Aristotle’s Rhetoric and the Rhetoric to Alexander: the Persuasive Power of the pivstei~
0
조회
0
다운로드
0
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Already in the first page of his Rhetoric, in open polemic against contemporary or previous authors of rhetorical handbooks, Aristotle mentions the importance of the pivstei~: they are – he says – the only technical devices, any thing else is to be considered as supplementary (Rhet. 1354 a 13 f. aiJ ga;r pivstei~ e[ntecnovn ejsti movnon, ta; d’ a[lla proqh`kai). To fully understand his statement we should, however, keep in mind that, differently from his teacher Plato, Aristotle considers rhetoric as a tevcnh Hence, as any other art speculates why given things happen (Rhet. 1354 a 10 f.), its task is “to see the available means of persuasion in each case” (Rhet. 1355 b 10 f. to; ijdei`n ta; uJpavrconta piqana; peri; e{kaston). Aristotle does not yet specify what the pivstei~ are: he first mentions the ejnquvmhma as ‘the body of persuasion’ (Rhet. 1354 a 15 kuriwvtaton tw`n pivstewn), but when he considers it as ‘the strongest of the pivstei~’ (Rhet.1355 a 7 f. kuriwvtaton tw`n pivstewn), he openly hints at the existence of some others. It is only at the beginning of the second chapter, after defining rhetoric as the ability to discover the possible persuasive in each case (Rhet. 1355 b 25 f. [Estw de; rJhtorikh; duvnami~ peri; e{kaston tou` qewrh`sai to; ejndecovmenon piqanovn), that he comes to deal with his so famous distinction of two different groups of pivstei~.
Abstract
Already in the first page of his Rhetoric, in open polemic against contemporary or previous authors of rhetorical handbooks, Aristotle mentions the importance of the pivstei~: they are – he says – the only technical devices, any thing else is to be considered as supplementary (Rhet. 1354 a 13 f. aiJ ga;r pivstei~ e[ntecnovn ejsti movnon, ta; d’ a[lla proqh`kai). To fully understand his statement we should, however, keep in mind that, differently from his teacher Plato, Aristotle considers rhetoric as a tevcnh Hence, as any other art speculates why given things happen (Rhet. 1354 a 10 f.), its task is “to see the available means of persuasion in each case” (Rhet. 1355 b 10 f. to; ijdei`n ta; uJpavrconta piqana; peri; e{kaston). Aristotle does not yet specify what the pivstei~ are: he first mentions the ejnquvmhma as ‘the body of persuasion’ (Rhet. 1354 a 15 kuriwvtaton tw`n pivstewn), but when he considers it as ‘the strongest of the pivstei~’ (Rhet.1355 a 7 f. kuriwvtaton tw`n pivstewn), he openly hints at the existence of some others. It is only at the beginning of the second chapter, after defining rhetoric as the ability to discover the possible persuasive in each case (Rhet. 1355 b 25 f. [Estw de; rJhtorikh; duvnami~ peri; e{kaston tou` qewrh`sai to; ejndecovmenon piqanovn), that he comes to deal with his so famous distinction of two different groups of pivstei~.
참고문헌 (35)
- Alewell,Karl, "Über das rhetorische PARADEIGMA" (1913), Hoffmánn
- Barwick,Karl, "Die ‘Rhetorik ad Alexandrum’ und Anaximenes,Alkidamas,Isocrates,Aristoteles und die Theodekteia", Philologus, 110, pp.212~245 (1966)
- Barwick,Karl, "Die ‘Rhetorik ad Alexandrum’ und Anaximenes,Alkidamas,Isocrates,Aristoteles und die Theodekteia", Philologus, 111, pp.47~55 (1967)
- Braet,Antoine C, "On the Origin of Normative Argumentation Theory:The Paradoxical Case of the Rhetoric to Alexander", Argumentation, 10, pp.347~359 (1996)
- Buchheit,Vinzenz, "Untersuchungen zur Theorie des Genos Epideiktikon von Gorgias bis Aristoteles,Max Hueber" (1960), Max Hueber
- Calboli Montefusco,Lucia, "La force probatoire des pivstei" a[tecnoi:d’Aristote aux Rhéteurs Latins de la République et de l’Empire", pp.13~35 (1998), La Rhétorique d'Aristote, Traditions et Commentaires de l'Antiquité au XVIIe Siècle
- Calboli Montefusco, Lucia, "Aristotle’s Rhetoric: the speaker and his audience, in Papers on Rhetoric II", pp.67~94 (1999), CLUEB
- Calboli Montefusco, Lucia, "La gnwvmh et l’argumentation, in Proverbes et sentences dans le monde romain", pp.27~39 (1999), Université Jean Moulin - Lyon 3
- Calboli Montefusco,Lucia, "Aristoteles’ Benutzung des o{moion in argumentatio und elocutio, in Papers on Rhetoric III" (2000), CLUEB
- Calboli Montefusco,Lucia, "Può esistere un’ars dicendi ? Il compromesso ciceroniano nella soluzione di una uerbi controuersia, in: Hommages à M.Deroux, II- Prose et linguistique, Médicine", pp.91~106 (2002), Éditions Latomus
- Calboli Montefusco,Lucia, "Argumentative Devices in the Rhetorica ad Alexandrum, in: Influences on Peripatetic Rhetoric", pp.105~121 (2007), Brill
- Chiron,Pierre, "À propos d’une série de pisteis dans la Rhétorique à Alexandre(Ps.-Aristote,Rh.Al.chap.7-14)", Rhetorica, 16, pp.349~391 (1998)
- Chiron,Pierre, "Observations sur le lexique de la Rhétorique à Alexandre", Ktema, 24, pp.313~340 (1999)
- Chiron,Pierre, "La tradition manuscrite de la Rhétorique à Alexandre:prolégomènes à une nouvelle édition critique", RHT, 30, pp.17~69 (2000)
- Chiron, Pierre, "Pseudo-Aristote, Rhétorique à Alexandre" (2002), Les Belles Lettres
- Cope,Edward M, "An Introduction to Aristotle’s Rhetoric" (1867), Macmillan and Co.
- Fuhrmann,Manfred, "Das systematische Lehrbuch" (1960), Göttingen.
- Goebel,George H, "Probability in the Earliest Rhetorical Theory", Mnemosyne, 42, pp.41~53 (1989)
- Grimaldi,William M.A, "Studies in the Philosophy of Aristotle’s Rhetoric" (1972), Franz Steiner
- Grimaldi,William M.A, "ristotle, Rhetoric I. A Commentary" (1980), Fordham University Press
- Grimaldi,William M.A, "Aristotle, Rhetoric II. A Commentary" (1988), Fordham University Press
- Kennedy,George A, "Aristotle. A Theory of Civic Discourse" (1991), Oxford University Press
- Mirhady,David C, "Non-technical Pisteis in Aristotele and Anaximenes", American Journal of Philology, 112, pp.5~28 (1991)
- Mirhady,David C, "Aristotle, the Rhetorica ad Alexandrum and the tria genera causarum, in: Peripatetic Rhetoric after Aristotle", pp.54~65 (1994), Transaction Publishers
- Most,Glenn W, "The Uses of Endoxa: Philosophy and Rhetoric in the Rhetoric, in Aristotle’s Rhetoric", pp.167~190 (1994), Princeton University Press
- Patillon,Michel, "Aristote,Corax,Anaximène et les autres dans la Rhétorique à Alexandre", Revue des Études Grecques, 110, pp.104~125 (1997)
- Piazza,Francesca, "Il corpo della persuasione. L’entimema nella retorica greca" (2000), Novecento
- Price,Bennett J, "Paradeigma and Exemplum in Ancient Rhetorical Theory" (1975), Diss
- Pritzl,K, "Opinions as Appearances:Endoxa in Aristotle", Ancient Philosophy, 14, pp.41~50 (1994)
- Raphael,S, "Rhetoric,Dialectic and Syllogistic Argument:Aristotle’s Position in Rhetoric I-II", Phronesis, 19, pp.153~167 (1974)
- Sprute,Jürgen, "Die Enthymemtheorie der aristotelischen Rhetorik" (1982), Göttingen
- Rapp,Christoph, "Aristoteles. Rhetorik, übersetzt und erläutert von Ch.R., I-II" (2002), Akademie Verlag
- Tredennick,Hugh, "Aristotle, The Categories" (1983), Harvard University Press
- Wisse,Jakob, "Ethos and Pathos from Aristotle to Cicero" (1989), Hakkert
- Woerther,Frédérique, "L’èthos aristotelicien" (2007), Genèse d’une notion rhétorique