Rhetoric in the European Tradition

by Thomas M. Conley

Rhetoric in the European Tradition provides a comprehensive, chronological survey of the basic models of rhetoric as they developed from the early Greeks through the twentieth century. Discussing rhetorical theories and practices in the context of the times of political and intellectual crisis that gave rise to them, Thomas M. Conley chooses carefully from a vast pool of rhetorical literature to give voice to those authors who exercised the greatest influence in their own and succeeding generations. This book is valuable as both an introduction for students and a reference and resource for scholars in fields including literature, cultural history, philosophy, and speech and communication studies.

Genres: History, Nonfiction, School

336 pages, Paperback

First published February 6, 1994

Reviews

[Fredrik deBoer · Rating 4 out of 5]

Most people define rhetoric as a species of bullshit, but it really just means the study of argument and persuasion, which seems like a worthwhile pursuit to me. If you’re looking for a place to start, Conley’s book represents a comprehensive and in-depth examination of the history and development of rhetoric in the European tradition. Conley offers a detailed analysis of the major figures and texts of the tradition, from ancient Greece to the present day. (Present day circa 1994, that is.) He also provides a clear and accessible introduction to the key concepts and techniques of rhetoric, making the book a great resource for a beginner looking to pick up core concepts.

[Lyndon Bailey]

The first few chapters which explain the different rhetorical traditions in Greece are particularly interesting and actually include some technical terminology. The middle section is a bit of a drag but the later chapters on enlightenment and modern rhetors such as Kenneth Burke are also worth a read. It does a good job of charting the treatment of the subject over the eras and there is also great details about keyb rhetorical texts and their channels of influence. Worth a read for anyone interesting in the history of rhetoric.

[Nanette · Rating 3 out of 5]

A “thorough” history of rhetoric through a white man’s lens. A survey illustrating why rhetorical studies are what they are today. Focused on the primary rhetoricians of distinct time periods, Conley moves the reader through time (beginning with Socrates) and up until publication: 1990 (yes, dated). Data heavy. Devoid of any female influence other than a bland gesture to Jane Austen as an author reflecting the exigencies of her era in her novels which crises influenced rhetorical theory and praxis. He could have at least acknowledged the silence instead of compounding it. Dull to the bone. On to Cheryl Glenn’s revisionist rhetorical history: “Rhetoric Retold.”

[Eric · Rating 4 out of 5]

Conley’s survey of Western rhetorical history beginning with Homer and ending with Habermas. Conley claims he is “guided by two thematic principles”: that rhetoric is especially critical and important to people “during times of strife and crisis, political and intellectual,” and that there are “various perennial responses to such crises productive of distinctive views of … rhetoric” rather than a single monolithic “Rhetoric” (viii). These principles are relatively tacit in the rest of the book, which begins in Greece. Conley depicts Greek rhetoric as having for primary threads: those of Plato, Aristotle, Isocrates, and the sophists (primarily Gorgias and Protagoras, though he prefers the latter). He then turns to Rome, focusing especially on Cicero’s controversia-driven and Isocratean approach rhetoric (46). After noting Hermogenes’ influence in the eastern empire with Cicero’s in the western portion, he turns to various medieval rhetorics. He presents the Middle Ages as largely divided between the approaches of Augustine, who is focused on rhetoric as a means of stating Christianity’s message more eloquently, and Boethius, who privileges dialectic over rhetoric. He also notes a strong Ciceronian influence in medieval Europe and defends the period as more rhetorically complex than traditionally noted. His consideration of the Renaissance presents its rhetorical conflicts as largely grounded in religious and social controversies (Erasmus’ opposition to Luther, for instance), and claims Peter Ramus’ potentially reductive approach to rhetoric as style was itself a reductive reworking of Agricola the significance and influence of which has been overstated.

Over the course of the seventeenth century to the present, Conley tracks the increasing focus on affect by rhetors and rhetoricians, as well as the various points of contention and intersection between rhetoric, literature, and philosophy. He notes Descartes’ and Kant’s suspicion of rhetoric and style, the rise of elocution and belles lettres in rhetoric (particularly in Scotland), and the literary, political, and ethical implications of rhetorical scholarship as practiced by Richard Weaver, Kenneth Burke, and I. A. Richards. Conley ends with a chapter on McKeon, Perelman, Toulmin, and Habermas (whose rejection of the Heidegger Conley seems to implicitly forward), noting the ways these philosophers’ work on argument has been appropriated and taken up by rhetoric scholars. Throughout all of this, Conley has constant recourse to the classical threads with which he began, equating--for instance--Burke with Isocrates, Richards with Gorgias, Weaver with Plato, and the men covered in the final chapter with a “new Ciceronianism” (304).

[Chris Comis · Rating 4 out of 5]

I was pleasantly surprised by this book. I Thought it was going to be pretty dry-bones, but turned out to be very insightful, especially the sections where Conley showed the demise of rhetoric over the last two or three hundred years - primarily as a result of Enlightenment rationalism creeping into various academies. The war between abstract rationalistic logic on the one hand, and eloquence and rhetoric on the other, is a fairly recent problem. The ancient and medieval rhetorics did not see such a dichotomy (or opposition) between these. There were always debates about which was most important; which should be emphasized over the other; which should be taught prior to the other for pedagogical purposes; etc. But there has never been an all-out attack on the art of persuasion and delivery like there was with the early modern philosophers.

There is light at the end of the tunnel though. In the last chapter of the book, Conley shows how current trends amongst some "schools" of philosophy are starting to realize the importance (and even necessity) of rhetoric and eloquence for philosophical purposes.

The best part of the book for me though, from beginning to end, would have to be the constant appeal to our Mother Kirk (along with her Motherly Tongue) in showing all the ways She has influenced rhetoric over the last two millennia. Even before Augustine, Christian pastors and educators have been teaching the world how to think, write, speak, and persuade well. Of course, Conley begins the whole rhetorical enterprise with Plato and other lesser known Greeks. It would be great if some Christians could pursue studying rhetoric and eloquence from an older covenant standpoint. It would be great to see how the Church throughout history has influenced the art of persuasion.

[Laurie McKickass]

Conley's textbook (because this is what it feels like) attempts to cover perhaps more ground than is really possible, though his ambition is admirable. While shortchanging some eras of rhetorical tradition (Byzantine rhetoric for the most part, though his more contemporary 20th century coverage seems arbitrary as well), his work has been a useful tool for grounding my further readings and as a companion piece to many of the primary texts he addresses. His Ciceronian bias seems overwhelming at first, but his consistent and insistent returning to that Roman author becomes almost charming after a while.

[Bruce Martin · Rating 3 out of 5]

Strong for an undergraduate survey of European rhetoric; good for a review for graduate studies. Lots of names, though, so be prepared for info overload in some areas. Would like to see more outlines in chapter appendices for major works.