Being Made Strange: Rhetoric beyond Representation

Notes

193 Notes PREFACE 1. For more on the longstanding affiliation between wisdom and eloquence in Western education, see Kimball (1986). 2. See, for example, Benhabib (1986 and 1996); Blaug (1996); Bohman (1996); Fraser (1985, 1989, 1992); Landes (1998); McCarthy (1994); Phillips (1996); Iris Young (1987, 1990). 3. On the historical connections between rhetoric and colonialism, see Abbott (1996); Cheyfitz (1997); Greenblatt (1991); Gustafson (2000). INTRODUCTION 1. For surveys of the origins of rhetoric in ancient Greece, consult Cole (1991); Enos (1993); Havelock and Hershbell (1978); Lemen (1957); Johnstone (1996); Kennedy (1963, 1994, 1999); Schiappa (1999). 2. For a succinct account of the cultural and intellectual influences that shaped the classical Greek veneration of “man’s” elevated nature, see Freeman (1999, chapter 13). 3. For more on Isocrates, see Hubbell (1913); Takis Poulakos (1997); Too (1995). 4. Surveys of the sophists’ influence on Greek culture and rhetoric include Guthrie ([1971] 1998); Kerferd (1981a, 1981b); John Poulakos (1983, 1984, 1987, 1994); Romilly (1998); Sprague (1972); Untersteiner (1953). For modern and contemporary interpretations or appropriations of the sophists, see Hegel (1995, chapter 2); Jarratt (1991); Mailloux (1981); Marback (1999); Vitanza (1997). 5. See, especially, Plato’s Gorgias and Phaedrus. 6. For more on Aristotle and rhetoric, see Erickson (1974, 1975); Furley and Alexander (1994); Garver (1994); Gross and Walzer (2000); Rorty (1996). 7. Surveys of the ancient Roman influence on Western education and the discipline of rhetoric also include Anderson (1993); Bonner (1949, 1977); Clarke (1953); Dominik (1997); Kennedy (1972). 8. Aside from Christian eloquence, the most notable innovations in rhetoric during the medieval period were grammar and dictamen (instruction in letter writing ). For more on medieval rhetoric generally, see Baldwin (1928); Copeland (1991); McKeon (1942); Miller, Prosser, and Benson (1973); Murphy (1971a, 1971b, 1974, 1978); Reynolds (1996). 9. On Christian eloquence, see Brown (1992); Cameron (1991); Jaeger (1961); Kinneavy (1987). 10. See Salutati (1951). 11. See Guazzo (1856, 14). 12. For a sampling of scholarship on rhetoric during the Renaissance, see Baldwin (1939); Clark (1992); Fumaroli (1980); Gray (1963); Mack (1993, 1994); Murphy (1981, 1983); Seigel (1968); Sonnino (1968); Weinberg (1961). 13. See Sheridan ([1796] 1991). 14. Further studies of eighteenth- and nineteenth-century rhetoric include Golden and Corbett (1990); Horner (1993); Howell (1971); Mill (1997); Warnick (1993). 15. Relevant reappraisals of the rhetorical tradition include Bitzer and Black (1971); Blair (1992); Conley ([1990] 1993); Fisher (1975); Horner (1990); Kastely (1997); John Poulakos (1993); Schildgen (1997); Vickers (1988, 1982); Vitanza (1994); and Eugene White (1980). 16. One of the very few exceptions is Baumlin and Baumlin (1994). Like my study, their project takes as its point of departure modern critiques of classical categories central to rhetorical theory and practice. Unlike my study, however, it presents a variety of historical and contemporary reappraisals of ethos rather than developing an integrated contemporary theory thereof. Doxtader (2000) also explores the decidedly unconventional notion of ethos in the middle voice but does so by way of Hegelian philosophy, which is theoretically incompatible with my project. My central conviction in this book is to develop an account of the affinity between rhetoric and the subject that gives priority to difference rather than identity, which seems impossible under the aegis of Hegelian ontology. 17. Works that establish precedents for such a project, or that offer more philosophically inflected approaches to rhetoric, include Angus and Langsdorf (1993); Backman (1991); Biesecker (1997); Cherwitz (1990); Corbin (1998); Fogarty (1959); Grassi (1980); Gray-Rosendale and Gruber (2001); Heidlebaugh (2001); Hyde (2001); Kastely (1997); Mailloux (1981); Meyer (1994); Rosteck (1999); Simons (1989); Smith (1998); Swartz (1998); Thomas (1999); Valesio (1980); Vitanza (1997); Yarborough (1999). CHAPTER 1. THE SUBJECT AND OBJECT OF REPRESENTATION 1. Gaonkar (1997) refers to this phenomenon in rhetorical scholarship as “coarticulation”; Robbins (1990) terms it “the rhetoric of rhetoric.” 194 Notes to Chapter 1 2. Aristotle (1966, B998a20-B999a20; Γ159a20-Γ1061b15). 3. Deleuze highlights Nietzsche’s aversion to a literal understanding of termination (1983, 47). 4. See especially Nietzsche (1968, 1974, 1982, 1990). 5. Despite the insufficiencies to which Sallis alludes, Aufhebung is commonly translated in English as “sublation.” 6. See also Hegel (1977). 7. See especially Heidegger (1973, 1993, 1996, 1999). 8. See Sallis (1995, 139–51) for his commentary on the connections between Heidegger and Derrida. 9. In his treatise on the sophistic origins of rhetoric, Schiappa (1999) notes the emerging value of intuition evident in early conceptions...