ISSN 0258–0802. LITERATŪRA 2009 51 (3) TEXT TRADITION OF ARISTOTLE’S ON RHETORIC: FROM POST-ARISTOTELIAN ATHENS TO ROME Vita Paparinska Professor of the Department of Classical Philology, University of Latvia Discussion of rhetoric is a common sub- 1. Ancient sources on the history of Aris- ject in Greek and Roman culture. Roman totle’s esoteric texts (Strabo’s Geogra- rhetoric developed when Greek rhetoric and phy, Plutarch’s Life of Sulla, Diogenes oratory had flourished for some centuries. Laertius’ Life of Aristotle, Athenaeus’ Chronological succession and discussion of Dinner-table Philosophers). the same subject matter in the framework These sources speak about the ge neral of general influence of Greek ideas and history of Aristotle’s esoteric writings. practices on Roman culture suggest impact, Rhetoric is not mentioned specifically. Still, possible reception and adoption of ideas in as the Rhetoric is one of the esoteric texts, this field of research. as there is no evidence that its text history Study of the impact of ideas is bound is different from other esoteric texts and as to encounter reasonable difficulties. As there is no reason to suspect a different text so much of the ancient literary heritage is history, for the purpose of the study of text lost, oftentimes it is impossible to establish reception the testimony of ancient sources direct interconnection between the origina- pertaining to the esoteric texts is applied to tor of the idea and its receptor. Conclusions the Rhetoric. may be subjective, although the link seems 2. Ancient sources which speak of Aristot- obvious. le’s Rhetoric or Aristotle in the context of Knowledge of ideas in most cases is rhetoric or show reception of Aristotle’s impossible without availability of the text. rhetorical ideas (Diogenes Laertius’ Life Thus text tradition is essential for establi- of Theophrastus, Rhetoric for Herennius, shing interconnectedness and continuity of Cicero’s On the Orator, Orator, On ideas in a culture. invention, Quintilian’s Education of an Understanding of the impact of the ma- Orator). jor source of ancient rhetoric, Aristotle’s Most information on the text history On Rhetoric on Roman rhetorical culture of Aristotle’s esoteric texts is supplied by starts with establishing availability of the The Geography (Geographica 13.1.54) of text as a precondition for knowledge of the the late first century BC/ beginning of the ideas. Two types of ancient sources provide first century AD Greek historian and geog- information on this issue: rapher Strabo. His account of the relevant 15 events covers approximately 250 years. successors’, especially in Theophrastus’ Another a hundred years later source – the writings and secondly, practical applica- biography of Sulla by the historian Plutarch tion of the text in the study process of the (Sulla 26.1–2) – on general lines agrees Lycaeum. There is very little information with Strabo’s information and provides about both. specific details on a late episode of the text The theoretical writings of Aristotle’s history. closest successor, Theophrastus, are lost. About a century separates Strabo from Diogenes Laertius in the biographical the facts he describes. Although this time sketch of Theophrastus enumerates more distance makes one question the reliability than twenty of his works, including a On of the account, some facts seem to prove Rhetoric. The titles of Theophrastus’ wri- verity of the information, at least on the tings show that he wrote on the three kinds basic fact level. First, concerning Aristo- of speeches, enthymemes, proof, paradeig- tle’s On Rhetoric, testimony of the sources mata, maxims, narration, style, delivery. is confirmed by facts – till the middle of the Theophrastus seems both to have followed first century BC there is no evidence in Ro- Aristotle’s views on rhetoric and worked man rhetorical writings about direct know- out in more detail some themes Aristotle ledge of Aristotle’s On Rhetoric. Secondly, had briefly outlined, e.g. style. Aristotle in Strabo studied Aristotle’s philosophy with the third book of On Rhetoric had indicated Boethus of Sidon (Strabonis Geographica that style should be clear, appropriate, nei- 16.24) whose teacher was Andronicus of ther high nor low, but Theophrastus was the Rhodes, the publisher of Aristotle’s texts first, as Cicero argues, to speak of four vir- in Rome. Thus Strabo could have had in- tues of style – correctness, clarity, propriety, sider’s information on the major phases of ornamentation (Ciceronis Orator 79). the text history. As to the application of Aristotle’s Strabo starts his account of the history On Rhetoric in study process, there is no of Aristotelian texts with the departure of evidence that it was used in the Lycaeum Aristotle from Athens (323 BC). Aristotle either during Aristotle’s lifetime or later1. bequeathed both his library and his school Certainly, argumentum a silentio is not a to his student Theophrastus. Diogenes proof of the opposite. In 1888 the English Laertius mentions the same fact and adds scholar Richard Shute expressed an opin- that Theophrastus was the supervisor of the ion which is nowadays generally accepted. Lycaeum for 35 years and under Theophras- Namely, during Aristotle’s lifetime his tus’ supervision the school flourished – it ideas reached the Lycaeum audience in ver- numbered about 2000 students (Diogenis bal form. After Aristotle’s departure, at least Laertii Vita Theophrasti 5.36). during Theophrastus’ supervision, studies The text history of On Rhetoric after Aristotle’s departure from Athens could be 1 G. A. Kennedy, „The Composition and Influence established from two facts: first, the adop- of Aristotle’s Rhetoric“, Essays on Aristotle’s Rhetoric, Berkeley, Los Angeles & London: University of Cali- tion of Aristotelian ideas on rhetoric in his fornia Press, 1996, 417–418. 16 continued along Aristotelian lines. R. Shute art (ars) and considered it to be merely a argues that both Aristotle’s own notes and skill (usus), and a certain Athenaeus4 who the notes of his students were made use of. called rhetoric the art of deceit (ars fallendi) Probably these materials were explained (Quintiliani Institutio oratoria 2.15.23). and commented upon, but the lecturer did With the publication of Aristotelian wri- not always distinguish his own ideas from tings in the first century BC the Peripatetics those of Aristotle in a sufficiently clear way resumed interest in Aristotle’s theories. One or the students failed to comprehend it. Thus of them, name unknown, even argued that every new recording of Aristotelian ideas Demosthenes had learned the art of oratory included subjective interpretation2. from Aristotle’s On Rhetoric5. Strabo points Strabo writes that Theophrastus be- out that with Aristotelian texts available, queathed his own and Aristotle’s library to the Peripatetics propounded the doctrine 3 a certain Neleus , a former pupil of his and of Aristotle more successfully than their Aristotle’s (Quintiliani Institutio oratoria predecessors, but had to treat many issues 12.2.25) who transported the collection only as probabilities as the available copies to Scepsis in Asia Minor. Plutarch (Sulla of the texts abounded in mistakes. 26.2) and Diogenes Laertius (5.42–50) are More fortunate was the fate of Aristote- in agreement with him. lian writings in Asia Minor. Strabo points out that the loss of Aristote- The most dramatic phase was when after lian texts was destructive for the Lycaeum. Neleus’ death the texts were inherited by his Only some of Aristotle’s exoteric writings descendants, uneducated individuals who had survived. Aristotelian tradition of rheto- hid the books under the ground in order to ric gradually subsided. Thus the Peripatetics save the collection from being seized for the were unable to philosophize according to needs of the Pergamon library. Eventually the principles of the system and primarily engaged in dialectical debate on general the texts were sold to a certain Apellicon, a issues. Quintilian argues that this was some book collector from Athens. This individual, sort of rhetorical exercise (Quintiliani more a book lover than a philosopher, made Institutio oratoria 12.2.25). In the second an attempt to restore the damaged manu- century BC all the philosophical schools scripts, but the restoration, text correctness- show a reaction against rhetoric (Ciceronis wise, was of low quality. After the capture De oratore 1.46–47). Quintilian mentions of Athens Apellicon’s book collection was Critolaus, a second century BC head of the seized by Sulla and transported to Rome Peripatetic school who denied that rhetoric (after 86 BC) – Strabo and Plutarch agree was a faculty (vis), science (scientia) or on this. In Rome Apellicon’s collection was “arranged” by the grammarian Tyrannion, 2 R. Shute, On the History of the Process by Which the Aristotelian Writings Arrived at Their Present Form, 4 Probably head of the Peripatetics’ school in the New York: Arno Press, 1976. time of Augustus. 3 The only information on Neleus in ancient sour- 5 This view is refuted on chronological grounds ces relates to his connection with Aristotle’s and Theo- by Dionysius of Halicarnasus in his First Letter to Am- phrastus’ libraries. maeus. 17 a contemporary of Strabo. Plutarch states earliest source which mentions the library that Andronicus of Rhodes, who revived of Alexandria, provides an indirect link be- the Peripatetic philosophy in Rome, had tween Aristotle and the library, saying that Tyrannion’s edition published. the library was organized by a follower of The 3rd century Greek rhetorician and Aristotle, Demetrius of Phaleron. grammarian Athenaeus mentions two Although the ancient sources show con- variants of the text history of Aristotle’s cern with the text history of Aristotelian writings. One of them complies with the writings, obviously even in antiquity it was information of Strabo and Plutarch that not clear.