Abstract

Reviews 439 scrutiny, it is the search itself that Plato portrays as exemplifying the life of philosophy. Roochnik says he is motivated, in part, by the belief that Plato's dialogues "can benefit us in these hypertechnical times" (p. xii). How Plato's writings can benefit us in this regard is unclear, though he appears unsettled by the rise of postmodernism nee rhetoric. Roochnik notes that "philosophy v. rhetoric is a fundamental dispute" that animates the entire book (p. 181). According to Roochnik, rhetoric is not a techne, rhetoric is distinct from philosophy, and Socrates was rhetorical but not a rhetorician. In sum, book offers a marvelously clear and thorough explication of the platonic case against rhetoric with which most readers of this journal are probably all too familiar. Edward Schiappa University ofMinnesota Peter Auksi, Christian Plain Style: The Evolution of a Spiritual Ideal (Montreal:McGill-Queen's University Press, 1995). Professor Auksi contends that there has been no broad study ■z of the Christian plain style in the West, and he proposes to fill the gap by tracing this stylistic ideal from its prehistory in classical rhetoric, through its biblical beginnings, its foundations in Paul and Augustine, its treatment by church fathers, and its fortunes in the middle ages to its culmination in the English Reformation, and particularly the seventeenth century. Such an ambitious study is indeed needed, and Auksi's text at least moves in the direction of its goal. Auksi's overall claim, made in his title and at intervals throughout, is that simplicity "evolves" as an ideal in Christian art, and particularly in Christian discourse. His numerous examples, however, demonstrate just the opposite. Rather than proving causal links between venous stages of an evolution record, Auksi shows that all the theorists ultimately derive their authority from Christ, Paul, and Augustine. It is the example of Christ, the statements in the Pauline epistles and De doctrina Christiana to which Auksi's theorists always return. Even the terms 440 RHETORICA he employs suggest the recursiveness of their enterprise: "renewal or reform" (p. 178), "return ad fontes" (p. 238), "restored or recovered" (p. 268). They also return to a finite number of scriptural commonplaces about the proper employment of classical rhetoric, likening it to the spoils of Egypt refashioned to godly use by the Israelites or to the captive heathen woman who may be married once her head is shaven and her nails pared. Christian plain style proves to be a changeless ideal which is constantly being rediscovered rather than a mutation in the history of rhetoric That there are no dinosaurs in this fossil record other than Christ, Paul, and Augustine is worth noting. Auksi's study unfortunately is compromised by its historical vagueness or even inaccuracy. In spite of the wide readership intended by his broad study, he provides little information as to the particular historical situations of various texts. Thus, for instance, he mentions the Byzantine iconoclastic controversies without any overall framework of dates of parties (pp. 84-86). Indeed, historical figures are inconsistently introduced. We hear for instance of Thomas of Celano (p. 107), but not when he lived nor why his account of Francis of Assisi is important. Throughout, examples are cited in no observable order, as when John Wilkins's late preaching manual is introduced before William Perkins's, albeit "the first and best" (pp. 289, 296). Auksi's terminology also sometimes ignores historical realities. The vexed term "puritan" goes undefined, and is often used either as if it represented a denomination separate but equal to the established Church of England, although there was but one church through the early 1640s in which many "puritans" were also "Anglicans", or as an unexamined synonym for the more enthusiastic sects, as the term was sometimes used at the time. But one asks an historical study to distinguish polemical labels from actual loyalties. Indeed, Auksi's occasional readiness to take his sources at face value leads him to some rather startling factual errors. He says, for instance, that Robert of Melun (f. 1150) "understands Plato's style" (pp. 100-101), when only a translated portion of the Timaeus was available to him. Auksi does however provide...