The Changing Face of Rhetoric by Amy and Aimee

 

Ramus has a different definition of rhetoric than Aristotle or Plato. For Aristotle and Plato, invention, arrangement, and style are all part of rhetoric. Ramus defines rhetoric as style, making invention and arrangement the province of dialectic. Dialectic concerns reason, rhetoric concerns speech, and for Ramus they are two separate realms. Ramus argues that “rhetoric is defined as the art of speaking well, not about this or that, but about all subjects” (689). The word “art” is important. Ramus sees rhetoric as an art, not a virtue. One can use rhetoric to discuss moral virtue, but rhetoric is not to be confused as being the same as moral virtue. At first glance, defining rhetoric as an art having to do with style may sound like it limits rhetoric, but Ramus expands rhetoric. Aristotle limits rhetoric to the forensic, deliberative, and ceremonial. Plato limits rhetoric to the transcendent. Ramus says that rhetoric is speaking about anything. Astell also defines rhetoric as style. She believes in clear, simple style because if “we desire to be intelligible to everybody, our Expressions must be more plain and explicit than they needed to be if we write only for ourselves” (853). Good rhetoric concerns transcendent, divine truth, as Astell argues “the substance and Life are not there if Vertue and Truth are wanting” (858).  Anyone who tries to mislead or speak other than the truth will find that their style and eloquence fall short.

The idea of virtue has been important for our first four rhetoricians. Plato believes that good rhetoric can plant the seeds of virtue in another. Aristotle believes that the truth of one’s argument is the most important thing in rhetoric, above style and delivery. Ramus believes that virtue has nothing to do with rhetoric as the rhetor can be a good person or a bad person.  Rhetoric is not a moral virtue, but rather a “virtue of the mind and the intelligence” (685). Astell believes that Christianity is an aid to rhetoric since it induces charitable and proper attitudes towards one’s audience, helping the rhetor strive to get the audience to understand divine truth. It does not seek to humiliate or deceive and audience. In turn, it will teach and inspire others as “So much Knowledge therefore as it is necessary to engage and keep us firm in our Christian Course, to fit us to help others in theirs, to stir us up to pursue, and direct us in our endeavors after one of the brightest Crowns of Glory, does very well become us” (860).

Ramus and Astell make a clear move in the understanding of who can be a rhetor. Ramus and Astell dismiss limitations that were placed on rhetors, thus expanding the realm of who can deliver rhetoric. Previously, Plato had limited the role of rhetor to philosophers alone. Plato sees  rhetoric as the art of influencing the soul through words, and to influence the soul, the rhetor has to know the truth. The philosopher is the only one with access to transcendental truth and the only one capable of planting the seed in other individuals. Aristotle moves away from Plato by expanding the role of rhetor beyond philosopher and opening it up to anyone who is capable of reasoning in public speech using artistic and inartistic proofs. Ramus, however, explains that rhetoric can be practiced by anyone, even by “men of the utmost depravity” (685). Since Ramus sees rhetoric as an art and not a virtue, even immoral men are capable of possessing and delivering rhetoric. Astell likewise expands the limitations on those capable of producing rhetoric by opening it up to women. Astell argues that men and women are equal on an intellectual level, and can be educated as well as men. If a woman is given the opportunity to learn how to read and speak, they can become capable of practicing rhetoric. Like Plato, Astell sees rhetors as people who can influence the soul and bring audiences closer to understanding the truth.

As Ramus and Astell expand the limitations on who is allowed to practice rhetoric, they also open up the realm of where rhetoric can be practiced. Like Plato, Ramus does not think that rhetoric should be confined to courtrooms and political debates. His notion moves away from Aristotle’s beliefs that rhetoric should only be practiced in public speeches, particularly ceremonial, forensic, and deliberative speeches. Since Ramus thinks of rhetoric as an art that can be practiced by virtuous and non-virtuous men alike, rhetoric is not limited to the public sphere (courtrooms and political arenas). Astell likewise sees the space for rhetoric opening up because of her views on women as rhetors. Although Astell promotes women’s intellectual equality, she opposes the idea of women speaking at political debates or in the public sphere. Instead, Astell argues that women are best suited to practice rhetoric in private conversation, which she sees as different but not necessarily inferior to the public sphere. Astell explains that women are best suited for work in education and community charitable work, and therefore becoming proficient at the art of conversation would be most beneficial for women. Thus, the space for practicing rhetoric includes not only the public, but the private sphere as well.