Research Article| February 01 2008 Back Matter Rhetorica (2008) 26 (1): 96–C3. https://doi.org/10.1525/rh.2008.26.1.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 2008; 26 (1): 96–C3. doi: https://doi.org/10.1525/rh.2008.26.1.back 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.

Research Article| February 01 2008 Front Matter Rhetorica (2008) 26 (1): C2–iii. https://doi.org/10.1525/rh.2008.26.1.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 February 2008; 26 (1): C2–iii. doi: https://doi.org/10.1525/rh.2008.26.1.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. Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

Research Article| November 01 2007 Front Matter Rhetorica (2007) 25 (4): ii. https://doi.org/10.1525/rh.2007.25.4.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 2007; 25 (4): ii. doi: https://doi.org/10.1525/rh.2007.25.4.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. Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

Research Article| November 01 2007 Index to Volume 25 Rhetorica (2007) 25 (4): 451–454. https://doi.org/10.1525/rh.2007.25.4.index 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 25. Rhetorica 1 November 2007; 25 (4): 451–454. doi: https://doi.org/10.1525/rh.2007.25.4.index 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.

444 RHETORICA Linda Ferreira-Buckley and S. Michael Halloran, eds. Hugh Blair, Lectures on Rhetoric and Belles Lettres (Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 2005). In the "Editors' Introduction" to this new edition of Blair's Lectures on Rhetoric and Belles Lettres, Linda Ferreira-Buckley and S. Michael Halloran present an impressive overview of Blair's life, work, and legacy. They trace the publication, reception, and influence of the Lectures, providing partic­ ularly insightful discussion of the multitude of abridgements and derivative works that represented Blair's work to so many. They sketch Blair's early education and his university training, then lead readers through his life as a preacher, man of letters, and university lecturer. Finally, they assess Blair's place in the history of eighteenth-century rhetorical theory. The "Introduction" provides an authoritative survey of scholarship on some of the key issues related to Blair's work including Blair's influence on the teaching of writing in universities, on the emerging discipline of literary criticism, and on the continuing shift of the focus of rhetorical theory from oral declamation to written language (especially belles lettres). FerreiraBuckley and Halloran's extensive research in archival materials related to Blair's career and published work allows them to contribute new insights to all of these lines of inquiry. This reader found particularly interesting their reminder that Blair's Lectures not only informed later college curricula but also played a significant role in "schools, in literary societies and clubs, and in home study" (xxi). An annotated copy of the Lectures in St. Andrews University's rare book collection, for instance, provides evidence of the ways that individuals studied and used the Lectures, and I wanted to hear more about that body of evidence. Ferreira-Bucklev and Halloran end their Introduction with an innovative analysis of the curious fact that Blair "makes little mention of the works of any of the great visual artists who were his contemporaries" despite his "heavy reliance on visual metaphors and analogies" (xlvi-xlvii). Similarly, they note that Blair says nothing about contemporary music. Despite repeated references to the connections between poetry and music, Blair never acknowledges work by contemporaries such as Handel and Purcell, both of whom had set English poetry to music. While acknowledging that his inattention to contemporary art and music may simply reflect Blair's "pedagogical purpose," the editors argue that the larger significance of these lacunae may lie in the fact that "the printing press had long since created the conditions for a kind of sedentary cosmopolitanism in the textual realm" (xlviii). In short, Blair did not get out of Scotland much and " 'the age of mechanical reproduction' of visual and musical works would not arrive for another century," leaving his "experience, while rich in the literary arts,... impoverished with respect to other media" (xlviii). Through arguments like these, Ferreira-Buckley and Halloran's Introduction suggests new lines of inquiry into Blair's Lectures. Beyond the "Introduction," this volume consists mostly of an edition of the Lectures based on the 1785 London edition, which contained Blair's Reviews 445 corrections to the 1783 first edition. As a textual edition, the volume is something of a puzzle. To he sure, the text seems trustworthy with regard to what textual editors traditionally termed "substantives"—the words of the chosen copy text—but some of the editorial decisions, and the lack of textual apparatus, leave the goals of the edition unclear. The main goal of the volume is to bring the 1785 edition of Blair's Lectures back into print (it was last published in facsimile by Garland in 1970, five years after Southern Illinois University Press published a facsimile of the 1783 edition). While the 1785 edition is no longer in print, the entire text is currently available online (in a searchable facsimile edition) through Gale's Eighteenth-Centun/ Collections Online. (This new edition is also searchable online via Google Book Search, though one can read only a limited number of sample pages on that site.) The editors argue further that to "truly understand Blair's influence, scholars must begin to study differences among editions and abridgments, because what readers took away from Blair's Lectures...

Reviews 439 Those are a few additions to the documentation of Renaissance rhetoric, in the spirit of the open-minded exchange of knowledge which has distin­ guished all of Professor Plett's work. This is not his best book, but it is one which ev ery serious rhetoric library should have, and one from which few readers will fail to profit. Brian Vickers Andrew W. Robertson, The Language ofDemocracy: Political Rhetoric in the United States and Britain, 1790-7900 (Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 2005) xix 4- 264 pp. This is a reissue in paperback, with a new Preface, of a book originally published by Cornell Univ ersity Press in 1995. Readers who missed it the first time around hav e another opportunity to consider an interesting and well-reasoned argument that has significant implications for the history of 19th century British and American rhetoric. Robertson is concerned with political rhetoric, which he further restricts to campaign discourse, largely as reported in newspapers. This is a narrow, reductionist view of the subject that may limit the generalizability of his findings, but it does not damage his argument on its own terms. He examines how political culture evolved in Britain and the United States during the 19th century (between 1790 and 1900). The overall answer is that the audience for politics widened and political discourse became more vernacular. It shifted from a laudatory discourse deferring to men of distinguished character, to a hortatory discourse seeking support for specific policies. It appealed less to an elite audience and more to a popular audience. These changes effectively dissolved the boundary between deliberative and epideictic. Having identified this important change, Robertson seeks to account for it. He finds a significant relationship between newspaper coverage and political practice. Specifically, the evolution of printing technology and the institution of advertising made it possible to sell low-cost newspapers to a large audience. This capacity, in turn, influenced trends in newspaper content. And an emerging understanding of what would satisfy a mass audience affected the practice of politicians. Their talk became focused more on policy and less on character, more on demands for specific outcomes and less on deference to men of exceptional judgment. It became more tense, more intense, more partisan, and more competitive. In 1790 the 18th century norms of genteel discourse were still dominant; by 1900 the basis of 20th century politics had been established. Interestingly, however, this change came later in Britain than in the United States. There was a gradual shift in what the term "the people" was understood to mean. Originally it referred to the educated elite who were 440 RHETORICA assumed to be in agreement with political leaders; gradually it came to designate a larger, more heterogeneous public among whom disagreement was likely and whose support must be won and not assumed. The American political audience had enlarged and considerably democratized by the 1820s, when Andrew Jackson claimed to embody the public will. Not because of his noble character but because of his platform, was he deserving of public support. In contrast, the British debates on reform during the late 1820s and early 1830s took place without an expanded press or public. They were much less populist in character. Yet by mid-century, British editorial writers fused discussion of leaders and their policies, as in the United States. Robertson credits the transplanted American editor William Cobbett with instigating the use of hortatory rhetoric in Britain. While it might seem that evolutions in discourse reflected merely the impersonal forces of economics and technology, Robertson believes that they were solidified by the rhetorical prowess of Abraham Lincoln in the United States and William Ewart Gladstone in Britain. What both men had in common, he argues, was the ability to deliver to an immediate, elite audience a speech that was also (and perhaps primarily) intended to be read by a large and anonymous national audience. In overhearing messages and easily imagining themselves among the audience, the citizenrv became accustomed to thinking that political discourse really was intended for them. From that point, the distinction between politics and entertainment broke down. The emergence of the popular political cartoon in the 1870s is evidence of...

Research Article| August 01 2007 Back Matter Rhetorica (2007) 25 (3): 336–337. https://doi.org/10.1525/rh.2007.25.3.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 2007; 25 (3): 336–337. doi: https://doi.org/10.1525/rh.2007.25.3.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 Rhetoric2007 Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

Research Article| August 01 2007 Front Matter Rhetorica (2007) 25 (3): ii. https://doi.org/10.1525/rh.2007.25.3.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 August 2007; 25 (3): ii. doi: https://doi.org/10.1525/rh.2007.25.3.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. © The International Society for the History of Rhetoric2007 Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

332 RHETORICA Darstellung der Entwicklung des Genres Stâdtebeschreibung bzw. Stâdtelob von der Antike bis in Guicciardinis Zeit. Guicciardinis im Titel der Arbeit genanntes Werk (Descrittione di tutti i Paesi Bassi altrimenti detti Germania inferiore, 1567) wird nicht besprochen; wichtigstes Ergebnis für die Forschung zu dieser Schrift dürfte eine gegen Ende gemachte Feststellung des Autors sein: "No feature which one meets within Guicciardini's Descrittione seems to be without precedent." (S.355, Anm.69) Ein hilfreiches Register (S. 356-373) und ein Nachweis der Erstpublikationen der Beitrâge (S.374) beschliefien den Band. Wer ihn zur Gànze oder auch nur in Ausschnitten liest, wird dem Autor Bewunderung für die Breite seiner Interessen, seine Kenntnis der Primàr- und Sekundàrliteratur und die Detailgenauigkeit seiner Analysen nicht versagen. Dabei kônnte man sich auf Melanchthon berufen, welcher in seiner Rhetorik in einem Abschnitt über das Kommentieren sagt: "[...] qui eo est vel usu vel ingenio, ut in auctoribus videre possit, quur hoc loco, quur sic singula tractentur, ilium vehementer probandum censeo." Auch diese Passage ist Classens Analyse natürlich nicht entgangen (vgl. S.264). Johannes Gôbel Universitat Tubingen Lindal Buchanan, Regendering Delivery: The Fifth Canon and Ante­ bellum Women Rhetors. Studies in Rhetorics and Feminisms Series. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 2005. 202 pp. With the publication of Lindal Buchanan's Regendering Delivery, South­ ern Illinois University Press's Studies in Rhetorics and Feminisms series has become the national leader in book-length studies of gender and rhetorical performance. While only the seventh in the series, Regendering Delivery is the fourth to deal with this subject (the others are Nan Johnson's Gender and Rhetorical Space in American Life, 1866-1910, Carol Mattingly's Appropriate [ing] Dress: Women's Rhetorical Style in Nineteenth-Century America, and Roxanne Mountford's The Gendered Pulpit: Preaching in American Protestant Spaces'). Building on these works, Buchanan adds to our understanding of antebellum women's opportunities and strategies for speaking in public, par­ ticularly in three areas: elocutionary instruction for girls in public schools, public speaking occasions for young women in private colleges, and delivery styles of antebellum women activists. A central claim of Regendering Delivery is that throughout history, Amer­ ican women have had far greater access to elocutionary instruction than has been commonly thought. In Chapter 1, "Readers and Rhetors: School­ girls' Formal Elocutionary Instruction," Buchanan offers evidence that in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, girls as well as boys were taught elocu­ tion as part of their reading curriculum. Eighteenth-centurv readers such as Reviews 333 Noah Webster s popular American Selection ofLessons in Rending and Speaking included elocutionary instruction (both actio and pronuntiatio) and sample debates and declamations for practice. Textbooks acknowledged schoolgirls as an audience (e.g., through instructions on conduct), making clear that reading and elocution were first thought to be gender-neutral subjects. As Buchanan s analysis shows, it was not until the nineteenth century that sep­ arate readers for girls and hoys were published, with selections from oratory omitted in some hooks for girls. Nevertheless, pronuntiatio continued to be taught, and girls participated in school-sponsored exhibitions in which they spoke before audiences, as Buchanan richly illustrates in Chapter 2. Chapter 2, "Practicing Delivery: Young Ladies on the Academic Plat­ form, ' offers a decisive response to Robert J. Connors's controversial claim that co-education was responsible for the demise of oratory in nineteenthcentury colleges and universities. Buchanan agrees with Connors that there were some changes to the curriculum in the nineteenth century, but disagrees with the reasons Connors offers. Young women spoke before public audi­ ences at school-sponsored events for fifty years prior to 1830, and throughout the nineteenth century women admitted to co-educational institutions such as Oberlin fought for the opportunity to speak in public, sometimes form­ ing their own clubs to practice in private. Weaving together a history from biographies of such famous Oberlin graduates as the Reverend Antoinette Brown, Buchanan establishes that co-education provided women hard won opportunities to develop their oratorical skills, which they later exploited in the fight for women's rights. Chapter 2 includes many interesting glimpses into the compromises forced upon college...

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.

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...

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.

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.

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.

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...

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...

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.

Research Article| August 01 2006 Front Matter Rhetorica (2006) 24 (3): iv. https://doi.org/10.1525/rh.2006.24.3.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 August 2006; 24 (3): iv. doi: https://doi.org/10.1525/rh.2006.24.3.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. Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

Research Article| May 01 2006 Front Matter Rhetorica (2006) 24 (2): ii–iv. https://doi.org/10.1525/rh.2006.24.2.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 2006; 24 (2): ii–iv. doi: https://doi.org/10.1525/rh.2006.24.2.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. Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

Research Article| May 01 2006 Back Matter Rhetorica (2006) 24 (2): 233. https://doi.org/10.1525/rh.2006.24.2.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 2006; 24 (2): 233. doi: https://doi.org/10.1525/rh.2006.24.2.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.

Abstract The overview of Sophistic proposed by Philostratus in the introduction to the Lives of the Sophists creates a serious problem of interpretation. The system of two Sophistics: Old Sophistic and Second Sophistic as the author of the Lives defines them, appears to involve weaknesses and contradictions which bring into question the credibility of Philostratus. One might therefore believe that the Philostratean sysem of two Sophistics, through its apparent incoherence, in no way clarifies the question of the definition of a sophist. This article proposes, in contrast, to make visible the conception of Sophistic that hides behind the opposition between Old Sophistic and Second Sophistic, by analysing the introduction and the preface of the Lives of the Sophists.

Research Article| February 01 2006 Front Matter Rhetorica (2006) 24 (1): iv. https://doi.org/10.1525/rh.2006.24.1.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 2006; 24 (1): iv. doi: https://doi.org/10.1525/rh.2006.24.1.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. Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

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

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

Reviews 209 The final contributions (Patrick Brasart, Maïté Bouyssy, Anne Vibert) take the self-same problems a little further on in history. Brasart attends to what Mme. de Staël, who placed political eloquence very high, saw as the "missed opportunity for a meeting between eloquence and the Revolution." What should have been simplicity and nobility became alas! the exact opposite of grandeur, being fated to illustrate that horrible paradox of a Republican language which had no intrinsic literary merit but which was nonetheless to become horribly effective: words (as Michelet was later to repeat) were no longer signs but signals. Bouyssy, exploiting the vast manuscript archive of the Anacréon de la guillotine (who was to be savaged by the historiography of the nineteenth century in general), shows how Bertrand Barère, reduced to silence, continued (with his impossiblefuite dans l'encre) to write incessantly with an eye to a posterity that one day (in a fortunate conjunction of text and reader) might be disposed to understand. Vibert brings the collection to a close with a panoramic, chronological overview of the fortunes (or misfortunes) of revolutionary eloquence in the nineteenth century as it struggled to free itself from the "contaminations" of the past. This engrossing volume, which will surely establish itself in the general bibliography of Revolutionary rhetoric, is remarkable for the consistently high quality of its scholarship and (with one or two exceptions) for the general legibility of its discourses. In an even more important sense, it is an état présent of this area of the discipline and serves to remind the reader that certain problèmes ponctuels need to be re-addressed, while others (identified by Françoise Douay and Jean-Paul Sermain in their lengthy preface) remain to receive that attention which is their due. I cannot recommend this collection highly enough to both specialist and non-specialist alike: both will read it with considerable profit. John Renwick University of Edinburgh Lucia Calboli Montefusco, ed., Papers on Rhetoric, vol. 4. Roma: Her­ der, 2002. Pp. viii + 286 Sous le titre Papers on Rhetorics IV, L. Calboli Montefusco recueille et pu­ blie certaines des communications présentées au congrès de l'International Society for the History of Rhetoric à Varsovie en juillet 2001. L'ouvrage comprend des articles stimulants en anglais, français, italien et allemand, témoignant ainsi de l'intérêt international que suscite l'étude de la rhéto­ rique. Les contributions, toutes suivies d'une bibliographie parfaitement à jour; couvrent un vaste laps de temps et concernent différents aspects de la rhétorique grecque et latine. Un classement chronologique des textes aurait peut-être facilité la lecture du volume. 210 RHETORICA Dans l'article intitulé "Aper's oratory in the Dialogus de oratoribus" (pp. 1-23), G. Calboli maintient que les trois interlocuteurs du dialogue expriment trois niveaux complémentaires de l'interprétation que donne Tacite de la rhétorique de son temps: la rhétorique comme moyen pour accéder à un statut social élevé (Aper), l'aspect moral de la rhétorique et la supériorité des orateurs anciens (Messala), l'explication sociale et historique du déclin actuel de la rhétorique (Maternus). Traitant de “Dionisio a Corinto: laconicità e serio-comico" (pp. 25-39), M. S. Celentano discute les caractéristiques de la parole des Lacédémoniens: l'approche communicative agressive, la concision et la condensation, le discours sentencieux mais toujours vigoureux et efficace. La tension agonistique et l'agressivité du discours laconique conçu en tant que confrontation directe des interlocuteurs se manifestent aussi dans le domaine du sérieux-comique (spoudogeloion), les Lacédémoniens apparaissant capables d'exprimer des contenus sérieux à travers une forme comique et de formuler des phrases ironiques et piquantes, sans jamais en devenir les victimes. A propos de "Lysias démagogue dans le Contre Eratosthène “ (pp· 4159 ), P. Chiron montre comment Lysias, afin de parvenir à la condamnation d'Eratosthène, recourt à la déformation historique, notamment quand il présente les Trente comme un groupe homogène radicalement extérieur à la communauté démocratique et quand il utilise l'antithèse de façon à éliminer...

This article proposes that we add to the small number of Renaissance works on the art of creating or using facetiae an almost unknown De arte iocandi by an almost unknown Mattheus Delius, who died young. The work is a poem in four books, in Ovidian elegiac couplets, obviously inspired by the De arte bibendi of Vincentius Obsopoeus; both works have been assumed to be paradoxical encomia but are in fact serious albeit playful compendia of rules. Delius is interested not in the rhetorical use of jokes as weapons, but in something very close to Erasmus’s festivitas. The preface by Melanchthon almost qualifies as an independent art of joking, and together they add valuable information to our knowledge of Reformation wit.

Nicolaus Caussin’s Eloquentia sacrae et humaneae parellela (1619) forges a distinctly modern history of rhetoric that ties discourse to culture. What were the conditions that made this new history of rhetoric possible? Marc Fumaroli has argued that political exigency in Cardinal Richelieu’s France demanded a reconciliation of divergent religious and secular forms of eloquence that implicated, in turn, a newly “eclectic” history of rhetoric. But political exigency alone does not account for this nascent pluralism; we also need to look at the internal dynamics of rhetorical theory as it moved across literate cultures in Europe. With this goal in mind, I first demonstrate in this article how textbooks after the heady days of Protestant Reformation in Germany tried in vain to systematize the passions of art, friendship, and politics. Partially in response to this failure, I then argue, there emerged in France a new rhetoric sensitive to the historical contingency of passionate situations. My claim is not simply that rhetoric is bound to be temporal and situational, but more precisely that Caussin initiates historical rhetorics: the capacity to theorize how discourse is bound to culture in its plurality and historical contingency.

Reviews 301 tions, and its clear articulation of the antifoundationalist position, will make this book a valuable resource for scholars and students alike. Bruce McComiskey The University ofAlabama at Birmingham Bruce McComiskey, Gorgias and the New Sophistic Rhetoric, (Carbon­ dale:, Southern Illinois University Press, 2002), xiii + 156 pp. Contributing to the conversation about rereading/rewriting the his­ tory of rhetoric, Bruce McComiskey's Gorgias and the New Sophistic Rhetoric clearly summarizes the raging and wide-ranging debates regarding the use value of revisiting the Sophists; compellingly argues for a historiographical methodology, which he terms "neosophistic appropriation"; re-reads Gor­ gias on his own terms, rather than Plato's; and, finally, attempts to realize his own methodology by rethinking Gorgias's (potential) contribution to "contemporary pedagogical and political ends" (p. 1). Recapping the seminal arguments of the past several decades regarding scholarly attempts to redeem the Sophists from their Platonic condemna­ tion and to reclaim their practices and theories, McComiskey's summary will surely find an appropriate home in graduate seminars on the history of rhetoric. Working with and against Edward Schiappa's criticism of particu­ lar neosophistic research (but curiously neglecting John Poulakos's response to same), McComiskey offers "neosophistic appropriation" as a corrective to Schiappa's (via Richard Rorty) methodological taxonomy of "histori­ cal reconstruction" and "rational reconstruction." Although McComiskey agrees with Schiappa that we "must maintain a clear distinction between the goals and methods of historical scholarship that interprets ancient doc­ trines and 'neo'historical scholarship that appropriates ancient doctrines for contemporary purposes" (p. 8), he argues, in contrast, that "neosophistic appropriation" is methodologically distinct from rational reconstructive ap­ proaches insofar as "neosophistic appropriation" writers "search the past for contributions to modern theoretical problems and problematics" (p. 10). "Although," McComiskey further argues, "all neosophists engage in the critical act of appropriation, not all neosophists appropriate ancient doctrines in the same way" (p. 11). Identifying three different approaches, McComiskey ultimately values and identifies with the third. The first approach "appropriate [s] Plato's characterization...either valuing Plato's misrepresentations or disparaging them" (p. 11). The second approach "put[s] aside Plato's mis­ representations of sophistic doctrines, appropriating doctrines instead from actual sophistic texts and historical interpretations of them in order to find common threads among the 'older sophists' and contemporary composition and rhetorical theorists" (p. 11). And the third approach, although similar to the second in purpose, attempts to "understand the unique contributions 302 RHETORICA of individual sophists...to contemporary rhetorical theory and composition, (p. 11, emphasis added). Claiming that the "more specific the appropria­ tion, the stronger the resulting neosophistic rhetoric," McComiskey turns his attention to a reappropriation of the Sophist Gorgias. Part One of Gorgias and the New Sophistic Rhetoric provides a provoca­ tive rereading of Gorgias's On Non-Existence, the Encomium ofHelen, and the Defense of Palamedes, arguing that, read together, they constitute a "holis­ tic statement about communal and ethical uses of logos, a statement that runs counter to Plato's (mis)representation of it in his dialogue the Gor­ gias" (p. 12). Chapter 1, then, argues compellingly that Plato misrepresents Gorgias's theory of rhetoric as foundational, specifically as based on a foun­ dational epistemology. For example, as McComiskey points out, Gorgias, in the Palemedes, uses a form of the Greek eido to express the concept of knowl­ edge, which "implies an understanding that is derived empirically from a situation"; whereas Plato's use of episteme "implies an understanding that exists prior to any given situation in which it might be applied" (pp. 24-5). Hence, McComiskey's rereading of the specific Sophist, Gorgias, and the specific sophistic text, exemplifies a "strong," neosophistic approach. This rereading allows us to see how Plato's misappropriation of Gorgias serves to make "Gorgias's rhetorical method based on kairos, or the right moment, seem absurd" (p. 12). McComiskey's similar approaches to the Helen and the Palemedes "provide the epistemological, rather than foundational, grounding for a nascent theory of rhetoric, complete with its negative and positive uses" (p. 12). That is, we, appropriating Gorgias, do not need an epistemological foundation to practice rhetoric. We can read/reappropriate, he argues, the Helen to see where rhetoric...

Reviews 101 Brian Vickers ed., English Renaissance Literary Criticism (Oxford: Clarendon, 1999) xvi + 655pp. Brian Vickers's anthology collects modern spelling selections from the most important critical statements in English between Sir Thomas Elyot's Boke named the Governonr (1531) and Thomas Hobbes's 1675 preface to his translation of Homer's Odyssey. Dryden's critical prose, much of it published before 1675, is justifiably treated as beyond the scope of a renaissance anthology. The dominant figures are Sir Thomas Wilson, George Puttenham, Sir Philip Sidney, whose Defence ofPoetry is included complete, John Hoskyns, Thomas Heywood and Ben Jonson. In comparison to the two volumes of G. Gregory Smith's Elizabethan Critical Essays (1904), which it replaces, Vickers's book includes more poetry (notably Baldwin's "Collingbourne", from the Mirrorfor Magistrates, Spenser's "October" from The Shepheardes Calendar, a scene attributed to Shakespeare in which Lodowick and Edward III discuss the writing of love poetry, and John Ford's "Elegy on John Fletcher", here printed for the first time) and more rhetoric. Vickers gives less space to Gabriel Harvey and Thomas Campion and omits Thomas Lodge, William Webbe and Thomas Nashe. Vickers's introduction insists that since literature was a form of rhetoric, English renaissance literary criticism was largely prescriptive, aiming to provide the kind of help which would be useful to writers (pp. 1-6). This enables him to put rhetoric at the centre of renaissance literary criticism and justifies his extensive selections from Wilson, Puttenham and Hoskyns (the latter two particularly illustrating the figures of speech). Vickers's excellent notes show the reliance of these English rhetorics on classical sources and also on Susenbrotus's continental Latin compilation Epitome troporum ac schematorum. He might have pointed out that both Wilson's rhetoric and Angel Day's account of the figures (15 editions between them) offer a wider diffusion for the "Englished Susenbrotus" than Puttenham, whose Arte of English Poesie, was printed only once. Vickers quotes Jonson and Wilson on the importance of ethics for lit­ erature (pp. 12-13) which he links with the fashion for epideictic (excellently illustrated among the texts he includes). Perhaps Vickers ought to acknowl­ edge that the ethical teaching of the Arcadia, whose heroes have faults which run from deceit to intended rape (and against whose impulses humanist ethical education is strikingly ineffectual), is more problematic than can be summed up as a concern to embody fully-realized images of virtue and vice (p. 13). Vickers notes the way rhetoricians took examples of the figures and tropes from Arcadia, giving examples from Puttenham and Hoskyns. He had no space for Abraham Fraunce or for Fulke Greville's ethical reading ofArca­ dia. Given his rhetorical focus, Vickers might have said more about copia and amplification, or perhaps have found space for some of the English examples of dialectical analyses of texts. Part of William Temple's analysis of Sidney's Defence would have suited his selection well. On the other hand the argu­ ment that Erasmus's encomium on marriage is the source for Shakespeare's first seventeen sonnets (pp. 32-39), which justifies the inclusion of Wilson's 102 RHETORICA translation of that declamation (pp. 93-115) is not wholly convincing. The bibliography of secondary literature (pp. 627-28) needs to be extended in a revised edition. But such cavilling is hardly to the point. Vickers's introduction is lucid, wide-ranging and masterly. His notes are superb and properly acknowledge the contributions of earlier scholars. His selection of texts is enterprising, including much that is new, as well as a judicious choice of the best that is well-known. He provides a helpful glossary and user-friendly indexes to the material. This book is as useful as Russell and Winterbottom's famous selection of Ancient Literary Criticism and when it appears in paperback teachers and students of renaissance literature will find it indispensable. Peter Mack University of Warwick Manuel López Muñoz, Fray Luis de Granada y la retórica (Almería: Universidad de Almería, 2000) 222pp. Este libro es sin duda una rigurosa y documentada monografía so­ bre la aportación de Fray Luis de Granada a la...

Reviews Thomas A. Szlezak, Reading Plato, trans. Graham Zanker (New York: Routledge, 1999), xii + 137 pp. This short book will be interesting to all readers of Plato and all those who have pondered the relationship of oral and written discourse. It consists of twenty-seven short sections (2-6 pages each) the totality of which makes the following argument: Plato's philosophy can best be understood when read in the light of his critique of writing in the Phaedrus. According to Szlezak, nineteenth and twentieth-century readers have misunderstood and misinterpreted Plato's dialogues. This is so, he explains, because they have paid insufficient attention to Plato's critical comments on writing, because they have tended "to align the great thinkers of the past with the attitudes of [their] own times" (p. Ill), and because thy have confused Plato's esotericism, which is directed to a cause, with the notion of secrecy, which is directed to power (p. 115). Szlezak observes that starting with Schleiermacher "the modern devo­ tees of the god Theuth" (p. 41) have missed the intent of Plato's critique of writing. Consequently, they have supplemented the text of the Phaedrus in in­ admissible ways. Their graphocentric orientation and anachronistic readings have kept them from seeing Plato's repeated point that written philosophy itself can only go so far; to go further, it needs support, the kind that only the dialectician's oral logos can provide. Szlezak applies Plato's critique of writing to most Platonic dialogues, and shows that most of the recent interpretations have little, if any, merit. This is so, he argues, because the internal evidence of several dialogues points not to what is written but to what remains to be spoken about the texts at hand. Rather than read each dialogue separately, Szlezak reads across several dialogues, and identifies seven structural features they all share: 1) they typically depict conversations, with only occasional monologues within the conversational framework; 2) the conversations are place- and time-bound, happen between true-to-life participants most of whom are historically verifi­ able; 3) they all have a discussion leader, generally Socrates; 4) the discussion leader converses with one partner at a time, and in some cases he replaces the real partner with an imaginary one; 5) the discussion leader answers all objections, introduces all elements helpful to the conversation, refutes all other participants but is never himself refuted; 6) the conversation is raised to a higher level in the course of warding off an attack; and 7) none of the© The International Society for the History of Rhetoric, Rhetorica, Volume XIX, Number 3 (Summer 2001). Send requests for permission to reprint to: Rights and Permissions, University of California Press, Journals Division, 2000 Center St, Ste 303, Berkeley, CA 94704-1223, USA 341 342 RHETORICA dialogues comes to a definite conclusion, they all point to the need for further investigation and reflection, and they all have one or more "deliberate gaps" (pp. 18-19; 103-108). Szlezak does not argue for the general superiority of oral discourse over its written counterpart. Rather, he shows that oral discourse has a higher status but only for those capable of playing the role of a philosopher, more specifically a dialectician in the Platonic tradition. To play such a role requires that one identify significant topics for discussion (it is simply not the case that any one topic is as good as any other), expedite the discussion through poignant questions, refute objections, and defend doctrines committed to writing. Effectively, a Platonic dialectician possesses something of higher value (ta timiotera) than his philosophical writings (p. 49). This something consists of doctrines whose articulation happens orally and whose function is to support, defend, or extend written doctrines. Reading Plato is a good piece of scholarship, it guides the reader through Plato's dialogues carefully and thoughtfully. And it raises questions that expose the limitations of the disciples of Derridolatry. At the same time, however, it brings attention to several theoretical issues that Szlezak does not address. For example, how is a contemporary reader to "adapt himself to the perspective of the author, against all kinds of prejudices and resistance which are specific to...

344 RHETORICA in which he worked out his dramatistic poetics" (p. 105). As a set, the four chapters of Part One are the strongest of the collection in their consistent presentation and elaboration of Burke's later concept of aesthetics. Part Two collects three essays that consider Burke's work in the context of reader-response criticism, critical theory, and philosophy. Greig Hender­ son's "A Rhetoric of Form: The Early Burke and Reader-Response Criticism" considers Burke's concept of the formal relation between texts and audi­ ence expectations in the light of Wolfgang Iser's and Stanley Fish's readerresponse theories. Thomas Carmichael's "Screening Symbolicity: Kenneth Burke and Contemporary Theory" similarly examines Burke's theories in comparison with contemporary critical theory, suggesting ways in which Burke prefigured theorists like deMan and Lyotard vis a vis dramatism's antifoundationalist principles. Finally, Robert Wess's essay "Pentadic Terms and Master Tropes" examines A Grammar ofMotives's concluding chapter, "Four Master Tropes", in terms of its philosophical implications for dramatism. Part Three returns to more biographical material, but with the added emphasis of Burke's relation to religion. Wayne C. Booth's retrospective ac­ count of his correspondence with Burke emphasizes prominent religious undertones in the numerous "voices" Burke's letters often assumed. Burke's essay "Sensation, Memory, Imitation/and Story" represents Burke's strug­ gles towards the completion of the dramatistic model and, furthermore, is indicative of the religious undertones in Burke's theories. The final essay is Michael Feehan's discussion of Mary Baker Eddy, a prominent Christian Scientist, and her influence on Burke's Permanence and Change. Like Kenneth Burke in Greenwich Village, the editors of Unending Con­ versations see their collection as invoking and pluralizing "Burke's topos of the conversation" in contexts previously unvisited by Burke scholarship. As early attempts at expanding the range of application of dramatism, both texts offer useful and engaging starting points for further research. Paulo Campos The Ohio State University Peter L. Oesterreich and Thomas O. Sloane eds, Rhetorica Movet. Studies in Historical and Modern Rhetoric in Honour of Heinrich F. Plett (Leiden: Brill, 1999), pp. 545. After yielding so many scholars the chance to discuss rhetoric, Prof. Plett s dedication to the subject is gracefully acknowledged in this collection of essays, published on the occasion of his sixtieth birthday. In institutional terms his work has benefited all readers of Rhetorica: he was one of the founders of the ISHR in 1977 and served as its first Secretary General; he established the Centre for Rhetoric and Renaissance Studies at the Universitv Reviews 345 of Essen in 1989, and is an associate editor of this journal. In his own writing, such as the much-cited Rhetorik der Affekte, in the words of Thomas O. Sloane he "has welded a strong link between literary criticism and insights from the history of rhetoric". Written in English and German, Rhetorica Movet engages with the sub­ jects of three international conferences Prof. Plett organized at Essen: twothirds of it studies early modern rhetoric and poetics, with a subsidiary section on modern oratory. Some of the former contributions guide a rhetor­ ical technique smartly through an exercise programme, readying it at its classical antecedents then watching it bend and twist in a period's usage. Bernhard F. Scholz distinguishes Quintilian's view of ekphrasis as a report on the effect that a scene (not a work of art) has on the speaker's inner eye, such that the listener seems to see it too. Andrea and Peter Oesterreich examine Luther's comments on the relationship between rhetoric and dialectic. For Luther, dialectic produced faith while hope was aroused by rhetoric. Two authors take up Shakespeare's rhetoric: Wolfgang G. Muller, on the comic and persuasive uses of the enthymeme, and Peter Mack, on variants of antithesis which connect opposites structuring the last scene of The Winter's Tale. Two stylistic essays use frequency analysis on Dryden's versification (Hermann Bluhme) and mirroring structures in Spanish golden age verse (Jose Antonio Mayoral). Heiner Peters describes Sterne's explo­ ration of analogies between rhetoric and the art of fortification in Tristram Shandy. Other essays defend rhetoric. Judith Rice...

Reviews 271 Tersite (p. 251): L. Spina analyse, dans le cadre des rapports entre l'orateur et le contenu de son discours, condamnations et réhabilitations de Thersite (Iliade, II, 211-277), de Libanios à La Stampa. Dans La testimonianza diAtanasio sul Péri hupokriseôs di Teofrasto (177,368 Rabe = 712 FHS & G) (p. 271), M. Vallozza examine un texte d'Athanasios dans les Prolégomènes au Péri staseôn d'Hermogène comme témoignage sur le Péri hupokriseôs de Théophraste et justifie la correction par Rabe de ton tonon tes psukhês en ton tonon tês phones. On se réjouit que chaque article soit accompagné d'une bibliographie judicieusement sélective et parfaitement à jour. Cela contribue à faire de ce livre une mise au point sur la recherche dans le champ de a rhétorique et une invitation à s'engager sur les pistes tracées, qu'il s'agisse d'auteurs, de thèmes ou d'approches nouvelles. Michel Nouhaud Université de Limoges Michel Patillon, Hermogène, l'Art rhétorique. Traduction française inté­ grale, traduction et notes, Préface de Pierre Laurens (Paris, L'Age d'homme, 1997), 640pp. In his Lives of the Sophists Philostratos tells of the rise and fall of the adolescent prodigy Hermogenes (577K). By the age of fifteen his reputation was such that Marcus Aurelius came to hear him declaim and left amazed by his talent for improvisation. But, says Philostratos, his powers suddenly and inexplicably deserted him, leaving him to live out the rest of his life in obscurity, far from the glittering prizes of the sophistic performance circuit. The rhetorical textbooks attributed to him, however, became the standard rhetorical curriculum throughout the Byzantine middle ages, before being introduced to Reniassance Europe through the work of Greek émigrés like George of Trebizond. Only two of the treatises, On Issues (Peri Staseôn) and On Types of Style (Peri Ideon Logou) are now accepted as second-century works, the others having been added in the 5th or 6th century. But the corpus as edited by Rabe and as translated here in its entirety for the first time, does show us the full range of the rhetorical curriculum of the later Empire. Starting from Progymnasmata, the collection progresses to the complexities of stasis theory — the systematic analysis of the types of question arising in declamation — in On Issues. The treatises Peri Heureseôs (On Invention) and On Types of Style treat the art of composing a speech, and the choice of style. Finally, the curious treatise on the method of "forcefulness (or simply skillfulness as in Patillon's choice of the French term "habileté"), Peri methodou deinotêtos, provides a collection of advice on a variety of problems likely to face the declaimer such as "how to praise oneself". 272 RHETORICA The two treatises generally accepted as works of Hermogenes have been translated separately into English (On Types of Style by C. Wooten, On Issues notably by M. Heath) and into Russian. But, with the exception of the Progymnasmata, the others have never before been available in a modern language, nor has the corpus been accessible as a whole. Patillon's elegant and clear translation is accompanied by copious notes elucidating the mean­ ing of Greek terms, unpacking the unspoken assumptions about language and communication which inform the texts, opening up questions which the rhetoricians themselves took for granted. He also pinpoints the relevant passages of the Late Antique and Byzantine treatises and commentaries preserved in the largely uncharted waters of Walz's Rhetores Graeci. The sub­ stantial introduction (over 100 pages) provides a concise characterisation of the literary and rhetorical culture from which the Hermogenean corpus emerged, discussion of questions of authorship, and an invaluable overview of each of the constituent parts of the corpus. A preface by Pierre Laurens traces the reception of the corpus, particularly the treatise On Types of Style, in the Renaissance and Early Modern periods. The bibliography and indices are full and extremely useful (though the index of Greek words does not always give every occurrence of a term). The publication date did not allow for the inclusion of Patillon's...

Written over a twenty-five year period and presented as a “series of Essays” rather than a single sustained argument, the Philosophy of Rhetoric is characterized by a technical vocabulary that shifts in meaning as the work progresses. This essay focuses on the instability of “resemblance”, which has four distinct meanings in the Philosophy of Rhetoric, some deriving from the long tradition of ut pictura poesis and others from Hume’s epistemology. The analysis of “resemblance” has implications for our understanding of rhetorical vivacity and for the meaning of Book III. Attention to this key term enriches our appreciation for Campbell’s text as an attempt to weave into a single theory the varied threads of the eighteenth-century’s analysis of response to language.

Reviews 349 different levels of spiritual understanding may be debatable. Given the likelihood that an open text can serve to stimulate reflection on all these levels, too precise an attempt at political closure may be counterproductive. Sybil M. Jack University of Sydney Christine Mason Sutherland and Rebecca Sutcliffe eds, The Changing Tradition: Women in the History of Rhetoric (Calgary: University of Calgary Press, 1999), vii + 279 pp. This new collection brings back the excitement of the 1997 Saskatchewan conference of the International Society for the History of Rhetoric, where its essays were delivered. There scholars of women's issues from such countries as Canada, France, the Netherlands, Romania, Australia, England, and the U.S. sized up others' perspectives, questioned assumptions, and pushed for clarity, but came away assured of women's place in a field that has notoriously excluded them. Restive fractiousness was not much evident in discussions about women, like the productive dissension arising for instance at the first Rhetorics and Feminisms conference later that summer, when differentials of power, economic means, and race tensions came to the fore. Differences like these are mostly missing, too, from this volume; nevertheless, Mason Sutherland and Sutcliffe's volume encourages and supports an array of scholarship about women that today still lacks ready access to print. Mason Sutherland's own essay opens the collection, a place due it as a plenary address for the gathering of international scholars, and also as "overview of the field" from the editors' stance. "Women in the History of Rhetoric: the Past and the Future" asserts that far from a margin, women have been "a matrix" for rhetoric. "[O]ur part in it has been to feed it, to support it, to enable it", says Mason Sutherland. Referring to all women's work as "maternal" has lately rankled many, but situating it as "anterior" to the rhetorical tradition can strike a resonant note (p. 10). Yet the author worries that a "world view of our own time can come between us and a clear understanding of" past women (p. 350 RHETORICA 27), and she pleads for a complexly ambivalent, but "sympathetic listening to ...voices of the past" such as Mary Astell’s (p. 14). Mason Sutherland presents Astell (1666-1731) as a rationalist and high church monarchist who nevertheless vigorously defended women's education and capacity for public service. The goal of Mason Sutherland's address and of the co-edited collection, then, is "to promote good in our present without doing the past the injustice of misunderstanding and misrepresenting it" (p. 29). The book's sixteen essays (one in both French and English) are arranged as they address ways women were (or are) excluded from, alongside, participating in, emerging into, and engaging the rhetorical tradition, five locations the editors also suggest for future studies of women in rhetoric. The first section, on exclusion, offers C. Jan Swearingen's essay, "Plato's Women: Alternative Embodiments of Rhetoric", which questions the ethics of dismissing such figures as Aspasia and Diotima by claiming that evidence for them is literary and thus suspect. "Directing the announcement selectively at studies of women in antiquity", Swearingen concludes, "is an act of pseudo­ objectivity that should not go unremarked" (p. 44). A wonderfully weird counterpoint is Jody Enders's text, "Cutting Off the Memory of Women", testifying against medieval torture that was designed explicitly to undercut and erase what were codified by the fifteenth-century Malleus Maleficarum as the notoriously unruly memories of women. These essays represent both thoughtful and provocative scholarship, and yet I wonder, looking back at the conference program, why for example Mary Garrett’s "Women and the Chinese Rhetorical Tradition" is not here. The collection focuses, as scholarship about women has, on studies that recover in rhetorical terms the work of particular women: Catherine of Sienna, Hester Ann Rogers, Lady Mary Wroth, Flora MacDonald Denison, and Gertrude Buck to name some honored here. I must confine myself here to a very few essays from this useful volume that even more broadly open up studies about women in rhetoric. One of them, from the "alongside" section, is Helene Cazes's "Verbum inuisiblile palpabitur: The Sibyls in the Second Half of...

Short Reviews Edward Schiappa, The Beginnings of Rhetorical Theory in Classical Greece (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1999), x + 230 pp. In The Beginnings of Rhetorical Theory in Classical Greece, Edward Schiappa continues his questioning of the disciplinary status of rhetoric in the Classical period. The book is divided into three sections: Reconstructing the Origins of Rhetorical Theory, Gorgias and the Disciplining of Discourse, and Fourth-Century Disciplinary Efforts. In Part I, Schiappa challenges what he characterizes as a 17point , "standard account" of the history of rhetoric—with points ranging from the status of the Corax and Tisias story to the origins and uses of ρητορική. For the most part, George Kennedy is the author of the account Schiappa challenges, and these first chapters interrogate Kennedy's timeline as well as his categories of "traditional," "technical," and "philosophical" rhetorics. This section recapitulates Schiappa's well-known argument that Plato was responsible for coining the term ρητορική —most likely in the early fourth century BCE. By Schiappa's account, this "coining" was "a watershed event in the history of conceptualized Rhetoric in ancient Greece" (p. 23). Specifically, Schiappa maintains that before ρητορική was coined the "verbal arts" were "understood as less differentiated and more holistic in scope", and they did "not draw a sharp line between the goals of seeking success and seeking truth" (p. 23). Part I includes Schiappa's direct response to critics of his ρητορική argument. In Chapter Two, he draws on theorists from Kenneth Burke and Ferdinand de Saussure to Benjamin Lee Whorf and Michel Foucault to defend the significance of the act of naming that Schiappa maintains is embodied in the coining of ρητορική (pp. 23-28). Chapter Four includes a sharp critique of the ideological uses of the term "Sophistic rhetoric", in which Schiappa challenges the "wishful thinking" of those who "over-romanticize the relationship between 'the Sophists' and Athenian democracy" .343 344 RHETORICA (p. 55). He is particularly hard on those whom he accuses of sacrificing historiographical method to ideological theory construction—a practice that he argues leads to the problem of anachronism (p. 61). Part II consists of "three studies". The first study, large portions of which were previously published in Pre/Text, examines Gorgias's style. The second study, "Rereading Gorgias's Helen", picks up more explicitly the disciplinary concerns of Part I, as Schiappa argues that "certain persistent questions about Gorgias's Helen obtain different answers once the speech is repositioned as a predisciplinary text" (p. 115). More specifically, Schiappa maintains that "Gorgias significantly influenced the early theoretical articulation of the discipline of Rhetoric by theorizing about the workings of persuasive discourse" (p. 131). In the last study, Schiappa focuses on Gorgias's "On Not Being", examining the ways in which disciplinary senses of philosophy and rhetoric have influenced interpretations and evaluations of this muchdebated text. Like Part II, Part III consists of "three studies". The first chapter of this section examines early uses of the terms ρητορεία ("oratory") and ρητορεύειν ("to orate"). Schiappa's general argument is that the terms "were not used often or consistently enough" to justify the sense of disciplinarity stability conveyed when they are translated as "rhetoric" (p. 160). The next chapter, "Isocrates's Philosophia", attempts to define Isocrates's sense of the art of discourse, particularly as it contrasts with Plato's concept of "philosophy". This chapter has—somewhat surprisingly—a second function: "to provide a reading of Isocrates that attempts to locate him as one of the first philosophers in Western history to address the concerns that we now identify with Pragmatism" (p. 162). Part III concludes with a chapter co-authored with David Timmerman that addresses the motivations for and implications of the diverse forms of discourse Aristotle classified as "epideictic". Schiappa's arguments have yielded invaluable insights into some of the most recalcitrant debates in the history of rhetoric—in particular, the ancient contest between rhetoric and philosophy. I found that the structure of The Beginnings of Rhetorical Theory in Classical Greece sometimes obscured rather than foregrounded the significance of these insights. As Schiappa acknowledges in the Reviews 345 Preface, portions of the book have appeared in books and journal articles. The result is sometimes redundant as opposed to...

This article examines the way in which the classical rhetorical tradition inspired John Quincy Adams’s public life. While rhetorical scholars have probed Adams’s role as Harvard’s first Boylston Professor of Rhetoric, they have not appreciated how the classical tradition in general, and Ciceronian rhetoric in particular, influenced his political career. Social scientists, on the other hand, have studied Adams’s impact on Antebellum America but have not appreciated how his life-long devotion to classical rhetoric shaped his response to public issues. John Quincy Adams remained inspired by classical rhetorical ideals long after the neo-classicalism and deferential politics of the founding generation had been eclipsed by the commercial ethos and mass democracy of the Jacksonian Era. Many of the idiosyncratic positions that Adams adopted over the course of his long career are explicated by considering his abiding devotion to the Ciceronian ideal of the citizen-orator “speaking well” to promote the welfare of the polis.

Reviews 111 Shirley Wilson Logan, "We Are Coming": The Persuasive Discourse of Nineteenth-Century Black Women (Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press, 1999), 255 pp. Shirley Wilson Logan introduces "We Are Coming": The Persuasive Discourse of Nineteenth-Century Black Women by stating, "This book examines the public persuasive discourse of nineteenth-century black women intellectuals" (p. xi). She continues in the Preface to talk more specifically about the nature of the historical era of the analysis, constraints on the availability of texts, the nature of both public discourse and persuasive discourse, and the rhetorical theories and strategies that shape her analysis. Near the end of the Preface she says, "My hope is that these discussions might also add to a clearer understanding of nineteenth-century culture and of the ways in which the persuasive discourse of nineteenth-century black women adapted itself to its multiple audiences and multilayered exigences" (p. xvi). By this process, Logan makes the reader immediately aware of the extent to which the participation of African American women in public discourse during the nineteenth century signals complexity, rather than simplicity, and a need for contemporary researchers to account for patterns in rhetorical practices at the same time that we resist reducing those patterns to simplistic and monolithic notions of a "Black women's rhetoric". First of all, in focusing attention on specific rhetors, Logan re­ inscribes the historical record with the names of women who actively charted new pathways for rhetorical engagement during an era of remarkable social, political, and economic change. She brings texture to what we have come to know about the rhetorical performances of Maria Miller Stewart, Frances Watkins Harper, Ida Wells Barnett, Fannie Barrier Williams, Anna Julia Cooper, Victoria Earle Matthews, Mary Shadd Cary, Josephine St. Pierre Ruffin, and others who in recent years have been brought to the attention particularly of teachers and scholars in women's studies, ethnic studies, and literary studies. To this list, however, she adds the names of women whose accomplishments are much less familiar: Rosetta Douglass-Sprague, Alice Woodby McKane, Lucy 112 RHETORICA Wilmot Smith, Mary Cook, Edmonia Highgate, Georgia Swift King and others. She reminds us that to date we have only scratched the surface of the history of African American women's intellectual work as she places the subjects of her study more visibly onto the rhetorical landscape. Using five themes that are symbolized by quotations from the texts of die rhetors, Logan explains in systematic ways how the rhetorical actions of this group were shaped and performed amid various systems and forces of the social environment. She raises for critical viewing points of inquiry that help us to envision these women both individually and collectively, interrogating, for example: the importance of allusions to an African past in the gamering of rhetorical power; their commitment to forging alliances across various communities of interest; the directing of their energies toward critical issues within the African American community; the use of specific strategies in the art of persuasion; their creation of their own arenas for rhetorical engagement; and the ways and means of rhetorical action in the particular arena of the Black Clubwomen's Movement, that is, their shaping of the discourse of racial uplift. Logan suggests that individually these women illustrate a breadth of rhetorical responses to a continuity of exigencies and that collectively they were quite astute at finding ways to invoke lively connections between themselves and their audiences; to invent themselves anew within their performative arenas; and to respond provocatively to the exigencies of multiply constrained rhetorical situations. The effect of Logan's approach is to underscore a critical point that she makes in her statement of purpose, that is, her assertion that these women are intellectuals. In attending to individual practices, common exigencies, and thematic points of inquiry, Logan makes visible that the case to be made ultimately with this analysis is not simply that African American women engaged persuasively in rhetorical practices in public arenas during this era, but that their doing so demonstrates the liveliness of their intellectual engagement and their ethical commitments. Logan's choice in making this case is to lead us analytically through a textual display, making conditions...

Short Reviews1 Martin Heidegger, Plato's Sophist, trans. Richard Rojcewicz and André Schuwer (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1997), xxvii + 476 pp. Reflecting on her early years as a student of philosophy at the University of Marburg, Hannah Arendt recalls how the name of a young assistant professor, Martin Heidegger, travelled across Germany like "rumours" of a "secret king". Now, with the publication of Plato's Sophist, readers of English may judge for themselves whether these lectures confirm or dispel the rumours of Heidegger as a "subterranean" king of the realms of thinking and teaching. Plato's Sophist is a faithful and readable translation of Platons Sophist, Ingeborg Schiisslers's superb reconstruction of a lecture course on the Sophist conducted by Heidegger at Marburg in the Winter semester of 1924/25 under the deceptively simple title, Interpretation Platonischer Dialog (Sophistes). Although Heidegger claims in his preliminary remarks that the phenomenological "way of seeing" follows the "pure" and "simple" way of thinking of the early Greeks, there is nothing simple about Heidegger's magisterial interpretation of the Sophist as the first radical inquiry into the question of the "meaning of Being", the guiding thread of Heidegger's own Being and Time (1927). In order to prepare the way for an understanding of the Sophist as a "scientific" dialogue, Heidegger devotes the introduction (pp. 15-155) to a detailed exposition of the doctrine of intellectual virtues set forth by Aristotle in the Nicomachean Ethics (VI, 2-6) and the Metaphysics (I, 1-2). Taking its point of departure in the Greek concept of truth (aletheia) as "unconcealedness" and "uncoveredness", chapter one argues that 1 The Editor and the Book Review Editor would like to apologize to Janet Atwill for the error in naming in the review of her book Rhetoric Reclaimed in Rhetorica, 17 (1999) p. 334. 103 RHETORICA 104 the intellectual virtues (episteme, techne, phronesis, sophia, and nous) represent different ways of "unconcealing" and uncovering the truth of Being. While chapter one exposes the "deficiency" of know-how (techne) and fabrication (poiesis) as ways of unveiling Being, the second and third chapters seek to establish the preeminence of sophia ("genuine insight") over phronesis ("circumspective insight") as the highest mode of "disclosive seeing". Here Heidegger argues that while phronesis concerns the "gravest" matters, the "shared world" (Mitwelt) of words and deeds in the city, sophia concerns the "highest" matters, the "ultimate principles" (archai) of Being, which reveal themselves only in the "silent speaking" of the solitary thinker. One of the most striking features of this remarkable "double preparation" for the Sophist—apart from the rigour, clarity, and sobriety of its argumentation—is the subtle process by which Heidegger purifies the concepts of practical and theoretical wisdom of any trace of sophistry. The translation of deliberation (bouleuesthai) as "circumspective self-debate", for example, seems to eliminate the plural dimension of deliberation for the Greeks: the deliberative assembly (boule), the forum of deliberative rhetoric (rhetorike symbouleutikos), becomes the "inner forum" of the call of conscience and the "silent dialogue" of the soul. Having surveyed the "thematic field" of the Sophist through an exposition of the modes of truth in the Nicomachean Ethics, Heidegger devotes the "main part" (pp. 157-422) of Plato's Sophist to a patient, almost line by line exegesis of the dialogue. Following the argument of the Eleatic Stranger "step by step", the first four chapters bring to light the inner coherence of the various apparitions of the sophist, arguing that all seven definitions converge on the art of disputation as the "unitary basic structure" of the techne sophistike. The excursus on Plato's "ambiguous" (zwiespaltige) attitude toward rhetoric in chapter three will doubtless hold the most interest for the historian of rhetoric. Here Heidegger argues that dialectics emerges from an "inner need" of Socratic philosophy to transcend the "idle chatter" of sophistry and its modes of "pretheoretical speech" (the rhetoric of the law courts, deliberative assemblies, and public festivals). Although Plato failed to achieve a "positive understanding" of rhetoric, Reviews 105 concludes Heidegger, his vision of a redeemed rhetoric as the leading of souls in the Phaedrus lays the foundation for the "concrete work" of Aristotle in the Rhetoric, the "first...

Short Reviews Harvey Yunis, Taming Democracy: Models of Political Rhetoric in Democratic Athens (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1996) xv + 316pp. In methodological reflections written near the end of his career (and published in English translation as On Interpretation), the German classicist August Boeckh articulated a number of hermeneutic principles, including two very simple dicta. First, a good interpretation will explain as much of the text as possible. And, second, a good interpretation will make the text compelling on the terms of its own time. Judged on these two criteria, Taming Democracy by Harvey Yunis offers a very good interpretation of Plato on political rhetoric. Though Plato is not the only subject of Taming Democracy, he is at the center of this study of models of political rhetoric in democratic Athens: a study that runs from the theatrical responses to the Peloponnesian War of Aristophanes and Euripides, to Thucydides' self-conscious history, to Plato's evolving views, to Demosthenes' oratorical resistance to Philip of Macedon's imperial encroachments. As an interpreter of Plato on rhetoric, Yunis immediately stands out for his willingness to move beyond the two-piece puzzle posed by the Gorgias and the Phaedrus. To his interpretations of these essential dialogues Yunis adds some reflections on the Apology and the Republic and, in a nearly unprecedented move, a detailed assessment of the rhetorical theory implied by the "persuasive preambles" Plato introduces in his Laws. Looking at this larger set enables Yunis to conclude, "The philosophical distance that Plato has traveled from the bitter rejection of rhetoric in the Gorgias to the creation of a new rhetorical genre of legal-political discourse in the Laws is immense" (p. 235). Yunis then makes this philosophical journey historically compelling by setting it against the rise and fall and rise of the 331 332 RHETORICA Athenian empire. Yunis suggests that Athens' democracy depended in subtle ways on its imperial ambitions. The navy that gave the masses, the poorer classes, an important civic role to play also built for Athens an empire. And that empire brought revenues to Athens, revenues that provided the livelihoods for many of these poorer citizens. Thus, domestic harmony in Athens depended on foreign hegemony, even tyranny. Taming Democracy is an analysis of late fifth and early-mid fourth century thinkers who, like Plato, felt compelled to address the political questions raised by Athens' imperial history. "Athens' miserable defeat in the Peloponnesian War invited a réévaluation of its democracy in general and democratic rhetoric in particular" (p. 32). Their answers, according to Yunis, hinged on whether they believed that rhetoric could be instructive, whether they thought the rhetores—the most accomplished speakers in the assembly—could tame the demos, the public, by teaching it to deliberate wisely through mass political discourse. In Thucydides' work Pericles is presented as the exemplary rhetor because he had the ability and the moral will to teach the Athenians as he led them. The rhetores who arose after Pericles lacked his abilities and his character. They pandered to the Athenians' worst impulses and thus, Thucydides implies, led Athens to its ruin. The Gorgias, Yunis argues, is Plato's response to Thucydides' portrayal of Pericles. Unlike Thucydides who gloried in Athens' power, Plato regarded Athens' imperial ambitions as inherently corrupting. The Gorgias is set in Athens at its zenith; but the characters and historical references of this dialogue about rhetoric and power serve to remind the alert reader that the city will soon be led, by a speech, into the disastrous folly of the Sicilian expedition and, thereby, to the collapse of its empire. This is an extraordinarily provocative book. It is not without its weaknesses, however. First, though other scholars have acknowledged the echoes and parallels between the two authors, they have stopped short of the suggestion that Plato "read" Thucydides. Yunis needs to provide additional warrants for his more assertive position. Second, Yunis actually overlooks one supporting line of evidence in this regard: the paradoxical place of shame in Thucydides and its prominence in the Gorgias. Third, Reviews 333 Yunis distorts the Phaedrus by bending it too harshly to his thesis. The setting of the dialogue and the focal relationship of the...

Reviews 343 within this conventional context. "What this means in practice", Skinner explains, "is that I treat Hobbes's claims about scientia civilis not simply as propositions but as moves in an argument. I try to indicate what traditions he reacts against, what lines of argument he takes up, what changes he introduces into existing debates" (p. 8). While Skinner's method has occasioned much debate, culminating in a collection of essays entitled Meaning and Context: Quentin Skinner and His Critics (1988), historians of rhetoric, who themselves attempt to understand texts within larger contexts, should welcome the attention paid to questions of intention, meaning, and language. Meticulously researched, Skinner's study of Hobbes and the rhetorical culture of Tudor England is a welcome contribution to histories such as Victoria Kahn's Machiavellian Rhetoric and Pocock's The Machiavellian Moment. Together, these studies clarify the complex interplay between rhetorical and political traditions in early modem Europe. WADE WILLIAMS The University ofPuget Sound Alan G Gross and William M. Keith eds, Rhetorical Hermeneutics: Invention and Interpretation in the Age of Science (Albany: SUNY Press, 1997) 371 pp. Dilip Parameshwar Gaonkar writes "The Idea of Rhetoric in the Rhetoric of Science", the lead essay in this volume—its "Provocations"—and the rest of Rhetorical Hermeneutics is a collection of "Dissensions", "Extensions" and "reflections", the last including a response to respondents by Gaonkar. So the book is the perfect rhetorical study. It is utterly dialogic; Gaonkar's claims are all tested on an audience of distinguished rhetorical theorists and rhetoricians of science: John Angus Campbell, Thomas Farrell, Steve Fuller, Alan Gross, James Jasinski, David Kaufer, William Keith, Andrew King, Michael Leff, Deirdre McCloskey, Carolyn Miller and Charles Willard. The book has an 344 RHETORICA excellent cast—and a sometimes argumentative one (McCloskey writes that the philosophical warrants for Gaonkar's case against a ubiquitous rhetoric themselves warrant the question, "So what?", p. 107); it also has a very worthy project. The central question of Rhetorical Hermeneutics is this: can a theory of production be usefully, and without distortion, transformed into a theory of interpretation? This question sponsors others—for example, does the "thinness" of rhetorical theory (the paucity of constraints on its terms of use) make it so easy to spread, as it were (rhetoric is the universal hermeneutic) as to weaken the plausibility of rhetoric altogether (what distinguishes rhetoric as an interpretive program?)? Gaonkar answers his own questions in part by evoking the work in rhetoric of science of John Angus Campbell, Alan Gross, and Lawrence Prelli. Campbell and Gross respond. Campbell, Gaonkar finds, is mired in a problem of agency ("refuses to let go of an image of Darwin as the rhetorical superstar", p. 49); Gross is only successful as a rhetorical critic to the extent that he does not practice the neoAristotelianism he proposes; Prelli, among other questionable practices, seems to be "probing into the 'rhetorical unconscious'" of Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (p. 73). So Gaonkar describes problems in the house of rhetoric of science; he also draws attention not only to the problematic relation of rhetorical criticism to other criticisms, but also to the "embattled" relation of Rhetoric of Science—as a discipline—to both rhetorical studies and science studies. Gross and Keith's design and authoritative editing shape a volume which deserves consideration at a number of levels: What are possible answers to questions raised? What can be said about the questions qua questions? Why does rhetoric ask so many questions about itself anyway? The book not only deserves consideration at these levels; it also enables it. Fuller writes, for example, "The more that rhetoric of science looks like classical rhetoric, the less exciting its interpretations seem...[T]he more that rhetoric of science strays from classical sources, and the more provocative its readings become, the more interchangeable its methods seem with those used by sociologists and critical theorists" (p. 279). Gross writes, "The current attitude of Reviews 345 historians and philosophers oscillates between increased need to take a rhetorical point of view into consideration and an occasional hostility to the possibility of rhetorical analysis" (p. 146). With such comment, the authors invite readers to participate...

RHETORICA 102 While several of the articles in the volume do address the extended influence of the Scottish tradition in countries formerly dominated by Britain, conspicuously absent from the collection is any discussion of English Studies on the Indian subcontinent. Taken as a whole, however, the volume presents an expanded account of the historical origins of English Studies and illustrates the degree to which we owe the institutionalization of university English to Scottish culture. DANA HARRINGTON Syracuse University Richard Morris, Sinners, Lovers and Heroes: An Essay on Memorializing in Three American Cultures (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1997) xxi + 237 pp. A modest but noteworthy contribution to research by rhetoric scholars on public memorials, this book focuses on symbolic responses to Abraham Lincoln's death during the nineteenth century in the United States. Morris asserts, "I know of no other event that so exactly marks the dramatic rupture of the social structure of a nation and that so clearly lays cultural transformation open to observation than the death of Abraham Lincoln" (p. 2). Written in a clear and accessible style, Sinners, Lovers and Heroes argues "the thesis that memorials are fundamentally rhetorical and cultural forms of expression, that a careful examination of American memorializing discloses the contours of at least three distinct American cultures, and that shifting visual and discursive memorial patterns across time reveal the ascendancy and subordination of these three cultures and their cultural memories" (p. xii). The organization of Sinners, Lovers and Heroes is straightforward. An introductory chapter articulates an orientation to the rhetoric and culture of public memorials. In the three following chapters, each of the "three cultures" is the central focus of one chapter, corresponding to the three key terms in the Reviews 103 title, Sinners, Lovers and Heroes. Specifically, Morris considers patterns of response to Lincoln's death, as it was represented by members of cultures that Morris names "religionists", "romanticists", and "heroists" (p. 42). The conclusion synthesizes Morris's claims that "Different people memorialize, embrace, and seek to codify through public memory their different images of the memorable not merely because of temporal or spatial or physiological divergences, but because different cultures with different worldviews and ethoi require different images of and from their members" (p. 153). One strength of Sinners, Lovers and Heroes is the extensive use of published primary materials from various nineteenth century figures who commented on Abraham Lincoln's death. Morris claims, "what we see in the transformation of Lincoln's image, then, is not a single people creating and later transforming an element of the symbolic code of collective memory, but the rise and fall of different cultures, each of which positions Lincoln within a different world view and ethos" (p. 27). Another strength of this book is the attention to accumulating details that Morris synthesizes into an encompassing perspective in his conclusion. Unfortunately, however, the book makes little explicit use of contemporary rhetoric scholars' research on public memorials, public memory, or visual rhetoric, even though the book seems to be arguing, at times, with some key figures in these areas of research. Although the introduction and the conclusion stress "differences" among the U.S. people, there is little explicit attention to either race or economic class in the body of the volume (for his comments on race, pp. x, 111; on economic class, pp. 127, 142-43, 147-49). The discussion of the "religionists" depends heavily upon a Christian conception of spirituality. As one consequence, perhaps, the speech by a Jewish leader, Max Lilienthal, is discussed under the "heroists" (pp. 125-35). In the chapter on "heroists," one abiding oxymoron is the manifestation of leveling styles reflecting an egalitarian politics, because placing some people above most others is ordinarily a requirement for having "heroes". Morris writes, "True to the mandates of the first Heroist gravescape, however, cemeterial rules and regulations in lawn cemeteries require markers to be small and, in the vast majority of instances...flush with the ground" (p. 149). 104 RHETORICA Some key concepts would perhaps have benefited from explicit, technical explanation. For example, the use of "hegemony" in Morris's book is disconnected from Antonio Gramsci's use of the same term...

Reviews 445 L. L. Gaillet ed.z Scottish Rhetoric and Its Influences (Mahwah, N.J.: Hermagoras Press, 1998) xviii + 238pp. Scottish Rhetoric and Its Influences, edited by L. L. Gaillet and introduced by Winifred Bryan Horner, offers up an eclectic collection of conference papers on eighteenth and nineteenthcentury rhetoric delivered originally at the 1995 ISHR meeting in Edinburgh. Save one, the contributors to this handsome volume in Jerry Murphy's Hermagoras Press Series all represent North American colleges and universities. The chapters are divided somewhat unevenly into two parts, thirteen papers on "Reexamining Influential Figures" and four papers on "The Rhetoric of North American Composition". Among the papers that stand out in the first grouping is Susan Jarratt's "Ekphrastic Rhetoric and National Identity in Adam Smith's Rhetoric Lectures". Applying ekphrasis as the "verbal descriptions of visual representations", Jarratt looks at Smith's own example of historical description, Jan Steele's Het offer van Iphigenia (The Sacrifice of Iphigenia), in order to illustrate Smith's rhetorical lesson in lecture 16 as "a reiteration of the use of visual arts by ancient rhetoricians". Constrained from supplying full responses to a series of critical cultural identity questions that launch the essay, Jarratt nevertheless supplies an imaginative portrayal of Smith's belief in what Jarratt characterizes as the "usefulness of visual theories for interpreting rhetorical texts". Herman Cohen's "Rhetoric and Freedom in the Scottish Treatment of the History of Rhetoric" and Linda FerreiraBuckley 's "'Scotch Knowledge' and the Formation of Rhetorical Studies in 19th-Century England", serve this volume title well in terms, respectively, of explicating Blair's rhetorical appraisal of "Roman rhetoric" and "Greek eloquence" in succinct contrast to that of Charles Rollin's appraisal at the College Royale in Paris, and in terms of demonstrating the careful results of archival investigation into the curriculum at University College, London, results which detail the "formative influence of Scottish education...on post-secondary English studies in England". Murray Pittock, the lone U.K. representative, weaves an enjoyable essay that frames a broad enlightenment context for the importance and impact of Scotland's student debating clubs and 446 RHETORICA societies as well as speculates briefly upon the ripple-effect upon modern speech curricula in the States. Also noteworthy in Part I are Don Abbott's findings on Blair's reception "abroad", Gary Lane Hatch's careful consideration of Blair's students' notes, and Sandra Sarkela's cogent analysis of sermons delivered in opposition to colonial independence. Notable in Part II, Beth Hewett and Andrea Lunsford, respectively, re-assess the impact of Samuel P. Newman's A Practical System of Rhetoric and Alexander Bain's rhetorics upon pedagogical practice in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries in U.S. colleges and universities. Although arguing that Newman exhibits "a more modern understanding of composition pedagogy" than we might expect, Hewett acknowledges his modest "influence". Lunsford's depiction of Bain's impact is extended here with revealing reconsideration of Bain's autobiography that reinforces his "devotion to students' access to education". The terrain covered in this collection will appear familiarly to scholars in the field. Students of the subject will gain a foothold understanding of the broad impact of Scottish rhetoric that should lead to further discussion and inquiry. Unfortunately, there is no colloquy between or among authors of these chapters to spark further debate, for example, about competing channels of influence upon rhetoric in the early American colleges. Paul Bator Stanford University ...

Reviews 447 Thomas W. Benson, Rhetoric and Political Culture in NineteenthCentury America (East Lansing: Michigan State University Press, 1997) 200 pp. This collection of essays developed out of the third biennial conference on Public Address that was held in 1992. The contributors range from scholars such as Edwin Black who helped define modern rhetorical criticism to critics who are working to adapt rhetorical criticism to broader trends in contemporary critical theory. The respect paid to "old historicist" examination of individual orators is balanced by "new historicist" attempts to situate individual agency within the social construction of discursive practices. Thomas Benson characterizes the collection as a "a series of close textual readings of significant texts in American rhetoric, inquiring into the text, the context, the influence of pervasive rhetorical forms and genres, the intentions of the speaker, the response of the audience, and the role of the critic" (p. xiii). However, the works that he has brought together often challenge the assumption that critics determine significance by looking into texts and outside to contexts to discover the intentions of authors and the responses of auditors. For this and other reasons, this collection should be read not only by those who specialize in the "art of public address" but also by others outside communications departments who are interested in revitalizing the civic orientation of rhetoric and composition. The contributors engage in critical dialogues that give the book a coherence and richness that is too often lacking in collections of isolated essays. After a foreword by James Andrews and an equally brief preface by Thomas Benson, Edwin Black's essay, "The Aesthetics of Rhetoric, American Style", introduces a theme that echoes throughout the collection and resounds in Robert Hariman's concluding "Afterword: Relocating the Art of the Public Address". Black calls for attending to the aesthetic dimension of rhetoric by distinguishing two aesthetic modalities: "a dispositional or structural aesthetic that is associated with a rhetoric of power, and a stylistic or textural aesthetic that is associated with a rhetoric of character" (p. 4). Black's essay is followed by four pairs of essays: James Farrell and Stephen Browne on Daniel Webster's Eulogy to Adams and Jefferson, John 448 RHETORICA Lucaites and James Jasinski on Frederick Douglas's "What to the Slave is the Fourth of July?", Martha Solomon Watson and David Henry on the "Declaration of Sentiments" from the 1833 American Anti-Slavery Society and the 1848 Seneca Falls Women's Rights Convention, and Michael Leff and Maurice Charland on appropriations of Lincoln in works by Henry Grady, Frederick Douglass, and Jane Adams. The second contributors respond to the methods of their predecessors to develop and often provocative discussion of critical assumptions and modes of interpretation. These exchanges broaden the significance of the explications themselves, especially for readers who are interested in assessing the state of the art in research on public discourse. Such an assessment is offered in the concluding "Afterword: Relocating the Art of Public Address" by Robert Hariman. According to Hariman, research on public address has interdisciplinary significance because "public performances" provide an insider's perspective on discursive structures in action (pp. 164-5). Hariman characterizes the tension between "the traditional study of oratory and modern communications studies" as leading to a current "standoff between a neoclassical revival and an appropriation of poststructuralism" (p. 166). He insightfully explores the limitation and potentials of each perspective and then argues that both could be enriched by an attention to "persuasive artistry" that accommodated a "hermeneutics of fragmentation" as well as a concern for "civic memory" (pp. 166-171). By complicating rather than resolving the conflicts among his predecessors, Hariman's conclusion provides a rich context for rereading their explications and considering their broader significance. Research on the arts of public address gains in significance as distinctions between public and private and aesthetics and rhetorics are being reconfigured across the academy. This collection should provide a useful point of reference for mapping and advancing those interdisciplinary trends. Thomas Miller University ofArizona ...

Reviews 319 readable manner, there are frequent strange turns of phrase, sometimes bordering on the incomprehensible. For instance: Aristotle...viewed politics and rhetoric as an inherent relationship" (3), "[In Verrem] provides an indirect index of the value Rome felt for such acquisitions" (12); "Rhetoric is always under a state of metamorphoses" (21); "We know that by Cicero's time the heavy emphasis in Greek rhetoric was being transformed to Latin" (63). Given the number of typographical errors and minor factual errors, it looks as if this book were written and edited in a great hurry.5 Andrew M Riggsby Jane W. Crawford M. Tullius Cicero, The Fragmentary Speeches, Second Edition, American Classical Studies No. 37 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1994) x + 350pp. Cicero's status as Rome's pre-eminent orator has helped most of his published speeches survive the ravages of time and caprice of Fortuna. Fifty-eight orations are transmitted by manuscripts more or less complete and only sixteen or so exist as fragments, usually as single words or lines quoted by grammarians and rhetoricians, but a few as lines quoted in the systematic commentary of Asconius and the Bobbio Scholiast. We have information about approximately ninety other speeches which Cicero delivered, but most of those he chose not to publish and the rest have been completely lost. Since the corpus of complete 5 E.g. p. 7: for Euthydemus 217 B.C. read (apparently) Euthydemus 271b-c; p. 12: for Archaean read Achaean; p. 22 for lex pecuniis repetundis read lex de p. r. and for questio read quaestio; p. 23: for 196 read 106; p. 31: for agnostic read agonistic; p. 44: for Altratinus read Atratinus; p. 77: for Dipnosophistae read Deipnosophistae p. 80: Gellius is cited (without explanation) by OCT page number (then conventional numeration in brackets), then Plutarch's lives are similarly cited in the following sentence, except that the main reference is to the Teubner pagination; throughout: the date of Bonner's seminal Roman Declamation is 1949, not 1969. Cicero's works are sporadically referred to by paragraph numbers as well as sections, and on two pages (39-40) book numbers for Pliny's letters are given in Roman numerals. RHETORICA 320 speeches is fairly large, students of Cicero have paid little attention to the fragmentary ones. There have been several editions of the fragments themselves, including two in this century, but the last edition with a commentary appeared in the sixteenth century. Jane Crawford has now given us a much needed new edition and commentary of the fragmentary speeches that forms a useful companion to her earlier work, M. Tullius Cicero: The Lost and Unpublished Speeches (Gottingen, 1984). For each of the sixteen speeches in this book Crawford provides a detailed historical introduction, gives the ancient testimonia and surviving fragments, and comments extensively on each fragment. This second edition appeared less than a year after the first, correcting errata and adding the fragmenta incertae sedis and an appendix on the fragments which have been falsely identified. A few minor errors still remain and there is, unfortunately, no commentary on the fragmenta incertae sedis, but the latter was not in the original plan. She does include a valuable commentary on the "fragment" of Pro Vatinio, tacitly correcting her own previous omission of the oration as a lost speech, and makes a convincing argument for not considering it a true fragment. Crawford states that her aim "has been to put each speech into the context of Cicero's career as a politician, advocate, and orator" (p. 3). Readers of this journal will be most interested in the last two categories, but it should be noted that Crawford's goal is quite broad. It requires the skills of a textual critic, historian, and rhetorician. The great strength of her work lies in the historical perspective she brings to the speeches. The introductions and commentary provide a wealth of useful background material against which one must view each speech. Crawford generally follows the views of other scholars on historical events and is generous about citing opposing views. Readers will be grateful for her balanced discussions since controversy surrounds most of the events she covers. Footnotes and the...

324 RHETORICA Milonis F2, where it should be pointed out that the words sine ore used to describe Clodius are parallel to an expression at Pro Caelio 78. Crawford's comments on this fragment (at the beginning of a speech) offer a good explanation of the personal invective in the Pro Caelio passage (end of the speech) which is ignored in the standard edition. Jane Crawford has provided a rich and valuable book that will be the necessary starting point for future work on the fragments. Historians and students of classical rhetoric are in her debt. Now that we have commentaries on the fragmentary speeches, let us hope that they will help inspire some much needed commentaries on Cicero's surviving orations. Robert W Cape Jr. R. Dean Anderson Jr., Ancient Rhetorical Theory and Paul (Kampen: Kok Pharos Publishing House, 1996) 315 pp. Rhetorical criticism appears to have become fashionable in biblical studies lately, and some people seem to regard it as a kind of magic providing answers to all questions and solutions to all problems of interpretation. Critics of modem literature discovered some decades ago that rhetoric had something to offer for the interpretation of texts, while classicists never lost sight of the ancient handbooks of rhetoric and their precepts. It is most fortunate, therefore, that a scholar with both a classical and a theological training should have chosen to write a book on Ancient Rhetorical Theory and Paul, addressing himself to two questions: whether Paul knew and consciously worked with rhetorical theory (or some aspect of it) in mind (p. 249) and what kind of help ancient rhetoric has to offer for the interpretation of Paul's letters. The author begins with a very brief historical account of rhetorical criticism of the Bible—St Augustine, Melanchthon, Muilenberg, Kennedy, Mack and a few remarks on Perelman— mentioning neither Chrysostom nor Marius Victorinus or Betz to whom he refers later. This section is not very satisfactory, because Reviews 325 in its first part it is largely derivative and far too short to be useful, in the second it contrasts Perelman's "New Rhetoric" with ancient rhetoric instead of emphasizing how much the former is indebted to the latter. The second chapter is devoted to the sources for ancient rhetorical theory from the Rhetorica ad Alexandrum to Quintilian, ending with an overview in which the usefulness both of the various aspects of rhetorical theory and of the individual works and their methodology for rhetorical criticism are considered. Here the author shows himself a well-informed master of the subject, though somewhat arbitrary in the selection of secondary literature and editions he is referring to, as he omits all works in French and (with one exception) in Italian. As regards the basic issue whether ancient rhetorical theory may offer help in interpreting Paul's epistles today, Anderson stresses several important points: a) "Given that the specific topoi allocated to the three genres of rhetoric have little in common with the arguments and topoi used in the letters of Paul .., we must conclude that rhetorical genre analysis of Paul's letters has little value" (p. 90); b) "Such labelling (sc. of an extant speech by various terms for arguments and figures).. does not really help us much unless we can say something about the use and function of such arguments or figures" (p. 92). But I find it difficult to agree with Anderson , when he says: "Our conclusions, then, tell us more about how ancient critics might have viewed Paul's literary abilities, than about what Paul himself may have thought"; surely, our conclusions may tell us what Paul thought and how he tried to impart his ideas and views to his readers and audiences. In the section on the "relation of rhetoric to epistolography" Anderson discusses first a few of the earlier attempts by a number of scholars to define various types of letters, then the ancient handbooks of epistolography, at the end tentatively suggesting "that it is in vain to strictly apply a scheme of classification designed for speeches to letters" (p. 100) and criticizing Betz, Kennedy and Stowers. Next, after rejecting Betz's claim that Galatians is an apologetic letter...