Since modern usage of the core terms is essential in the appropriate interpretation of ancient rhetoric texts, the paper starts from a discussion of semantic differences between the concepts of advice, counselling and deliberation in the Polish language. Ancient rhetoric takes as its starting point an overarching notion of ‘deliberative genre’ which includes not only laymen and expert advice, but also the political deliberation. It offers some theoretical categories, universal enough to address these apparently incompatible contexts of advice-giving and advice- taking. Rhetorical approach points out the relation between axiology and persuasive mechanisms. It identifies also some persuasive devices likely to enhance the efficiency of advice-giving, such as the use of examples and reasoning based on probability evaluation.

How we speak of and write about stands, or at least it should stand, in relation what we speak of and write. If such a relation does not exist, or it is little visible for the people involved in the written or spoken message there might occur and often they do important doubts by the latter on its intention or even the assumption of bad intention. However, the existence of a clear dissonance between how we speak and write and what we speak of and write about tends many of these people addressed to perceive it as someone who breaks the norms prevailing in such speaking and writing. Those situations took place and still do often when we speak of and write about religion and religiosity without a sort of deliberation that is linked to seriousness and pompousness or even exaltation. In these remarks I do recall examples of such speaking on one side presented by libertines like M. Montaigne and Voltaire, and on the other by theologisans like St. Augustine. M. Luther and J. Tischner.