Abstract
The trouble started when the names were assigned. In the first chapter of his Rhetoric, Aristotle put the matter succinctly: while the term “dialectician” refers generally to a person possessing argumentative capabilities, there is a special term “sophist” for someone who uses theses capabilities to mislead by means of specious arguments; by contrast, the term “rhetor” marks both the general category of people with an aptitude for persuasive speaking as well as those among them who misuse this aptitude to deceive their audiences (Aristotle, Rhetoric 1.1.14 [1355b]).
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Alexy, R. (1996). Theorie der juristischen Argumentation: Die Theorie des rationalen Diskurses als Theorie der juristischen Begründung (3rd ed.). Frankfurt a.M: Suhrkamp.
Aristotle (1960). Topica (tr. E.S. Forster). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Ballweg, O., & T.-M. Seibert (1982). Rhetorische Rechtstheorie. Freiburg und München: Alber.
Caprioli, S. (Ed.) (1963). De “Modis arguendi” scripta rariora. Studi Senesi 75, 30–56, 107–190, 230–253.
Caprioli, S. (Ed.) (1965). De “Modis arguendi” scripta rariora. Studi Senesi11, 355–414.
Cicero (1931). Deßnibus (Transl. H. Rackham; 2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Cicero (1949). Topica (Transl. H.M. Hubbell). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Eemeren, F.H., van & Houtlosser, P. (1999a). Delivering the Goods in Citical Dscussion. In F.H. van Eemeren et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Fourth ISSA Conference on Argumentation 1998 (pp. 163–167). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
Eemeren, F.H., van & Houtlosser, P. (1999b). William the Silent’s Argumentative Discourse. In F.H. van Eemeren et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Fourth USSA Conference on Argumentation 1998 (pp. 168–170).
Federicis, S. de (1648). De interpretation legum (written ca. 1495). Geneva: Peri.
Feteris, E.T. (1999). Fundamentals of Legal Argumentation. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Gambari, P.A. (1507). Legalis dialectica. Bologna: Hector.
Gast, W. (1992). Juristische Rhetorik (2nd ed.). Heidelberg: Decker.
Govier, T. (1997). Socrates’ Children. Thinking and Knowing in the Western Tradition. Peterborough, Ontario: Broadview.
Green, L.D. (1990). Aristotelian Rhetoric, Dialectic, and the Traditions of Antistrophos, Rhetorica8, 5–27.
Grotius, H. (1853). De iure belli ac pacis, vol. II (originally published 1625, revised 1631). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hamblin, C.L. (1970). Fallacies. London: Methuen.
Hegendorff, C. (1541). Rhetoricae legalis libri duo. Frankfurt a.M.: Egenolphus.
Hegendorff, C. (1547). Dialectica legalis (originally published 1534). Paris: Gazellus.
Hohmann, H. (1998a). Logic and Rhetoric in Legal Argumentation: Some Medieval Perspectives. Argumentation12, 39–55.
Hohmann, H. (1998b). Juristische Rhetorik. In G. Ueding (ed.), Historisches Wörterbuch der Rhetorik, vol. 4, col. 779–832. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
Hohmann, H. (1999). Legal Rhetoric and Dialectic in the Renaissance: Topica Legalia and Status Legales. In F.H. van Eemeren et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Fourth ISSA Conference on Argumentation 1998 (pp. 358–364). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
Kennedy, G.A. (transl. and ed.) (1991). Aristotle, On Rhetoric. A Theory of Civic Discourse. New York: Oxford University Press
Lang, J.J. (1857). Beiträge zur Hermeneutik des römischen Rechts. Stuttgart: Cotta.
Ott, E.E. (1995). Juristische Dialektik. Basel und Frankfurt a.M: Helbing und Lichtenhahn.
Otte, G. (1970). Zwanzig Jahre Topik-Diskussion: Ertrag und Aufgaben, Rechtstheorie1, 183–197.
Perelman, C., & Olbrechts Tyteca, L. (1969). The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation (Transl. J. Wilkinson and P. Weaver). Notre Dame, Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press.
Perelman, C. (1979). Juristische Logik als Argumentationslehre (transl. and ed. J.M. Broekman). Freiburg und München: Alber.
Plato (1914). Phaedrus (Transl. H.N. Fowler). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Pufendorf, S. (1759). De jure naturae et gentium, vol. I (originally published 1672; reprinted 1967). Frankfurt a.M. und Leipzig: Knoch und Eslinger.
Stump, E. (transl. and ed.) (1978). Boethius’s De topicis differentiis. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press,
Thibaut, A.F.J. (1806). Theorie der logischen Auslegung des römischen Rechts (2nd ed.). Altena: Hammerich.
Viehweg, T. (1974). Topik und Jurisprudenz: Ein Beitrag zur rechtswissenschaftlichen Grundlagenforschung (5th ed.). München: Beck.
Vigelius, N. (1573). Dialectices iuris civilis libri tres. Basel: Orporinus.
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2002 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Hohmann, H. (2002). Rhetoric and Dialectic. In: Van Eemeren, F.H., Houtlosser, P. (eds) Dialectic and Rhetoric. Argumentation Library, vol 6. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-9948-1_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-9948-1_4
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-90-481-6057-0
Online ISBN: 978-94-015-9948-1
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive