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...

Shows how an editing assignment emphasizing punctuation can help students in a first-year writing class discover new ideas and perspectives as part of the revision process. Considers a class that experimented with editing punctuation for a dual purpose--as a revision heuristic as well as for correctness. Reconsiders editing and revision assignments to take better advantage of editing’s generative powers.

Through two personalized instructional tools - usage scans and the "fix-it page" - students become more aware of their own patterns of mechanical errors, learn to locate and correct their errors, and learn to use a handbook.

344 RHETORICA in which he worked out his dramatistic poetics" (p. 105). As a set, the four chapters of Part One are the strongest of the collection in their consistent presentation and elaboration of Burke's later concept of aesthetics. Part Two collects three essays that consider Burke's work in the context of reader-response criticism, critical theory, and philosophy. Greig Hender­ son's "A Rhetoric of Form: The Early Burke and Reader-Response Criticism" considers Burke's concept of the formal relation between texts and audi­ ence expectations in the light of Wolfgang Iser's and Stanley Fish's readerresponse theories. Thomas Carmichael's "Screening Symbolicity: Kenneth Burke and Contemporary Theory" similarly examines Burke's theories in comparison with contemporary critical theory, suggesting ways in which Burke prefigured theorists like deMan and Lyotard vis a vis dramatism's antifoundationalist principles. Finally, Robert Wess's essay "Pentadic Terms and Master Tropes" examines A Grammar ofMotives's concluding chapter, "Four Master Tropes", in terms of its philosophical implications for dramatism. Part Three returns to more biographical material, but with the added emphasis of Burke's relation to religion. Wayne C. Booth's retrospective ac­ count of his correspondence with Burke emphasizes prominent religious undertones in the numerous "voices" Burke's letters often assumed. Burke's essay "Sensation, Memory, Imitation/and Story" represents Burke's strug­ gles towards the completion of the dramatistic model and, furthermore, is indicative of the religious undertones in Burke's theories. The final essay is Michael Feehan's discussion of Mary Baker Eddy, a prominent Christian Scientist, and her influence on Burke's Permanence and Change. Like Kenneth Burke in Greenwich Village, the editors of Unending Con­ versations see their collection as invoking and pluralizing "Burke's topos of the conversation" in contexts previously unvisited by Burke scholarship. As early attempts at expanding the range of application of dramatism, both texts offer useful and engaging starting points for further research. Paulo Campos The Ohio State University Peter L. Oesterreich and Thomas O. Sloane eds, Rhetorica Movet. Studies in Historical and Modern Rhetoric in Honour of Heinrich F. Plett (Leiden: Brill, 1999), pp. 545. After yielding so many scholars the chance to discuss rhetoric, Prof. Plett s dedication to the subject is gracefully acknowledged in this collection of essays, published on the occasion of his sixtieth birthday. In institutional terms his work has benefited all readers of Rhetorica: he was one of the founders of the ISHR in 1977 and served as its first Secretary General; he established the Centre for Rhetoric and Renaissance Studies at the Universitv Reviews 345 of Essen in 1989, and is an associate editor of this journal. In his own writing, such as the much-cited Rhetorik der Affekte, in the words of Thomas O. Sloane he "has welded a strong link between literary criticism and insights from the history of rhetoric". Written in English and German, Rhetorica Movet engages with the sub­ jects of three international conferences Prof. Plett organized at Essen: twothirds of it studies early modern rhetoric and poetics, with a subsidiary section on modern oratory. Some of the former contributions guide a rhetor­ ical technique smartly through an exercise programme, readying it at its classical antecedents then watching it bend and twist in a period's usage. Bernhard F. Scholz distinguishes Quintilian's view of ekphrasis as a report on the effect that a scene (not a work of art) has on the speaker's inner eye, such that the listener seems to see it too. Andrea and Peter Oesterreich examine Luther's comments on the relationship between rhetoric and dialectic. For Luther, dialectic produced faith while hope was aroused by rhetoric. Two authors take up Shakespeare's rhetoric: Wolfgang G. Muller, on the comic and persuasive uses of the enthymeme, and Peter Mack, on variants of antithesis which connect opposites structuring the last scene of The Winter's Tale. Two stylistic essays use frequency analysis on Dryden's versification (Hermann Bluhme) and mirroring structures in Spanish golden age verse (Jose Antonio Mayoral). Heiner Peters describes Sterne's explo­ ration of analogies between rhetoric and the art of fortification in Tristram Shandy. Other essays defend rhetoric. Judith Rice...

Renaissance humanists modified rather than rejected the medieval adaptation of classical rhetoric to letter writing, but they came to scorn the “barbaric” grammar of the ars dictaminis. This development followed the widespread dissemination through printing, beginning in 1471, of the Elegantiae of Lorenzo Valla and its imitators. Niccolo Perotti incorporated Valla’s approach to language in a section on epistolography of his Rudimenta grammatices, and soon letter writing and elegantiae became closely associated in textbooks. By about 1500, not only medieval writers but even humanist pioneers of an earlier generation and contemporary professionals who dared to defend established epistolary etiquette were under attack. By 1522, when Erasmus published his De conscribendis epistolis, medieval formulas had become merely comic.

Martin Camargo The Waning of Medieval Ars Dictaminis T he five essays in this special issue grew out of papers presented at the Twelfth Biennial Conference of the Inter­ national Society for the History of Rhetoric (Amsterdam, July 1999), at the session entitled "What Killed the Ars Dictaminis? and When?" four of them ably chaired by Emil Polak. That session originated in a conversation I had with Malcolm Richardson inl997, at the previous ISHR conference, in Saskatoon. We had just discov­ ered that his research on practitioners of vernacular letter writing and mine on teachers of Latin letter writing in late-medieval Eng­ land independently suggested that in England the ars dictaminis had experienced something like what paleontologists call an "extinction event" around 1470. We wondered whether the suddenness of the demise was unique to England. Beyond that, we wondered why the most widely diffused and influential variety of practical rhetoric dur­ ing the later Middle Ages, an art that was highly teachable, adaptable to almost any institutional setting, aligned with key disciplines such as grammar and the law, should have disappeared at all. Having served the communication needs of a broad range of professionals throughout Europe since the late eleventh century, had the ars dic­ taminis simply worn itself out or had new needs arisen to which it could no longer respond? With good reason, more scholarship has focused on the origins of the ars dictaminis than on its demise. It is much simpler to identify the first medieval treatise that teaches how to compose letters than to decide which letter-writing treatise is the last in that tradition. Few of the surviving ancient treatises on rhetoric provide any explicit instruction on letters: in the Latin tradition, the brief chapter on letters that concludes the Ars rhetorica of Julius Victor (fourth century AD) is virtually unique.1 While some such pedagogy clearly existed in 5 Ed. Karl Halm, Rhetores Latini Minores (Leipzig, 1863), pp. 447-48.© The International Society for the History of Rhetoric, Rhetorica, Volume XIX, Number 2 (Spring 2001). 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 1 136 RHETORICA ancient times, as it did in the early Middle Ages, the transmission of that pedagogy in textbooks, at least in the Latin West, seems to have been an invention of the late-eleventh and early twelfth centuries. By contrast, letter-writing manuals continued to be produced in great numbers through the end of the Middle Ages, throughout the Renaissance, and up to the present day Thus, to locate the "end" of the medieval tradition is to engage with all the problems attendant on drawing a clear boundary between the Middle Ages and the Renaissance. Not surprisingly, scholars of medieval and Renaissance epistolography and rhetoric disagree on the sharpness with which such a boundary can be drawn. The most influential proponent of an overlap between medieval ars dictaminis and Renaissance humanism has been Paul O. Kristeller, who argued that a disproportionate number of the early humanists made their living as practitioners and even teachers of the ars dictaminis.2 Their humanistic interests were distinct from their professional duties, and they saw no conflict between writing letters that followed the rules of dictamen in their public capacity even as they imitated the familiar letters of Cicero when writing to their fellow humanists. In a series of important articles and a recent book, Ronald Witt has done more than anyone to develop and extend Kris­ teller's insight, documenting the gradual displacement of medieval dictamen at all levels of letter writing, a process that was not com­ pleted in Italy before the end of the fifteenth century.3 Most scholars agree that medieval practices coexisted with the new learning for a long time. If medieval ars dictaminis did eventually "die", it generally did not do so in the way implied by the title of the original conference session: hence I have adapted the title of Johann Huizinga's famous book in order to describe more accurately the picture that emerges from the papers published here. In attempting to trace and explain the...

Outlines detrimental effects of word processing in the composition classroom on planning, reading, organizing, revising, error detection, and spelling and vocabulary skill development. Discusses strategies instructors can use to teach students to use the computer at each stage of the writing process in ways that encourage and develop the higher-order thinking essential to good writing.

Previous researchers have given conflicting views as to what makes a "good" research article (RA) title. In this paper, characteristic features of research article titles, including length, punctuation usage, word frequency, and preposition usage are investigated using a corpus of 600 research articles from the six journals of the IEEE Computer Society. Results show, while some of the intuitive observations made in the literature about title writing are accurate for computer science journals, other observations have ignored the effects of discipline and field variation. Subsequently, these observations are either unjustified or misleading.

128 RHETORICA not place Isocrates neatly in his category of epideictic. Again, Walker's sub­ tle argument that the Ciceronian ideal eloquence draws on the "epideictic registers" (p. 83) ignores many of Cicero's own quite dismissive remarks concerning epideictic or demonstrative oratory Others may have reservations similar to these concerning Walker's reconstruction of the enthymeme, but will find it difficult not to admire his patience in testing the concept in his readings of the archaic poets. And these observations do not diminish the value of this very ambitious and challenging book. Walker's revitalization of "epideictic" should provoke greater scrutiny of the ancient understandings of that category. His blurring the traditional boundaries separating rhetoric from poetics is both innovative and cogent. The "rhetorical poetics" he proposes will no doubt be profitably applied in the study of lyric forms from many cultures subsequent to that of archaic Greece. Richard Graff University ofMinnesota Martin Camargo ed., Medieval Rhetorics of Prose Composition: Five English "Artes Dictandi" and their Tradition, Medieval & Renaissance Texts & Studies 115, (Binghamton, NY: Center for Medieval and Early Renaissance Studies, 1995), xiv + 257 pp. In studying the history of letter-writing in the medieval culture of Eng­ land, Martin Camargo has made a pioneering achievement, the first critical editions of five treatises on epistolary composition by writers in England. Al­ though four of these works can be identified as belonging to the Late Middle Ages, they nevertheless represent a significant part of England's contribution to epistolography. Camargo's introduction, a meticulously written summary of the history of letter-writing in England from the late twelfth century to the mid-fifteenth, is a model of craftsmanship and painstaking research. Descriptions of the manuscript copies, the text, the author, and the struc­ ture and contents of the work in outline form, where appropriate, precede each text. Massive compilations of variant readings comprising the apparatus criticus and large collections of references to sources and analogues along with comments related to meaning, syntax, and vocabulary follow each text. Rearranged as footnotes throughout each edited text, the variant readings and notes would have precluded an arduous task for the reader who must constantly be turning pages. The carefully edited texts presented in chronological sequence begin with Libellus de arte dictandi rhetorice by Peter of Blois, the earliest treatise on letter-writing produced in England and found only in Cambridge University Library MS. Dd 9 38. This study should contain the last reference to the Reviews 129 uncertainty of Peter's authorship, as it has recently been shown that Peter of Blois was the author of this work. An edition of the prologue in Migne, PL. 207, cols. 1127-1128 is not mentioned. The second text is Compilacio de arte dictandi by John of Briggis, probably written in the late fourteenth century at Oxford, which survives in one copy in Bodleian Library MS. Douce 52. The next text is Formula moderni et usitati dictaminis, written c. 1390 by Thomas Marke, of which the most preferred copy is in Lincoln Cathedral Library MS. 237. Although a copy found in Newberry Library MS. 55 is described, Paul Saenger's A Catalogue of the Pre-1500 Western Manuscript Books ...(Chicago and London, 1989) pp. 96-97 is not cited. The fourth text is Modus dictandiby Thomas Sampson, who taught at Oxford in the second half of the fourteenth century. One complete copy is found in British Library MS. Royal 17 B XLVII. An omitted study is J. I. Catto and T. A. R. Evans, The History ofthe University of Oxford, II, pp. 524-526. The final text is the anonymous Regina sedens Rhetorica, found in three manuscripts, the fullest text of which is in British Library MS. Royal 10 B IX. By way of suggestion and not criticism, a more complete survey of the history of letter-writing in England should include Gervase, Abbot of Premontre, Robert Elenryson, Thomas Hoccleve, Richard Emsay, Ralph of Fresburn, John Wethamstede, John of Latro, Richard Kendale, Joseph Meddus, John Mason, and references to anonymous treatises as found, for example, in Manchester, Chetham's Library MS. Mun. A 3 130 and Oxford, Bodleian Library MS. lat. misc. f 49. This study...

This article reviews studies on Ramus amd Ramism published between 1987 and 2000 under the headings: Biographical and General Studies, Grammar, Logic, Rhetoric, Scientific, and Ramism, this latter subdivided by geographical areas. It finds that the study of Ramus is in a very healthy state, particularly through international collaboration, though there are still considerable problems for scholars in securing access to the different versions of his works. Ramus is now presented primarily as a teacher and educationalist. The debate about Ramus's "humanism" has produced new work on his classical commentaries. Attempts have been made to achieve better definitions of Ramism.

This article aims to expound the importance of a knowledge of linguistics and the theories of human language to a technical author. Linguistics is often seen as a specialised branch of language for language experts. When technical authors communicate, they do need the tools of linguistics to handle the rhetorical grammar and patterns of technical prose. The linguistic features and semanics involved in technical writing also become relevant, as is visual and graphic representation.

For many generations, writing teachers were able to turn their faces from the deep contradiction of our profession. They could teach writing, an activity whose success depends above all on the relationship between the created text and its rhetorical context, within the single and peculiar context of the classroom. They could have their students read textbooks with a few paragraphs about audience awareness and perhaps a few about defining a purpose while assigning essay after essay written for the same audience (the teacher) and the same purpose (to complete a requirement, to earn a grade). They could assign such tasks to every first-year college student in happy innocence as long as they shared the assumption upon which the universal college composition requirement is predicated: When students write school essays, they develop a set of generalizable skills-in organizing ideas, building paragraphs, controlling syntax,

RHETORICA 106 J. Stephen Russell, Chaucer and the Trivium: The Mindsong of the Canterbury Tales (Gainesville: University Press of Florida, 1998), x + 266 pp. Although he acknowledges the veil of time hiding the exact nature and extent of Chaucer's education from us, J. Stephen Russell argues that the curriculum of late medieval grammar schools, the trivium (grammar, dialectic, rhetoric), thoroughly influenced and shaped die Canterbury Tales. Establishing his key assumptions early on, Russell claims that Chaucer usually relied on accessus, florilegia, and other scribally-mediated collections of classical and medieval authors rather than full texts, and consequently that Chaucer's citations of specific auctores, texts, and terms does not prove that he knew them well. Russell assumes the grammar school curriculum was Chaucer's only formal education and objects to some current, grander claims about Chaucer's knowledge of philosophy or theology. Chaucer, for example, "may have known Ralph Strode, but Strode did not teach Chaucer the Summa Logicae over dessert" (p. 8). Such claims raise questions about what limits we might want or need to place on Chaucer's capabilities, and they raise questions about how extensively we can argue for a culture's ability to write itself into individual texts. Russell does not, however, explore these issues; instead, he focuses on the trivium specifically and explores ways it shapes the Canterbury Tales. The primary value of his study is to reassert the crucial importance of medieval rhetoric and literacy studies for any reading of Chaucer. Russell provides an overview of the trivium in his first chapter, "A Medieval Education and Its Implications". Grounded in Latin grammar and readings, the curriculum taught children a "subliminal lesson that Latin was purity and precision, the vernacular chaos and compromise" (p. 11). Elements of the school curriculum that addressed dialectic or logic posited a basic model of human cognition: the agens intellectus "recognizes" objects perceived through the senses; the intellectus passivus "cogitates" on those objects. Students learned that a universal, "mental" language exists that is capable of perceiving truth but that our Reviews 107 language of actual communication in the world, "natural" language, is always inadequate and inferior to ideas. (Here some might object to Russell's simplifications of the models or to his use of more obscure semanticists like the Modistae.) In this chapter, Russell stresses the importance of the Tree of Porphyry, Aristotle's Categories, and supposition theory; together, these created taxonomies and produced particular kinds of thought patterns in students. Russell subsequently traces the influence of this curriculum on Chaucer's work, preferring to locate ré­ inscriptions rather than refusals of these models. In the General Prologue, Chaucer the pilgrim-narrator uses the Aristotle's ten categories as the groundwork for his observations. Beginning with a careful study of Chaucer's grammar, Russell develops a brilliant explication of the conceptual structure of the General Prologue: "each successive verbal act, each step in the dance of predication, involves the ubiquitous decision Quid est? and the answer to that question, Chaucer knew, is always a pas de deux between the object and the predicator, the other and the self" (p. 96). As the Chaucer the observant pilgrim "falls" into language, negotiating tensions between ideal human types and the rather motley crew before him, he cannot sustain Aristotelian formality. His own passions begin to show, and a "slippage" occurs "from natural and accidental supposition to confused determinate supposition, reflecting the narrator's fall from objectivity and reportorial responsibility" (p. 95). For Russell the Knight's Tale focuses on issues of definition, the Man of Law's Tale on "words as commerce, apostrophe (or right coinage) and...God's jurisdiction" (p. 137). The Clerk's Tale offers Russell the opportunity to explore metaphors (i.e., Walter as "the fallen creator", Griselda as a Christ-figure), rhetorical features of narrative, and the epilogue (where the Clerk explicates his own tale). For Russell, the tale is, finally, "an abstraction, a meditation on linguistic, logical, and theological arts that is almost", but not quite "abducted from complications of authorship" (p. 173). Russell does much to establish that the Canterbury Tales "explodes into life thanks to the lessons of grammar, rhetoric, and logic" (p. 202), although...

Like many in our field, I rose up “through the ranks” to my present position as a director of the Writing Center at a small, private college of pharmacy and health sciences. My career path started while I was pursuing an M.A. in English, where I tutored in the university’s Writing Center. Then, when I was back in school to complete a doctorate in education, I once again was given the opportunity to tutor in the university’s Writing Center, and, eventually, to study that Center as the subject of my dissertation. I graduated in the spring of 1996, and by the fall of that year I was hired by my current college to start its Writing Center. Four years later, I am a faculty member in the School of Arts and Sciences and hold administrative responsibility for the entire writing program, as well as for a new initiative on first-year student experience. What a smooth path that narrative above seems to indicate, a path of increasing professional opportunities, from “novice” to “expert,” from tutor to director, from student to faculty member, a “transformation” of sorts that is easily the script that we would write for many in our field. But here is another way of telling that story: My first writing center job came during my second semester of pursuing an M.A. in English/Creative Writing and a high school teaching credential. I would have preferred to be a TA and teach composition in the classroom, but most of my fellow graduate students were experienced teachers and gained the coveted TA positions. Instead, I tutored in the university’s Writing Center for $7 per hour, a rate that did not change in the three years that I worked there. I worked primarily with basic writing students, who came to the Writing Center as a course requirement and who were made to sift through a grammar/usage workbook, completing exercises on modals and subject/verb agreement and nouns and antecedents (which still happens, though now these exercises are computer Sherwood, Steve. “How to Survive the Hard Times.” The Writing Lab Newsletter 17.10 (1993): 4-8.

This study attempts to show how the purpose of three types of business and technical documents (instructions, annual reports, and sales promotional letters) affects the syntactical and rhetorical choices authors make in writing these documents. While the results of the examination rendered some predictable results, there were some surprises in the absence of many rhetorical schemes in sales promotional letters. Another value of this study is that it provides partial syntactical and rhetorical “fingerprints” of three important documents in business and technical writing to offer students norms they can go by in constructing such documents.

Traditionally, has played a central role in how classical rhetoric defines, conducts, and structures both its subject matter and its methods.' The subjects of [rhetorical] deliberation, writes Aristotle, such as seem to present us with alternative possibilities (1357a). These alterative possibilities, structured as opposites, precede-as well as proceed from-the study of rhetoric. For example, stasis theory assumes that people find themselves opposed, actually or potentially, to other people in their interests, desires, and motives and that they require the means, or method, to clarify this opposition even as they seek to move beyond it toward consensus. To provide these means, stasis theory posits a heuristic set of categories-of Being, Quantity, Quality, Place, for example-designed to help disputants identify and evaluate the issues in any given case, chiefly by establishing the relative merit of the oppositions underpinning the contested issues: Only those cases whose points of conflict are sufficiently clear-i.e., are well formulated and resting on sufficiently common grounds-should go forward for debate and adjudication. Equally, opposition plays a key role in structuring the canons of rhetoric and, consequently, in structuring rhetoric as both a theoretical and a practical art. Within the canon of inventio, for example, we find appeals to the advantageous paired with the disadvantageous, possibility with impossibility, guilt with innocence, praise with blame; within dispositio, we find confirmatio paired with refutatio; within elocutio, we find a whole range of figures-from epanalepsis to antimetabole to isocolon-capable of pairing terms into stylistic antitheses; and, finally, within memoria and actiopronuntiatio, we find a spectrum of normative terms marked, at either extreme, by pairs such as natural and artificial, open and closed, high and low, and the like. Clearly, opposition is one of the key terms, if not a governing principle, of classical rhetorical theory and practice. But what of its role in contemporary rhetorical theory? In the critical analysis of visual, rather than verbal or written, texts? In images that seek identification rather than overt persuasion?

Reviews 341 Quentin Skinner, Reason and Rhetoric in the Philosophy of Hobbes, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996) xvi + 477 pp. More than one historian has criticized the "history of ideas" approach: too many ideas and not enough history. Over the past twenty years, Quentin Skinner, along with fellow historians John Dunn and J. G. A. Pocock, has attempted to correct this methodological bias by developing a contextualist approach to history. The result has been a new approach to the history of ideas and a growing body of scholarship that foregrounds rhetoric as both an intellectual tradition and as a method by which to study ideas in history. In his first major work, the two volume The Foundations of Modern Political Thought, (1978), Skinner began his analysis with an account of how the study of rhetoric in the Italian universities gave rise to the Republican civic ideology that would be so important in the political and religious revolutions in Europe (and America) between 1500 and 1800. In his latest book, Reason and Rhetoric in the Philosophy of Hobbes, Skinner continues these inquiries and proposes a revisionist reading of Hobbes's civic and moral philosophy; one that positions it squarely within the humanist tradition of education in Renaissance England. Historians have previously understood Hobbes's intellectual development as paralleling the larger shift from humanism to science in seventeenth century European intellectual culture. Hobbes's earlier works, including his translations of Thucydides's Histories (1629) and his abridgment of Aristotle's Art of Rhetoric (1637), evidence his humanist phase. However, like Descartes and other philosophers looking for epistemological certainty in the seventeenth century, Hobbes loses faith in the humanistic rhetorical training of his youth and applies geometrical models to moral reasoning in his Elements ofLaw and De Give, both published in the early 1640s. Skinner argues that beginning about 1650, however, Hobbes began to doubt the possibility of constructing a science of virtue and vice. Contemplating the Leviathan, Hobbes began to ask himself, "If the findings of civil science possess no inherent power to convince, how can we hope to empower them?" (p. 351). This was, of course, the same question that 342 RHETORICA classical and Renaissance rhetoricians had addressed. Hobbes found the answer to this question, Skinner contends, in rhetoricians such as Cicero and Quintilian who had argued that the dictates of ratio, or demonstrative moral reasoning, needed to be empowered by the "moving force of eloquentia" (p. 351). Thus, in the Leviathan (1651) Hobbes returned to the humanist training of his youth, arguing that eloquence is an indispensable partner to reason in the maintenance of the commonwealth. Skinner divides his book into two parts: "Classical Eloquence in Renaissance England" and "Hobbes and the Idea of a Civil Science." The first part, which can stand on its own, exhaustively reconstructs the place of classical rhetoric in the Tudor education of Hobbes's youth. The second part situates the development of Hobbes's philosophical thought in the educational context of English humanism delineated in the first part, examining Hobbes's initial enthusiasm for, later rejection of, and ultimate return to both the values and strategies of humanist rhetoric. Even if historians are not as interested in the second half of the book, Skinner has provided a great service to those interested in both classical and Renaissance rhetoric by surveying "the teaching of rhetoric in the grammar schools...and more broadly the place of the ars rhetorica in Tudor political argument" (p. 211). Historians of rhetoric in all periods will also be interested in Skinner's historiographical approach. Along with Pocock and Dunn, Skinner's work defines a specific approach to the history of ideas, known as "Cambridge contextualism," which he summarizes as "trying to place [historical] texts within [historical] contexts...to identify what their authors were doing in writing them" (p. 7). Following the lead of Ludwig Wittengenstein and later speech act theorists like John Austin, Skinner and other Cambridge contextualists separate the locutionary (propositional) and illocutionary (rhetorical) dimensions of language. They argue that to situate a text in context and understand its historical meaning, historians need to examine not only the sense and reference of words—what the author is saying—but...

RHETORICA 338 for most individual readers. I am happy to report that the International Sales Manager of Brill subsequently wrote to me to say that, as a result of my review, the cost of those books was being reduced to 90.00 dollars each. DK is still expensive, but much less so than these others were; and where a bilingual edition is involved, it is understandable that overhead costs would be higher. And, once the purchase is made, the reader may luxuriate in the sumptuous quality of a Brill edition. JOHN T. KIRBY Purdue University Vivian Salmon, Language and Society in Early Modern England (The Netherlands: John Benjamins, 1996) 276 pp. The twelve essays reprinted in this collection demonstrate a variety of approaches to, and treatments of, the topics of language and society in Early Modern England. The subjects range from language concerns of the sixteenth-century England, to the development of female rhetoric by figures such as Bathsua Makin, to the discussion of the actual use of language in a specific socio­ political context, such as the early Anglican church. Although Salmon writes from a linguist's perspective, her well-researched material allows the reader to place rhetoric within a broader context. Her descriptions of historical figures and their contributions are well defined, especially in relation to their connections to logic, rhetoric, and grammar. She includes social, historical, religious, and political details that influenced linguistics and rhetoric. Her theory is balanced nicely with concrete examples, such as enhancing foreign language instruction by the rhetorical considerations of gesture and tone. Salmon looks at the connection between pronunciation and rhetoric, claiming that "sounds changed in accordance with certain figures of rhetoric, for example, prosthesis, apharaesis, epenthesis, and syncope" (p. 8). Other figures, she notes, cautiously retain the classification of sound changes by reference Reviews 339 to rhetorical figures" (p. 8). She also examines challenging issues in translating the Bible, teaching the native tongue to foreigners, and finding the Adamic language. In chapter one Salmon emphasizes the rhetorical elements of syntax. She discusses the seventeenth-century belief that meaning is a nonverbal concept in the mind. Some elements of that concept might remain unexpressed in speech, or even actively "suppressed". Priscian used the term "subaudiri" to refer to sentence elements that are "understood" but not spoken; Salmon notes that traditional rhetoric came to terms with this view by distinguishing between simple and rhetorical syntax, a distinction that was familiar to seventeenth-century scholarship (p. 17). Salmon traces this rhetorical concern with syntax through Gill, Wilkins, Linacre, Sanctius, Lancelot, Cooper, Lane, and Harris. Salmon spends several chapters focusing on the power of words. Chapter three is constructed on three main points: the natural or conventional origin of words (Platonic/Aristolian debate, Socrates, and Hermogenes); the status and power of words; and the meaning of translation, especially when translating the Holy Scriptures. Chapter four talks about language properly to be employed in the liturgy and sacred books of the church. More specifically, Salmon mentions the developments of two kinds of sermons: the "typical Protestant type of Hugh Latimer and Laurence Chaderton that was plain and colloquial" (. 94); the other type was "typical of High Church divines influenced by the rhetorical style of much of sixteenth-century poetry and prose, and in the seventeenth century in the witty and metaphysical style of John Donne, directed at more sophisticated hearers" (pp. 94-95). In chapter five Salmon notes that some seventeenth-century authors like Wilkins argued for a plain writing style because congregations had difficulty understanding the highly rhetorical style adopted by Anglican preachers in the later sixteenth century (p. 103). Bedell was also convinced that his Protestant congregation got lost in the incomprehensible vernacular and the use of rhetorical and ambiguous language (p. 101). Of significance to rhetoricians is chapter six, "Wh- and Yes/No Questions: Charles Butler's Grammar (1633)". Butler's work influenced eighteenth-century rhetorical grammarians like 340 RHETORICA John Walker (1785) who in turn influenced the training of elocutionists. Salmon observes that previous grammarians placed "question" in a section on syntax, but that Butler was the first scholar to place "question" in a chapter on punctuation where he looked at "tone...

Offers four brief descriptions from composition/writing teachers of class activities that work well for them, addressing using a grocery list to help students understand why audience awareness is important; using group work to help students analyze literature; having students define and describe good writing; and helping students with specified punctuation and sentence patterns.

In the Christian society and culture of England before the Norman Conquest literary education was centred on grammar. The extant texts reflect an educational system which by no means neglected rhetorical education—but the classical ars bene dicendi was apparently basically unknown. Anglo-Saxon England thus provides a test case for the continuation and elaboration of alternatives for classical rhetorical teaching. It is argued that, besides the influence of pedagogical considerations and Germanic poetical devices, the background of Anglo-Saxon rhetorical strategies is to be sought in an extended grammatical curriculum. Instruction in the praeexercitamina may have been included in this curriculum. The figures and tropes contained in the grammars for the purpose of text interpretation were certainly studied, and they were also employed in the production of literature. Of utmost importance was the creative use of rhetorical techniques which were deduced from model texts by way of grammatical enarratio.

A structural analysis of an explanatory text written by a 12-year-old pupil is discussed to demonstrate how the PISA technique (the Procedures for Incremental Structural Analysis; Sanders & Van Wijk, 1996a) may contribute to the understanding of conceptual processes in writing. First, the validity of PISA is supported by showing that the hierarchical text structure corresponds with the (idiosyncratic) punctuation conventions of the writer. Then, it is explained how the writer's strategies and procedures can be reconstructed from the text structure. Evidence for the validity of these inferred cognitive plans is obtained from the distribution within the text of spelling errors, language errors, and self-corrections. Finally, the generalizability of these results is discussed together with the desirability of combining this off-line method with on-line techniques such as pause measurements.

The cultural informant role as sketched by Judith Powers, in her article “Rethinking Writing Center Conferencing Strategies for the ESL Writer,” was warmly received in our writing center when I introduced it shortly after her article appeared in 1993. With ESL students comprising a steady 30% to 40% of our clients, we had had plenty of experience with feeling not only the inadequacy of nondirective tutoring for meeting the needs of non-native writers but also the uneasiness of sessions that strayed from that approach, by then synonymous with effective one-toone work (Brooks 1; Ashton-Jones 31-33; Shamoon and Burns 135-36). The cultural informant role endorsed by Powers gives writing center tutors flexibility for meeting specific needs of ESL students not met by the nondirective writing center ideal. With their many cultural, rhetorical, and linguistic differences, ESL students often lack the knowledge to engage in the question-and-answer approach to problem-solving used in most writing centers (Powers 40-41). And the read-aloud method for discovering sentence-level errors, frequently productive for native speakers, provides little help to ESL students who lack the ear to hear their own errors (Powers 41-42). The value of the cultural informant role, then, is that it validates sharing information about English that these students have no way of knowing on their own. Yet after several semesters of basking in this more flexible approach, many of us on the staff, including graduate assistants in both English and Linguistics as well as practicum students, began to feel that too often this role, at least when sentence-level errors were concerned, tended to translate into the tutor editing and the student observing. Katherine Purcell, in her recent article “Making Sense of Meaning: ESL 6 The Writing Center Journal

Investigates, in a longitudinal study, the spelling development of young deaf children in the context of an integrated process writing classroom. Identifies/categorizes the spelling strategies employed by deaf writers as print-based, speech-based, and sign-based. Provides insights into the nature of cognitive processes in the deaf child.

The role of literary and rhetorical tropes in scientific discourse is frequently overlooked, largely because “rhetoric” and “science” seem to be incompatible modes of expression. However, if we look closely at scientific explanations—especially those designed to inform a general public—we find that they are as reliant on, if not more so, than more “subjective” forms of public discourse. In A Grammar of Motive, Kenneth Burke posits that all forms of discourse rely heavily on the “four master tropes” of metaphor, metonymy, synecdoche, and irony to express ideas, and science is not an exception. This article outlines the processes behind the four master tropes and demonstrates instances where these tropes occur in the expression of scientific concepts found in such fields as biology, physics, and even mathematics. The purpose is to show that, contrary to what many members of the scientific (and lay) community suppose, rhetorical and literary tropes are necessary components to a linguistic understanding of complex scientific concepts; that such tropes do not hinder our understanding, but are in fact necessary to it.

This article shows how an apparently minor innovation, special highlighting to indicate that a term represents an artifact of the user interface, has implications for sentence grammar. In short, the highlighting increases the semantic complexity of the sentence in which it appears, and unless the highlighting is used with the utmost care problems can arise in interpretation.

Revising instructions for clients of health care facilities provides students with valuable practice in good technical communication techniques: organizing information for maximum accessibility, analyzing the audience's needs, using formatting and graphics to enhance communication, and clarifying sentence structure and diction. Suitable for both individual and team work, the project offers experience in both revising instructions for a lay audience and writing persuasively. It also emphasizes the accountability of technical writers to the users of their documents.

Presents eight separate short descriptions of teaching tips or classroom activities for composition classes submitted by teachers, including tips on writing exchanges, grammar problems, peer evaluation, revision, mock quizzes, critical thinking regarding television news, computer–assisted commenting, and an educational and entertaining end–of–term review activity period.

Commentary: English composition as we know it began in the early nineteenth century...but why is that important? Why would we care about poorly educated grammar school pedagogues—our distant colleagues!—fingers aching with cold as they parsed sentences, heard recitations, and fed the wood stove during those long wintery terms? Very simply, because their lives, practices, and less frequently, their writings give us back ourselves. Our own problems in teaching writing have recurrently presented themselves in forms that nineteenth-century teachers easily would have recognized. Like them, we sense the ongoing need for hard basics, the primitive core of our profession. Yet like those early teachers, we also dwell within a “reform tradition” that stresses the importance of students' interests and experience and continues to see the writing task as based on what used to be called “synthetic” insights and “self-active” learning. Inspired partly by romantic educational theories from the continent, this tradition grew out of the social and educational reforms of the 1830s and 1840s and provided the basis for the early progressive teaching of the 1890s. Prominent during the 1930s, and reasserting itself powerfully in the 1960s and 1990s, this student-centered approach manifests the continuing vitality of the enlightenment ideas and values and the romantic individualism that first gave it life.

Reviews 333 L'inventaire final, plus large que la matière traitée (il englobe même les"histoires" qui ne servent pas d'exemples) complète admirablement l'exposé, en trois étapes: les exemples sont d'abord classés, selon l'ordre traditionnel des oeuvres de Grégoire, avec tous les critères de nature rhétorique exploités dans les deux premières parties; une deuxième liste suit l'ordre alphabétique, en distinguant matériau biblique et matériau "païen"; une troisième obéit à l'ordre traditionnel de la Bible. Un livre majeur, donc, sur l'oeuvre de Grégoire de Nazianze, et un livre exemplaire, pour des enquêtes analogues sur d'autres auteurs. Alain Le Boulluec Transmundus, Introductiones dictandi, ed. and trans. Ann Dalzell (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 1995) x + 254 pp. Considering how few among the hundreds of medieval arts of letter writing have been printed at all, the appearance of such a text in a critical edition is in itself an important event. Ann Dalzell's edition of Transmundus' Introductiones dictandi is especially significant because it is the first edition of an ars dictandi to be accompanied by a modern English translation of the Latin text. As Dalzell points out, the treatise merits editing and translating for several reasons: (1) it provides a comprehensive introduction to the ars dictaminis, (2) its use of classical rhetoric illuminates the "state of classical learning in the late twelfth century and contemporary attitudes toward it," and (3) its author's service as protonotary of the paper chancery invests its contents with unusual authority (pp. ix-x). An additional attraction is that the treatise is presented in the form of a letter and frequently observes the rules for the Roman cursus and the other precepts of style that it teaches. Like Geoffrey of Vinsauf's Poetria nova, with which it is exactly contemporary, the Introductiones dictandi is at once about the art of letter writing (de arte) and an example of that art (ex arte). 334 RHETORICA Dalzell provides a substantial introduction in which she treats under separate headings the life of Transmundus, as well as the composition, the sources, the style and syntax, the manuscripts, the editing, and the translating of the Introductiones dictandi. Like the equally full commentary that follows the edition and translation, the introduction not only provides the essential information about the text being edited but also about its generic context. In fact, the comprehensiveness of the text itself, the richness of the commentary, and the presence of a translation combine to make Dalzell's book an ideal introduction to the genre of the ars dictandi for advanced students of rhetoric. Among the most important scholarly contributions of the introduction is its precise description of the treatise's complex transmission. According to Dalzell, two versions of the introductiones dictandi survive. The earlier version is preserved in four copies, each of which differs from the others in significant ways. Dalzell believes that this version was composed while Transmundus was still at the papal chancery, possibly as early as the 1180s, and was subsequently revised at Clairvaux, after Transmundus had joined the monastic community there. Sometime after 1206 but still early in the thirteenth century, a second version was produced by Transmundus or someone else, probably at Clairvaux. This later, revised and expanded version is preserved in at least twelve copies, which exhibit greater consistency among themselves than do the copies of the first version. Although Version II almost certainly contains material not contributed by Transmundus, it is the version of the treatise that was most widely used and hence is the one edited and translated by Dalzell. To illustrate the relationships among the four copies of Version I and between Versions I and II, she also edits and translates the initial treatment of Style (appositio) from each copy of Version I in an appendix. Version II of the Introductiones dictandi, Dalzell further shows, is itself divided into an elementary course and an advanced course. The elementary course (sections 1-11, in her edition) sketches the basic rules on epistolary style and the parts of a letter; the advanced course is...

Reviews 339 preachers' macaronic compositions, recently well-documented by Siegfried Wenzel. All ingeniously augment the means of sharing Christian wisdom among the laity. Georgiana Donavin Ashraf H. A. Rushdy, The Empty Garden: the Subject of Late Milton (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1992) xvii + 515 pp. Sharon Achinstein Milton and the Revolutionary Reader (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1994) xv + 272 pp. Hardly any student of modem American politics would fail to agree that the mass media—specifically television—play a key role in structuring political discourse. Whether or not individual politicians and their media representatives actually formally study mass communication, all know the forms, demands, and constraints of television. Failure to master the medium usually results in failure to win an election or carry the day in a discussion of public policy. Further, the medium creates a series of expectations in viewers, expectations that must be met or consciously manipulated and subverted by any political writer or speaker. Now, imagine reading a scholarly book on modem political discourse that may mention television but does not examine its characteristics as a medium or the viewing habits or demographics of the audience, and yet claims to study "media". Such is frequently the situation in current studies of the literature, politics, and political discourse of seventeenth-century England. The word "rhetoric" often appears in titles, and indeed in authors' arguments, but, on inspection, a reader hoping to find discussion of the ars bene dicendi as an epistemic approach to structuring political language will be disappointed. Too often "rhetoric" simply becomes a synonym for "language" or "trope", rather than a means of inquiry into the workings of argument. 340 RHETORICA The reasons for scholarly attention to political language in the period are manifest. The century claims what for many historians is the first modern revolution, complete with a nascent public sphere, people beginning to perceive themselves as public actors, and, most importantly, a free press that empowered both. It claims many writers engaged in pamphleteering who at any time would rank with the best in the language, from William Prynne and John Lilbume to Thomas Hobbes and John Milton. Milton's stature as a poet guarantees attention to his political prose and to the politics of his great poems. Moreover, without question, the educational practice of the century, beginning in the grammar school, was relentlessly rhetorical. Rhetoric thus saturated seventeenth-century writers and readers as much as television does the modern political nation. The period is thus ripe for rhetorical analysis. I examine here two recent exemplars of Milton studies that illustrate the gulf between "rhetorical study" and knowledge of rhetoric that pervades current seventeenth-century scholarship. Both books have been extensively, and largely favorably, reviewed in reputable journals. One received the James Holly Hanford Award from the Milton Society of America as the best book on Milton published in 1994. Both are learned and engaging, and both offer valuable insights into Milton's work. But the arguments of both are compromised by the writers' apparent unfamiliarity with the entire field of the history of rhetoric. In one case, the author's knowledge of rhetoric is limited; in the other, the author lacks any comprehension of rhetorical theory, principle, or practice. My purpose here is to highlight the ways in which this blind spot affects the theses of these two otherwise powerful books, and to call attention to two recent studies of other periods that admirably achieve, through their grasp of rhetoric, what the Miltonists attempt. In The Empty Garden, Ashraf H. A. Rushdy offers a study of the Jesus of Paradise Regained as founder of a religious culture that offers a "new way of knowing and a new way of being" (xi) through self-knowledge gained by "reading", broadly defined as interpreting both the written word and the "text" of the world. Through his creation of Jesus, and his contrast of that Jesus to the Samson of the companion work Samson Agonistes, Milton becomes Reviews 341 a powerful cultural critic, ultimately arguing that the relationship between self-knowledge and self-representation may best be negotiated through politics. As Rushdy makes abundantly clear in his first chapter, "'Confronting the Subject: The Art of...

RHETORICA 346 parliamentarians' polemical methods new? How was the "revolutionary reader" an improvement on the grammar-schooltrained reader? Was there ultimately such a creature as a "revolutionary reader"? For a student of the history of seventeenth-century rhetoric, the most striking irony of these two books is the way in which they embody the great divide in perception that, as Richard Lanham has recently reminded us, occurred with the advent of Ramism. Despite the paucity of his rhetorical discussion, Rushdy's assumptions about the epistemic nature of the rhetorical self are profoundly humanistic, Achinstein's limiting of "rhetoric" to tropes, figures, and entertainment, supremely Ramist. In an age that demands critical self-consciousness, it is appropriate to expect that scholars of seventeenth-century "rhetoric" examine their own understanding of the term, and bring to their work an awareness not merely of current theoretical trends but of the theory and practice that pervaded their subjects' world. For this kind of study, models abound. To name only two examples, I call readers' attention to Mary Thomas Crane's Framing Authority (1993), which compellingly shows how school training in the practice of keeping commonplace books radically structured sixteenth-century poetic practice, and Garry Wills's Lincoln at Gettysburg (1992), which, through brilliant rhetorical analysis, demonstrates how Lincoln drew from the oratorical practice of the day to transform American political thought. Elizabeth Skerpan Wheeler Emmanuel Bury, Littérature et politesse: l'invention de l'honnête homme (1580-1750), Perspectives littéraires (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1996) 268 pp. Emmanuel Bury's ample and ambitious synthesis seeks to link the elaboration of norms of social behaviour in early modem France not so much to large-scale social processes (though these are not ignored) as to the emergence of a new literary culture from the humanist inheritance. It shows how literature functioned Reviews 347 as a pedagogic agency in the broad sense, and thus enables a fuller comprehension of the subtlety of what neo-classical poetics meant by 'instruction'. The most fruitful emphasis of the introductory chapter on humanism is on the role of procedures of reading in the constitution of an individual and cultural memory: above all the absorption of exempla and sententiæ, particularly from classified anthologies of ancient writing. Not only ethical ideals are thus nourished, but practices of writing: the presentation and re-presentation of moral truth in fragmentary form, or in new, often fictional or dramatic, contexts. 'Truth' here, of course, means the truths of doxa; and the empire of the probably is consolidated over prose fiction and theatre, as conceived and produced from the 1630s on: the very period in which the notion of honnêteté becomes established. 'Descriptive' mimesis constantly slides into the 'prescriptive' inculcation of norms. The romance (d'Urfé, Scudéry) is a kind of laboratory for the development and testing of moral codes, equipping readers to participate in the social world; comedy, Balzac and others argued, offered unobtrusive instruction through the presentation of character. Aspects of this ideal of moral and social formation through literary culture survive into the eighteenth century, but Bury well brings out the various pressures that eventually transform it almost beyond recognition. The rejection by Pascal, Descartes, and Malebranche of the logic of the vraisemblable and the humanist cultural memory in favour of an individual apprehension of truth is suggestively linked to the emergence of a literature (as in Marivaux) that appeals to communicable individual experience rather than a doxal culture shared by author and reader. Although retaining the sense of literature as morally formative, Marivaux's conception of style and personality breaks radically with the humanist inheritance: he is a major figure in Bury's global narrative of the displacement of humanist paideia by the modern conception of 'literature'. The affinity between literature and honnêteté as an ideal of sociability is jeopardised when late seventeenth-century writing takes up the criticism of society and especially of the court, a theme also of contemporary discourses of honnêteté which define it more and more in terms of probity. The analysis is pursued down to Rousseau, in whom the suspicion of culture and of society is most 348 RHETORICA radically voiced...

Presents a functional grammatical analysis of the writing that 128 seventh- and eighth-grade students produced in response to their science teacher’s directive to describe a picture. Identifies the register elements of the task and the grammatical difficulties it posed for students. Shows that teachers can help students use grammatical resources to expand and develop their writing skills.

Unlike purely process-orientated approaches, which hold that skills are acquired intuitively through writing and revising, strategic writing instruction sees the acquisition of key skills as integrally related to effective self-expression. Based on extensive research, the book describes how teachers and students can work together to develop writing strategies - thinking procedures for solving problems ranging from spelling a word correctly to planning a whole project. Illustrative case studies demonstrate how the co-construction and implementation of writing strategies can help students formulate and achieve their own personal writing goals.

Reviews 233 dramatic characters and explain their actions as though they were real people. The Socrates Kastley portrays seems less like the Socrates of Plato than that of Cameades's Academy. And if Persuasion shows us how, in the wake of social transformations, it became necessary for women to discover how to speak, cannot the same be said of men? On the other hand, Kastley's argument that Sartre quietly allows Kant in by the back door and his detailing of the paradoxical results of de Man's favoring knowledge over action are both persuasive. Even more impressive is the subtlety with which he thinks through the problems posed by post-Enlightenment thinking to reject the temptation to find some place to stand "outside the rhetorical flux" and move, rather, toward a world in which we act, toward a community that is pluralized, temporal, and a provisional form of sharing, where we might begin to wrestle with the injustice and injury that are inevitable, but not insurmountable. Kastley's "refutations" are, in the end, affirmations; and for those he is to be commended. THOMAS M. CONLEY University ofIllinois Gabriele Knappe, Traditionen der klassischen Rhetorik im angelsachsischen England (Heidelberg: Universitatsverlag C. Winter, 1996), xx + 573 pp. According to Gabriele Knappe, previous efforts to assess the knowledge, use, and function of classical rhetoric in Anglo-Saxon England have failed to distinguish between the tradition of ancient rhetoric proper and elements of rhetorical instruction taken over by grammarians. The goal of the former was the production of prose texts designed to have a specified effect on an audience, while the principal goal of the latter was the proper interpretation of texts and only secondarily their production. Systematic evaluation of all available evidence indicates little or no direct knowledge of classical rhetoric per se in England from the seventh through the eleventh centuries: Knappe demonstrates convincingly that the sources of "rhetorical" instruction available in early medieval England invariably belong to the grammatical tradition. RHETORICA 234 The study is divided into four large parts. Part I raises the central problem of the different traditions of classical rhetoric, surveys and critiques previous research on classical rhetoric in Anglo-Saxon England, and concludes with a brief overview of the book’s goals and procedures. In Part II, Knappe sketches the major developments in the teaching and transmission of rhetoric in late antiquity, with particular emphasis on the ways in which the teaching of the figures was incorporated into grammatical textbooks, such as that of Donatus; into other works, notably Cassiodorus's Expositio psalmorum, that may have been used in teaching grammar; and, along with the progymnasmata, into a grammar instruction that was broadened to include not only "correct" but also "good" speaking and writing and even the production of texts. The heart of the book documents the reception of the traditions of classical rhetoric in Anglo-Saxon England. Drawing on the evidence of surviving insular manuscripts, book lists, and contemporary testimony, Knappe concludes that the Anglo-Saxons appear not to have participated in the transmission of ancient rhetorical texts. Even the single work by an Anglo Saxon author that is directly based on such texts, Alcuin's Dialogus de rhetorica et de virtutibus, was written and circulated on the Continent. In his panegyrical verses on York, Alcuin claims that archbishop Alberht taught Ciceronian rhetoric; but if this is true, no other traces of that teaching survive. By contrast, Knappe finds abundant evidence for the availability and use of grammatical texts with rhetorical contents. In considerable detail, she shows that texts such as Bede's Liber de schematibus et tropis, Elfric's grammar, and Byrhtferth's Manual derive their treatments of the figures exclusively from grammatical sources. Part IV approaches the question of influence from the perspective of text production, especially in the vernacular. Although Knappe is able to make some distinctions regarding rhetorical techniques—for example, writers of prose prefer figures that enhance clarity and accuracy, whereas writers of verse are more likely to employ figures for aesthetic effect—the considerable overlap with native Germanic traditions makes it impossible in most cases to prove that a given passage was influenced by rhetorical doctrines taught in the context...

RHETORICA 230 unify. As in the past, he continues to argue for the multiple moments of composition theory. George Pullman Georgia State University Kathy Eden, Hermeneutics and the Rhetorical Tradition: Chapters in the Ancient Legacy and Its Humanist Reception (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1997), 119 pp. Those interested in the evolution of particular discursive practices that helped shape antiquity, especially the theoretical relationship between reading and interpretation, will benefit from this study in locating classical antecedents that ally rhetoric and hermeneutics. Unlike most studies of hermeneutics that spring from the Germanic tradition of Schleirmacher and Dilthey or the recent perspectives of Gadamer or Riceour, this study prizes the rhetorical precedent of an ancient mode of reading, known as interpretatio scripti, as crucial to the development of the field study of hermeneutics. By tapping into this rhetorical tradition largely overlooked in philological studies, Eden historically discerns and synthesizes a convincing case for the recognition and study of interpretatio scripti as a meaning making agent common to both the rhetorical and hermeneutical enterprises that have gained renewed prominence in humanistic inquiry today. In what may be the most valuable portion of the book, the first chapters construct the significance of interpretatio scripti as a model of reading that Roman rhetoricians inherited—from the Hellenistic rhetorical tradition—as "a loosely organized set of rules for interpreting the written materials pertinent to legal cases" (p. 7). As a point of origin, Eden moves decisively to Cicero, particularly De inventione and De oratore, in contextualizing how transforming character of interpretatio scripti often complicates treatments of proof and style in his rhetorical manuals, and plays a deciding role in appropriating legal arguments between the intention (voluntas) and the letter (scriptum) of an author or text under scrutiny. Interpretation, to Cicero, is understood in terms of controversy; thus interpretation theory (and by later implication Reviews 231 hermeneutics) finds a habitual home in rhetorical theory. Eden notes that while Cicero was not the first one to do this, his work has enjoyed the widest reception and can be seen as a generative point from which to track the influence of interpretatio scripti in her book's subsequent chapters. Such a discursive heredity becomes convincing as Eden links the interpretive principles of interpretatio scripti to the classical arts of poetry and grammar as seen through Plato, Aristotle and Plutarch. The prerequisite study of grammar, in classic times, is seen to develop similar concerns as its rhetorical counterpart in the coordinating and complementary notions of decorum and oeconomia which prove crucial in "underlying the hermeneutical concept of contextualization, historical and textual, respectively" (p. 41). Eden extends her coverage of the influence of interpretatio scripti through the Christian appropriation of classical culture, in Basil, Paul and most notably in Augustine. Amidst this backdrop of Patristic hermeneutics, Eden achieves a fine sense of dialogue between the concepts of Cicero, Quintillian and Augustine, and accommodates both a spiritual and historical order that extends into the rehabilitating humanism of Erasmus. Though less substantial than the first part of the book, the final few chapters bring the selected work of Philip Melanchthon and Flacius's Clavis scripturae sacrae into the interpretive landscape as a whole. In the end, this book serves a vital role in establishing the credibility of classical scholarship in legitimizing what Ricoeur would call the hermeneutics of tradition. As a centerpiece in the debate between the role of equity and spirit in the ancient act of reading, interpretatio scripti emerges as a meaningful landmark in charting the never-ending task of interpretation, and suggests an expansion in the intellectual history of both hermeneutics and rhetoric. As an instalment in the Yale Studies in Hermeneutics, this book works an effective balance between written economy and great scholarly depth. Such a stylistic blend should provide ample access points for both experts and novices interested in theories of interpretation, antiquity and rhetoric. RICHARD A. MILLER Bowling Green State University ...

1. Background to second language acquisition research and language teaching 2. Learning and teaching different types of grammar 3. Learning and teaching vocabulary 4. Acquiring and teaching pronunciation 5. Acquiring and teaching a new writing system 6. Strategies for communicating and learning 7. Listening and reading processes 8. Individual difference in L2 users and L2 learners 9. Classroom interaction and Conversation Analysis 10. The L2 user and the native speaker 11. The goals of language teaching 12. General models of L2 learning 13. Second language learning and language teaching styles

Gualtiero Calboli From Aristotelian \é£iç to elocutio 1. Introduction o ver the last few years it has become fashionable to criticize Robert Pfeiffer for overestimating the contribution of the Stoics and underestimating drat of the Peripatetics towards the development of rhetoric, grammar and philology. In fact Aristotle deserves the credit for connecting rhetoric with dialectic and poetry, without losing sight of its practical employment in the assembly and courts of law. Another development of rhetoric which occurred after Aristotle and perhaps Theophrastus was the development of an excessive number of rules, especially in the doctrine of tropes and figures of speech. That happened during the second century B.C. on the island of Rhodes and may be considered a kind of Asianic rhetoric. It was introduced into Rome through at least two handbooks, Cicero's De Inventione and the Rhetorica ad Herennium. However, in 55 B.C., at the beginning of his Platonic dialogue De Oratore, Cicero disowned his early work {De orat. 1.5). 1 R. Pfeiffer, History of Classical Scholarship, From the Beginnings to the End of the Hellenistic Age (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1968). 2 This is the opinion of F. Montanari in La philologie grecque à l'époque hellénistique et romaine, ed. F. Montanari (Vandoeuvres - Genève: Fondation Hardt, Entretiens XL, 1994), p. 29. I agree with him but recall that Pfeiffer also pointed out the importance of Aristotle and the Peripatos for Hellenistic philology: cf.z e.g., pp. 192; 197 of the Italian translation by M. Gigante and S. Cerasuolo (Napoli: Macchiaroli, 1973). 3 The origin and development of the doctrine of tropes and figures is not clear. It has been investigated by K. Barwick, Problème der stoischen Sprachlehre und Rhetorik (Berlin: Abhandlungen der sàchsischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Leipzig, Philol.-hist. Kl., Bd. 49, Hft. 3, Akademie-Verlag, 1957), pp. 88-111, but must be reconsidered now (see below)._____________ __ __________© The International Society for the History of Rhetoric, Rhetorica, Volume XVI, Number 1 (Winter 1998) 47 RHETORICA 48 The date of composition of De Inventione is about 87 B.C., only one year after Cicero heard Philon of Larissa in Rome, as has been recently noted by C. Lévy.4 5 Both Cicero's De Inventione (8887 B.C.) and the Rhetorica ad Herennium (86-82) were composed at a time when the democratic party dominated Rome and before Sulla came back from the Orient (82). I do not want to discuss the political position of the author of Rhetorica ad Herennium here, although the idea that he was a democrat has recently been confirmed by G. Achard and J.-M. David.6 In the period between the Ars Rhetorica written (but not completed) by the great orator M. Antonius (about 96 B.C.)7 and Sulla's dictatorship (82), there are about fifteen years of rhetorical activity8 during which the censorial edict by L. Crassus and D. Ahenobarbus of 92 was ineffective. This edict, as has been demonstrated by Emilio Gabba, became effective with Sulla who continued the action that the nobility's faction had brought under the law proposed by the tribune Livius Drusus in 91 B.C. in order to reorganize the Roman State.9 We know that the orator L. Crassus, a teacher of Cicero, was another of the promoters of this law but died before its approval. After considering Gruen's position on this subject, I 4 Cf. Cic. Brut. 306; Tusc. 2.9. When did Philo come to Rome? The answer is given by W. Kroll in his Commentary ad loc., p. 217f.: "Die glücklichen Erfolge des Mithridates verleiteten die Athener, an deren Spitze sich der Peripatetiker Aristo stellte, im J. 88 von den Rômem abzufallen und sich mit Archelaus, dem Feldherm des Mithridates, zu verbünden. Die Optimaten, welche treu zu den Rômem hielten, mufiten nun flüchten". Cf. also J.-M. David, Le patronat judiciaire au dernier siècle de la republique romaine (Roma: Ecole Française de Rome, Palais Famèse, 1992), pp. 371 f. C. Lévy, "Le mythe de la naissance de la civilisation chez Cicéron", in Mathesis e Philia, Studi in onore di...

The famous Awk is a well-known designation, but this label does not refer to a well-defined concept. The authors report here on an empirical study of the predominant types and patterns of awkward sentences in student writing. They suggest that four general types of syntactic problems—mismanagement of clause structure in errors of embedding, of syntax shift, of parallel structure, and of direct/indirect speech—are associated with four general patterns of semantic problems—mismanagement of idea structure in errors of subordinating ideas, of starting and finishing ideas, of adding ideas, and of incorporating ideas from sources. The authors argue that awkward sentences arise from a complex combination of semantics and syntax, as student writers struggle to manage the relationships among multiple ideas as well as the relationships among multiple clauses. These findings are used to suggest a number of possible pedagogical approaches to the problem of awkward sentences, including the use of read-aloud editing, the targeted teaching of grammar for syntactic editing, and the separation of ideas from sentence form for semantic editing.

Offers strategies for teaching grammar, literature, essay writing, democracy in letters to the editor, and oral presentations of the research paper.

Argues that Joseph Conrad’s political novels belie the sweeping and vague rhetoric sometimes used to describe them. States that Conrad, disillusioned with materialism in his political novels, imagines that “industrialism and commercialism” may foster wars between democracies. Contends Conrad’s interest is at least divided between a grammar of motives and a grammar of political cause and effect.

Formalization of cognitive grammar depends in an important way on modeling the process of assessing similarity. This article points out that such formalization is difficult to achieve within the present formulation [1] of the grammar and introduces a modification that will allow modeling the process of similarity. Next, it is suggested that the mechanism of assessing similarity in the modified analogical-operatorial version of cognitive grammar be that of analogical modeling presented in Skousen [2]. Finally, it indicates some consequences of the proposition for the practice of communication. The modification, the analogical-operatorial mode of language use, allows linguistic units, in addition to their function of representing the semantic meaning of these units, to serve as operators differentiating among semantic or other conceptual structures. This introduces inhomogeneity to the content purported with linguistic units and leads to preserving linguistic compositionality understood in a new sense. It also allows one to treat the pragmatic meaning in the same way as the semantic one, and accounts for a compact use of linguistic units. Using linguistic units to differentiate allows one to convey information not contained in the encoded meaning of these structures. This can be utilized to communicate more efficiently but also poses the danger of purporting unwanted meaning.

Examines the roles of collaboration in the sciences and humanities by focusing on the complicated relationship between syntax and semantics. Uses scholarship on the social study of science to discuss strategies for collaboration in the humanities. Discusses why those studying language and literature are in a particularly good position to understand the nature of intellectual collaboration and its benefits.

In past fifteen years, scholars in both composition and literature have called for a more integrated approach to reading and writing.1 essays in collection Composition and Literature: Bridging Gap edited by Winifred Horner, for example, stressed common interests of scholarship in these two domains. Similarly, Modern Language Association recommended in a 1982 report that MLA publications make deliberate efforts to stimulate thought and research about interrelations of literature, composition, and rhetorical theory (952). More recently, Peter Elbow has called for end of the war between reading and arguing that the primacy of reading in reading/writing dichotomy is an act of locating authority away from student and keeping it entirely in teacher or institution or great figure (17). Richard Lloyd-Jones and Andrea Lunsford have also emphasized importance of an integrated approach to reading and writing in curriculum, one that allows teachers to foster student learning in reading, writing, interpreting, speaking, and listening (316). Like Elbow, Lloyd-Jones and Lunsford insist that integration of reading and writing not only enables students to become more active learners but also is critical for educating students for participation in democracy (85). But while an integrated approach to reading and writing is certainly a worthy goal, scholars in literary and composition studies differ on fundamental issues that may preclude (or at least complicate) our attempts to develop pedagogies that allow students to connect their own texts with other texts they encounter both inside and outside classroom. One such issue involves very nature of texts themselves-what texts are, how they are produced, and how we should read them. assumptions, for example, about what it means to interpret a text diverge radically depending on whether text is a student text or a literary text. As David Bartholomae observes: The teacher who is unable to make sense out of a seemingly bizarre piece of student writing is often same teacher who can give an elaborate explanation of 'meaning' of a story by Donald Barthelme or a poem by e.e. cummings (255). Instructors who interpret elements such as narrative leaps, obscure references, and twisted syntax as errors in student texts read same elements in a literary work as

Current scholarship indicates that most writing students read and make use of teachers’ written comments on their drafts and find some types of comments more helpful than others. But the research is unclear about which comments students find most useful and why. This article presents the results of a survey of 142 first- year college writing students’ perceptions about teacher comments on a writing sample. A 40-item questionnaire was used to investigate students’ reactions to three variables of teacher response: focus, specificity, and mode. The survey found that these college students seemed equally interested in getting responses on global matters of content, purpose, and organization as on local matters of sentence structure, wording, and correctness, but were wary of negative comments about ideas they had already expressed in their text. It also found that these students favored detailed commentary with specific and elaborated comments, but they did not like comments that sought to control their writing or that failed to provide helpful criticism for improving the writing. They most preferred comments that provided employed open questions, or included explanations that guided revision.

Reviews William M. Purcell, Ars Poetriae: Rhetorical and Grammatical Invention at the Margins of Literacy, Studies in Rhetoric/ Communication (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1996), 193 pp. In the context of the evolution from oral to written discourse in the classical and medieval periods of western Europe, Purcell discusses six texts on the art of versification, or artes poetriae: 1) Matthew of Vendome, Ars versificatoria; 2) Geoffrey of Vinsauf, Poetria nova and Documentum de modo et arte dictandi et versificandi; 3) John of Garland, De arte prosayca, metrica , et rithmica (Parisiana poetria); 4) Gervasius of Melkley, Ars poetica; and 5) Eberhard the German, Laborintus. Composed in the twelfth and thir­ teenth centuries, these texts are revolutionary in their adaptation of rhetoric and grammar to poetry, which in that period was usually read aloud or recited. The book offers a useful introduction to material which may be difficult for most undergraduate students to obtain or to under­ stand; however, the critical framework into which Purcell places these texts needs justification, as it is part of a growing debate on the history of orality and literacy. The book is divided into two parts. Part I, consisting of two chapters, establishes the two main assumptions of the theoretical framework into which Purcell has placed the six treatises on poetic composition. The first assumption sets up a diachronic dichotomy between orality and literacy, from the Greek tradition to the invention of the printing press. Purcell argues that rhetoric in classical Greece and Rome was a discipline designed for oral delivery. Grammar was a written activity, developed for analysis and correction of text. As the societies of the Middle Ages pro­ gressed in literacy, grammar was increasingly applied to written material. Thus, Purcell sets up an oral-literate time spectrum. He treats the ancient Greek and late medieval periods as two poles, the former primarily oral and the latter increasingly text-based or literate. Citing Paul Prill, Purcell asserts that the arts of poetry of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries stand at the cusp of the shift from orality to literacy. The second major assumption of Purcell's theoretical framework is that grammar and rhetoric exchanged functions along the oral-literate time spectrum. In the classical period, rhetorical theory was used as a system of composition for oral delivery, while grammar was a system to correct and to analyze written text. By the time the arts of poetry were composed, these roles had begun to be reversed: "Ultimately, with the advent of the printing press, the text became the thing in and of itself, moving away 107 108 RHETORICA from the oral end of the spectrum and toward the literate end. At the same time, rhetoric—a more orally focused technology—moved toward the literate, and grammar—a more literally focused technology—moved toward the oral. The tension created by the rhetorical/grammatical move­ ment is reflected in the theoretical treatises in the artes poetriae themselves" (p. 5). Part II consists of five chapters, arranged chronologically, on the artes poetriae which illustrate the developments in the matrix of orality, literacy, grammar, and rhetoric which Purcell has set up in the first section of his book. Purcell provides excellent summaries of these treatises by giving an overview of their sections on invention, arrangement, and style. Less attention is given to invention and arrangement, as the author's primary interest is the overlapping of grammar and rhetoric in the domain of style, a unique contribution of poetic theory in the Middle Ages. Purcell's study of figures in the artes poetriae shows how the medieval tradition leads to the systematic relation of style to stasis theory in Renaissance rhetoric. This is the most valuable contribution of the book. Purcell argues that these treatises are not simply extensions or adapta­ tions of classical rhetoric, but that they establish a unique genre of rhetori­ cal theory at a time when orality and literacy coexisted. To demonstrate this point, he observes that the existing editions of the texts can be mis­ leading in causing readers to assume a debt to the classical sources. For example, the Faral edition and the Nims translation of Geoffrey of Vinsauf's Poetria Nova...

112 RHETORICA On the whole, while his critical assumptions need to be supplemented with recent scholarship on orality, literacy, and the history of education, Purcell's work is useful because it summarizes material which is not easily available to most undergraduate students. His discussion of the content of the poetic manuals will be helpful to those who are not familiar with Latin, or whose libraries do not contain the printed editions of the texts, some of which are out of print or only available in microfilm (e.g., Catherine Yodice Giles' Ph.D. dissertation, the only English translation of Gervasius of Melkle/s Ars poética; Traugott Lawler's edition and translation of John of Garland's Parisiana poetria; and Evelyn Carlson's translation of Eberhard the German's Laborintus, her 1930 M.A. thesis). The appendix of figures, with definitions, is especially useful, along with the bibliography of sources relat­ ing to the poetic treatises. In a subsequent edition, the author might consid­ er including a chart comparing the classical definitions of these figures with those in the medieval poetic manuals, to illustrate how the medieval manu­ als depart from the classical tradition, a point which Purcell emphasizes. However, undergraduate students who seek broad outlines and neat categories for material must be cautioned, just as Purcell shows, that mate­ rial frequently resists tidy schematization; that principles of grammar and rhetoric overlap in figurative language; and that medieval poetics adapts and transcends classical theory in a variety of ways. Illustrations of how this theory operates in poetic texts and cultural contexts, and in relation to various views of language change and interaction, are needed to support the critical assumptions in this book. William Purcell has made an impor­ tant beginning in an area which has long been overlooked in the history of composition and literary criticism: medieval poetics, a field in which the criteria for measuring orality and literacy await further study. Elza C. Tiner John Parker and Carol A. Johnson, Sir Walter Raleigh's Speech from the Scaffold: A Translation of the 1619 Dutch Edition, and Comparison with English Texts (Minneapolis, MN: Associates of the James Ford Bell Library, 1995), ii + 79 pp. Sir Walter Raleigh's speech from the scaffold, October 29,1618, in the Old Palace Yard at Westminster, has lived long as an "exit" speech of con­ siderable historic importance, especially familiar to students of British public address. It was included in David Brewer's older anthology and in Reviews 113 the excellent An Historical Anthology of Select British Speeches.1 Scholars of the history of rhetoric do not need to be told that one of the initial steps in their explorations is to answer the question, "What did that orator really say?" Whose version, manuscript or printed, was the closest to the event, and how reliable are the available versions? We remember how Thucydides dealt with the problem in the fifth century BCE: "With references to the speeches in this history, . . . some I heard myself, others I got from various quarters; it was in all cases difficult to carry them word for word in one's memory, so my habit has been to make the speakers say what was in my opinion demanded of them by the vari­ ous occasions, of course adhering as closely as possible to the general sense of what they really said."2 So what did Pericles and others really say? Only when the step of description is accomplished as well as possi­ ble, can the rhetorical critic with the greatest meaningfulness enter into sound analysis and insightful evaluation. With painstaking and thorough scholarship, Parker and Johnson dig deeply into their chosen terrain. They construct a succinct and wellwritten sketch (pp. 1-11) of the man and his role in the late Elizabethan and early Stuart eras. "Entrepreneur, politician, poet, historian, explorer, colonizer" (p. 1), Raleigh was a central figure in his time, a time when "the line between dissent and treason was not always apparent" (p. 5). Parker, Curator Emeritus of the James Ford Bell Library, and Johnson, Assistant Professor in the University Library, enter into a microscopic, forty-three-page comparison of the eight available printed versions of the...

When people read silently, they unconsciously translate what they read into a speech-like code that facilitates word identification and the creation of meaning. This article examines that phenomenon—known as silent speech—based upon the published research of cognitive psychologists and psycholinguists. The author develops a phonological model of reading based upon published results of experimental investigators to determine the relationship between cognition and silent speech. The author then applies the model to technical communication. The applications include the use of punctuation, pronouns, and abbreviations, as well as introducing new words, writing to satisfy the speech instinct, cultivating a human voice, and revising technical documents.