Rhetoric Re-View was established under the founding editorship of Theresa J. Enos and has been a feature of Rhetoric Review for over twenty-five years. The objective of Rhetoric Re-View is to offer review essays of prominent works that have made an impact on rhetoric. Reviewers evaluate the merits of established works, discussing their past and present contributions. The intent is to provide a long-term evaluation of significant research while also introducing important, established scholarship to those entering the field. This Rhetoric Re-View essay examines the long-term importance and impact of the 1982 MLA volume The Rhetorical Tradition and Modern Writing edited by James J. Murphy.Dedication: This Rhetoric Re-View essay is dedicated to the memory of James J. Murphy, who edited The Rhetorical Tradition and Modern Writing and, in addition to his impressive scholarship, served for many years on the editorial board of Rhetoric Review. Professor Murphy was 98 years old when he passed away shortly before Christmas 2021.

Bernard Malamud’s novel A New Life and its attention to midcentury writing instruction illuminates the emergence of rhetoric and composition. Malamud’s novel is what microhistorians describe as “exceptional typical” evidence, where exceptional status and typical topics combine to showcase power formations in historical context. The novel describes shifts in textbooks and writing curricula, identifies the emergence of process-oriented assessment practices, and witnesses the institutional and disciplinary marginalization of female instructors. As such, Malamud could be described as a proto-composition scholar. Reflecting upon his legacy at their institution, the authors consider the re-naming of a student lounge named after Malamud.

Tragic twenty-first century events linked to southern identity prompt reflection on regional identification in rhetoric’s critical literature. Doing so reveals the same “imagined marginality” seen in the broader public discourse, of counterpublic rhetoric that circulates an identification of exclusion from dominant identity. Southern regional theory and critical regionalism together reveal that topoi of space, historical consciousness, and insider-outsider hierarchy create relational identity. From the Agrarians’ victimization to the still pernicious redemption of early U.S. public address critics, up to accommodation by late twentieth century and contemporary critics, the record shows the complicity of the field in southern marginality discourses.

Integral captions and subtitles are specific forms of captions and subtitles that are designed to be essential elements of videos in coordination with sound, signs, and other modes of communication. Integral captions reflect the importance of embodied rhetorics in Deaf culture, particularly in the kinetic language of ASL and Deaf Space design practices. Designing a (Deaf) space for integral captions that embody multimodal and multilingual communication is an essential multimodal literacy practice that benefits d/Deaf and hearing composers and viewers. Five criteria that characterize integral captions provide instructors and scholars with a tool for captions and embodied rhetorics.

In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the visual precepts of rhetoric’s fourth canon found themselves at odds with the iconoclasm of England’s Protestant elite. Under this negative influence, mnemonic imagery disappeared from rhetorical theory. Interest in the fourth canon declined, replaced with a Ramist conception of memory grounded in abstract (and imageless) order. A general outline of this history has been offered by several scholars—most notably, Frances Yates—but new bibliographic data along with recently digitized archives can verify its accuracy. Print, written culture, or “modernist” ideologies alone cannot explain the historical marginalization of the canon of memory.

Style pedagogies, as many composition scholars have argued, have largely fallen out of favor in the last few decades. Those who have examined the decline have pointed to the deemphasis of the text prompted by the process movement as well as the subsequent social turn in composition studies. This article, in contrast, looks to the emergence of postmodernism and the ways in which it challenged and continues to complicate the theorizing and teaching of style. The author argues that embrace of a self-reflexive, “essayistic” voice would allow the instructor to exploit postmodernist impulses while revitalizing the teaching of style.

Much recent composition scholarship has focused on pedagogies of personal writing, championing students’ own languages, and discursive communities. In Political Literacy in Composition and Rhetoric...

Look: a Painted Stick, a Spoon, a Conch Shell, a Dirty Sock, and a Can o’ Beans were traveling in an Airstream turkey to Jerusalem. This is not the gambit to a joke. Instead, it is a basis for appr...

In recent years multimodal and multimedia have become buzzwords with substantial cache in composition circles. As Clair Lauer outlines in “Contending with Terms: ‘Multimodal’ and ‘Multimedia’ in th...

In one of many scenes Frances Ellen Watkins Harper developed between student and teacher in her works, the impulsive Annette Harcourt explains her conflict with an Irish-American peer to her teache...

Queen Mary I was crowned in 1553, becoming the first reigning queen of England. In order to provide a powerful image of female rule to her people, Queen Mary invented a rhetorical strategy that reflected her society's oppressive gender expectations of chaste silence so that she could become a powerfully voiced ruler. Her sister and successor, Queen Elizabeth I, later mirrored Mary's strategy. England's first female monarchs created an image of female rule by employing the figures of the spouse, the mother, and the maiden, embodying conventional roles for women in Tudor society, and reclaiming them as images of power.

Why do the Chinese relate rhetoric only to stylistic devices in writing? This question, which has puzzled scholars for decades, is finally answered. Modern Chinese rhetoric began to form in the late 1800s when Chinese students learned Western rhetoric from their Japanese professors, who translated it into “the study of beautiful prose,” subsequently severing it from oratory. In the early twentieth century, scholars returning from Japan and the US integrated Japanese theories and Anglo-American figures of speech into Chinese literary and literacy traditions despite nativists' protests and appropriated them into a canon of aesthetics only for writing studies.

Abstract In his recent studies on classical Chinese text structures and contemporary Chinese composition textbooks, Andy Kirkpatrick claims that Mainland Chinese students are taught to write Chinese compositions in contemporary "Anglo-American" rhetorical style. This paper examines the historical formation of modern Chinese writing instruction and argues that the introduction of Western rhetoric into China in the beginning of the twentieth century did enrich modern Chinese rhetoric through, for example, Western scientific rhetoric(s); but more importantly, together with other historical forces, it helped to revitalize and retrieve the extremely rich Chinese rhetorical tradition in modern Chinese writing instruction.

This essay argues that modernist British writers revived the ideologies of the Victorian New Women in their fiction and essays in order to influence the reception of radical feminism. The New Women novelists, writing at the end of the nineteenth century, developed a rhetoric of domestic feminism, a method of protofeminist subversion usually confined to the domestic space. Modernists outwardly disdained Victorian women's writing; yet they revived "the woman of the past" in their art. This seeming inconsistency within modernist sentiment actually signifies a coherent rhetorical movement that directed twentieth-century reactions to feminism and women's participation in British literary history.

(1999). Constructing essences: Ethos and the postmodern subject of feminism. Rhetoric Review: Vol. 18, No. 1, pp. 82-91.

Recent discussions of teaching composition in the context of cultural studies have begun consider the condition of the writing subject in society, yet these discussions construct student-writer Subjects according modernist identity/difference binary oppositions that are politically problematic.1 The modernist Subject is defined in terms of its objective relationship reality and its opposition Other subjects, and the construction of the modernist Subject (autonomous and sovereign) is an effect of ethno-centric formulations (frames, constructions) of identity/difference oppositions.2 In Orientalism, for example, Edward Said describes how modernist European societies construct cultural differences not only as but also as opposite (the of the West is constructed in opposition the of the East). According Said, When one uses categories like Oriental and Western as both the starting and the end points of analysis, research, public policy, . . . the result is usually polarize the distinction-the Oriental becomes more Oriental, the Westerner more Western-and limit the human encounter between different cultures, traditions, and societies. The tendency, then, is to channel thought into a West or an East compartment (46), eliminating the possibility for common ground, agreement, understanding, or in more extreme cases, destroying the human capacity for tolerance of We cannot maintain oppositional notions of identity/difference without inevitably falling into a situation in which gains (or attempts gain) hegemonic control over difference. A few recent cultural theorists, on the other hand, do not view and as oppositional terms; instead, they construct identity and difference as a complementary pair, as an alliance rather than an opposition. And the subjectivities that result from this alliance refuse the structural closure of the modernist Subject and articulate themselves (engage in cultural and rhetorical practices) in the aporia between and Michel Foucault and Jacques Derrida in particular deconstruct the unified structure of the sovereign and autonomous modernist Subject, positing in its place a space in the aporia between and where subjectivities construct themselves and each other. Throughout much of his work, Foucault is concerned with issues of and in the textual construction of subjectivities. Discursive

In past fifteen years, scholars in both composition and literature have called for a more integrated approach to reading and writing.1 essays in collection Composition and Literature: Bridging Gap edited by Winifred Horner, for example, stressed common interests of scholarship in these two domains. Similarly, Modern Language Association recommended in a 1982 report that MLA publications make deliberate efforts to stimulate thought and research about interrelations of literature, composition, and rhetorical theory (952). More recently, Peter Elbow has called for end of the war between reading and arguing that the primacy of reading in reading/writing dichotomy is an act of locating authority away from student and keeping it entirely in teacher or institution or great figure (17). Richard Lloyd-Jones and Andrea Lunsford have also emphasized importance of an integrated approach to reading and writing in curriculum, one that allows teachers to foster student learning in reading, writing, interpreting, speaking, and listening (316). Like Elbow, Lloyd-Jones and Lunsford insist that integration of reading and writing not only enables students to become more active learners but also is critical for educating students for participation in democracy (85). But while an integrated approach to reading and writing is certainly a worthy goal, scholars in literary and composition studies differ on fundamental issues that may preclude (or at least complicate) our attempts to develop pedagogies that allow students to connect their own texts with other texts they encounter both inside and outside classroom. One such issue involves very nature of texts themselves-what texts are, how they are produced, and how we should read them. assumptions, for example, about what it means to interpret a text diverge radically depending on whether text is a student text or a literary text. As David Bartholomae observes: The teacher who is unable to make sense out of a seemingly bizarre piece of student writing is often same teacher who can give an elaborate explanation of 'meaning' of a story by Donald Barthelme or a poem by e.e. cummings (255). Instructors who interpret elements such as narrative leaps, obscure references, and twisted syntax as errors in student texts read same elements in a literary work as

The uses of postmodern theory in rhetoric and composition studies have been the object of considerable abuse of late. Figures of some repute in the field-the likes of Maxine Hairston and Peter Elbow-as well as anonymous voices from the Burkean Parlor section of Rhetoric Review-most recently, TS, graduate student, and KF, voice speaking for a general English teacher audience (192)-have joined the chorus of protest. The charges have included willful obscurity, selfindulgence, elitism, pomposity, intellectual impoverishment, and host of related offenses. Although my name usually appears among the accused, I am sympathetic with those undergoing the difficulties of the first encounter with this discussion. (I exclude Professor Hairston in her irresponsible charge that its recent contributors in College English are low-risk Marxists who write very badly [695] and who should be banned from NCTE publications.) I experienced the same frustration when I first encountered the different but closely related language of rhetoric and composition studies some fifteen years ago. I wondered, for example, if I would ever grasp the complexities of Aristotle or Quintilian or Kenneth Burke or I. A. Richards, not to mention the new language of the writing process. A bit later I was introduced to French poststructuralism, and once again I found myself wandering in strange seas, and this time alone. In reading rhetoric, after all, I had the benefit of numerous commentators to help me along-the work of Kinneavy and Lauer and Corbett and Emig, for example. In reading Foucault and Derrida in the late seventies, on the other hand, I was largely on my own since the commentaries were as difficult as the originals, and those few that were readable were often (as even I could see) wrong. Nonetheless, with the help of informal reading groups made up of colleagues and students, I persisted in my efforts to come to terms with this difficult body of thought. I was then, as now, convinced that both rhetorical studies and postmodern speculation offered strikingly convergent and remarkably compelling visions for conducting my life as teacher and citizen. It is clear to me that rhetoric and composition studies has arrived as serious field of study because it has taken into account the best that has been thought and said about its concerns from the past and the present, and I have found that postmodern work in historical and contemporary rhetorical theory has done much to further this effort.

(1992). Reviving the rodential model for composition: Robert Zoellner's alternative to flower and Hayes. Rhetoric Review: Vol. 10, No. 2, pp. 244-249.

The freshman composition course is a peculiarly American institution not shared by modern British or European universities. This study grew out of an attempt to understand why rhetoric fell from favor in the British universities during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries and why composition, as an course, failed to develop. It is the purpose of this study to examine writing instruction in the British universities in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries in order to understand such developments.2 Writing instruction within any society is subject to social and political influences, and nowhere is this more true than in eighteenth- and nineteenthcentury Britain, that territory that encompassed England, Scotland, Wales, and Ireland. In addition, strong religious movements and a special linguistic situation during this period shaped where and how writing was taught. The eighteenth century in Britain was a period of transition as the agricultural population migrated to the cities in large numbers. Industrialization was rapid. Between 1700 and 1800, England saw the rise of the industrial centers of Manchester and Liverpool, while Scotland changed from a poor agricultural society to a relatively industrialized one with an increase in population from 84,000 to 500,000 during the nineteenth century. Preparatory schools and universities were not available or adequate. At the beginning of the eighteenth century, England had two universities, Oxford and Cambridge. Although Scotland had four well-established universities, Ireland had one, and Wales none. The eighteenth century was also a period of upward mobility, and good English became a rung on the ladder. With economic stability established, the large and powerful merchant class and those aspiring to better themselves saw education in general, and language in particular, as one of the ways to move up. In response, the school teachers and grammarians, with a strong belief in rationality and rules, set out to standardize the language, firm in the beliefs that change was a sign of deterioration and that Latin was the standard by which all languages should be measured. During the period there was also a rise in nationalism, which resulted in a new reverence for language and literature. Although men and

(1989). Attitudes toward imitation: Classical culture and the modern temper. Rhetoric Review: Vol. 8, No. 1, pp. 5-21.

In the past few years, several authors have suggested that we reflect on traditional conceptions of rhetoric to see what they can tell us about our own concerns. For instance, the authors whose articles appear in James J. Murphy's 1982 MLA anthology, The Rhetorical Tradition and Modem Writing, would agree that a study of our rhetorical tradition can teach us a good deal about the problems of the present, and they make many comparisons between ancient and modern to illustrate what they mean. Comparing rhetorical pedagogies is another promising area of study, although such comparison may at first seem to involve incongruities. Proposing, as this essay does, that there is a fundamental likeness between the modern technical writing case study and the impersonation exercises of classical rhetoric-in which the student plays Zeus excoriating the Sun-God for lending his chariot to Phaethon, or some of Caesar's troops arguing whether to commit suicide or not-would initially seem imprudent. On first glance, these two teaching methods seem pretty far apart. However, a detailed comparison of the modern case study with the impersonation and with another ancient exercise called suasoria not only is possible but can point out striking similarities. More important, such a comparison can validate the educational value of the case study, point up its grounding in rhetorical principles, and suggest some broader uses the modern methodology might serve. But before I proceed to a comparison, let me briefly describe each method. A modern case, to use a summary of a case from one of the best modern texts, goes something like this:

(1987). For a modern rhetoric: A prose‐poetic persuasion. Rhetoric Review: Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 87-89.

ly to students, but create an impression for some that the techniques are purely activities for fun, trivial interludes that don't contribute substantially to a finished paper. In addition, some teachers fear the freedom these techniques allow students and believe more controlled instruction is needed. On the other hand, structured heuristics such as Burke's Pentad and Young, Becker, and Pike's Tagmemic Grid provide systems to guide inquiry, but often are so abstract, acontextual and complex that they are difficult for students to apply and sometimes seem to intrude on rather than to aid the composing process. I Aware of problems with both approaches and having little time to present them fully, a majority of us, I would guess, take the middle road and briefly introduce students to invention techniques before quickly moving on to other concerns.2 Problems in reconciling free and structured heuristics have appeared in several articles.3 In the end, a number of theorists say that structure and freedom, reason and intuition, consciousness and unconsciousness aren't mutually exclusive: Each school of heuristics contains elements of the other. For example, free writing theorists Ken Macrorie and Peter Elbow advocate that after students use automatic or stream-of-consciousness writing, they should consciously seek patterns in their free writing-or in Elbow's words, an emerging center of gravity (20), which can then be used to generate and organize more discourse. And structuralist Richard Young points out the guiding, not dictating nature of heuristics. Young emphasizes that systematic heuristics do not always work consciously: Although more or less systematic, a heuristic search is not wholly conscious or mechanical; intuition, relevant knowledge, and skill are also necessary. A heuristic is an explicit strategy for effective guessing ( 135). Since the two approaches contain aspects of each other, there should be pedagogies that integrate both heuristics. But how? I believe a way of addressing the problem of how teachers can integrate free and structured inquiry effectively can be found in the classical progymnasmata, exercises designed to train the classical student in the art of inventio. While the classical tradition may suggest a rhetoric that is unduly prescriptive to some