Book Review| February 01 2022 Review: Editorial Bodies: Perfection and Rejection in Ancient Rhetoric and Poetics, by Michele Kennerly Michele Kennerly, Editorial Bodies: Perfection and Rejection in Ancient Rhetoric and Poetics. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 2018. 242 pp. ISBN: 9781108426237 David L. Marshall David L. Marshall University of Pittsburgh Search for other works by this author on: This Site PubMed Google Scholar Rhetorica (2022) 40 (1): 91–94. https://doi.org/10.1525/rh.2022.40.1.91 Views Icon Views Article contents Figures & tables Video Audio Supplementary Data Peer Review Share Icon Share Twitter LinkedIn Tools Icon Tools Get Permissions Cite Icon Cite Search Site Citation David L. Marshall; Review: Editorial Bodies: Perfection and Rejection in Ancient Rhetoric and Poetics, by Michele Kennerly. Rhetorica 1 February 2022; 40 (1): 91–94. doi: https://doi.org/10.1525/rh.2022.40.1.91 Download citation file: Ris (Zotero) Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All ContentRhetorica Search This content is only available via PDF. © 2022 by The International Society for the History of Rhetoric. All rights reserved. Please direct all requests for permission to photocopy or reproduce article content through the University of California Press's Reprints and Permissions web page, http://www.ucpress.edu/journals.php?p=reprints.2022The International Society for the History of Rhetoric Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

Reviewed by: Editorial Bodies: Perfection and Rejection in Ancient Rhetoric and Poetics by Michele Kennerly David L. Marshall Michele Kennerly, Editorial Bodies: Perfection and Rejection in Ancient Rhetoric and Poetics. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 2018. 242 pp. ISBN: 9781108426237 There exists a set of topoi still alive—undead—within ancient, medieval, and early modem historiographies of rhetoric that circles “the loss of politics” as the crucial fact when it comes to narrating the coming into being and passing away of rhetoric. Politics itself as an object of such attachment may take several forms, but it is the beginning and sine qua non of rhetorical [End Page 91] application. In her disciplined yet frequently humorous Editorial Bodies, Michele Kennerly boils the politics-as-lost-object topoi down to the bone: “oratory flourishes in democracies only, the Hellenistic age [for example] was undemocratic, ergo there were no speeches worth preserving” (56). Kennerly tilts at the politics-as-lost-object topoi (and contests this characterization of the Hellenic) from a refreshing and subtle angle—that of editing, revision, what she terms “ corpus-care” (15). For her, turning to the curation of texts with rhetorical attention is not the reluctant decision of a culture that has lost its opportunities to speak and decide together in public. As Kennerly puts it, “rather than being indicators of political decline or decadence, polished and published prose and verse point to contestation over what sort of words best sustain communal life,” and, in this way, “writing is no less democratic or republican than speaking: the two verbal forms live parallel lives” (209). Hers is also a re-reading of the early histories of both Greek and Roman rhetoric showing how concern for the written record was always at issue alongside concern for the oral performance. Kennerly’s approach yields instructive angles on a series of authors. We encounter what she calls “Horace’s meticulous file,” his editorial metaphor of choice for smoothing stylistic burrs. But Kennerly pushes against “a prevailing view on Horace’s strictures on the stilus-, that he ‘made a virtue out of a political necessity’”—“the ‘necessity’ being the need to watch one’s words as the imperial period gained force” (109). In her reading, Ovid is someone who “displays his editorial body” cultivating thereby “the image of a man trying to correct his mistakes” (134), and this leads to “the (cultivated) shabbiness of his corpora,” which for Kennerly “accords with their tristis situation” (139). Political exile means disheveled self-consuming textual performance. In reference to Quintilian, editing implies compilation and overview stemming from care, and “the enmbased lexical family is the progenitor of ‘curative’ and ‘curation,’ both of which apply to Quintilian’s labors: he sees what ails various oratorical corpora and means to cure them through his curation of rhetoric’s traditions and orations” (164). Editing, reworking, compiling, creating a summative edition—all these should be understood in terms of established rhetorical topoi. Just so, in Quintilian, compiling is also a form of ethopoetic exercise, and such processes become “habituation hexis (Greek, lit. ‘having’)” rendered sometimes, as we know, “in Latin as facilitas (ease)” (162). Always, Kennerly is attentive to the embodiments of writing and editing. In Latin, she relays, the “edowords”—at the root of “edit” and its variants—were themselves richly enmeshed in a slew of metaphors “from giving birth, to uttering words, to presenting something for inspection, to displaying it publicly, to publishing it” and did not denote “prepublic textual activities” (2). And the terms ancient Romans did use for textual revision drew on a range of artisan prototypes: “they dragged away, cut out, pressed, smoothed, polished, hammered, filed, and shaved” (2). On the Greek side, “gluing” was an important metaphor domain because it had pertinent literal applications too: “writers would glue papyrus patches atop errors to hide them or to insert emendations on top of them” (29). Again, [End Page 92] Kennerly is quick to note that “turning the stilus” was “idiomatic for rubbing out with the flat end of the stilus something written into a wax tablet with the pointed end” (79). It should thus come as no surprise that, although this work is ancient in...

Aby Warburg (1866–1929) has been a tremendously influential thinker in the history and theory of art. Parts of his project have implications for the history, theory, and criticism of rhetoric. For the most part, however, rhetoricians have not engaged with his work. This article seeks to persuade rhetoricians to engage with Warburg’s thought and legacy. In particular, it seeks to articulate his Mnemosyne image atlas as a theory and practice of visual topics. Discovered as part of a historical investigation and expressed in a theoretical register, Warburg’s account of visual topics is then exemplified in reference to the gestural politics of “Hands Up, Don’t Shoot” in the twin contexts of contemporary media ecology and contemporary racial politics in the United States.

Reviews 477 e una vasta messe di rimandi a loci paralleh interni ed esterni alia scrittura declamatoria; non ce virtualmente passaggio, giro di frase o singólo termine rilevante che non sia puntualmente delucidato o del quale non si dibattano le possibili interpretazioni. Infine, la vasta bibliografía che chiude il volume dà conto dello scrupolo documentado di B. e offre ogni possibile sussidio per ampliare la prospettiva di ricerca sui due pezzi pseudo-quintilianei e in generale sulla declamazione latina. In conclusione, è lecito vedere nel volume di B. non solo il frutto maturo di un lucido e coerente percorso di ricerca dell'autrice, ma anche e soprattutto il punto di partenza e la pietra di paragone irrinunciabili di ogni futura ricerca sulle due declamazioni e sulla gamma di questioni délia piú varia natura che esse, come tutti i testi giunti a noi dalla scuola latina, pongono alio studioso e al lettore moderno. Mario Lentano Universitá di Siena Christianizations of Rhetoric Carol Harrison, The Art of Listening in the Early Church, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013. 302 pp. ISBN: 9780199641437 Stanley D. Porter and Bryan R. Dyer, Paul and Ancient Rhetoric: Theory and Practice in the Hellenistic Context, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016. 330 pp. ISBN: 9781107073791 Mark F. M. Clavier, Eloquent Wisdom: Rhetoric, Cosmology and Delight in the Theology ofAugustine ofHippo, Turnhout: Brepols, 2014. 303 pp. ISBN: 9782503552651 For readers of Rhetorica (and for historians of rhetoric more generally), the Christianization of rhetoric is one of the basic intellectual historical pro­ cesses of Late Antiquity. What are the principal options for representing that process? In reviewing volumes by Carol Harrison and Mark Clavier, as well as one edited by Stanley Porter and Bryan Dyer, we can survey three options. According to one school of thought, rhetoric is at its most intellectually generative when it cannot do the things that it was originally built to do and when as a result it must transpose its themes into a new key to fulfill new purposes. Carol Harrison gives us an example of this kind of displacement in Late Antiquity when she explores the implications of a Christian transfor­ mation of rhetoric from an art of speaking into an art of listening. The contexts in that Christianizing world may have been new, but she is adamant that the intellectual foundations were rhetorical. In her words, "if we do not 478 RHETORICA pay attention to the rhetorical culture [of Late Antiquity], we will fail to appreciate why the fathers wrote and spoke in the way they did; why their style is so distinctive and yet so easily identifiable as that of an educated per­ son of their day; what their hearers expected of them; how their hearers were able to hear them effectively" (Harrison p. 48). Indeed, Harrison is showing the figure of the orator itself being transformed into the person of the listener when she parses Augustine's assertion in On Christian Doctrine that one would have to pray (and be an orator) before one could speak (and be a dictor ). Her gloss is supple: "prayer is perhaps one of the most intriguing exam­ ples of the practice of listening in the early Church, for it is not at all clear who is doing the listening and who is speaking" (Harrison p. 183). And this spon­ sors two thoughts: that the speaking of prayer was a particularly intense lis­ tening and that there might be a kind of "confidence, or parrhesia" deriving from "the assurance that [the] hearer is God, the Father" (Harrison p. 195). Now, contingency had been one of the great categories of ancient Greek rhetoric. Within a Christian frame of reference, this orientation to contingency began to look like an immersion in the world encountered by human beings after the Fall. On the one hand, God's creation in fact expres­ sed a stability, equilibrium, and symmetry. On the other, as it was encoun­ tered by the human sensorium, that world (and human entanglements with it) seemed thoroughly, endemically, mutable. Just so, Harrison's book privi­ leges the embodiment of that human sensorium and begins with the assumption that, when developing an art of listening, we should look...

ABSTRACTWith the publication in 2002 of Martin Heidegger's summer semester 1924 lectures, “Basic Concepts of Aristotelian Philosophy,” a major new star appeared in the constellation that is twentieth-century rhetoric. Since then, a growing secondary literature has emerged. This article organizes that literature as a series of specifications closing in on Heidegger's critical conception of rhetoric as potentially a hermeneutic of the everydayness of being with others, and it claims that our understanding of this everydayness will remain flat or partial until we situate the concept in the sequence of Heidegger's thought in the 1920s. If we work through pre-1924, 1924, and post-1924 periods, it becomes clear that there are religious, modal, and sophistic contexts for Heidegger's evolving conceptualization of everydayness. The concept of everydayness that emerges is disheveled but rich. The article concludes by suggesting that only faint echoes of these potent rhetorical trajectories can be discerned in the late Heidegger.

337 Reviews exhaustivité, tant les domaines qu'elles cherchent à circonscrire sont innom­ brables (lexique, stylistique, histoire, civilisation, épigraphie, métrique etc.). Le revers de la médaille de ce choix, c'est que certaines notes sembleront par­ fois trop longues, se perdant parfois dans des sortes de digressions, toujours passionnantes, mais peu en rapport avec l'objet initial (par ex. la note du§ 23, pp. 243-47). L'ensemble de l'ouvrage se révèle une source précieuse pour la connais­ sance d Aristide, et plus spécifiquement, de deux discours injustement tom­ bés dans 1 oubli durant plusieurs siècles. On ne peut qu'être reconnaissant à B. de nous livrer une étude aussi fournie: un livre, assurément, qui est un jalon important dans les études aristidiennes qui se multiplient depuis quelques temps. Jean-Luc Vix Université de Strasbourg Philip Vogt, John Locke and the Rhetoric of Modernity, Plymouth, UK: Lexington, 2008. 197 pp. ISBN: 0739123564 Locke's attack on rhetoric in Book III of his Essay Concerning Human Understanding has become notorious. Indeed, his accusation that "all the Art of Rhetorick" together with "all the artificial and figurative application of Words" are a "perfect cheat" has become in many ways indicative of an apparent marginalization of rhetoric in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Locke's point was that any tropological comparison of a thing to something that it is not is, in effect, a lie consciously chosen by the orator to maximize the possibility that the matter under discussion will be perceived by the auditor in the way that the orator wishes. In this way, auditors are cheated—the interests of others substituted for their own—and, thus, in any discursive pursuit that has truth (as opposed to interest) as its goal, rhetoric must be regarded as a threat. Historians of rhetoric have heard such accusations so often that they are liable to ignore Locke's complaint. But there have been some sophisti­ cated treatments of Locke's pessimism about language not least Hannah Dawson's recent work on Locke, Language and Early-Modern Philosophy (Cam­ bridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007). In that work, Dawson argues that Locke's wariness of language is informed by the most significant insights of his epistemology. Words equivocate because all individuals connote words differently and in accordance with sequences of their own private experi­ ences that are publically unavailable. Moreover, different people will clas­ sify the same phenomenon in different ways what is courageous to some is foolhardy to others—because phenomena are often genuinely difficult to distinguish and because each distinction is itself a finely balanced choice be­ tween similarity and difference, fancy and judgment. Dawson claims rightly 338 RHETORICA that for Locke such equivocation—both terminological and paradiastolic—is endemic and cognitively foundational. But despite the plausibility of the argument that Locke's pessimism about language entails a thorough-going repudiation of rhetoric, there is another scholarly tradition—running through (for example) Leibniz, de Man, and Walker—that interprets Lockean epistemology through the lens of rhetoric's theorization of the tropes (Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, Nouveaux Essais sur EEntendement Humain (Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1962); Paul de Man, "The Epistemology of Metaphor," Critical Inquiry 5 (1978): 13-30; William Walker, Locke, Literary Criticism, and Philosophy (Cambridge: Cambridge Uni­ versity Press, 1994)). Philip Vogt's John Locke and the Rhetoric ofModernity is, in large part, to be situated in this tradition. In particular, Vogt emphasizes Locke's investment in the theory and practice of analogy. Citing a text that in his opinion has been unjustifiably marginalized in Locke scholarship (the text in question is "An Examination of Malebranche's Opinion of Seeing All Things in God"), Vogt argues that there is a "rule of Analogy" that regulates Lockean thought. According to this rule, the human mind uses that with which it is familiar in order to judge that with which it is unfamiliar (pp. 18, 21). Vogt's claim that the trope of analogy plays a significant role in Locke's epistemology is significant and worthy of attention. It is essential to his argument that—pace the litany of scholars who have repeated the myth— Locke does not ultimately conceive...

Reviews 225 aggiornata bibliografía, offrono un panorama orgánico e articolato della straordinaria vitalita della forma declamazione e della sua adattabilitá ai contesti storici e cultuiali piú vari. 1 risultati della ricerca, innovativi e propositi\i, confeimano la finalitá dei seminari, di esplorare la complessitá di un filone di studi particolarmente fertile e ricco di spunti. Graziana Brescia Università di Foggia Delphine Reguig-Naya, Le Corps des Idées: Pensées et Poétiques du Langage dans l'Augustinisme de Port-Royal. Arnauld, Nicole, Pascal, Mme de La Fayette, Racine. Paris: Honoré Champion, 2007. 836 pp. Hannah Dawson, Locke, Language, and Early-Modern Philosophy. Cam­ bridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007. 361 pp. Alberto Bordogna, Gli Idoli del Foro: Retorica e Mito nel Pensiero di Giambattista Vico. Rome: Aracne, 2007. 171 pp. Recently, a number of books have appeared that restate more precisely the terms of the debate that enveloped rhetoric in the period of its occlusion between approximately 1650 and 1800. For decades historians of rhetoric have been conscious of the broad and virulent attack on rhetoric, both as practice and as theory, in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. In com­ parison to its centrality in the Renaissance and its conspicuous reinvention in late modernity, the decline of rhetoric in the intervening period is striking. Yet increasingly scholars have begun to show that any history of rhetoric in this period must go beyond the headline critiques of the art of persuasion mounted by many of the leading philosophical authorities of the age. Indeed, a number of sophisticated studies have begun to appear that trace the ironic afterlife of rhetorical categories in intellectual projects that both emblematize eighteenth-century inquiry and eschew any overt allegiance to rhetoric as a disciplinary formation (see David L. Marshall, "Early Modern Rhetoric: Recent Research in German, Italian, French, and English," Intellectual History Review 17 (2007): 75-93). This review examines some of the issues involved in the problem of language in early modern thought by tracing them through recent work on Port-Royal, Locke, Vico, and—briefly—Herder. As Delphine Reguig-Naya attests time and again in her recent treatment of Port-Royal writers on the subject of language, the ideal for thinkers such as Antoine Arnauld and Pierre Nicole is often a kind of transparency in which language becomes a window on the mind free from distortion (p. 35). Thought is presumed to exist independently of its expression and, as a result, the task of expression is to render faithfully something already fully formed internally. This basic assumption about the separability of thought and language is related to a series of other points of departure that mark the Port-Royal school and figure prominently in many early modern critiques of 226 RHETORICA rhetorical assumptions about language: that the word and not the sentence is the more basic linguistic unit (p. 39), that syntax ought to mirror the structure of thought (p. 73), that representations arrived at arbitrarily are preferable to the lines of inquiry set in motion by the myriad formulations of resemblance (p. 93), that the mind moves much more quickly than speech and on a different track (p. 187), and that the equivocation of terms is the most dangerous problem posed by the embodiment of thought in signs (p. 195). Yet precisely because Port-Royalist anthropology owed so much to the Christian sense of the fall, rhetoric is also understood to be inevitable. If the sensuality of rhetorical address is suspect, it can (and must) be used on behalf of the good. Thus, even if enthymemes are characteristic of the kind of compromises and abbreviations that the tongue must make in order to keep pace with the brain, they are also so natural that they cannot simply be legislated out of existence (p. 63). Likewise, despite its reliance on the equivocating quality of resemblance, metaphor is endemic in language (p. 470). If the traditional domain of rhetorical self-consciousness—direct oral exchange—is more dangerous because of the diversity and potency of the various sensual media in play, the Port-Royalists place an equally rhetorical emphasis on the particular form of language that was the staple of hermeneutic activity—namely, textual...