What do you think?
Rate this book
Theology, Rhetoric, Manuduction: Or Reading Scripture Together on the Path to God
In "Theology, Rhetoric, Manuduction," Peter Candler re-reads a number of medieval texts and demonstrates that they were intended as vehicles not for the transmission of data, but for the leading of readers to contemplation of God. Like medieval maps with their intricate illustrations, skewed proportions and omissions of details that to us today seem crucial, medieval works of theology were designed not to depict an objective overview for disinterested study, but were meant to provide an itinerary for individuals traveling a specific route. To read was to be taken by the hand, in a process called manuduction, and to join fellow travelers on a journey to a particular goal. In "Theology, Rhetoric, Manuduction," Candler is recovering this understanding of reading and doing theology and illustrates how it can enrich our present understanding of great works of medieval scholarship. He begins with the invention of printing in the 16th Century and the change of the bible from liturgy in worship and community to a physical object, a book and with it the birth of our modern understanding of scripture. He then turns to Augustine's understanding of rhetoric, examined in a critique of the Confessions. Then two texts, "Glossa Ordinaria" (a 12th-century glossed bible) and "Aquinas' Summa Theologiae" are read in terms of the concepts of memory and itinerary. The former, Candler believes, is an "iconic illustration of the mutual indwelling of Christ and the Church," rendering the notion of separating Scripture from tradition absurd and the latter he views as a "curriculum of persuasion" which leads readers by manuduction along a path towards union with God.
204 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2006
2 people are currently reading
13 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
June 5, 2010
While Theology, Rhetoric, Manuduction: Reading Scripture Together on the Path to God wasn't quite the book I expected it to be, it was a volume that presents several "action items" for my continued personal growth as an amateur theologian (so are we all) and as a student of how rhetoric invigorates ancient texts. One is to reread the Summa Theologiae of St. Thomas Aquinas as it was intended to be read and another is to involve more dialogue in my presentations of interpretations of biblical and theological texts. Another is to craft my own sermons and presentations using better rhetorical technique and another is to read more widely in historical theology as part of participating in the tradition of biblical interpretation. In case it is relevant, I thought Peter Candler would be moving from his examples of how texts were "read" as rhetoric (and even dialogue, if you will) in the medieval period to suggestions of how to read texts together in the present era. I was expecting the book to sharpen my awareness of rhetorical conceits and techniques such that I might use different approaches in my own study of theology and the Bible.
Instead, Candler effectively demonstrated the particular disservice that both the Dominicans who followed St. Thomas Aquinas did to the good doctor's work by dividing the text into three parts (God, Ethics, Christ) in much the same way modern systematic theologians usually divide their work into the three volumes of God, Christ, and a final volume on Anthropology, Ecclesiology, Eschatology, and Ethics. Candler presents a compelling argument for Aquinas building his magnum opus like an itinerary. Interestingly, the itinerary can best be stated by Hugo of St. Victor, "We run to God along the road to God." (quoted on p. 112). In the end, Candler finds the reality of "reading Scripture together" in the liturgy of the Eucharist. He is right, as far as he goes, but it wasn't exactly what I was expecting.
As a professor of Ethics (albeit it Ethics in Games and Cinema) at a Catholic university, this volume was much needed as a corrective for me. I am precisely the type of reader of the Summa Theologiae that Candler criticizes. Particularly in terms of ethics, I tend to dive into the Second Part of the Summa in search of salient quotations and arguments. In terms of theology, I have largely spent my time in the First Part of the work. As a result, I had missed the delightful "ritual-architectural" structuring of the work like a great Gothic cathedral. And, like the McDermott "concise translation" of the classical work, I have tended to be impatient with the dialogue format of the entire book--often skipping to the final conclusion to see what Thomas himself had to say. As a result, I ignored the spirit of the work. One of my action items is to actually read the book as it was intended, a journey in which one listens to the dialogue as a debate between sincere thinkers who are trying to get a grasp on things ultimately "ineffable."
This concept of needing to listen to others who are sincerely trying to grasp ineffable ideas and make enough sense out of them to affect one's own life (and presumably those of other people) in a positive, transforming way is a much needed corrective in my life. I have this tendency to delve into my independent study and weave together my tapestry of connections (complete with the loose-ends of my personal conundrums) and present it as a fait accompli to anyone foolish enough to listen. Yet, I truly appreciated the early emphasis in this book that modern theology is a grammar of representation carefully locked into building blocks of logic while medieval theology was a grammar of participation, an "art of the weak" where the work is never completely done (p. 39). His very valid contention is that we need more of a sense of continuing to work on theology which is a reflection on and participation in God's self-knowledge (p. 110). With that, I can resonate.
Here are some of the aspects of the book (out of many) that I found interesting. I particularly liked Candlers observation that, for St. Augustine, orthodoxy was not merely right-ordered thinking or belief but that it properly led to right-ordered praise (p. 52). Augustine believed good teaching instructed listeners with regard to knowledge, but delighted them in order to hold their attention, and was designed to persuade them (lit. "conquer their minds")to action (p. 58). This challenges me to sharpen my conclusions when preaching and teaching to be certain that listeners know that there is something they can do.
Candler speaks of three interrelated trinities of good preaching/speaking: disposition, learning and practice related to memory, understanding and will which, in turn, correspond to Augustine's delighting, teaching, and moving (p. 61). Combined with other rhetorical hints, this could almost be a seminar in preaching. The classical rhetoricians helped their students memorize by first getting them to identify loci or "places" which would be associated with the knowledge (p. 148) [think of this as the architectural outline of one's presentation:]and "images" which are as extravagant and colorful as possible to excite and embed that knowledge in the "places" where one wants to keep it (pp. 149-150) [think of this as illustrations which hook the knowledge into the right order of place:].
One point where I am not completely convinced is in Candler's idea that when Aquinas and the medieval doctors speak of "reading within," is "not just the inviolable privacy of the mind, but within the continuing traditio of the Church." (p. 165) I understand where he is coming from and this helps me to be more comfortable with the Catholic idea of the need for both Scripture and Tradition in order to have orthodoxy. However, I suppose I am still Protestant enough to note that tradition (even in, or especially in, Protestant denominations) can go awry and become distorted. So, I am still uncomfortable with the "authority" of tradition even as I recognize the need for individual interpretation and speculation to be "corrected" by the overall fellowship of many truth-seekers, I hesitate to accede full authority to a majority rules type of interpretation. We need to influence each other as believers, but not stifle each other.
All in all, Candler's Theology, Rhetoric, Manuduction: Reading Scripture Together on the Path to God is an interesting book that challenged both my intellect and my will. It points me to other vital areas of study in rhetoric and theology. It isn't the kind of book I'll read over and over (not like Pannenberg, Tillich, and Thielicke), but it will be on my shelf to challenge me for years.
Instead, Candler effectively demonstrated the particular disservice that both the Dominicans who followed St. Thomas Aquinas did to the good doctor's work by dividing the text into three parts (God, Ethics, Christ) in much the same way modern systematic theologians usually divide their work into the three volumes of God, Christ, and a final volume on Anthropology, Ecclesiology, Eschatology, and Ethics. Candler presents a compelling argument for Aquinas building his magnum opus like an itinerary. Interestingly, the itinerary can best be stated by Hugo of St. Victor, "We run to God along the road to God." (quoted on p. 112). In the end, Candler finds the reality of "reading Scripture together" in the liturgy of the Eucharist. He is right, as far as he goes, but it wasn't exactly what I was expecting.
As a professor of Ethics (albeit it Ethics in Games and Cinema) at a Catholic university, this volume was much needed as a corrective for me. I am precisely the type of reader of the Summa Theologiae that Candler criticizes. Particularly in terms of ethics, I tend to dive into the Second Part of the Summa in search of salient quotations and arguments. In terms of theology, I have largely spent my time in the First Part of the work. As a result, I had missed the delightful "ritual-architectural" structuring of the work like a great Gothic cathedral. And, like the McDermott "concise translation" of the classical work, I have tended to be impatient with the dialogue format of the entire book--often skipping to the final conclusion to see what Thomas himself had to say. As a result, I ignored the spirit of the work. One of my action items is to actually read the book as it was intended, a journey in which one listens to the dialogue as a debate between sincere thinkers who are trying to get a grasp on things ultimately "ineffable."
This concept of needing to listen to others who are sincerely trying to grasp ineffable ideas and make enough sense out of them to affect one's own life (and presumably those of other people) in a positive, transforming way is a much needed corrective in my life. I have this tendency to delve into my independent study and weave together my tapestry of connections (complete with the loose-ends of my personal conundrums) and present it as a fait accompli to anyone foolish enough to listen. Yet, I truly appreciated the early emphasis in this book that modern theology is a grammar of representation carefully locked into building blocks of logic while medieval theology was a grammar of participation, an "art of the weak" where the work is never completely done (p. 39). His very valid contention is that we need more of a sense of continuing to work on theology which is a reflection on and participation in God's self-knowledge (p. 110). With that, I can resonate.
Here are some of the aspects of the book (out of many) that I found interesting. I particularly liked Candlers observation that, for St. Augustine, orthodoxy was not merely right-ordered thinking or belief but that it properly led to right-ordered praise (p. 52). Augustine believed good teaching instructed listeners with regard to knowledge, but delighted them in order to hold their attention, and was designed to persuade them (lit. "conquer their minds")to action (p. 58). This challenges me to sharpen my conclusions when preaching and teaching to be certain that listeners know that there is something they can do.
Candler speaks of three interrelated trinities of good preaching/speaking: disposition, learning and practice related to memory, understanding and will which, in turn, correspond to Augustine's delighting, teaching, and moving (p. 61). Combined with other rhetorical hints, this could almost be a seminar in preaching. The classical rhetoricians helped their students memorize by first getting them to identify loci or "places" which would be associated with the knowledge (p. 148) [think of this as the architectural outline of one's presentation:]and "images" which are as extravagant and colorful as possible to excite and embed that knowledge in the "places" where one wants to keep it (pp. 149-150) [think of this as illustrations which hook the knowledge into the right order of place:].
One point where I am not completely convinced is in Candler's idea that when Aquinas and the medieval doctors speak of "reading within," is "not just the inviolable privacy of the mind, but within the continuing traditio of the Church." (p. 165) I understand where he is coming from and this helps me to be more comfortable with the Catholic idea of the need for both Scripture and Tradition in order to have orthodoxy. However, I suppose I am still Protestant enough to note that tradition (even in, or especially in, Protestant denominations) can go awry and become distorted. So, I am still uncomfortable with the "authority" of tradition even as I recognize the need for individual interpretation and speculation to be "corrected" by the overall fellowship of many truth-seekers, I hesitate to accede full authority to a majority rules type of interpretation. We need to influence each other as believers, but not stifle each other.
All in all, Candler's Theology, Rhetoric, Manuduction: Reading Scripture Together on the Path to God is an interesting book that challenged both my intellect and my will. It points me to other vital areas of study in rhetoric and theology. It isn't the kind of book I'll read over and over (not like Pannenberg, Tillich, and Thielicke), but it will be on my shelf to challenge me for years.
April 30, 2016
This was an extremely dense book arguing that medieval and ancient literature was intended for spiritual and character growth, not an info-dump of facts in an abstract collection. He argues that with the onset of the enlightenment, the view of reality changed and with it a change in our understanding of the purpose of education. Before, education was about deepening the soul and great works were intended to guide the reader through a landscape of transformation, whereas now we view academic work as the assembly of facts in the mind, which does not effect transformation. He then walks the reader through some of Augustine's and Aquinas's work to demonstrate this point. The book was so dense that I'm not sure how many outside of PhD programs will care to wade through it for its insights, and could really use a more popular statement.
Want to read
February 12, 2015Kalani mentioned this as one of the books informing the methodology of her dissertation (on the grammar of participation in 17c poets).
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews