The recent neglect of Kames's Elements of Criticism (1762) has been due in part to disciplinary angst that has fostered two incomplete views of Elements: (1) as a work that trains readers in receptive competence and (2) as significant for primarily philosophical reasons. Reading Elements as a rhetoric of criticism, however, suggests first that it is aimed toward production of criticism-not simply reception-although the critical argumentation is oriented toward judgment in terms of universals. Second, it suggests that its significance is practical-that it appeals to readers' anxieties about the burgeoning British economy.

Abstract A mid‐eighteenth‐century debate among three Anglican clerics on the nature and end of eloquence indicates that their views of eloquence share a significant similarity: functionalism. I summarize each participant's position; note relevant aspects of their contexts, including purposes, institutional position, and broader cultural conditions; and explore the social and political implications of their views on the nature and ends of eloquence. By doing so, I show that eloquence serves as a site of struggle for power and prestige; and that when people use the term “eloquence “ they may have significantly different views of what it means.