RHETORICA 230 unify. As in the past, he continues to argue for the multiple moments of composition theory. George Pullman Georgia State University Kathy Eden, Hermeneutics and the Rhetorical Tradition: Chapters in the Ancient Legacy and Its Humanist Reception (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1997), 119 pp. Those interested in the evolution of particular discursive practices that helped shape antiquity, especially the theoretical relationship between reading and interpretation, will benefit from this study in locating classical antecedents that ally rhetoric and hermeneutics. Unlike most studies of hermeneutics that spring from the Germanic tradition of Schleirmacher and Dilthey or the recent perspectives of Gadamer or Riceour, this study prizes the rhetorical precedent of an ancient mode of reading, known as interpretatio scripti, as crucial to the development of the field study of hermeneutics. By tapping into this rhetorical tradition largely overlooked in philological studies, Eden historically discerns and synthesizes a convincing case for the recognition and study of interpretatio scripti as a meaning making agent common to both the rhetorical and hermeneutical enterprises that have gained renewed prominence in humanistic inquiry today. In what may be the most valuable portion of the book, the first chapters construct the significance of interpretatio scripti as a model of reading that Roman rhetoricians inherited—from the Hellenistic rhetorical tradition—as "a loosely organized set of rules for interpreting the written materials pertinent to legal cases" (p. 7). As a point of origin, Eden moves decisively to Cicero, particularly De inventione and De oratore, in contextualizing how transforming character of interpretatio scripti often complicates treatments of proof and style in his rhetorical manuals, and plays a deciding role in appropriating legal arguments between the intention (voluntas) and the letter (scriptum) of an author or text under scrutiny. Interpretation, to Cicero, is understood in terms of controversy; thus interpretation theory (and by later implication Reviews 231 hermeneutics) finds a habitual home in rhetorical theory. Eden notes that while Cicero was not the first one to do this, his work has enjoyed the widest reception and can be seen as a generative point from which to track the influence of interpretatio scripti in her book's subsequent chapters. Such a discursive heredity becomes convincing as Eden links the interpretive principles of interpretatio scripti to the classical arts of poetry and grammar as seen through Plato, Aristotle and Plutarch. The prerequisite study of grammar, in classic times, is seen to develop similar concerns as its rhetorical counterpart in the coordinating and complementary notions of decorum and oeconomia which prove crucial in "underlying the hermeneutical concept of contextualization, historical and textual, respectively" (p. 41). Eden extends her coverage of the influence of interpretatio scripti through the Christian appropriation of classical culture, in Basil, Paul and most notably in Augustine. Amidst this backdrop of Patristic hermeneutics, Eden achieves a fine sense of dialogue between the concepts of Cicero, Quintillian and Augustine, and accommodates both a spiritual and historical order that extends into the rehabilitating humanism of Erasmus. Though less substantial than the first part of the book, the final few chapters bring the selected work of Philip Melanchthon and Flacius's Clavis scripturae sacrae into the interpretive landscape as a whole. In the end, this book serves a vital role in establishing the credibility of classical scholarship in legitimizing what Ricoeur would call the hermeneutics of tradition. As a centerpiece in the debate between the role of equity and spirit in the ancient act of reading, interpretatio scripti emerges as a meaningful landmark in charting the never-ending task of interpretation, and suggests an expansion in the intellectual history of both hermeneutics and rhetoric. As an instalment in the Yale Studies in Hermeneutics, this book works an effective balance between written economy and great scholarly depth. Such a stylistic blend should provide ample access points for both experts and novices interested in theories of interpretation, antiquity and rhetoric. RICHARD A. MILLER Bowling Green State University ...

High-modernist writers professed a disdain for rhetoric and yet found it hard to escape. They scorned the artifice of traditional, overt rhetoric and they did not wish to acknowledge that all communication is rhetorical, whether frankly or covertly. They especially distrusted “persuasion by proof” just as they distrusted traditional religion, aversions which had significant consequences for modernist literature. Modernists such as Pound favored poetry over the more frankly rhetorical genre of fiction. They valued the poet’s privilege, first articulated by Aristotle and later by Sidney, of writing only of possibilities and therefore escaping the constraints of rhetoric and of historical veracity. Nevertheless, in order to justify their poetics, these modernists developed the concept of poetic belief first popularized by Matthew Arnold and elaborated upon by I. A. Richards and T. S. Eliot. Ultimately that modernist poetics became not only a substitute for religion but a new form of the rhetoric which modernists had hoped to avoid. The poetic theory helped the literature create a covert religious rhetoric that frequently denied its own existence in a ploy for audience belief.

Abstract: In On Invention, Cicero discusses both induction and deduction. In regard to the latter, Cicero presents a controversy between those who advocate a five-part analysis of deductive reasoning and those who prefer three parts. The issue is not practical or pedagogical, but conceptual in nature. Cicero himself prefers analysis into five parts, and rather confusingly he presents the argument of the advocates of five parts as if it were his own. The argument is striking in that it makes elaborate use of mixed hypothetical syllogisms in order to argue for five parts. Cicero claims that the five-part analysis has been preferred by all who take their start from Aristotle and Theophrastus. A survey of what Theophrastus is reported to have said concerning the hypothetical syllogism renders Cicero's claim intelligible. That is not to say that Theophrastus himself advocated a five-part analysis. Most likely the association with him derives from his known interest in hypothetical syllogistic. Later rhetoricians who identified themselves with the Peripatos made the cormection with the founders of the school, thereby gaining authority for a controversial analysis.

In the course of this paper, I shall say some things about Cicero’s discussion of induction, but my primary concern will be with his account of deduction. In particular, I want to call attention to Cicero’s argument for a quinquepartite analysis of deductive reasoning (Ded. 3). It is remarkable in that it makes elaborate use of the mixed hypothetical syllogism, and also of some importance in that it supplements our evidence for early Peripatetic interest in syllogisms of this land. Recent scholarship on the history of ancient logic has generally focused on later sources—like Alexander of Aphrodisias, Boethius, Philoponus and Simplicius— and pointed to Theophrastus as a significant contributor to the development of hypothetical syllogistic. Cicero, writing three centuries before Alexander, seems not only to confirm the importance of Theophrastus but also to indicate that his contributions were recognized as such by Hellenistic rhetoricians. In presenting this thesis, I shall not be accepting Cicero’s claim to have written more accurately and diligently than others (Ded. 7), but I will suggest that the argument in favor of quinquepaitite analysis (Ded. 3) is more coherent than what precedes (Ded. 2) and that this difference is largely attributable to Cicero’s use of sources.

Gualtiero Calboli From Aristotelian \é£iç to elocutio 1. Introduction o ver the last few years it has become fashionable to criticize Robert Pfeiffer for overestimating the contribution of the Stoics and underestimating drat of the Peripatetics towards the development of rhetoric, grammar and philology. In fact Aristotle deserves the credit for connecting rhetoric with dialectic and poetry, without losing sight of its practical employment in the assembly and courts of law. Another development of rhetoric which occurred after Aristotle and perhaps Theophrastus was the development of an excessive number of rules, especially in the doctrine of tropes and figures of speech. That happened during the second century B.C. on the island of Rhodes and may be considered a kind of Asianic rhetoric. It was introduced into Rome through at least two handbooks, Cicero's De Inventione and the Rhetorica ad Herennium. However, in 55 B.C., at the beginning of his Platonic dialogue De Oratore, Cicero disowned his early work {De orat. 1.5). 1 R. Pfeiffer, History of Classical Scholarship, From the Beginnings to the End of the Hellenistic Age (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1968). 2 This is the opinion of F. Montanari in La philologie grecque à l'époque hellénistique et romaine, ed. F. Montanari (Vandoeuvres - Genève: Fondation Hardt, Entretiens XL, 1994), p. 29. I agree with him but recall that Pfeiffer also pointed out the importance of Aristotle and the Peripatos for Hellenistic philology: cf.z e.g., pp. 192; 197 of the Italian translation by M. Gigante and S. Cerasuolo (Napoli: Macchiaroli, 1973). 3 The origin and development of the doctrine of tropes and figures is not clear. It has been investigated by K. Barwick, Problème der stoischen Sprachlehre und Rhetorik (Berlin: Abhandlungen der sàchsischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Leipzig, Philol.-hist. Kl., Bd. 49, Hft. 3, Akademie-Verlag, 1957), pp. 88-111, but must be reconsidered now (see below)._____________ __ __________© The International Society for the History of Rhetoric, Rhetorica, Volume XVI, Number 1 (Winter 1998) 47 RHETORICA 48 The date of composition of De Inventione is about 87 B.C., only one year after Cicero heard Philon of Larissa in Rome, as has been recently noted by C. Lévy.4 5 Both Cicero's De Inventione (8887 B.C.) and the Rhetorica ad Herennium (86-82) were composed at a time when the democratic party dominated Rome and before Sulla came back from the Orient (82). I do not want to discuss the political position of the author of Rhetorica ad Herennium here, although the idea that he was a democrat has recently been confirmed by G. Achard and J.-M. David.6 In the period between the Ars Rhetorica written (but not completed) by the great orator M. Antonius (about 96 B.C.)7 and Sulla's dictatorship (82), there are about fifteen years of rhetorical activity8 during which the censorial edict by L. Crassus and D. Ahenobarbus of 92 was ineffective. This edict, as has been demonstrated by Emilio Gabba, became effective with Sulla who continued the action that the nobility's faction had brought under the law proposed by the tribune Livius Drusus in 91 B.C. in order to reorganize the Roman State.9 We know that the orator L. Crassus, a teacher of Cicero, was another of the promoters of this law but died before its approval. After considering Gruen's position on this subject, I 4 Cf. Cic. Brut. 306; Tusc. 2.9. When did Philo come to Rome? The answer is given by W. Kroll in his Commentary ad loc., p. 217f.: "Die glücklichen Erfolge des Mithridates verleiteten die Athener, an deren Spitze sich der Peripatetiker Aristo stellte, im J. 88 von den Rômem abzufallen und sich mit Archelaus, dem Feldherm des Mithridates, zu verbünden. Die Optimaten, welche treu zu den Rômem hielten, mufiten nun flüchten". Cf. also J.-M. David, Le patronat judiciaire au dernier siècle de la republique romaine (Roma: Ecole Française de Rome, Palais Famèse, 1992), pp. 371 f. C. Lévy, "Le mythe de la naissance de la civilisation chez Cicéron", in Mathesis e Philia, Studi in onore di...

Lucia Calboli Montefusco c Omnis autem argumentatio...aut probabilis aut necessaria esse debebit (Cic. lnv. 1.44) icero's most technical treatment of argumentatio is to be found in the first book of De inventione.' This treatment is divided into three sections. First, Cicero lists the adtributa personis and the adtributa negotiis, that is those loci argumentorum from which the orator has to draw his argumenta, second, he distinguishes between necessaria or probabilis argumentatio, and third, he considers induction and deduction as forms of arguments. In accordance with the dialectical method, each section begins with a dichotomy: (1) lnv. 1.34 omnes res argumentando confirmantur aut ex eo, quod personis aut ex eo quod negotiis est adtributum ("all propositions are supported in argument by attributes of persons or of actions") (2) lnv. 1.44 omnis autem argumentatio, quae ex iis locis, quos commemoravimus sumetur, aut probabilis aut necessaria esse debebit ("all argumentation drawn from 1 As Cicero himself announces (lnv. 1.34; cf. 1.49), he first wants to give a general overview of the tools of argumentation, shifting to the second book the treatment of the topics for the singula genera causarum. In his later works we do not find such a detailed discussion of the logical means of persuasion, although Antonius in the long passage of De oratore concerned with rational persuasion (docere) takes on the task of providing precepts for argumentation (De Orat. 2.11575 ). Cicero's interest, however, is there focused on the topics and particularly on the distinction, which, apparently recalling Aristotle's distinction between ttlgtcis cvtcxvoi and iriaTcis aTexvoi, contrasts those loci which non excogitantur ab oratore with those which, on the contrary, are tota in disputatione et in argumentatione oratoris. Only a few sections later, still in the second book of De oratore, Cicero briefly hints at the deductive mode of inference (De orat. 2.215 'aut demonstrandum id, quod concludere illi velint, non effici ex propositis nec esse consequens'); for similar allusions cf. also Brut. 152, Orat. 122, Part. 46,139. 2 English translations of Cicero's De inventione are taken from the edition of H. M. Hubbell in the Loeb Classical Library. ________ __ ____________________© The International Society for the History of Rhetoric, Rhetorica, Volume XVI, Number 1 (Winter 1998) 1 RHETORICA 2 these topics which we have mentioned will have to be either probable or irrefutable") (3) Inv. 1.51 omnis igitur argumentatio aut per inductionem tractanda est aut per ratiocinationem ("all argumentation, then, is to be carried on either by induction or by deduction") Leaving aside the first section on the topics, I would like to focus on sections (2) and (3) to underline some similarities, but also many differences, between the text of De inventions and Aristotle's Rhetoric. The relationship between these works is difficult indeed, because of the heavy Stoic influence on Cicero and because Hellenistic rhetorical handbooks served as sources for this youthful work of Cicero. Cicero says that he wants to limit himself to the rhetorical aspects of argumentatio because its philosophical rationes, which go beyond the needs of the orator, "are intricate and involved, and a precise system has been formulated" (Inv. 1.77; cf. 1.86). This statement is important because it shows that Cicero could also draw material from philosophical sources. And in a way he did so when he supplied precepts for both inductio and ratiocinatio, because this subject, "necessary to the highest degree", had been, he says, "greatly neglected by writers on the art of rhetoric" (Inv. 1.50). But we should be cautious about the truth of this claim. Referring to ratiocinatio, Cicero actually says that it was a form of argument which was "most largely used by Aristotle ... and Theophrastus, and then was taken up by the teachers of rhetoric who have been regarded as most precise and accomplished in their art" (Inv. 1.61). Who are these accomplished and skilful teachers of rhetoric (rhetores elegantissimi atque artificiosissimi)? They are likely to be the Hellenistic masters, probably the same ones who, some sections later, appear to have been no less interested in rhetorical argumentation than Cicero himself, although he claims to have written down its precepts more...

James J. Murphy and Martin Davies Rhetorical Incunabula: A Short-Title Catalogue of Texts Printed to the Year 1500 INTRODUCTION T he fifteenth century was perhaps one of the most important periods in the history of rhetoric, when the printing press changed the slow, labor-intensive hand production of single books into a mass-production system based on machine replication of texts. As Elizabeth Eisenstein has observed, "As an agent of change, printing altered methods of data collection, storage, and retrieval systems and communications networks used by learned communities throughout Europe. It warrants special attention because it had special effects."1 This study deals with the earliest printed books dealing with rhetoric, the rhetorical "incunabula." The Latin term incunabulum (pi. incunabula) means "cradle" or "swaddling clothes" or "birthplace." When Cornelius a Beughem published the first specialized list of fifteenth-century printed books (i.e., from Gutenberg up to and including the year 1500), his title Incunabula typographiae (Amsterdam, 1688) gave a name to the books printed in that period. We do not yet know the extent to which printing may have changed rhetoric in the fifteenth century and after. Two major efforts need to be made before that judgment can be made. One is the identification and study of manuscript books dealing with rhetoric, to see what kind and number of texts were made by hand during the fifteenth century. This is a complex matter, both Elizabeth L. Eisenstein, The Printing Press as an Agent of Change: Communications and Cultural Transformations in Early-Modern Europe (Cambridge, 1980), 2:xvi.©The International Society for the History of Rhetoric, Rhetorica, Volume XV, Number 4 (1997) 355 356 RHETORICA because we lack the apparatus for precise location and dating of the manuscripts, and because some works existed in manuscript for a long time before being printed.2 The second necessary effort is the identification and study of books on rhetoric printed up to the year 1500. This present short-title catalogue is a first step in that direction. Surprisingly little attention has been paid to rhetoric in the second half of the fifteenth century. Generally, historians of rhetoric lump all of the "Renaissance" together as one entity, without considering the incunable period separately. The nearest thing to a survey is the brilliant piece by John Monfasani, "Humanism and Rhetoric," in the three-volume Renaissance Humanism edited by Albert Rabil, Jr.3 Monfasani discusses a number of incunable authors, but also ranges over nearly two centuries of development and thus does not concentrate on the incunable period itself. There is also a brief pointing essay by James J. Murphy.4 Some attention has been given to individual authors,5 or to certain lines of influence,6 or to particular countries.7 At the same time there is an enormous range of modern scholarship dealing with other aspects of incunables, especially physical characteristics like bindings, inks, typefaces, and paper, which are often useful in identifying printers, or dates and places of publication. There has been less attention to rhetorical aspects 2The groundwork has been laid, however, by the herculean labors of Paul Oskar Kristeller in the extensive manuscript catalogues of his Iter Italicum, vols. 1-6 (Leiden, 1963-92). Sometimes the time lag between composition and printing is a complicating factor: for example, Lorenzo Valla died in 1457, but his commentary on Quintilian's Institutiones oratoriae was not printed until 1494. 3Rcnaissance Humanism: Foundations, Forms, and Legacy, ed. Albert Rabil, Jr. (Philadelphia, 1988), 3:171-235. 4James J. Murphy, "Rhetoric in the Earliest Years of Printing, 1465-1500," Quarterly Journal of Speech 70 (1984): 1-11. See also Murphy, "Ciceronian Influences in Latin Rhetorical Compendia of the Fifteenth Century," in Acta Conventus NeoLatini Guelpherbytani: Proceedings of the Sixth International Congress of Neo-Latin Studies, ed. Stella P. Revard, Fidel Radie, and Mario A. Di Cesare (Binghamton, N.Y., 1988), pp. 522-30. 5George A. Kennedy, "The Rhetorica of Guillaume Fichet," Rhetorica 5 (1987): 411-18; and Lawrence D. Green, "Classical and Medieval Rhetorical Traditions in Traversagni's Margarita eloquentiae," Quarterly Journal of Speech 72 (1986): 185-96. 6 John Monfasani, "The Byzantine Rhetorical Tradition and the Renaissance," in Renaissance Eloquence: Studies in the Theory and...

Abstract: Alexander of Ashby's De artifldoso modo predicandi has the distinction of being the first medieval sermon rhetoric since the De doctrina Christiana to apply classical rhetorical terms to preaching. The text ineludes a dedicatory prologue to Alexander's abbot (of the Augustinian canons at Ashby), the treatise proper on a sermon's construction, and five sample sermons. In contradistinction to current formalist descriptions of the De artificioso modo predicandi, this essay focuses on its audience awareness. I argue that the historical importance of this treatise lies not merely in its revival of classical terminology, but also in its theorization of rhetorical scenes in which classical teachings might apply to the sermon.

344 RHETORICA and yet know all it takes to be American" (p. 245). In the Afterword, Clark and Halloran reiterate that one of their inten­ tions in editing this volume was to encourage more narratives of the histo­ ry of rhetorical theory and practice in the nineteenth century. In its poten­ tial for encouraging additional studies and new theories of cultural and public discourses, this volume has certainly taken a considerable step toward fulfilling its editors' hopes. Rosa A. Eberly Science, Reason, and Rhetoric, eds. Henry Krips, J. E. McGuire, and Trevor Melia (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1995). This volume of twelve essays and six comments treats a continuingly provocative subject. The book, the product of a conference convened to inaugurate a new program in the rhetoric of science at the University of Pittsburgh, offers some illuminating discussions of the varied appearances of rhetoric in the practice of science. That practice the editors describe carefully in the introduction to the volume. Describing three possible approaches to science, they seek to adopt the third: studies which would "stress the variety and complexity inherent in the production of scientific knowledge and also the attendant human contexts within which science is made and established." Thus they would accept even "accounts of science that are patently not rhetorical." The paths not chosen include a Gorgianic view—science, unable to produce truth, develops strategies of inquiry and uses rhetoric to construct tropes and audiences—and the view that science is sub specie rhetoricae. The book promotes reflection about the relation of rhetoric and science, but, unfortunately, it contains no index to facilitate the examination of concepts, terms, and names. My focus here will be on what seems to me to be the contribution of the volume to rhetoric of sci­ ence studies and on the problems presented by the ahistorical approach of some of the essays. From the editors' introduction, it should not be surprising that the nature and practice of science is the focus of the volume. The nature and practice of rhetoric as an art in itself, however, receives little attention. Most authors proceed as if rhetoric is simply a familiar term without a his­ tory or a discipline, but whose presence in science should be remarked upon. This curious approach is exemplified in the lead-off essay by Stephen Toulmin, the title of which, "Science and the Many Faces of Reviews 345 Rhetoric, would seem to promise to furnish the necessary background. In an attempt to bridge the gap envisioned by philosophers between the polar extremes of rhetoric and rationality, Toulmin turns to the Organon of Aristotle to illustrate the varied and overlapping types of reasoning prac­ ticed by human beings. But his account disappoints by its brevity. In his survey of the Organon, although he makes brief initial reference to the Analytics and the use of dialectical or topical reasoning in science, he then moves on to rhetoric, failing to treat Aristotle's conception of rhetoric or to remark on its relation to dialectic, a point that would seem to illuminate both science and a rhetoric of science. He intends, he says at the end of his seven-page essay, only a "'clearing away [of] the underbrush,"' making no attempt to discuss "questions about the rhetoric of science, or about scien­ tists as rhetors." J. E. McGuire and Trevor Melia, whose responses to Alan Gross's The Rhetoric of Science (1990) have appeared twice in Rhetorica, again reply neg­ atively to Gross's view that science is merely rhetorical invention and rep­ resentation, always relative to time and place (p. 77). Neither foundationalists nor nonfoundationalists, they position themselves as minimal real­ ists, seeing the actual practice of science as constitutive of science. They argue for a "proportionalizing rhetoric" (one that presumes a balance between representation and investigative practice) which would reflect "the proportionalizing strategies of scientific fallibilism" (p. 86). Several studies attend to sociological aspects of rhetoric. Trevor Pinch, in his analysis of the presentation of the Cold Fusion Process, demonstrates the importance of analyzing spoken rhetoric within its con­ text as a means to understanding both the presentation and reception of science by different audiences. Steve Fuller calls for...

The purpose of the Roman iudicia publica (as described by legal, rhetorical, and philosophical texts and even the name of the institution) was to determine whether or not defendants had violated the various “criminal” statutes which established them. Cicero’s reports of the outcome of real cases suggest a popular expectation that jurors ordinarily attempted to carry out this task. The proliferation of distinct formal charges over time and the existence of jokes about orators fooling jurors confirm this suggestion. We are thus discouraged from imagining collusion between parties and jurors in which the formal charge is understood by all to be a pretext for a competition of oratorical skill or social standing. Roman jurors wanted to believe in their verdicts. Advocates, of course, did not simply tell the truth. Rather, they responded to popular expectations by going out of their way to emphasize the (purported) truth of their speeches.

Alexander of Ashby’s De artificioso modo predicandi has the distinction of being the first medieval sermon rhetoric since the De doctrina Christiana to apply classical rhetorical terms to preaching. The text includes a dedicatory prologue to Alexander’s abbot (of the Augustinian canons at Ashby), the treatise proper on a sermon’s construction, and five sample sermons. In contradistinction to current formalist descriptions of the De artificioso modo predicandi, this essay focuses on its audience awareness. I argue that the historical importance of this treatise lies not merely in its revival of classical terminology, but also in its theorization of rhetorical scenes in which classical teachings might apply to the sermon.

Ever since Aristotle noted in the Rhetoric that, when fashionable, delivery ταύτό πoiήσϵι τη υποκριτική (has “the same effect as acting”; 1404a), classical and medieval rhetorical theorists fulminated against a crowd-pleasing oratory that had devolved into a theatrical spectacle more akin to that provided by the comic “actress” or the “effeminate” male. It cannot be coincidental, however, that, as the fifth rhetorical canon documents the theatricalization of rhetoric, it also offers companion testimony about the so-called emasculation of eloquence. In this essay, I examine the early belief that legal and religious rituals crossed gender lines into effeminacy at they same time that they crossed genre lines into theater. Close analysis suggests that the persistent association between theatrics, bad rhetoric, and effeminacy struck four different targets in a single, well-conceived blow: it marginalized women, homosexuals, bad oratory, and theater by casting certain types of speakers and speech as perverse and disempowered. Delivering delivery today thus entails exposing the ways in which early theorists themselves attempted to deliver it from evil.

Research Article| May 01 1997 Aristotle's Rhetoric: Philosophical Essays. Proceedings of the Twelfth Symposium Aristotelicum David J. Furley and Alexander Nehamas (ed.), Aristotle's Rhetoric: Philosophical Essays. Proceedings of the Twelfth Symposium Aristotelicum (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994), xv + 322 pp. John T. Kirby John T. Kirby Program in Classical Studies, Coulter Hall, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907, USA. Search for other works by this author on: This Site PubMed Google Scholar Rhetorica (1997) 15 (2): 213–215. https://doi.org/10.1525/rh.1997.15.2.213 Views Icon Views Article contents Figures & tables Video Audio Supplementary Data Peer Review Share Icon Share Facebook Twitter LinkedIn MailTo Tools Icon Tools Get Permissions Cite Icon Cite Search Site Citation John T. Kirby; Aristotle's Rhetoric: Philosophical Essays. Proceedings of the Twelfth Symposium Aristotelicum. Rhetorica 1 May 1997; 15 (2): 213–215. doi: https://doi.org/10.1525/rh.1997.15.2.213 Download citation file: Ris (Zotero) Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All ContentRhetorica Search This content is only available via PDF. Copyright 1997, The International Society for the History of Rhetoric1997 Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

Research Article| May 01 1997 A New History of Classical Rhetor; La rhétorique antiqu George A. Kennedy, A New History of Classical Rhetoric (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994), xii + 301 pp.Françoise Desbordes, La rhétorique antique (Paris: Hachette, 1996), 303 pp. Laurent Pernot Laurent Pernot Directeur de I'Institut de Grec, Université des Sciences Humaines de Strasbourg, U.F.R. des Lettres, 22 rue René Descartes, 67084 Sfrasbourg Cedex, France. Search for other works by this author on: This Site PubMed Google Scholar Rhetorica (1997) 15 (2): 211–212. https://doi.org/10.1525/rh.1997.15.2.211 Views Icon Views Article contents Figures & tables Video Audio Supplementary Data Peer Review Share Icon Share Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Email Tools Icon Tools Cite Icon Cite Search Site Citation Laurent Pernot; A New History of Classical Rhetor; La rhétorique antiqu. Rhetorica 1 May 1997; 15 (2): 211–212. doi: https://doi.org/10.1525/rh.1997.15.2.211 Download citation file: Ris (Zotero) Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All ContentRhetorica Search This content is only available via PDF. Copyright 1997, The International Society for the History of Rhetoric1997 Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

Reviews 215 expediency. Jean-Louis Labarrière treats Aristotle's remarkable compari­ son of deliberative oratorical style to skiagraphia, or chiaroscuro, in painting. In Section IV, Alexander Nehamas, in an essay that first appeared in Rorty's 1992 collection on the Poetics, writes on pity and fear in the Rhetoric and Poetics, while André Laks (following influential essays by G. E. R. Lloyd, J. Lallot, and I. Tamba-Mecz and Paul Veyne) attempts a unifying interpretation of Aristotle's theory of metaphor. We have here, then, a formidable collection of essays by students of ancient philosophy, one which future scholars of rhetoric will need to take into account. If the shadow of Plato looms large behind most of the essays, that should come as no great surprise. As is the case with all col­ lections, it would be easy to fault this one for what is omitted or ignored here: it would have been valuable, for example, to have such a group of philosophers comment in more detail on the presocratic / sophistic back­ ground of the Rhetoric. But that would be to miss the virtues of what is included. I prefer, as I have indicated, to take the publication of this col­ lection as an auspicious omen for the philosophical study of rhetoric in general, and of the Rhetoric in particular. John T. Kirby Barbara Cassin, L'effet sophistique (Paris: Gallimard, NRF Essais, 1995), 693 pp. To readers who are not quite acquainted with the idiosyncrasies of French publishing, the release by Gallimard of Barbara Cassin's L'effet sophistique may seem unremarkable. However, for such a mainstream publisher to take the major step of printing nearly seven hundred pages of rhetorical analysis, even in a series devoted to philosophy (NRF Essais), is most remarkable. It means, in terms of France's intellectual landscape, that "rhetoric" has broken into a different field of readership, more accus­ tomed to reading (and giving credence to) Jean-François Lyotard than, say, Marc Fumaroli. Setting aside this strategic effect, L'effet sophistique bears all the charac­ teristics of being a major work on at least three counts. Firstly, it heralds a shift in French philosophy from denying history of rhetoric the status of a discipline to its reincorporation in philosophical debates. However, Cassin's work keeps its distance from both deconstruc­ tion and history of ideas (as in De Romilly's Les grands sophistes dans 216 RHETORICA l'Athènes de Périclès [Paris: De Fallois, 1998]). Secondly, L'effet sophistique has the merit to question sources and to provide new translations and insights into mistranslations (Cassin also heads a team working on a Vocabulaire européen des philosophies). A main tenet of Cassin's method is to immerse her reading-as-translation into the history of readings of particu­ lar texts such as Gorgias' Praise of Helen or Sextus Empiricus' Aduersus mathematicos VU, 65-87, or Galen's Libellus de captionibus and excerpts from Lucian as well as the remains of Antiphon the Sophist. Thirdly, it offers conceptual tools to formulate a theory of political or civic discourse not unrelated to current debates on the nature of democracy, diversity, and human rights. In this respect, L'effet sophistique truly does justice to the art of rhetoric by inscribing an analysis of the Sophists in the history of their reception by ancient and modern philosophy and in "current affairs." What is most topical is the way Cassin articulates the opposition of what she terms "Arendts' Greece" and "Heidegger's Greece" (pp. 248-69), by way of conclusion to a chapter on "City as Performance." She elucidates how Arendt constructs the primacy of politics over philosophy by resort­ ing to Protagoras. L'effet sophistique formulates one central question: in the conflict between the two logoi that haunts ancient thought, between ontology and logology, between the Sophist and the Philosopher, how did the First and the Second Sophistics position themselves as key operators in the inven­ tion of "fictionality"? Can we reconstruct the rhetorical history of that "Other" of philosophy and of good Politics, the Rhetor—either Protagoras, Gorgias, and Antiphon or Philostratos, Ælius Aristides, Lucian, and Longus—and, in the process, obtain a...

This article describes the paradeigma / exemplum from a historical point of view, as it is treated in (primarily Greek) rhetorical theories from Aristotle up to the sixth century AD. The description focuses on four main features of the paradigm: its functions (argument or ornament), the modes of reasoning implied in its use (analogical or inductive), its subject matter, and its literary form. The classification of these aspects is meant to serve as a hermeneutic model for the rhetorical analysis of the use of exempla in late antique and Byzantine authors or texts. Although the contribution of this paper is largely theoretical and methodological, it also offers some guiding questions for such an analysis and suggests how this analysis can be complemented by a semantic approach to the exempla: the questions of how they function and what they mean are inextricably linked.

Reviews George A. Kennedy, A New History of Classical Rhetoric (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994), xii + 301 pp. Françoise Desbordes, La rhétorique antique (Paris: Hachette, 1996), 303 pp. Ces dernières années ont vu se multiplier, en Europe et en Amérique, les ouvrages de synthèse, manuels, guides ou recueils, sur la rhétorique. Le marché éditorial en atteste : il y a un besoin croissant en ce domaine, pour la formation des étudiants et pour le perfectionnement des collègues. Les deux ouvrages recensés ici constituent des spécimens particulièrement distingués de cette production. Tout en étant synthétiques, ils restent rela­ tivement circonscrits, puisqu'ils portent, l'un et l'autre, exclusivement sur la rhétorique antique. Il est inutile de présenter George Kennedy aux lecteurs de Rhetorica. Membre fondateur de l'ISHR, George Kennedy a joué un rôle capital dans le regain de l'histoire de la rhétorique à partir des années 1960. Il a montré, à une époque où cela n'allait pas de soi, que la rhétorique antique n'était pas une vieillerie desséchée, vouée aux catalogues de figures, mais une nervure essentielle de la culture gréco-romaine. Trois livres majeurs, devenus des classiques, ont scandé son enquête : The Art of Persuasion in Greece (1963), The Art of Rhetoric in the Roman World (1972), Greek Rhetoric under Christian Emperors (1983). Le présent ouvrage, A New History of Classical Rhetoric, fond ensemble ces trois livres, en les abrégeant. La partie de Greek Rhetoric ... qui portait sur Byzance n'a pas été reprise ; inverse­ ment, quelques pages ont été ajoutées sur la rhétorique latine de la fin de l'Antiquité, qui n'était pas évoquée dans les ouvrages précédents. Le petit livre sur le Nouveau Testament, fort apprécié des connaisseurs (New Testament Interprétation through Rhetorical Criticism, 1984), a été également mis à contribution. Tout ce travail de remaniement s'est accompagné, comme il se doit, d'un aggiornamento visant tant les références bibliographiques que cer­ taines questions de fond. Les chevauchements qui pouvaient poser prob­ lème ont été éliminés (à propos de Denys d'Halicamasse, traité à la fois dans The Art of Persuasion ... et dans The Art of Rhetoric ou des progymnasmata , traités à la fois dans The Art ofRhetoric ... et dans Greek Rhetoric La discussion a été partout réduite à l'essentiel : par exemple, le chapitre sur les orateurs attiques se concentre sur Lysias et Démosthène, les autres noms étant seulement énumérés. La bibliographie est restreinte, dans une très large mesure, aux publications en anglais. On pourra discuter, ici ou 211 212 RHETORICA là, des points d'érudition, ou contester telle vue cavalière (par exemple, p. 241, à propos du IIe siècle après J.-C. : « the intellectual exhaustion of the period » ). Mais là n'est pas l'important pour un ouvrage de ce genre. Ce qui compte, c'est que le lecteur dispose d'une histoire complète de la rhé­ torique antique, depuis les origines jusqu'au VIe siècle après J.-C., parfaite­ ment dominée, claire, bien informée. Elle servira de compendium ou de propylées vis-à-vis des ouvrages plus détaillés sur la question, à com­ mencer par ceux de George Kennedy lui-même. Françoise Desbordes rend hommage, dans sa préface, à « l'œuvre monumentale » de George Kennedy (p. 6). Elle a choisi, quant à elle, de poser d'abord la problématique de la rhétorique antique. Une première partie, intitulée modestement « Situation de la rhétorique », passe en revue les questions, antiques et modernes, que soulève l'art de la parole : notam­ ment, la définition de la rhétorique, le problème de sa valeur morale, son enracinement institutionnel (dans la cité, dans l'école), ses rapports avec l'environnement culturel (avec la philosophie, le christianisme, la dialec­ tique, la grammaire). Cet exposé frappe par sa puissance synthétique remarquable. Toutes les questions cruciales y sont réunies, admirablement expliquées en très peu de pages, et constituent une...

Reviews 219 J. O. Ward, Ciceronian Rhetoric in Treatise, Scholion and Commentary, Typologie des Sources du Moyen Âge Occidental, 58 (Turnhout: Brepols, 1995), 373 pp. Ward's work on Ciceronian rhetoric in treatise, scholion, and com­ mentary constitutes the fifty-eighth fascicule in a typological series whose aim is "établir la nature propre de chaque genre de sources (Gattungsgeschichte) et arrêter les règles spéciales de critique valable pour chacun." Despite the "centrality," as W. daims, of the art of rhetoric in mediaeval culture, no previous work has surveyed the relevant texts as a group. Texts transmitting Ciceronian rhetoric in mediaeval and Renaissance culture, however, resist classification as a single genre on account of their broad diversity of contexts and application. Therefore, W. restricts his examination to texts designed to impart "theoretical" as opposed to "applied" knowledge—that is, texts whose purpose is to instruct the student in the classical art of general persuasion. Included within this sub-division are texts devoted to colores, etc. Artes poetriae, artes dictaminis, artes praedicandi, and artes orandi, on the other hand, are exam­ ined separately by other scholars in fascicules 59, 60, and 61. At the outset of his work, W. leaves his reader in no doubt regarding the significance of a study of these texts. These texts not only offer an insight into mediaeval and Renaissance ideas about rhetoric and literary styles, but they also help to reveal the "didactic curriculum that must have come to influence most writers and articulate thinkers in the period." W., therefore, eschews the oblique angle from which most previous scholars, in their preoccupation with theological, dialectical, and grammatical issues or concerns, have traced the Fortleben of classical texts. By contrast, W. val­ ues the commentaries of the period as "intrinsically interesting artefacts of cultural history" providing evidence with which to "assess the role played in mediaeval and Renaissance culture by a hybrid ars rhetorica." After providing an extensive bibliography, W. engages in a stimulat­ ing discussion of various general issues. He advances cogent arguments, for example, to explain why the mediaeval and Renaissance treatment of generalized preceptive rhetorical theory is so heterogeneous, suggesting inter alia that the different types of text reflect the attitudes of society to the knowledge enshrined in that text, with commentaries canonizing the past text, thereby confining its progress, and treatises bearing much more the individual stamp of the transmitter. In recognition of the problems inher­ ent in assessing such a heterogeneous genre, W. creates his own division of the extant material into four rough (and occasionally overlapping) sub­ categories: 1) independent treatises; 2) commentaries and glosses on classi­ cal texts or on texts included in 1); 3) continuous or occasional comments, etc., in the form of interlinear / marginal glosses, etc.; and 4) paraphrases, 220 RHETORICA explications, or translations presented without texts themselves. The main section of the book is devoted to a survey of the extant rele­ vant material organized (on the whole successfully) according to the four sub-divisions noted above and within three chronological periods. By far the least successful portion of W/s work is his survey of the first chrono­ logical period, namely the fourth to the eleventh centuries, for the follow­ ing reasons. Firstly, the treatment of these centuries as though they consti­ tuted a homogeneous period seems to ignore certain clearly distinct politi­ cal and cultural phases. Secondly, insufficient relevant historical informa­ tion is provided for this "period" to establish a context within which the texts can be fully appreciated. Thirdly, the organization of W.'s survey breaks down when W., justifying his inclusion of late antique writers because of their strong influence in the mediaeval and Renaissance peri­ ods, concentrates almost exclusively on this later influence rather than on the creation and consumption of the texts in their own chronological con­ text. Fourthly, W. is forced to rely rather heavily in this section on palaeographical , codicological, and stemmatological evidence, with which he is clearly less at home than with historical evidence. In describing the ninthcentury manuscript Leningrad Publich. Bibl. F vel 8 auct. class, lat. as "unrepresentative" in the extent of its glossatory activity, for example, W. ignores the clear evidence of...

228 RHETORICA titre de son recueil. Cette image, empruntée à Quintilien (VUI, v, 34), l'auteur la lie au symbolisme du paon. Elle pourrait éventuellement s'appliquer au recueil même, qui déplie, tout comme le plumage du paon, un brillant éventail de splendeurs. Paul J. Smith Martha Feldman, City Culture and the Madrigal at Venice (Berkeley, Los Angeles, and London: The University of California Press, 1995), xxxi + 473 pp. with 20 plates, 13 tables, 68 music examples, and 2 figures. A book with a title like this is not an obvious candidate for review in the pages of Rhetorica. A rhetorical way of thinking, however, often sur­ faces in unexpected places. For example, as Paul Grendler has recently confirmed, Cicero played a central role in the educational practice of six­ teenth-century Venice,1 providing some of the key principles by which those who lived and worked there constructed and articulated their own distinctive culture. Feldman begins from the premise that music is a part of this culture and shows that the compositional practice of the day evolved along distinctly rhetorical lines. The key text in this story is Pietro Bembo's Prose della volgar lingua (1525), which advocates Italian rather than Latin as the language of literary expression and Petrarch in particular as the model for the vernacular lyric. In part Bembo and the rhetorical culture for which he wrote were attracted to Petrarch's mastery of sound, and previous music historians have traced this aspect of Bembo's poetics in the practice of the madrigalists of his day. Feldman, however, argues that the influence of the treatise is far greater than previous scholars have believed. Bembo read Petrarch through a Ciceronian filter in which three principles assumed special importance: first, style should be separated into three distinct levels, high, middle, and low; second, the principle of variazione (variation) should create a balance within each style between gravitd (gravity) and piacevolezza (pleasingness); and third, styles should be matched to subjects through decoro (propriety). In particular, Bembo made decoro defined as "moderation" the fundamen1Paul Grendler, Schooling in Renaissance Italy: Literacy and Learning, 1300-1600 (Baltimore and London: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1989), pp. 203-34. Reviews 229 tai principle of his stylistics and linked it to variazione, creating a procedure for moderating extremes through variation to avoid excessive emphasis in any single rhetorical register. Such self-expression through a moderation of extremes, Feldman argues, is peculiarly Venetian, for Bembo's readers were accustomed to constructing a stylized self-presentation based on reserve and discretion. Bembo's treatise, in other words, connects Venetian civic identity, rhetorical principles, and expressive idioms in a distinctive, all-encompassing way. This argument is developed in detail in the fifth of ten chapters in the book. The four preceding chapters lay the groundwork by studying the men who patronized composers in sixteenth-century Venice and the infor­ mal "academies" in which patrons and composers (and others) came together to exchange ideas. Two Florentine exiles, Neri Capponi and Ruberto Strozzi, appear to have been the main benefactors of Venice's two most famous mid-century madrigalists, Adrian Willaert and Cipriano de Rore. As wealthy nobles, Capponi and Strozzi practiced an elite, private sort of patronage, in contrast to that of "new men" like Gottardo Occagna, who supported the publication of music in an effort to make himself upwardly mobile, and of Venetian patricians like Antonio Zantani, who added the printing of music to the collection of antiquities, the commis­ sioning of portraits, and other cultural activities designed to bring public recognition and honor to his family. The most renowned vernacular liter­ ary academy in mid-century Venice, however, was presided over by Domenico Venier. Venier himself wrote Petrarchan poetry and provided a drawing room in which musical settings of that poetry were performed, in accordance with Bembo's interpretation of Ciceronian principles. The last five chapters of the book focus more specifically on the theory and composition of this rhetoricized music. The first significant effort to link language and sound came from a priest named Giovanni del Lago, but the link was not really consolidated until 1558, when Gioseffo Zarlino's Le istitutioni harmoniche...

Reviews 213 David J. Furley and Alexander Nehamas (ed.), Aristotle's Rhetoric: Philosophical Essays. Proceedings of the Twelfth Symposium Aristotelicum (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994), xv + 322 pp. Scholarly fashions in classics come and go. There have been periods in history, for example, when Ovid was thought a poet superior to Vergil, and Statius, despite his relatively low stock today, is afforded a place of great honor in Dante's Purgatorio. Aristotle, (again in Dante) the "maestro di color che sanno," has had his own vicissitudes through the ages, and at different times, this or that individual treatise has had more or less ascen­ dancy. The Rhetoric is no exception in this regard, and I think it is safe to say that, in the past century or so, most scholars interested in Aristotelian philosophy per se have given both it and the Poetics far less attention than, say, the Metaphysics or Nicomachean Ethics. All of that is beginning to change. Superb new critical editions of both the Poetics and the Rhetoric (both by Rudolf Kassel) have appeared in the last thirty or so years; the old Cope/Sandys commentary on the Rhetoric has been, if not supplanted, then certainly supplemented by that of Father Grimaldi (on books I and II); two recent translations of the Rhetoric into English (with notes) have been published by Oxford University Press and Penguin Books—the former by George Kennedy, the latter by Hugh Lawson-Tancred; and there has even been something of a neo-Aristotelian renaissance in rhetorical theory, in The New Rhetoric of Chaim Perelman and Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca. Of particular interest is the sustained and engaging philosophical analysis presented in Eugene Garver's recent Aristotle's Rhetoric: An Art of Character (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994). Nor is this all. Amélie Oksenberg Rorty, continuing her series of col­ lections of essays on various works of Aristotle, has edited a collection on the Poetics (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992) and one on the Rhetoric (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1996). Yet another col­ lection of essays on the Rhetoric, edited by Alan Gross and Arthur Walzer, is due out soon. To the latter list we must also add the book under review here. I should say at the outset that its title is not otiose. That these are "philo­ sophical essays" means, precisely, that they have been written with a specifically philosophical cast, as proceedings of the triennial Symposium Aristotelicum (this twelfth one being the first to be held in the USA). I sur­ mise that this orientation will please some and disgruntle others; habent sua fata libelli, but this is particularly true in terms of the various uses dif­ ferent readers will want to make of any given book. The title of Jürgen Sprute's essay in this volume, "Aristotle and the Legitimacy of Rhetoric," 214 RHETORICA might serve (with a question mark) as a subtitle for the book as a whole: as Sprute remarks, "The fact that Aristotle treated rhetoric seriously, gave lectures on it, and wrote what has to be understood as an 'art of rhetoric' seems to have been a source of embarrassment to some modem readers [O]ne could perhaps have expected Aristotle to abstain from shallow things such as an art of persuasion" (p. 117). That, plus the fact that most modem philosophers (in the analytic tradition at least) have seen rhetoric and communication as less exalted topics of study than metaphysics or epistemology, or even logic, is perhaps what has deterred them from a more whole-hearted study of rhetoric (or of the Rhetoric) before now. It is to be hoped that this volume marks not mere token attention, but rather the beginning of a new era. The volume is arranged in four sections: "The Arguments of Rhetoric," "The Status of the Art of Rhetoric," "Rhetoric, Ethics, and Politics," and "Rhetoric and Literary Art." A number of those who attend­ ed the Symposium have contributed essays to this volume (and some of those who are not in this volume, are represented in Rorty's). Eight of the eleven essays in this volume are in English; the remaining three are in French (the one...

222 RHETORICA the subject. Particularly commendable is the suggestion that in future, material be edited and published in collections of excerpts in preference to individual sets of glosses or treatises in order that this work might con­ tribute a valuable insight into the history of ideas. W. notes as a great desideratum a history of the changing understanding and interpretation of the doctrines of classical rhetorical theory, and observes the significance such a history would have in illuminating the manner in which mediaeval and Renaissance scholars viewed the ancient Roman past. Further research into mediaeval commentaries might also elucidate the ways in which the classical text was read and the philosophical ideas in vogue. To conclude, there can be no doubt that W.'s work amply fulfills both the aims of the typological series and his own desire to demonstrate the "fundamental role rhetorical instruction played in mediaeval society." In suggesting the way forward for future scholars, W. effectively acknowl­ edges that research into the vast and diverse material extant in this field remains in its infancy. The pioneering achievement of this work is such that it whets the appetite for this future research by demonstrating what a stimulating study these texts make as a key to unlocking the mediaeval mind. P. Ruth Taylor-Briggs Perrine Galand-Hallyn, Le reflet desfleurs. Description et métalangage poétique d'Homère à la Renaissance, Travaux d'Humanisme et Renaissance, 283 (Genève: Droz, 1994). Perrine Galand-Hallyn, Les yeux de l'éloquence. Poétiques humanistes de l'évidence, préface d'Alain Michel, L'Atelier de la Renaissance, 5 (Orléans: Paradigme, 1995). Voici deux livres importants, dont l'un, Le reflet des fleurs, est l'édition commerciale de la thèse de Perrine Galand-Hallyn, et l'autre, Les yeux de l'éloquence, un recueil d'articles du même auteur. Considérons d'abord Le reflet desfleurs. Le sous-titre de cette étude indique bien l'immensité du ter­ rain qu'elle couvre. Pour avoir emprise sur cette vaste matière, l'auteur a opté pour une approche théorique éclectique, à la fois ancienne et mo­ derne, et un corpus limité de textes bien choisis. Regardons d'abord les Reviews 223 choix théoriques et méthodologiques: le point de départ est une notion de l'ancienne rhétorique: Yevidentia (enargeia ou hypotypose), cette faculté de la description en rhétorique et en littérature de représenter l'objet décrit comme si on l'avait devant les yeux dans toute sa beauté (ou laideur). Comme l'a bien montré l'auteur, les théoriciens de l'Antiquité ont mis ce pouvoir évocateur de la description en rapport avec la magie et l'onirisme, ainsi qu'avec les arts architecturaux et plastiques, - aspects sur lesquels l'auteur ne cesse de revenir au cours de ses analyses. La réflexion métapoétique dans l'Antiquité portant sur la nature du texte tend à s'exprimer par des métaphores qui prennent vite valeur de topos. L'auteur distingue onze domaines thématiques: astres (feu, lumière), navigation, guerre, chasse, sports, architecture, tissage, peinture, sculpture, mosaïque et médecine (aliments). Elle a eu l'heureuse idée d'en dresser la liste (avec indication des principaux lieux d'origine, d'Aristote au Traité du sublime, pp. 142-161). Cette liste pourrait être utilisée comme une checklist lorsqu'on étudie tel auteur de l'Antiquité ou de la Renaissance: elle permet d'évaluer les nombreuses métaphores métatextuelles dont, par exemple, un Montaigne parsème ses Essais. Or, si dans ces cas le discours figure comme comparé mis en rapport avec un comparant artificiel ou naturel, les choses se présentent autrement et inversement dans le cas de la description poétique. Là, l'objet décrit devient en quelque sorte le comparé ayant pour comparant le texte descripteur, effet rehaussé par le mimétisme élaboré entre texte (sons, syn­ taxe, images) et référent. Autrement dit, toute description énargique pré­ suppose explicitement ou implicitement un moment métapoétique: elle nous informe sur son esthétique sous-jacente. Les instruments théoriques pour étudier les effets...

Cicero and Quintilian were critics of oratory who knew Greek well. They both have much to say about Demosthenes and are important figures in the history of Demosthenic scholarship. Cicero discusses Demosthenes mainly in the <i>Orator</i>, which he wrote primarily as an answer to the Atticists and as a defence of his own oratory. His comments, therefore, tend to be tendentious and to reflect Ciceronian practice more than that of Demosthenes. Quintilian, on the other hand, who was a critic rather than a practicing orator and who does not have an “axe to grind,” makes many perceptive comments about Demosthenic oratory.

Reviews William M. Purcell, Ars Poetriae: Rhetorical and Grammatical Invention at the Margins of Literacy, Studies in Rhetoric/ Communication (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1996), 193 pp. In the context of the evolution from oral to written discourse in the classical and medieval periods of western Europe, Purcell discusses six texts on the art of versification, or artes poetriae: 1) Matthew of Vendome, Ars versificatoria; 2) Geoffrey of Vinsauf, Poetria nova and Documentum de modo et arte dictandi et versificandi; 3) John of Garland, De arte prosayca, metrica , et rithmica (Parisiana poetria); 4) Gervasius of Melkley, Ars poetica; and 5) Eberhard the German, Laborintus. Composed in the twelfth and thir­ teenth centuries, these texts are revolutionary in their adaptation of rhetoric and grammar to poetry, which in that period was usually read aloud or recited. The book offers a useful introduction to material which may be difficult for most undergraduate students to obtain or to under­ stand; however, the critical framework into which Purcell places these texts needs justification, as it is part of a growing debate on the history of orality and literacy. The book is divided into two parts. Part I, consisting of two chapters, establishes the two main assumptions of the theoretical framework into which Purcell has placed the six treatises on poetic composition. The first assumption sets up a diachronic dichotomy between orality and literacy, from the Greek tradition to the invention of the printing press. Purcell argues that rhetoric in classical Greece and Rome was a discipline designed for oral delivery. Grammar was a written activity, developed for analysis and correction of text. As the societies of the Middle Ages pro­ gressed in literacy, grammar was increasingly applied to written material. Thus, Purcell sets up an oral-literate time spectrum. He treats the ancient Greek and late medieval periods as two poles, the former primarily oral and the latter increasingly text-based or literate. Citing Paul Prill, Purcell asserts that the arts of poetry of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries stand at the cusp of the shift from orality to literacy. The second major assumption of Purcell's theoretical framework is that grammar and rhetoric exchanged functions along the oral-literate time spectrum. In the classical period, rhetorical theory was used as a system of composition for oral delivery, while grammar was a system to correct and to analyze written text. By the time the arts of poetry were composed, these roles had begun to be reversed: "Ultimately, with the advent of the printing press, the text became the thing in and of itself, moving away 107 108 RHETORICA from the oral end of the spectrum and toward the literate end. At the same time, rhetoric—a more orally focused technology—moved toward the literate, and grammar—a more literally focused technology—moved toward the oral. The tension created by the rhetorical/grammatical move­ ment is reflected in the theoretical treatises in the artes poetriae themselves" (p. 5). Part II consists of five chapters, arranged chronologically, on the artes poetriae which illustrate the developments in the matrix of orality, literacy, grammar, and rhetoric which Purcell has set up in the first section of his book. Purcell provides excellent summaries of these treatises by giving an overview of their sections on invention, arrangement, and style. Less attention is given to invention and arrangement, as the author's primary interest is the overlapping of grammar and rhetoric in the domain of style, a unique contribution of poetic theory in the Middle Ages. Purcell's study of figures in the artes poetriae shows how the medieval tradition leads to the systematic relation of style to stasis theory in Renaissance rhetoric. This is the most valuable contribution of the book. Purcell argues that these treatises are not simply extensions or adapta­ tions of classical rhetoric, but that they establish a unique genre of rhetori­ cal theory at a time when orality and literacy coexisted. To demonstrate this point, he observes that the existing editions of the texts can be mis­ leading in causing readers to assume a debt to the classical sources. For example, the Faral edition and the Nims translation of Geoffrey of Vinsauf's Poetria Nova...

120 RHETORICA Rhétorique et image. Textes en hommage à Â. Kïbédi Varga, ed. Léo H. Hoek and Kees Meerhoff (Amsterdam: Rodopi, 1995), 318 pp. The subject of this book has been aptly chosen: it echoes and honours Kibédi Varga's published work on visual rhetoric and narratology (for example, Rhétorique et littérature and Discours, récit, image, as well as numerous articles—the bibliography of his works in French, German, English, Dutch, and Hungarian runs to twenty packed pages); it also reflects his founding of the Association for Word and Image Studies ten years ago. Rhétorique et image ranges widely over several disciplines and yet it has a unity of theme and purpose. It is both illuminating and open-ended, refreshingly undogmatic and tentative, and thus, paradoxically perhaps, goes some way towards defining a methodology. Some of the writers here allude to the evolution of their subject and apply the ancient topoi in a modem context. What is new in this book is the narrowing down of the subject to the place of rhetoric in word and image studies. There are four sections: "Reflexions interarts," "Reflexions rhé­ toriques," "Echanges," and "Reflets: fins de siècle," necessarily overlap­ ping, but providing a useful focus. The academic papers are framed and enhanced by a previously unpublished introductory poem, "Un retour à San Biagio," by Yves Bonnefoy, and another closing poem by Salah Stétie, "Fièvre et Guérison de lTcône." Sorin Alexandrescu starts from a photograph taken by the author, of bottles and glasses on a table, and analyses the limits of meaning such an unposed photograph may have. While not representing action, it contains a "récit," presupposing past action and implying a future; but if it is to have meaning, some external information (title, supporting text, context) is necessary to "narrativise" it. Elrud Ibsch gives a very critical account of Charles Jencks' The Language of Post-Modern Architecture, rejecting his idea that this architecture is distinguished from modernist architecture by its semantic richness and its power of communication. His theory of build­ ings as metaphors (in relation to other buildings) is also found wanting because of the confusion over whether the metaphor lies in the observer, the building, or the architect, Ibsch concludes that Jencks' method is that of a critic, who may therefore be allowed personal judgments and a depar­ ture from impartiality, but it is not helpful to historians of literature or architecture. David Scott addresses squarely the rhetoric of images through the example of Dutch postage-stamps of the last forty years, a Reviews 121 particularly beautiful series of typographic and commemorative stamps designed by leading graphic artists. Scott concentrates on the rhetorical figures of repetition, pleonasm, emphasis, enumeration, and parallelism, all in the larger context of communication (semiotics and hermeneutics) and the balance between decorativeness and persuasiveness. Leo Hoek concludes this first section with an attempt at classifying the ways in which text and image may interact, among which are pictorial poetry, clas­ sical ekphrasis (or "art transposition"), novels about artists, art criticism, history, or theory. The author concludes that it is not so much the nature of the text or image which provides the best basis for its classification, but rather the process of production and reception. In production what mat­ ters is which comes first, text (for example, book illustration) or image (for example, emblematic literature), but for reception it is simultaneity, which is important since text and image appear together, although one has pri­ macy over the other. Anne-Marie Christin begins the second, more strictly rhetorical sec­ tion with an analysis of memoria and actio, subjects which usually receive little attention from historians of rhetoric; she concentrates on memory as an important component of visual thought. Starting from the legendary anecdote of Simonides' identification of the guests at a feast after the roof had collapsed, she qualifies this by a discussion of ideas of space and place from Cicero to the birth of printing and on to the present day. She reflects on what the rhetoricians say about writing, images, and the need for blank spaces in the formation of memory. Bernard Vouilloux looks at...

114 RHETORICA than once, insists he is telling the truth: "If I speak untruthfully . . . , O God, let me never come into thy kingdom" (p. 27). In an impressive compression of facts into nine pages of the publish­ ing history of the printed versions and six pages of detailed endnotes, Parker and Johnson give us a wealth of data, and one goes away feeling that indeed one has gotten closer to the speech event than anyone has pre­ viously been privileged to get. The authors conclude, "... it becomes clear that although frequently published, Raleigh's speech has been presented from relatively few of the potentially available texts: three from identifi­ able manuscripts, and four basic printed sources, with various conflations of these texts. The Dutch edition takes its place, therefore, as the earliest of the published texts, the closest to the event it describes" (p. 69). A limited edition of six hundred copies of this volume was printed. Those fortunate enough to secure a copy will possess a classic volume of rigorous scholarship, a model for those drawn to the history of rhetoric. J. Vernon Jensen Lana Cable, Carnal Rhetoric: Milton's Iconoclasm and the Poetics of Desire (Durham and London: Duke University Press, 1995), x + 231 pp. This is an interesting but irritating book. Lana Cable's survey of Milton's affective rhetoric ambitiously extends Paul Ricoeur's doctrine of metaphor, which (more emphatically than the other theory assimilated by Cable) already constitutes a serious implicit challenge to older thinking. For Quintilian, emotion is mainly derived from enargeia and visio, and for the Roman rhetoricians (as Beth Innocenti recently reminded us), such visio was best expressed in graphic, sensory, non-figurative language. For Ricoeur, thinking and poetic feeling (the most positive and transformative mode of emotion) are integral. They work through metaphor, and, in the Aristotelian terms which Ricoeur adopts, the differences between the metaphorical idea (or image) and its referent are as important as the similarities. Overcoming every pre-existent sense of difference, metaphor at its most novel "does not merely actualize a potential connotation, it creates it. It is a semantic innova­ tion, an emergent meaning."1 Since feeling is an integral part of this process, rhetoric will project its most intense pathos when it orients this innovation towards things of the greatest import, as it does in Milton. Ricoeur protests at a tendency, derived from Hume, to think of :Mario J. Valdes, ed., A Ricoeur Reader: Reflection and Imagination (London: Harvester Wheatsheaf, 1991), p. 79. Reviews 115 imagery as decaying sense impression, basically passive; he favours the active Kantian view of "imagination as the place of nascent meanings and categories."2 Applied to the rhetorical arousal of emotion, this means the subsuming of pathos into ethos: sensory images, whether of the past, the present, or the future, of the actual or the potential, are presented through the "likeness" of metaphor. This brings new connotations to bear for both "tenor" and "vehicle" (terms which Ricoeur adopts from Richards), and presses these on the reader or listener through the emotional, logical, and linguistic shock of a comparison that transcends the "first-order feelings" or "bodily emotions"3 derived from sense—or from the direct verbal evo­ cation of sensory experience? Repeated shocks must draw attention from the subjects of debate (however emotive) to the condition of the debaters, and to the inspiriting relationship of persuader and persuadee. Cable's point of departure is to question or qualify Ricoeur's idea that the "second-order feelings" attendant on metaphor transcend (or suspend) the emotional impact of sense. In her view, "A more psychologically cred­ ible account of metaphor's dependence on imagination and feeling would have to recognize that these two are functioning in tandem all the time, whether occasioned by literary experience or by some other kind of experi­ ence . . . drawing ... on sense perceptions both immediate and remem­ bered; on understanding and knowledge; on beliefs, aspirations, opinions, and prejudices . . ." (p. 29). This existing complex of influences must (though Cable never adequately explains the point) constitute the mental and emotional images, the "complacency" (p. 32) which iconoclastic metaphor breaks or refashions. In fusing it with poetry and semantics, Cable is...

Abstract: Vico's theory of metaphor is best understood as a monster in the tradition of classical rhetorical invention. It is the mutant offspring of metaphor characterized as “necessary” (an “ear” of com, for example) and metaphor characterized in terms of analogy. From the perspective of his method. Vico marries these apparently incompatible forms inherited from Aristotle and thereby identifies a third type of linguistic metaphor. I argue that the metaphor identifies a stipulatory definition taken out of context. In order to situate this claim, I outline Vico's genetic analysis and elaborate in general terms what metaphor and definition share. Most importantly. Vico insists that beings, actions, and events are linguistically identified in some particular diseursive context. Indeed, in many cases that context alone determines whether the expression can be called a definition or a metaphor. Like Cicero's ideal jurist, Vico's hero employs motivated words and realizes possibilities available to common sense. Henee Vico's theory of metaphor is both “constructivist”—language has the power to makes things—and “humartist”—it must do so in a form appropriate to history and culture. Vico's theory is consequently important to us because it challenges the proper/figurative distinction championed in the philosophy of language and adds a pragmatic dimension to contemporary views of metaphor at work in literary theory.

Abstract: This essay explores how classical legal or forensic rhetoric informs Henry Fielding's work as a novelist. Focusing on the dichotomous or contradictory application and characterization of forensic rhetoric in Fielding's three major novels—joseph Andrews, Tom jones, and Amelia—I will suggest that the exuberance and confidence that tjrpify the novelist's portrayal of legal rhetoric within the diegetic realm of his narrators is undermined or rendered problematic by the wariness and pessimism with which the same kind of discourse is presented within the mimetie worlds of the stories themselves. After speculating about the biographical, historical, and aesthetic ramifications of this dichotomy, the essay concludes with brief discussion of the ideological significance of Fielding's portrayal of the lawyerly art of persuasion.

Abstract: When lyric poets in late Renaissance England responded to the demand for wonder in poetry and all courtly activity by astonishing audiences through style, they drew upon the Greek rhetorical tradition, which presents roughness and obscurity as coordinate methods of making style deinos, or admirable. In the Life of Cowley, Samuel Johnson also sees roughness and obscurity as coordinate qualities in the verse of the “metaphysical poets” he says erred in pursuit of wonder. Before admirable style went out of fashion, poet-critics praised its ability to provoke the audience's inferences and to transcend persuasión by “ravishing” the audience's will, precisely the effects that Demetrius attributes to the charaktēr deinos in On Style. Yet deinolēs is the term used to describe both the most powerful style and the clever style of sophistic epideixis, and this breadth of meaning helps explain both the rise and fall of wit.

Abstract: Traditional histories of rhetoric assume that the practical oratory of lawcourts and political assemblies is the “primary,” original form of rhetoric in its “preconceptual” or predisciplinary origins in archaic Greece. Hesiod's “Hymn to the Muses,” however, presents both prince and bard as practicing an art of psychagogic suasion, and presents the prince's discursive power as dependent on, and derived from, the paradigms of eloquence and wisdom embodied in the epideictic/poetic discourse of the bard: epideictic is the “primary” form of “rhetoric” in Hesiod's world. Hesiod's account agrees with what is known about the discursive practices of oral/traditional societies worldwide.

Research Article| August 01 1996 Aristotle's Rhetoric: An Art of Character Eugene Garver,Aristotle's Rhetoric: An Art of Character (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994), pp. xii + 325. John Angus Campbell John Angus Campbell Department of Communication, University of Memphis, Memphis, TN 38152, USA. Search for other works by this author on: This Site PubMed Google Scholar Rhetorica (1996) 14 (3): 341–346. https://doi.org/10.1525/rh.1996.14.3.341 Views Icon Views Article contents Figures & tables Video Audio Supplementary Data Peer Review Share Icon Share Facebook Twitter LinkedIn MailTo Tools Icon Tools Cite Icon Cite Search Site Citation John Angus Campbell; Aristotle's Rhetoric: An Art of Character. Rhetorica 1 August 1996; 14 (3): 341–346. doi: https://doi.org/10.1525/rh.1996.14.3.341 Download citation file: Ris (Zotero) Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All ContentRhetorica Search This content is only available via PDF. Copyright 1996, The International Society for the History of Rhetoric1996 Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

Abstract: Ideology can be considered the ethos of the modern, liberal, democratic, capitalist nation state. Working from the descriptions of political ethos in Aristotle's Rhetoric, Tapies, and Politics, the differences from and similarities to post-Renaissance political structures underline the modern insistence on ways to stabilise the representation of the group in power, giving it its veil of authority, as well as ways to stabilise the description or definition of the individual within the nation. Looking at a number of contemporary commentaries from both political theory and cultural studies, the essay elaborates the rhetoric necessary to constitute ideology as the ethos of the nation state, and goes on to detail some of the constraints on the individual who, in gaining access to power, becomes subject to that state. The rhetoric of ideology provides not only an ethos for the character of the group in power, but also a set of guidelines for establishing a spedfic responsive state in the audience, an ethics of pathos. Its ethos is a strategy that imposes a strategy. The circularity of this ethos marks many of the analyses undertaken by current theory, and it has only recently been challenged by, among others, feminist historians of rhetoric. The discussion moves to a point where it asks: given that multinational and transnational corporations now share with the nation state the regularisation of capitalist exploitation, is ideology effective as a political rhetoric any more? Who is the wife of the nation state? And, what is the ethos of the multinational?

Abstract: This paper examines Cicero's relation to Roman imperialism by focusing primarily upon his speech in behalf of Pompey's special command against Mithradates (Pro lege Manilia, 66 BC) and his speech in favor of extending Caesar's command in Gaul (De provinciis consularibus, 56 BC). These two moments in which Cicero contributed substantially to the empowerment of the two great imperialist generais who destroyed the Republic suggest the need to reassess versions of Cicero's career which see film primarily in terms of domestic Roman politics and cast him as the heroic, would-be savior of the Republic. Applying a Marxist reading particularly indebted to Pierre Macherey, I try to explore the internal contradictions of the texts as pointers to the contradictions of late Republican society, contradictions which constitute the very conditions of possibility for Cicero's political participation.

Abstract: It is often asserted nowadays that the medieval period “fragmented” the classical rhetorical inheritance, while the Renaissance restored it to its former coherence. The story of the assimilation in the Middle Ages and Renaissance of Quintilian's Institutes of Oratory is examined here in order to demonstrate the problems inherent in such a position. It is argued that the full utilization of the text of Quintilian's Institutes of Oratory in the Renaissance, along with the discrediting of the Ad Herennium (as a work of Cicero) that is associated with the name of Raffaello Regio in the last decade of the fifteenth century, are not the instances of the “recovery” of antiquity and supersession of “medieval philology” that they are often thought to be. Instead the opposite seems to be the case. The philological “recovery” of Quintilian led away from the incorporation of the Institutes into contemporary rhetorical practice and towards philology for its own sake. This, together with the bitter professional jealousies among the Italian schoolmen of the late fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries, led, almost “accidentally” as it were, to a “sundering” of the “whole” that the Middle Ages had put together out of rhetorical fragments from antiquity. The medieval period, less concerned with philological niceties than with the practical utility of good advice from the past, constructed a new kind of rhetorical text from an amalgam of old texts: the Ad Herennium commentary, made up of the text of the Ad Herennium, explanations, summaries, and discussions from the medieval schoolroom, and portions of Boethius' De differentiis topicis, Quintilian's Institutes, and other classical sources. This serviceable “unity” the Renaissance “sundered” by (a) discrediting the Ad Herennium as an authoritative Ciceronian text, and (b) placing the Institutes far beyond the practical capabilities of contemporary rhetorical training courses by restoring it to its original length (vis-à-vis the abridgements and assimilations of the medieval period). In this process of turning the classical texts into icons, the Renaissance scholars were predictably unable to re-create the kaleidoscopic, one-thousand-year reality of rhetorical attitudes and texts in antiquity, from the fragments that the Middle Ages had used to build up their new form of integrated text. Much had been lost, but what had been gained?

Abstract: This essay presents Quintilian as representative of the ancient categories of thought, in contrast to the medieval-modem one which emerged in the generations of Anselm and Abelard. Quintilian works in the first place with an exhaustive dualism of words and res: res span both what is outside the mind and what is taken into the mind, so that for him there is no medieval-modern trichotomy of words, meanings, and things. In the second place, for Quintilian the primary function of the mind is to take the outside world into itself, while in the medieval-modern context the primary function of mind is to make up meanings by which to think about things outside the mind.

Abstract: Czech humanism drew its ideal of the active citizen who is both eloquent and virtuous from Quintilian, who exercised a significant influence in Czech culture. This paper traces the outlines of that influence, beginning with Hus and Comenius and extending through the Enlightenment to the Prague linguistic circle of the twentieth century.

Abstract: Jean-Jacques Rousseau, the enemy of books and civilized learning, might seem poles apart from Quintilian, who was so popular in France in the eighteenth century. Nevertheless, although there are only small traces of direct contact between the author of Émile and the Institutio, comparison between the two works is illuminating. Both are large-scale educational treatises embodying a vision of humanity. The important common ground between them concerns the importance of early childhood, a certain moral idealism, and the prfrence for a manly form of speech. Significant divergences begin to appear in relation to three major areas of concern: citizenship and the public life, the relation of words to things, and the question of acting, imagination, and fiction. Je ne me lasse point de le redire: mettez toutes les leçons des jeunes gens en actions plustôt qu'en discours; qu'ils n'apprennent rien dans les livres de ce que l'expérience peut leur enseigner. Quel extravagant projet de les exercer à parler sans sujet de rien dire, de croire leur faire sentir sur les bancs d'un collège l'énergie du langage des passions, et toute la force de l'art de persuader sans intérêt de rien persuader à personne! Tous les préceptes de la rhétorique ne semblent qu'un pur verbiage à quiconque n'en sent pas l'usage pour son profit. Qu'importe à un Ecolier comment s'y prit Annibal pour déterminer ses soldats à passer les Alpes? (I never tire of repeating it: put ail your tessons for young people into actions, not speeches; let them learn nothing from books which they could learn from experience. What an insane idea to exercise them in speaking when they have nothing to speak about, to believe one can make them feel on their school benches the language of the passions and ail the force of the art of persuasion, when they have no interest in persuading anybody! All the precepts of rhetoric are pure verbiage to anyone who cannot see what use they are to him. What does it matter to a schoolboy how Hannibal set about persuading his soldiers to cross the Alps?)

Research Article| August 01 1995 Goethe und Quintilian. Von den “jugendlichen Konzeptionen” zur “Weltliteratur” Helmut Schanze Helmut Schanze Laurentiusstr. 69, D 52072 Aachen, DeutschIand. Search for other works by this author on: This Site PubMed Google Scholar Rhetorica (1995) 13 (3): 323–336. https://doi.org/10.1525/rh.1995.13.3.323 Views Icon Views Article contents Figures & tables Video Audio Supplementary Data Peer Review Share Icon Share Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Email Tools Icon Tools Cite Icon Cite Search Site Citation Helmut Schanze; Goethe und Quintilian. Von den “jugendlichen Konzeptionen” zur “Weltliteratur”. Rhetorica 1 August 1995; 13 (3): 323–336. doi: https://doi.org/10.1525/rh.1995.13.3.323 Download citation file: Ris (Zotero) Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All ContentRhetorica Search This content is only available via PDF. Copyright 1995, The International Society for the History of Rhetoric1995 Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

Abstract: A major focus of the school themes in the collections of Roman declamations knowrn as controversiae (practice court cases) is the period of a young man's adolescence, and especially his relationship with his father during this period. In part this can be explained because teachers in the private schools of rhetoric selected themes that naturally appealed to their students—male adolescents in their mid and late teens. This focus is especially notable in the Major Declamations, and since they are the only full examples of controversiae,the phenomenon can most easily be explored in reference to this werk. In its nineteen declamations youths are generally portrayed sympathetically, in contrast to their fathers who are often cruel and harsh. Relations between the two are generally very strained. The themes were popular because they reflected the reality of growing up in a paternally dominated society where fathers had absolute power(even of life and death) over their sons. These declamations therefore had a cathartic effect and escapist value fer Roman teenaged boys,who could vent or explore in legitimate and acceptable ways their repressed, pent-up, and often hostile feelings toward their fathers. The declamations therefore provide an important resource, when used judiciously, for associating social history with the history of rhetoric.

Abstract: Abstract: Nature is a highly tendentious Word and was already so in the time of Quintilian. Since the Stoic ideal was "to live according to Nature," the concept can be invoked persuasively in every phase of education. But Nature had other regular functions in rhetoric: to demarcate innate talent from acquired skill (Natura vs. Ars); to distinguish reality, the outside world, from verbal imitation; and to privilege preferred patterns of argumentation. These competing uses lead to inconsistencies, especially in presenting the relationship between Nature and imitation. The purpose of this paper is to detect these contradictions and illustrate the assumptions that underlie them in Quintilian's tieatment of invention, organization, and expression.

Abstract: Aristotie's Rhetoric appears to have had little influence on rhetorical theory in Greek or Latin during late antiquity or the early Middle Ages, but it was closely studied by some Islamic philosophers, notably al-Farabi. Behind al-Farabi's interest in Aristotle's Rhetoric lay his adoption of Plato's doctrine of the philosopher-king, Whitch had an eloquent exponent in late antiquity in the philosopher-orator Themistius. An allusion to the Rhetoric in an oration of Themistius suggests that al-Farabi's assessment of the Rhetoric also had roots in late antiquity, possibly in circles around Themistius. The content of the Syriac Rhetoric of Antony of Tagrit confirms the likelihood that in thèse matters, as in many others, the Syrians were the intermediaries between Greek late antiquity and the classical renaissance in Islam.

Abstract: Ancient Roman rhetoricians do not offer a systematic theory of vivid description in their rhetorical treatises, perhaps because it was treated at the early stages of a student's education and because it may be produced in various ways to achieve various purposes. After examining the references to vivid description scattered throughout ancient rhetorical treatises in discussions of style, amplification, narration, and proof, as well as Cicero's use of the tectinique in the Verrine orations, I suggest precepts which may have guided the means by and ends for which vivid descriptions are produced.

Abstract: In this paper I wish to ask whether philosophers have good grounds for elaborating rhetorics of science. By doing so they might seem to deny the distinction between the theoretical intellect and the practical intellect, which traditionally have reigned over scientific discourse and rhetorical discourse, respectively. I shall suggest that philosophers of rhetoric do indeed have a warrant for developing their rhetorics of science. We shall assume with Aristotle that we may distinguish the theoretical from the practical intellect by distinguishing objects which cannot be other than they are from objects which can be other than they are. What we shall find is that a stalwart of British empiricism, John Stuart Mill, develops a philosophy of science concerned with objects which can be other than they are. Mill thus provides us with an ontological justification for our new rhetorics of science.

Absract: In the present manuscript collections of the Biblioteka Narodowa in Warsaw and the Biblioteka Jagiellońska in Kraków are two commentaries on Aristotle's Rhetoric and two on Hermogenes' On Ideas, all evidently composed in the early seventeenth century. This study briefly surveys their contents and organization and attempts to locate them in the cultural milieu of Renaissance Polish scholarship, an area of study almost totally ignored by American and Western European historians of rhetoric.

Abstract: This essay discusses four pivotal moments in the consideration of whether rhetoric is an art. Section I sets the stage by briefly discussing the charge against rhetoric found in the Gorgias. Section II sketches the arguments of Sextus Empiricus and shows how they can be traced back to a single objection implicit in the Socratic charge, namely that the putative subject matter of rhetoric is indeterminate. Section III reviews several arguments presented by Quintilian, most of which can be usefully formulated as responses to Sextus. Section IV shows how Quintilian in fact reflects a line of thought first presented by Isocrates in Against the Sophists. The essay articulates what is common in the “common stock” of arguments about whether rhetoric is an art, and why the argument is one of intrinsic importance.

Abstract: The aim of this paper is to show, by examining the exercise books of Beata Rosenhane, how a woman of the salons was educated in the mid-seventeenth century, to compare her learning to that of boys from the same period, and by doing this, to give a brief description of a little-noticed species of rhetorical training—the methods and means used for preparing young girls to take part in the rhetorical practices of the salons. The essay shows that different rhetorical repertoires existed during the seventeenth century according to the different futures envisioned for various groups of students,and that changes in the understanding of rhetoric as a field have obscured the accomplishments of women trained to meet the demands of the salon.

Research Article| August 01 1993 The Rhetoric of Morality and Philosophy: Plato's Gorgias and Phaedrus Seth Benardete, The Rhetoric of Morality and Philosophy: Plato's Gorgias and Phaedrus (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1991), viii + 205 pp. Harvey Yunis Harvey Yunis Department of Classics, Rice University, PO Box 1892, Houston, TX 77251, USA. Search for other works by this author on: This Site PubMed Google Scholar Rhetorica (1993) 11 (3): 343–344. https://doi.org/10.1525/rh.1993.11.3.343 Views Icon Views Article contents Figures & tables Video Audio Supplementary Data Peer Review Share Icon Share Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Email Tools Icon Tools Cite Icon Cite Search Site Citation Harvey Yunis; The Rhetoric of Morality and Philosophy: Plato's Gorgias and Phaedrus. Rhetorica 1 August 1993; 11 (3): 343–344. doi: https://doi.org/10.1525/rh.1993.11.3.343 Download citation file: Ris (Zotero) Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All ContentRhetorica Search This content is only available via PDF. Copyright 1993, The International Society for the History of Rhetoric1993 Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

Abstract: Historically, the Renaissance marks a transformation in wfiich the elite classes come to define themselves by their aesthetic refinement, taste, and good manners. Accompanying this change is a special vision of the human body which is distinguished from that of artisans and peasants. This opposition has been described by Bakhtin as one between the classical body and the grotesque one, and it appears in the most unportant book for the Renaissance redefinition of the upper classes, Castiglione's II libro del cortegiano. Castiglione's view of the body actually derives from the rhetorical tradition of antiquity, in particular from Quintilian and Cicero's De oratore. A similar view appears in the works of Renaissance rhetoricians and can usefully be illustrated by analysis of Thomas Wilson's The Arte of Rhetorique (1553), although the latter also retains a vision of the grotesque body as a result of the ambiguous social position of its author.

Abstract: Although “community” has become an important critical concept in contemporary rhetoric, it is only implicit in ancient rhetorics. In the rhetorical thought of the sophists, Plato, and Aristotle, the polis stands as a presupposition that was both fundamental and troublesome. Various relationships between the faculty of speech and the social order are revealed in different tellings of the history of civilization by Protagoras, Plato, and Aristotle, as well as in more formal discussions of rhetoric and politics. These ancient disagreements about the nature of community can help us reformulate the current debate between liberalism and communitarianism. A rhetorical community as a site of contention can be both pluralist and normative.

Abstract: The concem with progress and utility is shared by nineteenth-century scientists, philosophers, and rhetoricians, leading to significant correspondences among their discourses. This concern is manifest, for example, in the way in which several rhetorical treatises of the nineteenth century regard the distinction between a figure and a trope, which had been a common part of rhetorical theory since the time of Quintilian, as useless and anachronistic. By examining three nineteenth-century articulations of the justifications for erasing the trope/figure distinction from the cultural repertoire, this essay reveals structural and semantic parallels between these rhetorical treatises and the discourses of evolution and utilitarianism. Thus, the essay locates the source of the synonymity which the terms “trope” and “figure” have acquired in contemporary critical metalanguage in Victorian ideologies of progress and of the unprofitability and consequent discardability of the ancient.