The discussion of humanism featured in the introduction to Renaissance Rhetoric was, I felt, a fascinating development in rhetoric's history. The struggle between scholasticism and humanism exemplifies rhetoric as a consistently evolving field with numerous philosophic approaches. For instance, a parallel can be drawn between the tension created between the Asiatic style and the Atticus style of rhetoric. Like language, rhetoric can be approached from a number of different directions and I think that the competing ideals reflect the extent to which rhetoricians engaged wholeheartedly with their subject. There is no single cut and dried formula that exists where rhetoric is concerned, and while this provides freedom for individuals to cultivate their own ideas, it also establishes a platform for debate. This, I believe, is key to why rhetoric is such a nuanced, hard to pin down in a single thought, subject. It is dynamic, and changes with the input of the minds that contribute to it, just as diction various from person to person.
On another note, Petrarch's embodiment of the ideas of Renaissance Rhetoric was essential because they challenged what was become a fixed and arguably limiting way of practice in rhetoric: Scholasticism. Petrarch's humanistic approach to classical rhetoric made it possible for individuality to take root once again, whereas Scholasticism confined scholars to specific guidelines in which originality could only stagnate. Scholasticism, in its seemingly misguided approach to Aristotle reflected the lack of focus on style and stride toward the favoring of logic and science in intellectual thought that will take hold again after the period of Petrarch's humanism.
Also, I found it interesting that Petrarch was not able to find a teacher to educate him in Greek so that he might read the classics himself. I think he was valid in wanting a full, primary understanding of the classics in order to construct his own ideas with the forefathers of rhetoric at their base. Why was Petrarch unable to find a teacher fluent in Greek? The text also states that intellectuals proceeding Petrarch voiced this same desire, also in vain. I wonder if Petrarch's ideas would have been significantly influenced if he had been able to learn Greek to utilize in his studies, and what profound effect, if any, this would have had on the concept of Italian Renaissance humanism.
i agree with what Hannah discussed in this blog post about the Renaissance, and how this time period was influencing people to think in different, more abstract ways. Her analysis on Petrarch was also interesting, because he seemed to be an extraordinarily unconventional rhetor of this time period, in that he did not have much experience nor did he have a proper teacher. I liked that this portion of the textbook really emphasized how the method of thinking in its entirety was truly altering during the Renaissance, and how different things were becoming of more importance than what was discussed or believed during medieval rhetoric.
ReplyDelete