Many authorities have come to recognize the critical importance of the Greek notion of kairos (right timing and due measure) in contemporary rhetoric. But Aristotelian scholars have generally ignored or demeaned Aristotle's use of kairos in his rhetoric, often contrasting it especially to Plato's full treatment in the Phaedrus. This lack of attention has been partially due to faulty indexes or concordances, which have recently been corrected by Wartelle and programs like PERSEUS and IBICUS. Secondly, no one has hitherto attempted to go beyond the root kair- and examine the concept as expressed in other terms. This article will attempt to meet both of these concerns. It will first examine care-fully the 16 references to kairos in the Rhetoric and show that the term is an integral element in Aristotle's own act of writing, in his concept of the pathetic argument, and in his handling of maxims and integration. There are also important passages using kairos in his treatment of style, often in conjunction with his use of the notion of propriety or fitness (to prepon). Possibly the two most important indirect uses of the concept of kairos can be seen in Aristotle's definition of rhetoric and in his treatment of equity in both the Rhetoric and the Nichomachean Ethics, probably the two most important treatments of the concept in antiquity.

Research Article| February 01 1994 Persuasive Artistry: Studies in New Testament Rhetoric in Honor of George A. Kennedy Duane F. Watson, ed., Persuasive Artistry: Studies in New Testament Rhetoric in Honor of George A. Kennedy, Journal for the Study of the New Testament, Supplement Series 50 (Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic Press, 1991), 390 pp. James l. Kinneavy James l. Kinneavy Department of English, PAR 108, The University of Texas, Austin, TX 78712-1164, USA. Search for other works by this author on: This Site PubMed Google Scholar Rhetorica (1994) 12 (1): 123–125. https://doi.org/10.1525/rh.1994.12.1.121 Views Icon Views Article contents Figures & tables Video Audio Supplementary Data Peer Review Share Icon Share Twitter LinkedIn Tools Icon Tools Get Permissions Cite Icon Cite Search Site Citation James l. Kinneavy; Persuasive Artistry: Studies in New Testament Rhetoric in Honor of George A. Kennedy. Rhetorica 1 February 1994; 12 (1): 123–125. doi: https://doi.org/10.1525/rh.1994.12.1.121 Download citation file: Ris (Zotero) Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search nav search search input Search input auto suggest search filter All ContentRhetorica Search This content is only available via PDF. Copyright 1994, The International Society for the History of Rhetoric1994 Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

Many authorities have come to recognize the critical importance of the Greek notion of kairos (right timing and due measure) in contemporary rhetoric. But Aristotelian scholars have generally ignored or demeaned Aristotle's use of kairos in his rhetoric, often contrasting it especially to Plato's full treatment in the Phaedrus. This lack of attention has been partially due to faulty indexes or concordances, which have recently been corrected both by Wartelle and programs like PERSEUS and IBICUS. Secondly, no one has hitherto attempted to go beyond the root kair- and examine the concept as expressed in other terms. This article will attempt to meet both of these concerns. It will first examine carefully the 16 references to kairos in the Rhetoric and show that the term is an integral element in Aristotle's own act of writing, in his concept of the pathetic argument, and in his handling of maxims and integration. There are also important passages using kairos in his treatment of style, often in conjunction with his use of the notion of propriety or fitness (to prepon). Possibly the two most important indirect uses of the concept of kairos can be seen in his definition of rhetoric and in his treatment of equity in both the Rhetoric and in the Nicomachean Ethics, probably the two most important treatments of the concept in antiquity.

James L. Kinneavy's A Theory of Discourse: The Aims of Discourse (PrenticeHall, 1971) has contributed much to field of English. Evidence of its impact that it required reading for two NEH seminars-Edward P. J. Corbett's summer seminar at Ohio State and Dudley Bailey's year-long seminar at University of Nebraska. This evident concern and book's recent appearance in paperback (Norton, 1980) prompt a review of its strengths and limitations. Kinneavy clarifies need for order in English studies, but-to use his own term for characterizing field-his work preparadigmatic in that his categories are static and his approach too closely tied to literary criticism to be helpful in Though he intends to rescue from the present anarchy of discipline,' his theory unsatisfactory for many teach composition, largely because he fails to account adequately for rhetorical choices and composing processes. This review will focus on some of underlying reasons for limited success of Kinneavy's theory. Kinneavy seems aware of many of his presuppositions, including his assumption that he can side-step considering rhetorical processes. However, he does not always seem to be aware of implications of his methodological decisions. His decision to analyze the aim which embodied in text itself (49) based on a desire to concentrate on rather than composition. A theory of composition, he argues, would require attention to process of composing, a concern he concludes is not desirable for an analysis of aims (4). He prefers to deal with with the characteristics of text, with decoder, who primary element in any communication situation (49-50). Ironically, though he recognizes rhetorical significance of writer's audience, he fails to perceive that rhetoric, unlike discourse analysis, must deal with process by which texts come into existence. He thus sets out to establish the basic foundations of composition and to provide a framework of research for all areas of dis-

This important and influential study is the first to cover the whole field of rhetoric and discourse theory, bringing together and analyzing such varied approaches as Aristotelian rhetoric, modern logic, linguistics, and literary theory. James Kinneavy explores the many and varied purposes of language, and relates these purposes to four discourse types: reference, persuasive, literary, and expressive. Each type is discussed in terms of its inherent logic, its characteristic patterns of organization, and its stylistic features, with abundant examples in support of Dr. Kinneavy's analysis. Readers are invited to sharpen their own perceptions through numerous, carefully planned end-of-chapter exercises, and through further reading in sources listed in chapter bibliographies. A Theory of Discourse is essential reading for scholars of rhetorical and discourse theory, and for teachers of writing and other communications skills. It can also serve as the core text in a course on rhetoric or the teaching of college writing.