(1999). From writers, audiences, and communities to publics: Writing classrooms as protopublic spaces. Rhetoric Review: Vol. 18, No. 1, pp. 165-178.

Jim W. Corder. Uses of Rhetoric. Philadelphia: Lippincott, 1971. 230 pages.

Margaret Cavendish has been getting more attention recently as a controversial, prolific, sometimes brilliant, sometimes unintelligible British writer in latter half of seventeenth century.' I approached Cavendish's writings soon after reading essays in Reclaiming Rhetorica, and I noticed in many of her works an intriguing view of composition style. She advocated consistently that fancy and adornment were appropriate stylistic ingredients in scientific and historical prose. This is especially surprising in that Francis Bacon, Thomas Hobbes, and Thomas Sprat targeted science and history as areas in which fanciful and elaborate writing styles had no place. The rise of moder expository prose, with its idea of mimetic disinterestedness, can, in part, be traced back to these well-known calls for stylistic plainness and purity in seventeenth century. Cavendish, however, was not sympathetic to early moder calls for stylistic plainness. She was well read in natural philosophy and had contact with figures such as Sprat, Hobbes, Walter Charleton, Rene Descartes, and Pierre Gassendi. Gassendi's critique of Descartes influenced significantly Cavendish's own antiCartesian, vitalistic view of nature as an intelligent, self-moving, and purposeful entity, not a set of de-animated corpuscles.2 In addition, Cavendish followed closely meetings of Royal Society, and she was well aware of Society's calls for a plain, nearly mathematical style of composition. She attended a meeting in May of 1667, first woman ever to do so, and her attendance drew strong reactions from several members who disapproved of her scientific speculations, her fanciful writing style, and her elaborate clothing as well, as Samuel Pepys notes in his dairy (8:243). Undoubtedly, Cavendish's decision to write scientific and historical prose in elaborate styles was an informed decision, and her style should therefore be seen as a form of dissent directed against her age's escalating positivism. Until recently, Cavendish's writings have been characterized in large part by their excesses, including their proliferating and extravagant stylistic qualities, a characterization that began in her own time. As Henry Perry suggests in his 1918 dissertation on Cavendish, the Duchess's lack of restraint in writing was

Robert Scholes. The Rise and Fall of English: Reconstructing English as a Discipline. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1998. Pp. Xiv + 203. Sharon Crowley. Composition in the University: Historical and Polemical Essays. Pittsburgh: Pittsburgh University Press, 1998. Xi + 306 pages. W. Ross Winterowd. The English Department: A Personal and Institutional History. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1998. Xii + 261. Molly Meijer Wertheimer, ed. Listening to Their Voices: The Rhetorical Activities of Historical Women. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1997. 408 pages. $47.50 cloth; $24.95 paper. Mary Lynch Kennedy, ed. Theorizing Composition: A Critical Sourcebook of Theory and Scholarship in Contemporary Composition Studies. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press, 1998. 405 pages. John Schilb. Between the Lines: Relating Composition Theory and Literary Theory. Portsmouth: Boynton/Cook, 1996. Xv + 247. Hephzibah Roskelly and Kate Ronald. Reason to Believe: Romanticism, Pragmatism, and The Teaching of Writing. Albany, NY: State U of New York P, 1998. xiv + 187 pages. Thomas Newkirk. The Performance of Self in Student Writing. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook Heinemann, 1997. xiii + 107 pages. Kay Halasek. A Pedagogy of Possibility: Bakhtinian Perspectives on Composition Studies. Southern Illinois University Press, 1999. 223 pages.

Since classical times, rhetorical education has been concerned with training in the civic functions of discourse-with young people to talk about public issues responsibly and articulately. And unsurprisingly, those who study and teach rhetoric have often faced public scrutiny and have been compelled to defend their pedagogical and philosophical views. One current battle over the public function of rhetorical education centers on the politically charged writing pedagogies that emerged in our discipline during the early 1990s. These approaches, commonly dubbed radical teaching or teaching, and whose most prominent advocates include James Berlin (Rhetoric), Patricia Bizzell (Academic), Susan Jarratt (Feminism), and Mary Louise Pratt (Arts), reject the notion that college writing courses should be ideologically neutral spaces dedicated to nurturing students' individual expression. Rather, these scholars hold, rhetorical instruction should prepare to deal critically with the arguments they encounter in the dominant culture and empower them to produce texts that resist those values. And thus, they argue, writing instructors have an obligation to cultivate in an appreciation for progressive political values, a sensitivity to injustice, and an ability to debate divisive issues-skills best developed through confrontational classroom exchanges. The range of practices these scholars advocate includes asking to engage with texts written from perspectives vastly different from their own (Bizzell, Academic 283-84), to debate heated questions in class (Jarratt 118-19), and to adopt a critical stanceoften the teacher's own-toward mainstream ideologies (Berlin, Rhetoric 3637). Yet despite its lofty goals, critical has faced criticism on multiple grounds. Opponents like Maxine Hairston decry the very goals of such pedagogy, charging that it puts dogma before diversity, politics before craft, ideology before critical thinking, and the social goals of the teacher before the educational needs of the students (Diversity 180). More recently, Stephen

(1999). The rhetoric of citation systems—Part II: Competing epistemic values in citation. Rhetoric Review: Vol. 17, No. 2, pp. 219-245.

Certainly the most famous comments writing as a material act occurring in material conditions are those of Virginia Woolf in A Room of One's Own. When Woolf says it is necessary to have five hundred [pounds] a year and a room with a lock the door if you are to write fiction or poetry, she means to be taken quite literally; women cannot write unless they have both a place to go that is away from unwanted intrusions and an income that makes them independent from men and thereby grants them time to write. lock the door means that the writer literally cannot be interrupted by a child in need, a husband with a question, a neighbor with a story. Woolf indicates, of course, that the room and the lock are also symbolic; the five hundred a year, she says, stands for the power to contemplate, the lock the door means the power to think for oneself' (110).' Almost sixty years later in The Fisherwoman's Daughter, Ursula Le Guin revisited Woolf's argument about the necessary material conditions for women writers. Le Guin begins by documenting the experiences of women who did not have rooms of their own. She describes, for example, the experiences of Harriet Beecher Stowe, who wrote in the dining room where, she says, there was all the setting of tables and clearing up of tables and dressing and washing of children, and everything else going on (qtd. in Le Guin 220). In contrast, points out Le Guin, Joseph Conrad benefited from a wife whose conscience was engaged to the full, hour after hour, after day in meeting the writer's needs (223). Le Guin acknowledges the gross inequity in the writing situations of male and female writers, but she argues that women need not have rooms of their own-material conditions for composing that are free from domestic intrusions-in order to write. She describes, for example, the writer Margaret Oliphant who felt that writing profited from the difficult, obscure, chancy connection between the art work and emotional/manual/managerial complex of skills and tasks called 'housework,' and that to sever that connection would put the writing itself at risk, would make it, in her word, unnatural (222). Le Guin argues that to write about being a woman is to write about the very experiences of disruption and chaos that constitute the material environment for composing. In other words, one can write and bring up children at the same time; in fact, the raising of children enriches the writing.

Whether Plato coined the word rhetoric, what is striking is that he was the first to attempt to make it disappear.' My argument may well add some strength to Schiappa's contention that Plato may have coined the word by suggesting that to make something disappear, one would need to be dealing with something like a well-defined object (though entering directly into the heart of these often heated debates is not the focus of this essay) (Did Plato Coin the Word Rhetorike?; Neo-Sophistic Rhetorical Criticism). If Plato desires to make disappear, as I shall argue he did at least in the Gorgias, then it behooves him to have a well-articulated target of concern. If it is the case that naming a set of practices helps to constitute those practices as an object domain, then it makes sense to suggest that Plato has cause to name a set of practices rhetoric so as to be able to deal with them.

(1998). Rhetorical style and the formation of character: Ciceronian ethos in Thomas Wilson's Arte of Rhetorique. Rhetoric Review: Vol. 17, No. 1, pp. 93-106.

Anne Ruggles Gere. Intimate Practices: Literacy and Cultural Work in U.S. Women's Clubs, 1880–1920. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1997. 367 pages. George A. Kennedy. Comparative Rhetoric: An Historical and Cross‐cultural Introduction. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998. 238 pp. Cheryl Glenn. Rhetoric Retold: Regendering the Tradition from Antiquity through the Renaissance. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1997. 236 pages. Michael Bernard‐Donate and Richard R. Glejzer, eds. Rhetoric in an Antifoundational World: Language, Culture, and Pedagogy. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1998. 468 pages. $35.00 hardback. Gary A. Olson and Todd W. Taylor, eds. Publishing in Rhetoric and Composition. Albany. SUNY Press, 1997. 247 pages.

The history of literary societies in academia has been little studied. The few discussions of the societies have centered primarily around eastern universities and have marked the societies' decline as coming in the mid-to-late 1800s. However, the literary societies survived at many Midwestern colleges, both public and private, for several decades into the twentieth century. The societies embody rhetoric-in-practice and are interesting in terms of their social structure, their intellectual activities, and what they tell us about the position of rhetoric in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Their eventual decline is brought about by a number of forces, some predictable and some not. Academic literary societies, which existed in strength in the Midwest from about 1830 to 1920, centered around the writing and performance of essays, debates, orations, and sometimes poetry. Over time, some of the groups expanded their activities into performances of music and dramas, with these elements sometimes overtaking the rhetorical aspects. As has been noted elsewhere, the societies declined with the coming of fraternities and sororities, the blossoming of disciplinary clubs, the general lack of interest in rhetoric, and the influx of students seeking a public education. Other less-examined factors include the extent of institutional support, the strength of rhetoric in the

(1998). The rhetoric of citation systems—Part I: The development of annotation structures from the renaissance to 1900. Rhetoric Review: Vol. 17, No. 1, pp. 6-48.

Richard E. Young, Alton L. Becker, and Kenneth L. Pike. Rhetoric: Discovery and Change. Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1970. Pp. xxi + 383. Eric A. Havelock. Preface to Plato. Cambridge: Belknap of Harvard UP, 1963. Preface to Plato, Part One: “The Image Thinkers”; Preface to Plato, Part Two: “The Necessity of Platonism”; Post‐Preface to Plato: A Re‐Review of Havelock's Scholarship

From its origins in ancient Greece, Western rhetoric has been embodied in city life. Save for his walk with Phaedrus, Plato's Socrates only practiced his dialectical rhetoric within the walls of Athens and then only for the ennoblement of the republic. So in the Apology, Socrates defends one version of life in the city against another, explaining that in his talk with others, he had been trying to persuade each of you not to have a greater concern for anything you have than for yourselves, that each of you may be the best and wisest person possible, nor to consider the affairs of the city in preference to the well-being of the city itself' (36c5-9; trans. in Kennedy 44). For Plato the one best hope for Athens was embodied in cultivating the character of its citizens. Cultivation of self and the well-being of the city were so closely linked, a link so prominent in classical rhetoric, that Cicero could monumentalize rhetoric's civic dimensions through the figure of the orator's open hand: a gesture of conciliation and cooperation, of civic responsibility and democratic possibility. The open hand of the Ciceronian orator still has hold of imaginations, embodying hopes of communitarianism, democracy, and mutuality. Thomas Farrell, for example, has explained rhetoric's open-handedness as our partisanship for the familiar and, from within the world of the local and particular, movement toward the other (279). Ideally we would always approach others with outstretched arms and open hands. Yet open-handedness no longer embodies the rhetorical activities, perspectives, and values of persons who share life in cities. In the United States, material conditions and mass media representations of postindustrial urban space, as well as expressions of difference, questions of identity, and conflicts over multiculturalism, have overwhelmed the figure's resonance. Suburban sprawl, the proliferation of privatized consumer spaces, and the fortification of inner cities materialize inequalities that empty the open-handed appeal of its genuineness; at the same time, mass media representations of urban spaces as dangerous, decaying, and violent fuel suspicion and caution people against open-handed appeal. Informed by the material and representational realities of cities, the global sameness and commonalty suggested by the open-handed gesture become expressions of a

(1998). Resistance, women, and dismissing the “I”; Rhetoric Review: Vol. 17, No. 1, pp. 107-125.

ly and less accessibly for teachers. Even as I was finishing this project, I was worrying about the dangers of becoming ungrounded by too much abstraction while I fretted on another level about the increasing elevation of theory over practice in composition. My intellectual history-like that of the teachers I've talked with-shows that my work has thrived on relationships with reflective counterparts, through whom it is constantly challenged, transformed, expanded, and refreshed. Textual others have an extraordinary part to play in enlarging reflection beyond the merely personal, as the teachers' conversations and materials emphasize. But face-to-face or other intimate reflective interactions, like Steve's letters to his This content downloaded from 157.55.39.217 on Tue, 06 Sep 2016 04:01:40 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

(1998). “A conversation of gestures”: George Herbert mead's pragmatic theory of language. Rhetoric Review: Vol. 16, No. 2, pp. 253-267.

Christopher Lyle Johnstone, ed. Theory, Text, Context: Issues in Greek Rhetoric and Oratory. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1996. viii + 196 pages. Craig R. Smith. Rhetoric and Human Consciousness: A History. Prospect Heights, Illinois: Waveland Press, 1998 (1997). xiv + 456 pages. Robert J. Connors. Composition‐Rhetoric: Backgrounds, Theory, and Pedagogy. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1997. 374 pp.

Charles Arthur Willard. Liberalism and the Problem of Knowledge: A New Rhetoric for Modern Democracy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996. x + 384 pages. Bernard Crick. In Defence of Politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962. 156 pages. Jose Ortega y Gasset The Revolt of the Masses. New York: W. W. Norton, 1932 [1930]. 204 pages. John Dewey. The Public and Its Problems. Denver: Alan Swallow, 1927. 224 pages.

In Volume Two of History of Sexuality, Michel Foucault describes how the Greeks managed relations of affection between men and boys, a particularly complex task for them, given that young Greek men were in training to be free and equal citizens to the grown men who would court them.' Even while such relations were generally accepted, they still were very problematic, for both parties needed to know how to conduct themselves so as to maintain their autonomous status. To those ends this problematic generated a great deal of concerned discourse, a discourse invested with values, imperatives, demands, rules, advice, and exhortations that were as numerous as they were emphatic and singular (192). Seemingly unresolvable contradictions are good fuel for discourse, and the idea of sexual relations between autonomous (or autonomous-to-be) Greek free men was contradictory because, as Foucault hypothesizes, sexual relations for them had a distinct form and shape roughly parallel to public relations: Sexual partners could play only a dominant or a subordinate role, just as in matters of the public, some men were free citizens and all others-children, wives, and slaves-were subordinate to them. So, unlike other relationships where sexual roles were easily made consonant with social ones, sexual relations between free men and freeborn adolescent males contained a very troubling inconsistency. Given the almost fetishistic attention young men received, one was naturally expected to love and desire them sexually, but as the discourse reveals, both parties had somehow to allow for the ability of those young men to enter into what could only be understood as a submissive role even as they developed their ability to choose, act, and exercise power as free men: In the case of marriage . . . the essential question concerned the moderation that needed to be shown in exercising power. In the case of the relationship with boys, the ethics of pleasures would have to bring into play-across age differences-subtle strategies that would make allowance for the other's freedom, his ability to refuse, and his required consent. (The History of Sexuality Volume

In past several decades, much talk about orality and literacy has appeared in academic circles. Havelock (Preface to Plato and The Muse Learns to Write), Ong (The Presence of Word, Orality and Literacy), Jamieson (Eloquence in an Electronic Age) and McLuhan (The Gutenberg Galaxy) write of changes in both and consciousness associated with either or modality of communication. They write of distinctions between oral culture and oral state of mind, and literate culture and literate state of mind. However, distinction between orality and literacy itself is never directly called into question. The categories have been set and subsequent scholarly discourses pivot on these platforms. I offer an alternative discourse and argue that categories of orality and literacy are not as definitive as Havelock, Ong, Jamieson, and McLuhan would have us believe. While I agree that shifts in modalities of discourse have occurred from tales of Homer to texts of Hegel to technological trends of Hollywood, human experience does not sustain these demarcations. The sensating body experiences a simultaneity of sound, vision, and tactility, even if a particular discursive modality favors speech, print, or electronic pixels. The orality-literacy schism does not acknowledge this simultaneity. In fact, it further compartmentalizes human experience by separating it into and Havelock writes that early Greek mentality, because it was oral, was not capable of or thought (xi), and it was not until alphabetization that eye supplanted ear as chief organ (vii). For Havelock, the and sensual is coupled with oral culture while the and metaphysical is coupled with literate culture. I argue in this paper that orality-literacy dichotomy is fallacious and that notions of either being concrete or being abstract cannot be anchored in it. Furthermore, I argue that it is rhetorical capability of language, not its capacity for production or literal production, that generates either the concrete or the abstract. More specifically, I explore notion that language, whether produced orally through mouth or literally through mind will tend to be more or less euphonic, more or less dramatistic, or more or less imagistic. In short, degrees of euphony, drama, and image will be in direct proportion to degree of rhetoricity in any given discourse. With this

In this article I intend to share my experiences of teaching writingintensive courses at a large state university with the use of computers.' I want to present my positive experiences to the reader in such a way that will make you want to join me in exploring the myriad of possibilities of teaching with technology: ways that will free us, not constrict us-ways that will enhance learning and dialogue, not provide new ways of shutting down the inquisitive minds of students, but rather of expanding and enhancing all their possibilities and ours. Let me explain at the outset that the technologies I am advocating for teaching writing in writing-intensive literature and folklore courses are largely electronic mail formats and web sites for the distribution of assignments, for syllabi, for student writing, written assignments and peer reviews, and for the position of hypertext archives for class listservs.2 E-mail discussion listserv formats provide an easy way for everyone in the class to communicate automatically with every other member of the class, as well as with the instructor(s).3 Teachers, teaching assistants, tutors, and students can all be subscribed to the discussion listserv; whenever anyone on the list posts a memo addressed to the listserv, all persons subscribed to the list receive a copy of the entry. The listserv owner (generally, the teacher) controls who can be subscribed to the discussion list and who can participate in this electronic forum and how the discussion will operate. For example, in my descriptions below, I will illustrate how every student journal entry or writing assignment goes automatically to the computers of all the other students and myself. However, when I wish to communicate privately with a student or send her or him a graded paper, I can send that message only to that particular student simply by addressing the note to the individual student rather than to the entire list; similarly, when students are doing peer reviews of other students' papers, for privacy, they can post their comments only to the author of a paper, rather than to the entire class. In this paper I am advocating the use of the e-mail discussion list format because I believe in its capacity to better enable students to write well

Catherine Hobbs, ed. Nineteenth‐Century Women Learn to Write. Charlottesville and London: University of Virginia Press, 1995.343 pages. $47.50 cloth. Richard Fulkerson, Teaching the Argument in Writing. Urbana, IL: NCTE, 1996, 184 pp. Thomas P. Miller. The Formation of College English. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1997. ix‐x + 345 pages. $22.95 paper.

As most rhetoric teachers know from experience, arguments about controversial issues slide easily into disputes with an ethical edge. In Writing Arguments, John Ramage and John Bean note that the line between ethical arguments ... and other kinds of disputes is often pretty thin. Even issues that seem involve straight-forward practical values, Ramage and Bean explain, turn out have an ethical (352). And the ethical dimension is especially strong in controversies that involve not simply disagreements but deep conflicts, such as the kinds of topics that are found in many controversy-oriented anthologies. For example, Robert Miller's The Informed Argument (4th ed.) has units on gun control, AIDS in the workplace, sexual harassment, immigration policies, culture and curriculum, and freedom of expression. Thayle Anderson and Kent Forrester's Point Counterpoint (2nd ed.) includes units on the wilderness, funeral practices, advertising, sex differences, bilingual education, obscenity, and the internment of Japanese residents during World War II. These kinds of topics involve serious disputes about what practices we should permit, whose rights we should protect, which are most important, which policies are fairest, etc. Recognizing that controversial issues often invite ethical arguments, some textbook authors have begun discuss principles of moral philosophy and methods from applied ethics, specifically as a way for students tackle disputes with an ethical edge. For example, Ramage and Bean include a section titled An Overview of Major Ethical Systems, in which the authors present the Utilitarian focus on consequences, the Kantian ethic of principles, and finally a comparison and integration of these approaches. The reason for knowing about these different ethical systems is that they provide strategies for examining controversial issues, such as capital punishment. In another textbook-the fifth edition of Writing and Reading Across the CurriculumLaurence Behrens and Leonard Rosen include a unit on Business Ethics, including essays that discuss moral theory as well as some cases for analysis. As stated in the Instructor's Manual for the text, the authors included this unit in order to introduce freshmen the subject of ethics . . . offer models for making ethical decisions; provide cases upon which students can test those models; and raise difficult, debatable questions about values (71).

(1997). John Witherspoon's normalizing pedagogy of ethos. Rhetoric Review: Vol. 16, No. 1, pp. 58-75.

This essay had its origin in my reaction to the claim, repeated in a number of essays by prominent scholars in composition, that Aristotle's theory of rhetoric was a dialogic one.' My response to such claims was and remains one of disbelief. As I examined the essays in which this view was advanced, I came to see that the evidence in support of it depended on related interpretations of Aristotle's concept of the enthymeme advanced by Lloyd Bitzer and John Gage. But in my view whether or not one accepts this controversial understanding of the enthymeme, it does not license a reading of Aristotle's Rhetoric as genuinely dialogic. As I reflected on what I now regarded as the immediate cause of a misinterpretation of Aristotle's Rhetoric (the misappropriation of a controversial interpretation of the enthymeme), I realized that this case had implications for how we, in rhetoric and composition, relate to and use our past. To establish my argument, I must show that important scholars in composition have claimed or implied that the theory Aristotle advances in the Rhetoric is dialogic, that this claim is obviously (not merely possibly) false, and that the evidence compositionists cite in support is derived not from the Rhetoric but depends on a misunderstanding of the implications of Bitzer' s and Gage's interpretations of the enthymeme. Then, having made this argument, I will trace what I regard as more general methodological implications of the misreading of the Rhetoric. Arguments that Aristotle's theory of rhetoric is dialogic have been advanced by Andrea A. Lunsford and Lisa S. Ede, John T. Gage, Gregory Clark, and Richard Leo Enos and Janice Lauer. In each case the claim is advanced in support of a more general effort to reconcile Aristotle' s theory with modem perspectives on rhetoric. The burden of Lunsford and Ede's thesis, as reflected in their title, On Distinctions between Classical and Modem Rhetoric, is to prove that Aristotelian rhetoric is closer in its theoretical assumptions to modern rhetoric than is generally thought. The view that Aristotle's theory is monologic is among the mistakes they address. They maintain that despite what we have thought in the past, Aristotle' s understanding of the rhetorical transaction is dialogic: Far from being 'one way,' 'manipulative' or 'monologic,' Aristotle' s [presentation of] rhetoric provides a complete description of the dynamic interaction between rhetor and audience, interaction mediated by language, the goal of which is not a narrow persuasion but an interactive means of discovering meaning through

Richard D. Altick. The Scholar Adventurers. New York: The Free Press, 1966. Pp. x+338. Originally published in 1950. Yates, Francis A. The Art of Memory. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1966. Pp. xv + 400. Style, Rhetoric, and Rhythm: Essays by Morris W. Croll. Edited by J. Max Patrick and Robert O. Evans, with John M. Wallace and R. J. Schoeck. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1966. Pp. xvi + 450. "Attic”; and Baroque Prose Style: The Anti‐Ciceronian Movement. Essays by Morris W. Croll. Edited by J. Max Patrick and Robert O. Evans, with John M. Wallace. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1969. Pp. xii + 244. Paper.

(1997). Historicizing Lincoln: Garry wills and the canonization of the “Gettysburg address”; Rhetoric Review: Vol. 16, No. 1, pp. 120-137.