Abstract
The thesis is defended that rhetoric is not, as is often said, a discipline which is hierarchically subordinate to dialectic. It is argued that the modalities of the links between rhetoric and dialectic must be seen in a somewhat different light: rhetoric and dialectic should be viewed as two complementary disciplines. On the basis of a historical survey of the views of various authors on the links between rhetoric and dialectic, it is concluded that efforts to establish clear boundaries or unequivocal conceptual or moral hierarchical relationships between the two disciplines have failed and that therefore, they must be conceived as being mutually dependent.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
REFERENCES
Alexy, R.: 1996, Theorie der juristischen Argumentation.Die Theorie des rationalen Diskurses als Theorie der juristischen Begründung(3rd ed.), Suhrkamp, Frankfurt a.M.
Aristotle: 1960, Topica(tr. E. S. Forster), Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Ballweg, O. and T.-M. Seibert: 1982, Rhetorische Rechtstheorie, Alber, Freiburg und München.
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 Senesi 77, 355-414.
Cicero: 1931, De finibus(tr. H. Rackham; 2nd ed.), Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Cicero: 1949, Topica(tr. H. M. Hubbell), Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Eemeren, F. H. van and P. Houtlosser: 1998a, ‘Delivering the Goods in Critical Discussion’, in F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair and C. A. Willard (eds.), Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference of the Society for the Study of Argumentation, Sic Sat, Amsterdam, pp. 163-167.
Eemeren, F. H. van and P. Houtlosser: 1998b, ‘William the Silent's Argumentative Discourse’, in F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair and C. A. Willard (eds.), Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference of the Society for the Study of Argumentation, Sic Sat, Amsterdam, pp. 168-171.
Federicis, S. de: 1648, De interpretatione legum(written ca. 1495), Peri, Geneva.
Feteris, E. T.: 1999, Fundamentals of Legal Argumentation, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.
Gambari, P. A.: 1507, Legalis dialectica, Hector, Bologna.
Gast, W.: 1992, Juristische Rhetorik(2nd ed.), Decker, Heidelberg.
Govier, T.: 1997, Socrates' Children.Thinking and Knowing in the Western Tradition, Broadview, Peterborough, Ontario.
Green, L. D.: 1990, ‘Aristotelian Rhetoric, Dialectic, and the Traditions of Antistrophos’, Rhetorica 8, 5-27.
Grotius, H.: 1853, De iure belli ac pacis, vol. II (originally published 1625, revised 1631), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Hamblin, C. L.: 1970, Fallacies, Methuen, London.
Hegendorff, C.: 1541, Rhetoricae legalis libri duo, Egenolphus, Frankfurt a.M.
Hegendorff, C.: 1547, Dialectica legalis(originally published 1534), Gazellus, Paris.
Hohmann, H.: 1998a, ‘Logic and Rhetoric in Legal Argumentation: Some Medieval Perspectives’, Argumentation 12, 39-55.
Hohmann, H.: 1998b, ‘Legal Rhetoric and Dialectic in the Renaissance: Topica Legalia and Status Legales’, paper presented at the 1998 ISSA Conference in Amsterdam.
Hohmann, H.: 1998c, ‘Juristische Rhetorik’, in G. Ueding (ed.), Historisches Wörterbuch der Rhetorik, vol. 4, Niemeyer, Tübingen, col. 779-832.
Kennedy, G. A. (tr. and ed.): 1991: Aristotle, On Rhetoric.A Theory of Civic Discourse, Oxford University Press, New York.
Lang, J. J.: 1857, Beiträge zur Hermeneutik des römischen Rechts, Cotta, Stuttgart.
Ott, E. E.: 1995, Juristische Dialektik, Helbing und Lichtenhahn, Basel und Frankfurt a.M.
Otte, G.: 1970, ‘Zwanzig Jahre Topik-Diskussion: Ertrag und Aufgaben’, Rechtstheorie 1, 183-197.
Perelman, C. and L. Olbrechts Tyteca: 1969, The New Rhetoric.A Treatise on Argumentation(tr. J. Wilkinson and P. Weaver), University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame, Indiana.
Perelman, C.: 1979, Juristische Logik als Argumentationslehre(tr. and ed. J.M. Broekman), Alber, Freiburg und München.
Plato: 1914, Phaedrus(tr. H. N. Fowler), Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Pufendorf, S.: 1759, De jure naturae et gentium, vol. I (originally published 1672; reprinted 1967), Knoch und Eslinger, Frankfurt a.M. und Leipzig.
Stump, E. (tr. and ed.): 1978, Boethius's De topicis differentiis, Cornell University Press, Ithaca, New York.
Thibaut, A. F. J.: 1806, Theorie der logischen Auslegung des römischen Rechts(2nd ed.), Hammerich, Altona.
Viehweg, T.: 1974, Topik und Jurisprudenz.Ein Beitrag zur rechtswissenschaftlichen Grundlagenforschung(5th ed.), Beck, München.
Vigelius, N.: 1573, Dialectices iuris civilis libri tres, Orporinus, Basel.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Hohmann, H. Rhetoric and Dialectic: Some Historical and Legal Perspectives. Argumentation 14, 223–234 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007844811374
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007844811374