I am very flattered to have my book even read by these three fine scholars let alone made the object of their critical attention. I have very little to add to their comments other than a heartfelt "thank you"for taking the time to read the book with care and with an open mind. I have learned from these scholars in the past from their own scholarly projects. I am grateful for the chance to learn again--this time about my own work.

I add only three quick thoughts.

First, Sullivan is correct to note the often agonistic orientation of the book. No doubt this is partly due to my training as a debater, and partly due to the fact I am opposing a tradition that has had a firm grip on classical scholarship for centuries. Nonetheless, I have tried to treat my interlocutors with respect. There is no one's account of the origins of rhetorical theory with which I now depart more than George Kennedy's; but there is also no scholar in classical rhetoric for whom I have more affection and regard.

Second, all three are correct in noting the episodic style of the book. I provide no alternative master narrative about the origins of rhetorical theory, nor do I try to tie up loose ends in a concluding chapter. I wrestled with writing such a chapter and realized I had nothing more to add that is not said earlier in the book. At this point in time I think it would be a serious mistake to offer a different master narrative because much work and thinking remains to be done. The point of the book is to invite readers to revisit the texts of the fifth and fourth centuries BC and to see how they read differently without traditional disciplinary assumptions. We have a lot of work left be done here! This is my reaction to Timmerman's observation that the book could have had a broader scope. I agree: I invite him and others to help complete such a project. As Aune points out, we have still done relatively little work on the interface between theory and practice of the classical period. A good deal more work needs to be done on older sophists other than Protagoras and Gorgias, and on Thucydides, Isocrates, the Rhetoric to Alexander, the Dissoi Logoi, and other texts and figures of the time. Maybe after another decade of scholarship on this issue it may be possible to play round with creating a counter-story, but for now I think it is enough to note that the sophists had not one explicit "sophistic theory of rhetoric" but rather a variety of incipient or implicit theories of discourse, and that the fourth century is characterized by efforts usefully described as "disciplinary." No one used to think about writing much about classical Greek rhetorical theory because Kennedy's work appeared definitive. While his work is still exemplary, it can no longer be considered definitive with respect to rhetoric prior to Aristotle. For scholars motivated enough, this is a truly an exciting time to study the classical history of rhetoric precisely because there is so much work to be done.

Third, regarding pedagogy, I must say I can empathize with Aune. He points out that students like the standard account of the origins of rhetoric. I am sure he is correct. Our textbooks like the story as well and I have no counter-story to offer. While I feel that we do not need another master narrative at this point, I will take his suggestion for providing pedagogical guidance to non-historians to heart.

I close with another heresy: Unlike many of my colleagues I do not think it is necessary for all of our students to be versed in classical rhetoric. >gasp!< Yes, I really said that. I won't take the time to develop the case here, but I will opine that it is more important for students to understand the challenge to rhetoric theory posed by logical positivism and the rise of postpositivist rhetorical theories since then. But if students are going to read the classical texts, I would just as soon complicate their readings a bit. Plato's Gorgias, for example, reads quite differently if you see it not as High Philosophy but as an advertisement for Plato's academy and a critique of the education offered by Isocrates.

Again, many thanks to these fine scholars.