Search

I offer an account of a fortiori arguments in the context of a Toulmin-style theory of argumentation schemes. A fortiori arguments contain a comparison of the strength of two or more arguments involving scalar inferences. We can distinguish two kinds of a fortiori arguments depending on whether those scalar inferences connect the premises and the conclusion or the backing and the warrant of the arguments. The first pattern has been studied by rhetoricians and the second pattern by legal argumentation theorists. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper reviews and comments different texts containing the theories and doctrines developed by ancient Latin rhetoricians on the argumentative and persuasive characteristics of narrative discourse as opposed to explicitly argumentative discourse. As stated in the introduction and the conclusion, these theories became a source of inspiration to Rodophus Agricola's study of the distinction expositio/argumentatio, a particularly interesting piece of his dialectic which may still be theoretically and philosophically valuable. We will review texts on narratio, most especially legal narratio, by Cicero (1st c. BCE), Quintilian (1st c), Julius Severianus (2nd c), For-tunatianus, Marius Victorinus, Gaius Julius Vfctor, Sulpicius Victor (4th c.) and Martianus Capella (5th c). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents an analysis of the issue of conjecture (στoχασμóζ in Greek) as described in the treatise "On Issues" ("Sobre los estados de las cosas" in Spanish) by 2nd century Greek rhetorician Hermogenes of Tarsus (Hermógenes de Tarso in Spanish). The author explores early commentaries (scholia) by classical philosophers Syrianus, Sopater and Marcellinus and considers their contribution to tracing the history of rhetorical traditions up to, and contemporary with, Hermogenes of Tarsus.