ABSTRACT This article begins by revisiting the Greek origins of the terms “rhetoric” and “philosophy” from a nominalist and antiessentialist perspective. Though both terms were given early shape by Plato, Isocrates offered a different take on philosophia that arguably is equally legitimate, even if largely neglected historically. In contemporary scholarship, the question is not what is rhetoric or what is philosophy, but what can be gained by deploying rhetorical and philosophical vocabularies to describe and understand the world. Given the problems facing us today, philosophers and rhetoric scholars should engage each other to address challenges where our interests converge.

Edward Schiappa published a series of articles and a book in 1990 and 1991 that, collectively, challenged the dominant narrative concerning the Older Sophists and early Greek Rhetorical Theory as well as calling into question certain revisionist historical accounts. In this essay the author provides a narrative about those projects and the responses they elicited in the hope that it provides insights about the production of those publications, as well as an opportunity to revisit certain theoretical and methodological concerns that continue to be relevant to historians of rhetoric and philosophy.

Reviews Marina McCoy, Plato on the Rhetoric of Philosophers and Sophists. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008. $80.00 (hbk), ISBN 9780521878630. As the title implies, Marina McCoy's basic argument is that both philoso­ phers and sophists engage in rhetoric; her task is to describe how Plato differ­ entiates between philosophers and sophists by other means through a close reading of six dialogues: Apology, Protagoras, Gorgias, Republic, Sophist, and Phaedrus. Her basic thesis is straightforward: "Plato distinguishes Socrates from the sophists by differences in character and moral intention" (p. 1). Not only did Athenians have difficulty separating sophists from philoso­ phers, but Plato did as well: "There is no single method or mode of dis­ course that separates the philosopher from the sophist" (p. 3). Not only does Socrates rely on rhetoric, one cannot produce a consistent definition of "philosophical rhetoric" that can be distinguished from "sophistic rhetoric" (p. 4). Ultimately, what makes Socrates (and by extension, true "philoso­ phers") distinctive is a love of the forms and "his desire to care for the souls of those to whom he speaks" (p. 5). McCoy's first chapter is an excellent precis for the project as a whole. Chapter two provides a reading of Plato's Apology. She wisely does not ar­ gue for the historical accuracy of Socrates' speeches, but instead argues the treatise represents Plato's rhetorical defense of Socrates. Noting the use of standard forensic rhetorical devices (argument from probability, ethopoiia) and detailed argumentative parallels to Gorgias's Defense of Palaniedes, Mc­ Coy demonstrates the continuity of Socrates' speech with forensic rhetorical practices of his time. She contends that the Apology thereby acknowledges the difficulty in sorting out philosophical from sophistical practice. Nonetheless, what makes Socrates' rhetorical performance noteworthy is its moral aim of attempting to make Athenians more virtuous, even at the price of arousing "discontent and discomfort" (p. 20). Chapter three examines question and answer practices found in Pro­ tagoras. McCoy's modus operandi is similar to that deployed in chapter two: Protagoras is read to illustrate the similarities between Socrates and Protago­ ras, who both utilize question and answer techniques in a rhetorical manner, but McCoy also stresses how such techniques perform different ethical tasks depending on the moral purposes of the interlocutor. Of particular interest Rhetorica, Vol. XXIX, Issue 1, pp. 106-119, ISSN 0734-8584, electronic ISSN 15338541 . ©2011 by The International Society for the History of Rhetoric. All rights re­ served. Please direct all requests for permission to photocopy or reproduce article content through the University of California Press's Rights and Permissions website, at http://www.ucpressjournals.com/reprintlnfo.asp. DO1: 10.1525/RH.2011.29.1.10b. Reviews 107 in this chapter is McCoy's discussion of how Protagoras and Socrates enact different ethics of listening. Chapter four visits the text most familiar to those reading Plato to un­ derstand his approach to matters rhetorical—the Gorgias. Despite the fact that Socrates lays out a clear and systematic description that distinguishes Philosophy from Rhetoric in this dialogue, McCoy contends that these are merely “apparent abstract distinctions" and that "no single distinction made in that dialogue adequately characterizes the difference between philoso­ phy and rhetoric ' (p. 21). Rather, Socrates enacts the distinction by demon­ strating goodwill toward his interlocutors, responsibility for one's words or "frankness of speech," a commitment to knowledge, and a willingness to be self-critical about one's own practices. McCoy concludes the chapter by stating the Gorgias "does not reject rhetoric as such but instead connects good rhetoric to the possession of these philosophical virtues" (p. 110). Chapter fix e engages the Republic to argue that Plato presents sophists as "incomplete" philosophers. Though both sophists and philosophers are freed from the chains of the infamous cave and skeptical of received opinion, only philosophers are oriented toward the forms. Plato portrays the philoso­ pher as preferable not because philosophers can reason better or practice dialectic, but because of a commitment to the forms. Thus, while dialectic may be presented as the highest intellectual art (Republic 532a), what makes it philosophical is a belief in the forms. Chapter six prov ides a reading of the late dialogue, Sophist...

Research Article| November 01 1998 Short Reviews George Kennedy,Comparative Rhetoric: An Historical and Crosscultural Introduction (New York: Oxford University Press, 1998).Andrea A. Lunsford ed.. Reclaiming Rhetorica: Women in the Rhetorical Tradition (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1995).Takis Poulakos,Speaking for the Polis: Isocrates' Rhetorical Education (Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press, 1997), xii +128 pp.David Roochnik,Of Art and Wisdom: Plato's Understanding of Techne (University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1996) xii + 300 pp.Peter Auksi,Christian Plain Style: The Evolution of a Spiritual Ideal (Monfreal:McGill-Queen's University Press, 1995).Carole Levin and Patricia R. Sullivan eds. Political Rhetoric, Power, and Renaissance Women, (Albany, N.Y.: State University of New York Press, 1995) xiv + 293 pp.Marjorie O'Rourke Boyle,Loyola's Acts: The Rhetoric of the Self(Berkeley: University of Califomia Press, 1997) xv+274pp.L. L. Gaillet ed., Scottish Rhetoric and Its Influences (Mahwah, N.J.: Hermagoras Press, 1998) xviii + 238pp.Thomas W. Benson,Rhetoric and Political Culture in Nineteenth- Century America (East Lansing: Michigan State University Press, 1997) 200 pp. Mary Garrett, Mary Garrett School of Communication, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 43210, USA Search for other works by this author on: This Site PubMed Google Scholar Shirley Sharon-Zisser, Shirley Sharon-Zisser Dept of English, Tel Aviv Univeristy, Ramat Aviv 69 978, Israel Search for other works by this author on: This Site PubMed Google Scholar C. Jan Swearingen, C. Jan Swearingen Dept of English, Texas A & M University, College Station, Texas 77843, USA Search for other works by this author on: This Site PubMed Google Scholar Edward Schiappa, Edward Schiappa Dept of Communication, University of Minnesota Twin Cities, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55455, USA Search for other works by this author on: This Site PubMed Google Scholar Jameela Lares, Jameela Lares Dept of English, University of Southem Mississippi, Southem Station Box 5037, Hattiesburg, Mississippi 39406, USA Search for other works by this author on: This Site PubMed Google Scholar Victor Skretkowicz, Victor Skretkowicz Dept of English, University of Dundee, Dundee DDl 4HN, Scotland Search for other works by this author on: This Site PubMed Google Scholar Don Paul Abbott, Don Paul Abbott Dept of English, University of Califomia, Davis, Califomia 95616, USA Search for other works by this author on: This Site PubMed Google Scholar Paul Bator, Paul Bator Dept of English, Stanford University, Stanford, Califomia 94305, USA Search for other works by this author on: This Site PubMed Google Scholar Thomas Miller Thomas Miller Dept of English, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona 85721, USA Search for other works by this author on: This Site PubMed Google Scholar Rhetorica (1998) 16 (4): 431–454. https://doi.org/10.1525/rh.1998.16.4.431 Views Icon Views Article contents Figures & tables Video Audio Supplementary Data Peer Review Share Icon Share Facebook Twitter LinkedIn MailTo Tools Icon Tools Cite Icon Cite Search Site Citation Mary Garrett, Shirley Sharon-Zisser, C. Jan Swearingen, Edward Schiappa, Jameela Lares, Victor Skretkowicz, Don Paul Abbott, Paul Bator, Thomas Miller; Short Reviews. Rhetorica 1 November 1998; 16 (4): 431–454. doi: https://doi.org/10.1525/rh.1998.16.4.431 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. Copyright 1998, The International Society for the History of Rhetoric1998 Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

Reviews 437 culture. Reversing the usual emphasis on the uniformity of classical rhetorical culture, Poulakos's discussions provide ample food for thought, and a number of contentions that readers will quarrel with, such as the claim that for Isocrates rhetoric resumes the role Plato had dreamed for it: "instruction in philosophy" (p. 9). The use of Greek is inconsistently accompanied by translations and transliterations, creating a sense that this is only half written for the Greekless reader. In the general project of reclaiming Isocrates as much more than a hack, Poulakos's work joins that of Kathleen Welch and others in reminding us that neither philosophy nor classics have been particularly kind to rhetoric. C. Jan Swearingen Texas A&M University David Roochnik, Of Art and Wisdom: Plato's Understanding of Techne (University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1996) xii + 300 pp. Roochnik claims that the conventional view of Plato's texts that link techne with moral knowledge must be modified. According to Roochnik, moral knowledge cannot be analogous to techne without insurmountable logical problems resulting. Roochnik reads many of Socrates' arguments in Plato's early texts as proving that wisdom cannot be rendered technical. Because wisdom is not a techne, Plato wrote dialogues rather than technical treatises to illustrate the performance of nontechnical wisdom. The book is organized into four lengthy chapters accompanied by four useful appendices. Chapter one provides a thorough examination of the preplatonic meanings of techne in Homer, Solon, Aeschylus, Sophocles, the Hippocratic writings, Gorgias, Isocrates, and Anaximenes of Lampsacus. The chapter culminates with an examination of the rhetorical techne of the sophists to illustrate the claim that the sophists believe that moral knowledge could be taught as a techne. I note in passing that in his analysis Roochnik accepts the conventional accounts of the rhetorical technai of the sophists that Thomas Cole and I have been doing 438 RHETORICA our best to challenge. While he cites some of our work, he is apparently unpersuaded of the need to revise the conventional account. In chapter two Roochnik reads such Plato commentators as Martha Nussbaum, Paul Woodruff, Daniel Graham, Rosamond Sprague, C. D. C. Reeve, and Terence Irwin, as finding techne in the early dialogues offered as a positive theoretical model for the moral knowledge Socrates seeks. Roochnik contends that while Socrates does seek knowledge of arete, such knowledge cannot be a technical knowledge. Roochnik supports his case by a very careful reading of Socrates' use of the techne analogy in the early dialogues. He concludes that the early dialogues point their readers toward a nontechnical moral knowledge: "It is a Doric harmony of word and deed, a way of life spent seeking wisdom and urging others to do the same. It is a life spent turning a searching eye inward and therefore turning away from the external objects that become the subject matters of the ordinary technai" (p. 176). Chapters three and four contrast the rhetorical knowledge of Gorgias, Protagoras, and Isocrates with the philosophical knowledge sought by Socrates. Roochnik distinguishes between techne! and techne2. Techne! is a "fixed" and formulaic techne akin to mathematics, while Techne2 suggests that one can improve a set of skills without having to use them in a mechanical way. It is this second sense of techne that Roochnik assigns to Protagoras' and Isocrates' rhetorical education. Interestingly, Roochnik notes that what some call "postmodernism" he calls "rhetoric" (p. 11), and that Isocrates' views on rhetoric are "alive and well today" in the texts of such writers as Stanley Fish and Richard Rorty (p. 82). It is precisely because rhetoric pretends to be a moral techne that Plato is compelled to argue against rhetoric. Roochnik argues that "given Plato's conception of techne, rhetoric is not one". Though rhetoric generates nontechnical knowledge, "it is not the nontechnical moral knowledge that Plato thinks can be achieved by the philosopher" (p. 14). The way of Socrates is the search for rules, definitions, and universals (p. 250). Though Socrates may not find any human accounts of such things that survive his 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...

has misunderstood me, I shall maintain, and the misunderstanding matters for our collective understanding of antifoundationalism and the genre of writing known as history. In this reply I begin with claims that are intended to challenge SC's reading of my work: First, I am an antifoundationalist. Second, I do not oppose neosophistic scholarship. Third, SC's reading of my work is overly reductionist. Then, in conclusion, I want to suggest that SC's account of antifoundationalism is problematic and that a more pragmatic version of antifoundationalism would be more consistent with SC's presuppositions and politically more useful.1 I do not understand why SC believes I am a foundationalist, since I have identified repeatedly my theoretical preferences for antifoundationalist social constructionism. SC simply proclaims, ex cathedra, that Poulakos, Crowley, Vitanza, Welch, and Jarratt are antifoundationalists, and Havelock, Kerferd, de Romilly, Cole, and I are foundationalists. Though I would be honored to be counted as part of either group, I do not understand why I am in the group that is supposed to move to the back of the bus. Why are these scholars (all of whom have published in classics journals) to be branded foundationalist? Just because they do history and work with original Greek texts? And, even if these scholars are (gasp!) foundationalists, precisely how does that make their work any less valuable?

George A. Kennedy, trans. Aristotle: On Rhetoric (subtitled A Theory of Civic Discourse). Oxford University Press, 1991. 335 + xiii pages. The Importance of George A. Kennedy's Aristotle: On Rhetoric Kennedy's Aristotle: On Rhetoric as a Pedagogical Tool Kennedy's Rhetoric as a Contribution to Rhetorical Theory Kennedy's Aristotle: on Rhetoric as a Work of Translation∗ James J. Murphy, ed. A Short History of Writing Instruction: From Ancient Greece to Twentieth‐Century America. Davis, CA: Hermagoras Press, 1990. 241 + v pages. Teaching the History of Writing Instruction Thomas Miller. The Selected Writings of John Witherspoon. Southern Illinois University Press, 1990. 318 + viii pages. Patricia Harkin and John Schilb, eds. Contending with Words: Composition and Rhetoric in the Postmodern Age. New York: Modern Language Association, 1991. iv + 242 pages. Sandra Stotsky, ed. Connecting Civic Education and Language Education: The Contemporary Challenge. New York: Teachers College Press of Columbia University, 1991. Janis Forman, ed. New Visions of Collaborative Writing. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook Publishers, 1992. 200 pages. $23.50.

George Kimball Plochmann & Franklin E. Robinson, A Friendly Companion to Plato's GORGIAS. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1988. 415 pp. Perspectives on Literacy. Edited by Eugene R. Kintgen, Barry M. Kroll, and Mike Rose. Carbondale and Edwardsville, IL: Southern Illinois University Press, 1988. Pp. xix + 476.