ARISTOTLE AND THE EARLIER PERIPATETICS vol.I by Eduard Zeller, B.F.C.Costelloe 1897

—
—.
:
ARISTOTLE'S WRITINGS 73
of the history of rhetoric, 1 or set out rhetorical
atter meaning, in itself most improbable
(cf. ©EoSeKTiKal rexvai, probably meant the extant Rliet.
the Te'
Xv»|[i] o' of D. 79, An. 73
ANON, in Ar. Fr. 125, p. 1499, ad Alex. In D. 80 the MSS.
Fr. Hz. 125 ;
Quintilian, ii. vary between KAAjj texvi) and
15, 10, gives this explanation
with an 'ut creditum est': former is right it Would mean a
&AA77 Te%vwp trvvayaryj]. If the
Valer. Max. viii. 11, 3 gives it second recension of our Rhetoric
more distinctly) ; or else they if the latter, a recension of the
name Theodectes directly as the Tex""'' awaywyi) : in neither case
author (ClC. Orat. 51, 172, 57, would it imply separate works.
194 ;
QuiNTIL.iv. 2, 63 : and later Of the special tracts, the Tpiwos
writers ap. Kobe, Ar. Ps. 141, has been mentioned p. 58, n. 1,
Ar. Fr. 123 ; Fr. Hz, 124 sq. ; com. supra : probably An. App. 153,
pare the similar treatment of n. £j|Topiiri)$ is merely a duplicate
the title Kicomachean Ethics by of it. In the title, n. Ae'lews a' j8'
Cicero and dthers, de quo p. 97 (D. 87, An. 79, n. \i\. Ka.6a.pZs : cf
inf. ; or else they ascribe to Aristotle
and Theodectes the opin-
p. 698, n. 3) Brandis in the
on a similar book by Eudemus,
ions they find in this book Gr.-rom. Phil. ii. b, 1. 79 detects
(Dionys. Comp. Verb. 2, p. 8, De book 3 of our Rlietoric, whose
Vi Bevws. 48, p. 1101 ;
Quintil. first twelve chapters deal with
i. 4. 18 ; Ar. Fr. 126). If it is that subject. This is the more
genuine, which the Fr. at least probable that D. 78 gives the
Rhetoric only two books, although
An. 72 has three books.
The others, i.e. D. 85, An. 77,
n. fLeye8ovs a' (de quo cf. Rliet. i.
give no reason to doubt, we
should consider it certainly not
as a work written by Theodectes
and published by Aristotle after
his death, but as a work of Aristotle
dedicated to Theodectes, in
which view, since that orator did
not survive the date of Alexander's
Eastern expedition, and
had become known to Alexander
through Aristotle (Plut. Alex.
17 fin.), it would have been composed
during the years of Aristotle's
residence in Macedonia.
The name Tc'xkh (in the Rliet. ad
Alex.; cf. Rose, Ar. Ps. 139)
seems to indicate that it had
more than one book, though the
plural ©eoBeKTera (Rliet. iii. 9)
would not necessarily do so. For
further details v. Rose, Ar. Ps.
135 sq., and Heitz, 85 sq.
As to the remaining titles in our
lists which relate to Rhetoric,
3, 1359, a, 16, ii. 18 sq. 1391, b,
31, 1393, o, S); D. 88, An. 80,
n. (rv/ifiovMas [-^j] a (v. Ar. Fr.
136, p. 1501, Ar. Ps. 148, Fr. Hz.
126) : AN. App. 177, n. p^Topas
% iroKiTucov : An. App. 178, Texvi;
^yK&j/uiam-i/ci), were doubtless all
spurious, as was also the Mirr\p.ovucbv
(D. 117, An. 109) which
would be dealt with as an aid to
Rhetoric. Pt. 68, Tlapayye\fiaTa
seems to be the same as the
Tlaoayy. fniropiKris attributed to
Theophrastus by Diog. v. 47, but
was in any case not by Aristotle.
1
An exposition of all the
rhetorical theories (rexvai) down
to Aristotle's own time was given
in the Texvuv avvaywy^j (D. 77,
as two books : An. 71, and Pt.
74 ARISTOTLE
examples, 1 we have only one preserved to us, 2 in which,
however, we possess without doubt the most mature statement
of his rhetorical doctrine. The Rhetoric addressed to
Alexander is now universally admitted to be spurious. 3
24, as one book), D. 89, J.vvayuyrjs
a' /8', and D. 80, "AWq -r(xv^v
avmywfti (if that is the right
reading) seem to be duplicates
only. We hear of it in CiC. Be
Invent, ii. 2, 6, Be Orat. ii. 38,
160, Brut, 12, 48, etc. : v. Ar. Fr.
130-135, p. 1500; Ar. Ps. 145;
Fr. Hz. 122. The same work or
an abstract of it seems to be
meant by Demetr. Magn. (ap.
DlOG. ii. 104) by the title 'Eirnofiii
1
'EvSv/i^/iara pnrropuA a', D.
84, An. 76; and 'Evevfn.ni/jATcov
SiaipeVeis a' (D. 84 ; An. 88, miswritten
'EvB. KaX aipicrewv). To
the same class belonged An. 127,
Upooifilav a'; but I. Uapoifiiaiv, as
in D. 138. With these should be
reckoned the Xpeitu—a collection
of striking remarks, like Plutarch's
Apophthegms, quoted by
Stob. Floril. 5, 83,7,30, 31,29,70,
90,43, 140,57, 12, 93, 38, 116, 47,
118,29. But as a saying of Zeno
the Stoic is quoted from it (57,
1 2), and as we can hardly credit
Aristotle with such a collection
of anecdotes, it must either be a
forgery or else the work of »
later writer of the same name,
like the grammarian mentioned
ap: OlOG. v. 35. Rose believes
(Ar. Ps. 611) that 'ApicrroTeAovs
is a misreading for 'Aplcrravos.
The same book seems to be what
is meant in Stob. (38, 37, 45, 21)
by the citation : 4k r&v koivuv
'ApurroreKovs SiaTpifSZv. See its
Fr. ap. Rose, Ar. Ps. 611, and
Fr, Hz. 335,—The two orations,
'Eykcifiiov \6yov and 'Eyicd/uov
tAovtov, are counted as pseudepigrapha
in An. 190, 194. The
various proverbs and apophthegms
quoted from Aristotle
(Rose, Ar. Ps. 606 sq. ; Fr. Hz.
337 sq.) are collected from different
sources.
2 I.e. the three books of the
Rhetoric. The date of its composition
must be the last residence
of Aristotle at Athens;
cf . Erandis in ' Ar. Ehet.' Philol.
iv. 8. That it has suffered interpolations
and transpositions (e.g.
in book ii. c. 18-26 ought to precede
c. 1-17) was proved by
Spengel, Abh. d. Miinchn. A/tad.
vi. 483, followed by Vahlen,
'
Z. Krit. Ar. Schr.' Wien. Altad.
xxxviii. 92, 121. The genuineness
of book iii. has been questioned
by Sauppe, Bionys. u. Ar., Gott.
1863, p. 32 ; Rose, Ar. Ps. 137
n. ; Heitz, p. 85, 89 ; SCHAAEschmidt,
Samml.Plat. Schr.108,
whose view has been followed in
Zelleb, Plato, p. 55.
3
This work was known to
the author of our earliest list
(v. D. 79, but its authenticity
is not to be thought of.
SPENGEL (ivvay. t^xv. 182,
Anaxim. Ars Rliet. Proleg.
ix. sq., cf. 99 sq.) attributes
it, excepting the first and last
chapters, to Aristotle's contemporary
Anaximenes of Lampsacus.
This suggestion, however, is very
questionable ; cf . Rose, Ar. Bib.
Ord. 100 ; Kampe, in the Philol.
ix. 106 sq, 279 sq. For, apart