This work has been selected by scholars as being culturally important, and is part of the knowledge base of civilization as we know it. This work was reproduced from the original artifact, and remains as true to the original work as possible. Therefore, you will see the original copyright references, library stamps (as most of these works have been housed in our most important libraries around the world), and other notations in the work.This work is in the public domain in the United States of America, and possibly other nations. Within the United States, you may freely copy and distribute this work, as no entity (individual or corporate) has a copyright on the body of the work.As a reproduction of a historical artifact, this work may contain missing or blurred pages, poor pictures, errant marks, etc. Scholars believe, and we concur, that this work is important enough to be preserved, reproduced, and made generally available to the public. We appreciate your support of the preservation process, and thank you for being an important part of keeping this knowledge alive and relevant.

This book analyzes the advocacy, conceptualization, and institutionalization of rhetoric from 1770 to 1860. Among the forces promoting advocacy was the need for oratory calling for independence, the belief that using rhetoric was the way to succeed in biblical interpretation and preaching, and the desire for rhetoric as entertainment. Conceptually, leaders followed classical and German rhetoricians in viewing rhetoric as an art of ethical choice. Institutionally, a rhetorician such as Ebenezer Porter called for the development of organizations at all levels, a “sociology of rhetoric.” Orville Dewey highlighted the passion for rhetoric, calling his times “the age of eloquence.”

This volume of Perspectives opens with two contrasting perspectives on the purpose of higher education at the dawning of the university age-perspectives that continue to define the debate today. A. J. Angulo recreates the controversy surrounding the founding and early years of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Whether presented as an alternative to or a repudiation of the prevailing classical liberal education, MIT was rejected as inherently inferior by college defenders. George Levesque offers a penetrating reappraisal of Yale president Noah Porter (1870-1886). Known almost solely for his role as a college defender, Porter is revealed as a vigorous scholar who became fixated with preserving the strengths of Yale College. As these matters were vigorously debated during these years, Porter's position was superseded by more powerful forces.