This article contributes to the study of medieval poetics and rhetoric by reassessing the Arabic-Aristotelian influence in the Poetria and Testa nucis of Matthew of Linköping (c. 1300–1350). In the Poetria Matthew applied a dichotomy between essential and accidental aspects (essencialia-accidentalia) which provided him with a historical, theoretical, and cultural perspective on conventional poetics. The appeal of the (Parisian teaching of) Arabic-Aristotelian poetics lay not merely in its theoretical ideas, but also in its novel multilingual and cultural aspects that differed from the self-conscious Latin legacy of the older medieval poetics based on Horace and Cicero.

Book Review| May 01 2007 Book Review: Heidegger and Rhetoric, by Daniel M. Gross and Ansgar Kemmann Heidegger and Rhetoric edited by Daniel M. Gross and Ansgar Kemmann. New York: State University of New York Press, 2005. 195 pp. Rhetorica (2007) 25 (2): 209–215. https://doi.org/10.1525/rh.2007.25.2.209 Views Icon Views Article contents Figures & tables Video Audio Supplementary Data Peer Review Share Icon Share Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Email Tools Icon Tools Cite Icon Cite Search Site Citation Book Review: Heidegger and Rhetoric, by Daniel M. Gross and Ansgar Kemmann. Rhetorica 1 May 2007; 25 (2): 209–215. doi: https://doi.org/10.1525/rh.2007.25.2.209 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. © The International Society for the History of Rhetoric2007 Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

Research Article| May 01 2007 Back Matter Rhetorica (2007) 25 (2): 220–221. https://doi.org/10.1525/rh.2007.25.2.back 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 Back Matter. Rhetorica 1 May 2007; 25 (2): 220–221. doi: https://doi.org/10.1525/rh.2007.25.2.back 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. Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

Front Matter| May 01 2007 Front Matter Rhetorica (2007) 25 (2): iv. https://doi.org/10.1525/rh.2007.25.2.front Views Icon Views Article contents Figures & tables Video Audio Supplementary Data Peer Review Share Icon Share Twitter LinkedIn Tools Icon Tools Get Permissions Cite Icon Cite Search Site Citation Front Matter. Rhetorica 1 May 2007; 25 (2): iv. doi: https://doi.org/10.1525/rh.2007.25.2.front Download citation file: Ris (Zotero) Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu nav search search input Search input auto suggest search filter All ContentRhetorica Search This content is only available via PDF. Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

Certain people, says Julian, make a display of the letters they have received from the emperor the way parvenues display their expensive rings. It is perhaps for this reason that we have conserved from this emperor more than thirty pieces—short notes and more developed missives—which call attention to epistolary style in its strictest sense, because they are addressed as from one individual to another, and not as from a sovereign to his subjects or his representatives. The recipients make up a small network of people who share intellectual and religious affinities with the sender. This study seeks to show how epistolary theory in Antiquity was able to be put into practice by Julian. The function of the letter is analysed, therefore, and the mise en scène of the epistolary process, the forms of the incipit and the desinit. Beyond the traditional theme of the letter as an expression of friendship, one notes in this correspondence themes of piety, work, and haste, which are rather specific to Julian, but perhaps also coded because they are constituent parts of his ethos.

Célèbre inventeur du «clavecin oculaire», le P. Castel est aussi l’auteur moins connu d’une Mathématique universelle publiée en 1728. Dans cet ouvrage, cet enseignant jésuite développe une méthode riante d’apprentissage où transparaît la volonté de po-pulariser une discipline marquée du sceau de l’austérité. Afin de dissiper l’illusoire supériorité des géomètres de profession, le P. Castel établit une série de ruptures argumentatives visant à dévaloriser l’ethos des mathématiciens de son temps. À travers l’analyse textuelle de procédés rhétoriques tels la franchise directe (l’aretè), l’usage de marques ostentatoires de bienveillance (l’eunoia) ou encore, de manière plus générale, la dissociation des notions d’apparence et de réalité, la présente étude cherche à mettre en évidence certains enjeux éthiques qui secouent alors le monde savant jésuite aux prises avec la nouvelle épistémologie du siècle des Lumières.

Reviews 215 understanding of rhetoric but also an assertion of Heidegger's 'restricted conception of rhetoric." Robert J. Dostal Bryn Mawr College E. Amatoet J. Schamp, eds., ÈTHOPOIIA. La représentation de caractères entrefiction scolaire et réalité vivante à l'époque impériale et tardive, textes édités par E. Amato et J. Schamp, avec une préface de M.-P. Noël, Salerno (Cardo, n° 3), 2005, 231 p. Quels discours pourrait tenir Héraclès pris de folie? la nymphe Écho poursuivie par Pan? un homme du continent voyant la mer pour la première fois? Éros amoureux? un eunuque pris d'un désir soudain? une courtisane rangée? Hector (mort) à Achille qui s'est revêtu de ses armes? Hélène à la vue de Ménélas (son mari) et de Pâris (son amant) s'affrontant en combat singulier? Caïn après avoir tué son frère? Médée avant d'égorger ses en­ fants? Voilà quelques-uns des sujets que les littérateurs et rhéteurs de la fin de l'Antiquité pouvaient s'imposer à eux-mêmes ou soumettre à leurs élèves dans le cadre de l'exercice dit d'éthopée. Que n'a-t-on conservé la totalité des corrigés! La compétence développée -faire parler les personnages en accord avec leur caractère et la situation plus ou moins dramatique ou paradoxale qu'ils sont en train de vivre- est celle des grands poètes, depuis l'aube de la civilisation grecque. Comme technique oratoire, l'éthopée s'est perfec­ tionnée dans l'atelier des logographes (Lysias excellait dans cet art), mais elle doit beaucoup aussi à Aristote, dont elle exploite la «preuve» éthique, première théorie psychologique selon certains, ainsi que la «preuve» émo­ tionnelle (pathos). Codifiée ensuite par les rhéteurs, travaillée par les écoliers dans le cadre des «exercices préparatoires» (progymnasmata), cultivée par les déclamateurs, influencée par les arts plastiques, prenant son autonomie en tant que forme littéraire à part entière d'où un raffinement qui confine parfois au maniérisme, ou encore annexée par l'historien-moraliste, par le philo­ sophe faisant œuvre protreptique, le prêcheur dans son effort apologétique, sinon par chaque individu dans la conversation courante, l'éthopée est un bon témoin de l'évolution de la rhétorique ancienne et de sa transformation en poétique généralisée. C'est donc un plaisir de saluer la parution d'un ouvrage qui propose, sur ce sujet apparemment «pointu», non seulement une somme d informations précises mais aussi une vue d'ensemble capable d'en montrer tout l'intérêt et toute la fraîcheur. Il n'est pas indifférent à cet égard que le recueil paraisse comme troisième numéro de la série Cardo, et s'inscrive parmi les réalisations d'un programme de recherche de l'Université de Fribourg (Suisse) consacré spécifiquement à la culture, notamment rhétorique, de l'antiquité tardive. 216 RHETORICA L'ouvrage, en effet, n'est pas seulement conçu comme un ouvrage érudit ou documentaire. Issu d'un colloque, il tend à répondre à une problématique. Son objectif consiste -dans l'esprit de Peter Brown- à réévaluer la produc­ tion littéraire et théorique d'une période à (re)découvrir, l'antiquité tardive, plus précisément la période qui sépare l'avènement du christianisme de l'extinction du paganisme, période qu'on appelle parfois troisième sophis­ tique. Souvent réduite au psittacisme et à la servilité (voire au ridicule), cette période s'avère à l'examen une période riche, capable de croiser, de déplacer, bref de réinventer les modèles hérités de la Tradition et de leur donner une va­ leur esthétique pleine et nouvelle. Dans l'optique de ce réexamen, Téthopée constituait un «modèle» particulièrement fécond. Outre la Préface et un Avant-propos des éditeurs, l'ouvrage contient onze contributions en cinq langues (allemand, anglais, espagnol, français...

This article contributes to the study of medieval poetics and rhetoric by reassessing the Arabic-Aristotelian influence in the Poetria and Testa nucis of Matthew of Linköping (c. 1300–1350). In the Poctria Matthew applied a dichotomy between essential and accidental aspects (essencialia-accidentalia) which provided him with a historical, theoretical, and cultural perspective on conventional poetics. The appeal of the (Parisian teaching of) Arabic-Aristotelian poetics lay not merely in its theoretical ideas, but also in its novel multilingual and cultural aspects that differed from the self-conscious Latin legacy of the older medieval poetics based on Horace and Cicero.

218 RHETORICA voulu, p. XIII, sou peu, p. XIV n. 3; Fisiognomica, p. 1.... C'est en somme un ouvrage foisonnant, marquant et stimulant, à lire et à conserver. Pierre Chiron Université Paris XII-Val de Marne Michelle Ballif and Michael G. Moran, eds., Classical Rhetorics and Rhetoricians: Critical Studies and Sources. Westport, CT: Praeger, 2005. 402 pp. As programs in rhetorical studies in the U.S. grow, the field has come to acknowledge the need for a fuller complement of reference materials. In their introduction to this collection of short essavs on ancient Greek and J Roman rhetoricians, Michelle Ballif and Michael G. Moran point out the paradox of one of the oldest areas of studies in the humanities discovering in the late twentieth century a dearth of scholarship on its own history. The seemingly tireless efforts of George A. Kennedy and James J. Murphy have been indispensable, but a healthy discipline cannot be sustained on the work of a very few scholars. Over the past decade, rhetoric specialists such as Theresa Enos, James Jasinski, Water Jost and Wendy Olmsted, and Thomas O. Sloane have been moving to fill this gap. With its focus on figures rather than concepts and its concentration on the pre-modern period, the work under consideration here distinguishes itself from other recent publications. Falling between the Speech Association of America's 1968 Biographical Dictionary of ancient rhetoricians (Bryant et al.; now out of print) with its very short entries and the huge, comprehensive Oxford Classical Dictionary, perhaps too expensive and broadly conceived for many rhetoric scholars to justify owning, Ballif and Moran's book is a welcome contribution. The volume includes sixty-one alphabetically arranged entries, most on individuals, with a few on clusters of rhetors (Attic orators, Pythagorean women), anonymous works (Rhetorica ad Herennium), works whose author­ ship is in doubt (Anaximenes' Rhetorica ad Alexandrian, Demetrius' On Style, and Longinus' On the Sublime), and rhetorical practices (dissoi logoi, progymnasmata ). The forty-five contributors come from a range of institutions and disciplines-classics, communication studies, and English. Established schol­ ars in the field of classical rhetoric are well represented, and the contributors include a few writers from outside the U.S., but the project is primarily ori­ ented toward those who work with rhetoric in conjunction with composition or communications, a largely North American phenomenon The volume is distinctive in its resistance to the typically conservative function of reference works, the tendency of which is to consolidate, repro­ duce, and canonize. Ballif and Moran take a revisionary historiographical approach to their task, outlining in the introduction their desire to expand Reviews 219 and realign the historical boundaries of the field in several ways. They take in a broad historical sweep, including Homer and the pre-Socratics at one end and Augustine and Boethius at the other. Further, they work against the male-dominance of ancient rhetoric by including a number of female fig­ ures (e.g., Sappho, Aspasia, Hortensia, and Hypatia). Finally, they heighten the significance of sophistic contributions to the rhetorical tradition. This revisionarv approach is carried into the entries in many cases. Thankfully, the editors did not demand strict adherence to a template, so contributors were able to shape their material to the contours of their widely varied subjects. But there is consistency, so that in each case the reader is offered biographical data, an account of the significant texts, a discussion of rhetor­ ical theory and practice, and a perspective on the legacy of the figure in question. Numerous entries foreground on-going scholarly debates, realiz­ ing the editors' revisionarv commitments. Notable in this regard are Patrick O'Sullivan on Homer, Michael Gagarin on Antiphon, Janet Atwill on Aris­ totle, Takis Poulakos on Isocrates, and Joy Connolly on Quintilian. For the most part, the writers avoid the flattening or deadening effect that seems al­ most inevitable in such works, and figures come across not as clearly drawn monoliths but as sites of contestation. Particularly lively moments come in the entry on Diogenes of Sinope by D. Diane Davis and Victor J. Vitanza, and in Vitanza's characteristically zealous encounter with Favorinus. The quality of scholarship in general is high, as one would expect...

Reviews Lauicnt Pernot, Rhetoric in Antiquity, trans. W. E. Higgins (Washing­ ton, D. C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 2005), pp. xiv + 269, $27.95, paper, ISBN 0-8132-1407-6. Rhetoric in Antiquity is one in a series of volumes that have been pub­ lished or are in preparation that provide an overview or explore important aspects of rhetoric in the Greek and Roman worlds. Translated by W. E. Hig­ gins from the original French version of Laurent Pernot published in 2000 as La Rhétorique dans 1 Antiquité (Paris: Librarie Générale Française, 2000), this book seems designed mainly to sen e as an introduction for general readers and students of rhetorical theory and practice from the Homeric to imperial periods. Pernot's structure is traditional: there are six chronological chapters covering Homeric, sophistic, Athenian, Hellenistic, republican, and imperial rhetoric; these chapters include six excurses that take up issues of particular significance to the author. A short introduction (pp. vii-xiv) stresses Pernot's aim of providing a history of the practice and theory of Greek and Roman rhetoric and contains a synopsis of the different conceptions and definitions of rhetoric; the first excursus considers the utility of rhetoric in modern scholarship as evidenced by the popularity of the phrase "the rhetoric of" in the titles of various studies. Chapters 1 and 2 examine the origins of Greek rhetoric. In chapter 1 ("Rhetoric Before Rhetoric," pp. 1-9) Pernot views the speeches of the Iliad and Odyssey as evidence of an awareness of rhetoric, especially technical terms, although he rightly observes that Homer did not anticipate its rules. The speeches of the characters in Homeric epic define their personalities as well as reveal their oratorical abilities. In his treatment of the centuries following Homer, Pernot emphasizes the links not only between oratory and the Greek polis, especially in the development of Athenian democracy, but also between oratory and literature. Chapter 2 ("Sophistic Revolution," pp. 10-23) explores the "invention" of rhetoric and its attribution to various figures such as Empedokles of Agrigentum, Korax and Tisias. The focus is mainly on the sophists, especially Gorgias, and their role in the development of Greek rhetoric and more generally in Athenian society. An excursus on the word rhetorikê challenges not only Edward Schiappa's view (American Journal of Philology 111 [1990]: 457-70) that it was coined by Plato but also Rhetorica, Vol. XXV, Issue 2, pp. 205-219, ISSN 0734-8584, electronic ISSN 15338541 . 02007 by The International Society for the History of Rhetoric. All rights re­ served. Please direct all requests for permission to photocopy or reproduce article content through the University of California Press's Rights and Permissions website, at http://www.ucpressjournals.com/reprintlnfo.asp. DOI: 10.1525/RH.2007.25.2.205. * /IlL-* * 206 RHETORICA Thomas Cole's thesis (The Origins ofRhetoric in Ancient Greece [1991]) that the discipline of rhetoric itself was invented by Plato and Aristotle. Chapters 3 and 4 address Athenian and Hellenistic rhetoric respectively. In chapter 3 ("The Athenian Movement," pp. 24-56) Pernot covers rhetoric at Athens from the end of the Peloponnesian war to the death of Alexander the Great (404-323 bce). After examining the practice of oratory at Athens in the judicial, political, and ceremonial contexts, Pernot reviews the conditions that made it possible for the different types of speeches to emerge in these different settings, then discusses and compares the careers and works of lsokrates and Demosthenes. One of the more interesting sections, which deals with the reality and image of the practice of oratory, stresses the importance of oratory at Athens even as it draws attention to its limitations. Following M. H. Hansen (The Athenian Democracy in the Age of Demosthenes [1991]), Pernot suggests that the number of citizens active in the assembly was in the hundreds, while the number of leading orators at any given time probably numbered around twenty; thus the oratorical and public aspects of political life at Athens is generally considerably overvalued in both ancient and modern treatments of rhetoric. In an excursus Pernot outlines the origins and history of the canon of the ten Attic orators; his tendency...

This paper examines how the battle exhortation was analysed in ancient rhetoric. The Thucydidean battle exhortation is the key: by combining different lines of argumentation drawn from the oratorical practices of the late fifth century bce, Thucydides created a new kind of battle speech. The main feature of this speech is its flexibility in reasoning and its ability to fulfil new functions in historiographic works. Those two features explain why that kind of military speech proved so successful with later historians, and they also explain the views of imperial-age rhetoricians in analysing these speeches.

Reviews 209 treatments on the conversion of classical rhetoric in the Christian era, rhetoric from the end of antiquity to the modern age, and Greco-Roman rhetoric in the contemporary world. At the back of the volume there is a thesaurus of concepts and technical terms and a chronological table of important literary and rhetorical events in the Greek and Roman worlds. The bibliography consists of collections of sources; general works; proceedings, melanges, and collections; specialized journals; thematic and diachronic studies; and works relevant to the individual chapters and the conclusion, the references to which are further subdivided into different eras covered. All of these sections are useful in an introductory survey of this type. Relevant passages from the Greek and Latin texts appear only in English translation. Finally, W. E. Higgins' eloquent translation from the French makes Pernot's text comprehensible to the uninformed reader of rhetoric, which is no mean feat given the technical nature of the material discussed. Inevitably, some infelicities and inconsistencies emerge in respect of translation (e.g., "the encomium readies the reception for hard sayings," p. 181) and transliteration (e.g., "Thucydides" but "Kleon," p.18) respectively. How does Rhetoric in Antiquity compare with other books on classical rhetoric intended for a general readership that have been published during the past dozen years? Pernot's volume is generally more accessible and less traditional than George Kennedy's A New History ofClassical Rhetoric (1994); more specifically it offers more information on the historical and cultural background of rhetoric and is less text based. Thomas Habinek's Ancient Rhetoric and Oratory (2005), however, focuses especially on the political, so­ cial, and cultural aspects of rhetoric and avoids the traditional structure of Pernot and Kennedy. A great strength of Pernot as a scholar of rhetoric is his positive approach, as evidenced by his generally favourable view of imperial rhetoric and declamation. Rhetoric in Antiquity is therefore partic­ ularly suitable as an introductory survey text for a postgraduate or senior undergraduate course on rhetoric. William J. Dominik University of Otago Daniel M. Gross and Ansgar Kemmann, eds., Heidegger and Rhetoric. State University of New York Press, 2005. ISBN 10 0-7914-6551-6.195 pp. This volume is a collection of six essays and one interview, each of which addresses the theme of Heidegger and rhetoric. The obvious occasion and motivation for this volume is the recent (2002) publication of Heidegger s lectures on Aristotle in the summer semester of 1924: Grundbegriffe der Aristotelischen Philosophic, Gesamtausgabe, volume 18 (as yet untranslated). One of the foci of these lectures is Aristotle's Rhetoric. One of the peculiarities 210 RHETORICA of the book under review is that a reader unfamiliar with the lectures could come away with the impression that the lectures provide a reading of Aristotle's Rhetoric. There are various references in this collection (and elsewhere in the secondary literature, I should add) to the SS 1924 lectures as lectures on Aristotle's Rhetoric. Nancy Struever, for example, asserts in her essay, "Alltaglichkeit, Timefulness, in the Heideggerian Program'' that "it [these lectures] remains, arguably, the best twentieth-century reading of Aristotle's Rhetoric." This may be so, but the lectures only deal with certain parts of the Rhetoric and spend much time considering sections of Metaphyics, Physics, On the Soul, Nicomachean Ethics, and On the Ports ofAnimals. In short, these lectures by Heidegger concern what the title announces: basic concepts of Aristotle's philosophy including logos, ousia, entelecheia, energeia, phusis, dunamis, telos, praxis, ethos, pathos, nous, hedone among others. Of the concepts just listed Heidegger relies primarily on the Rhetoric only for an explication of pathos. The reason why it makes some sense to highlight Heidegger's concern with the Rhetoric is that the Rhetoric clearly is a central text for him. He even objects to an early editor's placing this work at the end of Aristotle's works. He makes the large claim that the "tradition has long ago lost an under­ standing of rhetoric" and that "Rhetoric is no less than the interpretation (Auslegung) of Dasein in its concreteness, the hermeneutics of Dasein itself." (p. 110). As Theodore Kisiel argues in his essay in this...

Certains, dit Julien, font étalage des lettres qu’ils ont reçues de l’empereur comme les parvenus de leurs bagues précieuses. C’est peut-être pour cette raison que nous ont été conservées de cet empereur près de trente pièces—billets ou missives plus développées—qui relèvent de l’épistolaire au sens le plus strict, parce qu’elles sont adressées par un individu à un individu et non par un souverain à ses sujets ou à ses représentants. Les desti-nataires forment un réseau restreint de gens qui ont des affinités intellectuelles et religieuses avec l’expéditeur. Cette étude cherche à montrer comment la théorie épistolaire dans l’Antiquité pouvait être concrètement mise en œuvre chez Julien. Sont ainsi analysés la fonction de la lettre, le recours à la mise en scène du processus épistolaire, les formes d’incipit et de desinit. Outre le thème tradi-tionnel de la lettre comme expression de l’amitié, on repère dans cette correspondance ceux de la piété et du travail et de la hâte, plus spécifiques de Julien, mais peut-être tout aussi codés, parce que constitutifs de son ethos.

Research Article| February 01 2007 Back Matter Rhetorica (2007) 25 (1): 123–124. https://doi.org/10.1525/rh.2007.25.1.back Views Icon Views Article contents Figures & tables Video Audio Supplementary Data Peer Review Share Icon Share Twitter LinkedIn Tools Icon Tools Get Permissions Cite Icon Cite Search Site Citation Back Matter. Rhetorica 1 February 2007; 25 (1): 123–124. doi: https://doi.org/10.1525/rh.2007.25.1.back 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. Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

Abstract With the notion of homologoumene arete Isocrates shows himself to be an exponent of popular ethics, or “common sense”. Isocrates integrates established concepts of everyday ethics with his idea of education, which at all levels he brings into association with public affirmation. This is not a notion of education concerned only with inner values—Platonic education, viewed from this perspective, has to appear reductionist—but with a conception of homologoumene arete that manifests itself as publicly effective, in the sense of traditional polis-ethics. Isocrates proclaims the unity of appearance and reality and remains, even in the face of failures, such as the case of his pupil Timotheos, an optimist. He justifies aspirations for influence and success, which are a consideration for all mankind, as long as these are aroused within the frame of justice, but unjust Realpolitik can not be absolutely avoided.

Abstract Isocrates uses the word philosophia, which he claims as his own métier, in three distinct ways: (i) practical wisdom common to all men; (ii) all systems of education; (iii) the system of education which he practices, the only true one. He makes use of oppositions among the three to conceal a paradox: that he wishes his own philosophia to be at the same time close to common wisdom, and to be unique in perfection and value. Like the speeches of Thucydides, his written works crystallize the everyday rhetoric of the polis but strip it of its oppositional aspect. They create a unified, harmonious logos politikos, seemly and decorous, but without the resource of his own critical judgement.

Research Article| February 01 2007 Front Matter Rhetorica (2007) 25 (1): iv. https://doi.org/10.1525/rh.2007.25.1.front Views Icon Views Article contents Figures & tables Video Audio Supplementary Data Peer Review Share Icon Share Twitter LinkedIn Tools Icon Tools Get Permissions Cite Icon Cite Search Site Citation Front Matter. Rhetorica 1 February 2007; 25 (1): iv. doi: https://doi.org/10.1525/rh.2007.25.1.front Download citation file: Ris (Zotero) Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu nav search search input Search input auto suggest search filter All ContentRhetorica Search This content is only available via PDF. Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

Current interpretations of early Greek rhetoric often rely on a distinction between the empirical stage of rhetoric (associated with the sophists) and the theory of rhetoric which was invented by the philosophers Plato and Aristotle. But insofar as the distinction between experience and theory is itself a product of philosophical criticism and reflects the philosophical priorities of the authors who introduced it, its application in the interpretation of pre-Platonic rhetoric is anachronistic. By examining the contexts in which Plato’s and Aristotle’s arguments are cast, I propose to show the ways in which their accounts distort our picture of their predecessors.

After discussing the relationship of courage to justice in modern and ancient political thought, this paper explores the debate between Athenian democratic orators and Plato on the subject of andreia, or "manly courage." While the orators set andreia in a particular relation to justice by embedding andreia within a salyific narrative of the city's history, Plato used the figure of Callicles to draw attention to the democrats' self-serving construal of andreia within their own politics. Plato's arguments suggest that statecraft must begin with a deeper "soulcraft" than Athenian politics is capable of.

According to an argument made by other authors, analytic —the formal logical theory of the categorical syllogism expounded in the Prior Analytics—is a relatively late development in Aristotle’s thinking about argument. As a general theory of validity, it served as the master discipline of argument in Aristotle’s mature thought about the subject. The object of this paper is to explore his early conception of the relations between the argumentative disciplines. Its principal thesis, based chiefly on evidence about the relation between dialectic and rhetoric, is that before the advent of analytic dialectic played a double role. It was both the art or discipline of one practice of argumentation and the master discipline of argument to which other disciplines turned for their understanding of the fundamentals of argument.

Scholars agree that a connection existed between the early sophists and democracy, usually in theoretical terms or in the association of sophists with the Athens of Pericles. However, to discuss the sophists and demokratia exclusively in the context of Athens makes little sense, given that the earliest sophists came from outside Athens and thus began to develop the ideas and practices that made them famous in other contexts. This paper considers what political experiences or background the early sophists may have had outside Athens. Examining the backgrounds of Protagoras, Gorgias, Thrasymachus, Prodicus, and Hippias, one can build a case for clear democratic associations beyond Athens. This may affect our understanding of the causes—and possibly the consequences— of the so-called "sophistic movement" with respect to democracies in Greece.

Mit dem Begriff homologoumene arete erweist sich Isokrates als Exponent der populären Ethik, des “common sense”. Isokrates integriert die Orientierungspunkte einer Alltagsethik in seinem Eziehungskonzept, das er auf allen Stufen mit dem Gedanken der öffentlichen Anerkennung in Verbindung bringt. Es ist somit kein Erziehungskonzept der nur inneren Werte—ein solches, wie das platonische, müßte aus dieser Perspektive als reduktionistisch erscheinen—sondern im Sinne einer traditionellen Polisethik ein Konzept der öffentlich eindrucksvoll in Erscheinung tretenden homologoumene arete. Isokrates proklamiert die Einheit von Schein und Sein und bleibt auch bei Mißerfolgen, wie im Fall seines Schülers Timotheos, optimistisch. Er rechtfertigt das Streben nach Vorteil und Erfolg, auf die alle Menschen bedacht seien, sofern sie sich im Rahmen der Gerechtigkeit bewegen, aber ungerechte Realpolitik kann nicht völlig vermieden werden.

The article analyses the relationship between rhetoric and didactic in Plato's theory of legislative preamble in the Laws on the basis of a comparison of three texts, the passages in Books IV (718a6–723b2) and IX (857c1–e7) that explain the function of preambles and the specific preamble of the law against the atheists in Book X. In spite of the correspondence between the free physician who explains the patient's illness on the basis of a quasi-philosophical conversation about the "nature of bodies" (Book IX) and the legislator who explains the origin of bodily movements in a philosophical way (Book X), the former cannot be considered as the direct counterpart of the latter: in the first case, the patient collaborates with the doctor; not so in the case of the atheist in his relationship with the legislator. This dissymmetry also justifies reading the Book IX passage as advocating a "legislative utopia"—one which by definition is not realized within the framework of the Laws, and in particular not in Book X.

Isocrate emploie le mot philosophia en trois sens distincts: (i) la sagesse pratique commune à tous les hommes; (ii) tout système d’éducation; (iii) l’éducation qu’il pratique lui-meme, la seule vraie, Il se sert d’oppositions entre les trois pour cacher un paradoxe: qu’il veut son propre philosophie à la fois près de la sagesse quotidienne, et d’une perfection et valeur unique. Comme les discours chez Thucydide, ses oeuvres écrites crystallisent la rhétorique quotidienne de la polis; mais en lui otant son aspect antilogique, elles créent un logos politikos unifié, harmonieux, bienséant, mais dépourvu des ressources de sa propre critique.

Book Review| November 01 2006 Book Review: L'ultima parola. L'analisi dei testi: teoria e pratiche nell'antichità greca e latina, by Giancarlo Abbamonte, Ferruccio Conti Bizarro and Luigi Spina L'ultima parola. L'analisi dei testi: teoria e pratiche nell'antichità greca e latina. a cura di Giancarlo AbbamonteFerruccio Conti BizarroLuigi Spina. Napoli: Arte Tipografica Editrice, 2004. 448 pp. Rhetorica (2006) 24 (4): 440–447. https://doi.org/10.1525/rh.2006.24.4.440 Views Icon Views Article contents Figures & tables Video Audio Supplementary Data Peer Review Share Icon Share Twitter LinkedIn Tools Icon Tools Get Permissions Cite Icon Cite Search Site Citation Book Review: L'ultima parola. L'analisi dei testi: teoria e pratiche nell'antichità greca e latina, by Giancarlo Abbamonte, Ferruccio Conti Bizarro and Luigi Spina. Rhetorica 1 November 2006; 24 (4): 440–447. doi: https://doi.org/10.1525/rh.2006.24.4.440 Download citation file: Ris (Zotero) Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All ContentRhetorica Search This content is only available via PDF. © The International Society for the History of Rhetoric2006 Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

Review Article| November 01 2006 Book Review: Rhetorische Anthropologie: Studien zum Homo rhetoricus, by Josef Kopperschmidt, Homo inveniens: Heuristik und Anthropologie am Modell der Rhetorik (Literatur und Anthropologie 19), by Stefan Metzger and Wolfgang Rapp and Rhetorik und Anthropologie (Rhetorik: Ein internationales Jahrbuch 23), by Peter D. Krause Rhetorische Anthropologie: Studien zum Homo rhetoricus. Josef Kopperschmidt. München: Fink, 2000. 404 pp.Homo inveniens: Heuristik und Anthropologie am Modell der Rhetorik (Literatur und Anthropologie 19).Stefan Metzger and Wolfgang Rapp. Tübingen: Narr, 2003. 274 pp.Rhetorik und Anthropologie (Rhetorik: Ein internationales Jahrbuch 23).Peter D. Krause. Tübingen: Niemeyer, 2004. 201 pp. Rhetorica (2006) 24 (4): 436–440. https://doi.org/10.1525/rh.2006.24.4.436 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 Book Review: Rhetorische Anthropologie: Studien zum Homo rhetoricus, by Josef Kopperschmidt, Homo inveniens: Heuristik und Anthropologie am Modell der Rhetorik (Literatur und Anthropologie 19), by Stefan Metzger and Wolfgang Rapp and Rhetorik und Anthropologie (Rhetorik: Ein internationales Jahrbuch 23), by Peter D. Krause. Rhetorica 1 November 2006; 24 (4): 436–440. doi: https://doi.org/10.1525/rh.2006.24.4.436 Download citation file: Ris (Zotero) Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All ContentRhetorica Search This content is only available via PDF. © The International Society for the History of Rhetoric2006 Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

Abstract Altough little known in medieval history, the Breviari d'Amor of Matfre Ermengaud was deeply influenced by medieval preaching. An Occitan encyclopaedia, the Breviari includes a short guide to preaching, entitled “De predicacio et en quel manieira deu hom predicar” which derives from the Cura pastoralis of Gregory the Great. “De predicacio” is no mere translation, but a subtle adaptation: it indicates not only how the Breviari is aimed toward lay education in the popular language, but also to what point it responds to its historic and religious context. This study, therefore, considers the Breviari as a text deeply engaged in the matter of preaching in Languedoc at the end of the thirteenth century.

Research Article| November 01 2006 Front Matter Rhetorica (2006) 24 (4): iv. https://doi.org/10.1525/rh.2006.24.4.front 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 Front Matter. Rhetorica 1 November 2006; 24 (4): iv. doi: https://doi.org/10.1525/rh.2006.24.4.front Download citation file: Ris (Zotero) Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All ContentRhetorica Search This content is only available via PDF. © The International Society for the History of Rhetoric2006 Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

Book Review| November 01 2006 Book Review: The Roman World of Cicero's De Oratore, by Elaine Fantham The Roman World of Cicero's De Oratore by Elaine Fantham. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004. 364 pp. Rhetorica (2006) 24 (4): 427–432. https://doi.org/10.1525/rh.2006.24.4.427 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 Book Review: The Roman World of Cicero's De Oratore, by Elaine Fantham. Rhetorica 1 November 2006; 24 (4): 427–432. doi: https://doi.org/10.1525/rh.2006.24.4.427 Download citation file: Ris (Zotero) Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All ContentRhetorica Search This content is only available via PDF. © The International Society for the History of Rhetoric2006 Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

Research Article| November 01 2006 Back Matter Rhetorica (2006) 24 (4): 448–453. https://doi.org/10.1525/rh.2006.24.4.back Views Icon Views Article contents Figures & tables Video Audio Supplementary Data Peer Review Share Icon Share Twitter LinkedIn Tools Icon Tools Get Permissions Cite Icon Cite Search Site Citation Back Matter. Rhetorica 1 November 2006; 24 (4): 448–453. doi: https://doi.org/10.1525/rh.2006.24.4.back Download citation file: Ris (Zotero) Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All ContentRhetorica Search This content is only available via PDF. © The International Society for the History of Rhetoric2006 Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

432 RHETORICA Rhetorica ad Herennium and what are we to make of these differences? How useful pedagogically is Cicero's approach and how innovative is his interest in prose rhythm? Overall, however, F. has provided us with a book likely to prove a turning point in the appreciation of De Oratore by modern Anglophone scholars and students of rhetoric. Armed with this introduction and the translation of May and Wisse, teachers will now be able to incorporate the text into surveys of ancient rhetoric in a convenient and accessible fashion. They will find in the dialogue stimulating views on key rhetorical issues, as well as a number of original contributions to the established tradition. And in F.'s survey they will find a first rate elucidation of them.7 Jon Hall University of Otago, New Zealand J. Axer, ed. Rhetoric of Transformation, Osrodek Badari nad Tradycj$ z Antyczn$ w Polsce i Europie Srodkowo-wschodniej, Studies and Essays 6 (Warsaw 2003). This collection of essays, most of them presented at the 13th Biennial Congress of the International Society for the History of Rhetoric held in Warsaw in 2001, was published by the Centre for Studies on the Classical Tradition in Poland and East-Central Europe, of which Axer, past president of the society, has been director since its inception in 1991. Rhetoric, Axer observes in the book's preface, is emerging as an important element in public life in regions that have been undergoing radical social and political transformations in recent years. Accordingly, several of the essays bear on developments in Poland and Ukraine; and others concern Kenya, South Africa, Spain, and post-unification Germany. There are some additional papers dealing with rhetoric as part of a liberal arts education. All of the papers save one are in English. Poland is the subject of five of the papers. Cezar Ornatowski's "Rhetor­ ical Regime in Crisis: The Rhetoric of Polish Leadership, 1980-1988" (pp. 91-106) traces shifts in the rhetoric of formal public policy speeches ("ex­ 7There are a few minor typographical errors that I list here in case they can be remedied in a paperback version (which, one hopes, will not be long in appearing): p. 110, n. 18: ius needs to be italicised; p. 155: Pro Archia 19 in one line, pro Archie 21 in the next; p. 180: dianoia needs to be italicised; p. 214: 'Cicero s speech much have created a sensation ; p. 227: period needed at the end of the paragraph before the sub-heading "Thanking the People"; p. 265: period needed after "Caesar Strabo (3.146)"; p. 271: bracket after “abasio, 45" not needed; p. 272: period needed after "(3.156-66)". On p. 230, n. 32, the speech delivered Pro Rabirio in 63 was not the Pro Rabirio Postumo but the Pro Rabirio Perduellionis Reo. Reviews 433 poses") by Polish prime ministers from Eduard Babiuch through Jaruzelski (1981) to Rakowski in 1988. What we see there, Ornatowski writes, is disengagement from classic communist discourse and a move toward a more pragmatic, less ideological mode of "democratic" socialism; and Ornatowski show this in his examination of shifts in the controlling pronouns from the ambiguous "we" to the "personal" "I." Jerzy Bartminski, in "Where Are We? A New Linguistic Conceptualization of the National Space in Polish" (pp. 107-13), examines key terms marking a cultural shift in Polish self-perception from an East-orientation to one more distinctly to the West, rehearsing a long debate on what constitutes "Central Europe" and whether to define it as at the periphery of Europe, on the one hand, or of the (former) Soviet Union, on the other. Piotr Urbanski's "blow (Not) to Speak about the End? Rhetoric of Contemporary Polish Eschatological Sermons" (pp. 140-48) calls attention to the rhetorical incompetence of much Polish preaching that betrays poor seminary training and fails to stay in touch with new theological trends. Stanislaw Obirek S.J. explains how deeply held dogmatic beliefs made real communication (dialogue) impossible as they transform theology into ideol­ ogy in "Theology Tempered by Ideology: Peter Skarga S.J. (1536-1612) and Jan Wyszenski (1545-1620)." And Tomasz Tabako attempts to track the develop­ ment...

440 RHETORICA many. Despite his enthusiastic citation of the rhetorically informed critic of eighteenth-century literature Hans-Jurgen Schings, for instance, Zammito leaves out rhetoric from his index altogether and from his list of inquiries that helped crystallize anthropology around the year 1772, namely the medi­ cal model of physiological psychology, the biological model of the animal soul, the pragmatic or conjectural model of cultural-historical theory, the literary-psychological model of the new novel including travel literature, and a philosophical model of rational psychology grounded in the quandaries of substance interaction. Indeed the 1772 date is symptomatic of a justifi­ able but selective philosophical genealogy that would ignore an important element of Odo Marquard's article on "Anthropologie" in the Historisches Wbrterbuch der Philosophic (vol. 1, Stuttgart/Basel: Schwabe, 1971, pp. 362374 ), which significantly credits the first anthropology lecture in Germany to a professional rhetorician, Gottfried Polycarp Muller (delivered in Leipzig, 1719). Meanwhile the 2005 Notre Dame conference included philosophical luminaries such as Charles Taylor and Hubert Dreyfus and a presentation on homo hermeneuticiis, but no experts on the rhetorical tradition and nothing at all on homo rhetoricus. To be fair, I should also point out that none of the essays in the Krause collection cite Zammito published just two years earlier, despite the fact that they might have done so profitably, especially when discussing Kant and Herder. Qualifications aside, I am optimistic about the larger project. If this new German strain of rhetorical anthropology continues to develop its unique focus on eighteenth-century disciplinary history and develops further its rig­ orous historical skepticism inspired by Blumenberg, that influence beyond what are now largely national and disciplinary boundaries will emerge. As the three collections reviewed here demonstrate in concert, our understand­ ing of anthropology will in certain respects remain handicapped until it does so. Finally I should underscore that rhetorical studies emerging out of the German context have long provided a powerful counterbalance to a typi­ cally French or Anglo-American perspective that would force rhetoric into dualistic models of mind/body, logos/pathos, and truth/fabrication. These three recent efforts at rhetorical anthropology must be considered in this important critical tradition. Daniel M. Gross University ofIowa L ultima parola. L analisi dei testi'. teoría e pratiehe nell'ant¡chita ^reca e latina, a cura di Giancarlo Abbamonte, Ferruccio Conti Bizzarro, Luigi Spina (Napoli: Arte Tipográfica Editrice, 2004), pp. 448. Venticinque densi contributi, dedicati alTanalisi testuale nelle teorie e nelle pratiehe antiche, vengono raccolti in un corposo volume bilingue e Reviews 441 posti irónicamente sotto 1 egida di Fuoco Pallido, il romanzo in cui Vladi­ mir Nabokov ritrasse uno zelante commentatore nell'atto d'assolvere - con sentenza quantomai perentoria - l'intera schiera d'interpreti e glossatori dell opera altrui: E probabile che il mió caro poeta non avrebbe condiviso quest affermazione, ma, nel bene come nel male, è il commentatore ad avéré l'ultima parola". Il terzo Colloquio italo-francese, coordinato da Laurent Pernot e Luigi Spina, frutto dell'ormai consolidata collaborazione tra l'Università di Napoli Federico II e l'Université de Strasbourg II Marc Bloch, si vota fin da subito alla pluralità, ail apertura, all'interrogazione spassionata sul difficile mestiere d'esegeta. Non risulta una sorpresa, allora, trovare accanto alla voce di Nabokov quella di Aristotele, alia cui Retorica spetta il compito di dettare gli intenti e i metodi del convegno e del libro che gli fa seguito: irrobustire l'accordo tra gli oratori intervenuti; persuadere il pubblico presente; sviluppare un tema prescelto (un discorso) secondo metodologie e fuochi d'interesse eterogenei (p. 7). L'Introduzione di Luigi Spina s'interroga sull'eredità greco-romana nell' ámbito dell'analisi testuale: una traccia persistente, senza dubbio, rivitalizzata peraltro dalla sempre più stringente richiesta di un "ritorno ai testi". I greci amarono esaminare i testi operando tramite l'atto del krinein e per mezzo delYexegesis. Nel primo caso metaforizzarono l'operazione interpreta­ tiva con il riferimento all'anatomia, all'individuazione delle parti di un corpo armónico; nel secondo si appellarono all'azione di portare qualcosa da una luogo ad un altro (principio fondativo, oltre che dell'esegesi, di ogni pretesa di "traduzione"). Una proposta decisamente...

436 RHETORICA disputation plainly shows. But debate—genuine debate— may seem both alien and undesirable to those whose recent histories have been marked by verbal coercion, deception, confrontation, and the exercise of mute power. "Debate" brings to mind not a means to arrive at consensus, but a zero-sum game with one winner who seeks victory "by any means necessary." That sort of "debate" is empirically real, of course; and not only in a post-dictatorship Europe or Africa. Even when consensus seems to have been attained, it is a fragile thing that more often than not deteriorates and turns into conflict. Think of the aftermath of the selection of Havel; or of the fact that it was not very long ago that the Polish parliament saw fit explicitly to forbid its members to carry firearms in the assembly chamber. I hasten to add that the actual practices of the United States Congress—or, for that matter, the British Parliament—are hardly paragons of the "civility" that is so important a part of civic virtue. So simply extolling "debate" as the preferred method of decision-making and conflict-resolution is not enough. We seem, then, to be brought to the verge of the sort of cynicism (if that is not too strong a word) that Professor Axer and his co-contributors want to purge from contemporary politics—particularly in countries that desire to put dictatorship behind them and foster democracy. We seem also to have stumbled on the old question of whether the humanities can humanize. But the answer to that question can be learned only if all of us, in good faith, do what we can to make sure that they do, even if we suspect that the answer we get may not be the one we wanted. It is to be hoped, then, that Axer and his colleagues will continue to teach and encourage us. Thomas Conley University of Illinois, Urbana JosefKopperschmidt, ed., RhetorischeAnthropologie: Studien zum Homo rhetoricus. München: Fink, 2000. 404 pp. Stefan Metzger and Wolfgang Rapp, eds., Homo inveniens: Heuristik und Anthropologie am Modell der Rhetorik (Literatur und Anthropologie 19), Tübingen: Narr, 2003. 274 pp. Peter D. Krause, ed., Rhetorik und Anthropologie (Rhetorik: Ein inter­ nationales Jahrbuch 23), Tübingen: Niemeyer, 2004. viii + 201 pp. Recent rhetorical anthropology built on the model of philosophical an­ thropology faces an inherent dilemma: what one hand wishes to deliver homo rhetoricus in terms of universal capacities, the other hand snatches away. In fact this tension shapes the three rich collections reviewed here, which in combination mark what editor extraordinaire Josef Kopperschmidt considers the real reason for current interest in rhetoric: namely its anthro­ pology (Kopperschmidt, p. 13), and especially its sophisticated treatments Reviews 437 of the whole man constituted in a culturally situated language and in the interanimation of body and mind (a long-standing strength of German scholarship and popular culture, 1 should add). After ambitiously titling his collection Rhetorische Anthropologie: Studien zum Homo rhetoricus, for instance, Kopperschmidt backpedals from the project's apparent "ontological ambi­ tions" (Kopperschmidt, pp. 22-23). Although, Kopperschmidt protests, the "homo-" formula such as "homo-faber" and "homo-ludens" might imply claims about mankind's essential nature, it does not have to. We should simply consider homo rhetoricus one useful heuristic for characterizing hu­ mankind from a particular, and in this case rhetorical, perspective (p. 22). Metzger and Rapp rightly insist that the rhetorically informed homo inveniens is a modern creature distinguished by a focus on the new and the creative (Metzger/Rapp, pp. 7-9), but they also must struggle against their essentializing rubric, as well as the contribution of someone like Peter L. Oesterreich, who has flatly argued in these two venues ("Homo rhetori­ cus (corruptus): Sieben Gesichtspunkte fundamentalrhetorischer Anthropologie ", Kopperschmidt, pp. 353-70; "Selbsterfindung: Zur rhetorischen Entstehung des Subjektes", Metzger/Rapp, pp. 45-57) and elsewhere that man is a rhetorical being ideally subject to a universal, rhetorical anthropology (Kopperschmidt, p. 355). Then the eclectic and individually interesting articles in Volume 23 of Rhetorik: Ein internationales Jahrbuch collected by Peter D. Krause under the rubric "Rhetoric and Anthropology" introduce questions of appropriate scope. Is the "rhetoric of x...

Reviews Elaine Fantham, The Roman World of Cicero's De Oratore. Pp. 364. Ox­ ford: Oxford University Press, 2004. US$150; £ 63. ISBN: 0199263159. Cicero's De Oratore is one of most significant discussions of rhetoric in the classical corpus. It presents the mature reflections of a master orator on the art he had dominated at Rome for nearly twenty years. For the modern Anglophone student, however, the dialogue has long been rather forbidding and inaccessible. The Loeb translation of Sutton and Rackham is pedestrian at best, misleading at worst; and the archaic flavour of Watson's version does little to capture the imagination.1 The commentary by Wilkins is certainly respectable enough, but its philological focus is potentially intimidating to the reader not familiar with this genre of scholarship.2 And while the masterly multi-volumed commentary initiated in the 1980s by Leeman and Pinkster has advanced scholarly appreciation and understanding of the dialogue immeasurably, it remains inaccessible to the student who does not read German fluently.1 Fortunately in recent years the situation has started to J change. The recent English translation by May and Wisse, with its extensive introduction and explanatory notes, at last provides an excellent and af1E . W. Sutton and H. Rackham, Cicero Dc Oratore Books I, II (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1942) and H. Rackham, Cicero De Oratore Book III Together With De Fato, Paradoxa Stoicorum, De Partitione Oratoria (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1942); J. S. Watson, Cicero on Oratory and Orators (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1848; republished, Carbondale and Edwardsville: Southern Illinois University Press, 1970 and 1986). 2A. S. Wilkins, M. Tidli Ciceronis De Oratore Libri Tres (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 3rd edition 1895; republished, Amsterdam: Hakkert 1962; Hildesheim: Olms 1965; New York: Arno Press, 1979). 3A. D. Leeman and H. Pinkster, M. Tullius Cicero De oratore libri III. Kommentar. Vol. I (Heidelberg: Carl Winter, 1981); A. D. Leeman, H. Pinkster and H. L. W. Nelson, M. Tullius Cicero De oratore libri III. Kommentar. Vol. II (Heidelberg: Carl Winter, 1985); A. D. Leeman, H. Pinkster and E. Rabbie, M. Tullius Cicero De oratore libri III. Kommentar. Vol. Ill (Heidelberg: Carl Winter, 1989); A. D. Leeman, H. Pinkster and J. Wisse, M. Tullius Cicero De oratore libri III. Kommentar. Vol. IV (Heidelberg: Carl Winter, 1996). The final volume is in preparation and will be published in English. Rhetorica, Vol. XXIV, Issue 4, pp. 427-447, ISSN 0734-8584, electronic ISSN 15338541 . 02006 by The International Society for the History of Rhetoric. All rights re­ served. Please direct all requests for permission to photocopy or reproduce article content through the University of California Press s Rights and Permissions website, at www.ucpress.edu/journals/rights.htm. 427 428 RHETORICA fordable entrée to the text.4 Now with the publication of Elaine Fantham's book-length study, the dialogue should finally be able to reach the wider readership in English it deserves. The thirteen chapters are organised thematically and address well the key questions raised by the dialogue. The first three set out the background to the work: first, Cicero's political situation and literary ambitions as he began its composition; next, the oratorical careers of its main interlocutors L. Crassus and M. Antonius; and finally its dialogic form, especially the artistic and intellectual debt owed to Plato. The remaining chapters focus on issues that arise sequentially as one reads through the dialogue's three books. Thus there are discussions of the orator's training and his need for a knowledge of civil law (issues that arise in Book 1); oratory's relationship with poetry and the writing of history (topics mentioned in Books 1 and 2); Cicero's use of Aristotelian sources and the orator's effective deployment of wit and humour (treated in Book 2); the role of oratory in the Roman senate and popular assemblies (a matter relevant to Book 2 but usefully expanded more generally by E); and the various aspects of oratorical style (elocutio), memory, and delivery (the focus of most of Book 3). A final chapter offers some concluding thoughts and includes a brief discussion of Tacitus' Dialogus, a work much influenced by De Oratore. This arrangement...

Peu connu dans l’histoire de la rhétorique médiévale, le Breviari d’Amor de Matfre Ermengaud est pourtant très influencée par la prédication médiévale. Une encyclopédie occitane, le Breviari comprend un court guide de prédication entitulé “De predicacio et en quel manieira deu hom predicar” provenant du Cura pastoralis de Grégoire le Grand. “De predicacio” n’est guère de traduction, mais une adaptation subtile: il indique non seulement comment le Breviari est généralement visé à l’éducation laïque en langue vulgaire, mais aussi à quel point il répond à son contexte historique et réligieux. Cette étude considère le Breviari donc comme un texte profondément engagé dans la prédication au Languedoc à la fin du treizième siècle.

The English poet-critic John Dryden (1631–1700) took a keen interest in refining the mother tongue. As a literary critic, he was particularly concerned with the contrast between the sound of the vernacular and that of Latin. This study establishes a connection between Dryden’s observations on sound and the recommendations concerning elocution found in such seventeenth-century rhetorics as Some Instructions Concerning the Art of Oratory (1659) by Obadiah Walker, in order to appreciate Dryden’s use of sound in his own poems, I argue that one should also take into account the phonetic theory provided by contemporary grammars. The study thus pays tribute to the fact that in the age of Dryden the concerns of rhetoric and grammar were closely interwoven.

Der Aufsatz verfolgt die These, daß es um 1700 in der Rhetorikgeschichte einen Bruch gab, bei dem die traditionelle Konzeption der Rhetorik als einer ars durch die einer AffektRhetorik abgelöst wird. Die Argumentation geht dabei zurück auf Quintilians Vorstellung einer artificiosa eloquentia. Gezeigt wird, wie dieses ars-zentrierte Konzept von Rhetorik in der Frühaufklärung in eine Natur-Rhetorik überführt wird, die auf die Produktivkraft des Affekts jenseits rhetorischer Traditionen setzt. Im Ergebnis wird die Gültigkeit der antiken Theorie nachhaltig beschnitten.

Research Article| August 01 2006 Back Matter Rhetorica (2006) 24 (3): 334. https://doi.org/10.1525/rh.2006.24.3.back Views Icon Views Article contents Figures & tables Video Audio Supplementary Data Peer Review Share Icon Share Twitter LinkedIn Tools Icon Tools Get Permissions Cite Icon Cite Search Site Citation Back Matter. Rhetorica 1 August 2006; 24 (3): 334. doi: https://doi.org/10.1525/rh.2006.24.3.back Download citation file: Ris (Zotero) Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search nav search search input Search input auto suggest search filter All ContentRhetorica Search This content is only available via PDF. Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

Abstract The Life of Attila, composed by the Hungarian patriot and churchman Miklos [Nicolaus] Oláh (1493-1568), includes several speeches by Attila. His style, the most striking character of these harangues, cannot be described better than as “elevated Ciceronian” whence the title Cicero hunnicus. This article establishes the manner in which the rhetoric of Attila serves as a strategy of rehabilitation through the use of which Oláh defends the image of his hero (and that of the Hungarian people). In conclusion, there is outlined a sketch of how, in the XVIth century, an attempt was made to establish the Hungarian national identity on rhetorical foundations.

Book Review| August 01 2006 Book Review: La rhétorique, by Michel Meyer La rhétorique by Michel Meyer. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 2004. 130 pages, ISBN 213053368X Rhetorica (2006) 24 (3): 329–331. https://doi.org/10.1525/rh.2006.24.3.329 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 Book Review: La rhétorique, by Michel Meyer. Rhetorica 1 August 2006; 24 (3): 329–331. doi: https://doi.org/10.1525/rh.2006.24.3.329 Download citation file: Ris (Zotero) Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All ContentRhetorica Search This content is only available via PDF. © The International Society for the History of Rhetoric2006 Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.