L’opposizione dei contrari è sempre stata considerata uno strumento stilistico e argomentativo particolarmente efficace per raggiungere la persuasione. Nella Rhetorica ad Alexandrum l’autore spiega dettagliatamente come sfruttare i contrari nell’uso dei loci communes, nell’elaborazione delle pisteis e nell’impiego delle figure. Il mio scopo è qui quello di richiamare l’attenzione su tutte queste situazioni e, per capire meglio quanto i precetti dell’autore si fon-dino sul procedimento logico che permette ai contrari di ottenere un effetto persuasivo, mi servirò di un confronto con quanto Aristotele dice a questo proposito nella Rhetorica e nei Topica.

De nombreux points communs ont été soulignés entre la Rhétorique à Alexandre et l’œuvre d’Isocrate, ce qui suggère un arrière-plan technique commun, mais l’usage que ce dernier fait du vocabulaire de la preuve (pistis) n’a jamais été considéré comme systématique. Ainsi, des termes comme semeion, tekmerion, elenchos sont perçus comme de simples synonymes. Nous voudrions montrer ici, en prenant l’exemple du tekmerion, qu’Isocrate fait au contraire un usage très cohérent de ces termes, conforme aux définitions de la Rhétorique à Alexandre et qui éclaire le fonctionnement de ce mode de preuve, hérité de la pratique judiciaire et des technai sophistiques.

Nell’articolo vengono messe a confronto le nozioni di esempio ed entimema nella Retorica di Aristotele e nella Rhetorica ad Alexandrum. Il confronto mira a mostrare come, al di là delle analogic, le due prospettive presentino differenze anche sostanziali. L’ipotesi è che tali differenze dipendano essenzial-mente dall’utilizzo, da parte di Aristotele, dell’apparato concettuale logico-dalettico in ambito retorico. Più esattamente, l’inserimento della nozione di sullogismos modifica radicalmente l’intero sistema delle pisteis, conferendo all’entimema un ruolo chiave del tutto as-sente nella Rhetorica ad Alexandrum. Tale posizione centrale dello entimema ha ricadute anche sul modo di intendere le altre pisteis.

In Klassifikation und Anordnung der rhetori-schen Überzeugungsmittel (pisteis) weisen die Rhetorik an Alexander und die Aristotelische Rhetorik trotz ähnlicher Grundscheidung zweier Hauptklassen markante Unterschiede auf. Im Bereich der “technischen” Überzeugungsmittel steht dem hierarchisch und di-chotomisch gegliederten System des Aristoteles in der Alexander-rhetorik eine seriell angeordnete, aber dennoch konsequent durch-strukturierte Liste gegenüber. Strukturell vergleichbar sind die Ein-teilungen der “äuβerlichen” oder “untechnischen” Überzeugungsmittel, wobei in der Rhetorik an Alexander das Element der δόξα τοῦ λέγoντoς eine Sonderstellung einnimmt, von dem aus sich al-lerdings Bezüge zur Aristotelischen Kategorie des ethos herstellen lassen. Der Bereich des pathos ist erst bei Aristoteles konzeptionell stärker entwickelt.

Book Review| May 01 2011 Review: Rhetoric and the Republic: Politics, Civic Discourse, and Education in Early America, by Mark Longaker Mark LongakerRhetoric and the Republic: Politics, Civic Discourse, and Education in Early America. Tuscaloosa: The University of Alabama Press, 2007. xx + 266 pp. ISBN 978-0-8173-1547-4 Rhetorica (2011) 29 (2): 208–211. https://doi.org/10.1525/RH.2011.29.2.208 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 Review: Rhetoric and the Republic: Politics, Civic Discourse, and Education in Early America, by Mark Longaker. Rhetorica 1 May 2011; 29 (2): 208–211. doi: https://doi.org/10.1525/RH.2011.29.2.208 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. © 2011 by The International Society for the History of Rhetoric. All rights reserved.2011 Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

Book Review| May 01 2011 Review: Literary and Philosophical Rhetoric in the Greek, Roman, Syriac, and Arabic Worlds (Europea Memoria Series 1, Vol. 66), by Frédérique Woerther Frédérique Woerther, ed., Literary and Philosophical Rhetoric in the Greek, Roman, Syriac, and Arabic Worlds (Europea Memoria Series 1, Vol. 66). Hildesheim, Zürich, and New York: Georg Olms Verlag, 2009. 327 pp. ISBN 978-3-487-13990-6 Rhetorica (2011) 29 (2): 201–203. https://doi.org/10.1525/RH.2011.29.2.201 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 Review: Literary and Philosophical Rhetoric in the Greek, Roman, Syriac, and Arabic Worlds (Europea Memoria Series 1, Vol. 66), by Frédérique Woerther. Rhetorica 1 May 2011; 29 (2): 201–203. doi: https://doi.org/10.1525/RH.2011.29.2.201 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. © 2011 by The International Society for the History of Rhetoric. All rights reserved.2011 Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

Book Review| May 01 2011 Review: Rhetoric, Modality, Modernity, by Nancy S. Struever Nancy S. StrueverRhetoric, Modality, Modernity. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2009. 158 pp. ISBN 9780226777481 Rhetorica (2011) 29 (2): 218–220. https://doi.org/10.1525/RH.2011.29.2.218 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 Review: Rhetoric, Modality, Modernity, by Nancy S. Struever. Rhetorica 1 May 2011; 29 (2): 218–220. doi: https://doi.org/10.1525/RH.2011.29.2.218 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 © 2011 by The International Society for the History of Rhetoric. All rights reserved.2011 Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

Book Review| May 01 2011 Review: El discurso y sus espejos, by Luisa Puig Luisa Puig, ed., El discurso y sus espejos. Mexico: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, 2009. 390 pp. ISBN 6070205545 Rhetorica (2011) 29 (2): 220–222. https://doi.org/10.1525/RH.2011.29.2.220 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 Review: El discurso y sus espejos, by Luisa Puig. Rhetorica 1 May 2011; 29 (2): 220–222. doi: https://doi.org/10.1525/RH.2011.29.2.220 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. © 2011 by The International Society for the History of Rhetoric. All rights reserved.2011 Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

Book Review| May 01 2011 Review: Words well spoken: George Kennedy's Rhetoric of the New Testament (Studies in Rhetoric and Religion 8), by C. Clifton Black C. Clifton Black and Duane F. Watson, eds., Words well spoken: George Kennedy's Rhetoric of the New Testament (Studies in Rhetoric and Religion 8). Texas: Baylor University Press, 2008. xiii + 253 pp. ISBN 1602580642 Rhetorica (2011) 29 (2): 195–198. https://doi.org/10.1525/RH.2011.29.2.195 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 Review: Words well spoken: George Kennedy's Rhetoric of the New Testament (Studies in Rhetoric and Religion 8), by C. Clifton Black. Rhetorica 1 May 2011; 29 (2): 195–198. doi: https://doi.org/10.1525/RH.2011.29.2.195 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. © 2011 by The International Society for the History of Rhetoric. All rights reserved.2011 Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

Other| May 01 2011 Addresses of Contributors to This Issue Rhetorica (2011) 29 (2): 229–231. https://doi.org/10.1525/RH.2011.29.2.229 Views Icon Views Article contents Figures & tables Video Audio Supplementary Data Peer Review Share Icon Share Twitter LinkedIn Tools Icon Tools Get Permissions Cite Icon Cite Search Site Citation Addresses of Contributors to This Issue. Rhetorica 1 May 2011; 29 (2): 229–231. doi: https://doi.org/10.1525/RH.2011.29.2.229 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. © 2011 by The International Society for the History of Rhetoric. All rights reserved.2011 Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

Book Review| May 01 2011 Review: Argumentative Verteidigung: Grundlegung zu einer modernen Statuslehre, by Michael Hoppmann Michael HoppmannArgumentative Verteidigung: Grundlegung zu einer modernen Statuslehre. Neue Rhetorik 5, Berlin: Weidler, 2008. 223 pp., ill. ISBN 9783896935274. Rhetorica (2011) 29 (2): 222–225. https://doi.org/10.1525/RH.2011.29.2.222 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 Review: Argumentative Verteidigung: Grundlegung zu einer modernen Statuslehre, by Michael Hoppmann. Rhetorica 1 May 2011; 29 (2): 222–225. doi: https://doi.org/10.1525/RH.2011.29.2.222 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. © 2011 by The International Society for the History of Rhetoric. All rights reserved.2011 Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

Book Review| May 01 2011 Review: ‘… ganz andre Beredsamkeit’: Transformationen antiker und moderner Rhetorik bei Johann Gottfried Herder (Rhetorik-Forschungen 17), by Björn Hambsch Björn Hambsch‘… ganz andre Beredsamkeit’: Transformationen antiker und moderner Rhetorik bei Johann Gottfried Herder (Rhetorik-Forschungen 17). Tubingen: Niemeyer, 2007, 280 pp. ISBN 3484680172 Rhetorica (2011) 29 (2): 215–217. https://doi.org/10.1525/RH.2011.29.2.215 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 Review: ‘… ganz andre Beredsamkeit’: Transformationen antiker und moderner Rhetorik bei Johann Gottfried Herder (Rhetorik-Forschungen 17), by Björn Hambsch. Rhetorica 1 May 2011; 29 (2): 215–217. doi: https://doi.org/10.1525/RH.2011.29.2.215 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. © 2011 by The International Society for the History of Rhetoric. All rights reserved.2011 Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

Book Review| May 01 2011 Review: Tertullian's Aduersus Iudaeos: A Rhetorical Analysis, by Geoffrey D. Dunn Geoffrey D. DunnTertullian's Aduersus Iudaeos: A Rhetorical Analysis. Patristics Monograph Series 19, Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 2008. xiv + 210 pp. ISBN 978-0-8132-1526-6 Rhetorica (2011) 29 (2): 198–201. https://doi.org/10.1525/RH.2011.29.2.198 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 Review: Tertullian's Aduersus Iudaeos: A Rhetorical Analysis, by Geoffrey D. Dunn. Rhetorica 1 May 2011; 29 (2): 198–201. doi: https://doi.org/10.1525/RH.2011.29.2.198 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. © 2011 by The International Society for the History of Rhetoric. All rights reserved.2011 Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

218 RHETORICA Nancy S. Struever, Rhetoric, Modality, Modernity. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2009. 158 pp. ISBN 9780226777481 This book is not easy to characterize. In Rhetoric, Modality, Moder­ nity Nancy Struever shapes over a decade of methodological reflection on Hobbes, Vico, Peirce, and Heidegger into a bold historical argument about the limits of philosophy and our most basic modes of being. Methodologi­ cally Struever is closest to C. S. Peirce on beliefs that generate habits of action and Bernard Williams on the limits of philosophy, but ultimately her project exceeds both because it mobilizes rhetoric first, and thus it narrates from the margins with utterly novel results for our understanding of rhetorical topics, inquiry modes, politics, and history. Within the field of rhetorical studies per se Struever's work is polemic in so far as it argues the contempo­ rary historiography of rhetoric is "the location of speculative vigor" rather than the practice (p. 98). In terms of rhetoric and philosophy the work of Michel Meyer is probably closest, though Struever's historical erudition dis­ tinguishes her work along with uncommon familiarity in Anglo-American, French, German, and Italian scholarship. Though she wastes no time rehears­ ing the standard intellectual biographies or reviewing the marginal literature, Struever builds crucial elements of her argument from the ground up, defin­ ing her terms carefully and summarizing periodically'. When Struever tells us "any study of modality must attempt to deal with rhetorical operations; any rhetorician must refine his definitions of modalitv" (p. 73) we must take her seriously indeed. Struever gives us a fresh Hobbes and Vico, now central to the modern project understood in terms of new styles of inquiry, while at the same time explaining why Hobbes and Vico have been marginalized in a tradition of political philosophy that starts from the presuppositions of moral rectitude. On Struever's polemic reading, Hobbes and Vico "could challenge, from within the Anglophone, or Western, discussion, the begged questions of the hegemonous terms and propositions: an exasperating hegemony that seems planetary" (p. 66). Discreet references to "tolerance, complexity" (p. 67) distinguish her treatment of these "pessimistic" figures—especially Hobbes—from the Straussian trajectory most recently articulated in Brian Garsten's Saving Persuasion: A Defense of Rhetoric and Judgnieiit, but more could be said. Along the way Struever takes a stab at theoretical debates around agency, showing cleverly with Hobbes how "will" is procedural and how the "impersonal" does not mean without personality (pp. 42, 54). Starting with Hobbes' crucial bridge concept "natural logic" (p. 33) Struever articulates the relationship between life science, rhetoric (as social science broadly understood), and modality (typically associated with ab­ stract domains of logic, mathematics, grammar theory). But how is Struever's life science (p. 15) distinguished from the Lebensphilosophie ridiculed by Heidegger in his rhetoric lectures that provide Struever a critical touch­ stone (Grundbegriffe der aristotelischen Philosophic: Marburger Vorlesun^ Som­ mer Semester 1924)7 Struever offers a nice explanation when she shows how Reviews 219 the animal account for Hobbes "reveals another, possible world of great explanatory value; its force trumps, its plots encompass narratives of Hu­ manistic capacity" (p. 18). In other words the human/non-human is topical (among other things), not just a matter of some extra-physical vitalis. We get another intriguing formulation when Struever writes "the web of political life is an emotional, but also a problematic, uncertain texture" (p. 19) sug­ gesting how a vibrant life science would make room for political possibility undeterred by the human/nonhuman divide. Thus Struever clearly moves beyond statistics and philosophical modality insofar as the field is subject to evaluation: "Possibility as realized in time, fills time: gives it significance and pathos in the accounts of the direction and force of civil movements" (p. 71). Fields of possibility are subject to "the essential rhetorical task of praise and blame" (p. 73) which is to say epideictic. And with this turn to epideictic rhetoric we are reminded of a traditional claim critiqued by Jeffrey Walker in Rhetoric and Poetics in Antiquity: prag­ matic discourse or what can be seen as civic oratory is the primary form of rhetoric in its preconceptual state, before it emerges into history...

Reviews 211 caught on principally because a privileged class of moderate gentlemen enjoying the spoils of the Scotch commercial economy desired entrance into and the ability to participate in British high society" (p. 106). Really? When did early capitalists get so dense? Was there no other advantage to belletrism, perhaps something related to the concrete economic situation of the Scots or the Americans? Apparently not. Needless to say, if there is a moment when Longaker s history gets reductive, it is in his handling of this movement which other scholars, such as Lois Agnew and Arthur Walzer, have shown to be far more dynamic While it is true that much of this work was published subsequent to Longaker's book, I, for one, found myself frustrated with the often dismissive tone Longaker took with Scottish thinkers, especially Blair and Karnes who were often described as "genteel" as if that were some affront. It is worth pointing out that the term "genteel" did not acquire its present day negative connotations in the United States until late in the nineteenth century. Then again, perhaps that label was part of a deliberate rhetorical strategy by Longaker to chastize scholars invested in the present day republican revival and Longaker certainly has a point there. These questions aside, Longaker's work suggests a number of important ways research in the field can and should be pursued. The republican theory Longaker examines was a cosmopolitan phenomenon that not only manifested itself in multiple forms within the United States but throughout much of Europe. 1, for one, hunger to see comparative work on republican pedagogy within the United States and other countries, like France, who were swept up in eighteenth-century republican thought. Paul Dahlgren Georgia Southwestern State University Bryan Garsten, Saving Persuasion: A Defense of Rhetoric and Judgment. Cambridge, MA and London: Harvard University Press, 2006. 276 pp. ISBN 0-674-02168-1 Selected by the National Endowment for the Humanities to give the 1992 Jefferson Lecture, Bernard Knox was interviewed by NEH's Chairman, Lynne Cheney. Cheney expressed dismay at Knox's praise of the sophists: the sophists were the bad guys; they made the weaker case appear the stronger; they were relativists and skeptics. Only someone who believes in absolute truth, like Plato, can make the world safe for democracy (Humanities 13 (1992): 4-9, 31-36). Bryan Garsten's Saving Persuasion could have helped Cheney tell a more defensible, and indeed interesting and important story, but without the moral she wanted to draw. Garsten makes the case for a politics of persuasion by examining the intellectual roots of the modern suspicion of persuasive rhetoric and then challenging them, pointing the way toward an understanding of deliberation in which rhetoric plays a central role (p. 4). 212 RHETORICA In the first half of the book, Garsten examines three anti-rhetorical thinkers who contributed to the social contract tradition and thus to modern liberalism. Hobbes, Rousseau, and Kant all saw rhetoric as the enemy of both personal autonomy and political freedom. While their attacks on the rhetoric of religious enthusiasm, the rhetoric of factions, and the rhetoric of egotistic subversion make possible modern republicanism and democracy, their success had a price. Therefore the second half of the book turns to Aristotle and Cicero for understandings of rhetoric that do not reduce to the sophistic that so exercised Cheney. This is not a defense of the ancients against the moderns. Garsten instead aims at formulating a distinctively modern idea of rhetoric and deliberation that responds to the challenges of Hobbes, Rousseau, and Kant. In the Rhetoric Aristotle rejected the idea that the sophist had a unique and powerful faculty. In modern considerations of persuasion, the worry is that conscience or revelation gives a unique and powerful source and content of judgment. As Garsten notes, Cicero argues that rhetoric brought people out of the state of nature into a civil state, while Hobbes sees powerful orators doing the opposite, making people more unsociable (p. 35). Why were these early modern thinkers so opposed to rhetoric? First, they saw the damage caused by rhetorically powerful religious enthusiasts, but their aversion goes deeper. "Liberalism's aversion to persuasion is...

Reviews 201 style demonstrated a facility with his language that went beyond what someone untrained in rhetoric would have been able to produce" (p. 169). He advances this claim in order to prove that a rhetorical analysis of the structure goes a long way toward establishing the authenticity and integrity of the Aducrsits Indneos. I find Dunn s arguments regarding authorship persuasive because of his rhetorical analysis, despite the fact that his critical modus operandi is formalistically tedious and to some extent mechanistic. This approach serves Dunn s purpose of reflecting on authorship, but the rhetorical insights are wooden and not especiallv perceptive. Thomas H. Olbricht Pepperdine University Frédérique Woerther, ed., Literary and Philosophical Rhetoric in the Greek, Roman, Syriac, and Arabic Worlds (Europea Memoria Series 2, Vol. 66). Hildesheini, Zurich, and New York: Georg Olms Verlag, 2009. 327 pp. ISBN 978-3-487-13990-6 Historians of rhetoric are well aware that in pre-modern eras, there was extensive contact between Europe and the Arabic world. Some of this contact (e.g., Arabic commentaries on Aristotle's Rhetoric) has been extensively discussed for a long time, but some of those discussions are now out of date and other relevant areas have remained largely unexplored. The collection of essays reviewed here, in English and French, is designed to take one topic that has proved important in both European and Arabic rhetoric and in the contact between them and to provide a comprehensive overview of the topic in light of what is now known about it. The collection begins from one of the key commonplaces in rhetorical history, that rhetoric oscillates between two key poles: one philosophical, in which the emphasis is on the relationship between rhetoric and knowledge, and one literary, in which the emphasis is on style. Or, to say it a bit differently, the rhetorician can focus on the truth value of what is said and on the validity of propositions or on the verbal embellishment of rhetorical statements. This book was born at a conference on "Literary and Philosophical Rhetoric in the Greek, Syriac, and Arabic Worlds" which was organized by Frédérique Woerther in Beirut on 3-4 July 2006, where ten of the essays were originally presented. Woerther is to be commended, however, for not taking the easy way out and simply publishing those ten essays. She has added four more papers that fill in some obvious gaps in what the conference covered. The result, unlike many volumes of conference proceedings, is a book that offers reasonable coverage of its subject. The first seven of the fourteen essays cover Greek and Roman rhetoric. This section begins with a short but incisive piece on Plato by Harvey Yunis 202 RHETORICA which offers some interesting comments on how Plato uses various literary devices to convert readers to philosophical values and to inculcate philo­ sophically defensible method. Pierre Chiron drew what is perhaps the key assignment in this section, the treatment of Aristotle's Rhetoric, since this is the text which would prove so influential for the second half of the vol­ ume. Focusing on epideictic and on diction, Chiron shows how Aristotle diminishes the distance which separates rhetoric and literature. Next Niall R. Livingstone presents a nicely nuanced paper which recognizes the sub­ tleties and complexities of Isocrates' ideas in this area. As Livingstone puts it, "[intellectually and stylistically, Isocratean philosophia achieves validation by representing itself as the artistic crystalisation of the public sphere: the mid-point both between self-seeking sophistry and elite philosophical ob­ scurantism, and between the vulgar point-scoring of the lawcourts and the meretricious entertainment-value of poetry" (p. 54). Frédérique Woerther glances forward toward the second section of the volume in her essay, which focuses on how Hermagoras of Temnos and al-Fârâbï preserved and inter­ preted the traditional connections among rhetoric, logic, and politics, show­ ing that in the end, rhetoric and poetics allow a general public that is not able to understand rigorous argumentation to grasp the results of scientific discoveries. David Blank in turn discusses Philodemus, whose work is in the process of being reconstructed on the basis of papyri found...

206 RHETORICA côté du marchand, du ménestrel, ou du pèlerin reste toujours l'impécunieux poète. Ainsi, de la vantardise des troubadours belligérants aux monologues des valets à louer, MJ tisse un réseau de significations, où la liste n est plus tant un trope qu'un outil conceptuel qui permet de renouveler la connais­ sance de ces poètes. Le lecteur peut regretter la place un peu trop grande que prend la figure du poète devant la question plus proprement rhétorique ou poétique du fonctionnement de la liste; il peut regretter la composition mo­ nographique des derniers chapitres et les choix qu'elle conditionne (corpus des fabliaux très rapidement évoqué). Mais, il ne peut, en dernière analyse, que reconnaître la finesse, la pertinence et l'utilité des analyses autant pour le médiéviste que pour celui qui travaille sur d'autres époques. Catherine Nicolas Université Paul-Valéry (Montpellier III) Srividya Swaminathan, Debating the Slave Trade: Rhetoric of British National Identity, 1759-1815. Farnham: Ashgate, 2009. xiii + 245pp. ISBN 9780754667674 The proliferation of scholarship on the multi-national and multi-era debate over slavery, on the part of scholars from multiple disciplines, has created an embarrassment of riches; because there is so much scholarship, work tends to specialize by country, era, genre, method, and topos. That is, with the exception of David Brion Davis' extraordinary work, scholars gener­ ally write about the debate over the slave trade or the abolition of slavery, and almost always within a single nation. And they generally further specialize by focusing on the proslavery or antislavery position, most commonly the latter. Finally, although the slavery debate itself violated generic categories— with poems, plays, sermons, political speeches, paintings, and songs either attacking or defending slavery—scholarship has most commonly accepted a visual versus verbal split, as well as a split within written discourse between literary and political discourse. Thus, somewhat paradoxically, students of the slavery debates are currently well-served in terms of specific studies, but have fewer broad brush treatments. While Srividya Swaminathan's Debating the Slave Trade: Rhetoric ofBritish National Identity, 1759—1815 can hardly be called broad brush—one of its many virtues is the grounding of her arguments in close textual analysis— it does transcend many of the boundaries that unhappily limit the area. A study of the debate within Britain, the book places that debate within the larger context of the debate within and from the colonies, as well as the burgeoning anti-slavery movement in the United States. As well as polemical pamphlets, slave narratives, speeches, and sermons, Swaminathan considers Reviews 207 literary texts such as Mary Birkett's A Poem oil the African Slave Trade, James Boswell's No Abolition of Slavery, and the collection Poems on the abolition of the slave trade. Briefly, Swaminathan s book has two significant points for scholars of the history of rhetoric. First, her work nicelv complicates the pro- and antislavery dichotomy. She is very persuasive that there was, after a certain point, very little true "proslavery" rhetoric in the British debate, and that, therefore, the term "regulationist" is a much more accurate one. That is, defenders of the slave trade initially tried to denv the brutality of the conditions in which slaves were transported, but quickly abandoned that approach. They moved to the argument that there were flaws in current practices, but that they could be ameliorated, that better regulation would sufficiently improve conditions. In effect, they tried to coopt the language of reform—the very discourse on which abolitionists relied so heavily—by arguing for reforming rather than abolishing the slave trade. Second, she argues that, while the abolitionists were politically success­ ful in achieving the abolition of the slave trade and then the abolition of slavery within Britain, to describe the end result of the debate in purely po­ litical terms, or to attribute causality solely to the abolitionists, is to miss the larger cultural consequences of the arguments made by both sides. Instead, Swaminathan argues, the slavery debate was framed as an issue about the identity of the British and the nature of their empire: "The dialogue...

220 RHETORICA as Christian-Heathen, for example, Koselleck suggests we then can begin talking about the particular modes of experience and "expectational possi­ bilities" that help define a particular way of being. Finally for this reader the Benjamin material is intriguing but less convincing as specifically rhetorical. Many of the rhetorical strategies identified by Struever (timefulness, orig­ inal/reproduction, similarity, audience) can be generic and not particular to Benjamin, though the material comes into focus whenever Vico appears in the background. Unrealized possibilities, however, are outweighed by the virtues of intellectual courage. It appears Struever is unafraid to engage the very best in any field relevant to her inquiry whether in classics, history, philosophy, or rhetoric, while she leaves lesser material for the pedants and hacks. Those of us who are sometimes pedants and hacks will find this annoying and will focus on what is missing. But Struever's is not a project in cultural studies. Nor is it intellectual history in the tradition of Walter Ong who considered Ramus good subject matter precisely because he was a second-rate intellect who characterized his time instead of exceeding it. On the contrary Struever thinks exclusively with untimely figures. The result of this deeply theoretical project, surprisingly, is substantial advance in our thinking about the world of everyday being-with-one-another, made new with key commonplaces and clichés bracketed. Rhetoric, Modality, Modernity is introductory but not in the usual sense of the term. It does not repackage tired narratives; it does rework the history and theory of rhetoric from our most basic sensibilities and nonhuman conditions to our most demanding conceptual challenges at the abstract limits of rhetoric and philosophy. Though unforgiving in its stylistic and intellectual demands, Rhetoric, Modality, Modernity is a crucial challenge to any rhetorician interested in the entanglements of history and theory. Daniel M. Gross University of California, Irvine Luisa Puig, ed., El discurso y sus espejos. México: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, 2009. 390 pp. ISBN 6070205545 Le titre du livre Le discours et ses miroirs s'avère particulièrement jus­ tifié au fil des pages qui reflètent patiemment des réflexions où sujet et objet coïncident, l'objet d'étude—le discours—étant inhérent au sujet qui l'approche. Luisa Puig a recueilli dans ce livre différents réflexes du discours à la lumière de diverses disciplines arrivant à des problématiques ponc­ tuelles. Loin de l'intention chimérique d'embrasser tout ce qui concerne 1 incommensurable discours, ce livre se présente comme 1 entrecroisement de disciplines et de pensées à propos de l'énorme sujet, il ne s'agit pas de Reviews 221«dire tout» sur le discours (ce serait une tâche de Sisyphe) mais d'entendre les échos de questions spécifiques posées de différents points de vue, toutes atteignant à la vie dans le discours. L étude initiale dont l'éditrice est l'auteur—est consacrée au miroir de la mémoire. Luisa Puig y présente un éventail de penseurs et d'approches du discours aidant le lecteur qui n'est pas spécialiste à se situer du point de vue historique dans la conceptualisation du sujet selon les principaux courants contemporains, au nombre desquels on trouve le structuralisme, la théorie de l'énonciation, la théorie dialogique et communicationnelle du Cercle de Bakhtine, les différentes versions et orientations de l'Analyse du Discours, la Linguistique Textuelle, la Théorie de l'Argumentation dans la langue. Dans le chapitre 2, Ruth Amossy présente une réflexion spéculaire: c'est le miroir de l'argumentation qui se reflète dans le miroir de l'analyse du discours et vice-versa. Partageant ce même double miroir, dans le chapitre 3, Patrick Charaudeau propose l'interdisciplinarité plutôt que la pluridisciplinarité afin d'approfondir l'analyse de la communication dans le champ des sciences humaines et sociales. Ainsi, en tant que champ disciplinaire «en construction permanente» , le discours est réfléchi, parmi d'autres, par la rhétorique, la sociologie, la psychologie sociale et l'anthropologie sociale. Le miroir sémantique brille dans le chapitre...

198 RHETORICA discussion in these essays, Stowers' A Rereading of Romans, Justice, Jews, and Gentiles provides outstanding examinations of Paul's uses of prosopopoieia, among other oral speech genres familiar to the auditors of the time. Similarly, Antoinette Wire's The Corinthian Women Prophets, a Reconstruction Through Paul's Rhetoric, among its other merits, suggests contextual sources for puns and humor in Paul's references to the veiling of women and to their prophetic speech. Philip Kern's Rhetoric and Galatians, Assessing an Approach to Paul's Epistles provides a good companion to the essays by Black and Watson in this volume in reviewing the numerous approaches to Paul's letters that are increasingly being combined with one another to both reconstruct the contexts and auditors of the New Testament gospels and epistles, and assess the innovations introduced into classical genres and understandings of the meanings they conveyed. Like Richard Burridge's What Are the Gospels?, studies of New Testament innovations and improvisations based upon clas­ sical models are provided in Jo-Ann Brandt's Dialogue and Drama, Elements of Greek Tragedy in the Fourth Gospel and Dennis E. Smith's Prom Symposium to Eucharist, the Banquet in the Early Christian World. These readings continue the examination of literary and rhetorical readings of the New Testament in conversation and sometimes in conflict with one another. Black and Watson have provided an examination of these current critical issues within and alongside reappraisals of Kennedy's work in a manner that does credit to their title: words well spoken. C. Jan Swearingen Texas A&M University Geoffrey D. Dunn, Tertullian's Aduersus Iudaeos: A Rhetorical Analysis. Patristics Monograph Series 19, Washington, DC: The Catholic Uni­ versity of America Press, 2008. xiv + 210 pp. ISBN 978-0-8132-1526-6 The Tertullian authorship of Aduersus Iudaeos has been disputed over the past two centuries. In this book Dunn argues that a rhetorical analysis of Ter­ tullian s Aduersus Iudaeos can resolve the uncertainties respecting its origins. He sets forth in an excellent manner the status of authorship assumptions, provides a detailed rhetorical analysis, and constructs a substantial case for all the parts of the manuscript being authored by Tertullian. He contends that the disputed last part was written before Tertullian's Aduersus Marcionem rather than being copied from it. Furthermore he declares that the Aduersus Iudaeos has been neglected because of doubts regarding its authen­ ticity. He points out that Robert Sider in his Ancient Rhetoric and the Art of Tertullian (1971) did not include the Aduersus Iudaeos nor did he list it in his catalog of Tertullian's writings. Dunn first addresses the differences of opinion regarding the text. He next explores the intended readership, and contends that "pamphlet" is Reviews 199 the best appellation because Tertullian's intent is advocacy (p. 28). Dunn's lhetoiical analysis consists of three aspects located in as many chapters, structure, argumentation, and style. The final chapter is in essence a summary of the arguments in the book. There is an extended bibliography, a general index, and a Scripture citations index. in the first chapter Dunn sets out a history of scholarly reflections on authorship and in the process supplies an important breakdown of those who doubt the integrity and authenticity of the Aduersus Iudaeos and those who support it. Those opposed were Krovmann, Dekkers, Aulisa, Semler, Burkitt, Quispel, Quasten, Neander, Akerman, Labriolle, Efroymson, Crosson, and Ev ans. Those accepting were Noeldechen, Grotemeyer, Harnack, Williams, Saflund, Trankle, Fredouille, Monceaux, Simon, Gager,Aziza, Moreschini, Schreckenberg, Barnes, and Otranto. Dunn along the way sets out the diverse nuances prov ided bv these authorities. Dunn ascertains that the authorship controversy is related to the recent concern ov er the degree of contact between Jews and Christians in early third century Carthage. Contemporary scholars are offering new clues that the contacts between Jews and Christians were considerable. Scholars who so argue include J uster, Simon, Krauss, Williams, Parkes, Blumenkranz, Wilken, Blanchetiere, Hornbury, de Lange, Wilson, and MacLennan. Other scholars, however, have claimed that anti-Jewish polemics were chiefly designed to assist the Christians in establishing "self identity," since Jews and Chris­ tians were going their own separate ways. These include Eiarnack, Barnes...

Reviews 215 Cicero, the priority of deliberative over judicial rhetoric, the particularity of practical judgment, and its ultimately controversial nature, usefully question contemporary theorists of deliberative democracy. The trouble with "public reason, as commonly understood, is that it aims at the unanimity of all reasonable persons. If one disagrees with the verdicts of public reason, then one convicts oneself of being unreasonable, which is not usually a welcome conclusion. In sum, this is an unusually ambitious and helpful book. I would want to rewrite slightly Garsten's judgments of Hobbes, Rousseau, and Kant. To me, their rhetoric against rhetoric served useful progressive purposes, allowing people with a diversity of opinions to live together in circumstances that seemed to suggest that only unanimity, imposed or not, could save us from religious wars brought about by the rhetoric of certainty. Each found a way of combating the rhetoric of certainty without replacing it by skepticism. Looking back, they only succeeded in their task by severely limiting the workings of practical judgment. Aristotle and Cicero were both well aware of the dangers of civil war, yet thought we could avoid them from deliberating together, not through circumscribing the power of individual practical judgment. Neither the anti-rhetorical liberals nor the Greek and Roman rhetorical theorists Garsten discusses provide much comfort to those, like Cheney, who think that Platonic allegiance to an absolute truth is the condition for freedom and democracv. Hobbes, Rousseau, and Kant saw a rhetoric of certainty as the enemy of freedom, and Aristotle and Cicero constructed forms of rhetoric that separated themselves from sophistic without the need for support from belief in absolute truths. Garsten usefully makes history more complicated, and more practical. Eugene Garver Saint John's University Bjorn Hambsch, .. ganz andre Beredsamkeit': Transformationen antiker und moderner Rhetorik bei Johann Gottfried Herder (PJaetorikForschungen 17). Tübingen: Niemeyer, 2007,280 pp. ISBN 3484680172 What changed in the eighteenth century? What made literature around 1700 different from writing a century later? How was literature theorized at the beginning, and how was it theorized at the end of the century? These are questions literary historians have been asking for a long time. In the literary historiography of the German-speaking countries, they have traditionally been entwined with further questions about the development of a distinctively German literature and the postulate of a breakthrough to an authentically German literary culture. 216 RHETORICA The nationalist answer to these questions was that in the course of the century the chilly foreign classicism of the preceding era was overthrown by ethnocentric proto-romanticism, and its arid rationalism by a literature of feeling and sensibility And Germany—the Germany of the Sturm und Drang—was in the vanguard. Its self-liberation from neo-classicism and rationalism propelled its literature to the forefront of European culture, leaving other nations trailing in its wake. This heroic story was elaborated in German literary histories of the later nineteenth and the first half of the twentieth centuries. A key element in the story was the claim that the eighteenth century saw the demise of rhetoric as a system of thought governing both literary production and the criticism of literature. Rhetoric, a system of rules derived from antiquity and codified in the European revival of learning, was the vehicle through which a Latinizing and classicizing culture exerted its normalizing hegemony over the native genius of the modern age. The German champion who overthrew rhetoric and liberated his own nation's culture from its tyranny was Herder. He was the founding father of modern German literature, who by liquidating the inhibiting legacy of rhetoric unburdened a whole new generation of writers and thus made possible the literary flowering of the final third of the century. The old progressive story has proved remarkably tenacious, even if its more strident nationalist elements have naturally been censored out since 1945. Much has been done to challenge and correct it. But given Herder's crucial position in the story, it is clear that no revision would be complete until his relation to rhetoric was thoroughly re-examined. It is this much-needed task that Bjorn Hambsch has set himself in his new book. He has done an...

208 RHETORICA appears to have read every relevant primary and secondary text, so that the book serves as an excellent introduction to the topic. A further virtue of Swaminathan's book is that it elegantly models how rhetorical and literary analysis can be interwoven for a nuanced presentation of the complexities of social change. The puzzle about slavery is, as Swaminathan says, that "Great Britain dismantled this profitable trade, albeit unevenly and in a fraught manner, seemingly for the benefit of principle" (p. 213). It is a striking instance of effective rhetoric. Yet, it was not a case of a single text having done that considerable cultural work. Although some texts might have been more popular, and possibly more effective, than others, the abolitionists were successful because of a long series of arguments and counterarguments. They were successful because various topoi were repeated across genres, and not just in what we traditionally think of as "political" discourse. The book usefully reminds us of the breadth of rhetoric, and, hence, the potential breadth of rhetorical scholarship. Patricia Roberts-Miller University of Texas, Austin Mark Longaker, Rhetoric and the Republic: Politics, Civic Discourse, and Education in Early America. Tuscaloosa: The University of Alabama Press, 2007. xx + 266 pp. ISBN 978-0-8173-1547-4 While in the past five years we have seen a number of books chal­ lenging and diversifying our understanding of rhetorical education in late nineteenth-century United States, including David Gold's Rhetoric at the Mar­ gins: Revising the History ofWriting Instruction in American Colleges, 1873-1947, Jessica Enoch's Refiguring Rhetorical Education: Women Teaching African Amer­ ican, Native American, and Chicano/a Students, 1865—1911, and Brian Fehler's Calvinist Rhetoric in Nineteenth-Century America. The Bartlet Professors of Sa­ cred Rhetoric ofAndover Seminary, relatively little work has examined rhetor­ ical education within colonial America. Indeed, Mark Garrett Longaker's Rhetoric and the Republic is likely the most important work to do so since Thomas P. Miller's The Formation of College English: Rhetoric and Belles Lettres in the British Cultural Provinces. Unlike works bv Gold or Enoch, the primary virtue of Longaker s research does not come from his examining underrep­ resented communities, nor does his work take us to different parts of the university as does Fehler s. Rather, Longaker's work is important because it asks us to fundamentally reexamine our historiography at the same time that it challenges us to think harder about some of our pedagogical practices. Revising accounts by Miller, Halloran, and Clark (Oratorical Culture in Nineteenth-Century America: Transformations in the Theory and Practice of Rhetoric), Longaker argues that "early American republicanism was a con­ tested political terrain" which allowed for a number of conflicting peda­ Reviews 209 gogical ideals and practices to emerge in its name (p. xviii). This historical narrative in turn allows Longaker to demonstrate the anemia of the republi­ can revival which has been championed by both contemporary American academics and politicians alike. Since at least the 1950s, scholars represent­ ing various disciplines have called for a revival of civic republican political discourses as a counterweight to the hegemony of liberal political discourse. Indeed, in the United States, civic republicanism represented something of an academic third way between Soviet-inspired communist totalitarianism and American-inspired liberal capitalism. Whereas liberalism promoted negative liberty, legal proceduralism, and the interest of autonomous individuals, re­ publicanism promoted positive liberty, substantive values, and civic virtue. Finding a way of reviving civic republicanism would help revive active citi­ zenship, or so we believed. But the truth of the matter has always been that the sharp division between republicanism and liberalism was itself a prod­ uct of the Cold War, and one that was unsustainable when examining the eighteen and nineteenth centuries, a point Longaker brings home especially well in his analvsis of John Witherspoon. Oddly enough, Longaker never makes that argument explicitly and in­ stead spends most of his book demonstrating, through the use of Gramscian articulation theory, the various ways early American republican theory lent itself to very different political and economic discourses. So much the better for us, the real value of the book as far as this reader is...

Reviews 203 however, focuses on Imlaga, showing that it can be mapped only partially onto the Aristotelian concept of style, embracing genres like poetry and letter­ writing and emphasizing (to use Austin s terminology) the illocutionary over the perlocutionary. Wolfhart P. Heinrichs traces a chronological progression within balaga, by means of which figures that had originated in ornate prose migrated into poetry, while Lala Behzadi focuses on silence in the work of Amr b. Bahr al-Jahiz to show how rhetorical analysis can lead to epistemological theory. The book concludes with a long essay by Joseph Dichy on commentaries to the Qur'an in the three centuries after the Hegira (622 ce), demonstrating that a recognition of obscurity or equivocation opens up a space for the study of rhetorical features in a text which now has to be considered as more than a simple window through which the truth it carries may be viewed. It is customary to complain that in collections of essays by diverse hands, some contributions are stronger than others. That is true here, however, only to a limited extent. The essays in this collection are consistently excellent, resulting in a volume that can be recommended to anyone with a serious interest in how east meets west in rhetorical history. Craig Kallendorf Texas A&M University Madeleine Jeay, Le Commerce des Mots. L'usage des listes dans la littér­ ature médiévale (XIIe-XVcsiecles). Publications Romanes et Françaises, CCXLI, Genève: Droz, 2006, 552pp. ISBN 2600010653 L'ouvrage de Madeleine Jeay (MJ) se propose d'étudier les traits ca­ ractéristiques de la liste et le rapport que le «plus paradoxal des tropes» (p. 501) entretient avec l'usage qui en est fait dans la littérature médiévale. Corps étranger et inassimilable à l'œuvre, élément qui produit un effet de rupture au moment de son intrusion dans le tissu textuel, la liste se définit par son hétérogénéité et par sa récurrence, étant donné que ce sont toujours les mêmes réalités qui sont énumérées. Cette double définition, ainsi que la pratique régulière de la liste sur une large période allant du XlIIe au XVIe siècle, a permis de définir un corpus de textes à listes et d'en élaborer le répertoire virtuel (http://tapor.mcmaster.ca/~hyperliste/home.htm) qui montre la façon hypertextuelle dont les listes circulent d'une œuvre à l'autre et appellent un mode de lecture spécifique. Prenant appui sur cet outil infor­ matique, l'ouvrage de MJ propose de trouver le principe organisateur de ces listes et d'en définir la valeur littéraire. Plus qu'un simple rehaussement du style, la liste est posée, à partir de là, comme une figure d'amplificatio associée à la représentation de la figure du poète que MJ place au centre de son enquête. Forte de ses balisages théoriques (Ph. Hamon en particulier), elle relève les affinités que l'énumération entre­ 204 RHETORICA tient avec la description: même intention de nommer pour établir une no­ menclature et pour proposer un savoir encyclopédique et didactique sur le monde et les mots qui le disent; même dimension métatextuelle qui débouche sur une situation discursive qui met en jeu l'écrivain dans son activité même; même ambition intertextuelle de type réticulaire qui fait appel à la mémoire. La spécificité poétique de la liste résiderait alors dans son excès de réalité, car en accentuant la «quotidienneté du quotidien», elle le sublimerait et répondrait à la tentation fondatrice de la poésie d'annuler l'opposition entre les mots et les choses. En outre, la liste briserait la linéarité du texte et main­ tiendrait, ce faisant, le lecteur à la surface du texte. Elle imposerait donc une lecture de surface et de réseau et couperait court au processus d'exégèse et à l'approfondissement du sens. L'étude fine des listes et de leurs caractéristiques, leur mise en parallèle«hypertextuelle» et leur constitution en...

In this article I underline the outstanding importance given by medieval preaching arts to plastic resources, specifically to exemplum, simile, metaphor and facies. I give an historical framework better to distinguish in these between what is traditional and new. Thereby it is easier to recognize that, though these arts continue to look back at classical rhetoric, the new cultural environment makes them different, as in the incorporation of a new resource into the catalogue of rhetorical figures, facies. To demonstrate this, I take Latin texts from the as yet unedited Corpus Artium Praedicandi.

Reviews C. Clifton Black and Duane F, Watson, eds., Words well spoken: George Kennedy s Rhetoric of the New Testament (Studies in Rhetoric and Re­ ligion 8). Texas: Baylor University Press, 2008. xiii +253 pp. ISBN 1602580642 George Kennedy's importance to New Testament rhetorical criticism is that of groundbreaker, particularly for rhetorical scholars who are not Biblical scholars. Within the community of Biblical scholars, Kennedy's work introduced methods based upon classical rhetorical models that have been adapted, criticized, and sometimes replaced with alternatives. Duane Watson and Clifton Black's introductory essay provides a lucid guide to the range of rhetorica or the essays and are addressed in different ways by individual authors. An overarching recent debate has been the question of whether New Testament authors, particularly Paul, "knew" or "studied" rhetoric. A related issue has been the problem of identifying rhetorical and literary genres that make an appearance in the Christian scriptures, and related proposals that these categories be dispensed with entirely. To its credit, this collection presents the annoying alongside the enriching episodes in the debates. Following excellent essays on the history of Biblical rhetorical studies by Margaret Zulick and Thomas Olbricht, Duane Watson's "The Influence of George Kennedy on Rhetorical Criticism of the New Testament" explains past and present debates about New Testament epistolary rhetoric and narrative genres. Kennedy was among the first, he notes, to define and explore the difference between "the rhetoric of the historical Jesus and the rhetoric of Jesus as preserved in the Jesus tradition and the gospels." Watson characterizes a more recent formulation of this distinction developed by Gregory Bloomquist: "While historical Jesus research may give us greater critical certainty regarding the words and deeds of the historical Jesus, these words and deeds have to be understood as the picture that the historical Jesus wanted to present. They are a picture of the rhetorical Jesus but not of the historical Jesus" (p. 48). Watson also surveys the debates concerning Paul's rhetorical education that were provoked by Kennedy's New Testament Interpretation Through Rhetorical Criticism. To accept that there is no hard evidence that Paul or other authors of the Christian scriptures were educated in rhetorical schools introduces three Rhetorica, Vol. XXIX, Issue 2, pp. 195-231, ISSN 0734-8584, electronic ISSN 15338541 . ©2011 by The International Society for the History of Rhetoric. All rights re­ served. Please direct all requests for permission to photocopy or reproduce article content through the University of California Press's Rights and Permissions website, at http://www.ucpressjournals.com/reprintlnfo.asp. DOI: 10.1525/RH.2011.29.2.195. 196 RHETORICA questions at the very least that bear not only upon Biblical studies but on classical and later rhetorical studies as well. First, what counts as evidence? Second, and related to the question of evidence, what is an author? Third, what does "educated" mean? Apart from Plato's representations, we have no evidence of Socrates' words; we must judge them through the lens of Plato's art. And what kind of evidence is the evidence of an artisan? Among New Testament authors, the question of rhetorical education comes up most often regarding Paul because his authorship is least questioned among the Christian scriptures. There seems to have been a person Paul and all the evidence we have suggests that he wrote his own letters. Or rather, according to the customs of the time, he dictated them, as the letters themselves state. Just as an authenticating narrative often appears at the beginning of Plato's dialogues, the scribe who wrote the letter is named in many of Paul's epistles. Words Well Spoken illuminates both the good news and the bad news among the answers to these questions of evidence, authorship, and rhetorical education. Clifton Black's essay on Kennedy's readings of the gospels provides a lucid survey of the major objections to Kennedy's work, particularly those of literary theorists and literary historians. According to these critics, Kennedy seems to want to reduce narrative gospels and speeches alike to, "logos, or logical argument, whereas the gospels tend more obviously towards ethos, the power of Jesus' authority" (p. 71). Essays by Blake Shipp, on...

Book Review| February 01 2011 Review: Between Grammar and Rhetoric: Dionysius of Halicarnassus on Language, Linguistics and Literature (Mnemosyne Supplements 301), by Casper C. de Jonge Casper C. de JongeBetween Grammar and Rhetoric: Dionysius of Halicarnassus on Language, Linguistics and Literature (Mnemosyne Supplements 301), Leiden: Brill, 2008. xiii + 456 pp. ISBN 9789004166776. Rhetorica (2011) 29 (1): 108–111. https://doi.org/10.1525/RH.2011.29.1.108 Views Icon Views Article contents Figures & tables Video Audio Supplementary Data Peer Review Share Icon Share Twitter LinkedIn Tools Icon Tools Get Permissions Cite Icon Cite Search Site Citation Review: Between Grammar and Rhetoric: Dionysius of Halicarnassus on Language, Linguistics and Literature (Mnemosyne Supplements 301), by Casper C. de Jonge. Rhetorica 1 February 2011; 29 (1): 108–111. doi: https://doi.org/10.1525/RH.2011.29.1.108 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. © 2011 by The International Society for the History of Rhetoric. All rights reserved.2011 Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

Book Review| February 01 2011 Review: Plato on the Rhetoric of Philosophers and Sophists, by Marina McCoy Marina McCoyPlato on the Rhetoric of Philosophers and Sophists. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008. $80.00 (hbk), ISBN 9780521878630. Rhetorica (2011) 29 (1): 106–108. https://doi.org/10.1525/RH.2011.29.1.106 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 Review: Plato on the Rhetoric of Philosophers and Sophists, by Marina McCoy. Rhetorica 1 February 2011; 29 (1): 106–108. doi: https://doi.org/10.1525/RH.2011.29.1.106 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. © 2011 by The International Society for the History of Rhetoric. All rights reserved.2011 Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

Book Review| February 01 2011 Review: Romani Aquilae de Figuris, introduzione, testo critico, traduzione e commento a cura di Martina Elice Romani Aquilae de Figuris, introduzione, testo critico, traduzione e commento a cura di Martina Elice, Hildesheim: Olms, 2007. ccx + 243 pp. ISBN 348713473X. Rhetorica (2011) 29 (1): 111–112. https://doi.org/10.1525/RH.2011.29.1.111 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 Review: Romani Aquilae de Figuris, introduzione, testo critico, traduzione e commento a cura di Martina Elice. Rhetorica 1 February 2011; 29 (1): 111–112. doi: https://doi.org/10.1525/RH.2011.29.1.111 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. © 2011 by The International Society for the History of Rhetoric. All rights reserved.2011 Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

Other| February 01 2011 Addresses of Contributors to This Issue Rhetorica (2011) 29 (1): 118–119. https://doi.org/10.1525/RH.2011.29.1.118 Views Icon Views Article contents Figures & tables Video Audio Supplementary Data Peer Review Share Icon Share Twitter LinkedIn Tools Icon Tools Get Permissions Cite Icon Cite Search Site Citation Addresses of Contributors to This Issue. Rhetorica 1 February 2011; 29 (1): 118–119. doi: https://doi.org/10.1525/RH.2011.29.1.118 Download citation file: Ris (Zotero) Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu nav search search input Search input auto suggest search filter All ContentRhetorica Search This content is only available via PDF. © 2011 by The International Society for the History of Rhetoric. All rights reserved.2011 Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

Book Review| February 01 2011 Review: Ekphrasis, Imagination and Persuasion in Ancient Rhetorical Theory and Practice, by Ruth Webb Ruth WebbEkphrasis, Imagination and Persuasion in Ancient Rhetorical Theory and Practice. Surrey, England: Ashgate, 2009. 238 pp. ISBN 9780754661252. Rhetorica (2011) 29 (1): 113–115. https://doi.org/10.1525/RH.2011.29.1.113 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 Review: Ekphrasis, Imagination and Persuasion in Ancient Rhetorical Theory and Practice, by Ruth Webb. Rhetorica 1 February 2011; 29 (1): 113–115. doi: https://doi.org/10.1525/RH.2011.29.1.113 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. © 2011 by The International Society for the History of Rhetoric. All rights reserved.2011 Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

Book Review| February 01 2011 Review: Rhetoric and Literature in Finland and Sweden, 1600-1900 (Nordic Studies in the History of Rhetoric 2), by Pernille Harsting and Jon Viklund Pernille Harsting and Jon Viklund, eds., Rhetoric and Literature in Finland and Sweden, 1600-1900 (Nordic Studies in the History of Rhetoric 2), Copenhagen: Nordisk Netvaerk for Rhetorikkens Historie, 2008. ISBN 9788798882923. Rhetorica (2011) 29 (1): 115–117. https://doi.org/10.1525/RH.2011.29.1.115 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 Review: Rhetoric and Literature in Finland and Sweden, 1600-1900 (Nordic Studies in the History of Rhetoric 2), by Pernille Harsting and Jon Viklund. Rhetorica 1 February 2011; 29 (1): 115–117. doi: https://doi.org/10.1525/RH.2011.29.1.115 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. © 2011 by The International Society for the History of Rhetoric. All rights reserved.2011 Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

Rhetorical patterns used by Westerners may differ from those of other cultures. Still, little is known about Nyāya, India's rhetorical methodology. This essay relates rhetorical patterns in Aristotle's enthymeme and paradeigma to Nyāya's pratijñāa (claim/promise), hetu (reason), and dṛṣṭānta (example). Though superficially similar, the Greek/Western rhetorical patterns invoke interlocking statements based in a general statement, while the Indian approach uses a dominant analogical image to connect claim and reason. Focusing on a historical interaction where a Westerner missed key elements of Indian persuasion because of his Aristotelian presuppositions about argument, the essay illustrates the crucial need to understand differing rhetorical patterns for successful cultural dialogue.

Thomas Sprat's History of the Royal Society (London, 1667) is the most frequently cited work when it comes to describing the relationship between science and rhetoric in seventeenth-century England. Whereas previous discussions have mostly centered on whether or not Sprat rejects the rhetorical tradition, the present study investigates his manner of approaching past authorities. As a writer, Sprat demonstrates the same kind of utilitarian attitude towards the handed-down material in his field of knowledge as he says is characteristic of the Royal Society's natural philosophers. Making good use of Ciceronian ideas, Sprat emerges, not as a condemner, but as a rescuer of rhetoric.

In this article I shall concentrate on ten lines in Plato's Gorgias (449c9–d9) dealing with what has come to be known as “rhetoric's materia question.” By taking Gorgias as a representative of the first stages of rhetoric in ancient Greek thought, and by a close analysis of Socrates' move in the above section, I shall pinpoint exactly where Plato located rhetoric in the consciousness of Gorgias, and by this offer a new perspective on one of the hot questions in secondary literature nowadays—the origin of ἡ τέχνηῥητοριϰή.

Rhetorical patterns used by Westerners may differ from those of other cultures. Still, little is known about Nyāya, India’s rhetorical methodology. This essay relates rhetorical patterns in Aristotle’s enthymeme and paradeigma to Nyāya’s pratijñā (claim/promise), hetu (reason), and dṛṣṭāntn (example). Though superficially similar, the Greek/Western rhetorical patterns invoke interlocking statements based in a general statement, while the Indian approach uses a dominant analogical image to connect claim and reason. Focusing on a historical interaction where a Westerner missed key elements of Indian persuasion because of his Aristotelian presuppositions about argument, the essay illustrates the crucial need to understand differing rhetorical patterns for successful cultural dialogue.

Thomas Sprat’s History of the Royal Society (London, 1667) is the most frequently cited work when it comes to describing the relationship between science and rhetoric in seventeenth-century England. Whereas previous discussions have mostly centered on whether or not Sprat rejects the rhetorical tradition, the present study investigates his manner of approaching past authorities. As a writer, Sprat demonstrates the same kind of utilitarian attitude towards the handed-down material in his field of knowledge as he says is characteristic of the Royal Society’s natural philosophers. Making good use of Ciceronian ideas, Sprat emerges, not as a condemner, but as a rescuer of rhetoric.

One segment of the American debate over internal improvements occurred between 1808 and 1817 and was marked by three rhetorical texts in which arguments moved from technical considerations to more transcendent appeals. These texts illustrate the interplay of geography and rhetoric and highlight the early use of god-terms like “fact,” “progress,” and “communication.”

108 RHETORICA thinkers? No wonder Kirby opines “Quot lectores, tot Platones": There are as many Platos as there are readers of him. McCoy's reading of various dialogues is "partial" both in the sense of partisan and less-than-the-whole. But so are all readings of Plato. To disagree with McCoy over particulars strikes me as simply reflecting the fact that her Plato is not my Plato. I suspect many readers may be persuaded that the most consistent means by which Plato distinguishes sophists from philosophers is by their moral purpose without accepting that Plato's account is true (something McCoy does not claim), and perhaps insisting that the most compelling reading of certain dialogues requires us to accept that Plato did, in fact, try to distinguish the two on other grounds, including by method and doctrine. It is to McCoy's credit that she demonstrates familiarity with a broader body of literature than most philosophers who deal with Plato. Readers of Rhetorica will appreciate McCoy's account as a healthy counterpart to the long tradition ofbooks by philosophers that take every opportunity to equate sophists and rhetoric to the detriment of both. Her book should encourage historians of rhetoric who have not examined certain dialogues as part of the canon of rhetorical theory to include a greater variety of Plato's texts. Lastly, by portraying Plato as a sophisticated rhetor, McCoy facilitates a more candid assessment of what she describes as his most consistent theme. After all, if one does not believe in the forms (that is, if one is not a Platonist), then the only difference between sophist and philosopher is the latter's authentic concern for other people. The fact that Plato's rhetoric privileges Socrates in this regard no longer seems a compelling reason for us to do the same. Edward Schiappa University ofMinnesota Casper C. de Jonge, Between Grammar and Rhetoric: Dionysius of Hali­ carnassus on Language, Linguistics and Literature (Mnemosyne Supple­ ments 301), Leiden: Brill, 2008. xiii + 456 pp. ISBN 9789004166776 Dionysius of Halicarnassus was a Greek intellectual active in Rome in the last decades of the first century bce. Not all of his writings have survived, but those that do include (as well a lengthy work on Roman history) a substantial and interesting corpus of literary and rhetorical criticism, including studies of the classical orators and Thucydides, and a treatise on style (On Composition). Modern scholarship has often treated him with scant respect, but he has begun to be taken more seriously in recent decades. Building on that work, and contributing a distinctive anci original approach of his own, de Jonge has achieved a remarkable further advance in our understanding. His focus is on Dionysius' integration of ideas from the whole range of language disciplines—philology, technical grammar, philosophy Reviews 109 and rhetoric; metrics and musical theory also make appearances, though they are less central to de Jonge's enquiry. After an introductory chapter, de Jonge examines Dionysius' general conception of the nature of language; his treatment of the grammatical theory of the parts of speech, and his critical application of this theory; the theory of natural word-order; similarities and differences between poetry and prose; and Dionysius' use of experimental alterations to word order (metathesis, or "transposition") as a tool of practical criticism. One of the study's aims is to use Dionysius as a source for the state of the language disciplines in the late first century (for the most part known only from sparse fragments), and in particular to illustrate the close connections between these disciplines. But in reconstructing the intellectual context of Dionysius' work, de Jonge prudently resists the temptations (traditionally irresistible to classicists) of Quellenforschung: "instead of assigning partic­ ular passages from Dionysius' works to specific 'sources', I will point to the possible connections between Dionysius' discourse and that of earlier and contemporary scholars of various backgrounds" (pp. 7-8). This restraint does not preclude good observations on specific influences: in particular, there is a powerful argument for the view that Dionysius had read, and been influenced by, Cicero (p. 15, pp. 215-16). A second methodological commitment is the adoption of an "external rather than an...

Reviews 113 Ruth Webb, Ekphrasis, Imagination and Persuasion in Ancient Rhetorical Theory and Practice. Surrey, England: Ashgate, 2009. 238 pp. ISBN 9780754661252 The topic of ekphrasis has garnered much attention of late among classi­ cists, literary critics, and visual theorists—so much so that the bibliography on the subject has become unwieldy. Is ekphrasis a humble elementary exer­ cise in description? A w idely encompassing topos for the agon between word and image? An ancient nexus of speculation on the complexities of represen­ tation and the psychology of reception? Bringing together these perspectives and more, Ruth Webb's comprehensive treatment of ekphrasis from a rhetor­ ical point of view will be of interest to historians of ancient Greek and Roman rhetoric but may prove to be less than completely satisfying to those readers who have been following the critical explorations of the term of late. Webb begins with a strong argument: a proper understanding of ekphra­ sis should be grounded in the definition of the term offered in the rhetorical manuals of the imperial period, the 1st to the 5th centuries of the Common Era. Working closely with the Progynmasnmta of Theon, Ps.-Hermogenes, Aphthonios, and Nikolaos, as well as with rich material on the subject in the more advanced treatises by Quintilian, Ps.-Longinus, and Menander Rhetor, Webb insists that ekphrasis be considered in terms of effect rather than sub­ ject matter: it is "a speech that brings the subject matter vividly before the eyes" (Introduction and Chapter 1, "The Contexts of Ekphrasis"). She argues vigorously against a tendency she finds in modern criticism to see ekphraseis as descriptions of art works or as opportunities to explore ideas about the act of viewing in antiquity. Tier careful treatment of the handbook material— usefully presented in Greek and English in two appendices—focuses the reader's attention on enargeia. A vivid impression could be achieved through the detailed description, or narration, of many subjects, including activities such as battles, storms, plagues, earthquakes, and festivals, not only through descriptions of objects such as paintings, sculptures, and architectural won­ ders. Chapter 1 proceeds with historical evidence for a drift in scholarly treatments of ekphrasis away from the ancient rhetorical definition in the writings of nineteenth-century French art historians. A key moment of rupture in the mid-twentieth century for Webb is Leo Spitzer's appropriation of "ekphrasis" to designate a poetic genre. From here, writes Webb, "the rest is history," as ekphrasis is "catapulted" out of "the specialized domain of classical [sic] and archaeology into the world of English and Comparative Literature" (p. 35). The lapsarian tone of the narra­ tive at this point may startle readers who value interdisciplinary approaches to rhetoric and visual theorists who have left new critical poetics behind. The implication that all subsequent treatments of ekphrasis by literary scholars follow Spitzer's new critical lead is inaccurate and unhelpful (see p. 35 n. 63). In the penultimate chapter, Webb acknowledges recent writing on ekphra­ sis from classical scholars working on the ancient Greek novel (by Shadi Bartsch, Jas Eisner, Elelen Morales, Tim Whitmarsh, and others: see p. 178 114 RHETORICA and nn. 27 and 28). Influenced by literary theories such as semiotics, fem­ inism, and post-structuralism, these works, like those of scholars (notably W. J. T. Mitchell) from other humanities disciplines intersect in many ways with the perspectives developed later in Webb's book, but Webb does not pause to consider how they complicate the ancient vs. modern definitional agon driving her argument early on. As she aptly observes, "The connec­ tion between ekphrasis and the idea of visual representation ... runs deep" (p. 53), thus her lack of engagement with scholars exploring that very idea is puzzling. Webb is on firmer ground as she returns to a detailed examination of the treatment of ekphrasis in the handbooks (Chapter 2, "Learning Ekphra­ sis: The Progymnasmata). Emphasizing rhetorical production, she focuses on ekphrasis as "the exercise which taught students how to use vivid evocation and imagery in their speeches" (p. 53) rather than the static reproduction of set passages. Webb here makes an illuminating connection between ekphra­ sis and narrative, citing passages in which the speaker becomes...

In this article I shall concentrate on ten lines in Plato’s Gorgias (449c9–d9) dealing with what has come to be known as “rhetoric’s materia question.” By taking Gorgias as a representative of the first stages of rhetoric in ancient Greek thought, and by a close analysis of Socrates’ move in the above section, I shall pinpoint exactly where Plato located rhetoric in the consciousness of Gorgias, and by this offer a new perspective on one of the hot questions in secondary literature nowadays—the origin of ή τέχνη ρητορική.

Reviews 111 of unusual breadth. The book transforms our understanding of Dionysius and his intellectual context. Malcolm Heath University ofLeeds Romani Aqnilae de Figuris, introduzione, testo critico, traduzione e commento a cura di Martina Elice, Hildesheim: Olms, 2007. ccx + 243 pp. ISBN 348713473X Until recently, being one of the rhetores latini minores meant being known only among specialists, not appearing in electronic databases, and having no proper place on the shelves in the libraries. But especially in Italy scholars have begun to pay them the attention they deserve with new editions that often include commentary and translation, for example Lucia Calboli Montefusco's work on Fortunatianus or Squillante's work on the carmen de figuris. In Germany, with great acumen Ulrich Schindel has examined the interdependence of the schemata dianoeas (Anonymus Ecksteinii) with other treatises on the rhetorical figures, such as those by Martianus Capella, Cassiodorus, and Aquila Romanus (Anonymus Ecksteinii. Schemata dianoeas quae ad rhetores pertinent, Nachrichten der Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Gottingen, I. Philologisch-historische Klasse 7 (1987), 107-73). Now Martina Elice has provided Aquila Romanus with a place on the shelf, by offering an accurate edition with an extensive introduction, translation, and very detailed commentary. In the introduction, E. first presents scant notices about the author (I. L'autore XXXI-LII), then she describes the work's content and structure (II. Contenuto e struttura dell'opera LIII-LXII) and its place in the rhetorical tra­ dition with regard to both its sources and its "Fortleben." Because Aquila Ro­ manus is a school-author, attempts to stabilize relationships between the sin­ gle treatises are undermined by the constant background noise of the school lore, in which examples and definitions circulated freely. One can often detect affinities but no certain stemma (LXXXII). Thus E.'s description of Aquila's sources becomes an overview of Aquila's "Mituberlieferung," which under­ lines the connection of the single treatises on figures (§26, LXXXV). This leads to the question of whether there was a common source represented by Caecilius of Cale Acte (U. Schindel, Die Rezeption der hellenistischen Theorie der Figuren bei den Romern, Abhandlungen der Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Gottingen Philologisch-historische Klasse 3. Folge, Band 243 (2001)). Fun­ damentally E. follows Schindel's view. But with regard to Martianus Capella (III.2 Da Aquila a Marziano Capella LXXXIX-CXV), E. seems to suppose a direct descent from Aquila (CXV). In Chapter III.3, E. examines the relationship to the schemata dianoeas (edited and commented on thoroughly by Schindel, who calls them Anony- 112 RHETORICA mus Ecksteinii), though her focus shifts toward the end of the chapter. Rather she exploits the comparison in order to take into account again Aquila's way of using his main ("Leitquelle") and secondary sources. Chapter IV is dedicated to the manuscript tradition. Of the seventeen known manuscripts E. employs, the Casanatense (9th century) is especially worthy of our attention, because it contains many readings that actually improve the text, which had been based until now on the known humanistic manuscripts. After an overview of the modern editions of the text in Chapter V, in Chapter VI E. documents the observations that led her to the formulation of the stemma on p. CCIX. E. carefully corroborates the whole introduction with extensive quota­ tions and thoroughgoing analysis of important passages. The single para­ graphs are numbered, so the commentary can easily refer the reader to them. E's text is based on the examination of all seventeen known manuscripts. She has made the critical apparatus more readable by relegating an extensive list of conjectures by many scholars to an appendix. E. does the user a great service by providing a beautifully readable but precise translation. Special care has been put into rendering the ubiquitous metaphors in the Latin text. The most useful part of the book is without any doubt represented by the detailed commentary. With every figure, E. treats synonyms and variants in the definitions, and provides numerous parallels. Often commentaries tend to forget the text they comment on and only rearrange material from the rhetorical handbooks. E.'s commentary keeps its focus and still can serve as a handbook. A virtue of this commentary compared...

Reviews Marina McCoy, Plato on the Rhetoric of Philosophers and Sophists. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008. $80.00 (hbk), ISBN 9780521878630. As the title implies, Marina McCoy's basic argument is that both philoso­ phers and sophists engage in rhetoric; her task is to describe how Plato differ­ entiates between philosophers and sophists by other means through a close reading of six dialogues: Apology, Protagoras, Gorgias, Republic, Sophist, and Phaedrus. Her basic thesis is straightforward: "Plato distinguishes Socrates from the sophists by differences in character and moral intention" (p. 1). Not only did Athenians have difficulty separating sophists from philoso­ phers, but Plato did as well: "There is no single method or mode of dis­ course that separates the philosopher from the sophist" (p. 3). Not only does Socrates rely on rhetoric, one cannot produce a consistent definition of "philosophical rhetoric" that can be distinguished from "sophistic rhetoric" (p. 4). Ultimately, what makes Socrates (and by extension, true "philoso­ phers") distinctive is a love of the forms and "his desire to care for the souls of those to whom he speaks" (p. 5). McCoy's first chapter is an excellent precis for the project as a whole. Chapter two provides a reading of Plato's Apology. She wisely does not ar­ gue for the historical accuracy of Socrates' speeches, but instead argues the treatise represents Plato's rhetorical defense of Socrates. Noting the use of standard forensic rhetorical devices (argument from probability, ethopoiia) and detailed argumentative parallels to Gorgias's Defense of Palaniedes, Mc­ Coy demonstrates the continuity of Socrates' speech with forensic rhetorical practices of his time. She contends that the Apology thereby acknowledges the difficulty in sorting out philosophical from sophistical practice. Nonetheless, what makes Socrates' rhetorical performance noteworthy is its moral aim of attempting to make Athenians more virtuous, even at the price of arousing "discontent and discomfort" (p. 20). Chapter three examines question and answer practices found in Pro­ tagoras. McCoy's modus operandi is similar to that deployed in chapter two: Protagoras is read to illustrate the similarities between Socrates and Protago­ ras, who both utilize question and answer techniques in a rhetorical manner, but McCoy also stresses how such techniques perform different ethical tasks depending on the moral purposes of the interlocutor. Of particular interest Rhetorica, Vol. XXIX, Issue 1, pp. 106-119, ISSN 0734-8584, electronic ISSN 15338541 . ©2011 by The International Society for the History of Rhetoric. All rights re­ served. Please direct all requests for permission to photocopy or reproduce article content through the University of California Press's Rights and Permissions website, at http://www.ucpressjournals.com/reprintlnfo.asp. DO1: 10.1525/RH.2011.29.1.10b. Reviews 107 in this chapter is McCoy's discussion of how Protagoras and Socrates enact different ethics of listening. Chapter four visits the text most familiar to those reading Plato to un­ derstand his approach to matters rhetorical—the Gorgias. Despite the fact that Socrates lays out a clear and systematic description that distinguishes Philosophy from Rhetoric in this dialogue, McCoy contends that these are merely “apparent abstract distinctions" and that "no single distinction made in that dialogue adequately characterizes the difference between philoso­ phy and rhetoric ' (p. 21). Rather, Socrates enacts the distinction by demon­ strating goodwill toward his interlocutors, responsibility for one's words or "frankness of speech," a commitment to knowledge, and a willingness to be self-critical about one's own practices. McCoy concludes the chapter by stating the Gorgias "does not reject rhetoric as such but instead connects good rhetoric to the possession of these philosophical virtues" (p. 110). Chapter fix e engages the Republic to argue that Plato presents sophists as "incomplete" philosophers. Though both sophists and philosophers are freed from the chains of the infamous cave and skeptical of received opinion, only philosophers are oriented toward the forms. Plato portrays the philoso­ pher as preferable not because philosophers can reason better or practice dialectic, but because of a commitment to the forms. Thus, while dialectic may be presented as the highest intellectual art (Republic 532a), what makes it philosophical is a belief in the forms. Chapter six prov ides a reading of the late dialogue, Sophist...

Reviews 115 in more advanced rhetorical practice. Webb s contention that the persuasive force of ekphrasis is a matter of the orator eliciting predictable responses from listeners based on widely accepted cultural conventions (pp. 109, 122, and passim) is certainly demonstrable but does not allow much scope for con­ testation. This view has an unfortunate resonance with an assumption Webb seeks to overturn, namely that ekphraseis tend to be predictable set pieces and that epideictic speeches in particular—a fertile ground for ekphrastic rhetoric—are usually "a catalogue of platitudes" (p. 164). On the other hand, her observations about the use of ekphrasis in orations to "cast a particular light (or chroma, 'colour' or 'gloss')" on the case at issue and to turn spectators into witnesses through the artful use of vivid detail (pp. 145-65) contribute to a vision of ekphrasis as far more than "decorative digression" (p. 158). It is difficult to do justice to the wealth of primary and secondary material arrayed in Webb's book on this multi-faceted rhetorical subject. Her impressive learning and obvious passion for the material are on abundant display; particularly notable is her familiarity with French scholarship. But this wide reach can frustrate an interested reader: a great deal of ground is covered here rapidly, with subjects such as "Ekphrasis and Interpretation" (pp. 145-46), "Ekphrasis as Fiction" (pp. 168-69), and "Statues and Signs" (pp. 186-87) treated in one or two paragraphs. The net effect is at times like standing too close to a mosaic: hundreds of tiles spark with color but the pattern is difficult to discern. In her Preface Webb acknowledges the constraints of space which prevented extended analyses of examples (p. xiii). A few such analyses would have been welcome. But the book succeeds in achieving the author's primary goal: elucidating the main sources for ekphrasis and enargeia. Although rhetoric scholars may find some points in this rhetorical treatment of ekphrasis familiar, they will appreciate the close attention paid to rhetorical handbooks and the wealth of material concerning ekphrasis accumulated here. Susan C. Jarratt University of California, Irvine Pernille EEarsting and Jon Viklund, eds., Rhetoric and Literature in Linland and Sweden, 1600-1900 (Nordic Studies in the History of Rhetoric 2), Copenhagen: Nordisk Netvaerk for Rhetorikkens Historie, 2008. ISBN 9788798882923 This is the second collection of studies produced by NNRH. It is not available in bookstores, but is available online at http://www.nnrh.dk. There are eight papers published here, arranged roughly in chronological order, beginning with Mats Malm s Rhetoric, ^/locals, and Patriotism in Early Swedish Literature: Georg Stiernhielm's Hercules (1658)." Here (pp. 126 ), Malm argues that the Hercules by Stiernhielm (1598-1672) is more than 116 RHETORICA just an allegory about the choice between virtue and vice, the traditional interpretation of the Hercules at the crossroads story. It is also an allegory about good style and bad style, and hence should be read as an allegory of importance to the teaching and practice of rhetoric. The second paper is "Apostrophe and Subjectivity in Johan Paulinus Lillienstedt 'sMagnus Principatus Finlandia (1678)" (pp. 27-65), by Tua Korhonen. This Finlandia, a versified oration of 379 verses in Classical Greek hexameters (of which Korhonen provides the first translation into English, pp. 52-61) is a classical epideixis of Finland, but his use of apostrophe and self-referential passages shows that Lillienstedt (1655-1732) transcends the limitations of his classical models, adapting the genre to quite different cultural conditions prevailing in 17th-Century Scandinavia. Hannu K. Riikonen's "Laus urbis in Seventeenth Century Finland: Georg Haveman's Oratio de Wiburgo and Olof Hermelin's Viburgum" (pp. 67-85) is the third paper. Hermelin's Viburgum is one of the elegiac poems describing 101 towns in the Kingdom of Sweden in his Hecatompolis Suiorum (1691 or 1692), seen by many scholars as one of the finest examples of Nordic neo-Latin poetry from the 17th Century. About three years after the publication of Hecatompolis, one of Hermelin's students at the University of Tartu, Georg Haveman, delivered an oration in praise of Vyborg, a town on the Finnish-Russian frontier. Both Hermelin's elegy and Haveman...

Other| November 01 2010 Addresses of Contributors to this issue Rhetorica (2010) 28 (4): 433. https://doi.org/10.1525/RH.2010.28.4.433 Views Icon Views Article contents Figures & tables Video Audio Supplementary Data Peer Review Share Icon Share Twitter LinkedIn Tools Icon Tools Get Permissions Cite Icon Cite Search Site Citation Addresses of Contributors to this issue. Rhetorica 1 November 2010; 28 (4): 433. doi: https://doi.org/10.1525/RH.2010.28.4.433 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. © 2010 by The International Society for the History of Rhetoric. All rights reserved.2010 Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

Augustine's highly dramatized resignation as a professor of rhetoric in Book Nine of The Confessions has caused a number of hermeneutic problems for scholars seeking to claim Augustine as an important part of rhetorical histories. By situating the resignation in the context of Augustine's critique of Manichaean practices of speech, I argue that Augustine's resignation marks a fundamental affirmation of rhetoric—an act in which Augustine's deep commitment to the arts of rhetoric shines forth with uncommon brilliance.

Published as Tell, Dave. “Augustine and the ‘Chair of Lies’: Rhetoric in The Confessions.” Rhetorica 28.4 (Autumn 2010): 384-407. © 2010 by [the Regents of the University of California/Sponsoring Society or Association]. Copying and permissions notice: Authorization to copy this content beyond fair use (as specified in Sections 107 and 108 of the U. S. Copyright Law) for internal or personal use, or the internal or personal use of specific clients, is granted by The International Society for the History of Rhetoric for libraries and other users, provided that they are registered with and pay the specified fee via Rightslink® on http://caliber.ucpress.net or directly with the Copyright Clearance Center, http://www.copyright.com."

Nell’articolo vengono esaminati gli schemi logici, gli usi retorici e i tentativi di confutazione del dilemma che, considerato da Ermogene uno σχῆμα λόγου, non è altro che un raffinato ragiona-mento logico basato su una premessa maggiore ipotetica disgiuntiva, i cui antecedenti possono portare ad una unica conclusione o a due conclusioni differenti.

Book Review| August 01 2010 Review: Science, Literature and Rhetoric in Early Modern England, by Juliet Cummins and David Burchell Juliet Cummins and David Burchell(eds.), Science, Literature and Rhetoric in Early Modern England, (Literary and Scientific Cultures of Early Modernity Series), Aldershot (England) and Burlington (Vermont): Ashgate, 2007. 241 pp. ISBN: 9780754657811. Rhetorica (2010) 28 (3): 340–343. https://doi.org/10.1525/RH.2010.28.3.340 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 Review: Science, Literature and Rhetoric in Early Modern England, by Juliet Cummins and David Burchell. Rhetorica 1 August 2010; 28 (3): 340–343. doi: https://doi.org/10.1525/RH.2010.28.3.340 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. © 2010 by The International Society for the History of Rhetoric. All rights reserved.2010 Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

Book Review| August 01 2010 Review: John Locke and the Rhetoric of Modernity, by Philip Vogt Philip VogtJohn Locke and the Rhetoric of Modernity, Plymouth, UK: Lexington, 2008. 197 pp. ISBN: 0739123564. Rhetorica (2010) 28 (3): 337–340. https://doi.org/10.1525/RH.2010.28.3.337 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 Review: John Locke and the Rhetoric of Modernity, by Philip Vogt. Rhetorica 1 August 2010; 28 (3): 337–340. doi: https://doi.org/10.1525/RH.2010.28.3.337 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. © 2010 by The International Society for the History of Rhetoric. All rights reserved.2010 Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.