Reviews 231 Caroline van Eck, Classical Rhetoric and the Visual Arts in Early Modern Europe. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge & New York, 2007 225 pp. The central claim of Caroline van Eek's new book is that classical rhetoric s treatment of the non-verbal and figurative aspects of persuasive communication influenced both the producers and consumers of visual art and architecture in early modern Europe. Primarily drawing on discussions of gesture and image in Quintilian and Cicero (but also Aristotle and Long­ inus), van Eck links what she sees as the primary aim of oratory—vivid representation, enarycia—to the v isual realm of image making. Classical rhetoricians who argued that figurative language and gesture enabled or­ ators to bring their subject to life before the eyes (and the mind's eye) gave early modern artists and spectators a framework within which to create and experience visual art. The argument of the book is that classical rhetoric and early modern visual art share an emphasis on figuration, defined by van Eck as "giving an outward, visible shape to emotion, thoughts or memories that creates the illusion of human life and agency" (p. 9). Attending to figuration by viewing early modern v isual art through the lens of rhetoric rather than post-Kantian aesthetics, van Eck argues, offers a better understanding of the socio-cultural function of art in the period. After making the case for a connection between rhetoric and the visual arts in the Introduction, van Eck devotes the first section of the book to theory. The two chapters that make up this section offer detailed readings of Alberti's De Pictura and three Italian Renaissance architectural treatises, by Vincenzo Scamozzi, Gherardo Spini, and Daniel Barbaro. The discussion of Alberti is focused on linking the representational character of painting to the role of representation in rhetorical theory. While there is little doubt that visual artists were concerned with representation, van Eck argues that the role of persuasion in that representative enterprise has not been adequately explored. Similarly, while the persuasive aspect of oratory is an obvious focus of classical rhetorical theory, it is the goal of vividly representing human activity that made rhetoric an important conceptual toolbox for an art theorist like Alberti. Viewed in this way, rhetoric and visual art share common ground in seeking to bring to life that which is absent. The argument is compelling, though the emphasis on painting as per­ suasive representation elides aesthetic considerations in favor of an under­ standing of artistic practice as a form of interested communication. Of course, this is van Eek's point: that the influence of Kantian aesthetics (particularly the disinterested appreciation of the beautiful) on art history has obscured the value early modern artists and spectators placed on the ability of an artwork to move or persuade. In pointing out the historical difference sep­ arating Renaissance and Enlightenment subjects, van Eck reveals interesting connections between rhetoric and the visual arts. If there is a limitation to the approach it is in van Eek's tendency to subordinate pleasing or delightful aspects of the work of art to its ability to persuade. This tendency takes 232 RHETORICA the discussion away from the particularities of individual works of art in the service of demonstrating the consistent, but more general emphasis on vividness of representation. If some of the discussion of representation is overly general, the same cannot be said about the van Eek's treatment of her specialty, architectural theory When she turns to architecture in the second chapter, for example, the discussion takes on a less speculative and more scholarly tone. This may stem from the fact that the attitude toward architecture that she hopes to reveal is by her own admission "rarely made explicit" in the period (p. 31). To uncover the hidden relationship between rhetoric and architecture she turns to the somewhat neglected work of Spini, Barbaro, and Scamozzi. What van Eck finds in these treatises is relatively clear evidence of the direct influence of classical rhetorical authorities on the three authors' conceptualization of architecture as a persuasive art form intimately linked to human knowledge and activity. Yet the concentration on three minor works begs the question...