Skip to content


Temilo van Zantwijk

Pages 492 - 496

A definition of the part-whole relation is not in the scope of rhetoric. From a rhetorical viewpoint all that matters is transition from whole to part, whole to whole, part to part, and part to whole. From classical rhetoric – roughly speaking the rhetoric of Aristotle, the Rhetorica ad Herennium, Cicero and Quintilian – up to the baroque and enlightenment era, transitions between part and whole were dealt with in the theory of tropes. As far as questions of adequate style and expression are concerned, it was part of the elocutio, in the classical period one of the educated speaker’s (vir bonus) duties (officia orationis) supposed to ensure sufficient clarity and perspicuity. As a result, the partwhole relationship was seen as a relatively special topic in the field of rhetoric, appearing under the head of synecdoche, i.e. a set of tropes for replacement of a part by a whole or the reverse. Synecdoche can occur in six different types:

1Institut of Philosophy, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena

1 Ad, Herennium, (1989), On the Theory of Public Speaking, translated by Harry Caplan, Cambridge (Mass.), Harvard University Press.

2 Burke, K., (1955), A Grammar of Motives [1945], New York: George Braziller.

3 Burke, K., (1969), A Rhetoric of Motives [1950], New York (reprint Berkeley and London 2007, University of California Press).

4 Cicero, M. T., (1992), De Oratore, Book III, De Fato, Paradoxa Stoicorum, De Partitione Oratoria, with an English translation by H. Rackham, Cambridge (Mass.): Harvard University Press [1942].

5 Cicero, M. T., (1993), De Inventione, De Optimo Genere Oratorum, Topica, with an english translation by H. M. Hubbel, Cambridge (Mass.), Harvard University Press [1949]. Coleridge, S. T., 1816, The Stateman’s Manual, London.

6 Home, H.; Kames, L., (2005), Elements of Criticism [1761], ed. with an Introduction by P. Jones, 6th edition, Indianapolis, Liberty Fund.

7 Johnson, M., (1987), The Body in the Mind, The Bodily Basis of Meaning, Imagination, and Reason, Chicago: Chicago University Press.

8 Koch, P.; Winter-Froemel, E., (2009), “Synekdoche”, in G. Ueding (ed.), Historisches Wörterbuch der Rhetorik, vol. 9, Tübingen: Niemeyer, 356-366.

9 Lakoff, G., (1987), Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things. What Categories Reveal about the Mind, Chicago: Chicago University Press.

10 Lakoff, G.; Johnson, M., (1999), Philosophy in the Flesh, The Embodied Mind and its Challenge to Western Philosophy, New York: Basic Books.

11 Quintilian, M.F., (1986), Institutio Oratoria, with a translation by H. E. Butler, Cambridge (Mass.), Harvard University Press.

12 Murphy, J. J. (1974), Rhetoric in the Middle Ages. A History of Rhetorical Theory from Saint Augustine to the Renaissance. Berkeley, Los Angeles, London, University of California Press.

13 Rowe, O. G., (1997), Ch. 5, “Style”, in Porter, S. E. (ed.), Handbook of Classical Rhetoric in the Hellenistic Period 330 B.C.-A.D. 400, Leiden, New York, Brill.

14 Richards, I. A., (1965), The Philosophy of Rhetoric [Byrn Mawr, 1936], New York: Oxford University Press.

15 Rosch, E., (1978), “Principles of Categorization”, in, Rosch, E. and Lloyd, eds., Cognition and Categorization. Hillsdale, N.J. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 27-48.

16 Schindel, U., (1975), Die lateinischen Figurenlehren des 5. bis 7. Jahrhunderts und Donats Vergilkommentar (mit zwei Editionen), Göttingen.

17 Ueding, G. (ed.), 2005, Rhetorik, Begriff - Geschichte – Internationalität, Tübingen: Nie-meyer.


Export Citation