Reviews 231 Caroline van Eck, Classical Rhetoric and the Visual Arts in Early Modern Europe. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge & New York, 2007 225 pp. The central claim of Caroline van Eek's new book is that classical rhetoric s treatment of the non-verbal and figurative aspects of persuasive communication influenced both the producers and consumers of visual art and architecture in early modern Europe. Primarily drawing on discussions of gesture and image in Quintilian and Cicero (but also Aristotle and Long­ inus), van Eck links what she sees as the primary aim of oratory—vivid representation, enarycia—to the v isual realm of image making. Classical rhetoricians who argued that figurative language and gesture enabled or­ ators to bring their subject to life before the eyes (and the mind's eye) gave early modern artists and spectators a framework within which to create and experience visual art. The argument of the book is that classical rhetoric and early modern visual art share an emphasis on figuration, defined by van Eck as "giving an outward, visible shape to emotion, thoughts or memories that creates the illusion of human life and agency" (p. 9). Attending to figuration by viewing early modern v isual art through the lens of rhetoric rather than post-Kantian aesthetics, van Eck argues, offers a better understanding of the socio-cultural function of art in the period. After making the case for a connection between rhetoric and the visual arts in the Introduction, van Eck devotes the first section of the book to theory. The two chapters that make up this section offer detailed readings of Alberti's De Pictura and three Italian Renaissance architectural treatises, by Vincenzo Scamozzi, Gherardo Spini, and Daniel Barbaro. The discussion of Alberti is focused on linking the representational character of painting to the role of representation in rhetorical theory. While there is little doubt that visual artists were concerned with representation, van Eck argues that the role of persuasion in that representative enterprise has not been adequately explored. Similarly, while the persuasive aspect of oratory is an obvious focus of classical rhetorical theory, it is the goal of vividly representing human activity that made rhetoric an important conceptual toolbox for an art theorist like Alberti. Viewed in this way, rhetoric and visual art share common ground in seeking to bring to life that which is absent. The argument is compelling, though the emphasis on painting as per­ suasive representation elides aesthetic considerations in favor of an under­ standing of artistic practice as a form of interested communication. Of course, this is van Eek's point: that the influence of Kantian aesthetics (particularly the disinterested appreciation of the beautiful) on art history has obscured the value early modern artists and spectators placed on the ability of an artwork to move or persuade. In pointing out the historical difference sep­ arating Renaissance and Enlightenment subjects, van Eck reveals interesting connections between rhetoric and the visual arts. If there is a limitation to the approach it is in van Eek's tendency to subordinate pleasing or delightful aspects of the work of art to its ability to persuade. This tendency takes 232 RHETORICA the discussion away from the particularities of individual works of art in the service of demonstrating the consistent, but more general emphasis on vividness of representation. If some of the discussion of representation is overly general, the same cannot be said about the van Eek's treatment of her specialty, architectural theory When she turns to architecture in the second chapter, for example, the discussion takes on a less speculative and more scholarly tone. This may stem from the fact that the attitude toward architecture that she hopes to reveal is by her own admission "rarely made explicit" in the period (p. 31). To uncover the hidden relationship between rhetoric and architecture she turns to the somewhat neglected work of Spini, Barbaro, and Scamozzi. What van Eck finds in these treatises is relatively clear evidence of the direct influence of classical rhetorical authorities on the three authors' conceptualization of architecture as a persuasive art form intimately linked to human knowledge and activity. Yet the concentration on three minor works begs the question...

Milton’s regicide tracts of 1649, The Tenure, Observations, and Eikonoklastes, are recombinations of two of his most familiar compositional modes of the 1640s, the oration and the animadversion, tactics derived ultimately from classical rhetorical theory and Renaissance assimilations of it. Each tract also displays a poeticized rhetoric which represents Milton’s signature adaptation of the close relationship between rhetoric and poetic found in classical and Renaissance rhetorical texts. Evidence for these claims can be found in the structures, styles, and aesthetic manifestations of all three pamphlets, particularly the classical low and middle styles, the formulaic mechanism of quotation and reply, and the prose genre of the Character.

Reviews 233 allows for a comparison so general, one might doubt its usefulness. “Painting is really like poetry/' van Eck writes, “because both arts are inventions that make appear things that do not exist" (p. 68). Yet the point of van Eek's book is not to show how painting and architecture are the same as rhetoric, but how a culture saturated with the lessons of classical rhetoric influenced the creation and reception of visual art. In fact, rather than primarily focusing on works of visual art and architecture, the book is actually more concerned with the way early modern artists, architects, and spectators spoke and wrote about the visual arts. This is the book's strength, as example after example reveals that classical rhetorical theory provided a rich mine for both artists seeking to describe their method and spectators accounting for their reaction to the artwork. The discussion (in chapter fixe) of poetic responses to the discovery of the Lnocoon statue in 1506 is particularly interesting in this regard. The responses laud the power of the statue to move the viewer while drawing on the language of classical rhetorical theorv. As a whole van Eek's studv is a compelling and welcome contribution to the growing body of work on earlv modern visual culture, broadly defined. Through careful readings of a v ariety of early modern texts about art and architecture from England and Italy, she is able to show how rhetoric influ­ enced the theory, practice and reception of the visual arts. The book serves as a correctiv e to art historical approaches based on theories of aesthetics and style after Kant that downplay the instrumental character of much early modern art. To accomplish this, though, the variety of rhetorical theory is necessarily placed in the background to allow for the common threads that tie rhetoric to the v isual arts in van Eek's account to come into relief. For those interested in early modern European visual culture this will seem a small price to pay. James A. Knapp Eastern Michigan University Susan Miller, Trust in Texts: A Different History ofRhetoric. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press, 2008. xiv + 224 pp. This is an astute, ingenious, and inclusive survey of the contemporary Anglophone discussion that centers on what Miller considers the rhetorical core: that is, pedagogy, training for discursive performance—either in civil affairs or in "self-fashioning," techniques of representation of the practi­ tioner for both public and private motives. That is, both teaching-practice and practice-practice. Tier vital distinction is the prefix meta . rhetoric engages "multiple metadiscourses derived from ritual, imaginative, affil iative practices" (p. 1). Rhetoric as pedagogy is obviously meta-discourse, discourse about discourse; it can, or should, invest in meta-discursive 234 RHETORICA controlling, important—discourses that form and are formed by vital, specific life-interests. On the one hand, the multiple metadiscourses are practices 1) "that we trust for their well-supported and reasoned statements", or 2) "for their participation in infrastructures of trustworthiness," products of "special plane[s] of understanding, and [their] consequences" (p. 2). But, on the other hand, pedagogy, as schooling in the conditions of trust, deals also with trust, not in reason and the shared infrastructure, but with uncertainty, bad faith; it functions "symbolically and charismatically" (p. 3), it can be a "retreat to the orphic" (p. 147). Still, it is always creating "contexts for choice" in an "emergent present" (p. 3) responding—she cites John O. Ward—to "distinct market niches" (p. 4), or, preferably to universal/human, national, global niches. Thus, rhetoric is hegemonous: powerful in its contribution to "productivity and stature of the present [whatever] age," or to "the circulation of contemporary values" (p. 37). As hegemonous, omnicompetent: the study considers political ideolo­ gies, literary aspirations, social ambitions, power contests, gender definings, genre strategies. Rhetoric can be reformulated as concerned with "ad hoc, class-based, experiential, and especially educational bonds that enable per­ suasion" (p. 53). Anything, in short, "crucial to monitoring, reprocessing, and delivering the limits of trust" (p. 5). There is, as well, a very strong emphasis on the pertinent contributions of emotional as well as cognitive capacities. Indeed, a large...

The present contribution to the analysis of the rhetorical genre of eulogy and blame proposes to approach this oratorical undertaking from the point of view of its performative action on praxis. The question is to clarify the conditions of the possibility of this eminently ritual exercise of qualification of the world that attempts, by emphasizing the value of a figure that is rather singular, that of the "hero," to express the present of a community and to program passing to the act. The goal of our reflection consists in showing how the epideictic genre, by the confirmation of a meaning actualized by the speech act, strives to establish and fix the properties of things and consecrate the symbolic forms that can present themselves as justification of a collective action.

106 RHETORICA by Malalas to enhance his account of the rebellion of Vitalian in 515. But I can think of no comment by Fatouros that would explain the inclusion of Gernot Krapinger's "Die Bienen des armen Mannes in Antike und Mittelalter" (pp. 189—201), in which he traces the theme of a poem by Bernard Silvestrus (late 12th century) to a declamation attributed to Quintilian; or the paper by Tilman Krischer arguing that Byzantine explorers went as far as East Africa in search of gold, "Die materiellen Voraussetzungen des geistigen Lebens in Byzanz—Handelskontakte mit Ostafrika, ihre Vorgeschichte und ihre Nachwirkung" (pp. 203-09). All of the papers in this volume are in any event well worth reading; and we should be particularly grateful to Efthymiadis and Featherstone, to Kotzabassi, and to Krapinger for prov iding us with some relatively inacces­ sible texts. The volume itself is handsomely produced, though I note a few editorial blemishes: e.g., "critized" (p. 242), ώεΗ (p. 435), "looses" (p. 436), "prosopoiia" (p. 444), μεγζ.λυτέρου (p. 445); and the Index locorum contains two separate entries for Manuel Holobolus and for Menander Rhetor, the latter of which is incomplete. With the exception of the last, I don't think Grunbart should be held responsible for any of these. His was, after all, an immense task. Thomas M. Conley University ofIllinois at Urbana-Champaign Carol Poster et Linda C. Mitchell, eds., Letter-Writing Manuals and Instruction from Antiquity to the Present: Historical and Bibliographic Studies (Studies in Rhetoric/ Communication), Columbia (South Ca­ rolina); University of South Carolina Press, 2007. 346 pp. Après une préface qui précise le sujet de chacun des chapitres et une introduction générale de Carol Poster, cet ouvrage est divisé en onze cha­ pitres disposés chronologiquement, de l'Antiquité grecque à notre époque. Suivent 91 pages de bibliographie, en sept sections, une pour l'Antiquité, une pour le Moyen-Âge latin, deux pour la période 1500-1700, une pour le XVIIIe siècle en Angleterre, deux pour les XIXe et XXe siècles. Robert G. Sullivan («Classical Epistolary Theory and the Letters of Isocrates »), constatant qu'on ne peut analyser les lettres d'époque classique à la lumière des manuels subsistants, qui sont beaucoup plus tardifs, s intéresse à ce que nous disent elles-mêmes les lettres d'Isocrate sur la conception que se fait cet auteur du genre épistolaire, classant sa production en lettres de recommandation («letters of patronage»), lettres de conseil («counsel or advice») et lettres mixtes remplissant plusieurs fonctions à la fois. R. S. tire de son étude quelques règles principales (p. 11), tout en notant qu'Isocrate tend fréquemment à ne pas les respecter. Il passe ensuite en revue toutes les œuvres de cet auteur qui relèvent de manière plus ou moins directe du Reviews 107 genre épistolaire et en tire la conclusion que la lettre n'est pas pour Isocrate un genre spécifique, mais un type formel, un vaisseau qui porte des compositions relevant de différents genres rhétoriques. La contribution de Carol Poster, «A Conversation Halved» présente un tableau général de ce que nous savons de la théorie épistolaire dans l'Antiquité. Elle évoque le cas des manuels grammaticaux, des papyrus sco­ laires, des lettres littéraires et de la fiction épistolaire, et esquisse une judi­ cieuse étude de la place que pouvait tenir l'épistolaire chez les théoriciens de la rhétorique. Mais son analyse la plus développée est consacrée aux six principaux témoins de la théorie, dont elle signale avec raison le lien avec la tradition littéraire: trois pages du traité de Démétrios, Péri Hermeneias (=Du Style; il faudrait compléter la bibliographie sur cet auteur avec l'ouvrage de Pierre Chiron, Un rhéteur méconnu: Démtrios (Ps.-Démétrios de Phalère). Essai sur les mutations de la théorie du style à l'époque hellénistique (Paris: Vrin, 2001)), le bref exposé de Philostrate de Lemnos, la Lettre 51 de Grégoire de Nazianze, les deux petits traités faussement attribués à Libanios et à Démétrios...

Reviews Raffaella Cribiore, The School of Libanins in Late Antique Antioch. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2007. 360 pp. ISBN-10· 0-691128234 -3 Given the enormous body of writing left bv Libanius (b. 314 C.E.), sophist of Antioch, it is surprising that more scholarship has not been generated on this dynamic figure. Raffaella Cribiore, author of the prize winning Gymnastics of the Mind: Greek Education in Hellenistic and Roman Egypt (Princeton, 2001), has gone some distance in filling that gap with the impressive volume under consideration here. Her book serves two purposes: to provide an overview of education in the Greek East in Late Antiquity, with a focus on the school of Libanius in Antioch, and to present new English translations of ox er 200 of Libanius' letters to fathers, students, and other teachers. Using this material, Cribiore argues that assessments of Libanius as a personality based on his orations and the long Autobiography (composed in 374 and supplemented on numerous occasions up to the supposed date of his death, 393: see A. L. Norman, Libanius. Autobiography and Selected Letters, vol I, ed. and trans. A. L. Norman (Cambridge: Harvard UP, 1992), "Introduction" pp. 7-16) will become more three-dimensional through the evidence of the letters. Admirably, she does not read the letters as direct reports of Libanius' character or of history: "[l]etters manipulate reality no less than do speeches self-consciously composed for public consumption or autobiography" (p. 3). The character that takes shape in these letters, argues Cribiore, provides a counterbalance to the "old, embittered sophist" of the Autobiography and the late speeches (p. 6). She seeks to keep in view the warm, supportive teacher and passionate devotee of the logoi alongside the more familiar figure: a Libanius anguished over his physical trials and personal losses, and resentful at the loss of students to other teachers and other interests, such as philosophy and Roman law. Cribiore brings attention to the status of the letter as a genre residing "between public and private" (p. 4) and to the teaching of epistolary rhetoric (pp. 169-73). Letters were essential to the sophist in maintaining contact with former students, their families, and friends; he used them as a central form of promotion and recruitment to keep his school, so closely identified with the man himself, active and filled with students. "'A friend's children have come Rhetorica, Vol. XXVII, Issue 1, pp. 98-111, ISSN 0734-8584, electronic ISSN 15338541 . C2009 by The International Society for the History of Rhetoric. All rights re­ served. Please direct all requests for permission to photocopy or reproduce article content through the University of California Press's Rights and Permissions website, at http://www.ucpressjournals.com/reprintlnfo.asp. DOI: 10.1525/RH.2009.27.1.98. Reviews 99 to a friend through a friend"' (letter number 204, 321; qtd. p. 110): through such artful formulations Libanius forges a chain of connections among elites across the great distances of the empire. Cribiore emphasizes the role of the carrier, often the student in question, in presenting the letter, and the topos of letter as gift (p. 173; see also Norman, Libanius, pp. 17-43). In the translation section, Cribiore helpfully groups letters into "dossiers": clusters of letters concerning a single student or family. Most had instrumental goals—to evaluate a student to a father, to recommend a student for a position—but more fundamentally, Cribiore observes, each "had to represent the cultural values [Libanius] embodied" (p. 105). They functioned to maintain bonds of philia, the practice of a codified web of relationships (p. 107), forming the connective tissue of elite Greek society in Late Antiquity. Beginning with overview chapters on Libanius in Antioch and schools of rhetoric in the Roman East, Cribiore then moves in more closely to educational practices: the network of relations woven by epistolary practices, processes of admission and evaluation, the content of the curriculum, a long and short course of study, and a discussion of career paths of students after they completed their rhetorical education. The analysis ends with a somewhat cryptic and gloomy section on the silences of Libanius' final years: his illness and depression, the usurpation of rhetoric...

One of the few features of Aristotelian rhetoric that his successors have noticed and developed is his three kinds, deliberative, judicial and epideictic. I want to look at what function the division of rhetoric into three kinds serves in his own argument.

Abstract: What follows is an Arabic-English translation of Alfarabi's short commentary on Aristotle's Rhetoric. This is the first English translation of a significant medieval Arabic text made available to English-speaking scholars in rhetoric, philosophy, and logic.

What follows is an Arabic-English translation of Alfarabi’s short commentary on Aristotle’s Rhetoric. This is the first English translation of a significant medieval Arabic text made available to English-speaking scholars in rhetoric, philosophy, and logic.

AbstractThe explosion in the study of late antiquity during the last generation has generated an important number of works devoted to Greek rhetoric; on the other hand, the influence of confessionalism in patristic studies has decreased. With that in mind, this paper aims to underline the importance of John Chrysostom's Encomium to Meletius and to highlight the impact of rhetoric on the internal struggles of Nicenism during the last years of the fourth century ce in Antioch.

Abstract In 1531, Julius Caesar Scaliger published his Oratio pro M. Tullio Cicerone contra Des. Erasmum, a scathing attack on Erasmus occasioned by the publication three years earlier of Erasmus's Dialogus Ciceronianus sive de optimo dicendi genere, which, in turn, had attacked the proponents of the view that Cicero was the best and only model for good Latin rhetorical style. Erasmus never responded in print to Scaliger's vituperative “oration” (in reality, a pamphlet meant to be circulated among the literati). This paper argues that Erasmus did not respond because Scaliger's insults were so vile and beside the point that they did not deserve serious attention. A rhetorical re-reading of the Oratio provides some insight into the “proper” conduct of insults more generally, especially as they are meant as vehicles for “upward mobility” in a Res publica litteraria.

Reviews 339 Latomus on the orations of Cicero, published in Paris as early as 1531 by the freshly arrived Flemish printer Chrétien Wechel, would have been recorded in the RRSTC. As is well known, the activities of these young German scholars were of crucial importance for the development and—rhetorical— orientation of what is now called the Collège de France, founded in 1530. I am sure that any other specialist of a limited field of study can make critical remarks of this kind. Some will be justified, others rejected with good reason by the authors of the RRSTC. Not one single person will be capable of asking pertinent questions concerning the full scope of the catalogue: that privilege—if it is one—is restricted to J. J. Murphy and L. D. Green. This new edition of the RRSTC is a landmark in the history of Renais­ sance scholarship. It is a life-time achievement, but not in the sense that it is now in its final and definitive state. The authors promise to add in due course not only new entries, but full indexes of dates, places of publication, printers. The addition of these indexes would indeed enhance the value of the book and make it accessible to a larger and more diverse audience. Considering all the work that has been done so far, one hesitates to impose another task on the authors' shoulders. Is there no end to their efforts? There seems to be none. The heavv and grateful use of the RRSTC by the entire scholarly community will be their due reward. Kees Meerhoff Huizinga Instituut, Universiteit van Amsterdam Franz-Hubert Robling: Redner und Rhetorik: Studie zur Regriffs- und Ideengeschichte des Rednerideals (Archiv für Begriffsgeschichte: Sonderheft 5) (Hamburg: Meiner, 2007); 305 S. ISBN 3-7873-1834-8. Michael J. Hyde, ed.: The Ethos ofRhetoric (Studies in Rhetoric / Com­ munication) (Columbia, SC : University of South Carolina Press, 2004). XXVIII, 231 pp. ISBN 1-57003-538-5. L'étude de F.-H. Robling (= FHR), réalisée dans le cadre du projet de la Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft «Historisches Wôrterbuch der Rhetorik», se propose d'étudier l'image idéale de l'orateur, telle qu'elle a été conçue en rhétorique depuis l'Antiquité jusqu'au 18e s. Ce programme, embrassant une période qui s'étend sur plus de vingt siècles, relève a priori d'une gageure, mais l'auteur souligne dans la préface que son intention est d'offrir un regard synthétique sur une tradition qui s'achève avec Kant. Après avoir dégagé un aperçu sur l'état des recherches (pp. 13-23), FHR défend la méthode qu'il a ici adoptée: c'est en suivant le fil de l'histoire des idées, en prenant en compte les contextes technique, culturel, éthique et anthropologique particulier, qu il se propose de reconstruire le concept esthétique, philosophique et culturel d'«orateur», entendu comme «Sub- 340 RHETORICA jekt der Rhetorik, wie ihn die rhetorische Kunstlehre in ihren kanonischen Schriften behandelt» (p. 28). Le livre se divise en quatre parties. Dans une première partie (pp. 29-73: «Teil A: Der Redner als Fachmann der Rede: Das antike Grundmodell), Fauteur étudie le modèle antique de l'orateur, conçu par la sophistique, puis Aristote et la rhétorique d'école gréco-romaine, comme spécialiste et «technicien» (techmtès, artifex) du dis­ cours. FHR poursuit son examen avec une courte réflexion sur les tâches de l'orateur qui, dès l'Antiquité, révèlent une opposition entre, d'une part, une conception moralement neutre de la technique, où l'on demande à l'orateur de convaincre à travers un discours efficace, et, d'autre part, une orientation éthique en vertu de laquelle l'orateur doit persuader de ce qui est bien et présenter un comportement irréprochable et un caractère honnête. Mais la subjectivité de celui qui prend la parole entre aussi en jeu; c'est ce que FHR étudie dans les pages qui suivent, avant de montrer, dans un dernier cha­ pitre, comment les situations publiques dans lesquelles...

Reviews Lawrence D. Green and James J. Murphy, Renaissance Rhetoric ShortTitle Catalogue 1460-1700. Second edition. Aldershot UK/Burlington USA: Ashgate, 2006, xxxv, 467 pp. ISBN 0 7546 0509 4 As the cover of the new RRSTC of works on rhetoric from the beginning of printing to the Enlightenment states, or rather understates, this catalogue is a "revised and expanded" version of the one published by James J. Murphy two and a half decades earlier. My personal copy of this first edition tells me that I purchased it in New York City, April 23, 1981.1 still remember my excitement after leaving the publisher's office: this was indeed a precious gift for all those interested in Renaissance rhetoric. And it was a very courageous gift as well, since it inevitably demonstrated not only the vast knowledge of one of the founding fathers of the ISHR in those rich but largely unexplored fields, but also the gaps in his knowledge. Over the years, we—students of Renaissance rhetoric, in various stages of immaturity—all had the STC on our shelves, making good use of all it had to offer, and feeling proud to be able to add an edition, or a name, or an entirely unknown work in its margins. No one, except Lawrence Green, went so far as to devote the major part of his research time—and doubtlessly a considerable part of his spare time—to the correction and expansion of Murphy's pioneering catalogue. The results of his efforts are now available in print, and the Introduction preceding the actual RRSTC shows with admirable clarity how the author managed to integrate a wealth of new printed bibliographical material and an everexpanding variety of high quality internet sources into the previous edition. It is difficult to conceive how much relentless work and genuine scholarship are hidden behind the following simple lines in the opening paragraph of the Introduction: "The RRSTC now presents 1,717 authors and 3,842 rhetorical titles in 12,325 printings, published in 310 towns and cities by 3,340 printers and publishers from Finland to Mexico." At the same time, one cannot fail to be deeply impressed and even more deeply grateful to the author. In its present form, the volume contains some five hundred pages printed in small type. The 1,717 authors are listed in alphabetical order. As far as possible, copies of their works have been inspected in order to prevent the kind of fantasies one often finds in catalogues. The entry on Rhetorica, Vol. XXVI, Issue 3, pp. 337-343, ISSN 0734-8584, electronic ISSN 15338541 . ©2008 by The International Society for the History of Rhetoric. All rights re­ served. Please direct all requests for permission to photocopy or reproduce article content through the University of California Press's Rights and Permissions website, at http://www.ucpressjournals.com/reprintlnfo.asp. DOI: 10.1525/RH.2008.26.3.337. 338 RHETORICA Cicero alone covers 30 pages, and is in itself an eloquent invitation to all students of classical rhetoric to consider more carefully and respectfully the complex history of the transmission of all the major texts they are studying. It also offers many new opportunities to investigate the interaction between commentary and textbook in the course of time. As such, this book is not only an invaluable tool for Renaissance specialists, but a guide to the study of rhetoric from Antiquity to the present. By its very nature, an ambitious enterprise like this is open-ended; too much is happening at present on the internet. Almost every day new biblio­ graphical data become available. This is the paradox of the present moment: we all want to have a printed catalogue like the new RRSTC and we will bless its existence. At the same time, modern bibliographical tools are moving so swiftly, that ultimate perfection is more out of reach than ever. This is why Professor Green clearly states in his Introduction how much he would wel­ come suggestions, additions and corrections: like no one else, he is aware of the unavoidable shortcomings of this second edition, immensely expanded and improved though it is. The author explicitly invites readers to send their...

The explosion in the study of late antiquity during the last generation has generated an important number of works devoted to Greek rhetoric; on the other hand, the influence of confessionalism in patristic studies has decreased. With that in mind, this paper aims to underline the importance of John Chrysostom’s Encomium to Meletius and to highlight the impact of rhetoric on the internal struggles of Nicenism during the last years of the fourth century ce in Antioch

In 1531, Julius Caesar Scaliger published his Oratio pro M. Tullio Cicerone contra Des. Erasmum, a scathing attack on Erasmus occasioned by the publication three years earlier of Erasmus’s Dialogus Ciceronianus sive tie optimo dicendi genere, which, in turn, had attacked the proponents of the view that Cicero was the best and only model for good Latin rhetorical style. Erasmus never responded in print to Scaliger’s vituperative “oration” (in reality, a pamphlet meant to be circulated among the literati). This paper argues that Erasmus did not respond because Scaliger’s insults were so vile and beside the point that they did not deserve serious attention. A rhetorical re-reading of the Oratio provides some insight into the “proper” conduct of insults more generally, especially as they are meant as vehicles for “upward mobility” in a Res publica litteraria.

Abstract Popular eighteenth-century British biographies of Cicero had a significant impact on the rhetorical identity formation of Elizabeth Montagu (1720–1800). As the acknowledged founder of the “Bluestocking” salon, Elizabeth Montagu played a key role in forming the conversational and epistolary eloquence of her broad and influential network of men and women. A careful analysis of the young Elizabeth's epistolary discussion of biographies of Cicero and Atticus, especially Conyers Middleton's Life of Cicero, provides insight into Montagu's mature rhetorical practice as well as neo-Ciceronian influences on men's and women's rhetorical identity formation in eighteenth-century Britain.

Book Review| May 01 2008 Review: The Secret History of Emotion: From Aristotle's Rhetoric to Modern Brain Science, by Daniel M. Gross Daniel M. GrossThe Secret History of Emotion: From Aristotle's Rhetoric to Modern Brain Science. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press, 2006. x + 194 pp. Rhetorica (2008) 26 (2): 200–202. https://doi.org/10.1525/rh.2008.26.2.200 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 Review: The Secret History of Emotion: From Aristotle's Rhetoric to Modern Brain Science, by Daniel M. Gross. Rhetorica 1 May 2008; 26 (2): 200–202. doi: https://doi.org/10.1525/rh.2008.26.2.200 Download citation file: Ris (Zotero) Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All ContentRhetorica Search This content is only available via PDF. © 2008 by the Regents of the University of California2008 Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

Abstract This paper argues that Cicero's reading of Demosthenes' De corona and his preoccupation with Demosthenes at the time he was composing the Brutus and in particular the Orator are evident in the list of thirty-four sententiae (“figures of thought”) given at Orator 137–9. Examples of all of these may be found in the De corona and they are listed here. It is also argued that the De corona was by far the most influential of Demosthenes' speeches on Cicero's Philippics.

This paper argues that Cicero’s reading of Demosthenes’ De corona and his preoccupation with Demosthenes at the time he was composing the Brutus and in particular the Orator are evident in the list of thirty-four sententiae (“figures of thought”) given at Orator 137–9. Examples of all of these may be found in the De corona and they are listed here. It is also argued that the De corona was by far the most influential of Demosthenes’ speeches on Cicero’s Philippics.

200 RHETORICA pondent à un changement de locuteur reçoivent des appellations variées, pour lesquelles S. renvoie au Handbuch de Lausberg: sermocinatio, éthopée, prosopopée, contradictio, percontatio, communicatio, subiectio, conformatio '.... Toutes relèvent plus ou moins du dialogue fictif, mais une présentation glo­ bale et ordonnée aurait été utile, le paragraphe de l'introduction consacré à la communication étant très léger (p. 20). Le terme de contradictio, par exemple, n'existe que pour la déclamation. La percontatio correspond au départ à un interrogatoire et se présente comme un cas particulier de la figure générale de la subiectio (dialogue fictif avec l'adversaire), elle même s'inscrivant dans le cadre plus général de la sermocinatio, etc. Pour finir, il faut dire combien précieuses sont toutes les notes concer­ nant les problèmes historiques, juridiques et militaires: c'est assurément un point fort de ce commentaire, qui met bien en évidence à la fois le sta­ tut du soldat romain et les différents aspects de la procédure militaire. S. relève et définit une foule de termes techniques, renvoyant aux traités ju­ ridiques, rhétoriques et militaires, ainsi qu'aux historiens. Il y a là une masse d'informations qui éclaire véritablement la compréhension du texte. On saura gré à S. d'avoir envisagé le texte dans tous ses aspects et de fournir au lecteur une grande masse d'informations et de références. Son livre est assurément un livre fort utile aux spécialistes de rhétorique. Sylvie Franchet d'Espèrey Université de Bordeaux Daniel M. Gross, The Secret History ofEmotion: From Aristotle's Rhetoric to Modern Brain Science. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press, 2006. x + 194 pp. This disappointing little book has several admirable goals, none of which it meets well. The author seeks to deconstruct (his term) contemporary sci­ entific accounts of the emotions that would reduce them to manifestations of biological processes; to criticize humanists who rely upon these accounts, especially Richard Sorabji and Martha Nussbaum, and to uncover an alter­ native or "secret" history of the emotions that in his view has been obscured by uncritical acceptance of the dominant Cartesian model of the human sub­ ject. To meet the first goal Gross selects as his straw man the neuroscientist Antonio Damasio, whose work on the biology of emotions has sparked some interest in recent years—although certainly no more than that of a wide range of scientists, at least some of whom offer accounts that can be easily adapted to the assumptions and goals of humanistic scholars. While Gross is no doubt right to criticize Damasio for his assumption of a transhistorical, universal human subject, he provides little or no evidence that Damasio's perspec­ tive is characteristic or representative of scientific thinking at large. What is more, he fails to consider the ways in which Damasio's own universalizing Reviews 201 views may be undermined by other, more nuanced research into the science of emotions. A similar reductivism is manifest in Gross' brief reference to sociobiology, which might lead the reader to the mistaken conclusion that there has been no discussion among sociobiologists of the multiple and di­ verse political implications of their research (to take but one example: the opening chapters of S. Shennan, Genes, Memes, and Human History). Gross' selective reading of the scientific literature on emotions not surprisingly shapes his assessment of liberal humanist attempts to reconcile philosophy and science. Oddly enough, for one committed to the social construction of emotions, Gross is more critical of writers like Sorabji and Nussbaum for their mistaken reliance on misleading science than he is for their impoverished accounts of social and historical constraints and possibilities. In his attempt to construct an alternative history of emotions, one that emphasizes their irreducible sociality, Gross would seem to be on surer ground. Here he traces continuities of thought from Aristotle and the Stoics through eighteenth-century writers David Hume, Sarah Fielding, William Perfect, and Adam Smith. The readings of Aristotle and the Stoics are straightforward; those of Hume and Smith perhaps more likely to spark...

Popular eighteenth-century British biographies of Cicero had a significant impact on the rhetorical identity formation of Elizabeth Montagu (1720–1800). As the acknowledged founder of the “Bluestocking” salon, Elizabeth Montagu played a key role in forming the conversational and epistolary eloquence of her broad and influential network of men and women. A careful analysis of the young Elizabeth’s epistolary discussion of biographies of Cicero and Atticus, especially Conyers Middleton’s Life of Cicero, provides insight into Montagu’s mature rhetorical practice as well as neo-Ciceronian influences on men’s and women’s rhetorical identity formation in eighteenth-century Britain.

This essay inquires into the meaning and usage of eikos, an important term in early Greek rhetorical theory Based on a survey of 394 uses of the verb eoika (of which eikos is the neuter perfect participle) in texts ranging from Homer to Isocrates, it argues that the traditional translation of eikos as "probability" is in some ways misleading. Specifically, the essay proposes: 1) that "to be similar" is the core meaning of eoika, 2) that all other senses of eoika can be seen as extensions of the "similarity" sense, 3) that the "befittingness" sense of eikos continued to be of great importance in the early Attic orators, and 4) that the sense of eikos as that which is befitting or socially expected, and the sense of eikos as that which is verisimilar, work in tandem in the "profiling" strategy of some eikos arguments.

Comme les plus premiers concepts grecs de topos rhétorique et dialectique, le concept de Cicéron du locus est dans son essence une métaphore qui est gouvernée par les sens divers de lieu. Cicéron utilise la métaphore centrale d’endroit dans une variété de sens pour relier étroitement des concepts rattachés. Je divise ces sens en le taxinomique, l’idéal, le mnémonique, et le logique. Nous pouvons déduire un cinquième sens de locus comme un passage de formule ou cliché qui provient de l’utilisation d’arguments idéalisé quelquefois appelé dans la littérature moderne un lieu commun littéraire ou simplement un lieu commun. Pour distinguer ce sens de l’utilisation de Cicéron de locus communis je l’appelle le sens affectif de locus.

442 RHETORICA Judy Z. Segal, Health and the Rhetoric of Medicine (Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press, 2005), 208 pp., $50.00 cloth, ISBN 0-8093-2677-9. Humanists who study medical discourse are a diverse crowd. They hail from disciplines ranging from anthropology and bioethics to rhetoric and composition studies. Lacking a lingua franca, these scholars understandably draw from the divergent traditions of their primary fields. What has ar­ guably been missing is a comprehensive account of medical discourse aris­ ing squarely from the rhetorical tradition. University of British Columbia rhetorical theorist Judy Z. Segal's Health and the Rhetoric ofMedicine fills this void. Demonstrating the heuristic potential of rhetorical principles for un­ derstanding health and medicine broadly construed, Segal offers a series of lucidly-rendered case studies investigating the role of persuasion in shaping patients, practitioners, and illnesses alike. Segal insists on the uniqueness of particular medico-historical moments. In “Chapter One: A Kairology of Biomedicine," she advances “a study of historical moments as rhetorical opportunities" (23). To illustrate kairology's application, Segal traces shifting accounts of the patient narrator from the eighteenth century forward. Her emphasis is not medical history per se, but how medical history reveals the types of persuasion enabled by particu­ lar changes in medicine. Kairology thus informs the rhetorically-focused medical histories to come. However, her analyses derive insights from Ken­ neth Burke and an eclectic mix of classical and contemporary rhetorical theory. Segal presents seven analysis chapters flanked by a theoretically-based introduction and conclusion in a compact 158 pages of text. These build on Segal's previous publications including reprinted portions of three essays. After the opening chapter on kairology, "Chapter Two: Patient Audience, The Rhetorical Construction of the Migraineur" examines how physicians' char­ acterizations of headache patients influence the doctor-patient encounter and preferred treatments. Segal tracks the construction of the migraineur in medical writing from 1873 through the twenty-first century wherein the migraine personality has become situated in pharmacological terms. "Chap­ ter Three: The Epideictic Rhetoric of Pathography" analyzes illness narra­ tives, and their study, as value-laden rhetoric of praise and blame. Segal focuses on three complicating narrators: the pro-anorexia internet narrator who interpellates the community, the resistant narrator of Barbara Ehrenreich who challenges the tyranny of cheerfulness in breast cancer narratives, and the commercialized narrator of Carla Cantor whose hypochondria queststory represents the pathologized subject. "Chapter Four: Hypochondria as a Rhetorical Disorder" unpacks the strategic ambiguity of hypochondriacs' discourse recasting the condition from a medical mystery to a mystery of motive with historical and current examples. In "Chapter Five: A Rhetoric of Death and Dying," the book's most haunting and personal chapter, Se­ gal interrogates end-of-life rhetoric by analyzing dialogue surrounding her Reviews 443 mother's death and advanced care planning interviews to argue that in­ stitutionalized end-of-life encounters structurally impede fair deliberation. "Chapter Six: Values, Metaphors, and Health Policy" awakens the "sleeping" metaphors in health-care-policv rhetoric, exposing the values underlying medicine is war, diagnosis is health, and body as machine, for example. "Chapter Seven: The Problem of Patient 'Noncompliance': Paternalism, Expertise, and the Ethos of the Physician" addresses problems of physician authority as embedded in the terms patient non-compliance, adherence, and concordance. In her concluding section, Segal underscores the rhetorical lexicon's utility for comprehending medicine and health. Segal ably mixes insightful application of principles to particular cases with mid-level theorizing about the place of rhetoric in medicine and health. Although she draws from an interdisciplinary reservoir, her core an­ alytic concepts are well known to suasion scholars: kairos, genre, audience, metaphor, narrative, interpellation, and ethos. A second strength is her at­ tention to intersecting interactional, public, and institutional discourses. Her persistent focus on persuasion, clear prose, and accessible explanation of concepts make this volume a solid choice for upper-division undergraduate and graduate courses in rhetoric. It should also be useful for medical human­ ists who want to access rhetorical insights: her book shows how rhetorical thinking can uncover historical particularities while fostering generalized insights. The scope of cases considered is impressive, as are the connections to history of medicine scholarship. One of the...

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

After the conference at Luca in 56 BC, where Caesar, Crassus, and Pompey renewed their Triumvirate, Cicero was forced to accept a compromise, which appears in the orations that he delivered to defend both the Triumvirs (De prouinciis consularibus) and his own enemies (defence of Vatinius and Gabinius). In a letter to Lentulus Spinther of December 54, Cicero justified his new political attitude toward the popular leaders. Designed as a plea, this letter, one of Cicero's longest, raises the question: “What similarity is there between a letter and a speech in court or at a public meeting?” (Fam.IX, 21, 1). Relying on the intertextuality of the letter to Lentulus with the oration Pro Plancio, delivered four months previously, this paper considers how Cicero adapts appropriateness and decorum to his addressee and displays a rhetoric that is half way between judicial eloquence and epistolary discourse.

Abstract This essay offers a reassessment of the reception history of the Latin translation of Aristotle's Rhetoric in the universities and mendicant studia of the thirteenth to fifteenth centuries. While it accepts James J. Murphy's assertion, originally made in 1969, that Aristotle's Rhetoric was studied as part of moral philosophy, it presents new manuscript and textual evidence of how this work was actually used. It argues for its popularity and importance among later medieval scholastics and suggests we take a more nuanced view of what they understood rhetoric to be.

In his Lectures on Rhetoric and Belles Lettres, Hugh Blair works within the tradition of Isocrates, Cicero, and Quintilian in presenting rhetoric as a school subject that forms character and educates in citizenship. But by the terms of his title, “Rhetoric” and “Belles Lettres,” Blair signals a commitment to two different ideals of character—the ideal of civic republicanism of Roman rhetoric, on the one hand, and that of a middleclass, polite culture, on the other. As Blair wrestles with the tensions inherent in his program to reconcile the two in lectures 25–34, he inadvertently dramatizes the transformation from a rhetorical culture to a modern, bourgeois one.

In his Lectures on Rhetoric mid Belles Lettres, Hugh Blair works within the tradition of Isocrates, Cicero, and Quintilian in presenting rhetoric as a school subject that forms character and educates in citizenship. But by the terms of his title, “Rhetoric” and “Belles Lettres,” Blair signals a commitment to two different ideals of character - the ideal of civic republicanism of Roman rhetoric, on the one hand, and that of a middleclass, polite culture, on the other. As Blair wrestles with the tensions inherent in his program to reconcile the two in lectures 25–34, he inadvertently dramatizes the transformation from a rhetorical culture to a modern, bourgeois one.

After the conference at Luca in 56 BC, where Caesar, Crassus, and Pompey renewed their Triumvirate, Cicero was forced to accept a compromise, which appears in the orations that he delivered to defend both the Triumvirs (De prouinciis consularibus) and his own enemies (defence of Vatinius and Gabinius). In a letter to Lentulus Spinther of December 54, Cicero justified his new political attitude toward the popular leaders. Designed as a plea, this letter, one of Cicero’s longest, raises the question: “What similarity is there between a letter and a speech in court or at a public meeting?” (Fam. IX, 21 1). Relying on the intertextuality of the letter to Lentulus with the oration Pro Plancio, delivered four months previously, this paper considers how Cicero adapts appropriateness and decorum to his addressee and displays a rhetoric that is half way between judicial eloquence and epistolary discourse.

334 RHETORICA ration" among antebellum women (because Truth's speech was reproduced by Frances Gage). Because Regendering Delivery provides so little analysis of African American women speakers' unique struggles, this relatively uncriti­ cal treatment of white antebellum reformers' relationship to Sojourner Truth is disappointing. Chapter 5 and the conclusion, which would have benefitted from further development, foster confusion over the book's theory of delivery. Nevertheless, this criticism should not deter scholars from picking up this fine book, which makes important contributions to the feminist study of the history of rhetoric. Roxanne Mountford University ofArizona Joseph Roisman, The Rhetoric of Manhood: Masculinity in the Attic Orators. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2005. 283 pp. A book entitled The Rhetoric ofManhood: Masculinity in the Attic Orators was probably as inevitable as was the study of gender and sexuality in the ancient world. As gender studies matured as an academic discipline, the scholarly examination of masculinity could not remain far behind, despite the expected quip that all previous scholarship was "masculine studies." In fact, men's studies forms an important complement to women's studies and deserves to stand as an important element of rhetorical studies as well. Anyone interested in exploring the overlapping fields of rhetoric, on the one hand, and ideologies and practices of masculinity, on the other, will find The Rhetoric ofManhood: Masculinity in the Attic Orators an important resource for scholars of ancient rhetoric and rhetorical theory more generally despite the fairly narrow focus revealed by the subtitle. As the full title suggests, Roisman has limited his focus to one genre— ancient oratory—which in turn further limits his study to a roughly onehundred year span of Athenian history, from the late fifth century to the 320s bce. In practice, the focus is even narrower, as this study must inevitably rely most heavily on a small handful of orators (chiefly Demosthenes and Lysias) with the largest corpus of orations. However, this tight methodological lens brings its own benefits, and in fact is less restricting than it might at first appear to be. In the first place, as Roisman himself notes (quoting Loraux), the context for ancient oratory—the political life of the city and its citizens— was so thoroughly imbricated with notions of masculinity that "the true name of the citizen is really aner [man], meaning that sexual identity comes first" (1). Thus what it meant to be a virtuous citizen, friend, and speaker, a benefit to friends and a harm to enemies, can be seen as largely co-terminous within the political and legal arena with what it meant to be a virtuous and capable man in general. Reviews 335 Further, though ancient oratory was once suspect as too rhetorical to be reliable as historical evidence, it is now valued as an important resource precisely because it depends for its effectiveness on its believability to its audience. More than any other genre, oratory had to appeal to beliefs that the audience was willing to accept. This does not mean that orations accurately reflect social practices and behaviors, but it does suggest that they remain within the bounds of what politically active Athenian men thought they and their city valued, and how it ought to put those values into practice. This study of ancient orations turns out to be a particularly valuable resource for self-representations of and for Athenian men. The Athenian masculine ideology that Roisman discovers turns out to be quite broad and complex, including standards of behavior in youth (chapter 1); the roles and responsibilities of the adult male as husband, father, kin, friend, and citizen; the role of shame (chapter 3); the relationship between masculinity and social status (chapter 4); military service (chapter 5); the struggle for power (chapter 6); the negotiation of desire and self-control (chapter 7); the mastery of fear (chapter 8); and old age (chapter 9). Of particular interest for historians of rhetoric in this context are sections devoted to the struggle for political power and assertions of manliness be­ tween speakers and audiences. Roisman reveals not only the value of oratory as a source of information about masculine ideology in ancient Greece but shows as well how oratory was...

This study examines the rhetorical practice of James Forten, an African American activist of the early republic. Focusing on four texts written between 1800 and 1832 for white audiences and considering Forten’s efforts to align white readers with the plight of both free and enslaved American blacks, I explore pathos (particularly as conceived by eighteenth-century Scottish rhetoricians), the suppliant ethos, appeals based on Pennsylvania and U.S. legal and political traditions, and arguments addressing the practical concerns of the audience. Through such analysis, I demonstrate Forten’s pioneering role in the development of African American deliberative rhetoric.

This essay offers a reassessment of the reception history of the Latin translation of Aristotle’s Rhetoric in the universities and mendicant studia of the thirteenth to fifteenth centuries. While it accepts James J. Murphy’s assertion, originally made in 1969, that Aristotle’s Rhetoric was studied as part of moral philosophy, it presents new manuscript and textual evidence of how this work was actually used. It argues for its popularity and importance among later medieval scholastics and suggests we take a more nuanced view of what they understood rhetoric to be.

Reviews Carl Joachim Classen, Autike Rhctorik ini Zeitnltcr des Humanismus. Beitràge zur Altertumskunde 182. München/Leipzig: Saur, 2003. IX, 374 S., Register. Bei den in diesem Band gesammelten Studien handelt es sich um (grôRtenteils überarbeitete) Neupublikationen von überwiegend in den neunziger Jahren erscbienenen Aufsâtzen des vielseitigen Forschers Carl Joachim C(lassen). In ihrer Mehrzahl liefern sie neue Beobachtungen zur Rezeption von Ciceros Reden im europâischen Humanismus. Drei thematische Blocke sind unterscheidbar: Neben chronologisch geordneten, detaillierten Aufrissen der Rezeption der Reden Ciceros im wissenschaftlichen Schrifttum einiger westeuropâischer Lander im 15. und 16. Jahrhundert (Cicerokommentare bilden den Schwerpunkt der Betrachtungen) stehen Einzeluntersuchungen zur Wirkung Ciceros auf das Werk von Humanisten wie Georg von Trapezunt oder Johannes Sturm. Am Ende des Bandes finden sich schlieRlich Arbeiten zum rhetorischen Werk einzelner Humanisten (Bcbel, Melanchthon, Guicciardini), bei dessen Untersuchung die Cicero-Rezeption nicht im Vordergrund steht. Da die elf Beitràge weder nach chronologischen noch nach thematischen Gesichtspunkten, sondern eher nach solchen der variatio geordnet zu sein scheinen, seien sie hier in der oben skizzierten Reihenfolge besprochen. In den beiden umfangreichen Arbeiten, die den Band eroffnen ("Cicerostudien in der Romania im fünfzehnten und sechzehnten Jahrhundert", S.l-71; "Das Studium der Reden Ciceros in Spanien im fünfzehnten und sechzehnten Jahrhundert", S. 72-136), sowie in den Kapiteln VI und VII des Bandes ("Cicero inter Germanos redivivus I", S.189-224, und "II", S.225-245), gelingt dem Autor nichts Geringeres als ein repràsentativer Überblick über das Studium von Ciceros Reden im 15. und 16. Jahrhundert in den Lândern Italien, Frankreich, Spanien und Deutschland. Grund für das Entstehen dieser Aufsàtze war, wie der Autor in seinem kurzen Vorwort (S.VII) andeutet, der ursprüngliche Plan, Ciceros Reden für den Catalogus Cornaientariorura et Translationum (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, I960-) zu bearbeiten. Dieser Hintergrund erklàrt, warum gerade die ersten beiden Kapitel oft den Eindruck ausformulierter Lexikonartikel vermitteln und deshalb gut zur ersten Orientierung zu benutzen sind. Der Durchgang durch die Cicerorezeption in Italien (von Petrarca bis Bembo, S.5-20, mit Rhetorica, Vol. XXV, Issue 3, pp. 329-335, ISSN 0734-8584, electronic ISSN 15338541 . G2007 by The International Society for the History of Rhetoric. All rights re­ served. Please direct all requests for permission to photocopy or reproduce article content through the University of California Press's Rights and Permissions website, at http://www.ucpressjournals.com/reprintlnfo.asp. DOI: 10.1525/RH.2007.25.3.329. 330 RHETORICA einem kurzen Ausblick auf das Ende des 16. Jahrhunderts, S.68-71), Frankreich (von Bernard de Chartres bis zum genialen Textkritiker François Hotman , 1524-1590, S.21-68) und Spanien (auf S.81-127 werden mehr als 100 spanische Autoren des 15. und 16. Jh.s kurz vorgestellt) führt C. zu folgenden Thesen (vgl. zusammenfassend S. 190): In Italien münden die vielfâltigen Formen der Cicero-Rezeption im 15. Jahrhundert schlieBlich in ein orthodoxstilistisches Studium Ciceros, welches zur Entwicklung der Nationalsprache beitrâgt. In Frankreich ist das Interesse an antiker Rhetorik ungebrochen, die Universitàten spielen hier aber kaum eine Rolle, sondern es sind oft Autodidakten oder speziell Interessierte (etwa im juristischen Bereich), welche die Cicero-Studien vorantreiben. In Spanien ist das Studium der Antike und speziell Ciceros nie Selbstzweck, sondern steht im Dienste der Erziehung, welche ihrerseits die propagatiofidei zum Ziel hat. Im deutschsprachigen Raum ist die Cicero-Rezeption, wie C.s Untersuchungen zum Umgang mit Cicero bei Humanisten wie P.Luder, R.Agricola, J.Wimpfeling, H.Bebel und J.Locher (Kap.VI) und in Cicero-Kommentaren von B.Latomus, Ph.Melanchthon, J.Sturm, Pde la Ramée und einigen ihrer Nachfolger zeigen (Kap.VII), weniger durch die Debatte um den sogenannten Ciceronianismus als vielmehr durch die Bedürfnisse der Schule geprâgt; diese veranlassen viele Kommentatoren dazu, Ciceros Reden gleichsam als Steinbrüche für stilistisch vorbildliche Phrasen zu gebrauchen. C.s wertvolle Hinweise auf solche "Didaktisierungen" Ciceros machen auf ein weites Forschungsfeld aufmerksam und wàren durch Untersuchungen zum Umgang mit Cicero im deutschen schulischen und universitàren Lehrbetrieb des 15. und 16. Jahrhunderts zu ergànzen, welche bislang noch kaum durchgeführt sind. Erg...

Book Review| May 01 2007 Book Review: Classical Rhetorics and Rhetoricians: Critical Studies and Sources, by Michelle Ballif and Michael G. Moran Classical Rhetorics and Rhetoricians: Critical Studies and Sources. edited by Michelle Ballif and Michael G. Moran. Westport, CT: Praeger, 2005. 402 pp. Rhetorica (2007) 25 (2): 218–219. https://doi.org/10.1525/rh.2007.25.2.218 Views Icon Views Article contents Figures & tables Video Audio Supplementary Data Peer Review Share Icon Share Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Email Tools Icon Tools Cite Icon Cite Search Site Citation Book Review: Classical Rhetorics and Rhetoricians: Critical Studies and Sources, by Michelle Ballif and Michael G. Moran. Rhetorica 1 May 2007; 25 (2): 218–219. doi: https://doi.org/10.1525/rh.2007.25.2.218 Download citation file: Ris (Zotero) Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All ContentRhetorica Search This content is only available via PDF. © The International Society for the History of Rhetoric2007 Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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...