Boethius

Boethius a Roman philosopher held that rhetoric is just a means of using methods to apply arguments. He felt that philosophy and rhetoric differed in that, philosophy (dialect) “deals with general questions, whereas rhetorical argument deals with specific instances (hypotheses)” (Herzberg 486). The reading pointed to the ironic nature of Boethius’s lack of interest in rhetoric since he was so important to the rhetorical theory. His importance in part came in the form of his work The Consolation of Philosophy which he wrote in prison explaining philosophy’s ability to help one cope with preparing for death. He supposed that rhetoric was just applying general rules of argumentation and that it had merely a form based structure.

The reading continues by moving onto this structure in discussing the structure of rhetoric. If the text wasn’t confusing enough already it surely does not get any more understandable here. Though it may be a bit much to rephrase and analyze every one of the listed steps, I feel that much of the substance itself is based on the fact that one was able to put “rhetoric” and its theory into steps for one to learn and it merely solidifies Boethius’s claim that rhetoric was just applying general rules of argumentation and that it had merely a form based structure. The steps aren’t so much steps however as they are sections of rhetoric breaking down all of the different aspects and parts of rhetoric for one to understand.