwyn Mayer.
Let's Talk Philosophy. (2019, December 15). The Philosophy of Sir Francis Bacon. [Video file]. Retrieved from https://youtu.be/Mj4N0O7QnPY
Lucas, S. (1988). The renaissance of American public address: Text and context in rhetorical criticism. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 74(2), 241-260. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00335638809383839
Luther, M. (1915). Disputation of Indulgences. In C,M, Jacobs (ed./trans.). Works of Martin Luther with Introductions and Notes Vol. I. Philadelphia, [ebook]. Retrieved from http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/...04-images.html. Original work published 1517.
McCroskey, J.C. (2016). An introduction to rhetorical communication: A Western rhetorical perspective, 9th edition. New York: Routledge.
McKeon, R. (1942). Rhetoric in the Middle Ages. Speculum: A Journal of Mediaeval Studies, 17(1), 1-32. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2856603
McLuhan, M. (1962). The Gutenberg galaxy: The making of a typographic man. Toronto, CA: University of Toronto Press.
Merrigan, G. & Huston, C.L. (2015). Communication research methods (3rd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
Parker, H. (1890). The seven liberal arts. The English Historical Review, 5(19), 417-461. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/546447
Ramus, P. (2001). From arguments in rhetoric against Quintillian. In P. Bizzell & B. Herzberg (Eds.), The Rhetorical Tradition: Readings from Classical Times to the Present (2nd ed., pp. 681-697). New York: Bedford/St. Martins. Original work published 1549.
Siegel, J.E. (1966). "Civic Humanism" or Ciceronian rhetoric? The culture of Petrarch and Bruni. Past & Present, 34(July), 3-48. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/650053
Vickers, B. (1990). The recovery of rhetoric: Petrarch, Erasmus, Perelman. History of the Human Sciences, 3(3), 415-441. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/095269519000300308
Widdowson, H. G. (2004). Text, context, pretext: Critical issues in discourse analysis. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Wilson, T. (2001). The arte of rhetorique. In P. Bizzell & B. Herzberg (Eds.), The Rhetorical Tradition: Readings from Classical Times to the Present (2nd ed., pp. 702-735). New York: Bedford/St. Martins. Original work published 1553.
