Ramus ramming against the grain

Even in a world where Christianity is on the rise and classical rhetoric is seemingly on the fall Quintilian has still demanded respect from the medieval rhetoricians.  Ramus, however, argues strongly against Quintilian's core belief "that the orator cannot be perfect unless he is a good man." (683).  When we were looking at Quintilian I also had a problem with this idea referencing Hitler's great speaking skills despite him being a bad man.  While I believe Ramus makes a strong argument against this definition I have a problem with his delivery and style.  By calling Quintilian's definition "useless and stupid" Ramus comes across as extremely arrogant, even though he calls himself humble in his introduction (681).  In a time when Quintilian was well known and respected this seems like a very risky move for Ramus to make.  However, if people believed Ramus was a bad man for disrespecting Quintilian yet admitted he was a good rhetorician it would disprove Quintilian's definition.  Even if it disrespectful Ramus makes a sound argument against Quintilian's definition; we don't judge an artist by his or her ability to do math.  While I may disagree with how he presents his argument I can't deny Ramus has a sound argument and I believe this was the response Ramus wanted.