Despite Joseph Priestley’s contemporary importance, little has been written on his rhetoric, A Course of Lectures on Oratory and Criticism (1762). Most commentators group him with the other new rhetoricians Smith, Campbell, and Blair, ignoring the philosophical foundations as well as the political and educational practices that informed Priestley’s rhetorical theory. Located within a larger context of reform and a specific rhetorical situation at Warrington Academy, Priestley’s Lectures illustrate his attempt to establish rational argument as the most compelling way for Dissenters to argue for religious and civil liberty, a goal that clearly distinguishes Priestley from his Scottish contemporaries and that marks the source of his most original contributions to eighteenth-century rhetoric.

James J. Murphy and Martin Davies Rhetorical Incunabula: A Short-Title Catalogue of Texts Printed to the Year 1500 INTRODUCTION T he fifteenth century was perhaps one of the most important periods in the history of rhetoric, when the printing press changed the slow, labor-intensive hand production of single books into a mass-production system based on machine replication of texts. As Elizabeth Eisenstein has observed, "As an agent of change, printing altered methods of data collection, storage, and retrieval systems and communications networks used by learned communities throughout Europe. It warrants special attention because it had special effects."1 This study deals with the earliest printed books dealing with rhetoric, the rhetorical "incunabula." The Latin term incunabulum (pi. incunabula) means "cradle" or "swaddling clothes" or "birthplace." When Cornelius a Beughem published the first specialized list of fifteenth-century printed books (i.e., from Gutenberg up to and including the year 1500), his title Incunabula typographiae (Amsterdam, 1688) gave a name to the books printed in that period. We do not yet know the extent to which printing may have changed rhetoric in the fifteenth century and after. Two major efforts need to be made before that judgment can be made. One is the identification and study of manuscript books dealing with rhetoric, to see what kind and number of texts were made by hand during the fifteenth century. This is a complex matter, both Elizabeth L. Eisenstein, The Printing Press as an Agent of Change: Communications and Cultural Transformations in Early-Modern Europe (Cambridge, 1980), 2:xvi.©The International Society for the History of Rhetoric, Rhetorica, Volume XV, Number 4 (1997) 355 356 RHETORICA because we lack the apparatus for precise location and dating of the manuscripts, and because some works existed in manuscript for a long time before being printed.2 The second necessary effort is the identification and study of books on rhetoric printed up to the year 1500. This present short-title catalogue is a first step in that direction. Surprisingly little attention has been paid to rhetoric in the second half of the fifteenth century. Generally, historians of rhetoric lump all of the "Renaissance" together as one entity, without considering the incunable period separately. The nearest thing to a survey is the brilliant piece by John Monfasani, "Humanism and Rhetoric," in the three-volume Renaissance Humanism edited by Albert Rabil, Jr.3 Monfasani discusses a number of incunable authors, but also ranges over nearly two centuries of development and thus does not concentrate on the incunable period itself. There is also a brief pointing essay by James J. Murphy.4 Some attention has been given to individual authors,5 or to certain lines of influence,6 or to particular countries.7 At the same time there is an enormous range of modern scholarship dealing with other aspects of incunables, especially physical characteristics like bindings, inks, typefaces, and paper, which are often useful in identifying printers, or dates and places of publication. There has been less attention to rhetorical aspects 2The groundwork has been laid, however, by the herculean labors of Paul Oskar Kristeller in the extensive manuscript catalogues of his Iter Italicum, vols. 1-6 (Leiden, 1963-92). Sometimes the time lag between composition and printing is a complicating factor: for example, Lorenzo Valla died in 1457, but his commentary on Quintilian's Institutiones oratoriae was not printed until 1494. 3Rcnaissance Humanism: Foundations, Forms, and Legacy, ed. Albert Rabil, Jr. (Philadelphia, 1988), 3:171-235. 4James J. Murphy, "Rhetoric in the Earliest Years of Printing, 1465-1500," Quarterly Journal of Speech 70 (1984): 1-11. See also Murphy, "Ciceronian Influences in Latin Rhetorical Compendia of the Fifteenth Century," in Acta Conventus NeoLatini Guelpherbytani: Proceedings of the Sixth International Congress of Neo-Latin Studies, ed. Stella P. Revard, Fidel Radie, and Mario A. Di Cesare (Binghamton, N.Y., 1988), pp. 522-30. 5George A. Kennedy, "The Rhetorica of Guillaume Fichet," Rhetorica 5 (1987): 411-18; and Lawrence D. Green, "Classical and Medieval Rhetorical Traditions in Traversagni's Margarita eloquentiae," Quarterly Journal of Speech 72 (1986): 185-96. 6 John Monfasani, "The Byzantine Rhetorical Tradition and the Renaissance," in Renaissance Eloquence: Studies in the Theory and...

344 RHETORICA and yet know all it takes to be American" (p. 245). In the Afterword, Clark and Halloran reiterate that one of their inten­ tions in editing this volume was to encourage more narratives of the histo­ ry of rhetorical theory and practice in the nineteenth century. In its poten­ tial for encouraging additional studies and new theories of cultural and public discourses, this volume has certainly taken a considerable step toward fulfilling its editors' hopes. Rosa A. Eberly Science, Reason, and Rhetoric, eds. Henry Krips, J. E. McGuire, and Trevor Melia (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1995). This volume of twelve essays and six comments treats a continuingly provocative subject. The book, the product of a conference convened to inaugurate a new program in the rhetoric of science at the University of Pittsburgh, offers some illuminating discussions of the varied appearances of rhetoric in the practice of science. That practice the editors describe carefully in the introduction to the volume. Describing three possible approaches to science, they seek to adopt the third: studies which would "stress the variety and complexity inherent in the production of scientific knowledge and also the attendant human contexts within which science is made and established." Thus they would accept even "accounts of science that are patently not rhetorical." The paths not chosen include a Gorgianic view—science, unable to produce truth, develops strategies of inquiry and uses rhetoric to construct tropes and audiences—and the view that science is sub specie rhetoricae. The book promotes reflection about the relation of rhetoric and science, but, unfortunately, it contains no index to facilitate the examination of concepts, terms, and names. My focus here will be on what seems to me to be the contribution of the volume to rhetoric of sci­ ence studies and on the problems presented by the ahistorical approach of some of the essays. From the editors' introduction, it should not be surprising that the nature and practice of science is the focus of the volume. The nature and practice of rhetoric as an art in itself, however, receives little attention. Most authors proceed as if rhetoric is simply a familiar term without a his­ tory or a discipline, but whose presence in science should be remarked upon. This curious approach is exemplified in the lead-off essay by Stephen Toulmin, the title of which, "Science and the Many Faces of Reviews 345 Rhetoric, would seem to promise to furnish the necessary background. In an attempt to bridge the gap envisioned by philosophers between the polar extremes of rhetoric and rationality, Toulmin turns to the Organon of Aristotle to illustrate the varied and overlapping types of reasoning prac­ ticed by human beings. But his account disappoints by its brevity. In his survey of the Organon, although he makes brief initial reference to the Analytics and the use of dialectical or topical reasoning in science, he then moves on to rhetoric, failing to treat Aristotle's conception of rhetoric or to remark on its relation to dialectic, a point that would seem to illuminate both science and a rhetoric of science. He intends, he says at the end of his seven-page essay, only a "'clearing away [of] the underbrush,"' making no attempt to discuss "questions about the rhetoric of science, or about scien­ tists as rhetors." J. E. McGuire and Trevor Melia, whose responses to Alan Gross's The Rhetoric of Science (1990) have appeared twice in Rhetorica, again reply neg­ atively to Gross's view that science is merely rhetorical invention and rep­ resentation, always relative to time and place (p. 77). Neither foundationalists nor nonfoundationalists, they position themselves as minimal real­ ists, seeing the actual practice of science as constitutive of science. They argue for a "proportionalizing rhetoric" (one that presumes a balance between representation and investigative practice) which would reflect "the proportionalizing strategies of scientific fallibilism" (p. 86). Several studies attend to sociological aspects of rhetoric. Trevor Pinch, in his analysis of the presentation of the Cold Fusion Process, demonstrates the importance of analyzing spoken rhetoric within its con­ text as a means to understanding both the presentation and reception of science by different audiences. Steve Fuller calls for...

340 RHETORICA singularly persistent—and, one might add, singularly disturbing in some contexts—would be thoroughly vindicated. Whatever one's perspective, however, no one who is seriously inter­ ested in early modern culture, the history of pedagogy, or the history of ideas can afford to neglect this major contribution. Terence Cave Oratorical Culture in Nineteenth-Century America: Transformations in the Theory and Practice of Rhetoric, eds. Gregory Clark and S. Michael Halloran (Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press, 1993). Gregory Clark and S. Michael Halloran's point of departure for this important collection of essays is Gerald Graff's claim in Professing the University that the collegiate oratorical culture in the first half of the nine­ teenth century linked college curricula with the "literary culture outside" (pp. 2-3). Yet as their introduction makes clear, "the culture outside dur­ ing the early years of the nineteenth century was not 'literary' in our sense of the term, but oratorical. Its most prized symbolic work was that of the orator" (p. 3). In fact, "literary" is just one species of expertise that began to develop during the course of the century. As Clark and Halloran write in their introduction, "both the theory of rhetoric taught in the schools and the practice of public discourse sustained outside them were transformed during the nineteenth century from those of the neoclassical oratorical cul­ ture into those of the professional culture we see characterizing both col­ leges and communities by its end" (pp. 5-6). Clark and Halloran use the Burkean concept of transformation to describe the changes in nineteenthcentury oratorical culture, and though the historiographical stance of the introduction and the collective practices of the nine essays are somewhat at odds, this collection makes a significant contribution to scholarship describing the move from a collective moral authority to an individual authority which became grounded, ultimately, on notions of expertise. Further, the volume contributes to studies of collective reading and writ­ ing practices by positing "oratorical culture" as a concept beside "audi­ ence," "community," "rhetorical culture," and "public" to describe where and how groups analyze and produce discourses collectively. In "Edward Everett and Neoclassical Oratory," Ronald Reid argues that Everett's successes and failures "illustrate the nation's changing Reviews 341 oratorical culture" (p. 29) because "Everett exemplifies the declining repu­ tation of neoclassical oratory" (p. 30). Reid contends that Everett's reputa­ tion declined because he could not adapt the neoclassical oratory in which he was trained at Harvard to the needs of Jacksonian democracy. Thus Reid's essay replaces Clark and Halloran's introductory trope of transfor­ mation with that of paradigm shift—"the old oratorical culture" versus "the new oratorical culture." The tensions among different conceptions of permanence and change within Reid's essay force us to question whether oratorical culture, or any culture, is not always undergoing transforma­ tions and how serviceable the notion of "oratorical culture" is for studying change. The contradictory tendencies inherent in belletristic rhetoric are taken on more directly by Gregory Clark in his essay "The Oratorical Pulpit of Timothy Dwight." Clark's argument centers on how Dwight combined Scottish conceptions of taste with the Evangelical Calvinism of his infa­ mous grandfather, Jonathan Edwards. The combination, which resulted in a distinctive theory and practice Clark calls "oratorical poetics," empha­ sized "the force of the language of sentiment" in service to "sustaining a common moral and political culture" (p. 58). Though Dwight's lectures on rhetoric are lost, Clark uses edited editions of the lecture notes of two of Dwight's students to reconstruct what Dwight probably taught. Instruction, of course, raises the question of native ability and of who was authorized to instruct whom. Again, Clark emphasizes the contradictions inherent in belletrism and Enlightenment rhetorics of all kinds, and articu­ lates how those contradictions asserted themselves in early nineteenthcentury America in particular. Russel Hirst's essay on Austin Phelps, Bartlett Professor of Oratory in Andover Theological Seminary from 1848 to 1879, is a rich historical study of how individualism and collectivism manifested themselves in the orato­ ry and homiletic theory of a less-known figure in the history of rhetoric. Valuable as it is both historically and for...

Reviews 219 J. O. Ward, Ciceronian Rhetoric in Treatise, Scholion and Commentary, Typologie des Sources du Moyen Âge Occidental, 58 (Turnhout: Brepols, 1995), 373 pp. Ward's work on Ciceronian rhetoric in treatise, scholion, and com­ mentary constitutes the fifty-eighth fascicule in a typological series whose aim is "établir la nature propre de chaque genre de sources (Gattungsgeschichte) et arrêter les règles spéciales de critique valable pour chacun." Despite the "centrality," as W. daims, of the art of rhetoric in mediaeval culture, no previous work has surveyed the relevant texts as a group. Texts transmitting Ciceronian rhetoric in mediaeval and Renaissance culture, however, resist classification as a single genre on account of their broad diversity of contexts and application. Therefore, W. restricts his examination to texts designed to impart "theoretical" as opposed to "applied" knowledge—that is, texts whose purpose is to instruct the student in the classical art of general persuasion. Included within this sub-division are texts devoted to colores, etc. Artes poetriae, artes dictaminis, artes praedicandi, and artes orandi, on the other hand, are exam­ ined separately by other scholars in fascicules 59, 60, and 61. At the outset of his work, W. leaves his reader in no doubt regarding the significance of a study of these texts. These texts not only offer an insight into mediaeval and Renaissance ideas about rhetoric and literary styles, but they also help to reveal the "didactic curriculum that must have come to influence most writers and articulate thinkers in the period." W., therefore, eschews the oblique angle from which most previous scholars, in their preoccupation with theological, dialectical, and grammatical issues or concerns, have traced the Fortleben of classical texts. By contrast, W. val­ ues the commentaries of the period as "intrinsically interesting artefacts of cultural history" providing evidence with which to "assess the role played in mediaeval and Renaissance culture by a hybrid ars rhetorica." After providing an extensive bibliography, W. engages in a stimulat­ ing discussion of various general issues. He advances cogent arguments, for example, to explain why the mediaeval and Renaissance treatment of generalized preceptive rhetorical theory is so heterogeneous, suggesting inter alia that the different types of text reflect the attitudes of society to the knowledge enshrined in that text, with commentaries canonizing the past text, thereby confining its progress, and treatises bearing much more the individual stamp of the transmitter. In recognition of the problems inher­ ent in assessing such a heterogeneous genre, W. creates his own division of the extant material into four rough (and occasionally overlapping) sub­ categories: 1) independent treatises; 2) commentaries and glosses on classi­ cal texts or on texts included in 1); 3) continuous or occasional comments, etc., in the form of interlinear / marginal glosses, etc.; and 4) paraphrases, 220 RHETORICA explications, or translations presented without texts themselves. The main section of the book is devoted to a survey of the extant rele­ vant material organized (on the whole successfully) according to the four sub-divisions noted above and within three chronological periods. By far the least successful portion of W/s work is his survey of the first chrono­ logical period, namely the fourth to the eleventh centuries, for the follow­ ing reasons. Firstly, the treatment of these centuries as though they consti­ tuted a homogeneous period seems to ignore certain clearly distinct politi­ cal and cultural phases. Secondly, insufficient relevant historical informa­ tion is provided for this "period" to establish a context within which the texts can be fully appreciated. Thirdly, the organization of W.'s survey breaks down when W., justifying his inclusion of late antique writers because of their strong influence in the mediaeval and Renaissance peri­ ods, concentrates almost exclusively on this later influence rather than on the creation and consumption of the texts in their own chronological con­ text. Fourthly, W. is forced to rely rather heavily in this section on palaeographical , codicological, and stemmatological evidence, with which he is clearly less at home than with historical evidence. In describing the ninthcentury manuscript Leningrad Publich. Bibl. F vel 8 auct. class, lat. as "unrepresentative" in the extent of its glossatory activity, for example, W. ignores the clear evidence of...

Reviews 213 David J. Furley and Alexander Nehamas (ed.), Aristotle's Rhetoric: Philosophical Essays. Proceedings of the Twelfth Symposium Aristotelicum (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994), xv + 322 pp. Scholarly fashions in classics come and go. There have been periods in history, for example, when Ovid was thought a poet superior to Vergil, and Statius, despite his relatively low stock today, is afforded a place of great honor in Dante's Purgatorio. Aristotle, (again in Dante) the "maestro di color che sanno," has had his own vicissitudes through the ages, and at different times, this or that individual treatise has had more or less ascen­ dancy. The Rhetoric is no exception in this regard, and I think it is safe to say that, in the past century or so, most scholars interested in Aristotelian philosophy per se have given both it and the Poetics far less attention than, say, the Metaphysics or Nicomachean Ethics. All of that is beginning to change. Superb new critical editions of both the Poetics and the Rhetoric (both by Rudolf Kassel) have appeared in the last thirty or so years; the old Cope/Sandys commentary on the Rhetoric has been, if not supplanted, then certainly supplemented by that of Father Grimaldi (on books I and II); two recent translations of the Rhetoric into English (with notes) have been published by Oxford University Press and Penguin Books—the former by George Kennedy, the latter by Hugh Lawson-Tancred; and there has even been something of a neo-Aristotelian renaissance in rhetorical theory, in The New Rhetoric of Chaim Perelman and Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca. Of particular interest is the sustained and engaging philosophical analysis presented in Eugene Garver's recent Aristotle's Rhetoric: An Art of Character (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994). Nor is this all. Amélie Oksenberg Rorty, continuing her series of col­ lections of essays on various works of Aristotle, has edited a collection on the Poetics (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992) and one on the Rhetoric (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1996). Yet another col­ lection of essays on the Rhetoric, edited by Alan Gross and Arthur Walzer, is due out soon. To the latter list we must also add the book under review here. I should say at the outset that its title is not otiose. That these are "philo­ sophical essays" means, precisely, that they have been written with a specifically philosophical cast, as proceedings of the triennial Symposium Aristotelicum (this twelfth one being the first to be held in the USA). I sur­ mise that this orientation will please some and disgruntle others; habent sua fata libelli, but this is particularly true in terms of the various uses dif­ ferent readers will want to make of any given book. The title of Jürgen Sprute's essay in this volume, "Aristotle and the Legitimacy of Rhetoric," 214 RHETORICA might serve (with a question mark) as a subtitle for the book as a whole: as Sprute remarks, "The fact that Aristotle treated rhetoric seriously, gave lectures on it, and wrote what has to be understood as an 'art of rhetoric' seems to have been a source of embarrassment to some modem readers [O]ne could perhaps have expected Aristotle to abstain from shallow things such as an art of persuasion" (p. 117). That, plus the fact that most modem philosophers (in the analytic tradition at least) have seen rhetoric and communication as less exalted topics of study than metaphysics or epistemology, or even logic, is perhaps what has deterred them from a more whole-hearted study of rhetoric (or of the Rhetoric) before now. It is to be hoped that this volume marks not mere token attention, but rather the beginning of a new era. The volume is arranged in four sections: "The Arguments of Rhetoric," "The Status of the Art of Rhetoric," "Rhetoric, Ethics, and Politics," and "Rhetoric and Literary Art." A number of those who attend­ ed the Symposium have contributed essays to this volume (and some of those who are not in this volume, are represented in Rorty's). Eight of the eleven essays in this volume are in English; the remaining three are in French (the one...

222 RHETORICA the subject. Particularly commendable is the suggestion that in future, material be edited and published in collections of excerpts in preference to individual sets of glosses or treatises in order that this work might con­ tribute a valuable insight into the history of ideas. W. notes as a great desideratum a history of the changing understanding and interpretation of the doctrines of classical rhetorical theory, and observes the significance such a history would have in illuminating the manner in which mediaeval and Renaissance scholars viewed the ancient Roman past. Further research into mediaeval commentaries might also elucidate the ways in which the classical text was read and the philosophical ideas in vogue. To conclude, there can be no doubt that W.'s work amply fulfills both the aims of the typological series and his own desire to demonstrate the "fundamental role rhetorical instruction played in mediaeval society." In suggesting the way forward for future scholars, W. effectively acknowl­ edges that research into the vast and diverse material extant in this field remains in its infancy. The pioneering achievement of this work is such that it whets the appetite for this future research by demonstrating what a stimulating study these texts make as a key to unlocking the mediaeval mind. P. Ruth Taylor-Briggs Perrine Galand-Hallyn, Le reflet desfleurs. Description et métalangage poétique d'Homère à la Renaissance, Travaux d'Humanisme et Renaissance, 283 (Genève: Droz, 1994). Perrine Galand-Hallyn, Les yeux de l'éloquence. Poétiques humanistes de l'évidence, préface d'Alain Michel, L'Atelier de la Renaissance, 5 (Orléans: Paradigme, 1995). Voici deux livres importants, dont l'un, Le reflet des fleurs, est l'édition commerciale de la thèse de Perrine Galand-Hallyn, et l'autre, Les yeux de l'éloquence, un recueil d'articles du même auteur. Considérons d'abord Le reflet desfleurs. Le sous-titre de cette étude indique bien l'immensité du ter­ rain qu'elle couvre. Pour avoir emprise sur cette vaste matière, l'auteur a opté pour une approche théorique éclectique, à la fois ancienne et mo­ derne, et un corpus limité de textes bien choisis. Regardons d'abord les Reviews 223 choix théoriques et méthodologiques: le point de départ est une notion de l'ancienne rhétorique: Yevidentia (enargeia ou hypotypose), cette faculté de la description en rhétorique et en littérature de représenter l'objet décrit comme si on l'avait devant les yeux dans toute sa beauté (ou laideur). Comme l'a bien montré l'auteur, les théoriciens de l'Antiquité ont mis ce pouvoir évocateur de la description en rapport avec la magie et l'onirisme, ainsi qu'avec les arts architecturaux et plastiques, - aspects sur lesquels l'auteur ne cesse de revenir au cours de ses analyses. La réflexion métapoétique dans l'Antiquité portant sur la nature du texte tend à s'exprimer par des métaphores qui prennent vite valeur de topos. L'auteur distingue onze domaines thématiques: astres (feu, lumière), navigation, guerre, chasse, sports, architecture, tissage, peinture, sculpture, mosaïque et médecine (aliments). Elle a eu l'heureuse idée d'en dresser la liste (avec indication des principaux lieux d'origine, d'Aristote au Traité du sublime, pp. 142-161). Cette liste pourrait être utilisée comme une checklist lorsqu'on étudie tel auteur de l'Antiquité ou de la Renaissance: elle permet d'évaluer les nombreuses métaphores métatextuelles dont, par exemple, un Montaigne parsème ses Essais. Or, si dans ces cas le discours figure comme comparé mis en rapport avec un comparant artificiel ou naturel, les choses se présentent autrement et inversement dans le cas de la description poétique. Là, l'objet décrit devient en quelque sorte le comparé ayant pour comparant le texte descripteur, effet rehaussé par le mimétisme élaboré entre texte (sons, syn­ taxe, images) et référent. Autrement dit, toute description énargique pré­ suppose explicitement ou implicitement un moment métapoétique: elle nous informe sur son esthétique sous-jacente. Les instruments théoriques pour étudier les effets...

Reviews William M. Purcell, Ars Poetriae: Rhetorical and Grammatical Invention at the Margins of Literacy, Studies in Rhetoric/ Communication (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1996), 193 pp. In the context of the evolution from oral to written discourse in the classical and medieval periods of western Europe, Purcell discusses six texts on the art of versification, or artes poetriae: 1) Matthew of Vendome, Ars versificatoria; 2) Geoffrey of Vinsauf, Poetria nova and Documentum de modo et arte dictandi et versificandi; 3) John of Garland, De arte prosayca, metrica , et rithmica (Parisiana poetria); 4) Gervasius of Melkley, Ars poetica; and 5) Eberhard the German, Laborintus. Composed in the twelfth and thir­ teenth centuries, these texts are revolutionary in their adaptation of rhetoric and grammar to poetry, which in that period was usually read aloud or recited. The book offers a useful introduction to material which may be difficult for most undergraduate students to obtain or to under­ stand; however, the critical framework into which Purcell places these texts needs justification, as it is part of a growing debate on the history of orality and literacy. The book is divided into two parts. Part I, consisting of two chapters, establishes the two main assumptions of the theoretical framework into which Purcell has placed the six treatises on poetic composition. The first assumption sets up a diachronic dichotomy between orality and literacy, from the Greek tradition to the invention of the printing press. Purcell argues that rhetoric in classical Greece and Rome was a discipline designed for oral delivery. Grammar was a written activity, developed for analysis and correction of text. As the societies of the Middle Ages pro­ gressed in literacy, grammar was increasingly applied to written material. Thus, Purcell sets up an oral-literate time spectrum. He treats the ancient Greek and late medieval periods as two poles, the former primarily oral and the latter increasingly text-based or literate. Citing Paul Prill, Purcell asserts that the arts of poetry of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries stand at the cusp of the shift from orality to literacy. The second major assumption of Purcell's theoretical framework is that grammar and rhetoric exchanged functions along the oral-literate time spectrum. In the classical period, rhetorical theory was used as a system of composition for oral delivery, while grammar was a system to correct and to analyze written text. By the time the arts of poetry were composed, these roles had begun to be reversed: "Ultimately, with the advent of the printing press, the text became the thing in and of itself, moving away 107 108 RHETORICA from the oral end of the spectrum and toward the literate end. At the same time, rhetoric—a more orally focused technology—moved toward the literate, and grammar—a more literally focused technology—moved toward the oral. The tension created by the rhetorical/grammatical move­ ment is reflected in the theoretical treatises in the artes poetriae themselves" (p. 5). Part II consists of five chapters, arranged chronologically, on the artes poetriae which illustrate the developments in the matrix of orality, literacy, grammar, and rhetoric which Purcell has set up in the first section of his book. Purcell provides excellent summaries of these treatises by giving an overview of their sections on invention, arrangement, and style. Less attention is given to invention and arrangement, as the author's primary interest is the overlapping of grammar and rhetoric in the domain of style, a unique contribution of poetic theory in the Middle Ages. Purcell's study of figures in the artes poetriae shows how the medieval tradition leads to the systematic relation of style to stasis theory in Renaissance rhetoric. This is the most valuable contribution of the book. Purcell argues that these treatises are not simply extensions or adapta­ tions of classical rhetoric, but that they establish a unique genre of rhetori­ cal theory at a time when orality and literacy coexisted. To demonstrate this point, he observes that the existing editions of the texts can be mis­ leading in causing readers to assume a debt to the classical sources. For example, the Faral edition and the Nims translation of Geoffrey of Vinsauf's Poetria Nova...

120 RHETORICA Rhétorique et image. Textes en hommage à Â. Kïbédi Varga, ed. Léo H. Hoek and Kees Meerhoff (Amsterdam: Rodopi, 1995), 318 pp. The subject of this book has been aptly chosen: it echoes and honours Kibédi Varga's published work on visual rhetoric and narratology (for example, Rhétorique et littérature and Discours, récit, image, as well as numerous articles—the bibliography of his works in French, German, English, Dutch, and Hungarian runs to twenty packed pages); it also reflects his founding of the Association for Word and Image Studies ten years ago. Rhétorique et image ranges widely over several disciplines and yet it has a unity of theme and purpose. It is both illuminating and open-ended, refreshingly undogmatic and tentative, and thus, paradoxically perhaps, goes some way towards defining a methodology. Some of the writers here allude to the evolution of their subject and apply the ancient topoi in a modem context. What is new in this book is the narrowing down of the subject to the place of rhetoric in word and image studies. There are four sections: "Reflexions interarts," "Reflexions rhé­ toriques," "Echanges," and "Reflets: fins de siècle," necessarily overlap­ ping, but providing a useful focus. The academic papers are framed and enhanced by a previously unpublished introductory poem, "Un retour à San Biagio," by Yves Bonnefoy, and another closing poem by Salah Stétie, "Fièvre et Guérison de lTcône." Sorin Alexandrescu starts from a photograph taken by the author, of bottles and glasses on a table, and analyses the limits of meaning such an unposed photograph may have. While not representing action, it contains a "récit," presupposing past action and implying a future; but if it is to have meaning, some external information (title, supporting text, context) is necessary to "narrativise" it. Elrud Ibsch gives a very critical account of Charles Jencks' The Language of Post-Modern Architecture, rejecting his idea that this architecture is distinguished from modernist architecture by its semantic richness and its power of communication. His theory of build­ ings as metaphors (in relation to other buildings) is also found wanting because of the confusion over whether the metaphor lies in the observer, the building, or the architect, Ibsch concludes that Jencks' method is that of a critic, who may therefore be allowed personal judgments and a depar­ ture from impartiality, but it is not helpful to historians of literature or architecture. David Scott addresses squarely the rhetoric of images through the example of Dutch postage-stamps of the last forty years, a Reviews 121 particularly beautiful series of typographic and commemorative stamps designed by leading graphic artists. Scott concentrates on the rhetorical figures of repetition, pleonasm, emphasis, enumeration, and parallelism, all in the larger context of communication (semiotics and hermeneutics) and the balance between decorativeness and persuasiveness. Leo Hoek concludes this first section with an attempt at classifying the ways in which text and image may interact, among which are pictorial poetry, clas­ sical ekphrasis (or "art transposition"), novels about artists, art criticism, history, or theory. The author concludes that it is not so much the nature of the text or image which provides the best basis for its classification, but rather the process of production and reception. In production what mat­ ters is which comes first, text (for example, book illustration) or image (for example, emblematic literature), but for reception it is simultaneity, which is important since text and image appear together, although one has pri­ macy over the other. Anne-Marie Christin begins the second, more strictly rhetorical sec­ tion with an analysis of memoria and actio, subjects which usually receive little attention from historians of rhetoric; she concentrates on memory as an important component of visual thought. Starting from the legendary anecdote of Simonides' identification of the guests at a feast after the roof had collapsed, she qualifies this by a discussion of ideas of space and place from Cicero to the birth of printing and on to the present day. She reflects on what the rhetoricians say about writing, images, and the need for blank spaces in the formation of memory. Bernard Vouilloux looks at...

Abstract: The teaching and practice of rhetoric at Trinity College, Dublin, in the eighteenth century have been little discussed in the literature. This article describes the curriculum and pedagogy related to the old and “new rhetoric” of the Scottish enlightenment as disclosed by documents in the archives of Trinity College Library; the published lectures of two Erasmus Smith Professors of Oratory and History, John Lawson and Thomas Leland; and the lectures of Thomas Sheridan on elocution. Minutes of the student historical clubs in which debates and harangues are preserved illustrate the interests of the students, their techniques of debate, and the demonstrative exhortations of their officers. The student orations chronicle the gradual absorption of the principles of the new rhetoric at the College.

Abstract: It is often asserted nowadays that the medieval period “fragmented” the classical rhetorical inheritance, while the Renaissance restored it to its former coherence. The story of the assimilation in the Middle Ages and Renaissance of Quintilian's Institutes of Oratory is examined here in order to demonstrate the problems inherent in such a position. It is argued that the full utilization of the text of Quintilian's Institutes of Oratory in the Renaissance, along with the discrediting of the Ad Herennium (as a work of Cicero) that is associated with the name of Raffaello Regio in the last decade of the fifteenth century, are not the instances of the “recovery” of antiquity and supersession of “medieval philology” that they are often thought to be. Instead the opposite seems to be the case. The philological “recovery” of Quintilian led away from the incorporation of the Institutes into contemporary rhetorical practice and towards philology for its own sake. This, together with the bitter professional jealousies among the Italian schoolmen of the late fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries, led, almost “accidentally” as it were, to a “sundering” of the “whole” that the Middle Ages had put together out of rhetorical fragments from antiquity. The medieval period, less concerned with philological niceties than with the practical utility of good advice from the past, constructed a new kind of rhetorical text from an amalgam of old texts: the Ad Herennium commentary, made up of the text of the Ad Herennium, explanations, summaries, and discussions from the medieval schoolroom, and portions of Boethius' De differentiis topicis, Quintilian's Institutes, and other classical sources. This serviceable “unity” the Renaissance “sundered” by (a) discrediting the Ad Herennium as an authoritative Ciceronian text, and (b) placing the Institutes far beyond the practical capabilities of contemporary rhetorical training courses by restoring it to its original length (vis-à-vis the abridgements and assimilations of the medieval period). In this process of turning the classical texts into icons, the Renaissance scholars were predictably unable to re-create the kaleidoscopic, one-thousand-year reality of rhetorical attitudes and texts in antiquity, from the fragments that the Middle Ages had used to build up their new form of integrated text. Much had been lost, but what had been gained?

Abstract: Aristotie's Rhetoric appears to have had little influence on rhetorical theory in Greek or Latin during late antiquity or the early Middle Ages, but it was closely studied by some Islamic philosophers, notably al-Farabi. Behind al-Farabi's interest in Aristotle's Rhetoric lay his adoption of Plato's doctrine of the philosopher-king, Whitch had an eloquent exponent in late antiquity in the philosopher-orator Themistius. An allusion to the Rhetoric in an oration of Themistius suggests that al-Farabi's assessment of the Rhetoric also had roots in late antiquity, possibly in circles around Themistius. The content of the Syriac Rhetoric of Antony of Tagrit confirms the likelihood that in thèse matters, as in many others, the Syrians were the intermediaries between Greek late antiquity and the classical renaissance in Islam.

Abstract: In this paper I wish to ask whether philosophers have good grounds for elaborating rhetorics of science. By doing so they might seem to deny the distinction between the theoretical intellect and the practical intellect, which traditionally have reigned over scientific discourse and rhetorical discourse, respectively. I shall suggest that philosophers of rhetoric do indeed have a warrant for developing their rhetorics of science. We shall assume with Aristotle that we may distinguish the theoretical from the practical intellect by distinguishing objects which cannot be other than they are from objects which can be other than they are. What we shall find is that a stalwart of British empiricism, John Stuart Mill, develops a philosophy of science concerned with objects which can be other than they are. Mill thus provides us with an ontological justification for our new rhetorics of science.

Research Article| August 01 1994 Things, Thoughts, and Actions: The Problem of Language in Late Eighteenth-Century British Rhetorical Theory H. Lewis Ulman, Things, Thoughts, and Actions: The Problem of Language in Late Eighteenth-Century British Rhetorical Theory (Cartiondale, Illinois: Southern Illinois University Press, 1994), 240 pp. Barbara Warnick Barbara Warnick Department of Speech Communication, DL-15, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195, USA. Search for other works by this author on: This Site PubMed Google Scholar Rhetorica (1994) 12 (3): 351–353. https://doi.org/10.1525/rh.1994.12.3.351 Views Icon Views Article contents Figures & tables Video Audio Supplementary Data Peer Review Share Icon Share Facebook Twitter LinkedIn MailTo Tools Icon Tools Get Permissions Cite Icon Cite Search Site Citation Barbara Warnick; Things, Thoughts, and Actions: The Problem of Language in Late Eighteenth-Century British Rhetorical Theory. Rhetorica 1 August 1994; 12 (3): 351–353. doi: https://doi.org/10.1525/rh.1994.12.3.351 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. Copyright 1994, The International Society for the History of Rhetoric1994 Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

Abstract: Modern rhetorical theory suggests that the rhetorical concept of doxa entails social dimensions of rank and regard. A trustworthy ethos is one in which the rhetor identifies with orthodoxy by signalling allegiance to doxastic elements of narrarive knowledge, presuppositions and methodology, and hierarchy. In his Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina, Galileo fails to project an orthodox ethos in his attempt to rewrite narrative knowledge because, although he adheres to orthodox methodology and presuppositions, he disregards orthodox hierarchy and even tries to restructure it.

Abstract: Seventeenth-century “natural religion” in England included the work of many theologians and scientists who comprised a close-knit discourse community shaped by a common theology and many similarities in intellectual outlook. They developed a complex rhetoric compounded of probabilistic reasoning and a wide range of figurative conventions for the argument from design. These writings offer a rich intertext of discursive practices which are more classically rooted, more intuitive and imaginative in appeal, and simultaneously more probabilistic and less demonstrative in reasoning, than has generally been assumed. This essay focuses on the imaginative, figurative dimensions of this work, identifying its primary classical sources and its sanctions in the rhetorical theory of the time.

Research Article| February 01 1994 Descartes and the Resilience of Rhetoric: Varieties of Cartesian Rhetorical Theory Thomas M. Carr,Descartes and the Resilience of Rhetoric: Varieties of Cartesian Rhetorical Theory(Carbondale and Edwardsville: Southern Illinois University Press, 1990), xi + 213 pp. Pierre Zoberman Pierre Zoberman 108 rue J.P. Timbaud, 75011 Paris, France. Search for other works by this author on: This Site PubMed Google Scholar Rhetorica (1994) 12 (1): 115–117. https://doi.org/10.1525/rh.1994.12.1.115 Views Icon Views Article contents Figures & tables Video Audio Supplementary Data Peer Review Share Icon Share Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Email Tools Icon Tools Cite Icon Cite Search Site Citation Pierre Zoberman; Descartes and the Resilience of Rhetoric: Varieties of Cartesian Rhetorical Theory. Rhetorica 1 February 1994; 12 (1): 115–117. doi: https://doi.org/10.1525/rh.1994.12.1.115 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. Copyright 1994, The International Society for the History of Rhetoric1994 Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

Abstract: Although “community” has become an important critical concept in contemporary rhetoric, it is only implicit in ancient rhetorics. In the rhetorical thought of the sophists, Plato, and Aristotle, the polis stands as a presupposition that was both fundamental and troublesome. Various relationships between the faculty of speech and the social order are revealed in different tellings of the history of civilization by Protagoras, Plato, and Aristotle, as well as in more formal discussions of rhetoric and politics. These ancient disagreements about the nature of community can help us reformulate the current debate between liberalism and communitarianism. A rhetorical community as a site of contention can be both pluralist and normative.

Abstract: The concem with progress and utility is shared by nineteenth-century scientists, philosophers, and rhetoricians, leading to significant correspondences among their discourses. This concern is manifest, for example, in the way in which several rhetorical treatises of the nineteenth century regard the distinction between a figure and a trope, which had been a common part of rhetorical theory since the time of Quintilian, as useless and anachronistic. By examining three nineteenth-century articulations of the justifications for erasing the trope/figure distinction from the cultural repertoire, this essay reveals structural and semantic parallels between these rhetorical treatises and the discourses of evolution and utilitarianism. Thus, the essay locates the source of the synonymity which the terms “trope” and “figure” have acquired in contemporary critical metalanguage in Victorian ideologies of progress and of the unprofitability and consequent discardability of the ancient.

Abstract: Like the Church Fathers before him, Petrarch was forced to defend secular learning against its detractors, and his defenses draw on many of the same arguments that Augustine and Jerome had used. In these defenses he blends classical rhetoric and Christian values, and his procedures also follow the traditions of classical rhetoric, relying on the epistolary form and utilizing the Ciceronian manner of debating all topics from opposite standpoints. Perhaps, however, because his indecisiveness complemented the classical rhetorical premise that many issues present many possible resolutions, Petrarch also rejects secular learning in some of his writings. His arguments are therefore conclusive only within their unique rhetorical situations.

Abstract: Gregorio Mayans y Siscar's Rhetórica (Valenda, 1757)must be regarded as a pivotal work in the evolution of eighteenthcentury Spanish rhetorical theory. Since Mayans' ideas did not appear without precedent in the Rhetórica, this article begins by tracing the development of his principles through his earlier writings about the state of discourse in Spain. A detailed analysis of the Rhetóricaitself is followed by a demonstration of how Mayans modified classical rhetoric into a rhetoricized poetics whose history became integrated into the history of Spanish literature. Thus Mayans' transformation of classical rhetoric takes its place in the development of Spanish cultural history, in which rhetoric increasingly came to be regarded as a part of the larger study of the national literature.

Research Article| November 01 1990 The Bolevian Sublime in Eighteenth-Century British Rhetorical Theory Barbara Warnick Barbara Warnick Search for other works by this author on: This Site PubMed Google Scholar Rhetorica (1990) 8 (4): 349–369. https://doi.org/10.1525/rh.1990.8.4.349 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 Barbara Warnick; The Bolevian Sublime in Eighteenth-Century British Rhetorical Theory. Rhetorica 1 November 1990; 8 (4): 349–369. doi: https://doi.org/10.1525/rh.1990.8.4.349 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. Copyright 1990, The International Society for the History of Rhetoric1990 Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

Research Article| November 01 1988 Kenneth Burke's Auscultation: A "De-struction" of Marxist Dialectic and Rhetoric Timothy Crusius Timothy Crusius Department of English, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas 77843. Search for other works by this author on: This Site PubMed Google Scholar Rhetorica (1988) 6 (4): 355–379. https://doi.org/10.1525/rh.1988.6.4.355 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 Timothy Crusius; Kenneth Burke's Auscultation: A "De-struction" of Marxist Dialectic and Rhetoric. Rhetorica 1 November 1988; 6 (4): 355–379. doi: https://doi.org/10.1525/rh.1988.6.4.355 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. Copyright 1988, The International Society for the History of Rhetoric1988 Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

Research Article| February 01 1988 The Atrophy of Modern Rhetoric, Vico to De Man Brian Vickers Brian Vickers Centre for Renaissance Stadies, ETH-Zentrum, Ramistrasse 101, CH-8092 Zurich. Search for other works by this author on: This Site PubMed Google Scholar Rhetorica (1988) 6 (1): 21–56. https://doi.org/10.1525/rh.1988.6.1.21 Views Icon Views Article contents Figures & tables Video Audio Supplementary Data Peer Review Share Icon Share Facebook Twitter LinkedIn MailTo Tools Icon Tools Get Permissions Cite Icon Cite Search Site Citation Brian Vickers; The Atrophy of Modern Rhetoric, Vico to De Man. Rhetorica 1 February 1988; 6 (1): 21–56. doi: https://doi.org/10.1525/rh.1988.6.1.21 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. Copyright 1988, The International Society for the History of Rhetoric1988 Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

Research Article| February 01 1986 Richard Whately's Public Persuasion: The Relationship between his Rhetorical Theory and his Rhetorical Practice Lois Einhorn Lois Einhorn Department of English, General Literature, and Rhetoric, State University of New York, Binghamton, N. Y. 13901, USA Search for other works by this author on: This Site PubMed Google Scholar Rhetorica (1986) 4 (1): 50–65. https://doi.org/10.1525/rh.1986.4.1.50 Views Icon Views Article contents Figures & tables Video Audio Supplementary Data Peer Review Share Icon Share Twitter LinkedIn Tools Icon Tools Get Permissions Cite Icon Cite Search Site Citation Lois Einhorn; Richard Whately's Public Persuasion: The Relationship between his Rhetorical Theory and his Rhetorical Practice. Rhetorica 1 February 1986; 4 (1): 50–65. doi: https://doi.org/10.1525/rh.1986.4.1.50 Download citation file: Ris (Zotero) Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu nav search search input Search input auto suggest search filter All ContentRhetorica Search This content is only available via PDF. Copyright 1986, The International Society for The History of Rhetoric1986 Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

Research Article| May 01 1984 The Rhetorical Theory of John Constable's Reflections upon Accuracy of Style Vincent M . Bevilacqua Vincent M . Bevilacqua Communications Studies, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Massachusetts 01003, USA. Search for other works by this author on: This Site PubMed Google Scholar Rhetorica (1984) 2 (1): 63–73. https://doi.org/10.1525/rh.1984.2.1.63 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 Vincent M . Bevilacqua; The Rhetorical Theory of John Constable's Reflections upon Accuracy of Style. Rhetorica 1 May 1984; 2 (1): 63–73. doi: https://doi.org/10.1525/rh.1984.2.1.63 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. Copyright 1984, The International Society for The History of Rhetoric1984 Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

Research Article| May 01 1983 The Topics of Argumentative Invention in Latin Rhetorical Theory from Cicero to Boethius Michael C. Leff Michael C. Leff Vilas Communication Hall, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, 53706, USA. Search for other works by this author on: This Site PubMed Google Scholar Rhetorica (1983) 1 (1): 23–44. https://doi.org/10.1525/rh.1983.1.1.23 Views Icon Views Article contents Figures & tables Video Audio Supplementary Data Peer Review Share Icon Share Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Email Tools Icon Tools Cite Icon Cite Search Site Citation Michael C. Leff; The Topics of Argumentative Invention in Latin Rhetorical Theory from Cicero to Boethius. Rhetorica 1 May 1983; 1 (1): 23–44. doi: https://doi.org/10.1525/rh.1983.1.1.23 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. Copyright 1983, The International Society for the History of Rhetoric1983 Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.