Reviews Kathleen S. Lamp. A City of Marble. The Rhetoric of Augustan Rome. South Carolina, 2013. 208 pp. ISBN 9781611172775 What is the relationship between rhetoric, both spoken and visual, and ci\'ic participation in Augustan Rome? A City of Marble. The Rhetoric of Augustan Rome, attempts to address this question, beginning in the intro­ duction by examining Augustus' Famous assertion that he "entered Rome a city of brick and left it a citv of marble". The study goes on to examine how visual displays function themselves as a form of persuasion that, in Augustus' case, helped him to win and maintain power. Her argument is that Augustan culture was heavilv influenced bv rhetorical theory, which in turn "guided ci\ ic participation and rhetorical practice" (p. 5), and fur­ ther, that the synthesis of rhetoric to image and politics in so sweeping a manner was a central aspect of Augustus' accomplishment. The first chapter surveys Rome's "rhetorical situation" upon Augustus' assumption of sole command. One of the conundrums Augustus faced was how to maintain the goodwill of those he governed. Lamp asserts (p. 13) that Augustus' attempts to gain acceptance were rhetorical from the standpoint that "thev represented a tvpe of persuasive communication between the peo­ ple and the government about the workings of the state". A significant part of his rhetorical strategy7 was his reliance on various mythological traditions such as those of Aeneas, Romulus, and of the monarchy and its demise. Chapter two ("Seeing Rhetorical Theory") argues that the ancient theory of rhetoric broadened under the empire to include other literary genres beyond oratorv, including non-traditional forms of media not usually associated with rhetoric, including coins, monuments, and city planning. The chapter inclu­ des a good discussion of the relationship between the visual and memory in rhetorical theorists, focusing on Quintilian and Cicero who clearly associ­ ated the two, and who, in addition, addressed the role of monuments and urban spaces in creating collective public memory. The next chapter ("The Augustan Political Myth") builds on the first two, and starts with a close examination of the Ara Pads as a piece of Augustan rhetoric, examining how it constructed myth and memory in Augustan Rome. She argues that the altar used conventions of rhetoric that were roughly analogous to those expounded in the rhetorical theories of Cicero and Quintilian with a view to addressing its audience. Chapter four Rhetorica, Vol. XXXIII, Issue 4, pp. 431-442. ISSN: 0734-8584, electronic ISSN: 1533-8541. C 2016 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 Reprints and Permissions web page, http://www.ucpress.edu/joumals.php7p—reprints. DOI: 10.1525/rh.2015.33.4.431. 432 RHETORICA ("Let Us Now Praise Great Men") similarly examines the Forum of Augustus and its rhetorical function; the chapter begins with a discussion of Isocrates theory of rhetoric that argued against the use of visual media or static representative forms of rhetoric, such as statuary. Of course, this is precisely what Augustus' forum was - a monument that employed a permanent, visual record intended to educate the audience in a particular set of values with a view to imitation, something that had a long-standing tradition in Rome, particularly with the use of funerary images. The chapter concludes with an interesting discussion of how the rhetoric of the forum itself parallels its function as an administrative and judicial center where oratory would be practiced. Lamp then turns in chapter five ("Coins, Material Rhetoric, and Circu­ lation") to the dissemination of the Augustan political myth. She traces, via the numismatic record, the creation of that myth, but further argues that it evolved over time, noting that the coins issued at the end of his reign indi­ cate a popular acceptance of that myth. She focuses on three aspects of Augustus' program prior to 13 BC: pietas, succession, and the trifecta of peace, victory, and prosperity. In the numismatic record after 9 BC we find emblems designed to emphasize Augustus' pietas and his role as poutifex maximus, while she notes that prior to...

Reviews 437 proposta d identificazione dell autore di questa declamazione con uno dei piu importanti maestri di retorica del tempo: Mario Vittorino. Conformemente ai criteri delle Edizioni dell'Universita di Cassino, entrambi i volumi propongono delle traduzioni che combinano felicemente limpidezza espressiva e riproduzione delle peculiaritá dello stile declamato­ rio, spesso aspro ed ellittico. Entrambi propongono poi un apparato biblio­ gráfico ricco e di grande ntilita, aggiornato al 2013. Si tratta nel complesso di due opere che riescono a coniugare con grande armonía la ricchezza e profonditá del commento filológico con una puntúale trattazione e contestualizzazione anche di problematiche di carattere piu generale. L'argomentazione e sempre esaustiva e di grande chiarezza . Grazie a queste doti tanto il Matheniaticus curato da Stramaglia, quanto il Sepulcnini incantation curato da Schneider risultano al tempo stesso un prezioso strumento di lavoro per gli specialisti e un valido mezzo di diffusione delle declamazioni presso un pubblico studentesco purtroppo ancora raramente sensibilizzato verso questo tipo di testi. Ai i ssandra Rolle, Université de Lausanne James Crosswhite, Deep Rhetoric: Philosophy, Reason, Violence, Justice, Wisdom. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2013. Pp. 424. Cloth $105.00, paper $35.00 ISBhf(paper) 9780226016481 There is a narrative that portrays rhetoric as an often-maligned theory of human discourse, educational regime, and practice. It is a superficial narra­ tive that has been under increasing assault since the new rhetoric's birth dur­ ing the 1920s and 30s. I. A. Richards and Kenneth Burke began the revision with novel conceptions of rhetoric as a social practice; Richard McKeon, Henry W. Johnstone, Ch. Perelman and Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca, and Ernesto Grassi advanced it in mid-century with reflections on rhetoric as at the core of philosophy (or philosophy of a certain sort); by late century John Poulakos and Takis Poulakos, among others, were rebuffing the subjugation of rhetoric to philosophy with an aesthetic interpretation based on a recuperation of the elder sophists' vision; and in this century scholars such as Diane Davis and Thomas Rickert continue the assault with formulations that carry rhetoric beyond the human and into such domains as the ambience of materiality. Although these thinkers conceptualize the new rhetoric from divergent start­ ing points and in different frames, they share a common desire to disclose what lies beneath a facile rendition of rhetoric as mere persuasion, namely its abiding centrality to what makes us human. This is the animus of James Crosswhite's Deep Rhetoric. Beginning with the observation that "we are rhe­ torical beings, and through rhetoric we give ways of being to each other and receive them from each other" (p. 17), Crosswhite seeks to understand how ordinary rhetoric, whereby we seek to influence and provide direction, assu­ mes a world with "dimensions of rhetoric that allow individuals, societies, 438 RHETORICA human activities, and the world itself to take place—and so brings the very possibility of philosophy and science into its realm" (p. 17). This is the realm of deep rhetoric, a realm that plumbs the depth of what makes us human and aligns with a transcendent aspiration of the new rhetoricians that by striving to understand rhetoric as an intellectual, educational, political, and social pur­ suit we will come to better understand the human condition. Deep Rhetoric has as its subtitle a list of terms that serve as its organizing discussions: Philosophy, Reason, Violence, Justice, Wisdom. These are not ran­ dom choices. At its core, Crosswhite's book is concerned with the central problem that has been to the fore of rhetorical thought since World War I: overcoming through public argument the quest by power to gain a monopoly on violence and to use its monopoly to dominate others. Deep Rhetoric seeks a worldly stance open to and that opens the possibihty for transcending the narrow logoi of instrumental rationality, logoi constituting the calculus of a system logic that dehumanizes others by excluding those dimensions of pathos and ethos that make humanity and community possible. The book opens with a consideration of what deep rhetoric means. Crosswhite draws contrasts between historicist views that position rhetoric in terms of its origins at a specific time and under specific conditions, such as...

I argue that Philip’s speech was a central point of contention in the debate ox er the Peace of Philocrates and in the legal struggle between Demosthenes and Aeschines that followed it. The ambassadors supportive of the peace praised Philip’s speaking ability as part of his philhellenism; in his defense speech as well Aeschines emphasized Philip’s rhetorical knowledge in order to show the openness of the contest between the king and the ambassadors. Demosthenes, on the other hand, rejected the king’s ability to speak. In so doing, he elevated his own role as the only orator capable of penetrating Philip’s silence. For both Aeschines and Demosthenes, their characterizations of Philip’s speech were crucial to their self-presentations as orators.

440 RHETORIC A and justice. It offers an aspirational vision for the new rhetoric that has been unfolding for nearly a century. Hannah Arendt famously wrote of the human condition as in the world. Crosswhite's project embraces her vision as synonymous with the deep insight into the human condition that is offered by a philosophical rhetoric and the world its insights might instigate. Gerard A. Hauser University of Colorado Boulder Quentin Skinner, Forensic Shakespeare (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2014), 368 pp. ISBN: 978-0199558247 Quentin Skinner last devoted a monograph to theories of rhetoric almost twenty years ago, in his Reason and Rhetoric in the Philosophy ofHobbes (1996). Forensic Shakespeare is in the same vein, deviating from the attention Skinner gives to republican liberty in his two more recent works (Liberty Before Liberalism, 1997 and Hobbes and Republican Liberty, 2008). Those look­ ing for further commentary on these themes within the scope of the history of political thought will not find it here; it is not Skinner's purpose. Forensic Shakespeare at no point treads this familiar ground of the history of political thought; the analysis, however, remains thoroughly within the realm of intellectual history. There are questions literary scholars might be keen to ask of this book, especially related to interpretation and theatrical staging, but Skinner makes clear from the outset that these are outside his remit. He is interested in what he calls "explanation" rather than "interpretation", in treating Shakespeare's works as historical texts, open to the sort of histor­ ical analysis Skinner is known for. The central claim of the book is that "among Shakespeare's plays there are several in which the dramaturgy is extensively drawn from clas­ sical and Renaissance treatises on judicial rhetoric" (p. 1). Skinner's focus is on two periods in Shakespeare's career - between 1594 and 1600, and between the summer of 1603 and the beginning of 1605 - covering plays such as Romeo and Juliet, The Merchant of Venice, Hamlet, and Othello. These, especially Hamlet and those belonging to the Jacobean period, Skinner sug­ gests can be referred to as Shakespeare's "forensic plays" for their use of the rules and styles of forensic rhetoric - the rhetoric of the courtroom. This should immediately resonate with any reader familiar with these plays; the climax of the plot often involves a court scene in which the guilt of characters is disputed, whether in the courtroom of The Merchant of Venice or the tomb of Romeo and Juliet. But the question of why Shakespeare turns to forensic rhetoric in these periods of his career is a question that Skinner leaves open. As he 'states in his introduction, he intends this book as a foundational one - he will argue that Shakespeare was using these rhetorical sources in his plays, any further questions or conclusions are left for future studies. Reviews 441 Aftei a shoi t inti eduction, setting out his purpose, giving fulsome acknowledgement to the existing literature on the subject, and establishing his methodological boundaries, Skinner opens with a description of the clas­ sical rhetorical tiadition in Shakespeare s England, giving a thorough over­ view on the topic for those not otherwise familiar with it. Already Skinner begins to hint at Shakespeare's deviation from such traditional rhetorical norms, a topic to which he returns in the final pages of the book. This first chapter almost stands alone as a useful introduction to the revival, teaching and debates of classical rhetoric in Renaissance England, and is of itself demonstrative of Skinner's rich knowledge of the topic. The second chapter introduces the forensic plays, which are distin­ guished from the rest of Shakespeare's work in their focus on the forensic yem/s of rhetoric. Skinner makes the tantalizing suggestion that "Shakes­ peare is interested at most stages of his literary career in the full range of distinctively rhetorical utterance" (p. 48), but focuses on Shakespeare's use of forensic rhetoric in this selection of plays, leaving space for a study of Shakespeare and his engagement with the other two types of rhetoric - epideictic and deliberative, both which have a strong relationship with the political. The remaining chapters explore the parts of...

Reviews 433 The study is in general good, but not without some flaws and omis­ sions. For example, in chapter one she asserts with little argument that Augustus sought to associate himself with Servius and his reforms in partic­ ular. Her short history of rhetoric under Augustus relies too much on Tacitus' Dialogits and on relatively later sources, (Cassius Dio and Quintilian), omitting Seneca the Elder and Seutonius' lives of famous rhetoricians that bring us closer to Augustus. She asserts in chapter two that history started to become recognized as a rhetorical theory under Augustus, something already clearly understood by Cicero (one thinks of his letter to Lucceius, Ad fanuliares 5.12). Chapter three relies too much on Ann Vasaly and not enough on other scholarship (e.g. Catherine Edwards, Mary Jaeger, and Andrew Feldherr to cite a few) who look at Rome as a "text", and the chapter seems to make a conclusion long since established - that the city could be read as such. Indeed, it seems to me a general flaw of the book that the biblio­ graphy is frequently jejune, while the study itself covers a good deal of ter­ ritory that has already' been traversed. Still, Kathleen Lamp's study will help us to rethink the connections between the visual and the rhetorical during this crucial epoch. Steve Rutledge, Sheridan, Oregon [Quintiliano], L'astrologo (Declamazioni maggiori, 4), a cura di Antonio Stramaglia. Cassino : Edizioni dell'Università degli Studi di Cassino, 2013,251 pp. ISBN 9788883170713, e [Quintilien], Le tombeau ensorcelé, (Grandes déclamations, 10), a cura di Catherine Schneider. Cassino: Edizioni delTUniversità degli Studi di Cassino, 2013, 359 pp. ISBN 9788883170683 1 volumi 4 e 10 delle Declamazioni maggiori, rispettivamente curati da A. Stramaglia e C. Schneider, usciti nel maggio 2013 per le Edizioni dell'Università di Cassino, si iscrivono all'interno di un progetto internazionale di traduzione e commento delle diciannove Maiores che raggiunge cosi un totale di undid tomi pubblicati. Entrambi i volumi presentano la stessa struttura, comune a tutta la serie. Nell'introduzione è esposto in modo sintético lo sviluppo dell'argomentazione di ciascun discorso e sono analizzate le principali caratteristiche delle diverse parti in cui si articola. Seguono poi considerazioni generali sulla lingua e sullo stile, e quindi ipotesi sulla datazione e riflessioni sulla fortuna. Successivamente viene proposto il testo latino affiancato da traduzione, in italiano in un caso e in francese nell'altro, e corredato da un ricco apparato di note critiche e di commento. Per entrambi i volumi, il testo latino assunto come base è quello dell edizione teubneriana curata da Hâkanson nel 1982, ma in numerosi passi entrambi gli studiosi se ne discostano, sempre segnalandolo e dandone dovuto conto nelle note di commento. Nella Declamazione maggiore 4 Stramaglia 434 RHETORICA introduce anche una suddivisione degli ampi capitoli dell'edizione critica di Hâkanson in paragrafi di più breve estensione: questa mise en page del testo risulta particolarmente utile per il reperimento e la citazione dei passi. La Declamazione maggiore 4, curata da Stramaglia, è incentrata sul tema dell'astrologia. Si tratta di un discorso pronunciato da un vir fortis che chiede alio Stato, come ricompensa per i suoi atti di valore, il permesso di suicidarsi senza essere per questo condannato a restare privo di sepoltura, secondo quanto previsto dalla legge. La sua decisione deriva dalla volontà di contrastare una funesta profezia fatta da un astrólogo prima délia sua nascita e secondo la quale, dopo essere diventato un eroe di guerra per la sua patria, si sarebbe macchiato di parricidio. L'azione giudiziaria nasce dalLopposizione del padre alla richiesta del figlio. Questa controversia è caratterizzata da un sapiente equilibrio tra terni declamatori tradizionali (contrasto padre-figlio; motivo del parricidio; figura del vir fortis e suo diritto a scegliere la propria ricompensa) e motivi (almeno per noi) più originali, corne il rilievo dato appunto alla temática délia astrologia. Nell'Introduzione Stramaglia nota in particolare corne la scelta del soggetto principale si presenti quale un'evidente concessione a gusti declamatori moderni, anche se poi la declamazione resta rigorosa­ mente « classica » nel suo sviluppo e nella sua articolazione. Se infatti il rilievo dato all'astrologia non avrebbe certo incontrato il plauso...

Chaucer’s Wife of Bath’s Tale has been well-mined for feminist and psychological issues but less criticism has analyzed the rhetorical techniques informing the wyf’s bedside harangue to the knight. These are shown to echo that of Lady Philosophy to Boethius in Chaucer’s Boece; close reading of the lecture reveals a patterning on Boece, particularly evinced in the similarities between Lady Philosophy and the foul wife, in the matches in argumentation and rhetorical devices, and in the harangue’s emphasis on power and obedience. Whether meant seriously or to humorously imitate scholastic debate, the foul wife’s questio suggests new questions about Chaucer’s intentions and purposes in the tale. 6633 words.

Current histories of rhetoric neglect the early Christian period (ca. 30–430 CE) in several crucial ways-Augustine is overemphasized and made to serve as a summary of Christian thought rather than an endpoint, the texts of church fathers before 300 CE are neglected or lumped together, and the texts of the New Testament are left unexamined. An alternative outline of early Christian rhetoric is offered, explored through the angles of political self-invention, doctrinal ghostwriting, apologetics, and fractured sermonization. Early Christianity was not a monolithic religion that eventually made peace with classical rhetoric, but as a rhetorical force in its own right, and comprised of more factions earlv on than just the apostolic church.

Book Review| August 01 2015 Review: Caesar's De Analogia. Edition, Translation, and Commentary, by Alessandro Garcea Alessandro Garcea, Caesar's De Analogia. Edition, Translation, and Commentary (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012), xiv+304 p. ISBN 9780199603978 Ermanno Malaspina Ermanno Malaspina (Société Internationale des Amis de Cicéron) Dipartimento di Studi Umanistici Via S. Ottavio 20 10100 Torino - Italy committee@tulliana.eu Search for other works by this author on: This Site PubMed Google Scholar Rhetorica (2015) 33 (3): 324–327. https://doi.org/10.1525/rh.2015.33.3.324 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 Ermanno Malaspina; Review: Caesar's De Analogia. Edition, Translation, and Commentary, by Alessandro Garcea. Rhetorica 1 August 2015; 33 (3): 324–327. doi: https://doi.org/10.1525/rh.2015.33.3.324 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. © 2015 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 http://www.ucpressjournals.com/reprintInfo.asp.2015 Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

Book Review| August 01 2015 Review: Les sententiae dans les tragédies de Sénèque, by Pascale Paré-Rey Pascale Paré-Rey, Flores et acumina. Les sententiae dans les tragédies de Sénèque, Lyon, Collection d'Études et de Recherches sur l'Occident Romain, 2012, 432 pp. ISBN 9782904974434 Isabelle David Isabelle David Université Paul Valéry-Montpellier 3 Route de Mende 34 199 Montpellier Cedex 5 France isabelle.david13@wanadoo.fr Search for other works by this author on: This Site PubMed Google Scholar Rhetorica (2015) 33 (3): 327–330. https://doi.org/10.1525/rh.2015.33.3.327 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 Isabelle David; Review: Les sententiae dans les tragédies de Sénèque, by Pascale Paré-Rey. Rhetorica 1 August 2015; 33 (3): 327–330. doi: https://doi.org/10.1525/rh.2015.33.3.327 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. © 2015 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 http://www.ucpressjournals.com/reprintInfo.asp.2015 Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

Research Article| August 01 2015 Henri III à l’école de la rhétorique: Liminaire Roxanne Roy Roxanne Roy Université du Québec à Rimouski (UQAR) Département des lettres et humanités 300, allée des Ursulines, C.P. 3300 Rimouski (Québec) Canada G5L 3A1 roxanne_roy@uqar.ca Search for other works by this author on: This Site PubMed Google Scholar Rhetorica (2015) 33 (3): 223–229. https://doi.org/10.1525/rh.2015.33.3.223 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 Roxanne Roy; Henri III à l’école de la rhétorique: Liminaire. Rhetorica 1 August 2015; 33 (3): 223–229. doi: https://doi.org/10.1525/rh.2015.33.3.223 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. © 2015 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 http://www.ucpressjournals.com/reprintInfo.asp.2015 Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

Book Review| August 01 2015 Review: Homeric Speech and the Origins of Rhetoric, by Rachel Ahern Knudsen Rachel Ahern Knudsen, Homeric Speech and the Origins of Rhetoric, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2014. 230 pp. ISBN 9781421412269 Richard Leo Enos Richard Leo Enos Department of English Texas Christian University Fort Worth, Texas 76129 USA r.enos@tcu.edu Search for other works by this author on: This Site PubMed Google Scholar Rhetorica (2015) 33 (3): 322–324. https://doi.org/10.1525/rh.2015.33.3.322 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 Richard Leo Enos; Review: Homeric Speech and the Origins of Rhetoric, by Rachel Ahern Knudsen. Rhetorica 1 August 2015; 33 (3): 322–324. doi: https://doi.org/10.1525/rh.2015.33.3.322 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. © 2015 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 http://www.ucpressjournals.com/reprintInfo.asp.2015 Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

Book Review| August 01 2015 Review: L'homme rhétorique. Culture, raison, action, by E. Danblon E. Danblon, L'homme rhétorique. Culture, raison, action, Paris: Les Editions du Cerf, 2013, 226 pp. ISBN 978220499264 Mauro Serra Mauro Serra Università di Salerno, Dipartimento di Scienze del Patrimonio Culturale Via Giovanni Paolo II, 132, 84084 Fisciano (Salerno) Italy maserra@unisa.it Search for other works by this author on: This Site PubMed Google Scholar Rhetorica (2015) 33 (3): 317–320. https://doi.org/10.1525/rh.2015.33.3.317 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 Mauro Serra; Review: L'homme rhétorique. Culture, raison, action, by E. Danblon. Rhetorica 1 August 2015; 33 (3): 317–320. doi: https://doi.org/10.1525/rh.2015.33.3.317 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. © 2015 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 http://www.ucpressjournals.com/reprintInfo.asp.2015 Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

Book Review| August 01 2015 Review: The Theory and Practice of Life: Isocrates and the Philosophers, by Tarik Wareh Tarik Wareh, The Theory and Practice of Life: Isocrates and the Philosophers. Washington, DC: Center for Hellenic Studies. Distributed by Harvard University Press, 2012, viii + 236 pp. ISBN 9780674067134 David Depew David Depew University of Iowa Project of the Rhetoric of Inquiry (POROI). 230 North Clinton, 100 Bowman House, Iowa City, Iowa 52242 USA david-depew@uiowa.edu Search for other works by this author on: This Site PubMed Google Scholar Rhetorica (2015) 33 (3): 320–322. https://doi.org/10.1525/rh.2015.33.3.320 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 David Depew; Review: The Theory and Practice of Life: Isocrates and the Philosophers, by Tarik Wareh. Rhetorica 1 August 2015; 33 (3): 320–322. doi: https://doi.org/10.1525/rh.2015.33.3.320 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. © 2015 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 http://www.ucpressjournals.com/reprintInfo.asp.2015 Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

Roxanne Roy Henri III à l'école de la rhétorique Liminaire H enri III régna sur la Pologne puis sur le royaume de France de 1574 à 1589. Ce monarque au caractère énigmatique a éprouvé des difficultés à contrôler son image tout au long de son règne. Ainsi que le remarque Guy Poirier, le dernier des Valois est connu surtout — et encore aujourd'hui — par la légende noire «faisant de lui ce souverain décadent entouré de ses mignons1 ». Au cours des dernières décennies, certains chercheurs ont tenté de renouveler notre compréhension du règne d'Henri III et par le fait même mis en lumière une autre facette de ce monarque, que l'on songe à la biographie historique de Pierre Chevallier intitulée Henri III roi Shakespearien*- dans laquelle l'image qu'il donne d'Henri III, loin du prince débauché totalement absorbé par ses plaisirs, est plutôt celle d'un souverain dont les multiples réformes témoignent de son réel souci pour son royaume. La thèse de l'historienne Jacqueline Boucher3, en plus de constituer une précieuse source d'informations sur les composantes sociales et culturelles de la vie de cour ainsi que sur son organisation, fait d'Henri III un roi dont les qualités intellectuelles et politiques le rendent apte à gouverner. Les récents travaux d'historiographie menés par Nicolas Le Roux4, en s'attardant Nuy Poirier, Henri III de France en mascarades imaginaires, Québec, Presses de l'université Laval, 2009, 4e de couverture. 2Pierre Chevallier, Henri III roi shakespearien, Paris, Fayard, 1985. Jacqueline Boucher, Société et mentalités autour de Henri III, Paris, Honoré Champion, 1981. Voir aussi : Jacqueline Boucher, La cour de Henri III, Rennes, Ouest France, coil. -De mémoire d'homme», 1992. Nicolas Le Roux, La faveur du roi. Mignons et courtisans au temps des derniers Valois (vers 1547-vers 1589), Seyssel, Champ Vallon, 2001. Voir aussi Nicolas Le Roux, Un régicide au nom de Dieu. L'assassinat de Henri III, 1er août 1589, Paris, Gallimard, coll. Rhetorica, Vol. XXXIII, Issue 3, pp. 223-229. ISSN: 0734-8584, electronic ISSN: 1533-8541. G 2015 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 http://www.ucpressjournals.com/reprintlnfo.asp. DOI: 10.1525/rh.2015.33.3.223 224 RHETORICA aux réseaux de réciprocités et à la dynamique inhérente au système d'attribution et de retrait de la faveur royale, offrent une vision différente de la cour d'Henri III et de ses mignons. Dans une perspective alliant histoire et politique, Xavier Le Person* 5 s'attache à la culture de la dissimulation qui marque les discours et les actions politiques du roi au temps des troubles de la Ligue, en s'appuyant principalement sur des sources épistolaires ou des relations écrites au plus près des événements. Tout en restituant l'ambiance politique de la fin du XVIe siècle, il montre que le pouvoir et la puissance politique reposaient sur la force des apparences. Les articles du collectif paru sous la direction d'Isabelle de Conihout, de JeanFran çois Maillard et de Guy Poirier, posent un regard nouveau sur le règne du dernier des Valois. En s'intéressant au thème peu commun de Henri III mécène des arts, des sciences et des lettres6, ils présentent l'image d'un roi animé d'une volonté de restaurer l'unité du royaume par le protectorat culturel. Plus près de nos préoccupations, Guy Poirier s'est penché sur la façon dont la satire, la polémique, puis l'histoire et la littérature ont construit la légende noire du roi7, alors que l'ouvrage de Robert J. Sealy8, nous renseigne sur la pratique oratoire d'Henri III et les séances tenues à l'Académie du Palais. A la lecture de ces études, il semble que ce soit par le biais de...

Reviews E. Danblon, L homme rhetonque. Culture, raison, action, Paris: Les Editions du Cerf, 2013, 226 pp. ISBN 978220499264 Con la pubblicazione di questo bel volume, Emmanuelle Danblon (d ora in poi D.) porta a compimento (di certo provvisoriamente) un percorso di ricerca di grande coerenza ed originalité avviato con la pubblica­ zione di Rhétorique et rationalité nel 2002, recensito su questa rivista da Luigi Spina (Rhetorica, 22, 1, 2004, pp. 111-113) e di La Fonction persuasive. Anthropologie de la rhetonque nel 2005. Già una rapida scorsa ai titoli dei tre volumi (a cui bisogna aggiungere numerosi articoli ed un altro breve ma intéressante volume, Argumenter en démocratie, del 2004) permette di individuare i principad assi teorici lungo i quali si muove la riflessione della studiosa belga. Proprio a partiré dal suo esito più recente, essa puo essere preliminarmente sintetizzata nei termini seguenti. Dalla riconsiderazione della razionalità sub specie rhetoricae D. deriva una duplice conseguenza: non si tratta solo di riaffermare con forza l'intrinseca razionalità della pratica retorica quanto piuttosto di riconoscere che è proprio tale pratica a costituire il núcleo più profondo della razionalità umana. Per questo motivo è a partiré da essa che è possibile sviluppare una vera e propria antropología del linguaggio. Anche in questa formulazione sintética si puo apprezzare la portata e la novitá della tesi avanzata da D. e compiutamente articolata nel volume del 2013. Dopo aver tracciato nell'introduzione la cornice teórica alPinterno della quale si colloca la sua ricerca, nel primo capitolo D. affronta la questione delle origini della retorica. Prendendo spunto da un recente dibattito, D. individua nella duplice tesi sulla nascita della retorica il fondamento di due concezioni antagoniste della persuasione che per troppo tempo sono state pensate come mutuamente esclusive. L'origine mitica della retorica rimanda infatti alla sua natura magica e seduttiva, mentre l'origine plató­ nica accentua la dimensione del rigore dimostrativo. Per superare questa dicotomia è necessario un radicale cambiamento di prospettiva, che trova il suo fondamento in un modello naturalista della ragione umana. All'intemo di questo modello la ragione si presenta come un mosaico prodotto da una progressiva stratificazione. Ció che la tradizione ha abitualmente considerato nei termini di una opposizione, di cui la coppia ragione/ emozione è solo la formulazione più nota, va invece ripensato corne il Rhetorica, Vol. XXXIII, Issue 3, pp. 317-330. ISSN: 0734-8584, electronic ISSN: 15338541 . C 2015 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 http://www.ucpressjoumals.com/reprintlnfo.asp. DOI: 10.1525/rh.2015.33.3.317 318 RHETORIC A progressive) svilupparsi di una serie di elementi che nel loro insieme vanno a costituire il quadro complessivo di ció che possiamo considerare la ragione umana. La retorica in questo modello acquisisce il ruolo fondamen­ tale di passeur, poiché consente di percorrere e collegare tra di loro i diversi strati, restituendo cosí una visione piú completa e piú umana della ragione. Alia luce di queste considerazioni l'origine della retorica è reinterpretata da D. in una duplice prospettiva. Da un lato, si individua la presenza di una retorica spontanea o profonda grazie alia quale l'uomo acquisisce la capa­ cité di «tailler [le réel] à sa mesure» (p. 20). Dall'altro, nel passaggio da questa dimensione spontanea ad una dimensione propriamente técnica (avvenuto nel V sec a.C. quando la société greca è diventata una société aperta in cui era necessario deliberare) è ravvisato l'inizio di un processo mediante il quale la retorica, come recita il titolo di uno dei paragrafi del capitolo (p. 33), ha incominciato a perdere la sua anima. Di contro a questa visione impoverita ed astratta della ragione umana, si è, tuttavia, organizzata una resistenza, silenziosa e pero rianimatasi nel corso del '900, alia quale evidentemente D. intende ricollegarsi. Se la preistoria di questa resis­ tenza è individuata in Aristotele ed in particolare nella sua descrizione del phronimos, «maître en humanité», che racchiude in sé una serie di caratteristiche che sono poi state progressivamente separate, sono Vico e Nietzsche i pensatori...

322 RHETORICA differently in theology, mathematics, natural science, politics, ethics, poetics, and-Isocrates's home turf-rhetoric. Aristotle's Rhetoric, for example, focuses on enthymematic forms of syllogismos as appropriate responses to contin­ gent situations. It thereby contrasts with Isocrates's tendency, as Aristotle sees it, to heighten emotions by assimilating deliberative and forensic forms of public address to panoramic epideictic displays (Rhetoric I.9.1368a20-33). I trust it is not just because I am less familiar than Wareh with the fortunes of Academics and Isocrateans in the mid 340s, when Philip began to exercise hegemony over Greek poleis, that I was effortlessly drawn along by his discus­ sion of this subject in the second half of his book. I have no trouble believing that the rise of a courtly style of politics with the Macedonian ascendency had, being Macedonian, its vulgar side. Still, the translation Wareh includes of a remark­ ably sycophantic letter Plato's successor Speusippus wrote to Phillip urging him to purge his court of Isocrateans and give the Academy an exclusive lock on knowledge viewed as cultural capital makes for pretty depressing reading. Wareh sees the same tangle of intrigue in Aristotle's ties to Hermias, the tyrant of Atarnea near Lesbos. Isocrates's pleas for influence were no less attuned to court life. In fact, in the forms of address that emerged when philosophers were first turned into courtiers, Wareh concludes by showing, was born the mirror-of-princes rhetoric that gave Isocrates a rebirth in the Renaissance. David Depew University of Iowa Rachel Ahern Knudsen, Homeric Speech and the Origins of Rhetoric, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2014. 230 pp. ISBN 9781421412269 Rachel Ahem Knudsen's Homeric Speech and the Origins of Rhetoric (hereafter Homeric Speech) provides a new, detailed perspective on an old debate: how ought we to regard the works of Homer when considering the beginnings of rhetoric in ancient Greece? The standard accounts of rhe­ toric's origins are represented by the traditional scholarship of George Kennedy (The Art of Persuasion in Greece, 1963) and Laurent Pemot (Rhetoric in Antiquity, 2005). These works offer the received view that, while rhetori­ cal techniques are evident in the earliest forms of extant Greek literature, the formalization of rhetoric as a disciplinary art (techne) began in the Fifth Century BCE when it was "invented" by Corax and Tisias on the island of Sicily. Current scholarship by historians of rhetoric—represented by the works of Thomas Cole (The Origins of Rhetoric in Ancient Greece, 1991) and Edward Schiappa (The Beginnings of Rhetorical Theory in Classical Greece, 1999)—have challenged traditional views on the origins of rhetoric. Cole argues that the actual founders of rhetoric are Plato and Aristotle, while Schiappa argues that the term rhetorike did not even exist until Plato created Reviews 323 the term in his dialogue Goryias (pp. 18, 19). Additionally, the traditional distinctions separating rhetoric and poetry have been reconsidered because of such excellent research as Jeffrey Walker's Rhetoric and Poetics in Antiquity (2000), a work that Knudsen "has affinities with" in support of her own views (p. 20). Knudsen's objective is clearly stated: The contention of this book is ... that Homer not only demonstrates rhetorical practice in the speech of his characters, but that the patterns of persuasion that he depicts embody, in very specific ways, the rheto­ ric identified in theoretical treatises from the fifth and fourth centuries BCE, and that reached its fullest expression in Aristotle's Rhetoric" (pp. 3-4). Knudsen presents impressive scholarship in support of her position, but the merits of her contributions have some qualifications. Knudsen presents a detailed examination of the formal speeches of the Iliad in which she reveals systematic patterns of discourse using the following rhetorical concepts: enthymeme, diathesis, ethos, gnome, paradeigma, and topics. Her findings, appearing in both her criticism and also the frequencycharts citing the use of concepts and speakers, make it clear that the formal speech passages in the Iliad demonstrate the employment of rhetorical techni­ ques throughout the work (pp. 78, 80, 82). The obvious counter-argument to Knudsen's position is that rhetoric can and is employed without a conscious application but rather...

320 RHETORICA attuali, esse non valgono certamente per il libro che Emmanuelle Danblon ci ha regalato: una ricerca coraggiosa, ricca di ipotesi originali ed innovative, all'altezza delle sfide che la modernità pone ad una disciplina che da Aristotele in poi non ha mai smesso di nutriré la cultura occidentale. Mauro Serra, Fisciano (Salerno) Tarik Wareh, The Theory and Practice of Life: Isocrates and the Philoso­ phers. Washington, DC: Center for Hellenic Studies. Distributed by Harvard University Press, 2012, viii + 236 pp. ISBN 9780674067134 The perennial contest between rhetoric and philosophy expresses itself, among other ways, in the expulsion from the potted stories these disciplines tell about themselves of authors who in their own day were thickly intertwi­ ned. The granddaddy of such expulsions is the erasure of Isocrates from the story of ancient philosophy. I blithely suppose that most teachers of Greek philosophy know who Isocrates was, if only because Plato and Aristotle both mention him (Phaedrus 279a; Rhetoric, fifteen loci). They may also know that these mentions allude to the rivalry between Academics and Isocrateans , who established competing schools in 4th century Athens. When he was young Aristotle effectively hawked the wares of the Academy in public performances that were long appreciated, by Cicero among others, for their eloquence. But no sooner do historians of philosophy mention these facts than we hear that Isocrates's advertisement of himself as a teacher of philosophia was little more than a pretentious way of differentiating himself from (other) sophists and of cutting into the Academics's (and later the Lyceum's) market. By contrast, Tarik Wareh's The Theory and Practice of Life: Isocrates and the Philosophers builds on growing appreciation of the way in which Aristotle took Isocrates's philosophia (general education achieved by imita­ tion with a view to public success in oratory and so in politics) seriously enough to incorporate Isocratean themes into his own philosophy of human things (ta anthropopina): ethics, politics, rhetoric, and poetics. The question is how deeply Aristotle transformed these themes in appropriating them. In addressing this issue Wareh is encouraged by the appearance of yet another reconstruction (from a lacunose array of fragments and testimonial of Aristotle's Protrepticus, a speech inviting prospective students to frame their lives around the love of wisdom as Academics conceived it and solicit­ ing the powers that be to support (or at least tolerate) the Academic approach to education. D. S. Hutchinson's and M. R. Johnson's edition of the Protrepticus frames the issues that divided Isocrateans and Academics by reconstructing the fragments as a dialogue-well, a set of rival speeches, anyway-between 'Isocrates,' 'Aristotle,' and a Pythagorean named 'Heraclides ' (http://www.protrepticus.info). 'Heraclides' adopts the apolitical, indeed anti-political, view of a sub-sect of Pythagoreans whom 'Aristotle' Reviews 321 identifies as 'nnithematici.' "The human creature is nothing/' he says, "and nothing is secure in human affairs ... All the things that seem great to peo­ ple are an optical illusion." From this sour perspective there is little or no difference between external goods such as wealth, health, beauty, and power and the ends of political life. Isocrates's philosophia inscribed just this difference into rhetorical practice by inducing reflective understanding of the big picture as a way of responding in a timely way to issues closer to hand. 'Aristotle's row was harder to hoe. The Academic curriculum fea­ tured high-end mathematics as propaedeutic to other studies. That is because Plato and the mathematician Eudoxus, co-founder of the Academy, regarded mathematical sciences as valuable, while, like the aristocrats they were or sympathized with, despising their practical and technical applica­ tions. They thereby seemed to ask citizens to waste their time on useless subjects that by their very nature depreciate civic life. According to Wareh, 'Aristotle' distinguishes himself from 'Heraclites' by repeating the Acade­ my's party line only' after having "stronglv assured us that his vision is inclusive of everything moral and intelligent that would generally have been credited to the Isocratean approach" (44). 'Aristotle' does recognize techne and praxis as successively developed forms of knowledge that have been nurtured by and contribute to polis life. He also realizes that the...

324 RHETORICA these canons of rhetoric and Aristotle's treatment of them (p. 148). Those qua­ lifications noted, what is done with the analysis of rhetoric in the Iliad is clearly impressive and a contribution. Another positive feature of Homeric Speech is the study of rhetoric in works that appear after Homer. Knudsen's treatment of Archaic poetry is a contribution that shows the use of rhetoric in poetic discourse. Her work helps us to see that the bright dividing lines that traditionally have existed between rhetoric and poetry need to be reconsidered (pp. 126, 152). It is unfortunate that Knudsen choose not to expand her study to include a more thorough examination of tragic rhetoric, sophistic speeches, and the Socratic dialogues of Plato because a more detailed analysis of these topics would have helped to view the relationship of rhetoric and poetics by providing a better understanding of the relationship of mimetic and non-mimetic dis­ course (pp. 136-37). Extending the contributions of this work into the areas mentioned above also would have enriched such observations as those made by Walker: "'Poetry' stands to 'rhetoric' as one of its major divisions, and as the eldest form of epideictic eloquence, along with the newer 'free verse' forms of historical, philosophical, panegyric, and declamatory logoi, which are descended from Homeric narrative, Hesiodic wisdom-lore, and the varie­ ties of lyric praise and blame" (Rhetoric and Poetics in Antiquity, p. 120). Homeric Speech and the Origins of Rhetoric is clearly a contribution enrich­ ing our understanding of Homer, the use of rhetoric prior to the Classical Period, and a better understanding of the relationship between rhetoric and poetics before they evolved into separate disciplines. Knudsen's objective, as stated in the closing chapter, is to show that "Homeric techniques of per­ suasion—although they appear within a mythic narrative—are often the same as the intricate techniques of persuasion used by speakers in the Athe­ nian assembly and taught by the sophists, handbook-writers, and Aristotle himself" (p. 155). I believe that Knudsen attained this objective, but greater attention to the items pointed out in this review would have enhanced the fulfillment of her objective to an even greater degree. Richard Leo Enos Texas Christian University Alessandro Garcea, Caesar's De Analogía. Edition, Translation, and Commentary (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012), xiv+304 p. ISBN 9780199603978 Il prezioso volume in questione è frutto della rielaborazione del travail inédit presentato, secondo le consuetudini francesi, all'esame di abilitazione alia Sorbona nel 2007: Garcea (G.), ora professore nella medesima prestigiosa umversità e allora Maître de conférences, dopo aver brillantemente svolto la sua preparazione all'Università di Torino sotto la guida di un'esperta di Reviews 325 grammatica romana come Valeria Lomanto (allieva a sua volta di Nino Marinone), dal 2007 al 2010 ha rielaborato la sua tesi e l'ha tradotta dal francese all'inglese cosí da assicurarle una broader audience e l'accoglimento presso uno dei più esclusivi editori intemazionali. Un ulteriore segno, se si vuole, del venir meno di quella parità ira le lingue europee di cultura che aveva caratterizzato gli studi classici e che viene ora sempre di più spazzata via dal totalita­ rismo anglofono; ma G. ha agito pragmáticamente (anche sotto altri aspetti, 10 vedremo subito) ed è difficile dargli torto, anche se resta, almeno in chi scrive, il rimpianto per un mondo delle lettere più democrático (e soprattutto per la conoscenza della bibliografía non in inglese da parte di chi parla solo fingiese, ormai una chimera anche presso i classicisti). L'unico vero appunto che si puô muovere a G. è che il sottotitolo che annuncia edizione, traduzione e commente è riduttivo e ingannevole: quasi metà del libro (p. 3-124), infatti, è occupata da un saggio introduttivo in due parti che costituisce un contribute di straordinario pregio e che per la sua ampiezza e ricchezza sta stretto nelle vesti dei "Prolegomeni all'edi­ zione"; paralelamente, chi è abituato all'edizione critica tradizionale e ricorda le essenziali 14 pagine dedicate da Funaioli a Cesare (C.) nei GRF rischia di perdersi in una mise en page in cui a testo ed apparato non è riconosciuta la tradizionale centralita, quasi...

The aim of classical rhetoric is to convince and persuade. Being essentially enigmatic, biblical rhetoric invites the reader to reflect by himself to find the solution, respecting his freedom, his dignity and responsibility.

Book Review| May 01 2015 Review: The Chreia and Ancient Rhetoric: Commentaries on Aphthonius's Progymnasmata, (Society of Biblical Literature, Writings from the Greco-Roman World 31), by Hock, Ronald F. Hock, Ronald F., trans., The Chreia and Ancient Rhetoric: Commentaries on Aphthonius's Progymnasmata, (Society of Biblical Literature, Writings from the Greco-Roman World 31), Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2012. xii + 345 pp. ISBN 978-1-58983-644-0 Robert J. Penella Robert J. Penella Department of Classics, Fordham University, Bronx, NY 10458, USA, rpenella@fordham.edu Search for other works by this author on: This Site PubMed Google Scholar Rhetorica (2015) 33 (2): 217–219. https://doi.org/10.1525/RH.2015.33.2.217 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 Robert J. Penella; Review: The Chreia and Ancient Rhetoric: Commentaries on Aphthonius's Progymnasmata, (Society of Biblical Literature, Writings from the Greco-Roman World 31), by Hock, Ronald F.. Rhetorica 1 May 2015; 33 (2): 217–219. doi: https://doi.org/10.1525/RH.2015.33.2.217 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. © 2015 by The International Society for the History of Rhetoric. All rights reserved.2015 Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

Modern students of Atticism, the movement which looked to Athenian literature of the classical age to provide models for later composition, often draw a distinction between what they call "rhetorical" (or "stylistic") Atticism of the first century bce and a supposedly later phenomenon termed "linguistic" (or "grammatical") Atticism. This paper questions this dichotomy by showing the clearly linguistic interests of some significant first century bce Greek and Roman Atticists—Caecilius of Calacte, Dionysius of Halicarnassus, and T. Annius Cimber—and by arguing that they demonstrate that an interest in antiquarian diction and morphology is part of Atticism from its beginnings.

Book Review| May 01 2015 Review: Gorgia epidittico. Commento filosofico all'Encomio di Elena, all'Apologia di Palamede, all'Epitaffio, by Giombini, Stefania Giombini, Stefania, Gorgia epidittico. Commento filosofico all'Encomio di Elena, all'Apologia di Palamede, all'Epitaffio, Perugia: Aguaplano, 2012, 286 pp. ISBN 978-88-97738-12-1 Piera De Piano Piera De Piano Università degli studi di Salerno, Contrada Petrara, 8H, 83025 Montoro (AV), Italy, piera_depiano@libero.it Search for other works by this author on: This Site PubMed Google Scholar Rhetorica (2015) 33 (2): 209–212. https://doi.org/10.1525/RH.2015.33.2.209 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 Piera De Piano; Review: Gorgia epidittico. Commento filosofico all'Encomio di Elena, all'Apologia di Palamede, all'Epitaffio, by Giombini, Stefania. Rhetorica 1 May 2015; 33 (2): 209–212. doi: https://doi.org/10.1525/RH.2015.33.2.209 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. © 2015 by The International Society for the History of Rhetoric. All rights reserved.2015 Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

Book Review| May 01 2015 Review: Les œuvres perdues d'Ælius Aristide: fragments et témoignages., by Fabrice, Robert Fabrice, Robert, Les œuvres perdues d'Ælius Aristide: fragments et témoignages. Édition, traduction et commentaire, Paris, De Boccard (coll. De l'Archéologie à l'Histoire), 2012, 743 pp. ISBN 978-2-7018-0332-6 Pierre Chiron Pierre Chiron Université Paris-Est, Institut Universitaire de France, 12 allée Georges Brassens, F-92290 Châtenay-Malabry, France, pcchiron@wanadoo.fr Search for other works by this author on: This Site PubMed Google Scholar Rhetorica (2015) 33 (2): 212–214. https://doi.org/10.1525/RH.2015.33.2.212 Views Icon Views Article contents Figures & tables Video Audio Supplementary Data Peer Review Share Icon Share Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Email Tools Icon Tools Cite Icon Cite Search Site Citation Pierre Chiron; Review: Les œuvres perdues d'Ælius Aristide: fragments et témoignages., by Fabrice, Robert. Rhetorica 1 May 2015; 33 (2): 212–214. doi: https://doi.org/10.1525/RH.2015.33.2.212 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. © 2015 by The International Society for the History of Rhetoric. All rights reserved.2015 Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

Book Review| May 01 2015 Review: The Politics of Eloquence: David Hume's Polite Rhetoric, by Hanvelt, Marc Hanvelt, Marc, The Politics of Eloquence: David Hume's Polite Rhetoric, Toronto, University of Toronto Press, 2012. 217pp. ISBN 978-1-4426-4379-6 Christopher Reid Christopher Reid School of English and Drama, Queen Mary, University of London, Mile End Road, London E1 4NS, United Kingdom, c.g.p.reid@qmul.ac.uk Search for other works by this author on: This Site PubMed Google Scholar Rhetorica (2015) 33 (2): 215–217. https://doi.org/10.1525/RH.2015.33.2.215 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 Christopher Reid; Review: The Politics of Eloquence: David Hume's Polite Rhetoric, by Hanvelt, Marc. Rhetorica 1 May 2015; 33 (2): 215–217. doi: https://doi.org/10.1525/RH.2015.33.2.215 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. © 2015 by The International Society for the History of Rhetoric. All rights reserved.2015 Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

Other| May 01 2015 Addresses of Contributors to This Issue Rhetorica (2015) 33 (2): 220–221. https://doi.org/10.1525/RH.2015.33.2.220 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 Addresses of Contributors to This Issue. Rhetorica 1 May 2015; 33 (2): 220–221. doi: https://doi.org/10.1525/RH.2015.33.2.220 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. © 2015 by The International Society for the History of Rhetoric. All rights reserved.2015 Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

While George Campbell's Philosophy of Rhetoric is widely recognized as one of the most influential treatises in the history of rhetoric, little critical attention has been paid to one of his most famous sermons: "The Nature, Extent, and Importance of the Duty of Allegiance." Delivered on December 12, 1776, "being the fast day appointed by the King on account of the rebellion in America," this sermon exemplifies a key contention in Campbell's Philosophy of Rhetoric—that the species of rhetoric "calculated to influence the will, and persuade us to a certain conduct" is "that artful mixture" of "the argumentative and the pathetic incorporated together" (2–4). Taking its cue from the importance of style in Campbell's conception of rhetoric, this essay examines the significant role played by style in both the argumentative and pathetic dimensions of Campbell's sermon and reminds us that rhetorical theories have historically been conceived as means of managing social tensions and the uncertainties within which they arise.

Reviews Giombini, Stefania, Gorgia cgidittico. Gomniento filosófico ^// Encomio di Elena, ¿7// Apología di Palamede, nll Epitaffio, Perugia: Aguaplano, 2012, 286 pp. ISBN 978-88-97738-12-1 Se é ancora possibile registrare l'assenza dei sofisti in un'autorevole storia della letteratura greca (con annessa Antología), qual é quella di Lu­ ciano Canfora, non e piu ammissibile una scelta di sapore laerziano che escluda il sofista di Lentini da una storia della filosofía. É a questo orizzonte di lettura che, come testimonia il titolo del volume, guarda la ricerca di Stefania Giombini. Cambiare prospettiva, palesare il contenuto filosófico dell'epidittica impegnandosi come in un'attivitá di 'estrazione' (p. 251) di un secondo lixello di signifícate, nascosto sotto habito retorico che orna e perci¿?> riveste escurando, e l'obiettixo sottinteso a un pregevole 'commente filosófico' dei discorsi gorgiani delhEncomio di Elena, dell'Apología di Palamede e dell'Epitaffio. Per agevolare tale lettura l'A. antepone al suo commente una lunga relazione bibliográfica sul processo di riabilitazione della figura di Gorgia filosofo. Tale storia della critica costituisce il primo dei due saggi introduttivi del volume. Un percorso storiografico copioso e ben ragionato che prende avvio dall'antico e piu ampio repertorio di notizie sui filosofi greci, quello di Diogene Laerzio, in cui, conseguentemente alie linee interprétative platoniche, Gorgia fini per non trovare posto. Sebbene manchi almeno un accenno alia ricezione latina, di cui pure si riconosce il peso in conclusione (p. 252), risulta pienamente meritevole e di valido supporte una si dettagliata , ma anche agüe, presentazione diacronica della fortuna del Lentinese, a partiré dalla rivoluzionaria posizione hegeliana, i primi studi specialistici di fine Ottocento e inizio Novecento, fino ad arrivare alie numerosissime produzioni del secolo scorso e dei primi anni del Duemila, segni di una definitiva introduzione del pensiero e della scrittura gorgiani nelhinteresse degli studi di antichistica. In una panorámica cosí ampia avrei inserito anche volumi piú recenti, magari non esclusivamente legati alia figura di Gorgia, ma senza dubbio necessari per la ricostruzione del pensiero sofistico, come gli importanti contributi di due studiosi italiani, Mauro Bonazzi e Robería Ioli: il primo, autore di una traduzione di tutti i frammenti e le testimonianze dei sofisti (Milano: Rizzoli BUR, 2007) e di un utilissimo testo di inquadramento generale, I Sofisti (Roma: Carocci, 2010); la Ioli è autrice anche dell'ultima Rhetorica, Vol. XXXIII, Issue 2, pp. 209-221, ISSN 0734-8584, electronic ISSN 15338541 . C2015 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.2015.33.2.209. 210 RHETORICA traduzione italiana con commento del Peri tou me ontos (Hildesheim: Olms, 2010); sempre della Ioli si segnala, tra l'altro, anche l'ultima traduzione ital­ iana di tutti i frammenti e le testimonianze di Gorgia, con introduzione e commento (Roma: Carocci, 2013). La retorica in Gorgia è il titolo del secondo saggio introduttivo in cui LA. definisce il significato e la natura del discorso epidittico in età pre-aristotelica e illustra l'importanza della valutazione re­ torica dei testi gorgiani ricorrendo a due categorie ermeneutiche, la 'macroretorica ' e la 'microretorica', elabórate dallo studioso di filosofía antica, nonché maestro dell'A. e autore della Prefazione, Livio Rossetti. Seguendo gli studi di Laurent Pernot sulla retorica dell'elogio, LA. distingue il discorso epidittico dalLencomio, che ne rappresenta, in età pre-aristotelica, solo una sottocategoria , e ne fa un'operetta di eloquenza di apparato e con funzione celebradva. A partiré da questa prospettiva viene fatto rientrare nel genere dei discorsi epidittici anche il trattato Sul non essere, che si distingue dagli altri tre componimenti per il fatto di essere un'epidittica 'di rilievo' (p. 50) e destinata ad un pubblico specialistico avvezzo ad 'argomenti di spessore ontologico' (ibidem). Quanto alie dimensioni macro e micro retoriche di un testo classico, LA. spiega la prima come una valutazione d'insieme del testo, degli 'elementi che sovrintendono la progettazione e la costruzione di un discorso' (p. 53) e la seconda come...

Reviews 215 Hanvelt, Marc, The Politics of Eloquence: David Hume's Polite Rhetoric, Toronto, University of Toronto Tress, 2012. 217pp. ISBN 978-1-44264379 -6 In this closely reasoned and commendably lucid book Marc Hanvelt acknowledges more explicitly than most historians of eloquence that his study of the rhetorical past is shaped by a preoccupation with the poli­ tics of the present. Hume's thinking about persuasion is important to him not only because it is unusually subtle, philosophically grounded, and dis­ tinctive in its own time, but also because it can tell us something about how we might better conduct our politics today. A key to Hume's thought, Hanvelt argues, is his enduring hostilitv towards a religious and political fanaticism which "has its parallels in our contemporary world" (p. 6). We need Hume's "accurate, just, and polite rhetoric" as an alternative or, as Hanvelt puts it, "antidote" (p. 75) to the "low rhetoric" of zealotry and fac­ tion which threatens to undermine the balanced opposition of interests on which modern democracies depend. As Hanvelt explains, the conclusions Hume reaches in his philosophical writings, which famously emphasize the relative weakness of reason as an influence in human nature, commits him to a conception of rhetoric in which the passions must play a lead­ ing role. But unlike the rhetoric of the zealots, Hanvelt argues, Hume's is an appeal to the passions modified bv politeness. Transferred from its eighteenth-century context, and stripped of its restrictive associations with an elitist code of manners, this "polite rhetoric" refuses to manipulate its audiences by oversimplifying or closing down choices, respects their capac­ ity for making judgements, and engages them on equal terms in sociable discourse. Other scholars have commented on what Arthur Walzer well de­ scribes as "Hume's rhetoric-friendly epistemology" and have assessed its eighteenth-century influence. Hanvelt's ambition is to proceed a step further and retrieve a coherent conception of rhetoric from Hume's own writings. Although he does not restrict himself to Hume's philosophical works, and indeed examines the later volumes of the History as an important source for Hume's thinking about rhetoric, the philosophy of mind Hume formulates in the Treatise and Enquiries is at the heart of his study. In its central chapters (2-5) Hanvelt teases out the rhetorical implications of Hume's conception of belief as a "lively idea" and elucidates Hume's view that eloquence can reproduce the "feeling" of belief that is more usually derived by means of association from custom and experience. By raising vivid and forceful ideas in the mind eloquence excites the passions and operates on the will. What, then, sets Hume's conception of rhetoric apart from the oratory of the fanatics (Hume's and, one infers, Hanvelt's antagonists) who work singlemindedly on the passions of their audiences? Hanvelt finds the answer to this question in Hume's conception of politeness, a moderating influence which equips the orator with the gentlemanly attributes of trustworthiness of character, conversational ease, and enlarged views. With the arguments of 216 RHETORICA Adam Potkay's The Fate ofEloquence in the Age ofHume (1994) in mind, he ac­ knowledges that in the eighteenth century "the polite virtues of manners and moderation . . . were generally considered to be incompatible with impas­ sioned rhetoric" (pp. 54—55). But Hume's politeness, like Hume s rhetoric, was distinctive. He associated politeness with moderation but unlike his friend Adam Smith he did not conceive of moderation as necessarily dis­ passionate. Politeness modified but did not repudiate the models of ancient eloquence, which Hume held in high regard. While Hume "distrusted impo­ lite rhetoric," Hanvelt concludes, he did not distrust rhetoric 'because it is impolite' (p. 76). The clarity with which Hanvelt disentangles complex ideas and explains how Hume differed from contemporary rhetoricians such as Campbell and Smith is one of the strengths of this book. He demonstrates beyond doubt that the idea of eloquence was unusually important to Hume, not least as an illustration and confirmation of his discoveries in the science of mind. But the approach he has taken to reading Hume's texts is not unproblematic. Acknowledging that "Hume never laid...

The aim of classical rhetoric is to convince and persuade. Being essentially enigmatic, biblical rhetoric invites the reader to reflect by himself to find the solution, respecting his freedom, his dignity and responsibility.

Modern students of Atticism, the movement which looked to Athenian literature of the classical age to provide models for later composition, often draw a distinction between what they call “rhetorical” (or “stylistic”) Atticism of the first century bce and a supposedly later phenomenon termed “linguistic” (or “grammatical”) Atticism. This paper questions this dichotomy by showing the clearly linguistic interests of some significant first century bce Greek and Roman Atheists—Caecilius of Calacte, Dionysius of Halicarnassus, and T. Annius Cimber—and by arguing that they demonstrate that an interest in antiquarian diction and morphology is part of Atticism from its beginnings.

While George Campbell’s Philosophy of Rhetoric is widely recognized as one of the most influential treatises in the history of rhetoric, little critical attention has been paid to one of his most famous sermons: “The Nature, Extent, and Importance of the Duty of Allegiance. Delivered on December 12, 1776, “being the fast day appointed by the King on account of the rebellion in America,” this sermon exemplifies a key contention in Campbell’s Philosophy of Rhetoric— that the species of rhetoric “calculated to influence the will, and persuade us to a certain conduct” is “that artful mixture” of “the argumentative and the pathetic incorporated together “ (2–4). Taking its cue from the importance of style in Campbell’s conception of rhetoric, this essay examines the significant role played by style in both the argumentative and pathetic dimensions of Campbell’s sermon and reminds us that rhetorical theories have historically been conceived as means of managing social tensions and the uncertainties within which they arise.

Reviews 217 signposting and recapitulating his argument as it unfolds. In this and other ways he mirrors the qualities he values in Hume's own writing. Christopher Reid University ofLondon Hock, Ronald F., trans., The Chreia and Ancient Rhetoric: Commentaries on Aphthonins's Progymnasmata, (Society of Biblical Literature, Writ­ ings from the Greco-Roman World 31), Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2012. xii + 345 pp. ISBN 978-1-58983-644-0 This is the third and last volume of a trilogv, all three volumes of which present ancient and Byzantine texts and facing translations, equipped with extensive introductions and commentary, on the chrein, the third of the canon­ ical fourteen progymnasmata, the compositional exercises that began at the intermediate level of the Roman imperial literary-rhetorical education and extended into the advanced level. All three volumes have been published by the Society of Biblical Literature. The first two were co-authored by the late Edward N. O'Neil. O'Neill's scholarly partner Ronald F. Hock has brought the project to its conclusion and benefited from materials pertinent to the third volume that O'Neil left behind. The first volume (1986) presented mainly Roman imperial Greek and Latin discussions of the chreia from an­ cient theoretical works. The second volume (2002) offered ancient and Byzan­ tine classroom exercises in which chreiai were read, copied, declined, and, when the student was ready, elaborated. And now in this final volume Hock gives us the sections of six Byzantine texts that comment on the discussion of the chreia in the Progymnasmata of the late ancient rhetorical theorist Aphthonius , whose work, admitted to the so-called Hermogenic Corpus, became the authority par excellence on these compositional exercises. Hock's Byzantine commentaries on Aphthonius, intended for teachers or students, are by John of Sardis (ninth century), the so-called P-Scholia (ca. 1000), John Doxapatres (eleventh century), the Rhetorica Marciana (twelfth century), Maximus Planudes (thirteenth century), and Matthew Camariotes (fifteenth century). These commentators on Aphthonius, like Aphthonius himself, discussed all fourteen progymnasmata. Hock has excerpted from them only the sections on the chreia. Aphthonius's discussion of the chreia—a saying, an action, or a com­ bination of action and saying, ascribed to a person of note—is only a few pages long. It begins with some brief theoretical remarks. Aphthonius gives a definition and an etymology of the term. He explains the three kinds of chreia. And he lists the eight headings to be used for elaborating a chreia. But the greater part of his discussion is dedicated to the presentation of an elabo­ ration of the chreia "Isocrates said that the root of education is bitter, but the fruits are sweet." Aphthonius's short discussion of the chreia (as well as the 218 RHETORICA rest of his Progymnasmata) generated pages and pages of sequential Byzan­ tine commentaries. One thinks of the similar fate of better known canonized texts: Plato and Aristotle, Hippocrates and Galen. It is something of a déjà lu experience to read commentator after commentator on Aphthonius s spare treatment; indeed, Hock's introductions to each of the commentators, too, inevitably have some repetitiveness to them. Still, one does find peculiarities and idiosyncrasies in the various Byzantine texts, even "some independent analysis" (p. 28). Yet to expect to find much originality in this kind of material is to set oneself up for disappointment; to complain about its pedantry and triviality is to expect a pre-modern scholastic tradition not to be itself (cf. pp. 3, 6). Hock does well in his introductions to keep an eye on the whole work from which the particular chreia section is being excerpted, although his full discussion of Maximus Planudes on the progymnasma speaking-incharacter (pp. 285-92) in his introduction to Planudes on the chreia was perhaps unnecessary there. The commentators clarify, supplement, and illustrate Aphthonius. They have a "penchant... to build on one another" (p. 134). (Matthew Camariotes, though, is in a skimpy class of his own, briefer on the chreia even than Aphthonius.) They bring in material both from the ancient progymnasmatic theoreticians ps.-Hermogenes, Nicolaus of Myra, and Theon (a large portion of the P-Scholia, for example, is simply...

Other| February 01 2015 Addresses of Contributors to This Issue Rhetorica (2015) 33 (1): 108–109. https://doi.org/10.1525/RH.2015.33.1.108 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 Addresses of Contributors to This Issue. Rhetorica 1 February 2015; 33 (1): 108–109. doi: https://doi.org/10.1525/RH.2015.33.1.108 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. © 2015 by The International Society for the History of Rhetoric. All rights reserved.2015 Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

Book Review| February 01 2015 Review: L'arte dell'autoelogio. Studio sull'orazione 28 K di Elio Aristide, con testo, traduzione e commento, by Lorenzo Miletti Lorenzo Miletti, L'arte dell'autoelogio. Studio sull'orazione 28 K di Elio Aristide, con testo, traduzione e commento, Pisa: ETS. 238 pp. ISBN 978-88-467-2960-6 Elisabetta Berardi Elisabetta Berardi Dipartimento di Studi Umanistici, Università degli Studi di Torino, via sant'Ottavio 20, 10124 Torino, ITALY. elisabetta.berardi@unito.it Search for other works by this author on: This Site PubMed Google Scholar Rhetorica (2015) 33 (1): 97–100. https://doi.org/10.1525/RH.2015.33.1.97 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 Elisabetta Berardi; Review: L'arte dell'autoelogio. Studio sull'orazione 28 K di Elio Aristide, con testo, traduzione e commento, by Lorenzo Miletti. Rhetorica 1 February 2015; 33 (1): 97–100. doi: https://doi.org/10.1525/RH.2015.33.1.97 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. © 2015 by The International Society for the History of Rhetoric. All rights reserved.2015 Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

Critics have long considered Rabelais as the “last of the French Erasmians”. However, a rereading of François Béroalde de Verville's Moyen de parvenir (1614–1617) brings to light numerous rhetorical strategies reminiscent of the discourse of morosophy, or foolish-wisdom used by the character of Folly in Erasmus' Encomium Moriae. The identification of these rhetorical devices enable us to retrace the profound and complex influence of the Rotterdam humanist's writings in France at the beginning of the seventeenth century.

Book Review| February 01 2015 Review: Voir la philosophie. Les représentations de la philosophie à Rome. Rhétorique et philosophie de Cicéron à Marc Aurèle (Études anciennes, série latine 71), by Juliette Dross Juliette Dross, Voir la philosophie. Les représentations de la philosophie à Rome. Rhétorique et philosophie de Cicéron à Marc Aurèle (Études anciennes, série latine 71), Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 2010. 413 pp., ISBN 978-2-251-32883-6 Sabine Luciani Sabine Luciani Textes et documents de la Méditerranée antique etmédiévale, Aix-Marseille Université, Maison méditerranéenne des sciences de l'homme, 5, rue du château de l'horloge, 13100 Aix-en-Provence, FRANCE. sabine.luciani@sfr.fr Search for other works by this author on: This Site PubMed Google Scholar Rhetorica (2015) 33 (1): 100–103. https://doi.org/10.1525/RH.2015.33.1.100 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 Sabine Luciani; Review: Voir la philosophie. Les représentations de la philosophie à Rome. Rhétorique et philosophie de Cicéron à Marc Aurèle (Études anciennes, série latine 71), by Juliette Dross. Rhetorica 1 February 2015; 33 (1): 100–103. doi: https://doi.org/10.1525/RH.2015.33.1.100 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. © 2015 by The International Society for the History of Rhetoric. All rights reserved.2015 Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

Book Review| February 01 2015 Review: L'image tragique de l'Histoire chez Tacite – Étude des schèmes tragiques dans les Histoires et les, by Fabrice Galtier Fabrice Galtier, L'image tragique de l'Histoire chez Tacite – Étude des schèmes tragiques dans les Histoires et lesAnnales, Bruxelles: Latomus (vol. 333), 2011, 344 pages. ISBN: 978-2-87031-274-2 Paul M. Martin Paul M. Martin Université de Montpellier-III, 34A rue du puits Mariette, 85330 Noirmoutier-en-l'île, FRANCE. paul.martin3@wanadoo.fr Search for other works by this author on: This Site PubMed Google Scholar Rhetorica (2015) 33 (1): 103–106. https://doi.org/10.1525/RH.2015.33.1.103 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 Paul M. Martin; Review: L'image tragique de l'Histoire chez Tacite – Étude des schèmes tragiques dans les Histoires et les, by Fabrice Galtier. Rhetorica 1 February 2015; 33 (1): 103–106. doi: https://doi.org/10.1525/RH.2015.33.1.103 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. © 2015 by The International Society for the History of Rhetoric. All rights reserved.2015 Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

Critics have long considered Rabelais as the “last of the French Erasmians”. However, a rereading of François Béroalde de Verville’s Moyen de parvenir (1614–1617) brings to light numerous rhetorical strategies reminiscent of the discourse of morosophy, or foolish-wisdom used by the character of Folly in Erasmus’ Encomium Moriae. The identification of these rhetorical devices enable us to retrace the profound and complex influence of the Rotterdam humanist’s writings in France at the beginning of the seventeenth century.

This study of the instrumental and constitutive rhetoric of Martin Luther King Jr.’s “Letter from Birmingham Jail” (1963) and Frederick Douglass’s “Introduction” to The Reason Why the Colored American is not in the World’s Columbian Exposition: The Afro-American’s Contribution to Columbian Literature (1893) explores both the striking similarities between the rhetorical characteristics of the texts and their contrasting receptions. Whereas King’s “Letter” took advantage of the powerful Zeitgeist of the Civil Rights Movement, Douglass’s “Introduction” was stymied by the oppressive climate of the late-nineteenth century, including the conservative self-help movement that dominated African American’s responses to discrimination and opportunity

Reviews Lorenzo Miletti, L'arte dell'autoelogio. Studio sull'orazione 28 K di Elio Aristide, con testo, traduzione e commento, Pisa: ETS. 238 pp. ISBN 97888 -467-2960-6 II saggio di Lorenzo Miletti è il primo ampio studio dedicato espressamente all'orazione 28 di Elio Aristide, un discorso intéressante sotto molteplici aspetti. Esso offre infatti uno spaccato della vita quotidiana dell'élite greca dell'impero romano nel II sec. d.C. e ci permette di osservare da vicino i vividi toni di una polémica fra intellettuali; inoltre, pariendo da un episodio specifico, affronta un tema di forte impatto retorico e sociale: l'opportunità e le finalité dell'elogio di sé. Apprendiamo Eantefatto dell'orazione, sia pur in modo non chiarissimo, dal testo stesso: durante la declamazione di un inno in onore della dea Atena, di fronte a un pubblico scelto che assisteva gratuitamente alla seduta oratoria, Aristide aveva fatto una aggiunta improvvisata al suo scritto, parlando in modo elogiativo di sé e della sua opera. Questo non era piaciuto a qualcuno, convinto che non fosse conveniente, per un oratore di indiscussa eccellenza corne Aristide, riferirsi a sé in quel contesto e in quel modo. Nell'orazione 28 Aristide replica alla critica, riferitagli da una terza persona: non fa il nome del suo accusatore, forse per sminuirlo consegnandolo alEoblio, o forse perché egli stesso ignora chi sia; cio comunque non ha rilevanza nello sviluppo delEargomentazione. Il testo è al tempo stesso apologia e rivendicazione della nécessité dell'autoelogio; esposizione convinta dell'ispirazione divina della retorica; esaltazione politicamente significativa del phronema greco. Per noi moderni, infine, Eorazione 28 è preziosissima fonte di lacerti di testi del patrimonio classico altrimenti perduti. Aristide compone infatti la propria difesa facendo sfilare in un tribunale ideale autorevolissimi testimoni a favore dell'autoelogio: si appoggia su un dossier di indiscutibili precedenti che dimostrano corne il dire bene di sé sia un tratto connaturato alla fierezza greca, dagli eroi di Omero a Esiodo, dai lirici agli storici, dagli oratori a Socrate, dai discorsi di generali corne Ificrate e Epaminonda, agli epigrammi attribuiti ai pittori Zeusi e Parrasio. Lo studio di Miletti si articola in Introduzione (pp. 11-58); Testo e tradu­ zione (pp. 59-143), Commento (pp. 145-210); chiudono il volume la Bibliografía (pp. 211-25), e un utile Indice dei passi citati (pp. 227-33). NeïVIntroduzione Rhetorica, Vol. XXXIII, Issue 1, pp. 97-109, ISSN 0734-8584, electronic ISSN 15338541 . ©2015 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.2015.33.1.97. 98 RHETORICA Miletti affronta in maniera egregia la presentazione del testo: guida dapprima il lettore nella conoscenza dell'autore, alla luce dei più recenti studi dedicati al fenómeno retorico délia Seconda Sofistica (0. Leggere Aristide oggi). Traccia poi una presentazione délia consistenza del corpus e délia situazione dal punto di vista délia critica testuale (2. L'autore e il complesso dell'opera); Miletti, che collabora al progetto coordinato da Laurent Pernot di pubblicazione degli opera omnia di Elio Aristide per la CUF, segue l'edizione aristidea di Keil 1898, ma si discosta da essa in alcuni punti, per lo più difendendo la lezione tràdita (un elenco dei loci è fornito a p. 58): ogni sua scelta è ben argomentata nel successivo Commento. L'Introduzione si addentra infine nel cuore del saggio: l'analisi del testo (2. L'orazione 28 Keil, “Flepi tou napacpOéYpoiToç" e il problema dell'elogio di sé). Miletti cerca dapprima di precisare i contorni dell'occasione che determinó la genesi dell'or. 28: sulla scia di studi precedenti, e discostandosi in questo da C. A. Behr, propone prudentemente Smirne come luogo délia performance, all'inizio del 153, periodo in cui Aristide possedeva già una solida fama. Miletti analizza poi in maniera convincente i punti-chiave del contenuto: l'orazione 28 è uno scritto polémico che affronta problemi di diversa natura, poiché l'accusa rivolta ad Aristide circa l'elogio di sé coinvolge...

This essay argues that Edmund Spenser's legal poem, the Two Cantos of Mutabilitie, considers how civil conflicts implicitly generate a basis for their own evaluation and resolution. To illustrate this idea, Spenser draws from a tradition of rhetorical argumentation stretching from Aristotle and Cicero to Rudolph Agricola and Philip Sidney. This tradition emphasizes how fictions establish the shared questions that can create a deliberative context for equitable judgment when general law and particular case come into conflict. Dramatizing this rational process through an allegorical legal trial, Spenser illuminates how divergent judgments and actions become ethically legible to one another as parts of the same deliberative whole.

Book Review| November 01 2014 Review: Letters to Power: Public Advocacy Without Public Intellectuals, Samuel McCormick Samuel McCormick, Letters to Power: Public Advocacy Without Public Intellectuals. University Park: The Pennsylvania State University Press, 2011. 197 pp. ISBN (Hardcover) 978-0-271-05073-7 Rhetorica (2014) 32 (4): 414–417. https://doi.org/10.1525/RH.2014.32.4.414 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 Review: Letters to Power: Public Advocacy Without Public Intellectuals, Samuel McCormick. Rhetorica 1 November 2014; 32 (4): 414–417. doi: https://doi.org/10.1525/RH.2014.32.4.414 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. © 2014 by The International Society for the History of Rhetoric. All rights reserved.2014 Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

Book Review| November 01 2014 Review: Cicero in Letters: Epistolary Relations of the Late Republic, by Peter White Peter White. Cicero in Letters: Epistolary Relations of the Late Republic. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010. 256 pp. Hardcover: $60. Paperback: $29.95. ISBN-13: 978-0-19-538851-0. Published to Oxford Scholarship Online: September 2010. Rhetorica (2014) 32 (4): 412–414. https://doi.org/10.1525/RH.2014.32.4.412 Views Icon Views Article contents Figures & tables Video Audio Supplementary Data Peer Review Share Icon Share Twitter LinkedIn Tools Icon Tools Get Permissions Cite Icon Cite Search Site Citation Review: Cicero in Letters: Epistolary Relations of the Late Republic, by Peter White. Rhetorica 1 November 2014; 32 (4): 412–414. doi: https://doi.org/10.1525/RH.2014.32.4.412 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. © 2014 by The International Society for the History of Rhetoric. All rights reserved.2014 Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

Thomas Hobbes is a severe critic of rhetoric but he is also a careful student and skillful practitioner of the art of persuasion. Many critics have therefore argued that Hobbes's views of rhetoric are both conflicted and inconsistent. In contrast, I argue that Hobbes's conception of rhetoric displays remarkable consistency. While he rejects the abuses of rhetoric abundant in political oratory he nevertheless embraces the power of eloquence. In Leviathan Hobbes reconciles his appreciation of eloquence with his distrust of oratory by refashioning rhetoric into a private, rather than public art, which fulfills many of the traditional duties of rhetoric.

Other| November 01 2014 Addresses of Contributors to This Issue Rhetorica (2014) 32 (4): 429–430. https://doi.org/10.1525/RH.2014.32.4.429 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 Addresses of Contributors to This Issue. Rhetorica 1 November 2014; 32 (4): 429–430. doi: https://doi.org/10.1525/RH.2014.32.4.429 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. © 2014 by The International Society for the History of Rhetoric. All rights reserved.2014 Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

Other| November 01 2014 Index to Volume 32 (2014) Rhetorica (2014) 32 (4): 424–428. https://doi.org/10.1525/RH.2014.32.4.424 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 Index to Volume 32 (2014). Rhetorica 1 November 2014; 32 (4): 424–428. doi: https://doi.org/10.1525/RH.2014.32.4.424 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. © 2014 by The International Society for the History of Rhetoric. All rights reserved.2014 Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

Reviews Peter White. Cicero in Letters: Epistolary Relations of the Late Repub­ lic. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010. 256 pp. Hardcover: $60. Paperback: $29.95. ISBN-13: 978-0-19-538851-0. Published to Oxford Scholarship Online: September 2010. Cicero in Letters is a major landmark in the study of Ciceronian letters, and a book that belongs in the personal libraries of all scholars interested in the fields of Cicero and ancient letters. Building on and extending the seminal work of D. R. Shackleton Bailey, Peter White meticulously analyzes the massive corpus of extant Ciceronian letters, focusing on how the letters function as a form of social media, as it were, constructing and maintaining Cicero's personal networks. Although White engages to a certain degree with sociolinguistic method, the general approach of the book is philological, concerned primarily with close reading of individual letters, analysis of the editorial process that gave form to the extant collect, prosopography, and historical reconstruction of letters' functions as part of the reciprocity systems embedded in elite Roman networks of amicitia. Cicero in Letters, available in hardcover, softcover and electronic ver­ sions, consists of a preface, six chapters, an afterword, two appendices, notes, bibliography and indices. The main body of the book is divided into two major parts. "Part I: Reading the Letters from the Outside In" (83 pages) con­ sists of three chapters focusing on the form and context of Cicero's letters, "1. Constraints and Biases in Roman Letter Writing," "2. The Editing of the Collection," and "3. Frames of the Letter." Next is "Part II: Epistolary Preoc­ cupations" (76 pages), comprised of three chapters emphasizing the content of the letters, "4. The Letters and Literature," "5. Giving and Getting Advice by Letter," and "6. Letter Writing and Leadership." The organization of the book is thematic rather than strictly analytical, and the approach, despite meticulous scholarship, more exploratory and essayistic than scientific or argumentative. All Ciceronian passages are quoted both in Latin and in the author's own translations. The translations are generally accurate and read­ able, and the writing style of both White's text and translations is accessible to the non-specialist. The first chapter, "Reading the Letters from the Outside In," sets letter writing within its social and generic context. It exemplifies ways in which Rhetorica, Vol. XXXII, Issue 4, pp. 0-430, ISSN 0734-8584, electronic ISSN 15338541 . ©2014 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.2014.32.4.0. Reviews 413 the study of Latin letters differs radically from that of Greek. Biblical schol­ ars, especially, and a smaller group of rhetorical scholars, have produced exhaustive studies of the form and context of Greek letters, including the lo­ gistics of letter production and delivery and the relationships among letters, letter-theory and rhetorical theory, but as much ancient epistolary scholar­ ship is concerned with the Pauline epistles, less work has been devoted to Latin letters than Greek, and what work does exist is more focused on seeing letters as a lens through which to examine literature, history or politics rather than studying epistolographv for its own sake. White's work, following this general trend, displays particular strengths in analyzing how Cicero's letters responded to the problem of maintaining political influence and networks at a distance. While White's first chapter does a workmanlike job of dis­ cussing issues of letter transmission and production, and such issues as the importance of the presence formula, the discussion is presented somewhat in a vacuum, approaching, for example, the philophronetic nature of an­ cient epistolographv as a point to be proven rather than as position that has been widely accepted in the study in ancient letters since Deissman (1910, 1911) and Koskenniemi (1956). White's treatment of how Cicero in­ flects these common practices is detailed and meticulous, albeit scholars of ancient letter-writing may find frustrating the lack of comparative material or responsiveness to existing scholarship on ancient letters (e...

Reviews 417 many ways, but it confirmed for me the distance between Letters to Power and Public Advocacy Without Public Intellectuals. To be sure, I want all of what McCormick has to offer: I want the letter to help us rethink rhetorical history, and I want the weapons of the weak to supply learned advocacy. I'm unsure, however, that we need to Hold these projects in tandem. Dave Tell The University of Kansas Ben McCorkle, Rhetorical Delivery as Technological Discourse: A CrossHistorical Study. Carbondale and Edwardsville: Southern Illinois Uni­ versity Press, 2012, xiii, 207 pp.: black and white illustration. $35.00. ISBN 978-0-8093-3067-6 At a time when media platforms for content delivery proliferate so we can stay abreast of the latest iLife gadgetry; many scholars in both rhetorical studies and new media studies have been tracking the resurgence of interest in "delivery"-both in terms of the technical apparatuses that deliver content and in the rhetorical affordances of such platforms. Rhetoricians as diverse as James Porter and Kathleen Welch tout a new era of delivery, even the ascendancy of delivery as the rhetorical canon needing attention and study in the digital age. Such, at least, is the opening premise of rhet/comp and new media scholar Ben McCorkle's first book, Rhetorical Delivery as Technological Dis­ course: A Cross-Historical Study, which takes stock of this "revived" interest in delivery and notes how it has assumed a position as the "central element of the rhetorical process" (xi). But McCorke's interest in delivery is not just to help assert its current eminence; rather, he seeks to examine "the dynamic that has historically existed between rhetorical delivery and...technological shifts in our society" (2). More bluntly, he argues throughout the pages of this ambitious and wide-ranging book that "delivery's status can be read as an indicator of Western culture's attempts to come to terms with newly emerging technics, media forms, and technologies" (2). To demonstrate how delivery has been key to navigating shifts in literacy and the acquisition of new communications tools and platforms, McCorkle takes a broad view, examining over 2500 years of technological innovation in writing and composing across media. We move quickly through the shift from orality to alphabetic literacy in ancient Greece, to the Ramist rhetorics of the latel5th and early 16th centuries and the birth of European printing, to the belletristic and elocutionary movements of the 18th and 19th centuries and the rise in mass printing and literacy, to the advent of mass and digital media in the early and late 20th century respectively. Each historical moment becomes a "case study" of a technological innovation in writing or literacy that McCorkle invites us to re-imagine as an example of how the 418 RHETORICA canon of delivery comes to the fore to help navigate the transition. In the process, McCorke redefines delivery as a "technological discourse" in that "theories of delivery have historically helped to foster the cultural reception of emergent technologies of writing and communication by prescribing rules or by examining and privileging tendencies that cause old and new media forms to resemble one another" (5). Take the emergence of textual literacies in ancient Greece as an exam­ ple. Writing about Plato's dialogues, McCorkle notes how they "are not faithful transcriptions of oral events"; rather, any given dialogue comprises a "conceptual remediation of an oral discursive practice that functions by borrowing the generic conventions of a prior mode of communication, ac­ complishing the dual task of making writing appear more like speech and speech more like writing" (61). While the move to print literacies might have coincided with a declining overt interest in oral delivery, those modes of delivery were nonetheless recaptured in the new technology of writing. In this fashion, McCorkle's analysis avoids technological determinism by emphasizing the interplay of older modes of delivery with newer technolo­ gies. For instance, when analyzing the rise of the elocutionary movement with the spread of mass printing and increasing literacy in the nineteenth century, he describes how oral delivery and printing conventions began to resemble one another: "Yet another mechanism of remediation, the elocu­ tionary movements advocated...