The five canons, parts, faculties, or functions of rhetoric are among the most constant features in the systematic treatment of the art (Scaglione 14). In many respects, they constitute the basic pattern of all theoretical and critical investigations into rhetorical art and practice (Thonssen 86). The five--invention (content, discovery), disposition (arrangement, organization), style (diction, elocution), memory, and delivery (presentation)--were canonized in Latin rhetoric as inventio, dispositio, elocutio, memoria, and pronuntiatio or actio. They were important in Greek rhetoric as heurisis, taxis, lexis, mneme, and hypocrisis. While the exact origin of the canons is unknown, the five recur in rhetorical theory from antiquity to the present, where they command attention individually and collectively. Studying rhetoric, most agree, requires studying its canons. They are the sub-disciplines of the main, the lesser arts of the greater (Connors 64). They allow separate analysis and study of a complete five-part system (Murphy 83). They are the aspects of composing which work together in a recursive, synergistic, mutually dependent relationship (Welch Paradox 5-6). In part, the very history of rhetoric consists in changing relationships and interrelationships between them (Mahony 14). The canons apply to both encoding and decoding, forming a complete system for both generating and analyzing discourse (Welch Ideology 270). They represent not only the concepts with which the rhetor must deal and which he must master, but also the aspects of the rhetorical act which the critic examines and evaluates (Thonssen 86). In speech studies, minor changes in the meanings of the five terms have been developed in various treatises, but the pattern remains the same (Thonssen 86). In composition studies, the five canons are one of two prmary theories which dominate the discipline (Welch Ideology 269). The structure which has dominated both disciplines' textbooks, however, is a truncated one. Rarely has the five-part scheme been presented completely and explicitly. In speech studies, the fourth canon--memory--has virtually been dropped and usually receives incidental treatment (Thonssen 87). In composition studies, the first three canons--invention, arrangement, style--organize the vast majority of current textbooks, but the last two--memory and delivery--are typically deleted without a word of explanation (Welch Paradox 5, Ideology 270). This deletion, when explained, has been attributed to changed conditions in the law courts (Kennedy 105), to memory's absorption under disposition (Kennedy 210; Mahony 14) and, most often, to the western world's shift from orality to literacy. The tendency has been for modern rhetorical theory to abandon, remove, neglect, limit, or misunderstand both memory and delivery. On the other hand,

As Otto A. L. Dieter argues in his landmark essay, (1959), Greek concepts of motion provided classical rhetoricians with a theoretical framework for analyzing and conducting rational argument.' The various ways in which motion can be considered contrary, the different grounds on which contrary motions come to rest, the array of faults impeding contrary motions--all these distinctions, borrowed from the philosophic study of kinesis (movements) and metabolai (changes in Being), were applied by rhetoricians to describe and facilitate amphisbetesis, or the moving apart of opposing assertions. Stasis theory, then, provided a paradigm essential to the two phases of the rhetorical process: Noesis (Cogitation) and Poiesis (Production). This paradigm allowed the rhetorician to reflect upon--and upon reflection, to judge--whether a conflict of wills and a contest of assertions truly existed, and therefore, whether the matter under dispute was properly rhetorical. Likewise, the paradigm allowed him to anticipate the question to be resolved, the strategies of accusation or defense most likely to be adopted by the opponent, and consequently, the posture or strategy best suited to winning the dispute. If it is true that theories of classical rhetoric have survived because of their utility, then stasis theory has proven indispensable: for over 2000 years it has survived within the canon of rhetorical theory.2 Its most recent incarnation has taken place during the past four decades. Motivated first by historical interest, rhetorical scholars are now reconstituting stasis theory for much the same reason that prompted its formalization in the second century B.C.: the need to find an overarching paradigm that shapes the vast array of distinctions belonging to rhetorical theory into a practical system, one capable of identifying and resolving current communication problems.3

Of all the bruising confrontations between the capitalist and communist power blocks perhaps none was so staggering as the Cuban missile crisis. Most Americans patriotically rallied around our determined young president in this great moment of crisis, but there were other Americans who spoke with a different voice then who presumed to disagree with the dominant opinion. These were the voices from the left, now the old left. Their rhetorical response is my subject. By concentrating on several specimens written from a leftist perspective in response to a single event, I create a framework for analyzing the discourse of an ideology to demonstrate the influence of that ideology on and argument, together with the usefulnesses of an analytic method. Antecedent to this analysis are particular considerations about style, argument and method which lead to other considerations peculiar to the relation of political discourse to the world. Because the event focused opinion strongly, and time gives perspective, I have chosen written and oral reactions to the Cuban missile crisis. In addition to selections of written from three leftist newspapers, the National Guardian, The Weekly People, and The Catholic Worker, I have included speech samples on the same topic from Dean Rusk, then Secretary of State, as a contrast to the rhetoric of the left. To analyze this discourse I use Walker Gibson's style machine as he calls it developed to account for distinctions...in the voices addressing (115), distinctions which he breaks down into tough, sweet and stuffy talkers. Gibson's machine, consisting of sixteen grammatical-rhetorical qualities, is appended (A). Other available descriptions or classifications of or argument are Huntington Brown's deliberative, expository and prophetic, Edwin Black's exhortation and argument, and Aristotle's topics. Brown and Black analyze thought methodology with some consideration of style. The neo-Aristotelians, on the other hand, consider and thought combined into argumentative methods. I follow the classical topics in considering rhetorical argument (Rhetoric chs. 22, 23, 24; Corbett 94-132). My particular assumptions are that belief influences style, that while prose styles can be typed individual differences remain, that includes varieties of diction, syntax, and argument Further, I seek an attitude towards language, an attitude, however, influenced not by cultural or individual psychology, but by political belief. Because political writers argue, their arguments common to all rhetoric can also be typed. Argument creates patterns which shapes. For Gibson is a matter of sheer individual will, a desire for a particular kind of self-definition no matter what the circumstances (24). Political belief can condition will. For both Marie H. Nichols (75), and Edwin Black (Persona) reveals distinctive political personalities. In selecting a usable analytical methodology I had either to invent my own, or use an existing one. I chose Gibson's because we share similar concerns. I want to know what kind of voice speaks. What does the use of that voice imply? How do I determine trust? I also want to know the attitude of that voice towards subject and audience. If Gibson can help to answer these questions, then I accept his work saving the necessity of inventing yet another method, concentrating instead on the results produced. In general, stylistics seems more of a discourse on method than on results. Although we want to know what ails us, naming is not enough. To know that Dorothy Day talks tough does not suffice. We know there are other names than tough, sweet or stuffy. The point is not just to label, but to penetrate into the thought behind the voice aided by a given point of view. Gibson describes his work as primitive. Primitive, yet legitimate because applied he yields insight His method reveals attitude just as psychiatric categories, which might also be called primitive, reveal motive. If the arguments which pattern are traditional and discernible, their correlations with are not as clear. The advertiser, for example, speaks sweetly with recognizably dubious argument. Those political voices purring and storming at us must also be judged by how they argue so their trustworthiness can be determined. We can uncover falsehood by showing how a statement varies from reality--plain lying. We can discover understanding of mental illness by probing the discordance the aberrant mind creates

Chapman/Tate descriptive survey of 38 doctoral programs in rhetoric and composition has given us valuable information about these programs, which, for the most part, have sprung up only within the last ten years. survey, published in the Spring 1987 Review (124-86), revealed our programs' deep structure; it also has raised some questions about the definition, development and direction of our doctoral programs in rhetoric and composition. Few of the 38 programs that sent written materials for the survey listed classical rhetoric as core requirement, and almost half listed no history of rhetoric courses. However, 35 of the 38 programs listed theories of composition course. Because the availability of, as well as the teaching approach to, classical rhetoric can show the foundations on which our programs are built and the theoretical directions they may be taking, I prepared questionnaire on the classical rhetoric course offered in English departments, mailed it to 41 doctoral programs in rhetoric and composition, and eventually received 37 completed questionnaires. survey results not only reveal some foundations and direction of our programs in rhetoric and composition but also point out areas for further study. Does the program offer course in classical rhetoric and, if so, is the course part of the core requirement were two of the primary survey questions. Twenty-eight out of the 37 programs (76%) that sent written materials reported they offer course either in classical rhetoric or wherein substantial part is devoted to classical Eight (23%) do not offer the course, but in six of these eight the course is offered in Speech Communication. Two programs reported that the course is listed but not taught. And two programs reported the course is not offered at all. Four programs reported that the course offered in the English Department is also offered in Speech Communication. 76 percent of programs offering the course differ from the Chapman/Tate percentages because some of the 28 programs defined theirs as course in classical rhetoric where only one-third, about five weeks, or less, is devoted to classical These courses are, in the words of one respondent, a rush through rhetoric. Some courses, titled Rhetoric and (or Composition and Rhetoric), are actually topic courses that can take any focus. In one program it depends on who teaches the course whether it is history of rhetoric or the teaching of composition. Course names are quite varied. Only six are called History of Rhetoric, and two are named History and Theories. (The naming of one course title, survey respondent told me, has long and hilarious story. In 1976 the course had been The of Rhetoric, but that's the title of Richards' book, so the title was changed to Philosophy of Composition, which became the title of Hirsch's book, so the program changed it to its present title, The Rhetorical Tradition and the Teaching of Composition, at which point Knoblauch and Brannon appeared.) Other course titles are Theory and Practice of Rhetoric, Classical and Modern Discourse, Major Rhetorical Texts, Historical Studies, Rhetoric of Written Discourse. I was somewhat surprised that more of the course names didn't have the word written in the title to distinguish the course from the one offered in Speech for the last 75 years. Perhaps crossing departmental lines in the teaching of rhetoric is not the problem it was in the 70's. This subject itself would make an interesting study. classical rhetoric course is core requirement in 50 percent of the programs in contrast to the 91 percent of programs requiring composition theory. (In one program classical rhetoric is required, but it's offered only in Speech Communication.) These percentages suggest that we cannot assume the study of classical rhetoric as foundational for composition studies in our doctoral programs. In fact, it is possible for student to have Ph.D. specialty in rhetoric and composition without having had course in classical question here for further study is, then, how are we to define the rhetoric/composition speialist? next series of survey questions I asked focused on the frequency of the course offering, length of time it has been offered in the program, qualifications of the faculty who teach it, average enrollment and area of stuident specialty. In the majority of programs, the course is offered every other year and has been offered only within the last ten years. Usually, only one person teaches the course, faculty

Michael Paul Rogin, "Ronald Reagan,”; the Movie and Other Episodes in Political Demonology (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1987), 366pp. Jeffrey K. Tulis, The Rhetorical Presidency (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1987), 209pp. Gerald Graff. Professing Literature: An Institutional History. University of Chicago Press, 1987. viii+315 pp. $24.95. Joseph Vining, The Authoritative and the Authoritarian, University of Chicago Press, 1986. In Search of Justice: The Indiana Tradition in Speech Communication. Richard J. Jensen and John C. Hammerback (editors). Amsterdam: Editions Rodopi, 1987. 311 Pp. Greek Rhetorical Origins of Christian Faith: An Inquiry. James L. Kinneavy. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987. Pp. ix + 186. Literary Patronage in Greece and Rome. Barbara K. Gold. Chapel Hill and London: The University of North Carolina Press, 1987. Pp. xii + 267. Introduction to Rhetorical Theory. Gerard A. Hauser. New York: Harper and Row, 1986. The Variables of Composition: Process and Product in a Business Setting. Glen J. Broadhead and Richard C. Freed. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1986. 169 Pp.

Aristotle had said in The Poetics, Richards explains, that greatest thing by is to have a command of metaphor' (p. 89).* Richards finds himself in accord here, but not with what follows, for Aristotle went on to say (as Richards quotes), This alone cannot be imparted to another: it is the mark of genius, for to make good metaphors implies an eye for resemblances. I do not know how much influence remark has had, Richards comments, but question it for a moment and we can discover in it . . . here at the very beginning of the subject, the evil presence of three of the assumptions which have ever since prevented the study of this greatest thing by far from taking the place it deserves among our studies, and from advancing, as theory and practice, in the ways open to it.

(1987). Aristotle's “special topics”; in rhetorical practice and pedagogy. Rhetoric Society Quarterly: Vol. 17, No. 1, pp. 61-70.

An Early Commentary on the “Poetria Nova”; of Geoffrey of Vinsauf. Marjorie Curry Woods, ed. New York and London: Garland Publishing Inc., 1986. Pp. Ixvi + 505. Studying Writing: Linguistic Approaches. Charles R. Cooper and Sydney Greenbaum, eds. (Written Communication Annual, Vol. 1.) Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Rhetoric and Praxis: The Contribution of Classical Rhetoric to Practical Reasoning. Edited by Jean Dietz Moss. Washington, D.C.: Catholic U of America P, 1986, Pp. xi + 172.

(1985). Aristotle, Hegel, and argumentum ad hominem. Rhetoric Society Quarterly: Vol. 15, No. 3-4, pp. 131-144.

Verbal Style and the Presidency: A Computer‐Based Analysis. By Roderick P. Hart. Orlando, Florida: Academic Press, Inc., 1984. The Present State of Scholarship in Historical and Contemporary Rhetoric. Winifred Bryan Horner, Editor. Columbia, MO: University of Missouri Press, 1983. Essays on Classical Rhetoric and Modern Discourse. Ed. Robert J. Connors, Lisa S. Ede, and Andrea A. Lunsford. Carbondale and Edwardsville, IL: Southern Illinois University Press, 1984. Orality and Literacy: The Technologizxng of the Word. By Walter J. Ong, S. J. London and New York: Methuen, 1982.

(1984). The enthymeme: A brief bibliography of modern sources. Rhetoric Society Quarterly: Vol. 14, No. 3-4, pp. 159-162.

Abstract Aristotle on Political Reasoning: A Commentary on the “Rhetoric.” Larry Arnhart. DeKalb, Illinois: Northern Illinois University Press, 1981, pp. ix + 230. Cloth: $18.00.

(1983). Systems of explanation: Aristotle and burke on ‘cause’. Rhetoric Society Quarterly: Vol. 13, No. 1, pp. 41-57.

(1982). Quintilian's value for modern composition theory and teaching. Rhetoric Society Quarterly: Vol. 12, No. 2, pp. 95-104.

Aristotle, Rhetoric I: A Commentary. William M. A. Grimaldi, S. J. New York: Fordham University Press, 1980, pp. viii + 362. $45.00. In the Arresting Eye: The Rhetoric of Imagism. John T. Gage. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State Univ. Press, 1981. Pp. 183. Human Communication Theory: The History of a Paradigm. Nancy Harper. Rochelle Park, N.J.: Hayden, 1979. Pg. 320. The Writer's Work, Guide to Effective Composition. Dean Memering and Prank O'Hare. New Jersey: Prentice‐Hall, 1980. Pp. 474.

At the beginning of his Rhetoric, Aristotle reviews the state of current thinking and finds it lacking because it has not dealt with rhetoric's essential feature, proof. In the Rhetoric, Aristotle's professed mission is to correct this fault, to found rhetoric as an art through an examination of its essence. This concern for the essence of rhetoric-that which makes it to be what it is and not something else leads me to a familiar passage which I nominate as among the most fundamental in its significance for the way in which we read the Rhetoric. I refer to Aristotle's definition, offered in Book I. He states: Rhetoric may be defined as the faculty of observing in any given case the available means of persuasion. This is not a function of any other art. Every other art can instruct or persuade about its own particular subject-matter . . . But rhetoric we look upon as the power of observing the means of persuasion on almost any subject presented to us. . . 1 The part of this passage which the literature overlooks, for the most part, is Aristotle's indication that his definition refers to rhetoric's unique function. It is function, ergon, which I wish to discuss as holding enormous potential for our understanding of Aristotle's work, for understanding what he considered to be rhetoric' s essence. As you know, Aristotle abandoned Plato's theory of Forms. But in so doing Aristotle did not wish to relinquish the idea that one could get at definitions which would explain the essence of a thing.2 His notion of scientific knowledge turns, in fact, on being able to explain a thing's essence. Essence will be reflected in a true definition. Thus, since essence is so important, Aristotle wishes to make clear what it means and how we would discover it. Essence is not some additional component in a thing separate from material components. Nor can he say it is a material component either. So he rejects the tack of explaining essence in relationship to matter. Instead, he treats essence as the structure of a thing and links it with causality. Usually this linkage is with formal cause, and sometimes with efficient cause. For instance, the reason why some flesh and bone is cat is because it is structured by the form of cat. It is a cat because it is organized in a way that it can perform the function of cat-can realize its end-and so is influenced by its teleological striving for perfection.4 Similarly, a particular hunk of matter is human because it is organized or structured to achieve the end of humans-rational activity. As we are familiar, this is man's end. Why is it man's end? Because this is the function unique to man. Thus it is that Aristotle's discussion of the essence of anything gets tied to the crucial notion of function. And, by implication, the discussion of a thing' s function is simultaneously indicative of its essence.

These essays were originally presented on the program, Most Significant Passage in Aristotle's Rhetoric. The panel was sponsored by the American Branch of the International Society for the History of Rhetoric, chaired by Richard Leo Enos of CarnegieMellon University, and convened during the Speech Communication Association Convention in Anaheim, California, November 1981. These synoptic views are intended to serve as a basis for discussion of one of the most significant theoretical statements in the history of rhetoric.

Historical Rhetoric. An Annotated Bibliography of Selected Sources in English. Edited by Winifred Bryan Horner. Boston: G. K. Hall and Co., 1980. Pp. xii + 294. The Winged Word. Berkley Peabody. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1975. Pp. 562. $40.00. Averroës’ Three Short Commentaries on Aristotle's “Topics,” "Rhetoric.” and “Poetics.” Edited and translated by Charles B. Butterworth. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1977. Pp. 3d. & 206. Francis Bacon and the Style of Science. James Stephens. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 1975. Pp. xi ‐ 188. $10.95 (Cloth).

Classical Rhetoric and Its Christian and Secular Tradition from Ancient to Modern Times. George A. Kennedy. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 1980. Pp. 292. $18.00, paper $9.00. Ann Berthoff and the Problem of Method in Writing: A Review Essay on Forming/Thinking/Writing: The Composing Imagination (Hayden Book Co., 1978)