Index| November 01 2011 Index to Volume 29 (2011) Rhetorica (2011) 29 (4): 453–457. https://doi.org/10.1525/RH.2011.29.4.453 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 Index to Volume 29 (2011). Rhetorica 1 November 2011; 29 (4): 453–457. doi: https://doi.org/10.1525/RH.2011.29.4.453 Download citation file: Ris (Zotero) Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All ContentRhetorica Search This content is only available via PDF. © 2011 by The International Society for the History of Rhetoric. All rights reserved.2011 Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

Reviews 443 Stephen McKenna, Adam Smith: The Rhetoric of Propriety (Rhetoric in the Modern Era), Albany: State University of New York Press, 2006. x + 184 pp. ISBN 0-7914-6581-0 In a roundabout effort at offering praise, allow me to preface this review with information about the reviewer. I value histories that connect Adam Smith s "neoclassical aesthetic values"—such as "propriety and taste"—to social dynamics such as "class difference." McKenna derides this work as z reductivist" and "inadequate by itself" (p. 57), opting instead to focus on the history of ideas, the long intellectual heritage behind Smith's rhetorical theory. Despite reservations about such intellectual history, I admire Adam Smith: The Rhetoric ofPropriety. The question arises: What has McKenna done to impress this otherwise skeptical reviewer? To begin with, McKenna uncovers and explores Smith's debt to past rhetoricians, such as Plato, Gorgias, Aristotle, and Cicero. After summarily dismissing Marxist and post-structuralist accounts of propriety, McKenna explains why Adam Smith's rhetorical theory should be glossed in ancient Greek and Latin. Previous scholarship has depicted Smith as a "new" or "neo­ classical" rhetorician. Following others, such as Gloria Vivenza, McKenna chronicles Smith's dependence on earlier sources, particularly his ground­ ing in classical rhetoric. If Smith is among the first modern social scientists, then not just Smith himself, but economics and sociology as well, owe a debt to classical rhetorical theory. McKenna focuses on six precepts that characterize a classical view of propriety and that were appropriated by Adam Smith. In this genealogy, propriety 1) participates in the natural order of things, 2) is often recognized through the visual senses, 3) leads to a pleasurable aesthetic experience, 4) requires public performance, 5) involves a mean between extremes, 6) and depends upon circumstances (pp. 28-29). McKenna follows traditional tributaries as they feed an 18th-century British stream of rhetorical theory. For instance, the arch-stylist Gorgias feeds into David Hume's epistemological skepticism and the Scotsman's attention to pathetic appeal (pp. 31-32). Plato's insistence that propriety include a regard for the different types of soul contributes to Adam Smith's effort at promoting a stylistic plasticity able to mold various character types (p. 36). McKenna also follows contemporary contributions to Smith's rhetorical theory. In the writings of John Locke and the Royal Society, we see propriety defined in terms of the "plain style" so popular among empirical scientists. In the writings of Frances Hutcheson and Anthony Ashley Cooper, Third Earl of Shaftesbury, we witness a relation among notions of "common sense,' rhetorical propriety, and the moral/aesthetic sensibility. Bernard Lamy and François Fénelon attend to propriety's aesthetic dimension, thus influencing Henry Home Lord Karnes, David Hume, and Joseph Addison. McKenna reminds his reader that Adam Smith remains the focal point by explaining how Smith positioned his own work on propriety against this lively and discordant set of voices. For instance, M^cKenna explains that Smith set 444 RHETORICA himself against Hutcheson and Fénelon by denying an innate moral sense, yet Smith readily adopted Lamy's contention that people recognize propriety through the visual senses (pp. 62-64). Chapters 2 and 3 amount to a narratio of past and contemporary sources to prepare the reader for McKenna's remaining confirmatio about Smith's rhetorical theory The last two substantive chapters treat Adam Smith's Lectures on Rhetoric and Belles Lettres alongside his Theory ofMoral Sentiments, arguing against the common scholarly belief that the Theory laid the moral and ethical ground­ work for the Lectures. Rather, McKenna contends that the Lectures underpin the Theory by exploring "the basic elements of human thought and action," which make ethical behavior possible (p. 76). McKenna also explains that Smith brought something new to the conversation about propriety: "Smith's idea that the intention to communicate a given passion or affection originates in sympathy is an entirely new contribution to the theory of the rhetorical propriety" (p. 88). Seemingly mundane moments, such as Smith's extensive discussion of direct and indirect description, become fascinating when seen through McKenna's illuminating perspective. Allow one extended quote to exemplify but by no means exhaustively capture the...

440 RHETORICA visivamente in maniera efficace, mediante il frequente accostamento dei testi su due colonne afffiançate. Il volume è rivolto in egual misura a studiosi di retorica e medievisti: i primi apprezzeranno l'ampio spazio dedicato al ruolo svolto dal trattato nella storia dell'ars dictaminis e ai rapporti intrattenuti con la tradizione retorica precedente nonché il piglio técnico e specialistico che caratterizza l'illustrazione delle problematiche principali proprie del genere; per i secondi risulterà intéressante la ricostruzione delle dinamiche culturali dell'ambito cassinese, lo studio del riutilizzo delle fonti e il confronto testuale con autori del tempo. In ogni caso il volume di B., grazie alla mole di informazioni fornite nei Prolegomena e nelle note, si profila come uno strumento indispensabile e imprescindibile per lo studio della retorica epistolare medievale, ma anche per quello più generale della figura di Alberico di Montecassino. Non resta che auspicare, per un testo che ne è ancora privo, una traduzione italiana, che potrebbe risultare utile per chi si accosti a quest'opera con interessi non legati esclusivamente alia storia della retorica o del Medioevo. Vera Tufano University di Napoli Federico II Mary Ellen Lamb and Karen Bamford, eds, Oral Traditions and Gender in Early Modern Literary Texts. Aldershot, England: Ashgate, 2008. 250 pp. ISBN 978-0-7546-5538-1 As its title suggests, this collection of essays includes a wide range of approaches, some distinctly literary, others verging on the sociological. It is divided into three parts. Part I, /z'Our Mothers' Maids': Nurture and Narrative," comprises four essays, Part II, "Spinsters and Knitters in the Sun," five, and Part III, "Oral Traditions and Masculinity," again five. The Introduction, by one of the editors, Mary Ellen Lamb, follows a list of brief biographies of the contributors. The Afterword is by Pamela Allen Brown. The work has a useful bibliography and a satisfactory index. The frontispiece, reproduced on page 86, is from Richard Braithwait's "Art Asleepe, Husband? A Boulster Lecture" published in London in 1588. Pages 122 and 123 show illustrations of the criers of London from the late sixteenth century, one from a woodcut and the other from an engraving. The contributors include some who are already leaders in their field and some very promising younger scholars. Most of the contributors hold po­ sitions at universities in the United States, though one is at Oxford and one at Groningen in The Netherlands. Canadian universities are well represented, with contributions from Mount Allison, Waterloo, and Guelph. A persistent consideration for those of us who work with the texts of the past is the question of how far modern theories can illuminate the practice Reviews 441 of earlier times. Although some modern theories can indeed suggest useful ways of approaching the literature of the past, there is still the ever-present danger of the kind of anachronism that treats the values of our own times as normative. Some of the essays in this collection seem to me to fall into this trap: these are for the most part exercises in misguided ingenuity, neither illuminating the texts themselves, nor establishing the usefulness of the theory. Yet some contributors use modern theory to very good effect, notably Eric Mason, whose use of Derrida's theory I shall discuss below. Many of the essays discuss classic literary texts: there are three on works by Edmund Spenser and three on plays by Shakespeare. However, some deal with texts much less generally familiar, and many of the most interesting essays are on topics closer to popular culture or social history. Notable here are two essays in Part II: Fiona McNeill's "Free and Bound Maids: Women's Work Songs and Industrial Change in the Age of Shakespeare," and Natasha Korda's "Gender at Work in the Cries of London." It is especially encouraging to see discussions of the importance of music, both in these essays and in "'When an Old Ballad is Plainly Sung': Musical Lyrics in the Plays of Margaret and William Cavendish" by James Fitzmaurice. Demonstrating as it does the importance of pathos, the use of music and also the musical element in oral discourse should be of particular interest to rhetoricians. It is impossible, given...

Other| August 01 2011 Addresses of Contributors to This Issue Rhetorica (2011) 29 (3): 366–367. https://doi.org/10.1525/RH.2011.29.3.366 Views Icon Views Article contents Figures & tables Video Audio Supplementary Data Peer Review Share Icon Share Twitter LinkedIn Tools Icon Tools Get Permissions Cite Icon Cite Search Site Citation Addresses of Contributors to This Issue. Rhetorica 1 August 2011; 29 (3): 366–367. doi: https://doi.org/10.1525/RH.2011.29.3.366 Download citation file: Ris (Zotero) Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All ContentRhetorica Search This content is only available via PDF. © 2011 by The International Society for the History of Rhetoric. All rights reserved.2011 Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

Other| May 01 2011 Addresses of Contributors to This Issue Rhetorica (2011) 29 (2): 229–231. https://doi.org/10.1525/RH.2011.29.2.229 Views Icon Views Article contents Figures & tables Video Audio Supplementary Data Peer Review Share Icon Share Twitter LinkedIn Tools Icon Tools Get Permissions Cite Icon Cite Search Site Citation Addresses of Contributors to This Issue. Rhetorica 1 May 2011; 29 (2): 229–231. doi: https://doi.org/10.1525/RH.2011.29.2.229 Download citation file: Ris (Zotero) Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All ContentRhetorica Search This content is only available via PDF. © 2011 by The International Society for the History of Rhetoric. All rights reserved.2011 Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

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

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

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

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

Other| November 01 2010 Addresses of Contributors to this issue Rhetorica (2010) 28 (4): 433. https://doi.org/10.1525/RH.2010.28.4.433 Views Icon Views Article contents Figures & tables Video Audio Supplementary Data Peer Review Share Icon Share Twitter LinkedIn Tools Icon Tools Get Permissions Cite Icon Cite Search Site Citation Addresses of Contributors to this issue. Rhetorica 1 November 2010; 28 (4): 433. doi: https://doi.org/10.1525/RH.2010.28.4.433 Download citation file: Ris (Zotero) Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All ContentRhetorica Search This content is only available via PDF. © 2010 by The International Society for the History of Rhetoric. All rights reserved.2010 Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

Other| August 01 2010 Addresses of Contributors to this issue Rhetorica (2010) 28 (3): 348–349. https://doi.org/10.1525/RH.2010.28.3.348 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 Addresses of Contributors to this issue. Rhetorica 1 August 2010; 28 (3): 348–349. doi: https://doi.org/10.1525/RH.2010.28.3.348 Download citation file: Ris (Zotero) Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All ContentRhetorica Search This content is only available via PDF. © 2010 by The International Society for the History of Rhetoric. All rights reserved.2010 Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

Other| May 01 2010 Addresses of Contributors to this issue Rhetorica (2010) 28 (2): 242–243. https://doi.org/10.1525/RH.2010.28.2.242 Views Icon Views Article contents Figures & tables Video Audio Supplementary Data Peer Review Share Icon Share Twitter LinkedIn Tools Icon Tools Get Permissions Cite Icon Cite Search Site Citation Addresses of Contributors to this issue. Rhetorica 1 May 2010; 28 (2): 242–243. doi: https://doi.org/10.1525/RH.2010.28.2.242 Download citation file: Ris (Zotero) Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All ContentRhetorica Search This content is only available via PDF. © 2010 by The International Society for the History of Rhetoric. All rights reserved.2010 Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

Other| February 01 2010 Addresses of Contributors to this Issue Rhetorica (2010) 28 (1): 117–118. https://doi.org/10.1525/RH.2010.28.1.117 Views Icon Views Article contents Figures & tables Video Audio Supplementary Data Peer Review Share Icon Share Twitter LinkedIn Tools Icon Tools Get Permissions Cite Icon Cite Search Site Citation Addresses of Contributors to this Issue. Rhetorica 1 February 2010; 28 (1): 117–118. doi: https://doi.org/10.1525/RH.2010.28.1.117 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. © 2010 by The International Society for the History of Rhetoric. All rights reserved.2010 Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

Other| November 01 2009 Addresses of Contributors to this issue Rhetorica (2009) 27 (4): 456. https://doi.org/10.1525/RH.2009.27.4.456 Views Icon Views Article contents Figures & tables Video Audio Supplementary Data Peer Review Share Icon Share Twitter LinkedIn Tools Icon Tools Get Permissions Cite Icon Cite Search Site Citation Addresses of Contributors to this issue. Rhetorica 1 November 2009; 27 (4): 456. doi: https://doi.org/10.1525/RH.2009.27.4.456 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. © 2009 by the Regents of the University of California2009 Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

Index| November 01 2009 Index to Volume 27 (2009) Rhetorica (2009) 27 (4): 452–453. https://doi.org/10.1525/RH.2009.27.4.452 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 Index to Volume 27 (2009). Rhetorica 1 November 2009; 27 (4): 452–453. doi: https://doi.org/10.1525/RH.2009.27.4.452 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. © 2009 by the Regents of the University of California2009 Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

Other| August 01 2009 Addresses of Contributors to this issue Rhetorica (2009) 27 (3): 370–371. https://doi.org/10.1525/RH.2009.27.3.370 Views Icon Views Article contents Figures & tables Video Audio Supplementary Data Peer Review Share Icon Share Twitter LinkedIn Tools Icon Tools Get Permissions Cite Icon Cite Search Site Citation Addresses of Contributors to this issue. Rhetorica 1 August 2009; 27 (3): 370–371. doi: https://doi.org/10.1525/RH.2009.27.3.370 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. © 2009 by the International Society for the History of Rhetoric2009 Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

Other| May 01 2009 Addresses of Contributors to this issue Rhetorica (2009) 27 (2): 235–236. https://doi.org/10.1525/rh.2009.27.2.235 Views Icon Views Article contents Figures & tables Video Audio Supplementary Data Peer Review Share Icon Share Twitter LinkedIn Tools Icon Tools Get Permissions Cite Icon Cite Search Site Citation Addresses of Contributors to this issue. Rhetorica 1 May 2009; 27 (2): 235–236. doi: https://doi.org/10.1525/rh.2009.27.2.235 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. © 2009 by the Regents of the University of California2009 Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

220 RHETORICA of the Hamberg Papyrus 128, reasserting Theophrastean authorship, though not without giving due consideration to the reservations of other scholars. Elisabetta Matelli, Teodette di Faselidi, Retore, looks at the surviving titles of the rhetorical work(s), which is made difficult by his close association with Aris­ totle. She concludes tentatively that those titles represent different phases of the same work, and adds, for good measure, that Theodectes regarded it as a parergon compared with the tragic dramas by which he wished to be remembered. Theodectes the tragedian assumes centre stage in the chap­ ter by Andrea Martano, Teodette di Faselide Poeta Tragico: Riflessioni Attorno At Fr. 6 Snell, in which the assumption that Euripides was the only signif­ icant influence on Fourth Century tragedy is questioned, and Agathon is set beside him as a possible source. Martano also discusses problems of the production of Theodectes' plays. Theodectes remains a shadowy figure, es­ pecially since there may have been two of them. Stephen White, Theophrastus and Callisthenes, is concerned with a lost tribute which Theophrastus paid to Alexander's historian. From its scanty remains he assesses the extent to which it embodies the standard topoi of eulogy identified bv Aristotle, which include comparison. In particular, he argues that the philosophical elements in the eulogy centred on the limits placed on a good person's eudainionia when he has to deal with someone who has enjoved an excess of it (in this case Alexander). David Konstan, The Emotion in Aristotle Rhetoric 2.7: Grati­ tude, Not Kindness, discusses the different interpretations of charis, and argues correctly that it is not an emotion but a disposition to do something specific, an act of kindness. His chapter also trawls through a wide sea of literature, and thereby performs the useful service of illustrating how difficult the word is to translate in all its occurrences. One can be sure that Bill Fortenbaugh has been gratified to be presented with these essays, which not only build on the work in which he has been closely involved, but both pursue and suggest new lines of research in rhetorical studies. Stephen Usher Royal Holloway, University of London Lucia Calboli Montefusco, ed., Declamation. Proceedings of the Se­ minars held at the Scuola Superiore di Studi Umanistici, Bologna (February-March, 2006), Papers on Rhetoric VIII. Roma: Herder, 2007, XVIII, 291. Il volume documenta gli incontri seminariali organizzati dalla scuola Superiore di Studi Umanistici a Bologna nel 2006 sul tema della declamazione . A Gualtiero Calboli va il grande merito di aver curato l'organizzazione scientifica del seminario interdottorale e di aver raccolto in volume i contributi degli studiosi che hanno caratterizzato la complessa identita cultu- Reviews 221 i dit? dell iniziatix a. Alio stesso Calboli si deve, oltre allarticolata prefazione che apie il \olume (pp. VÍI-XVII1), 1 intervento introduttivo agli incontri (La clamamom tin ntoina, dnitto, letteratura c lógica, pp. 29-56), che indaga sul rapporte tra declamazione e teoría retorica, diritto, letteratura e lógica. Come campo meiitevole di approfondimento viene individuata la sinergia ti a la declamazione, intesa come momento esempliticativo e applicativo, e la piecettistica teórica tissata nella tradizione mannalistica. In particolare, nel contribute date dalle declamazioni alio sviluppo e allapplicazione pratica di una sistemática dottrina degli status, Calboli individua la connessione con il diritto. Quanto al rapporte con la letteratura, oltre alla contiguïté temática tra la produzione declamatoria e la commedia attica, viene messo in rilievo il contribute lornito dall attixita declamatoria alla dottrina dei tropi e delle fi­ gure che trovavano nella liberta garantita dall'ambiente scolastico xxn'humus particularmente fertile. Alla polisemia della metafora rappresentata dal termine color in ám­ bito retorico e dedicate il saggio di Lucia Calboli Montefusco (La funzione strategica dei colores nella pratica declamatoria, pp. 157-79). Un'attenzione par­ ticolare viene riservata alia metafora in questione nelle controversie senecane e nella produzione declamatoria pseudoquintilianea, nonché in alcuni passi deWInstitutio oratoria. La scelta del color conferisce alia controversia le caratteristiche di un particolare status, secondo la versione ermagorea della dottrina e della tópica corrispondente. Un'errata interpretazione del color di Seneca risulta fondata su una presunta equivalenza con la μετάθεσις τής αίτιας quale...

Other| November 01 2008 Addresses of Contributors to this issue Rhetorica (2008) 26 (4): 458. https://doi.org/10.1525/rh.2008.26.4.458 Views Icon Views Article contents Figures & tables Video Audio Supplementary Data Peer Review Share Icon Share Twitter LinkedIn Tools Icon Tools Get Permissions Cite Icon Cite Search Site Citation Addresses of Contributors to this issue. Rhetorica 1 November 2008; 26 (4): 458. doi: https://doi.org/10.1525/rh.2008.26.4.458 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. ©© 2008 by the Regents of the University of California2008 Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

Index| November 01 2008 Index to Volume 26 (2008) Rhetorica (2008) 26 (4): 454–455. https://doi.org/10.1525/rh.2008.26.4.454 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 Index to Volume 26 (2008). Rhetorica 1 November 2008; 26 (4): 454–455. doi: https://doi.org/10.1525/rh.2008.26.4.454 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. © 2008 by the Regents of the University of California2008 Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.