Aristotle, Rhetoric II. A Commentary

385 Pages·1988·1.47 MB·English

by  William M. A. Grimaldi

ARISTOTLE, RHETORIC II
A COMMENTARY
. William M. A. Grimaldi, S.].
~+t
+ +
+ +
§
NBW YORK
FORDHAM UNIVERSITY PRESS
1988
CI Copyright 1988 by FORD .." .. UmVUstTY
AlI,lghts.......J.
LC 79-53373
ISBN 0-8332--1049-9
PrinId ..
CULTURA PRESS
Wctte=, Bdgium
CONTENTS
SIGLA VII
PREfACE IX
Chapter I
77b 16 - 78a ]0
Chapter 2 19
78a 31 - 80a4
CHAPTER 3 49
Boa 5 - 80b 33
CHAPTER 4 • 65
80b 34 - 82a 19
CHAPTER 5 • 87
82a 20 - 83b II
CHAPTER 6 105
83b I2 - 8sa IS
CHAPTER 7 127
8sa IS - 8sb 10
CHAPTER 8 1]5
8sb II - 86b 8
CHAPTER 9 151
86b 9 - 87b 20
CHAPTER 10 165
87b 21 - 88a 30
CHAPTER II 173
88a 31 - 88b 30
CHAPTER I2 183
8sb 30 - 89b 13
CHAPTER 13 WI
89b 13 - 90a 28
CHAPTER 14 209
90a 29 - 90b 14
CHAPTER IS 213
90b 14 - 90b 31
VI ARISTOTLB. 'RHETORIC' II
CHAPTI!R 16 217
90b 32 - 91. 19
CHAPTER 17 221
91. 20 - 9Ib 7
CHAPTER 18
91b 8-92a7
CBAPTBR 19 23S
92.8 - 93' 21
CHAPTI!R 20
93' 23 - 94a 19
CHAPTBR 21 2S9
940 19 - 9Sb 20
CHAPTI!R 22 27S
9sb 20 - 97' 6
CHAPTBR 23 291
970 7-oob 34
CHAPTER 24 337
oob 3S - 02. 30
CHAPTER 2S 3SS
02a 30 - 03' IS
CHAPTI!R 26
, 03' 17-03b 2
BIBUOGRAPHY 371
SIGLA
A. Aristotle.
Anaximenes M. Fuhrmann', Teubner edition (Leipzig 1966).
Bonitz, Ind." H. Bonitz, I"d." Aristot.lieus (BeIlin 1870).
COMMBNTAllY W. M. A. Grimaldi, '.J., Aristotle, RHETORIC I: A Comm.ntary
(New York 1980).
Cope E. M. Cope, The RHETORIC ofA ristotle, rev. and cd. J. E. Sandys,
3 vols. (Cambridge 1877); except where otherwise designated,
the citation is to Volume II.
Cope. Imrod. E. M. Cope. An Introduction to Aristotle's RHETORIC (Cambridge
1867).
edd. The editors of the five recent critical texts of the Rhetoric: A.
Roemer. TeubneI, 2nd ed. (Leipzig 1898/1923); M. Dufour,
Los Belles Lettres, 2nd ed. (I'ari. I¢o); A. Tovar, Instituto de
Estudios Polltieos (Madrid 1953); W. D. Ross, Scriptorum
Classicorum Bibliotheca Oxoniensis (Oxford 1959) = OCT;
R. lWsd, De Gmytcr (BeIJln 1976).
LS A Gree1<-English Laicon, edd. H. G. Liddell, R. Scott, H. S.
Jones, and R. McKenzie, and ed. (Oxford 1948).
OCD Th. Ox/or. Classical Dictionary, edd. N. G. L. Hammond and H.
H. ScuIlard, 2nd ed. (Oxford 1970).
pw A. F. von Paal}', Real-EncyclopiJie der classisthen Akertumswissen
.<haft, rev. and ed. G. Wissowa, W. Kroll, et a1. (Stuttgart
1894-1972).
S. H. W. Smyth, Gruk Gramm., (Cambridge, Mass. 1956).
"1:",,...'0." W. M. A. Grimaldi, S.J., "1:"'1'8'0', TB"I'~e'" el"tI, in Aris
totle's Rhetoric," American Journal of Philology 191 (lgS0) 383""i18.
Spengd L. Spengd, Aristoklis Ars rh.torica, 2 voIs. (Leipzig 1867); ex
cept where otherwise designated, the citation is to Volume II.
Stutlits W. M. A. Grimaldi, S.J., Studies in the Philosophy of Aristotlls
RHETORIC (Wiesbaden 1972).
77b 16 All text references to the Rrh, .toric are thus abbreviated; e.g.,
77b 16 = I377b 16, etc.; A, = Book: I, 3 usually with cbapru
alld text ref=, e.g., A I, 54a I, r I, 03b 10. The Greek: of
the text is essentially that of Roemer's Teubner edition.
77b 16 Citations in bold face designate cross-references.
Texts All references to cIas.sicaI authon are to the Teubner or Oxford
editions. Where these editions are IlOt used, the edition and editor
are identified.
Complete references to all the soorce material, cited throughout this book: in brief
fashiOn, will be found in the Bibliography.

PREFACE
UNDER ORDINAIIY CmCUMsrANCES this volwne would have appeared a
number of years back. The ordinary did not prevail. The approach to the
text is the same as that in Volume I: all observations are directed to the reading
of the codices accepted by the editors of the five critical editions and by
Speoge!, Cope, unless there is a reason not to do so; the lineation is that of
Roemer's Teubner text; when understanding appears to eall for it, grammar
notes, or a translation, or a completion of dliptica1 Greek is given. On the
other hand there is less effort to restrict supporting references to the literature
in English.
The strUCtUre of Book 2 is relatively simple. The opening chapter is
transitional with a reference back to the discussion of the eotecbnic pistis,
lOro" of Book 1 and then a brief statement on the remaining two pisteis,
>TOo" :rulOo" by way of introduction to chapters 2-17 of which they form the
subject. It is worth noting that both unfortunately receive relatively passing
attention in the commentaries and critica1literature. This reflects, it would
appear, an established attitude that both were non-logical in character, con
stituting what has been called "indirect proof," and so were clearly extrinsic
to the proper purpose of discourse for Aristode (e.g., 54" 15-31) which was
asswned to be exclusively logical proof by way of enthymeme. With 2.17
the analysis begun at 1.4 of the entecbnic pisteis (lOro" "d80, >TOo,) by
way of the particular topics is concluded. Before moving on to the common
topics, AriStode in chapters 18-22 reviews and enlarges upon a number of
key concepts mentioned in 1.1-3, e.g., the koina (possibk-impossible, etc.),
the two common ways of demonstrating (eothymeme.example) the enthyrneme
as syllogism. In 2.23 he presents the common topics for inference by enthy
meme followed by a chapter (24) on common topics for apparent (fallacious)
enthymemes, and one (25) on ways to refute inference by eothymeme. The
concluding chapter (26) mentions some further observations on the nature of
the ent:l:tymeme.
For support of the work on this volume I am grateful to my own University
for a Faculty Fellowship, to the Classics Departments of Princeton and Stan
ford for Visiting Fellowships, and to the National Endowment for the Hu
manities for a Senior Fellowship and a Summer Stipend. I would like to thank
the Princeton University Library and its staff where a substantial part of the
work on both volumes was done and also the Fordham University Library
and its staff for their many courtesies. In the course of the work on both
x ARISTOTLE, 'RHETORIC' II
vollllD.CS some people have taken the time to discuss a problem or a matter of
inteIp1'etation with me; the following come readily to mind: Professors
GeoIgc Glanzman, s.]. (t), Harold Chemiss (t), Elmer Henderson, s.]. (t),
Thomas Bermingham, s.]., Thomas Conley, Joseph Dolan, s.]., Gerald
McCool, s.]., Antoni Raubitschek. Finally my thanks go to the editor who
worked with much care on both volumes of the commentary, Mary Beatrice
Schulte, and to the Director of the Fordham University Press, H. George
Flctdtcr.
ForJIram University WILUAM M. A. GRIMALDI, s.].
CHAPTERr
I· Introduction: 77b 16 - 20 a transitional synopsis of Book A
II . Development: 77b 21 - 78a 28
1. 77b 21 -78a 6 general introduction to chaps. 2-17;
since rhetoric is concerned with judg
ment on the part of the auditors, not
only must there be a logical explana
tion (Adyo,) of the subject matter
(given in Al, but the speaker must
appear to 6. disposed toward the
auditors and thus wortby of belief,
and the auditon in tum must be
disposed toward the speaker (thus the
need for iJSo, awl ,..,so,)
qualities re~uired in the speaker for
his iJSo, to be acceptable to the au
dience and thus worthy of belief
role of the "d8.J in affecting the judg
ment of the auditors
III· Conclusion: 78a 28 - 30
77b r6 : J 'Ex ... LYfdV Clearly this refers to the contents of thefirst book
in which A. has placed before us the special topics (srd7j, see SBa 17, a 26-35,
a 27-28, S9b 25-32), or the material element of discourse for the three
kinds of rhetoric. So obvious is the reference that it has been the occasion
for lengthy discussion on the unity and coherence of our traditional text on
the grounds that A., having presented a part of the first ,.la~" '.~.X"o, (M
yo,: rational explanation) in Book A, should now continue it with the
second part as found in B 18-26, and then take up his presentation of the
other two ",In." lvr8X"01, our ",dBo" >l80, of B 2-17; see Studi .., pp. 28-49
and also COMMBNTAIlY I 34M6, and the notes to A I, 2. However, at
A 2, 58a 29-33 A. stated that he would first cliscuss the specialX "to0p, ics, and he
proceeded to do this in the first book for the ",I~" , ..... which he
calls Myo" or what reason can tell US about the subject. Chapter IS, granting
2 AlUSTOTIJ!, 'nHETOllIC' II 77b 16
."".Z ...
the stated differences between "[an,, and IJ.TBZ'.' (55b 35-39),
also belongs to this analysis. See COMMBNTAll.Y I 354. 7sa 22 : 2, a 23. There
still remain the other two ,,[aTS., l.TS;!; ••• which must be analyzed by the
methodology of the special topics. The varied ways in which these two
,,[a.,.. ., can be of help must be placed before us so that we may funnulate
intelligent opinions and statements fur use in deductive (enthymernatic) and
inductive (paradeigmatic) argument. A. proceeds, therefore, to study both
,,&0.,
and ~O.,. It is only when he has completed this study that he toms
at B IS, 91 b sf[ to a general summary of the major concepts of his theory first
enunciated in A 1-3; see Studies, pp. 33-34. Only at the conclusion of this
review does A. sum up in a sentence what he has achieved in Books I and
2. (96b 28-34) and continue with a transitional sentence (96b 34 - 97a 6)
to the second fonn of topical analysis, that of the general topics. This analysis
sopcecaukpsi eosf ttwheo f pinaartls soefc rtihoento orifc B, t.h eD TioOn"y.,s i"uesa yopfa HTa"li,cda,m anadss uths,e DTeO c"o.,m 1po,, ,,I,,.,],,-o4,..
A. has been and will continue to be occupied with the first part until the
end of Book 2. It is this Td"., which Dionysius says demands mature under
standing, extended investigation, and large experience, an observation cer
tainly in accord with A.'s detailed study of the theoretical side oft he discipline.
This study, as far as we know, is unique in the history of the discipline.
The use of the preposition i" once again indicates the fact that these special
topics (eld,,) for each of the three "taTS', ''''''Z'.' provide us with the sub
stantive material for argument in each of the three kinds of rhetoric. See
COMMENTARY I 354-56, A 2., S7a 32, 58a 26-30; 6, 63b 4; 7, 6sb I9; S, 66a
18; 9, 68a 33; S9b 25-32.; Raphael, 162-<'13. As soon as he begins his analysis
,,&0.,
'of in chap. 2, it is obvious that A. is offering an analysis of the
emotions by means of the particnlar topics (.rd,,) and that the methodology
differs in no way from that seen in Book I. Dufour, II 20-21, for example,
speaking of A.'s handling of the emotions acknowledges this: "n suit la
.mSme methode que dans la dc!tennination des lieux specifiques qui alimentent
chaque genre oratoire." In this respect I would disagree with Fortenbaugh,
"Aristotle's Rhetoric on Emotions," 49n24- All three ,,1m. ., ."".Z'.' are
essentially critical for rhetorical argUDIent, and it is A.'s analysis by partic
ular topics of each one which demonstrates how and why this can be so.
As a matter of fact, to use the emotions in a way which does not arise directly
out of the argument of the discourse is to use them not as ,,[m• •, e.TSZ'.t,
but as "taT", BTBZ'.'. Direct appeals to the emotions which have no in
trinsic relation to the matter of the discourse are as separated from rhetoric
as ..-iX''! as are witnesses, torture, oaths, etc. (A I, SSb 35-37). A. says as
much at 543 I,]-I8: such appeals are not ".el .,.06 "edrpaT., (c£ S4a IS : 2,
S4a I7); see also A 2, 560 14-15 (dod 6• ... ne.axOwaw); they ... extraneous
material, digressions intended to do the very thing which A. criticizes at