aristotle, rhetoric iii

547 Pages·2011·2.67 MB·English

ARISTOTLE, RHETORIC III:

A COMMENTARY

by

JOHN WALT BURKETT

Bachelor of Science, 1989
University of Southern California
Los Angeles, California

Master of Arts, 1997
Reformed Theological Seminary
Jackson, Mississippi

Master of Arts, 2005
Mississippi College
Clinton, Mississippi

Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of
AddRan College of Liberal Arts
Texas Christian University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

Doctor of Philosophy

May 2011
Copyright by
John Walt Burkett
2011
PREFACE:
OBJECTIVES AND ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This new commentary on Rhetoric III serves the purpose which the text held at the
Classical Lyceum: elucidating Aristotle‘s theory of style (lexis) and arrangement (taxis) for
scholars, teachers, and practitioners of rhetoric. This commentary provides a much needed
update to the last commentary on Aristotle‘s Rhetoric, Book 3, published by the Cambridge
classicist E.M. Cope in 1877, because Cope‘s commentary is now understood as a
misinterpretation that reads Aristotle Platonically, takes seriously only rational appeals, assumes
a mimetic theory of language, and misdefines central concepts like the enthymeme and common
topics. Providing a new interpretation, this commentary has several specific objectives, methods,
and features that are discussed below in detail but that may be summarized by three adjectives:
Grimaldian, rhetorical, and accessible.
This Grimaldian commentary applies the new rhetoric philosophy of William M.A.
Grimaldi, S.J., which he explicates in Studies in the Philosophy of Aristotle’s Rhetoric (1972)
and in his two-volume commentary on Rhetoric I (1980) and Rhetoric II (1988). In these works
and others, Fr. Grimaldi creates an integrated and contextual interpretation of Aristotle‘s
Rhetoric (outlined below). The current commentary complements (in both senses) Grimaldi‘s
scholarship by applying his integrated hermeneutic to Rhetoric III.
This rhetorical commentary considers the rhetoric in the Rhetoric since Aristotle
typically practices what he teaches: writing with enthymemes, drawing premises from shared
knowledge, defining by metaphor, clarifying by antithesis, and arranging units by thesis,
analysis, and synthesis. The commentary observes how Aristotle applies his three rhetorical
appeals (êthos, pathos, logos), his theories of propriety (prepon), exotic (xenos), and virtue
ii
(aretê) in style, the role of philosophical pairs, and the systems of Greek imagery, all of which
create a unified and interactive theory of invention, style, and arrangement. Attention is given to
Aristotle‘s theory of metaphor regarding the extent to which metaphors enable logical inference,
comprise his technical terms, and give shape to his interactive theory of rhetoric.
This accessible commentary features text, translation, comments, and glossary for readers
who may not be familiar with Aristotle‘s idiom but who have an interest in his rhetorical theory
and technical terms. Finally, incorporating recent scholarship, this commentary provides insights
from classical rhetoric and new rhetoric, showing their interrelationship and how contemporary
research in rhetoric builds on and helps to elucidate Aristotle‘s expansive rhetoric as a general
theory of language.
Given this rewarding research, I wish to express my gratitude to many: Aristotle for his
―afternoon‖ lecture notes On Rhetoric (Peri rhêtorikês) from his esoteric library at the Lyceum;
Erasmus for discovering Aristotle‘s Greek text in 1508 in Venice; Rudolfus Kassel for his
superior critical edition of the Greek text; William M.A. Grimaldi for discovering the
philosophical hermeneutic of the Rhetoric; George A. Kennedy for his fine literal translation;
Richard Leo Enos for his helpful suggestions and his kind guidance during the research-writing
process of this commentary; invaluable feedback from Professors Richard Enos, Kurk Gayle,
Ann George, and Dan Williams, who have contributed to the commentary‘s richness of insights;
and my dear wife and son for their patience and encouragement.
iii
CONTENTS
Preface Objectives and Acknowledgments ii
Contents Table of Contents iv
SIGLA Abbreviations v
Significance Need for a New Commentary on Aristotle‘s Rhetoric III vii
Argument Rhetorical Philosophy of William M. A. Grimaldi, S.J. xxi
Chapter 1 Arts of Rhetoric 1
Chapter 2 Lexis: Virtues 55
Chapter 3 Lexis: Frigidity 113
Chapter 4 Lexis: Simile 127
Chapter 5 Lexis: Correctness 141
Chapter 6 Lexis: Expansion and Concision 157
Chapter 7 Lexis: Propriety 166
Chapter 8 Lexis: Rhythm 188
Chapter 9 Lexis: Syntax 199
Chapter 10 Lexis: Urbanity and Metaphor 229
Chapter 11 Lexis: Energeia and Metaphor 257
Chapter 12 Lexis: Situation and Media 291
Chapter 13 Taxis: Parts of an Argument 309
Chapter 14 Taxis: Introduction 324
Chapter 15 Taxis: Counteracting Attacks 350
Chapter 16 Taxis: Narration of Facts 365
Chapter 17 Taxis: Proof and Refutation 388
Chapter 18 Taxis: Interrogation 413
Chapter 19 Taxis: Epilogue 425
Conclusion Interactive Rhetoric 435
Glossary Glossary of Greek Terms in Rhetoric III 439
Bibliography Bibliography of Works Cited 477
iv
SIGLA
Biographical William Smith, ed. A Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and
Dictionary Mythology. 3 vols. London and Boston, 1849.
Cope E. M. Cope. The Rhetoric of Aristotle with a Commentary. 3 vols. Ed. J. E.
Sandys. London: Cambridge UP, 1877.
Cope, Introd. E. M. Cope. An Introduction to Aristotle’s Rhetoric with Analysis Notes and
Appendices. London: Cambridge UP, 1867.
ERC Theresa Enos, ed. Encyclopedia of Rhetoric and Composition. New York:
Garland Publ., 1996.
Grimaldi William M. A. Grimaldi. Aristotle’s Rhetoric: A Commentary. 2 vols. New
York: Fordham UP, 1980, 1988.
Grimaldi, Studies William M. A. Grimaldi. Studies in the Philosophy of Aristotle’s Rhetoric.
1972. All citations refer to the reprint: Enos and Agnew 15-159.
Kennedy George A. Kennedy, trans. and ed. Aristotle, On Rhetoric: A Theory of Civic
Discourse. 2nd ed. New York: Oxford UP, 2007. Citations refer to the 2007
edition with introduction, translation, notes, and appendices.
LSJ H. G. Liddell, R. Scott, H. S. Jones, and R. McKenzie, eds. A Greek-English
Lexicon. Rev. and augm. with Supplement. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1996.
OCD Simon Hornblower and Anthony Spawforth, eds. The Oxford Classical
Dictionary. 3rd ed. rev. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2003.
Smyth H. W. Smyth. Greek Grammar. Rev. G. M. Messing. Cambridge: Harvard
UP, 1984.
1403b 6 Bekker numbers are listed in each chapter‘s outline and comments as the
standard form of reference in Aristotle‘s works. The first four digits (i.e.,
1403) signify page number, the letter (a or b) column number, and the last
digits line number, based on pagination in the Berlin Academy edition of
Corpus Aristotelicum, 1831, edited by A. I. Bekker.
3.1.1 Text references within comments are abbreviated by chapter conventions:
e.g., 3.1.1 refers to Book 3, chapter 1, section 1. The Greek text is that of
Kassel‘s 1976 edition. Translation is Kennedy‘s second edition, 2007.
Texts All references to classical authors are to Loeb Classical Library editions
(LCL), referenced by Bekker numbers, unless indicated.
Complete references to all sources, cited throughout this commentary in brief fashion, can be
found in the Bibliography.
v
ABBREVIATIONS OF ARISTOTLE‘S WORKS
References to Aristotle‘s works normally consist of an abbreviated title, a book number, a
chapter number, a section number (if any), and a specification of page, column, and line in the
standard edition of the Greek text by Immanuel Bekker (1831). In the text of this commentary,
titles are spelled out, but often abbreviated in notes and citations. Since there is no universally
agreed set of abbreviations, those adopted are fairly standard among publishers. Abbreviations
are based on the Latin translation of the Greek title. Those below are found in this commentary.
ABBREVIATIONS
Abbreviated title Latin title English title
An De Anima On the Soul
APr Analytica Priora Prior Analytics
APst Analytica Posteriora Posterior Analytics
Cat Categoriae Categories
EN Ethica Nicomachea Nicomachean Ethics
Int De Interpretatione On Interpretation
Met Metaphysica Metaphysics
Phys Physica Physics
Poet Poetica Poetics
Pol Politica Politics
Rhet Rhetorica, Ars Rhetorica Rhetoric
Soph El De Sophisticis Elenchis Sophistical Refutations
Top Topica Topics

vi
SIGNIFICANCE:
NEED FOR A NEW COMMENTARY ON ARISTOTLE‘S RHETORIC III
What the Scottish philosopher Sir William Hamilton witnessed, ―Aristotle‘s seal is upon
all the sciences, his speculations have determined those of all subsequent thinkers,‖ is true of the
Art of Rhetoric (ca. 335 BC).1 Since this single, ancient text has the privileged status as fons et
origo for the rhetorical tradition, rhetoricians have a situation like no other in that the origin
continues to sustain deliberations about rhetorical theory and practice. With the renaissance of
rhetoric beginning in the 1960s, contemporary scholars have devoted more attention to
understanding the doctrine and details of Aristotle‘s Rhetoric than in any other century. Since
Aristotle compiled a complete corpus of treatises on rhetoric by his contemporaries and
predecessors in his lost Synagôgê technôn (ca. 360-355) and added his own great insights,
Aristotle thus provides us with an encyclopedic and expansive theory of rhetoric that is bound to
philosophy through logic, to ethics through propriety, and to poetics through his theory of style.
In comparison, according to Paul Ricœur, the latest treatises present ―restricted rhetoric,‖
reducing the classical art to merely one of its parts (9). For these several reasons, including
developing a discipline essential to education, communication, and human welfare, rhetoricians
are now giving more attention to Aristotle‘s treatise than ever before in the long history of
rhetoric. Resulting from this recent resurgence, contemporary rhetoric is partly, and sometimes

1 Sir William Hamilton (1788–1856) was a constant student of Aristotle, after whom he
cast his Scottish common-sense philosophy (sensus communis) with the aid of Thomas Reid;
quotation in Discussions in Philosophy, Literature and Education (Edinburgh 1852-53), also
quoted in Prestonia Mann Martin, 37. Hamilton would agree with contemporary common-sense
philosophers regarding Aristotle‘s importance for the disciplines: ―Aristotle may be regarded as
the cultural barometer of Western history. Whenever his influence dominated the scene, it paved
the way for one of history‘s brilliant eras; whenever it fell, so did [hu]mankind‖ (Ayn Rand).
vii
largely, Aristotelian, and is actively recovering, understanding, and appropriating this one
foundational text.
Since Aristotle‘s Rhetoric is still producing new insights and conversations about
rhetorical theory, the text has continuing relevance to our discipline and work as scholars,
teachers, and practitioners of rhetoric. Understanding the text of the Rhetoric, therefore, is
important for our present progress and even for our identity in the province of rhetoric. Edward
P. J. Corbett agrees, calling Aristotle‘s Rhetoric ―the fountainhead of all later rhetorical theory‖
(543). William W. Fortenbaugh calls the treatise ―fundamental‖ for antiquity and for the present
state of rhetorical scholarship (―Aristotle‘s Art of Rhetoric‖ 107). James A. Berlin avows,
―Aristotle has provided the technical language most often used in discussing rhetoric—so much
so that it is all but impossible to talk intelligently about the subject without knowing him‖ (767).
Hugh Lawson-Tancred states that Aristotle‘s text is still yielding surprises and insights (44).
Umberto Eco adds that ―of the thousands and thousands of pages written about metaphor, few
add anything of substance to the first two or three fundamental concepts stated by Aristotle‖
(Semiotics 88). Accessing fundamental concepts, technical terms, and even new insights from an
old text, however, is fraught with problematic barriers because Aristotle‘s text is dense,
disjointed, and difficult, and no recent commentary on Book 3 exists. Given these barriers to
understanding, the purpose of the current commentary is to elucidate the text of the Rhetoric for
scholars, teachers, and practitioners of rhetoric who may not have familiarity with classical
languages.
The last commentary on the third book of Aristotle‘s Rhetoric in English was published
in 1877, written by the Cambridge classicist Edward Meredith Cope (1818–1873) and revised
and edited by classicist John Edwin Sandys (1844-1922). As we now understand the Rhetoric,
viii