Language Notes
Text: English, French, Latin (translation)
Editorial Reviews
Product Details
Would you like to update product info or give feedback on images?
|
More About the Author
Discover books, learn about writers, read author blogs, and more.
Customer Reviews
|
Share your thoughts with other customers:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Most Helpful Customer Reviews
1 of 1 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Unique View into Renaissance Rhetoric,
By
This review is from: John Rainold's Oxford Lectures on Aristotle's Rhetoric (Hardcover)
The Latin with English translation (on facing pages) offered by Lawrence D. Green (USC) offers a unique treasure to students of Renaissance rhetoric. As editor and translator, Green states, "John Rainolds's Oxford Lectures is the earliest critical study of Aristotle's Rhetoric in England," and the only lectures to survive from the Tudor university classroom (9). As several scholars have noted, Rainolds's lectures rank as "one of the best examples of the humanistic method" in sixteenth-century England.
Rainolds pursues the project of Christian humanism to purify "the arts of errors" by offering a critical commentary on Aristotle's Rhetoric (limited to Book 1.1-9). Rainolds commends Aristotle's methods and categories of rhetoric, but he condemns Aristotle's moral pragmatism evident in the Rhetoric. In the Introductory Lecture, Rainolds shows that his hermeneutics overshadow much of Aristotle's text, interpreting the Rhetoric through three Renaissance traditions: Western Ciceronian, Eastern Platonic, and Augustinian Christian traditions. First, he uses Cicero's categories for rhetoric: "Aristotle described the entire art in this way: first as a theory of teaching; secondly, of moving; thirdly, of delighting. Again, first as theory of finding arguments; secondly, of arousing emotions; thirdly, of furnishing ornament" (97). Second, he uses Basil Bessarion's thesis of the Platonic context: "Aristotle's Rhetoric is patterned after the rhetorical precepts which were sketched in Plato's Phaedrus. This is evident in the work itself" (97). Third, he applies St. Augustine's "theory of eloquent wisdom" and Christian moral philosophy in place of Aristotle's moral theory. In essence, Rainolds is more concerned with truth and virtue than the medieval Aristotelian tradition. The lecture on Chapter 1 is perhaps the most interesting because Rainolds garners an impressive amount of scholarship to argue that "antistrophos" means "analogue." Aristotle begins his treatise by defining rhetoric as the "antistrophos of dialectic." Since "anti" can mean "opposite" as well as "instead of," scholars have debated the meaning of this definition for millennia. Rainolds states, "Cicero takes it to mean 'counterpart,' that is 'opposite,'" and the European tradition largely follows Cicero (106). But Rainolds shows that the early Greeks, even Aristotle, Plato, and Plutarch, frequently use anti- to mean "analogue" or "analogous" (107). Thus, Rainolds follows the Greek tradition in thinking that rhetoric is an analogue to dialectic: "That is, it is engaged in the same things and employed entirely in discussing these things" (107). Correcting Cicero and the Western tradition, Rainolds takes rhetoric to be interchangeable with the more formal methods of dialectic. Rainolds refers to copious classical illustrations and Renaissance scholarship, clearly showing an indebtedness to Erasmus's maximums and copia. Rainolds emphasizes the tradition of moral philosophy having two branches, Moses and Plato, which come through Augustine and into Reformation theology, because this moral perspective--recognizing "Original Sin that corrupted judgments and perverted wills"--provides Rainolds's roof and steeple for the house of Aristotelian rhetoric. For more background, see Green's articles on Renaissance rhetoric.
5.0 out of 5 stars
The Capacity of Persuasion,
This review is from: John Rainold's Oxford Lectures on Aristotle's Rhetoric (Hardcover)
I read these works for a graduate seminar on Aristotle.
Definition of Rhetoric- capacity of persuasion. Plato is critical of the Rhetoric and the tragic poetry. Rhetoric is approach to political public speeches in the forum. Plato thought that they clouded the mind and thus created a part of his critique of democracy in general. Plato thinks Socrates was killed by rhetoric used by the Athenian democracy. Plato feared the danger of democracy. Poetry appeals to the base human emotions rhetoric, and poetry block rational truth according to Plato. Rhetoric is psychological force of language vs. logical force of language. Psychology leads people to believe things based on emotions. Speech must appeal to the masses in a democracy. Psychology is persuasion, logic is truth. Deduction and induction is arguing logically. Plato says rhetoric is not a technç, (craft) nor is poetry, because they are undisciplined and not uniform in design. Thus, appeal to psychology and emotion can never be done away with in a democracy, thus Plato abhors them and democracy. Plato calls it sophistry this psychological appeal and democracy requires this to exist, so the problem persists. Plato is clear and consistent in his abhorrence of sophistry and democracy. Aristotle's Rhetoric and Poetics are an alternative to Plato. Aristotle's rhetoric tries to strike a middle position. Aristotle says rhetoric and poetry are a technç, the Rhetoric is a handbook. Aristotle says speaker needs to appeal to appropriate information for the particular setting. Much like a lawyer's argument, not just relying on facts, need to appeal to people's emotions. Aristotle does understand that rhetoric can be used in a harmful way. Aristotle lays out three features in rhetoric: 1. Ethos= character of the speaker, also charisma, speaker earns the audience's trust, use of body language. 2. Pathos= condition of the hearer. 3. Logos= essential bearing on political persuasion, truth. Thus, Plato's concern by definition excludes speech because it deals with emotion. These three conditions must be in play for a speech to be successful. The rhetoric contains a detailed analysis of the different human emotions and how to elicit them in a speech. Aristotle knows the speaker must be a good student of human nature to tap into human emotions. Epistçmç is scientific knowledge. Phronçsis is the capacity of the soul for using education, experience and habit all this is in the ethics. This is the same in political world so politics is not an episteme no scientific reasoning. The things that come up in politics are not deduced scientifically. In politics, humans use deliberation between several possible outcomes unlike math where there is only one correct answer. Political speech is contentious because the nature of politics is contentious. There are two circumstances in rhetoric. 1. Judicial rhetoric has to do with the past like in a court case. 2. Deliberative rhetoric has to do with the future, what decision should we make in political policies. I recommend Aristotle's works to anyone interested in obtaining a classical education, and those interested in philosophy. Aristotle is one of the most important philosophers and the standard that all others must be judged by.
Share your thoughts with other customers: Create your own review
|
|
Tags Customers Associate with This Product(What's this?)Click on a tag to find related items, discussions, and people.
|
Sell a Digital Version of This Book in the Kindle Store
If you are a publisher or author and hold the digital rights to a book, you can sell a digital version of it in our Kindle Store.
Learn more
