Advertisement

Argumentation

, Volume 5, Issue 4, pp 347–356 | Cite as

Pierre de La Ramée et le déclin de la rhétorique

  • C. Perelman
Article

Abstract

This article provides a basic general introduction to Ramus, and evaluates his role in the history of logic and rhetoric, especially with relation to the study of argumentation. The author agrees with Ong and other historians of logic that Ramus is not to be taken seriously as a logician, and that his undoubted importance in the history of ideas is to be found elsewhere.

Ramus advocates a belief in nature, experience and reason, and rejects the reliance on the authority of ancient philosophers, above all Aristotle, though ‘experience’ does not mean scientific experiment and, paradoxically, includes the example of great philosophers and writers. In the end Ramus is seen as responsible for substituting for ancient classical rhetoric an entirely ornamental rhetoric of figures which was to take over education (with the exception of the Jesuit schools) almost until our own day. This curtailing and diminishing of rhetoric is seen as a degeneration. Ancient five-part rhetoric had been concerned with convincing and persuading: Aristotle distinguished the analytic, scientific reasoning of logic, from dialectic which was based on opinion and probability and had close links with rhetoric; by the time of Cicero and Quintilian, who addressed themselves to jurists and politicians, logic has given way to dialectic. In the Middle Ages and the Renaissance the two become assimilated; the evolution of this is traced here through the thirteenth-century Summulae logicales of Peter of Spain to the fifteenth-century German humanist logician Rudolph Agricola, who influenced Ramus partly through the intermediary of Johann Sturm. Ramus took over their topical theories but restricted them to logic/dialectic, and left rhetoric with little more than tropes and figures. He believed that there was only one method for teaching all the arts, and one dialectic common to them all. The distinction between analytical and dialectical has disappeared, with far-reaching consequences for the study of argumentation. Over the centuries logic has lost its connection with controversy and persuasion. With the development of the post-Cartesian, post-Baconian emphasis on the clarity of scientific discourse, and the mid-nineteenth-century interest in mathematical and formal logic, the process was complete. Argumentation, or the ‘new rhetoric’, aims to fill the gap thus created.

Key words

Logic dialectic rhetoric scientific analysis opinion and probability ornamentation tropes and figures education argumentation 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bochenski, J.M.: 1981, ‘The general sense and character of modern logic’, in E. Agazzi (ed.), Modern Logic — A Survey, Reidel, Dordrecht, pp. 3–14.Google Scholar
  2. Bréhier, E.: 1939, Histoire de la philosophie, Alcan, Paris.Google Scholar
  3. Dassonville, M.: 1964 (éd.) La Dialectique (1555) de Pierre de la Ramée, Droz, Genéve.Google Scholar
  4. Dumarsais, C.: 1730, Des Tropes, ou des diférens sens dans lesquels on peut prendre un méme mot dans une méme langue, Paris, réimprimé par Slatkine Reprints, 1967, Genéve.Google Scholar
  5. Fontanier, P.: 1821, Manuel classique pour l'étude des tropes, Paris.Google Scholar
  6. Fontanier, P.: 1827, Des figures du discours autres que les tropes, Paris, réimprimé sous le titre Les figures du discours, par Gérard Genette, Flammarion, Paris, 1968.Google Scholar
  7. France, P.: 1972, Rhetoric and Truth in France from Descartes to Diderot, Clarendon Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  8. Gilbert, N.W.: 1960, Renaissance Concepts of Method, Columbia University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  9. Hooykaas, R.: 1958, Humanisme, science et réforme, Pierre de la Ramée (1515–1572), Brill, Leiden.Google Scholar
  10. Howell, W.S.: 1956, Logic and Rhetoric in England, 1500–1700, Princeton.Google Scholar
  11. Ong, W.J.: 1958a, Ramus, Method and the Decay of Dialogue, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
  12. Perelman, C.: 1952, Rhétorique et philosophie, P.U.F., Paris.Google Scholar
  13. Perelman, C.: 1958, La Nouvelle Rhétorique. Traité de l'argumentation (en collaboration avec L. Olbrechts-Tyteca), P.U.F., Paris, 19834, Editions de l'Université de Bruxelles.Google Scholar
  14. Perelman, C.: 1970, Le champ de l'argumentation, Éditions de l'Université de Bruxelles.Google Scholar
  15. Perelman, C.: 1976, Logique juridique, nouvelle rhétorique, Dalloz, Paris, 19792.Google Scholar
  16. Perelman, C.: 1977, L'Empire rhétorique, rhétorique et argumentation, Vrin, Paris.Google Scholar
  17. Talon, O.: 1572, Rhetoricae libri duo P. Rami praelectionibus illustrati, Coloniae Agrippinnae.Google Scholar
  18. Vasoli, C.: 1968, La dialettica e la retorica dell'Umanesimo. “Invenzione” e “Metodo” nella cultura del XV e XVI secolo, Feltrinelli, Milan.Google Scholar
  19. Waddington, C.: 1855, Ramus, sa vie, ses écrits et ses opinions, Meyruis, Paris.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • C. Perelman
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculté de Philosophie et LettresUniversité Libre de BruxellesBruxellesFrance

Personalised recommendations