"Philosophical bases of rhetoric and composition Ph.D. programs." Rhetoric Society Quarterly, 25(1-4), pp. 247–248 Notes The annual meeting of the Rhetoric Society of America at the CCCC in Washington, D.C. featured talks by Kathleen E. Welch, Andrea Lunsford, and Susanne Clark. The topic for the session was “The Theoretical Basis of Rhetoric/Composition Ph.D. Programs in the Discipline of English.” We are printing presentations by Andrea Lunsford and Suzanne Clark. As we went to press, Kathleen Welch's presentation was not available.

(1995). Kairos and kerygma: The rhetoric of Christian proclamation. Rhetoric Society Quarterly: Vol. 25, No. 1-4, pp. 164-178.

(1995). Revealing the mind of the sage: The narrative rhetoric of the Chuang Tzu. Rhetoric Society Quarterly: Vol. 25, No. 1-4, pp. 134-148.

A Rhetoric of Doing: Essays on Written Discourse in Honor of James L. Kinneavy, edited by Stephen P. Witte, Neil Nakadate, and Roger D. Cherry. Carbondale: Southern Illinois UP, 1992; 376 pp. Rethinking the History of Rhetoric: Multidisciplinary Essays on the Rhetorical Tradition ed. Takis Poulakos. Boulder: Westview Press. 1993. xi + 292 pp. Landmark Essays on Rhetorical Criticism edited by Thomas W. Benson. Davis, CA, Hermagoras Press, 1993; xi‐xxii; 247pp. Landmark Essays on American Public Address edited by Martin J. Medhurst. Davis, CA, Hermagoras Press, 1993; xi‐xliii; 227pp. Socratic Rationalism and Political Philosophy: An Interpretation of the Phaedo, by Paul Stern. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1993; 240 pp. A History of Professional Writing Instruction in American Colleges: Years of Acceptance, Growth, and Doubt by Katherine H. Adams. Dallas: Southern Methodist University Press, 1993; xi + 192 pp.

When preparing the revised English version of my book, I was so worried about such reactions as Professor Gross's that I changed the title from Scienza e retorica to The Discourses of Science but I was also so optimistic about my readers that I was sure I would not be misunderstood. In any case, to avoid risks, I warned them that I am not concerned with sociological hermeneutic, communication questions regarding scientific texts, their making, presentation, and diffusion. In particular, with reference to Professor Gross' book, I explicitly said that I do not believe that scientific facts are words, or, to use one of his own expressions in his book The Rhetoric of Science, that, say, the sense of the reality of a molecule is an effect only of words, numbers, and pictures judiciously used with persuasive intent. Unfortunately, my worries were right and my optimism ill-founded.

(1995). Deliberative rhetoric and forensic stasis: Reconsidering the scope and function of an ancient rhetorical heuristic in the aftermath of the Thomas/Hill controversy. Rhetoric Society Quarterly: Vol. 25, No. 1-4, pp. 223-230.

(1995). Revising for publication: Advice to graduate students and other junior scholars. Rhetoric Society Quarterly: Vol. 25, No. 1-4, pp. 237-246.

When James Boswell first meets Samuel Johnson in London in 1763, Johnson has already written the Rambler (1750-52), the Dictionary (1755), and Rasselas (1759), and dominates the publishing marketplace. They become close friends, and, until Johnson's death in 1784, Boswell often records in his journals Johnson's conversations, documenting his Wisdom and Wit and describing Johnson's encounters with his contemporaries. After Johnson's death, Boswell augments his own collection of Johnsonian memorabilia by soliciting anecdotes and letters from many of Johnson's friends, accumulating a mass of material which he pieces together and publishes in 1791 as The Life of Johnson, perhaps the most powerful and controversial biography ever written. In this influential biography of Johnson's life, Boswell presents Johnson as the great sage and philosopher, the composing genie who could dash off brilliant, eloquent essays and verse, seemingly without planning, revising or even rereading them. With this picture Boswell tries to create Johnson as the ideal writer of the age, whose writing method and style perfectly exemplify the paradigm of composition that prevailed in eighteenth-century Scottish rhetorical theory, particularly that of Adam Smith. Influenced by Smith's lectures, which he had attended while a student at Glasgow University, Boswell constructs Johnson as writer within this paradigm and thus fosters both a narrow view of invention and a mythological image of Johnson as inspired speedwriting genius. In the process, he misrepresents Johnson's theory of writing, tying Johnson too closely to what W.S. Howell calls Smith's new rhetoric (541), which focuses on style and views invention as an autonomous activity based on introspection and imagination rather than as interactive, systematic inquiry, Aristotle's conception of invention. A careful reading of the Life of Johnson reveals major contradictions in the picture Boswell sketches of Johnson as writer and indicates that Boswell's mythical image of Johnson's spontaneous writing ability tends to rest upon thin and questionable anecdotal evidence, upon the clever way Boswell arranges and phrases his material, upon the narrow conception of invention he inherited from Adam Smith, and upon his need to canonize Johnson into literary sainthood and even to make him the secular Godhead of the age, the Father of modern writing. At the same time, it is difficult to avoid concluding that most contemporary critics remain mesmerized by Boswell's myth and impelled by his same motives.

(1994). Teaching stones to talk: Using stasis theory to teach students the art of dialectic. Rhetoric Society Quarterly: Vol. 24, No. 3-4, pp. 88-95.

(1994). The rhetoric of the Vietnam war: An annotated bibliography. Rhetoric Society Quarterly: Vol. 24, No. 3-4, pp. 131-147.

(1994). Rhetorical invention in Wen Xin Diao Long. Rhetoric Society Quarterly: Vol. 24, No. 3-4, pp. 1-15.

(1994). Neo‐sophistic rhetorical theory: Sophistic precedents for contemporary epistemic rhetoric. Rhetoric Society Quarterly: Vol. 24, No. 3-4, pp. 16-24.

(1994). Forensic rhetoric and the constitution of the subject: Innocence, truth, and wisdom in Gorgias’ palamedes and Plato's apology. Rhetoric Society Quarterly: Vol. 24, No. 3-4, pp. 148-166.

Dissertation Abstracts 48 (June 1988): 3125-A: Emphasizes medieval Arabic philosophers al-Farabi, Avicenna, and Averroes. Attention to general logical and epistemological topics: the relationship between language and argumentation; the end of logic as the production of conception (tasawwur) or assent (tasdiq); the orientation of logic towards demonstration; the relationship between logic and syllogistic. Also includes detailed analyses of the formal This content downloaded from 157.55.39.171 on Sat, 23 Jul 2016 05:36:05 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

(1994). The social construct of enthymematic understanding. Rhetoric Society Quarterly: Vol. 24, No. 3-4, pp. 71-87.

(1994). Authoring elitism: Francis Hutcheson and Hugh Blair in Scotland and America. Rhetoric Society Quarterly: Vol. 24, No. 3-4, pp. 39-52.

Landmark Essays on Rhetorical Criticism edited by Thomas W. Benson. Davis, CA, Hermagoras Press, 1993; xi‐xxii; 247pp. Landmark Essays on American Public Address edited by Martin J. Medhurst, Davis, CA, Hermagoras Press, 1993; xi‐xliii; 227pp. A Rhetoric of Doing: Essays on Written Discourse in Honor of James L. Kinneavy, edited by Stephen P. Witte, Neil Nakadate, and Roger D. Cherry. Carbondale: Southern Illinois UP, 1992; 376 pp. Rethinking the History of Rhetoric: Multidisciplinary Essays on the Rhetorical Tradition ed. Takis Poulakos. Boulder: Westview Press. 1993. 292 pp.

The Sixth Canon: Belletristic Rhetorical Theory and Its French Antecedents by Barbara Warnick. Columbia: University of South Carolina P, 1993. 176 pp.

Whenever I give a talk about the Rhetoric, audiences ask about rhetorical deception and fraud, about the morality of rhetoric, and about how to tell a good rhetorician from a sophist. The first and most important thing to say about the Rhetoric in connection with such questions of the morality of rhetoric is that Aristotle has very little to say about them, and, as far as I can tell, very little interest in them. Contemporary readers of the Rhetoric see people constantly duped by slick commercial and political advertisements, and hope that the Rhetoric can help them become conscious of hidden persuasion, or to make more morally based discriminations between decent appeals, which they should trust, and immoral ones, which they should reject. Rhetoric is often promoted today as an equivalent to defensive driving. It is worth asking why these questions have so little interest for Aristotle.

Collaborative Learning: Higher Education, Interdependence, and the Authority of Knowledge by Kenneth A. Bruffee. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins U P 1993. Scenarios for Teaching Writing: Contexts for Discussion and Reflective Practice by Chris M. Anson, Joan Graham, David A. Jolliffe, Nancy S. Shapiro, and Carolyn H. Smith. Urbana, NCTE, 1993. 160 pp. Seeing Yourself as a Teacher: Conversations with Five New Teachers in a University Writing Program by Elizabeth Rankin. Urbana, NCTE, 1994. 136 pp. Evaluating Teachers of Writing, ed. by Christine A. Hult Urbana, NCTE, 1994. 189 pp. Arguing the Apocalypse: A Theory of Millennial Rhetoric, by Stephen D. O'Leary. New York: Oxford U P, 1994, pp. 314. Oratorical Culture in Nineteenth‐Century America: Transformations in the Theory and Practice of Rhetoric, ed. Gregory Clark and S. Michael Halloran. Southern Illinois UP, 1994. 281pp. Rhetoric and Reality in Plato's Phaedrus by David A. White. Albany, SUNY P, 1993. 340 pp.

Whatever dates Composition historians suggest as the beginning of modern composition studies whether it's 1949-50 with the founding of the Conference on College Composition and Communication, or 1961 with the publication of Richard Braddock, Richard Lloyd-Jones, and Lowell Schoer's Research in Written Composition, or 1971 with the publication of Janet Emig's The Composing Processes of Twelfth Graders they all agree that the modern study of written communication is at least two decades old, with its gradual emergence occurring over decade or so. One way of marking the emergence of this new discipline is to look for the rise of what Robert Connors has called a coherently evolved of composition (Introduction xii). In fact, the journal literature of the 1950s and early 1960s is full of suggestions for theoretical foundation for the study and teaching of writing. Finding coherent theory that the field could embrace, however, was problematic.

(1994). Humanist and empiricist rhetorics: Some reflections on rhetorical sensitivity, message design logics, and multiple goal structures. Rhetoric Society Quarterly: Vol. 23, No. 3-4, pp. 27-45.

(1994). Patient compliance, the rhetoric of rhetoric, and the rhetoric of persuasion. Rhetoric Society Quarterly: Vol. 23, No. 3-4, pp. 90-102.

Defining the New Rhetorics, edited by Theresa Enos and Stuart C. Brown. Newbury Park: Sage, 1993; pp. 243 + Introduction, Index Nineteenth‐Century Scottish Rhetoric: The American Connection by Winifred Bryan Horner. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1993. 211 Rhetoric and the Origins of Medieval Drama by Jody Enders. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press, 1992;xiv; 281. Rhetoric and Society Series, ed. Wayne A. Rebhorn. Peter Ramus's Attack on Cicero: Text and Translation of Ramus's Brutinae Quaestiones. Ed. James J. Murphy.Trans. Carole Newlands. Davis, CA: Hermagoras P, 1992. Literate Culture: Pope's Rhetorical Art by Ruben Quintero. Newark: U of Delaware Press, 1992; 187. Cast by Means of Figures: Herman Melville's Rhetorical Development by Bryan C. Short. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 1992.

Recently, rhetoricians have engaged themselves in the project of revising histories of nineteenth-century American so as to account for the practices of women. We wish to enlarge the scope of this project to include the late eighteenth century. Yet, to discover women's place in (or outside of) the rhetorical tradition in late eighteenth-century America, we cannot turn to familiar sources: for example, the college curricula that schooled early political and religious leaders. From this particular schooling, women were excluded. Nor can we study those textbooks that promoted reading and writing as commercial skills. Women were, for the most part, scarce in this realm as well.' Rather, for women there developed a kind of rhetoric of use apart from other instrumental and secular literacies that were, in the late eighteenth century, practicable mainly by men.2

Central to an understanding of the history and theory of classical rhetoric is an understanding of the keywords the ancients used to discuss their art. Keywords are those terms which are integral to a text's argument and which often resonate with complex denotations and connotations (Welsch). Keywords carry a heavy freight of meaning that simple, single-word definitions often cannot render. Furthermore, single-word conceptualizations tend to foist the reader's own associations onto the ancient and foreign words. The solution to this problem is not to translate

(1994). A closer look at education as epideictic rhetoric. Rhetoric Society Quarterly: Vol. 23, No. 3-4, pp. 70-89.

Paralogic Rhetoric: A Theory of Communicative Interaction by Thomas Kent. Bucknell University Press, 1993. xiii & 212 pages.

Over forty years have passed since five hundred participants gathered at the first conference on College Freshman Courses in Composition and Communication.l Since then our discipline has undergone unprecedented change, often characterized by moments of intense excitement, pride and astonishing growth: the watershed 1963 CCCC; the proliferation of journals, university presses and conferences; the institution of nationally recognized graduate programs in composition; the development of research communities; the addition of new rhetoric and composition positions within departments of English; and the expanding role of writing workshops and writing-across-the-curriculum projects. These years of development have also provided an opportunity and a need to look back on the issues that have defined and continue to shape our discipline. It is with this goal in mind that we have assembled the following annotated bibliography. Our purpose here is to provide a resource guide and overview for those who wish to familiarize themselves with the kinds of practices, research questions, and histories which have constituted our profession in the last forty years. The materials we collected, therefore, explore such fundamental concerns as the professionalization of composition, the formation of a canon, the interrelationship of rhetoric and composition, received histories of the field, and areas which call for further research. The the scope of this collection is necessarily limited-in both chronology and content; its focus is representative rather than definitive, descriptive rather than prescriptive. The works catalogued here were selected from several sources: ERIC searches, separately published bibliographies, conference programs and surveys, journals with annually published bibliographies, data base searches, and journal directories. We have attempted to provide a fair distribution of chronological coverage and, as is the case in more recent years, to choose the most representative works when the number of items in a given category became unwieldy. We have chosen these materials because they fit one or more of the following criteria: (1) They attempt to define our discipline; (2) They trace major shifts in theory and/or practice; (3) They present meaningful overviews of theoretical and pedagogical issues and research questions; (4) They summarize large, significant areas of research; (5) They affirm connections or establish distinctions between rhetoric and composition and other disciplines.

Theory as Practice: Ethical Inquiry in the Renaissance by Nancy S. Struever.Chicago: U of Chicago P. 1992. xiv + 246 pp. The Rhetoric and Morality of Philosophy by Seth Benardete. Chicago: U of Chicago P. 1991. 205 pp. Signs, Genres, and Communities in Technical Communication by M. Jimmie Killingsworth and Michael K. Gilbertson. Amityville, NY: Baywood Publishing Company, 1992. 257 pp. Rhetoric, Innovation, Technology: Case Studies of Technical Communication in Technology Transfers by Stephen Doheny‐Farina.Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press, 1992; 279 pp. The Great Sophists in Periclean Athens by Jacqueline de Romilly. Trans. Janet Lloyd. Oxford: Clarendon P, 1992. 260 pp. Gaining Ground in College Writing: Tales of Development and Interpretation by Richard H. Haswell. Dallas: Southern Methodist U P. 1991. 412 pp.

I have often wondered what would happen if one of our students were to hand in an assessed essay which followed the form and style of one of Montaigne's. First and second marker would pronounce it so disorganised as to be unmarkable, and the external examiner would fail it. Only at the final examiners' meeting would we confront the fact that we had confidently rejected one of the masterpieces of the genre. This story illustrates potentially destructive paradox. When teachers are defending essay writing, they argue that their students are practising the same genre as such great writers as Montaigne, Addison, Lamb, Woolf and Orwell. But when we mark students' essays we have different and at times rigid expectations, expectations which many of the classic essayists would not meet. This paradox is related to another. most commonly accepted formulae for educational essays are extremely strict, and look as though they derive from rhetorical precepts on the outline of the oration. In the English model this is the four-part essay (Introduction, points for, points against, conclusion)' which appears to derive from the model of the four-part oration (exordium, narration, proof and refutation, peroration) by omitting the narration and altering the function of the refutation. American model of the five point essay (Introduction, three arguments, conclusion) presumably derives from the same source, together with the often repeated instruction to restrict divisions to three headings.2 These popular (and in their way appalling) instructions run quite counter to Montaigne's open hostility to the rules of rhetoric, when he founded the genre. They are also opposed to the views of many practitioners. Sir William Williams prefaces his A Book of English Essays (Harmondsworth 1951), by saying that the essay has multitude of forms and manners, and scarcely any rules and regulations (p. 11). It should be short piece of prose which is not devoted to narrative. (There are plenty of exceptions even to rule as permissive as this.) Maurice Hewlett's celebrated The Maypole and the Column describes the essay, as a theme set up, and hung with loving art; then round about it measure trodden, sedately for the most part, but with involuntary skips aside as the whim takes him (ibid., p. 238). He prefers dance and digression to order and structure. Lamb is his admired model. My argument in this essay is that rhetoric, argument and ideas of structure have been involved with the essay (often as imperatives to react against) right from the beginning and that rhetorical ideas can help us understand the relationship between the belles-lettres essay and the schoolroom exercise. I shall raise the historical question of how genre which originated in opposition to rhetoric came to be taken over by rhetoric. For the sake of brevity my narrative will concentrate on four moments of the story: the birth of the essay, the English essay of the

Classical practitioners of the art of rhetoric such as Demosthenes have long been a familiar part of the rhetorical tradition, but subsequent periods have generally been confined to the history of rhetorical theory, with little attention paid to political rhetoric or public discourse. We need to develop a more rhetorical perspective on the history of rhetoric to encompass rhetoric's dual nature as an intellectual discipline and a practical political art. Such a perspective would focus on the domain between the learned culture and the public experience, the domain where rhetorical theories are applied to discursive practices to formalize who can speak, how controversial issues are to be argued, and what political purposes such arguments serve. The eighteenth century is a dynamic period in the history of rhetoric precisely because the domain between the educated world and the public sphere was transformed by the expansion of the reading public.' Rhetoricians such as Hugh Blair were the first professors to lecture on modern culture because they taught students who came from the provinces of the English reading public.2 General histories of college English studies tend to ignore eighteenth-century rhetoricians in the assumption that the study of English is more or less synonymous with the study of literature (see Baldick, Graff, McMurty, and Palmer).3 We need more rhetorically oriented histories of modem cultural studies, not just because literature specialists have tacitly accepted the erasure of rhetoric from such studies, but also because the formation of disciplinary knowledge is a rhetorical process, and the domain of rhetoric is where disciplines set themselves off from related discourses and public audiences. Rhetoricians first introduced English into the university curriculum in the middle of the eighteenth century in Scotland, America, and elsewhere in the cultural provinces. All of the figures whom Howell has categorized as New rhetoricians came from outside the centers of English education, while Oxford and Cambridge

Coleridge criticism has a stormy quality about it, as if what we know about Coleridge is something we see only by flashes of lightning over some dark landscape. In Experience Into Thought, Kathleen Coburn says that Coleridge is irritating to certain tempers, perhaps especially to the curriculum-making academic mind(67). Her statement is ironic. Coleridge was always working on curriculum. His rage for a system that included the irrational and lucky graces forced him into whole courses about thinking and language, whole encyclopedias of knowledge. Still, the plan in most academic circles seems to have been to place Samuel Taylor Coleridge in the canon as a fragment of history and forget him. After long years of reading criticism about Samuel Taylor Coleridge rather than reading his works, it is time to see if there is a Coleridge worth claiming for rhetoric and composition. One problem in validating a Coleridge for our time is reading him. It seems that we have lost the habit of reading his kind of discourse. Perhaps because of his translations and readings of the German Transcendentalists, Coleridge's prose wanders and speculates, opposes its central premises, comments on itself incessantly. Composition scholars see him as an antithesis of the kind of style recommended in our classrooms and in our journals. Also, as composition studies attempt to establish territory in departmental turf wars, Coleridge becomes an easy target for those who would use him to demonstrate how literary concerns should not be included in composition pedagogy. As much as some might want Coleridge to go away, he will not. Linda Flower argues that Coleridge's inspirational model for composition is a threat to the teaching of composition (Problem-Solving). Ross Winterowd asserts that Coleridge is a primary reason for the devaluation of the literature of fact because his theory of composition or rhetoric lacks purpose (64). In both cases, eminent scholars and researchers in the field of composition are reacting to a stereotypical view of Coleridge and his works, as if the Rhyme of the Ancient Mariner and Kubla Khan represent Coleridge's philosophy and theory of composition. But there is more to Coleridge's philosophy of composition than his poems, his theory of imagination in Biographia Literaria, or his criticism suggest. Kenneth

(1993). “The rhetorical situation revisited”. Rhetoric Society Quarterly: Vol. 23, No. 2, pp. 30-40.

By now there seems widespread consensus among scholars on rhetoric that Protagoras and Gorgias, the leading sophists of the fifth century B.C.E., made significant progress in building a theory of discourse that excluded any absolute standard for the judgment of truth. These ancient sophists thus anticipated today's prevailing school of rhetoricians, who hold that absolute standard for the judgment of truth can never be found ... because the individual mind can never transcend personal emotions, social circumstances, and historical conditions.1 This position prevented the two sophists from adopting, as it now impels us to set aside, the terms knowledge and truth in their classic objective sense since neither consciousness nor discourse can be supposed accurately to represent an absolute and non-contingent external reality. Robert Scott's famous 1967 article On Viewing Rhetoric as Epistemic, from which we often date the current renaissance of anti-foundationalism in rhetoric, repeatedly acknowledged Protagoras and Gorgias as pioneers. And the resonance has been repeatedly acknowledged since (Jarratt &9, Crowley 332, Meiland 51, Newman 47). Patricia Bizzell has pointed out, however, that something is missing from today's anti-foundationalist rhetoric: