Paper 4: Reflection

Reflection

Before this class I was aware of what rhetoric was and its use, but I was not aware of the present extent it has in our everyday lives. This class has pushed me to think in new ways and has greatly improved my writing. From learning the methods of ancient rhetoricians such as Aristotle’s ethos, pathos, and logos I now am able to better acknowledge my audience to meet there needs and better explain my argument. The exploration style of this class has allowed me to acquire a better knowledge of rhetoric and to discover my own communicating and writing rhetoric approach. From the readings, class discussions, blog entries and essays I have found that I am an analyzing learner who communicates by subtly proving my point with factual evidence, forcing my audience to question their own opinions in regards to my own.

            Through the course of this class I found that doing the readings was crucial to fully understanding rhetoric. I found this to be especially true when comparing traditional and modern rhetoric. To understand the components of modern rhetoric one must understand the mechanisms of traditional rhetoric. The methods and techniques of traditional rhetoricians are still greatly used among modern rhetoricians. The readings opened me up to the presence of rhetoric in everyday life, such as advertisements, and helped to shape my opinion of rhetoric. The more I read further into the semester, the more I began to realize that I have a fondness for more traditional rhetorical methods such as Aristotle’s ethos, pathos, and logos. I discovered that I am more of a passionate learner then a factual one, which can be seen from my blog entries and essays. For example in the third essay assigned, I argued that the modern use of scientific proof is not always the most affective. This can be seen from when I said, “Sometimes all the scientific facts in the world cannot convince someone to do something or believe something. Scientific proofs have been deemed the most reasonable and logical, but people still have to believe it is true.” I attempted here to show that dialectic or rhetorical reasoning can be as persuasive as scientific demonstration showing my preference towards traditional methods of rhetoric.

            Along with the readings, the class discussions helped to form my own rhetorical methods and opinions. Although I did not participate often I found it helpful to listen to others opinions and observations to fully develop my own and later apply to my writing. Often I found that many of my classmates had the same views and observations from the readings as me. I found this reassuring to know that I was understanding certain rhetorical topics such as kairos or stasis theory correctly. However, there were times that my classmates pointed out new ways of considering a rhetorical concept. In regards to my writing this was the most helpful. Hearing others interpretations helped me go beyond my own thoughts and apply them to my writing. This is evident from the second assigned essay where I first went over the negative aspects of print on rhetoric before explaining the benefits. Before the class discussion on the effects of print on rhetoric, I only considered the benefits. Hearing others voice their concerns over the negative effects made me want to acknowledge them in my writing. I believe that the class discussions were one of the more important components of this class. Rhetoric is the art of persuasion and part of rhetoric is acknowledging all sides to an argument. Without the class discussions I believe my writing would have been very single minded. 

            The blogs were another way for me to explore my opinion of rhetorical concepts and a way for me to discover my strengths as a rhetorical writer. The freedom of the blogs allowed me to voice my thoughts without methodically trying to support myself as I had to in the essays. When writing the blogs I would skim the readings until I found a point that I found particularly interesting. I tended to focus on more traditional concepts and techniques, especially ones that are still presently used by modern rhetoricians. For instance in my blog discussing the rhetorical use of memory I argued that memory is still used by modern rhetoricians despite the technological advancements that have allowed rhetoricians to not rely heavily on memory. This can be seen from when I said, “It has been argued that this has created a decrease in the need for memory. However, this is not true. Although modern rhetoricians are able to write down what they want to remember, they still have to remember from pure memory how to write and how to use electronic devises.” My present favoritism towards traditional methods of rhetoric in my blog helped me to develop my writing style. From my writing style in my blogs I found that I like to give my audience information from all sides of an argument and then make my point. Also I discovered that I like Aristotle’s method of ethos, pathos and logos, which I attempted to use in my writing. Overall I found the blogs very useful to developing my writing style. The blogs were a way for me to explore my rhetorical writing style before applying it to the assigned essays.

            In the beginning of this class I found writing rhetorically difficult, as it did not follow the standard writing components I had been taught in the past. From the readings, class discussions, and blogs I found that rhetorical writing was much more effective than traditional explanatory writing. In developing my essays, I would gather all the information and research needed, and then write a well thought out outline that followed a methodical plan. In my essays I would try and apply the five canons of writing: invention, arrangement, style, memory, and delivery. I would also try and apply ethos, pathos, and logos. Despite the methods and techniques of other rhetoricians I found that I always returned to Aristotle’s proofs of ethos, pathos, and logos. Whether people are aware of it or not this is how we generally communicate. When making an argument we generally address who our audience is, try and establish our credibility and provide sufficient evidence to prove our point. The essays were challenging at times but I found them to be the most important element of this class. In writing the essays I incorporated what I had learned from the readings, class discussions and blog entries. I was able to improve my strengths as a writer and acquire the skills needed to write sufficiently in a rhetorical manner.

            Overall I feel that I have learned a lot from this course both about rhetoric and myself as a writer. From this class I discovered the presence of rhetoric in everyday life, the influence of traditional rhetoric on modern rhetoric, and most importantly my rhetorical writing style. The required activities of assigned readings, class discussions, blog entries and essays helped to develop my opinion of rhetoric and the methods I found the most useful to my writing. I feel that the skills I have acquired from this course are important both for my academic life and everyday life, and for my future professional life.

Essay 3

Presence of Traditional Rhetoric in Modern Rhetoric

“Rhetoric is the art of ruling the minds of men”-Plato (“Rhetoric Quotes”). Rhetoric has been a part of man’s life for centuries, and as a result has changed with time. It is true that modern rhetoric and traditional rhetoric differ greatly. However, traditional rhetoric is the foundation of modern rhetoric, and therefore still present. The basic devices and techniques of traditional rhetoric are still used by many modern rhetoricians, such as John F. Kennedy in his Inaugural Address. Using affective delivery and pacing, Kennedy demonstrates how modern rhetoric is still largely influenced by traditional rhetoric and has the same effectiveness in persuading and bring together a crowd. Kennedy follows Aristotle’s rhetoric devises of ethos, pathos, and logos by using the rhetorical techniques of anaphora, antimetabole, parallelism and metaphor in an attempt to unify the American public.

            In the beginning of the twentieth century rhetoric was in a decline (Bizzell & Herzberg 1181). This decline was due greatly to a change in people’s way of interpreting and thinking. Factual scientific proofs became more important than inventive arguments, which led to a rejection of the study of invention; a key component of traditional rhetoric. It was at the turn of the twentieth century that rhetoric began to emerge again (Bizzel & Herzberg 1183). For the United States it returned in the form of public speaking (Bizzell & Herzberg 1183). Public speaking classes began to emerge, returning to the traditional categories of invention, arrangement, style, memory and delivery (Bizzell & Herzberg 1184). The rhetorical teachings of public speaking became useful for those pursuing political positions, such as John F. Kennedy, who in his Inaugural Address exemplifies modern rhetoric and its similarities to traditional rhetoric.  This can be seen from his use of delivery. Kennedy attempts to rally the American people, reminding them of their oneness, their duty to society, and the fact that they represent a new generation. In his delivery, Kennedy uses pacing as a way to allow the audience to consider what he has said on their own terms. This is evident from when he says, “to our sister republics south of the border, we offer a special pledge-to convert our good words into good deeds-in a new alliance for progress-to assist free men and free governments in casting off the chains of poverty” (Kennedy). Between each dash Kennedy pauses, a pacing technique that makes his delivery more effective as it allows the audience to consider each individual thought.  In his delivery, Kennedy establishes his creditability through ethos, his emotional appeals through pathos and his reasoning through logos. He uses Aristotle’s rhetorical devices in his delivery in a modern fashion that appeals to his public.

            The first thing Kennedy does in his speech is establish his creditability, or ethos.  Ethos is the character or reputation of a rhetorician, an essential device to gaining the trust of an audience (Crowley & Hawhee 195). Similar to traditional rhetoric, modern rhetoric can establish ethos by referring to a specific person, or the work of a specific person. Kennedy shows his creditability by opening with the line, “Vice President Johnson, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Chief Justice, President Eisenhower, Vice President Nixon, President Truman, reverend clergy, fellow citizens, we observe today not a victory of party, but a celebration of freedom” (Kennedy). Kennedy also specifically mentions “fellow citizens,” a modern rhetorical technique that shows that he is humble and relatable. He further shows his creditability by addressing all those in the world, both from the past and the present. This is done through the use of the rhetorical devise anaphora, which is when repetition occurs at the beginning of each subsequent thought, phrase, clause or sentence (Crowley & Hawhee 428). Kennedy’s use of an anaphora can be seen from when he begins six paragraphs with, “to those old allies,” “to those new states,” “to those people,” “to our sister republics,” “to that world,” and “finally, to those nations” (Kennedy). By using an anaphora, Kennedy is able to fairly address all sides of the situation, which institutes his creditability as a fair and honest person. Establishing his ethos is important for gaining the trust of his audience, but is also useful for showing that he is knowledgeable.

            Another essential part of ethos for a rhetorician is demonstrating ones character (Crowley & Hawee 202). Aristotle said that if we believe that a speaker has “good sense, good moral character, and goodwill,” we are inclined more to believe what the speaker says to us (Edlund). Kennedy was aware of this and demonstrated his good character by showing that he was informed of the United States situation with the Soviet Union and the world. This is apparent from when he says, “The world is very different now. For man holds in his mortal hands the power to abolish all forms of human poverty and all form of human life. And yet the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forebears fought are still as issue around the globe” (Kennedy). Here he acknowledges that there are currently problems in the world, but that man, America has the power to resolve them.

            Along with showing that he is knowledgeable, Kennedy also establishes his good character by referring to the bible. A traditional rhetoric technique for establishing good character is to refer to the work of someone famous. Kennedy uses a reference to the modern religion of Christianity as a way to speak to multiple people. He uses the line, “and to remember that, in the past, those who foolishly sought power by riding the back of the tiger ended up inside” (Kennedy). He also refers to God multiple times throughout his speech, such as when he said, “The belief that the right of man come not from the generosity of the state, but from the hands of God” (Kennedy). Kennedy uses religion as a way to relate to the American public and remind them that they have many of the same hopes and beliefs. His references to God also secure his goodwill, the third essential part of ethos.

            The famous rhetorician Cicero said that goodwill can be won if we refer to our own acts and services without arrogance and by acting humbly (Edlund). Kennedy shows his modesty when he says, “All this cannot be finished in the first 100 days. Nor will it be finished in the first 1,000 days, nor in the life of this Administration, nor even perhaps in our lifetime on this planet. But let us begin” (Kennedy). He shows that he is no different from any individual American citizen, and can only try his best to achieve his goal. This modestly makes him more relatable to the American public and secures his good will as a president. Through establishing his creditability, demonstrating his good character, and securing his good will, Kennedy inhabits the function of the traditional device ethos, with the use of modern references and gestures.

            After creating his ethos, Kennedy continues his use of Aristotle’s rhetorical devices by generating pathos, the appeal to human emotions and passions. Modern rhetoric states that we make decisions on rational thought, but in his work Aristotle pointed out the influential powers of emotions such as anger, pity, fear, envy, joy and so on (Crowley & Hawhee 247). I agree with Aristotle that emotions are our way of “knowing,” influencing our rational thought, and that it is important to know the emotional states of the audience in order to persuade them. Kennedy was aware of the effective use of pathos and used the fear and anger American citizens felt towards the Soviet Union to unify them. He played on the words “we,” “us,” and “our” in an encouraging attitude towards his audience’s patriotism. This can be seen from when he says, “the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans-born in this century, tempted by war, disciplined by a hard and bitter peace, proud of our ancient heritage-and unwilling to witness or permit the slow undoing of those human rights to which this Nation has always been committed, and to which we are committed today at home and around the world” (Kennedy). Here Kennedy creates a common enemy by playing on his audience’s emotions, and then unifies them together by stating that it is “our” duty to work together.

            Kennedy further appeals to the emotions of his audience through the modern rhetorical techniques of parallelism and antimetabole. Parallelism is a figure wherein similar grammatical constructions house different words (Crowley & Hawhee 434). Parallelism is used in the sentence, “if a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich” (Kennedy). Kennedy uses parallelism to make his audience acknowledge that money is not the most important thing, but that people are. This is an emotional appeal to the shame people feel from behaving greedily. Kenney also appeals to the emotion of hope by using an antimetabole, which is a figure that expresses contrasting ideas in juxtaposed structures (Crowley & Hawhee 428). This can be seen from when he says, “let us never negotiate out of fear. But let us never fear to negotiate” (Kennedy). He uses the word fear to encourage his audience to take action boldly and bravely. By affectively appealing to his audiences emotions Kennedy is able to more easily persuade them.

            After achieving his creditability and appealing to his audience’s emotions, Kennedy shows his reasoning, or logos. In modern society, logic and rationality are highly valued over the appeals to the speaker or the emotions of the audience (Edlund). Kennedy follows a more traditional method of logos, using dialectic reasoning over scientific. He uses a call to action to persuade the American public that it is their duty to help their own less fortunate citizens and to help those who are less fortunate around the world. He does this through the use of an antimetabole, which can be seen from when he says, “and so my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you-ask what you can do for your country” (Kennedy). He also uses the literary device of metaphor, which is a trope wherein one word is substituted for another to add emphasis (Crowley & Hawhee 433). Kennedy uses a metaphor in the sentence, “the energy, the faith, the devotion which we bring to this endeavor will light our country and all who serve it-and the glow from that fire can truly light the world” (Kennedy). Kennedy refers to America’s passion as fire and light in an attempt to rally the American public to take action.

            Although Kennedy does not exemplify modern logos, I believe that his use of logos is still effective. Sometimes all the scientific facts in the world cannot convince someone to do something or believe something. Scientific proofs have been deemed the most reasonable and logical, but people still have to believe it is true. Kennedy uses Aristotle’s method of dialectic reasoning by referring to the acts of God and reminding his audience of their duty to society. This can be seen from when he says, “with a good conscience our only sure reward, with history the final judge of our deeds, let us go forth to lead this land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God’s work must truly be our own” (Kennedy). This biblical reference is a deductive reasoning technique that Kennedy uses effectively to persuade his audience to consider their duty to society and acknowledge the influence they have on the world.

            While it is true that rhetoric has changed overtime, modern rhetoric still uses many of the same devices and techniques as traditional rhetoric. This is evident from President John F. Kennedy’s Inaugural Address where he uses Aristotle’s rhetorical devices of ethos, pathos and logos through the rhetorical techniques of anaphora, antimetabole, parallelism and metaphor. Modern rhetoric relies heavily on scientific proofs and rational thought, but Kennedy’s speech demonstrates how effective establishment of creditability, appeal to emotions and reference to shared beliefs can persuade an audience to take action. Overall Kennedys Inaugural Address shows the similarities between traditional and modern rhetoric, and how traditional rhetorical devises can still be effective through the use of modern appeals, beliefs, and references.

Modern and Postmodern Rhetoric

At the beginning of the twentieth century rhetoric was in a decline. The teaching of rhetoric became dismissed until it was reinvented as “discourse” or “dialogism”. The teaching of rhetoric had greatly changed from its traditional teachings. Invention, an essential part of traditional rhetoric was rarely studied because it was believed that knowledge came from the sciences and careful observation. Rhetoric’s new job therefore was to record and transmit knowledge with a minimum of distortion. At the turn of the twentieth century however, rhetoric took a new form of being taught, which was through public speaking classes. This new department that focused on speech gained rhetoric a new popularity, as public speaking became dominated by the traditional categories of invention, arrangement, style, memory and delivery.

While it is true that modern rhetoric differs greatly from traditional rhetoric the presence of rhetoric has never faltered. Rhetoric has changed to fit the modern world. Traditional rhetoric is more obvious, and so people are not usually aware that rhetoric is used in our everyday lives. An advertisement, a lecture, or an academic essay are all examples of rhetoric in the modern world. Modern rhetoric relies heavily on scientific or proven evidence, but it is through the use of delivery and arrangement, key traditional rhetoric techniques, that rhetoric can be used as a convincing argumentum devise. Whether we are aware of it or not rhetoric is a part of our everyday lives and an important skill to possess. This is evident from how many universities require all of their students to take a public speaking class. The ability to speak rhetorically is essential to being successful in life. Although rhetoric has changed greatly overtime, it is still holds the essential uses that traditional rhetoric did. Rhetoric will continue to change as society changes.

Memorys use in Rhetoric

Before the invention of print, memory was a key component of rhetoric and was regarded by ancient rhetoricians as one of the cannons of rhetoric. The rhetorician Cicero regarded memory as important for the retaining or recalling of information, arrangement of speech and recalling other arguments. For ancient rhetors, memory went hand in hand with karios. The rhetorician Quintilian suggested thinking of memory as a “tappable”, a system of signs and symbols that can be used to trigger a name, argument or image. This was also known as a “memory-ready” conditions, where the brain has been trained and organized to recall past memories and information.

The training and practicing of memory was known as artificial memory, which is memory that has been carefully trained and organized to remember things. Ancient rhetors advised their students to think of memory as a literal place and to try and visual what you want to remember when recalling memory. This was extremely important for ancient rhetors since they did not have the accessibility of being able to write down what they wanted to remember.

Modern rhetors are able to rely on writing and electronic storage systems to create artificial memory. It has been argued that this has created a decrease in the need for memory. However, this is not true. Although modern rhetors are able to write down what they want to remember, they still have to remember from pure memory how to write and how to use electronic devises. Writing has given modern rhetors accessibility to literate memory systems such as books, periodicals and libraries. Electronic memory systems have vastly improved both artificial memory and literate storage facilities.

Although modern rhetors may not rely as heavily on memory for their rhetorical arguments, memory is still a key component of rhetoric and used by modern rhetoricians.

Giambattista Vico

During the Enlightenment era many rhetoricians argued what was truly knowledge and the means of understanding and finding truth. Many such as Descartes argued that mathematics and science were the only legitimate sources of knowledge. The rhetorician Giambattista Vico criticized Descartes idea, insisting that language is a crucial part of knowledge. Vico sought to reconcile the humanism views of the Renaissance but with a modern non-Cartesian science approach. Vico believed that without language humans would be lost because language reveals the process of reason, passion, imagination, social conventions and historical circumstances. What humans believe to be true is what they have stated is true overtime. Therefore history is crucial to understanding what is true. Through history, human nature and language give shape to the social relations and institutions of our world. Vico created three stages through which human history evolves: the poetic, the heroic, and the human. The poetic generates knowledge by metaphor. The heroic is developed through nations by a system of laws to preserve organization of society. The human through a self-conscious study of human knowledge leads to a greater equity in law and democracy in politics.

Personally I agree with Vico’s ideas. Withough language, knowledge is not truly possible. Language is needed to create ideas and thoroughly work them out. I also agree with Vico that history has determined what we know to be true. Language is crucial to the development of humans and overall knowledge. As Vico said, without language humans would be lost.

Enlightenment Rhetoric

The Enlightenment era during the seventeenth and eighteenth century was a time of great change for Europe. During the Enlightenment era the focus was primarily on science and religion and finding truth. In this search for truth, rhetoric under went many changes. During the Renaissance, rhetoric focused on style and delivery. Peter Ramus’s ideas were among the most popular during the Renaissance. The Enlightenment era threw away Ramus’s ideas and returned to the Ciceronian traditional conception of rhetoric that focuses on the five cannon’s of rhetoric.  With this return to Cicero’s ideas of rhetoric, rhetoric became closely associated with genres of history, poetry and literary criticism. Those who focuses their rhetorical arguments on literary judgment were known as belletrists.

Since Ramus’s stylistic approaches to rhetoric were dismissed, a new style was called for. Science attacked rhetoric, saying that rhetoric obscured the truth. This notion was popular during the Enlightenment era, which caused rhetoric to form a plainer, simpler style. This was known as the elocution movement, that offered many instructions including correct pronunciation.

The Enlightenment era searched for truth primarily within the government and the church. Since science deemed traditional rhetoric has an obscurity from the truth many began to think of rhetoric differently. John Locke was one rhetor who explored new philosophies of rhetoric. Locke attempted to search for truth in the physical world and understand knowledge as a psychological phenomenon. Locke focused on the idea of reflection, which means to relate ideas together. He also focused on the power of words, thinking of them as arbitrary signs for our sensations and ideas.

The Enlightenment era was a great time of change for rhetoric. The primarily fact based rhetoric we have today began during the Enlightenment era as people attempted to understand how things worked scientifically.

Essay 2: How print has affected rhetoric

The Beneficial Effects of Print on Rhetoric

Francis Bacon said, “We should not force, effect, and consequences of inventions which are nowhere more conspicuous then in those three which were unknown to the ancients, namely, printing, gunpowder, and the compass. For these three have changed the appearance and state of the whole world…” (Eisenstein 43). It is apparent from Francis Bacon’s statement that he considered there to be consequences to advancements in technologies, one of these being print. This can be more closely examined in regards to the effects of print on rhetoric. Now, while there have been negative effects to the invention of print on rhetoric, the benefits greatly outweigh them. The invention of print was able to expand rhetoric to the masses, gave availability for the formation of new opinions of rhetoric, and created a larger shared network of cultural definitions of logos, ethos, and pathos. These benefits have overtime formed the modern rhetoric that is widely available to those who wish to study it.

            To fully understand the beneficial effect of print on rhetoric the negatives must first be addressed. One downfall of the effects of print on rhetoric was the change of delivery by the rhetoricians. Before the invention of print, or even writing, a rhetorician often created their speeches in the moment of delivery. This gave opportunity for the rhetorician to play on the emotional appeals of the audience and to expose their passion in the topic. With print, rhetoricians lost their passion in their argument, making for deliveries that can sometimes seem dry or boring.  However, the availability of print has allowed rhetoricians to examine their audience more closely; focusing on the audience environment, opinions, and culture definitions. By doing this a rhetorician is able to gather evidence that will seem relevant to their audience and better persuade the audience to the rhetorician’s argument.

            Another unfortunate negative effect from print on rhetoric is the concept of product over activity. Ancient rhetoricians were not focused on the product of their rhetorical speeches but the activity itself (Crowley and Hawhee 19). Before the invention of print, rhetors believed highly in the power of language and the situations which allow rhetorical arguments to arise (Crowley and Hawhee 21). Rhetoric was a way to achieve knowledge and also a past time.

The invention of print changed the focus of rhetoric to the overall product. This was due heavily on prints need to create a profit. Elizabeth Eisenstein stated in her book The Printing Press as an Agent of Change that there was a satisfaction for printers in making money for themselves while enhancing the reputation of the author (Eisenstein 17). This is another aspect of the idea of profit over activity. Print allowed rhetoricians to be able to sell their work, something ancient rhetoricians were unable to do. This changed the view of rhetoric largely, because many rhetoricians wrote arguments that agreed with the large opinions of society in order to make a profit. This is an unfortunate cost of the invention of print, but in a capitalist society it was bound to occur eventually, whether through print or by other means. Despite this negative, there are many benefits given to rhetoric from the invention of print.

            One of the largest advantages of print was the availability of expansion it gave to rhetoric. Print allowed people from all parts of the world to be exposed to rhetoric. This increased literacy and education (Kreis). Before the invention of print, rhetoric was limited to being taught to lawyers, medical professionals, and politicians (Bizzell and Herzberg 556). The rapid availability print gave to rhetoric allowed people of all classes and professions to have the opportunity to study rhetoric. The expansion of rhetoric allowed more people to have understanding of the practices of rhetoric, which led to questions against the church and government (Bizzell and Herzberg 557). The more people understood rhetorical techniques, the less people were manipulated by politicians and religion. 

Eisenstein states in her text that, “the more printed materials accumulate, the more we are inclined to overlook them in favor of more recent, less familiar media” (Eisenstein 17). I however do not believe this is true. The expansion of rhetoric led to an increased interest in the studies of ancient rhetoricians. Especially in the Renaissance era, that was known as the “information revolution” (Kreis).   This is evident from the famous Renaissance rhetorician Francesco Petrarch who advocated Cicero’s concepts of humanitas (674). Petrarch admired Cicero for his statement that “all men should combine literary art, moral philosophy and civic responsibility to rhetoric” (Bizzell and Herzberg 566). This was a concept that was adopted by many including the rhetorician Peter Ramus who created a simplified version of rhetoric to be taught more easily. Ramus separated rhetoric, that he referred to as philosophy, into ten spheres of topics, and created an arrangement that followed a structure of syllogism (Bizzell and Herzberg 674). This allowed many to easily adopt rhetoric techniques into their everyday lives as Ramus’s methods “simplified as it universalized”(Bizzell and Herzberg 675), which further expanded rhetoric.

With the increased expansion of rhetoric, the opportunity for new rhetorical techniques and opinions emerged from print. As mention previously, the renaissance rhetorician Peter Ramus created a simplified form of rhetoric that was meant for the use of the common person, not for the highly educated aristocrats it had been previously secluded to. Many adopted Ramus rhetorical style and were able to apply it to their own rhetorical ideas. Printing also prevented the further corruption of texts that occurs from hand copying (Kreis). Before the invention of print it was common for a rhetoricians work to be altered by the person copying it, either by purpose or accident. Changes in a rhetor’s work from hand copying could be departmental to the rhetorician as it could alter their opinions perceived by their audience. Printing made it possible for a rhetorician’s original work to be available to all.

 Comparisons were then able to be made, as all scholars examined the same piece of work. This opportunity to share opinions and create new rhetorical techniques opened the door for many individuals striving to pursue knowledge of rhetoric’s, including women.  Before the invention of print, rhetoric was primarily secluded to men. Female rhetoricians such as Aspasia, Diotima, or Hortensia existed, but their work was often overlooked in favor of male rhetoricians. The expansion of rhetoric brought by print opened the doors for female rhetoricians, which brought about new views of rhetoric that had not been explored before. One example is Laura Cereta, an Italian humanist of the 15^th century who fought for women’s right to education and against the oppression of married women (Haraguchi). Cereta attacked her male counter-parts by composing Latin letters in the form of orations and invectives, which forced both men and women to consider the role of the women in society (Haraguchi). This called attention to long standing cultural norms. Like many other rhetoricians after the emergence of print, Cereta forced society to create new cultural definitions of logos, ethos, and pathos that has led to the current modern version of rhetoric we have today.

Overtime cultural definitions change to fit the current needs and opinions of the people. Print escalated the need to create a large scale network of shared cultural norms, which include norms in regards to rhetoric of logos, ethos, and pathos. Logos, or logical proofs referring to reason. In thinking of logos, one must acknowledge the premise of the argument, a premise being a statement supposed or assumed before the argument (Crowley and Hawhee 159). If the premise is widely shared, which can be done through the use of print, than it is easier for the rhetorician to make their argument. For instance if a rhetorician uses the premise all cats are mammals, then the rhetorician would be able to argue that a jaguar is part of the feline family because feline’s are mammals. This is similar for ethos, or ethical proofs and pathos, or pathetic proofs. Through the use of print, society at large can share cultural norms that rhetoricians can use as evidence for their arguments. This can be useful especially when trying to unify an organization or even a country.

It is true the invention of print brought about negative aspects to rhetoric such as style delivery and the concept of product over activity. However, the benefits print has brought to rhetoric greatly outweigh the negatives. Print has expanded the availability of rhetoric, which has led to the formation of new opinions, and led to a shared network of rhetorical cultural norms. This has greatly advanced the literacy and education of society. Rhetoric before the invention of print was limited to primarily male aristocrats. The invention of print has allowed rhetoric to be available to all classes, genders and professions, which can clearly only be beneficial.