In Augustine’s book,
On Christian Doctrine, are borrowed several key points from ancient Roman
rhetoric. Among these are Cicero’s levels or degrees of speaking. We see that
these levels of speaking transverse the passage of time from Cicero, to
Augustine, and now to us. Said Augustine, “Therefore a certain eloquent man (
Cicero) said, and said truly, that he who is eloquent should speak in such a
way that he teaches, delights, and moves. Then he added, ‘To teach is a
necessity, to please is a sweetness, to persuade a victory’”.
Augustine points out
that three tasks of speech or to teach, delight, or move. Today we refer to
these as High (move), middle (please), and low (teach) levels of speech.
Augustine’s sermon was
given on Lent, a 40 day period, prior to Easter, in which Catholic followers
choose something to give up or sacrifice. This sacrifice is to be a symbol and
a reminder of the Greatest Sacrifice ever made. The Kairos of a Lent sermon
would only be fitting, therefore, if it encouraged followers to sacrifice evil
parts of ourselves in return for something better. In this sermon teaching alone wouldn't be enough, action would be required.
It was interesting to
me to notice the different levels of speaking went both hand in hand as well as
on their own.
A good majority of
this sermon was low style, meaning its purpose was to teach. It is evident in
the first paragraph as he teaches about anger and forgiveness that he is teaching.
I notice that it shifts in the 5th
paragraph to high style with “I admonish you…” he begins using phrasing such as
“you are summoning yourselves before your own tribunal” and “seek pardon” “let us all harken, let us all fear…”
The change is subtle
but I wonder if it was because he was talking to a very specific audience. When
he was speaking to everyone about forgiveness it was very low style, but as he
focused in on a group individually it seemed to gradually change to a higher
style of speech
I really like how you brought up the importance of Kairos in order for Augustine's address to be effective. I think that is one of the important elements of this sermon. It would likely have been significantly less effective had it been just some random day with no particular significance. I wonder, do you think we would be as responsive to a conference talk if we heard it out of the conference context?
ReplyDeleteThe sentence in which you state, "in this sermon teaching alone wouldn't be enough, action would be required" really resonated with me. As a result it allowed me to see the large connection between rhetoric and religion and/or religious beliefs. It caused me to think about how often high style is used in religious settings. How often does Christ speak using a high style? What I find so impressive about Christ is that he is able to teach so much but then bring it to a very high style to cause the audience to act and to change. Interesting thoughts.
ReplyDelete