Reviews Elaine Fantham, The Roman World of Cicero's De Oratore. Pp. 364. Ox­ ford: Oxford University Press, 2004. US$150; £ 63. ISBN: 0199263159. Cicero's De Oratore is one of most significant discussions of rhetoric in the classical corpus. It presents the mature reflections of a master orator on the art he had dominated at Rome for nearly twenty years. For the modern Anglophone student, however, the dialogue has long been rather forbidding and inaccessible. The Loeb translation of Sutton and Rackham is pedestrian at best, misleading at worst; and the archaic flavour of Watson's version does little to capture the imagination.1 The commentary by Wilkins is certainly respectable enough, but its philological focus is potentially intimidating to the reader not familiar with this genre of scholarship.2 And while the masterly multi-volumed commentary initiated in the 1980s by Leeman and Pinkster has advanced scholarly appreciation and understanding of the dialogue immeasurably, it remains inaccessible to the student who does not read German fluently.1 Fortunately in recent years the situation has started to J change. The recent English translation by May and Wisse, with its extensive introduction and explanatory notes, at last provides an excellent and af1E . W. Sutton and H. Rackham, Cicero Dc Oratore Books I, II (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1942) and H. Rackham, Cicero De Oratore Book III Together With De Fato, Paradoxa Stoicorum, De Partitione Oratoria (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1942); J. S. Watson, Cicero on Oratory and Orators (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1848; republished, Carbondale and Edwardsville: Southern Illinois University Press, 1970 and 1986). 2A. S. Wilkins, M. Tidli Ciceronis De Oratore Libri Tres (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 3rd edition 1895; republished, Amsterdam: Hakkert 1962; Hildesheim: Olms 1965; New York: Arno Press, 1979). 3A. D. Leeman and H. Pinkster, M. Tullius Cicero De oratore libri III. Kommentar. Vol. I (Heidelberg: Carl Winter, 1981); A. D. Leeman, H. Pinkster and H. L. W. Nelson, M. Tullius Cicero De oratore libri III. Kommentar. Vol. II (Heidelberg: Carl Winter, 1985); A. D. Leeman, H. Pinkster and E. Rabbie, M. Tullius Cicero De oratore libri III. Kommentar. Vol. Ill (Heidelberg: Carl Winter, 1989); A. D. Leeman, H. Pinkster and J. Wisse, M. Tullius Cicero De oratore libri III. Kommentar. Vol. IV (Heidelberg: Carl Winter, 1996). The final volume is in preparation and will be published in English. Rhetorica, Vol. XXIV, Issue 4, pp. 427-447, ISSN 0734-8584, electronic ISSN 15338541 . 02006 by The International Society for the History of Rhetoric. All rights re­ served. Please direct all requests for permission to photocopy or reproduce article content through the University of California Press s Rights and Permissions website, at www.ucpress.edu/journals/rights.htm. 427 428 RHETORICA fordable entrée to the text.4 Now with the publication of Elaine Fantham's book-length study, the dialogue should finally be able to reach the wider readership in English it deserves. The thirteen chapters are organised thematically and address well the key questions raised by the dialogue. The first three set out the background to the work: first, Cicero's political situation and literary ambitions as he began its composition; next, the oratorical careers of its main interlocutors L. Crassus and M. Antonius; and finally its dialogic form, especially the artistic and intellectual debt owed to Plato. The remaining chapters focus on issues that arise sequentially as one reads through the dialogue's three books. Thus there are discussions of the orator's training and his need for a knowledge of civil law (issues that arise in Book 1); oratory's relationship with poetry and the writing of history (topics mentioned in Books 1 and 2); Cicero's use of Aristotelian sources and the orator's effective deployment of wit and humour (treated in Book 2); the role of oratory in the Roman senate and popular assemblies (a matter relevant to Book 2 but usefully expanded more generally by E); and the various aspects of oratorical style (elocutio), memory, and delivery (the focus of most of Book 3). A final chapter offers some concluding thoughts and includes a brief discussion of Tacitus' Dialogus, a work much influenced by De Oratore. This arrangement...

Abstract The Life of Attila, composed by the Hungarian patriot and churchman Miklos [Nicolaus] Oláh (1493-1568), includes several speeches by Attila. His style, the most striking character of these harangues, cannot be described better than as “elevated Ciceronian” whence the title Cicero hunnicus. This article establishes the manner in which the rhetoric of Attila serves as a strategy of rehabilitation through the use of which Oláh defends the image of his hero (and that of the Hungarian people). In conclusion, there is outlined a sketch of how, in the XVIth century, an attempt was made to establish the Hungarian national identity on rhetorical foundations.

Dans la Vie d’Attila, composée par le patriote et homme d’église hongrois Miklos [Nicolaus] Oláh (1493–1568), figurent plu-sieurs discours du personage. Le style d’Attila le Hun, le trait le plus frappant de ces harangues, ne saurait être mieux décrit que par les termes de “style Cicéronien élevé”—d’où le titre: Cicero hunnicus. Cette communication établit comment la rhétorique d’Attila sert une stratégie d’réhabilitation: par ce moyen, Oláh defend l’image de son héros (et du peuple hongrois). En conclusion, sera equissée une réflexion sur la façon dont on a pu tenter, au XVIe siècle, de fonder l’identité nationale sur des assises rhétoriques.

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

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

Abstract This article considers the difficulties faced by Quintilian in classifying and understanding apostrophe. He treats it as both a figure of thought, with examples from oratory, and a figure of speech, with examples from Virgilin which the narrator addresses characters of the poem. By inserting the otherwise unobtrusive narrator into the narrative, the effect of the Virgilian examples is to collapse the distinction between narration and narrative. Since Quintilian does not have this means of linguistic analysis at his disposal, he defines apostrophe as a figure of speech by bringing it into relation with other figures that also produce an effect of rupture at the level of narration, and he uses other oppositions that offer an imperfect treatment of the problem.

This article considers the difficulties faced by Quintilian in classifying and understanding apostrophe. He treats it as both a figure of thought, with examples from oratory, and a figure of speech, with examples from Virgilin which the narrator addresses characters of the poem. By inserting the otherwise unobtrusive narrator into the narrative, the effect of the Virgilian examples is to collapse the distinction between narration and narrative. Since Quintilian does not have this means of linguistic analysis at his disposal, he defines apostrophe as a figure of speech by bringing it into relation with other figures that also produce an effect of rupture at the level of narration, and he uses other oppositions that offer an imperfect treatment of the problem.

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

Abstract This article contributes to the study of figured speech by offering an analysis of pseudo-Quintilian's Declamationes Maiores 18 and 19, two controversiaefiguratae. After an introduction of the relevant rhetorical concepts, an account is given of figured speech on all levels in both declamations. The tenor of both controversiae is determined by their declamatory law, which is examined and compared with attested Greek and Roman law. Figured speech on a smaller scale is studied with regard to color, figura, and ductus, and on the level of diction, with regard to emphasis.

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

This article contributes to the study of figured speech by offering an analysis of pseudo-Quintilian’s Declamationes Matares 18 and 19, two controversiae figuratae. After an introduction of the relevant rhetorical concepts, an account is given of figured speech on all levels in both declamations. The tenor of both controversiae is determined by their declamatory law, which is examined and compared with attested Greek and Roman law. Figured speech on a smaller scale is studied with regard to color, figura, and ductus, and on the level of diction, with regard to emphasis.1

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

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

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

Abstract The rise of prose in Greece has been linked to broader cultural and intellectual developments under way in the classical period. Prose has also been characterized as challenging poetry's traditional status as the privileged expression of the culture. Yet throughout the classical period and beyond, poetry was still regularly invoked as the yardstick by which innovation was measured. This paper investigates how poetry figures in the earliest accounts of prose style. Focusing on Isocrates, Alcidamas, and Aristotle, it argues that although each author distinguishes between the styles of prose and poetry, none is able to sustain the distinction consistently. The criteria for what constitutes an acceptable level of poeticality in prose were unstable. The diverse conceptions of poetic style were tied to intellectual polemics and professional rivalries of the early- to mid-fourth century bce and reflect competing aims and ideals for rhetorical performance in prose.

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

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

The rise of prose in Greece has been linked to broader cultural and intellectual developments under way in the classical period. Prose has also been characterized as challenging poetry's traditional status as the privileged expression of the culture. Yet throughout the classical period and beyond, poetry was still regularly invoked as the yardstick by which innovation was measured. This paper investigates how poetry figures in the earliest accounts of prose style. Focusing on Isocrates, Alcidamas, and Aristotle, it argues that although each author distinguishes between the styles of prose and poetry, none is able to sustain the distinction consistently. The criteria for what constitutes an acceptable level of poeticality in prose were unstable. Moreover, the diverse conceptions of poetic style were tied to intellectual polemics and professional rivalries of the early- to mid-fourth century bce and reflect competing aims and ideals for rhetorical performance in prose.

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

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

Abstract Exorcism incorporates all three branches of classical rhet\-oric: judicial (as in a trial, accusing the demon for his actions); deliberative (exhorting the demon to depart); and ceremonial or epideictic (praising the power of God and blaming Satan for taking possession of a human soul). The structure of a typical exorcism follows the classical arrangement of exordium,narratio, divisio,refutatio, probatio, andperoratio. The speaker is the exorcist, a Catholic priest who was often classically educated. There are five audiences in any given exorcism, three supernatural and two human, and each of these requires specific rhetorical strategies.

Exorcism incorporates all three branches of classical rhetoric: judicial (as in a trial, accusing the demon for his actions); deliberative (exhorting the demon to depart); and ceremonial or epideictic (praising the power of God and blaming Satan for taking possession of a human soul). The structure of a typical exorcism follows the classical arrangement of exordium, narratio, divisio, refutatio, probatio, and peroratio. The speaker is the exorcist, a Catholic priest who was often classically educated. There are five audiences in any given exorcism, three supernatural and two human, and each of these requires specific rhetorical strategies.

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

Abstract This article is based on a general principle: the study of a fragmentary author should begin with a study of the sources. The particular subject is Cicero as a source for Theophrastus' rhetorical doctrine. The works On Invention, On the Orator andOrator are considered one after the other. The reliability of Cicero is tested by comparing what is said about Aristotle with what we read in the existingRhetoric. Grounds for caution will be found. In the case of Theophrastus, we shall discover that Cicero does have value as a source, but his value should not be overstated. The reports are often quite general and sometimes they involve Ciceronian additions.

Abstract In Aristotle's works, the adjective ηθικός has two principal meanings: it can, namely, refer to (1) whatever is relative to ήθος, or (2) whatever is capable of expressing ήθος. This latter sense is what the present study proposes initially to delineate, by endeavoring to evaluate precisely the nature and meaning of ήθος as it is implied in each use of the adjective. This analysis will permit a subsequent isolation of the of the particular senses illustrated in the three occurrences of ηθικός which appear in the passages of the Rhetoric devoted to the λέξις of oratory. (Rhet. III, 7, 1408 a 11, 1408 a 25, et III, 1413 b 10). In effect: (1) when the notion of λέξις ηθική involves the ήθος of the speaker, the semantic extension of this latter term exhibits certain divergences, not only with regard to the way it is characterized in the rest of the treatise, as in the definition of πίστις εν τώι ήθει τού λέγοντος, but also with regard to the doctrine in the Ethics; (2) the way in which Rhet. III, 12 conceives of υπόκρισις—with which λέξις ηθική has close and privileged associations—implies a traditional, non-Aristotelian conception of ήθος. Taking into accound the discordant character of the three above-mentioned instances provides a new resource for critical studies devoted to questions about the dating and unity of the Rhetoric.

This article is based on a general principle: the study of a fragmentary author should begin with a study of the sources. The particular subject is Cicero as a source for Theophrastus’ rhetorical doctrine. The works On Invention, On the Orator and Orator are considered one after the other. The reliability of Cicero is tested by comparing what is said about Aristotle with what we read in the existing Rhetoric. Grounds for caution will be found. In the case of Theophrastus, we shall discover that Cicero does have value as a source, but his value should not be overstated. The reports are often quite general and sometimes they involve Ciceronian additions.

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

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

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

This article argues that contrary to modern assumptions Hermagoras may not have discussed the epicheireme. And if he did, it is further maintained that he must have treated the epicheireme as an amplifying feature of style, as represented in the Rhetorica ad Herenmium, rather than as a syllogistic device, as represented in Cicero's De inventione. Until now scholars have not appreciated that the stylistic view of the epicheireme underlies the discussion of both Ad Hemmiliin and De inventione. They have failed to note that in the latter work Cicero has combined two views of the epicheireme: the original, typically rhetorical, amplifying feature of style, and a secondary argumentative-syllogistic form, which is derived from a philosophical-dialectical source.

Reviews L art de parler: Anthologie de manuels d'éloquence, Philippe-Joseph Salazar, ed., Paris, Klincksieck, 2003. xxi+362 pp. In his introduction, Salazar points with envy to the United States for the liveliness of our rhetorical tradition and practice compared with France, especially the continuous place of rhetoric in higher education. Looking with corresponding envy from this side of the Atlantic, one advantage I see in this anthology over comparable American anthologies: greater apparent continu­ ity. Greece and Rome—I was glad to see an excerpt from Tacitus, an unjustly neglected source for the history of rhetoric—lead seamlessly into the Middle Ages; Erasmus and Calvin lead to French renaissance authors such as Ramus and Amyot. We see rhetoric employed in the education of princes (Amyot, la Motte le Vayer), and diplomacy (Lancelot). The rhetoric of the academy (Patru), of lawyers (Dubois de Bretteville), of literary studies (Rollin), of bu­ reaucratic reports (Andrieux), and even how bourgeois mothers should talk and their children listen (Mme. Dufrenoy) all have their place. The continuity of French rhetoric is also nicely emphasized by selections from the rhetoric of preaching not only from medieval and renaissance authors but writers up to the 20th century (Augustine, de Basevorn, Erasmus, Calvin, Maury, Bouchage, Morice). The diversity of places where rhetoric is exercised leads to interesting insights and surprises. For example, the short excerpt from Lancelot's Le Parfait Amassadeur is entitled, "one cannot be a good ambassador without being a good orator," and draws interesting connections between, as Salazar puts it, the art of speaking and the art of speaking in the name of someone. As he says in his introduction, rhetoric from the time of Gorgias has connected the art of speaking with the art of speaking in the name of someone. We only get three pages of Lancelot (1642), and that is a translation of a work of Zuniga (1620), but the treatment of the ambassador as the complete orator is enough to raise stimulating questions about personification, representation, and disguise. It would be worth connecting this handbook for speaking in the name of someone with current rhetorical problems of how to be a representative and how to be an advocate. Similarly, the selection from Olivier Patrus' Discours de reception (1640) introduces the peculiarly French rhetorical genre of the academic oration. Intellectuals occupy a different place in French culture from their role in Rhetorica, Vol. XXII, Issue 4, pp. 401-407, ISSN 0734-8584, electronic ISSN 15338541 . ©2004 by The International Society for the History of Rhetoric. All rights reserved. Please direct all requests for permission to photocopy or reproduce article content through the University of California Press's Rights and Permissions website, at www.ucpress.edu/journals/rights.htm. 401 402 RHETORICA Anglophone culture, and proficiency in this genre should be part of the accounting of the difference. Unusually, this anthology does not neglect the last part of rhetoricaction or delivery—and so we see excerpts from texts on pronunciation and self-presentation. This is the first time I have ever found the art of delivery interesting. Instead of looking to politics, where rhetoric should flourish, Salazar wisely looks at where rhetoric has flourished, and produced a fascinating anthology. Some of the selections will be as unfamiliar to French readers as they are to this American one. (The editor reports that the selection from Basevorn is here translated into French for the first time.) This anthology is exciting reading not only for readers interested in learning about rhetoric in a distinct tradition, but for anyone interested in the diversity of appearances that rhetoric has taken over the ages. The theme of his introduction is, I think, at odds with this ecumenical approach to the selections themselves. Rhetoric, Salazar notes, had a demo­ cratic birth. He claims that the persuasive tradition and practical politics of the west are fused with rhetoric, eloquence, the art of speaking, the art of oratory (vii). "Democracy gives each citizen the right to defend himself, by speech, if he sees himself injured, but which imposes on others, between equal citizens, to judge the case....Speech replaces violence" (ix-x). Conse­ quently, Salazar argues, rhetoric is a phenomenon unique...

Machiavelli’s advocacy of force and fraud in the conduct of politics is the key teaching that has secured his reputation as “Machiavellian” and that has led to the conception of The Prince as the first document in the Western tradition to lay bare the dark, demonic underside of civic humanism. But this interpretation overlooks the degree to which a politics of intense competition and personal rivalry inhabits the humanist vision from antiquity, producing an ethics of expediency and a rhetoric of imposture that seeks to mask its alertness to advantage behind the guise of integrity and service. This vision is nowhere more apparent than in Cicero’s De Oratore, which exerted a powerful influence on the Italian humanists of the quattrocentro in whose direct descent Machiavelli stands. Deception, to put it simply, is an acknowledged and vital element in civic humanism long before The Prince. The difference is that Cicero typically couches it in a sacrificial rhetoric that is euphemistically inflected while Machiavelli opts for a hard-edged rhetoric of administrative efficiency to make his case. But the stylistic differences, important as they are, should not mask the essential affinity between the Machiavellian doctrine of princely fraud and the Ciceronian ethics of gentlemanly dissimulation.

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

Abstract Although there is general consensus that knowledge of Aristotle's intended audience is important for understanding the Rhetoric, there is no consensus about who that audience is. In this essay, four of the most widely accepted theories are investigated: that Aristotle is writing for the legislator of an ideal city; that Aristotle is writing for the Athenian public or an elite subset of that public; that Aristotle is writing for his students; and that the Rhetoric was written for multiple audiences over an extended period of time. Ultimately, the most plausible of these explanations is that he is writing for his students.

Although there is general consensus that knowledge of Aristotle’s intended audience is important for understanding the Rhetoric, there is no consensus about who that audience is. In this essay, four of the most widely accepted theories are investigated: that Aristotle is writing for the legislator of an ideal city; that Aristotle is writing for the Athenian public or an elite subset of that public; that Aristotle is writing for his students; and that the Rhetoric was written for multiple audiences over an extended period of time. Ultimately, the most plausible of these explanations is that he is writing for his students.

AbstractDuring the rise and growth of the Greek art of oratory in the fifth and fourth centuries B.C. the development of open and systematic techniques for awakening and encouraging a sense of pity can be observed both in rhetoric proper (the ten Attic orators) and in associated literary genres influenced by rhetoric (Historiography and Tragedy). These are classified—most notably by reference to the writings of Plato and Aristotle—in the light of rhetorical theory and significant examples are provided. Three techniques are investigated: (1.) the direct use of instances of pity, without elaboration, (2.) the development of axioms concerning the nature of pity, and (3.) systematic approaches to the awakening of pity.

Abstract Michael Psellos' encomium of his mother, regarded by the twelfth-century scholar Gregory of Corinth as one of the four best speeches ever composed, exemplifies what the Byzantine rhetorical tradition thought “good rhetoric” was made of. The stylistic and aesthetic values usually attributed to Byzantine rhetoric seem insufficient to account for Gregory's opinion. This essay argues that, by offering a “figured” defense of his career as a “Byzantine Sophist,” Psellos' encomium functions as a culturally significant instance of antilogy, and thus reprises not only the forms of late-antique sophistic rhetoric, but also and more importantly its intellectual ideal, within the terms of Byzantine high culture.

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

Michael Psellos’ encomium of his mother, regarded by the twelfth-century scholar Gregory of Corinth as one of the four best speeches ever composed, exemplifies what the Byzantine rhetorical tradition thought “good rhetoric” was made of. The stylistic and aesthetic values usually attributed to Byzantine rhetoric seem insufficient to account for Gregory’s opinion. This essay argues that, by offering a “figured” defense of his career as a “Byzantine Sophist,” Psellos’ encomium functions as a culturally significant instance of antilogy, and thus reprises not only the forms of late-antique sophistic rhetoric, but also and more importantly its intellectual ideal, within the terms of Byzantine high culture.

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

The authors analyze Grillius’ sources for the theory of asystata in his commentary on Cicero’s De inventione. As one might expect, Grillius knows Hermogenes’ theories on the subject well. His use of Minucianus as a source is surprising. The description of each asystaton seems to come from Hermogenes, but the theoretical basis is from Minucianus, not Hermogenes.

312 RHETORICA for Hume than for his moderate opponents. In his response, consistent with Common Sense philosophy, Campbell argues that the contest is not between two types of experience because our belief in testimony is prior to experience: we naturally accept witnesses' accounts in the absence of evidence that they are deceived or deceiving. As a philosophical point, Campbell's argument deserves the respect it has received. The problem is that Campbell does not consistently advance this view. As Suderman points out, Campbell dismissed Roman Catholic accounts of contemporary miracles—a blatant example, but hardly the only one, of Campbell's sacrificing philosophical consistency to defend his religious positions. I would argue for something closer to the reverse of Suderman's thesis. Campbell was an accomplished scholar, but he took as his mission defending and spreading the Word. As a thinker, he is most interesting when he feels most free of his mission. This explains why his relatively secular Philosophy of Rhetoric—a coherent synthesis of classical rhetoric with eighteenth-century empiricism—is his best and most important work, the one on which is reputation quite properly rests. My dissent does not, however, lessen my respect and gratitude for Sud­ erman's book. Suderman's exhaustive archival research and his intelligent reading of Campbell's works make Orthodoxy and Enlightenment a must read for scholars interested in Campbell. Arthur E. Walzer University ofMinnesota Janet Carey Eldred and Peter Mortensen, Imagining Rhetoric: Com­ posing Women of the Early United States. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 2002. xi + 279 pages. Imagining Rhetoric is a welcome addition to the scholarship on Amer­ ican rhetorics. Truly a first, this book provides the only full-length study of early American women's rhetorical education and composition practices. In attempting to "glimpse how composition came to be situated in the lives of the women in the new nation," Eldred and Mortensen achieve two im­ portant tasks: they draw upon a wide range of sources, some rhetorical and pedagogical, others fictional and personal; and they resist a seamless or heroic interpretation of women's use of neoclassical civic rhetoric, al­ lowing instead for the discontinuities and disappointments that accompany liberatory struggles and revisionist historiography. This study focuses on six women, some well known, others more ob­ scure, but all grappled to make liberatory civic rhetoric their own: Han­ nah Webster Foster, Judith Sargent Murray, Mrs. A. J. Graves, Louisa Car­ oline Tuthill, Almira Hart Lincoln Phelps, and Charlotte Forten. Eldred and Mortensen recover an array of these women's "schooling fictions" from the Reviews 313 1790s to the 1860s, including female textbooks, anthologies, theoretical texts, practical writing guides, and syllabi, as well as novels, novellas, diaries, political essays, and reflective narratives. The authors demonstrate that ex­ panding the scope of sources of women's rhetoric is crucial to revising history, and in this particular case they effectively challenge the standard thesis of neoclassical rhetoric's decline. Just as "schooling fictions" imagine the roles of writing in women's post-Revolutionarv lives, Imagining Rhetoric compels readers to contemplate the possibilities of historiography. The introduction outlines the primary argument that liberatory strains of neoclassical civic rhetoric were "indispensable" to these women's visions of female education. The first chapter also raises the book's central question: were these women's uses of this rhetoric liberatory? The following chapters do not answer this question directly but illustrate the complexity of the issue and maintain a productive tension between possible responses. Chapter two discusses how female textbooks and didactic novels, both appearing after the Revolution, conceive of women's education quite differently. Whereas Donald Fraser's schoolbook, The Mental Flower-Garden, dresses up a restric­ tive and superficial education for women in liberatory garb, Foster's The Boarding School imagines an ideal education that teaches women to use liber­ atory rhetoric themselves to shape the new nation. Yet for Murray, the subject of the next chapter, a vision like Foster's is complicated by fears of sophistry, nonstandard English, and poor teachers. To temper the seductive aspects of misguided liberatory rhetoric, Murray develops a classically oriented "com­ monplace rhetoric," a system of instruction based on literary borrowings, which Eldred and Mortensen...

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

The study of rhetoric at Oxford enjoyed a privileged place within the classical curriculum. Yet historical treatments of both Oxford and rhetoric are silent on which texts students read, how reading lists evolved, and how the methods of teaching rhetoric responded to internal and external pressures. By using institutional records and personal papers, this essay pieces together which classical rhetoric texts students read, and how the authorities taught rhetoric during a time when curriculum reform efforts promoted both renewed emphasis on the classics and increased attention to the “new learning” of belletristic rhetoric.

In Latin rhetorical contexts, color was a well known metaphor, used to refer either to the orator’s stylistic choices or to the general complexion of the whole speech (Cic. De orat. 3.96) or the specific characteristics of each of the three styles (Cic. De orat. 3.199) or even of each part of the speech (Quint. 12.10.71). In the second case, by contrast, color had the peculiar meaning of a possible point of view in the discussion of the case, as appears from its usage in Seneca’s Controversiae. The term ductus was less well known. We meet it for the first time in the handbook of Consultus Fortunatianus (1.6–8, pp. 71 ff. Calb. Mont.) and then again in the book on rhetoric in the encyclopaedia of Martianus Capella (470–72, pp. 165.3ff. Willis). Ductus referred to the speaker’s intention of being open or not in pleading the entire case. Considering the section on ductus in the Five Books on Rhetoric written by George of Trebizond, this article corroborates the parallels between the theory of ductus as treated by Fortunatianus and Martianus Capella, the figuratae controversiae of Quintilian (9.2.65–69), and the ἐσχηματισμένα of Greek authors.

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

304 RHETORICA by being overly literal. He also inserts sub-titles to what the Rhet. Al. deals with next, which aid the reader immensely There are 761 notes at the bottom of each page of translation and in almost one hundred pages (pp. 117-201) of "Notes Complémentaires". These contain an abundance of cross-references to other ancient sources (especially identifying relevant passages in other rhetorical works which are very helpful), while references to modern liter­ ature (mostly French at that) are kept to a minimum. This is hardly the place for a detailed critique, so let me give just one example of a topic in which I have my own scholarly interest: Rhet. Al. 29 on the exordium. Chiron gives us almost fifty detailed notes, though curiously little mention is made of the Demosthenic exordia or the Budé text of the exordia edited by R. Clavaud (1974). The edition also has an index of proper names (pp. 203-205), a lengthy index of Greek terms (pp. 207-258), and a concordance of previous major texts with differing divisions: Erasmus (1539 and 1550), Bekker in the Berlin Aristotle (1881), Hammer's revision of Spengel in the Teubner (1894), and Fuhrmann's recent Teubner (pp. 259-268). Chiron cites the works of other scholars on the Rhet. Al., works that are mostly articles, of which some are lengthy and others only notes. None can compare to what Chiron gives us in his Budé edition, an edition that is also testimony to the general quality and trustworthiness of the Budé series. Chiron's detailed assessment and critique of the Rhet. Al. will make his edition useful for anyone working on Greek rhetoric, oratory, or indeed interested in Greek literature. It is an important addition to scholarship, and for that he should be commended. Ian Worthington University ofMissouri-Columbia Pierre Chiron, Un rhéteur méconnu: Démétrios (Ps.-Démétrios de Phalère). Essai sur les mutations de la théorie du style à l'époque hellénistique (Paris: Vrin, 2001) 448pp. Dopo vari anni dalla sua pubblicazione del PH di Demetrio per la collana "Les Belles Lettres" (Démétrios, Du Style, Parigi 1993) Pierre Chiron ci offre adesso un'analisi molto approfondita di questo trattato nel tentativo, argomentato sempre con grande cura, di contribuire a risolvere alcune delle difficoltà che hanno tormentato da secoli gli studiosi di questo testo. Oltre alla prefazione di M. Patillon una introduzione ed una conclusione fanno da cornice a ben nove lunghi capitoli nei quali l'autore non solo fa il punto sullo status quaestionis ed affronta problemi di datazione e di attribuzione, ma anche esamina in modo capillare la dottrina esposta da Demetrio. Non soddisfatto dei criteri adottati dai suoi predecessori, Chiron pensa infatti che sia opportuno cambiare metodo e "passer à une étude axée sur le texte Reviews 305 lui-même, ses tensions internes, ses présupposés et les diverses sources dont il laisse entrevoir l'utilisation" (p. 32). Questo spiega dunque perché il discorso sull attribuzione del trattato e sulla sua datazione, iniziato nel primo capitolo con la presentazione delle varie, a suo parère insoddisfacenti, soluzioni, riprenda solo alla fine, nel nono. Qui Chiron si sofferma su quattro question! principali (1. Le PH peut-il avoir été écrit par Démétrios de Phalère? 2. Quels sont les arguments en faveur d'une datation "haute"? 3. Une datation "basse" est-elle soutenable? 4. Dans quelle mesure peut-on préciser une datation intermédiaire?) aile quali, dopo una minuziosa analisi dei dati a disposizione e delle ipotesi già fatte da altri studiosi, dà risposte che, per quanto mai categoriche, lasciano comunque chiaramente intravedere la sua posizione: il PH sarebbe opéra di un retore di nome Demetrio attivo alla fine del II o all'inizio del I sec. a.C. La sua formazione peripatetica sarebbe dovuta all'utilizzo diretto delle opéré di Aristotele e di Teofrasto che Apellicone di Teo aveva reso nuovamente accessibili ad Atene dopo il loro sotterramento da parte di Neleo di Scepsi e dei suoi eredi. Giunto a Roma forse nell'86, dopo la vittoria di Silla, insieme alla biblioteca di...

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

Reviews Scott Consigny, Gorgias: Sophist and Artist (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 2001). 296pp. Why the Sophists? Why Gorgias? Why now? W. K. C. Guthrie points to a rupture in the history of sophistic studies that leads to some preliminary answers: "It is true that the powerful impetus of this movement [i.e., the revival of sophistry since the 1930s] was given by the rise of totalitarian gov­ ernments in Europe and the second world war, and it was indeed disturbing to learn that the aim of the German Nazi Party, as described in its official programme, was the production of 'guardians in the highest Platonic sense'" (The Sophists, Cambridge University Press, 1971, p. 10). Among classicists, historians, and philosophers, the interest in sophistic studies that emerged out of this historical rupture was defined by a negative impulse: If Plato's ideas support immoral ideologies, then we must turn instead to the ideas of his most bitter rivals, the Sophists. Yet the revival of sophistry specifically within rhetorical studies took on a different character. Instead of being defined by a negative impulse, studies of sophistic rhetoric were defined by the positive search for affinities between ancient and modern theories of persuasion. Robert Scott and Michael Leff, for example, found precedents for epistemic rhetoric among the sophistic fragments, and John Poulakos invoked sophistic notions of propriety and the opportune moment in his universal definition of rhetoric. Scott Consigny's Gorgias: Sophist and Artist represents a new phase in studies of sophistic rhetoric. In this complex and well-written book, Consigny avoids making problematic generalizations about "the Sophists," who were, in reality, a thoroughly disparate group of traveling teachers; he does not rely excessively on Plato's dialogues as source materials for Gorgias's art of rhetoric; and he resists the neosophistic impulse to appropriate ancient doctrines for modern purposes. In his introduction, Consigny discusses prior scholarship on the Sophists and the method of historiography that informs his analysis. Here Consigny contends that the fragmentary nature of Gorgias's texts, their questionable authenticity, and the ambiguous language in which Gorgias wrote create a "hermeneutic aporia," an interpretive impasse. Some "objectivist" scholars attempt to escape this aporia by suggesting that there is a single, correct interpretation of Gorgianic rhetoric, and it is the function of historical schol­ arship to discover it. Other "rhapsodic" scholars argue that the meaning© The International Society for the History of Rhetoric, Rhetorica, Volume XX, Number 3 (Summer 2002). Send requests for permission to reprint to: Rights and Permissions, University of California Press, Journals Division, 2000 Center St, Ste 303, Berkeley, CA 94704-1223, USA 299 300 RHETORICA Gorgias intended in his writings is now lost forever, and they use subjective interpretations of Gorgianic rhetoric to construct neosophistic theories that have modern relevance. Consigny, on the other hand, draws from Stanley Fish's notion of interpretive communities, arguing that pure truth is inacces­ sible and pure subjectivity is insufficient. Scholarly conventions established in academic discourse communities should guide our interpretations of Gor­ gianic rhetoric. While much prior scholarship identifies Gorgias as either a subjectivist or an empiricist, Consigny favors a newly emerging third school of criticism that identifies Gorgias as an antifoundationalist. Consigny begins his antifoundationalist reading of Gorgianic rhetoric with an interpretation of On Not-Being as an attack against both philosophical truth and empirical realism. In other texts (Epitaphios, Helen, and Palamedes), Gorgias articulates a more positive antifoundationalist theory of language based on the ancient notion of the contest or agon. Here language is defined by context, by the play of interaction among participants in a linguistic game that is governed by communal rules, and words derive meaning from their role in this interaction. Within such a framework, foundational truth is impossible since each context brings with it a different set of constraints, and radical subjectivity is also impossible since these very same constraints prevent chaos. Next Consigny argues that Gorgias articulates a nascent social con­ structionist view of knowledge in which established social conventions (or "tropes") condition individuals to act in communally authorized ways. Yet Gorgias is not in favor of a micro-social theory of conventions that separate communities by focusing on their foundational...

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