Stuart Clark
- Published in print:
- 1999
- Published Online:
- October 2011
- ISBN:
- 9780198208082
- eISBN:
- 9780191677915
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198208082.003.0003
- Subject:
- History, European Early Modern History, Social History
In the ‘high’ culture of the 16th and 17th centuries, there was certainly a kind of enthusiastic imprecision in the recourse to opposition. One is struck forcibly by the profusion — even promiscuity ...
More
In the ‘high’ culture of the 16th and 17th centuries, there was certainly a kind of enthusiastic imprecision in the recourse to opposition. One is struck forcibly by the profusion — even promiscuity — of various styles of oppositional thought and expression, by the delight in listing (if not columnizing) the binary aspects of experience and superimposing them on one another, and by the considerable latitude both in assigning single opposites to more than one type and in crowding into one type many different examples of opposition. The reigning logical schema was derived from various passages in the Categoriae, Topica, and Metaphysica, where Aristotle defined different oppositional relations, examined those types of predicate that admitted a contrary, and applied the rules of inference derived from contrariety to the detection of errors in an opponent's argument. The distinctions between propositional relations established in his De interpretatione were likewise the source of the ‘square of opposition’ that invariably accompanied formal discussions of the subject in Renaissance textbooks on dialectic. The most convenient summary comes in the Categoriae, where Aristotle writes: ‘Things are said to be opposed in four senses: (i) as correlatives to one another, (ii) as contraries to one another, (iii) as privatives to positives, (iv) as affirmatives to negatives’. Such a typology helped to bring some order to the abundant dual classifications of witch-believing Europe. Our task is to report what contemporaries did with their concepts of opposition, not to judge them by the standards of formal analysis; and untidiness is, again, what we expect in cultural artefacts.Less
In the ‘high’ culture of the 16th and 17th centuries, there was certainly a kind of enthusiastic imprecision in the recourse to opposition. One is struck forcibly by the profusion — even promiscuity — of various styles of oppositional thought and expression, by the delight in listing (if not columnizing) the binary aspects of experience and superimposing them on one another, and by the considerable latitude both in assigning single opposites to more than one type and in crowding into one type many different examples of opposition. The reigning logical schema was derived from various passages in the Categoriae, Topica, and Metaphysica, where Aristotle defined different oppositional relations, examined those types of predicate that admitted a contrary, and applied the rules of inference derived from contrariety to the detection of errors in an opponent's argument. The distinctions between propositional relations established in his De interpretatione were likewise the source of the ‘square of opposition’ that invariably accompanied formal discussions of the subject in Renaissance textbooks on dialectic. The most convenient summary comes in the Categoriae, where Aristotle writes: ‘Things are said to be opposed in four senses: (i) as correlatives to one another, (ii) as contraries to one another, (iii) as privatives to positives, (iv) as affirmatives to negatives’. Such a typology helped to bring some order to the abundant dual classifications of witch-believing Europe. Our task is to report what contemporaries did with their concepts of opposition, not to judge them by the standards of formal analysis; and untidiness is, again, what we expect in cultural artefacts.
Yelena Baraz
- Published in print:
- 2012
- Published Online:
- October 2017
- ISBN:
- 9780691153322
- eISBN:
- 9781400842162
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Princeton University Press
- DOI:
- 10.23943/princeton/9780691153322.003.0005
- Subject:
- Philosophy, Political Philosophy
This chapter examines the preface as an interactive process, a journey during which the author strives to win over the reader so as to obtain a favorable reception for his text before the reader ...
More
This chapter examines the preface as an interactive process, a journey during which the author strives to win over the reader so as to obtain a favorable reception for his text before the reader actually encounters the body of the work. It considers the importance of Cicero’s insertion of his project into the social institution of amicitia and the way in which texts associated with circles of amicitia establish relations between an author and his readers. It also discusses Cicero’s invoking of tradition in the form of quotations, allusions, and the choice of dialogue characters. To illustrate Cicero’s overall rhetorical strategy and to reconstruct the step-by-step progression that he creates for the ideal reader approaching his work, the chapter offers a reading of the prefaces to Topica and De Senectute.Less
This chapter examines the preface as an interactive process, a journey during which the author strives to win over the reader so as to obtain a favorable reception for his text before the reader actually encounters the body of the work. It considers the importance of Cicero’s insertion of his project into the social institution of amicitia and the way in which texts associated with circles of amicitia establish relations between an author and his readers. It also discusses Cicero’s invoking of tradition in the form of quotations, allusions, and the choice of dialogue characters. To illustrate Cicero’s overall rhetorical strategy and to reconstruct the step-by-step progression that he creates for the ideal reader approaching his work, the chapter offers a reading of the prefaces to Topica and De Senectute.
Philip Thomas
- Published in print:
- 2016
- Published Online:
- January 2018
- ISBN:
- 9781474408820
- eISBN:
- 9781474426763
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Edinburgh University Press
- DOI:
- 10.3366/edinburgh/9781474408820.003.0002
- Subject:
- Law, Legal History
The main argument proferred is that de editio maior of Ciceró's Topica by Corpus Christi professor Tobias Reinhardt provides credence to the hypothesis that this work articulates the theoretical ...
More
The main argument proferred is that de editio maior of Ciceró's Topica by Corpus Christi professor Tobias Reinhardt provides credence to the hypothesis that this work articulates the theoretical underpinning of Roman legal science. Less
The main argument proferred is that de editio maior of Ciceró's Topica by Corpus Christi professor Tobias Reinhardt provides credence to the hypothesis that this work articulates the theoretical underpinning of Roman legal science.
Caroline Bishop
- Published in print:
- 2019
- Published Online:
- December 2018
- ISBN:
- 9780198829423
- eISBN:
- 9780191867941
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/oso/9780198829423.003.0004
- Subject:
- Classical Studies, Literary Studies: Classical, Early, and Medieval, Prose and Writers: Classical, Early, and Medieval
This chapter examines Cicero’s adaptation of Aristotle in his rhetorical works. Cicero considered Aristotle a somewhat remote figure, and associated him with times of political withdrawal and intense ...
More
This chapter examines Cicero’s adaptation of Aristotle in his rhetorical works. Cicero considered Aristotle a somewhat remote figure, and associated him with times of political withdrawal and intense study. Yet he also held Aristotle in high esteem as a classic, especially for his contributions to rhetoric: Cicero was taught by his instructor Philo of Larissa that Aristotle invented the debate on both sides of a general rhetorical or philosophical question that for Cicero represented the tangible union of philosophy and rhetoric necessary for the ideal orator. When Cicero faced the prospect of further political inactivity after Caesar’s assassination, he decided to fully embrace Aristotle’s didacticism by composing his Topica, a how-to manual for this sort of debate that would make his ideal orator (who, of course, resembled Cicero himself) into a classic model in Roman rhetorical instruction.Less
This chapter examines Cicero’s adaptation of Aristotle in his rhetorical works. Cicero considered Aristotle a somewhat remote figure, and associated him with times of political withdrawal and intense study. Yet he also held Aristotle in high esteem as a classic, especially for his contributions to rhetoric: Cicero was taught by his instructor Philo of Larissa that Aristotle invented the debate on both sides of a general rhetorical or philosophical question that for Cicero represented the tangible union of philosophy and rhetoric necessary for the ideal orator. When Cicero faced the prospect of further political inactivity after Caesar’s assassination, he decided to fully embrace Aristotle’s didacticism by composing his Topica, a how-to manual for this sort of debate that would make his ideal orator (who, of course, resembled Cicero himself) into a classic model in Roman rhetorical instruction.
