Bibliographical Essay

There is an enormous bibliography on Aristotle’s Rhetoric. What follows is deliberately selective. The most recent and currently preferred edition is that of R. Kassel, Aristotelis Ars Rhetorica (Berlin: 1976). Older but still used is the Oxford Classical Text of D. Ross, Aristoteles, Ars Rhetorica (1959). Neither edition is accompanied by a translation. The Loeb edition of J. Freese, Aristotle, The Art of Rhetoric (London: 1926) offers a Greek text with a facing translation in English. For the Greek text with a French translation, there is the Bude edition of M. Dufour and A. Wartelle, Aristote, Rhetorique, 3 vols. (Paris: 1960 and 1973). E. Cope and J. Sandys, The Rhetoric of Aristotle, 3 vols. (Cambridge: 1877), provide the Greek text with extensive notes conveniently placed below the text. There are several modern translations without Greek text, such as W. R. Roberts, Aristotle, Rhetoric (Oxford: 1924), now available in the Oxford Translation of Aristotle 2 (Princeton: 1984), pp. 2152-2269, G. A. Kennedy, Aristotle, On Rhetoric. A Theory of Civic Discourse (Oxford: 1991) and H. Lawson-Tancred, Aristotle, The Art of Rhetoric (London: 1991). Several useful commentaries and general studies are available. On Books 1 and 2, there is W. Grimaldi, Aristotle, Rhetoric I and II, 2 vols. (New York: 1980, 1988), and on the complete work, there is C. Rapp, Aristoteles, Rhetorik 2 (Berlin: 2002). E. Cope, An Introduction to Aristotle’s Rhetoric (London: 1867) remains valuable. G. A. Kennedy, The Art of Persuasion in Greece (Princeton: 1963), pp. 82-114, provides an excellent introduction to the whole of the Rhetoric. See also I. During, Aristoteles: Darstellung und Interpretation seines Denkens (Heidelberg: 1966), pp. 126-159. For collections of essays see K. Erickson (ed.), Aristotle: The Classical Heritage of Rhetoric (Metu-chen: 1974), D. Furley and A. Nehamas (eds.), Aristotle’s Rhetoric: Philosophical Essays (Princeton: 1994), and A. Rorty (ed.), Essays on Aristotle’s Rhetoric (Berkeley: 1996). The collection of R. Stark (ed.), Rhetorika, Schriften zur aristotelischen und hellenistischen Rhetorik (Hildesheim: 1968) includes articles on both Aristotelian and Hellenistic rhetoric. Studies of special topics are numerous. On rhetorical argument, see E. Ryan, Aristotle’s Theory of Rhetorical Argumentation (Montreal: 1984), M. Burnyeat, ‘Enthymeme: Aristotle on the Logic of Persuasion’, in D. Furley and A. Nehamas, Aristotle’s Rhetoric: Philosophical Essays (cited above), pp. 3-55, and D. Hitchcock, ‘Aristotle’s Theory of Argument Evaluation’, Greek Philosophy of Communication 1 (2002), pp. 73-91. On non-artful proofs, there is D. Mirhady, ‘NonTechnical Pisteis in Aristotle and Anaximenes’, AJP 112 (1991), pp. 5-28. For persuasion through the character of the orator, see W. W. Fortenbaugh, ‘Aristotle on Persuasion through Character’, Rhetorica 10 (1992), pp. 207-244 and ‘Aristotle’s Accounts of Persuasion through Character’, in C. Johnstone (ed.), Theory, Text and Context (Albany: 1996), pp. 147-168, and E. Schutrumpf, ‘The Model for the Concept of Ethos in Aristotle’s Rhetoric, Philologus 137 (1993), pp. 12-17. For emotional appeal, see F. Solmsen, ‘Aristotle and Cicero on the Orator Playing on the Feelings’, CP 33 (1938), pp. 390-404, P. Aubenque, ‘La Definition Aristoteli-cienne de la Colere’, Revue Philosophique 147 (1957), pp. 300-317 on anger, and W. W. Fortenbaugh, ‘Aristotle’s Rhetoric on Emotions’, Archiv fiir die Geschichte der Philosophie 52 (1970), pp. 40-70, and Aristotle on Emotion2 (London: 2002), pp. 918, 93-114. On delivery, see R. Sonkowsky, ‘An Aspect of Delivery in Ancient

Rhetorical Theory’, TAPA 90 (1959), pp. 256-274, W. W. Fortenbaugh, ‘Aristotle’s Platonic Attitude toward Delivery’, Philosophy and Rhetoric 19 (1986) pp. 242-254, and G. Wohrle, ‘Actio, das fUnfte Officium des antiken Redners’, Gymnasium 97 (1990), pp. 31-46, and on style see G. A. Kennedy, The Art of Persuasion in Greece (cited above), pp. 103-113, and with special reference to metaphor, see A. Laks, ‘Substitution et Connaissance: Une Interpretation Unitaire (ou presque) de la Theorie Aristotelicienne de la Metaphore’, in D. Furley and A. Nehamas, Aristotle’s Rhetoric: Philosophical Essays (cited above), pp. 283-305. Regarding chronology and the composition of the Rhetoric, see F. Solmsen, Die Entwicklung der aristotelischen Logik und Rhetorik (Berlin: 1929), I. During, Aristoteles: Darstellung und Interpretation seines Denkens (cited above), pp. 118-125, J. Rist, The Mind of Aristotle: A Study in Philosophic Growth (Toronto: 1989), pp. 76-86 and 283-287, and W. W. Fortenbaugh, ‘On the Composition of Aristotle’s Rhetoric’, in Lenaika = Beitrage zur Altertumskunde 89 (Stuttgart: 1996), pp. 165-188. For the influence of Aristotle on later rhetoricians, see F. Solmsen, ‘The Aristotelian Tradition in Ancient Rhetoric’, AJP 62 (1941), pp. 35-50 and 167-190, W. W. Fortenbaugh and D. Mirhady (eds.), Peripatetic Rhetoric after Aristotle = Rutgers University Studies in Classical Humanities 6 (New Brunswick, NJ: 1994), and with special reference to Theophrastus and Cicero, W. W. Fortenbaugh, ‘Cicero as a Reporter of Aristotelian and Theophrastean Doctrine’, Rhetorica 23 (2005), pp. 37-64.