T his paper deals with the embodiment in Cicero's De Oratore of a particular rhetorical method. The method is referred to by the Romans as controversia and by the Sophists before them as antilogic and involves the conduct of argument by placing two or more opposing claims in juxtaposition. I will argue that instead of discussing controversia in a formal manner, by abstracting its general nature and detailing its logical parts (diaeresis), Cicero chooses to dramatize controversia in order to transcend abstract principles and allow his students direct access to argument in action. In a word, Cicero chooses to perform the subject, and in so doing to give substance or body to theory and pedagogy. In the process, he also pursues his own most cherished philosophical objective, which is to bring res and verba, the thing and the word into synthesis. I will further suggest that the rhetoric of embodiment which Cicero develops in De Oratore is replete with interesting pedagogical implications. Like much of Cicero's published work, De Oratore was intended to serve as a model for imitation by others (see Axer 59). In this case, the text models both a particular set of rhetorical principles and a distinctive pedagogical stance for teaching them. I am particularly interested in what the pedagogy of De Oratore has to say to us today about an appropriate approach to the teaching of argumentation.' But before I begin with Cicero, De Oratore, antilogic, controversia, and the rhetoric of embodiment, I would go back even further in history, from Rome to the eastern Mediterranean, from the eloquence of Cicero to the arguments of Odysseus, that other man famous for dealing with contention (Odyssey 1.2). You will recall that when Odysseus leaves Calypso after seven years as a captive on her paradisal island, he sails away on a log raft which breaks up in a large storm sent by Poseidon. When it looks as though he is doomed to drown, he laments that all he has accomplished on his way home will perish with him. Would that I had died on the fields of Troy, he cries, where all my deeds would have been noted, praised, and preserved (5.306-12). What Odysseus is concerned with here is his kleos: his fame, honor, stature, renown, that standard heroic obsession that one's reputation will ring out under heaven (8.74f; cf. Thalmann 60-69). Instead of a life of adventure marked by kleos, however, Odysseus in Book V is faced with death at sea, a death unmarked and lonely (5.312). What is notable for us in this episode is that kleos appears only to exist in the reports on one's life; i.e. it requires discourse to give it substance, enough substance to transcend the event itself. Consequently, when Odysseus arrives on land and is taken by Nausikaa to the Phaiakian court, he acts the part of a poet as well as a hero (11.68-69) by recounting his adventures and in the process giving form to his kleos. Discursive enactment, therefore, becomes the only way in which the unforgettable experi-

The Internet and access to it have grown exponentially in the past three years. Georgia Tech's Graphic, Visualization, and Usability Center reports that, since January 1994 when its first survey of Internet users was conducted, the Internet has grown from 1250 servers to over one million servers. There are over thirty million users of the Internet in the United States alone (Graphic, Visualization, and Usability Center). The versatility of the medium has increased along with its size, as the addition of Java technology and other features has increased the dynamism and interactivity of Web sites and as conveyance via television has increased access. Mass communications scholars and our colleagues in interpersonal, organizational, and small group communication have been studying computer-mediated communication [CMC] for some time. Mass communications researchers have been concerned with a number of questions-how First Amendment protections and intellectual and property rights transfer from print to CMC; what factors play a role in attracting audiences to Internet sites; what strategies can be used to determine accuracy of information on the Internet; and so forth (McChesney; Morris and Ogan; Reeves and Nass). Interpersonal communication researchers have studied the development and maintenance of relationships online (Walther; Parks and Floyd), while small group researchers have examined the dynamics of group process in computer-mediated environments (Savicki, Lingenfelter, and Kelley; Rafaeli and Sudweeks). In addition to these, there have been many other forms of communication research studying Internet discourse and interaction. But rhetorical critics and theorists are latecomers to the scene. There are many possible reasons for this. Many humanists have been slow to take up interest in discourse in electronic environments, perhaps because they suspect that critical work and critical theory will need to be changed to suit the new communication environments, and this is true because in a hypertext environment, author, audience, and text are dispersed. While such dispersion can and does occur in other modalities, computer-mediated discourse is particularly prone to it. The function of the author as originator of a message can be suppressed in groupauthored, disguised, or anonymous Internet postings. As I will show later, identifying the nature and reactions of audiences is made more difficult in computer-mediated environments. And when text becomes hypertext, the text itself is dispersed and assimilated and loses its stability. As Ted Friedman (73) noted,

(1998). Writing the third‐sophistic Cyborg: Periphrasis on an [in]tense rhetoric. Rhetoric Society Quarterly: Vol. 28, No. 4, pp. 51-72.

Rhetoric Retold: Regendering the Tradition from Antiquity to the Renaissance by Cheryl Glenn. Southern Illinois UP, 1997. 235 pp. Introduction to Philosophical Hermeneutics. by Jean Grondin. Trans. Joel Weinsheimer. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1994. Xviii & 233 pages. Rhetoric and Hermeneutics in Our Time: A Reader. Edited by Walter Jost and Michael J. Hyde. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1977. Xxiv & 407 pages. Belief and Resistance: Dynamics of Contemporary Intellectual Controversy by Barbara Herrnstein‐Smith. Harvard University Press: Cambridge, Massachusetts. London, England. 1997. 221 pp. The Rhetoric of Reason: Writing and the Attractions of Argument by James Crosswhite. Madison: U. Wisconsin Press, 1996. 329 pages. Poetic Knowledge: The Recovery of Education by James S. Taylor. Albany: SUNY, 1998. 211 pp.

Click to increase image sizeClick to decrease image size Notes I would like to thank Thomas Willard and Theresa Enos for their comments on an early version of this essay. I also thank the RSQ readers for their insightful and constructive comments.

Rhetoric and Human Consciousness: A History by Craig R. Smith. Prospect Heights, Illinois: Waveland, 1998; 456 pp. The Formation of College English: Rhetoric and Belles Lettres in the British Cultural Provinces by Thomas P. Miller. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1997. 344 pp. Composition‐Rhetoric by Robert J. Connors. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1997. 374 pp. Political Style: The Artistry of Power by Robert Hariman. University of Chicago Press (1995): xii+259 pp. Rhetoric in an Antifoundational World: Language, Culture, and Pedagogy, ed. Michael Bernard‐Donals and Richard R. Glejzer. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1998. 468 pp.

T he critical commonplace that rhetoric simply declined in direct proportion to rise of Romanticism has thankfully come under increasing scrutiny. In 1989, for example, Susan Jarratt questioned Donald C. Stewart's observation that the most notable feature of history of rhetoric in nineteenth century was its absence (73) and established constitutive role of rhetoric in literary and critical writings of Victorian Walter Pater. More recently, Don Bialostosky and Lawrence Needham have argued that the hesitancy of of rhetoric to consider political, cultural, or material factors when discussing rhetoric and Romanticism has been due to their willingness to accept at face value what Romantic authors have said about writing. For example, they have accepted uncritically pronouncements about Romantic genius that place author outside lines of dependency and relationship-and beyond concerns of rhetoric. Consequently, they write, historians of rhetoric have been curiously ahistorical in their accounts of rhetoric and Romanticism . (8). And just last year, almost as if in response to Bialostosky and Needham's assessment, Rex Veeder demonstrated how political and rhetorical principles informed Romantic pulpit practice in nineteenth century. He finds that What Romantics suggest is that purpose of art, including art of writing, is rhetorical in that it encourages act of identification and by so doing allows auditors to transcend their world view through imaginative participation with another (316). Rather than dismissing Romantic discourses as arhetorical or contentedly relegating Romantic texts to conservative pedagogies of taste, these rightly inquire into complex political and social conditions that impelled production and reception of Romanticism. Further, they implicitly or explicitly view their work as having important institutional consequences for literary studies, rhetoric, and composition. That is, if Romanticism has often been elided from histories of rhetoric for its aesthetic affiliations, this brand of revisionist historicism takes as its primary political motive opportunity to revisit-and to qualify-such founding Romantic oppositions as imaginary and factual, reading and writing, literary and rhetorical. In words of Bialostosky and Needham, A new investigation of relationship between Romanticism and rhetoric may lead to a rapprochement between literary and rhetorical branches of English studies (as well as between English and Rhetoric departments) whose separation was founded upon and is sustained by commonplace story of end of rhetoric and rise of literature in Romantic period (5).

(1998). Unmasking buffalo bill: Interpretive controversy and the silence of the lambs. Rhetoric Society Quarterly: Vol. 28, No. 3, pp. 33-47.

(1998). The crisis: A complete critical edition of Carrie Chapman Catt's 1916 presidential address to the national American woman suffrage association. Rhetoric Society Quarterly: Vol. 28, No. 3, pp. 49-73.

In his 1829 Appeal to Coloured Citizens of World, a militant condemnation of evils of slavery and a prophetic call for a potentially violent end to institution, African-American abolitionist David Walker demands, See your Declaration Americans! ! ! Do you understand your own language? (75). Walker's question highlights a fundamental and enduring paradox: in spite of centrality of Declaration of Independence to our nation's founding and to America's self-definition, continual reinterpretation of text and controversies over its meaning and significance are endemic to national discourse. Antebellum Americans faced a particular theoretical and exegetical problem with respect to Declaration of Independence. Nineteenth-century rhetoric often elevates document to a religious significance in mythologizing founding of America, idealizing creation of a completely new nation dedicated to liberty and (Wills, Inventing xvi-xxii; Wills, Lincoln 86-89, 100-03, 10910). Yet many antebellum Americans supported slavery and opposed full civil rights for free African Americans. Supporters of slavery engaged in complicated gymnastics in order to support ideals of American Revolution as well as nation's peculiar institution. Many proslavery rhetors argued that, based on Founding Fathers' intentions, Declaration's promises of freedom and did not include African Americans. Another argument suggested that term equality did not connote that all Americans should have same rights. Some supporters of slavery even downplayed significance of articulation of certain rights in Declaration of Independence.' Within this context, African-American abolitionists who wished to feature Declaration of Independence and related themes of American Revolution in their antislavery rhetoric could not rely on conventional interpretations. They needed to appropriate these topoi, redefining them in service of abolition. Celeste Michelle Condit and John Louis Lucaites demonstrate that antebellum AfricanAmerican men crafted a concept of that countered proslavery formulations, using rhetorical revision of Declaration of Independence to extend scope of terms such as equality, liberty, and human rights (69-98). Condit and Lucaites emphasize rhetoric that is, in Gary Woodward's terms, primarily adaptory-appealing to common ground with an audience and aiming to reduce dissonant messages that clash with their beliefs (28-30). In adaptory rhetoric, the expectations of others form basis of a persuasive situation, and rhetor attempts to adapt message to avoid a clash with audience's

Persuasion and Privacy in Cyberspace: The Online Protests over Lotus Marketplace and the Clipper Chip by Laura Gurak. New Haven: Yale UP, 1997. 181 pp. Mina P. Shaughnessy: Her Life and Work by Jane Maher. Urbana: NCTE, 1997. 331 pp. Rhetoric and Pluralism: Legacies of Wayne Booth, edited by Frederick J. Antczak. Columbus: Ohio State UP, 1995. 335 pp. Representing Reality: Discourse, Rhetoric and Social Construction by Jonathan Potter. London: SAGE Publications, 1996. The Emperor's New Clothes: Literature, Literacy, and the Ideology of Style by Kathryn T. Flannery. Pittsburgh: U of Pittsburgh P, 1995. 240 pp.

Few correspondences have enjoyed the widespread readership of the paternal lletters of Philip Dormer Stanhope, fourth earl of Chesterfield. Never actually intended for the public eye, the epistles were written for the explicit purpose of preparing the Earl's son, Philip Stanhope, for a distinguished career in politics. Following the tradition of the courtesy book established in Cicero's De Officiis and further developed in Castiglione's Ii Cortegiano, Chesterfield infused Renaissance courtly rhetoric with Enlightenment pragmatism, rendering it more accessible and applicable to everyday life than ever before. First published posthumously in 1774, the expansive collection of letterswhich extended from 1737, when the lad was a mere five years old, to his protege's untimely death in 1768-became a standard manual for self-improvement. Despite the condemnation of moralists such as Samuel Johnson, who quipped that the letters teach the morals of a whore, and the manners of a dancing master, twelve editions were brought out in England and Ireland by 1803. On the Continent, the letters were soon published in various forms in Leipzig (1774-76), Paris (1775), Amsterdam (1786), and Vienna (1800), with Spanish and Italian translations coming out in the mid-nineteenth century. The first American edition was published in 1779. In both Europe and America, new editions, abridgements, selections, adaptations, and even parodies of the letters have been popular since the their original publication. In the United States, for example, an adaptation entitled Principles of Politeness was published over twenty times before 1820. In the twentieth century, several significant editions have been issued, including texts by Everyman Library (1929; last reprinted in 1986) and Oxford's World's Classics (1929; most recent edition, 1992). The Earl's letters no longer find their way to aspiring lads' nightstands, yet it is interesting to note that twenty quotes from them are included in the sixteenth edition of Bartlett's Familiar Quotations (1992). Because discussion of oratorical prowess-which Chesterfield believed was essential for success in civic life (see Son 1: 521)-pervades the letters, his characterization of persuasion has long been scrutinized by students of rhetoric. In the nineteenth century, Thomas De Quincey praises the Earl as so accomplished a judge [of rhetoric] (111), yet most scholars of our era express skepticism toward the Earl's advice, downplaying his commitment to the full scope of

(1998). The civic function of taste: A re‐assessment of Hugh Blair's rhetorical theory. Rhetoric Society Quarterly: Vol. 28, No. 2, pp. 25-36.

delegitimate any work that has been done on scientific style and arrangement and any attention that has been paid to ethical and pathetical proofs in (252) by scholars in sociology and rhetoric of science. Pera responds to the point about scientific style by stating believe that style and arrangement, although interesting topics of philosophical analysis, are inessential to science (the law of falling bodies, say, did not acquire or change its status of scientific knowledge when Galileo translated it from Latin into Italian and put it in the context of a dialogue) (255). In effect, he agrees with Gross's assessment by implying that style has no role in science. In addition, Pera's example suggests that he limits the scope of style to mere surface features of discourse-words may change but the concept (or scientific law) does not. If we examine examples from the realm of contemporary science in action, it becomes difficult to continue to conceive of style as ornamental or reduced to surface features and separate from the thoughts being articulated. While some scholars and many scientists may share Pera's reductive definition of style as surface, recent research in rhetoric and composition, as well as postmodern theories of language, suggest that style is connected in central ways with thought and argument (Faigley, Gage, Rankin). To build on this recent scholarship on style, the study of scientific practices can provide important examples of style that encompass an integral part of the scientific concepts or laws being formulated. The role of the rhetorical trope of metaphor or the figure of analogy in the process of scientific inquiry constitutes a prime example. In fact, the role of analogies and metaphors (and a third, related category, models) in scientific investigation has been, for several decades, a topic of much discussion by scholars interested in the workings of science; however, there has been much less inclination for scholars to draw out the implications of these discussions. In this paper, I want to begin to explore some of these implications by reviewing first, how philosophers and rhetoricians of science have conceptualized analogy and its contribution to the work of science; and second, by reporting some observations drawn from an empirical study of a group of physicists as they

African‐American Orators: A Bio‐Critical Sourcebook, edited by Richard W. Leeman. Westport, Connecticut, Greenwood, 1996; xxvi+452. Rhetoric and Political Culture in Nineteenth‐Century America, edited by Thomas W. Benson. East Lansing: Michigan State UP, 1997. 200 pp. Rhetorical Hermeneutics: Invention and Interpretation in the Age of Science, edited by Alan G. Gross & William M. Keith. Albany, N.Y.: SUNY Press. 1997. 371 pp. Reading in Tudor England, by Eugene R. Kintgen. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1996; 235 pages. Theory, Text, Context: Issues in Greek Rhetoric and Oratory, edited by Christopher Lyle Johnstone. Albany: SUNY Press, 1996. Paper, 196 pp.

(1998). The Rhetor's perceived situation: Luther's Invocavit sermons. Rhetoric Society Quarterly: Vol. 28, No. 1, pp. 49-80.

Rethinking the Rhetorical Tradition: From Plato to Postmodernism by James L. Kastely. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1997. Sage, Saint, and Sophist: Holy Men and Their Associates in the Early Roman Empire by Graham Anderson. London & New York: Routledge, 1994.289 pp. Humanism and the Rhetoric of Toleration, by Gary Reiner. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1996; 318 pp. The Rhetoric of Law edited by Austin Sarat and Thomas L. Kearns. Ann Arbor: U of Michigan P, 1994, 332 pp. Green Culture: Environmental Rhetoric in Contemporary America edited by Carl G. Herndl and Stuart C. Brown. Madison: U of Wisconsin P, 1996.315 pp.

T he goal of this essay is to present an argument for the unity of Isocrates' l speech Antidosis which takes into account its complexity. Isocrates recognized the unusual nature of the discourse he was creating and talked explicitly about its complexity and the need for the reader's careful attention. To argue for the unity, or cohesion, of the speech, I will examine Isocratean notions of unity specifically, especially in the use of stylistic terminology related to mixtures. Then I shall examine how these ideas fall in with ideas of unity more generally in Greek composition. After examining these approaches, we can then look at the progress within the Antidosis and its particular sense of cohesion on both structural and thematic levels. The two levels of structure and theme are intimately related, and thus will need to be treated together. In attending to the issues proposed, I hope to set out some ideas on how Isocrates perceives unity to function, how notions of unity are affected by the rhetorical situation, how multiple ideas can be unified in one discourse, and finally how this discourse can demonstrate Isocratean methods of rhetorical composition. The speech presents an important example of the possibilities of expanding discourse to serve multiple functions. As such, the speech and its mixed unities can be relevant to ideas about the discourse of modem times as well as ancient. About 354/3 BC Isocrates created the fiction of defending himself before a jury in his speech known as the Antidosis. The speech responds to an actual antidosis procedure in which Isocrates had been asked to finance from his private estate a public expense known as a liturgy. Through this rather elaborate antidosis procedure, an Athenian citizen who was asked to finance a liturgy could request that another citizen take over that burden if the latter were more financially capable. The latter then had the option to finance the liturgy or exchange estates. If the challenged person refused the two options, the issue would go to a court (MacDowell 162-4). This antidosis procedure, as a question of one's private estate, would be handled as a private case (MacDowell 58). That is, this was a private dispute between two individuals. But when Isocrates found himself in such a situation, being asked to take on someone else's liturgy, this private litigation also raised the question of his history of public service. Isocrates defended his willingness to take on liturgies (15.5, 15.158),1 but he saw the charge as a broader attack on his public life and as evidence of confusion or envy on the part of most Athenians. He states in the opening of the Antidosis:

(1997). The Clouds: Aristophanic comedy and democratic education. Rhetoric Society Quarterly: Vol. 27, No. 4, pp. 25-46.

T hroughout this essay, I argue that the three primary extant fragments of Gorgias of Leontini-On Non-Existence (or On Nature), the Encomium of Helen, and the Defense of Palamedes-are not disparate or contradictory statements, as is often assumed, but intricately interrelated and internally consistent contributions to a complex theory and art (techne') of rhetoric. Of course, we cannot argue that Gorgias composed these texts with a holistic rhetorical task in mind; however, reconstructing and interpreting On Non-Existence, the Helen, and the Palamedes holistically does shed significant new light on our current understanding of Gorgias' emerging theory and techne' of rhetoric. In brief, On Non-Existence describes the effects that externally given realities (ta onta) have on the human psyche (psuche), the Helen explores the unethical workings of the persuasive arts on the human psuche, and the Palamedes demonstrates rhetorical topoi for the invention of arguments designed to move the human psuche' of a forensic audience to ethical action. Reconstructed thus as a holistic statement, Gorgias' primary extant fragments theorize the social nature of linguistic symbols and explore their artistic uses for both unethical and ethical purposes; and as a holistic interpretation of the extant fragments demonstrates, Gorgias favors the topical invention of ethical arguments over the magical invention of false arguments, unsupported opinions, and deliberate deceptions. Criticism of Gorgianic rhetoric as inartistic is almost as ancient as the very texts themselves. Plato, who probably wrote some of his earliest dialogues while Gorgias was still living and teaching in Athens, argues that Gorgianic rhetoric is not a techne. In the Gorgias, for example, Plato (through the mouthpiece of Socrates) tells the character Gorgias that his conception and practice of rhetoric whose scope is logos is not a true art but merely a false art, a form of flattery because its goal is to elicit pleasure and not to discover the Good. Moreover, in the Phaedrus Plato explains that sophistic rhetoric is irrational and thus atechnical because it is not founded on truth discovered through the principles of philosophical dialectic. No activity, according to Plato, is artistic unless it begins with a foundation of pure universal knowledge discovered through dialectical inquiry, and it is precisely because those who claim to teach and practice the art of rhetoric are ignorant of dialectic that they incapable of properly defining rhetoric, and that in turn leads them to imagine that by possessing themselves of the requisite antecedent learning they have discovered the art itself' (269b). But if we accept Plato's philosophy/rhetoric demarcation along with the claim that all

Kenneth Burke in Greenwich Village: Conversing with the Moderns, 1915–1931 by Jack Selzer. Madison: U of Wisconsin P, 1996; 284 pp. Narrative as Rhetoric: Technique, Audiences, Ethics, Ideology by James Phelan. Columbus, OH: Ohio State U P, 1996; pp. xiv + 237. Moral Politics: What Conservatives Know that Liberals Don't by George Lakoff. Chicago and London: U of Chicago P, 1996. 413 pp. Women Public Speakers in the United States, 1925–1993: A Bio‐Critical Sourcebook edited by Karlyn Kohrs Campbell. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press, 1994; pp. xxiii; pp. 491. Eloquent Dissent: The Writings of James Sledd, edited by Richard D. Freed. Portsmouth, NH, Boynton/Cook 1996;188 pp.

A. Introduction In Plato's Phaedrus, Socrates suggests that rhetoric is not only implicated in the continual pursuit of truth, but it is also the study of how truth is made known in (276a). Socrates warns Phaedrus not to suppose that because words are that they have therefore become reliable and permanent (275d). For Socrates, when living speech is down it becomes transformed or objectified into a representation of the real. In Socrates' view, living speech is a state of interiority, an articulation of self-understanding; when speech is alienated from its dialogic context it becomes discourse. Although Socrates argues that one must be exceedingly to believe that written words can do anything more than remind oneself what one already knows, this simple-minded approach to writing provides a means of exploring how discourse produces what Martin Heidegger calls a commemorative meaning. For Heidegger, discourse preserves the remembrance of an event; dead discourse reminds us of the event of living speech because it bears the design and inscribes historical occurrences. character of living speech does not change in its articulation; its character does not begin as an object, does not end as an object, and does not consist of any essential qualities of an object. In Part I of this paper I explore the impact of Heidegger's idea of discourse upon the traditional concept of style to argue, in accordance with Heidegger, that style is a reminder of living speech; style is a disclosure of incarnate thought, the presencing of a human's being that is structured by a two-fold process: first, a standing forth or unconcealing of its presence; and second, a holding back or concealing of its presence. Traditionally, discussions of style have been limited to representational theories of discourse that see style either solely in terms of outward appearance, beautiful form or in terms of some combination that sets form into a bipolar opposition with content. However, Heidegger's argument is that the traditional view of art as an aesthetic object is not adequate. In order to retrieve style from the confines of bipolarity, Heidegger develops a model of art that is based upon his disclosive theory of truth; his theory of art effectively removes beauty as a criterion for understanding art. In The Origin of the Work of Art, Heidegger develops a non-aesthetic approach to a work of art by arguing that truth, rather than beauty, is the origin of a work of art; his essay also suggests the outlines of a non-representational

In one way or another, an interest in has been present in from writings of Gorgias and Plato, through treatises on Rhetoric and Belle Lettres,' and on to work of Kenneth Burke, particularly his notions of identification and consubstantiality.2 As in many disciplines, has played its part implicitly in rhetorical theory and pedagogy. For example, reader response criticism addresses in terms of affective and subjective aspects of epistemic and composition theory; rhetorical interest in memory addresses theories of knowledge, sources of inspiration, and subjectivity in prewriting (see Rider, Reynolds), all of which are body-centered; bodily delivery remains a concern in speech communication. The rhetoric of and, more specifically, of medical science, explores ways in which medicalized is both socially and discursively constructed (see Duden). More recently, feminist rhetoricians such as Janice Norton have begun a historiography of which focuses on need to reread a rhetorical theory that theorizes without reference to sexual difference. Only recently, however, has the body as such become explicit locus of debates about interrelation of power and discourse. This annotated bibliography surveys germinal texts which read in terms of epistemology, gender construction, and social inscription of meaning. Its intent is to assist rhetoricians who wish to investigate as a crucial site of intersection of persuasion, discourse, and power. More explicit discussions of began when Anglo-American feminists asserted that the personal is political and French feminists exhorted us to write body. Since then, a number of disciplines have begun to work out what this focus on personal and could possibly mean: gendered body? symbolic body? social-political body? discursive body? While feminists are credited with initiating discussions of female as text or site in which issues of power are hotly contested, has become locus of cultural, historical, sociological, philosophical, and literary, as well as gender studies. As Anthony Synnott reminds us, is

James L. Kinneavy, who was until this year the Blumberg Centennial Profes sor of English at the University of Texas, has been one of the major influences on the development of composition for more than 25 years. His bestknown book, A Theory of Discourse, published in 1971, is credited by many in our field with promoting the revival of rhetoric in university English That book was followed in 1976 by Aims and Audiences in Writing and Writing-Basic Modes of Organization (Both written with John Cope and J.W. Campbell). Kinneavy's theory of discourse relies on his definition of discourse as any utterance having a beginning, middle and end, and a purpose. He explained his theory graphically by means of his well-known communications triangle. this interview, conducted in May 1996 in Austin, Texas, he offers some ways that the triangle can be used in teaching writing. He also uses the trianglewith its acknowledged debt to Jakobson-to generate his theory of the major aims of discourse. Using this taxonomy, Kinneavy attempts to explain the basic organizational pattern of each aim of discourse. But Kinneavy does not wish to be known solely or even principally as a taxonomer, for, as he says, taxonomy is only a part of theory, and he has extended much of his influence as a theorist and historian of rhetoric. His 1987 book, Greek Rhetorical Origins of Christian Faith, explains how the new testament idea of faith grew out of the use of the term pisteis by Isocrates and Aristotle. Kairos is another term frequently associated with Kinneavy because of his lucid explanation of the term in his work. Kinneavy is credited with demonstrating the moral aspect of kairos, establishing a link between it and justice by arguing that to be moral and just means to observe the proper measure in action and words. At the end of the interview, with typical Kinneavian modesty in response to a question about how he looks back on his career as a scholar and teacher, he concedes that In the discipline of rhetoric, tried to recognize the importance of history and the importance of theory and the importance of the empirical. Finally, with a touch of pride, he closes with this admission: I think one of the most important contributions gave to rhetoric as a discipline was as one of the people-Corbett comes to mind; a lot of other people come to mind-who gave rhetoric a respectable name as a scholarly discipline in English departments. Few, if any, of the many members of our profession whose minds have been touched by Kinneavy would disagree.

The Lost Cause of Rhetoric: The Relation of Rhetoric and Geometry in Aristotle and Lacan by David Metzger. Carbondale: Southern Illinois UP, 1995. xvi; 135. Roman Rhetoric: Revolution and the Greek Influence by Richard Leo Enos. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press, 1995; xii + 135pp. Nineteenth‐Century Women Learn to Write edited by Catherine Hobbs. Charlottesville and London, University of Virginia Press, 1995. 343 pp. Kenneth Burke and Contemporary European Thought edited by Bernard L. Brock. Tuscaloosa, U of Alabama P, 1995; xii; 279 pp. A Teacher's Introduction to Composition in the Rhetorical Tradition by W. Ross Winterowd & Jack Blum. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English, 1994. A Teacher's Introduction to Postmodernism by Ray Linn Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English, 1996.

In other words, Scott recognized that our individual felt sense of rhetoric participates in larger group and community practices, which give our sense of rhetoric both a purpose and a justification. Scott uses two key examples to illustrate his point. One of them concerns the way in which Huey Newton, the Black revolutionary of the 60s, confronts an unspecified number of policemen with a gun in his hand. Bobby Seale, Newton's colleague in the Black Panther Party, reports that these policemen were checking out some people hanging around the party office when Newton intervened:

Aristotle's Rhetoric: An Art of Character by Eugene Garver. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1994. 325 pp.

The early works of I. A. Richards, while not committed to hard-line verificationism, nonetheless seem persuaded of the central tenet of logical positivism, that the only truth strictly so-called is the truth disclosed by the methods of empirical science. This minimal positivism, coupled with a non-physicalist form of behaviorism, is evident in books like Science and Poetry (1926) and Principles of Literary Criticism (1925). However, if Richards was a positivist, he was a positivist who wanted to save poetry from positivism. Primitive positivists like A. J. Ayer impenitently regarded poetic discourse as meaningless. Since they are neither analytic nor available for empirical testing, the statements found in poems are really pseudo-statements, expressions of feeling and no more. Richards, who loved poetry, feared that people would cease to read it or write it if they were convinced that it was nothing but emotional gush. And so, in his early books, he developed an affectivism in which poetry, by helping us order our conflicting impulses, acquires a value distinct from the value of science. On this view, poetry is not a means of expressing and communicating propositional truth-only science does that-but a device for constructive behavior-modification by means of language. Meanwhile, from the very beginning of his career, Richards had been a diligent student of Samuel Taylor Coleridge. He was convinced that the works of Coleridge contained many important insights into the nature and effects of poetry which, in order to be made generally accessible and secure wider appreciation, needed only to be disentangled from the metaphysics of romantic idealism in which they were embedded. Quotations from Coleridge appeared with great frequency in his own writing and teaching. Kathleen Coburn predicted that sooner or later Richards would have to write a book on Coleridge, and eventually her prophecy was fulfilled. Setting out to rewrite Coleridge in the language of empiricism, Richards produced Coleridge on Imagination (1934), which suggested to some of his readers that Richards had not converted Coleridge to empiricism but that Coleridge had made Richards an idealist, if not a metaphysical then at least a linguistic idealist. It is the Richards thus baptized in the Alphean flood who speaks in the lectures on The Philosophy of Rhetoric (1936) delivered two years after the publication of the Coleridge book.' From first to last, in all his writings and through all his changes of mind, Richards insisted that he was a pragmatist. And indeed, in every project he undertakes, from Basic English to literary theory, he is unfailingly preoccupied with the practice of reading and the possibilities of communication. If behaviorism and romanticism are just the low-mimetic (preterite) and high-mimetic (elite) forms of pragmatism, respectively, then Richards' progress from the former to

(1997). The classical tradition: Rhetoric and oratory. Rhetoric Society Quarterly: Vol. 27, No. 2, pp. 7-38.

I n last few decades historians have devoted significant attention to language used by political actors during American revolution and founding. The ground-breaking work of Bailyn, Pocock, and Wood established importance of language as a motivating force, conceptual filter, and constitutive process.' The concept of ideology as a paradigm or organizing conceptual framework figured prominently in these early studies. Initially, (re)discovery of situated language led to recovery of a republican ideology at core of early American political imagination.2 The claims of republican historiography were, of course, contested by other historians who located alternative ideological frameworks such as liberalism or protestant Calvinism in language of early American politics.3 More recent historical scholarship challenges the assumption that there is but one language-one exclusive or even hegemonic paradigm-that characterizes political discourse of a particular place or moment in time.4 Historians of political discourse (including rhetorical critics and public address scholars) now face challenge of studying interaction of, and interrelationship between, multiple ideologies, idioms, or languages in early American public culture. This recent interest exhibited by historians in language of revolutionary and founding period is part of a broader in historiography and humanities scholarship generally.5 Part of this turn has involved problematizing status of language and historical documents or texts. Whereas pre-turn scholarship commonly approached language as a transparent medium for transmitting ideas and treated text as an unproblematic vessel that transported idea, first, to an historically proximate audience, and then, to succeeding generations, post-turn scholarship (in rhetoric, history, literary studies, etc.) explores cognitive and constitutive capacity (and limits or incapacity) of linguistic representation as well as internal and external dynamics of discursive text. This shift in attitude regarding language and text generates a particular dilemma that I term problem of contested text.6 Put simply, certain texts (most notably in philosophy and sciences, but in political realm as well) seem to resist linguistic turn. These texts invite and/or demand, their defenders inform us, a pious, respectful reading. Texts of this sort, opponents (mainly on right) of linguistic turn commonly argue, have escaped perishable or ephemeral fate that awaits vast majority of discursive products because they contain and transmit timeless truths or universally valid principles and must, therefore, be read in a manner that acknowledges and respects this achievement. Contested texts challenge critics and historians to

Sophistical Rhetoric in Classical Greece by John Poulakos. Columbia, S.C.: University of South Carolina Press, 1995, pp. xiv + 220. Prisoner of History: Aspasia of Miletus and Her Biographical Tradition by Madeleine M. Henry. New York and Oxford: Oxford UP, 1995; 201 pp. Reclaiming Rhetorica: Women in the Rhetorical Tradition edited by Andrea A. Lunsford. Pittsburgh, University of Pittsburgh Press, 1995; xiv; 354. Political Rhetoric, Power, and Renaissance Women eds. Carole Levin and Patricia A. Sullivan. Albany: SUNY Press. 1995. 293 pp. Allegories of America: Narratives, Metaphysics, Politics, by Frederich Michael Dolan. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1994, 232 pp. The Past as Future by Jürgen Habermas (Interviewed by Michael Haller); edited and translated by Max Pensky. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press, 1994; xxvi; 185pp.

T here is a long-standing tension between the community and rheto ricians of with regard to the status of truth and the objectivity of knowledge. While neither the community nor the community of rhetorical scholars can be said to be monolithic in their views, the scientific view ascribes objective, permanent, and universal status to the facts produced by scientists, whereas the view supported by many rhetoricians describes facts as products of social conditions, and therefore marked by inter-subjectivity, transience, and situational delimitations. The classical account thus sees facts as discovered, whereas the sophistic rhetorical account portrays them as constructed (e.g., Fuller; Gaonkar; Gusfield; Latour; Latour and Woolgar; Lessl; Nelson, Megill, and McCloskey; Taylor, Defining Science).' As a variety of scholars have suggested, this bifurcation of views can be resolved into a unified perspective that accounts for the major arguments advanced by those supporting each of the classical orientations (Bambrough; Bernstein; Laudan, Explaining Success). It is possible, in other words, to see facts as both objective and situated-both faithful to material realities and responsive to social conditions (Howe and Lyne). From this unified perspective, scientists can make errors either because their contact with asocial material realities are flawed (e.g., cold fusion) or because there are flaws in their application of the linguistic and social codes that convey the character and meaning of the contact they have made with material realities. This essay explores the persistence of bad science of the latter sort by reporting and interpreting an interaction between scientists and a rhetorician, one that occurred when I sent a letter to the journal Science responding to a publication on brain sex research by Gur et al. (Sex Differences), which appeared in that journal. I was later interviewed by a reporter for a major newspaper with regard to my letter and the Gur research. The texts for this study therefore include the Gur research article, my letter, a reply to my letter by the authors of the Gur article, the two reviews of my letter solicited by the editor of Science, and the journalistic account of my letter and the scientists' publications. This essay interprets the response of these scientists and the integration of their work into the public sphere through theories of demarcation. It suggests that bad science, at least that which supports an ideology that is hegemonic in the social sphere,2 is maintained by a complex relationship beRSQ: Rhetoric Society Quarterly 83 Volume 26, Number 4 Fall 1996

Encyclopedia of Rhetoric and Composition: Communication from Ancient Times to the Information Age, ed. Theresa Enos. Garland: New York and London, 1996; xxiv; 803. Audience and Rhetoric: An Archeological Composition of the Discourse Community by James E. Porter. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice‐Hall, 1992; 6 +185 pages. Writing the Speech by William E. Wiethoff. Greenwood, Indiana: The Educational Video Group, 1994; xi; 217.

The Law of the Other: The Mixed Jury and Changing Conceptions of Citizenship, Law, and Knowledge by Marianne Constable. New Practices of Inquiry. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1994; 192 pp. Reinterpreting Property by Margaret Jane Radin. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1993; 265 pp.

(1996). A “fusion” of interests: Big science, government, and rhetorical practice in nuclear fusion research. Rhetoric Society Quarterly: Vol. 26, The Rhetoric of Science, pp. 65-81.

pletely unavailable to conscious introspection, as Mark Turner explains (247). According to Turner, the paradigm emphasizes the ties between meaning (hence semantics) and conventional cultural and structures, in contrast to the generative paradigm, which places these structures outside its area of interest (21). Turner insists that we are designed as a species to notice in consciousness not the obvious and unoriginal but rather the novel and nuanced, but that of language and literature are for the most part ... acts of the unconscious mind (43). These acts are based on conceptual connections [which] are disclosed in our patterns of reading and writing (149). A cognitive rhetoric should provide as complete a description as possible of what drives an audience's reaction in the presence of different kinds of texts as well as what basic needs and expectations in readers cause some kinds of texts to be produced and others, logically possible, not to exist in the literary universe. The cognitive rhetoric I'm suggesting treats the novel genre as a linguistic

Norms of Rhetorical Culture by Thomas B. Farrell. New Haven and London: Yale UP 1993; x + 374pp. Hermogenes On Issues; Strategies of Argument in Later Greek Rhetoric, by Malcolm Heath, Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1995; pp. ix + 274. The Rhetoric of Politics in the English Revolution, 1642–1660, by Elizabeth Skerpan. Columbia: University of Missouri Press, 1992; 264 pages. The Rhetoric of Courtship: Courting and Courtliness in Elizabethan Language and Literature; by Catherine Bates. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992; 236 pages. Philosophy, Rhetoric, Literary Criticism: (Inter)views edited Gary A. Olson, with a foreword by Clifford Geertz. Carbondale: Southern Illinois U P, 1994. 250 pp. Understanding Scientific Prose ed. Jack Selzer. Madison: U of Wisconsin P, 1993; 388 pp. Learning from the Histories of Rhetoric: Essays in Honor of Winifred Bryan Horner, ed. Theresa Enos. Southern Illinois UP; 1993; 200 pp. Greek Rhetoric Before Aristotle, by Richard Enos. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press, 1993. 159 pages.

Sean Patrick O'Rourke: Introduction On Saturday, November 20, 1993, five historians of rhetoric presented papers on the question, What is the most significant passage on rhetoric in the works of Francis Bacon? The American Society for the History of Rhetoric sponsored the panel, which was part of the Speech Communication Association's 79th annual meeting held in Miami Beach, Florida. Bacon's views on the nature and scope of rhetoric have become increasingly important. As a philosopher, historian, politician, advocate, scientist, and essayist, Bacon was well aware of the cultural uses of rhetoric, and he showed particular concern for the place of rhetoric in liberal education. Moreover, he systematized and promoted his ideas in a forceful, eloquent way. As a result, despite the judgment of many that Bacon made no original contributions to science and offered little that was pivotal in the history of jurisprudence or politics, Bacon has been a central figure in intellectual history. Certainly that remains true today. Bacon's thought is deeply relevant to the ongoing work in the rhetoric of science, his influence as a prose stylist has important implications for those concerned with the essay, and his stature and authority in the field of law make his writings a preface to the contemporary debates on the rhetoric of law. For reasons that will soon become obvious, the papers provoked a lively and enthusiastic discussion when they were presented in Miami. They are presented here in the hope that they will prove equally provocative to the readers of RSQ.

course of his mythic depiction of the struggles of the lover's soul, when the lover's soul is converted from mania to reverence. The soul's conversion to reverence is a key moment in the myth, for it enables the lover to engage his beloved in edifying communication-in the kind of rhetorical discourse literally described by Socrates after reciting his second speech.' This essay interprets the conversion of the lover's soul as an instance (or allegory) of persuasion that sets an attitude of reverence in the lover/student of Plato's ideal rhetoric. The persuasion-to-reverence, the consequence of the lover's appropriate interpretive act, shows how the transformation of a lover's/ student's character is a starting-point in his progress toward becoming a Platonic rhetor-not only in affecting the appropriate ethical stance toward winning his beloved through edifying communication, but also in understanding, and being influenced by, the dual nature of embodied logos-its material and spiritual significance. The lover's reading of the beloved's face-this nondiscursive sensual presence embodying and radiating a Platonic Idea-is explained, in the context of the allegory, as a trope for the appropriate reception of a rhetorical artifact. The difference between the persuasive face and the persuasive word is the difference between the two sites where logos is manifest. Their difference shows how rhetorical words artfully mimic the persuasive face of the natural order. Nevertheless, they both may influence the soul to harmonize with Platonic Ideas in more or less the same way. From this perspective, in Platonic thought the redeeming character of the natural order is the effect it has on souls prepared to receive/observe it appropriately. The same value is attributed to Plato's ideal rhetoric. So part of the idea of learning rhetoric is linked to preparing the soul to appropriately receive/observe embodied logos-to be able to interpret sensually evocative signifiers in morally edifying ways (as the lover does). Thus, in the context of the allegory, Plato's understanding of rhetoric, and what the rhetor must know, encompass not only its appropriate production, but its appropriate reception as well. The lover's conversion is an allegorical case in point. It exemplifies an edifying aim of rhetorical education as a process of being persuaded

Aristotle's Voice: Rhetoric, Theory, and Writing in America by Jasper Neel. Southern Illinois U P: Carbondale, 1994. 225 pp.

As Sharon Crowley claims, first question asked of any research is 'What use is it in the classroom?' (Politics 7). Knowledge of the history of rhetoric should enable us to lecture persuasively, to convince our students of the significance of the rhetorical texts which we and our colleagues research. This essay will address the challenges in teaching the Latin rhetoric of the Middle Ages compellingly. Despite the astounding productivity of scholars in medieval rhetoric-despite the discoveries of new manuscripts, editions of pedagogical glosses and theorization of medieval precepts for communication-unfortunately, in many American survey courses, medieval Latin rhetoric is still presented with Elizabethan disgust.' It is typically introduced as wrongheaded excursion away from classical principles toward the slavish study of rhetorical formulae. While evaluating trends in scholarship on rhetoric's history, Kathleen Welch implies one reason for the dismissal of medieval rhetors: a nostalgia for the perceived golden past in the classical world. . (85). Here, I am proposing that, in order to cultivate greater understanding and respect, we must find other lectern generalizations than those current about medieval Latin rhetoric in history of rhetoric surveys. I suggest one alternative: that many of the accomplishments of medieval rhetoric correspond to the Burkean theory of identification. The Generals of History

Abstract Aeschines and Athenian Politics by Edward M. Harris. New York: Oxford U P, 1995. Pp. x + 233. The Presidency and the Rhetoric of Foreign Crisis by Denise M. Bostdorff. Columbia, University of South Carolina Press, 1994. Preface vii, 306 pp. The Fate of Eloquence in the Age of Hume by Adam Potkay. Ithaca: Cornell UP, 1994; pp. 253. Power and Persuasion in Late Antiquity: Towards a Christian Empire by Peter Brown. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1992. 182 pages. Composition in Context: Essays in Honor of Donald C. Stewart. ed. W. Ross Winterowd and Vincent Gillespie. Carbondale and Edwardsville: Southern Illinois U P, 1994; xxxi; 266.

For a long time now, of course, intellectuals have been trying to avoid rhetoric in defense of liberty. They might as well avoid mere reasoning or mere speaking. The defenses are commonly set in the axiom-and-proof rhetoric of the line Eucid-Aquinas-Hobbes-Russell. Formality is trumps and the meaning of formality is an imitation of Euclid's certitude. Consider Alan Peacock's twopage article on Economic Freedom in The New Paigrave: A Dictionary of Economics (which with Alan Ryan's other two on Liberty in the Dictionary brings the total of modem economic reflection on liberty to four pages out of some 4000). Peacock begins by setting the question of economic freedom into the standard Samuelsonian framework of modem economics-maximization of utility under a budget constraint-with careful delineation of the subscripts, as though relevant. After two opening paragraphs of such mathpride, however, he rejects his own formal construct, pointing out that mere liberty to move within a budget constraint is not what people mean by liberty.Anything-the KGB's rules of conduct in pre-democratic Lithuania, for example-can be included in the budget constraint, making slaves by definition into men, to choose within the constraints of their shackles. Peacock argues plausibly that more than liberty to move about within a budget constraint must be required: Economic freedom requires that the various terms in the budget constraint reflect the absence of 'preference or restraint' (Adam Smith) on the (Vol. 2,33). As Herbert Spencer said, when he is under the impersonal coercion of Nature, we say that he is free (493, italics added). Peacock then tries to connect the absence of or to the market: Therefore (the prices must) ... result from the operation of competitive market forces with the individual being to choose between alternatives (italics added). The therefore fails in strict logic, though demanded by the axiom-and-proof rhetoric of his piece. The problem is that it is not obvious that an absence of preference or restraint requires competition. Peacock does

(1996). A new start toward the next millennium: A note from the editor. Rhetoric Society Quarterly: Vol. 26, No. 1, pp. 5-7.

The Horn Collection (MS Gen. 1824) comprises a fifteen-box, un-indexed collection of papers, drafts, notes, and miscellaneous items of David Baynes former Professor of History at the University of Edinburgh. This wideranging collection contains numerous items that will be of interest to historians of rhetoric, logic, philosophy, and education. At the time of his death in October 1969, D. B. Professor of Modern History at the University of Edinburgh, was engaged in writing a full-length history of his university. The University Court (Senate) had given Horn two years leave of absence to write a full-scale History of the University of according to his letter to the Edinburgh Town Clerk, dated 4 March 1968. Horn had earlier completedA Short History of the University of Edinburgh, 1556-1889, which was published by the Edinburgh University Press in 1967. his letter to the Town Clerk, Horn described the parameters of his plan: In the first instance, I would limit myself to the period when the Town Council acted as patrons of the University, that is down to 1858. Horn had made significant progress in the last twenty months of his life toward his goal of publishing a full history of his beloved University. Judging from the draft materials, Horn appears nearly to have completed the project. His papers and miscellaneous items will be of particular interest to those tracing the history of the teaching of rhetoric and belles lettres in eighteenth and nineteenth century Britain. The broader purpose of this bibliographical essay is to highlight those materials in the Horn collection that may be of value to the interested in the general academic context of enlightenment rhetoric in the Scottish universities. The collection (MS Gen. 1824) was deposited in the University of Edinburgh Library by way of the good graces of D. B. Horn's daughter, Dr. Hazel Horn. It appears that Dr. Horn provided an initial deposit of her father's papers after his death in October, 1969, and in 1977 passed along a further large instalment of [her] father's notes and papers for his history of the University. . .[which] will clearly be of value and benefit to many scholars (Letter from Mr. Charles Finlayson, Keeper of Manuscripts, to Dr. Hazel Horn, 7 October 1977). D.B.

Consolatory Rhetoric: Grief, Symbol and Ritual in the Greco‐Roman Era by Donovan J. Ochs. Columbia, S.C.: University of South Carolina Press, 1993; xiv + 130pp. Ancient Rhetorics for Contemporary Students by Sharon Crowley. New York: Macmillan, 1994. 364 pages; glossary; time‐line of important moments in Greek and Roman rhetoric; bibliography; index. Landmark Essays on Kenneth Burke. Edited by Barry Brummett. Davis, CA: Hermagoras P, 1993; xix; 290 pp. Ramon Hull's New Rhetoric: Text and Translation of Llull's Rethorica Nova. Ed. and Trans. Mark D. Johnson. Davis, CA: Hermagoras Press, 1994; 1; 109. Thinking Through Theory: Vygotskian Perspectives on the Teaching of Writing by James Thomas Zebroski. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook P, 1994. 334 pages. A Social History of Truth: Civility and Science in Seventeenth‐Century England, by Steven Shapin. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 1994. Pp. 483.

Scott Cosigny on protagoras and logos: A study in Greek philosophy and rhetoric. by Edward Schiappa. University of South Carolina press, 1991. Pp. xvii & 239.