Aristotle. Rhetoric. Ed. Jim Manis. Trans. W. Ryhs Roberts. Hazelton: PSU Press, 2013. Web.


This text was found through a Google search. The link connects directly with a pdf file, rather than a website, so the ability to search terms and phrases of the text will depend on the program the user uses to open the file. Microsoft Reader appears to facilitate searching for specific words and phrases with the most ease. This file is one of the first hits when searching for “Aristotle Rhetoric Full Text” in Google. But, the link does not appear within the first 50 links when just “Aristotle” or just “Rhetoric” are searched.


Aristotle. Rhetoric. Trans. Lee Honeycut. Alpine Lakes Design, 2011. Web.


This text was found through a Google search. This text is can be navigated interactively through the website. For this reason, the usability of this text is very simple and easy; however, it is not possible to search for specific words in the text, but it is possible to find specific section of the text with ease. This text is one of the first hits through a Google search and the first on Bing when searching the term “Aristotle Rhetoric Full Text.” It appears much later in the search with different combinations of search terms.




Aristotle. Rhetoric. Trans. J. H. Freese. London: Harvard University Press, 1926. Web.


This text can be found in the Perseus database under the “Greek and Roman Catalog.” This website allows the user to navigate the text by searching specific words and phrases, which provides a simple interactive experience.


Secondary Sources:

Clayton, Edward. “The Audience for Aristotle’s Rhetoric.” Rhetorica: A Journal of the History of

Rhetoric 22.2 (2004): 183-203. jstor. Web. 25 Jan 2014.

Edward Clayton, in his scholarly, peer reviewed journal article “The Audience for Aristotle’s Rhetoric” (2004), argues that of the four potential audiences Aristotle may have been addressing in Rhetoric, Aristotle’s students are the most plausible and likely.


To establish this claim, Clayton examines the four most accepted theories on Aristotle’s audience in Rhetoric (the legislator, the Athenian public, multiple audiences over a period of time, and his students) by examining various scholarly articles and sources that argue each of these claims and examines the primary source, Rhetoric, through a close reading.


Clayton’s purpose is to initiate discussions on Aristotle’s audience that have remained, at times, dormant in order to provide new readings and scholarship regarding this potentially important component of one of Aristotle’s most famous and important pieces on rhetoric.


Clayton’s intended audience is scholars and academics concerned with Aristotle’s intended audience of Rhetoric, implications that may change scholar’s and academic’s interpretations of Aristotle’s text.

Kinneavy, J. L., and C. R. Eskin. “Kairos in Aristotle’s Rhetoric.” Written Communication 17.3

(2000): 432-44. Sage Journals. Web. 25 Jan 2014.

J. L. Kinneavy and C. R. Eskin, in the peer reviewed journal article “Kairos in Aristotle’s Rhetoric” (2000), argue that the term kairos has traditionally been overlooked in Rhetoric by scholars and argue that kairos was a crucial component of Aristotle’s rhetorical approach.


Kinneavy and Eskin develop this argument by examining several editions and translations of Aristotle’s Rhetoric, which reveal the importance kairos played in Aristotle’s rhetorical approach, and provide empirical, factual evidence (logos) for their claims.


The authors’ purpose is to rekindle conversation about Aristotle’s use of kairos regarding his style and argumentation, which was often thought to be very minimal and even in opposition to other Greek rhetoricians such as Plato, in order to rethink Aristotle’s role and influence in ancient rhetoric.


Kinneavy and Eskin engage with previous scholars’ work on Aristotle and kairos to show where those authors may have erred or overlooked instances of kairos in Rhetoric, revealing that their audience are rhetoricians and historians who work with kairos.


Thompson, Wayne. “Stasis in Aristotle’s Rhetoric.” Quarterly Journal of Speech . 58.2 (1972):

134-141. Web. 25 Jan. 2014.

Wayne Thompson, in his scholarly, peer reviewed journal article “Stasis in Aristotle’s Rhetoric” (1972), suggests that stasis is not only clearly explained in later books of Rhetoric but that understanding stasis in Rhetoric is also essential to understanding Aristotle’s methods, purposes, and arguments.


Thompson supports this thesis by examining later Greek texts such as Hermagoras, scholarship on these texts, the primary text, Rhetoric, and scholarship on stasis in Rhetoric, which allows Thompson to develop Logos and Ethos based support for his argument.


The author’s purpose is to reexamine Aristotle’s use of stasis, specifically in Rhetoric, in order to show that Aristotle was a foundational figure in the development of stasis, that the method of stasis pre-dates its originally postulated inception of late second century B.C., and to call current (1972) scholars to reexamine their claims.


Thompson’s audience is scholars who are concerned with the history and practice of stasis, specifically scholars who research and write scholarship on Greek rhetoric and Aristotle’s influence on the field.


Walzer, Arthur. “Aristotle’s Rhetoric, Dialogism, and Contemporary Research in Composition.”

Rhetoric Review 16.1 (1997): 45-57. JSTOR. Web. 25 Jan. 2014.


Primary Sources

Cicero, Marcus T. De Orator. Vol. 1. Trans. E.N. Moor. London: Aethuen and, 1892. Internet

            Archive. Web. 25 Jan. 2014. <>.

The translation is old, but the format and searchability of the online book is impeccable. The book can be viewed either as a full text online, or as a pdf and can also be downloaded. Both versions can be easily searched.

Cicero, Marcus T. De Orator. Trans. E. W. Sutton. Cambridge: Harvard UP, 1942. Internet

            Archive. Web. 25 Jan. 2014. <>.

This translation is still quite dated, but I love that it has the original language on one side and English on the other. Also, it has helpful footnotes for confusing passages. The searchability is great. It is available as a pdf, or full text online and can be downloaded.

“Cicero, De Oratore, Book 2.” Pomona. Trans. J. S. Watson. N.p., n.d. Web. 26 Jan. 2014.


There is absolutely no information about the date of the translation, and the website’s face is unreachable from the page, so there is no access to knowing who is publishing or sponsoring this translation. However, with that said, the text is easily searchable, well formatted, and has a list of extensive footnotes that relate both to translation issues as well as clarifying the text or explaining a cultural note etc.

Secondary Sources:

Fjelstad, Per. “Restraint and Emotion in Cicero’s De Oratore.” Philosophy and Rhetoric 36.1

(2003): 39-47. Project MUSE. Web. 26 Jan. 2014.

Per Fjelstad, in his article “Restraint and Emotion in Cicero’s De Oratore” (2003) contends that the conflicting theories of the emotional display of the orator presented in Cicero’s De Oratore suggest possibilities suitable for appropriate contexts rather than act as limitations or present challenge’s to each other’s validity. Fjelstad develops this idea through a close reading of the text in which he examines the movements, organization, and rhetorical devices, but most elaborately the contexts, in which each theory is presented and established, as well as the interpretations of other classical scholars regarding the relationship between the theories, most notably Augustine, showing that different situations called for different displays of emotion. His purpose is to illustrate a larger theory of rhetoric as a philosophical art and ground this overarching theory in a pillar of rhetorical understandings: the teachings and works of Cicero. Fjelstad maintains a scholarly approach, tone, and method, assuming background knowledge as well as familiarity with the principles of rhetoric as well as with the works of Cicero.


Hall, Jon. “Social Evasion and Aristocratic Manners in Cicero’s De Oratore.” The American

            Journal of Philology 117.1 (1996): 95-120. JSTOR. Web. 26 Jan. 2014.

Jon Hall, in his article “Social Evasion and Aristocratic Manners in Cicero’s De Oratore” (1996), argues that contrary to popular scholarly interpretation, De Oratore does not, in fact, merely depict idealized characters remote from everyday realities, but rather characters who face practice problems of everyday aristocratic interaction, and in this sense, it captures the true flavor of ancient Roman manners. Hall begins with a portrayal of social manners in several scenes and closely reads selected scenes that highlight social manners; he then proceeds to compare the manners presented in the text with manners reveals in Cicero’s own correspondences via letters to other aristocracy, providing both cultural history as well as revealing the similarities between the manners exhibited in the letters with the manners found in De Oratore. Hall’s purpose is to present a new understanding of both the characters, the context, and even the purpose of De Oratore that has formerly been unrealized by basing interpretations on the text alone, interpretations that, according to Hall, do not give due to the realities of ancient Roman aristocracy. Though Hall writes for a scholarly audience interested in classical rhetoric, his tone is accessible to those outside of the field as well.

Mendelson, Michael. “Everything Must Be Argued: Rhetorical Theory and Pedagogical Practice

in Cicero’s De Oratore.” Journal of Education 179.1 (1997): 15-33.EBSCO Host. Web.

26 Jan. 2014.

Prus, Robert. “Creating, Sustaining, and Contesting Definitions of Reality: Marcus Tullius

Cicero as a Pragmatist Theorist and Analytic Ethnographer.” Qualitative Sociology

            Review 6.2 (2010): n. pag. Directory of Open Access Journals. Web. 26 Jan. 2014.

Zerba, Michelle. “Love, Envy, and Pantomimic Morality in Cicero’s De Oratore.” Classical

            Philology 97.4 (2002): 299-321. JSTOR. Web. 26 Jan. 2014.

Michelle Zerba, in her article, “Love, Envy, and Pantomimic Morality in Cicero’s De Oratore” (2002) argues that De Oratore performs a “pantomimic” morality (the juxtaposition of envy and love- a form of morality that attempts to mask its awareness of advantage behind the ruse of love and service) and demonstrates how this morality is produced by a competition for preeminence despite values of undying love and service. Zerba develops this idea by summarizing and closely reading three instances in the dialogue that create or display tensions between the characters, paying close attention to the interplay of characters and their acceptance or rejection of each other’s claims, all the while reading such tensions in light of greater themes in the dialogue, love and envy, showing how the interaction of the characters in the text point to an unspoken morality. Her purpose is to reveal a meta-commentary laden within De Oratore that exposes the moral tensions of Classical Greek society as well as to offer another reading of De Oratore, as a dramatized social performance that is then able to perform an ideology it textually censures. Zerba initiates a scholarly relationship with those informed in the field of classical rhetoric, assuming a familiarity with both De Oratore as well as the current critical conversations which have surrounded the ancient piece, but provides enough summary and background that a scholar outside of the field may appreciate and understand her argument.

Primary Sources:

Isocrates. Antidosis. Ed. George Norlin. Perseus. Tufts University, n.d. Web. 24 Jan. 2014.

I found this text by searching the Perseus online archive, which we had discussed in class. It was initially difficult to find the text because my searches were bringing up only texts which included my search words: Isocrates and Antidosis. I eventually found a link to the full text by searching through the English version of Isocrates’ Speeches, which includes several other works besides Antidosis. Antidosis itself is divided into 323 short sections. There are links to each of the footnotes, and even some links to other texts that are referenced or connected somehow. I would recommend Perseus to other students; however, it is necessary for students to take some time to get to know the technology before it is user friendly.

Isocrates. Antidosis. Ed. George Norlin. Internet Archive. University of Toronto Libraries, n.d. Web.  24 Jan. 2014.

I found this text by conducting a Google search for full text versions of Isocrates’ Antidosis. I found the Internet archive and initially had difficulty finding the text. The formatting of the website made it hard to find a link to the text, which was somewhat hidden. Once I found the link to the full text version, I found the display easy to read and easily searchable. The text is presented like a book with the Greek version on one side and the English version on the other. When searching for a word, the word is marked on a timeline showing how many times it occurs in the text, making it easy to navigate. I would recommend this database.

Citations and Rhetorical Précis’:

Benoit, William L. “Isocrates and Plato on Rhetoric and Rhetorical Education.” Rhetoric Society Quarterly 21.1 (1991): 60-71.

  1. William Benoit in his article “Isocrates and Plato on Rhetoric and Rhetorical Education,” claims the differences in Plato and Socrates’ perspectives of rhetoric and rhetorical education can be attributed to the differences in who they studied with and their personal histories.
  2. He uses primary speeches and dialogues to explain that Plato’s and Isocrates’ similarities in rhetorical perspectives, such as their shared belief in the morality of rhetoric, potentially came from their both studying under Socrates and their desire to differentiate their teachings from the sophists, and their differences, such as Isocrates’ valuing practical knowledge where Plato thought that knowledge was required for rhetoric, came from Isocrates’ work as a logographer while Plato went to war during his youth.
  3. His purpose is to compare and contrast Isocrates’ and Plato’s perspectives in order that the reader can see that, although there are many similarities between their perspectives, the differences most likely stem from the variations in experiences in their lives.
  4. Benoit creates a scholarly relationship with the readers by clearly comparing and contrasting each rhetorician’s perspective based on their writings and their views.

Behme, Tim. “Isocrates on the Ethics of Authorship.” Rhetoric Review 23.3 (2004): 197-215.

  1. Tim Behme, in his article “Isocrates on the Ethics of Authorship,” argues that Isocrates’ focus on the unique expression of ideas, even if these ideas were not original, played an important role in the history of the ethics of authorship, and awareness of historical concepts of originality helps historians determine which historical figures were predecessors to our contemporary opinions of originality and to understand how ancient understandings of originality differs from modern understandings.
  2. Behme begins his argument by discussing other aspects of Isocrates’ work that have been examined, then Isocrates’ emphasis on originality and its competitive nature, and finally the importance of being aware of changes in meaning of vocabulary used during different periods.
  3. His purpose of this article is to show how examining the perspectives of historical figures on originality, such as Isocrates, helps historians understand both the development of our contemporary understandings of originality and that contemporary concepts of originality and plagiarism cannot be imposed on ancient cultures.
  4. Behme creates an academic relationship with his readers by expanding the scholarly conversation surrounding Isocrates’ work to include its impact on authorship ethics.

Marzluf, Phillip P. “Aptitude or Experience? Isocratic Ambivalence and the Ethics of Composition.” Rhetoric Review 23.4 (2004): 293-310.

  1. Philip Marzluf, in his article “Aptitude or Experience? Isocratic Ambivalence and the Ethics of Composition,” contends that Isocrates’ notions of aptitude and practice can be useful in examining modern composition studies.
  2. Marzluf opens his essay with a brief examination of the current issues surrounding basic writing and the concept of natural ability in the modern day classroom, then delves in to this theme in classical rhetorical tradition, examining Quintilian, Plato, and Isocrates, returning at the end with a brief examination of how the classical opinions of rhetorical aptitude are still prevalent and injurious in today’s educational system.
  3. His purpose is to reveal similarities between classical and modern opinions of the importance of natural ability and study in becoming a great orator in order to invoke change to the common, damaging, assumption that writing is a natural ability, not a learned skill.
  4. Marzluf engages scholarly audiences who are interested in the fields of classic Greek rhetoric and modern composition theory by connecting these two fields and examining how classic opinions of aptitude are still prevalent in current composition studies, especially the area of basic writing.

Other Citations:

Chase, Kenneth R. “Constructing Ethics through Rhetoric: Isocrates and Piety.” Quarterly Journal of Speech 95.3 (2009): 239-262.

Papillion, Terry. “Isocrates’ Techne and Rhetorical Pedagogy.” Rhetoric Society Quarterly 25 (1995): 149-163.

Primary Sources

Longinus. On the Sublime. Trans. W. Rhys Roberts. The University of Adelaide Library. eBooks@Adelaide, 31 Oct. 2012. Web. < 25 Jan. 2014.>

This is an excellent digital version; the website is easy to navigate and provides a helpful table of contents for the text.  There is also the option of downloading as a file.  I would highly recommend this version of the text.

Longinus. On the Sublime. Trans. H.L. Havell. Ohio State University Libraries. London and New York, Macmillan and co., 1890. Web. 25 Jan. 2014. <>

This source, although from the late 1800s, is quite readable.  Also, the cite provides the option of downloading it as a pdf file or full text article—it even allows for a download on a Kindle.  Overall, a nice digital version if one was looking for an older translation of the text.

Longinus. On the Sublime. Trans. A.O. Prickard. Cornell University Library. Oxford at the The Clarendon Press, 1906. Web. 25 Jan. 2014. <>

This source was good, although not quite as easy to read as the other two (although there is a zooming function, which can enhance the quality a bit).  There is also the option of downloading the file—in pdf format or on a Kindle.

 Secondary Sources

Carson, Jamin. “The Sublime and Education.” Journal of Aesthetic Education, 40.1 (Spring 2006): 79-93. Web. 26 Jan. 2014.

Jamin Carson, in the article “The Sublime and Education,” suggests that the aesthetic notion of the “sublime” should be used as an educational tool because it has the ability to strengthen students’ “aesthetic sensibility”—and gives students a concrete “concept” and “word” about the sublime and about beauty (79, 84).  Carson develops this idea by first providing an overview of three different theories of the sublime—from thinkers Longinus, Edmund Burke, and Immanuel Kant—and then by showing how the concepts of transport (for Longinus), terror (for Burke), and infinitude (for Kant) that these thinkers develop can be practically applied within educational settings.  Carson’s purpose is to outline specific ways that a seemingly “aesthetic” concept, like the sublime, can have practical applications within education in order to show that aesthetics need not be confined only to “aesthetic” subjects, like art and literature, but can also influence subjects, such as math and science.  Carson’s article is written to a specific audience—namely, for instructors who desire more knowledge about how to apply an “artistic” theory to a “non-artistic” academic subject.

De Jonge, Casper C. “Clever Composition. A Textual Note on Longinus, On the Sublime 40.2.” Mnemosyne, 65.4/5 (2012): 717-725. Web 26 Jan. 2014.

De Jonge, Casper C. “Dionysisus and Longinus on the Sublime: Rhetoric and Religious Language.” American Journal of Philology.  John Hopkins University Press, 133.2 (Summer 2012): 271-300. Web. 25 Jan. 2014.

Casper C. de Jonge, in his article “Dionysius and Longinus on the Sublime: Rhetoric and Religious Language,” asserts that Longinus’ concept of the “sublime” is deeply embedded in Augustan ideas regarding rhetoric and religion and also that On the Sublime maintains strong connections to the works of Longinus’ contemporary, Greek rhetorician Dionysius. De Jonge develops this idea through a detailed examination of the ways in which “hupsos” (meaning height or the sublime) functions within different texts, particularly drawing attention to the similarities between the ways hupsos was used in Longinus’ and Dionysisus’ texts—in regards to composition theory and religion.  De Jonge’s purpose in the article is to emphasize the similarities, as opposed to the differences (as most critics have done), between Dionysius and Longinus in order to reimagine the “intellectual context” in which Longinus’ text exists.  De Jonge’s piece is written for a fairly specific academic audience that would be interested in reconsidering the ways in which Longinus’ On the Sublime has come to be understood within the academic community.

Innes, D.C. “Longinus and Caecilius: Models of the Sublime.” Mnemosyne, 55.3 (2002): 259-84. Web. 26 Jan. 2014.

Macksey, Richard. “Longinus Reconsidered.” MLN Comparative Literature.

John Hopkins University Press, 108.5 (Dec. 1993): 913-934. Web. 25 Jan. 2014.

O’Gorman, Ned. “Longinus’s Sublime Rhetoric, or How Rhetoric Came into Its Own.” Rhetoric Society Quarterly. 34.2 (Spring, 2004): 71-89. Web. 25 Jan. 2014.

Ned O’ Gorman, in his article, “Longinus’s Sublime Rhetoric, or How Rhetoric Came into Its Own,” argues that Longinus’ On the Sublime (or of Peri Hypsous) represents a major shift within the history of rhetoric because the text suggests that rhetoric is an end in itself and not a means to an end—therefore, rhetoric avoids a teleological purpose and refuses to be legitimatized.  Gorman proves this idea by mapping out the rhetorical goals of major historical figures—such as Aristotle, Isocrates, Gorgias, and Cicero—and reveals, through a linguistic discussion of Longinus’ notion of height (hypsos) and ecstasy (ekstasis) precisely how Longinus creates a new vocabulary for rhetoric and elevates rhetoric as an end in its own right.  Gorman’s purpose is to provide critical attention to a text that he feels has been historically ignored, while also questioning Longinus’ notion that rhetoric needs not be legitimatized in order to suggest that rhetoric, in contemporary academia, must, by necessity, be justified so as to not be “kept out of reach” and “monumentalized” (16).  Gorman’s article can be of importance for both scholars who seek to understand Longinus’ text within the historical context of rhetoric, for those who want to know more about the aesthetic development of the “sublime,” or for rhetoric instructors who question the importance of legitimatizing rhetorical study in academia.

Quintilian, Marcus F. “Quintilian’s Institutes of Oratory.” Quintilian’s Institutes of Oratory. Trans. John S. Watson. Iowa State University, n.d. Web. 24 Jan. 2014. <>.

This site is the most modern and intuitive and, while easily searchable though a Google widget embedded on the site, it seemed to take a try or two to find what I needed. This digital text uses the translation by Watson, the most widely used and cited, and often regarded as the best translation of Quintilian’s work.


Quintilian, Marcus F. “Quintilian: Institutio Oratoria.” LacusCurtius Quintilian. Ed. William Thayer. Trans. Harold E. Butler. University of Chicago, n.d. Web. 24 Jan. 2014. <>.

John Thayer, a simultaneous translator of French and English, typed all of Quintilian’s work into the site as “an opportunity for me to become intimately familiar with the work.” For his digital text, Thayer used the H. E. Butler translation from the Loeb Classical Library Editions first published in 1920‑1922. This site is his labor of love and is easily searchable thought a Google widget embedded on the site.


Quintilian, Marcus F. “Quintilian, Institutio Oratoria.” Perseus. Ed. Gregory R. Crane. Trans. Harold E. Butler. Tufts University, n.d. Web. 24 Jan. 2014. <>.

More of a database style site, it is the most complicated to navigate out of the three. The search options of this text are limited to three book sections, so it is not as comprehensive a search tool as the other two.


Works Cited – Secondary Sources with Précis


Katula, Richard A. “Quintilian on the Art of Emotional Appeal.” Rhetoric Review 22.1 (2003): 5-15. Print.

Richard Katula, a Professor of Communications Studies and Education at Northeastern University, in his scholarly essay “Quintilian and the Art of Emotional Appeal” (2003), explores Quintilian’s theory of emotional appeal, divided into ethos and pathos, and how emotional appeal has regained legitimacy with contemporary society as a form of persuasion. Katula explores the resurgence of pathos using psychological studies to establish how people influence and persuade each other through emotional interaction; showing how mastering the emotional appeal is an art form; pointing out that while logos can win people’s minds, pathos is needed to win their hearts; detailing Quintilian’s “rules” on emotional appeal and contrasting their value between Roman times and today; and finally, showing the finer points around delivering the emotional appeal effectively. The purpose of his essay is to examine the power of the emotional appeal through a Quintilian lens in order to illustrate its use and abuse as a strategy in today’s courtroom and mass media communications. While Katula’s audience is fellow scholars of classical rhetoric, he establishes a relationship with anybody wanting to understand how humans can deliberately use emotions to influence each other.


Logie, John. “I Have No Predecessor to Guide My Steps: Quintilian and Roman Authorship.” Rhetoric Review 22.4 (2003): 353-73. Print.

John Logie, in his article “I Have No Predecessor to guide My Steps: Quintilian and Roman Authorship” (2004), argues that while use of the term “author” when referring to Quintilian involves retrospective application of our contemporary definition, Quintilian could be considered anachronistic because in Institutio Oratoria he defines himself by the modern definition of author. Logie supports this thesis by defining “author” in contemporary terms and showing when it shifted definition; defining authorship in Greek and Roman times as inspiration emanating from external forces; showing how other scholars have interpreted a lack of originality in Quintilian’s work; referencing specific passages in the Institutio Oratoria to show Quintilian’s view that once a person has mastery over knowledge and technique they can be original instead of an imitator; and finally showing how Quintilian’s understanding of his own mastery of rhetoric, of exploring new terrain in the discipline of rhetoric, allowed him to consider himself as owner and author of his work. By exploring the definition of authorship in classical and contemporary times, Logie shows Quintilian’s view of his role in the study of rhetoric in order challenge the standard contemporary narrative of Qunitilian’s view of himself and his rhetorical legacy. Logie’s intended audience is the classical rhetorical scholars studying Quintilian philosophy, pedagogy, and history, and his relationship is one of conversation and debate with this field’s leaders as they push the scholarly conversation forward.


Monfasani, John. “Episodes of Anti-Quintilianism in the Italian Renaissance: Quarrels on the Orator as a Vir Bonus and Rhetoric as the Scientia Bene Dicendi.” Rhetorica 10.2 (1992): 119-38. Print.

John Monfasani, in his article “Episodes of Anti-Quintilianism in the Italian Renaissance: Quarrels on the Orator as a Vir Bonus and Rhetoric as the Scientia Bene Dicendi” (1992), claims that the anti-Quintilianism of the Renaissance humanists deserves a closer look because it hasn’t been examined thoroughly yet, and he chooses to look at Quintilian’s definitions of rhetoric and orator to narrow his examination. Monfasani explores his thesis by establishing the two camps of Renaissance scholarly conversation on Quintilian, looking at how Quintilian defines and moralizes rhetoric as vir bonus, examining how Quintilian arrived at his definition of bene dicere, and detailing the debate amongst the Renaissance scholars about the purpose of rhetoric and whether rhetoric is intrinsic or extrinsic. The purpose of Monfasani’s article was to explore Renaissance debate about Quintilian in order to challenge Quintilian’s contemporary reputation as morally earnest and illuminate an important part of the historical scholarly debate surrounding Qunitilian’s rhetorical philosophy that had not been closely examined by contemporary scholars. Monfasani establishes a relationship with the historical scholars and students of classical and Renaissance rhetoric.


Works Cited – Secondary Sources

Kennedy, George. “An Estimate of Quintilian.” The American Journal of Philology 83.2 (1962): 130-46. Print.


Leigh, Matthew. “Quintilian on the Emotions (Institutio Oratoria 6 Preface and 1-2).” The Journal of Roman Studies 94 (2004): 122-40. Print.


Mendelson, Michael. “Quintilian and the Pedagogy of Argument.” Argumentation 15.3 (2001): 277-294. Print.

Primary Sources

Plato. Phaedrus. Trans. Benjamin Jowett. Oxford, 1892. Project Gutenberg. Ed. Michael Hart. Web. 27 Jan. 2014. <>.

Jowett’s translation seems the most prolific online, and Project Gutenberg offers a free eBook version for many different kinds of eReaders. The text can also be read and searched online (using the Ctrl+F function on a computer) if you choose to read in HTML format.


Plato. Phaedrus. Trans. Benjamin Jowett. Oxford, 1892. The Internet Classics Archive. Ed. Daniel C. Stevenson. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Web. 27 Jan. 2014. <>.

MIT hosts another online copy of Jowett’s translation and offers a text-only downloadable version that is easier to print or copy-and-paste than Project Gutenberg’s version. This version is the one I would use and recommend.


Plato. Phaedrus. Trans. Benjamin Jowett. Oxford, 1892. The Online Library of Liberty. Liberty Fund, Inc. Web. 27 Jan. 2014. <>.

The Online Library of Liberty is the best solution if you are looking to read Phaedrus on an eReader or want a PDF version of Jowett’s original text—though the PDF version, while beautiful, is image-based and not searchable. OLL also offers a free accessible version of Phaedrus that is specifically designed for assistive devices for the visually impaired. A word of caution—this version includes Jowett’s entire published work, The Dialogues of Plato, so you need to be sure to select Phaedrus from the other ten dialogues included.


Plato. Phaedrus. Trans. Harold N. Fowler. London, 1925. The Perseus Digital Library. Ed. Gregory Crane. Tufts U. Web. 27 Jan. 2014. <>.

This newer translation by H.N. Fowler is also the translation included in Bizzell and Herzberg’s anthology. Perseus offers the greatest amount of manipulation of the text I could find, especially in its elaborate search function. The English translation can also be viewed side-by-side with the original Greek. Clicking on a Greek work will bring up a translation and references to other places it appears in the text. However, it is impossible to view the text in its entirety at once, which is a bit annoying.


Plato. The Phaedrus, Lysis, and Protagoras of Plato. Trans. J. Wright. 1888. Archive Community Audio. Web. 27 Jan. 2014. <>.

I wanted to include this source because it is an audio version of Phaedrus, and also the only version of Wright’s translation I could find for free. Unfortunately, it is a terrible performance—it sounds like someone fed the text into a computer reader. LibriVox also offers a free audio reading, of Jowett’s translation (, which I feel is better—but not by much. For example, the reader pronounces Phaedrus as four, never-ending syllables: fuh-EYE-duh-russ. It gets old after a while.


Secondary Sources

Frentz, Thomas S. “Memory, Myth, and Rhetoric in Plato’s Phaedrus.” Rhetoric Society Quarterly 36:3 (2006): 243-62. Print.[1]

Kastely, James L. “Respecting the Rupture: Not Solving the Problem of Unity in Plato’s Phaedrus.” Philosophy and Rhetoric 35:2 (2002): 138-52. Print.

McAdon, Brad. “Plato’s Denunciation of Rhetoric in the Phaedrus.” Rhetoric Review 21:1 (2004): 21-39. Print.[2]

Miller, Dana. “Rhetoric in the Light of Plato’s Epistemological Criticisms.” Journal of the History of Rhetoric 30.2 (2012): 109-33. Print.

Murray, James S. “Disputation, Deception and Dialectic: Plato on the True Rhetoric (Phaedrus 261-266).” Philosophy and Rhetoric 21.4 (1988): 279-87. Print.

Noe, Mark. “The Oral Fixation: The Oral/Textual Binary from Phaedrus to Freshman Composition.” Rhetoric Review 26.4 (2007): 349-64.[3]

Rabbås, Øyvind. “Writing, Memory, and Wisdom: The Critique of Writing in the Phaedrus.” Symbolae Osloenses: Norwegian Journal of Greek and Latin Studies 84 (2010): 24-48. Print.[4]

[1] Thomas S. Frentz, in his article “Memory, Myth, and Rhetoric in Plato’s Phaedrus” (2006), claims that Plato suggests a conversational form of rhetoric as “living myth” in the Phaedrus that leads readers of the dialogue to self-knowledge of the soul. Frentz develops this idea by operating within the tension created by two antithetical readings of the Phaedrus, that of Griswold and Derrida, and embracing a decidedly spiritual framework that emphasizes the connection between memory and myth and rhetoric. His purpose in this is to expand critical perspectives to include spiritual frameworks of self-knowledge of the soul in order that this framework can be applied to other important rhetorical texts that have not yet considered such a framework. Frentz’s establishes a scholarly relationship with academics interested in Plato’s work and on the interrelationship of memory and myth in rhetoric.

[2] Brad McAndon, in his article “Plato’s Denunciation of Rhetoric in the Phaedrus” (2004), argues against readings of Plato’s work as one that praises rhetoric, claiming instead that Plato denounces rhetoric in the Phaedrus. McAndon supports this assertion by situating the Phaedrus as a response to Isocrates’s Against the Sophists, as part of a dynamic dialogue in which Plato distinguishes his philosophical method from Isocrates’s pseudo-philosophical method. His purpose is to interpret both Isocrates’s and Plato’s in order to analyze both philosophers’ conceptions of what the philosopher is and should do. McAndon establishes a scholarly relationship with his academic audience who would be familiar with the historiography of rhetoric, or at least the figures and principles of Plato and his contemporaries.

[3] Mark Noe, in his article “The Oral Fixation: The Oral/Textual Binary from Phaedrus to Freshman Composition” (2007), asserts that process-driven pedagogies in freshman composition silence the student writer. Noe develops this argument by recounting Derrida’s deconstructionist reading of Phaedrus in “Plato’s Pharmacy”—especially in his claim that Plato uses writing to deconstruct writing before it can deconstruct logos, embracing Sharon Crowley’s critique of process pedagogy as “complementary” to the current traditional pedagogy it sought to displace, and eventually linking these both to theories of presence that become erased in process pedagogies that separate student writing from students, therefore silencing students and making “it impossible for the student to write” (363). His purpose, though not altogether clear, is most probably to complicate established and flourishing foundational pedagogies for the teaching of writing in order to to upset the balance of power given to process pedagogies in the freshman composition classroom. Noe has a strictly defined audience of academics—and specifically ones familiar with deconstructionist concepts and terms; he provides little background into the charged nature certain concepts have in poststructualism (such as “the Father”), assuming his audience will have some familiarity with these precepts.

[4] Even though Symbolae Osloenses isn’t a well-known journal, this article looks to be exceptional and very applicable to our study in 593.

Primary Texts

Plato. Gorgias. Trans. Benjamin Jowett. The Project Gutenberg. 5 October 2008. Web. 25 January 2014. <>.

One of the best features of this text is that it is searchable. It highlights all of the words searched for, so it is easy to do a quick scan to find exactly what you are looking for. Also, the translation is easy to read and accessible for modern readers. I found this text by doing a Google search for “Plato’s Gorgias full text.”


Plato. Gorgias. Trans. W. C. Helmbold. New York: Liberal Arts P., 1952. Hathi Trust Digital Library. Web. 25 January 2014. <;view=1up;seq=1>.

This text is searchable, and it finds the word you search for along with a few of the lines that encompass the word in order to give context to where the word appears. These results are sorted by page number. This text is especially easy to read because it allows you to choose how you view the pages (zoom option, full screen, page-by-page, plain text, etc.). I found this text by doing a Google search for “Plato’s Gorgias full text.”


Plato. Gorgias. Trans. E. M. Cope. Cambridge, Deighton, Bell and Co, 1864. GoogleBooks. Web. 25 January 2014. <’s+gorgias&hl=en&sa=X&ei=YRTjUtusK5TtoASu2YDgBA&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=the&f=false>.

This translation is interesting because, as the introduction notes, the goal of this translation is “to render Plato’s text as nearly possible word for word into English” (v). Cope says that for this reason, it is not necessarily meant for English readers but rather for “students and scholars” (v). The translation is a bit difficult to read, as the sentence structure seems a bit odd, therefore, I would not recommend using this copy as a first introduction to Gorgias. I found this text using a Google Books search and limiting my findings to full text items only.


Rhetorical Précises

Kastely, James L. “In Defense of Plato’s Gorgias.PMLA 106.1 (Jan. 1991): 96-109. JSTOR. Web. 25 January 2014.

James L. Kastely, in his article “In Defense of Plato’s Gorigias” (1991) suggests “an alternative way to write the history of rhetoric” (97) by saying that Gorgias is not meant to critique the usefulness of rhetoric, but rather suggests that rhetoric acts as a powerful tool in refutation and thus encourages philosophical thinking.

Kastley first approaches this article by talking about the common critical and historical views on Gorgias and how often historians read it as a conversation that tries to uncover the evil nature of rhetoric, or they discuss Socrates’ seemingly absurd logic; however, Kastley spends the rest of the article providing examples from Gorgias and expounding on those examples in order to prove that the dialogue ends unsatisfactorily because it was not met with refutation, and also explaining that Socrates used ridiculous claims and logic as a way to incite refutation, because he believed that refutation was the best use of rhetoric.

This article serves to change or add a differing perspective to the common historical perception of Plato’s beliefs about rhetoric as revealed through the Gorgias.

This article was written for an audience of history of rhetoric students or scholars, and it invites its readers to look at Gorgias from a new perspective by leading them through the argument and some of its most common grey areas.

Stauffer, Devin. “Socrates and Callicles: A Reading of Plato’s Gorgias.” The Review of Politics 64.4 (Autumn 2002): 627-657. JSTOR. Web. 24 January 2014.

Devin Stauffer, in his article “Socrates and Callicles: A Reading of Plato’s Gorgias” (2002), proposes a new reading of Plato’s Gorgias that argues for Callicles as an example of a person who has closed himself off from self examination of his own beliefs, and as such, disables himself from understanding justice and partaking in philosophy.

Stauffer organizes this article by first examining Callicles and his statements in the Gorgias in order to discover how he is dedicated to virtue, but that he tends to take a “cynical” (647) point of view, showing how he sees the strong ruling the weak and believes that happiness is felt only by obtaining personal pleasure; then, Stauffer turns to Socrates and gives examples of why he would take an extreme pro-justice view, and that with this extreme view he is encouraging Callicles to examine his own understanding of justice and move toward philosophical thinking.

The purpose of this article provide a new understanding of the argument that occurs between Callicles and Socrates, and in doing so, he hopes to add to the historical understanding of what Socrates’ beliefs were of political philosophy.

This article was written for scholars of history of rhetoric, politics, and philosophy, and it appeals to the audiences’ pathos by asking them to see Callicles as a man struck by fear of discovering his true beliefs.


White, F. C. The Good in Plato’s Gorigas.Phronesis 35.2 (1990): 117-127. JSTOR. Web. 25 January 2014.

F. C. White, in his article “The Good in Plato’s Gorgias” (1990), argues that while Socrates seems to oppose himself when he states that good consists of doing good for oneself and virtue means doing good for others, he actually sees them coexisting together by believing that doing good for others is ultimately doing the most good for oneself.

To prove his point, White makes a logical deduction by using passages in the text to first establish where Socrates states that he believes virtue concerns the good of others and that good is self-centered, and then he points out that through refuting Callicles’ belief of what the greatest good is, Socrotes states that the most good a man can achieve for himself is a pursuit of virtue which in fact includes doing good and promoting virtue in others, thus resolving the two seemingly conflicting definitions of good and virtuous.

The purpose of this article is to resolve what seem to be two opposing definitions of good and virtuous, and it stands in opposition of other critical readings of the text, especially T. Irwin’s reading from Plato’s Moral Theory who argues for virtue as craft.

This article was written for a scholarly audience interested in the history of Rhetoric and Philosophy.



  • Plato. “Plato in Twelve Volumes,” Vol. 3 translated by W.R.M. Lamb. Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press; London, William Heinemann Ltd. 1967.

First, I did like the more modern look of the overall site, which gave me the ability to connect to the text. The text was easy to read; the style of text that was used was newer and thus, more to my liking. However, the ability to only read short sections wasn’t helpful. I disliked that the sections were so short, so that I could only read parts and had to go to the side margin where the sections were labeled, by lines of text in the “Gorgias,” and there was no easy way to “turn the page” per se. I had to click on a link on the side; this was not a good digital version—too hard to read, it was not pleasant. It would take too much time to read through “Gorgias” with such small sections of text and using links to click to the next section; access limited. Overall rate: “Limited,  far from great but somewhat useable.” It would be one I would use if there were no other digital versions available in full text.


  • Plato. “Plato’s Gorgias.” Translated by E.M.Cope, Fellow of Trinity College. Deighton, Bell, and Co. LONDON: Bell and Daldy, 1864. Digitized by Google, scanned 2006.

It was a free e-book from Google, but I would like to add that I did like the fact that the sections that were on the page were large enough for me to comfortably read through. When I reached the end of the page (section) then I could hit the arrow tab on the side of the page and “turn the page” to the next part. And, as an added bonus, there was a scrolling icon on the very bottom, so that if I wanted to skip a section, then I could do so. However, overall, I didn’t like the text that was used in the 1864 version. It was hard to read as certain letters and numbers looked awkward. Also, the names of the characters are not written in full so we have “Cal” and “Soc” instead of Callicles and Socrates. I did not care for this style; it made it hard to keep track of changing characters and dialogue. Not my favorite version, but I did like the new tech additions that allow better turning and skipping capabilities. Overall rate: “Pretty good,” a little better than mediocre even with old looking text.

Isocrates. “Antidosis.” Isocrates with an English Translation in three volumes Ed. and Trans. by George Norlin. Perseus Digital Library. N.d. Tufts University. Web. 24 January 2014.


I found this copy of “Antidosis” on the Perseus Digital Library; it is listed under Isocrates through the Greek and Roman Materials, but it is not easy to find through the search bar. The Greek and Roman Materials archive has both the Greek version and the English translation, which, while not necessarily helpful to students, adds a certain gravitas to the work itself. The website breaks up the piece by paragraph, with footnotes following just below. The footnotes make it an excellent reference for close reading. The text is searchable by keyword, but it is not very “skimable” because of the small flashes of material available at one time.


Isocrates. “Antidosis.” University of Mary-Harlan Baylor Library. N.d. University of Mary-Harlan Baylor. Web. 24 January 2014.


This copy of “Antidosis” is a downloadable Word document. I found it by searching “Antidosis full text” on Google, and UMHB hosts this copy for educational use through Perseus. The format of the piece makes it easy to save and revisit, and the Ctrl+F function is available for the document to search for key terms. While the document and the search locations both say that the text comes from Perseus, there is no indication of a translator or a collected volume for this work, contrasting the ease of downloading the document with less identifiable credibility.


Isocrates. “Antidosis.” Isocrates with an English translation. Ed. George Norlin. N.d. Internet Archive. Web. 24 January 2014.


This is the same translation by George Norlin that is hosted on the Perseus Digital Archive, but this version is in one continuous body of text from Norlin’s entire book, not just this piece. This means that in order to find “Antidosis,” a reader must use the Ctrl+F function and scroll down to the piece. The piece is also in one continuous piece of text rather than broken up by paragraph. The full page of text makes this version better for skimming than for close reading. While the keyword search is helpful, the fact that a reader may have to scroll through multiple instances of a keyword to even get to the right piece of writing makes this version very cumbersome.


Benoit, William. “Isocrates and Aristotle on Rhetoric.” Rhetoric Society Quarterly 20.3 (Summer 1990): 251-259.


William Benoit, in his article “Isocrates and Aristotle on Rhetoric” (1990), suggests that comparing Isocrates’ and Aristotle’s views on rhetoric can give a fuller picture of the role of rhetoric during their overlapping teaching years. Benoit begins by describing the philosophies of the Sophists and Plato—Isocrates having often been considered a Sophist and Aristotle having been a student of Plato—in order to locate Isocrates’ and Aristotle’s philosophies as similar, though not identical, compromises between these two extremes. His purpose is to further explorations into the philosophical relationships between the prominent Classical figures in order to add to previous scholarship comparing Plato and Aristotle and Plato and Isocrates, but never Aristotle and Isocrates. Benoit writes to academics in the rhetoric field already involved in analysis of Greek and Roman rhetors, contributing to existing conversations surrounding the philosophical and epistemological theories of the time.


Livingstone, Niall. “Writing Politics: Isocrates’ Rhetoric of Philosophy.” Rhetorica: A Journal of the History of Rhetoric 25.1 (Winter 2007): 15-34.


Niall Livingston, in his article “Writing Politics: Isocrates’ Rhetoric of Philosophy” (2007), claims that while Isocrates’ career cannot be neatly identified within modern disciplinary bounds, his views on philosophy and education are still systematic and sophisticated. Livingston examines the definitions and connotations of the word philosophia within Isocrates’ work, delineating its use to mean the general act of thinking; the contemporary movement to systematize education; Isocrates’ particular brand of education, which far exceeds that of his competitors; and finally the product of Isocrates’ superior teachings, which only initiates can fully comprehend. Livingston’s purpose is to further the rhetorical analysis of Isocrates’ work without anachronistic expectations of Isocrates as a rhetorician, examining his writing for internal evidence of Isocrates’ intentions for political discourse and the power of education. Livingston writes to and in response to other academics who have expressed frustration at Isocrates’ ambiguity or who have dismissed his work as “non-Rhetoric” (as opposed to Plato) because of his refusal to define himself.


Rummel, Erika. “Isocrates’ Ideal of Rhetoric: Criteria of Evaluation.” The Classical Journal 75.1 (1979): 25-35.


Erika Rummel, in her article “Isocrates’ Ideal of Rhetoric: Criteria of Evaluation” (1979), asserts that Isocrates’ unique criteria for rhetoric are what make him an influential figure in the study of Greek classics. Rummel cites Isocrates’ own writing that rhetorical works should be judged on purpose, style, and content, situating him in a complex relationship with relativism and the work of the Sophists, the traditions of poetry and music, and issues of morality and ethics in political discourse. Her purpose is to unpack some of the complicated dynamic created by Isocrates’ profession as a rhetoric teacher and his sympathy for the pragmatic common citizen, demonstrating just how nuanced Isocrates’ career was. Rummel writes to an academic audience of classicists, establishing a range of potential impetuses for scholarly response through her emphasis both on Isocrates’ culturally rooted pragmatism and his unique philosophy.


Haskins, Ekaterina. “Choosing between Isocrates and Aristotle: Disciplinary Assumptions and Pedagogical Implications.” Rhetoric Society Quarterly 36.2 (Spring 2006): 191-201.


Cahn, Michael. “Reading Rhetoric Rhetorically: Isocrates and the Marketing of Insight.” A Journal of the History of Rhetoric 7.2 (Spring 1989): 121-144.



“Isocrates, Antidosis.” Department of Classics, Tufts University, n.d.

Web. 25 January, 2014.


I did a Google search for “Isocrates Antidosis digital” and found this 1980 translation by George Norlin. The text is also available in Greek. The search function is available at the word level for the full text – it also searches the annotations, and the results are linked to the sections of the text, making it easy to be aware of context. This is a great resource for in depth study of this text.


“Isocrates with an English Translation”

Web. 24 January 2014.


This is a .pdf of a complete scan of Isocrates with an English Translation by George Norlin, Volume II. This volume includes On the Peace, Areopagiticus, Against the Sophist, Antidosis, and Panathenaicus, and the text is in both Greek and English. It appears to have been published in 1928, which makes me wonder about the date on the Perseus copy of this text. Because this is a .pdf you can use the “Edit/Find/Find…” feature if you open it in a web browser. This is an imperfect way of searching because it’s using automated text reading on a book with older typeface, but having access to this edition could be of benefit.

I found all of my sources through searches for “Isocrates Antidosis” on Google Scholar and the OSU library search tools.


Benoit, William L. “Isocrates on Rhetorical Education. ” Communication Education

33.2 (1984): 109-119. Web. 25 January 2014.


William Benoit, in his article “Isocrates on Rhetorical Education” (1984), asserts that Isocrates’ merits recognition as a major influence influence in early rhetoric.


Benoit gives evidence for the claim that Isocrates was a student of Protagoras and Socrates, describes his brief career as a logographer, then describes his contributions to rhetoric and most specifically to rhetorical education.


His purpose is to identify Isocrates’ views on rhetorical education through an examination of his criticisms of other educators–Benoit distills these view down to “Rhetoric is the worker or science of persuasion, is a branch of philosophy, it can alter our perceptions of things, it allows us to dispute with others and seek knowledge for ourselves” (113).


Benoit builds a steady case for Isocrates’ importance in the study of classical rhetoric, by letting other classical rhetoricians including Cicero and Quintilian; his article would provide helpful background for someone new to the study of classical rhetoric.
Chase, Kenneth R. “A Commentary on Isocrates’ Antidosis.” Quarterly Journal of

Speech 96.4 (2010): 472-476. Web. 26 January 2014.


In Kenneth Chase’s review of A Commentary on Isocrates’ Antidosis by Yun Lee Too, he describes Too’s thesis that Antidosis was Isocrates’ way of “entering the fray” (472) of the 4th Century battle between public oratory and literature; he faults Too for not exploring in greater depth the ways in which Antidosis impacted centuries of rhetorical pedagogy.


Chase identifies a point at which Too’s analysis goes too far into a depiction of Isocrates as advocating for the “‘good old days’ in which the [Athenian] elite…would  wisely direct a democratic Athens to a more glorious future” (473).

Chase recommends that those new to the study of Isocrates begin with The Rhetoric of Identity in Isocrates: Text, Power, Pedagogy by Josiah Ober before reading Too’s analysis, in order that they have a balanced perspective on the role of Antidosis in classical rhetoric.


Near the end of his review, Chase identifies an audience for Too’s book: those scholars (and here he includes himself) who “place Isocrates on a pedestal” (476).
Hawhee, Debra. “Bodily Pedagogies: Rhetoric, Athletics, and the Sophists’ Three Rs.”

College English 65.2 (2002): 142-162. Print.
Haskins, Ekaterina. “Choosing between Isocrates and Aristotle: Disciplinary

Assumptions and Pedagogical Implications.” Rhetoric Society Quarterly 36.2

(2006): 191-201. Print.


Ekaterina Haskins, in her article “Choosing between Isocrates and Aristotle: Disciplinary Assumptions and Pedagogical Implications” (2006), challenges Aristotle’s centrality in the classical rhetorical canon and argues that Isocrates and Aristotle should be regarded as opponents in a debate over the scope, resources and ends of rhetorical education.


Haskins identifies five central assumptions about classical Greek rhetoric, which she then addresses one by one in favor of the pedagogical value of a more prominent role for Isocrates.


Her purpose is to argue for an expansion of the canon of classical rhetoric, including other works by Plato and Aristotle in order to “challenge the perception of homogeneity and historical transcendence” (198); she uses the second half of her article to suggest ways to accomplish this kind of change.
Haskin’s article will be of interest to scholars of classical rhetoric who are interested in practical actions towards the diversification of the rhetorical canon.