G. Calboli, From Aristotelian Léxis To Elocutio

From Aristotelian to elocutio
Author(s): Gualtiero Calboli

Source: Rhetorica: A Journal of the History of Rhetoric, Vol. 16, No. 1 (Winter 1998), pp. 47-
80
Published by: University of California Press on behalf of the International Society for the History of
Rhetoric
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/rh.1998.16.1.47 .
Accessed: 16/04/2013 11:52
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
.
University of California Press and International Society for the History of Rhetoric are collaborating with
JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Rhetorica: A Journal of the History of Rhetoric.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 190.19.33.210 on Tue, 16 Apr 2013 11:52:38 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
GUALTIERO C ALB OU
From Aristotelian Xeîs to elocutio
1. INTRODUCTION
ver the last few years it has become fashionable to
criticize Robert Pfeiffer for overestimating the
contribution of the Stoics and underestimating that of
the Peripatetics towards the development of rhetoric,
grammar and philology. In fact Aristotie deserves the credit for
cormecting rhetoric with dialectic and poetry, without losing sight
of its practical employment in the assembly and courts of law.
Another development of rhetoric which occurred after Aristotle
and perhaps Theophrastus was the development of an excessive
number of rules, especially in the doctrine of fropes and figures of
speech. That happened during the second century B.C. on the
island of Rhodes and may be considered a kind of Asianic
rhetoric. It was infroduced into Rome through at least two
handbooks, Cicero's De Inventione and the Rhetorica ad Herennium.
However, in 55 B.C., at the beginning of his Platonic dialogue De
Oratore, Cicero disowned his early work (De orat. 1.5).
' R. Pfeiffer, History cf Classical Scholarship, From the Beginnings to the End of the
Hellenistic Age (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1968).
This is the opinion of F. Montanari in La philologie grecque i I'ipoque hellinistique
et Tomaine, ed. F. Montemari (Vcmdoeuvres - Geneve: Fondation Hardt, Entretiens
XL, 1994), p. 29. I agree with him but recall that Pfeiffer also pointed out the
importance of Aristotie and the Peripatos for Hellenistic philology: cf., e.g., pp. 192;
197 of the Italian translation by M. Gigante and S. Cerasuolo (Napoli: Macchiaroli,
1973).
The origin and development of the doctrine of tropes and figures is not clear.
It has been investigated by K. Barwick, Probleme der stoischen Sprachlehre und Rhetorik
(Berlin: Abhandlungen der sachsischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Leipzig,
PhiloL-hist. Kl., Bd. 49, Hft. 3, Akademie-Verlag, 1957), pp. 88-111, but must be
reconsidered now (see below).
The International Society for the History of Rhetoric, Rhetorica, Volume XVI,
Number 1 (Winter 1998)
47
48 RHETORICA
The date of composition of De Inventione is about 87 B.C., only
one year after Cicero heard Philon of Larissa in Rome, as has
been recently noted by C. Levy.' Both Cicero's De Inventione (88-
87 B.C.) and the Rhetorica ad Herennium (86-82) were composed at
a time when the democratic party dominated Rome and before
Sulla came back from the Orient (82). I do not want to discuss tiie
political position of the author of Rhetorica ad Herennium here,
although the idea that he was a democrat has recentiy been
confirmed by G. Achard and J.-M. David.' hi the period between
the Ars Rhetorica written (but not completed) by the great orator
M. Antonius (about 96 B.C.)^ and Sulla's dictatorship (82), tiiere
are about fifteen years of rhetorical activity during which the
censorial edict by L. Crassus and D. Ahenobarbus of 92 was
ineffective. This edict, as has been demonstrated by Emilio Gabba,
became effective with Sulla who continued the action that the
nobility's faction had brought under the law proposed by the
fribune Livius Drusus in 91 B.C. in order to reorganize the Roman
State.' We know that the orator L. Crassus, a teacher of Cicero,
was another of the promoters of this law but died before its
approval. After considering Gruen's position on this subject, I
' Cf Cic. Brut. 306; TMSC. 2.9. When did Philo come to Rome? The answer is
given by W. Kroll in his Commentary ad loc, p. 217f: "Die gliicklichen Erfolge des
Mithridates verleiteten die Athener, an deren Spitze sich der Peripatetiker Aristo
stellte, im J. 88 von den Romem abzufallen und sich mit Archelaus, dem Feldherm
des Mithridates, zu verbiinden. Die Optimaten, welche treu zu den Romem hielten,
muBten nun fliichten". Cf. also J.-M. David, Le patronat judiciaire au dernier siecle de la
republique romaine (Roma: Ecole Franâise de Rome, Palais Famese, 1992), pp. 371 f.
C. Levy, "Le mythe de la naissance de la civilisation chez Ciceron", in
Mathesis e Philia, Studi in onore di M. Gigante (Napoli: Dipartimento di Filologia
Classica, 1995), pp. 155-168.
' G. Achard, Rhetorique i Herennius (Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1989), pp. xxviii-
XXX, J.-M. David, Le patronat judiciaire, pp. 369 f.
' Cf. G. Calboli, "L'oratore M.Antonio e la "Rhetorica ad Herennium", Giornale
Italiano di Filologia, n.s. 3 (1972): 120-177, here pp. 149-172.
' There is a parallel between the secularization of the juridical culture in Rome
and the expansion of Greek rhetoric from the very beginning of the first century B.C.
The secularisation of the juridical activity began before Q. Mucius Scaevola (cos. 95)
but with Scaevola's luris Civilis Libri XVIII we have the first great work written by a
jurist: on this work see F. P. Bremer, lurisprudentiae Antehadrianae Quae Supersunt
(Leipzig: B.G.Teubner, 1896), I, pp. 58-103, A. Schiavone, Giuristi e Nobili nella Roma
Repubblicana (Bari: Laterza, 1987), pp. 25-49.
' Cf. E. Gabba, Esercito e Society nella Tarda Repubblica Romana (Firenze: La
Nuova Italia, 1973), pp. 383-406.
' Cf E. S. Gruen, Studies in Greek Culture and Roman Policy (Leiden: Brill, 1990),
pp. 187-191, discussed by G. Calboli, Comifici Rhetorica ad C. Herennium, Introduzione,
Edizione Critica e Commento, ed. G. Calboli (Bologna: Patron, 1993'), pp. 503-506.
From Aristotelian Xeîs to Elocutio 49
now think that both poUtical and cultural purposes were
interlaced and combined in Crassus's censorial edict. The edict's
prohibition of teaching rhetoric became effective after 82-81 B.C.,
after which rhetorical artes (xexvai) ceased to be composed for a
time. L. CalboU Montefusco has already stressed the importance
of the censorial edict of 92 B.C. in stopping any development of a
Latin theory of "staseis". A consequence of this blockage of
technical rhetoric was the broadening of the rhetorical field as was
expressly required by Cicero's CYKIIKXLOS TraiSeia. Following this
Ciceronian trend Quintilian integrated his Institutio Oratoria with
Uterature, namely poetry, history, oratory and philosophy {Inst.
10.1). In this way the elocutio (the Xeîs) acquired increasing
importance. Already the whole of Book 4 of Rhetorica ad
Herennium, which constitute roughly half the work, was dedicated
to elocutio alone.
However the expansion of Xeîs seemes to have already
occurred in Greece. The island of Rhodes, probably the common
source of both handbooks (Cic.'s De Inv. an(d the Rhet. Her.), was a
centre for oratory. We know the names of Athenaeus from
Naucratis and of the two ApoUonii, ApoUonios Molon and
ApoUonios the Sweet. Rhodes was the most important centre for
Asianic rhetoric at the end of the second and the beginning of the
first century B.C. From Rhodes probably came the Hellenistic and
" On this subject see A. D. Leeman, H. Pinkster and J. Wisse, M. TuUius Cicero,
De oratore libri III Kommentar, 4. Band: Buch II, 291-367; Buch III, 1-95 (Heidelberg;
C.Winter, 1996), p. 305. 1 agree with the idea expressed on this page that a political
intention cannot be excluded from the censorial action of 92 B.C. The presumption of
R. A. Kaster in denying any intention of this kind without considering the
arguments of J. -M. David is not his only over-simplification and needs no further
commentary: Cf. C. Suetonius Tranquillus, De Grammaticis et Rhetoribus, ed. with a
Translation, Introduction and Commentary by R. A. Kaster (Oxford: Clarendon
Press 1995), p. 293.
" La dottrirw degli "status'' nella retorica greca e romana (Hildesheim: Olms-
Weidmann, 1986), pp. 197-206.
" On the eyicikXtos naiSeia see K. Barwick, Das rednerische Bildungsideal Ciceros
(Berlin: Abhandlungen der sachsischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Leipzig,
Philol-hist. Kl, Bd. 54, Hft. 3, Akademie-Veriag, 1963), pp. 13-17, G. Calboli, "La
formazione oratoria di Cicerone", Vichiana 2 (1965): 3-30, here pp. 12-22.
'* The Rhodian school has been described by F. Delia Corte, "Rodi e I'istituzione
dei pubblici studi", in Opuscula I (Geneva: Pubbl. dell'lstituto di Filologia Classica,
1971), pp. 12-15, F. Portalupi, Sulla corrente rodiese (Torino: G.Giappichelli, 1957), pp.
10-19. Both must be used with prudence. Hermagoras von Temnos has been
considered a Rhodian by Delia Corte and Portalupi, but we know only the origin
(Temnos), and almost nothing more of Hermagoras: see D. Matthes, "Hermagoras
von Temnos 1904-1955", Lustrum 3 (1958): 58-214, here pp. 70-72.
5Q RHETORICA
Asianic docfrine of figures which K. Barwick considers the earliest
and which, in his opinion, had already been developed by
Theophrashis.'" J. Stroux" has argued that Theophrastiis
explained and organized die dpcTai rijs Xeêws as distinct from
the corresponding KOKiai TTIS Xeêws and tiiat Aristotie had
already developed a doctrine of (ja(^T\v\.a. I agree with Stroux
except on one point, which is the origin of the tiiree genera dicendi
(xapaKTTipes TTJS Xeêws). 1 carmot accept his idea (p. 93) tiiat tiie
genera dicendi were first employed by teachers and rhetoricians
and not by Theophrastus. This question has been discussed by
many scholars*^ and I do not want to reconsider it in its entirety.
Nevertheless I want to state clearly that I find unacceptable the
idea suggested by both Hendrickson and Stroux and more
recentiy by R. Nicolai. According to them the three genres are in
conflict with the preference which the Peripatetic school always
showed towards the PCCTOTTIS. From this point of view it would be
strange that a Peripatetic chose the full or the plain style instead of
the middle one which was preferred in all respects by Aristotle
and Theophrastus. The only dperfi rfis Xeêws recognized by the
Peripatetics could be, in Hendrickson's opinion, the HCCTOTTIS,
whereas the grand style was considered inrepPoXri and the plain
eXXen|iLS. "To reconcile with this analysis the Peripatetic theory
writes Hendrickson it would be necessary to assume that,
while originally the xapaKxfjp jieCTos was the only good style, and
the iaxvos and dSpos were respectively the CXXCKJILS and inrepPoXri,
yet in time those latter had come to be recognized as worthy types
of style virtutes as Gellius (Varro) calls them, and not erroneous
deviations from the dperii."
'^ K. Barwick, Probleme, pp. 102 ff.
" De Theophrasti virtutibus dicendi (Leipzig: B. G. Teubner, 1912), pp. 9-28.
" Recently by D. Innes, "Theophrastus and the Theory of Style", in Theophrastus
of Eresus, On His Life and Work, ed. W. W. Fortenbaugh-P. M. Huby-A. A. Long (New
Brunswick; Rutgers University Studies in Classical Humanities, Vol. 2, Transaction
Books, 1985), pp. 251-267.
" See G. L. Hendrickson, "The Peripatetic Mean of Style and the Three Stylistic
Characters", American Journal of Philology 25 (1904): 125-146; in particular p.l36: "the
Aristotelian doctrine of the mean could never have tolerated the definition of types
of style in the sense of the x^poKTripes Xefetos conceived of as types of
individualism", p. 140: "Manifestly the iieoorris was to Theophrastus not a style, but
the style", id., "The Origin and Meaning of the Ancient Characters of Style",
American Journal of Philology 26 (1905): 250-290, here p. 290, J. Stroux, De Theophrasti
virtutibus dicendi pp. 107-111, R. Nicolai, La storiografia nell'educazione antica (Pisa:
Giardini, 1992), p. 120, n. 169.
" "The Peripatetic Mean of Style", p. 142.
From Aristotelian Xe^LS to Elocutio 51
Hendrickson, however, fails to consider that in the first
presentation of the xapaKxiipes TTIS Xeêcjs, in Rhet. Her. 4.11-16,
the vitia (KaKiat) of these xapaxTTipes riis Xeêa)s also occur after
the virtutes (dpcTai). As for the xapaKrfjp dSpos, the erroneous
deviation is recognized in the figura sufflata, the tumos being a
TTapeKpaCTi5 from the great style. As for the xapcKTiip toxvos the
shift from the correct to the wrong style is not explained by the
same evidence. Nevertheless the example in Rhetorica ad
Herennium is very clear and is presented as a fall from the correct
plain style: Rhet. Her. 4.16 Qui non possunt in ilia facetissima
verborum attenuatione commode versari, veniunt ad aridum et exangue
genus orationis. At any rate, Stroux also recognizes that the shift
from the right style to the wrong had already been considered by
Theophrastus. That means that every style has a corresponding
faulty style, and the grand and plain styles were not faulty
counterparts of the middle style.
Apart from these and similar considerations, I would like to
point out another element which until now, as far as I know, has
been disregarded in the scholarly discussion. We find in the few
lines which Aristotle wrote about delivery at the beginning of the
thfrd Book of Rhetoric a fripartite distinction of the ({XOVTI into
three kinds of voice: loud, soft and middle or intermediate:
Arist. Rhet. III.l 1403b26 ff. 'Eaxiv 8 aurf) \icv [sc. UTroKpiais] ev
xfi (Jxjjvfi irijiis airnj Set xpTJ'^î- irpos eKaaToi* Trd6o5, oiov Troxe
peydXr) Kal iroTe piKpqi Kal \xeaT\, KOI trSis xoi? TOWOLS, dov oêic^
Kal Papeitji Kal jieari Kal puSpois Tiai irp6 CKaaxa "It is a matter of
how the voice should be used in expressing each emotion,
sometimes loud and sometimes soft and [sometimes] intermediate,
and how the pitch accents [tonoi] should be entoned, whether as
22
acute, grave, or middle, and what rhythms should be expressed in
each case".
" De Theophrasti virtutibus dicendi, p. 107.
" I have already discussed this subject in G. Calboli, "Oratore senza
microfono", in "Ars Rhetorica" Antica e Nuova (Genova: Istituto di Filologia Classica
e Medievale, Universitci di Genova, 1983), pp. 23-53, here pp. 31-35.
" "middle" is mine, to remain closer to Aristotle's text; "circumflex" is the
adjective used by Kennedy.
" For English translations of Aristotle's Rhetoric 1 am indebted to G. Kennedy,
Aristotle, On Rhetoric, a Theory of Civic Discourse (Oxford: Oxford University Press,
1991).
52 RHETORICA
We mus t add t hat Aristotle consi dered tiie mroKpLais
("delivery")^^ as only accessory, and t hat expl ai ns why, t hough
t aki ng into account not only t he mi ddl e voice and accent uat i on
but also t he hi gh and die low, he di d not deal with t he mat t er in
dept h. Accordi ng t o hi m del i very was out si de t he rexvii, but
insofar as it was Unked witii t he Xef i s it coul d be seen as evTcxvov,
t hat is as an ' artistic' element:
Arist. Rhet. III.l 1404al5f. Kal IGTIV (j>uaeca5 TO UTTOKPLTIKOV elvai,
Kal oTexi'OTepoi/, irepl 8k TTIV Xeîv Ivrexwv "Acting is a matter of
natural talent and largely not reducible to artistic rules; but in so far
as it involves how things are said [lexis], it has an artistic element"
In this way Aristotle di d not overl ook t he part i al cormection
bet ween del i very and poet ry:
Arist. Rhet. III.l 1403b30-1404a3 Td \ikv ow aGXa oxeSov CK rS>u
dyiiivuiv ouToi Xappduouaiv, Kal KaGdirep eKet ireiCov Suvavrai vw
T&v TfOLTiTOi' 01 uTTOKpLTai, KQI KOTO TOUS TTOXLTIKGUS dyiLvas, Sid
Tr|u |jiox9r|pLav TIIIV ITOXLT6L(LI' [...] 'AXX'oXris oiiaris irpos 86fav TTIS
irpaypaTeias THS irepl TTII' pT|TopLKf)v, OUK opStJiis Ixoirros dXX' los d-
i/ayKaiou TTIV eiTi|reXeLav iroiriTeov. "Those [performers who give
careful attention to these] are generally the ones who win poetic
contests; and just as actors are more important than poets now in the
poetic contexts, so it is in political contexts because of the sad state of
governments. [...] But since the whole business of rhetoric is with
" Instead of "delivery" it seems better to use the term "performcmce". That is
the opiiuon of E. Fantham, "Quintilian on Performance: Traditional and Personal
Elements in Institutio 11.3", Phoenix 36 (1982): 243-263, here p. 243 and W. W.
Fortenbaugh, "Theophrastus on Dehvery", in Theophrastus of Eresus, cit. in n. 17
above, pp. 269-288, here p.288 n. 49, who accepts Fantham's translation of uiroKpiois.
It is likely that the irnoKpiois was first developed by Theophrastus, who
attached great importance to delivery, as appears fiom the following passage of
Theophrastus quoted by Athanasius: Theoph. Athan. Proleg. Hermog. De Stat., RhG
XIV 177.3-8 Rabe irXriv ical 9e(J<t)paoTos 6 <))iX<xj<xtios 6^loi()S it>r|(Tli' neTioTov eiwii
piiropi irpos TO Treioai Tf)i' inroKpioii', els T(is dpx<is diAi())ep(DU Kal rd TrdOr) rfis
i\>\ixf\s Kai Tf\v KaTawtiaiv ToCrroii', los Kal rfj oX^l îrioTnim ou(i(t)iowv eli/ai Tt\v
KivT\oiv TOU oojpiaTos Kal Toi" Tovou TTIS (Jwi/fls. "However, also Theophrastus the
philosopher says in hke mcinner that delivery is for an orator the greatest (help) in
regard to persuasion. (He says this) referring to the principles and the emotions of
the soul and the knowledge of these, so that the movement of the body and the pitch
of the voice are in harmony with the entire science" = fig. 712 FHS&G in
Theophrastus of Eresus. Sources for his Life, Writings, Thought and Influence, ed. and
hransl. by W. W. Fortenbaugh, P. M. Huby, R. W. Sharpies and D. Gutas (Leiden: Brill
1992).
From Aristotelian Xef is to Elocutio 53
opinion, one should pay attention to delivery, not because it is right
but because it is necessary".
It is important to notice that the reference of the middle voice to
the jicTpioTTis did not prevent Aristotle from taking into account
also the voice neydXii and the voice piKpd. In my opinion the use
of a middle type, the HCCTTI (|)UVTI, when the two exfremes and the
gradation between these would have been sufficient, may be
atfributed to the Peripatetic emphasis on the neTpioTiis, but
should not lead us to ignore the lieydXii and the jiiKpa (txovTj, both
of which actually occur.
At this point the problem which arises is a possible
relationship to the Stoic TCXVTI irepl (txovTJs. We should investigate
whether in this TCXVTJ the three kinds of voice led to the
development of the three xapaKTTjpes TT^S Xefews. Unfortunately
we lack information on this subject (see the recent contributions
by Ax, Frede and Schenkeveld), but we can say of the virtues of
speech, that the Stoics "adopted the doctrine from Theophrastus"
(Frede, p. 310). I agree with Frede, albeit as corrected by
Schenkeveld, who, following Ax, says that "the Stoics started their
' grammar' from ideas on the elements of lexis and logos in the
wake of Aristotelian logic and natural sciences". On the other
hand, the Peripatetic school had other occasions beside Aristotle
and Theophrastus to improve and perfect a doctrine of different
types of style. I have already pointed out that Alexandrian
philology had been influenced by another Peripatetic author,
Praxiphanes of Rhodes (or Mitilene) who lived and worked in
Alexandria and perhaps in Rhodes and was the teacher of both
" See W. Ax, Laut, Stimme und Sprache. Studien zu drei Grundbegriffen der antiken
Sprachtheorie (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1986), pp. 158-162, M. Frede,
"Principles of Stoic Grammar", in Essays in Ancient Philosophy, ed. M. Frede (Oxford;
Clarendon Press, 1987), pp. 301-325, D. M. Schenkeveld, "The Stoic Tex^n irepi
(t*oi/f|s", Mnemosyne 43 (1990): 86-108, here pp. 93-95, id. "Scholarship and
Grammar", in La philologie grecque d I'ipoque hellinistique et romaine, ed. F. Montanari
(Vandoeuvres - Geneve: Fondation Hardt, Entretiens XL, 1994), pp. 263-306, here
p. 272.
" The Stoic Texvt] Ttepl (JXDITIS, p. 104; cf. W. Ax, "Quadripertita Ratio:
Bemerkungen zur Geschichte eines aktuellen Kategoriensystems (Adiectio-Detractio-
Transmutatio-Immutatio)", Historiographia Linguistica 13 (1986): 191-214, here pp. 158
ff..
" See G. Calboli, Studi Grammaticali (Bologna: Zanichelli, 1962), pp. 154-156.
" Praxiphanes is called MiTuXr|wiios (Mytilenus) by both Clemens (Stromateis 1
cap. xvi 79.3, Wehrli fr. 10, ix, p. 96) and the Vita Arati Latina (Commentariorum in
Aratum reliquiae, ed. E.Maass, p. 149, Wehrli fr. 17, ix, p. 98), but he is placed in the
group of the celebrated Rhodian personalities by Strabon (xiv 2, 13 (655), Wehrli fr.
54 RHETORICA
CalUmachos and Aratos, though Callimachos wrote a work
criticizing him (TTpos TTpa^L(t)dvTiv).^*' However, at tiiis point it is
enough for me to draw attention to the fripartite division of the
voice given by Aristotle as a natural element which is able to be
considered as a model for the fripartite division of the styles
because of the connection with the Xefis.
The connection with Theophrastus is even more likely because
he was interested in deUvery and voice and had studied
psychology and sensory perception. This connects with another
aspect of Theophrastus' rhetoric and stylistic which has been
pointed out by Grube and more recently by D. limes, the
usefulness of the speaker leaving some points unexpressed in a
speech in order to leave something for the hearers to work out for
themselves, which both flatters and persuades them:
Theoph. 696 FHS&G (= Dem. eloc. 222) ci> TOUTOL? Te ouv TO
TTiQavov. Kal ev (L 6o<t)paaT6s' (j)r|aLi'. OTI ou rravTa eir' dKpiPeias
Set âKpri-yopelv, dXX' ei' ia KaTaXLireii' Kal TIO dKpoaTfi aui' ievai Kal
XoyiêcrGai e auToO' aui ' sl ? 7<ip TO eXXeK^Gev uiro aoG OUK oKpo-
aTT) liofou, dXXti KOI îdpTus aou yii'eTai, Kal aira eupei' eaTepos.
auveTO? 7dp eauTti 8OKL 8id ak TOV d(t>oppf)v TrapeaxriKOTa auTtji
ToO aui' ievai, TO 8k irdvTa iL? dvoriTtp Xeyeiv KaTaYivijijaKovTi
loLKei' ToO dKpoaToO. "Persuasi veness, therefore, resi des in t hese
1, ix, p. 93). Wehrli thinks that Praxiphanes stayed in Rhodes where a Peripatetic
school was established after Eudemos came back to the island from Athens: F.
Wehrli, Die Schule des Aristoteles, Texte und Kommentar, Heft IX: Phainias von Eresos,
Chamaileon, Praxiphanes (Basel/Stuttgart: Schwabe & Co, 2.Auflage, 1968-1969), p.
105.
' Cf F. Wehrli, Die Schule des Aristoteles IX, pp. 105 (.; G. Calboli, Studi, pp. 154
ff
" Cf W. W. Fortenbaugh, "Theophrastus on Delivery", p. 272 and the
fragments 273-298 B FHS&G.
" See G. M. A. Grube, "Theophrashjs as a Literary Critic", TAPhA 83 (1952):
172-183, here p. 175, D. Innes, "Theophrastiis and the Theory of Style", p. 253.
" G. M. A. Gmbe, A Creek Critic: Demetrius on Style (Toronto: University of
Toronto Press, 1961), p. Il l , recalls that Theophrastus' idea is connected with
brevity, which is typical of the yei-os laxvov. We must not miss this point, because
brevity has been presented by Plato, Prot. 342d-e, as a very useful philosophical tool
specific to the Spartan people. In Plato's opinion, the Spartans were philosophically
educated very well. Actually Plato writes: YTO'ITC 6' dv on eyijj raura dXri9fj Xeyoo
Kai AaKeSaiiionoi irpos <))iXcxjo<t)iai' Kai X670US dpiara ireirai&ein/rai (Plato, Prot.
342d). This is another point of view but it also regards the behaviour of the speaker
towards the audience as a way of influencing the hearers as suggested by
Theophrastus (on Laconian brevity see M. S. Celentano, "La laconicita: un
atteggiamento etico-linguistico, una quaUta retorica, un criterio estetico", in Studi di
retorica oggi in Italia, ed. A. Pennacini (Bologna: Pitagora, 1987), pp. 110-115.
From Aristotelian Xegis to Elocutio 55
(clarity and ordinary usage) and in what Theophrastus says: namely,
that one ought not to elaborate everything in detail, but leave some
things for the listener, too, to perceive and infer for himself; for
when he perceives what you have left out, he not only is a listener
but also becomes your witness, and in addition more favorably
disposed. For he thinks himself perceptive, because you have
provided him with the occasion to exercise perception. Saying
everything as if to a fool gives the appearance of despising the
listener."
In comparison with this statement of Theophrastus we could take
into accoimt Aristotle's idea that the Hstener always enjoys it
when he can guess the development of enthymemes {Rhet.
n.23.1400b 34-35).
As for the Theophrastean origin of the three xapaKTfjpes TIIS
Xefetos, the conclusion of D. limes is that "it is [..] theoretically
conceivable that Theophrastus took up Aristotle's [Rhet. III.7.1408
a 10 ff.] hint of a two-style theory and modified it to include a
third, intermediate type. [...]. But tiiere is no compelling reason to
atfribute such a three-style theory to Theophrastus". This is the
most prudent position. To conclude this part of my paper 1 would
point out that the earliest evidence of the three-(four) styles theory
which we find in a Greek work, the Rhetorica by Philodemus
(Book 4, Coll. m-IV. Vol. I, p. 164 Sud.) refers to aSpoypaîav,
LCTXvoTTiTa, licaoTTiTa and 7Xa(|)up6TTiTa. The tiecioTTiTa needs to be
reconstructed and this is now possible with some plausibility
thanks to a new inspection of the papyrus by F. Longo Auricchio
(see below).
" "Theophrastus and the Theory of Style", pp. 2611.
" It would be interesting to clarify whether a link existed between Philodemus
and Peripatetic rhetoric. A connection with the Peripatetic Critolaus has been
claimed by Radermacher and Sudhaus (vol. I, p. XXVIl), but Durandi showed that
Philodemus, in agreement with Epicurus, criticized Aristotle for abandoning
philosophy to rhetoric, see T. Dorandi, "Epicuro confro Aristotele sulla Retorica", in
Peripatetic Rhetoric after Aristotle, ed. W. W. Fortenbaugh and D. C. Mirhady (New
Brunswick: Rutgers University Studies in Classical Humanities VI, Transaction
Publishers, 1994), pp. 111-120.
56 RHETORICA
2. THE DOCTRINE OF TROPES AND FIGURES
My aim in the Part 1 was not only to present new arguments in
defence of Theophrastus' authorship of tiie doctrine of the three
styles, but also to confirm the importance of Theophrastus for
understanding linguistic expression considered as a whole, that is
including all the most valuable elements of the Xeîs ^ d the
xapaKTiipes TTIS Xefews K.Barwick^' and G. Kennedy have
already pointed out how important Theophrastus was for the
doctrine of figures which we first find in Rhetorica ad Herennium
4.13.19-55.68. Both scholars stress Theophrastus' confribution
towards the development of this docfrine, and Kermedy says (p.
277) that "Theophrastus is probably responsible for elevating the
subject to a level equal to diction and thus encouraging the
process of identification of figures which led to the almost
interminable lists in later rhetorical handbooks." The doctrine of
tropes and figures draws in other elements which are probably
Peripatetic. This applies not only to Rhetorica ad Herennium, but
also to the doctrine of tropes anci figures of the first century B.C.
At this time the later attested distinction between the grammatical
and the rhetorical doctrines of tropes and figures was probably
not yet firmly established. On this subject Barwick's important
study still deserves consideration. Since his work some
interesting contributions have been presented by D. M.
Schenkeveld. In particular the paper written in 1991 on Figures
and Tropes ends with an explanation of the origin of tropes and an
interesting suggestion about the origin and development of the
distinction between tropes and figures. I would like to consider
his suggestion, that rhetoricians developed a theory of figures of
speech starting from the Gorgianic figures, just as they used the
Aristotelian axiiiiaTa Tfjs Xefews to develop a theory of figures of
thought. At the end of the second or at the begirming of the first
century B.C. according to Schenkeveld "all parts were put
togetherwith more or less successinto theories of figures and
'" Probleme, pp. 95f.; 102-110.
" The Art of Persuasion in Greece (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press,
1963), pp. 276f
" Barwick, Probleme, pp. 97-110.
" "Figures and fropes. A border-case between grammar and rhetoric", in
Rhetorik zwischen den Wissenschaften, ed. G. Ueding (Tubingen: Niemeyer, 1991), pp.
149-157; "Scholarship and Grammar", pp. 263 ff. with reference to previous papers).
" This idea has already been hinted at by Barwick, Probleme, p. 102.
From Aristotelian Xef is to Elocutio 57
tropes." Rhetorica ad Herennium supports this suggestion. Actually
if we consider the situation of figures and tropes in this work, we
find that there is no clear distinction between tropes and figures
and that the Gorgianic figures are bound together so as to merge
into a group of not completely distinguished figures of speech and
thought. Nevertheless tiie fropes are grouped together (Rhet. Her.
4.42-46) in ten exorrmtiones verborum which correspond to the
fropes from the point of view of definition. The following
passages are the beginning and the conclusion of the section of
Rhetorica ad Herennium devoted to these ten tropes:
Rhet. Her. 4.42 "Restant etiam decern exomationes verborum, quas
idcirco non vage dispersimus, sed a superioribus separavimus, quod
omnes in uno genere sunt positae. Nam earum omnium hoc
proprium est, ut ab usitata verborum potestate recedatur atque in
aliam rationem cum quadam venustate oratio conferatur". "There
remain also ten Figures of Diction, which I have intentionally not
scattered at random, but have separated from those above, because
they all belong in one class. They indeed all have this in common,
that the language departs from the ordinary meaning of the words
and is, with a certain grace, applied in another sense" (Trans, by H.
Caplan).
Rhet.Her. 4.46 "Haec sunt fere, quae dicenda videbantur de
verborum exomationibus. Nunc res ipsa monet, ut deiceps ad
sententiarum exomationes transeamus". "This is substantially all I
have thought it necessary to say on the Figures of Diction. Now the
subject itself directs me to tum next to the Figures of Thought".
This is the first text in which we find fropes dealt with as part of
the elocutio, though without the specific name of trope. The ten
fropes, here called exorrmtiones verborum, are the following {Rhet.
Her. 4.42-46): nomirwtio (ovonaToiroLLa), pronomirmtio (dvTO-
vo(iaCTia), denomirmtio {\ieTUivv\iia), circumitio (T7epL(t)paCTis), trans-
gressio (inrepPaTov), superlatio (wepPoXii), intellectio (CTin/eK8oxil),
abusio (KQTdxpTiCTLs), translatio (|ieTa(t>opd), permutatio (dXXiiYopia).
" The Greek and Roman correspondences to these fropes are given in my
edition Comifici Rhetorica ad C. Herennium, pp. 374-395, and in "Rhetorica ad
Herennium" Rhetorik an Herennius, Incerli Auctoris Libri IV de arte dicendi, Eines
Unbekannten 4 BUcher tiber Redekunst, ed. F. Miiller (Aachen: Veriag Shaker, 1994), pp.
231-233. The ancient rhetoricians were uncertain whether the inrepPaToi' isuperlatio)
was a frope or a figure. Quintilian himself puts the imcpPaToi/ into both fropes (Inst.
8.6.62-67) and figures (9.1.3). The same is done by Quintilian of the iiepi(j)paots and
the 6vo\iaTOTtoda.
58 RHETORICA
Metaphor, on one hand, occurs by changing tiie meaning of only
one word,^^ allegory, on the other hand, is a chain of metaphors as
explained in Rhet.Her. (4.46 Permutatio [...]. Per similitudinem
sumitur, cum translationes plures frequenter ponuntur) and by Cicero
(Orat. 94 iam cum fluxerunt continuae plures translationes [...] genus
hoc Graeci appellant dXXrjyopiair. nomine recte, genere melius ille, qui
ista omnia translationes vocat).
The first Greek text in which we find the use of the word
TpoTTos with the meaning of rhetorical trope is tiie following
passage of Philodemus:"
Phi l od. Rhet. 1164.18 ff 8La[ipouvT]ai 6| aurfiv [sc. (i>pdaiv] e[i]s e r
8TI T[pL]a Tpdliroi' crxripa iTX[dap]a- Tpo|iTov p[ev] OL[OI'] jie[Ta<Hp]av
" As examples in the passage just quoted of the Rhet.Her. 4.45 we find: "Italiam
tumultus expergefecit, extinxit civitatem, cottidianis nuptiis delectatur, explere
inimicitias - crudehtatem saturare, in rebus difficillimis aspiravit, rei publicae
rationes exaruerunt, revirdescent." The metaphors are; Italiam, civitatem, inimicitias,
crudelitatem considered as human beings, nuptiis instead of an obscene word,
aspiravit instead of favit where a favourable wind is understood as replacement of a
person, exaruerunt and revirdescent as a badly or well cultivated garden instead of a
badly or well administered state. In all these cases the metaphor concerns
specifically only one word, but to construct it the author frequently needs two
words (cottidianis nuptiis, explere inimicitias, crudelitatem saturare, rationes exaruerunt,
[rationes] revirdescent). The same is the case with Aristotle's metaphor, e.g. by the
01/0X0701/: Poet. 1457 b 20 Xiyoi 8e oioi/ 6|ioio)S exei (JudXii irpos Aioi/iooi/ Kal d<jms
irpos 'Apr]- epel joivuv Tt\v (J)idXr|i/ doiriSa Aioi/Ooou KOI -ri]v doiriSa tJudXrii'
"Apetos.
" 1 give the text as it has been read by Francesca Longo Auricchio who kindly
checked for me the papyrus and the Neapolitan drawing and sent me the new text in
a letter of November 15th, 1996. I very much thank Prof. Longo Auricchio for her
help. The new text is not very different from the text by Sudhaus, but the reading of
Prof. Longo Auricchio shows that some reconstructions by Sudhaus are actually
present in the papyrus and at one point, at the end of the passage, Sudhaus's reading
ê7c9os cannot be accepted. The translation is mine and here I propose tentatively
the integration ne[o6TriTla so as to accord with the theory of three (or four) styles,
see Dion.Hal. mim.31.2, II 206.21 t. U.-R., and Consulti Fortunatiani Ars Rhetorica,
Introduzione, Edizione Critica, Traduzione e Commento ed. L. Calboli Montefusco
(Bologna: Pafron, 1979), pp. 447 f. Prof. Longo Auricchio kindly sent me a xerocopy
of the Neapolitan drawing where it is possible to distinguish clearly two other
letters of the missing word. These letters are TH. So we actually have ME...TH...A
and it is not difficult to suppose tieoorriTa. Already H. Schrader, "ZXHMA und
TPOTTOZ in den Homer-Scholien. Ein Beifrag zur Entwicklungsgeschichte beider
Worter", Hermes 39 (1904): 563-603, here p. 591 Anm. 3, has proposed jieoorriT'
without any doubt and has written: "Ohne Zweifel ist Philod. p. 165, 4 das ^...zu
(leooTriT", nicht mit Sudhaus zu iieyeSos, zu erganzen". It seems to me that we have
now, thanks to Prof. Longo Auricchio's new examination, more evidence in favour
of ;io6TT)Ta.
From Aristotelian Xefi? to Elocutio 59
dXXriyopiai' [ird]!/ TCJI TOLOUTO, axf)|jia 8e TO irelpioSoLS [K]al KIJXGL?
[K]al Koplpaaiv [K]al Tats T[ouTa)]H irXoKals Kal TroL6TT|[ai] 8ia|Xa]|i-
Pdi'[ov], irXdapa 8c T6| a[8]po[Yp]a<t)iai'I[X]OV fi iaxt'OTTilTa f| êlaoh
TTIITIQ .... a fi 7Xa(t)u|p6Tr|Ta."They divide it [i.e. the speech] into
three species, the trope, the figure and the type of style: on the one
hand the trope like a metaphor, an allegory and suchlike, on another
hand the figure distinguished by periods, cola and commata and
their constructions and types, and the type of style in that it is a
forcible or plain or middle or elegcint kind of style."
Schenkeveld suggests that "starting from the Gorgianic figures
rhetoricians developed a theory of figures of speech and from the
AristoteUan axiiiiaTa Tfjs Xefews a theory of figures of thought"."
In my opinion the Aristotelian and Peripatetic fradition may have
contributed equally to the theory of tropes and figures. There is
perhaps a ffrst draft by Aristotle in an order similar to that in the
first freatise in which such a theory is presented, Rhetorica ad
Herennium, Book IV. However the disposition is partially different
because in Rhetorica ad Herennium we have a first group of thirty-
five exomationes verborum {Rhet. Her. 4.19-41) to which the five
Gorgianic figures also belong. They are: contentio, dvTiGeaLs (4.21
repeated at 4.58), compar, TrapiCTUKTis or LCTOKWXOV (4.27), similiter
cadens, ojioioTrTOiTov (4.28), similiter desinens, 6|ioLOTeXeirrov (4.28),
adnominatio, TrapovotiaCTia (4.29-33). As a second group we have
the ten tropes already quoted which are Usted after the other
exorrmtiones verborum without changing the name. The last group
is that of the nineteen figurae sententiarum (4.47-69). A similar
arrangement is to be found in Aristotle too. We have only to
combine Aristotle's Poetics and Rhetoric. This is not difficult
because Aristotle himself, by quoting (Rhet. 1405 a 5 f.) the
freatment of metaphor which he had previously presented in the
Poetics (1457 a 31-1459 a 16), showed that the passages in the
Poetics and in the Rhetoric are linked together. In the Poetics (1456 b
9 ff.) Aristotle took into account some figures of speech (axwciTa
Tfjs Xefews) which belong rather to Protagoras' modes.^' One of
these is the epwrriais. The same figure occurs in the first group of
the Rhetorica ad Herennium with the name of interrogatio (4.22).
Aristotle then considered the parts of speech, letter, syllable.
" "Figures and fropes", p. 156.
" Diog. Laert. 9.53 f. See G. Calboli, "I modi del verbo greco e latino 1903-
1966", Lustrum 11 (1966): 173-349, here p. 176; D. M. Schenkeveld, "Stoic and
Peripatetic Kinds of Speech Act and the Distinction of Grammatical Moods",
Mnemosyne 37 (1984): 291-353, here pp. 292 f.
60 RHETORICA
name, verb etc. and introduced metaphor into the freatment of
name (Poet. 1457 b 6 ff.) immediately after opposing the YXWTTQ to
the Kiipiov ovojia, the standard term.*' Later, in Rhetoric {Rhet.
1409 b 32-1410 b 5), Aristotle took into account all tiie Gorgianic
figures, except the tTapovopLaaLa, when he spoke of the dvTiGTjaLs,
the TrapLaoKJis and the TTaponoLOXTLs which both correspond to the
specific Gorgianic figures of the onoioirTtoTov and
otioioTeXevTov. The next topic dealt with by Aristotie (Rhet. 1410 b
6 ff.) is the metaphor. The ordering of the material, firstly the
epwTriCTLs (Poetics 1456 b 9 ff.), secondly the Gorgianic figures
{Rhet.U09 h 32-1410 b 5) and tiiirdly tiie tropes {Rhet. 1410 b 6-
1413 a 22: the metaphor is the only trope taken into account by
Aristotle), corresponds exactly to the disposition in Rhetorica ad
Herennium. Therefore it seems not impossible that in Rhetorica ad
Herennium the figures and tropes follow an order near to that in
Peripatetic theory, a first draft of which can be found in Aristotle
when his Poetics and Rhetoric are considered together.
The question arises whether the situation which we find in the
Rhetorica ad Herennium should be considered as an early
arrangement or as the result of a recent combination in which
figures and tropes were put together. As for the distinction
between tropes and figures and its development, a convincing
answer can be found in Rhetorica ad Herennium itself, where we
read that the author linked together a certain group of figures of
speech and avoided scattering them because they shared the same
characteristic of changing the usual meaning of a word into
another one not only for the sake of expressiveness but also to
produce a pleasing effect. As 1 pointed out in my Commentary,
following Barwick," it seems more likely that the doctrine of
figures which we find in the Rhetorica ad Herennium was not a
forerunner of the Stoic doctrine of Diogenes of Babylon, but a
contrasting doctrine which could be employed as a substitute for
the Stoic freatements of tropes and figures. In this regard the
Arist. Poet. 1457 b3 f. Xeyoj Se Kitpiov \ikv (J xfxiiToi eKaorot "By 'standard
term' I mean one used by a community" (Trans, by S. Halliwell).
" In the same passage Aristotle cites the otioioTeXeuToi' and the rrrioois (Rhet.
1410 a 27 and 1410 b 1) and it must be said that his knowledge of the Gorgianic
figures, the rtapouopaoia excepted, is complete. As for the iropowptaoio. Ax,
"Quadripertita Ratio" pp. 208-210, demonstrated that the four criteria of the adiectio,
detractio, transmutatio and immutatio which produce the lrapol/o^laoia are originally
Aristotelian (see below). Therefore we can say that none of the Gorgianic figures is
outside the Peripatetic attention.
" Comifici Rhetorica ad C. Herennium, p. 374; cf, Barwick, Probleme pp. 88-97.
From Aristotelian Xeî? to Elocutio 61
number of the tropes is of a certain importance, for in other
freatises there are less or more. In Ps. Plut., De vita et poesi Hom. U
16 ff., we find, for example, eight tropes: 6vo(iaTOTroLLa, KOTd-
XpTiCTis, neTa(t)opdv, jierdXiiiJiLS, (JuveK6oxil, jicTwvijiLa,
dvTovojiaCTia, dvTi(t)pa(ns. Quintilian's Institutio Oratoria {Inst.
8.6.4-67) has the following fourteen: \iTa<\)opd. synecdoche, jieTwvi-
^LQ, antonomasia, onomatopoeia, catachresis {abusio), metalempsis,
eiTLGeTov, allegoria, aenigma, ironia, periphrasis, hyperbaton, hyperbole.
Another list of tropes has been conserved in a fragment TTepl
rpoTTwv of a Wiirzburger Papyrus which its editor, U. Wilcken,"
compares with the list which we find in Tryphon's work TTepl
TpOTTWV:
Wiirz. Pap. 19, I. 1-5 [Tpoiroi 8'eial -yei/iKol) 17 dXXr|yopLa.|
[peTa(J)opd, uirep3aT6]v. pTdXr|m|jLs,| [KQTdxpriais. di/aaTpo<J)ii,]
0uveK8oxil,| [ovonaToiroua. peTujv]upLa, irepL()>paaLS,| [uXeoi/aatKDS,
IXXeitliJis. TrapairXnp(jjpa|. "The tropes belonging to the ylvos are
thirteen in number, allegory, metaphor, hyperbaton, metalepsis,
catachresis, anastrophe, synecdoche, onomatopoeia, metonymy,
periphrasis, pleonasmus, ellipsis, completion."
Tryph. Ill 191.14-18 Spengel Tpoiroi Se îaiv ot ye.in.KuiTd-n]v
\i4>aivovTs crrdoiv Tcaaapes Kal 8Ka. neTatJxspd, KOTdxpriais,
dXXriyopia, aiviypa, |jieTdXr|<pL?, êTtuvupia, aui/eKSoxn,
oi/opaTOTToiia, iTpL(})paaLs, duaaTpo<t)ii, uirepPaToi/, irXeovaapos,
IXXen|jis, TraparrXTiptopa. TOUTOU? Sk TTOITITIKOUS KoXouaiv, eirel KOTO
ye TO irXeiaTov T\ TOUTUI' xpfjcis rrapd TToiriTais, Kal on TOUTOI? 01
7pa^|iaTLKol xp'jîâi- efriyouiievoi TQ Kupiai? fi TpoiriKiSs TOIS
iroLriTais eiprnreua. "The tropes which belong to the level of the
highest genera are fourteen in number: metaphor, catachresis,
allegory, einigma, metalepsis, metonymy, synecdoche,
onomatopoeia, periphrasis, anastrophe, hyperbaton, pleonasmus,
ellipsis, completion. These are called poetic tropes because they are
used mostly by poets, and grammarians employ them when they
" Cf. U. Wilcken, "Mitteilimgen aus der Wiirzburger Papynissammlung", in
Berliner Akademieschriften zurAlten Geschichte und Popyruskunde (1883-1942) (Leipzig:
Zenfralantiquariat der DDR, 1970), p. 27. At p. 23 he says: "Die Vergleichung mit
jenen griechischen Traktaten [die im III. Band der Ausgabe Spengeb vorUegen]
ergab mir, daC der Wiirzburger Text, dessen Handschrift (II. Jahrh.) ja bei weitem
die alteste uns erhaltene Tradition darstellt, auch inhaltlich in manchen
Beziehungen als altertiimlicher imd eine altere Schicht der Entwicklung
reprasentiert." In his commentary Wilcken has been helped by the great specialist on
Greek rhetoric, Johannes Sfroux.
62 RHETORICA
explain what has been said by poets either in standard or figurative
expressions.
Some details, in my opinion, confirm this general view. Before
considering them, however, I must briefly discuss the views
proposed, after Barwick's work, by Baratin and Schenkeveld. I
will consider also Sdirader' s article to which Schenkeveld
constantly refers. Schrader believes that, as far as can be seen in
the Homeric Scholia, Alexandrian grammarians used the word
TpoTTos only in a general sense (any evidence of a specific meaning
before Tryphon is absent). However Schrader accepts that the
grammarians of Pergamon received from the Stoics a rhetorical
version of trope and that they employed a more developed theory
of tropes than the Alexandrian grammarians." The word <JXW^>
on the contrary, began to be employed in a specific sense in the
middle of the second century B.C. by Lucilius 1133 M. and
perhaps even earlier by Polybius 29.12.10. As for Rhetorica ad
Herennium Schrader too (pp. 592 f.) thinks that the doctrine of
figures which we find in this work came from the Rhodian school,
and in particular from a system of figures developed by
Athenaeus, the rival of Hermagoras of Temnos, and Apollonius
Molon. Both defined the figures by considering on the one hand
pleasure (T|8OVTI) and on the other the mistake of the CTOXOLKKTHOS:
Phoebamm. Ill 44.11-21 'AGTiuaios 8e 6 NauKpanTris Kal
'AiroXXcoi'ios 6 eiriKXriGels MoXwv lipiaairro oirrii), CTxfipd ecmv
peraPoXf) eis riSoff)!/ efdyouaa T^V dKoinv. ou trdirroTe 6e
peTaPdXXeTai- KOI r|9iKeuTai Kal eiictxnniKtjjTepoi' tTOLei TOV Xoyoi'.
6 Se TeXeios auTou opos OUTO), axfjpd ianv efdXXaîs KOTO
Sidvoiav fi Xeîi/ em TO KpeiTTOi/ dveu Tpoirou yivo\iT\vT\. eiri TO
KpeiTTov efpriToi 8id TOV aoXoiKiapov Kal ydp 6 aoXoLKiapos Tpoirri
ecm Kal efdXXafis, dXX' em TO x^Lpoi/. dveu 8e Tpoirou eiprjTai,
irei8f| Kal 6 Tpoiro? Kal T\ TpoiriKn Xefi? i^dXKaîs eanv eK Tiis
Kupiius XeyopevTi5, dveu pevToi crxnpaTos. ihs irapd T^) Aripoofievei
KTX.. "Athenaeus of Naucratis and ApoUonios called Molon defined
" D. M. Schenkeveld, "Figures and fropes", franslates (p. 155) the last two lines
in this way: "because the grammarians make use of these when explaining the literal
or figurative expressions in poetry", and he comments thus: "Explanation of literal
expressions does not entail application of the theory of fropes and here Tryphon
befrays the existence of the wider sense [of fropej." However I think that
grammarians abo used the doctrine of fropes when they considered the Kupia
oi/onoTa, by explaining the Kupiov 6vo\i.a through the difference with the
corresponding frope (in particular with metaphor).
" Cf. H. Schrader, 2XHMA und TPOUOZ, p. 602.
From Aristotelian Xefts to Elocutio 63
it in this way: figure is a change leading the hearer to pleasure. The
change does not happen all of the time, but gives a special character
and emphasis to the speech. Its complete definition is the following:
figure is a chcinge into a stronger expression which regards the
meaning and the speech and happens without any trope. 'Into a
stronger expression' has been said on account of the solecism. For
the solecism is a variation and a change, but to the worst. 'Without
trope' has been said because the trope and the speech constructed
with tropes is a change from the common use of the language,
without figures as in Demosthenes etc."
The problem, therefore, is to determine the link between fropes
and figures and barbarism and solecism. After the hypothesis of
Barwick who, having established a parallelism between virtutes
and vitia orationis (KaKiai and dpcTal Tfjs Xeêa)s), constructed a
complete correspondence between the two phenomena, a new
suggestion has been put forward by Baratin." He points out that
for the Stoics the word Tpoiros did not mean only the change of
one word, but could refer to more than one word as in SVF in
App.vii 5. This is the term (Tpoiros and also axiiiia), which the
Stoics used for the moods of inference called dvaTT68eLKTOL Tpoirot:
"If the first, then the second; but the first; therefore the second",
etc." Nevertheless Baratin acknowledges that Tpouos in rhetorical
and grammatical use, according to the Stoics, refers only to one
word. This is a consequence of a further development. At the
beginning there was a link between the vitia and virtutes orationis,
and both meant an "ecart" from the normal meaning. This first
step can be found in Quint. Inst. 1.8.14-16, where barbarism and
solecism are considered deviations from the standard usage and
both are to be condemned, whereas in poetry they are accepted as
metaplasm and schema. The second step of this development
occurs in theoretical grammar: this should mean, in Baratin's
words (p. 312) "I'introduction dans la grammaire theorique de la
description des figures et des fropes". At this point in the Stoic
doctrine, the barbarism comes to be considered a mistake with
regard to Xefis, and the solecism a mistake with regard to Xoyos:
" Cf. M. Baratin, La rmissance de la syntaxe d Rome (Paris: Les editions de Minuit,
1989), pp. 292-322.
" Sex. Emp. Adv. Math. viii. 224 f; W. Kneale and M.Kneale, The Development of
Logic (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1964), pp. 162-176, M. Frede, Die stoische Logik
(Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1974), pp.136-148. Frede also quotes the
definition by Diogenes Laertius (vii 76): rpoiros Se ÔTIV olovel axntio Xoyou, oioi/
6 Toioirros' 'et TO irptJoToi', T6 Seirrepov dXXd \ir]v TO vpCirov TO dpo Seirrepou'.
^ RHETORICA
Diog. Laert. 7.59 6 8e Pappapicrtios CK TWV KaKiwv Xe^s eoTi
uapd TO e9os TWV ei)8oKLp.oi)vTwv "EXXTIVWV, CToXoLKiCTtios 8e CCTTL
Xoyos dKaTaXXiiXojs awTCTayiievos. "Among vices of style
barbarism is violation of tiie usage of Greeks of good standing;
while there is solecism when the sentence has an incongruous
construction" (frans. by R. D. Hicks).
Ae^Ls means tiie 'significant' and barbarism concerns the
'significant'. A mistake witii reference to Xoyos is a solecism, but it
is sometiiing more tiian a mistake of combination, because it is
defined as dKaTaXXeXws crwTeTayjievos, "forme de la combinaison
d'elements qui ne sont pas coherents"." The Alexandrian
grammarians gave a new interpretation of Xefis, "assimilee a la
notion du mot"." This change led to new meanings of barbarism
and solecism: the former was considered a mistake with reference
to one word, the latter a mistake involving more than one word. "
This new interpretation of mistakes gave rise to new meanings of
both trope and figure: the trope with respect to one word, the
figure to more than one. I am not sure that Baratin's hypothesis is
right, though I tiiink tiiat the different approach of Alexandrian
philologists could have influenced such a development of the
Stoic doctrine. However it is difficult to distinguish the different
steps of such an influence. Barwick thinks that, whereas the Stoics
were interested in the linguistic function of tropes, Alexandrian
philology was interested in its use to embeUish speech, but it is
difficult to distinguish every step in the building of such a
syncretic doctrine. Each distinct step could have developed in a
different way and at a different time and we lack too much of the
information necessary to determine all the details. The island of
Rhodes was certainly of great importance to the process because it
was open to the influence of the Alexandrian and Stoic doctrines"
and of such authoritative Peripatetic philosophers as Eudemus
and Praxiphanes who were then active in Rhodes.'" 1 presume also
" Baratin, La naissance de la syntaxe d Rome, p. 317.
" Baratin, La naissance de la syntaxe A Rome, p. 319.
"En un mot, la reinterpretation alexandrine de I'opposition lexis/logos, en
faisant porter le solecisme non plus sur I'enonce mais sur 'plusieurs mots', a fait
passer le solecisme du cadre de I'enonce a celui du syntagme au moins du point
de vue des definitions", cf. Baratin, La naissance de la syntaxe A Rome, p. 319.
" The great Stoic philosopher Poseidonios was teaching in Rhodes (see Jacoby T
2.4.6.8).
^ See P. Moraux, Der Aristotelismus bei den Griechen. Von Andronikos bis
Alexander von Aphrodisia (Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 1973), I, pp. 8-10.
that the division of the rmrratio (8LTiyT|(jLs) in Rhet. Her. 1.12 goes
back to Praxiphanes."
Schenkeveld too criticizes Barwick's theory and suggests that
in the Classic period "technical terms were in use for individual
phenomena which in a later period were classified under tropes
and figures".'" He stresses the fact that Tpoiros was used not only
to refer simply to a single word but also in a wider sense and that
it began to refer to a single word through the adjective TPOTTLKOS,
which was employed instead of neTa(})opiK6s when metaphor was
restricted (and, for example, the KaTdxpTiats was split off). His
"final supposition is that at the end of the second or beginning of
the first century B.C. all parts were put together with more or
less success into theories of figures and tropes"." In my opinion
Schenkeveld's prudence is excessive but useful." As for the
Rhetorica ad Herennium, Schenkeveld's hypothesis suggests that the
docfrine of figures (and tropes) which we find in this work was an
ancient system, not a simplification of a previous doctrine
developed under Stoic influence. In this way we should explain
also the combination together of the ten tropes presented as
special exomationes verborum in Rhetorica ad Herennium (4.42-46).
" C f Calboli, Comifici Rhet. Her., p. 216, R. Nicolai, La storiografia, p. 125, n. 174.
*" Cf. "Figures and fropes", p. 152.
*' Cf "Figures and fropes", pp. 155 I.
" In one case I cannot accept Schenkeveld's opinion. He writes (p. 150) that
"from the very first occurrence of fropos in the sense of trope in a Greek text
[Philodemus, Rhet. \, 164,18ff ] fropes are not confined to single words." As we have
already seen the frope is explained through the example of both metaphor and
allegory. The metaphor is clearly and constantly related to a single word and
allegory is considerd a chain of metaphors (Rhet. Her. 4.46; Cic. orat. 94 "iam cum
fluxerunt continuae plures franslationes, alia plane fit oratio; itaque genus hoc
Graeci appellant dXXriyopiai'," Quint. Inst. 8.6.44 "allegoria [...] fit [..] plerumque
continuatis tralationibus"; 9.2.46 "(etpooi/eta] ut, quern ad modum dXXriyopiau facit
continua tieTa<)x>pd, sic hoc schema faciat fropos ille contextus"). Allegory is termed
Xoyos by Tryphon, 111 193.9 Sp., but Xefis by Anon. frop. Ill 207.11 and (Jipdois by
Wiirz. Pap. 19.1.22. On the other hand allegory has always been considered a trope.
Therefore, notwithstanding Quint. Inst. 9.2.46, 1 am not sure that Schenkeveld is
right on this point.
66 RHETORICA
3. FIGURES AND GRAMMAR
G. Kermedy" has pointed out tiiat "Quintilian's discussion of
maxims (yvwjiaL, sententiae) as a device of style (8.5) probably goes
back to Theophrastus since Cicero, immediately after listing the
four Theophrastean virtues, demands that the orator provide acu-
tae crebraeque sententiae {Orator 79, cf. Gregory of Corinth in Walz
7.1154). The maxim was a form of proof to Aristotle {Rhetoric
1394alff.), but in the Rhetorica ad Herennium (4.24f.) it has become
simply a figure of speech." Although I accept such a con-
sideration, I would nevertheless bear in mind that Peripatetic
influence in the Rhetorica ad Herennium may be found not only in
the figure of the sententia, but also in some others considered by
the author of this work together with this (TXTIlia in Book 4.
The figure of sententia (yvwuri) needs to be investigated in
depth because it occurs as a axniia only in Rhetorica ad Herennium
(4.24) and in Visellius and Comificius, who are both quoted by
Quintilian {Inst. 9.2.107 and 9.3.98). I need not repeat here that in
my opinion it is very likely that Comificius is the author of
Rhetorica ad Herennium. A good argument supporting this is that
the arrangement of the figures of this group in the Rhetorica ad
Herennium is the same as that presented by Quintilian and almost
the same as that presented by the rhetorician Comificius quoted
by Quintilian (Inst. 9.3.98)." At tiiis point it would be worth
reconsidering the role played by Rhodian philosophers and
rhetoricians. This has already been dealt with by F. Della Corte, by
myself and more recently by J. Cousin.'' Rhodes was of great
importance since it was one of the four places (Athens,
Alexandria, the island of Rhodes and Skepsis) where Peripatetic
books and doctrine could be found after Aristotle's death."
Moreover Athens, Rhodes and Alexandria were important cenfres
of study for both philosophy and rhetoric. The author of Rhetorica
ad Herennium points out at the beginning and at the end of his
work (1.1 and 4.69) that he very much enjoys philosophy, but in
2.16 he seems to be against Dialecticians:
" G. Kennedy, The Art of Persuasion, p. 278.
" Cf. G. Calboli, "Comificiana 2", Atti della Ace. delle Scienze dell'lstituto di
Bologna, Memorie 51-52 (1964): 1-114, here pp. 20-29.
" Cf. F. Della Corte, "La filologia latina dalle origini a Varrone" (Ffrenze: La Nuova
Italia, 1981^), p. 168, Calboli, Studi grammaticali, p. 260, J. Cousin, Quintilien,
Institution oratoire (Paris: Les Belles Letfres, 1975-1980), V, pp. 138-141.
" Cf. P. Moraux, Der Aristotelismus, I, p. 15.
Rhet. Her. 2.16 Sunt qui arbitrentur ad hanc causam tractandam
vehementer pertinere cognitionem amphiboliarum eam, quae ab
dialecticis proferatur. Nos vero arbitramur non modo nuUo
adiumento esse, sed potius maximo impedimento. Omnes enim illi
amphibolias aucupantur, eas etiam, quae ex altera parte sententiam
nullam possunt interpretari. Itaque et alieni sermonis molesti
interpellatores et scripti cum odiosi tum obscuri interpretes sunt. [...]
Verum horum pueriles opiniones rectissimis rationibus, cum voles,
refellemus. In praesentiarum hoc intercedere non alienum fuit, ut
huius infantiae garrulam disciplinam contemneremus. "There are
some who think that for the development of this kind of cause a
knowledge of amphibolies as taught by the dialecticians is highly
useful. I, however, believe that this knowledge is no help at all, and
is, I may even say, a most serious hindrance. In fact these writers are
on the lookout for all amphibolies, even for such as yield no sense at
all in one of the two interpretations. Accordingly, when some one
else speaks, they are his boring and also misty interpreters. And
when they themselves speak, wishing to do so cautiously and deftiy,
they prove to be utterly inarticulate. [...] Indeed I shall refute the
childish opinions of these writers by the most straightforward proofs
whenever you wish. For the present it has not been out of place to
make this protest, in order to express my contempt for the wordy
learning of this school of inarticulateness."
Who wer e t hese dialecticil The particular poi nt of the ambiguitas
was deal t wi t h by t he Stoic dialecticians who di st i ngui shed eight
ki nds of dpL(}>LPoXia.'' Ant ony in Cicero' s De oratore criticizes t he
Stoic Di ogenes who came t o Rome in 155 B.C., while prai si ng t he
Peripatetic Critolaus and especially the Academi c C ameades: Cic.
De orat. 2.159-161 "hie nos igitur Stoicus iste [sc. Diogenes] nihil
adi uvat [...]; at que i dem etiam i mpedi t , quod et mul t a reperit,
quae negat uUo modo posse dissolvi [...]. Cri t ol aum i st um, quem
si mul cum Di ogene venisse commemor as, put o pl us hui c nosfro
st udi o pr odesse pot ui sse. Erat eni m ab isto Aristotele, a cuis
inventis tibi ego vi deor non longe aberrare. [...]. C ameadi vero vis
incredibilis iUa di cendi et varietas per quam esset opt anda nobi s. "
We know t hat in many respects Ant ony can be cormected wi t h t he
' ' See L. CalboU Montefusco, La dottrina degli "status", p. 180, a 74, and also A.
D. Leeman, H. Pinkster and E. Rabble, M. Tullius Cicero, De oratore libri III,
Kommentar, 3. Band: Buch II, 99-290 (Heidelberg: C Winter, 1989), p. 51: "Obgleich
die Ambiguitat bereits bei Aristoteles (Rhet. 1375bll) und Anaximenes S.85, 8 F.
erwahnt wfrd, fand sie eine eingehende dialektische Behandlung erst bei den
Stoikem."
68 RHETORICA
interests of the author of Rhetorica ad Herennium.'* This can help us
in determining with precision what kind of connection was
accepted by the author of Rhetorica ad Herennium between
philosophy and rhetoric, and this link between philosophy and
rhetoric explains an aspect which we found in the freatment of the
sententia in the Rhetorica ad Herennium.
In this work the sententia is followed by and linked with some
other figures: the contrarium (4.25 = evQv\]LT\\ia), membrum (4.26 =
KwXov), articulus (4.26 = Koiina), continuatio (4.26-27 = ireptoSos). On
one hand, these figures go back to philosophical and rhetorical
argumentation and to syllogism. On the other hand, in both the
Rhetorica ad Herennium and Comificius, this group of figures
immediately precedes the Gorgianic figures, dvTiGeais excepted,
and seems to be the oldest group of figures from which the
doctrine of tropes and figures developed. After the first of the
rop-yLCLa CTxiJliaTa, the dvTLGeois, dealt with in Rhet. Her. 4.21
{contentio), we actually find in the Rhetorica ad Herennium the
exclamatio and the interrogatio (4.22) and then the sententia and the
other figures just mentioned, i.e. the group of contrarium,
membrum, articulus, continimtio, followed immediately by the other
Gorgianic figures: compar (LCTOKWXOV, irapLCTOKiLs), similiter cadens
(ojioioTTTWTov), similiter desinens (ojioioTeXenTov), adnominatio (irapo-
vonacjia). We should stress, moreover, that in Rhetorica ad
Herennium the figure of dvTLGeais (contentio) was consciously
taken into account twice, first among the figures of speech (4.21),
and later among the figures of thought (4.58):
Rhet. Her. 4.58 Contentio est, per quam contraria referentur. Ea est in
verborum exomationibus, ut ante (4.21) docuimus, huiusmodi:
"Inimicis te placabilem, amicis inexorabilem praebes". In
sententiarum, huiusmodi: "Vos huius incommodis lugetis, iste rei
publicae calamitate laetatur. Vos vesh-is fortunis diffiditis, iste solus
suis eo magis confidit". Inter haec duo contentionum genera hoc
interest: illud ex verbis celeriter relatis constat, huic sententiae
contrariae ex comparatione referantur oportet. "Through Antithesis
contraries will meet. As I have explained above, it belongs either
among the figures of diction, as in the following example: 'You show
yourself conciliatory to your enemies, inexorable to your friends'; or
among the figures of thought, as in the following example: 'While
you deplore the troubles besetting him, this knave rejoices in the ruin
of the state. While you despair of your fortunes, this knave alone
Cf. G. Calboli, L'oratore M. Antonio, pp. 146-149.
From Aristotelian Xefis to Elocutio 69
grows all the more confident in his own.' Between these two kinds of
Antithesis there is this difference: the first consists in a rapid
opposition of words; in the other opposing thoughts ought to meet
in a comparison."
'AvTiGcCTis is t he first of t he Gorgianic figures; and after
Ari st ot l e' s Rhetoric (IE c.9) it was investigated carefully by
Theophr ast us, who identified t hree ki nds of antithesis, t hough his
freatment seems to be difterent from t he distinction whi ch we find
in t he Rhetorica ad Herennium. This distinction appears to be mor e
like t he distinction bet ween figures of one wor d (tropes) and those
of mor e t han one wor d whi ch is ascribed by Barwi ck" to the Stoic
school. However , in consi deri ng this gr oup of Gorgianic figures,
Barwick formul at ed the probabl e hypot hesi s that Theophrast us
had al ready pr oposed a doct ri ne of figures whi ch is t he same as
t hat whi ch we find in Rhetorica ad Herennium, in Rut i hus Lupus
and Cicero.
I will now quot e bot h Aristotle and Theophrast us in order to
s how not only t he i mport ance of t he Gorgianic figures ment i oned
by Aristotle, but also how i mport ant verbal opposi t i on is in
antithesis, an aspect that Aristotle almost certainly di d not miss:
Arist. Rhet. Ill 1409b 33-1410a 26 Tfi? 8e ev KoJXois Xegecjs A V^^^
SiTiprnievT) eoTiv, T\ 8k dvTiKei|ievr|- [...] dvTiKenievri 8e. ev fi
eKOTepii) T(3 KioXii) f| irpo? evavritj) evavTiov auyKeiToi fi TOUTO
eireCeuKTai TOIS evavTioi? [...]. "Heeia 8 eariv r| ToiauTri Xeîs,
OTi TdvavTia yvcjpiptjJTaTa Kal irap' dXXr|Xa ^dXXov yviiipi\ia. Kal
OTi eoiKe auXXoyiaiiil)- 6 ydp eXeyxos auva7(jJ7fi TCJV dvTiKeiêvujv
eaTiv. 'AvTiGeais pev ouv TO TOIOUTOV eaTiv. Trapiaioai? 6" edv laa
TO Ki3Xa, irapopoiiixjis Se edv o|roia jd laxaTa ixT\ eKOTepov TO
KiiiXov."Lexis in cola is either divided or contrasted. [...] It is
contrasted when in each colon opposite lies with opposite or the
same is yoked with its opposites [...]. Such a lexis is pleasing because
opposites are most knowable and more knowable when put beside
each other and because they are like a syllogism, for refutation
[elenkos] is a bringing together of contraries. Antithesis, then, is one
such thing, as is parisosis if the cola are equal [in the number of
syllables], and paromoiosis if each colon has similar extremities [in
sound]".
Dion. Hal. Lys. 14 (= frg. 692 FHS&G) KtoXuaei 8'oiJ8ev LCTCJS KOI Tf|v
Xefiv auTTiv Oeivai T^V eo<J)pdaTou. ioTi Se f)8e- "avTiGeais S' ea-
ProWeme, pp. 100-110.
70 RHETORICA
TI TpiTTCos, OTav T(I) auT(J TO evavTia f\ T(JJ evavTiip TO auTd f\
TOis evavTiois evavTia TTpoCTKaTTiYopr|9fi. ToaauTOXtSs ydp eYX'^Pî
au(êux6fivai. TOUTCJV Se TO pev laov Kal TO opoiov tTaiSitoSes ical
Ka9airepel iroiTipa- Sio Kal fJTTOv dppoTrei TO aiTGuSf). (JxiiveTai ydp
dirpeires atrouSdCovTa TOIS irpd-ypaaiv TOLS ovojiaai iraiCeiv Kal TO
irdeos TT) Xefei irepiaLpeiv eKXuei ydp TOV oKpoaTiiv [...]."Nothing, I
suppose, will prevent [me] giving as well the very words of
Theophrastus. They run as follows: 'Antithesis occurs in three ways:
when opposites are predicated of the same things, or the same things
of the opposite, or opposites of opposites. For this is the number of
possible combinations. Balanced structure and similar sound in these
(antitheses) are childish and just like a poem. On this account they
are not very well suited to serious purpose, for it seems unbecoming
when a man seriously engaged in real issues plays with words cind
by his style does away with emotional effect, for he loses his listener'
[]"
If we consi der t hat the st udy of sent ences and phr ases from t he
poi nt of vi ew of synt ax seems t o begi n wi t h ApoUonios Dyscol os,
t he only possible origin for a discussion about ant i t hesi s and t he
ot her ropyLCLa axiinaTa is t he rhetorical pract i ce of t he peri od,
whi ch was al ready di scussed in Aristotle' s Rhetoric. As a mat t er of
fact, Di onysi os of Hal i carnassus found many faults in t he synt ax
of Thucydi des and of Thucydi des' s i mi t at ors but si mpl y called
t hem bad ki nds of figure {Din. 8: CToXoiKO(}>aveis axT|p.aTLCT|ioiis,
Thuc. 29 TQS T&v CTxtipaTiapwv TrXoKas aoXoiKO(|>avLS, 53 TOJV
CTXTiM-QTajv TO TreirXavriiievov CK Tfjs KOTQ ^vaiv dKoXou0Las KQL
TO CToXoLKO<t)aves, 55 TO CToXoLKO<l)aves ev Tot? (TXTipLaTLCTpoLs), as
has been poi nt ed out by Schenkeveld, who concl udes wi t h t hese
wor ds : ' Appar ent l y Apol l oni us is t he first t o make a syst emat i c
st udy of synt ax' .
The quest i on of t he origin of synt ax is surel y wor t h of
investigation, as Baratin di d in hi s book about t he rise of synt ax
(in Rome). He believes t hat t he "sol oi ki smos" was t he syntactic
al t ernat i ve t o t he figures." The devel opment of t he doct ri ne of
t ropes and figures pr ecl uded or del ayed for a l ong time t he
devel opment of synt ax as the "combi nat i on" tool of t he different
par t s of speech ("la combi nat oi re"). " In this way a mechani cal
"Scholarship and Grammar", pp. 294 f.
M. Baratin, La naissance de la syntaxe a Rome, pp. 261-322.
" Cf M. Baratin, La naissance de la syntaxe a Rome, p. 320: "au terme de la
reinterpretation du couple lexis/logos, ces definitions indiquent formellement que le
solecisme s'applique a la combinatoire des mots - et cette evolution restreint la
From Aristotelian Xejis to Elocutio 71
doct ri ne of labels, such as t ropes and figures, i nvaded a field
whi ch was open t o combi nat i on and has condi t i oned t he nat ur e of
rhet ori c unt i l now by reduci ng it t o a mechanical syst em. This
vi ew is very interesting; and while it seems t o be correct, mus t be
i nvest i gat ed from its begi nni ngs when t he rhetorical doct ri ne of
Xef IS and gr ammar wer e laced together.
Goi ng back t o Gorgianic figures I think that, confrary to the
opi ni on of Barwi ck, " t he quadripertita ratio, i.e. t he four-fold
cat egori zat i on adiectio, detractio, immutatio and transmutatio, is
present in Rhetorica ad Herennium in the explanation of t he
different t ypes of paronomasia, called adnominatio in this work:
Rhet. Her. 4.29 Adnominatio est, cum ad idem verbum et nomen
acceditur commutatione vocum aut litterarimi, ut ad res dissimiles
similia verba adcommodentur. Ea mulHs et variis rationibus
conficitur. Adtenuatione aut conplexione eiusdem litterae sic: "Hie,
qui se magnifice iactat atque ostentat, venit ante, quam Romam
venit". Et ex contrario: "Hie, quos homines alea vincit, eos ferro
74
statim vincit". Productione eiusdem litterae hoc modo: "Hinc
avium dulcedo ducit ad "avium". Brevitate eiusdem litterae: "Hie,
tametsi videtur esse honoris cupidus, tantum tamen ciiriam diligit,
quantum Curiam?". Addendis litteris hoc pacto: "Hie sibi posset
temperare, nisi amori mallet obtempercu-e" Demendis nunc litteris
sic: "Si lenones vitcisset tamquam leones, vitae tradidisset se"
Transferendis litteris sic: "Videte, iudices, utrum homini navo an
vano credere malitis". Commutandis hoc modo: "Deligere oportet,
quam velis diligere". "Paronomasia is the figure in which, by means
of modification of sound or change of letters, a close resemblance to
a given verb or noun is produced, so that similar words express
dissimilar things. This is accomplished by many different methods:
(1) by thinning or contracting the same letter, as follows: "That man
who carries himself with a lofty bearing and makes a display of
himself was sold as a slave before coming to Rome;" (2) and by the
reverse: "Those men from whom he wins in dice he straightaway
notion de solecisme par rapport au champ ou les Stoiciens la plaâient", and, before,
p. 319: "En un mot, la reinterpretation alexandrine de I'opposition lexis/logos, en
faisant porter le solecisme non plus sur Tenoned mais sur plusieurs mots, a fait
passer le solecisme du cadre de I'enonce i celui du syntagme - au moins du point de
vue des definitions" But I don't agree completely with Baratin on this particular
point.
" Probleme, pp. 1021.
" About the distinction between uincit "fesselt" and uincit "besiegt" which was
made in the spoken Latin of this time see F. Sommer, Handbuch der Lateinischen Laut
und Formenlehre (Heidelberg: Winter, 1948), p. 147.
72 RHETORICA
binds in chains;" (3) by lengthening the same letter, as follows: "The
sweet song of the birds draws us from here into pathless places;" (4)
by shortening the same letter: "Does this man, although he seems
desirous of public honour, yet love the Curia [the Senate-house] as
much as he loves Curia?"; (5) by adding letters, as follows: "This
man could rule himself, if only he did not prefer to submit to love";
(6) and now by omitting letters, as follows: "If he had avoided
pandars as though they were lions, he would have devoted himself
to life;" (7) by transposing letters, as follows: "See, men of the jury,
whether you prefer to trust an industrious man or a vainglorious
one;" (8) by changing letters, as follows: "You ought to choose such
a one as you would wish to love."
I have quoted this long passage for an important reason. At the
end of it we find the quadripertita ratio which can be obtained
through addition, omission, fransposition or change of some
letters. According to Ax this group of categories and even the
quadripertita ratio as a whole were found and first developed by
the Peripatetic School. In the Physics Aristotie explains the
principle of (icTapoXii, which is the basis of the four categories,
while their further development may be atfributed to Stoic
grammar." Therefore it now seems difficult to employ this
criterion for recognizing the Stoic doctrine of tropes and figures in
distinction to a Peripatetic or Hellenistic one as did Barwick.
Moreover, if we consider the passage just quoted from Rhet. Her.
4.29, we meet a very interesting point: prior to the quadripertita
ratio, Trapovojiatjia {adnomirmtio) is said to concern the measure of
the syllables, undoubtedly a poetical criterion. 1 have already
pointed out" that the Gorgianic figures developed from poetry.
The passage from the Rhetorica ad Herennium shows how original
material from an early doctrine of Gorgianic figures could be
integrated with a new doctrine after the development of the
quadripertita ratio or, more probably, of its application to these
figures which is not quite tiie same. However the group of
figures which are called exorrmtiones verborum and are placed
between tiie contentio (dvTieeats, Rhet. Her. 4.21) and the
adnomirmtio (irapovojiaaia, Rhet. Her. 4.29), is peculiar, for here
elocutio is interlaced with argumentatio. As for irapovoâCTia
{adnominatio), the treabnent of tiiis figure in Rhetorica ad Herennium
is tiie only one where tiie mefrical and tiierefore tiie poetical
Cf. Ax, "Quadripertita Ratio", pp. 204-211.1 agree completely with Ax.
Cf. Comifici Rhetorica ad Herennium, pp. 337 and 343.
From Aristotelian Xejis to Elocutio 73
criterion occurs." Barwick thought that the same Hellenistic
doctrine of figures as distinct from the Stoic one is still present in
the Rhetorica ad Herennium, Gorgia-RutiUus Lupus and the Carmen
de Figuris, but actually we find the mefrical criterion only in the
first work. To explain why this part of the figure was abandoned
after Quintilian it is perhaps enough to read the severe censure
uttered by Quintilian himself:
Quint. Inst. 9.3.69-71 Aliter quoque voces aut eaedem aut diversa in
significatione ponuntur aut productione tantum vel correptione
mutatae: quod etiam in iocis frigidum equidem tradi inter praecepta
miror, eorumque exempla vitandi potius quam imitandi gratia pono:
"Amari iucundum est, si curetur ne quid insit amari", "Avium
dulcedo ad avium ducit" [...]. Comificius hanc traductionem vocat
[cf Rhet.Her. 4.20], videlicet alterius intellectus ad alterum. Sed
elegantius, quod est positum in distinguenda rei proprietate: "Hanc
rei publicae pestem paulisper reprimi, non in perpetuum comprimi
posse". "There are also other ways in which the same words may be
used in different senses or altered by the lengthening or shortening
of a syllable; this is a poor trick even when employed in jest, and I
am surprised that it should be included in the text-books; the
instances which I quote are therefore given as examples for
avoidance, not for imitation. Here they are: 'It is pleasant to be loved,
but we must take care that there is no bitterness in that love'. [...]
Comificius calls this traductio, that is the transference of the
meaning of one word to another. It has, however, greater elegance
when it is employed to distinguish the exact meanings of things, as
in the following example: 'This curse to the state could be repressed
for a time, but not suppressed for ever'" (translation by H. E. Butler).
Since I have already treated this question," I shall not discuss it in
depth now. I only add that with irapovonaaia {adnomirmtio) we
have a Peripatetic basis which could be broadened by including
the Stoic doctrine of the quadripertita ratio. However, since the
quadripertita ratio too has a Peripatetic origin, as was demonstrated
by Ax, it caimot be excluded that the whole doctrine of the
TrapovoiiaCTia {adnomirmtio) employed by the author of Rhetorica ad
Herennium is Peripatetic. This is the first hypothesis we can
" Cf Calboli, Comifici Rhetorica ad Herennium pp. 340-343, L. Calboli
Montefusco, Consulti Fortunatiani Ars Rhetorica p. 459, M. Squillante, De Figuris vel
Schematibus, Introduzione, testo critico, traduzione e commento di M.S. (Roma: Gruppo
Editoriale Intemazionale, 1993), p. 154.
" Cf. "Comificiana 2", pp. 12-19.
74 RHETORIC A
suggest." Another possibihty is to consider this criterion as Stoic
for, after its Peripatetic invention and expanded use, it was
employed more and more by the Stoics. In this case Comificius
and the author of Rhetorica ad Herennium (who may be the same
person) infroduced a Stoic element into a Peripatetic corpus. We
caimot decide between the two hypotheses, but the first possibility
gains more additional plausibility from the fact that the source of
Rhetorica ad Herennium follows almost the same order we find in
the combination of Aristotle's Poetics and Rhetoric. The doctrine of
Rhetorica ad Herennium appears therefore to be closer to a
Peripatetic original without substantial changes (see above).
I think that a Rhodian origin is very probable for both
Rhetorica ad Herennium and Cicero's De Inventione, and the island
of Rhodes seems to me the most probable place for the
development of the theory of figures and tropes described in
Rhetorica ad Herennium. For the presence of an AristoteUan
doctrine in Rhodes on this subject is well attested (Eudemos of
Rhodes wrote a Tlepl Xeêtos). But Rhodes also seems to be a
suitable location for a syncretism of the different doctrines of Stoic
and Alexandrian rhetoric and grammar. Dionysios Thrax'" went to
Rhodes from Alexandria and not only taught grammar, but was
also interested in rhetoric and wrote a work rrepi en<|)dae(jjs
(Clem. Alex. StromV 8, 45). On tiie island of Rhodes Aristodemus
taught both grammar and rhetoric, the former in the moming, the
latter in tiie aftemoon (see Strabon. XIV 650)." On tiie other hand,
we find references to Rhodes in botii Rhetorica ad Herennium and
Cicero's De Inventione (cf. Rhet.Her. 1.18; Rhet. Her. 4.9 [Chares];
Cic. Inv. 2.153)," and we know that Rhodes was open to
syncretism. The balance of probabilities seems to be that the
doctrine of tropes and figures developed in Rhodes was
Peripatetic, though an enrichment with some Stoic ideas caimot be
At any rate Quintilian did not understand or appreciate the poetical origin of
the metrical criterion suggested for irapouoâoia (adnominatio).
' Cf. F. Della Corte, La filologia Latina, pp. 99-104.
Cf F. Marx ed., Incerti Auctoris De ratione dicendi ad C.Herennium Libri IV.
(Leipzig: Teubner, 1894) pp. 159 f.
This sfrange example from sculphire in rhetorical works Myron,
Polycleitos, Lysippus, Phydias, Alcamenes are quoted but nowhere the Rhodian
Chares. This can be explained by assuming that the Rhetorica ad Herennium had a
Rhodian source, cf my Commentary, p. 284. On tiiis argument about the Rhodian in-
fiuence on De Inventione and tiie Rhet.Her. see also tiie quotations of Rhodian
elements by Cic. Inv. 1. 47,2. 87, 2. 98.
excl uded. " This was t he origin of t he doct ri ne of t ropes and
figures whi ch we meet in t he earliest Roman ars wher e this
doct ri ne is present , t he Rhetorica ad Herennium.
The Peripatetic charact er of t he doct ri ne of t ropes and figures
in Rhetorica ad Herennium inclines me to consi der anot her poi nt in
t he doct ri ne of figures: namel y, the iiGoTToiLa, whi ch in Rhet. Her.
4.63 is called notatio. The exampl e given for this figure r emi nds us
of Theophr ast us' Characters and in part i cul ar of the t went y-t hi rd
charact er of t he dXaCoveia:
Rhet. Her. 4.63-64 Notatio est, cum alicuius natura certis describitur
signis, quae, sicuti notae quae naturae sunt adtributa; ut si velis non
divitem, sed ostentatorem pecuniosi describere: "Iste", inquies,
"iudices, qui se di d divitem putabat esse praeclarum, primum nunc
videte, quo vultu nos intueatur". [...] Cum puerum respicit hunc
unum, quem ego novi vos non abitror , alio nomine appellat,
deinde alio atque alio. 'At eho tu', inquit, 'veni, Sannio, ne quid isti
barbari turbent'; ut ignoti, qui audient, unum putent selegi de
multis. Ei dicit in aurem, aut ut domi lectuli stemantur, aut ab
avunculo rogetur Aethiops, qui ad balineas veniat, aut asturconi
locus ante ostium suum detur, aut aliquod fragile falsae choragium
gloriae conparetur. Deinde exclamat, ut omnes audiant: "Videto, ut
diligenter numeretur, si potest, ante noctem". Puer, qui iam bene eri
naturam norit: "Tu illo plures mittas oportet", inquit, "si hodie vis
transnumerari" "Age", inquit, "due tecum Libanum et Sosiam"
"Sane". Deinde casu veniunt hospites homini, quos iste, dum
splendide peregrinatur, invitat. Ex ea re homo hercule sane
conturbatur; sed tamen a vitio naturae non reeedit. "Bene", inquit,
"faeitis, cum venitis: sed rectius feeissetis, si ad me domum recta
abissetis". "Id fecissemus", inquiunt illi, "si domum novissemus"
"At istud quidem facile fuit undelibet invenire. Verum ite mequom".
Secuntur illi. Sermo interea huius eonsumitur omnis in ostentatione:
quaerit, in agris frumenta cuiusmodi sint; negat se, quia villae
incensae sint, accedere posse; nee aedificare etiamnune audere;
"tametsi in Tuscolano quidem coepi insanire et in isdem
fundamentis aedificare" Dum haec loquitur, venit in aedes
quasdam, in quibus sodalicium erat eodem die futurum; quo iste pro
" The only Stoic element which we find in the docfrine of fropes and figures of
the Rhet. Her. is the fact that the ten fropes (4. 42-46) are put together. This can be
considered a first distinction fiom figures. But this is the same position we find in
the combination of Aristotle's Poetics and Rhetoric and it is therefore difficult to see a
Stoic element in such an arrangement. This confirms the prevailing Peripatetic
nature of such a doctrine in Rhet. Her.
76 RHETORICA
notitia domnaedi iam it inh-o eum hospitibus. "Hie", inquit,
"habito." Perspieit argentum, quod erat expositum, visit triclinium
sti-atum: probat. Aceedit servulus; dicit homini elare, dominum iam
venturum, si velit exire. "Itane?" inquit. "Eamus, hospitis; fi-ater
venit ex Falemo: ego illi obviam pergam; vos hue deeuma
.. . 84
venitote.
The infroductory formula of tiiis passage {cum alicuius natura certis
describitur signis), as well as tiiat used for tiie similar figure of tiie
sermocimtio {Rhet. Her. 4.65 cum alicui personae sermo attribuitur)
recalls the vague formula TOLOITTOS TIS OIOS used in
Theophrastus' Characters to introduce tiie sketches of different
" "Character Delineation consists in describing a person's character by the
definite signs which, like distinctive marks, are attributes of that character; for
example, if you should wish to describe a man who is not actually rich but parades
as a moneyed man, you would say: "That f)erson there, men of the jury, who thinks
it admirable that he is called rich, see now first with what an air he surveys us." [...]
When he turns to his slave boy here, his only one I know him, and you do not, I
think he calls him now by one name, now by another, and now by a third: "Ho
there, you, Sannio," says he, "come here, see that these barbarians don't tum things
upside down," so that unknowing hearers may think he is selecting one slave from
among many. Whispering in the boy's ear he tells him either to arrange the dining-
couches at home, or to ask his uncle for an Ethiop to attend him to the baths, or to
station the Asturian thoroughbred before his front door, or to make ready some
other flimsy stage property which should set off his vainglory. Then he shouts, that
all may hear: "See to it that the money is carefully counted before nightfall, if
possible." The boy, by this time well knowing his master's character, says: "You had
better send more slaves over there if you want the counting done today." "Go then,"
he answers, "take with you Libanus and Sosia." "Very good, sir." "Then by chance
come guests, whom the rascal had invited while fravelling abroad in splendour. By
this event the man is, you may be sure, quite embarrassed, but he still does not
desist from his natural fault. "You do well," says he, "to come, but you would have
done better to go sfraight to me at my house." "That we would have done," say they,
"had we known your house." "But surely it was easy to find that out from emyone.
Still, come with me." They follow. In the meanwhile all his conversation is spent in
boasting. He asks: "How are the crops in the fields?" He says that because his villas
have been burnt, he cannot go to them, and does not yet dare rebuild them,
"although on my Tusculan estate, to be sure, I have commenced an insane
undertaking to build on the same foundations." "While saying this he comes to a
certain house in which a banqueting club was to meet on that very day. As if in fact
he knew the owner, the rascal now enters the house with his guests. "Here," says he,
"is where I live." He scrutinizes the silver which had been laid out, inspects the
dining-couch which had been spread, and indicates his approval. A little slave boy
comes up. He says aloud to the man that the master is about to arrive; would he
wish to leave? "Indeed?" says the man. "Let us be off, my friends. My brother has
arrived from the Falemian country. I shall go meet him. Do come here at four
o'clock." (frans. by H. Caplan; see also Caplan's note d, p. 387).
types of behaviour." In addition, the themes of a small amount of
money made to appear large and of pretended wealth occur also
in Theophrastus:"
Theoph. Char. 23.2-9 KOI a\ia TOUTO irXeGpiCtov TTeptreiv TO
iraiSdpLov eis TTIV TpdireCav, Spoxpfis OUTIL Knievr|s [...] KOI ev
iriaScoTT) OLKicf OLKISV ()>fiaoi TOUTTIV eivoi TTIV troTpcpav irpos TOV pf|
eiSoTO, Kol SLOTI peXXei ircjXeiv ouTf)v 8id TO eXdrrco eivai OUT(L
irpos T(is $evo6oxios."and while he exaggerates these, he sends his
slave to the bank because a drachma is on deposit for him there [...].
When he is living in a rented house, he tells someone who doesn't
know that it belongs to his family, and that he intends to sell it
because it's too small for him for entertaining" (translation by J.
Rusten).
Mor e interesting is the conclusion of t he page dedi cat ed to notatio
in Rhet.Her. 4.65. Here we find a list of vices, three of which
correspond to character sketches of Theophrastus. Significantly
the range of this figure is the same as that of Theophrastus:
Rhet. Her. 4.65 Huiusmodi notationes, quae describunt, quod
consentaneum sit unius cuiusque naturae, vehementer habent
magnam deleetationem: totam enim naturam cuiuspiam ponunt ante
oeulos, aut gloriosi, ut nos exempli causa coeperamus, aut invidi aut
tumidi aut avari, ambitiosi, amatoris, luxuriosi, furis,
quadruplatoris. "Character Delineations of this kind which describe
the qualities proper to each man' s nature carry very great charm, for
they set before our eyes a person's whole character, of the boastful
man, as 1 undertook to illustrate, or the envious or pompous man, or
the miser, the climber, the lover, the voluptuary, the thief, the public
informer".
In a recent edition with a fine introduction, Italian franslation and
commentary on Theophrastus' Characters, L. Torraca writes about
Rhet. Her. 4.63-64 (quoted above): "Le riflessioni del retore si
attagliano perfettamente ai Caratteri di Teofrasto, che
probabilmente egli ha letto." Moreover he believes that in this
work Theophrastus had not a moral, but a theatrical and scenic
" Cf. W. W. Fortenbaugh, "Theophrastus, the Characters and Rhetoric", in
Peripatetic Rhetoric after Aristotle, cit. in n. 35 above, pp. 15-35, here p. 29.
" The question of the authenticity of the 'Definitions' in the Characters has been
reconsidered recently by M. Stein, D^nition und Schilderung in Theophrasts
Charakteren (Stuttgart: B. G. Teubner, 1992), pp. 282-285, and the review by W. W.
Fortenbaugh, Gnomon 68 (1996): 453-456. At any rate this aspect is not relevant to
our question.
78 RHETORICA
interest." Moreover, Torraca suggests that The Characters was very
important for the Peripatetic school." According to Fortenbaugh
there is a distinction between Theophrastus and Aristotle.
Aristotle gave a reason for every element he takes into account,
while Theophrastus presented the characters as pictures without
making explicit how the pictures relate to the definition "with
which each sketch begins"." Aristotle is concemed with both the
practical wisdom and the moral goodness in the narratio as
explained in his Rhetoric 1417a 22-24. Theophrastus seems to have
recognized the importance of other distinctions such as "that
between superficial regularities and the deeper lying beliefs which
motivate and explain them" (Fortenbaugh, p. 35). I agree with
Fortenbaugh that it is possible not only that Theophrastus
influenced the plays of Menander but also that he was in t um
influenced by Menander. At any rate, there are many passages in
Menander where Peripatetic doctrine may be recognized. Here 1
would quote only two from Heautontimorumenos by Terence. One
occurs in a part of the play, where the Menandrian source and the
presence of Peripatetic doctrine is accepted even by E. Lefevre,
who suggests that Terence to a great extent rearranged
Menander' s play:
Ter. Haul. 440-442 vehemens in utramque partem, Menedeme,
es nimis
aut largitate nimia aut parsimonia:
in eandem fraudem ex hac re atque ex
ilia incides"
The second passage is line 384. In tiie Scholia Bembina there is a
commentary on this line which is worth considering, although it
does not seem to refer to the Heautontimorumenos but to
L. Torraca: Teofrasto, Caratteri, Introduzione, traduzione e note di L.T. (Milano:
Garzanti, 1994), p. xxviii.
" Four Peripatetics must be remembered as authors of XapaKTiipes, Erakleides
Ponticos (Diog. Lart. v. 88), Licon, Ariston and Satyros (Atiien. vi 168 c-d). For Licon
see Rut. Lup. 2.7, for Ariston see Philod. De vit. X. fi. 14.i-ix Wehrli (Torraca,
Teofrasto, pp. xviii-xiii).
" Cf. W. Fortenbaugh, "Theophrastus, tiie Characters and Rhetoric" p. 29.
' Terenz' und Menanders Heautontimorumenos (Munchen: C. H Beck 1994) p
101.
" "Oh, Menedemus, you're too extreme in each direction with your excessive
generosity or your excessive tightfistedness; you'll fall into the same trap from the
one as from the other" (trans, by A. J. Brothers).
Menander' s 'AppT|<t)6pos. For, in the Heautontimorumenos, a woman
(Bacchis) is speaking and addressing another woman (Antiphila),
while the yvd)p.Ti referred to in the Scholion concerns a man
(dvSpos xop'i'^TfiP)- This line is quoted also by Orion as coming
from the 'AppTi<t)6pos and we can accept Korte-Thierfelder's
atfribution of it to Menander's 'AppTi<t)6pos:
Men. Arr. 66 K.-T. dvSpos x'lp'i'^'rTlP ^'^ Xoyou yvupiCeToi "a
man's character is recognized from his
speech"
Ter. Haul, 384 nam mihi quale ingenium haberes fuit
indicio oratio
"because your conversation made quite
clear to me the sort of character [ingenium]
you've got" (trans, by A. J. Brothers).
If we accept the idea that Theophrastus and Menander influenced
each other," it is interesting to note the great weight Menander
gives to speech (CK Xoyoi;). The yvdipai from which we started
were a generalization from a particular situation in a play.
Theophrastus' Characters also were generalizations demonstrated
with particular examples. Thus a kind of reciprocation between
particular and general occurred in both types. The yvu)\iT\ on the
other hand was developed as an exercise in the Progymnasmata
and as a figure. However, this was anticipated in Aristotle's
doctrine of the metaphor and contributed to extending a new
method which consisted of employing each figure as a complete
tool.'^ Such a tool did not need explanation or reasoning, because
the figures were like unchanging images, i.e. they were and are
labels of reasons already presented and discussed. As for the
name of the tropes, the cormection between rhetorical and ethical
tropes inheres in the word Tpoiros as has been pointed out by
Cocondrios:
" See A. J. Brothers: Terence, The Self-Tormentor, Edited with translation and
commentary by A. J. B. (Warminster: Arris & Philipps, 1988), p. 190; "the presence in
the line of di/Spos "a man" seems odd in a conversation between two women"
" On the relation between Theophrastus and Menander see now M. Massioni,
Teofrasto in Menandro e Terenzio, Tesi di Dottorato di Ricerca (Bologna, 1996).
" 1 would say that a comparison can be made between the pagan custom of
putting every important function under a god and the rhetorician's custom of
inventing a figure for every linguistic function. This idea should be investigated
further.
80 RHETORICA
Cocon. Trap, III p. 230 Spengel AeyeToi Se Tpoiros KOTO rrp^Tov pev
CTripaivopevov TO evos eKOOTou ffios, KO0' 6V Tpoirov KOKOTPOTTOV KOL
KaKor|9r| Xeyojiev. "The trope is said firstly according to the character
of everybody. In accordance with such a trope we call someone a
bad and malignant character."
Unfortunately we do not know anything about Cocondrios, but
the same connection between trope and character occurs in a
passage by Philonicos quoted by Dion. Hal. Isocr. 13 to which
Schenkeveld" drew attention: "I [sc. Philonicos] found the same
figures of speech used in all his speeches, so that although in
many individual cases the treatment was skilful, the overal effect
was completely incongruous because the language did not accord
with the underlying nature of the characters" (trans, by
Schenkeveld).''
In conclusion I would say that the freatment of figures and
tropes in the Rhetorica ad Herennium shows in every respect a
connexion with the Peripatetic doctrine of figures and tropes and
confirms the link with the Rhodian school of rhetoric which is
demonsfrated by many other elements. It gives us a first draft of a
doctrine which was further developed as time passed. This draft,
however, was already a complete system which to a large extent
maintained the order which we find in Aristotle, if we take into
account at the same time his Poetics and Rhetoric.''^
"Figures and tropes", p. 154.
"AiraiTEs yow eupiOKOi/ Toi;s Xoyous airrou jo'is airrols Tpoirois Tf|S
X5(DS Kexpntieiôus. (OOT' iv TTOXXOIS TexWKd)? rd KaS' CKaora iêpyaC6\ievov jo'is
oXois dirpeufi iraweXios (Jaifeoeai 8id TO uri irpooriKovTios TO'IS OiroKeiiieuois TC>V
T\Q(j>v 4}pdCeiv. The word mos corresponds to rponos
The order of the exomationes which we find in the Rhetorica ad Herennium is
the distinction between exomationes verborum (4.19^6) and exomationes sententiarum
(4.47-68) and inside the first group of figures and precisely at the end of them (4. 42-
46) the ten fropes which have been mentioned above. The Aristotelian order
depends, of course, on the disfribution of matter in each work, i.e. in the Poetics and
in tiie Rhetoric, but in the Poetics Aristotle puts the oxntiara Xeêus before metaphor
like the author of Rhetorica ad Herennium and in the Rhetoric the Gorgianic figures
before metaphor, again, like the author of Rhetorica ad Herennium.

G. Calboli, From Aristotelian Léxis To Elocutio

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

G. Calboli, From Aristotelian Léxis To Elocutio

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

From Aristotelian to elocutio

Author(s): Gualtiero Calboli

Você também pode gostar