Aristotle, Rhetoric I. A Commentary

368 Pages·1980·11.86 MB·English

by  William M.A. Grimaldi

ARISTOTLE, RHETORIC I
A COMMENTARY
William M. A. Grimaldi, S.].
+t
~
+ +
+ +
§
NEW YORK
FORDHAM UNIVERSITY PRESS
1980
@ Copyright 1980 by FORDHAM UNIVI!RSITY PRESS
All rights remlltd.
LC 79-SJ37Z
ISBN 0-82.32-1048-0
PrjJl~J de
CULTURA PRESS
Wetteren. Belgium
CONTENTS
SIGLA • vi
PREFACE vii
Chapter I
54a I - 55b 24
Chapter 2. . 35
55b 25 - 58a 35
Chapter 3 79
58a 36 - 59a 29
Chapter 4 • 89
59a 30 - 60b 3
Chapter 5 . 103
60b 4 - 62a 14
Chapter 6 • 121
62a IS - 63b 4
Chapter 7 . 143
63b 5 - 6Sb :LI
Chapter 8 • 181
6sb 22 - 660 2.2
Chapter 9 . 191
66a 2.3 - 68a 37
Cbapter 10 • 2.25
68b 1 - 69b 32
Chapter II . 2.43
6gb 33 - 72.a 3
Chapter 12 • 2.69
723 4 - 73a 38
Chapter 13 . 285
73b 1 - 74b 2.3
Chapter 14 . 307
74b 24 - 7Sa 2.1
C~pter IS • 317
7sa 22. - 77b 12.
ApPENDIX: The Role of the ",taT"" in Aristotle's Methodology 349
BIBLIOGRAPHY 357
SIGLA
A. Aristode.
Anaximenes M. Fuhrmann's Teubner edition (leipzig 1966).
Bonitz, bulex H. Bonitz, Index Amloklicus (Betlin 1870).
Cope E. M. Cope, The RHETORIC ofA ristoll" rev. and ed. J. E. Sandys,
3 vok (Cambridge 1877); except where odIerwise designated,
dIe citation is to Vollllll<: r.
Cope, IlIlrod. E. M. Cope, An IntroJuaio/l 10 Aristolle's RHETORIC (Cambridge
1867).
edd. The editors of die live r~ent critical texts of die Rheloric: A.
Roernet, Teubner, 2nd ed. (Leip2ig 1898/1923); M. Dufour, Les
Belles Lettres, 2nd ed. (Paris 1960); A. Tovar, Instituto de
Estudios Politicos (Madrid 1953);W.D. Ross, Scriptorum C1assi
corum Bibliotheca Oxoniensis (Oxford 1959) = OCT; R. Kassel,
De Gruyter (Berlin 1976).
LS A Greek-English LexiCDn, edd. H. G. Liddell, R. Scott, H. S.
Jones, and R. McKenzie, 2nd ed. (Oxford 1948).
OCD The Oxford Classical Diaionary, edd. N. G. L. Hammond and
H. H. Scullard, and ed. (Oxford 1970).
S. H. W. Smyth, Greek Gramm., (Cambridge, Mass. 1956).
Spenge! 1. Spengel, Anslolelis Ars rhelorica, 2 vok. (leipzig 1867); except
where otherwise designated, die citation is to Volume I.
SlfJilies W. M. A. Grimaldi, S.1., Studies in Ihe PiIilosophy of Artistotle's
RHETORIC (Wiesbaden 1972).
540 1 All text references to die Rhelom are dim abbreviated; e.g.,
a5n40d It e=xt 1re3f5e4r0e nrc,e ,e tec.;g B., , Br I,= 7 7Bbo o2k0s, r2, 3I, u0s3uba ll1y0 .w iTdh, ec hGarpeteekr
of die text is essentially iliat of Roemer's Teubner edition.
54B 2 Citations in bold face designate cro. .... references.
TexIS All references to c1assical.uthors are to the Teubner editions, save
dIe following: references to dIe Topics and Sophistid Elenchi
are to Ross's OCT edition; to dIe Organon as found in T.
W:ritz, Arislolelis Organon. where die Teubner edition is not
used, dlC editor and edition are identified.
Complete references to all die source material, cited iliroughout iliis book in brief
fashion, will be found in die Bibliography.
PREFACE
IT IS MY HOPE that this commentary on Rhetoric I and the effort to explain
Aristotle's text will encourage others to carry the work further by way of
correction or devdopment of the ideas presented. This has been the object
of any work which I have done on the text.
The last commentary in English was published by Cope in 1877; it was
preceded by the work of Spengd in Latin in 181\7. Since then, apart from
particular studies on strucNre or major concepts in the three books, and some
periodical literature on passages in the text, any interpretation of the entire
text of Book One has appeared either in the establishment of the text in the
critical editions or in the translations of the three books. The one exception
of any significance known to me is the brief notes to the chapters ofB ook One
in the text and translation of Granero published in 1951. Though Aristotle
has not always been served wd1 by the translations which have appeared over
the past seventy-4i.ve years, still they are the major access to the work for
many who are engaged extensively in the fidd of rhetorical studies. I would
hope that the present commentary will offer these scholars positive assistance
commensurate with their efforts, and that, where it may difIer with tradi
tional interpretations, the diJferences will be carefully weighed and studied,
and the results lead us to a more exact and comprehensive knowledge of this
important work.
I have not tried to establish any new readings although, at times, I have
been so tempted. My usual procedure has been to comment on that reading
of the codices which is accepted by the editors of the text (Roemer, Dufour,
Tovar, Ross, and Kassel) and by the commentators (Spongel and Cope), un
less there is a serious reason not to do so. Consequently, this commentary
can be used with any of the five recent critical editions, the readings of which
in questionable passages have been consulted and given attention. Although
the Oxford critical edition may be more readily available to most readers,
I have not used it as my basic text for a number of reasons, one of which was
Ross's frequent change of the standard lineation. Instead, despite the strong
criticism which it has received - e.g., Roberts ("Notes," 356) and Kassd
(Der Text, pp. IIOif.) - I have followed the text and lineation of Roemer's
Teubner edition because it diverges less frequently from the standard lineation
and because it clearly has had an influence on all subsequent critical editions.
The most recent of these editions, Kassel', Aristatelis Ars rhetarica, appeared
after my work was finished, but I was able to consult it before my manuscript
went to press. r should also mention that in referring to the Codex Parisinu,
viii ARISTOTLE, IRHETORIC' I
1741 (A) I have followed the more ordinary designation of it as A rather than
the notation used by Roemer and Bekker, Ae.
One of the objectives of this commentary, as I said, is to make Aristotle's
statements about rhetoric accessible and uuderstandable to scholars working in
the field ofr hetorical studies but not actively engaged with the Greek language
or classical scholarship. Consequently, wherever the understanding of a
passage Called for, or would be helped by, a grammar reference or the com
pletion of Aristotle's elliptical Greek, these have been supplied in the notes.
For this reason, too, the more readily available book, periodical, and reference
literature in English has been selected wherever possible.
In conclusion I should like to e.'Cpress my gratitude to the following: Pr<>
fessor Hermann Gundert, the former editor of Hermes, whose careful and
detailed reading .of my earlier book on the Rhetoric was most helpful, and
whose untimely death was a deep loss to classical scholars and classical
scholarship; Professor George Glanzmann, S.J., also deceased, who gave
generously of his time in discussing text problems with me and voluntarily
read through the entire unrevised manuscript, and whose enthusiasm with
what was emerging was always encouraging; Professors]o seph Dolan, S.J.,
and Gerald McCool, S.J., who on sundry occasions lent a helpful ear to my
tentative solutions of, or queries on, philosophical problems which arose from
time to time in the text; the editor of Philosophy and Rhetoric for permission
to reprint a note which first appeared in his journal; the American Philological
Association at whose request I undertook this commentary - a task, which,
I am happy to say, I enjoyed; and my University, which awarded me 3
faculty fellowship during which I completed the major part of the work.
,Fordh.m University WILLIAM M. A. GRIMALDI, S.J.
CHAPTER I
I . Introduction: 5<!a I - 55a 3
r. 54" 1 - 54" II rhetoric is like dialectic since it is con
cerned with subject matter within the
competence of men and submits to sys
tematic analysis
2. 54" II - 55" 3 deficiencies in previous studies of rhet
oric:
(.) 542 II -542 31 nothing on nlant', the heart of any
rhetorical TBVl1; sole concern is with
matters extrinsic co rhetoric: e.g., with
ways to influence dicasts
(b) 542 jl -55- this procedure encouraged by our legal
system, with the result that rhetorical
study confines irself to judicial rhetoric
II . Development: 55a 3 - 55b 21 what " rhetorical TiXP'1 should be:
I. 55" 3 - 553 18 its primary concern is with the nLaTttt;
and with truth
2. 55a 19-55b 7 it is usefUl to men
3. 55b 8 - 55b 21 the function of rhetoric
III . Conclusion and transition: 55b 22 - 55b 24
548 I ci,,-r!G"po'Po~ The meaning here is explained immediately at 5<!a
1-3 where we learn that the two disciplines are concerned with all branches
of knowledge as commonly known by men, which is to say: not the knowl
edge of the professional ill the discipline; see 548 2 : 1, 55b 8 : Z, 5Sb 32 : 1.
This indicates at once that we are speaking about two methodologies. Rhet
oric is a methodology of discourse, the method by which to speak on any sub
ject. Dialectic is the method by which to investigate the natnre of any subject,
the art oflogical inquiry: "Dialectic is a process ofe xamination whiclr leads the
way toward the first principles of all disciplines" (Top. 100b 3-4). "Counter-
ARISTOTLE, 'RHETOB;1C' [
part" is the usual tr..ulation of the word; it aptly expresses the general move
ment of both discipID", with respect to one another, for it catches the strophe
antistrophe idea of dora! song and dance in which the antistrophe mirrors the
movement of the strophe. Since rhetoric and dialectic do not correspond ex
acdy in details, and since A. wishes to stress, as we will see, only the larger cor
respondence between the two, "analogue" might be a better translation, or
"correlative." In tb opening chapters A. constantly emphasizes the gen
eral correlation of each in what they do, e.g., in this first ch.pter alone:
55a 8-10, 28, 34-35; 55b 8-10, 16. In fact the first chapter ends with a return
to the idea stated here and thus forms a cyclic structure. The important fact
in this opening stalmlent is that by correlating rhetoric with dialectic, A.
makes the art of rhetoric a rational endeavor, .n activity of the intellect,
and, consequendy, a pursuit which is both reasonable and accept.ble to the
responsible citizen (• •l iT11~). From 54' I-II it is clear that for A. rhetoric,
as • .i%Yf/' is a guide for .ction, a guide which submits to reason, and can thus
be explained. This appears to be an opening reply to the criticism of rhetoric
in the Gorgias of Puro where it is argued that rhetoric doe. not submit to
reason (465a). Indeed the reply is made more direct by the echoing of certain
Platonic phrases in the first two chapters: e.g., rhetoric i. the counterpart
not of cookery (d ..l rtTeo'Po~ atpo"o,la~, 465d) but of dialectic, a. we are
told here; nor is it a part of Battery (/loe'o, 1<oAaxsla~, 4600) but a /loe,6.
n Tii~ 6,aAB"T"<ii~ .al 0/lola (56a 30-31). In fact those who have written
on the art have provided u. with only a part of it, a~tii~ /lOe'o, (54" 13).
At 56. 27 not only is A:s use of Unob.STa, • reminiscence of the pl.y on this
word in Garg. 464c-d, but A. goes on to olfer an explanation (56. 25-30)
why rhetoric does kgitimately "slip into the guise of" "OAm1<7j. Plato in
hiS attack at 463e -.j66a would deny such legitinlacy.
Cope, 1-3, has an extended note on d'TtC1TeO'PO~. Alexander of Aphro
disias in his commentary on the Topics (CG 112.3-5) discusses d.dC1TeO'PO~ in
a way to suggest trut rhetoric is coordinate (equal in rauk) to dialectic. See
also Waitz on An. Pr. 25a 6. As for the idea which lie. behind d>TtC1TeO'Po~,
A. tells us something of what he has il, mind at 56a 30-33 (see 56a 25, 56a
30 : 2, 56a 3I : 1); a clear idea of the relation will be in our hands by the end
of chap. 3. There are many reference. to the dnirtTeo'Po~ idea in subsequent
theorists occasioned quite likely by A:s challenge to Plato; for the citations
see Spenge! on 54' I.
We must not forget here that since "dialectic" was a cherished Platonic word
we have a whole new dignity conferred on rhetoric by the opening words
of this chapter. On A:. use of 6'aAB"n1<7j in our text, see 55" 9.
"2 : 1 "cpl .... OL...m..V ••• ci'P"'P"'ILEv'l; i.e., any and all subject
matter which belongs to the body of common and general knowledge (d
54.8 COMMBNTAllY
><o ..a ) possessed by an adequately educated man, and therefore not implicating
necessarily a body of professional or technical knowledge specific to some
discipline. At SE 172a 23 - 172b 1, A. uses f.irly much the same language
to explain the subject matter of dialectic. Spenge~ p. 5, believes that A. is
arguing here the position of Gorgias and the Sophists on the universality of
rhetoric against Plato, who himself came to this position in the Phaedms.
An ~"'''lnip'1 Wp"e'''piVYJ is an established discipline such as politics, geom
etry, ethics; see 59h 12-16.
• Ii. .... ......" See S. 1304.
a 3 ..., a-njV-'1~ genitive of possession; see S. 1303.
a 4 liV-cpoiv is explained by the parallelism in 54a 5-{j where the words
d~BTdCs .. Hal unixo .. Myo~ refer to the effort of dialectic to investigate and
offer a reasonable explanation of. problem. and MoAoysia8a, "al "aT'f/yoeo,y
refer to rhetoric in its general effort to speak in defense of, or against, a pro
posed position. At the same time it is true that in this first chapter A. speaks
with judicial rhetoric uppermost in his mind, a fact which commentators
fail to note (see S43 15 : z). Thus it might be urged that he is thinking of
these last two words in the more technical and usual sense in which he uses
them of judicial rhetoric (see 58b Io-II, 16-17). However, the tenor of this
and of the following two chapters, which analyze the general character of
rhetoric, suggests that a reference to such • restricted sense is unlikely. At
the very least the phrase is used metonymously to serve for "rhetoric" in
general; I note that Spengel, p. 6, would agree that the reference is to rhet
oric in general.
a 6 .ben which is repeated in Md TO" a~TOpaT01) (543 9-10) is ex
plained by the contrast set up with av1>i8B,a~ (543 7, 9): namely, "to do it
spontaneously, without any reasoned process or method," as opposed to
"doing it from the known experience produced by an acquired and estab
lished habit." To investigate a problem, or to speak on it to another, is an
ability which all men possess, to a certain extent, either instinctively (BI"iil or as
the result of constant and repe.ted practice (av1>i8"aY). See Cic., De orat.
2.8.32-33.
a 7: 1 cruv-qOE'tl" 1i ..1 > ~1;E"'~ On the idea in "1)1~8B,a1, see 69h
I6 : .; see also 7Ia 24-25. On lEo.", see 62.b I3 : 2. The point which A.
wishes to make here is the natural familiarity acquired through the repetition
of an action over a long period of time.
2 liV-cpO'<£p"'~ "in both ways"; for both are possible.
a 8 O&O:n:OI.'" is the reading of the codd. (save uncorrected A), three of
the edd., Spengel, and Cope. Ross and Kassel read &dq; ",Ote'., a conjecture
of Bywater's ("Aristotelia IV," 248) suggested by cod. A, and there is some-
4- ARISTOTLE, 'RHETORIC' I
thing to be said for it ill the present context (on which see Kassd, DeT Text,
pp. Il7£). The meaning of odq; would then be "via ac ratione," as we
find it ill Bonitz, Index 4-96.56, and atiTa "ul odq; "O,,;;, would be inter
preted as "it would be possible to lrea.t these matters indeed by a reasoned meth
odology." Once again we are made conscious of a position which is con
trary to Plato', in the Gorgias, where we are told that rhetoric is not an
art, but a skill (~fJ"''I!la, i.e., without any knowledge of principles), and
that it is not an art precisdy because it cannot give an account of, or explain
the cause, why it does what it does (Gorg. 465a). Compare Gorg. 465a 5
(cllun nI. alTia. ',,&aTOV p~ HXe .. e"'ei.) with our 54a IO, and Gorg. 46sa
2-3 (dX'1f' dll atlT~' 06 'P1fP') with 54a II. In our passage A. implies that
this formulation of an art of rhetoric has not yet been achieved and that his
present study will do. it. Granted the meaning of odq; in this usage; I still
would not wish to lose the metaphor in the word, which is brought out
clearly in the reading of the codd., odo"o,,;;.. The word means to make a
road, to trace out a path. A road is a guide, and, so, in a way, is directive.
We find the same metaphor in pi80do~, 54b 23 (i.e., peTti. and &M~): fol
lowing along the path or way set out; or, in our sense in the text: attending
to the system. A. implies that what follows in the treatise will be just such
a road. Cicero, De div. 2.1, speaks of "optimarum artium vias," and Quintil
ian, Inst. orat. 2.17.41, of "viam atque ordinern in bene dicendo." Cope,
pp. 4-5, illustrates 000:.:0<6;;. with numerous "-'GlIl1ples.
a 9 : 1 s,' a The antecedent of 8 is alTia. (54a IO); see Cope, p. 5, for
parallel passages. The use of the neuter relative pronoun referring to a mas
fuline or feminine antecedent to "-'<press the idea in the antecedent corre
sponds to a similar use of the neuter pronoun; see Gildersleeve, Syntax, II 501.
2 i1CL"NyxcivOUIJLV "to hit the mark, attain 'or reach one's goal. II
In other words, those who successfully use rhetoric and dialectic in this way
know only "that they do so" with success, not why they do so. But the one
who knows the art knows the "why and the cause" (Met. 98ra 28-30). A:s
purpose in this treatise will be to provide such an answer for rhetoric.
a II : 1 Tixv"IJ~ An art i. always grounded in a rational principle,
or as it is described in EN II40a 10: art is "an established capacity for making,
conjoined with true reasoning." Consequendy art is always able to explain
what it is doing. As a T6XV1f, rhetoric certainly consists of a body of ruies and
general principles which can be known by reason (54a 6-11). As such, it is
a form of 'muniP1f, as opposed to mere ep".«!ia, Plato's word for it in Gorg.
465a, SOL It is interesting to see that A. refers favorably to Polus' comment
on ip".'eia (Gorg. 448c) when he describes TBX'1f and ~p".'ela and their
difference at Met. 981a 2 - 982a 2.