328 RHETORICA Haixia W. Lan. Aristotle and Confucius on Rhetoric and Truth: The Form and the Way. Routledge, 2017. 228 pp. ISBN 9781472487360 At a 2013 Rhetoric Society of America Summer Institute seminar on comparative rhetoric, twenty-five scholars spent a week together reading scholarship on comparative rhetoric of the recent past and charting out possible paths for the future. In their culminating statement, "A Manifesto: The What and How of Comparative Rhetoric," which appeared in Rhetoric Review in 2015 (34.3), they outlined best practices in the subfield, underscoring both the imperative to speak for and with the other and the need to cultivate self-reflexivity and accountability for such engagement. They further called on comparative rhetoric scholars to search for "simultaneity, heterogeneity, and interdependence" both within and between different rhetorical traditions and practices. Haixia Lan's Aristotle and Confucius on Rhetoric and Truth: The Form and the Way provides an example of what such best practices actually can look like and of how best to center comparative rhetorical studies on simultaneity, heterogeneity, and interdependence. Lan's monograph, consisting of five chapters together with an introduc­ tion and an epilogue, offers an in-depth comparative study of Aristotle (384322 BCE) and Confucius (551—479 BCE), two pivotal figures hailing from Greek and Chinese ancient cultures, respectively. While plenty of studies have focused on Aristotle and Confucius in the past, they tend to be informed by a philosophical and literary framework. Meanwhile, comparative rhetoric scholars have also studied Aristotle and Confucius, but none, in my view, has offered such a comprehensive study of these two thinkers as Lan has done, for which she must be commended. The introduction provides a succinct overview, laying out both its object of study (focusing on the similarities and differences in Aristotle and Confucius's rhetorical thinking) and its method of study (deploying a rela­ tional and contextualized approach that traverses disciplinary boundaries). Such a study, for Lan, not only presents comparative rhetoricians with a better opportunity to understand these two thinkers' singular contributions to the development of rhetoric but also enhances the prospect of a more felicitous exchange between the two cultures they represent and continue to influence and, better still, between East and West in the global contact zones of the twenty-first century. No less important, Lan's study also counters sticky bina­ ries that pit, for example, Aristotle's purported discourse of abstraction and linearity against Confucius's alleged discourse of pragmatism and circularity. It further problematizes past studies that focus exclusively on either differen­ ces or similarities but not both or that are long in overgeneralizations and short on contextualized or recontextualized engagements and discussions. Each of the five subsequent chapters provides a detailed and nuanced analysis of one central aspect of Aristotle and Confucius's rhetorical thinking. They together contribute to a portrait of two individuals being separated by time and space but joined by an unfailing insistence on hylomorphic thinking that Truth or tianming (the cosmic order) is enmattered in, and can be Reviews 329 actualized through, rhetorical practices; on engaging self, other, and the cos­ mos with an inclusive vision; and on conceptualizing ultimate realities with analogy, be it form (by Aristotle) or the way (by Confucius). For example, in Chapter One, Lan takes up rhetorical invention or the dynamic and mutually entailing relationship between language-in-use and knowledge-making. She characterizes Aristotle's views on episteme as knowledge of certainty, techne as knowledge of probability, and rhetoric as techne that intersects with episteme. In other words, Aristotle's rhetoric dwells in this in-between space where certainty and unpredictability join hands and dialectic and sophistical reasoning mingle with each other. Chapter Two, “Interpreting the Analects," takes its readers to Confucius, to the Analects, a collection of conversations between the Master and his students compiled by the latter after his death, and to the rhetorical dimension of his ways of knowing and speaking, the latter of which mani­ fests itself in Confucius's complex understanding of rhetorical invention, of the role language, audience, and context play in the making of probable or local knowledge. For Lan, developing an historical and interdisciplin­ ary understanding of rhetorical invention...

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

RHETORICA 108 General Prologue and three serious tales. Much of the comedic and fantastic is left unexplored; indeed, he writes, "I hope others will extend the discussion...I have only initiated" (p. 212). Although Russell, at times, claims rather brashly to know what Chaucer thought or didn't think, what he read or didn't read without much qualification, the edginess of his prose provokes response. His work confidently negotiates contemporary Chaucerian scholarship, solidly convincing readers that the trivium can serve as an important lens through which we can read medieval literary texts. ANNE LASKAYA University of Oregon Lynne Magnusson, Shakespeare and Social Dialogue: Dramatic Language and Elizabethan Letters (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), x + 221 pp. In Shakespeare and Social Dialogue, Lynne Magnusson accepts poststructural questioning of the unity and autonomy of the literary text and the independence of its "author" and characters but argues that this critique of formalism has unnecessarily dismissed close reading of language. She seeks to restore it by applying concepts from discourse analysis to a comparison of Renaissance correspondence and Shakespeare's dialogue. Her assumption that letters and plays come close to recording actual conversation seems a little naive, and I am not always sure whether her goal is to recover Elizabethan speech or to illuminate Shakespeare, but she largely achieves both. In place of the Aristotelian categories applied to Elizabethan letters by Frank Whigham, she builds on theories of Mikhail Bakhtin and Pierre Bourdieu, and especially the empirical research of cultural anthropologists Penelope Brown and Stephen C. Levinson. Their model describes attempts to manage risk and save face in conversation through strategies of positive politeness (identifying participants) and negative politeness (dissociating them) that take into account their social Reviews 109 distance, their relative power, and the culture-specific ranking of impositions. As an historian of rhetoric skeptical of imposing our own theories on Renaissance texts, I am startled by how well this approach explains Elizabethan language. Magnusson's study has three parts. Part One demonstrates that gender as well as class influences social dialogue. In Henry VIII, Norfolk employs positive strategies to advise Buckingham; Katherine and Wolsey address King Henry with negative strategies of deference and indirection. The correspondence of Edmund Molyneux, Sidney family secretary, reveals the complexities of Elizabethan relationships. Philip and Robert Sidney command him, while he responds to Philip's criticisms primarily with negative strategies. Lady Mary Sidney tempers her authority over Edmund with positive strategies. Shakespeare's Sonnet 58 and others deferring to his patron are best understood in the context of these conventions. Part Two focuses on letter-writing manuals and administrative correspondence, applying its examples to Shakespeare's plays. Magnusson contrasts Desiderius Erasmus' reform of the horizontal, homosocial relations of scholars in De conscribendis epistolis with Angel Day's reproduction of Elizabethan social hierarchies in The English Secretary, which nevertheless facilitates upward mobility. William Fulwood's The Enimie of Idlenesse, a translation of a French treatise, could have unwittingly supplied hints for the linguistic pretensions of Love's Labour's Lost and A Midsummer Night's Dream. In the former play, the lords' linguistic excesses respond to imitation of their style by upstarts, while in the latter, Theseus appreciates his subjects' incompetence because bumbling shows deference. Elizabethan business depends on personal relationship: thus recommendations ignore job qualifications and requests for favors cement friendship. The Marchants Avizo of Bristol merchant John Browne advises the apprentice to seek aid from fellow merchants, adapting the courtly "pleasuring style" to the commerce. The Merchant of Venice shows the same patterns in the Christian community, but Shylock's speech challenges them, and in Timon of Athens they break down. In the personal letters by which Sir Henry Sidney, Sir William Cecil, and other courtiers administer 110 RHETORICA the Elizabethan regime, negative politeness to equals hints that the intended audience is the Queen, while expressions of "trouble­ taking" and regrets for "trouble-making" to superiors may excuse independent decisions. Positive strategies of identification present weighty requests as trivial. 1 Henry IV contrasts Hal's mastery of this social language and Hotspur's impatience with it. Part Three explores language as theme in three plays. Greenblatt's concept of self-fashioning cannot adequately explain...