Amphibolia and Rhetorical Criticism in Isocrates’ Panathenaicus
The dialogue section in Isocrates Panathenaicus (§199–266) contains the earliest reference to amphiboly in rhetorical literature. The Laconophile former student introduced as advocatus diaboli in this section describes Isocratean arguments as logoi amphiboloi (§239f). In a way very similar to Aristo...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | fra |
| Published: |
University of Ottawa & Laval University
2023-04-01
|
| Series: | Cahiers des Études Anciennes |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://journals.openedition.org/etudesanciennes/2570 |
| Summary: | The dialogue section in Isocrates Panathenaicus (§199–266) contains the earliest reference to amphiboly in rhetorical literature. The Laconophile former student introduced as advocatus diaboli in this section describes Isocratean arguments as logoi amphiboloi (§239f). In a way very similar to Aristotle’s notion of amphibolia, he understands these to be arguments that are meant to obscure the moral implications and dissimulate the intentions of a speech. This article argues that by introducing a rhetorical concept like this in an educational (and literary) setting, Isocrates sets his students (and readers) the task to identify the moral ambiguity of arguments they are presented with. Thus, they are enabled by training to critically assess the moral problems underlying the issues under discussions and unmask the flattery or slander involved in public speech. While Aristotle introduced amphibolia as a (weak) type of argument from the perspective of rhetorical composition, Isocrates is focused on audience reception and rhetorical criticism. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 0317-5065 1923-2713 |