What do you think?
Rate this book
Ιστορία της κλασικής ρητορικής
Το τρίτομο έργο του Κέννεντυ για την Κλασική ρητορική θεωρείται προ πολλού ως μια έγκυρη πραγματεία επί του θέματος. Ο παρών, νέος τόμος, μια εκτενής αναθεώρηση και σύμπτυξη των έργων Η τέχνη της πειθούς στην αρχαία Ελλάδα, Η τέχνη της Ρητορικής στο ρωμαϊκό κόσμο, και Η ελληνική Ρητορική υπό τους Χριστιανούς αυτοκράτορες αποτελεί μια περιεκτική ιστορία της κλασικής ρητορικής, που σίγουρα θα αποτελέσει πρότυπο για την εποχή του. O Kennedy αρχίζει διευκρινίζοντας εκείνα τα ρητορικά χαρακτηριστικά της πρώιμης ελληνικής γραμματείας που προεξοφλούσαν το σχηματισμό της "μεταρητορικής", μιας θεωρίας της ρητορικής, τον πέμπτο και τον τέταρτο αιώνα π.Χ., και στη συνέχεια ανιχνεύει την εξέλιξη αυτής της θεωρίας κατά τη διάρκεια της ελληνορωμαϊκής περιόδου. Παραθέτει μια θεώρηση της διδασκαλίας της λόγιας και της προφορικής σύνθεσης στις σχολές, καθώς και της ελληνικής και λατινικής ρητορικής ευγλωττίας ως βασικού ρητορικού είδους. Το αποτέλεσμα είναι μία ευρεία και δεσμευτική ιστορία της κλασικής ρητορικής, η οποία θα φανεί ιδιαίτερα χρήσιμη στους φοιτητές και σε όσους άλλους επιθυμούν να έχουν μία πανοραμική και συγχρόνως συμπυκνωμένη εικόνα της κλασικής ρητορικής.
484 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1994
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 11 of 11 reviews
August 3, 2011
For some reason, this is the book everyone loves to hate: either Kennedy is neglecting the contributions of medieval rhetoric (Woods), or ancient non-Greek rhetorics (Diab), or something else that someone finds important. Granted the tenor of this book is Christian, Classicalist and generally traditionalist, but that doesn’t mean that Kennedy somehow failed us.
What is most useful to me of this is Kennedy’s emphasis on the connection between education and rhetorical scholarship. I wonder if this is something intrinsic to the study of rhetoric as a living practice or if this connection is only emblematic of the period’s lack of specialization. I’ve always been a strong supporter of teaching supporting scholarship and vice versa, but that’s a hard argument to make in many administrations. As for a response to this book itself, it was extremely well-researched for its scope, but I do see how some people might find it incomplete, or aspiring to comprehensive history when it isn’t able to do so.
What is most useful to me of this is Kennedy’s emphasis on the connection between education and rhetorical scholarship. I wonder if this is something intrinsic to the study of rhetoric as a living practice or if this connection is only emblematic of the period’s lack of specialization. I’ve always been a strong supporter of teaching supporting scholarship and vice versa, but that’s a hard argument to make in many administrations. As for a response to this book itself, it was extremely well-researched for its scope, but I do see how some people might find it incomplete, or aspiring to comprehensive history when it isn’t able to do so.
July 31, 2012
learned, helpful, informative, while being extremely boring as well
July 18, 2026
As a work of historical scholarship, this text does well at combining a large amount of primary and secondary sources. The text therefore provides a valuable description of a large array of topics in the history of classical rhetoric from Ancient Greece with Corax/Tisius until the beginning of the Middle Ages with Boethius. However, there is no overarching narrative between sources, and the text therefore reads more like an annotated bibliography or compendium.
This form of writing is useful for specific purposes and limited for general-purpose readers, which I will argue limits the audience of the text and therefore warrants a 3-star rating.
First, the text presupposes a reader familiar with (1) classical rhetorical theory, specifically the types of discourse (judicial, epideictic, deliberative); (2) canons of rhetoric (invention, arrangement, style, delivery, memory); (3) arrangement of judicial speeches; and (4) ancient political history and geography.
A reader of this text would therefore best be advised to read a primer in rhetorical theory (such as Corbett's) if not the imports sections of the rhetorical works of Aristotle and Cicero or Quintilian. If I were to read this book again, I would do so with a timeline to map the chronology and a map to visualize the geographic location of the major thinkers.
The role rhetoric plays, Kennedy argues, in classical western civilization is heavily contingent upon the political state in which it exists, so I would also want to read this text alongside a primer in the political history of ancient Greece and the roman empire.
The audience is limited more than I would like not only with respect to the presupposed information but the content of the text as well. Essentially, Kennedy brings us to each important figure (that time and space allow) one by one, summarizing their view and offering bibliographical annotations for more information. Occasionally, these figures are contrasted against others and are sometimes related to other ongoing political or intellectual events concurrent with that thinker. Furthermore, Kennedy gives extremely insightful context on where the physical manuscripts were circulated, hidden, destroyed or lost. Aristotle's lost dialogue *Gryllus* was, in my opinion, fascinating, alongside the temporarily lost works of Aristotle's *On Rhetoric* and Quintilian's *On the Education of the Orator*.
An unfortunate consequence of Kennedy's somewhat limited historical focus and general lack of argumentation makes this text at many points extremely boring and seemingly useless. Many thinkers feel crammed into the book with short sections simply saying "This thinker talked about x. Then he talked about y. He makes a statement on z", which is useful insofar as getting a brief glimpse at the thinker to see if the reader wants to research them further but ultimately uninteresting and lacking use otherwise.
Last, the text has ~10 or so typographical, grammatical, and punctuation errors. It's not so bad, but it's more than I would expect. The most egregious example is a block quote that accidentally gets turned into regular type, which essentially accidentally implies that Kennedy is speaking what the block quote is. You'll find it if you read it through.
This form of writing is useful for specific purposes and limited for general-purpose readers, which I will argue limits the audience of the text and therefore warrants a 3-star rating.
First, the text presupposes a reader familiar with (1) classical rhetorical theory, specifically the types of discourse (judicial, epideictic, deliberative); (2) canons of rhetoric (invention, arrangement, style, delivery, memory); (3) arrangement of judicial speeches; and (4) ancient political history and geography.
A reader of this text would therefore best be advised to read a primer in rhetorical theory (such as Corbett's) if not the imports sections of the rhetorical works of Aristotle and Cicero or Quintilian. If I were to read this book again, I would do so with a timeline to map the chronology and a map to visualize the geographic location of the major thinkers.
The role rhetoric plays, Kennedy argues, in classical western civilization is heavily contingent upon the political state in which it exists, so I would also want to read this text alongside a primer in the political history of ancient Greece and the roman empire.
The audience is limited more than I would like not only with respect to the presupposed information but the content of the text as well. Essentially, Kennedy brings us to each important figure (that time and space allow) one by one, summarizing their view and offering bibliographical annotations for more information. Occasionally, these figures are contrasted against others and are sometimes related to other ongoing political or intellectual events concurrent with that thinker. Furthermore, Kennedy gives extremely insightful context on where the physical manuscripts were circulated, hidden, destroyed or lost. Aristotle's lost dialogue *Gryllus* was, in my opinion, fascinating, alongside the temporarily lost works of Aristotle's *On Rhetoric* and Quintilian's *On the Education of the Orator*.
An unfortunate consequence of Kennedy's somewhat limited historical focus and general lack of argumentation makes this text at many points extremely boring and seemingly useless. Many thinkers feel crammed into the book with short sections simply saying "This thinker talked about x. Then he talked about y. He makes a statement on z", which is useful insofar as getting a brief glimpse at the thinker to see if the reader wants to research them further but ultimately uninteresting and lacking use otherwise.
Last, the text has ~10 or so typographical, grammatical, and punctuation errors. It's not so bad, but it's more than I would expect. The most egregious example is a block quote that accidentally gets turned into regular type, which essentially accidentally implies that Kennedy is speaking what the block quote is. You'll find it if you read it through.
February 2, 2023
The Book is exactly what the title says and it delivers. It is extremely well written and organized and, to my knowledge, accurate. The only hinderance to reading quickly is how dense it is with information. If the reader already has a basic knowledge of Greek and Roman history and has heard of the figures discussed, then that makes reading this all the more easier.
There were obviously some sections that I would like more information, but I can't expect a full treatment of every figure in an introductory book like this.
There were obviously some sections that I would like more information, but I can't expect a full treatment of every figure in an introductory book like this.
December 9, 2025
Despite some shortcomings (what oeuvre is without them?), this book is a magnificent account of the historical evolution of rhetoric, from its pre-Socratic origins to the early Middle Ages. At times repetitive, perhaps even dull, it nevertheless remains an excellent history of classical rhetoric
.
.
February 22, 2018
A splendid overview of classical rhetoric.
November 17, 2013
Kennedy’s text covers the history of rhetoric from its emergence as peitho (persuasion) in pre-Socratic Greek literature through the early Middle Ages. Glossing rhetoric as “a specific cultural subset … of the power of words and their potential to affect a situation in which they are used or received” (3), Kennedy moves through peitho and logos to Socrates’ use of rhetorike in the Gorgias and Phaedrus. His earlier chapters also consider Gorgias himself, “whose … refusal of closure, highly annoying to conservative Greeks of the time, was characteristic of the sophists” (20), Isocrates, and Aristotle. He also considers the various ways Greek rhetoricians systematized rhetoric: forensic/deliberative/epideictic, the five canons, the parts of a speech. His treatment of Rome includes discussions of Hermogenes’ stasis theory, a chapter on Cicero, and shorter sections on Dionysius of Halicarnassus and Quintilian. As the Roman Empire develops, Kennedy argues both (1) that rhetorical training became more formalized and widespread, and (2) that epideictic rhetoric became more prominent that forensic and deliberative due to the autocratic nature of Roman politics. Though advisers to the senate and, later, the emperors had occasions to deliberate, Kennedy positions epideictic--particularly as manifested in public declamations built on the foundation of the progymnasmata--became a social pastime and rhetorical outlet for a populace will minimal opportunities to speak in courtrooms or political assemblies. A chapter on the second sophistic, characterized by conservative rhetors with a tendency toward nostalgic Hellenism, leads into Kennedy’s closing discussions of the rise of Christianity, its associations with and dissociations from classical rhetoric, and rhetoric’s gradual transformation from a mode of public address to a mode of scriptural interpretation and evangelical embellishment.
July 17, 2017
In just under 300 pages, this book covers the progression of a millennium's worth of great rhetoricians. It's a solid survey of rhetoric, from the inchoate attempts to systematize "the science of speaking" in 5th century Syracuse and Athens, to the "conversion" of rhetoric for use by early and medieval Christian apologists and homileticians, and (almost) everything in between. After thoroughly enjoying Kennedy's translation and commentary on Aristotle's On Rhetoric, I was looking forward to reading this book, and I wasn't disappointed.
October 20, 2009
An excellent overview. Not ideal for someone wanting depth, but Kennedy's earlier works provide that, and this book has ample references to other detailed sources as well.
Read
August 22, 2012About as exciting as it looks. I'm taking a contemporary rhetorical theory class this fall though, so thought I'd try to brush up on the ancient Greeks. So far, a good overview.
Read
August 5, 2022«Οι αγορεύσεις δεν δίδασκαν όχι μόνο νομικά, αλλά ούτε ιστορία.» (σελ. 334). Οποιαδήποτε ομοιότητα με νεοελληνικό γραπτό λόγο είναι άκρως παραπλανητική!
Displaying 1 - 11 of 11 reviews