The ancient sophists' investigation of physis and nomos, which took place against backdrop of unpopular and unsettling Peloponnesian War, challenged foundations of Greek society. Although essentially patriarchal nature of Greek society precludes assuming any concern for status of women, in many fundamental ways sophists' project was not unlike that of modern feminists who also question dominant definitions and categories of gendered subjectivity (Jarratt Feminism). In United States, a great deal of current feminist theory also emerged in wake of unpopular Vietnam War. War promotes and depends upon cultural bonding and social solidarity to produce patriotic fervor and unquestioning allegiance to state. In these two eras, eventual unpopularity of war-which irritated and was irritated by renegotiation of class and economic boundariesopened questions about status of citizenship, economic privilege, family life and, of course, gender roles. In both eras these changes were endorsed by many who had heretofore been excluded from many of benefits of patriarchy, but they were resisted by others who feared losing or sharing privilege. Although popular mythology insists upon illusion of progressive enlightenment, there is ample evidence to support argument that periods of progressive change have often been followed by periods of repression and even regression (Kelly). The sophists' project came to an abrupt end when their pluralistic argument and pragmatic adaptations were replaced by monolithic patriarchal certainty of Plato and Aristotle-a certainty which in various guises still operates on modern society. In Page duBois's words, Plato, in fourth century, appropriated feminine and particularly reproductive metaphors in order to reaffirm old patterns of dominance and to establish through new rationalization certain objects of knowledge, certain forms of power (2). Currently, we are experiencing a similar conservative backlasheconomic, racist, and sexist-which, as Susan Jeffords's work on Vietnam War shows, enacts the large-scale renegotiation and regeneration of interests, values, and projects of patriarchy now taking place in U.S. social relations (xi). The sophistic era was marked by intellectual excitement, but sophists' explorations were not universally acclaimed nor were they even in agreement with each other. Some of their ideas threatened members of aristocracy who were eager to undo democratic reforms, while other ideas, for example famous dictum that justice is interest of stronger, threatened democratic principles. The basis of sophistic practice and teaching was discovery and exposition of opposing and contradictory arguments-dissoi logoi-in order to provide their students with training in moral reasoning and discursive ability which would allow them to assume civic responsibility

Erasmus uses female persona, named Folly, to deliver his written mock-encomium The Praise of Folly, published in 1511. Critics have taken little note of her gender, however. Walter Kaiser compares her briefly to Mother Nature (94-95), while still associating her fertility connotations with the phallus. Thomas 0. Sloane refers to her in passing as a kind of muse or other traditionally female and therefore nonrational spirit (67). It does seem somewhat anachronistic and historiographically to dwell on her gender, since, as Sloane notes, female personae were common in Renaissance written orations and dialogues, and they can be traced back through medieval and classical avatars. Female fools were not uncommon, either; William Willeford suggests that Erasmus's is derived from the fool named Mother Folly who figured prominently in carnivals of the late medieval and early Renaissance periods (177). But when I read The Praise of Folly, I can't take the persona's gender for granted, especially as she's depicted in Holbein's illustrations for an early edition of the Praise: woman in fool's cap and bells and an academic gown, speaking from rostrum to an audience of men similarly attired (see Moriae 1989). I became fascinated by this image of while doing research on Erasmus for Bruce Herzberg's and my recent anthology, The Rhetorical Tradition (1990). I couldn't figure out how to get my improper interest in the female persona into this book, however, because an anthology, while of course enacting an ideological agenda through its inclusions and exclusions, must pretend that its choices are not tendentious, that they always rely on arguments already made. Foregrounding in the anthology seemed to go too far in the direction of violation of these constraints of the anthology genre-or at least, so I was informed by my co-author and many of the readers thanked in our Preface, so I bowed to consensus. Now, however, I would like to elaborate the argument I wished had already been made, view that unabashedly articulates Erasmus and with postmodern feminist concerns. I'd like to explore the possibility that the persona of the female fool may have interesting implications for post-modern rhetors, particularly those of us who wish to espouse left-oriented or liberatory political values. My paper, therefore, will have two parts. First, I will consider the implications of Folly's gender as an aid to interpreting Erasmus's mock-encomium, notoriously difficult text. In the process of explaining the interpretive problems in The Praise of Folly, I will provide sort of anatomy of skepticism which, I believe, has bearing on the post-modern situation. Then in the second part, I will try to explain my fascination with The Praise of in terms of problems confronting contemporary rhetorical studies. The problem in which I am particularly interested is that of finding compelling version of rhetorical authority from which to speak on behalf of oppressed groups in spite of the

(1992). Rhetoric, possibility, and women's status in ancient Athens: Gorgias' and Isocrates' encomiums of Helen. Rhetoric Society Quarterly: Vol. 22, Feminist Rereadings in the History of Rhetoric, pp. 99-108.

Abstract In their writings about one of the most important cornerstones in the edifice of psychoanalysis, Freud's interpretation of his Irma Dream, Freud and Erikson act as apologists for the modern patriarchy. Using the rhetorical persona of the progressive, scientific hero, Freud and Erikson cast themselves as protagonists in the drama of modernization. Their rhetorical structures, syntax, and diction reveal their sexism. The strategy of their discourses invites their audience to believe that the audience is witnessing scientific discoveries in the making; the rhetoric of Freud and Erikson suggests that their discourse is not patriarchal rationalization, but rational analysis, the drama of the scientific method applied for progress. Their interpretation of Freud's Irma Dream disassociates Freud from women, assigning separate behaviors for rational, progressive males and irrational, traditional females. But the truth of the Irma Dream is that it associates Freud with females and reveals the irresponsibility of both his pharmacological and psychological prescriptions.