Click to increase image sizeClick to decrease image size Additional informationNotes on contributorsBeth L. HewettBeth Hewett is Coeditor of the online journal Kairos: Rhetoric, Technology, Pedagogy and a consultant with the NCTE Professional Development Consultant Network. She recently coedited Technology and English Studies: Innovative Professional Paths with James A. Inman. Her current research includes online writing instruction, instant messaging, and the rhetoric of the eulogy.Christa Ehmann PowersChrista Ehmann Powers is Vice President of Education for Smarthinking, Inc., an online learning company. She recently coauthored Preparing Educators for Online Writing Instruction: Principles and Processes with Beth L. Hewett. Christa's current research focuses on online teaching and learning, empirical research methods for online settings, and distance management strategies.

Click to increase image sizeClick to decrease image size Additional informationNotes on contributorsBeth L. HewettBeth Hewett is Coeditor of the online journal Kairos: Rhetoric, Technology, Pedagogy and a consultant with the NCTE Professional Development Consultant Network. She recently coedited Technology and English Studies: Innovative Professional Paths with James A. Inman. Her current research includes online writing instruction, instant messaging, and the rhetoric of the eulogy.Christa Ehmann PowersChrista Ehmann Powers is Vice President of Education for Smarthinking, Inc., an online learning company. She recently coauthored Preparing Educators for Online Writing Instruction: Principles and Processes with Beth L. Hewett. Christa's current research focuses on online teaching and learning, empirical research methods for online settings, and distance management strategies.

Abstract This essay blends critical race theory and Eduardo Bonilla-Silva's sociological theory of color-blind racism to interrogate color-blind rhetoric. It uses the Kennedy–Nixon Presidential Debates as a site that, while illustrating the widely presumed duplicitous nature of political discourse, paradoxically romanticizes and concretizes the concepts of freedom and equality as race-neutral categories. Tracing the term "color blindness" to the Plessy Versus Ferguson case, the paper exposes the rhetorical and material limitations of legal language, from the Brown Versus the Board of Education decision to current controversies surrounding affirmative action, which advocate race neutrality rather than progressive color consciousness. Notes 1I appreciate Lorien Goodman, Steven Mailloux, Catherine Prendergast, Jacqueline Jones-Royster, and Victor Villanueva for making comments on a rough draft of this essay. I wish to especially acknowledge RR reviewers Keith Miller and Barbara Warnick for their insightful suggestions. 2Though it has been well documented that many blacks switched allegiance from the Republican Party to the Democratic Party with Franklin Roosevelt's presidency, many others remained loyal to the GOP. Of particular note here were the two preconvention meetings that the NAACP sponsored in 1960, one in Los Angeles for the Democrats and the other in Chicago for the Republicans. Of the combined 14,500 who attended these meetings, 7,500 attended the pre-Republican convention. According to Roy Wilkins, the NAACP was determined to remain nonpartisan. Aside from this, several prominent African Americans, according to Taylor Branch, wanted Democrats other than Kennedy to receive the presidential nomination. Congressman Adam Clayton Powell, for example, initially supported Lyndon Johnson. Baseball great Jackie Robinson, a Republican, supported Democrat Hubert Humphrey during the primaries. Robinson said he would support Nixon if Kennedy were nominated, and Powell, as the third Kennedy-Nixon Debate reveals, eventually made some outlandish statements in support of the Democratic frontrunner. Powell's support, if not these statements themselves, may be attributable to the bribe Powell sought and received from the Kennedy camp. See The Crisis, August-September issue of 1960 and Branch's critically acclaimed Parting the Waters. 3While Nixon alludes to Lincoln five times in his acceptance speech for the Republican nomination in July 1960, he does not invoke his name at all during the four debates. Kennedy alluded to Lincoln twice during his acceptance speech and four times during the debates. Though both men referred to how slavery supposedly fueled Lincoln's moral fervor for the Union's cause, all of the references gloss over the inequities that African Americans were experiencing during the 1960s, and only one of these references, ironically, identifies their race. Equally important, domestic freedom became a synecdoche for America's international agenda. Lincoln's larger-than-life status as a harbinger of freedom for blacks has been well researched and critiqued. For a fairly recent, provocative analysis, see Lerone Bennett's Forced into Glory: Abraham Lincoln's White Dream. 4The Republican and Democratic respective civil rights planks of 1960 are worthy of rhetorical analysis aside from this study. As might be expected, both parties appealed to the spiritual, legal, and moral implications for civil rights that the Constitution and Declaration of Independence supposedly suggest. More surprisingly, each plank condemns racial discrimination as a practice that extends beyond southern borders. Both planks also appeal to the civil rights acts of 1957 and 1960 as the foundation and impetus for racial progress. While the Democratic platform set a deadline of 1963 (an acknowledged link to the centennial of the Emancipation Proclamation) to comply with the Brown decision, the Republican platform rejects this specific timetable, believing that it would actually encourage delays in school desegregation. Under proposals to ensure voting enfranchisement, the Republican platform proposes that "completion of six primary grades in a state accredited school is conclusive evidence of literacy for voting purposes." In contrast, the Democratic platform promises to "support whatever action is necessary to eliminate literacy tests and the payment of poll taxes as requirements for voting." These passages underscore a fascinating ironic twist, for it was the Southern Democrats (Dixiecrats) who started and protected literacy tests as one way of disenfranchising black voters; yet the Republican proposal could be viewed as an appeasement to the Southern Democrats' constituency. 5The widely recognized birth date for the Sit-in Movement is February 1, 1960. Only nine days later, according to Lerone Bennett, "the movement had spread to fifteen Southern cities in five states." By March 22, "more than one thousand blacks had been arrested in sit-in demonstrations." No wonder Nixon felt compelled to say a word about this movement. Curiously, he did not say more. More curiously, Kennedy says nothing on this topic during the debates. 6Kennedy admits during this debate that he borrows the phrase "moral leader" from Franklin Roosevelt. The Democratic Platform also uses the expression. In reality, Kennedy, according to Mary Dudziak among others, would not become fully convinced about civil rights until after the Birmingham campaign of April and May 1963, and the Sixteenth Street Baptist Church bombing in September would transform him into a full-fledged moral leader. 7At the close of the fourth debate, Nixon asserted that with regard to "civil rights," the Republican Party had made "more progress in the past 8 years than in the whole 80 years before." The Republican platform, from which Nixon lifts this statement almost verbatim, specifies what "progress" Nixon may be alluding to, namely the civil rights legislation passed in 1957 and 1960. 8King had little tolerance for permutations of "liberalism" that were not radically progressive on the issue of racial justice. Two stellar examples of this posture are his speeches, "Give Us the Ballot," delivered in front of the Lincoln Memorial in 1957, and the other, "The Rising Tide of Racial Consciousness," delivered at the Golden Anniversary Conference of the National Urban League in 1960. Both speeches contain sections that challenge Northern liberals to examine their motives behind fears about achieving racial justice. See The Essential Writings and Speeches of Martin Luther King, Jr., James M. Washington, editor. Additional informationNotes on contributorsDavid G. Holmes David G. Holmes is Associate Professor of English and Blanche E. Seaver Professor in Hu-manities at Pepperdine University, where he teaches courses in rhetoric, composition, the civil rights movement, and the Harlem Renaissance. His most recent essays have appeared in College English and in the anthology Calling Cards. His research interests include epistemologies and rhetorics of racism, theories of ethos, and the civil rights movement mass meetings.

From a rhetorical perspective, Mendel’s work and its reception elicit two important questions: (a) why were Mendel’s arguments so compelling to 20th century biologists? And (b) why where they so roundly ignored by his contemporaries? The focus of this article is to examine the latter question while commenting on the former by employing several tactics for rhetorical analysis including historical, textual, and audience analyses. These analyses suggest that Mendel’s argument resembles 20th century biological arguments in its use of mathematical principles and formulae to both inform the design of experiments and support the law-like regularity of conclusions. These procedures, however, were not regarded by his audience of hybridists, botanists, cytologists, and naturalists as sufficiently persuasive or necessarily even legitimate. I will argue that had he taken a more rhetorical tact and considered the position of his audience on the legitimacy of the scope of his conclusions, his methods for making arguments, and his assumptions about heritable characters perhaps his arguments wouldn’t have fallen on deaf ears.

Many graduate creative writing programs depend on “star” faculty who have been hired more because of their professional reputation as writers than because of their commitment to teaching. As a result, such programs often fail to provide reflection on teaching that would truly serve their students. One step toward alleviating this problem is to offer undergraduate courses that enable creative writing graduate students to team-teach with regular faculty.

The assumption that black women lack a positive and respectable ethos is a historical and contemporary problem. To address the problem with ethos, I turn to Aristotle's Rhetoric to foreground an analysis of ethos. Then I examine Harriet Jacobs's slave narrative and the autobiography of Billie Holiday and Sister Souljah, respectively, to illustrate the difficulty they faced as they attempted to redefine an ethos of immorality to an ethos of respectability in their narratives. As each text demonstrates, acquiring a positive ethos becomes problematic given that a classical model such as Aristotle's excludes their lived realities and experiences as black women living in a slave and post-slavery society.

This article uses Aristotle's concept of ethos, the audience's perception of a speaker's character, to analyze a set of documents relating to a nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. This analysis shows how the features of a successful persuasive ethos remain consistent through several genres, including scientific articles, reports, and press releases. Three major elements of a persuasive ethos include discussions of the practical implications of technical information, consistent efforts to make information accessible to the public, and a forthright representation of scientific uncertainties associated with complex technical information. By incorporating these elements into their texts, technical communicators can craft more persuasive documents dealing with controversial, high-stakes issues

During the last decade we have been working, together with colleagues interested in this endeavor, on an extension of the ''standard'' pragmadialectical theory of argumentation developed by van Eemeren and Grootendorst by integrating insights from classical and modern rhetoric.This integration of rhetorical insight in a dialectical theoretical framework was motivated by our wish to improve the quality of a pragma-dialectical analysis and evaluation of argumentative discourse.The integration was brought about with the help of the introduction of the notion of ''strategic maneuvering,'' which designates the balancing act of reconciling the simultaneous pursuit of dialectical and rhetorical objectives that arguers have to perform in the conduct of argumentative discourse.Even if they are in the first place out to fulfill their dialectical obligations in the explicit or implicit exchange, they may still be expected to be aiming at realizing the rhetorical aspirations that go with entering an argument; and if they are in the first place led by their rhetorical aspirations, they still cannot ignore the dialectical obligations that they have to meet when entering an argument.These considerations concerning the ''double'' concern that arguers may be assumed to have are at the heart of our efforts to develop an extended pragma-dialectical theory.They are also the starting point for this special issue of the journal Argumentation in which authors from various theoretical backgrounds -which may be quite different from our pragma-dialectical position -offer, from their specific vantage points, their ''Perspectives on Strategic Maneuvering.''The Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research, NWO, granted us a substantial subsidy to further develop our ideas concerning strategic maneuvering in argumentative discourse, in particular by examining the strategic function of maneuvering that consists in pointing out an inconsistency in the other partyÕs position and formulating the soundness conditions applying to that way of maneuvering (research program no. 360-80-030).Apart from involving four excellent PhD students and a post-doctoral researcher in the project, this subsidy allowed us also, just as we intended, to organize a series of small-scale and clearly focused conferences dedicated to specific aspects of strategic maneuvering.At these conferences scholars of argumentation interested in any of these specific aspects could discuss their views with other interested parties and contribute in this way to the progress of our project, not in the last place by criticizing some of our points of departure and offering constructive alternatives.The first

Most rhetorical readings of Confucius's Analects have focused on his views on eloquence, reflecting an insuppressible impulse among comparative rhetoricians to match Confucian rhetoric to Greco–Roman rhetorical framework. My reading of the text argues that Confucius was more concerned about the suasory power of the multimodality of ritual symbols than narrowly verbal persuasion. To achieve the Way for restoring social unity and peace, Confucius emphasizes the ritualization of both the self and the others through studying history and performing rituals reflectively. I suggest, as the first Chinese rhetoric par excellence, the Analects shares some similar features with epideictic rhetoric.

This article attempts to demonstrate that the so-called Special Topics in Aristotle's Rhetoric are neither idia/eidē, endoxa, the traditional logos, nor pisteis as these terms are typically understood within the Aristotelian texts. After an analysis of these important technical terms, I conclude that the material in Rhetoric 1.4–15 is neither of these. Then, analyzing 1.4 as an example section, I argue that the bulk of the material in 1.4–15 is to be understood as previously independent texts, much of which was written for a non-rhetorical context, that were then inserted into a text that has become our Rhetoric by an editor who also added his own (awkward) transitions in order to try to seam these previously independent texts into a more coherent whole. This conclusion suggests that there may not have been a systematic or coherent conception of rhetoric within the Peripatetic school even as late as the first-century BCE when Andronicus edited Aristotle's texts—including the Rhetoric—into their form that has since been transmitted to us.

This article attempts to analyze the ineffable quality of ethos in a case study anout Frances Willard, contending that she succeeded with conservative middle-class audiences by invoking the ethos of the Methodist woman preacher, which she may have learned from her mentor Phoebe Palmer. Methodism encouraged women's moral activism, and Palmer, foreshadowing Willard's agenda, worked for many causes, all the while maintaining a genteel True-Womanly persona. Willard testified to Palmer's spiritual influence on her, and her speaking style also reflected Palmer's blend of intense commitment, spiritual restraint, refined appearance, sound logic, and seemingly artless eloquence. Both women's rhetoric came to seem dated in their final years, yet both left lasting legacies of social change in their communities.

Preeminent scholar David Olson opens this symposium with a reflection on the decades-long debate concerning the relationship between written and oral discourse. His essay is followed by a series of responses by leading literacy researchers, including David Bloome, Anne Haas Dyson, James Paul Gee, Martin Nystrand, Victoria Purcell-Gates, and Gordon Wells. The symposium concludes with a further essay by Professor Olson, in which he offers his reflections on these scholars’ comments and looks to the continuing conversation.

Preeminent scholar David Olson opens this symposium with a reflection on the decades-long debate concerning the relationship between written and oral discourse. His essay is followed by a series of responses by leading literacy researchers, including David Bloome, Anne Haas Dyson, James Paul Gee, Martin Nystrand, Victoria Purcell-Gates, and Gordon Wells. The symposium concludes with a further essay by Professor Olson, in which he offers his reflections on these scholars’ comments and looks to the continuing conversation.

Preeminent scholar David Olson opens this symposium with a reflection on the decades-long debate concerning the relationship between written and oral discourse. His essay is followed by a series of responses by leading literacy researchers, including David Bloome, Anne Haas Dyson, James Paul Gee, Martin Nystrand, Victoria Purcell-Gates, and Gordon Wells. The symposium concludes with a further essay by Professor Olson, in which he offers his reflections on these scholars’ comments and looks to the continuing conversation.

Preeminent scholar David Olson opens this symposium with a reflection on the decades-long debate concerning the relationship between written and oral discourse. His essay is followed by a series of responses by leading literacy researchers, including David Bloome, Anne Haas Dyson, James Paul Gee, Martin Nystrand, Victoria Purcell-Gates, and Gordon Wells. The symposium concludes with a further essay by Professor Olson, in which he offers his reflections on these scholars’ comments and looks to the continuing conversation.

Preeminent scholar David Olson opens this symposium with a reflection on the decades-long debate concerning the relationship between written and oral discourse. His essay is followed by a series of responses by leading literacy researchers, including David Bloome, Anne Haas Dyson, James Paul Gee, Martin Nystrand, Victoria Purcell-Gates, and Gordon Wells. The symposium concludes with a further essay by Professor Olson, in which he offers his reflections on these scholars’ comments and looks to the continuing conversation.

Preeminent scholar David Olson opens this symposium with a reflection on the decades-long debate concerning the relationship between written and oral discourse. His essay is followed by a series of responses by leading literacy researchers, including David Bloome, Anne Haas Dyson, James Paul Gee, Martin Nystrand, Victoria Purcell-Gates, and Gordon Wells. The symposium concludes with a further essay by Professor Olson, in which he offers his reflections on these scholars’ comments and looks to the continuing conversation.

Preeminent scholar David Olson opens this symposium with a reflection on the decades-long debate concerning the relationship between written and oral discourse. His essay is followed by a series of responses by leading literacy researchers, including David Bloome, Anne Haas Dyson, James Paul Gee, Martin Nystrand, Victoria Purcell-Gates, and Gordon Wells. The symposium concludes with a further essay by Professor Olson, in which he offers his reflections on these scholars’ comments and looks to the continuing conversation.

Preeminent scholar David Olson opens this symposium with a reflection on the decades-long debate concerning the relationship between written and oral discourse. His essay is followed by a series of responses by leading literacy researchers, including David Bloome, Anne Haas Dyson, James Paul Gee, Martin Nystrand, Victoria Purcell-Gates, and Gordon Wells. The symposium concludes with a further essay by Professor Olson, in which he offers his reflections on these scholars’ comments and looks to the continuing conversation.

The Workshop In June 2004, the Associated Colleges of the Midwest (ACM), supported by a grant from the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, sponsored an information literacy workshop for literature faculty. The workshop, attended by faculty, librarians, and instructional technologists from several of the private liberal arts colleges in the ACM consortium, provided a collegial setting for discussing best practices for information literacy instruction. Specifically, the group worked together to develop assignments that teach information literacy and literature in mutually reinforcing ways, assignments that move beyond the research paper so that information literacy forms a symbiotic relationship with the literature we teach. We discussed ways to use information literacy instruction not merely to train students in the skill set of locating relevant information for the purposes of literary studies but rather to foster in them better thinking and reading habits of mind. The assignments we present below developed out of this workshop. They reflect our commitment to approaching information literacy as a mode of critical thinking and thereby to encouraging its practice as a habit of active learning.

432 RHETORICA Rhetorica ad Herennium and what are we to make of these differences? How useful pedagogically is Cicero's approach and how innovative is his interest in prose rhythm? Overall, however, F. has provided us with a book likely to prove a turning point in the appreciation of De Oratore by modern Anglophone scholars and students of rhetoric. Armed with this introduction and the translation of May and Wisse, teachers will now be able to incorporate the text into surveys of ancient rhetoric in a convenient and accessible fashion. They will find in the dialogue stimulating views on key rhetorical issues, as well as a number of original contributions to the established tradition. And in F.'s survey they will find a first rate elucidation of them.7 Jon Hall University of Otago, New Zealand J. Axer, ed. Rhetoric of Transformation, Osrodek Badari nad Tradycj$ z Antyczn$ w Polsce i Europie Srodkowo-wschodniej, Studies and Essays 6 (Warsaw 2003). This collection of essays, most of them presented at the 13th Biennial Congress of the International Society for the History of Rhetoric held in Warsaw in 2001, was published by the Centre for Studies on the Classical Tradition in Poland and East-Central Europe, of which Axer, past president of the society, has been director since its inception in 1991. Rhetoric, Axer observes in the book's preface, is emerging as an important element in public life in regions that have been undergoing radical social and political transformations in recent years. Accordingly, several of the essays bear on developments in Poland and Ukraine; and others concern Kenya, South Africa, Spain, and post-unification Germany. There are some additional papers dealing with rhetoric as part of a liberal arts education. All of the papers save one are in English. Poland is the subject of five of the papers. Cezar Ornatowski's "Rhetor­ ical Regime in Crisis: The Rhetoric of Polish Leadership, 1980-1988" (pp. 91-106) traces shifts in the rhetoric of formal public policy speeches ("ex­ 7There are a few minor typographical errors that I list here in case they can be remedied in a paperback version (which, one hopes, will not be long in appearing): p. 110, n. 18: ius needs to be italicised; p. 155: Pro Archia 19 in one line, pro Archie 21 in the next; p. 180: dianoia needs to be italicised; p. 214: 'Cicero s speech much have created a sensation ; p. 227: period needed at the end of the paragraph before the sub-heading "Thanking the People"; p. 265: period needed after "Caesar Strabo (3.146)"; p. 271: bracket after “abasio, 45" not needed; p. 272: period needed after "(3.156-66)". On p. 230, n. 32, the speech delivered Pro Rabirio in 63 was not the Pro Rabirio Postumo but the Pro Rabirio Perduellionis Reo. Reviews 433 poses") by Polish prime ministers from Eduard Babiuch through Jaruzelski (1981) to Rakowski in 1988. What we see there, Ornatowski writes, is disengagement from classic communist discourse and a move toward a more pragmatic, less ideological mode of "democratic" socialism; and Ornatowski show this in his examination of shifts in the controlling pronouns from the ambiguous "we" to the "personal" "I." Jerzy Bartminski, in "Where Are We? A New Linguistic Conceptualization of the National Space in Polish" (pp. 107-13), examines key terms marking a cultural shift in Polish self-perception from an East-orientation to one more distinctly to the West, rehearsing a long debate on what constitutes "Central Europe" and whether to define it as at the periphery of Europe, on the one hand, or of the (former) Soviet Union, on the other. Piotr Urbanski's "blow (Not) to Speak about the End? Rhetoric of Contemporary Polish Eschatological Sermons" (pp. 140-48) calls attention to the rhetorical incompetence of much Polish preaching that betrays poor seminary training and fails to stay in touch with new theological trends. Stanislaw Obirek S.J. explains how deeply held dogmatic beliefs made real communication (dialogue) impossible as they transform theology into ideol­ ogy in "Theology Tempered by Ideology: Peter Skarga S.J. (1536-1612) and Jan Wyszenski (1545-1620)." And Tomasz Tabako attempts to track the develop­ ment...

440 RHETORICA many. Despite his enthusiastic citation of the rhetorically informed critic of eighteenth-century literature Hans-Jurgen Schings, for instance, Zammito leaves out rhetoric from his index altogether and from his list of inquiries that helped crystallize anthropology around the year 1772, namely the medi­ cal model of physiological psychology, the biological model of the animal soul, the pragmatic or conjectural model of cultural-historical theory, the literary-psychological model of the new novel including travel literature, and a philosophical model of rational psychology grounded in the quandaries of substance interaction. Indeed the 1772 date is symptomatic of a justifi­ able but selective philosophical genealogy that would ignore an important element of Odo Marquard's article on "Anthropologie" in the Historisches Wbrterbuch der Philosophic (vol. 1, Stuttgart/Basel: Schwabe, 1971, pp. 362374 ), which significantly credits the first anthropology lecture in Germany to a professional rhetorician, Gottfried Polycarp Muller (delivered in Leipzig, 1719). Meanwhile the 2005 Notre Dame conference included philosophical luminaries such as Charles Taylor and Hubert Dreyfus and a presentation on homo hermeneuticiis, but no experts on the rhetorical tradition and nothing at all on homo rhetoricus. To be fair, I should also point out that none of the essays in the Krause collection cite Zammito published just two years earlier, despite the fact that they might have done so profitably, especially when discussing Kant and Herder. Qualifications aside, I am optimistic about the larger project. If this new German strain of rhetorical anthropology continues to develop its unique focus on eighteenth-century disciplinary history and develops further its rig­ orous historical skepticism inspired by Blumenberg, that influence beyond what are now largely national and disciplinary boundaries will emerge. As the three collections reviewed here demonstrate in concert, our understand­ ing of anthropology will in certain respects remain handicapped until it does so. Finally I should underscore that rhetorical studies emerging out of the German context have long provided a powerful counterbalance to a typi­ cally French or Anglo-American perspective that would force rhetoric into dualistic models of mind/body, logos/pathos, and truth/fabrication. These three recent efforts at rhetorical anthropology must be considered in this important critical tradition. Daniel M. Gross University ofIowa L ultima parola. L analisi dei testi'. teoría e pratiehe nell'ant¡chita ^reca e latina, a cura di Giancarlo Abbamonte, Ferruccio Conti Bizzarro, Luigi Spina (Napoli: Arte Tipográfica Editrice, 2004), pp. 448. Venticinque densi contributi, dedicati alTanalisi testuale nelle teorie e nelle pratiehe antiche, vengono raccolti in un corposo volume bilingue e Reviews 441 posti irónicamente sotto 1 egida di Fuoco Pallido, il romanzo in cui Vladi­ mir Nabokov ritrasse uno zelante commentatore nell'atto d'assolvere - con sentenza quantomai perentoria - l'intera schiera d'interpreti e glossatori dell opera altrui: E probabile che il mió caro poeta non avrebbe condiviso quest affermazione, ma, nel bene come nel male, è il commentatore ad avéré l'ultima parola". Il terzo Colloquio italo-francese, coordinato da Laurent Pernot e Luigi Spina, frutto dell'ormai consolidata collaborazione tra l'Università di Napoli Federico II e l'Université de Strasbourg II Marc Bloch, si vota fin da subito alla pluralità, ail apertura, all'interrogazione spassionata sul difficile mestiere d'esegeta. Non risulta una sorpresa, allora, trovare accanto alla voce di Nabokov quella di Aristotele, alia cui Retorica spetta il compito di dettare gli intenti e i metodi del convegno e del libro che gli fa seguito: irrobustire l'accordo tra gli oratori intervenuti; persuadere il pubblico presente; sviluppare un tema prescelto (un discorso) secondo metodologie e fuochi d'interesse eterogenei (p. 7). L'Introduzione di Luigi Spina s'interroga sull'eredità greco-romana nell' ámbito dell'analisi testuale: una traccia persistente, senza dubbio, rivitalizzata peraltro dalla sempre più stringente richiesta di un "ritorno ai testi". I greci amarono esaminare i testi operando tramite l'atto del krinein e per mezzo delYexegesis. Nel primo caso metaforizzarono l'operazione interpreta­ tiva con il riferimento all'anatomia, all'individuazione delle parti di un corpo armónico; nel secondo si appellarono all'azione di portare qualcosa da una luogo ad un altro (principio fondativo, oltre che dell'esegesi, di ogni pretesa di "traduzione"). Una proposta decisamente...

436 RHETORICA disputation plainly shows. But debate—genuine debate— may seem both alien and undesirable to those whose recent histories have been marked by verbal coercion, deception, confrontation, and the exercise of mute power. "Debate" brings to mind not a means to arrive at consensus, but a zero-sum game with one winner who seeks victory "by any means necessary." That sort of "debate" is empirically real, of course; and not only in a post-dictatorship Europe or Africa. Even when consensus seems to have been attained, it is a fragile thing that more often than not deteriorates and turns into conflict. Think of the aftermath of the selection of Havel; or of the fact that it was not very long ago that the Polish parliament saw fit explicitly to forbid its members to carry firearms in the assembly chamber. I hasten to add that the actual practices of the United States Congress—or, for that matter, the British Parliament—are hardly paragons of the "civility" that is so important a part of civic virtue. So simply extolling "debate" as the preferred method of decision-making and conflict-resolution is not enough. We seem, then, to be brought to the verge of the sort of cynicism (if that is not too strong a word) that Professor Axer and his co-contributors want to purge from contemporary politics—particularly in countries that desire to put dictatorship behind them and foster democracy. We seem also to have stumbled on the old question of whether the humanities can humanize. But the answer to that question can be learned only if all of us, in good faith, do what we can to make sure that they do, even if we suspect that the answer we get may not be the one we wanted. It is to be hoped, then, that Axer and his colleagues will continue to teach and encourage us. Thomas Conley University of Illinois, Urbana JosefKopperschmidt, ed., RhetorischeAnthropologie: Studien zum Homo rhetoricus. München: Fink, 2000. 404 pp. Stefan Metzger and Wolfgang Rapp, eds., Homo inveniens: Heuristik und Anthropologie am Modell der Rhetorik (Literatur und Anthropologie 19), Tübingen: Narr, 2003. 274 pp. Peter D. Krause, ed., Rhetorik und Anthropologie (Rhetorik: Ein inter­ nationales Jahrbuch 23), Tübingen: Niemeyer, 2004. viii + 201 pp. Recent rhetorical anthropology built on the model of philosophical an­ thropology faces an inherent dilemma: what one hand wishes to deliver homo rhetoricus in terms of universal capacities, the other hand snatches away. In fact this tension shapes the three rich collections reviewed here, which in combination mark what editor extraordinaire Josef Kopperschmidt considers the real reason for current interest in rhetoric: namely its anthro­ pology (Kopperschmidt, p. 13), and especially its sophisticated treatments Reviews 437 of the whole man constituted in a culturally situated language and in the interanimation of body and mind (a long-standing strength of German scholarship and popular culture, 1 should add). After ambitiously titling his collection Rhetorische Anthropologie: Studien zum Homo rhetoricus, for instance, Kopperschmidt backpedals from the project's apparent "ontological ambi­ tions" (Kopperschmidt, pp. 22-23). Although, Kopperschmidt protests, the "homo-" formula such as "homo-faber" and "homo-ludens" might imply claims about mankind's essential nature, it does not have to. We should simply consider homo rhetoricus one useful heuristic for characterizing hu­ mankind from a particular, and in this case rhetorical, perspective (p. 22). Metzger and Rapp rightly insist that the rhetorically informed homo inveniens is a modern creature distinguished by a focus on the new and the creative (Metzger/Rapp, pp. 7-9), but they also must struggle against their essentializing rubric, as well as the contribution of someone like Peter L. Oesterreich, who has flatly argued in these two venues ("Homo rhetori­ cus (corruptus): Sieben Gesichtspunkte fundamentalrhetorischer Anthropologie ", Kopperschmidt, pp. 353-70; "Selbsterfindung: Zur rhetorischen Entstehung des Subjektes", Metzger/Rapp, pp. 45-57) and elsewhere that man is a rhetorical being ideally subject to a universal, rhetorical anthropology (Kopperschmidt, p. 355). Then the eclectic and individually interesting articles in Volume 23 of Rhetorik: Ein internationales Jahrbuch collected by Peter D. Krause under the rubric "Rhetoric and Anthropology" introduce questions of appropriate scope. Is the "rhetoric of x...

Der Aufsatz verfolgt die These, daß es um 1700 in der Rhetorikgeschichte einen Bruch gab, bei dem die traditionelle Konzeption der Rhetorik als einer ars durch die einer AffektRhetorik abgelöst wird. Die Argumentation geht dabei zurück auf Quintilians Vorstellung einer artificiosa eloquentia. Gezeigt wird, wie dieses ars-zentrierte Konzept von Rhetorik in der Frühaufklärung in eine Natur-Rhetorik überführt wird, die auf die Produktivkraft des Affekts jenseits rhetorischer Traditionen setzt. Im Ergebnis wird die Gültigkeit der antiken Theorie nachhaltig beschnitten.

The use of humorous texts in the writing class can help students improve skills in effective writing while encouraging critical thinking and an increased range in expression. In addition, because of the accessible nature of humor and the focus on purpose and audience that is necessary when writing it, students show a natural inclination toward peer review and recursive writing, with an enthusiasm that is often lacking when working with traditional texts in the writing class.

An authentic assessment embedded in a course becomes a teaching tool integral to the aims of the course, not simply a mandated test.

Often, composition teachers present public debate as if it occurs on a rhetorically level playing field, with victory going to the person who argues most logically. Real-world contestants are seldom so equal in power. We can enrich our pedagogy by studying such encounters; example: the 1263 disputation at Barcelona between Rabbi Nachmanides and Friar Paul Christian.

Early in my career I studied the history of topical invention in order to discover the basis for a distinctive, substantive, and coherent theory of rhetorical argumentation. The effort reflected the dominant academic assumptions of the time, and it proved both frustrating and instructive. Eventually, I concluded that my objective was misdirected. When theoretical coherence became the goal of topical invention (as in Boethius), the topics lost connection with rhetorical interests and applications and became part of a self-contained scholastic enterprise. But when treated more loosely as precepts that helped develop a capacity for action and performance in a particular case (as in Quintilian), the topics emerged not only as more useful but as more directly connected to the distinctive characteristics of rhetorical art. This shift in emphasis for “substance” and “theory” to “action” and “performance” corresponds to a general change in attitudes toward rhetoric that has occurred during the last three decades. This change may lead to a revisionism that extends beyond the teaching of individual courses and encourages consideration of rhetoric as a curriculum.

Abstract This essay examines several disciplinary and pedagogical assumptions behind Aristotle's centrality in the classical rhetorical canon and calls for a reconsideration of the established hierarchical relation of Aristotle to Isocrates. Notes 1. For recent works in English see, for example, Terry Papillon; Takis Poulakos; Takis Poulakos and David Depew; Robert G. Sullivan (“Eidos/Idea in Isocrates”); and Yun Lee Too. One must also mention a new two-volume translation of Isocrates' extant works by Mirhady and Too (volume 1) and Papillon (volume 2), published by the University of Texas Press. 2. See articles by Rummel, Papillon, and Sullivan (“Eidos/Idea in Isocrates”). 3. For a more elaborate version of this argument, see chapter 2 in my Logos and Power in Isocrates and Aristotle. 4. See David Depew's “The Inscription of Isocrates into Aristotle's Practical Philosophy” for a cogent explanation of Aristotle's hierarchical subordination of praxis to theoria and of techne to praxis. 5. A good example of scholarship in this vein is Andrea Nightingale's study Genres in Dialogue: Plato and the Construct of Philosophy.

ABSTRACT Though many sophists were interested in the nature and power of logos, there were strong reasons for them not to set up as teachers of the art of verbal manipulation. Whatever Aristophanes and Plato may imply, sophists would have been foolish to advertise a persuasive skill divorced from knowledge and moral authority. “Sophists without Rhetoric” Andrew Ford The aim of this chapter is to examine a particular rhetoric of socialization which has in the latter part of the twentieth century fallen from view despite its significance in Hellenic antiquity, that of Athenian law. “Legal Instruction in Classical Athens” Yun Lee Too This paper suggests a view of ancient Greek rhetoric that embraces multiple media and that emphasizes rhetorical interaction as a form of cultural reproduction through visual and spatial means, and it illustrates the importance of these elements with reference to the ancient Athenian assembly place, the Pnyx and the Greek concept of eusynoptos .

332 RHETORICA Adriano Pennacini, Forme del pensiero. Studi di retorica classica, a cura di Edoardo Bona e Gian Franco Gianotti (Alessandria: Edizioni dell'Orso, 2002), 449 pp.«The advent of Christianism in the form of Catholicism, the victory of St. Ambrosius against Symmachus in the battle for the liberty and preservation of paganism and the position of State religion that Christianism acquired in the same years, transformed the status of the Roman citizen by introduc­ ing a basic requirement consisting of being Catholic. Since the fall of the Western Roman Empire until the French and American revolutions, religion remained a decisive element for citizenship. Before the Reformation, only Catholic religion; after the Reformation, cuius regio eius religio. A perverted and perverse use of the locus of quality, completed by the locus of uniqueness and reinforced by the locus of authority, with the premise, often implicit, that Catholic religion is the only true religion, offered the basis for an abnormal developing of ethnic and cultural differences derived and founded upon re­ ligions». Con queste parole, appassionate e amare, si chiude (p. 445) Tultimo saggio contenuto nella raccolta di scritti di Adriano Pennacini, raccolta con la quale i colleghi editori, Gian Franco Gianotti e Edoardo Bona, hanno voluto testimoniare Paffetto ed in qualche modo il dispiacere, ovviamente non solo personale, in occasione delle dimissioni (anticipate) di Pennacini dal servizio attivo di professore nell'universita di Torino (cfr. Prefazione di G.F. Gianotti, Retorica classica e scienzc della eomunicazione, pp. V-IX). Il saggio di cui ho citato la conclusione, Arguments about ethnical and cultural differences in ancient and modern oratory costituiva I'opening address al Symposium on rhetoric: persuasion and power, tenutosi a Cape Town dall'll al 13 luglio 1994. Adriano Pennacini aveva appena portato a termine il biennio di presidenza (1991-1993) della International Societv for the Historv of Rheto­ ric. La raccolta di saggi costituisce, in realta solo una piccola parte del contributo culturale e civile di Pennacini, fatto non solo di studi, ma anche di pratiche, di innovazioni didattiche, di idee generose per svecchiare l'impostazione tradizionale degli studi di antichistica. La bibliografia di Pen­ nacini (pp. XI-XVI), d'altra parte, offre l'eloquente riprova di un'attivita che va dall'organizzazione di convegni e volumi sulla retorica, tra antico e modemo , alia recente traduzione italiana, con testo a fronte, note e aggiornamenti , della Institutio oratoria di Quintiliano, per i tipi di Finaudi, coordinata da Pennacini con numerosi, validi collaborator! (cfr. la recensione di G.B. Conte in «Rhetorica» 22, 2004, pp. 297-300). Il volume Forme del pensiero raccoglie 25 saggi, apparsi tra il 1955 (Cercida e il secondo cinismo, pp. 3-22) e il 1998 (il saggio citato all'inizio, apparso in Studi di retorica oggi in Italia 1997, Bologna 1998), che rappresentano la parte piu consistente degli studi—come suggerisce il sottotitolo del volume—di retorica classica. La dizione 'retorica classica' si offre in realta ad un'interpretazione estensiva. Essa comprende, infatti, sia la teoria e i suoi tecnografi (Cicerone e Quintiliano in primo luogo, ma anche Frontone, accanto all'utilissimo L'arte della parola pp. 345-388, una breve storia della retorica romana), che la rhetorica utens, per cost dire (autori Reviews 333 e generi délia produzione culturale greca e latina: Lucilio, Persio e la satira; Tibullo e l'elegia; il romanzo latino, 1 epistolografia; Bione di Boristene tra retorica e filosofía; Vitruvio tra retorica e scienza). Ma non tralascia, d'altra parte, né 1 analisi particolare délia strumentazione técnica propria délia reto­ rica, in senso direi trasversale (il locus amoenus; figure di pensiero nell'oratoria di Catone Maggiore; strutture retoriche nelle biografié svetoniane; il paté­ tico nella narrazione virgiliana del mito di Orfeo e Puso dell'apostrofe nel discorso di Didone del IV libro delPEnéide), né alcuni problemi di definizione a proposito dei testi antichi, e qui la retorica diviene strumento di comprensione délia fattura di un testo e, per converso, délia sua tradizione in età moderna, anche attraverso il ricorso alla nuova tecnología elettronica (pensó, in particolare, ai contributi Le fragment comme enchatillon, pp. 73-77; Analyse structurale et recherche computationelle, pp...

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

In preparing Suzanne Bordelon’s article for the February issue of CCC, the editorially unthinkable happened: An earlier version of her fine article replaced the final, wellrevised version as it went to the printer. In addition to my profuse apologies to Professor Bordelon, I have decided to publish the correct version of the article, delaying until September my publication of Janet Eldred’s review essay of several books on technology. The silver lining, in this instance, is a teachable moment, a rare glimpse for readers of CCC into an accountable but ultimately human (and I hope humane) editorial process: Bordelon’s article, quite good to begin with, was judged an “accept with revisions,” and she revised the article extensively and well, passing muster with a final read by one of the first reviewers and me.

Personal narrative embeds the expertise of subordinated groups in stories that seldom translate into public debate. The authors describe a community writing project in which welfare recipients used personal narratives to enter into the public record their tacit and frequently discounted knowledge. The research illustrates the difficulties and possibilities “rhetorical, emotional, and material” of constructing narratives that “cross publics.”

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

With increasing demands for online courses in all levels of higher education, a community college English instructor implements alternative methods of communication to ensure course rigor and integrity as she meets her objectives of enhanced student learning and success.