Turbulance

Trebizond felt that "rhetoric was...devoid of the requirement that the orator be a good man, in the moral sense. Rhetoric was, rather, a pragmatic political art indifferent to morality" (115). This comes just in time for some of the most politically turbulent times in Europe, and also when rhetoric could be used and somewhat manipulated in order for change. Trebizond also felt that memory and delivery were a natural talent not necessarily something one could learn. Since of course he "borrowed" almost all of his writings on the works of Hermogenes without giving him proper credit, it a lot easier to see just how morality seems to have become more of an idea rather than a practice and scholars seemed conflicted about which way to go.

Erasmus set the pendulum of morality swinging again back in favor when he wrote about his views on education. He felt that education should develop "eloquent persons of character" which was rather an idealistic view to say the least. He basically in Praise of Folly makes the reader begin to question traditional wisdom (at least according to Conley as I have not finished reading it myself). This questioning of the traditional is what led reformers like Luther to begin their own writings which questioned things foremost among them the abuses within the Catholic church. What is most interesting about Erasmus is that in Diatriba de libero arbitri he is not promoting his own agenda but merely pointing out the facts that flaw Luther's "certainties." This may have been fascinating to many who read this work, it makes me question the point. It is easy to point out the mistakes that others have made, but by not countering with an alternative, Erasmus can be seen as only playing devil's advocate not really intent on adding anything to the discussion (again here I can only rely on what Conley points out not my own reading).

The other thing that is fascinating is the discussion of certainty that pervades the readings. Augustine felt that the scriptures were "certain," and Luther's writings question Catholic dogma which were at one time "certain" while Erasmus questions Luther's certainty with regard to the scriptures. Then we get Ramus, whose Dialectic aims to critique the ancient rhetoricians and provide us with a "sure method for attaining certainty, and a set of criteria for judgment that enabled one to test the validity of the certainty" (133). But with all of the political evolutions taking place as well as with the advances of civilization this period seems fraught with uncertainty and rhetoric is the only means to navigate it.