The old rhetoric vs. the new rhetoric: The quarrel between the ancients and the moderns

Abstract

Between the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries in France, a major controversy occurred among literary and rhetorical critics concerning the nature and purposes of eloquence and the value of rhetorical education. The great classical critics—Boileau, Rapin, and Fénelon—defended rhetoric as traditionally taught and studied. They were opposed by the moderns—Fontenelle, Perrault, and the Port Royalists—who repudiated classical rhetoric and sought to replace it with the Cartesian method and a focus on truth‐establishing discourses unconcerned with style. The present study provides an account of this controversy and its effects on the public's perception of the form and role of rhetoric and eloquence.