Rhetoric in History, Paper 2

In the Renaissance era, writing emerged as a scholarly pursuit, and became accessible to the public as more than just a means to convey factual information. While Plato and others had practiced writing centuries earlier, it is arguable that it was a medium that remained largely inaccessible, due to a lack of education and the notion that such practices were reserved for nobility. Early nobility attempted to suppress interest in writing and education, reserving it for those in power as a means to retain this power.

Modern communication has seen the separation of the term “rhetoric” from writing in the public eye, and the origins of this can be seen in the Renaissance era (though the full extent of this separation would not grab hold until centuries later). The Renaissance ultimately brought the untimely sleep of oration as an art form, the burgeoning of public interest in intellectualism and scholarly pursuit, and the expression of this interest and emotional investment in writing itself.

Prior to the Renaissance, oration maintained a hold on the public as not only a means of communicating information, but a method of personal expression. Greek and Roman culture developed public speaking as an art form that not only maintained the legal system, but entertained the public. The general public began to view writing as superior, as it succinctly expressed true facts, while oration was considered to be biased and largely based on personal opinion (since that was the way speeches were considered credible in ancient Greece). Scholasticism and Humanism focused namely on resolving ancient conflicts of spiritualism through dialectics and debate-like exchange in writing, and oration fell by the wayside. One could say that science deflated the artistic vigor of the medium, and rhetoric as an accepted concept, followed from the public eye.

Scholasticism placed particular importance on academic mentality, and the absorption of information. Scientific approaches to situations and arguments took precedence over the highly-personal speeches and writings of rhetoric, causing general development of the field to be dissuaded. Writing itself became a way for the masses to express themselves, though the art of rhetoric generally faded into the background. Scientific pursuits grew, with writing as the main means to communicate this information; there was no longer a place for the oral art.

Following the miniature “death” of oration was the decay of public faith in “the classics.” While renowned philosopher and writer Peter Ramus was an orator and professor himself, he primarily chose to communicate through writing his distaste for Aristotle, though “distaste” might be a lenient word to describe his sentiment, as Ong paraphrased his sentiment in Ramus, Method, and the Decay of Dialogue, as “all the things Aristotle has said because they are poorly systemized, and can be called to mind only by the use of arbitrary mnemonic devices.” (Ong, 46-47) This sentiment was shared by most Scholastics, and general interest in Aristotle’s philosophies waned. These scholars wished to question the knowledge around them, to expand on these concepts and reach a conclusion about a variety of religious and philosophical questions, including existence.

While writing emerged as a tangible form of communication, oration fell into the shadows as an incredible method of conveying meaning in the era where Humanism dictated policy. Rhetoric, as a whole, became less important, as science moved into the foreground.