College English - Volume 61, Issue 5, 1999

Presents a methodology based on the concept of “material rhetoric” that can help scholars avoid problems as they reclaim women’s historical texts. Defines material rhetoric and positions it theoretically in relation to other methodologies, including bibliographical studies, reception theory, and established feminist methodologies. Illustrates feminist use of material rhetoric through a study of “The Account of Hester Ann Rogers.”

Calls for historians of rhetoric to return to the archives. Argues that it is the neglect of training graduate students in standard research methodologies that prevents the field from writing “better” histories of rhetoric. Argues for archival training similar to that given to graduate students in history departments, training tailored to recovering the history of rhetorical practices and instruction.

Discusses the topic of reading typographical errors as an example of archival work. Suggests that reading typos is a practice within textual scholarship which is a rather venerable if now somewhat overshadowed tradition of humanistic research and pedagogy. Begins with two examples of typo reading and then presents some general claims about editing as a paradigm for critical interpretation.

Contextualizes the rhetorical archive and moves beyond composition to the traditions of civic discourse, classical rhetorical theory, and moral philosophy. Wonders what kind of archive of actual historical practices would enable rhetoricians to confirm or qualify the existence of a genuine tradition of civic discourse.