In this collection edited by Alan G. Gross and Arthur E. Walzer, scholars in communication, rhetoric and composition, and philosophy seek to "reread" Aristotle's Rhetoric from a purely rhetorical perspective. So important do these contributors find the Rhetoric, in fact, that a core tenet in this book is that "all subsequent rhetorical theory is but a series of responses to issues raised by the central work". Gross and Walzer do not seek to renew the ancient quarrel between philosophy and rhetoric; rather, they call for a healthy division of labor, demanding that "purely rhetorical issues are genuine and must be explored". For that purpose all three books of the Rhetoric are essential. The essayists reflect on questions basic to rhetoric as a humanistic discipline. Some explore the ways in which the Rhetoric explicates the nature of the art of rhetoric, noting that on this issue, the tensions within the Rhetoric often provide a direct passageway into our own conflicts. Specifically, Carolyn R. Miller's exploration of topical invention within the Aristotelian tradition addresses the question: What does it mean to say that rhetoric is generative or epistemic as distinguished from instrumental or managerial? Alan G. Gross, examining the meaning of Techne, asks whether we should think of rhetoric as the basis for an art of civic deliberation. Arthur E. Walzer and Barbara Warnick discuss what it means to say that rhetoric is contextualized, culturally situated art in contrast with arts such as logic and dialectic that have more universal claims. Jeffrey Walker reflects on the contradictions between Aristotle's account of the passions in the Rhetoric and accounts found elsewhere inAristotle's work. Similarly, Thomas B. Farrell seeks to understand what "validity" might mean in a rhetorical context. Jeanne Fahnestock examines the influences of the Rhetoric's treatment of style on subsequent understandings of rhetoric. Robert N. Gaines warns of irresponsible appropriations of Aristotle, while Eugene Garver demonstrates that even responsible appropriation is problematic. Lawrence D. Green puts the issue of appropriation into historical perspective by demonstrating how it was contested even in the interpretive practices of the Renaissance. Finally, the editors' comprehensive bibliographic essay describes resources that would be of particular help to the Greekless reader and classifies and summarizes nearly one hundred books and articles written on the Rhetoric.

In this collection edited by Alan G. Gross and Arthur E. Walzer, scholars in communication, rhetoric and composition, and philosophy seek to “reread” Aristotle’s Rhetoric from a purely rhetorical perspective. So important do these contributors find the Rhetoric, in fact, that a core tenet in this book is that “all subsequent rhetorical theory is but a series of responses to issues raised by the central work.” The essays reflect on questions basic to rhetoric as a humanistic discipline. Some explore the ways in which the Rhetoric explicates the nature of the art of rhetoric, noting that on this issue, the tensions within the Rhetoric often provide a direct passageway into our own conflicts.

Examines the teaching and practice of the twin arts of argumentation -- rhetoric and dialectic -- in the time of Galileo. Galileo was an ardent controversialist on behalf of his astronomical theories, yet many today are unacquainted with the kinds of argument that became a focal point in his famous trial. The authors combine their vast knowledge of rhetoric, history, and philosophy to explain the background of the dispute between science and religion. They present an engaging discussion of the prevailing modes of rhetorical and scientific arguments in Northern Italy during the Renaissance. They display primary texts on the arts of rhetoric and dialectic by authors whose thought was known to Galileo.

This collection of essays provides original studies of various New Testament texts read through the eyes of rhetorical criticism as well as a tribute to the continuing influence of Wilhelm Wuellner and his work.

A new, comprehensive bibliography of books and articles on the rhetoric of the New Testament published since AD 1500. The bibliography is arranged by categories, which include Jewish heritage, invention, arrangement, style, hermeneutics, with specific listings for each book of the NT. It is prefaced with a select bibliography of primary and secondary sources on classical and modern rhetoric. An invaluable research tool.

A collection of essays from the Heidelberg conference on rhetoric and the New Testament.

In Dialectical Rhetoric, Bruce McComiskey argues that the historical conflict between rhetoric and dialectic can be overcome in ways useful to both composition theory and the composition classroom. Historically, dialectic has taken two forms in relation to rhetoric. First, it has been the logical development of linear propositions leading to necessary conclusions, a one-dimensional form that was the counterpart of rhetorics in which philosophical, metaphysical, and scientific truths were conveyed with as little cognitive interference from language as possible. Second, dialectic has been the topical development of opposed arguments on controversial issues and the judgment of their relative strengths and weaknesses, usually in political and legal contexts, a two-dimensional form that was the counterpart of rhetorics in which verbal battles over competing probabilities in public institutions revealed distinct winners and losers. The discipline of writing studies is on the brink of developing a new relationship between dialectic and rhetoric, one in which dialectics and rhetorics mediate and negotiate different arguments and orientations that are engaged in any rhetorical situation. This new relationship consists of a three-dimensional hybrid art called “dialectical rhetoric,” whose method is based on five topoi: deconstruction, dialogue, identification, critique, and juxtaposition. Three-dimensional dialectical rhetorics function effectively in a wide variety of discursive contexts, including digital environments, since they can invoke contrasts in stagnant contexts and promote associations in chaotic contexts. Dialectical Rhetoric focuses more attention on three-dimensional rhetorics from the rhetoric and composition community.

This book restores the concept of topology to its rhetorical roots to assist scholars who wish not just to criticize power dynamics, but also to invent alternatives. Topology is a spatial rather than a causal method. It works inductively to model discourse without reducing it to the actions of a few or resolving its inherent contradictions. By putting topology back in tension with opportunity, as originally designed, the contributors to this volume open up new possibilities for post-critical practice in “wicked discourses” of medicine, technology, literacy, and the environment. Readers of the volume will discover exactly how the discipline of rhetoric underscores and interacts with current notions of topology in philosophy, design, psychoanalysis, and science studies.

Winner of the Canadian Society of Biblical Studies 2015 F. W. Beare Award Did Paul have formal training in Greco-Roman rhetoric, or did he learn what he knew of persuasion informally, as social practice? Pauline scholars recognize the importance of this question both for determining Paul’s social status and for conceptualizing the nature of his letters, but they have been unable to reach a consensus. Using 2 Corinthians 10–13 as a test case, Ryan Schellenberg undertakes a set of comparisons with non-Western speakers—most compellingly, the Seneca orator Red Jacket—to demonstrate that the rhetorical strategies Paul employs in this text are also attested in speakers known to have had no formal training in Greco-Roman rhetoric. Since there are no specific indicators of formal training in the way Paul uses these strategies, their appearance in his letters does not constitute evidence that Paul received formal rhetorical education.

Thomas Hobbes claimed to have founded the discipline of civil philosophy. This book offers a new reading of his intellectual development, arguing that he was dubious about the place of rhetoric in civil society and came to see it as a pernicious presence within philosophy - a position from which he did not retreat.