Source: Rhetorica: A Journal of the History of Rhetoric, Vol. 16, No. 1 (Winter 1998), pp. 47- 80 Published by: University of California Press on behalf of the International Society for the History of Rhetoric Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/rh.1998.16.1.47 . Accessed: 16/04/2013 11:52 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp . JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org. . University of California Press and International Society for the History of Rhetoric are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Rhetorica: A Journal of the History of Rhetoric. http://www.jstor.org This content downloaded from 190.19.33.210 on Tue, 16 Apr 2013 11:52:38 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions GUALTIERO C ALB OU From Aristotelian Xe^is to elocutio 1. INTRODUCTION ver the last few years it has become fashionable to criticize Robert Pfeiffer for overestimating the contribution of the Stoics and underestimating that of the Peripatetics towards the development of rhetoric, grammar and philology. In fact Aristotie deserves the credit for cormecting rhetoric with dialectic and poetry, without losing sight of its practical employment in the assembly and courts of law. Another development of rhetoric which occurred after Aristotle and perhaps Theophrastus was the development of an excessive number of rules, especially in the doctrine of fropes and figures of speech. That happened during the second century B.C. on the island of Rhodes and may be considered a kind of Asianic rhetoric. It was infroduced into Rome through at least two handbooks, Cicero's De Inventione and the Rhetorica ad Herennium. However, in 55 B.C., at the beginning of his Platonic dialogue De Oratore, Cicero disowned his early work (De orat. 1.5). ' R. Pfeiffer, History cf Classical Scholarship, From the Beginnings to the End of the Hellenistic Age (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1968). This is the opinion of F. Montanari in La philologie grecque i I'ipoque hellinistique et Tomaine, ed. F. Montemari (Vcmdoeuvres - Geneve: Fondation Hardt, Entretiens XL, 1994), p. 29. I agree with him but recall that Pfeiffer also pointed out the importance of Aristotie and the Peripatos for Hellenistic philology: cf., e.g., pp. 192; 197 of the Italian translation by M. Gigante and S. Cerasuolo (Napoli: Macchiaroli, 1973). The origin and development of the doctrine of tropes and figures is not clear. It has been investigated by K. Barwick, Probleme der stoischen Sprachlehre und Rhetorik (Berlin: Abhandlungen der sachsischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Leipzig, PhiloL-hist. Kl., Bd. 49, Hft. 3, Akademie-Verlag, 1957), pp. 88-111, but must be reconsidered now (see below). The International Society for the History of Rhetoric, Rhetorica, Volume XVI, Number 1 (Winter 1998) 47 This content downloaded from 190.19.33.210 on Tue, 16 Apr 2013 11:52:38 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 48 RHETORICA The date of composition of De Inventione is about 87 B.C., only one year after Cicero heard Philon of Larissa in Rome, as has been recently noted by C. Levy.' Both Cicero's De Inventione (88- 87 B.C.) and the Rhetorica ad Herennium (86-82) were composed at a time when the democratic party dominated Rome and before Sulla came back from the Orient (82). I do not want to discuss tiie political position of the author of Rhetorica ad Herennium here, although the idea that he was a democrat has recentiy been confirmed by G. Achard and J.-M. David.' hi the period between the Ars Rhetorica written (but not completed) by the great orator M. Antonius (about 96 B.C.)^ and Sulla's dictatorship (82), tiiere are about fifteen years of rhetorical activity during which the censorial edict by L. Crassus and D. Ahenobarbus of 92 was ineffective. This edict, as has been demonstrated by Emilio Gabba, became effective with Sulla who continued the action that the nobility's faction had brought under the law proposed by the fribune Livius Drusus in 91 B.C. in order to reorganize the Roman State.' We know that the orator L. Crassus, a teacher of Cicero, was another of the promoters of this law but died before its approval. After considering Gruen's position on this subject, I ' Cf Cic. Brut. 306; TMSC. 2.9. When did Philo come to Rome? The answer is given by W. Kroll in his Commentary ad loc, p. 217f: "Die gliicklichen Erfolge des Mithridates verleiteten die Athener, an deren Spitze sich der Peripatetiker Aristo stellte, im J. 88 von den Romem abzufallen und sich mit Archelaus, dem Feldherm des Mithridates, zu verbiinden. Die Optimaten, welche treu zu den Romem hielten, muBten nun fliichten". Cf. also J.-M. David, Le patronat judiciaire au dernier siecle de la republique romaine (Roma: Ecole Fran^aise de Rome, Palais Famese, 1992), pp. 371 f. C. Levy, "Le mythe de la naissance de la civilisation chez Ciceron", in Mathesis e Philia, Studi in onore di M. Gigante (Napoli: Dipartimento di Filologia Classica, 1995), pp. 155-168. ' G. Achard, Rhetorique i Herennius (Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1989), pp. xxviii- XXX, J.-M. David, Le patronat judiciaire, pp. 369 f. ' Cf. G. Calboli, "L'oratore M.Antonio e la "Rhetorica ad Herennium", Giornale Italiano di Filologia, n.s. 3 (1972): 120-177, here pp. 149-172. ' There is a parallel between the secularization of the juridical culture in Rome and the expansion of Greek rhetoric from the very beginning of the first century B.C. The secularisation of the juridical activity began before Q. Mucius Scaevola (cos. 95) but with Scaevola's luris Civilis Libri XVIII we have the first great work written by a jurist: on this work see F. P. Bremer, lurisprudentiae Antehadrianae Quae Supersunt (Leipzig: B.G.Teubner, 1896), I, pp. 58-103, A. Schiavone, Giuristi e Nobili nella Roma Repubblicana (Bari: Laterza, 1987), pp. 25-49. ' Cf. E. Gabba, Esercito e Society nella Tarda Repubblica Romana (Firenze: La Nuova Italia, 1973), pp. 383-406. ' Cf E. S. Gruen, Studies in Greek Culture and Roman Policy (Leiden: Brill, 1990), pp. 187-191, discussed by G. Calboli, Comifici Rhetorica ad C. Herennium, Introduzione, Edizione Critica e Commento, ed. G. Calboli (Bologna: Patron, 1993'), pp. 503-506. This content downloaded from 190.19.33.210 on Tue, 16 Apr 2013 11:52:38 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions From Aristotelian Xe^is to Elocutio 49 now think that both poUtical and cultural purposes were interlaced and combined in Crassus's censorial edict. The edict's prohibition of teaching rhetoric became effective after 82-81 B.C., after which rhetorical artes (xexvai) ceased to be composed for a time. L. CalboU Montefusco has already stressed the importance of the censorial edict of 92 B.C. in stopping any development of a Latin theory of "staseis". A consequence of this blockage of technical rhetoric was the broadening of the rhetorical field as was expressly required by Cicero's CYKIIKXLOS TraiSeia. Following this Ciceronian trend Quintilian integrated his Institutio Oratoria with Uterature, namely poetry, history, oratory and philosophy {Inst. 10.1). In this way the elocutio (the Xe^is) acquired increasing importance. Already the whole of Book 4 of Rhetorica ad Herennium, which constitute roughly half the work, was dedicated to elocutio alone. However the expansion of Xe^is seemes to have already occurred in Greece. The island of Rhodes, probably the common source of both handbooks (Cic.'s De Inv. an(d the Rhet. Her.), was a centre for oratory. We know the names of Athenaeus from Naucratis and of the two ApoUonii, ApoUonios Molon and ApoUonios the Sweet. Rhodes was the most important centre for Asianic rhetoric at the end of the second and the beginning of the first century B.C. From Rhodes probably came the Hellenistic and " On this subject see A. D. Leeman, H. Pinkster and J. Wisse, M. TuUius Cicero, De oratore libri III Kommentar, 4. Band: Buch II, 291-367; Buch III, 1-95 (Heidelberg; C.Winter, 1996), p. 305. 1 agree with the idea expressed on this page that a political intention cannot be excluded from the censorial action of 92 B.C. The presumption of R. A. Kaster in denying any intention of this kind without considering the arguments of J. -M. David is not his only over-simplification and needs no further commentary: Cf. C. Suetonius Tranquillus, De Grammaticis et Rhetoribus, ed. with a Translation, Introduction and Commentary by R. A. Kaster (Oxford: Clarendon Press 1995), p. 293. " La dottrirw degli "status'' nella retorica greca e romana (Hildesheim: Olms- Weidmann, 1986), pp. 197-206. " On the eyicikXtos naiSeia see K. Barwick, Das rednerische Bildungsideal Ciceros (Berlin: Abhandlungen der sachsischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Leipzig, Philol-hist. Kl, Bd. 54, Hft. 3, Akademie-Veriag, 1963), pp. 13-17, G. Calboli, "La formazione oratoria di Cicerone", Vichiana 2 (1965): 3-30, here pp. 12-22. '* The Rhodian school has been described by F. Delia Corte, "Rodi e I'istituzione dei pubblici studi", in Opuscula I (Geneva: Pubbl. dell'lstituto di Filologia Classica, 1971), pp. 12-15, F. Portalupi, Sulla corrente rodiese (Torino: G.Giappichelli, 1957), pp. 10-19. Both must be used with prudence. Hermagoras von Temnos has been considered a Rhodian by Delia Corte and Portalupi, but we know only the origin (Temnos), and almost nothing more of Hermagoras: see D. Matthes, "Hermagoras von Temnos 1904-1955", Lustrum 3 (1958): 58-214, here pp. 70-72. This content downloaded from 190.19.33.210 on Tue, 16 Apr 2013 11:52:38 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 5Q RHETORICA Asianic docfrine of figures which K. Barwick considers the earliest and which, in his opinion, had already been developed by Theophrashis.'" J. Stroux" has argued that Theophrastiis explained and organized die dpcTai rijs Xe^ews as distinct from the corresponding KOKiai TTIS Xe^ews and tiiat Aristotie had already developed a doctrine of (ja(^T\v\.a. I agree with Stroux except on one point, which is the origin of the tiiree genera dicendi (xapaKTTipes TTJS Xe^ews). 1 carmot accept his idea (p. 93) tiiat tiie genera dicendi were first employed by teachers and rhetoricians and not by Theophrastus. This question has been discussed by many scholars*^ and I do not want to reconsider it in its entirety. Nevertheless I want to state clearly that I find unacceptable the idea suggested by both Hendrickson and Stroux and more recentiy by R. Nicolai. According to them the three genres are in conflict with the preference which the Peripatetic school always showed towards the PCCTOTTIS. From this point of view it would be strange that a Peripatetic chose the full or the plain style instead of the middle one which was preferred in all respects by Aristotle and Theophrastus. The only dperfi rfis Xe^ews recognized by the Peripatetics could be, in Hendrickson's opinion, the HCCTOTTIS, whereas the grand style was considered inrepPoXri and the plain eXXen|iLS. "To reconcile with this analysis the Peripatetic theory writes Hendrickson it would be necessary to assume that, while originally the xapaKxfjp jieCTos was the only good style, and the iaxvos and dSpos were respectively the CXXCKJILS and inrepPoXri, yet in time those latter had come to be recognized as worthy types of style virtutes as Gellius (Varro) calls them, and not erroneous deviations from the dperii." '^ K. Barwick, Probleme, pp. 102 ff. " De Theophrasti virtutibus dicendi (Leipzig: B. G. Teubner, 1912), pp. 9-28. " Recently by D. Innes, "Theophrastus and the Theory of Style", in Theophrastus of Eresus, On His Life and Work, ed. W. W. Fortenbaugh-P. M. Huby-A. A. Long (New Brunswick; Rutgers University Studies in Classical Humanities, Vol. 2, Transaction Books, 1985), pp. 251-267. " See G. L. Hendrickson, "The Peripatetic Mean of Style and the Three Stylistic Characters", American Journal of Philology 25 (1904): 125-146; in particular p.l36: "the Aristotelian doctrine of the mean could never have tolerated the definition of types of style in the sense of the x^poKTripes Xefetos conceived of as types of individualism", p. 140: "Manifestly the iieoorris was to Theophrastus not a style, but the style", id., "The Origin and Meaning of the Ancient Characters of Style", American Journal of Philology 26 (1905): 250-290, here p. 290, J. Stroux, De Theophrasti virtutibus dicendi pp. 107-111, R. Nicolai, La storiografia nell'educazione antica (Pisa: Giardini, 1992), p. 120, n. 169. " "The Peripatetic Mean of Style", p. 142. This content downloaded from 190.19.33.210 on Tue, 16 Apr 2013 11:52:38 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions From Aristotelian Xe^LS to Elocutio 51 Hendrickson, however, fails to consider that in the first presentation of the xapaKxiipes TTIS Xe^ecjs, in Rhet. Her. 4.11-16, the vitia (KaKiat) of these xapaxTTipes riis Xe^ea)s also occur after the virtutes (dpcTai). As for the xapaKrfjp dSpos, the erroneous deviation is recognized in the figura sufflata, the tumos being a TTapeKpaCTi5 from the great style. As for the xapcKTiip toxvos the shift from the correct to the wrong style is not explained by the same evidence. Nevertheless the example in Rhetorica ad Herennium is very clear and is presented as a fall from the correct plain style: Rhet. Her. 4.16 Qui non possunt in ilia facetissima verborum attenuatione commode versari, veniunt ad aridum et exangue genus orationis. At any rate, Stroux also recognizes that the shift from the right style to the wrong had already been considered by Theophrastus. That means that every style has a corresponding faulty style, and the grand and plain styles were not faulty counterparts of the middle style. Apart from these and similar considerations, I would like to point out another element which until now, as far as I know, has been disregarded in the scholarly discussion. We find in the few lines which Aristotle wrote about delivery at the beginning of the thfrd Book of Rhetoric a fripartite distinction of the ({XOVTI into three kinds of voice: loud, soft and middle or intermediate: Arist. Rhet. III.l 1403b26 ff. 'Eaxiv 8 aurf) \icv [sc. UTroKpiais] ev xfi (Jxjjvfi irijiis airnj Set xpTJ'^^i- irpos eKaaToi* Trd6o5, oiov Troxe peydXr) Kal iroTe piKpqi Kal \xeaT\, KOI trSis xoi? TOWOLS, dov o^eic^ Kal Papeitji Kal jieari Kal puSpois Tiai irp6 CKaaxa "It is a matter of how the voice should be used in expressing each emotion, sometimes loud and sometimes soft and [sometimes] intermediate, and how the pitch accents [tonoi] should be entoned, whether as 22 acute, grave, or middle, and what rhythms should be expressed in each case". " De Theophrasti virtutibus dicendi, p. 107. " I have already discussed this subject in G. Calboli, "Oratore senza microfono", in "Ars Rhetorica" Antica e Nuova (Genova: Istituto di Filologia Classica e Medievale, Universitci di Genova, 1983), pp. 23-53, here pp. 31-35. " "middle" is mine, to remain closer to Aristotle's text; "circumflex" is the adjective used by Kennedy. " For English translations of Aristotle's Rhetoric 1 am indebted to G. Kennedy, Aristotle, On Rhetoric, a Theory of Civic Discourse (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991). This content downloaded from 190.19.33.210 on Tue, 16 Apr 2013 11:52:38 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 52 RHETORICA We mus t add t hat Aristotle consi dered tiie mroKpLais ("delivery")^^ as only accessory, and t hat expl ai ns why, t hough t aki ng into account not only t he mi ddl e voice and accent uat i on but also t he hi gh and die low, he di d not deal with t he mat t er in dept h. Accordi ng t o hi m del i very was out si de t he rexvii, but insofar as it was Unked witii t he Xef i s it coul d be seen as evTcxvov, t hat is as an ' artistic' element: Arist. Rhet. III.l 1404al5f. Kal IGTIV (j>uaeca5 TO UTTOKPLTIKOV elvai, Kal oTexi'OTepoi/, irepl 8k TTIV Xe^iv Ivrexwv "Acting is a matter of natural talent and largely not reducible to artistic rules; but in so far as it involves how things are said [lexis], it has an artistic element" In this way Aristotle di d not overl ook t he part i al cormection bet ween del i very and poet ry: Arist. Rhet. III.l 1403b30-1404a3 Td \ikv ow aGXa oxeSov CK rS>u dyiiivuiv ouToi Xappduouaiv, Kal KaGdirep eKet ireiCov Suvavrai vw T&v TfOLTiTOi' 01 uTTOKpLTai, KQI KOTO TOUS TTOXLTIKGUS dyiLvas, Sid Tr|u |jiox9r|pLav TIIIV ITOXLT6L(LI' [...] 'AXX'oXris oiiaris irpos 86fav TTIS irpaypaTeias THS irepl TTII' pT|TopLKf)v, OUK opStJiis Ixoirros dXX' los d- i/ayKaiou TTIV eiTi|reXeLav iroiriTeov. "Those [performers who give careful attention to these] are generally the ones who win poetic contests; and just as actors are more important than poets now in the poetic contexts, so it is in political contexts because of the sad state of governments. [...] But since the whole business of rhetoric is with " Instead of "delivery" it seems better to use the term "performcmce". That is the opiiuon of E. Fantham, "Quintilian on Performance: Traditional and Personal Elements in Institutio 11.3", Phoenix 36 (1982): 243-263, here p. 243 and W. W. Fortenbaugh, "Theophrastus on Dehvery", in Theophrastus of Eresus, cit. in n. 17 above, pp. 269-288, here p.288 n. 49, who accepts Fantham's translation of uiroKpiois. It is likely that the irnoKpiois was first developed by Theophrastus, who attached great importance to delivery, as appears fiom the following passage of Theophrastus quoted by Athanasius: Theoph. Athan. Proleg. Hermog. De Stat., RhG XIV 177.3-8 Rabe irXriv ical 9e(J<t)paoTos 6 <))iX<xj<xtios 6^loi()S it>r|(Tli' neTioTov eiwii piiropi irpos TO Treioai Tf)i' inroKpioii', els T(is dpx<is diAi())ep(DU Kal rd TrdOr) rfis i\>\ixf\s Kai Tf\v KaTawtiaiv ToCrroii', los Kal rfj oX^l ^irioTnim ou(i(t)iowv eli/ai Tt\v KivT\oiv TOU oojpiaTos Kal Toi" Tovou TTIS (Jwi/fls. "However, also Theophrastus the philosopher says in hke mcinner that delivery is for an orator the greatest (help) in regard to persuasion. (He says this) referring to the principles and the emotions of the soul and the knowledge of these, so that the movement of the body and the pitch of the voice are in harmony with the entire science" = fig. 712 FHS&G in Theophrastus of Eresus. Sources for his Life, Writings, Thought and Influence, ed. and hransl. by W. W. Fortenbaugh, P. M. Huby, R. W. Sharpies and D. Gutas (Leiden: Brill 1992). This content downloaded from 190.19.33.210 on Tue, 16 Apr 2013 11:52:38 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions From Aristotelian Xef is to Elocutio 53 opinion, one should pay attention to delivery, not because it is right but because it is necessary". It is important to notice that the reference of the middle voice to the jicTpioTTis did not prevent Aristotle from taking into account also the voice neydXii and the voice piKpd. In my opinion the use of a middle type, the HCCTTI (|)UVTI, when the two exfremes and the gradation between these would have been sufficient, may be atfributed to the Peripatetic emphasis on the neTpioTiis, but should not lead us to ignore the lieydXii and the jiiKpa (txovTj, both of which actually occur. At this point the problem which arises is a possible relationship to the Stoic TCXVTI irepl (txovTJs. We should investigate whether in this TCXVTJ the three kinds of voice led to the development of the three xapaKTTjpes TT^S Xefews. Unfortunately we lack information on this subject (see the recent contributions by Ax, Frede and Schenkeveld), but we can say of the virtues of speech, that the Stoics "adopted the doctrine from Theophrastus" (Frede, p. 310). I agree with Frede, albeit as corrected by Schenkeveld, who, following Ax, says that "the Stoics started their ' grammar' from ideas on the elements of lexis and logos in the wake of Aristotelian logic and natural sciences". On the other hand, the Peripatetic school had other occasions beside Aristotle and Theophrastus to improve and perfect a doctrine of different types of style. I have already pointed out that Alexandrian philology had been influenced by another Peripatetic author, Praxiphanes of Rhodes (or Mitilene) who lived and worked in Alexandria and perhaps in Rhodes and was the teacher of both " See W. Ax, Laut, Stimme und Sprache. Studien zu drei Grundbegriffen der antiken Sprachtheorie (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1986), pp. 158-162, M. Frede, "Principles of Stoic Grammar", in Essays in Ancient Philosophy, ed. M. Frede (Oxford; Clarendon Press, 1987), pp. 301-325, D. M. Schenkeveld, "The Stoic Tex^n irepi (t*oi/f|s", Mnemosyne 43 (1990): 86-108, here pp. 93-95, id. "Scholarship and Grammar", in La philologie grecque d I'ipoque hellinistique et romaine, ed. F. Montanari (Vandoeuvres - Geneve: Fondation Hardt, Entretiens XL, 1994), pp. 263-306, here p. 272. " The Stoic Texvt] Ttepl (JXDITIS, p. 104; cf. W. Ax, "Quadripertita Ratio: Bemerkungen zur Geschichte eines aktuellen Kategoriensystems (Adiectio-Detractio- Transmutatio-Immutatio)", Historiographia Linguistica 13 (1986): 191-214, here pp. 158 ff.. " See G. Calboli, Studi Grammaticali (Bologna: Zanichelli, 1962), pp. 154-156. " Praxiphanes is called MiTuXr|wiios (Mytilenus) by both Clemens (Stromateis 1 cap. xvi 79.3, Wehrli fr. 10, ix, p. 96) and the Vita Arati Latina (Commentariorum in Aratum reliquiae, ed. E.Maass, p. 149, Wehrli fr. 17, ix, p. 98), but he is placed in the group of the celebrated Rhodian personalities by Strabon (xiv 2, 13 (655), Wehrli fr. This content downloaded from 190.19.33.210 on Tue, 16 Apr 2013 11:52:38 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 54 RHETORICA CalUmachos and Aratos, though Callimachos wrote a work criticizing him (TTpos TTpa^L(t)dvTiv).^*' However, at tiiis point it is enough for me to draw attention to the fripartite division of the voice given by Aristotle as a natural element which is able to be considered as a model for the fripartite division of the styles because of the connection with the Xefis. The connection with Theophrastus is even more likely because he was interested in deUvery and voice and had studied psychology and sensory perception. This connects with another aspect of Theophrastus' rhetoric and stylistic which has been pointed out by Grube and more recently by D. limes, the usefulness of the speaker leaving some points unexpressed in a speech in order to leave something for the hearers to work out for themselves, which both flatters and persuades them: Theoph. 696 FHS&G (= Dem. eloc. 222) ci> TOUTOL? Te ouv TO TTiQavov. Kal ev (L 6o<t)paaT6s' (j)r|aLi'. OTI ou rravTa eir' dKpiPeias Set ^aKpri-yopelv, dXX' ei' ia KaTaXLireii' Kal TIO dKpoaTfi aui' ievai Kal Xoyi^ecrGai e auToO' aui ' sl ? 7<ip TO eXXeK^Gev uiro aoG OUK oKpo- aTT) liofou, dXXti KOI ^idpTus aou yii'eTai, Kal aira eupei' eaTepos. auveTO? 7dp eauTti 8OKL 8id ak TOV d(t>oppf)v TrapeaxriKOTa auTtji ToO aui' ievai, TO 8k irdvTa iL? dvoriTtp Xeyeiv KaTaYivijijaKovTi loLKei' ToO dKpoaToO. "Persuasi veness, therefore, resi des in t hese 1, ix, p. 93). Wehrli thinks that Praxiphanes stayed in Rhodes where a Peripatetic school was established after Eudemos came back to the island from Athens: F. Wehrli, Die Schule des Aristoteles, Texte und Kommentar, Heft IX: Phainias von Eresos, Chamaileon, Praxiphanes (Basel/Stuttgart: Schwabe & Co, 2.Auflage, 1968-1969), p. 105. ' Cf F. Wehrli, Die Schule des Aristoteles IX, pp. 105 (.; G. Calboli, Studi, pp. 154 ff " Cf W. W. Fortenbaugh, "Theophrastus on Delivery", p. 272 and the fragments 273-298 B FHS&G. " See G. M. A. Grube, "Theophrashjs as a Literary Critic", TAPhA 83 (1952): 172-183, here p. 175, D. Innes, "Theophrastiis and the Theory of Style", p. 253. " G. M. A. Gmbe, A Creek Critic: Demetrius on Style (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1961), p. Il l , recalls that Theophrastus' idea is connected with brevity, which is typical of the yei-os laxvov. We must not miss this point, because brevity has been presented by Plato, Prot. 342d-e, as a very useful philosophical tool specific to the Spartan people. In Plato's opinion, the Spartans were philosophically educated very well. Actually Plato writes: YTO'ITC 6' dv on eyijj raura dXri9fj Xeyoo Kai AaKeSaiiionoi irpos <))iXcxjo<t)iai' Kai X670US dpiara ireirai&ein/rai (Plato, Prot. 342d). This is another point of view but it also regards the behaviour of the speaker towards the audience as a way of influencing the hearers as suggested by Theophrastus (on Laconian brevity see M. S. Celentano, "La laconicita: un atteggiamento etico-linguistico, una quaUta retorica, un criterio estetico", in Studi di retorica oggi in Italia, ed. A. Pennacini (Bologna: Pitagora, 1987), pp. 110-115. This content downloaded from 190.19.33.210 on Tue, 16 Apr 2013 11:52:38 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions From Aristotelian Xegis to Elocutio 55 (clarity and ordinary usage) and in what Theophrastus says: namely, that one ought not to elaborate everything in detail, but leave some things for the listener, too, to perceive and infer for himself; for when he perceives what you have left out, he not only is a listener but also becomes your witness, and in addition more favorably disposed. For he thinks himself perceptive, because you have provided him with the occasion to exercise perception. Saying everything as if to a fool gives the appearance of despising the listener." In comparison with this statement of Theophrastus we could take into accoimt Aristotle's idea that the Hstener always enjoys it when he can guess the development of enthymemes {Rhet. n.23.1400b 34-35). As for the Theophrastean origin of the three xapaKTfjpes TIIS Xefetos, the conclusion of D. limes is that "it is [..] theoretically conceivable that Theophrastus took up Aristotle's [Rhet. III.7.1408 a 10 ff.] hint of a two-style theory and modified it to include a third, intermediate type. [...]. But tiiere is no compelling reason to atfribute such a three-style theory to Theophrastus". This is the most prudent position. To conclude this part of my paper 1 would point out that the earliest evidence of the three-(four) styles theory which we find in a Greek work, the Rhetorica by Philodemus (Book 4, Coll. m-IV. Vol. I, p. 164 Sud.) refers to aSpoypa^iav, LCTXvoTTiTa, licaoTTiTa and 7Xa(|)up6TTiTa. The tiecioTTiTa needs to be reconstructed and this is now possible with some plausibility thanks to a new inspection of the papyrus by F. Longo Auricchio (see below). " "Theophrastus and the Theory of Style", pp. 2611. " It would be interesting to clarify whether a link existed between Philodemus and Peripatetic rhetoric. A connection with the Peripatetic Critolaus has been claimed by Radermacher and Sudhaus (vol. I, p. XXVIl), but Durandi showed that Philodemus, in agreement with Epicurus, criticized Aristotle for abandoning philosophy to rhetoric, see T. Dorandi, "Epicuro confro Aristotele sulla Retorica", in Peripatetic Rhetoric after Aristotle, ed. W. W. Fortenbaugh and D. C. Mirhady (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Studies in Classical Humanities VI, Transaction Publishers, 1994), pp. 111-120. This content downloaded from 190.19.33.210 on Tue, 16 Apr 2013 11:52:38 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 56 RHETORICA 2. THE DOCTRINE OF TROPES AND FIGURES My aim in the Part 1 was not only to present new arguments in defence of Theophrastus' authorship of tiie doctrine of the three styles, but also to confirm the importance of Theophrastus for understanding linguistic expression considered as a whole, that is including all the most valuable elements of the Xe^is ^ d the xapaKTiipes TTIS Xefews K.Barwick^' and G. Kennedy have already pointed out how important Theophrastus was for the doctrine of figures which we first find in Rhetorica ad Herennium 4.13.19-55.68. Both scholars stress Theophrastus' confribution towards the development of this docfrine, and Kermedy says (p. 277) that "Theophrastus is probably responsible for elevating the subject to a level equal to diction and thus encouraging the process of identification of figures which led to the almost interminable lists in later rhetorical handbooks." The doctrine of tropes and figures draws in other elements which are probably Peripatetic. This applies not only to Rhetorica ad Herennium, but also to the doctrine of tropes anci figures of the first century B.C. At this time the later attested distinction between the grammatical and the rhetorical doctrines of tropes and figures was probably not yet firmly established. On this subject Barwick's important study still deserves consideration. Since his work some interesting contributions have been presented by D. M. Schenkeveld. In particular the paper written in 1991 on Figures and Tropes ends with an explanation of the origin of tropes and an interesting suggestion about the origin and development of the distinction between tropes and figures. I would like to consider his suggestion, that rhetoricians developed a theory of figures of speech starting from the Gorgianic figures, just as they used the Aristotelian axiiiiaTa Tfjs Xefews to develop a theory of figures of thought. At the end of the second or at the begirming of the first century B.C. according to Schenkeveld "all parts were put togetherwith more or less successinto theories of figures and '" Probleme, pp. 95f.; 102-110. " The Art of Persuasion in Greece (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1963), pp. 276f " Barwick, Probleme, pp. 97-110. " "Figures and fropes. A border-case between grammar and rhetoric", in Rhetorik zwischen den Wissenschaften, ed. G. Ueding (Tubingen: Niemeyer, 1991), pp. 149-157; "Scholarship and Grammar", pp. 263 ff. with reference to previous papers). " This idea has already been hinted at by Barwick, Probleme, p. 102. This content downloaded from 190.19.33.210 on Tue, 16 Apr 2013 11:52:38 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions From Aristotelian Xef is to Elocutio 57 tropes." Rhetorica ad Herennium supports this suggestion. Actually if we consider the situation of figures and tropes in this work, we find that there is no clear distinction between tropes and figures and that the Gorgianic figures are bound together so as to merge into a group of not completely distinguished figures of speech and thought. Nevertheless tiie fropes are grouped together (Rhet. Her. 4.42-46) in ten exorrmtiones verborum which correspond to the fropes from the point of view of definition. The following passages are the beginning and the conclusion of the section of Rhetorica ad Herennium devoted to these ten tropes: Rhet. Her. 4.42 "Restant etiam decern exomationes verborum, quas idcirco non vage dispersimus, sed a superioribus separavimus, quod omnes in uno genere sunt positae. Nam earum omnium hoc proprium est, ut ab usitata verborum potestate recedatur atque in aliam rationem cum quadam venustate oratio conferatur". "There remain also ten Figures of Diction, which I have intentionally not scattered at random, but have separated from those above, because they all belong in one class. They indeed all have this in common, that the language departs from the ordinary meaning of the words and is, with a certain grace, applied in another sense" (Trans, by H. Caplan). Rhet.Her. 4.46 "Haec sunt fere, quae dicenda videbantur de verborum exomationibus. Nunc res ipsa monet, ut deiceps ad sententiarum exomationes transeamus". "This is substantially all I have thought it necessary to say on the Figures of Diction. Now the subject itself directs me to tum next to the Figures of Thought". This is the first text in which we find fropes dealt with as part of the elocutio, though without the specific name of trope. The ten fropes, here called exorrmtiones verborum, are the following {Rhet. Her. 4.42-46): nomirwtio (ovonaToiroLLa), pronomirmtio (dvTO- vo(iaCTia), denomirmtio {\ieTUivv\iia), circumitio (T7epL(t)paCTis), trans- gressio (inrepPaTov), superlatio (wepPoXii), intellectio (CTin/eK8oxil), abusio (KQTdxpTiCTLs), translatio (|ieTa(t>opd), permutatio (dXXiiYopia). " The Greek and Roman correspondences to these fropes are given in my edition Comifici Rhetorica ad C. Herennium, pp. 374-395, and in "Rhetorica ad Herennium" Rhetorik an Herennius, Incerli Auctoris Libri IV de arte dicendi, Eines Unbekannten 4 BUcher tiber Redekunst, ed. F. Miiller (Aachen: Veriag Shaker, 1994), pp. 231-233. The ancient rhetoricians were uncertain whether the inrepPaToi' isuperlatio) was a frope or a figure. Quintilian himself puts the imcpPaToi/ into both fropes (Inst. 8.6.62-67) and figures (9.1.3). The same is done by Quintilian of the iiepi(j)paots and the 6vo\iaTOTtoda. This content downloaded from 190.19.33.210 on Tue, 16 Apr 2013 11:52:38 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 58 RHETORICA Metaphor, on one hand, occurs by changing tiie meaning of only one word,^^ allegory, on the other hand, is a chain of metaphors as explained in Rhet.Her. (4.46 Permutatio [...]. Per similitudinem sumitur, cum translationes plures frequenter ponuntur) and by Cicero (Orat. 94 iam cum fluxerunt continuae plures translationes [...] genus hoc Graeci appellant dXXrjyopiair. nomine recte, genere melius ille, qui ista omnia translationes vocat). The first Greek text in which we find the use of the word TpoTTos with the meaning of rhetorical trope is tiie following passage of Philodemus:" Phi l od. Rhet. 1164.18 ff 8La[ipouvT]ai 6| aurfiv [sc. (i>pdaiv] e[i]s e r 8TI T[pL]a Tpdliroi' crxripa iTX[dap]a- Tpo|iTov p[ev] OL[OI'] jie[Ta<Hp]av " As examples in the passage just quoted of the Rhet.Her. 4.45 we find: "Italiam tumultus expergefecit, extinxit civitatem, cottidianis nuptiis delectatur, explere inimicitias - crudehtatem saturare, in rebus difficillimis aspiravit, rei publicae rationes exaruerunt, revirdescent." The metaphors are; Italiam, civitatem, inimicitias, crudelitatem considered as human beings, nuptiis instead of an obscene word, aspiravit instead of favit where a favourable wind is understood as replacement of a person, exaruerunt and revirdescent as a badly or well cultivated garden instead of a badly or well administered state. In all these cases the metaphor concerns specifically only one word, but to construct it the author frequently needs two words (cottidianis nuptiis, explere inimicitias, crudelitatem saturare, rationes exaruerunt, [rationes] revirdescent). The same is the case with Aristotle's metaphor, e.g. by the 01/0X0701/: Poet. 1457 b 20 Xiyoi 8e oioi/ 6|ioio)S exei (JudXii irpos Aioi/iooi/ Kal d<jms irpos 'Apr]- epel joivuv Tt\v (J)idXr|i/ doiriSa Aioi/Ooou KOI -ri]v doiriSa tJudXrii' "Apetos. " 1 give the text as it has been read by Francesca Longo Auricchio who kindly checked for me the papyrus and the Neapolitan drawing and sent me the new text in a letter of November 15th, 1996. I very much thank Prof. Longo Auricchio for her help. The new text is not very different from the text by Sudhaus, but the reading of Prof. Longo Auricchio shows that some reconstructions by Sudhaus are actually present in the papyrus and at one point, at the end of the passage, Sudhaus's reading ^e7c9os cannot be accepted. The translation is mine and here I propose tentatively the integration ne[o6TriTla so as to accord with the theory of three (or four) styles, see Dion.Hal. mim.31.2, II 206.21 t. U.-R., and Consulti Fortunatiani Ars Rhetorica, Introduzione, Edizione Critica, Traduzione e Commento ed. L. Calboli Montefusco (Bologna: Pafron, 1979), pp. 447 f. Prof. Longo Auricchio kindly sent me a xerocopy of the Neapolitan drawing where it is possible to distinguish clearly two other letters of the missing word. These letters are TH. So we actually have ME...TH...A and it is not difficult to suppose tieoorriTa. Already H. Schrader, "ZXHMA und TPOTTOZ in den Homer-Scholien. Ein Beifrag zur Entwicklungsgeschichte beider Worter", Hermes 39 (1904): 563-603, here p. 591 Anm. 3, has proposed jieoorriT' without any doubt and has written: "Ohne Zweifel ist Philod. p. 165, 4 das ^...zu (leooTriT", nicht mit Sudhaus zu iieyeSos, zu erganzen". It seems to me that we have now, thanks to Prof. Longo Auricchio's new examination, more evidence in favour of ;io6TT)Ta. This content downloaded from 190.19.33.210 on Tue, 16 Apr 2013 11:52:38 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions From Aristotelian Xefi? to Elocutio 59 dXXriyopiai' [ird]!/ TCJI TOLOUTO, axf)|jia 8e TO irelpioSoLS [K]al KIJXGL? [K]al Koplpaaiv [K]al Tats T[ouTa)]H irXoKals Kal TroL6TT|[ai] 8ia|Xa]|i- Pdi'[ov], irXdapa 8c T6| a[8]po[Yp]a<t)iai'I[X]OV fi iaxt'OTTilTa f| ^elaoh TTIITIQ .... a fi 7Xa(t)u|p6Tr|Ta."They divide it [i.e. the speech] into three species, the trope, the figure and the type of style: on the one hand the trope like a metaphor, an allegory and suchlike, on another hand the figure distinguished by periods, cola and commata and their constructions and types, and the type of style in that it is a forcible or plain or middle or elegcint kind of style." Schenkeveld suggests that "starting from the Gorgianic figures rhetoricians developed a theory of figures of speech and from the AristoteUan axiiiiaTa Tfjs Xefews a theory of figures of thought"." In my opinion the Aristotelian and Peripatetic fradition may have contributed equally to the theory of tropes and figures. There is perhaps a ffrst draft by Aristotle in an order similar to that in the first freatise in which such a theory is presented, Rhetorica ad Herennium, Book IV. However the disposition is partially different because in Rhetorica ad Herennium we have a first group of thirty- five exomationes verborum {Rhet. Her. 4.19-41) to which the five Gorgianic figures also belong. They are: contentio, dvTiGeaLs (4.21 repeated at 4.58), compar, TrapiCTUKTis or LCTOKWXOV (4.27), similiter cadens, ojioioTrTOiTov (4.28), similiter desinens, 6|ioLOTeXeirrov (4.28), adnominatio, TrapovotiaCTia (4.29-33). As a second group we have the ten tropes already quoted which are Usted after the other exorrmtiones verborum without changing the name. The last group is that of the nineteen figurae sententiarum (4.47-69). A similar arrangement is to be found in Aristotle too. We have only to combine Aristotle's Poetics and Rhetoric. This is not difficult because Aristotle himself, by quoting (Rhet. 1405 a 5 f.) the freatment of metaphor which he had previously presented in the Poetics (1457 a 31-1459 a 16), showed that the passages in the Poetics and in the Rhetoric are linked together. In the Poetics (1456 b 9 ff.) Aristotle took into account some figures of speech (axwciTa Tfjs Xefews) which belong rather to Protagoras' modes.^' One of these is the epwrriais. The same figure occurs in the first group of the Rhetorica ad Herennium with the name of interrogatio (4.22). Aristotle then considered the parts of speech, letter, syllable. " "Figures and fropes", p. 156. " Diog. Laert. 9.53 f. See G. Calboli, "I modi del verbo greco e latino 1903- 1966", Lustrum 11 (1966): 173-349, here p. 176; D. M. Schenkeveld, "Stoic and Peripatetic Kinds of Speech Act and the Distinction of Grammatical Moods", Mnemosyne 37 (1984): 291-353, here pp. 292 f. This content downloaded from 190.19.33.210 on Tue, 16 Apr 2013 11:52:38 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 60 RHETORICA name, verb etc. and introduced metaphor into the freatment of name (Poet. 1457 b 6 ff.) immediately after opposing the YXWTTQ to the Kiipiov ovojia, the standard term.*' Later, in Rhetoric {Rhet. 1409 b 32-1410 b 5), Aristotle took into account all tiie Gorgianic figures, except the tTapovopLaaLa, when he spoke of the dvTiGTjaLs, the TrapLaoKJis and the TTaponoLOXTLs which both correspond to the specific Gorgianic figures of the onoioirTtoTov and otioioTeXevTov. The next topic dealt with by Aristotie (Rhet. 1410 b 6 ff.) is the metaphor. The ordering of the material, firstly the epwTriCTLs (Poetics 1456 b 9 ff.), secondly the Gorgianic figures {Rhet.U09 h 32-1410 b 5) and tiiirdly tiie tropes {Rhet. 1410 b 6- 1413 a 22: the metaphor is the only trope taken into account by Aristotle), corresponds exactly to the disposition in Rhetorica ad Herennium. Therefore it seems not impossible that in Rhetorica ad Herennium the figures and tropes follow an order near to that in Peripatetic theory, a first draft of which can be found in Aristotle when his Poetics and Rhetoric are considered together. The question arises whether the situation which we find in the Rhetorica ad Herennium should be considered as an early arrangement or as the result of a recent combination in which figures and tropes were put together. As for the distinction between tropes and figures and its development, a convincing answer can be found in Rhetorica ad Herennium itself, where we read that the author linked together a certain group of figures of speech and avoided scattering them because they shared the same characteristic of changing the usual meaning of a word into another one not only for the sake of expressiveness but also to produce a pleasing effect. As 1 pointed out in my Commentary, following Barwick," it seems more likely that the doctrine of figures which we find in the Rhetorica ad Herennium was not a forerunner of the Stoic doctrine of Diogenes of Babylon, but a contrasting doctrine which could be employed as a substitute for the Stoic freatements of tropes and figures. In this regard the Arist. Poet. 1457 b3 f. Xeyoj Se Kitpiov \ikv (J xfxiiToi eKaorot "By 'standard term' I mean one used by a community" (Trans, by S. Halliwell). " In the same passage Aristotle cites the otioioTeXeuToi' and the rrrioois (Rhet. 1410 a 27 and 1410 b 1) and it must be said that his knowledge of the Gorgianic figures, the rtapouopaoia excepted, is complete. As for the iropowptaoio. Ax, "Quadripertita Ratio" pp. 208-210, demonstrated that the four criteria of the adiectio, detractio, transmutatio and immutatio which produce the lrapol/o^laoia are originally Aristotelian (see below). Therefore we can say that none of the Gorgianic figures is outside the Peripatetic attention. " Comifici Rhetorica ad C. Herennium, p. 374; cf, Barwick, Probleme pp. 88-97. This content downloaded from 190.19.33.210 on Tue, 16 Apr 2013 11:52:38 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions From Aristotelian Xe^i? to Elocutio 61 number of the tropes is of a certain importance, for in other freatises there are less or more. In Ps. Plut., De vita et poesi Hom. U 16 ff., we find, for example, eight tropes: 6vo(iaTOTroLLa, KOTd- XpTiCTis, neTa(t)opdv, jierdXiiiJiLS, (JuveK6oxil, jicTwvijiLa, dvTovojiaCTia, dvTi(t)pa(ns. Quintilian's Institutio Oratoria {Inst. 8.6.4-67) has the following fourteen: \iTa<\)opd. synecdoche, jieTwvi- ^LQ, antonomasia, onomatopoeia, catachresis {abusio), metalempsis, eiTLGeTov, allegoria, aenigma, ironia, periphrasis, hyperbaton, hyperbole. Another list of tropes has been conserved in a fragment TTepl rpoTTwv of a Wiirzburger Papyrus which its editor, U. Wilcken," compares with the list which we find in Tryphon's work TTepl TpOTTWV: Wiirz. Pap. 19, I. 1-5 [Tpoiroi 8'eial -yei/iKol) 17 dXXr|yopLa.| [peTa(J)opd, uirep3aT6]v. pTdXr|m|jLs,| [KQTdxpriais. di/aaTpo<J)ii,] 0uveK8oxil,| [ovonaToiroua. peTujv]upLa, irepL()>paaLS,| [uXeoi/aatKDS, IXXeitliJis. TrapairXnp(jjpa|. "The tropes belonging to the ylvos are thirteen in number, allegory, metaphor, hyperbaton, metalepsis, catachresis, anastrophe, synecdoche, onomatopoeia, metonymy, periphrasis, pleonasmus, ellipsis, completion." Tryph. Ill 191.14-18 Spengel Tpoiroi Se ^iaiv ot ye.in.KuiTd-n]v \i4>aivovTs crrdoiv Tcaaapes Kal 8Ka. neTatJxspd, KOTdxpriais, dXXriyopia, aiviypa, |jieTdXr|<pL?, ^eTtuvupia, aui/eKSoxn, oi/opaTOTToiia, iTpL(})paaLs, duaaTpo<t)ii, uirepPaToi/, irXeovaapos, IXXen|jis, TraparrXTiptopa. TOUTOU? Sk TTOITITIKOUS KoXouaiv, eirel KOTO ye TO irXeiaTov T\ TOUTUI' xpfjcis rrapd TToiriTais, Kal on TOUTOI? 01 7pa^|iaTLKol xp'j^i^ai- efriyouiievoi TQ Kupiai? fi TpoiriKiSs TOIS iroLriTais eiprnreua. "The tropes which belong to the level of the highest genera are fourteen in number: metaphor, catachresis, allegory, einigma, metalepsis, metonymy, synecdoche, onomatopoeia, periphrasis, anastrophe, hyperbaton, pleonasmus, ellipsis, completion. These are called poetic tropes because they are used mostly by poets, and grammarians employ them when they " Cf. U. Wilcken, "Mitteilimgen aus der Wiirzburger Papynissammlung", in Berliner Akademieschriften zurAlten Geschichte und Popyruskunde (1883-1942) (Leipzig: Zenfralantiquariat der DDR, 1970), p. 27. At p. 23 he says: "Die Vergleichung mit jenen griechischen Traktaten [die im III. Band der Ausgabe Spengeb vorUegen] ergab mir, daC der Wiirzburger Text, dessen Handschrift (II. Jahrh.) ja bei weitem die alteste uns erhaltene Tradition darstellt, auch inhaltlich in manchen Beziehungen als altertiimlicher imd eine altere Schicht der Entwicklung reprasentiert." In his commentary Wilcken has been helped by the great specialist on Greek rhetoric, Johannes Sfroux. This content downloaded from 190.19.33.210 on Tue, 16 Apr 2013 11:52:38 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 62 RHETORICA explain what has been said by poets either in standard or figurative expressions. Some details, in my opinion, confirm this general view. Before considering them, however, I must briefly discuss the views proposed, after Barwick's work, by Baratin and Schenkeveld. I will consider also Sdirader' s article to which Schenkeveld constantly refers. Schrader believes that, as far as can be seen in the Homeric Scholia, Alexandrian grammarians used the word TpoTTos only in a general sense (any evidence of a specific meaning before Tryphon is absent). However Schrader accepts that the grammarians of Pergamon received from the Stoics a rhetorical version of trope and that they employed a more developed theory of tropes than the Alexandrian grammarians." The word <JXW^> on the contrary, began to be employed in a specific sense in the middle of the second century B.C. by Lucilius 1133 M. and perhaps even earlier by Polybius 29.12.10. As for Rhetorica ad Herennium Schrader too (pp. 592 f.) thinks that the doctrine of figures which we find in this work came from the Rhodian school, and in particular from a system of figures developed by Athenaeus, the rival of Hermagoras of Temnos, and Apollonius Molon. Both defined the figures by considering on the one hand pleasure (T|8OVTI) and on the other the mistake of the CTOXOLKKTHOS: Phoebamm. Ill 44.11-21 'AGTiuaios 8e 6 NauKpanTris Kal 'AiroXXcoi'ios 6 eiriKXriGels MoXwv lipiaairro oirrii), CTxfipd ecmv peraPoXf) eis riSoff)!/ efdyouaa T^V dKoinv. ou trdirroTe 6e peTaPdXXeTai- KOI r|9iKeuTai Kal eiictxnniKtjjTepoi' tTOLei TOV Xoyoi'. 6 Se TeXeios auTou opos OUTO), axfjpd ianv efdXXa^is KOTO Sidvoiav fi Xe^ii/ em TO KpeiTTOi/ dveu Tpoirou yivo\iT\vT\. eiri TO KpeiTTov efpriToi 8id TOV aoXoiKiapov Kal ydp 6 aoXoLKiapos Tpoirri ecm Kal efdXXafis, dXX' em TO x^Lpoi/. dveu 8e Tpoirou eiprjTai, irei8f| Kal 6 Tpoiro? Kal T\ TpoiriKn Xefi? i^dXKa^is eanv eK Tiis Kupiius XeyopevTi5, dveu pevToi crxnpaTos. ihs irapd T^) Aripoofievei KTX.. "Athenaeus of Naucratis and ApoUonios called Molon defined " D. M. Schenkeveld, "Figures and fropes", franslates (p. 155) the last two lines in this way: "because the grammarians make use of these when explaining the literal or figurative expressions in poetry", and he comments thus: "Explanation of literal expressions does not entail application of the theory of fropes and here Tryphon befrays the existence of the wider sense [of fropej." However I think that grammarians abo used the doctrine of fropes when they considered the Kupia oi/onoTa, by explaining the Kupiov 6vo\i.a through the difference with the corresponding frope (in particular with metaphor). " Cf. H. Schrader, 2XHMA und TPOUOZ, p. 602. This content downloaded from 190.19.33.210 on Tue, 16 Apr 2013 11:52:38 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions From Aristotelian Xefts to Elocutio 63 it in this way: figure is a change leading the hearer to pleasure. The change does not happen all of the time, but gives a special character and emphasis to the speech. Its complete definition is the following: figure is a chcinge into a stronger expression which regards the meaning and the speech and happens without any trope. 'Into a stronger expression' has been said on account of the solecism. For the solecism is a variation and a change, but to the worst. 'Without trope' has been said because the trope and the speech constructed with tropes is a change from the common use of the language, without figures as in Demosthenes etc." The problem, therefore, is to determine the link between fropes and figures and barbarism and solecism. After the hypothesis of Barwick who, having established a parallelism between virtutes and vitia orationis (KaKiai and dpcTal Tfjs Xe^ea)s), constructed a complete correspondence between the two phenomena, a new suggestion has been put forward by Baratin." He points out that for the Stoics the word Tpoiros did not mean only the change of one word, but could refer to more than one word as in SVF in App.vii 5. This is the term (Tpoiros and also axiiiia), which the Stoics used for the moods of inference called dvaTT68eLKTOL Tpoirot: "If the first, then the second; but the first; therefore the second", etc." Nevertheless Baratin acknowledges that Tpouos in rhetorical and grammatical use, according to the Stoics, refers only to one word. This is a consequence of a further development. At the beginning there was a link between the vitia and virtutes orationis, and both meant an "ecart" from the normal meaning. This first step can be found in Quint. Inst. 1.8.14-16, where barbarism and solecism are considered deviations from the standard usage and both are to be condemned, whereas in poetry they are accepted as metaplasm and schema. The second step of this development occurs in theoretical grammar: this should mean, in Baratin's words (p. 312) "I'introduction dans la grammaire theorique de la description des figures et des fropes". At this point in the Stoic doctrine, the barbarism comes to be considered a mistake with regard to Xefis, and the solecism a mistake with regard to Xoyos: " Cf. M. Baratin, La rmissance de la syntaxe d Rome (Paris: Les editions de Minuit, 1989), pp. 292-322. " Sex. Emp. Adv. Math. viii. 224 f; W. Kneale and M.Kneale, The Development of Logic (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1964), pp. 162-176, M. Frede, Die stoische Logik (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1974), pp.136-148. Frede also quotes the definition by Diogenes Laertius (vii 76): rpoiros Se ^OTIV olovel axntio Xoyou, oioi/ 6 Toioirros' 'et TO irptJoToi', T6 Seirrepov dXXd \ir]v TO vpCirov TO dpo Seirrepou'. This content downloaded from 190.19.33.210 on Tue, 16 Apr 2013 11:52:38 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions ^ RHETORICA Diog. Laert. 7.59 6 8e Pappapicrtios CK TWV KaKiwv Xe^s eoTi uapd TO e9os TWV ei)8oKLp.oi)vTwv "EXXTIVWV, CToXoLKiCTtios 8e CCTTL Xoyos dKaTaXXiiXojs awTCTayiievos. "Among vices of style barbarism is violation of tiie usage of Greeks of good standing; while there is solecism when the sentence has an incongruous construction" (frans. by R. D. Hicks). Ae^Ls means tiie 'significant' and barbarism concerns the 'significant'. A mistake witii reference to Xoyos is a solecism, but it is sometiiing more tiian a mistake of combination, because it is defined as dKaTaXXeXws crwTeTayjievos, "forme de la combinaison d'elements qui ne sont pas coherents"." The Alexandrian grammarians gave a new interpretation of Xefis, "assimilee a la notion du mot"." This change led to new meanings of barbarism and solecism: the former was considered a mistake with reference to one word, the latter a mistake involving more than one word. " This new interpretation of mistakes gave rise to new meanings of both trope and figure: the trope with respect to one word, the figure to more than one. I am not sure that Baratin's hypothesis is right, though I tiiink tiiat the different approach of Alexandrian philologists could have influenced such a development of the Stoic doctrine. However it is difficult to distinguish the different steps of such an influence. Barwick thinks that, whereas the Stoics were interested in the linguistic function of tropes, Alexandrian philology was interested in its use to embeUish speech, but it is difficult to distinguish every step in the building of such a syncretic doctrine. Each distinct step could have developed in a different way and at a different time and we lack too much of the information necessary to determine all the details. The island of Rhodes was certainly of great importance to the process because it was open to the influence of the Alexandrian and Stoic doctrines" and of such authoritative Peripatetic philosophers as Eudemus and Praxiphanes who were then active in Rhodes.'" 1 presume also " Baratin, La naissance de la syntaxe d Rome, p. 317. " Baratin, La naissance de la syntaxe A Rome, p. 319. "En un mot, la reinterpretation alexandrine de I'opposition lexis/logos, en faisant porter le solecisme non plus sur I'enonce mais sur 'plusieurs mots', a fait passer le solecisme du cadre de I'enonce a celui du syntagme au moins du point de vue des definitions", cf. Baratin, La naissance de la syntaxe A Rome, p. 319. " The great Stoic philosopher Poseidonios was teaching in Rhodes (see Jacoby T 2.4.6.8). ^ See P. Moraux, Der Aristotelismus bei den Griechen. Von Andronikos bis Alexander von Aphrodisia (Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 1973), I, pp. 8-10. This content downloaded from 190.19.33.210 on Tue, 16 Apr 2013 11:52:38 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions From Aristotelian Xe^is to Elocutio 65 that the division of the rmrratio (8LTiyT|(jLs) in Rhet. Her. 1.12 goes back to Praxiphanes." Schenkeveld too criticizes Barwick's theory and suggests that in the Classic period "technical terms were in use for individual phenomena which in a later period were classified under tropes and figures".'" He stresses the fact that Tpoiros was used not only to refer simply to a single word but also in a wider sense and that it began to refer to a single word through the adjective TPOTTLKOS, which was employed instead of neTa(})opiK6s when metaphor was restricted (and, for example, the KaTdxpTiats was split off). His "final supposition is that at the end of the second or beginning of the first century B.C. all parts were put together with more or less success into theories of figures and tropes"." In my opinion Schenkeveld's prudence is excessive but useful." As for the Rhetorica ad Herennium, Schenkeveld's hypothesis suggests that the docfrine of figures (and tropes) which we find in this work was an ancient system, not a simplification of a previous doctrine developed under Stoic influence. In this way we should explain also the combination together of the ten tropes presented as special exomationes verborum in Rhetorica ad Herennium (4.42-46). " C f Calboli, Comifici Rhet. Her., p. 216, R. Nicolai, La storiografia, p. 125, n. 174. *" Cf. "Figures and fropes", p. 152. *' Cf "Figures and fropes", pp. 155 I. " In one case I cannot accept Schenkeveld's opinion. He writes (p. 150) that "from the very first occurrence of fropos in the sense of trope in a Greek text [Philodemus, Rhet. \, 164,18ff ] fropes are not confined to single words." As we have already seen the frope is explained through the example of both metaphor and allegory. The metaphor is clearly and constantly related to a single word and allegory is considerd a chain of metaphors (Rhet. Her. 4.46; Cic. orat. 94 "iam cum fluxerunt continuae plures franslationes, alia plane fit oratio; itaque genus hoc Graeci appellant dXXriyopiai'," Quint. Inst. 8.6.44 "allegoria [...] fit [..] plerumque continuatis tralationibus"; 9.2.46 "(etpooi/eta] ut, quern ad modum dXXriyopiau facit continua tieTa<)x>pd, sic hoc schema faciat fropos ille contextus"). Allegory is termed Xoyos by Tryphon, 111 193.9 Sp., but Xefis by Anon. frop. Ill 207.11 and (Jipdois by Wiirz. Pap. 19.1.22. On the other hand allegory has always been considered a trope. Therefore, notwithstanding Quint. Inst. 9.2.46, 1 am not sure that Schenkeveld is right on this point. This content downloaded from 190.19.33.210 on Tue, 16 Apr 2013 11:52:38 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 66 RHETORICA 3. FIGURES AND GRAMMAR G. Kermedy" has pointed out tiiat "Quintilian's discussion of maxims (yvwjiaL, sententiae) as a device of style (8.5) probably goes back to Theophrastus since Cicero, immediately after listing the four Theophrastean virtues, demands that the orator provide acu- tae crebraeque sententiae {Orator 79, cf. Gregory of Corinth in Walz 7.1154). The maxim was a form of proof to Aristotle {Rhetoric 1394alff.), but in the Rhetorica ad Herennium (4.24f.) it has become simply a figure of speech." Although I accept such a con- sideration, I would nevertheless bear in mind that Peripatetic influence in the Rhetorica ad Herennium may be found not only in the figure of the sententia, but also in some others considered by the author of this work together with this (TXTIlia in Book 4. The figure of sententia (yvwuri) needs to be investigated in depth because it occurs as a axniia only in Rhetorica ad Herennium (4.24) and in Visellius and Comificius, who are both quoted by Quintilian {Inst. 9.2.107 and 9.3.98). I need not repeat here that in my opinion it is very likely that Comificius is the author of Rhetorica ad Herennium. A good argument supporting this is that the arrangement of the figures of this group in the Rhetorica ad Herennium is the same as that presented by Quintilian and almost the same as that presented by the rhetorician Comificius quoted by Quintilian (Inst. 9.3.98)." At tiiis point it would be worth reconsidering the role played by Rhodian philosophers and rhetoricians. This has already been dealt with by F. Della Corte, by myself and more recently by J. Cousin.'' Rhodes was of great importance since it was one of the four places (Athens, Alexandria, the island of Rhodes and Skepsis) where Peripatetic books and doctrine could be found after Aristotle's death." Moreover Athens, Rhodes and Alexandria were important cenfres of study for both philosophy and rhetoric. The author of Rhetorica ad Herennium points out at the beginning and at the end of his work (1.1 and 4.69) that he very much enjoys philosophy, but in 2.16 he seems to be against Dialecticians: " G. Kennedy, The Art of Persuasion, p. 278. " Cf. G. Calboli, "Comificiana 2", Atti della Ace. delle Scienze dell'lstituto di Bologna, Memorie 51-52 (1964): 1-114, here pp. 20-29. " Cf. F. Della Corte, "La filologia latina dalle origini a Varrone" (Ffrenze: La Nuova Italia, 1981^), p. 168, Calboli, Studi grammaticali, p. 260, J. Cousin, Quintilien, Institution oratoire (Paris: Les Belles Letfres, 1975-1980), V, pp. 138-141. " Cf. P. Moraux, Der Aristotelismus, I, p. 15. This content downloaded from 190.19.33.210 on Tue, 16 Apr 2013 11:52:38 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions From Aristotelian Xe^is to Elocutio 67 Rhet. Her. 2.16 Sunt qui arbitrentur ad hanc causam tractandam vehementer pertinere cognitionem amphiboliarum eam, quae ab dialecticis proferatur. Nos vero arbitramur non modo nuUo adiumento esse, sed potius maximo impedimento. Omnes enim illi amphibolias aucupantur, eas etiam, quae ex altera parte sententiam nullam possunt interpretari. Itaque et alieni sermonis molesti interpellatores et scripti cum odiosi tum obscuri interpretes sunt. [...] Verum horum pueriles opiniones rectissimis rationibus, cum voles, refellemus. In praesentiarum hoc intercedere non alienum fuit, ut huius infantiae garrulam disciplinam contemneremus. "There are some who think that for the development of this kind of cause a knowledge of amphibolies as taught by the dialecticians is highly useful. I, however, believe that this knowledge is no help at all, and is, I may even say, a most serious hindrance. In fact these writers are on the lookout for all amphibolies, even for such as yield no sense at all in one of the two interpretations. Accordingly, when some one else speaks, they are his boring and also misty interpreters. And when they themselves speak, wishing to do so cautiously and deftiy, they prove to be utterly inarticulate. [...] Indeed I shall refute the childish opinions of these writers by the most straightforward proofs whenever you wish. For the present it has not been out of place to make this protest, in order to express my contempt for the wordy learning of this school of inarticulateness." Who wer e t hese dialecticil The particular poi nt of the ambiguitas was deal t wi t h by t he Stoic dialecticians who di st i ngui shed eight ki nds of dpL(}>LPoXia.'' Ant ony in Cicero' s De oratore criticizes t he Stoic Di ogenes who came t o Rome in 155 B.C., while prai si ng t he Peripatetic Critolaus and especially the Academi c C ameades: Cic. De orat. 2.159-161 "hie nos igitur Stoicus iste [sc. Diogenes] nihil adi uvat [...]; at que i dem etiam i mpedi t , quod et mul t a reperit, quae negat uUo modo posse dissolvi [...]. Cri t ol aum i st um, quem si mul cum Di ogene venisse commemor as, put o pl us hui c nosfro st udi o pr odesse pot ui sse. Erat eni m ab isto Aristotele, a cuis inventis tibi ego vi deor non longe aberrare. [...]. C ameadi vero vis incredibilis iUa di cendi et varietas per quam esset opt anda nobi s. " We know t hat in many respects Ant ony can be cormected wi t h t he ' ' See L. CalboU Montefusco, La dottrina degli "status", p. 180, a 74, and also A. D. Leeman, H. Pinkster and E. Rabble, M. Tullius Cicero, De oratore libri III, Kommentar, 3. Band: Buch II, 99-290 (Heidelberg: C Winter, 1989), p. 51: "Obgleich die Ambiguitat bereits bei Aristoteles (Rhet. 1375bll) und Anaximenes S.85, 8 F. erwahnt wfrd, fand sie eine eingehende dialektische Behandlung erst bei den Stoikem." This content downloaded from 190.19.33.210 on Tue, 16 Apr 2013 11:52:38 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 68 RHETORICA interests of the author of Rhetorica ad Herennium.'* This can help us in determining with precision what kind of connection was accepted by the author of Rhetorica ad Herennium between philosophy and rhetoric, and this link between philosophy and rhetoric explains an aspect which we found in the freatment of the sententia in the Rhetorica ad Herennium. In this work the sententia is followed by and linked with some other figures: the contrarium (4.25 = evQv\]LT\\ia), membrum (4.26 = KwXov), articulus (4.26 = Koiina), continuatio (4.26-27 = ireptoSos). On one hand, these figures go back to philosophical and rhetorical argumentation and to syllogism. On the other hand, in both the Rhetorica ad Herennium and Comificius, this group of figures immediately precedes the Gorgianic figures, dvTiGeais excepted, and seems to be the oldest group of figures from which the doctrine of tropes and figures developed. After the first of the rop-yLCLa CTxiJliaTa, the dvTLGeois, dealt with in Rhet. Her. 4.21 {contentio), we actually find in the Rhetorica ad Herennium the exclamatio and the interrogatio (4.22) and then the sententia and the other figures just mentioned, i.e. the group of contrarium, membrum, articulus, continimtio, followed immediately by the other Gorgianic figures: compar (LCTOKWXOV, irapLCTOKiLs), similiter cadens (ojioioTTTWTov), similiter desinens (ojioioTeXenTov), adnominatio (irapo- vonacjia). We should stress, moreover, that in Rhetorica ad Herennium the figure of dvTLGeais (contentio) was consciously taken into account twice, first among the figures of speech (4.21), and later among the figures of thought (4.58): Rhet. Her. 4.58 Contentio est, per quam contraria referentur. Ea est in verborum exomationibus, ut ante (4.21) docuimus, huiusmodi: "Inimicis te placabilem, amicis inexorabilem praebes". In sententiarum, huiusmodi: "Vos huius incommodis lugetis, iste rei publicae calamitate laetatur. Vos vesh-is fortunis diffiditis, iste solus suis eo magis confidit". Inter haec duo contentionum genera hoc interest: illud ex verbis celeriter relatis constat, huic sententiae contrariae ex comparatione referantur oportet. "Through Antithesis contraries will meet. As I have explained above, it belongs either among the figures of diction, as in the following example: 'You show yourself conciliatory to your enemies, inexorable to your friends'; or among the figures of thought, as in the following example: 'While you deplore the troubles besetting him, this knave rejoices in the ruin of the state. While you despair of your fortunes, this knave alone Cf. G. Calboli, L'oratore M. Antonio, pp. 146-149. This content downloaded from 190.19.33.210 on Tue, 16 Apr 2013 11:52:38 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions From Aristotelian Xefis to Elocutio 69 grows all the more confident in his own.' Between these two kinds of Antithesis there is this difference: the first consists in a rapid opposition of words; in the other opposing thoughts ought to meet in a comparison." 'AvTiGcCTis is t he first of t he Gorgianic figures; and after Ari st ot l e' s Rhetoric (IE c.9) it was investigated carefully by Theophr ast us, who identified t hree ki nds of antithesis, t hough his freatment seems to be difterent from t he distinction whi ch we find in t he Rhetorica ad Herennium. This distinction appears to be mor e like t he distinction bet ween figures of one wor d (tropes) and those of mor e t han one wor d whi ch is ascribed by Barwi ck" to the Stoic school. However , in consi deri ng this gr oup of Gorgianic figures, Barwick formul at ed the probabl e hypot hesi s that Theophrast us had al ready pr oposed a doct ri ne of figures whi ch is t he same as t hat whi ch we find in Rhetorica ad Herennium, in Rut i hus Lupus and Cicero. I will now quot e bot h Aristotle and Theophrast us in order to s how not only t he i mport ance of t he Gorgianic figures ment i oned by Aristotle, but also how i mport ant verbal opposi t i on is in antithesis, an aspect that Aristotle almost certainly di d not miss: Arist. Rhet. Ill 1409b 33-1410a 26 Tfi? 8e ev KoJXois Xegecjs A V^^^ SiTiprnievT) eoTiv, T\ 8k dvTiKei|ievr|- [...] dvTiKenievri 8e. ev fi eKOTepii) T(3 KioXii) f| irpo? evavritj) evavTiov auyKeiToi fi TOUTO eireCeuKTai TOIS evavTioi? [...]. "Heeia 8 eariv r| ToiauTri Xe^is, OTi TdvavTia yvcjpiptjJTaTa Kal irap' dXXr|Xa ^dXXov yviiipi\ia. Kal OTi eoiKe auXXoyiaiiil)- 6 ydp eXeyxos auva7(jJ7fi TCJV dvTiKei^evujv eaTiv. 'AvTiGeais pev ouv TO TOIOUTOV eaTiv. Trapiaioai? 6" edv laa TO Ki3Xa, irapopoiiixjis Se edv o|roia jd laxaTa ixT\ eKOTepov TO KiiiXov."Lexis in cola is either divided or contrasted. [...] It is contrasted when in each colon opposite lies with opposite or the same is yoked with its opposites [...]. Such a lexis is pleasing because opposites are most knowable and more knowable when put beside each other and because they are like a syllogism, for refutation [elenkos] is a bringing together of contraries. Antithesis, then, is one such thing, as is parisosis if the cola are equal [in the number of syllables], and paromoiosis if each colon has similar extremities [in sound]". Dion. Hal. Lys. 14 (= frg. 692 FHS&G) KtoXuaei 8'oiJ8ev LCTCJS KOI Tf|v Xefiv auTTiv Oeivai T^V eo<J)pdaTou. ioTi Se f)8e- "avTiGeais S' ea- ProWeme, pp. 100-110. This content downloaded from 190.19.33.210 on Tue, 16 Apr 2013 11:52:38 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 70 RHETORICA TI TpiTTCos, OTav T(I) auT(J TO evavTia f\ T(JJ evavTiip TO auTd f\ TOis evavTiois evavTia TTpoCTKaTTiYopr|9fi. ToaauTOXtSs ydp eYX'^P^i au(^eux6fivai. TOUTCJV Se TO pev laov Kal TO opoiov tTaiSitoSes ical Ka9airepel iroiTipa- Sio Kal fJTTOv dppoTrei TO aiTGuSf). (JxiiveTai ydp dirpeires atrouSdCovTa TOIS irpd-ypaaiv TOLS ovojiaai iraiCeiv Kal TO irdeos TT) Xefei irepiaLpeiv eKXuei ydp TOV oKpoaTiiv [...]."Nothing, I suppose, will prevent [me] giving as well the very words of Theophrastus. They run as follows: 'Antithesis occurs in three ways: when opposites are predicated of the same things, or the same things of the opposite, or opposites of opposites. For this is the number of possible combinations. Balanced structure and similar sound in these (antitheses) are childish and just like a poem. On this account they are not very well suited to serious purpose, for it seems unbecoming when a man seriously engaged in real issues plays with words cind by his style does away with emotional effect, for he loses his listener' []" If we consi der t hat the st udy of sent ences and phr ases from t he poi nt of vi ew of synt ax seems t o begi n wi t h ApoUonios Dyscol os, t he only possible origin for a discussion about ant i t hesi s and t he ot her ropyLCLa axiinaTa is t he rhetorical pract i ce of t he peri od, whi ch was al ready di scussed in Aristotle' s Rhetoric. As a mat t er of fact, Di onysi os of Hal i carnassus found many faults in t he synt ax of Thucydi des and of Thucydi des' s i mi t at ors but si mpl y called t hem bad ki nds of figure {Din. 8: CToXoiKO(}>aveis axT|p.aTLCT|ioiis, Thuc. 29 TQS T&v CTxtipaTiapwv TrXoKas aoXoiKO(|>avLS, 53 TOJV CTXTiM-QTajv TO TreirXavriiievov CK Tfjs KOTQ ^vaiv dKoXou0Las KQL TO CToXoLKO<t)aves, 55 TO CToXoLKO<l)aves ev Tot? (TXTipLaTLCTpoLs), as has been poi nt ed out by Schenkeveld, who concl udes wi t h t hese wor ds : ' Appar ent l y Apol l oni us is t he first t o make a syst emat i c st udy of synt ax' . The quest i on of t he origin of synt ax is surel y wor t h of investigation, as Baratin di d in hi s book about t he rise of synt ax (in Rome). He believes t hat t he "sol oi ki smos" was t he syntactic al t ernat i ve t o t he figures." The devel opment of t he doct ri ne of t ropes and figures pr ecl uded or del ayed for a l ong time t he devel opment of synt ax as the "combi nat i on" tool of t he different par t s of speech ("la combi nat oi re"). " In this way a mechani cal "Scholarship and Grammar", pp. 294 f. M. Baratin, La naissance de la syntaxe a Rome, pp. 261-322. " Cf M. Baratin, La naissance de la syntaxe a Rome, p. 320: "au terme de la reinterpretation du couple lexis/logos, ces definitions indiquent formellement que le solecisme s'applique a la combinatoire des mots - et cette evolution restreint la This content downloaded from 190.19.33.210 on Tue, 16 Apr 2013 11:52:38 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions From Aristotelian Xejis to Elocutio 71 doct ri ne of labels, such as t ropes and figures, i nvaded a field whi ch was open t o combi nat i on and has condi t i oned t he nat ur e of rhet ori c unt i l now by reduci ng it t o a mechanical syst em. This vi ew is very interesting; and while it seems t o be correct, mus t be i nvest i gat ed from its begi nni ngs when t he rhetorical doct ri ne of Xef IS and gr ammar wer e laced together. Goi ng back t o Gorgianic figures I think that, confrary to the opi ni on of Barwi ck, " t he quadripertita ratio, i.e. t he four-fold cat egori zat i on adiectio, detractio, immutatio and transmutatio, is present in Rhetorica ad Herennium in the explanation of t he different t ypes of paronomasia, called adnominatio in this work: Rhet. Her. 4.29 Adnominatio est, cum ad idem verbum et nomen acceditur commutatione vocum aut litterarimi, ut ad res dissimiles similia verba adcommodentur. Ea mulHs et variis rationibus conficitur. Adtenuatione aut conplexione eiusdem litterae sic: "Hie, qui se magnifice iactat atque ostentat, venit ante, quam Romam venit". Et ex contrario: "Hie, quos homines alea vincit, eos ferro 74 statim vincit". Productione eiusdem litterae hoc modo: "Hinc avium dulcedo ducit ad "avium". Brevitate eiusdem litterae: "Hie, tametsi videtur esse honoris cupidus, tantum tamen ciiriam diligit, quantum Curiam?". Addendis litteris hoc pacto: "Hie sibi posset temperare, nisi amori mallet obtempercu-e" Demendis nunc litteris sic: "Si lenones vitcisset tamquam leones, vitae tradidisset se" Transferendis litteris sic: "Videte, iudices, utrum homini navo an vano credere malitis". Commutandis hoc modo: "Deligere oportet, quam velis diligere". "Paronomasia is the figure in which, by means of modification of sound or change of letters, a close resemblance to a given verb or noun is produced, so that similar words express dissimilar things. This is accomplished by many different methods: (1) by thinning or contracting the same letter, as follows: "That man who carries himself with a lofty bearing and makes a display of himself was sold as a slave before coming to Rome;" (2) and by the reverse: "Those men from whom he wins in dice he straightaway notion de solecisme par rapport au champ ou les Stoiciens la pla^aient", and, before, p. 319: "En un mot, la reinterpretation alexandrine de I'opposition lexis/logos, en faisant porter le solecisme non plus sur Tenoned mais sur plusieurs mots, a fait passer le solecisme du cadre de I'enonce i celui du syntagme - au moins du point de vue des definitions" But I don't agree completely with Baratin on this particular point. " Probleme, pp. 1021. " About the distinction between uincit "fesselt" and uincit "besiegt" which was made in the spoken Latin of this time see F. Sommer, Handbuch der Lateinischen Laut und Formenlehre (Heidelberg: Winter, 1948), p. 147. This content downloaded from 190.19.33.210 on Tue, 16 Apr 2013 11:52:38 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 72 RHETORICA binds in chains;" (3) by lengthening the same letter, as follows: "The sweet song of the birds draws us from here into pathless places;" (4) by shortening the same letter: "Does this man, although he seems desirous of public honour, yet love the Curia [the Senate-house] as much as he loves Curia?"; (5) by adding letters, as follows: "This man could rule himself, if only he did not prefer to submit to love"; (6) and now by omitting letters, as follows: "If he had avoided pandars as though they were lions, he would have devoted himself to life;" (7) by transposing letters, as follows: "See, men of the jury, whether you prefer to trust an industrious man or a vainglorious one;" (8) by changing letters, as follows: "You ought to choose such a one as you would wish to love." I have quoted this long passage for an important reason. At the end of it we find the quadripertita ratio which can be obtained through addition, omission, fransposition or change of some letters. According to Ax this group of categories and even the quadripertita ratio as a whole were found and first developed by the Peripatetic School. In the Physics Aristotie explains the principle of (icTapoXii, which is the basis of the four categories, while their further development may be atfributed to Stoic grammar." Therefore it now seems difficult to employ this criterion for recognizing the Stoic doctrine of tropes and figures in distinction to a Peripatetic or Hellenistic one as did Barwick. Moreover, if we consider the passage just quoted from Rhet. Her. 4.29, we meet a very interesting point: prior to the quadripertita ratio, Trapovojiatjia {adnomirmtio) is said to concern the measure of the syllables, undoubtedly a poetical criterion. 1 have already pointed out" that the Gorgianic figures developed from poetry. The passage from the Rhetorica ad Herennium shows how original material from an early doctrine of Gorgianic figures could be integrated with a new doctrine after the development of the quadripertita ratio or, more probably, of its application to these figures which is not quite tiie same. However the group of figures which are called exorrmtiones verborum and are placed between tiie contentio (dvTieeats, Rhet. Her. 4.21) and the adnomirmtio (irapovojiaaia, Rhet. Her. 4.29), is peculiar, for here elocutio is interlaced with argumentatio. As for irapovo^aCTia {adnominatio), the treabnent of tiiis figure in Rhetorica ad Herennium is tiie only one where tiie mefrical and tiierefore tiie poetical Cf. Ax, "Quadripertita Ratio", pp. 204-211.1 agree completely with Ax. Cf. Comifici Rhetorica ad Herennium, pp. 337 and 343. This content downloaded from 190.19.33.210 on Tue, 16 Apr 2013 11:52:38 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions From Aristotelian Xejis to Elocutio 73 criterion occurs." Barwick thought that the same Hellenistic doctrine of figures as distinct from the Stoic one is still present in the Rhetorica ad Herennium, Gorgia-RutiUus Lupus and the Carmen de Figuris, but actually we find the mefrical criterion only in the first work. To explain why this part of the figure was abandoned after Quintilian it is perhaps enough to read the severe censure uttered by Quintilian himself: Quint. Inst. 9.3.69-71 Aliter quoque voces aut eaedem aut diversa in significatione ponuntur aut productione tantum vel correptione mutatae: quod etiam in iocis frigidum equidem tradi inter praecepta miror, eorumque exempla vitandi potius quam imitandi gratia pono: "Amari iucundum est, si curetur ne quid insit amari", "Avium dulcedo ad avium ducit" [...]. Comificius hanc traductionem vocat [cf Rhet.Her. 4.20], videlicet alterius intellectus ad alterum. Sed elegantius, quod est positum in distinguenda rei proprietate: "Hanc rei publicae pestem paulisper reprimi, non in perpetuum comprimi posse". "There are also other ways in which the same words may be used in different senses or altered by the lengthening or shortening of a syllable; this is a poor trick even when employed in jest, and I am surprised that it should be included in the text-books; the instances which I quote are therefore given as examples for avoidance, not for imitation. Here they are: 'It is pleasant to be loved, but we must take care that there is no bitterness in that love'. [...] Comificius calls this traductio, that is the transference of the meaning of one word to another. It has, however, greater elegance when it is employed to distinguish the exact meanings of things, as in the following example: 'This curse to the state could be repressed for a time, but not suppressed for ever'" (translation by H. E. Butler). Since I have already treated this question," I shall not discuss it in depth now. I only add that with irapovonaaia {adnomirmtio) we have a Peripatetic basis which could be broadened by including the Stoic doctrine of the quadripertita ratio. However, since the quadripertita ratio too has a Peripatetic origin, as was demonstrated by Ax, it caimot be excluded that the whole doctrine of the TrapovoiiaCTia {adnomirmtio) employed by the author of Rhetorica ad Herennium is Peripatetic. This is the first hypothesis we can " Cf Calboli, Comifici Rhetorica ad Herennium pp. 340-343, L. Calboli Montefusco, Consulti Fortunatiani Ars Rhetorica p. 459, M. Squillante, De Figuris vel Schematibus, Introduzione, testo critico, traduzione e commento di M.S. (Roma: Gruppo Editoriale Intemazionale, 1993), p. 154. " Cf. "Comificiana 2", pp. 12-19. This content downloaded from 190.19.33.210 on Tue, 16 Apr 2013 11:52:38 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 74 RHETORIC A suggest." Another possibihty is to consider this criterion as Stoic for, after its Peripatetic invention and expanded use, it was employed more and more by the Stoics. In this case Comificius and the author of Rhetorica ad Herennium (who may be the same person) infroduced a Stoic element into a Peripatetic corpus. We caimot decide between the two hypotheses, but the first possibility gains more additional plausibility from the fact that the source of Rhetorica ad Herennium follows almost the same order we find in the combination of Aristotle's Poetics and Rhetoric. The doctrine of Rhetorica ad Herennium appears therefore to be closer to a Peripatetic original without substantial changes (see above). I think that a Rhodian origin is very probable for both Rhetorica ad Herennium and Cicero's De Inventione, and the island of Rhodes seems to me the most probable place for the development of the theory of figures and tropes described in Rhetorica ad Herennium. For the presence of an AristoteUan doctrine in Rhodes on this subject is well attested (Eudemos of Rhodes wrote a Tlepl Xe^etos). But Rhodes also seems to be a suitable location for a syncretism of the different doctrines of Stoic and Alexandrian rhetoric and grammar. Dionysios Thrax'" went to Rhodes from Alexandria and not only taught grammar, but was also interested in rhetoric and wrote a work rrepi en<|)dae(jjs (Clem. Alex. StromV 8, 45). On tiie island of Rhodes Aristodemus taught both grammar and rhetoric, the former in the moming, the latter in tiie aftemoon (see Strabon. XIV 650)." On tiie other hand, we find references to Rhodes in botii Rhetorica ad Herennium and Cicero's De Inventione (cf. Rhet.Her. 1.18; Rhet. Her. 4.9 [Chares]; Cic. Inv. 2.153)," and we know that Rhodes was open to syncretism. The balance of probabilities seems to be that the doctrine of tropes and figures developed in Rhodes was Peripatetic, though an enrichment with some Stoic ideas caimot be At any rate Quintilian did not understand or appreciate the poetical origin of the metrical criterion suggested for irapouo^aoia (adnominatio). ' Cf. F. Della Corte, La filologia Latina, pp. 99-104. Cf F. Marx ed., Incerti Auctoris De ratione dicendi ad C.Herennium Libri IV. (Leipzig: Teubner, 1894) pp. 159 f. This sfrange example from sculphire in rhetorical works Myron, Polycleitos, Lysippus, Phydias, Alcamenes are quoted but nowhere the Rhodian Chares. This can be explained by assuming that the Rhetorica ad Herennium had a Rhodian source, cf my Commentary, p. 284. On tiiis argument about the Rhodian in- fiuence on De Inventione and tiie Rhet.Her. see also tiie quotations of Rhodian elements by Cic. Inv. 1. 47,2. 87, 2. 98. This content downloaded from 190.19.33.210 on Tue, 16 Apr 2013 11:52:38 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions From Aristotelian Xefis to Elocutio 75 excl uded. " This was t he origin of t he doct ri ne of t ropes and figures whi ch we meet in t he earliest Roman ars wher e this doct ri ne is present , t he Rhetorica ad Herennium. The Peripatetic charact er of t he doct ri ne of t ropes and figures in Rhetorica ad Herennium inclines me to consi der anot her poi nt in t he doct ri ne of figures: namel y, the iiGoTToiLa, whi ch in Rhet. Her. 4.63 is called notatio. The exampl e given for this figure r emi nds us of Theophr ast us' Characters and in part i cul ar of the t went y-t hi rd charact er of t he dXaCoveia: Rhet. Her. 4.63-64 Notatio est, cum alicuius natura certis describitur signis, quae, sicuti notae quae naturae sunt adtributa; ut si velis non divitem, sed ostentatorem pecuniosi describere: "Iste", inquies, "iudices, qui se di d divitem putabat esse praeclarum, primum nunc videte, quo vultu nos intueatur". [...] Cum puerum respicit hunc unum, quem ego novi vos non abitror , alio nomine appellat, deinde alio atque alio. 'At eho tu', inquit, 'veni, Sannio, ne quid isti barbari turbent'; ut ignoti, qui audient, unum putent selegi de multis. Ei dicit in aurem, aut ut domi lectuli stemantur, aut ab avunculo rogetur Aethiops, qui ad balineas veniat, aut asturconi locus ante ostium suum detur, aut aliquod fragile falsae choragium gloriae conparetur. Deinde exclamat, ut omnes audiant: "Videto, ut diligenter numeretur, si potest, ante noctem". Puer, qui iam bene eri naturam norit: "Tu illo plures mittas oportet", inquit, "si hodie vis transnumerari" "Age", inquit, "due tecum Libanum et Sosiam" "Sane". Deinde casu veniunt hospites homini, quos iste, dum splendide peregrinatur, invitat. Ex ea re homo hercule sane conturbatur; sed tamen a vitio naturae non reeedit. "Bene", inquit, "faeitis, cum venitis: sed rectius feeissetis, si ad me domum recta abissetis". "Id fecissemus", inquiunt illi, "si domum novissemus" "At istud quidem facile fuit undelibet invenire. Verum ite mequom". Secuntur illi. Sermo interea huius eonsumitur omnis in ostentatione: quaerit, in agris frumenta cuiusmodi sint; negat se, quia villae incensae sint, accedere posse; nee aedificare etiamnune audere; "tametsi in Tuscolano quidem coepi insanire et in isdem fundamentis aedificare" Dum haec loquitur, venit in aedes quasdam, in quibus sodalicium erat eodem die futurum; quo iste pro " The only Stoic element which we find in the docfrine of fropes and figures of the Rhet. Her. is the fact that the ten fropes (4. 42-46) are put together. This can be considered a first distinction fiom figures. But this is the same position we find in the combination of Aristotle's Poetics and Rhetoric and it is therefore difficult to see a Stoic element in such an arrangement. This confirms the prevailing Peripatetic nature of such a doctrine in Rhet. Her. This content downloaded from 190.19.33.210 on Tue, 16 Apr 2013 11:52:38 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 76 RHETORICA notitia domnaedi iam it inh-o eum hospitibus. "Hie", inquit, "habito." Perspieit argentum, quod erat expositum, visit triclinium sti-atum: probat. Aceedit servulus; dicit homini elare, dominum iam venturum, si velit exire. "Itane?" inquit. "Eamus, hospitis; fi-ater venit ex Falemo: ego illi obviam pergam; vos hue deeuma .. . 84 venitote. The infroductory formula of tiiis passage {cum alicuius natura certis describitur signis), as well as tiiat used for tiie similar figure of tiie sermocimtio {Rhet. Her. 4.65 cum alicui personae sermo attribuitur) recalls the vague formula TOLOITTOS TIS OIOS used in Theophrastus' Characters to introduce tiie sketches of different " "Character Delineation consists in describing a person's character by the definite signs which, like distinctive marks, are attributes of that character; for example, if you should wish to describe a man who is not actually rich but parades as a moneyed man, you would say: "That f)erson there, men of the jury, who thinks it admirable that he is called rich, see now first with what an air he surveys us." [...] When he turns to his slave boy here, his only one I know him, and you do not, I think he calls him now by one name, now by another, and now by a third: "Ho there, you, Sannio," says he, "come here, see that these barbarians don't tum things upside down," so that unknowing hearers may think he is selecting one slave from among many. Whispering in the boy's ear he tells him either to arrange the dining- couches at home, or to ask his uncle for an Ethiop to attend him to the baths, or to station the Asturian thoroughbred before his front door, or to make ready some other flimsy stage property which should set off his vainglory. Then he shouts, that all may hear: "See to it that the money is carefully counted before nightfall, if possible." The boy, by this time well knowing his master's character, says: "You had better send more slaves over there if you want the counting done today." "Go then," he answers, "take with you Libanus and Sosia." "Very good, sir." "Then by chance come guests, whom the rascal had invited while fravelling abroad in splendour. By this event the man is, you may be sure, quite embarrassed, but he still does not desist from his natural fault. "You do well," says he, "to come, but you would have done better to go sfraight to me at my house." "That we would have done," say they, "had we known your house." "But surely it was easy to find that out from emyone. Still, come with me." They follow. In the meanwhile all his conversation is spent in boasting. He asks: "How are the crops in the fields?" He says that because his villas have been burnt, he cannot go to them, and does not yet dare rebuild them, "although on my Tusculan estate, to be sure, I have commenced an insane undertaking to build on the same foundations." "While saying this he comes to a certain house in which a banqueting club was to meet on that very day. As if in fact he knew the owner, the rascal now enters the house with his guests. "Here," says he, "is where I live." He scrutinizes the silver which had been laid out, inspects the dining-couch which had been spread, and indicates his approval. A little slave boy comes up. He says aloud to the man that the master is about to arrive; would he wish to leave? "Indeed?" says the man. "Let us be off, my friends. My brother has arrived from the Falemian country. I shall go meet him. Do come here at four o'clock." (frans. by H. Caplan; see also Caplan's note d, p. 387). This content downloaded from 190.19.33.210 on Tue, 16 Apr 2013 11:52:38 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions From Aristotelian Xefis to Elocutio 77 types of behaviour." In addition, the themes of a small amount of money made to appear large and of pretended wealth occur also in Theophrastus:" Theoph. Char. 23.2-9 KOI a\ia TOUTO irXeGpiCtov TTeptreiv TO iraiSdpLov eis TTIV TpdireCav, Spoxpfis OUTIL Knievr|s [...] KOI ev iriaScoTT) OLKicf OLKISV ()>fiaoi TOUTTIV eivoi TTIV troTpcpav irpos TOV pf| eiSoTO, Kol SLOTI peXXei ircjXeiv ouTf)v 8id TO eXdrrco eivai OUT(L irpos T(is $evo6oxios."and while he exaggerates these, he sends his slave to the bank because a drachma is on deposit for him there [...]. When he is living in a rented house, he tells someone who doesn't know that it belongs to his family, and that he intends to sell it because it's too small for him for entertaining" (translation by J. Rusten). Mor e interesting is the conclusion of t he page dedi cat ed to notatio in Rhet.Her. 4.65. Here we find a list of vices, three of which correspond to character sketches of Theophrastus. Significantly the range of this figure is the same as that of Theophrastus: Rhet. Her. 4.65 Huiusmodi notationes, quae describunt, quod consentaneum sit unius cuiusque naturae, vehementer habent magnam deleetationem: totam enim naturam cuiuspiam ponunt ante oeulos, aut gloriosi, ut nos exempli causa coeperamus, aut invidi aut tumidi aut avari, ambitiosi, amatoris, luxuriosi, furis, quadruplatoris. "Character Delineations of this kind which describe the qualities proper to each man' s nature carry very great charm, for they set before our eyes a person's whole character, of the boastful man, as 1 undertook to illustrate, or the envious or pompous man, or the miser, the climber, the lover, the voluptuary, the thief, the public informer". In a recent edition with a fine introduction, Italian franslation and commentary on Theophrastus' Characters, L. Torraca writes about Rhet. Her. 4.63-64 (quoted above): "Le riflessioni del retore si attagliano perfettamente ai Caratteri di Teofrasto, che probabilmente egli ha letto." Moreover he believes that in this work Theophrastus had not a moral, but a theatrical and scenic " Cf. W. W. Fortenbaugh, "Theophrastus, the Characters and Rhetoric", in Peripatetic Rhetoric after Aristotle, cit. in n. 35 above, pp. 15-35, here p. 29. " The question of the authenticity of the 'Definitions' in the Characters has been reconsidered recently by M. Stein, D^nition und Schilderung in Theophrasts Charakteren (Stuttgart: B. G. Teubner, 1992), pp. 282-285, and the review by W. W. Fortenbaugh, Gnomon 68 (1996): 453-456. At any rate this aspect is not relevant to our question. This content downloaded from 190.19.33.210 on Tue, 16 Apr 2013 11:52:38 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 78 RHETORICA interest." Moreover, Torraca suggests that The Characters was very important for the Peripatetic school." According to Fortenbaugh there is a distinction between Theophrastus and Aristotle. Aristotle gave a reason for every element he takes into account, while Theophrastus presented the characters as pictures without making explicit how the pictures relate to the definition "with which each sketch begins"." Aristotle is concemed with both the practical wisdom and the moral goodness in the narratio as explained in his Rhetoric 1417a 22-24. Theophrastus seems to have recognized the importance of other distinctions such as "that between superficial regularities and the deeper lying beliefs which motivate and explain them" (Fortenbaugh, p. 35). I agree with Fortenbaugh that it is possible not only that Theophrastus influenced the plays of Menander but also that he was in t um influenced by Menander. At any rate, there are many passages in Menander where Peripatetic doctrine may be recognized. Here 1 would quote only two from Heautontimorumenos by Terence. One occurs in a part of the play, where the Menandrian source and the presence of Peripatetic doctrine is accepted even by E. Lefevre, who suggests that Terence to a great extent rearranged Menander' s play: Ter. Haul. 440-442 vehemens in utramque partem, Menedeme, es nimis aut largitate nimia aut parsimonia: in eandem fraudem ex hac re atque ex ilia incides" The second passage is line 384. In tiie Scholia Bembina there is a commentary on this line which is worth considering, although it does not seem to refer to the Heautontimorumenos but to L. Torraca: Teofrasto, Caratteri, Introduzione, traduzione e note di L.T. (Milano: Garzanti, 1994), p. xxviii. " Four Peripatetics must be remembered as authors of XapaKTiipes, Erakleides Ponticos (Diog. Lart. v. 88), Licon, Ariston and Satyros (Atiien. vi 168 c-d). For Licon see Rut. Lup. 2.7, for Ariston see Philod. De vit. X. fi. 14.i-ix Wehrli (Torraca, Teofrasto, pp. xviii-xiii). " Cf. W. Fortenbaugh, "Theophrastus, tiie Characters and Rhetoric" p. 29. ' Terenz' und Menanders Heautontimorumenos (Munchen: C. H Beck 1994) p 101. " "Oh, Menedemus, you're too extreme in each direction with your excessive generosity or your excessive tightfistedness; you'll fall into the same trap from the one as from the other" (trans, by A. J. Brothers). This content downloaded from 190.19.33.210 on Tue, 16 Apr 2013 11:52:38 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions From Aristotelian Xe^is to Elocutio 79 Menander' s 'AppT|<t)6pos. For, in the Heautontimorumenos, a woman (Bacchis) is speaking and addressing another woman (Antiphila), while the yvd)p.Ti referred to in the Scholion concerns a man (dvSpos xop'i'^TfiP)- This line is quoted also by Orion as coming from the 'AppTi<t)6pos and we can accept Korte-Thierfelder's atfribution of it to Menander's 'AppTi<t)6pos: Men. Arr. 66 K.-T. dvSpos x'lp'i'^'rTlP ^'^ Xoyou yvupiCeToi "a man's character is recognized from his speech" Ter. Haul, 384 nam mihi quale ingenium haberes fuit indicio oratio "because your conversation made quite clear to me the sort of character [ingenium] you've got" (trans, by A. J. Brothers). If we accept the idea that Theophrastus and Menander influenced each other," it is interesting to note the great weight Menander gives to speech (CK Xoyoi;). The yvdipai from which we started were a generalization from a particular situation in a play. Theophrastus' Characters also were generalizations demonstrated with particular examples. Thus a kind of reciprocation between particular and general occurred in both types. The yvu)\iT\ on the other hand was developed as an exercise in the Progymnasmata and as a figure. However, this was anticipated in Aristotle's doctrine of the metaphor and contributed to extending a new method which consisted of employing each figure as a complete tool.'^ Such a tool did not need explanation or reasoning, because the figures were like unchanging images, i.e. they were and are labels of reasons already presented and discussed. As for the name of the tropes, the cormection between rhetorical and ethical tropes inheres in the word Tpoiros as has been pointed out by Cocondrios: " See A. J. Brothers: Terence, The Self-Tormentor, Edited with translation and commentary by A. J. B. (Warminster: Arris & Philipps, 1988), p. 190; "the presence in the line of di/Spos "a man" seems odd in a conversation between two women" " On the relation between Theophrastus and Menander see now M. Massioni, Teofrasto in Menandro e Terenzio, Tesi di Dottorato di Ricerca (Bologna, 1996). " 1 would say that a comparison can be made between the pagan custom of putting every important function under a god and the rhetorician's custom of inventing a figure for every linguistic function. This idea should be investigated further. This content downloaded from 190.19.33.210 on Tue, 16 Apr 2013 11:52:38 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 80 RHETORICA Cocon. Trap, III p. 230 Spengel AeyeToi Se Tpoiros KOTO rrp^Tov pev CTripaivopevov TO evos eKOOTou ffios, KO0' 6V Tpoirov KOKOTPOTTOV KOL KaKor|9r| Xeyojiev. "The trope is said firstly according to the character of everybody. In accordance with such a trope we call someone a bad and malignant character." Unfortunately we do not know anything about Cocondrios, but the same connection between trope and character occurs in a passage by Philonicos quoted by Dion. Hal. Isocr. 13 to which Schenkeveld" drew attention: "I [sc. Philonicos] found the same figures of speech used in all his speeches, so that although in many individual cases the treatment was skilful, the overal effect was completely incongruous because the language did not accord with the underlying nature of the characters" (trans, by Schenkeveld).'' In conclusion I would say that the freatment of figures and tropes in the Rhetorica ad Herennium shows in every respect a connexion with the Peripatetic doctrine of figures and tropes and confirms the link with the Rhodian school of rhetoric which is demonsfrated by many other elements. It gives us a first draft of a doctrine which was further developed as time passed. This draft, however, was already a complete system which to a large extent maintained the order which we find in Aristotle, if we take into account at the same time his Poetics and Rhetoric.''^ "Figures and tropes", p. 154. "AiraiTEs yow eupiOKOi/ Toi;s Xoyous airrou jo'is airrols Tpoirois Tf|S X5(DS Kexpntiei^ous. (OOT' iv TTOXXOIS TexWKd)? rd KaS' CKaora i^epyaC6\ievov jo'is oXois dirpeufi iraweXios (Jaifeoeai 8id TO uri irpooriKovTios TO'IS OiroKeiiieuois TC>V T\Q(j>v 4}pdCeiv. The word mos corresponds to rponos The order of the exomationes which we find in the Rhetorica ad Herennium is the distinction between exomationes verborum (4.19^6) and exomationes sententiarum (4.47-68) and inside the first group of figures and precisely at the end of them (4. 42- 46) the ten fropes which have been mentioned above. The Aristotelian order depends, of course, on the disfribution of matter in each work, i.e. in the Poetics and in tiie Rhetoric, but in the Poetics Aristotle puts the oxntiara Xe^eus before metaphor like the author of Rhetorica ad Herennium and in the Rhetoric the Gorgianic figures before metaphor, again, like the author of Rhetorica ad Herennium. This content downloaded from 190.19.33.210 on Tue, 16 Apr 2013 11:52:38 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
The Great Historians of the Ancient World (Illustrated) In 3 vol. Vol. I: The History of the Peloponnesian War by Thucydides, The Histories by Herodotus, Anabasis by Xenophon, The Histories of Polybius, Plutarch Lives by Plutarch and others