A PHYSIOLOGICAL DEFINITION OF STYLE: SCIENCE, RELIGION, AND WOMEN’S WRITINGS IN THE EARLY AMERICAN REPUBLIC BY HEATHER BLAIN VORHIES DISSERTATION Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in English in the Graduate College of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 2013 Urbana, Illinois Doctoral Committee: Associate Professor Peter Mortensen, Chair Professor Robert Markley Associate Professor Ned O’Gorman Associate Professor Ted Underwood Abstract The world of the early American Republic was surprisingly inter-connected: ideas, people, and text traveled in the name of Christianity. This curious combination of rhetoric and science in the service of God during the early American Republic is the heart of my dissertation project. My dissertation brings together early American evangelical Protestantism, Enlightenment rhetoric, and Benjamin Rush’s physiological psychology in an analysis of transatlantic religious writing, speaking, and reading practices in the Atlantic world. Using Methodist women's spiritual journals, copybooks, and correspondence as my primary sources, I argue that the mental experience of persuasion is in fact a bodily one. I thereby question current assumptions about Enlightenment rhetoric, namely that it fostered no real changes or improvements to rhetorical theory. I contend that Enlightenment rhetoric did indeed effect deep changes in rhetorical theory. Based on evidence of the early American Republic’s understanding of Enlightenment rhetorical and scientific theory, we can see 1) rhetoric as epistêmê, or a system of knowledge, rather than technê, skills or craft, 2) a deeply body-dependent concept of the mind that comes to light in evangelical Protestantism’s practice of enthusiasm, and therefore, 3) a canon of style that was essential (and continues to be essential) to cognition. Thus, I redefine what the canon of style does, rather than what style looks like, in practice in early America. Recently, scholars in Rhetoric and Composition have renewed the field's interest in style and stylistics. The field largely ignored style for the past two decades, and marked those historical periods of rhetoric that were invested in the canon of style as lacking "rhetorical theory." In consequence, contemporary scholars of rhetoric have blamed Enlightenment rhetoric for the prevalence of current-traditional rhetoric, the period of rule-driven linear writing from the ii latter half of the nineteenth-century into the twentieth, in modern writing education. Positioning Enlightenment rhetoric as a scapegoat for the existence of current-traditional rhetoric robs the Enlightenment of its unique contributions to rhetorical theory, namely style and rhetoric as “the science of communication.” With early American Methodists’ religious writings as a case study, my research leads me to contend that style is not the "dressing-up" of thought or "ornament" of ideas already conceived, but rather is the canon that facilitates cognition. iii Acknowledgements To the many people and organizations who have supported me throughout this process: Thank you. My advisor, Peter Mortensen, read through my many drafts with patience and care and did not blink when I announced I was attending a month-long writing residency or moving to another time zone. My committee members’ input and diverse specialties greatly strengthened this project. The General Committee on Archives and History of the United Methodist Church’s Women in Methodist History Grant funded my research to the United Methodist Archives at Drew University. Dale Patterson, the archivist, introduced me to Catherine Livingston Garrettson, the central figure of my research in American Methodist writing practices. At the Library Company of Philadelphia, Cornelia S. King’s thoughtful consideration of my research project led me to early American medical texts. The Library of Congress and the Main Reading Room reference librarians provided me with research space and their expertise. My mother, Janice Blain, acted as my research assistant and my proofreader. In Urbana-Champaign, Lauren Marshall Bowen, Amber Buck, Cory Holding, and Marthea Webber read and commented on the early shape of the dissertation. In College Park, Andrew Black, Martin Camper, Lindsay Dunne Jacoby, Maria Gigante, and Heather Lindenman embraced me into their fold and their writing group. Dean Charles Caramello of the University of Maryland, College Park Graduate School graciously allowed me to set aside time to complete and defend the dissertation. iv And a very special thanks to Jane Donawerth, who inspired this project in her History of Rhetoric class, and who mentored me throughout my MFA and my PhD programs—I do not have the words to fully express my appreciation. v Table of Contents Introduction: Style: The Elephant in the Discipline…………………………………………1 Chapter One: God and Natural Philosophy………………………………………………... 20 Chapter Two: Catherine Livingston Garrettson and Methodist Women's Rhetorical Practices……………………………………………………………………………………. 50 Chapter Three: Benjamin Rush and Transatlantic Notions of Mind-Body………………... 78 Chapter Four: Style in Campbell and Blair…………………………………………………108 Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………………. 137 Bibliography……………………………………………………………………………….. 147 Appendix…………………………………………………………………………………… 162 vi Introduction Style: The Elephant in the Discipline What is style? What does style do? In rhetorical studies, unsatisfactory answers for both dominate our literature. We can say that style is the third canon of rhetoric; we can also say that style involves tropes and figures, the Asiatic or Attic, or the low, middle, or grand. However, there is little else we agree on. Alternately, scholars in rhetoric have claimed that style is meant to make emotional and bodily connections between the speaker/writer and the audience (Bizzell and Herzberg), to make a text stand out in the reader’s mind (Butler, Heilker), to help the speaker/writer explain his or her argument more thoroughly (Horner), or to create argument (Fahnestock, Newman). Style, of course, may be all of these things. Nonetheless, the disparity between these definitions calls out for a reworking of our discipline’s concept of style. In a field that has enthusiastically returned to style and stylistics after a twenty-year hiatus, a definition is greatly needed. This is especially true in light of certain conceptions of style which persist decades or more after they have been invalidated by leading scholars. In particular, the idea of style as the "value-added"1 and "ornamental" canon of the five classical canons of rhetoric pervades, even as scholars resist it. Accordingly, Edward P.J. Corbett and Robert Connors’s definition recognizes the pre-conceptions non-specialists have of style in their textbook, Style and Statement. “One notion of style that needs to be erased at the outset,” they write, “is that style is simply ‘the dress of thought’” (Corbett and Connors 2). Corbett and Connors do not deny that style can, at times, be ornamental, functioning as another “available 1 Sara J. Newman uses “value-added” to refer to specific categories of tropes and figures in Aristotle and Science; I have adopted this term to more accurately describe our field’s image of style. 1 means of persuasion” (2). Corbett and Connors stress that style’s primary purpose is not ornament; nor is style, in any part, the dressing of thought. In fact, Corbett bemoans the coarse understanding of style modern students possess in comparison to the sophistication of rhetoric students from ancient times up through the Renaissance. He writes that Renaissance schoolboys “could tell you that style represented the choices that an author made from the lexical and syntactical resources of the language. Style represented a curious blend of the idiosyncratic and the conventional” (Corbett, “Teaching Style” 210). An accepted narrative in Rhetoric and Composition states that an excessive focus on style, spurred by the explosion of dictionaries and writing and speaking manuals in the eighteenth century, lead directly to current-traditional rhetoric in the twentieth century. This narrative casts both style and stylistics as superficial to the meaning of texts. Serious scholars avoid style work (Vivian 223), and teaching “style” is controversial. As a result, style has become “the elephant in the classroom” and in the discipline (Johnson and Pace, Refiguring vii). Specifically, Communication scholar Brad Vivian blames Toulmin’s and Perelman’s re- orientation of rhetorical studies to argumentation for the decline of style studies. Because of this re-orientation, Vivian believes “the aesthetic capabilities of rhetoric have received scant attention from modern rhetoricians, who resign consideration of style largely to supposedly regrettable episodes in the history of the discipline” (223). Additionally, Tom Pace suggests this decline of style studies comes from a historical misunderstanding of rhetorical studies, in which the discipline has “supplanted” current-traditional2 rhetoric with social constructivism and critical pedagogy (Pace, “What Happened” 1). And, as Johnson and Pace point out, current-traditional 2 Within the dissertation, current-traditional demarcates rule-driven composition theories that occupied the late nineteenth- and early twentieth-century writing instruction. 2 rhetoric is associated with everything bad in the discipline—particularly those “empty, tedious classroom exercises” (Johnson and Pace, Refiguring ix-x).