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

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

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

By focusing on local problems or issues, student writers can craft research essays that exemplify civic engagement, a practice that reaffirms composition tradition from classical rhetoric and the educational philosophy of John Dewey.

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

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

Abstract The way rhetorical analysts now use the term appeals—meaning to plead or to please—has outstripped the available theories, particularly those derived from Aristotle. Indeed, Aristotle's ethos, pathos, and logos may not even be appeals in the modern sense. A revised model relates author and author positions to values in a triangulating relationship. Appeals also appear as techniques for working through varying media, not only media defined semiotically but also as forms of resistance related to cultural differences. Examples from criticism, film, and advertising provide a foundation for replacing a modes approach to rhetorical appeals with a genre approach.

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

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

Abstract This essay is divided into two parts, the first part showing how certain disciplinary and historiographical habits and ideologies have formed obstacles to rhetorical reading of Plato by many scholars in rhetoric. The second part reads rhetorically a dramatically related group of four Platonic dialogues, Theaetetus, Euthyphro, Sophist, and Statesman, arguing that Plato's commitment to Heraclitean ontology determines certain rhetorical, temporal, and argumentative patterns of these works.

Rhetorical Education in America, edited by Cheryl Glenn, Margaret M. Lyday, and Wendy B. Sharer. Tuscaloosa: University Alabama Press, 2004. 245 + xvi pp. Rhetorical Landscapes in America: Variations on a Theme from Kenneth Burke, by Gregory Clark. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 2004. 181 pp. Gorgias: Sophist and Artist, by Scott Consigny. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 2001. 242 pp.

If we are to believe Cicero’s reports in his Brutus, sentimental discourses were a staple of Roman legal and legislative proceedings. For example, he praised Servius Sulpicius Galba as an orator “who inflames the court, ” thus accomplishing “far more than the one who merely instructs it. ” When charged with massacring Lusitanians, “with tears in his eyes [Galba] commended to [the Roman people’s] protection his own children as well as the young son of Gaius Gallus. The presence of this orphan and his childish weeping excited great compassion ” (xxii, 89-90), and of course Galba was acquitted. Even casual readers of the Iliad discover speeches full of invective (Achilles ’ rage), patriotic encomium (Hector’s battle cry), and sententious disquisitions on the nature of life, love, death, and sociality (Achilles ’ vision of Patroclus). These can unify a people around sentiments of duty, patriotism, fidelity, and amity (books 1, 12, and

Abstract This essay offers a phenomenological assessment of the moral and rhetorical nature of acknowledgment. The dynamics of acknowledgment arise with the ontological structure of human existence, with our way of being spatial and temporal creatures whose existence, in an epideictic display, opens us to the future. From out of this openness comes a call of conscience, an evocation and a provocation that speaks to us of the importance of an essential vocation: teaching. Mitch Albom's Tuesdays with Morrie is offered as a case study of this entire process.

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

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

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

Abstract The performative dimension of oral rhetoric has been a central concern of theorists throughout the history of the tradition. Awareness of the persuasive power of the human voice is especially conspicuous in the teachings of Gorgias of Leontini. When he claims that “speech is a powerful lord,” Gorgias articulates a profound insight into how the human mind and body respond to sounds produced by the voice. By examining Gorgias' views of the potency of speech in the context of the oral, poetic tradition of ancient Greece, we can appreciate more fully the sources of this insight. Moreover, contemporary research in psycho-physiology suggests that Gorgias grasped an important dimension of the human mind's fundamental nature.

Abstract Aristotle's Rhetoric leaves a number of unanswered questions, among them the nature of the relationship between verbal style and êthos, or character, as a means of persuasion. Statements throughout the Rhetoric suggest a connection between manner of expression and persuasive character, but Aristotle's ideas in this area are underdeveloped. Here we argue that Aristotle's stylistic theory, while not demonstrably inconsistent with the technical proof through character, cannot be made to conform neatly with it in most salient respects. Though Aristotle does not explicit y identify style as a means through which the speaker may convey the impression that he possesses positive intellectual or moral qualities, he does recognize a role for lexis in the expression of generic character traits and is aware that an inappropriate style will damage the speaker's credibility. Hence, attention to style is important for the presentation of a plausible êthos and, in this limited respect, style does contribute to the maintenance of persuasive character. This conclusion must be inferred from passing remarks in the Rhetoric. The absence of a more fully developed theory is curious in light of the availability of examples from the discourse of Attic logographers like Lysias, a speechwriter universally praised by later critics for his mastery of ethopoeia(character portrayal).

Abstract This paper has three goals: (1) to point out a characteristic of Isocrates' style of advice, (2) to use that characteristic to discuss the authenticity of To Demonicus, and (3) to place Isocrates' interest in style in its cultural context.

“The first thing I want to say to you who are students is that you cannot afford to think of being here to receive an education: you will do much better to think of being here to claim one. ” —Adrienne Rich (1979, p. 231) It may seem odd to begin a discussion of academic research by quoting Adrienne Rich’s well-known 1977 speech, “Claiming an Education. ” But, if one substitutes “research ” for “an education, ” the sentiment more or less de-scribes the situation faced by most first-year students assigned research in com-position. Completing the monumental academic “Research Paper ” in first-year writing courses is considered a rite of passage for students in many universities (including my own, Auburn University), and is one often performed with grim resignation and uncertain purpose by many of those involved (Schwegler & Shamoon, 1982). Such was the case when I began teaching English Composi-tion II, a second-semester, first-year writing course that makes up one of sev-eral humanities core courses within Auburn’s curriculum. These core courses, including a two-semester sequence of composition, are mandated by our state articulation agreement, and many curricular guidelines are predetermined by that agreement. Our department has molded this curriculum somewhat, but any innovations must be implemented cautiously and creatively. Drawing on previous WAC research about disciplinary writing as well as classical rhetoric and critical pedagogy, I will describe my response to this mandate, theorizing a new critical space for WAC, one that promotes students ’ civic engagement while they are researching an academic discipline. Operating at the nexus of rhetoric, critical theory, and WAC scholarship, I will discuss ways that a criti-cal WAC pedagogy encourages students ’ investment in their own research and encourages students to become responsible “citizen-experts ” within their com-munities. Though the purpose of Auburn’s research paper in English Composi-tion II is to prepare students for academic research, I also strive to include a strong critical component, highlighting moral and ethical concerns within academic discourse much like that described by John Pennington and Robert Boyer (2003), wherein students are conscious of the responsibility they have

Research Article| January 01 2005 Aristotle’s Phantasia in the Rhetoric: Lexis, Appearance, and the Epideictic Function of Discourse Ned O'Gorman Ned O'Gorman Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Philosophy & Rhetoric (2005) 38 (1): 16–40. https://doi.org/10.2307/40238199 Cite Icon Cite Share Icon Share Twitter Permissions Search Site Citation Ned O'Gorman; Aristotle’s Phantasia in the Rhetoric: Lexis, Appearance, and the Epideictic Function of Discourse. Philosophy & Rhetoric 1 January 2005; 38 (1): 16–40. doi: https://doi.org/10.2307/40238199 Download citation file: 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 Scholarly Publishing CollectivePenn State University PressPhilosophy & Rhetoric Search Advanced Search The text of this article is only available as a PDF. Copyright © 2004 The Pennsylvania State University2004The Pennsylvania State University Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

Research Article| January 01 2005 “Listening to Reason”: The Role of Persuasion in Aristotle’s Account of Praise, Blame, and the Voluntary Allen Speight Allen Speight Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Philosophy & Rhetoric (2005) 38 (3): 213–225. https://doi.org/10.2307/40238217 Cite Icon Cite Share Icon Share Twitter Permissions Search Site Citation Allen Speight; “Listening to Reason”: The Role of Persuasion in Aristotle’s Account of Praise, Blame, and the Voluntary. Philosophy & Rhetoric 1 January 2005; 38 (3): 213–225. doi: https://doi.org/10.2307/40238217 Download citation file: 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 Scholarly Publishing CollectivePenn State University PressPhilosophy & Rhetoric Search Advanced Search The text of this article is only available as a PDF. Copyright © 2005 The Pennsylvania State University2005The Pennsylvania State University Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

Book Review| January 01 2005 Aristotle on False Reasoning: Language and the World in the Sophistical Refutations Aristotle on False Reasoning: Language and the World in the Sophistical RefutationsSchreiber, Scott Marina Berzins McCoy Marina Berzins McCoy Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Philosophy & Rhetoric (2005) 38 (1): 92–95. https://doi.org/10.2307/40238204 Cite Icon Cite Share Icon Share Twitter Permissions Search Site Citation Marina Berzins McCoy; Aristotle on False Reasoning: Language and the World in the Sophistical Refutations. Philosophy & Rhetoric 1 January 2005; 38 (1): 92–95. doi: https://doi.org/10.2307/40238204 Download citation file: 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 Scholarly Publishing CollectivePenn State University PressPhilosophy & Rhetoric Search Advanced Search The text of this article is only available as a PDF. Copyright © 2004 The Pennsylvania State University2004The Pennsylvania State University Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

Research Article| January 01 2005 Reading Logos as Speech: Heidegger, Aristotle and Rhetorical Politics Stuart Elden Stuart Elden Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Philosophy & Rhetoric (2005) 38 (4): 281–301. https://doi.org/10.2307/40238270 Cite Icon Cite Share Icon Share Twitter Permissions Search Site Citation Stuart Elden; Reading Logos as Speech: Heidegger, Aristotle and Rhetorical Politics. Philosophy & Rhetoric 1 January 2005; 38 (4): 281–301. doi: https://doi.org/10.2307/40238270 Download citation file: 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 Scholarly Publishing CollectivePenn State University PressPhilosophy & Rhetoric Search Advanced Search The text of this article is only available as a PDF. Copyright © 2005 The Pennsylvania State University2005The Pennsylvania State University Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

Abstract I identify three modern approaches used to theorize epideictic rhetoric and suggest that each approach has difficulty dealing with the category of presence assigned to the genre by Aristotle. Drawing on Thucydides and, through him, Pericles' funeral oration, I suggest that Jacques Derrida's funeral speeches provide a way of rethinking the epideictic genre's presence as rhetorical ethics. More specifically, I argue that the function of presence in epideictic rhetoric is to provide an ethical interruption, and that Derrida, as one of our most accomplished funeral orators, helps us clarify the category of presence as it is described in Aristotle's and Thucydides' discussions of epideictic oratory.

Abstract The rivalry between Plato and Isocrates has begun to receive scholarly attention, primarily because both Plato and Isocrates used the term philosophia to describe their occupation. However, the efforts to distinguish their respective uses and definitions of the term typically ignore the performative dimension of both Plato's and Isocrates’ writings and their relationship with other discourses of Athenian public culture. This essay argues that both Plato and Isocrates constructed the domain of philosophy by performing the speech genres constitutive of Greek cultural memory. To support this claim, I offer a reading of Plato's Menexenus and Isocrates’ Panegyricus, both of which were crafted in response to the same historical event, the Peace of Antalkidas. The essay demonstrates the distinct ways in which Plato and Isocrates appropriated generic conventions of the Athenian funeral oration and panegyric in order to construct the identity of a “philosopher” vis‐à‐vis his polis and to model the relationship between students of “philosophy” and discourses of their culture.

1 It is time for a little tutorial on ethos.A word tour, this is not, for the neighboring terms get too little attention.But even in broad outline, few words can have more telling careers than ethos, and it is under the aegis of ethos that this issue of Poroi comes together.2 Ethos was the word in ancient Greek for character.This classical kind of character is rhetorical and public rather than psychological and internal, as was character for the Victorians.Classical ethos is the standing of the speaker for the audience.Not just any old audience is at issue, but specifically a classical public, where the members take full parts in collaborating to manage the commonwealth.The classical public is oratorical, not dialogical; still the members take turns in speaking and acting at center stage.In the ancient sense, therefore, ethos is who somebody is in speech in action in public -as told by an audience experienced in many of the same politics. 1The specific identities of classical characters stay alive for their publics in stories that judge the virtues and vices while suggesting how people should act toward each other: the province of what we call ethics. 2 3 This explains how Aristotle could recognize ethos as a legitimate mode of persuasion comparable to logos as logic and pathos as mobilization of emotions. 3The ancient emphasis on virtue in character might well have made ethos as important as either logos or pathos in classical persuasion.To know from sustained interaction the character who advances some claim can be to know an enormous amount about what to make of it.4 Yet classical publics are too small and intimate for modern polities.The invention of civil society gradually turns participation away from government.It also truncates oratorical voices into electoral votes.Especially it shrinks classical ethos to modern credentials or, at most, credibility.Alasdair MacIntyre has lamented how the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries put all diverse, plural virtues into a singular template of virtue. 4That led

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

This essay interrogates the dominant conception of natural ability in classical rhetoric, the necessary-but-not-sufficient theory of aptitude. It describes articulations of this commonplace, by Quintilian and Plato, and then specifically examines Isocrates' problematic affirmation and resistance to a highly determinant version of aptitude. This essay suggests that in the context of contemporary composition studies, Isocratic ambivalence may represent a productive strategy in order to reinvigorate dormant inquiries in language, human nature, and ethics, and to contest powerful attitudes and assumptions that currently champion the primacy of natural ability over experience.

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

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

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

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

Abstract Although conventional views about nineteenth‐century rhetoric highlight a shift from oratory to composition and from classical rhetoric with origins in Cicero and Quintilian to a "new" rhetoric with origins in Campbell, Blair, and Whately (with an attendant loss of scholarship and quality), William C. Robinson's Forensic Oratory (1893) can be grouped with a growing number of works that complicate such views. Robinson continues to emphasize oratory and to derive his theory from Cicero and Quintilian, using a complex of ideas called "uniformitarianism" to justify his direct appropriation of classical ideas. The resulting rhetoric lacks neither responsible scholarship nor high quality.

Strategies of Remembrances: The Rhetorical Dimensions of National Identity Construction by M. Lane Bruner. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 2002. 176 pp. Darwinism, Design, and Public Education, edited by John Angus Campbell and Stephen C. Meyer. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University Press, 2003. 634 pp. + xxxviii. Logos and Power in Isocrates and Aristotle by Ekaterina V. Haskins. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 2004. 172 + xiii pp. Doing Our Own Thing: The Degradation of Language and Music (and Why We Should, Like, Care) by John McWhorter. Gotham Books: 2003. 276 pp. + xxiii.

This essay engages two contemporary views as to the authorial purposes of the Rhetoric. Advocates of one view maintain that Aristotle valued democracy and understood rhetoric to be a form of positive civic or democratic discourse and that the Rhetoric was written to express this view, while others suggest that Aristotle's purpose in writing the Rhetoric was to instruct members of the Academy and Lyceum in the "necessary evil" of using rhetoric to deal with the ignorant masses. In response, I demonstrate that the first view is clearly not supported by the Aristotelian texts and that the second view needs to expand the contexts within which the Rhetoric is understood to include the long and turbulent transmission and editorial history of the Aristotelian corpus before any purpose or intent can be ascribed to Aristotle without so much qualification as to make the ascription essentially meaningless.

Abstract In this essay I argue that Isocrates stands as a major figure in the early history of authorship ethics in the Western world. His writings repeatedly characterize discursive originality as a virtue and discursive unoriginality as a vice, and he defines originality as a competitive enterprise whereby one seizes the opportunity to assert something new and better about something significant. I suggest that Isocrates' own obsession for achieving originality indicates his desire for fame, fortune, and immortality, and I conclude that historians of authorship ethics benefit from being sensitive to the vocabulary used in particular periods and by particular authors.

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

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

these reflections on working group discussions held at the ARS meeting has quickly taken me back to Evanston in mid-September 2003 and to the extraordinarily productive and provocative work that got done there. I vividly remember listening as Jerzy Axer and then Jeffrey Walker sounded an emergent theme: rhetoric, they said, is a teaching tradition. I remember being surprised at this theme - in fact, I would not have predicted it, and that surprise took me even further back, to the disappointment I felt in having a proposal rejected for an ISHR meeting: awe do not accept papers on pedagogy, the letter said. The dismissal of pedagogy is not unique to ISHR, of course; MLA and NGA have also been reluctant to yield pedagogy a place at the disciplinary table. Even in the GGGG, which was founded on pedagogical concerns, a sometimes bitter conflict has sprung up between theory and practice, with those advocating for the crucial role of theory arguing that studies in composition/rhetoric will not prosper or mature unless the field gives up its attachment to practice, to pedagogy. So I was surprised at the primacy of pedagogy at the ARS conference, and I was heartened by it as well. As Mike Leff has since remarked, at ARS, all roads lead to teaching. In his essay in this issue, Jerry Hauser offers a retrospective explanation for the marginalization of pedagogy and teaching: the ancient Greek rhetorical tradition, grounded in the paedeia and on the capacitating the individual student to lead the life of an active and responsible citizen gave way to the model of the German research institution, with its emphasis on and valorization of discovering new knowledge. This is an elegant explanation, one that leads to Hauser's equally elegant peroration: capacitating students to be competent citizens is our birthright It has been ours since antiquity. Modern education has stripped us of We need to reclaim it. What became increasingly clear to me is that a second key term that animated the conference - performance - must also play a central role in any such reclamation. In retrospect, I realized that every keynote address touched not only on pedagogy but also on performance: the performance of teaching; the performance of civic duty and discourse; the performance of student speaking and writing; the performance of disciplinarity. As I listened and talked, the focus on performance and pedagogy seemed perfectly to bridge the rhetoric/composition and communication traditions to which

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

Learning about the meaning of key terms in argument can involve several valuable classroom activities that are based not on casual work in dictionary-skimming but that are founded in classical rhetorical theory. These classroom activities allow students to learn the importance of "first steps" in creating sound, effective, and responsible arguments.

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

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

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

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

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

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