Throughout our studies in classical rhetoric, we have seen some transition in rhetorical theory from the time of Plato to the time of Quintilian. The ideas and statements of the authors we have read regarding the development and cultivation of rhetorical skill has varied, perhaps as a result of each man’s environment and place in history. At times, the settings and uses for rhetoric have shifted throughout history, evidenced in the differing Greek and Roman treatments of rhetoric from the First Sophists to Quintilian. Nevertheless, there are also striking similarities in the rhetorical theories of the pieces we have read. For Plato and Aristotle, the search for truth and knowledge is a perpetual theme in rhetoric, its attainment was the chief objective of rhetoric. In the classical world, I see rhetoric shifting across time as a result of a changing political and social climate, thereby influencing its definition and uses. Furthermore, through the changing interpretations of rhetoric through time, space, and culture, I believe that rhetoric should not be limited in use, but is an art that encompasses all subjects and all aspects of life.
As we have studied, the Greek philosophers such as Plato, Aristotle, and the Sophists lived during a time of disorder in Athenian government. The political upheaval following the Peloponnesian War was time for further development of philosophical and rhetorical ideas. Developing these ideas during a time when they were most needed were Plato and Aristotle, who comprehensively influenced future rhetoric in Rome and beyond. Similarly, Cicero and Quintilian witnessed dramatic changes in their own Roman government. As in often the case in times of social and political change, the changing political climate of Greece and Rome encouraged these rhetoricians to devise new definitions and uses for rhetoric. Thus, in my view, I see the shift of rhetoric as being adapted to each rhetorician’s unique place in the history and development of their country both socially and governmentally. In essence, these rhetoricians adapted previous forms of rhetoric to their best advantage so that they could influence their surroundings. For Cicero, this meant putting his oratorical skills to good use by trying to preserve the Roman Republic against those who threatened it. On the importance of oratory to society, Cicero writes, “there is to my mind no more excellent thing than the power, by means of oratory, to get a hold on assemblies of men, win their good will, direct their inclinations…or divert them from whatever he wishes.” (293). From the Greek-influenced schools that he attended, Epicurian, Stoicism, and Skepticism, he joined certain components from each to become a master orator. From this, I have learned that we do not have to choose one rhetorical theory over another, but can take from the masters the things that apply to ourselves and our surroundings to influence and persuade.
Quintilian also combined ideas from various philosophers to formulate a curriculum of rhetoric. His teachings encouraged a search for truth and morality similar to Plato’s teachings on transcendent truth and knowledge. Likewise, Isocrates’ view of rhetoric as a practical study is not to be ignored, as we see this notion of practicality in Quintilian’s writings and curriculum. As we have studied, the themes of truth and knowledge seem to be a recurring theme in the history and development of rhetoric. Of course, we also cannot ignore the Sophists’ rejection of Plato’s belief of a transcendent truth. Similar to Plato, Aristotle’s view that rhetoric is a means with which we can find truth is a topic in rhetoric to this day. To this end, rhetoric was seen as a virtue, an art that was useful in finding and teaching truth and one that should be practiced by the virtuous. During the classical era, rhetoric was usually seen as an encompassing virtue. Aristotle states, “It is clear, then, that rhetoric is not bound up with a single definite class of subjects, but is as universal as dialectic.” (181). Furthermore, rhetoric was also studied alongside philosophy. It was not until later that rhetoric and philosophy were severed and became two separate disciplines. As Cicero writes in De Oratore, “Socrates…separated the science of wise thinking from that of elegant speaking, though in reality they are closely linked together…the old masters had intended there to be a marvelously close alliance between oratory and philosophy.” (335,338). As a result, the Greco-Roman conception of rhetoric as a comprehensive, philosophical subject has been obscured as the definition and use of rhetoric was redefined. This leads me to the conclusion that perhaps this definition and use of rhetoric as a comprehensive discipline should be reintroduced.
Lastly, I cannot fully discuss the story of classical rhetoric without recognizing the significance of Aristotle’s division of rhetorical discourse into forensic, deliberative, and ceremonial speech. These ideas on oratory were discussed and developed further by Cicero. Yet, perhaps one of Cicero’s most valuable contributions to the study of rhetoric was his organization of classical ideas on the formulation of speech into the Five Canons. To this day, I see its effects in how we write compositions and speeches.
As a result of our studies in classical rhetoric, I have not only observed the effects of social and political change on this subject but also the persistent presence of its core ideas in later rhetoric. It is also significant to note the impact of classical rhetoric on our government and society and its role in U.S. history. Indeed, the trials from which these rhetorical ideas emerged reminded me of the issues that plagued our country’s founders. Therefore, I think it is safe to conclude that out of upheaval, new ideas and new interpretations of old ideas will arise. We can clearly see this as a cause of rhetoric’s shift in the classical world from the Sophists to Quintilian.