Reviews 329 Analyse verdeutlicht sich die zentrale Stellung von Hirschvelders modus epistolundi ." (S. 71). Auch hier wird der Begriff "überlieferungsgeschichtlich" falsch verwendet, und die Behauptung einer Spannung zwischen Latinitàt und Humanismus laPt sich wohl nur als unsinnig qualifizieren. Ich breche an dieser Stelle ab, ohne auf Details weiter einzugehen ("Ausgew àhlte Folii (!)", S. 287; "Peter Zainer" statt Johann Zainer, S. 326; kein Nachweis von GW-Nummern bei Inkunabeln, GW fehlt auch im Literaturverzeichnis ; Überbewertung von Wasserzeichenbefunden für Datierungsfragen , S. 55 u.ô.; unbrauchbarer Vergleich mit Sangspruchdichtung Boppes, S. 84). Letztlich bleibt als Mehrwert der Arbeit gegentiber der bisherigen Forschung allein der Textabdruck, der einen für Germanisten und (Bildungs-) Historiker interessanten Textbestand verfügbar macht und dem einen oder anderen die Reise nach München oder die Bestellung eines Microfilms erspart . Auch hier wird man allerdings fragen dürfen, ob der Hinweis auf die Richthnieii fiir die Edition lundesgescluchtlieher Quellen von Walter Heinemeyer (2. Aufl. Hannover: Selbstverlag des Gesamtvereins der Deutschen Geschichts- und Altertumsvereine, 2000) als editionstheoretische Grundlage für eine germanistische Edition ausreichend ist. Insgesamt genügt das Buch den Anforderungen, die an eine historisch-philologische Arbeit gestellt werden müssen, nicht. Albrecht Hausmann Georg-Angust-Universitat Gottingen Michel Meyer, Lu rhétorique (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 2004), 130 pages, ISBN 213053368X. As its title Lu rhétorique suggests, this little book has large ambitions only the most seasoned rhetorician can entertain seriously. And Michel Meyer is certainly that. Successor to Chaim Perelman in the Rhetoric Chair at the Brussels Free University and author of at least 16 related books (4 of which have been translated into English), Meyer is unarguably a leading figure in the fields of rhetoric and argumentation, especially in continental Europe. So Meyer clearly has the authority to take on such an ambitious project. The question is how successful is he in this case. Clearly the book is a success insofar as it succinctly summarizes and updates the original theory of rhetoric Meyer has been working on for at least twenty-five years. Judged on its novelty in comparison to his previously published work and judged by its potential impact in the field of rhetorical studies and beyond, my assessment is less rosy. First the strengths, which are substantial. Written for the popular series "Que sais-je?" (PUF) that seems to greet you just inside the door of every French bookstore, Lu rhétorique covers the field in a manner well designed for the educated nonexpert, and it does so in the systematic fashion that has become a hallmark of Meyer s work. After 330 RHETORICA defining rhetoric on page 10 as "the negotiation of the difference between individuals on a given question" (la rhétorique est la négociation de la différence entre des individus sur une question donnée), Meyer then recasts the entire history and theory of rhetoric from this point of view. And he does so with the confidence that can only come well into a lifetime of focused inquiry, when relevant hot points have been thought and rethought in a variety of contexts and with a variety of audiences in mind. Ancient rhetoric is recast to highlight Aristotle's placement of ethos, pathos, and logos on equal footing (versus those who would privilege the audience, the orator, or the speech); rhetoric's later history is briefly traced as it is "metastasized" in literature, politics, poetics and so on; a call is made for rhetoric's reunification in a systematic theory; and then Meyer delivers that theory with a final demonstration of how it can be used to recast our understanding of the human sciences, the study of literature, and the modern phenomena of propaganda and publicity. Quite a project in 123 pages! And no wonder it is not entirely successful. But let me further elaborate the strengths. Most important is Meyer's thorough commitment to question-andanswer as the motivating structure of all discourse. This perspective trulv sets him apart from both the classical rhetoricians he most admires, such as Aristotle, and his more immediate influences in the field of argumentation theory, such as Stephen Toulmin and Chaim Perelman, it is this perspective that leads to Meyer...

Abstract Rhetorical decisions, including the commitments of friendship and love, are responsive to the world without being determined by it. Therefore the dilemma: when we try to articulate our commitments we wind up talking either about ourselves—as though our decisions were not responsive to the world, but simply a matter of will—or about the evidence—as though our decisions were determined by the nature of things, reducing commitment to reason. The Lysis dramatizes the rhetorical nature of commitment by raising questions about the relation between being a friend and being able to talk about friendship and give reasons for one's friendship.

Abstract This paper argues against the tendency to interpret Gorgias' view of logos as a techne of persuasion which relies on opinion (doxa) and rests on deception either deliberately or incidentally in order to function. Rather, Gorgias appears to be making a connection between truthful speech (alethes logos) and correct speech (orthos logos). Gorgias' insistence on correctness of speech surfaces not only in the Encomium of Helen, but also in the Funeral Oration fragment and in Agathon's parody of Gorgianic rhetoric in Plato's Symposium. Correct speech goes beyond the effectiveness of language and into the domain of ethical correctness and responsibility.

Abstract This article considers the difficulties faced by Quintilian in classifying and understanding apostrophe. He treats it as both a figure of thought, with examples from oratory, and a figure of speech, with examples from Virgilin which the narrator addresses characters of the poem. By inserting the otherwise unobtrusive narrator into the narrative, the effect of the Virgilian examples is to collapse the distinction between narration and narrative. Since Quintilian does not have this means of linguistic analysis at his disposal, he defines apostrophe as a figure of speech by bringing it into relation with other figures that also produce an effect of rupture at the level of narration, and he uses other oppositions that offer an imperfect treatment of the problem.

Rhetorical decisions, including the commitments of friendship and love, are responsive to the world without being determined by it. Therefore the dilemma: when we try to articulate our commitments we wind up talking either about ourselves—as though our decisions were not responsive to the world, but simply a matter of will—or about the evidence—as though our decisions were determined by the nature of things, reducing commitment to reason. The Lysis dramatizes the rhetorical nature of commitment by raising questions about the relation between being a friend and being able to talk about friendship and give reasons for one’s friendship.

Reviews La potenza della patota. Destmatan, fimziotii, bersagli, Atti del convogno di studi (Siena, 7-8 maggio 2002), a cura di S. Beta, (Fiesole: Edizioni Cadmo, 2004), 179 pp. La potenza della parola è un agile volume, sesto tra i Quadernidel ramo d'oro, ed è il frutto di uno dei convegni organizzati dal Centro Interdipartimentale di Studi Antropologici sulla Cultura Antica dell'Università di Siena, che per istituzione coniuga discipline e approcci scientifici diversi per lo studio del Mondo Antico. Il tema è—come indica il titolo—quelle della parola efficace e dei suoi funzionarnenti sulle tracce in particolare delle teorie sugli speech acts del filosofo del linguaggio J. L. Austin (How to Do Things with Words, Oxford 1962) e dei più recenti sx iluppi dell'antropologia del linguaggio. I contributi spaziano dall'epica omerica al profetismo africano e aile odierne campagne elettorali americane. Ma alla diversité di culture e di approcci corrisponde una notevole interazione tra gli studiosi, che ha trovato la sua gestazione prima e durante il convegno, e poi ancora nella fase di redazione del volume (tra le moite indicazioni v. pp. 15 n. 1, 133-35, 149 n. 1). In particolare rappresenta un punto di convergenza di interessi e di prospettive di analisi per tutti gli autori (v. p. es. alie pp. 43s., 101s., 104 n. 8, 117, 130s., 136) l'intervento dal titolo II fare del linguaggio di Alessandro Duranti, che è posto a sigillo del volume (pp. 149-66). Infatti si tratta di un approccio per eccellenza interdisciplinare, quello proprio dell'antropologia lingüistica, che studia il linguaggio come prassi, divertiré, potenzialità e azione sociale (v. A. Duranti, Antropología del linguaggio, Roma 2000, p. 30). L'oratoria samoana, che è stata l'oggetto di numerosi studi da parte dell'A., costituisce il primo spunto per una verifica sul dire comefare: quando in un consiglio di villaggio si passa dalla celebrazione del passato alia discussione politico-giudiziaria, si puo osservare come la transizione sia marcata dalla formula tatou talatalanoa 'parliamo(ne) insieme', la quale indica una forte corrispondenza tra parola e azione. Per i Samoani il verbofai vale sia 'dire' che 'fare', cosí viga ha il valore sia di 'significato' che di 'azione'. Parole diverse—se ne deduce—rendono possibili mondi diversi. Salle tracce di Austin il dire come fare deve essere concettualizzato nella prospettiva del contesto e degli interlocutori piuttosto che in quella delle intenzioni (il cui ruolo è stato sottolineato invece da J. R. Searle e da H. P. Grice, cf. Durand Rhetorica, Vol. XXIV, Issue 2, pp. 217-232, ISSN 0734-8584, electronic ISSN 15338541 . U2006 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 www.ucpress.edu/journals/rights.htm. 218 RHETORICA 2000, pp. 206-11). Il significato di un enunciato è il prodotto di un'interazione ed è proiettato verso gli effetti che esso produce. L'A. presenta poi una seconda prospettiva d'indagine sul linguaggio come costruzione del Sé nel rapporto con gli interlocutori. L'esempio proposto è relativo al discorso politico, in quanto parola che per eccellenza viene agita in pubblico. Per il candidato delle elezioni americane Walter Capps la potenza del racconto diviene azione, la narrativité è utilizzata di fronte agli elettori per creare una persona, un Sé politico nelPinterazione tra l'enunciato e gli interlocutori, anche al di là delle stesse intenzioni del locutore. È quello che avviene a Odisseo tra i Feaci—come possiamo osservare dalla nostra pro­ spettiva épica—, quando attraverso la narrazione ritorna a essere un eroe, anzi è proprio attraverso il suo stesso racconto che diviene l'eroe del nostos, prima ancora che attraverso i1 canto degli aedi. Un'ultima valutazione riguarda l'agentività (agency), di cui PA. propone una definizione: è «la propriété di quegli enti che (i) hanno un certo grado di controllo sulle loro azioni, (ii) le cui azioni hanno un effetto su altri enti (e a volte su se stessi), e (iii) le cui azioni sono oggetto di valutazione» (cf. A. Duranti, Performance and Encoding ofAgency in Historical-Natural Languages, in SALSA Proceedings, vol. 9, eds. K. Henning, N. Netherton...

This paper argues against the tendency to interpret Gorgias’ view of logos as a techne of persuasion which relies on opinion (doxa) and rests on deception either deliberately or incidentally in order to function. Rather, Gorgias appears to be making a connection between truthful speech (alethes logos) and correct speech (orthos logos). Gorgias’ insistence on correctness of speech surfaces not only in the Encomium of Helen, but also in the Funeral Oration fragment and in Agathon’s parody of Gorgianic rhetoric in Plato’s Symposium. Correct speech goes beyond the effectiveness of language and into the domain of ethical correctness and responsibility.

Abstract This article contributes to the study of figured speech by offering an analysis of pseudo-Quintilian's Declamationes Maiores 18 and 19, two controversiaefiguratae. After an introduction of the relevant rhetorical concepts, an account is given of figured speech on all levels in both declamations. The tenor of both controversiae is determined by their declamatory law, which is examined and compared with attested Greek and Roman law. Figured speech on a smaller scale is studied with regard to color, figura, and ductus, and on the level of diction, with regard to emphasis.

Abstract This essay argues that Whateley's rhetorical and logical theories are systematically related to his religious thought and the religious controversies in which he was involved. It analyzes Whately's works on reasoning in light of his pertinent religious notions, namely, a distinction between true and nominal Christianity; rejection of idolatry; abrogation of Mosaic Law; the relationship of the empirical facts of God's Creation and Revelation to human speculations; the priesthood of all believers; and the concomitant necessity of private judgment.

Book Review| February 01 2006 Review: Rhetoric and Dialectic in the Time of Galileo, by Jean Dietz Moss and William A. Wallace Rhetoric and Dialectic in the Time of Galileo edited by Jean Dietz Moss. William A. Wallace. Washington D. C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 2003. 438 pp., $69.95, cloth, ISBN 0-8132-1331-2 Angus Gowland Angus Gowland Department of History, University College London, London WC1E 6BT, UNITED KINGDOM a.gowland@ucl.ac.uk Search for other works by this author on: This Site PubMed Google Scholar Rhetorica (2006) 24 (1): 107–110. https://doi.org/10.1525/rh.2006.24.1.107 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 Angus Gowland; Review: Rhetoric and Dialectic in the Time of Galileo, by Jean Dietz Moss and William A. Wallace. Rhetorica 1 February 2006; 24 (1): 107–110. doi: https://doi.org/10.1525/rh.2006.24.1.107 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. © The International Society for the History of Rhetoric2006 Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

This article contributes to the study of figured speech by offering an analysis of pseudo-Quintilian’s Declamationes Matares 18 and 19, two controversiae figuratae. After an introduction of the relevant rhetorical concepts, an account is given of figured speech on all levels in both declamations. The tenor of both controversiae is determined by their declamatory law, which is examined and compared with attested Greek and Roman law. Figured speech on a smaller scale is studied with regard to color, figura, and ductus, and on the level of diction, with regard to emphasis.1

This essay argues that Whateley’s rhetorical and logical theories are systematically related to his religious thought and the religious controversies in which he was involved. It analyzes Whately’s works on reasoning in light of his pertinent religious notions, namely, a distinction between true and nominal Christianity; rejection of idolatry; abrogation of Mosaic Law; the relationship of the empirical facts of God’s Creation and Revelation to human speculations; the priesthood of all believers; and the concomitant necessity of private judgment.

Reviews Jean Dietz Moss and William A. Wallace, eds., Rhetoric and Dialectic in the Time of Galileo (Washington D. C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 2003), 438 pp., $69.95, cloth, ISBN 0-8132-1331-2. The considerable importance of Aristotle to sixteenth-century rhetori­ cal theory has been well established in recent years, but this volume will make a significant contribution to our understanding of this expansive and occasionally complex territory. Principally, this is because it presents lengthy selections in English from a series of previously untranslated works on logic, dialectic, and rhetoric which may be taken as broadly typical products of the university environment in late sixteenth-century northern Italy. The au­ thors in question are Ludovico Carbone (1545—1597) and Antonio Riccobono (1541—1599), both of whom were deeply immersed in the Aristotelian intel­ lectual universe that predominated at Rome and Padua. For those who are unfamiliar with these figures and their environment, the editors provide a substantial introduction that surveys their biographical contexts and outlines the principles and history of the rhetorical and dialectical theory to which they subscribed, as well as brief introductions to each text. The book has two connected agendas. In the first place, it is designed to flesh out our understanding of the Renaissance uses of rhetoric, and of Aristotelian rhetoric in particular, by drawing attention to the sustained and detailed fashion in which Carbone and Riccobono analyzed and engaged with the logical basis of dialectical and rhetorical argumentation. In both cases, the penetration of rhetoric by Aristotelian logic is said to exemplify the broader engagement, on positive terms, of the era's humanist move­ ment with its traditional antagonist, namely scholastic Aristotelianism. The editors' purpose here is thus to redirect scholarly attention on Renaissance rhetoric towards the logical domain of rhetorical and dialectical invention and away from the territory of style. As they make clear, this does not consti­ tute a denial of the centrality of style to the rhetorical writings of the era. However, it inevitably creates a minor difficulty that I shall mention below. Second, as the book's title indicates, Professors Moss and Wallace have also been motivated by their conviction that attending to the logical aspect of these authors' works will facilitate a greater understanding of Galileo. As we are informed in the introduction, at some point in their careers at Rhetorica, Vol. XXIV, Issue 1, pp. 107-115, ISSN 0734-8584, electronic ISSN 15338541 . ©2006 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 www.ucpress.edu/journals/rights.htm. 107 108 RHETORICA the Jesuit Collegio Romano and the University of Padua both Carbone and Riccobono moved in the same circles as Galileo. More importantly, their writings provide a clear picture of the rhetorical and dialectical environment from which many of Galileo's forms of argumentation emerged. As such, Rhetoric and Dialectic in the Time of Galileo supports and complements the interpretations of Galileo that have been offered by Wallace in Galileo's Logic of Discovery and Proof (1992), where he is depicted as an Aristotelian of a distinctly Thomist complexion, and by Moss in Novelties in the Heavens (1993), where he appears as a thoroughly rhetorical scientist. The translations, all undertaken by Professor Wallace, are readable and very clear. Those taken from Carbone's sizeable output derive from the tntroductionis in logicam (Venice, 1597), a compendium of Aristotelian logical theory that, as Wallace has previously demonstrated, was plagiarised from the lecture notes of the Jesuit Paolo della Valle (1561-1622); the Tabulae rhetoricae Cypriani Soarii (Venice, 1589), a tabular digest of Cypriano Soarez's De arte rhetoricae (1562); the De arte dicendi (Venice, 1589), a comprehensive account of rhetorical theory; the De oratoria et dialéctica inventione (Venice, 1589), a treatise on topical invention; and the Divinus orator vel de rhetorica divina (Venice, 1595), a novel application of classical rhetoric to the art of preaching. Riccobono, whose own work as a translator encompassed Aristotle's Rhetoric, Poetics, and Nicomachean Ethics, is represented in the volume by...

Research Article| November 01 2005 Review of Roxanne Mountford. The Gendered Pulpit: Preaching in American Protestant Spaces. Studies in Rhetorics and Feminisms Series. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 2003. xii + 194 pages. Lindal Buchanan Lindal Buchanan Department of Liberal Studies, Kettering University, 1700 West Third Avenue, Flint, MI 48504, USA ljb9601@yahoo.com Search for other works by this author on: This Site PubMed Google Scholar Rhetorica (2005) 23 (4): 401–403. https://doi.org/10.1525/rh.2005.23.4.401 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 Lindal Buchanan; Review of Roxanne Mountford. The Gendered Pulpit: Preaching in American Protestant Spaces. Studies in Rhetorics and Feminisms Series. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 2003. xii + 194 pages. . Rhetorica 1 November 2005; 23 (4): 401–403. doi: https://doi.org/10.1525/rh.2005.23.4.401 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. © The International Society for the History of Rhetoric Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

Abstract In a comment on the age in which he was writing, Seneca the Elder states inSuas. 2.19 that anyone can plagiarize Cicero's Verrines with impunity. Critics have taken Seneca's assertion as a sign of diminished familiarity with the In Verrem and of Cicero's diminished popularity. This article offers a different interpretation. Seneca assails the inattentiveness of contemporary audiences as they listen to declamations in the rhetorical schools, not their ignorance of theVerrines or aversion to Cicero. Seneca incorporates the In Verrem into that critique due to its emblematic length in order to satirize the audiences' carelessness. The use of theVerrines as a symbol relies for its effect on the easy identification of the text and its size, and consequently points to the fame of that title and its length, as well as of its author Cicero, in the 30s CE.

Abstract The rise of prose in Greece has been linked to broader cultural and intellectual developments under way in the classical period. Prose has also been characterized as challenging poetry's traditional status as the privileged expression of the culture. Yet throughout the classical period and beyond, poetry was still regularly invoked as the yardstick by which innovation was measured. This paper investigates how poetry figures in the earliest accounts of prose style. Focusing on Isocrates, Alcidamas, and Aristotle, it argues that although each author distinguishes between the styles of prose and poetry, none is able to sustain the distinction consistently. The criteria for what constitutes an acceptable level of poeticality in prose were unstable. The diverse conceptions of poetic style were tied to intellectual polemics and professional rivalries of the early- to mid-fourth century bce and reflect competing aims and ideals for rhetorical performance in prose.

Research Article| November 01 2005 Review of Cheryl Glenn, Margaret M. Lyday, and Wendy B. Sharer, eds., Rhetorical Education in America. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press, 2004. 245 pp. Jane Donawerth Jane Donawerth Department of English, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742, USA jane\_donawerth@verizon.net Search for other works by this author on: This Site PubMed Google Scholar Rhetorica (2005) 23 (4): 403–404. https://doi.org/10.1525/rh.2005.23.4.403 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 Jane Donawerth; Review of Cheryl Glenn, Margaret M. Lyday, and Wendy B. Sharer, eds., Rhetorical Education in America. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press, 2004. 245 pp. . Rhetorica 1 November 2005; 23 (4): 403–404. doi: https://doi.org/10.1525/rh.2005.23.4.403 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. © The International Society for the History of Rhetoric Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

Abstract “Rhetoric in Hegel” is meant as the treatment of rhetoric in theVorlesungen über die Ästhetik, one of the author's posthumous works. It is a short exposition whose content does not reoccur in Hegel's systematic works. These remarks on persuasive speech, focused on oratorical and historiographical prose, are not significant for the economy of Hegel's thought. Yet in his texts on aesthetics and in his systematic works, traditional elocutionary and argumentative rhetorical figures appear without theoretical or historical justification. Such figures raise questions about the relationships of logic, language, and politics in Hegel and draw attention to analogical semantic isotopes. This is what is meant by “Hegel's rhetoric”: a rhetoric that goes beyond the author's own definition, that deserves analysis from the perspective of Hegel's dialectics, and that reflects in important ways on contemporary topicality.

In a comment on the age in which he was writing, Seneca the Elder states in Suas. 2.19 that anyone can plagiarize Cicero’s Verrines with impunity. Critics have taken Seneca’s assertion as a sign of audiences’ diminished familiarity with the In Verrem and of Cicero’s diminished popularity. This article offers a different interpretation. Seneca assails the inattentiveness of contemporary audiences as they listen to declamations in the rhetorical schools, not their ignorance of the Verrines or aversion to Cicero. Seneca incorporates the In Verrem into that critique due to its emblematic length in order to satirize the audiences’ carelessness. The use of the Verrines as a symbol relies for its effect on the easy identification of the text, and consequently points to the renown of that title and its length, as well as of its author Cicero, in the 30s ce.

Reviews Roxanne Mountford. The Gendered Pulpit: Preaching in American Protes­ tant Spaces. Studies in Rhetorics and Feminisms Series. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 2003. xii + 194 pages. The Gendered Pulpit makes a significant contribution to rhetorical studies, investigating the heretofore largely overlooked issue of how gender affects rhetorical performance in sacred spaces. Roxanne Mountford employs multi­ ple lenses—including rhetorical theory, feminist historiography, church and homiletic tradition, personal experience, and ethnography—and produces a sweeping, comprehensive, and compelling analysis of her subject. The first two chapters identify masculinist biases embedded within the spatial and sermonic conventions of the Protestant church. In chapter one, Mountford introduces an original and sure to be influential conception of "rhetorical space/' which includes not only the architectural setting and physical props incorporated into an oratorical performance but also entirely non-material elements: "rhetorical spaces carry the residue of history within them . . . [and so are] a physical representation of relationships and ideas" (17). Thus, culture, tradition, and ideology inhabit rhetorical space and shape speakers' performances. Mountford illustrates this point via the pulpit, an object/space imbued with "masculine" connotations that pose challenges to women preachers. First, the pulpit is designed for male rather than female bodies. One woman minister studied by Mountford must stand on a foot­ stool in the pulpit because of her small stature; even so, she is so dwarfed by the furniture that only her neck and head are visible to the congregation. Second, the pulpit enforces a distanced, hierarchical relationship between the preacher and the audience, spatially encoding the speaker as the authority and the listeners as silent, passive recipients of "his" wisdom. Mountford argues that this type of relationship is unappealing to women preachers, who tend to prefer a "populist" stance and seek more intimate connection with the congregation. Third, because of its strong masculine associations, the pulpit automatically casts women ministers as misfits in that sacred space. To overcome the gendered obstacles posed by the pulpit, women often opt to deliver sermons in alternative spaces, for example, leaving the pulpit and speaking from the church floor or preaching outside of the church entirely. Rhetorica, Vol. XXIII, Issue 4, pp. 401-404, ISSN 0734-8584, electronic ISSN 15338541 . ©2005 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 www.ucpress.edu/journals/rights.htm. 402 RHETORICA Women also confront problematic gender assumptions within preaching textbooks. Nineteenth-century manuals, for example, encouraged ministers to develop an authoritative, heroic, manly character that would empower them to save the world one person at a time, an irrelevant and inappropriate ethos for women. Twentieth-century manuals, while not as overtly mascu­ line, failed to address gender directly and instead promoted "a generic ideol­ ogy of gender" that left traditional masculinist biases intact (63). Women's strategies for overcoming the gender biases inherent to sacred spaces and traditions are examined concretely in the book's remaining chapters. Chapters three, four, and five examine the intersections of rhetorical performance, space, and the body through the practices of three contem­ porary and very different Protestant preachers, all of whom are the first women to lead their respective churches: Patricia O'Connor, pastor of a large and affluent suburban Lutheran church; Barbara Hill (Rev. Barb), minister to a struggling church located in a strip mall and serving a low-income, African-American community; and Janet Moore, leader of an urban and deeply divided Methodist church composed of conservative, aging, white, working-class core members and liberal, young, prosperous, gay and lesbian professionals. Although possessing varied gifts and serving dissimilar con­ gregations, the three women pursue a similar goal in their ministries, which Moore describes as creating "a community of Christians dedicated to peace, social justice, and diversity" (137). This "populist" purpose, so at odds with that promoted in conventional preaching manuals and traditions, inspires the women to develop new rhetorical strategies. One of the most significant is their use of sacred space to create a sense of community. As noted, tradition places the authoritative, male preacher in the pulpit and promotes...

The rise of prose in Greece has been linked to broader cultural and intellectual developments under way in the classical period. Prose has also been characterized as challenging poetry's traditional status as the privileged expression of the culture. Yet throughout the classical period and beyond, poetry was still regularly invoked as the yardstick by which innovation was measured. This paper investigates how poetry figures in the earliest accounts of prose style. Focusing on Isocrates, Alcidamas, and Aristotle, it argues that although each author distinguishes between the styles of prose and poetry, none is able to sustain the distinction consistently. The criteria for what constitutes an acceptable level of poeticality in prose were unstable. Moreover, the diverse conceptions of poetic style were tied to intellectual polemics and professional rivalries of the early- to mid-fourth century bce and reflect competing aims and ideals for rhetorical performance in prose.

“Rhetoric in Hegel” is meant as the treatment of rhetoric in the Vorlesungen über die Ästhetik, one of the author’s posthumous works. It is a short exposition whose content does not reoccur in Hegel’s systematic works. These remarks on persuasive speech, focused on oratorical and historiographical prose, are not significant for the economy of Hegel’s thought. Yet in his texts on aesthetics and in his systematic works, traditional elocutionary and argumentative rhetorical figures appear without theoretical or historical justification. Such figures raise questions about the relationships of logic, language, and politics in Hegel and draw attention to analogical semantic isotopes. This is what is meant by “Hegel’s rhetoric”: a rhetoric that goes beyond the author’s own definition, that deserves analysis from the perspective of Hegel’s dialectics, and that reflects in important ways on contemporary topicality.

Reviews 403 faith not only to sustain the congregation but also to encourage it to confront social injustice and work for racial uplift. Collectively, these women's spatial and rhetorical strategies point to an alternative method for crafting effective ethos and promoting Christian community. The epilogue addresses whether or not the "populist" preaching prac­ tices employed by O'Connor, Hill, and Moore are "feminine" ones. While acknowledging that a number of male church leaders (including Henry Ward Beecher, post-Vatican II priests, and African American preachers) have used similar methods, Mountford argues that women's abandonment of the pul­ pit, disclosure of the personal, and efforts to level hierarchy represent a significant "ritual transgression of sacred space" and tradition (156). In other words, women preachers choose alternative discursive methods and de­ livery styles in order to create ethos in a place and position traditionally antithetical to them. The Gendered Pulpit represents an important step toward understanding how gender affects discourse and rhetorical performance. Mountford con­ cludes by inviting other feminist rhetoricians into the new theoretical home afforded by a refigured fifth canon of delivery, and she encourages them to build upon her foundation and undertake further studies of women min­ isters in sacred spaces. Mountford's fine work makes a convincing case for the fifth canon as a promising site for investigating gender and rhetoric and, ultimately, for making the entire discipline inclusive and comprehensive. Lindal Buchanan Kettering University Cheryl Glenn, Margaret M. Lyday, and Wendy B. Sharer, eds., Rhetor­ ical Education in America. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press, 2004. 245 pp. This volume reconsiders contemporary rhetorical education from the perspective of the history of rhetoric. The editors provide a helpful intro­ duction (Glenn) and afterword (Lyday and Sharer). Many of the essays were plenary presentations at a Penn State Rhetoric Conference organized by the editors. The volume's most successful essays link a study of how rhetoric was historically taught with how it might be taught today. In "Lest We Go the Way of the Classics: Toward a Rhetorical Future for English Departments," Thomas P. Miller reviews the history of composition teaching as a history of crises of literacy, and suggests that we now need a curriculum that will move us from the traditional interpretive stance of the critical observer to the rhetorical stance of the practical agent involved in negotiation. Shirley Wilson Logan, in "'To Get an Education and Teach My People': Rhetoric for Social Change," examines the self-help schooling of nineteenth-century African 404 RHETORICA Americans for clues to help today's disenfranchised communities. Logan calls for "consilience," that is, a linking of knowledge across disciplines, and a rhetorical education that concentrates as much on critiquing and evalu­ ating contemporary discourses as on producing writing. With meticulous scholarship, in "Parlor Rhetoric and the Performance of Gender in Postbellum America," Nan Johnson reveals the conservative réinscription of gender roles in the potentially liberating growth of manuals for parlor rhetoric after the Civil War. Gregory Clark reminds us of the range of American rhetorics in his examination of the national park as a public experience establishing a shared sense of national collectivity, a training ground for citizens who need to respond to public conflict with transcendence. Essays by William Denman and by Sherry Booth and Susan Frisbie are not as strong. Denman argues that rhetoric lost its civic purpose during the nineteenth-century expansion that attempted to keep out the vulgar and the foreign by policing the borders of oral and written communication, but he ignores the growth in specialized textbooks and conduct-book rhetoric that offered rhetorical education to working class and female students. Booth and Frisbie argue that metaphor should be central to rhetorical education and analyze their qualified success in teaching metaphor to their students, but they mistakenly suggest that Aristotle did not find metaphor important to rhetoric and their claim that Renaissance rhetoric emphasized style not content has been significantly revised in recent scholarship. Other essays offer perceptive variations on the collection's theme of the history of rhetoric as a guide to future teaching. Susan Kates links James Raines's revision of the history of English to include respect for Appalachian English...

Research Article| August 01 2005 Review of James P. Zappen, The Rebirth of Dialogue: Bakhtin, Socrates, and the Rhetorical Tradition Kay Halasek Halasek Kay Halasek Halasek Department of English, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210, USA Search for other works by this author on: This Site PubMed Google Scholar Rhetorica (2005) 23 (3): 299–301. https://doi.org/10.1525/rh.2005.23.3.299 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 Kay Halasek Halasek; Review of James P. Zappen, The Rebirth of Dialogue: Bakhtin, Socrates, and the Rhetorical Tradition. Rhetorica 1 August 2005; 23 (3): 299–301. doi: https://doi.org/10.1525/rh.2005.23.3.299 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. © The International Society for the History of Rhetoric Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

Abstract Scholars have seldom explored relationships among Lord Kames's legal career and writings and Elements of Criticism. After considering why Kames did not write a rhetoric of legal advocacy, I argue that Kames's legal career and writings offered precedents for Elements in three areas: fulfilling social aspirations, using principles of human nature for pedagogical purposes, and using a mode of reasoning that involved abstracting principles from particular cases. I provide a more complete understanding of theElements and suggest that aims and methods of Scots law may have penetrated eighteenth-century Scottish rhetorics more broadly.

Research Article| August 01 2005 Review of Claude La Charité, La rhétorique épistolaire de Rabelais; Luc Vaillancourt, La lettre familière au XVIesiècle. Francis Goyet Francis Goyet Francis Goyet 27 rue Nicolet 38100 Grenoble FRANCE francis.goyet@wanadoo.fr Search for other works by this author on: This Site PubMed Google Scholar Rhetorica (2005) 23 (3): 297–299. https://doi.org/10.1525/rh.2005.23.3.297 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 Francis Goyet; Review of Claude La Charité, La rhétorique épistolaire de Rabelais; Luc Vaillancourt, La lettre familière au XVIesiècle.. Rhetorica 1 August 2005; 23 (3): 297–299. doi: https://doi.org/10.1525/rh.2005.23.3.297 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. © The International Society for the History of Rhetoric Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

Abstract Exorcism incorporates all three branches of classical rhet\-oric: judicial (as in a trial, accusing the demon for his actions); deliberative (exhorting the demon to depart); and ceremonial or epideictic (praising the power of God and blaming Satan for taking possession of a human soul). The structure of a typical exorcism follows the classical arrangement of exordium,narratio, divisio,refutatio, probatio, andperoratio. The speaker is the exorcist, a Catholic priest who was often classically educated. There are five audiences in any given exorcism, three supernatural and two human, and each of these requires specific rhetorical strategies.

Exorcism incorporates all three branches of classical rhetoric: judicial (as in a trial, accusing the demon for his actions); deliberative (exhorting the demon to depart); and ceremonial or epideictic (praising the power of God and blaming Satan for taking possession of a human soul). The structure of a typical exorcism follows the classical arrangement of exordium, narratio, divisio, refutatio, probatio, and peroratio. The speaker is the exorcist, a Catholic priest who was often classically educated. There are five audiences in any given exorcism, three supernatural and two human, and each of these requires specific rhetorical strategies.

Reviews 299 son seul guide pour l'étude de la dispositio, et que pour Yelocutio ce sera le seul Hermogène, dont il n'avait pas encore parlé. Laissons ici le fait que ces deux décisions seraient vraiment difficiles à justifier d'un point de vue historique (Du Tronchet se souvient-il encore de Fabri? connaît-il déjà Hermogène?). Le choix de Fabri conduit à des platitudes du côté de la dispositio: nous n'avons pas besoin de lui pour apprendre qu'une lettre a un début, un milieu et une fin, même rebaptisés respectivement «cause», «intention» et «conséquence»; et Vaillancourt ne relève pas que, chez Fabri, la «conséquence», qui est la conclusion du syllogisme, peut se trouver ailleurs qu'à la fin, ce qui est tout l'intérêt de ce vocabulaire. Quant à Hermogène, si ce choix permet de bien plus fines remarques sur Yelocutio, on reste parfois sceptique: caractériser les lettres de Pasquier par la deinotès est ne pas savoir ce que désigne celleci —Pasquier n'est pas «habile» comme Démosthène au seul motif qu'il sait s'adapter à ses correspondants. De façon plus générale, la difficulté fondamentale réside dans l'image de la rhétorique qu'ont les deux ouvrages. Comme de nombreux littéraires aujourd'hui, seiziémistes ou non, leur culture rhétorique se limite à Yelocutio et, dans une moindre mesure, à Yethos. Inversement, ils ne sont pas à l'aise avec la dispositio ou avec les passions, ni même avec l'argumentation ou logos (que Vaillancourt réduit aux exempta et autres autorités). Pour la dispositio, seul La Charité ose deux analyses de lettre complète, d'ailleurs stimulantes (p. 101-106), et pour les passions Vaillancourt appelle amitié (avec renvoi à Aristote, Rhétorique, II, 4) ce qui à l'évidence relève de la gratia (p. 294, «je ne veux en rien estre ingrat...» = Aristote, II, 7). Plus fondamentalement encore, tous deux voient dans l'épistolaire le lieu où il y aura le moins de rhétorique, ce mot même ayant sous leur plume le sens trop convenu de formalismes obligés. La lettre «familière» serait, enfin, un espace de sincérité dénué de toute «rhétorique»: l'extrême du sermo déconstruit, face à l'extrême de Yoratio ou discours construit. Avec un tel présupposé, que démentent constamment et l'époque et les corpus étudiés, il n'est pas pour surprendre qu'on arrive mal à dégager du typologique réutilisable. Redisons pour finir combien ces difficultés mêmes sont instructives, car elles renvoient le lecteur de Rhetorica à une des questions fondatrices de cette revue: jusqu'où peut-on appliquer la rhétorique ancienne à des textes qui a priori en étaient informés de part en part? Francis Goyet Université Stendhal, Grenoble James P. Zappen, The Rebirth of Dialogue: Bakhtin, Socrates, and the Rhetorical Tradition (Albany: SUNY Press, 2004), viii + 229 pp. In the roughly twenty years of scholarship on Bakhtin and rhetorical studies, Rebirth ofDialogue stands as the first and only book-length discussion 300 RHETORICA of dialogue as it informs both the early Socratic dialogues and the work of Mikhail Bakhtin. That rhetorician and Bakhtin scholar Jim Zappen would undertake the project is not surprising, for Bakhtin himself provides the impetus for the comparative study, citing the Socratic dialogue as a protonovelistic genre. Zappen does not, however, simply construct a series of correspondences between the two thinkers' perspectives on dialogue; rather, he examines the Socratic in terms of the Bakhtinian, noting the points at which a Bakhtinian reading of the early dialogues extends and enriches our understanding of them as "testing and contesting and creating" innovative ideas during a tumultuous fifth century bce (32). The opening chapter situates the central question of the relationship be­ tween rhetoric and dialogue within twentieth-century rhetorical and philo­ sophical studies. It also presents a central premise of the argument: the early Socratic dialogues illustrate a significant and complex cultural tension between the arete ("excellence" born of birth, status, and courage) of the Homeric tradition and a newer...

Scholars have seldom explored relationships among Lord Kames’s legal career and writings and Elements of Criticism. After considering why Kames did not write a rhetoric of legal advocacy, I argue that Kames’s legal career and writings offered precedents for Elements in three areas: fulfilling social aspirations, using principles of human nature for pedagogical purposes, and using a mode of reasoning that involved abstracting principles from particular cases. I provide a more complete understanding of the Elements and suggest that aims and methods of Scots law may have penetrated eighteenth-century Scottish rhetorics more broadly.

Reviews Claude La Charité, La rhétorique épistolaire de Rabelais, Québec, Édi­ tions Nota bene, 2003, 305 p.; Luc Vaillancourt, La lettre familière au XVIe siècle. Rhétorique humaniste de l'épistolaire, Paris, Champion, 2003, 459 p. Ces deux ouvrages contemporains ont de nombreux points communs, outre le fait que les auteurs sont collègues à l'université du Québec: même objet, même démarche théorique, et finalement mêmes difficultés, au de­ meurant très instructives. L'objet est l'épistolaire, ou plutôt, à l'intérieur de ce vaste champ, la«lettre familière» en prose. Luc Vaillancourt examine en autant de chapitres un corpus de cinq recueils de lettres, qui couvre à peu près le XVIe siècle: d'Hélisenne de Crenne, les Epistresfamilières et invectives de madame Helisenne; s ___ d'Etienne du Tronchet, les Lettres Missives et Familières; de Gaspar de Saillans, le Premier livre qui contient des «lettres missives familièrement escrittes au vray»; des dames des Roches, mère et fille, les Missives; enfin d'Étienne Pasquier, les Lettres. Claude La Charité, lui, examine les dix-sept lettres écrites par Rabelais ou par ses personnages: d'un côté les lettres dédicatoires, celles d'Italie et celles à des amis; de l'autre la lettre de Grandgousier à son fils au moment où Picrochole envahit leur royaume, l'échange épistolaire entre Gargantua et Pantagruel au Quart Livre (chap. III) et la fameuse lettre sur le plan des études (Pantagruel, VIII). Comme ce petit corpus rabelaisien est peu homogène, en lisant La Charité on a comme avec Vaillancourt une sorte d'aperçu de bon nombre de types de lettres pratiquées à la Renaissance, dans leur diversité parfois déroutante. La démarche théorique est bien résumée par la présence au titre, dans les deux cas, du mot rhétorique. Il s'agit de savoir de quelle catégorie relève telle ou telle lettre et, par là, de l'analyser plus judicieusement. Un des grands intérêts de ces deux ouvrages est leur référence commune au Grant et vray art de pleine rhétorique (1521) de Pierre Fabri. Vaillancourt considère que la taxinomie de Fabri pour la diuisio «rend compte de manière adéquate de l'ensemble des divisions que l'on retrouve dans les lettres de l'époque». De son côté, La Charité donne en annexe un très précieux «tableau récapitulatif de la rhétorique épistolaire de Fabri» qui détaille les 48 sortes de lettres décrites par celui-ci—les autres annexes de La Charité sont tout Rhetorica, Vol. XXIII, Issue 3, pp. 297-301, ISSN 0734-8584, electronic ISSN 15338541 . ©2005 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, atwww.ucpress.edu/journals/rights.htm. 298 RHETORICA aussi utiles (même tableau pour la rhétorique épistolaire d'Érasme, et cinq préfaces d'arts épistolaires). Mais Fabri n'est pas la seule référence, bien entendu. Les deux ouvrages commencent très classiquement par un tour d'horizon de la théorie épistolaire alors disponible, de l'Antiquité à Érasme, sans oublier pour la Renaissance toute une série d'auteurs peu connus. Le tour d'horizon chez La Charité mentionne pour mémoire l'Antiquité et le Moyen Âge (p. 15-79), là où Vaillancourt les considère en détail (p. 39-188), tout en allant jusqu'à la fin du XVIe siècle, comme l'y invite son corpus. On ne peut que se féliciter de ce regain d'intérêt pour l'épistolaire, qui s'inscrit dans un courant plus vaste - voir en amont Marc Bizer, Les lettres romaines de Du Bellay, aux Presses de l'Université de Montréal en 2001, et en aval Guy Gueudet, L'art de la lettre humaniste, chez Champion en 2004. On ne peut aussi que louer le recours à la rhétorique pour rendre compte des...

Abstract Chen Kui published theWen Ze, The Rules of Writing) in 1170. Chinese scholars commonly describe this as the first systematic account of Chinese rhetoric. This paper will place the Wen Ze in its historical and rhetorical context and provide a translation and discussion of key extracts from the book. In providing a summary of the key points of The Rules of Writing, this paper presents the main principles of Chinese composition and rhetoric as laid out by Chen Kui. It will also provide evidence that rhetorical styles are a product of their times. Like fashions, they flourish and fade and then flourish again.

Research Article| May 01 2005 Review of Riccardo Maisano, Cantici di Romano il Melodo Laurent Pernot Laurent Pernot Universit\'e Marc Bloch, UFR Lettres, Le Portique, 14 rue Descartes, 67084 Strasbourg, France pernot@umb.u-strasbg.fr Search for other works by this author on: This Site PubMed Google Scholar Rhetorica (2005) 23 (2): 205–207. https://doi.org/10.1525/rh.2005.23.2.205 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 Laurent Pernot; Review of Riccardo Maisano, Cantici di Romano il Melodo. Rhetorica 1 May 2005; 23 (2): 205–207. doi: https://doi.org/10.1525/rh.2005.23.2.205 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. © The International Society for the History of Rhetoric Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

Research Article| May 01 2005 Review of Simonetta Nannini, Analogia e polarità in similitudine. Paragoni iliadici e odissiaci a confronto Raffaele Grisolia Raffaele Grisolia Via Carlo Alberto 59, 84073 Sapri (Salerno), Italia grisolia@unina.it Search for other works by this author on: This Site PubMed Google Scholar Rhetorica (2005) 23 (2): 203–205. https://doi.org/10.1525/rh.2005.23.2.203 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 Raffaele Grisolia; Review of Simonetta Nannini, Analogia e polarità in similitudine. Paragoni iliadici e odissiaci a confronto. Rhetorica 1 May 2005; 23 (2): 203–205. doi: https://doi.org/10.1525/rh.2005.23.2.203 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. © The International Society for the History of Rhetoric Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

Abstract Western rhetoric began to influence Japan during the Meiji era (1868–1912). The influence can be seen in three representative elocution books that depended on such Western elocutionary theorists as James Rush, Gilbert Austin, and William Russell and dealt extensively with gesture, posture, and voice control for emotional effect. Despite these books, Western elocutionary rhetoric did not make any lasting changes in the Japanese rhetorical tradition because of its excessive artificiality.

Chen Kui (陈骥) published the Wen Ze (文则), The Rules of Writing) in 1170. Chinese scholars commonly describe this as the first systematic account of Chinese rhetoric. This paper will place the Wen Ze in its historical and rhetorical context and provide a translation and discussion of key extracts from the book. In providing a summary of the key points of The Rules of Writing, this paper presents the main principles of Chinese composition and rhetoric as laid out by Chen Kui. It will also provide evidence that rhetorical styles are a product of their times. Like fashions, they flourish and fade and then flourish again.

Reviews Simonetta Nannini, Analogía e polaritd in similitudine. Paragoni iliadici e odissiaci a confronto (Amsterdam: Adolf M. Hakkert, 2003), 141 pp. La varietá di funzioni rivestita dalle similitudini nei poemi omerici costituisce un campo d'indagine ampiamente esplorato e che ha dato frutti talora importanti, peraltro puntualmente esaminati e ricordati dall'A. Non sola­ mente espediente retorico che accompagna e scandisce i tempi dell'azione épica, contribuendo al funzionamento del testo con compiti di interconnessione tra le partí o di anticipazione di esiti, spia di scarti tra materiale ereditato e rielaborazioni, tra collocazione tradizionale e contesto mutato di fruizione, segnale di quei meccanismi tipici che riguardano l'aspetto della ricezione del testo da parte di un pubblico che assiste alia performance aedica, la similitudine, sia breve che estesa, come mette in rilievo LA., pertiene anche ad un modo di pensiero analógico che appare per la prima volta in Omero ed Esiodo, per poi diventare un aspetto costitutivo del pensiero filosófico greco agli albori. Per LA. la singolaritá del processo mentale sotteso a molte similitudini omeriche esaminate nel volume é costituito dal suo essere insieme analógico e polare, per cui a diventare particolarmente significative finiscono con Lessere non le analogie piü evidenti ed esplicitamente istituite dal poeta fra comparatum e comparandum, quanto le divergenze, che a volte attengono ad un livello piü superficiale - come ad esempio quelle che prevedono mutamenti di scenari, e si possono anche ascrivere al desiderio di variatio o di mutamenti nel contesto narrativo - ma che altre volte sono meno fácilmente collocabili nella loro utilizzazione dei tratti antitetici che le costituiscono. E anche il rapporto tra i due poemi, gli interrogativi che pone la 'competizione' ingaggiata dall'Odissea con Ylliade, le apparenti riprese odissiache nelYIliade paiono all'A. potersi rapportare a due diversi modelli di ragionamento alLopera nei poemi e in quest'ámbito, se non risolvibili, almeno esplicabili. Naturalmente tutto ció é strettamente connesso con una rilevante questione: la persistenza delLimpronta di una personalitá autoriale al lavoro che si lascia intravedere in operazioni del genere, specie da quando si é cominciato a porre attenzione non tanto e non solo al processo di comprensione di metafore e similitudini da parte del ricevente, e alLeffetto da essi prodotto, ma anche al processo della loro formazione da parte delbemittente e ai meccanismi psicologici che Rhetorica, Vol. XXIII, Issue 2, pp. 203-207, ISSN 0734-8584, electronic ISSN 15338541 . ©2005 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 www.ucpress.edu/journals/rights.htm. 204 RHETORICA lo sottendono, elementi che non sono sfuggiti alia manualistica retorica sia antica che moderna. Su questo versante ha ottenuto finora il massimo di attenzione da parte degli studiosi la 'memoria', sulla quale del resto gli stessi poemi pongono l'accento, anche se recentemente si é cominciato a prendere in considerazione 1' 'immaginazione' dell'emittente quale momento genera­ tivo di taluni elementi di 'poética' esplicitati nell'Odissea ma complessi da ricavare, e percid forse piú intrigant!, neWIliade. A partiré da questi interro­ gate l'A. raccoglie e analizza puntualmente le similitudini che presentano elementi di polaritá neWIliade e neWOdissea, con un preciso rinvio alia biblio­ grafía pertinente che su queste tematiche si é andata nel tempo stratifícando, pur se incentrata quasi esclusivamente sulla sola Made, dove il fenómeno si lascia piú fácilmente decodificare in termini di opposizione tra guerra e pace. Il volume consta di una Introduzione, nella quale vengono enunciati i temi che qui per esigenza di brevitá sono stati solo sfiorati, di tre capitoli, che costituiscono altrettante sezioni all'interno delle quali sono organizzati e discussi i passi raccolti, e di una Conclusione, nella quale viene ripreso il problema del rapporto fra i due poemi e dei loro tratti distintivi, che l'A. non tratta mai in maniera superficialmente netta ma sempre con attenzione a mettere in rilievo le sfumature, le complessitá e le gradazioni che la delicata materia comporta. I tre capitoli sono strutturati in maniera uniforme, con un parágrafo introduttivo, in cui si da conto della bibliografía...

Western rhetoric began to influence Japan during the Meiji era (1868–1912). The influence can be seen in three representative elocution books that depended on such Western elocutionary theorists as James Rush, Gilbert Austin, and William Russell and dealt extensively with gesture, posture, and voice control for emotional effect. Despite these books, Western elocutionary rhetoric did not make any lasting changes in the Japanese rhetorical tradition because of its excessive artificiality.

Abstract This article is based on a general principle: the study of a fragmentary author should begin with a study of the sources. The particular subject is Cicero as a source for Theophrastus' rhetorical doctrine. The works On Invention, On the Orator andOrator are considered one after the other. The reliability of Cicero is tested by comparing what is said about Aristotle with what we read in the existingRhetoric. Grounds for caution will be found. In the case of Theophrastus, we shall discover that Cicero does have value as a source, but his value should not be overstated. The reports are often quite general and sometimes they involve Ciceronian additions.

Abstract In Aristotle's works, the adjective ηθικός has two principal meanings: it can, namely, refer to (1) whatever is relative to ήθος, or (2) whatever is capable of expressing ήθος. This latter sense is what the present study proposes initially to delineate, by endeavoring to evaluate precisely the nature and meaning of ήθος as it is implied in each use of the adjective. This analysis will permit a subsequent isolation of the of the particular senses illustrated in the three occurrences of ηθικός which appear in the passages of the Rhetoric devoted to the λέξις of oratory. (Rhet. III, 7, 1408 a 11, 1408 a 25, et III, 1413 b 10). In effect: (1) when the notion of λέξις ηθική involves the ήθος of the speaker, the semantic extension of this latter term exhibits certain divergences, not only with regard to the way it is characterized in the rest of the treatise, as in the definition of πίστις εν τώι ήθει τού λέγοντος, but also with regard to the doctrine in the Ethics; (2) the way in which Rhet. III, 12 conceives of υπόκρισις—with which λέξις ηθική has close and privileged associations—implies a traditional, non-Aristotelian conception of ήθος. Taking into accound the discordant character of the three above-mentioned instances provides a new resource for critical studies devoted to questions about the dating and unity of the Rhetoric.

Abstract This paper presents a critical assessment of Vives's major rhetorical treatise, De ratione dicendi (1533). In terms of structure it shows that the first book is concerned with the linguistic basis of style, that the second deals with the qualities of style, the four aims of rhetoric, decorum and disposition and that the third presents guidance on composing ten genres of writing practised by humanists. The paper describes Vives's original contributions to the analysis of the linguistic basis of style, the qualities of style, emotional manipulation, decorum, and the composition of history and commentary. In assessing Vives's work it makes comparisons with rhetoric texts by Agricola, Erasmus, Melanchthon, and Ramus. It finds that Vives's reform of rhetoric is based in his encyclopaedic grasp of human learning but that this very encyclopaedism can cause weaknesses in his discussions of particular topics. De ratione dicendi tells us a great deal about Vives's perceptiveness and breadth of reading but, with only three sixteenth century editions, it was not a successful textbook.

Research Article| February 01 2005 Review of Aristotele, Retorica e Poetica, a cura di Marcello Zanatta, Torino, UTET, 2004, pp. 836 Giancarlo Abbamonte, Giancarlo Abbamonte Via Nicola Maria Salerno, 1 84127 - Salerno Italia, giannamar@libero.it; 670, rue de Bourgogne, 21410 Pont-de-Pany, France, michel.bastit@wanadoo.fr Search for other works by this author on: This Site PubMed Google Scholar Agnès Bastit-Kalinowska Agnès Bastit-Kalinowska Via Nicola Maria Salerno, 1 84127 - Salerno Italia, giannamar@libero.it; 670, rue de Bourgogne, 21410 Pont-de-Pany, France, michel.bastit@wanadoo.fr Search for other works by this author on: This Site PubMed Google Scholar Rhetorica (2005) 23 (1): 93–101. https://doi.org/10.1525/rh.2005.23.1.93 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 Giancarlo Abbamonte, Agnès Bastit-Kalinowska; Review of Aristotele, Retorica e Poetica, a cura di Marcello Zanatta, Torino, UTET, 2004, pp. 836 . Rhetorica 1 February 2005; 23 (1): 93–101. doi: https://doi.org/10.1525/rh.2005.23.1.93 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. © The International Society for the History of Rhetoric Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

Reviews Aristotele, Retorica e Poética, a cura di Marcello Zanatta, Torino, UTET, 2004, pp. 836 Anche se l'ultima versione italiana con commento della Retorica di Aristotele vede la luce insieme al testo della Poética, la presente scheda si concentrerá solo sulla parte dedicata alia Retorica. Il volume, stampato come sempre in maniera impeccabile dalla UTET, si apre con una «Premessa» comune alie due opere (pp. 8-12): segue la parte dedicata alia Retorica, che comprende una lunga «Introduzione» storico-filosofica al testo (pp. 15-120), un'accurata ed assai aggiornata «Nota Bibliográfica», ripartita in sezioni (pp. 121-37), alia quale si puó aggiungere la recente versione tedesca, Aristóteles, Rhetorik, übersetzt und erláutert von C. Rapp, Berlin 2002; segue la traduzione della Retorica accompagnata da note esplicative per alcuni passi (pp. 139-378), un «Sommario» degli argomenti di ogni capitolo dell'opera (pp. 379-442), e una serie di utilissimi «Indici» della Retorica, posti alla fine del volume: «Indice dei nomi di persona, di divinité e di popoli» pp. 695-700,«Indice dei nomi geografici» pp. 701-2, «Indice delle opere espressamente cítate nella Retorica» p. 703, «Indice dei termini e delle espressioni notevoli» pp. 705-66, «Indice delle equivalenze greco-italiano» pp. 767-89. La semplice presentazione di questa massa di materiale chiarisce l'obiettivo di Z., che con quest'opera non ha solamente fornito al pubblico italiano una nuova versione della Retorica, ma ha voluto anche approntare una sorta di Companion alla Retorica, da cui qualunque tipo di lettore italiano potesse partiré per trarre semplici informazioni o per svolgere ricerche sugli aspetti piú svariati di questo fondamentale testo aristotélico. Si puó subito dire che la parte del volume dedicata alia Retorica ha plenamente raggiunto l'obiettivo che il curatore dell'opera e il prestigio della collana si sono prefissi: questa versione della Retorica ambisce a sostituire, dunque, la canónica, ma ormai invecchiata traduzione di Armando Plebe apparsa in Aristotele, Opere, vol. X, Barí, Laterza, 1973, e la piú recente edizione e traduzione, curata da M. Dorati, con un'introduzione di E Montanari, Milano, Mondadori, 1996. Nella «Premessa», Z. presenta e discute con meticolosa precisione tutti gli argomenti che consigliano oramai di trattare separatamente la Retorica e la Poética: in particolare, giusto risalto è dato alla differente finalité che si propongono le due opere, Puna, la Retorica, collegata alie opere dialettiche e rivolta al problema del raggiungimento di un sapere vero o almeno Rhetorica, Vol. XXIII, Issue 1, pp. 93-101, ISSN 0734-8584, electronic ISSN 15338541 . ©2005 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 www.ucpress.edu/journals/rights.htm. 93 94 RHETORICA verisimile, l'altra, la Poética, estranea al ragionamento sulla veritá e ínteressata al problema dell'imitazione e della conformitá dell'opera letteraria a certi canoni di perfezione artística. Tuttavia, pur di fronte ad argomenti cosí cogenti, viene da pensare che la forza della tradizione abbia avuto ragione degli argomenti filosofici, se alia fine Z. e la casa editrice UTET hanno pur sempre ritenuto utile confermare l'accoppiamento di Retorica e Poética, che sono poste tradizionalmente vicine in coda al corpus aristotélico sin dalle edizioni del Cinquecento, in quella Ottocentesca di I. Bekker (5 voll. Berlín, 1831-1870), e che compaiono insieme anche nella precedente opera italiana di divulgazione del pensiero aristotélico che fu la traduzione Laterziana delle opere dello Stagirita (11 voll. nella collana "Filosofi antichi e medievali", Barí 1973, poi ristampati nella "Biblioteca Universale Laterza", Barí 1983), in cui Retorica e Poética erano riunite nel décimo volume. In realtá, il problema della disposizione della Retorica all'interno del corpus delle opere aristoteliche non é affatto esteriore, ma riguarda l'interpretazione generale da daré al trattato e la collocazione teórica da assegnargli all'interno del pensiero dello Stagirita. Infatti, sin dalla sua apparizione neirOccidente medievale alia fine del XIII sec. la Retorica ebbe problemi di assestamento nel patrimonio cultúrale e scolastico europeo: a differenza delle opere di l...

This article is based on a general principle: the study of a fragmentary author should begin with a study of the sources. The particular subject is Cicero as a source for Theophrastus’ rhetorical doctrine. The works On Invention, On the Orator and Orator are considered one after the other. The reliability of Cicero is tested by comparing what is said about Aristotle with what we read in the existing Rhetoric. Grounds for caution will be found. In the case of Theophrastus, we shall discover that Cicero does have value as a source, but his value should not be overstated. The reports are often quite general and sometimes they involve Ciceronian additions.

This paper presents a critical assessment of Vives’s major rhetorical treatise, De ratione dicendi (1533). In terms of structure it shows that the first book is concerned with the linguistic basis of style, that the second deals with the qualities of style, the four aims of rhetoric, decorum and disposition and that the third presents guidance on composing ten genres of writing practised by humanists. The paper describes Vives’s original contributions to the analysis of the linguistic basis of style, the qualities of style, emotional manipulation, decorum, and the composition of history and commentary. In assessing Vives’s work it makes comparisons with rhetoric texts by Agricola, Erasmus, Melanchthon, and Ramus. It finds that Vives’s reform of rhetoric is based in his encyclopaedic grasp of human learning but that this very encyclopaedism can cause weaknesses in his discussions of particular topics. De ratione dicendi tells us a great deal about Vives’s perceptiveness and breadth of reading but, with only three sixteenth century editions, it was not a successful textbook.

Research Article| November 01 2004 Review of Peter Mack, Elizabethan Rhetoric: Theory and Practice Jennifer Richards, Rhetoric and Courtliness in Early Modern Literature Richard Dutton Richard Dutton The Ohio State University' 164 W. 17th Avenue, Columbus, OH 43210, USA dutton.42@osu.edu Search for other works by this author on: This Site PubMed Google Scholar Rhetorica (2004) 22 (4): 404–407. https://doi.org/10.1525/rh.2004.22.4.404 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 Richard Dutton; Review of Peter Mack, Elizabethan Rhetoric: Theory and Practice Jennifer Richards, Rhetoric and Courtliness in Early Modern Literature. Rhetorica 1 November 2004; 22 (4): 404–407. doi: https://doi.org/10.1525/rh.2004.22.4.404 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. © The International Society for the History of Rhetoric Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

Research Article| November 01 2004 Review of L'art de parler: Anthologie de manuels d'éloquence, Philippe-Joseph Salazar, ed. Eugene Garver Eugene Garver Saint John's University, Collegeville, MN 56321, USA egarver@csbsju.edu Search for other works by this author on: This Site PubMed Google Scholar Rhetorica (2004) 22 (4): 401–403. https://doi.org/10.1525/rh.2004.22.4.401 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 Eugene Garver; Review of L'art de parler: Anthologie de manuels d'éloquence, Philippe-Joseph Salazar, ed.. Rhetorica 1 November 2004; 22 (4): 401–403. doi: https://doi.org/10.1525/rh.2004.22.4.401 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. © The International Society for the History of Rhetoric Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

AbstractThis essay examines the inconsistencies in the discussion of proofs in Rhetoric 1.1 and 1.2. Recent commentators have attempted to reconcile these inconsistencies by claiming that ethos and pathos are to be understood as rational, inferential, or cognitive aspects of Aristotle's conception of rhetorical proof, thus linking the proofs in 1.2 to those in 1.1. In sharp contrast, I contend that the rift between the two conceptions of rhetorical proofs is even greater than most commentators acknowledge. I argue that there are two completely different conceptions of rhetorical proofs that cannot be reconciled in these two sections of the Rhetoric, that the inconsistencies are due to the tumultuous transmission and editorial history of the corpus Aristotelicum (and not to any of Aristotle's developmental views on rhetoric), and that the transmission and editorial history of the text needs to play a much more important role in our interpretation of the Rhetoric than it has hitherto.

Research Article| November 01 2004 Review of [Quintiliano], La città che si cibò dei suoi cadaveri (Declamazioni maggiori, 12), a cura di Antonio Stramaglia. Antonella Borgo Antonella Borgo Dipartimento di Filologia Classica “F. Arnaldi”, Via Porta di Massa 1 80133 Napoli, ITALYborgo@unina.it Search for other works by this author on: This Site PubMed Google Scholar Rhetorica (2004) 22 (4): 403–404. https://doi.org/10.1525/rh.2004.22.4.403 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 Antonella Borgo; Review of [Quintiliano], La città che si cibò dei suoi cadaveri (Declamazioni maggiori, 12), a cura di Antonio Stramaglia.. Rhetorica 1 November 2004; 22 (4): 403–404. doi: https://doi.org/10.1525/rh.2004.22.4.403 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. © The International Society for the History of Rhetoric Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

Abstract The Lady's Rhetorick is a well-developed rhetorical handbook for women that appears in print at a surprising time and place in British rhetorical history, when there were few precedents for rhetorical treatises addressed to women. This rare and relatively unknown handbook includes a feminist argument for the inclusion of women within the realm of rhetoric, through addressing its instruction to women, defining rhetoric in gender-inclusive ways, and including examples of women's rhetorical practice. It adapts Classical and French rhetorical traditions through strategies that are potentially effective with its female, English audience. Thus its publication was a bold and strategic contribution to women's and men's rhetorical culture within the context of contemporary gender ideology and educational change. The handbook's uniqueness and rarity should be viewed by scholars as the tip of an iceberg, signaling that a significant amount of women's informal rhetorical practice and education could have been acknowledged in its own time as “rhetorical.”