“Brutus was an honorable man” – Antony, “Julius Caesar”
As I was reading the Erasmus and Luther arguments, that line
from Antony kept coming into my head. Here were two men, each trying to
undermine the other, yet treating each other with respect that was, in some
places, over the top. Eventually, readers of “Julius Caesar” come to see the
honorable line in an ironic light, and I also came to see Erasmus and Luther’s
praise for each other as ironic. They used phrases like “literary prowess and intellectuality”
to build the other up while in the same breath they tore the others argument
apart.
Although they each had different ideals, they both attempted
to persuade—one of the pillars of rhetoric. However, in their modes of persuasion
they highlight a difference between rhetorical theory of the Renaissance and
current rhetorical theory.
 |
| Aristotle |
Rhetorical theory today might argue a different approach than
persuasion: identification. For instance, rhetorical theorist Kenneth Burke, in
his article “Rhetoric, Old and New,” described an idea called the Upward Way
which promotes common understanding before attempting to persuade. LDS
missionaries use this strategy all the time. They focus on common themes
between religions and then add the new ideas of the Restoration onto those
common themes. I wonder what the discourse between Erasmus and Luther would
have been like had they known about identification rather than persuasion.
I think in a way this idea of "upward way" works in a very similar way to the style of the renaissance essay. You start with common ground and then you expand on that based on your perspective and belief on the issue.
ReplyDeleteI hadn't noticed that connection to Antony's speech. However, Erasmus seemed a bit more sincere in his respectfulness to Luther, whereas Luther was very biting and sarcastic in his comments. I'm sure each appealed differently to different audiences, although Luther probably had more freedom to say whatever he wanted.
ReplyDelete