I think we cannot separate philosophy from style and delivery, unless someone has some philosophy working at the back of his thoughts than it can be shaped into style and rhetoric. As far as the argument of good man is concerned I interpret Quintilian views in the different way not good man in the sense of virtue, as in the words of Quintilian “I have undertaken to form a perfect orator whom I would have, above all, to be a good man, return to those who have better thoughts of the art.” In my opinion it has nothing to do with virtue as interpreted by Ramus. I think Ramus has made his mind to write against Quintilian without analyzing his thoughts objectively and at the same time trying to force his opinion on others by using the words like stupid, worthless, and useless. Yes very right that he is using these words to convince his readers and these can be called rhetoric devices but I think not a kind of rhetoric devices that can impress readers. I think Ramus is biased in his approach towards Quintilian.  

I think Quintilian is right when he divided rhetoric in five parts that is invention, arrangement, style, memory, delivery. For me three parts work invention, arrangement and memory on the mental level where as style and delivery is connected with speech. All five cannot be separated from each other in the art of oratory.

 I agree with Vico that the totality of the science and arts can develop the intellectual faculties of students. Pursuing knowledge is a continuous struggle. One needs to have knowledge of all the subjects, the knowledge of the past and present as without it one cannot plan for future. Knowledge is a like a cycle of life as one person contributes in the world and goes away and gives place to the next person and cycle goes on, same is the case with the knowledge of the ancients and moderns. The ancients have contributed their parts and to excel in their field it is really important for rhetoricians to have the knowledge of science and arts and, of present and past, and of ancient and moderns. Besides that modern world is a global phenomena and it is dare need to know as much one can. The basis of knowledge comes from the ancients. As for Ramus I think he is biased in his approach toward the ancients. 

 Again I agree with Vico’s interdisciplinary approach. I think writing is present in all the other disciplines but with different approach and pattern. Look at the different kinds of wiring like academic, business, journalistic, report writing practiced in the modern age. In the same way rhetoric across discipline can widen the scope of the argument and make it influential and forceful.

 All the tips given by Bain are really effective but if I can remember them all when I am writing a paragraph. The emphasis on word and sentence order is really crucial in the paragraph writing but it is really interesting to read some of the readings that violate the rules of paragraph writing but are still very effective. Strange!