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

<www2.hn.psu.edu/faculty/jmanis/aristotl/Aristotle–Rhetoric.pdf>

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.

<http://rhetoric.eserver.org/aristotle/>.

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.

<http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.01.0060>

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 TEXTS

• 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.