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 ge­neral 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. Maybe the reason for concern Sulla seized Apellicon’s book collection. was the existence of several variants of The other variant of the text history tells that Aristotelian texts – a fact which is purported Neleus sold Aristotle’ manuscripts to the by Strabo’s account. Evidence of this is rulers of Egypt to be kept in the library of provided by other ancient sources. There Alexandria (Deipnosophistae 1.3; 5.214). is no unanimity regarding the structure of Although there have been attempts to har- Aristotle’s On Rhetoric. Diogenes Laertius monize these two variants, i.e., that Neleus’ descendants sold to the rulers of Egypt the mentions Aristotle’s On Rhetoric in two publicly available Aristotelian texts, but books and a treatise on style. Demetrius, later the unique Aristotelian manuscripts when referring to Aristotle’s treatise On were sold to Apellicon6, the need for such Style (Peri hermeneias 116), seems to mean reconciliation is questionable. Athenaeus an independent work. Quintilian (Institutio in his fifteen books of Dinner-table Phi- oratoria 2.17.14) knows Aristotle’s On losophers mentions about 800 authors and Rhetoric in three books. 2000 texts. He has, most probably, made Anyway, once the edition of Andronicus use of secondary sources, thus singular of Rhodes had been published, the Roman discrepancies are understandable. Besides, world had access to Aristotle’. Neverthe- in establishing a link between Aristotle and less, there seems to have been some limited the library of Alexandria, Athenaeus is not knowledge of Aristotelian ideas (if not the unique. Other sources uphold this tradition text) already before. Two texts of the first as well. Strabo writes that Aristotle helped half of the first century BC – Rhetoric for the rulers of Egypt to organize the library Herennius and Cicero’s On Invention – of Alexandria (Geographica 13.54). The imply this. pseudo-epigraphic Letter of Aristeas7, the Although Aristotle is not mentioned in the practice-oriented Rhetoric for Herennius, 6 P. D. Brandes, A History of Aristotle’s Rhetoric, one of the delivery components – voice – is With a Bibliography of Early Printings, Metuchen, N.Y. & London: The Scarecrow Press, 1989, 5. discussed in terms of volume, stability and 7 The so-called Letter of Aristeas is a pseudo-epi- flexibility Rhetorica( ad Herennium 3.20– graphic text of the Hellenistic age. Iosephus Flavius in 22) which are adaptations of the Aristotelian his Antiquities of the Jews (XII: ii) mentions a letter by a certain Aristeas to Philocrates, describing the Greek system (Ars Rhetorica 3.1). translation of the Hebrew Law by seventy-two interpre­ Cicero’s On Invention, written in early ters sent into Egypt from Jerusalem at the request of the librarian of Alexandria. youth, maybe at the age of sixteen or eigh-

18 teen (90-ties BC) with a young person’s ideas, as the case of Cicero shows. Cicero’s self-confidence, is different as for refe­ inaccurate rendering of Aristotle’s state- rences to Aristotle and his ideas. Cicero ments suggests mediated information. declares himself to be a follower of Aristotle Cicero wrote his second discussion of and like Aristotle he considers rhetoric to be rhetoric, the treatise On the Orator, in 55 an art (De inventione (1.7)). When Cicero BC9. Although the earliest direct Cicero’s explains the three areas of oratorical activity reference to Aristotle’s On Rhetoric appears – demonstrative (genus demonstrativum), only in 46 BC10, in On the Orator Cicero’s deliberative (genus deliberativum) and knowledge of Aristotle’s On Rhetoric is ir- judicial (genus iudicale) (1.7) – he refers refutable. On the Orator contains numerous to Aristotle. Yet this is not what Aristotle references to Aristotle’s views on rhetoric has said. Aristotle speaks of three types of and to Cicero’s adoption of Aristotelian oratory (Ars Rhetorica 1.4), not three areas ideas11. This evidence is supported by some of oratorical activity. facts Cicero mentions in his letters, although It is evident that Cicero knew some- they relate to Aristotle’s texts in general, not thing of Aristotle and of Aristotle’s On to On Rhetoric specifically. Cicero knew Rhetoric, but he had not read the text. people who had or could have first-hand There is no evidence that On Rhetoric was contact with Aristotelian writings. So in avai­lable in Rome till Andonicus’ edition a letter written in 55 BC Cicero refers to 8 was published . An early Roman reference working in the library of Sulla’s son Faus- to Aristotle’s On Rhetoric which conveys tus (Ad Atticum 4.10) – most probably the knowledge of the text is the First Letter to library contained the Aristotelian esoteric Ammaeus by the Greek rhetorician of the texts, confiscated by Sulla from Apellicon. second half of the first century BC Dio- Besides, Cicero may have acquired and nysius of Halicarnassus. Still this does not read Aristotle’s works even earlier – in a exclude the possibility that some individu- letter of 56 BC he refers to the services of als were familiar with Aristotelian texts or Tyrannion, the editor of Aristotelian texts, were in possession of them. Probably Ro- man rhetoricians were aware that Aristotle 9 The earliest known reference to the completed De had written on rhetoric and they had some oratore is a letter written in 54 BC to Lentulus Spinther knowledge of the relevant Aristotelian (Ad familiares 1.9). 10 In the Orator (Orator 114) Cicero translates a sentence from Aristotle’s Rhetoric. 8 G. A. Kennedy, A New History of Classical 11 These references are expressed by a partici-partici- Rhetoric, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994, pant in the discussion. Thus a question arises whether 62–63; G. A. Kennedy, Aristotle. On Rhetoric. A Theory the speaker pronounces Cicero’s views. The answer is of Civic Discourse, Oxford: OUP, 2007, 308. This tra- provided by another letter in which Cicero states that ditional assumption is questioned by J. Barnes (“Roman Aris­totle expresses his ideas through the speeches of the Aristotle”, Philosophia Togata ii, Oxford: OUP, 1997, discussion participants (Ad Atticum 13.19). As Cicero 16–17). He argues that the idea of the singularity of himself has remarked on the closeness of On the Orator Andronicus’ published Aristotelian texts was artificially to Aristotle’s dialogues, presentation of a theme in On cultivated in order to stress closeness to the originals the Orator is Cicero’s own viewpoint. So the words of and thus increase the value of the publication. J. Barnes Antonius, the protagonist of the second book (De ora- considers that Aristotle’s texts were available in Rome tore 2.160), that he does not deviate far from Aristotle in much earlier. fact refer to Cicero himself.

19 in arranging his own library in Antium (Ad to emotion – Aristotle’s attitude of the Atticum 4.8). More specific, unquestionable audience. information regarding Cicero’s knowledge Cicero’s and Aristotle’s systems are basi- of Aristotelian writings appears in a letter cally uniform, but the content of the system addressed to Lentulus Spinther (Ad Fami­ components is different. These differences liares 1.9.) Cicero argues that he has written are significant enough and show that in dif- On the Orator in the “Aristotelian manner” ferent cultures an absolutely uniform system (Aristotelio more). Certainly Cicero with the is impossible. “Aristotelian manner” does not mean Aristo- In discussing the function of proving, tle’s On Rhetoric, as this text is a discussion Cicero more than Aristotle focuses on the in the form of a narrative, while Cicero’s objectively existing proofs. He supplements relevant text is a dialogue. In On the Orator the five Aristotelian non-rhetorical proofs Cicero characterizes “Aristotelian manner” with different legislative norms and various as presentation of the views of a dialogue types of contracts (De oratore 2.100, 116). participants in the form of a substantiated This is due to the fact that in comparison with exposition, so he obviously considers his Athens of Aristotle’s times, Roman system treatise to be similar in form to the lost of civil law was much more developed. Con- Aristo­telian philosophical dialogues. trariwise Roman culture was not concerned Cicero follows Aristotelian tradition in with the elaborate Aristotelian discussion the discussion of invention (2.114–306), of argument from the perspective of logics and especially – in characterizing the three (Ars rhetorica 2.23–25), thus Cicero adopts objectives of the speaker. Both Aristotle only a small part of it – the idea of topics and Cicero agree that the objective of the suitable for multiple cases of argumentation speaker is persuasion of the audience. Aris- (loci) (De oratore 2.163–173). totle indicates the applicable non-rhetorical Although the Ciceronian idea of con- means of persuasion – those that exist ciliating the audience interacts with the objectively – and rhetorical means of per- Aristotelian concept of ethos, the moral suasion – those that the speaker has to find characteristics of the speaker which create or arouse. He divides the rhetorical means a favourable impression on the audience, of persuasion into three groups: arguments Cicero’s perspective is different. Aristotle (logos), moral characteristics of the speaker has a mental picture of a speaker in a public (ethos) and attitude of the audience (pathos) assembly or at a court of justice who repre- (Ars rhetorica 1.2). Cicero for his speaker sents his own interests and strives to create defines three objectives: to prove (probare), a good impression of himself. Cicero’s to conciliate (conciliare) and to sway to speaker is an advocate, and for him it is es- emotion (movere) (De oratore 2.115, 121, sential to project a likeable image not only 128). For Cicero proving requires the use of himself, but also of his client (De oratore of Aristotle’s objective proofs and argu- 2.182–185), as both of them by conciliating ments, conciliating echoes Aristotle’s moral the audience promote persuasion. Therefore characteristics of the speaker and swaying for Cicero the Aristotelian idea of ethos ap-

20 plies also to the client, although the focus The differing target audiences of Aris­ of his discussion is on the speaker. totle and Cicero in order to be swayed to The Ciceronian idea of a prepossessing emotion require different approaches. As speaker is somewhat different from that of Aristotle’s audience is heterogeneous, Aristotle. Aristotle outlines those projected arousal of the desired attitude is difficult. qualities of the speaker that will conciliate the The speaker must have knowledge of emo- audience – reason (phronesis), virtue (arete) tions, as well as possess skills of creating and benevolence (eunoia) (Ars rhetorica and placating them. Therefore Aristotle 2.1.). Cicero argues that the speaker should provides detailed discussion of nine types create the impression of himself as being a of emotions (Ars rhetorica 2.2–11). Cicero decent (probus), virtuous (bene moratus) and looks at emotions from the viewpoint of an a good (bonus) person (De oratore 184). advocate. The advocate must perceive the The different projected qualities required attitude of the decision makers – whether for a prepossessing speaker are entailed by they are benevolent or their benevolence has the different target audiences of the Aris- to be gained. Detailed discussion of emo- totelian and Ciceronian speakers. Cicero’s tions is not pertinent (De oratore 2.206). and Aristotle’s texts offer enough evidence Significantly enough, Aristotelian influ- that in Athens and in Rome the speaker ad- ence in the rhetorical handbooks of the dressed different target audiences. In Athens Roman imperial period covers persuasion the target audience were several thousands of the audience. The Anonymous Segueri- of people from different social ranks, and the anus13, probably an epitome of a second speaker in his image projected compliance century text, and the rhetorical handbook to common values – reason, virtue and be- of Valerius Apsines, a third century sophist nevolence. Therefore Aristotle stresses that in Athens, follow the Aristotelian approach the speaker must know how to speak with to means of persuasion, dividing them into different people, and he characterizes types non-rhetorical and rhetorical, the latter be- of individuals in accordance with their age, ing divided into logos, ethos and pathos14. social rank, wealth and power (Ars rhetorica Thus circulation of the “arranged” Apell- 2.12–17). Cicero does not delve into such a icon’s book collection in Rome from the discussion. In Rome, although the audience first century onward ensured availability of could be quite heterogeneous, the real target Aristotelian writings in Rome. References audience were decision makers, and the to Aristotle’s On Rhetoric and to Aristotle’s speaker addressed homogenous audience, a rhetorical ideas bear witness to this fact. comparatively small group of social elite. As Aristotelian doctrine of three types of ora- the speaker habitually belonged to this social tory – deliberative, judicial and epideictic – group, his reason and benevolence were a and the theory of means of persuasion was matter of course and he could concentrate on his self-image of vir bonus12. 13 The text is named for Seguier de St. Brisson who in 1843 discovered it in a Paris manuscript. 12 E. Fantham, The Roman World of Cicero’s De 14 Rhetores Graeci, ed. E. Spengel, Leipzig: Teub- oratore, Oxford: OUP, 2006, 174–175. ner, 1853, 427–460, 331–414.

21 generally accepted. Otherwise the influence tury BC17. Style is the subject matter of the of Aristotelian ideas on Roman rhetorical Greek treatise On Style, attributed to the culture was insignificant15. otherwise unknown Demetrius and dated This apparent incongruity – availability probably with the early first century BC. and knowledge of Aristotle’s On Rhetoric The major Roman rhetorical studies deal and its slight impact on Roman rhetoric with tropes and figures as ornamentation can be explained by the non-compliance of style. Discussion of this subject matter of Aristotle’s text to the orientation of Ro- reveals the practice-oriented and didactic man rhetorical culture. Roman rhetoric was character of Roman rhetoric. So Rhetoric mainly concerned with two areas of research for Herennius within the framework of which had originated after Aristotle – stasis noble style discusses 64 tropes and figures, theory, a systematic way to determine the defining and exemplifying them. Cicero central question in a speech, and studies of in his treatises The Orator (75–121) and tropes and figures of speech. On the Orator (3.149–181) examines style Stasis theory was developed by Her- and means of expression at theoretical and magoras of Temnos in the second century practical level. Quintilian in his Education BC16. In the Rhetoric for Herennius and of an Orator discusses tropes and figures in much detail (8, 9). Ornamentation of style Cicero’s On Invention the discussion of was explicated also in the Greek treatises invention is based on stasis theory. Stasis of the Roman imperial period – the most remained a major issue of study in the significant being Ps. Longinus’ On Subli­ rhetorical writings of the Roman imperial mity and Hermoges’ On Types of Style. As period (Quintilian, Hermogenes). As to to Aristotle, although he discusses style in Aristotle, he had outlined the issue of stasis the On Rhetoric, he does not do this in the in judicial speeches (1.13.9–10; 3.17.1), terms of figures of speech and tropes, but acknowledging the necessity of establishing for a brief outline of metaphor. Already the the question at issue, but did not discuss the first century BC Roman rhetorical tradition ways and means of doing it. Thus from the would consider it inadequate. perspective of a substantial aspect of Roman Other major themes of Roman rhetorical rhetoric Aristotle’s text was of no interest. theory were delivery (Quintiliani Institutio Tropes and figures of speech were the oratoria 11), memory (Rhetorica ad He- other major area of Roman rhetorical stu­ rennium 3.28–40) and arrangement of the dies. Beginnings of research in this field speech (Rhetorica ad Herennium 3.16–18). are obscure, but ancient testimony suggests Aristotle’s text in this respect also was of Stoics’ grammar studies in the second cen-

17 Tropes were considered to be part of grammar 15 G. A. Kennedy, A New History of Classical (Dionysii Thracis Ars grammatica 1). The earliest Rhetoric, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994, known discussion of tropes is the one by Tauriscus, a 63; G. A. Kennedy, Aristotle. On Rhetoric. A Theory of student of the second century BC Stoic philosopher and Civic Discourse, Oxford: OUP, 2007, 308. grammarian Crates (Sexti Empirici Adversus mathema- 16 Hermagoras’ works are lost, but his theory can ticos 1.249). The second century Roman grammarian be reconstructed from Cicero’s De inventione, in which Fronto ennumerates figures of thought and refers his list the author makes numerous references to Hermagoras’ to the second century BC Stoic Chrysippus (Frontonis teachings (De inventione 1.8, 12, 16, 97). De eloquentia 1.15).

22 little interest. In Aristotle’s On Rhetoric late but academic interest. Besides Roman delivery is mentioned but not discussed rhetoric more than the Greek counterpart (3.1–7), arrangement of the speech is brief was didactic and oriented to practical ap- and inconsequential (3.13, 3.14, 3.16–19), plication. The author would try to present memory is not mentioned at all. and explain the available means and the Thus, although Aristotle’s On Rhetoric correct application of rhetorical “tools” was available in Rome since the middle of which would ensure successful oratorical the first century BC, it did not influence activity. Aristotle’s text would seem too Roman rhetoric much. Second century BC much concerned with logics, not suitable developments of rhetoric made Aristotle’s for instruction and providing insufficient On Rhetoric an obsolete text. It could stimu- practical advice.

Bibliography Barnes, J. “Roman Aristotle”, Philosophia Togata Kennedy, G. A., Aristotle. On Rhetoric. A Theory ii, Oxford: OUP, 1997. of Civic Discourse, Oxford: OUP, 2007. Brandes, P. D., A History of Aristotle’s Rhetoric, Kennedy, G. A., “The Composition and Influence With a Bibliography of Early Printings, Metuchen, of Aristotle’s Rhetoric”, Essays on Aristotle’s Rheto- N.Y. & London: The Scarecrow Press, 1989. ric, Berkeley, Los Angeles & London: University of Clarke, M. L., Rhetoric at Rome. A Historical California Press, 1996. Survey, London: Routledge, 1996. Russell, D. A., Criticism in Antiquity, Bristol: Fantham, E., The Roman World of Cicero’s De Bristol Classical Press, 2001. oratore, Oxford: OUP, 2006. Shute, R., On the History of the Process by Which Kennedy, G. A., A New History of Classical Rheto- the Aristotelian Writings Arrived at Their Present ric, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994. Form, New York: Arno Press, 1976.

ARISTOTELIO RETORIKOS TEKSTO TRADICIJA PO ARISTOTELIO: NUO ATĖNŲ IKI ROMOS Vita Paparinska Santrauka Šio straipsnio tikslas – ištirti Aristotelio Retorikos Aristotelio retorinių idėjų recepciją. Šiuo požiūriu recepciją romėnų retorinėje kultūroje. Kultūrinių idėjų ypač svarbūs tekstai yra du Cicerono traktatai (De recepcija paprastai remiasi tekstais. Todėl Aristotelio oratore, De inventione) ir Rhetorica ad Herennium. Retorikos teksto istorija vėlesniais laikais padeda Aristotelio įtakos romėnų retorikai (ypač Cicerono atskleisti idėjų perimamumą. traktatui De oratore) aptarimas koncentruojasi į Tyrimas remiasi antikiniais šaltiniais, kuriuose koreliuojančių sąvokų suvokimo bei interpretavimo pateikiama informacija apie Aristotelio ezoterinių graikų ir romėnų kultūrose panašumus bei skirtu- veikalų istoriją, taip pat antikinės retorikos šalti- mus, kurie gali duoti atsakymą, kodėl Aristotelio niais, kuriuose Aristotelio Retorika nagrinėjama Retorikos įtaka romėnų retorinei tradicijai buvo bendrame retoriniame kontekste ir kurie atspindi palyginti nedidelė.

Gauta 2009 09 20 Autorės adresas: Klasikinės filologijos katedra Latvijos universitetas Visvalža g. 4 a, LV-1050 Riga El. paštas: [email protected]

23