clarity in ramus

While Ramus tore Quintilian’s argument apart, I found this a relatively enjoyable read.  “We shall distinguish the art of rhetoric from the other arts…we shall separate its true properties, remove weak and useless subtleties, and point out the things that are missing” (681). Short, sweet, to the point. I can deal with that.

Ramus’ overall goal, to me, seems to be simplicity. Rhetoric does not need to be complicated; in fact, Invention and Arrangement do not belong in rhetoric but rather in Dialectic, which is logic. Style and Delivery make up rhetoric, and I’d agree with him after reading this. In the little exposure I had to rhetoric in high school, we were always told that rhetoric was the way you used your language to persuade people, even if you didn’t know what you were talking about. When it comes to the first three pillars, invention, arrangement and memory, they are classified as dialects, which are based on reason. Ramus is arguing that dialect, made up of invention, arrangement and memory revolved around one of the “two universal, general gifts bestowed by nature upon man” (684). On the other hand, speech, the other gift from nature, is where rhetoric falls. The five pillars are divided according to what they appeal to, where invention, arrangement and memory appeal to reasoning of a human being, while style and delivery appeal to how the act of speech is done to impart reason into other people. It can therefore be viewed that rhetoric will be used to deliver a speech to others, while dialect is the reasons behind the speech.

“Yet what do we think will happen if we seek for practical application of such foolish, useless confusion?” To keep the dialectic and rhetoric separated is to avoid confusion and become clear, effective orators.