HANDBOOK OF CLASSICAL RHETORIC IN THE HELLENISTIC PERIOD 330 B.C.-A.D. 400 Edited by STANLEY E. PORTER BRILL. LEIDEN ‘ NEW YORK - KOLN 1997‘This book is printed on acid-free paper. Library of Congress Cataloging-in Publication data Handbook of classical rhetoric in the Hellenistic Period (330 B.C AD. 400)/ edited by Stanley B. Porter. Pp. cm. Includes index. ISBN 9004099654 (cloth : alk. paper) 1. Greck literature, Hellenistic—History and cvticism— “Handbooks, manuals, etc. 2. Rhetoric, Ancient—Handbooks, manuals, etc. 3. Criticism —Greece—Handbooks, manuals, etc. 1 Porter, Stanley E., 1956~ PAI083.H36 1997 £808".00938—der | 96-47335, cr Die Deutsche Bibliothek ~ CIP-Einheitsaufnahme. Handbook of classical rhetoric in the Hellenistic period (330 BC ~ AD 400) ed. by Stanley E. Porter. ~ Leiden ; New York ; Kein : Brill, 1997 ISBN 90-04-09965-4 NE: Porter, Stanley E. [Hse] ISBN 90 04 09965 + © Cofyright 1997 by Koninklijke Brill wv, Leiden, The Netrlands All right reseed. No part of tis publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in aretrnal system, oF transmitted im any form or by ary means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or attrise, without rior erten pertision frome the publisher. Authorization to photocopy ‘lems for internal or personal use fs granted by Bil provided that the appropriate ees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910 Danvers MA 01923, USA Fees are subject to change. PRINTED IN THE NETHERLANDSTo my Father, a great, humble and loving manCONTENTS Preface xi Introduction... xiii Srantey E, Porter Parr I Rueroric Derived Chapter 1: Historical Survey of Rhetoric 3 Grorce A. Kennepy Chapter 2: The Genres of Rhetoric sen 43 Grorce A. Kennepy Chapter 3: Arrangement icc 51 Winnenm: WuELLNER Chapter 4: Invention ween seven 89 Matcoum Heata Chapter 5: Style 121 Gaen O. Rowe Chapter 6: Delivery and Memory 159 Tuomas H. Otericer Part H Rueroric i Practice Chapter 7: The Episle Seen 7 Jererey T. Ree Chapter 8: Philosophical Prose. ...c::snentnieiesenesee 195 Dirk M. ScHENKEVELD Chapter 9: Historical Prose... 265 Sreran Rerenicnviii CONTENTS Chapter 10: Poetry and Rhetoric 339 Rura Wess Chapter 11: Biography 371 Ricarp A. Burripce Chapter 12: Oratory and Declamation 0:0: 393 D.H. Berry ano Matcoum Heart Chapter 13: Homily and Panegyrical Sermon. .... 421 Foiker SiEcERT Chapter 14: The Rhetoric of Romance 445 Ronatp F. Hock Chapter 15: Apocalyptic and Prophetic Literature ccc 467 Jonatnan M. Knicwr Chapter 16: Drama and Rhetoric 489 Rurs Scope Parr Ul InprvipuaL WRITERS AND THE RHETORICAL TRADITION Chapter 17: The Gospels and Acts Richarp A. Burrice Chapter 18: Paul of Tarsus and His Letters 533 Srantey E, Porter 507 Chapter 19: The General New Testament Writings Lauri Turin 587 Chapter 20: The Johannine Writings 609 Dennis L, Stamps Chapter 21: The Greek Christian Writers .i..cccccseennsens 633 Wourram Kinzie Chapter 22: The Latin Church Fathers ..ecsssessesisrenenene 671 Pump E. SaTTeRTHWAITE Chapter 23: Philo of Alexandria Tuomas M. ConteyCONTENTS ix Chapter 24: Plutarch css 7 75 Huperr M. Marri, Jr. Chapter 25: The Rhetoric of Josephus 737 Donwa R. RUNNALLS Chapter 26: Cynics and Rhetoric 755 Rona F, Hock Chapter 27: Translations of the Old Testament I. Greek, Jorn A. L. Lee 775 IL, Latin, Kevin H. Lee 784 Chapter 28: Rhetoric in the Christian Apocrypha . 798 Ricuarp I. Pervo Chapter 29: The Rhetoric of Inscriptions . 807 Epwv A. Juoce Index of Ancient Authors ae . 829 Index of Modem Authors sevsensstuteseeeee 000PREFACE, ‘This Handbook of Classical Rhetoric in the Hellenistic Period (330 ac—ap 400) has been a long time in the making. It has been an involved and lengthy editorial project, but it has been a very rewarding edi- torial task as well, I have had the opportunity to expand greatly my intellectual and academic horizons, both in terms of knowledge of writers of the ancient world and their use of rhetoric, and in terms of the scholars who have written on them. Graciousness prevents me from mentioning by name those who, though contractually obligated, backed out at the last moment, I am indeed thankful that in the vast majority of cases others willingly stepped forward to fill necessary gaps. To a person each of the final contributors has been very coop- erative, preparing their work on time and going through the rigours of checking references and completing footnotes. Many of these con- tributors have offered continuing encouragement to me as well, as they got an inkling of the complexity of the editorial task. Of course, my opinion is severely biased, but I think that the end product more than justifies the incredible amounts of effort that the work in total represents. I can only hope that the final product is as beneficial to those who use it as it has been to those of us who have contributed to its creation. Besides the individual contributors, each of whom deserves much gratitude and thanks, the following deserve special thanks. First, Julian Deahl and Hans van der Meij of Brill Publishers merit special men- tion, It was Julian who first contacted me about editing a project such as this, but it was Hans who has become an enduring friend I judge the value of his friendship by his understanding of the haz ards that this project has encountered, his gentle (and sometimes not, so gentle) nudging to push for completion, and his willingness to run interference with a few authors, Secondly, I wish to thank several institutions who have enabled work on this project to be undertaken, including ‘Trinity Western University in British Columbia, Canada, and Roehampton Institute London, England, Although I was in tran- sition some of the time that this project was being undertaken, each institution provided an excellent environment for my own work, in- cluding support of some of the necessary administrative costs of suchxii PREFACE, a project. In conjunction with this I wish to thank Mr Neil Taylor, the Dean of the Faculty of Arts and Humanities of Roehampton Institute London for his direct support of this project. Thirdly, but hardly lastly, L wish to thank my wife for her enduring and abiding support for me in this and all my work. 1 cannot say enough, and will not even try. My father has also been a perpetual source of encouragement and support to me in my work. He was my first instructor in the art of thetoric, and it is to him that I dedicate this volume The system of abbreviations used in this volume should be ex- plained. The references to ancient writers for the most part follow those contained in H.G. Liddell and R. Scot's A Greck-English Lexi- an and P. G. W. Glare ef al’s Oxford Latin Dictionary, apart from some abbreviations, such as biblical and related books, that should be self= evident. References to secondary literature employ standard abbre- viations employed by English-language or Continental publishers. ‘These can be readily found elsewhere, and it was not thought neces- sary to reprint a lengthy list here. Whereas general consistency has been sought in editing this volume, the nature of the material and the characteristics of the individual contributors has made flexibility a necessary feature as well. Stanley E. Porter London, May 1996INTRODUCTION Stanley §. Porter This volume, Handbook of Classical Rhetoric in the Hellenistic Period (330 cad 400), does not require much introduction. Rhetoric is a very important topic in the study of the writings of the Greek and Roman worlds, and a volume in English to introduce the major features of rhetoric and its practitioners should find ready recep- tion. More than that, the study of rhetoric has become a very active topic in a number of scholarly fields. This volume provides a comprehensive and wide-ranging intro- duction (© classical rhetoric as it was practised in the Hellenistic period (330 nc-ap 400). In three sections, this detailed reference volume provides a thorough description and analysis of the standard catego- ries of thought, terminology, and theoretical and historical develop- ments of classical rhetoric, as well as providing useful bibliographies. The three sections of essays include, first, definitions of the major categories of rhetoric. Included here are significant essays on the genres of rhetoric, and the categories of arrangement, invention, style, delivery and memory. These are prefaced by a historical survey of ancient rhetoric that provides an overview of the rhetorical literature being discussed throughout the volume. Whereas these topics have all been discussed before, the treatments have the individual stamps of their contributors, and should help in exposing readers to the various ways in which such standard categories of rhetoric can be approached and utilized. The second section analyses rhetorical prac- tice according to genre of writing. Some of the genres here have already been subjected to a good amount of rhetorical analysis, such as oratory and declamation. Others of the genres, however, have had very little rhetorical analysis, The contributors in these areas have taken the opportunity to explore previously uncharted territory. There is some very significant work here that will foster much further scholarly analysis, even of those topics that have been treated previ- ously. The third section treats individual writers from a rhetorical perspective. The focus in this section is upon writers of the Hellenistic period, including those of the New Testament and Christian tradition,xiv INTRODUCTION as well as others. Whereas these writers have all been studied before, some of them from rhetorical perspectives, there is also much new work here, as well as much work that challenges previous conclu- sions. Although there is some overlap in these topics, genres and authors, this can only be an aid to fostering further discussion of these topics. Where specific topics are not discussed, there should be plenty of useful guidance provided elsewhere so that one can at least begin research into a new area of investigation. The intentions of this volume are several, and bear mentioning here. The first is to provide a comprehensive and wide-ranging in- troduction to the field of classical rhetoric in the Hellenistic period, Each essay should give some idea of any consensus among scholars, as well as appreciating diversity and complexity of the subject as discussed and utilized in the ancient and modern worlds. The sec- ond is to provide a thorough introduction to the standard categories of thought, terminology, and theoretical writers on the subject, along with its history and development. Each chapter is thoroughly docu- mented and concludes with a useful bibliography. These bibliog- raphies vary in length, but should provide instructive guidance to further reading on the subject. The third intention is to provide an assessment of the use of classical rhetorical categories in a repre- sentative selection of literary genres and a number of specific writers of the Hellenistic period. These assessments conclude both positively and negatively regarding the applicability of rhetorical analysis, pro- viding many challenges for further research. The fourth is to provide relevant examples of each term defined and analysed, with suitable amounts of primary text as necessary. The fifth and final intention is to suggest areas warranting further research, Perhaps the test of the value of this volume will be the amount of further scholarship that it generates In developing and writing this volume, the editor, as well a: the contributors, have had several projected audiences in mind, Others should feel free to utilize the volume, but the following audiences are being specifically addressed here. The first is New Testament scholars. Although there has been increased interest in rhetoric as evidenced in a multitude of recent publications, New Testament scholars have not had a handbook that introduces the categories of rhetoric in terms of their literature. This volume should provide a standard reference work for this large (and growing) group of New Testament scholars. It must be noted that important caveats regarding the useINTRODUCTION xv of rhetoric to study the New Testament are registered in this vol- ume. The second audience is scholars of the Hellenistic period Latinists are familiar with the period of attention, even though it has until fairly recently been neglected by many students of Greek. The volume integrates Latin and Greek interests as they focus upon the literature of the Hellenistic period as seen through the eyes of rheto- ric. The third is classical scholars. As classical scholars expand the scope of their interests, a work that applies familiar categories to new areas of investigation should be welcome, especially one that integrates classical categories with Hellenistic literary practice, The fourth and final audience is patristics scholars. Patristics has proved a useful area of discussion regarding rhetoric. This volume provides a synthesis that places patristic investigation within its larger context in the ancient world.PART I RHETORIC DEFINEDCHAPTER 1 HISTORICAL SURVEY OF RHETORIC George A. Kennedy University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, USA I. Derinrrions or Reeroric The Greek word pmtopuxd first occurs in Plato’s Gorgias, probably written in the second decade of the fourth century Bc. The term is there used by Socrates, and accepted without protest by the sophist Gorgias and his follower Polus, to describe a tézvn, or art, of public speaking which Gorgias practiced and taught to others and about which Polus had published some written work. In Gig. 453a2 Socrates attributes to Gorgias, and Gorgias accepts, a definition of rhetoric as neWWog Snnrovpyds, the “worker of persuasion”. Since Socrates ini- tially speaks of “what is called rhetoric” (448d9), the usual view has been that the term was current, if not at the dramatic date of the dialogue in the last quarter of the fifth century, at least by the time of its composition. The word pytopuch does not occur, however, in any surviving fifth-century Greck text, and even in the fourth cen- tury it is found almost exclusively in the writings of Plato and Aristotle. A more common term in the fifth and fourth centuries was téxvn Aéyaw, the “art of words, speech, or discourse”. Tt has becn argued that Plato coined “rhetoric”,! which might be thought to have some negative connotations because of its derivation from pitap, “speaker”, often implying “politician”. If so, the development of the arts of lan- guage, speech, and reasoning by sophists in the fifth century should be viewed as a wider interest in forms of discourse that did not differ- entiate political rhetoric as a specific area of study,? and Plato’s use of the word—including Socrates’ definition of rhetoric as a form of flattery and a counterpart of cookery, and his claim that it is no tue chiappa 1990; ef. Cole 1991:2. * Gf. Schiappa 1991:64-85.4 GEORGE A. KENNEDY art since it lacks knowledge (Gg. 4641~66a6)—is an attempt to dis- tinguish political rhetoric, aiming at persuasion however achieved, from philosophy. Throughout western history there have continued to be those who have distrusted rhetoric as deceit, propaganda, super- ficial ornamentation, or the empty use of words.! Aristotle (Rh. 1:2:1355b25-26) modified the Platonic conception of thetoric by defining it as “the ability in each [particular] case to see the available means of persuasion”. This implies that there exists thetorical knowledge or theory—what modern critics call “meta- thetoric”—which is then applied by a speaker in an intentional, though not always successful, act of persuasion. Rhetoric, in Aristotle’s view, is an antistrophos, or “counterpart”, to dialectic (1:1:1354a1); dialectic deals with general questions, often in dialogue format, rhetoric with particular issues, usually in a continuous oration, Aristotie’s treat- ment of rhetoric largely limits it to public address before political assemblies, in lawcourts, or at public ceremonies, and in this he is followed by subsequent Greck and Roman writers on rhetoric. The question of rhetorical genres will be discussed in the next chapter. Writers on rhetoric after Aristotle offered a variety of definitions, of which Quintilian gives a critical survey in his Jnsttutio oratoria (2:15) some emphasized persuasion as the “end” of rhetoric; others stressed the artistic ability of a speaker on any subject. Some preferred to define the duty or function Gpyov, offcium) of an orator, as does the author of the Rhelorica ad Herennium (1:2): “the function of an orator is to be able to speak on those matters that have been fixed by law and custom for civic purpose and to secure as far as possible the assent of the audience”. Quintilian’s own definition (Jnst. 2:15:34) is much broader: bene dicendi scientia, or “the knowledge of speaking well”, in which “well” refers not only to persuasive argument and stylistic art, but implies moral purpose, for he insists that an orator “cannot speak well unless he is a good man” In poplar usage today rhetoric often carries a negative connota- tion. In scholarly contexts, however, the meanings of rhetoric tend to fall into one or the other of two categories. Viewed historically, as an academic discipline that developed in Greek times, was taught in * In antiquity Aristophanes (esp. in Cloud:) and other comic poets ridiculed rhetor ric for comic effect, but most criticism of rhetoric came from philosophers, often echoing Gorgias. This is especially true in the second century BC; ef. Cic. De or. 1:46: 48 and 85-89.HISTORICAL SURVEY OF RHETORIC 5 schools throughout the Greco-Roman period, and became, with gram- mar and dialectic, a part of the trivium in the liberal arts course of the Middle Ages, Renaissance, and early modern periods, rhetoric is a system of efféctive and artistic composition, whether in speech or in writing, originally concerned with public address in civic and religious iife, but then adapted to literary composition, including poetry, and to letter-writing (the medieval and renaissance dictamen), By the late Hellenistic period it had developed a traditional set of precepts grouped in five “parts” that recapitulate the act of planning and delivering a speech: invention (planning the content and argu- ment), arrangement (of the contents into a logical sequence and unity), style (the choice and combination of words into clauses, periods, and figures), memory (the use of mnemonic systems to retain the con- tents in the mind), and delivery (oral expression and’ gesture). The precepts of rhetoric, developed to teach young people how to speak and write effectively in accordance with approved conventions, were then often used as the basis of the criticism and interpretation of texts of all sorts, including poetry and eventually the Christian scrip- tures. Since effective rhetorical composition was viewed as a con- scious, intentional act, rhetorical criticism in this sense has usually focused on discovering the intention of the original author and describing how or to what extent that intention was achieved for the original audience. Although the teaching of classical rhetoric faded in the nineteenth century, it has experienced a revival in the late twentieth, including both a return to the study of classical rhetoric in language instruction‘ and the creation of “new rhetorics” that are at least in part based on classical models.° Although Greek and Roman writers differed vociferously about the value of rhetoric and the effect of giving it a leading role in education, the theory of rhetoric expounded from the fourth century 8 to the end of antiquity is essentially a unified system of describing and teaching public address, utilizing the same basic categories Inventional theory was expanded in the Hellenistic period to include stasis theory (the technique of determining the question at issue in a speech), and the theory of style was enlarged to identify certain “virtues”, or excellences, some necessary, others appropriate in specific contexts, and a formidable list of figures of speech. There is consider- + CE Welch 1990, 5 Esp. Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca 1958.6 GEORGE A, KENNEDY able variation in detail, as teachers sought to be innovative, and some variation in terminology, but it is possible to speak of a standard system of classical rhetoric, expounded in handbooks and illustrated in practice.® A second meaning of rhetoric, found in modern critical writing but not in classical sources, views it as a quality inherent in the use of signs, especially linguistic signs, and in the network of signs that constitute a text.” The rhetoric of a poem, novel, play, or other ar- tistic composition is thus a matter of how the text works to achieve some effect through its imagery, metaphor, figuration, irony, and narrative voices, and also of the cultural, political, and social as- sumptions that are inherent in the text? So viewed, rhetoric is not necessarily a conscious art on the part of the original author, and the aim of such rhetorical criticism is not to reconstruct authorial intent and the effect on the original audience, which cannot be fully known and may be irrelevant, but to discover meaning in the text as received by any reader or to deconstruct the text into the opposi- tions or ambiguities that in post-modern thought are regarded as always already present in any attempt to control language. Although thetoric in the sense of an inherent quality in language and texts is logically prior to rhetoric in the sense of the classical system of con- ceptualized rhetoric, historically the modern meaning developed out of the study of tropes and figures in academic rhetoric from the six- teenth to the eighteenth centuries, primarily in France. Although the word “rhetoric” is a Greek coinage, most ancient cultures had some concept of persuasion and artistic speech or writ- ing and of the differing abilities of speakers, For example, the wisdom text of Ptahhotep, written in Egypt about 2000 nc, offers instruction in “the principle of fine speech”."" In the Old Testament creation is described as a speech act, “And God said. ...” (Gen. 1:34); Moses protests 10 God that he is not eloquent and God replies by designat- ing Aaron as the orator of the Jews (Exod. 4:10-16); in Prov. 16:24 “pleasant words are like a honeycomb, sweetness to the soul and © The systern is set forth in detail in the modern handbooks of Lausberg 1960 and Martin 1974; their indices are invaluable to the student of rhetorie. * Gh, Groupe #1981 * CE, eg. Booth 1961 ° CE, eg. Eagleton 1983:194-217. ‘© Cf Fox’ 1983 and Blythin 1986.HISTORICAL SURVEY OF RHETORIC 7 health to the body”."' There are also manuals of speaking fom ancient Ghina: for example, Difficulties in the Way of Persuasion by Hang, Fei Tau." Classical rhetoric is a specific cultural development of iq versal phenomenon of communication that probably has its uBtimate natural origin in the instinct of self-preservation common +48 crea. tures® and which in wibal and urban societies took ©. <€ffering conventional forms that seemed capable of being reduccaj w. rules and being taught. Ti, Greek Ruevoric perore THE FourtH Century. Greek and Latin writers (¢.g., Cic. Brit, 46-48, drawing) Avitieotle’s lost Evvaryeyit tezvaov) claim that rhetoric, as they uns ah ®t, was “invented” in the second quarter of the fifth centus i; Cayate and Tisias in Sicily. The accounts are confused, and ( sax (which Means “crow”) may well be a nickname for Tisias."* Tie contexts in Which attempts to teach effective public speaking developed were the ad- ministrative and legal system of constitutional governments, ‘which required individual citizens to be able to speak on viwir own beball, ofien before large audiences. This was especiaily true unger the Athenian democracy; it was largely in Athens that rhetorical developed and found their praccics! application. But the iyetorical conventions of ay culture are built on audiesice expectations. wf what a speech shoulet far ancl what constitutes valid argument; thus je js not surprising that many of the techniques of rhetoric identified in the fifth and fourth centuries can be found in wsliey Greek litera ture. Aristotle constantly quotes examples of + ++ Homer, lyric poets, dramatists. and historians who hai & systems of rhetoric The Greeks were # highly vocal, arguimentauve people, ant even the earliest Greek literature shows a consciousness of what Wr eaine to be called rhetoric. If we wish to provide a nanie for “thetotic before rhetoric” probably the best choice is nei, “persitasion”, "This becomes the basis for the fiteenthecentury reatiee on “Festament rhetoric by Judah Messer Tecm, The Book of the Hos 8" Fla + she trans Rabinowitz. 1983 * Cf Oliver 1971:220-33 "CE Kennedy 1992, * CE Cole 19928 GEORGE A. KENNEDY conceived as a divine force present in language (Hes. Op. 73, Th. 349; Sappho fr. 90, 96, and 200 Campbell; Pi. P. ; etc). Herodotus (8:11 1) reports that early in the fifth century Themistocles told the Andrians that the Athenians came to them with two great goddesses, Tera te xai ‘Avaryxain (“Persuasive Speech and Physical Constraint”), and in the mid-fifth century the poet Eupolis (fr. 94:5) said that Peitho sat on Pericles’ lips. Peitho is regularly found in Greek art in company with that more physical persuasive force, Aphrodite, her mother according to Sappho. As already noted, Socrates attributes to Gorgias the definition of rhetoric as ne1Oots Snwovpyéc, the “worker of persuasion”: thus the popular view of thetoric through the classical period as “the art of persuasion”. ‘The Iliad, the cariiest work of European literature, already shows many of the features of rhetoric that are conceptualized in the later tradition. Formal debates, with extended speeches that can be divided into logical parts, are a feature of both Greek and Trojan assemblies, Skill at speech is something leamed (presumably by iri- tation, not precept): Phoenix has taught Achilles to be both a speaker of words and a doer of deeds (9:443). There are poor speakers like ‘Thersites, who knows words but not how to put them together effec- tively (2:213), eloquent speakers like Nestor, “whose voice flowed from his mouth sweeter than honey” (1:249), and recognition that there were different effective styles of speech. For later antiquity (e.g., Aulus Gellius 6:14:7), Nestor was the model of the “middle” or smooth style; Odysseus, whose “words flew like flakes of snow” (3:222), was the model of the grand style, Menelavs, fluent, but using few words (8:214-15), of the plain style. Later Greeks and Romans regularly found models both of thought and style in speeches in the Iliad, es- pecially the three speeches af the embassy to Achilles in book 9 and the pathetic appeal of Priam to Achilles to recover the body of Hector in book 24."" ‘The conceptualization of a rhetorical system and the definition of thetorical terms was an aspect of the general development of Greek thought in the classical period, including natural and moral philoso- phy, medicine, and political theory. It was facilitated by what has come to be known as the “literate revolution” of the late fifth cen- tury, the greatly increased use of writing in composition and com- " Gf Kennedy 1980:11-14,HISTORICAL SURVEY OF RHETORIC 9 munication."® Although an adaptation of the Phoenician alphabet had been introduced into Greece as early as the eighth century Bc and written copies of fiterary texts were in circulation at least by the sixth century, both composition and publication long remained oral. Greater reliance on writing may have developed with the need for communication over distance in the historical events of the fifth cen- tury, such as the formation of the Athenian empire and the Pelo- ponnesian war. Although the goal of rhetorical teaching and study was effective speech, written texts were basic to its methods. These included the handbooks (téyvai) that were used by average citizens to gain an understanding of rhetorical methods, and they also in: cluded the texts of speeches by sophists and orators that were stud- ied as models of expression. In Plato's Phaedus we ineet a young enthusiast for rhetoric who is studying the written text of a speech attributed to Lysias. Greater use of writing changed the view of lan- guage, allowing it to be visualized on a page; it made rereading possible, with comparison between passages; it facilitated logical argument that might be difficult to follow orally, and it is perhaps responsible for the increased use of periodic sentences with numer- ous subordinate clauses. It contributed to a greater awareness of style and the stylistic possibilities of prose in particular: Greeks became more aware that things could be said in different ways with different emphases and different moral and emotional implications In Phaedrus (26645-26748) Plato gives a survey of “the numerous things found in books written about the art of speech”. These are the téxvan, or handbooks in circulation in the late fifth century, none of which has survived. The authors mentioned include Theodorus of Byzantium, Euenus of Paros, Tisias, Polus, Licymnius, and Thrasy- machus; some opinions of the sophists Protagoras, Gorgias, Prodicus, and Hippias are also mentioned, though it is doubtful whether they should be regarded as authors of handbooks. It seems clear from the passage, and also from what Aristotle says about tézva Aéyov in the Rhetoric (3:13:1414a37-b6), that the handbooks set out a structure of a judicial speech consisting of a logical series of parts: a xpooiiov, or introduction; Stiynais, or narrative, with provision for introduc- tion of the evidence of witnesses; nfotic, or proof, and éxiAoyoc, or summary conclusion; but some of the writers suggested the need for additional parts, which were given technical names. The four basic % Gf, Havelock 1982; Lenz 1989; Thomas 1989, 1992.10 GEORGE A. KENNEDY divisions are regularly found in Greek judicial oratory, less regularly in deliberative and epideictic speeches. Plato’s description also sug- gests that the handbooks contained some information about correct and ornamented word choice and about the expression of emotion (on which sce also Arist. RA, 1:1:1354al 1-21) Aristotle in his Rhetoric criticizes the handbooks for their neglect of logical argument, but at least one form of proof seems to have been illustrated: argument from probability (eixéc). The classic example, cited by both Plato (Phdr. 273a-b, where it is attributed to Tisias) and Aristotle (Rk. 2:24:1402a18-20, where it is attributed to Corax), and given developed form in the Third Tetralogy attributed to Anti- phon, involves responsibility for starting a brawl between a small man and a large man: the small man can argue that it is improbable that he would have started a fight with someone much larger than himself, the large man can turn this around and argue that because of his size he would be easily blamed as an aggressor and for that reason it is improbable he would have started the fight. Argument from probability, in a variety of forms, is very common in Greek literature of all sorts in the fifth century, not only in oratory but in poetry. A good example is the speech of Greon in Sophocles’ Oedipus ‘Tyrannus (583-615) where, in reply to Oedipus’s attack on him, he argues that it is improbable that he would have conspired to gain the throne. Argument from probability seems to have appealed to the Grecks in that it was based on an understanding of human nature; conversely, Greek orators often distrusted direct evidence, such as that by witnesses, as easily faked or bribed. Although the early handbooks seem to have set out a model struc- ture for a speech, suggested some forms of argument, and contained information on style, and though they introduced some of the tech- nical vocabulary that became traditional in thetoric, they should not bbe regarded as very sophisticated or theoretical treatments. They were probably short, apparently ephemeral, and in all likelihood more a collection of examples of what might be said than a statement of precepts. It has recently been plausibly suggested that the term ténos, literally “place” but used to mean a rhetorical topic, came into use to refer to the physical place in a written téyyn where a “common- place” could be found to fit a variety of contexts."” Teaching rhetoric, often for rather considerable fees, was one of " Gf Cole 1991:88-89,HISTORICAL SURVEY OF RHETORIC i the activities of fifth-century sophists, an important aspect of their claim to teach practical wisdom in public and private affairs (cf. PI. Prt. 319al). As the description of education by Plato’s character Protagoras in the dialogue of that name makes clear (Prt. 325¢e~326c), traditional Greek education (roxdeia) made no attempt to teach original composition or original thought. Sophists, for the first time, taught students how to compose and how to argue, but they did so by the example of their own method of epideiris, discourses on hypothetical issues that demonstrated techniques for students to imitate. At the end of his treatise On Sophistical Refutations (SE 183a-184b) Aristotle criticizes the teaching of Gorgias and the sophists as unsystematic: For some of them gave their pupils speeches to learn by heart, speeches which were either rhetorical or consisted of questions and answers, in which both sides thought that the rival arguments were for the most part inchided. Hence the teaching which they gave their pupils was rapid but unsystematic; for they conceived that they could train their pupils by imparting to them not an art but the results of an art, just as if one should claim to be able to communicate knowledge for the prevention of pain in the feet and then did not teach the cobbler’s art and the means of providing suitable foot-gear, but offered a selection of various kinds of shoes; for he has helped to supply his need but has not imparted an art to hi The most famous surviving examples of sophistic model speeches are the Tetralogies attributed to Antiphon (three sets of two speeches for the prosecution and two for the defense in homicide cases)" and two by Gorgias, The Encomium of Helen and The Defense of Palamedes.® Gorgias first came to Athens on an embassy from Leontini in Sicily in 427 ne and made an enormous impression there with his remarkable prose style and his clever use of argument. The Helen is divided into the four parts of prooemion, narrative, proof, and epilogue; it argues that Helen must have abandoned Menelaus and gone to Troy with Paris for one of four reasons: either it was fated by the gods, or she was taken by force, or she was seduced by Paris's words, or she was overcome with love for him. Gorgias secks to prove that which- ever was the reason, she is not to be held morally blamable. This is * Trans, by Forster 1955:154, with minor changes. ®° Text and translation by Maidment 1941; authorship and date are very contro- versial. ‘® Helen trans. by Kennedy (1991:283-88); Palamedes trans. by Kennedy in Sprague 1972:54-63.12 GEORGE A. KENNEDY relatively easy to show if fate or force are involved, more challenging in the case of words or love, both of which Gorgias presents as irre- sistible forces. The most famous part of the speech (Hel. 8-14) is the discussion of the power of logos: “Speech is a powerful lord that with the smallest and most invisible body accomplished most godlike works. It can banish fear and remove grief and instill pleasure and enhance pity...” The passage as a whole can be taken as expressing the wonder and excitement in the fifth century occasioned by the dawn- ing awareness of the possibilities of rhetoric. Gorgias’s prose style is characterized by constant antithesis, word play (paronomasia), and the use of poetic devices. He is fond of balancing clauses with the same number of syllables (isocolon) and of rhyming the last words of clauses or phrases (homoeoteleuton). Such techniques were imitated by others—they can, for example, be found in speeches in Thucydides’ History—but the jingling effect was distracting, and fourth-century writers largely abandoned them, seeking instead force and clarity on the principle that the greatest art is to disguise art. ‘The first state- ment of this principle is found in Aristotle (Rh, 3:2:1404b18-21) ‘The most important successor of the sophists in the fourth century was Isocrates, who, about 390 Bc, opened a school in Athens that was intended to supply an understanding of moral and poli philosophy and of rhetorical skills to future leaders of Greece. Over the next fifty years it attracted a large number of students. Isocrates was very much a part of the “literate revolution”. He was himself ineffective as a public speaker and his “speeches” are written trea- tises in oratorical form, frequently revised, often lengthy, composed in long periodic sentences, and highly polished. Though they are usually referred to as epideictic, they are often cast in the form of judicial or deliberative orations or of letters. His early programmatic work Against the Sophists (13:16~17) outlines his educational method: T hold that to obtain a knowledge of the elements ({8éa1) out of which we make and compose all discourses is not so very difficult if anyone entrusts himself, not to those who make rash promises but to those who have some knowledge of these things, But to choose from these clements those which should be employed for each subject, to join them together, to arrange them properly, and also, not to miss what the occasion demands but appropriately co adorn the whole speech with striking thoughts (évBvpiinata) and to clothe it in flowing and melodious phrase—these things, I hold, require much study and are the task of a vigorous and imaginative mind: for this, the student must not only have the requisite aptitude, but must learn the different kindsHISTORICAL SURVEY OF RHETORIC 13 of discourse and practise himself in their use; and the teacher, for his part, must so expound the principles of the art with the utmost pos- sible exactness as to leave out nothing that can be taught, and, for the rest, he must in himself set such an example of oratory that the students who have taken form under his instruction and are able to pattern themselves after him (u1ptheoo8c1) will, from the outset, show in their speaking a degree of grace and charm which is not found in others." This is the earliest passage in which a Greek writer recognizes the stages in composition which became the three major parts of rhe- torical theory, invention, arrangement, and style. The thought comes first, it is then arranged logically and finally cast into words and polished. The student learns primarily from imitation (uysjo1g) of approved models, including the teacher’s own examples, but appar- ently Isocrates also intends to lecture on rhetorical theory.” His sur- viving works, of which the Antidosis is the most important account of his own teaching, present more a philosophy of rhetoric as a method of moral education than a theoretical system, and they lack technical thetorical vocabulary. Note his use in the passage above of i8éa and évOvpiuara in a non-technical sense. The development of a conceptualized system of rhetoric with prin- iples of composition and a technical vocabulary, beyond what little was to be found in the réqvan Aéyaov, was largely the contribution of Plato and Aristotle. Although the account of rhetoric found in the Gorgias of Plato is negative, even that dialogue (503a5~b7) suggests that there might be the possibility of a valid, philosophical art of discourse: “a genuine attempt to make the souls of one’s fellows as excellent as may be, a striving always to say what is best, whatever the degree of pleasure or pain it may afford the audience. But a rhetoric such as this you have never encountered”. A few years later, in the Phaedrus, Plato allows Socrates to outline what w major features of a valid art of rhetoric. This is the subject of the second half of the dialogue and is summarized in the following long sentence in 277b5-c6: Until someone knows the truth of each thing about which he speaks or writes and is able to define everything in its own species and sub- species to the point of indivisibility, discerning the nature of the soul ® Trans. by Norlin I 1929:173-75. ® What Norlin translates “expound the principles of the art” is in the Greek text only “go through (or describe thoroughly) these things”14 GEORGE A. KENNEDY in accordance with the same method, while discovering the logical category which fits with each nature, and until in a similar way he composes and adorns speech, furnishing variegated and complex speech to a variegated soul and simple speech to 2 simple soul—not until then will it be possible for speech to exist in an artistic form in so far as the nature of speech is capable of such treatment, neither for instruction nor for persuasion, as has been shown by our entire past discussion, Rhetoric thus requires knowledge of the subject, knowledge of logi- cal method, and knowledge of the psychology of the audience: it is a yoxoryayic, or “leading of the soul”, by both reason and emotion (261a7-9). “Probable” argument is only probable if based on a knowl edge of truth (260a-c). Effective discourse requires a unity of its parts: “every discourse, like a living creature, should be so put together that it has its own body and lacks neither head nor feet, middle nor extremities, all composed in such a way that they suit both each other and the whole” (2642-5). The Platonic conception underlies the account of rhetoric that Aristotle subsequently formulated, especially his emphasis on logical method and his division of the artistic means of persuasion into the use by a speaker of ethos, or presentation of his character as trust- worthy, logos, or logical argument, and pathos, or awakening the emotion of the audience. Nevertheless, Aristotelian rhetoric is very much a phenomenon of the real world of politics and the lawcourts. Aithough he often draws examples from poetry, Aristotle largely limits the sphere of rhetoric to public address in contemporary assemblies, courts, or ceremonial occasions, Although he puts great emphasis on under- standing valid logical argument, he realized that in practice the political, fegal, or cultural issues discussed in public speaking usually are matters on which only probabilities can be established, Although he believes that an orator should not seck to persuade an audience of something that is wrong (Rh. 1:1:1354b31), he regarded rhetoric as itself a morally neutral art that suggests “the available means of persuasion” and how to argue on either side of an issue; thus he does not hesitate to describe methods that might be persuasive even if invalid or immoral.HISTORICAL SURVEY OF RHETORIC 15 IL. Greex anp Latin Oratory Throughout the history of Greek and Roman rhetoric the imitation of classic models was fundamental to instruction in rhetoric. This included study of speeches in the Homeric poems, in Greek drama (especially plays of Euripides, who employs techniques taught by the sophists), in Greek historians, and of course in the orators. The speeches in Thucydides’ History of the Peloponnesian War are probably the most interesting to the student of the early history of rhetoric; the historian claims (1:22) that in so far as possible he based the speeches on what was actually said, but it was often difficult to know this accurately (political speeches were not usually published until Demosthenes began to do so in the fourth century) and thus he relies on t& Séovta, what was “needed, appropriate, fitting” to say in the circumstances. The speeches he includes are clearly quite compressed, and as a result often bring out the political issues in a striking way. A particularly good example is the debate between Cleon and Diodotus in 3:37-48, with its sharp focus on the conflict between expediency and justice in determining a policy to deal with the Mitylenean re- volt. The most famous speech in Thucydides’ work is his version of the Epitaphios, or Funeral Oration, given by Pericles at the ceremony for those who died in the first year of the war (2:35~46), with its highly idealistic presentation of Athens and her culture as the ‘school of Greece”, its emotional account of death in battle, and its rela- tively chilly consolation for those who are left behind.” Pericles both acknowledges and breaks from the conventions of the genre (the tra- ditional topoi are better seen, for example, in the epitaphios by Lysias) On any ceremonial occasion such as this the major rhetorical chal- lenge to a speaker is how at one and the same time to meet the audience expectations for the traditional form and to make some- thing significant of the occasion by saying something new and strik- ing. Public epideictic oratory, of which epitaphios is one species, was developed in classical Greek times and became important again under the Roman Empire; it was a major element in transmitting traditional values and in educating the populace in those values, but it easily became artificially inflated into praise of rulers and the status quo and frequently glosses over or rewrites unpleasant historical realities. ® For an extended discussion of the ideological and rhetorical issues in Greek funeral orations, including this one, see Loraux 1986.16 GEORGE A, KENNEDY The extensive surviving corpus of Greek oratory provides an under- standing of rhetorical practice in the late fifth and fourth centuries. Although the orators were familiar with the rhetorical handbooks of the time and with the work of sophists, none shows specific influence of the ideas of Plato and Aristotle about rhetoric. Their published speeches, rather, are artistic developments of the oral traditions of speech in Greece within the conventions of public life and the law courts, applied to the challenge of specific situations. At least two orators, Lysias and Demosthenes, rank with the greatest oratorical geniuses of ali time, and Tsaeus, Isocrates, Aeschines, and Hyperides are worthy contenders for the second rank, They are all important sources for historical information—legal, political, and social—as well as models of eloquence. The fourth century was a period in which attention turned increasingly to individual character and even to the portrayal of personality: it is in the pages of the orators that we first meet real, individual Greeks in the course of their ordinary lives. Isocrates, Demosthenes, and Aeschines also tell us much about them- selves; Demosthenes can be fairly said to be the first individual in history whose life we can know in any detail. Since Greek law required that most legal procedures be conducted personally by the principals in the case, and even criminal prosecu- tions had to be brought by some individual rather than the state, and since individuals involved in criminal trials or litigation often lacked rhetorical training, the profession of logographer, or speech- writer, developed in the late fifth century. Antiphon, Lysias, Isacus, Isocrates in his early career, Demosthenes, and others wrote speeches for clients to memorize and deliver as best they could in court. Many of these speeches survive, perhaps published by the original author as examples of his skill, perhaps based on a text used by the clients who bought them. The challenge for the speechwriter was to size up the client, organize his case, and present it and him in the most effective way. Lysias in particular is famous for the success of his portrayal of a wide variety of clients in such a way as to make them seem both natural and believable. This quality in his speeches, known in later times as ethopoiia, is a matter of the thought and topics em- ployed, not of the prose style. Among the most celebrated examples are his orations 1, 7, 9, and 21. As a stylist, Lysias became for the % Standard works on Greek oratory include those of Blass 1874-80 and Jeb 1893. ® The later is argued by Dover 1968:151-61, in the case of Lysias.HISTORICAL SURVEY OF RHETORIC 17 thetorical schools, and for modem students, the model of the “plain” or “simple” style, characterized by purity of diction, clarity of gram- matical construction, and restraint in ornamentation by tropes and figures. Demosthenes, in contrast, became the model of the “grand” style, or more accurately the master of every style “harmoniously blended”. His distinctive quality is Sewérns, or forcefulness, best seen in his deliberative speeches: the Olynthiacs, the Philippics, and espe Gially On the Crown. The classic model of the “middle”, or “smooth”, style is the orations of Isocrates, with their vast periodic sentences, their avoidance of hiatus (the “gap” occurring when a word ending in a vowel is followed by a word beginning with a vowel), and their thythmical flow. ‘There is no extant Greek oratory from the last three centuries ne. From the Roman period we have substantial collections of Greek speeches, some actually delivered, others published as epideictic mod- els by rhetors who are representatives of the “Second Sophistic”. ‘The most important orators are Dio Chrysostom (late first century AD), Aelius Aristides (mid-second century), and their fourth-century succes- sors, Libanius, Himerius, Synesius, and Themistius. For these orators thetoric was a fully conceptualized system and their works can be studied in terms of the theory taught in schools of the Hellenistic and Roman period. There is also a development of Christian epideictic oratory in Greek, beginning with Gregory Thaumaturgus in the third century, followed by Eusebius of Caesarea in the early fourth, and attaining its greatest achievements in the work of Gregory of Nazianzus in the mid-fourth century. The Alexandrian grammarian-critics of the third and second cen- turies Bc, Aristophanes of Byzantium and Aristarchus, drew up can- ons of Greek poets, arranged by genres (epic, lyric, tragic, etc.). A canon of the Attic orators also eventually came into existence, best known from the anonymous treatise (probably a work of the second century Ap) On the Lives of the Ten Orators that is preserved among the works of Plutarch:” the ten approved models are Antiphon, Andocides, Lysias, Isaeus, Isocrates, Isaeus, Demosthenes, Aeschines, Hyperides, Lycurgus, and Dinarchus. The beginnings of a canon can be found by the first century ac. Cicero (Brut, 32-37) singles out Isocrates, Lysias, Demosthenes, Hyperides, Aeschines, Lycurgus, Dinarchus, Demades, and Demetrius of Phaleron for special mention. Dionysius ® For a rhetorical analysis of On the Crown see Donnelly 1941 ® Trans. by Forster 1936.18 GEORGE A. KENNEDY of Halicarnassus devotes treatises to Lysias, Isocrates, Isaeus, Demos- thenes, and Dinarchus. It was perhaps Dionysius’s contemporary, Caecilius of Calacte, who canonized the list in a work of which we know only the title, On the Character [or Style] of the Ten Orators. The texts of the classical Greek orators played a special role as models for imitation in the Atticism movement, a reaction against the per- ceived decadence of vocabulary, grammar, and style in simple Koine Greek and in florid Asianic oratory. The earliest references to Atticism are in Brutus and Orator, where Cicero criticizes contemporary Latin orators of the plain style for claiming to be “Attic” and neglecting the variety of styles found in Demosthenes and other Attic orators, Atticism in Greek begins with Dionysius of Halicamnassus and over time created an anachronistic literary language that dominated the schools and literary composition for centuries. Except for fragments of Cato the Elder and other early Romans,* oratory in Latin is represented almost solely by the speeches of Cicero, who knew the theories of the schools well but knew equally well when to rise above pedantic rules. The two speeches that most fully accord with rhetorical rules are De lege Manitia and Pro Milone?® Outside of Gicero’s works there are the Panegyric (of Trajan) by Pliny the Younger, the Apology by Apuleius, many examples of declamation, a collection of panegyrics of late Latin emperors, fragmentary orations of Symmachus, and Christian oratory, such as the sermons of Ambrose and Augustine. IV. RueroricaL Scuoois The spread of Greck language and Greck culture throughout the Near East and Mediterranean after the conquests of Alexander the Great brought with it the establishment of rhetorical schools in every urban center. Grammar and rhetoric furnished local inhabitants with an entry into the new civic life and access to the law courts, A sys- tem of formal education came into existence in which young people began the study of Greek grammar around the age of seven; a signifi- cant number of boys then entered a rhetorical school at the age of twelve to fourteen. They learned some theory from lectures by their ™ Cf, Malcovati 1955; discussion in Kennedy 1972:3-102 ® Rhetorical analysis by Donnelly 1934HISTORICAL SURVEY OF RHETORIC 19 teacher and practiced exercises in declamation in imitation of his examples. The Romans initially resisted the teaching of rhetoric, expelling Greck teachers in 161 8c and putting an interdiction on teaching rhetoric in Latin in 92 (Suet. De Ret. 1), but then gave way and Rome became a leading center of 11.1 soon thereafter. Public subsidy of instruction in rhetoric had alreae wn in some Hellenistic cities. In 71 ap Quintilian was the first pers... named to a chair in rhetoric in Rome, funded by the emperor. Beginning in the second century AD the emperors required cities througheut the empire to subsidize instruction in grammar and rhetoric, though attendance at school was never required in antiquity.” Vo Ganek ang bets Ress EN Literally hundreds of rhetorical handbooks, plus monographs on specific aspects of rhetoric, were written by thetoricians, ofators, grammarians, philosophers, and enthusiastic amateurs threghout antiquity. Most were ephemeral and are known, if at all, aly from incidental references by other writers, expecially Quinéiiian and Diogenes Laertius. Most were original only am the weaunent of de- tails; there were frequent professional disputes over categories of sta- sis or whether something should be regarded as a trope or a figure or other matters; the followers of Apollodorus in the first cens#TY BC insisted on the need for all parts of the oration in a standard order, the followers of Theodorus were more flexible about this, move rigid ‘on some other points.) The more thoughtful works usually begin with a general introduction that alleges a reason for writing aitother handbook, provides definitions and divisions of the subjeci, afiel event engages in philosophical speculation, as did the precocious young Cicero in De inventione. Handbooks differ somewhat in surheture;”® discussion of invention and arrangement in particular posed af? fga- nizational problem for the writers: how to combine treatment of the ny ® On the history of schools in antiquity see Marron 1956 and Bonner 1'977; on education in Palestine and its effect on Jews and Christians, see Kinneavy 1987:55- 100. ® See Kennedy 1972, with bibliography * On the evolution of technical handbooks and the different structures thiey take, see Fuhrman, 1960.20 GEORGE A, KENNEDY three species of rhetoric—judicial, deliberative, and epideictic—and the parts of an oration without too much repetition, and where to discuss stasis, forms of argument, and topics. The chief extant works on rhetoric are listed below; important lost works are identified in each period. L, Aristotle (384-322 wc) Rhetoric (Texvh Antopixh or Mepi pmtoprxtic). [Ed. Kassel 1976; ed. and trans. Freese 1926; trans. (with extensive notes) Kennedy 1991; commentary on the whole by Cope 1877; com- mentary on books | and 2 by Grimaldi 1980-88] Atistotle was a member of Plato’s Academy from 367 to 347 nc. Around 355 he began giving a course of lectures on rhetoric; some of the material in the Rhetoric as we have it probably derives from that time. He probably returned to the subject when teaching Alex- ander the Great around 341 and seems to have revised his text into its present form just before returning to Athens in 335. He then may have used it (there is no specific evidence) as the basis of lectures in his new “Peripatetic” school at the Lyceum. Books 1-2 deal with what Aristotle (at the end of book 2) calis Sidévora, “thought”, in later writers called eXpeotc, invertio. Book 3 (probably originally a separate work) discusses AE (elocutio, “style”) and +41 (divisio, “arrangememt”). Aristotle thus covers three of what became five parts of rhetoric in later theory, and at the beginning of book 3 has some comments on a fourth part, dxdxprais (acti, “deliv- ery’).* Major problems in interpretation of the work (written at differ- ent times and not finally revised) arise from inconsistency in the use of terms, especially niotig and téxos, and from the contrast between the very austere, Platonizing view of rhetoric in I:1-and the much more pragmatic treatment in the rest of the work. Although attempts are sometimes made to read the Rletoric as ethical and political phi- losophy, it is probably best viewed, like the Poetics, as essentially a formal analysis of the subject. ‘The most important contributions of Aristotle to rhetorical theory are the following: (a) The division (1:2) of xicters (“means of persuasion”) into éexvor (“non-artistic”), or direct evidence including witnesses, contracts, etc. (which the speaker does not invent but uses), and Evteqvor (“artistic”), ® See Kennedy 1995:299-805. % For a chapter by chapter outline of the whole, see Kennedy 1991:13-22.HISTORICAL SURVEY OF RHETORIC 21 which the speaker invents. The artistic means are then divided into three and only three: the presentation of the speaker's character (#0) as trustworthy through what he says in the speech (ie., not on the basis of an external reputation); the use of valid logical argument Q6y0s); the arousal of emotion (né80c) in the audience. (b) The division (also in 1:2) of logical means of persuasion into napaSetyucta (“examples” used to construct inductive arguments) and evOvpipara (“enthymemes”, deductive rhetorical syllogisms). An enthymeme is usually only probable, given the subject matter of civic thetoric; one premise is frequently omitted as well known to the audience; thus the usual form of an Aristotelian enthymeme is a proposition with a supporting statement. The formal materials of enthymemes are texufpta (“signs”) and eixdta. (“probabilities”) (c) The theory (also begun in 1:2) of téxor (“topics”). There are three categories: first, what Aristotle calls xowé, “commonalities”, four forms of argument useful in any species of rhetoric: the possible or impossible; past fact; future fact; and magnitude or importance (1:3:7 and 14; 2:19); secondly, what he generally calls 8a (“specifics, spe- cial [topics]”), the propositions of the various species of knowledge, primarily politics and ethics, used by the speaker, which are discussed in detail in 1:4-14; and thirdly, xowoi ténot (“common topics”), logi- cal strategies such as argument from cause to effect, discussed in detail in 2:23. (d) The definition of three and only three genres (or taking ora- tory as the genre, “species”) of rhetoric on the basis of whether or not an audience is a judge and of what (1:3). If the audience makes a judgment about the future the speech is ovpBovdevtuxdy (“delib- erative”) and its central issue (in practice a “special” topic) is td ovygépov (“the beneficial or acvantageous”—the translation “expedi- ent” somewhat distorts Aristotle’s meaning); if the audience is mak- ing a judgment about the past the speech is Suxavixdv (“judicial”)® and the central issue is 1 Sixaiov, “the just”; if the audience is not called upon to make a judgment about action the speech is ém- Beuxtixdy (“epideictic, demonstrative”) and the central issue is 1 xaASv (“the honorable”). Each of the species is divided into a positive and negative form: a deliberative speech is either apotpom} (“exhorta- tion”) or éxotpomf (“dissuasion”); a judicial speech either xarmyopia % The translation forensic is best avoided because of other uses of that word in the USA.22 GEORGE A. KENNEDY (“prosecution”) or dmoAoyia: (“defense”); an epideictic speech either Enawvog (“praise encomium”) or y6r0s (“blame, invective”). The sub- ject matter and special topics of deliberative rhetoric are then dis- cussed in 1:4-8, epideictic in 1:9, and judicial in 1:10-15. (e) The discussion of prose style in 3:2~12, including identification of “clarity” as the “virtue” (peti) of style (3:2), and the accounts of simile (eixév) (3:4), metaphor (Hetaapopé) (3:2 and 11), appropriateness (3:7), prose rhythm (3:8), periodicity (3:9), and visualization (3:10 11), Aristotle did not develop a theory of tropes and figures of speech, and some of his stylistic terminology (e.g., 5yxog, or “expansiveness”) did not become standard in the later tradition. ‘There are other features of the Rhetoric that were often ignored by later writers: the great emphasis on logical reasoning, the discussion of the psychology of the emotions (2:2-11), and the analysis of cha- racter types (2:12-17). Although for the modern reader Aristotle’s work is the most important and penetrating ancient discussion of rheto- ric, it had relatively little direct influence on the classical tradition: Aristotle’s lecture notes on rhetoric were not available to the public until the first century Be when his personal library was rediscovered and his treatises edited and published for the first time by Andronicus of Rhodes. By that time important innovations had been made by others, especially the stasis theory of Hermagoras, the theory of fig- ures, and the theory of the kinds or levels of style, possibly first stated by Aristotle’s student Theophrastus. The Aristotelian ideas that did come into the common tradition, such as the three species of rheto- ric, derive from writings (all now lost) by those who had personally studied with him, especially Theophrastus." Theophrastus’s most important contribution was the development of the theory of four virtues of style—correctness, clarity, ornamentation, and propriety in the treatise Mepi A&Gems. ‘These appear in some form in most later discussions.” 2. Rhetoric for Alexander (Rhetorica ad Alexandrum). [Ed. Fuhrmann 1966; trans. by Rackham 1937; discussion by Kennedy 1963, 1994, with bibliography] This is the only other surviving fourth-century rhetorical handbook. On the basis of a reference in Quintilian (3:4:9) it is usually assumed % See Kennedy 1991:305-309, ¥ Cf Stroux 1912.HISTORICAL SURVEY OF RHETORIC 23 to be by Anaximenes of Lampsacus (ca. 380-320 uc), a writer of historical works who, like Aristotle, had connections with Alexander the Great. The version of the treatise we have begins with a dedi tory letter purporting to be from Aristotle to Alexander in reply to his request for a reatment of rhetoric; this is apparently a forgery by some later writer, which resulted in the inclusion of the treatise in the Aristotelian corpus. Rhetoric for Alexander is a rule based handbook, not a collection of examples for imitation, and thus evidence for developments in the teaching of rhetoric by the second half of the fourth century beyond the early technai and the efforts of the sophists. Its relationship to teachings of Aristotle, Isocrates, or other writers on rhetoric is prob- lematic. Although it fails to use most Aristotelian technical terminol- ogy or definitions (e.g., no definition of rhetoric is provided) and lacks the analytical strength and philosophical qualities of Aristotle’s Rhetoric, it is organized over-all in the same way: the subject matter and topics for the separate species of public speaking (Rh. Al. 1-6); forms of rhetorical argument (7-20); some comments on style (2I~ 28); and the parts of deliberative, epideictic, and judicial orations (29-37). This may represent the standard structure of the time which Aristotle thus has adopted rather than invented. There are also some similarities to views of Isocrates, or teachings later attributed to him, but the basic approach to the subject is not that of Isocrates. The treatise can be described as sophistic in that it outlines techniques of persuasion without any consideration of morai purpose and it consist- ently claims that the method it describes is the only proper approach 3. Hermagoras of Temnos Art of Rhetoric. [For fragments, other evi- dence, and discussion see Matthes 1958; discussion by Kennedy 1963:303-21] ‘The most important lost Hellenistic handbook was that by Hermagoras of Temnos, written about the middle of the second century Rc. Hermagoras expounded a theory of stasis, the determination of the question at issue in a speech. The contents can be reconstructed in outline on the basis of discussions of the subject in Cicero, the Rhelorica ad Herennium, Quintilian, Augustine, and other later writers. 4. Cato the Elder (234-149 3c) Libri ad Marcum Filiuan ‘The first Latin rhetorical handbook, according to Quintilian (Inst. 19}, was that by Cato the Elder. It was apparently part of a24 GEORGE A, KENNEDY short encyclopedia that also contained discussion of agriculture and medicine. From it, apparently, come two famous statements: orator est, Marci fli, vir bonus dicendi peritus (“An orator, son Marcus, is a good man skilled at speaking”, quoted by Seneca, Controversiae 1. pr. 9) and rem tene, verba sequentur (“Seize the subject, the words will follow”, quoted by Julius Victor, p. 374 in Halm 1863) 5. Rhetorica ad Herennium [Ed. and trans. Caplan 1954] ‘This anonymous Latin handbook (sometimes attributed to an other- wise unknown Cornificius and until the Renaissance thought to be by Cicero) provides the most convenient introduction to classical rhetorical theory, especially in the fine edition with introduction and notes by Caplan. Its chief disadvantage is that at the time of com- position (perhaps ca. 85 Bc) many Latin terms for Greek rhetorical terminology had not yet been standardized. The author occasionally claims originality in details but seems to have studied with the same teacher as had the young Cicero; some rules for invention are found verbatim in both Cicero's De inwentione and Ad Herennium, The latter, however, has the great advantage of also discussing arrangement (Rhet. ad Her. 3:i6-18), delivery (3:19-27), memory (3:28-40), and style (book 4), thus giving a picture of the whole subject as taught in the late Hellenistic period, including Hermagoras’s stasis theory. The five parts, however, are here not arranged in canonical sequence; the author has deliberately postponed style to a separate book and in a preface to it argues energetically that a rhetorician should cre- ate his own example of good style, not borrow them from literature. Parts of the work that are of special interest include discussion of the “five-part argument” (2:27-36), known in Greek as émyeipnuc and representing stylistic amplification of an enthymeme; the discus- sion of memory {3:28-40), which is the clearest extant summary of the mnemonic system of images and backgrounds; the discussion, with examples, of the grand, middle, and simple style and their de- fective variants (4:11~16); and the lists of figures of diction, including tropes (not here so called) (3:18-46) and figures of thought (3:47~69).. Ad Herennium became one of the basic rhetorical texts in the Middle Ages and was the subject of commentaries.HISTORICAL SURVEY OF RHETORIC 25 6. M. Tullius Cicero (106-43 8c) A. De inventione (Ed. and trans. Hubbell 1949; discussion by Kennedy 1972:103-38] This is Cicero’s earliest work (ca. 89 ac), based on his study of rhetoric with an unnamed teacher; he planned to discuss all five parts of thetoric but completed only the two books on invention, treated in book | in terms of the parts of a judicial oration and in book 2 in terms of stasis, argument, and topics. The work closely resembles the Rhetorica ad Herenium and shows the influence of Hermagoras. Book I opens with a philosophical preface which contains the famous statement existimem sapientiam sine eloquentia parum prodesse civitatibus, eloguentiam vere sine sapientia nimium obesse plerumque, prodesse numquam (*I think wisdom without eloquence has been of little advantage to states, but eloquence without wisdom has too often done much harm and never been advantageous”). The preface to book 2 claims that Cicero is not following a single source and gives (2:1:6-8) a brief history of rhetoric. Because it provided a clear summary of the sub- Jject, more systematic than Cicero’s other rhetorical writings and shorter than Quintilian’s, De invention became a basic rhetorical text for the Middle Ages, more popular even than Rhetorica ad Herennium, and numerous manuscripts survive; commentaries were written by Vic- torinus (ed. Halm 1863) and by Grillius in late antiquity and by numerous medieval scholars. B. De oratore {Ed. Wilkins, with notes, 1892; ed. Kumaniecki 1969; ed. and trans. Sutton and Rackham 1942; new trans. in preparation by James May et al; commentary by Leeman et al. in progress 1981-] This philosophical dialogue on the nature of rhetoric and the func- tion of the Roman orator, published in 55 but dramatically set in 95 ne, is Cicero’s major work on the subject, but it avoids technical vocabulary. It is the earliest Latin work to show direct knowledge of Aristotle’s Rhetoric and to adapt some of Aristotle’s concepts to Ro- man conditions. The chief speakers are: Crassus, with whom Cicero identifies himself and who argues the need for an orator to have a wide knowledge of politics, philosophy, law, and other subjects; Antonius, who takes a narrower, practical approach; Scaevola, who argues the importance of law; and Caesar Strabo, who discusses wit and humor in 2:217-34. Among influential features of rhetorical theory found in the dialogue are the adaptation of the three Aristotelian26 GEORGE A. KENNEDY modes of persuasion (ethos, logos, pathos) into the form: “that we prove our case to be true; that we win over those who are listening; that we call their hearts to what emotion the case demands” (2:115).* In Orator (69) these are called “duties of an orator” (afficia orat probare, delectare, fecter). Also of special interest is the treatment (2:183— 85) of ethos and pathos as degrees of emotional appeal, the former being calm and persuasive, the latter a more violent stirring of passions. G. De optimo genere dicendi (Ed. and trans, Hubbell 1949] About 46 2c Cicero projected a translation of two speeches of Demosthenes and Aeschines; all that he completed was this intro- duction. D. Partitiones oratoriae Ed. and trans. Rackham 1942; discussion by Kennedy 1963:328-30] Pethaps about 53 Bc Cicero wrote this rhetorical catechism for his son. Its chief interest is that it shows the development of technical vocabulary in Latin and provides a brief survey of all aspects of thetoric. The vis oratoris, or “faculty of the orator”, is discussed first (I-26), then the parts of the oration (27-60) and stasis theory (60~ 138). E. Brutus [Ed. and trans. Hendrickson 1939; Douglas 1966] ed. with commentary Cicero wrote this history of rhetoric and oratory in dialogue form in 46 nc. In addition to its interesting account of historical develop- ments, famous Roman orators, and Cicero’s own rhetorical and philosophical education, it presents (Brut. 283-91) his reaction to the Atticism movement of the time, the attempt of Calvus and others to teach a pure and simple style imitating the Attic orator Lysias in reaction to the excesses of Hellenistic Asianism. Cicero saw the Attic orators as models for a variety of styles, and admired especially the ability of Demosthenes to fuse them.” The treatise was unknown from late antiquity to the fifteenth century. * On the development of theories of ethos and pathos see Gill 1984 and 1989. » Of, Wooten 1983.HISTORICAL SURVEY OF RHETORIC 27 F. Orator (Bd. and trans. Hubbell 1962; commentary by Sandys 1885] Later in 46 Cicero continued his campaign against Atticism. After an introduction on the concept of an ideal orator and the errors of the Atticists (1-36), he provides a rather uneven survey of rhetorical theory (37-139) and then turns to “composition” (140-238), with spe- cial attention to prose rhythm (168-236). The latter is the most impor- tant discussion of the subject in ancient writings on rhetoric. Like the Brutus, the Orator was unknown in the Middle Ages. G. Topica [Ed. and trans, Hubbell 1949] This difficult short work, written in 44 ac, begins as a summary of Aristotelian dialectic, but appears to draw more on Hellenistic sources to discuss such topics of argument as genus, species, similarity, and difference, and adds comments on stasis theory and rhetorical in- vention. 7. Philodemus (ca. 110~ca. 40 nc) Rhetorica. [Ed. Sudhaus 1892-94; English paraphrase by Hubbell 1920; new ed. and trans. in prepara- tion by Richard Janko et al] Philodemus was an Epicurean philosopher, living in Italy. Papyri from Herculanean have brought to light portions of his Greek works, cluding On Poems and On Rhetoric. His method is largely to criticize the views of earlier writers. He limits the art of rhetoric to sophistic or epideictic oratory, which like poetry is useless but gives pleasure. n- 8. Demetrius On Siyle (De elocutione; Nepi épunveiac) [Ed. and trans Roberts 1902, 1927; trans. with notes Grube 1961; discussion by Kennedy 1989:196-98} ‘The author has not been satisfactorily identified with any known Demetrius. The date is very uncertain; since direct use is made of Aristotle’s Rhetoric, it was possibly written in the early third century ac when that treatise was available in Athens, but more probably in the first century ne when the Rhetoric was rediscovered and published. The treatise begins abruptly with a discussion of periodic sentences (Eloc. 134); the main body of the work identifies and discusses four zapaxtiipes (“characters or kinds”) of style, an unusual division © For further discussion see Innes 1989.28 GEORGE A. KENNEDY otherwise known only from a mention in Philodemus: weyoAonpentig, or “elevated”, ioxvés or “plain”, yagupéc, or “elegant”, and Sewés, or “forceful”. To the section on the plain style is added (223-35) a discussion of letter-writing, unusual in rhetorical treatises: a letter, the author says, is half of a dialogue, but should be more studied and express character. The four styles are distinguished by thought, diction, and composition (rhythm, periodicity, and figures); some char- acters of style but not all can be combined. In the Peripatetic tra tion, the author emphasizes that style should be appropriate. There are also defective versions of each of the styles: “frigid, arid, affected, and graceless”, respectively. Demetrius illustrates his discussion with frequent examples from Greck literature of the classical period. Within the conventional limits of the rhetorical theory of style he is a per- ceptive literary critic. 9. Gorgias of Athens, and Rutilius Lupus, Eyfwora Xékens, or Figures of Speech (Ed. Halm 1863:1-21] In the mid-first century xc a Greek rhetorician named Gorgias wrote a treatise on figures of speech, now lost. A Latin translation by P. Ruti- lius Lupus has survived. It defines and gives examples of twenty figures of speech, drawn from an unusual range of sources. 10. Dionysius of Halicarnassus (f. 30 Bc) [Ed. Usener-Radermacher 'V 1899, VE 1504] Dionysius came to Rome after the victory of Augustus in the civil wars; there he wrote a history of early Rome and apparently taught rhetoric. He is the earliest Greek spokesman of the Atticism move- ment. Rhetorical works attributed to him are as follows: A. On the Ancient Oraiors (De Oratoribus Veteribus) and On Thucydides (De Thucydidé) (Ed. and trans. Usher I 1974] After a preface on the corruption of style (Asianism) in the Hellenistic period and the Attic revival of his own time, Dionysius devotes one essay each to Lysias, Isocrates, Isacus, and Demosthenes, providing a Letter writing is briefly discussed in two Latin handbooks of the fourth or fifth century Ab: Julius Victor Ars rhtorica 27 (pp. 447-48 Halm) and anon. Excerpta rhetorica (p. 589 Haim), © For further information see Grube 1961.HISTORICAL SURVEY OF RHETORIC 29 brief life of the author and an extended discussion of his style. Sub- sequently he added a separate essay on Dinarchus. The essay on ‘Thucydides discusses the historian’s treatment of his subject as well as his style. B. Literary Epistles (Ed. and trans. Roberts 1901; Usher II 1985] There are three of these: The First Letter to Ammacus (Amm. 1) replies to a Peripatetic philosopher who had claimed that Demosthenes learned his art from Aristotle’s Rhetoric. Dionysius shows that the historical references in the Rhetoric indicate it post-dated most of Demosthenes’ speeches. The Letter to Pompeius (Pomp,) defends Diony- sius’s preference for the style of Demosthenes over that of Plato and discusses the style of classical Greek historians: Herodotus, Thucydides, Xenophon, and Theopompus. The Second Letter to Ammacus (Amm. 2) resumes discussion of the style of Thucydides. G. On Literary Composition (Ed. and trans. Roberts 1910; Usher II 1985] Style as taught in the rhetorical schools was divided into Aégéc (dictio, “word choice”) and obvBeors (compositi), the combination of words into rhythmical clauses, periods, and figures. Dionysius’s trea complex discussion of the composition, coining new concepts and terminology and not easily summarized. It is, however, the best sur- viving account of the effect of the sound of words and larger units on the Greek ear and contains many interesting examples of literary criticism as practiced by a thetorician. se is a D. On Imitation [Fragmentary work; a sizable portion of the second book is quoted in the Latter to Pompeius. Trans. by Usher II 1985:373 99; Greek text of other fragments in Usener-Radermacher VI 1929: 197-217] By the late Hellenistic period imitation of classic literary models was regarded as the basis for attaining excellence in style. Dionysius de- fines imitation as “an actualization (évépyeta) modelling the example by means of inspection”; in contrast, “emulation” (Gio) is “an ac tualization of the soul (of a writer) set in motion at admiration of what scems to be beautiful” (fr. 3). The work surveyed Greek litera- ture, genre by genre, as a source of excellence and imitation, provid- ing a precedent for Quintilian’s discussion in Inst, 10:1 Dionysius, in different works, variously employs a concept of three kinds (xapoxtfipes) of style, three “harmonies” of word order, and30 GEORGE A. KENNEDY lists of “virtues” of style. Some virtues—correctness, clarity, and conciseness—are “necessary”, others, including characterization, emotion, sublimity, elegance, etc., are “supplementary”. He also des- cribes an historical evolution from a “rugged” style in fifth-century writers to the “smooth” style of Isocrates and the “blended” style of Demosthenes." E. Works Falsely Attributed to Dionysius of Halicarnassus (Ed. Usener and Radermacher VI 1929:253-387; chapters 1-7 trans. Russell- Wilson 1981:362-81] ‘An Ars rhetorica, a composite work by at least two later writers, is preserved with the writings of Dionysius. It consists of seven chapters on forms of epideictic: panegyric, wedding speeches, birthday speeches, addresses to an official, funeral orations, and exhortation to athletes. ‘These are followed by three longer chapters on declamation."* 11, Caecilius of Calacte (fl. ca. 30 nc) [Fragments ed. Offenloch 1907] An important rhetorician living in Augustan Rome was Caccilius of Calacte; his works are lost, but there are many references to them in later writers. Among other things, he was the author of a treatise on the “sublime” (Syos), to which Longinus later replied, and of an influ- ential work on figures of speech. References show him to have been a proponent of the Atticism movement. 12. L. Annaeus Seneca (Seneca the Elder) (ca. 55 8¢~40 ap) Oratorum at rhelorum sententiae, divisiones, colores {Ed. and trans. Winterbottom 1974] Late in life, Seneca the Elder wrote his reminiscences of the rheto cal schools of his youth, with extensive quotations from memory of the clever turns of phrase (senientias), the divisions of the question at issue (divisions), and the interpretation of cause and motive (colores) found in the controversiae and suasoriae of deciaimers he had heard. A series of introductions provide overall estimates of famous speakers of the Augustan period. His work is the best introduction to decla- © For discussion see the introductions to Usher's translations (1974, 1985) and Innes 1989:267-72. “GE Kennedy 1972:342-63. * GL Russell 1983:36, 72-73 “Ch Kennedy 1972:364-69.HISTORICAL SURVEY OF RHETORIC 31 mation, which had become not only an exercise for students but a fashionable activity for adults.” 13. Aelius Theon (Ist century ap) Progymnasmata [Ed. Spengel II 1854: 59-130; trans. Butts 1987] This is the earliest account of the graded exercises in composition taught as introductory to declamation. In fully developed sequence they became: myth or fable, narrative, chreia (development of an anecdote of something said or done), development of a gnomic say- ing, refutation, confirmation, commonplace, encomium, invective, syncrisis (comparison), personification, ekphrasis (physical description), thesis, and praise or blame of a law. The exercises are important since they were widely studied and influenced the structure of liter- ary composition in many genres. 14. M. Fabius Quintilianus (ca. 40-ca. 96 ap) A. Instiutio oratoria (Ed. Winterbottom 1970; trans. Butler 1920; dis- cussion by Kennedy 1969] Quintilian’s Education of the Orator is the fullest account of classical thetoric, based on his twenty years of teaching the subject and over two years of research in earlier sources. He is not highly innovative, but applies his own good judgment and experience to evaluating the theory and practice of rhetoric as it had developed in Rome, giving the highest authority in both respects to Cicero. The ‘perfect orator” whom Quintilian seeks must above all be a good man; his moral and rhetorical training is to begin immediately after birth, and thus books 1-2 describe the rhetorical environment of the home, primary education, and studies in the grammar school in detail; the discus- sion of rhetoric proper begins in book 3 with divisions of the subject, the species of oratory (epideictic, deliberative, and judicial), and an introduction to stasis theory (resumed in book 5). The work then proceeds in the traditional order through an account of invention (books 4-6), arrangement (7), style (8-11:1), memory (11:2), and delivery (11:3; the best surviving account of hearing and seeing an ancient speaker). Book 10, however, is unusual: since Quintilian # Cf Bonner 1949; Sussman 1978. * CE Kennedy 1983:60-66.32 GEORGE A. KENNEDY believed that style is best cultivated by reading and writing, he in- serts (10:1) a famous chapter which reviews Greek and Latin litera- ture, genre by genre, author by author, in terms of their utility for the cultivation of eloquence, and continues with discussion of the function of imitation in cultivating style (10:2), of practice in writing (10:3), of revision (10:4), of various exercises in composition (10:5), of premeditation (10:6), and of ex tempore speaking (10:7). The final book (12) is also unusual: Quintilian here returns to the moral quali- ties required of an orator, the need to study philosophy and law, the career of the orator and the cases he will plead, his retirement “while he will still be missed”, and finally how hopes for a great orator may yet be fulfilled. Inserted into this discussion is chapter 12:10 on the genera dicendi, the different styles of speaking, including the grand, middle and plain styles, and the issue of Atticism, together with a compari- son of styles of speaking to styles of sculpture and painting. In con- trast to Tacitus and others of the early empire, Quintilian takes a positive view of the opportunities for rhetoric under the Flavian emperors, to whom he owed his position and fame, but he sought to restrain and discipline the excesses of declamation and to return to a more Giceronian style. The /nstitutio was known throughout the Middle Ages primarily in an abridged version; the discovery of the complete work by Poggio Bracciolini in 1416 aroused great interest and made the work a major source on both education and rhetoric for the Renaissance and early modem period. Since Quintilian was a contemporary of the writers of the New Testament it is tempting to use his work as a basis for the study of early Christian rhetoric, but this requires caution in that he describes the secular rhetoric of the capital of the Empire in its most developed form, which is more self-conscious and sophisticated than what can generally be assumed in the provinces. B. Declamations Attributed to Quintilian Two collections of controversiae (exercises on judicial themes) are attributed in medieval manuscripts to Quintilian. The Major Declama- tions [ed. Hakanson 1982; trans. Sussman 1987) consist of 19 speeches, composed by teachers of rhetoric during the Roman empire to illus- trate artistic treatment of the themes. They are the only extant full Latin specimens. The Minor Declamations [ed. Shackleton Bailey 1989; no Engli h trans.] consist of 145 extracts from an original 388 contro- versiae; their interest is increased by the addition of sermones, shortHISTORICAL SURVEY OF RHETORIC 33 comments by teachers on how the theme is best treated. The Major Declamations are regarded by virtually all scholars as not the work of Quintilian or his students; it is perhaps possible that some of the Minor Declamations may ultimately derive from his teaching."® 15. Cornelius Tacitus (ca. 55-ca. 115 Ap) Dialogus de oratoribus (Ea. Huebner 1983; trans. Peterson 1970; commentary by Gudeman 1894, 1912) This is a dialogue in the Ciceronian style dealing with the conditions of oratory and the schools of rhetoric in the second half of the first century ab, when, despite Quintilian’s optimism, eloquence was widely perceived to be in decline. The date of composition has been much debated—perhaps 97 ap The dramatic date is 75 av. Curiatus Maternus has abandoned oratory and turned to writing tragedies; Vipstanus Messala criticizes the rhetorical schools, with their empha- sis on declamation, as decadent; M. Aper celebrates the current age and its achievements in oratory. In conclusion, Maternus claims that the great oratory of the time of Cicero resulted from disorders and dissensions that no longer exist and that the lawcourts now allow the orator less scope for elaborate addresses. The reader is left the impression that even if the Empire does not actively repress freedom of speech, it tends to stifle discussion. 16. Aelius Aristides (117-89 ap) A. On Rhetoric [Ed, and trans. Behr I 1973:278-557} Aristides is the best known representative of the Second Sophistic, a movement which sought to reinvigorate the role of rhetoric in soci- ety by relating traditional values of Hellenism to contemporary issues and by restoring the purity of language to the diction and style of Attic Greek of the fourth century Bc. He lived in Asia Minor, but traveled to Greece, Egypt, and Rome, delivering and publishing elabo- rate epideictic speeches, of which fifty-five survive. Among them (Or. 45) is a long treatise entiled On Rhetoric which attempts to answer the criticism of rhetoric in Plato’s Gorgias and to demonstrate that thetoric is an art and expressive of justice and the virtues. ® Another collection of excerpts from declamations is attributed to Calpurnius Flaccus Qnd cent. ao); trans. by Sussman 1994. °° Gf. Murgia 1985.34 GEORGE A, KENNEDY B. Pseudo-Aristides [Ed. Spengel If 1854:459-554; no English ver- sion; discussion by Schmid 1917-18] ‘Two treatises on rhetoric are preserved with the works of Aristides; they are probably not by him but may date from about the same time. The first, On Political Discourse, expounds a theory of style simi- lar to the system of Hermogenes; 16 this were added, probably by a later writer, additonal comments on styie, a summary of Or. 29 of Aristides, and a paraphrase of portions of the Iliad. The second treatise, entitled On the Simple Style, takes Xenophon as a model for imitation. 17. Anonymus Seguerianus (Ed. and trans. by Dilts-Kennedy 1997] A Greck treatise on the parts of the oration, probably written in the second century ab, was discovered in 1843 by Seguier de St. Brisson in a Paris manuscript. The four standard parts (prooemion, narra- tion, proof, and epilogue) are discussed in terms not only of contents but of arrangement and style. The work is of historical value in that it shows the survival in the Empire of a somewhat Aristotelian approach to rhetoric and cites otherwise lost writers, including Apollo- dorus of Pergamum (Ist century 8c) and Alexander son of Numenius, author of an influential treatise on figures of speech in the second century ab. 18. Longinus On Sublimity [Ed. with commentary by Russell 1964; trans. Fyfe 1927] This is the best ancient example of the application of rhetorical teach- ing to literary criticism. The author identifies and illustrates five sources of sublimity (ch. 8): the power of conceiving impressive thoughts invention, discussed in 9-15}, strong emotion (= rhetorical pathos, not discussed in the work as we have it); and features of style: figures of thought and speech {16-29}, nobility of diction (30-38, 43), and composition, including word-order, rhythm, and euphony (39-42). ‘The last chapter (44) considers the causes of the decline of eloquence, attributing it primarily to moral decay rather than political causes. Date of composition and anthership are debatable, with perhaps majority sentiment now inclining to the second century ap and the author conventionally referred to as an otherwise unknown “Longinus”. ‘The one surviving manuscript attributes the work first to “Dionysius Longinus”, then to “Dionysius or Longinus”, the latter meaning Diony- sius of Halicarnassus or Cassius Longinus who taught rhetoric in theHISTORICAL SURVEY OF RHETORIC 35 third century. Rediscovery of the treatise in the Renaissance led to the cult of “the sublime” from the seventeenth to the nineteenth century. 19, Hermogenes of Tarsus (ca. 161-? ap) [Ed. Rabe 1913; for trans. see below; discussion by Kennedy 1983:52-103] Hermogenes was a rhetorical prodigy by the age of fifteen, but soon thereafier lost his facility. Five works were attributed to him by the fifth century and, with the substitution of a work by Aphthonius for the treatise on progymnasmata, constituted the standard corpus of Greek rhetorical theory throughout the Byzantine period. Numerous prolegotnena and commentaries were subsequently written to expound their difficulties. A. Progymnasmata (Trans. by Baldwin 1928:23~38] A discussion of the traditional exercises in composition preparatory to study of rhetoric, resembling the accounts by Theon and Aphtho- nius; it is probably not by Hermogenes. In the fifth century aD a Latin version was made by the grammarian Priscian [text in Halm 1863:551-60, trans. by Miller 1973] B. On Staseis (Stat) [Trans. and commentary by Heath 1995] An extended account of how to determine the question at issue in preparation of a speech, revising the system of Hermagoras and others in many details. Fourteen “headings” are identified and discussed. C. On Invention [No Ei trans] This is probably not by Hermogenes. The first two books give a brief account of the prooemion and narration; book 3 lays out a system of proof which differs from other accounts in concept and terminology; in book 4, aspects of style, including figures, are dis- cussed in terms of invention. D. On Ideas, ie. On “Types” of Style (Id.) (Trans. by Wooten 1987] For most readers, this is the most interesting of Hermogenes’ works; it was influential in the West in the Renaissance.” The subject appears to be an outgrowth of earlier discussion (Theophrastus, Dionysius of * CE Paterson 1970.36 GEORGE A, KENNEDY. Halicarnassus, et al.) of virtues and characters of style, which Her- mogenes calls i8éa. Seven larger categories are identified, of which four are divided into sub-headings, making a total of twenty “ideas” of style to be discussed: clarity, divided into purity and distinctness; grandeur, divided into solemnity, asperity, vehemence, brilliance, flo- rescence, and abundance; beauty; rapidity; character, divided into simplicity, sweetness, subtlety, and modesty; sincerity, including in- dignation; and finally forcefulness (Sewémnc), which is a blending of all and characteristic of the greatest orator, Demosthenes. E. On the Method of Deinotes (Mcth,) {No English trans.] This is a rather miscellaneous discussion of some features of style; although not by Hermogenes, it probably dates from his time. The term “method” was favored by Hermogenes to describe the art or theory of rhetoric. 20. Aquila Romanus (3rd cent. av) De figuris sententiarum et elocutionis (Ed. Halm 1863:22-37; no trans.] Aquilla defines and illustrates (usually from Cicero) forty-six figures of speech. 21, Apsines of Gadara Ars Rhetorica (3rd cent. ap) [Ed. and trans. by Dilts-Kennedy 1997] The latest surviving Greek handbook to discuss all parts of rhetoric. It is cast in the traditional form, and intended to provide instruction in declamation. 22, Menander Rhetor (fl. ca. 300 an} Division of Epideictic Speeches and On Epideictic [Ed. and trans, Russell-Wilson 1981] ‘These are indispensible works for the study of the numerous forms Greek epideictic took in the time of the Roman empire. Although a late work, many of the forms and topics go far back in Greek his- tory. The shorter first treatise discusses prose hymns and encomia; the longer second treatise describes speeches for a variety of social occasions, including the arrival and departure of officials and friends, speeches at weddings, specches of consolation, and farewell addresses.HISTORICAL SURVEY OF RHETORIC 37 23. Aphthonius (second half of the 4th cent. ap) [Ed. Rabe 1926] This became the standard handbook of preparatory exercises through- ont the Byzantine period, replacing that by Theon and that attrib- uted to Hermogenes, and numerous commentaries were written on it. It was translated into Latin by Rudolph Agricola and widely used in Renaissance grammar schools. The writing of rhetorical treatises, including commentaries on the works attributed to Hermogenes, continued vigorously in the fifth and sixth centuries and shows the influence of Neoplatonism. Among the more important writers are Syrianus and Sopatros (see Kennedy 1983:109-32).. 24. Aurelius Augustinus (354-430 ap) Saint Augustine taught rhetoric in Carthage, Rome, and Milan before his conversion to Christianity in 386. The earlier books of the Con- fessions give a picture of his own studies and teaching; of his other writings, the most important for the history of rhetoric is De doctrina Christiana [ed Green 1963; trans. Robertson 1958], begun in 396, completed in 427. After discussing “things” and the interpretation of igns” in books 1-3, he provides in book 4 an application of secular thetoric to homiletic preaching, including rhetorical analysis of elo- quent sections of the Old and New Testament. 25. Rhetores Latin’ Minores [Ed. Halm 1863) ‘This is the standard collection of late Latin writing on rhetoric. It includes the treatises on figures by Rutilius Lupus and Aquilla Romanus, listed above, Victorinus’s commentary on Cicero’s De inren- one (4th century ap), handbooks written in the fourth or fifth cen- tury by Fortunatianus, Sulpitius Victor, Julius Victor, a handbook attributed to Saint Augustine, the sections on rhetoric from the en- cyclopedias of the liberal arts by Martianus Capella (Sth century), Cassiodorus (6th century), and Isidore of Seville (7th century), and other writings on rhetoric dating from late antiquity and the early Middle Ages.38 GEORGE A. KENNEDY BreuiocrapBy Baldwin, C.S,, Ancient Rhetoric and Poetic (New York: Macmillan, 1924), ——, Medieval’ Rhetoric and Poetic (lo 1400) Interpreted from Representative Works (New York: Macmillan, 1928) Behr, G. A, ed. and «rans. Aristides, Panathenaic Oration and Jn Defence of Oratory (LCL: Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; London: Heinemann, 1973} Blass, F., Die attsche Beredsarckat (3 vols.; Leipzig: Teubner, 1874-80) Blythin, E., The Maxims of Ptahho(pe (Ed.: sic] (Annandale, VA: Speech Communica tion Association, 1986) Bonner, S.¥., Roma Declaration in the Late Republic and Early Enpire (Berkeley: Uni- of California Press, 1949). —, Education in Ancient Rome (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1977) Booth, W.C., The Rieloric of Fistin (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961). Butler, H.E., ed. and trans, The Institutio Oratria of Quintilian (4 vols; LCL; Cam- bridge, MA: Harvard University Press; London: Heinemann, 1920-22). Butts, JR, ed. and trans. The Progmasmaia of Theon (Dissertation, Claremont Graduate School, 1987). Caplan, H., ed. and trans. [Cicer], Ad C. Herennium De ratione diceidi (LCL; Cam- bridge, MA: Harvard University’ Press; London: Heinemann, 1954) Clarke, M.L., Rhstorc at Rome A Historical Swoey (London: Cohen & West, 1953), Cope, E.M., The Rhetoric of Aristotle wit a Commentary, revised by J.E, Sandys (G vols; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1877) Cole, T., The Origins of Rhetoric in Ancient Grezce (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1991). —, “Who was Coraxi”, ICS 16 (1992), pp. 65-84. Dilts, M. R., and G. A. Kennedy, Tizo Greek Rhetorical Treatises from the Roman Empire (Leiden: Brill, 1997). Donnelly, F.P., Cicero’s Mila: A Rhetorical Commentary (New York: Fordham University Press, 1934), ——, Demosthenes On the Crown, with rhetorical commentary and trans. by F.P. impson (New York: Fordham University Press, 1941). Douglas, A.E. ed. M. Tuli Ciceronis, Brutus, with commentary (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1966) Dover, K.J., Lysies and the Corpus Lysiacwm (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1968) Eagleton, T., Literary Theon: An Inireduction (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1983) Forster, B.S. ed. a rat Refuations, cic. (LOL; Cambridge, MA’ Harvard University n: Heinemann, 1955) Fowler, HN. ed. and trans. Fluarch, Moralia $0 (Lives of the Ten Oratrs| (LCL; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; London: Heinemann, 1936). Fox, M.V., “Ancient Egyptian Rhetoric”, Rhetria | (1983) pp. 9-22 Freese, JH, ed. and trans. Arial, The “Ar” of Rhetoric (LCL; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; London: Heinemann, 1926). Fuhrman, M., Das ssiematicke Lelxbuch: Bin Beivag zxr Geschichte der Wissenschaftn in der Antike (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 196 —, ed. Anaximens, Ars rhetorca (Leipzig: Teubner, 19 Fyfe, W.H., ed, and trans. Longinus, On the Sublime (LCL, in the vol. with Aris- ‘eile, Poetics, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; London: Heinemann, 1927) Gill, C., “The Ethos/Pathos Distinction in Rhetorical and Literary Criticism”, CQ 34 (1984), pp. 149-66.HISTORICAL SURVEY OF RHETORIC 39 Green, W.M., ed. Sancti Aurli Augustin, De doctrina, Christiana (Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, LXXX, Sect. vi, pars vi: Vienna: Hoelder-Pichler Tempsky, 1963) Grimaldi, W.M.A., Avistle, Rhetoric, A Commentary (2 vols; New York: Fordham University Press, 1980-88) Groupe u (Jacques Dubois et al), A General Rhetoric (trans. PB. Burrell and B. M. Slotkin; Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1981). Grube, G.M. A., tani. A Grek Critic: Demetrius on She (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 196i), + A Greck Critic: Demetrius on Sipe (with translation) (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1961) Gudeman, A., ed. P, Comelii Tact, Dialogue de oratoribus, with English, commentary (Boston? Ginn; revised German ed. 1912; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1894) Halm, K., ed. Rhetores Latin’ minores (Leipzig: Teubner, 1863) Hakanson, L., ed. Declamationes XIX minores Quinton faso ascripiae (Leipzig: Te 1982), Havelock, E. A., The Lilerate Resolution in Greece and Its Cultural Consequences (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1982) Heath, M., Hermogenes On Issues: Strategies of Argument in Later Greek Rhetoric (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995). Hendrickson, G. L., ed, and trans. Cicero, Bratus (LOL; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University’ Press; London: Heinemann, 1962). Hubbell, H.M., ans. “The Rhelorca of Philodemus”, Transactions of the Connecticut Academy of Arts and Scien:s 23 (1920), pp. 243-382. — ed. and trans. Cicero, De inventions; De optimo genert dcendi; Topica (LCL; Cam- bridge, MA: Harvard University Press; London: Heinemann, 1943). , ed. and trans. Cicea, Oralor (LCL, with Bratus, ed. and trans. G. L. Hendrickson; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; London: Heinemann, 1962) Hucbner, H., ed. P. Comlii Tac, Dizlagus de oratoribus (Leipzig: Teubner, 1983). Innes, D. G., “Philodemus” and “Augustan Critics”, in. The Cambridge History of Lit rary Criticim (ed. G. A. Kennedy; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989), pp. 215-19, 245-73, Jebb, R.C., The Aitic Orators (2 vols; 2nd edn; London: Macmillan, 1893). Kassel, R., ed. Aristoalis, Ars rhetorica (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1976}. Kennedy, G.A., The Art of Persuasion in Greece (Princecon: Princeton University Press, 1963). —, Quinttion (New York: Twayne, 1969) —, The Art of Rhaorc in the Roman World (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1972) + Classical Rhetonc and ls Christian and Secular Tradition fiom Ancient o Modem Times (Chapel Hill: Univessity of North Carolina Press, 1980). Gack Rhtrie wud Christian Emperors (Princeton: Princeton University Press. 1983) —, New Testament Inerpretaion through Rhetoricel Critciom (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1984) =, ed. The Cambridge History of Literary Criticism. 1. Classical Criticism (Cambridge Cambridge University Press, 1989). , trans, Aristo, On Rhstorc (New York: Oxford University Press, 1991) —; “A Hoot in the Dark: The Evolution of General Rhetoric, Philesopis and Rhetoric 25 (1992), pp. 1-21. —, A New Histoy) of Classical Rhetoric (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994) inneavy, J.L., Greek Rhetorical Origins of Christin Faith (New York: Oxford Univer- sity Press, 1987), Kumaniecki, K. F., ed. M. Tuli Cicernis, De oralre (Leipzig: Teubner, 1969). Lausberg, H., Handbuch der literarischen Rhutork: Eine Grundlegung der Literaturvissenschaft (2 vols; Munich: Max Hueber, 1960)40 GEORGE A. KENNEDY Leeman, A.D. ef al. De orate, Kormentar (Heidelberg: Winter, 1981-). Lenz, T.M., Oralty and Literacy in Helle Grece (Carbondale: Southern Ilinois University Press, 1989). Loraux, N., The Inventions of Athens: The Funeral Oration in the Classical City (trans. A. Sheridan; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1986) Maidment J-K., ed. and trans. The Minar Atic Orators (2 vols LOL; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; London: Heinemann, 1954) Malcovati, Enrica, ed. Oralorum Romanorun fagmenta (Turin: Paravia, 1955) ed. M. Tulli Cicrnis, Brutus (Leipzig: Teubner, 1970) Marrou, H.L., A History of Ewation in Antiguiy (trans. G. Lamt and Ward, 1956) Martin, J., Antite Retort: Technik und Méthode Handbuch der Akertumswissenschaft, Il, 3; Munich: Beck, 1974), Mathes, D., “Hermagoras von Temnos 1904-1955”, Lustrum 3 (1958), pp. 58-214. Miller, J.M: ef al, ed. and trans. Readings in Medieval Rhetoric (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1973), Murgia, G.E., “Pliny's Letters and the Dialagu’", HSCP 89 (1985), pp. 171-206. Nadeau, R. E., “Hermogenes’ On Stasis A Translation with Introduction and Notes”, ‘Speech Monographs 31 (1964), pp. 361-424 Norlin, G., ed. and trans. [recat (2 vols.; vol. 3 ed. and trans. L. Van Hook 1945; LCL; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; London: Heinemann, 1928, 1929). Offenloch, E., ed. Caeclius Calacinus, Fagmenta (Leipzig: Teubner, 1907) Oliver, R.'T., Communication and Cuter in Ancient India and China (Syracuse: University of Syracuse Press, 1971]. Patterson, A.M., Hennagenes and the Renaissance: Seen Iteas of Sble (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1970) Perelman, Gand L. Obrechts‘Tyeca, The Naw Rho: A Tratse on Argenaon (trans. J. Wilkinson and P. Weaver 1969; Notre Dame: Notre Dame University Press, 1958). Peterson, W., ed. and trans. Dialogue de oratoribus (revised by M. Winterbottorn in LCL Tacitus, 1; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; London: Heinemann, 1970). Rabe, H., ed, Hermagenis, Opera (Leipzig: Teubner, 1913). ed.” Aphthonins, Progymnasmata (Leipzig: Teubner, 1926) Rabinowitz, I, ed, and trans. The Book of the Hongycomb’s Flow (Ithaca: Cornell Uni- versity Press, 1983) Rackham, H., cd. and trans. Rhdoriea ad Alexandrum (LCL in vol. with Aristotle, Problems Il, ed. and trans. W.S, Hew; Gambridge, MA: Harvard University Press Londons: Heinemann, 1937) 1 ed. and trans. Citero, De Orntoe, Book IU: De fata; Paradaxa Sioicorum: Parttones cratoriae (LCL, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, London: Heinemann, 1942), Reis, P., ed. Mf Talli Gicroms Orator (Leipzig: Teubner, 1932). Roberts, W. R., ed. and trans. Dionysus of Halicarassus, The Thee Literary Letrs (Cam- bridge: Cambridge University Press, 1901). —, ed, and trans. Demetrius, On Sple (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; trans. reprinted in LCL ed. 1927 with Aristotle, Poets, and Longinus, On the Sublime ed. and trans. W. HL. Fyfe; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; London: Heinemann, 1902) ——, ed. and trans. Diowsius of Halicarassus, On Literary Composition (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1910) Robertson, D. W., Jr, trans. Saint Augustine, On Christine Doctrine (Indianapolis: Bobbs- Merrill, 1958). ; New York: SheedHISTORICAL SURVEY OF RHETOR! 4 Russell, D.A., ed. Longinus, On the Sublime, with commentary (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1964). , and N. Wilson, trans, Menander Rhetor (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1981). | Greek Declanation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983}. Sandys, J. E., ed. M. Tulli Cizaonis, Oratr, with commentary (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1885). Schiappa, E., “Did Plato Coin rheorike?”, AJP 111 (1990), pp. 457-70. ——— Protagoras and Logos: A Study in Greck Philosophy and Rhetoric (Columbia: Univer sity of South Carolina Press, 1991). Schmid, W., “Die sogennante Aristidesthetorik”, RAM 72 (1917-18), pp. 113-18, 938-57. Shackleton Bailey, D. R., ed. Quintiiani, Declamationes minors (Leipzig: Teubner, 1989) Spengel, L., Rhelors Graeci (3 vols.; Leipzig: Teubner; vol. I, pt. 2, revised by G. Hammer 1894; Leipzig: Teubner, 1884-86). Sprague, R.K., ed. The Older Sophists:'‘A Complete Translation by Seeral Honds of the ‘Fragments (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1972) Stroux, J., De Theophrastivirtutibus dcendi (Leipzig: Teubner, 1912). Sudhaus, S., ed. Philodeni, Rtetrica (2 vols.; Leipzig: Teubner, 1892). Sussman, L”A., The Elder Seneca (Leiden: Brill, 1978). , trans, The Major Declamations Aceribed to Quintlian (Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1987), =, "The Declamations of Calpurnius Flaccus: Text, Translation, and Commentary (Leiden: Brit, 1994) Sutton, E,W. ed. and trans. Cicao, De orator, Books I-Il (completed by H. Rack- ham; LOL; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; London: Heinemann, 1942). ‘Thomas, R.. Oral Tradition and Written Record in Classical Athens (Cambridge: Cam- bridge University Press, 1989). —, Literacy and Orality in Ancient Greece (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992) Usener, H., and L. Radermacher, ed. Dionysii Haticamasei, Opuscula (vols. V-VI of complete works; Leipzig: Teubner, 1899, 1904), Usher, S., ed. and trans. Dionysius of Halicamassus, Critical Essays (2 vols; LOL: Cam- bridge, MA: Harvard University Press; London: Heinemann, 1974, 1985). Welch, K.E., The Contemporary Reception of Classical Rhetoric: Appropriations of Ancient Discourse (Hillsdale, NJ: Enibaum Associates, 1990) Wilkins, A.S., ed. M. Tulli Ciceonis, De oratore dri ees, with introduction and notes (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1892) Winterbottom, M., ed. M. Fok Quintilani, Institutionis oratoriae libri duodem (2 vols. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1970) ed. and trans, Seneca, Controversiae and Suasoriae (LC University Press, London: Heinemann, 1974) Wisse, J., Ethos and Pathos from Aristotle ‘0’ Ciceo (Amsterdam: Hakkert, 1989). Wooten, C. W., Cicero's Philippics and Their Demostenic Spe (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1983). —, trans. Hemmogenes On Types of Sble (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1987). = Cambridge, MA: HarvardCHAPTER 2 THE GENRES OF RHETORIC George A. Kennedy University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, USA Literary and rhetorical genres originate in social contexts where a distinctive form is developed to perform a distinctive function. In the earliest attempt to define thetoric, Plato makes Socrates say and Gorgias agree (Gig. 454¢5~6) that rhetoric causes persuasion in the law courts and other assemblies. This concept of two general contexts and thus two genres of public address can be found occasionally throughout the classical period. For example, it probably appeared at the beginning of the original text of Anaximenes’ rhetorical hand- book, written in the third quarter of the fourth century and known to us in its later form as the Rhetoric for Alexunder, for Quintilian (Jas 3:4:9) attributes to Anaximenes a general division into judicial and deliberative oratory. By the early fourth century wc a number of Greek terms had come into use te describe different kinds of public address and are commonly found. They include: xarnyopia, or accu- sation; dxohoyia, or defense; xpotpertixds (ASyo<), or exhortation; Gnorpentixds (Abyos), or dissuasion; éyxspioy, or praise; navmyvptnos (Ady0s), or speech at a festival; and émtéqtog (A6yoc), or funeral ora- tion. The Rhetoric for Alexander (Rh. Al. 1421b8-10) identifies seven el6n, or species of political speech: exhortation, dissuasion, culogy, vituperation, accusation, defense, and investigation. In our version of the text, edited under Aristotelian influence, these have been grouped under three yévn, or genres: demegoric (deliberative), epideictic, and dicanic (judicial). In the third chapter of his lectures On Rhetoric Aristotle sought to classify the kinds of civic discourse on a logical basis, referring to them first as gene, or genres (Rh. 1:2:1358433), then as species (of the genos rhetoric) (Rk. 1:3:1358a36). The genre is determined by the audience. The hearer of a speech, Aristotle says, is either a spectator or a judge, and in the latter case a judge either of past or future44 GEORGE A. KENNEDY happenings. The jury in a court of law judges past actions and is primarily concerned with justice, Members of a political assembly judge future actions in terms of what is advantageous or beneficial to the state, A spectator at a ceremonial speech is concerned with the ability of the speaker and thus not with making a judgment leading to action, but Aristotle later (2:18:1391b17) speaks of the spectator as a “judge” of the speaker. This third genre of speech Aristotle regards as concerned with what is honorable, characterized by praise or blame, and primarily referring to the present, though there may be reference to both past and future events. Thus, he says, there are necessarily three genres of rhetoric: ovpBovdevrixév, or deliberative; Sixavixdy, or judicial; and émdewnixév, or demonstrative. Each of these, however, takes one of two stances: deliberative oratory is cither exhortation or dissuasion; judicial is either accusation or defense; epideictic is either praise or blame. Praise and deliberation, however, he later says (1:9:1367b36-37), are part of a common species, in that what one might propose in deliberation becomes encomia when the form of expression is changed. Generic classification is complicated when a speaker uses the form of one genre for the purpose of another, a phenomenon not men- tioned by Aristotle. This is a favorite technique of early sophists and later teachers of rhetoric who composed fictive speeches as examples of their artistry. Gorgias’s Defense of Palamedes, for example, is not a real judicial speech for someone accused of treason; it is an epideixis of Gorgias’s method in argument and style, Isocrates’ Antidosis is not, as it purports to be, a speech given in court in response to a suit; it is an imagined response to a legal challenge which he used to answer more general criticism of his career and conduct, and its celebration of speech and Greek paideia makes it predominantly epideictic in tone. His Panegyricus, deliberative in the sense that it offers advice for specific action by the Grecks, was not delivered at a deliberative assembly nor was it-given as an epideictic speech at a festival, as the title suggests. Like most of Isocrates’ other “speeches” it was pub- lished as a pamphlet. Gorgias’s Encomium of Helen presents a different kind of problem in classification. It is again primarily an example of method, but it never really praises Helen, secking instead to remove the blame commonly heaped upon her. Isocrates in his Helen (10:14) complains that Gorgias’s famous speech was not an enkomion but a defense (apolagia), thus judicial, not epideictic. Declamation in the Roman period, to be discussed below, took the forms of deliberativeTHE GENRES OF RHETORIC 45 and judicial oratory, but on imaginary themes, and thus it did not fulfill the function of either of those genres. Since it did not aim at a decision on the part of the audience, by Aristotle’s definition it would be classified as epideictic. Aristotle’s theory of three, and only three, genres of rhetoric was accepted by most later classical rhetoricians and often specifically attributed to him,! but there were dissenting views. In Cicero's De oratore a feature of the argument between Crassus, who takes the broadest view of rhetoric, and his opponents, is whether rhetoric is restricted to the law courts and assemblies (see 1:16:35, 46-48; 2:39- 43). Quintilian devotes a chapter (Jnst. 3:4) to the question of whether there are three or more genres, referring to views of some authori- ties that there are “innumerable” genres, He agrees with the major ity that there are three, though his criteria differ from Aristotle’s in that he makes the basic division into speeches in the law courts and speeches in other contexts, as had Plato, and he ends (3:4:16) by describing the traditional triad as “easy and neat” rather than true, “for all rely on mutual aid”. That is, any one speech may involve deliberative, judicial, and epideictic elements. Although the Aristotelian triad has continued to be fundamental to rhetorical teaching, Aristotle’s view of epideictic, based on his observation of public address in Greece, is too narrow for a general theory.? Epideictic is perhaps best regarded as including any discourse, oral or written, that does not aim at a specific action or decision but seeks to enhance knowledge, understanding, or belief, often through praise or blame, whether of persons, things, or values. It is thus an important feature of cultural or group cohesion, Most religious preach- ing, except when specifically aimed at a future action on the part of the audience such as receiving baptism or at the judgment of some past action as requiring excommunication or anathema of an hereti- cal doctrine by the church, can be viewed as epideictic. Dionysius of Halicarnassus (Comp. passim), Hermogenes (Jd. 12), and other later Greek rhetoricians sometimes treat all literature as a form of epideic- tic, subject to rhetorical analysis at least in terms of style. Although many written discourses, such as epistles, combine features of delibera- tive, judicial, or epideictic rhetoric, it is often useful to consider the " B.g. in Gic, De or. 2:10: See Cie. fro. 1:7; De or. 1:141; 2:43; Part. Or. 705 Rhet ad Her. 1:2; Quint. Inst. 2:21:23; 3:3:14~15; Hinks 1936. ? See Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca 1958:47-57 and Beale 197846 GEORGE A. KENNEDY dominant rhetorical genre of a work in determining the intent of the author and the effect upon the audience in the original social situa- tion. The cightcenth-century rhetorician George Campbell, at the beginning of his important work The Philosophy of Rhetoric (1776), in- sists that the ends of speaking are four: to enlightan the understand- ing, to please the imagination, to move the passions, or to influence the will. Any one discourse, according to Campbell, aims over all at only one of these ends and others are present only as secondary means to that. Aristotle complains (Rk. 1:1:1354b22-29) that although delibera- tive oratory is finer and of more general interest than judicial, the handbooks of his time discussed only judicial rhetoric (and did that badly). He blames this on the greater opportunity for emotional appeals and irrelevancies in court. Other reasons are likely to be, first, that some understanding of judicial oratory was useful to more people, since Greek law required litigants to speak in their own behalf, whereas no one had to speak in the assembly unless he wanted to, and sec- ondly, that judicial oratory was more easily reduced to rules. Aristotle himself discussed deliberative rhetoric in chapters 5 to 8 of the first book of his Rheloric, epideictic in chapter 9, and judicial in chapters 10 to 15, Most later rhetorical treatises deal primarily with judicial oratory; stasis theory, which takes up much of their discussion, is a method of determining the question at issue in a trial, with only minor application to deliberative or epideictic speeches, and the parts of the oration which are discussed at length in these treatises are the characteristic divisions of a judicial speech. Cicero’s De inventione dis- cusses deliberative and epideictic oratory rather briefly at the end of the second book; Rhviorica ad Herennium bas a somewhat similar dis- cussion at the beginning of book three. In Quintilian’s Intutio oratoria the focus throughout the twelve books is largely on judicial oratory only chapters 7 and 8 of book 3 are specifically given to epideictic and deliberative forms. Roman rhetoricians instinctively connected rhetoric with the law, which was an institution Rome developed to a high degree of sophistication; there were no native Latin counter parts of Greck epideictic, and by the time of the Empire opportuni ties for deliberative oratory were somewhat reduced, Greek rhetoricians of the Roman period show a greater interest in the more Hellenic study of philosophy and history. There are Greek handbooks of epi- deictic but little later Greek discussion of deliberative forms. Although only three genres are commonly recognized by classicalTHE GENRES OF RHETORIC 47 thetoricians, there are other forms of composition that have come to be thought of as distinct rhetorical genres, ‘These can be divided into those that are forms of public address, thus species or sub-genres of the three basic genres, and those that were intended to be read by individuals privately. It must, however, be remembered that litera- ture was generally read aloud in antiquity, sometimes to a group but even by a solitary reader, and was thus “heard” in much the same way as a speech. Public epistles, sent by rulers to their subjects, or the epistles of Saint Paul and other Patristic writers to Greek churches, were surely read aloud in public to audiences. They would then be received as speeches and their authors anticipated this by observing some of the conventions of public address. Other genres of public address included the lectures of philosophers and other teachers to their schools, or sometimes to a public audience; the prolrepticus, an exhortation to philosophy or to a moral life,’ is one type of such lectures, the diatribe another.’ The Dialexeis of Maximus of Tyre are good examples of philosophical lectures of a rhetorical sort from the second century ab, The Jewish midrash and the Christian homily, doth based on interpretation of scripture with application to the life of the congregation, are also forms of public address. Though often simple and unpretentious, they fall under the general rubric of epideictic, and John Chrysostom developed their artistic poten- tialities. The panegyrical sermon as practiced in later antiquity by Gregory Thaumaturgus, Eusebius of Caesarea, Gregory of Nazianzus, Ambrose, and others is a quite consciously epideictic form, often strongly influenced by the teaching of rhetorical schools Secular panegyric was a major oratorical form in Jate antiquity, taught in the schools and practiced throughout the Roman Empire by sophists. Such speeches were sometimes addressed to individuals such as emperors or governors, or to the public assembled on some festival occasion, or were simply staged as displays in the theatre to allow the public to enjoy the artistry of a distinguished sophist Numerous examples survive in the works of Dio Chrysostom, Aclius Asistides, Libanius, Himerius, Themistius, Synesius, and others, Al- though flattery, sometimes unabashed flattery of important per- sons, is a characteristic of this form, the best examples set out ideals of conduct for the edification of the addressee and the wider public. * See Malherbe 1986. * See Stowers 198148 GEORGE A. KENNEDY Sophistic panegyric was an important factor in preserving and trans- mitting the values of Hellenism, and though sophists rarely refer directly to the new religion, their speeches were an important instru- ment of pagan resistance to Christianity. In a Christianized form, the genre continued to be practiced throughout the Byzantine period; it is occasionally found in the western Middle Ages and flourished again in renaissance Italy. Sophists and their students also practiced epideictic orations in their schools, The two handbooks of epideictic by Menander Rhetor, pethaps written about the end of the third century ap, describe seven kinds of prose hymns and sixteen other kinds of epideictic, with advice about division of the subject and the appropriate topics to employ. The student then used a knowledge of these conventional forms in speeches on social occasions, including birthdays, weddings, funerals, and the arrival or departure of friends. ‘There are no Latin examples of such speeches and apparently train- ing in them was to be had only in Greek schools. ‘The main activity in the rhetorical schools was declamation, which was ostensibly preparation in deliberative and judicial oratory for a student looking forward to a public career. Declamation lies on the cusp of written and oral composition: students usually wrote out declamations in advance, then memorized and delivered them; teachers and those adults wha dectaimed as a social pastime for the most part spoke extemporaneously. Quintilian (Inst. 2:4:41) says that practicing fictitious cases in imitation of judicial and deliberative oratory began in Greece about the time of Demetrius of Phaleron (ie., toward the end of the 4th cent. no). Cicero (De or. 2:100) impties that declama- tion was common in Rome by the beginning of the first century Bc, but our earliest good account is in the work of the elder Seneca, entitled Oratorum et rhetorum sententia, divisiones, colores, written in the second quarter of the first century ap. Declamation itself is not a shetorical genre; Latin writers specifically divide it into the two genres of deliberative and judicial oratory, called respectively suasoria and controversiae. In the deliberative suasoria the student was asked to address some mythological or historical personage and urge some course of action (eg, dissuade Agamemnon from sacrificing Iphigenia); in the judicial controversia, the more popular form in Rome, the teacher posits one or more laws, real or imaginary, and then proposes an ambiguous situation. For example, the law provides that a woman who has been raped may choose whether her convicted assailant should be put to death or be forced to marry her. A man rapes two women in one night; the first chooses his death, the second mar-THE GENRES OF RHETORIC 49 riage. The student then composes a speech for one of the parties involved and may invent any additional facts or interpretations at will. Declamation was not a debate, and two speakers did not argue against each other. Greek rhetoricians did not make the distinction between suasoriae and controversiae so sharply and tend to speak of melele (practice) as divided into historical or fictive forms, the latter called plasmata.> Declamation differs from other public address, first, in that the speaker is not trying to persuade an audience of some policy or the justice of some case but is exercising skills in all the parts of rhetorical theory: invention, arrangement, style, memory, and delivery. It differs also in creating an imagery world, peopled with ravished maidens, pirates, tyrants, fathers who disown sons, wicked stepmothers, and other lurid characters, exciting to adolescent minds, and in encouraging artificiality in both thought and language, which deeply affected literary composition. If we then turn to rhetorical genres found only in written compo- sition, the first to note are the progymnasmata. These are the writ- ing exercises of the advanced stage of the grammar school or the elementary stage of study of rhetoric, as described in the Greek handbooks by or attributed to Theon, Hermogenes, Aphthonius, and Nicolaus (see the descriptions in chapter 1 above). Latin versions of the exercises are described by Quintilian (/nst, 2:4): fable, narrative, chreia, encomium, synerisis, ekphrasis, etc. There are some literary examples of these genres among the works of Libanius, and some of them were often incorporated into larger works in prose or poetry Greek epic and historiography from the very beginning in the Homeric poems and the Hislory of Herodotus included speeches, personifications (prosopopociae) of what might have been said, com- posed by the historian. Thucydides describes his method in such speeches in a famous passage early in his History of the Peloponnesian War (1:23). Speeches are of course also found in the Old and New Testaments; those in the book of Acts seem most analogous to speeches in Greek historiography. Most speeches in Greek and Latin histori- ans are deliberative and belong to one of three sub-genres: speeches by a political leader to a council or assembly; speeches by an ambas- sador to another city’s authorities; or speeches by generals to their troops before battle.’ The best example of epideictic in an historical * See Russell 1983, © See Hansen 1993,50 GEORGE A, KENNEDY work is the Funeral Oration by Pericles in Th. 2:5~46, Beginning in Greek in the Hellenistic period and in Latin by the Augustan Age, and continuing through the rest of antiquity, virtually all literary com- position, whether in poetry or prose, shows the influence of the study of rhetoric, primarily in style, but sometimes also in invention and arrangement, Grammarians and teachers of rhetoric scem to have viewed artistic prose literature as limited to three genres: oratory, historiography, and artistic examples of philosophical writing such as dialogues. “Canons” for each of these genres, viewed from a strictly thetorical point of view, are discussed by Dionysius of Halicarnassus in his work On Imitation and by Quintilian in the first chapter of the tenth book of his Institutio orataria. In the fourth book of De doctrina Christiana Saint Augustine ana- lyzes passages from the prophet Amos and the epistles of Saint Paul as thetorical forms. In the Middle Ages, though the classical triad is often noted, the three main genres of rhetoric are letter-writing (called dictamen), preaching, and verse composition. Numerous handbooks were written on cach subject.’ In the Renaissance and early modern period there are often references to the three genres of the senate, the pulpit, and the bar, an adaptation of the classical triad. BipuiocRaPuy Beale, W. H., “Rhetorical Performative Discourse: A New Theary of Bpidectic” Philosophy and Rheworic 11 (1978), pp. 221-46. Campbell, G., The Phileophy of Rhelonc (ed. by L. F. Bitzer 1963; Carbondale: South- em Illinois University Press, 1776) Hansen, M.H., “Phe Battle Exhortation in Ancient Historiography”, Historia 42 (1993), pp. 161-78. 8. DIAG. 2.30 11936), pp. 178-76. ais, ag Q Malherbe, A. ]., Moval oration Greco-Roman Sourebook (Philadephia: Westminster Press, 1986). Murphy, J-J., Rhetoric in the Middle tges: A History of Rhetorical Theory from Saint ugus- tine tothe Renaissance (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1974), Perelman, C., and L. Olbrechts-Tyteca, The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentaton (trans. by J. Wilkinson and P. Weaver 1969; Nowe Dame: Notre Dame Uni- versity Press, 1958) Russell, D. A., Greek Declamation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983) Stowers, S. K., The Diatibe and Paul’s Letter to the Romans (Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1981), ” See Murphy 1974:135-355.CHAPTER 3 ARRANGEMENT Wilhelm Wuellner Pacific School of Religion, Berkeley, California, USA I. SranparD CarEcories AND TERMINOLOGY Arrangement is the ordering of the substance of what was accom- plished in the process of eXpeoig/inventio for the purpose of serving the partiality/utilitas in the discourse’s aim. Arrangement is the ne- cessary complement to eXspeaic/inventio with focus on arrangement of thoughts or ideas, but also of the order and choice of words, both as to their style (AéEx¢/elocuti) and their delivery (xdxpiar¢/actio)—in terms of their appropriateness (aptum) for the adopted partiality, and in terms of the “parts of speech”. The Greeks had several words for arrangement: 5:68ea1g/81dea80n aby Rbyov; oixovopia/oixovoneiv; téE\c/téaaew. The Romans used dispositio/ disponere and compositio/ componere (on lepos, see Spengel 1863:501 n, 23) for 31éPea1g and oixovopia; and ordo for ris, The latter is used for the results of one’s arranging activity, whether on the level of (1) sentence syntax, the order of words and phrases, or (2) the traditional “parts of speech” (xpooiuiov, St4ymaxs, etc.), (3) the dis- course unit as a whole, or (4) even the order of a collection of books (narratives, essays, letters, law codes, poems; even the canonical order of sacred writings). Besides compositio the term structura was also used for the structural order of the parts of the sentence (Scaglione 1972:24-26). What Stemmler (1985; see bibliography under Cardauns 1985) does for an overview of oixovoyic, Krings (1941/1982) does for ordo, but without attention paid to rhetoric. The activity of inventing, that is generating, designing an arrange- ment, is designated by 160ec1c/8160c0001; oixovonia/oixovousiv, dispositio/ disponere and compositio/ componere, as well as another set of terms: the Greek obvOeoig and the Latin collocatio, and their respec- tive verbs. According to Cardauns (1985:10) “‘t is certain that Greek thetorics of the 1 c, Bc and later used [oixovonia] as synonym for52 WILHELM WUELLNER part 2 [of the offcia oratoris], what the Grecks called té1, in contrast to subject or theme—bx68e01g—on the one hand, and to stylistics 2éEig—on the other” (ef. also Gliick 1967, and Stroh 1975). The distinction between the two aspects of arrangement as process and as product is like the distinction between strategy and tactic in the mili- tary arts, a comparison found also in ancient rhetorical handbooks. Nearly all of the terms used for arrangement apply to only one of the two types of arrangement that were recognized: the type which Lausberg (1984:28-32) calls “disposition internal to the discourse”, which is the arrangement according to the rules for the “parts of the speech” arising from the orator’s first Epyov/oficium: the eSpeons/inventio and iudicium. A quite different type of arrangement is the one Lausberg (1984:33-41) calls “disposition external to the discourse”, the type of arrangement determined by ufilifas, the accommodation to the cir cumstances, where the orator uses his judgment to modify the order. All arrangement practices and theories of antiquity revolve around these two pole. While terminology and rhetorical theories that come with it are preoccupied with the first of the two types of arrange- ment, the second type did also receive a certain degree of attention. In the opening general remarks about the history and development of arrangement in antiquity some special attention will be paid to the cultural and institutional factors which affected both types of disposition II, Tue History ano DevetopMent oF ARRANGEMENT In ANTIQUITY In this section we offer an overview of the various approaches wo arrangement in rhetoric as primarily an object of scientific, theoreti- cal, critical reflection, beginning with the early Greek sophists, along- side the various institutional settings in which oratory was practiced long before the practice was elevated to the level of an art or science (xéxvn). “Antiquity had rhetoric for a general theory of literature” (Curtius 1973:71): but that is, though an important one, only one side of the whole picture. Such an overview of the history and development of arrangement within the traditions of classical European rhetoric invites compari- son and contrast first of all between the Greek (and later Byzantine) or Eastern and the Roman or Western traditions (e.g. the Greek andARRANGEMENT 33 Byzantine scholastic rhetorical theories vs. oratorial practices in Rome, or among Jews and Christians); moreover, comparative critical stud~ ies are called for between classical European tradition(s) and ancient non-Western traditions, equally classical, especially those of ancient India and ancient China, or even ancient Israel. (See IV.B below for brief comments on this area of future reseach.) The history and development of arrangement in classical Western rhetoric will bring us face to face with a variety of cultural, social, and political institutional settings and traditions which change over the centuries and influence both the practice of oratory and the theory of oratory known as rhetoric. Take the political changes in antiquity which affected rhetoric: they range from (1) the time-honored tradi- tions of hereditary aristocracy in early antiquity, to (2) democracy with its development of increasingly purer forms, to (3) the monarchic system of the Hellenistic era, to (4) the Roman Republic at first, then the Imperial regimes in Byzantium in the East and Rome in the West. When we take notice of the discussion about arrangement in Judaism and Christianity of this period of our overview, we need to be mindful that both religions dealt with cultural and political influences wider than the Imperial borders. It will be seen then that arrangement, as one of the “rhetorical propensities, [appears in its development as} neither innate nor immutable, but... activated by cultural conditions” (E Black 1980:82). This historical character of rhetorical practices and their theories needs to be kept in sharp focus and seen as relevant also to our own work in this volume. The history and development of arrangement in classical Western thetoric will have to show both sides of the coin: One side is the tradition of arrangement-schemes in practices and theories immanent to the rise and development of certain social, cultural, potitical institutions (the agora or forum; the academy or school; the law courts [ juris- diction for the forensic genre, but also legislation for deliberative as well as epideictic genres); the theatre; the religious assemblies; etc.). The other side of the coin is made up of the arrangement theories or schemata developed in, by and for the variety of school systems whose origins go gack to the early sophists. One manifestation of this system became in due course the éywokhwog naBeve. system, the emerging liberal arts, which in turn influenced also centers of reli- gious schooling or emerging academies, both in early Rabbinic, Mish- naic and Talmudic Judaism (Phillips 1959) and in Patristic (Syriac, Greek, Coptic, Latin) Christianity (Neymeyr 1989), some as early as54 WILHELM WUELLNER, the pre-Constantine era, The other school system is the culture of u{ynois/imitatio which fuelled the production of the xpoyouvéopata (Hock-O'Neil 1986), or the culture of declamations which promoted the xpoyonvéopora. More than half of Quintilian’s textbook is ori- ented toward declaration exercises, and it was the “unhealthy air of the schools” in which first the declamations then the xpoyvnvécpara. flourished, increasingly so since late Republican, early Imperial times (Kroll 1940:1119-24, 1131). Both as traditions of oratorical practices, and as traditions of rhe- torical theories or precepts about arrangement, thetoric in antiquity flourished as a rainbow coalition with a variety of disparate, discrete activities of public life: in forum, courts, schools, but also other areas as indicated above. It is important, however, to call attention to scholarship’s long-standing emphasis on the effect of the fusion (or “syncretistic tendencies”) generated by the emerging school system(s) For in this syneretism or fusion of rhetoric with grammar, poetics, and philosophy respectively—giving rise to such scholarly categories of “philosophical rhetoric” and “literary rhetoric” —the technical, pre- scriptive component of rhetoric as a rigid system far overshadows the other component constitutive of ancient rhetoric: the concerns for accommodation to specific situations. Perelman’s emphasis on “adaptive order” grows out of those same concerns, Tt would be a mistake to reduce rhetoric, in practices or theo- ries, to any one of the cultural activities. To the standard three areas (forum, school, courts) of public life in Greece and Rome (and all the changes each of them underwent, sometimes from one genera- tion to another, let alone over centuries), Fuhrmann (1987:10) adds three other areas where rhetoric was used and studied. One area contributed to rhetoric’s fusion with the study of grammar and of poetry: rhetoric’s interest in aesthetic values giving rise to a literary thetoric, whether as linguistic theory, as literary theory, or as literary criticism, Another arca contributed to thetoric’s fusion with the study of dialectic, logic, and philosophy, generated by thetoric’s interest in syllogistic argumentation—a fateful legacy which resurfaced in the Ramist reform of rhetoric (see Dickson 1993: ch. 1 on the classical and medieval roots of Ramismn). A third area contributed to thetoric’s fusion with interests in psychagogics, that is, personal and spiritual develop- ment, given rhetoric’s traditional interest in the emotions, imagination, and the will, motivation or disposition to action—something which philosophers as well as teachers of religion were equally interested in.ARRANGEMENT. 35 ‘Whether as part of rhetorical theory, or as part of the art of oral and literary discourse (including the popular literary genres, e.g, novels, letters, sermons, diatribes, ec.), or as part of rhetoric’s role in edu- cation, concern for arrangement was central to discourse, as it was to music, or architecture (see Spengel 1863:505 n. 27 on Vitruvius Pollio’s De architecture 1:2), or other areas, such as religion’s literary, liturgical, and legislative arrangement-schemes. It is widely recognized that developments in the study of arrange- ment ran along two lines: (1) the older sophistic tradition of rules or precepts in the technical handbooks. The divisions of arrangement according to the yépia Aéyou/“parts of speech” are historically the carliest framework of technical rhetoric into which other material got inserted, such as Hermagoras’s stasis theory, or the Stoic system of dialectics. The first efforts of changing this tradition can be scen in Aristotle’s Rhetoric and in the Rhetorica ad Alexandnum, But the old tradition continues, as in the school of Apollodorus of Pergamum. (2) The later Peripatetic tradition of arrangement in accommodation to circumstances; this tradition continued in the school of Theodorus of Gadara (for a comparison and contrast between these two Ist cen- tury Be schools of Apollodorus and Theodorus, see Kroll 1940:1124— 25; Kennedy 1980:97). Curtius (1973:501) felt thar rhetorical theory in antiquity “had little to say” about arrangement, “and that little was [later] misunderstood”, AL Greece 1. General Remarks The use of arrangement in Homer’s epics—as in the case of Israel's carly epics (Alter 1981)—is proof for Kennedy {1980:14) that invents, dispositio, elocutio were long in use before they were conceptualized And, except for the addition of the concerns with statis (which con- cerns, however, also go back to the 4th century Bc), the basic teach- ing on rhetoric has not basically changed since the fourth century Bc which is best exemplified by the common resources in apparent use in the rhetorical schools, especially in those instances where techni- cal definitions are briefly summarized (Kroll 1940:1101) which is often the case with the teaching on arrangement The framework for discussing tékag in the oldest rhetorical text- books (see Plato Phaedrus for the earliest reference) is the schema of the pépn Adyov. Tt was the fifth century Be sophists who, as teachers,56 WILHELM WUELLNER created and coined their own terminology for a theory of thetoric. In the very first textbooks we note their familiarity already with the methodological resource of definitions of conventional rhetorical con- cepts (Fuhrmann 1960:126 and n. 6). In connection with Corax’s definition of the xpooiytov, Hamberger (1914:38) points out (with reference to Arist. Rh, 3:14:14146 on xpooijtov) that it was the opin- ion of the earliest rhetoricians that this rhetorical term (perhaps like other terms) had been taken over from ancient Greek musical theory. “The original motivations that determined the outcome of the an- cient rhetorical system apparently have (for Scaglione 1972:39) to do with the impact of the musical element of poetic discourse, which became spontaneously applied to prose...” Gorax is said to have advocated all of seven parts of speech: mpooiuuoy, npoxataoxen}, xpoxordoranis, Katéotastc, cydves, napéx- Geaic, éxthoyog (Hamberger; for a critique of this long held view, see Goebel 1983: ch. 3 on disposition). The dispositio-schemes attributed to Corax are held by Goebel to be without authority. Antiphon’s disposition scheme is similar to the ideal schemes of Gorgias and Anaximenes. But despite Goebel’s critique of the alleged role of Corax in the development of the uses and theory of arrangement, he, too, concludes that rhetorical theory shows a remarkable continuity from its beginnings to the fourth century. In what Kroll called (1940:1131) the unhealthy air of the schools during the Hellenistic and Imperial era, the remarkable continuity of rhetorical theory from its beginnings to the fourth century extended several more centuries by way of the exercises, by way of the imita- tion of classical models, and by way of the declamations cultivated by teachers and students, either in the form of conirwversiae, in the tradition of the forensic genre, or in the form of suasoriae, in the tradition of the deliberative or epideictic genre. The connection of the discussion of arrangement with rhetorical genres can be seen in three stages: (I) the exclusive concentration on the forensic genre, beginning with Corax, but best represented by Hermagoras and his status system which only fits forensics; (2) focus on the three genres (on the Greek side, since Aristotle; then Stoics, Rhetorica ad Alexandrum, Menander, the Byzantines; on the Latin side: Rhetorica ad Herennium, Cicero, Quintilian, Fortunatianus, Martianus Capella); and (3) the critique of the tripartite genre-system, arising from the growing real- ization that “, . .a good part of the potential field of rhetoric remained outside the [tripartite] division” (Solmsen, in Stark 1968:339; see theARRANGEMENT 37 critical comments in Cicero and Quintilian). Kroll rightly warns (1940:1132) that the rules of the later handbooks about arrangement, especially in the epideictic genre and its proliferating species, should not be seen as rooted in the earlier Hellenistic era. How significant the precepts for arrangement in epideictic rhetoric were for the emerging genres of ancient biography (Kroll 1940:1128~35) and of the ancient novel (Hagg 1983:105-108) can be seen in the polemics against the Christian Bible as lacking té&ig (see Orig. Cels. 1:62 on the lack of té&ic émoyyehiag “according to the dialectical or rhetori- cal techniques of the Greeks”; cf. 6:1; see M. Black 1989; and Colson 1913), and the Christian apologetic response emphasizing that per suasion, designed to reach even the ira and not just society’s elite, cannot rely on té Hg prtopuxiic Beophpora (Cels. 6:57) or on literary style and composition (év xeiWoi rig ppdcet xai ovvBéset vay Aékewv cogiag) (Cels. 162). Special attention deserves to be paid to the four genres of non- fictional prose in antiquity: philosophical literature, historiography, scientific literature, and epistolography. For two of the four prose genres (philosophy and science) the invention, arrangement, and style considerations became operational there “merely by imitation of the appropriate models, and not by virtue of principles or precepts”; but in the other two (historiography and epistolography) “modest initial efforts were made without hiding the fact that they simply copied traditional rhetorical precepts and applied them, more or less felici- tously, to related genres”, such as epistolography (Fuhrmann 1987:9). What we will note in the development of rhetorical arrangement, namely the frequent discrepancy between the theorists and the prac- titioners, was noted aiso by a student of Greek epistolography: “there is no immediate connection between epistolographic theory and the extant actual letters... it is in no way self-evident that epistolary theory influenced epistolary praxis” (Koskenniemi 1956:17). And Kroll (1940:1119, 1122-23) reminds us that epistolography does not ap- pear among the xpoyonvécpata. The highlights of the development of arrangement in the Greck tradition are as follows. 2. The Early Sophists It is generally held (Hamberger 1914) that Corax and his student Tisias in the fifth century Bc were the first to set up a theory of58 WILHELM WUELLNER arrangement, but limited to the arrangement of the parts of forensic oratory: xpoo{uiov, dydvec, éxtAoyos; but according to Aristotle it had seven parts: mpooigtov, xpoxaraoxevii, rpoxatéctasis, Katéotasr<, Gyioves, napéxBearc, éxihoyos. Goebel (1983: ch. 3), however, has found the arrangement schemes attributed to Corax without authority. a. Gorgias The excessive arrangement techniques of Gorgias are said to be derived from Eleatic dialectics (Fuhrmann 1960:128-31). The later fourth century guidelines for the arrangement of discourse appear to Fuhrmann (1960:159) as basically the same since the early sophists without additions or deletions. b, Isocrates Isocrates’ approach to arrangement remains based on the népn Adyou, consisting of xpooiutov, plus or minus xpéBeatc, then diitmotc, riot, Exikoyos. What is referred to in scholarship as the Isocratean ap- proach to arrangement is, however, not that of the master himself (“a pedagogical genius, but no systematician”; Fuhrmann (960:125 n.), but that of the followers of the Isocratean school or tradition, Aristole himself points out (RA. 3:13-14, 16:1414a~17a) that Isocrates’ con- cern with arrangement was focused mainly on the first two “parts”: xpooiuiov and dufymots, The target of the Peripatetic critique (Arist. Rh. 3:13-19:1414a 20a) of the Isocratean approach was due to its alleged superficiality and lack of any clear conception of the essential functions of oratory, which for the Peripatetic school are the “proofs”. ©. Antiphon As a member of the group of “the older sophists”, to which also belong Thrasymachus and Theodoros of Byzantium, these theorists linked arrangement with invention as did Corax earlier. The similar ity of Antiphon’s disposition scheme to the ideal schemes of Gorgias and Anaximenes illustrates the remarkable continuity which theories of arrangement show from their beginnings down to the fourth century. 3. Plato In his Phdr, 25741, esp. 266¢~267d, we have the oldest coherent report of the oldest rhetorical theorists and of their precept-teachings, offeringARRANGEMENT 9 a recognizable methodological arsenal of the early rhetoricians. Mind- ful of the excessive arrangement-schemes of Gorgias and the naive arbitrariness in the arrangement practiced by Lysias, Plato criticizes two aspects of contemporary, pre-Platonic rhetoric: its unreflected routines, and the related practice of formalistic techniques (Fuhrman 1960:135-37). The pépn Adyou were the only precepts relevant to arrangement. Lysias is criticized (263e) for not beginning his argument (on the nature of love) with a definition and “finish[ing] his discourse with that in view” (ovvratépevos névra. tov Sotepov AMyov). In 264a Socrates goes on: “[Lysias] . .. does not even begin at the beginning, but unde takes to swim on his back up the current of his discourse from its end [od88 dx’ dpxiig GAA’ dnd tedevtiig &E dneiag dvnadw Siaveiv Emyyewpei tov ASyov), and begins with what the lover would say at the end to his beloved [kai dipxetor dg’ dv nenowpévoc dv Hn 6 Epaotiig Agyor npdg cé nordixé]”. The critique of the seeming lack of “any thetorical reason” (rivéx dvéyxny Aoyoypagixfv, 264b) is based on the premise that “every discourse must be organized, like a living being, with a body of its own, as it were, so as not to be headless or foot- less, but to have a middie and members, composed in fitting relation to cach other and to the whole” (Stiv naveo: Aoyov danep Cov ovv- eordvan ops 11 Eyovta atv adtod, Sate pire éxégadoy civan piite Gnow, GAA peou te yew Koi Gxpo, mpénovt’ dAAHAoIG Kai tH Shp ‘yeypapuéva,, 264c). In 265d Socrates speaks of “two principles” (Svoiv eiSoiv): one is that of “perceiving and bringing together in one idea the scattered particulars... making clear by definition [&xaotov opt Gonevos SiiAov not). [It is] by this means that discourse acquires clear- ness and consistency [td yobv cages Kai td adtd abt Suohoyosevov Bia tat! Boxev eixeiv 6 ASyos]” ‘The other principle (@tepov elSog) concerns “dividing things again by classes, where the natural joints are, and not trying to break any part, after the manner of a bad carver” (cd néduw kar’ etn Sivac8er xépvewy, Kor’ dipOpa, fi némoxe, Kai uh enrgerpeiv xarceyvovan pépos pndév, xaxod payelpov tpdmp xpapevov, 265e). In 266b-268a Socrates professes to be “a lover of these processes of division and bringing together, as, aids to speech and thought” (pacts... zav Bienpésewv Kai cove -yoryiiv, iv’ olde te d Aéye te Kai gpoveiv). While for Socrates rhetoric and dialectic are synonymous (as they are later for the Stoics), he is told by Phaedrus that there are “many things” (hd ovgvé) besides dialectic when it comes to what is “written in the books on rhetoric”66 WILHELM WUELLNER (ed 7’ &y toig rBAlors toig nepl Adyov téxvng YerPampévorc). By these “many things” Socrates means “the niceties of the art” (rd xopwe tig céqyn), namely, the familiar “parts of speech” as outlined by “the man from Byzantium”, Theodorus, a fifth-century 8 pupil of Prota- goras. The reference made to “correctness of diction” (ép8oéne1a, 268a) appears to be part of the then current discussion of arrangement, though perhaps part of “the little things” (té wxpd) of the art of thetoric, passed over by Socrates for the sake of keeping the focus on “what force of art they have and when” (tive xal aée' Exec thy ig céqyng Svapw). 4. Aristotle and the Rhetorica ad Alexandrum a. Aristotle Like Plato, “Aristotle was consistently interested in the organic unity of a whole and the realization of its potential; style and arrangement are part of artistic rhetoric” (Kennedy 1980:77). Aristotle’s approach was born of interactions with Isocrates, Alcidamas (Solmsen, in Stark 1968:184~95), and Theodectes, but not at all with his great contem- porary Demosthenes. The three influential features of Aristotle’s treat- ment of arrangement in Rh, 3:13~19:1414a—20a are: (1) arrangement gets treated after style, not after inventio; (2) emphasis on only two parts to arrangement (which is the philosophical bent in his Rhetoric), but subsequent handbook tradition ignores it, as does Aristotle him- self; and (3) arrangement gets applied also to epideictic and delibera- tive rhetoric, Though Kennedy found it “an important feature that Aristotle considers the arrangement not only of judicial but also of {the other two genres]”, he criticizes Aristotle (1980:80; as well criticizing Perelman for his critique of the Peripatetic concern for organic unity in arrangement) for failing “to provide adequately for the mixture of intentions found in actual oratory”. According to Hill (1983:69), “no doctrine of speech as organism is expounded in [Aristotle's] Rhetoric—in the Poetics, yes, but not in the Rhetoric”. The role Aristotle could have played in mediating between philosophy and technical or sophistic rhetoric was first realized by Cicero, and in our days by Perelman. Solmsen (Stark 1968:312-49) secs Aristotle (in Rh, 3:13-19:1414a~ 20a) organize “the whole material under categories representing essen- tial qualities or functions of any speech”. He sees Aristotle’s té¢vn borrowed from Theodectes with whom he disagrees in some respects. Most of 3:13-19 belongs to “the system of the ndpi Aéyou type and,ARRANGEMENT 61 so far from being characteristic of Aristotle’s own approach to rheto- ric, may rather be regarded as the first stage in the process of fusion between the two rival traditions [which became] the way in which the ratio Aristotelia left its mark upon the later rhetorical systems” (323~ 27), Aristolle had borrowed from the alternative system and discussed the “parts of the speech” under sé. Hill (J983:71) finds Aristotle’s treatment of arrangement according to the four parts of speech per- severing “under whatever names they appear” but notes that “Aristotle himself was critical of the four-part division and did not choose to organize his Rhetoric along these lines. It is obviously not a subtle way of treating arrangement, and it breaks down as a guide to the analysis of any very complicated production.” The later rhetoricians who use the “parts” in the iventio cannot, of course, discuss them again in the dispositio. Thus they must confine themselves in the dispositio to some remarks concerning the length of each of the parts, the sequence of the points to be made, and other subjects of minor importance (Cicero’s treatment of dispositio, in De or, 2:307-332, is again an exception since he has not anticipated the discussion of the partes under inventio. To deal with them under dispositio as he does was in keeping with the original Perpatetic procedure; see 348-49 on “the insistence on the old boundary between inventio and dispositio” [349)) b. Rhétorica ad Alexandrum Like Aristotle’s Rhetoric, this work grew out of the rhetorical training praxis in fourth-century Athens. The whole work is organized around threc issues: (1) the Svvéieic/functions or qualities of discourse (1-5); (2) the ypiioeis/practical and proper usefulness (6-28), and (3) the ers or wé@odo. cv Adyav (29-38) on how each of the rhetorical genres (eiSeq) get arranged organically (séatew cod¢ ASyovg oopa- 0e18és; 28 end). Traditional is the approach to arrangement accord- ing to the jiépn, but new in 29-38 is the elaboration of the “parts of rhetoric” according to seven rhetorical genres (an advance over the old sophistic which only focused on the forensic genre): 29-34 on the deliberative genre (sub-divided into xpotpertixdc/dnorpentixds = exhortation/dissuasion), see, for example, 31 on t4& in the narratio- part; 35 on the epideictic genre (subdivided into éycapraotix6v/ xaxokoyixéy = culogy/vituperation); 36 on the forensic genre (sub- divided into xarmyopuxév/énohoyerixdv = prosccution/defense) on “how we shall construct and arrange these species”; and in 37 the new62 ‘WILHELM WUELLNER elSoc ¢Eetéottxov = investigation. While the rhetorical genres and the “parts of speech” are dealt with in traditional fashion, there is no reflection as yet of the oficia. No attempt is made to establish a rational division of the principles of rhetoric, still less to deduce the necessity of such a division (Solmsen, in Stark 1968:315 n. 12). Even so, for Fuhrmann (1960:122) this work shows fully developed all the characteristics of the later handbooks. But instead of, as is custom- ary, deriving the operating principles in this book from Socratic- Platonic and Aristotelian logic, Fuhrmann (1960:123) suggests that these textbook characteristics are the legacy of the sophistic school system, traceable back to Protagoras, Prodicus and Gorgias. Two aspects characterize this work: (1) the sophistic legacy, especially Gorgias, and (2) the application of contemporary philosophy, includ- ing a critique of the sophists. Thus a critical examination is required of the relationship between philosophical methodology and sophistic school-praxis (Fuhrmann 1960:132). 5. Hermagoras of Temnos In his six-volume work on the rhetorical arts this late second-cen- tury Bc rhetorician contributed much to the reform of rhetorical theory, completing “the link between Greek rhetorical theory and Roman rhetoric” (Murphy 1983-82). He approached arrangement not by the népra Abyov, but the ofizia or opera/Epyc. rhetoros in the follow- ing order: (1) vénots/intellecto; (2) eXipearc/ inventio; (3) oixovonia—with four subdivisions: (a) xpiorc/iudicium, (b) wepronds/ partiti, (c) raktc/ ordo, (A) AEEs/opdorg/épunveia—; (4) drdxprors; (5) uvfun. In the history of arrangement his divisions under oixovouie. are new: the two subparts, partitio and ordo, belong closcly together, for they deal with the disposition of che subject mauer of a given dis- course, but with dual focus: the sequence of the parts of the dis- course, and the ordering of its most important part, the “proofs”. In the fourth of the subdivisions under oixovouic, devoted to Aééts, he has surprisingly lite to say; all he stresses are the selection of fitting words and phrases, and their arrangement in the syntax of the sen- tence. His approach influenced the young Cicero. 6, Epicureans and Sioics The rhetoric of Philodemus, a first-century 8c Epicurean, highlights an aspect of the approach to arrangement which has its own history:ARRANGEMENT 63 arrangement as the organic whole of a discourse, whether the whole of a sentence unit, or of a given oration, or the whole of a collection of such orations. He insisted that a piece of rhetorical art, like any work of art, can be understood and appreciated only when perceived in the totality of its component parts. The Stoics introduced the concept of syntax into the discussion of the rhetorical arts. Spengel (1863:493 n. 17) noted that the Stoics, according to Fortunatianus, did not produce precise and uniform designations for arrangement. One of their categorizations of a tri- partite scheme of the rhetorical offcia (vénatc, eXpeors, BraOearc) suc- cumbed to the ruling quinquepartite principle. It was in response to logical or dialectical postulates of philosophers and grammarians alike that Stoic linguists, such as Chrysippus, emphasized the notion of a “natural” or “right”, that is, logical order. This view of composition first entered the domain of grammar with Priscianus “without forc- ing the rhetoricians to give up [their categories of arrangement] , And it was Priscianus who established the view that the ‘right’ order is the ‘natural’, right because natural, and natural because ‘logical’ [Prior to Priscianus) grammarians, rhetoricians, and stylistic analysts had remained content with the identification of the first and last places in the sentence as the most important because of their weight on the hearer (vis)—ostensibly a psychological [and not logical] approach to the matter” (Scaglione 1972:39). The third-century ac Stoic approach to arrangement can be con- sidered as one of the results (literary rhetoric as the other) of what Fuhrmann (1960:160 n. 1) calls the syncretistic tendencies generated by the school system in antiquity (see also Kroll 1940:1080-90 on thetorical-philosophical syncretism), Hagius (1979) traces the devel- opment of the rules for the “parts of speech” from the early Stoies to the Alexandrian grammarians. In Stoic theory all reflection on arrangement became part of the system of dialectics, as it tended to be in the Socratic-Platonic critique of the sophist tradition, it was also prefigured in Aristotle’s highlighting mainly the “proofs” in his discussion of arrangement of the “parts”. The sixteenth-century Ramist reform is but a belated echo reverberating through the rhetorical tradition since antiquity, as Dickson (1993) reminds us.64 WILHELM WUELLNER 7. Literary Rhetoric: Rhetoric and Poetics, Grammar, and Literary Criticism The rhetorization of poetics in late antiquity was one of the manifes- tations of the syncretistic tendencies in the ancient school system; it had far-reaching consequences. a, Demetrius (and Epistolography) Demetrius’s contribution to arrangement lies in his concerted effort in his mepi Eppnvetas (from the second half of the Ist century ap) to deal with each of four (instead of the more familiar three) types (xapaxtiipes) of style (2:36-37): plain (ioxvéc), elevated/grand (ueya- Aonperig), elegant (yAapupéc), forcible (Se1véc). He does this in terms of the same three headings: diction (AéE1«), word-arrangement/appro- priate composition (oiyxe.Oa npoopspac), subject-matter/thought (Savoia). Hence there are sections devoted to the oivOeac weyaAo- peri (2:38-74), to avvBear Yapvpé (3:179-185), to cdvBears ioxvh (4:204-208 with an added section on epistolary style and arrange- ment in 223-235), and to obvOeats Sews (5:241-271). (See Solmsen in Stark 1968:285~311,) As to the role of arrangement in the theoretical reflections on epistolography, the same observation made about the “parts of speech” as major principle for disposition applies to the arrangement of let- ters: the basic structure or form of letters remains unchanged by and large, and the same tendency is manifest in dealing with all indi- vidnal elements in the letter (Koskenniemi 1956:202). The more epistolography gets associated with poetics, the more noticeable is the interest in the continuity of the letter’s basic té&.¢/dispositio. What evidence there is of rhetoric’s influence on epistolography (similar to that on historiography) is, for Fuhrmann (1987:9), merely due to copying rhetorical precepts and applying them to the art of letter writing without notions of arrangement indigenous to it (see also Classen 1992:323-24 on the substanstially different orientation in the thetorical handbooks and the manuals on letter-writing which offer “no particular rule or advice” least of all on the arrangement or structure of letters; on “the common ground between letter and homily”, see Kustas 1973:46ff).ARRANGEMENT 65 b. Dionysius Halicarnassus About Lysias’s arrangement and development (xé&w xai épyaotay) of discourse Dionysius (in Lys. 15; Jsoc. 4) felt that other orators (such as Isocrates, in his use of té&tc xa pepionoi) were superior to Lysias in the arrangement of the material they have invented (oixovopijoos 1 ebpeBévea). In his Dem. 51 he divides approaches to discourse into two concerns: what is the subject matter (x) npoyjetixév) and its expression (td Aextixév); the first he assigns to the traditional épyov of eSpeorc/ imentio; the second to oixovonia or arrangement, And it is the second part that is the most important for him: arrangement (sd oixovoutxdy) of the subject matter on the one hand, and composition (x ovvOenxdv) of the selected style. Demosthenes is his most admired thetor. But he makes as little use of Cicero's speeches, his contem- porary, as Aristotle made use of his contemporary Demosthenes. In his E4v@eo1¢ évouét@v 4 he points out that in the arrangement of words in a sentence (he uses oivOeo1s for that) the same words can be used in cither misshapen, beggarly, mean ways (S.op9a xa tanewe xi ntwyé) or in sublime, rich and beautiful fashion (bynh& xai movora Kai KaA6). In LivOeors dvouécav 6 he outlines the three Epya. of the science of composition (ovvetixh émothyn): (1) deter- mine which odvOemig is likely to produce a beautiful and attractive united effect (ov spay); (2) determine how each of the parts which are to be fitted together should be shaped (oynyatio®év) so as to im- prove the harmonious appearance of the whole (&ppoviay); (3) deter- mine whether any modification is required in the material used, that is, on the level of td oixovouixév (e.g. subtraction, addition, alsera- tion) and carry out such changes with a proper view to their future purpose (npis tiv HéAAovaay ypelav oixeiing epyéoacba) on the level of td cuvBerixév, In his Thucydides he develops some other critical categories. The arrangement of material (oixovopia) gets subdivided in a new way: (1) Btaipeots is the general method of arrangement, (2) téEig refers here only to the adequacy of beginning and end; and (3) éepracia is taken as the elaboration of particular events. ‘The theories of evaluation which Dionysius used in his rhetorical treatises are characterized by Schenkeveld (1975:107) as laying claim to the logical basis and structure of the téxvn of the rhetoricians against their rivals in educational matters, the philosophers—espe- cially the followers of Epicurus—, who maintained that rhetoric had a merely empirical structure.66 WILHELM WUELLNER cc. Ps.-Longinus On the Sublime In I it is pointed out that skill of invention, and of arrangement and marshalling of facts (cé&w rai ofxovonlay xv npayuétov) in a given work shows up not in one or two isolated features, but “in the whole tissue of the composition” (&x 200 Sov tv Aéywv). The efforts of making a case for dignified word order in a composition (as one of five sources for the sublime), is taken as one of the strengths of thetoric in early Roman Imperial times, in contrast to its simul- tancously prevailing weakness as evident in the growing scholastic tendency (flourishing in the unhealthy air of the school system) of regularizing, codifying, and proliferating precepts (Kennedy 1980:112— 16 on “Manifestation of Literary Rhetoric”). The strength of Roman thetoric of that period is seen in the premise of a concept of unity of the material, whether in the concerns for the whole speech; or for the whole of education, 8. Second Sophistic What was true of the early sophists continues with representatives of the Second Sophistic: they tended to stress composition above all else. But the context for sophist and non-sophist rhetoricians alike has changed: their dependence on supportive centers (the municipal centers in the East, e.g. Athens, Smyrna, and Ephesus as the impor- tant “sophiftic centers” besides those in Pergamum, Mytilene, Gadara, and otherg, but not, surprisingly, Syrian Antioch or Alexandria; and, of course, Rome, but there subject to Imperial, and not municipal, patronage), which, in turn, led to the proverbial controversies among the sophists (Bowersock 1969:17~ 100}. Flavius Philostratus (late 2nd/carly 3rd century Ap) uses té&tg “for nothing more than composite, ovens, since this is all he specifically treated”, observes Scaglione (1972:23) and adds: “the Sophists had litle explicit consciousness of overall composition in the sense of organic structure or plot”. Another sophist, Aclius Aristides, found in rhetorical theory of the #pya a reflection of the four cardinal virtues, with 76 representing copootvn; eipeais relating to gpdvnorc; AES to Buxowootvn (Spengel 1863:492) 9. Anonymus Seguerianus The novelty in the treatment of the four standard parts of an ora- tion found in this third-century ap author lies for Kennedy (1972:617)ARRANGEMENT 67 in this “that, with the partial exception of the prooemium, the writer considers invention, arrangement, and style as applied to each of these parts”, 10. Byzantine Rhetoric With its function as presenting decisions to the public and strength- ening the loyalty to church and state through the use of the forms of epideictic, Kennedy (1980:170) sees Byzantine rhetoric making no important contribution to rhetorical theory. On the role which rhetoric played in creating “the common ground between letter and homily”, see Kustas (1973:46ff); this is an issue equally important to contem- porary Mishnaic and Talmudic Judaism. The chief merit of Byzantine rhetoric lies in channeling the legacy of Greek and Roman rhetoric to its late Medieval renaissance and subsequent renaissances of classical rhetoric in the modern world. It is an irony of history worth critical reflection that rhetoric which was “invented in the fifth century Bc as an instrument of social and political change, became under the Roman and Byzantine empires a powerful instrument for preservation of the status quo”, with its cause or effect relation to theories of arrangement (sce IV.C below on areas of future research). B. Rome 1. General Remarks There is a two and a half centuries-long gap in tradition between the earliest Latin textbooks on rhetoric (Rhetorica ad Herennium and carly Cicero) and the main Greck texts. In this period the discussion on arrangement ran on two tacks: one going back to the early sophists with their interest in the “parts of speech” as framework for ap- proaching arrangement; the other (first mentioned in the Peripatetic tradition of Aristotle) emphasizing the orator’s judgment in modify- ing the conventions of rhetorical arrangement. As Clarke (1953/ 1968:32) and Kennedy (1972:115) note, when inventio eneroaches on the province of dispositio by dealing with the parts of speech under inventio, there is little left that can be said, and was said, in the treat- ment of arrangement (see under Rhet. ad Her. 3:16-18; Cic. Part 9-15; De or. 2:307-315; Quint. Inst. 7). Three literary forms emerging in Roman times reflect some of the68 WILHELM WUELLNER changes in the approach to arrangement: the satura or sermo = bihio. (Lévy 1993); the subjective elegy (Gelhaus 1973); and the novel (Hage 1983). Textbook rhetoric was hard put to account for the arrange- ment in these seemingly disorderly genres. What distinguishes these three distinctly Roman literary forms is their formlessness. The Romans~ at least some of them--wanted their literary forms to be shapeless. Kroll (1940:1134) speaks of the conflict between “the demands of the modern times” and the rhetorical convention (especially as em- bodied by the “technographers” on the one hand, and the school masters with their progymnasmata exercises and declamation train- ing on the other hand). And part of that conflict was also generated and fuelled by the transition from the old world of orality to the unfolding world of literacy (see Ong 1982; Swearingen 1991). It is here that the discussion of arrangement in ancient rhetoric must account for “the shaping effects of the medium itself on both the communicator and the communicant” (Sloane 1974:804). For Kroll (1940:1104), the change from an oral to written and published ora~ tion is twofold: (1) the published version is likely to pay more atten- tion to the aesthetic components, and as such can serve as a mode! in the schoo! system; and (2) the published version can become a political pamphlet or a legal or religious document, Beside these two points other critical issues demand attention (see IV.E below on areas warranting future research). 2. Rhetorica ad Herennium In 1:3 dispositio is mentioned as one of the faculties (gficia) which one acquires in three ways: theory (ars/séqyn), imitation (imitetio/wiunorc), and practice (exercifatio/yyuvaoia). The function of arrangement is the ordering and distribution of the matter (ordo et distributio rerum) indi- cating the place each thing is assigned to (demonstrat quid quibus locis sit concolandum). In 3:9:16-18 we find the distinction made between two genera dispositionaa (1) Arrangement generated by the principle of rhetoric (ab insttutioe artis profectum)—the rules (of the sequence of “the parts of speech”) mentioned already in Plato’s Phaedrus. This principle was elaborated in book | as part of invention. This is a change (also found in Cicero, De inventione) from the Peripatetic tradition which dealt with the “parts” under arrangement. As a result, what is said on arrangement be-ARRANGEMENT 69 comes “narrow in scope and rather sterile” (Caplan 1954:xvi principle informing arrangement is said to apply not only to the dis- course as a whole, but also (as set forth already in 2:18:28) to the individual “parts”: expositio, ratio/ argumentatio, confirmatio, exornatio, concluso. ‘As we have seen already in Aristotle’s Rketoric 3, the announcement that one wants to deal with arrangement may in fact apply more to the discussion of arrangement in one or the other of the “parts”, especially the “proofs”, and not with the discourse as a whole. (2) Arrangement generated by accommodation to specific circum- stances (ad casum temporis adcommodatum). This genre of arrangement deals with the changes and transpositions (commuutationes ei translationes) necessitated by the cause itself (ipsa 75). Such changes in arrange- ment are compared with military tactics (3:9:18; cf. Cic. Brut. 139). 3. Cicero The young Cicero, in his De inventione defined arrangement (1:9) as the distribution of arguments discovered (in the inventio) in the proper order (dispositio est rerum inventarum in ordinem distributio). Arrangement of, and in, the partes orationis (of which he lists six: exordium, narratio, partitio, confirmatio, reprehensio, conclusio) should be considered only after (denique ordinandae) the primary task of the invention of arguments “in proper order” (1:19). Each of the six parts serves a specific function in the whole arrangement. The older Cicero (De or. 1:142) has Crassus qualify the earlier precept by advising the arrangement of the inven- tive discoveries “not merely in orderly fashion, but with a discrimi- nating eye for the exact weight as it were of each argument” (non solu ordine, sed etiam momento quodam atque iudicio dispensare algue componeré) Also the need of modifying or even completely eliminating certain “parts” of the discourse from their prescribed arrangement (first dis cussed in Jno, 1:30), gets elaborated in De or. 2:307~-332 (see 320 on changes in proems; 330 on changes in narratio and peroratia). In his Brut. 139 rhetorician Marcus Antonius compares the arrangement of discourse for greatest force and effectiveness (flurimum proficere et uaclere) with military strategy and tactics. The orator, like a general, arranges his material in the most opportune parts of his discourse (in maxime opporturis orationis partibus collocabantur). In his Or. 15:50 he offers as example of such choices of arrangement (appropriate to the wtilitas of the case) the ordering of one’s strongest arguments at the beginning and end of the “proofs” with the weaker arguments inserted in the70 WILHELM WUELLNER: middle. As Classen (1985) and others (Stroh 1975) have shown, Cicero’s use of arrangement in his speeches is manifold, with the pre- cepts of traditional arrangement skillfully modified. None of Cicero’s ‘own orations can be fully and satisfactorily analyzed “with the cate- gories of the rhetorical system in the sense that an individual oration can be explained as the ad hoc embodiment of what the rhetorical precepts taught” (Leeman 1982:42-43). Comments like this warn us that rhetorical theory, though allegedly derived from praxis in part, and in part serving praxis again (Fubrmann 1987:7), does not always agree with praxis, or praxis with theory, even if both come from the same person. In De inventione (as in Rhetorica ad Herennium) arrangement gets dis- cussed under “parts of speech” in its relation to inventio, but only with respect to the forensic genre; as to the arrangement in the other two rhetorical genres, the “parts”-approach has not yet been adopted. In his De or. 2:307-332 Cicero has not anticipated the discussion of the partes under inventio. As Spengel (1863:501 n, 23) observed: only where res and verba get combined does arrangement/dispositio come to be discussed in third place, following imventio and elocutio. Kroll (1940:1069) points out that in De oratore and in Oratore the approach to arrangement, in terms of first dealing with the five gficia and then the five partes, was the model generally used in the first century Bc. All arrangement arises either from the nature of the case, or from the instinct of the speaker, which follows the two genera dispositionum of Rhetorica ad Herennium. In Cicero's reflections on arrangement, as well as the other aficia, Fuhrmann (1960:69) sces a tradition already hardened by mannerism, and he accounts for the discernible signs of a philosophical-rhetorical syncretism in the rhetorical handbooks of Cicero and Rhetorica ad Herennium in wo ways: (1) the syncretistic tendencies in the school and education-systems of the times, and (2) Gicero’s design for unity of philosophy, rhetoric, and politics as part of the program Cicero had for his own life, a program generated by his personal character (160 n. 1). It was Cicero, not Aristotle, that remained tll Renaissance times the most influential force in dealing with rhetoric in general, and with arrangement in particular—even in medieval Jewish rhetoric 4. Horace At the base of his Ars poetica lies the tripartite (offcia, parte, de artifice) textbook-type. His blend of rhetorics and pocties is well representedARRANGEMENT 1 in section 39-44: “The man who chooses his subject with full con- trol [ice. in his imventio| will not be abandoned by eloquence [facundia decerel) or lucidity of arrangement [lucidus ordi]. As to arrangement: its excellence and charm [ordinis virus et venus] ... consists in saying at this moment what needs to be said at this moment [iam nunc dical iam nunc debentia dici), and postponing and temporarily omitting a great many things [plerague diferat et praesebs in tempus omittal)” (Russell and Winterbottom 1972:280). 5. Quintilian and Pliny the Younger Quintilian Institutio Oratoria deals in books 1-3 with theoretical issues. As with all five aficia, arrangement is considered neither “as duties of the oratory [nor] as elements of rhetoric, but [as] parts of the art and not the material” (Meador 1983:161). In 3:3:2 he briefly com- ments on the importance of dispositio dealing with discourse not only quo modo, but also quo loco, In 3:3:6 he cites Cicero for his claim that the iudiciun/judgment function in the inentio phase is indispensible for both dispositin and elocutio; in 3:3:7, again with reference to Cicero, he sees concerns with subject matter (res) and arvangement as belong- ing to inventio, concern with the wording and delivery as belonging to elocutio, with memoria acting as custodem omnium ‘The use of the “parts of speech” as the principle of structure and organization in the section on invention constitutes for Solmsen (in Stark 1968:326) an important departure from the original Peripatetic system—a “contamination” with the Isocratean tradition which is a process that began with Aristotle Among the developments since Cicero, with tendencies for nov- elty, he points to the urge for making additions to arrangement (adiecerunt ordinen)) besides the standard teaching on dispositir, leaving the student with the impression “as though arrangement was any- thing else than the marshalling of arguments in the best possible order” (quasi aliud sit dispositio quam rerum ordine quam optimo collocatio). Among the chief developments he refers to are (1) Dio of Prusa, his contemporary (for teaching that all of rhetoric falls into parts only: invention and arrangement, the first concerned with rs, the other with verbq); (2) Theodorus of Gadara, another contemporary (for having a different view by subsuming ¢locutio under inventio as one of its two parts, and dealing with arrangement, etc. as the remaining “parts”; (3) Hermagoras (for placing judgment, division, order and everything relating to expression under the heading of economy72 WILHELM WUELLNER fiudiciu, partitonem, ordinem, quaegue sunt elocutionis, subticit oeconomiae— a word for which Latin has no equivalent; 3:3:9)); (4) some un- named ones who put memoria even before dispositio, and (5) the many dissenting voices (plures dissenserunt) over the issue whether invention, arrangement, elocution belong to the parles rhelorices or to the opera orators. Quintilian sides with Hermagoras against Athenaeus. another contemporary of Quintilian, advocating that the five oficia, which include arrangement, belong to the elementafstowyeia of rhetoric (3:3:11). For Quintilian, both inventio and dispasitio belong to rhetonices propria. In book 4 he starts laying out specific precepts to be used in school exercises (for Kroll 1940:1099 the normal type of the system of school- thetoric is to be found in the works of Dionysius Halicarnassus). It is good to remind ourselves here that Quintilian was the first teacher of rhetoric at Rome on the Imperial pay roll. What he has to say about arrangement in book 4 and following shows these highlights: (1) A neutral value is put on the merits of the ordo naturalis of the ab iniio-technique (with orderly sequences to middle and end) over against the ordo arlcialis of the a mediis-approach, as in the dispositio in Homer's Odyssey (more Homerico a mediis vel ultimis, 7:10:11). Quadlbauer (1977:75) finds a similar view shortly after Quintilian in Theon. (2) 7:1:42-62 illustrates Quintilian’s approach to arrangement with what Kroll (1940:1071) calls an unusually captious treatment of a controversia declamation which proves how anatomy is best taught with a corpse for illustration. (3) Quintilian includes a number of things not usually found under the heading of dispositi. Pliny. « student of Quintilian, warns critics, in his letter t0 Voconius Romanus (Ep. $:13:3}, not to be solely preoccupied with elocutio, and then exclaims: “If only people would look at least at the arrange- ment, the transitions, the figures [or figurations] as well! Superb in- vention [inverire pracclare] and magnificent expression [enuntiare magnifcé] are sometimes found also among barbarians [the same topos is found in Jos. AJ 20:264; Ps.-Longin. On the Sublime 44:3-5]; but only the erudite can arrange with propriety [disponere apie] and give variety to his figures [figurae vari]”ARRANGEMENT 73 6. Hermogenes of Tarsus (mid-2nd century sn) In his treatise On Jmention, Book 3 he deals with arrangement by using new stasis categories as “ways of ordering the material”. His textbook of progymnasmata is designed to help students with the task of arrangement, Like Quintilian before him, “he wrote prima- rily for... the students in the school of declamation” (Kennedy 1980:103-105). Like Apsines’s interest in progymnasmata, so. did Hermogenes’ contribute to the increasingly systematic scholasticism of the rhetoricians in late Imperial Rome (Kroll 1940:1117-19). His concerns for composition (arrangement on the sentence level), as demonstrated in his work On Ideas of Style, continue the efforts of Demetrius, Dionysius Halicarnassus, and Apsines (his is the last com- plete téyvn in Greek to survive) 7. Rhetores Latini Minores The Latin technical handbooks of the fourth century “subtly alter the classical conception of the subject matter of rhetoric and thereby anticipate some the characteristic developments of later medieval theory” (Leff 1982:72). While the Hellenistic approach, since Her- magoras, tended more and more toward a fixed logic of public ar- gument and dealing with arrangement increasingly without reference to specific audiences, the Latin tradition remained more aware of the need for “adaptive order”. In his Institutiones oraloriae (Halm 1863:311-52), Sulpitius Victor “dramatically restructures the elements of rhetorical theory”. The oficia of the thetor are now only three: intellectio, inventio, and dispositio which includes style and delivery. But “neither the elements of disposition nor invention receive more than passing attention” (Leff 1982:74) IU, Arrancemenr in RxetoricaL THEORY ‘The survey of the history and development of arrangement in anti- quity reveals, at first sight, the colorful diversity in the systems of thetoric, not to speak of the diversity in the practices of oratory in the various times and places. But on a second, closer look there emerge two groups into which this diversity can be sorted: (1) the original Greek sophistic approach which even those honored who severely criticized the sophists, like Plato, Aristotle, and others. This approach74 WILHELM. WUELLNER viewed all of rhetoric, and so also all matters pertaining to arrange- ment, with the overriding concern for rhetoric as the art, the téxvn, of generating persuasion (in contrast to logic’s, or dialectic’s concern for demonstration). This group differs from (2) the later emerging approach, first noted among the Stoics, and then represented by much of Roman rhetoric since Cato the Elder, which was “decidedly mor- ally oriented” and using moral criteria (Furhmann 1987:12-13). A. The Ancient Technographers What yielded a certain degree of continuity—from the beginning 10 the fourth century Bc “a remarkable continuity” (Goebel 1983)—was the approach taken by the sophists to rhetorical theory as a formal discipline, and that in two respects (Fuhrman 1987:8; earlier re- search also spoke of two groups: the Isocratean vs. the Peripatetic types; see Solmsen, in Stark 1968:323; also Kroll 1940:1096-1100 on two types of handbooks or technographers) (1) The first is the concern with discourse, its sounds, rhythm, semantic and syntactic means, for discourse above the level of every- day speech (prose as distinct from artful speech = Kimstprosa). At this level, arrangement is closely related to grammar, syntax, and stylistics and was conceptualized and defined in terms of oixovopia/compositio or collocatio of syllables, words, phrases, sentences, periods and cola, ‘The development along this line led rhetoric to make common cause with theoretical, technical approaches to grammar and poetics, leav- ing rhetoric as antiquity’s form of literary theory and literary criticisrn. (2) Quite distinct is the other formal concern with the techniques of argumentation, that is those structures or arrangements of thoughts and words which cither promote or disguise the wuth claim. Here the conceptualization of arrangement is focused on the oixovopia! collocatio of the subject matter (res) or arguments. The development along this line led rhetoric to make common cause with logic or dialectic, which began with the sophists’ use of the Eleatic tradition of dialectic, then the pro- and anti-sophistic controversies, led by the Socratic/Platonic Academy, renegotiated by the Peripatetic School, developed in yet other ways by Epicureans and Stoics, till the thetorical-philosophical syncretism or reconciliation emerged at the time of Cicero. It is interesting to note that with the first century Bc we also see the emergence of the early Rabbinic (middot) “rules”ARRANGEMENT 1 for argumentative/interpretative techniques (both as recognizable in the texts as well as applicable to one’s dealing with texts) attributed to Hillel (Strack-Stemberger 1982:26~30). Conley (1990:23-24) proposes “at least four different models for rhetoric in antiquity”: The two operational models of the sophistic (the motivistic model of Gorgias, characterized as “manipulative of audience”, and the controversial model of Protagoras/Isocrates, characterized as “seeking consensus”). In response to these two operational models emerged the problematic rhetoric model of the Peripatetic School, characterized as “accommodating to the nature of the problem faced”, and the dialectic model of Socrates and Plato. The development of these “at least four different models for rheto- ric” influenced the formation of dispositio-schemata, both in theory and practice. ‘The two operational models of the sophists—the motivistic model of Gorgias, and the controversial model of Protagoras and Isocrates, also known as the Pre-Aristotelian/Isocratean type—deal with arrange- ment on the basis of the ppt Aéyoo or partes (proem, narratio, etc.) also found in Arist. Ra, 3:13-19:1414a-20a; and in Apsines in the second/third century ap (the latest complete téyvn in Greek to sur- vive) who is indebted to Hermogenes. This “parts”-type gets subor- dinated to/fused with the Epya-type (e.g. Cic. Inv De or. 2:315-340 where the parts of speech are dealt with in the discussion of dispositio; also in Rhetorica ad Herennium, Quintilian, and Julius Victor) The problematic rhetoric model of the Peripatetic School (accom- modating to the nature of the problem faced) was based on the officia aratoris (eXpeorc, zdkic, Aékic, etc.) found in Anaximenes, Aristotle (SdBeoig = t6Eig already in Pl. Phdr. 236a; Arist, Rh. 1:1:13-2:2:1355b), but also in Rhetorica ad Herennivm, Quintilian, and Fortunatianus. This quinquepartite system later developed subdivisions, for each of the five Epyet, of Aectixdy and xpoyuoctxdy, the latter including both eiipearc and taka, The rhetorical texthooks developed two types (Kroll 1940:1096- 1100 Handbuchypen; Fuhrman 1963:156-88), which started out as separate, then tended to blend, and then again got sharply separated and contrasted (as in Cic. Part. 3-26 offcia; 27-60 partes); or have added to oficia and partes a third section on de artifice (see Quint. Inst 12); this tripartite type lies at the basis of Horace’s Ars poetica,76 ‘WILHELM WUELLNER (1) The Pre-Aristotelian/Isocratean type, reflecting the two sop! operational models: Gorgias’s “motivistic model” and the “controversial model” of Protagoras and Isocrates, Arrangement is defined here in terms of its parts, ranging from three to seven (as is still the case in the later works of Julias Severianus, Apsines, Rufus, and the Anonymus Seguerianus). (2) The Peripatetic type (Conley’s “problematic model”), working with the quinquepartite system of the officia oratoris, with dispositio following inventio, but preceding elocutia, actio, and memoria, Each of the five officia later get further subdivided into Epyov xpayyorxdy and Aexcixéy; moreover, the tendency grew to view arrangement in its variation within the three distinct rhetorical genres, let alone their proliferat- ing respective species. All these, genres and species, did not lend themselves to being reducible in their respective arrangement schemes to one fixed téxvn, of one type or another. The overall impression one is left with concerning the treatment of arrangement in thetorical theory has been repeatedly voiced by schol ars (e.g. Fuhrmann 1987:78-79) as: “The treatment of arrangement Ieaves @ quite wretched impression”, despite or perhaps because of the theory of arrangement, in terms of the five-part subdivisions of dispositio. It become a pedagogical commonplace, once grammar and rhetoric had become part of the school system in late Imperial times, in the era of the &yxbxhwog noxdeia. (Conley 1990:30), with grammar and rhetoric running separate but coordinated tracks, along with logic/ dialectic, as fixed parts of the emerging trieium of the “liberal arts” as the required core for all students in the emerging medieval univer- sity system. ‘The systematic rigor imposed by the school system can only ac- tc the impression of wretchedness in the treatments of arrange- both types of handbooks of rhetorical theory. The grey theory dominating the school discussions of dispositio in the progymnasmata and school deciamations stands in contrast to traditions tested by such practitioners as Demosthenes and later Cicero (on Cicero, see Stroh 1975; Classen 1985). Distinguished orators, in forum or court, were a different breed from the teachers of rhetoric in schools and from authors of handbooks of rhetorical theory, though Isocrates earlier, and Cicero later, are the exceptions that prove the rule (Kroll 1940:1066-1069) Two reasons are offered for the wretched state of the results ofARRANGEMENT 7 the handbooks’ gathered wisdom on arrangement: (1) practical ora- tory, as well as the prolific growth of various literary and sub-literary genres (e.g. letters, homilies, novels, etc), had produced a great vari- ety of unique, situation-specific forms (and their indigenous arrange- ment patterns), about which thetorical theory was unable 10 offer anything to anyone who wanted to comprehend the rationale and sophistication of the various and deviant refinements in matters of arrangement (Fuhrmann 1987:79). (2) The other reason cited is “that little was left to be said” once inventio encroached on the domain of dispositio (a) when (as in Rhet. ad Her, 3:16~18, in Cicero, and in Quintilian) the parts of speech came to be treated under inventio, instead of dispositi; and (b) when once it is emphasized “that the arrangement of the speech [may or must] be varied according to circumstances and that the orator should use his judgment” (Clarke 1968:32; Carrino 1959). B. The Case of @ Modem Technographer Among the numerous modern attempts at summarizing the high- lights of what ancient Western theory of rhetoric taught about arrangement (Martin 1974; Murphy 1983/1994; and others), none is more idiosyncratic than Lausberg’s (1963/1984). He offers the following grid of the two constitutive components of the dispositio- schemata in antiquity, In his massive earlier work (1960, 2nd edn, 1973), he follows the conventional approach: inventio, the first of the five partes artis, gets elaborately outlined in 146-240 (with nearly all of it [150-240] devoted to the five “parts of speech”: exordium, narratio, etc.). This is followed by dispositio (very short: 241-47, with only two categories: ordo naturalis and ordo aatifciais); then elocutio (very long (248-525) with a long section on compositi, 455-507), and finally two very brief sec~ tion on the other two “parts”. In his shorter, later work (1963/1984) he discusses inuentio and the associated “parts of speech” very briefly (25~26), but aispasiti at length and idiosyneratically (27-41): (1) Disposition intemal to the discourse or text (28-32), that is what selection (&xAoyi/electid) was made, and what order (s6&\<) chosen— of both res and verba—and the means or techniques actually used apfiows/ sui) in the text-external dispesitio. Each of the chosen and78 WILHELM WUELLNER used means or tools has its function. Lausberg considers the study of actually used function-possibilities as a rewarding task for a “literary thetoric” by documenting a “typology of functions” (§ 46/2) (a) Ordo naturalis, with its beginning, middle, and end (Lausberg 1984:§ 47/1; 1960:§§ 447-451). Ordo ariificiais/ atificiosus = starting in medias res, or even at the end; use of flashbacks (Lausberg 1984:§ 47/2; 1960:§ 452). The much debated reasons and purposes for the omission of one or the other part of the quinquepartite arrangement of discourse— due to partiality/utilias—also belong to the artificial arrange- ment. (©) The text-internal dispositio is (1) determined by the author’s iudicium (one of the offcia oratoris elaborated in some of the an- cient textbooks in connection with, or even prior to, inventio; see Hermagoras and Cicero), and (2) related to the selection and arrangement of the parts into a structural whole. This whole can be perceived—by speaker and/or audience—cither as a given whole (§§ 50-54) or as to the possibilities (perhaps even necessities?) for altering the whole (§§ 55-63). The whole and its parts extend to the selection and order of sounds, syllables, words within the limits of the syntax of a given language. (This limit takes on other dimensions when the medium is no longer cither oral or manuscriptliterary; see below IV.D; or only one’s native language; see below IV.B.) The selection and arrange- ment of ideas (Stevoia/res) offer more options than the verba, but there are limits here, too, which are set by “the milieu- conditioned habits of thought” (§ 49/2)—if not, even more so, by “habits of the heart”! Arrangement is exercized in the polarity between the speaker’s artistic freedom and the “more or less great constraints of societal [or cultural] norms” (§ 49/3). (d) Arrangement of parts as whole can be found in two types (1) arrangement in tvo parts for tension or polarity, contrast or balance (as in thesis/antithesis), or (2) dhree parts for beginning, middle and end of the whole: whether as ontological, natural, organic unity (Socrates, Plato), or as logical, dialectical unity (Stoic and Epicurean), or as artificial, adaptive unity which is utiltas-appropriate (Aristotle, Cicero; see also Perelman 1969:508). By amplifying the middle part of the tripartite arrangement one gets a five part-whole, as in the parts of discourse (proem, narratio, proofs, refutation, epilogue). This quinquepartite systemARRANGEMENT 79 greatly influenced the order of the classical handbooks of the thetorical tézvau. Chiastic structure or ring-composition is one of the well-known arrangement schemata. (© Ammangement of the whole in terms of its materia or thema can be done in two ways: (1) the circular whole (§ 56/1) which, in Perelman’s terms, is the argumentative situation of the whole which is more than the sum total of the parts of the various argumentative situations that constitute the whole; or (2) the linear whole (§ 56/2 with its beginning, middle, end). Both linear and circular arrangements can be modified or altered with four alteration categories available: (a) Additions (§ 59): apposition, pleanoasm, amipilificatia, etc.; (b) Subtractions (§ 60): as in the omission of one or the other “canonical” parts of speech from the whole; (c) Transmutation (§ 61): as in revers- ing order, such as chiasm, or placing a part from its expected “normal” position to another position within the whole, as in 4vaotpogi or dnepBarév; (d) Replacement of some part within the whole by a part not normally considered fitting, as in GvelBeors, Eva (§ 62) which is the dispasitio-equivalent to what the major tropes are for elocutio. (2) Disposition extemal to the text (Lausberg 1984:33-41 = §§ 64-90; Perelman 1969:503). At this point arrangement is seen as closely related t0 inventio, and to what Perelman calls the rhetorical situation with its adaptive arrangement. Lausberg has the following sub-points for external order: (a) The text-external dispositio is oriented toward partiality (ulilitas ¢ausce), It is this orientation which constitutes the ordering prin- ciple of the discourse and guarantees its structural unit as a whole (Lausberg 1984:33-41}. In 1973 (§ 446) Lausberg defined partiality as the main principle of arrangement. He distinguishes three types of oratorial tactics (Rede-Taktik; 1984:33-34 = § 66): (1) the straightforward tactic (ductus simplex) working with perspicuity as means of expression; (2) the tactic with deceptive approaches of three subtypes (ductus subtilis, fguratus, and obliquas); and (3) the tactic using a mixture of these previous four types (ductus mixtus. (b) Other considerations by which partiality influences the choice of arrangement are: (1) whether the intended effect of the ora- tion is to rely mainly on the cognitive, semantic component80 WILHELM WUELLNER: (Aéyoc) of persuasion, or to rely on the use of the audiences’/ readers’ emotions (the affects in {@os/ethos and néQoc/ pathos; 34— 35 = § 68), or whether the intended effect is best realized by amplification, with four genera amplifcationis (35-39 = §§ 71-83), or by exaggeration and alienation, from simple variation to deliberate shock or going against the grain by the arrangement choices (1984:39-41 = §§ 84-96; Drijepondt 1979). Where Lausberg opts for a literary rhetoric in restoring ancient rhetoric to all its rights, Perelman has opted for a more philosophi- cal rhetoric which also secks to preserve the legacy of antiquity, but with an idiosyncrasy different from Lausberg’s, The avéos or status system, so imporant for ancient technographers of rhetoric in deal- ing with arrangement in terms of the “parts of speech”, especially the proofs, gets renewed recognition in Perelman under a more attractive label, “modalities” in argumentation and its arrangement (Perelman 1969:154-63; see also the work of D’Angelo 1990, and Winterowd 1986; earlier Hovland 1957, Carrino 1959, and Tucker 1963). TV. Areas Warrantina Furtuer Researcu A. The Issue of “Adaptive Order” versus “Ontological Order”, “Organic Order”. “Logical Order” Classical rhetoric spoke of “order” as “organism” or organic whole as reffected (1) in forms of art; and (2) in forms of “the order of nature” (ordo naturae) as found in reality (modus) and the order of priorities, or in numbers (numénss) and the order of distinctions or in weight (pondus) and the order of inclination, as in the militar vietorious, the ordo inmicem isce Krings 1982:51-88). According wo Perelman (1969:307-508), this traditional approach to arrangement was and remains a way of “separating the form of the discourse from its content”, because it stresses only the formal, technical “relation- ship between, [but] does not define the nature of, the relations”; it “envisages the speech as something isolated and sufficient in itself”. Perelman’s plea (1969:508) for substituting “adaptive order” for “ontological order”, “organic order”, and “logical order” invites a dis- tinction to be made between adaptation (as practiced in the forum, the courts, the schools, etc.) operating either directly, or through reflec- tions of the hearer on the question of order. Kennedy (1980:80) in turn criticizes Perelman (for his critique of the Peripatetic concern for s inclination &ARRANGEMENT 81 organic unity in arrangement) for failing “to provide adequately for the mixture of intentions found in actual oratory”. B. Comparative Critical Approaches to Arrangement in Westem and Noravestern Rhetoric A century ago scholarship reflected on this issue in terms of the categories of atticism and asianism (sec e.g. Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, in Stark 1968:350-401) as relevant for the period under consider- ation in this essay. Relevant also is the traditional comparison and contrast between Athens and Jerusalem (Alexander 1990; Weltin 1987), The comparison and contrast between Greek or Byzantine and Roman rhetoric may be another case in point (see Murphy 1983:80 on the “considerable cultural friction” causing several expulsions of Greek thetoricians and philosophers from Rome). As a special area warranting further research, currently in its inie tial phase, attention needs to be called to the critical awareness of the indigenousness of approaches to rhetoric in the Jewish tradition, even within the circle of Hellenistic Judaism, such as Philo of Alex- andria {see Conley 1987; see also C. Black II 1988), let alone in the rise and development of Rabbinic Judaism (see Neusner 1992). But the same applies to early Christianity with its adaptations to Greek and Roman rhetoric differing not only in Greek and Byzantine ver sus Latin patristics (as in the uses of rhetoric in Alexandria [e.g. Clement and Origen], or among the Cappadocian Fathers, or Chry- sostom, etc. [sce Bowersock 1969 on Eastern cities as sophistic centers], or in the Latin circles of Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Jerome, Augus- fine, etc.}, but also the early vernacular thetorics of the Syriac or Coptic Fathers (Miller 1955; Neymeyr 1989). Throughout all this, whether in Christianity (Spira 1989), or in Judaism, we need to be aware not only, as we traditionally are, of the influence of Greek and Roman rhetoric on these religious cultures, but also on the reverse: the influences these religious cultures had on rhetorical theory and practices of antiquity. What Kroll (1940:1138) said of early Christian uses of rhetoric could also have been said of early Rabbinic uses of rhetoric: the precepts and rules of the Greek and Roman schools of rhetoric were liberally used as were “all rhetorical arts despite occasional pangs of conscience which were often only faked”, There is more to all that, however, than Kroll’s glib comment allows. Future research in the82 WILHELM. WUELLNER order and composition of Mishnaic and Talmudic Judaism (Towner 1973; Strack-Stemberger 1982 on the tradition of the middot; Neusner 1992), of Rabbinic homilies (Bowker 1967; Goldberg 1978), midrashim (Silberman 1982; Stern 1981; Boyarin 1985), but also letters, espe- cially the halakhic type (Taatz 1990; see Kustas 1973:46ff. on “the com- mon ground between letter and homily”), and other forms, or of the varieties of Christian literary culture, must account more adequately for two mixtures: (1) “the mixture of intentions found in actual ora- tory” (Kennedy in critique of Perelman), and (2) the mixture of rigid rules and situational or cultural accommodation which provided the two guidelines for the study of arrangement in classical Western thetoric. (For a comparative study of Chinese and Western approaches, see Reding 1985; for a Moslem approach to arrangement, see Sweity 1993.) G. Arrangement and Institutionalization of Rhetoric One area in which the institutionalization of rhetoric (see Swearingen 1991:116-25) has deeply influenced rhetoric is the school or paideia system administered by municipalities or by a super-regional central agency (Imperial or Papal decree; for “rhetoric in an organizational society managing multiple identities”, see Cheney 1991). The same goes for another area: the institutionalization of jurisprudence (Kiibler 1920 on Rechtsschulen in antiquity; Stroux 1949) and the comparable formation and development of Rabbinical academies. Another issue related to institutionalization is the study of rhetoric’s subtle way of contributing to “the power of the elite establishment” (Kennedy 1980:170 in view of Byzantium) and how this relates to rhetorie’s dealing with arrangement and orc Greek rhetoric, which was ‘invented’ in the fifth century xc as an instrument of social and political change. became under the Roman and Byzantine empires a powerful instrument for preservation of the status quo” (Kennedy 170 ad n, 29) . For it is, indeed, “ironic that D. Arrangement in the Relation between Music and Rhetoric Following the clues offered by early rhetorical theorists themselves who noted certain connections between rhetoric and music, and rec- ognizing the mutual effect the two had on each other over the cen-ARRANGEMENT 83 turies (Buelow 1980) and in different cultures, the study of rhetorical arrangement can profit from the cause or effect relation with music. Such study would focus on the oratorical or musical arrangement on the sentence level of the word- or phrase-order (compositio, as wel as on the level of the compositional unit of the respective “parts” (prom = prelude, overture; etc.) and of the compositional unit or genre as whole (Bonds 1991). What the instrumentation issue is for music, the medium issue is for rhetoric. E. Arrangement and the Shaping Effects of the Medium The discussion of arrangement in ancient rhetoric must account r “the shaping effects of the medium itself on both the communi- cator and the communicant” (Sloane 1974:804; see also Ong 1982; Swearingen 1991). The modern scholar of the oral or literary rheto- ric of antiquity must be mindfal of both, and not just the first of the two medium changes that affect scholarly work: (1) the transforma- tions that took place in the transition from orality to (manuscript) literacy (Ong 1982); (2) the far-reaching effect on the study of an- cient rhetoric in the wake of two veritable quantum leaps produced by two modern mediums: (a) the print culture at the beginning of the modern era, and {b} the electronic audio and video text culture {including the whole corpus of ancient texts) on cassettes and dis- kettes at the beginning of the postmodern era (Enos 1990; Heim 1988; Lanham 1993; Tuman 1992) BipLioGRAPHY Primary Texts and Translations Butler, H.E, (ed), Quintlan, Instituto Orato (4 vols.; LOL; Cambridge, Ma: Harvard University Press; Londort: Heinemann, 1920-23) Caplan, H. (ed), Rbetorica ad Heremnium (LCL; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, London: Heinemann, 1954). Fairclough, H.R. (ed), Horace, Satires, Epistles, and Ars Poetica (LCL; London: Heinemann; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1945). Fowler, HN. (ed), Pala, Phadrus (UCL; Loudon: Heinemann/New York: Macmillan, 1914), Freese, J.H. (ed), Aristotle, The “Art” of Rkderic (LCL; London: Heinemann; Cam- bridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1959) Fyfe, W.H. (ed.), “Longinus” On the Sublime (LCL; London: Heinemann; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1960), pp. 119-254.84 WILHELM WUELLNER Halm, . (ed.), Rhelores Lani Minores (Leipzig: Teubner, 1863; repr. Frankfurt, 1964), Hubbell, H. M. (ed.), Cicer: De Inventione, De Optio Geuere Oratorum, and Topica (LCL; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1949). Hendrickson, G. L. and H.M. Hubbell (eds.), Ciceo: Brutus. Orator (LCL; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1952 Leff, M.C., “A Basic Library for a Study of Classical Rhetoric”, in Murphy (ed), 1983/1994, pp. 190-192. Melmoth, W. (ed), Pliny, Leters (rev. W. M. L. Hutchinson; 2 vols; LCL; London: Heinemann; New York: Macmillan, 1915}. Rackham, H. (ed.), Rhetrice ad Alecandrum, Aristo, Pobloms (LCL; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1983). Roberts, W.R. (ed), Danaus, On Sple (LCL; Londor ‘MA: Harvard University Press, 1960), pp. 255-487. Russell, D. A. and M. Winterbottom (eds), Aucient Literary Criticism: The Principal Texts in New Translations (New York: Oxford University Press, 1972, repr. 1982). Spengel, L. (ed.}, Rhetores Graeci (3 vols; Leipzig: Teubner, 1853-56) Sutton, E. W. and H. Rackham (eds), Cicer De Oralore; Parttine Oratriae (2 vols LCL; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1942). Usher, 8. (ed), Dionysius of Halicarassus, The Critical Essays (2 vols.; LCL; Cambridge, Harvard University Pres, 1974-85). Heinemann; Cambridge, 1. History and Development Alter, R., The Art of Biblical Narrative (New York: Basic Books, 1981), Barwick, K., “Zur Rekonstruktion der Rhetorik des Hermagoras von Temnos”, Phila- dogs 109 (1965), pp. 186-218. Black, E., “The Mutability of Rhetoric”, in Rhcloric in Transit (ed. E. E. White; Philadelphia: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1980), pp. 71-85. Black, M,, “The Use of Rhetorical Terminology in Papias on Mark and Matthew”, in Naw’ Testament Essays in Honowr of David Hill (ed. C. Tuckett; JSNTSup, 37; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989), pp. 31-41 Bonner, S. F>, Roman Declamation in the Late Republic and Earby Empire (Liverpook: Liverpool University” Press, 1969), Bowersock, G. W., Greek Sophists in the Roman Empire (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1969). Cardauns, B., “Zum Begriff der ‘oeconomia’ in der lateinischen Rhetorik und Dich- tungskritik®, in T. Stemmler (ed), Okonamie: Sprachlicke und Literarische Aspekte eines 2000 Jahre alten Begs (Mannheimer Beitrage 2ur Sprach- und Literaturwissenschaf, 6. Tibingen: Narr, 1985), pp. 9-18 Carvin, E. M.D., “Conceptions of Dipaslis in Ancient Rhctorie” Diss. Ann Arbor University of Michigan, 1959) Clarke, M.L., Rhetoric at Rome: A Historical Surcgy (London: Cohen & West, 1953, Ind 'edn., (968). Classen, C._J., Recht, Rheturk, Politik: Untersuchungen zu Ciceos rhetorischer Straugic (Darmn- stadt: Wissenschafiliche Buchgesellschaft, 1985). ~ “St. Paul’s Epistles and Ancient Greck and Roman Rhetoric”, Rhelorca 10 (1992), pp. 319-44. Colson, F.H., “Tégeis in Papias, The Gospels and the Rhetoric Schools”, 77S 14 (1913), pp. 62-69. Conley, ‘T., Rhetoric in the European Tradition (White Plains, NY: Longman, 1990; repr. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994) Curtius, E.R., European Litratare and the Latin Middle Ages (wrans. W. R. Trask; Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1973) Diekson, R. E., Ramism and the Rhetorical Tradition” (doctoral Dissertation, Duke University, 1993),ARRANGEMENT. 85 Drijepondt, H.L. F., Die antike Theorie der varietos: Dynaik und Wechsel im Auf und Ab als Charakeristhun’ von Stil wed Strktur (Spudasmats, 37; Hildesheim/New York Olms, 1979) Gelhaus, H., Die Prolge des Tereng: Eine Erklarung nack den Lekren von der inventio und dispositio (Heidelberg: Winter, 1972). Gliick, M., Prscians Parttones wad ihre Stelling in der spataniken Schule (Spudasmata, 12; Hildesheim: Olms, 1967), Goebel, G. H., “Early Greck Rhetorical Theory and Practice: Proof and Arrange- ment in the Speeches of Antiphon and Euripides” (Diss. Madison: University of Wisconsin, 1983). Hagg, T., The Novel in Antiguity (Oxford: Blackwell, 1983). Hagius, H., “The Stoic Theory of the Parts of Speech” (Diss. New York: Columbia University, 1979). Hamberger, P., Die redeericke Disposition in den allen TEXNH PHTOPIKH (Rava, Gorgias, Antiphon) (Rhetorische Studien, 2; Paderborn: Schoningh, 1914), Hill, F., “The Rhetoric of Aristotle”, in Murphy 1983/1994 pp. 19-76. Hock, R.F. and E.N. O'Neil, The’ rein ot Ancient Rhetoric. 1. The Progymnasmata (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986). Kennedy, G.A., The Art of Rhetoric in the Roman Workt 300 ac~a0 300 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1972). —, Classical Rhetoric and Its Christian and Secular Tradition fam Ancient lo Modem Times (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1980). Koskenniemi, H., Studien zur Idee und Phraseolgie des sriechischen Briefs bis 400 n. Chr (Helsinki: Akateerninen Kirjakauppa, 1956) Kings, H., Ordo: Philosophisch-historische Grandlegung ciner abendlindischen Tee (Halle: Nierneyer, 1941; 2nd ed. Hamburg: Meiner, 1982) Kroll, W., “Rhetorik”, in Pauly-Wissowa, Real-Enoyclopadie der classschen Alertums- wissenschaf Sup. 7 (Stuttgart: Metzler, 1940), cols. 1039-1138. Kustas, G.L., Studies in Byzantine Rhetoric (Analecta Blatadén, 17; Thessaloniki, 1973) Leeman, A.D., “The Variety of Classical Rhetoric”, in Rhetoric Reoalued: Papers fom the Interatonal Society for the History of Rhetoric (ed. B. Vickers; Medieval & Renais- sance Texts and Studies, 19; Binghamton, NY: Center for Medieval and Early Renaissance Studies, 1982), pp. 41-46. Leff, M.C., “The Material of the Art in the Latin Handbooks of the Fourth Cen- tury ab”, in B. Vickers (ed.), Rhetoric Revalued: Papers from the International Society for the History of Rhetoric (Medieval & Renaissance Texts and Studies, 19; Binghamton, NY: Center for Medieval and Early Renaissance Studies, (982), pp. 71-78. Lévy, C., “La conversation a Rome a la fin de la République: des pratiques sans théorie?”, Rhetrica 11 (1993), pp. 399-420. Meador, P/A., “Quintilian and the Instituto orator, in Musphy 1983/1984, pp. 151-76, Murphy, J.J. (ed), 4 Synoptic Histoy of Classica! Rhetoric (New York, 1972; repr. Da CA: Hermagoras Press, 1983; rev. edn., 1994), Ochs, D.J., “Cicero’s Rhetorical Theory”, in Murphy 1983/1994, pp. 90-150. Ong, W., Oraity and Literarcy (New York: Methuen, 1982) Quadlbauer, F,, “Lakan im Schema des Ordo naturalis/artificialis: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Lukanoewertung im lateinischen Mittelalter”, Grazer Benge 6 (19 pp. 67-105. Scaglione, A.D., The Clasical Theory of Composition fiom its Origins to the Present: A Historeal Surg) University of North Catolina Studies in Comparative Literature, 53; Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1972) Schenkeveld, D. M., “Theories of Evaluation in the Rhetorical Treatises of Dionysius of Halicamassus”, Museum Philelogon Londiionse 1 (1975), pp. 93-107. Sloane, T.O., “Rhetoric: In Literature”, The New Encelopedia Britanica (15th edn.s Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica, 1974), XXVI, pp. 803-808,86 WILHELM WUELLNER Solmsen, F., “Demetrios Peri Hermeneias und sein Peripatetisches Quellenmaterial”, in Stark 1968, pp. 285-311 “The Aristotelian Tradition in Ancient Rhetoric”, in Stark 1968 pp. 312-49. Spengel, L., “Die Definition und Eintheilung der Rhetorik bei den Alten”, RkM 18 (1863), pp. 481-526. Stark, R. (ed.), Rhetorha: Schriften zur avstollschen und helleisticcen Rheloik (Hildesheim: ‘Olms, 1968) Stroh, W., Taxis und Takk: Die adbokatve Disposiionshunst in Ciceros Gavchtsreden (eubner Studienbiicher: Philologie; Stuttgart: ‘Teubner, 1975) Swearingen, C.J., Rhetoric and tony: Westen Literarcy and Wester Lies (New York/ Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991). Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, U. von, “Asianismus und Aiticismus”, in Stark 1968, pp. 350-401 2 Rhetorical Theory Carrino, E. M. D., “Conceptions of Dispostio in Ancient Rhetoric” (Diss. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, 1959). Fuhrmann, M., Das sysiematische Lehrbuch: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Wissenschaften in der Antike (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1960), Die antle Rhcorik: Eine Einfidrang (2nd edn.; Artemis Einfuhrungen, 10; Munich and Zurich: Artemis, 1987) Lausberg, H., Handbuch der lterarschen Rhetoik (Munich: Hueber, 1960; 2nd edn., 1973) ——, Elemente der lterarischen Rhetork (Munich: Hucber, 1963; 8th edn., 1984) Martin, J, Antike Rhetok: Technik and Mettode (Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft, 2.3; Munich: Beck, 1974) 3. Areas Waranting Further Research Alexander, P.S., “Quid Athenis et Hierosolymis? Rabbinic Midrash and Herme- naeutics in the Greco-Roman World”, in A Tribute to Gea Vermes: Essays on Jewish and Clristian Literature and Hlistoy (cd. P. R. Davies und R.'T. White; JSOTSup, 100; Sheffield: JSOT, 1990), pp. 101-24. Black If, C.C,, “The Rhetorical Form of the Hellenistic Jewish and Early Christian Sermon: A Response to Lawrence Wills", H7R 81 (1988), pp. 1-18. Bonds. M.E., Wordless Rhetoric: Musical Form and the ‘etaphor of the Oration ‘Studies in the History of Music, 4; Cambridge, MA» Harvard University Press, 1991}, Buwker, J-W., “Speeches in Acts: A Staly in Proem and Yellaincdeau Form”, ATS 14 (1967), pp. 96-11 Boyarin, D., “Rhetoric and Interpretation: ‘The Case of the Nimshal”, Proofs 5 (1985), pp. 269-76. Buelow, G.J., “Rheioric and Musie”, in The Naw Grove Dictionary of Music and Musi- cians 15 (1980), pp. 793-803. Cheney, G., Rhetoric in an Organizational Socity: Managing Multiple Identities (Studies in Rhetoric/Communication, Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1991). D’Angelo, F.J., “Tropics of Arrangement. A Theory of Dispositio”, Jounal of Advanced Composition 10.1 (1990), pp. 101-109, Enos, R.L. (ed), Oral and Writer Communication: Historical Approaches (Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1990). Goldberg, A., “Die Peroratio (Hatima) als Kompositionsform der rabbinischen Homi- lie”, Frankfnter Judaistische Beitige 8 (1978), pp. 1-22 Heim, M., “The Technological Crisis of Rhetoric”, Philosophy and Rhetoric 21 (1988), pp. 48°59.ARRANGEMENT 87 Heinemann, J., “Profile of a Midrash: ‘The Art of Composition in Leviticus Rabba”, JAAR 39 (1971), pp. 41-50. Hovland, C.. t al, The Onder of Presentation in Persuasion (Yale Studies in Attitude and Communication, 1; New Haven: Yale University Press, 1957) Jaffe, M.S., “The ‘Midrashic’ Procm: Towards the Description of Rabbinic Exegesis", in’ W.S. Scott Green (ed), Approackes to Ancient Judaism. WV. Studies in Liturgy, Exege sis and Talmudic Narative (BJS, 27; Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1983}, pp. 95-112. Kubler, B., “Rechtsschulen”, in Pauls Real-Encylopti der classichen Altetumswisseschaf (ed. W. Kroll and K. Witt, II.1; Stuttgart: Metzler, 1920), cols. 380-394 Lanham, R.A., The Electronic Word: Democracy, Technology, and the Arts (Chicago/Lon- don: University of Chicago Press, 1993) Miles, C.D.,*Koptiche Redekunst und Gricciche Rbvtonk’, Le Man 69 (1956), pp. Neusner, J, "Why no Scence in Judaism?" Shor 6 (1988), pp. 48-71 ‘The Bauli's Massive Miscellanes: The Problem of Agalutinatioe Discourse in the Talmud of Babylonia (South Florida Studies in the History of Judaism, 43; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992). Neymeyr, U., Die christichen Lehrer im zucien Jabrhundert: Ue Leki, itr Selbserstndnis and ihre Geschichte (VCSup, 4; Leiden: Brill, 1989), Perelman, C. and L. Olbrechts-Tyteca, The Naw Rhetoric: A Treaice on Argumentation (tans. J. Wilkinson and P. Wever, Note Dame/London: University of Notre Dame Press, 1969), Phillips, G. M., “The Practice of Rhetoric at the ‘Talmudic Academie graphs 26 (1959), pp. 37-46. Reding, J-P., Les Fondemens philesphigues de la Rhetorigue chez les Sophistes Grecs et chez les Sophisies Chinois (Bern: Lang, 1985). Silberman, L.H., “Toward a Rhetoric of Midrash: A Preliminary Account”, in R. Polain and E. Rothman (eds), The Biblical Mosaic: Changing Perspectives (Semeia Studies; Philadelphia: Fortress/Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1982), pp. 15-26, Spira, A, “The Impact of Christianity on Ancient Rhetoric”, StPatr 18.2 (ed. E. A. Livingstone; Kalamazoo: Cistercian Pub./Leuven: Feeters, 1989), pp. 137-53. Stern, D., “Rhetoric and Midrash: ‘The Case of the Mashal”, Progflexs | (1981), pp. 261-91 Strack, H. L. and G. Stemberger, Finlitng in Telrad und Midrasch (7th edn.; Munich: Beck, 1982) Stroux, J., Rimische Rechtavisenschaft und Rhetork (Potsdam: Stichnote, 1949) Sweity, A, “AlJurjaanii’s Theory of naZm [Discourse Arrangement]: A Linguistic Perspective” (Diss. University of Texas at Austin, 1995) Taatz, 1, Frhiische Briei: Die pealiischen Briefe im Rakimen der ofzieienreigidsen Briefe des Brihiudertuns (Novum Testamentum. 16; Fribourg: Univenitatsverlag/Gostingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 19901, Towner, W. S., The Rabbinic “Exureration of Scriptural Examples”: 4 Study of « Rabbinic Pattern of Discourse with Special Reference to Mebhilia d'Rabbi Ishmael Studia Post Biblica 22; Leiden: Brill, 1973). ‘Tucker, F. D., “Scientific Rhetorical Adaptation: An Integration of Post-Renaissance Rhetorical, Contemporary Psychological, and Experimental Theories of Rhetori- cal Dispositio” (Diss. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University, 1963) ‘Tuman, M. (ed), Litrasy Online: The Promise (and Penl) of Reading and Writing with Computers (Pinsburgh: University of Pittshurgh Press, 1992) Weltin, E. G., Athens and Jerusalem: An Interpretive Essay on Chnstionity and Classical Cul ture (AAR Studies in Religion, 49; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987). Winterowd, W. R., “Dispositio: The Concept of Form in Discourse’, in Composition/ Rhetoric: A Synthesis (Carbondale and Edwardsville, IL: Southern Iiinois University Press, 1986), pp- 245-52. ‘Speech Mono’CHAPTER 4 INVENTION Malcolm Heath University of Leeds, England “Invention” (iwentio, eXipeate) means “discovery”. In rhetoric it desig- nates the discovery of the resources for discursive persuasion latent in any given rhetorical problem. This process of discovery was ex- tensively theorized by ancient rhetoricians. But rhetoric is in essence a practical discipline, and its precepts are tools to be applied in practice. The rhetor’s students would not be judged by their ability to articulate a body of theory, but by their ability to compose and deliver speeches and declamations which satisfied the expectations of contemporary audiences. Theory did not exist for its own sake, but as a framework to give guidance in the acquisition and exercise of a particular set of skills. This chapter will therefore emphasize appli- cation; following the precedent of ancient handbooks it will use a hypothetical worked example to illustrate the processes and principles of invention in practice. To identify a suitable theme for our illustration, we may turn to an incident crucial in ancient rhetoricians’ perception of the history of their craft, In I, 3:203-24 the Trojan elder Antenor recalls the embassy of Menelaus and Odysseus before the onsct of hostilities, when the Greeks offered peace if the Trojans would return Helen he contrasts the two envoys’ rhetorical styles.’ In the fourth century ap, Libanius composed declamations representing the speeches of Menelaus and Odysseus; an anonymous declamation of uncertain (but later) date replies to Menelaus in the person of Paris; and (striking evidence of the long life of the classical rhetorical tradition) the begin- ning of the fifteenth century yields a fragment of a reply to Odysseus ‘On ancient perceptions of Homeric rhetoric, see L. Radlermacher, Artium Scriptores (SB Vienna, 227.3; 1951), pp. 3-10; G.A. Kennedy, “The Ancient Dispute over Rhetoric in Homer”, AJP 78 (1957), pp. 'M. Heath, “Exéoxg-theory in Homeric Commentary”, Mnemosyne 46 (1993), pp. 356-63.90 MALCOLM HEATH in the person of Antenor composed by the Byzantine emperor Manuel II Palacologus.” Drafting a complete reply for Antenor will offer a variety of perspectives on invention. So let this be our theme: “After the speeches of Menelaus and Odysseus, Antenor advises the Tro- Jans not %© concede the Greek demands”* Our approach to the subject must be selective. Invention was theo- rized in many different ways over the centuries. Indeed, even contem- porary rhetoricians might give conflicting accounts of it. Hermogenes, for example, rejects the concepts of class and mode which were conventional in the rhetorical teaching of his day; even so funda- mental a principle as stasis could be dismissed as drivel (at the sisk, admittedly, of incurring sidicule).* This diversity precludes a single all-embracing synthesis; and an exhaustive catalogue of variants would vastly exceed the scope of the present chapter? 1 have chosen to focus primarily on theories of invention current in the Greek-speaking world from the middle of the second century ap onward—the period in which the treatment of stasis, a key tool in invention, achieved its most sophisticated form. No comprehensive synthesis, comparable to that of Quintitian, survives from this period; so my account will be a composite one, drawing eclectically on a number of different sources.’ The notes will provide pointers for readers who wish to explore selated treatments from earlier periods. * Lib, Dad. 3-4 (¥, pp. (99-221, 228-86 Foerster); C. Bevegni, “Anonymi Declamatio Paridis ad Senatun Troianum", SIFC'3 (1986), pp. 274-92; Manuel Pelaealogus's frag- meat was first published by J. F. Boissonade, Anecdola Graeca (Paris 1830; repr. Hildesheira: Olms, 1962), 11, pp. 308-809, and is reprinted in Focrster’s edition of Libanius (V, pp. 226-27) * Recording to Livy {]:I:l1 Autenor “alviays” advocated the return of Helen: bot when he does so in Zl. 7:347-53 sin very changeit ciecurestances from the time uf the Greck cmbussy) Paris's reply {esp. 357 58) could be taken as evidence of his earlier support. ‘The mythological material concerning Troy used in the rest of this chapter can be found most conveniently in Apllodorus (Bibl 25:8, 26:4; Epi 3-5): text and trans. J. G. Frazer (2 vols.; LCL; Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univer- sity Press; London: Heinemann, 192U); et. T. Gantz, Barly Gok Myth (Baltimore Johns Hopkins University Press, 1993), esp. pp. 400-402, 557-661 “On alass and mode see nn. 22-25 below. For the rejection of siasi-theory in favour of unstructured improvization by the third- of early (ourth-century thetor Phrynichus, and the ridicule it incurred, see Syrian, 2:3:23-5:14 Rabe; Prlegomenon Sploge 364:14-387:12 Rabe; cf. D.M. Schenkeveld, “The Philosopher Aquila", CQ. 41 (1991), pp. 493-94 2°]. Martin, Anite Rhstot (Munich: Beck, 1974) devotes 196 dense pages to inven- tion} even so his account is not al-embracing, and its juxtaposition of Aristotelian, Hellenistic and late classical material lacks historical perspective. ©} have drawn largely, but not exclusively, on Hermogenes On Stasis: textINVENTION, 91 There will be two stages in our discussion. First we shall consider the resources which the rhetorician could use in a preliminary analy- of his theme.’ We shall then attempt to produce an outline of the case as a whole, at the same time illustrating more selectively tech niques for the detailed articulation of individual arguments. At this second stage we shall find that invention is inextricably linked with questions of arrangement, since the principles of invention are specific to the standard parts of a speech—prologue, narrative, argument and epilogue. Ancient handbooks on invention were often organized on this basis, for good practical reasons;* we must follow their lead. 1A Pretiminary Anatysis OF THE THEME The basic components of any rhetorical situation are person and act;? the analysis of our theme should start with these. First among the persons of whom we must take account is our speaker, Antenor. He is a Trojan elder; he therefore brings into play a set of assumptions about old men. Long experience may have made him wise; it will certainly have made him cautious. This per- sona will strengthen our case, since the advocacy of a hard line carries more weight when advanced with the judicious caution of experi- ence than it would in the mouth of a hot-headed youth. On the other hand, rhetorical techniques which a younger, more impetuous speaker could use without giving a bad impression must be avoided; H, Rabe (Leipzig: Teubner, 1913); trans. and commentary M. Heath, Hermogenes On Issues (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995): [Hermogenes] On Invention (text in Rabe), together with the treatises of Apsines ancl the dnonmus. Seguerianus: text L, Spengel and C, Hammer, Rteors Giaect 1.2 sLeipeig: Teubner, ¥884, Sopater's Dison of Questions illustrates how the theoretical apparatus was ‘used in practice text in RG, VILL, pp, 2-385 Walz; commentary: D.C. Innes and M. Winterbottom, Sopatros the Rhetor (BICS Sup., 48; London: ICS, 1988}, The scholia to Demosthenes (much, though not all, of the material may derive from a commentary by the third- century thetor Menander of Laodicea, more familiar in connection with epideictic oratory: n. 25) illustrate its use as an interpretative tool: text M.R. Dis, Schoia Denastenica (2 vols.; Leipzig: Teubner, 1983-86) 7 For this analytical phase (vénoe) See Zeno ap. Sulp. Vict. cf. Prolegomenon Sylloge 60:21~-61:12, 69:1-6, 17: 1374-6 Haim. * E.g, (Hermogenes] On mention, Apsines, and Anommus Seguerianus, On the “con tamination” of invention and disposition in’ Hellenistic thetoric sec J. W' and Pathos fiom Aristolle to Cicero (Amsterdam: Hakkert, 1989}, pp. 77-78, 83-92 © Hermog. Stat 29:7~31:18; Quint. Fest. 9:10:23. © GF, Arist. Rk. 1389b13-90a24; Hor. drs 169-78. 315:5-319:35 Hale; :16-177:7, 199:25-202:8; [Augustine]92 MALCOLM HEATH for example, open invective might suggest a malicious and vindictive old man, This point is important, since both the persons to whom Antenor is replying offer scope for invective. Menelaus, on his own admis- sion, is a cuckold; closer inspection reveals that his family background is an unsavoury mess of incest and butchery. Odysseus is a lying bastard (that is to say, of doubtful parentage and notorious for tricks and false tales). These openings may be useful if approached ob- liquely; but the character of Antenor restrains us from exuberant exploitation of their potential. Our speech is addressed to a Trojan audience, What state of mind are they in? Here we should clarify one feature of the assumed back- ground to the debate. Homer does not specify the exact timing of the embassy; Libanius follows Herodotus (2:118) in supposing that the Greek army had already landed in Trojan territory when the embassy was sent, This way of proceeding might seem provocative and offensive to the Trojans; the fact can surely be turned to our advantage. But the Trojans will also be apprehensive in view of the size of the Greek army, and they will recollect that Troy has been sacked once before (by Heracles); so we must convince them that they are able to win the war. We must also convince them that there is something worth their fighting for; if they believe that the war would be fought simply to defend an adulterous relationship between Paris and Helen it will be harder to induce them to under- take its hardships and dangers. This has brought us to the last, and most problematic, person in our theme. Paris is a crucial element in the theme, since his bringing Helen to Troy has provoked the present crisis, His reputation is extremely unfavourable; we must try t© counter the conventicnal pre- judice against him. But it is not only the person of Paris which pre- sents a chaitenge. Paris has to be handled carefully in respect also of act, the other basic component of the rhetorical situation; taken at face value, running off with another man’s wife is despicable behaviour. But should we take these actions at face value? A hostile account of what happened, put about by Paris’s enemies, ought not to be swal- lowed uncritically. At this point, therefore, it may be helpful to make a detour through the early stages of an ancient rhetorician’s training, to see how it would have equipped him to bring critical scrutiny to bear oa an opponent's version of events. The first stage of the course in rhetoric was a series of preliminaryINVENTION 93 exercises (nporvnvéionoto)."! These introduced the student to certain basic concepts, and gave practice in handling piecemeal techniques which would subsequently be brought together in composing decla- mations and speeches. One of the earlier exercises in the programme was narration, which taught the student to present a clear, concise and plausible account of events. A little way further into the pro- gramme, the paired exercises of refutation (évacxev) and confirmation (karacxevi) brought the student back to narrative, and taught him to take a critical view of it. According to Aphthonius a refutation should begin by discrediting those who tell the story; then the story itself is briefly recounted, and shown to suffer from one or more of a variety of flaws: it might be unclear, implausible, impossible, incon- sistent, improper or inexpedient.”? How might we set about this exercise with reference to the story of Paris’s abduction of Helen?! Discrediting those who tell the story is easy. For the most part, it is poets who tell the story; they, cer= tainly, are its source. But “poets tell many lies” (Sol. fr. 29). More particularly, the story is told by Homer and other Greek poets, who have a vested interest in giving their narrative an anti-Trojan bias."* Since they are not objective witnesses, their story must be treated with caution. Our next step is to consider the essential elements of the story. Three goddesses chose Paris to arbitrate a dispute between them; they then tried to bribe their chosen arbitrator; Paris, allowing his Modern discussions include G. A. Kennedy, Greek Rtctorc under Christian Emperors Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1983), pp. 53-70; S. F. Bonner, Education in Ancient Rome (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1977), pp 250-76; D. T. Clark, Rlewric in Greco-Roman Education (New York: Columbia’ University Press, 1957), pp. 177-212; R.F. Hock and E.N. O'Neil. The Chreio in Ancient Rhetoric (Adlanta Scholars Press, 1986), pp. 9-22; G. Anderson, The Seeund Sophists Londons: Rouledye, 1993), pp. 47-93. ‘Aphth. Prog. 10:9-19 Rabe; ef [Hermog.} Prag. |1:1-20. ® Note that none of the xpoyunvdouara. (with the exception of ABoroia) required the student to adopt a specified individual point of view; so in this refutation, and in the encomium below, we are conducting a preliminary investigation into the material of our theme, and not yet attempting to adopt the persona of Antenor. There is therefore no problem of anachronism in the references to Homer and to subsequent events in the story of Troy. For an excellent example of the application of the techniques of refutation on a large scale sce Dio Chrysostom’s Tojan Dis couse, which “proves” that the Greeks did not take Troy, Isocrates’ Encomim of Helen is also relevant. \ Homer was often perceived as a philhellene in ancient commenvary (¢.g. sch. BI IL 2674-75); see N.J. Richardson, “Literary Criticism in the Exegetical Scholia to the Thad”, CQ, 30 (1980), pp. 273-74; B. Hainsworth on Jl. 10:15-14.94 MALCOLM HEATH judgment to be influenced by these bribes, found Helen a more attractive inducement than the offer of military or political success; his elopement with Helen was therefore a pay-off for his adjudica- tion in favour of Aphrodite. This story falls apart at every point. First, it presupposes that the gods are both corrupt (since they offered bribes) and foolish (since they chose as their arbitrator a man who is himself both corrupt and foolish); this is an extremely improper assumption, It cannot be con- ceded that the goddesses offered Paris bribes; nor that an arbitrator worthy of divine approval would have been open to bribery. Sec- ondly, the adjudication in favour of Aphrodite makes it implausible to suppose that Paris was influenced by the alleged bribes. Hera promised mastery of all Asia—an offer which might well have ap- pealed to a prince of Troy; Athene promised to make him invincible in battle—an offer which might have appealed to a young warrior; Aphrodite promised him a single mortal woman—but what induce- ment was that for a man who was already the lover of the goddess Ocnone? Thirdly, Aphrodite was half-sister to Helen (daughter of Zeus and Leda); it is neither plausible nor proper to suppose that she would embroil her own sister in immorality and scandal. But it is entirely credible that she would have been offended by the rela- tionship with Menelaus (a man polluted by his family’s terrible tory) and that she would have wished (with her father’s approval) to sever that connection and bring about Helen’s marriage to some- one more worthy—someone whose virtue was so outstanding that he had been chosen to arbitrate between the goddesses. Taken in this way, the story is wholly consistent; the original version makes no sense at all. So much for our refutation of the story of Paris. We may note that the student has learned a number of useful techniques in the course of this exercise. Most obviously, it offers practice in the eriti- cal analysis of narrative; this is an important skill in the handling of (in particular) judicial speeches, in which it is often necessary to cast doubt on the opponent’s account of events. Secondly, the exercise accustoms the student to the handling of a prescribed formal struc- ture, with a prologue, narrative and argument. The internal organi- zation of the argument is determined by the order of events in the story. In fact, the student is offered two alternative models for organ- izing his material: Aphthonius illustrates refutation by telling the story as a whole and then giving the criticisms en masse; his confirmationINVENTION 95, tells the same story piecemeal and defends each step of the story before moving on to the next.'’ Thirdly, the exercise introduces the student to the use of topics (cénor); these are not arguments but (lit- erally) “places” where we can look for arguments, The topics of refu- tation are the criteria already stated—clarity, plausibility, possibility, consistency, propriety and expediency; each stage of the story can be tested to see whether it is faulty in respect of any of these qualities. We shall see in due course that the use of topics as a guide and stimulus to invention is a fundamental rhetorical technique. In confirmation and refutation the student seeks to demonstrate a conclusion, But demonstration is only one of the key abilities that an aspiring orator must acquire; he also needs a mastery of amplification (a®Enaig), a term which designates the techniques used to increase the perceived importance of some fact that is taken as given.'® For example, a prosecutor may wish to show that the defendant is guilty of murder; but he will also wish to awaken and reinforce the jury's sense that murder is a terrible crime which deserves to be treated with the utmost severity. Amplification, too, was included in the programme of elementary exercises. In the exercise called common topic (wowds téno<), for example, the student was trained to elabo- rate on generalizations applicable to any instance of a given cate- gory; later on the student would be taught to incorporate common topics into the epilogue of speeches and declamations in order to incite the jury against the person just shown to be a murderer, adul- terer, tyrant or whatever the case requires Another exercise in amplification was encomium (éyxdov), in which the student takes as given the good qualities attributed to a particu- lar person and seeks to exhibit them in a way which will excite or increase the audience’s admiration. The subject of encomium was uot always @ person; a place or an abstract quality such as courage mighit also be prescribed. But praise ef a person was the standard form, and the topics of encomium were accordingly designed to pro- vide a comprehensive basis for the assessment of personal attributes. This means that they have an application beyond the exercise of encomium itself, whenever an argument based on person is needed " For these two patterns see Arist. Rh, 1416b16-26; RA. Al. 1438b14-29; Cie Ina, 1:30; Alexander son of Numenivs ap. Anon. Sep. 129-33. “Amplification: e.g. Rte ad Her. 2:47-49; Cic. Jn, 100-105, Part, 52-53; Quint. Jnst, 8:4, Cf. Martin, Antike Rhetorik, pp. 153~58,96 MALCOLM HEATH the topics of encomium can be used as a guide to invention. Different handbooks give somewhat different lists of encomiastic topics; but the range of variation is limited.” Standard doctrine would include the subject’s origin (nationality, citizenship, ancestry and parentage); birth (were there, for example, striking indications of divine favour?), nurture and education; chosen life-style (éxmBebuesa); achievements, illustrating qualities of soul (especially the cardinal virtues: piety, courage, justice and wisdom) and of body (beauty, strength) and the possession of external goods (friends, wealth, influence). Encomium too has a simple formal structure. In refutation the topics are applied in a sequence determined by the order of events in the story; in encomium the topics foilow a set order, framed by a prologue and epilogue. An additional element in this structure, placed before the epilogue, is a comparison (vyxpiai<) designed to enhance the amplification. Indeed, comparison is such an important technique for amplification that it formed an exercise in its own right, after practising encomium and its counterpart invective (yéyos), the stu- dent would be required in comparison to amplify the excellence of ‘one person by exhibiting his superiority to others who might be thought his equals, or his equality to some acknowledged paragon. "* In an encomium of Paris we might make his dubious reputation the basis for our prologue. We should take care not to offer an explicitly argued defence of Paris; encomium is an exercise in ampli- fication, not in argumentation.” But we might remark, in anticipa~ tion of our praise, that his qualities are so outstanding as to silence even the sustained malicious criticism to which he has been exposed. Turning to his origin, we will point out that he was a prince of Troy, a city founded by gods. He was descended from Zeus through his ancestor Dardanus; and his father Priam had raised Troy from the depths of misfortune afier its sack by Heracles and had made it © This summary draws on Aphth. Prog, 21:20 -22:11; [Hermog,] Prog. 15:18- 17:4; MenRh, 420:10-31 Spengel; ef Quint. nut. 5:10:23-31. Hermog. Sut. 46:8-24 illustrates the use of the topics of encomium in judicial argument about motive. See further T.C. Burgess, Bpidicti Literate (Chicago Studies in Classical Philology, 3; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1902), pp. 119-27; D. A. Russell and N. G. Wilson, Menander Rietor (Oxford. Oxford University Press, 1981), pp. xxv-xxix. © Aphth. Prog. 31:6-32; [Hermog| Prog. 18:15-20:5. Cf. Men.Rh. 372:21-* 3772-9 etc. For the contrast between encomium and apologia see Theon Prog. 1128-13, Spengel (quoting Isocr. Helen [10] 14). Ch Nicol. Peg. 53:6 19 Felten; Quint. Fast 3756.INVENTION 97 the head of an empire so powerful that it could withstand the united efforts of all Greece for ten years. Anyone who doubts the nobility of his birth need only look at his brother Hector, whose piety and martial prowess are conceded even by Homer, though he (as a Greek poct) was a hostile witness and prone to slander Trojans. As to his birth, we will not wish to give weight to the omen which prompted his parents to expose him as an infant; we will try instead to tum its sequel to our advantage. We could say that, although his parents took fright over a dream which his mother had in the stress of pregnancy, nevertheless divine providence took care of him, en- suring that he was suckled by a she-bear. A shepherd, seeing in this miracle a sign of the gods’ favour, was moved by piety and compas- sion to take up the child and rear him as his own There can be no doubt that this pious and compassionate foster father would have taken pains to teach the child his own reverence for the gods and for justice. Moreover, although Paris did not enjoy the advantage of being reared in an imperial court like his brothers, he triumphed over adversity and gave ever clearer proofs of his in- nate qualities as he grew to maturity. His courage and strength were shown when he routed a band of cattle-raiders. The name Alexander (“defender”) was given to honour this victory; thus he became by right of battle what he was by right of birth—an honoured leader and protector of his people. In the end the status accorded to him by popular acclaim was recognized at court as well. Paris proved himself in competition against his brothers; they had trained in ath- letics all their lives but he, relying on innate excellence alone, outdid all of them in the games. In this way he was acknowledged as the king’s son. Turning to his physical person, everyone concedes that ke sur- passed other men in beauty—-beauty radiant enough to win the iove of a goddess. But he was not an effeminate weakling; raised in coun- try ways, he proved himself as a fighter and as an athlete he was victorious over the strongest and swiftest of his peers. Physical strength was combined with strength of character. Hector paid tribute to his bravery when he said, “No one in all fairness could belittle your success in battle, as you are a brave fighter” (IL 6:521-22)—and Hector said this when he was angry with his brother, and might well have tried to belittle his qualities. Events confirmed Hector’s words: it was Paris who avenged his brother’s death, killing the strongest and bravest of the Greeks. Divine testimony concurs.98 MALCOLM HEATH When a dispute arose between the three goddesses Paris was chosen to judge between them. Zeus would not have entrusted bis own wife’s honour to the judgment of someone dishonest or foolish; so this appointment provides compelling testimony to Paris's wisdom and integrity. So does the way in which he discharged the commission, Faced with such a task an ordinary person would have been over- whelmed with terror and confusion; Paris calmly made a true judg- ment without fear or favour. Each of the goddesses is due primacy of honour in her own sphere: Hera is the most regal, Athene is the most martial; but Paris was charged with awarding the prize to the most beautiful, and this is what he did, To whom, then, should we compare Paris? Achilles, too, was beau- tiful-~indeed, he boasted of his beauty (Z. 21:108); he was also. a great warrior. But Paris was the greater: he never put on gitl’s clothes to evade military service, as Achilles did; nor did Achilles display self-control and wisdom such that he was chosen to judge divine disputes. And on the field of battle, it was Paris who prevailed. So we should pay no attention to the voice of malice and envy, but recognize and strive to emulate the virtues of Paris, whose excel- lence we have only begun to describe. I could tell you too how lead- ing a small fleet of fugitives he captured the flourishing city of Sidon, and how ...—but the subject is inexhaustible, and space is limited, We should now return to our main theme, and proceed further with its preliminary analysis First, then, to which class (e180) should we assign it? The question is ambiguous. In one sense “class” may refer to the familiar cle sification of rhetorical themes according to their context and fune- tion as judicial, deliberative or epideictic.®” In this sense, the theme is clearly deliberative; it is addressed to the Trojans taking counsel about their future actions with respect to Helen. However, the need to defend Paris against the accusation that he has cloped with Menclaus’s wife gives the theme a quasi-judicial element as well; we shall consider the implications of this more closely in due course. Another, less familiar, sense of “class” in ancient rhetoric catego- rized themes according to the dominant means of persuasion. A speaker typically wishes to persuade his audience that something is the case; to this end, rational argument may be employed. However, rhetorical persuasion looks for more than an abstract assent; some © Bg. Arist. Rh, 1358a36-b8; Rhet ad Her. 1:2; Cie, fm 1:7; Quint. Inst. 34INVENTION 99 action is expected of the audience (even if it is only the casting of a vote). If the speaker wishes to incite his audience to an active response, he may seek to arouse their emotions. But the audience is more likely to be receptive to rational or emotional appeal if they regard the speaker with confidence and goodwill; 10 this end, the projection of an attractive and trustworthy character will be useful. So we have three basic means of persuasion: argument, emotion and character.”! The extent to which we draw on each of these will depend on the nature of the case, and a different balance between them will imply a different approach to invention. It may therefore be helpful to distinguish themes of the “practical” (xpayuotxdy) class, which invite a treatment oriented primarily towards objective facts and therefore dependent largely on the resource of argument, from themes which invite a treatment based primarily on character or on emotion.” The situation premised in our theme bas some scope for emotive rhetoric, firing the Trojan sense of indignation at the presence of a hostile army in their territory; but it would be out of keeping with the character of our speaker to rely too heavily on emotional appeal. On the other hand, although the speaker's character will add weight to his advocacy of war, that is no more than a subsidiary to the speech’s main persuasive effort. Reasoned argument is needed if we are to refute the charge against Paris, and to show that the war can be won and that fighting the war will best serve Trojan interests. So our theme is of the practical class; it ‘will emphasize rational argu- ment, making moderate and restrained use of emotional appeal A further principle of classification is mode (rpén0g). Mode catego- rizes themes according to the opportunities and difficulties they present to the speaker in managing the relationship with his audience. Ideally one would wish to speak to a theme that is honourable, weighty plausible and readily intelligible; in other modes, where the subject “ On the three means of persuasion see Arist. Rh, 1356a1~20; DH, Js, 19 (30:21 31:2 Usener-Radermacher); Quint. inst. 3:83; Anon. Sep. 198; Minucianus 340:6-7 Spengel-Hammer. A binary classification (as practical or emotional) is found in Cie Brut. 89; Quint. Inst. 6:1:1; Anon, See. 203; RG, IV, p. 417:12-26 Walz. On the orator’s three tasks: Cic. De or. 2:115, Brut. 185; Quint. Inst. 35:2. Ci. W. W. Fortenbaugh, “Benesolentiam conciliare and animos permavere", Rhetoric 6 (1988), pp. 259 78; Wisse, Etios and Paths % Glass is variously treated by Zeno ap. Sulp. Viet, 316:3-22; Syrian. 2:42:11 43:23; RG, IV, pp. 182:8-183:14, 190:12-18; VII, p. 165:17-24; Fortunatianus 88-89 Hialm, Hermog. Sat. 34:16-35:14 rejects this concept of class and that of mode (n. 23) on the implausible grounds that it has implications only for the style of the composition.