I am not sure I totally agree with Ramus’s point that scholars of rhetoric do not need a well balanced background in order to be good orators.  In everyday life, I find that people who are smart in many areas tend to be able to speak on a lot of topics and generally have good things to say.  Much of what we have heard in the readings thus far have spoken to what makes a good orator.  It seems to me that Ramus, for some reason, feels the need to attack Quintilian in what he believes to be true of rhetoric.

Perhaps this is because Ramus truly does not agree with Quintilian and finds that if he were to say nothing that he could not go on living with himself.  But the way he argued his point felt awkward to me.  It felt more like an attack than a disagreement.

I feel that a person needs to have a well balanced education in order to be smart.  I am not thoroughly convinced, however, that a person needs a well balanced education in order to speak well.  I think it helps, but at what point does too much education become a hinderance to the speaker?  Vico points out that there is an influx in the amount of information attainable by the people, and that this can hurt them when trying to study a certain subject. This could then be an argument that aligns with Ramus because if a person knows a little about a lot of subjects but cannot master any of them, how can this person be a good orator when asked to speak?

I think that all of these ideas are not congruent with what the nature of the original thought of being a good orator was.  That to speak well, one must have a certain knowledge of all areas of learning.  I think that having a lot of knowledge is a good thing, and if a person can’t filter out what may confuse their argument, they are not that good of a speaker.  Having knowledge shouldn’t be a detriment to the oration skills of a person.  Rather some skill must be lacking if that person can’t focus their speech on the subject at hand.