Explore the vast range of titles available.

Analyzing the Arabic translation of Aristotle's Rhetoric and situating it in its historical and intellectual context, this book offers a fresh interpretation of the early Greek-Arabic translation movement and its impact in Islamic culture and beyond.

The Suda tells us the following about the elder Theodectas, the Phaselian orator and tragedian: Θεοδέκτης, Ἀριστάνδρου, Φασηλίτης ἐκ Λυκίας, ῥήτωρ, τραπεὶς δὲ ἐπὶ τραγῳδίας, μαθητὴς Πλάτωνος καὶ Ἰσοκράτους καὶ Ἀριστοτέλους. οὗτος καὶ ὁ Ἐρυθραῖος Ναυκράτης καὶ Ἰσοκράτης ὁ ῥήτωρ, ὁ Ἀπολλωνιάτης, καὶ Θεόπομπος, ἐπὶ τῆς ρϛ́ ὀλυμπιάδος εἶπον ἐπιτάφιον ἐπὶ Μαυσώλῳ, Ἀρτεμισίας τῆς γυναικὸς αὐτοῦ προτρεψαμένης. καὶ ἐνίκησε μάλιστα εὐδοκιμήσας ἐν ᾗ εἶπε τραγῳδίᾳ. ἄλλοι δέ φασι Θεόπομπον ἔχειν τὰ πρωτεῖα. δράματα δὲ ἐδίδαξε ν́. τελευτᾷ δὲ ἐν Ἀθήναις ἐτῶν ἑνὸς καὶ μ́, ἔτι τοῦ πατρὸς αὐτοῦ περιόντος. ἔγραψε δὲ καὶ τέχνην ῥητορικὴν ἐν μέτρωι, καὶ ἄλλα τινα καταλογάδην.Theodectas, son of Aristander, from Phaselis in Lycia, an orator, then he turned to tragedy, a pupil of Plato, Isocrates and Aristotle. This man [that is, Theodectas] and Naucrates from Erythrae and Isocrates the orator from Apollonia and Theopompus, in the 106th Olympiad [356/5–353/2 b.c.], gave funeral speeches for Mausolus, at the instigation of his widow Artemisia. And [Theodectas] won, gaining great honour in the tragedy which he spoke. Others, however, say that Theopompus won first prize. He [that is, Theodectas] produced fifty plays. He died in Athens at the age of 41, being survived by his father. He also wrote an Art of Rhetoric in verse, and some other works in prose.

This book studies Cicero's first and fullest dialogue, on the ideal orator-statesman. It illustrates the dialogue's achievement as a reflection of a civilized way of life and a brilliantly constructed literary unity, and considers the contribution made by Cicero's recommendations to the development of rhetoric and higher education at Rome. Because Cicero deliberately set his extended conversation in the generation of his childhood teachers, a study of the dialogue in its historical setting can show how the political and cultural life of this earlier period differed from Cicero's personal experience of the collapse of senatorial government, when the overwhelming power of the ‘first triumvirate’ forced him into political silence in the last decade of the republic. After an introductory chapter reviewing Cicero's position on return from exile, chapters include a comparative study of the careers of M. Antonius and L. Licinius Crassus, protagonists of the dialogue, a discussion of Cicero's response to Plato's criticisms of rhetoric in the Gorgias and Phaedrus, and his debt to Aristotle's Rhetoric, analysis of the dialogue's treatment of Roman civil law, existing Latin literature and historical writing, Strabo's survey of the sources and application of humour, political eloquence in senate and contio, theories of diction and style, and the techniques of oral delivery. An epilogue looks briefly at Cicero's De re publica and Tacitus' Dialogus de oratoribus as reflections on the transformation of oratory and free (if oligarchic) republican government by debate to meet the context of the new autocracy.

In the thriving development of narrative theory and criticism for the past few decades, the rhetorical has been one of the most influential approaches. The rhetorical approach, which has been shedding significant light on the author-audience communication, is in the neo-Aristotelian tradition pioneered by the first generation of the Chicago School. There are two self-imposed preclusions that contemporary rhetorical critics have inherited from the early neo-Aristotelians: first, the preclusion of style or language, and second, the preclusion of the context of creation. This essay argues that, in order to get closer to the implied author's norms and better account for the relation among the implied author, narrator, character and audience, it is necessary to integrate style, context of creation, and intertextual comparison into rhetorical criticism.

An obvious way of discovering the attitude of the Greek Ear to verbal repetiton is to interrogate the ancient Greeks. When we do, however, we encounter a paradox. In many places ancient literary critics discuss the effectiveness of repetitions of words, and ancient rhetoricians classify them. So how can it be claimed that the Greek Ear did not notice them? Provides some representative examples of ancient references to figures of speech, but aiming at a full coverage of discussions of repetitions not relating to \"figures of speech\". (Quotes from original text)

This essay sees literary criticism as participating in a dialectic between is and ought, between science and art. Using a neo-Aristotelian version of rhetoric, the essay argues that even a critic like Roland Barthes, whose work seems to be informed by a predominantly Nietzschean aesthetic, cannot escape the exigencies of logical argumentation.