˂ J J V  //à RHGeorge  RR AA 2EighteenthCentury New Rhetoric: Recent Scholarhip and Future Directions "It was the best of times. It was the worst of times" might well be the motto of eighteenthcentury new rhetoric scholars. On the one hand, they get to study one of the few (some scholars argue the only) genuinely revolutionary shifts in the rhetorical tradition, occuring in a period of fascinating social, political, and philsophical dislocations. Areas for study seem almost limitless. On the other hand, scholarship in the field is stymied by two serious problems. First, scholars lack truly definitive editions of all the major texts. Ironically, the most scholarly edition of the lot Bryce's edition of Adam Smith's lectures handles the text that's in the worst shape, consisting only of a set of students' notes. Second, for some unknown reason, the scholarship periodically falls to a level of stagnation from which it never fully recovers. It's a field that somehow resists renown. Every once in a while, it witnesses a flurry of activity such as occurred in the 1960s when rhetoricians like James Golden, Edward P. J. Corbett, Douglas Ehninger, Vincent Bevilacqua, and Lloyd Bitzer led the field. But this work virtually ceased in the 1970's, and it is only now beginning to start up again. What this means is that scholars can never safely assume that their readers are even vaguely familiar with the primary texts. The result: scholarship seems to start over again every few decades, and the field abounds in general overviews and descriptive studies. In this essay, I examine the work being done on four major new rhetoricians: Hugh Blair, George Campbell, Joseph Priestley, and Adam Smith. Recent scholarship falls into four main categories. The second half of the essay suggests future directions scholarship in new rhetoric might take. Recent Scholarship Philosophical foundations The chief preoccupation of contemporary scholars has been analyzing the philosophical foundations of new rhetoric texts. All the editors' introductions and most major articles discuss this aspect of the theory, some at great length. Bevilacqua and Bitzer's studies are especially wellknown for their treatment of the philosophy. There's no doubt this is important work. These philosophical studies generally exhibit exceptionally thorough primary research. One recent debate of this kind focuses on the extent to which Campbell was influenced by David Hume. Bitzer and indirectly Bator see key concepts in Campbell which stem directly from Hume while Bevilacqua claims that Campbell clearly aligned himself with Reid's common sense philosophy which was meant to refute Hume's skepticism. Benoit says the beauty of Campbell is that he so masterfully synthesizes the opposing beliefs of Hume and Reid. While such studies are interesting, I believe we've had enough. The problem with this type of scholarship is that it really has become a preoccupation current studies address the same issues they addressed adequately 30 years ago. Even more troublesome is that fact that many of these philosophical studies end up being primarily descriptive: here's what common sense philosophy looks like; let me point to where it appears in the rhetoric. Scholars study what went into new rhetorical theory without asking why what social, political, or moral ends did this philosophies serve? History of American writing instruction Campbell and Blair's rhetorics (and, later, Richard Whately's) were enormously popular in nineteenthcentury American colleges. This prompted Berlin to comment "to understand Genung [an imitator of new rhetoric] is, I am convinced, to understand something about ourselves" ("Genung" 75). As composition has begun to develop a sense of itself as a discipline over the past few decades, scholars have shown increasing interest in understanding themselves by writing a history of the discipline. Berlin and others who are greatly dissatisfied with the currenttraditional rhetoric that still predominates many composition classrooms want to trace its origins to see how we ended up with such a problematic pedagogy as well to find a way out of the mess. Berlin's three historical studies are excellent. Another group writing composition history looks back to new rhetoric not to place blame but to find theory or methods useful for today. So Griswold finds similarities between Campbell and modern invention theory/practice, and Brown, in a more useful study, examines Campbell to find the origins of modern audience analysis and accommodation. Miller looks back not only to correct our version of the origin of English studies but also to reform our historiography. He claims that scholars have written a skewed history because they've based their ideas on what happened at elite universities such as Oxford when they should be looking at public universities like Ohio State. Instead, scholars should remember that the history of language instruction is "a process that begins at the margins of the discourse community where populatins meet and develop new ways of expressing themselves to those who do not share their language" (67). Relation to classical tradition Since "new" rhetoric sets itself up in opposition to "old" or Aristotelian rhetoric, it's natural that critics would ask, "So just how new is this?" No longer the explicit topic of many scholarly articles (Purcell might be an exception although he does his influence study with a twist and finds Smith highly derivative), comparisons to Aristotle, Cicero, and/or Quintilian abound, especially in editors' introductions and even as background material in individual articles. Any number of scholars will explain how much of classical inventio or the appeals remains intact in any given author. But current discussions tend to be more descriptive than anything else. Like the philosophical studies, a certain number of classical comparisons are useful to the field. We're over our limit. Individual interpretative studies One final area that's just beginning to gain momentum is interpretive studies of individual rhetorics. These studies try to shed some light on one neglected aspect of the work. Bators work on the principle of sympathy in Campbell borders on the overdone, but Hogan's article on Smith's historiography is an example of these kinds of studies at their best. Purcell and Thomson both argue that new rhetoricians aren't as influential or useful as they might seem and, thus, help to stir up the field a bit. Let's hope these kinds of studies continue. Future Directions In her 1990 bibliography of contemporary and historical rhetoric, Winifred Horner writes that "scholarship in eighteenthcentury historical rhetoric for the past six years is characterized by its paucity and by its narrow approach" (138). As we have seen, not much has changed in the past three years, leaving the field wide open for new scholars with new approaches. Primary source work Bryce's edition of Smith's lectures may be about as good as they're going to get short of another serendipitous discovery of notes, but serious work can't easily proceed until we have truly definitive editions of Blair, Campbell, and Priestley. Facsimile reprints seem to be the latest craze. While there's no doubt that such editions are valuable in providing scholars with "thenextbestthingtobeingthere" access to rare texts, historical rhetoricians should have them in addition to, not in place of, scholarly editions with full apparatus and annotations. In addition, since eighteenthcentury rhetoricians were often quite prolific, there's plenty of work for scholars to do recovering and editing correspondence, memoirs, and other miscellaneous writing. Penn State's catalog, for example, lists almost 250 manuscripts, pamphlets, letters, sermons, essays, short (and long!) books by Joseph Priestley most of which are largely unexplored. While some of these items his arguments about phlogiston or discourses on the evidence of revealed religion may seem irrelevant to the study of rhetoric, a broader definition of "relevant" might prove very productive. Too often scholars write about Priestley or Smith, for instance, without examining (or even acknowledging) connections between the rhetorical theory and the political, scientific, or religious discourse they engaged in. Relation to classical tradition As I've mentioned earlier, the field of historical rhetoric will do just fine, thank you, without another "how Campbell uses Aristotle" study. What makes the relationship between classical and new rhetoric a topic still worth exploring are changes in our understanding of the classical tradition. Susan Jarratt and others have done a great deal of work to recover and rehabilitate sophistic rhetorics and thus explode the assumption that classical rhetoric is a unified tradition. Do any of these other traditions find their way into the eighteenth century? Can scholars learn anything from examining new rhetoric in light of ancient thinkers besides Aristotle and Cicero? Given the politically charged atmosphere in Britain at this time, for instance, the sophists' dissoi logoi seems a very appropriate concept to apply to new rhetoric. Continental influences Eighteenthcentury scholars have clear evidence that Blair, Campbell, and especially Smith and Priestley (who corresponded with people in France and was even offered French citizenship) read Fenelon, Lamy, Rollin, the Port Royalists, and other French theorists. Readers find mention of this in footnotes and editors' introductions. But few scholars do anything with this information. Aside from Howell's 30 pages on French influences and Warnick's solid study of Rollin, influence is still usually treated as if it can only move one way, from Great Britain out, typically to America. Clearly, the French connection deserves greater exploration. And there's no reason to stop with France. Scholars might also examine, for instance, the faculty psychology of Christian Wolff and rhetorical theory of Johan Sulzer. It could be a very productive move to think of new rhetoricians not just as members of the Scottish enlightenment but also as members of an international community of writers and thinkers. Contextualized studies Berlin opens his study of nineteenthcentury American rhetoric by reminding readers that "a rhetoric is a social invention. It arises out of a time and place, a peculiar social context, establishing for a period the conditions that make a peculiar kind of communication possible" (Writing Instruction 1). It's something that scholars in this field badly need reminding of. They've done an excellent job uncovering and explaining the philosophical contexts for new rhetoric but then have stopped contextualizing, as if philosophy and rhetoric comprised the entirety of a culture. Presumably, then, Blair, Campbell, Priestley, and Smith didn't work or think about politics or worry about paying bills. If we imagine, instead, that they did do those things and that they did them in the company of others similarly occupied, we open up a virtually untouched area for study one that should give us a much richer understanding of the rhetoric of these texts about rhetoric. Several recent contextualized studies suggest some of the possibilities. Miller's excellent analysis of the origin of English studies positions new rhetorics firmly as lectures (except for Campbell) given at particular institutions. At Warrington, for instance, Priestley taught students in law, medicine, and business; students whose parents were "prosperous but disenfranchised members of the bourgeoisie" (54). Scholars could examine ways in which Priestley's text worked to try to empower students, politically and economically. Miller also notes that Scottish universities were governed not by academics but by the merchants on the town council who had a vested interest in attracting more customers to the city; lecturers were paid fees by their students the more interesting your lecture, the more money you earned. Miller further claims that new rhetoric is written by and for outsiders Dissenters and Scots who wanted their students to gain entry into the establishment (thus, their concern to teach students the "prestige" language through English models and emphasis on style) and, at the same time, to reform it. Similarly, Court's article asserts that Smith taught English literature to his students in order to develop the moral capabilities needed to keep the excesses of laissezfaire capitalism in check. While Court may raise the hackles of rhetoric scholars over his claim that Smith taught literature not rhetoric, his article provides a muchneeded model of a reading that synthesizes political, economic, and moral elements. In short, both of these scholars acknowledge the fact that ideas about language necessarily have political and social effects. What I am suggesting, then, is that scholars employ a wide range of contemporary critical theories or methodologies new historicism, cultural studies, neomarxism, Bahktinian heteroglossia, etc. to open up these texts in new ways. Historiographical questions The eighteenth century is often skipped over in history of rhetoric courses, even on the graduate level. The names Campbell, Blair, and Whately may appear on a reading list for comprehensive exams all three on one line, as if, taken together (usually with groans), they add up to one thing. Whoever heard of Adam Smith or Joseph Priestley as rhetoricians? Horner suggests, finally, that our dismissal of this rich and complex period should provoke us to ask difficult questions about our own attitudes and methods: "why do we resist these rhetorics?" (140). In this essay I have summarized the main lines of recent criticism on new rhetoric as well as suggested possible areas for future study. Scholars have done plenty of work on the philosophical foundations of new rhetoric and on its relation to classical (that is, Aristotelian) rhetoric and American pedagogy. A great deal of work on primary sources remains to be done. Once historical rhetoricians have access to good editions and other supporting documents, they can begin the enormous but fascinating task of trying to contextualize these rhetorics within the circle of their immediate culture, within the international community of eigtheenthcentury theorists, and within the long rhetorical tradition(s) begun by the ancients. The work is hard. The rewards could be great. J [An Annotated Bibliography of Recent Criticism on EighteenthCentury New Rhetoric [Note: The majority of critical works cited cover the years 198093; however, selected earlier works which remain crucial to current scholarship, particularly on Joseph Priestley, have been included.] J WA   ”Editions   Blair, Hugh. Lectures on Rhetoric and Belles Lettres. 2 vols. London and Edinburgh, 1783. Reprinted in facsimile. Ed. Harold F. Harding. 2 vols. Southern Illinois University Press Series, Landmarks in Rhetoric and Public Address, edited by David Potter. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1965.   Based on the first and complete London edition of 1783 which included notes and index. Harding adds an introduction and select bibliography, now badly outdated. Horner rates Harding as the best introduction to Blair (137), but it gives little more than a decriptive overview.   Campbell, George. The Philosophy of Rhetoric. London, 1776. Reprinted: New Edition, London, 1850. New Edition reprinted in facsimile. Ed. Lloyd F. Bitzer. Southern Illinois University Press Series, Landmarks in Rhetoric and Public Address, edited by David Potter. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1988.   The standard but by no means definitive edition. Includes index, list of editions, and corrections and additions for 1850 edition but no notes. Bitzer chose the 1850 edition for its typographical quality and textual accuracy, the latter determined by comparison with the 1808 edition which was the first to include Campbell's own revisions. See citation for Bitzer's introduction below.   ©. The Philosophy of Rhetoric. New York: Harper, 1841. Introd. Charlotte Downey. Delmar, NY: Scholars' Facsimiles & Reprints, 1992.   Facsimile of an American edition. Introduction includes brief descriptive notes and select bibliography of primary works. No index, notes, or discussion of this edition.   Priestley, Joseph. A Course of Lectures on Oratory and Criticism. London, 1777. Reprinted in facsimile. Eds. Vincent M. Bevilacqua and Richard Murphy. Southern Illinois University Press Series, Landmarks in Rhetoric and Public Address, edited by David Potter. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1965.   Claims to be the definitive edition based on the original "as most nearly expressing Priestley's wishes and uncluttered by Rutt's comments" (xxi). Includes index, select bibliography (now outdated), and helpful introduction. See citation for Bevilacqua and Murphy's introduction below.   ©. A Course of Lectures on Oratory and Criticism. Ed. Rutt, John Towill. [London] Hackney: George Smallfield, 1824. Vol. XXIII of The Theological and Miscellaneous Works of Joseph Priestley, LL. D., F. R. S., etc. 25 vols. 181732.   According to Bevilacqua, Rutt "made no substantial changes in the body of the lectures, but relocated Priestley's source references from the text to footnotes, specifically identified literary passages, and added notes of his own" (xxi). Despite Bevilacqua's newer edition, Rutt remains the standard for many scholars. This volume also contains The Rudiments of English Grammar, A Course of Lectures on the Theory of Language, and Universal Grammar. This volume was reprinted with a new title page and notes on the grammar by Dr. Kippis, London, 1826 and 1833.    ©. A Course of Lectures on Oratory and Criticism. Dublin: William Hallhead, 1781.   An unauthorized edition, identical to the 1777 Johnson edition except for some errors.   Smith, Adam. Lectures on Rhetoric and Belles Lettres Delivered in the University of Glasgow by Adam Smith Reported by a Student in 176263. Ed. John M. Lothian. Southern Illinois University Press Series, Landmarks in Rhetoric and Public Address, edited by David Potter. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1977.   ©. Lectures on Rhetoric and Belles Lettres. Ed. J. C. Bryce. New York: Oxford University Press, 1983. Vol. 4 of The Glasgow Edition of The Works and Correspondence of Adam Smith. Gen. ed. A. S. Skinner. 6 vols. 197683.   Not widely used but the most scholarly edition available. Based on the original notes but with normalized punctuation and grammar. Bryce's goal is "to allow the reader to judge for himself the nature of the manuscript by presenting it as fully as print will allow" (6); the edition indicates verso number, scribal hand, deletions and additions in the manuscript, and editor's amendations. Contains excellent introduction (Bryce argues against Lothian's claim that the notes were written hurriedly in class and are thus unreliable), notes, index, and appendices. Also reprints "Considerations Concerning the First Formation of Languages" (1761), an expanded version of Lecture 3.    Bibliographies   Horner, Winifred Bryan. "The Eighteenth Century." The Present State of Scholarship in Historical and Contemporary Rhetoric, Revised Edition. Ed. Winifred Bryan Horner. Columbia: University of Missouri Press, 1990. 11450.   Long bibliographic essay that begins with an excellent overview of the period followed by discussions of primary and general works. Next, a background section on epistemology and philosophy sets up discussions of the four main schools of eighteenthcentury rhetoric: neoclassical rhetoric, old rhetoric, eloqution, and bellestristic rhetoric. Because of its importance, the latter section is further subdivided by author. A thorough, alphabetized list of primary and secondary sources ends the essay. An invaluable tool.   Irvine, James. R. "George Campbell: Manuscripts in Scottish Archives." Rhetoric Society Quarterly 17 (1987): 1013.   A select list of manuscript titles; no notes and no perceivable order to the list.     ”Secondary Sources   Books   Berlin, James A. Writing Instruction in Nineteenth Century American Colleges. Studies in Writing & Rhetoric for the Conference on College Composition and Communication. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1984.  Œ  Chapters 14 examine the assumptions about reality, language, audience, and writer underlying eighteenthcentury new rhetoric and the reasons why these assumptions were useful and popular in the U.S. Chapter 6 traces new rhetoric's transformation into current traditional rhetoric. Extremely clear and compelling analysis. Excellent bibliography.   Golden, James L. and Edward P. J. Corbett. The Rhetoric of Blair, Campbell, and Whately. 1968, 1980. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. With updated bibliographies. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1990.   Reprints the most significant portions of Blair, Campbell, and Whately's texts. Introduction gives a good overview of the period and new rhetoric. Excellent bibliographies.   Howell, Wilbur Samuel. Eighteenth Century British Logic and Rhetoric. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1971.   Detailed and authoritative currently the best overview available, but it's plodding and ponderous (all 717 pages) and needs to be updated. Read the chapter introductions.   Ulman, Howard Lewis. Things, Thoughts, Words, and Actions: the Problem of Language in Late EighteenthCentury British Rhetorical Theory. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, in press.    Articles   Abbott, Don Paul. "The Influence of Blair's Lectures in Spain." Rhetorica 7 (1989): 27589.   Focuses on the popularity of the Munarriz translation of Blair as a college text. Claims that Blair was so successful in Spain because he was "unabashedly pedagogical" and because his ecclectic approach proved both useful to students and theoretically sound to scholars for its fusion of Romanticism and neoclassicism.   Bator, Paul G. "The Formation of the Regius Chair of Rhetoric and Belles Lettres at the University of Edinburgh." Quarterly Journal of Speech 75 (1989): 4064.   Historical account of the establishment of the Chair (first held by Hugh Blair) that incorporates "social, philosophical, political, religious, and literary aspects of the Scottish enlightenment." Welldocumented analysis, one of the few to contextualize the study of rhetoric at this time.   ©. "The 'Principle of Sympathy' in Campbell's Philosophy of Rhetoric." Quarterly Journal of Speech 68 (1982): 41824.   Argues that scholars have overlooked the importance of Campbell's principle of sympathy (directly appropriated from Hume) in establishing his rhetoric as a groundbreaking text. Campbell stood alone in his beliefs that to be persuasive orators must appeal to both reason and passions and that sympathy "is the engine by which the orator operates on the passions."   Beniot, William L. "Campbell's The Philosophy of Rhetoric and the Advancement of Rhetorical Theory: The Integration of Philosophical Antecedents." Communication Studies 41 (1990): 89100.   Hopes to close the debate on Campbell's philosophical antecedents by arguing that what's important is not a single source of influence but Campbell's skill in synthesizing ideas from opposing schools of philosophy. The synthesis claim is a worthwhile contribution to the debate, but most of the article consists of rather simplistic explanations of the three underlying philosophies. See Bevilacqua, Bitzer, and Bormann for more thorough treatment.   Berlin, James A. "John Genung and Contemporary Composition Theory: The Triumph of the Eighteenth Century." Rhetoric Society Quarterly 11 (1981): 7484.  Examines the strong influence of Campbell and Blair on Genung's popular American college text Practical Elements of Rhetoric (1886), particularly Genung's conception of rhetoric and its relationship to poetics and his underlying epistemological assumptions. Argues that, because Genung's text is clearly a product of the eighteenth century as well as a model for texts commonly used today (currenttraditional rhetoric), we are "forced to conclude that our classroom rhetoric is too often based on a view of the individual and of reality that no thinking person any longer accepts" (82).   ©. "Rhetoric and Poetics in the English Department: Our NineteenthCentury Inheritance." College English 47 (1985): 52133.   Traces process leading to institutional separation of rhetoric and poetics and the consequent denigration of rhetoric in the late nineteenth century. Claims the division is caused by loss of a mutually shared epistemology: rhetoric, derived from Campbell and Blair, "becomes petrified in the service of an eighteenthcentury positivist epistemology" while poetics, drawing from contemporary literature and theory, advances. Solid article, worth reading.   Bevilacqua, Vincent M. "Campbell, Priestley, and the Controversy Concerning Common Sense." Southern Speech Journal 30 (1964): 7998.   Explains the chief point of controversy between Priestley and the common sense school the grounds of assent for primary truths then examines the effect of these opposing beliefs on Campbell and Priestley's rhetorical theories. Welldocumented and insightful study.   ©. "Campbell, Vico, and the Rhetorical Science of Human Nature." Philosophy and Rhetoric 18 (1985): 2330.   Reads Campbell against Giambattista Vico in order to elucidate the view of human nature underlying Campbell's rhetoric. Interesting enough project but concludes only that, unlike Vico's imaginative/poetic approach, Campbell's study of human nature is restricted by his Baconian method. Finally, offers little insight into Campbell's thought.   ©. "Philosophical Influences in the Development of English Rhetorical Theory: 1748 to 1783." Proceedings of the Leeds Philosophical and Literary Society, Literary and Historical Section, 12 (1968): 191215.   Discusses the influence of the scientific methods of Descartes, Bacon, Newton, and Locke as well as French theorists on eighteenthcentury rhetorical theory. Because science now claimed to be the preeminent theory of discovery, rhetoric became primarily a theory of communication; thus, new rhetoric limits the function of classical invention and shows renewed emphasis on style. Thorough and detailed discussion but difficult to follow without strong background in "new" science and not especially well written.   Bevilacqua, Vincent M. and Richard Murphy. Editor's Introduction. A Course of Lectures on Oratory and Criticism. By Joseph Priestley. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1965. ixlviii.   Quite useful introduction by two top scholars in the field. Includes brief biography, remarks on Priestley editions, and description and analysis of the text. Bevilacqua's explanation of Priestley's philosophy is especially good.   Bitzer, Lloyd. Editor's Introduction. The Philosophy of Rhetoric. By George Campbell. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1988. viili.   Gives brief biography and discussion of works followed by heavilydocumented analysis of text, focusing on Campbell's empiricism and common sense philosophy. Bitzer argues two controversial positions: that Campbell does not advocate a "managerial" rhetoric and that the key aspects of Campbell's rhetoric empiricism, vivacity, association, and passion (not reason) as chief motivator are all taken rather directly from Hume. Often cited and very detailed but also often repetitive and overlycomplicated.   Bormann, Dennis. "George Campbell's Cura Prima on Eloquence 1758." Quarterly Journal of Speech 74 (1988): 3551.  Œ  Presents and discusses implications of newlydiscovered manuscript of Campbell's "The Nature of Eloquence, its various species and their respective ends," a paper presented to the Philosophical Society of Aberdeen in 1858. Interesting but of limited significance.   ©. "Some Common Sense about Campbell, Hume, and Reid." Quarterly Journal of Speech 71 (1985): 395421.   Argues against claim by Bitzer and others that Campbell's Philosophy of Rhetoric is based primarily upon Hume. Uses historical, biographical, and epistolary evidence to locate Campbell clearly within the Common Sense School, opponents of Hume's skepticism. Wellresearched, cogent argument.   Brown, Stuart C., and Thomas Willard. "George Campbell's Audience: Historical and Theoretical Considerations." In A Sense of Audience in Written Communication, edited by Gesa Kirsch and Duane Roen. Beverly Hills: Sage, 1990.   Hopes to restore the reputation of The Philosophy of Rhetoric from unmerited blame for currenttraditional rhetoric. Traces Campbell's influence (mainly by citing Howell) and describes Book I to credit Campbell for developing "one of the first modern instances of audience awareness" (59). Useful to newcomers to the field for its brief overview.   Carter, Michael. "The Role of Invention in Belletrisitic Rhetoric: A Study of the Lectures of Adam Smith." Rhetoric Society Quarterly 18 (1988): 313.   Examines Smith's taxonomy of discourse and his treatment of arrangement and style to show how the classical notion of invention was lost in the shift to bellestristic (now currenttraditional) rhetoric. Occasionally difficult to follow but interesting article.   Court, Franklin. "Adam Smith and the Teaching of English Literature." History of Education Quarterly 25 (1985): 32540.   Claims that Smith was the first professor to formally lecture on English literature (as opposed to rhetoric) and that Smith saw this literature "as a social and moral corrective for dangers that he believed were inherent in laissezfaire capitalism, particularly dangers associated with the potential for a morally corrupted concept of individualism" (337). An excellent contextualized reading of Smith.   Fruchtman, Jack, Jr. "Joseph Priestley on Rhetoric and the Power of Political Discourse," Eighteenth Century Life 7 (1982): 3747.   Discusses the role of association in Priestley's rhetoric and shows how Priestley applies this theory in two of his own political treatises. Helpful explanation of association, but the application analysis seems a rather sterile exercise.   Griswold, Charles L., Jr. "On Campbell's Philosophy of Rhetoric and Its Relevance to Contemporary Invention." Rhetoric Society Quarterly 11 (1981): 14554.   Finds that "the juxtaposition of contemporary views of invention and Campbell's philosophies is not as unlikely as if first appears" since both emphasize writers' creation of meaning as a tentative process. Not much of a find.   Hogan, Michael J. "Historiography and Ethics in Adam Smith's Lectures on Rhetoric, 17621763." Rhetorica 2 (1984): 7591.   Argues that Smith's discussion of historiography is the most original part of the lectures and the most significant because there Smith posits "a role for historiography in the induction of ethical maxims" (91). Interesting look at a largely unexamined part of Smith's text.   Miller, Thomas P. "Where Did College English Studies Come From?" Rhetoric Review 9 (1990): 5068.   Traces the beginnings of English studies to the Dissenting academies and Scottish universities of the late seventeenth and eighteenth centuries and asserts that we can only understand these beginnings by examining the educational and social contexts in which new theories of rhetoric and literature originated. Devotes a section to Priestley's philosophy and educational practice at Warrington. Wellresearched, theoreticallyinformed study.   Purcell, William M. "A Reassessment of Adam Smith's Lectures on Rhetoric and Belles Lettres." Central States Speech Journal 37 (1986): 4554.   Argues against the accepted view that Smith's lectures were original and expanded the province of rhetoric. Purcell claims that rhetoric occupies only a small part of the lectures and that it is derived rather directly from classical sources. Purcell relies solely on a close reading of the Lectures for evidence which is troubling given the lack of an authoritative text.   Thomson, Ian. "Rhetoric and the Passions, 17601800." Rhetoric Revalued. Ed. Brian Vickers. Binghamton: Medieval & Renaissance Texts & Studies, 1982. 14348.   Argues that new rhetoricians, particularly Priestley and Blair, attempted to revitalize rhetoric without "due consideration of the purpose a rhetorical education might be expected to serve in their own era." The result is that new rhetoric is an uneven synthesis of new psychology and classical rhetorical theory which fails to be either useful or to make significant theoretical advances. A suggestive study.   Warnick, Barbara. "Charles Rollin's Traite and the Rhetorical Theories of Smith, Campbell, and Blair." Rhetorica 3 (1985): 4565.   Discusses Rollin's Traite des etudes, translated into English in 1734, as a major transitional text between the old and new French rhetoric, then examines Rollin's direct and indirect influences on British new rhetoricians. Although Rollins admits she lacks much evidence of direct influence, her argument is nonetheless quite reasonable and opens up the muchneglected study of continental influences on British rhetoric.   Wood, Paul B. "Thomas Reid's Critique of Joseph Priestley: Context and Chronology." Man and Nature. Proceedings of the Canadian Society for EighteenthCentury Studies, Vol. 4. Eds. David H. Jory and Charles StewartRobinson. Edmonton, Alberta: Academic Printing and Publishing: 1985. 2945.   Author's main interest is in discussing Reid's knowledge and criticism of materialism, but the final two sections give a short account specifically of the ReidPriestley debate and of the political motivation behind Priestley's attack on Reid's philosophy in his An Examination of Dr. Reid's Inquiry into the Human Mind on the Principles of Common Sense and part three of the Institutes of Natural and Revealed Religion. Wellresearched and interesting.