334 RHETORICA 254) he is not wrong strictly speaking, although the observation is too broad to be useful; "radicalized," decorum can look like almost anything including Sunday brunch or the DMV Driver's Handbook. Ultimately these issues are minor when we consider the substantial payoff. David Marshall has written a deeply responsible book that moves with grace, chronologically through Vico's entire oeuvre—including some notable rediscoveries in the archives and beyond—at the same time that it honors the weirdness that makes Vico indispensable. Daniel M. Gross University of California, Irvine Thomas Conley, Toward a Rhetoric ofInsult, Chicago: Chicago Univer­ sity Press, 2009. 132 pp. As he states in the preface to his Toward a Rhetoric of Insult, Thomas Conley's explicit aim is to "stimulate some constructive conversation" (p. viii). Insults have admittedly been a serious political issue in the 2000s. Conley mentions in passing both the Danish cartoons depicting Mohammed (p. 8) and the speech by Pope Benedict XVI about Manuel II Palaeologus (pp. 121-122), and quotes one Iranian imam as saying: "I am for freedom of speech, but not the freedom to insult" (p. 1), which puts the problem of political correctness in a nutshell. The style employed in this book is both expansive and discursive. Conley's range of examples and sources is wide: from antiquity (Aristo­ phanes, Cicero, Martial) to the early-modern period (the sixteenth-century Lutheran Flugschriften, Julius Caesar Scaliger's attack on Erasmus, Shake­ speare's comedies); from the political cartoons and the anti-Semitism of the twentieth century (the leading nazi-ideologist Julius Streicher's Kampf dem Weltfeind and the anti-Semitic insults disseminated by The Dearborn In­ dependent, a Michigan newspaper published by Henry Ford) to TV series and movies created by the comedy group Monty Python. Presentations are generous, and the reader is invited to explore the many facets of the topic. Although Conley's expressed intent is not to theorize insult (p. vii), he nevertheless offers some useful semi-theoretical concepts, defining, for example, what he terms the "scenario" and the "intensity" of insults (p. 3-7). Referring to Saara Lilja's work on insults in Roman comedy (from 1965), Conley underlines the importance of studying "who says what about whom and why" (pp. 13-14). These are more or less rhetorical issues, dealing with and specifying the rhetorical situation. Conley emphasizes that the rhetoric of insults does not concern only elocutio (diction, style), but also pronuntiatio (delivery) like the tone of voice, body language, and timing (p. 7). One of the main arguments in Conley's book is that there are also 'positive' or 'nonserious' insults, which have cohesive effects such as fh/tin^ Reviews 335 (the Scottish tradition of of insult poetry), craik (the banter between friends in the Irish pubs), the dozens (a form of verbal duelling used in AfricanAmerican culture), and battle rap or beefing. Indeed, it is quite delightful to read, e.g., about Yiddish insults (p. 11-12), which seem to be both self-ironical and have a kind, sympathetic nature. According to Conley, some insults can even be analysed like jokes with a punch line, as he does when discussing Martial's epigrams (pp. 43-47). Conley calls into question strict manuals or rules of good conduct; he has some apprehensions about the situation when the maxim 'if you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all' is in operation (p. 120). In his view, this kind of atmosphere and passing laws against insults censures not only freedom of expression but can also threaten the social relationships based on the many kinds of 'positive' insults (p. 116). However, Conley's own tentative definition does not fit well in the benign situations of 'positive' insults. He defines insult as a "severely nega­ tive opinion of a person or group to subvert their positive self-regard and esteem" (p. 2). Furthermore, Conley's examples of, e.g., the aesthetically valuable insults—such as found in the writings of the English critic William Connor (p. 118)—seems to be examples of irony, not of insults. The definition of insult is the subject of the first section of the book...