Hubbry Logo
DiatribeDiatribeMain
Open search
Diatribe
Community hub
Diatribe
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Diatribe
Diatribe
Diatribe
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
A street protester delivers a harangue in front of the National Assembly in Paris, France, in 2006.

A diatribe (from the Greek διατριβή), also known less formally as rant, is a lengthy oration, though often reduced to writing, made in criticism of someone or something, often employing humor, sarcasm, and appeals to emotion.

Historical meaning

[edit]

The terms diatribe and rant (and, to a lesser extent, tirade and harangue) have at times been subtly distinguished, but in modern discourse are often used interchangeably. A diatribe or rant is not a formal classification of argument, and religious author Alistair Stewart-Sykes notes that "[t]he form of the diatribe is difficult precisely to ascertain".[1] It has been proposed that the terms diatribe, tirade, harangue, and rant "are similar, but offer different shades of meaning":[2]

Tirade is the most general of these, describing any long, critical speech; a harangue is particularly bombastic, usually inflaming the passions of listeners, and is the primary tool of the demagogue; a rant is primarily an instrument of catharsis, allowing the speaker to blow off steam, but not necessarily persuade or do harm; a diatribe is more tiresome—while a harangue can arouse passion, and a rant can be entertaining to watch, a diatribe is neither inspiring, informative, nor entertaining.

Part of a series on
Rhetoric
History
Concepts
Genres
Criticism
Rhetoricians
Works
Subfields
Related

It has been suggested that a rant is merely one kind of diatribe, with one explanation stating that "[a] rant can be defined loosely as an emotionally charged narrative or diatribe often expressing a strong distaste or anger on the one hand, or a declamatory, often pompous, assertion on the other".[3] A number of notable works have been described as diatribes, such as the Diatribes of Greek philosopher Bion of Borysthenes, in which he satirized the foolishness of people; the Diatribes of Teles of Megara written circa 235 BC, which present the basis of the philosophy of Cynicism; and the Diatribes, or Discourses, of Epictetus, circulated by Arrian circa 108 AD, introducing aspects of Stoicism. An examination of the use of diatribe by the 4th century BC Greek philosopher Euripides states:[4]

The peculiarity of the diatribe as distinct from other forms of popular moralizing lies in the assumed presence of an opponent. He is not permitted to reply, but his position is indicated by statements or rhetorical questions put into his mouth by the speaker, and thus the introduction of an objection in the form of a question becomes one of the characteristic features of the diatribe. It is evidently a development of the dialogue form, and is usually traced to the Platonic dialogues.

The opponent assumed to be argued against in a diatribe is "a fictitious individual introduced by the speaker merely as a part of the rhetorical machinery of his discourse", who states the position of the opponent before providing "indication of the untenability of that position by means of illustration, rhetorical question, proverb, argumentum e contrario, etc., and in conclusion a statement of the speaker's own view".[5] Although a diatribe or rant is not inherently humorous, rants have become a staple of modern comedy, performed as "over-the-top ramblings with a single point of view on a wide variety of subjects".[6][7]

Diatribes in religious speech

[edit]

Stewart-Sykes proposes that there is a difference between "pagan" diatribes, which he suggests are directed against a present individual, and Christian diatribes, which he suggests are directed against a hypothetical other person, but more fully intended to persuade the reader or listener.[1] A noted historical example of a religious diatribe can be found in Paul's Epistle to the Romans.[8] With respect to that usage, a diatribe is described as an oration in which the speaker seeks to persuade an audience by debating an imaginary opponent, "typically using second person singular". The speaker "raises hypothetical questions and responds to them or states false conclusions and goes on to refute them".[8]

The literary historian and theorist Mikhail Bakhtin notes that it was "the diatribe, not classical rhetoric, that exercised a defining influence on the generic characteristics of the ancient Christian sermon."[9]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Diatribe

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
A diatribe is a rhetorical form of popular philosophy in ancient Greece and Rome, typically consisting of lively oral or written discourses delivered by Cynic or Stoic philosophers to exhort audiences on moral themes, often through dramatic dialogue with an imaginary opponent. The term originates from the Greek diatribē, meaning "discourse," "study," or "employment of time," derived from dia- ("through" or "away") and tribein ("to rub" or "wear"), implying a prolonged discussion or wearing away of time in debate. This ancient usage, emerging in the Hellenistic period around the 3rd century BCE among Sophists and later adopted by Cynic and Stoic thinkers, contrasts with the modern English sense of a "bitter and abusive speech," which developed in the 19th century from its earlier connotation of critical dissertation. Pioneered by figures like the Cynic Bion of Borysthenes (c. 335–c. 245 BCE) and the moralist Teles (3rd century BCE), diatribes served as accessible teaching tools for non-elite audiences, emphasizing practical ethics over abstract theory. Key characteristics of the diatribe include a vigorous, colloquial style blending seriousness with humor, vivid everyday imagery, and rhetorical devices such as rhetorical questions, apostrophes to an absent or fictitious interlocutor, and refutations of anticipated objections to build persuasive arguments. These discourses typically focus on a single moral topic, like or the folly of , employing amplification, irony, , and to engage listeners emotionally and intellectually while attacking societal vices. Unlike formal treatises, diatribes lack rigid structure, prioritizing dramatic liveliness to mimic conversational and foster audience reflection. Notable examples include the * (c. 55–135 CE), transcribed by his student , which exemplify the form's oral roots through exhortations on Stoic resilience; fragments of Teles' ethical lectures; and Seneca the Younger's Epistles, blending diatribe elements with epistolary advice. The style influenced later Roman authors like and , whose moral essays often incorporate diatribal techniques. In early , traces appear in the , particularly in Paul's (e.g., Romans 2:1–11), where dialogical refutations address hypothetical objectors, and in the , adapting the form for ethical instruction. This rhetorical tradition bridged pagan and Christian , shaping sermonic styles in the patristic era.

Etymology and Definition

Etymology

The term "diatribe" originates from the word diatribḗ (διάτριβή), which denoted "discourse," "study," or "pastime," literally implying a "wearing away" of time through or reflection. This etymon derives from the prefix dia- ("through" or "away") combined with tríbein ("to rub" or "to wear"), evoking the idea of gradually eroding arguments or passing time in intellectual engagement. In its initial classical usage, diatribḗ carried a non-pejorative , referring to informal philosophical discussions or leisurely pursuits, as seen in Plato's references to such conversational entertainments. By the Hellenistic period, the term began to evolve toward a more critical and sermonic style, particularly in Cynic and Stoic philosophical contexts, where it described pointed moral exhortations or debates that "wore down" opposing views through rhetorical intensity. This shift is evident in the works of authors like , who employed diatribḗ for instructional lectures blending and . A specific historical attestation appears in the writings of the physician (2nd century AD), who used the term to characterize argumentative lectures or moral discourses, often in the form of informal teaching sessions between philosophers and students. The word entered Latin as diatriba, signifying a "learned discussion" or scholarly , preserving much of its Greek sense of intellectual while adapting to Roman rhetorical traditions. It passed into French as diatribe by the , retaining connotations of extended argumentation. English occurred in the 16th century through translations of classical texts, with the first recorded use around 1581, initially referring to a prolonged . Over time, this evolved to emphasize bitter , though the original discursive roots persisted in scholarly contexts.

Core Definition and Distinctions

A diatribe is a prolonged, forceful verbal or written discourse that criticizes or denounces a person, idea, or institution, often employing sarcasm, irony, hyperbole, and emotional appeals to persuade or entertain. In its rhetorical form, it originates from ancient Greek diatribē, meaning a discourse or pastime, and was used for moral exhortations in popular philosophy. Key structural elements of a diatribe include an assumed or fictitious opponent, known as prosopopoeia, where the speaker simulates dialogue with an imagined interlocutor to refute opposing views. It typically features rhetorical questions, exclamations, and a style that mimics , creating a vivid, interactive exposition to engage the . These elements distinguish it as a pedagogical tool, blending direct address with hypothetical objections to advance moral or philosophical arguments. Unlike a tirade, which is a brief and uncontrolled outburst of , or a harangue, a public scolding lacking humor or irony, a diatribe maintains a more structured rhetorical framework that integrates with philosophical or moral argumentation. Similarly, it differs from a rant, an informal and emotional venting without deliberate rhetorical devices, by emphasizing persuasive over mere expression of . This structured approach allows the diatribe to entertain while critiquing, often through colloquial and vigorous . The of diatribe has evolved from a neutral "" or disquisition in antiquity—evident in classical sources like the exhortations of Teles, which focus on ethical reflection without personal bitterness—to a "bitter attack" in modern usage, as seen in its application to abusive criticisms. In ancient contexts, neutral tones appear in philosophical lectures aimed at correction through reasoned , while critical tones emerge in hectoring attacks on failings, foreshadowing its later abusive sense around the .

Origins in Ancient Rhetoric

Greek Rhetorical Foundations

Elements of the rhetorical style later known as diatribe appear in and oratory during the 5th and 4th centuries BCE, particularly in dramatic speeches characterized by , , and moral condemnation. In ' Medea (circa 431 BCE), the protagonist's extended address to (lines 465–519) exemplifies these early techniques, where Medea unleashes a bitter critique of her husband's betrayal, employing ironic praise to highlight his ingratitude and societal hypocrisy. Such speeches in served to persuade audiences through emotional intensity and ethical argumentation, blending personal grievance with broader social commentary on and roles. The diatribe proper emerged in the Hellenistic period, around the 3rd century BCE, evolving into a structured tool for moral persuasion, particularly in informal lectures and public addresses among Sophists. Bion of Borysthenes (c. 325–255 BCE), a philosopher influenced by Cynic traditions, is credited with pioneering this satirical style, delivering discourses that targeted vices such as flattery, greed, and pretentious piety through vivid, colloquial invectives. Bion's approach transformed these rhetorical elements from sporadic dramatic uses into a deliberate mode for ethical instruction, often performed in symposia or public gatherings as a form of leisurely discourse (diatribē). Key rhetorical techniques distinguished Greek diatribes, enhancing their persuasive and performative impact. Prosopopoeia, the personification of an absent opponent or abstract vice, allowed speakers to dramatize confrontations, as seen in Bion's imagined dialogues with flatterers or the greedy. Anaphora, the repetition of words or phrases at the beginning of successive clauses, amplified emphasis and , fostering a hectoring tone in moral critiques, evident in the repetitive accusations within Medea's speech. These elements integrated the diatribe's roots in casual sympotic exchanges with more formal oratorical aims, creating a dynamic blend of and exhortation. This foundational Greek form influenced subsequent sophistic and philosophical preaching, providing a model for vivid, audience-engaging without affiliation to specific doctrinal schools. Sophists adopted its colloquial vigor for debates, while early philosophical lecturers drew on its satirical edge to critique societal norms, laying groundwork for broader Hellenistic applications.

Adaptations in Hellenistic and Roman Periods

During the (3rd–1st century BC), the diatribe evolved from its rhetorical roots into a more accessible form integrated with itinerant philosophical preaching, particularly among Cynic thinkers who emphasized moral critique in everyday settings. Teles of , a Cynic philosopher active around 235 BC, exemplifies this expansion through his moral essays, or diatribes, which preserved fragments in ' and focused on denouncing luxury while promoting simplicity as a path to ethical living. These works adapted foundational Greek techniques, such as rhetorical questions, to engage audiences directly in public discourse, transforming diatribe into a tool for popular moral instruction rather than elite debate. In the Roman period (1st century BC–2nd century AD), diatribe was adapted in Latin rhetoric, often incorporating its vigorous style into political and legal oratory, with emphasis on vivid imagery, personal attacks, and public denunciation. Cicero, in his First Catilinarian Oration delivered in 63 BC, used rhetorical techniques shared with diatribe, such as direct address, rhetorical questions, and speech-in-character—personifying the Roman state to accuse Catiline of conspiracy—recasting Greek models as potent political invectives to rally the Senate against perceived threats. This adaptation marked a key evolution, prioritizing persuasive force in Roman assemblies over abstract moralizing, as seen in Cicero's use of apostrophe and accumulation to build emotional intensity against enemies like Catiline. The cultural transmission of diatribe across these periods relied heavily on Hellenistic libraries and subsequent Roman translations, which facilitated the spread of Greek rhetorical forms into and oratory. Major centers like the compiled and disseminated Greek texts on , enabling Roman scholars to translate and incorporate them into works such as Cicero's treatises. Figures like (c. 40–115 AD), a Greek orator active in the , bridged these traditions in his discourses, blending diatribe's frank censure and rhetorical questions with Roman stylistic preferences for vivid, audience-engaging reproof, as evident in his moral addresses that critiqued civic vices while drawing on both Greek philosophical and Roman performative elements.

Philosophical Applications

Cynic and Stoic Traditions

In the Cynic tradition of the 4th and 3rd centuries BCE, diatribe emerged as a dynamic tool for street preaching among the followers of of Sinope, serving to propagate and deliver sharp social critiques. and his disciples employed this informal, oral style to challenge societal conventions through provocative and often humorous invectives, aiming to provoke listeners into questioning material attachments and embracing a life of self-sufficiency in accordance with nature. This approach transformed public spaces into arenas for moral confrontation, where Cynics like used biting wit to expose the follies of wealth, status, and luxury, thereby fostering a radical ethical reform. The Stoics adopted and formalized the diatribe in the 1st and 2nd centuries CE, with playing a pivotal role through his Discourses, recorded around 108 CE by his student . utilized this method to mimic Socratic dialogues, delivering lectures that instructed on () and the cultivation of (aretē) in the face of adversity, emphasizing the dichotomy between what is under one's control and what is not. In Stoic hands, diatribe became a structured pedagogical device for ethical training, helping students internalize resilience and rational judgment to achieve . Both Cynic and Stoic diatribes shared key stylistic and functional traits, including a form that addressed an imaginary interlocutor to reveal logical inconsistencies and spur self-examination. Unlike purely rhetorical invectives aimed at personal denunciation, these philosophical diatribes prioritized moral edification and communal improvement, blending earnest exhortation with rhetorical flourishes to engage audiences vividly. This distinction underscored their role as instruments of rather than mere . Within philosophical schools, diatribes functioned as essential teaching aids, particularly in where diatribai denoted ongoing lecture series designed to build endurance (karteria) and philosophical fortitude among pupils. Cynic practitioners similarly integrated them into itinerant teaching, using the format to simulate real-world ethical dilemmas and reinforce ascetic discipline. This integration elevated diatribe from sporadic oratory to a cornerstone of curriculum, influencing how both schools disseminated doctrines of virtue and autonomy.

Key Philosophical Examples

One prominent example of the diatribe in Cynic philosophy is found in the works of Bion of Borysthenes (c. 335–245 BC), a philosopher known for blending elements from multiple schools including Cynicism. His satirical pieces, such as the diatribe Against the Spendthrifts, employ irony and sharp wit to mock the excessive pursuit of and the servility of , portraying the wealthy as slaves to their desires. These fragments, preserved through later authors like , reveal a rhythmic style interspersed with proverbs and vivid analogies, such as comparing the rich to gluttons who gorge themselves to ruin. In the Stoic-Cynic tradition, Teles of Megara (c. 235 BC) exemplifies the diatribe's moral exhortation in his essay On Poverty. Here, Teles directly addresses a hypothetical wealthy opponent, arguing that true and arise from voluntary rather than accumulated riches, which only multiply anxieties and dependencies. He challenges the opponent's by contrasting the burdens of opulence—such as constant guarding against loss—with the self-sufficiency of the poor, using everyday examples like the ease of a beggar's life versus a miser's . This direct confrontation serves to dismantle materialistic pretensions and promote ethical . Epictetus (c. 50–135 AD), a key Stoic thinker, further developed the diatribe in his Discourses, recorded by his student around 108 AD. A notable instance is the section "To Those Who Fear Want" (Discourses 3.26), where Epictetus employs rhetorical questions and hypothetical dialogues to expose and refute excuses for despair, urging acceptance of external events through rational control of one's responses. He famously declares, "It is not things that disturb us, but our interpretation of their significance," highlighting how misjudgments about adversity or misfortune cause suffering, not the events themselves (Enchiridion 5). This approach reinforces Stoic resilience by shifting focus from against fate to personal ethical agency. These philosophical diatribes from Bion, Teles, and demonstrate a consistent technique of fusing —through , direct address, and rhetorical —with constructive ethical reasoning, aiming to provoke self-examination and align the audience with Cynic-Stoic virtues like self-sufficiency and rational judgment. By incorporating proverbs, analogies, and imagined objections, they transform abstract into accessible, confrontational that critiques societal vices while guiding toward moral improvement.

Religious Contexts

In Christian Texts and Sermons

In the , the Apostle Paul employed the diatribe style in his epistles to engage readers through imagined dialogues and rhetorical questions, particularly to underscore theological arguments. A prominent example appears in Romans 2:1–16, composed around 57 AD, where Paul addresses a fictitious moralist opponent to critique hypocritical judgment among , thereby demonstrating the universal applicability of and to both Jews and Gentiles. This technique allowed Paul to anticipate objections and build a persuasive case for the need for faith in Christ, transforming the diatribe from a philosophical tool into a vehicle for early Christian doctrine. During the patristic period from the 2nd to 5th centuries AD, adapted the diatribe for sermonic purposes, integrating it into homilies to exhort congregations morally and refute opposing views. , in his homilies on of Matthew delivered around 390 AD, frequently used diatribal elements such as direct address to an imaginary interlocutor to deliver anti-pagan critiques and urge ethical living aligned with Christian virtues. This approach emphasized pastoral guidance over mere debate, employing the form to illuminate scriptural truths and foster communal . In its Christian adaptation, the diatribe shifted from the personal invective of pagan rhetoric—such as that in Epictetus's s—to a structured theological debate that incorporated frequent quotations from scripture and warnings of eschatological judgment. This evolution highlighted dialogic elements, where the preacher's voice interacted with biblical texts and hypothetical adversaries to create a polyphonic that engaged listeners on multiple levels. , in his 20th-century analysis of rhetorical forms, described this as manifesting "dialogic polyphony" in early Christian texts, where multiple voices coexist to reveal deeper truths about faith and morality. Such features made the diatribe a dynamic tool for conveying the tension between human sinfulness and . The Christian diatribe exerted a lasting influence on preaching traditions, contributing to the development of medieval sermonic styles preserved in Latin homiliaries—collections of model sermons compiled from the onward. These homiliaries, drawing on patristic models, perpetuated diatribal techniques like rhetorical questions and opponent-address to structure moral and doctrinal expositions, shaping how delivered sermons in monastic and settings across . This continuity ensured the form's role in sustaining persuasive Christian oratory through the .

In Other Religious Traditions

In Jewish traditions, prophetic invectives in the Hebrew Bible exhibit diatribe-like rhetorical denunciations against social injustice and moral failings, often framed as divine oracles rather than personal moralizing. For instance, Amos 5:18–24 (8th century BCE) delivers a sharp critique of Israel's superficial piety and exploitation of the poor, warning that the "Day of the Lord" will bring darkness rather than salvation, emphasizing justice over ritual. This form parallels the classical diatribe's emotional appeal and direct address to an imagined audience but integrates prophetic authority to underscore divine judgment. In Islamic contexts, rhetorical critiques akin to diatribe appear in works by scholars like Al-Ghazali (d. 1111 CE), who employed dialogic refutations to denounce hypocrisy and philosophical excesses. In his Ihya' Ulum al-Din ("Revival of the Religious Sciences"), Al-Ghazali critiques moral failings through vivid, exhortatory passages that address hypothetical opponents and expose contradictions in behavior, such as feigned piety masking worldly attachments. Similarly, his Tahafut al-Falasifa ("Incoherence of the Philosophers") mounts a polemical assault on Aristotelian thinkers, using rhetorical questions and refutations to dismantle perceived heresies, adapting diatribe's confrontational style to defend orthodox theology. Diatribe-like forms also emerge in other traditions, such as Buddhist sutras in the (compiled circa 1st century BCE), where polemical discourses target Brahmanical superiority. The (in the Nikaya) satirically compares Brahmins to dogs through "five ancient principles," employing and generalization to undermine claims and promote ethical equality, evoking diatribe's satirical edge without its humorous tone. In Hindu texts, the (circa 2nd century BCE) features argumentative sections, particularly Krishna's persuasive dialogue with , critiquing moral indecision and attachment through rhetorical strategies like and to advocate dutiful action (). These non-Christian examples share the diatribe's core elements of emotional exhortation, direct opponent-addressing, and critique but adapt to religious frameworks emphasizing divine or doctrinal over individual . Unlike Greek diatribes' often ironic humor, they prioritize solemn warnings or soteriological urgency, integrating polemics into scriptural or sermonic structures to reinforce communal .

Literary and Modern Usage

In Literature and Rhetoric

In English literature, writers have employed the modern sense of diatribe—bitter and abusive criticism—adapting elements of irony and direct critique from classical to address social and political issues. A prime example is Jonathan Swift's "A Modest Proposal" (1729), in which the narrator proposes the outrageous solution of eating impoverished Irish children to alleviate poverty, employing a diatribe's bitter irony to lambast English policies toward and expose their dehumanizing effects. In the 19th and 20th centuries, the diatribe evolved within literary essays and polemics, maintaining its confrontational style while incorporating sharper wit and cultural commentary to target literary and linguistic flaws. Mark Twain's "Fenimore Cooper's Literary Offenses" (1895) exemplifies this, as Twain unleashes a scathing, humorous diatribe against James Fenimore Cooper's prose, cataloging "nineteen rules" of writing that Cooper allegedly violated, such as constructing sentences without clarity or logic, to advocate for higher standards in . Similarly, George Orwell's "Politics and the English Language" (1946) delivers a forceful diatribe against vague, pretentious writing in political , arguing that such "staleness of imagery" corrupts thought and urging writers to avoid clichés through six elementary principles, like preferring over abstract. The rhetorical legacy of the diatribe extended into political pamphlets during the Enlightenment, where it combined with logical appeals to mobilize , as seen in Thomas Paine's "" (1776). Paine employs diatribe-like rhetoric to denounce British monarchy as an absurd and tyrannical institution, blending emotional outrage—such as calling hereditary rule a "ridiculous" —with rational arguments for , thereby rallying American colonists toward independence. Over time, the diatribe's style has incorporated modern elements like and while preserving its classical features, such as rhetorical questions and imagined objections, to heighten in literary without descending into mere ranting. This evolution is evident in how 20th-century examples, like Orwell's, use ironic detachment to engage readers in , adapting ancient roots to contemporary concerns of clarity and in expression.

In Contemporary Media and

In political discourse, diatribe has evolved into a tool for demolishing opponents through forceful verbal attacks, often blending criticism with rhetorical flair to rally supporters. Winston Churchill's World War II addresses incorporated diatribe-like elements, using sharp invective to criticize adversaries and bolster British morale. Similarly, the 2016 U.S. presidential debates featured invectives that exemplified modern diatribe, with Donald Trump labeling Hillary Clinton the "devil" filled with "tremendous hatred" and vowing to jail her, intensifying personal demolition amid policy clashes. More recently, as of the 2024 U.S. presidential election, candidates like Donald Trump and Kamala Harris employed similar rhetorical attacks in debates, with Trump accusing opponents of corruption and weakness in extended critiques that heightened partisan divides. In and , diatribe manifests as exaggerated rants that dissect social absurdities, using to provoke and reflection. George Carlin's 1972 routine "Seven Words You Can Never Say on Television" delivered a biting diatribe against and linguistic taboos, cataloging profanities in a mock-serious tirade that challenged broadcast norms and sparked legal debates on free speech. Lewis Black's stand-up routines, such as those in his "Rantcast" series, employ diatribe through furious, rapid-fire monologues on topics like political and consumer frustrations, amplifying everyday irritations into hyperbolic critiques that resonate with audiences seeking comic release. The digital age has adapted diatribe to platforms like and podcasts, where viral (now X) threads post-2010 often unfold as concise tirades against public figures or injustices, retaining emotional intensity despite brevity compared to classical forms. Podcasts, including Lewis Black's ongoing "Rantcast," extend this style into audio monologues that simulate opponent confrontations, fostering listener engagement through shared outrage in echo chambers that amplify divisive effects. These formats prioritize immediacy, turning informal "rants" into communal experiences. Culturally, diatribe has shifted from formal orations to everyday rants, which are sometimes seen as providing psychological through emotional venting, though research debates its efficacy, suggesting it may reinforce rather than resolve .

References

  1. https://oxfordre.com/classics/display/10.1093/acrefore/9780199381135.001.0001/acrefore-9780199381135-e-2146
  2. https://www.etymonline.com/word/diatribe
  3. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/diatribe
  4. https://www.newmanlib.ibri.org/NewmanPpt/DiatribeGenre.pdf
  5. https://www.dictionary.com/e/word-of-the-day/diatribe-2024-08-08/
  6. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/medicine-and-practical-ethics-in-galen/case-studies/EAAEB79F935C5F7FC02DFBEF74B5D7C0
  7. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/372140638_Parenthetical_verbs_as_elements_of_diatribe_in_John_the_Exarch%27s_Hexaemeron_Greek_continuities_and_Slavic_innovations
  8. https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/449454
  9. https://www.britannica.com/biography/Bion-of-Borysthenes
  10. https://brill.com/display/book/9789004373297/BP000009.xml
  11. https://oxfordre.com/classics/display/10.1093/acrefore/9780199381135.001.0001/acrefore-9780199381135-e-6265
  12. https://referenceworks.brill.com/display/entries/NPOE/e1202960.xml?language=en
  13. https://www.loebclassics.com/view/LCL324/1977/volume.xml
  14. https://convention2.allacademic.com/one/ispp/ispp14/online_program_direct_link/view_paper/721900/
  15. https://www.academia.edu/27987102/A_New_History_of_Libraries_and_Books_in_the_Hellenistic_Period
  16. https://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2014/2014.08.22/
  17. https://academic.oup.com/book/36902/chapter/322152603
  18. https://www.gutenberg.org/files/39855/39855-h/39855-h.htm
  19. https://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2004/2004.03.33/
  20. https://archive.org/details/bionofborysthene0000bion
  21. https://dokumen.pub/teles-the-cynic-teacher-0891300929-9780891300922.html
  22. https://www.gutenberg.org/files/10661/10661-h/10661-h.htm
  23. https://referenceworks.brill.com/display/entries/EECO/SIM-00000924.xml
  24. https://www.mdpi.com/2077-1444/15/12/1564
  25. https://www.scielo.br/j/bak/a/Krj5rvhqk73F64N8ds9Lxvf/?format=html&lang=en
  26. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11185-021-09243-4
  27. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/providence-and-narrative-in-the-theology-of-john-chrysostom/true-judgements-and-consolation/1E640523170F513D3AEF68FEF6C05907
  28. https://academic.oup.com/edited-volume/29470/chapter/247165524
  29. https://etzion.org.il/en/tanakh/neviim/sefer-amos/prophecies-amos-rebuke-smug-shomron-2
  30. https://www.atsjats.org/jats13.2-08mulzac.pdf
  31. https://www.ghazali.org/books/ihya-v1.pdf
  32. https://staibabussalamsula.ac.id/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/MEDIEVAL-PHILOSOPHY-staibabussalamsula.ac_.id_.pdf
  33. https://doi.org/10.1558/rosa.v3i1.61
  34. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369573588_The_Rhetoric_of_the_Bhagavad_Gita_Unpacking_Persuasive_Strategies_from_a_Non-Western_Perspective
  35. https://www.ukessays.com/essays/english-literature/satirical-elements-in-a-modest-proposal-english-literature-essay.php
  36. https://jfcoopersociety.org/content/04-crit/articles/suny/1979suny-fiedler.htm
  37. https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2008/august/war-buzz-words
  38. https://literarydevices.net/polemic/
  39. https://www.military-history.org/fact-file/winston-churchill-quotes.htm
  40. https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/10/presidential-debate-2016-donald-trump-hillary-clinton-2016-214342
  41. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/communication/articles/10.3389/fcomm.2024.1541513/full
  42. https://www.biography.com/legal-figures/george-carlin-seven-words-supreme-court
  43. https://www.lewisblack.com/pages/rantcast
  44. https://wordpandit.com/wpt_vocabulary/diatribe/
  45. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/unique-everybody-else/201303/internet-ranting-and-the-myth-catharsis
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.