Você está na página 1de 919

HANDBOOK OF CLASSICAL R H E T O R I C IN T H E HELLENISTIC P E R I O D (330 B.C.-A.D.

400)

HANDBOOK OF

CLASSICAL RHETORIC
IN THE

HELLENISTIC PERIOD
330 B.C -A.D. 400

Edited

by

STANLEY E. PORTER

BRILL A C A D E M I C PUBLISHERS, INC. B O S T O N LEIDEN

2001

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Handbook of classical rhetoric in the Hellenistic period, 330 B.C.-A.D. 400/ edited by Stanley E. Porter, p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 0 - 3 9 1 - 0 4 1 1 7 - 7 1. Greek literature, HellenisticHistory and criticismHandbooks, manuals, etc. 2. CriticismGreeceHandbooks, manuals, etc. 3. Rhetoric, A n c i e n t Handbooks, manuals, etc. I. Title: Classical rhetoric in the Hellenistic period, 330 B.C.-A.D. 400. II. Porter, Stanley E., 1956PA3083 .H36 2001 808'.00938dc21 2001035744

ISBN 0 - 3 9 1 - 0 4 1 1 7 - 7 Copyright 1997 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Brill provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910 Danvers MA 01923, USA. Fees are subject to change.
PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

To my Father, a great, humble and loving man

CONTENTS

Preface Introduction
STANLEY E . PORTER

xi xiii

PART I RHETORIC DEFINED

Chapter 1 : Historical Survey of Rhetoric


GEORGE A . KENNEDY

3 43 51 89

Chapter 2: The Genres of Rhetoric


GEORGE A . KENNEDY

Chapter 3: Arrangement
WILHELM WUELLNER

Chapter 4: Invention
MALCOLM HEATH

Chapter 5: Style
GALEN O . ROWE

121

Chapter 6: Delivery and Memory


THOMAS H . OLBRICHT

159

PART I I RHETORIC IN PRACTICE

Chapter 7: The Episde


JEFFREY T . REED

171 195 265

Chapter 8: Philosophical Prose


DIRK M . SCHENKEVELD

Chapter 9: Historical Prose


STEFAN REBENICH

viii

CONTENTS

Chapter 10: Poetry and Rhetoric


RUTH WEBB

339

Chapter 11: Biography


RICHARD A . BURRIDGE

371

Chapter 12: Oratory and Declamation


D . H . BERRY AND MALCOLM HEATH

393

Chapter 13: Homily and Panegyrical Sermon


FOLKER SIEGERT

421

Chapter 14: T h e Rhetoric of Romance


RONALD F . HOCK

445 467 489

Chapter 15: Apocalyptic and Prophetic Literature


JONATHAN M . KNIGHT

Chapter 16: Drama and Rhetoric


R U T H SCODEL

PART I I I INDIVIDUAL W R I T E R S AND THE RHETORICAL TRADITION

Chapter 17: T h e Gospels and Acts


RICHARD A . BURRIDGE

507

Chapter 18: Paul of Tarsus and His Letters


STANLEY E . PORTER

533 587 609

Chapter 19: T h e General New Testament Writings


LAURI T H U R N

Chapter 20: T h e Johannine Writings


DENNIS L . STAMPS

Chapter 21: T h e Greek Christian Writers


WOLFRAM KINZIG

633

Chapter 22: T h e Latin Church Fathers


PHILIP E . SATTERTHWAITE

671 695

Chapter 23: Philo of Alexandria


THOMAS M . CONLEY

CONTENTS

ix

Chapter 24: Plutarch


HUBERT M . MARTIN, J R .

715

Chapter 25: The Rhetoric of Josephus


DONNA R . RUNNALLS

737 755

Chapter 26: Cynics and Rhetoric


RONALD F . H O C K

Chapter 27: Translations of the Old Testament I . Greek, J O H N A. L. L E E II. Latin, KEVIN H. L E E Chapter 28: Rhetoric in the Christian Apocrypha
RICHARD I. PERVO

775 784 793 807

Chapter 29: The Rhetoric of Inscriptions


EDWIN A . J U D G E

Index of Ancient Authors Index of Modern Authors

829 000

PREFACE

This Handbook of Classical Rhetoric in the Hellenistic Period (330 BC-AD 400) has been a long time in the making. It has been an involved and lengthy editorial project, but it has been a very rewarding editorial task as well. I have had the opportunity to expand greatly my intellectual and academic horizons, both in terms of knowledge of writers of the ancient world and their use of rhetoric, and in terms of the scholars who have written on them. Graciousness prevents me from mentioning by name those who, though contractually obligated, backed out at the last moment. I am indeed thankful that in the vast majority of cases others willingly stepped forward to fill necessary gaps. T o a person each of the final contributors has been very cooperative, preparing their work on time and going through the rigours of checking references and completing footnotes. Many of these contributors have offered continuing encouragement to me as well, as they got an inkling of the complexity of the editorial task. Of course, my opinion is severely biased, but I think that the end product more than justifies the incredible amounts of effort that the work in total represents. I can only hope that the final product is as beneficial to those who use it as it has been to those of us who have contributed to its creation. Besides the individual contributors, each of whom deserves much gratitude and thanks, the following deserve special thanks. First, Julian Deahl and Hans van der Meij of Brill Publishers merit special mention. It was Julian who first contacted me about editing a project such as this, but it was Hans who has become an enduring friend. I judge the value of his friendship by his understanding of the hazards that this project has encountered, his gentle (and sometimes not so gentle) nudging to push for completion, and his willingness to run interference with a few authors. Secondly, I wish to thank several institutions who have enabled work on this project to be undertaken, including Trinity Western University in British Columbia, Canada, and Roehampton Institute London, England. Although I was in transition some of the time that this project was being undertaken, each institution provided an excellent environment for my own work, including support of some of the necessary administrative costs of such

XII

PREFACE

a project. In conjunction with this I wish to thank Mr Neil Taylor, the Dean of the Faculty of Arts and Humanities of Roehampton Institute London for his direct support of this project. Thirdly, but hardly lasdy, I wish to thank my wife for her enduring and abiding support for me in this and all my work. I cannot say enough, and will not even try. My father has also been a perpetual source of encouragement and support to me in my work. He was my first instructor in the art of rhetoric, and it is to him that I dedicate this volume. The system of abbreviations used in this volume should be explained. T h e references to ancient writers for the most part follow those contained in H. G. Liddell and R. Scott's A Greek-English Lexicon and P. G. W. Glare et al.'s Oxford Latin Dictionary, apart from some abbreviations, such as biblical and related books, that should be selfevident. References to secondary literature employ standard abbreviations employed by English-language or Continental publishers. These can be readily found elsewhere, and it was not thought necessary to reprint a lengthy list here. Whereas general consistency has been sought in editing this volume, the nature of the material and the characteristics of the individual contributors has made flexibility a necessary feature as well. Stanley E. Porter London, May 1996

INTRODUCTION Stanley . Porter

This volume, Handbook of Classical Rhetoric in the Hellenistic Period (330 BC-AD 400), does not require much introduction. Rhetoric is a very important topic in the study of the writings of the Greek and Roman worlds, and a volume in English to introduce the major features of rhetoric and its practitioners should find ready reception. More than that, the study of rhetoric has become a very active topic in a number of scholarly fields. This volume provides a comprehensive and wide-ranging introduction to classical rhetoric as it was practised in the Hellenistic period (330 B C - A D 400). In three sections, this detailed reference volume provides a thorough description and analysis of the standard categories of thought, terminology, and theoretical and historical developments of classical rhetoric, as well as providing useful bibliographies. T h e three sections of essays include, first, definitions of the major categories of rhetoric. Included here are significant essays on the genres of rhetoric, and the categories of arrangement, invention, style, delivery and memory. These are prefaced by a historical survey of ancient rhetoric that provides an overview of the rhetorical literature being discussed throughout the volume. Whereas these topics have all been discussed before, the treatments have the individual stamps of their contributors, and should help in exposing readers to the various ways in which such standard categories of rhetoric can be approached and utilized. T h e second section analyses rhetorical practice according to genre of writing. Some of the genres here have already been subjected to a good amount of rhetorical analysis, such as oratory and declamation. Others of the genres, however, have had very little rhetorical analysis. The contributors in these areas have taken the opportunity to explore previously uncharted territory. There is some very significant work here that will foster much further scholarly analysis, even of those topics that have been treated previously. The third section treats individual writers from a rhetorical perspective. The focus in this section is upon writers of the Hellenistic period, including those of the New Testament and Christian tradition,

XIV

INTRODUCTION

as well as others. Whereas these writers have all been studied before, some of them from rhetorical perspectives, there is also much new work here, as well as much work that challenges previous conclusions. Although there is some overlap in these topics, genres and authors, this can only be an aid to fostering further discussion of these topics. Where specific topics are not discussed, there should be plenty of useful guidance provided elsewhere so that one can at least begin research into a new area of investigation. The intentions of this volume are several, and bear mentioning here. T h e first is to provide a comprehensive and wide-ranging introduction to the field of classical rhetoric in the Hellenistic period. Each essay should give some idea of any consensus among scholars, as well as appreciating diversity and complexity of the subject as discussed and utilized in the ancient and modern worlds. The second is to provide a thorough introduction to the standard categories of thought, terminology, and theoretical writers on the subject, along with its history and development. Each chapter is thoroughly documented and concludes with a useful bibliography. These bibliographies vary in length, but should provide instructive guidance to further reading on the subject. T h e third intention is to provide an assessment of the use of classical rhetorical categories in a representative selection of literary genres and a number of specific writers of the Hellenistic period. These assessments conclude both positively and negatively regarding the applicability of rhetorical analysis, providing many challenges for further research. The fourth is to provide relevant examples of each term defined and analysed, with suitable amounts of primary text as necessary. The fifth and final intention is to suggest areas warranting further research. Perhaps the test of the value of this volume will be the amount of further scholarship that it generates. In developing and writing this volume, the editor, as well as the contributors, have had several projected audiences in mind. Others should feel free to utilize the volume, but the following audiences are being specifically addressed here. T h e first is New Testament scholars. Although there has been increased interest in rhetoric as evidenced in a multitude of recent publications, New Testament scholars have not had a handbook that introduces the categories of rhetoric in terms of their literature. This volume should provide a standard reference work for this large (and growing) group of New Testament scholars. It must be noted that important caveats regarding the use

INTRODUCTION

XV

of rhetoric to study the New Testament are registered in this volume. T h e second audience is scholars of the Hellenistic period. Latinists are familiar with the period of attention, even though it has until fairly recently been neglected by many students of Greek. T h e volume integrates Latin and Greek interests as they focus upon the literature of the Hellenistic period as seen through the eyes of rhetoric. The third is classical scholars. As classical scholars expand the scope of their interests, a work that applies familiar categories to new areas of investigation should be welcome, especially one that integrates classical categories with Hellenistic literary practice. T h e fourth and final audience is patristics scholars. Patristics has proved a useful area of discussion regarding rhetoric. This volume provides a synthesis that places patristic investigation within its larger context in the ancient world.

PART I

RHETORIC

DEFINED

CHAPTER 1

H I S T O R I C A L SURVEY O F R H E T O R I C George A. Kennedy


University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, USA

I.

D E F I N I T I O N S OF

RHETORIC

The Greek word first occurs in Plato's Gorgias, probably written in the second decade of the fourth century BC. The term is there used by Socrates, and accepted without protest by the sophist Gorgias and his follower Polus, to describe a , or art, of public speaking which Gorgias practiced and taught to others and about which Polus had published some written work. In Grg. 453a2 Socrates attributes to Gorgias, and Gorgias accepts, a definition of rhetoric as , the "worker of persuasion". Since Socrates initially speaks of "what is called rhetoric" (448d9), the usual view has been that the term was current, if not at the dramatic date of the dialogue in the last quarter of the fifth century, at least by the time of its composition. The word does not occur, however, in any surviving fifth-century Greek text, and even in the fourth century it is found almost exclusively in the writings of Plato and Aristode. A more common term in the fifth and fourth centuries was , the "art of words, speech, or discourse". It has been argued that Plato coined "rhetoric", 1 which might be thought to have some negative connotations because of its derivation from , "speaker", often implying "politician". If so, the development of the arts of language, speech, and reasoning by sophists in the fifth century should be viewed as a wider interest in forms of discourse that did not differentiate political rhetoric as a specific area of study,2 and Plato's use of the wordincluding Socrates' definition of rhetoric as a form of flattery and a counterpart of cookery, and his claim that it is no true

1 2

Schiappa 1990; cf. Cole 1991:2. Cf. Schiappa 1991:64-85.

GEORGE . KENNEDY

art since it lacks knowledge (Grg. 464bl~66a6)is an attempt to distinguish political rhetoric, aiming at persuasion however achieved, from philosophy. Throughout western history there have continued to be those who have distrusted rhetoric as deceit, propaganda, superficial ornamentation, or the empty use of words. 3 Aristotle (Rh. 1:2:1355b25~26) modified the Platonic conception of rhetoric by defining it as "the ability in each [particular] case to see the available means of persuasion". This implies that there exists rhetorical knowledge or theorywhat modern critics call "metarhetoric"which is then applied by a speaker in an intentional, though not always successful, act of persuasion. Rhetoric, in Aristotle's view, is an antistrophos, or "counterpart", to dialectic (1:1:1354a 1 ); dialectic deals with general questions, often in dialogue format, rhetoric with particular issues, usually in a continuous oration. Aristotle's treatment of rhetoric largely limits it to public address before political assemblies, in lawcourts, or at public ceremonies, and in this he is followed by subsequent Greek and Roman writers on rhetoric. T h e question of rhetorical genres will be discussed in the next chapter. Writers on rhetoric after Aristotle offered a variety of definitions, of which Quintilian gives a critical survey in his Institutio oratoria (2:15): some emphasized persuasion as the "end" of rhetoric; others stressed the artistic ability of a speaker on any subject. Some preferred to define the duty or function (, officium) of an orator, as does the author of the Rhetoma ad Herennium (1:2): "the function of an orator is to be able to speak on those matters that have been fixed by law and custom for civic purpose and to secure as far as possible the assent of the audience". Quintilian's own definition (Inst. 2:15:34) is much broader: bene dicendi scientia, or "the knowledge of speaking well", in which "well" refers not only to persuasive argument and stylistic art, but implies moral purpose, for he insists that an orator "cannot speak well unless he is a good man". In popular usage today rhetoric often carries a negative connotation. In scholarly contexts, however, the meanings of rhetoric tend to fall into one or the other of two categories. Viewed historically, as an academic discipline that developed in Greek times, was taught in

3 In antiquity Aristophanes (esp. in Clouds) and other comic poets ridiculed rhetoric for comic effect, but most criticism of rhetoric came from philosophers, often echoing Gorgias. This is especially true in the second century BC; cf. Cic. De or. 1:4648 and 85-89.

HISTORICAL SURVEY OF RHETORIC

schools throughout the Greco-Roman period, and became, with grammar and dialectic, a part of the trivium in the liberal arts course of the Middle Ages, Renaissance, and early modern periods, rhetoric is a system of effective and artistic composition, whether in speech or in writing, originally concerned with public address in civic and religious life, but then adapted to literary composition, including poetry, and to letter-writing (the medieval and renaissance dictamen). By the late Hellenistic period it had developed a traditional set of precepts grouped in five "parts" that recapitulate the act of planning and delivering a speech: invention (planning the content and argument), arrangement (of the contents into a logical sequence and unity), style (the choice and combination of words into clauses, periods, and figures), memory (the use of mnemonic systems to retain the contents in the mind), and delivery (oral expression and gesture). T h e precepts of rhetoric, developed to teach young people how to speak and write effectively in accordance with approved conventions, were then often used as the basis of the criticism and interpretation of texts of all sorts, including poetry and eventually the Christian scriptures. Since effective rhetorical composition was viewed as a conscious, intentional act, rhetorical criticism in this sense has usually focused on discovering the intention of the original author and describing how or to what extent that intention was achieved for the original audience. Although the teaching of classical rhetoric faded in the nineteenth century, it has experienced a revival in the late twentieth, including both a return to the study of classical rhetoric in language instruction 4 and the creation of "new rhetorics" that are at least in part based on classical models. 5 Although Greek and Roman writers differed vociferously about the value of rhetoric and the effect of giving it a leading role in education, the theory of rhetoric expounded from the fourth century BC to the end of antiquity is essentially a unified system of describing and teaching public address, utilizing the same basic categories. Inventional theory was expanded in the Hellenistic period to include stasis theory (the technique of determining the question at issue in a speech), and the theory of style was enlarged to identify certain "virtues", or excellences, some necessary, others appropriate in specific contexts, and a formidable list of figures of speech. There is consider4 5

Cf. Welch 1990. Esp. Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca 1958.

GEORGE . KENNEDY

able variation in detail, as teachers sought to be innovative, and some variation in terminology, but it is possible to speak of a standard system of classical rhetoric, expounded in handbooks and illustrated in practice. 6 A second meaning of rhetoric, found in modern critical writing but not in classical sources, views it as a quality inherent in the use of signs, especially linguistic signs, and in the network of signs that constitute a text.7 The rhetoric of a poem, novel, play, or other artistic composition is thus a matter of how the text works to achieve some effect through its imagery, metaphor, figuration, irony, and narrative voices,8 and also of the cultural, political, and social assumptions that are inherent in the text.9 So viewed, rhetoric is not necessarily a conscious art on the part of the original author, and the aim of such rhetorical criticism is not to reconstruct authorial intent and the effect on the original audience, which cannot be fully known and may be irrelevant, but to discover meaning in the text as received by any reader or to deconstruct the text into the oppositions or ambiguities that in post-modern thought are regarded as always already present in any attempt to control language. Although rhetoric in the sense of an inherent quality in language and texts is logically prior to rhetoric in the sense of the classical system of conceptualized rhetoric, historically the modern meaning developed out of the study of tropes and figures in academic rhetoric from the sixteenth to the eighteenth centuries, primarily in France. Although the word "rhetoric" is a Greek coinage, most ancient cultures had some concept of persuasion and artistic speech or writing and of the differing abilities of speakers. For example, the wisdom text of Ptahhotep, written in Egypt about 2000 BC, offers instruction in "the principle of fine speech". 10 In the Old Testament creation is described as a speech act, "And God said.. . ." (Gen. l:3ff); Moses protests to God that he is not eloquent and God replies by designating Aaron as the orator of the Jews (Exod. 4:10-16); in Prov. 16:21 "pleasant words are like a honeycomb, sweetness to the soul and

The system is set forth in detail in the modern handbooks of Lausberg 1960 and Martin 1974; their indices are invaluable to the student of rhetoric. 7 Cf. Groupe 1981. 8 Cf., e.g., Booth 1961. 9 Cf., e.g., Eagleton 1983:194-217. 10 Cf. Fox 1983 and Blythin 1986.

HISTORICAL SURVEY OF RHETORIC

health to the body"." There are also manuals of speaking from ancient China: for example, Difficulties in the Way of Persuasion by Han Fei Tzu. 12 Classical rhetoric is a specific cultural development of a universal phenomenon of communication that probably has its ultimate natural origin in the instinct of self-preservation common to all creatures 13 and which in tribal and urban societies took on differing conventional forms that seemed capable of being reduced to rules and being taught.

I I . G R E E K R H E T O R I C BEFORE T H E F O U R T H

CENTURY

Greek and Latin writers (e.g., Cic. Brut. 46-48, drawing on Aristode's lost ) claim that rhetoric, as they understood it, was "invented" in the second quarter of the fifth century by Corax and Tisias in Sicily. The accounts are confused, and Corax (which means "crow") may well be a nickname for Tisias.14 The contexts in which attempts to teach effective public speaking developed were the administrative and legal system of constitutional governments, which required individual citizens to be able to speak on their own behalf, often before large audiences. This was especially true under the Athenian democracy; it was largely in Athens that rhetorical systems developed and found their practical application. But the rhetorical conventions of any culture are built on audience expectations of what a speech should be and what constitutes valid argument; thus it is not surprising that many of the techniques of rhetoric identified in the fifth and fourth centuries can be found in earlier Greek literature. Aristode constandy quotes examples of rhetoric from Homer, lyric poets, dramatists, and historians who had not studied a system of rhetoric. The Greeks were a highly vocal, argumentative people, and even the earliest Greek literature shows a consciousness of what later came to be called rhetoric. If we wish to provide a name for "rhetoric before rhetoric" probably the best choice is , "persuasion",
This becomes the basis for the fifteenth-century treatise on Old Testament rhetoric by Judah Messer Leon, The Book of the Honeycomb's Flow, ed. and trans. Rabinowitz 1983. 12 Cf. Oliver 1971:220-33. 13 Cf. Kennedy 1992. 14 Cf. Cole 1992.
11

GEORGE . KENNEDY

conceived as a divine force present in language (Hes. Op. 73, Th. 349; Sappho fr. 90, 96, and 200 Campbell; Pi. P. 9:3:9; etc.). Herodotus (8:111) reports that early in the fifth century Themistocles told the Andrians that the Athenians came to them with two great goddesses, ("Persuasive Speech and Physical Constraint"), and in the mid-fifth century the poet Eupolis (fr. 94:5) said that Peitho sat on Pericles' lips. Peitho is regularly found in Greek art in company with that more physical persuasive force, Aphrodite, her mother according to Sappho. As already noted, Socrates attributes to Gorgias the definition of rhetoric as , the "worker of persuasion": thus the popular view of rhetoric through the classical period as "the art of persuasion". The Iliad, the earliest work of European literature, already shows many of the features of rhetoric that are conceptualized in the later tradition. Formal debates, with extended speeches that can be divided into logical parts, are a feature of both Greek and Trojan assemblies. Skill at speech is something learned (presumably by imitation, not precept): Phoenix has taught Achilles to be both a speaker of words and a doer of deeds (9:443). There are poor speakers like Thersites, who knows words but not how to put them together effectively (2:213), eloquent speakers like Nestor, "whose voice flowed from his mouth sweeter than honey" (1:249), and recognition that there were different effective styles of speech. For later antiquity (e.g., Aulus Gellius 6:14:7), Nestor was the model of the "middle" or smooth style; Odysseus, whose "words flew like flakes of snow" (3:222), was the model of the grand style, Menelaus, fluent, but using few words (3:214-15), of the plain style. Later Greeks and Romans regularly found models both of thought and style in speeches in the Iliad, especially the three speeches of the embassy to Achilles in book 9 and the pathetic appeal of Priam to Achilles to recover the body of Hector in book 24.15 The conceptualization of a rhetorical system and the definition of rhetorical terms was an aspect of the general development of Greek thought in the classical period, including natural and moral philosophy, medicine, and political theory. It was facilitated by what has come to be known as the "literate revolution" of the late fifth century, the gready increased use of writing in composition and com-

15

Cf. Kennedy 1980:11-14.

HISTORICAL SURVEY OF RHETORIC

munication. 16 Although an adaptation of the Phoenician alphabet had been introduced into Greece as early as the eighth century BC and written copies of literary texts were in circulation at least by the sixth century, both composition and publication long remained oral. Greater reliance on writing may have developed with the need for communication over distance in the historical events of the fifth century, such as the formation of the Athenian empire and the Peloponnesian war. Although the goal of rhetorical teaching and study was effective speech, written texts were basic to its methods. These included the handbooks () that were used by average citizens to gain an understanding of rhetorical methods, and they also included the texts of speeches by sophists and orators that were studied as models of expression. In Plato's Phaedrus we meet a young enthusiast for rhetoric who is studying the written text of a speech attributed to Lysias. Greater use of writing changed the view of language, allowing it to be visualized on a page; it made rereading possible, with comparison between passages; it facilitated logical argument that might be difficult to follow orally, and it is perhaps responsible for the increased use of periodic sentences with numerous subordinate clauses. It contributed to a greater awareness of style and the stylistic possibilities of prose in particular: Greeks became more aware that things could be said in different ways with different emphases and different moral and emotional implications. In Phaedrus (266d5~267d8) Plato gives a survey of "the numerous things found in books written about the art of speech". These are the , or handbooks in circulation in the late fifth century, none of which has survived. T h e authors mentioned include Theodorus of Byzantium, Euenus of Paros, Tisias, Polus, Licymnius, and Thrasymachus; some opinions of the sophists Protagoras, Gorgias, Prodicus, and Hippias are also mentioned, though it is doubtful whether they should be regarded as authors of handbooks. It seems clear from the passage, and also from what Aristotle says about in the Rhetoric (3:13:1414a37-b6), that the handbooks set out a structure of a judicial speech consisting of a logical series of parts: a , or introduction; , or narrative, with provision for introduction of the evidence of witnesses; , or proof; and , or summary conclusion; but some of the writers suggested the need for additional parts, which were given technical names. T h e four basic
16

Cf. Havelock 1982; Lenz 1989; T h o m a s 1989, 1992.

10

GEORGE . KENNEDY

divisions are regularly found in Greek judicial oratory, less regularly in deliberative and epideictic speeches. Plato's description also suggests that the handbooks contained some information about correct and ornamented word choice and about the expression of emotion (on which see also Arist. Rh. 1:1:1354a 11-21). Aristotle in his Rhetoric criticizes the handbooks for their neglect of logical argument, but at least one form of proof seems to have been illustrated: argument from probability (). The classic example, cited by both Plato (Phdr. 273a-b, where it is attributed to Tisias) and Aristode (Rh. 2:24:1402a 18-20, where it is attributed to Corax), and given developed form in the Third Tetralogy attributed to Antiphon, involves responsibility for starting a brawl between a small man and a large man: the small man can argue that it is improbable that he would have started a fight with someone much larger than himself; the large man can turn this around and argue that because of his size he would be easily blamed as an aggressor and for that reason it is improbable he would have started the fight. Argument from probability, in a variety of forms, is very common in Greek literature of all sorts in the fifth century, not only in oratory but in poetry. A good example is the speech of Creon in Sophocles' Oedipus Tyrannus (583-615) where, in reply to Oedipus's attack on him, he argues that it is improbable that he would have conspired to gain the throne. Argument from probability seems to have appealed to the Greeks in that it was based on an understanding of human nature; conversely, Greek orators often distrusted direct evidence, such as that by witnesses, as easily faked or bribed. Although the early handbooks seem to have set out a model structure for a speech, suggested some forms of argument, and contained information on style, and though they introduced some of the technical vocabulary that became traditional in rhetoric, they should not be regarded as very sophisticated or theoretical treatments. They were probably short, apparendy ephemeral, and in all likelihood more a collection of examples of what might be said than a statement of precepts. It has recently been plausibly suggested that the term , literally "place" but used to mean a rhetorical topic, came into use to refer to the physical place in a written where a "commonplace" could be found to fit a variety of contexts." Teaching rhetoric, often for rather considerable fees, was one of
17

Cf. Cole 1991:88-89.

HISTORICAL SURVEY OF RHETORIC

11

the activities of fifth-century sophists, an important aspect of their claim to teach practical wisdom in public and private affairs (cf. Pl. Prt. 319al). As the description of education by Plato's character Protagoras in the dialogue of that name makes clear (Prt. 325e-326c), traditional Greek education () made no attempt to teach original composition or original thought. Sophists, for the first time, taught students how to compose and how to argue, but they did so by the example of their own method of epideixis, discourses on hypothetical issues that demonstrated techniques for students to imitate. At the end of his treatise On Sophistical Refutations (SE 183a-184b) Aristode criticizes the teaching of Gorgias and the sophists as unsystematic:
For some of them gave their pupils speeches to learn by heart, speeches which were either rhetorical or consisted of questions and answers, in which both sides thought that the rival arguments were for the most part included. Hence the teaching which they gave their pupils was rapid but unsystematic; for they conceived that they could train their pupils by imparting to them not an art but the results of an art, just as if one should claim to be able to communicate knowledge for the prevention of pain in the feet and then did not teach the cobbler's art and the means of providing suitable foot-gear, but offered a selection of various kinds of shoes; for he has helped to supply his need but has not imparted an art to him. 18

The most famous surviving examples of sophistic model speeches are the Tetralogies attributed to Antiphon (three sets of two speeches for the prosecution and two for the defense in homicide cases)19 and two by Gorgias, The Encomium of Helen and The Defense of Palamedes?0 Gorgias first came to Athens on an embassy from Leontini in Sicily in 427 BC and made an enormous impression there with his remarkable prose style and his clever use of argument. The Helen is divided into the four parts of prooemion, narrative, proof, and epilogue; it argues that Helen must have abandoned Menelaus and gone to Troy with Paris for one of four reasons: either it was fated by the gods, or she was taken by force, or she was seduced by Paris's words, or she was overcome with love for him. Gorgias seeks to prove that whichever was the reason, she is not to be held morally blamable. This is

Trans, by Forster 1955:154, with minor changes. Text and translation by Maidment 1941; authorship and date are very controversial. 20 Helen trans, by Kennedy (1991:283-88); Palamedes trans, by Kennedy in Sprague 1972:54-63.
19

18

12

GEORGE . KENNEDY

relatively easy to show if fate or force are involved, more challenging in the case of words or love, both of which Gorgias presents as irresistible forces. T h e most famous part of the speech (Hel. 8-14) is the discussion of the power of logos: "Speech is a powerful lord that with the smallest and most invisible body accomplished most godlike works. It can banish fear and remove grief and instill pleasure and enhance pity. . . ." T h e passage as a whole can be taken as expressing the wonder and excitement in the fifth century occasioned by the dawning awareness of the possibilities of rhetoric. Gorgias's prose style is characterized by constant antithesis, word play (paronomasia), and the use of poetic devices. He is fond of balancing clauses with the same number of syllables (isocolon) and of rhyming the last words of clauses or phrases (homoeoteleuton). Such techniques were imitated by othersthey can, for example, be found in speeches in Thucydides' Historybut the jingling effect was distracting, and fourth-century writers largely abandoned them, seeking instead force and clarity on the principle that the greatest art is to disguise art. The first statement of this principle is found in Aristotle [Rh. 3:2:1404b 1821). T h e most important successor of the sophists in the fourth century was Isocrates, who, about 390 BC, opened a school in Athens that was intended to supply an understanding of moral and political philosophy and of rhetorical skills to future leaders of Greece. Over the next fifty years it attracted a large number of students. Isocrates was very much a part of the "literate revolution". He was himself ineffective as a public speaker and his "speeches" are written treatises in oratorical form, frequently revised, often lengthy, composed in long periodic sentences, and highly polished. Though they are usually referred to as epideictic, they are often cast in the form of judicial or deliberative orations or of letters. His early programmatic work Against the Sophists (13:16-17) outlines his educational method: I hold that to obtain a knowledge of the elements () out of which we make and compose all discourses is not so very difficult if anyone entrusts himself, not to those who make rash promises but to those who have some knowledge of these things. But to choose from these elements those which should be employed for each subject, to join them together, to arrange them properly, and also, not to miss what the occasion demands but appropriately to adorn the whole speech with striking thoughts () and to clothe it in flowing and melodious phrasethese things, I hold, require much study and are the task of a vigorous and imaginative mind: for this, the student must not only have the requisite aptitude, but must learn the different kinds

HISTORICAL SURVEY OF RHETORIC

13

of discourse and practise himself in their use; and the teacher, for his part, must so expound the principles of the art with the utmost possible exactness as to leave out nothing that can be taught, and, for the rest, he must in himself set such an example of oratory that the students w h o have taken form under his instruction and are able to pattern themselves after him () will, from the outset, show in their speaking a degree of grace and charm which is not found in others. 21

This is the earliest passage in which a Greek writer recognizes the stages in composition which became the three major parts of rhetorical theory, invention, arrangement, and style. The thought comes first, it is then arranged logically and finally cast into words and polished. The student learns primarily from imitation () of approved models, including the teacher's own examples, but apparendy Isocrates also intends to lecture on rhetorical theory. 22 His surviving works, of which the Antidosis is the most important account of his own teaching, present more a philosophy of rhetoric as a method of moral education than a theoretical system, and they lack technical rhetorical vocabulary. Note his use in the passage above of and in a non-technical sense. The development of a conceptualized system of rhetoric with principles of composition and a technical vocabulary, beyond what little was to be found in the , was largely the contribution of Plato and Aristode. Although the account of rhetoric found in the Gorgias of Plato is negative, even that dialogue (503a5-b7) suggests that there might be the possibility of a valid, philosophical art of discourse: "a genuine attempt to make the souls of one's fellows as excellent as may be, a striving always to say what is best, whatever the degree of pleasure or pain it may afford the audience. But a rhetoric such as this you have never encountered". A few years later, in the Phaedrus, Plato allows Socrates to outline what would be the major features of a valid art of rhetoric. This is the subject of the second half of the dialogue and is summarized in the following long sentence in 277b5~c6:
Until someone knows the truth of each thing about which he speaks or writes and is able to define everything in its o w n species and subspecies to the point of indivisibility, discerning the nature of the soul

Trans, by Norlin II 1929:173-75. What Norlin translates "expound the principles of the art" is in the Greek text only "go through (or describe thoroughly) these things".
22

21

14

GEORGE . KENNEDY

in accordance with the same method, while discovering the logical category which fits with each nature, and until in a similar way he composes and adorns speech, furnishing variegated and complex speech to a variegated soul and simple speech to a simple soulnot until then will it be possible for speech to exist in an artistic form in so far as the nature of speech is capable of such treatment, neither for instruction nor for persuasion, as has been shown by our entire past discussion.

Rhetoric thus requires knowledge of the subject, knowledge of logical method, and knowledge of the psychology of the audience: it is a , or "leading of the soul", by both reason and emotion (261a7-9). "Probable" argument is only probable if based on a knowledge of truth (260a ~c). Effective discourse requires a unity of its parts: "every discourse, like a living creature, should be so put together that it has its own body and lacks neither head nor feet, middle nor extremities, all composed in such a way that they suit both each other and the whole" (264c2~5). T h e Platonic conception underlies the account of rhetoric that Aristode subsequendy formulated, especially his emphasis on logical method and his division of the artistic means of persuasion into the use by a speaker of ethos, or presentation of his character as trustworthy, logos, or logical argument, and pathos, or awakening the emotion of the audience. Nevertheless, Aristotelian rhetoric is very much a phenomenon of the real world of politics and the lawcourts. Although he often draws examples from poetry, Aristode largely limits the sphere of rhetoric to public address in contemporary assemblies, courts, or ceremonial occasions. Although he puts great emphasis on understanding valid logical argument, he realized that in practice the political, legal, or cultural issues discussed in public speaking usually are matters on which only probabilities can be established. Although he believes that an orator should not seek to persuade an audience of something that is wrong (Rh. 1:1:1354b31), he regarded rhetoric as itself a morally neutral art that suggests "the available means of persuasion" and how to argue on either side of an issue; thus he does not hesitate to describe methods that might be persuasive even if invalid or immoral.

HISTORICAL SURVEY OF RHETORIC

15

III.

G R E E K AND L A T I N

ORATORY

Throughout the history of Greek and Roman rhetoric the imitation of classic models was fundamental to instruction in rhetoric. This included study of speeches in the Homeric poems, in Greek drama (especially plays of Euripides, who employs techniques taught by the sophists), in Greek historians, and of course in the orators. T h e speeches in Thucydides' History of the Peloponnesian War are probably the most interesting to the student of the early history of rhetoric; the historian claims (1:22) that in so far as possible he based the speeches on what was actually said, but it was often difficult to know this accurately (political speeches were not usually published until Demosthenes began to do so in the fourth century) and thus he relies on , what was "needed, appropriate, fitting" to say in the circumstances. The speeches he includes are clearly quite compressed, and as a result often bring out the political issues in a striking way. A particularly good example is the debate between Cleon and Diodotus in 3:37-48, with its sharp focus on the conflict between expediency and justice in determining a policy to deal with the Mitylenean revolt. The most famous speech in Thucydides' work is his version of the Epitaphios, or Funeral Oration, given by Pericles at the ceremony for those who died in the first year of the war (2:35-46), with its highly idealistic presentation of Athens and her culture as the "school of Greece", its emotional account of death in batde, and its relatively chilly consolation for those who are left behind. 23 Pericles both acknowledges and breaks from the conventions of the genre (the traditional topoi are better seen, for example, in the epitaphios by Lysias). O n any ceremonial occasion such as this the major rhetorical challenge to a speaker is how at one and the same time to meet the audience expectations for the traditional form and to make something significant of the occasion by saying something new and striking. Public epideictic oratory, of which epitaphios is one species, was developed in classical Greek times and became important again under the Roman Empire; it was a major element in transmitting traditional values and in educating the populace in those values, but it easily became artificially inflated into praise of rulers and the status quo and frequendy glosses over or rewrites unpleasant historical realities.
23 For an extended discussion of the ideological and rhetorical issues in Greek funeral orations, including this one, see Loraux 1986.

16

GEORGE . KENNEDY

The extensive surviving corpus of Greek oratory provides an understanding of rhetorical practice in the late fifth and fourth centuries. 24 Although the orators were familiar with the rhetorical handbooks of the time and with the work of sophists, none shows specific influence of the ideas of Plato and Aristotle about rhetoric. Their published speeches, rather, are artistic developments of the oral traditions of speech in Greece within the conventions of public life and the law courts, applied to the challenge of specific situations. At least two orators, Lysias and Demosthenes, rank with the greatest oratorical geniuses of all time, and Isaeus, Isocrates, Aeschines, and Hyperides are worthy contenders for the second rank. They are all important sources for historical informationlegal, political, and socialas well as models of eloquence. The fourth century was a period in which attention turned increasingly to individual character and even to the portrayal of personality: it is in the pages of the orators that we first meet real, individual Greeks in the course of their ordinary lives. Isocrates, Demosthenes, and Aeschines also tell us much about themselves; Demosthenes can be fairly said to be the first individual in history whose life we can know in any detail. Since Greek law required that most legal procedures be conducted personally by the principals in the case, and even criminal prosecutions had to be brought by some individual rather than the state, and since individuals involved in criminal trials or litigation often lacked rhetorical training, the profession of logographer, or speechwriter, developed in the late fifth century. Antiphon, Lysias, Isaeus, Isocrates in his early career, Demosthenes, and others wrote speeches for clients to memorize and deliver as best they could in court. Many of these speeches survive, perhaps published by the original author as examples of his skill, perhaps based on a text used by the clients who bought them. 25 The challenge for the speechwriter was to size up the client, organize his case, and present it and him in the most effective way. Lysias in particular is famous for the success of his portrayal of a wide variety of clients in such a way as to make them seem both natural and believable. This quality in his speeches, known in later times as ethopoiia, is a matter of the thought and topics employed, not of the prose style. Among the most celebrated examples are his orations 1, 7, 9, and 21. As a stylist, Lysias became for the

Standard works on Greek oratory include those of Blass 187480 and Jebb 1893. 25 The latter is argued by Dover 1968:151-61, in the case of Lysias.

24

HISTORICAL SURVEY OF RHETORIC

17

rhetorical schools, and for modern students, the model of the "plain" or "simple" style, characterized by purity of dicdon, clarity of grammatical construction, and restraint in ornamentation by tropes and figures. Demosthenes, in contrast, became the model of the "grand" style, or more accurately the master of every style "harmoniously blended". His distinctive quality is , or forcefulness, best seen in his deliberative speeches: the Olynthiacs, the Philippics, and especially On the Crown.26 The classic model of the "middle", or "smooth", style is the orations of Isocrates, with their vast periodic sentences, their avoidance of hiatus (the "gap" occurring when a word ending in a vowel is followed by a word beginning with a vowel), and their rhythmical flow. There is no extant Greek oratory from the last three centuries BC. From the Roman period we have substandal collections of Greek speeches, some actually delivered, others published as epideictic models by rhetors who are representatives of the "Second Sophistic". The most important orators are Dio Chrysostom (late first century AD), Aelius Aristides (mid-second century), and their fourth-century successors, Libanius, Himerius, Synesius, and Themistius. For these orators rhetoric was a fully conceptualized system and their works can be studied in terms of the theory taught in schools of the Hellenistic and Roman period. There is also a development of Christian epideictic oratory in Greek, beginning with Gregory Thaumaturgus in the third century, followed by Eusebius of Caesarea in the early fourth, and attaining its greatest achievements in the work of Gregory of Nazianzus in the mid-fourth century. The Alexandrian grammarian-critics of the third and second centuries BC, Aristophanes of Byzantium and Aristarchus, drew up canons of Greek poets, arranged by genres (epic, lyric, tragic, etc.). A canon of the Attic orators also eventually came into existence, best known from the anonymous treatise (probably a work of the second century AD) On the Lives of the Ten Orators that is preserved among the works of Plutarch:27 the ten approved models are Antiphon, Andocides, Lysias, Isaeus, Isocrates, Isaeus, Demosthenes, Aeschines, Hyperides, Lycurgus, and Dinarchus. The beginnings of a canon can be found by the first century BC. Cicero (Brut. 32-37) singles out Isocrates, Lysias, Demosthenes, Hyperides, Aeschines, Lycurgus, Dinarchus, Demades, and Demetrius of Phaleron for special mention. Dionysius
26 57

For a rhetorical analysis of On the Crown see Donnelly 1941. Trans, by Frster 1936.

18

GEORGE . KENNEDY

of Halicarnassus devotes treatises to Lysias, Isocrates, Isaeus, Demosthenes, and Dinarchus. It was perhaps Dionysius's contemporary, Caecilius of Calacte, who canonized the list in a work of which we know only the title, On the Character [or Style] of the Ten Orators. The texts of the classical Greek orators played a special role as models for imitation in the Atticism movement, a reaction against the perceived decadence of vocabulary, grammar, and style in simple Koine Greek and in florid Asianic oratory. The earliest references to Atdcism are in Brutus and Orator, where Cicero criticizes contemporary Latin orators of the plain style for claiming to be "Attic" and neglecting the variety of styles found in Demosthenes and other Attic orators. Atticism in Greek begins with Dionysius of Halicarnassus and over dme created an anachronistic literary language that dominated the schools and literary composition for centuries. Except for fragments of Cato the Elder and other early Romans, 28 oratory in Latin is represented almost solely by the speeches of Cicero, who knew the theories of the schools well but knew equally well when to rise above pedantic rules. The two speeches that most fully accord with rhetorical rules are De lege Manilla and Pro MiloneP Outside of Cicero's works there are the Panegyric (of Trajan) by Pliny the Younger, the Apology by Apuleius, many examples of declamation, a collection of panegyrics of late Latin emperors, fragmentary orations of Symmachus, and Christian oratory, such as the sermons of Ambrose and Augustine.

IV.

RHETORICAL

SCHOOLS

T h e spread of Greek language and Greek culture throughout the Near East and Mediterranean after the conquests of Alexander the Great brought with it the establishment of rhetorical schools in every urban center. Grammar and rhetoric furnished local inhabitants with an entry into the new civic life and access to the law courts. A system of formal education came into existence in which young people began the study of Greek grammar around the age of seven; a significant number of boys then entered a rhetorical school at the age of twelve to fourteen. They learned some theory from lectures by their
28 29

Cf. Malcovati 1955; discussion in Kennedy 1972:3-102. Rhetorical analysis by Donnelly 1934.

HISTORICAL SURVEY OF RHETORIC

19

teacher and practiced exercises in declamation in imitation of his examples. The Romans initially resisted the teaching of rhetoric, expelling Greek teachers in 161 BC and putting an interdiction on teaching rhetoric in Latin in 92 (Suet. De Rhet. 1), but then gave way and Rome became a leading center of rhetoric soon thereafter. Public subsidy of instruction in rhetoric had already begun in some Hellenistic cities. In 71 AD Quintilian was the first person named to a chair in rhetoric in Rome, funded by the emperor. Beginning in the second century AD the emperors required cities throughout the empire to subsidize instruction in grammar and rhetoric, though attendance at school was never required in antiquity. 30

V.

G R E E K AND L A T I N R H E T O R I C A L T R E A T I S E S BEFORE 4 0 0 AD

WRITTEN

Literally hundreds of rhetorical handbooks, plus monographs on specific aspects of rhetoric, were written by rhetoricians, orators, grammarians, philosophers, and enthusiastic amateurs throughout antiquity. Most were ephemeral and are known, if at all, only from incidental references by other writers, especially Quintilian and Diogenes Laertius. Most were original only in the treatment of details; there were frequent professional disputes over categories of stasis or whether something should be regarded as a trope or a figure or other matters; the followers of Apollodorus in the first century BC insisted on the need for all parts of the oration in a standard order, the followers of Theodorus were more flexible about this, more rigid on some other points.31 The more thoughtful works usually begin with a general introduction that alleges a reason for writing another handbook, provides definitions and divisions of the subject, and even engages in philosophical speculation, as did the precocious young Cicero in De inventione. Handbooks differ somewhat in structure; 32 discussion of invention and arrangement in particular posed an organizational problem for the writers: how to combine treatment of the
30

On the history of schools in antiquity see Marrou 1956 and Bonner 1977; on education in Palestine and its effect on Jews and Christians, see Kinneavy 1987:56100. 31 See Kennedy 1972, with bibliography. 3S On the evolution of technical handbooks and the different structures they take, see Fuhrmann 1960.

20

GEORGE . KENNEDY

three species of rhetoric-judicial, deliberative, and epideicticand the parts of an oration without too much repeddon, and where to discuss stasis, forms of argument, and topics. The chief extant works on rhetoric are listed below; important lost works are identified in each period. 1. Aristode (384322 BC) Rhetoric ( or ). [Ed. Kassel 1976; ed. and trans. Freese 1926; trans, (with extensive notes) Kennedy 1991; commentary on the whole by Cope 1877; commentary on books 1 and 2 by Grimaldi 1980-88] Aristode was a member of Plato's Academy from 367 to 347 BC. Around 355 he began giving a course of lectures on rhetoric; some of the material in the Rhetoric as we have it probably derives from that time. He probably returned to the subject when teaching Alexander the Great around 341 and seems to have revised his text into its present form just before returning to Athens in 335. He then may have used it (there is no specific evidence) as the basis of lectures in his new "Peripatetic" school at the Lyceum. 33 Books 1 - 2 deal with what Aristode (at the end of book 2) calls , "thought", in later writers called , inventio. Book 3 (probably originally a separate work) discusses (elocutio, "style") and (divisio, "arrangement"). Aristode thus covers three of what became five parts of rhetoric in later theory, and at the beginning of book 3 has some comments on a fourth part, (actio, "delivery").34 Major problems in interpretation of the work (written at different times and not finally revised) arise from inconsistency in the use of terms, especially and , and from the contrast between the very austere, Platonizing view of rhetoric in 1:1 and the much more pragmatic treatment in the rest of the work. Although attempts are sometimes made to read the Rhetoric as ethical and political philosophy, it is probably best viewed, like the Poetics, as essentially a formal analysis of the subject. The most important contributions of Aristode to rhetorical theory are the following: (a) The division (1:2) of ("means of persuasion") into ("non-artistic"), or direct evidence including witnesses, contracts, etc. (which the speaker does not invent but uses), and ("artistic"),
33 34

See Kennedy 1991:299-305. For a chapter by chapter outline of the whole, see Kennedy 1991:13-22.

HISTORICAL SURVEY OF RHETORIC

21

which the speaker invents. The artistic means are then divided into three and only three: the presentation of the speaker's character () as trustworthy through what he says in the speech (i.e., not on the basis of an external reputation); the use of valid logical argument (); the arousal of emotion () in the audience. (b) The division (also in 1:2) of logical means of persuasion into ("examples" used to construct inductive arguments) and ("enthymemes", deductive rhetorical syllogisms). An enthymeme is usually only probable, given the subject matter of civic rhetoric; one premise is frequendy omitted as well known to the audience; thus the usual form of an Aristotelian enthymeme is a proposition with a supporting statement. The formal materials of enthymemes are ("signs") and ("probabilities"). (c) The theory (also begun in 1:2) of ("topics"). There are three categories: first, what Aristode calls , "commonalities", four forms of argument useful in any species of rhetoric: the possible or impossible; past fact; future fact; and magnitude or importance (1:3:7 and 14; 2:19); secondly, what he generally calls ("specifics, special [topics]"), the propositions of the various species of knowledge, primarily politics and ethics, used by the speaker, which are discussed in detail in 1:414; and thirdly, ("common topics"), logical strategies such as argument from cause to effect, discussed in detail in 2:23. (d) The definition of three and only three genres (or taking oratory as the genre, "species") of rhetoric on the basis of whether or not an audience is a judge and of what (1:3). If the audience makes a judgment about the future the speech is ("deliberative") and its central issue (in practice a "special" topic) is ("the beneficial or advantageous"the translation "expedient" somewhat distorts Aristode's meaning); if the audience is making a judgment about the past the speech is ("judicial") 35 and the central issue is , "the just"; if the audience is not called upon to make a judgment about action the speech is ("epideictic, demonstrative") and the central issue is ("the honorable"). Each of the species is divided into a positive and negative form: a deliberative speech is either ("exhortation") or ("dissuasion"); a judicial speech either
The translation forensic is best avoided because of other uses of that word in the USA.
35

22

GEORGE . KENNEDY

("prosecution") or ("defense"); an epideictic speech either ("praise, encomium") or ("blame, invective"). The subject matter and special topics of deliberative rhetoric are then discussed in 1:4-8, epideictic in 1:9, and judicial in 1:10-15. (e) The discussion of prose style in 3:2-12, including identification of "clarity" as the "virtue" () of style (3:2), and the accounts of simile () (3:4), metaphor () (3:2 and 11), appropriateness (3:7), prose rhythm (3:8), periodicity (3:9), and visualization (3: 1). Aristode did not develop a theory of tropes and figures of speech, and some of his stylistic terminology (e.g., , or "expansiveness") did not become standard in the later tradition. There are other features of the Rhetoric that were often ignored by later writers: the great emphasis on logical reasoning, the discussion of the psychology of the emotions (2:2-11), and the analysis of character types (2:12-17). Although for the modern reader Aristode's work is the most important and penetrating ancient discussion of rhetoric, it had relatively little direct influence on the classical tradition: Aristode's lecture notes on rhetoric were not available to the public until the first century BC when his personal library was rediscovered and his treatises edited and published for the first time by Andronicus of Rhodes. By that time important innovations had been made by others, especially the stasis theory of Hermagoras, the theory of figures, and the theory of the kinds or levels of style, possibly first stated by Aristotle's student Theophrastus. The Aristotelian ideas that did come into the common tradition, such as the three species of rhetoric, derive from writings (all now lost) by those who had personally studied with him, especially Theophrastus. 36 Theophrastus's most important contribution was the development of the theory of four virtues of stylecorrectness, clarity, ornamentation, and propriety in the treatise . These appear in some form in most later discussions.37 2. Rhetoric for Alexander (Rhetorica ad Alexandrum). [Ed. Fuhrmann 1966; trans, by Rackham 1937; discussion by Kennedy 1963, 1994, with bibliography] This is the only other surviving fourth-century rhetorical handbook. On the basis of a reference in Quintilian (3:4:9) it is usually assumed
M 37

See Kennedy 1991:305-309. Cf. Stroux 1912.

HISTORICAL SURVEY OF RHETORIC

23

to be by Anaximenes of Lampsacus (ca. 380-320 BC), a writer of historical works who, like Aristotle, had connections with Alexander the Great. The version of the treatise we have begins with a dedicatory letter purporting to be from Aristode to Alexander in reply to his request for a treatment of rhetoric; this is apparently a forgery by some later writer, which resulted in the inclusion of the treatise in the Aristotelian corpus. Rhetoric for Alexander is a rule based handbook, not a collection of examples for imitation, and thus evidence for developments in the teaching of rhetoric by the second half of the fourth century beyond the early technai and the efforts of the sophists. Its relationship to teachings of Aristode, Isocrates, or other writers on rhetoric is problematic. Although it fails to use most Aristotelian technical terminology or definitions (e.g., no definition of rhetoric is provided) and lacks the analytical strength and philosophical qualities of Aristotle's Rhetoric, it is organized over-all in the same way: the subject matter and topics for the separate species of public speaking (Rh. Al. 1-6); forms of rhetorical argument (7-20); some comments on style (2128); and the parts of deliberative, epideictic, and judicial orations (29-37). This may represent the standard structure of the time which Aristotle thus has adopted rather than invented. There are also some similarities to views of Isocrates, or teachings later attributed to him, but the basic approach to the subject is not that of Isocrates. T h e treatise can be described as sophistic in that it outlines techniques of persuasion without any consideration of moral purpose and it consistendy claims that the method it describes is the only proper approach. 3. Hermagoras of Temnos Art of Rhetoric. [For fragments, other evidence, and discussion see Matthes 1958; discussion by Kennedy 1963:303-21] The most important lost Hellenistic handbook was that by Hermagoras of Temnos, written about the middle of the second century BC. Hermagoras expounded a theory of stasis, the determination of the question at issue in a speech. T h e contents can be reconstructed in outline on the basis of discussions of the subject in Cicero, the Rhetorica ad Herennium, Quintilian, Augustine, and other later writers. 4. Cato the Elder (234-149 BC) Libri ad Marcum Filium The first Latin rhetorical handbook, according to Quintilian (Inst. 3:1:19), was that by Cato the Elder. It was apparendy part of a

24

GEORGE . KENNEDY

short encyclopedia that also contained discussion of agriculture and medicine. From it, apparendy, come two famous statements: orator est, Marci fili, vir bonus dicendi pentus ("An orator, son Marcus, is a good man skilled at speaking", quoted by Seneca, Controversiae 1. pr. 9) and rem tene, verba sequentur ("Seize the subject, the words will follow", quoted by Julius Victor, p. 374 in Halm 1863). 5. Rhetorica ad Herennium [Ed. and trans. Caplan 1954] This anonymous Latin handbook (sometimes attributed to an otherwise unknown Cornificius and until the Renaissance thought to be by Cicero) provides the most convenient introduction to classical rhetorical theory, especially in the fine edition with introduction and notes by Caplan. Its chief disadvantage is that at the time of composition (perhaps ca. 85 BC) many Latin terms for Greek rhetorical terminology had not yet been standardized. The author occasionally claims originality in details but seems to have studied with the same teacher as had the young Cicero; some rules for invention are found verbatim in both Cicero's De inventione and Ad Herennium. The latter, however, has the great advantage of also discussing arrangement (Rhet. ad Her. 3:16-18), delivery (3:19-27), memory (3:28-40), and style (book 4), thus giving a picture of the whole subject as taught in the late Hellenistic period, including Hermagoras's stasis theory. The five parts, however, are here not arranged in canonical sequence; the author has deliberately postponed style to a separate book and in a preface to it argues energetically that a rhetorician should create his own example of good style, not borrow them from literature. Parts of the work that are of special interest include discussion of the "five-part argument" (2:27-30), known in Greek as and representing stylistic amplification of an enthymeme; the discussion of memory (3:28-40), which is the clearest extant summary of the mnemonic system of images and backgrounds; the discussion, with examples, of the grand, middle, and simple style and their defective variants (4:11-16); and the lists of figures of diction, including tropes (not here so called) (3:18-46) and figures of thought (3:47-69). Ad Herennium became one of the basic rhetorical texts in the Middle Ages and was the subject of commentaries.

HISTORICAL SURVEY OF RHETORIC

25

6. M. Tullius Cicero (106-43 BC) A. De inventione [Ed. and trans. Hubbell 1949; discussion by Kennedy 1972:103-38] This is Cicero's earliest work (ca. 89 BC), based on his study of rhetoric with an unnamed teacher; he planned to discuss all five parts of rhetoric but completed only the two books on invention, treated in book 1 in terms of the parts of a judicial oration and in book 2 in terms of stasis, argument, and topics. The work closely resembles the Rhetorica ad Herennium and shows the influence of Hermagoras. Book 1 opens with a philosophical preface which contains the famous statement existimem sapientiam sine eloquentia parum prodesse civitatibus, eloquentiam vero sine sapientia nimium obesse plerumque, prodesse numquam ("I think wisdom without eloquence has been of little advantage to states, but eloquence without wisdom has too often done much harm and never been advantageous"). T h e preface to book 2 claims that Cicero is not following a single source and gives (2:1:6-8) a brief history of rhetoric. Because it provided a clear summary of the subject, more systematic than Cicero's other rhetorical writings and shorter than Quintilian's, De inventione became a basic rhetorical text for the Middle Ages, more popular even than Rhetoma ad Herennium, and numerous manuscripts survive; commentaries were written by Victorinus (ed. Halm 1863) and by Grillius in late antiquity and by numerous medieval scholars. B. De oratore [Ed. Wilkins, with notes, 1892; ed. Kumaniecki 1969; ed. and trans. Sutton and Rackham 1942; new trans, in preparation by James May et al:, commentary by Leeman etal. in progress 1981-] This philosophical dialogue on the nature of rhetoric and the function of the Roman orator, published in 55 but dramatically set in 95 BC, is Cicero's major work on the subject, but it avoids technical vocabulary. It is the earliest Latin work to show direct knowledge of Aristode's Rhetoric and to adapt some of Aristode's concepts to Roman conditions. The chief speakers are: Crassus, with whom Cicero identifies himself and who argues the need for an orator to have a wide knowledge of politics, philosophy, law, and other subjects; Antonius, who takes a narrower, practical approach; Scaevola, who argues the importance of law; and Caesar Strabo, who discusses wit and humor in 2:217-34. Among influential features of rhetorical theory found in the dialogue are the adaptation of the three Aristotelian

26

GEORGE . KENNEDY

modes of persuasion (ethos, logos, pathos) into the form: "that we prove our case to be true; that we win over those who are listening; that we call their hearts to what emotion the case demands" (2:115).38 In Orator (69) these are called "duties of an orator" (officia oratoris: probare, delectare,flectere).Also of special interest is the treatment (2:18385) of ethos and pathos as degrees of emotional appeal, the former being calm and persuasive, the latter a more violent stirring of passions. C. De optimo genere dicendi [Ed. and trans. Hubbell 1949] About 46 BC Cicero projected a translation of two speeches of Demosthenes and Aeschines; all that he completed was this introduction. D. Partitiones oratoriae [Ed. and trans. Rackham 1942; discussion by Kennedy 1963:328-30] Perhaps about 53 BC Cicero wrote this rhetorical catechism for his son. Its chief interest is that it shows the development of technical vocabulary in Latin and provides a brief survey of all aspects of rhetoric. The vis oratoris, or "faculty of the orator", is discussed first (1-26), then the parts of the oration (27-60) and stasis theory (60138). E. Brutus [Ed. and trans. Hendrickson 1939; ed. with commentary Douglas 1966] Cicero wrote this history of rhetoric and oratory in dialogue form in 46 BC. In addition to its interesting account of historical developments, famous Roman orators, and Cicero's own rhetorical and philosophical education, it presents (Brut. 283-91) his reaction to the Atticism movement of the time, the attempt of Calvus and others to teach a pure and simple style imitating the Attic orator Lysias in reaction to the excesses of Hellenistic Asianism. Cicero saw the Attic orators as models for a variety of styles, and admired especially the ability of Demosthenes to fuse them. 39 The treatise was unknown from late antiquity to the fifteenth century.

38 On the development of theories of ethos and pathos see Gill 1984 and Wisse 1989. 39 Cf. Wooten 1983.

HISTORICAL SURVEY OF RHETORIC

27

F. Orator [Ed. and trans. Hubbell 1962; commentary by Sandys 1885] Later in 46 Cicero continued his campaign against Atticism. After an introduction on the concept of an ideal orator and the errors of the Atticists (1-36), he provides a rather uneven survey of rhetorical theory (37-139) and then turns to "composidon" (140-238), with special attention to prose rhythm (168-236). The latter is the most important discussion of the subject in ancient writings on rhetoric. Like the Brutus, the Orator was unknown in the Middle Ages. G. Topica [Ed. and trans. Hubbell 1949] This difficult short work, written in 44 BC, begins as a summary of Aristotelian dialectic, but appears to draw more on Hellenistic sources to discuss such topics of argument as genus, species, similarity, and difference, and adds comments on stasis theory and rhetorical invention. 7. Philodemus (ca. 110-ca. 40 BC) Rhetorica. [Ed. Sudhaus 1892-94; English paraphrase by Hubbell 1920; new ed. and trans, in preparation by Richard Janko et al.] Philodemus was an Epicurean philosopher, living in Italy. Papyri from Herculanean have brought to light portions of his Greek works, including On Poems and On Rhetoric. His method is largely to criticize the views of earlier writers. He limits the art of rhetoric to sophistic or epideictic oratory, which like poetry is useless but gives pleasure. 40 8. Demetrius On Style (De elocutions, ) [Ed. and trans. Roberts 1902, 1927; trans, with notes Grube 1961; discussion by Kennedy 1989:196-98] The author has not been satisfactorily identified with any known Demetrius. The date is very uncertain; since direct use is made of Aristotle's Rhetoric, it was possibly written in the early third century BC when that treatise was available in Athens, but more probably in the first century BC when the Rhetoric was rediscovered and published. The treatise begins abruptly with a discussion of periodic sentences (Eloc. 1-34); the main body of the work identifies and discusses four ("characters or kinds") of style, an unusual division

40

For further discussion see Innes 1989.

28

GEORGE . KENNEDY

otherwise known only from a mention in Philodemus: , or "elevated", or "plain", , or "elegant", and , or "forceful". T o the section on the plain style is added (223-35) a discussion of letter-writing, unusual in rhetorical treatises:41 a letter, the author says, is half of a dialogue, but should be more studied and express character. The four styles are distinguished by thought, diction, and composition (rhythm, periodicity, and figures); some characters of style but not all can be combined. In the Peripatetic tradition, the author emphasizes that style should be appropriate. There are also defective versions of each of the styles: "frigid, arid, affected, and graceless", respectively. Demetrius illustrates his discussion with frequent examples from Greek literature of the classical period. Within the conventional limits of the rhetorical theory of style he is a perceptive literary critic.42 9. Gorgias of Athens, and Rutilius Lupus, , or Figures of Speech [Ed. Halm 1863:1-21] In the mid-first century BC a Greek rhetorician named Gorgias wrote a treatise on figures of speech, now lost. A Latin translation by P. Rutilius Lupus has survived. It defines and gives examples of twenty figures of speech, drawn from an unusual range of sources. 10. Dionysius of Halicarnassus (fl. 30 BC) [Ed. Usener-Radermacher V 1899, VI 1904] Dionysius came to Rome after the victory of Augustus in the civil wars; there he wrote a history of early Rome and apparendy taught rhetoric. He is the earliest Greek spokesman of the Atticism movement. Rhetorical works attributed to him are as follows: A. On the Ancient Orators (De Oratoribus Veteribus) and On Thucydides (De Thucydide) [Ed. and trans. Usher I 1974] After a preface on the corruption of style (Asianism) in the Hellenistic period and the Attic revival of his own time, Dionysius devotes one essay each to Lysias, Isocrates, Isaeus, and Demosthenes, providing a

Letter writing is briefly discussed in two Latin handbooks of the fourth or fifth century AD: Julius Victor Ars rhetorica 27 (pp. 447 48 Halm) and anon. Excerpta rhetorica (p. 589 Halm). 42 For further information see Grube 1961.

41

HISTORICAL SURVEY OF RHETORIC

29

brief life of the author and an extended discussion of his style. Subsequendy he added a separate essay on Dinarchus. The essay on Thucydides discusses the historian's treatment of his subject as well as his style. B. Literary Epistles [Ed. and trans. Roberts 1901; Usher II 1985] There are three of these: The First Letter to Ammaeus (.Amm. I) replies to a Peripatetic philosopher who had claimed that Demosthenes learned his art from Aristotle's Rhetoric. Dionysius shows that the historical references in the Rhetoric indicate it post-dated most of Demosthenes' speeches. The Letter to Pompeius (Pomp) defends Dionysius's preference for the style of Demosthenes over that of Plato and discusses the style of classical Greek historians: Herodotus, Thucydides, Xenophon, and Theopompus. T h e Second Letter to Ammaeus (Amm. 2) resumes discussion of the style of Thucydides. C. On Literary Composition [Ed. and trans. Roberts 1910; Usher II 1985] Style as taught in the rhetorical schools was divided into (dictio, "word choice") and (compositio), the combination of words into rhythmical clauses, periods, and figures. Dionysius's treatise is a complex discussion of the composition, coining new concepts and terminology and not easily summarized. It is, however, the best surviving account of the effect of the sound of words and larger units on the Greek ear and contains many interesting examples of literary criticism as practiced by a rhetorician. D. On Imitation [Fragmentary work; a sizable portion of the second book is quoted in the Letter to Pompeius. Trans, by Usher II 1985:37399; Greek text of other fragments in Usener-Radermacher VI 1929: 197-217] By the late Hellenistic period imitadon of classic literary models was regarded as the basis for attaining excellence in style. Dionysius defines imitation as "an actualization () modelling the example by means of inspection"; in contrast, "emulation" () is "an actualization of the soul (of a writer) set in motion at admiration of what seems to be beautiful" (fr. 3). The work surveyed Greek literature, genre by genre, as a source of excellence and imitation, providing a precedent for Quintilian's discussion in Inst. 10:1. Dionysius, in different works, variously employs a concept of three kinds () of style, three "harmonies" of word order, and

30

GEORGE . KENNEDY

lists of "virtues" of style.43 Some virtuescorrectness, clarity, and concisenessare "necessary", others, including characterization, emotion, sublimity, elegance, etc., are "supplementary". He also describes an historical evolution from a "rugged" style in fifth-century writers to the "smooth" style of Isocrates and the "blended" style of Demosthenes. 44 E. Works Falsely Attributed to Dionysius of Halicamassus [Ed. Usener and Radermacher VI 1929:253-387; chapters 1-7 trans. RussellWilson 1981:362-81] An Ars rhetorica, a composite work by at least two later writers, is preserved with the writings of Dionysius. It consists of seven chapters on forms of epideictic: panegyric, wedding speeches, birthday speeches, addresses to an official, funeral orations, and exhortation to athletes. These are followed by three longer chapters on declamation. 45 11. Caecilius of Calacte (fl. ca. 30 BC) [Fragments ed. Offenloch 1907] An important rhetorician living in Augustan Rome was Caecilius of Calacte; his works are lost, but there are many references to them in later writers. Among other things, he was the author of a treatise on the "sublime" (), to which Longinus later replied, and of an influential work on figures of speech. References show him to have been a proponent of the Atticism movement. 46 12. L. Annaeus Seneca (Seneca the Elder) (ca. 55 BC-40 AD) Oratorum et rhetorum sententiae, divisiones, colores [Ed. and trans. Winterbottom 1974] Late in life, Seneca the Elder wrote his reminiscences of the rhetorical schools of his youth, with extensive quotations from memory of the clever turns of phrase (sententiae), the divisions of the question at issue (divisiones), and the interpretation of cause and motive (colores) found in the controversial and suasoriae of declaimers he had heard. A series of introductions provide overall estimates of famous speakers of the Augustan period. His work is the best introduction to decla-

For discussion see the introductions to Usher's translations (1974, 1985) and Innes 1989:267-72. 44 Cf. Kennedy 1972:342-63. 45 Cf. Russell 1983:36, 72-73. 46 Cf. Kennedy 1972:364-69.

43

HISTORICAL SURVEY OF RHETORIC

31

mation, which had become not only an exercise for students but a fashionable activity for adults.47 13. Aelius Theon (1st century AD) Progymnasmata [Ed. Spengel II 1854: 59-130; trans. Butts 1987] This is the earliest account of the graded exercises in composition taught as introductory to declamation. In fully developed sequence they became: myth or fable, narrative, chreia (development of an anecdote of something said or done), development of a gnomic saying, refutation, confirmation, commonplace, encomium, invective, syncrisis (comparison), personification, ekphrasis (physical description), thesis, and praise or blame of a law.48 T h e exercises are important since they were widely studied and influenced the structure of literary composition in many genres. 14. M. Fabius Quintilianus (ca. 4 0 - c a . 96 AD) A. Institutio oratoria [Ed. Winterbottom 1970; trans. Butler 1920; discussion by Kennedy 1969] Quintilian's Education of the Orator is the fullest account of classical rhetoric, based on his twenty years of teaching the subject and over two years of research in earlier sources. He is not highly innovative, but applies his own good judgment and experience to evaluating the theory and practice of rhetoric as it had developed in Rome, giving the highest authority in both respects to Cicero. T h e "perfect orator" whom Quintilian seeks must above all be a good man; his moral and rhetorical training is to begin immediately after birth, and thus books 1-2 describe the rhetorical environment of the home, primary education, and studies in the grammar school in detail; the discussion of rhetoric proper begins in book 3 with divisions of the subject, the species of oratory (epideictic, deliberative, and judicial), and an introduction to stasis theory (resumed in book 5). The work then proceeds in the traditional order through an account of invention (books 4-6), arrangement (7), style (8-11:1), memory (11:2), and delivery (11:3; the best surviving account of hearing and seeing an ancient speaker). Book 10, however, is unusual: since Quintilian

47 48

Cf. Bonner 1949; Sussman 1978. Cf. Kennedy 1983:60-66.

32

GEORGE . KENNEDY

believed that style is best cultivated by reading and writing, he inserts (10:1) a famous chapter which reviews Greek and Latin literature, genre by genre, author by author, in terms of their utility for the cultivation of eloquence, and continues with discussion of the function of imitation in cultivating style (10:2), of practice in writing (10:3), of revision (10:4), of various exercises .in composition (10:5), of premeditation (10:6), and of ex tempore speaking (10:7). The final book (12) is also unusual: Quintilian here returns to the moral qualities required of an orator, the need to study philosophy and law, the career of the orator and the cases he will plead, his retirement "while he will still be missed", and finally how hopes for a great orator may yet be fulfilled. Inserted into this discussion is chapter 12:10 on the genera dicendi, the different styles of speaking, including the grand, middle and plain styles, and the issue of Atticism, together with a comparison of styles of speaking to styles of sculpture and painting. In contrast to Tacitus and others of the early empire, Quintilian takes a positive view of the opportunities for rhetoric under the Flavian emperors, to whom he owed his position and fame, but he sought to restrain and discipline the excesses of declamation and to return to a more Ciceronian style. The Institutio was known throughout the Middle Ages primarily in an abridged version; the discovery of the complete work by Poggio Bracciolini in 1416 aroused great interest and made the work a major source on both education and rhetoric for the Renaissance and early modern period. Since Quintilian was a contemporary of the writers of the New Testament it is tempting to use his work as a basis for the study of early Christian rhetoric, but this requires caution in that he describes the secular rhetoric of the capital of the Empire in its most developed form, which is more self-conscious and sophisticated than what can generally be assumed in the provinces. B. Declamations Attributed to Quintilian Two collections of controversiae (exercises on judicial themes) are attributed in medieval manuscripts to Quintilian. The Major Declamations [ed. Hkanson 1982; trans. Sussman 1987] consist of 19 speeches, composed by teachers of rhetoric during the Roman empire to illustrate artistic treatment of the themes. They are the only extant full Latin specimens. T h e Minor Declamations [ed. Shackleton Bailey 1989; no English trans.] consist of 145 extracts from an original 388 controversiae; their interest is increased by the addition of sermones, short

HISTORICAL SURVEY OF RHETORIC

33

comments by teachers on how the theme is best treated. T h e Major Declamations are regarded by virtually all scholars as not the work of Quintilian or his students; it is perhaps possible that some of the Minor Declamations may ultimately derive from his teaching. 49 15. Cornelius Tacitus (ca. 55-ca. 115 AD) Dialogus de oratoribus [Ed. Huebner 1983; trans. Peterson 1970; commentary by Gudeman 1894, 1912] This is a dialogue in the Ciceronian style dealing with the conditions of oratory and the schools of rhetoric in the second half of the first century AD, when, despite Quintilian's optimism, eloquence was widely perceived to be in decline. T h e date of composition has been much debatedperhaps 97 AD.s0 T h e dramatic date is 75 AD. Curiatus Maternus has abandoned oratory and turned to writing tragedies; Vipstanus Messala criticizes the rhetorical schools, with their emphasis on declamation, as decadent; M. Aper celebrates the current age and its achievements in oratory. In conclusion, Maternus claims that the great oratory of the time of Cicero resulted from disorders and dissensions that no longer exist and that the lawcourts now allow the orator less scope for elaborate addresses. The reader is left the impression that even if the Empire does not actively repress freedom of speech, it tends to stifle discussion. 16. Aelius Aristides (117-89 AD) A. On Rhetoric [Ed. and trans. Behr I 1973:278-557] Aristides is the best known representative of the Second Sophistic, a movement which sought to reinvigorate the role of rhetoric in society by relating traditional values of Hellenism to contemporary issues and by restoring the purity of language to the diction and style of Attic Greek of the fourth century BC. He lived in Asia Minor, but traveled to Greece, Egypt, and Rome, delivering and publishing elaborate epideictic speeches, of which fifty-five survive. Among them (Or. 45) is a long treatise entitled On Rhetoric which attempts to answer the criticism of rhetoric in Plato's Gorgias and to demonstrate that rhetoric is an art and expressive of justice and the virtues.
Another collection of excerpts from declamations is attributed to Calpurnius Flaccus (2nd cent, AD); trans, by Sussman 1994. 50 Cf. Murgia 1985.
49

34

GEORGE . KENNEDY

. Pseudo-Aristides [Ed. Spengel II 1854:459-554; no English version; discussion by Schmid 1917-18] Two treatises on rhetoric are preserved with the works of Aristides; they are probably not by him but may date from about the same time. T h e first, On Political Discourse, expounds a theory of style similar to the system of Hermogenes; to this were added, probably by a later writer, additional comments on style, a summary of Or. 29 of Aristides, and a paraphrase of portions of the Iliad. The second treatise, entided On the Simple Style, takes Xenophon as a model for imitation. 17. Anonymus Seguenanus [Ed. and trans, by Dilts-Kennedy 1997] A Greek treatise on the parts of the oration, probably written in the second century AD, was discovered in 1843 by Seguier de St. Brisson in a Paris manuscript. The four standard parts (prooemion, narration, proof, and epilogue) are discussed in terms not only of contents but of arrangement and style. T h e work is of historical value in that it shows the survival in the Empire of a somewhat Aristotelian approach to rhetoric and cites otherwise lost writers, including Apollodorus of Pergamum (1st century BC) and Alexander son of Numenius, author of an influential treatise on figures of speech in the second century AD. 18. Longinus On Sublimity [Ed. with commentary by Russell 1964; trans. Fyfe 1927] This is the best ancient example of the application of rhetorical teaching to literary criticism. The author identifies and illustrates five sources of sublimity (ch. 8): the power of conceiving impressive thoughts (= invention, discussed in 9-15); strong emotion (= rhetorical pathos, not discussed in the work as we have it); and features of style: figures of thought and speech (16-29), nobility of diction (30-38, 43), and composition, including word-order, rhythm, and euphony (39-42). The last chapter (44) considers the causes of the decline of eloquence, attributing it primarily to moral decay rather than political causes. Date of composition and authorship are debatable, with perhaps majority sentiment now inclining to the second century AD and the author conventionally referred to as an otherwise unknown "Longinus". The one surviving manuscript attributes the work first to "Dionysius Longinus", then to "Dionysius or Longinus", the latter meaning Dionysius of Halicarnassus or Cassius Longinus who taught rhetoric in the

HISTORICAL SURVEY OF RHETORIC

35

third century. Rediscovery of the treatise in the Renaissance led to the cult of "the sublime" from the seventeenth to the nineteenth century. ? 19. Hermogenes of Tarsus (ca. 161 AD) [Ed. Rabe 1913; for trans, see below; discussion by Kennedy 1983:52-103] Hermogenes was a rhetorical prodigy by the age of fifteen, but soon thereafter lost his facility. Five works were attributed to him by the fifth century and, with the substitution of a work by Aphthonius for the treatise on progymnasmata, constituted the standard corpus of Greek rhetorical theory throughout the Byzantine period. Numerous prolegomena and commentaries were subsequendy written to expound their difficulties. A. Progymnasmata [Trans, by Baldwin 1928:23-38] A discussion of the traditional exercises in composition preparatory to study of rhetoric, resembling the accounts by Theon and Aphthonius; it is probably not by Hermogenes. In the fifth century AD a Latin version was made by the grammarian Priscian [text in Halm 1863:551-60, trans, by Miller 1973], B. On Staseis (Stat.) [Trans, and commentary by Heath 1995] An extended account of how to determine the question at issue in preparation of a speech, revising the system of Hermagoras and others in many details. Fourteen "headings" are identified and discussed. C. On Invention [No English trans.] This is probably not by Hermogenes. T h e first two books give a brief account of the prooemion and narration; book 3 lays out a system of proof which differs from other accounts in concept and terminology; in book 4, aspects of style, including figures, are discussed in terms of invention. D. On Ideas, i.e., On "Types" of Style (Id.) [Trans, by Wooten 1987] For most readers, this is the most interesting of Hermogenes' works; it was influential in the West in the Renaissance.51 The subject appears to be an outgrowth of earlier discussion (Theophrastus, Dionysius of

51

Cf. Patterson 1970.

36

GEORGE . KENNEDY

Halicarnassus, et al.) of virtues and characters of style, which Hermogenes calls . Seven larger categories are identified, of which four are divided into sub-headings, making a total of twenty "ideas" of style to be discussed: clarity, divided into purity and distinctness; grandeur, divided into solemnity, asperity, vehemence, brilliance, florescence, and abundance;. beauty; rapidity; character, divided into simplicity, sweetness, subtlety, and modesty; sincerity, including indignation; and finally forcefulness (), which is a blending of all and characteristic of the greatest orator, Demosthenes. E. On the Method of Deinotes (Meth.) [No English trans.] This is a rather miscellaneous discussion of some features of style; although not by Hermogenes, it probably dates from his time. The term "method" was favored by Hermogenes to describe the art or theory of rhetoric. 20. Aquila Romanus (3rd cent, AD) De figuris sententiarum et elocutionis [Ed. Halm 1863:22-37; no trans.] Aquilla defines and illustrates (usually from Cicero) forty-six figures of speech. 21. Apsines of Gadara Ars Rhetonca (3rd cent, AD) [Ed. and trans, by Dilts-Kennedy 1997] T h e latest surviving Greek handbook to discuss all parts of rhetoric. It is cast in the traditional form, and intended to provide instruction in declamation. 22. Menander Rhetor (fl. ca. 300 AD) Division of Epideictic Speeches and On Epideictic [Ed. and trans. Russell-Wilson 1981] These are indispensible works for the study of the numerous forms Greek epideictic took in the time of the Roman empire. Although a late work, many of the forms and topics go far back in Greek history. The shorter first treatise discusses prose hymns and encomia; the longer second treatise describes speeches for a variety of social occasions, including the arrival and departure of officials and friends, speeches at weddings, speeches of consolation, and farewell addresses.

HISTORICAL SURVEY OF RHETORIC

37

23. Aphthonius (second half of the 4th cent, AD) [Ed. Rabe 1926] This became the standard handbook of preparatory exercises throughout the Byzantine period, replacing that by Theon and that attributed to Hermogenes, and numerous commentaries were written on it. It was translated into Latin by Rudolph Agricola and widely used in Renaissance grammar schools. The writing of rhetorical treatises, including commentaries on the works attributed to Hermogenes, continued vigorously in the fifth and sixth centuries and shows the influence of Neoplatonism. Among the more important writers are Syrianus and Sopatros (see Kennedy 1983:109-32). 24. Aurelius Augustinus (354-430 AD) Saint Augustine taught rhetoric in Carthage, Rome, and Milan before his conversion to Christianity in 386. T h e earlier books of the Confessions give a picture of his own studies and teaching; of his other writings, the most important for the history of rhetoric is De doctnna Christiana [ed. Green 1963; trans. Robertson 1958], begun in 396, completed in 427. After discussing "things" and the interpretation of "signs" in books 1-3, he provides in book 4 an application of secular rhetoric to homiletic preaching, including rhetorical analysis of eloquent sections of the Old and New Testament. 25. Rhetores Latini Minores [Ed. Halm 1863] This is the standard collection of late Latin writing on rhetoric. It includes the treatises on figures by Rutilius Lupus and Aquilla Romanus, listed above, Victorinus's commentary on Cicero's De inventione (4th century AD), handbooks written in the fourth or fifth century by Fortunatianus, Sulpitius Victor, Julius Victor, a handbook attributed to Saint Augustine, the sections on rhetoric from the encyclopedias of the liberal arts by Martianus Capella (5th century), Cassiodorus (6th century), and Isidore of Seville (7th century), and other writings on rhetoric dating from late antiquity and the early Middle Ages.

38

GEORGE . KENNEDY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Baldwin, C. S., Ancient Rhetoric and Poetic (New York: Macmillan, 1924). , Medieval Rhetoric and Poetic (to 1400) Interpreted from Representative Works (New York: Macmillan, 1928). Behr, C. ., ed. and trans. Aristides, Panathenaic Oration and In Defence of Oratory (LCL; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; London: Heinemann, 1973). Blass, F., Die attische Beredsamkeit (3 vols.; Leipzig: Teubner, 1874-80). Blythin, E., The Maxims of Ptahhotpe [Ed.: sic] (Annandale, VA: Speech Communication Association, 1986). Bonner, S. F., Roman Declamation in the Ijite Republic and Early Empire (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1949). , Education in Ancient Rome (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1977). Booth, W. C., The Rhetoric of Fiction (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961). Butler, H. E., ed. and trans. The Institutio Oratoria of Quintilian (4 vols.; LCL; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; London: Heinemann, 1920-22). Butts, J. R., ed. and trans. The Progymnasmata ofTheon (Dissertation, Claremont Graduate School, 1987). Caplan, H., ed. and trans. [Cicero], Ad C. Herennium. De ratione dicendi (LCL; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; London: Heinemann, 1954). Clarke, M. L., Rhetoric at Rome: A Historical Survey (London: Cohen & West, 1953). Cope, . M., The Rhetoric of Aristotle with a Commentary, revised by J. E. Sandys (3 vols.; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1877). Cole, T., The Origins of Rhetoric in Ancient Greece (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1991). , "Who was Corax?", ICS 16 (1992), pp. 65 84. Dilts, M. R., and G. A. Kennedy, Two Greek Rhetorical Treatises from the Roman Empire (Leiden: Brill, 1997). Donnelly, F. P., Cicero's Milo: A Rhetorical Commentary (New York: Fordham University Press, 1934). , Demosthenes On the Crown, with rhetorical commentary and trans, by F. P. Simpson (New York: Fordham University Press, 1941). Douglas, A. E., ed. M. Tulli Ciceronis, Brutus, with commentary (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1966). Dover, K.J., Lysias and the Corpus Lysiacum (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1968). Eagleton, T., Literary Theory: An Introduction (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1983). Forster, E. S., ed. and trans. Aristotle, On Sophistical Refutations, etc. (LCL; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; London: Heinemann, 1955). Fowler, H. N., ed. and trans. Plutarch, Moralia 10 (IJves of the Ten Orators) (LCL; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; London: Heinemann, 1936). Fox, M. V., "Ancient Egyptian Rhetoric", Rhetorua 1 (1983) pp. 9-22. Freese, J. H., ed. and trans. Aristotle, The "Art" of Rhetoric (LCL; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; London: Heinemann, 1926). Fuhrmann, M., Das systematische Lehrbuch: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Wissenschaften in der Antike (Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1960). , ed. Anaximenis, Ars rhetorica (Leipzig: Teubner, 1966). Fyfe, W. H., ed. and trans. Longinus, On the Sublime (LCL, in the vol. with Aristode, Poetics, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; London: Heinemann, 1927). Gill, C., "The Ethos/Pathos Distinction in Rhetorical and Literary Criticism", CQ_

34 (1984), pp. 149-66.

HISTORICAL SURVEY OF RHETORIC

39

Green, W. M., ed. Sancti Aureli Augustini, De doctnna, Christiana (Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, LXXX, Sect, vi, pars vi: Vienna: Hoelder-PichlerTempsky, 1963). Grimaldi, W. . ., Aristotle, Rhetoric, A Commentary (2 vols.; New York: Fordham University Press, 1980-88). Groupe (Jacques Dubois et al.), A General Rhetoric (trans. P. B. Burrell and . M. Slotkin; Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1981). Grube, G. . ., trans. A Greek Critic: Demetrius on Style (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1961). , A Greek Critic: Demetrius on Style (with translation) (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1961). Gudeman, ., ed. P. Comelii Taciti, Dialogue de oratoribus, with English commentary (Boston: Ginn; revised German ed. 1912; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1894). Halm, K., ed. Rhetores Latini minores (Leipzig: Teubner, 1863). Hkanson, L., ed. Declamationes XIX minores Quintilian falso ascriptae (Leipzig: Teubner, 1982). Havelock, . ., The Literate Revolution in Greece and Its Cultural Consequences (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1982). Heath, M., Hermogenes On Issues: Strategies of Argument in Later Greek Rhetoric (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995). Hendrickson, G. L., ed. and trans. Cicero, Brutus (LCL; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; London: Heinemann, 1962). Hubbell, H. M., trans. "The Rhetorica of Philodemus", Transactions of the Connecticut Academy of Arts and Sciences 23 (1920), pp. 243-382. , ed. and trans. Cicero, De inventione; De optimo genere dicendi; Topica (LCL; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; London: Heinemann, 1949). , ed. and trans. Cicero, Orator (LCL; with Brutus, ed. and trans. G. L. Hendrickson; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; London: Heinemann, 1962). Huebner, H., ed. P. Comelii Taciti, Dialogus de oratoribus (Leipzig: Teubner, 1983). Inns, D. C., "Philodemus" and "Augustan Critics", in The Cambridge History of Literary Criticism (ed. G. A. Kennedy; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989), pp. 215-19, 245-73. Jebb, R. C., The Attic Orators (2 vols.; 2nd edn.; London: Macmillan, 1893). Kassel, R., ed. Aristotelis, Ars rhetorica (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1976). Kennedy, G. ., The Art of Persuasion in Greece (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1963). , Quintilian (New York: Twayne, 1969). , The Art of Rhetoric in the Roman World (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1972). , Classical Rhetoric and Its Christian and Secular Tradition from Ancient to Modern Times (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1980). , Greek Rhetoric under Christian Emperors (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1983). , New Testament Interpretation through Rhetorical Criticism (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1984). , ed. The Cambridge History of Literary Criticism. I. Classical Criticism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989). , trans. Aristotle, On Rhetoric (New York: Oxford University Press, 1991). , "A Hoot in the Dark: The Evolution of General Rhetoric", Philosophy and Rhetoric 25 (1992), pp. 1-21. , A New History of Classical Rhetoric (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994). Kinneavy, J. L., Greek Rhetorical Origins of Christian Faith (New York: Oxford University Press, 1987). Kumaniecki, K. F., ed. M. Tulli Ciceronis, De oratore (Leipzig: Teubner, 1969). Lausberg, H., Handbuch der literarischen Rhetorik: Eine Grundlegung der Literaturwissenschaft (2 vols.; Munich: Max Hueber, 1960).

40

GEORGE . KENNEDY

Leeman, A. D. et al. De oratore, Kommentar (Heidelberg: Winter, 1981-). Lenz, T. M., Orality and Literacy in Hellenic Greece (Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1989). Loraux, N., The Inventions of Athens: The Funeral Oration in the Classical City (trans. A. Sheridan; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1986). Maidment J. K., ed. and trans. The Minor Attic Orators (2 vols.; LCL; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; London: Heinemann, 1954). Malcovati, Enrica, ed. Oratorum Romanorum fragmenta (Turin: Paravia, 1955). , ed. M. Tulli Ciceronis, Brutus (Leipzig: Teubner, 1970). Marrou, H. I., A History of Education in Antiquity (trans. G. Lamb; New York: Sheed and Ward, 1956). Martin, J., Antike Rhetorik: Technik und Methode (Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft, II, 3; Munich: Beck, 1974). Matthes, D., "Hermagoras von Temnos 1904-1955", Lustrum 3 (1958), pp. 58-214. Miller, J. M. et al., ed. and trans. Readings in Medieval Rhetoric (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1973). Murgia, C. E., "Pliny's Letters and the Dialogus", HSCP 89 (1985), pp. 171-206. Nadeau, R. E., "Hermogenes' On Staseis: A Translation with Introduction and Notes", Speech Monographs 31 (1964), pp. 361-424. Norlin, G., ed. and trans. Isocrates (2 vols.; vol. 3 ed. and trans. L. Van Hook 1945; LCL; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; London: Heinemann, 1928, 1929). Offenloch, ., ed. Caecilius Calactinus, Fragmenta (Leipzig: Teubner, 1907). Oliver, R. T., Communication and Culture in Ancient India and China (Syracuse: University of Syracuse Press, 1971). Patterson, A. M., Hermogenes and the Renaissance: Seven Ideas of Style (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1970). Perelman, C., and L. Olbrechts-Tyteca, The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation (trans. J. Wilkinson and P. Weaver 1969; Notre Dame: Notre Dame University Press, 1958). Peterson, W., ed. and trans. Dialogue de oratoribus (revised by M. Winterbottom in LCL Tacitus, I; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; London: Heinemann, 1970). Rabe, H., ed. Hermogenis, Opera (Leipzig: Teubner, 1913). , ed. Aphthonius, Progymnasmata (Leipzig: Teubner, 1926). Rabinowitz, I., ed. and trans. The Book of the Honeycomb's Flow (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1983). Rackham, H., ed. and trans. Rhetorica ad Alexandrum (LCL in vol. with Aristotle, Problems II, ed. and trans. W. S. Hett; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; London: Heinemann, 1937). , ed. and trans. Cicero, De Oratore, Book III; De fato; Paradoxa Stoicorum; Partitiones oratoriae (LCL; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; London: Heinemann, 1942). Reis, P., ed. M. Tulli Ciceronis Orator (Leipzig: Teubner, 1932). Roberts, W. R., ed. and trans. Dionysius of Halicamassus, The Three Literary Letters (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1901). , ed. and trans. Demetrius, On Style (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; trans, reprinted in LCL ed. 1927 with Aristotle, Poetics, and Longinus, On the Sublime ed. and trans. W. H. Fyfe; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; London: Heinemann, 1902). , ed. and trans. Dionysius of Halicamassus, On Literary Composition (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1910). Robertson, D. W., Jr., trans. Saint Augustine, On Christine Doctrine (Indianapolis: BobbsMerrill, 1958).

HISTORICAL SURVEY OF RHETORIC

41

Russell, D. ., ed. Longinus, On the Sublime, with commentary (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1964). , and N. Wilson, trans. Menander Rhetor (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1981). , Greek Declamation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983). Sandys, J. E., ed. M. Tulli Ciceronis, Orator, with commentary (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1885). Schiappa, E., "Did Plato Coin rhetorike?", AJP 111 (1990), pp. 457-70. , Protagoras and Logos: A Study in Greek Philosophy and Rhetoric (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1991). Schmid, W., "Die sogennante Aristidesrhetorik", RhM 72 (1917-18), pp. 113-18, 238-57. Shackleton Bailey, D. R., ed. Quintiliani, Declamationes minores (Leipzig: Teubner, 1989). Spengel, L., Rhetores Graeci (3 vols.; Leipzig: Teubner; vol. I, pt. 2, revised by C. Hammer 1894; Leipzig: Teubner, 1884-86). Sprague, R. K., ed. The Older Sophists: A Complete Translation by Several Hands of the Fragments (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1972). Stroux, J., De Theophrasti virtutibus dicendi (Leipzig: Teubner, 1912). Sudhaus, S., ed. Philodemi, Rhetorica (2 vols.; Leipzig: Teubner, 1892). Sussman, L. ., The Elder Seneca (Leiden: Brill, 1978). , trans. The Major Declamations Ascribed to Quintilian (Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1987). , The Declamations of Calpumius Flaccus: Text, Translation, and Commentary (Leiden: Brill, 1994). Sutton, E. W., ed. and trans. Cicero, De oratore, Books I-1I (completed by H. Rackham; LCL; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; London: Heinemann, 1942). Thomas, R., Oral Tradition and Written Record in Classical Athens (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989). , Literacy and Orality in Ancient Greece (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992). Usener, H., and L. Radermacher, ed. Dionym Halicamasei, Opuscula (vols. V - V I of complete works; Leipzig: Teubner, 1899, 1904). Usher, S., ed. and trans. Dionysius of Halicamassus, Critical Essays (2 vols.; LCL; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; London: Heinemann, 1974, 1985). Welch, . E., The Contemporary Reception of Classical Rhetoric: Appropriations of Ancient Discourse (Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum Associates, 1990). Wilkins, A. S., ed. M. Tulli Ciceronis, De oratore libri trs, with introduction and notes (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1892). Winterbottom, M., ed. M. Fabi Quintiliani, Lnstitutionis oratoriae libri duodem (2 vols.; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1970). , ed. and trans. Seneca, Controversiae and Suasoriae (LCL; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; London: Heinemann, 1974). Wisse, J., Ethos and Pathos from Aristotle to Cicero (Amsterdam: Hakkert, 1989). Wooten, C. W., Cicero's Philippics and Their Demosthenic Style (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1983). , trans. Hermogenes On Types of Style (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1987).

CHAPTER 2

THE GENRES OF RHETORIC George A. Kennedy


University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, USA

Literary and rhetorical genres originate in social contexts where a distinctive form is developed to perform a distinctive function. In the earliest attempt to define rhetoric, Plato makes Socrates say and Gorgias agree (Org. 454e5~6) that rhetoric causes persuasion in the law courts and other assemblies. This concept of two general contexts and thus two genres of public address can be found occasionally throughout the classical period. For example, it probably appeared at the beginning of the original text of Anaximenes' rhetorical handbook, written in the third quarter of the fourth century and known to us in its later form as the Rhetoric for Alexander, for Quintilian (Inst. 3:4:9) attributes to Anaximenes a general division into judicial and deliberative oratory. By the early fourth century BC a number of Greek terms had come into use to describe different kinds of public address and are commonly found. They include: , or accusation; , or defense; (), or exhortation; (), or dissuasion; , or praise; (), or speech at a festival; and (), or funeral oration. The Rhetoric for Alexander (Rh. Al. 1421 b8 10) identifies seven , or species of political speech: exhortation, dissuasion, eulogy, vituperation, accusation, defense, and investigation. In our version of the text, edited under Aristotelian influence, these have been grouped under three , or genres: demegoric (deliberative), epideictic, and dicanic (judicial). In the third chapter of his lectures On Rhetoric Aristotle sought to classify the kinds of civic discourse on a logical basis, referring to them first as gene, or genres (Rh. I:2:1358a33), then as species (of the genos rhetoric) (Rh. I:3:1358a36). The genre is determined by the audience. The hearer of a speech, Aristotle says, is either a spectator or a judge, and in the latter case a judge either of past or future

44

GEORGE . KENNEDY

happenings. T h e jury in a court of law judges past actions and is primarily concerned with justice. Members of a political assembly judge future actions in terms of what is advantageous or beneficial to the state. A spectator at a ceremonial speech is concerned with the ability of the speaker and thus not with making a judgment leading to action, but Aristode later (2:18:139lb 17) speaks of the spectator as a "judge" of the speaker. This third genre of speech Aristode regards as concerned with what is honorable, characterized by praise or blame, and primarily referring to the present, though there may be reference to both past and future events. Thus, he says, there are necessarily three genres of rhetoric: , or deliberative; , or judicial; and , or demonstrative. Each of these, however, takes one of two stances: deliberative oratory is either exhortation or dissuasion; judicial is either accusation or defense; epideictic is either praise or blame. Praise and deliberation, however, he later says ( 1:9:1367b3637), are part of a common species, in that what one might propose in deliberation becomes encomia when the form of expression is changed. Generic classification is complicated when a speaker uses the form of one genre for the purpose of another, a phenomenon not mentioned by Aristode. This is a favorite technique of early sophists and later teachers of rhetoric who composed fictive speeches as examples of their artistry. Gorgias's Defense of Palamedes, for example, is not a real judicial speech for someone accused of treason; it is an epideixis of Gorgias's method in argument and style. Isocrates' Antidosis is not, as it purports to be, a speech given in court in response to a suit; it is an imagined response to a legal challenge which he used to answer more general criticism of his career and conduct, and its celebration of speech and Greek paideia makes it predominantly epideictic in tone. His Panegyncus, deliberative in the sense that it offers advice for specific action by the Greeks, was not delivered at a deliberative assembly nor was it given as an epideictic speech at a festival, as the tide suggests. Like most of Isocrates' other "speeches" it was published as a pamphlet. Gorgias's Encomium of Helen presents a different kind of problem in classification. It is again primarily an example of method, but it never really praises Helen, seeking instead to remove the blame commonly heaped upon her. Isocrates in his Helen (10:14) complains that Gorgias's famous speech was not an enkomion but a defense (apologia), thus judicial, not epideictic. Declamation in the Roman period, to be discussed below, took the forms of deliberative

THE GENRES OF RHETORIC

45

and judicial oratory, but on imaginary themes, and thus it did not fulfill the function of either of those genres. Since it did not aim at a decision on the part of the audience, by Aristode's definition it would be classified as epideictic. Aristode's theory of three, and only three, genres of rhetoric was accepted by most later classical rhetoricians and often specifically attributed to him, 1 but there were dissenting views. In Cicero's De oratore a feature of the argument between Crassus, who takes the broadest view of rhetoric, and his opponents, is whether rhetoric is restricted to the law courts and assemblies (see 1:16:35, 46-48; 2 : 3 9 43). Quintilian devotes a chapter (Inst. 3:4) to the question of whether there are three or more genres, referring to views of some authorities that there are "innumerable" genres. He agrees with the majority that there are three, though his criteria differ from Aristode's in that he makes the basic division into speeches in the law courts and speeches in other contexts, as had Plato, and he ends (3:4:16) by describing the traditional triad as "easy and neat" rather than true, "for all rely on mutual aid". That is, any one speech may involve deliberative, judicial, and epideictic elements. Although the Aristotelian triad has continued to be fundamental to rhetorical teaching, Aristotle's view of epideictic, based on his observation of public address in Greece, is too narrow for a general theory.2 Epideictic is perhaps best regarded as including any discourse, oral or written, that does not aim at a specific action or decision but seeks to enhance knowledge, understanding, or belief, often through praise or blame, whether of persons, things, or values. It is thus an important feature of cultural or group cohesion. Most religious preaching, except when specifically aimed at a future action on the part of the audience such as receiving baptism or at the judgment of some past action as requiring excommunication or anathema of an heretical doctrine by the church, can be viewed as epideictic. Dionysius of Halicamassus (Comp, passim), Hermogenes (Id. 12), and other later Greek rhetoricians sometimes treat all literature as a form of epideictic, subject to rhetorical analysis at least in terms of style. Although many written discourses, such as episdes, combine features of deliberative, judicial, or epideictic rhetoric, it is often useful to consider the
E.g., in Cic. De or. 2:10: See Cic. Irw. 1:7; De or. 1:141; 2:43; Part. Or. 70; Rhet. ad Her. 1:2; Quint. Inst. 2:21:23; 3:3:14-15; Hinks 1936. 2 See Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca 1958:47-57 and Beale 1978.
1

46

GEORGE . KENNEDY

dominant rhetorical genre of a work in determining the intent of the author and the effect upon the audience in the original social situadon. T h e eighteenth-century rhetorician George Campbell, at the beginning of his important work The Philosophy of Rhetoric (1776), insists that the ends of speaking are four: to enlighten the understanding, to please the imagination, to move the passions, or to influence the will. Any one discourse, according to Campbell, aims over all at only one of these ends and others are present only as secondary means to that. Aristotle complains (Rh. 1:1:1354b22~29) that although deliberadve oratory is finer and of more general interest than judicial, the handbooks of his time discussed only judicial rhetoric (and did that badly). He blames this on the greater opportunity for emotional appeals and irrelevancies in court. Other reasons are likely to be, first, that some understanding of judicial oratory was useful to more people, since Greek law required litigants to speak in their own behalf, whereas no one had to speak in the assembly unless he wanted to, and secondly, that judicial oratory was more easily reduced to rules. Aristode himself discussed deliberative rhetoric in chapters 5 to 8 of the first book of his Rhetoric, epideictic in chapter 9, and judicial in chapters 10 to 15. Most later rhetorical treatises deal primarily with judicial oratory; stasis theory, which takes up much of their discussion, is a method of determining the question at issue in a trial, with only minor application to deliberative or epideictic speeches, and the parts of the oration which are discussed at length in these treatises are the characteristic divisions of a judicial speech. Cicero's De inventione discusses deliberative and epideictic oratory rather briefly at the end of the second book; Rhetorica ad Herennium has a somewhat similar discussion at the beginning of book three. In Quintilian's Institutio oratoria the focus throughout the twelve books is largely on judicial oratory; only chapters 7 and 8 of book 3 are specifically given to epideictic and deliberative forms. Roman rhetoricians instinctively connected rhetoric with the law, which was an institution Rome developed to a high degree of sophistication; there were no native Latin counterparts of Greek epideictic, and by the time of the Empire opportunities for deliberative oratory were somewhat reduced. Greek rhetoricians of the Roman period show a greater interest in the more Hellenic study of philosophy and history. There are Greek handbooks of epideictic but litde later Greek discussion of deliberative forms. Although only three genres are commonly recognized by classical

THE GENRES OF RHETORIC

47

rhetoricians, there are other forms of composition that have come to be thought of as distinct rhetorical genres. These can be divided into those that are forms of public address, thus species or sub-genres of the three basic genres, and those that were intended to be read by individuals privately. It must, however, be remembered that literature was generally read aloud in antiquity, sometimes to a group but even by a solitary reader, and was thus "heard" in much the same way as a speech. Public episdes, sent by rulers to their subjects, or the episdes of Saint Paul and other Patristic writers to Greek churches, were surely read aloud in public to audiences. They would then be received as speeches and their authors anticipated this by observing some of the conventions of public address. Other genres of public address included the lectures of philosophers and other teachers to their schools, or sometimes to a public audience; the protrepticus, an exhortation to philosophy or to a moral life,3 is one type of such lectures, the diatribe another. 4 The Dialexeis of Maximus of Tyre are good examples of philosophical lectures of a rhetorical sort from the second century AD. The Jewish midrash and the Christian homily, both based on interpretation of scripture with application to the life of the congregation, are also forms of public address. Though often simple and unpretentious, they fall under the general rubric of epideictic, and John Chrysostom developed their artistic potentialities. The panegyrical sermon as practiced in later antiquity by Gregory Thaumaturgus, Eusebius of Caesarea, Gregory of Nazianzus, Ambrose, and others is a quite consciously epideictic form, often strongly influenced by the teaching of rhetorical schools. Secular panegyric was a major oratorical form in late antiquity, taught in the schools and practiced throughout the Roman Empire by sophists. Such speeches were sometimes addressed to individuals such as emperors or governors, or to the public assembled on some festival occasion, or were simply staged as displays in the theatre to allow the public to enjoy the artistry of a distinguished sophist. Numerous examples survive in the works of Dio Chrysostom, Aelius Aristides, Libanius, Himerius, Themistius, Synesius, and others. Although flattery, sometimes unabashed flattery of important persons, is a characteristic of this form, the best examples set out ideals of conduct for the edification of the addressee and the wider public.
3 4

See Malherbe 1986. See Stowers 1981.

48

GEORGE . KENNEDY

Sophistic panegyric was an important factor in preserving and transmitting the values of Hellenism, and though sophists rarely refer direcdy to the new religion, their speeches were an important instrument of pagan resistance to Christianity. In a Christianized form, the genre continued to be practiced throughout the Byzantine period; it is occasionally found in the western Middle Ages and flourished again in renaissance Italy. Sophists and their students also practiced epideictic orations in their schools. The two handbooks of epideictic by Menander Rhetor, perhaps written about the end of the third century AD, describe seven kinds of prose hymns and sixteen other kinds of epideictic, with advice about division of the subject and the appropriate topics to employ. The student then used a knowledge of these conventional forms in speeches on social occasions, including birthdays, weddings, funerals, and the arrival or departure of friends. There are no Latin examples of such speeches and apparently training in them was to be had only in Greek schools. The main activity in the rhetorical schools was declamation, which was ostensibly preparation in deliberative and judicial oratory for a student looking forward to a public career. Declamation lies on the cusp of written and oral composition: students usually wrote out declamations in advance, then memorized and delivered them; teachers and those adults who declaimed as a social pastime for the most part spoke extemporaneously. Quintilian (Inst. 2:4:41) says that practicing fictitious cases in imitation of judicial and deliberative oratory began in Greece about the time of Demetrius of Phaleron (i.e., toward the end of the 4th cent. BC). Cicero (De or. 2:100) implies that declamation was common in Rome by the beginning of the first century BC, but our earliest good account is in the work of the elder Seneca, entided Oratorum et rhetorum sententia, divisiones, colores, written in the second quarter of the first century AD. Declamation itself is not a rhetorical genre; Latin writers specifically divide it into the two genres of deliberative and judicial oratory, called respectively suasoria and controversiae. In the deliberative suasoria the student was asked to address some mythological or historical personage and urge some course of action (e.g., dissuade Agamemnon from sacrificing Iphigenia); in the judicial controversia, the more popular form in Rome, the teacher posits one or more laws, real or imaginary, and then proposes an ambiguous situation. For example, the law provides that a woman who has been raped may choose whether her convicted assailant should be put to death or be forced to marry her. A man rapes two women in one night; the first chooses his death, the second mar-

THE GENRES OF RHETORIC

49

riage. The student then composes a speech for one of the parties involved and may invent any additional facts or interpretations at will. Declamation was not a debate, and two speakers did not argue against each other. Greek rhetoricians did not make the distinction between suasoriae and controversiae so sharply and tend to speak of melete (practice) as divided into historical or fictive forms, the latter called plasmata.5 Declamation differs from other public address, first, in that the speaker is not trying to persuade an audience of some policy or the justice of some case but is exercising skills in all the parts of rhetorical theory: invendon, arrangement, style, memory, and delivery. It differs also in creating an imagery world, peopled with ravished maidens, pirates, tyrants, fathers who disown sons, wicked stepmothers, and other lurid characters, exciting to adolescent minds, and in encouraging artificiality in both thought and language, which deeply affected literary composition. If we then turn to rhetorical genres found only in written composition, the first to note are the progymnasmata. These are the writing exercises of the advanced stage of the grammar school or the elementary stage of study of rhetoric, as described in the Greek handbooks by or attributed to Theon, Hermogenes, Aphthonius, and Nicolaus (see the descriptions in chapter 1 above). Latin versions of the exercises are described by Quintilian (Inst. 2:4): fable, narrative, chreia, encomium, syncrisis, ekphrasis, etc. There are some literary examples of these genres among the works of Libanius, and some of them were often incorporated into larger works in prose or poetry. Greek epic and historiography from the very beginning in the Homeric poems and the History of Herodotus included speeches, personifications (prosopopoeiae) of what might have been said, composed by the historian. Thucydides describes his method in such speeches in a famous passage early in his History of the Peloponnesian War (1:23). Speeches are of course also found in the Old and New Testaments; those in the book of Acts seem most analogous to speeches in Greek historiography. Most speeches in Greek and Latin historians are deliberative and belong to one of three sub-genres: speeches by a political leader to a council or assembly; speeches by an ambassador to another city's authorities; or speeches by generals to their troops before battle. 6 The best example of epideictic in an historical

5 6

See Russell 1983. See Hansen 1993.

50

GEORGE . KENNEDY

work is the Funeral Oration by Pericles in Th. 2:5-46. Beginning in Greek in the Hellenistic period and in Latin by the Augustan Age, and continuing through the rest of antiquity, virtually all literary composition, whether in poetry or prose, shows the influence of the study of rhetoric, primarily in style, but sometimes also in invention and arrangement. Grammarians and teachers of rhetoric seem to have viewed artistic prose literature as limited to three genres: oratory, historiography, and artistic examples of philosophical writing such as dialogues. "Canons" for each of these genres, viewed from a stricdy rhetorical point of view, are discussed by Dionysius of Halicamassus in his work On Imitation and by Quintilian in the first chapter of the tenth book of his Institutio oratoria. In the fourth book of De doctnna Christiana Saint Augustine analyzes passages from the prophet Amos and the epistles of Saint Paul as rhetorical forms. In the Middle Ages, though the classical triad is often noted, the three main genres of rhetoric are letter-writing (called dictamen), preaching, and verse composition. Numerous handbooks were written on each subject.7 In the Renaissance and early modem period there are often references to the three genres of the senate, the pulpit, and the bar, an adaptation of the classical triad.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Beale, W. H., "Rhetorical Performative Discourse: A New Theory of Epideictic", Philosophy and Rhetoric 11 (1978), pp. 221-46. Campbell, G., The Philosophy of Rhetoric (ed. by L. F. Bitzer 1963; Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1776). Hansen, M. H., "The Battle Exhortation in Ancient Historiography", Historia 42 (1993), pp. 161-78. Hinks, D. A. G., "Tria genera causarum", CQ_ 30 (1936), pp. 170-76. Malherbe, A. J., Moral Exhortation, A Greco-Roman Sourcebook (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1986). Murphy, J. J., Rhetoric in the Middle Ages: A History of Rhetorical Theory from Saint Augustine to the Renaissance (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1974). Perelman, C., and L. Olbrechts-Tyteca, The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation (trans, by J. Wilkinson and P. Weaver 1969; Notre Dame: Notre Dame University Press, 1958). Russell, D. ., Greek Declamation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983). Stowers, S. K., The Diatribe and Paul's Letter to the Romans (Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1981).

See Murphy 1974:135-355.

CHAPTER 3

ARRANGEMENT Wilhelm Wuellner


Pacific School of Religion, Berkeley, California, USA

I.

STANDARD C A T E G O R I E S AND

TERMINOLOGY

Arrangement is the ordering of the substance of what was accomplished in the process of /inventio for the purpose of serving the partiality/utilitas in the discourse's aim. Arrangement is the necessary complement to /inventio with focus on arrangement of thoughts or ideas, but also of the order and choice of words, both as to their style (/elocutio) and their delivery (/atfto)in terms of their appropriateness (aptum) for the adopted partiality, and in terms of the "parts of speech". The Greeks had several words for arrangement: / ; /; /. The Romans used dispositw/disponere and compositio/componere (on lepos, see Spengel 1863:501 n. 23) for and ; and ordo for . The latter is used for the results of one's arranging activity, whether on the level of (1) sentence syntax, the order of words and phrases, or (2) the traditional "parts of speech" (, , etc.), (3) the discourse unit as a whole, or (4) even the order of a collection of books (narratives, essays, letters, law codes, poems; even the canonical order of sacred writings). Besides compositio the term structura was also used for the structural order of the parts of the sentence (Scaglione 1972:24-26). What Stemmler (1985; see bibliography under Cardauns 1985) does for an overview of , Krings (1941/1982) does for ordo, but without attention paid to rhetoric. The activity of inventing, that is generating, designing an arrangement, is designated by /; /, dispositio/disponere and compositio/componere, as well as another set of terms: the Greek and the Latin collocatio, and their respective verbs. According to Cardauns (1985:10) "it is certain that Greek rhetorics of the 1 c. BC and later used [] as synonym for

52

WILHELM WUELLNER

part 2 [of the officia oratoris], what the Greeks called , in contrast to subject or themeon the one hand, and to stylistics on the other" (cf. also Glck 1967, and Stroh 1975). The distincdon between the two aspects of arrangement as process and as product is like the distinction between strategy and tactic in the military arts, a comparison found also in ancient rhetorical handbooks. Nearly all of the terms used for arrangement apply to only one of the two types of arrangement that were recognized: the type which Lausberg (1984:28-32) calls "disposition internal to the discourse", which is the arrangement according to the rules for the "parts of the speech" arising from the orator's first '/officium: the /inventio and iudium. A quite different type of arrangement is the one Lausberg (1984:33-41) calls "disposition external to the discourse", the type of arrangement determined by utilitas, the accommodation to the circumstances, where the orator uses his judgment to modify the order. All arrangement practices and theories of antiquity revolve around these two pole. While terminology and rhetorical theories that come with it are preoccupied with the first of the two types of arrangement, the second type did also receive a certain degree of attention. In the opening general remarks about the history and development of arrangement in antiquity some special attention will be paid to the cultural and institutional factors which affected both types of disposition.

II. T H E

H I S T O R Y AND D E V E L O P M E N T OF

A R R A N G E M E N T IN A N T I Q U I T Y

In this section we offer an overview of the various approaches to arrangement in rhetoric as primarily an object of scientific, theoretical, critical reflection, beginning with the early Greek sophists, alongside the various institutional settings in which oratory was practiced long before the practice was elevated to the level of an art or science (). "Antiquity had rhetoric for a general theory of literature" (Curtius 1973:71): but that is, though an important one, only one side of the whole picture. Such an overview of the history and development of arrangement within the traditions of classical European rhetoric invites comparison and contrast first of all between the Greek (and later Byzantine) or Eastern and the Roman or Western traditions (e.g. the Greek and

ARRANGEMENT

53

Byzantine scholastic rhetorical theories vs. oratorial practices in Rome, or among Jews and Christians); moreover, comparative critical studies are called for between classical European tradition(s) and ancient non-Western traditions, equally classical, especially those of ancient India and ancient China, or even ancient Israel. (See IV. below for brief comments on this area of future reseach.) The history and development of arrangement in classical Western rhetoric will bring us face to face with a variety of cultural, social, and political institutional settings and traditions which change over the centuries and influence both the practice of oratory and the theory of oratory known as rhetoric. Take the political changes in antiquity which affected rhetoric: they range from (1) the time-honored traditions of hereditary aristocracy in early antiquity, to (2) democracy with its development of increasingly purer forms, to (3) the monarchic system of the Hellenistic era, to (4) the Roman Republic at first, then the Imperial regimes in Byzantium in the East and Rome in the West. When we take notice of the discussion about arrangement in Judaism and Christianity of this period of our overview, we need to be mindful that both religions dealt with cultural and political influences wider than the Imperial borders. It will be seen then that arrangement, as one of the "rhetorical propensities, [appears in its development as] neither innate nor immutable, b u t . . . activated by cultural conditions" (E. Black 1980:82). This historical character of rhetorical practices and their theories needs to be kept in sharp focus and seen as relevant also to our own work in this volume. The history and development of arrangement in classical Western rhetoric will have to show both sides of the coin: O n e side is the tradition of arrangement-schemes in practices and theories immanent to the rise and development of certain social, cultural, political institutions (the agora or forum; the academy or school; the law courts [jurisdiction for the forensic genre, but also legislation for deliberative as well as epideictic genres]; the theatre; the religious assemblies; etc.). T h e other side of the coin is made up of the arrangement theories or schemata developed in, by and for the variety of school systems whose origins go gack to the early sophists. O n e manifestation of this system became in due course the system, the emerging liberal arts, which in turn influenced also centers of religious schooling or emerging academies, both in early Rabbinic, Mishnaic and Talmudic Judaism (Phillips 1959) and in Patristic (Syriac, Greek, Coptic, Latin) Christianity (Neymeyr 1989), some as early as

54

WILHELM WUELLNER

the pre-Constantine era. The other school system is the culture of /imitatio which fuelled the production of the (Hock-O'Neil 1986), or the culture of declamations which promoted the . More than half of Quintilian's textbook is oriented toward declamation exercises, and it was the "unhealthy air of the schools" in which first the declamations then the flourished, increasingly so since late Republican, early Imperial times (Kroll 1940:1119-24, 1131). Both as traditions of oratorical practices, and as traditions of rhetorical theories or precepts about arrangement, rhetoric in antiquity flourished as a rainbow coalition with a variety of disparate, discrete activities of public life: in forum, courts, schools, but also other areas as indicated above. It is important, however, to call attention to scholarship's long-standing emphasis on the effect of the fusion (or "syncredstic tendencies") generated by the emerging school system(s). For in this syncretism or fusion of rhetoric with grammar, poetics, and philosophy respectivelygiving rise to such scholarly categories of "philosophical rhetoric" and "literary rhetoric"the technical, prescriptive component of rhetoric as a rigid system far overshadows the other component constitutive of ancient rhetoric: the concerns for accommodation to specific situations. Perelman's emphasis on "adaptive order" grows out of those same concerns. It would be a mistake to reduce rhetoric, in practices or theories, to any one of the cultural activities. T o the standard three areas (forum, school, courts) of public life in Greece and Rome (and all the changes each of them underwent, sometimes from one generation to another, let alone over centuries), Fuhrmann (1987:10) adds three other areas where rhetoric was used and studied. One area contributed to rhetoric's fusion with the study of grammar and of poetry: rhetoric's interest in aesthetic values giving rise to a literary rhetoric, whether as linguistic theory, as literary theory, or as literary criticism. Another area contributed to rhetoric's fusion with the study of dialectic, logic, and philosophy, generated by rhetoric's interest in syllogistic argumentationa fateful legacy which resurfaced in the Ramist reform of rhetoric (see Dickson 1993: ch. 1 on the classical and medieval roots of Ramism). A third area contributed to rhetoric's fusion with interests in psychagogics, that is, personal and spiritual development, given rhetoric's tradidonal interest in the emotions, imagination, and the will, motivation or disposition to actionsomething which philosophers as well as teachers of religion were equally interested in.

ARRANGEMENT

55

Whether as part of rhetorical theory, or as part of the art of oral and literary discourse (including the popular literary genres, e.g. novels, letters, sermons, diatribes, etc.), or as part of rhetoric's role in education, concern for arrangement was central to discourse, as it was to music, or architecture (see Spengel 1863:505 n. 27 on Vitruvius Pollio's De architecture 1:2), or other areas, such as religion's literary, liturgical, and legislative arrangement-schemes. It is widely recognized that developments in the study of arrangement ran along two lines: (1) the older sophistic tradition of rules or precepts in the technical handbooks. T h e divisions of arrangement according to the /"parts of speech" are historically the earliest framework of technical rhetoric into which other material got inserted, such as Hermagoras's stasis theory, or the Stoic system of dialectics. The first efforts of changing this tradition can be seen in Aristotle's Rhetoric and in the Rhetorica ad. Alexandrum. But the old tradition continues, as in the school of Apollodorus of Pergamum. (2) T h e later Peripatetic tradition of arrangement in accommodation to circumstances; this tradition continued in the school of Theodorus of Gadara (for a comparison and contrast between these two 1st century BC schools of Apollodorus and Theodorus, see Kroll 1940:112425; Kennedy 1980:97). Curtius (1973:501) felt that rhetorical theory in antiquity "had little to say" about arrangement, "and that little was [later] misunderstood". A. Greece 1. General Remarks The use of arrangement in Homer's epicsas in the case of Israel's early epics (Alter 1981)is proof for Kennedy (1980:14) that inventio, dispositio, elocutio were long in use before they were conceptualized. And, except for the addition of the concerns with statis (which concerns, however, also go back to the 4th century BC), the basic teaching on rhetoric has not basically changed since the fourth century BC which is best exemplified by the common resources in apparent use in the rhetorical schools, especially in those instances where technical definitions are briefly summarized (Kroll 1940:1101) which is often the case with the teaching on arrangement. The framework for discussing in the oldest rhetorical textbooks (see Plato Phaedrus for the earliest reference) is the schema of the . It was the fifth century BC sophists who, as teachers,

56

WILHELM WUELLNER

created and coined their own terminology for a theory of rhetoric. In the very first textbooks we note their familiarity already with the methodological resource of definitions of conventional rhetorical concepts (Fuhrmann 1960:126 and n. 6). In connection with Corax's definition of the , Hamberger (1914:38) points out (with reference to Arist. Rh. 3:14:14146 on ) that it was the opinion of the earliest rhetoricians that this rhetorical term (perhaps like other terms) had been taken over from ancient Greek musical theory. "The original motivations that determined the outcome of the ancient rhetorical system apparently have (for Scaglione 1972:39) to do with the impact of the musical element of poetic discourse, which became spontaneously applied to p r o s e . . . . " Corax is said to have advocated all of seven parts of speech: , , , , , , (Hamberger; for a critique of this long held view, see Goebel 1983: ch. 3 on disposition). The <fo/>0.n/20-schemes attributed to Corax are held by Goebel to be without authority. Antiphon's disposition scheme is similar to the ideal schemes of Gorgias and Anaximenes. But despite Goebel's cridque of the alleged role of Corax in the development of the uses and theory of arrangement, he, too, concludes that rhetorical theory shows a remarkable continuity from its beginnings to the fourth century. In what Kroll called (1940:1131) the unhealthy air of the schools during the Hellenistic and Imperial era, the remarkable continuity of rhetorical theory from its beginnings to the fourth century extended several more centuries by way of the exercises, by way of the imitation of classical models, and by way of the declamations cultivated by teachers and students, either in the form of controversiae, in the tradition of the forensic genre, or in the form of suasoriae, in the tradition of the deliberative or epideictic genre. The connection of the discussion of arrangement with rhetorical genres can be seen in three stages: (1) the exclusive concentration on the forensic genre, beginning with Corax, but best represented by Hermagoras and his status system which only fits forensics; (2) focus on the three genres (on the Greek side, since Aristotle; then Stoics, Rhetorica ad Alexandrum, Menander, the Byzantines; on the Latin side: Rhetorica ad Herennium, Cicero, Qpintilian, Fortunatianus, Martianus Capella); and (3) the critique of the tripartite genre-system, arising from the growing realization that " . . . a good part of the potential field of rhetoric remained outside the [tripartite] division" (Solmsen, in Stark 1968:339; see the

ARRANGEMENT

57

critical comments in Cicero and Quintilian). Kroll rightly warns (1940:1132) that the rules of the later handbooks about arrangement, especially in the epideictic genre and its proliferating species, should not be seen as rooted in the earlier Hellenistic era. How significant the precepts for arrangement in epideictic rhetoric were for the emerging genres of ancient biography (Kroll 1940:1128-35) and of the ancient novel (Hgg 1983:105-108) can be seen in the polemics against the Christian Bible as lacking (see Orig. Cels. 1:62 on the lack of "according to the dialectical or rhetorical techniques of the Greeks"; cf. 6:1; see M. Black 1989; and Colson 1913), and the Christian apologetic response emphasizing that persuasion, designed to reach even the and not just society's elite, cannot rely on (Cels. 6:57) or on literary style and composition ( ) (Cels. 1:62). Special attention deserves to be paid to the four genres of nonfictional prose in antiquity: philosophical literature, historiography, scientific literature, and epistolography. For two of the four prose genres (philosophy and science) the invention, arrangement, and style considerations became operational there "merely by imitation of the appropriate models, and not by virtue of principles or precepts"; but in the other two (historiography and epistolography) "modest initial efforts were made without hiding the fact that they simply copied traditional rhetorical precepts and applied them, more or less felicitously, to related genres", such as epistolography (Fuhrmann 1987:9). What we will note in the development of rhetorical arrangement, namely the frequent discrepancy between the theorists and the practitioners, was noted also by a student of Greek epistolography: "there is no immediate connection between epistolographic theory and the extant actual letters . . . it is in no way self-evident that epistolary theory influenced epistolary praxis" (Koskenniemi 1956:17). And Kroll (1940:1119, 1122-23) reminds us that epistolography does not appear among the . The highlights of the development of arrangement in the Greek tradition are as follows. 2. The Early Sophists It is generally held (Hamberger 1914) that Corax and his student Tisias in the fifth century BC were the first to set up a theory of

58

WILHELM WUELLNER

arrangement, but limited to the arrangement of the parts of forensic oratory: , , ; but according to Aristotle it had seven parts: , , , , , , . Goebel (1983: ch. 3), however, has found the arrangement schemes attributed to Corax without authority. a. Gorgias T h e excessive arrangement techniques of Gorgias are said to be derived from Eleatic dialectics (Fuhrmann 1960:128-31). The later fourth century guidelines for the arrangement of discourse appear to Fuhrmann (1960:159) as basically the same since the early sophists without additions or deletions. b. Isocrates Isocrates' approach to arrangement remains based on the , consisting of , plus or minus , then , , . What is referred to in scholarship as the Isocratean approach to arrangement is, however, not that of the master himself ("a pedagogical genius, but no systematician"; Fuhrmann 1960:125 n.), but that of the followers of the Isocratean school or tradition. Aristode himself points out (Rh. 3:13-14, 16:1414a17a) that Isocrates' concern with arrangement was focused mainly on the first two "parts": and . T h e target of the Peripatetic critique (Arist. Rh. 3:13-19:1414a-20a) of the Isocratean approach was due to its alleged superficiality and lack of any clear conception of the essential functions of oratory, which for the Peripatetic school are the "proofs". c. Antiphon As a member of the group of "the older sophists", to which also belong Thrasymachus and Theodoras of Byzantium, these theorists linked arrangement with invention as did Corax earlier. The similarity of Antiphon's disposition scheme to the ideal schemes of Gorgias and Anaximenes illustrates the remarkable continuity which theories of arrangement show from their beginnings down to the fourth century. 3. Plato In his Phdr. 257ff., esp. 266c-267d, we have the oldest coherent report of the oldest rhetorical theorists and of their precept-teachings, offering

ARRANGEMENT

59

a recognizable methodological arsenal of the early rhetoricians. Mindful of the excessive arrangement-schemes of Gorgias and the naive arbitrariness in the arrangement practiced by Lysias, Plato criticizes two aspects of contemporary, pre-Platonic rhetoric: its unreflected routines, and the related practice of formalistic techniques (Fuhrmann 1960:135-37). The were the only precepts relevant to arrangement. Lysias is criticized (263e) for not beginning his argument (on the nature of love) with a definition and "finishing] his discourse with that in view" ( ). In 264a Socrates goes on: "[Lysias] . . . does not even begin at the beginning, but undertakes to swim on his back up the current of his discourse from its end [ ' ' ], and begins with what the lover would say at the end to his beloved [ ' ]". The critique of the seeming lack of "any rhetorical reason" ( , 264b) is based on the premise that "every discourse must be organized, like a living being, with a body of its own, as it were, so as not to be headless or footless, but to have a middle and members, composed in fitting relation to each other and to the whole" ( , , ' , ' , 264c). In 265d Socrates speaks of "two principles" ( ): one is that of "perceiving and bringing together in one idea the scattered particulars . . . making clear by definition [ ]. [It is] by this means that discourse acquires clearness and consistency [ ' ]". The other principle ( ) concerns "dividing things again by classes, where the natural joints are, and not trying to break any part, after the manner of a bad carver" ( ' , ' , , , , 265e). In 266b-268a Socrates professes to be "a lover of these processes of division and bringing together, as aids to speech and thought" (... , ' ). While for Socrates rhetoric and dialectic are synonymous (as they are later for the Stoics), he is told by Phaedrus that there are "many things" ( ) besides dialectic when it comes to what is "written in the books on rhetoric"

60

WILHELM WUELLNER

( ' ). By these "many things" Socrates means "the niceties of the art" ( ), namely, the familiar "parts of speech" as outlined by "the man from Byzantium", Theodorus, a fifth-century BC pupil of Protagoras. The reference made to "correctness of diction" (, 268a) appears to be part of the then current discussion of arrangement, though perhaps part of "the little things" ( ) of the art of rhetoric, passed over by Socrates for the sake of keeping the focus on "what force of art they have and when" ( ' ' ). 4. Aristotle and the Rhetorica ad Alexandrum a. Aristode Like Plato, "Aristotle was consistendy interested in the organic unity of a whole and the realization of its potential; style and arrangement are part of artistic rhetoric" (Kennedy 1980:77). Aristode's approach was born of interactions with Isocrates, Alcidamas (Solmsen, in Stark 1968:184-95), and Theodectes, but not at all with his great contemporary Demosthenes. The three influential features of Aristode's treatment of arrangement in Rh. 3:13-19:1414a~20a are: (1) arrangement gets treated after style, not after inventio; (2) emphasis on only two parts to arrangement (which is the philosophical bent in his Rhetoric), but subsequent handbook tradition ignores it, as does Aristode himself; and (3) arrangement gets applied also to epideictic and deliberative rhetoric. Though Kennedy found it "an important feature . . . that Aristode considers the arrangement not only of judicial but also of [the other two genres]", he criticizes Aristotle (1980:80; as well as criticizing Perelman for his critique of the Peripatetic concern for organic unity in arrangement) for failing "to provide adequately for the mixture of intentions found in actual oratory". According to Hill (1983:69), "no doctrine of speech as organism is expounded in [Aristode's] Rhetoricin the Poetics, yes, but not in the Rhetoric". The role Aristode could have played in mediating between philosophy and technical or sophistic rhetoric was first realized by Cicero, and in our days by Perelman. Solmsen (Stark 1968:312-49) sees Aristotle (in Rh. 3:13-19:1414a20a) organize "the whole material under categories representing essential qualities or functions of any speech". He sees Aristotle's borrowed from Theodectes with whom he disagrees in some respects. Most of 3:13-19 belongs to "the system of the type and,

ARRANGEMENT

61

so far from being characteristic of Aristotle's own approach to rhetoric, may rather be regarded as the first stage in the process of fusion between the two rival traditions [which became] the way in which the ratio Aristotelia left its mark upon the later rhetorical systems" (32327). Aristode had borrowed from the alternative system and discussed the "parts of the speech" under . Hill (1983:71) finds Aristode's treatment of arrangement according to the four parts of speech persevering "under whatever names they appear" but notes that "Aristode himself was critical of the four-part division and did not choose to organize his Rhetoric along these lines. It is obviously not a subtle way of treating arrangement, and it breaks down as a guide to the analysis of any very complicated production." The later rhetoricians who use the "parts" in the inventio cannot, of course, discuss them again in the dispositio. Thus they must confine themselves in the dispositio to some remarks concerning the length of each of the parts, the sequence of the points to be made, and other subjects of minor importance (Cicero's treatment of dispositio, in De or. 2:307-332, is again an exception since he has not anticipated the discussion of the partes under inventio. T o deal with them under dispositio as he does was in keeping with the original Perpatetic procedure; see 348-49 on "the insistence on the old boundary between inventio and dispositio" [349]). b. Rhetorica ad Alexandrum Like Aristotle's Rhetoric, this work grew out of the rhetorical training praxis in fourth-century Athens. The whole work is organized around three issues: (1) the /functions or qualities of discourse (1-5); (2) the /practical and proper usefulness (6-28), and (3) the or (29-38) on how each of the rhetorical genres () get arranged organically ( ; 28 end). Traditional is the approach to arrangement according to the , but new in 29-38 is the elaboration of the "parts of rhetoric" according to seven rhetorical genres (an advance over the old sophistic which only focused on the forensic genre): 29-34 on the deliberative genre (sub-divided into / = exhortation/dissuasion), see, for example, 31 on in the narratiopart; 35 on the epideictic genre (subdivided into / = eulogy/vituperation); 36 on the forensic genre (subdivided into / = prosecution/defense) on "how we shall construct and arrange these species"; and in 37 the new

62

WILHELM WUELLNER

= investigation. While the rhetorical genres and the "parts of speech" are dealt with in traditional fashion, there is no reflection as yet of the officia. No attempt is made to establish a rational division of the principles of rhetoric, still less to deduce the necessity of such a division (Solmsen, in Stark 1968:315 n. 12). Even so, for Fuhrmann (1960:122) this work shows fully developed all the characteristics of the later handbooks. But instead of, as is customary, deriving the operating principles in this book from SocraticPlatonic and Aristotelian logic, Fuhrmann (1960:123) suggests that these textbook characteristics are the legacy of the sophistic school system, traceable back to Protagoras, Prodicus and Gorgias. Two aspects characterize this work: (1) the sophistic legacy, especially Gorgias, and (2) the application of contemporary philosophy, including a critique of the sophists. Thus a critical examination is required of the relationship between philosophical methodology and sophistic school-praxis (Fuhrmann 1960:132). 5. Hermagoras of Temnos In his six-volume work on the rhetorical arts this late second-century BC rhetorician contributed much to the reform of rhetorical theory, completing "the link between Greek rhetorical theory and Roman rhetoric" (Murphy 1983:82). He approached arrangement not by the , but the officia or opera/' rhetoros in the following order: (1) /intellectio\ (2) ,/inventio', (3) with four subdivisions: (a) /iudicium, (b) /partitio, (c) / ordo, (d) //; (4) ; (5) . In the history of arrangement his divisions under are new: the two subparts, partitio and ordo, belong closely together, for they deal with the disposition of the subject matter of a given discourse, but with dual focus: the sequence of the parts of the discourse, and the ordering of its most important part, the "proofs". In the fourth of the subdivisions under , devoted to , he has surprisingly little to say; all he stresses are the selection of fitting words and phrases, and their arrangement in the syntax of the sentence. His approach influenced the young Cicero. 6. Epicureans and Stoics The rhetoric of Philodemus, a first-century BC Epicurean, highlights an aspect of the approach to arrangement which has its own history:

ARRANGEMENT

63

arrangement as the organic whole of a discourse, whether the whole of a sentence unit, or of a given oration, or the whole of a collection of such orations. He insisted that a piece of rhetorical art, like any work of art, can be understood and appreciated only when perceived in the totality of its component parts. The Stoics introduced the concept of syntax into the discussion of the rhetorical arts. Spengel (1863:493 n. 17) noted that the Stoics, according to Fortunatianus, did not produce precise and uniform dsignations for arrangement. One of their categorizations of a tripartite scheme of the rhetorical officia (, , ) succumbed to the ruling quinquepartite principle. It was in response to logical or dialectical postulates of philosophers and grammarians alike that Stoic linguists, such as Chrysippus, emphasized the notion of a "natural" or "right", that is, logical order. This view of composition first entered the domain of grammar with Priscianus "without forcing the rhetoricians to give up [their categories of arrangement] . . . And it was Priscianus who established the view that the 'right' order is the 'natural', right because natural, and natural because 'logical'. . . [Prior to Priscianus] grammarians, rhetoricians, and stylistic analysts had remained content with the identification of the first and last places in the sentence as the most important because of their weight on the hearer (vis)ostensibly a psychological [and not logical] approach to the matter" (Scaglione 1972:39). The third-century BC Stoic approach to arrangement can be considered as one of the results (literary rhetoric as the other) of what Fuhrmann (1960:160 n. 1) calls the syncretistic tendencies generated by the school system in antiquity (see also Kroll 1940:1080-90 on rhetorical-philosophical syncretism). Hagius (1979) traces the development of the rules for the "parts of speech" from the early Stoics to the Alexandrian grammarians. In Stoic theory all reflection on arrangement became part of the system of dialectics, as it tended to be in the Socratic-Platonic critique of the sophist tradition; it was also prefigured in Aristotle's highlighting mainly the "proofs" in his discussion of arrangement of the "parts". The sixteenth-century Ramist reform is but a belated echo reverberating through the rhetorical tradition since antiquity, as Dickson (1993) reminds us.

64

WILHELM WUELLNER

7. Literary Rhetoric: Rhetoric and Poetics, Grammar, and Literary Criticism T h e rhetorization of poetics in late antiquity was one of the manifestations of the syncretistic tendencies in the ancient school system; it had far-reaching consequences. a. Demetrius (and Epistolography) Demetrius's contribution to arrangement lies in his concerted effort in his (from the second half of the 1st century AD) to deal with each of four (instead of the more familiar three) types () of style (2:36-37): plain (), elevated/grand (), elegant (), forcible (). He does this in terms of the same three headings: diction (), word-arrangement/appropriate composition ( ), subject-matter/thought (). Hence there are sections devoted to the (2:38-74), to (3:179-185), to (4:204-208 with an added section on epistolary style and arrangement in 223-235), and to (5:241-271). (See Solmsen in Stark 1968:285-311.) As to the role of arrangement in the theoretical reflections on epistolography, the same observadon made about the "parts of speech" as major principle for disposition applies to the arrangement of letters: the basic structure or form of letters remains unchanged by and large, and the same tendency is manifest in dealing with all individual elements in the letter (Koskenniemi 1956:202). The more epistolography gets associated with poetics, the more noticeable is the interest in the continuity of the letter's basic /dispositio. What evidence there is of rhetoric's influence on epistolography (similar to that on historiography) is, for Fuhrmann (1987:9), merely due to copying rhetorical precepts and applying them to the art of letter writing without notions of arrangement indigenous to it (see also Classen 1992:323-24 on the substantially different orientation in the rhetorical handbooks and the manuals on letter-writing which offer "no particular rule or advice" least of all on the arrangement or structure of letters; on "the common ground between letter and homily", see Kustas 1973:46ff.).

ARRANGEMENT

65

b. Dionysius Halicamassus About Lysias's arrangement and development ( ) of discourse Dionysius (in Lys. 15; Isoc. 4) felt that other orators (such as Isocrates, in his use of ) were superior to Lysias in the arrangement of the material they have invented ( ). In his Dem. 51 he divides approaches to discourse into two concerns: what is the subject matter ( ) and its expression ( ); the first he assigns to the traditional of /inventio, the second to or arrangement. And it is the second part that is the most important for him: arrangement ( ) of the subject matter on the one hand, and composition ( ) of the selected style. Demosthenes is his most admired rhetor. But he makes as little use of Cicero's speeches, his contemporary, as Aristotle made use of his contemporary Demosthenes. In his 4 he points out that in the arrangement of words in a sentence (he uses for that) the same words can be used in either misshapen, beggarly, mean ways ( ) or in sublime, rich and beautiful fashion ( ). In 6 he outlines the three of the science of composition ( ): (1) determine which is likely to produce a beautiful and attractive united effect (); (2) determine how each of the parts which are to be fitted together should be shaped () so as to improve the harmonious appearance of the whole (); (3) determine whether any modification is required in the material used, that is, on the level of (e.g. subtraction, addition, alteration) and carry out such changes with a proper view to their future purpose ( ) on the level of . In his Thucydides he develops some other critical categories. T h e arrangement of material () gets subdivided in a new way: (1) is the general method of arrangement; (2) refers here only to the adequacy of beginning and end; and (3) is taken as the elaboration of particular events. The theories of evaluation which Dionysius used in his rhetorical treatises are characterized by Schenkeveld (1975:107) as laying claim to the logical basis and structure of the of the rhetoricians against their rivals in educational matters, the philosophersespecially the followers of Epicurus, who maintained that rhetoric had a merely empirical structure.

66

WILHELM WUELLNER

c. Ps.-Longinus On the Sublime In 1:4 it is pointed out that skill of invention, and of arrangement and marshalling of facts ( ) in a given work shows up not in one or two isolated features, but "in the whole tissue of the composition" ( ). The efforts of making a case for dignified word order in a composition (as one of five sources for the sublime), is taken as one of the strengths of rhetoric in early Roman Imperial times, in contrast to its simultaneously prevailing weakness as evident in the growing scholastic tendency (flourishing in the unhealthy air of the school system) of regularizing, codifying, and proliferadng precepts (Kennedy 1980:112~ 16 on "Manifestation of Literary Rhetoric"). The strength of Roman rhetoric of that period is seen in the premise of a concept of unity of the material, whether in the concerns for the whole speech; or for the whole of education. 8. Second Sophistic What was true of the early sophists continues with representatives of the Second Sophistic: they tended to stress composition above all else. But the context for sophist and non-sophist rhetoricians alike has changed: their dependence on supportive centers (the municipal centers in the East, e.g. Athens, Smyrna, and Ephesus as the important "sophisdc centers" besides those in Pergamum, Mydlene, Gadara, and others, but not, surprisingly, Syrian Antioch or Alexandria; and, of course, Rome, but there subject to Imperial, and not municipal, patronage), which, in turn, led to the proverbial controversies among the sophists (Bowersock 1969:17-100). Flavius Philostratus (late 2nd/early 3rd century AD) uses "for nothing more than compositio, , since this is all he specifically treated", observes Scaglione (1972:23) and adds: "the Sophists had little explicit consciousness of overall composition in the sense of organic structure or plot". Another sophist, Aelius Aristides, found in rhetorical theory of the a reflection of the four cardinal virtues, with representing ; relating to ; to (Spengel 1863:492). 9. Anonymus Seguerianus The novelty in the treatment of the four standard parts of an oradon found in this third-century AD author lies for Kennedy (1972:617)

ARRANGEMENT

67

in this "that, with the partial exception of the prooemium, the writer considers invention, arrangement, and style as applied to each of these parts". 10. Byzantine Rhetoric With its function as presenting decisions to the public and strengthening the loyalty to church and state through the use of the forms of epideictic, Kennedy (1980:170) sees Byzantine rhetoric making no important contribudon to rhetorical theory. On the role which rhetoric played in creating "the common ground between letter and homily", see Kustas (1973:46ff.); this is an issue equally important to contemporary Mishnaic and Talmudic Judaism. The chief merit of Byzantine rhetoric lies in channeling the legacy of Greek and Roman rhetoric to its late Medieval renaissance and subsequent renaissances of classical rhetoric in the modern world. It is an irony of history worth critical reflection that rhetoric which was "invented in the fifth century BC as an instrument of social and political change, became under the Roman and Byzantine empires a powerful instrument for preservation of the status quo", with its cause or effect relation to theories of arrangement (see IV.C below on areas of future research). B. Rome 1. General Remarks There is a two and a half centuries-long gap in tradition between the earliest Latin textbooks on rhetoric (Rhetorica ad Herennium and early Cicero) and the main Greek texts. In this period the discussion on arrangement ran on two tracks: one going back to the early sophists with their interest in the "parts of speech" as framework for approaching arrangement; the other (first mentioned in the Peripatetic tradition of Aristotle) emphasizing the orator's judgment in modifying the conventions of rhetorical arrangement. As Clarke (1953/ 1968:32) and Kennedy (1972:115) note, when inventio encroaches on the province of dispositio by dealing with the parts of speech under inventio, there is little left that can be said, and was said, in the treatment of arrangement (see under Rhet. ad Her. 3:16-18; Cic. Part. 9 - 1 5 ; De or. 2:307-315; Quint. Inst. 7). Three literary forms emerging in Roman times reflect some of the

68

WILHELM WUELLNER

changes in the approach to arrangement: the satura or sermo = (Lvy 1993); the subjective elegy (Gelhaus 1973); and the novel (Hgg 1983). Textbook rhetoric was hard put to account for the arrangement in these seemingly disorderly genres. What distinguishes these three distinctly R o m a n literary forms is their formlessness. T h e Romansat least some of themwanted their literary forms to be shapeless. Kroll (1940:1134) speaks of the conflict between "the demands of the modern times" and the rhetorical convention (especially as embodied by the "technographers" on the one hand, and the school masters with their progymnasmata exercises and declamation training on the other hand). And part of that conflict was also generated and fuelled by the transition from the old world of orality to the unfolding world of literacy (see O n g 1982; Swearingen 1991). It is here that the discussion of arrangement in ancient rhetoric must account for "the shaping effects of the medium itself on both the communicator and the communicant" (Sloane 1974:804). For Kroll (1940:1104), the change from an oral to written and published oration is twofold: (1) the published version is likely to pay more attention to the aesthetic components, and as such can serve as a model in the school system; and (2) the published version can become a political pamphlet or a legal or religious document. Beside these two points other critical issues demand attention (see IV. below on areas warranting future research). 2. Rhetorica ad Herennium In 1:3 dispositio is mentioned as one of the faculties (officia) which one acquires in three ways: theory (arj/), imitation (imitatio/), and practice (exercitatio/). The function of arrangement is the ordering and distribution of the matter (ordo et distnbutio rerum) indicating the place each thing is assigned to (demonstrat quid quibus locis sit concolandum). In 3:9:16-18 we find the distinction made between two genera dispositionum: (1) Arrangement generated by the principle of rhetoric (ab institutione artis profectum)the rules (of the sequence of "the parts of speech") mentioned already in Plato's Phaedrus. This principle was elaborated in book 1 as part of invention. This is a change (also found in Cicero, De inventione) from the Peripatetic tradition which dealt with the "parts" under arrangement. As a result, what is said on arrangement be-

ARRANGEMENT

69

comes "narrow in scope and rather sterile" (Caplan 1954:xviii). T h e principle informing arrangement is said to apply not only to the discourse as a whole, but also (as set forth already in 2:18:28) to the individual "parts": expositio, ratio/argumentatio, confirmatio, exomatio, conclusio. As we have seen already in Aristotle's Rhetoric 3, the announcement that one wants to deal with arrangement may in fact apply more to the discussion of arrangement in one or the other of the "parts", especially the "proofs", and not with the discourse as a whole. (2) Arrangement generated by accommodation to specific circumstances (ad casum temporis adcommodatum). This genre of arrangement deals with the changes and transpositions (commutationes et translationes) necessitated by the cause itself (ipsa res). Such changes in arrangement are compared with military tactics (3:9:18; cf. Cic. Brut. 139). 3. Cicero

The young Cicero, in his De inventione defined arrangement (1:9) as the distribution of arguments discovered (in the inventio) in the proper order (dispositio est rerum inventarum in ordinem distributio). Arrangement of, and in, the partes orationis (of which he lists six: exordium, narratio, partitio, confirmatio, reprehensio, conclusio) should be considered only after (denique ordinandae) the primary task of the invention of arguments "in proper order" (1:19). Each of the six parts serves a specific function in the whole arrangement. The older Cicero (De or. 1:142) has Crassus qualify the earlier precept by advising the arrangement of the inventive discoveries "not merely in orderly fashion, but with a discriminating eye for the exact weight as it were of each argument" (non solum ordine, sed etiam momento quodam atque iudicio dispensare atque componere) Also the need of modifying or even completely eliminating certain "parts" of the discourse from their prescribed arrangement (first discussed in Inv. 1:30), gets elaborated in De or. 2:307-332 (see 320 on changes in proems; 330 on changes in narratio and peroratio). In his Brut. 139 rhetorician Marcus Antonius compares the arrangement of discourse for greatest force and effectiveness (plurimum proficere et vaelere) with military strategy and tactics. The orator, like a general, arranges his material in the most opportune parts of his discourse (in maxime opportunis orationis partibus collocabantur). In his Or. 15:50 he offers as example of such choices of arrangement (appropriate to the utilitas of the case) the ordering of one's strongest arguments at the beginning and end of the "proofs" with the weaker arguments inserted in the

70

WILHELM WUELLNER

middle. As Classen (1985) and others (Stroh 1975) have shown, Cicero's use of arrangement in his speeches is manifold, with the precepts of traditional arrangement skillfully modified. None of Cicero's own oradons can be fully and satisfactorily analyzed "with the categories of the rhetorical system in the sense that an individual oration can be explained as the ad hoc embodiment of what the rhetorical precepts taught" (Leeman 1982:42-43). Comments like this warn us that rhetorical theory, though allegedly derived from praxis in part, and in part serving praxis again (Fuhrmann 1987:7), does not always agree with praxis, or praxis with theory, even if both come from the same person. In De inventione (as in Rhetorica ad Herennium) arrangement gets discussed under "parts of speech" in its relation to inventio, but only with respect to the forensic genre; as to the arrangement in the other two rhetorical genres, the "parts"-approach has not yet been adopted. In his De or. 2:307-332 Cicero has not anticipated the discussion of the partes under inventio. As Spengel (1863:501 n. 23) observed: only where res and verba get combined does arrangement/dispositio come to be discussed in third place, following inventio and elocutio. Kroll (1940:1069) points out that in De oratore and in Oratore the approach to arrangement, in terms of first dealing with the five officia and then the five partes, was the model generally used in the first century BC. All arrangement arises either from the nature of the case, or from the instinct of the speaker, which follows the two genera dispositionum of Rhetorica ad Herennium. In Cicero's reflections on arrangement, as well as the other officia, Fuhrmann (1960:69) sees a tradition already hardened by mannerism, and he accounts for the discernible signs of a philosophical-rhetorical syncretism in the rhetorical handbooks of Cicero and Rhetorica ad Herennium in two ways: (1) the syncretisdc tendencies in the school and education-systems of the times, and (2) Cicero's design for unity of philosophy, rhetoric, and politics as part of the program Cicero had for his own life, a program generated by his personal character (160 n. 1). It was Cicero, not Aristotle, that remained till Renaissance times the most influential force in dealing with rhetoric in general, and with arrangement in particulareven in medieval Jewish rhetoric! 4. Horace At the base of his Ars poetica lies the tripartite (officia, partes, de artifice) textbook-type. His blend of rhetorics and poetics is well represented

ARRANGEMENT

71

in section 39-44: "The man who chooses his subject with full control [i.e. in his inventio] will not be abandoned by eloquence [Jacundia deseret] or lucidity of arrangement [lucidus ordo]. As to arrangement: its excellence and charm [ordinis virtus et venus] . . . consists in saying at this moment what needs to be said at this moment [iam nunc dicat iam nunc debentia did], and postponing and temporarily omitting a great many things [pleraque diffrt et praesebs in tempus omittat]" (Russell and Winterbottom 1972:280). 5. Quintilian and Pliny the Younger Quintilian Institutio Oratoria deals in books 1 - 3 with theoretical issues. As with all five officia, arrangement is considered neither "as duties of the oratory [nor] as elements of rhetoric, but [as] parts of the art and not the material" (Meador 1983:161). In 3:3:2 he briefly comments on the importance of dispositio dealing with discourse not only quo modo, but also quo loco. In 3:3:6 he cites Cicero for his claim that the iudicium/judgment function in the inventio phase is indispensible for both dispositio and elocutio\ in 3:3:7, again with reference to Cicero, he sees concerns with subject matter (res) and arrangement as belonging to inventio, concern with the wording and delivery as belonging to elocutio, with memoria acting as custodem omnium. The use of the "parts of speech" as the principle of structure and organization in the section on invention constitutes for Solmsen (in Stark 1968:326) an important departure from the original Peripatetic systema "contamination" with the Isocratean tradition which is a process that began with Aristotle. Among the developments since Cicero, with tendencies for novelty, he points to the urge for making additions to arrangement (adiecerunt ordinem) besides the standard teaching on dispositio, leaving the student with the impression "as though arrangement was anything else than the marshalling of arguments in the best possible order" (quasi aliud sit dispositio quam rerum ordine quam optimo collocatio). Among the chief developments he refers to are (1) Dio of Prusa, his contemporary (for teaching that all of rhetoric falls into parts only: invention and arrangement, the first concerned with res, the other with verba); (2) Theodorus of Gadara, another contemporary (for having a different view by subsuming elocutio under inventio as one of its two parts, and dealing with arrangement, etc. as the remaining "parts"); (3) Hermagoras (for placing judgment, division, order and everything relating to expression under the heading of economy

72

WILHELM WUELLNER

[iudicium, partitonem, ordinem, quaeque sunt elocutionis, subiicit oeconomiae a word for which Latin has no equivalent; 3:3:9]); (4) some unnamed ones who put memoria even before dispositio; and (5) the many dissenting voices (plures dissenserunt) over the issue whether invention, arrangement, elocution belong to the partes rhetorices or to the opera oratoris. Quintilian sides with Hermagoras against Athenaeus, another contemporary of Quintilian, advocating that the five officia, which include arrangement, belong to the elementa/ of rhetoric (3:3:11). For Quintilian, both inventio and dispositio belong to rhetorices propria. In book 4 he starts laying out specific precepts to be used in school exercises (for Kroll 1940:1099 the normal type of the system of schoolrhetoric is to be found in the works of Dionysius Halicamassus). It is good to remind ourselves here that Quintilian was the first teacher of rhetoric at Rome on the Imperial pay roll. What he has to say about arrangement in book 4 and following shows these highlights: (1) A neutral value is put on the merits of the ordo naturalis of the ab initio-technique (with orderly sequences to middle and end) over against the ordo artificialis of the a mediis-approach, as in the dispotio in Homer's Odyssey (more Homerico a mediis vel ultimis, 7:10:11). Quadlbauer (1977:75) finds a similar view shortly after Quintilian in Theon. (2) 7:1:42-62 illustrates Quintilian's approach to arrangement with what Kroll (1940:1071) calls an unusually captious treatment of a controversia declamation which proves how anatomy is best taught with a corpse for illustration. (3) Quintilian includes a number of things not usually found under the heading of dispositio. Pliny, a student of Quintilian, warns critics, in his letter to Voconius Romanus (Ep. 3:13:3), not to be solely preoccupied with elocutio, and then exclaims: "If only people would look at least at the arrangement, the transitions, the figures [or figurations] as well! Superb invention [invenire praeclare] and magnificent expression [enuntiare magnifice] are sometimes found also among barbarians [the same topos is found in Jos. 4 7 20:264; Ps.-Longin. On the Sublime 44:3-5]; but only the erudite can arrange with propriety [disponere apte] and give variety to his figures [figurae varie]".

ARRANGEMENT

73

6. Hermogenes of Tarsus (mid-2nd century AD) In his treatise On Invention, Book 3 he deals with arrangement by using new stasis categories as "ways of ordering the material". His textbook of progymnasmata is designed to help students with the task of arrangement. Like Quintilian before him, "he wrote primarily for . . . the students in the school of declamation" (Kennedy 1980:103-105). Like Apsines's interest in progymnasmata, so did Hermogenes' contribute to the increasingly systematic scholasticism of the rhetoricians in late Imperial Rome (Kroll 1940:1117-19). His concerns for composition (arrangement on the sentence level), as demonstrated in his work On Ideas of Style, continue the efforts of Demetrius, Dionysius Halicamassus, and Apsines (his is the last complete in Greek to survive). 7. Rhetores Latini Minores The Latin technical handbooks of the fourth century "subtly alter the classical conception of the subject matter of rhetoric and thereby anticipate some the characteristic developments of later medieval theory" (Leff 1982:72). While the Hellenistic approach, since Hermagoras, tended more and more toward a fixed logic of public argument and dealing with arrangement increasingly without reference to specific audiences, the Latin tradition remained more aware of the need for "adaptive order". In his Institutiones oratoHae (Halm 1863:311-52), Sulpitius Victor "dramatically restmctures the elements of rhetorical theory". The officia of the rhetor are now only three: intellectio, inventio, and dispositio which includes style and delivery. But "neither the elements of disposition nor invention receive more than passing attention" (Leff 1982:74).

III.

A R R A N G E M E N T IN R H E T O R I C A L

THEORY

The survey of the history and development of arrangement in antiquity reveals, at first sight, the colorful diversity in the systems of rhetoric, not to speak of the diversity in the practices of oratory in the various times and places. But on a second, closer look there emerge two groups into which this diversity can be sorted: (1) the original Greek sophistic approach which even those honored who severely criticized the sophists, like Plato, Aristotle, and others. This approach

74

WILHELM WUELLNER

viewed all of rhetoric, and so also all matters pertaining to arrangement, with the overriding concern for rhetoric as the art, the , of generating persuasion (in contrast to logic's, or dialectic's concern for demonstration). This group differs from (2) the later emerging approach, first noted among the Stoics, and then represented by much of Roman rhetoric since Cato the Elder, which was "decidedly morally oriented" and using moral criteria (Furhmann 1987:12-13). A. The Ancient Technographers What yielded a certain degree of continuityfrom the beginning to the fourth century BC "a remarkable continuity" (Goebel 1983)was the approach taken by the sophists to rhetorical theory as a formal discipline, and that in two respects (Fuhrmann 1987:8; earlier research also spoke of two groups: the Isocratean vs. the Peripatetic types; see Solmsen, in Stark 1968:323; also Kroll 1940:1096-1100 on two types of handbooks or technographers). (1) T h e first is the concern with discourse, its sounds, rhythm, semantic and syntactic means, for discourse above the level of everyday speech (prose as distinct from artful speech = Kunstprosa). At this level, arrangement is closely related to grammar, syntax, and stylistics and was conceptualized and defined in terms of /compositio or collocatio of syllables, words, phrases, sentences, periods and cola. T h e development along this line led rhetoric to make common cause with theoretical, technical approaches to grammar and poetics, leaving rhetoric as antiquity's form of literary theory and literary cridcism. (2) Quite distinct is the other formal concern with the techniques of argumentation, that is those structures or arrangements of thoughts and words which either promote or disguise the truth claim. Here the conceptualization of arrangement is focused on the / collocatio of the subject matter (res) or arguments. The development along this line led rhetoric to make common cause with logic or dialectic, which began with the sophists' use of the Eleatic tradition of dialectic, then the pro- and anti-sophistic controversies, led by the Socratic/Platonic Academy, renegotiated by the Peripatetic School, developed in yet other ways by Epicureans and Stoics, till the rhetorical-philosophical syncretism or reconciliation emerged at the dme of Cicero. It is interesting to note that with the first century BC we also see the emergence of the early Rabbinic (middot) "rules"

ARRANGEMENT

75

for argumentative/interpretative techniques (both as recognizable in the texts as well as applicable to one's dealing with texts) attributed to Hillel (Strack-Stemberger 1982:26-30). Conley (1990:23-24) proposes "at least four different models for rhetoric in antiquity": T h e two operational models of the sophistic (the motivistic model of Gorgias, characterized as "manipulative of audience", and the controversial model of Protagoras/Isocrates, characterized as "seeking consensus"). In response to these two operational models emerged the problematic rhetoric model of the Peripatetic School, characterized as "accommodating to the nature of the problem faced", and the dialectic model of Socrates and Plato. The development of these "at least four different models for rhetoric" influenced the formation of dispositio-schemata, both in theory and practice. The two operadonal models of the sophiststhe motivistic model of Gorgias, and the controversial model of Protagoras and Isocrates, also known as the Pre-Aristotelian/Isocratean typedeal with arrangement on the basis of the or partes (proem, narratio, etc.) also found in Arist. Rh. 3:13-19:1414a-20a; and in Apsines in the second/third century AD (the latest complete in Greek to survive) who is indebted to Hermogenes. This "parts"-type gets subordinated to/fused with the -type (e.g. Cic. Inv.; De or. 2:315-340 where the parts of speech are dealt with in the discussion of dispositio; also in Rhetorica ad Herennium, Qpintilian, and Julius Victor). The problematic rhetoric model of the Peripatetic School (accommodating to the nature of the problem faced) was based on the officia oratoris (, , , etc.) found in Anaximenes, Aristotle ( = already in PI. Phdr. 236a; Arist. Rh. 1:1:13-2:2:1355b), but also in Rhetorica ad Herennium, Qpintilian, and Fortunatianus. This quinquepartite system later developed subdivisions, for each of the five , of and , the latter including both and . The rhetorical textbooks developed two types (Kroll 1940:10961100 Handbuchtypen\ Fuhrmann 1963:156-88), which started out as separate, then tended to blend, and then again got sharply separated and contrasted (as in Cic. Part. 3-26 officia', 27-60 partes); or have added to officia and partes a third section on de artifice (see Quint. Inst. 12); this tripartite type lies at the basis of Horace's Ars poetica.

76

WILHELM WUELLNER

(1) T h e Pre-Aristotelian/Isocratean type, reflecting the two sophistic operational models: Gorgias's "motivistic model" and the "controversial model" of Protagoras and Isocrates. Arrangement is defined here in terms of its parts, ranging from three to seven (as is still the case in the later works of Julias Severianus, Apsines, Rufus, and the Anonymus Seguerianus). (2) The Peripatetic type (Conley's "problematic model"), working with the quinquepartite system of the officia oratoris, with dispositio following inventio, but preceding elocutio, actio, and memoria. Each of the five officia later get further subdivided into and ; moreover, the tendency grew to view arrangement in its variation within the three distinct rhetorical genres, let alone their proliferating respective species. All these, genres and species, did not lend themselves to being reducible in their respective arrangement schemes to one fixed , of one type or another. T h e overall impression one is left with concerning the treatment of arrangement in rhetorical theory has been repeatedly voiced by scholars (e.g. Fuhrmann 1987:78-79) as: "The treatment of arrangement leaves a quite wretched impression", despite or perhaps because of the theory of arrangement, in terms of the five-part subdivisions of dispositio. It become a pedagogical commonplace, once grammar and rhetoric had become part of the school system in late Imperial times, in the era of the (Conley 1990:30), with grammar and rhetoric running separate but coordinated tracks, along with logic/ dialectic, as fixed parts of the emerging trivium of the "liberal arts" as the required core for all students in the emerging medieval university system. T h e systematic rigor imposed by the school system can only accentuate the impression of wretchedness in the treatments of arrangement in both types of handbooks of rhetorical theory. The grey theory dominating the school discussions of dispositio in the progymnasmata and school declamations stands in contrast to traditions tested by such practitioners as Demosthenes and later Cicero (on Cicero, see Stroh 1975; Classen 1985). Distinguished orators, in forum or court, were a different breed from the teachers of rhetoric in schools and from authors of handbooks of rhetorical theory, though Isocrates earlier, and Cicero later, are the exceptions that prove the rule (Kroll 1940:1066-1069). Two reasons are offered for the wretched state of the results of

ARRANGEMENT

77

the handbooks' gathered wisdom on arrangement: (1) practical oratory, as well as the prolific growth of various literary and sub-literary genres (e.g. letters, homilies, novels, etc.), had produced a great variety of unique, situation-specific forms (and their indigenous arrangement patterns), about which rhetorical theory was unable to offer anything to anyone who wanted to comprehend the rationale and sophistication of the various and deviant refinements in matters of arrangement (Fuhrmann 1987:79). (2) The other reason cited is "that little was left to be said" once inventio encroached on the domain of dispositio (a) when (as in Rhet. ad Her. 3:16-18, in Cicero, and in Quintilian) the parts of speech came to be treated under inventio, instead of dispositio; and (b) when once it is emphasized "that the arrangement of the speech [may or must] be varied according to circumstances and that the orator should use his judgment" (Clarke 1968:32; Carrino 1959). B. The Case of a Modem Technographer Among the numerous modern attempts at summarizing the highlights of what ancient Western theory of rhetoric taught about arrangement (Martin 1974; Murphy 1983/1994; and others), none is more idiosyncratic than Lausberg's (1963/1984). He offers the following grid of the two constitutive components of the dispositioschemata in antiquity. In his massive earlier work (1960, 2nd edn. 1973), he follows the conventional approach: inventio, the first of the five partes artis, gets elaborately outlined in 146-240 (with nearly all of it [150-240] devoted to the five "parts of speech": exordium, narratio, etc.). This is followed by dispositio (very short: 241-47, with only two categories: ordo naturalis and ordo artificialis), then elocutio (very long [248-525] with a long section on compositio, 455-507), and finally two very brief section on the other two "parts". In his shorter, later work (1963/1984) he discusses inventio and the associated "parts of speech" very briefly (25-26), but dispositio at length and idiosyncratically (27-41): (1) Disposition internal to the discourse or text (28-32), that is what selection (\/electio) was made, and what order () chosen of both res and verbaand the means or techniques actually used (/Mmy) in the text-external dispositio. Each of the chosen and

78

WILHELM WUELLNER

used means or tools has its function. Lausberg considers the study of actually used function-possibilities as a rewarding task for a "literary rhetoric" by documenting a "typology of functions" ( 46/2). (a) Ordo naturalis, with its beginning, middle, and end (Lausberg 1984: 47/1; 1960: 447-451). (b) Ordo artificialis/artificiosus = starting in mdias res, or even at the end; use of flashbacks (Lausberg 1984: 47/2; 1960: 452). The much debated reasons and purposes for the omission of one or the other part of the quinquepardte arrangement of discourse due to partiality/ utilitasalso belong to the artificial arrangement. (c) T h e text-internal dispositio is (1) determined by the author's iudicium (one of the officia oratoris elaborated in some of the ancient textbooks in connection with, or even prior to, inventio; see Hermagoras and Cicero), and (2) related to the selection and arrangement of the parts into a structural whole. This whole can be perceivedby speaker a n d / o r audienceeither as a given whole ( 50-54) or as to the possibilities (perhaps even necessides?) for altering the whole ( 55-63). The whole and its parts extend to the selection and order of sounds, syllables, words within the limits of the syntax of a given language. (This limit takes on other dimensions when the medium is no longer either oral or manuscript-literary; see below IV.D; or only one's native language; see below IV.B.) The selection and arrangement of ideas (/rej) offer more options than the verba, but there are limits here, too, which are set by "the milieuconditioned habits of thought" ( 49/2)if not, even more so, by "habits of the heart"! Arrangement is exercized in the polarity between the speaker's artistic freedom and the "more or less great constraints of societal [or cultural] norms" ( 49/3). (d) Arrangement of parts as whole can be found in two types: (1) arrangement in two parts for tension or polarity, contrast or balance (as in thesis/antithesis), or (2) three parts for beginning, middle and end of the whole: whether as ontological, natural, organic unity (Socrates, Plato), or as logical, dialectical unity (Stoic and Epicurean), or as artificial, adaptive unity which is ttft/ztai-appropriate (Aristode, Cicero; see also Perelman 1969:508). By amplifying the middle part of the tripartite arrangement one gets a five part-whole, as in the parts of discourse (proem, narratio, proofs, refutation, epilogue). This quinquepardte system

ARRANGEMENT

79

greatly influenced the order of the classical handbooks of the rhetorical . Chiastic structure or ring-composition is one of the well-known arrangement schemata. (e) Arrangement of the whole in terms of its materia or thema can be done in two ways: (1) the circular whole ( 56/1) which, in Perelman's terms, is the argumentative situation of the whole which is more than the sum total of the parts of the various argumentative situations that constitute the whole; or (2) the linear whole ( 5 6 / 2 with its beginning, middle, end). Both linear and circular arrangements can be modified or altered with four alteration categories available: (a) Additions ( 59): apposition, pleanoasm, amplification etc.; (b) Subtractions ( 60): as in the omission of one or the other "canonical" parts of speech from the whole; (c) Transmutation ( 61): as in reversing order, such as chiasm, or placing a part from its expected "normal" position to another position within the whole, as in or ; (d) Replacement of some part within the whole by a part not normally considered fitting, as in , ( 62) which is the </is/>o.fro-equivalent to what the major tropes are for elocutio. (2) Disposition external to the text (Lausberg 1984:33-41 = 64-90; Perelman 1969:503). At this point arrangement is seen as closely related to inventio, and to what Perelman calls the rhetorical situation with its adaptive arrangement. Lausberg has the following sub-points for external order: (a) The text-external dispositio is oriented toward partiality (utilitas causae). It is this orientadon which constitutes the ordering principle of the discourse and guarantees its structural unit as a whole (Lausberg 1984:33-41). In 1973 ( 446) Lausberg defined partiality as the main principle of arrangement. He distinguishes three types of oratorial tactics (Rede-Taktik; 1984:33-34 = 66): (1) the straightforward tactic (ductus simplex) working with perspicuity as means of expression; (2) the tactic with deceptive approaches of three subtypes (ductus subtilis,figuratus,and obliquus); and (3) the tactic using a mixture of these previous four types (ductus mixtus). (b) Other considerations by which partiality influences the choice of arrangement are: (1) whether the intended effect of the oration is to rely mainly on the cognitive, semantic component

80

WILHELM WUELLNER

() of persuasion, or to rely on the use of the audiences'/ readers' emotions (the affects in jethos and /pathos; 34 35 = 68), or whether the intended effect is best realized by amplification, with four genera amplificationis (35-39 = 71-83), or by exaggeration and alienation, from simple variation to deliberate shock or going against the grain by the arrangement choices (1984:39-41 = 84-90; Drijepondt 1979). Where Lausberg opts for a literary rhetoric in restoring ancient rhetoric to all its rights, Perelman has opted for a more philosophical rhetoric which also seeks to preserve the legacy of antiquity, but with an idiosyncrasy different from Lausberg's. The or status system, so imporant for ancient technographers of rhetoric in dealing with arrangement in terms of the "parts of speech", especially the proofs, gets renewed recognition in Perelman under a more attractive label, "modalities" in argumentation and its arrangement (Perelman 1969:154-63; see also the work of D'Angelo 1990, and Winterowd 1986; earlier Hovland 1957, Carrino 1959, and Tucker 1963).

IV.

AREAS WARRANTING

FURTHER

RESEARCH

A. The Issue of "Adaptive Order" versus "Ontological Order", "Organic Order", "logical Order" Classical rhetoric spoke of "order" as "organism" or organic whole as reflected (1) in forms of art; and (2) in forms of "the order of nature" (ordo naturae) as found in reality (modus) and the order of priorities, or in numbers (numerus) and the order of distinctions or in weight (pondus) and the order of inclination, as in the military's inclination to be victorious, the ordo invicem (see Krings 1982:51-88). According to Perelman (1969:507-508), this traditional approach to arrangement was and remains a way of "separating the form of the discourse from its content", because it stresses only the formal, technical "relationship between, [but] does not define the nature of, the relations"; it "envisages the speech as something isolated and sufficient in itself". Perelman's plea (1969:508) for substituting "adaptive order" for "ontological order", "organic order", and "logical order" invites a distinction to be made between adaptation (as practiced in the forum, the courts, the schools, etc.) operating either direcdy, or through reflections of the hearer on the question of order. Kennedy (1980:80) in turn criticizes Perelman (for his critique of the Peripatetic concern for

ARRANGEMENT

81

organic unity in arrangement) for failing "to provide adequately for the mixture of intentions found in actual oratory". B. Comparative Critical Approaches to Arrangement in Western and Nonwestern Rhetoric A century ago scholarship reflected on this issue in terms of the categories of atticism and asianism (see e.g. Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, in Stark 1968:350-401) as relevant for the period under consideration in this essay. Relevant also is the traditional comparison and contrast between Athens and Jerusalem (Alexander 1990; Weltin 1987). The comparison and contrast between Greek or Byzantine and Roman rhetoric may be another case in point (see Murphy 1983:80 on the "considerable cultural friction" causing several expulsions of Greek rhetoricians and philosophers from Rome). As a special area warranting further research, currently in its initial phase, attention needs to be called to the critical awareness of the indigenousness of approaches to rhetoric in the Jewish tradition, even within the circle of Hellenistic Judaism, such as Philo of Alexandria (see Conley 1987; see also C. Black II 1988), let alone in the rise and development of Rabbinic Judaism (see Neusner 1992). But the same applies to early Christianity with its adaptations to Greek and Roman rhetoric differing not only in Greek and Byzantine versus Latin patristics (as in the uses of rhetoric in Alexandria [e.g. Clement and Origen], or among the Cappadocian Fathers, or Chrysostom, etc. [see Bowersock 1969 on Eastern cities as sophistic centers], or in the Latin circles of Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Jerome, Augustine, etc.), but also the early vernacular rhetorics of the Syriac or Coptic Fathers (Mller 1956; Neymeyr 1989). Throughout all this, whether in Christianity (Spira 1989), or in Judaism, we need to be aware not only, as we traditionally are, of the influence of Greek and Roman rhetoric on these religious cultures, but also on the reverse: the influences these religious cultures had on rhetorical theory and practices of antiquity. What Kroll (1940:1138) said of early Christian uses of rhetoric could also have been said of early Rabbinic uses of rhetoric: the precepts and rules of the Greek and Roman schools of rhetoric were liberally used as were "all rhetorical arts despite occasional pangs of conscience which were often only faked". There is more to all that, however, than Kroll's glib comment allows. Future research in the

82

WILHELM WUELLNER

order and composition of Mishnaic and Talmudic Judaism (Towner 1973; Strack-Stemberger 1982 on the tradition of the middot\ Neusner 1992), of Rabbinic homilies (Bowker 1967; Goldberg 1978), midrashim (Silberman 1982; Stern 1981; Boyarin 1985), but also letters, especially the halakhic type (Taatz 1990; see Kustas 1973:46ff. on "the common ground between letter and homily"), and other forms, or of the varieties of Christian literary culture, must account more adequately for two mixtures: (1) "the mixture of intentions found in actual oratory" (Kennedy in critique of Perelman), and (2) the mixture of rigid rules and situational or cultural accommodation which provided the two guidelines for the study of arrangement in classical Western rhetoric. (For a comparative study of Chinese and Western approaches, see Reding 1985; for a Moslem approach to arrangement, see Sweity 1993.)

C. Arrangement and Institutionalization of Rhetoric One area in which the institutionalization of rhetoric (see Swearingen 1991:116-25) has deeply influenced rhetoric is the school or paideia system administered by municipalities or by a super-regional central agency (Imperial or Papal decree; for "rhetoric in an organizational society managing multiple identities", see Cheney 1991). The same goes for another area: the institutionalization of jurisprudence (Kbler 1920 on Rechtsschulen in antiquity; Stroux 1949) and the comparable formation and development of Rabbinical academies. Another issue related to institutionalization is the study of rhetoric's subtle way of contributing to "the power of the elite establishment" (Kennedy 1980:170 in view of Byzantium) and how this relates to rhetoric's dealing with arrangement and order. For it is, indeed, "ironic that Greek rhetoric, which was 'invented' in the fifth century BC as an instrument of social and political change, became under the Roman and Byzantine empires a powerful instrument for preservation of the status quo" (Kennedy 170 ad n. 29).

D. Arrangement in the Relation between Music and Rhetoric Following the clues offered by early rhetorical theorists themselves who noted certain connections between rhetoric and music, and recognizing the mutual effect the two had on each other over the cen-

ARRANGEMENT

83

tunes (Buelow 1980) and in different cultures, the study of rhetorical arrangement can profit from the cause or effect relation with music. Such study would focus on the oratorical or musical arrangement on the sentence level of the word- or phrase-order (compositio), as well as on the level of the compositional unit of the respective "parts" (proem = prelude, overture; etc.) and of the compositional unit or genre as a whole (Bonds 1991). What the instrumentation issue is for music, the medium issue is for rhetoric. E. Anangement and the Shaping Effects of the Medium The discussion of arrangement in ancient rhetoric must account for "the shaping effects of the medium itself on both the communicator and the communicant" (Sloane 1974:804; see also O n g 1982; Swearingen 1991). The modern scholar of the oral or literary rhetoric of antiquity must be mindful of both, and not just the first of the two medium changes that affect scholarly work: (1) the transformations that took place in the transition from orality to (manuscript) literacy (Ong 1982); (2) the far-reaching effect on the study of ancient rhetoric in the wake of two veritable quantum leaps produced by two modern mediums: (a) the print culture at the beginning of the modern era, and (b) the electronic audio and video text culture (including the whole corpus of ancient texts) on cassettes and diskettes at the beginning of the postmodern era (Enos 1990; Heim 1988; Lanham 1993; T u m a n 1992).

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Primary Texts and Translations Butler, H. E. (ed.), Quintilian, Institutio Oratoria (4 vols.; LCL; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; London: Heinemann, 1920-22). Caplan, H. (ed.), Rhetorica ad Herennium (LCL; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; London: Heinemann, 1954). Fairclough, H. R. (ed.), Horace, Satires, Epistles, and Ars Poetica (LCL; London: Heinemann; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1945). Fowler, H. N. (ed.), Plato, Phaedrus (LCL; London: Heinemann/New York: Macmillan, 1914). Freese, J. H. (ed.), Aristotle, The "Art" of Rhetoric (LCL; London: Heinemann; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1959). Fyfe, W. H. (ed.), "Longinus" On the Sublime (LCL; London: Heinemann; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1960), pp. 119-254.

84

WILHELM WUELLNER

Halm, C. (ed.), Rhetores Latini Minores (Leipzig: Teubner, 1863; repr. Frankfurt, 1964). Hubbell, H. M. (ed.), Cicero: De Inventione, De Optimo Genere Oratorum, and Topica (LCL; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1949). Hendrickson, G. L. and H. M. Hubbell (eds.), Cicero: Brutus. Orator (LCL; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1952. Leff, M. C., "A Basic Library for a Study of Classical Rhetoric", in Murphy (ed.), 1983/1994, pp. 190-192. Melmoth, W. (ed.), Pliny, Letters (rev. W. M. L. Hutchinson; 2 vols.; LCL; London: Heinemann; New York: Macmillan, 1915). Rackham, H. (ed.), Rhetorica ad Alexandrum, Aristotle, Problems (LCL; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1983). Roberts, W. R. (ed.), Demetrius, On Style (LCL; London: Heinemann; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, I960), pp. 255-487. Russell, D. A. and M. Winterbottom (eds.), Ancient Literary Criticism: The Principal Texts in Mew Translations (New York: Oxford University Press, 1972, repr. 1982). Spengel, L. (ed.), Rhetores Graeci (3 vols.; Leipzig: Teubner, 1853-56). Sutton, E. W. and H. Rackham (eds.), Cicero: De Oratore; Partitione Oratoriae (2 vols.; LCL; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1942). Usher, S. (ed.), Dionysius of Halicamassus, The Critical Essays (2 vols.; LCL; Cambridge, MA.: Harvard University Press, 1974-85). 1. History and Development Alter, R., The Art of Biblical Narrative (New York: Basic Books, 1981). Barwick, K., "Zur Rekonstruktion der Rhetorik des Hermagoras von Temnos", Philologe 109 (1965), pp. 186-218. Black, E., "The Mutability of Rhetoric", in Rhetoric in Transition (ed. . . White; Philadelphia: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1980), pp. 71-85. Black, M., "The Use of Rhetorical Terminology in Papias on Mark and Matthew", in New Testament Essays in Honour of David Hill (ed. C. Tuckett; JSNTSup, 37; Sheffield: J S O T Press, 1989), pp. 31-41. Bonner, S. F., Roman Declamation in the lute Republic and Early Empire (Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 1969). Bowersock, G. W., Greek Sophists in the Roman Empire (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1969). Cardauns, B., "Zum Begriff der 'oeconomia' in der lateinischen Rhetorik und Dichtungskritik", in T. Stemmler (ed.), konomie: Sprachliche und Literarische Aspekte nes 2000 Jahre alten Begriffs (Mannheimer Beitrge zur Sprach- und Literaturwissenschaft, 6. Tbingen: Narr, 1985), pp. 9-18. Carrino, E. M. D., "Conceptions of Dispositio in Ancient Rhetoric" (Diss. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, 1959). Clarke, M. L., Rhetoric at Rome: A Historical Survey (London: Cohen & West, 1953, 2nd edn., 1968). Classen, C. J., Recht, Rhetorik, Politik: Untersuchungen zu Ciceros rhetorischer Strategie (Darmstadt: Wissenschafdiche Buchgesellschaft, 1985). , "St. Paul's Episdes and Ancient Greek and Roman Rhetoric", Rhetorica 10 (1992), pp. 319-44. Colson, F. ., " in Papias, The Gospels and the Rhetoric Schools", JTS 14 (1913), pp. 62-69. Conley, T., Rhetoric in the European Tradition (White Plains, NY: Longman, 1990; repr. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994). Curtius, E. R., European Literature and the Lahn Middle Ages (trans. W. R. Trask; Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1973). Dickson, R. E., "Ramism and the Rhetorical Tradition" (doctoral Dissertation, Duke University, 1993).

ARRANGEMENT

85

Drijepondt, H. L. F., Die antike Theorie der varietas: Dynamik und Wechsel im Auf und Ab als Charakteristikum von Stil und Struktur (Spudasmata, 37; Hildesheim/New York: Olms, 1979). Gelhaus, H., Die Prologe des Terenz: Eine Erklrung nach den Lehren von der inventio und dispositio (Heidelberg: Winter, 1972). Glck, M., Priscians Partitiones und ihre Stellung in der sptantiken Schule (Spudasmata, 12; Hildesheim: Olms, 1967). Goebel, G. H., "Early Greek Rhetorical Theory and Practice: Proof and Arrangement in the Speeches of Antiphon and Euripides" (Diss. Madison: University of Wisconsin, 1983). Hgg, T., The Novel in Antiquity (Oxford: Blackwell, 1983). Hagius, H., "The Stoic Theory of the Parts of Speech" (Diss. New York: Columbia University, 1979). Hamberger, P., Die rednerische Disposition in den alten (Korax, Gorgias, Antiphon) (Rhetorische Studien, 2; Paderborn: Schningh, 1914). Hill, F., "The Rhetoric of Aristotle", in Murphy 1983/1994 pp. 19-76. Hock, R. F. and . N. O'Neil, The Chreia in Ancient Rhetoric. I. The Progymnasmata (Adanta: Scholars Press, 1986). Kennedy, G. ., The Art of Rhetoric in the Roman World 300 BC-AD 300 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1972). , Classical Rhetoric and Its Christian and Secular Tradition ftom Ancient to Modem Times (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1980). Koskenniemi, H., Studien zur Idee und Phraseologie des griechischen Briefes bis 400 n. Chr. (Helsinki: Akateeminen Kiijakauppa, 1956). Krings, H., Ordo: Philosophisch-historische Grundlegung einer abendlndischen Idee (Halle: Niemeyer, 1941; 2nd ed. Hamburg: Meiner, 1982). Kroll, W., "Rhetorik", in Pauly-Wissowa, Real-Encyclopdie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft Sup. 7 (Stuttgart: Metzler, 1940), cols. 1039-1138. Kustas, G. L., Studies in Byzantine Rhetoric (Analecta Blatadn, 17; Thessaloniki, 1973). Leeman, A. D., "The Variety of Classical Rhetoric", in Rhetoric Revalued: Papers from the International Society for the History of Rhetoric (ed. B. Vickers; Medieval & Renaissance Texts and Studies, 19; Binghamton, NY: Center for Medieval and Early Renaissance Studies, 1982), pp. 41-46. Leff, M. C., "The Material of the Art in the Latin Handbooks of the Fourth Century AD", in B. Vickers (ed.), Rhetoric Revalued: Papers ftom the International Society for the History of Rhetoric (Medieval & Renaissance Texts and Studies, 19; Binghamton, NY: Center for Medieval and Early Renaissance Studies, 1982), pp. 71-78. Lvy, C., "La conversation Rome la fin de la Rpublique: des pratiques sans thorie?", Rhetorica 11 (1993), pp. 399-420. Meador, P.A., "Quintilian and the Institutio oratoria", in Murphy 1983/1994, pp. 151-76. Murphy, J.J. (ed.), A Synoptic History of Classical Rhetoric (New York, 1972; repr. Davis, CA: Hermagoras Press, 1983; rev. edn., 1994). Ochs, D.J., "Cicero's Rhetorical Theory", in Murphy 1983/1994, pp. 90-150. Ong, W., Orality and Uterarcy (New York: Methuen, 1982). Quadlbauer, F., "Lukan im Schema des Ordo naturalis/artificialis: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Lukanbewertung im lateinischen Mittelalter", Grazer Beitrge 6 (1977), pp. 67-105. Scaglione, A. D., The Classical Theory of Compotion ftom its Origins to the Present: A Historical Survey (University of North Carolina Studies in Comparative Literature, 53; Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1972). Schenkeveld, D. M., "Theories of Evaluation in the Rhetorical Treatises of Dionysius of Halicamassus", Museum Philologum Londiniense 1 (1975), pp. 93-107. Sloane, T. O., "Rhetoric: In Literature", The New Encyclopedia Britannica (15th edn.; Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica, 1974), XXVI, pp. 803-808.

86

WILHELM WUELLNER

Solmsen, F., "Demetrios Pen Hermeneias und sein Peripatetisches Quellenmaterial", in Stark 1968, pp. 285-311 , "The Aristotelian Tradition in Ancient Rhetoric", in Stark 1968 pp. 312-49. Spengel, L., "Die Definition und Eintheilung der Rhetorik bei den Alten", RhM 18 (1863), pp. 481-526. Stark, R. (ed.), Rhetorika: Schriften zur aristotelischen und hellenistischen Rhetorik (Hildesheim: Olms, 1968). Stroh, W., Taxis und Taktik Die advokative Dispositionskunst in Ciceros Gerichtsreden (Teubner Studienbcher: Philologie; Stuttgart: Teubner, 1975). Swearingen, C.J., Rhetoric and Irony: Westem IJterarcy and Western lies (New York/ Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991). Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, U. von, "Asianismus und Atticismus", in Stark 1968, pp. 350-401. 2. Rhetorical Theory Carrino, E. M. D., "Conceptions of Dispositio in Ancient Rhetoric" (Diss. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, 1959). Fuhrmann, M., Das systematische lAr bueh: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Wissenschaften in der Antike (Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1960). , Die antike Rhetorik Eine Einihrung (2nd edn.; Artemis Einfhrungen, 10; Munich and Zurich: Artemis, 1987). Lausberg, H., Handbuch der literarischen Rhetorik (Munich: Hueber, 1960; 2nd edn., 1973). , Elemente der literarischen Rhetorik (Munich: Hueber, 1963; 8th edn., 1984). Martin, J., Antike Rhetorik Technik and Methode (Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft, 2.3; Munich: Beck, 1974). 3. Areas Warranting Further Research Alexander, P. S., "Quid Athenis et Hierosolymis? Rabbinic Midrash and Hermeneutics in the Greco-Roman World", in A Tribute to Geza Vennes: Essays on Jewish and Christian Literature and History (ed. P. R. Davies und R. T. White; JSOTSup, 100; Sheffield: JSOT, 1990), pp. 101-24. Black II, C. C., "The Rhetorical Form of the Hellenistic Jewish and Early Christian Sermon: A Response to Lawrence Wills", HTR 81 (1988), pp. 1-18. Bonds, M. E., Wordless Rhetoric: Musical Form and the Metaphor of the Oration (Studies in the History of Music, 4; Cambridge, MA.: Harvard University Press, 1991). Bowker, J. W., "Speeches in Acts: A Study in Proem and Yellamedenu Form", NTS 14 (1967), pp. 96-111. Boyarin, D., "Rhetoric and Interpretation: The Case of the Nimshal", Prooftexts 5 (1985), pp. 269-76. Buelow, G. J., "Rhetoric and Music", in The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians 15 (1980), pp. 793-803. Cheney, G., Rhetoric in an Organizational Society: Managing Multiple Identities (Studies in Rhetoric/Communication; Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1991). D'Angelo, F.J., "Tropics of Arrangement. A Theory of Dispositio", Journal of Advanced Composition 10.1 (1990), pp. 101-109. Enos, R. L. (ed.), Oral and Written Communication: Historical Approaches (Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1990). Goldberg, ., "Die Peroratio (Hatima) als Kompositionsform der rabbinischen Homilie", Frankfurter Judaistische Beitrge 8 (1978), pp. 1-22. Heim, M., "The Technological Crisis of Rhetoric", Philosophy and Rhetoric 21 (1988), pp. 48-59.

ARRANGEMENT

87

Heinemann, J., "Profile of a Midrash: The Art of Composition in Leviticus Rabba", JAAR 39 (1971), pp. 141-50. Hovland, C. I. et al., The Order of Presentation in Persuasion (Yale Studies in Attitude and Communication, 1; New Haven: Yale University Press, 1957). Jaffe, M. S., "The 'Midrashic' Proem: Towards the Description of Rabbinic Exegesis", in W. S. Scott Green (ed.), Approaches to Ancient Judaism. IV. Studies in Liturgy, Exegesis and Talmudic Narrative (BJS, 27; Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1983), pp. 95-112. Kbler, ., "Rechtsschulen", in Paulys Real-Encyclopdie der. classischen Altertumswissenschaft (ed. W. Kroll and . Witte, II.l; Stuttgart: Metzler, 1920), cols. 380-394. Lanham, R. ., The Electronic Word: Democracy, Technology, and the Arts (Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press, 1993). Mller, C. D., "Koptische Redekunst und Griechische Rhetorik", L Muson 69 (1956), pp. 53-72. Neusner, J., "Why no Science in Judaism?", Shofar 6 (1988), pp. 45-71. , The Bavli's Massive Miscellanies: The Problem of Agglutinative Discourse in the Talmud of Babylonia (South Florida Studies in the History of Judaism, 43; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992). Neymeyr, U , Die christlichen Lehrer im zweiten Jahrhundert Ihre Ichrttigkeit, ihr Selbstverstndnis und ihre Geschichte (VCSup, 4; Leiden: Brill, 1989). Perelman, C. and L. Olbrechts-Tyteca, The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation (trans. J. Wilkinson and P. Wever; Notre Dame/I^ondon: University of Notre Dame Press, 1969). Phillips, G. M., "The Practice of Rhetoric at the Talmudic Academies", Speech Monographs 26 (1959), pp. 37-46. Reding, J.-P., IJIS Fondements philosophiques de la Rhetorique chez les Sophistes Grecs et chez les Sophistes Chinois (Bern: Lang, 1985). Silberman, L. H., "Toward a Rhetoric of Midrash: A Preliminary Account", in R. Polzin and E. Rothman (eds.), The Biblical Mosaic: Changing Perspectives (Semeia Studies; Philadelphia: Fortress/Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1982), pp. 15-26. Spira, ., "The Impact of Christianity on Ancient Rhetoric", StPatr 18.2 (ed. E. A. Livingstone; Kalamazoo: Cistercian Pub./Leuven: Peeters, 1989), pp. 137-53. Stern, D., "Rhetoric and Midrash: The Case of the Mashal", Prooflexts 1 (1981), pp. 261-91. Strack, H. L. and G. Stemberger, Einleitung in Talmud und Midrasch (7th edn.; Munich: Beck, 1982). Stroux, J., Rmische Rechtswissenschaft und Rhetorik (Potsdam: Stichnote, 1949). Sweity, ., "Al-Juijaanii's Theory of / [Discourse Arrangement]: A Linguistic Perspective" (Diss. University of Texas at Austin, 1993). Taatz, I., Frhjdische Briefe: Die paulinischen Briefe im Rahmen der offiziellen religisen Briefe des Frhjudentums (Novum Testamentum, 16; Fribourg: Universittsverlag/Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1990). Towner, W. S., The Rabbinic "Enumeration of Scriptural Examples": A Study of a Rabbinic Pattern of Discourse with Special Reference to Mekhilta d'Rabbi Ishmael (Studia Post Biblica, 22; Leiden: Brill, 1973). Tucker, F. D., "Scientific Rhetorical Adaptation: An Integration of Post-Renaissance Rhetorical, Contemporary Psychological, and Experimental Theories of Rhetorical Dispositio" (Diss. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University, 1963). Tuman, M. (ed.), Literacy Online: The Promise (and Peril) of Reading and Writing with Computers (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1992). Weltin, E. G., Athens and Jerusalem: An Interpretive Essay on Christianity and Classical Culture (AAR Studies in Religion, 49; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987). Winterowd, W. R., "Dispositio: The Concept of Form in Discourse", in Composition/ Rhetoric: A Synthesis (Carbondale and Edwardsville, IL: Southern Illinois University Press, 1986), pp. 245-52.

CHAPTER 4

INVENTION Malcolm Heath


University of Leeds, England

"Invention" (inventio, ) means "discovery". In rhetoric it designates the discovery of the resources for discursive persuasion latent in any given rhetorical problem. This process of discovery was extensively theorized by ancient rhetoricians. But rhetoric is in essence a practical discipline, and its precepts are tools to be applied in practice. The rhetor's students would not be judged by their ability to articulate a body of theory, but by their ability to compose and deliver speeches and declamations which satisfied the expectations of contemporary audiences. Theory did not exist for its own sake, but as a framework to give guidance in the acquisition and exercise of a particular set of skills. This chapter will therefore emphasize application; following the precedent of ancient handbooks it will use a hypothetical worked example to illustrate the processes and principles of invention in practice. T o identify a suitable theme for our illustration, we may turn to an incident crucial in ancient rhetoricians' perception of the history of their craft. In II. 3:203-24 the Trojan elder Antenor recalls the embassy of Menelaus and Odysseus before the onset of hostilities, when the Greeks offered peace if the Trojans would return Helen; he contrasts the two envoys' rhetorical styles.1 In the fourth century AD, Libanius composed declamations representing the speeches of Menelaus and Odysseus; an anonymous declamation of uncertain (but later) date replies to Menelaus in the person of Paris; and (striking evidence of the long life of the classical rhetorical tradidon) the beginning of the fifteenth century yields a fragment of a reply to Odysseus

On ancient perceptions of Homeric rhetoric, see L. Radermacher, Artium Scnptores (SB Vienna, 227.3; 1951), pp. 3-10; G. A. Kennedy, "The Ancient Dispute over Rhetoric in Homer", AJP 78 (1957), pp. 23-35; M. Heath, "-theory in Homeric Commentary", Mnemosyne 46 (1993), pp. 356-63.

90

MALCOLM HEATH

in the person of Antenor composed by the Byzantine emperor Manuel II Palaeologus. 2 Drafting a complete reply for Antenor will offer a variety of perspectives on invention. So let this be our theme: "After th speeches of Menelaus and Odysseus, Antenor advises the Trojans not to concede the Greek demands". 3 O u r approach to the subject must be selective. Invention was theorized in many different ways over the centuries. Indeed, even contemporary rhetoricians might give conflicting accounts of it. Hermogenes, for example, rejects the concepts of class and mode which were conventional in the rhetorical teaching of his day; even so fundamental a principle as stasis could be dismissed as drivel (at the risk, admittedly, of incurring ridicule).4 This diversity precludes a single all-embracing synthesis; and an exhaustive catalogue of variants would vasdy exceed the scope of the present chapter. 5 I have chosen to focus primarily on theories of invention current in the Greek-speaking world from the middle of the second century AD onwardthe period in which the treatment of stasis, a key tool in invention, achieved its most sophisticated form. No comprehensive synthesis, comparable to that of Quintilian, survives from this period; so my account will be a composite one, drawing eclectically on a number of different sources. 6 T h e notes will provide pointers for readers who wish to explore related treatments from earlier periods.

2 lib. Deel. 3-4 (V, pp. 199 221, 228-86 Foerster); C. Bevegni, "Anonymi Declamatw Paridis ad Senatum Troianum", SI FC 3 (1986), pp. 274-92; Manuel Palaeologus's fragment was first published by J. F. Boissonade, Anecdota Graeca (Paris 1830; repr. Hildesheim: Olms, 1962), II, pp. 308-309, and is reprinted in Foerster's edition of Libanius (V, pp. 226-27). 3 According to Livy (1:1:1) Antenor "always" advocated the return of Helen; but when he does so in II. 7:347-53 (in very changed circumstances from the time of the Greek embassy) Paris's reply (esp. 357-58) could be taken as evidence of his earlier support. The mythological material concerning Troy used in the rest of this chapter can be found most conveniently in Apollodorus (Bibl. 2:5:9, 2:6:4; Epit. 3-5): text and trans. J. G. Frazer (2 vols.; LCL; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; London: Heinemann, 1921); cf. T. Gantz, Early Greek Myth (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1993), esp. pp. 400-402, 557-661. 4 On class and mode see nn. 22-23 below. For the rejection of jfaju-theory in favour of unstructured improvization by the third- or early fourth-century rhetor Phrynichus, and the ridicule it incurred, see Syrian. 2:3:23-5:14 Rabe; Prolegomenon Sylloge 364:14-367:12 Rabe; cf. D . M . Schenkeveld, "The Philosopher Aquila", CQ_ 41 (1991), pp. 493-94. 5 J. Martin, Antike Rhetorik (Munich: Beck, 1974) devotes 196 dense pages to invention; even so his account is not all-embracing, and its juxtaposition of Aristotelian, Hellenistic and late classical material lacks historical perspective. 6 I have drawn largely, but not exclusively, on Hermogenes On Stasis: text

INVENTION

91

There will be two stages in our discussion. First we shall consider the resources which the rhetorician could use in a preliminary analysis of his theme. 7 We shall then attempt to produce an oudine of the case as a whole, at the same time illustrating more selectively techniques for the detailed articulation of individual arguments. At this second stage we shall find that invention is inextricably linked with questions of arrangement, since the principles of invention are specific to the standard parts of a speechprologue, narrative, argument and epilogue. Ancient handbooks on invention were often organized on this basis, for good practical reasons; 8 we must follow their lead.

I. A

PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS OF T H E

THEME

The basic components of any rhetorical situation are person and act; 9 the analysis of our theme should start with these. First among the persons of whom we must take account is our speaker, Antenor. He is a Trojan elder; he therefore brings into play a set of assumptions about old men. 10 Long experience may have made him wise; it will certainly have made him cautious. This persona will strengthen our case, since the advocacy of a hard line carries more weight when advanced with the judicious caution of experience than it would in the mouth of a hot-headed youth. O n the other hand, rhetorical techniques which a younger, more impetuous speaker could use without giving a bad impression must be avoided;
H. Rabe (Leipzig: Teubner, 1913); trans, and commentary M. Heath, Hermogenes On Issues (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995); [Hermogenes] On Invention (text in Rabe), together with the treatises of Apsines and the Anonymus Seguerianus: text L. Spengel and C. Hammer, Rhetores Graeci, 1.2 (Leipzig: Teubner, 1894). Sopater's Division of (Questions illustrates how the theoretical apparatus was used in practice: text in RG, VIII, pp. 2~385 Walz; commentary: D. C. Innes and M. Winterbottom, Sopatros the Rhetor (BICS Sup., 48; London: ICS, 1988). The scholia to Demosthenes (much, though not all, of the material may derive from a commentary by the thirdcentury rhetor Menander of Laodicea, more familiar in connection with epideictic oratory: n. 25) illustrate its use as an interpretative tool: text M. R. Dilts, Scholia Demosthenica (2 vols.; Leipzig: Teubner, 1983-86). 7 For this analytical phase () see Zeno ap. Sulp. Vict. 315:5-319:35 Halm; cf. Prolegomenon Sylloge 60:21-61:12, 69:1-6, 175:16-177:7, 199:25-202:8; [Augustine] 137:4-6 Halm. 8 E.g. [Hermogenes] On Invention, Apsines, and Anonymus Seguerianus. On the "contamination" of invention and disposition in Hellenistic rhetoric see J. Wisse, Ethos and Pathos from Aristotle to Cicero (Amsterdam: Hakkert, 1989), pp. 77-78, 83-92. 9 Hermog. Stat. 29:7-31:18; Quint. Inst. 5:10:23. 10 Cf. Arist. Rh. 1389b 1390a24; Hr. Ars 169-78.

92

MALCOLM HEATH

for example, open invective might suggest a malicious and vindictive old man. This point is important, since both the persons to whom Antenor is replying offer scope for invective. Menelaus, on his own admission, is a cuckold; closer inspection reveals that his family background is an unsavoury mess of incest and butchery. Odysseus is a lying bastard (that is to say, of doubtful parentage and notorious for tricks and false tales). These openings may be useful if approached obliquely; but the character of Antenor restrains us from exuberant exploitadon of their potential. O u r speech is addressed to a Trojan audience. What state of mind are they in? Here we should clarify one feature of the assumed background to the debate. Homer does not specify the exact timing of the embassy; Libanius follows Herodotus (2:118) in supposing that the Greek army had already landed in Trojan territory when the embassy was sent. This way of proceeding might seem provocative and offensive to the Trojans; the fact can surely be turned to our advantage. But the Trojans will also be apprehensive in view of the size of the Greek army, and they will recollect that Troy has been sacked once before (by Heracles); so we must convince them that they are able to win the war. We must also convince them that there is something worth their fighting for; if they believe that the war would be fought simply to defend an adulterous relationship between Paris and Helen it will be harder to induce them to undertake its hardships and dangers. This has brought us to the last, and most problematic, person in our theme. Paris is a crucial element in the theme, since his bringing Helen to Troy has provoked the present crisis. His reputation is extremely unfavourable; we must try to counter the conventional prejudice against him. But it is not only the person of Paris which presents a challenge. Paris has to be handled carefully in respect also of act, the other basic component of the rhetorical situation; taken at face value, running off with another man's wife is despicable behaviour. But should we take these actions at face value? A hostile account of what happened, put about by Paris's enemies, ought not to be swallowed uncritically. At this point, therefore, it may be helpful to make a detour through the early stages of an ancient rhetorician's training, to see how it would have equipped him to bring critical scrudny to bear on an opponent's version of events. T h e first stage of the course in rhetoric was a series of preliminary

INVENTION

93

exercises ()." These introduced the student to certain basic concepts, and gave practice in handling piecemeal techniques which would subsequently be brought together in composing declamations and speeches. One of the earlier exercises in the programme was narration, which taught the student to present a clear, concise and plausible account of events. A little way further into the programme, the paired exercises of refutation () and confirmation () brought the student back to narrative, and taught him to take a critical view of it. According to Aphthonius a refutation should begin by discrediting those who tell the story; then the story itself is briefly recounted, and shown to suffer from one or more of a variety of flaws: it might be unclear, implausible, impossible, inconsistent, improper or inexpedient. 12 How might we set about this exercise with reference to the story of Paris's abduction of Helen? 13 Discrediting those who tell the story is easy. For the most part, it is poets who tell the story; they, certainly, are its source. But "poets tell many lies" (Sol. fr. 29). More particularly, the story is told by Homer and other Greek poets, who have a vested interest in giving their narrrative an anti-Trojan bias. 14 Since they are not objective witnesses, their story must be treated with caution. O u r next step is to consider the essential elements of the story. Three goddesses chose Paris to arbitrate a dispute between them; they then tried to bribe their chosen arbitrator; Paris, allowing his
" Modern discussions include G. A. Kennedy, Greek Rhetoric under Christian Emperors (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1983), pp. 53-70; S. F. Bonner, Education in Ancient Rome (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1977), pp. 250-76; D. L. Clark, Rhetoric in Greco-Roman Education (New York: Columbia University Press, 1957), pp. 177-212; R. F. Hock and . N. O'Neil, The Chreia in Ancient Rhetoric (Adanta: Scholars Press, 1986), pp. 9-22; G. Anderson, The Second Sophistic (London: Roudedge, 1993), pp. 47-53. 12 Aphth. Prog. 10:9-19 Rabe; cf. [Hermog.] Prog. 11:1-20. 13 Note that none of the (with the exception of ) required the student to adopt a specified individual point of view; so in this refutation, and in the encomium below, we are conducting a preliminary investigation into the material of our theme, and not yet attempting to adopt the persona of Antenor. There is therefore no problem of anachronism in the references to Homer and to subsequent events in the story of Troy. For an excellent example of the application of the techniques of refutation on a large scale see Dio Chrysostom's Trojan Discourse, which "proves" that the Greeks did not take Troy; Isocrates' Encomium of Helen is also relevant. 14 Homer was often perceived as a philhellene in ancient commentary (e.g. sch. BT II. 2:674-75); see N.J. Richardson, "Literary Criticism in the Exegetical Scholia to the Iliad", CQ. 30 (1980), pp. 273-74; B. Hainsworth on II. 10:13-14.

94

MALCOLM HEATH

judgment to be influenced by these bribes, found Helen a more attractive inducement than the offer of military or political success; his elopement with Helen was therefore a pay-off for his adjudication in favour of Aphrodite. This story falls apart at every point. First, it presupposes that the gods are both corrupt (since they offered bribes) and foolish (since they chose as their arbitrator a man who is himself both corrupt and foolish); this is an extremely improper assumption. It cannot be conceded that the goddesses offered Paris bribes; nor that an arbitrator worthy of divine approval would have been open to bribery. Secondly, the adjudication in favour of Aphrodite makes it implausible to suppose that Paris was influenced by the alleged bribes. Hera promised mastery of all Asiaan offer which might well have appealed to a prince of Troy; Athene promised to make him invincible in batdean offer which might have appealed to a young warrior; Aphrodite promised him a single mortal womanbut what inducement was that for a man who was already the lover of the goddess Oenone? Thirdly, Aphrodite was half-sister to Helen (daughter of Zeus and Leda); it is neither plausible nor proper to suppose that she would embroil her own sister in immorality and scandal. But it is entirely credible that she would have been offended by the relationship with Menelaus (a man polluted by his family's terrible history) and that she would have wished (with her father's approval) to sever that connection and bring about Helen's marriage to someone more worthysomeone whose virtue was so outstanding that he had been chosen to arbitrate between the goddesses. Taken in this way, the story is wholly consistent; the original version makes no sense at all. So much for our refutation of the story of Paris. We may note that the student has learned a number of useful techniques in the course of this exercise. Most obviously, it offers practice in the critical analysis of narrative; this is an important skill in the handling of (in particular) judicial speeches, in which it is often necessary to cast doubt on the opponent's account of events. Secondly, the exercise accustoms the student to the handling of a prescribed formal structure, with a prologue, narrative and argument. The internal organization of the argument is determined by the order of events in the story. In fact, the student is offered two alternative models for organizing his material: Aphthonius illustrates refutation by telling the story as a whole and then giving the criticisms en masse; his confirmation

INVENTION

95

tells the same story piecemeal and defends each step of the story before moving on to the next. 15 Thirdly, the exercise introduces the student to the use of topics (); these are not arguments but (literally) "places" where we can look for arguments. The topics of refutation are the criteria already statedclarity, plausibility, possibility, consistency, propriety and expediency; each stage of the story can be tested to see whether it is faulty in respect of any of these qualities. We shall see in due course that the use of topics as a guide and stimulus to invention is a fundamental rhetorical technique. In confirmation and refutation the student seeks to demonstrate a conclusion. But demonstration is only one of the key abilities that an aspiring orator must acquire; he also needs a mastery of amplification (), a term which designates the techniques used to increase the perceived importance of some fact that is taken as given. 16 For example, a prosecutor may wish to show that the defendant is guilty of murder; but he will also wish to awaken and reinforce the jury's sense that murder is a terrible crime which deserves to be treated with the utmost severity. Amplification, too, was included in the programme of elementary exercises. In the exercise called common topic ( ), for example, the student was trained to elaborate on generalizations applicable to any instance of a given category; later on the student would be taught to incorporate common topics into the epilogue of speeches and declamations in order to incite the jury against the person just shown to be a murderer, adulterer, tyrant or whatever the case requires. Another exercise in amplification was encomium (), in which the student takes as given the good qualities attributed to a particular person and seeks to exhibit them in a way which will excite or increase the audience's admiration. The subject of encomium was not always a person; a place or an abstract quality such as courage might also be prescribed. But praise of a person was the standard form, and the topics of encomium were accordingly designed to provide a comprehensive basis for the assessment of personal attributes. This means that they have an application beyond the exercise of encomium itself; whenever an argument based on person is needed

For these two patterns see Arist. Rh. 1416bl6-26; Rh. Al. 1438b 14-29; Cic. Irw. 1:30; Alexander son of Numenius ap. Anon. Seg. 129-33. 16 Amplification: e.g. Rhet. ad Her. 2:47-49; Cic. Inv. 1:100-105, Part. 52-53; Quint. Inst. 8:4. Cf. Martin, Antike Rhetorik, pp. 153-58.

15

96

MALCOLM HEATH

the topics of encomium can be used as a guide to invention. Different handbooks give somewhat different lists of encomiastic topics; but the range of variation is limited. 17 Standard doctrine would include the subject's origin (nationality, citizenship, ancestry and parentage); birth (were there, for example, striking indications of divine favour?), nurture and education; chosen life-style (); achievements, illustrating qualities of soul (especially the cardinal virtues: piety, courage, justice and wisdom) and of body (beauty, strength) and the possession of external goods (friends, wealth, influence). Encomium too has a simple formal structure. In refutation the topics are applied in a sequence determined by the order of events in the story; in encomium the topics follow a set order, framed by a prologue and epilogue. An additional element in this structure, placed before the epilogue, is a comparison () designed to enhance the amplification. Indeed, comparison is such an important technique for amplification that it formed an exercise in its own right; after practising encomium and its counterpart invective (), the student would be required in comparison to amplify the excellence of one person by exhibiting his superiority to others who might be thought his equals, or his equality to some acknowledged paragon. 18 In an encomium of Paris we might make his dubious reputation the basis for our prologue. We should take care not to offer an explicitly argued defence of Paris; encomium is an exercise in amplification, not in argumentation. 19 But we might remark, in anticipation of our praise, that his qualities are so outstanding as to silence even the sustained malicious criticism to which he has been exposed. Turning to his origin, we will point out that he was a prince of Troy, a city founded by gods. He was descended from Zeus through his ancestor Dardanus; and his father Priam had raised Troy from the depths of misfortune after its sack by Heracles and had made it
17

This summary draws on Aphth. Prog. 21:20-22:11; [Hermog.] Prog. 15:18-17:4; Men.Rh. 420:10-31 Spengel; cf. Quint. Inst. 5:10:23-31. Hermog. Stat. 46:8-24 illustrates the use of the topics of encomium in judicial argument about motive. See further T. C. Burgess, Epideictic literature (Chicago Studies in Classical Philology, 3; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1902), pp. 119-27; D. A. Russell and N. G. Wilson, Menander Rhetor (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1981), pp. xxv-xxix. 18 Aphth. Prog. 31:6-32; [Hermog.] Prog. 18:15-20:5. Cf. Men.Rh. 372:21-25, 377:2-9 etc. 19 For the contrast between encomium and apologia see Theon Prog. 112:8-13 Spengel (quoting Isocr. Helen [10] 14). Cf. Nicol. Prog. 53:6-19 Feiten; Quint. Inst. 3:7:6.

INVENTION

97

the head of an empire so powerful that it could withstand the united efforts of all Greece for ten years. Anyone who doubts the nobility of his birth need only look at his brother Hector, whose piety and martial prowess are conceded even by Homer, though he (as a Greek poet) was a hostile witness and prone to slander Trojans. As to his birth, we will not wish to give weight to the omen which prompted his parents to expose him as an infant; we will try instead to turn its sequel to our advantage. We could say that, although his parents took fright over a dream which his mother had in the stress of pregnancy, nevertheless divine providence took care of him, ensuring that he was suckled by a she-bear. A shepherd, seeing in this miracle a sign of the gods' favour, was moved by piety and compassion to take up the child and rear him as his own. There can be no doubt that this pious and compassionate fosterfather would have taken pains to teach the child his own reverence for the gods and for justice. Moreover, although Paris did not enjoy the advantage of being reared in an imperial court like his brothers, he triumphed over adversity and gave ever clearer proofs of his innate qualities as he grew to maturity. His courage and strength were shown when he routed a band of catde-raiders. The name Alexander ("defender") was given to honour this victory; thus he became by right of battle what he was by right of birthan honoured leader and protector of his people. In the end the status accorded to him by popular acclaim was recognized at court as well. Paris proved himself in competition against his brothers; they had trained in athletics all their lives but he, relying on innate excellence alone, outdid all of them in the games. In this way he was acknowledged as the king's son. Turning to his physical person, everyone concedes that he surpassed other men in beautybeauty radiant enough to win the love of a goddess. But he was not an effeminate weakling; raised in country ways, he proved himself as a fighter and as an athlete he was victorious over the strongest and swiftest of his peers. Physical strength was combined with strength of character. Hector paid tribute to his bravery when he said, "No one in all fairness could belittle your success in battle, as you are a brave fighter" (II. 6:521-22)and Hector said this when he was angry with his brother, and might well have tried to belittle his qualities. Events confirmed Hector's words: it was Paris who avenged his brother's death, killing the strongest and bravest of the Greeks. Divine testimony concurs.

98

MALCOLM HEATH

When a dispute arose between the three goddesses Paris was chosen to judge between them. Zeus would not have entrusted his own wife's honour to the judgment of someone dishonest or foolish; so this appointment provides compelling testimony to Paris's wisdom and integrity. So does the way in which he discharged the commission. Faced with such a task an ordinary person would have been overwhelmed with terror and confusion; Paris calmly made a true judgment without fear or favour. Each of the goddesses is due primacy of honour in her own sphere: Hera is the most regal, Athene is the most martial; but Paris was charged with awarding the prize to the most beautiful, and this is what he did. T o whom, then, should we compare Paris? Achilles, too, was beautifulindeed, he boasted of his beauty (II. 21:108); he was also a great warrior. But Paris was the greater: he never put on girl's clothes to evade military service, as Achilles did; nor did Achilles display self-control and wisdom such that he was chosen to judge divine disputes. And on the field of battle, it was Paris who prevailed. So we should pay no attention to the voice of malice and envy, but recognize and strive to emulate the virtues of Paris, whose excellence we have only begun to describe. I could tell you too how leading a small fleet of fugitives he captured the flourishing city of Sidon, and how . . .but the subject is inexhaustible, and space is limited. We should now return to our main theme, and proceed further with its preliminary analysis. First, then, to which class () should we assign it? The question is ambiguous. In one sense "class" may refer to the familiar classification of rhetorical themes according to their context and function as judicial, deliberative or epideictic.20 In this sense, the theme is clearly deliberative; it is addressed to the Trojans taking counsel about their future actions with respect to Helen. However, the need to defend Paris against the accusation that he has eloped with Menelaus's wife gives the theme a quasi-judicial element as well; we shall consider the implications of this more closely in due course. Another, less familiar, sense of "class" in ancient rhetoric categorized themes according to the dominant means of persuasion. A speaker typically wishes to persuade his audience that something is the case; to this end, rational argument may be employed. However, rhetorical persuasion looks for more than an abstract assent; some
20

E.g. Arist. Rh. 1358a36-b8; Rhet. ad Her. 1:2; Cic. Inv. 1:7; Quint. Inst. 3:4.

INVENTION

99

action is expected of the audience (even if it is only the casting of a vote). If the speaker wishes to incite his audience to an acdve response, he may seek to arouse their emotions. But the audience is more likely to be receptive to rational or emotional appeal if they regard the speaker with confidence and goodwill; to this end, the projection of an attractive and trustworthy character will be useful. So we have three basic means of persuasion: argument, emotion and character. 21 The extent to which we draw on each of these will depend on the nature of the case, and a different balance between them will imply a different approach to invention. It may therefore be helpful to distinguish themes of the "practical" () class, which invite a treatment oriented primarily towards objective facts and therefore dependent largely on the resource of argument, from themes which invite a treatment based primarily on character or on emotion. 22 The situation premised in our theme has some scope for emodve rhetoric, firing the Trojan sense of indignation at the presence of a hostile army in their territory; but it would be out of keeping with the character of our speaker to rely too heavily on emotional appeal. O n the other hand, although the speaker's character will add weight to his advocacy of war, that is no more than a subsidiary to the speech's main persuasive effort. Reasoned argument is needed if we are to refute the charge against Paris, and to show that the war can be won and that fighting the war will best serve Trojan interests. So our theme is of the practical class; it will emphasize rational argument, making moderate and restrained use of emotional appeal. A further principle of classification is mode (). Mode categorizes themes according to the opportunities and difficulties they present to the speaker in managing the relationship with his audience. Ideally one would wish to speak to a theme that is honourable, weighty, plausible and readily intelligible; in other modes, where the subject
21 On the three means of persuasion see Arist. Rh. 1356al-*20; D.H. Lys. 19 (30:2131:2 Usener-Radermacher); Quint. Inst. 5:8:3; Anon. Seg. 198; Minucianus 340:6-7 Spengel-Hammer. A binary classification (as practical or emotional) is found in Cic. Brut. 89; Quint. Inst. 6:1:1; Anon. Seg. 203; RG, IV, p. 417:12-26 Walz. On the orator's three tasks: Cic. De or. 2:115, Brut. 185; Quint. Inst. 3:5:2. Cf. W . W . Fortenbaugh, "Benevolentiam conciliare and animos permovere", Rhetorica 6 (1988), pp. 25973; Wisse, Ethos and Pathos. 22 Class is variously treated by Zeno ap. Sulp. Vict. 316:3-22; Syrian. 2:42:1143:23; RG, IV, pp. 182:8-183:14, 190:12-18; VII, p. 165:17-24; Fortunatianus 88-89 Halm. Hermog. Stat. 34:16-35:14 rejects this concept of class and that of mode (n. 23) on the implausible grounds that it has implications only for the style of the composition.

100

MALCOLM HEATH

has a discreditable aspect or is in some respect trivial or paradoxical or hard to follow, additional care must be taken (especially at the beginning of the speech) to make the audience sympathetic and attentive. 23 In our present theme we have a distinguished speaker defending a person and act of questionable repute; the mode is therefore ambiguous (). Theory suggests that we will need to work harder, in the prologue especially, to secure the audience's goodwill in this mode; and we must introduce the creditable part of the theme before its discreditable aspects.24 By far the most important step in the analysis is to identify the stasis or issue (, constitutif), status) of the theme. This would not be necessary in preparing an epideictic speech. The correct treatment of epideictic themes can be grasped quite easily; there is a limited range of social occasions which may call for a formal honorific address, and the basic pattern of encomium can be adapted readily to suit each type of occasion. 25 But forensic and deliberative oratory are more complex. Superficially similar situations may have an utterly different underlying logical structure; for example, an accusation of murder in which the facts are contested will need to be handled in a very different way from an accusation of murder countered by a claim of justification. The theory of stasis seeks to classify themes according to the underlying nature of the dispute. T h e most influential contributor to j/aj-theory in the early Hellenistic period was Hermagoras of Temnos. 26 Hermagoras distinguished between logical and legal disputes; the latter, turning on the interpretation of a law, will, contract or other document with legal force, fall outside the scope of the system. Stasis applies only to logical
23 For various treatments of mode see Cic. Inv. 1:20-21; Rhet. ad Her. 1:5; Quint. Inst. 4:1:40-41; Zeno . Sulp. Vict. 316:23-317:31; RG, IV, pp. 188:6-189:29; [Augustine] 147:18-151:4 (= Hermagoras fr. 23a); Fortunatianus 109:2-10 (using the term ). 24 See Cic. Inv. 1:21; Rhet. ad Her. 1:6; Quint. Inst. 4:1:41; Sulp. Vict. 317:7-14. 25 Examples of model adaptations can be found in the treatises on epideictic attributed to Menander of Laodicea; text, trans, and commentary in RussellWilson, Menander Rhetor. 26 D. Matthes, "Hermagoras von Temnos", Ijistrum 3 (1958), pp. 58-214; fragments D. Matthes (Leipzig: Teubner, 1962). The roots of the theory are much older: see Rh. Al. 1427a23-30; Arist. Rh. 1373b38-4al7, 1417b21-27 (with Quint. Inst. 3:6:49); cf. W. N. Thompson, "Stasis in Aristotle's Rhetoric", Quarterly Journal of Speech 58 (1972), pp. 134-41 = . V. Erickson (ed.), Aristotle: The Classical Heritage of Rhetoric (Metuchen: Scarecrow Press, 1974), pp. 266-77.

INVENTION

101

disputesthat is, to those concerned with aspects of the facts. These disputes might be concerned with the fact itself (the stasis of conjecture: did this man cause his colleague's death?), or with the categorization of acknowledged facts (definition: is it murder if one knowingly subjects an unstable colleague to a degree of stress sufficient to induce his suicide?), or with their evaluation (quality: was it justifiable to induce the colleague's suicide in the given circumstances?). Alternatively (a controversial addition to the system) the defence might contest the procedural validity of the prosecution. 27 For Hermagoras stasis was one key component in a more elaborate diagnostic apparatus. 28 Take the case of Orestes. He is charged with matricide and claims justification; so the question () arises, whether Orestes was justified in killing his mother. The stasis of the case is therefore quality; the facts and their categorization are agreed, but the two parties contest their evaluation. We must next ask the grounds on which the defence claims justification (the ); in this case, it is the fact that Orestes' mother had killed his father. T h e prosecution, while accepting that this was a crime which deserved to be punished, denies that it warranted matricide; Clytaemnestra deserved to die, but it was not for her son to kill her. So it is now possible to define with precision the point to be decided by the jury (the ): was the fact that Clytaemnestra had killed his father sufficient to justify Orestes in killing his own mother? Knowing the point on which the dispute will be decided we can try to identify the crucial line of argument (the ) for the defence, and the two parties can set to work to confirm or undermine that crucial argument. This elaborate apparatus was not free of internal tensions and practical problems, and it subsequently underwent a complex evolution.29 By the second century AD its main terms had been redeployed; now a charge (: Orestes killed his mother) is countered by the

For this innovation and its critics see Cic. Inv. 1:16; Quint. Inst. 3:6:60. This account is based on Cic. Inv. 1:18-19; cf. Quint. Inst. 3:6:56-61. Not all scholars accept that Cicero gives an accurate account of Hermagoras's theory; for discussion see M. Heath, "The Substructure of Starts-theory from Hermagoras to Hermogenes", CQ_ 44 (1994), pp. 114-29, esp. 115-21. 29 On the subsequent history of Hermagoras's diagnostic model see Heath, "Substructure". For a variety of theories of stasis see Rhet. ad Her. 1:18-27, 2:2-26; Cic. Inv. 1:10-19, 2:12-end, De or. 1:139-40, 2:104-13, Part. 98-108, Top. 93-96; Quint. Inst. 3:6 (with J. Adamietz ad toe.), 7:2-10. Cf. R. Nadeau, "Classical Systems of Stases in Greek: Hermagoras to Hermogenes", GRBS 2 (1959), pp. 53-71; E. Holtsmark, "Quintilian on Status: A Progymnasma", Hermes 96 (1968), pp. 356-68.
28

27

102

MALCOLM HEATH

crucial argument of the defence (: the killing was justified because she had killed his father); and these give rise to the point for adjudication (: was the killing justified?). This simplified system was of little practical use; Hermogenes tacitly abandons it. By way of compensation, theorists had by now developed detailed and extremely sophisticated analyses of the most effective strategy for handling each kind of dispute. T h e division () of a stasis into its constituent heads of argument () provided the speaker with a ready-made outline of his case.30 T h e division defines an appropriately ordered series of steps which the speaker may follow in developing his argument; the speaker's task is to give the argument concrete form by relating its abstractly formulated heads to the particular circumstances of the case in hand. T h e overall articulation of 5toiy-theory had also changed by this date. T h e distinction between logical and legal disputes had been absorbed into the system; this, together with the promotion of what had previously been subdivisions of the stasis of quality, created the thirteen-iiayw system which enjoyed canonical status in later antiquity. In this system, a dispute may be concerned with fact, definition or quality. Qualitative disputes may be logical (turning on the evaluation of facts) or legal (turning on the interpretation of a document). Logical disputes may be concerned with the evaluation of past or future actions. If they are concerned with past actions, the dispute is juridical. In these cases it may be maintained that the act in question was legitimate per se; or, conceding its prima facie illegitimacy, it may be argued that it was justifiable, or at least excusable, in the given circumstancesbecause of its beneficial consequences, because the victim deserved it, because a third party was responsible, or because of other mitigating factors. Logical disputes concerned with the evaluation of future actions are practical (a stasis which corresponds roughly to the deliberative class). Legal disputes may turn on a conflict between the literal meaning of a document and its spirit; on the extension of a document's application to cases which it does not explicitly cover; on a conflict between two laws; or on an ambi-

30 It is important to note that the same term may designate both a head and a stasis; e.g. (asserting that an act is legitimate per se) is the decisive head in the division of the stasis to which it gives its name, but also plays a supporting role in several other staseis. The division of each stasis is a different selection and arrangement of items drawn from a limited pool of possible arguments.

INVENTION

103

guity in the construction of a single law. Finally, the defence may contest the validity of the proceedings. Thus we have the thirteenstasis system: conjecture (); definition (); counterplea (); the four kinds of counterposition ()that is, counterstatement (), counteraccusation (), transference (), and mitigation (); the practical stasis (); the four legal staseisthat is, letter and intent ( ), assimilation (), conflict of law (), and ambiguity (); objection (). Each of these was furnished with a division indicating the most effective strategy for that kind of dispute.31 Our present theme is concerned with whether or not the Trojans should return Helen; so it seeks to make a qualitative assessment of a future act and falls under the practical stasis. This will give us a key to the handling of the argument at the next level of analysis.

II.

M A P P I N G OUT THE

CASE

A. Prologue The prologue's primary function is to establish the desired relationship with one's audience; this is generally held to entail rendering them attentive, receptive and well-disposed.32 T o this end the speaker may exploit favourable aspects of the theme, or seek to disarm unfavourable ones. There are generally held to be four topics from which appropriate material may be derived: the speaker, the opponent, the audience, and the subject-matter. Where the speaker is an advocate (as we have seen, Antenor must function in part as an advocate for Paris) both the speaker and the person on whose behalf he speaks may provide material for the prologue. The prologue is usually conceived in our period as composed of a number of distinct

Details of Hermogenes' divisions are given in Heath, Hermogenes; for brief expositions of Jtat-theory in this period see D. A. Russell, Greek Declamation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983), pp. 40-73; Kennedy, Greek Rhetoric, pp. 73-86; for a more extensive collection of material see L. Calboli Montefusco, La dottrina degli status nella retorica greca e romana (Hildesheim: Olms-Weidmann, 1986). 32 On the prologue: Cic. Inv. 1:20-26; Rhet. ad Her. 1:6-8; Quint. Inst. 4:1; Anon. Seg. 1-39; Aps. Rh. 217:2-242:11; [Hermog.] Inv. 93:4-108:17.

31

104

MALCOLM HEATH

units, or proems, each based on a different topic or a different application of a topic. Some rhetoricians set a limit at three proems, although this was not universally accepted. 33 In the present case the subject-matter offers a weighty opening: we are concerned with war and peace, and hence with the security of the homeland. Our earlier comments on the theme's ambiguous mode indicate that we will wish to highlight Antenor himself in order to stake a claim on the audience's attention; Paris should be kept in the background until we are ready to mount an explicit defence of his conduct. We noted also that the ambiguous theme puts a premium on winning the audience's goodwill; our opponents' shortcomings are worthy of consideration in this connection, since odium raised against them may contribute to goodwill towards us.34 Odysseus's eloquence is a source of suspicion, and the mismatch between the Greeks' conciliatory words and the aggression apparent in their behaviour (sending an army first, envoys second) may fuel a hostile response. But we must bear in mind Antenor's character, and avoid launching an overt attack on the opposition; any criticism should be "figured" ()that is, conveyed obliquely under the guise of saying something else.35 Having identified promising topics for the prologue, we must find a way to articulate them in more detail. One approach is to generate each proem from a simple underlying scheme: a proposition () is advanced together with a supporting argument (), and a conclusion () is derived from them. 36 Since the prologue's function is to manage our relationship with the audience, the conclusion is in effect a cue to guide the audience's response to what they are going to hear. 37 Thus the three topics we have identified could be worked out along these lines:
See the conflicting views in the scholia to D. 18:8, 12 (27a d, 31 b e , 43a); [D.H.] Rh. 368:4-6 Usener-Radermacher; Men.Rh. 369:13-16. 34 Cic. Inv. 1:22; Rhet. ad Her. 1:8. 35 On figured speech see Quint. Inst. 9:2:67-98; [Hermog.] Inv. 204:16-210:8; [D.H.] Rh. 295-385, with K. Schpsdau, "Untersuchungen zur Anlage und Entstehung der beiden Pseudodionysianischen Traktate ", RhM 118 (1975), pp. 83-123. Cf. J. Penndorff, "De sermone figurato quaestio rhetorica", Leipziger Studien zur classischen Philologie 20 (1902), pp. 169-94. 36 This three-colon analysis is common in the scholia to Demosthenes (e.g. 24:5 [18a]) and Aeschines (e.g. 1:3 [8, 9 and 13 Dilts]). 37 Hence the term (also ) is used for in [Hermog.] Inv. 106:15-108:17 (cf. RG, VII, pp. 68:18-70:9). In this scheme the proem can be completed, when a panegyrical effect is sought, by a fourth colon (), which
33

INVENTION

105

[1st proem, based on subject] T h e question we are discussing is one of the utmost importance (): the security of our homeland is at stake (). So () we should not give way to anger if anything that the Greeks have said or done seems offensive, but deliberate calmly and carefully whether to accede to their request and return Helen. [2nd proem, based on speaker] I have some claim to know what I am talking about (), since I have lived a long time and know about peace and war from experience (). I would therefore ask you () to pay attention to what I say, however much I fall short of my guests in eloquence. [3rd proem, based on opponents] Odysseus's reputation as a speaker has gone before him; but Menelaus is especially to be congratulated for his eloquence ()no one else could have persuaded me that the arrival of a foreign army in our territory was not a hostile act (). We must therefore () examine what has been said with great care, seeking what is in the best interests of our country, with due regard to the demands of justice and honour. We may note in passing that a brief has been included at the end of the final topic, foreshadowing what will prove to be the main heads of argument. 38

B. Nanatwe After the prologue in the standard structure of a speech comes narrative.39 But do we need to narrate? Most ancient rhetoricians agreed that the narrative was not needed in all cases;40 indeed, the only

cites the underlying facts of the theme as the grounds of the ; thus the first proem below might end: ". . . So () we should not give way to anger if anything that the Greeks have said or done seems offensive, but deliberate calmly and carefully whether to accede to their request and return Helen, whom () they claim Paris has stolen from her lawful husband". 38 On the (also , propositio): Anon. Seg. 161-68; [Hermog.] Inv. 126:16-131:24; Quint. Inst. 4:4:1. Normally it would come after the narrative, but the position is variable. 39 On the narrative: Cic. Inv. 1:27-30; Rhet. ad Her. 1:12-16; Quint. Inst. 4:2; Anon. Seg. 40-142; Aps. Rh. 249:15-260:16; [Hermog.] Inv. 119:20-125:21. 40 Arist. Rh. 1416b 16-17b20; Cic. Inv. 1:30, De or. 2:330; Aps. Rh. 250:12-16; Anon. Seg. 113-20; Quint. Inst. 4:2:4-8.

106

MALCOLM HEATH

indispensable part of a speech is argument. 41 Some held that narrative was unnecessary in deliberative oratory, since the facts would be known to the audience in advance. 42 This can hardly be regarded as a universal rule; and we must remember that our theme has a quasijudicial aspect (defending Paris's behaviour) as well as a deliberative one. In Libanius's declamation Menelaus does narrate, as does Paris in the anonymous reply. But Menelaus and Paris were direct participants in the events; in our theme Antenor is in no better position to know the facts than are most of his audience, and facts generally known to the audience do not need to be narrated. So the present case does conform to the principle that narrative is dispensable in a deliberative speech. C. Argument It is in the argument that itam-theory proves its worth. As we have seen, the division of each stasis into heads provides an outline strategy for handling a dispute of that kind. The practical stasis is divided according to the heads of purpose ( ). These are a checklist of the criteria by which an action can be assessed. There were various versions of this list; a basic one would have us ask whether the action proposed is legal, just, advantageous, feasible and honourable. 43 But we should not apply this list mechanically. A division is not to be seen as a rigid prescription; it offers a framework to guide and stimulate invention, but the speaker must also exercise judgment in selecting the heads relevant to the particular theme in hand. 44 In our present theme, for example, there is no question of law (or of its unwritten counterpart, custom) at issue; but justice, advantage, feasibility and honour will all feature. The head of justice is necessary if we are to have any effective response to the main thrust of our opponents' argument. If Helen was and is Menelaus's legitimate wife, justice would demand acquiescence in the Greek request for her return; the refusal of this request
Quint. Inst. 5 praef. 5. Anon. Seg. 26-36, 113-28, criticizes the school of Apollodorus for its insistence on rigid adherence to the standard structure of a speech (cf. Sen. Con. 2:1:36). 42 [D.H.] Rh. 369:20-24; cf. Arist. Rh. 1417bl2-20; Quint. Inst. 3:8:10-11. 43 Hermog. Stat. 76:3-79:16; Aps. Rh. 291:3-296:12; [D.H.] Rh. 370:20-371:1. 44 On the exercise of judgment see Hermog. Stat. 30:3-9, 44:1-20, 78:10-21; [D.H.] Rh. 363:11-20; Quint. Inst. 2:13:2; and cf. . 51.
41

INVENTION

107

would be a manifest injustice. It is here, therefore, that the quasijudicial aspect of the theme comes into play; nested within the practical stasis there will be a subordinate juridical stasis determined by the defence which we elect to offer on Paris's behalf. 45 In Libanius the ambassadors anticipate two distinct lines of juridical argument. One is a counterplea (): Paris might claim that it was legitimate to plunder Menelaus, who was an enemy (Deel. 3:18-22). As theory requires, 46 Menelaus counters this argument with an objection (), a head which concedes the general principle but maintains that the circumstances of the act in question remove it from that principle's scope. Here it is the manner of Paris's plundering of Menelaus which explodes the defence; to accept and betray hospitality is not a proper way of prosecuting enmity. T h e second defence, anticipated by Odysseus, is a counteraccusation (): the Greeks began the sequence of abductions with Europa and Medea (Deel. 4:20-35). Our earlier examination of the story of Paris suggests a more radical line of defence: we shall deny the truth of the Greek account of what happened. The dispute will then be one of fact, and the stasis conjecture. 47 A model argumentative strategy for handling conjectural cases can be found in the division set out by theorists like Hermogenes. 48 T h e defence may begin by protesting against the validity of the proceedings (). This is a skirmishing tactic, designed only to sow doubts in the jury's mind; if there were substantive grounds for a formal challenge to proceedings they would have to be argued out in detail and the case would be treated under a different stasis, . The argument proper begins with an examination of the witnesses ( ); if there are witnesses (or other forms of

Hermog. Stat. 77:3-5; RG, VII, pp. 781:8-782:18. Hermog. Stat. 48:10-14. 47 Strictly, the stasis is the species of conjecture known as incident conjecture ( ), on which see Hermog. Stat. 56:2457:11. The innocent gloss which the defence will place on Paris's behaviour rests on factual claims concerning the status of Helen which the other party would dispute; so a subsidiary conjectural question arises at this point. In a properly judicial theme this incident conjectural question would need to be argued out as well; since our "jury" is well-disposed and the opposition will not have a chance to dispute the claims, we can perhaps safely pass it over. 48 Hermog. Stat. 43:16-53:13; cf. Zeno ap. Sulp. Vict. 325:19-327:7. For less developed treatments of conjecture cf. Cic. Inv. 2:14-51; Rhet. ad Her. 2:3-12; Quint. Inst. 7:2:27-50.
46

45

108

MALCOLM HEATH

non-technical proof) 49 the defence will have to undermine their credit; if there are not, their absence can be exploited to cast doubt on the accusation. Then, to determine the intrinsic likelihood of the alleged crime, the defendant's motive () and capacity () are examined. T h e prosecution will also analyse the sequence of events ( ' ), trying to show how the undisputed facts in the case cohere with and uphold the disputed claim that the defendant committed the alleged crime. The defendant (applying, perhaps, the skills practised in refutation) will try to rebut this analysis and pick holes in the prosecution's construction of events. He also has a series of arguments concerning the undisputed facts which have been adduced as signs of his guilt: he will maintain that they are innocent in themselves (a counterplea, or , to which as we have seen the prosecution will respond with an objection, or ); that they are open to an explanation which does not imply the alleged crime (a transposition of cause, ); and that so far from implying it they point in quite the other directionhad he been guilty, he would certainly not have drawn suspicion on himself by acting in that way (a persuasive defence, ). Once the argument has been completed, the speaker will take the qualities of the individuals involved in the case and consider them in general terms (common quality, or ), using common topics to stir up helpful emotions such as indignation or (for the defence) pity; this is part of the epilogue, or at least leads into it.50 Again, we must exercise judgment in applying the division. Not all of the heads are relevant to the defence of Paris. There is no doubt that he had the capacity to run away with Helen. Moreover, none of the overt and agreed facts would have been different had he done so; so we cannot use a persuasive defence to invert the signs of guilt alleged by the prosecution and make them into signs of the defendant's innocence. Hermogenes suggests a weaker substitute, in which it is argued that the facts are "not convertible": if he were guilty he would have done this, but his doing this does not entail his guilt. But the substitution would not greatly strengthen our case. Common quality,

For the contrast between technical and non-technical proofs ( and , often rendered "artificial" and "inartificial") see (e.g.) Arist. Rh. 1355b35-40; Quint. Inst. 5:1; Anon. Seg. 188-91; Aps. Rh. 260:18-261:15. 50 For the theoretical debate on this point see RG, IV, pp. 536:23-537:10, 542:1921; VII, pp. 442:11-443:14, 446:20-448:4.

49

INVENTION

109

which is (or is interwoven with) the epilogue, is also superfluous in what is only one part of a larger argument. T h e order, as well as the selection, of heads needs to be considered. Theory seeks to formulate in the division the natural order that is, the way of conducting the argument that is best in principle; but it is recognized that the constraints of a particular situation will sometimes make a departure from the norm advantageous in practice.51 It is particularly relevant to note here that a variety of opinion existed about the proper position of the counterplea. Hermogenes' order allows the defence to approach a climactic assertion by way of an effectively controlled escalation: the acts in question are not illegal; they have an innocent explanation; indeed they refute the allegation based on them. But some rhetoricians thought it better to place the counterplea after the transposition of cause, since it might seem provocative to claim the freedom to perform allegedly incriminating acts before it has been shown that they are susceptible to an innocent explanation. 52 In the present case this view has some force; the acknowledged facts are on the face of it so scandalous as to demand careful preparatory treatment. But our argument under the head of justice is still only an abstract template; we have yet to see how it can be given concrete form. The use of topics to guide invention was introduced earlier; this technique will now help us to begin putting flesh on our case. At this stage we only need a very basic list of topics, the elements of circumstance (): person, act, time, place, manner and cause. 53 Thus the , which claims that the Greeks are acting unjusdy in bringing their accusation against Paris, can be stated in terms of person: the Greeks are acting both as accusers and as jury, which is unjust. Time, too, is relevant: the Greeks, who have

51 On natural order () and artificial order, or economy (), see Rhet. ad Her. 3:16-17; Cic. De or. 2:307-309; Quint. Inst. 3:3:8, 7:10:11-13; Zeno ap. Sulp. Vict. 320:9-20. 52 For this dispute see RG, IV, pp. 313:20-314:13, 373:29-374:10; V, pp. 121:24122:12; VII, pp. 257:16-22, 299:20-301:5, 315:10-19; Zeno (ap. Sulp. Vict. 325:27, 326:30-32) places counterplea first, but says that it is not always used. 53 For circumstance in general see Quint. Inst. 5:10:32-52, cf. 3:5:17-18; [Augusdne] 141:8-142:14 (= Hermagoras fr. 7); Hermog. Stat. 42:22-43:3, 45:20-46:3, 47:9-11. For this application see [Hermog.] Inv. 140:10-147:15 (we will return to the larger context of this passage below: n. 66); cf. (e.g.) RG, IV, p. 316:2-23, V, pp. 123:6-124:10, correcting Hermogenes' less comprehensive account of the possible grounds for a (Stat. 44:1-11).

110

MALCOLM HEATH

already put an army in the field and delivered an ultimatum without allowing Paris's defence to be heard, have prejudged the case. The demand for witnesses ( ) can be argued out in terms of cause, act and person. The testimony of witnesses is needed because it provides a vital safeguard against malicious accusation and miscarriages of justice; in this case, above all, witnesses are needed to support the accusation in view of the seriousness of the charge and the unblemished record of the person accused. Since Menelaus has produced no witnesses we have only the accuser's assertions about what actually happened, and this is not enough; so we have to make our own assessment of the plausibility of the charge. This brings us to motive (), which draws primarily on person: Paris's manifold virtues make crime abhorrent to him. Our encomium will provide material here; we might mention, for example, the innate virtue he inherits from his father Priam, the influence of his upbringing and the testimony to his integrity and good sense given by the gods in choosing him as judge. But act, manner, time, place and cause all reinforce the claim: it is impossible to believe that a person of Paris's good character committed a crime so unprincipled, in such a treacherous and underhand manner, above all when he was a guest in Menelaus's house. And what was the incitement which allegedly caused him to do this? A mortal woman: yet Paris had been the partner of a goddess. We may draw on our earlier sketch of a refutation of the story of Paris to undo the sequence of events ( ' ) alleged by the Greeks, and also to show that Paris's bringing Helen to Troy has an innocent explanation ( ): when Aphrodite promised Helen to Paris she was acting in accordance with the will of Zeus, who wished to secure another marriage for his daughter (a display of tactful reluctance to explain why Zeus found fault with her existing husband will convey our opinion of Menelaus without descending to overt invective). The follows: Paris has done nothing wrong in bringing Helen to Troy. This argument is based on the person of Zeus: as Helen's father Zeus had the authority to give his daughter to anyone he chose.54 Having established the justice of our position, we move on to the other heads. The order in which we use them is for us to determine. The division of conjecture, as of most other staseis, establishes a natural
For the father's right see D. 41:4; Men. Epit. 655-60; pap. Didot I; Rhet. ad Her. 2:38.
54

INVENTION

111

order for the heads through which the argument is to be pursued; but the order of the heads of purpose in the practical stasis is more fluid.55 In the present case, justice and feasibility are basic to our case; until it has been shown that jusdce does not require acquiescence in the Greek demands, and that it is possible to win the war that will ensue on a rejection of those demands, there is little to be gained from considering other points. So the next head after justice will be feasibility: can the war be won? At least four of the elements of circumstance bring to light considerations which make a Trojan victory likely. O u r vindication of Paris permits an argument based on cause: the Greeks do not have justice on their side; the Trojans, fighting to defend their homeland and justice, will be well-motivated and confident of divine support. T h a t the Trojans are fighting to defend their homeland permits an argument from place: the Trojans will always have a secure refuge; the Greeks must endure the privations of a prolonged siege in a precarious and uncomfortable encampment. The effect of this on their morale is important, in view of the argument from person: the Greeks are a reluctant army, compelled to go to war by oath; they are therefore poorly motivated. An argument based on time supports our case: they have come to Troy after the fiasco of their landing in Mysia; this is not a promising start to their campaign. Feasibility has here been handled directly; that is, this head will take the form of an assertion of the feasibility of resistance, together with supporting arguments based on a variety of circumstances. A common alternative technique is to use a hypothetical objection as a point of departure. A counterposition (), which here means an argument attributed to the opposition, will introduce the head; the speaker's own contentions are then set out as a solution () to the opponent's objection. 56 In the present case, the head of advantage could well arise as an : although the war can be won, it is not in the Trojan interest

Different rhetoricians took different views on the best ordering principle (e.g. whether it is better to proceed from a stronger head to a weaker one or vice versa: RG, VII, p. 613:16-24; cf. Quint. Inst. 5:12:14). 56 and : Aps. Rh. 260:18-279:17. [Hermog.] Inv. 133:24-136:19 uses the terms and ; but the latter term is applied to a form of objection, midway between and (. 67), in scholia on D. 1:14 (105c), 2:9 (64c), 3:34 (154b), 5:24 (37), 20:3 (14b) etc. This is a good example of the instability of rhetoric's technical terminology.

55

112

MALCOLM HEATH

to fight over a woman; the cost of compromise is negligible, and is far from counterbalancing the disadvantages of war. Here we must consider the different forms of available to us. The principal ones are and . 57 These are, respecdvely, an outright rejection of the opposing position, and a qualified acceptance combined with an attempt to show that the desired consequences do not follow; the two arguments can be combined, in either order. The use of may seem problematic in the present context. Advantage is so much the basic point at issue in deliberative argument 58 that it goes against the grain to concede, even hypothetically, that the course of action we are proposing is disadvantageous. If we are to consider doing this a powerful counterweight is necessary. Another of the heads of purpose might suffice, since one head may appear as a solution to another. So honour provides a promising basis for the ; it would certainly be shameful to give way to threats of force when justice does not demand it. We will say, then, that even if it is true that the disadvantages of war outweigh the cost of acquiescence, it would be shameful to surrender. T h e will follow. T o show that fighting the war is not disadvantageous we will have to argue that acquiescence in the Greek demands would risk graver consequences than the hardships entailed by war. O n e point to consider is the impact which a dishonourable display of weakness would have on the allies: they would lose confidence in the Trojans, and Troy's empire would begin to dissolve. There is a third kind of , the "forcible" argument ();59 in this the opponent's point is turned back on itself, its apparent strength being exploited to our advantage. Here the disproportion to which the objector draws attention between the hardships of war and the triviality of its cause shows that the alleged cause is no more than a pretext; the Greeks are not so foolish as to embark on a war for no better reason than this. The very fact that this is not a sufficient reason for fighting a war proves that the Greeks have some other aim in threatening to start it; they are using the pretext of a just war
57

[Hermog.] Inv. 136:20-138:13; Hermog. Stat. 48:14-49:6, 76:17-77:2; Sopater RG, VIII, pp. 163:28-164:2; with a different terminology, Aps. Rh. 268:21-269:2. 58 Arist. Rh. 1358b20~29; Rhet. ad Her. 3:3; Cic. De or. 2:334; Quint. Inst. 3:4:14. 59 [Hermog.] Inv. 138:15-140:8; cf. the in Aps. Rh. 269:17 270:3; Sopater RG, VIII, p. 132:7-8. The technique is associated especially with Demosthenes: see scholia on D. 1:21 (140c-d), 19:134 (291a), 21:103 (352), 21:114 (401).

INVENTION

113

in the hope of intimidating the Trojans into a concession that will undermine the confidence of their allies and weaken their empire. Surrender would on this account be dangerous as well as disgraceful. Having mapped out the overall structure of the argument we must consider its articuladon at a more detailed level. T h e three-colon scheme which we used in the prologue also has an application in the argument. In the Rhetorica ad Herennium, drawing on an earlier Hellenistic Greek source, the form of rhetorical argument known as epicheireme ()60 is conceived as an elaboration of an underlying scheme comprising a premise (propositio or expositio), a supporting reason (ratio), and a conclusion drawn from the combination of the two (complexio). For example: Odysseus had a motive to kill Ajax (propositio): for he wanted to remove an enemy, whom he feared (ratio); so Odysseus, wanting to remove this threat, had a motive to kill Ajax (complexio).61 This pattern corresponds to the first of Quintilian's three patterns for the epicheireme. Quintilian's second pattern is a close variant; the complexio is not in this instance identical to the propositio, but it is effectively equivalent to it. For example: death means nothing to us; for what has been dissolved lacks sense; and what lacks sense means nothing to us.62 In mapping out the argument we proceeded from the abstract division of the stasis to a more concrete formulation in terms of the elements of circumstance. In doing this we were converting the underlying heads into potential epicheiremes. T h e which

Rhetorical terminology in this area is extremely inconsistent (Quint. Inst. 5:10: 1-7 illustrates the problem). The technical terms and are applied in a bewildering variety of ways in different sources; a full survey of the variants would be lengthy and unilluminating. Cf. Martin, Antike Rhetorik, pp. 102106; W. Kroll, Dos Epicheirema (SB Vienna, 216.2; 1936); F. Solmsen, "The Aristotelian Tradition in Ancient Rhetoric", AJP 62 (1941), pp. 35-50, 169-90, esp. 169-78. 61 Rhet. ad Her. 2:27-30 (cf. 2:2 for the Greek term). In this illustration the author is working out the head of motive for a declamation theme (a case of conjecture) in which Odysseus is found next to Ajax's corpse holding a bloody sword and is charged with his murder: cf. Rhet. ad Her. 1:18, 1:27; Cic. Inv. 1:11, 1:92; Quint. Inst. 4:2: 13-14. 62 Quint. Inst. 5:14:10-11. The third pattern (living organisms are superior to inanimate objects; nothing is superior to the world; so the world is a living organism) is more like a syllogism, and corresponds to the model of the epicheireme in Cic. Irw. 1:57-61; but Quintilian notes (5:14:12) that it could be reformulated in accordance with the first pattern (the world is a living organism; for living organisms are superior to inanimate objects, and nothing is superior to the world; so the world is a living organism). Matthes, "Hermagoras", pp. 204-207 implausibly tries to assimilate the models found in Rhetorica ad Herennium and Cicero De Inventione.

60

114

MALCOLM HEATH

concluded the quasi-judicial defence of Paris will provide a simple illustration: Paris has done nothing wrong in bringing Helen to Troy (propositio); for Zeus undoubtedly had the authority to give his daughter to anyone he chose (ratio), so Paris is blameless (complexio). But these bare bones of an argument must be fleshed out further if they are to be placed before an audience with any hope of holding their attention and gaining their assent; a greater degree of elaboration is required. So the full structure of the epicheireme in the Rhetorica ad Herennium comprises five parts: the ratio is supported by additional considerations adduced to corroborate it (rationis confirmatio); this in turn is subjected to enrichment and embellishment (exomatio).63 Thus the ratio which establishes Odysseus's motive for killing Ajaxthat he wished to remove an enemycan be corroborated by reference to Odysseus's acute perception of the threat which Ajax posed to him, and by his proven readiness (as in the case of Palamedes) to take ruthless action to dispose of his enemies; this is the rationis confirmatio. T h e exomatio gives examples (avarice, the lust for power and so on) to illustrate the general principle that people are induced to commit crimes by the advantage they hope to gain; it makes a comparison between the upright and heroic Ajax and the devious and cowardly Odysseus to highlight the nature of their enmity (, as we noted earlier, is a technique of amplification practised in the rhetorician's elementary training); and it concludes with imagery drawn from the behaviour of wild animals. None of these embellishments offer proof of Odysseus's motive in stricdy logical terms; but they help to make the speaker's point more vivid and compelling. This model can be applied to our . Paris has done nothing wrong in bringing Helen to Troy, for Zeus undoubtedly had the authority to give his daughter to anyone he chose; this is a right which any father may exercise over his daughter. If even human fathers have this right, the rights of the father of gods and men cannot be any less. Suppose that the god at Delphi were to order someone to divorce his wife and allow her to remarry; would anyone claim that the oracle should be ignored, or that the new husband should be prosecuted for receiving the god's gift? So Paris is blameless, and the accusation against him cannot be sustained.

The rationis confirmatio is essential (but from another point of view can be seen as part of the ratio: cf. Quint. Inst. 5:14:7-8); the exomatio and complexio can be omitted: Rhet. ad Her. 2:30.

63

INVENTION

115

In this illustration the exomatio is based on an argument from lesser (human) to greater (divine), and on a hypothetical example.64 In finding corroborative arguments and embellishing them a richer store of topics than we used in determining the oudine of our argument will be helpful; in the exomatio, in particular, topics involving comparison are important. 65 A later theorist, whose model we followed earlier in converting heads into potential epicheiremes using the elements of circumstance, makes the comparative topics a distinguishing feature in the next stage of his multi-layered approach to the evolution of arguments. The abstract head yields an epicheireme through the application of the elements of circumstance; to the epicheireme is added a development () which makes use of a comparison, an example, or an argument from the lesser, the greater, the equal or the opposite; the whole complex is then rounded off with an enthymeme (), a pointed expression designed to highlight the thrust of the comparison. 66 We do not have space to demonstrate how every part of our argument could be worked out on this model, but we may return briefly to the head of feasibility as a final illustration. There is one further technical point to consider first. A speaker must always be alert to points which run contrary to his case () and take care to disarm them. 67 Our preliminary analysis identified two points likely to make the Trojan audience anxious about the prospect of war, both of which constitute potential weaknesses in our argument for the likelihood of a Trojan victory. O n e is the knowledge that Troy has been sacked once before; the sense of vulnerability to which this gives rise might be disarmed by drawing a contrast between past and present. The other concern is the immense size of the Greek army; they outnumber the Trojans by more than ten to one (II. 2:119-30). The Trojan allies offset this numerical superiority in some measure
64

On arguments ' see Quint. Inst. 5:10:95-99; Aps. Rh. 273:18-274:20; Ruf.Rh. 405:12-14, 405:28-406:5 Spengel-Hammer. 65 For fuller lists of topics see (e.g.) Arist. Rh. 2:23; Cic. Inv. 1:34-49, De or. 2:15373, Top.\ Quint. Inst. 5:10:20-99; Anon. Seg. 169-81; Minuc. 343-51. Cf. Martin, Antike Rhetorik, pp. 107-19. For see scholia on D. 24:112 (222), 24:204 (371b-c); Sopater RG, VIII, p. 88:13; cf. Quint. Inst. 5:10:86. 66 [Hermog.] Inv. 140:9-148:15 (epicheireme), 148:16-150:15 (); 150:16154:8 (enthymeme); cf. n. 53 above. For the varied usage of the term (n. 60) see e.g. Anon. Seg. 157-59. 67 Aps. Rh. 224:8-226:14, 238:4-14, 240:12-20, 246:6-12, 251:3-9; scholia on D. 1:14 (105c), 2:1 (lc) etc.

116

MALCOLM HEATH

(II. 2:130-33), and they must therefore be given a prominent place. But it is always good if a strong point in the opposing position can be turned against itself, as happens in the "forcible" species of solution. Thucydides' remarks on the logistical problems involved in maintaining such a large army in the field suggest a way to achieve this inversion (Th. 1:11; cf. Hdt. 7:49). . We decided earlier that, since feasibility was to come after our rebuttal of the charge against Paris, the argument from cause would be the basis for the first of the epicheiremes under this head: the Trojans can win the war because they have justice on their side and their enemies do not. This proposition is established by the fact that the Greeks have attacked on a false pretext; by contrast, the Trojans will be fighting in defence of their homeland. An argument from the opposite can be used for embellishment here, helping incidentally to disarm one of the : when Laomedon cheated his benefactors, the city was sacked by Heracles; now that Troy is ruled by Priam, a just and pious king, under whom the city enjoys divine favour (as the gift of Helen to Paris shows), it can look to the gods for protection. T h e city's history proves that injustice does not prosper: so the Trojans can face an unjust enemy with confidence. We proceed to place: the Trojans can win the war because it will be fought on their home ground. In confirmation we could remind the audience that the city is protected by the Palladium. A comparison of the prospects for the defenders, always in reach of a secure refuge, and for the invaders, facing years of hardship in a precarious and uncomfortable encampment, might provide suitable embellishment (cf. A. Ag. 555-66; E. Tr. 386-93). Next, person: the Trojans can win the war because they face a poorly motivated enemy. T h e proof is that they undertook the war reluctantly, because they were compelled by oath. A particularly pointed example is to hand to enrich the argument: Odysseus, whose speech has no doubt stressed the hopelessness of the Trojan cause, pretended to be mad in an attempt to avoid service; his actions are a better measure of his confidence than are his words. An enemy reluctant to embark on the war will be eager to abandon it once they experience its fruidess hardships. At this point, however, the worry concerning the size of the Greek army must be faced. The size of the Greek army does not make them invincible: the Trojans have allies to offset their superiority (a catalogue, drawing on II. 2:816-77, may help to add impressiveness at this point). Moreover, the size of the Greek army is itself a weak-

INVENTION

117

ness; so many troops cannot be supported in the field for very long. In deploying force on such a scale the Greek commanders are gambling on a quick, decisive victory; they know, perhaps, that the morale of their reluctant army is too fragile to sustain the hardships of a prolonged campaign. But we have already seen that a quick victory is not within their grasp, provided that the defenders are resolute. In any case, the size of the enemy army is not the decisive factor, so much as its quality. Heracles was able to capture Troy with only a small force: he had a just cause, as the Greeks do not; and he was a renowned sacker of cities (he took Orchomenus, Oechalia, Elis, Pylos and Sparta) as Troy's present enemies are not. The final epicheireme under the head of feasibility supports that last observation. This is an argument from time: the Trojans can have confidence in their ability to win the war because the Greeks have already suffered defeat: they were repulsed in their invasion of Mysia. An argument from the lesser to the greater immediately springs to mind: the Mysians are just one contingent among the Trojan allies (//. 2:858); if the Greeks cannot beat a single contingent of the Trojan army, how can they beat the whole?

D. Epilogue The chief functions of the epilogue are to recapitulate the main points of our argument and to incite the emotional response which will finally carry the audience along with us.68 T h e recapitulation in the present case will come round in the end to the last point we made in the head of advantage, which deduced a covert and hostile intention on the part of the Greeks from the inadequacy of their overt casus belli. This Greek duplicity is at one with the hypocrisy of opening negotiations when their army is already in the field; here we have a good basis on which to build indignation against our opponents. Further examples of Greek treachery would help to show that this behaviour is consistent with their whole character; Jason's visit to Colchis might be mentioned, and we could invite our audience to reflect on the fact that the Greeks are led by sons of Atreus. We will amplify our condemnation of the Greeks' behaviour in the manner of a common topic; but, as always,

On the epilogue: Cic. Inv. 1:98-109; Rhet. ad Her. 2:47-50; Quint. Inst. 6:1-2; Anon. Seg. 198-253; Aps. Rh. 296:13-329:23.

68

118

MALCOLM HEATH

we must remember the dignity and restraint which our persona demands, and be measured in our condemnation. T h e epilogue will also contain a call to action, drawing once more on the heads of purpose. T h e appeal which we have already made to honour could be developed further: the Trojans should act in a manner worthy of their glorious past, and defend their rights and their honour. As for the Greeks, if they are serious when they invoke justice, then they themselves should act jusdy. The which began the defence of Paris points the way here: instead of prejudging the case the Greeks should withdraw and submit their claim to arbitration. We will of course be careful to propose an arbitrator who is neutral, in the sense of being non-belligerent, but who can be trusted to favour the Trojans. T h e obvious candidate, in view of his uncommon respect for the rights of host and guest (which the Greeks claim to have been violated), is the Thracian king Polymestor.

III.

CONCLUSION

If we were to return to the argument and continue the process of elaboration through the whole case the task of invention would be complete. But we would still be very far from having produced a finished declamation. We have been content up to now to state and elaborate our arguments without any pretence at stylistic polish; the apology which one ancient writer on invention offered for the manner in which his examples were expressed is apposite: "Do not worry about the baldness of the style: since my aim has been the primarily didactic one of technical exposition, I have stripped away the power of discourse, presenting the ideas naked for greater clarity".69 Philostratus (KS1 604) tells us that the second-century rhetor Phoenix of Thessaly, although skilled in invention, composed in a disjointed style, lacking rhythm; in his compositions the facts were set out with no suit of verbal clothes to cover their nakedness, and for this reason he was thought better suited to teaching beginners. The polishing of students' style was work for the most advanced teachers; expression was, in fact, the most advanced and demanding element of rhetorical study. 70 But that is another story.
69 ,0

[Hermog.] Inv. 94:22-95:1. Hermog. Slat. 35:10-12; cf. Quint. Inst. 8 praef. 13-14.

INVENTION

119

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Burgess, T. C., Epideictic literature (Chicago Studies in Classical Philology, 3; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1902). Calboli Montefusco, L., La dottnna degli status nella retorica greca e romana (Hildesheim: Olms-Weidmann, 1986). Heath, M., "The Substructure of S&uu-theory from Hermagoras to Hermogenes", CQ.44 (1994), pp. 114-29. , Hermogenes On Issues (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995). Kennedy, G. ., Greek Rhetoric under Christian Emperors (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1983). Kroll, W., Dos Epicheirema (SB Vienna 216:2; 1936). Martin, J., Antike Rhetorik (Munich: Beck, 1974). Matthes, D., "Hermagoras von Temnos", Ijistrum 3 (1958), pp. 58-214. Russell, D. ., Greek Declamation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983). , and N. G. Wilson, Menander Rhetor (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1981). Solmsen, F., "The Aristotelian Tradition in Ancient Rhetoric", AJP 62 (1941), pp. 35-50, 169-90. Wisse, J., Ethos and Pathos from Aristotle to Cicero (Amsterdam: Hakkert, 1989).

CHAFfER 5

STYLE Galen O. Rowe


University of Idaho, Moscow, USA

Of classical rhetoric's five duties, the one concerning style (/ elocutio) has had an especially pervasive and lasting influence.' At least three reasons account for this influence. First, classical rhetoric supplies a rich nomenclature encompassing most of the important stylistic phenomena found in any language. Not to mention other stylisdc terms, there are names for more than 60 tropes and figures identified by rhetoricians from the fifth century BC through to the early Chrisdan era. Secondly, the ancient precepts on style apply to any verbal expression and not simply to that which is used to persuade. These precepts inform poetry as well as prose, historical writings, philosophical essays, and letters as well as political and forensic speeches. Thirdly, classical rhetoric has established criteria for judging style that are sufficiently flexible to allow for changing tastes and requirements. In fact, the criteria, the so-called virtues (/virtutes) of correctness, clarity, ornamentation, and propriety, form the basis of the entire classical theory.
For general and deep background on the theory of style according to classical rhetoric see the following works: H. Lausberg, Handbuch der literarischen Rhetorik (2 vols.; Munich: Max Hueber, 1960), I, pp. 248-525. Although Lausberg's work has flaws (see A. E. Douglas's review in CR 12 [1963], pp. 246-47), it is the most complete and systematic source of stylistic terms and definitions presented by the ancient rhetoricians. The serious student will also wish to consult R. Volkmann, Die Rhetorik der Griechen und Rmer (Leipzig: Teubner, 1885; repr. Hildesheim: Olms, 1963), pp. 393-562, especially for the excellent examples of tropes and figures; and J. Martin, Antike Rhetorik (Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft, Ii.3; Munich: Beck, 1974), pp. 245-345, particularly as a response to Lausberg. Recommended for later Greek and Latin style are E. Norden, Antike Kunstprosa (2 vols.; Berlin: Teubner, 1909, 1915 [Nachtrge]; repr. Stuttgart: Teubner, 1958) and G. A. Kennedy, Classical Rhetoric and Its Christian and Secular Tradition from Ancient to Modem Times (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1980). Of fundamental importance to the stylistic aspect of the New Testament are J. Weiss, Beitrge zur paulinischen Rhetorik (Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1897) and R. Bultmann, Der Stil der Paulinischen Predigt und die kynisch-stoische Diatribe (Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1910).
1

122

GALEN . ROWE

I. VIRTUE

1: C O R R E C T N E S S

T h e first and basic stylistic virtue, correctness, involves rhetoric in grammar, since "correctness" in this case means the correct use of the speaker's language; however, rather than subsuming the entire subject of grammar within their domain, the ancient rhetoricians focus on the common errors, or vices, of grammar that speakers ought to avoid. Because of their common and recurrent nature the vices can be regarded as standard grammatical shapes, or "figures" (/ figurae), falling into two classesbarbarisms and solecisms. Barbarisms encompass the unintendonal alteration of single words by the addition, omission, transposition, or substitution of sounds or syllables or letters. An example of barbarism through addition would be the grammatical figure prothesis, in which a letter or syllable is added to the beginning of a word (e.g., gruit, a mispronunciation of ruit). Barbarism through omission would include aphaeresis, in which a beginning pordon of the word is left off (e.g., Verg. A. 6:620 temnere, instead of contemnere). A transpositional barbarism is leriquum, instead of reliquum, in which all the necessary letters are included but some are in the wrong positions. Finally, an example of barbarism through substitution would be bobis instead of the correct vobis. As the word, "barbarism" (from the Greek word for "foreigner"), indicates, the incorrect alteration of words is assumed to have occurred through ignorance or lapse; however, when authors intentionally alter a word's correct sound or spelling, the alteration receives the designation metaplasm. Poets, especially, resort to metaplasm either to satisfy the metrical demands of their verses (metn causa)for example, Virgil's use in A. 1:26 of repostum instead of the correct repositum in order to avoid an excess of short syllablesor to achieve a special effect, as with the archaic gnatus rather than natus. If "barbarism" designates the distortion of single words, the term "solecism" is applied to a grammatical error that occurs through the faulty combination of words. Like barbarism, solecism has the four classifications of addition, omission, transposition, and substitution. A type of solecism through addition would be pleonasmfor example, adhuc nondum factum est ("to this point it has not yet been done"), where either adhuc ("to this point") or nondum ("not yet") suffices. The omission of a necessary word or phrase is called ellipsis, such as cui pharetra ex auro (Verg. A. 4:138, "to whom a quiver of gold"), which is missing the word erat (meaning in this context "belonged"). A sole-

STYLE

123

cism through transposition occurs when the sequence of words differs from the sequence of thought, as in quibus de rebus ("which about things", instead of "about which things"). This solecism is called anastrophe. Finally, solecism through substitution occurs when a word that is inappropriate to the context is substituted for another that properly belongs. Among several possible substitutional solecisms, one could cite such common errors as the substitution of one part of speech for anotheran adjective for an adverb ("good" instead of "well") or mismatches of gender, number, or case. In fact, however, authors may employ solecisms just as intentionally as they would barbarisms; and in these instances solecisms cease to be grammatical figures/vices and partake of the virtue of ornament as rhetorical figures. For example, the vice of redundancy, pleonasm, is employed to great effect as a rhetorical figure by the orator Demosthenes and is regarded as an important characteristic of his style.2 Again, hyperbaton, a solecism through transposition, frequently and sometimes elaborately occurs in all ancient writers. T h e only difference between a solecism and a rhetorical figure is the author's intendon.

II.

VIRTUE 2:

CLARITY

Clarity follows correctness in the order of stylistic virtues; but the ancient rhetoricians do not elaborate this virtue to the same degree as correctness. They understand the object of clarity to be the immediate apprehension of the speaker's remarks even by inattentive readers or listeners. As in the case of correctness, they discern two areas where clarity could be achieved or lostin the selection of single words and in the combination of words. Regarding the former, it is the speaker's task to select the word which is the first to designate an object or an idea and which through constant use has become the appropriate word (verbum proprium). Types of inappropriate words include the improper synonym, the word removed from usage, the made-up word, the word familiar to certain regions, and technical

2 D.H. Dem. 50 and 58. See also C. W. Wooten, "Dionysius of Halicamassus and Hermogenes on the Style of Demosthenes", AJP 110 (1989), pp. 576-88, and G. Rowe, "The Many Facets of Hybris in Demosthenes' Against Meidias", AJP 114 (1993), pp. 397-406.

124

GALEN O. ROYVE

jargon. In combinations of words clarity is achieved by maintaining words in their correct order, by completing the thought without excessive postponement, and by not saying too much or too little; however, as in the case of correctness, vices may be committed against clarity in the name of some other stylistic virtue, such as ornamentation or propriety.

III.

VIRTUE 3:

ORNAMENTATION

By far the most elaborated of style's four main virtues is ornamentation or, as Quintilian (Inst. 8 : 3 : 2 ) designates it, cultus et omatus "elegance and adornment". In general, ornamentation functions to please the listeners, thus making them attentive and disposed to believe the speaker. Specifically, it contributes several different features to the verbal expressionstrength, polish, acuity, abundance, gaiety, delight, precision, variety, and claritydepending on the type of ornament employed. As with the virtue of correctness, the virtue of ornament applies to either single words or words in combination. Ornamenting single words requires the speaker to substitute for the customary expression another word or group of words that conveys not only the meaning but also a specific feature of the meaning, such as the nine listed above. For single words there are three classes of substitutions from which to choosearchaisms, neologisms, and tropes. An archaism would be any word regarded as old-fashioned but not so obsolete as to be obscure. Neologisms, "new words", are the speaker's own creations, which he produces from a phenomenon's sound (onomatopoeia) or by derivation from other words. As useful as the first two classes may be, it is the third class, that of tropes, that ancient rhetorical theory pays the most attention.

A. Tropes O n e can hardly overestimate the importance of the trope as an element of style. Tropes extend, expand, or change the meaning of words as no other rhetorical device. The word, "trope", in Greek means "turn", somewhat as in "turn of phrase". In Latin the term is modus elocutionis"manner of speaking". Quintilian (Inst. 8:6:1) defines the trope as "a change of a word or phrase from its proper

STYLE

125

meaning into another for the sake of effect". For example, the trope known as metaphor occurs when the word, lion, is used to designate a person. One could say that the subject, a person, has had its meaning changed from that of a man to that of a lion, perhaps in order to stress the person's ferocity. This extreme transference from one meaning to another is brought about by the intent of the speaker/ writer and made intelligible to the listener/reader by the context in which the trope is contained. Every trope constitutes an impropriety, because a trope by definition causes a deviation from the proper meaning of the word; however, the propriety of literalness as a goal becomes subordinated to the effect that the speaker/writer hopes to achieve. A trope, moreover, does not stand completely in defiance of correct meaning. To be effective it must bear a certain semantic relationship to its subject. Aristotle (Po. 21:7:1457b), who uses the term metaphor to apply to all tropes, identifies four possible semantic relationships between a trope and its subject. First there is the relationship from genus to species, as in "my ship is at anchor there", because "is" is the broader category of "moored", the specifically appropriate term for the status of the ship. Second is the relationship from species to genus, as in "Odysseus has accomplished ten thousand noble deeds", where the specific number, ten thousand, stands for the generic idea of a large number. A third relationship, from species to species, is exemplified in the phrases, "with bronze sword having drawn out his life", and "cutting out with unyielding bronze", where "drawn out" is used for "cutting out" and vice versa, since both meanings are species of removing. Finally, there is the relationship by analogy. For example, the shield could be called Ares' cup or the cup, Dionysus's shield, since one implement has the same importance to one god as the other implement has to the other god. The number of ornaments recognized as tropes varies from a conservative nine to forty-one or more; 3 and Quintilian (Inst. 8:6:1) reports that an irresolvable conflict raged among grammarians and philosophers as to the correct number and classification. One reason for the dispute is the often tenuous distinction between certain tropes and figures, such that what one rhetorician regards as a trope appears to another as a figureand vice versa. T h e first extant, detailed

The number 41 comes from a combination of Tryphon , and a later addition to it, the ' . See L. Spengel (ed.), Rhetores Graeci (Leipzig: Teubner, 1853-56), III, pp. 189-213.

126

GALEN O. ROYVE

classification of tropes, that by Tryphon (during the reign of Augustus), contains fourteen different tropes. Isidore and Beda each recognize thirteen. T h e selection that follows is based on Lausberg's classification;4 however, instead of following Lausberg's practice of using, as the main terms, the Latin words found in Quintilian, I have in most instances used the traditionally more common Greek words and supplied alternative Greek and Latin terms in parentheses. 5 1. Metaphor (, translatio): A metaphor is a word or phrase literally denoting one kind of object or idea but used in place of another in such a way that it suggests a likeness or an analogy between them. 6 . (John 6:35) "I am the bread of life". Quae iacerent in tenebris omnia, nisi literarum lumen accederet. (Cic. Arch. 6:14) "These [examples] would all lie in darkness, if the light of literature were not brought to bear". Note: Of the two metaphors, the "darkness [of ignorance]" and the "light of literature", the second makes both the metaphor ("light") and its subject ("literature") explicit, whereas the first ("darkness") causes the reader to infer the subject as "ignorance". It therefore is not always the case that the subject of the metaphor is not made explicit. 2. Metonymy (, , denominatio): Metonymy is the name of one thing applied to another with which it is closely associated. " ' ; ; ;" (D. On the Fraudulent Embassy 19:189) '"But where is the salt, where the table, where the libations [that we shared]?'" Note: The objects mentioned here are parts of the convivial feast and symbolize the bonds and trust of friendship that the speaker protests have been violated.

Lausberg, Handbuch, I, pp. 282-307. Many of the examples of tropes and figures cited below are from my own gleanings; however, for examples of tropes and figures in patristic writings I am especially indebted to several monographs published in Catholic University of America Patristic Studies (Washington, DC), including T. Ameringer, "The Stylistic Influence of the Second Sophistic on the Panegyrical Sermons of St. John Chrysostom" (vol. 5, 1921); J. Campbell, "The Influence of the Second Sophistic on the Style of the Sermons of Saint Basil the Great" (vol. 2, 1922), and W. Parsons, "A Study of the Vocabulary and Rhetoric of the Letters of Saint Augustine" (vol. 22, 1930). For Gregory of Nazianzus see R. Ruether, Gregory ofNazianzus: Rhetor and Philosopher (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1969).
5

STYLE

127

Venen iam et Libero reliquum tempus deberi arbitrabatur. (Cic. Ver. 5:11:27) "He was already thinking that the rest of his time was owed to Venus and Bacchus". Note: "Venus" and "Bacchus" are associated with the pursuits of love-making and drinking. The deities are mentioned instead of the pursuits in order to emphasize Verres' religious-like devotion to carnal pleasures. 3. Synecdoche (, pars pro toto, intellectio): Synecdoche occurs when a part of something is signified by the whole or the whole is signified by its part. . (D. On the Fraudulent Embassy 19:313) " wicked head\" Note: This synecdoche represents the whole person of Aeschines by a part, the head. Huic urbi ferro ignique minitantur. (Cic. Phil. 11:14:37) "They threaten this city with iron and withfire".Note: "Iron" and "fire", synecdoches from the whole, represent "sword" and "conflagration", specific uses of the two elements. 4. Emphasis (): Emphasis indicates a special or greater meaning than the word by itself contains and is usually conveyed through the context or by vocal stress. . (Horn. Od. 11:523) "We descended into the horse". Note: The word, "descended", emphasizes the great depth of the wooden horse. Iacuitque per antrum. (Verg. A. 3:63) "He lay through the cave". Note: The word, "through" (per), cannot receive vocal stress because in Virgil's poetic meter it is an unstressed syllable; however, the context would normally require the word "in". "Through" stresses the cyclops's unusual size. 5. Periphrasis (, circumitio, circumlocutio): Periphrasis is saying in many words what might be expressed in one or roundabout what might be put directly. . (Th. 1:68) "You were not always making a lesson from what we were teaching". Note: The periphrasis, "making a lesson", is used instead of "learning". Providebam animo, Quintes, remoto Catilina non mihi esse P. Lentuli somnum nec L. Cassi adipes nec fumsam C. Cethegi temeritatem pertimescendam. (Cic. Catil. 3:7:16) "I foresaw in my mind, Citizens, that with the removal of Catiline I would not have to fear the sleep of Publius Lentulus, the corpulence of Lucius Cassius, and the mad rashness of Gaius Cathegus". Note: As "foresaw" in

128

GALEN O. ROYVE

this context can only apply to mental activity, the inclusion of "in my mind" is unnecessary. This periphrasis is found elsewhere in Cicero and in other classical Latin writers. The remaining italicized expressions are of the type cited by some rhetoricians as. periphrases; however, they are also examples of synecdoche. 6. Antonomasia (, pronominatio): Antonomasia is the substitution of an appellative, usually a nickname or descriptive epithet, for a proper name. . (Matt. 26:48) "And the one who was betraying him gave them a sign". Note: Matthew uses antonomasia to emphasize Judas's special role. An vero in Syria diutius est ilia Semiramis retinenda? (Cic. Consil. 4:9) "But really must that Semiramis be retained in Syria any longer?" Note: The notoriously licentious queen of Assyria is what Cicero calls the profligate Roman governor, Aulus Gabinius. 7. Hyperbole (, superlatio): Hyperbole is a fitting exaggeration of the truth in order to make something appear greater or smaller than it is. . (D. On the Fraudulent Embassy 19:254) "He would rather have allowed someone to share his blood than his speech [to Philip]". Note: Here Demosthenes pokes fun at Aeschines, his inveterate foe, for his love of performing speeches, especially before distinguished listeners, such as Philip. Ecquod iudicium Romae tam dissolutum, tam perditum, tam nummariura fore putasti, quo ex iudicio te ulla Salus servare posset? (Cic. Ver. 5:3:131) "Did you think that any court at Rome would be so careless, so corrupt, so venal that any goddess of salvation could save you from judgment?" 8. Litotes (, , , exadverm): Litotes is the emphatic affirmation of something by denying its opposite. . (Lys. Against Eratosthenes 12:22) "For I would have not the slightest [= the greatest] share of this good". Non facile hanc tantam molem mali a cervicibus vestris depulissem. (Cic. Catil. 3:7:17) "Not easily [= with difficulty] would I have cast from your shoulders this great burden of evil". 9. Irony (, illusio): Irony is the use of words which in the context convey a contrary meaning.

STYLE

129

, . (D. Against Androtion 22:32) " This fine and good man not only thought it necessary to speak and to propose when he was out of order but also to do so contrary to the laws". Nos autem vin fortes satis facere rei publicae videmur, si istius furorem ac tela vitemus. (Cic. Catil. 1:1:2) "But we, brave men, think that we do enough for the republic if we avoid the madness and weapons of the fellow".

B.

Flures

Whereas tropes result from changing single words or expressions, the shaping of groups of words belongs to the category of figures, sometimes called schemes. Ancient rhetoricians recognized two categories of figuresfigures of words, that is words arranged in certain patterns, and figures of thought, in which the meanings of the word groups have standard intellectual and emotional shapes, such as questions and exclamations. Although no one knows who originated the term, "figure", Quintilian (Inst. 2:13:9; 9:1:11) explains it as a metaphor from the human body or from pictures and statues of the human body. A statement seemingly without figuration resembles the body in a state of rest, perhaps even of lifelessness. T h e figured statement, on the other hand, like the body posed in an activity, is an active expression conveying vitality and affecting the listener in certain ways. 1. Word Figures Word figures belong to three basic categoriesthose resulting from (1) addition, (2) omission, and (3) transposition. Figures of addition include all forms of repetition of the sound, word, or combination of sounds and words, as well as other forms of recurrence. Figures of omission result from the absence of words normally essential to the syntax. Figures of transposition are deliberate changes in the normal order of words. a. Figures of addition (1) Epanalepsis (, geminatio). Epanalepsis is the repetition of a word (or group of words) within the same clause.

130

GALEN O. ROYVE

' , ', . (D. On the Crown


18:208)

"But it is not possible, it is not possible that you erred, men of Athens". Audite, audite, patres conscripti, et cognoscite rei publicae volnera. (Cic. Phil. 2:17:43) "Usten, listen, Conscript Fathers, and recognize the republic's wounds!" (2) Anadiplosis (, , reduplicatio): Anadiplosis is the repetition of a word (or group of words), which ends a clause, at the beginning of the next clause.
7

, , ! . (Gr. Naz. Or. 23 [MPG 35:1165B]) " Holy Trinity, both venerable and long-suffering! Ijong-suffering, indeed, are you who so long endure those who persecute you." Hie tarnen vivit. Vivit? immo vero etiam in senatum venit. (Cic. Catil.
1:1:2)

"And yet this man lives. Lives? Why, he even comes into the senate." (3) Climax (, gradatio): Climax is an ascending order of thought through successive phrases, in which the last word of the preceding phrase is repeated as the first word of the next phrase. The effect is that of climbing a ladder, which is the English meaning of the Greek word, "climax". , , . (Rom. 5:3-5) "Affliction produces patience; and patience, proof, and proof, hope; and hope does not put one to shame". Haec testimonia animae quanto vera tanto simplicia, quanto simplicia tanto vulgana, quanto vulgana tanto communia, quanto communia, tanto naturalia, quanto naturalia, tanto divina. (Tert. Test. anim. 5) "This witness of the soul is as true as it is simple, as simple as it is ordinary, as ordinary as it is shared, as shared as it is natural, as natural as it is divine". (4) Prosapodosis (, , , redditio): Prosapodosis is the use of the same word or group of words at the beginning and at the end of a clause or sentence. , ' , ' ' ' . . . . (D. On the Fraudulent Embassy 19:289) "Philip does not frighten me, if matters on your part are sound; but if with you there will be indulgence to those who wish to be in his hire . . . that is what frightens me."

STYLE

131

Ferro, inquit, ferro. (Cic. Caec. 9:24) '"By the sword,' he says, 'by the sword.'''" Note: This use of prosapodosis achieves emphasis but also inserts an ambiguity. Is the repetition of ferro due to the speaker whom Cicero quotes (as I have indicated by quotation marks) or to Cicero himself? (5) Anaphora (, , repetitio): Anaphora occurs when successive clauses begin with the same word or group of words. , , , . , . . (Matt. 5:3-5) "Blessed are the poor in spirit, because theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are they who mourn, because they will be comforted. Blessed are the meek, because they will inherit the earth." Note: This famous passage gives an example of interlocking anaphoras. Vigilat iste, ut laudet medicum liberatus; vigilat ille, ut blasphemet iudicem condemnatus. Vigilat iste, mentibus piis fervens et lucescens, vigilat ille, dentibus suis frendens et tabescens. (Aug. Sern. 219 [MPL 38:1088]) "The one stays awake, so that he might praise the doctor for his cure; the other stays awake, so that he might revile the judge for his conviction. The one stays awake with pious mind churning and glowing; the other stays awake with teeth gnashing and with wasting." Note: Although vigilat establishes the dominant tone of anaphora, there are many repetitions of rhythms and sounds within each clause. (6) Antistrophe (, , , conversio): Antistrophe is the repetition of the same word at the end of successive clauses.
, , , . (1 Cor. 13:11)

"When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I thought as a child, I reasoned as a child". Doletis trs exercitus populi Romani interfectos: interfecit Antonius. Desideratis clarissimos civis: eos quoque vobis eripuit Antonius. Auctoritas huius ordinis adflicta est: adflixit Antonius. (Cic. Phil. 2:22:55) "You grieve that three armies of the Roman people have been destroyed: they were destroyed by Antony. You long for your most distinguished citizens: these, too, have been taken from you by Antony. The authority of our order has been assailed. It was assailed by Antony." (7) Symploche (, , , communie, complexio, conexum). Symploche is the repetidon of the same beginning word(s) and the same ending word(s) in a succession of clauses. , 6 ' ' . (2 Cor. 9:6)

132

GALEN O. ROYVE

"He who sows sparingly, sparingly will he also reap, and he who sows bountifully, bountifully will he also reap".

Discemit me fides mea, discemit me oratio mea, discemit me iustitia mea. (Aug. Epist. 214:3) "My faith distinguishes me, my speech distinguishes me, my justice distinguishes me (8) Paronomasia (, , annominatio): Paronomasia is a pun, a play on words which sound nearly the same but have distincdy different meanings.
,

(Th. 2:62) "[You must] meet the enemy not only with confidence [] but also with contempt [, i.e., contempt for the enemy]". Ego autem iudices veros et z^ritate severos magis intueor. (Aug. Epist. 143:4) "But I look upon judges who are true and, because of their truth, severe". Note: The pun, which defies translation, centers on s everos ("severe"), which contains within itself the word veros ("true"). (9) Traductio (traductio): Traductio is a play on different meanings of the same word or on different words which have the same spelling. , , . (Isoc. On the Peace 8:101) Far more truthfully would a person be speaking, if he should say that then proved to be for them the beginning [] of misfortunes, when they assumed the rule [] of the sea. Nonne hoc indicant, tantas esse iniurias ut multo maluerint de suo more decedere quam de tuis moribus non dicere? (Cic. Ver. 2:64:155) "Do they not signal this, that the injustices are so great that they much prefer to depart from their own custom than not to speak about your character?" Note: The same word in the singular (more) means "custom"; but in the plural (moribus) it means "character". (10) Polyptoton (, ): Polyptoton is the repetition of a noun or pronoun in different cases at the beginnings of successive clauses. When pronouns change not only their endings but their entire spellings the term metabole is applied. The Greek example is that of polyptoton; the Latin, metabole.
6 , ' ' . . . , . (Hdn. On Figures, Spengel, III, p. 97:10)

STYLE

133

"Demosthenes submitted to Philip; Demosthenes' life was that of a poor man, but his candor was great; to Demosthenes, although many tried to bribe him, nothing, neither wealth nor beauty, seemed worth treason; Demosthenes Alexander demanded; unjusdy did you die, Demosthenes". Note: This highly artificial example of polyptoton manages to use all five cases of the proper noun. To signed the conclusion, moreover, it places the last use of "Demosthenes" at the end rather than at the beginning of its clause. Quod autem tempus veneni dandi illo die, ilia frequentia? Per quem porro datum? Unde sumptum? quae porro interceptio poculi? cur non de integro autem datum? (Cic. For Cluentius 60:167) "But what chance of giving the poison on that day, in that crowd? Through whom moreover was it given? Whence was it gotten? What then was the meaning of that interception of the cup? Why nevertheless was it not given again?" (11) Metaclisis (, , declinatio): Metaclisis is the repeated use of the same word, with different inflections, elsewhere than at the beginnings of successive clauses. ', ' . ( 1 Cor. 9:20) "And I became to the Jews as a Jew, so that I might gain Jews". Felix es talis fideliter cogitando, amando felicior, et ideo eris felicisdma consequendo. (Aug. Epist. 267) "Happy is such as you for thinking faithfully, and happier for loving, and so you will be happiest for attaining". (12) Synonymia (, communie nominis, disiunctio): Synonymia is the repeddon of a thought in synonymous terms.

, ' , , , . (D. On the Fraudulent Embassy 19:208) "This takes away their boldness, this twists back their tongues, blocks their mout chokes, makes them nient". Abiit, excesnt, evasit, erupit. (Cic. Catil. 2:1:1) "He has gone away, withdrawn, escaped, broken out". (13) Diaphora (, , , , , distinctio): Diaphora is the repeated use of the same word, which acquires added or different significance in the repetition. ' , , , ' . (D. On the Fraudulent Embassy 19:186)

134

GALEN O. ROYVE

"The person who takes away these moments from a government such as exists with us has not taken away moments, no, but has taken away the whole business". Cum eis facta pax non erit pax, sed pactio sewitutis. (Cic. Phil. 12:6:14) "Peace made with them will not be peace, but a pact of slavery." Note: When diaphora occurs in a dialogue in such a way that the word is repeated by a different speaker, it has the designation, anaclasis (, reftexio). Quintilian (Inst. 9:3:68) gives the often quoted example: cum Proculeius quereretur de filio, quod is mortem suam exspectaret, et ille dixisset se non exspectare. "immo", inquit, "rogo expectes". "When Proculeius was complaining about his son, that he was waiting for his death, and the latter had said that he was not waiting. 'No', he said, 7 ask that you wait'". (14) Diaeresis (, distributio): Diaeresis occurs when certain specified roles are assigned among several parts of a whole or several members of a group. K , , . (And. On the O Mysteries 1:48) "There came to one a mother, to another a sister, and to another, wife and children". Habet excusationem vel pietatis vel necessitatis vel aetatis. Si voluit accusare, pietati tribuo, si iussus est, necessitate si speravit aliquid, puentiae. (Cic. Cael. 1) "He has the excuse either of dutijulness or of necessity or of age. If he wished to accuse, I attribute it to dutifiilness, if he was ordered, to necessity] if he expected something, to adolescence." (15) Epitheton (, appositum): Epitheton is an attributive addition to a substantive, such as an adjective or an appositive. ' , , . (D. Against Meidias 21:103) "And the person he hired to do this was the corrupt and too compliant one, the dirty Euctemon". Scelestum, di immortales! ac nefarium facinus atque eius modi quo uno malefkio scelera omnia complexa esse videantur. (Cic. S. Rose. 37) "A criminal, Ye Gods, and wicked deed and of that kind where all crimes seem encompassed in one evil act". (16) Polysyndeton (, ): Polysyndeton is the repeated use of conjunctions.

STYLE

135

' . (Rom. 8:38-39) "For I am persuaded that neither death nor life nor angels nor powers nor present nor future nor forces nor heights nor depths nor any other created thing will be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our lord". Seu de caelo exciperis seu de terra conciperis sen numeris seu atomis concinnaris seu cum corpore incipis seu post corpus induceris, undeunde et quoquo modo hominem facis animal rationale sensus et scientiae capacissimum. (Tert. Mart. 1) " Whether you are taken from the sky or conceived from the earth or moved by numbers or by atoms or begin with the body or after you have taken on the body, no matter whence, no matter how, you make a person, a rational animal most capable of feeling and of knowledge". b. Figures of omission (1) Ellipsis (, detractio, omissio). Ellipsis is the omission of essendal grammatical details. ' . (D. On the Fraudulent Embassy 19:262) "The Argives [said] this same thing". Unde maior Caesari metus. (Tac. Ann. 1:60:1) "Whence [there was] greater fear for Caesar". (2) Zeugma (, , , , adnexio, ligatio): Zeugma is the use of a word in one phrase which must be understood in other, parallel phrases in order to complete their meanings (simple zeugma), as in the Greek example, below. Sometimes the word to be understood must be modified in meaning or syntax in order to suit the remaining phrases (complicated zeugma or syllepsis), as in the Latin example. , , , ' , . (Aeschin. Against Ctesiphon 168) "Ifyou regard his fine-sounding words, you will be deceived just as before; but if [you regard] his nature and the truth, you will not be deceived". Quibus non modo non orbari, sed etiam augeri senectus solet. (Cic. Sen. 17) " Of these old age not only is usually not deprived, but even increased [by these]". Note: The use of "quibus" in the first clause is ablative of separation with "orbari", translated with "of", while in the second clause it must be supplied as an ablative of material with "augeri", translated with "by".

136

GALEN O. ROYVE

(3) Asyndeton (, solutum): Asyndeton is the omission of conjunctions between coordinate members of the same sentence. [] [] [] . (Rom. 1:29) "Filled with all injustice [and] wickedness [and] greed [and] evil". Aurum, pallorem terrae; [et] argentum, livorem terrae; [et] honorem, temporis fumum. (Aug. Sern. 191:19:5) "Gold, earth's pale color; [and] silver, earth's blue color; [and] honor, the smoke of time". c. Figures of transposition (1) Anastrophe (, reversio): Anastrophe is the reversal of the normal sequence of two words immediately following each other. . (Hdt. 2:22) "At least to a man able to reason these things regarding [= regarding these things]". Quam ad finem sese effrenata iactabit audacia? (Cic. Catil. 1:1:1) " What to end [= to what end] will that unbridled audacity of yours flaunt itself?" (2) Hyperbaton (, traiectio, transgressio): Hyperbaton is the separation of two words, which syntactically belong together, through the insertion of a word or group of words not belonging immediately in this place. [ ] , , . (Acts 17:29) "We ought not think that [the divine is like] to gold or silver or stone, the imprint of man's art and thought, the divine is like". Fragiiis in altum cymba processit. (Jerome Ep. 14:10) "Fragile into the deep the craft advanced". (Instead of, "The fragile craft advanced into the deep".) (3) Synchesis (, mixtura): Synchesis ("interlacing") is an elaborate form of hyperbaton, in which each of the related elements of one syntactic group tends to be separated by elements of another syntactic group. [] [], [C], [] [], (D. On the Fraudulent Embassy 19:16) " Zeus and All You Gods [C], words [] worthy [] of many [A]

STYLE

137

deaths [A]". Note: The synchesis has the interlacing arrangement of ABC AB. Quantum [A] meas [B] dprimt [C] oneris [D] impositi [D] massa [] cervices [B]. (Sidon. 6:1:5) "How much [A] the weight [E] of imposed [D] burden [D] depresses [C] my [B] shoulders [E]". Note: The interlacing arrangement yields the pattern, ABCDDEB, in which the same letters would normally go together. (4) Isocolon (, , , parimembre): Isocolon consists of the succession of two or more coordinate clauses, which tend to have the same construction and length (measured by number of words or syllables). , [ 13 syllables] , [12 syllables] . [11 syllables] (Isoc. Panegyric 4:39) "To expound many times on the same subject, and to make great matters trivial, and to invest magnitude with details". Si nulla inertiae infamia, [8 syllables] nulla superbiae turpitudo, [10 syllables] nulla inhumanitatis culpa [9 syllables] suscipitur, ego vero libenter desino. (Cic. Mur. 9) "If no disgrace for indolence, no shame for arrogance, no blame for cruelty is incurred, I readily cease". (5) Chiasmus (): Chiasmus is a feature of isocolon in which the second of two coordinate clauses reverses the order of the first. [] [], [] [] [] [], [] []. (Hippol. Haer. 18:8:2) "The light of day does not shine, shattered are the rocks; Rent is the veil, the foundations of the earth are shaken." Note: This example contains two chiasmuses arranged chiastically; that is, the order of the second (verb-noun-noun-verb) is the reverse of the first (noun-verb-verbnoun)ABBA and BAAB. Cognitu [A] inutile [B] aut difficile [B] perceptu [A], (Macr. praef. llf.) "To learn [A] useless [B] or difficult [B] to understand [A]". (6) Homoeoteleuton (): Homoeoteleuton is a feature of isocolon in which coordinate clauses end in words that have the same inflections and sounds.

138

GALEN O. ROYVE

(Gorg. Hei 7) "By force was she seized and lawlessly was she violated and unjustly was she assaulted". hii nullum convivium renuerit, qui in hortis fuerit, qui unguenta sumpimi, qui Baias viderit. (Cic. Cael. 11) "Who refused no party, who was in the garden, who wore perfume, who saw Baiae." Note: This is an example in which the stylistic figure appears irretrievably lost in translation. (7) Homoeoptoton (, simile casibus): Homoeoptoton consists of the frequent repetition of the same grammatical case within one period/sentence; however, according to some rhetoricians, it is the conclusion of successive cola with the same case form, hence another feature of isocolon. The Greek example illustrates the former definition; the Latin, the latter. , , , , , . (Chrys. Laud. Paul. 3 [MPO 50:485:24]). "So eager was he to lead all into the kingdom, healing, exhorting, promising praying, beseeching". Hoc nec dici brevius, nec audiri laetius, nec intellegi grandius, nec agi fructuonus. (Aug. Epist. 41:1) "This [cannot] be said more briefly, nor heard more joyfully, nor understood more abundantly, nor done more productively". 2. Thought Figures Unlike figures of words, most figures of thought do not readily fall into the categories of addition, omission, and transposition. In fact, ancient rhetoricians do not agree on how thought figures ought to be classified; and several of them make no attempt to do so. Thought figures, or shapes, lack the concreteness of word figures, in which the words have specific spellings and positions relative to each other. As Cicero (De or. 3:52:200) points out, if one changes the words, the word figure is destroyed; but the thought figure can persist regardless of the words one uses to express it. Modern treatments show the same tentativeness and variety as the ancients in classifying thought figures. The classification here is based upon, but does not completely follow, that of Lausberg. 6 It consists of two main categoriesfigures focused upon the audience and figures focused upon the subject.
6

Lausberg, Handbuch, I, pp. 37-455.

STYLE

139

a. Figures focused upon the audience 1. Figures of address (a) Deesis (, obsecratio, obtestatio): Deesis is an impassioned request made in the name of a god or a special person or a sacred object. , , , . (Rom. 12:1) "I therefore exhort you, brothers, through the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy, well pleasing to God". Sed earn [voluntatem vestram], per deos immortalis! deponite deponite! (Cic. Catil. 4:1:1) "But that [goodwill of yours], by the immortal gods! Lay [it] aside!" (b) Parrhesia (, licentia): Parrhesia is claiming to use candor, which by appearing to risk the good will of the audience instead is intended to strengthen it due to the speaker's courage in speaking the truth. ' . (D. Olynthiacs I 1:16:1) "I certainly think that I must not, out of concern for my own safety, misrepresent what I consider to be in your best interests". Non deest rei publicae consilium neque auctoritas huius ordinis: nos, nos, dico aperte, consules desumus. (Cic. Catil. 1:1:3) "There is not lacking to the republic the counsel and the authority of this order: we, weI say it openlythe consuls are lacking". (c) Apostrophe (, aversio): Apostrophe is turning from the general audience to address a specific group or person. , 6 . (Rom. 2:1) "Therefore you have no defense, Sir, everyone of you who judges". Consiste in medio, anima! (Tert. Mart. 1) "Take your stand in the middle, soul". 2. Figures of question (a) Erotesis (, , interrogatio): Erotesis is an affirmative proposition stated in the form of a question to which the answer is obvious. ; (Mark 12:24) "Is it not for this reason that you err, not knowing the scriptures or the power of God?"

140

GALEN O. ROYVE

Nonne extremam pati fortunam paratos proiecit ille? (Caes. Civ. 2:32:8) "Did he not abandon you, though you were prepared to endure ultimate misfortune?" (b) Pusma (, quaesitum, percontatio). Pusma is a question which demands an answer other than "yes" or "no". ; (D. On the Fraudulent Embassy 19:293) "Well, why in fact were you putting Moerocles on trial?" Qpousque patieris, Caesar, non adesse caput rei publicae? (Tac. Ann. 1:13:4) "How long, Caesar, will you allow the republic not to have a head?" (c) Aitiologia (, , , , exquisitio, subiectio): Aitiologia is an imaginary dialogue in the form of questions and answers: ', , ' ; ' - ', ', . ' ' . (D. Against Meidias 21:98) "And, by the gods, what just or fine pretext will you have to utter? That, by Zeus, he is insolent and disgusting. Yes, that is true; but, men of Athens, you ought to hate such men as this rather than save them. It is because he is wealthy. But this you will discover is precisely the cause of his insolence". Patrem occidit Sex. Roscius. Qui homo? Adulescentulus corruptus et ab hominibus nequam inductus? Annos natus maior quadraginta. (Cic. S. Rose. 14:39) "Sextus Roscius killed his father. What kind of a fellow is he? A corrupt and good-for-nothing lad under somebody's influence? Older than forty years". (d) Aporia (, , dubitatio): Aporia is a state of feigned helplessness, in which the speaker seeks advice as to how to proceed and poses alternatives, none of which appears desirable. , , , [], , , . . . (Andoc. On the Mysteries
8:1)

"I am considering, gendemen, whence to begin my defense, whether from the last speeches, how unlawfully they indicted me, or concerning Isotimides' decree, how invalid it i s . . . " Iam vero virtuti Cn. Pompei quae potest oratio par inveniri? Qpid est quod quisquam aut illo dignum aut vobis novum aut cuiquam inauditum possit adferre? (Cic. On the Imperium of Gnaeus Pompey 11:29)

STYLE

141

"But really, what speech can be composed equal to the qualities of Gnaeus Pompey? What is there that anyone can offer that is worthy of him or new to you or unheard of to anyone?" (e) Anacoenosis (, communicatio): Anacoenosis differs from aporia, in that the speaker does not ask (either the audience or his adversary) for advice about his speech but about an acdon (past, present or future) taken in the case.
, ' ; (Aeschin.

Against Ctesiphon 131) "Well then, what punishment do you deserve to get, bane of Greece?" Sed quam longe videtur a carcere atque a vinculis abesse debere qui se ipse iam dignum custodia iudicarit? (Cic. Catil. 1:8:19) "But how long should one be free from prison and shackles who has already judged himself worthy of a guard?" b. Figures focused upon the subject (1) Semandc figures (a) Orismus (, , finitio): Orismus is a definition which supports the speaker's case but is not therefore contrary to common opinion. ' ' , ' , ; (D. Against Meidias 21:55) "When a person assaults one of the chorus or choral directors out of enmity and does this during the competition and in the shrine of the god, what else shall we call this except impiety?" Nam idem velle atque idem nolle, ea demum firma amicitia est. (Sal. Cat. 20) "For to want the same thing and to not want the same thing, this, in short, is sound friendship". (b) Epanorthosis (, , , , , correctio): Epanorthosis is the correction or improvement of a remark immediately recognized by the speaker as unsuitable. , , . (Bas. Hex. 7:63C) "The voice of the command is small, rather not even a voice but a nod, only, and an inclination of the will." Ille autem novit, sub cuius oculis loquor, immo sub cuius oculis cogito. (Aug. Sem. 339 c. 1 [MPG 38:1480]) "But He, under whose eyes I speak, knowsnay, under whose eyes I think".

142

GALEN O. ROYVE

(c) Prodiorthosis (, , praecedens correctio): Prodiorthosis is an attempt to prepare the audience for a shocking or offensive statement.
, ' . (D. On the Crown 18:199)

"I wish to say something surprising; and, by Zeus and the gods, let nobody marvel at this extreme statement but attend with goodwill what I say". Veremur nos, Romani, et, si ita vultis, etiam timemus. (Liv. 39:37:17) "We are concerned, Romans; and, if you will, we are even afraid". (d) Antithesis (, , contentio, contraposition): Antithesis consists of the juxtaposition of opposite meanings. , . (Gr. Naz. Or. 3 [MPG 35:520]) "That which is raised on high receives honor, but that which abases itself to God, is dishonored". Non littera qua iubetur, sed spiritu quo donatur, non ergo meritis operands hominis sed largientis gratia salvatoris. (Aug. Epist. 196:6) "Not by the letter by which a command is issued, but by the spirit by which a gift is given; not therefore by the merits of man working, but by the grace of the savior giving lavishly". (e) Prosapodosis (, regressio): Prosapodosis is a statement about two or more elements, which are elaborated in separate disdnguishing clauses.
, , , , , ' , , . (D. On the Fraudulent Embassy 19:287)

"And he was talking about fornication, ye earth and gods, with his two inlaws standing beside him, the sight of whom would make you cry out in protestNicias the loathsome, who hired himself to Chabrias bound for Egypt, and the accursed Cyrebion, who prances in the parades without a mask". Nactus est primum consules eos, quorum alter res ad scribendum maxumas, alter cum res gestas, tum etiam Studium atque aures adhibere posset. (Cic. Arch. 5) "He first obtained an audience with those consuls, of whom the one could contribute the greatest exploits for writing and the other not only exploits but even interest and discernment".

STYLE

143

(f) Antimetabole (, commutatio): Antimetabole consists in the confrontation of a thought and its reverse through the repetition of the same words with switched grammatical functions. (Mark 2:27) "The Sabbath happened for the sake of man and not man for the sake of the Sabbath". praecavendo vanissime quibus parcunt et parcendo ineptissime quibus praecavent. (Tert. Castit. 1) Admonishing most idly those whom they spare and sparing most ineffectually those whom they admonish. (g) Oxymoron (): Oxymoron is a paradoxical statement combining two terms, which in ordinary usage are contraries. (Gr. Naz. Or. 28:30) "The equality of inequality" Ad dei liberam servitutem (Aug. Epist. 126:7) "To God's free servitude" (2) Affective figures (a) Exclamatio (exclamatio, ): Exclamatio is an abrupt utterance, usually isolated in its context by grammar and vocal stress and conveying a strong emotion, such as pity or indignation. " ! (Gr. Naz. Or. 8:14) " squalid body and garment!" tempora! mores! (Cic. Catil. 1:2) "O the times! the character!" Note: This famous quotation is often translated as "O the character of the times" and offered as an example of the thought figure, hendiadys ( ), in which one of two coordinate elements is made subordinate in thought to the other. Hendiadys, however, is not mentioned as a figure in extant ancient rhetoric and only makes its first appearance in Late Latin. (b) Enargeia (, , , depictio, descriptio, imaginatio, repraesentatio): Enargeia is the description of a situation or action as though it were present. , , ' , , , , , ' - (D. On the Fraudulent Embassy 19:65) "A terrible spectacle, gentlemen of Athens, and pitiful. For when we were on our way to Delphi, we could not help seeing the whole scene

144

GALEN O. ROYVE

houses demolished, walls razed, the country deserted of those in their prime, just a few women and children and miserable old men". Sedebat in rostris conlega tuus, amictus toga purpurea, in sella aurea, coronatus. Escendis, accedis ad sellam. . . . Diadema ostendis. Gemitus toto foro. (Cic. Phil. 2:34:85) "He was seated on the rostra, that colleague of yours, clad in a purple toga, on a golden chair, wearing a wreath. You ascend. You approach the chair. You show the diadem. There's a groan from the whole forum". (c) Sermocinatio (sermocinatio, , , , moralis confctio): Sermocinatio is the creation (not quotation) of statements, conversations, soliloquies, or unexpressed thoughts attributed to normal persons, real or imagined. ' , ,' ' . (D. On the Fraudulent Embassy 19:235) "That is what my opponent will now present, saying, 'he himself praised us, he himself entertained the ambassadors', not specifying when". Fugitur unitas ut hue maritus illuc uxor conveniat; dicat ille "mecum tene unitatem quia ego sum vir tuus"; respondeat ilia: "ibi moror, ubi est pater meus." (Aug. Epist. 108:17) "Unity is put to flight so that one thing suits the husband, another thing the wife, so that he says, 'keep unity with me because I am your husband', but she replies, stay where my father is'". (d) Prosopopoiia (, fictio personae): Prosopopoiia is the attribution of speech and personality to non-human things. ' ' ; (D. On the Fraudulent Embassy 19:119) "Do not these facts call out and say that Aeschines took a bribe and is constandy a scoundrel for money?" Quae patria tecum, Catilina, sic agit et quodam modo tacita loquitur: nullum iam aliquot annis facinus exstitit nisi per te, nullum flagitium sine te. (Cic. Catil. 1:7:18) "This country deals with you, Catiline, like this and somehow though silent speaks: 'For several years no crime has arisen except through you, no outrage without you'". (e) Epimone (, commoratio, expolitio): Epimone is the repetition of a thought either in the same words but with changed vocal inflection or in synonyms, which while conveying the same basic idea nevertheless add nuance to it.

STYLE

145

; ; ; , ; (Gr. Naz. Or. 16:1 [MPG 35:936]) "Why are you destroying the approved order? Why do you force a tongue that is bound by law? Why do you provoke the word when it yields to the spirit? Why, dismissing the head, do you hasten to the feet?" Note: The synonymous expressions are designed to show that the speaker, a mere youth, should not be asked to speak when his father is silent. Vides quam sit varia vitae commutabilisque ratio, quam vaga volubilisque fortuna, quantae infidelitates in amicitiis, quam ad tempus aptae simulationes, quantae in periculis fugae proximorum, quantae timiditates. (Cic. Mil. 26:69) "You see how varied and changeable is life's way, how errant and capricious is fortune, how many violations of trust in friendships, how pretenses are suited to the moment, how many desertions in danger by associates, how many examples of timidity". (f) Simile (similitudo, comparatio): Simile is an explicit comparison between the speaker's subject and a fact of natural life and of general (not historically fixed) human experience. . (D. On the Crown 18:188) "This decree [caused] the danger then surrounding the city to pass by like a cloud". An corpus solum sit homo, aliquo modo se habens ad animam sicut poculum ad potionem? (Aug. Civ. 19:3:23) "Or is man solely body, relating to the soul somehow as the cup to the drink?" (g) Metabasis (, aversio): Metabasis is an abrupt change of subject or a return to the subject from a digression. ' ; (D. On the Crown 18:26) "Well, what, if he were to speak, could someone rightly call you?" Redeo nunc ad te, Caeli, vicissim ac mihi auctoritatem patriam severitatemque suscipio. (Cic. Cael. 16:37) "I now return to you, Caelius, and I assume my fatherly authority and severity". (3) Dialectical figures (a) Synoeciosis (, conciliatio): Synoeciosis is the exploitation of an opponent's argument to one's own advantage.

146

GALEN O. ROYVE

, , , ' , ( ;), ' ' , ; , , ' , ; . (Lys. On Behalf of the Cripple 24:23) "And yet how is it not improper, Council, for him, if he saw me riding in a soft saddle, to keep silent (for what would he say?), but because I ride borrowed horses to try to persuade you that I am not disabled; and because I use two crutches, when others use one, to claim that this, too, is a sign of those who are able?" Interdum mihi videos, Eruci, una mercede duas res adsequi velle, nos iudicio perfundere, accusare autem eos ipsos a quibus mercedem accepisti. (Cic. Rose. 29:80) "Sometimes, Erucius, I think that for one fee you wish to achieve two objectivesto agitate us with a trial, but to bring accusations against the very people who are paying your fee." (b) Proparaskeue (, , praemunitio, praeparatio): Proparaskeue occurs when the speaker prepares the audience to attend, in a special way, a course of argument that he is about to present. , , ' , ' . ; , , , . (Hyp. Eux. 23) "And yet, if you had good sense, you would not be charging Euxenippus for dedicating the cup nor would you have offered any other argument on this point. You are not being consistent. Do you ask why? Will you please listen, judges, to the account that I am about to give?" Paulo longius exordium rei demonstrandae petam. quod quaeso, iudices, ne moleste patiamini; principiis enim cognitis multo facilius extrema intellegetis. (Cic. Clu. 4:11) "I shall make a rather long introduction to my defense; and I ask you not to hold it against me. For once you have learned the beginnings, you will much more easily understand the end". (c) Synchoresis (, , concessio): Synchoresis is an admission of the truth of an opponent's argument, which is subsequendy shown to have no damaging effect on one's case. ' , ', , . (D. On the Fraudulent Embassy 19:235) "And yes, by Zeus, I did entertain the ambassadors from Philip, and quite splendidly, too, Men of Athens".

STYLE

147

At enim postea scimus et vidimus esse hunc in illius etiam amicis. Quis negat? (Cic. Cael. 4:10) "As to the fact that afterwards we have seen and recognized my client among the friends of that person: Who denies it?" (d) Epitrope (, permissio): Epitrope occurs when the speaker pretends to allow, even to dare, someone (the judges or one's opponent) to decide or to act independendy of or contrary to the speaker's position. ' , . (D. the Fraudulent Embassy 19:57) "If anyone takes issue with this, let him stand up and speak on my allotted time". Quae cum ita sint, Catilina, perge quo coepisti, egredere aliquando ex urbe; patent portae: proficiscere. (Cic. Catil. 1:5:10) "Since this is so, Catiline, proceed where you have begun; at last get out of the city; the gates are open; depart!" (4) Figures according to the four categories of change: figures through addition (a) Parenthesis (, , interpositio): Parenthesis is the insertion of a grammatically independent phrase within a sentence. 6 . (Gal. 2:6-7) "As for those who seemed to be somethingwhat sort they were makes no difference to me; God does not go by a person's appearancefor those who seemed something contributed nothing to me". Primum igitur acta Caesaris servanda censeo, non quo probemquis enim id quidem potest?sed quia rationem habendam maxime arbitror pacis atque oti. (Cic. Phil. 1:7:16) "First, I recommend that Caesar's acts be maintained, not because I approve of themindeed, who can do that?but because I especially believe that we must take thought for peace and quiet". (b) Aetiologia (): Aetiologia is the attachment of a reason to a main statement. (This aetiologia should not be confused with the question figure, above, p. 140, c.) , , , ' . , . (D. Philippic I 4:2) "We must not despair, Gentlemen of Athens, over the present situation, not even if it appears most sorry. For that which is worst about it belongs to the past; this which is best pertains to the future".

148

GALEN O. ROYVE

Nam si quis minorem gloriae fructum putat ex Graecis versibus percipi quam ex Latinis, vehementer errat, propterea quod Graeca leguntur in omnibus fere gentibus, Latina suis finibus, exiguis sane, continentur. (Cic. Arch. 10:23) "If anyone thinks less glory is gained from Greek poetry than from Latin, he gready errs, because Greek is read in almost every nation, whereas Latin is confined to its own, admittedly small, borders". (c) Gnome (, sententia): Gnome is a truism or a maxim used to support a specific point. , ' . (Isoc. Archidamus 6:101-102) "It is in rimes such as these that brave men must distinguish themselves. For good fortune hides the failures even of sorry men; but adversity quickly makes clear the qualities of each individual". Si vita nostra in aliquas insidias, si in vim et in tela aut latronum aut inimicorum incidisset, omnis honesta ratio esset expediendae salutis. Silent enim leges inter arma nec se expectari iubent, cum ei qui exspectare velit ante iniusta poena luenda sit quam iusta repetenda. (Cic. Mil. 4:10-11) "If we had encountered some treachery, some armed violence from brigands or enemies, every means of securing our safety would be honorable. For the laws are silent in battle; nor do they expect to be obeyed, when he who wishes to obey must pay an unjust penalty rather than receive his just due". (d) Epiphonema (): Epiphonema is a statement, often in the form of an exclamation, that concludes a line of argument or makes a comment about what has been narrated. , , . (D. On the Fraudulent Embassy 19:267) "So mindless and foolish does bribery make people". Nundabantur haec eadem Curioni, sed aliquamdiu fides fieri non poterat: tantam habebat suarum rerum fiduciam. (Caes. Civ. 2:37) "This same information was given to Curio, but for some time he could not believe it. So much confidence did he have in his own position". (5) Figures according to the four categories of change: figures through omission (a) Epitrochasmus (, percursio): Epitrochasmus is the brief enumeration of subjects or events, each of which would otherwise

STYLE

149

deserve a prolonged treatment. The subjects or events are presented as though they were the headings of a comprehensive oudine. ' ' , ' , , .
(D. Philippic III 9:27)

"He proceeds against the Hellespont; previously he arrived against Ambracia; he holds Elis, important as it is in the Peloponnese; yesterday he had designs upon the Megarians". Quid proxima, quid superiore nocte egeris, ubi fueris, quos convocaveris, quid consilii ceperis, quem nostrum ignorare arbitraris? (Cic. Catil. 1:1:1) "Who of us, do you think, does not know what you did last night, what the night before, where you were, whom you called together, what plan you adopted?" (b) Paraleipsis (, occultatio, omissio, praetmtio, praetermissio): Paraleipsis is the speaker's stated intendon to omit certain subjects, which he nevertheless mentions in passing. ; ; ; ; ; (Bas. Against the Drunks 125A) "And why must one mendon the host of other maladies? The peevishness of character? The tendency to be provoked? The querulousness? The temperamental state of the soul?" Nam ut omittam quod mecum nosti quam sit tremendum de periurio divinum iudicium. (Aug. Epist. 125:4) "For I shall not mention what you know as well as I, how to be feared is the divine judgment against peijury". (c) Aposiopesis (, Interruptio, obticentia, reticentia): Aposiopesis is the abrupt breaking off of a thought, before it has been completely expressed. ' , ' (D. On the Crown 18:3) "For it is not the same thing for me to lose your goodwill and for him not to win his case; but for meI do not wish to begin my speech by saying something annoying". Si iacens vobiscum aliquid ageret, audirem fortasse: quamquamsed hoc malo dicere, audirem. (Cic. Phil. 12:2:4) "If contritely he would propose some arrangement with you, perhaps I would listen, althoughbut I prefer to say this: I would listen".

150

GALEN O. ROYVE

(6) Figures according to the four categories of change: figures through transposidon Hysterologia (, ): Hysterologia is a statement in which what would logically be said first is said last and what would logically be said last is said first.
(D. On

the Fraudulent Embassy 19:50)


"When the Lacedaemonians had departed and had seen through the deceit". Statuerat et deliberaverat. (Cic. Ver. 1:1:1) "He had decided and deliberated".

(7) Figures according to the four categories of change: figures through substitution As in the case of trope, where a word or brief phrase is changed from its proper meaning into another meaning in order to achieve a certain effect, so this category designates thought (or sentence) figures in which one thought may be expressed through another, dissimilar thought. T h e chief difference between a trope proper, or word trope, and a sentence figure through substitution, or thought trope, is that of extension. A trope proper is conveyed through one or a few words, whereas a thought trope extends over a complex of words, sometimes over an entire literary work. This difference, however, is elusive. The terms irony, emphasis, synecdoche, and hyperbole designate both word tropes and thought tropes. O n the other hand, two protracted tropes, allegory and enigma, would seem most appropriate to the category of thought tropes. Allegory () is an extended statement in which each named object or event is intended to suggest an abstract idea or force. Enigma () is a riddle, expressing truth under impossible combinations.

C. Composition In addition to describing the specific kinds of ornamentation, ancient rhetoricians treated the broader aspects of composition under various topics which include (1) the basic types of composition, (2) the period and its basic parts, (3) the sequence of words, and (4) prose rhythm.

STYLE

151

1. Basic Types of Composition The rhetoricians describe three types, or styles, of compositionthe loose style ( , oratio soluta), the running style ( , oratio perpetua), and the complicated style ( , oratio vincta atque contexta). Any one of these styles may characterize a certain author or work, or all three may be present, to varying degrees, in one work. T h e loose style is the least premeditated, least artisdc, and the most natural style of putting words together. As the descriptives, and soluta, indicate, a certain looseness of syntax characterizes this style. It is likely to prevail in spontaneous situations, such as conversations, where the words receive utterance as they occur and without much regard to the niceties of grammar and style. The second type, the running or strung-on style, is expression in a straight line. Although the statements may be syntactically coherent and exhibit some ornamentation, they occur paratactically and in the natural sequence of the events or ideas that they express. There are relatively few subordinate clauses in the running style; and subordination, or hypotaxis, when it occurs, tends not to exceed the first degree and is easily detached from the main statement. Not a vehicle for an intellectual development of ideas, the running style is the style of narrative, and as such it has its most skilled practitioners among historians, especially Herodotus, and in orators, like Lysias, who emphasize the narrative parts of the oration. Finally, the complicated style, not only because it contains elaborate sentences called periods but also because the total expression has the period's shape and complexity, is also known as the periodic style. T o understand the nature of this shape and complexity one needs to understand the period itself. 2. The Period and Its Basic Parts Despite some differences of opinion, ancient rhetoricians generally agree that the expressive structure known as the period possesses four characteristics. The first is length, as measured by the number of words that the period contains. Although it can be quite small, the period is the largest unit of expression within a composition; and it is usually thought of as elaborate and lengthy. Certain rhetoricians limit its size to the number of words that can be uttered in a single breath or to the degree of complexity that the audience can grasp; but to modern readers, at least, some of the most famous periods in

152

GALEN O. ROYVE

ancient prose seem to exceed these limitsfor examples, the opening statement of Demosthenes' On the Crown or of Cicero's For Archias. The second characteristic is complexity, usually achieved through various types of hypotaxis, such as causal, relative, or conditional clauses. T h e subordination can develop as far as the third or fourth degree. T h e third characteristic is expressed by the term itself. "Period", in Greek, means "coming around in a circuit" or "coming around to the starting point". The period evokes the image of a circular path because the ideas presented at its beginning are only completely understood at the end, when they have been integrated with each other into one conclusive context, as in Quintilian's (Inst. 9:4:19) term, oratio vincta atque contexta. The ancient critic Demetrius (.Eloc. 2:29) compares the speaker of a period to a runner in a stadium, who understands that he will return whence he has started. The idea of the circle also suggests the tension, a kind of sensus suspensio, that develops between the introduction of the incomplete thoughts at the beginning and their integration and completion at the end, much like the protasis and apodosis of a conditional sentence. The circle connotes the idea of self-containment and independence from timeridden and linear developments which continue without end. It is thus that the complicated, or periodic, style has its reason for being and distinguishes itself from the running style of narrative. Rhythm, the fourth characteristic of the periodic style, will receive detailed attention below. T h e period consists of two subordinate partsthe colon (/ membrum) and the comma (/caesum or incisum). Although some rhetoricians recognize only the colon and others give conflicting definitions for either of the two parts, one can conceive of their relationship in terms of degree of subordination, relative length, and completeness of thought within an elaborate period. Regarding the first, as the colon is subordinate to the period, so the comma is subordinate to the colon. Consequendy, the colon is the longer of the two and comes closer to conveying a complete thought. Demetrius (Eloc. 2:2) illustrates the relationship of the colon to the period by comparing it to the relationship of the finger to the hand. Presumably one may extrapolate by comparing the comma to a section or joint of a finger. T o establish other than these relative criteria seems to encounter disagreement or inconsistency. Qpintilian (Inst. 9:4:123) believes that the colon can be further distinguished from the comma by having a rhythmical close (clausula); however, this criterion does

STYLE

153

not square with every known definition of the colon and with every prose author's use of rhythm. 3. The Sequence of Words Three major considerations determine the sequence of words in compositionorder (ordo), juncture (iunctura), and rhythm (numerus). T h e first, order, is of two kindsnatural and correct. Natural order is that which nature or convention seems to dictate, such as spring before summer or men before women. Also regarded as a natural order is the modus per incrementa, or law of growing members, which places the shortest of coordinate words or clauses first, followed by successively longer ones. The same law of growth applies to ideas of strength or importance. A passage from Cicero (Phil. 2:25:63), tu istis faucibus, istis latenbus, ista gladiatoria totius corporis firmitate ("you, with that jaw of yours, that chest, that gladiator's strength of your whole body"), illustrates both aspects of the modus per incrementa. Correct order, on the other hand, assumes that various parts of speech have certain specified positions within a sentence. In Latin, for example, the position of the verb at the end of the sentence has, for some practitioners, the force of a grammatical rule. Hence to place the verb anywhere except at the end of the sentence violates the correct order. The second consideration, juncture, concerns the effect that words have upon each other by contact. Several successive words of the same part of speech can seem tedious to the listener. Juncture can detrimentally affect the sound of words in succession by unintentionally producing offensive meanings and thus become the vice known as cacemphaton (). It can also produce unpleasant sounds, such as in structura aspera, a harsh sounding combination of consonants, or in structura hiulca, the gaping of the mouth in hiatus when a word ending in a vowel precedes a word beginning in a vowel. The orator Isocrates, for example, is famous for his avoidance of hiatus. Finally, the speaker must be constandy alert to the effect that combining words has upon the rhythm of his composition. A succession of several monosyllabic words or of too many short or long syllables disrupts the desired rhythmic flow. T h e orator Demosthenes rarely allows more than two short syllables to sound in succession.

154 4. Prose Rhythm (Numerus)

GALEN O. ROYVE

Although one usually associates the study of rhythm with poetry rather than with prose, rhythm is an essential property of all verbal expression; and even in casual conversation the speaker's choice of words will sometimes depend upon which combination produces the most satisfactory alternation of short and long sounds. Several of the greatest practitioners of prose, especially among the orators, imposed upon their compositions certain rhythmical constraints, which subsequendy were observed and discussed by ancient critics, beginning with the sophist Thrasymachus in the late fifth century BC. Even so, there is a clear distinction to be made between the use of rhythm in poetry and that in prose. While both forms accept the "foot" as the basic rhythmic unit, poetry imposes upon the entire composition a uniform arrangement of certain feet, which is called meter. Prose, as a rule, reveals no similarly consistent and pervasive arrangement of feet. Instead, it will be found to employ short combinations of feet at important points within a single period. By far the most important of these points is the period's end, or clausula, since certain rhythms reinforce the sense of ending or completion in the meaning. Some rhetoricians also advocate the use of combinations of feet at the beginning of the period and at the ends (clausulae) of cola, although of a different kind than the ones ending a period.7 In selecting rhythms prose artists follow three rules. First, the end of a period must not sound, rhythmically, like the end of a poetic verse; however, it may sound like the beginning of a poetic verse. Secondly, there must be a variety of long and short syllables and not an excess of either kind in any clausula; and the rhythmical patterns of successive clausulae must vary. Thirdly, and finally, although there must not be an excess of either long or short sounds in any clausula, the long sounds will outnumber the short sounds in order to achieve a braking effect on the momentum of the period.

IV.

VIRTUE 4:

PROPRIETY

Propriety, the fourth and final stylistic virtue, is achieved when all the parts of an oration harmoniously merge into one organic whole
1

Lausberg, Handbuch, I, pp. 491-503, supplies an exhaustive list of clausulae. See

STYLE

155

and the whole exacdy fits the occasion. Defined in this way, propriety encompasses the entirety of ancient rhetoric and, as a stylistic virtue, overlaps the three previous virtues of correctness, clarity, and ornament. In their comments about propriety the rhetoricians discuss not so much the means to achieve the virtue as the vices to be avoided in its pursuit. The virtue of correctness, for example, is achieved through the avoidance of the vices of barbarisms and solecisms; and the virtue of clarity results from the absence of such vices as jargon, hyperbaton, meiosis, and pleonasm. Several of these vices, the absence of which constitutes propriety, have already been described; however, three additional stylisdc vices deserve mendon. T h e first, amphibolia (), is a type of obscurity, created by the combination of words, that presents the listener with a choice of two different meanings, for example, certum est Antonium praecedere eloquentia Crasstim, in which either Antonium or Crassum could be the subject of the infinidve. Secondly, kakozelia () is a kind of stylistic overkill, any affectatious use of stylistic ornament. Finally, psychron (), "frigidity", occurs as the obviously inappropriate disparity between the language selected and the idea it was meant to express or as a mismatch between language and literary genreusing the words of comedy, for example, in a tragedy. Somewhat related to propriety is the discussion of kinds of style (genera dicendi), which proceeds from the perception that different speakers, occasions, types of speeches, and parts within a speech, require different kinds (genera or ) or levels of stylistic intensity. Ancient rhetoricians and critics generally agree on three such kinds or levels, the plain ( , genus subtile), the medium or flowery ( , ; genus medium, floridum), and the grand ( , genus grande atque robustum); however, one of the leading proponents of this approach, Demetrius, or the author of On Style (Eloc), advocates fourthe plain (), the grand (), the elegant (), and the forceful (). Whether three or four in number, the levels are variously discussed by various rhetoricians according to such criteria as (1) the subject to be addressed, (2) the speaker's goal in addressing the subject, (3) the peculiar qualities or virtues contributed by each, (4) the amount of tropes or metaphors to be employed, (5) the models or examples
also E. Siebenborn, "Herkunft und Entwicklung des Terminus Periodos", Historiographia Linguistica 13 (1986), pp. 403-23.

156

GALEN O. ROYVE

(whether of speeches or orators), (6) the range of variety permitted, and (7) the defects or vices to which each level is susceptible. Thus, for example, the plain style would be appropriate to (a) narrative or proof, (b) teaching or demonstrating, (c) a respectful and disinterested demeanor, (d) avoidance of metaphors or highly figurative expression, (e) the speech of Menelaus in the Iliad (3:21415) or Cicero's For Legaus-, (f) it would not be uniformly plain but allow a selecdve use of ornament, and (g) it is susceptible to the vice of aridity. One could almost extrapolate from this example the remaining two or three levels, since they simply represent degrees of stylistic intensity. In fact, however, the kinds or levels of style constitute not so much a doctrine of rhetoric as a convenient means of comparing styles.8 Finally, another means of describing styles deserves brief mention the dichotomy of Atticism versus Asianism. Actually more than a dichotomy, Atticism versus Asianism stands for a controversy that began in the first century BC, when certain Greek orators appeared to have departed from the purity of diction and style that prevailed in the glorious period of Attic oratory, the fourth century. These orators were called Asianists, because orators of Asia Minor seemed especially decadent in their use of the Greek language. The term became popular in Rome to distinguish the purist users of Latin (Atticists) from those who seemed to have corrupted it in certain ways (Asianists). Although usually the Atticist label connoted approval, it occasionally assumed a pejorative connotation for styles that seemed excessively pure and traditional. Asianism, on the other hand, was not a consistendy negative term, especially if the Asianist, like Cicero's worthy adversary Hortensius, enjoyed success. It is difficult to develop a substantial list of criteria for either style. The chief distinctions tend to be those of purity in diction and conservatism in ornament in Atticism versus their opposites in Asianism. 9

See also C. Milovanovic-Barham, "Three Levels of Style in Augustine of Hippo and Gregory of Nazianzus", Rhetorica 11 (1993), pp. 1-25. 9 Norden, Antike Kunstprosa, I, p. 126, presents a detailed description of Asianism. See also U. Von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, "Asianismus und Attizismus", Hermes 35 (1900), pp. Iff.

STYLE

157

V.

CONCLUSION

Although the theory of style, as it was developed and transmitted by sophists, philosophers, rhetoricians, and critics over several centuries, may seem to our age somewhat limited in insights, it has nevertheless proved to be indispensable to any discussion about verbal expression in modern times. Classical rhetoric has supplied the nomenclature that has made it possible to describe the formal characteristics of verbal expression, and it has established the four virtuescorrectness, clarity, ornament, and proprietywhich after 2,500 years remain the valid criteria of any style.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bultmann, R., Der Stil der Paulinischen Predigt und die kynisch-stoische Diatribe (Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1910). Kennedy, G., The Art of Persuasion in Greece (London: Roudedge and Kegan Paul, 1963). , Classical Rhetoric and Its Christian and Secular Tradition from Ancient to Modern Times (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1980). Lausberg, H., Handbuch der literarischen Rhetorik (2 vols.; Munich: Hueber, 1960). Martin, J., Antike Rhetorik (Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft, 2:3; Munich: Beck, 1974). Norden, E., Die antike Kunstprosa (2 vols.; Berlin: Teubner, 1909; Nachtrage, 1915). Radermacher, L., Artium scriptores (sterreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften (philosophisch-historische Klasse) Sitzungsberichte, 227; 3rd edn.; Vienna: Rudolf M. Rohrer, 1951). Spengel, L. (ed.), Rhetores Grata (3 vols.; Leipzig: Teubner, 1853-56). Weiss, J., Beitrge zur paulinischen Rhetorik (Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1897).

CHAPTER 6

DELIVERY AND M E M O R Y Thomas H. Olbricht


Peppcrdine University, California, USA

According to the Rhetorica ad Herennium, published about 80 BC, the five parts of rhetoric are: invention, arrangement, style, memory, and delivery.1 Aristode in The Rhetoric discussed the first three, but focused on invention. "There are three things which require special attention in regard to speech: first, the sources of proofs, secondly, style; and thirdly, the arrangement of the parts of the speech." 2 He mentioned delivery briefly in book 3 in the section on style. O n the other parts he recognized predecessors, but in regard to delivery he wrote that it "is of the greatest importance, but has not yet been treated by anyone". 3 A contemporary of Aristotle, Theophrastus, wrote a significant treatise which is no longer extant. Concerning the emergence of the five part canon of rhetoric, Harry Caplan wrote,
T h e pre-Aristotelian rhetoric, represented by the Rhet. ad Alexandrian, treated the first three (without classifying them); Aristotle would add Delivery . . . , and his pupil Theophrastus did so. When precisely in the Hellenistic period Memory was added as a fifth division by the Rhodian or the Pergamene school, we do not know. 4

Aristode believed that both poetry and rhetoric are concerned with delivery, implying that both were to be presented orally. He focused first on voice, pointing out that by the emotion in the voice different

Rhet. ad Ha. 1:3. Though the Rhetorica ad Herennium placed memory before delivery, I will follow the now traditional order. 2 Arist. Rh. 3:1. This and subsequent translations are from J. H. Freese, Aristotle, The Art of Rhetoru (LCL; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1959), p. 345. 3 Arist. Rh. 3:3. He only discussed delivery for about a page and a half, sections 47. See R. L. Enos, Greek Rhetoric before Aristotle (Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press, 1993) and T. Cole, The Origins of Rhetoric in Ancient Greece (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1991). 4 H. Caplan, Rhetorica Ad Herennium (LCL; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1954), p. 6.

160

THOMAS H. OLBRICHT

moods can be set.5 The three voice qualities are volume, harmony, and rhythm. He designated as "vulgar" concern for delivery, no doubt thereby disclosing the importance he attached to it.6 But since delivery carries the day in persuasion, attention must be directed to it. He was content, however, to let the actors spell out specific guidelines. He declared that written composition was the most precise. "The epideictic style is especially suited to written compositions, for its function is reading; and next to it comes the forensic style."7 The public debates required a different approach. These debates may make a great impression orally, but sound silly when read. They contain asyndeta and frequent word repetition. 8 Since New Testament episdes were written to be read aloud to the assembled believers, it may be that their style was more that of public debate rather than of the precision demanded of the law court and on ceremonial occasions. T h e next major work on rhetoric is the Rhetorica ad Herennium. Throughout medieval times the Rhetorica ad Herennium was attributed to Cicero, but now it is commonly believed to be by a contemporary of Cicero. 9 While many rhetorical works were written by the Greeks after Aristode, few have survived. One manner of assessing the period is through the Rhetorica ad Herennium. According to Kennedy, ". . . it is exceedingly helpful in gaining a general notion of developments in the two hundred and fifty years after Aristotle's Rhetoric".10 Concerning the functions of memory and delivery, the author of Rhetorica ad Herennium stated, "Memory is the firm retention in the mind of the matter, word and arrangement. Delivery is the graceful regulation of voice, countenance, and gesture."" T h e author of the Rhetorica ad Herennium despaired as to whether he could adequately set out the rules for delivery, concluding that they were better taught by actual demonstration than by verbal
Arist. Rh. 3:4. Aristotle, On Rhetoric: A Theory of Civic Discourse (trans. G. A. Kennedy; New York: Oxford University Press, 1991). 6 Arist. Rh. 3:5. 7 Arist. Rh. 3:12:6. 8 Arist. Rh. 3:12:3. See also R. Nadeau, "Delivery in Ancient Times", Quarterly Journal of Speech 50 (1964), pp. 54, 55; and R. P. Sonkowsky, "An Aspect of Delivery in Ancient Rhetorical Thought", TAPA 90 (1959), pp. 256-74. Reprinted in Aristotle: The Classical Heritage of Rhetoric (ed. . V. Erickson; Metuchen: Scarecrow Press, 1974), pp. 251-66. 9 Caplan, Rhetorica Ad Herennium, pp. viii-xiv. 10 G. A. Kennedy, The Art of Persuasion in Greece (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1963), p. 264. 11 Rhet. ad Her. 1:3.
5

DELIVERY AND MEMORY

161

description. But since no one had elaborated on the subject, he set out to construct a new perspective. He divided delivery into voice quality and physical movement. 12 He believed that superior vocal technique gave attention to volume, stability, and flexibility. In addition, the speaker needed to vary the voice at the beginning and end of each speech in a manner compatible with the differing kinds of material. For example, when narrating, the proper approach is "the Narrative Conversational Tone":
. . . varied intonations are necessary, so that we seem to recount everything just as it took place. Our delivery will be somewhat rapid w h e n we narrate what we wish to show was done vigorously, and it will be slower when we narrate something else done in leisurely fashion. 13

In addition, the author depicted ways of employing gestures so as to respond to the moods and ideas expressed. "For the Pathetic Tone of Amplification, one ought to slap one's thigh and beat one's head, and sometimes to use a calm and uniform gesticulation and a sad and disturbed expression." 14 T h e outcome of these variations should be that the technique not call attention to itself, but to the ideas and emotions. "Good delivery ensures that what the orator is saying seems to come from his heart." It is in regard to memory that the Rhetorica ad Herennium made a unique contribution. 15 It is not clear whether the author's ideas are his own or whether he borrowed them from earlier rhetoricians. Nevertheless, he was the first to put them down in a manuscript which is still extant. Memory, the author argued, consisted of an artificial quality or came entirely from nature. T h e artificial memory can be enhanced through the employment of backgrounds and images. In order to remember a series of items they should be set in a vivid, uncluttered background. Order was important, but good memory did not require that items be recalled only first to last or from front to
Rhet. ad Her. 3:20. On this rhetoric see J. Martin, Antike Rhetorik (Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft; Munich: Beck, 1974), vol. II; T. M. Conley, Rhetoric in the European Tradition (New York: Longman, 1990), pp. 29-50. 13 Rhet. ad Her. 3:24. 14 Rhet. ad Her. 3:27. 15 G. B. Mathews, "Augustine on Speaking from Memory", American Philosophical Quarterly 2 (1965), pp. 157-60; W. W. Meissner, "A Historical Note on Retention", Journal of Germanic Philology 59 (1958), pp. 229-36; D. E. Hargis, "Memory in Rhetoric", Southern Speech Communication Journal 17 (1951), pp. 114-24; W. E. Hoogestraat, "Memory: The Lost Canon?", Quarterly Journal of Speech 46 (1960), pp. 141-47; F. A. Yates, The Art of Memory (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1966).
12

162

THOMAS H. OLBRICHT

back. 16 A good memory scheme should include the recall of items at will regardless of order. T h e images employed should be correlative to the items. Though certain rhetoricians highlighted a series of images so as to recall the important words, he felt a "dictionary of images" too complex to be helpful. He argued against the position that words themselves were to be memorized. He believed that the images selected should aid the natural memory with the result that, "art will supplement nature". 17 Cicero's earliest work on rhetoric, written about 87 BC, and therefore contemporary with the Rhetorica ad Herennium was De inventione.'8 In this work Cicero defined memory and delivery, but offered little more. "Memory is the firm mental grasp of matter and words. Delivery is the control of voice and body in a manner suitable to the dignity of the subject matter and the style."19 It is commonly presumed that Cicero intended to carry this work through the five canons, but only completed a discussion of invention. In a later work, Partitiones oratoria, which Cicero prepared for his son about 45 BC, he expanded delivery and memory in summary fashion. 20 It was in De oratore, commonly recognized as Cicero's finest statement on rhetoric, that his detailed comments were set out, but even then they were not as extensive as in the Rhetorica ad Herennium.2I Cicero reported that he finished De oratore in 55 BC. Manuscripts were available a year or two later. Cicero highlighted the importance of delivery, as did his predecessors, but he decried the manner in which instruction on the item had been taken over by the actors. He argued that "reality beats imitation in everything". 22 According to Cicero the thoughts of the speaker are conveyed through the words, but the emotions are con-

Rhet. ad Her. 3:30. Rhet. ad Her. 3:34. See G. A. Kennedy, The Art of Rhetoric in the Roman World (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1972), pp. 123-26. 18 My references are to Cicero De Inventione (trans. H. M. Hubbell; LCL; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1949). For bibliography on Cicero's rhetorical works see A. Douglas, "The Intellectual Background of Cicero's Rhetorica", ANRW (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1973). 19 Cic. Inv. 1:9. 20 Cic. Part. 25, 26. The work was to be similar to the ancient handbooks for school boys. 21 My comments refer to Cicero, De Oratore (trans. E. W. Sutton and H. Rackham; LCL; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1967). In addition to the documents considered here Cicero also discussed delivery in Brut. 8:34, 17:55, 37:142, and 80:278; Or. 17:55-18:60; and Off. 1:37, 37:133. 22 Cic. De or. 3:215.
17

16

DELIVERY AND MEMORY

163

veyed through delivery. The guidelines for delivery therefore focused on exhibiting the various emotions: For delivery is wholly the concern of the feelings, and these are mirrored by the face and the body capable of producing as many indications and variations as there are emotions, and there is nobody who can produce the same effect with the eyes shut.23 T h e voice is the most important aspect of delivery. T h e voice must center upon the natural level, and constantly engage in alternation, variadon and change. 24 Cicero did not offer specific instructions for the different genre of speeches as did the Rhetoma ad Herennium. Cicero's comments on memory are much like those of the Rhetorica ad Herennium, but not as lengthy. He reported that Simonides of Ceos invented the science of mnemonics. 25 Cicero declared that memory consisted of establishing a background and employing images. He explained "background" in reporting a story in which Simonides was dining at the house of Scopas in Thessaly. As they finished eadng, two messengers appeared at the door, urgently requesting that Simonides come out so they could speak with him. As soon as he exited the roof collapsed crushing Scopas along with his relatives. Later when friends arrived to dig them out they could not identify specific bodies as the result of the damage: Simonides was enabled by his recollection of the place in which each of them had been reclining at table to identify them for separate interment; and that this circumstance suggested to him the discovery of the truth that the best aid to clearness of memory consists in orderly arrangement. He inferred that persons desiring to train this faculty must select localities and form mental images of the facts they wish to remember and store those images in the localities. . . .26 Cicero believed that the chief origin of memory was nature, but he declared that in employing a backdrop upon which images were located, even the most dull-witted could profit. He believed that the senses provided the most vivid pictures and among these the keenest
23 Cic. De or. 3:221. On details see also, "For nature has assigned to every emotion a particular look and tone of voice and bearing of its own; and the whole of a person's frame and every look on his face and utterance of his voice are like the strings of a harp, and sound according as they are struck by each successive emotion" (3:216). 24 Cic. De or. 3:225-27. 25 Cic. De or. 2:351. 26 Cic. De or. 2:353, 354.

164

THOMAS H. OLBRICHT

was sight. What is heard is reinforced when accompanied by a visual background. He maintained that memorizing words was less essential but nevertheless of value. Facility at memory may be limited in the normal population but certain people possess superhuman powers in remembering words. 27 Sonkowsky argued that pre-planning of delivery and memory were for Cicero a part of the speaker's advanced preparation, and were endemically as much a part of the oration in both anticipation and presentation as the words of the speech. 28 T h e most comprehensive work on rhetoric from the ancient world was the Institutio oratoria of Quintilian, written about AD 95.29 In the view of Conley, "The Institutes... is one of the fullest records of rhetorical lore in the Isocratean-Ciceronian tradition ever written, as it covers in 12 books a program of education from the cradle to the grave". 30 Clearly Quintilian presented the most extended analysis on delivery and memory extant. T h e perspectives of Quintilian on delivery are much the same as those of Cicero, but he elaborated much more on the rules. He did so because of his commitment that " . . . we cannot hope to attain perfection unless nature is assisted by study".31 He concluded, however, that nature was the most influential. He was careful to distinguish the teaching of delivery by the rhetor, from that of those who trained actors. He argued that outstanding delivery carried the day over superior ideas. Quintilian developed his thoughts on delivery in two parts, the first regarding the voice and the second, the body or gestures. The voice must have both the proper quantity and quality.32 Keeping the superior voice in form requires speaking daily. Utterances are to be "fluent, clear, pleasant and 'urbane'". 3 3 T h e voice is to vary according to the subjects at hand. Quintilian was more detailed and explicit in these regards than his predecessors. O n gestures and bodily approaches he provided much additional expansion. He offered intricate instruction
27

Cic. De or. 2:357-60. Sonkowsky, "An Aspect of Delivery", 259-61. 29 G. A. Kennedy, Quintilian (New York: Twayne, 1969); U. Maier-Eichhorn, Die Gestikulation in Quintilians Rhetorik (Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 1989). 30 Conley, Rhetoric in the European Tradition, p. 38. 31 Quint. Inst. 11:3:4. Quoted from The Institutio Oratoria of Quintilian (trans. H. E. Buder; LCL; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1936), IV, p. 249. 32 Inst. 11:3:15. 33 Inst. 11:3:30.
28

DELIVERY AND MEMORY

165

on movements of the head, the eyebrows, the hands, and the clothes worn. The following example exhibits the specificity:
T h e following gesture is admirably adapted to accompany modest language: the thumb and the next three fingers are gendy converged to a point and the hand is carried to the neighborhood of the mouth or chest, then relaxed palm downwards and slightly advanced. 3 4

Bodily motion is to vary according to the type of speech, as well as to the different parts within the speech.
Consequently, in panegyric, funeral orations excepted, in returning thanks, exhortations and the like, the delivery must be luxuriant, magnificent, and grand. O n the other hand, in funeral or consolatory speeches, together with most of those in defence of accused persons, the delivery will be melancholy and subdued. W h e n we speak in the senate, it will be authoritative, when we address the people, dignified, and when we are pleading in private cases, restrained. 35

Delivery also required adaptation to the personality of the speaker. Quintilian in effect agreed with the statement that the rule for effective speaking is that there are no rules. In other words Quintilian, as well as the rest of the ancient rhetoricians, held that rules are always situational. 36 Based on their perspective it seems dangerous to be adamant in rhetorical criticism as to the rules that appertain to a specific text. Inasmuch as biblical critics form conclusions based upon alleged digressions in biblical documents, it seems appropriate to set forth Quintilian's observations:
Digresons, as a rule are characterized by gentleness, calm and placidity, as, for example, in Cicero's description of the Rape of Proserpine, his picture of Sicily, or his panegyric of Pompey. For naturally passages which deal with subjects lying outside the main question in dispute demand a less combative tone. 37

While Quintilian's depiction may not hold true in every case, his criterion should at least be considered in making distinctions in regard to digressions. Quintilian's observations on memory advance little beyond Cicero, though he provides more detail. He tells the story of Simonides in
34 35 36 37

Inst. Inst. Inst. Inst.

11:3:96. 11:3:153. 11:3:161-84. 11:3:164.

166

THOMAS H. OLBRICHT

fuller form. He pointed out that Plato decried the advent of writing on the grounds that memory was thereby set aside, a disaster especially to speakers, inasmuch as in their case an outstanding memory is a great asset.38 He too argued for placing ideas in a spatial setting, for example, the various rooms of a house, so as to keep them sorted out and in order. 39 He also recommended that it is better to read aloud the material to be memorized:
T h e question has been raised as to whether we should learn by heart in silence; it would be best to do so, save for the fact that under such circumstances the mind is apt to become indolent, with the result that other thoughts break in. For this reason the mind should be kept alert by the sound of the voice, so that the memory may derive assistance from the double effort of speaking and listening. 40

This observation, it seems, implies that one might read silendy, which sheds light on the argument of some, that reading was always aloud even as late as the time of Augustine. 41 Most ancient rhetoricians recommended that as the orator prepared a speech he should at the same time devise appropriate vocal and physical responses. Likewise, as the speech is prepared, attention should be given to images that not only help the speaker recall his train of thought, but in addition, help the audience retain the same. A differendy nuanced exegesis might accrue from contemplating delivery and memory. 42 The materials in the New Testament were no doubt written in anticipation that they would be read aloud. What if at some stage in trying to understand the text the critic read aloud while at the same time visualizing appropriate vocal and physical responses to the text? Then the exegete might go through the text once again, seeking depictions which highlighted local color and image. According to the Rhetorica ad Herennium, memory assisted both the author and the audience. Through incorporation of this added dimension in exegesis, new insights might accrue in respect to continuities and nuances.
Inst. 11:2:9. Inst. 11:2:20-26. 40 Inst. 11:2:33. 41 On this discussion see P. Achtemeier, "Omen verbum sonat: The New Testament and the Oral Environment", JBL 109 (1990), pp. 3-27; R.J. Starr, "Reading Aloud: Lectores and Rome Reading", CJ 86 (1991), pp. 337-43; and F. D. Gilliard, "More Silent Reading in Antiquity: Non Omne Verbum Sonat", JBL (1993), pp. 689-94. 42 On the manner in which memory theories may have influenced ancient texts see W. H. Kelber, The Oral and the Written Gospel (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983), and especially his bibliography, pp. 227-47.
39 38

DELIVERY AND MEMORY

167

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Achtemeier, P., "Omen verbum sonat: The New Testament and the Oral Environment", JBL 109 (1990), pp. 3-27. Cole, T., The Origins of Rhetoric in Ancient Greece (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1991). Conley, T. M., Rhetoric in the European Tradition (New York: Longman, 1990). Enos, R. L., Greek Rhetoric before Aristotle (Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press, 1993). Gilliard, F. D., "More Silent Reading in Antiquity: Non Omne Verbum Sonat', JBL 112 (1993), pp. 689-94. Hargis, D.E., "Memory in Rhetoric", SSCJ 17 (1951), pp. 114-24. Hoogestraat, W. E., "Memory: The Lost Canon?", Quarterly Journal of Speech 46 (1960), pp. 141-47. Kelber, W. H., The Oral and the Written Gospel (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983). Kennedy, G. ., The Art of Persuasion in Greece (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1963). , The Art of Rhetoric in the Roman World 300 BC-AD 300 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1972). , Quintilian (New York: Twayne, 1969). Maier-Eichhorn, U , Die Gestikulation in Quintilians Rhetorik (Frankfurt: Lang, 1989). Martin, J., Antike Rhetorik (Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft; Munich: Beck, 1974). Mathews, G. B., "Augustine on Speaking from Memory", APQ_ 2 (1965), pp. 157-60. Meissner, W. W., "A Historical Note on Retention", Journal of Germanic Philology 59 (1958), pp. 229-36. Nadeau, R., "Delivery in Ancient Time", Quarterly Journal of Speech 50 (1964), pp. 54-55. Sonkowsky, R. P., "An Aspect of Delivery in Ancient Rhetorical Thought", 90 (1959), pp. 256-74. Starr, R.J., "Reading Aloud: Lectores and Rome Reading", CJ 86 (1991), pp. 337 43. Yates, F. ., The Art of Memory (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1966).

P A R T II

R H E T O R I C IN P R A C T I C E

CHAPTER 7

T H E EPISTLE Jeffrey T. Reed


Issaquah, Washington, USA

I.

INTRODUCTION

Episdes1 and rhetorical speeches were two of the most significant genres of communication during the classical and Hellenistic eras. Despite their importance, they served somewhat different purposes. Rhetorical speeches were primarily intended for the law courts and public arena, 2 typically with the audience in full view of the speaker and with some persuasive goal in mind. Letters primarily served the task of bridging spatial distance separating communicants, originating in administrative practices but soon finding a place in personal correspondence. The resulting multi-functional nature of letters begs the question whether rhetorical practices were employed in letter writinga debate taken up by the Ciceronians and humanists during the medieval era. 3 T h e very flexibility of the epistolary genre allowed for the possibility of rhetorical influence. But did this actually occur, either in theory or in practice? The following study suggests ways in which rhetoric was and was not employed in letter writing, citing evidence from the rhetorical and epistolary theorists 4 and actual letters. The various "species" as well as three of the five categories of rhetorical practice (inventio, dispositio, elocutio) provide a
1 No semantic distinction between "epise" and "letter" is intended in this study. Greek terminology made no such distinction; so M. L. Stirewalt, Studies in Ancient Greek Epistolography (SBLRBS, 27; Adanta: Scholars Press, 1993), p. 87. 2 D.J. Ochs, "Cicero's Rhetorical Theory", in A Synoptic History of Classical Rhetoric (ed. J.J. Murphy; Davis, CA: Hermagoras Press, 1983), p. 96. 3 J. R. Henderson, "Erasmus on the Art of Letter-Writing", in Renaissance Eloquence: Studies in the Theory and Practice of Renaissance Rhetoric (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1983), pp. 331-55. 4 By "epistolary theorist" I include the authors of the epistolary handbooks as well as those learned letter writers who make less systematic (sometimes casual) comments about letter writing.

172

JEFFREY T. REED

useful outline for the investigation.5 Finally, attention is given to actual letters which apparently employ a rhetorical structure.

II.

R H E T O R I C A L T Y P E S (SPECIES) IN EPISTLES

Oral and literary genres are functional, that is, they develop conventional forms and patterns of language appropriate to the basic situational function they serve. Ancient rhetorical speecha genre of argumentationwas typically divided into three sub-genres (or registers): judicial, deliberative, and epideictic. In general, judicial speech operated in the courtroom, deliberative speech in the political assembly, and epideictic speech in the public arena (frequently at ceremonial occasions). "Did something happen or not?" was an essential question scrutinized by judicial speech, often being answered with physical evidence. "Is it more beneficial to do this or that?" was the question explored by deliberative speech. "Should something be praised or blamed?" was the question discussed by epideictic speech. Are these three types of spoken genres found in ancient episdes? In order to probe this question, it is first necessary to discuss ancient attempts to classify various types of letters. In contrast to the oral, face-to-face context of most ancient rhetoric,6 the epistolary genre was occasioned by situations where one or more individuals, spatially separated, wished to communicate. 7 Writing to C. Scribonius Curio in 53 BC, Cicero describes this essential function of letters:
5 Memory (memoria) and delivery (pronuntiatio) had little, if any, relevance for letter writing; cf. De componendis et omandis epistolis of Giovanni Sulpizio of Veroli (Rome, 1491), cited by Henderson, "Erasmus", p. 337. 6 Speech was the primary medium of rhetoric (i.e. primary rhetoric; G. A. Kennedy, Classical Rhetoric and Its Christian and Secular TraditionfromAncient to Modem Times [Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1980], pp. 4-5); rhetoric was "the art of the rhetor,the speaker's (the public speaker's) art" (W. Rhys Roberts, Greek Rhetoric and Literary Criticism [New York: Longmans, 1928], p. 22). Nonetheless, other written mediums were influenced by rhetorical principles: e.g. "Plutarch's Lives and Moralia ... the commentaries of Philo of Alexandria, the discourses of Dio Chrysostom, and the letters of Seneca"; cf. . Mack, Rhetoric and the New Testament (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg-Fortress, 1990), p. 30. Cicero and Seneca note the dialogical nature of letter writing (Cic. Att. 8:14:1; 9:10:1; 12:53; Sen. Ep. 75:1). These are secondary mediums of classical rhetoric, however, being mosdy influenced by stylistic choices (Kennedy, Classical Rhetoric, p. 5). 7 Cf. the epistolary definition of J. L. White, "The Greek Documentary Letter Tradition Third Century BC to Third Century AD", Semeia 22 (1981), p. 91. Besides

THE EPISTLE

173

That there are many kinds of letters you are well aware; there is one kind, however, about which there can be no mistakefor indeed letter writing was invented just in order that we might inform those at a distance if there were anything which it was important for them or for ourselves that they should know (Fam. 2:4:1). Cicero goes on to speak of letters which are "intimate and humorous" and letters which are "austere and serious". 8 He differentiates between public and private letters: "You see, I have one way of writing what I think will be read by those only to whom I address my letter, and another way of writing what I think will be read by many" (Fam. 15:21:4). Elsewhere, Cicero mentions informative letters, domestic letters, letters of commendation, letters of solace, and letters promising assistance (Fam. 2:4:1; 4:13:1; 5:5:1); but his comments are casual and do not reflect an elaborate system. Philostratus (Ep. 2:257:29258:28 [3rd century AD]), although providing only a partial list, mentions letters giving () or requesting () something, agreeing () or disagreeing ( . . . ) on some issue, attacking () someone or defending () the writer, and expressing affection (). In a letter to Gnaeus Pompeius, Dionysius of Halicamassus describes a letter, which he had received from a friend, as . . . "an educated letter". 9 In his categorization of the five characters of rational discourse ( ), Apollonius of Tyana (Ep. 19; 1st century AD) includes the philosopher (), historian (), advocate (), writer of episdes (), and commentator (). The authors of "letter-essays" such as The Martyrdom of Polycarp, 2 Maccabees, and those of Epicurus, Dionysius of Halicamassus, Plutarch, preferred the term rather than to classify their writings.10 The most comprehensive attempts to classify letters are the epistolary handbooks. T h e one falsely attributed to

this primary function, the letter was used for a host of other purposes (e.g. letters of friendship, letters of praise and blame, letters of recommendation, letters of petition, and administrative letters). 8 Cicero's typology conflates one function of the genreviz. to informwith the primary occasion of the genreviz. to bridge the spatial gap between people. Many of his own letters in Epistulae ad Familiares combine the function of conveying political information about himself and/or the recipient in either a formal or an informal manner. 9 W. Rhys Roberts, Dionysius of Halicamassus: The Three literary Letters (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1901), p. 89. 10 Stirewalt, Studies, pp. 18-20, 86.

174

JEFFREY T. REED

Demetrius of Phalerum, (2nd century BC-3rd century AD), details twenty-one types of letters. In addition, the epistolary handbook falsely attributed to Libanius (another edition is attributed to Proclus), (4th century-6th century AD), delineates forty-one types of letters." Each type serves different, although at times overlapping, functions which involve different relationships between the communicants and, thus, require different styles of writing. T h e above abbreviated list of ancient typologies reveals the difficulty of any modern attempt to classify what could and could not constitute the secondary function of a letter. If a text indicates (usually at the beginning) that it is written between two or more spatially separated individuals (real or imaginary), the body of the letter might contain anything. Ancient typologies were practical, that is, they served the needs of professional letter writers. Thus, they were flexible and allowed the individual to handle a variety of situations with a variety of types of letters.12 Therefore, it is not surprising that some of the epistolary types parallel the three sub-genres of rhetoric. Such functional parallels do not necessarily indicate, however, that an author patterned his or her letter after the rhetorical handbooks. Rather, the similarities may simply be due to culturally-shared means of argumentation. In other words, argumentation is universal as well as particular. Groups within the society (e.g. rhetors and philosophers) may have developed and classified ways of "persuading others" to serve their own needs. Thus, fondions of judicial, deliberative, and epideictic "species" of rhetoric would likely have been used in various literary contexts such as the letter. This functional overlap between the rhetorical species and

" For a brief introduction (including dating), texts and translations of the two handbooks as well as other works on epistolary theory see A.J. Malherbe, Ancient Epistolary Theorists (SBLSBS, 19; Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1988); the handbooks were written for advanced epistolary students or more likely professional letter writers (pp. 6~7). The , which originated in Egypt, had only marginal influence on actual letter writing in Egyptthe resemblance may, however, be the influence of letter writing practices on the handbook; cf. C. W. Keyes, "The Greek Letter of Introduction", AJP 56 (1935), p. 44, who says it had "litde influence on Greek letter writing in Egypt" and Malherbe, Epistolary Theorists, p. 4, who notes that "many similarities between it and Egyptian papyrus letters can be identified... but this cannot be taken to prove that this particular manual significandy influenced actual practice". This makes it difficult to draw conclusions from this epistolary handbook about the indirect influence of rhetorical theory on letter writing. 12 Ps.-Demetr. ( ' 1:22-24) notes the flexibility of the epistolary genre and the possibility of further developments to the epistolary typologies.

THE EPISTLE

175

epistolary types is demonstrated in the epistolary theorists. With respect to the possibility of a "judicial letter", perhaps the "accusing" () letter comes nearest, but the parallels may only be functional and there is no mention of a courtroom setting. 13 In rebuttal to the "accusing" letter, someone might employ the "apologetic" () letter to ward off an indictment. 14 Again this type of letter clearly did not replace the courtroom rhetoric nor, more importandy, does this type speak of "inventing" or "ordering" such a letter according to rhetorical conventions. A deliberative type of rhetoric is mentioned in the epistolary theorists. Pseudo-Demetrius speaks of "advisory" () letters, which are used to "impel [someone] to something ( ) or dissuade [someone] from something ( )".15 Pseudo-Libanius categorizes the same type of letter as "paraenetic" (). " T h e paraenetic type of letter is that in which we impel someone by urging him to pursue something or to avoid something. Paraenesis is divided into two parts: encouragement () and dissuasion ().'"6 It is difficult to know if this theorist's terminology has been borrowed directly from the rhetorical handbooks. The divergent language suggests otherwise. Even if it has, the fact remains that nothing else is said about the "rhetorical" nature of such letters. Once again, the parallel between the epistolary types and the rhetorical species may only be functional. Of the three rhetorical subgenres, the epideictic type is most at home among the epistolary theorists.17 Several of Pseudo-Libanius's epistolary types resemble Quintilian's categorization of epideictic rhetoric (Inst. 3:4:3), for example, the "praising" () and "blaming" () letters. In

13 Ps.-Demetr. ' 17. Cf. the "blaming" () letter in Ps.Lib. 6 and the "counter-accusing" () letter in 22. 14 Ps.-Demetr. ' 18. 15 Ps.-Demetr. ' 11. 16 Ps.-Lib. 5. The author does attempt to differentiate the paraenetic from the advisory type of letter, stating that the latter assumes a counter-argument (i.e. someone who needs to be persuaded) whereas the former does not. Both types of letters, nonetheless, parallel deliberative rhetoric in that they speak of what is beneficial and harmful. 17 Cf. S. . Stowers, Letter Writing in Greco-Roman Antiquity (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1986), p. 27. Of the three species of rhetoric, epideictic was most at home in written discourse. "Epideictic oratory, such as that of Isocrates, was coming more and more to be a pamphlet, not a speech; in theme and occasion it had never been so restricted as the other branches of oratory" (Roberts, Greek Rhetoric, p. 55).

176

JEFFREY T. REED

sum, the terminology used by the epistolary theorists suggests some type of relationship with the rhetorical handbooks. Whether the precise nature of this relationship is direct or indirect, it is clear that the epistolary theorists were not limited by the three genera of the rhetorical handbooks. Letter writing demanded a much more flexible typology in order to handle, a wide array of situations. In conclusion, it is reasonable to surmise that ancient letter writers could conceptualize an epistle in terms of "accusation or defense", "expediency or non-expediency", and "praise or blame" without necessarily being limited to the genera of the rhetorical handbooks. 18 Such letters were likely argumentative speech acts practiced in everyday communication. Epideictic was the most suitable of the three to the epistolary genre, but I would concur with J . L. White (but on a broader scale) that "the j u d i c i a l . . . and the deliberative . . . were not the traditions upon which ancient letter writers depended, at least not through the first two or three centuries of the Christian era". 19 A fundamental distinction between the epistolary and rhetorical genera is that the former were relegated to spatially-separated communication, limiting the extent to which they could parallel the typical oral, face-to-face context of judicial, deliberative, and epideictic speech. Some of the epistolary typologies at least functionally parallel the three rhetorical species, yet the epistolary theorists were not bound by a formal "rhetorical" agenda for letter writing.

III.

R H E T O R I C A L INVENTION IN EPISTLES

Rhetorical invention (inventio) concerns the speaker's attempt to select or find () valid arguments to render a thesis plausible.20 This could be accomplished, first of all, by determining the "status" or "issue" to be resolved, asking questions about the fact, definition, and nature of the issue under discussion. Another means of invention was the use of "topoi" (topics) or "commonplaces" both com-

Not until the 16th century did Erasmus categorize letters according to deliberative, demonstrative, and judicial species, adding to this a fourth category, familiare (Henderson, "Erasmus", p. 355). 19 J. L. White, "A Discussion of light from Ancient Letters", Biblical Research Bulletin 32 (1987), p. 52. 20 The author of uses the Greek technical term for inventio in his example of a letter of "inquiry" (82).

18

THE EPISTLE

177

mon (e.g. division, consequence, cause-effect, definition) and special (e.g. customary maxims, proverbs, oracles, citations, figures of speech, and stock metaphors). Did letter writers invent the content and argument of a letter by these means of rhetorical invention? The general principle of rhetorical invention is not limited by the theories of rhetors but is a phenomenon of language use in general. Thus, as with the species of rhetoric treated above, it should be no surprise that epistolary theorists and letter writers discuss how to create epistolary topics. Demetrius (Eloc. 230) notes the existence of topics or "matter" appropriate only for the letter ( ), citing Aristode in support of this: "I have not written to you on this subject, since it was not fitted for a letter" (Fr. 620). He goes on to discuss literary conventions appropriate for letters: proverbs (; Eloc. 232) and logical proofs (; Eloc. 233). In contrast, he states that it is inappropriate to employ clever types of argumentation () in letters: "If anybody might write a skilful argument () or questions of natural history in a letter, he indeed writes, but not a letter" (Eloc. 232). In one of his sample letters, Pseudo-Demetrius ( 4) cites the maxim "Know yourself" ( ). Gregory of Nazianzus approves of the graceful style of letter writing, avoiding the unadorned () style "which allows for no pithy sayings, proverbs or apophthegms, witticisms or enigmas", but he warns against "the undue use of these devices" (Ep. 51:5). He tentatively adheres to the use of tropes (but only if done so sparingly and without seriousness) and to the use of antitheses, parisoses and isocola (Ep. 51:6).21 Pseudo-Libanius explains how topics should be used in letters: "Mentioning works of history () and fables () will bring charm to letters, as will the use of venerable works ( ), well-aimed proverbs ( ), and philosophers' dogmas ( ), but they are not to be used in an argumentative manner" ( 50). Some letter writers speak of the process of inventio involved in composing a letter. Cicero tells of his difficulty in choosing a topic to write about: "I have been asking myself for some time past what I had best write to you; but not only does no definite theme suggest itself, but even the conventional style of letter writing does not appeal
21 Although Gregory of Nazianzus is discussing "style" per se, the elements of style he discusses are part of the inventio process.

178

JEFFREY T. REED

to me" (Fam. 4:13:1); he was looking for a topic appropriate for "these times of ours in its gloom and melancholy". In a letter to Atticus, Cicero finds himself in a similar dilemma: "Though now I rest only so long as I am writing to you or reading your letters, still I am in want of subject matter" (Att. 9:4:1). Cicero realizes that letters need not have one particular subject matter, or any for that matter. Letters written as friendly correspondence reveal this particularly well. "I have begun to write to you something or other without any definite subject, so that I may have a sort of talk with you" (Att. 9:10:1). This "friendly" aspect of the epistolary genre had its own set of topoi (cf. Cicero's "free and easy topics of friendly correspondence" in Att. 9:4:1). H. Koskenniemi detects three special topoi of friendly letters: maintaining friendship (.Philophronesis), bridging the spatial gap through the sender's presence (Parusia), and carrying on a dialogue with the recipient (Homilia).22 Regarding parusia, a function typifying the epistolary genre, he states, "Es wird nmlich als die wichtigste Aufgabe des Briefes angesehen, eine Form eben dieses Zusammenlebens whrend einer Zeit rumlicher Trennung darzustellen, d.h. die zur machen". 23 Other possible topoi of the epistolary genre include health wishes, prayer formulas, disclosure formulas, and closing greetings. These conventions developed apart from rhetorical concerns, but not necessarily without "argumentative" functions. In sum, the epistolary theorists stressed the importance of carefully selecting the topic of one's letter based on the epistolary situation. That is, they show concern that the writer "invent" or compose a letter appropriate for the occasion or issue at hand. This concern at least functionally parallels the process of inventio treated in the rhetorical handbooks. Indeed, the sample letters provided by the epistolary theorists serve as a type of "special topoi" which could be used by professional letter writers to invent their own letters. Nevertheless, the epistolary topoi were not limited by rhetorical concerns, and the relationship between the two genres may be treated in terms of common practices of human communication.

H. Koskenniemi, Studien zur Idee und Phraseologie des griechischen Briefes bis 400 n. Chr. (Annales Academiae Scientarium Fennicae; Helsinki: Akateeminen Kiijakauppa, 1956), pp. 35-46. 23 Koskenniemi, Studien, p. 38.

22

THE EPISTLE

179

IV.

R H E T O R I C A L A R R A N G E M E N T IN EPISTLES

After selecting the type of speech to be delivered, and "inventing" the subject matter, the rhetor proceeded to arrange the material into the best possible order. Rhetorical arrangement (dispositio) often consisted of four sections in the following order: exordium (introduction); narratio (the statement of the facts of the case); confirmatio (proof); and peroratio (conclusion).24 T h e epistolary theorists say nothing about arranging letters according to this standard rhetorical convention. What they do say, instead, conforms to the standard pattern of letter writing. In part, the reason epistolary theorists do not prescribe rhetorical arrangements to epistolary structures is because letters had their own long-established, structural conventions. Therefore, before suggesting any parallels between epistolary structure and rhetorical arrangement, a cursory discussion of epistolary structure is in order. There are three standard conventions found in the majority of letters: opening, body and closing.25 These are best understood as spatial locations in the letter which are filled by epistolary formulas. The body, for example, could be filled with a petition, a marriage contract, or a commendation. T h e opening could include, among other things, a health wish, greeting, or thanksgiving formula. T h e obligatory elements of the opening include the superscription (i.e. from whom the letter is sent; e.g. ) and the adscription (i.e. to whom the letter is sent; e.g. ). Apart from these formulas, other elements used in the opening are discretionary. 26 Even

To these categories, other rhetorical theorists (e.g. the author of Ad Herennium) add the divisio (oudine of the steps in the argument), which follows the narratio, and the confiitatio (refutation of the opposing arguments), which follows the confirmatio. Another common part was the propositio, the essential proposition of the speech. 25 This description of letters is not solely a modern one. The ancients also recognized that certain elements belonged in certain positions of the letter. For example, Seneca recalls the traditional use of the health wish: "The old Romans had a custom which survived even into my lifetime. They would add to the opening words of a letter: 'If you are well, it is well; I also am well'" (Ep. 15:1). Pseudo-Libanius speaks of the proper way to begin a letter: "So-and-so to So-and-so, greeting" ( 51). 26 Two types of letters"Questions to the Oracle" and "Letters of Invitation" often omit the superscription and/or adscription, "since the correspondence was usually local and delivered to the door by a messenger" (J. L. White, "Epistolary Formulas and Cliches in Greek Papyrus Letters", SBLSP 2 [1978], p. 294); see e.g. the invitation in P.Oxy. 1484 (2nd or 3rd century AD): ' ; and the question to the oracle in P.Fay. 133 (58 AD): . In these cases, the lack of the superscription and/or adscription does

24

180

JEFFREY T. REED

the commonly employed salutation (e.g. ) is sometimes omitted from the opening, especially in formal contexts (e.g. pedtions, complaints). With respect to the body, a host of epistolary materials could fill this slot. Nevertheless, the slot had to be filled.27 The common epistolary closing of the letter (e.g. ) is not stricdy obligatory, since it is frequendy absent from letters, especially official and business letters.28 Most letters, however, used various formulas to signal the end of the communicadve process (e.g. closing greetings). J . L. White provides a helpful functional definition of these three sequences in ancient letters. In the opening and closing, "the keeping-in-touch aspect of letter writing (maintenance of contact), which reveals the general character of the correspondents' relationship toward each other, comes to expression". 29 In the body, stock phrases express the circumstances which motivated the message of the letter. The bulk of the body, however, varies according to the epistolary skills and needs of the particular author. Another way of looking at the opening, body, and closing is that the opening establishes who the participants of communicadon are and the nature of their immediate relationship, the body advances the information or requests/ commands which the sender wants to communicate, and the closing signals the end of the communicative process, often involving language that again establishes the immediate relationship between sender and recipient. There is no inherent one-to-one correspondence between the epistolary opening, body, and closing and the exordium, narratio, confirmatio,
not negate the obligatory nature of the formulas; rather, the written formulas would be replaced by oral ones in order to fulfil the obligatory function of identifying the communicants (cf. C.-H. Kim, "The Papyrus Invitation", JBL 94 [1975], p. 397). Nevertheless, omission of the addressee and recipient is rare, and White ("Epistolary Formulas and Cliches", p. 294) righdy notes that "it can be demonstrated in almost every instance, however, that these anomalous forms are the result of the letter being either a first draft or copy". 27 Although White ("Documentary Letter Tradition", p. 92) notes that "the only epistolary element which can not be omitted from a letter is the opening", this is only the case for formulaic elements, not for the spatial locations in the letter. Even "family letters", which White claims "often have no specific body", have communicative elements which fill the position of the body. In other words, there are no letters that simply have a prescript. Instead, every letter contains some communicative element after the prescript. However, what fills this region of the body varies, although patterns exist (e.g. petitions, letters of commendation).
28 F. X.J. Exler, The Form of the Ancient Greek Letter of the Epistolary Papyn (3rd century BC~3rd century AD): A Study in Greek Epistolography (repr. Chicago: Ares, 1976), pp. 69, 71. 29 J. L. White, Light from Ancient Letters (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986), p. 219.

THE EPISTLE

181

and peroratio. In fact, epistolary conventions used in actual letters seem to resist a dispotio classification. If a letter does contain an explicit rhetorical arrangement (e.g. the letters of Demosthenes), then epistolary conventions are at a minimum and are distinct from the four rhetorical parts. Furthermore, epistolary theorists do not speak of epistolary arrangement in rhetorical terms. In , the author first describes the method by which he has constructed his work. He has set out to describe the various "styles" ("ways of writing") of letters and what distinguishes each style from the other. 30 He then provides a sample of each type, demonstrating how each is arranged ( ). Although his term for "arrangement" parallels that of the rhetorical handbooks (, Lat. dispositio), the twenty-one letters exemplified in his epistolary handbook are not arranged according to a rhetorical dispositio. What the author means by arrangement instead has to do with the language and function of each kind of letter, for example, friendly letters are filled with "friendly" language, which appropriately reflect the relationship between the communicants. What the author does not do is construct examples with a four-part rhetorical schema. Regarding epistolary openings and closings, even Julius Victor, who advocates the use of rhetorical convention in letters (specifically, "official" letters), maintains that "the openings and conclusions of letters . . . should be written according to customary practice" (Rh. 27:8-9). He espouses no theory for employing an exordium or peroratio in these parts of the letter. Finally, to speak of the propositio of a letter is dubious since letters often develop more than one "theme"a feature of their "conversational" nature. 31 Despite these differences, certain functional parallels do exist between standard epistolary arrangement and rhetorical arrangement. In the same way that epistolary openings function to expose the general nature of the relationship between the sender and the recipient (be it positive or negative), so also the exordium serves to generate a positive relationship of trust and compliance between the speaker and listener, that is, to build ethos. The same may be said of the epistolary closing and the peroratio. O n e type of letter in particular created

Cicero is apparently familiar with the various classifications of letters, specifically mentioning a "letter of exhortation" which he had previously written (Fam. 4:9:1). 31 An exception to this may be found in several of Pliny's letters (61-112 AD), in which he often uses a standardized opening to state the "subject" of the letter.

30

182

JEFFREY T. REED

ethos, the friendly type ().32 Because the epistolary body was open to various mediums of communication, the possibility always exists for finding a rhetorical arrangement here; nevertheless, it is worth nodng that the theorists do not expound upon a use of dispositio structure in the body of letters. Epistolary closing expressions as "I wrote these things to you . . . " also slightly parallel the recapitulatio function of the peroratio; however, such expressions occur throughout the body of the letter. Finally, there seems to be no functional parallel between the epistolary closing and the enumeratio. In summary, the three standard epistolary components (opening, body, closing) share some similarity with the four principal parts of rhetorical arrangement (exordium, narratio, confirmatio, peroratio). But the slight similarity is only functional, not formal. In other words, there is no inherent formal relationship between the basic theory of epistolary structure and the technical teachings about rhetorical arrangement. T h e similarities may be explained by the fact that language is often used pragmatically in different genres to do similar things. More importandy, the epistolary theorists and letter writers say nothing explicit about structuring letters according to a rhetorical arrangement.

V.

R H E T O R I C A L S T Y L E IN EPISTLES

T h e rhetorician's concern for style (, elocutio) was also the epistolary theorist's concern. 33 This primarily involved questions of grammar, syntax, and choice of words. Clarity, figures of speech, metaphors, periodic and continuous syntax, and citations, to name a few, were also discussed under the rubric of style. The epistolary theorists were aware of rhetorical practices and even debated the use of distinctively rhetorical styles in letters.34 Indeed, epistolary theorists and letter writers show signs of rhetorical influence mosdy in the area of style. For example, although royal letters are largely "uninfluenced by the rhetorical schools", 35 some of them do exhibit features of style

Ps.-Demetr. 1. For Aristotle (Rh. 3:1-12), "style" entailed the "way of expressing" something through the choice of words or arrangement of clauses, in contrast to the "content" of the message. 34 See also the discussion of rhetorical invention above. 35 C. Bradford Welles, Royal Correspondence in the Hellenistic Peno A Study in Greek Epigraphy (repr. Chicago: Ares, 1974), p. 42. Welles goes on to state, "This neglect
33

32

THE EPISTLE

183

characteristic of rhetorical practice (e.g. antitheses, triads, homoeoteleuton, chiasmus, litotes).36 Many of the imaginary letters37 also employ stylistic features found in ancient literary and rhetorical practices. For example, Alciphron (dubbed "The Rhetor") composed imaginary letters purportedly written by fishermen, farmers, prostitutes, and parasites. In several of these the author cites and borrows from other literature (especially from classical authors). T h e letters attributed to Aelian (entitled ) also echo the voices of the classical era (e.g. Homer, Hesiod, Aristophanes, Demosthenes, and Menander). One of the more thorough discussions of epistolary style is the treatise attributed to Demetrius of Phalerum, De Elocutione ( ), which discusses the "style" () appropriate for letter writing. It shows some dependence on the third book of Aristode's Rhetoric (Eloc. 11). Initially, Demetrius advocates writing letters according to the "plain" () style (Eloc. 223), which is one of four kinds or "characters" of styleselevated (), elegant (), plain (), and forceful ().38 Later, he summarizes that the letter should be a compound of the graceful () and plain () styles.39 T h e plain style lacks "ornament and oratorical device", 40 suggesting that the author did not readily conflate

of rhetoric is in general characteristic of the royal letters, not only of the purely administrative notes but also of texts of a more 'diplomatic' character" (p. 46); contrast H. Peter, Der Brief in der rmischen Literatur: Literargeschichtliche Untersuchungen und Zusammenfassung (Abh. der Kniglichen Sschsischen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften, phil.hist. Klasse, 20.3; Leipzig: Teubner, 1901), who argues for a much closer dependence of epistolary theory on rhetorical theory. 56 See the letters in Welles, Correspondence. Ptolemy II to Miletus (14), Antiochus II to Erythrae (15), Seleucus II to Miletus (22), Ziaelas of Bithynia to Cos (25), Ptolemy IV to a provincial governor (30). 37 Imaginary letters resemble little the purposes and practices of most Greco-Roman letter writing. They are clearly "literary" in tone and substance. Cf. the love letters of Philostratus ( ), which lack all of the common epistolary elements. 38 These four kinds of style represent only one theory on the subject. Another theory, developed by Dionysius of Halicamassus and later continued by Hermogenes, combines various qualities and virtues of style (e.g. clarity, grandeur, beauty, vigour, ethos, verity, and gravity) into a more complex scheme (Kennedy, Classical Rhetoric, p. 104). 39 It appears that by "graceful" he is referring to the heightened style that one should use to write letters to states or royal personages, which he has just mentioned in 234. However, it may also be the same "graceful" style which he describes under the section on the "elegant" style (128-89). 40 Roberts, Greek Rhetoric, p. 68. Roberts also notes that "when he [Demetrius] refers to 'rhetoricians' there is sometimes a shade of irony or contempt" (p. 68).

184

JEFFREY T. REED

the epistolary and rhetorical styles. For example, he maintains that "it is absurd to build up periods, as if you were writing not a letter but a speech () for the law courts" (Eloc. 229). He is most concerned that letters be written with clarity and fitness, two features of the plain style. Similarly, Gregory of Nazianzus warns against the abuse of an overly rhetorical style: When the birds were disputing about who should be king, and they came together, each adorned in his own way, the greatest adornment of the eagle was that he did not think that he was beautiful. It is this unadorned quality, which is as close to nature as possible, that must especially be preserved in letters (Ep. 51:7; cf. also 5-6). Seneca as well attempts to distance the letter writer from the orator, without denying the applicability of argumentation to letters: Even if I were arguing a point, I should not stamp my foot, or toss my arms about, or raise my voice; but I should leave that sort of thing to the orator, and should be content to have conveyed my feelings toward you without having either embellished them or lowered their dignity (Ep. 75:2).41 Here again we see an emphasis on using a plain, direct style in letters without any of the embellishments employed in oratory. This "plain" style is particularly relevant in "friendly" letters where maintaining friendship was done not just by writing letters but by the way in which one wrote the letter. Various other opinions existed concerning the appropriate epistolary style. As to the length of letters, Demetrius argues for concise ones (Eloc. 228);42 he was not supported by Pseudo-Libanius ( 50). "Clarity" of style () in letter writing was esteemed by many (Gr. Naz. Ep. 51:4; Ps.-Lib. 48-49, quoting Philostratus of Lemnos). For example, Gregory of Nazianzus avows: "As to clarity (), everyone knows that one should avoid proselike () style so far as possible, and rather incline towards the conversadonal ()" (Ep. 51:4). His basis for this assertion follows:

In another letter Seneca mentions his preference for philosophy over speechmaking (Ep. 14:11). 42 He uses the term rather than to refer to "so-called" letters (such as several of Plato's letters and that of Thucydides) which are, according to him, too long and stilted in expression (Eloc. 228).

41

THE EPISTLE

185

Stated briefly, the best and most beautiful letter is written so that it is persuasive to both the educated and uneducated, appearing to the former as written on the popular level and to the latter as above that level, and being immediately understandable (Ep. 51:4). Although much more could be said about epistolary style (e.g. use of asyndeton, novel expressions, direct address, compliments and jesting), the standard principle of epistolary style seems to be that there was no stricdy endorsed stylistic theory. However, a few principles seem to have existed. Theorists generally agree that letters should be written in a style most appropriate for the situation (cf. Cic. Fam. 15:21:4). This generally involved a style characteristic of dialogue and everyday speech (Cic. Fam. 7:32:3; 9:21:1; Sen. Ep. 75:1; Demetr. Eloc. 223), that is, a style conducive to bridging the spatial gap between the sender and the recipient and to creating a face-to-face atmosphere. Seneca speaks of a friendly, not artificial, setting in which he writes letters: "I prefer that my letters should be just what my conversation would be if you and I were sitting in one another's company or taking walks togetherspontaneous and easy; for my letters have nothing strained or artificial about them" (Ep. 75:12).43 Similarly, classical theory distinguished the sermo (ordinary language) of the letter from the contentio (formal speech) of the oration. 44 Furthermore, much of the discussion of style by rhetoricians (e.g. whether to use the dactyl, iambus, or paean as the basic ingredient of rhythm) is absent from epistolary stylistic theory, again probably because of the "plain" style that should be used in letters. In summary, two features of epistolary style most parallel rhetorical discussions: clarity and appropriateness for the situation. Nevertheless, the letter writers and theorists (even those well versed in rhetoric) still differentiate between the epistolary style and rhetorical style.45 The fundamental difference was a result of the epistolary situation (viz. spatial separation), as Julius Victor identifies:

Contrast Pliny the Younger's letters which tend to be prose exercises on various subjects, many of which were directed to a public audience (Ep. 1:1). 44 Henderson, "Erasmus", p. 334. In his Commentana epistolarum conficiendarum (Pforzheim, 1509), Heinrich Bebel appealed to classical sources to prove that a letter should not be written in oratorical style but in Latin sermo (cited by Henderson, "Erasmus", p. 340). 45 Quint. Inst. 9:4:19-22 also sets the epistolary style apart from the rhetorical. According to him, the former should have a "looser texture" (as in dialogue, sermone) and the latter a more closely connected style (Inst. 9:4:23).

43

186

JEFFREY T. REED

When there is no need to hide anything from others, avoid obscurity more painstakingly in letters than you do in speeches and conversation. For although you can ask someone who is speaking unclearly to elucidate his point, it is impossible to do so in correspondence when the other is absent (Rh. 27:19-21). Consequendy, a mixture of rhetorical and epistolary styles was not encouraged by some. Cicero states this pointedly in a letter penned to L. Papirius Paetus: How do I strike you in my letters? Don't I seem to talk to you in the language of common folk? For I don't always adopt the same style. What similarity is there between a letter, and a speech in court or at a public meeting? Why even in law-cases I am not in the habit of dealing with all of them in the same style (Fam. 9:21:1).

VI.

RHETORICAL

EPISTLES?

The above study reveals epistolary and rhetorical theorists' resistance to marrying the episde and oration. 46 Theory and practice do not always harmonize, however. If the epistolary genre is defined functionally as the communication between spatially separated individuals (absentis ad absentem colloquium)which is necessary to account for actual letters (e.g. private, official, public, novelistic, magical, scientific, literary-critical, erotic, poetic, introductory, heavenly)then it is difficult to imagine that the classical rhetorical conventions were never employed in actual letters. Perhaps the best extant examples of "rhetorical letters" come from the eminent orator himself, Demosthenes, or someone writing under his name. 47 Epistles 1-4 are set in the fourth century BC during Demosthenes' exile and the oncoming "Lamian" war to overthrow Mace-

46 This resistance was later advocated by classical purists, the medieval Ciceronians, who confined the epistolary genre to the limits of the familiar letter and desired to "purge humanist epistolography of all vestiges of the ars dictaminis" (Henderson, "Erasmus", p. 332). The ars dictaminis divided the letter according to the structure of classical oration, adding the salutatio which distinguished it as the epistolary genre: salutatio, exordium (or captatio benevolentiae), narratio, petitio, and conclusio. 47 The authenticity of the letters has been debated; but for persuasive arguments in favour of the authenticity of letters 1-4 see J. A. Goldstein, The Letters of Demosthenes (New York: Columbia University Press, 1968), esp. his rhetorical commentary on them on pp. 133-81.

THE EPISTLE

187

donian dominadon over Greece. 48 The letters were deemed significant enough to be preserved throughout the Hellenistic and Byzantine eras. Plutarch (Lives 20), Quintilian (Inst. 10:1:107), and Cicero (Brut. 121, Or. 15) knew of and were perhaps influenced by Demosthenes' epistolary style. Modern scholars generally classify the letters according to one of four genres: a rhetorical exercise treating the theme "What would Demosthenes have written to the Athenians from exile?"; a historical novel in the form of a collection of letters (Briefroman); a creation of a rhetorical historian or biographer; or political propaganda. 49 In any case, the texts are an attempt to defend Demosthenes' career. 50 They are in the form of a letter only because he is in exile (Ep. 1:2-4; 3:1:35); otherwise, they consist of self-apology and advice to the public. As letters, they lack the many epistolary formulas and the style of the "familiar" letters (familiares) and instead may be categorized as negotiates, to which Julius Victor claims the canons of rhetoric apply (Rh. 27). T h e prescripts take the
f o r m THI I XAIPEIN ( " D e m o s -

thenes to the Council and Assembly, greetings"), setting the stage for the epistolary body in which Demosthenes attempts to persuade his audience on a particular subject. Ep. 2 is an example of the forensicepideictic genre of self-apology, perhaps repeating much of the defence given at his trial. J . Goldstein has analysed them according to the partes orationis. T h e main body of the letter consists of (1) a prooemium written in the indignant tone of one who had been wronged but at the same time appealing to the audience's good will through flattery (2:1-2); (2) a propotio calling the Athenians to exonerate him (2:3); (3) a confirmatio favourably portraying the career of Demosthenes according to the so-called rhetorical topics of the propositio is just, lawful, expedient, honourable, pleasant, easy to accomplish or, if difficult, possible and necessary (2:4-20); (4) an epilogue reiterating the appeal for exoneration and containing pathetic amplification and a final appeal to their good will (2:2126).51 T h e closing farewell () is as terse as the prescript. Another illustrative example of a "rhetorical letter" is the first letter
Letters 5-6 (one to Heracleodorus and the other to the Council and Assembly) are relatively short and resemble more so an attempt at interpersonal dialogue. 49 Goldstein, Letters, pp. 31-34. 50 For similar letters of defence see PI. Ep. 1 and Aeschin. Ep. 11 and 12. 51 Hermog. Id. 1:7; 2:8 and Ps.-Arist. Rh. 1:45, 47 interpret letters 2 and 3 in
48

188

JEFFREY T. REED

of Dionysius of Halicamassus to Ammaeusa lengthy argument advocating that Demosthenes did not learn the rules of rhetoric from Aristode.52 Like most "literary" letters, the prescript is terse:
XAIPEIN ("Dionysius to the beloved

Ammaeus, many greetings"). Dionysius, in response to the request of Ammaeus, sets forth arguments (Amm. 2:6 ) which convinced him that Aristotle did not write his Rhetoric until Demosthenes had reached his prime and had already delivered most of his speeches. Consequently, Demosthenes was not dependent on the former's rules of rhetoric, as someone had suggested to Ammaeus (Amm. 1:6). He ends his letter claiming to have proved his point ( ), viz. Demosthenes did not base his speeches on Aristode's rhetorical theory. Unlike the letters of Demosthenes, this letter is written to an individual. There is, then, no reason to suggest that letters employing rhetorical conventions are only written to plural audiences. Like the letters of Demosthenes, it lacks the various epistolary formulas found in most personal letters. Letters like those of Demosthenes and Dionysius of Halicamassus, however, represent only a small portion of the extant epistolary literature. Most letters do not reveal a rhetorical structure, nor are they as long as these. Nevertheless, even brief, "non-literary" letters require persuasive devices to accomplish their goals. For example, in P. Ryl. 116 (194 AD), a copy of a complaint () by Saprion, the author writes to Heraclides, narrating how his mother and an accomplice assaulted him in order to "deprive me of my own property". After narrating the "facts" of the event he requests Heraclides to file his petition so that it may be used as evidence ( ) in a later trial. In other letters, several epistolary formulas are used with persuasive functions: (1) disclosure formulas reveal the author's reason for writing; (2) statements of reassurance and concern appeal to the pathos of the reader; (3) statements used to persuade, coerce, or threaten seek the reader's obedience concerning important (often business) matters. 53 The "rhetoric" of such letters, however, is probably

terms of their rhetorical style. For a more detailed rhetorical analysis of this letter see Goldstein, Letters, pp. 158-66. 52 Cf. also his second letter to Ammaeus and his letter to Gnaeus Pompeius. The former is a polemic against an excessive admiration and imitation of Plato's style; the latter is a polemic against a similar attitude towards the style of Thucydides. 53 See White, Light, pp. 204-208.

THE EPISTLE

189

not dependent upon rhetorical theory; they more likely represent a type of "universal" rhetoric prevalent at the time and still functionally found in other communicadve forms today. The above examples demonstrate that letter writing was at least pardy influenced by rhetorical conventions. Despite epistolary and rhetorical theorists' attempts to discourage such practices, various reasons prevented their complete success. First, the flexibility of the epistolary genre allowed for its conflation with other genres. Quintus Horatius Flaccus, the Latin poet, demonstrated this with his invention of the letter poem. He admired the "personal" nature of the letter: "The poem as letter allows a privacy of speech, and a certain confidentiality of tone that other genres tend to repel". 54 Some of Plutarch's letters (e.g. Ep. 6:464 and 13:1012 ) are similar in content with his other moral writings, also demonstrating a mixed genre. T h e Corpus Hippocraticum contains various kinds of propagandistic, pseudepigraphic letters, of which letters 10-17 are in the form of novels relating Hippocrates' visit to Democritus. 55 In other Hippocratic letters, treatises () were sent with a letter (18-19, 20-21) or incorporated into the letter (21).56 Much later, Erasmussomewhat confined by the narrow classical definition of the letter as a conversation between separated friendsdistinguished the epistolary genre from others in terms of its flexibility of style}1 This flexibility resulted in an array of letter-types such as official letters, philosophical letters, magical letters, letters from heaven, and erotic letters. Secondly, the epistolary genre originated in an oral and, consequendy, a rhetorical environmentviz. the official correspondence of royalty. The official letter usually accompanied the oral message of a herald or embassy. For example, one author notes that "Menodorus, whom you sent to me, gave me your letter . . . and spoke himself at considerable length on the matters concerning which he said he had instructions". 58 Thus, M. Stirewalt righdy claims that "in dealing with the city state, the popular assembly,

S. Hamill, "Epistolary Poetry", Northwest Review 19 (1981), pp. 228 34. For a critical edition and introduction see Hippocrates: Pseudepigraphic Writings, ed. and trans. W. D. Smith (Studies in Ancient Medicine, 2; Leiden: Brill, 1990). 56 E.g. (18:12-13) and (20:28-29). 57 Henderson, "Erasmus", p. 355. 58 Welles, Royal Correspondence, no. 58.
55

54

190

JEFFREY T. REED

and public forensic activity, the official administrative, diplomatic letter was a rhetorical product". 5 9 However, while the official letter had ties to forensic practices, the personal letter evolved independently of such influences. Thirdly, educational exercisespractised at least by the time of the second century BCpromoted the use of rhetorical conventions in letters. 60 For example, the use of chreiai in pithy letters was a popular practice, as in the syllogistic letter:
[Brutus] to the people of Pergamon I hear that you have sent financial aid to Donobellas. If you did this willingly, you admit to wrongdoing; if unwillingly, prove it by giving to me willingly [Cic. Brut. I]. 61

Students could exercise their rhetorical style by writing letters under the name of celebrated persons of the past (e.g. Alexander, Aristotle, Pythagoras, Socrates, Plato, Diogenes, Isocrates, Hippocrates, and Euripides). 62 Consequently, pseudonymous letters, more so than authentic letters, often exhibit rhetorical practices. Such examples should not obscure the fact that the majority of letters discovered from the Hellenistic period do not lend themselves to classical rhetorical analysis. Nevertheless, a careful reading of the extant texts reveals that rhetorical conventions were at times employed in letters. 63 Indeed, some ancient scholars analysed letters in terms of rhetoric, 64 leaving the possibility that they may be analysed similarly today as well, yet with methodological caution.

VII.

CONCLUSION

T h e above survey of Greco-Roman rhetoricians, epistolary theorists, and letter writers (personal, official, and literary) reveals both simi59 60

Stirewalt, Studies, p. 9. For examples see Stirewalt, Studies, pp. 20-24; cf. J. Sykutris, "Epistolographie", in Realencyclopdie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft Supplement 5 (Stuttgart: J. B. Metzlersche, 1924), cols. 210-13. 61 Cited in Stirewalt, Studies, p. 50. 62 J. Schneider, "Brief", in RAC II (Stuttgart: Anton Hiersman, 1954), cols. 573-74. 63 The letters of the New Testament have received renewed attention as to their rhetorical nature. For a useful treatment of this issue with bibliography see D. Watson and A. Hauser, Rhetorical Criticism of the Bible: A Comprehensive Bibliography with Notes on History and Method (Leiden: Brill, 1994). 64 Dionysius Halicamassus (Th. 42) judged the letter of Nicias in Thucydides and the letters of Plato according to the canons of oratory.

THE EPISTLE

191

larities and differences between epistolary and rhetorical practices. O n the one hand, epistolary theorists and letter writers often dissuade the writer from using rhetorical conventions. T h e manuals on letter wridng do not deal with the officia oratoris or the partes orationis as set forth in the rhetorical handbooks; instead, they list a wide array of letter-types and the style appropriate for their use. In addition, a systematic theory of how to write a "rhetorical letter" is lacking in the rhetorical handbooks; the few remarks on letter writing that do exist are mostly on matters of style, and often those which contrast rhetorical and epistolary style.65 As S. K. Stowers observes, "The letter-writing tradition was essentially independent of rhetoric". 66 C . J . Classen puts it in more disjunctive terms: "Rhetoric (oratory) and epistolography were regarded as two different fields in antiquity, and it seems advisable, therefore, to stay within the elaboration and presentation of their respective theory". 67 O n the other hand, rhetorical conventions are clearly found in lettersa result of the epistolary genre's flexibilitybut rarely in a systematic manner governing the entire letter such as the letters of Demosthenes. There are also several functional parallels between the two genres, but the epistolary theorists do not develop these in a formal, methodical manner; thus, the similarity may only be a result of "universal" principles of argumentation. T o be more precise, inventio and especially elocutio seem to have influenced marginally the theories and actual practice of letter writing. The three species of rhetoric were too limited to provide a model for letter writing, but their functions are often represented in actual letters. Rhetorical dispositio seems to have had little, if any, influence on theory or practice. Despite the presence of rhetorical conventions in the epistolary genre, two observations based on the literary evidence suggest that the rhetorical and epistolary genres were not readily merged, either in theory or in practice. First, up until the fourth century AD (Julius Victor Ars Rhetorica)68 letter writing was not treated as part of a systematic rhetorical theory, and even here it is relegated to an appendix alongside the de sermodnatione.

Debate over the appropriate use of style in letter writing does imply, however, that some may have been writing letters with an "oratorical" style. 66 Stowers, Letter Writing, p. 52. 67 C.J. Classen, "St Paul's Episdes and Ancient Greek and Roman Rhetoric", in Rhetoric and the New Testament (ed. S. E. Porter and T. H. Olbricht; JSNTSup, 90; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993), pp. 288-89. 68 Even here, Julius Victor suggests that rhetorical rules only be applied to "official" (negotiates) letters, i.e. letters which are official and serious in nature.

65

192

JEFFREY T. REED

So A.J. Malherbe concludes: "It is thus clear that letter writing was of interest to rhetoricians, but it appears only gradually to have attached itself to their rhetorical systems".69 Secondly, there appears to be a general principle that letters displaying rhetorical influence lack many of the optional epistolary formulas found in the personal letters (e.g. prayer, thanksgiving, disclosure formulas, closing greetings)an observable difference between literary and personal letters.70 Conversely, letters replete with epistolary formulas lack full-blown rhetorical conventions. In sum, the rhetorical and epistolary genres may have been betrothed, but they were never wed. Nevertheless, classical and modern theories of rhetoric, when used judiciously and mosdy descriptively, may often provide heuristic tools for the analysis and understanding of ancient letters.71

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Berger, ., "Hellenistischen Gattungen im Neuen Testament", ANRW 11.25.2 (ed. H. Temporini and W. Haase; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1984), pp. 1031-1432. Goldstein, J. ., The Letters of Demosthenes (New York: Columbia University Press, 1968). Koskenniemi, H., Studien zur Idee und Phraseologie des griechischen Briefes bis 400 n. Chr. (Annales Academiae Scientarium Fennicae; Helsinki: Akateeminen Kiijakauppa, 1956). Malherbe, A.J., Ancient Epistolary Theorists (SBLSBS, 19; Missoula, ': Scholars Press, 1988). Peter, ., Der Brief in der rmischen Literatur: Iitrargeschichtliche Untersuchungen und Zusammenfassung (Abhandlungen der Kniglichen Sschsischen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften, philologisch-historische Klasse, 20.3; Leipzig: Teubner, 1901). Roberts, W. R., Greek Rhetoric and literary Criticism (New York: Longmans, 1928). Schneider, J., "Brief", in Reallexicon fur Antike und Christentum II (Stuttgart: Anton Hiersman, 1954), cols. 564-85.

69 Malherbe, Epistolary Theorists, p. 3. This gradual interplay between the two genres is also reflected in the increased rhetorical interest of the , written somedme between the fourth and sixth centuries AD (p. 5). 70 Sykutris ("Epistolographie", col. 188) mentions a specific difference between literary and private letters: "Ein wichtiges Unterscheidungskriterion liegt m. . darin, da in einer persnlich adressierten Schrift der Name des Empfngers gleich am Anfang nach den ersten Worten im Vokativ genannt wird; das findet sich aber in einem Brief nicht". 71 Modern critical theories of argumentation useful in the study of ancient letters include C. Perelman and L. Olbrechts-Tyteca, La nouvelle rhtorique: Trait de l'argumentation (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1958); S. Toulmin, The Uses of Argument (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1958); J. Habermas, Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns (2 vols.; Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 1981).

THE EPISTLE

193

Stirewalt, M. L., Studies in Ancient Greek Epistolography (SBLRBS, 27; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993). Stowers, S. K., Letter Writing in Greco-Roman Antiquity (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1986). Sykutris, J., "Epistolographie", in Realencyclopdie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft Supplement 5 (Stuttgart: J. . Metzlersche, 1924), cols. 185-220. Welles, C. B., Royal Correspondence in the Hellenistic Period: A Study in Greek Epigraphy (repr. Chicago: Ares, 1974).

CHAPTER 8

PHILOSOPHICAL PROSE Dirk M. Schenkeveld


Free University, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

I.

INTRODUCTION

In the Hellenistic and Roman period philosophical treatises in the widest sense were written in multifarious forms and styles and for various purposes. Here, attention will be paid to prose wridngs, and poems such as Cleanthes' Hymn to eus and Lucretius's De rerum natura or Proclus's Hymns and Manilius's Astronomicon will be left out of consideration. The latter category requires a different approach and to discuss these texts in this contribution would gready exceed the limits of size.1 The approach to philosophical prose taken here is that of form, rather than purpose. By form I mean dialogue, diatribe and thesis, but also ego-documents and technical writings such as the handbook, isagoge, the longer and commentary. The goals or purposes of these texts may be pure instruction for the beginner or the more advanced student, but may also be consolatory, protrepdc and paraenetic or of some other kind. It turns out that the approach by form is more manageable but for one exception: a separate section is reserved for protreptic and paraenesis. This has come about because division of assignments has the genre of Letters (Epistolary style) discussed elsewhere, and Epicurus's paraenetic episde could easily have gone unnoticed. Inclusion of technical writings serves as a reminder that not all prose is Kunstprosa, to borrow Norden's term, but even there we may find traces of rhetorical influence.

1 Originally, I had promised to make two contributions, one on the philosophical treatise and one on Stoic philosophers. Because, however, the style of Stoic philosophers is not different from that of other philosophers in this period it was more convenient to discuss texts of philosophers together with texts on philosophical subjects all together in one contribution.

196

DIRK M. SCHENKEVELD

O n e decision had to be taken whose outcome will not be to everyone's satisfaction. It concerns the question of which texts by which authors will be included, and which left aside. The answer to this question is intricately linked to the matter of what a philosophical text is. Here I have opted for the solution that texts written by authors generally recognized as having been philosophers,. such as Epicurus and Plotinus, have to be included but also texts on philosophical subjects, even when their authors are not accepted as genuine philosophers, must also be included. No one will expect exclusion of Cicero's philosophical dialogues from this discussion, and the same goes for several treatises by Plutarch of Chaeroneabut what about the moral diatribes of Dio of Prusa, whose claim of a conversion to philosophy is very much in doubt? Lucian of Samosata makes a similar claim and is he a philosopher? I have decided to be liberal and included texts on philosophical subjects written by non-philosophers. Separate sections on matters concerning the relationship between philosophy and rhetoric lead the discussion proper. 2 What must count as influence from oratorical practice and rhetorical theory, is often difficult to ascertain. In general, it can be said that from the start of the Hellenistic period onwards most authors underwent training in rhetoric and even when they reject rhetoric's claims we may still reckon with some influence. The easiest to detect is stylistic technique, particularly when this comes forward in Gorgianic schemata and similar rhetorical figures. Avoidance of hiatus is another detector but some negligence in this respect may be due to obedience to the rule that the style of a dialogue should not be as exact as that of a speech. Cicero, to take another example, says that prose dialogue should not be rhythmical but in late antiquity we see, for example, Themistius follow new contemporary rules of clausula. Thus, even outward appearance is not always a trustworthy guide. Inner structure and argumentation are less evident indicators of rhetorical influence because a clear structuring of one's thought is very much a matter of philosophy. And, of course, the great examples of the pre-Hellenistic age for the dialogue, like Plato and Aristode, do not make a decision any easier. If necessary, I have said something about the structure of the texts in this contribution without, however, always suggesting that a particular ordering is due

Most translations come from LCL editions, although some are by my hand. In some cases I have slighdy changed translations of other scholars.

PHILOSOPHICAL PROSE

197

to rhetorical training. But the subject of the thesis requires, of course, some discussion of this aspect. In general, more attention is being given to outward appearances. In this way this contribution deals with "secondary" rhetoric as formulated by George Kennedy. 3

I I . T H E D I S P U T E BETWEEN P H I L O S O P H Y AND

RHETORIC

In other sections of this Handbook the antagonism between rhetoric and philosophy has already been alluded to to some extent but here the main points of this dispute will be highlighted, now in order to give the reader a better understanding of the issues involved when rhetoric is found to be used by philosophers in their treatises. T h e relations between the two disciplines are never uncomplicated; from Plato and Isocrates onwards there is always some controversy; the participants may keep silent for a long period and then again voice their objections and refutations aloud. At no time is it taken for granted that a philosopher would also be a rhetorician, and vice versa; some explanation is always expected to be given. The dispute has had at least two active periods: in the fourth century BC with Plato and Isocrates as its main participants; and from about 160 to about 40 BC, when most philosophical schools join in the debate. From the first two centuries AD we meet with the same arguments in the works of men like Quintilian and Sextus, and although they may represent a renaissance of the debate, they may also be a literary tradition with no connections to the debate. 4 This may especially be true for Quintilian because already in the first century BC Cicero had advocated some sort of reconciliation and he is Quintilian's great example. Another phase, again one of reconciliation, involves the rhetorical and philosophical practice and writings
3

G. A. Kennedy, Classical Rhetoric and Its Christian and Secular Tradition from Ancient to Modem Times (London: Croom Helm, 1980), p. 5. 4 G. A. Kennedy, The Art of Persuasion in Greece (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1963), pp. 321-30; J. Barnes, "Is Rhetoric an Art?", Darg Newsletter 2 (1986), pp. 2-22; L. Pernot, La rhtorique de l'loge dans le monde grco-romain (Coll. Etud. Augustin. Srie Antiquit, 138; Paris: Inst. d'Etud. Augustin., 1993), pp. 493-605 andj. Wisse, Welsprekendheid enfilosofiebij Cicero: Studies en commentaar bij Cicero, De oratore 3, 19-37a; 52-95 (Diss. Amsterdam 1994; now published in A. D. Leeman, H. Pinkster et ai, M. Tullius Cicero, De Oratore libri III: Kommentar [vol. 4; Heidelberg: C. Winter, 1996), pp. 14-26. Wisse convincingly argues in favour of the debate continuing up to 40 BC and not already ending about 100 (thus e.g. Barnes).

198

DIRK M. SCHENKE VELD

of the philosophers-orators of the Second Sophistic, a movement starting at the end of the first century, reaching a climax in the second, and after a period of decline having a revival in the fourth century AD. T h e final stage occurs at the end of the period covered in this Handbook when in the commentaries of the neoplatonists and the late introductions to rhetoric another attempt is made to reconcile both disciplines. Plato's objections to contemporary rhetoric are that it is just a collection of recipes, not a well-ordered system; moreover, its practitioners do not try to educate their audience, are not interested in its psychology and only say what is pleasing to their listeners. Plato's main disapproval, therefore, turns on the lack of moral goals in rhetoric. 5 In his Phaedrus he views the possibility of a right kind of rhetoric, which is wholly subordinated to philosophy, focuses on the psychology of the audience and eloquendy voices its tenets. Consequendy, Plato is not opposed to an eloquent style as such. 6 In his Rhetoric Aristode follows Plato in asking for knowledge of the audience's psyche but keeps the actual (im)morality of rhetoric away from his analysis of possible uses of rhetorical arguments. In this way he adopts a neutral stance vis--vis possible rhetorical practice. On the other hand, he requires that its practitioners have to be truthful. 7 Isocrates, finally, calls his own brand of rhetoric and maintains that it is "a wisdom in practical affairs resulting in high moral consciousness and equated with mastery of the rhetorical technique". 8 In the Hellenistic period the debate on the status of rhetoric got a new impetus when rhetorical studies had a renaissance. Oratory had lost some parts of its domain but was still very much important in the daily life of the poleis. For unknown reasons, however, teaching in rhetoric steeply declined until the start of the second century BC. Then the teachers of rhetoric, now called , had a high rating because they instructed aspiring politicians.9 The same goal was professed by philosophers and hence there was a revival of the quarrel
Grg. 462b-66a. Phd. 89c-91c. 7 Pernot, Rhtorique, pp. 515-19, who after other scholars calls Aristotle's stance "amorale". 8 Kennedy, Art of Persuasion, p. 178. 9 Phld. Rh. 1:223:11-16 reports the rhetoricians' claim that . . . and Hermagoras defines the subject matter of rhetoric as being , that is, questions concerning the polis and all its citizens.
6 5

PHILOSOPHICAL PROSE

199

on the art of rhetoric. 10 T o this end, rhetoricians included in their system training in , quaestiones infinitae (see chapter 4 above), a matter from Aristode onwards reserved, as it were, for philosophers. The main challenge to rhetoric is that it is not an art or expertise (). Additional arguments are that it is not useful for it does not make individuals or states happy and that an orator is often constrained to defend criminals. Moreover, one can be a good orator without formal training and, conversely, many instructors of rhetoric are poor speakers. Finally, the aspect of knowing the listeners' psyche is too often neglected. But the chief point of attack still is that rhetoric is not an organized body of knowledge and lacks its own domain," and therefore the rhetorician is not an artist ().12 Thus the debate turns on the question whether one with Aristotle accepts rhetoric as an art even though like dialectic it does not belong to a specific field of knowledge, or rejects his argument. The participants involve members of all schools of philosophy but one cannot say that one specific school always remains friendly or hostile towards rhetoric. Thus Peripatetics like Theophrastus and Demetrius of Phaleron actively develop rhetorical theory but in the second century Critolaus with his pupils reject rhetoric. 13 Epicurus and his followers oppose rhetoric as being useless, which hostility should be seen within the framework of an adversity against all contemporary , 14 but Zeno of Sidon and his pupil Philodemus are sympathetic to a , which concerns written and impromptu speeches of an epideictic kind, although with more orthodox Epicureans they still maintain that this art is not competent in instruction in forensic and symbouleutic oratory. 15 For the Stoics rhetoric is part of their philosophical systemthey take over most of the traditional theory and, significandy, extend Theophrastus's list of four with one more, , brevity, but neglect to find a place for the audience in their system. It may also be indicative of their preferences that next to forensic and symbouleutic
10 Traditionally the revival is connected with the Athenian embassy of three philosophers to Rome in 155 BC (Cic. De or. 1:155). Cicero reports debates on this subject held in the late second century by Charmadas the Academic and the rhetorician Metrodorus. " The well known Stoic definition of , accepted by many others. 12 Phld. Rh. 2:28:2-15; S. . M. 2:910. 13 F. Wehrli, Die Schule des Aristoteles (2nd edn.; Basel: Schwabe, 1966), X, p. 125. 14 S. . M. 1:1. 15 Phld. Rh. 1:7:9-29; 2:22:7-20 etc.

200

DIRK M. SCHENKE VELD

oratory they call the third one not epideictic (display oratory), as Aristode did, but encomiastic. 16 Rhetoric is even called a science, , but in their view this, and other, sciences can only be practised well by the infallible .17 This view makes it possible for Diogenes of Babylon to propose a Stoic theory of eloquence and at the same dme to oppose common rhetoric of his day. 18 Apart from this, the Stoic orator aspires to a very sober style, though not without some embellishments although these are to him mere appendages. Therefore, Cicero despises Stoic oratory. 19 Finally, the Academy produces many fierce opponents to rhetoric, like Cameades and Charmadas, the latter especially being known from Cicero's De oratore (1:84-93). But Philo of Larissa is said to have introduced rhetoric in the Academy curriculum, 20 which fact, however, is to be interpreted as an attack against the rhetoricians. 21 Nevertheless, Philo's rhetorical instruction probably is very much like that of rhetorical schools, though he offers a classification of which is absent from the ordinary theory. Reconciliation between the two disciplines is attempted by Cicero in his De oratore, where he proposes the ideal of the orator perfectus, who combines extensive knowledge of philosophy with perfect mastering of rhetorical techniques and attitudes. Dionysius of Halicamassus is less demanding and after Isocrates calls his rhetoric or |.22 In the first centuries AD a revival of the old dispute may have come about, although the material in our sources, Quintilian and Sextus, is mostly traditional. 23 This revival, or rehashing of old arguments, does not contribute anything substantial to the dispute and can be omitted from discussion here. As to the attempts at reconciliation in late antiquity, neoplatonic commentators, who are also very much interested in rhetoric, have to reconcile Plato's stringent arguments against rhetoric with their own interests. T h u s Olympiodorus (middle 6th century) admits that
D. L. 7:41-42, 142. D. L. 7:142; Cic. De or. 3:65; S. . M. 2:6. 18 Diog. Bab. Stoic, . 99, 125, 107 (Stoic., Ill, p. 210). 19 Fin. 4:7. 20 Tusc. 2:9; De or. 3:110. 21 Wisse, Welsprekendheid, p. 23. 22 Oral. Vett. 1:1:2-5. Cf. E. Galba, Dionysius and the History of Archaic Rome (Sather Class. Lectures, 56; Berkeley: University of California Press, 1991), ch. 2. 23 Barnes, "Is Rhetoric an Art?", n. 20.
17 16

PHILOSOPHICAL PROSE

201

Socrates' definition of rhetoric in the Gorgias as a form of flattery is in itself right but Socrates is talking about popular rhetoric. True rhetoric is divine and can only be practised by first becoming a philosopher. 24 Similar distinctions between kinds of rhetoric are found in the so-called Prolegomena, introductions of later Greek teachers of rhetoric to their lectures, which start in the fourth century. 25 By means of these distinctions it is possible for them to save both Plato, who is talking about a different kind of rhetoric, and their own rhetoric. 26 This endeavour of saving rhetoric has a forerunner in chapters 8 and 9 of De Platane of Apuleius of Madaura (born ca. AD 125).27 Using a series of phrases from the Phaedrus and the Gorgias he makes a case for good rhetoric. 28 Apuleius's attempt can be connected with the Second Sophistic movement, which produced a lot of sophistphilosophers or philosophical sophists.29 Many of these call themselves both and , and a famous sophist like Favorinus of Arelate (Aries) (1st/2nd century) addresses in his lectures and conversations questions of natural philosophy, Stoic logic and epistemology, ethics, the tropes of Pyrrho and even writes on the life-style of philosophers. Nevertheless, Philostratus deigns him worthy of the tide of sophist.30 Aelius Aristides (ca. 117-189) does not reconcile both disciplines and strongly defends rhetoric by attacking Plato. 31 But Philostratus distinguishes between pure sophists, primarily teachers of rhetoric and proficient in declamadon, and the philosophical sophists, who use oratory to expound their views on political, moral, or aesthetic subjects. A prime example of this group is Dio Chrysostom of Prusa. Their status as philosophers is usually doubted and German scholars have initiated the denigrating designation of Halbphilosophen

Olympiodorus In Platonis Gorgiam commentant (ed. L. G. Westerink; Leipzig: Teubner, 1970), p. 33. Cf. G. A. Kennedy, Greek Rhetoric under Christian Emperors (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1983), pp. 129-32. 25 Collected by H. Rabe in Prolegomenon Sylloge (Leipzig: Teubner, 1931; repr. 1995). Cf. Kennedy, Greek Rhetoric, pp. 116-22. 26 E.g. The Prolegomenon of Marcellinus, in Rabe, Prolegomenon Sylloge, pp. 281-83. 27 Ed. P. Thomas, Apuleius III. De philosophia libn (BT; 1908). 28 J. Dillon, The Middle Platonists (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1977), p. 333. 29 See now G. A. Kennedy, A New History of Classical Rhetoric (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994), pp. 230-56. 30 KS 491. M. W. Gleason, Making Men: Sophists and Self-Presentation in Ancient Rome (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1995), pp. 131-32. 31 In On Rhetoric, trans, in C. A. Behr, Aelius Aristides: The Complete Works (Leiden: Brill, 1981-86).

24

202

DIRK M. SCHENKE VELD

but one should not forget that their contemporaries commonly accepted them as being philosophers also. This history of an ancient dispute shows a gradual reconciliation between philosophy and rhetoric, having its culmination in Cicero's magnificent ideal of the orator perfectus, to be continued by Quintilian, and in the commentaries of the Neoplatonists. In accordance with this picture we may expect that in the course of antiquity philosophical treatises show influence from rhetoric to a gradually increasing extent. This expectation is also based on the consideration that from about 200/150 BC onwards authors of any repute would have had some training in rhetoric, this being one of the standard disciplines taught in the .

I I I . J U D G M E N T S ON P H I L O S O P H I C A L STYLES AND STYLES O F PHILOSOPHERS

Both philosophers and non-philosophers in antiquity left statements on the styles to be used by philosophers and on their actual styles. Thus Epicurus's condemnadon of rhetoric and dialectic implies avoidance of ornate style and all he asks for is clarity (),32 whereas among their five virtues of style the Stoics include ornament but only in so far as it is compatible with brevity and avoids vulgarity.33 From this passage and from Cicero Off. 1:132 some scholars have deduced a specifically Stoic theory of style, which very much influenced Roman authors. 34 But this attempt belongs to the early twentieth century tendency to detect everywhere Stoic ideas and influence. As far as the texts discussed in this whole section are concerned, one cannot detect stylistic traits which mark off Stoic authors from those of other schools. Judgments of non-philosophers, specifically those of rhetoricians, are seldom enthusiastic. These authors may well have an axe to grind

D. L. 9:13 and Quint. Inst. 2:17:15. D. L. 7:59. Cf. C. Atherton, "The Failure of Stoic Rhetoric", CQ, 38 (1988), pp. 392-427. 34 E.g. C. N . Smiley, "Ladnitas and . The Influence of the Stoic Theory of Style as Shown in the Writings of Dionysius, Quintilian....", Bulletin of the University of Wisconsin, Philol. and Lit. Ser. 3 (1906), pp. 205-72. The pages on Stoic theory of style in M. L. Colish, The Stoic Tradition from Antiquity to the Early Middle Ages. I. Stoicism in Classical Latin Literature (2nd edn.; Leiden: Brill, 1990), pp. 56 60 are disappointing.
33

32

PHILOSOPHICAL PROSE

203

and one should always take into account the circumstances under which their statements are expressed; nevertheless, these judgments often offer a fascinating view of the reactions of non-specialist readers of philosophical writings. In the prologue of book two of the Tusculanae disputationes Cicero polemically describes the style of works written by Epicurean Romans. They claim to be indifferent to definition, arrangement, precision and style and that their works do not afford any pleasure at all.35 The Epicurean L. Manlius Torquatus, a friend of Cicero, even apologizes for this lack of ornament in Epicurus's works. But Cicero can be more friendly and praise Epicurus for expressing his meaning adequately and giving a plain intelligible statement. In other words, Cicero commends Epicurus for his and . 36 But such a favourable judgment is not to be found when Dionysius of Halicamassus refers to Epicurean writings; he mendons the "choir of Epicureans" who care nothing for literary composition, 37 and whereas Aelius Theon censures Epicurus for writing excessively rhythmical prose, 38 Athenaeus stresses his lack of prose rhythm. 39 The style of Stoics was also not considered to be attractive. O n e common complaint is that their writings are often obscure. Their definitions are exact but often use many notions in a way opposed to common language. They are therefore guilty of faults against and , the very first two virtutes dicendi\ Their style is dry, and in general completely useless for an orator. 40 For philosophical wridngs Cicero makes an excepdon for Panaedus, who strives for perspicuitas and even embellishes his works. But Panaetius apparendy imitates the style of Academics and Peripatetics and rejects the Stoic crabbedness. 41 The style of the two latter schools is very much praised by Cicero. Their works are said to be written with charm and fullness of presentation. 42
35 36

Tusc. 2:7-8, cf. Ac. post. 1:5. A. D. Leeman, Orationis Ratio: The Stylistic Theories and Practice of the Roman Orators, Historians and Philosophers (Amsterdam: Hakkert, 1963), pp. 201-203. 3 ' Comp. 24, p. 122:8ff. Usener-Radermacher. 38 Prog, in RG, II, p. 71:7 Spengel. See now Aelius Theon, Progymnasmata (ed. and trans. M. Patillon; Bud; Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1997). 39 5:187c. These and other judgments in H. Usener, Epicurea (Leipzig: Teubner, 1887), pp. 88-90. 40 De or. 3:66. Cf. Wisse, Welsprekendheid, a.l. for parallels. 41 De fin. 4:79. Leeman, Orationis Ratio, pp. 204-205. 42 Brut. 120-21.

204
IV.

DIRK M. SCHENKEVELD

P R O T R E P T I C AND PARAENESIS

The philosophic protreptic 43 ( ,44 exhortatio)45 is one of the few literary genres recognized as such by ancient philosophers, like Posidonius and Philo of Larissa.46 In the fourth century BC it has as its aim a change of conduct in the readers or the characters in a text (usually in the field of ethics) or, in a stricter sense, to win someone for philosophy. These aims may be expressed explicitly (e.g. [Plato], Alcibiades I) or implicidy (PI. Phd. 64a4-69e5 with its unvoiced conclusion that philosophy is necessary in order to attain happiness). From the Hellenistic period onwards, the wider aim of changing a person's conduct is mainly found in the diatribe (section VI below), whereas the protreptic is concerned with converting a person to the study of philosophy. A distinction is often made between protreptic as giving general arguments for changing one's conduct and paraenesis, which consists of a series of concrete rules of conduct. 47 T h e difference between the two types seems related to two stages the prospective student has to go through: first he must be won for philosophy, then he is told how to continue his new life. T h e latter distinction, though found in Posidonius's classification, is often ignored in antiquity, and not always maintained in modern studies either. T h e need to proselytize is felt by all schools of philosophy and we know of protreptics written by Peripatetics, Stoics, Epicureans and other philosophers, and called as such. All Hellenistic protreptics
Literature: P. Hartlich, De exhortationum a Graecis Romanisque scriptarum historia et indole (Leipz. Stud. z. class. Phil., 11; Leipzig, 1889), pp. 207-336; S. R. Slings, A Commentary on the Platonic Clitophon (Amsterdam: Acad. Pers, 1981), pp. 69-106; M. D.Jordan, "Ancient Philosophic Protreptic", RhetoHca 4 (1986), pp. 309-34 and S. R. Slings, "Protreptic in Ancient Theories of Philosophical Literature", in J. R. Abbenes, S. R. Slings and I. Sluiter (eds.), Greek Rhetoric after Aristotle: A Collection of Papers in Honour of D.M. Schenkeveld (Amsterdam: Free University Press, 1995), pp. 173-92. 44 Also called , or by other designations. 45 In rhetoric the word has the more general sense of "persuasion", in contrast with , "dissuasion", e.g. Arist. Rh. I:3:1358b9. Protreptic is not exclusively restricted to philosophy, for any admonition to apply oneself to any other discipline (music, medicine, rhetoric) can be called thus. 46 Posidonius: Sen. Ep. 95:1; Philo: Stob. 2:7:2. 47 Slings, Commentary, pp. 70-73.
43

PHILOSOPHICAL PROSE

205

explicitly called thus are now lost.48 However, Epicurus's third letter is nowadays often called a protreptic, though not having this designation, and we have it in its complete form. Along with this are De mundo ascribed to Aristode and some texts of Philodemus. From the Roman period we have Themistius's and Iamblichus's Protreptikos. Protrepdcs appear in various forms, such as discourse (Aristode), letter (Epicurus), dialogue (Cicero's Hortensius), anthology (Iamblichus), but, as far as we know, there is no favourite form. 49 The very aim of protreptic, to win over someone to study philosophy, makes the view probable that this kind of text uses persuasive techniques found in rhetoric. The addressee of the message is an outsider, or, at least, someone not yet wholly dedicated to philosophy, and therefore bland exposition of what philosophy is about will run the risk of not persuading the other person. For many protreptics from the Hellenistic and later periods we cannot test this statement because of the lack of relevant texts in their original form. Thus Augustine's enthusiasm for Cicero's Hortensius50 may be quite understandable in view of Cicero being the author but we only have a few fragments which may justify Augustine's reaction. This dialogue ended, in the manner of Aristotle's Protrepticus (Fr. 110),51 with an impressive peroration:
Quapropter, ut aliquando terminetur oratio, si aut exstingui tranquille volumus cum in his artibus vixerimus, aut si ex hac in aliam haud paulo meliorem domum sine mora demigrare, in his studiis omnis opera et cura ponenda est, 52

but most fragments consist of individual words, which cannot give a strong basis for a stylistic judgment.

For the situation in the 4th cent, BC see Slings Commentary, pp. 78-83. A useful survey is in T. C. Burgess, Epideictic literature (Stud, in Class. Phil., 3; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1902), pp. 229-31. 49 Protreptic or paraenetic parts of texts belonging to a different type are not discussed here. 50 Beat. vita. 4; Conf. 3:4:7: librum . . . Ciceronis, cuius linguam fere omnes admirantur. 51 Dring: . . . . . . . 52 Aug. . 14:19:26 = Fr. 115 GriUi (Naples, 1968) = Fr. 100 in L. StraumeZimmermann, Ciceros Hortensius (Europ. Hochschulschr., 15.9; Bern: Lang, 1976).

48

206

DIRK M. SCHENKE VELD

. Examples 1. A text very much kindred to protrepdc is the third letter Epicurus (341-270) 53 writes to Menoeceus. Almost nothing is known about this man, although from 10:123 ( )54 it appears that Epicurus has been in touch with him several times, and in another context "sons of Menoeceus" are mentioned, who may well be sons of the same person. 55 Together with two other letters this letter is preserved because Diogenes Laertius presents these three as containing the epitome of Epicurus's philosophy. 56 It starts with an admonition to study philosophy during one's whole life. Therefore, one should exercise oneself () in the things which bring happiness. After this prologue Epicurus addresses Menoeceus directly and tells him to do and exercise himself in what Epicurus often told him, holding them to be the elements of the right life. He then goes through those elements, viz. right opinions concerning the gods, no fear of death, knowledge about desires and pleasure, having a simple life and knowing that prudence () is the beginning of all this and the best thing, for teaching us to lead a happy life. He ends by summarizing the happy life of the one who knows all these things and then comes back to his first admonitions: <> , ' ' , . ' (10:135).
Meditate therefore on these things and things akin to them during the day by yourself and at night with the like of you, and never shall you be disturbed waking or asleep, but you shall live like a god among men. For a man who lives among immortal blessings, is not like a mortal being.

It is tempting to see this letter as an example of protreptic, especially because it starts with the admonition to study philosophy, and nowadays this view has been expressed more than once.57 However, there
D. L. 10:122-135. Separate edn. in, e.g., P. von der Miihll, Epicurus: Epistulae trs et ratae sententiae (Bibl. Teub.; Leipzig: Teubner, 1922). Trans. C. Bailey, Epicurus: The Extant Fragments (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1926; repr. Hildesheim: Olms, 1970). 54 Books containing instructions often have as their tide , "precepts": e.g. Plutarch's . 55 Phld. Adv. soph. fr. I6 13-15 (ed. Sbordone; Naples: Loffredo, 1947). 56 D. L. 10:28. 57 H. Steckel, "Epikuros", RE Sup. 11 (1968), cols. 621-22; W. Schmid, "Epikuros",
53

PHILOSOPHICAL PROSE

207

seems to be no need for Epicurus to persuade Menoeceus to begin with philosophical studies but to instruct him how to do so. This letter has therefore a slighdy different character. It starts as a protreptic by its general admonition to spend one's life in studying philosophy 58 but then it switches to a more paraenetic form by giving concrete advice on which subjects Menoeceus should meditate. These concern the same topics as the first and what is expressed in the so-called , "the fourfold remedy", containing the essential message of Epicurean ethics:
, , , . God presents no fear, death no worries. And while good is readily attainable, evil is readily obdurable. 59

The third letter, in contrast with its two companions, has a disdncdy literary character. T h e very first lines (10:122) contain many instances of anaphora and antithesis:
, . [. . .] , , . Let no one when young delay to study philosophy, let no one when he is old grow weary of studying philosophy. For no one can c o m e too early or too late to secure the health of his soul. [ . . . . ] Wherefore both when young and old a man must study philosophy, so that as he grows old he may be young in blessings through the grateful recollection of what has been, and so that in youth he may be old as well since he will know no fear of what is to come.

Similar, but now also with homoeoteleuton, is the following part:


, ' . , (10:125). RAC 5 (1962), cols. 691-95 and S. . Stowers, Letter Writing in Greco-Roman Antiquity (LEC; Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1986), p. 116, but from Usener (Epicurea, pp. xli-xliii) onwards scholars tend to ignore or neglect this view. 58 Thus, too, Hartlich, Exhortationum, and C. Diano, in C. Diano and G. Serra, Epicure: Scritti morali (I Classici della Bur L, 621; Milan: Rizzoli, 1987), p. 129. 59 Phld. Adv. soph. col. 4:9-14 (ed. Sbordone).

208

DIRK M. SCHENKE VELD

S o that the man speaks idly w h o says to fear death not because it will be painful w h e n it comes, but because it is painful in anticipation.

These ornamental expressions with a prose rhythm of their own 60 occur in short phrases, especially when Epicurus summarizes what he has said before or introduces what he goes on to say. Initially, Epicurus by means of imperatives (five times in 10:123-24) and similar forms (two times in 10:127) tells Menoeceus what, and how, to envisage, but after this he goes on by expounding what "we" Epicureans think and keeps to this mode until the final paragraph, which reverts to the imperadve. For the rest the letter develops its exposition in a tranquil way, thereby avoiding complex arguments and technical jargon, whereas one time only we meet with a striking metaphor: (10:128).61 Hiatus is absent almost everywhere, apart from some cases but these come under the category of admissible hiatus. 62 The peroration is a summary of the good life of the wise man and is put into the form of a rhetorical question ("Who is in your opinion superior than the man who ...?"), in which every point to be made comes in the form of a participle in the genitive dependent on "than the man who . . . " (10:133-34). The first instances sufficiendy show the structure of the whole clause:
. For, indeed, w h o d o you think is a better man than he w h o holds reverent opinions concerning the gods, and is at all times free from fear of death . . .,

whereas it ends thus:


< >

60

. Norden, Agnostos Theos (Leipzig: Teubner, 1912), p. 93, n. 2 analyses some

lines. In his , a collection of aphorisms, Epicurus has a pleasing gift of metaphor. 62 Usener, Epicurea, p. xli.
61

PHILOSOPHICAL PROSE

209

He therefore thinks it better to be unfortunate in reasonable action than to prosper in unreason. For it is better in a man's actions that what is well chosen should fail, rather than that what is ill chosen should be successful owing to chance,

after which come the words quoted above. . The two other letters differ considerably from this letter in style and manner of presentation, 63 and the best that Cicero can praise in Epicurus's writings does not go beyond that they can be clear and have correct Greek. 64 But this letter has much more. T h e reason is found in the aim of the letter, viz. to persuade Menoeceus to meditate and thus reach the level of the happy philosopher. 2. The pseudo-aristotelian , a text written between 350 and 250 BC,65 and authorship of which is still under debate, 66 begins by stadng the author's admiration of philosophy, specifically its theological part in the cosmos. He dedicates what follows to Alexander the Great, who is also interested in these matters. From here onwards the text contains a systematic account of the cosmos and God. Though the subject is itself lofty, it is still a surprise to have here a treatise written in a high-flown style. T h e amount of poetical words is high, the use of synonyms to express one idea is frequent, and isocolon and homoeoteleuton, anaphora and figura etymologica are found more than once. Famous is the comparison between the power of the deity and that of the Great King in Persia. The way this is introduced is indicative of the style of the treadse in general:
, , , ' , , . [ . . . ] , ' . It is therefore better, even as it is more seemly and befitting for God, to suppose that the power which is established in the heavens is the cause of permanence even in those things which are furthest removed

This may be due to their contents, viz. physical theories. See section III above. 65 D. M. Schenkeveld, "Language and Style of the Aristotelian De Mundo. . .", Elenchos 12 (1991), pp. 221-55. 66 G. Reale and A. P. Bos, II Trattato sul Cosmo per Alessandro attribuito ad Aristotele (Milan: Centra di ricerche di metafisica, 1995). Text: W. L. Lorimer, Aristotelis De Mundo (Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1933); trans. The Complete Works of Aristotle: The Revised Oxford Translation (ed. J. Barnes; Bollingen Series, 71.2; Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1984).
54

63

210

DIRK M. SCHENKE VELD

from it, as w e might say, and indeed in everything, rather than to hold that it passes forth and travels to and fro to places which become and befit it not and personally administers the affairs of this earth. For indeed, to superintend any and every operation does not become even the rulers a m o n g mankind [. . .] but rather they should act as it is recorded was done in the time of the Great King.

This treatise can best be classified as a protreptic text. The whole introductory chapter is one encomium of philosophy, in which the author expresses his pity for authors dealing with such mundane subjects as places and rivers of the earth, whereas to speak about the cosmos is much loftier. Not only in this way does he exhort others to do philosophy of the cosmos but at the end he explicitly exhorts Alexander to do so. It is in accordance with its protreptic character that several times the author indicates that he only gives the main points. According to Festugire this shows that the text belongs to the isagogic genre but a different explanation seems preferable. 67 3. Among the texts preserved on papyrus in Herculaneum is one which belongs to a specific paraenetic type. In his ' " (De bono rege secundum Homerum)68 Philodemus offers his patronus Piso an exposition of the correct behaviour of kings and commanders in Homer's epics, but Homer's text is merely a source of ideas whichand this is Philodemus's paraenesisshould be applied by a patronus to his clims.69 Its style is said to be accordingly more limpid and selective than in other writings of Philodemus but one may doubt this statement. An example is col. 24:
, ' ' , .

Turning away from this subject (of royal behaviour at banquets) let us give again serious recommendations to the king: to hate harsh and rough and bitter comportment, and practise gentleness as well as fairness and royal mildness and a harmonious behaviour, as much as possible, for these are things which bring him to a firmly established monarchy and not to a tyranny based on fear.
67

A.J. Festugire, La rvlation d'Herms Trismgiste. II. Le Dieu cosmique (Etud. bibliques; 2nd edn.; Paris: Lecoffre, 1949), ch. 14. 68 Ed. T. Dorandi, Il buon re secondo Omero (La scuola di Epicuro, 3; Naples: Bibliopolis, 1982). 69 Dorandi, Omero, pp. 33-47 with a discussion of different interpretations of this much mutilated text.

PHILOSOPHICAL PROSE

211

4. Porphyry (AD 234-301/5), the famous Neoplatonist, married, when already old, a widow with seven children. In 303 he was on a long voyage and wrote a long letter to his wife Marcella. It is at first a consolatory letter, but from ch. 11 onwards becomes a kind of paraenesis. 70 Porphyry instructs her in what philosophy teaches and what she should think upon. The letter, as we have it, ends with advice on how to conduct herself towards her house slaves, but the original contained more. It is true that nowhere in the letter do we find expressions reminding us of the protreptic vocabulary, and it may be wrong to deal with the letter under this heading. T h e salient point in this kind of paraenesis is that it is a string of wise sayings, many of which are known from anthologies.71 As has been demonstrated by Ptscher, the various sayings are geared to build up arguments, which could also be put into syllogisms.72 Moreover, Porphyry's bridge-passages have a force of their own, for example in a passage with assonance created by identical word-endings (ch. 27):
, , . ' . First you should consider nature's law and rise from there to the divine law, which ordered nature's law. Starting from these you'll not be afraid of the written law.

5. The Protreptikos of Iamblichus (4th cent, AD) has as its title , "protreptic to philosophy", and is the second volume of a ten-volume collection called , "the Pythagorean Sequence". 73 T h e Protreptikos is a collection of extracts from previous philosophers, thereby enabling scholars to reconstruct Aristotle's work of that name. 74 It culminates in a secdon on Pythagorean symbols and prohibitions. All the various parts
Ed. E. des Places, Porphyre, Vie de Pythagore, Lettre Marcella (CUF; Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1982). 71 Des Places, Prophyre, pp. 94-100. 72 W. Ptscher, Porphyries, (Phil. Ant., 15; Leiden: Brill, 1969), pp. 3ff. 73 J. Dillon, lamblichi Chalcidensis in Platonis dialogos commentanorum fragmenta (Phil. Ant., 23; Leiden: Brill, 1973), pp. 19-20. 74 Sen. Ep. 90 contains, according to Jordan, "Ancient Philosophic Protreptic", p. 311 and other scholars, a paraphrasis as well as a correction of the protreptic of Posidonius, but this view, which stems from the early 19th century, is wrong; see K. Reinhardt, "Poseidonios von Apameia", RE s.v. col. 805, although Poseidonius did write a "Protreptikos" (Frs. 1-3 Edelstein-Kidd).
70

212

DIRK M. SCHENKEVELD

are linked by passages written by Iamblichus himself, who also writes the introducdon. Since the abstracts come from pre-Hellenisdc philosophers and the introduction is written in the common expository style of philosophical works of late antiquity, we may well skip this example of protreptic, except for its interest as to the disposition of the whole work. 75 In order to approach the doctrines of Pythagoras and his students one should begin with a common preparation, which consists of a selection of materials coming from every school of philosophy. T h e principle ordering this approach is not uniform nor easy to detect. Iamblichus tends to abbreviate his quotations, thereby reducing the protreptic structures to something which is like Pythagorean symbols, the subject he discusses in the last chapter. The plan of the original work is totally obscured so that all stress is laid on individual pieces of protreptic wisdom. Taken in this way Iamblichus's principle of ordering has everything to do with his own philosophical approach to Pythagorean wisdom. 6. A final example is a Protreptic towards philosophy for the people of Nicomedia by the rhetor and philosopher Themistius (ca. AD 317-388). 76 His ninth oration is also called , but this is an admonitory oration to the young prince Valentinianus and contains an exposition of the virtues of a commander 77 as well as much praise for the Emperor Valens. 78 The twenty-fourth oration shows how loosely the designation can be used for it does not exhort the Nicomedians to study philosophy, unless implicidy. Themistius wishes to prove that philosophy should be coupled with the grace and sweetness of rhetoric to have an impact on its audience. Both philosophy and rhetoric are described as persons with their distinct stature, habits and clothes, and the mixture of philosophy and rhetoric is depicted as a chorus of young men dancing harmoniously. The orator develops this theme by quoting and explaining many passages from clas-

Jordan, "Ancient Philosophic Protrepdc", pp. 326-27. G. Downey and A. F. Norman, Themistii orationes quae supersunt (3 vols.; Bibl. Teub.; Leipzig-Stuttgart: Teubner, 1965-74); W. Stegemann, "Themistios" (2), RE 2:10 (1934), cols. 1642-1680, esp. 1663-64 and 1672-76. 77 In this respect it joins the group of Frstenspiegel texts, begun by Xenophon's Cyropaedia. 78 Hartlich, Exhortationum, pp. 326-29 distinguishes both orations as being respectively protrepticus rhetoricus (Or. 9) and philosophicus (Or. 24). The rhetorical protreptic (= not an exhortation to rhetoric, thus Jordan, "Ancient Philosophic Protreptic", p. 312) is an admonition to virtues no one will disagree with, whereas the philosophical one may elicit protest.
76

75

PHILOSOPHICAL PROSE

213

sical writers. The philosophy one finds here is of the same general ethical kind as in non-philosophical orations. Plato is very often quoted or referred to. Though Themistius also published paraphrases of Aristotelian works, in his orations he almost nowhere quotes this philosopher. Obviously he thinks Plato's ethics more at home in orations for a greater public. In other words, as a true rhetorician the orator has his public in mind when composing his works. Themistius's style79 is that of the orators of his time: often long orations, in which a clear dispositio is not his first concern. But this feature may well be there by design in order to attain the simplicity () advocated by rhetorical handbooks. He avoids monotony by introducing anecdotes, examples, and stories. Important is his avoidance of hiatus in his public orations whereas his talks often admit it. Themistius is one of the first writers to observe the basic rule of early Byzantine prose (Meyer's Law) on the clausula, that between the last two accents of a sentence there are two or four non-accented syllables, as appears from the lines containing the main theme of this oration (p. 101:11-17 Downey-Norman):
' , , ' , . T h e hall of philosophy is not wholly void of graces, and the goddesses do not encamp apart from our schools of philosophy, nor would we ever put up for you a chorus not sharing in temperate pleasure either, but we always wish to combine Aphrodite and the Muses; being sisters they welcome togetherness also.

V.

DIALOGUE80

A. Plato and Aristotle The dialogues of Plato have very much influenced our thoughts on what a dialogue is, but their literary greatness and important contents
' 9 Stegemann, "Themistios", cols. 1672-76. Dialogue is here restricted to a literary form of conversation in which two or more participants discuss one or more problems put forward by one participant,
80

214

DIRK M. SCHENKE VELD

may easily make us forget that this kind of philosophical dialogue neither is the only possible one, nor was the only type in the fifth and fourth centuries BC.81 Socrates' pupils like Antisthenes and Aeschines write their kind of Socratic dialogue, but not much of these has survived. In Xenophon's Memorabilia we read many short dialogues and his Symposium is another example of this type. Further, Plato's dialogues are not uniform: apart from the difference between his dramatic or mimetic dialogues (e.g. Meno) and the reported ones, in which someone reports a dialogue (e.g. Phaedo), a gradual evolution is noticeable, by which the last dialogue, the Laws, has nothing more of the vividness and directness of the early dialogues. Now the participants most of the time give their exposition in a kind of monologue, interrupted at time by one of the other speakers. In the earlier dialogues Socrates confesses his own ignorance, gradually exposes that of his partners () and brings them towards further research (). T h e participants try by a combined effort to further their knowledge, and none of them imposes his own view without being challenged. Gradually, however, this combined action starts to disappear together with the immediately appealing characterization of the participants, and the colourful description of the scenery and Socrates is even absent from the discussion in Plato's last dialogue. Aristotle's dialogues, preserved in fragments only, have a distinctly different character. Thus, for it is likely that it contained three books, each introduced by a prooemium and in which the author himself (Aristotle) was one of the participants in the discussion: Plato's "anonymity" has been abandoned. These persons present their views in lengthy antithetic expositions, and in some dialogues Aristotle has the role of the main character, deciding on the problem put forward. 82 This kind of dialogue is to all appearances continued in the writings of Peripatetics, like Theophrastus and
which discussion dominates the whole, or the main part, of the conversation. See also E. W. B. Hess-Lttich, "Dialogos", Historisches Wrterbuch der Rhetorik (Tbingen: Niemeyer, 1993-), II, pp. 606-21. 81 R. Hirzel, Der Dialog: Ein literarhistorischer Versuch (2 vols.; Leipzig: Hirzel, 1895); F. Wehrli, "Dialog", LAW ( 1965) cols. 724-25; G. Schmid, "Dialogus", dKP 2 (1967), cols. 1575-77 (with references and literature). 82 Hirzel, Dialog, I, pp. 272-300, whose views have been accepted by most scholars. With Leeman-Pinkster, Cicero, I, pp. 6 7 - 6 9 one may query Hirzel's interpretation of the words Aristotelio more (Fam. 1:9:23) as meaning "lngere mit einander abwechselnde Reden der einzelner Gesprchspersonen" (p. 276 n. 2) and rather take them as not looking at Aristotelian dialogues but at his method of instruction (disputalio in utramque partem).

PHILOSOPHICAL PROSE

215

Heraclides of Pontus, but also in those of other Hellenistic philosophers. We know of a considerable number of dialogue writers in this period but almost always have to guess at their contents, let alone their style.83 B. Pseudoplatonic Dialogues Plato's dialogue tradition continues in the pseudoplatonic dialogues. Among these the shorter ones (Kurzdialoge),84 written between 350 and the first or second century AD, constitute together with genuine short dialogues of Plato a class of their own. 85 They show the development of Academic philosophy in that their Socrates evolves from the protreptic and aporetic participant through a more dogmatic stage towards a sceptic who propagates or an admirer of Pythagoras. 86 Often the interlocutor is anonymous, and in the three discussions of the Demodocus everyone is so. There is no description of a scenic background or other circumstances, which fact together with anonymity may be due to a wish to stress the universal validity of what is said. The theme of the discussion is usually immediately submitted and there is a clearly structured composition, ending with a summarizing phrase. The three dialogues in the Demodocus87 have much in common: each time a narrator (Socrates, apparently) reports a discussion he has witnessed, and in which the result is a call for further investigation. Before this the dialogues unfold by means of antilogies when someone attacks a popular truth taken for granted by someone else, but the narrator ends by confessing that he is not convinced of the truth of either's views. In this way the author shows his scepticism. A selection from the third dialogue gives an impression of what has been said:
' . Hirzel, Dialog, I, pp. 272-421. Sisyphus, De iusto, De virtute, Alcyon. Demodocus consists of two parts by different authors: (1) a symbouleudc speech and (2) three very short reported dilalogues. 85 Slings, CommenUiry, pp. 33-39. 86 C. YV. Mller, Die Kurzdialoge der Appendix platonica (Studia et test, ant., 17; Munich: Fink, 1975), pp. 327-29 and the review by S. R. Slings, Mnemosyne 31 (1978), pp. 211-14. 87 From the 3rd/2d cent, BC, cf. Mller, Kurzdialoge, p. 271. Text: Burnet's Plato, V.
84 83

216

DIRK M. SCHENKEVELD

' , [ . . . ] , . ' (385c2~d3). S o m e o n e accused another of simplicity because he was inclined to promptly put faith in what persons he did not know intimately told him. For, he said, it is reasonable to trust what your fellow-citizens and your friends say, but to put faith in such people you've neither met nor heard before [ . . . ] , that is not a small sign of silliness. O n e of the m e n present there said: "But I thought you hold the opinion that the man w h o quickly understands something is of more value than one w h o does so slowly".

T h e narrator ends thus (386c5-9):


' , . ; While they were speaking thus I was at a loss concerning w h o are to be trusted and w h o not, and whether these are those that deserve trust and know what they are talking about, or one's friends and acquaintances. About this then, what do you think?

T h e narrator finally addresses the man to whom he reports the discussion thus suggesting that they will continue this discussion, but as a true sceptic he gives no hint whatsoever that they will succeed where others failed. These dialogues have been connected 88 to the (chreia, or anecdote), known as one of the school exercises in rhetoric (progymnasmata)I. This connection has no sense in so far as these dialogues, short though they may be, have more than anecdotal meaning. A chreia is to be used as a short tale in order to illustrate an acdon, a habit, or something else. These dialogues, it is true, can be put in a context of illustrating Socrates' sceptical approach, like the dialogues in Xenophon's Memorabilia, but they are too long and have too much argument just to serve as illustration.

C. Cicero After the Hellenistic period the philosophical dialogue had its renaissance, first in Rome and later elsewhere. In Rome, Cicero was the
88

Mller, Kurzdialoge, pp. 270 and 322, after Hirzel, Dialog, I, pp. 145-46.

PHILOSOPHICAL PROSE

217

prime representative of this type of writing, and, because almost the whole of Cicero's philosophical writing is still extant, a somewhat lengthy discussion here is in order. Cicero introduced philosophy in Latin literature, an achievement of prime importance for Western philosophy. Here is not the place to sketch his reasons for doing so and to give an account of his philosophical ideas; after giving general information stress must here be put on the linguistic and rhetorical aspects of his philosophical dialogues, for both are closely related. 89 The reason why Cicero prefers the dialogue form to that of a treatise is to be found not only in the Greek tradition (see above on the Greek dialogue) but also in the scope the dialogue gives to Cicero to show his abilities as a writer. Moreover, dialogues with their informality of conversation (sermo) are more in tune with the urbanity of the participants who all belong to the same social class.90 He censures the books written in Latin by Epicureans for their lack of disposition and ornateness 91 and praises Academic and Peripatetic philosophers for their suavitas and copia, even sometimes their granditas, sublimity.92 It is true, in his Orator he asks for a more moderate style in a philosophical work, more of a civilized conversation (sermo) than oratory. There he characterizes this style as follows: mollis est enim oratio philosophorum et umbratilis, nec sententiis nec verbis instructa popularibus, nec vincta numeris, sed soluta liberius; nihil iratum habet, nihil invidum, nihil atrox, nihil miserabile, nihil astutum. casta verecunda, virgo incorrupta quodammodo. The style of philosophers is gentle and academic; it has no equipment of words or phrases that catch the popular fancy; it is not arranged in rhythmical periods, but is loose in structure; there is no anger in it, no hatred, no ferocity, no pathos, no shrewdness; it might be called a chaste, pure and modest virgin.93 The difference between the two statements can be explained by their context, that of a discussion on differences between styles of oratory and philosophy (Orator) and that of an exposition focused on different philosophical styles (Brutus). But Cicero refuses to keep the two styles
J. Ferguson, "Cicero's Contribution to Philosophy", in E. Paratore (ed.), Cotlana di Studi Ciceroniani, II (Roma: Centra di studi Cicer., 1962), pp. 99 111. 90 Modern discussion of various aspects in the introductory chapters by LeemanPinkster, Cicero, I. 91 Tusc. 2:7-8. 92 Brut. 120-21. 93 Or. 62-64.
89

218

DIRK M. SCHENKEVELD

completely apart as far as his own philosophical works are concerned. For he tries to bring philosophy to rhetoric and vice versa, as his own De oratore witnesses. Cicero lists his books on philosophical subjects in De divinatione, prologue to the second book. Commonly scholars distinguish two periods of philosophical activity,94 the first occurring around 55 BC, when he writes De republica, in which his famous Somnium Scipionis stands, De legibus and De oratore, combining a philosophical approach with a discussion of rhetoric. The second period (46-3 BC) is the more important one, in which he publishes Academici libn, De finibus bonorum et malorum, Tusculanae disputationes, De natura deorum, De divinatione, De fato, Cato maior de senectute, Laelius de amicitia and De officiis, all of which are still extant, whereas of other books not mentioned here we have fragments only. Only De officiis does not have a dialogue form; all other writings have. The discussions are either reported (reported dialogues), some even in the form of a two-layered report, or directly put forward as in drama (dramatic or mimetic dialogues). In accordance with Plato's approach in his Politeia and Nomoi Cicero's De republica contains a discussion held by Scipio Africanus Minor and his friends as reported to Cicero and his brother by Publius Rutilius Rufus when they were spending some days at his house in Smyrna. The De legibus, however, immediately starts as in drama with one of the participants making remarks. 95 T h e latter method of presentation is more commodious, as he himself puts it, for it saves him the frequent use of inquam and inquit.96 Tusculanae disputationes (likewise De fato) stands apart from other dialogues in so far as it is not a report on a conversation but that of a schola, a form of systematic instruction. Cicero sojourns with several friends in Tusculum and ponere iubebam, de quo quis audire vellet; at id sedens aut ambulans disputabam ( 1:4). Various general statements, theseis, are put forward and discussed by Cicero. A big difference with dialogues is that someone puts forward a point to be discussed but is almost silent for the rest.97 Cicero introduces the participants in the discussion as standing for
Cf. Leeman-Pinkster, Cicero, I, pp. 17-21 on the common view that these philosophical activities are the result of his forced absence from politics. 95 Hirzel, Dialog, I, pp. 47Iff. and 524ff. 96 Lael. 1:3, on the model of Plato's Theaet. 97 Tusc. 1:7-8, 2:9; cf. Fin. 2:2.
94

PHILOSOPHICAL PROSE

219

different viewpoints. The (main) participants are at liberty to expound their views to a considerable length (disputatio). Thus in De natura deorum the Epicurean Velleius explains Epicurean physics, including theology, in the first book, the Stoic Balbus that of his school in the second one, whereas Cotta, representing the Sceptic Academy, after refuting the Epicurean views in book 1, needs the whole third book to combat the Stoic doctrine. Other persons may be present in order to listen only (thus Cicero in this dialogue) or to ask pertinent questions which help to develop the dialogue, but often such individuals are absent. The dialogues may be set in earlier times, thus for De natura deorum a date between 77 and 75 is given, whereas Cicero writes this work in 45 BC; but contemporary discussions can also be reflected, for example De legibus gives a picture of a discussion held by his brother Quintus, his friend Atdcus and himself on his estate at Aipinum. Here the place of discussion changes several timesit starts in a grove, soon changes to the bank of the nearby Liris and later the speakers go to an island in another river. T h e Tusculanae disputationes are said to reflect five days of discussion held in J u n e 1620, 46 BC. A regular feature of most of Cicero's philosophical and other dialogues is the presence of a prologue and arrangement by books. A division in books is already present in Aristotle's dialogues, who also prefaced each book with a prologue. 98 Cicero's arrangement often coincides with temporal indications, such as that it is evening and time to interrupt the discussion, which is taken up again the following morning and occupies another book. 99 The use of prologues enables Cicero to discuss the importance a n d / o r complexity of the subject, or to vent his views on philosophy in general. At the same time it offers him the possibility of dedicating his work to a friend and explaining why he does so, thus praising this dedicatee. O n e difficulty inherent to this kind of prologue is how to manage the transition to the subject to be dealt with in the dialogue proper. 100 In the Tusculanae disputationes this transition comes rather smoothly, for Cicero first announces and defends his intention to present philosophy in Latin and stresses his view that to do so involves a certain

Cic. Att. 4:16:2. Hirzel, Dialog, I, pp. 297- 300. 100 M. Pohlenz, Ciceros Tusc. Disp. It. (Leipzig-Berlin: Teubner, 1912), I, pp. 22-23.
99

98

220

DIRK M. SCHENKEVELD

ornate and full style. He had formerly trained in orations, in his old age he does so in philosophical discussions. An example is what he has done when sojourning in Tusculum. In De natura deorum, on the other hand, his declared intention is to write on the branch of philosophy dealing with the nature of gods. He first discusses several views, goes on to state that it is his duty to public life to expound philosophy to his fellow-countrymen and then comes back to his intention given at the start of the prologue. There is wide diversity of opinion on his subject and this fact must have its impact on those who think that they possess certain knowledge. He then continues:
This has often struck me, but it did so with especial force on one occasion, w h e n the topic of the immortal gods was made the subject of a very searching and thorough discussion at the house of my friend Gaius Cotta. It was the Latin Festival, and . . . (1:15).

Prologues to later books may continue the approach taken up in the first prologue or develop a different theme. Thus in the prologue to the second book of De divinatione Cicero presents us with his "autobibliography", but both proems to books 1 and 2 of Tusculanae disputationes deal with Cicero's justification of his involvement in philosophy. Many of these features of the prologues and the dialogues proper can be explained as due to Cicero's reading of Greek models. However, and here enters the aspect of rhetoric, he expressly states that there is a close relationship between rhetoric and philosophy and that the best exposition of philosophy follows rules of rhetoric in using an ornate, rich and varied language (see above). Cicero is very much aware of the stylistic demands of the dialogue, the kind of literature which abhors dry expositions, full of technical jargon. Such an approach may do very well in , artes, handbooks, but must be kept away from dialogues. These are sermones, "free discussions between cultured amateurs and litrateurs", 101 therefore characterized by humanitas, urbanitas and dissimulation02 However, as Cicero admits, almost all philosophy was developed by Greeks. Transposition of their ideas and thoughts into Latin entails creating a philosophical terminology in Latin.103 Three types of remedies are applied: Latinization of Greek words (e.g. philosophia),
Leeman, Orationis ratio, p. 209. Leeman-Pinkster, Cicero, I, pp. 80-84. 103 Leeman, Orationis ratio, pp. 206ff.; A. Michel, "Rhtorique et philosophie dans les traits de Cicron", ANRW 1.3 (1973), pp. 139-208.
102 101

PHILOSOPHICAL PROSE

221

use of existing words in a special sense (sapiens for ) and derivation from Latin stems (essentia for ). In contrast to some of his friends, Cicero restricts himself in applying these remedies and rejects some verba novata, such as spectra for Greek when imagines is perfecdy suitable.104 He avoids pedantic subtilitas, uses therefore sometimes the same word for different notions and likes to vary his vocabulary or to render one Greek word by two in Latin. The problem of sentence construction, where the Greek language benefits from the infinitive with article and a freer use of participles than Latin, is not really solved, for cumbrous circumlocutions and many subordinate clauses have to be used.105 In these matters Cicero evidendy adheres to his own rhetorical ideas of what is proper language: clear, conforming to the rules of Latin, and moderately ornate. Accordingly, not much attention is given to prose rhythm; the painstaking use of the clausula is even rejected for philosophical style,106 and beautifully arranged periods are used sparingly. Sometimes, however, especially in the prologues, Cicero writes in a more grandiose manner. For example, in the laus philosophiae (Tusc. 5:5) he admits a kind of prose hymn:
(philosophia): cuius in sinum cum a primis temporibus aetatis nostra voluntas studiumque nos compulisset, his gravissimis casibus in eundem portum, ex quo eramus egressi, magna iactati tempestate confugimus. vitae philosophia dux, virtutis indagatrix expultrixque vitiorum! Quid non modo nos, sed omnino vita hominum sine te potuisset! T u urbes peperisti, tu dissipatos homines in societatem vitae convocasti, tu eos inter se primo domiciliis, deinde coniugiis, tum litterarum et vocum communione iunxist, tu inventrix legum, tu magistra morum et disciplinae fuisti. Ad te confugimus. a te opem petimus, tibi nos, ut antea magna ex parte, sic nunc penitus totosque tradimus. 107 From my earliest years my wishes and interests drove me to her bosom, and in these grievous misfortunes, tossed by a great storm, I have taken refuge in that same harbour from which I had taken my departure. Philosophy, guide to life, searcher out of Virtue, expeller of vices!

Fam. 15:19:1 and Fin. 1:21. Cf. also R. Poncelet, Cicron traducteur de Platon (Paris: Boccard, 1957). 106 Or. 64. 107 Trans, in A. E. Douglas, Cicero: Tuscutan Disputations II & V (Warminster: Aris & Phillips, 1990). Rhythmical analysis in W. Primmer, Cicero numerosus: Studien zum ant. Prosarhythmus (SB Oest. Ak. Wiss., phil.-hist. Kl., 257; Vienna: Bhlaus, 1968), p. 324.
105

104

222

DIRK M. SCHENKE VELD

What could not only I but human life in general have achieved without you? Y o u created cities, you brought scattered human beings together in c o m m u n a l living, you joined them to each other, first with dwellings, then with marriage, then c o m m o n bonds of writing and speech. Y o u were the inventress of laws, you the instructress in morals and ordered living. In you we look for refuge, from you we seek help, to you I surrender myself, as formerly in large measure, so now utterly and completely.

Similarly, in Somnium Scipionis Cicero often uses poetical vocabulary in harmony with the tenor of Scipio's vision of the heavenly spheres.108 It has been often noticed that Cicero likes to deal to with a subject by having participants of the discussion respectively arguing in favour and against a particular view, but also one person can argue both sides. This method of dicere in utramque partem Cicero connects with Aristode and the Academy. A related method is that of arguing against any opinion held by someone else (contra id quod quisque se sentire dixisset disputare) and for this method the Academics Arcesilaus and Carneades are said to be responsible.109 Both methods serve to produce a sharper insight into the matter under discussion but also are useful to Sceptics as an instrument and an expression of their scepticism.110 Cicero, moreover, thinks it necessary for an orator to pracdce both techniques and did so himself from an early age onwards. T h e view to be discussed has the form of a statement, which is either a general question (quaestio infinita, , e.g. "Should one remain in one's country when under tyranny?") or a specific one (quaestio finita, , e.g. "Should Cicero remain in Rome now that Caesar dominates it?"). 1 " Though some rhetoricians claim theseis for rhetoric, they are the proper subject for philosophers and accordingly claimed by them. 112 Cicero's method in Tusculanae disputationes, therefore, of proposing a general statement, for example malum mihi videtur esse mors (1:9), and then discussing the various aspects of this opinion, should be seen not as due to his rhetorical approach of

Cf. De or. 3:152iT. De or. 3:80; N.D. 1:11, but in De or. 2:161 Carneades is also associated with the first method. 110 Wisse, Welsprekendhd, on De or. 3:80; J. Wisse, Ethos and Pathos from Aristotle to Cicero (Amsterdam: Gieben, 1989), pp. 169 and 177. 111 Cf. Att. 9:4:1-3. 112 De or. 3:109-10.
109

108

PHILOSOPHICAL PROSE

223

philosophy but as a consequence of the training in philosophy he received from Philo of Larisa and other philosophers. Of course, his own oratorical experience influenced his handling of these theseis and of philosophical themes in general.

D. Later Latin Dialogues Cicero's attempt to introduce his form of the philosophical dialogue into Latin literature did not have much success. In the next generation L. Annaeus Seneca (AD 1-65) not only chose to follow a completely different style but also produced twelve treatises, called dialog. in our MS tradition, which, however, have nothing to do with the format of those of Cicero. It has been claimed that these Senecan writings may better be called "diatribes" and that Seneca called them dialogi using an acceptable Latin equivalent for the Greek . 113 Indeed, in one work only, De tranquillitate animi, there is a very superficial appearance of a dialogue when Serenus starts by describing his lack of tranquility of mind and asks Seneca for some medicine. Seneca responds by expounding his views and counsel in one long monologue of over 30 Teubner pages. In all other so-called dialogues, including De benciis and De clementia, which fall outside the collection of 12 dialog., Seneca immediately starts by addressing someone else, but there is no sign of a report of a conversation; the someone else is absent and is like the recipient of a letter. For this absence of a dialogue situation I think it better to discuss the Senecan dialogi in the section on diatribe and dialexis. The last dialogue on the Latin side to be discussed here is the Consolatio philosophiae of Anicius Manlius Severinus Boethius (ca. 4 8 0 524). When in prison he composed a dialogue between Lady Philosophia and himself. Philosophy consoles him by discussing many philosophical, especially moral, problems by means of tenets held by various schools (Cynic, Stoic, Peripatetic and (neo-)Platonist). T h e absence of Christian theology is remarkable in view of Boethius's defence of neo-chalcidian theology elsewhere, but explainable by the
113 E.g. by H. Dahlmann, L. Annaeus Seneca. De brevitate vitae (Munich: Hueber, 1949), p. 367. Support for this view can be found in the use of = to practise the type of dialexis in opposition to practising declamation by Philostratus, for example. See B. Schouler, Libanios. Discours moraux (Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1973), p. 23.

224

DIRK M. SCHENKEVELD

view that philosophy deals with the nature around us, theology with doctrines delivered by divine revelation." 4 The dialogue form allows Boethius to have himself put questions to Philosophy, to raise objections and to assent, but the main part is reserved for Philosophy's exposidons. All these are given in a quiet way, but sometimes a true dialogue of question and answer introduces a sense of variety. Variety is also achieved by the introduction of many poems, sometimes when Philosophy is done with a problem, at other times when she alleviates the tension by summarizing her argument in verse form. This mixture of prose and poetry has been brought back to the Menippean satire, a genre practised by Varro, Lucian and others, but now put to use for a philosophical and serious subject." 5

E. Later Greek Dialogues O n the Greek side the philosophical dialogue made a come back in the Imperial period. For his philosophical and other writings Plutarch sixteen times chooses a dialogue form and Dio of Prusa also has some full-blown dialogues, be it very small ones. Plutarch" 6 follows Plato's example in having both mimetic and reported dialogues, but he does not have dialogues consisting of a rapid interchange of question and answer, only those made up of a series of developed speeches. T h e less plausible answers come first and are refuted in the course of the later speeches. This strategy is fully comprehensible, for after the right or most probable" 7 solution has been given all strain and anxiety have vanished and no one is waiting for another wrong explanation. Plato follows this course in his Symposium and other authors imitate him. Sometimes Plutarch's dialogues begin with a genuine dialogue but after a few pages this form is abandoned and one participant has the floor up till the end of the conversation. If there is a continuous and true conversation, Plutarch is able to give a lively portrait of its characters and he also keeps his eye on the environ-

114 P. Merlan, "Boethius", IA W (Zich-Stuttgart: Artemis, 1965); LCL edition of Boethius, pp. x-xii. 115 Hirzel, Dialog, II, pp. 347-48. 116 Hirzel, Dialog, II, pp. 124-238; K. Ziegler, "Plutarchos von Chaironea", RE 21 (1951), cols. 890-93; 2nd edn. (1964), cols. 253-55; D. A. Russell, Plutarch (London: Duckworth, 1973), pp. 34-41. Ed. F. C. Babbitt et ai, Plutarch's Moralia (16 vols.; LCL; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; London: Heinemann, 1927-36). 117 This alternative is often the one Plutarch chooses because of his scepticism (Ziegler, "Plutarchos", p. 253).

PHILOSOPHICAL PROSE

225

ment. Another Platonic trait is the presence of an eschatological myth in De genio Socratis and two other dialogues. Novel in comparison with Plato's dialogues such as the Phaedo is the intricate interplay in two dialogues (De genio Socratis and Amatonus) between the subject of the discussion and the setting. Thus in the first dialogue the liberation of Thebes from the Spartan occupation in 379 BC forms the background against which the conversation of the conspirators and exiles in the house of Simmias, now an old man, takes place. At the same time there is a line of narrative about a stranger staying near the tomb of the Pythagorean Lysis. Developments in the two plots punctuate the discussions." 8 In the Amatonus a narrated love-affair gives rise to a philosophical discussion on love." 9 Here Plutarch's son Autoboulos reports a conversation held several years ago by his father and some friends in the neighbourhood of Thespiae. 120 There is a big commotion in the town because a certain Ismenodora, a beautiful but widowed woman, wishes to marry Bacchon, also beautiful but rather young. Bacchon leaves the decision to two older relatives, who consult Plutarch and his friends on this matter. A discussion between the adherents and the opponents of pederasty first develops, which is interrupted by the message that the widow has abducted the young man. Several participants now leave and Plutarch and his friends now discuss other aspects of Eros. In a part now lost they move away in the direction of the town and Plutarch is the principal speaker, defending conjugal love rather than homosexual love. The group is now reaching Thespiae and gets the news that Ismenodora and Bacchon have come to an agreement and that the wedding is already under way. Russell rightly compares this dialogue with its novel-like setting to the first book of the novelist Achilles Tatius and states that the dialogue made a contribution to the development of the novel.121 In his treatises as well as in his dialogues Plutarch heavily relies on earlier authorities. Thus in the Amatonus an enormous number of quotations from poets is found and, of course, Plato's Symposium is referred to once and again. Stories are taken from various sources to

Full discussion in Russell, Plutarch, pp. 36-41. R. Flacelire, Plutarque, Dialogue sur l'Amour (Ann. de l'Univ. de Lyon iii, 21; Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1953); W. C. Helmbold, Plutarch's Moralia, LCL, IX. 120 Plato's Sympoum has a similar beginning. 121 Russell, PluUirch, p. 35. But in modern literature on the ancient novel Plutarch's dialogue is not mentioned at all.
119

118

226

DIRK M. SCHENKEVELD

demonstrate particular points. In this way one may see this dialogue as a depository of views on love. Nevertheless from the end one gathers that though defending both homosexual and conjugal love as equally important Plutarch really advocates the latter, and thus takes a stance different from the Master. 122 Another point of difference is that Eros is undoubtedly a God, no longer a daemon, as in the Symposium. Plutarch seems to wish to identify Eros with the intelligible archetype of the Sun, and thus T h e good in Republic 6.123 This part of the dialogue also offers a good example of Plutarch's calm style with often long periods, avoidance of hiatus, and rhythmical cola in an Atticistic Greek, full of poetical words which seem to have gone into Atticistic prose and with an abundance of two words expressing one thought (lhendiadyoin) as well as comparisons. 124 One example must suffice. It comes from Amatonus (Mor. 765D-F):
, , < > ' "I [Alcaeus fr. 8 Diehl = 327 Campbell LCL), , . N o w generally poets w h o write or sing of the god seem to be making fun of him or carousing in a drunken revel; but they have some serious productions to their credit, either because they have taken careful thought, or else by the god's help they have really grasped the truth. O n e such concerns his birth: Most fearful of the gods W h o m fair-sandalled Iris bore T o Zephyrus of the golden h a i r unless y o u have let yourselves be persuaded by literary critics w h o affirm that the imagery symbolizes the variegated brilliance of the emotion (trans. Helmbold LCL).

Dio of Prusa (Chrysostomus) composes twelve discourses in the form of a mimetic dialogue between Dio, the teacher, and one of his pupils,
Ziegler, "Plutarchos", col. 161 and Flacelire, Plutarque, pp. 25-27. Cf. D. Babut, Plutarque et le Stocisme (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1969), pp. 108-12 on the view that Plutarch's ideas on conjugal love are taken from Stoic sources. 123 J. Dillon, The Middle Platonists (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1977), pp.
122

200-201.
124

Ziegler, "Plutarchos", cols. 294-301; Russell, Plutarch, ch. 2.

PHILOSOPHICAL PROSE

227

who remains anonymous. 125 Sometimes an external object or incident brings about the conversation, thus in Or. 21, " O n Beauty", Dio is led by the sight of the statue of a handsome youth to express regret that beauty among males is dying out because it is unappreciated, while that of females is increasing. In Or. 23, "That the wise man is fortunate and happy", Dio immediately starts by putdng a question to his pupil. The young man mosdy answers with "Certainly" and other non-impressive statements but he can also be critical and, for instance, declare that Euripides' view of the continuously unhappy state of man is nonsensea statement easy to make for Euripides is often quoted by ancient authors as expressing ridiculous ideas. As in other ancient dialogues, the wrong ideas are put forward first and the better one comes at the end. In this dialogue the pupil objects to the view that guiding spirits, if divine, can be wicked. Dio admits that up to now he has maintained the popular opinion but now will give the right philosophical (= Stoic) view: only the wise man is happy because listening to the guiding spirit, which is good and wise. Dio's style in dialogues is quite different from that of Plutarch. The calmness of the latter have given place to much shorter sentences, hiatus is allowed where Plutarch shuns it, but first and foremost a real conversation does not take place: the master instructs the pupil. Moreover, these dialogues are much shorter (but the second and fourth orations on kingship and delivered before Trajan in Rome consist, apart from an introduction, of dialogues between Philip and his son Alexander and Alexander and Diogenes respectively and are equally as long as Plutarch's). My example comes from Or. 23:10:
, , ; ; , - , . For just consider: If you really believe that the guiding spirit is divine and good and the author of no evil to anyone, h o w d o you explain a man's becoming unfortunate, that is, unhappy? O r does that happens

Hirzel, Dialog, II, pp. 84-119; H. von Arnim, Leben und Werke des Dio von Prusa (Berlin, 1898). Ed. J. W. Cohoon and L. Crosby (5 vols.; LCL; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; London: Heinemann, 1932-51).

125

228

DIRK M. SCHENKEVELD

w h e n he does not heed or obey his guiding spirit, this being good? It is just as if we should think that all physicians are good in the matters of their profession and that none of them is a bad physician or harmful, but yet should see some of their patients doing poorly and suffering harm in their illnesses; evidently we should say that they refuse to obey orders and that such patients as do obey cannot but come through well; and nothing that should happen to them would surprise anyone (trans. C o h o o n LCL).

Dio's strength is to be found not in his dialogues but in his orations.

F. The Influence of Ekphrasis In the first or second century AD, the dialogue genre undergoes a further change when the unknown author of the (Tabula Cebetis)m joins the characteristics of a dialogue with those of an ekphrasis. The I, together with a friend, look at an enigmatic picture in a temple of Kronos and in an ensuing dialogue a venerable old man explains the picture with its four enclosures, symbolizing the ways of life. Whereas the explanation takes the form of an erotapokrisis, one participant by means of his questions being the prompter of the other who supplies all information, 127 at the end a real dialogue on the meaning of the picture comes about. The ekphrasism as a literary device is much practised by rhetoricians and well known from some of Lucian's dialogues and especially the introduction of Achilles Tatius's romance Leucippe and Clitophon, with the relevant picture of a love story. Now this device is used to propagate moral ideas, and personification and allegorization of virtues and vices are applied. Prodicus's story about Heracles on the crossroads129 is, of course, also influential. This new approach of presenting moral paraenesis heavily leans on literary examples; one of these may be the admittance of hiatus at numerous places, perhaps in order to show the looseness and friendliness of the conversation. Plutarch would not have approved but Cicero applauded.

J. T. Fitzgerald and L. M. White, The Tabula of Cebes (Texts and Trans., GraecoRoman Religion Series, 7; Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1983). 127 H. Drrie and H. Drries, "Erotapokriseis", RAC, VI, cols. 342-70. This method differs from that adopted by, e.g., Dio (see above) in so far as there the I (Dio) by his questions and information keeps the conversation in motion. 128 G. Downey, "Ekphrasis", RAC IV (1959), cols. 923ff. 129 Xen. Mem. 2:1:21-34.

126

PHILOSOPHICAL PROSE

229

G. Lucian It is interesting to observe how in some of his dialogues Lucian of Samosata (ca. 120-180) 130 comes back to that type of Platonic dialogue in which short questions and answers abound. Lucian explores the possibilities of many types of literature and in dialogues like Hermotimos he adopts the Socratic manner. This text has been seen as a serious and eloquent defense of scepticism,131 but as so often in Lucian's oeuvre, one may suppose that the critical observer Lucian has found another subject to ridicule. At any rate, in Hermotimos the claims made for the lifelong study of philosophy are systematically undermined by Hermotimos's interlocutor, Lycinus, who acts as a second Socrates. At the end Hermotimos has undergone a conversion and promises to lay down his philosopher's dress and appearance and to behave as an ordinary man. T h e speaking parts of Hermotimos tend to be smaller towards the end when Lycinus gendy but inexorably demolishes all pretensions of philosophers. Typical of Lycinus's attack is his down to earth manner, for example in 16 when Lycinus asks Hermotimos to teach him how we can distinguish the best philosophy:
EPM. . ' . . ; ; . ' , . . , . - I will tell you. I saw that most people took to this one, so I guessed it was the best. - H o w many more Stoics are there than Epicureans or Platonists or Peripatetics? You obviously took a count of them as in a show of hands. - I didn't count. I made an estimate. - So you are not prepared to teach me. You are cheating when you tell me you decide such a matter by guesswork and weight of numbers. You are hiding the truth from me (trans. Kilburn LCL).

Luciani opera (ed. M. D. Macleod; 4 vols.; OCT; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 197287). Trans. A. M. Harmon et al. (8 vols.; LCL; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; London: Heinemann, 1913-1967). 131 H.-G. Nesselrath, "Kaiserzeidiches Skeptizismus in platonischem Gewand: Lukians 'Hermotimos'", ANRW \1.36:5 (1992), pp. 3451-82.

130

230

DIRK M. SCHENKEVELD

Lucian's style here and elsewhere in dialogues is in keeping with the general stylistic ideals of dialogue writers: no contentio () but sermo (, ). Dialogues do not offer the chance to show stylistic brilliance. Rules of rhetoric forbid such a show.

VI.

D I A T R I B E AND D I A L E X I S

A. Introduction At the end of the nineteenth century scholars started to use the term "diatribe" for a group of "lectures or discourses on a moral theme, marked by a combination of seriousness with humour and a certain vividness and immediacy in language". 132 In doing so they were under the impression of continuing ancient usage of the Greek word . 133 Since then the debate on what a diatribe is and is not, on its relation to ancient terms and on its origins has continued until today and consensus on all points has not come about. 134 A huge bone of contention is the problem of whether diatribe in the modern sense and defined as above is equivalent to what the Greeks and Romans called , or notalternatively, and have been proposed 135 and, if so, whether the diatribe is first and foremost a product of school lectures or a discourse for a bigger

Russell, Plutarch, p. 29. In ancient Greek has several meanings, among which are pertinent here "a (philosophical) school", "teaching done in such a school", "a work in which this teaching is written down" and, in a wider sense, "a philosophical treatise", based on a course of lectures. 134 The first occurrence is in Usener, Epicurea, p. lxix. See for the history of the debate E. G. Schmidt, "Diatribai", dKP 2 (1957), cols. 1577-78; T. Schmeller, Paulus und die "Diatribe": Eine vergleichende Stilinterpretation (Mnster: Aschendorff, 1987), pp. 1-54. 135 Only recent studies are mendoned. Equivalent to (a certain kind of) : S. . Stowers, "Diatribe", Historiches Wrterbuch des Rhetorik (ed. G. Ueding; Tbingen: Niemeyer, 1994), cols. 627-33, repeating his The Diatribe and Paul's Letter to the Romans (SBLDS, 57; Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1981), and followed by New Testament scholars in North America. Not equivalent: Schmeller, Paulus und die "Diatribe", after many other scholars. Comparable to : H. Throm, Die Thesis: Ein Btrag zu ihrer Entstehung und Geschichte (Rhet. Stud., 17; Paderborn: Schningh, 1932), pp. 77, 149, followed by . . Wallach, Lucretius and the Diatribe Against the Fear of Death (Mnemosyne Sup., 40; Leiden: Brill, 1976). Equivalent to (a kind of) philosophical : B. Schouler, Ubanios. Discours moraux (Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1973), pp. 30-37 and (with restrictions) Schmeller, Paulus und die "Diatribe", p. 19.
133

132

PHILOSOPHICAL PROSE

231

audience of laymen (with little or no knowledge of philosophy). Here is not the proper place to try to give a definite answer, if such a task were possible, for much depends on the starting point one chooses. It would be, however, unwise to overlook that in both classical and New Testament studies diatribe in a modern sense has been widely accepted and to ignore the usefulness of this term. 136 "Diatribe" in the modern sense represents a distinct tradition of works of a particular kind in antiquity. Commonly works (all or some) of Bion of Borysthenes, Teles, Musonius Rufus, Epictetus, Plutarch and Dio Chrysostom are seen as examples of this kind of diatribe, 137 and this course is followed here, be it with some misgivings about the status of Dio as a philosopher. 138 The diatribe can be seen as the paraenetic counterpart of the protreptic (see section IV), in so far as it aims to bring its public to a better way of life by means of concrete lessons. Another presupposition of this type is its continuity; not one lecture but a series, in which several themes are developed and the addressee is supposed to go through several stages of moral development. 139 Usually the audience consists of a teacher's pupils or a somewhat larger group, but not a huge crowd, although exceptions occur. Diatribe is not restricted to one school of thought, though Cynics and Stoics, as far as we know, use this method to a greater extent than Epicureans and Academics. It is a typical product of the Hellenisdc schools with their insistence on individual happiness. Some famous teachers using the diatribe are wandering philosophers (e.g. Bion) but this trait is not as typical as many scholars have thought. 140 Neither is it correct to characterize the diatribe as the product of philosophy being popularized for laymen (populrphilosophische Vortrge), especially not when by this designation one implies mass propaganda. Many lectures of Epictetus would not be understood by a big audience and the same is true for many dialexeis of Maximus of Tyrus. 141

136 Q n e m a y c o m p a r e other instances of scholars introducing ancient terms in a new sense while not thinking so, e.g. Droysen's "Hellenismus". 137 A depressing list of many more works called diatribe (or diatribe-like) in Schmeller, Paulus und die "Diatribe", pp. 34-35. 138 Authors using elements of the diatribe style (e.g. Philo of Alexandria) are not discussed here. 1 9 Th; s characterization is in accordance with the ancient use of and 3 , e.g. Cic. Tusc. 3:34:81. 140 E.g. Festugire, Rvlation, II, p. 288. See now D. Aune, The New Testament in its literaiy Environment (LEC; Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1987), pp. 199ff. 141 Schouler, Ubanios, pp. 34-35.

232

DIRK M. SCHENKE VELD

Is the modern diatribe identical to the ancient ? The latter word is used for philosophical works, dialogues, lectures and sophistic introductory causeries (),142 and scholars often equate the modern diatribe with the kind of dialexis which is a lecture or oration, meant for a bigger audience and dealing with philosophical matters in a more popular way. The dubious aspect of Populrphilosophie aside, the equation does not appear to be wrong, provided one stresses the aspect of lecture more than that of oration and also accepts its restriction to ethical subjects. The lectures of Epictetus are also called , just like those of Maximus of Tyrus, and not all of these concern a moral theme. Accordingly, not all of these dialexeis are to be classified as diatribes. 143

B. Features of the Diatribe As a philosophical discourse the diatribe is full of common rhetoric: direct address to imaginary participants, short dialogues with questions and answers. In the Socratic manner known from fourth-century dialogues, the author leads a participant into self contradiction or has him take up an absurd position, whereafter he corrects him in a stern way. The victim is always nameless, very often a fictive participant. Rhetorical questions are usual, and so are vocatives ("Man", "you fool"), whereas the syntax is simple because of short phrases and ellipses. Effective figures of isocolon, parallelismus and antithesis are favoured, irony and sarcasm plentiful, and maxims, anecdotes and comparisons popular. Difficult philosophical subjects are absent, and thus physics and logic are most times not discussed and sometimes even mentioned with contempt. All stress is laid on ethics and because diatribes have the intention to bring people to a better way of life, poverty versus luxury is discussed, or self-control versus licence, but also fear of death, the position of the gods, being young or old, emotions and passions.

O. Halbauer, De diatribis Epicteti (Leipzig: Teubner, 1911); Schouler, Ubanios pp. 22-37; Pemot, Rhtorique, pp. 558-68; Schmeller, Paulus und die "Diatribe", pp. 17-19. 143 As to the identification of see section VII.

142

PHILOSOPHICAL PROSE

233

C. Bion of Boiysthenes
Bion o f Borysthenes (ca. 3 3 5 ca. 2 4 5 BC) is the first p h i l o s o p h e r k n o w n to h a v e held s u c h lectures. 1 4 4 H e a d o p t e d the life o f a w a n d e r i n g p h i l o s o p h e r after a c q u i r i n g his p h i l o s o p h i c a l e d u c a t i o n in A t h e n s at four different schools ( A c a d e m y , C y n i c s , C y r e n a i c s a n d H e w r o t e m a n y notes o f his lectures (, also Peripatos). [probably]

called ). H e did n o t practice the d i a l o g u e f o r m but t h e lecture, b o t h for pupils a n d for a larger public. T h o u g h his actual w o r k s are lost, the fragments, especially t h o s e p r e s e r v e d b y the C y n i c w r i t e r T e l e s , give s o m e idea o f f o r m a n d c o n t e n t . O n e o f the l o n g e r fragm e n t s m a k e s this clear: 1 4 5 , , , v , , , , ' " ; ; ; ;" < > ' "<>, ; ' ; ; ; <> ; ; , ; ; ; ' ; ; ; ; ;. . . ." , ; < > . When things would have a voice, Bion says, just like us, and would be able to plead their case, just like a slave sitting at the house altar pleads his case before his master, <saying:>, he says, "why d o you quarrel with me? I have stolen nothing, did I? I do everything you order me, don't I? I regularly hand over the money I earn, don't I?" Just so poverty can say to the man who brings charges against her: "Man, why do you quarrel with me? Through me you are robbed of nothing beautiful, are you? Not of self-control; not of righteousness; not of bravery, is it? You're not missing any necessary thing, are you? Is it not so that the roads are full of vegetables, the sources full of water? D o I not procure as many beds as the earth is big? And leaves

144 J. F. Kindstrand, Bion of Boiysthenes: A Collection of the Fragments with Introduction and Commentary (Studia graeca Upsal., 11; Uppsala: Almqvist & Wicksell, 1976), pp. 40-41. 145 Fr. 17 Kindstrand (= Stob. 3:1:98, pp. 38:14-40:4).

234

DIRK M. SCHENKE VELD

as bedding? O n e can enjoy oneself with me, is it not so? Don't you see old w o m e n humming when eating pastries? Don't I give you hunger as food without costs and luxury and doesn't a hungry man eat with gusto and he doesn't in the least need sauces? Doesn't a thirsty man drink with gusto and he doesn't in the least await drink that is not here?". . . If poverty says this, what would you say against her? I think I would become speechless.

The personificadon of the abstract concept of poverty, the comparison with an every-day occurrence of the slave fleeing to the housealtar and the materials of common simple life are combined in order to advocate the , satisfaction with what one has. The whole turns thus into a eulogy of poverty. The style is lively because of the dialogue poverty has with us, rhetorical questions abound, and comparisons are dear to Bion. Figures such as anaphora, word play, antithesis, isocolon and parallelism occur often. All rhetorical devices are used in order to get the attention of his audience. 146 Larger fragments of Bion's writings are almost exclusively known from quotations in the diatribes of Teles of Megara (?, 3rd cent.), a Cynic philosopher who intersperses his discourse with very many quotations from Bion, Crates and other authors, as we can ascertain from the significant fragments of his writings. He starts with a proposition which he attacks or unfolds.147 Thus the fourth fragment 148 commences with an opinion of some pupil(?): "I think that possession of money sets one free from scarcity and poverty", to which Teles immediately counters with:
; , ' ; ' ' ' , , ' ' .

146 Kindstrand, Bion, pp. 25-39, who also (pp. 39-55) discusses the stylistic background of Bion (similarities to the new, "Asiatic" style and Cynic influence) as well as ancient cridcism of this style. 147 Ed. O. Hense, Teletis reliquiae (2nd edn.; Leipzig: Teubner, 1909). A French translation of Teles's (Hense ii) in Festugire, Rvlation, II, pp. 59297, a German one in W. Capelle, Epiktet, Teles und Musonius: Wege zum glckseligen Leben (Bibl. der Alten Welt, Griech. Reihe. Stoa und Stoiker, 3; Zieh: Artemis, 1948), pp. 219-25. 148 Hense, Teletis, p. 33.

PHILOSOPHICAL PROSE

235

H o w do you mean? Don't you see that some people have a lot of money, as it seems, but do not use it because of illiberality and sordidness of mind? No, just like Priam did not dare to be seated on his throne, "though there was much in his house", but sat on the ground "wallowing in dirt", in the same way some people though having much at their disposal do not taste anything nor touch it. Really, mice and ants eat more than they.

The next fragment starts in the same way149 and treats the statement that "poverty is an obstacle to philosophizing, but richness is useful for it". By means of direct questions ("or don't you see t h a t . . .") Teles offers objections till he comes to this one: "Or, again, don't you see that rich people because of having more business are prevented from having leisure (and studying), whereas the poor man, who does not know what he can do, comes to philosophy?". At this moment Teles tells an illustrative story, told by Zeno about the Cynic Crates, who sitting at the shoemaker's was reading Aristode's Protreptic. In this work Aristotle writes to king Themison that he has more external goods than anyone else to take up philosophy, and a good reputation as well. When he was reading this, the shoemaker listened attentively, at the same time continuing his repairs. Therefore Crates said to him: "I think I shall address a protreptic to you, Philiscus, for you have more things at your disposal than the man for whom Aristode wrote his work".

D. Musonius Rufiis In the first century AD the Roman eques and Stoic philosopher Musonius Rufus taught at Rome, with an interruption because of banishment by Nero. Epictetus was one of his pupils. Musonius's lectures have been written down by his pupil Lucius, who seems to have condensed them. 150 Musonius's lectures and talks are different from those of Bion and Teles. Fr. 17 starts with a question of an old man about the best provision (, viaticum) for an old man on his path of life and Musonius's answer is "to live systematically and according to nature". This statement is then developed, first by a proof from animal life,

Hense, Teletis, pp. 45ff. Ed. O. Hense, C. Musonii reliquiae (Leizpig: Teubner, 1905); A. Geytenbeek, Musonius Rufus and the Greek Diatribe (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1963).
150

149

236

DIRK M. SCHENKEVELD

thereafter by references to human virtues, by which man is comparable to gods. After more proofs it is concluded that this kind of life is the best guarantee for happiness. It ends by a short refutadon of the view that richness gives the best solace in one's old age. The way the original statement is being developed, as well as the refutation at the end of a possible alternative, makes it possible to view this fragment as an example of a thesis. This conclusion is strengthened by the didactic and quiet tone of the discourse, and the absence of imaginary dialogue and objections,151 the suggestion at the end excepted. However, the part of refutation is very slight, and does not concern the main statement but an alternative. Therefore, one may be content with the usual classification of Musonius's works under diatribe, 152 and accept the customary explanation that because of the editorial work done by Musonius's pupil Lucius many a trait of the original vividness has been lost. Because of this uncertainty it is hazardous to quote from existent fragments in order to demonstrate Musonius's style. One example must suffice, an anecdote, or chreia, showing the foolishness of a non-philosopher. T h e context is that fear of death makes old age miserable (Fr. 17:92 Hense):
teat . , , , " , ", < >, ; , .

For instance, also the rhetor Isocrates has admitted this. For, when asked by someone how he was spending his life, he answered, the story goes: "In the way one can expect from a ninety years old man who thinks death the worst thing". What share in culture or knowledge of truly good or bad things can this man have had, when he took as a bad thing that which necessarily comes after the best life? If, at least, one agrees that the best life is that of the good man and death the end of this life also.

Differently Schmeller, Paulus und die "Diatribe", pp. 151-54. Thus Geytenbeek, Musonius Rufus, and Schmeller, Paulus und die "Diatribe", pp. 125-57.
152

151

PHILOSOPHICAL PROSE

237

. Seneca Lucius Annaeus Seneca (AD 1-65) was born in Cordoba, Spain, but soon came to Rome, where he was educated. His father was Seneca the Elder, or Rhetor, who in his Oratorum et rhetorum sententiae, divisiones, colores recalls the declamations he heard in his youth. The younger Seneca thus became acquainted with school declamations, and two out of his three teachers of philosophy were former declaimers. Seneca was famous for his senatorial orations, and was even appointed to give the young Nero a rhetorical training. His philosophical allegiance was confessedly Stoic. He wrote tragedies, orations, letters, dialogues and a work on physics.153 His philosophical prose is found first in a collection of 12 Dialog,154 to be supplemented by De clementia and De beneficiis, and that of 124 Epistulae morales, allegedly written to his younger friend Lucilius, both of these types of books dealing with ethics. Then comes the Naturales quaestiones on the most elevated part of Stoic philosophy, the study of the cosmos. ' 55 This work will not be thoroughly discussed here, though it may be of some interest for the theme of this Handbook. 156 It is sufficient to point out the personal point of view Seneca often takes up in this work and the dialogue he maintains with his addressee and his readers. Seneca obviously tries to avoid the dry manner of handbooks, perhaps also because of the importance of the subject. In the preface to book 1 he stresses its utilitas for it makes man aware of his own unimportance and the greatness of God. Therefore, the author frequently inserts moralizing digressions, which he may introduce a n d / o r conclude as such. O n the whole this work is much livelier than, for example, Pliny's Naturales historiae. Already a first reading of Naturales quaestiones shows peculiarities of Seneca's style,157 for which he becomes famous, or notorious, if one follows Quintilian's depreciatory analysis.158 Quintilian praises Seneca for his denunciations of vice and striking general reflections but

K. Abel, "Seneca. Leben und Leistung", ANRW 11.32:2 (1985), pp. 656-702. These dialog} do not have the formal characteristics of dialogues but rather of diatribes. For this reason they are discussed here. 155 Nat. 1, praef. 1 and 3, praef. 1. 156 On Naturales Quaestiones see C. Codoner, "La physique de Snque: Ordonnance et structure des "Naturales Quaestiones", ANRW 11.36:3 (1989), pp. 1779-1822. 157 Cf. A. L. Motto, Seneca (TYVAS, 268; New York: Twayne, 1973), pp. 109-28. 158 Inst. 10:1:125-31, esp. 129-30.
154

153

238

DIRK M. SCHENKEVELD

censures his love of oblique expression and ruptured sentences (sententiae minutissimae) and calls his style corrupta and teeming with attractive vices. This judgment has everything to do with a classicisdc return to the classical Roman writers, primarily Cicero. Indeed, whereas Cicero and his contemporaries build long periods, Seneca and other writers of Imperial Ladn show an accumulation of short sentences, because they strive after spontaneity, directness and fluency.159 This looseness of sentence-building facilitates the emergence of pithy, epigrammatic expressions, as is witnessed by the following quotation where Seneca says what he wishes to prove of himself:
H o c unum tibi adprobarc vellem, omnia me ilia sentire, quae dicerem, nec tantum sentire sed amare . . . non mehercules ieiuna esse et arida volo, quae de rebus tam magnis dicentur. neque enim philosophia ingenio renuntiat. haec sit propositi nostri summa: quod sentimus loquamur, quod loquimur sentiamus: concordet sermo cum vita. 160 I should like to convince you entirely of this one factthat I feel whatever I say, that I not only feel it, but am wedded to it. . . . I do not, by Hercules, wish that what will be said on such important matters is jejune and dry. For philosophy does not renounce natural ability. . . . Let this be the kernel of my idea: let us say what we feel, and feel what we say; let speech harmonize with life.

This style owes much to an idea of a New Style which comes up after Cicero and is represented by Papirius Fabianus, a rhetorician turned to Stoic philosophy, who taught Seneca. Seneca defends him to Lucilius, who thinks that Fabianus's style is not vigorous enough, too loose in word-order and therefore lacking in emotional directness,161 and pleads for a more moderate view in stylistics. Nevertheless, much of Seneca's philosophical prose comes close to an oratorical style and thus shows influence from rhetoric. Also interesting is the fact that Seneca breaks through the restraints of the various classical styles of granditas, exilitas and acntas. Everyday expressions mingle with poetical words, metaphors and neologisms. Rhetorical figures, such as antithesis, homoeoteleuton, anaphora, paraprosdokian and antimetabole, abound and classical word-order is often given up.162

Leeman, Orationis ratio, p. 264. Ep. 75:3-4: Note the prose rhythm in these sententiae and the figure of antimetabole. 161 Ep. 100. Extensive discussion in Leeman, Orationis ratio, pp. 261-71. 162 Cf. A. Bourgery, Snque prosateur (Paris: .p., 1922) and G. Mazzoli, "Le 'Epistulae Morales ad Lucilium' di Seneca. Valore letterario e filosofico", ANRW 11.36:3 (1989), pp. 1863-69.
160

159

PHILOSOPHICAL PROSE

239

Seneca is fond of paradoxes, personification, vivid descriptions and striking comparisons. He always maintains, both in his Epistulae and in his Dialog., a personal style of addressing his addressee. Whereas Cicero would have his characters describe in an objective way and by means of many third person verbal forms their point of view, Seneca has a speaking and ex tempore style of brief, often striking sentences (style coup) with relatively many first and second person forms. In the disposition of his works also such a rhetorical influence can be found, although one should not forget that trained philosophers are also used to developing their thoughts. Thus some scholars analyse many Senecan dialogues along the rhetorical plan of exordium etc., but this method is rejected by others. 163 One has the impression that Seneca starts with blocking out the main headings to be treated in a given book and then goes on to develop his thoughts in the framework of each heading. Even then often much order in the argument cannot be detected, to quote a common complaint. 164 This criticism is said to have a forerunner in the statement of the emperor Caligula on Seneca's writings: harena sine calce ("sand without lime"),165 but this statement looks at a supposed ephemeral value of these works. Discourse analysis has now shown that Seneca expects his reader to cooperate and to pick up the hints he gives.166 A close relationship between Senecan dialogi and the diatribe has been observed by many scholars and even been made the main and only formative factor of his style, though influence from the declamatio can also be detected. At any rate, a discussion of his dialogi in this section on diatribe does more justice to their typicality than in that on the dialogue.167 These texts have in common that there always is an addressee who is not an unknown person as in earlier diatribes but a person called by his/her name. In contrast with his Letters to Lucilius, the mood of these texts is quieter and more placid and the
163

Cf. J.-M. Andr, "Snque: 'De brevitate vitae'.. . 'De otio'", ANRW 11.36:3 (1989), pp. 1724-78. 164 E.J. Kenney and W. V. Clausen, Cambridge History of Classical Literature. II. Latin Literature (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982), p. 516. 165 Suet. Cal. 53. 166 A. M. Bolkestein, "Zand zonder kalk: Cohesie en het proza van Seneca", Lampas 19 (1986), pp. 298-307. 167 Cf. A. L. Motto and J. Clark, Essays on Seneca (Stud. z. klass. Philol., 79; Frankfurt a. M.: Peter Lang, 1993), chs. I, V and XIII. Discussion of separate dialogues in ANRW 11.36:3 (1989).

240

DIRK M. SCHENKEVELD

vividness of the diatribes is maintained only to a certain degree. Seneca's ruptured sentences are still present. In all, one has the feeling that he is not imitating the earlier diatribe but instead tries to make it a genre of its own, which he may have called dialogus. An example comes from (Dial. 2 De constantia sapientis) 4:1:
"Quid ergo? non erit aliquis qui sapienti facere temptet iniuriam?" temptabit, sed non perventuram ad eum; maiore enim intervallo a contactu inferiorum abductus est, quam ut ulla vis noxia usque ad ilium vires suas perferat. etiam cum potentes et imperio editi et consensu serviendum validi nocere intendent, tam citra sapientiam omnes eorum impetus deficient, quam quae nervo tormentisve in ahum exprimuntur, cum extra visum exilierint, citra caelum tamen flectuntur. "What then?" you say; "will there be no one who will attempt to do the wise man injury?" Yes, the attempt will be made, but the injury will not reach him. For the distance which separates him from contact with his inferiors is so great that no baneful force can extend its power all the way to him. Even when the mighty, exalted by authority and powerful in the support of their servitors, strive to injure him, all their assaults on wisdom will fall as short of their mark as do the missiles shot on high by bowstring or catapult, which though they leap beyond our vision, yet curve downwards this side of heaven (LCL).

Seneca's theoretical views on style and composition are of great interest too but belong to a different section.168 F. Epictetus Epictetus (ca. AD 55-ca. AD 135) was a slave, who was allowed by his master to attend the lectures of Musonius. Manumitted, he taught at Nicopolis in Epirus after Domitian banished him from Rome in 89. Flavius Arrianus edited his lectures, which had been taken down in shorthand, and published these in eight books,169 out of which we have four. Arrianus also summarizes the main points of Epictetus's philosophy in a compendium, called , one of the most influential booklets ever written. 170 Epictetus was a teacher
Cf. Leeman, Orationis ratio, pp. 260 83. Also called , , . By itself, the title does not indicate that these pieces are diatribes in the modern sense. 170 Ed. maior H. Schenkl, Epictetus (2nd edn.; Leipzig: Teubner, 1916). Eng. ed. and trans. W. A. Oldfather (2 vols.; LCL; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; London: Heinemann, 1925-28). Good survey in L. Spanneut, "Epiktet", A4C(1962), cols. 599-681.
169 168

PHILOSOPHICAL PROSE

241

of philosophy for persons who later would have a career in politics and administration. Nevertheless, his program was a demanding one for the pupils had to read and learn the books of the great Stoics and answer questions about these works; another task was to develop various themes put up as problems and, finally, to exercise in practice what they learnt.171 The place of his in this system is much disputed; it is often asserted that they were a complement to Epictetus's regular teaching, which has not survived. Other scholars, on the contrary, think that this regular teaching mainly consisted of these lectures which as survived.172 At any rate, in his lectures Epictetus deals with all aspects of Stoic philosophy and thus he can devote a whole lecture to the usefulness of equivocal premises, hypothetical arguments and such like (1:7), and demonstrates in another one that the study of logic is indispensable (1:17). Accordingly, his diatribes are explicitly argumentative and didacdc, more often than those of Bion and Teles. At the same time, Epictetus does not neglect the well-known method of interrogating imaginary opponents and also uses the rhetorical features mendoned above. An example comes from 1:28, where he contends that sense-impression () is the measure of man's every acdon, righdy or wrongly, and continues as follows (11-14):
, ; ' . , ) , . , ; '. ; ; . . . ; ;; So you conclude that such great and terrible things have their origin in thisthe impression of one's senses? In this and nothing else. T h e Iliad is nothing but a sense-impression and a poet's use of senseimpressions. There came to Alexander an impression to carry off the wife of Menelaus, and an impression to Helen to follow him. N o w if an impression had led Menelaus to feel that it was a gain to be deprived of such a wife, what would have happened? W e should have lost not merely the Iliad, but the Odyssey as well.Then do matters of such
171 B. Hijmans, A sksis: Notes on Epictetus' Educational System (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1959). 175 Schmeller, Paulus und die "Diatribe", pp. 160-61.

242

DIRK M. SCHENKE VELD

great import depend upon one that is so small?But what do you mean by "matters of such great import"? W a r s . . . and destruction of cities? And what is there great in all this?What, nothing great in this? (trans. Oldfather LCL).

A favourite device of Epictetus is to put a series of short questions and short answers without connecting words (asyndeton), for example (3:3:18):
; , ; , , , , , , ; . Why, what is weeping and sighing? A judgment. What is misfortune? A judgment. What are strife, disagreement, faultfinding, accusing, impiety, foolishness? They are all judgments, and that, too, judgments about things that lie outside the province of moral purpose, assumed to be good or evil.

But polysyndeton is also used, for example (3:12:43):


' ; But to desire, or to avoid, or to choose, or to refuse, or to prepare, or to set something before yourselfwhat man among you can do these things without first conceiving an impression of what is profitable, or what is not fitting?No one,

and repetition often occurs (1:27:9):


; , , , , . And where can I go to escape death? Show me the country, show me the people to whom I may go, upon whom death does not come; show me a magic charm against it.

Use of these devices does not automadcally make Epictetus a perfect orator. He ignores smooth composition without hiatus, often admits anacolutha and similar signs of careless wording. He uses many popular or vulgar words to express his thoughts. In 3:9:14 he has people accusing him of admitting solecisms and barbarisms into his lectures and he does not care. Such carelessness contributes to the

PHILOSOPHICAL PROSE

243

impression of vividness the diatribe gives, and can therefore be seen as due to the wish for effectiveness. G. Dio of Prusa According to Synesius, Dio of Prusa (ca. AD 40-after 110) was converted from "sophistic" to philosophy because of his experiences in exile and, consequendy, he criticizes Philostratus for including Dio among the sophists whose lives he describes. 173 Philostratus speaks of Dio as one of those philosophers who expound their theories with ease and fluency and are therefore called "sophists" without being so. Whereas to Philostratus Dio combines philosophy with sophistic oratory, Synesius keeps the two features apart, considers them even incongruous and, one may surmise, for this reason he must posit that there were two different stages in Dio's life.174 In his own orations175 Dio alludes to something like a conversion undergone during his exile (Or. 13) but here the literary mode of expression suggests a less drastic interpretation. In all, most scholars now agree that Dio was trained as an orator (his nickname is "Chrysostomus", or the Golden-Tongued) and kept being so but gradually showed an inclination to convey moralistic messages to the intellectuals in the cities he visited.176 His philosophical oudook is Stoic, as is the case for many of his contemporaries, though he also owes a debt to the Cynics. He was a pupil of Musonius Rufus, who also taught Epictetus. Though there is enough reason not to discuss his works in this part on philosophers, some discussion is not out of place here.177

173 Synesius, Dio, or on Living by his Example. The relevant parts are found in the LCL Dio by H. Lamar Crosby (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; London: Heinemann, 1951), V, pp. 365ff.; Philostratus, Lives of the Sophists (ed. W. C. Wright; LCL; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; London: Heinemann, 1921), pp. 17-23. 174 C. P. Jones, The Roman World of Dio Chrysostom (Loeb Class. Monographs; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1978), pp. 8-12. 175 Ed. G. de Bud, Dionis Prusaensis Opera (Leipzig: Teubner, 1916-19). Eng. trans, in J. W. Cohoon-H. L. Crosby (5 vols.; LCL; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; London: Heinemann, 1932-51). General discussion in G. A. Kennedy, The Art of Rhetoric in the Roman World (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1972), pp. 566 82. 176 D. A. Russell, Dio Chrysostom. Orations vii, xii, xxxvi (Cambridge Greek and Latin Class.; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), pp. 3-7; B. F. Harris, "Dio of Prusa: A Survey of Recent Work", ANRW 11.33:5 (1991), pp. 3860-63. 177 An interesting typology of all his writings in P. Desideri, "Tipologia e variet di funzione comunicativa degli scritti dionei", ANRW 11.33:5 (1991), pp. 3903-59.

244

DIRK M. SCHENKEVELD

T h e orations and discourses of Dio may be divided into three classessophistic, political, and moral. In the last group we have the orations entided: "Diogenes or O n Tyranny" or some other addition.178 These orations contain a long story of what the Cynic Diogenes did or said at one time and draws moral lessons from this story. The oration flows forth smoothly and almost nowhere do we find the characteristics of a diatribe. Different are the works discussing slavery, beauty, kingship, philosophy and such subjects, in which large parts are reserved for a dialogue between two speakers or contain dialogue exclusively.179 Many works are classified as diatribes by earlier scholars. 180 These discourses are very different from those discussed above and their change is attributed to a desire to lend them a more regular and definite rhetorical composition in order to bring them nearer to classical Attic prose. Dio's classicistic reworking of the diatribe is followed by later authors, such as Maximus of Tyre and Themistius. 181 However this may be, these "diatribes" have lost much of the immediacy of earlier examples. A few times only do we find the method of questions applied, such as in Or. 64:
; ' ; ; , ' ; ; . Why, then, are tyrants proud of their ramparts? Why does Amphion sing, why does Dioces toil, why does Semiramis build, why Apollo work for hire, why does Meies together with his lion encompass the wall? For Cyrus will master the Medes, Zopyros the Babylonians, a Mardian Sardis, and the horse Troy!

H. Plutarch Plutarch (of Chaeronea) (ca. AD 45-after 120) uses the format of the diatribe more than once in his philosophical works of a popular
Or. 6 and 8, 9, 10. Or. 13, 14, 21, 23, 30 and some among the group 55-80. 180 E.g. W. Christ-W. Schmid-O. Sthlin, Geschichte der griechischen Literatur (Hdb. klass. Alt., 7.2.1; 5th edn.; Munich: Beck, 1911), pp. 278-79: 14-17, 19-20, 22, 24, 26-27, 52-58, 62-66, 68-69, 71-73, 75-76 and 78-80. 181 Christ-Schmid-Sthlin, Geschichte, p. 279. A. Lesky, (Geschichte der griechischen Literatur 3rd edn.; Bern: Francke, 1971), p. 933 speaks of "die veredelte Form der Diatribe".
179 178

PHILOSOPHICAL PROSE

245

type.182 One instance is that entitled , "On borrowing" (Mor. 827D-32A). This diatribe consists of repeated warnings against running into debt, enlivened by numerous examples and anecdotes. Imagined interruptions, rhetorical questions, direct addresses to the audience, and striking word-arrangements are characteristic. There is a certain vulgar vigour in the imagery and the theme is unusual. In contrast to Dio's diatribes this one is very lively, for example 829F:
. . . , . ; , , ; , . ' ' . . . . I am pointing out to those who are too ready to become borrowers how much disgrace and servility there is in the practice and that borrowing is an act of extreme folly and weakness. Have you money? D o not borrow, for you are not in need. Have you no money? D o not borrow, for you will not be able to pay. Let us look at each of these two alternatives separately (trans. Fowler LCL).

The ensuing discussion of the two alternatives is not a theoretical one but starts from anecdotes and develops the message contained therein. I. Maximus of Tyre The last author to be discussed here, Maximus of Tyre (second part of the 2nd cent.), was active in Rome under the emperor Commodus, but also elsewhere. In antiquity he was called "a Platonic philosopher" but to us he is more a rhetorician who handles philosophical subjects for an audience of , cognoscenti. His orations or lectures are called , out of which we have 41.183 In these Maximus is dealing with questions such as "Who is God according to Plato" (11), "Whether, if Divination exists, there is Free Will" (13) or the problem of evil (41). T o students of ancient philosophy these
Ed. C. Hubert et al., Plutarchus, Moralia (Leipzig: Teubner, 1908); Babbitt et at., Plutarch's Moralin (LCL). Survey: K. Ziegler, "Plutarchos von Chaironeia", RE (1951), cols. 636-962 (2nd edn.; Stuttgart: Druckenmller, 1964) and Russell, Plutarch. Various useful articles are in ANRW 11.33:6. 183 Ed. M. B. Trapp, Maximus Tyrius, Dissertatwrus (Stuttgart-Leipzig: Teubner, 1994); trans. M. B. Trapp, Maximus of Tyre, The Philosophical Orations (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997).
182

246

DIRK M. SCHENKEVELD

discourses contain much of interest for the general background of second-century Platonism and its place in educated circles.184 T h e way he builds up his dialexeis usually is to approach slowly and by means of literary references to his proper subject, to discuss without explicidy taking up a position, thereby liberally telling stories, giving historical examples and quoting many authors, and to end with an uplifting conclusion. 183 T o approach one's subject in this way reminds the reader of Plutarch's method in many of his works. In 15 and 16 Maximus enters into the question "which is the better life, the active or the contemplative one?". In the first discourse the defender of the active life is imagined to give his speech, whereas in the second one the contemplative philosopher, here exemplified by Anaxagoras of Clazomenae, maintains his point of view. At the end Maximus concludes that each life has its advantages and disadvantages. In the eleventh oration he investigates Plato's teachings about God. 186 This subject is worthy of investigation but in order to understand Plato's dialogues one needs a technique which will assay what has been found with the light of reason. What follows gives some idea of Maximus's style (3):
, , '' , , ; ; , , ; , , , , ' . If this technique had a voice and were to ask us whether, in our dispute over Plato, we ourselves have no belief in the existence of a divine element in Nature and no conception of God at all, or whether, while entertaining notions of our own, we imagine Plato to hold different beliefs that contradict them; and if when we replied that we do have notions of our own, it were to demand that we say what we think God is like, what would our answer be? That God is Dillon, Middle Platonists, pp. 399 400. B. P. Reardon, Courants littraires grecs des II' et III' sicles aprs J.-C. (Ann. lit. de l'Univ. de Nantes, 3; Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1971), pp. 200-205. 186 Analysis in Festugire, Rvlation, IV, pp. 109-15. In his translation, Trapp discusses parallels from contemporary philosophical treatises as well as the interest in this lecture from the fourteenth century onwards.
185 184

PHILOSOPHICAL PROSE

247

Round shouldered, dark in complexion, with curling hair? [Od. 19:246] What a ridiculous response, even if you were to offer a more impressive characterization of Zeusraven brows, golden hair and heaven shaking at his nod (trans. Trapp).

Rather long periods with much hypotaxis, not always easy to grasp, but most times elegantly construed, and apt quotations, interesting stories and comparisons, and vivid descriptionsall these are at home in these orations. Are they the product of the professional rhetor (sophist) who is also a philosopher, or the other way round? In this period it does not really matter how we classify men like Maximus. T o his contemporaries he may well have been a , but this term is often used in a loose sense.187 Whatever the answer may be, the Dialexeis of Maximus, the Diatnbae of Epictetus and many other works discussed in this section show a use of rhetoric geared towards an audience willing to be persuaded to change their views and to be instructed.

VII.

THESIS

A. Dffinition A philosophical thesis (, quaestio infinita)m is first and foremost a proposition fit for discussion, that is, it belongs to the class of , statements which are not of necessity true. This proposition is of a general kind and will be discussed by the method of in utramque partem, of confirmation and refutation (, ). The treatment itself of the proposition is also called . There is no fixed form and thus theseis are found presented in the form of a dialogue (Cicero Tusculanae disputationes is the most famous example), a treatise or essay (many works of Philo of Alexandria or Plutarch), or cast into a speech (Cic. Parad. 1), or any other format. The genre has its origins in Aristotle's school but is very much practised in other schools, witness the tide found in the lists of works of Zeno and Chrysippus or
187 Plutarch, e.g., uses it as an equivalent of ; thus in MOT. 612C, a on the question, whether one should philosophize when at a symposium. 188 Fundamental is Throm, Die Thesis', see also D. T. Runia, "Philo's De aetemitate mundi", VC 35 (1981), pp. 105-51 esp. 112-19; M. L. Clarke, "The Thesis in the Roman Rhetorical Schools of the Republic", CQ, 45 (1951), pp. 159-66; and J. Mansfeld, "Doxography and Dialectic", ANRW 11.36:4 (1990), pp. 3193-3208.

248

DIRK M. SCHENKE VELD

the reports on the members of the Academy. In rhetorical theory the discussion of a proposition referring to specific persons or events (, drcumstantiae) is named (quaestiofinita).Philosophical schools use the thesis as a pedagogic method, and their introduction into the curriculum of rhetoricians under the progymnasmatam is a source of great irritation to the philosophers. In epideictic rhetoric the use of theseis is recommended and several examples of such an oratory still exist.190 A clear distinction between diatribe and thesis has not often been made, also because proponents of the diatribe in the modern sense tend to neglect the thesis. Consequently, many philosophical works labelled nowadays as diatribes may be put under the class of theseis as well.191 This comes about because a diatribe most times focuses on one theme, which can be put as a proposition, as in the thesis. But a thesis is not restricted qua format, as we have seen. As to diatribes possibly being theses, the criterion here will be the degree of tightness (thesis) or looseness of argumentation, coupled with vividness and informality of language (diatribe). Moreover, diatribes always concern an ethical subject, theseis also other themes. Phenomena such as introduction of imaginary or real opponents ( , inquit aliquis), quotations, examples and comparisons, are not strong enough indications for the label of diatribe, because these also occur in works called theseis by ancient authors.

B. Plutarch A clear example of a thesis is Plutarch's discussion of the question "whether fire or water is more useful" (Mor. 955D-958E). 192 After a short survey of thinkers who support either side of the proposition Plutarch continues to discuss possible arguments pro and contra. A first set of these plead in favour of the proposition that water is more useful than fire, at the same time anticipating and refuting the oppo-

E.g. Aelius Theon Progymnasmata (RG, II, pp. 120-28 Spengel; Progymnasmata, pp. 82-94 ed. Patillon); Kennedy, Greek Rhetoric under Christian Emperors, pp. 60-65. 190 Pemot, Rhtorique, pp. 597-98. 191 Throm, Die Thesis, pp. 77-79, but see Schmeller, Paulus und die "Diatribe", pp. 17-19. 192 Text at Helmbold, LCL, XII, pp. 290-307. Discussion in Runia, "Philo's De aetemitate mundi", pp. 114-15.

189

PHILOSOPHICAL PROSE

249

site view. A second set, introduced by the transitional sentence, ("what could anyone find to say on the other side from this point on?"), reviews the arguments favouring the view that fire is more useful. Although Plutarch does not offer a definite solution, it may well be that he favours the second proposition. One argument for this view is that rhetorically speaking, a defence which comes second is stronger than the first one, which tends to be forgotten. Moreover, the arguments in the second part are more philosophically orientated and look stronger. "The sequences of arguments are joined together by introductory phrases and connecting particles, but there is no attempt to construct a logically coherent and consistent sequence of argument". 193 This trait is characteristic of the other examples of both diatribe and thesis discussed so far in this chapter. This apparent looseness of thought has given scholars many headaches but under the surface one can often detect a well-reasoned argument, for example in the case of Epictetus's Diatribae.m When comparing this thesis to the example of a diatribe of Plutarch one is struck by the greater degree of calm reasoning in the thesis. Liveliness is sparingly sought by questions, anecdotes are almost absent, and all interest is put in the argumentation.

C. Dio of Prusa One of Dio's discourses (Or. 27) is entitled ("A short talk on what takes place at a symposium").195 It is a description of various types of men attending symposia or festival games. It starts with a proposition:
' , . T h e qualities of mind and character of individual m e n stand revealed at our national festivals no less than at symposia, except that at festivals the revelation is more varied and extends over a longer period of time.

Runia, "Philo's De aetemilate mundi", p. 115. Cf. the analysis of 1:18 in S. R. Slings, "Epictetus and Socrates", Lampas 16 (1983), pp. 65-85. 195 LCL, II.
194

193

250

DIRK M. SCHENKEVELD

Dio first discusses the behaviour of participants at a symposium, then goes on to do the same for those at festivals. The last type to be discussed is the philosopher, who has as much trouble in attracting the audience's attention as a physician. It is foolish therefore for people to neglect the assistance of philosophers and physicians. The comparison between philosopher and physician is a popular one in protreptic and other philosophical literature. T h e way Dio starts and the manner in which he develops his proposition make classification under theseis preferable, the Greek title saying nothing about the distinction between diatribe and thesis. Another thesis is Or. 23, a dialogue between Dio, the teacher, and one of his pupils on the question whether man is fortunate and happy or not. 196 This device frees Dio from introducing objections by imaginary opponents because now the pupil does so, although sparingly. Sometimes even Dio himself suggests possible disagreement, but on the whole in this dialogue Dio hastens to arrive at his conclusion that the wise man is happy. 197

D. Cicero Quite different in style is Cicero's handling of Stoic propositions in his Paradoxa Stoicorum. He tells his addressee M. Brutus that he has transposed the usual of the schools into the form of rhetorical exercises. For example, the Stoic paradox is discussed as concerning a certain military commander, but Cicero soon turns to a more general deliberation. 198 He imagines his audience as consisting of prudentissimi, not uncultured persons, and in a prooemium startles them by putting before them the problem (Parad. 33):
Laudetur vero hie imperator aut etiam < t a m > appelletur aut hoc nomine putetur. Imperator q u o m o d o , aut cui tandem hie libero imperabit, qui non potest cupiditatibus suis imperare? Refrenet primum libidines, . . ., tum incipiat aliis imperare, cum ipsis improbissimis dominis,

A subject also mentioned as fit for theseis by Alex. Aphr. In Top. 176:10. Ed. with trans, in LCL, II. 197 Or. 42 is endded , but this is an alternative of . 198 Parad. 5 (ed. H. Rackham, Cicero, De oratore, II). Stylistic analysis in M. V. Ronnick, Cicero's "Paradoxa Stoicorum": A Commentary, an Interpretation and a Study of its Influence (St. z. kl. Phil., 62; Frankfurt a.M.: Lang, 1991), pp. 45-50.

196

PHILOSOPHICAL PROSE

251

dedecori ac turpitudini, parere desierit: dum quidem his oboediet, non modo imperator, sed liber habendus omnino non erit. It may be that this man is praised as a general, or even hailed "imperator", and judged worthy of this title. But in what sense is he a general? What free person will be in command, who cannot regulate his own appetites? Let him, first of all, restrain his desires, . . . Let him begin to give orders to others only when he himself has ceased to obey the most shameless of masters, disgrace and indecency. So long as he shows obedience to these, not only ought he not be considered a general but in no circumstances even a free man (trans. Ronnick). This brings him to the very proposition dictum est igitur ab eruditissimis viris nisi sapientem liberum esse neminem. He first discusses what libertas is and concludes that "the capability to live as one wishes" is only viable for the wise man and that therefore omnes improbi servi (sc. sunt). This point is now developed for the aspects of family life, works of arts, inheritances, offices and commands; in all these cases people are led by fear of loss. All fear is servitude (Parad. 41): An non est omnis metus servitus? Quid valet igitur ilia eloquentissimi viri, L. Crassi, copiosa magis quam sapiens oratio: "Eripite nos ex Servitute"Quae est ista servitus tam claro homini tamque nobili? Omnis animi debilitati et humilis et fracti timiditas servitus est"nolite sinere nos cuiquam servire"In libertatem vindicari vult? Minime; quid enim adiumgit?"nisi vobis universis"Dominum mutare, non liber esse vult- "quibus et possumus et debemus"? Isn't all fear slavery? What import then does that speech, more fluent than wise, of L. Crassus, a man of the greatest eloquence, have? "Save us from slavery". What sort of slavery is that, in the case of such a famous and well-born man? All the cowardice of a weak, lowly and broken soul is slavery. "Do not permit us to serve anyone". Does he really want to be emancipated? Not at all, for what does he add? "Except to all of you for whom we are both able and obliged to be". He wants to change his master, not be free. Shortly hereafter, Cicero ends thus: Sed haec hactenus. Ille videat quo modo imperator esse possit, cum eum ne liberum quidem esse ratio et V e r i t a s ipsa convincat. But enough of this. Let that man reflect on how he can be a commander, when reason and truth itself prove that he is not even free. This exercise does not prove explicidy that only the wise man is happy but does so more by implication; the main point is rather that the unwise are slaves, not free. Throughout the oration Cicero asks

252

DIRK M. SCHENKEVELD

rhetorical questions, and especially in the part on works of art someone is presented as making objections. Historical examples are put forward and, at the end, analysis of a clause from a famous speech is given. T h e oratorical format is clearly visible. Cicero sets great store by theseis and reproaches rhetoricians that they neglect to train their pupils in this genre. When banned by Caesar's dictatorial regime from official duties he had time to devote himself to theseis, in order not to succumb entirely to low spirits. The themes he chooses are applicable to the present political situation, and in a letter to his friend Atticus he mentions some. Significantly, he quotes these in Greek: 199 Ei . Ei , . , 200 and six more. The way he may have handled these themes can be seen from the examples discussed above. 201

VIII.

EGO-DOCUMENTS

This category is put here by necessity because Marcus Aurelius's twelve books To Himself ( , often called Meditations) are unique and do not come under any of the other headings. At the same time, the category consists of this one text only, although its method belongs to a Stoic type of meditation. 202 Marcus Aurelius Antoninus (121-180) was emperor from 161-180.203 He got an education in rhetoric from Fronto and although Marcus turned away from rhetoric later on, these two kept a correspondence, parts of which have been preserved. In one of these Marcus praises
Att. 9:4. 200 "Whether one should remain in one's country, even under a tyranny. Whether any means are lawful to abolish a tyranny, even if they endanger the existence of the State. Whether one ought to take care that one who tries to abolish it may not rise too high himself." 201 For the theseis in Tusculanae disputationes see the secdon on dialogue. 202 Together with St Augusdne's Confessions, but this text is outside the framework of this contribution. 203 Marcus Aurelius, Ad se ipsum libH XII (ed. J. Dalfen; Bibl. Teub.; Leipzig: Teubner, 1979). Trans, in I. Edman, Marcus Aurelius and his Times (Roslyn, NY: W.J. Black, 1945) and in C. R. Haines, LCL (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; London: Heinemann, 1916). Biography: A. Birley, Marcus Aurelius (exp. edn.; London: Batsford, 1987).
199

PHILOSOPHICAL PROSE

253

a speech of Fronto and does so in a full-blown rhetorical vein with Gorgianic schemes and other trappings. 204 He learnt philosophy from Q. Junius Rusticus, who lured him away from oratory, and from Claudius Severus and Sextus of Chaeronea, who brought him to a knowledge of Stoic ideas. Moreover, influence of Epictetus's Diatnbae is very much present. Marcus never became a full-blown Stoic philosopher but fully sympathized with this school of thought. 205 At the end of his life, when campaigning, he wrote down a kind of diary his personal commonplace bookwhich also contains recollections. It is unlikely that the emperor had any intention of bringing these Meditations into circulation, but by some unknown factor they came to be transmitted. The first book consists of seventeen expressions of gradtude to relations and the gods, for example: "From my grandfather Verus I learned good morals and the government of my temper". It is interesting to observe that his indebtedness to Alexander, the grammarian, concerns a gende attitude to those who utter incorrect expressions but that his indebtedness to Fronto does not mention specific rhetorical subjects. The remaining books contain varied observations on power and life, moral homilies addressed to himself, in which his Stoicism is apparent. At first look, this kind of personal jotting scarcely invites him to adopt rhetorical techniques. 206 However, there is a definite tradition in Imperial Stoicism of meditatio, training in directing one's soul by means of meditation, and reflection is much helped by using sententiae, exempta, as well as other rhetorical devices.207 It is even possible to reconstruct a theory of meditation from the writings of Seneca and Epictetus. But whereas these writers offer a methodology, Marcus's Meditations stand apart in showing the practice. Epictetus tells one what to do when in the morning one rises from his bed (3:3:14):
, , , ; ; , ; .

204 205

Leeman, Orationis ratio, p. 367, cf. p. 379. . Asmis, "The Stoicism of Marcus Aurelius", ANRW 11.36:3 (1989), pp. 2228-

2252. The Meditations are not discussed in Norden's Kunstprosa. R.J. Newman, "Cotidie meditare. Theory and Practice of the meditatio in Imperial Stoicism", ANRW 11.36:3 (1989), pp. 1473-1517, esp. 1506-15.
207 206

254

DIRK M. SCHENKEVELD

Go out of the house at early dawn, and no matter whom you see or whom you hear, examine him and then answer as you would to a question. What did you see? A handsome man or a handsome woman. Apply the rule. Is it outside the province of moral purpose, or inside? Outside. Away with it (trans. Oldfather LCL). Marcus, on the other hand, has his own "morning thoughts" (5:1):
" , , , , ; , ' ; " ". ; , ; , , , , ' , ' ; ; ; " ". - . .

Whenever in the morning you rise unwillingly, let this thought be with you: "I am rising to the work of a human being. Why then am I dissatisfied if I am about to do the things for which I was brought into the world? Or was I made to lie under the bedclothes and keep myself warm?" "But that is more pleasant", you say. Do you live then to take your pleasure, or in general for passivity, not for activity? Do you not see the little plants, the little birds, the ants, the spiders, the bees, helping to give order to the ordered world as far as their own part goes? And then you are unwilling to do the work of a human being, you are not eager to do what belongs to your nature? "But I must have rest also". You must; I too say so. But nature has fixed bounds to this etc. (trans. Edman, adapted). This kind of dialogue Marcus will have heard from speakers of diatribe in Rome and known from earlier literature. It is not polished and, for example, admits hiatus freely; however, his training in rhetoric and philosophy helps him to express his thoughts in a lucid and well-ordered way, and especially the shorter maxims are closely related to rhetorical sententiae.208

2oe

Asmis, "Stoicism", pp. 2232-34.

PHILOSOPHICAL PROSE

255

IX.

TECHNICAL

WRITINGS

. The heading of "technical wridngs" comprises all those works in which their authors offer information of a philosophical kind in the way of pure and direct instruction, to all appearances without any thought for embellishment, alleviation, variety or some other persuasive technique. They mosdy have the form of a treatise or introduction and can be dedicated to an individual person or addressed to a pupil, but this feature is not obligatory. These texts, one might argue, do not deserve to be discussed in this part on rhetoric and philosophy and this view is not wholly wrong. However, it may be of interest to look at this type of text as writings which try to put over a message in whatever way and then detect which methods are used. Whether these belong to rhetoric or not, is then another matter. The list of texts is impressively long: Chrysippus, for instance, is credited with over 150 tides and that list is still incomplete; we have fragments of over 30 writings by Philodemus; and for Porphyry we know of over 65 tides. Very many texts are lost, many still extant. T h e classification of the texts is diverse for commentaries, handbooks, treatises, doxographies, introductory texts, even many biographies, and other types belong to this group. A few of these demand our attention. Most ancient tides of these texts give little or no indication of the genre of texts they announce. Thus titles like and merely state that their texts represent in writing lectures, talks, conversations held in the classroom. They have been written down occasionally by the teacher himself but often by his pupils, who often fashion the text. We may think of Arrianus editing Epictetus's , or of Porphyry doing the same for Plotinus's writings and lectures, but also Philodemus speaks of his writings as often based on the teachings of his master Zeno. 209 Epictetus's are also called (commentarii), which term, for example, refers to notes jotted down and collected and to treatises or commentaries, 210 for example, those of Proclus to Platonic texts. Treatises can also

209 210

Schmeller, Paulus und die "Diatribe", pp. 9-12. LSJ s.v. II.3 and 5.

256

DIRK M. SCHENKE VELD

have as their title and this too is related to the original treatment of a subject. is another vague title, and in calling his (De animae procreatione in Timaeo) an (Mor. 1012B), Plutarch may intend no more than indicating a type of treatise, whereas it is more of a commentary. But (commentary), (introduction), (summary), (elementary exposition), (outiine) and (life, biography) give somewhat more to go on. 2 " B. Introductory Texts T h e first category is that of the introductory texts, .212 In the philosophical schools of late antiquity teachers prepare their pupils for the study of the important texts of Plato and Aristotle by first discussing a few preliminary questions, such as the theme of the work to be studied, its utility, etc. T h e title of these preparatory texts explains their introductory status: e.g. . Thrasyllus (1st century AD) is one of the first ancient scholars known to have written such an introduction to Democritus and Plato, coupled with a bios and a list of their writings. We still have isagogic texts written by Porphyry and Proclus, whereas the late commentaries on Aristode start with this type of question. Apart from the interest the methodical approach of a text offers, the isagogic writings are rhetorically important because they query the obscurity (, obscuntas) of the text to be studied. Notwithstanding clarity always being recognized as a necessary virtue of style, because of the authority of its author (e.g. Aristotle), obscurity now becomes a virtue of its own, at least its character of being a vice (, Vitium dicendi) is no longer stressed. The obscurity becomes excused because of the difficulty of the subject a n d / o r the public the Master wrote for consists of cognoscenti. Outside philosophical contexts, especially in later rhetorical theory, obscurity is very much valued. 213

See LSJ s.w. For literary texts with specific titles, see the foregoing sections. J. Mansfeld, Prolegomena: Questions to be Solved before the Study of an Author, or a Text (Phil, ant., 61; Leiden: Brill, 1994). 213 G. L. Kustas, Studies in Byzantine Rhetoric (Analecta Vlatadon, 17; Thessaloniki: Patriarch. Institute for Patr. Studies, 1973), pp. 63-100.
212

211

PHILOSOPHICAL PROSE

257

C. Philodemus The aridity of many of Aristode's treatises is often attractive because of the preciseness of language and argument. In a similar way, Philodemus's writings may at times appeal for the forcefulness of his attacks on opponents. 214 Repeatedly one suspects that when he gives quotations from the text of a victim under attack he deliberately takes these out of their context in order to have them fit his onslaught. In a different situation he even adjusts the texts of the founders of the school, Epicurus and Metrodorushe calls them "The M e n " ()to prove that even they appreciate epideictic oratory. 215 As to the style of his writings, "they frequently display the crabbed qualities of Epicurus at his worst, and one can only conclude that literary elegance was the last quality expected from technical writing at this time".216 This severe criticism of a modern scholar is borne out by reading a few pages of Philodemus. One example of a very simple type must suffice and the reader is invited to imagine with what enthusiasm Plutarch would have seized the opportunity to treat this kind of subject-matter (Phld. Sign. 4):217
' ' , ' , , [follow some more examples], ' ' , , , .

There are also in our experience some infrequent occurrences, as for example the man in Alexandria half a cubit high, with a colossal head that could be beaten with a hammer, who used to be exhibited by the embalmers; the person in Epidaurus, who was married as a young woman and then became a man. [. . .] If these things go beyond all
214

A general survey in E. Asmis, "Philodemus' Epicureanism", ANRW 11.36:4 (1990), pp. 2369-2406. 215 K. Goudriaan, "Van Eerste naar Tweede Sofistiek", in S. R. Slings and I. Sluiter (eds.), OPHELOS (Amsterdam: Free University Press, 1988), pp. 21-39. 216 A. A. Long, "Post-Aristotelian Philosophy", in P. E. Easterling and B. M. W. Knox (eds.), The Cambridge History of Classical Literature. I. Greek Literature (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985), p. 629, who observers, righdy, that prose style and language of technical treatises have been so little studied that it is extremely difficult to make comparative assessments. 217 Text and trans, in Philodemus On Methods of Inference (ed. P. H. and E. A. De Lacy; La Scuola di Epicuro, I; rev. edn.; Naples: Bibliopolis, 1978).

258

DIRK M. SCHENKE VELD

that we are familiar with and are not similar, we may ask whether any of those things about which we make inferences may also be exceptional.

Epicurus and Philodemus do not stand alone, for the quotations from Chrysippus's writings by, for example, Plutarch and Galen 218 show the same characteristics. In general, one can say that the technical treatise of philosophers (, ) does not aim at persuasion by its style. Consequendy, the need for commentaries which explain these treatises very soon springs up, for example in the case of those of Epicurus or Stoics like Zeno. 219 Notwithstanding the arid character of these in general, their authors sometimes rise to an unexpected level of spiritedness. Thus in the fifth book of his (On Rhetoric) Philodemus compares the wretched life of a politician with that of the philosopher and through the factualness of the presentation of his opponent's ideas and that of his own arguments one feels that Philodemus is closely involved in the subject (Rh. 5:8):220
, , , ' . T h e philosophers are not vexed if people, like foolish sheep or cattle, attend to an inferior, but are satisfied that what they say, particularly about the attitude of the c o m m o n people, shall please the few; and in action they are most blameless, nor do they as slaves of all, try to rule everything for themselves. 221

A curious document is the monumental inscription a certain Diogenes (ca. AD 120) had inscribed on the walls of a stoa in his native town Oenoanda in Lycia, by which he wanted to instruct his fellow-citizens in Epicurus's philosophy in order to dispel their fear of death and of the gods. Large fragments have been preserved 222 and these show a

In Stoic., II. Mansfeld, Prolegomena, p. 156. 220 Philodemus, Vol. rhet. (ed. S. Sudhaus; Leipzig: Teubner, 1892-96), I, pp. 237-38. 221 Trans. . M. Hubbell, The Rhetorica of Philodemus (Trans. Connecticut Acad, of Arts and Sc., 23; New Haven: Connecticut Academy, 1920), p. 312. 222 Ed. C. W. Chilton, Diogenes of Oenoanda: The Fragments (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1971). Latest ed. (non vidi) by M. F. Smith, Diogenes of Oenoanda: The Epicurean Inscription (Naples: Bibliopolis, 1993).
219

218

PHILOSOPHICAL PROSE

259

great love and concern for his fellow-men. T h e inscription consists of a dedication, several letters, his testament and texts on Epicurean physics and ethics. Use of rhetorical devices is found in many hyperbata and avoidance of hiatus, which may be connected with caring for the clausula.223 I give one passage from his text on physics (fr. 8, cols, ii-iii Chilton):
, , . , ' , , ' . . ' , , , . .

at any rate, they assume the sun to be as low as it appears whereas it is not as low as that, for if it were the earth and all things upon it must have caught fire. It is its appearance (?), therefore, which we see low in the sky and not the sun itself; but this is by the way. Let us now speak about risings and settings and matters connected with these first making this point, that it is rash for the inquirer into obscure subjects if he sees a number of possible explanations to pronounce categorically about only one. Such is more the method of a soothsayer rather than a wise man. Even in the expository treatises on physics and ethics Diogenes does not forget his readers at the walls. His manner is gende and he tries to persuade his audience of the blessings of Epicurean philosophy. It may come as a surprise that several of Philodemus's writings have been classified as diatribes.224 This was done because Philodemus often reproduces what he has learned from the lectures (, ) of his teacher Zeno. 225 However, this typification has been connected with the use of diatribe in the modern sense and wrongly extended. 226 Consequently, it is better to keep Philodemean texts in this section.

R. Philippson, "Diogenes", RE Sup. 5 (1931), col. 170. R. Philippson, "Philodemos", RE 19.2 (1938), cols. 2467ff. 225 See C.J. Vooys, Lexicon Philodemeum (Purmerend-Amsterdam: Muusses-Swets, 1934-1941), s.w. 226 Cf. M. Gigante, Ricerchefilodemee(Naples: Macchiaroli, 1969), pp. 43-46 and what I have said in the section on diatribe.
224

523

260

DIRK M. SCHENKEVELD

D. Impend Period Factual exposition is the main characteristic of most treatises of the Imperial Period. L. Annaeus Cornutus, a nephew of Seneca the philosopher and a Stoic himself (ca. AD 60), is in all probability the author of the , a short survey written for a young boy about what the ancient philosophers, especially Stoics, have said about the cosmos and the gods, their names, epithets, cults and myths. The book has no literary value and is mainly interesting because of its etymological approach to names and epithets. By means of bringing back the original form of names, Stoics discover more easily their meaning, which never gets changed. 227 In contrast with Cornutus, Heraclitus the author of ' (1st century AD ?) adopts a definitely allegorical reading of the ancient poetry, especially Homer's. 228 In this case the author has an axe to grind for he must prove that Homer was not irreverent to the gods and that what in his poems may look impious can be sanitized by allegorical explanation. In the first chapter and at other places Heraclitus eloquendy attacks people like Plato and other detractors, for example in All. 3 and 4:
Ei ' ' ' , ' , , , , ' , . ' , . [. . .] ' , .

Perhaps there are people who, because of ignorance, do not understand Homer's allegorical language and have not gone to the deepest corners of his wisdom; they may even have rejected without due examination the truth and not understanding what is said philosophically keep to what the poet seems to have made in a mythical way. These people, let them begone. But we who have purified ourselves from the sacred vessels (at the entrance to Homer's sanctuary), let us under the
Ed. C. Lang (Bibl. Teub.; Leipzig: Teubner, 1881). A.A. Long, "Stoic Readings on Homer", in R. Lamberton and J.J. Keaney (eds.), Homer's Ancient Readers (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992), pp. 41-66, esp. 53-56, who righdy stresses the difference between the etymological and the allegorical approach. 228 Ed. F. Buffire, Allegories d'Homre (Paris: CUF, 1962).
227

PHILOSOPHICAL PROSE

261

melody of the poems look at the traces of the august truth. But away with Plato, the flatterer and accuser of Homer, who sends away from his own Politeia the famous exile. [. ..] Nor do we have care for Epicurus either. Herclitus has written carefully, thus he deliberately avoids hiatus. Nevertheless, it is wrong to put him down as a mere rhetorician. His treatise fits in very well with that of other gens cultivs of his time. Sallusdus, living in the fourth century and helping the emperor Julian, wrote a small treadse , a kind of isagoge. He first illustrates the correct attitude of students of theology and then explains the tenets about immutability and other properties of God and gods, the immortality of the soul and, finally, the afterlife. The booklet has a strict regularity, and is written in a very simple style, apparently in order to keep the reader's attention to its subject, though in accordance with the demands of late prose Sallustius generally avoids hiatus and follows rules about accented prose rhythm. 229 But at the end of a long exposition he ends by praying (17:10):230
' . Having said so much in answer to those w h o required stronger proofs I pray that the universe may itself be propitious to me.

Occasionally, thus, the treatise reaches a higher level. This also happens when by means of chiasm or, conversely, parallelism Sallustius highlights a specific point.231 Similarly, the lectures and writings of Plotinus, though also sometimes seen as diatribes and thus connected to a Cynic tradition of literature, 232 have their place in this section. They are extremely difficult to understand but this is the consequence of the abstractedness of Plotinus's thought. Some of these texts are lectures intended for his devotees only with a more elevated style and many images and metaphors, whereas his instructional texts (Lehrschriflen) are mainly written in a simple style. But when writing about the One and the Intelligible World, Plotinus can adopt solemn language commensurate
229 Sallustius, Concerning the Gods and the Universe (prol. and trans, by A. D. Nock; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1927; repr. Hildesheim: Olms, 1966), pp. cix-ciii. 230 Ed. G. Rochefort, Saloustios, Des Dieux et du Monde (Paris: CUF, 1960). 231 Rochefort, Saloustios, pp. xxx-xxxii. 232 R. Helm, "Kynismus", RE 12 (1925), col. 18.

262

DIRK M. SCHENKE VELD

to the subject matter. 233 It has also been observed that in order to express his ideas on difficult items Plotinus repeatedly uses metaphors and images. 234 E. Apuleius of Madaura O n the Ladn side some attention must be given to the philosophical works235 of Apuleius of Madaura (born ca. AD 125) because of the contrast in style between most of these texts and his most famous work, the novel Metamorphoses, and his rhetorical writings, such as Apologia pro se de magia liber, apart from his translation and adaptation of the pseudo-aristotelian De mundo. Apuleius's De Piatone et eius dogmate first offers some information on Plato's life and then informs the reader of his philosophy. It is a purely informative exposition, in the same vein as the booklet on logic, . However, in De deo Socratis Apuleius assumes the stance of an orator and a philosopher and he delivers a speech on the daimonion of Socrates.236 The text is much livelier than the other works mentioned and Apuleius throughout the speech keeps his audience in mind. Platonic doctrines form the backbone of his discourse and quotations from many poets are interwoven into the argument. In keeping with the subject and the occasion this oration is more sedate than his apology,237 though more animated parts occur, for example in Soc. 21: Et nihil aeque miror quam, cum omnes et cupiant optime vivere et sciant non alia re quam animo vivi nec fieri posse quin, ut optime vivas, animus colendus sit, tamen animum suum non colant. At si quis velit acriter cernere, oculi curandi sunt, quibus cernitur; si velis perniciter currere, pedes curandi sunt, quibus curritur; indem si pugillare valde velis, bracchia vegetanda sunt, quibus pugillatur. similiter in omnibus ceteris membris sua cuique cura pro studio est. Quod cum omnes facile perspiciant, nequeo satis mecum reputare et proinde, ut res est, admirari cur non etiam animum suum ratione excolant.
233 H.-R. Schwyzer, "Plotinos" (Sonderausg. RE; Munich: Druckenmller, 1978), cols. 527-30. 234 R. Ferwerda, La signification des images et des mtaphores dans pense de Plotin (Groningen: Wolters, 1985). 235 Survey in B. L. Hijmans, Jr., "Apuleius, Philosophus Platonicus", AHRW 11.36:1 (1987), pp. 395-475. 236 Ed. J. Beaujeu, Apule: Opuscules philosophiques et fragments (Paris: CUF, 1973). 237 Dillon, Middle Platonists, pp. 309ff. speaks of "Apuleius' most florid rhetorical style" used in this speech but this goes too far.

PHILOSOPHICAL PROSE

263

Nothing bothers me more than the following consideration: All people wish to live the best life and know that they live by nothing else than the soul and that it is impossible to live the best life without cultivating their soul. Nevertheless, they do not cultivate their soul. Now, if one wishes to have sharp eyesight, one should take care of one's eyes by which one sees; if you wish to run fast, you should take care of your feet, by which you run; in the same way, if you wish to be a strong boxer, you should strengthen your arms, with which one is boxing. Similarly, for all other limbs there is a proper care for each according to its purpose. All people see this clearly and without any difficulty; this being so, I cannot stop to consider and, therefore, as is natural, to wonder why they do not also take care of their soul with help of reason.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Arnim, H., Leben und Werke des Dio von Prusa (Berlin, 1898). Atherton, C., "The Failure of Stoic Rhetoric", CQ.38 (1988), pp. 392-427. Barnes, J., "Is Rhetoric an Art?", Darg Newsletter 2 (1986), pp. 2-22. Birley, ., Marcus Aurelius (London: Batsford, 1987). Dillon, J., The Middle Platonists (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1977). Geytenbeek, ., Musonius Rufus and the Greek Diatribe (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1963). Haase, H. (ed.), Aufstieg und Niedergang der rmischen Welt (Berlin: de Gruyter), esp. the articles in vols. 1.3 (1973); 11.32:2 (1985); 33:5 (1991); 36 (1987-92). Hartlich, P., De exhortationum a Graecis Romanisque scriptarum historia et indole (Leipzig, 1889). Hirzel, R., Der Dialog (Leipzig: Hirzel, 1895). Jones, C. P., The Roman World of Dio Chrysostom (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1978). Jordan, M. D., "Ancient Philosophie Protreptic", Rhetorica 4 (1986), pp. 309-34. Kennedy, G. ., A New History of Classical Rhetoric (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1994). , Classical Rhetoric and Its Christian and Secular Tradition from Ancient to Modem Times (London: Croom Helm, 1980). Kustas, G. L., Studies in Byzantine Rhetoric (Thessaloniki: Patriarch. Institute, 1973). Leeman, A. D., Orationis Ratio: The Stylistic Theories and Practice of the Roman Orators, Historians and Philosophers (Amsterdam: Hakkert, 1963). Mansfeld, J., Prolegomena: Questions to be Settled before the Study of an Author (Leiden: Brill, 1994). Motto, A. L. and J. Clark, Essays on Seneca (Frankfurt a. M.: Peter Lang, 1993). Mller, C. W., Die Kurzdialoge der Appendix Platonica (Munich: Fink, 1975). Norden, ., Die antike Kunstprosa (Darmstadt: Wissenschafdiche Buchgesellschaft, 1958). Pernot, L., La rhtorique de l'loge dans le monde grco-romain (Paris: Inst. d'Etud. August., 1993). Reardon, B. P., Courants littraires des II' et III' sicles aprs J. C. (Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1971). Russell, D. ., Plutarch (London: Duckworth, 1973). Schmeller, T., Paulus und die "Diatribe" (Mnster: Aschendorff, 1987). Slings, S. R., "Protreptic in Ancient Theories of Philosophical Literature", in J. G.

264

DIRK M. SCHENKEVELD

Abbenes, S. R. Slings and I. Sluiter (eds.), Greek Rhetoric after Aristotle (Amsterdam: Free University Press, 1995), pp. 173-192. Stowers, S. K., Letter Writing in Greco-Roman Antiquity (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1986). Throm, H., Die Thesis (Paderborn: Schningh, 1932).

CHAPTER 9

HISTORICAL PROSE Stefan Rebenich


University of Mannheim, Germany

In the first century BC, Dionysius of Halicamassus already laments that a whole day would not suffice to enumerate all the Greek authors who had written historical works after the death of Alexander. 1 In fact, the rich historical production of the fourth century continued without a break in the Hellenistic age. 2 A host of names have come down to us, but with the exception of the Histories of Polybius the original works are lost. However, the content and rhetorical structure of quite a number of them can be reconstructed from the compilations of later periods, above all from Diodorus Siculus, who wrote in the time of Augustus, from the Lives of Plutarch (about AD 100), and from Imperial and Byzandne authors who made use of Hellenisdc historians. 3 Dionysius moreover criticizes the linguistic shortcomings of the post-classical historical writing, and adduces as crown witnesses in particular Phylarchus, Duris and Polybius. This sweeping judgment however fails to recognize the divergent lines of development and takes no notice of the different models which can be identified in Greek historiography from the fourth century on. Thus Polybius himself brings against Phylarchus, 4 a historian of the third century BC, the reproach that he had betrayed the proper task of historical
D.H. Comp. 4:30. On the earlier Greek historians, who are not discussed in this survey, cf. the general surveys and resources mentioned in the bibliographical appendix. 3 There is a detailed listing of the individual historians in W. von Christ and W. Schmid, Geschichte der griechischen Uteratur, 11:1 (HAW, 7.2.1; 6th edn.; Munich 1920), pp. 204ff. The standard edition is by F. Jacoby in FGrHist (see bibliographical appendix). 4 On Phylarchus cf. T. W. Africa, Phylarchus and the Spartan Revolution (Berkeley-Los Angeles 1961); E. Gabba, "Studi su Filarco", Athenaeum 35 (1957), pp. 3-55 and 193-239; J. Kroymann, RE Sup. 8 (1956), pp. 471-89; P. Pdech, Trois historiens mconnus: Thopompe, Duris, Phylarque (Paris 1989).
2 1

266

STEFAN REBENICH

writing. 5 T h e efforts of the historian ought not to be directed towards winning the attention of the public through the narration of sensational occurrences (). Again, it was not proper for a historianin contrast to a tragedianto interpolate fine speeches such as might perhaps have been delivered, or to recount the subsidiary circumstances which accompanied the events. Rather it was his duty to record exclusively what actually (' ) happened and what was really said, even if it was a question of quite ordinary things. For the aim of history writing and that of tragedy were opposed to one another: the task of the tragic poet was to thrill and charm ( ) his hearers for the moment by using the most plausible words, that of the historian was to instruct and convince ( ) for all time those who were desirous of learning, through his portrayal of the actual events and speeches. Even if Polybius's judgment is distorted by his Achaean patriotism, directed against the pro-Spartan historical writing practised by Phylarchus, 6 the extant fragments 7 from Phylarchus's main work let it be clearly seen that here an attempt was made to present history in a more lively and vivid fashion through the dramatic presentation of events of secondary importance and through the depicting of scenes which aroused horror and compassion. In fact the author of the "Histories", which dealt in 28 books with the period from Pyrrhus's march against the Peloponnese (272 BC) down to the death of the last Spartan king Cleomenes III (220/219 BC), speculates about the emotional stirrings of his readers (, , ). But Polybius's clear criticism of Phylarchus's manner of presentation is at the same time his answer to the depreciation of historical writing over against tragic poetry, which goes back to Aristode. In the ninth chapter of his Poetics, Aristotle had specified that the historian and the poet are distinguished by the fact that the one narrates what had happened ( ), the other what mightaccording to probability or necessityhave happened. Poetry therefore was both more philosophical and more significant than historical writing. For poetry, according to Aristode, "speaks rather of the general, history of the particular ( ' , ' ' )".8
5 6 7 8

Plb. 2:56:8-12. Cf. . Meister, Historische Kritik bet Polybios (Wiesbaden 1975), pp. 93ff. FGrHist 81. Arist. Po. 1451 b6f. On this much discussed passage cf. above all H. Baldry,

HISTORICAL PROSE

267

This devaluation of historical writing from the mouth of the Stagirite must, as many scholars, with Eduard Schwartz, 9 have argued, have been the reason why in the school of Aristotle (the "Peripatos") people set about bringing historiography closer to tragedy, indeed blending the two literary genres, in order to give to historical writing that element of the general by which poetry was distinguished. This was done by the so-called "tragic", "dramatic" or "peripatetic" writing of history, which Aristotle's disciple Theophrastus gave a theoretical basis in his (no longer extant) ("On the Writing of History") 10 and his pupil Duris of Samos (ca. 340-270 BC) and the latter's successor Phylarchus translated into practice. Here we may mention not only Polybius's criticism of Phylarchus, but also that of Plutarch, who in his "Life of Themistocles" rejects the dramatizing of a report with tragic methods in the writing of history.11 According to the dominant view among scholars,12 Duris in his historical

"The Interpretation of Poetics, ch. IX", Phronesis 2 (1960), pp. 159-77; H. Erbse, "Aristoteles ber Tragdie und Geschichtsschreibung (zum neunten Kapitel der aristotelischen Poetik)", in Bonner Festgabe Johannes Straub zum 65. Geburtstag dargebracht (Bonn 1977), pp. 127-36; . von Fritz, "Entstehung und Inhalt des neunten Kapitels von Aristoteles' Poetik", in Festschrift E. Karpp zum 70. Geburtstag (Hamburg 1958), pp. 67-91 = idem, Antike und moderne Tragdie (Berlin 1962), pp. 430-57; idem, "Die Bedeutung des Aristoteles fr die Geschichtsschreibung", in Histoire et historiens dans l'Antiquit (Entretiens de la Fondation Hardt, 4; Vandoeuvres-Geneva 1956), pp. 8 5 145 = idem, Schriften zur griechischen und rmischen Verfassungstheorie und Geschichtsschreibung (Berlin-New York 1976), pp. 256-87; S. Gastaldi, Poesia e Historia nella Poetica Aristotelica (Rendiconti dell'Istituto Lombardo. Classe di Lettere e di Scienze Morali e Storiche, 107; 1973), pp. 202-42; H.J. Horn, "Zum neunten Kapitel der aristotelischen Poetik", RhM 131 (1988), pp. 113-36; B. A. Kyrkos, "Der tragische Mythos und die Geschichte bei Aristoteles", Philosophia 1 (1971), pp. 315-38; S. L. Radt, "Aristoteles und die Tragdie", Mnemosyne, Ser. 4, 24 (1971), pp. 189-205; G. E. M. de Ste. Croix, "Aristode on History and Poetry (Poetics 9, 1451 a 36- b l 1)", in The Ancient Historian and His Materials: Essays in Honour of C. E. Stevens on his Seventieth Birthday (London 1975), pp. 45-58; F. Walbank, "History and Tragedy", Historia 9 (1960), pp. 2 1 6 34; R. Zoepffel, Historia und Geschichte bei Aristoteles (Abh. Akad. Wiss. Heidelberg, Phil.-hist. Klasse, 2; 1975). 9 E. Schwartz, Fnf Vortrge ber den griechischen Roman (2nd edn.; Berlin 1943), pp. 123ff.; idem, RE 5.2 (1905), p. 1855, s.v. Duris. Cf. Jacoby in the commentary on FGrHist 76 F 1. 10 The Greek, Ladn and Arabic texts of Theophrastus are now available in a voluminous new compendium: Theophrastus of Eresus: Sources for his Life, Writings, Thought and Influence, ed. and trans. W. W. Fortenbaugh et al. (2 vols.; Leiden 1992). Further editions and literature in O. Regenbogen, RE Sup. 7 (1940), pp. 1354 1562 and F. Wehrli in H. Flashar (ed.), Grundri der Geschichte der Philosophie: Die Philosophie der Antike (vol. 3; Stuttgart 1983), pp. 474-522. 11 Plu. Them. 32:4. 12 The literature on the "tragic" or "peripatetic" writing of history is legion. In addition to the studies of Walbank and von Fritz mentioned in note 8 the following

268

STEFAN REBENICH

works13 carried over the Aristotelian doctrine of style and poetics into the wridng of history, and interpreted the two terms ("imitation") and ("pleasure, delight") according to the Aristotelian theory of tragedy as dramatic vividness and the entertainment of the reader. F. W. Walbank above all has taken a stance against tracing the tragic writing of history back to Aristode, and has emphasized the common roots of tragedy and history in the "pre-Hellenistic" and "pre-Aristotelian" epic.14 While H. Strasburger understood the demanded by Duris as the "imitation of reality as in a stageplay" 15 and stressed the realism of the historian, who introduced in the Aristotelian sense as a means of , of purification of the soul, K. Meister turned against the influence of Aristode on Duris and his successors; in theory they pursued the goal of depicting reality faithfully in their works (), but in practice they frequendy exaggerated and falsified the events, since they were oriented to the sensational, to captivate the public. Hence Meister prefers the concept "mimetic" rather than "tragic" history writing, and speaks with reference to the practice of history writing of "sensational history". 16 Actually, there are repeatedly to be found in the genre of Hellenistic history writing represented by Duris and Phylarchus stylistic topoi

presentations are important, and at the same time give a good survey of the sometimes complex scholarly discussion: A. Hepperle, Beobachtungen zur Erzhltechnik im tragischhistorischen Roman der Penpatetiker: Ein Stil- und quellenkritischer Beitrag zur hellenistischen historiographischen Literatur (Diss. Heidelberg 1954); G. Marasco, "Ctesia, Dinone, 'Eraclide di Cuma e le origini della storiografia tragica'", SIFC 81 (1988), pp. 4867; . Meister, Historische Kritik bei Polybios (Wiesbaden 1975), pp. 109ff (Polybius und die "Tragische Geschichtsschreibung"); H.-D. Richter, Untersuchungen zur hellenistischen Historiographie: Die Vorlagen des Pempeius Trogus fiir die Darstellungen zur nachalexandrinischen hellenistischen Geschichte (lust. 13-40) (Frankfurt/M. 1987), pp. 38ff.; K. Sacks, Polybius on the Writing of History (Berkeley 1977), pp. 144ff.;J. Seibert, Dos Zeitalter der Diadochen (Darmstadt 1983), pp. 15ff.; N. Zeger, Wesen und Ursprung der tragischen Geschichtsschreibung (Diss. Hamburg 1959). FGrHist 76. In addition to the "Annals of the Samians" and the "History of Agathocles", the chief historiographical work by Duris was a "Macedonian History" in at least 23 books, which reached from the death of King Amyntas in 370/68 BC to the death of Lysimachus in 281 BC and was marked by anti-Macedonian tendencies. Fundamental for Duris is E. Schwartz, RE 5.2 (1905), pp. 1853-56 = idem, GG, pp. 27-31; cf. in addition R. B. Kebric, In the Shadow of Macedon: Duris of Samos (Wiesbaden 1977); K. Meister in CAH 7.1 (1984), pp. 384ff und 574ff.; L. A. Okin, Studies on Duris of Samos (Diss. University of California 1974); Pdech (see note 4); L. Torraco, Duride di Samo. La maschera scenica nella storiografia ellenistica (Salerno 1988). 14 Historia 9 (1960), pp. 216-34; cf idem, Polybius (Berkeley 1972), pp. 34ff. 15 Die Wesensbestimmung der Geschichte durch die antike Geschichtsschmbung (SB Wiss. Gesell, der J . W . Goethe Universitt Frankfurt, 5; Wiesbaden 1966), p. 78. 16 Die griechische Geschichtsschreibung (Stuttgart-Berlin-Cologne 1990), pp. 95ff.
13

HISTORICAL PROSE

269

and narrative elements which have as their purpose to entertain the reader in an appealing fashion. Among these are the topical description of the clothing and hair-style of the historical actors, 17 phenomenal occurrences,18 curious animal stories,19 anecdotes 20 and love stories.21 Climaxes, surprising turns of events and the element of suspense can also be observed. Sagas, fables and legends, but also and verses from the poets, which the later doxographers transcribed, are freely strewn through the narrative. The model for this well thought out and skilfully composed abundance of material is the history writing of Herodotus of Halicamassus. The "rhetorical" writing of history is to be distinguished from the "tragic". In this connection it is well to bear in mind that, from the time of the epoch-making appearance of the orator Gorgias of Leontini in Athens in the year 427 BC, rhetoricin part in rivalry with philosophy and poetrygained an ever greater influence in numerous areas of public and cultural life, and consequendy also had a strong effect upon the writing of history.22 Above all the rhetorical school of the Athenian orator Isocrates (436-338 BC), founded about 390 BC, left its mark on numerous politicians, orators, poets and historians. Significandy, Cicero compares this school with the Trojan Horse, from which none but leaders emerged. 23 Isocrates' artistically developed period, characterized by an elegant rhythm and a strict avoidance of hiatus, also influenced many generations of historians who had enjoyed a literary and rhetorical education. 24 Through teachers of rhetoric, historical knowledge became part of the educational canon which was imparted to the city elite of the Greek world in their schooldays. At the same time the teachers of rhetoric carried over their own literary and stylistic qualities into the writing of history, and opened it up for literary re-shaping. Hence attention was paid
FGrHist 76 F 12, 14, 24, 49, 50, 60, 70. FGrHist 76 F 54, 87; FGrHist 81 F 10, 17, 35. 19 FGrHist 76 F 7, 47; FGrHist 81 F 4, 26, 27, 28, 38, 61. 20 FGrHist 76 F 3, 37, 50, 51, 53, 63, 69, 84, 93, 96; FGrHist 81 F 12, 21, 40, 41, 75. 21 FGrHist 76 F 2, 10, 11, 17, 18, 21, 47, 69; FGrHist 81 F 21, 24, 30, 32, 70, 71, 81. 22 Cf. D . S . 12:53:Iff. 23 Cic. De or. 2:94. 24 . Meiner, Historiker zwischen Polis und Knigshof: Studien zur Stellung der Geschichtsschreiber in der griechischen Gesellschafl in sptklassischer und friihhellenistischer ^F-t (Gttingen 1992), pp. 93ff. and 146 has recendy warned against over-emphasis on the direct influence of Isocrates on Greek historiography.
18 17

270

STEFAN REBENICH

above all to the stylistic shaping of a historical work, yet without losing sight of didactic, moral and political concerns. Among the leading representatives of this rhetorical history writing are Ephorus of Cyme, Theopompus of Chios and Anaximenes of Lampsacus. Polybius righdy treated Ephorus (ca. 400-330 BC)25 from Cyme in Aeolia as his only real precursor in the field of universal history;26 he considers him "admirable both because of his style and also his handling of the material and the richness of his thought; he has a special eloquence in his digressions and in the sentences he has formulated himself and, to put it briefly, when he makes a statement that goes beyond the theme". 27 The extant fragments of the "Historiai", written probably between 350 and 334 BC, in fact prove that Ephorus laid great store on the stylistic shaping of his work and on an artistic language, although in ancient times his style was judged by many to be "flat, sluggish and void of tension", 28 since he renounced such Gorgian figures of speech as antithesis, isocola (sentences with equal members), homoioteleuta (similar endings), parisa (balanced clauses), etc., and distanced himself from the concentration of historiography on the and the . 29 O n the other hand, admiring tribute was paid to the structure of the extensive work, which was wideranging both in time and in its themes. For Ephorus had arranged his books not as an annalist but rather , according to subject areas, in order to be able to describe occurrences at one and the same scene of action over a long period of time. However, he made use to a large extent of the stylistic device of the doublet, that is, he
25

FGrHist 70. E. Schwartz, RE 6 (1907), pp. 1-16 = idem, GG, pp. 3-26; J. M. Alonso-Nunez, The Emergence of Universal Historiographyfromthe Fourth to the Second Centuries BC, Studio Hellenistica 30 (1990), pp. 173-92; G. L. Barber, The Historian Ephorus (Cambridge 1935); P. Brde, Untersuchungen zur antiken Unwersalgeschichtsschreibung (Munich 1974), pp. 43ff.; F. Carrata, "Sulla composizione delle Storie di Eforo", AAT 81/82 (1947/49), pp. 147-60; W. Connor, Studies in Ephorus and Other Sources for the Cause of the Peloponnesian War (Diss. Princeton 1961); R. Drews, "Ephorus and History Written ", AJP 84 (1963), pp. 244-55; idem, "Ephorus' History Revisited", Hermes 104 (1976), pp. 497-98; K.B.J. Herbert, Ephorus in Plutarch's Lives (Diss. Harvard 1954); A. E. Kalischek, De Ephoro et Theopompo Isocratis discipulis (Diss. Mnster 1913); G. Schepens, "Historiographical Problems in Ephoros", in Historiographia antiqua: Commentationes Lovanienses in honorem W. Peremans septuagenani editae (Louvain 1977), pp. 95fF.; idem, "Ephore sur la valeur de l'autopsie", AncSoc 1 (1970), pp. 163-73. 26 Plb. 5:33:2 (FGrHist 70 7). 27 Plb. 12:28:10 [FGrHist 70 23). 28 Cf. Suda s.v. Ephoros (FGrHist 70 28a). 29 Str. 7:39 (FGrHist 70 F 42).

HISTORICAL PROSE

271

repeated at various places particular descriptions or events. 30 T h e reliability of his reporting also was already doubted by several ancient critics; thus Polybius complains that the portrayals of batdes, and particularly the descriptions of land battles, were "laughable", since they were written "entirely without experience and without his ever having seen a batde". 31 In Plutarch it is said: "As for the rhetorical efforts and grand periods of Ephorus, Theopompus and Anaximenes, which they present as delivered after they have armed and drawn up the armies for batde, one can only say: 'Nobody speaks such nonsense near the iron' (i.e. before the battle)". 32 In addition, further important elements of historical presentation such as speeches, inscriptions and documents were reproduced inaccurately and in a manner remote from reality. T h e first universal historian of antiquity was in fact a "bookworm", who took extracts from the sources available, put them together, and transposed them into an agreeable uniform style. In contrast to Ephorus, Theopompus of Chios (378/77 BC-after 320 BC)33 was regarded as stylistically brilliant and politically involved. T h e telling saying was in circulation in the ancient world that Isocrates had once said of his two pupils that Ephorus needed the whip, Theopompus the bridle. 34 According to his own testimony, he was initially active as an orator, and ranked with Isocrates and Theodectes among the most famous orators in Greece; he is said to have composed 20,000 lines in all, and there was no important town in Greece in
30

Thus Plb. 6:46:10 already makes the criticism that the presentations of the Cretan and the Spartan constitutionsif one leaves aside the proper namesare almost identical. On the difficulties for the student of antiquity which result from this way of working, cf. S. Lauffer, "Die Diodordublette XV 38 = XV 50 ber die Friedensschlsse zu Sparta 374 und 371", Historia 8 (1959), pp. 315-48 and K. Meister, Die Ungeschichtlichkeit des Kalliasftiedens und deren historische Folgen (Wiesbaden 1982). 31 Plb. 12:25:3 (FGrHist 70 20). 32 Plut. Mor. 803b (FGrHist 70 21). 33 FGrHist 115. G. Bonamente, "La storiografia di Teopompo tra classicit ed ellenismo", AIIS 4 (1973/75), pp. 1-86; I. . F. Bruce, "Theopompus and Classical Greek Historiography", & 9 (1970), pp. 86-109; W. R. Connor, Theopompus and Fifth-Century Athens (Cambridge, MA 1968); A. M. Flower, Theopompus of Chius: History and Rhetoric in the Fourth Century B.C. (Oxford 1994); K. von Fritz, "Die politische Tendenz in Theopomps Geschichtsschreibung", AuA 4 (1954), pp. 45-64; . Meyer, Theopomps Hellenika (Halle 1909); Pdech (as note 4); A. Momigliano, "Studi sulla storiografia greca del IV secolo a.C. I: Teopompo", RFIC 9 (1931), pp. 230-42 and 335-53 = idem, La storiografia greca (Turin 1982), pp. 174-203; idem, "La storia di Eforo e le Elleniche di Teopompo", RFIC 63 (1935), pp. 180-204; K. R. Reed, Theopompus of Chius: History and Oratory in the Fourth Century (Diss. University of California, Berkeley 1976); W. Schranz, Theopomps Philippika (Diss. Freiburg 1922). 34 Vit. Isoc. 3 (FGrHist 70 28b).

272

STEFAN REBENICH

which he had not won great renown with his speeches. His historical work was however even more extensive, and is said to have comprised 150,000 lines.35 His chief works are the , the "Greek History", which continued the historical work of Thucydides and in 12 books presented the period from 411 to 394 BC, and the , the "History of Philip" in 58 books, in which Theopompus according to his own statement described "the deeds of the Greeks and barbarians"; 36 it was accordingly a comprehensive work of universal history, at the central point of which stood Philip II of Macedon. 37 The "Philippica" included an abundance of digressions, which contained topographical, geographical, ethnographical, cultural-historical and mythological as well as political information; ample space was likewise given to marvellous phenomena and fantastic stories.38 With this understanding of history writing Theopompus stands in the tradition of Herodotus. Although his descriptions of batdes and his commanders' speeches, like those of Ephorus, found no favour with ancient critics,39 his style, shot through with numerous Gorgian figures, ranked as altogether exemplary. Dionysius of Halicamassus esteemed not only his great care and the exactness that rested on personal research. He praised especially Theopompus's ability "in every course of action not only to see and express what is visible to the multitude, but also to seek out the hidden causes of the actions, and the motives of those acting, and the feelings in their hearts, which the multitude cannot easily know, and to reveal all the secrets both of apparent virtue and of undetected vice".40 His style, Dionysius con35

FGrHist 115 F 25 (Phot. Rib I. 176). FGrHist 115 F 25. Cf. on this the prologue to Herodotus's "Histories". 37 The question whether Theopompus is to be identified with the author of the so-called "Hellenica from Oxyrhynchus", as for example E. Meyer, R. Laqueur, E. Ruschenbusch and G. A. Lehmann affirmed, cannot be entered into here. The "Hellenica from Oxyrhynchus" (FGrHist 66) consist of two groups of papyrus fragments, which report on what took place in the Decelean War, especially on the sea batde at Notium in 4 0 7 / 6 BC, and on various events in the years 397-395 BC. The work probably began with the year 411 BC (the end point of Thucydides' history) and extended at least to 395 BC. The author writes a simple style, inserts numerous digressions, andat least in the extant partsreproduces no speeches. Others have wished to identify him with Ephorus, Androtion, Daimachus and Cratippus. Cf. on this the editions of M. Chambers (Stuttgart-Leipzig 1993) and P. R. McKechnie and S.J. Kern (Warminster 1988, with translation and commentary), as well as the commentaries of I. A. F. Bruce (Cambridge 1967) and H. R. Breitenbach, RE Sup. 12 (1970), pp. 383-426 with literature. 38 Cf. for example FGrHist 115 F 75. 39 FGrHist 115 32f. 40 D.H. Pomp. 6 [FGrHist 115 20a 7).
36

HISTORICAL PROSE

273

tinues, resembles most that of Isocrates. His manner of speech is pure, he employs the words in common use, is clear, elevated, noble, often also splendid, and his writing is distinguished by a harmonious balance and a pleasing and gende flow. In some cases his deviates from the Isocratean style through bitterness and tension, namely when Theopompus gives way to his passions; this is especially the case when he blames towns or commanders for wicked policies or unrighteous actions, which he often doeshere he attains to the rhetorical power of a Demosthenes. But "if in those passages over which he has taken the greatest trouble he had paid less attention to the blending of vowels (i.e. avoiding hiatus), the rhythmic cadence of periods and the uniformity of constructions, then he would probably have expressed himself far better than in fact he did". 41 For many ancient readers, however, the strongly rhetorical style, linked with an excessive moral appraisal, was a stumbling-block. [Pseudo-]Demetrius, a critic of probably the Hellenistic period, emphatically warns in his " O n Style" against the use of overdrawn antitheses and assonances, such as Theopompus had used in an oft-cited example, since they did not give any force to the speech, but rather made it laboured and often even frigid. T h e listener who directs his attention to a of this kind ("excessive artificiality"), or rather 3 ("bad art"), is carried beyond that sense of emotion to attain which is yet properly the task of the rhetorical figures.42 The lexicographer Pollux in the period of the empire criticizes the neologisms formed by Theopompus, "non-citizens" (), "friendless" (), "degenerate Athenians" () and "the disinherited son" ().43 Nevertheless his language and style on the whole followed the conventions usual at the time and reflected the literary and rhetorical training of the author. If one considers the later influence of Theopompus, he ranks among the most influential and most read Greek historians; the orator Dio Chrysostom about AD 100 does not hesitate to accord him the second place after Thucydides. 44 Anaximenes of Lampsacus (ca. 380-320 BC)45 likewise counts among the chief representatives of the rhetoricizing writing of history; in
D. H. Pomp. 6 (FGrHist 115 20a 9f.) (LCL translation). Cf. FGrHist 115 44 with F 225a and b. On the background cf. Norden, pp. 126ff. 43 Poll. 3:58 and 4:93 (FGrHist 115 F 338f.). 44 D. Chr. 18:10 (FGrHist 115 45). 45 FGrHist 72. On him cf. P. A. Brunt, "Anaximenes and King Alexander I of
42 41

274

STEFAN REBENICH

antiquity he was always regarded in the first place as an orator and sophist. A twelve-volume work is mendoned under the tide "Hellenica" or "First History", which covered Greek and Persian history from the creation of gods and men to the battle of Mantinea and the death of Epaminondas (362 BC). In addition there are two works of contemporary history, a History of Philip II in at least eight books and a work " O n Alexander". 46 The tides "Hellenica" and "Philippica" alone betray his rivalry with Theopompus. 47 Although his contemporary Theocritus of Chios describes Anaximenes' rhetoric as "a stream of words, but a mere droplet of thought", 48 he was included in the canon of the ten most important Greek historians. 49 The few extant fragments seem to confirm his rhetorical skill. His example in addition bears witness to the dominant influence which rhetoric exercised in the fourth century on the writing of history and other literary genres. Dionysius of Halicamassus is of the opinion that Anaximenes wished to be perfect in every sphere, as historian, interpreter of poetry, composer of rhetorical manuals, author of deliberative and forensic speeches"but in fact he was perfect in none of these spheres, but weak and unconvincing". 50

II In view of the great events of the time of Alexander, it is not surprising that numerous authors set about composing historiographical works, either as early as the Macedonian king's lifetime or soon after his death. Often they had participated in his expedition into Asia, and in their descriptions could draw upon their own observations.51 Here we must distinguish between historians commissioned
Macedon", JHS 96 (1976), pp. 151-53; P. Wendland, Anaximenes von Lampsakos (Berlin 1905). 46 Cf. FGrHist 72 14 and 27. 47 Cf. FGrHist 72 6 (5). 48 FGrHist 72 25 (Stob. Flor. 3:36:20). 49 FGrHist 72 31. 50 D.H. Is. 19 (FGrHist 72 13). 51 On the individual Alexander historians cf. the corresponding articles by E. Schwartz, F. Jacoby and others in RE, as well as Jacoby's commentary in FGrHist. In general reference may be made to: H. Berve, Das Alexanderreich auf prosopographischer Grundlage (vol. 2; Munich 1926); T. S. Brown, The Greek Historians (Lexington 1973), pp. 124ff.; P. Goukowsky, Essai sur les origines du mythe d'Alexandre (336-270 av. J. C.) (2 vols.; Nancy 1979/81); idem, "Die Alexanderhistoriker", in J. M. Alonso-Nunez

HISTORICAL PROSE

275

by Alexander in person to set down his deeds, such as Callisthenes of Olynthus 52 and the Anaximenes already mentioned, and those authors who found themselves fulfilling some function in the king's retinue and of their own accord felt themselves called to write about Alexander, as for example Chares of Mytilene, 53 the (the royal master of ceremonies), Nearchus of Crete, 54 the commander of the fleet, Onesicritus of Astypalaea, 55 the helmsman of Alexander's flagship, Ptolemy the royal bodyguard and later king of Egypt, 56 Aristobulus of Cassandreia, 57 who accompanied the expedition as an engineer and architect, and Ephippus of Olynthus, 58 who was active in Egypt as "overseer over the mercenaries". The works of the authors mentioned are generally extant only in fragments, and have to be laboriously reconstructed from the later tradition. We can however clearly recognize the uncommon dynamism of the Alexander historiography, which produced a host of very diverse works in which every possible way of presenting history was pressed into service and put to the test. In his chief work "The Deeds of Alexander", which because of his execution in 327 BC remained unfinished, Callisthenes (ca. 3 7 0 327 BC), the nephew and for many years collaborator of Aristode and a contemporary of Theopompus and Ephorus, aimed at the educated public of Greece. Numerous digressions on geographical, historical and archaeological themes, 59 as well as on natural science, served as did a strongly rhetorical composition to loosen up and adorn

(ed.), Geschichtsbild und Geschichtsdenken im Altertum (Darmstadt 1991), pp. 136-65; N. G. L. Hammond, Three Historians of Alexander the Great, the So-Called Vulgate Authors Diodoros, Justin, Curtius (Cambridge 1963); K. Meister, "Das Bild Alexanders des Groen in der Historiographie seiner Zeit", in Festschrift R. Werner (Xenia, 22; Konstanz 1989), pp. 63-79; L. Pearson, The Lost Histories of Alexander the Great (New York 1960; reprint 1963); P. Pdech, Historiens compagnons d'Alexandre (Callisthne-Onsiaite-NarqueAristoboule) (Paris 1984); F. Schachermeyer, Alexander der Groe: Das Problem seiner Persnlichkeit und seines Wirkens (Vienna 1973), pp. 149fT.; J. Seibert, Alexander der Groe (Darmstadt 1972), pp. Iff.; W. Will, Alexander der Groe (Stuttgart 1986), pp. 11 ff. The studies mentioned list both the older literature and also investigations into the individual historians. 55 FGrHist 124. FGrHist 125. 54 FGrHist 133. 55 FGrHist 134. 56 FGrHist 138. 57 FGrHist 139. 58 FGrHist 126. 59 FGrHist 124 F 25, 28, 29, 30, 33, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 53, 54.

276

STEFAN REBENICH

the work. From the extant fragments it is in addition clear that he set his historical writing at the service of the Macedonian king, and subordinated his description of the events to propagandist purposes. 60 Strabo already accused Callisthenes of , and beyond that criticized the excesses in the tragic style (). The author aimed in fact at producing emotion and passion, such as was otherwise conveyed to the public by the performance of tragedies, and it has therefore been conjectured with a certain plausibility that the "tragic" historical writing which first comes clearly to the fore in the following century had in him a precursor. At any rate Callisthenes discussed questions of historiographical theory and came to the conclusion that "whoever attempts to write anything may not lose sight of the person, but must shape the speeches in a manner appropriate both to the person and to the circumstances". 61 In consequence Callisthenes also availed himself of the literary device of verbatim speeches for the characterizing of individual persons; in this he evidendy went beyond the earlier usage practised by Thucydides. In the remnants of other court historians one may learn to recognize parts of popular romantic accounts of the deeds of Alexander. They are written from the perspective of a world fundamentally changed through Alexander's conquests. Of another kind was the work of Onesicritus (ca. 373~ca. 305 BC), allegedly a pupil of Diogenes, who presented the events from a Cynic perspective. Alexander became an , a philosopher in arms, who mediated Greek philosophy and culture to the inhabited world. 62 It is to Onesicritus that those stories go back which present Alexander in dialogue with Indian Brahmins and Yogis, the gymnosophists; for their part, they act and speak like perfect Cynics, and have at their disposal the wisdom of the older philosophical tradition. Even if Strabo cast doubt on Onesicritus's trustworthiness, when he declared that all the Alexander historians had preferred the marvellous to the truth, but Onesicritus appeared to have surpassed them all in his delight in sensation (),63 it is still to be emphasized, with more recent studies,64 that in his work it is a question of a kind of historical

Cf. for example his report on Alexander's journey to the oracle of Ammon in the year 332-331 BC (FGrHist 124 F 14a = Str. 17:1:43). 61 FGrHist 124 F 44. 62 FGrHist 134 F 17 (Str. 15:1:63-65). 63 FGrHist 134 10 = Str. 15:1:28; cf. FGrHist 134 12 = Gell. 9:4:1-3. 64 Cf. for example Pearson Lost Histories (note 51), pp. 831T.; Schachermeyer

60

HISTORICAL PROSE

277

romance, in which historiography and a philosophical Utopia entered into a peculiar union. T h e deeds of Alexander were enhanced into the marvellous and sublime by Aristobulus 65 and Clitarchus of Alexandria; 66 in particular Clitarchus's twelve-volume "History of Alexander", which began with the king's ascent to the throne and ended with his death and of which only 36 fragments are extant, enduringly painted the portrait of Alexander for later ages and already prefigured some central elements of the Hellenistic Alexander legend. In antiquity he already ranked as a notorious liar. Cicero significandy reckons him among the orators "to whom it is permitted to spread abroad lies in their historical works, that they may be able to portray something more vividly",67 and Quintilian opines: Clitarchi probatur ingenium, fides infamatur ("Clitarchus's talent is approved, but his trustworthiness is impugned"). 68 A master of stylistic composition, Clitarchus wished to impress his readers and hold them in suspense through an unusually figurative and artistic language. More important than the Alexander historians was Hieronymus of Cardia (ca. 360-after 260 BC)69 the historian of the wars of the Diadochi; as chief of staff to Eumenes, one of the generals contending for the succession to Alexander, he had first-hand experience of the events. In the tradition of Thucydides he was concerned to give a reliable and correct description of what happened, and refrained from both the exaggerations of the rhetorical and the inventions of the "tragic" history writing of his time. He wrote a sober style, free from flourishes, took over traditional forms of presentation, and freely inserted speeches into his work. His precise description of Alexander the Great's funeral carriage may rank as a model example of ekphrasis (description).70 The Alexander historiography of the close of the fourth century,

Alexander der Groe (note 51), pp. 151-52; W. W. Tarn, Alexander der Groe (Darmstadt 1968; original English version in 2 vols., Cambridge 1948), pp. 208-209 and 261. 65 FGrHist 139. 66 FGrHist 137. 67 FGrHist 137 7 = Cic. Brut. 42. 68 FGrHist 137 6 = Quint. Inst. 10:1:74 (LCL translation). 69 FGrHist 154. The fundamental work is F. Jacoby, RE 8.2 (1913), pp. 154060 = idem, GH, pp. 245-55. In addition the following may be mentioned among more recent studies: S. Hornblower, Hieronymos of Cardia (Oxford 1981); G. A. Lehmann, "Der 'Lamische Krieg' und die 'Freiheit der Hellenen'. berlegungen zur hieronymianischen Tradition", %PE 73 (1988), pp. 121-49 and I. L. Merker, "Diodorus Siculus and Hieronymus of Cardia", AHB 2 (1988), pp. 90-93. Cf. also the literature on the historians of the Diadochi mentioned in note 12 (esp. Richter and Seibert). 70 FGrHist 154 F 2 (Ath. 12:540).

278

STEFAN REBENICH

which was expressly oriented to personality and almost throughout highly tendentious, was moulded by the two main streams of Hellenistic historiography, the "tragic" and the "rhetorical", which became more and more dominant. These two streams however did not develop in isolation from one another. As the Alexander historians already show, the linguistic and stylistic shaping of the individual historical works does not stand in any fixed relationship with particular tendencies of historical presentation. Basically people strove for unity of composition, yet without avoiding inconsistencies. Descriptions of battles, digressions of the most varied content, ekphraseis and the free reproduction of letters and official documents were all popular. T o characterize the participants, speeches were inserted, sometimes also explicidy moral judgments. Pretentious periods were constructed according to the rules of stylistic prose, and great stress was laid on the avoidance of hiatus. At the same time description of the facts and investigation of the causes, which were the hall-marks of Thucydidean history, receded into the background.

Ill

Under the influence of literary rhetoric, the late classical and above all the Hellenistic writing of history71 developed formally into greater linguistic power of expression. The Asianism which made its appearance as a rhetorical fashion in the third century, and to which for example Hegesias of Magnesia shows himself indebted in his History of Alexander, 72 scarcely formed any school in historiography. 73 In their presentation of historical events the writers of history took into consideration ever more frequently the results of contemporary sci-

Cf. on this, besides R. Scheller, De hellenistica historiae conscribendae arte (Diss. Leipzig 1911), J. Lens Tuero, "Historiografia helenisdca", in Unidady pluralidad 1 (Madrid 1983), pp. 305-50; H. D. Richter, Untersuchungen zur hellenistischen Historiographie: Die Vorlagen des Pompeius Trogusfiirdie Darstellungen zur nachalexandmischen hellenistischen Geschichte (lust. 13-40) (Frankfurt/M. 1987); K. Sacks, "Rhetoric and Speeches in Hellenistic Historiography", Athenaeum 64 (1986), pp. 383-95; J. Seibert, Das Zeitalter der Diadochen (Darmstadt 1983); . Will, "Comment on crit l'histoire hellnistique", Historia 27 (1978), pp. 65-82; G. Wirth, "Hellenistische Geschichtsschreibung", in H. H. Schmitt and E. Vogt (eds.), Kleines Wrterbuch des Hellenismus (Wiesbaden 1988), pp. 205-30 with further literature. 72 FGrHist 142. 73 Cf. Str. 14:41:1; Cic. Brut. 286; Gell. 9:4:3.

71

HISTORICAL PROSE

279

ences, and at the same time created a large number of literary subcategories. Beside the impressive series of representatives of universal and contemporary history there stood hundreds of authors who cultivated the most diverse subsidiary and special fields of history writing. Thus scientific chronology, 74 the evaluation of the many local lists of officials and calendar systems, found its compilers in the most significant savant of Hellenism, Eratosthenes, 75 who taught in the Museum at Alexandria in the third century, in the Athenian Apollodorus (2nd century BC),76 who was also prominent as the author of a learned commentary on the catalogue of ships in the Iliad, and in Castor, 77 who was active in Rome as a freedman of Sulla. T h e number of those who devoted themselves to local history is beyond any survey. At that time there was no town or region without its own historian. For one thing there were authors who with an antiquarian purpose dealt with legal and cultic traditions, festal customs, architectural monuments, and other such matters; here people relied on a thoroughly critical scientific method, which evaluated all the evidence from archive material and inscriptions through proper names down to anecdotes. This local research came to its fullest bloom in the Athens of the fourth and third centuries, where the series of the so-called Atthidographers begins with Hellanicus of Lesbos, 78 a contemporary of Thucydides, and extends through Clidemus 79 and Androtion 80 (middle of 4th century BC) down to Philochorus 8 ' (3rd century BC). The Attic writing of local history reached its high point in the last-named author, who put forward a work which themadcally was unusually many-sided. 82 For another, there came into being comprehensive accounts of the history of particular towns
Cf. E.J. Bickerman, Chronology of the Ancient World (2nd edn.; London 1981); E. Manni, Fasti ellenistici e romani (Kokalos Sup., 1; Palermo 1961); O. Regenbogen, RE 20.2 (1950), pp. 1462-1466, s.v. Eratosthenes; W. Sontheimer, RE 9A.2 (1967), pp. 2455-2477, s.v. Zeitrechnung. 75 FGrHist 241. 76 FGrHist 244. 77 FGrHist 250. 78 FGrHist 4 F 171-72; 323a. 79 FGrHist 323. 80 FGrHist 324. 81 FGrHist 328. 82 It was the researches of F. Jacoby that first properly appreciated the significance of the Atthidographers for the later tradition, cf. FGrHist Illb (suppl.), A Commentary on the Ancient Historians of Athens, vol. 1: text, vol. 2: notes (Leiden 1954); idem, Atthis: The Local Chronicles of Athens (Oxford 1949); L. Pearson, The Local Historians of Attica (Oxford 1942, 2nd edn., 1981); P. Harding, "Atthis and Politeia", Histona 26
74

280

STEFAN REBENICH

or regions, which were usually worked up from existing literary models and often included a mythical pre-history. T h e boundaries between this genuine local and regional historiography, which was in every way intended to satisfy literary and stylistic demands, and a learned and antiquarian entertainment and "text-book" literature are fluid. Numerous Hellenistic antiquarians and savants, who put out more or less original collections of material on the history of Greek provinces and cities, on famous personalities, on festivals, sacrificial offerings, the games, and a host of other themes, are known to us by name. Here we may mention Polemon from Ilium in Asia Minor, who at the beginning of the second century BC published various writings of geographical description which rested on his own researches; he bore the nickname "Stelokopas", because he pounced upon stone inscriptions like a hungry man on a good meal. 83 A special place among all the local historians belongs to Timaeus (ca. 350 BC-after 260 BC)84 from Tauromenion (the modern Taormina) in Sicily. H e spent fifty years of his life as a political exile in Athens, where in the libraries he composed the 68 books of his history of Sicily and lower Italy from the beginnings to the start of the First Punic W a r . T h e work was of fundamental importance for later authors, and settled the image of the Greek West in Greek literature down to the time of Augustus. His gathering up and re-working of all the information available to him about the geography and history of the western Mediterranean area, 85 his detailed considerationfor the first timeof R o m a n history, his independent researches in the field of chronology, 86 his synthesis of diverse historiographical genres
(1977), pp. 148-60; E. Ruschenbusch, "Atthis und Politeia", Hermes 109 (1981), pp. 316-26; P.J. Rhodes, "The Atthidographers", Studia Hellenistica 30 (1990), pp. 73-81. 83 FHG III, pp. 108-48. On the epithet cf. Herodicus ap. Ath. 6:234d. On his person and work cf. . Deichgrber, RE 21.2 (1952), pp. 1288-1320. 84 FGrHist 566. Cf. R. Laqueur, RE 6A.1 (1936), pp. 1076-1203; T. S. Brown, Timaeus of Tauromenium (Berkeley-Los Angeles 1958); K. Meister, Die sizilische Geschichte bei Diodor (Diss. Munich 1967); A. Momigliano, "Atene nel III secolo a.C. e la scoperta di Roma nelle Storie di Timeo di Tauromenio", RSI 71 (1959), pp. 529-56 = idem, Terzo contribute (Rome 1966), pp. 23-53 = La stonogrqfia greca (Turin 1982), pp. 225ff. = Storia e storiografa antica (Bologna 1987), pp. 97-126; L. Pearson, The Greek Historians of the West: Timaeus and his Predecessors (Philological Monographs of the American Philological Associadon, 35; Adanta 1987); G. de Sanctis, Ricerche sulla storiografia siceliota (Palermo 1958); R. Vattuone, Ricerche su Timeo: La "pueritia" di Agatocle (Florence 1982); F. W. Walbank, "The Historians of Greek Sicily", Kokalos 14/15 (1968/69), pp. 476-98. 85 Cf. FGrHist 566 F 7 (Plb. 12:28a:3). 86 From Timaeus's pen comes also a chronological handbook with the title

HISTORICAL PROSE

281

and his critical debate with his predecessors all ensure him a prominent place among the historians between Ephorus and Polybius. T h e ancient judgments about Timaeus, like the modern, are however not uniform. His admirers praised the scientific rigour of the bookish scholar, his critics grew heated over the manifest rhetorical shaping of the work. Diodorus for example praised Timaeus's exactness in chronological questions, his great experience and his almost completely factual reporting, but disapproved of his excessive tendency to censure. 87 Cicero comes to the conclusion that of all Greek historians, including Herodotus and Thucydides, Timaeus possessed the highest culture and, so far as fullness of content and variety of thought were concerned, the greatest riches; his style too was finely elaborated. 88 In the Brutus he names Timaeus as an apt example for a particular form of the Asiatic style, characterized by richness in polished, rounded and agreeable turns of phrase and less by weighty and impressive sentences.89 Timaeus however experienced the sharpest criticism from the mouth of Polybius, who devoted a large part of his twelfth book to discussion of his predecessor and in this connection set forth his own historiographical premisses. Polybius takes Timaeus to task for his sometimes immoderate polemic, his sensationalist presentation, his , the superstitious fear of the divine, and above all for his "book-learning", that is, his lack of practical political and military experience. While Timaeus brought accusations against others with great rhetorical skill, his own performance was "full of dreams, prodigies, incredible tales and, to put it shortiy, craven superstition ( ) and womanish love of the sensational ( )". 90 Polybius's sharp attack on the speeches inserted by Timaeus belongs in the same context. 91 He had concerned himself neither with the exact wording nor with a reproduction of the speeches faithful to the content, but had freely

"Olympionicae", in which he lists the victors in the Olympic games with other eponymous figures in synchronistic order, cf. FGrHist 566 F 10 (Plb. 12:ll:lff.). 87 Cf. FGrHist 566 F 11, 12 and F 124. 88 Cic. De or. 2:58 = FGrHist 566 20: quantum iudicare possum Longe eruditismus et rerum copia et sententiarum varietate abundantismus et ipsa compositione verborum non impolitus magnam eloquentiam ad smbendum attulit. Nepos also (Ale. 11) reckons Timaeus alongside Thucydides and Theopompus among the gravisnm historici. 89 Cic. Brut. 325 = FGrHist 566 21. 90 FGrHist 566 19 = Plb. 12:24:5; cf. 19 = Plb. 12:12b. 91 FGrHist 566 19 = Plb. 12:25a and 25i. On Timaeus's speeches cf. recendy L. Pearson, "The Speeches in Timaeus' History", AJP 107 (1986), pp. 350-68.

282

STEFAN REBENICH

invented them, after the manner of a student of rhetoric working at some particular theme. At the same time, Polybius reports on Timaeus's outpourings in the prologue of his sixth book, on the differences between the epideictic art of speaking and historiography. 92 Here Timaeus turned vigorously against the view held by many, that the composition of epideictic speeches presupposed a greater talent, more energetic labour, and a higher training than the writing of history. 93 Among Timaeus's stylistic peculiarities we may mention also his partiality for noting synchronizations. 94 T h e criticism of the conception and style of Timaeus's historical work makes it clear that he drew upon various literary and historiographical inspirations, and is not simply to be reckoned to the rhetorical or the "tragic" writing of history. His example also underlines the point that it will not do to assign the individual historians of the Hellenistic period unequivocally to one of the main streams of contemporary historiography. For in line with the expectations of their readers, the several conceptions of historiography began at an early date to overlap, and many historians unite in their works the characteristics both of rhetorical and of "tragic" history writing. According to the testimony of Cicero, Clitarchus, who wrote a history of Alexander at the end of the fourth century, already adorned his presentation of the deeds of the Macedonian king "in rhetorical and tragic fashion" (rhetonce et tragice ornare).95 The expansion of the geographical horizon following the conquests of Alexander and the manifold new relations with foreign peoples reawakened the interest in the historical tradition of hitherto unknown regions of the world, once so lively in Herodotus and his predeces-

FGrHist 566 F 7 = Plb. 12:28a:If.: "First of all he (Timaeus) says that the difference between history writing and epideictic oratory is as great as that between houses actually built and furnished and the places and objects which appear on stage scenery. Secondly he affirms that the collection of material for history writing represents a greater work than the whole study of epideicdc rhetoric." 93 Ephorus had already taken a stand against this opinion, cf. FGrHist 70 F 111. 94 Cf. FGrHist 566 F 105, where it is said that Euripides came into the world on the day of the battle of Salamis, and died on the very day on which the elder Dionysius was born, "while Tyche [. . .] at the same time carried off the forger of tragic sufferings and introduced the tragic hero". In FGrHist 566 F 150a we may read that Alexander was born in the very night in which the temple of Artemis at Ephesus was burnt down; Timaeus adds that this was not surprising because Artemis, since she wanted to be present at the confinement of Olympias, was absent from her house. 95 FGrHist 137 F 34 = Cic. Brut. 43.

92

HISTORICAL PROSE

283

sors. Already in the early third century the Egyptian Manetho 96 and the Babylonian Berossus97 each published a history of his country in Greek, which had as its target the educated public in the Greek cities. Hecataeus of Abdera, 98 a contemporary of the poet Callimachus, wrote a geographical account and history of Egypt adorned with novelistic elements. Like the Peripatetics Theophrastus and Clearchus earlier, he was also interested in the Jewish people, their scripturally codified religion, understood as a "philosophy", and the political system in Judaea. Other peoples like the Parthians, the Ethiopians or the Celtic Galatians were described in the same fashion. T h e compilations of Alexander, 99 who bore the epithet Polyhistor and worked in Rome in the first half of the first century BC, were a compendium of such ethnographic and horographic literature which frequendy exhibited fictitious elements, paradoxes and miracle stories. T h e material excerpted by him was worked over by later authors, and enduringly stamped Roman ideas about foreign peoples in the imperial period.

FGrHist 609; cf. the edition by W. G. Waddell (LCL; London-Cambridge, MA 1940); R. Laqueur, RE 14 (1928), pp. 1060-1101; H. Kees, RE 3A.1 (1927), pp. 1234f. s.v. Sothisbuch; . K. Armayor, "Herodotus' Influence on Manethon and the Implications for Egyptology", CB 61 (1985), pp. 7-10; P. M. Fraser, Ptolemaic Alexandria 1 (Oxford 1972), pp. 505ff.; W. Helck, Untersuchungen zu Manetho und den gyptischen Knigslisten (Untersuchungen zur Geschichte und Altertumskunde gyptens, 18; Berlin 1956); D. Mendels, "The Polemical Character of Manetho's Aegyptiaca", Studio Hellenistica 30 (1990), pp. 91-100; D. B. Redford, Pharaonic King-lists, Annals and Day-Books (Ontario 1986). 97 FGrHist 680; cf. . Schwartz, RE 3.1 (1897), pp. 309-16 = idem, GG, pp. 18999; J. Boncquet, "Berossus en de griekse geschiedschrijvers over Mesopotamie", Kleio 10 (1980), pp. 22-28; R. Drews, "The Babylonian Chronicles and Berossus", Iraq 37 (1975), pp. 39-55; A. Kuhrt, "Berossus' Babyloniaka and Seleucid Rule in Babylonia", in idem, and S. Sherwin-White (eds.), Hellenism in the East (Berkeley 1987), pp. 32ff.; C. F. Lehmann-Haupt, "Neue Studien zu Berossos", Klio 22 (1929), pp. 125-60; P. Schnabel, Berossos und die babylonisch-hellenistische Literatur (Leipzig 1923). 98 FGrHist 264; cf. F. Jacoby, RE 7 (1912), pp. 2 7 5 0 - 6 9 = idem, GH, pp. 227-37; F. H. Diamond, Hecataeus of Abdera: A New Historical Approach (Diss. Univ. of California, Los Angeles 1974); P. M. Fraser, Ptolemaic Alexandria 1 (Oxford 1972), pp. 496fT.; W. Spoerri, Spthellenistische Berichte bt Welt, Kultur und Gtter (Schweizerische Beitrge zur Altertumswissenschaft, 9; Basel 1959); idem, RAC 14 (1988), pp. 2 7 5 310, s.v. Hekataios (with detailed bibliography). 99 FGrHist 273; Cf. . Schwartz, RE 1.2 (1894), pp. 1449-1452 = idem, GG, pp. 240-44.

96

284

STEFAN REBENICH

IV T h e first Greek who made the rise of Rome as the dominant power in the Mediterranean world into the central theme of a world history was the Arcadian Polybius of Megalopolis (ca. 200-ca. 120 BC). 1 0 0 In the Achaean League he rose to be "Hipparch", commander of the cavalry, and thus occupied the second highest position within the League. After the Roman victory over the Macedonian king Perseus at Pydna (167 BC) he was deported to Rome as a hostage with other prominent Greeks. In the house of Aemilius Paullus he became the tutor and friend of P. Cornelius Scipio Aemilianus (Scipio the Younger), the first important Philhellene in the Roman aristocracy. After seventeen years Polybius returned to his homeland, but a little later in Scipio's retinue took part in the campaign which led in 146 BC to the destruction of Carthage. In contrast to his minor writings, which are completely lost, the first five of a total of forty books of his major work, the great universal history ("Histories"), dealing with the period from 220 to 145/144 BC, have survived complete in direct manuscript tradition, and of the remainder large parts have come down to us in Byzantine collections of excerpts. This is the only Hellenistic work of history of which a considerable part has survived.
The standard edition is that of T. Bttner-Wobst (2 vols.; Leipzig 1889-1904 [several reprints]). Among bilingual editions may be mentioned those by W. R. Paton (6 vols.; LCL; London-Cambridge, MA 1922-1927 [several reprints]) and by P. Pdech, I.J. Foucault, R. WeU, C. Nicolet (8 vols.; Bude; Paris 1961-82). F. W. Walbank has written the fundamental commentary in three volumes (A Historical Commentary on Polybios [Oxford 1957-79]). From the abundant literature may be mentioned J. Boncquet, "Polybius on the Critical Evaluation of Historians", AncSoc 13/14 (1982/83), pp. 277-91; K. Ziegler, RE 21.2 (1952), pp. 1440-1578; A . M . Eckstein, Moral Vision in the "Histories" of Polybius (Berkeley 1995); K. F. Eisen, Polybiosinterpretationen (Heidelberg 1966); K. von Fritz, The Theory of Mixed Constitution in Antiquity (New York 1954); M. Geizer, "ber die Arbeitsweise des Polybios", SHAW 1956.3 = idem, Kleine Schriften, III (Wiesbaden 1964), pp. 161-90; R. Koerner, Polybios als Kritiker frherer Historiker (Diss. Jena 1957); R. Laqueur, Polybios (Leipzig 1913); G. A. Lehmann, Untersuchungen zur historischen Glaubwrdigkeit des Polybios (Mnster 1967); K. Meister, Historische Kritik bei Polybios (Wiesbaden 1975); E. Mione, Polibio (Padua 1949); D. Musti, "Polibio negli studi deU'ultimo ventennio", ANRW 1.2 (1972), pp. 1114-1181; idem, Polibio e l'imperialismo romano (Naples 1978); S. Mohm, Untersuchungen ZU den historiographischen Anschauungen des Polybios (Diss. Saarbrcken 1977); P. Pdech, La mthode historique de Polybe (Paris 1964); . . Petzold, Studien zur Methode des Polybios und zu ihrer historischen Auswertung (Munich 1969); Polybe (Entretiens de la Fondation Hardt, 20; Vandoeuvres-Geneva 1974); Sacks, Polybios (note 12); G. Schepens, "' und in Polybios' Geschichtstheorie", RSA 5 (1975), pp. 185-200; . Stiewe and N. Holzberg (eds.), Polybios (Darmstadt 1982) (pp. 439ff.: "Bibliographie 1970-1980"); F.W. Walbank, Polybios (note 14); idem, "Polybios' Sicht der Ver100

HISTORICAL PROSE

285

According to the concept which he himself coined, Polybius seeks to practise "pragmatic history writing" ( ), that is, the deeds () of peoples, cities and dynasties are to be set forth for the politically interested reader. 101 The indispensable presupposition for this kind of historiography is the detailed study of the sources, exact knowledge of the topographical and geographical data, and practical political and military experience (). With this requirement Polybius clearly sets himself apart from the "book-learned" Ephorus, Theopompus and above all Timaeus, who upheld the view that for the historian the attentive study of earlier works of history was sufficient.102 Polybiusin agreement with Thucydidessees the aims of history writing in the establishing of the truth, the recognition of the causes, and the resultant insight into historical issues. Consequently for Polybius, in this too not unlike Thucydides, the concrete utility of pragmatic history writing lies in the communication of political (and military) relationships and in the instruction of the reader. However, unlike Thucydides, who as a rule allows things to speak for themselves, Polybius "like a pedantic schoolmaster felt it necessary to drive home every precept yielded by the narrative with uplifted forefinger and at length". 103 He firmly distanced himself from the "tragic" writing of history, which impresses readers for the moment, but then disappoints them, since the narrative which at first carries them along cannot hold its own against a critical narrative oriented towards the facts.104 In his criticism of Phylarchus he emphasizes that a presentation aimed at sensation and effect falsifies the truth and obliterates the boundary between tragedy and history.105 T h e historian therefore must strive not for ("strong emotion") but for recognition of the truth. This however presupposes a treatment in terms of universal history, since only such a treatment can provide a satisfying explanation of the whole; monographs on the other hand can always

gangenheit", Gymnasium 97 (1990), pp. 15-30; C. Wooten, "The Speeches of Polybios. An Insight into the Nature of Hellenistic Historiography", AJP 95 (1974), pp. 235-51. 101 Cf. the prologue to Book 9. 105 Plb. 12:25ff. 103 K. Ziegler, RE 21.2, p. 1552. 104 Cf. for example Plb. 15:36. 105 Plb. 2:56ff.; cf. also 3:47-48 (anonymous historian on Hannibal), 7:7 (historian on Hiero of Syracuse), 12:24:5 (Timaeus), 16:12 (Theopompus).

286

STEFAN REBENICH

illuminate only individual aspects.106 Finally Polybius reproaches the rhetorical writing of history because it is not oriented to the historical truth, but to rhetorical and stylistic principles; thus Timaeus freely invented his speeches, and showed no concern either for the exact wording or for an accurate reproducdon of the sense.107 In point of fact, Polybius's critique of method is directed against the main streams of Hellenistic historiography that were acknowledged in his time. Consequently he made Thucydides' demands on the reproduction of speeches108 his own. Like all ancient historians, Polybius also took over the practice, usual since Herodotus and perfected by Thucydides, of introducing direct or indirect speeches into his presentation and with their aid interpreting historical occurrences. Altogether about fifty speeches can be identified, sometimes in the form of twin speeches but for the most part only in meagre extracts. Here Polybius describes it as the specific task of the historian "to ascertain the speeches which were actually delivered, of whatever kind they were". 109 Although in theory, and specifically in his polemical digressions, he makes an energetic plea for the verbatim reproduction of what was said, he actually follows the policy of Thucydides, in that he lets the speaker say , what is necessary and appropriate in the given situation.110 Polybius's language is the current at the time. 1 " In phonology and morphology, in syntax and in grammar, he is not essentially different from Attic, but he is in vocabulary and phraseology. Artificially compounded verbs, long participial and infinitive constructions, ponderous prepositional phrases, frequent references back and tautologies underline his concern to reproduce what happened in accordance with the facts, precisely and beyond misunderstanding, and to set himself apart even in external form from the other programmes of contemporary historiography, conceived only from literary points
Cf. for example Plb. l:3:3ff.; 3:32; 7:7; 8:4; 29:12. Plb. 12:25a; cf. 36:1:2. 108 Th. 1:22:1. 109 Plb. 12:12b: I; cf. 12:25i:8; 2:56:10; 36:1:7. 110 Plb. 36:1:7. Cf. in Th. 1:22:1. On the speeches in Polybius cf. esp. K. Ziegler, RE 21.2, pp. 1524-27 also Kennedy, pp. 32ff. and Sacks (as note 12), pp. 79ff. On the recasdng of the speeches, letters and documents reproduced by ancient historians, Norden pp. 68ff. is still worth reading. 111 On the language and style of Polybius cf. M. Dubuisson, Le latin de Polybe: Les implications historiques d'un cas de bilinguisme (Paris 1985); J. A. Foucault, Recherches sur la langue et le style de Polybe (Paris 1972); Norden, pp. 152ff. and K. Ziegler, RE 21.2, pp. 1569-72 with older literature.
,07 106

HISTORICAL PROSE

287

of view. His excessively correct style, not always lucid but free from flourishes, is akin to the Hellenistic official language known to us from numerous papyri and inscriptions. T o this belongs also the avoidance of hiatus, which was strictly observed by Polybius." 2 If he sets the concrete profit and instruction of his reader at the centre of his concern, and describes the effort to captivate and entertain the reader as secondary, 113 he still had regard for literary conventions: he inserts citations from the poets, familiar sayings, parables and metaphors, to satisfy the demands for a pleasing style and for the beauty of his presentation ( ). Yet however much Polybius was esteemed as a historian in antiquity, as a stylist he did not count. Cicero, who calls him pmtissimus rerum milium*14 and bonus auctor in pnmis,Ub does not mention him in a single word in those passages where he speaks of the literary side of historical writing. Dionysius of Halicamassus finally reckons him among those historians whom nobody could read to the end. 116

Hellenistic history writing is characterized by a multiplicity of historiographie genres and by the high skill of its formal shaping. T h e author could choose between different courses, or combine individual elements. The "rhetorical" writing of history strove, after the Isocratean model, for stylistically artistic shaping, the "tragic" sought to present the events pictorially and graphically, and the "pragmatic" postulated a sober investigation of the facts and their causes. With all their differences, these streams had it in common that the authors were all concerned for a fastidious formal shaping. T o this belongedas already in classical timesthe clear arrangement and disposition of the work and the use of conventional materials. Thus at the beginning stood the prologue, in which as a rule were to be found autobioCf. T. Bttner-Wobst, "Der Hiatus nach dem Artikel bei Polybios", Philologus 16 (1903), pp. 541-62. 113 Thus at 16:17:9-10 he criricizes the historian Zeno of Rhodes, because like many other historians he had taken less care over the investigation of the facts and the appropriate handling of the material than over the elegance of his style; cf. further 1:4:11; 2:56:10ff.; 6:2:8; 9:1-2; 10:27:8; 11:18a; 12:25b; 25g. 114 Cic. Rep. 1:34; Cf. 2:27. 115 Cic. Off. 3:113. 116 D.H. Comp. 4:30.
112

288

STEFAN REBENICH

graphical information about the author, an indication of the greatness and importance of the theme, notes on historical method and on the intention of the work. Within the presentation, descriptions of batdes, individual historical scenes, ekphraseis, digressions, concluding evaluations of historical personages, and not least the verbatim speeches were frequendy given a telling form. Here the historians generally did not limit themselves to a simple stringing together of events, but sought, as W. Schadewalt has apdy put it for Herodotus, to produce "a living, organic whole", in that they subordinated the abundance of reports and information to one "great organizing theme of composition, a main line"." 7 In Hellenism the influence of rhetorical training grew increasingly strong over the whole of prose literature, and consequendy on historical writing also. There was no historical work for which its author raised any literary claims which was not judged wholly or predominandy from a stylistic and rhetorical point of view, instead of according to its content. This becomes most evident in the so-called "rhetorical" writing of history, which in line with the programme of the school founded by Isocrates integrated historiography into rhetoric and reduced it to the function of a normative stylistic model. Even the increasing influence of philosophical schools, above all the Peripatetic, did not counter the widespread opinion that artistic delight ()alongside profit ()was the pre-eminent aim of historical writing. For the rest, the almost complete loss of Hellenistic history writing, as of other genres of Hellenistic literature, is due to the fact that literary taste had fundamentally changed in the second half of the first century BC. Since the prose authors of the third to the first centuries no longer ranked as models of style, there was at most an antiquarian interest in the history of literature to justify reading them. T h e Hellenistic historians, who mosdy came from the urban upper classes, received their education and their training within the framework of the polis. Here the emphasis lay upon rhetorical and literary instruction, and the rhetorical tuition, with its declamation themes borrowed from "classical" history, demanded historical studies." 8 There

W. Schadewaldt, Die Anfange der Geschichtsschreibung bei den Griechen. Herodot, Thukydides (Tbinger Vorlesungen, 2; Frankfurt 1982), pp. 141-42. 118 Cf. Hose, pp. 5ff.; Meiner (as note 24) and R. Nicolai, La storiogra/ia nell'educazione antica (Pisa 1992).

117

HISTORICAL PROSE

289

was no development of an independent historical curriculum, nor were there any professional historians. Among the writers of history we find quite varied vocations, but politicians, military men, philosophers, sophists, teachers of rhetoric and literary scholars predominate. That these authors for the most part gave political instruction the second place behind literary enjoyment, and sought to meet a desire for fastidious entertainment, had its reasons not only in literary and rhetorical convention but also in a radical change in the world of the Hellenistic states. As a historian, one could no longer achieve publicity and success on the venerable principle of communicating political insights: in the face of the great Hellenistic kingdoms with their small elite of governors and functionaries, the circle of those who bore political responsibility and took an active part in political life more and more decreased. T h e historian therefore had to recount in lively fashion events beyond his reach, and qualify ethically the personalities involved. It is no accident that Polybius revives and energetically stresses the advantages of a writing of history that is true to the facts and seeks for the causes." 9 After the destruction of the Macedonian kingdom the Greek city state experienced a brief false flowering, which fostered hopes of political independence. Polybius countered his countrymen's dreams of freedom with a precise analysis of the factors which led to the collapse of their old world, and the reasons which ensured the rise of Rome to be the dominant power. From this there followed of necessity the insight that one must come to terms with the real balance of power, and that meant: with Roman hegemony in the Mediterranean region.

VI With Polybius, Rome had entered into the foreground of history writing. The thread of his work was picked up by the Stoic philosopher Posidonius of Apamea (ca. 135-51 BC),120 who in 52 books
119 120

Plb. 3:4:3ff. Cf. FGrHist 87, also L. Edelstein and I. G. Kidd, Posidonius 1: The Fragments, 2: The Commentary (Cambridge 1989) and W. Theiler, Poseidonios. Die Fragmente, 1: Texte, 2: Erluterungen (Berlin 1982); . Reinhardt, Poseidonios (Munich 1921); idem, RE 22.1 (1953), pp. 558-826; . von Fritz, "Poseidonios als Historiker", in Historiographia antiqua: Commentationes Lovanienses in honorem W. Peremans septuagenam editae (Leuven 1977), pp. 163-93; M. Laffranque, Poseidonios d'Apam (Paris 1965); J. Malitz, Die Historien

290

STEFAN REBENICH

described the period from 145 down to the eighties of the first century BC. For him, even more than for Polybius, universal history meant the history of the Roman empire. Posidonius not only dealt with political and military history, but equally took into consideration economic, social, cultural, ethnological, geographical and religious aspects, as well as natural science. The aim of his historical work consisted in comprehending all the historically acdve forces, which according to the Stoic conception were interpreted as parts of an allembracing whole. Since he linked together philosophical ethics and the writing of history, he was specially interested in questions of "social history", and from his pen there comes an account, as detailed as it is cridcal, of the many slave revolts of the late second and early first century BC.121 Still, he stands entirely on the side of the conservative senatorial aristocracy, and condemns the social reformers from Tiberius Gracchus to Marius and Cinna. 122 Here Posidonius understood how to set the historical events before our eyes in an uncommonly lively and graphic manner, and to present his detailed material, in conformity with the principles of rhetorical historiography, in a fastidious literary fashion. 123 Strabo expressly highlights the fact that Posidonius did not refrain from the customary , rather he was even enthusiastically fond of the .124 Cicero also esteems him as a rhetoricizing historian. 125 With the expansion and consolidation of the Imperium Romanum, the need grew for the writing of world history from a Roman perspective. Hence several Greek authors set forth presentations of universal history in the second half of the first century BC. Here should be mentioned above all Timagenes of Alexandria,' 26 who came to Rome as a prisoner of war in 55 BC and in addition to many other
des Poseidonios (Munich 1983); K. Schmidt, Kosmologische Aspekte im Geschichtswerk des Poseidonios (Gttingen 1980); H. G. Thuemmel, "Poseidonios und die Geschichte", Klio 66 (1984), pp. 558-61. 121 On the close interweaving of the social with the economic and political problems, cf. H. Strasburger, "Poseidonios on the Problems of the Roman Empire", JRS 55 (1965), pp. 4 0 - 5 3 = idem, Studien zur Alten Geschichte, II (Hildesheim-New York 1982), pp. 920-45 (German version). 122 Cf. e.g. FGrHist 87 F 45 and 110-112. 123 One need only read the appealing speech with which the philosopher Athenion wins the Athenians for Mithridates: FGrHist 87 F 36. 124 Str. 3:2:9 (= FGrHist 87 F 47). 125 Cic. Att. 2:1:2 (= FGrHist 87 9). 126 FGrHist 88. Cf. M. Sordi, "Timagene di Alessandria: uno storico ellenocentrico e filobarbarico", ANRW 11.30:1 (1982), pp. 775-97 with further literature.

HISTORICAL PROSE

291

writings published a work critical of Rome with the title " O n the Kings", which probably extended down to the time of Caesar; Nicolaus of Damascus (ca. 64 BC to shortly after the birth of Christ),127 who at the instigation of King Herod composed a world history in 144 books; the well-known geographer Strabo of Amaseia (ca. 64 B C - A D 27),128 whose universal history bore the tide and consisted of 47 books; and Diodorus from Agyrion in Sicily,129 who in the second half of the first century BC wrote his 40-volume world history ( ), which extended from the origin of the world down to 6 0 / 5 9 BC.130 Books 1 to 5 and 11 to 20 have survived; the content of the remaining books can be reconstructed from fragments, especially the Constantinian excerpts. For the several periods Diodorus used earlier authors who seemed to him reliable, and where more than one version was available he made a compilation. 131 In his manner of working, the form and content of the sources he reworked remain as a rule transparent. For his account of Hellenistic
FGrHist 90. On his person and work cf. R. Laqueur, RE 17.1 (1936), pp. 362424; more recent literature in M. Toher, The of Nicolaus of Damascus: An Historiographical Analysis (Diss. Brown Univ. Providence 1985). 128 On his historical work cf. FGrHist 91 and E. Honigmann, RE 4A. 1 (1931), pp. 85-90. Further literature in F. Lasserre, "Strabon devant l'Empire romain", ANRW 11.30:1 (1982), pp. 867 96. 129 Among editions may be mentioned: F. Vogel and C. T. Fischer (5 vols.; 3rd edn.; Leipzig 1888-1906), which however extends only to book 20; for books 21ff., cf. the three editions of L. Dindorf and C. Mller (1828-1868) as well as the complete edition by C. Oldfather, C. L. Sherman, C. Bradford Welles, R. M. Geer, F. R. Walton (12 vols.; LCL; Cambridge, MA-London 1933-67). Literature: E. Schwartz, RE 5.1 (1903), pp. 663-704 = idem, GG, pp. 35-97; F. Cssola, "Diodoro e la storia romana", ANRW 11.30:1 (1982), pp. 724-73 (survey of research); J. L. Ferrary, Philhellnisme et imprialisme (Rome 1988); E. Galvagno, C. Mol Ventura (eds.), Mito, storia, tradizione. Diodoro Siculo e la storiografia classica (Catania 1991); G. Perl, Kritische Untersuchungen zu Diodors rmischer Jahreszhlung (Berlin 1957); K. S. Sacks, Diodorus Siculus and the First Century (Princeton 1990); W. Spoerri, Spthellenistische Berichte ber Welt, Kultur und Gtter: Untersuchungen zu Diodor von Sizilien (Basel 1959); idem, "Diodorea", MH 48 (1991), pp. 310-19; G. Wirth, Diodor und das Ende des Hellenismus: Mutmaungen zu einem fast unbekannten Historiker (Vienna 1993). 130 On the structure and chronology of the work cf. D. S. l:4:6ff. 131 The question what models Diodorus used is still controversial among scholars. The single-source theory which goes back to H. Nissen (Kritische Untersuchungen ber die Quellen der vierten und fnften Dekade des Livius [Berlin 1863]), according to which Diodorus copied and abridged Polybius, modernizing his language, is increasingly criticized. At the same time those voices grow stronger which emphasise Diodorus's independence and value as author and source, and turn against the verdict of T. Mommsen, who attacked the "incredible ingenuousness and even more incredible unscrupulousness of this most wretched of all writers" (Die rmische Chronologie bis auf Caesar [2nd edn.; Berlin 1859], p. 125). On the history of research cf. J. Seibert, Das Zeitalter der Diadochen (Darmstadt 1983), pp. 27fT.
127

292

STEFAN REBENICH

history he followed Timaeus, Polybius, Hieronymus of Cardia and Posidonius, for knowledge of whom the fragments recovered from the "Historical Library" are our main source. Diodorus deals with events from the mythical period down to the first Olympiad in 776 BC arranged according to themadc areas; thereafter he structures what took place in annalisdc and synchronic fashion, bringing together according to particular years events spatially remote from one another in the inhabited world. 132 Here he did not shrink from dismembering proceedings which extended over several years and distribudng them among particular years, or again adducing them wholly under one year. As his chronological scaffolding Diodorus probably used a Hellenistic chronography, which he combined with the Roman consular lists. He wrote a uniform, easily readable and comprehensible style133 and in contrast to many other Hellenistic historiansapart from jusdfied exceptionsrenounced the insertion in his account of lengthy verbadm speeches, since he felt these obtrusive. In full agreement with the "tragic" writing of history, he turned against so great an expansion of the share allotted to the speeches, in number and in compass, that the flow of the narrative suffered from too many interruptions and the organic harmony was destroyed. However, he declined to renounce rhetorical inlays altogether in his history, in order not to rob historical writing of its , its richness in variety.134

VII A new stylistic trend, in conscious opposition to Hellenism and its motley variety of possible styles, began with Dionysius of Halicarnassus,' 35 who came to Rome in 30 BC. This looked back to Isocrates
Cf. for example D. S. 11:1:1 on the year 480 BC: "Under the Athenian archon Calliades, the Romans named Spurius Cassius and Proculus Verginius Tricostus as consuls; among the Eleans the 75th Olympiad was celebrated, in which the Syracusan Astylus was victor in the 'stadion'". 133 Cf. J. Palm, ber Sprache und Stil des Diodoros von Sizilien (Lund 1955). 134 Cf. D. S. 20:1:1-2:2. The prologue to book 20 possibly goes back to Duris, cf. e.g. M. Kunz, ur Beurteilung der Promien Diodors historischer Bibliothek (Diss. Zrich 1935), pp. lOOff. 135 The standard edition of the text of the "Antiquitates Romanae" is that of C. Jacoby (4 vols.; Leipzig 1885-1905) and the other works were published by H. Usener and L. Radermacher (Leipzig 1899-1929). E. Cary has published a bilingual edition of the "Roman Antiquities" in LCL (7 vols.; London-Cambridge, MA, 1937-50), the "Critical Essays" are edited in LCL by S. Usher (1974/85). Cf. further
132

HISTORICAL PROSE

293

as its example, and set classical Attic prose as the absolute model of style. Dionysius, at the same time the first theorist of the Atdcizing reaction, composed some monographs on individual Attic orators and on special rhetorical problems, as well as a Roman history in 20 books, which served as a historiographical example of the new style. Books 1 to 10 have survived complete, book 11 with many gaps, and the remainder in fragments. The content of the "Roman Antiquities" ( ), which was published in 7 BC,136 was the history of Rome from primaeval times to the outbreak of the First Punic War in 264 BC, with which, as he indicates, the detailed Greek presentations of Roman history begin.137 According to his own testimony, Dionysius seeks to combine the various historiographical genres, in order to satisfy both the politically active reader and the one whose interests were theoretical and philosophical, as well as those who wished to beguile their time with some attractive historical reading.138 He did not however carry out any independent research into the facts and causes, but wrote his history as an orator, attractively stylizing and transposing to literary effect the information which he gathered from his sources, which were mainly annalistic. His language reflects the purism of the first Atticists, but his choice of words still bears a strongly Hellenistic stamp. Numerous speeches are incorporated into the work; they evidently conformed with his rhetorical tenets and frequently link up with Thucydides, Xenophon,

E. Schwartz, RE 5.1 (1903), pp. 934-61 = idem, GG, pp., 319-60; L. Radermacher, RE 5.1 (1903), pp. 961-71; S. F. Bonner, The Literary Treatises of Dionysius of Halicamassus: A Study in the Development of Critical Method (Cambridge 1939); C. W. Bowersock, Augustus and the Greek World (Oxford 1965), pp. 130fF.; M. Egger, Denys d'Halicamasse: Essai sur la critique littraire et la rhtorique chez les Grecs au sicle d'Auguste (Paris 1902); S. Ek, Herodotismen in der Archologie des Dionys von Halikama (Lund 1942); E. Gabba, "La 'Storia di Roma arcaica' di Dionigi d'Alicarnasso", ANRW 11.30:1 (1982), pp. 7 9 9 816; . Gaida, Die Schlachtenschilderungen in den Antiquitates Romanae des Dionysios von Halikama (Diss. Breslau 1934); H. Hill, "Dionysius of Halikarnassus and the Origins of Rome", JRS 51 (1961), pp. 68 93; A. Hurst, "Un critique grec dans la Rome d'Auguste: Denys d'Halicamasse", 4/VRWIL30:l (1982), pp. 839-65; Kennedy, pp. 342ff.; D. Marin, "Dionisio di Alicarnasso e il latino", in Hommages M. Renard (Brussels 1969), pp. 597-607; P. Martin, "Le dessein de Denys d'Halicamasse dans les Antiquits Romaines et sa conception de l'histoire travers sa prface du livre I", Caesarodunum 4 (1969), pp. 198-202; K. S. Sacks, "Historiography in the Rhetorical Works of Dionysius of Halicamassus", Athenaeum 61 (1983), pp. 65-87; S. Usher, "The Style of Dionysius of Halicamassus in the 'Antiquitates Romanae'", ANRW 11.30:1 (1982), pp. 817-38 with detailed references to older literature. 136 D.H. 1:3:4. 13 ' D.H. 1:8:1-2. Dionysius at this point naturally alludes to Polybius. 138 D.H. 1:8:3.

294

STEFAN REBENICH

Demosthenes and Isocrates. From the third book on, a third of the entire text is assigned to speeches. Over and above this, his discussion of Thucydides ( ) had an influence on the theory of historiography in the Hellenistic-Roman period; in his stylistic criticism he speaks of history as the priestess of Truth. 139 T h e "Roman Antiquities", as a Greek presentation of the oldest Roman history, had a style-shaping effect not simply because the author, as he himself thought, surpassed his predecessors, 140 but because the Attic style here represented achieved a quick success and the educated public turned away from the traditions of literary prose hitherto in vogue. It was scarcely by chance that this harking back to the language and style of an idealized antiquity took place precisely at the moment when with Egypt the last independent part of the world of the Greek cities came under Roman domination. The heritage of classical Greece was now brought into the bilingual culture of the Imperium Romanum. In content, language and style, Atticism was intimately associated with this turning back to the past, which was idealized and admired. T h e Greek history writing of the imperial period also was more and more oriented towards the models of a great bygone age, and practised the Atticizing mode. Stylistic classicism went hand in hand with compilation in matters of content. Here it was not only historians and antiquarians, but also grammarians and lexicographers, orators and teachers in the gymnasium, writers of military works and travel guides, authors of novels and of biographies, who now communicated historical, geographical and ethnographical information, anecdotes, paradoxes, wonder stories and .141 The sophist Lucian of Samosata (ca. AD 120-180) in his critical work "How One Should Write History" ( ; De histona conscHbenda)H2 turned against contemporary history writing and its eccen-

D.H. Th. 8. D.H. Pomp. 3:7; cf. 1:8:3. 141 On this the following are still worth reading: E. Rohde, Der griechische Roman und seine Vorlufer (2nd edn.; Leipzig 1900), pp. 349ff.; Norden, pp. 35Iff. and W. Schmid, Der Atticismus in seinen Hauptvertretem von Dionynus von Halikamass bis auf den zweiten Philostratus (5 vols.; Stuttgart 1887-97). On the historical background cf. generally G. W. Bowersock, Greek Sophists in the Roman Empire (Oxford 1969). 142 An English-Greek edition was provided by K. Kilburn (LCL; Cambridge, MALondon 1959); H. Homeyer (Munich 1965) has published a German-Greek edition with introduction and commentary. Cf. G. Avenarius, Lukians Schrift zur Geschichtsschreibung (Meisenheim 1956). Further literature on Lucian in M. D. Macleod, "Lucianic
140

139

HISTORICAL PROSE

295

tricities. The style and tenor of the work are didacdc and moralizing, and recall the philosophical and rhetorical diatribe. T h e starting point is a violent polemic against the descriptions of the Parthian War under Lucius Verus which Lucian claims to have heard from some archaizing historians in Ionia and Achaea. 143 He firmly emphasizes that the boundaries between history writing on the one side and encomium and romance on the other must be observed. After a detailed cridcism of particulars, he sets out general historiographical rules. T o be able to observe these successfully, however, the historian must bring with him two main qualities: political understanding ( ) and the power of expression ( ).144 Practical military and political experience had not only been enjoined by Polybius and other Hellenistic authors such as Theopompus, but had already been presupposed by Thucydides. In fact Lucian, who defends a form of history writing appropriate to the content and not rhetorically embellished, knows himself indebted to Thucydides. For his work begins with an allusion to Thucydides, unmistakable for those in the know, and ends in the epilogue with a reminiscence of the famous aphorism in 1:22:4: "History should be written in that spirit, with truthfulness and an eye to future expectations rather than with adulation and a view to the pleasure of present praise". 145 The certainly numerous imitators of Thucydides 146 had in Lucian's eyes sinned against this commandment, and are therefore criticized harshly and at length.147 In his two books Verae Historiae, Lucian also attacks rhetorical adornment and literary excess as historical methods,

Studies since 1930...", ANRW 11.34:2 (1994), pp. 1362-1421 and G. Anderson, "Lucian: Tradition versus Reality", ANRW 11.34:2 pp. 1422-47. On the Historia Conscnbenda cf. now A. Georgiadou and D. H.J. Larmour, "Lucian and Historiography: 'De Historia Conscribenda' and 'Verae Historiae'", ANRW 11.34:2 (1994), pp. 1448-1509 (with bibliography). 143 On this cf. . Strobel, "Zeitgeschichte unter den Antoninen: Die Historiker des Partherkrieges des Lucius Verus", ANRW 11.34:2 (1994), pp. 1315-60. 144 Lucian Hist. Consa. 34. 145 Lucian Hist. Consa. 63 (LCL translation). Cf. Th. 1:22:4: "Whoever shall wish to have a clear view both of the events which have happened and of those which will some day, in all human probability, happen again in the same or a similar wayfor these to adjudge my history profitable will be enough for me. And, indeed, it has been composed not as a prize essay to be heard for the moment, but as a possession for all time" (LCL translation). 146 Cf. H. G. Strebel, Watung und Wirkung des thukydideischen Geschichtswakes in da griechisch-rmischen Literatur (Diss. Munich 1935), esp. pp. 64ff. and O. Luschnat, RE Sup. 12 (1970), pp. 1085-1354, s.v. Thukydides, esp. pp. 1299ff. 147 Lucian Hist. Consa. 15:19:26.

296

STEFAN REBENICH

exaggerating in parody the fantastic inventions of the adventure novels. This witty insight into the historiographical practice and discussion of style at that time is to be seen against the background of the steadily growing influence of rhetoric. Lucian's resumption of the Hellenistic discussion of theory was no accident. For historians in the proper sense, who described a period or a historical personality, were the exception right down to the period of the Antonines.

VIII In the early empire and at the beginning of its middle period, there was a preponderance of monograph presentations on ethnography and horography, composed after Hellenistic models; these two genres certainly enjoyed a second flowering.148 Flavius Arrianus 149 (ca. AD 95-ca. 175) from Nicomedian Bithynia also showed himself indebted to this tradition. As a protg of the emperor Hadrian 150 he rose to the rank consul suffectus and for six years (ca. AD 131-137) governed the province of Cappadocia. Arrian composed ethnographical and historical treatises like the eight-volume "Bithyniaca", the "Parthica" in 17 books, which contains a report on Trajan's Parthian wars, and the "Alanica", which portrays in detail the Roman conflicts with the Alans in AD 134/5. In addition, however, he composed an "Anabasis of Alexander" in seven books, the title and number of books reflectI mention here only the Samian Horoi of Potamon of Mytilene (FGrHist 147), the Tyrrhenica and Carckedoniaca of the emperor Claudius (FGrHist 276), the Aegyptiaca of Apion and of Chaeremon of Alexandria (FGrHist 616; 618), the Getica of Dio of Prusa (,FGrHist 707) and of Trajan's personal physician Crito (FGrHist 200) and the Phoenuica of Philo of Byblus (FGrHist 802-824). 149 Two-volume edition by A. G. Roos, revised by G. Wirth (2nd edn.; Leipzig 1967-68); English-Greek edition of the Anabasis and the Indica by . I. Robson (LCL; Cambridge, MA-London 1929-39) (revised text and translation with new introduction and notes by P.A. Brunt, 1976-83). The fragments are in FGrHist 156. Cf. further E. Schwartz, RE 2.1 (1895), pp. 1230-47 = idem, GG, pp. 130-55; A. B. Bosworth, From Arrian to Alexander: Studies in Historical Interpretation (Oxford 1988); A. Breebaart, Enige hutonografische aspecten van Arrianus' Anabasis Alexandri (Diss. Leiden 1960); J. Seibert, Alexander der Groe (Darmstadt 1972), pp. 38-40; P.A. Stdter, Arrian of Nicomedia (Chapel Hill 1980); H. Tonnet, Recherches sur Arrien, sa personnalit et ses crits Atticistes (Amsterdam 1988). Reference may be made also to the contributions by A. B. Bosworth, A. Silberman and A. M. Devine in ANRW 11.34:1 (1993), pp. 226-337. 150 On the background cf. in general J. M. Andr, "Hadrien littrateur et protecteur des lettres", ANRW 11.34:1 (1993), pp. 583-611 and S.A. Stertz, Semper in omnibus varius: "The Emperor Hadrian and Intellectuals", ANRW 11.34:1, pp. 612-28 with further literature.
146

HISTORICAL PROSE

297

ing a reminiscence of Xenophon, an "Indica", which as a supplement to the "Anabasis" gives an ethnographical and geographical survey of Indian history and of Nearchus's voyage of discovery, and a ten-volume history of the events after Alexander's death ( ' ). The earliest extant work of Arrian is a Penplous of the Euxine Sea. T o this we may add biographical, philosophical and military writings. His avowed model in content and style was Xenophon, and in fact he more than once emphasizes that he wished to be a or new Xenophon. 151 Consequently he strove for a simple Attic without rhetorical exaggerations. 152 He is perfectly preparedlike his classical modelsto leave hiatus at certain places. He is critical of miracle stories and paradoxes, 153 reproduces speeches conciselyfrequently in paraphrase 154 is concerned for a factual description of military affairs, and following Xenophon's example renounces the division and numbering of books. O n occasion a moralizing trait stands out in his history writing. T h e "Indica", possibly through some connection with Nearchus, one of his sources, is composed in the Ionic dialect.155 Arrian's historiographical writings, above all his presentations of the history of Alexander, are more than mere exercises in style, and contrast pleasantly with the formal trifling of contemporary archaizing authors. As we owe to Arrian's compilations from earlier authors a history of Alexander, so we are indebted to Appian of Alexandria (about AD 95-165) 156 for a history of the Roman wars. Appian was acdve as an

Arr. Peripl.M.Eux. 1:1:12; 5:25:1; Tact. 29:8; Cyn. 1:4. On his language cf. also K. Latte, Ein neues Arrianftagment (Nachrichten von der Akad. d. Wiss. in Gttingen, Phil.-hist. Klasse; 1950), pp. 23-27. 153 Cf. e.g. An. 5:1:2; 5:5:3; 6:ll:2ff.; 6:28:lff.; 7:15:6. 154 Cf. An. 3:9:5fr.; 5:1:5-6; 5:19:2; 7:1:6; 7:2:2ff. 155 Cf. A. G. Roos, "De Arriani dialecto ionica", Mnemosyne 55 (1927), pp. 23-45, also in general F. G. Allinson, "Pseudo-Ionism in the Second Century AD.", AJP 1 (1886), pp. 203-17 and E. Manni, "Asinio Quadrato e l'Arcaismo Erodoteo nel III secolo D. C.", in Gedenkschft F. Ferrero (Turin 1971), pp. 191-201. 156 The last critical edition of Appian was edited by P. Viereck and A. G. Roos (Leipzig 1905/1939) on the basis of the edition published by L. Mendelssohn (Leipzig 1879-81). H. White has provided an English-Greek edition in LCL (4 vols.; Cambridge, MA 1912-13). For a long time scholars have pursued above all the question of the sources Appian used in his history, and ever more complex stemmata have been proposed, cf. for example E. Schwartz, RE 3.2 (1899), pp. 1684 1722 = idem, GG, pp. 361-91. In the process the literary quality of the work and Appian's talents as a writer have to some extent been neglected. On new approaches and controversies cf. the articles by K. Brodersen, I. Hahn, F.J. Gomez Espelosin, C. G. Leidl, G. Marasco, B. C. McGing and D. Magnino in ANRW 11.34:1 (1993), pp. 339-554 with detailed bibliography, also K. Brodersen, Appians Abri der Seleuhdengeschichte (Syriake
152

151

298

STEFAN REBENICH

advocate in Rome under Hadrian and a friend of Fronto, the champion of Latin archaism. His "Roman History" ('), comprising 24 books, was subdivided according to individual thematic areas. In the preface, which offers a comparison of the Imperium Romanum with the other world empires 157 and a survey of the contents, Appian expresses himself at length on the construction of his presentation, which departed from the usual synchronistic form. During his work he had been compelled, like a wanderer, to hasten from one people to another and back again, so that finally he resolved to set forth the history of each people from the moment when it came into conflict with the Romans, as a self-contained account without consideration of the events taking place at the same time in other places, and to give to each a separate title.158 A necessary consequence of this structural principle is that again and again we come across repetitions, cross-references and recapitulations. The work, of which the prologue, books 6 to 8, parts of book 9 and books 11 to 17 are extant, covers the whole of Roman history down to the present. Among the parts handed down complete are the ' (6), the (7), the (8), the (11), the (12), the ' (second part of book 9) and the books about the Civil Wars (13-17), introduced by five prefaces of their own. The original disposition of the material probably goes back to the example of Herodotus, whom Appian follows in several linguistic and stylistic respects.159 Appian writes a clear, flowing and easily readable style, and is distinguished in particular by a well thought out and independent arrangement of the material. The factors which in his view conditioned the rise of Rome into a world empire are to be made clear by the choice and ordering of the events. His procedure shows itself in full agreement with the theory of Dionysius of Halicamassus, according to which the beginning and end of a work ought to be exacdy planned, in order to yield a complete whole:160 the beginning

45, 232-70, 369): Text und Kommentar (Munich 1989); idem, Appians Antiochike (Syriake 1, 1-44, 232): Text und Kommentar (Munich 1991); G. Gowing, The Triumvirat Narrative of Appian and Cassius Dio (Ann Arbor 1992); Hose, pp. 142ff.; J. van der Leest, Appian and the Writing of the Roman History (Diss. Toronto 1988 [microfiche]). 157 On parallel passages cf. W. Gernentz, Laudes Romae (Diss Rostock 1918), pp. 99ff. 158 Cf. App. Praef 12-14. 159 Cf. e.g. A. Zerdik, Quaestiones Appianeae (Diss. Kiel 1886), pp. 3-48. 160 Cf. D. H. Pomp. 3:9ff.

HISTORICAL PROSE

299

and end of the several books are clearly marked, telling details like variegated descriptions of battles and anecdotal narratives are so selected that weariness never overtakes the reader, the ordering of events is not chronological but thematic, and the author does not refrain from ethical appraisal. In the shaping of his "Roman History" Appian has regard for what the rhetorically educated reader particularly expected from the genre of historiography. A little more than half a century after Appian, another Bithynian became a historian of the Roman empire: Cassius Dio Cocceianus from Nicaea (ca. AD 155-ca. 235).161 As son of a Roman senator he made a career in the imperial government, and in AD 229 held his second consulship along with the emperor Severus Alexander, then 21 years old. His chief work, on which he worked for twelve years after a ten-year period in the collecting of material (roughly from AD 196 to 216), was his "Roman History" (' ) in 80 books, whichdivided into decads and pentadsextended from the early Roman period down to AD 229. Today only books 36 to 60 are extant, dealing with the period from 68 BC to AD 47; in addition there are extensive Byzantine excerpts. The work is arranged annalistically, and accordingly follows the main part of the sources adduced by Cassius Dio. Yet the author seeks to combine what belongs together in space and time. He professes a conception of historiography according to which the writing of history has to communicate only what is essential, and should not aspire to any detailed or novelistically embellished narrative of events.162 Long speeches are frequendy inserted into the presentation, and in these Dio occasionally puts his own reflections and ideas into the mouth of historical personalities; a particularly instructive example is the discussion

161 The fundamental edition was published by U. P. Boissevain (5 vols.; Berlin 1895-1931; reprint 1955-69); cf. in addition the editions b y j . Melber (3 vols.; Leipzig 1890-1928) and E. Cary (with English translation: 9 vols.; LCL; Cambridge, MALondon 1914-26). On Cassius Dio cf. . Schwartz, RE 3.2 (1899), pp. 1684-1722 = idem, GG, pp. 394-50; B. Baldwin, "Historiography in the Second Century. Predecessors of Dio Cassius", Klio 68 (1986), pp. 479-86; R. Bering-Stachewski, Rmische Zeitgeschichte bei Cassius Dio (Diss. Bochum 1981); J. Bleicken, "Der politische Standpunkt Dios gegenber der Monarchie", Hermes 90 (1962), pp. 444-67; Gowing (as note 156); Hose, pp. 356ff.; F. Kolb, Literarische Beziehungen zwischen Cassius Dio, Herodian und der Historia Augusta (Bonn 1972); B. Manuwald, Cassius Dio und Augustus (Munich 1979); F. Millar, A Study of Cassius Dio (Oxford 1964); Norden, pp. 395ff. and the contributions announced for ANRW 11.32:3. 162 D . C . 46:35:1.

300

STEFAN REBENICH

between Agrippa and Maecenas on the merits of the republican and the monarchical forms of state, in which Maecenas puts forward thoughts on the reform of the contemporary autocracy. 163 Firmly rooted in the tradidon of the senatorial writing of history in the imperial period, Dio had also gone to school with Thucydides. Thus he transferred to Caesar and the Romans properties of thinking about power such as Thucydides had illustrated from Pericles and the Athenians.164 In his analysis of the Augustan principate also he followed the celebrated analysis of the Periclean state leadership by Thucydides, who characterized it in the words that in name it was a democracy, but in reality it was a question of rule by the foremost citizen.165 In so far as he shines his light behind the republican facade of the principate, in order to highlight the monarchic character of the Augustan system, he throws into relief the opposition between appearance and reality; but all too often this distinction remains shallow and superficial. 166 Despite the indisputable "classicizing" points of contact with the Thucydidean conception of historiography, it should not be overlooked that for all his theoretical rejection of them Dio still made use of stylistic methods of the "tragic" writing of history167 and of the rhetorical tradition. When at the beginning of his work he says that he is not accustomed to make use of digressions ( ),168 and then in practice proceeds quite differently,169 we may conclude that the current historiographical theory rejected the insertion of digressions, but Dio was either unwilling or not in a position to come to terms with this. Other pieces of rhetorical embellishment do not stand in isolation in his work: although he sought in the tradition of Thucydides to investigate facts and their causes and to provide political instruction, he none the less responded to the need for entertainment among rhetorically educated readers, who expected colourful and vivid descriptions of catastrophes 170 and

D. C. 52:2-40. D. C. 38:36:2-3; 37:3-4; 38:1. 165 Th. 2:65:9. 166 Cf. for example D. C. 39:19:2; 41:7:2; 43:9:2; 47:35:5; 50:4:5; 51:9:5; 59:20:3. 167 A. Piatkowslti, "L'influence de l'historiographie tragique sur la narration de Dion Cassius", in Actes de la XIV Confrence Internationale d'Etudes Classiques. Eirene 1972 (Amsterdam 1975), pp. 263-69. 168 D. C. 7, F 32. 169 Cf. for example 39:49 (Rhine) and 39:50 (Britain). 170 One need compare only his portrayed of the burning of Rome in 52:16:1164

163

18:1.

HISTORICAL PROSE

301

battles,171 appealing character sketches172 and dramatic scenes.173 In language also he took pains to conform to the Atticizing conventions, and schooled himself from appropriate models. 174 In short: Cassius Dio has bequeathed to us .175 Although from the point of view of the history of style and genre Cassius Dio's "Roman History" fits seamlessly into the development of Greek historiography in the imperial age, in terms of content it marks a clear caesura. Among the succeeding soldier emperors there was no historian who would have drawn such a sober and realistic portrait of the history of the Roman empire. Herodian (about AD 180-250), 176 who was likewise active in Roman public service, composed a "History of the Empire after Marcus" ( ) in eight books, which describes the period from the death of Marcus Aurelius (AD 180) to the accession of Gordian III (AD 238) without digging very deep but in a quite absorbing way. Herodian righdy understood the Roman history of his period as the history of the emperors and rival emperors, and attempts to delineate the crisis of the empire with rhetorical and dramatic methods. 177 As his introduction allows us to recognize, he too finds his place in
Cf. J. Melber, "Des Cassius Dio Bericht ber die Seeschlacht des D. Brutus gegen die Veneter", in Commentationes Woelfflianae (Leipzig 1891), pp. 291-97; D. Harrington, "Cassius Dio as a Military Historian", Acta Clasnca 20 (1977), pp. 159-65; G. . Townend, "Some Rhetorical Batde-Pictures in Dio", Hermes 92 (1964), pp. 467-81, as well as Gowing (as note 156), pp. 209ff. 172 Cf. C. Questa, "Tecnica biografica e tecnica annalistica nei 11. LIII-LXIII de Cassio Dione", StudUrb N.S. 31 (1957), pp. 37-53. I7S Cf. the chapter on the surrender of King Vercingetorix and his last meeting with Caesar in 40:41. Cf. J. Melber, Der Bericht des Cassius Dio ber die gallischen Kriege Caesars (Munich Programme 1891). 174 Cf. D. C. 55:12:5: ' , . 175 Cf. D. C. F 1:2: "I trust, moreover, that if I have used a fine style ( ), so far as the subject matter permitted, no one will on this account question the truthfulness of the narrative, as has happened in the case of some writers". 176 Editions have been published by C. Stavenhagen (Leipzig 1922) and C. R. Whittaker (2 vols.; LCL; Cambridge, MA-London 1969/70). Cf. further F. Altheim, Literatur und Gesellschaft im ausgehenden Altertum (Halle 1948), pp. 165ff.; E. Dopp, RE 8.1 (1912), pp. 954-59; . Hohl, Kaiser Commodus und Herodian (SDAW; 1954); Kolb (as note 161); J. Kreutzer, De Herodiano rerum romanarum scnptore (Diss. Bonn 1881); E. Volckmann, De Herodiani vita scriptisfideque(Knigsberg 1859), also J. Zrcher, Commodus: Ein Beitrag zur Kritik der Historien Herodians (Leipzig 1868). New contributions on Herodian are announced for ANRW 11.34:4.
177 Cf. for example the description of Commodus's wild-beast fights and appearances as a gladiator (1:15) and the bloodbath which Caracalla organized among the adherents of his murdered brother Geta (4:6), as well as the characterizing of the emperor Elagabalus (5:5:8). Speeches, aphorisms and learned digressions also are not lacking. 171

302

STEFAN REBENICH

the great number of the imitators of Thucydides. 178 His Atticizing language fits well with his stylistic claims.179 Although in his prologue, as might be expected, he engages in polemic against those historians who did not strive for the truth, but concerned themselves solely with language and style, he yet seeks to give variety of form to his own work through the conventional mention of paradoxes and wonders. 180 He loosened up his description with more than thirty speeches. The undeniable popularity of his history, which found many readers and imitators in the following period, also underlines the appreciation of its style. In the ninth century the Byzantine scholar Photius still praised the agreeable style and the rhetorical balance of this artistically wrought work.181

IX T h e historians who followed, down to the end of the Roman empire, likewise stand in the classicist and rhetorical tradition. We may mention here by name P. Herennius Dexippus from Athens (ca. AD 210-ca. 275),182 Eunapius of Sardis (about AD 345-420), 183 Olympiodorus from Thebes in Egypt (first half of fifth century)184 and the last pagan historian Zosimus, who towards the end of the fifth century wrote his "New History" ( ) in order to produce the historical proof that the victory of the Christian God had been the cause of the decline of the empire. 185 As a result of their rhetorical
178 Cf. F.J. Stein, Dexippus et Herodianus rerum scriptores quatenus Thucydidem secuti sunt (Diss. Bonn 1957). 179 Hdn. 1:1:3. 180 Cf. Hdn. 1:1:4: and ; 1:1:5: . 181 Phot. Bibl. 99. 182 FGrHist 100. 183 FHG IV, pp. 7ff. 184 FHG IV, pp. 57ff. 185 As a collection of the fragments of historians from late antiquity, use should be madein addition to Miiller's FHGof R. C. Blockley, The Fragmentary Classicising Historians of the Later Roman Empire: Eunapius, Olympiodorus, Priscus and Malchus (2 vols.; Liverpool 1981-83), with translation and commentary. On Zosimus cf. now the bilingual annotated edition by F. Paschoud (5 vols.; Bud; Paris 1971-89) as well as the German translation and commentary by O. Veh and S. Rebenich (Stuttgart 1990). English translations of Zosimus have been published by J.J. Buchanan and H. T. Davis (San Antonio 1967) as well as by R. T. Ridley (Canberra 1982). In the annotated editions and translations there is also abundant literature on the historiography of late antiquity. Cf. further F. Paschoud, RE 10A (1972), pp. 785 841 s.v.

HISTORICAL PROSE

303

training all these historians, like their predecessors in the imperial period before them, had at their disposal a rich reservoir of stereotypes, clichs, examples, paradoxes and other elements of style and composidon. As the historians came to terms with the contemporary theories of history writing, so the language and style of their works as a rule corresponded with contemporary taste. Here it was precisely the imitation of classical authors, in Lucian's words,186 and above all of Thucydides, that was normative, although there were different opinions as to the extent to which language and style ought to correspond to the much-admired Attic models. Many archaizing passages and turns of phrase may however have been borrowed from rhetorical handbooks, and not from the original sources. Battles had to be described according to specific patterns, 187 and so too the characterizing of personalities and the choice of examples and paradoxes. Moralizing sententiae, antiquarian, ethnographical or geographical digressions, etymological and archaeological information, brief dramatic exchanges of words and longer addresses could be introduced into the presentation for literary adornment, according to fixed rhetorical principles. Yet the Greek historiography of late andquity does not present any stylistic uniformity. T h e authors throughout reserved to themselves individual liberties in the shaping of their work. Zosimus for example, who seeks to continue Polybius, makes use of a simple style without unnecessary rhetorical ornament, and even renounces the much-favoured speeches and debates. In style and language one cannot imagine a greater contrast to Eunapius, whom he copied out over large stretches. Photius calls Zosimus's manner of expression concise, clear and lucid, and not without charm. 188 However, even our modern judgments regarding the rhetorical style of ancient authors are dependent on individual and timeconditioned criteria, as may be seen from the judgments about Dexippus, whose style, praised by Phodus, 189 was condemned by B. G. Niebuhr, extolled by E. Norden and censured as obscure and affected by E. Schwartz. 190

Zosimos; idem, Cinq tudes sur Zpsime (Paris 1975) and B. Baldwin, "Greek Historiography in Late Rome and Early Byzandum", Hellenica 33 (1981), pp. 51-65. 186 Lucian Hist.Conscr. 34. 187 Cf. Lucian Hist.Conscr. 49. 188 Phot. Bibl. 98. 189 Phot. Bibl. 82. 190 B. G. Niebuhr in CSHB I, p. xvii; Norden, p. 398; E. Schwartz, RE 5.1 (1930), p. 293 = idem, GG, p. 290.

304

STEFAN REBENICH

From the third century BC, Jewish historiography also made use of the Greek language as a means for its intellectual self-assertion. For example, Demetrius the Chronographer in the third century BC put together a comprehensive outline of Jewish history with the title ' . He was followed in the second century by Eupolemus. Artapanus, who lived in Egypt, attempted in a work ' to combine Jewish cultural history with an apologetic for Judaism, while Cleodemus sought to harmonize the Jewish primal history with Greek mythology. The five books of Maccabean history by Jason of Cyrene appear to have been the basis of 2 Maccabees, which is composed wholly in the style of the "tragic" Hellenistic history writing. 191 T h e questions and debates addressed in these works were not laid to rest down to Flavius Josephus (AD 37/38 to beginning of 2nd century), who stands at the end of Jewish historiography in andquity. 192 As a Pharisee and member of a priesdy family in Jerusalem, he is just as much marked by the Palestinian and Old Testament historical tradition as he is indebted, as a Hellenistic Jew who was the protg of the Flavian emperors and sought to communicate to the Romans the history of his people, to Hellenisdc histo-

Cf. FGrHist 722 (Demetrius); 723 (Eupolemus); 726 (Artapanus); 182 (Jason). Cf. in general R. Doran, "The Jewish Hellenistic Historians before Josephus", ANRW II.20:1 (1987), pp. 246-97. 192 Editions: B. Niese (7 vols.; Leipzig 1885-97; reprint 1955); S.A. Naber (4 vols.; Leipzig 1888 93); H. St.J. Thackeray, R. Marcus, A. Wikgren, L H. Feldman (10 vols.; LCL; Cambridge, MA-London 1926 65). Cf. in addition G. Hlscher, RE 9.2 (1916), pp. 1934-2000; P. Bilde, Flavius Josephus between Jerusalem and Rome: His Life, his Works and their Importance (Sheffield 1988); S.J. D. Cohen, Josephus in Galilee and Rome: His Vita and Development as a Historian (Leiden 1979); L. H. Feldman, "Flavius Josephus Revisited. The Man, his Writings, his Significance", ANRW 11.21:2 (1984), pp. 763-862; idem, 'Josephus and Modern Scholarship", ANRW 11.21:2 (1984), pp. 1937-80; M. Hengel, Judentum und Hellenismus: Studien zu ihrer Begegnung unter besonderer Bercksichtigung Palaestinas bis zur Mitte des 2. Jh. v. Chr. (3rd edn.; Tbingen 1988; ET London 1974); T. Rajack, Josephus: The Historian and his Society (London 1983); A. Schallt (ed.), ur Josephus-Forschung (Darmstadt 1973); H. Schreckenberger, Bibliographie zu Flavius Josephus (Leiden 1968); idem, Die Flavius-Josephus-Tradition in Antike und Mittelalter (Leiden 1972); idem, Rezeptionsgeschichtliche und textkritische Forschungen zu Flavius Josephus (Leiden 1977); E. Schrer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 BC-AD 135), a new English version rev. and aug. by G. Vermes, F. Millar, M. Black (3 vols, in 4; Edinburgh 1973-87), esp. I, pp. 41ff.; 489ff. and III. 1, pp. 186; 545-46; S. Schwartz, Josephus andjudaean Politics (Leiden 1990); H. St.J. Thackeray, Josephus, the Man and the Historian (New York 1929); W. C. van Unnik, Flavius Josephus als historischer Schriftsteller (Heidelberg 1978).

191

HISTORICAL PROSE

305

riography.193 His historiographical method is manifestly influenced both by Jewish apologetic and by the pragmatic writing of history, especially the theoretical conception of Dionysius of Halicarnassus. Personal experience and the possibility of verification are the presuppositions, and the aims of his presentation; 194 he seeks "to add nothing, and to leave nothing out". 195 With such stipulations Josephus sets himself in the tradition initiated by Thucydides. Whether he had himself read Thucydides, and other classical authors whom he cites, or quotes the relevant phrases at second hand, may be left an open question. Josephus was thoroughly conversant with the literary language of his time, and for the educated public availed himself of the linguistic, stylistic and compositional instruments which late Hellenistic historiography, highly differentiated methodically and in literary and rhetorical terms, placed at his disposal. He is concerned for a dramatic stylizing of events, adorns his presentation after the manner of profane Greek historians with fastidiously elaborated speeches,196 makes long addresses out of brief words of Scripture, portrays in detail battles, localities and military matters, explains and assesses the behaviour and conduct of individual personalities, inserts novelistic episodes, and uses aphorisms, parables and rhetorical figures of every kind.197 Worthy of special mention are the numerous documents and original sources which Josephus inserts in his seven-volume Jewish War and above all in his twenty-volume Jewish Antiquities.198 At the end of the Antiquities it is said: "I may now at the end of my history say with confidence that with the best will in the world no other man, whether Jew or alien, would have been able to produce the content of this work so accurately for the Greeks. For as my

193 Qf Collomp, "La place de Josphe dans la technique de l'historiographie hellnistique", Etudes historiques de la Facult des lettres de Strasbourg (Vol. 106: Mlanges 1945; Paris 1947), pp. 81-92. 194 J. BJ 1:6, 17, 22, 26, 30; 7:454-55; AJ 1:1. 195 J- AJ 1:17. 196 On the role of the speeches cf. . Michel, "Die Rettung Israels und die Rolle Roms nach den Reden im 'Bellum Iudaicum'. Analysen und Perspektiven", ANRW 11.21:2 (1984), pp. 945-76. 197 Cf. on this still . Brne, Flavius Josephus und seine Schriften in ihrem Verhltnis zum Judentum, zur griechisch-rmischen Welt und zum Christentume (Gtersloh 1913); H. Drner, Untersuchungen ber Josephus (Diss. Marburg 1896); W. Hornbostel, De Flavii Iosephi studiis rhetoricis (Diss. Halle 1912); G. Schmidt, "De Flavii Iosephi elocutione", Jahrbuch fir Philologie Sup. 19 (1894), pp. 341-550; A. Wolff, De Flavii Iosephi belli Iudaia scriptoris studiis rhetoricis (Diss. Halle 1908). 198 Cf. on this G. Hlscher, RE 9.2 (1916), pp. 1976 and 1990.

306

STEFAN REBENICH

countrymen could bear me witness that I have excelled in the sciences of my native land, so have I also concerned myself in depth with the Greek language and thoroughly learned its rules, although the fluent speaking of it is made impossible for me by the custom of my homeland. For among us those are not specially regarded who are versed in many languages, and lay store upon beauty in expression, since this skill ranks as commonplace not only for the free but even for the slaves [. . .].'""

XI Christian historiography likewise, in methods, systems and forms of presentation, went back in considerable measure to Hellenistic Greek models. The New Testament book of Acts200 already stands in the tradition of Hellenistic history writing. The individual books of Luke's double work, the Gospel and Acts, are clearly separated from one another by their prefaces. 201 According to the title , attested since the close of the second century, the authorfollowing

J. 4 7 20:12. Cf. F. F. Bruce, "The Acts of the Apostles: Historical Record or Theological Reconstruction?", ANRW 11.25:3 (1985), pp. 2569-2603; H.J. Cadbury, The Style and literary Method of Luke, Part 1: The Diction of hike and Acts (Cambridge, MA 1920); H. Conzelmann, Die Mitte der %eit (Tbingen 1954; 6th edn. 1977; ET The Theology of Saint Luke, London 1960); D. Daube, "Neglected Nuances of Exposition in LukeActs", ANRW 11.25:3 (1985), pp. 2329-56; M. Dibelius, Aufstze zur Apostelgeschichte (Gttingen 1951; 2nd edn. 1953; ET Studies in the Acts of the Apostles, London 1956); D. Dormeyer, Das Neue Testament im Rahmen der antiken Literaturgeschichte: Eine Einfuhrung (Darmstadt 1993), pp. 228ff.; A. Ehrhardt, ITie Acts of the Apostles (Manchester 1964); . Grtner, The Areopagus Speech and Natural Revelation (Uppsala 1955); M. D. Goulder, Type and History in the Acts (London 1964); E. Haenchen, Die Apostelgeschichte (16th edn.; Gttingen 1977; ET Oxford 1971); . von Harnack, Die Apostelgeschichte (Leipzig 1908; ET The Acts of the Apostles, London 1909); M. Hengel, Zur urchristlichen Geschichtsschreibung (2nd edn.; Stuttgart 1984); E. Meyer, Ursprung und Anfange des Christentums (3 vols.; Stuttgart-Berlin 1921-23), esp. I, pp. 1-59 and III; R. Morgenthaler, Die lukanische Geschichtsschreibung als Zeugnt^ Gestalt und Gehalt der Kunst des Lukas (2 vols.; Zrich-Basel 1948); E. Norden, Agnostos Theos: Untersuchungen zur Formengeschichte religiser Rede (Leipzig-Berlin 1913; 2nd edn. 1929); E. Plmacher, Lukas als hellenistischer Geschichtsschreiber (Gttingen 1972); M. Simon, St. Stephen and the Hellenists in the Primitive Church (London 1958); E. Trocm, Le "Livre des Actes" et l'Histoire (Paris 1957); U. Wilckens, Die Missionsreden der Apostelgeschichte (Neukirchen-Vluyn 1961; 3rd edn. 1974); M. Wilcox, The Semitisms of Acts (Oxford 1965). Further literature, above all lists of research reports, bibliographies and commentaries, in E. Plmacher, TRE 3 (1978), pp. 483-528 and A. Weiser, LThK3 1 (1993), pp. 862-63.
200 201

199

Luke 1:1-4 and Acts 1:1-8.

HISTORICAL PROSE

307

Hellenistic models202 and entirely in the sense of Polybius203seeks in his history to depict the deeds and words of the persons involved. The subject of Acts is the spread of the word of Jesus from the primidve community in Jerusalem to the very centre of the Imperium Romanum, and here Paul especially, as apostle of the risen Christ and the driving force of the Gentile mission, stands at the central point. The carefully wrought speeches of Peter, Paul and others, in accordance with Thucydidean requirements, are adapted to the given situation and interpret the events.204 T h e author, a hellenistically educated Gentile Christian of the post-apostolic period, knows very well how to tell a dramatic and absorbing story, and observes the literary elements of contemporary Graeco-pagan as well as GraecoJewish history writing. T h e so-called "We-passages" 205 probably do not show the author as a companion of Paul, but are rather a literary device of which Luke makes use, pardy in accordance with convention and partly at the instance of his sources. In the later apocryphal Acts of Apostles206 the almost "classical" form of the Lukan history writing was given up. It was now the model of the
202

Cf. for example the by Callisthenes of Olynthus from the fourth century BC (FGrHist 124), the books by Sosylus of Lacedaemon from the second century (FGrHist 176) and Philostratus's account of the life of Apollonius, cf. on this also R. Reitzenstein, Hellenistische WundererZhlungen (Leipzig 1906), pp. 40ff. 203 Cf. Plb. 1:1:1; 9:1:5-6. 204 Cf. for example Stephen's speech before the Sanhdrin, Acts 7:2-53, and Paul's speech on the Areopagus, Acts 17:22-31. M. Dibelius, Die Reden der Apostelgeschichte und die antike Geschichtsschreibung (SBAH 1949) = idem, Aufstze zur Apostelgeschichte (as note 200), pp. 120 -62 was the first to point out the indirect imitation of Thucydides by the author of Acts. 205 Acts 16:10-17; 20:5-15; 21:1-18; 27:1-28:16. Cf. J. Wehnen, Die Wir-Passagen der Apostelgeschichte (Gttingen 1989). 206 The New Testament apocrypha are edited in a German translation by E. Hennecke and W. Schneemelcher (2 vols.; 5th edn.; Tubingen 1987/89; ET Cambridge 1991/1992); see also J. K. Elliott, The Apocryphal New Testament (Oxford 1993). A new series in the Corpus Christianorum: Series Apocryphorum is in process of appearing; cf. especially E. Junod and J.-D. Kaestli (eds.), Acta Johannis (2 vols.; Turnhout 1983) andJ.-M. Prieur, Acta Andreae (2 vols.; Turnhout 1989). A list of the standard editions and further bibliographical references will be found in R. McL. Wilson, TRE 3 (1978), pp. 341-81; E. Plmacher, RE Sup. 15 (1978), pp. 11-70; J. B. Bauer, LThK3 1 (1993), p. 864. Cf. further M. Geerard, Clavis apocryphorum Novi Testamenti (Turnhout 1992). In addition reference may be made to the contributions of E. Junod and J. D. Kaesdi in ANRW 11.25:6 (1988), pp. 4 2 9 3 - 4 3 6 2 (Acts of John), G. Poupon ANRW 11.25:6 (1988), pp. 4 3 6 3 - 8 3 (Acts of Peter), J. M. Prieur ANRW 11.25:6 (1988), pp. 4384-4414 (Acts of Andrew), Y. Tissot ANRW 11.25:6, pp. 4415-30 (Acts of Thomas) and F. Bovon ANRW 11.25:6, (1988), pp. 4431-4527 (Acts of Philip).

308

STEFAN REBENICH

ancient romance that shaped the presentation of the apostle's life. T h e five great Acts of the second and third centuries, those of John, Peter, Paul, Andrew and Thomas, are witnesses to a popular edifying literature for entertainment which stands close to the Hellenistic novel and the philosophical aretalogy. From a historiographical point of view, Acts had no successors.207

XII Like all genres of Roman literature, except for satire,208 historiography also showed its debt to the legacy of the Greeks. Herodotus,
The chronographical and universal history presentations of Christian authors, as well as the Church history writing founded by Eusebius of Caesarea, are not a theme of this study. It may however be remarked that with Eusebius's standards were set for the composition and stylistic shaping of the succeeding Christian historical works, which paid heed to the fact that the new genus sought to differentiate itself in formal terms also from the pagan Greek historiography. Here belong the preference for a language oriented towards the elevated (instead of the classicist Attic), the neglect of speeches in favour of long quotations of documents and sources, the restraint in presenting political and military events, and the abundance of Scriptural quotations. As to literature for a first orientation, we may mention: W. Adler, Time Immemorial: Archaic Historiography and its Sources in Christian ChronographyfromJulius Ajricanus to George Syncellus (Washington, DC 1989); G. F. Chesnut, The First Christian Histories: Eusebius, Socrates, Sozomen, Theodoret, and Evagrius (2nd edn.; Macon 1986); B. Croke and A. Emmett (eds.), History and Historians in Late Antiquity (Sydney 1983); B. Croke, A. Emmett Nobbs, R. Mordey (eds.), Reading the Past in Late Antiquity (Canberra 1990); G. C. Hansen, "Griechische und lateinische Geschichtsschreibung in der Sptantike", Klio 66 (1984), pp. 605-14; G. . Kennedy, Greek Rhetoric under Christian Emperors (Princeton 1983), pp. 186ff.; B. Ktting, Christentum und heidnische Opposition am Ende des 4. Jahrhunderts (Mnster 1961 ); T. Marcus, Zpsimus, Orosius and Their Tradition: Comparative Studies in Pagan and Christian Historiography (Diss. New York University 1974); A. Momigliano, "Pagan and Christian Historiography in the Fourth Century", in idem (ed.), The Conflict between Paganism and Christianity in the Fourth Century (Oxford 1963), pp. 79-99; P. Meinhold, Geschichte der kirchlichen Historiographie I (Freiburg 1967); A. A. Mosshammer, The Chronicle of Eusebius and the Greek Chronographie Tradition (London 1979); F. Overbeck, ber die Anfange der Kirchengeschichtsschreibung (Programm Basel 1892; reprint Darmstadt 1965); K. Rosen, ber heidnisches und christliches Geschichtsdenken in der Sptantike (Munich 1982); M. Sordi, "Deila storiografia classica alla storiografia cristiana", CCC 3 (1982), pp. 7-29; idem, La storiografia ecclesiastica nella tarda antichita: Atti del Convegno tenuto in Erice (3~8 XII 1978) (Messina 1980); J. Straub, Regeneratio Imperii: Aufstze ber Roms Kaisertum und Reich im Spiegel der heidnischen und christlichen Publizistik (2 vols.; Darmstadt 1972/86); idem, Heidnische Geschichtsapologetik in der christlichen Sptantike (Bonn 1963); F. Vittinghoff, "Zum geschichdichen Selbstverstndnis der Sptantike", 198 (1964), pp. 52974; F. Winkelmann, "Die Kirchengeschichtswerke im ostrmischen Reich", Byzantinoslavica 37 (1976), pp. 1-10 and 172-90; idem, Euseb von Kaisareia: Der Vater der Kirchengeschichte (Berlin 1991); idem, RAC 15 (1991), pp. 724-65 (with Literature).
208 207

Quint. Inst. 10:1:93.

HISTORICAL PROSE

309

Xenophon and above all Thucydides had a direct or indirect influence upon Roman historians. Above all the Hellenistic writing of history, the "tragic", the rhetorical and the pragmatic, continued to work in Roman historiography in manifold refractions and combinations. The earliest Roman historians normally wrote not in Latin but in Greek. If in the period of the Hannibalic Wars Q. Fabius Pictor on the Roman side had begun to present Roman history in the Greek language, in the first century BC the writers were Greek: Socrates described the Civil Wars, Heraclides of Megara, Teucrus of Cyzicus and Metrodorus of Scepsis the wars against Mithridates VI of Pontus, Empylus of Rhodes and Olympus the events relating to the murder of Caesar, and Caecilius of Cale Acte the Slave Wars. 209 T h e real founder of Latin history writing is M. Porcius Cato (234-149 BC). His chief historical work, the Origines in seven books,210 deals in the first three books with the development of Rome from the beginnings to the end of the period of the kings, and with the early history of the other Italian cities and peoples; the remaining four are devoted to Roman history from the First Punic War down to 149 BC, and begin with a new prologue. T h e extant fragments allow us to recognize the Greek elements of the genre, since local history, wonder stories, digressions and etymologies are all present; the tide origines also points to the Greek foundation stories, the . T h e narrative, which combines historical presentation and personal comment, does not proceed after the manner of a chronicle, but rather capitulatim, that is, it was limited to the main events and composed

FGrHist 809, HRR I, pp. 5-39 (Fabius Pictor); FGrHist 192 (Socrates); FGrHist 187 (Heraclides); FGrHist 274 (Teucrus); FGrHist 184 (Metrodorus); FGrHist 191 (Empylus); FGrHist 198 (Olympus); FGrHist 183 (Caecilius). On this and on what follows cf. . Badian, "The Early Historians", in T. A. Dorey (ed.), Latin Historians (London 1966), pp. 1-38; F. Brner, "Thematik und Krise der rmischen Geschichtsschreibung im 2. Jh. v. Chr.", Historia 2 (1953/54), pp. 189-209; M. Geizer, "Die Anfange der rmischen Geschichtsschreibung", Hermes 69 (1934), pp. 46-55 = idem, Kleine Schuften, III (Wiesbaden 1964), pp. 51-103; idem, "Nochmals ber den Anfang der rmischen Geschichtsschreibung", Hermes 82 (1954), pp. 342-48 = Kleine Schriften, pp. 104-10; Klingner, pp. 34ff. and 66ff.; A. Klotz, Lwius und seine Vorgnger (Leipzig 1940/41); W. B. Lebek, Verba prisca: Die Anfnge des Archaisierens in der lateinischen Beredsamkeit und Geschichtsschreibung (Gttingen 1970); Peter, pp. 273-338; E. Rawson, "The First Latin Annalists", Latomus 35 (1976), pp. 689-717; D. Timpe, "Fabius Pictor und die Anfange der rmischen Historiographie", ANRW 1.2 (1972), pp. 928-69; idem, "Erwgungen zur jngeren Annalistik", A & A 25 (1979), pp. 97-119; T. P. Wiseman, "The Credibility of the Roman Annalists", LCM 8 (1983), pp. 20-22. 210 HRR I, pp. CXXVII-CLXIV, 55-97; cf. the edidons of the fragments by H. Jordan (Leipzig 1860; reprint 1966), pp. 1-30 and O. Schnburger (Munich 1980), pp. 180-213 with German translation and notes.

209

310

STEFAN REBENICH

according to subject areas. 2 ' 1 In the introduction there are striking archaisms, such as the plural ques; in addition we can note archaic duplications, heaping up of synonyms, and formulae of devotional, legal and official language. Despite the proverbial brevitas Catonis one should not overlook the rhetorical elements of Cato's prose style.212 T h e aim of the Origines is the moral instruction and guidance of the reader through outstanding examples, like that military tribune who deserves to be called a Roman Leonidas. 213 Although Cato did not develop any historiographical theory of his own, his work stamped Roman history writing precisely by its raising an exemplary individual deed for the res publica into an absolute ethical norm. The Roman state, so Cato leads us to understand, is superior to all other states because it was created not by individuals but by many and over a longer period of time. 214 In the prologue to the fourth book Cato clearly distances himself from the mere compiling of records: "I have no pleasure in writing what stands upon the board in the house of the Pondfex Maximus, how often grain was dear, how often darkness or anything else obscured the light of the moon or the sun". 215 Yet it was precisely the annals which emerged from the pontifical records that were the specific element in Roman history writing. The founder of the annales, the recording of facts ab urbe condita in the manner of a chronicle, was the Fabius Pictor already mentioned, who was for all that possessed of considerable qualities as a narrator. 216 He had a fondness for ethnographical evidence, religious ceremonies, anecdotes and antiquarian information. But the Hellenistic formal elements here merged with the Roman thinking in terms of examples, and with the propagandist glorification of the gentes. This combination was to remain the special mark of Roman historiography. After Fabius a series of senators also compiled Greek annals, 217 while
Cf. Nep. Ca. 3:4: "Atque haec omnia capitulatim sunt dicta". Cf. for example A. Traglia, "Osservazioni su Catone prosatore", in Hommages H. Bardon (Brussels 1985), pp. 344-59. 2,3 HRR I, F 83 (= Gell. 3:7:2-3). 214 Cic. Rep. 2:2. 215 HRR I, F 77 (= Gell. 2:28:6). 216 Cf. P. Bung, Q. Fabius Pictor, der erste rmische Annalist. Untersuchungen ber Aufbau, Stil und Inhalt seines Geschichtswerks an Hand von Polybios / - / / (Diss. Cologne 1950); . Hanell, "Zur Problematik der lteren rmischen Geschichtsschreibung", in Histoire et historiens dans l'Antiquit (Entretiens de la Fondation Hardt, 4; Vandoeuvres-Geneva 1956), pp. 147-70; J. Poucet, "L'amplification narrative dans l'volution de la geste de Romulus", ACD 17/18 (1981/82), pp. 175-87. 217 Cf. for example Cincius Alimentus (HRR I, pp. 40-43; FGrHist 810); C. Acilius
212 2,1

HISTORICAL PROSE

311

L. Cassius Hemina, a contemporary of Cato, ranks as the oldest Latin annalist.218 Only among the authors of the Sullan period (the socalled "later annalists") do we find annalists wholike Claudius Quadrigius or Valerius Antias 219 did not belong to the senatorial class, but probably came from the Italian municipal aristocracy or from the equestrian order and wrote as clients of particular senators. Consciously harking back to the annalistic tradition, they represented Rome as the central point of history. The characteristic marks of the annalistic approach are presentation according to years and "archaeology"; but the annalistic schema can be loosened up by the insertion of letters, speeches and anecdotes. Also frequent is the separation of res inlemae and res externae. The annalistic presentation is also followed by the res gestae, which neglect the presentation of the early period and pay more detailed attention to contemporary history; its first representative is Sempronius Asellio (about 160-190 BC), who concerned himself after the manner of Polybian and pragmatic historiography with analytic investigation of facts and their causes. 220 The historiae, which likewise follow the annalistic structure, lack the "archaeology" altogether; the author limits himself to contemporary history alone. Their founder was L. Cornelius Sisenna,221 praetor in the year 70 BC. His historiographie model was according to Cicero the historian of Alexander, Clitarchus; 222 in his Historiae, as the fragments still show, the emotive, sensation-working devices of Hellenistic history writing were put to use, a dramatic style of narration, digressions, descriptions of battles, speeches and dreams. His style combines fashionable Asianic undercurrents with archaizing elements; thus archaic turns of phrase stand alongside neologisms. His prose is rich in variety, original and colourful. While res gestae and historiae in principle preserve the annalistic manner of presentation andlike the annalesseek to set out history continuously, historical monographs group the material round a central
(HRR I, pp. 48-52; FGrHist 813) and A. Postumius Albinus (HRR I, p. 53; FGrHist 812). 218 HRR I, pp. CLV-CLXXIII, 98-111. 219 HRR I, pp. 205-37 and 238-73. On this cf. also W. Schibel, Sprachbehandlung und Darstellungsweise in rmischer Prosa. Claudius Quadriganus, Limis, Aulus Gellius (Amsterdam 1971). 220 HRR I, pp. 143-47. Cf. esp. F 1-2 (= Gell. 5:18:8-9). 221 HRR I, pp. 276-97; cf. . Rawson, "L. Cornelius Sisenna and the Early First Century BC", CQ, 73 (1979), pp. 327-46. 222 Cf. Cic. Leg. 1:7.

312

STEFAN REBENICH

theme. T h e orator and jurist L. Coelius Antipater, 223 who, following Hellenistic models, describes the Second Punic War in seven books (published after 121 BC), ranks as the first Latin representative of this genre. He made use of dramatic and of rhetorical devices; his language is stilted and his style Asianic: small rhythmic cola, unusual words, refined hyperbata. Cicero does indeed ascribe to him the merit of having surpassed his predecessors, yetwith an eye on Greek history writinghe complains that Coelius "did not set off his narrative with any variety of reflections, or give finish to his work by his marshalling of words and a smooth and unvarying flow of style".224 This characterization is thoroughly apposite: on the one hand Coelius used a rhetorical device like hyperbaton so awkwardly that he excuses himself for it in the foreword; 225 on the other, he deserves to be appreciated as a pioneer who in constructive interaction with Hellenistic historiography compiled the first historical monograph in the Latin tongue.

XIII T o the forms of history writing so far mentioned we may add the universal history, which differentiated the material geographically, the epitome or "short history", which is attested from the first century BC, and the commentarius, which has roots both in the Roman and in the Greek world. The history writing of republican Rome accordingly reflects the whole variety of Hellenistic historical literature. It has consequently at first no uniform character as a genre, but embraces a host of different forms and elements, which may be combined with one another. Language and style too are scarcely uniform. Occasionally phrases from lower levels of language do indeed appear, 226 but the style of the Roman epic, which is likewise historically oriented, also had an influence on the Roman historians, as occasional poetic elements in Cato and Coelius for example show. Others prefer the ponderous Latin official style, while others again follow the fashionable Asianic rhetoric. At the centre of historical interest stand

HRR I, pp. 158-77; W. Hermann, Die Historien des Coelius Antipater: Fragmente und Kommentar (Meisenheim 1979). 224 Cic. De or. 2:54 (LCL translation). 225 Cf. HRR I, F 1 (= Cic. Or. 229). 226 Cf. Lebek, Verba prisca (note 209).

223

HISTORICAL PROSE

313

primal history and contemporary history, whichwith very few exceptions227is tailored to fit Rome.

XIV C.Julius Caesar ( 1 0 0 - 4 4 BC)228 raised the commentarius into a literary form. 229 In his commentant on the Gallic Wars, Greek and Roman
227 The single exception among the annalists is Cato, who in the fourth book of his Origines describes the origin of Carthage and characterizes the Carthaginian mixed constitution. 228 F. E. Adcock, Caesar as Man of Letters (Cambrige 1956); W. T. Avery, "Caesar, the Man of Letters", CW 50 (1956/57), pp. 26-28; F. Brner, "Der Commentarius: Zur Vorgeschichte und literarischen Form der Schriften Caesars", Hermes 81 (1953), pp. 210-50; J. H. Collins, "Caesar as a Political Propagandist", ANRWU (1972), pp. 922-66; J. D. Craig, "The General Reflection in Caesar's Commentaries", CR 45 (1931), pp. 107-10; H. Dallmann, "Caesars Rede fr die Bithynier", Hermes 73 (1938), pp. 341-46; K. Deichgrber, "Elegantia Caesaris: Zu Csars Reden und Commentarii", Gymnasium 57 (1950), pp. 112-23; P. T. Eden, "Caesar's Style: Inheritance versus Intelligence", Glotta 40 (1962), pp. 74-117; H. Gesche, Caesar (Darmstadt 1976); M. Geizer, "Caesar als Historiker", in idem, Kleine Schuften, II (Wiesbaden 1963), pp. 307-35; H.J. Glcklich, Caesar als Erzhlstratege (AU, 33.5; 1990); W. Grler, "Die Vernderung des Erzhlerstandpunktes in Caesars Bellum Gallicum", Poetica 8 (1976), pp. 95-119; H. C. Gotoff, "Towards a Practical Criticism of Caesar's Prose Style", ICS 9 (1984), pp. 1-18; L. Holtz, C. Julius Caesar quo usus sit in orationibus dicendi genere (Jena 1913); Kennedy, pp. 283ff.; Klingner, 90ff.; A. Klotz, Caesarstudien (Leipzig 1910); J. Kroymann, "Caesar und das Corpus Caesarianum in der neueren Forschung: Gesamtbibliographie 1945-1970", ANRW 1.3 (1973), pp. 457-87; . Mensching, Caesars Bellum Gallicum: Eine Einfiihrung (Frankfurt 1988); F.-H. Mutschier, Erzhlstil und Propaganda in Caesars Kommentarien (Heidelberg 1975); Norden, pp. 209fT; H. Oppermann, CaesarDer Schriftsteller und sein Werk (Leipzig 1933); G. Pascucci, "Interpretazione linguistica e stilistica del Caesare autentico", ANRW 1.3 (1973), pp. 4 8 8 - 5 2 2 = idem, Scntti scelti (Florence 1983), pp. 653-87; idem, "I mezzi espressivi stilistici di Cesare nel processo di deformazione storica dei Commentarii", SCO 6 (1957), pp. 134-74; . V. Premerstein, RE 4.1 (1901), pp. 726-59, s.v. commentarii; L. Radista, "Julius Caesar and his Writings", ANRW 1.3 (1973), pp. 417-56; M. Rambaud, L'art de deformation historique dans les commentaires de Csar (Paris 1952; 2nd edn. 1966); idem, "Csar et la rhtorique", in Colloque sur la rhtorique, Caesarodunum 14 bis (1979), pp. 19-39; D. Rasmussen, Caesars Commentarii: Stil und Stilwandel am Beispiel der direkten Rede (Gttingen 1963); idem (ed.), Caesar (Darmstadt 1967); W. Richter, Caesar als Darsteller seiner Taten: Eine Einfuhrung (Heidelberg 1977); O. Seel, Caesarstudien (Stuttgart 1967); K. Stiewe, "Wahrheit und Rhetorik in Caesars Bellum Gallicum", WJA 2 (1976), pp. 149-63; G. Walser, Caesar und die Germanen: Studien zur politischen Tendenz rmischer Feldzugsberichte, I (Wiesbaden 1956); M. F. Williams, "Caesar's Bibracte Narrative and the Aims of Caesarian Style", ICS 10 (1985), pp. 215-26. The number of editions and translations is legion; we need mention here only the Teubner editions of the Bellum Gallicum by A. Klotz (2nd edn.; 1952), O. Seel (1961) and W. Hering (2nd edn.; 1992) as well as that of the Bellum Civile by A. Klotz (2nd edn.; 1950, with supplements by W. Trillitzsch 1964, reprint 1992). 229

Cf. already Cic. Brut. 262; Hirt. Gal. 8, praef. 3-7.

314

STEFAN REBENICH

traditions of style and genre are combined. In the confusion of the declining republic there were many commentarii or, as they were called in Greek, , that is, private records of Roman officials about their administration and their conduct in life. Thus Q. Lutatius Catulus wrote about his consulate (102 BC) and his achievements in the service of the state in Latin, 230 and Cicero sent a Greek hypomnema about the high point of his career to friends and acquaintances. 231 These "reminiscences", which were part of the internal political debates of the senatorial aristocracy, are to be distinguished from the proconsular reports to the senate, the so-called litterae. But the Roman commentarius came closer to the style of the elevated history writing which strove for an enlivening of what had happened, and took over elements of the epideictic prose of Isocrates and of the "dramatic" stylizing of the expedition reports from the circle of Alexander the Great. Caesar latched on to this. He too had his fame and reputation to defend when he resolved to compile the commentarii. He created a new commentary style, and introduced other elements of literary historiography into this genre. Thus in all his digressions on Britain, Gaul and Germany he takes his place in the succession of Greek ethnography, especially that of Posidonius.232 Yet he also learned from Xenophon: as with Xenophon, the prologue is lacking in Caesar, his commentarii like Xenophon's Hypomnemata comprise seven books, in selfdescription he makes use of the third person, and the style strives for objective simplicity. The presentation gains in liveliness from book to book. T h e portion allotted to the direct speeches increases from the fourth book to the seventh, and this ascent culminates in the great address of the Avernian Critognatus. 233 The gradual increase in the direct speeches, which can also be observed in the bellum civile, is not only to be explained by the development of Caesar's style, but also points to the artistic shaping and rhetorical structuring of his literary

Cic. Brut. 132. Cic. Att. 1:19:10; 1:20:6. 232 Caes. Gal. 5:12-14; 6:11-28. With F. Beckmann, Geographie und Ethnographie in Caesars Bellum Gallicum (Dortmund 1930), H. Oppermann, "Zu den geographischen Exkursen in Caesars Bellum Gallicum", Hermes 68 (1933), pp. 182-95; D. Rasmussen, "Das Autonomwerden des geographisch-ethnographischen Elements in den Exkursen", in idem, Caesars Commentarii (as note 228), pp. 79-104 = idem (ed.), Caesar (as note 228), pp. 339-71 and others, I start from the assumpdon of the authenticity of the digressions. Cf. further N. Holzberg, "Die ethnographischen Exkurse in Caesars Bellum Gallicum als erzhlstrategisches Mittel", Anregung 33 (1987), pp. 85-98. 233 Caes. Gal. 7:77:2-16; cf. 5:30; 7:30, 38, 50.
231

230

HISTORICAL PROSE

315

work. Further methods of allowing the reader to participate in the events are the description of the commander's reflections and the appearance on the scene of particular persons. 234 T h e author also has a brilliant understanding of how to dramatize episodes effectively, in order to present himself as the dominant personality. 235 In fact competition with the historians was far from Caesar's mind. T h e very choice of the genre makes it clear that his work was not intended to be measured by the standards which were applied to historiae. Thus there is no prologue, in the first four books the indirect speeches usual in the commentaus are the rule, and Caesar portrays what happened always from his perspective. His readers are above all to learn, as it were to experience by proxy, the deliberations as a result of which he took precautions and made his decisions. The use of literary methods is accordingly subordinated to the aim of the author's political self-presentation. For Caesar's handling of language, his purism is characteristic. He understood how to write in a masterly, simple and yet artistic fashion, nihil est enim in historia pura et inlustri brevitate dulcius was Cicero's laudatory comment. 236 T o attain this admired brevity and charm required "the greatest devotion and conscientiousness", and Caesar himself worked through recondite and unusual writings in order to perfect his style.237 E. Norden has described the result: "In one's joy over a Caesarian period, thought through with logical consistency and built up with a lapidary power of language, one has more or less a standard for one's own feeling for Roman vigour, energy of will, and greatness". 238 With Caesar's commentant it was however not yet clear which road Roman history writing was to follow. T h e answer was given by C. Sallustius Crispus (86-35/34 BC).239 His five-volume Historiae, which
2,4

On this see H. A. Grtner, Beobachtungen zu Bauelementen in der antiken Historiographie, besonders bei Livius und Caesar (Wiesbaden 1975). 235 Cf. for example Caes. Gal. 2:19-27 and W. Grler, "Ein Darstellungsprinzip Caesars. Zur Technik der Peripetie und ihrer Vorbereitung im Bellum Gallicum", Hermes 105 (1977), pp. 307-31. 236 Cic. Brut. 262. 237 Cic. Brut. 252. 238 E. Norden, Die rmische Uteratur (6th edn.; Leipzig 1961), p. 48. 239 Cf. W. Avenarius, "Sallust und der rhetorische Schulunterricht", RIL 8 9 / 9 0 (1956), pp. 343-52; C. Becker, "Sallust", ANRW 1.3 (1973), pp. 720-54; W. Bloch, Bedeutungszusammenhnge und Bedeutungsverschiebungen als inhaltliche Stilmittel bei Sallust (Berne 1971); K. Bchner, Sallust (2nd edn.; Heidelberg 1982); F. Egermann, Die Prooemien zu den Werken des Sallust (SAWW, 214.3; Vienna 1932); Kennedy, pp. 292ff.; F. Giancotti, Strutture delle monografie di Sallustio e di Tacito (Messina 1971); B. Hessen,

316

STEFAN REBENICH

was thought of as a continuation of Sisenna's work, begins with the year of Sulla's death (78 BC) and extends down to the year 67 BC. From this work four speeches, two letters and about 500 fragments are extant. 240 With his Bellum Catilinae, which depicts the course of the Catilinarian conspiracy in 63 BC and enquires into its occasion and causes, and his Bellum Iugurthinum, which has for its subject the war with the Numidian k i n g j u g u r t h a (111-105 BC), Sallust brought out two historical monographs, 241 the style of which was stamped by Thucydides, whose terse brevity the Roman historian sought to emulate. Quintilian later set him on a level with his Greek precursor. 242 In all three works, as might be expected in a genre marked by the Thucydidean stamp, there are a prologue, an "archaeology" 243 and also a great speech at the beginning, in both monographs a political

Der historische Infinitiv im Wandel der Darstellungstechnik Sallusts (Frankfurt 1984); K. Latte, Sallust (Leipzig 1905) = V. Pschl (ed.), Sallust (see below), pp. 401-60; Lebek, Verba prisca (note 209); A. D. Leeman, "Sallusts Prologe und seine Auffassung von der Historiographie", Mnemosyne 7 (1954), pp. 323~39 und 8 (1955), pp. 38-48; idem, "Formen sallustischer Geschichtsschreibung", Gymnasium 74 (1967), pp. 108-15; Norden, pp. 200ff.; U. Paananen, Sallust's Politico-Social Terminology: Its Use and Biographical Significance (Helsinki 1972); P. Perrochat, Les modles grecs de Salluste (Paris 1949); V. Pschl, Grundwerte rmischer Staatsgesinnung in den Geschichtswerken des Sallust (Berlin 1940); idem (ed.), Sallust (2nd edn.; Darmstadt 1981); W. Richter, "Der Manierismus des Sallust und die Sprache der rmischen Historiographie", ANRW 1.3 (1973), pp. 755-80; T. F. Scanion, Spes frustrata: A Reading of Sallust (Heidelberg 1987); W. Schur, Sallust als Historiker (Stuttgart 1934); E. Skard, "Zur sprachlichen Entwicklung des Sallust", SO 39 (1964), pp. 13-37; W. Steidle, Sallusts historische Monographien: Themenwahl und Geschichtsbild (Wiesbaden 1958); R. Syme, Sallust (Berkeley 1964); R. Ullmann, La technique des discours dans Salluste, Tite-live et Tacite (Oslo 1927); Woodman, pp. 117ff. 240 Cf. the annotated edition by B. Maurenbrecher (2 vols.; Leipzig 1891/93; reprint 1967). Cf. D. Flach, "Die Vorrede zu Sallusts Historien in neuer Rekonstruktion", Philologus 117 (1973), pp. 76-86 and G. Petrone, "Per una ricostruzione del proemio delle Historiae di Sallustio"; Pan 4 (1976), pp. 59-67. 241 Cf. the edition by A. Kurfess (3rd edn.; Leipzig 1957; reprint 1992). The following commentaries are important: K. Vretska (Heidelberg 1976), P. McGushin (Leiden 1977) a n d j . T. Ramsey (Adanta 1984, with text) on Cat. E. Kstermann (Heidelberg 1971) and G. M. Paul (Liverpool 1984) on Jug. Cf. . Bchner, Der Aufbau von Sallusts Bellum Jugurthinum (Wiesbaden 1953); G. B. A. Fletcher, "On Sallust's Bellum Catilinae", Latomus 40 (1981), pp. 580-88; . Latta, "Der Wandel in Sallusts Geschichtsauffassung vom Bellum Catilinae zum Bellum Iugurthinum", Maia 39 (1987), pp. 271-88; G. Ledworuski, Historiographische Widersprche in der Monographie Sallusts zur Catilinarischen Verschwrung (Diss. Berlin 1992 = Frankfurt 1994); A . D . Leeman, Aufbau und Absicht von Sallusts Bellum Jugurthinum (Amsterdam 1957); K. Vretska, Studien zu Sallusts Bellum Jugurthinum (SAWW, 229.4; 1955). Quint. Inst. 10:1:101; on the theme cf. T. F. Scanlon, The Influence of Thucydides on Sallust (Heidelberg 1980) with the older literature. 243 Cf. the impressive separation of the idealized primal period from the morally degenerate present in Cat. 6 - 1 3 .
242

HISTORICAL PROSE

317

digression, and in the Catilina in addition a debate with controversial speeches. In the Iugurtha the fact that it deals with an external war offered fewer links with the Thucydidean tradition, such as the portrayals of battles and the treatment of internal and external political interdependence. Sallust's central theme, the moral and political decay of the Roman state, and in particular of the nobility, positively demanded comparison with Athens in the Peloponnesian War. Yet it would be wrong to think of Sallust's imitation of Thucydides as absolute. What linked him with Thucydides was above all that he relentlessly exposed the motives of human conduct and mercilessly unmasked the hypocrisy of opportunistic politicians. Sallust's development as a writer from work to work implies also an expanding of the circle of his models. We can identify an abundance of Hellenistic historiographical techniques; the combining of anecdotal elements and sententiae in the narrative of Micipsa and his sons is characteristic;244 the last words of Cyrus in Xenophon may have served as a stimulus for the king's speech. 245 The geographical digressions in the Iugurtha and in the Historiae recall Posidonius, as do the idealizing of the simple life of the primitive society246 and the idea that external threat had a salutary effect upon the Romans. 247 Sallust's fondness for detailed characterizations, 248 moral reflections, aphorisms and extended comparison of personalities 249 is influenced by the rhetoricizing and moralizing tradition. Other tools in his literary technique are prologues,250 speeches, letters,251 digressions, the shaping of scenes,

Jug. 9-11. X. Cyr. 8:7, esp. 13ff. 246 Cat. 2:1; 9:1. 247 Cf. D.S. 34:33. 248 Cf. for example Cat. 43-83 Metellus (63-83 together with Marius); Marius (83-114); Sulla (95-114 together with Marius). On this, cf. A. La Penna, "II ritratto paradossale da Silla a Petronio", RFIC 104 (1976), pp. 270-93; K. Vretska, "Bemerkungen zum Bau der Charakteristik bei Sallust", SO 31 (1955), pp. 105-18; G. Wille, "Der Mariusexkurs Kap. 63 im Aufbau von Sallusts Bellum Iugurthinum", in Festschrift K. Vretska (Heidelberg 1970), pp. 304-31. 249 Cf. for example the comparison between Caesar and Cato in Cat. 53-54. 250 On the structure of the prologues cf. A. D. Leeman, Form und Sinn: Studien zur rmischen Literatur (Frankfurt 1985), pp. 77ff. as well as generally E. Tiffou, Essai sur la pense morale de Salluste la lumire de ses prologues (Paris 1974). 251 Pompeius Trogus (F 172 Seel = lust. 38:3:11) already noted that Sallust inserted more or less freely invented speeches to characterize persons. On the famous speech of Marius in Jug. 85 cf. A. Klinz, "Die groe Rede des Marius (lug. 85) und ihre Bedeutung fr das Geschichtsbild des Sallust", AU 11.5 (1968), pp. 76-90.
245

244

318

STEFAN REBENICH

and denouements. 252 Marius demonstrates his deficient rhetorical training in a speech masterfully shaped by Sallust.253 After the manner of his Hellenistic models Sallust likewise emphasizes the role of chance, and strikingly portrays emotions. 254 However, he refrains from the excesses of the rhetorical and dramatic writing of history, and for example in battle scenes abstains from the gory details.255 The lively portrayal of the panic in Rome, the moving description of the field of corpses after the victory over Catiline, and the narrative of the sacrificial death of the Philaenus brothers from Carthage, which recalls Herodotus, are sufficient evidence that Sallust was quite prepared to make concessions to his readers' desire for edification. 256 As in his conception of history and history writing, so in his literary technique several streams flow together. His most important Roman model was Cato the Elder, whom he calls, at the beginning of the Historiae, Romani generis disertissimus. In shaping his own style Sallust looked back to the Censor, and thereby at the same time canonized Cato's way of writing as the standard style for Latin historiography. T h e moralizing attitude with which Sallust deplores the decline of the old Roman virtues likewise derives from Cato (and is rather foreign to Thucydides). Numerous borrowings from Cato, but also from the epic, enrich Sallust's stock of words, which is marked by archaisms; 257 varietas and brevitas258 characterize his prose, as do stylisdc precision, 259 richness of language and expressive words. He combines Atticizing clarity with great wealth of language. The linguistic presentation is to do justice to the status of the themes: facta dictis exaequanda.260 Thus he avoids empty political clichs, because
Cf. e.g. Cat. 36:4-39:5; Jug. 41-42. Jug. 85. 254 Cf. e.g. Cat. 15:4-5; Jug. 70:1; 71 : Iff.; 72:2. 255 Cf. for example the terse statements in Jug. 51:1. 256 Cat. 31:1-3; 61; Jug. 79. 257 Maurenbrecher's edition of the Histories is fundamental for discussion of Sallust's language. Cf. further G. Carboli, "I modelli dell'arcaismo. M. Porcius Catone", AION(lmg) 8 (1986), pp. 37-69; S. Koster, "Poetisches bei Sallust", in idem, Tessera: Sechs Beitrge zur Poesie und poetischen Theorie der Antike (Erlangen 1983), pp. 55-68 and E. Skard, Sallust und seine Vorgnger (Oslo 1956). 258 Cf. Quint. Inst. 4:2:45; 9:3:12; 10:2:17 as well as A. Klinz, "Brevitas Sallustiana", Anregung 28 (1982), pp. 181-87. 259 Classification of the stylistic methods in W. Kroll, "Die Sprache des Sallust", Glotta 15 (1927), pp. 280-305. 260 Cat. 3:2; cf. W. Suerbaum, "Sallust ber die Schwierigkeiten, Geschichte zu schreiben (Catil. 3, 2)", in W. Hrmann (ed.), Gegenwart der Antike (Munich 1974), pp. 83-103.
253 252

HISTORICAL PROSE

319

they had long lost their real significance.261 T h e political misuse of language is for him a further symptom of the general decline. In this area Sallust's linguistic and literary and his political convictions come together. For this reason Sallust did not make things easy with his writing: et sane manifestus est etiam ex opere ipso labor,262 As a stylist Sallust at first met with rejection. Livy, like Augustus, criticized his archaisms, 263 the Atticist historian Asinius Pollio (76 BCAD 5) his imitation of Cato 264 and Pompeius Trogus his speeches. 265 Only after Velleius Paterculus, who imitates him, and Quintilian, is he esteemed as aemulus Thucydidis.266 Martial extols him as the first Roman historian267 and Suetonius in De viris illustnbus deals with him in the first place among the writers of history.268 Tacitus finally calls him rerum Romanorumflorentissimusauctor.269 That archaists like Fronto and Gellius valued him goes without saying.270 Before Cicero however Sallust would have found no favour, had he had to stand before his judgment. In his review of the growth of Roman history writing Cicero had assigned Cato's Origines, Sallust's model, to the inidal stages, while Coelius Antipater, Licinius Macer and Cornelius Sisenna appeared to him to have reached a higher level.271 He himself in his rhetorical writings oudined a literary theory of history writing, according to which it is an opus oratonum.272 T h e ascertaining of the historical truth is indeed a basic requirement, but the chief demand is not

Cf. Cat. 52:11 with reference to Caesar's advocacy of mildness: "We have long since lost the true names for things". On vera vocabula rerum cf. Th. 3:82:4 as well as K. Bchner, "Vera vocabula rerum amisimus", Hommages R. Schilling (Paris 1983), pp. 235-61. 262 Quint. Inst. 10:3:8. 263 Livy ap. Sen. Con. 9:1:14; Suet. Aug. 86:1:3. 264 Asinius Pollio ap. Suet. Gram. 10; Gel. 10:26:1 (cf. Quint. Inst. 8:3:29). Of Pollio's 17 volume Histories, dealing with contemporary history from 60 BC, practically nothing has survived (cf. HRR II, pp. 67-70); he himself wrote a "harsh and dry" style (Tac. Dial. 21:7), so that one might have thought that as an author he was a generation older than Cicero (Quint. Inst. 10:1:113). Cf. J. H. Schmalz, ber den Sprachgebrauch des Asinius Pollio (2nd edn.; Munich 1890); . Wlfflin, "ber die Latinitt des Asinius Pollio", ALL 6 (1889), pp. 85-106 as well as G. Zecchini, "Asinio Pollione: Dall'attivit politica alla riflessione storiografica", ANRW 11.32:2 (1982), pp. 265-1296. 265 Pompeius Trogus ap. Iust. 38:3:11. 266 Veil. 2:36:2; Quint. Inst. 10:1:101 (cf. 2:5:19). 267 Mart. 14:191. 268 G. Funaioli, RE 1A.2 (1920), p. 1949. 269 Tac. Ann. 3:30:1. 270 Cf. e.g. Fro. p. 134 van den Hout; Gell. 9:14:26; 18:4:1. 271 Cic. Leg. 1:6-7; De or. 2:52-54. 272 Cf. Leg. 1:5.

261

320

STEFAN REBENICH

for research but for the artistic shaping of the material. 273 It should entertain the reader, instruct him through examples, and be politically effective. History as testis temporum, lux veritatis, vita memoriae, magistra vitae and nuntia vetustatis can attain to immortality only through the voice of the speaker. 274

XV T h e task imposed by Cicero on the language of history writing was fulfilled by T . Livius from Padua (59 B C ? ~ A D 17).275 His historical

Cf. esp. De or. 2:62 64. Cic. De or. 2.36. On Cicero's conception of historiography cf. P. A. Brunt, "Cicero and Historiography", in Miscellanea di studi classici in onore di Eugenia Manni, I (Rome 1979), pp. 311-40; F. H. Colson, "Some Considerations as to the Influence of Rhetoric on History", PCA 14 (1917), pp. 149-73; J. F. D'Alton, Roman Literary Theory and Criticism: A Study in Tendencies (London-New York 1931), pp. 49Iff.; P. Defourny, "Histoire et loquence d'aprs Cicron", LEC 21 (1953), pp. 156-66; H. Henze, Quomodo Cicero de historia eiusque auctoribus ludicavent (Diss. Jena 1899); A. P. Kelley, Historiography in Cicero (Diss. University of Pennsylvania 1969); Kennedy, pp. 295.; 239ff. and 253ff.; W. Kroll, Studien zum Verstndnis der rmischen Literatur (Stuttgart 1924), pp. 87ff. and 331ff.; A. D. Leeman, "L'historiographie dans le 'De oratore' de Cicron", BAGB (1985), III, pp. 280-88; idem, Form (as note 250), pp. 27ff.; idem, Orationis ratio (Amsterdam 1963), pp. 168ff.; A. Michel, Rhtorique et philosophie chez Cicron (Paris 1960); idem, "Rhtorique et philosophie dans les traits de Cicron", ARWl.S (1973), pp. 139-208; K. E. Petzold, "Cicero und Historie", Chiron 2 (1972), pp. 253-76; M. Rambaud, Cicron et l'histoire (Paris 1953); E. Rawson, "Cicero the Historian and Cicero the Antiquarian", JRS 62 (1972), pp. 33-45; K. A. Sinkovich, "Cicero Historicus", RSC 22 (1974), pp. 164-75; I. Trencsnyi-Waldapfel, "Posie et ralit historique dans la thorie et la pratique littraire de Cicron", Ann. Univ. Scient. Budap. (Sect. Philol.), pp. 2 (1960), pp. 3-18; B. L. Ullmann, "History and Tragedy", TAPA 73 (1942), pp. 25-53; Woodman, pp. 70ff.
274

273

Editions by W. Weissenborn and M. Mller (10 vols, with commentary; Berlin 1880-1924; reprint 1962); R. S. Conway, C. F. Walters, S . K . J o h n s o n , . H. McDonald (Books 1-35; 5 vols.; Oxford 1914-65); . . Foster, F. G. Moore, . T. Sage, A. C. Schilesinger (10 vols.; LCL; Cambridge, MA-London 1919-59; several reprints); the edition in 34 volumes planned by J. Bayet and others (Bud) is still in process of appearing (Paris 1947ff.). For separate editions, commentaries and literature cf. the relevant papers and bibliographical articles in ANRW 11.30:2 (1982), pp. 899-1263. Reference may be made in particular to E. Burck (ed.), Wege zu Livius (3rd edn.; Darmstadt 1977); idem, Das Geschichtswerk des livius (Heidelberg 1992); J. Dangel, La phrase oratoire chez Tite-Uve (Paris 1982); T. A. Dorey (ed.), Livy (London 1971); J. Fries, Der Zweikampf: Historische und literarische Aspekte seiner Darstellung bei T. Livius (Meisenheim 1985); Grtner (as note 234); F. Hellmann, Livius-Interpretationen (Berlin 1939); KJingner, pp. 458ff.; A. Klotz, RE 13.1 (1926), pp. 816-52; idem, Livius und seine Vorgnger (3 vols.; Leipzig 1940-41); E. Lefvre and E. Olshausen (eds.), Livius: Werk und Rezeption. Festschrift E. Burck (Munich 1983); . Lindemann, Beobachtungen zur livianischen Periodenkunst (Diss. Marburg 1964); T.J. Luce, Livy: The

275

HISTORICAL PROSE

321

work Ab urbe condita deals with Roman history from the beginnings to the death of Drusus in 9 BC. Of an original 142 rolls only books 1-10 and 21-45 have survived. The remainder is known to us from lists of contents (pmochae), extracts (epitomae) or fragments. Livy offers his readers two different formal principles of arrangement, with a structure in decads or pentads and an annalistic principle. 276 Other compositional elements also serve as aids to orientation. Thus at the beginning of every year Livy mentions the installation of officials, the assignment of the provinces, and the distribution of the troops, enumerates the prodigies, and refers to embassies. Then follow the expeditions and details about elections. Recurrent themes (Leitmotive) are an important means of giving the account a narrative unity. Thus in chapters 1-21 of the second book libertas stands at the central point, and the concluding part of the book then deals with the threat to libertas through internal political discordia. The coherence of the work, in composition and in terms of thought, is enhanced by the description of significant events like speeches, explanations of wars, batdes and triumphs in prominent places. Here Livy, following the "tragic" history writing, strives for dramatic presentation, in order to stir the reader. 277 However, he does not invent any new scenes and speeches, and only rarely gives way to the pathetic portrayal of horrible and ghasdy incidents.278 Livy frequently gives prominence to dialogues and individual achievements, in order to lend clarity (evidentia; ) to his presentation. 279 Direct and indirect characterization of persons is to be found, 280 as is the literary technique of syncrisis (comparison).281 Livy's historical work is successfully concerned for the refinements which Cicero had demanded: artistic arrangement of words, variety

Composition of his History (Princeton 1977); T.J. Moore, Artistry and Ideology: Livy's Vocabulary of Virtue (Frankfurt 1989); Norden, pp. 234ff.; K.-E. Petzold, Du Erffnung des zweiten Rmisch-Makedonischen Krieges: Untersuchungen zur sptannalistischen Topik bei Livius (Berlin 1940; 2nd edn.; Darmstadt 1968); Schibel (as note 219); . Trnkle, Cato in der vierten und fnften Dekade des Livius (AAWM; 1971); idem, Livius und Polybios (Basel 1977); P. G. Walsh, Lay: His Historical Aims and Methods (Cambridge 1961); G. Wille, Der Auflau des livianischen Geschichtswerks (Amsterdam 1973); Woodman, pp. 128ff. 276 Cf. Liv. 43:13:2, where he himself speaks of his annales. 277 Fundamental on this is E. Burck, Die Erzhlungskunst des T. Livius (2nd edn.; Berlin 1964). 278 Cf. for example 22:51:5-9. 279 Cf. for example 7:9:6-7:10:4; 31:18. 280 E.g. 21:4:3-9 (Hannibal); 39:40:4-12 (Cato). 281 Cf. the comparison between Papirius Cursor and Alexander the Great in 9:16:19-19:17 as well as that between Fabius Cunctator and Minucius in 22:27-29.

322

STEFAN REBENICH

in stylistic colouring, and a smooth even flow of language. 282 The influence of the annalists and of Ennius is just as demonstrable as that of Augustan authors. Following Cicero's precepts, Livy avoided the proverbial sharpness of the judgment tone, and refrained from damaging points. T h e historian too must preserve gravitas and dignitas in his presentadon. Since history writing is the task of the orator, direct speeches play an important role in Livy.283 He works out political controversies with speech and counter-speech, and sketches a picture of the person and the historical situation. 284 With his impressive and comprehensive presentation of Roman history, linguistically and stylistically polished, Livy met with so much approval that he soon ranked as the second classic of Roman historiography after Sallust. Asinius Pollio, the confirmed purist, did indeed believe that he could identify a Paduan thread, a certain Patavinitas, in his manner of expression. 285 But at most the emperor Caligula agreed with this opinion. 286 Quintilian however in his introduction for the budding orator relativized Pollio's judgment, and without the slightest reservation advised the beginner to read Livy rather than Sallust.287 Even Livy might occasionally overload his sentences, as happened

282 On Livy's language and style, which at the beginning of his history show the strongest idiosyncracies, cf. H. Aili, "Livy's Language. A Critical Survey of Research", ANRW 11.30:2 (1982), pp. 1122-1147 (with literature on the language and syntax, on the vocabulary, and on the speeches in Livy's history). Still fundamental are L. Khnast, Die Hauptpunkte der livianischen Syntax. Fr das Bedrfnis der Schule entworfen (2nd edn.; Berlin 1872) and O. Riemann, Etudes sur la langue et la grammaire de TiteLive (2nd edn.; Paris 1885); the results of these works are confirmed by H. Aili, The Prose Rhythm of Sallust and Lay (Stockholm 1979); A. H. McDonald, "The Style of Livy", JS47 (1957), pp. 155-72; J. Dangel, "Le mot, support de lecture des clausules cicroniennes et liviennes", REL 62 (1984), pp. 386-415; J. M. Gleason, Studies in Livy's Language (Diss. Harvard 1969); cf. HSP 74 (1970), pp. 336-37; Kennedy, pp. 420ff.; D. K. Smith, "The Styles of Sallust and Livy. Defining Terms", CB 61 (1985), pp. 79-83; H. Trnkle, "Beobachtungen und Erwgungen zum Wandel der livianischen Sprache", WS NF 2 (1968), pp. 103-52; T. Viljamaa, Infinitive of Narration in Iky: A Study in Narrative Technique (Turku 1983). 283 On the speeches cf. H. V. Canter, "Livy the Orator", CJ 9 (1913/14), pp. 24-34; idem, "Rhetorical Elements in Livy's Direct Speeches", AJP 38 (1917), pp. 125-51 and 39 (1918), pp. 44-64; K. Gries, "Livy's Use of Dramatic Speech", AJP 70 (1949), pp. 118-41; A. Lambert, Die indirekte Rede als knstlerisches Stilmittel des Livius (Zrich 1946); R. Ulimann, Etude sur le style des discours de Tite-Live (Oslo 1929). 284 Cf. the debate between Fabius Cunctator and Scipio Africanus in 28:40-44, which shows elements of the Thucydidean style of speech; on this see B. S. Rodgers, "Great Expeditions. Livy on Thucydides", TAPA 116 (1986), pp. 335-52. 285 Quint. Inst. 8:1:3; 1:5:56. 286 Suet. Cal. 34:4. 287 Quint. Inst. 2:5:19.

HISTORICAL PROSE

323

for example when he said that "The ambassadors, having failed to obtain peace, went back home, whence they had come". 288 Quintilian saw in such sentences rare aberrations, which did not do any damage either to clarity and intelligibility or to Livy's ladea ubertas.289 Although Livy had not gone to school with any Greek model, as Sallust had with Thucydides, Quintilian compared him with a classic of Greek historiography, namely Herodotus. 290 But Livy could match Herodotus only as a writer, not as historiae auctor. in the portrayal of events (in narrando) Livy combined "wonderful charm" with "the most luminous clarity", in the shaping of official speeches and commanders' addresses (in contionibus) he showed himself "more eloquent than can be expressed in words". Livy's success also reflects the political changes at the beginning of the period of the Principate. 291 As in the Greek east when the great Hellenistic empires arose, so now in Rome the number of the citizens who participated in important political decisions steadily declined. As a result the expectations for a historical work shifted: people wanted to be entertained rather than instructed, the political utility which Sallust had still written into his pages gave way to literary enjoyment. At the same time the demands which an educated public now posed for historiography increased. Livy, a non-senator and provincial, met these expectations with a finished style and a sure mastery of language. In his work the Roman annalistic tradition reached its fulfilment.

XVI The historians of the Julio-Claudian era adorned their works with rhetorical figures and availed themselves of the narrative techniques of rhetoric. This is shown also by the Historiarum Philippicarum libri XLIV of Pompeius Trogus, 292 who had Gallic ancestors and probably
Quint. Inst. 8:3:53 = Liv. F 75 Weienborn/Mller (LCL translation). Quint. Inst. 2:5:19; 10:1:32. Cf. F. Quadlbauer, "Livi lactea ubertasBemerkungen zu einer quintilianischen Formel und ihrer Nachwirkung", in Lefvre and Olshausen (eds.), Livius (as note 275), pp. 347-66. 290 Quint. Inst. 10:1:101-2. 291 Cf. W. Hoffmann, "Livius und die rmische Geschichtsschreibung", A & A 4 (1954), pp. 170-86. 292 Edition by . Seel (Leipzig 1935; 2nd edn. Stuttgart 1972); cf. J. M. AlonsoNunez, "An Augustan World History. The Historiae Philippicae of Pompeius Trogus",
289 288

324

STEFAN REBENICH

worked under Tiberius. He compiled the first universal history in Latin in 44 books, which survive only in Justinus's epitome. Roman history down to 20 BC is only dealt with in the last two books, while in the central place (books 7-40) stand the Macedonian monarchy and the empires of the Diadochi, which merge into the Roman empire. Among Trogus's historiographical techniques, following Hellenistic models, are digressions of geographical and ethnographical content and prologues; a striking feature in his rhetorically elevated style is his aversion to direct speeches. In the Augustan period the senatorial writing of history had still retained something of its old freedom. Cremutius Cordus 293 for example "did not indeed speak ill about Caesar and Augustus, but did not show any unusual respect for them". 294 Augustus even sat among the listeners as he read from his historical work.295 The climate however grew perceptibly worse. The same Cremutius in AD 25, at the instance of Sejanus, had to answer for himself before the senatorial court, because in his history he had praised Brutus and called Cassius the last Roman. Thereafter he was forced to take his own life. His books were confiscated and publicly burnt. 296 The history of the JulioClaudian emperors was "falsified from fear, so long as they flourished, but written with a fresh hatred after they were dead". 297 A historian typical of the time, with clear encomiastic traits, is Velleius Paterculus, 298 born about 20 BC, who under Tiberius compiled a twoG & R 34 (1987), pp. 56-72; idem, La Historia universal de Pompeyo Trogo. Coordenadas espacialesy temporales (Madrid 1992); L. Ferrero, Struttura e metodo dell'Epitome di Giustino (Turin 1957); G. Forni and M. G. Angeli Bertinelli, "Pompeo Trogo come fonte di storia", ANRW 11.30:2 (1982), pp. 1298-1362; A. Klotz, RE 21.2 (1952), pp. 230013 (Nr. 142); H. D. Richter, Untersuchungen zur hellenistischen Historiographie. Die Vorlagen des Pompeius Trogus fur du Darstellung der nachalexandnnischen hellenistischen Geschichte (lust. 13-40) (Frankfurt 1987); O. Seel, Die Praefatio des Pompeius Trogus (Erlangen 1955); idem, Eine rmische Weltgeschichte: Studien zum Text der Epitome des Iustinus und zur Historik des Pompeius Trogus (Nrnberg 1972); idem, "Pompeius Trogus und das Problem der Universalgeschichte", ANRW 11.30:2 (1982), pp. 1363-1423; R. Urban, '"Gallisches Bewutsein' und 'Romkritik' bei Pompeius Trogus", ANRW 11.30:2 (1982), pp. 1424-43. 293 HRR II, pp. 87-90. 294 D. C. 57:24:3. 295 Suet. Tib. 61:3. 296 Tac. Ann. 4:34. Some copies could however be saved, so that under Caligula an "expurgated" new edition appeared (Quint. Inst. 10:1:104; Suet. Cal. 16:1). Cf. W. Speyer, Biichervemichtung und Zensur des Geistes bei Heiden, Juden und Christen (Stuttgart 1981), pp. 65 and 87-88. 297 Tac. Ann. 1:1:2. 298 Editions: R. Ellis (Oxford 1898; 2nd edn. 1928); J. Hellegouarc'h (2 vols.;

HISTORICAL PROSE

325

volume "Roman History". The first book deals in 18 chapters with the period from the end of the Trojan War to 146 BC, the second contains 131 chapters and presents in increasing detail the span from 146 BC to the time of Velleius, culminating in a panegyric on Tiberius. 299 In similar fashion to Livy's annalistic procedure, Velleius holds to the chronological sequence and depicts alternately events in Italy and abroad. Terse dramatic presentations alternate with rhetorically stylized, loosely attached sections. Through the fact that he groups what happened around personalities, his work also has biographical features. His rhetorical training shows itself in an abundance of examples, which are likewise found in Livy, and in the frequent use of antitheses, variations, rhythmic ends to sentences, characterizations of individuals and syncriseis. Also to the Tiberian period belong the Facta et dicta memorabilia of Valerius Maximus, arranged according to subject-groups; he compiled this rhetorical collection of exempla for continuous reading for a fastidious literary public. The exemplum does not strive for historical truth, but is intended to stimulate to delectio and admiratio. Valerius adopted the casuistic employment of the example in forensic rhetoric; later authors follow him in the stereotyped use of the canonized historical examples. 300

Bud; Paris 1982); cf. the annotated edition of the section 2 : 4 1 9 3 by A.J. Woodman (Cambridge 1977). Cf. further E. Bolaffi, De Vetleiano sermone et quibusdam dicendi generis quaestionibus selectis (Pisauri 1925); idem, "Tre storiografi latini del I secolo d. C.: Velleio Patercolo, Valerio Massimo, Curzio Rufo", GIF 13 (1960), pp. 336-45; L. Castiglioni, "Alcune osservazioni a Velleio Patercolo", RAL 8.7.5-10 (1931), pp. 268-73; F. Delia Corte, "I giudizi letterari di Velleio Patercolo", RFIC NS 15 (1937), pp. 154-59; A. De Vivo, "Luxuria e mos maiorum. Indirizzi programmatici della storiografia velleiana", Vichiana 13 (1984), pp. 249-64; A. Dihle, RE 8A.1 (1955), pp. 637-59; C. Kuntze, Zur Darstellung des Kaisers Tiberius und seiner Zeit bei Velleius Paterculus (Frankfurt 1985); D.J. McGonagle, Rhetorik and Biography in Velleius Paterculus (Diss. Ohio State Univ. 1970), cf. DA 31 (1971), p. 3528A; F. Portalupi, "Osservazioni sullo stile di Velleio Paterculo", CCC 8 (1987), pp. 39-57; J. R. Starr, A Literary Introduction to Velleius Paterculus (Diss. Princeton 1978), cf. DA 39 (1979), p. 5491 A; idem, "Velleius' Literary Techniques in the Organization of his History", TAPA 110 (1980), pp. 2 8 7 301; idem, "The Scope and the Genre of Velleius History", CQ NS 31 (1981), pp. 162-74; H.J. W. Verhaak, Velleius Paterculus en de rhetoriek van zijn tjid (Diss. Nijmegen 1954); A.J. Woodman, "Questions of Date, Genre, and Style in Velleius: Some Literary Answers", CQ, NS 25 (1975), pp. 272-305; idem, "Sallustian Influence on Velleius Paterculus", in J. Bibauw (ed.), Hommages M. Renard, I (Bruxelles 1969), pp. 785-99. Futher literature in J. Hellegouarc'h, "Etat prsent des travaux sur l'Histoire Romaine de Vellius Paterculus", ANRW 11.32:1 (1984), pp. 404-36. 299 On the unusual but consciously chosen form cf. Veil. 1:14:1; 1:16:1 and J. Hellegouarc'h, "Lire et comprende. Quelques remarques sur le texte de l'Histoire romaine de Velleius Paterculus", REL 54 (1976), pp. 239-56, here 240. 300 On this cf. R. Honstetter, Exemplum zwischen Rhetorik und Literatur: Zur gattungs-

326

STEFAN REBENICH

From the first century AD we need only mention the history of Alexander by Curtius Rufus (Historiae Alexandra Magni Macedonis), an account written in the historiographical tradition of Hellenism with clear novelistic features which attests the reality of the Alexander myth in the imperial period. T h e work is enlivened by numerous speeches, which throw its rhetorical character into special relief, and by a dramatic stylizing of what took place.301 All the remaining historical works from the first century are lost: the Annales of Festenella, oriented towards cultural history, the presentation of Cremutius Cordus already mentioned, the continuation of Livy's historical work by Aufidius Bassus, who in addition dealt with the German wars of the Augustan period, the contemporary histories of the emperor Claudius, the elder Seneca and the elder Pliny, who wrote 20 books bella Germaniae302 and a history a fine Aufidi Bassi extending to Vespasian, and the historical works of Servilius Nonianus, Cluvius Rufus and Fabius Rusticus. 303

XVII T h e high point and the conclusion of early imperial history writing is embodied in P. (?) Cornelius Tacitus (about AD 55-115), who as consul in AD 98 began with the biography of his father-in-law Agricola and his Germania, and then went on to deal with the period from

geschichtlichen Sonderstellung von Valerius Maximus und Augustinus (Diss. Constance 1977) and G. Maslakov, "Valerius Maximus and Roman Historiography. A Study of the Exempla Tradition", ANRW 11.32:1 (1984), pp. 437-96 with further literature. We may add W. M. Bloomer, Valerius Maximus and the Rhetoric of the New Nobility (London 1992). 301 Of the original ten books, the first two are missing, as are the beginning of the third, the end of the fifth, the beginning of the sixth, and parts of the tenth. Proposals for the dating of Q. Curtius Rufus range from Augustus to Theodosius; very probably he wrote in the first century AD (under Vespasian?). Cf. H. Bdefeld, Untersuchungen zur Datierung der Alexandergeschichte des Curtius Rufus (Diss. Dsseldorf 1982); Hammond, Three Historians (note 51); . Holzberg, Hellenistisches und Rmisches in der Philippos-Episode bei Curtius Ruis (3, 5, 1~6, 20) (Munich 1988); R. Porod, Der Literat Curtius. Tradition und Neugestaltung: %ur Frage der Eigenstndigkeit des Schriftstellers Curtius (Graz 1987); W. Rutz, "Zur Erzhlkunst des Q. Curtius Rufus", ANRW 11.32:4 (1986), pp. 2329-57; Seibert, Alexander der Groe (note 51), pp. 29-34 with further literature. 302 On this cf. also K. Sallman, "Der Traum des Historikers: Zu den 'Bella Germaniae' des Plinius und zur julisch-claudischen Geschichtsschreibung", ANRW 11.32:1 (1984), pp. 578-601. 303 Cf. HRR II, pp. CVIIIIff. and 79ff.

HISTORICAL PROSE

327

AD 14 to 96 in his Histories and Annals, written under Trajan and Hadrian. 304 The Histories are devoted to contemporary history from the beginning of the Year of the Four Emperors to the assassination of Domitian; the extant parts, from book 1 to the opening of the fifth book, relate to the years AD 69/70. The Annals (Ab excessu Divi Augusti) recount the history of the Julio-Claudian house from Tiberius to Nero; still extant are books 1-4, the opening of book 5, book 6 (but without a beginning) and books 11-16 with lacunae at the beginning and end. In his presentation Tacitus remained an "annalist", and accordingly rooted in the tradition of Roman historiography; he fully acknowledged the laws of the genre coined by Sallust and Livy. The annalisdc principle is the reason why at the beginning of every year the names of the consules ordinam are noted; then follow the deeds of the emperor, military events, meetings of the senate, occurrences in the city of Rome and the deaths of prominent personalities. Tacitus does deplore the necessity of separating proceedings which belong closely together, because they took place in different years, 305 but nonetheless he disregards the pattern only in exceptional cases.306 Yet it is not the division of years but rather Tacitus's conscious shaping that is decisive for the arrangement of the material. T h e art of the

To open up research into Tacitus, now beyond any survey, cf. the detailed studies, surveys of research and bibliographical articles in ANRW 11.33:2 (1990), ANRW 11.33:3 (1990), ANRW 11.33:4 (1991) and ANRW 11.33:5 (1991). Among comprehensive surveys the following may be mentioned: E. Aubrion, Rhtorique et histoire chez Tacite (Metz 1985); I. Borzsk, RE Sup. 11 (1968), pp. 373-512; K. Bchner, Tacitus und Ausklang, Studien zur rmischen Uteratur, IV (Wiesbaden 1964); D. Flach, Tacitus und die Tradition der antiken Geschichtsschreibung (Gttingen 1973); J. Ginsburg, Tradition and Theme in the Annals of Tacitus (New York 1981); H. Heubner, Studien zur Darstellungskunst des Tacitus (Hist. 1,12~2,51) (Wrzburg 1935); Klingner, pp. 483ff. und 504ff.; Leeman, Form (as note 250), pp. 305ff. und 317ff.; V. Pschl (ed.), Tacitus (2nd edn.; Darmstadt 1986); G. Radke (ed.), Politik und literarische Kunst im Werk des Tadtus (Stuttgart 1971); U. Rademacher, Die Bildkunst des Tacitus (Hildesheim 1975); R. Syme, Tadtus (2 vols.; Oxford 1958); idem, Ten Studies in Tadtus (Oxford 1970); M. Vielberg, Pichte, Werte, Ideale: Eine Untersuchung zu den Wertvorstellungen des Tadtus (Stuttgart 1987); G. Wille, Der Aufbau der Werke des Tacitus (Amsterdam 1983); Woodman, pp. 160ff. From the flood of editions (and translations) we may mention: Ann. H. Furneaux (2 vols., text and commentary; 2nd edn.; Oxford 1896/1916); K. Nipperdey and G. Andresen (2 vols., text and commentary; 11th edn./6th edn.; Berlin 1915/1908); W. Heubner (Stuttgart 1983), cf. also the commentary by E. Koestermann (4 vols.; Heidelberg 1963-68). Hist. C. D. Fisher (Oxford 1911); H. Heubner (Stuttgart 1978); W. Heraeus (2 vols., text and commentary; 5th edn./ 4th edn.; Leipzig 1904/1899), commentary by H. Heubner (5 vols., vol. 5 with W. Fauth; Heidelberg 1963-1982); Ger., Ag., Dial. M. Winterbottom and R. M. Ogilvie (Oxford 1975). 305 Ann. 4:71; 12:40. 306 E.g. Ann. 12:40; 15:48, 50.

304

328

STEFAN REBENICH

composition, the increasing, contrasting or anticipatory arrangement, assigns to each happening the function that is due to it in the work as a whole. Again and again Tacitus works with illuminating contrasts: the usurpation by the energetic Flavians is blended into the sluggish victory march of the Vitellians, to relativize it.307 The stubborn silence of a prostitute is set against the cowardly treason of the senators.308 Frequently the antagonism between two persons determines the presentation. Dominant in the Agricola is the tension between the protagonist and Domitian, in the first books of the Annals that between Germanicus and Tiberius, in the later between Nero and Corbulo, in the Histories between Galba, who represents the old Roman virtus, and Otho, who is a "worthy" successor of Nero. Particularly expressive is the actualizing of historiographical models and traditions in the styling of personalities. Thus Tacitus harks back to the Alexander motif, in order to characterize Agricola and Germanicus.309 Yet the description of persons is never stereotyped, individual traits are not denied, and space is given to apposite psychological interpretations. Letters and both direct and indirect speeches likewise serve for the characterizing of persons and situations.310 T h e capacity for the scenic shaping of a historical event becomes clear precisely in particular episodes from the Year of the Four Emperors. 311 Dramatically constructed complexes of action and impressive portraits of character are harmoniously linked together. In great things as in small the literary and linguistic elements of historiography are skilfully united with one another, in order to set forth the real factors in historical change.
Ht. 2:74-86. Ann. 15:51. 309 Cf. already Norden, pp. 337-38, as well as I. Borzsk, "Alexander der Groe als Muster taciteischer Heldendarstellung", (iymnasium 89 (1982), pp. 37-56 and L. W. Rudand, "The Tacitean Germanicus. Suggestions for a Re-Evaluation", RhM 30 (1987), pp. 153-64 with further literature. 3.0 J. Ginsburg, "Speech and Allusion in Tacitus, Annals 3, 49-51 and 14, 48-49", AJP 107 (1986), pp. 525-41; G. A. Harrer, "Senatorial Speeches and Letters in Tacitus' Annals", SPh 15 (1918), pp. 333-43; B. Maier, "Othos Rede an die Prtorianer. Gedanken zu Tacitus, hist. 1, 37-38", Anregung 31 (1985), pp. 168-73; R. H. Martin, "The Speech of Curtius Montanus: Tacitus, Histories 4.42", JRS 57 (1967), pp. 109-14; N. P. Miller, "Dramatic Speech in Tacitus", AJ 85 (1964), pp. 279-96; D. C. A. Shotter, "The Debate on Augustus: Tacitus, Annals 1.9-10", Mnemosyne 20 (1967), pp. 171-74. Reference may also be made to the interpretation of the Percennius speech at Ann. 1:16-17 in E. Auerbach, Mimesis: The Representation of Reality in Western Literature (Garden City, NY 1957), pp. 29ff. 3.1 Cf. Hist. 2:70; 2:89; 3:67-68; 3:843-44.
308 307

HISTORICAL PROSE

329

Consciously setting himself apart from the Flavian writing of history, Tacitus seeks to write sine ira et studio, and accordingly adheres to the principles of discovering the truth and of impartiality. 312 T o this end he created a stylistic prose which Pliny described as :313 Tacitus combines a piquant, extremely terse and pictorial style314 with archaic and poetic turns of phrase, new combinations of words, inconcinnities and antitheses.315 His manner of writing developed ever more sharply from work to work, and attains the high point of its individuality in the first six books of the Annals. T h e style, language and composition of Tacitus's work are placed at the service of his historiographie aim, the perception that Principate and freedom are incompatible.

XVIII With Tacitus the style of historiography stamped by Sallust reached its climax. With him at the same time the senatorial writing of history came to an end. T h e rhetorical training of the high imperial period wished for concise handbooks like the outline of Florus or the annalistic introduction of Granius Licinianus. In the first half of the second century, probably during the reign of the emperor Hadrian, L. Annaeus Florus316 gave a survey of the external and internal wars
Hist. 1:1; Ann. 1:1. Plin. Ep. 2:11:17. 3.4 B.-R. Voss, Der pointierte Stil des Tacitus (Mnster 1963). 3.5 Cf. J. Hellegouarc'h, "Le style de Tacite: bilan et perspectives", ANRW 11.33:4 (1991), pp. 2385-2453, as well as the contributions published in the same volume by J. Dangel, "Les structures de la phrase oratoire chez Tacite: Etude syntaxique, rythmique et mtrique", ibid., pp. 2454-2538; D. Longre, "La phrase rallonge chez Tacite", ibid., 2539-2580; S. Borzsk, "Tacitusein Manierist?", ibid., pp. 25812596; E. Aubrion, "L'eloquenda de Tacite et sa fides d'historien", ibid., pp. 2 5 9 7 2688; R. G. Tanner, "The Development of Thought and Style in Tacitus", ibid., pp. 2689-2751; M. Billerbeck, "Die dramatische Kunst des Tacitus", ibid., 27522771; . Keitel, "The Structure and Function of Speeches in Tacitus' Histories I III", ibid., pp. 2772-2794; P. Sinclair, "Rhetorical Generalizations in Annales 1-6. A Review of the Problem of Innuendo and Tacitus' Integrity", ibid., pp. 2795-2831; A. Malissard, "Le dcor dans les 'Histoires' et les 'Annales'. Du strotype l'intention signifiante", ibid., pp. 2832-2878 and M. Giua, "Paesaggio, natura, ambiente, come elementi strutturali dlia storiografia di Tacito", ibid., pp. 2879-2902. On the language and style of the Annales cf. the survey in W. Suerbaum, "Zweiundvierzig Jahre Tacitus-Forschung: Systematische Gesamtbibliographie zu Tacitus' Annales 1939-1980", ANRW 11.33:2 (1990), pp. 1032-1476, here 1292-1323. 3.6 Editions: E. Malcovati (Rome 1938; 2nd edn. 1972); P. Jal (2 vols.; Bud;
313 312

330

STEFAN REBENICH

which Rome had conducted from the beginnings of the city to the time of Augustus. T o this were added descriptions of the siege and capture of cities, mirabilia, scenic presentations, individual characterizations and geographical and ethnographical digressions. A language rich in imagery, a diction close to poetry, the frequent use of figures of sound and sense, all make it clear that Florus wished to write more than a mere school-book. His presentation of history is not a historical work, but an opus oratonum conforming to the Ciceronian ideal, which seeks to reproduce Roman history rhetonce et tragice.317 Whether his periodizing of history according to "ages of life" goes back to the elder or the younger Seneca is a matter of debate. 318 Granius Licinianus 319 put out a factual compendium, interspersed with source-critical notes and inserts about cultural history, in which the material was epitomized in order according to years. The pretentious literary surveys, which fused together diverse historiographical elements, sought to impress the educated elite of the western half of the empire. This circle of readers found edification also in collections of historical exempta and studied dry compendia for school instruction like the Liber memonalis of Ampelius.320 At the same time interest grew in biographies of emperors, such as Suetonius had put forth about AD 120. In the high imperial period the rhetorical elements,

Paris 1967); E. S. Forster (LCL, together with Cornelius Nepos; Cambridge, MALondon 1929). Cf. V. Alba, IM concepcin historiogrfica de Lucio Anneo Floro (Madrid 1953); J. M. Alonso-Nnez, Die politische und soziale Ideologie des Geschichtsschreibers Florus (Bonn 1983); L. Bessone, "Floro: un retore storico e poeta", ANRW 11.34:1 (1993), pp. 80-117; C. Facchini Tosi, II proemio di Floro: La struttura concetuale e formale (Bologna 1990); Hose, pp. 53fT.; A. Klotz, "Der zweite Punische Krieg bei Florus", RAM 89 (1940), pp. 114 27; S. Lilliedahl, Florusstudieru Beitrge zur Kenntnis des rhetorischen Stils der Silbernen Latimtt (Lund-Leipzig 1928); Norden II, pp. 598ff.; R. Sieger, "Der Stil des Historikers Florus", WS 51 (1933), pp. 95-108; P. Steinmetz, Untersuchungen zur rmischen Literatur des zweiten Jahrhunderts nach Christi Geburt (Wiesbaden 1982), pp. 12Iff.; P. Zancan, Floro e Livio (Padua 1942). On the background cf. also S. Jannaccone, "Appunti per una storia dlia storiografia retorica nel II secolo", GIF 14 (1961), pp. 289-307. 317 Cic. Leg. 1:5; Brut. 43; cf. Woodman, pp. 98ff. 318 Cf. Lact. Inst. 7:15:14fF. as well as J. M. Alonso-Nunez, The Ages of Rome (Amsterdam 1982); L. Castiglioni, "Lattanzio e le Storie de Seneca Padre", RFIC 56 (1928), pp. 45475; R. Haussier, "Vom Ursprung und Wandel des Lebensaltervergleichs", Hermes 92 (1964), pp. 313-41. 319 Editions by M. Flemisch (Leipzig 1904; reprinted Stuttgart 1967) and N. Criniti (Leipzig 1981). For further reading cf. . Criniti and Granio Liciniano, 711.34:1 (1993), pp. 119-205. 320 The suggestions for dating range from the second to the fourth or fifth century. On Ampelius and his work cf. HLL 5, 530.

HISTORICAL PROSE

331

on the one hand, penetrated ever more strongly into history writing, so far as it was intended to serve for instruction and for training;321 on the other hand Suetonius through his biographies of the Caesars, which were in part in competition with historiography, made the relatively simple style of the grammaticus presentable for fastidious readers. Justin's epitome from the universal history of Pompeius Trogus probably still belongs in the third century. He mingled excerpts with accounts of the content, and concentrated on exempta. The third century may, like the early imperial period and late antiquity, have possessed Livy's historical work in an abridged version of its own.322 In the fourth century the high government officials Sextus Aurelius Victor, 323 Eutropius 324 and (Rufius) Festus325 continued the tradition of the historical oudine, ever more biographically structured. The brevity desired by the public now became a norm for the genre: 326 brevemfiericlementia tua praecepit.32? The Annales of Virius Nicomachus Flavianus, a senator and high official of the empire, show that in the circles of the pagan aristocracy also old forms of historiography were nurtured. 328 It was however Ammianus Marcellinus, 329 born about AD 330 in

On this cf. now Hose, pp. 5ff. and R. Nicolai, IM. storiografia netl'educazione antica (Pisa 1992) with further literature. 322 Cf. HLL 5, 533.1. 323 HLL 5, 537. Cf. now also J. Fugmann, Knigszeit und frhe Republik in der Schrift "De viris ilkistnbus Romae" Quellenkritisch-historische Untersuchungen 1. Knigszeit (Frankfurt 1990). 324 HLL 5, 538. 325 HLL 5, 539.1. 326 Cf. also Rhet. Lat. Min. 588. 327 Ruf. Fest. 1. 328 Cf. W. Schlumberger, "Die verlorenen Annalen des Nicomachus Flavianus. Ein Werk ber die Geschichte der rmischen Republik oder Kaiserzeit", BHAC 1982/83 (Bonn 1985), pp. 305-29. 329 Editions by W. Seyfarth, L. Jacob-Karau, I. Ulmann (2 vols.; Leipzig 1978) a n d j . C. Rolfe (3 vols.; LCL; Cambridge, MA-London 1935-39). The Bud edition, on which so far E. Gallatier, J. Fontaine, G. Sabbah and M. A. Marie have been working, is not yet complete (Paris 1968ff.). Cf. further N.J. E. Austin, Ammianus on Warfare. Investigation into Ammianus' Military Knowledge (Brussels 1979); N. Bitter, Kampschilderungen bet Ammianus Marcellinus (Bonn 1976); R. C. Blockley, Ammianus MarceUinus: A Study of his Historiography and Political Thought (Brussels 1975); K. Bringmann, "Ammianus Marcellinus als sptantiker rmischer Historiker", A & A 19 (1973), pp. 4460; G. Calboli, "Ammian und die Geschichtsschreibung seiner Zeit", in Festschrift R. Muth (Innsbruck 1983), pp. 33-53; H. Cichocka, "Die Konzeption des Exkurses im Geschichtswerk des Ammianus Marcellinus", Eos 63 (1975), pp. 329-40; C.J. Classen, "Greek and Roman in Ammianus Marcellinus' History", MusAft 1 (1972), pp. 39-47; A. Demandt, Zeitkritik und Geschichtsbild im Werk Ammians (Bonn 1965);

321

332

STEFAN

REBENICH

Antioch, who first overcame the almost three hundred year old crisis in Roman history writing, which more and more spent itself in collections of exempla and in compendia. In his Res gestae, compiled shortly before AD 400, Ammianus as "a former soldier and a Greek"330 glorified Rome, the old capital of the empire and the seat of the senate. This rhetorically educated Greek chose Latin as the medium of his historical presentation. His syntax and style are however influenced by his Greek mother-tongue, as is shown for example by his frequent use of all the participles (including present and future). In his use of the moods and tenses too he often goes against Latin usage.331 He begins his history with Nerva, and thus continues the work of Tacitus, from whom he also draws stylistic inspiration.332 The linguistic influence of the Histories is especially perceptible at the beginning of books. In addition he avails himself of the terminology created by Sallust and Livy. In line with the usage of his time, biography also influences his literary technique. His historical presentation combines the chronological principle with the geographical; the very abundance of the scenes of action already makes the annalistic principle obsolete. As already to some extent in Tacitus, the material is structured accord-

H. Drexler, Ammianstudien (Hildesheim 1974); J. Fontaine, "Ammien Marcellin, historien romantique", BAGB (1969), pp. 417-35; H. Grtner, Einige berlegungen zur kaisazeitlichen Panegyrik und zu Ammians Charakteristik des Kaisers Julian (AAWM; 1968); H. Hagendahl, Studio Ammianea (Diss. Uppsala 1921); A. Helttula, "Post depositum militiae munus. Official Phraseology in Ammianus Marcellinus", ArctosSup. 2 (1985), pp. 41-56; M. Kautt-Bender, Vielfalt und Funktion der Darstellungselemente in den Res gestae des Ammianus Marcellinus (Heidelberg 1991); J. F. Matthews, The Roman Empire of Ammnianus (London 1989); A. Momigliano, "The Lonely Historian Ammianus Marcellinus", ASNP 4 (1974), pp. 1239-1407; K.-G. Neumann, Taciteisches im Werk des Ammianus Marcellinus (Munich 1987); S. M. Oberhelman, "The Provenance of the Style of Ammianus Marcellinus", QJJCC N.s. 27.3 (1987), pp. 79-89; W. Richter, "Die Darstellung der Hunnen bei Ammianus Marcellinus (31,2,1-11)", Historia 23 (1974), pp. 343-77; . Rosen, Ammianus Marcellinus (Darmstadt 1982); G. Sabbah, La mthode d'Ammien Marcellin. Recherches sur la construction du discours historique dans les Res gestae (Paris 1978); C. Samberger, Die Kaiserbiographie in den Res gestae des Ammianus Marcellinus. Eine Untersuchung zur Komposition der ammianischen Geschichtsschreibung (Berlin 1968); R. Seager, Ammianus Marcellinus: Seven Studies in his Language and Thought (Missouri 1986); R. Syme, Ammianus and the Historia Augusta (Oxford 1968); H. Trnkle, "Ammianus Marcellinus als rmischer Geschichtsschreiber", A & A 11 (1962), pp. 21-33; J. Vogt, Ammianus Marcellinus als erzhlender Geschichtsschreiber der Sptzeit (AAWM; 1963). 330 Amm. Marc. 31:16:9. 331 Cf. already Norden II, p. 648. 332 R. C. Blockley, "Tacitean Influences upon Ammianus", Latomus 32 (1973), pp. 63-78; A. Borzsk, "Von Tacitus zu Ammian", AAntHung 24 (1976), pp. 357-68; D. Flach, "Von Tacitus zu Ammian", Historia 21 (1972), pp. 333-50; L. E. Wilshire, "Did Ammianus Write a Continuation of Tacitus?", J 68 (1972/73), pp. 221-27.

HISTORICAL PROSE

333

ing to content and for dramatic effect. The descriptions of batdes are carefully organized into preparation, conflict, flight and pursuit, and outcome; in his portrayals rhetorical methods and dramatic effect are not ruled out.333 Digressions and anecdotic inserts334 are not lacking, as are dreams, portents and prophecies. The speeches are shaped artistically and in accordance with the ancient historiographical tradition.335 Yet Ammianus does not follow the appointed rules in every respect, but is perfectly prepared to take liberties in composition, style and language. Departing from the traditional history writing, he introduces into his work rather more frequent digressions, geographical and ethnographical, religious, astronomical and relating to the natural sciences;336 he narrates in the "we-form", and takes liberties with his word arrangement. 337 He avoids neither neologisms nor Greek citations338 nor unusual metaphors. 339 The Res gestae in 31 books, of which only the last 18 are extant (covering the years AD 353-378), show themselves indebted to the old ideal of Veritas.3*0 At the close of the fourth century AD the pagan Ammianus still vouches, with great suggestive power and moral impetus, for the combination of fortuna and virtus as the real cause of the greatness of Rome. 341 At the end of his history he calls upon his successors: procudere linguas ad maiores moneo stilos,342 The sentence was to die away unheard.

Cf. e.g. the portrayal of the battle at Strasbourg (357) in 16:12. E.g. 16:5:11-12; 16:10:16; 22:4:9; 29:3:3-4. 335 Cf. Julian's last address in 25:3:15ff. 336 Cf. already T. Mommsen, "Ammians Geographica", Hermes 16 (1881), pp. 602-36, here 635-36 = idem, Gesammelte Schriften, VII (Berlin 1909), pp. 393-425, here 424-25, as well as U. Richter, "Die Funktion der Digressionen im Werk Ammians", WJA 15 (1989), pp. 209-22 and A. Emmett, "Introductions and Conclusions to Digressions in Ammianus Marcellinus", MPhL 5 (1981), pp. 15-33. 337 At the end of part of a sentence, or of individual sentences, the position of the words is however conditioned by the rhythm of the sentence, which at the end of the fourth century, in contrast to classical literature, depended not on the quantity of syllables but on the word-accent, cf. A. M. Harmon, The Clausula in Ammianus Marcellinus (New Haven 1910). 338 Cf. for example 17:4:17ff.; 21:14:1; 25:4:17; 31:1. 339 Cf. F. W. Jenkins, "Theatrical Metaphors in Ammianus Marcellinus", Eranos 85 (1987), pp. 55-63 and I. Ulmann, Metaphern in den Res gestae des Ammianus Marcellinus (Diss. Berlin 1975). 340 31:16:9. 341 14:6:3. 342 31:16:9.
334

333

334

STEFAN REBENICH

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL

APPENDIX

Significant literature on the individual authors will be found in the relevant footnotes. Reference is made only in exceptional cases to entries in encyclopaedias of antiquity and articles in literary histories. Special mention may be made of the more recent studies in literary history: P. E. Easterling, B. W. Knox, E.J. Kenney, W. V. Clausen (eds.), The

Cambridge History of Classical Literature (2 vols, in 9; Cambridge 1982-89): L. Canfora, Storia della letteratura greca (Bari 1986); A. Dihle, Griechische Literaturgeschichte: Von Homer bis zum Hellenismus (2nd edn.; Munich 1991); A. Lesky, Geschichte der griechischen Literatur (3rd edn.; Berne-Munich 1971
[= Munich 1993]); M. von Albrecht, Geschichte der rmischen Literatur (2 vols.; 2nd edn.; Munich 1994); HLL 5. T h e following older histories of literature should however be particularly singled out:

W. Schmid and W. Sthlin, Griechische Literatur (HAW 7, I 1-5; 7th edn.;


Munich 1929-48), II 1 - 2 (6th edn.; Munich 1920-25); M. von Schanz, des Kaisers Justinian (HAW, 8; 5 vols. l s t - 4 t h edns.; Munich 1914-35); W. S. (3 vols.; 6 / 7 t h edn.; Leipzig 1913-20); E. Norden, Die rmische Literatur. Mit

C. Hosius, G. Krger, Geschichte der rmischen Literatur bis zum Gesetzgebungswer

Teuffei, Geschichte der rmischen Literatur. Neu bearbeitet von W. Kroll und F. Skuts

Anhang: Die lateinische Literatur im bergang vom Altertum zum Mittelalter (6th edn.; Leipzig 1961); F. Leo, Geschichte der rmischen Literatur. I. Die archaische Literatur (Berlin 1913). These studies offer copious observations on language, style and literary technique, and cite older literature in detail. In addition the collections of basic contributions on ancient historiography by A. Momig-

liano in Primo-nono contribute alia storia degli studi classici e del mondo antico (Rom 1955-92) and H. Strasburger in Studien zur Alten Geschichte (vol. 2; HildesheimN e w York 1982) should also be consulted. Finally, numerous articles important for the theme are to be found in G. Ueding (ed.), Historisches Wrterbuch der Rhetorik (Tbingen 1992ff.). T h e basis for any work with the ancient historians is providedalongside the editions and commentariesby the great collections of fragments by C. and T. Mller (FHG), F. Jacoby (FGrHist) and H. Peter (HRR). Express reference should be made to the articles on the historians in the Pauly-

Wissowa Realencyclopdie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft (RE). To a large


extent they are not superseded even today. T h e articles by E. Schwartz have been collected and published under the tide Griechische Geschichtsschreiber (GG) and those by F. Jacoby under the title Griechische Historiker (GH). T h e abbreviations for journals mosdy follow those suggested by the Anne Philologique. In addition the following works are cited in an abbreviated form: FGrHist = F. Jacoby, Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker (Berlin-Leiden 1926-58). Of this standard collection Parts I (Genealogy, Mythography), II (Universal and Contemporary History, Chronography) and III (Ethnography und Horography) have so far appeared; they contain the fragments of 856 historians and Jacoby's commentary on 607. In addition to the Testimonia (T) = witnesses to life and work, and the Fragments (F), the philological and historical commentaries are an indispensable tool. Jacoby was unable to complete Parts IIIc (Commentary), IV (Biography, History of Literature and Antiquarian Literature), V (Geography)

HISTORICAL PROSE

335

and VI (Unidentifiable Authors, Theory und Method of History Writing), with fragments of an estimated 150 further authors, before his death in 1957; Parts IIIc-V are now being worked on by various editors, and will be published by Brill (Leiden). So far the first fascicle of Part IIIc, edited by C. W. Fornara, is available (1994). FHG = Fragmenta Historicorum Graecorum (ed. C. and T. Mller; 5 vols.; Paris 184173). HLL 5 = Handbuch der lateinischen Uteratur der Antike 5: R. Herzog (ed.), Restauration und Erneuerung 284-374 n. Chr. (Munich 1989). Hose = M. Hose, Erneuerung der Vergangenheit: Die Historiker im Imperium Romanum von Florus bis Casstus Dio (Stuttgart-Leipzig 1994). HRR - Historicorum Romanorum Reliquiae (ed. H. Peter; vol. 1; 2nd edn.; Leipzig 1914); (vol. 2; Leipzig 1906); reprinted with bibliography by J. Kroymann (Stuttgart 1967). Jacoby, GH = F. Jacoby, Griechische Historiker (Stuttgart 1956; 2nd edn. 1970). Kennedy = G. Kennedy, The Art of Rhetoric in the Roman World (Princeton 1972). Klingner = F. Klingner, Rmische Geisteswelt. Essays zur lateinischen Uteratur (5th edn.; Munich 1965). LThK3 = Lexikon fur Theologie und Kirche (3rd edn.; Freiburg 1994ff.). Norden = E. Norden, Die antike Kunstprosa vom 6. Jh. v. Chr. bis in die %eit der Renaissance (2 vols.; 3rd edn.; Leipzig 1898, 1915). Reference is made throughout to the first volume, except where noted. Peter = H. Peter, Wahrheit und Kunst. Geschichtsschreibung und Plagiat im klassischen Altertum (Leipzig 1911; reprint 1965). RAC = Reallexikon fr Antike und Christentum (Stuttgart 1950ff.). RE = Pauly-Wissowa, Realencyclopdie der Classischen Altertumswissenschaft (Stuttgart 18931980). Schwartz, GG = E. Schwartz, Griechische Geschichtsschreiber (Leipzig 1957). TRE = Theologische Realenzyklopdie (Berlin 1976ff.). Woodman = A.J. Woodman, Rhetoric in Classical Historiography. Four Studies (London 1988). On Woodman's central hypothesis, that ancient historiography was an integral part of forensic rhetoric, and accordingly fictional literature, cf. T.J. Luce in Phoenix 43 (1989), pp. 174-77; M. Vielberg in GGA 224 (1992), pp. 33-40 and T. P. Wiseman in CR 38 (1988), pp. 262-64. Literature General J. M. Alonso-Nunez (ed.), Geschichtsbild und Geschichtsdenken im altertum (Darmstadt 1991); . B. Breebart, "Weltgeschichte als Thema der antiken Geschichtsschreibung", AHN 1 (1966), pp. 1-21; idem, Clio and Antiquity. History and Historiography of the Greek and Roman World (Oxford 1977); A. Cameron (ed.), History as Text: The Writing of Ancient Historiography (London 1989); L. Canfora, Teorie e tecnica delta storiografta classica (Bari 1974); idem, Totalit e selezione nella storiografta classica (Bari 1972); H. V. Canter, "Excursus in Greek and Roman Historians", PQ_8 (1929), pp. 233-47; F. H. Colson, "Some Considerations as to the Influence of Rhetoric upon History", PCA 14 (1917), pp. 149-73; L. Cracco-Ruggini (ed.), Storia e storiografta sul mondo antico. Omaggio a A. Momigliano (Como 1989); L'exemplum et le modle de comportement dans le discours antique et mdival (MEFRA, 92.1; Rome 1980); D. Earl, "Prologue-form in Ancient Historiography", ANRW 1.2 (1972), pp. 842-56; M. I. Finley, Ancient History: Evidence and Models (London 1985); idem, The Use and Abuse of History (London 1975); C. W. Fornara, The Nature of History in Ancient Greece and Rome (Berkeley 1983); B. Gentili and G. Cerri, Le teorie del discorso storico nel pensiero greco e la storiografta romana arcaica (Rome 1975); M. Grant, The Ancient Historians (London 1970); idem, Greek and Roman Historians: Information and Misinformation (London 1995); The Greek

336

STEFAN REBENICH

Historians: Literature and History. Festschrift A. E. Raubitschek (Saratoga, CA 1985); Histoire et historiens dans l'Antiquit (Entretiens de la Fondation Hardt, 4; Vandoeuvres-Geneva 1956); B. Hopf (ed.), Antike Historiographie in literaturwissenschaftlicher Sicht (Mannheim 1981); H. Howald, Vom Geist antiker Geschichtsschreibung (Munich-Berlin 1944); . Levick (ed.), The Ancient Historian and His Materials: Essays in Honour of C. E. Stevens on his Seventieth Birthday (Farnborough 1975); H. Lieberich, Studien zu den Promien in der griechischen und byzantinischen Geschichtsschmbung (2 Parts; Programm Munich 1899-1900); S. Mazzarino, II pensiero storico classico (3 vols.; 5th edn.; Rome 1973); A. Momigliano, Essays in Ancient and Modem Historiography (Oxford 1977); idem, Storia e storiografia antica (Bologna 1987); idem, Studies in Historiography (London 1966); idem, Sui fondamenti della storia antica (Turin 1984); R. Mller, "Zum Verhltnis von narrativen und strukturellen Elementen in der antiken Geschichtsschreibung", Storia della storiografia 10 (1986), pp. 25-35; R. Nicolai, La storiografia nell'educazione antica (Pisa 1992); idem, I racconti di Clio: Tecniche narrative della storiografia (Pisa 1989); M. Sordi, Storiografia e propaganda (Milan 1975); H. Strasburger, Die Wesensbestimmung der Geschichte durch die antike Geschichtsschreibung (Wiesbaden 1966; 3rd edn. 1975); K. Treu, "Roman und Geschichtsschreibung", Klio 66 (1984), pp. 456-59; H. Verdin et al. (eds.), Purposes of History in Greek Historiographyftomthe 4th to the 2nd Centuries BC (Studia Hellenistica, 30; Louvain 1990); F. Wehrli, "Die Geschichtsschreibung im Lichte der antiken Theorie", in Eumusia: Festschrift fr E. Howald (Zrich 1947), pp. 54-72 = idem, Theoria und Humanitas (Zrich-Munich 1972), pp. 132-44; T. P. Wiseman, Clio's Cosmetics (Leicester 1979); H. Wolter, "Geschichtliche Bildung im Rahmen der artes liberales", in J. Koch (ed.), Artes liberales: Von der antiken Bildung zur Wissenschaft des Mittelalters (Leiden-Cologne 1959), pp. 50-83. Greek . Austin, The Greek Historians (New York 1969); M. Braun, Griechischer Roman und hellenistische Geschichtsschreibung (Frankfurt 1934); idem, History and Romance in GraecoOriental Literature (Oxford 1938); T. S. Brown, The Greek Historians (Lexington 1973); J. B. Bury, The Ancient Greek Historians (London 1909; reprint 1958); K. Deichgrber, "Das griechische Geschichtsbild in seiner Entwicklung zur wissenschaftlichen Historiographie", in Der listenspinnende Trug des Gottes (Gttingen 1960), pp. 7-56; A. Dihle, Studien zur griechischen Biographie (Gttingen 1956); M. I. Finley, The Greek Historians (London 1959); . von Fritz, Die griechische Geschichtsschreibung. I. Von den Anfangen bis Thukydides (Berlin 1967); S. Hornblower (ed.), Greek Historiography (Oxford 1994); F. Jacoby, Abhandlungen zur griechischen Geschichtsschreibung (ed. H. Bloch; Leiden 1956); O. Lendle, Einfhrung in die griechische Geschichtsschreibung. Von Hekataios bis Zonmos (Darmstadt 1992); K. Meister, Die griechische Geschichtsschreibung: Von den Anfngen bis zum Ende des Hellenismus (Stuttgart-Berlin-Cologne 1990); . Momigliano, La storiografia greca (Turin 1982); idem, "Greek Historiography", & (1978), pp. 1-28; G. Musti (ed.), storiografia greca (Rome-Bari 1979); G. Nenci, "II motivo dell'autopsia nella storiografia greca", SCO 3 (1953), pp. 14-46; M. Nouhaud, L'utilisation de l'histoire par les orateurs attiques (Paris 1982); A. Passerini, "La nella storiografia greca", SFIC II (1934), pp. 35f.; L. Pearson, "Real and Conventional Persons in Greek History", JHI 15 (1954), pp. 130-54; R. Reitzenstein, Hellenistische Wundererzhlungen (Leipzig 1906); D. Roussel, Les historiens grecs (Paris 1975); G. de Sanctis, Studi di storia della storiografia greca (Florence 1951); Ricerche di storiografia antica. I. Ricerche di storiografia antica greca di et romana (Pisa 1979); A.J. Toynbee, Greek Historical Thought (2nd edn.; New York 1952); L. Voit, : Ein antiker Stilbegriff (Diss. Munich 1934); H. D. Wesdake, Essays on Greek Historians and Greek History (Manchester 1969).

HISTORICAL PROSE

337

Roman J. F. D'Alton, Roman Literary Theory and Criticism (London-New York 1931); J. P. Chausserie-Lapre, L'expression narrative chez les historiens latins: Histoire d'un style (Paris 1969); T. A. Dorey (ed.), Latin Historians (London 1966); E. Evans, "Roman Descriptions of Personal Appearance in History and Biography", HSP 46 (1935), pp. 43-84; E. Cizek, "Les genres de l'historiographie latine", Faventia 7.2 (1985), pp. 15-33; D. Flach, Einfhrung in die rmische Geschichtschreibung (2nd edn.; Darmstadt 1992); J. Hellegouarc'h, Le vocabulaire latin des relations et des partis politique sous la rpublique (Paris 1963; 2nd edn. 1972); E. Herkommer, Die Topoi in den Promien der rmischen Geschichtswerke (Diss. Tbingen 1968); H. Peter, Die geschichtliche Literatur ber die Kaiserzeit bis Theodosius 1. (Leipzig 1897); M. Laistner, The Greater Roman Historians (Berkeley 1947); A. D. Leeman, Orationis Ratio: The Stylistic Theories and Practice of the Roman Orators, Historians, and Philosophers (2 vols.; Amsterdam 1963); idem, Form und Sinn: Studien zur rmischen Uteratur (Frankfurt 1985); idem, "Le genre et le style historique Rome: thorie et pratique", REL 33 (1955), pp. 183-208; J. Z. Lichanski, "Historiographie et thorie de la rhtorique de l'antiquit au moyen ge", Europa Orientalis 5 (1986), pp. 21-48; A. La Penna, Aspetti del pensiero storico latino (Turin 1978); V. Pschl, "Die rmische Auffassung von der Geschichte", Gymnasium 63 (1956), pp. 190 206; idem (ed.), Rmische Geschichtsschreibung (Darmstadt 1969); T. P. Wiseman, Historiography and Imagination: Eight Essays on Roman Culture (Exeter 1994).

Translated by
R. M c L . WILSON

CHAPTER 10

P O E T R Y AND R H E T O R I C Ruth Webb


Princeton University, New Jersey, USA

I.

INTRODUCTION

This chapter will consider the relationship between rhetoric and various genres of verse writing in Greek and Latin. The interaction between rhetoric and poetry is complex and varies greatly between genres and over time. In general, however, during the period covered by this volume, poetry shows the increasing influence of rhetorical genres and rhetorical expression, culminating in the verse panegyrics of the later Roman empire. 1 Several factors contributed to this development, including the nature and aims of the educational curriculum and the rise of epideictic oratory under the Roman empire. The influence was not simply one exerted by rhetoric upon poetry; the developments in epideictic oratory brought rhetoric increasingly close to poetry in its themes and verbal resources. 2

II.

P O E T I C S AND R H E T O R I C : A N C I E N T AND M O D E R N

DEFINITIONS

The romantic rejection of rhetoric has been highly influential in modern discussions of the relationship between rhetoric and poetry. In post-romantic criticism rhetoric and poetry have tended to be seen as diametrically opposed: poetry belongs to the domain of emotion, of expression of the personal, whereas rhetoric is directed towards
1 See below on Claudian and, for the period after that covered by this survey, Corippus, Laudes Justiniani (ed. A. Cameron; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1976). 2 See T. C. Burgess, Epideictic literature (Studies in Classical Philology, 3; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1902), pp. 166-95, M. Roberts, The Jeweled Style: Poetry and Poetics in Late Antiquity (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1989), pp. 38-65 and the remarks of E. L. Bowie, "Greek Sophists and Greek Poetry in the Second Sophistic", ANRW 11.33:1 (1989), pp. 210-14.

340

RUTH WEBB

the audience, concerned with the vehicle more than with content. "Rhetoric" and "rhetorical" are thus frequently used to connote artificiality and insincerity, in contrast to the true poet's authentic expression of moods and feelings.3 This antithesis between poetry and rhetoric underlies many influential assessments of ancient literature. Not surprisingly the influence of rhetoric has been seen as a major cause of "decline" in Roman poetry from the Augustan period to the Silver Age. 4 Such judgments derive from a period at which the classical system of rhetorical education was in decline. But ancient assessments of poetry and rhetoric reveal a very different point of view. In a remark attributed to Theophrastus, poetry and rhetoric are both considered to be directed towards the audience (in contrast to philosophy which is directed towards its subject matter). 5 Poetry, moreover, had always shared certain functions with epideictic rhetoric, such as the public praise of rulers and patrons in works originally composed for a particular audience on a particular occasion. The panegyrical poets of late antiquity were following a long tradition and the epideictic orators of the Roman period were also in many ways heir to the earlier poets. 6 More recent critical trends have done much to close the gap between poetics and rhetoric. Critical approaches based on linguistics have stressed the verbal and communicative aspects of poetry. Like rhetoric, poetry involves the formal use of language. 7 Similarly, the

See, for example, H. H. Hudson, "Rhetoric and Poetry", in R. F. Howes (ed.), Historical Studies of Rhetoric and Rhetoricians (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1961), pp. 370-79; W. S. Howell, "Rhetoric and Poetics: A Plea for the Recognition of Two Literatures", in L. Wallach (ed.), The Classical Tradition: Literary and Historical Studies in Honor of Harry Caplan (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1966), pp. 370-79; see also the comments of S. G. Nugent, "Ausonius' Late-Antique Poetics", in A.J. Boyle (ed.), The Imperial Muse: Ramus Essays on Roman Literature of the Empire, Flavian Epicist to Claudian (Bendigo: Aureal Publications, 1990), p. 239. 4 G. Williams, Change and Decline: Roman Literature in the Early Empire (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1978), esp. pp. 266-71. 5 Theophrastus frs. 6 4 - 6 5 in Opera quae supersunt omnia (ed. F. Wimmer; Paris: Didot, 1866; repr. Frankfurt: Minerva, 1964). 6 See L. Pernot, La rhtorique de l'loge (Paris: tudes Augustiniennes, 1994), pp. 635-37. 7 See, for example, G. B. Conte, The Rhetoric of Imitation: Genre and Poetic Memory in Virgil and Other Latin Poets (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1986), pp. 45-46: "Rhetoric has the role of 'reifying' languageof making it exist without a direct relation to things.. . . Rhetorical figures are therefore not 'additional structures' to poetic discourse . . . but in fact the only means of distancing language." For an analysis of

POETRY AND RHETORIC

341

belief in poetic "sincerity" has been modified by the idea of the poetic persona, the character deliberately adopted by the poet as much as by the orator. 8 Appreciation of the role of genre in the composition of and response to poetry has also served to close the gap between poetry and rhetoric or to suggest new approaches emphasizing the common cultural and educational background to the oratory and poetry of particular periods. 9 In the wake of these critical developments, a broad usage of the term "rhetoric" has grown up in literary criticism to designate the internal codes used by a work or genre. In this survey, however, I will be looking for points of contact between ancient rhetoric, as defined in treatises and as practised, and poetry. Ancient definitions of rhetoric suggest various approaches to the problem of its relationship to poetry. Aristotle's Rhetoric stresses logical argumentation as the domain of the rhetorician. Aristotle is echoed by Cicero in De or. 2:27:115, who stresses persuasion as the aim of rhetoric and identifies the means as proof, winning over the audience and moving them. Persuasive rhetoric of this type can be found in poetry in various guises: in representations of speeches in epic, or in works which aim to win over an audience such as didactic poetry, or satire.10 Already in Homer, characters' speeches show some consistent structural features which could be termed loosely "rhetorical" although rhetoric did not yet exist as a codified art. It is in the "rhetorical epic" of the Roman period that the formal rhetorical training of authors such as Lucan and Statius is clearly felt. However, the broader definition of rhetoric to be found in ancient writers suggests a more extensive range of contact with poetry. In the Orator (69) Cicero gives a slightly different version of the orator's duties. T h e eloquent man, he says, is the one who can not only
difference in function between figures in poetry and in rhetoric, see G. Williams, Figures of Thought in Roman Poetry (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1978). 8 On the question of "sincerity" in Roman love lyrics see D. F. Kennedy, The Arts of Love: Five Studies in the Discourse of Roman Love Elegy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), pp. 1-23; P. Veyne, Roman Erotic Elegy (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1988), pp. 31-49. 9 F. Cairns, Generic Competition in Greek and Roman Poetry (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1972). Cairns' approach has generated vigorous debate. For some responses see Menander Rhetor, On Epideictic (ed. D. A. Russell and N. G. Wilson; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1981), pp. xxxi-xxxiv and J. Griffin, Latin Poets and Roman Life (London: Duckworth, 1985), pp. 48-64. 10 For this approach see G. A. Kennedy, The Art of Rhetoric in the Roman World (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1972), pp. 384-419.

342

RUTH WEBB

prove his case (probare) and win over his audience (fiectere) but also please them (delectare), an aesthetic concern which brings the rhetor closer to the poet." Aristotle, in the Rhetoric (3:1:5), had considered that pleasing or causing pain to an audience was stricdy something to be avoided in rhetoric, but conceded that it was rendered necessary by the corruption of the audience. This was the function of delivery and style (/lexis), precisely those aspects of rhetoric which he saw as closest to poetry, and to drama in particular. Quintilian (Inst. 2:15:38) broadens the definition of rhetoric sdll further when he gives his approval to the definition "the art of speaking well": bene dicendi scientia. In the De oratore Cicero states this affinity clearly, noting that the poet is almost equal to the orator in the use of ornaments. 12 Aristode recognized that both poetry and prose needed to use distancing effects to distinguish them from ordinary language (Rh. 3:2:2-3). There were, however, important differences: the prose writer had to exercise more restraint than the poet. He should not use long epithets, which result in frigidity in rhetoric (Rh. 3:3:1). Aristode notes, however, that certain sophists, including Gorgias, infringed this rule, indicating how in some areas the boundaries between poetry and epideictic were, in practice, always fluid. Comparison with Aristode's treatment of /fem in the Poetics shows that the difference between the two was felt to reside in the degree to which poets and orators made use of the expressive resources of language. 13 Quintilian's emphasis on pathos, often exemplified by Virgil in the Institutio oratoria, brings rhetoric still closer to poetry. 14 His insistence, for example, that the orator must himself feel the emotions he is trying to convey to the audience (Inst. 6:2:27-28; cf. Cic. De or. 1:44 47) is paralleled in Horace's famous advice to the poet in the Ars poetica: "if you want me to cry, mourn first yourself" si vis me flere, dolendum est/primum ipse tibi (102-103). 15

" See E. Fantham, "The Growth of Literature and Criticism at Rome", in G. A. Kennedy (ed.), Classical Criticism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), p. 232. 12 Cic. De or. 1:16:70: est enim finitimus oratori poeta, numeris astrictior paulo verborum autem licentia liberior, multis vero omandi generibus socius ac paene par. 13 See Aristode, La Potique (trans, and commentary R. Dupont-Roc and J. Lallot; Paris: Seuil, 1980), pp. 307-11. 14 See E. Fantham, "Latin Criticism of the Early Empire", in Kennedy (ed.), Classical Criticism, p. 287. 15 Translation D. A. Russell in D. A. Russell and M. Winterbottom (eds.), Classical Literary Criticism (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989), p. 100.

POETRY AND RHETORIC

343

Some areas of potential rhetorical influence upon poetry are therefore argumentation, style and the arousal of the emotions. Argumentation is a characteristically rhetorical procedure and its presence in poetry can be seen as a borrowing from rhetoric. However, in the other areas the precise nature of the relationship between poetry and rhetoric is more complex and often difficult to assess. Rhetoricians throughout antiquity recognized that poetry had preceded artistic prose and noted that prose-writers had in fact borrowed from poetry. Aristotle (Rh. 3:1:8) attributes the beginnings of the study and development of style in language (/lexis) to the poets. T h e innovations of Gorgias consisted to a great extent in adapting poetic language to the medium of prose. 16 T o move from the level of language to that of genre, Menander Rhetor identifies certain types of epideictic speech as having been "invented" by Homer and the archaic poets. Thus Sappho is credited with the invention of the epithalamium and Homer with that of the monody and / syntaktikos.'7 Menander's observations reflect the fact that many of the epideictic genres which developed in prose during the Hellenistic and Roman periods did have their origins in poetry. The treatment of poetry by ancient critics points to certain shared areas of technique: figures of speech and vivid representation in language. One particular resource shared by poet and orator alike is metaphor, which is discussed by Aristotle in the Poetics (21-22:14561459) as well as in the Rhetoric (3:2:7-13), where examples are cited from dramatic, lyric and epic poetry. Rhetoricians of later periods made liberal use of poetic examples in their discussions of this and other figures of speech. Quintilian's Institutio oratorio makes use of a wealth of examples drawn from poetry. 18 He uses quotations from Virgil and Horace, alongside Cicero, in his discussion of figures such as antonomasia (Inst. 8:6:29), synecdoche (8:6:21-22), and metonymy (8:6:23), and in his discussion of the choice of words (8:2:15-20). (mimesis) is key to Aristotle's definition of poetry and is by no means absent from rhetoric. As Aristotle points out in the Poetics (6:22-23:1450b), the of intellect (/dianoia) belongs to rhetoric. In Rh. 3:7 he emphasizes the need for speech to be approO. Navarre, Essai sur la rhtorique grecque avant Aristote (Paris: Hachette, 1900), pp. 92-111. 17 Men.Rh. 434:11-18 and 430:12-28. 18 D. Joly, "Rhtorique et posie d'aprs 'Institution oratoire'", in R. Chevallier (ed.), Colloque sur la rhtorique (Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1979), pp. 101-13.
16

344

RUTH WEBB

priate to the character of the speaker. This skill, essential when the orator was composing speeches to be delivered by the client, was developed in later periods through the exercise of / prosopopoeia (also called /ethopoeia), one of the more advanced of the Progymnasmata. It was essential to the art of declamadon in which, as Quintilian (Inst. 3:8:51) pointed out, speakers had to assume as many roles as comic actors, and a useful skill for the poet, as Quintilian and Theon (1st century BC) both remark. 19 Horace (Ars. 156-78) also refers to the necessity of fitting speech and behaviour to character. Interest in the depiction of character is evident of course in New Comedy and is one of the qualities which led Quintilian (Inst. 10:1:69) to single out Menander as a model for the orator. Hellenistic poetry also contains lively portrayals of characters in action and in conversation: the bourgeois Syracusan women of Theocritus, Idyll 16, or the courtesans, pimps and schoolmaster of Herodas's Mimes. But another form of shared by poetry and rhetoric is the representation of an action, person or place through narration or description. 20 The idea of /enargeia (Latin evidentia) "vividness" in verbal representation took on great importance in Hellenistic and Roman rhetorical theory. 21 The orator, whether forensic or epideictic, should aim to make his audience "see" his subject matter in their mind's eye. This technique was developed through the elementary exercise of /ekphrasis (Latin desmptw), in which Homer and Virgil were cited alongside the historians as models.22 The doctrines of / enargeia, as recorded by Greek and Latin critics, have served as a key to understanding the notions of realism underlying Hellenistic poetry.23 Ancient critics were aware however of the boundary which should
19

Theon, Progymnasmata in Rhetores graeci (ed. L. Spengel; Leipzig, Teubner, 1865), II, p. 60; Quint. Inst. 3:8:49. 20 In the Poetics, Aristode concentrates on the /mimesis of action. See D. A. Russell, Criticism in Antiquity (London: Duckworth, 1981), pp. 106-107. As Russell also points out (p. 100) Aristode neglects description of objects or mental states. 21 The term is not found in Aristode who instead uses a/energeia for the quality which makes metaphors appeal to the mind's eye, in Rh. 3:11:2. On / energeia and its connection with vividness, see A. Morpurgo-Tagliabue, linguistica e stilistica di Aristotele (Rome: Edizioni dell'Ateneo, 1967), pp. 256-66. 22 See Theon, Progymnasmata, pp. 118-19; Quint. Inst. 8:3:63 cites Virgil as a model of enargeia. 23 See G. Zanker, "Enargeia in the Ancient Criticism of Poetry", RhM 124 (1981), pp. 297-311 and Realism in Alexandrian Poetry: A Literature and its Audience (London: Croom Helm, 1987).

POETRY AND RHETORIC

345

be observed between the use of description in rhetoric and poetry. Ps.-Dionysius of Halicarnassus complains of the undue influence of poetry in the declaimers' descriptive excesses.24 However, Longinus is alone in suggesting a fundamental difference between the use of vivid appeals to the mind's eye (/phantasia) in poetry and in rhetoric. In poetry the result should be /ekplexis, a striking impact upon the audience, whereas the rhetor should direct his use of the powers of visualization towards the creation of a/enargeia, which, in combination with argumentation, will effect persuasion. 25 Rhetoric and poetry were thus considered by ancient critics to have many aspects in common, making the identification of boundaries an important but vexed question. Distinctions mentioned include, naturally, metre, the formality of which is contrasted with prose rhythm, 26 but also the organization of subject matter, an area in which greater licence was allowed to poets, as epideictic orators themselves noted. 27 In addition to general considerations of this kind, a further important consideration is the cultural background of the poets, in particular the role of rhetoric in education. In the period under discussion rhetoric came to dominate the curriculum and represented the principal formal training in composition available in the schools. Authors of rhetorical treatises naturally tried to claim that their precepts were valuable for future poets as well as orators: Maximus of Tyre went so far as to claim that his rhetorical teaching could provide all the skills necessary for the composition of poetry, except for metre. 28 Several Latin poets refer to their own rhetorical studies, with varying degrees of enthusiasm, and Ovid's early training in declamation is recorded by Seneca. 29

Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Opuscula (ed. H. Usener and L. Radermacher; Leipzig: Teubner, 1929), II, p. 372. See also D. A. Russell, Greek Declamation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983), p. 2. 25 Longinus, On the Sublime (ed. D. A. Rusell; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1964), 15:2 and 9. 26 See, for example, Cic. Or. 227; Aristode, La Potique, pp. 307-11. 27 See Isoc. (Evagoras) 9:9-11; Pernot, La rhtorique de l'loge, pp. 636-37 and D. A. Russell, "Aristides and the Prose Hymn", in idem (ed.), Antonine literature (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990), pp. 199-219. 28 Maximus of Tyre, Philosophumenon (ed. H. Hobein; Leipzig: Teubner, 1910), 1:7g. See E. Norden, Die antike Kunstprosa vom VI. Jahrhundert V. Chr. bis in die eit der Renaissance (Leipzig: Teubner, 1909), p. 886. In general see D. L. Clarke, Rhetoric in Greco-Roman Education (New York: Columbia University Press, 1957), pp. 17-23. 29 Verg. Cat. 5; Ov. Tr. 4:10; Mart. 9:73:7-8; Ausonius's collection of poems on The Professors of Bordeaux commemorates colleagues and teachers. On the possible

24

346

RUTH WEBB

Poetry itself was studied in the earlier stages of the curriculum, as a preliminary to rhetoric and was very much at the se