Reviews 209 Howe uses suggestive dialogue to persuade her male readers to admit her to their literary canon. Like Howe, Johnson seeks to legitimate sentimental poetry; however, Johnson does so by reading this verse through a rhetorical lens. Johnson's anal­ yses are rich and incisive. Sometimes, her larger argument gets lost in the details of her close reading. Moreover, while Johnson promises to offer readers a heuristic for reading sentimental verse, her analyses are often too local and deep to be generalizable to other texts. Regardless, Antebellum American Women s Poetry makes a valuable contribution to both rhetorical and literary scholarship, particularly feminist scholarship on nineteenth-century American women's writing. Demonstrating the importance of sentimental verse in nine­ teenth-century America, Johnson recovers a site of women's rhetorical activity that has otherwise been lost to the divide between literature and rhetoric. Paige V. Banaji Barry University Robin Reames, ed., Logos without Rhetoric: The Arts of Language before Plato, Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 2017. 191 pp. ISBN 9781611177688 The contributors to Logos without Rhetoric confront Edward Schiappa's so-called "nominalist" view of rhetorike techne - that it makes little sense to speak of a discipline of rhetoric before the coinage and circulation of the term rhetorike, which Schiappa famously attributes to Plato in the Gorgias. Rather than examine Schiappa's view directly, the contributors try to give substance to an "evolutionary" or "developmental" view. On this account, important ingredients of rhetoric appear in the fifth century and even before. These views do not, of course, conflict; they rather shift the question from (i) "when did the thing called rhetorike begin, and what is that thing so named?" to (ii) "what stuff if any within that thing predates its/their being called rhetorike?" The first question gets at a specific concept, its work, and its effects within Greek self-understanding, with the goal of reconstructing specific debates and conscious practices that deployed or were governed by that concept. The second question searches for any treatment of language as a "manipulation of persuasive means" (p. 8), an inquiry bound only by our own presumptions of relevance. Now, from an Aristotelian perspective, rhetorike (techne) is at once a sys­ tematic theory7 and an ongoing inquiry into the various kinds of persuasive manipulation. From that perspective, what one wants to find in an account of the origins of rhetorike is not particularly clever, routimzed, or flexible deployments of persuasive manipulation but rather evidence for the rise of a discipline, an increasingly concerted, increasingly self-conscious effort through time to understand the extent and nature of it. 210 RHETORICA Be that as it may, questions (i) and (ii) could differ markedly. The contri­ butors to Logos without Rhetoric draw the two questions together by trying to attribute a quasi- (or proto-) systematic quasi- (or proto-) consciousness to their various authors' use of persuasive manipulation, such that they could be seen not only as speaking well but also as coming to think about the task of speaking well. (The authors generally do not address the extent to which these efforts were concerted or dialectical - that is, a matter of public discus­ sion.) Success in the contributors' enterprise depends, then, on their actually identifying theoretical or disciplinary rudiments in texts. This is in principle possible since, whatever the coinage situation for the term, rhetorike must have been formed and accepted in response to some prior if rudimentary the­ oretical or disciplinary activity. As it turns out, the chapters themselves are of rather mixed success. Terry Papillon ("Unity, Dissociation, and Schismogenesis in Isocrates") contributes a short, jargon-heavy, and free-floating chapter about the rheto­ ric of divisiveness. It wavers between two theses, the rather grand and lessevidenced one that "Isocrates. . . redefined the notion of politics" (p. 17) and the rather mundane and quite plausible one that "Isocrates shows us a prac­ tical example of an early Greek rhetorical practice" (p. 18). Robert Gaines ("Theodorus Byzantius on the Parts of a Speech") argues that a pre-Platonic figure, Theodorus, distinguished oratorical speeches into twelve parts and that we see the adoption of this normative distinction in the (fragmentary) ps.-Lysianic Against Andocides for Impiety...

Erik Bengtson and Mats Rosengren Choices that Matter: The Philosophy of Symbolic Forms and Contemporary Rhetoric w hen we decided to respond to Thomas A. Discenna's origi­ nal article, "Rhetoric's ghost at Davos: Reading Cassirer in the rhetorical tradition," we had a two-fold purpose.1 2 First, we wanted to support the important claim that Ernst Cassirer can con­ tribute significantly to the contemporary field of rhetorical studies. Second, we wanted to make sure that the coming renaissance for Cassirer's work within rhetorical studies will be based on a solid foun­ dation, that is, on an understanding of Cassirer's work that renders the complexities and qualities of his philosophy. We and Discenna are part­ ners in the first ambition. However, as we argued in "A PhilosophicalAnthropological Case for Cassirer in Rhetoric," Discenna's article did not provide the solid foundation we were hoping to find. Hence, we felt obliged to respond, and do so even more after having read Discenna's reply (in this volume) to our article. On the upside - and for this we want to thank the editors of Rhetorica - the two original articles, as well as the two contributions in this volume, hopefully provide scholars of rhetoric with an incentive to go further and to dig deeper. As strong believers in the heuristic value of pro et contra argumentation, we acknowledge that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. It is valuable for the continued process of in­ troducing Cassirer in contemporary disciplinary rhetorical debates that the discussion in Rhetorica includes both Discenna's more traditional account - repeating some of the historical critiques against, as well 1Thomas A. Discenna, "Rhetoric's ghost at Davos: Reading Cassirer in the rhe­ torical tradition," Rhetorica 32.3 (2014): 245-266. 2Mats Rosengren och Erik Bengtson, "A Philosophical-Anthropological Case for Cassirer in Rhetoric," Rhetorica 353 (2017): 346-65. Rhetorica, Vol. XXXVII, Issue 2, pp. 198-206. ISSN: 0734-8584, electronic ISSN: 15338541 . © 2019 by The International Society for the History of Rhetoric. All rights reserved. Please direct all requests for permission to photocopy or reproduce article content through the University of California Press's Reprints and Permissions web page, http: / /www. ucpress.edu/joumals.php?p=reprints. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1525/rh.2019.37.2T98 Choices that Matter 199 entrenched understandings of, Cassirer s work — and our alternative account, founded on a contemporary reassessment of the philosophy of symbolic forms. In a nutshell, the reconsideration that we suggest does not repeat the historical criticism of Cassirer that once contributed to putting him in the margins of academic thought, and instead asks if those very traits, formerly seen as flaws, can be seen as strengths. In this article we focus on clarifying our position in relation to two central points of conflict in our discussion with Discenna. Both concern how to understand Cassirer and how to understand rhetoric today. The first issue is the place of language. The second concerns ethics. We would like our article to entice the reader to go directly to Cassirer to understand Cassirer. Iterated statements from secondary sources must - due to the long-standing tradition of misinterpretations of Cassirer's work - be treated with caution. Towards the end of the article we will also respond to Discenna's poetic critique regarding the concept of "thrown-ness." In our view, this critique completely misses the mark as an account of our position. On the Place oe Language Let us start by discussing the place of language within the philoso­ phy of symbolic forms, as well as within contemporary rhetorical theory. In Discenna's reply in this volume, he underscores the "centrality" of language for Cassirer as well as for rhetoric. In the context of that argu­ ment, we must note that the term "central" or "centrality" is ambiguous. It can on the one hand be understood as synonymous with "important" or "crucial." Following that interpretation, the statement that language is "central" to the philosophy of symbolic forms or to rhetoric becomes completely uncontroversial. To position us as opposing that claim would be a straw man argument. The entire first volume of the Philosophy of Symbolic Forms is...

Reviews 91 Gary A. Remer, Ethics and the Orator: The Ciceronian Tradition of Polit­ ical Morality, Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press 2017. xii, 291 pp. ISBN: 9780226439167 The subjects of Remer's book are of central importance to the study of (western) rhetoric: the troubled relationship between rhetoric and morality, both in general and as approached by Aristotle, Cicero, and others; and the reception of Ciceronian ideas and their potential contemporary relevance. He proceeds in roughly chronological order. In a long introduction and a first chapter he sets the scene and favourably contrasts Cicero's approach to that of Aristotle, and in a second chapter then develops his most impor­ tant claim: that Ciceronian rhetorical morality is based on the notion of decorum. Four chapters follow on later authors and issues, and their links with Cicero: Machiavelli, Lipsius, the notion of (the orator as) a political rep­ resentative, and the relationship between rhetoric and "deliberative democ­ racy." Here, I shall mainly concentrate on the introduction and chapters 1-2, as they make up almost half the book and are meant to define the issues addressed in the rest. In these chapters, Remer argues for the value of Cicero's approach to the ethics of rhetoric, especially as compared to that of Aristotle's Rhetoric. The latter's much-discussed inclusion of emotional persuasion (pathos) is of course particularly relevant. It is problematic in ethical terms, as it suggests that he endorses emotional manipulation. In addition, it seems to be inconsis­ tent with the first chapter of the work (1.1), where Aristotle criticises contem­ porary writers on rhetoric for including emotional appeal in their "arts" (technai). Remer (42, alib.) accepts the now common solution, associated espe­ cially with Nussbaum (cf. 11-13 for nuances): Aristotle regards emotions as grounded in cognition, and recognises only emotional appeals that are based on argument; and this implies that the opportunities for manipulation are severely restricted, as emotions can again be removed by counter-arguments that is, they are "responsive to cognitive modification" (36). I am on record as rejecting such views (Ethos and Pathos from Aristotle to Cicero, Amsterdam, Hakkert, 1989,17-20; 72-4), and for all of their popularity, they still seem highly dubious to me. For one thing, the fit with what Aristotle in fact says in his first chapter is not particularly good. Moreover, according to Aristotle the whole point of the emotions in a rhetorical context is that they make people change their judgements (Rhet. 2.1, 1377b30-1378a6; 1378a20-23); an angry person, e.g., is thus likely in fact to be impervious to counter-arguments. However that may be, Remer accepts the common view as a plausible interpretation of Aristotle's ideas - ideas which, however, he proceeds to criticise. He points out, e.g., that Aristotle himself sometimes recognises non-cognitive emotional responses (36-7); that Aristotle also seems to suggest the use of false arguments (43-4); and that reality shows that emotions are often not responsive to cognitive modification (44—8, including a discussion of the Willie Horton case). These points, while not all new, are valuable. More fundamentally, however, he faults Aristotle for providing only moral rules external to rhetoric (48—9), that is, 92 RHETORICA in terms developed especially by Michael Leff (Rhetoric and Public Affairs 1, 1998, 61-88), he regards Aristotle as offering a weak rather than a strong defence of rhetoric. It is such a strong, intrinsic defence that Remer claims to find in Cicero. This, however, is highly problematic. Cicero, as is well known, saw argu­ ments as generally less important than ethos, presenting the characters on one's own side favourably, and pathos, playing upon the audience's emotions (e.g., De or. 2.178). Remer fully acknowledges that Cicero, pragmat­ ically, sees "rhetorical deception" as necessary in real life. He nonetheless attempts to mitigate this "manipulative" view of rhetorical persuasion. For instance, according to De or. 2.203 Antonius, in his defence of Norbanus, employed "commonplaces" (loci) to elicit emotions. Remer asserts that he thus elicited emotions through argumentation; but the term locus is also frequently used for non-argumentative emotional appeal (e...

100 RHETORICA Hui Wu, “Guiguzi," China's First Treatise on Rhetoric: A Critical Trans­ lation and Commentary, Carbondale: Southern Illinois UP, xiv + 180 pp. 2016. ISBN: 9780809335268 "Guiguzi," China's First Treatise on Rhetoric: A Critical Translation and Commentary consists of Hui Wu's translation of the classical Chinese text of Guiguzi, accompanied by an introduction to the original text, notes on the translation, and a glossary of the key terms in Guigucian rhetoric. C. Jan Swearingen also contributes a concluding commentary on the similarities and differences among the rhetorics of Guiguzi, the sophists, and the PreSocrates , as well as Plato and Aristotle. This book offers the field a muchneeded direct encounter with indigenous Chinese rhetorical theories and concepts. In the past two decades, both comparative and Chinese rhetorical studies have significantly remapped our sense of "the" rhetorical tradition. Mary Garrett, Xing Lu, Arabella Lyon, LuMing Mao, and C. Jan Swearingen (to name a few) have reinterpreted key Chinese rhetorical concepts, terms, and modes of meaning-making in order not only to understand Chinese rhet­ oric in its own contexts but also to change the paradigms of rhetorical criti­ cism in the present age of globalization. However, not much scholarly attention has been paid to translations of classical Chinese treatises. Limited primary textual evidence and inaccurate translation have contributed to ori­ entalist (mis)readings of Chinese rhetorical theories, in which the Chinese tradition is held to lack rhetorical thinking. Such a deficiency narrative has spurred comparative rhetoricians to study Chinese rhetoric without the bur­ den of the Eurocentric model, and here I am thinking of Xing Lu's Rhetoric in Ancient China, Fifth to Third Century B.C.E.: A Comparison with Classical Greek Rhetoric. I am also thinking of LuMing Mao in his "Essence, Absence, Useful­ ness: Engaging Non-Euro-American Rhetorics Interologically." Being well aware of the "paucity of primary texts and inadequate trans­ lations," Hui Wu allies herself with attempts to remake the Chinese rhetorical tradition (p. 7). In particular, Wu distinguishes the Guigucian rhetoric from Confucian rhetoric. The latter expresses a strong mistrust of eloquence and stresses a strict connection between language use, action, and moral orders. In Wu's estimation, the addition of Guiguzi to the landscape of rhetoric "offers an opportunity for critical studies of an indigenous rhetorical theory and practice excluded from the rhetorical canon in both China and the West" (p. 9). By bringing Guiguzi back into conversations of non-Greco-Roman rhe­ torics, the translation and commentaries of Wu and Swearingen redefine the scope of rhetoric, innovate with Guigucian rhetorical terms and concepts, and offer us language to think outside of Eurocentric logic and rationality. In order to situate her translation in the sociopolitical context of the orig­ inal, Wu first takes her readers back to the pre-Qin Warring States period (475-221 BCE). In so doing, she reassesses Guiguzi by critiquing the dominant receptions of the book in both Chinese and Western contexts. While Guiguzi is conventionally seen as a magic book on war strategies, Wu dissociates it from issues of military deployment. According to Wu, although Guiguzi, Master Guigu, is the presumed teacher of the zong-heng practitioners (who Reviews 101 were travelling persuaders famous for eloquent military consultations), his rhetorical theory is "independent" from that of his students, because "the entire treatise [Guiguzi] hardly develops any notions or terminologies directly related to the school's [the zong-heng school's] war strategies" (p. 20). Further, instead of accepting that Guiguzi is unfathomably difficult or enigmatic, Wu portrays it as a "profound theory of rhetoric" (p. 20). Closely related, she rejects the common Western characterization of Guiguzi as a "Chinese Sophistic," as if it intends to teach manipulation and distrust. She further points out that such a Western understanding forces us to understand Guiguzzi in terms of the debate between Plato and the sophists about communi­ cative ethics. In Wu's English translation, Guiguzi is neither a magic book on military affairs nor a mysterious or deceptive anti-rhetorical doctrine. It is instead a treatise about a rhetorical theory that relies on yin-yang philoso­ phy, the Dao, and moral doctrines to develop rhetorical tactics for building human...

94 RHETORICA capacita di attualizzare; le osservazioni etimologiche e filologiche e, infine, il ricorso al commento "interno" del testo, commentare cioé il de inventione col de inventione stesso (e, in 7 casi, con la Rhetorica ad Herennium). A seguiré si trova un esame sistemático della tradizione manoscritta del commento (cap. 3) e un'analisi delle relazioni tra i manoscritti (cap. 4). Nella costituzione del testo B. distingue due recensiones, alpha (costituita da cinque manoscritti, il cui piú importante é Túnico integro: H) e beta (sostanzialmente un solo manoscritto : T), ma quella che viene pubblicata in effetti é la recensio alpha, Túnica riconducibile integralmente direttamente a M., mentre beta é sostantanzialmente un collage di piú commenti, incluso quello di M. presente in alpha. Questa sezione si conclude con una Bibliografía selezionata e una Nota al testo, nella quale si rende conto dei criteri di presentazione del testo cri­ tico. Nella seconda parte del volume si trova il testo critico vero e proprio delle glose. II testo viene presentato da M. in una facies continua; inoltre, per agevolare la lettura, é stato formattato con capoversi e paragrafi facendo riferimento alia divisione in libri, capitoli e paragrafi del de inventione secondo Tedizione teubneriana di E. Stroebel. Gli apparati in calce al testo sono tre. II primo é l'apparato critico vero e proprio, di tipo positivo (nel quale cioé viene in primo luogo presentata la variante accolta nel testo cri­ tico); nel secondo e nel terzo si trovano soltanto alcuni cenni relativi rispettivamente alie fonti e alia fortuna (entrambi questi aspetti vengono piú ampiamente trattati nel cap. 2 dei Prolegomena). Chiude il volume una doppia serie di indici: quella dei manoscritti e quella dei nomi. Francesco Caparrotta, Bagheria (Palermo) Mari Lee Mifsud, Rhetoric and the Gift: Ancient Rhetorical Theory and Contemporary Communication (Pittsburgh: Duquesne University Press, 2015), 186pp. ISBN: 9780820704852 Mari Lee Mifsud's elegant and illuminating excavation of the Homeric references in Aristotle's rhetorical theory demonstrates the enduring value of the notion of the gift for the study of rhetoric. It compellingly introduces an alternative metaphor to the familiar logics of rhetoric as an economy, a war, or a cheap trick. In so doing, it not only offers contemporary rhetoricians a ver­ satile hermeneutic that connects rhetorical scholarship to other academic pro­ jects but also reminds us of rhetoric's centrality in the social choreography of Aristotle's time as well as our own. The present review of Rhetoric and the Gift is inspired and informed by a 2016 tribute panel, organized by Marie-Odile Hobeika for the National Communication Association's annual conference, during which panelists Jane S. Sutton, John Poulakos, Nathan A. Crick, and myself offered commentary and critique. Explicating classical poiesis in rhetorike, Mifsud traces the concept of the gift (and gifting) in two interdependent registers: the gift of the pre-figuration Reviews 95 call that demands a response, and, second, the gift in the response, articulated through figuration. With attention to the registers' tension, she challenges Maicel Mauss s widely cited sociological study, which characterizes gifting as a hierarchical negotiation of power through "prestations," the metainstitutional practices that compel gift recipients "to make a return." Mifsud asks, "Can we imagine giving, not figured through cycles of obligatory return?" (p. 143). In her response to this question, we have the essence of Mifsud's contribution to rhetorical theory, for she "explores rhetoric not only at the level of the artful response hut [also] at the level of the call and response, or said another wav, at the level of the gift and rhetoric prior to and in excess of art" (p. 3). To develop the idea of rhetoric as the gift that exceeds art, Mifsud invokes Diane Davis s "preoriginary' rhetoricitv," the non-relation in which a call to "inessential solidarity " is issued. This call is by definition from an Other; or it may come as a gift from far aw ay and long ago. Like Davis, Mifsud hopes that "the theory of the gift offers a theory' of human solidarity" (p. 4), as long as it is able to resist the practices that conventionally define rhetoric: strategy, persuasion, deliberation, and consensus. Homer's gift to rhetoric, to Aristotle...

Reviews Christopher S. van den Berg, The World of Tacitus' Dialogus de Orato­ ribus: Aesthetics and Empire in Ancient Rome, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014. 344 pp. ISBN: 9781107020900 If, as Ronald Syme remarked, "Tacitus gives little away," this is espe­ cially true for the Dialogus de Oratoribus.1 Elusive as Tacitus is in his historical works, he is more so in the Dialogus: Tacitus himself plays no real role in the dialogue (unlike Cicero, who sometimes appeared in his own dialogues), and readers have long puzzled over which speaker, if any, wins the day or repre­ sents Tacitus. The enigmatic character of the Dialogus has led to a variety of readings, most of which seek to pinpoint either a single argument or a single speaker as embodying the text's positive message. Each of these readings faces inter- and intratextual difficulties, as Christopher S. Van den Berg amply demonstrates in this volume. Rather than seek to resolve these tensions by identifying a particular speaker with Tacitus or describing an argument or speech as more persuasive, van den Berg argues that the "manifold contradic­ tions" (p. 124) within and across the speeches are, in fact, intentional and pro­ ductive features of the dialogue. In grappling with these tensions, along with the intertextual and intratextual dimensions of the work, van den Berg deve­ lops an interpretive approach that he terms "argumentative dynamics," an approach rooted in the very dialogue(s) that van den Berg studies. The result is an original and deeply learned approach to a perplexing and important text. The book consists of seven substantive chapters, along with an introduc­ tion, conclusion, and appendix featuring a detailed, outline of the Dialogus. Chapter 1 focuses on the first set of speeches (Aper and Messalla), weaving this analysis together with an overview of Tacitus' biography, the external and internal dating of the Dialogus, the role of rhetoric and declamation in imperial Rome, the work's Ciceronian engagements, and the dialogue genre. The "argumentative dynamic" interpretive approach is outlined in Chapter 2, where it is contrasted with "persuasion oriented" and "character oriented" (p. 56) approaches. The "persuasion oriented" seeks to describe a speech or set of speeches as being more persuasive than others, while the "character ori­ ented" seeks to identify a speaker with Tacitus. Both, though, seek to develop a coherent interpretation of the Dialogus according to which a particular 1 Ronald Syme, Tacitus (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1958), Vol. II, p. 520. Khetorica, Vol. XXXVI, Issue 3, pp. 320-329. ISSN: 0734-8584, electronic ISSN: 15338541 . © 2018 by The International Society for the History of Rhetoric. All rights reserved. Please direct all requests for permission to photocopy or reproduce article content through the University of California Press's Reprints and Permissions web page, http: / /w\nv. ucpress.edu/joumals.php?p=reprints. DOI: https://doi.Org/10.1525/rh.2018.36.3.320. Reviews 321 argument or speaker effectively wins. Both approaches face abundant difficul­ ties: the dialogue is far from the Platonic model, featuring neither Socratic elendms nor deliberative exchange (p. 124), while Tacitus himself undermines his own voice and, in Academic fashion, allows each speaker to subtly under­ mine the persuasiveness of the others without engaging in direct question and answer. Argumentative dynamics seeks, instead, to explore "how dialogue functions to create and communicate meaning" turning to the text itself to recover "these functional strategies" (p. 94). Reading the Dialogus in light of the dialogue form - and as a literary work rather than a philosophical work, per se - focuses our attention on a number of features, the result of which is a rhetorical-literary reading in which the dialogue's "rhetorical aspects" are in fact the "core message" (p. 95) of the work. Chapters 3, 4, 5, and 6 turn to an interpretation of the Dialogus itself. Interstitial passages are the focus of Chapter 3, in which van den Berg explores the way in which interstices contain "categories which describe the evolution of eloqueutia" (p. 99). Chapter 4 centers on what van den Berg describes as a sort of "rapprochement" (p. 164) between poetry (championed, ostensibly, by Maternus) and oratory (championed by Aper). That is, rather than view Maternus...

Book Review| May 01 2018 Review: Passions & Persuasion in Aristotle's Rhetoric, by Jamie Dow Jamie Dow, Passions & Persuasion in Aristotle's Rhetoric ( Oxford University Press) Oxford & New York, 2015. 248 pp. ISBN: 9780198716266 Daniel M. Gross Daniel M. Gross Daniel M. Gross English Department 435 Humanities Instructional Building University of California, Irvine Irvine, California 92697-2650 USA dgross@uci.edu Search for other works by this author on: This Site PubMed Google Scholar Rhetorica (2018) 36 (2): 209–211. https://doi.org/10.1525/rh.2018.36.2.209 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 Daniel M. Gross; Review: Passions & Persuasion in Aristotle's Rhetoric, by Jamie Dow. Rhetorica 1 May 2018; 36 (2): 209–211. doi: https://doi.org/10.1525/rh.2018.36.2.209 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. © 2018 by The International Society for the History of Rhetoric. All rights reserved. Please direct all requests for permission to photocopy or reproduce article content through the University of California Press's Reprints and Permissions web page, http://www.ucpress.edu/journals.php?p=reprints.2018 Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

432 RHETORIC A The final topic, that of chapter eight, is lexis, "style." Enos says very lit­ tle about traditional features of style (e.g., pleonasm, prose rhythm), but dis­ cusses instead Demosthenes's "stylistic strategy," which consists primarily of what he calls "chiastic contrasting" (191). More than to chiasmus, this seems connected to antithesis, that is, the "polar" or "diametrical" opposi­ tion between Aeschines and himself. Enos concludes that like Lincoln, Churchill, and King, Demosthenes raised political oratory to a literary art and created a speech perfectly fitted for the political and rhetorical moment. The book could have used some good copy-editing and proof-reading; in particular, the bibliography is not easy to use. It consists of four sections; texts and translation of Demosthenes, translations and studies of Aeschines, studies of Demosthenes, and general studies. The first section is especially difficult: almost all works are under Demosthenes as author, followed by the title, so that if one is looking for X's translation, one needs to remember its exact title (some of the Texas series have the title Demosthe­ nes: Speeches . . ., whereas others are just Speeches . . .). Dilts's OCT is listed as a translation, as are several commentaries (e.g., Wankel's). One author is "Harris Edward Monroe." Etc. In sum, this book has much of value, especially Walker's chapter. But starting from scratch rather than revising a fifty year old publication might have improved its value. Michael Gagarin The University of Texas Vasiliki Zali. The Shape ofHerodotean Rhetoric: A Study of the Speeches in Herodotus' Histories with Special Attention to Books 5-9. Interna­ tional Studies in the History of Rhetoric 6. Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2015. VIII + 383 pp. ISBN: 9789004278967 This is a well-researched, detailed, and well-presented literary analy­ sis of the Histories of Herodotus that substantiates the author's claim that the Histories is an under-appreciated contributor to the development of rhetoric in the 5th century. As Zali explains, the intent of the work is "to show that in the Histories there is great interest in the rhetorical situation per se; that speakers are very well aware of the process of manipulating and adapting their arguments to suit the particular audience, and they do so systematically" (3). In this way, Herodotus can be understood as anticipat­ ing the rhetorical developments of Thucydides and the more theoretically oriented works of both Aristotle and the author of the Rhetoric to Alexan­ der. The Shape of Herodotean Rhetoric is characterized by the use of specific textual examples to illustrate claims about how the text operates. It also provides an impressive mixture of contextual information that is historical, political, and cultural in scope. These elements are trained on the larger Reviews 433 purpose of "a comprehensive study of particular modes, kinds and effects of speech, exemplified through in-depth discussions of case studies and of the ways these related to two overarching narrative themes: the GrecoPersian polarity and the problem of Greek unity" (31). The focus on these two themes, through the analysis of Herodotus' rhetorical choices, is divided into three sections. In the first section, "Allo­ cation of Speech," the analysis extends to the impact of the speeches both included and excluded as well as the selective use of both direct and indi­ rect speech. Zali takes these selections and choices by Herodotus to be rhe­ torical, choices that are made in order to advance his interpretive and persuasive goals. They are also shown to be empowering for the Greeks as presented in the text and disempowering for the Persians. Zali thus makes a strong case that these choices by Herodotus were not random. As a result, while Cicero and many others have viewed him as the father of history, Herodotus should also be viewed as a significant figure in the development of rhetoric. The text includes an appendix that categorizes all of the debates and conversations in books 5-9 by speaker, addressee and mode of speech (i.e., direct, indirect, and record of a speech act). In the second section of the book, Zali shows that a narrow definition of debate, as consisting only of instances reported as direct speech, yields...

Reviews James J. Murphy, ed., Demosthenes' On the Crown: Rhetorical Perspec­ tives, Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 2016. 232 pp. ISBN: 9780809335107 This book has a curious history. First published in 1967 by Random House under the title, Demosthenes' On the Crown: A Critical Case Study of a Masterpiece of Ancient Oratory, the exact same work was then republished in 1983 under the same name by Hermagoras Press. The current volume is a "revised version" of the 1983 publication; the 1967 publication is not acknowledged but is mentioned by one author (201, n. 30). The revision consists of a new Introduction by Murphy, five new chap­ ters (out of eight), and a new half-page epilogue by Murphy. The three retained chapters (from the 1967 publication) are chapter two, a brief sum­ mary of Aeschines' career followed by a summary of his speech Against Ctesiphon by Donovan Ochs; chapter three, a translation of On the Crown (OTC) by John J. Keaney; and chapter four, a brief structural abstract of OTC by Francis Donnelly, first published in 1941. The five new chapters are chapter one, a background chapter on Demosthenes and his times by Lois Agnew, chapters on Aristotle's three main rhetorical divisions - includ­ ing chapter five on ethos by David Mirhady, chapter six on pathos by Richard Katula, and chapter seven on logos by Jeffrey Walker - and an eighth chapter on lexis by Richard Enos. The goal of the volume, according to the introduction is to make OTC "come alive"; in more modest terms, the book seems to be aiming to pro­ vide everything a student unacquainted with the speech might need to appreciate Demosthenes's rhetorical ability and, for more advanced stu­ dents and scholars, to demonstrate how the principles of Aristotle's Rheto­ ric can help appreciate the greatness of OTC. In my view, several chapters succeed quite well in accomplishing this latter goal, while several are less successful. In chapter one, "Demosthenes and his Times," Agnew gives a thor­ ough account of Demosthenes's life and career; she is particularly good at sorting out facts from legends, and she produces a more balanced assess­ ment than the many pro-Demosthenes accounts. I note only two minor mis­ takes. On page 25, the three charges Aeschines brought against Ctesiphon's decree are misstated; the first (not having completed his term in office) is Rhetorica, Vol. XXXVI, Issue 4, pp. 430-439. ISSN: 0734-8584, electronic ISSN: 15338541 . © 2018 by The International Society for the History of Rhetoric. All rights reserved. Please direct all requests for permission to photocopy or reproduce article content through the University of California Press's Reprints and Permissions web page, http:/ /www. ucpress.edu/joumals.php?p=reprints. DOI: https://doi.Org/10.1525/rh.2018.36.4.430. Reviews 431 stated twice (in slightly different forms) and the second (presenting the crown in the theater) is omitted (the correct charges are on 38, 153). And in the Harpalus affair Demosthenes was not tried in the Areopagus but by a popular jury (see 29). Chapters two and three are adequate, though barely so. Ochs's account of Aeschines's career is highly oversimplified, especially after Agnew's more complex treatment, and his summary of the speech is based on the 1928 Bude edition; a few more recent studies could have been noted (espe­ cially Harris), which are in fact in the bibliography. I cannot see any use for Donnelley's structural abstract, chapter four, which I just find confusing. In chapter five, Mirhady uses Aristotle's view of ethos to understand Demosthenes's sustained and generally successful attempt to portray him­ self as a good democratic citizen, better than his rival Aeschines. Mirhady is a bit dismayed, however, by the (also successful) use of vitriolic rhetoric to portray Aeschines as a piece of scum. In his final thought, Mirhady cau­ tions that this "sustained invective should give readers today some uneasi­ ness about the tendency of democracies to fall under the sway of negative discourse" (126). Mirhadv's concern must be even greater now than it was when his chapter was written. Katula's assignment, chapter six, is pathos. Using Aristotle's theory...

This paper shows how Whately’s view of presumption as a preoccupation of the ground plays an indispensable role in the study of persuasive aspects of appeals to authority and deference. This is done by showing how important connections among arguments from authority, presumption, burden of proof, and deference can be precisely defined, combined, and fitted into a formal argumentation framework for responding to arguments from expert opinion and analyzing the ad verecundiam fallacy. As the inquiry into Whately’s ideas also reveals links between Aristotelian topics and dialectic later brought out by Perelman, it constitutes an illustration showing how the study of various historically important rhetorical ideas allows us to develop contemporary models of arguments.

Reviews 209 Jamie Dow, Passions & Persuasion in Aristotle's Rhetoric (Oxford University Press) Oxford & New York, 2015. 248 pp. ISBN9780198716266 Aristotle s Rhetoric has long posed problems of fit, which makes its uptake particularly revealing of the preoccupations that define a historical moment. Where should the Rhetoric be situated in the Corpus Aristotelicuml Is it primarily a practical work in the handbook tradition, or is it supposed to offer a full-blown theory of rhetoric? Should it be approached as a kind of philosophy, or something else entirely, especially since it devotes so much attention to style and passion? Is it even a coherent text to begin with? In his ambitious book, Passions & Persuasion in Aristotle's Rhetoric, Jamie Dow begins with these basic questions in mind, and he defends a set of interlocking answers that point to the Rhetoric as a serious, philosophical work along the following lines. Aristotle's Rhetoric is primarily a work on argumentation as understood by medieval Arab commentators along with some of our contemporaries including Bumyeat and Allen; it offers a full­ blown theory of rhetoric opposed to the handbook tradition of Gorgias and Thrasymachus; it is coherent in general and in detail, and it legitimates on philosophical grounds the use of passion in rhetoric. Thus, Dow's project also speaks to our historical moment—broadly postwar—when passions in political life became suspect for good reasons. Few will agree with all of the key claims as laid out by Dow or with each of the demonstrations offered. But it is an outstanding virtue of the book that Dow defends each claim with such care that even objections can be sharpened productively. In what follows, I outline the main arguments and what appears to be at stake. The first page offers the basic argument and a sense of the imperatives that make Dow's book bracing. "The principal claim defended in this book is that, for Aristotle in the Rhetoric, arousing the passions of others can amount to giving them proper grounds for conviction, and hence a skill in doing so is properly part of an expertise in rhetoric. This claim rests on two principal foundations. First, it involves defending the attribution to Aristotle of a norma­ tive view of rhetoric, centered around its role in the state, in which rhetoric is a skill producing proper grounds for conviction. If the arousal of the passions is part of rhetoric, thus understood, Aristotle must hold, second, a particular view of the passions: he must think they are representational states, in which the subject takes things to be the way they are represented" (p. 1). First Foundation I: this normative view, according to Dow, contrasts sharply with the merely practical understanding of rhetoric held by his pre­ decessors in the handbook tradition, and it diverges from the Platonic expectation that the orator needs to know the truth about the subject matter. Instead, according to Dow, Aristotle's orator should skillfully grasp plausi­ ble starting points for the listener's deliberations in the form of reputable opinions" (endoxa) related to the subject at hand (pp- 34—5). So how exactly is the rhetor obligated, and why isn't this obligation arbitrary? Here Dow is careful not to invoke some higher ethical principle. The obligation of the 210 RHETORICA rhetor remains immanent to the skill itself, as it becomes manifest in the context of the state organized along participatory lines. That is to say, rhetoric is by virtue of the world in which it appears as such—originally in the lawcourts and in the political assembly (p. 9). Understood at the most basic level, a rhetor should exercise skill precisely where the subject at hand speaks to the commonplaces and reputable opinions anchored in the state thus consti­ tuted. This is an important point that Dow wishes to extend beyond Aristotle per se: rhetorical skill has wide value and it must be measured as such (p. 76). Hence Dow gives us an ethos-proof like this: "they believe the things Pericles has said, because they believe Pericles—he himself is what is pistos" (p. 98). And then more formally this example of a pathos-proof: "1.1 register evidence...

Reviews 211 Now for a catalog of some possible objections. Since Dow places sub­ stantial weight on Rhetoric 1354a 13—"for it is only the proofs that belong to the art, other things are mere accessories" (p. 40)—his interpretation of Aristotle's Rhetoric is admittedly limited (p. 9). Dow can pay little attention to epideictic speech, for instance, or to the bulk of Rhetoric, Book III. At the same time Dow is invested in Aristotle's coherent "theory of the emotions" (p. 145), which obligates him to admittedly strained arguments including some speculation about what Aristotle "should hove said" when it comes to the passionate status of friendship and hostility, for instance (pp. 153-4, italics in the original). More lenient "dialectical investigations" of the pas­ sionate phenomena in question are studiously avoided when Dow goes to work (p. 145), and thus he is forced to reconcile the seemingly irreconcilable. Aristotle's Book I carpenter's rule simile ("for one shouldn't warp the juror by bringing him into anger or envy or pity" as "that would be like someone warping the rule he is about to use" 1354a24-6) knocks up against the entirety of Book II and against Dow's principal claim about the legitimacy of passionate rhetoric. Finally, Dow's normative and representational take on Aristotelian emotion comes at a cost, including a social take on Aristote­ lian emotion that better explains how social status structures the emotions that Aristotle treats. (Konstan observes how, for instance, "the capacity for anger depends on status, and where power is unevenly distributed between men and women, anger will be similarly asymmetrical"; see The Emotions of the Ancient Greeks: Studies in Aristotle and Classical Literature, p. 60). All this is to say that Dow's philosophical mission has its disadvanta­ ges from the perspective of rhetoric per se. But I hope it is clear how Dow's orientation toward philosophical precision and coherence offers all sorts of new considerations for non-philosophers as well—far too many to mention in this brief book review. Dow's defense of rhetoric compels anyone inter­ ested to consider each careful step and conclusion, even if disagreement is the end result. The book thus invites just the sort of passionate deliberation Dow appreciates in Aristotle, and in this way Dow winds up appearing as just the sort of rhetorician he would endorse. Henceforth, scholars working on passion and persuasion in Aristotle's Rhetoric should look forward to debating Dow, as they will be obligated to do so in any case. Daniel M. Gross, University of California, Irvine Ray, Brian. Style: An Introduction to History, Theory, Research, and Pedagogy.Anderson, SC: Parlor Press; Fort Collins, CO: WAC Clear­ ing house, 2015. 264 pp. ISBN: 9781602356122 When people talk about style in rhetoric and composition, they often view it in dichotomous terms. On the one hand style is often viewed in the context of a very prescriptive grammarian tradition. On the other hand, style is talked about as a form of rhetorical composition. In Style. An 212 RHETORIC A Introduction to History, Theory, Research, and Pedagogy, Brian Ray successfully places style in the long history of rhetoric. Alongside Kate Ronald's essay ("Style: The Hidden Agenda in the Composition Classroom," 1999), Paul Butler's book (Out of Style, 2008), and Mike Duncan and Star M. Vanguri's edited collection (The Centrality of Style, 2013), Ray's book may be one of the most important written on style in the last twenty years. Style is broken up into nine chapters and ancillary materials, including a glossary and an annotated bibliography of major works for further reading. With a book that traces the history of style from Ancient Greece through contemporary scholarship on style, it is impossible to fully describe the text, but I will examine several key features of this book. Ray begins his work defining the major threads of stylistic definition and research. Since "style" is used in a multitude of ways (the author calls it "A Cacophony of Definitions"), Ray explores "the major modes of thought" (p. 16) pertaining to style together with their research avenues. For scholars approaching style for the first time, anyone...

Reviews Cristina Pepe, The Genres of Rhetorical Speeches in Greek and Roman Antiquity. International Studies in the History of Rhetoric 5. Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2013. xviii + 618 pp., ISBN: 978-90-04-24984-4 When I review a book that is of high quality, I like to read it twice before submitting the review. That does not excuse the inordinate length of time it has taken me to review Cristina Pepe's Genres of Rhetorical Speeches, for which I apologise to the author, but it immediately indicates my admiration for the book. I shall outline its contents, before making a few observations, all of which are offered in a constructive spirit. The book consists (suitably, given its theme) of three parts, followed by an extensive list of Testimonia, an Appendix, Bibliography, Index of Greek and Latin Terms, Index Locorum, and a General Index. Part One covers the fifth and fourth centuries, opening with an overview of the contexts of speechmaking in Greece and, of course, in particular Athens. Separate chapters address the practice of the Sophists (with an inevitable focus on Gorgias and the Helen, supplemented by observations on the ori­ gins of the praise speech); Thucydides (deliberative oratory, with an anal­ ysis of the Mytilenean Debate in Book 3); Plato (analyses of the Gorgias, Phaedrus and Sophist, and of Plato's conception of advice and praise); Isocrates (in particular how he defines his logoi); Demosthenes (his distinc­ tion between deliberative and judicial); and, in greater detail, the Rhetoric to Alexander (with a discussion of genres and species, and of the connected and complex ascription of the treatise to Anaximenes, without committing herself either way). Part Two is of roughly the same length as Part One, but focuses on one author only: Aristotle. Rhetorical development, including in the Rhetorica ad Alexandrian, all led to the Rhetoric, which for Pepe was Greek rhetoric's 'crowning theoretical achievement' (p. 123; I note that this repeats the earlier judgment of Laurent Pernot in the English translation of his Rhetoric in Antiquity, 'the crowning achievement of rhetorical theory in Classical Greece', p. 41), though the dates of composition of the Rhetoric to Alexander and the Rhetoric were not necessarily linear. Most will not quib­ ble with Pepe's concentration on the Rhetoric, even if we need to bear in mind Pernot's assessment that 'this treatise full of novel views was rela­ tively little read in antiquity' (Rhetoric in Antiquity p. 44). Pepe examines Rhetorica, Vol. XXXV, Issue 1, pp. 110-120. ISSN: 0734-8584, electronic ISSN: 1533-8541.© 2017 by The International Society for the History of Rhetoric. All rights reserved. Please direct all requests for permission to photocopy or reproduce article content through the University of California Press's Reprints and Permissions web page, http: / /www.ucpress. edu/joumals.php?p=reprints. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1525/rh.2017.35.L110. Reviews 111 the system of genres in the Rhetoric in minute and instructive detail, pay­ ing a great deal of attention to epideictic, which Rhetoric scholars agree Aristotle introduced 'as a genre in its own right' (p. 144), but also indicat­ ing the 'aspects of originality with respect to tradition' of his treatment of the deliberative genre (p. 159). Very helpful chapters on the different topics that are used in the three genres (Chapter Twelve), and on the style and arrangement of the genres (Chapter Thirteen), precede a final chapter in this Part on the relatively little-studied treatise, the Divisiones Aristoteleae. Part Three takes us through the Hellenistic period and into Rome (the title Rhetorical Genres in the Hellenistic and Imperial Ages' perhaps does not do full justice to the material on the Roman Republican period). This might be thought the least satisfying of the three parts, not because of any lack of knowledge, hut simply because it covers, inevitably in less detail, such a wide range of material, in Greek and Tatin, from Hellenistic theory to the proyyninasmata and declamation (Chapter Twenty). There is thus no individual chapter on Cicero or Quintilian, rather an approach that looks at topics from a combined Greek and Roman angle, such as the vocabulary used for each of the three genres...

118 RHETORICA modello humboldtiano del seminario, e dalla sua attivitá di organizzatore di seminari al Warburg Institute di Londra (1967-1983). Da quei seminari e da altri, tenuti da Momigliano in tutto il mondo, nascono la serie dei suoi Contributi (1955-1992) e la maggior parte delle sue pubblicazioni, che conservano lo stile órale e discorsivo delEoccasione in cui videro la luce non per pigrizia del suo autore, ma per una precisa scelta ideológica sullo strumento con cui comunicare il proprio pensiero. Nel suo contributo Giorgio Colli. Lo stile come laboratorio ermeneutico (pp. 92-108), l'altro curatore, Angelo Giavatto, si dedica alio stile, personalissimo , con cui Colli ha trasmesso il suo sapere sulla filosofía presocratica e platónica: lo studio é partito dalla tesi di laurea di Colli (1939), di cui sono stati recentemente pubblicati dal figlio Enrico il capitolo su Platone politico (Milano: Adelphi, 2007) e quello sui presocratici (Filosofi sovrumani, Milano: Adelphi, 2009). Tra la stesura del capitolo platónico e quello sui Presocratici si inserisce la lettura de La nascita della tragedia di F. Nietzsche, avvenuta intorno al 1937: un evento che avrebbe radicalmente influenzato sia gli inte_ V ressi di Colli, spostandoli da Platone ai Presocratici, sia lo stile. E noto che Colli proponeva una lettura dei Presocratici in termini di tensione tra misti­ cismo (tendenza al ritiro, all'ineffabilitá e all'incomunicabilitá) e politica (la volontá di dare forma pubblica al pensiero per renderlo fruttifero nelle realtá politiche in cui i Presocratici vissero). Nel linguaggio, questo dualismo si manifesta nelle forme delYenigma, proprio di un sapere ineffabile, e del problema, che é alia base del dialogo, la forma di trasmissione "politica" della sapienza filosófica. Questo approccio produce conseguenze anche sullo stile di Colli, che dal Platone politico, in cui ancora persegue una chiarezza espositiva , giunge nei Filosofi sovrumani a due forme espressive, una piú posata per le parti "politiche" e una che riprende aspetti dello stile di Nietzsche, lapida­ rio e aforistico, per descrivere la mistica. Chiude il volume, generalmente ben curato a parte qualche refuso di troppo nel lavoro di Mucignat (brutto "un unitá" a p. 74), un utile indice dei personaggi e degli episodi citati. Giancarlo Abbamonte, University Federico II of Naples Lynda Walsh, Scientists as Prophets: A Rhetorical Genealogy. New York: Oxford University Press, 2013. pp. 264. ISBN: 978-01-99-85709-8 (HB) We all know the old truism that art is best when the artist is not seen. This poses a particularly steep challenge for rhetoric since it moves in public spaces where personal motives abound. Scientists, by contrast, since they deal with the world of things rather than persons, wear nature as a kind of rhetorical camouflage. Customarily we attribute this to their abiding positivism, but Walsh sees in it a role identity that emulates and in fact descends from the prophetic traditions of old. Superficiallv this mav seem Reviews 119 fanciful, but not when we consider the kind of ethos science needs in order to thrive. Its appropriation of a prophetic identity created within its modern host cultures (p. 4) "a coherent set of expectations" and thus a role and iden­ tity that drew it out from the margins. That fell into place four centuries ago as the Reformation gave opportunity to various extensions of the prophetic role, but similar symbolic patterns persist due to the mimetic character of cultural development and to a persisting set of situational constraints or kairoi. Like its ancestral counterparts, science's prophetic ethos enables it to manufacture certainty" (p. 2) for polities, the certainty of conviction that powers action. This perspective explains the persistent failure of what Walsh calls the "deficit model" of scientific communication. Scientists struggle against pub­ lic ignorance and resistance, but the obvious solution, more and better sci­ entific education, never seems to help. The deficit models cannot account for the "upward pull of stases" (pp. 88-9). Consumers of science and cer­ tainly many scientific practitioners (at least when they are not speaking ex officio) are spontaneous!}' drawn off the technical backroads of fact and def­ inition and onto the highways of value and action. This "upward pull" can­ not be explained either bv scientific understanding...

112 RHETORICA 55-70); and it is misleading to state (p. 244) that the Roman Senate was made up of 'the heads of the leading patrician families and ex-magistrates' (patrician exclusivity only applies to the regal and early Republican period, while serving magistrates were also members). I attribute the erroneous dat­ ing of PHib 26 'to the 3rd century AD' to a simple typographical error, as the following '(ca 285-250 BC)' shows. The English translator, along with the readers noted in the Acknowledgements, is to be congratulated on produc­ ing a flowing text, though occasional extraneous use of the definite article remains (e.g. the title of 11.5 does not need 'The' at the start, nor does 'stasis theory' on p. 347 require a preceding article) and there are some other infe­ licities ('Trials were indicted by a magistrate', p. 246; 'How do the Greeks call this?', p. 486; use of 'we' instead of 'I', as 'We prefer', p. 396). Finally, some might wonder about the absence of a discussion of the situation pre­ fifth century. This is a remarkable first book. I would expect a scholar whose PhD was supervised by Luigi Spina to be of the first rank, and Cristina Pepe cer­ tainly is that. The book is the fifth in the ISHR series of International Studies in the History of Rhetoric edited by Laurent Pernot and Craig Kallendorf. Since this review is by the current (as I write) President of ISHR for ISHR's journal Rhetorica, there might seem to be a risk of nepotism. I would counter that no reviewer could do full justice to a book of this size and cov­ erage, with its meticulous philological and rhetorical scholarship. In my opinion it is eminently worthy both of the series and of the Society, and it will, I am sure, remain a key textbook in the study of classical rhetorical genres for many years to come. Mike Edwards, University of Roehampton, London Jacques-Emmanuel Bernard, La sociabilité épistolaire chez Cicéron, Paris: Honoré Champion, 2013. 641 pp. ISBN 978-2-7453-2591-4 Bien qu'immense, la bibliographie cicéronienne a donné lieu à peu de monographies portant spécifiquement sur les lettres de Cicéron (p. 14). Certains se sont intéressés à la correspondance comme source d'informa­ tion sur l'histoire et la civilisation romaines (Deniaux, 1993; Ioannatou, 2006) ou sur la personnalité de Cicéron et son environnement sociocultu­ rel (Boissier, 1865; Carcopino, 1947), d'autres comme support pour l'étude de la langue, de la grammaire et du style cicéroniens (Bomecque, 1898; Monsuez, 1949) (p. 14-7), ou pour s'interroger sur le statut littéraire de la lettre, ses spécificités structurelles et ses aspects textuels et rhétoriques (Wistrand, 1979; Hutchinson, 1998) (p. 18). D'autres enfin ont pris en considération les règles sociales qui déterminent les relations entre Cicéron et d'autres hom­ mes politiques romains, relations sur lesquelles se fonde sa correspondance (Hall, 2009; White, 2010) (p. 19—20). C'est dans ce cadre bibliographique que Reviews 113 Jacques-Emmanuel Bernard situe son objectif: prendre la pratique épistolaire comme objet d'étude en soi en étudiant de manière plus systématique la correspondance cicéronienne comme un tout, pour montrer comment elle s organise à la fois comme pratique sociale et pratique discursive. D'où le titre même du livre: Lu sociabilité épistolaire chez Cicéron (p. 20). Pour ce faire, il se sert des concepts et de la terminologie de la rhétorique antique (p. 23), en s'intéressant particulièrement à la doctrine du décorum (« convenable »), afin d'analyser selon quels principes élémentaires Cicéron dans ses lettres adapte son langage aux données sociales qui déterminent sa relation avec chaque cor­ respondant (p. 25; voir p. 25-7). La rhétorique est donc au cœur de l'étude de J.-E. Bernard, qui s'oppose ainsi à une partie très importante des études cicéroniennes - pour lesquelles les lettres sont le lieu de l'intimité et de la spontanéité -, et met en lumière les contraintes sociales et les...

368 RHETORIC A La bibliografía (pp. 315-340) conclude questo lavoro che si qualifica per la capacité di mettere a fuoco le problematiche delle due declamazioni, nella loro dialettica tra retorica e diritto, e per la possibile apertura di nuove ipotesi di lettura che permettano di ampliare la portata delle modalité retoriche attestate in testi del genere. Sergio Audano, Centro di Studi sulla Fortuna dell'Antico "Emanuele Narducci" - Sestri Levante Tarez Samra Graban, Women's Irony: Rewriting Feminist Rhetorical Histories. Studies in Rhetorics and Feminisms Series. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 2015. 258 pp. ISBN 978-0-8093-3418-6 Graban contributes to the field of feminist rhetorical studies by devel­ oping irony as a critical paradigm to read archives, revisit histories, and reconsider the role of the feminist historian. In her analysis chapters, Graban examines three famous archives of rhetorical agitators: Anne Askew (Renaissance rhetoric), Anne Hutchinson (colonial American rhetoric), and Helen Gougar (American suffragist rhetoric). In her introduction, Graban presents irony as a critical paradigm by differentiating it from previous work that associates it with intention, humor, lying, and evasion. Next, she develops a theory to explore women's ironic, political discourse, which she does by tracing the incompatibilities inside archival documents to facilitate discursive activism and critical disrup­ tion (p 2). She outlines the scholarly contours of irony as a critical paradigm described as a "reading practice . . . [which allows readers to] question our sense of normative categories" (p. 174). In this chapter, Graban also presents a methodology for employing irony as a critical paradigm. This methodol­ ogy involves three steps: 1) asking "what consciousness is being raised?," 2) considering "how irony works to reveal other logics," and 3) accounting for the extralinguistic locations of rhetors, audiences, and topoi (pp. 171-72). Graban highlights ironic instances and their potential using three specific methodological advances: interstitial witnessing (chapter one), panhistorical agency (chapter two), and a typology of discursive attitudes (chapter three and four). In the first chapter, Graban posits interstitial witnessing as a method for analyzing ironic discourse because it involves "looking between" or "finding gaps in historical processes" (p. 42). Graban strategically employs interstitial witnessing to locate historical "residue," textual and metadiscursive evidence, to argue that Anne Askew's irony functions as agential. Askew was one of four female martyrs burned by King Henry the VIII and her Examinations chronicle her trial and persecution for heresy. Here, Graban describes Askew's Examinations and her refusal to cooperate during her trial as Reviews 369 undermining public examinations and thereby, ironically, "elid[ing] expec­ ted outcomes" (p. 25). Askew's performance blurs the genre of "questioning a witness by evading questions and her structure of the Examinations blends genres, specifically dialogues, polemics, and pamphlets. Graban advances Askew s discourse as ironic, because it plays off of incompatible genre expec­ tations, and agential as it is defined by "the function, uses, purposes, and practices in which they [the discourses] occur and from which they result" (p. 50). In her second chapter, Graban re-reads interpretations of Anne Hutchinson's archive, specifically her responses during her trial that led to her expulsion from the Massachusetts Bay Colony. Here, Graban develops another concept, drawing from Debra Hawhee's "pan-historiography."1 Graban maintains that this chronologically and kairotically expansive approach, the pan-historical approach, as she calls it, allows for critics to under­ stand rhetorical theory7 as synchronic and diachronic because it involves selecting archives from different times based on their content and therefore sets a precedent to move outside of periodization, or portraying certain figu­ res as "representative entities of particular stances, positions," or identities (p. 9). Also Hutchinson's performance elides gender expectations, as she is a woman expected to keep her experiences silent and private, yet she is per­ mitted to participate in intellectual debate, thereby performing as masculine in public. This performance blends spheres as public language articulates pri­ vate experience and through this blending, Hutchinson's trial performance expands women's civic and ecclesiastical duties. In her third and fourth chapters, Graban advances through two centuries to analyze the extensive archive of Helen Gougar, American Suffragist from the state of Indiana. Instead of examining how irony works...

In this article we argue that Ernst Cassirer’s philosophy of symbolic forms is an indispensible philosophical-anthropological companion to rhetoric. We propose that appropriating Cassirer’s understanding of symbolic forms enables rhetoric to go beyond the dominant perspective of language oriented theory and fully commit to a widened understanding of rhetoric as the study of how social meaning is created, performed and transformed. To clearly bring out the thrust of our enlarged rhetorical-philosophical-anthropological approach we have structured our argument partly as a contrastive critique of Thomas A. Discenna’s recent (Rhetorica 32/3; 2014) attempt to include Cassirer in the rhetorical tradition through a reading of the 1929 debate in Davos between Cassirer and Martin Heidegger; partly through a presentation of the aspects of Cassirer’s thought that we find most important for developing a rhetorical-philosophical-anthropology of social meaning.

Bhimrao Ambedkar, famous for being a political ally to the “untouchable” castes and a political sparring partner to Gandhi in India’ss struggle for independence, is also well-known for his public advocacy for Buddhism. Starting in the 1930s, Ambedkar began arguing that he and his fellow untouchables should convert from Hinduism to escape caste oppression. Ambedkar was also influenced by his teacher at Columbia University, John Dewey. Religious conversion transformed in Ambedkar’s rhetorical strategy to a meliorative program. His rhetoric of conversion operated in three stages: reflection on one’s religious orientation, renunciation of a problematic orientation, and conversion to a more useful orientation. This study explicates the final phase of Ambedkar’s conversion rhetoric, the stage he only expands upon in his oratorical activity during his last decade of life. His rhetorical appeals to convert to Buddhism are found to be performative in nature and to be imbued with a Deweyan ethos of religious rhetoric as an emancipatory device for individuals and communities.

Pericles is said to have been affected by Anaxagoras and therefore having improved his speaking skills. A generic influence of philosophical studies is usually supposed but there may be a more specific reason: it was possible to interpret the works of meteorologoi in a limited way, strictly rhetorical, renouncing cosmological speculation but acquiring an effective instrument of persuasion. Some anecdotes in Pericles' life help to understand how this philosophy was translated into political action. Anaxagoras not only improved Pericles' speaking skills but also provided a model of behaviour for any contingency.

Book Review| May 01 2017 Review: Ethos and Narrative Interpretation: The Negotiation of Values in Fiction, by Liesbeth Korthals Altes Liesbeth Korthals Altes, Ethos and Narrative Interpretation: The Negotiation of Values in Fiction. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2014. 325 pp. ISBN (Hardcover) 978-0-8032-4836-6. Daniel A. Cryer Daniel A. Cryer Roosevelt University Search for other works by this author on: This Site PubMed Google Scholar Rhetorica (2017) 35 (2): 232–234. https://doi.org/10.1525/rh.2017.35.2.232 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 Daniel A. Cryer; Review: Ethos and Narrative Interpretation: The Negotiation of Values in Fiction, by Liesbeth Korthals Altes. Rhetorica 1 May 2017; 35 (2): 232–234. doi: https://doi.org/10.1525/rh.2017.35.2.232 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. © 2017 by The International Society for the History of Rhetoric. All rights reserved. Please direct all requests for permission to photocopy or reproduce article content through the University of California Press's Reprints and Permissions web page, http://www.ucpress.edu/journals.php?p=reprints.2017 Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

Messalla Corvinus, celebrated as one of the greatest orators of the generation after Cicero, offers an ideal case study for political life in the triumviral period and early principate. His distinctive style is reminiscent of what Cicero described as the middle style, exemplified by Marcus Calidius and Cicero’s Pro Lege Manilla and Pro Marcello. This style complemented his mild, accomodationist political persona, evident especially in his support of Augustus and his rejection of the office of urban prefect, in a synergistic fusion of style and ethos.

Pericles is said to have been affected by Anaxagoras and therefore having improved his speaking skills. A generic influence of philosophical studies is usually supposed but there may be a more specific reason: it was possible to interpret the works of meteorologoi in a limited way, strictly rhetorical, renouncing cosmological speculation but acquiring an effective instrument of persuasion. Some anecdotes in Pericles’ life help to understand how this philosophy was translated into political action. Anaxagoras not only improved Pericles’ speaking skills but also provided a model of behaviour for any contingency.

234 RHETORICA drawn to images from these periods - "the body's inside and outside, the heart offered on an outstretched hand" - that reveal "historically elaborated semiot­ ics of the self," expressing competing views of what constituted a moral bal­ ance of public and private (214). So, when she offers her detailed case study of irony and sincerity in the ethos of author Dave Eggers, it is grounded in a historical understanding of these terms. Historians of rhetoric may find themselves frustrated by aspects of Korthals Altes's book, a point she acknowledges as a likely effect of the wide net she casts. For example, her central term, ethos, is not as thoroughly historicized as are other framing concepts like sincerity, irony, and hermeneutics. While she traces these over centuries, her approach to ethos is to provide snapshots from ancient Greece and Rome and then to pick up the term in its modern uses in narrative analysis. This method drops at least one major thread that seems highly germaine to her project: the pre-Aristotelian sense of ethos, robustly revived in the last two decades, as location or haunt. Korthals Altes's use of topoi answers her need to flesh out the rhetorical commonplaces of ethos construction, but her discussion of the textual, virtual, and physical spaces that modem authors inhabit calls out to ethos's more ancient meaning. Further, the degree to which ethos overlaps with related terms like posture, self, persona, and implied author, are never made clear. But in placing ancient renderings of ethos within modem methods of literary criticism, Ethos and Narrative Interpretation reminds us just how fraught and complex the practice of reading others has always been. Daniel A. Cryer, Roosevelt University Mark Garrett Longaker, Rhetorical Style and Bourgeois Virtue: Capitalism and Civil Society in the British Enlightenment (RSA Series in Transdisciplinary Rhetoric), University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press, 2015. 170 pp. ISBN 978-0-271-07086-5. While reading Mark Garrett Longaker's recent book, Rhetorical Style and Bourgeois Virtue: Capitalism and Civil Society in the British Enlightenment, I was struck by the author's reluctance to employ contemporary theory as a lens through which to evaluate Enlightenment perspectives on civic virtue, eco­ nomics, and rhetoric, for indeed, twenty-first-century rhetorical studies often marshal critical perspectives to try the past. While it is impossible to read his­ torical texts innocently, Longaker strives to explore his principal figures—John Locke, Adam Smith, Hugh Blair, and Herbert Spencer—on their own terms. Thus, I was not surprised when in his conclusion he explicitly addresses his approach, revealing that although he is "a political socialist and a historical materialist," he adheres to the principle audite et alteram partem: "listen even to the other side" (pp. 134-35). It is this careful listening, which enables Reviews 235 Longaker to articulate his subjects significance in the British Enlightenment, that perhaps best characterizes this fine volume. In his introduction, Longaker concisely presents his "principal argument"—that "in the late seventeenth, mid-eighteenth, and mid-nineteenth centuries a British philosopher, a political economist, a rhetorical theorist, and a sociologist all tried to cultivate bourgeois virtue by teaching rhetorical style, each building on others' ideas and each addressing a unique stage of capitalist development" (p. 2). Each of the study's four chapters features one of Longaker's principal theorists, along with his key rhetorical emphasis: Locke and clarity, Smith and probity, Blair and moderation, and Spencer and economy. In chapter 1, Longaker astutely distills Locke's well-known recommenda­ tions concerning the abuses of language and his mistrust of disputation into "four rules to remedy language's infirmity" (p. 14). Conducting a "synthetic reading" of Locke's work, he then demonstrates how each rule elucidates dif­ ferent areas of the philosopher's corpus. For example, the "Rule of Propriety" describes Locke's view of both effective language and stable currency. Longaker closes the chapter by suggesting that Locke's actual prose style conforms to his rules of clarity and that his writings on education "developed a rhetorical pedagogy of clarity" (p. 37). Although most scholars of rhetoric who consider Locke tend to highlight a few of his well-worn...

This paper focuses on the use of the “exemplum” of Alexander in seven Imperial speeches by Libanius (4th c. AD). These are studied and analysed under both a macro- and a micro-perspective: in the first case, the analysis highlights the individual historical examples, their rhetorical function and their literary form. These aspects are subsequently discussed with respect to the specific literary genre, the position of exempla within the speech structure, as well as their aims and impact. Of special interest are the different ways in which Libanius uses the sometimes positive and sometimes negative image of Alexander in order to reinforce his argumentation and to guide his rhetorical strategy in specific pathways.

232 RHETORICA l'attenzione a generi e tipologie testuali apparentemente minori, come la scoliastica , l'epistolografia, la favolistica e altri ancora, di cui si rivendica persua­ sivamente, alla luce di una analisi minuta e puntúale, Taita caratura letteraria e la ricercata raffinatezza fórmale. Infime, va sottolineato corne Tindagine linguistico-retorica non sia pressoché mai fine a se stessa, ma concorra a illuminare strategie comunicative, intenzioni letterarie, prese di posizione ideologiche , e questo non solo per gli autori classici, ma anche per i testi umanistici, troppo spesso appiattiti da un pregiudizio critico che li vede come mero prodotto di una pedissequa riproduzione dei modelli antichi. Per tutte queste ragioni, Topera curata da Raffaele Grisolia e Giuseppina Matino si legge con grande interesse, stimola nuovi percorsi di ricerca, invita ad approfondire Tindagine sui testi e sugli autori presi in considerazione nei diversi saggi: che è quanto ogni autentico studio scientifico dovrebbe fare. Mario Lentano, Universita di Siena Liesbeth Korthals Altes, Ethos and Narrative Interpretation: The Negotiation of Values in Fiction. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2014. 325 pp. ISBN (Hardcover) 978-0-8032-4836-6. In his contribution to the edited volume The Ethos of Rhetoric, Robert Wade Kenny observed that even after centuries of inquiry into ethos, it still "calls to us as something to be understood," a point powerfully captured in Liesbeth Korthals Altes's Ethos and Narrative Interpretation. Korthals Altes identifies as a narratologist, and though her book is not directed specifically at historians of rhetoric it offers perspectives on ethos that will likely be new and useful. Korthals Altes's focus on ethos is part of a rhetorical tradition in literary studies intent on considering the author, or the "implied author" as Wayne Booth defined it in The Rhetoric ofFiction, as an integral site of inquiry into the meanings of texts. Like Booth, she is drawn to ethos and rhetoric through Aristotle's "pragmatic" vision (6) that "elucidates what makes per­ suasive discourse effective and stipulates what means of persuasion can best be used in specific situations in the public domain" (2-3), and while she does not break new ground in her conception of ancient rhetoric (nor does she claim to), her uses of ancient terms aim to extend its influence in a variety of disciplines, particularly narrative theory, hermeneutics, sociology, and cognitive psychology. Uninterested in building ethos "as a consistently rigor­ ous analytical concept," she instead sees it as a node connecting "heteroge­ neous aspects of narratives" and the ways they are interpreted (xiv). Korthals Altes uses Aristotle's Rhetoric to build a methodological founda­ tion that serves her well throughout the book. For her, "the treatise's interest resides in Aristotle's subtle analysis of the various - rational, emotional, and social - components of persuasion and of the implied interactive mechanisms" Reviews 233 (3). She is less concerned with interactions between the three domains of logos, pathos, and ethos and more interested in those she sees contained in ethos itself. One such "interactive mechanism" lies in the connection between ethos and phronesis, which "crucially connects rhetoric to ethics" (257n6), important for Korthals Altes as she develops the argument that narrative literature cons­ tructs ethical codes in storyworlds and in the minds of readers. An interactive mechanism equally central to the book is "ethos topoi," which she briefly defi­ nes as "culturally recognized grounds for rhetorical credit" (62) related specifi­ cally to the character of a speaker or author that "provide an interface between perceived textual clues and cultural norms and shared character repertoires" (211). She notes that Aristotle's ethos topoi, developed as they were for "public speech in the Athenian state," are practical wisdom, virtue, and good will, and she defines these for her modern purposes to include the broad categories of morality, truth, expertise and experience, and social and political power (63), which she breaks into more specific qualities as her interpretive needs dictate. Ethos topoi serve as an important heuristic for what Korthals Altes calls her "metahermeneutic" project: tracing the complex interpretive path­ ways of a reader "assessing] a discursive ethos" (ix). She develops, for example, specific topoi for assessing the ethos of the "engagé," or socially engaged, writer, someone who at...

The essay explores Erasmus’ development of a fourth category of rhetoric, the familiar, in its work as a rhetoric of the absent audience in both personal and sociopolitical contexts, and as a rhetoric resonant with early modern theories of friendship and temperance. The discussion is set against a background of Caxton’s printing of the translation of Cicero’s De Amicitia, because Erasmus casts friendship as the context for appropriate communication between people from quite different education and training, along with the probable rhetoric that enables appropriate persuasion. The probable rhetorical stance of temperate friendship propo ses a foundation for a common weal1 based on a co-extensive sense of selfhood. This focus suggests that the familiar rhetoric set out in Erasmus’ De Conscribendis epistolis draws on Cicero’s rhetoric of sermo2 at the heart of friendship.3 It explores the effects of the rhetorical stance of probable rhetoric, both for personal and social writing, and for political action, and looks at the impact of sermo rhetoric on ideas of identity and civic politics in an age of burgeoning circulation of books (both script and print). The essay concludes with three post-Erasmian case studies in English rhetoric [Elyot, Wilson, Lever] that use probable rhetoric to document approaches to individual and civic agency and which offer insights into the Western neoliberal state rhetorical structures of today.

Book Review| November 01 2016 Review: Rhetoric and Rhythm in Byzantium: The Sound of Persuasion, by Vessela Valiavitcharska Valiavitcharska, Vessela. Rhetoric and Rhythm in Byzantium: The Sound of Persuasion, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013. 243 pp. ISBN: 9781107273511 Debra Hawhee Debra Hawhee Debra Hawhee Penn State University College of the Liberal Arts 435 Burrowes Building University Park , PA 16802 USA hawhee@psu.edu Search for other works by this author on: This Site PubMed Google Scholar Rhetorica (2016) 34 (4): 465–467. https://doi.org/10.1525/rh.2016.34.4.465 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 Debra Hawhee; Review: Rhetoric and Rhythm in Byzantium: The Sound of Persuasion, by Vessela Valiavitcharska. Rhetorica 1 November 2016; 34 (4): 465–467. doi: https://doi.org/10.1525/rh.2016.34.4.465 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. © 2016 by The International Society for the History of Rhetoric. All rights reserved. Please direct all requests for permission to photocopy or reproduce article content through the University of California Press's Reprints and Permissions web page, http://www.ucpress.edu/journals.php?p=reprints.2016 Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

Reviews 465 In chapters 3 and 4 Cribiore works through the question(s) of Libanius' opinions of paganism and Christianity in his letters and speeches, showing convincingly that Libanius held a moderate cultural-conservative position that enabled him to genuinely be friends with Christians as well as pagans — which, after all, one would expect from a rhetorician who grasps the value of argumentum in utranique parton not only as a method of debate but also as a way of life, an ethic for a civilized, humane society. Despite these criticisms I do in fact like this book. I particularly like its refutation of the Gibbonesque judgment on Libanius, and its portrait of rhetoric in late antiquity as very much still alive and doing practical civic as well as cultural work (see in particular p. 36). In a sense this book is a sort of appendix to The School of Libanius, which I think remains the most impor­ tant of Cribiore's books for rhetoricians and historians of rhetoric. Different readers of this journal will want to read both Libanius the Sophist and Hellenistic Oratory for different reasons, and your responses likely will differ from mine, depending on your scholarly interests and orientation. Bottom line, these books give us a closer, better description of rhetoric in the Hellenistic age and late antiquity, and belong on the rhetorician's bookshelf. Jeffrey Walker, University of Texas at Austin Valiavitcharska, Vessela. Rhetoric and Rhythm in Byzantium: The Sound of Persuasion, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013. 243 pp. ISBN: 9781107273511 Midway through the introduction to Rhetoric and Rhythm in Byzantium, Vessela Valiavitcharska sets forth the book's aim, which is to "make a step toward contributing to" an understanding of "the argumentative and emo­ tional effects of discourse, and of the mental habits involved in its produc­ tion" (p. 12). That professed goal, enfolded in prepositions and couched in the incremental language of a step—and a single step at that—is modest. And while the framing of the book, and for that matter, Valiavitcharska her­ self, exude modesty, the rigor, disciplinary reach, and sheer brilliance of her study calls for less modest account. That is where I come in. In addition to its intrinsic value of reclaiming the Old Church Slavic homily tradition for rhetorical study, Rhetoric and Rhythm in Byzantium joins at least three rising trends in rhetorical studies. The first two are burgeoning interests in 1) Byzantine rhetoric and 2) the recovery of pre-modern class­ room practices. Thomas Conley and Jeffrey Walker have both pointed out the importance of Byzantine rhetoric and have done much to dismantle assumptions that this period presents merely a redaction of classical texts and teaching. Scholars in the U.S. (David Fleming, Raffaella Cribiore, Marjo­ rie Curry Woods, Martin Camargo) and Europe (Manfred Kraus, Ruth Webb, 466 RHETORICA María Violeta Pérez Custodio) have revived an interest in the progymnasmata and have developed new methods for identifying and extrapolating class­ room practices from extant artifacts. Valiavitcharska both makes use of those methods and extends them. These two contexts together mean that there ought to be a broad, interdisciplinary readership for Rhythm and Rhetoric in Byzantium. But there is still a third exciting context for this work, one that extends its reach past classical scholars and historians of rhetoric and to scholars concerned with sensory dimensions of rhetoric, specifically those facilitating rhetoric's sonic turn. Scholarship in rhetoric, communication, and commu­ nications have very recently seen an uptick in interest in how sound shapes thought, interaction, messages, and sociality. Scholars such as Gregory Goodale, Matthew Jordan, Joshua Gunn, Richard Graff, and Jonathan Sterne are leading the way here. This work, partly a response to what rhetoric scholar Sidney Dobrin (following Donna Haraway) calls the "tyranny of the visual," is cutting edge. Some of it is historical, but (with the important exception of Graff) the history is usually limited to the twentieth century, mainly because of its focus on sound-recording technologies, which are rela­ tively recent. Valiavitcharska's work promises to turn the heads of these scholars and their followers, to reveal to them the intricate and longstanding root system of sonic rhetoric, and to stretch...

Very little has been written about the quite noticeable tendency of God to address himself in the Old Testament, starting with the opening chapters in Genesis and continuing, intermittently, until 2 Kings. These speeches may very well be the oldest examples we have of what James Hirsh calls “self-addressed soliloquies,” but they cannot be analyzed based on some of the theoretical ideas of Kenneth Burke, Chaim Perelman and Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca, Augustine (who invented the term), or Harold Bloom. As my analysis of these speeches shows, God's rhetoric in these speeches, his ethos, is highly elliptical, ironic, and contradicts most of what readers expect from a soliloquy.

328 RHETORICA that Fitzgerald is correct in predicting that future rhetorical study does indeed have a prayer. Steven Mailloux Loyola Marymount University Kathy Eden, The Renaissance Rediscovery of Intimacy, Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press, 2012. x, 149 pp. ISBN: 9780226184623 William P. Weaver, Untutored Lines: The Making of the English Epyllion (Edinburgh Critical Studies in Renaissance Culture), Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2012. x, 219 pp. ISBN: 9780748644650 Daniel Derrin, Rhetoric and the Familiar in Francis Bacon and John Donne, Madison: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, with The Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group, Inc., 2013. xii, 197 pp. ISBN: 9781611476033. Catherine Nicholson, Uncommon Tongues: Eloquence and Eccentricity in the English Renaissance, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2014. iv, 218 pp. ISBN: 9780812245585 Roland Greene, Five Words: Critical Semantics in the Age of Shakespeare and Cervantes, Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press, 2013. x, 210 pp. ISBN: 9780226000633. Of the five monographs on Renaissance literature reviewed here, the three by Kathy Eden, William P. Weaver, and Daniel Derrin offer learned applications of the history of rhetoric to significant authors and genres of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, while the two by Catherine Nicholson and Roland Greene touch on rhetoric in examining early modem complexities of language as indicators of cultural tensions and changes. Eden's The Renaissance Rediscovery of Intimacy makes a significant contri­ bution to the long-standing but frequently contested scholarly project of defin­ ing the Renaissance by the development of individualism. She reexamines the influence of classical authors on Petrarch, Erasmus, and Montaigne to trace their lineage in the rediscovery of what she calls throughout "a rhetoric and hermeneutics of intimacy," that is, a style of intimate writing and reading, activities that Eden, following Hans-Georg Gadamer, sees as inseparable. Focusing on familiar letters, Eden asserts that Petrarch's "letter reading is rooted in the intimacy associated with friendship" (p. 67). Guided by the Senecan model, he transforms Cicero's "rhetoric of intimacy" into "a hermeJ neutics of intimacy" by using the familiar letter to overcome not only physical distance (its chief function according to many ancient letter writers), but also temporal distance, in an effort "to understand his favorite ancient authors, whom he figures in epistolary terms as absent friends" (p. 69). Thus Petrarch, not Montaigne, was "individuality's founding father" (p. 120). The emphasis Reviews 329 Montaigne gives to writing, to friendship, and to frank self-revelation to his reader demonstrates that letter writing is foundational to his devel­ opment of the essay. His famous self-expression is grounded in friendly conversation, almost epistolary senno, between writer and reader. More­ over Montaigne foregrounds style in a legal and proprietary sense that Eden has traced from classical through humanist discussions of familiar­ ity, based in Roman and Greek concepts of the family and of property. Chapter 1 has surveyed the ancient "rhetoric of intimacy" from Aristotle to Demetrius and Quintilian. Erasmus's thoroughly rhetorical textbook on letter writing, De conscribendis epistolis, would seeni to fit awkwardly between Petrarch and Montaigne in Eden's genealogy of a rhetoric and hermeneutics of intimacy, as she acknow­ ledges, but she finds intimate writing in his correspondence, discussions of epistolary exercises in his pedagogical works De ratione studii and De copia, and praise of intimacv in the section on handwriting in De recta pronuntiatione. In its companion dialogue on stvle, Ciceronianus, Bulephorus emphasizes intimate reading as well as writing, both exemplified by the letter. As editor, Erasmus approaches Jerome's works as an intimate reader and describes style as ethos in his preface. Jerome's own editing of Scripture depends on a careful studv of stvle for evidence of forgerv and other corruption. As New Testament editor, Erasmus urges readers to experience Christ by approaching the Gospels as thev would a letter from a friend, while in his Paraphrase on Romans he attempts to capture St. Paul's ethos and use of multiple masks to reach diverse audiences. Eden's rich analysis of Erasmus's interest in intimate writing and reading in a wide range of works pioneers an exciting new scholarly direction in Erasmus studies that goes beyond the epistolary rhetoric he teaches to boys as an exercise...

Very little has been written about the quite noticeable tendency of God to address himself in the Old Testament, starting with the opening chapters in Genesis and continuing, intermittently, until 2 Kings. These speeches may very well be the oldest examples we have of what James Hirsh calls “self-addressed soliloquies,” but they cannot be analyzed based on some of the theoretical ideas of Kenneth Burke, Chaim Perelman and Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca, Augustine (who invented the term), or Harold Bloom. As my analysis of these speeches shows, God’s rhetoric in these speeches, his ethos, is highly elliptical, ironic, and contradicts most of what readers expect from a soliloquy.

Different from some of his other works on practical philosophy Aristotle's Rhetoric has a rather strong orientation towards the everyday life world of the poleis of his time. That applies to many of his reflections on the conditions of communication in the poleis as well as to his utterances about social values which are based on common sense. In Aristotle's view the orator's ethos and thus his consequent reference to intersubjectively valid values is the most important instrument for a rhetor to claim credibility. In comparison with the ethopoiia of fourth-century rhetorical practice at Athens there are several structural similarities which, however, are neither due to interdependencies nor manifest themselves in intertextual references, but are due to the fact that Aristotle refers to the orators' conditions of action in a democratic system. Besides, there are also strong differences which seem to have two main reasons: Aristotle's inclination to differentiate and to systematize his topics as well as his tendency to ‘elitism’ which might have philosophical and socio-political components, whereby in the Rhetoric the socio-political ones predominate.

Different from some of his other works on practical philosophy Aristotle’s Rhetoric has a rather strong orientation towards the everyday life world of the poleis of his time. That applies to many of his reflections on the conditions of communication in the poleis as well as to his utterances about social values which are based on common sense. In Aristotle’s view the orator’s ethos and thus his consequent reference to intersubjectively valid values is the most important instrument for a rhetor to claim credibility. In comparison with the ethopoiia of fourth-century rhetorical practice at Athens there are several structural similarities which, however, are neither due to interdependencies nor manifest themselves in intertextual references, but are due to the fact that Aristotle refers to the orators’ conditions of action in a democratic system. Besides, there are also strong differences which seem to have two mam reasons: Aristotle’s inclination to differentiate and to systematize his topics as well as his tendency to ‘elitism’ which might have philosophical and socio-political components, whereby in the Rhetoric the socio-political ones predominate.

216 RHETORICA del fratello di Guizzardo, i Flores veritatis gramatice di Bertoluccio (sopra ricordato), conservata anche in altri due manoscritti (e attribuita a Gentile da Cingoli in un altro ms.). Lo studio di quest'opera che, secondo il giudizio di Gian Carlo Alessio, è "un manuale costruito coi modelli della grammatica speculativa", sarebbe molto intéressante perché potrebbe costituire il legame tra la tradizione di riflessione grammaticale, importata probabilmente tra i maestri delle arti e medicina di Bologna da Gentile da Cingoli (il maestro di Angelo di Arezzo), e la tradizione di insegnamento della grammatica e della retorica (dictamen) di ámbito giuridico-notarile che convivevano a Bologna, non sempre in buoni rapporti. COSTANTINO MARMO, BOLOGNA Matthew Kempshall, Rhetoric and the Writing of History, 400-1500, Manchester University Press, 2012, x + 627 pp. ISBN 9780719070310 Peter Van Nuffelen, Orosius and the Rhetoric of History, Oxford University Press, 2012, viii + 252 pp. ISBN 9780199655274 In recent years, scholarly attitudes towards writers of history in the late antique and medieval period have undergone a fundamental series of trans­ formations. It is no longer sufficient to describe these individuals as mere imi­ tators of a glorious classical historiographical tradition, using tools that they only barely understood with limited success. Nor can they be unreflectively dismissed simply as polemicists and moralizers, subject to the particular pressures that attended an overly-literal reception of Biblical themes and models. The two books under review here add further fuel to a revisionist reading of medieval historiography by focusing upon the ways in which authors could strategically utilize techniques of argumentation and presenta­ tion drawn from the training in rhetoric and grammar that underpinned the literary culture of the period. Matthew Kempshall's Rhetoric and the Writing of History, 400-1500 is a magisterial, synthetic introduction to the subject, aimed principally at students and scholars new to the field and encompassing some 550 pages of elegantly written, exhaustively supported argumentation. In his Orosius and the Rhetoric ofHistory, meanwhile, Peter Van Nuffelen offers a collection of carefully drawn interpretative vignettes which seek to engage scholars of both historiography and Christian literature of the period, and, in the process, to redirect the focus of Orosian scholarship by placing him within the context of secular, as well as Christian, historiography of the fifth and sixth centuries. Both projects are, therefore, explicitly rehabilitative in nature: Kempshall's to demonstrate that medieval historiography was neither crude nor credulous nor conceptually unsophisticated" (536), and Van Nuffelen's to deliver Orosius from the accusation that he was an unimaginative, unintelligent theologian who fundamentally misunderstood the works of his patron, Augustine of Reviews 217 Hippo. Both authors go about their projects by emphasizing the close and enduring relationship between the writing of history and the practices, concerns, and techniques of classical rhetoric. In particular, both acknowledge and build upon existing arguments about the extensive and substantial influ­ ence of manuals of rhetoric (particularly Cicero, Quintilian, and the pseudoCiceronian Rhetonoi iid Hei'eniiiimi) on the education that authors of the period received. For Kempshall, the pervasiveness of classical rhetoric in medieval thought and literature should not be understood as a black mark against the veracity, reliability, or integrity of practitioners of the period. On the contrary, the principles of deliberative, judicial, and demonstrative rhetoric provided the writers of history with the tools that thev needed in order to fulfill the tripartite objective of history: to teach, to move, and to please. After first outlining the immense diversity of texts that are collected together under the rubric of medi­ eval historiography and the fundamental forms and objectives of the three types of classical rhetoric that authors of those texts might be expected to be familiar with, Kempshall proceeds to explore in detail the principles and tech­ niques of classical rhetoric, and the texts and contexts in which they can be found in historical writing of the period. In the process, he also questions and begins upon a deconstruction of the tendency to identify the 12th and 15th centuries as w atershed moments in the history of medieval historiographv . While he agrees that the intellectual and cultural developments of those centuries do mark significant points in the dev elopment of medieval...

Reviews 113 had to resort to the footnotes with their quotations in Latin in order to fully understand the text. This confession is a hardly covert recommendation to publish as soon as possible an English translation of this wonderful book, written in the best tradition of the International Society for the History of Rhetoric. Kees Meerhoff, Amsterdam Marv Carruthers, The Experience of Beauty in the Middle Ages (OxfordWarburg Studies), Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013. xii + 233 pp. ISBN 9780199590322 The Experience of Beauty in the Middle Ages is, like the rhetorical artworks it examines, a tour (iter) through the beauty of artifice. As we progress, our expert guide, Mary Carruthers, offers us insights into aspects of rhetoric that led the medieval reader to pleasure, such as suavitas (sweetness). Indeed, the book's own construction embodies the rhetorical pleasure of varietas, as our guide now points to Augustine, then Dante, before casting back to Aristotle and then taking up Aquinas; meanwhile her favourite, Bene of Florence, is never far from the scene. Chapter 1 examines the notion of ludic space and the medieval distinc­ tion of serin and ioca, moving from medieval school debates to the complex compositional and experiential aesthetics of the Anglo-Saxon Dream of the Rood. The next chapter explores the sensory and volitional nature of aesthe­ tics, particularly considering the aesthetic of difficult style in patristic letters and those of Bernard of Clairvaux. Chapter 3 discusses 'sweetness' as both aesthetic pleasure and a form of medicine in medieval thought, and compre­ hensively analyses the valences of multiple Latin terms for 'sweetness', including how medieval thinkers recognized the dangers of sweetness in persuasion. The fourth chapter considers the conceptual and linguistic history in the classical and Medieval Latin tradition of the Modern concept of 'Taste' as an aesthetic judgment. In Chapter 5, Carruthers shows us how the medieval mind and body valued 'varietas', utilizing hybridity ('monsters') not just didactic purposes, but for the aesthetic sensory experi­ ence it could offer as well. And yet, if we proceed through the book via its own ductus, the path it sets out before us, as Carruthers has outlined here and elsewhere,1 we arrive in the final chapter, 'Ordinary Beauty', at a conundrum. Only here is volume's title term 'Beauty' given definition and the concept of 'aesthetics' subjected to ’Here, p. 53; see also Carruthers, 'The Concept of ductus, or Journeying through a Work of Art', in Rhetoric Beyond Words: Delight and Persuasion in the Arts ofthe Middle Ages, ed. Mary Carruthers (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010), pp. 190-213: 'an ongoing, dynamic process rather than. . .the examination of a static or completed object'; 'Ductus is the way by which a work leads someone through itself'. 114 RHETORIC A analysis.2 These late-placed definitions allow us to see that while Carrutilers' focus in the preceding chapters on the aesthetic attributes of human-crafted artifacts has lent itself to an analysis and vocabulary of pleasure, it has not nec­ essarily lent itself to a vocabulary of beauty, in the way traditionally associated with natural and supernatural forms (human, landscape, divine). Carruthers has been able to show us medieval readers taking enjoyment and pleasure in texts constructed to evince suavitas and varietas, but the leap from this to 'beauty' resides in a conflation that pertains throughout the volume: corporeal sensation = aesthetic sensation = beauty.3 In terms of the book's argument, then, Carruthers need only find sensory perception to find beauty. This is not, however, a necessary correlation, as a text cited by Carruthers in her earlier chapter on ductus reveals: there she quotes Horace, Ars poetica (99): 'It is not enough for poems to be beautiful—they must be sweet'.4 This would suggest a distinction between aesthetic ideal and sensory pleasure that tends to be collapsed in The Experience ofBeauty. Neither does the identifi­ cation of sensory input with beauty allow for the medieval understanding that sensory pleasure could be taken in what was not beautiful—for example, sin. It is also telling that the words 'pulcher' / 'pulchritudo', which one might think most immediately expressive of 'beauty' in Medieval Latin, hardly appear until the final chapter. Also of concern...

Reviews 115 of the high Middle Ages, Scholastics, scholars of the emergent scientific rex olution, and authors of the great late medieval vernacular literary works all had distinctly different understandings, valorizations, and usages of sense-derived knowledge and the category of 'experience'. This observation would, I think, impact Carruthers' analysis of the stylistic notion of 'curiositas ', particularly in relation to Bernard of Clairvaux (pp. 149-150): the cita­ tions from Bernard suggest a response to 'curiositas' as much ethical as aesthetic/ I do not mean these comments to detract from what is clearly a bril­ liant and erudite study of the aesthetic pleasure readers took in rhetorically constructed texts in the Middle Ages. My concern is not about Carruthers' analysis so much as her positioning of it under the critical terms 'Beauty' and 'Experience'. A title like 'The Pleasure of Aesthetic Judgments in the Middle Ages', though less impactful, might have captured the nature of the argument more accurately. I strongly recommend this book to all inter­ ested in the aesthetic reception of rhetorical texts in the Middle Ages and invite them to take the thought-provoking iter laid out for them by Profes­ sor Carruthers. Their experience of beauty along the way will be, in the way of experience, for them alone to judge. Juanita Feros Ruys Michelle Baliff, ed.z Theorizing Histories of Rhetoric, Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 2013. 238 pp. ISBN 9780809332106 Theorizing Histories of Rhetoric is well-conceived collection of essays on historiography. Most of the essays review the literature relevant to the area of historiography addressed and illustrate the historiographic principles considered with an example. These features, probably the result of editor Baliff's nudging, make the collection appealing as a textbook for a graduate course. Both Baliff in her "Introduction" and Sharon Crowley in the "After­ word" recall the heady days of the 1980s and 90s when historiography inspired passionate debate, contrasting those times with the current scene. The questions debated then were of three types: (1) Political: What principles of selection led to the creation histories that were racist and sexist? (2) Formal: Should a historiography be suspicious of a narrative of a tradition with "tra­ dition's" inherent propensity to mask fissures and occlude determinative local, situational factors? (3) Generic: Should the historian attempt to recon­ struct the past in its own terms, muting the historian's voice? Or should we frankly and freely appropriate the past for our own ends? The contributors to this volume address these same issues, and if, at the philosophical level, 7This in contrast to Carruthers' assertion that the terms of rhetoric 'are less assessments of states of being or of ethical worth than of sensory affect (p. 45). 116 RHETORICA the answers to these questions seem more settled, differences in approach and emphasis are still important. All the contributors directly or implicitly welcome the expansion of the rhetorical tradition and applaud the critique of rhetoric's traditional norms as sexist, racist, heteronormative, and ethnocentric. In her chapter, Jessica Enoch helpfully divides and categorizes the critique under the rubrics of "recovery" and "re-reading," but she also complains that the current histo­ riography cannot accommodate gendered readings of the rhetoric of public memory and the gendered nature of the architecture of certain sites of typi­ cal rhetorical performance—literatures she reviews. Byron Hawk supports recovery work but seems bored with it, characterizing the effort to "retrieve the excluded" as having become a "bureaucratic mandate" (110). Hawk is impatient: the recovery work of the last twenty years has merely fit more figures into the familiar teleological narrative. He calls for more radical his­ toriographies and histories. Hawk primarily objects to teleology, and he suggests principles of a his­ toriography that would resist teleology and produce radically subjective, performative histories. A properly postmodern historiography would be compatible with the new materialism (Deleuze and Guattari) and with (non-teleological) complexity theories that have characterized recent work across humanities disciplines. Hawk finds a source of inspiration for such a historiography in the writings on improvisation of music theorist and jazz musician David Borgo. He claims his model would ultimately produce "bot­ toms up"(120) histories that would identify discrete moments...

Sally Miller Gearhart’s 1979 remark that “any intent to persuade is an act of violence” based in “conversion/conquest” argumentation2, led many feminists, in the eighties and nineties, to describe more cooperative alternative models of academic argument. However, their critiques and suggestions had little field impact, largely due to negative reactions in relevant journals. The polarized reactions, typical of what Deborah Tannen calls our “Argument Culture,” resulted in dismissive and condemnatory rhetoric, and fruitful ideas were lost. This essay suggests that an alternate multivalent or “fuzzy” rhetoric would have proved a more positive environment for the new ideas, and describes how rhetorical studies might use this rhetoric to change the ways we respond to and teach persuasion and argumentation.

I argue that Philip's speech was a central point of contention in the debate over the Peace of Philocrates and in the legal struggle between Demosthenes and Aeschines that followed it. The ambassadors supportive of the peace praised Philip's speaking ability as part of his philhellenism; in his defense speech as well Aeschines emphasized Philip's rhetorical knowledge in order to show the openness of the contest between the king and the ambassadors. Demosthenes, on the other hand, rejected the king's ability to speak. In so doing, he elevated his own role as the only orator capable of penetrating Philip's silence. For both Aeschines and Demosthenes, their characterizations of Philip's speech were crucial to their self-presentations as orators.

Chaucer's Wife of Bath's Tale has been well-mined for feminist and psychological issues but less criticism has analyzed the rhetorical techniques informing the wyf's bedside harangue to the knight. These are shown to echo that of Lady Philosophy to Boethius in Chaucer's Boece; close reading of the lecture reveals a patterning on Boece, particularly evinced in the similarities between Lady Philosophy and the foul wife, in the matches in argumentation and rhetorical devices, and in the harangue's emphasis on power and obedience. Whether meant seriously or to humorously imitate scholastic debate, the foul wife's questio suggests new questions about Chaucer's intentions and purposes in the tale. 6633 words.

Modern readers have been baffled by the combination of legal, dramatic, and theological elements in the 14th century Processus Sathanae, a mock trial drama in which the devil's advocate and the Virgin Mary employ various Roman law concepts in a courtroom debate regarding the devil's claim that he was wrongfully dispossessed of humanity. This article examines the Processus Sathanae along with an early source of the drama in a Marcionite creation dialogue and argues that by foregrounding equitable and emotional appeals the drama taught late medieval law students important lessons regarding legal oratory during a crucial period in the development of European jurisprudence.

Reviews Kathleen S. Lamp. A City of Marble. The Rhetoric of Augustan Rome. South Carolina, 2013. 208 pp. ISBN 9781611172775 What is the relationship between rhetoric, both spoken and visual, and ci\'ic participation in Augustan Rome? A City of Marble. The Rhetoric of Augustan Rome, attempts to address this question, beginning in the intro­ duction by examining Augustus' Famous assertion that he "entered Rome a city of brick and left it a citv of marble". The study goes on to examine how visual displays function themselves as a form of persuasion that, in Augustus' case, helped him to win and maintain power. Her argument is that Augustan culture was heavilv influenced bv rhetorical theory, which in turn "guided ci\ ic participation and rhetorical practice" (p. 5), and fur­ ther, that the synthesis of rhetoric to image and politics in so sweeping a manner was a central aspect of Augustus' accomplishment. The first chapter surveys Rome's "rhetorical situation" upon Augustus' assumption of sole command. One of the conundrums Augustus faced was how to maintain the goodwill of those he governed. Lamp asserts (p. 13) that Augustus' attempts to gain acceptance were rhetorical from the standpoint that "thev represented a tvpe of persuasive communication between the peo­ ple and the government about the workings of the state". A significant part of his rhetorical strategy7 was his reliance on various mythological traditions such as those of Aeneas, Romulus, and of the monarchy and its demise. Chapter two ("Seeing Rhetorical Theory") argues that the ancient theory of rhetoric broadened under the empire to include other literary genres beyond oratorv, including non-traditional forms of media not usually associated with rhetoric, including coins, monuments, and city planning. The chapter inclu­ des a good discussion of the relationship between the visual and memory in rhetorical theorists, focusing on Quintilian and Cicero who clearly associ­ ated the two, and who, in addition, addressed the role of monuments and urban spaces in creating collective public memory. The next chapter ("The Augustan Political Myth") builds on the first two, and starts with a close examination of the Ara Pads as a piece of Augustan rhetoric, examining how it constructed myth and memory in Augustan Rome. She argues that the altar used conventions of rhetoric that were roughly analogous to those expounded in the rhetorical theories of Cicero and Quintilian with a view to addressing its audience. Chapter four Rhetorica, Vol. XXXIII, Issue 4, pp. 431-442. ISSN: 0734-8584, electronic ISSN: 1533-8541. C 2016 by The International Society for the History of Rhetoric. All rights reserved. Please direct all requests for permission to photocopy or reproduce article content through the University of California Press s Reprints and Permissions web page, http://www.ucpress.edu/joumals.php7p—reprints. DOI: 10.1525/rh.2015.33.4.431. 432 RHETORICA ("Let Us Now Praise Great Men") similarly examines the Forum of Augustus and its rhetorical function; the chapter begins with a discussion of Isocrates theory of rhetoric that argued against the use of visual media or static representative forms of rhetoric, such as statuary. Of course, this is precisely what Augustus' forum was - a monument that employed a permanent, visual record intended to educate the audience in a particular set of values with a view to imitation, something that had a long-standing tradition in Rome, particularly with the use of funerary images. The chapter concludes with an interesting discussion of how the rhetoric of the forum itself parallels its function as an administrative and judicial center where oratory would be practiced. Lamp then turns in chapter five ("Coins, Material Rhetoric, and Circu­ lation") to the dissemination of the Augustan political myth. She traces, via the numismatic record, the creation of that myth, but further argues that it evolved over time, noting that the coins issued at the end of his reign indi­ cate a popular acceptance of that myth. She focuses on three aspects of Augustus' program prior to 13 BC: pietas, succession, and the trifecta of peace, victory, and prosperity. In the numismatic record after 9 BC we find emblems designed to emphasize Augustus' pietas and his role as poutifex maximus, while she notes that prior to...

Reviews 437 proposta d identificazione dell autore di questa declamazione con uno dei piu importanti maestri di retorica del tempo: Mario Vittorino. Conformemente ai criteri delle Edizioni dell'Universita di Cassino, entrambi i volumi propongono delle traduzioni che combinano felicemente limpidezza espressiva e riproduzione delle peculiaritá dello stile declamato­ rio, spesso aspro ed ellittico. Entrambi propongono poi un apparato biblio­ gráfico ricco e di grande ntilita, aggiornato al 2013. Si tratta nel complesso di due opere che riescono a coniugare con grande armonía la ricchezza e profonditá del commento filológico con una puntúale trattazione e contestualizzazione anche di problematiche di carattere piu generale. L'argomentazione e sempre esaustiva e di grande chiarezza . Grazie a queste doti tanto il Matheniaticus curato da Stramaglia, quanto il Sepulcnini incantation curato da Schneider risultano al tempo stesso un prezioso strumento di lavoro per gli specialisti e un valido mezzo di diffusione delle declamazioni presso un pubblico studentesco purtroppo ancora raramente sensibilizzato verso questo tipo di testi. Ai i ssandra Rolle, Université de Lausanne James Crosswhite, Deep Rhetoric: Philosophy, Reason, Violence, Justice, Wisdom. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2013. Pp. 424. Cloth $105.00, paper $35.00 ISBhf(paper) 9780226016481 There is a narrative that portrays rhetoric as an often-maligned theory of human discourse, educational regime, and practice. It is a superficial narra­ tive that has been under increasing assault since the new rhetoric's birth dur­ ing the 1920s and 30s. I. A. Richards and Kenneth Burke began the revision with novel conceptions of rhetoric as a social practice; Richard McKeon, Henry W. Johnstone, Ch. Perelman and Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca, and Ernesto Grassi advanced it in mid-century with reflections on rhetoric as at the core of philosophy (or philosophy of a certain sort); by late century John Poulakos and Takis Poulakos, among others, were rebuffing the subjugation of rhetoric to philosophy with an aesthetic interpretation based on a recuperation of the elder sophists' vision; and in this century scholars such as Diane Davis and Thomas Rickert continue the assault with formulations that carry rhetoric beyond the human and into such domains as the ambience of materiality. Although these thinkers conceptualize the new rhetoric from divergent start­ ing points and in different frames, they share a common desire to disclose what lies beneath a facile rendition of rhetoric as mere persuasion, namely its abiding centrality to what makes us human. This is the animus of James Crosswhite's Deep Rhetoric. Beginning with the observation that "we are rhe­ torical beings, and through rhetoric we give ways of being to each other and receive them from each other" (p. 17), Crosswhite seeks to understand how ordinary rhetoric, whereby we seek to influence and provide direction, assu­ mes a world with "dimensions of rhetoric that allow individuals, societies, 438 RHETORICA human activities, and the world itself to take place—and so brings the very possibility of philosophy and science into its realm" (p. 17). This is the realm of deep rhetoric, a realm that plumbs the depth of what makes us human and aligns with a transcendent aspiration of the new rhetoricians that by striving to understand rhetoric as an intellectual, educational, political, and social pur­ suit we will come to better understand the human condition. Deep Rhetoric has as its subtitle a list of terms that serve as its organizing discussions: Philosophy, Reason, Violence, Justice, Wisdom. These are not ran­ dom choices. At its core, Crosswhite's book is concerned with the central problem that has been to the fore of rhetorical thought since World War I: overcoming through public argument the quest by power to gain a monopoly on violence and to use its monopoly to dominate others. Deep Rhetoric seeks a worldly stance open to and that opens the possibihty for transcending the narrow logoi of instrumental rationality, logoi constituting the calculus of a system logic that dehumanizes others by excluding those dimensions of pathos and ethos that make humanity and community possible. The book opens with a consideration of what deep rhetoric means. Crosswhite draws contrasts between historicist views that position rhetoric in terms of its origins at a specific time and under specific conditions, such as...

I argue that Philip’s speech was a central point of contention in the debate ox er the Peace of Philocrates and in the legal struggle between Demosthenes and Aeschines that followed it. The ambassadors supportive of the peace praised Philip’s speaking ability as part of his philhellenism; in his defense speech as well Aeschines emphasized Philip’s rhetorical knowledge in order to show the openness of the contest between the king and the ambassadors. Demosthenes, on the other hand, rejected the king’s ability to speak. In so doing, he elevated his own role as the only orator capable of penetrating Philip’s silence. For both Aeschines and Demosthenes, their characterizations of Philip’s speech were crucial to their self-presentations as orators.

Chaucer’s Wife of Bath’s Tale has been well-mined for feminist and psychological issues but less criticism has analyzed the rhetorical techniques informing the wyf’s bedside harangue to the knight. These are shown to echo that of Lady Philosophy to Boethius in Chaucer’s Boece; close reading of the lecture reveals a patterning on Boece, particularly evinced in the similarities between Lady Philosophy and the foul wife, in the matches in argumentation and rhetorical devices, and in the harangue’s emphasis on power and obedience. Whether meant seriously or to humorously imitate scholastic debate, the foul wife’s questio suggests new questions about Chaucer’s intentions and purposes in the tale. 6633 words.

Modern readers have been baffled by the combination of legal, dramatic, and theological elements in the 14th century Processus Sathanae, a mock trial drama in which the devil’s advocate and the Virgin Mary employ various Roman law concepts in a courtroom debate regarding the devil’s claim that he was wrongfully dispossessed of humanity. This article examines the Processus Sathanae along with an early source of the drama in a Marcionite creation dialogue and argues that by foregrounding equitable and emotional appeals the drama taught late medieval law students important lessons regarding legal oratory during a crucial period in the development of European jurisprudence.

L'édition du recueil de harangues militaires que François de Belleforest fit paraître en 1572 propose la version française, augmentée de plusieurs textes récents, de l'original italien de Remigio Nannini. Or, la compilation, traduction et réécriture des exemples narratifs puisés à même une belle variété de textes antiques et contemporains, ne constituent guère des procédés inhabituels dans l'activité du polygraphe commingeois. Pendant les dernières années du règne de Charles IX en effet, Belleforest multiplie les publications d'œuvres historiques, tendance qui relève vraisemblablement d'une visée à caractère pédagogique et dont l'initiative ne se limite pas à la production de textes narratifs, sources d'enseignements pratiques et moraux, mais embrasse également les procédés de la persuasion délibérative et de la diplomatie. L'importante introduction qu'il attache à son texte livre une explication lumineuse sur cette opération didactique. Au lieu de proposer au lecteur qui souhaite se former à l'éloquence officielle une collection de préceptes abstraits, le compilateur lui offre une matière digne de susciter son admiration, voire un modèle à contempler. En mettant ainsi en valeur cette matière copieuse comme un véritable objet d'étude, Belleforest se rapproche de Quintilien qui conseille à l'orateur apprenti d'examiner plusieurs discours de grands orateurs saisis dans leur contexte originel. Afin d'orienter son lecteur studieux, il évoque dans l'introduction le principe ancien de l'evidentia, hérité de l'Institution oratoire, selon lequel il s'agit de mettre devant les yeux des auditeurs une image claire et détaillée, et dont l'objet privilégié demeure justement le récit historique.

L'édition du recueil de harangues militaires que François de Belleforest fit paraître en 1572 propose la version française, augmentée de plusieurs textes récents, de l'original italien de Remigio Nannini. Or, la compilation, traduction et réécriture des exemples narratifs puisés à même une belle variété de textes antiques et contemporains, ne constituent guère des procédés inhabituels dans l'activité du polygraphe commingeois. Pendant les dernières années du règne de Charles IX en effet, Belleforest multiplie les publications d'oeuvres historiques, tendance qui relève vraisemblablement d'une visée à caractère pédagogique et dont l'initiative ne se limite pas à la production de textes narratifs, sources d'enseignements pratiques et moraux, mais embrasse également les procédés de la persuasion délibérative et de la diplomatie. L'importante introduction qu'sil attache à son texte livre une explication lumineuse sur cette opération didactique. Au lieu de proposer au lecteur qui souhaite se former à l'éloquence officielle une collection de préceptes abstraits, le compilateur lui offre une matière digne de susciter son admiration, voire un modèle à contempler. En mettant ainsi en valeur cette matière copieuse comme un véritable objet d'étude, Belleforest se rapproche de Quintilien qui conseille à l'orateur apprenti d'examiner plusieurs discours de grands orateurs saisis dans leur contexte originel. Afin d'orienter son lecteur studieux, il évoque dans l'introduction le principe ancien de ï'sevidentia, hérité de l'Institution oratoire, selon lequel il s'sagit de mettre devant les yeux des auditeurs une image claire et détaillée, et dont l'objet privilégié demeure justement le récit historique.

322 RHETORICA differently in theology, mathematics, natural science, politics, ethics, poetics, and-Isocrates's home turf-rhetoric. Aristotle's Rhetoric, for example, focuses on enthymematic forms of syllogismos as appropriate responses to contin­ gent situations. It thereby contrasts with Isocrates's tendency, as Aristotle sees it, to heighten emotions by assimilating deliberative and forensic forms of public address to panoramic epideictic displays (Rhetoric I.9.1368a20-33). I trust it is not just because I am less familiar than Wareh with the fortunes of Academics and Isocrateans in the mid 340s, when Philip began to exercise hegemony over Greek poleis, that I was effortlessly drawn along by his discus­ sion of this subject in the second half of his book. I have no trouble believing that the rise of a courtly style of politics with the Macedonian ascendency had, being Macedonian, its vulgar side. Still, the translation Wareh includes of a remark­ ably sycophantic letter Plato's successor Speusippus wrote to Phillip urging him to purge his court of Isocrateans and give the Academy an exclusive lock on knowledge viewed as cultural capital makes for pretty depressing reading. Wareh sees the same tangle of intrigue in Aristotle's ties to Hermias, the tyrant of Atarnea near Lesbos. Isocrates's pleas for influence were no less attuned to court life. In fact, in the forms of address that emerged when philosophers were first turned into courtiers, Wareh concludes by showing, was born the mirror-of-princes rhetoric that gave Isocrates a rebirth in the Renaissance. David Depew University of Iowa Rachel Ahern Knudsen, Homeric Speech and the Origins of Rhetoric, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2014. 230 pp. ISBN 9781421412269 Rachel Ahem Knudsen's Homeric Speech and the Origins of Rhetoric (hereafter Homeric Speech) provides a new, detailed perspective on an old debate: how ought we to regard the works of Homer when considering the beginnings of rhetoric in ancient Greece? The standard accounts of rhe­ toric's origins are represented by the traditional scholarship of George Kennedy (The Art of Persuasion in Greece, 1963) and Laurent Pemot (Rhetoric in Antiquity, 2005). These works offer the received view that, while rhetori­ cal techniques are evident in the earliest forms of extant Greek literature, the formalization of rhetoric as a disciplinary art (techne) began in the Fifth Century BCE when it was "invented" by Corax and Tisias on the island of Sicily. Current scholarship by historians of rhetoric—represented by the works of Thomas Cole (The Origins of Rhetoric in Ancient Greece, 1991) and Edward Schiappa (The Beginnings of Rhetorical Theory in Classical Greece, 1999)—have challenged traditional views on the origins of rhetoric. Cole argues that the actual founders of rhetoric are Plato and Aristotle, while Schiappa argues that the term rhetorike did not even exist until Plato created Reviews 323 the term in his dialogue Goryias (pp. 18, 19). Additionally, the traditional distinctions separating rhetoric and poetry have been reconsidered because of such excellent research as Jeffrey Walker's Rhetoric and Poetics in Antiquity (2000), a work that Knudsen "has affinities with" in support of her own views (p. 20). Knudsen's objective is clearly stated: The contention of this book is ... that Homer not only demonstrates rhetorical practice in the speech of his characters, but that the patterns of persuasion that he depicts embody, in very specific ways, the rheto­ ric identified in theoretical treatises from the fifth and fourth centuries BCE, and that reached its fullest expression in Aristotle's Rhetoric" (pp. 3-4). Knudsen presents impressive scholarship in support of her position, but the merits of her contributions have some qualifications. Knudsen presents a detailed examination of the formal speeches of the Iliad in which she reveals systematic patterns of discourse using the following rhetorical concepts: enthymeme, diathesis, ethos, gnome, paradeigma, and topics. Her findings, appearing in both her criticism and also the frequencycharts citing the use of concepts and speakers, make it clear that the formal speech passages in the Iliad demonstrate the employment of rhetorical techni­ ques throughout the work (pp. 78, 80, 82). The obvious counter-argument to Knudsen's position is that rhetoric can and is employed without a conscious application but rather...

324 RHETORICA these canons of rhetoric and Aristotle's treatment of them (p. 148). Those qua­ lifications noted, what is done with the analysis of rhetoric in the Iliad is clearly impressive and a contribution. Another positive feature of Homeric Speech is the study of rhetoric in works that appear after Homer. Knudsen's treatment of Archaic poetry is a contribution that shows the use of rhetoric in poetic discourse. Her work helps us to see that the bright dividing lines that traditionally have existed between rhetoric and poetry need to be reconsidered (pp. 126, 152). It is unfortunate that Knudsen choose not to expand her study to include a more thorough examination of tragic rhetoric, sophistic speeches, and the Socratic dialogues of Plato because a more detailed analysis of these topics would have helped to view the relationship of rhetoric and poetics by providing a better understanding of the relationship of mimetic and non-mimetic dis­ course (pp. 136-37). Extending the contributions of this work into the areas mentioned above also would have enriched such observations as those made by Walker: "'Poetry' stands to 'rhetoric' as one of its major divisions, and as the eldest form of epideictic eloquence, along with the newer 'free verse' forms of historical, philosophical, panegyric, and declamatory logoi, which are descended from Homeric narrative, Hesiodic wisdom-lore, and the varie­ ties of lyric praise and blame" (Rhetoric and Poetics in Antiquity, p. 120). Homeric Speech and the Origins of Rhetoric is clearly a contribution enrich­ ing our understanding of Homer, the use of rhetoric prior to the Classical Period, and a better understanding of the relationship between rhetoric and poetics before they evolved into separate disciplines. Knudsen's objective, as stated in the closing chapter, is to show that "Homeric techniques of per­ suasion—although they appear within a mythic narrative—are often the same as the intricate techniques of persuasion used by speakers in the Athe­ nian assembly and taught by the sophists, handbook-writers, and Aristotle himself" (p. 155). I believe that Knudsen attained this objective, but greater attention to the items pointed out in this review would have enhanced the fulfillment of her objective to an even greater degree. Richard Leo Enos Texas Christian University Alessandro Garcea, Caesar's De Analogía. Edition, Translation, and Commentary (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012), xiv+304 p. ISBN 9780199603978 Il prezioso volume in questione è frutto della rielaborazione del travail inédit presentato, secondo le consuetudini francesi, all'esame di abilitazione alia Sorbona nel 2007: Garcea (G.), ora professore nella medesima prestigiosa umversità e allora Maître de conférences, dopo aver brillantemente svolto la sua preparazione all'Università di Torino sotto la guida di un'esperta di Reviews 325 grammatica romana come Valeria Lomanto (allieva a sua volta di Nino Marinone), dal 2007 al 2010 ha rielaborato la sua tesi e l'ha tradotta dal francese all'inglese cosí da assicurarle una broader audience e l'accoglimento presso uno dei più esclusivi editori intemazionali. Un ulteriore segno, se si vuole, del venir meno di quella parità ira le lingue europee di cultura che aveva caratterizzato gli studi classici e che viene ora sempre di più spazzata via dal totalita­ rismo anglofono; ma G. ha agito pragmáticamente (anche sotto altri aspetti, 10 vedremo subito) ed è difficile dargli torto, anche se resta, almeno in chi scrive, il rimpianto per un mondo delle lettere più democrático (e soprattutto per la conoscenza della bibliografía non in inglese da parte di chi parla solo fingiese, ormai una chimera anche presso i classicisti). L'unico vero appunto che si puô muovere a G. è che il sottotitolo che annuncia edizione, traduzione e commente è riduttivo e ingannevole: quasi metà del libro (p. 3-124), infatti, è occupata da un saggio introduttivo in due parti che costituisce un contribute di straordinario pregio e che per la sua ampiezza e ricchezza sta stretto nelle vesti dei "Prolegomeni all'edi­ zione"; paralelamente, chi è abituato all'edizione critica tradizionale e ricorda le essenziali 14 pagine dedicate da Funaioli a Cesare (C.) nei GRF rischia di perdersi in una mise en page in cui a testo ed apparato non è riconosciuta la tradizionale centralita, quasi...

Modern scholars have sometimes noticed in the Lysianic speeches some affinities with characters and plots of the (New) Comedy. Through a survey of the corpus, this paper resumes the critical data, adds some new elements of similarity, not only with Comedy, but generally with literature and suggests that Lysias usually worked in this way. If so, it could be preferable to suppose that the logographer took the cue not from comedy, but from everyday life; secondarily, that he sketched characters and plots starting from the particular (his client) to the general; finally, that these artistic elements were useful to jury's persuasion and not added to a following publication.