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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

332 RHETORICA Adriano Pennacini, Forme del pensiero. Studi di retorica classica, a cura di Edoardo Bona e Gian Franco Gianotti (Alessandria: Edizioni dell'Orso, 2002), 449 pp.«The advent of Christianism in the form of Catholicism, the victory of St. Ambrosius against Symmachus in the battle for the liberty and preservation of paganism and the position of State religion that Christianism acquired in the same years, transformed the status of the Roman citizen by introduc­ ing a basic requirement consisting of being Catholic. Since the fall of the Western Roman Empire until the French and American revolutions, religion remained a decisive element for citizenship. Before the Reformation, only Catholic religion; after the Reformation, cuius regio eius religio. A perverted and perverse use of the locus of quality, completed by the locus of uniqueness and reinforced by the locus of authority, with the premise, often implicit, that Catholic religion is the only true religion, offered the basis for an abnormal developing of ethnic and cultural differences derived and founded upon re­ ligions». Con queste parole, appassionate e amare, si chiude (p. 445) Tultimo saggio contenuto nella raccolta di scritti di Adriano Pennacini, raccolta con la quale i colleghi editori, Gian Franco Gianotti e Edoardo Bona, hanno voluto testimoniare Paffetto ed in qualche modo il dispiacere, ovviamente non solo personale, in occasione delle dimissioni (anticipate) di Pennacini dal servizio attivo di professore nell'universita di Torino (cfr. Prefazione di G.F. Gianotti, Retorica classica e scienzc della eomunicazione, pp. V-IX). Il saggio di cui ho citato la conclusione, Arguments about ethnical and cultural differences in ancient and modern oratory costituiva I'opening address al Symposium on rhetoric: persuasion and power, tenutosi a Cape Town dall'll al 13 luglio 1994. Adriano Pennacini aveva appena portato a termine il biennio di presidenza (1991-1993) della International Societv for the Historv of Rheto­ ric. La raccolta di saggi costituisce, in realta solo una piccola parte del contributo culturale e civile di Pennacini, fatto non solo di studi, ma anche di pratiche, di innovazioni didattiche, di idee generose per svecchiare l'impostazione tradizionale degli studi di antichistica. La bibliografia di Pen­ nacini (pp. XI-XVI), d'altra parte, offre l'eloquente riprova di un'attivita che va dall'organizzazione di convegni e volumi sulla retorica, tra antico e modemo , alia recente traduzione italiana, con testo a fronte, note e aggiornamenti , della Institutio oratoria di Quintiliano, per i tipi di Finaudi, coordinata da Pennacini con numerosi, validi collaborator! (cfr. la recensione di G.B. Conte in «Rhetorica» 22, 2004, pp. 297-300). Il volume Forme del pensiero raccoglie 25 saggi, apparsi tra il 1955 (Cercida e il secondo cinismo, pp. 3-22) e il 1998 (il saggio citato all'inizio, apparso in Studi di retorica oggi in Italia 1997, Bologna 1998), che rappresentano la parte piu consistente degli studi—come suggerisce il sottotitolo del volume—di retorica classica. La dizione 'retorica classica' si offre in realta ad un'interpretazione estensiva. Essa comprende, infatti, sia la teoria e i suoi tecnografi (Cicerone e Quintiliano in primo luogo, ma anche Frontone, accanto all'utilissimo L'arte della parola pp. 345-388, una breve storia della retorica romana), che la rhetorica utens, per cost dire (autori Reviews 333 e generi délia produzione culturale greca e latina: Lucilio, Persio e la satira; Tibullo e l'elegia; il romanzo latino, 1 epistolografia; Bione di Boristene tra retorica e filosofía; Vitruvio tra retorica e scienza). Ma non tralascia, d'altra parte, né 1 analisi particolare délia strumentazione técnica propria délia reto­ rica, in senso direi trasversale (il locus amoenus; figure di pensiero nell'oratoria di Catone Maggiore; strutture retoriche nelle biografié svetoniane; il paté­ tico nella narrazione virgiliana del mito di Orfeo e Puso dell'apostrofe nel discorso di Didone del IV libro delPEnéide), né alcuni problemi di definizione a proposito dei testi antichi, e qui la retorica diviene strumento di comprensione délia fattura di un testo e, per converso, délia sua tradizione in età moderna, anche attraverso il ricorso alla nuova tecnología elettronica (pensó, in particolare, ai contributi Le fragment comme enchatillon, pp. 73-77; Analyse structurale et recherche computationelle, pp...

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

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

John Donne's sermonizing ethos is a masterful creation, incorporating his individuality as poet and priest into a larger identity consonant with his interpretation of Christian doctrine. The role is also consistent with a dense and complicated style that has both troubled and fascinated readers through the centuries. This essay argues that Donne's ethos, while reflecting a penitential stance that has misled some readers, could have been fashioned to reveal his priestly view of Christ, whose image as "Delegate of the Trinity" extends beyond the Gospel into the whole of Scripture and catholic tradition.

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

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

Abstract In the Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle argues that a happy man is “foursquare beyond reproach” (τετράγωνοσ άνευ ψόγου or, in a common Latin translation, quadratus sine probro). To be foursquare, the happy man must bear the chances of life nobly and decorously as well as possess the qualities of the phronimos or good deliberator. That Aristotle moors felicity to prudence and decorum spurs classical, medieval, and early modern commentators, moral philosophers, and poets; by tracing the reception and use of the square man, I explore change and continuity in the relationship between prudence and decorum in some classical, late medieval, and early modern texts in order to suggest that prudent and practical persuasion emerges as a flexible responsive mode of perceiving ethical and political practice in the early modern period.

In the Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle argues that a happy man is “foursquare beyond reproach” (τετράγωνος ἄνευ ψόγου or, in a common Latin translation, quadratus sine probro). To be foursquare, the happy man must bear the chances of life nobly and decorously as well as possess the qualities of the phronimos or good deliberator. That Aristotle moors felicity to prudence and decorum spurs classical, medieval, and early modern commentators, moral philosophers, and poets; by tracing the reception and use of the square man, I explore change and continuity in the relationship between prudence and decorum in some classical, late medieval, and early modern texts in order to suggest that prudent and practical persuasion emerges as a flexible responsive mode of perceiving ethical and political practice in the early modern period.

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

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

Abstract In his commentary on Cicero,De inventione, Grillius gives Cicero'spro Tullio as an example of the genus obscurum causae and identifies the occultatio negotii as the distinction of this type of exordium. This article argues that the occultatio negotii is an ironic form ofdissimulatio, by which the orator hides the real object of the debate and clouds the issue, drawing the attention of the judges to points not directly connected with it. This oratorical tactic is used by Cicero in thepro Tullio. Avoiding the real issue (the clash between Tullius' and Fabius' slaves), the orator focuses on a juridical problem (the meaning ofdolus malus) and appears as a defender of thevoluntas legis, opposing the (supposed) legal formalism of the antagonist.

In his commentary on Cicero, De inventione, Grillius gives Cicero’s pro Tullio as an example of the genus obscurum causae and identifies the occultatio negotii as the distinction of this type of exordium. This article argues that the occultatio negotii is an ironic form of dissimulatio, by which the orator hides the real object of the debate and clouds the issue, drawing the attention of the judges to points not directly connected with it. This oratorical tactic is used by Cicero in the pro Tullio. Avoiding the real issue (the clash between Tullius’ and Fabius’ slaves), the orator focuses on a juridical problem (the meaning of dolus malus) and appears as a defender of the voluntas legis, opposing the (supposed) legal formalism of the antagonist.

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

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

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

404 RHETORICA grado le scarse attestazioni oratorie dal momento che questa pseudoquintilianea é, accanto alia XIII declamazione di Libanio, l'unica che possediamo sull'argomento. Per questo motivo un'importanza preponderante viene assegnata nella declamazione al pathos, al conseguimento del quale concorre un ampio uso del color poeticus: le scelte linguistiche ed espressive richiamano ampiamente Virgilio e Ovidio, un po' meno di frequente Seneca trágico, la cui memoria era tuttavia ineludibile dato il rilievo concesso all'argomento nel Thyestes. Di notazioni di carattere lingüístico e intertestuale (in qualche caso indispensabili a comprendere un testo non privo di oscuritá nella sua paradossalitá: cf., ad es., la n. 46 a proposito di 5, 2) é ricco il commento che tuttavia, come indica lo stesso S., «non si propone come un commento esaustivo , ma come un sussidio per l'intellezione di un testo sempre impegnativo, spesso arduo» (p. 30): rivolto agli studenti oltre che agli studiosi, esso offre perció la traduzione delle citazioni greche e anche di quelle latine che non siano immediatamente comprensibili (come dei titoli stessi delle opere dalle quali sono tratte). II tono del commento, come quello della traduzione, che privilegia uno stile colloquiale, é piano ed esplicativo, con frequenti delucidazioni del senso generale del periodo, il che, al di la dell'informazione, rende il volume chiaro e di piacevole lettura. II testo seguíto, in attesa di quello criticamente riveduto dallo stesso S. di tutte le Declamationes maiores, con traduzione e note, di prossima pubblicazione per i tipi dell'UTET, é quello di Hákanson (1982), seppure con un maggior numero di modifiche rispetto al primo volume della serie; la bibliografía é ampia e aggiornata al 2003. Antonella Borgo Universita Federico II (Napoli) Peter Mack, Elizabethan Rhetoric: Theory and Practice (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), xi + 326 pp. Jennifer Richards, Rhetoric and Courtliness in Early Modern Literature (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), vi + 212 pp. When Ben Jonson, then at the height of his reputation, visited William Drummond of Hawthornden in the winter of 1618/19, he was not slow to offer the Scots poet advice. Among his more forceful admonitions we find: "He recommended to my reading Quintilian (who, he said, would tell me all the faults of my verses as if he had lived with me)" and "that Quintilian's 6, 7, 8 books were not only to be read, but altogether digested." The precise resonance of this will be lost on most modern readers, but much of it could readilybe recovered by consulting Peter Mack's excellent Elizabethan Rhetoric. There we find that in the early modern period "University statutes require the study of classical manuals of the whole of rhetoric. At Cambridge where the first of the four years stipulated for the BA was devoted to rhetoric, the set Reviews 405 texts were Quintilian, Hermogenes, or any other book of Cicero's speeches" (p. 51). The name of Quintilian is indeed so familiar that it is unnecessary to spell out that the precise reference is to his Institutio oratoria, second only to books by Cicero (or the pseudo-Ciceronian Rhetorica ad Herrenium) among the libraries of deceased Oxford and Cambridge scholars in the era. If the Institutio was not the prescribed text-book, it seems commonly to have been one of the principal authorities cited to support the one that was (pp. 52-3). Moreover, when we examine the English-language rhetoric manuals of the time, by such as Thomas Wilson, William Fulwood, and Angel Day, we find that they are all ultimately based on the classical Latin style manual, "found principally in Rhetorica ad Herrenium book IV and Quintilian's Institutio oratoria, books VIII and IX" (p. 77). So Jonson was not quite telling his host to go back to his grammar school studies - Quintilian was more advanced than their curriculum. But he was sending him back to one of the fundamental university style manuals of the day - which may not have been entirely tactful of him. Mack explains that his book "aims to contribute to the history of read­ ing and writing by showing how techniques learned in the grammar school and at university (largely through the study of classical literary texts) were used in...

The parliamentary diary of Sir Henry Cavendish, probably the most detailed record of speaking practices in the eighteenth- century House of Commons, confirms the claims made, from the beginnings of the rhetorical tradition, for the power of ethos as a means of persuasion. Yet precisely because it is such a valuable rhetorical resource, the parliamentarian’s character inevitably excites contradiction and dissent. Drawing on the debates reported by Cavendish, this article argues that the influence of party divisions in the later eighteenth-century House sharpened these contests for character. It concludes by illustrating the tendency of the speaker’s character, even as it is constructed in parliamentary discourse, to disclose the terms in which it may be challenged or negated.

Reviews 403 of this birth that continued throughout its history, while the connections of rhetoric to democracy seem much more tenuous. Overall, I recommend L'art de parler to a non-French audience, not only because of the intrinsic interest of many of the selections, but because it gives us an opportunity to reflect on canons, their formation and significance. Eugene Garver Saint John's University [Quintiliano], La cittd che si cibo dei suoi cadaveri (Declamazioni maggiori, 12), a cura di Antonio Stramaglia. Cassino : Edizioni dell'Università degli Studi di Cassino, 2002. 239 pp. A tre anni di distanza dal primo, dedicato alFottava declamazione, se­ gué ora il secondo volume pubblicato all'interno del progetto internazionale di ricerca sulle Declaniazioni maggiori pseudoquintilianee, promosso dal Di­ partimento di Filología e storia dell'Università di Cassino. Contiene il testo, la traduzione e note di commento alia dodicesima declamazione, una delle più significative délia raccolta per la lunghezza e soprattutto per il tema scottante sul quale è costruita, quello del cannibalismo. Una temática che, come S. nota nella Premessa, se presenta connotati 'estremi', non mancava di una sua tópica in campo oratorio e, prima ancora, di una tradizione in ámbito storiografico (Erodoto) e filosófico, soprattutto stoico, a provocatoria dimostrazione del relativismo delle abitudini e dei costumi umani. Ma nella declamazione la vicenda propone la questione in sede morale più che culturale: infatti gli uomini che, stremati da una grave carestía, giungono a mangiarsi l'un l'altro per il ritardo del legato al quale avevano affidato il compito di rifornirsi di grano, sono vittime del desiderio di guadagno dell'uomo che, pur tornato entro il termine stabilito, ma attardatosi a vendere ad altri il grano raccolto a un prezzo molto conveniente, era dovuto tornare indietro a fare un nuovo rifornimento, perdendo molto tempo utile, se non a evitare, almeno a limitare gli effetti del dramma che la sua città stava vivendo. Un problema simile propone il caso, privo tuttavia di risvolti cosí drammatici, esposto da Cicerone in off. 3, 12, 50-53 (affine, credo, a quelli indicati nella n. 1 come vicini all'episodio in questione) e discusso con argomentazioni contrastanti dagli scolarchi stoici Diogene di Babilonia e Antipatro di Tarso, a proposito del venditore che approfitta del bisogno degli abitanti di Rodi, travagliata anch'essa da una carestía, per vendere il suo carico di frumento a un prezzo elevato tacendo il prossimo arrivo di altre navi cariche di viveri. Ma all'interno della produzione letteraria la presenza del tema nell'opera di Valerio Massimo (7, 6, ext. 2-3), in Petronio (141) e nella sat. XV di Giovenale , ne conferma l'evidente possibilité di sfruttamento in chiave patética e ne suggerisce una probabile, ampia presenza nella tradizione retorica, mal- 404 RHETORICA grado le scarse attestazioni oratorie dal momento che questa pseudoquintilianea é, accanto alia XIII declamazione di Libanio, l'unica che possediamo sull'argomento. Per questo motivo un'importanza preponderante viene assegnata nella declamazione al pathos, al conseguimento del quale concorre un ampio uso del color poeticus: le scelte linguistiche ed espressive richiamano ampiamente Virgilio e Ovidio, un po' meno di frequente Seneca trágico, la cui memoria era tuttavia ineludibile dato il rilievo concesso all'argomento nel Thyestes. Di notazioni di carattere lingüístico e intertestuale (in qualche caso indispensabili a comprendere un testo non privo di oscuritá nella sua paradossalitá: cf., ad es., la n. 46 a proposito di 5, 2) é ricco il commento che tuttavia, come indica lo stesso S., «non si propone come un commento esaustivo , ma come un sussidio per l'intellezione di un testo sempre impegnativo, spesso arduo» (p. 30): rivolto agli studenti oltre che agli studiosi, esso offre perció la traduzione delle citazioni greche e anche di quelle latine che non siano immediatamente comprensibili (come dei titoli stessi delle opere dalle quali sono tratte). II tono del commento, come quello della traduzione, che privilegia uno stile colloquiale, é piano ed esplicativo, con frequenti delucidazioni del senso generale del periodo, il che, al di la dell'informazione, rende il volume chiaro e di piacevole lettura. II testo seguíto, in attesa di quello criticamente riveduto dallo stesso S. di tutte le...

Reviews 301 Quintilian and the Law: The Art of Persuasion in Law and Politics, ed. Olga Tellegen-Couperus (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2003). While there is some evidence (pp. 1, 191) that the title of this book reflects its original scope (and that of the conference that underlies it), its actual contents range much more widely around the central figure of Quintilian. Many papers are entirely concerned with the history and analysis of rhetorical theory. Nonetheless, the papers concerning law are the most coherent group and, by and large, the most ambitiously argued. After making a few general observations on the whole volume and briefly treating the contents of the twenty-five individual papers, I will turn primarily to two questions regarding the utility of the Institutio Oratoria for lawyers which make up the most sustained topics of discussion. The essays collected here were written by scholars from diverse fields (law, classics, rhetoric, literary theory, comparative literature) and of diverse, mostly European, nationalities (Spain and Holland are particularly well represented). All papers have been rendered into what is for the most part very readable English. Also, despite their origin in a conference in 2001, most of the papers come equipped with the kind of scholarly apparatus one expects in a written work. Nearly all the papers treat a single book (or smaller segment of the text) as their subject, with a few verging on being running commentaries. Jorge Fernández Lopez studies sources of authority, both for texts and for persons. Serena Querzoli views Q.'s education project in the context of concrete evidence for contemporary educational practice. Tomás Albaladejo develops a theoretically informed analysis of the three genera of oratory, tying them to communicative function more than "occasion" (narrowly defined). Olivia Robinson investigates the opportunities and pitfalls of using Q. as a source for Roman law. Ida Mastrorosa argues Q.'s text is substantively shaped by his court-room experience. Giovanni Rossi discusses the reception of classical rhetoric by (mostly) seventeenth century Venetian lawyers (this piece has the least to do with Q. specifically). Belén Saiz Noeda treats the theory of proof within and according to Q., especially with respect to the use of topoi. Andrew Lewis clarifies a usually under-translated phrase at 5.13.7 by reference to the facts of legal procedure. Maria Silvana Celentano demonstrates the value of self-exemplification in book 6. Jeroen Bons and Robert Taylor Lane translate and analyze IO 6.2 from a philosophical point of view. Richard A. Katula discusses the means of exploiting emotion in venues (ancient and modern) in which that practice is normatively disfavored. José-Domingo Rodríguez Martín investigates the relative weight of oratory (especially pathos) and law in the Roman courtroom. (Katula's piece is to some extent "how to"; Rodríguez Martin's is relatively more historical.) David Pujante's discussion of status theory shows that dispositio is not just an afterthought to inventio, but is itself constitutive of interpretation. Maarten Henket advocates the use of Quintilianic strategies to bring more predictability to judicial law-making. Jan Willem Tellegen reinterprets the 302 RHETORICA casua Curiana by reevaluating the Quintilianic evidence. Francisco ChicoRico analyzes the virtues of style and their hidden connections to the other operations of rhetoric. The editor offers two contributions of her own. In one she offers a compelling rereading of a quoted sententia (8.5.19) by consideration of the legal context. In the other she gives a similarly constructed interpretation of a troubled passage at 9.2.65-6. Barend van Heusden gives a cognitive semantic account of the notion of figured discourse. James J. Murphy explains Q.'s plan for adult education. Sanne Taekema focuses more specifically on the motives behind Q.'s choice of canon, by way of a comparison with the goals of the modern Law and Literature movement. Peter Wiilfing gives an account of ancient and modern gestural culture. Esperanza Osaba tries to reconstruct the circumstance ofjudicial appeal alluded to at 11.1.76. Vincenzo Scarano Ussani shows how the Quintilianic perfect orator is fitted to the circumstances of the contemporary (i.e. imperial) community Willem Witteveen argues that Q.'s deep rhetoric...

While insults and name-calling are no strangers to scholarly debate, exchanges between Gretser and the elder Junius, Scaliger and Petau, Casaubon and Baronio, and others in the early decades of the seventeenth century exhibit a remarkable level of bitter and insulting vituperation. The present paper presents some examples and suggests some motives for their violent rhetorical behavior.

Reviews Une expérience rhétorique. L'éloquence de la Révolution. Textes réunis par Eric Négrel et Jean-Paul Sermain. Studies on Voltaire, vol. 2. Oxford: Voltaire Foundation, 2002. Pp. 333. Few disciplines in recent decades have grown faster than the study of rhetoric, and few aspects of it have attracted greater attention than the elo­ quence of the French Revolution. This collection of papers, a rich mosaic of findings, impressions, and critical stances, is not, however, narrowly focused in time (the oft favoured period by far seems to be 1789-1794), nor does it privilege the spoken word alone. Gathering together under three rubrics some twenty-one contributions to the debate that it invited, the volume pro­ poses a series of constantly overlapping reflections going from the rhetoric of pre-revolutionary France down to the late nineteenth century. Within these broad parameters, we tend to know generally what developments and what reactions to expect: the men of '89, continuing to have recourse to their own counter-rhetoric of the Enlightenment, stepped up their vehement denun­ ciations of the old orthodox rhetoric as an instrument of oppression and mystification. As the Revolution progressed, and as new actors came centrestage , pleading their causes with a polemical passion and intensity the like of which had never been seen before, so their views on a rhetoric appropriate to the circumstances fragmented even more: should it reflect Atticism or Asianism, rely upon pathos or the more rational ability to docere et probare? In parallel—and the point must not be neglected—this modern eloquence in its various new avatars—was not limited to political interventions alone: it flourished elsewhere, in the theatre, painting, engraving, opera, poetry, song. Events were to dictate, however, that the dominant rhetoric (albeit temporar­ ily) should be the rhetoric of the Jacobins and the Montague, an occurrence which was destined to leave France, for generations to come, with a moral problem that proved to be particularly acute in the domain of education: how could a great nation, originally motivated by the most exhilarating of hu­ man aspirations, end up floundering in gore? was it hence, after Thermidor, even advisable to teach rhetoric / eloquence to the young? When—with few exceptions - critics overwhelmingly concluded that the "Revolution," with its "synthetic" pathos and its murderous rationalism, had abused rhetoric, and prostituted it in a bid to seduce a popular public to the extent that it had become the very perversion of reason itself and the justification for the most abominable crimes, the answer to that question was inevitable. The© The International Society for the History of Rhetoric, Rhetorica, Volume XXII, Number 2 (Spring 2004). 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 205 206 RHETORICA Idéologues in turn, who were influential in defining the curriculum for the new Écoles centrales, had equally fixed ideas on the matter. And so it also was that, throughout the nineteenth century, the experi­ ence of the First Republic tended almost overwhelmingly to define rhetorical practice and the more temperate use of language (whence the increasing re­ habilitation of the more "classical" rhetoric practised by the Girondins). This was not to say, however, that reference to l'éloquence révolutionnaire of the more "unbridled" sort disappeared: whatever people thought about it, they looked upon it either as a purveyor of "historical" documents, or as an oblig­ atory reference point for authors of treatises on rhetoric and Belles-Lettres. In parallel, however (for the phenomenon goes hand-in-hand with the slow and painful rebirth of the Republican movement), certain critics, scholars, and historians (starting with Charles Nodier)—particularly in the final decades of the nineteenth century—worked much more deliberately for the reappro­ priation of that revolutionary heritage in which eloquence, viewed also as having literary value (despite the ex cathedra pronoucements of a Taine and a Lanson), was an integral part of France's heritage. That, for example, is how—in 1894—Joseph Reinach (Le 'Condones' français. L'Eloquence française depuis la Révolution jusqu'à nos jours), came—albeit timidly—to foreshadow...

REVIEW

Book Review| January 01 2004 Review of Quintilian and the Law: The Art of Persuasion in Law and Politics, ed. Olga Tellegen-Couperus (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2003). Andrew M. Riggsby Andrew M. Riggsby 1 University Station ##C3400, Austin, TX 78712 USA Search for other works by this author on: This Site PubMed Google Scholar Rhetorica (2004) 22 (3): 301–304. https://doi.org/10.1525/rh.2004.22.3.301 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 Andrew M. Riggsby; Review of Quintilian and the Law: The Art of Persuasion in Law and Politics, ed. Olga Tellegen-Couperus (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2003).. Rhetorica 1 January 2004; 22 (3): 301–304. doi: https://doi.org/10.1525/rh.2004.22.3.301 Download citation file: Ris (Zotero) Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All ContentRhetorica Search This content is only available via PDF. © The International Society for the History of Rhetoric You do not currently have access to this content.

104 RHETORICA lich im Umlauf waren, so wenig tragen B.s Interpretationen (S. 208-236) zur Fundierung dieser Ansicht bei. B.s Arbeit geht, zusammenfassend gesagt, von einem wichtigen Problem aus, behandelt dieses aber in einer methodisch wenig überzeugenden Form. Angesichts der oft weitausholenden, streckenweise in ermüdender Diktion vorgetragenen Darstellung stellt sich die Frage, ob B. ihr Ziel durch eine umfassende Sichtung und Interpretation der in der einschlàgigen Literatur des 5. und 4. Jahrhunderts vorliegenden Aussagen zur Schriftlichkeit nicht besserhàtte erreichen kônnen. Es sei hier nur - ergânzend zu den von B. selbst angeführten "Schrift"-Belegen-u.a. verwiesen auf Sokrates' Schilderung der zeitgenôssischen Rhetorik-Lehrbiicher (Platon, Phaedr. 266c-267d; 271c), auf das bei L. Radermacher (Artium scriptores: Sitzb. Ôsterr. Akad. 227,3, 1951) zu findende Material, auf die Belege bei W. Steidle (Redekunst und Bildung bei Isokrates: Hermes 80, 1952, 271 Anm. 5). Auch im einzelnen bietet die Arbeit manches Inakzeptable, so, wenn B. Platon auf dem Gebiet der Sprachbetrachtung und der formalen Logik zum "Schüler" der Sophisten erklàrt (S. 238), verkennend, daP zum einen Platons epistemologisches Interesse an der Sprache, insbesondere der "Richtigkeit der Wôrter", sich gerade nicht am sophistischen Begriff der formalen Sprachrichtigkeit orientiert, sondern—so im Krati/los—zuriickweist auf die etymologisierende Sprachanalyse des frühen Griechentums, daP zum andern für Platons Logik nicht die von ihm als Antilogike (Eristik) bekampfte sophistische Dialektik grundlegend ist, sondern das sokratische Bemühen um den Begriff. Zwei etwas knapp geratene Register erschliePen das Buch. Druckfehler finden sich selten, doch weisen einige griechische Wôrter falsche Akzente bzw. Spiritus auf (so S. 139; 144; 209 u.ô.). Angesichts der wertvollen Fragestellung des Werkes braucht dessen Besprechung indes nicht im Negativen zu enden. Dieter Lau Universitat Essen 0ivind Andersen, Im Garten der Rhetorik. Die Kunst der Rede in der Antike. Aus dem Norwegischen von Brigitte Mannsperger und Ingunn Tveide, Darmstadt 2001 (Originalausgabe: I Retorikkens Hage, Oslo 1995). An der Pforte zum Rhetorik-Garten empfàngt Andersen (im folgenden A.) seine Besucher, erklàrt ihnen den für sie ausgesuchten Spazierweg mit dessen in thematischen, problemorientierten Aspekten wie Kommunikation , Argumentation, Pàdagogik (S. 11) bestehenden—Markierungen und nennt ihnen als Hauptanliegen7 der vorgesehenen flânerie commune, Reviews 105 "herauszufinden, was ais typisch gelten kann für Redner und Redekunst" (S. 17). Der Beobachtungszeitraum reicht von 500 v. Chr. bis 500 n. Chr. (S. 12); das Beobachtungsfeld, in einer Quellenschau umrissen (S. 13-17), umfaRt die thematisch einschlágige Literatur der paganen griechisch-rômischen Antike: "theoretische Schriften, Handbücher und Reden" (S. 13). Den Schwerpunkt bilden Aristóteles, Cicero und Quintilian. Überraschen dürfte den Gartenbesucher , daR christliche Autoren—man denkt etwa an Augustinus, an seine Predigten, seine für die Theorie auch der christlichen Beredsamkeit grundlegende Schrift De doctrina Christiana (nur einen kurzen Hinweis auf diese gibt A. S. 225), seine Indienstnahme der Tropologie als hermeneutisches Instrumentarium der Bibelexegese—in A.s fiortus rhetoricns keinen angemessenen Platz gefunden haben und so die in ihrer Bedeutung kaum zu überschátzende Rezeption und Transformation der paganen Rhetorik durch das frühe Christentum auRerhalb verbleibt. Nach erklàrenden Bemerkungen zu den Termini rhetor, rhetorikos, techne (dazu nochmals S. 272f.) und rhetorike techne (S. 17f.)—man vermiRt die entsprechende Erklàrung von orator sowie den Hinweis, daR bis in die Zeit des Hellenismus sophistes die Bezeichnung für den Redelehrer gewesen ist— pràsentiert A. antike Definitionen der Rhetorik (S. 19-23). Einzelkritik—aus Raumgründen kann hier wie im folgenden nur auf weniges hingewiesen werden: - Quintilian, so erklàrt A., habe mit seinem Werk, der Institutio oratoria, "1500 Jahre lang einen ungeheuren EinfluR auf Rhetorik und Pádagogik ausgeübt" (S. 14), eine erstaunliche Feststellung, da Quintilians Wirkung in der Antike bekanntlich bescheiden gewesen ist und die groRe Zeit seiner Rezeption erst mit Poggios Fund (im Winter 1415/16) beginnt. - DaR Demetrios von Phaleron nicht "um die Zeitenwende gewirkt hat" (S. 17; chronologisch richtige Einordnung dann S. 257), sollte eigentlich klar sein. - Aristóteles' berühmte Definition der Rhetorik (rhet. 1,2, 1355 b 26f.) wird falsch übersetzt als die Fàhigkeit, "die móglichen überredenden Momente in jedem Stoff aufzuzeigen" (S. 20; nochmals S...

Reviews Lonni Bahmer, ScJiriftlichkeit und Rhetorik: Das Beispiel Griechenland. Ein Beitrag zur historischen Schriftlichkeitsforschung. Hildesheim / Zü­ rich / New York 2000. Die derzeit intensiv betriebene historiscbe Schriftlichkeitsforschung bildet den Rahmen, innerhalb dessen L. Bahmer (im folgenden B.) in ihrem Werk die Frage nach der Beziehung von Schriftlichkeit und Rhetorik stellt, naherhin, nach der Bedeutung der Rhetorik fur die Schriftlichkeit, nach der Rolle der Schrift bei der Herstellung der Rede sowie der Schrift als Medium des Lehrens und Lernens. Die "Arbeit beansprucht, von den Quellen auszugehen " (S. 15); im wesentlichen handelt es sich hierbei um den Anonymus Iamblichi, die Dissoi Logoi und die erste Tétralogie Antiphons. Der Interpretation dieser Texte geht die fast ein Drittel der Arbeit ausmachende Einführung (S. 11-78) voran, in der B. den Forschungsstand sichtet— gelegentlich mit hohlem Pathos (z.B. S. 38) und in oberflâchlich-ambitiôser Polemik. So etwa gegenüber R. Pfeiffer (S. 29f.), dessen Darstellung der Sophistik und ihrer Bedeutung für die Schriftlichkeit und die Entwicklung des Buchwesens (History of Classical Scholarship, Oxford 1968, 16-56), genau besehen, die Antwort auf die von B. gestellten Fragen in wichtigen Punkten vorwegnimmt; ist doch die Sophistik mit der Rhetorik aufs engste verbunden. Da die von B. als Hauptquellen herangezogenen Texte explizit weder auf den Zusammenhang von Rhetorik und Schriftlichkeit noch in ihrer sprachlichen Gestaltung auf schriftliche VerfaBtheit verweisen, bedient sich B. vorwiegend der indirekten Beweisfiihrung. So sucht sie ihre These, der Anom /mus Iamblichi habe seine Ausführungen schriftlich verfaBt, zu beweisen durch die Einreihung dieses Textes unter solche Textsorten, "die von vornherein als Schriftprodukte [...] angesehen werden" kônnen (S. 109). Die in den Dissoi Logoi (5,Ilf.) als ein Beispiel für situativen Relativismus angeführte betonungsbedingte Bedeutungsverànderung von Homographen motiviert B., obwohl das Exempel eher den Rang der Mündlichkeit dokumentiert, zu ausgedehnten Erôrterungen u.a. antiker Schreibkonventionen, des Ineinandergreifens von Musik, Rhythmus, Grammatik, des Elementarunterrichtes—mit dem Ziel, das "SchriftbewuBtsein" des Verfassers (S. 173) herauszustellen. Und schlieBlich: So unzweifelhaft es ist, daB die Tetralogien Antiphons als Musterreden wie andere rhetorische Beispielsammlungen dieser Zeit schrift-© The International Society for the History of Rhetoric, Rhetorica, Volume XXII, Number 1 (Winter 2004). 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 103 104 RHETORICA lich im Umlauf waren, so wenig tragen B.s Interpretationen (S. 208-236) zur Fundierung dieser Ansicht bei. B.s Arbeit geht, zusammenfassend gesagt, von einem wichtigen Problem aus, behandelt dieses aber in einer methodisch wenig überzeugenden Form. Angesichts der oft weitausholenden, streckenweise in ermüdender Diktion vorgetragenen Darstellung stellt sich die Frage, ob B. ihr Ziel durch eine umfassende Sichtung und Interpretation der in der einschlàgigen Literatur des 5. und 4. Jahrhunderts vorliegenden Aussagen zur Schriftlichkeit nicht besserhàtte erreichen kônnen. Es sei hier nur - ergânzend zu den von B. selbst angeführten "Schrift"-Belegen-u.a. verwiesen auf Sokrates' Schilderung der zeitgenôssischen Rhetorik-Lehrbiicher (Platon, Phaedr. 266c-267d; 271c), auf das bei L. Radermacher (Artium scriptores: Sitzb. Ôsterr. Akad. 227,3, 1951) zu findende Material, auf die Belege bei W. Steidle (Redekunst und Bildung bei Isokrates: Hermes 80, 1952, 271 Anm. 5). Auch im einzelnen bietet die Arbeit manches Inakzeptable, so, wenn B. Platon auf dem Gebiet der Sprachbetrachtung und der formalen Logik zum "Schüler" der Sophisten erklàrt (S. 238), verkennend, daP zum einen Platons epistemologisches Interesse an der Sprache, insbesondere der "Richtigkeit der Wôrter", sich gerade nicht am sophistischen Begriff der formalen Sprachrichtigkeit orientiert, sondern—so im Krati/los—zuriickweist auf die etymologisierende Sprachanalyse des frühen Griechentums, daP zum andern für Platons Logik nicht die von ihm als Antilogike (Eristik) bekampfte sophistische Dialektik grundlegend ist, sondern das sokratische Bemühen um den Begriff. Zwei etwas knapp geratene Register erschliePen das Buch. Druckfehler finden sich selten, doch weisen einige griechische Wôrter falsche Akzente bzw. Spiritus auf (so S. 139; 144; 209 u.ô.). Angesichts der wertvollen Fragestellung des Werkes braucht dessen Besprechung indes nicht im Negativen zu enden. Dieter Lau Universitat Essen 0ivind Andersen, Im Garten der Rhetorik. Die Kunst der Rede in der Antike. Aus dem Norwegischen...

Reviews 111 Januar 385 anlaBlich der Konsulatsubernahme durch Bauto in Anwesenheit des jungen Kaisers Valentinian II. verlas. Verfehlt ist die Ubersetzung der Stelle: "Ich konnte sicher sein, daB die Zuhorer meine Liigen guthieBen, auch wenn sie die Wahrheit kannten" (S. 304); statt: "[...] als ich mich anschickte, eine Lobrede aufden Kaiser zu halten, in der ich viele Liigen vortrug und mir so die Gunst derer, die Bescheid wuBten, verschaffte". - Wie unbekiimmert - abgesehen vom Ubersetzungstechnischen - A. mit den Texten umgeht, mag abschlieBend das Beispiel Thuk. 2,65 (S. 282) zeigen: A. zitiert zunachst Thuk. 2,65,9, erklart dann: "Und er [sc. Thukvdides] fahrt fort"; doch als angeblichen Folgetext bringt A. Thuk. 2,65,8, einen Abschnitt, der in Wahrheit voransteht. In der Einfiihrung erklart A. selbstgefallig: "Und wenn jemand meint, das beste an dem Buch seien die Zitate, dann freut mich das fiir sie" (S. 13). In der Tat reiht das Buch Seite um Seite Zitat an Zitat in solcher Dichte, daB die Zitatenmontage weithin zur bestimmenden Darstellungsform wird. Ja, mitunter mochte man A. zurufen: e/zc, iam satis est!, wenn sich der Gartenspaziergang in einem Zitatengestriipp zu verlieren droht. Schlimmer als dies ist indes, daB die Ubersetzungen in einem geradezu skandaldsen Umfang fehlerhaft gefertigt sind. Dies fallt - zusammen mit den zahlreichen sachlichen Schnitzern - umso mehr ins Gewicht, als das Buch offensichtlich, wie auch der Verzicht auf das dienstbare Heer der FuBnoten und auf die Auseinandersetzung mit anderen wissenschaftlichen Positionen zeigt, sich an ein breiteres, weniger fachspezifisches Publikum wendet; ihm gegeniiber aber steht die Fachwissenschaft in einer besonderen Verantwortung. Gerade mit Blick auf diesen Adressatenkreis sei auch noch darauf hingewiesen, daB im Verzeichnis der Ubersetzungen (S. 316f.) der Hinweis auf die Ubertragungen von mehreren Autoren und Werken, aus denen A. zitiert (z.B. Augusti­ nus, Confessiones, De doctrina Christiana; Livius; Ps. Xenophon, Verfassung von Athen; Thukydides), fehlt. Im Vorwort zur deutschen Ausgabe gibt A. seiner Einschatzung Ausdruck , daB "[sein] Buch auch fiir die deutschen Leser seinen Nutzen haben [werde]"; dies darf angesichts der Qualitat des Werkes zu Recht bezweifelt werden. Dieter Lau Universitat Essen Emmanuelle Danblon, Rhétorique et rationalité. Essai sur l'émergence de la critique et de la persuasion, Préface de M. Dominicy (Bruxelles: Editions de l'Université de Bruxelles, 2002), 276 pp. Il volume di Emmanuelle Danblon (d'ora in poi D.) entra a pieno titolo nel mainstream di studi che, dalla metà degli anni '50 del secolo scorso, si prefiggono di recuperare e valorizzare la struttura e le radici razionali e 112 RHETORICA logiche della retorica, riconnettendo l'insegnamento aristotélico con moderni modelli socio-cognitivi. Dopo una breve introduzione (pp. 3-5), preceduta dalla prefazione di Marc Dominicy (pp. VII-XII), lo studio si articola in tre capitoli, i cui titoli costituiscono, per cosí dire, una progressione sillogistica di grande chiarezza: I) Raisonnement et rationalité (pp. 7-56); II) La rationalité de la Rhétorique (pp. 57151 ); III) Un modèle naturaliste de la raison rhétorique (pp. 153-232). Conclusion (pp. 233-238), Bibliographie (pp. 239-253), Index des noms propres e Index des notions costituiscono l'appropriata strumentazione finale del volume. Il método d'indagine di D. è positivamente caratterizzato da un' esauriente presentazione e da una chiara discussione critica della bibliografía di riferimento, da cui discendono non poche ipotesi personali ed originali, caratterizzate spesso da un utile ricorso alia schematizzazione di tavole riassuntive (ad es. pp. 45,163,185,192, 234). II primo capitolo affronta l'analisi della justification, valutata come un'espressione classica della razionalità umana. Una riflessione adeguatamente documentata sulla duplice razionalità del ragionamento induttivo, giá intuita dal pensiero aristotélico, conduce ad individúame precisamente i due criteri strettamente collegati: effabilité (des représentations) e argumentabilit é (des expressions), due tempi di un'epistemologia che procede dal contenuto proposizionale alla sua argomentabilitá. In tal modo si stabilisce una sorta di genealogía dell'induzione, che si basa sulla distinzione, prima diacronica, poi sincrónica, della formazione e utilizzazione del nostro patrimonio topico; basato, a sua volta, su tre tappe cognitive: alla fase deïVévidence, caratterizzata dalla mimesis, succédé quella del linguaggio orale, che trova la sua espressione 'giustificativa' nel proverbio. Infine, il linguaggio scritto con­ sente lo...

The Mexican diplomat Alfonso Reyes (1889–1959) was notable in the cultural panorama of Spanish America in the first half of the 20th century for his acquaintance with classical rhetoric, a discipline rarely studied at that time in that part of the world. This article distinguishes four aspects of rhetoric throughout Reyes’ oeuvre: (i) a vulgar sense, (ii) an erudite sense, (iii) classical theories, (iv) and modern applications. In his early work, Reyes uses rhetoric in a pejorative and vulgar sense. Around the year 1940, Reyes starts to show a lively interest in rhetoric, opts definitively for an erudite sense of the term, and initiates the study of the classical art of persuasion. In his third phase, Reyes gains deeper knowledge of rhetoric, lectures on the subject, and explains his favorite orators and theorists. Finally, his use of rhetoric reveals a commitment to the reality of Spanish America. Reyes’ rhetoric is an “actualised” and “Americanised” version that shows the possibilities of the classical art of persuasion in Spanish American society.

Reviews Roberto Velardi, Retorica, filosofía, letteratura. Saggi di storia della reto­ rica greca su Gorgia, Platone e Anassimene di Lampsaco (Napoli, 2001) A.I.O.N.: Annali dell'Istituto Universitario Oriéntale di Napoli. Di­ partimento di studi del mondo classico e del Mediterráneo antico: Sezione filologico-letteraria. Quaderni, VI, 2001, pp. 155. L'autore raccoglie in questo volume quattro saggi sulla retorica greca antica, che riguardano un arco di tempo dagli ultimi decenni del V alla meté del IV secolo a. C. L'Encomio di Elena di Gorgia da Leontini costituisce il più antico testo di retorica a noi giunto: ad esso è dedicato il primo saggio "11 logismos di Gorgia". II Velardi osserva (pp. 17s.), che fuñico genere di discorso che sia in grado di rivendicare a giusta ragione la veritá come suo obiettivo, proprio in quanto contrasta la pistis di coloro che prestano ascolto ai poeti, cioé la doxrt-credenza prodotta dalla peitho esercitata dalla tradizione poética, è il discorso di tipo nuovo elaborato in base alie rególe enunciate da Gorgia, del quale VEncomio di Elena costituisce insieme il manifesto programmatico e l'esemplificazione concreta. Lo strumento del quale questo discorso si deve dotare, per poter cogliere la verità, non è né Yapate poética, né Lincantesimo mágico prodotto dalla combinazione con la dccra-funzione, né l'opposizione tra teorie concorrenti come nei discorsi dei fisiologi, né le rególe della techne logografica, né la vélocité dell'intelligenza esibita nei dialoghi filosofici, ma il logismos. Il logismos è Lelemento che caratterizza il logos gorgiano e lo distingue da tutte le altre forme di logos, in versi e in prosa. II Velardi si sofferma in particolare sulle interpretazioni correnti del termine logismos in Gorgia, quindi sulla responsabilité e non responsabilité di Elena nella tradizione épica, infine analizza con particolare acume la sezione introduttiva dell'opera, per definiré in cosa consista il logismos. Allarga la sua indagine terminológica all'opera di Erodoto e osserva quindi che le occorrenze più antiche del sostantivo logismos—in ogni caso non anteriori alla data presumibile di composizione áeWElena—compaiono nei Corpus Hippocraticum. Il secondo capitolo ("Due redazioni áeWEncomio di Elena di Gorgia", testo ampliato di un contributo apparso in Vichiana, s. IV, 2, 2000: 147156 ) costituisce un intelligente saggio di critica testuale su un problemático passo áeWEncomio, par. 12. Per motivi relativi alla struttura il Velardi avanza hipótesi che il nostro testo áeWEncomio sia il frutto della giustapposizione di due redazioni distinte dell'opera: nella prima redazione, che doveva con-© The International Society for the History of Rhetoric, Rhetorica, Volume XXI, Number 3 (Summer 2003). 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 197 198 RHETORICA cludersi con l'attuale par. 12, le cause del comportamento di Elena prese in esame erano soltanto tre (la divinita, la violenza, la persuasione della parola), perció l'elenco iniziale non comprende l'eros. In un secondo momento venne aggiunta una sezione relativa al logos ed una all'eros. In questa seconda parte, secondo la ricostruzione del Velardi, Eattenzione di Gorgia si concentra sulla peitho (par. 13) ed é possibile che la redazione ampliata rappresenti una fase piü matura della riflessione teórica di Gorgia, con la quale il maestro sici­ liano approfondiva Eindagine sulle dinamiche della persuasione. L'ipotesi del Velardi é che in questa sezione aggiunta Eautore áo\VEncomio fosse stimolato nelEindagine sui generi del discorso dalEincontro con Eeclettico am­ biente ateniese, mentre la riflessione sulEeros gli sarebbe stata suggerita dall'interesse del circolo socrático per questo tema. La discussione sulla natura del dialogo platónico prende le mosse dalla critica della scrittura formulata nel Fedro (il Velardi riproduce nel terzo capitolo il testo di una relazione tenuta al Convegno su "La struttura del dialogo platónico", Napoli 2000): é noto che gli studiosi, che si riconoscono nella 'Scuola di Tubinga', interpretano Eintera opera di Platone come un'introduzione alia vera e propria teoría filosófica, che si troverebbe invece nelle dottrine non scritte, e identificano nei dialoghi un sistema di rimandi al corpus dottrinale órale ed esotérico. II Velardi nella...

In their Traité de l’argumentation Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca declare themselves to be inspired by Aristotle’s dialectics and, contextually, to exclude Hegel’s dialectics from the horizon of Nouvelle Rhétorique. Yet, while some passages in the Traité account for their choice of Aristotle, the same cannot be said for their attitude towards Hegel, whose dialectics our two authors reject without criticism. Such rejection is actually in contrast with Nouvelle Rhétorique’s methodology, which is open to the examination of new meanings and usages in the philosophical field. In fact, when applied consistently, this methodology can discover similarities between Hegel’s dialectics and New Rhetoric, and remodel Perelman’s questions concerning tautology, analogy, philosophical pluralism, and the sense of audience.

Reviews La Rhétorique d'Aristote. Traditions et commentaires de l'antiquité au XVIIe siècle. Textes réunis par G. Dahan et I. Rosier-Catach. Paris. Vrin, 1998. Pp. 356. Il volume raccoglie i testi delle relaziom presentate nel corso di un colloquio dedicate alla Retorica di Aristotele (Centre de la Baume-lès-Aix, 915 luglio 1995). Nella premessa i due curatori da un lato ricordano la perenne centralità della R. di A., quale testa di riterimento di teoria e prassi retorica dall'Antichità ai nostri giorni e, proprio per questo, quasi un testo senza storia. Dall'altro puntualizzano che il colloquia ha voluto verificare questo status singolare della R. di A., sia sul piano della tradizione del trattato, sia su quello dei commenti ad esso relativi. Cosi gli studi raccolti nel volume, piuttosto che l'analisi del testo in sé, privilegiano la prospettiva storica secondo cui si sana variamente orientati i differenti usi pragmatici, della R. di A. Tali studi "env isagent d'une part la longue durée (de l'Antiquité au XVIIe siècle), d'autre part dans des traditions différentes (traditions grecques antique et byzantine, latines romaine et médiév ale, traditions arabe et juive médiév ales, traditions humanistes de la Renaissance et du début de l'age classique) et s'efforcent de mettre en lumière des éléments de continuité ou de divergence et surtout de faire apparaître les regards différents qui ont été portés sur le même texte'' (p. 7). Nelle diverse epoche e nei differenti ambiti culturali la conoscenza e il riuso della R. di A si sono realizzati in modo piuttosto articolato. Nota nella sua interezza o solo in parte, o ancora attraverso estratti e compendi, ha comunque esercitato un'influenza déterminante. La stessa circolazione del testa della R. è strettamente collegata al complesso problema delle traduzioni e "ritraduzioni" (traduzioni faite direttamente dal greco in arabo e poi "ritradotte " in latina o in ebraico: i pensatori arabi ebbero infatti a disposizione la traduzione della R. nella loro lingua molto tempo prima che fossero allestite le prime traduzioni latine) (p. 8). Per di più ricezione e interpretazione della R. di A. non solo hanno riguardato la storia interna del testa, la sua tradizione e trasmissione, ma hanno anche generato riflessioni sulia esatta collocazione della retorica (e della R. di A.) nel piu generale campo dei saperi intellettuali. Si è stabilito cosi un sofisticato dialogo intertestuale che, nel ricondurre alla R. di A. quale ipotesto, ha prodotto, dall'età ellenistica in poi, nuove interpretazioni, nuove riflessioni (p. 9). C The international Society for the History of Rhetoric, Rhetorica, Volume XXI, Number 1 (Winter 2003). 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 55 56 RHETORICA Il saggio di L. Calboli Montefusco ("La force probatoire des pistéis atekhnoi d'Aristote aux rhéteurs latins de la république et de l'empire") parte dal confronto fra due passi famosi che definiscono e distinguono i due tipi di pistéis, atekhnoi e entekhnoi (Quintiliano, Inst. Or. 5, 1, 1-2; Arist. Rhet. I 1355 b 35-39). Per meglio comprendere l'antitesi di Aristotele fra pistéis atekhnoi ed entekhnoi, resa da Quintiliano corne antitesi tra probationes inartificiales e artificiales, la Calboli Montefusco ricostruisce con ricchezza di dettagli la problemática nozione di pistis in Aristotele, in stretto nesso con la funzione che Aristotele stesso assegna alla tekhnê, e accoglie decisamente l'interpretazione tradizionale, che attribuisce ad entrambi i tipi di pistéis il valore di "strumenti di persuasione," utilizzabili anche insieme nel discorso, ma autonomi e indipendenti l'uno dall'altro, rafforzandola con l'analisi di vari passi della R. che aiutano non solo a comprendere meglio il senso di pistis in Aristotele, ma anche ad osservare il recupero che Aristotele opera di questa nozione nell'ambito della dottrina del pathos. Cicerone (De orat. 2.116) apporta importanti modifiche alio schema di Aristotele, unitamente ad alcune innovazioni in sede teórica (Inv. 2.48), che egli applica a più riprese nella prassi oratoria, dalla difesa...

Jan Miernowski Les limites de la rhétorique L 'empire rhétorique connaît-il des limites? Aron Kibédi Varga a récemment posé cette question dans son article "Universalité et limites de la rhétorique".1 II est symp­ tomatique que la seconde partie du titre soit discutée seulement dans les trois dernières pages du texte, et cela surtout sur un mode interro­ gatif. Dans le présent numéro de la revue, nous reprenons le débat en le concentrant sur un moment historique précis: la Renaissance, et particulièrement la Renaissance française. Existe-t-il un au-delà de la rhétorique pour les humanistes français qui viennent de redécouvrir le riche héritage de l'art ora­ toire classique et qui ambitionnent de fonder leur propre éloquence dans la poésie et les sciences, la politique et la prédication? A n'en pas douter, l'au-delà rhétorique est lui-même une figure oratoire (Rigolot). Est-ce à dire que les limites de la rhétorique à la Renais­ sance ne sont que les frontières internes d'un empire fatalement uni­ versel? Ou bien inversement: la culture renaissante conçoit-elle des phénomènes discursifs qui échappent à l'emprise de l'art du bien dire? Telle la poésie, province en apparence pacifiée et soumise, mais qui rêve d'être la nouvelle métropole (Cornilliat). Ou bien le signe esthétique en tant que tel, dont la fulgurante évidence n'a que faire des stratégies argumentatives étriquées (Demonet). Autrement dit, vouloir tracer les limites de la rhétorique à la Renaissance revient à interroger des théories sémiotiques, des gestuelles pathétiques et des valeurs éthiques qui font obstacle—que ce soit ouvertement ou non—à l'expansion de l'art de l'éloquence: Theméneutique occultiste du hiéroglyphe, à écarter si Ton projette la mise en ordre oratoire des mathématiques (Pantin); la haine, qui, au lieu de convaincre les } Rhetorica 18, (2000) pp. 1-28.© The International Society for the History of Rhetoric, Rhetorica, Volume XX, Number 4 (Autumn 2002). 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 - 318 RHETORICA volontés libres s'adonne au rituel de l'anathème (Miernowski); la grâce, ce point de mire obligé mais inévitablement hors d'atteinte pour la persuasion prédicante (Fragonard). On l'a bien compris: sonder les limites de la rhétorique à la Renaissance ne signifie pas seulement explorer les frontières d'une culture, objet de l'investigation. C'est aussi tester l'outillage mental mobilisé par l'investigateur, c'est mettre en question ses paradigmes intellectuels: dans quelle mesure la rhétorique est-elle un objet de l'histoire parmi d'autres et jusqu'à quel point est-elle son moule formateur? L'expérience esthétique est-elle le produit du discours ou plutôt le surplus de sa signification? Le sacré d'une culture est-il le reflet ou bien le revers du débat politique et social? Autant de questions de méthode suscitées par la recherche historique sur la rhétorique renaissante. Cette recherche a été puissamment stimulée par les conseils et par les doutes de mes amis seiziémistes, tout particulièrement Fran­ cis Goyet, Ullrich Langer et David Quint. Le débat, dont le produit collectif est ici présenté au lecteur, a eu lieu pendant les sessions des congrès de la Renaissance Society of America et de l'International Society for the History of Rhetoric, à Chicago et à Varsovie en 2001. Je voudrais remercier très chaleureusement son Excellence Monsieur Benoît d'Aboville, Ambassadeur de France en Pologne, pour l'intérêt qu'il a bien voulu manifester pour nos discussions. La rencontre de Varsovie n'aurait pas pu être réalisée sans l'aide du Centre de Civili­ sation Française, de l'Institut de Philologie Romane, ainsi que du Cen­ tre des Études sur la Tradition Classique de l'Université de Varsovie, dirigés respectivement par MM...

Dans les pamphlets les plus extrémistes du temps des guerres de religion en France—tels ceux qui suivent la Saint-Barthélemy et le meurtre des Guises—la haine introduit l’anathème comme une sorte de rituel quasi-magique, fondamentalement étranger aux prémisses mêmes de l’éloquence humaniste. Il s’agit surtout de la conception aristotélicienne d’une haine qui s’oppose diamétralement à la colère, au lieu d’en être juste une forme aiguë, comme c’est le cas dans la tradition cicéronienne. En présupposant le droit impératif à la haine, le discours pamphlétaire devient indifférent à la persuasion, ainsi qu’à la libre volonté des interlocuteurs.

314 RHETORICA Jean Nienkamp, Internal Rhetorics: Toward a History and Theory of SelfPersuasion (Carbondale, Southern Illinois University Press, 2001), xiv + 170 pp. In her deceptively slim volume, Internal Rhetorics, Jean Nienkamp pro­ vides historical precedents and theoretical arguments for opening up the self as a site for rhetorical study. She examines several key texts from the Classical, Enlightenment, and Modern periods to develop a theory of inter­ nal rhetoric, the concept of thinking as verbal interaction and the self as a socially constituted collection of internalized discourses. Since neither traditional nor expansive understandings of rhetoric theo­ retically preclude the extension of their studies to the self, Nienkamp sur­ mises that this aspect of rhetoric has been "eclipsed by various political, educational, and philosophical factors that have shaped thinking about lan­ guage use" (p. x). Traditional rhetoric's historical emphasis as an intentional practice for public address and the postmodern ban of vocabulary sugges­ tive of a unitary subject are two powerful predispositions against thinking of rhetoric as internal. Another, as Nienkamp emphasizes, is the Platonic division of philosophical and rhetorical reason and the long historical reign of thought over language. Nienkamp's history and theory of internal rhetoric clearly favors the epistemic rhetorics of Isocrates and the twentieth-century rhetoricians and psychologists she examines. Internal rhetoric, Nienkamp argues, unites the divisive disciplinary con­ cerns of traditional and expansive (interpretive) rhetorics by pointing to both the effects and intents of language and its use; it also reestablishes rhetoric's relations with psychology and philosophy by providing a complex rhetorical reading of the self and offering a model of moral agency in an antifoundationalist age. Central to these proposals is Nienkamp's distinction between cultivated and primary internal rhetoric. A deliberately cultivated moral rea­ soning is the form internal rhetoric takes in the Classical and Enlightenment texts examined in Part One. Associated with the intentionally crafted dis­ course of traditional rhetoric, cultivated internal rhetoric is the conscious use of a learned language to effect desired change in the self. Primary internal rhetoric is the form self-persuasion assumes in the post-Freudian Modern texts examined in Part Two. Associated with expansive rhetoric, primary internal rhetoric understands the powerful unconscious imperatives of mul­ tiple, often conflicting social discourses influencing internal rhetoric and constituting the rhetorical self. Because his representation of logos is both epistemic and ethical, Isocrates is Nienkamp's classical standard for internal rhetoric. The Socratic-PlatonicAristotelian treatments of self-persuasion, although identifying and address­ ing the divided psyche, depict the coercion of reason over the appetites rather than the linguistically interactive negotiation Nienkamp identifies as rhetor­ ical. Francis Bacon, the Third Earl of Shaftesbury and Richard Whately, Nienkamp's Enlightenment figures, emphasize the highly rhetorical nature of moral reasoning, the intense, concerted interactions with reason to move Reviews 315 the will away from the passions; but they use a faculty psychology whose discrete, innate parts are more acted upon than acting. Nienkamp wants an epistemic rhetoric to underwrite her theory of thought and the self, but she returns in her conclusion to the cultivated ethical reasoning associated with traditional rhetoric to propose a theory of moral agency. Nienkamp's historical depictions of rhetorical thought and the self should prove fascinating to anyone wondering or worrying about the fate of the self in rhetoric. Rhetorical representations of thought from Homer to Ken­ neth Burke portray a psyche whose constituent parts are innate. Along with Burke, Chaim Perelman and Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca use the Freudian un­ conscious to unseat "the rationalist and theological ethics of earlier periods" (p. 81), but the Freudian psyche is also comprised of innate parts. Not until Nienkamp examines the psychologies of George Mead and Lev Vygotsky does her theory of internal rhetoric reflect the historicized nature of thought processes, consciousness, and the mind. Her social-constructionist rhetorical view of thought and the self is based on knowledge gained from the social sciences, an epistemological stance epistemic rhetoric refutes. The rhetori­ cal self as depicted by Nienkamp's rhetorics and philosophies is clearly a cultivated, not experiential, self. Although she proposes collaboration with psychology to redress this problem, rhetoric is incorrigibly aligned with phi­ losophy and never more so...

312 RHETORICA dissident intellectuals from the universities to lay communities through censorship, imprisonment, and capital punishment, it could not undo the damage wrought by dissident academics such as Wyche and Thorpe, for "the products of intellectual labor, the pedagogical apparatuses that are exportable from one milieu to another, once set in motion, can long outlast the power of the individual teacher to teach" (p. 219). Pedagogies, Intellectuals, and Dissent evinces the meticulous scholarship and nuanced treatment of abstruse rhetorical issues that one would expect from the author of Rhetoric, Hermeneutics, and Translation in the Middle Ages (Cambridge, 1991). Copeland's analyses of intellectual labor, pedagogies, the "literal sense," and the politics of childhood illuminate the story of dissent and repression well known to scholars of Lollardy. Her study is a must for specialists in late medieval England. Though non-medievalists may struggle with Copeland's dense analyses of politico-religious issues, I expect that scholars of contemporary pedagogy and rhetoric—particularly oppositional pedagogies and rhetorics of resistance and coercion—will find this book well worth the effort. Karen A. Winstead The Ohio State University Luigi Spina, L'oratore scriteriato. Per una storia letteraria e política di Tersite, Napoli : Loffredo, 2001, pp. 124. Luigi Spina's short essay brilliantly shows how rich (and sometimes contradictory) can be the rhetorical reuse of a mythical character. He starts, in fact, from a recent episode in Italian political debate about liberalism, in which the category of "tersitismo" appeared as a clearly negative label, as a synonym of populism. With an interesting ambivalence this topical image is sometimes reverted, so that the ugly and misshapen Thersites becomes the symbol of an alternative vision, of a true popular polemic against war and power. The rehabilitation of a scapegoat is in fact a widespread operation. In the longue durée of Thersites it leads to some stimulating parallels with various characters of myth and history: Hephaistos, Aesopus, Socrates, Demosthenes ... Till to the most paradoxical issue: the latent identification of Thersites with his most powerful enemy, Odysseus, which starts from a significant passage of Sophocles' Philoctetes, and comes from Thersites' effective rhetorical strategy (the paradigm of cynical rhetoric). Spina's critical path follows Thersites' ambivalence through some an­ cient and modern significant versions. First of all, of course, Homer's 67 verses, and their impressive use of characterization, intentional ellypis, and accurate mixture of mimesis and dieghesis. Secondly, Quintus of Smyrne's epic continuation, that for the first time puts Thersithes in connection with a fe­ male figure, Penthesilea. A very important moment in the modem reception Reviews 313 is certainly the Elisabethan stage: first of all William Shakespeare's Troilus and Cressida (1602), "an Iliad retold by Thersites" according to Gérard Genette. In this extremely polyphonic play the hero embodies in fact the radical demys­ tification of the epic tradition. From a stylistic point of view it is remarkable the anthrozoomorphic imagery frequently connected with Thersites. The Iron Age (1612) concludes Thomas Heywood's complex mythological fresco; its first part ends with Thersites' metaliterary monologue. He plays the role of the "rayling rogue", who came to Troy "to laugh at mad men" and finds a "meeting soul" in the famous Trojan spy, responsible of the fall of Troy: Sinon. Finally, Dryden's classicistic rewriting of Shakespeare's drama is focussed on Thersites' anticlericalism, and on his skeptical neutrality. Even in this important moment of modern reception Thersites' image wavers between the negative Homeric topic and the positive liberating force of comicality. The XXth century presents the culminating point of Thersites' rehabil­ itation. Moreover, its tendency to experimentation enlarges the spectrum of rewritings. The Italian latinist Concetto Marchiesi adopts a very specific mix­ ture of autobiography and fiction. In his II libro di Tersite (1920) the hero stands for the isolation of the protesting intellectual, full of Horatian irony and completely lacking Homeric aggressivity. Stefan Zweig's drama Tersites (sic) (1907) offers a completely new tragic version, that shows the Freudian hidden side of the Homeric text. We face here a common feature of XXth century poet­ ics: the exaltation of defeat as a productive force and the consequent devalua­ tion of victory as a sterile...

Reviews Scott Consigny, Gorgias: Sophist and Artist (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 2001). 296pp. Why the Sophists? Why Gorgias? Why now? W. K. C. Guthrie points to a rupture in the history of sophistic studies that leads to some preliminary answers: "It is true that the powerful impetus of this movement [i.e., the revival of sophistry since the 1930s] was given by the rise of totalitarian gov­ ernments in Europe and the second world war, and it was indeed disturbing to learn that the aim of the German Nazi Party, as described in its official programme, was the production of 'guardians in the highest Platonic sense'" (The Sophists, Cambridge University Press, 1971, p. 10). Among classicists, historians, and philosophers, the interest in sophistic studies that emerged out of this historical rupture was defined by a negative impulse: If Plato's ideas support immoral ideologies, then we must turn instead to the ideas of his most bitter rivals, the Sophists. Yet the revival of sophistry specifically within rhetorical studies took on a different character. Instead of being defined by a negative impulse, studies of sophistic rhetoric were defined by the positive search for affinities between ancient and modern theories of persuasion. Robert Scott and Michael Leff, for example, found precedents for epistemic rhetoric among the sophistic fragments, and John Poulakos invoked sophistic notions of propriety and the opportune moment in his universal definition of rhetoric. Scott Consigny's Gorgias: Sophist and Artist represents a new phase in studies of sophistic rhetoric. In this complex and well-written book, Consigny avoids making problematic generalizations about "the Sophists," who were, in reality, a thoroughly disparate group of traveling teachers; he does not rely excessively on Plato's dialogues as source materials for Gorgias's art of rhetoric; and he resists the neosophistic impulse to appropriate ancient doctrines for modern purposes. In his introduction, Consigny discusses prior scholarship on the Sophists and the method of historiography that informs his analysis. Here Consigny contends that the fragmentary nature of Gorgias's texts, their questionable authenticity, and the ambiguous language in which Gorgias wrote create a "hermeneutic aporia," an interpretive impasse. Some "objectivist" scholars attempt to escape this aporia by suggesting that there is a single, correct interpretation of Gorgianic rhetoric, and it is the function of historical schol­ arship to discover it. Other "rhapsodic" scholars argue that the meaning© The International Society for the History of Rhetoric, Rhetorica, Volume XX, Number 3 (Summer 2002). 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 299 300 RHETORICA Gorgias intended in his writings is now lost forever, and they use subjective interpretations of Gorgianic rhetoric to construct neosophistic theories that have modern relevance. Consigny, on the other hand, draws from Stanley Fish's notion of interpretive communities, arguing that pure truth is inacces­ sible and pure subjectivity is insufficient. Scholarly conventions established in academic discourse communities should guide our interpretations of Gor­ gianic rhetoric. While much prior scholarship identifies Gorgias as either a subjectivist or an empiricist, Consigny favors a newly emerging third school of criticism that identifies Gorgias as an antifoundationalist. Consigny begins his antifoundationalist reading of Gorgianic rhetoric with an interpretation of On Not-Being as an attack against both philosophical truth and empirical realism. In other texts (Epitaphios, Helen, and Palamedes), Gorgias articulates a more positive antifoundationalist theory of language based on the ancient notion of the contest or agon. Here language is defined by context, by the play of interaction among participants in a linguistic game that is governed by communal rules, and words derive meaning from their role in this interaction. Within such a framework, foundational truth is impossible since each context brings with it a different set of constraints, and radical subjectivity is also impossible since these very same constraints prevent chaos. Next Consigny argues that Gorgias articulates a nascent social con­ structionist view of knowledge in which established social conventions (or "tropes") condition individuals to act in communally authorized ways. Yet Gorgias is not in favor of a micro-social theory of conventions that separate communities by focusing on their foundational...

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...

In De inventione Cicero defends rhetoric by presenting a myth of the progress of the human species from asocial brutes to rational and social creatures. However, as Cicero explains the corruption of rhetoric by cunning individuals moved only by private interest, his myth reveals the present situation to be every bit as divided and contentious as the mythic state of nature. His myth discovers that rhetoric cannot escape corruption. Stasis theory, however, offers the possibility of an ethical rhetorical practice. By formalizing the agonistic clash of interests as a method of invention, stasis theory transforms a source of social instability into a resource for on-going social reinvention.

422 RHETORICA auf die âufiere Einwirkung auf die Menschen im Sinne der Vorfeldaufgabe beschrânkt. In diesem Kontext gelingt der Verfasserin eine für die allgemeine "Geschichte des Willensbegriffes" (p. 160) tatsâchlich wichtige und intéressante Entdeckung. Bei der Beschreibung des inneren Wirkens Gottes setzt Augustinus das delectare mit dem movere nahezu gleich. Aus dem Dreierschema der officia oratoris wird so ein Zweierschema, das die affektiv-voluntative Seite des Menschen im Kontrast zum kognitiven Bereich starker betont. So wird am Ende der nicht unerhebliche Anteil rhetorischer Terminologie bei der Herausbildung des Willensbegriffes bei Augustinus sichtbar. Um so mehr verwundert es, dass der Verfasserin bei ihrer Interpreta­ tion von De doctrina Christiana die ebenfalls stark akzentuierte Bedeutung des movere bzw.flectere und damit die affektiv-voluntative Seite der christlichen Rhetorik des Augustinus entgeht: Im Unterschied zu Cicero stehe für Au­ gustinus auch hier "das docere im Vordergrund" (p. 38). Die Stellen, in denen Augustinus das commovere des stilus grandis (De doct. chr. IV.27) herausstellt oder mit ausdrücklichem Verweis auf Cicero die entscheidende Bedeutung des flectere für den Redesieg (victoria) betont (De doct. chr. IV.28), werden dabei anscheinend überlesen. Kann es sein, daB die Verfasserin unter dem Eindruck der vermeintlichen "Genialitât" (p. 159) des Kirchenvaters den gravierenden Anteil der klassischen antiken Rhetorik an seiner Theoriebildung zu gering einschàtzt? Dieser Kritikpunkt gefâhrdet aber nicht den positiven Gesamteindruck der ansonsten akribischen Studie, die den Variantenreichtum der Prâsenz des rhetorischen Schemas der officia oratoris im Gesamtwerk des Augustinus eindrucksvoll erschliefit und so ein unverzichtbares Hilfsmittel für die zukünftige Augustinusforschung darstellt. Peter L. Oesterreich Augustana-Hochschule, Neuendettelsau Jean-Yves Tilliette, Des mots a la parole: Une lecture de la "Poetria Nova" de Geoffroy de Vinsauf (Geneva: Droz, 2000) 199 pp. The extraordinary popularity of Geoffrey de Vinsauf's early thirteenthcentury Poetria Nova was due in no small part to its being at once de arte and ex arte, a textbook on how to write poetry that is itself a poem. Most of the Poetria Nova's modern readers and many of its medieval ones nonetheless have emphasized its doctrine over its poetry, thereby missing, according to Jean-Yves Tilliette, much of what was new about Geoffrey's "New Poetics". Only by approaching the poem as a homogeneous and coherent work of literature rather than as a collection of conventional rules that have been set in verse, Tilliette argues, can we properly understand its unique status Reviews 423 as both manifesto and exemplar of a "new poetry" that replaces the early medieval "aesthetic of iaiitatio" with verbal virtuosity, explicitly recognises the historical break with the classical tradition caused by the Incarnation of Christ, and conceives of the poet as creator rather than artisan (pp. 9-12). Before he supports this thesis with a close reading or "intrinsic analysis" of the Poetria Nova, Tilliette devotes three chapters of "extrinsic analysis" to the chief influences that define the "cultural environment" of Geoffrey's poem: classical rhetoric as it was taught in the late Middle Ages, Horace's Ars poética or the "Old Poetics", and the Latin allegories of cosmic order and knowledge by Bernardus Silvestris and other writers of the twelfthcentury "School of Chartres". With rhetoric Geoffrey's new poetry shares the function of argument and (moral) persuasion; from the Ars poética, as interpreted by medieval commentators, derives the key insight of the new poetics, that poetry is a specific mode of apprehending and appropriating the world, whose "proper" sense is (paradoxically) the "figurative" sense; and from the platonizing poets comes the conception of the poet as demiurge who reveals the hidden archetypes by recreating in his poetry other possible worlds beyond the sensible world. The remaining five chapters demonstrate how the text of the Poetria Nova simultaneously expounds and embodies what Geoffrey conceives to be the highest goal of poetry: to use figurative language to make "possi­ ble worlds" visible and thus, in effect, to "reinvent the universe" (p. 68). Each of these chapters analyzes a different section of the Poetria Nova, using questions raised by that section's divergence from traditional pedagogy to highlight Geoffrey's originality. Thus, chapter 4 attempts to explain...