Brittney and Jeff's take on Ramus and Astell: Contributing by Taking Away

In dealing with the question of what did Ramus and Astell contribute to rhetoric, we think that it’s more appropriate to consider what they took away from rhetoric—at least as far as the classicists were concerned. In their definitions, the only concerns of rhetoric are style and delivery; the other three canons (invention, arrangement, and memory) belong to dialectic. Regarding invention, Ramus believes there are only ten topics necessary. He claims that these topics fulfill all that is needed to explain the theory of all reasoning and all arguments.  In terms of arrangement, he believes such arguments should be structured through syllogisms (general to specific). Astell spends less time on logic, attributing reason to innate ability. In this sense, both rhetors spend time telling us that reason and logic are innate or natural skills, and that students only need help developing and growing that skill.

For this reason, they also devalue the emphasis on reading classical texts. Ramus plainly states that reading the works of our classical forefathers is useless, and considers the time he spent reading them a waste. Astell, doesn’t take the same hardline approach that Ramus does, but she thinks that there’s no need for extensive classical learning; instead, she thinks that women can learn enough from reading “good books.” 

Astell, unlike Ramus, agrees with Quintilian that a good rhetor is a virtuous and just person speaking well. She thinks that rhetoric is inherently tied to Christian ideals, which necessitates a virtuous speaker. It’s clear that her goal is to help women learn how to speak better in conversational settings, but also to better their ability to teach children, which she believes is a virtuous act, and her duty as a Christian. Ramus, on the other hand, believes that virtuousness is not a part of the five canons, and thus has no place in rhetoric. He thinks that virtuousness is the subject of moral philosophy, and to include the discussion of virtuous qualities in rhetoric is superfluous and makes the art of rhetoric defective. 

Ramus believes that reason and logic are the most important means of persuasion. Astell also considers reason and logic to be important, but she gives a lot of weight to appealing to one’s audience, specifically through establishing ethos. She suggests that discussing one’s anglican values and practicing them, which will be shared with the audience, is a great tool in persuasion. We believe that this difference is based in the different idea of where a rhetor should be practicing their craft. Ramus, like his predecessors, considers the rhetor’s arena as the public sphere; while Astell directs her rhetors to focus on more private, conversational situations. 

Although they agree that style and delivery are firmly in the domain of rhetoric, they have differing opinions on the characteristics of those canons. Ramus spends time instructing his readers on the necessity of figures and tropes, and bringing in some poetic and pleasing language into your speaking. Astell, on the other hand, is more concerned with the clearness of your message, and advises that you should avoid unusual and/or pretentious words in favor of ones that are easier for your audience to understand. In terms of delivery, Astell believes that women are naturally better at delivering a message than men are, because their voices are more tonally “pleasing and better suited to the mostly private occasions” where they’ll be practicing their craft (845).