Abstract The tradition of Western stylistics, initiated by Aristotle, is impregnated with the dialectics between established and unconventional usage. In the twentieth century, Bakhtin acknowledged this dynamic through his conception of the dialectical nature of language. Concepts of the plain style, many of them emanating from the United States, deviated from this dynamic. Prestigious style handbooks such as The Elements of Style and Ten Lessons in Clarity and Grace, which championed a form of the plain style based on empiricism, offered advice that undermined the dialectical, dynamic nature of language. At the same time, calls for cavalier self-expression, e.g., experimentation in Baudrillard and experimentalism in Lloyd, could not account for the great achievements of Western stylistics. A paucity of stylistic diversity led Foucault to promote “heterotopias.” Cixous proposed a three-stage model for linguistic development designed to heighten dialectical interplay between tradition and novelty. Attuned to the crisis in written expression, Kristeva stressed the need for enhancing the role of aesthetic products in contemporary life.

Abstract In eleventh century Italy, Anselm de Besate claimed rhetoric had become too technical and difficult to use. He wrote the Rhetorimachia as a controversia, applying declamatory form to a written composition, in order to illustrate rhetoric's usefulness. Nonetheless, Anselm complained that critics failed to understand this intent. Contemporary readers, unfamiliar with the declamatory tradition, have also misunderstood the intent of his controversia. Here, I compare Anselm's controversia with those found in Seneca the Elder and with the declamatory pedagogy of Quintilian, showing that Anselm was imitating a well-established tradition of educational practice as well as displaying his rhetorical artistry.

By emphasizing the negative meanings of words, ignoring variations in translations, and quoting out of context, Steven B. Katz has argued in an influential article that an “ethic of expediency … underlies technical communication and deliberative rhetoric, and by extension writing pedagogy and practice based on it.” Katz's assertion misrepresents the motive of technical communication and its pedagogy, and it brings discredit to the professions of technical communication and the teaching of technical communication. His attempt to discredit the motive of technical communication is part of a two-millennia-long contest for status between intellectuals and the working classes, and it creates unnecessary mistrust at a time in history when people must focus even more on cooperating socially in order to sustain democratic cultures and our physical environment for future generations.

Abstract In the nineteenth century, traditional paradigms for rhetoric became increasingly outmoded as industry, technology, and cultural disruptions reshaped printing practices, and rates of literacy improved, problematizing classical rhetorical and writing practices. Victorian rhetoric became fragmented as control of and access to print to disseminate attitudes and ideas became less centralized among an educated male elite. Thomas De Quincey and Margaret Oliphant illustrate ways that rhetoric was theorized and practiced in the Victorian periodical press as the terms of authorship, gender, and culture fluctuated.

Contrary to a prevailing view within rhetoric and composition circles that finds a positive view of rhetoric in the Phaedrus, I contend that Plato mockingly denounces rhetoric in the Phaedrus. To support this claim, I argue that the Phaedrus is an unmistakable response to Isocrates' Against the Sophists and needs to be understood as part of this dynamic dialogue and that in the Phaedrus Plato is distinguishing his philosophical method, as he conceives it, from Isocrates' pseudo-philosophical method (as conceived by Plato). I provide parallels between Against the Sophists and the Phaedrus and then explain the distinction between Isocrates' and Plato's respective conceptions of what the philosopher is and should do and between each writer's philosophical method.

Abstract The 1896 presidential campaign included, among many other campaign techniques, a large number of songs that praised and condemned the opposing candidates, William McKinley and William Jennings Bryan. The campaign songs, whose likely purpose was to inspire the candidates’ followers, were epideictic in tone and spirit. By presenting a rhetoric that paralleled epideictic speeches, the songs enabled the opposing candidates themselves to uphold a sense of their own decorum. The songs used values as rhetorical devices; however, the songs ‘purpose was to gain a practical political end rather than to uphold moral principles.

Our heritage] stretches back... to Athens, where in a bus y marketplace a tutor called Socrates set up the same kind of shop: open to all comers , no fees charged , offering, on whatever subject a visitor might propose, a continuous dialectic that is, finally, its own end. -Stephen North, "The Idea of a Writing Center" Recent explorations of writing center research encapsulate the often -conflicting professional demands we face as administrators. On the one hand, we acknowledge the need for research to improve our understanding of the past narratives, present effects and future possibilities of writing center work. On the other hand, our individual identifications and disciplinary ethos often rely on the notion of a writing center director whose priorities include, as Harvey Kail writes, "teaching, service, service, service, and then research-on our service" (28). Added to this already-overburdened schedule is the privileging of place in writing center studies; if each center is uniquely shaped by its context, as the common argument goes, what kinds of research can speak across these myriad locations, moving beyond what Jeanette Harris has termed the "this -is -what -we -do -at -my-writing-center" genre? ("Review" 663). In other words, both our individual professional lives and the scholarship of our field are marked by our attempts to reconcile our identification as a highly communal professional group with our allegiance to the primacy of individual context.

The project Andrea Greenbaum attempts in EmancipatoryMovements in Composition is both worthwhile and ambitious. The project is worthwhile because introducing newcomers, particularly graduate students, to the multiple disciplines that have been incorporated into critical pedagogy in the last decade can be daunting, and there is certainly room in the field for text that names and organizes them. The project is ambitious because it attempts to do this in mere one hundred pages, with additional pages devoted to an appended syllabus, notes, and citations. Greenbaum opens her book with personal narrative of the Passover story, drawing from it the lesson that human beings need to experience oppression-even if it is relived only mythically-in order to understand our social responsibility to counter and resist those forces that seek to dominate, repress, and disempower individuals (xi), setting the polemical tone she maintains through the rest of the work. She organizes the book around what she identifies as four key approaches to critical pedagogy for the writing classroom: neosophistic rhetoric, cultural studies, feminist studies, and postcolonial studies, examining each for what they offer writing teachers seeking to enact critical pedagogy in their classrooms. Her first two chapters offer brief historical development of sophistic and cultural studies approaches. Greenbaum begins with the reclamation of sophistic rhetoric, drawing particularly on Susan Jarratt, Thomas Kent, John Poulakos, Sharon Crowley, and handful of others. She proposes that this neosophistic contributes to rhetoric of possibility by drawing attention to the indeterminacy of language, an empowering shift from logos privileged in Western philosophy to mythos that invites disruptive stoof the frontier is reconstrued as collabo ative zone of cultur l and linguistic contact, a historical moment of meeting, clashing, and cooperating ulticultura encounters (66).

Focusing on the references to women and the feminine in The Second Philippic Against Antony, I argue that Cicero's female allusions open up a rhetorical space that exposes the subtle tensions within the Roman social dynamic of men and women. This historically contextualized rhetorical analysis offers a complex understanding of Roman women as both historical entities and rhetorical representations. The article illustrates the importance of understanding not only women in the rhetorical tradition but also mythical portrayals of women as an argumentative strategy. 1

Quintilian is known primarily as an advocate of a pedagogical system grounded in imitation. But in Book XII of the Institutio Oratoria, Quintilian states that he has left the work of his predecessors behind and, further, that he is offering an original contribution to the rhetorical tradition. Quintilian's claims of originality and proprietary interest throughout his texts demonstrate that he is continually announcing himself as an author, in surprisingly modern terms. This paper argues that Quintilian honors his own demand that the ideal rhetor move beyond quotation and canny arrangement of his predecessors' work.

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

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

Abstract Although scholars have acknowledged a Stoic influence on Quintilian, they have been reluctant to see Stoicism as providing the philosophical underpinnings of the Institutes. Against this scholarly hesitance, this essay argues that Stoic ideas are at the heart of Quintilian's educational program. Quintilian's ideal orator is the Stoic Wise Man with this difference: he is trained in Ciceronian eloquence. Furthermore, Quintilian's definition of oratory is based on the Stoic view of rhetoric as an essential science that enables the orator to meet the social responsibilities inherent in the Stoic ideal of the virtuous life.

Abstract Rhetorical criticism has generally considered the public memorial speech as a moment of re‐establishing societal equilibrium and unity after the disruption of death. In the case of the Worcester Firefighters Memorial Service in 1999, however, the unifying impulses of the speakers both create a public forum for the memorial service and prevent it from cohering. While the eulogists draw on ceremonial conventions of epideictic rhetoric, the line between epideictic and deliberative rhetoric blurs as the memorial speeches become the occasion of differing, divided, and uncertain claims about how the public is constituted and who has grounds to memorialize the dead. Accordingly, we argue that neither unity nor disunity has rhetorical priority, placing the burden instead on rhetorical analysis to account for the complex relations between unity and disunity.

Jasper Neel, Reclaiming Our Theoretical Heritage C. Jan Swearingen, and as a Coherent Intellectual Discipline Gary A. Olson, The Death of as an Intellectual Discipline Charles Bazerman, The Case for as a Major Discipline Susan Miller, Writing as a Mode of Inquiry Susan Wells, Claiming the Archive for and Composition Susan C. Jarratt, New Dispositions for Historical in Rhetoric Gary A. Olson, Ideological Critique in and Composition Tom Fox, Working Against the State Lynn Worsham, Coming to Terms Keith Gilyard, Holdin' It Down Steven Mailloux, From Segregated Schools to Dimpled Chads Thomas Kent, Paralogic Rhetoric Barbara Couture, Writing and Truth Victor J. Vitanza, Seeing in Third Sophistic Ways Sharon Crowley, Body in and Composition John Trimbur, Delivering the Message Cynthia L. Selfe and Richard J. Selfe, The Intelligent Work of Computers and Studies William A. Covino, The Eternal Return of Magic-Rhetoric

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

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

Abstract The pronouncements of the Delphic oracle, when employed in the Athenian boulos as guidelines for political policy, broke down traditional distinctions between myth and reason. Self and Other, and fate and agency. An examination of the public life of the Delphic oracle as recorded by rhetoricians such as Gorgias, Plato, Arisotle, and Isocrates suggests that Ancient Greek rhetoric, in praxis, resisted logical dichotomization and fostered holistic self‐fashioning via civic action. This study of the Pythias pronouncements serves as a cautionary tale for attempts to discipline rhetoric in the modern academy. It also recuperates crucial historical texts authored by women into the Greek rhetorical canon.

(2003). Review of Technical Communication, Deliberative Rhetoric, and Environmental Discourse: Connections and Directions. Technical Communication Quarterly: Vol. 12, No. 2, pp. 234-236.

Progymnasmata are collections of speaking and writing exercises for students of rhetoric. As historians have shown, they played an extremely important role in European education from Antiquity to the beginnings of the Modern Era. Unfortunately, they are treated today, if at all, as an historical curiosity, a relic of the old "school rhetoric." Occasionally, there are attempts to revive the traditional sequence. Both approaches miss what I believe is most valuable about the progymnasmata, the very idea of a unified pedagogical program in the language arts, spanning primary, secondary, and higher education, oriented toward the shaping of rhetorical character, and organized around a sequence of well-defined exercises in verbal analysis and composition.

This study investigates the practice of presenting multiple supporting examples in parallel form. The elements of parallelism and its use in argument were first illustrated by Aristotle. Although real texts may depart from the ideal form for presenting multiple examples, rhetorical theory offers a rationale for minimal, parallel presentation. The form for presenting data can also influence the way it is observed and selected, as the case of the Linnaean template for species grouping illustrates. Parallel presentation is not limited to verbal phrasing. Arranging data in tables, typical in scientific discourse, satisfies the same requirements for minimal, equivalent presentation of evidence. Arranging representational or iconic images in rows or arrays is yet another mode for the parallel presentation of evidence, although this mode has a recent history. A cognitive rationale can perhaps explain the use of parallelism to present multiple supporting examples.

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

I begin with an analogy: teaching research-based argumentation and critique in composition studies is like learning how to perform hip-hop music. My analogy's focus on argumentation does not exclude traditional methods of argumentative pedagogy based on models like Stephen Toulmin's complex hierarchies or the Aristotelian triad of deliberative (offering advice), forensic (taking a side in a debate, often a legal or controversial matter), and epideictic (a speech of praise or blame appealing to an already won-over audience) discourse. Instead, I pose the analogy as a first step towards developing alternative or additional ways to engage composition students with the argumentative essay. In choosing hip-hop as a model for the composition essay, I attempt to draw upon a dominant form of contemporary culture familiar to the majority of students I encounter in my classrooms. Does a relationship between hip-hop and com-

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

(2003). On the Trail of Ancient Rhetoric: Fieldwork of a Wandering Rhetoricin. Advances in the History of Rhetoric: Vol. 6, A Collection of Selected Papers Presented at ASHR Conferences in 2001, pp. 43-51.

Abstract The study of emotion has regained prominence in the fields of psychology and rhetoric. Despite this interest, little has been written about the art of making an emotional appeal. This essay focuses on the writing of Quintilian, in particular Book VI of his Institutes of Oratory, in an effort to describe his theory of emotional appeal, and to see whether it has relevance today. The essay presents Quintilian's theory in the form of "rules."

Homer's Iliad is an epic story about human character, which predates the Aristotelian lectures by some four hundred years. While classical scholars have always valued Aristotle's notion of ethos as a primary factor in persuasion, few have traced this concept to this earlier period. Following a close analysis of speeches in the Iliad, this examination attempts to reconstruct what Homer's theory of character might have looked like. While Aristotle seems to have understood character much differently than did Homer, enough evidence exists to suggest that Aristotle may have embraced Homer's Iliad and the story it tells about the importance of age, social convention, and the heroic.

Abstract This essay argues that the construction of the 18th and 19th century British rhetorical theories and canon was strongly influenced by the debates between Catholic (or Anglo‐Catholic) traditionalists and Protestant critics over religious hermeneutics, by examining three specific cases, the Phalaris controversy, definitions of the enthymeme, and the reception history of the Rhetorica ad Alexandrum. The major figures discussed are Richard Bentley, William Temple, John Gillies, Edward Copleston, Sydney Smith, Richard Whately, James Hessey, and William Hamilton. Notes Research for this study has been supported by many sources, including a fellowship at the Tanner Humanities Center of the University of Utah, a Rocky Mountain MLA Huntington fellowship, and a First Year Assistant Professor grant from Florida State University. An NEH Summer 2002 Seminar, "The Reform of Reason,"; which I co‐directed with Jan Swearingen, provided an opportunity to revise this essay, and I owe thanks to both the NEH and the fifteen seminar participants. I also owe thanks to several libraries, including the Bodleian Library, the British Library, Cambridge University Library, Folger Shakespeare Library, Huntington Library, Rylands Library, St. Deiniol's Library, and the ILL staffs of Montana State University and Florida State University libraries. I also would like to thank Marilyn Faulkenburg, Thomas Miller, Christopher Stray, Jan Swearingen, and Karen Whedbee for many useful comments.

or rhetoric and composition, the last decade of the twentieth century might be deemed Return of the Ancients. In many ways, contemporary scholars have taken up an earlier resurgence of the ancients, one that began decades earlier with what have since become standard historical treatments of the ancients (Kennedy, Kerferd, and Guthrie), and, perhaps most notably, in 1972, when Rosamond Kent Sprague's volume The Older Sophists made available the sophistic fragments in translation for the first time. But recent work aims to be more connective: rather than writing history for the sake of history, scholars such as Janet Atwill, Richard Enos, Susan Jarratt, John Poulakos, Takis Poulakos, Kathleen Welch, Victor Vitanza, and most recently Jeffrey Walker (Rhetoric) have reclaimed, refigured, and reread Aristotle, Isocrates, and the sophists, delineating ways in which these ancient figures might help us reframe or reconsider contemporary debates about pedagogy. The connections to feminism (arratt), cultural studies (T. Poulakos and Welch), postmodernism (Vitanza and Atwill) and the liberal arts (Atwill and Walker) have been convincing enough to spark renewed and broadened interest in how the ancients conceptualized rhetoric, how they taught, what they did. In many ways what follows is also a return to the ancients, but rather than attempt to connect the ancients to discourse already in circulation-an important task, to be sure-I want to instead explore a connection that inhered in ancient practices, a connection that isn't as apparently relevant to contemporary pedagogy, but as I will suggest just might be: that between rhetorical training and athletic training. It is important to note at the outset, as many writers have pointed out (for

This essay suggests that readers of Aristotle's Rhetoric should take a broader view than is usually applied to understanding the book. Specifically, the reader is asked to explore Aristotle's other works to identify his metarhetoric-that is, Aristotle's notion of the prior knowledges a rhetor needs to have in order to be rhetorical. The essay employs four examples from Aristotle's On Memory and Recollection to demonstrate how ideas from even one of his other books can enhance our comprehension of the Rhetoric. It concludes with a suggested plan for studying Aristotle's metarhetoric.

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

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

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

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

Reviews 303 in achieving his neosophistic goal to put ancient, sophistic rhetoric on the road to journey toward contemporary concerns (p. 58). Michelle Baliff The University of Georgia Pierre Chiron (ed.), Pseudo-Aristote, Rhétorique à Alexandre (Paris: Les Belles Lettres, Collection des Universités de France, 2002) CLXXIV + 269pp. The Rhetorica ad Alexandrian (hereafter Rhet. Ah) is one of the two major classical Greek rhetorical handbooks, the other being Aristotle's Rhetoric, and is commonly viewed as the poorer of the two works. It takes its name from the dedication at the start of the work: "Aristotle to Alexander [the Great]: Greetings". Scholars and students who have had to use Loeb edition of the Rhet. Ah, edited by H. Rackham (Aristotle Vol. XVI), published in 1937 (reprinted in 1987), or the Teubner edition of M. Fuhrmann, published in 1966, will welcome with great delight Chiron's edition. Chiron's long introduction and copious, detailed notes, in addition to text and translation, make this book a valuable scholarly resource (though anyone without a reading knowledge of French will still have to use the Loeb of course). The very long Introduction (pp. VII-CLXXIV) is practically a book in itself. Chiron covers in great detail the structure of the Rhet. Al. (pp. VII-XL), its date and authorship (pp. XL-CVII), its relationship to ancient rhetoric and the influence of ancient rhetoricians on it (pp. CVII-CLV), the manuscript tradition (CLV-CLXVII), and finally the various manuscripts of the work and editions (pp. CLXIX-CLXXIV). The date and authorship of the Rhet. Al. are controversial issues; seldom has a dedication caused so much trouble. Chiron assigns the Rhet. Al. to the period 340-300, and for stylistic and philosophical reasons rejects, rightly, the attribution to Aristotle. Chiron seems content to follow Quintilian (3.4.9), who ascribes the authorship to another of Alexander's teachers, Anaximenes of Lampsacus. This is the generally accepted author of the Rhet. Al., but even so Chiron urges caution, given that the text may well have been altered from its original composition, and is even a composite. This conclusion, not novel to be sure, comes from a very detailed analysis of the "source tradition" on the Rhet. Al. and a comparison of it with Aristotle's Rhetoric. So too does Chiron's view on the influence of the Rhetoric on the Rhet. Al. The text and translation are on pp. 2-116; Chiron follows for the most part the divisions of Bekker's text of 1881, and the apparatus criticus contains the variant readings pertinent to Chiron's text. The Rhet. Al. is not an easy work to read; it is full of technical Greek terms, descriptions of the various functions of speeches, types of examples to give, and so on. Chiron's transla­ tion is good, faithfully reproducing the Greek while not causing confusion 304 RHETORICA by being overly literal. He also inserts sub-titles to what the Rhet. Al. deals with next, which aid the reader immensely There are 761 notes at the bottom of each page of translation and in almost one hundred pages (pp. 117-201) of "Notes Complémentaires". These contain an abundance of cross-references to other ancient sources (especially identifying relevant passages in other rhetorical works which are very helpful), while references to modern liter­ ature (mostly French at that) are kept to a minimum. This is hardly the place for a detailed critique, so let me give just one example of a topic in which I have my own scholarly interest: Rhet. Al. 29 on the exordium. Chiron gives us almost fifty detailed notes, though curiously little mention is made of the Demosthenic exordia or the Budé text of the exordia edited by R. Clavaud (1974). The edition also has an index of proper names (pp. 203-205), a lengthy index of Greek terms (pp. 207-258), and a concordance of previous major texts with differing divisions: Erasmus (1539 and 1550), Bekker in the Berlin Aristotle (1881), Hammer's revision of Spengel in the Teubner (1894), and Fuhrmann's recent Teubner (pp. 259-268). Chiron cites the works of other scholars on the Rhet. Al., works that are mostly...

In De inventione Cicero defends rhetoric by presenting a myth of the progress of the human species from asocial brutes to rational and social creatures. However, as Cicero explains the corruption of rhetoric by cunning individuals moved only by private interest, his myth reveals the present situation to be every bit as divided and contentious as the mythic state of nature. His myth discovers that rhetoric cannot escape corruption. Stasis theory, however, offers the possibility of an ethical rhetorical practice. By formalizing the agonistic clash of interests as a method of invention, stasis theory transforms a source of social instability into a resource for on-going social reinvention.

The following thirteen theses expose the anthropology of the homo rhetoricus and attempt to outline a new design of philosophy for the 21st century: I. Man is a rhetorical being. - II. The general power of speech exists as a fundamental and universal phenomenon in human life world and is the necessary foundation of all artificial rhetoric. - III. Man as homo rhetoricus is the main object of a fundamental, rhetorical anthropology. - IV. The categories of classical rhetoric have a heuristic function with respect to the anthropology of the homo rhetoricus. - V. The five basic faculties of invention, disposition, elocution, memory and performance form a heuristic pattern for a fundamental, rhetorical conception of spirit (Geist). - VI. The (post-)modern existence of homo rhetoricus is dominated by the figure of irony. - VII. Ironic alterity also designates the culture in the beginning of the 21st century. - VIII. The danger of an unlimited postmodern irony consists of an infinite ironical regress. - IX. Philosophy in general is also a creation of the homo rhetoricus. - X. The rhetorical metacritique of philosophy is directed against classical metaphysics as well as against its antagonist - postmodern deconstruction. - XI. Both—the supposed evidence of dogmatic metaphysics and the neosophistical evidence of non-evidence are contingent. - XII. The rhetorical enlightenment does not aim at a pure postmodern deconstruction of philosophy but consequently reaches forward to its fundamental, rhetorical reconstruction. - XIII. A rhetorically well-informed and enlightened metaphysics represents a new and positive mode of existence of the homo rhetoricus.

Abstract Aristotle's discussion of political deliberation fixes the practice in that it implicitly addresses critiques found in the writings of earlier authors such as Aristophanes, the Old Oligarch, Thucydides, Plato and Isocrates. His perspective likewise fixes political deliberation by securing its status as the central means by which the polls is able to confront the contingent and pursue the expedient. The acceptance of argument from probability, and the disciplining of that argument into proper and improper forms, made his position in favor of political deliberation tenable. Finally, his perspective fixes political deliberation in that it stands as the latest and most thorough treatment of the subject in the classical period.

Abstract The Creek colony of Thurii, founded in southern Italy around 444, BCE, was apparently planned to be a model polis. Any reconstruction of that plan must be speculative, but the stories about Thurii suggest that its design incorporated three entities not usually linked — a democratic constitution, an orthogonal street layout, and a rhetorically‐oriented educational system. In trying to understand what these things might have had to do with one another, I examine the thought of three individuals who, sources tell us, participated in the colony: the rhêtor Pericles, who apparently instigated the project; the designer Hippodamus, who supposedly laid out its streets; and the sophist Protagoras, who reportedly wrote its laws. If indeed these three collaborated on Thurii, what they may have sought there was a “bounded”; democracy, a community of free and equal citizens, governed by open, transparent, and agonistic means but guided by an unmistakable sense of rightness, something manifest not only in the town's constitution but in its educational system and built space as well.

The classical Greek discourse on techne has much to offer technical communication teachers concerned about the relationship between theory and practice, but this potential has not yet been realized. Plato's and Aristotle's discussions about the relationship between techne and rhetoric, for example, encompass questions about the rhetorical goals of the speakedwriter and about the role of theory in teaching rhetorical art that are of continuing relevance to the modern discourse on technical communication. The aim of this article is to identify several points upon which a fruitful dialogue between ancient and modern discourses can begin. First, I supply some background on how the term techne was used up through the fourth century BCE. Then I discuss how the modern discourse on technical communication (including material from popular textbooks) both converges with and departs from Plato's and Aristotle's statements on the relationship between techne and rhetoric. Finally, I point out areas for further discussion as teachers of technical communication continue to reflect upon and refine their pedagogies.

The aim of this paper is to explore the Montaigne’s use of enargeia in three essays: “Des Cannibales,” “Des Coches” and “De Texercitation.” During the French Renaissance, enargeia remained a central means by which writers transferred living experience into language. The elaborate visual possibilities offered by enargeia, encapsulated in the writings of Quintilian, were popularised in France through the diffusion of Erasmus’s rhetorical handbook De diuplici copia verborum ac reruin. However, the sense of graphic presence and truth conveyed by Erasmus’s handbook came to be challenged through the increasing awareness of the disparity between living experience and verbal language. In his Essais, Montaigne’s awareness of the deceptive properties of visual representation allows him to explore, often playfully, the pleasures and instabilities of linguistic expression, and to gain a heightened insight into the perceptual inadequacy which characterize much human behaviour. In this way, Montaigne poignantly demonstrates the instructive nature of rhetorical theories on which he draws to illustrate his understanding of human experience.

This paper is a modern reformulation of Aristotle's concepts of topos and enthymeme and the relation between them. Briefly, a topos may be understood as a binary relation which replaces implication in the syllogism to yield an enthymeme. If a syllogism is an argument of the form, (1)If P, and P implies Q, then Q

In The Merchant of Venice Shakespeare draws on several aspects of the classical rhetorical tradition so widely studied in Renaissance England. The main characters have distinctive rhetorical styles: Launcelot and the would-be witty courtiers are rhetorically characterized by vices of language, Shylock by rhetorical questions and figures of repetition, and Portia by figures of thought. A close examination of the characters’ rhetorical traits reveals significant similarities between Shylock’s language and that of Declamation 95 in Sylvain’s The Orator, and between Portia’s forensic strategy and the classical theory of status. Written in the mid-1590s, The Merchant of Venice illustrates the very uses and abuses of rhetoric described in Henry Peacham’s revised version of The Garden of Eloquence (1593).

Abstract This essay analyzes the web of persuasion named the “knowledge enthymeme”; in the public policy debate over mandatory newborn HIV testing in the United States and especially New York. Bringing together classical rhetorical theory and Foucault's theory of the knowledge‐power loop, the essay explains how the conceptual/argumentative frame of the knowledge enthymeme helped shape the knowledge‐power relations of mandatory newborn testing in dangerous ways. Ultimately, the knowledge enthymeme blocked more responsive approaches to testing by exaggerating the beneficial effects of testing and its knowledge, ignoring the contingenices of this knowledge, and bypassing the “situated knowledges “ of the women it targets.

Reviews 101 Brian Vickers ed., English Renaissance Literary Criticism (Oxford: Clarendon, 1999) xvi + 655pp. Brian Vickers's anthology collects modern spelling selections from the most important critical statements in English between Sir Thomas Elyot's Boke named the Governonr (1531) and Thomas Hobbes's 1675 preface to his translation of Homer's Odyssey. Dryden's critical prose, much of it published before 1675, is justifiably treated as beyond the scope of a renaissance anthology. The dominant figures are Sir Thomas Wilson, George Puttenham, Sir Philip Sidney, whose Defence ofPoetry is included complete, John Hoskyns, Thomas Heywood and Ben Jonson. In comparison to the two volumes of G. Gregory Smith's Elizabethan Critical Essays (1904), which it replaces, Vickers's book includes more poetry (notably Baldwin's "Collingbourne", from the Mirrorfor Magistrates, Spenser's "October" from The Shepheardes Calendar, a scene attributed to Shakespeare in which Lodowick and Edward III discuss the writing of love poetry, and John Ford's "Elegy on John Fletcher", here printed for the first time) and more rhetoric. Vickers gives less space to Gabriel Harvey and Thomas Campion and omits Thomas Lodge, William Webbe and Thomas Nashe. Vickers's introduction insists that since literature was a form of rhetoric, English renaissance literary criticism was largely prescriptive, aiming to provide the kind of help which would be useful to writers (pp. 1-6). This enables him to put rhetoric at the centre of renaissance literary criticism and justifies his extensive selections from Wilson, Puttenham and Hoskyns (the latter two particularly illustrating the figures of speech). Vickers's excellent notes show the reliance of these English rhetorics on classical sources and also on Susenbrotus's continental Latin compilation Epitome troporum ac schematorum. He might have pointed out that both Wilson's rhetoric and Angel Day's account of the figures (15 editions between them) offer a wider diffusion for the "Englished Susenbrotus" than Puttenham, whose Arte of English Poesie, was printed only once. Vickers quotes Jonson and Wilson on the importance of ethics for lit­ erature (pp. 12-13) which he links with the fashion for epideictic (excellently illustrated among the texts he includes). Perhaps Vickers ought to acknowl­ edge that the ethical teaching of the Arcadia, whose heroes have faults which run from deceit to intended rape (and against whose impulses humanist ethical education is strikingly ineffectual), is more problematic than can be summed up as a concern to embody fully-realized images of virtue and vice (p. 13). Vickers notes the way rhetoricians took examples of the figures and tropes from Arcadia, giving examples from Puttenham and Hoskyns. He had no space for Abraham Fraunce or for Fulke Greville's ethical reading ofArca­ dia. Given his rhetorical focus, Vickers might have said more about copia and amplification, or perhaps have found space for some of the English examples of dialectical analyses of texts. Part of William Temple's analysis of Sidney's Defence would have suited his selection well. On the other hand the argu­ ment that Erasmus's encomium on marriage is the source for Shakespeare's first seventeen sonnets (pp. 32-39), which justifies the inclusion of Wilson's 102 RHETORICA translation of that declamation (pp. 93-115) is not wholly convincing. The bibliography of secondary literature (pp. 627-28) needs to be extended in a revised edition. But such cavilling is hardly to the point. Vickers's introduction is lucid, wide-ranging and masterly. His notes are superb and properly acknowledge the contributions of earlier scholars. His selection of texts is enterprising, including much that is new, as well as a judicious choice of the best that is well-known. He provides a helpful glossary and user-friendly indexes to the material. This book is as useful as Russell and Winterbottom's famous selection of Ancient Literary Criticism and when it appears in paperback teachers and students of renaissance literature will find it indispensable. Peter Mack University of Warwick Manuel López Muñoz, Fray Luis de Granada y la retórica (Almería: Universidad de Almería, 2000) 222pp. Este libro es sin duda una rigurosa y documentada monografía so­ bre la aportación de Fray Luis de Granada a la...

In the Rhetoric, Aristotle identifies “bringing-before-the-eyes” as a capacity that is crucial to metaphors because it allows rhetors to actualize actions immediately before audiences, leading those audiences to insight. Because this description suggests that metaphors activate cognitive mechanisms on the part of their listeners, “bringing-before-the-eyes” has been considered a key element within Aristotle’s theory and the nexus of that approach to metaphor and contemporary conceptual ones. Yet, no study has probed these claims to any degree. Accordingly, this paper examines Aristotle’s references to “bringing-before-the-eyes” as well as to two associated concerns, energeia / actualization and sense perception. This examination demonstrates that “bringing-before-the-eyes” is not explicitly cognitive but instead a perceptive capacity. In this, Aristotle’s theory anticipates recent approaches to language because it allows the audience to participate in the persuasive process at a level that extends its role beyond the traditional Aristotelian understanding that it is the target of emotional appeals.