Abstract

Reviews 439 Those are a few additions to the documentation of Renaissance rhetoric, in the spirit of the open-minded exchange of knowledge which has distin­ guished all of Professor Plett's work. This is not his best book, but it is one which ev ery serious rhetoric library should have, and one from which few readers will fail to profit. Brian Vickers Andrew W. Robertson, The Language ofDemocracy: Political Rhetoric in the United States and Britain, 1790-7900 (Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 2005) xix 4- 264 pp. This is a reissue in paperback, with a new Preface, of a book originally published by Cornell Univ ersity Press in 1995. Readers who missed it the first time around hav e another opportunity to consider an interesting and well-reasoned argument that has significant implications for the history of 19th century British and American rhetoric. Robertson is concerned with political rhetoric, which he further restricts to campaign discourse, largely as reported in newspapers. This is a narrow, reductionist view of the subject that may limit the generalizability of his findings, but it does not damage his argument on its own terms. He examines how political culture evolved in Britain and the United States during the 19th century (between 1790 and 1900). The overall answer is that the audience for politics widened and political discourse became more vernacular. It shifted from a laudatory discourse deferring to men of distinguished character, to a hortatory discourse seeking support for specific policies. It appealed less to an elite audience and more to a popular audience. These changes effectively dissolved the boundary between deliberative and epideictic. Having identified this important change, Robertson seeks to account for it. He finds a significant relationship between newspaper coverage and political practice. Specifically, the evolution of printing technology and the institution of advertising made it possible to sell low-cost newspapers to a large audience. This capacity, in turn, influenced trends in newspaper content. And an emerging understanding of what would satisfy a mass audience affected the practice of politicians. Their talk became focused more on policy and less on character, more on demands for specific outcomes and less on deference to men of exceptional judgment. It became more tense, more intense, more partisan, and more competitive. In 1790 the 18th century norms of genteel discourse were still dominant; by 1900 the basis of 20th century politics had been established. Interestingly, however, this change came later in Britain than in the United States. There was a gradual shift in what the term "the people" was understood to mean. Originally it referred to the educated elite who were 440 RHETORICA assumed to be in agreement with political leaders; gradually it came to designate a larger, more heterogeneous public among whom disagreement was likely and whose support must be won and not assumed. The American political audience had enlarged and considerably democratized by the 1820s, when Andrew Jackson claimed to embody the public will. Not because of his noble character but because of his platform, was he deserving of public support. In contrast, the British debates on reform during the late 1820s and early 1830s took place without an expanded press or public. They were much less populist in character. Yet by mid-century, British editorial writers fused discussion of leaders and their policies, as in the United States. Robertson credits the transplanted American editor William Cobbett with instigating the use of hortatory rhetoric in Britain. While it might seem that evolutions in discourse reflected merely the impersonal forces of economics and technology, Robertson believes that they were solidified by the rhetorical prowess of Abraham Lincoln in the United States and William Ewart Gladstone in Britain. What both men had in common, he argues, was the ability to deliver to an immediate, elite audience a speech that was also (and perhaps primarily) intended to be read by a large and anonymous national audience. In overhearing messages and easily imagining themselves among the audience, the citizenrv became accustomed to thinking that political discourse really was intended for them. From that point, the distinction between politics and entertainment broke down. The emergence of the popular political cartoon in the 1870s is evidence of...