Notes
NOTES Prologue 1. With the cry-in-the-wilderness exceptions of McCloskey 1985/1998 and Billig 1987. 2. This is the explicit mode, for example, of Brooks Jackson and Kathleen Hall Jamieson’s 2007 unSpun. 3. Walker 1998,2003,2006a,2006b.See also Fleming 1998,1999;and Graff and Leff 2005, who take a similar position. 4. Bender and Wellbery 1990. 5. For example: Struever 2009—an admirable book—considers rhetoric in the classical to modern traditions as a pragmatist mode of inquiry, particularly into civil questions, in the modality of “possibility” (in contrast to philosophy, whose modality is “necessity”); this is “rhetoric” in definition 1 and/or 2, as the object of study. What Struever does is theorize the nature of rhetoric, as she defines it, and its manifestations from early modernity to our own times; this is “rhetoric” in definition 3. But it can be said that, disciplinarily, what she does is not primarily rhetoric but “rhetorical studies” as a subfield of something else (for example, the history of ideas or the theory of knowledge ). 6. Marrou 1956; Clark 1957. See also Bonner 1949, 1977. 7. See Kennedy 1963, 1969, 1972, 1980 (and 1999), 1983, 1991 (and 2007), 1994. 8. Cribiore 2001, 2007a;Too 2001; Hawhee 2004; and Heath 1995, 2004. See also Gleason 1995; Browning 1997;Too 1995,Too and Livingstone 1998, andToo 2008; Murphy 1990; Gunderson 2003; Poulakos and Depew 2004; and Morgan 1998, 2007.Woods 2010, a study of classroom uses of Geoffrey of Vinsauf’s Poetria Nova, is outside the historical boundaries of this book but relevant to its purposes. See also Kraus 2009 and Camargo 2009. Translations of documents heretofore inaccessible to nonclassicists include Russell andWilson 1981; Russell 1996; Kaster 1995; Dilts and Kennedy 1997; Kennedy 2003, 2005; Gibson 2008; and Penella 2009.The appendix of Cribiore 2007a is a translation of the (previously untranslated) letters of Libanius related to the business of his school, organized into “dossiers” for individual students. 9. For example, Corbett 1998; Connors, Ede, and Lunsford 1984; Murphy 1990; Crowley and Hawhee 2008; Horner and Leff 1995; Fleming 1998, 1999, 2003; D’Angelo 1999; Petraglia and Bahri 2003;Axer 2003; Graff and Leff 2005; and Desmet 2006. 10. Apuleius of Madaura’s second-century c.e. treatise on logic is titled Peri Herm êneias (On Interpretation); likewise the treatise on logic attributed to Augustine is clearly intended for textual interpretation (particularly of metaphor and other tropes), 298 | Notes to Pages 5–18 and in De doctrina Christiana logic is explicitly treated as an aid to the interpretation of scripture. 11. See “Lexicon Rhetoricae” in Burke 1968a. 12. Two full-length monographs on Dionysius have recently been published—see Gabba 1991 and de Jonge 2008—but neither considers him primarily as a rhetorician and neither considers the whole Dionysian corpus. Gabba focuses on Dionysius’ history of Rome and mostly ignores the critical writings, and de Jonge focuses on Dionysius’ linguistic theories and their relation to Hellenistic developments in grammar. 13. Walt Whitman, Song of Myself sec. 51, lines 1324–26. 14. In this I am following Anderson 1993. Chapter 1: Cicero’s Antonius 1. See, for example, Kennedy 1994, 141–42; May and Wisse 2001, 26–39; Wisse 2002a, 2002b; Fantham 2004, chap. 7. 2. My translation here is partly based on those of Sutton and Rackham 1942, and May and Wisse 2001. 3. Antonius’s apparent reference to the Rhetoric, if it is not a deliberate anachronism by Cicero, suggests that it (or the books composing it) was in circulation well before 91 b.c.e.,whereas the usual assumption has been that the Rhetoric was out of circulation and unpublished from the death of Theophrastus (c. 285 b.c.e.) until Tyrannio and Andronicus issued their edition of the Aristotelian corpus in 83 b.c.e..See,however,Barnes 1997, who argues that copies of the Rhetoric (and Aristotle’s other “esoteric” works) were continuously available through the Hellenistic period, in some form, though little read. See also Fantham 2004,164,who finds Barnes persuasive.For the standard history of the text, see Brandes 1989 and Kennedy 1991, 305–9. 4. Behind this idea lies the point, in Plato’s Phaedrus (268a–269c), that the contents of the sophists’ rhetoric manuals are “preliminaries” (ta pro) of the genuine art—techniques it can deploy—but not the art itself. 5. On enthymeme and syllogism, see also Posterior Analytics 1.1 71a, and Topics 8.14...
OR
Buy This Book in Print