Papers on Rhetoric VI

Among the published papers two essays (T. Arcos Pereira; E. Ruiz Yamuza) deal with the ‘status-doctrine’ and could be considered as complementary in this field. Indeed both are concerned with later developments of this theory as presented in Latin (Grillius) or Greek (Hermogenes and Minucianus) texts. To Aristotle’s Rhetoric are devoted three papers: Maddalena Piazzo takes into account the relationship between rhetorical and dialectical topics; Pierre Chiron, focus-ing on the difficult question of differences and similarities between the Rhetoric to Alexander and Aristotle’s Rhetoric in dealing with a same traditional material, calls attention to their advice for brevity; brevity again, with regard to Aristotle’s judgement of the persuasive power of enthymemes, maxims and metaphors, is the subject of my own paper. Different authors are object of inquiry in the other essays. A fine example of philological criticism is offered by Antonino Milazzo, who investigates the complex literary tradition of a particular passage in Aristides’ speech ‘Pro quattuor’; Marie-Pierre Noël finds out interesting elements to support the Platonic coherence in his dra-matic presentation of Gorgias in the ‘Gorgias’; Laurent Pernot underlines the socio-political weight of Philodemus’ Rhetoric as witness for the history of the Sophistic. Broader are the overviews of Maria Silvana Celentano, who takes into account the rhetorical use of smile and laughter in several Greek and Latin texts, and of Gualtiero Calboli, who, dealing with the doctrine of the figures, wants to highlight the grammatical or syntactic function of par-ticular groups of them. Still with style, lastly, but with the very peculiar na-ture of the ‘figuratae controversiae’, is concerned the paper of Christopher Craig: not saying what one means has been for ages, probably will be for ever, the difficult weapon of a rhetorical speech.