ABSTRACT One of the strongest voices against rhetorical excess in the Renaissance can be found in Montaigne's Essays. It is no wonder, then, that the author's own style has often been associated with a Stoic terseness that matches a professed goal of writing sans estude et artifice—in other words, without rhetoric. But when we consider the volatile political context in which Montaigne was writing, it becomes apparent that his stylistic restraint accomplishes far more than an effect of transparency. Focusing on the figure of emphasis-one in which the rhetor allows his audience to infer an additional meaning from what he says or does not say—this article explores the connection between the restraint of Montaigne's prose style and the classical art of covert argument.

In seventeenth-century France, the one context in which it was possible to publicly criticize the monarch was the pulpit. Yet, in delivering criticism, the court preacher had to avoid sounding too harsh not only for fear of giving offense but for fear the sovereign might cease listening altogether. This paper examines the rhetorical techniques by which the preacher could indirectly—and hence “safely”—criticize the king. As we see from Bossuet's “Sermon sur la prédication évangélique” (1662), far from being a simple means of cajoling, these techniques attempted to provide the preacher with the most effective means for delivering bold criticism.

In seventeenth-century France, the one context in which it was possible to publicly criticize the monarch was the pulpit. Yet, in delivering criticism, the court preacher had to avoid sounding too harsh not only for fear of giving offense but for fear the sovereign might cease listening altogether. This paper examines the rhetorical techniques by which the preacher could indirectly—and hence “safely”—criticize the king. As we see from Bossuet’s “Sermon sur la predication évangélique” (1662), far from being a simple means of cajoling, these techniques attempted to provide the preacher with the most effective means for delivering bold criticism.

Edward Jerningham's “Impenitence” (1800)––a translation of Bossuet's “Sermon du mauvais riche” (1662)––is remarkably dissimilar to its French original. This article investigates the rhetorical reasons behind this discrepancy. These reasons concern the problems of promoting a French model of eloquence in a fiercely anti-French climate and––even more problematic––promoting a text whose main theme is a denunciation of the rich in a period of extreme counterrevolutionary fervor. Jerningham's text shows that in facing potentially resistant readers, the strategies of a translator are those of a rhetor.