1. See Kennedy, New History of Classical Rhetoric, pp. 12–13.
2. See Kennedy, Comparative Rhetoric, pp. 1–28.
3. See ibid., pp. 128–31.
4. See ibid., pp. 162–64.
5. See ibid., pp. 183–85.
6. On rhetoric in early Greek literature, see Enos, Greek Rhetoric before Aristotle; Kennedy, New History of Classical Rhetoric, pp. 11–15; John T. Kirby, “The ‘Great Triangle’ in Early Greek Rhetoric and Poetics,” Rhetorica 8 (1992): 213–28; and Richard P. Martin, Language of Heroes: Speech and Performance in the Iliad (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1989).
7. See Lord, Singer of Tales, and J. M. Foley, Theory of Oral Composition.
8. The early Greeks projected this attitude onto their gods, both male and female. Mortal women in early Greek literature, for example Andromache in Iliad and Penelope in Odyssey, do not show this inclination.
9. See Ochs, Consolatory Rhetoric.
10. See Harris, Ancient Literacy.
11. See Ong, Orality and Literacy and Presence of the Word; Havelock, Literate Revolution; and Havelock and Hershbell, Communication Arts.
12. Translated in Matson et al., eds., Readings from Classical Rhetoric, pp. 38–42.
13. For further discussion of the effects of writing and additional bibliography, see Kennedy, Comparative Rhetoric, pp. 116–17 and 191–92.
14. There are many modern translations of some of Sappho’s poetry, the most complete of which is that by David A. Campbell in the Loeb Classical Library, Greek Lyric, vol. 1; poetic translation by Mary Barnard, Sappho (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1958). For a general study of Sappho, see Williamson, Sappho’s Immortal Daughters.
15. For discussion of Corinna and bibliography, see Easterling and Knox, eds., Cambridge History of Classical Literature, 1:239–41 and 749–50.
16. See Pomeroy, Women in Hellenistic Egypt.
17. See Waithe, History of Women Philosophers.
18. Translated in ibid., 1:20–21.
19. See ibid., 169–95.
20. E. R. Sewter, trans., The Alexeid of Anna Comnena (New York: Viking Penguin, 1979).
21. See C. Jan Swearingen, “A Lover’s Discourse: Diotima, Discourse, and Desire,” in Lunsford, ed., Reclaiming Rhetorica, pp. 26–76.
22. See Susan Jarratt and Rory Ong, “Aspasia: Rhetoric, Gender, and Colonial Ideology,” in ibid., pp. 9–24.
23. See esp. Blundell, Women in Ancient Greece; H. Foley, Reflections of Women in Antiquity; Keuls, Reign of the Phallus; and Lefkowitz and Fant, Women’s Life in Greece and Rome. Special issues on women in antiquity were published in the journals Arethusa 11, no. 1–2 (1978), and Helios 13, no. 2 (1987).
24. For further discussion of women in the history of rhetoric, see Glenn, Rhetoric Retold, and Lunsford, ed., Reclaiming Rhetorica.
1. See Cicero Brutus 46–48. The full evidence for the beginnings of rhetoric in Greece can be found in Radermacher, “Artium Scriptores”; see also Kennedy, New History of Classical Rhetoric, pp. 30–35, and W. M. A. Grimaldi, “How Do We Get from Corax-Tisias to Plato-Aristotle in Greek Rhetorical Theory,” in Johnstone, ed., Theory, Text, Context, pp. 19–43.
2. See Thomas Cole, “Who Was Corax?” Illinois Classical Studies 16 (1991): 65–84.
3. See Cole, Origins of Rhetoric, pp. 71–94.
4. Translated by H. Rackham in the Loeb Classical Library volume of Aristotle, Problems, 2:266–449.
5. For detailed discussion, see Manfred Fuhrmann, Das systematische Lehrbuch: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Wissenschaften in der Antike (Göffingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1960).
6. See Kennedy, New History of Classical Rhetoric, pp. 103–6.
7. For more detailed discussion, see ibid., pp. 202–8.
8. Edited, with French translation, introduction, and notes, by Marcel Patillon, Aelius Théon, Progymnasmata (Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1997).
9. Translated in Miller et al., eds., Readings in Medieval Rhetoric, pp. 52–68.
10. Translated in Matson et al., eds., Readings from Classical Rhetoric, pp. 266–88.
1. See Schiappa, Protagoras and Logos, pp. 54–59.
2. Little of the original work of early Greek sophists has survived; they are primarily known from their appearances in dialogues of Plato and from quotations in other works of Greek writers; what is known is translated in Sprague, ed., Older Sophists. See also Cassin, L’Effet sophistique; Jarratt, Rereading the Sophists; Kennedy, New History of Classical Rhetoric, pp. 17–21; Kerford, Sophistic Movement; J. Poulakos, Sophistical Rhetoric; de Romilly, Grands sophistes; and Untersteiner, Sophists.
3. See Kennedy, Comparative Rhetoric, pp. 158–61 and 179–80.
4. Works by or attributed to Antiphon are translated by K. J. Maidment in the Loeb Classical Library volume of the Minor Attic Orators, 1:2–309, and by J. S. Morrison in Sprague, ed., Older Sopists, pp. 106–240. See also Michael Gagarin, Antiphon, Speeches (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997).
5. See Edwin Carawan, “The Tetralogies and Athenian Homicide Trials,” American Journal of Philology 114 (1993): 235–70, and Rhetoric and the Law of Draco, pp. 171–215.
6. See Sprague, ed., Older Sophists, pp. 203–4.
7. See, e.g., Solmsen, Intellectual Experiments of the Greek Enlightenment.
8. Translation of the whole speech by Kennedy, Aristotle on Rhetoric, pp. 284–88. See John Poulakis, “Gorgias’ Encomium to Helen and the Defense of Rhetoric,” Rhetorica 1 (1983): 1–6, and Edward Schiappa, “Toward a Predisciplinary Analysis of Gorgias’ Helen,” in Johnstone, ed., Theory, Text, Context, pp. 65–88.
9. The figures expressly attributed to Gorgias by Diodorus Siculus (12.53.4) are antithesis, isocolon, parison, and homoeoteleuton. Figures discussed in the Rhetoric to Alexander are antithesis, parisos (= isocolon) and paromoeosis (= homoeoteleuton and other similarities of sound). See also Aristotle On Rhetoric 3.9.9.
10. See de Romilly, Magic and Rhetoric, pp. 3–22.
11. See, e.g., Untersteiner, Sophists, pp. 194–205; see also Bruce McComiskey, “Gorgias and the Art of Rhetoric: Toward a Holistic Reading of the Extant Gorgianic Fragments,” Rhetoric Society Quarterly 27 (1997): 5–24, and the six articles in the “Panel on Gorgias” published in Philosophy and Rhetoric 30, no. 1 (1997).
12. Translation in Sprague, ed., Older Sophists, pp. 42–46.
13. See Richard L. Enos, “The Epistemology of Gorgias’ Rhetoric: A Re-examination,” Southern Speech Communication Journal 42 (1979): 49.
14. See, e.g., the essays in Vitanza, ed., Writing Histories of Rhetoric.
15. Cf., e.g., Mailloux, ed., Rhetoric, Sophistry, Pragmatism.
16. There are translations of Isocrates’ speeches by George Norlin and LaRue Van Hook in the Loeb Classical Library. Discussion by Jaeger, Paideia, 3:46–155; Kennedy, New History of Classical Rhetoric, pp. 43–49; T. Poulakos, Speaking for the Polis; and Yun Lee Too, Rhetoric of Identity in Isocrates.
17. For further discussion, see Terry L. Papillon, “Mixed Unities in the Antidosis of Isocrates,” Rhetoric Society Quarterly 27 (1997): 47–62.
18. See Kimball, Orators & Philosophers, pp. 17–21, and Marrou, History of Education, pp. 119–36.
19. Translated by Michael Winterbottom in the Loeb Classical Library. See Bonner, Roman Declamation; Fairweather, Seneca the Elder; and Sussman, Elder Seneca.
20. Translation by Lewis A. Sussman, The Major Declamations Ascribed to Quintilian (Frankfurt: Lang, 1987) and The Declamations of Calpurnius Flaccus (Leiden: Brill, 1994).
21. See Russell, Greek Declamation, pp. 21–39.
22. See Dilts and Kennedy, eds. and trans., Two Greek Rhetorical Treatises, pp. 77–239.
23. Translated by Wilmer C. Wright in the Loeb Classical Library. See Anderson, Second Sophistic and Sage, Saint, and Sophist.
24. See Kennedy, New History of Classical Rhetoric, pp. 230–56.
25. See de Romilly, Magic and Rhetoric, pp. 75–88.
26. Translated by Wilmer C. Wright in the Loeb Classical Library volume with Philostratus.
27. See Russell and Wilson, eds. and trans., Menander Rhetor, and Burgess, “Epideictic Literature.”
28. See, e.g., Dio’s four speeches On Kingship and Aristides’ Roman Discourse. Translated in volumes of the Loeb Classical Library.
1. See Guthrie, History of Greek Philosophy, 3:349–55.
2. See Karl R. Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies, vol. 1: The Spell of Plato, 5th ed. (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1991). It should be remembered, however, that Plato’s ideas are largely attributed to Socrates and expressed in dialogues in which he avoids personal responsibility for what is said, and that many dialogues are “aporetic,” that is, lacking a definitive conclusion.
3. For the political factors in the trial, see Mogens H. Hansen, The Trial of Socrates—from the Athenian Point of View (Copenhagen: Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters, 1995); for the religious factors, see Richard Parker, Athenian Religion (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996), pp. 199–207.
4. See Guthrie, History of Greek Philosophy, 4:71–72.
5. See James May, Trials of Character: The Eloquence of Ciceronian Ethos (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1988), pp. 28–31.
6. Commentary by E. R. Dodds, Plato, Gorgias (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1983). For further discussion, see Guthrie, History of Greek Philosophy, 4:284–312.
7. See Edward Schiappa, “Did Plato Coin Rhetorike?” American Journal of Philology 111 (1990): 457–70, and the discussion of terms in Chapter 1.
8. See Swearingen, Rhetoric and Irony.
9. See Guthrie, History of Greek Philosophy, 4:396–97.
10. See G. R. F. Ferrari, Listening to the Cicadas: A Study of Plato’s “Phaedrus” (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987).
11. The structure of the second half of the dialogue thus consists of:
For a slightly different symmetrical arrangement, see Paul Friedlander, Plato (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969), 3:230–42.
12. This passage is one of the bases of deconstruction of Phaedrus in Jacques Derrida’s “Plato’s Pharmacy,” in Dissemination, trans. Barbara Johnson (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1981), pp. 63–171.
13. See Anton-Herman Chroust, “Aristotle’s First Literary Effort: The Gryllus, a Lost Dialogue on the Nature of Rhetoric,” Revue des études grecques 78 (1965): 576–91, reprinted in Erickson, ed., Aristotle, pp. 37–51.
14. On the chronology, see Kennedy, Aristotle on Rhetoric, pp. 299–305, and John M. Rist, The Mind of Aristotle (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1989), pp. 135–44. Rist dates the last revision to after Aristotle’s return to Athens.
15. See Abraham Edel, Aristotle and His Philosophy (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolia Press, 1982), and Anfinn Stigen, The Structure of Aristotle’s Thought (Oslo: Universitetsforlaget, 1966).
16. See Carol Poster, “Aristotle’s Rhetoric against Rhetoric,” American Journal of Philology 118 (1997): 219–49. Poster concludes (p. 244) that the work is “a manual for the student trained in dialectic who needs, particularly for purposes of self-defense . . . , to sway an ignorant or corrupt audience or to understand the functioning of rhetoric within the badly ordered state. The techniques described are dangerous, potentially harmful to both speaker and audience, and ought not to be revealed to the general readership of Aristotle’s dialogues, but only taught within the controlled environment of Aristotle’s school, as part of an esoteric corpus of Platonic-Aristotelian teaching.”
17. Standard works for study of the Rhetoric include Cope, Introduction to Aristotle’s Rhetoric and Aristotle’s Rhetoric with a Commentary; and William M. A. Grimaldi, Aristotle, Rhetoric I: A Commentary and Rhetoric II: A Commentary (New York: Fordham University Press, 1980, 1988). See also Erickson, ed., Aristotle (a collection of important essays) and Aristotle’s Rhetoric (bibliography to 1970); Furley and Nehamas, eds., Aristotle’s Rhetoric; and Rorty, ed., Essays on Aristotle’s Rhetoric (with bibliography). Translated by Kennedy, Aristotle on Rhetoric (with bibliography, notes, and supplementary texts and essays).
18. See Friedrich Solmsen, Die Entwicklung der Aristotelischen Logik und Rhetorik (Berlin: Weidmann, 1929), and William W. Fortenbaugh, “On the Composition of Aristotle’s Rhetoric,” in Lenaika: Festschrift für Carl Werner Müller (Stuttgart: Teubner, 1996), pp. 165–88.
19. See Kapp, Greek Foundations of Traditional Logic, pp. 60–74.
20. See Gerard A. Hauser, “The Example in Aristotle’s Rhetoric: Bifurcation or Contradiction?” Philosophy and Rhetoric 1 (1968): 78–90, reprinted in Erickson, Aristotle, pp. 156–68.
21. See Lloyd F. Bitzer, “Aristotle’s Enthymeme Revisted,” Quarterly Journal of Speech 45 (1959): 399–408, reprinted in Erickson, Aristotle, pp. 141–55.
22. See Walter H. Beale, “Rhetorical Performative Discourse: A New Theory of Epideictic,” Philosophy and Rhetoric 11 (1978): 221–46.
23. See William W. Fortenbaugh, Aristotle on Emotion (London: Duckworth, 1975) and “Aristotle on Persuasion through Character,” Rhetorica 10 (1992): 207–44.
24. See Wisse, Ethos and Pathos, pp. 38–39.
25. See William W. Fortenbaugh, “Theophrastus on Delivery,” Rutgers University Studies in Classical Humanities 2 (1985): 269–85.
26. See McCall, Ancient Rhetorical Theories of Simile and Comparison, pp. 24–53.
27. See Kennedy, New History of Classical Rhetoric, pp. 85–87.
28. Evidence for Theophrastus’s writings on rhetoric are collected and translated in William W. Fortenbaugh et al., eds., Theophrastus of Eresus (Leiden: Brill, 1992), 2:508–59.
29. See Friedrich Solmsen, “The Aristotelian Tradition in Ancient Rhetoric,” American Journal of Philology 62 (1941): 35–50 and 169–90, reprinted in Erickson, ed., Aristotle, pp. 278–309.
30. A new edition and translation of Philodemus’s On Rhetoric is being prepared by Robert Gaines. For rhetoric in other Hellenistic philosophical schools, see Fortenbaugh and Mirhady, eds., “Peripatetic Rhetoric,” and Kennedy, Art of Persuasion, pp. 290–99 and 321–30.
31. See Kennedy, Greek Rhetoric under Christian Emperors, pp. 52–132.
32. See Cole, Origins of Rhetoric, pp. 88–89.
1. See Robert S. Reid, “Hermagoras’ Theory of Prose Oikonomia in Dionysius of Halicarnassus,” in Advances in the History of Rhetoric, ed. Richard L. Enos (Fort Worth: Texas Christian University, 1996), 1:9–24.
2. For a more detailed discussion, see Kennedy, Art of Persuasion, pp. 303–21, and Dieter Matthes, “Hermagoras von Temnos,” Lustrum 3 (1958): 58–214 and 262–87.
3. See Kennedy, New History of Classical Rhetoric, pp. 102–17, and for a more detailed account, Kennedy, Art of Rhetoric, pp. 3–102.
4. For the date of composition, see Kennedy, Art of Rhetoric, pp. 103–11. Translation of On Invention by H. M. Hubbell in the Loeb Classical Library.
5. See Patrick Sinclair, “A Study in the Sociology of Rhetoric: The Sententia in Rhetorica ad Herennium,” American Journal of Philology 114 (1993): 561–80.
6. See G. M. A. Grube, “Theodorus of Gadara,” American Journal of Philology 80 (1959): 337–65.
7. See Blum, Antike Mnemotechnik, and Yates, Art of Memory.
8. The only translation currently available is that by E. W. Sutton and H. Rack-ham in the Loeb Classical Library. It is unsatisfactory in a number of ways. A new version is being prepared by James May and Jakob Wisse under contract from Oxford University Press.
9. See Wisse, Ethos and Pathos, pp. 233–36.
10. Translated by H. E. Butler in the Loeb Classical Library, currently being revised by Donald Russell. For more detailed discussion, see Kennedy, Art of Rhetoric, pp. 487–514, and New History of Classical Rhetoric, pp. 177–86.
11. Translated by William Peterson in the Loeb Classical Library and by Herbert W. Benario in the Bobbs-Merrill Library of the Liberal Arts (Indianapolis, 1967).
12. See J. P. V. D. Balsdon, Roman Women (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1962), and Richard A. Bauman, Women and Politics in Ancient Rome (London: Routledge, 1992). On Cornelia, see Plutarch’s lives of the Gracchi; on Livia, Suetonius’s biographies of Augustus and Tiberius and the early books of Tacitus’s Annals; and on Agrippina, Suetonius’s biographies of Claudius and Nero and the later books of Tacitus’s Annals.
13. Translation of On Stases by Malcolm Heath, Hermogenes on Issues (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995), with commentary; translation of On Ideas by Cecil W. Wooten, Hermogenes on Types of Style (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1987).
14. See Patterson, Hermogenes and the Renaissance.
15. Halm, ed., Rhetores Latini Minores.
16. See Michael Leff, “The Material of the Art in Latin Handbooks of the Fourth Century A.D.,” in Vickers, ed., Rhetoric Revalued, pp. 71–76.
17. See Kaster, Guardians of Language.
1. See Williams, Keywords, pp. 150–54.
2. The Italian term letteraturizzazione for this phenomenon originated with Florescu, Retorica, p. 43 and passim.
3. Translated by W. Rhys Roberts, revised by Doreen C. Innes, in the Loeb Classical Library volume with Aristotle’s Poetics. A commoner word for style in Greek is lexis, but that word is often restricted to mean “diction, word choice.” Demetrius may have wanted a term including both diction and composition.
4. For further discussion, see Kennedy, New History of Classical Rhetoric, pp. 88–90; G. M. A. Grube, A Greek Critic: Demetrius on Style (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1961); Doreen C. Innes, “Demetrius,” in Kennedy, ed., Cambridge History of Literary Criticism, 1:196–98; and D. M. Schenkeveld, Studies in Demetrius (Amsterdam: Hakkert, 1964).
5. Julius Victor, in Halm, ed., Rhetores Latini Minores, pp. 447–48; see also p. 589.
6. Translated by Abraham J. Malherbe, “Ancient Epistolary Theorists,” Ohio Journal of Religious Studies 5 (1977): 3–77.
7. Translation by Stephen Usher in the Loeb Classical Library. For discussion, see Doreen C. Innes, “Dionysius of Halicarnassus,” in Kennedy, ed., Cambridge History of Literary Criticism, 1:267–71.
8. Translated by D. A. Russell, ‘Longinus’ On Sublimity (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1965; a revised version in Russell and Winterbottom, eds. Ancient Literary Criticism, pp. 460–503); also by W. Hamilton Fyfe, revised by D. A. Russell, in the Loeb Classical Library volume with Aristotle’s Poetics. Text and commentary by D. A. Russell (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1964); discussion by Russell in Kennedy, ed., Cambridge History of Literary Criticism, 1:306–11.
9. On Hellenistic poetics, see Kennedy, ed., Cambridge History of Literary Criticism, 1:200–219.
1. In addition to works cited below, see Cochrane, Christianity and Classical Culture; Dodds, Pagan and Christian; Goodspeed, History of Early Christian Literature; Jaeger, Early Christianity; and Norden, Agnostos Theos, and Antike Kunstprosa, 2:451–79.
Quotations from the Bible are from the Revised Standard Version, copyrighted 1946, 1952 © 1971, 1973, as printed in the Oxford Annotated Bible (New York: Oxford University Press, 1962), with permission of the publisher and the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of Churches.
2. See Hayes, ed., Old Testament Form Criticism.
3. See Warner, ed., Bible as Rhetoric; Watson, ed., Persuasive Artistry; and Watson and Hauser, Rhetorical Criticism of the Bible.
4. See Joshua Gitay, “Rhetorical Criticism and the Prophetic Discourse,” in Watson, ed., Persuasive Artistry, pp. 13–24, and Margaret D. Zulick, “The Agon of Jeremiah: On the Dialogic Invention of Prophetic Ethos,” Quarterly Journal of Speech 78 (1992): 125–48.
5. See W. Eugene March, “Prophecy,” in Hayes, ed., Old Testament Form Criticism, pp. 157–75.
6. See Whitman, Allegory, pp. 58–68.
7. See Kennedy, Comparative Rhetoric, pp. 128–31 and 133–35. There was also some influence of classical ideas on Jewish concepts of wisdom; see Wilken, ed., Aspects of Wisdom.
8. Rabinowitz, ed. and trans., Book of the Honeycomb’s Flow.
9. See Lieberman, Hellenism in Jewish Palestine; Stowers, Diatribe; and Thyen, Stil der judisch-hellenistische Homilie.
10. See Kinneavy, Origins of Christian Faith.
11. See Kennedy, New Testament Rhetoric; Watson, ed., Persuasive Artistry; and Watson and Hauser, Rhetorical Criticism of the Bible.
12. See Burton L. Mack and Vernon K. Robbins, Patterns of Persuasion in the Gospels (Sonoma, Calif.: Polebridge, 1989), and Vernon K. Robbins, Jesus the Teacher: A Socio-Rhetorical Interpretation of Mark (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984).
13. See Frederick F. Bruce, The Speeches in the Acts of the Apostles (London: Tyndale Press, 1942); Bertil Gärtner, The Areopagus Speech and Natural Revelation, trans. Carolyn H. King (Uppsala: Gleerup, 1955); and Ned B. Stonehouse, The Areopagus Address (London: Tyndale Press, 1950).
14. See Johannes Weiss, Beiträge zur paulinischen Rhetorik (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1897), and Rudolf Bultmann, Der Stil der paulinischen Predigt und die cynisch-stoiche Diatribe (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1910). For a more negative assessment of Paul’s debt to classical sources, see C. Joachim Classen, “St Paul’s Epistles and Greek and Roman Rhetoric,” Rhetorica 10 (1992): 392–44, and R. Dean Anderson, Ancient Rhetorical Theory and Paul (Kampen, Netherlands: Kok Pharos, 1996).
15. See Brown, Power and Persuasion, and Cameron, Christianity and the Rhetoric of Empire.
16. The earliest instance is Pliny the Younger when governor of Bithynia; see his correspondence with the emperor in Epistles 10.96–97.
17. There are translations of patristic works discussed in this chapter in volumes of the Ancient Christian Writers series (New York: Newman Press) and in the Fathers of the Church series (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press).
18. See Robert D. Sider, Ancient Rhetoric and the Art of Tertullian (London: Oxford University Press, 1971), and Timothy D. Barnes, Tertullian: A Historical and Literary Study (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1971), pp. 186–232.
19. See Campbell Bonner, The Homily on the Passion by Melito, Bishop of Sardis (London: Christophers, 1940), and A. Wifstrand, “The Homily of Melito on the Passion,” Vigiliae Christianae 2 (1948): 201–23.
20. See C. W. Macleod, “Allegory and Mysticism in Origen and Gregory of Nyssa,” Journal of Theological Studies 22 (1971): 362–79; R. W. Smith, Art of Rhetoric in Alexandria, pp. 92–94; and Whitman, Allegory, pp. 58–77.
21. See Henri Crouzel, Grégoire le Thaumaturge: Remerciement à Origène suive de la lettre d’Origène à Grégoire (Paris: du Cerf, 1969).
22. Translated by J. E. L. Oulton and H. J. Lawlor in the Loeb Classical Library volume of Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 2:398–445.
23. See Harold A. Drake, In Praise of Constantine: A Historical Study and New Translation of Eusebius’ Triennial Oration (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1976).
24. See Kennedy, Greek Rhetoric under Christian Emperors, pp. 135–49.
25. See Rosemary R. Ruether, Gregory of Nazianzus: Rhetoric and Philosopher (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1969).
26. Adopted from McCauley, trans., Funeral Orations, pp. 37–38.
27. Translated by Fernand Boulenger, Saint Basile, aux jeunes gens sur la manière de tirer profit des lettres helléniqus (Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1952).
28. See Thomas E. Ameringer, “The Stylistic Influence of the Second Sophistic on the Panegyrical Sermons of Saint John Chrysostom,” Catholic University of America Patristic Studies 2 (1922); Harry M. Hubbell, “Chrysostom and Rhetoric,” Classical Philology 19 (1924): 261–76; and Mary A. Burns, “Saint John Chrysostom’s Homilies On the Statues: A Study of Their Rhetorical Form,” Catholic University of America Patristic Studies 22 (1930).
29. On the Obscurity of the Prophecies (56, p. 165 Migne), as translated by Ameringer (above, n. 28), p. 28.
30. Translated by Augustine Fitzgerald, The Essays and Hymns of Synesius of Cyrene, 2 vols. (London: Oxford University Press, 1930). See Kennedy, Greek Rhetoric under Christian Emperors, pp. 35–45, and Momigliano, Conflict between Paganism and Christianity, pp. 126–50.
31. See Gerald L. Ellspermann, “The Attitude of the Early Christian Latin Writers towards Pagan Literature and Learning,” Catholic University of America Patristic Studies 82 (1949): 23–42.
32. Translated by McCauley, in Funeral Orations.
33. Translated by F. A. Wright in the Loeb Classical Library volume of Jerome, Select Letters, pp. 52–129. See also Arthur S. Pease, “The Attitude of Jerome toward Pagan Literature,” Transactions of the American Philological Association 50 (1919): 150–67.
34. Translated by Mary Francis McDonald, Lactantius, The Divine Institutes (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 1964).
35. On Augustine’s life, see Brown, Augustine of Hippo. Works on Augustine and rhetoric, in addition to those cited below, include Wilfrid Parsons, “A Study of the Vocabulary and Rhetoric of the Letters of Saint Augustine,” Catholic University of America Patristic Studies 3 (1923), and Joseph Finaert, Saint Augustin rhéteur (Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1939).
36. See Otto A. L. Dieter and William C. Kurth, “The De Rhetorica of Aurelius Augustinus,” Speech Monographs 35 (1968): 90–108, and Miller et al., eds., Readings in Medieval Rhetoric, pp. 6–24.
37. The best edition of the Latin text is by Guilelmus M. Green, Sancti Aureli Augustini Opera, Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, LXXX, 6.6 (Vienna: Hoelder-Pichler-Tempsk, 1963). Quotations are from the translation by D. W. Robertson Jr., Saint Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, Library of Liberal Arts (Indianapolis and New York: Bobbs-Merrill, 1958), with permission of the publisher. The best discussion of the work is by Marrou, Saint Augustin.
38. See Chamberlin, Increase and Multiply, pp. 34–43.
39. Commentary by Sister Theresa Sullivan, “S. Aureli Augustini Hipponiensis Episcopi De Doctrina Christiana Liber Quartus,” Catholic University of America Patristic Studies 23 (1930).
40. See W. R. Johnson, “Isocrates Flowering: The Rhetoric of Augustine,” Philosophy and Rhetoric 9 (1976): 217–31.
41. Brown, Augustine of Hippo, pp. 259–60.
42. See ibid., p. 266.
43. See, e.g., C. S. Baldwin, Medieval Rhetoric, p. 51.
1. For more a detailed account of Byzantine rhetoric, see Kennedy, Greek Rhetoric under Christian Emperors, pp. 265–303. Other valuable discussions include Thomas Conley, “Byzantine Teaching on Figures and Tropes: An Introduction,” Rhetorica 4 (1986): 335–74; Hunger, “Aspekte der griechischen Rhetorik von Gorgias bis zum Untergang von Byzanz,” Akademie der Wissenschaften, Wien, philosophischehistorische Klasse, Sitzungsberichte 277, no. 3 (1977): 3–27; George L. Kustas, Studies in Byzantine Rhetoric and “Function and Evolution”; and Maguire, Art and Eloquence in Byzantium. Texts of Byzantine rhetoricians can be found in Walz, Rhetores Graeci; some other editions are cited below, but very little is available in English. Standard works on Byzantine literature include Hunger, Hochsprachliche profane Literatur, and Beck, Kirche und theologische Literatur. See also Ostrogorsky, History of the Byzantine State; Hussey, ed., Cambridge Medieval History, IV; Norwich, Byzantium; and Kazhdan, ed., Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium.
2. See Georgina Buckler, “Byzantine Education,” in Baynes and Moss, Byzantium, pp. 200–220, and Browning, Studies in Byzantine History, Literature, and Education.
3. See Clarke, Higher Education, p. 133.
4. Translation in Matson et al., eds., Readings from Classical Rhetoric, pp. 266–88.
5. Italian translation by Marcella Gigante, Theodorus Metochites: Saggio critico su Demostene ed Aristide (Milan: Istituto Editoriale Cisalpino, 1969).
6. See Kustas, “Function and Evolution,” p. 59; Karlsson, Idéologie et cérémonial; and A. R. Littlewood, “An ‘Ikon of the Soul’: The Byzantine Letter,” Visible Language 10 (1976): 197–226.
7. Translated by Dewing and Downey in the Loeb Classical Library edition of Procopius, vol. 7.
8. See Glanville Downey, “The Christian Schools of Palestine,” Harvard Library Bulletin 12 (1951): 297–319.
9. Cyril Mango, ed. and trans., The Homilies of Photius, Patriarch of Constantinople (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1958).
10. Hugo Rabe, ed., Syriani in Hermogenem Commentaria (Leipzig: Teubner, 1892).
11. See Kustas, Studies in Byzantine Rhetoric, pp. 20–22.
12. See Hugo Rabe, ed., Prolegomenon Sylloge (Leipzig: Teubner, 1931).
13. See Kustas, Studies in Byzantine Rhetoric, pp. 63–100.
14. See Coulter, Literary Microcosm.
15. For the texts, see Hermias, In Platonis Phaedrum Scholia, ed. P. Couvier (Paris, 1901; reprint, New York: Olms, 1971), and Olympiodorus, In Platonis Gorgiam Commentaria, ed. L. G. Westerink (Leipzig: Teubner, 1970).
16. See Thomas Conley, “Aristotle’s Rhetoric in Byzantium,” Rhetorica 8 (1990): 29–44.
17. See Hussey, Church and Learning, pp. 51–72, and Speck, Kaiserliche Universität.
18. See Wanda Wolska-Conus, “Les écoles de Psellos et de Xiphilinus,” Travaux et Mémoires 6 (1976): 223–43.
19. See Kustas, “Form and Evolution,” p. 69.
20. See Robert Browning, “The Patriarchal School of Constantinople in the Twelfth Century,” Byzantion 32 (1962): 167–202, and 33 (1963): 11–40.
21. See Lindberg, Studies in Hermogenes and Eustathios, and Wirth, “Untersuchungen zur byzantinischen Rhetorik.”
22. See R. M. Dawkins, “The Greek Language in the Byzantine Period,” in Baynes and Moss, Byzantium, pp. 252–67.
23. Ibid., p. 257.
24. See Beck, Kirche und theologische Literatur, p. 546. Beck discusses panegyrical sermons and homilies from each period.
25. For detailed discussion, see Hunger, Hochsprachliche profane Literatur, pp. 120–45.
26. Ibid., pp. 145–57.
1. Important works for the study of western medieval rhetoric include C. S. Baldwin, Medieval Rhetoric; Bolgar, Classical Heritage and “The Teaching of Rhetoric in the Middle Ages,” in Vickers, ed., Rhetoric Revalued, pp. 79–86; Copeland, Rhetoric, Hermeneutics, and Translation; Curtius, European Literature and the Latin Middle Ages; Haarhoff, Schools of Gaul; Laistner, Intellectual Heritage and Thought and Letters; McKeon, “Rhetoric in the Middle Ages”; Miller et al., eds., Readings in Medieval Rhetoric; Murphy, Rhetoric in the Middle Ages; Paetow, “Arts Course at Medieval Universities”; F. J. E. Raby, A History of Secular Latin Poetry in the Middle Ages, 2 vols. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1957); Rand, Founders of the Middle Ages; Reynolds, Medieval Reading; Riché, Education and Culture; Taylor, Medieval Mind; and Ward, Ciceronian Rhetoric. See also the many relevant articles, with bibliography, in The Dictionary of the Middle Ages, 13 vols., ed. Joseph R. Strayer (New York: Scribners, 1982).
2. On the history of the liberal arts, see Kimball, Orators & Philosophers, pp. 13–42.
3. Detailed discussion by Stahl et al., Martianus Capella, vol. 1; English translation in vol. 2.
4. Jones, ed. and trans., Introduction to Divine and Human Readings. The following quotation is from Jones, p. 127.
5. Translation and discussion by Stump, Boethius’ De Topicis Differentiis (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1978). Stump also published a translation of Boethius’s commentary In Ciceronis Topica (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1988). Boethius’s Speculatio on the Knowledge of Rhetoric is a short version of De Topicis Differentiis, vol. 4; translation in Miller et al., eds., Readings in Medieval Rhetoric, pp. 69–76. See further, Michael C. Leff, “Boethius’ De Differentiis Topicis, Book IV,” in Murphy, ed., Medieval Eloquence, pp. 3–24, with extensive bibliography.
6. Translation of Isidore’s section on rhetoric in Miller et al., eds., Readings in Medieval Rhetoric, pp. 79–95. For discussion, see Fontaine, Isidore de Séville.
7. See Ward, Ciceronian Rhetoric, pp. 84–85.
8. See Murphy, Rhetoric in the Middle Ages, pp. 292–97.
9. Translated by Ernest Brehaut, History of the Franks by Gregory, Bishop of Tours (New York: Norton, 1969), and by Lewis Thorpe, A History of the Franks (New York: Viking Penguine, 1976).
10. Discussion by George Kennedy, “Forms and Functions of Latin Speech,” Medieval and Renaissance Studies, ed. G. M Masters (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1984), 10:45–73.
11. Translation of Priscian’s Preliminary Exercises in Miller et al., eds., Readings in Medieval Rhetoric, pp. 52–68; on its common use, see D. L. Clark, “Rhetoric and Literature of the English Middle Ages,” Quarterly Journal of Speech Communication 45 (1959): 24, and Ward, Ciceronian Rhetoric, p. 79.
12. See Judith W. George, Venantius Fortunatus (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1992).
13. Translated in Miller et al., eds., Readings in Medieval Rhetoric, pp. 96–122. On later influence, see Veronica Fraser, “The Influence of the Venerable Bede on the Fourteenth-Century Occitan Treatise Las Leys d’Amors,” Rhetorica 11 (1993): 51–61.
14. Bertram Colgrace and R. A. B. Mynors, eds. and trans., Bede’s Ecclesiastical History of the English People (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1969).
15. See Luke M. Reinsma, “Rhetoric in England: The Age of Aelfric, 970–1021,” Communication Monographs 44 (1977): 388–403.
16. See Luitpold Wallach, “Charlemagne’s De Litteris Colendis and Alcuin: A Diplomatic-Historical Study,” Speculum 26 (1951): 288–305.
17. Wilbur S. Howell, trans., The Rhetoric of Charlemagne and Alcuin (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1941).
18. See Wallach, Alcuin and Charlemagne, pp. 73–82.
19. On memory in the Middle Ages, see Carruthers, Book of Memory.
20. Rhetorical theories of delivery influenced medieval drama; see Judy Enders, Rhetoric and the Origin of Medieval Drama (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1992).
21. Translation of 3.19 in Miller et al., eds., Readings in Medieval Rhetoric, pp. 125–27. For discussion, see Murphy, Rhetoric in the Middle Ages, pp. 82–87.
22. There is at present no published translation of Notker’s work, but there is a good account of it in three articles that quote some passages in English: Otto A. L. Dieter, “The Rhetoric of Notker Labeo,” Papers in Rhetoric, ed. Donald C. Bryant (Iowa City: University of Iowa Press, 1965), pp. 27–33; Jaffe, “Antiquity and Innovation”; and Bennett, “Function of Adaptation in Notker’s Rhetorica,” 171–84. For the Latin text, see Paul Pier, ed., Die Schriften Notkers und seiner Schule (Freiburg: J. C. B. Mohr, 1882), 1:643–84.
23. See Jaffe, “Antiquity and Innovation,” 172.
24. See Bennett, “Function of Adaptation in Notker’s Rhetorica,” 183.
25. See Charles H. Beeson, Lupus of Ferrières: Scribe and Textual Critic (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1930). Lupus’s letters (see esp. Ep. 62 and 103) describe his teaching; see Gordon W. Reginos, The Letters of Lupus of Ferrières (The Hague: Mouton, 1966).
26. See Harriet P. Lattin, trans., The Letters of Gerbert, with His Papal Privileges (New York: Columbia University Press, 1961); see also Henri Focillon, The Year 1000 (New York: Ungar, 1969), pp. 127–61.
27. See Beth S. Bennett, “The Significance of the Rhetorimachia of Anselm of Besate to the History of Rhetoric,” Rhetorica 5 (1987): 231–50. There is no English version; the Latin text is to be found in volume 2 of the Monumenta Germaniae Historiae: Gunzo, “Epistola ad Augienses,” und Anselm von Besate, “Rhetorimachia,” ed. Karl Manitius (Weimar: Hermann Böhlaus, 1958).
28. See Abraham J. Malherbe, “Ancient Epistolary Theorists,” Ohio Journal of Religious Studies 5, no. 2 (1977): 3–77.
29. See Camargo, Ars Dictaminis; Murphy, Rhetoric in the Middle Ages, pp. 194–268; and Wieruszowski, Politics and Culture. A standard study is that by Rockinger, Briefsteller und Formelbücher.
30. See Martin Camargo, “Si Dictare Velis: Versified Artes Dictaminis and Late Medieval Writing Pedagogy,” Rhetorica 14 (1996): 265–82.
31. Translation of Alberic’s Flowers of Rhetoric in Miller et al., eds., Readings in Medieval Rhetoric, pp. 131–61; an anonymous Bolognese treatise of the twelfth century is translated by Murphy, ed., Three Medieval Rhetorical Arts, pp. 1–25.
32. See Ward, Ciceronian Rhetoric, pp. 69–70. Bartolinus’s commentary to Rhetoric for Herennius, based on his lectures, survives; see Ward, Ciceronian Rhetoric, pp. 70–72.
33. See Paetow, “Arts Course,” pp. 80–87.
34. See Martin Camargo, ed., Medieval Rhetorics of Prose Composition: Five English Artes Dictandi and their Tradition (Binghamton, N.Y.: Medieval and Renaissance Texts and Studies, 1995).
35. See A. C. Clark, Cursus; Croll, Style, Rhetoric, and Rhythm, pp. 303–59; and Janson, Prose Rhythm.
36. See Ward, Ciceronian Rhetoric, pp. 316–17.
37. See Charles B. Faulhaber, “The Summa Dictaminis of Guido Faba,” in Murphy, ed., Medieval Eloquence, pp. 85–111.
38. See Hertter, Poetasliteratur Italiens; Kristeller, Renaissance Thought, pp. 105 and 155–56; and N. Rubenstein, “Political Rhetoric in the Imperial Chancery,” Medium Aevum 14 (1945): 21–43.
39. See Murphy, Rhetoric in the Middle Ages, pp. 253–55, and Ward, Ciceronian Rhetoric, pp. 126–29, 291–92, and 317.
40. See André Wilmart, “L’Ars arengandi de Jacques de Dinant avec un appendice sur ses ouvrages De dictamine,” Studi e Testi 59 (1933): 112–51; Emil J. Polak, A Textual History of Jacques de Dinant’s “Summa Dictaminis” (Geneva: Droz, 1975); and Ward, Ciceronian Rhetoric, pp. 316–17. On the development of ars arengandi in fourteenth- and fifteenth-century Spain, see Mark D. Johnston, “Parliamentary Oratory in Medieval Aragon,” Rhetorica 10 (1992): 99–117.
41. Translation of the section on refutation in Miller et al., eds., Readings in Medieval Rhetoric, pp. 253–64.
42. See esp. Haskins, Renaissance of the Twelfth Century.
43. See Faulhaber, Latin Rhetorical Theory.
44. See Taylor, Medieval Mind, pp. 298–307.
45. See Bliese, “Study of Rhetoric in the Twelfth Century.”.
46. See Gillian Evans, “The Uncompleted ‘Heptateuch’ of Thierry of Chartres,” History of Universities 3 (1983): 1–13.
47. See C. S. Baldwin, Medieval Rhetoric, pp. 169–72.
48. See Ward, Ciceronian Rhetoric, pp. 121–22.
49. See Karen M. Fredborg, Latin Rhetorical Commentaries by Thierry of Chartres (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 1988).
50. The major account of this subject is the work of Ward, Ciceronian Rhetoric.
51. Ward, Ciceronian Rhetoric, pp. 65 and 279–305.
52. See H. Silvestre, “Dix plaidoires inédits du XIIe siècle,” Traditio 10 (1954): 373–97, and Ward, Ciceronian Rhetoric, pp. 118–19.
53. See Ward, Ciceronian Rhetoric, pp. 107–16.
54. Translation of portions of this work in Miller et al., eds., Readings in Medieval Rhetoric, pp. 222–27.
55. See Bliese, “Study of Rhetoric in the Twelfth Century”; P. Osmund Lewry, “Rhetoric at Paris and Oxford in the Mid-Thirteenth Century,” Rhetorica 1 (1983): 45–63; and Murphy, Rhetoric in the Middle Ages, pp. 94–95.
56. See Murphy, Rhetoric in the Middle Ages, pp. 97–101.
57. See Ward, Ciceronian Rhetoric, p. 289.
58. See Yates, Art of Memory, pp. 50–81.
59. See Faral, Arts poétiques; C. S. Baldwin, Medieval Rhetoric, pp. 183–205; Murphy, Rhetoric in the Middle Ages, pp. 135–93; Kelly, Arts of Poetry and Prose; and Purcell, Ars Poetriae.
60. Translated by Ernest Gallo, in “Matthew of Vendome: Introductory Treatise on the Art of Poetry,” Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 118 (1974): 51–92.
61. Translated by Margaret F. Nims, The Poetria Nova of Geoffrey of Vinsauf (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies, 1967), reprinted in O. B. Hardison Jr. et al., eds., Classical and Medieval Literary Criticism (New York: Ungar, 1974), pp. 383–404; also translated by Jane B. Kopp, “Poetria Nova,” in Murphy, ed., Three Medieval Rhetorical Arts, pp. 27–108; see also Marjorie C. Woods, “A Medieval Rhetoric Goes to School—and to the University: The Commentaries on the Poetria Nova,” Rhetorica 9 (1991): 55–65. Geoffrey also wrote a dictaminal treatise; see Martin Camargo, “Toward a Comprehensive Art of Written Discourse: Geoffrey of Vinsauf and the Ars Dictaminis,” Rhetorica 6 (1988): 167–94.
62. Translated by Traugott Lawler, The Parisiana Poetria of John of Garland (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1974); see Murphy, Rhetoric in the Middle Ages, pp. 175–80.
63. See William M. Purcell, “Eberhard the German and the Labyrinth of Learning; Grammar, Poesy, Rhetoric, and Pedagogy in Laborintus,” Rhetorica 11 (1993): 95–118, and the books cited in note 59, above.
64. See C. S. Baldwin, Medieval Rhetoric, pp. 228–57, and Murphy, Rhetoric in the Middle Ages, pp. 269–355.
65. A version of the speech was written down by Archbishop Baldric and can be found in J. M. Watterich’s Pontificorum Romanorum Vitae (Leipzig, 1862; reprint, Aalen: Scientiae, 1966), 2:599–603.
66. See Caplan, Of Eloquence, p. 42.
67. Translated in Miller et al., eds., Readings in Medieval Rhetoric, pp. 162–81.
68. See Harry Caplan, “The Four Senses of Scriptural Interpretation and the Mediaeval Theory of Preaching,” Speculum 4 (1929): 282–80, reprinted in Caplan, Of Eloquence, pp. 93–104.
69. Translation of part in Caplan, Of Eloquence, pp. 228–39.
70. See Murphy, Rhetoric in the Middle Ages, pp. 310–26, and Georgina Donavin, “De Sermone Sermonem Fecimus: Alexander of Ashby’s De Artificioso Modo Praedicandi,” Rhetorica 15 (1997): 279–96.
71. See Davy, Sermons univérsitaires.
72. Translated by Leopold Krul in Murphy, ed., Three Medieval Rhetorical Arts, pp. 109–215; selections reprinted in Bizzell and Herzberg, eds., Rhetorical Tradition, pp. 439–60.
1. Publications about Renaissance rhetoric have greatly increased since the first edition of this book was published, although there is no single work covering all aspects of the subject. Studies of specific aspects are cited below. Bibliographical tools include Don P. Abbott, “The Renaissance,” in Horner, ed., Present State of Scholarship, pp. 84–113; Murphy, Renaissance Rhetoric: A Short-Title Catalogue; and Plett, English Renaissance Rhetoric and Poetics. See also C. S. Baldwin, Renaissance Literary Theory; Bolgar, Classical Heritage; Fumaroli, L’Age de l’éloquence; Howell, Logic and Rhetoric in England; Mack, ed., Renaissance Rhetoric; Murphy, ed., Renaissance Eloquence; Plett, ed., Renaissance Rhetorik; Sonnino, Handbook to Sixteenth-Century Rhetoric; and Vickers, In Defence of Rhetoric, pp. 254–93. A number of sixteenth-century works are available in microform in British and Continental Rhetoric and Elocution and in Murphy, ed., Renaissance Rhetoric: A Microfiche Collection of Key Texts.
2. See Eisenstein, Printing Press as an Agent of Change.
3. For this definition of humanism, see Kristeller, Renaissance Thought, p. 9. On humanism in general, see Garin, Italian Humanism, and Seigel, Rhetoric and Philosophy. On individual humanists, see Pfeiffer, Classical Scholarship: From 1300 to 1850, with bibliography.
4. On the French antecedents, see Kristeller, Renaissance Thought, p. 94; on eloquence as an ideal, see Hannah H. Gray, “Renaissance Humanism: The Pursuit of Eloquence,” Journal of the History of Ideas 24 (1963): 497–514.
5. See Hardison, Enduring Moment.
6. On political oratory, see Baron, Crisis of the Early Italian Renaissance; on epideictic in the Church, see McManamon, Funeral Oratory, and O’Malley, Praise and Blame.
7. See Seigel, Rhetoric and Philosophy; Scaglione, Classical Theory of Composition, pp. 143–44; and Ronald G. Witt, Coluccio Salutati and His Public Letters (Geneva: Droz, 1976).
8. On the recovery of texts, see Pfeiffer, Classical Scholarship: From 1300 to 1850, pp. 3–66.
9. For Poggio’s description of his discovery of Quintilian, see Phyllis G. Gordan, ed. and trans., Two Renaissance Book Hunters: The Letters of Poggius Bracciolini to Nicolaus de Niccolis (New York: Columbia University Press, 1966), pp. 193–96.
10. See F. H. Colson, “Knowledge and Use of Quintilian after 1416,” in his edition of M. Fabii Quintiliani Institutionis Oratoriae Liber I (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1924), pp. lxiv–lxxviii.
11. Among writers discussed in this chapter, critics of Quintilian included Trebizond, whose domination of rhetorical teaching in Italy was threatened by the admirers of Quintilian; Ramus, who attacked him for his neglect of dialectic; and Vives, who rejected his definition of the orator. See John Monfasani, “Episodes of Anti-Quintilianism in the Italian Renaissance: Quarrels on the Orator as Vir Bonus and Rhetoric as the Scientia Bene Dicendi,” Rhetorica 10 (1992): 119–38.
12. For a partial list, see Bernard Weinberg, ed., Tratti di poetica e retorica del conquecento, 4 vols. (Bari: Giuseppe Laterza, 1970–74), 1:566–81.
13. Rabinowitz, ed. and trans., Book of the Honeycomb’s Flow. For other Jewish writings on rhetoric, see Isaac Rabinowitz, “Pre-Modern Jewish Study of Rhetoric: An Introductory Bibliography,” Rhetorica 3 (1985): 137–44.
14. See esp. their role in Il Libro der Cortegiano, by Baldesar Castiglione; Charles Singleton, trans., The Book of the Courtier (New York: Anchor, 1959). On the subject in general, see Glenn, Rhetoric Retold, ch. 4; Levin and Sullivan, eds., Political Rhetoric; and the works listed in the following notes.
15. See Margaret L. King and Albert Rabil Jr., eds., Her Immaculate Hand: Selected Works by and about the Women Humanists of Quattrocento Italy (Binghampton, N.Y.: Medieval and Renaissance Texts and Studies, 1983), pp. 35–50 and 77.
16. See Margaret L. King, Women of the Renaissance (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1991), pp. 195–98.
17. Translated in Bizzell and Herzberg, eds., Rhetorical Tradition, pp. 495–98.
18. Translated by Sarah Lawson, The Treasure of the City of Ladies (New York: Viking Penguin, 1985); excerpted in Bizzell and Herzberg, eds., Rhetorical Tradition, pp. 488–93. See Jenny R. Redfern, “Christine de Pisan and The Treasure of the City of Ladies: A Medieval Rhetorician and Her Rhetoric,” in Lunsford, ed., Reclaiming Rhetorica, pp. 73–92.
19. See George P. Rice, ed., The Public Speeches of Queen Elizabeth: Selections from Her Official Addresses (New York: Columbia University Press, 1951), pp. 47–48 and 72.
20. The account here is based on Monfasani, George of Trebizond.
21. Text in ibid., pp. 365–69.
22. See Scaglione, Classical Theory of Composition, pp. 134–35.
23. See Monfasani, George of Trebizond, pp. 370–72.
24. See Green, Rainolds’s Oxford Lectures. The one surviving manuscript contains only lectures on the first nine chapters of Book 1.
25. A possible instance is De Natura Logicae of Jacopo Zabarella (1533–89); see W. F. Edwards, “Jacopo Zabarella: A Renaissance Aristotelian’s View of Rhetoric and Poetry and Their Relation to Philosophy,” in Arts libéraux et philosophique au Moyen Age, pp. 843–54.
26. See Eugenio Garin, “Note su alcuini aspetti delle retoriche rinascimentali e sulla Retorica del Patrizi,” Testi umanistici su la retorica: Archivo di filosofia 3 (1953): 7–53. The article includes some discussion of Speroni as well.
27. See Weinberg, History of Literary Criticism in the Italian Renaissance.
28. See Jacques Monfrin, “Les lectures de G. Fichet et de J. Heynlin,” Bibliothèque d’humanism et renaissance 17 (1955): 7–23 and 143–53.
29. See Eisenstein, Printing Press as an Agent of Change, p. 399n.
30. For a more detailed description, see George Kennedy, “The Rhetorica of Guillaume Fichet,” Rhetorica 5 (1987): 411–18. The work has never been reprinted and survives only in one manuscript and a few of the original printed copies.
31. See Monfasani, George of Trebizond, p. 322.
32. See Franco Simone, “Robert Gaguin ed il suo cenaculo umanistica,” Aevum 13 (1939): 410–76.
33. Translated by Ronald H. Martin, The Epitoma Margarite Castigate Eloquentie of Laurentius Gulielmus Traversagni de Saona (Leeds: Leeds Philosophical and Literary Society, 1986).
34. See Croll, Style, Rhetoric, and Rhythm, pp. 255–85.
35. See Scott, Controversies, part 1, and M. L. Clarke, “Non Hominis Nomen, Sed Eloquentiae,” in Dorey, ed., Cicero, pp. 89–95.
36. The term “baroque,” borrowed from art criticism, is acceptable as a description of non-Ciceronian prose style, but there is no baroque rhetorical theory; see Wilbur S. Howell, “Baroque Rhetoric: A Concept at Odds with Its Setting,” Philosophy and Rhetoric 15 (1982): 1–23.
37. See Claude Palisca, “Ut Oratoria Musica: The Rhetorical Basis of Musical Mannerism,” in The Meaning of Mannerism, ed. F. W. Robinson and S. G. Nichols Jr. (Hanover, N.H.: University Press of New England, 1972), pp. 37–65; G. J. Buelow, “Music, Rhetoric, and the Concept of the Affections: A Selective Bibliography,” Music Library Notes 31 (1973): 250–59; and Brian Vickers, “Figures of Rhetoric/ Figures of Music,” Rhetorica 2 (1984): 1–44.
38. See Ursula Kirkendale, “The Source of Bach’s Musical Offering: The Institutio Oratoria of Quintilian,” Journal of the American Musicological Society 33 (1980): 88–141, and Warren Kirkendale, “On the Rhetorical Interpretation of the Riceror and J. S. Bach’s Musical Offering,” Studi Musicali 26 (1997): 331–76.
39. See Monfasani, George of Trebizond, p. 38.
40. See Pfeiffer, Classical Scholarship: From 1300 to 1850, pp. 35–41, and Nancy Struever, “Lorenzo Valla: Humanist Rhetoric and the Critique of the Classical Languages of Morality,” in Murphy, ed., Renaissance Eloquence, pp. 191–206.
41. Valla’s treatise on dialectic is also known as Dialectical Disputations against the Aristotelians and as Repastinatio (i.e., “Revision”) Dialectice et Philosophe. The 1540 Basel edition of Valla’s Opera Omnia has been reprinted (2 vols. Turin: Bottega d’Erasmom 1961).
42. Quoted from Monfasani, George of Trebizond, pp. 304–5.
43. See Mack, Renaissance Argument, and John Monfasani, “Lorenzo Valla and Rudolph Agricola,” Journal of the History of Philosophy 28 (1990): 181–200.
44. See Donald L. Clark, “The Rise and Fall of Progymnasmata in Sixteenth and Seventeenth Century Grammar Schools,” Speech Monographs 19 (1952): 259–63.
45. Lothar Mundt, ed., Agricola, De Inventione Dialectica (Tübingen: Niemeyer, 1992). The original edition (Cologne: Gymnicus, 1539) has been reprinted in Monumenta Humanistica Belgica, vol. 2 (Nieuwkoop: de Graff, 1967). The text is also available on microfilm in British and Continental Rhetoric and Elocution, reel 8, item 92.
46. See Mack, Renaissance Argument, p. 120. For discussion of other early German writing on rhetoric, see Helmut Schanze, “Problems and Trends in the History of German Rhetoric to 1500,” in Murphy, ed., Renaissance Eloquence, pp. 105–25.
47. Text in British and Continental Rhetoric and Elocution, reel 14, item 126.
48. See James R. McNally, “Melanchthon’s Earliest Rhetoric,” in Fisher, ed., Rhetoric, pp. 33–48.
49. There is no modern edition or translation; for an account of the work, see Conley, Rhetoric in the European Tradition, pp. 157–59 and 184; see also Joseph S. Freedman, “The Career and Writings of Bartholomew Keckermann (d. 1609),” Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 141 (1997): 305–64.
50. See Marjorie O. Boyle, Erasmus on Language and Method in Theology (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1977).
51. For a translation, see Scott, Controversies, part 2, pp. 19–130.
52. See Judith Rice Henderson, “Erasmus on the Art of Letter-Writing,” in Murphy, ed., Renaissance Eloquence, pp. 331–55, and “Erasmian Ciceronians; Reformation Teachers of Letter-Writing,” Rhetorica 10 (1992): 273–302.
53. Translation by Craig Thompson, Collected Works of Erasmus (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1978), 24:284–659.
54. See T. W. Baldwin, William Shakespeare’s Small Latine, 2:138–75, and Joseph X. Brennan, “Joannes Susenbrotus: A Forgotten Humanist,” Publications of the Modern Language Association 75, no. 5 (Dec. 1960): 485–96.
55. Translation by Foster Watson, Vives on Education (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1913).
56. See Don Abbott, “La Retórica y el Renacimento: An Overview of Spanish Theory,” in Murphy, ed., Renaissance Eloquence, pp. 95–104; Emilio Hidalgo-Sema, “Ingenium and Rhetoric in the Work of Vives,” Philosophy and Rhetoric 16 (1983): 228–41; and “Metaphorical Language, Rhetoric, and Comprehensio: J. L. Vives and M. Nizolio,” Philosophy and Rhetoric 23 (1990): 1–11.
57. Charles Fantazzi, ed. and trans., Vives, De Conscribendis Epistolis (Leiden: Brill, 1989).
58. See Judith R. Henderson, “Defining the Genre of the Letter: Juan Luis Vives’ De Conscribendis Epistulis,” Renaissance and Reformation 7 (1983): 89–105.
59. See William E. Mead, ed., The Pastime of Pleasure by Stephen Hawes (London: Oxford University Press, 1928).
60. See Walter J. Ong, “Tudor Writings on Rhetoric,” Studies in the Renaissance 15 (1968): 39–68, and Roselyn L. Freedman, “A Bibliography of Sixteenth-Century English Rhetoric,” Rhetoric Society Quarterly 11 (1981): 118–36.
61. See Crane, Wit and Rhetoric in the Renaissance.
62. Frederic I. Carpenter, ed., Leonard Cox’s “The Arte or Crafte of Rhethoryke” (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1899; reprint, New York: AMS, 1973); see Howell, Logic and Rhetoric in England, pp. 90–95.
63. Herbert W. Hildebrandt, ed., A Treatise of Schemes and Tropes (Gainesville, Fla.: Scholars Facsimiles and Reprints, 1961); see Howell, Logic and Rhetoric in England, pp. 125–31.
64. R. C. Alston, ed., Garden of Eloquence (Menston, England: Scolar Press, 1971); see Howell, Logic and Rhetoric in England, pp. 132–37.
65. Thomas J. Derrick, ed. Arte of Rhetorique by Thomas Wilson (New York: Garland, 1982); see Howell, Logic and Rhetoric in England, pp. 98–110.
66. See Richard J. Schoeck, “Lawyers and Rhetoric in Sixteenth-Century England,” in Murphy, ed., Renaissance Eloquence, 274–91, esp. 285–87, and Mark E. Wildermuth, “The Rhetoric of Wilson’s Arte: Reclaiming the Classical Heritage for English Protestants,” Philosophy and Rhetoric 22 (1989): 43–58.
67. See, e.g., Vickers, Classical Rhetoric in English Poetry; D. L. Clark, Rhetoric and Poetry in the Renaissance; and Crane, Wit and Rhetoric in the Renaissance.
68. Shakespeare was apparently acquainted with Rhetoric for Herennius, some of Cicero’s works, Susenbrotus’s handbook of figures, Erasmus’s On Copia, and perhaps Quintilian’s Institutio; see T. W. Baldwin, William Shakespeare’s Small Latine, 2:69–238.
69. See Ong, Ramus, Method, and the Decay of Dialogue; Meerhoff, Rhétorique et poétique au XVIe siècle en France; and Peter Sharratt, “Recent Work on Peter Ramus (1970–1986),” Rhetorica 5 (1987): 7–58.
70. On the rhetorical writings of Talon and Ramus, see Ong, Ramus, Method, and the Decay of Dialogue, pp. 270–92. Texts can be found in British and Continental Rhetoric and Elocution, reel 15, item 140, and in Murphy, ed., Renaissance Rhetoric: A Microfiche Collection of Key Texts.
71. Carole Newlands, trans., Arguments in Rhetoric against Quintilian, with an extended introduction and bibliography by James J. Murphy (Dekalb, Ill.: Northern Illinois University Press, 1986).
72. See John C. Adams, “Alexander Richardson’s Puritan Theory of Discourse,” Rhetorica 4 (1986): 255–74, and “Ramist Conceptions of Testimony, Judicial Analogies, and the Puritan Conversion Narrative,” Rhetorica 9 (1991): 251–68.
73. The text of Harvey’s Rhetor is in British and Continental Rhetoric and Elocution, reel 4, item 39. Translation of Gabriel Harvey’s Ciceronianus by Harold S. Wilson and Clarence A. Forbes in University of Nebraska Studies in Humanities, vol. 4 (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1945).
74. See Ethel Seaton, ed., The Arcadian Rhetorike by Abraham Fraunce (Oxford: Basil Blackwood, 1950), and Howell, Logic and Rhetoric, pp. 247–81.
75. For Butler’s work, see British and Continental Rhetoric and Elocution, reel 2, item 17; see also Howell, Logic and Rhetoric, pp. 318–41.
76. See Joseph S. Freedman, “Cicero in Sixteenth- and Seventeenth-Century Rhetoric Instruction,” Rhetorica 4 (1986): 227–54. Lanham, Electronic Word, pp. 157–59, attributes the modern specialization of academic disciplines to the influence of Ramism. This is something of an exaggeration; Aristotle had begun the project and Ramus was largely forgotten by the nineteenth century when specialization emerged as part of an effort to apply scientific method to humanistic studies.
77. See Luisa López-Grigera, “Introduction to the Study of Rhetoric in Sixteenth-Century Spain,” Disposition: Revista Hispánica de Semiótica Literaria 8 (1983): 1–18, and her book La retórica en España. Ramism was introduced by Francisco Sanchez in his Organum Dialecticum et Rhetoricum of 1579; see Alfonso Martín Jiménez, “Rhetoric, Dialectic, and Literature in the Work of Francisco Sanchez,” Rhetorica 13 (1995): 43–59. For a brief account of other Spanish writers on rhetoric, see Robert W. Smith, “Retórica España: A Checklist in the History of Spanish Rhetoric,” Central States Speech Journal 26 (1975): 221–36. See also Harry Caplan and Henry H. King, “Spanish Treatises on Preaching: A Book List,” Speech Monographs 17 (1950): 161–70.
78. See Lawrence J. Flynn, “The De Arte Rhetorica of Cyprian Soarez, S.J.,” Quarterly Journal of Speech 42 (1956): 367–74, and “Sources and Influence of Soarez’ De Arte Rhetorica,” Quarterly Journal of Speech 43 (1957): 257–65.
79. For an account of the contents, see Conley, Rhetoric in the European Tradition, pp. 155–57 and 182–83.
80. See Abbott, Rhetoric in the New World, pp. 9–15.
81. See Don Paul Abbott, “Aztecs and Orators: Rhetoric in New Spain,” Texte: Revue de Critique et de Théorie Littéraire 8/9 (1989): 353–65, and for further detail, see Abbott’s Rhetoric in the New World.
82. There are no modern editions or translations of Vossius’s rhetorical works. For discussion, see C. S. M. Rademaker, Life and Work of Gerhardus Johannes Vossius (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1981), and Conley, Rhetoric in the European Tradition, pp. 159–62 and 185–86.
83. See Marc Cogan, “Rhetoric and Action in Francis Bacon,” Philosophy and Rhetoric 14 (1981): 212–33; Vickers, Francis Bacon and Renaissance Prose; and Wallace, Francis Bacon and “Bacon, Rhetoric, and Ornament of Words,” in Fisher, ed., Rhetoric, pp. 49–65.
84. Quoted by Wallace, Francis Bacon, p. 4.
85. There are numerous modern editions of The Advancement of Learning and an English translation of De Dignitate et Augmentis in John M. Robertson, ed., The Philosophical Works of Francis Bacon (London: Routledge, 1905), pp. 413–638.
86. More fully stated in the Latin edition: “munus rhetoricae non aliud quam ut rationis dictamina phantasiae applicet et commendet ad exercitandum appetitum et voluntatem,” or “the duty of rhetoric is nothing other than to apply and recommend the dictates of reason to imagination for the moving of emotion and the will.”
87. See Wallace, Francis Bacon, pp. 205–18.
1. See Ray Nadeau, “Talaeus versus Farnaby on Style,” Speech Monographs 21 (1954): 59–62.
2. Two basic works for rhetoric in this period are Fumaroli, L’Age de l’éloquence (an English translation is in preparation), and Howell, Eighteenth-Century British Logic and Rhetoric.
3. J. C. T. Ernesti, Lexicon Technologiae Graecorum Rhetoricae (Leipzig, 1795) and Lexicon Technologiae Latinorum Rhetoricae (Leipzig, 1797), both reprinted (Hildesheim: Olms, 1962).
4. See Davidson, Audience, Words, and Art.
5. See Howell, Eighteenth-Century British Logic and Rhetoric, pp. 503–35.
6. See Warnick, Sixth Canon.
7. See Howell, Logic and Rhetoric in England, pp. 342–63, and Davidson, Audience, Words, and Art, pp. 57–108.
8. See Davidson, Audience, Words, and Art, pp. 109–40, and Kathleen M. Jamieson, “Pascal vs. Descartes: A Clash over Rhetoric in the Seventeenth Century,” Communication Monographs 43 (1976): 44–50.
9. See Roger Lathuillère, La Préciosité: Étude historique et linguistique (Geneva: Droz, 1966), and Dorothy A. L. Backer, Precious Women (New York: Basic Books, 1974).
10. See Stina Hansson, “Rhetoric for Seventeenth-Century Salons: Beata Rosen-hane’s Exercise Books and Classical Rhetoric,” Rhetorica 12 (1994): 43–65.
11. See Bizzell and Herzberg, eds., Rhetorical Tradition, pp. 670–85.
12. See Christine M. Sutherland, “Outside the Rhetorical Tradition: Mary Astell’s Advice to Women in Seventeenth-Century England,” Rhetorica 9 (1991): 147–63, and “Mary Astell: Reclaiming Rhetorica in the Seventeenth Century,” in Lunsford, ed., Reclaiming Rhetorica, pp. 93–116.
13. For these texts, see R. C. Davis and Laurie Finke, eds., Literary Criticism and Theory (New York: Longman, 1989), pp. 290–97 and 315–20.
14. For the text of the English version, see Harwood, ed., Rhetorics of Thomas Hobbes and Bernard Lamy, pp. 131–377. See also Warnick, Sixth Canon, pp. 18–34.
15. Harwood, ed., Rhetorics of Thomas Hobbes and Bernard Lamy, p. 329.
16. See Monk, Sublime, ch. 1, and Warnick, Sixth Canon, pp. 74–94.
17. See Highet, Classical Tradition, pp. 261–88.
18. See Abrams, Mirror and the Lamp, pp. 70–78.
19. Modern edition by J. T. Boulton (London: Routledge, 1958).
20. For a good survey in English, see Shuger, Sacred Rhetoric, esp. pp. 55–117.
21. See Jacques Truchet, La Prédication de Bossuet (Paris: du Cerf, 1960). Bossuet discussed his theory of preaching in his Panégyrique de Saint Paul; see J. Lebarq, ed., Oeuvres oratoires de Bossuet (Lille: Desclée de Brouwen, 1891), pp. 302–4.
22. Edited and translated by Wilbur S. Howell, Fénelon’s Dialogues on Eloquence (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1951). Page references in the text are to Howell’s translation. See Warnick, Sixth Canon, pp. 50–57.
23. See Howell, Eighteenth-Century British Logic and Rhetoric, pp. 518–19.
24. See Carr, Descartes and the Resilience of Rhetoric, and Dalia Judovitz, Subjectivity and Representation in Descartes (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1988).
25. Harwood, ed., Rhetorics of Thomas Hobbes and Bernard Lamy, pp. 33–128. As noted in Chapter 10, John Rainolds had lectured on Aristotle’s Rhetoric at Oxford in the previous century, and in 1619 Thomas Goulston published Versio Latina et Paraphrasis in Aristotelis Rhetoricam.
26. See James P. Zappen, “Aristotelian and Ramist Rhetoric in Thomas Hobbes’s Leviathan: Pathos versus Ethos and Logos,” Rhetorica 1 (1983): 65–91, and Denis Thouard, “Hobbes et la rhétorique: Un cas complexe,” Rhetorica 14 (1996): 333–39.
27. See Howell, Eighteenth-Century British Logic and Rhetoric, pp. 448–502.
28. For the text, see Fausto Nicolini, ed., G. B. Vico Opere, vol. 8 (Bari: Latega, 1941).
29. See Donald P. Verene, Vico on the Study Methods of Our Time (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1990).
30. Translation by Thomas G. Bergin and Max H. Fisch, The New Science of Giambattista Vico (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1948).
31. See Daniel M. Gross, “Metaphor and Definition in Vico’s New Science,” Rhetorica 14 (1996): 359–81.
32. There is now an extensive bibliography relating to Vico; see especially Michael Mooney, Vico in the Tradition of Rhetoric (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1985), and Donald P. Verene, Vico’s Science of Imagination (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1981).
33. T. H. Green and T. H. Grose, eds., Philosophical Works of David Hume (Aalen: Scientia Verlag, 1964), 3:163–74; see Adam Potkay, The Fate of Eloquence in the Age of Hume (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1994), chs. 1–2.
34. See the review of Pichot’s Voyage historique et littéraire by the great French critic C.-A. Sainte-Beuve in the latter’s Oeuvres (Paris: Gallimard, 1956), 1:122–34.
35. Chauncey A. Goodrich, professor of rhetoric at Yale, compiled in 1852 an anthology of speeches by these and other orators, accompanied with critical essays, a work much studied in America; see A. Craig Baird, ed., Essays from Select British Eloquence (Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1963).
36. Kant, Critique of Judgement, trans. James C. Meredith (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1961), pp. 184–85.
37. There is no modern edition. For discussion, see Conley, Rhetoric in the European Tradition, pp. 194–97 and 229–30, and Kathleen S. Wilkins, A Study of the Works of Claude Buffier (Geneva: Institut et Musée Voltaire, 1969).
38. There is no modern edition. For discussion, see Conley, Rhetoric in the European Tradition, pp. 201–3 and 230–31, and Barbara Warnick, “Charles Rollin’s Traité and the Rhetorical Theories of Smith, Campbell, and Blair,” Rhetorica 3 (1985): 45–65.
39. See Gérard Genette, Figures of Literary Discourse, trans. Alan Sheridan (New York: Columbia University Press, 1982), pp. 103–26.
40. See Joachim Birke, ed., Ausgewälte Werke Hrsg. von J. C. Gottsched (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1987), 7:59ff.
41. On the history of rhetoric in Germany from the sixteenth to the twentieth century, see Schanze, Rhetorik.
42. See Antonio Mestre Sanchis, ed., Obras Completas de Gregorio Mayáns y Siscar, vol. 3 (Valencia: Consellería de Cultura, 1984); there is a valuable review describing the contents of the work by Rosalind J. Gabin in Rhetorica 5 (1987): 198–206. For additional discussion, see Donald P. Abbott, “Mayans’ Rhetórica and the Search for a Spanish Rhetoric,” Rhetorica 11 (1993): 157–79.
43. For a list of other Spanish rhetorics, see Don P. Abbott, “A Bibliography of Eighteenth- and Nineteenth-Century Spanish Treatises,” Rhetorica 4 (1986): 275–92.
44. A popular Ciceronian rhetoric was John Holmes’s The Art of Rhetoric Made Easy (1755); an example of a text on figures is Nicolas Burton’s Figurae Grammaticae et Rhetoricae Latina Carmina Donatae (1702); see British and Continental Rhetoric and Elocution, reel 2, item 15; see also Anthony Blackwell’s Introduction to the Classics (1718), in ibid., reel 1, item 7.
45. John Ward, A System of Oratory Delivered in a Course of Lectures Publicly Read at Gresham College (1759; reprint, Hildesheim: Olms, 1969).
46. See Howell, Eighteenth-Century British Logic and Rhetoric, pp. 145–256, and Frederick W. Haberman, “English Sources of American Elocution,” in Wallace, ed., History of Speech Education, pp. 105–26.
47. James W. Cleary, ed., Chirologia and Chironomia by John Bulwer (Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1974).
48. Reprinted, New York: Benjamin Bloom, 1968.
49. Mary M. Robb and Lester Thomssen, ed., Chironomia by Gilbert Austin (Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1966).
50. E. Neal Claussen and Karl R. Wallace, eds., Lectures Concerning Oratory by John Lawson (Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1972). See Howell, Eighteenth-Century British Logic and Rhetoric, pp. 616–31.
51. John M. Lothian, ed., Lectures on Rhetoric and Belles Lettres Delivered in the University of Glasgow by Adam Smith (Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1971); also J. C. Bryce, ed., Glasgow Edition of the Works and Correspondence of Adam Smith, vol. 4 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1983). See Miller, Formation of College English, pp. 178–204.
52. Vincent M. Bevilacqua and Richard Murphy, eds., A Course of Lectures on Oratory and Criticism by Joseph Priestley (Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1965).
53. See Lloyd F. Bitzer, editor’s introduction to The Philosophy of Rhetoric, by George Campbell (Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1963), p. xxviii. See Miller, Formation of College English, pp. 205–26.
54. See Warnick, Sixth Canon, pp. 62–68 and 116–20.
55. See Horner, Nineteenth-Century Scottish Rhetoric.
56. Harold F. Harding, ed., Lectures on Rhetoric and Belles Lettres by Hugh Blair, 2 vols. (Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1965). For discussion of Blair’s lectures, see Howell, Eighteenth-Century British Logic and Rhetoric, pp. 648–74; Miller, Formation of College English, pp. 227–52; and Warnick, Sixth Canon, pp. 68–71 and 111–16.
57. See Warren Guthrie, “The Development of Rhetorical Theory in America, 1635–1850,” Speech Monographs 15 (1948): 61–71.
58. Douglas Ehninger, ed., Elements of Rhetoric by Richard Whately (Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1963).
59. See Thomas Miller, ed., The Selected Writings of John Witherspoon (Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1990), pp. 38–47 and 231–318, and “John Witherspoon and Scottish Rhetoric and Moral Philosophy in America,” Rhetorica 8 (1992): 381–403; see also Howell, Eighteenth-Century British Logic and Rhetoric, pp. 671–91.
60. See J. Jeffrey Auer and Jerald L. Banninga, eds., John Quincy Adams: Lectures on Rhetoric and Oratory, 2 vols. (New York: Russell and Russell, 1962), 1:28–29.
61. See Wallace, ed., History of Speech Education, p. 164.
62. See Carole Blair, “Nietzsche’s Lecture Notes on Rhetoric: A Translation,” Philosophy and Rhetoric 16 (1983): 94–129, and Sander L. Gilman, Carole Blaire, and David Parent, eds., Friedrich Nietzsche on Rhetoric and Language (New York: Oxford University Press, 1989).
63. See Vickers, In Defence of Rhetoric, pp. 459–64. Vickers takes special pains to refute Paul de Man’s misinterpretations of Nietzsche’s views on rhetoric.
1. See Lanham, Electronic Word, esp. ch. 2.
2. Originally published in New York at Oxford University Press, 1965, and often reprinted.
3. Welch, Contemporary Reception, p. 11. Welch identifies examples of textbooks representative of each school and a bibliography of relevant books.
4. Published in Chicago by the University of Chicago Press, 1990.
5. Published in Charlottesville by the University Press of Virginia, 1993.
6. See I. A. Richards, The Philosophy of Rhetoric (London: Oxford University Press, 1936), p. 3.
7. See Roman Jakobson, “Two Aspects of Language and Two Types of Aphasic Disturbances,” in Jakobson and M. Halle, eds., Fundamentals of Language (The Hague: Mouton, 1956), pp. 53–82. Cf. the criticism of Jakobson as one who contributed to the “atrophying” of rhetoric by Vickers, In Defence of Rhetoric, pp. 442–48.
8. Published in Paris by Larousse, 1970.
9. Alan Sheridan, trans., Figures of Literary Discourse (New York: Columbia University Press, 1982).
10. Translation by Robert Czerny (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1977.
11. Published in Boston by Beacon Press, 1961; reprinted in Berkeley at the University of California Press, 1970.
12. Originally published in New York by Prentice-Hall, 1945; reprinted in Berkeley at University of California Press, 1969.
13. Originally published in New York by Prentice-Hall, 1950; reprinted in Berkeley by the University of California Press, 1969.
14. John Wilkinson and Purcell Weaver, trans., The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation (Notre Dame, Ind.: Notre Dame University Press, 1969).
15. See, e.g., Tzetan Todorov, Theories of the Symbol, trans. Catherine Porter (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1982), and Roy Harris and Talbot J. Taylor, Landmarks in Linguistic Thought: The Western Tradition from Socrates to Saussure (London: Routledge, 1989).
16. See Umberto Eco, A Theory of Semiotics (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1979), pp. 134 and 276–88.
17. See Whitman, Allegory, pp. 14–57.
18. Cleanth Brooks Jr. and Robert Penn Warren, Understanding Poetry (New York: Henry Holt, 1938 and later).
19. See, e.g., Elder Olson, ed., Aristotle’s Poetics and English Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1965).
20. Vickers, In Defence of Rhetoric, pp. 453–70.
21. Translation by Barbara Johnson (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1981), pp. 63–171.
22. A valuable earlier book is Oliver, Communication and Culture in Ancient India and China.