It remains to be seen whether these revisions will be ratified by ecce members, for their adoption undoubtedly depends on some practitioners having to re-envision dramatically their conception of our disciplinary enterprise and its work. What is clear, however, is that the proposed changes raise a question concerning the relationship of the pedagogical enterprise of composition to the larger tradition of rhetoric. So completely were the rhetorical ties severed from the 19th century and throughout much of the 20th century that there are those who deny any relation between rhetoric and composition (e.g., Knoblauch & Brannon, 1984; Miller, 1991; North, 1987; Tate, 1993). This denial can be seen in those who refuse the term rhetoric and insist on calling the discipline composition studies. To the degree that the study of rhetoric was abandoned by many, although not all, departments of English (Nelms & Goggin, 1993), such denials make sense; but it does not bear up under historical scrutiny, and, as this chapter later argues, this denial helps to keep the discipline stagnant and, thus marginalized.