Where Would We Be Without Instructors?

     Due to the fact that the strong majority of the class seems to agree that all three styles were displayed by St. Augustine in the reading, I am going to argue that his style was used for the sole purpose of to simply instruct. Though there may be hints of trying to move the audience, the overall effect was to teach and to instruct as he used the low style. Throughout the entire reading, he would describe and explain specific principles about forgiveness, love, and so forth and then he would continue to back up his teachings with scriptures and biblical references. More than anything, he teaches us to forgive like Christ forgave. I really liked Macey Richardson's post about this principle and how he exploited the kairos to make this point even stronger.

     Kelly's blog post brought up legitimate points about how St. Augustine just seemed a little too intense and memorable to just be part of the low style. However, I would absolutely argue that all of the great teachers and instructors of the world are incredible and memorable. They instruct with passion! Teaching can be fun and exciting and I am sure that if love truly is what is motivating St. Augustine, there is a fire within him to motivate and teach passionately.

     Lastly, in a way, I think I would very much agree with Austin Pena to a certain extent in the fact that if St. Augustine really desired to make something more of his speech and make it a moving, life-changing ordeal he definitely would have bore a personal testimony to conclude. He could have done it in so many better ways if he really wanted to. However, I think it's clear that he uses a very low tone and simply explains things to the audience as he instructs them on biblical history and examples. Overall, I think that St. Augustine was very much capable of making the speech more "moving" if he really want to yet he made it very distinct that his purpose was to instruct.

St. Augustine's got the love

The intermingling of all three styles was very prevalent throughout St. Augustine’s sermon on forgiveness. I’m assuming he is giving this sermon to a congregation of regular people, so the intermingling of the three styles really help to cover all the listeners. But then again wouldn’t this sermon have been given in Latin? Were the people even able to understand Latin? If this sermon was pronounced to group of priests, who could all understand Latin, but also already have a deep understanding of scripture and doctrine- why wasn’t it more intricate? There are several places in St. Augustine’s sermon where he is very clearly using low style for teaching, but I feel the things being taught are pretty fundamental. I don’t know if the low style was intended for the common person who couldn’t understand it, or for the priest who didn’t need it, but I don’t think it was well executed here.

 

Kaunas Cathedral, Lithuania  

St. Augustine’s views on scriptural interpretation really shone through in this Sermon. The whole thing was focused on loving your brother and forgiving him of his trespasses. St. Augustine really hammers this point throughout his sermon. I would have liked to have seen him take a scripture which appears to be in conflict with loving one’s brother and then reasoning it through like he instructed to do in book four of On Christian Doctrine.

I did like how the Author ran through scenarios and explained how one should conduct themselves. I think that this is an example of grand style. He is going methodically through some of the major obstacles of asking or giving forgiveness in a personal matter. Tailoring different scenes to fit different people’s situation is very powerful and motivating. No doubt people’s ears perked up when they heard something which described their situation coming from the pulpit. 

A cry of repentance

 Several members of the class have already made remarks on the separations that St. Augustine makes when giving his sermon. He makes each one in order to reach to all those within his audience. I think that there is more to be said on the grand speech in his sermon

While some note that St. Augustine's sermon is pretty cut and dry in regards to where he puts his style, I would like to add the fact that the entire sermon is entwined with high speech designated at everyone to move them for one single purpose of reminding them of the struggle that it is to forgive and be forgiven. He takes several scriptures, all focusing on the universality of brotherly love, and seeds them through to make his point. For example, early on in the speech, he quotes from the Savior's sermon on the mount and reminds us of the beams in our own eyes. He then compares the pride and anger to a sapling or twig that will grow into a tree blooming in hatred if we do not uproot it ourselves. He uses such eloquent words and phrases to inspire the people to work for their own forgiveness from God and from others.

Now, St. Augustine may not have pulled out any of his own life experiences in his sermon, which would've theoretically won him points in the pathos and ethos categories, but he does retain a symbol of a servant of God and official, which also pulls up his ethos. I think though that he does include himself in his sermon. For one, he never claims exemption, and second, he makes the point that it applies to everyone by using "we". He seems to consider himself part of the group and does not exclude himself at all.

A good orator is his audience... sort of.

"Confessions" by Augustine contains
a lot of his story, this is mostly what
we read from in my Freshman class.

In a class that I had at the University of Utah my freshman year we studied Augustine briefly, but instead of focusing on rhetoric, we focused on philosophy and the intellectual tradition of western civilization, so we read his memoirs and treatises, but none of his sermons. I remember the memoirs most clearly, because in them it seemed like Augustine was putting more trust in his audience by writing about details of his life; I gained a lot of respect for the man because he went through a lot of repentance and had to experience a lot of forgiveness on his path to becoming a Christian, and it seemed like his conversion was as complete as any other I've heard of, he was a changed man. Augustine's sermon for lent would have been more powerful if he would have shared some of those personal experiences that he had. I'm not saying that he needed to confess any of his specific past transgressions, but sharing that he had personally experienced in a real, tangible way what the scriptures had taught him would have added so much power.

The act of personally relating to an audience through personal testimony of his or her experience seems like it could be a part of all three categories of style (high, low, middle). All of you have done a great job describing how all three categories were present in the sermon, I agree, and it was cool to see the arrangement of the sermon and how it effected flow of the oratory style. One interesting part that stood out to me was when he included himself as the audience, "... do not be ashamed to seek pardon. In the same manner I speak to all, men and women, young and old, lay persons and clerics, and to myself, also. Let us all hearken; let us all fear." He puts us all on the same level! But at the same time utilizes high style to try and inspire action.

Most of us think of a good leader as one who works a long side those he leads. My mind turns to Jesus Christ; a great deal of the love and respect that many have for Him stems from the fact that He, the single greatest being in the Universe has been through everything that we go through, He's descended to our level, so that He can lift us up to His level. Augustine kind of does the same when he uses the pronoun "us", but could have done it to a greater extent by sharing relevant personal experiences, which, when effectively done, is done in all three styles: high, low, and middle.

He's our best friend!

The highs and lows of Augustine’s Rhetoric.

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 5^th 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

Does St. Augustine contradict himself?

 In St. Augustine’s De Doctrina Christiana, he speaks of three styles of speaking – to teach (low), to please (middle), and to exhort (high).  While reading his Sermon for Lent I noticed that he used the three different styles combined to reach the goal of an action either to ask for forgiveness or to forgive.  In De Doctrina Christiana he states that there are more useful situations for each style as follows:

• To teach (Low Style) – To those who are unfamiliar with the subject/focus is mostly on clarity and logos.
• To please (Middle Style) – To those who are familiar with the subject and need to hear it in a new way to be reminded of its importance.
• To Move (High Style) – To those who are sinning and must be corrected.

While reading his Sermon for Lent I noticed that he addresses different groups but there is a pattern within each group.  He starts out in the middle style and addresses the whole congregation.  He uses many metaphors like “tree of hatred”, “light shone in their hearts”, and “his heart in his prison” to make the familiar subject of forgiveness seem more interesting.  In this introduction he captures their attention but also makes the distinction that a mortal life “[…] cannot be lived even by a just person without some sins…”  This makes his earlier classification that the high style is to be used with those transgressing seem odd since everyone is a sinner.

               

Then he goes on to speak to the different ways that a person can commit a sin with forgiveness and clearly in the low style explains the situation.  He moves on after stating the proposed situation to exhort them to either ask forgiveness or to give forgiveness to another.  The majority of the sermon is exhorting all members in the congregation to repent so that they can enjoy the observance of Lent with a clear conscience.  

Lend a hand of forgiveness, won't you?

Indeed, I wondered about that confusing last paragraph that Macey mentioned in her post. St. Augustine was really good about anticipating and addressing the questions of his audience otherwise (like Joseph talked about in his post), but this last part seems to be less than clear. Surely he wasn't trying to obscure things, right? That was exactly what he argued against doing in De Doctrina Christiana. Perhaps this is just one of those moments where it is the "difficulty and subtilty of the matter [he is] trying to explain" that makes this confusing for me, and not his expression.

Since others have obviously gone into more depth about that stuff, though, I wanted to note the kairos of St. Augustine's sermon. As the title says, it is "for Lent." I admit, I'm not an expert on Lent--especially not the differences between the Lent of our day and the Lent of St. Augustine's--so I had to look up some stuff about it. As far as I can tell, however, this sermon would have been significantly more powerful because of the circumstances of this holy time. Here the congregation was, remembering the Savior's life, how Judas betrayed Him, and how He suffered in the Garden of Gethsemane and on the cross...and then, after everything, how He asked the Father to forgive His persecutors. St. Augustine really capitalizes on their situation. "Remember how Christ forgave?" he seems to be saying. "That is how you should forgive." (The picture in Thomas's post depicts this rather strikingly.)

In doing this, St. Augustine really shows that he applied a mix of rhetorical and spiritual preparation. By taking notice of the kairos and alluding to the similarity/difference topic of invention (forgiving like the Savior forgives), he was clearly using his rhetorical knowledge. By concentrating on the good word of God, though, he plainly shows his spiritual preparation (the most important of the two, he tells us in De Doctrina Christiana).

Practice What You Preach

In thinking back to Book IV of De Doctrina Christiana, I felt that St. Augustine stayed true to many of the things that he talked about and said were necessary for a Christian Teacher in his sermon around the time of Lent. In his teachings Augustine says that it is the duty of the teacher to “rouse the hearers” so that the listeners are attentive or intrigued enough in the speech before delivering what they want their audience to learn. Augustine accomplishes this well in the first paragraph of the sermon using intriguing thoughts and ending on a metaphor, comparing the differences of anger and hatred. This really gets his audience, as I did me, interested in what he is about to teach. This pleasing style of speech is aimed at getting an audience interested before heaping on the instruction or exhortation.

...St. Augustine would agree.

Another point St. Augustine made in De Doctrina Christiana, which he felt was important for the Christian teacher, was that clarity was of utmost importance, but not at the cost of giving up eloquence. From my own experience, this can be a very difficult thing to do. Often times the cost to be very clear is to cut out much of the “fluff” and decorum of speech. All throughout his speech, Augustine accomplishes a wonderful middle ground, with clear ideas and thoughts backed up by powerful scriptures and beautiful language. One example of this is found in paragraph 6 where Augustine addresses people whose offenders have chosen not to apologize. With the use of a story like scenario that anyone in his audience could apply to themselves he walks them through their situation, eloquently teaching the doctrine and what should be done in this situation. This method of moving the audience is really effective as Augustine attempts to put his listeners into the topic of discussion right then and there.

Wronged, Yet Seeking to Forgive

*I could not figure out how to fix my words being split between lines, so sorry in advance.

Reading through St. Augustine's sermon, I noticed that he was mostly addressing (or at least referring to) forgiveness among masters and servants, but also between brother to brother.  In addition, he called out to those in the audience that have not trespassed against another, but have been trespassed against.  These are the people St. Augustine exhorts to not seek forgiveness for a wrong not done, but to ask God to forgive your brother, to be ready to forgive when the time comes, and to prompt your brother to seek forgiveness.  With this last statement in particular, St. Augustine is most definitely using the high/grand style, as I even used the word "exhort," in order to produce a movement in the audience. 

In so doing, however, does this point of discussion not also encompass the low—and even middle—style?  Advice is given to the audience in a manner of teaching, but is not the middle style also present in that St. Augustine seeks in his sermon to find ways to address and connect to everyone he possibly can?  Such effort to make his words touching and applicable to all, while not inherently pleasing, does to some degree please readers.  

I, for one, read St. Augustine's words and saw the merit in them, but it was not until the very end of the sermon when he said, "Say to the Lord in your prayer: 'Lord, You know that I have not sinned against my brother and that he has sinned against me. You know, too, that his having sinned against me is harmful for him if he does not seek pardon from me. With a good intention, then, I beg You to pardon him.'"  Recently having been wronged through no deserving of my own, these words pleased me in that I was personally spoken to, taught me as to how to react in this situation, and moved me to action.

Does St. Augustine like Anthypophora? Yes, he does.

Anthypophora is when you ask a question and then immediately answer it, or raise an objection and then resolve it. In De Doctrina Christiana St. Augustine states that “the speaker ought to be especially careful to give assistance to those who cannot ask [their questions]” (Book IV, Paragraph 25]. The reason for this is because when giving a speech it is inappropriate for the audience to ask questions, so the speaker must take care of that for them.

In his “Sermon 211 for Lent” he points this out by saying this is his time to speak and their time to listen in silence. As such he raises many objections/questions and then resolves them. Among them are

1.   Paragraph 2: Perhaps we think darkness is like being shut in prison.
2.   Paragraph 3: Perhaps you want to forgive your brother, but he won’t accept it. 
3.    Paragraph 6: There are many here, one example is “Am I going to say ‘go…beg pardon of him?’ no.”

An unanswered question could leave someone feeling left out

 

By raising these issues and then answering them he is doing his audience a favor. He is following his own rule for addressing large crowds. The effect is to ensure that everyone is learning, for if someone is stuck and cannot get past an issue, that person will not be able to follow along as the speaker continues for he will have a bad taste in his mouth and will sour at the speech being given. This would be a lament for the speaker. For his desire is to teach, and if he is turning them off by not answering their questions then they cannot learn what he is there to teach them.

Styles, Similes, and Scripture in Saint Augustine’s Sermon

Style

            In paragraph 1, Saint Augustine introduces the idea of forgiveness in a mixture of all three styles and various rhetorical techniques.  He mostly includes low style to teach his audience about forgiveness, but starts his speech in an exhortation to “not despise these words, my brethren.”  Furthermore, he moves us when he laments about how human it is to get angry: “It is human to get angry: would that we did not have this power!”  He effectively empathizes with his audience through his lament while still decrying anger at the same time.  He also moves into middle style with his simile.  When he speaks of anger, he compares it to a “tender young twig” which is entertaining and instructive simultaneously, so he is combining a low and subdued style with some entertaining middle style by way of simile.

Simile

            Why the simile is so effective for his readers is because it is almost an imitation of traditional scriptural style or even a parable, like Jesus speaking about the olive tree that does not give forth fruit.  So Augustine’s Christian audience already can recognize the simile and learn to “uproot [anger] and cast it out, [so that] it will amount to nothing.”  This simile allows us to visualize anger like a weed or tree and learn how to cast it out.  It also separates anger and hatred from the individual.  Anger is a separate item growing inside the person.  Anger is not the person.

Scripture

            Comparing this simile to the actual scripture of Matthew 7:3 about the beams and the motes allows Augustine to be scripturally backed up with his argument against anger with additional information about how wrong it is to have anger when you have your own problems as well.

Preaching! ..with Style

I saw mostly low and high style in Augustine's speech as he both taught about forgiveness and motivated people to act on his teachings by giving them the guilt trip. There were a few instances of moderate style but they were few and far between.

The Grand Darkness
Augustine's description of the darkness that people who refuse to forgive must walk through he was definitely using a grand level of style. While reading his description you can almost hear his voice drop in suspense and rise in energy. He quotes the scripture in 1 John 3:15 that compares hating a brother to murder, and of course the entire audience knows what happens to murderers.




The Low-ly Father
There were many times that Augustine used low style, but my favorite was the example of the father correcting his son; used to teach the difference between anger and hatred. I have a little brother who assumed that if he was punished it meant our parents no longer loved him. Of course as he got older he learned this was not the case and it really was his fault he was in trouble. I think any parent or older child in the audience would be able to understand this piece of Augustine's teaching.


The Moderate Comfort
Each of the groups that Augustine presented had a task they were given; except for the group that would forgive if their transgressor ever got around to asking them to. Now if Augustine is not asking that group to do anything it can't be grand style (unless you consider him telling them not to do something an exhortation) and he really isn't trying to teach them anything, so it isn't low. That leaves moderate; and I think that makes sense. Moderate style is an attempt to please your audience and I see this section as Augustine trying to comfort that group of people. He tells them that he knows that they have done all that they can I the forgiveness process. That is probably one of the most reassuring things he could say to that group of people after they sat through a lecture about forgiveness without being able to forgive.

Some Days You are the Pigeon . . . Others the Statue

As I read St. Augustine's sermon, I was reminded of this poster. (Specifically as I analyzed the various audiences addressed throughout.) Sometimes, Augustine is talking to the servant, other times the master, and yet in the end he is talking to everyone throughout the whole sermon because we all, at one time or another, find ourselves playing the role of servant or master (we even fulfill these roles simultaneously, much how we can be a child, parent, and sibling all at the same time). This really is a beautiful correlation to religion and how it is designed to be for ALL of us. In regards to audience, Augustine did an excellent job of making his sermon applicable to everyone at any stage of their life. We can be the one needing forgiveness and the one giving forgiveness in the same moment. In this effort to apply to everyone, I felt that the whole style was relatively low and focused on teaching.

The part I liked best in the sermon is where Augustine teaches us how to identify the enemy in paragraph 7. All mankind is "our brother" so he would appear to contradict himself in that section. What would happen if you pray for your enemy to be killed and your brother spared if they are the same person? As I read, I interpreted this to mean that the enemy is an action or feeling. the enemy is a part of the person, not the whole individual. I'm not sure if this is a correct interpretation, but it added insight to the Christian theme of all necessitating forgiveness and opportunity to forgive (even those whom we can't readily perceive as our "brothers").

Ascending through Biblical Rhetoric

Psalms 24: 3-4
"3.Who shall ascend into the hill of the Lord? Or who should stand in his holy place?
4. He that hath clean hands, and a pure heart; who hath not lifted up his soul unto vanity, nor sworn deceitfully."

Adhortio
A commandment, promise, or exhortation intended to move one's consent or desires
Ok, admittedly this may be a stretch, especially since other passages in the Bible exemplify this much better but maybe this will help someone else so they can use it. In a sort of roundabout way, though not quite like circumlocution, God is promising His people that if they follow the standards  in verse four they will get the blessings in verse three in attempt to move them to desire to be good.

Antonomasia
Substituting a descriptive phrase for a proper name, or substituting a proper name for a quality associated with it
"The hill of the Lord" and "his holy place" is in reference to the temple or even to the celestial kingdom, but rather than saying temple, David, the author of this Psalm, makes the scripture more eloquent by describing the holiness of the place and allowing the readers to infer as to where he is talking about.

Anthypophora
To ask and immediately answer one's own questions.
This is rather obvious in this passage, but it allows David to pique his audience's interest and make them ask themselves, "yeah, what would allow me to get to God's presence?" Thus they pay more attention to the answer to the question as opposed to just skimming over the scripture with the attitude of it being "just another commandment."

Taxis
To divide a subject into its various components or attributes.
The subject of the second verse is the type of person who can ascend to the hill of the Lord. David uses Taxis to break down the characteristics, or adjusts, of a person who would be able to achieve that level of salvation and makes it easier for his audience to visualize what type of person they need to be.