On Rhetoric: A Theory of Civic Discourse [Paperback]

Aristotle (Author), George A. Kennedy (Translator)

Book Description

Publication Date: January 16, 1991

This new translation by the foremost authority on rhetoric in America should quickly become the standard text. Scrupulously faithful to the original Greek, it incorporates the most up-to-date textual scholarship.

Editorial Reviews

Review

"Excellent introduction to text and individual chapters, together with helful footnotes."--Veri Spann, Carnegie Mellon University

"One of Kennedy's greatest intellectual strengths...has been his sensitivity to and understanding of Aristotle and the Peripatetic contribution to rhetorical theory and practice....And who could be more qualified to enter upon the task [of translating] than Kennedy, who combines the philological skills of a textual editor with the vast experience of this subject gained in a scholarly career that has been devoted to the study of classical rhetoric....The book is thus an important one and in many ways transcends the limits of the genre into which it superficially fits."--Ancient Philosophy

"Prof. Kennedy brings his vast knowledge of classical rhetoric and languages to give the most useful edition now available for the founder of rhetorical theory. We owe him our gratitude."--Robert Coogan, University of Maryland

"Wonderful! Kennedy makes a fairly difficult work accessible."--Stuart Greene, University of Wisconsin

"Excellent translation and commentary."--Eugene R. August, University of Dayton

"Superb translation! Bound to become a standard."--John T. Kirby, Purdue University

"Excellent--a very useful text."--David Roochnik, Iowa State University

"An excellent translation and a wonderful volume. It is great to teach with!"--William Keith, University of Louisville

"Accurate and readable....The supplementary essays and the glossary are particularly helpful."--Robert O. Sider, Dickinson College

"Excellent, relevant introduction. Makes an understandable connection between rhetoric and democratic process (or the lack thereof)."--Helena Worthen, College of Alameda

About the Author

George A. Kennedy is at University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.

Product Details

• Paperback: 352 pages
• Publisher: Oxford University Press, USA (January 16, 1991)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0195064879
• ISBN-13: 978-0195064872
• Product Dimensions: 8.2 x 5.5 x 1 inches
• Shipping Weight: 1 pounds
• Average Customer Review: 4.7 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (3 customer reviews)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #518,797 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

62 of 64 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars The most scholarly & readable translation of the "Rhetorica", February 10, 2001

By 

Lawrance M. Bernabo (The Zenith City, Duluth, Minnesota) - See all my reviews
(VINE VOICE)    (COMMUNITY FORUM 04)    (TOP 500 REVIEWER)    (HALL OF FAME REVIEWER)   

This review is from: On Rhetoric: A Theory of Civic Discourse (Paperback)

Aristotle's treatise "On Rhetoric" has been the seminal work in the field since it was written. There is a very real sense in which there is nothing new under the sun since Aristotle's day, and that the rhetorical constructs of Burke, Toulmin and every other rhetorical theorist are simply Aristotle's concepts dressed up in new terms. Certainly no one has been as comprehensive in cataloguing all the available means of persuasion. The study of rhetoric begins in earnest with Aristotle's volume. While there are numerous translations of "On Rhetoric" available, this remarkable translation by George A. Kennedy is the one worth owning. Kennedy has studied classical rhetorical for over three decades and he brings his knowledge of what rhetoric meant in the time of Aristotle to his translation. By the time you get to the first sentence of this translation--"Rhetoric is an antisrophos to dialectic"--you have ample evidence that Kennedy is the ideal translator for this text. You will have gone through a Prooemion, an Introductory essay, a synopsis of the first three chapters of Book 1 before you get to that first sentence, which contains two footnotes detailing the contemporary meanings of "rhetoric" and "antistrophos." More than any other scholar to tackle this project, Kennedy is as well versed in the subject matter as he is the original language. Kennedy's translation also benefits from the fact that it is eminently readable.

Additionally, this volume includes only a glossary and bibliography, but two excellent appendixes. The first consists of Supplementary Texts: (A) Gorgias' "Encomium on Helen," the showcase speech by the leader of the Sophists; (B) Aristotle on "Art as an Intellectual Virtue" from his "Nicomachean Ethics"; (C) "An Introduction to Dialectic" from Aristotle's "Topics"; (D) Cicero's "Description of Aristotle's Synagoge Tekhnon"; (E) Aristotle on "Word Choice and Metaphor" from his "Poetics"; and (F) Kennedy's note on "The Concept of the Enthymeme as Understood in the Modern Period." The second appendix features three Supplementary Essays: (A) "The Composition of the 'Rhetoric'"; (B) "The History of the Text After Aristotle"; and (C) "The Strengths and Limitations of the 'Rhetoric.'" The supplemental works alone would make this the translation to own. Every teacher or student of rhetorical theory/criticism needs to own Kennedy's translation of Aristotle's "On Rhetoric."

17 of 21 people found the following review helpful:

4.0 out of 5 stars relevant even today!, January 31, 2001

By 

Paul Spooner (Camarillo, CA United States) - See all my reviews

This review is from: On Rhetoric: A Theory of Civic Discourse (Paperback)

Aristotle is amazing in his insight into the human nature. "Aristotle on rhetoric" focuses on what people like, how to talk to them, and how to act around them. However, be forewarned that the reading is not light, many hours can be spent on each chapter. If you are interested in finding out that people are the same today as they were in ancient Greece, read this book!

22 of 32 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Spare me the Anti-P.C.! Kennedy's translation is great!, April 23, 2004

By A Customer

This review is from: On Rhetoric: A Theory of Civic Discourse (Paperback)

I can't understand quite what it is about Kennedy's book that has so outraged the last reviewer("Spare me the PC!!",Dec. 26,'01). It can't be any real "PC" dogmatism;there's none in Kennedy's book. But take a look at the passage the anti-PC reviewer refers to,& judge for yourself:
"Two features of my translation may be worth pointing out in advance. ...[Here Kennedy discusses a feature that need not concern us now.]... A second feature is avoidance of some of the sexist language seen in older translations,which often speak of 'men' when Aristotle uses a more general plural. I have used *man* or *men* only in those few instances in which the word appears in the Greek; otherwise I use *someone*,*people*,or *they*. On the other hand,to alter Aristotle's many uses of *he*,*his*,or *him* in reference to speakers or members of a Greek assembly or jury would be unhistorical & involve an actual change in the text. Aristotle usually envisions only males as speaking in public; but he clearly did not think that rhetoric was a phenomenon limited to males...."
Now whether Kennedy considered this feature a "virtue" of his translation (as the anti-PC reviewer suggests) is debatable; but based on what I've quoted,Kennedy seems only to speak of it as one of two features "worth pointing out in advance".
Now what has so outraged the anti-PC reviewer? It's not as though Kennedy is translating Aristotle's use of the Greek words for *man* or *men* into gender-neutral English words. Kennedy explicitly says that he has *not* done so.
Kennedy is saying that wherever Aristotle uses a noun or pronoun (*other* than "man/men" or "he/him") that happens in Greek to be masculine in gender,even though there is no particular reason to think (and maybe even positive reason *not* to think) that Aristotle means to be referring exclusively to males,then in such cases (and,from what I understand,*only* in such cases) Kennedy uses a word that in English is gender-neutral,like "person/people" or "someone". Now there is no reason to get into a huff about this or think that Kennedy is constructing some barrier between us English readers & what Aristotle is actually saying. The neuter "gender" just wasn't used in Greek as a way to refer to a mixed group of males & females or as a way to refer to people without specific reference to their gender. The masculine "gendered" words were used for this purpose. This was just a fact about the language.
It's true that in English we sometimes oddly use a word like "guys" to refer to a mixed group of males & females or even to a group of women only,& we sometimes use a word like "he" to refer indefinitely to *someone*,male or female. But in English such cases aren't the norm. In fact,it's peculiar that the specific word "guys" *may* be used in the way I just mentioned,but the word "men" is *never* used in that way. And although "he/him" is,as I said,used with gender-indefinite reference,it's increasingly *not* the norm; these days we just as often see the words "he or she" or even "she" were we formerly found only "he". Now this is just a fact of our language,whether or not you agree that it is an improvement. (I haven't commented on the use of the suffix "-man",which is another matter that is fairly irrelevant here.)
So unless we think that Aristotle actually is referring exclusively to males every time he uses a noun or pronoun that happens in Greek to be masculine in gender,a translator is rather misrepresenting the Greek to translate,as a matter of course,these words into words that in English are obviously-and almost always,exclusively-masculine,like "man/men" & "he/him". Kennedy is simply trying to accurately represent in English a grammatical feature quite common to Greek words but rather rare in English.
I have made a big deal of a point that Kennedy only says was "worth pointing out". I've done this only to do better justice to Kennedy's translation which is quite an improvement over previous English translations.(Even *if* the anti-PC reviewer were justified in his/her characterization of Kennedy's attitude about gender,I don't see how the reviewer arrived at his/her one-star rating. Is this all the reviewer cares about in a translation? Or does he/she think that Kennedy's choice of "people" over "men" totally *ruins* an otherwise good translation?!)
The anti-PC reviewer has (apparently unwittingly) propagated the PC agenda by giving undue attention to what,for serious readers of Kennedy's translation,can be only marginally important.