Primary Sources

Aristotle. “Aristotle’s Rhetoric.” Aristotle’s Rhetoric. Trans. W. Rhys Roberts. Ed. Lee Honeycutt. N.p., 27 Sept. 2011. Web. 21 Jan. 2014.       <>.

Although there is no option to search the full text, one can open a search dialogue and look through the portion currently being read. Again, this version of the text breaks the original down into neat and logical portions to make reading easier. I found this version of the text through a Google search for full-text editions of Rhetoric and include it because the way the compiler put the site together makes it easy to find and read specific portions of the text.

Aristotle. “Aristotle, Rhetoric J. H. Freese, Ed.” Aristotle, Rhetoric, book 1, Chapter 1. Trans. J.H. Freese. Perseus, n.d. Web. 21 Jan. 2014.       <>.

This is an excellent version of the text and is entirely searchable. Also, the text is broken down into smaller portions which makes what could be a dense block of text easier to manage and read. For those individuals able to read Greek, the text may be translated back to Greek by selecting an option on the side panel. This was the first version of the text I found and it was uncovered simply by searching for “Aristotle’s Rhetoric” on the Perseus digital library site.

Aristotle. “Rhetoric.” Trans. W. Rhys Roberts. University of Adelaide. Web. 25 Jan. 2014.<>.

A download of the text is available for this version of the text. Of the three versions of Rhetoric I found, this is the most unpleasant to read. The text is marked by chapter, but remains a dense block of text. Again, this was found through a Google search. The most valuable aspect of this version is the fact that a full-text PDF download is available.

Secondary Sources

McAdon, Brad. “Reconsidering the Intention or Purpose of Aristotle’s “Rhetoric”.” Rhetoric         Review  Vol. 23, No. 3 (2004): 216-234. JSTOR. Web. 25 January 2014.

Found searching the JSTOR database for material related to Aristotle and Rhetoric. From the title, I am led to believe that this piece attempts to act as an intervention in the field and may provide an interesting direction for research.

Brad McAdon, in his article for Rhetoric Review, “Reconsidering the Intention or Purpose of Aristotle’s Rhetoric” (2004), argues that the two most common ideas regarding the intent of Aristotle’s Rhetoric are incorrect and that only by considering the context in which the text was composed and distributed and the history of the text itself may one come to a more correct understanding of Aristotle’s attempt.

McAdon comes to this conclusion by first examining Aristotle’s other texts and determining that he considered democracy the worst form of government and rhetoric as deceptive, this discussion leads into an analysis of how the rhetor is not a phronimos, and finally expands the context of the Aristotelian texts by explaining the historical circumstances and the accretions added before Andronicus compiled what has become Rhetoric.

His purpose is to reveal the historical context of Aristotelian texts and what each reveals about Aristotle in order that a more appropriate path to determining the intent and purpose of Rhetoric becomes apparent.

McAdon’s audience are those individuals who interpret the intent of Rhetoric as either being supportive of democracy and rhetoric or that rhetoric is needed only to deal with the Greek people.

Quandahl, Ellen. “Aristotle’s Rhetoric: Reinterpreting Invention.” Rhetoric Review Vol. 4, No. 2   (1986): 128-137. JSTOR. Web. 25 January 2014.

Found searching the JSTOR database for material related to Aristotle and Rhetoric.

Ellen Quandahl, in her article for Rhetoric Review “Aristotle’s Rhetoric: Reinterpreting Invention” (1986), argues that the topics Aristotle provides in his Rhetoric are not a list of choices for invention but represent an interpretive theory, instead, and, by extension, composition is an act of interpretation and not invention.

Quandahl makes clear her idea by first looking for the most important portions of Aristotle’s Rhetoric, modeling her technique for applying literary interpretation to the text, and then explaining how it is that the topics Aristotle presents are more representative of interpretation than the figures and tropes, as they are traditionally described.

Her purpose is to re-examine often misinterpreted portions of Rhetoric through an application of contemporary theory in order that the text be reclaimed as a relevant pedagogical device and not simply a historical relic.

Quandahl’s intended audience for this piece is those scholars with an interest in potential connections between Classical Rhetoric and contemporary composition and literary theory.

Walzer, Arthur. “Aristotle’s Rhetoric, Dialogism, And Contemporary Research In Composition.” Rhetoric Review 16.1 (1997): 45-57. MLA International Bibliography. Web. 25 Jan. 2014.

Found searching the MLA International Bibliography database for material related to Aristotle and Rhetoric.

Arthur Walzer, in the article for Rhetoric Review ” Aristotle’s Rhetoric, Dialogism, And Contemporary Research In Composition” (1997), argues the idea that although his Rhetoric may be viewed as being dialogic, Aristotle would not have meant it to be dialogic in manner and that this interpretation alters the meaning of the text.

Walzer develops this idea by revealing how others in the Rhetoric and Composition field have argued that the Rhetoric is a dialogic text, lays out examples of how what Aristotle believed is not dialogic, examines how it is that enthymemes may cause a dialogic interpretation, and how such interpretations have the potential to alter the text’s purpose.

His purpose is to reveal the notion that the theory of rhetoric posited by Aristotle is not dialogic in order that the interpretation of Rhetoric be realigned to more fully reflect its historical context.

Walzer’s audience is those individuals who are active in both Classical Rhetoric and Rhetoric and Composition and who may wish to make use of Classical Rhetoric within composition.