Rhetoric by Plato

Posted on by | Leave a reply

Primary Sources

Aristotle. “Aristotle’s Rhetoric.” Aristotle’s Rhetoric. Trans. W. Rhys Roberts. Ed. Lee Honeycutt. N.p., 27 Sept. 2011. Web. 21 Jan. 2014.       <http://rhetoric.eserver.org/aristotle/>.

Although there is no option to search the full text, one can open a search dialogue and look through the portion currently being read. Again, this version of the text breaks the original down into neat and logical portions to make reading easier. I found this version of the text through a Google search for full-text editions of Rhetoric and include it because the way the compiler put the site together makes it easy to find and read specific portions of the text.

Aristotle. “Aristotle, Rhetoric J. H. Freese, Ed.” Aristotle, Rhetoric, book 1, Chapter 1. Trans. J.H. Freese. Perseus, n.d. Web. 21 Jan. 2014.       <http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.01.0060>.

This is an excellent version of the text and is entirely searchable. Also, the text is broken down into smaller portions which makes what could be a dense block of text easier to manage and read. For those individuals able to read Greek, the text may be translated back to Greek by selecting an option on the side panel. This was the first version of the text I found and it was uncovered simply by searching for “Aristotle’s Rhetoric” on the Perseus digital library site.

Aristotle. “Rhetoric.” Trans. W. Rhys Roberts. University of Adelaide. Web. 25 Jan. 2014.<http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/a/aristotle/a8rh/>.

A download of the text is available for this version of the text. Of the three versions of Rhetoric I found, this is the most unpleasant to read. The text is marked by chapter, but remains a dense block of text. Again, this was found through a Google search. The most valuable aspect of this version is the fact that a full-text PDF download is available.

Secondary Sources

McAdon, Brad. “Reconsidering the Intention or Purpose of Aristotle’s “Rhetoric”.” Rhetoric         Review  Vol. 23, No. 3 (2004): 216-234. JSTOR. Web. 25 January 2014.

Found searching the JSTOR database for material related to Aristotle and Rhetoric. From the title, I am led to believe that this piece attempts to act as an intervention in the field and may provide an interesting direction for research.

Brad McAdon, in his article for Rhetoric Review, “Reconsidering the Intention or Purpose of Aristotle’s Rhetoric” (2004), argues that the two most common ideas regarding the intent of Aristotle’s Rhetoric are incorrect and that only by considering the context in which the text was composed and distributed and the history of the text itself may one come to a more correct understanding of Aristotle’s attempt.

McAdon comes to this conclusion by first examining Aristotle’s other texts and determining that he considered democracy the worst form of government and rhetoric as deceptive, this discussion leads into an analysis of how the rhetor is not a phronimos, and finally expands the context of the Aristotelian texts by explaining the historical circumstances and the accretions added before Andronicus compiled what has become Rhetoric.

His purpose is to reveal the historical context of Aristotelian texts and what each reveals about Aristotle in order that a more appropriate path to determining the intent and purpose of Rhetoric becomes apparent.

McAdon’s audience are those individuals who interpret the intent of Rhetoric as either being supportive of democracy and rhetoric or that rhetoric is needed only to deal with the Greek people.

Quandahl, Ellen. “Aristotle’s Rhetoric: Reinterpreting Invention.” Rhetoric Review Vol. 4, No. 2   (1986): 128-137. JSTOR. Web. 25 January 2014.

Found searching the JSTOR database for material related to Aristotle and Rhetoric.

Ellen Quandahl, in her article for Rhetoric Review “Aristotle’s Rhetoric: Reinterpreting Invention” (1986), argues that the topics Aristotle provides in his Rhetoric are not a list of choices for invention but represent an interpretive theory, instead, and, by extension, composition is an act of interpretation and not invention.

Quandahl makes clear her idea by first looking for the most important portions of Aristotle’s Rhetoric, modeling her technique for applying literary interpretation to the text, and then explaining how it is that the topics Aristotle presents are more representative of interpretation than the figures and tropes, as they are traditionally described.

Her purpose is to re-examine often misinterpreted portions of Rhetoric through an application of contemporary theory in order that the text be reclaimed as a relevant pedagogical device and not simply a historical relic.

Quandahl’s intended audience for this piece is those scholars with an interest in potential connections between Classical Rhetoric and contemporary composition and literary theory.

Walzer, Arthur. “Aristotle’s Rhetoric, Dialogism, And Contemporary Research In Composition.” Rhetoric Review 16.1 (1997): 45-57. MLA International Bibliography. Web. 25 Jan. 2014.

Found searching the MLA International Bibliography database for material related to Aristotle and Rhetoric.

Arthur Walzer, in the article for Rhetoric Review ” Aristotle’s Rhetoric, Dialogism, And Contemporary Research In Composition” (1997), argues the idea that although his Rhetoric may be viewed as being dialogic, Aristotle would not have meant it to be dialogic in manner and that this interpretation alters the meaning of the text.

Walzer develops this idea by revealing how others in the Rhetoric and Composition field have argued that the Rhetoric is a dialogic text, lays out examples of how what Aristotle believed is not dialogic, examines how it is that enthymemes may cause a dialogic interpretation, and how such interpretations have the potential to alter the text’s purpose.

His purpose is to reveal the notion that the theory of rhetoric posited by Aristotle is not dialogic in order that the interpretation of Rhetoric be realigned to more fully reflect its historical context.

Walzer’s audience is those individuals who are active in both Classical Rhetoric and Rhetoric and Composition and who may wish to make use of Classical Rhetoric within composition.

Plato’s ‘Gorgias’

Posted on by | Leave a reply

Primary Sources

Plato, “Gorgias”. Trans. Benjamin Jowett. Australia. University of Adelaide Library. 2012. Web. 25 Jan. 2014.

 

Plato, “Gorgias.” Trans. W. C. Helmbold. Hathi Trust Library. 1952. Web. 25 Jan. 2014.

 

Secondary Sources

Kastely, James L. “In Defense Of Plato’s Gorgias.” PMLA: Publications Of The Modern Language Association Of America 106.1 (1991): 96-109. MLA International Bibliography. Web. 25 Jan. 2014.

 

Found via a search on the MLA Database for ‘Gorgias’ and ‘rhetoric’ as keywords.
James L. Kastely in his scholarly journal article “In Defense of Plato’s Gorgias” (1991) suggests that the majority of rhetorical scholars have misread Plato’s ‘Gorgias’ in seeing it as Plato’s dismissal of rhetoric, and that instead Plato is actually recommending that people engage in rhetoric as a means of refutation within Athenian society.

 

Kastely supports his claims through several close readings of Plato’s Gorgias, analyzing the arguments of the Sophists (Gorgias, Polus, and Callicles) as well as that of Socrates, and also citing the works of several other rhetoricians who have made claims similar to his before concluding his argument with a summation of how he feels scholars should instead try to read “Gorgias,” and Plato’s other works.

 

Kastely’s purpose in this article is to show that the dialogue’s Socrates’ dismissal of rhetoric is not the opinion of Plato in order to show that Plato is in fact very concerned with the study of rhetoric, and finding out how it can be implemented for the community’s benefit.

 

Kastely’s main audience is rhetoric scholars, especially those concerned with Classical Rhetoric, which we know because he engages in the discourse in a manner that assumes the reader’s familiarity with both “Gorgias” and common perceptions held by rhetorical scholars of both the text and its author.
Liebersohn, Yosef Z. “The Problem Of Rhetoric’s Materia In Plato’s Gorgias (449C9-D9).” Rhetorica: A Journal Of The History Of Rhetoric 29.1 (2011): 1-22. MLA International Bibliography. Web. 25 Jan. 2014.

 

Found via a search on the MLA Database for ‘Gorgias’ and ‘rhetoric’ as keywords.

 

Yosef Libersohn in his scholarly journal article “The Problem Of Rhetoric’s Materia In Plato’s Gorgias (449C9-D9)” (2011) asserts that rhetoric as understood today in terms of an art of persuasion was not thought of in those terms by Gorgias and his contemporaries, those whom rhetoric scholars consider among rhetoric’s earliest formal practitioners and educators.

 

Libersohn supports his argument through a close reading of ten lines from the original Greek text in which Socrates questions Gorgias in two different ways about the materia of rhetoric, explaining the importance of Socrates’ attention to diction in this section, and describing why Gorgias and his contemporaries would not have viewed rhetoric outside of a political realm.

 

3Libersohn’s purpose is to show that Socrates’ motive in his discussion with Gorgias is not to dismiss rhetoric in its entirety, but to expose to Gorgias, and consequently the reader, that rhetoric has not yet been well-defined in order to show that rhetoric in Gorgias’ time is not yet considered an art, but is still in its early stage of development.

 

Libersohn establishes a formal discourse with rhetorical scholars whom he assumes to have familiarity with the original Greek text of Plato’s works.

 

Murray, James Stuart. “Plato On Power, Moral Responsibility And The Alleged Neutrality Of Gorgias’ Art Of Rhetoric (Gorgias 456C-457B).” Philosophy And Rhetoric 34.4 (2001): 355-363. MLA International Bibliography. Web. 25 Jan. 2014.

 

Found via a search on the MLA Database for ‘Gorgias’ and ‘rhetoric’ as keywords.

 

1James Stuart Murray in his scholarly journal article “Plato on Power, Moral Responsibility And The Alleged Nuetrality of Gorgias’ Art of Rhetoric (2001) argues that Gorgias’ assertion that corrupt students are wholly to blame for those instances when they misuse the art of rhetoric is built on the faulty analogy which compares the teachings of boxing and rhetoric, stating that rhetoric is inherently about achieving personal power in the Gorgian view.

 

Murray makes this argument by examining the teaching of boxing and rhetoric in ancient Athens to reveal the flaws in Gorgias’ analogy, showing that while boxing has a specific domain and rules of conduct Gorgian rhetoric is about asserting one’s will over another, even those who are not trained in the field.

 

Murray’s purpose is to show that the common perception of Plato’s Gorgias as someone who sees rhetoric as solely an end in and of itself is a misreading of the text in order for other scholars to consider reexamining standard beliefs about Gorgian rhetoric.

 

4. Murray makes a scholarly, but personal connection with both rhetorical scholars and other educators interested in classical rhetoric through the use of his casual and humorous opening anecdote, and a proceeding accessible argument.
Svoboda, Michael. “Athens, The Unjust Student Of Rhetoric: A Dramatic Historical Interpretation Of Plato’s Gorgias.” Rhetoric Society Quarterly 37.3 (2007): 275-305. MLA International Bibliography. Web. 25 Jan. 2014.

Search on MLA Database using the keyword ‘Gorgias’ and ‘Plato’

Whedbee, Karen E. “An English Plato: J. S. Mill’s Gorgias.” Rhetoric Society Quarterly 37.1 (2007): 19-41. MLA International Bibliography. Web. 25 Jan. 2014.

Search on MLA Database using the keyword ‘Gorgias’ and ‘Plato’

Antidosis by Isocrates

Posted on by | 1 Reply

Primary sources

Isocrates. “Antidosis.” Isocrates, Volume I. Trans. George Norlin. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1928. Tufts University. Perseus Digital Library. Web. 25 January 2014. (Available here.)

This version of Antidosis is an electronic text based on the translations of George Norlin, and not a photocopy of an older text, so it is quite easy to read. This database also organizes this text in one- to two-sentence sections, allowing for each part to be easily digestible for the reader of this somewhat complex text; a search function allows the reader to also seek out specific sections of the text.

Isocrates. The Orations of Isocrates. Trans.  J.H. Freese. London: George Bell & Sons, 1894. Google Books. Web. 25 January 2014. (Available here.)

While Antidosis is not available in this digitized edition of this book, there are 10 photocopied (but searchable) versions of Isocrates’ works, none of which are found in the BH text. Therefore, this resource may be of use to anyone looking to further explore Isocrates through primary texts.

Isocrates. Isocrates I. Trans. David C. Mirhady and Yun Lee Too. Austin: University of Texas Press, 2000. Google Books. Web. 25 January 2014. (Available here.)

This photocopied but searchable compilation of primary texts includes not only Antidosis but Against the Sophists–also found in the BH text–and several other primary texts.

Secondary sources

Gogan, Brian. “Exchange in On the Exchange: A Baudrillardian Perspective on Isocrates’ Antidosis.” Rhetoric Review 31.4 (2012): 353-370. JSTOR. Web. 25 January 2014.

In “Exchange in On the Exchange: A Baudrillardian Perspective on Isocrates’ Antidosis,” an academic journal article published in 2012, Brian Gogan frames Isocrates’ “Antidosis” in a theoretical framework of the literary and cultural critic Jean Baudrillard, arguing that Antidosis provides excellent commentary on the current discourse surrounding the role of education in the context of the public good, and also provides educators with lessons in performance and persuasion necessary to defend the role of education. Gogan organizes his argument by defining Baudrillardian rhetoric–one that “sustains perpetual exchange” and circulation (355)–and then applying this lens to Antidosis by demonstrating that the text can be considered beyond the context of persuasion or identification; rather, Isocrates establishes a complex space for exchange in its offensive tone, its organization into two disparate parts, and the dynamic relationship between these two parts. By drawing comparisons between the classical “Antidosis” and contemporary issues, Gogan aims to demonstrate how arguments made by Isocrates in defense of the role as an educator can be recreated by today’s teachers in order that they can then use such arguments as a model to assert their efforts and decisions in a public forum. Not only intended for scholars of classical rhetoric, Gogan’s article would also be of use for educational policymakers and scholars.

Haskins, Ekaterina V. “’Mimesis’ between Poetics and Rhetoric: Performance Culture and Civic Education in Plato, Isocrates, and Aristotle.” Rhetoric Society Quarterly 30.3 (2000): 7-33. JSTOR. Web. 25 January 2014.

Livingstone, Niall. “Writing Politics: Isocrates’ Rhetoric of Philosophy.” Rhetorica: A Journal of the History of Rhetoric 25.1 (2007): 15-34. JSTOR. Web. 25 January 2014.

Papillon, Terry L. “Mixed Unities in the “Antidosis” of Isocrates.” Rhetoric Society Quarterly 27.4 (1997): 47-62. JSTOR. Web. 25 January 2014.

In the academic journal article “Mixed Unities in the Antidosis of Isocrates” (1997), Terry Papillon argues that Isocrates successfully defends himself in “Antidosis” by developing disparate sections of the text and weaving these sections together through the reiteration of the theme of the crucial role of education in the advancement of the Athenian state. Papillon presents his argument by defining the rhetorical situation, illustrating the swirling ideas found within “Antidosis” in the context of the rhetorical situation, exploring the synonyms and antonyms of “mixed” and the historical context of this word as a way to probe Isocrates’ description of his text’s “mixed rhetoric,” and eventually analyzing the public/civic and private/instructional sections of text before demonstrating how the seemingly disparate parts of “Antidosis” work together through the combination of this public and private oratory. Papillon focuses his argument by demonstrating how the overarching goal of unity in a composition can provide readers with a new perspective on the confrontation of the rhetorical situation in Isocrates’ texts, in order that a new “Isocratean methods of rhetorical composition” (47) to be identified and studied. The primary audience of Papillon’s article are likely readers and scholars of Isocrates’ texts as well as scholars of classical rhetoric in general, interested in the rhetorical study and teachings of Isocrates.

Rummel, Erika. “Isocrates’ Ideal of Rhetoric: Criteria of Evaluation.” The Classical Journal 75.1 (1979): 25-35. JSTOR. Web. 25 January 2014.

In her academic journal article “Isocrates’ Ideal of Rhetoric: Criteria of Evaluation” (1979), Erika Rummel presents a portrait of Isocrates that differentiates him from contemporaries due to his unique, morally focused approach to rhetoric, which borrows artistic characteristics from sophistic teachers as well as the “common man” interest in practicality, combining such with his own adherence to the goodness necessary in any quality rhetorical effort; Rummel also identifies three criteria that determine the quality of a rhetorical composition allow readers to see Isocrates’ eclectic approach and philosophy on rhetoric. Rummel delivers her claim by first discussing the importance of relativism and kairos in the context of Isocrates’ teaching as what anchors him in the practical, and then provides proof of Isocrates’ value in three criteria for quality rhetorical works: purpose, style, and content. Rummel intends to argue for Isocrates’ uniqueness within the world of teachers of rhetoric of his day in order that scholars of classical rhetoric separate him from the likes of Sophists who were more interested in the superficiality of rhetoric. While Rummel appears to have developed this article for scholars of classical rhetoric in general, she specifically engages scholars in the teachings of Isocrates and also those interested in the Sophists.