132 22 19MB
Latin Pages 496 [510] Year 1954
1
THE LOEB CLASSICAL LIBRARY FOUNDKD
JlV
.TAMKS
I.OEtJ,
r,L.D.
EDITED BY tT. E. PA(;E, f.n.,
tE. CAPPS, L. A.
POST,
AD
rH.i)., L.ii.D.
C.
tW.
LL.i).
E. H.
i.iTT.i).
H. D.
WARMINGTON,
ROUSE,
litt.d.
m.a., f.r.hist.soc.
IIERENNIUM LIBRI
IV
DE RATIONE DICEXDI [M.
TULLI CICERONIS AD HERENNItJM LIBRI
\'I]
[CICEPiOl
AD
C.
HERENNIUM
DE KATIONE DICENDI (RHETORICA AD HERENNIUM) WITH
A.\
ENGLISH TRANSLATION BY
HARRY CAPLAN CORNELL UNIVERSITY
LONDON"
WILLIAM HEINEMAXX LTD CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS
HARVARD UNIVERSITY PRESS MCMLXIV
First printed 1954
Reprinted 1964
Printed in Great Britain
CONTENTS
...... ...... .......
PAQK
IxTRonucTioM
vii
Bibliography
xli
Analysis
xlv
Text and Translation Book
I
Book
II
Book
III
155
Book IV
227
1
57
Index Index of Greek
Words
....
413 429
INTRODUCTION The Greek
art of rhetoric was first naturalized at the time of the younger Scipio, and Latin treatises on the subject were in circulation from the time of the Gracchi. But the books by Cato, Antonius, and the other Roman writers have not come down to us, and it is from the second decade of the first century B.C. that we have, in the treatise addressed to Gaius Herennius, the oldest Latin Art preserved entire. Like Cicero's incomplete De Inveniione, which belongs close to it in time, this work reflects Hellenistic rhetorical teaching. Our author, however, gives us a Greek art in Latin dress, combining a Roman spirit with Greek doctrine. It is a technical manual, systematic and formal in arrangement its exposition is bald, but in greatest part clear and precise. Indeed the writer's specific aims are to achieve clarity and conciseness, and to complete the exposition of his subject with reasonable speed. He seeks clarity through the use of Roman terms, and of specially selected examples he seeks conciseness by keeping practical needs always in view, by scrupulously avoiding irrelevant matter, and by presenting methods and principles, not a host of particular illustrations of a given point.'» The fact that the treatise appeared, from Jerome's
Rome
in
;
;
"
See Schanz, ed. 1909,
p. 466. vii
INTRODUCTION time on, as a work by Cicero " gave it a prestige which enjoyed for over a thousand years. Because of its position in the MSS. following De Inventione it was in the twelfth century called Rhetorica Secunda perhaps because of a belief that Cicero wrote the treatise to it
;
replace his juvenile De Inventione, it was later called Rhetorica Novafi But Cicero never refers to any work of his which might be identified with our treatise the disparaging reference in De Oratore 1. 2. 5 to those " crude and incomplete " essays of his youth is obviously to the two books De Inventione. The picture we draw of our author does not fit the early Cicero, and his doctrines in many crucial instances, as will be seen later, are in sharp contrast with those of De Inventione. Furthermore, the thought and style of the work are unworthy of the mature Cicero. Finally Quintilian ^ (who often cites De Inventione),^ " The uncritical editor who, before Jerome's time, made this ascription may also have been responsible for the division He may have thought the unof the work into six books.
titled work Cicero's because of its resemblance to De Inventione, and may have interpreted the inchoaia ac rudia of De Oratore 1. 2. 5 as referring to two distinct works. An interesting
interpolation, based on the belief in Ciceronian authorship, [Tulli^is] heres meu-s in the MSS. at 1. xii. 20 [Terentiae] uxori meae. * For hke parallel designations oi literary works the Middle Ages, see E. R. Curtius, Europdische Liieratur und lateinisches Mittelalter, Bern, 1948, p. 161. « It is argued, for example, that if Quintilian at 4. 5. 3, where he considers the view that the propositions in a Partition should not exceed three (cf. the like principle for the Enumeration in our treatise, 1. x. 17), or at 3. 6. 45, where he deals with the three Types of Issue (c/. our treatise, 1. x. 18), had known that these were identical with, or akin to, Ciceronian notions, he would not have kept silent on the point. Usually under the title Libri Rhetorici.
appears
:
m
**
INTRODUCTION and similarly Gellius," Marius Victorinus, Servius, and Cassiodorus show no acquaintance with any Ciceronian work of this nature. Although the belief Ciceronian authorship has still not entirely disappeared, all the recent editors agree that the in
erroneous. doubt that the treatise was worthy of Ciceronian authorship was Lorenzo Valla (middle Then Raphael Regius in 1491 positively saec. xv). divorced the work from Cicero's name. The question of authorship has occupied the attention of scholars at intervals ever since, but has never been settled to the satisfaction of all. It is wisest, I believe, to ascribe the work to an unknown author, although a good many reputable scholars have made out a case, at first glance attractive, for assigning it to a rhetorician named Cornificius.^ These rely on citations in Quintilian which correspond with passages in Book 4 of our treatise. Cornificius is mentioned, and always with disapproval, in the following places In 5. 10. 2 Quintilian, discussing arguments, criticizes Cornificius for calling a Conclusion from Incompatibles contrarium contrarium appears in our treatise as a attribution
The
is
to
first
;
figure (of diction).
In
9. 2.
27 Quintilian
tells
us that oratio libera
which he would allow to be called a figure only
—
if it is
" Gellius, 13. 6. 4, says that he has been unable to discover whether the term barbarismus was used before the Augustan age; c/. our treatise, 4. xii. 17. * The first to ascribe the work with assurance to Cornificius was Petrus Victorius in 1582 Regius had vacillated, assigning ;
variously to Cornificius, Verginius Flavus, and Timolaiis. Recent scholars who have upheld the theory of Comifician authorship are Johannes Tolkiehn, Jahresb. des jjhilol. Vereins zu Berlin 45 (1919). 73, and Wilhelm Kroll, Gloita 22 (1934). 24, and Philologus 89 (1934). 63. it
ix
INTRODUCTION
—
simulated and artfully designed is by Cornificius licentia is the term used by our author called licentia (4. xxxvi. 48) for a figure which, in one form, fulfils Quintilian's requirements. In 9. 3. 69-71 Quintilian, dealing with adnominatio, gives three examples of flat punning to be avoided, not imitated; Cornificius, he says, calls this wordplay tradiLctio. Two of these examples are used by our author, one to illustrate traductio (4. xiv. 21), but the other to illustrate adnominatio (4. xxi. 29). To meet this real difficulty, the advocates of Cornifician authorship maintain that adnominatio and traductio are brought together by Quintilian because they are indeed kindred figures, but these scholars are forced also to blame Quintilian for casual excerpting at this point, or for drawing upon his memory charge hard to prove against so careful a w^orkman. In 9. 3. 91 Quintilian criticizes Cornificius and Rutilius for regarding^mie'o, which is no figure at all, as a figure of diction definitio, somewhat differently characterized, appears as a figure of diction in our ;
—
;
treatise (4. xxv. 35).
In 9. 3. 98 Quintilian tells us that Cornificius lists ten figures of diction of which the first five must be regarded as figures of thought: interrogatio (cf. 4.
XV.
xxiii.
ratiocinatio
22),
transitio
33),
xxvii. 37),
and the other
sententia (4. {ariiculus
(4.
(4.
xvi.
xxvi. five as
23),
subiectio
(4.
occultatio
(4.
not figures at
all:
35),
24), memhrum (4. xix. 26), articuli xix. 26), inierpretaiio (4. xxviii. 38), xxx. 41)." These all appear in our
xvii.
= 4.
conclusio (4.
treatise, in the places indicated in parentheses. ° Georg Thiele, Gott. gel Anz., 1892 (2). 725 £F., compares the order of the figures in this passage with that which they
X
INTRODUCTION Quintilian mentions Cornificius in two other places. 3. 1. 21, sketching the history of writers on rhetoric, he says : " Cornificius wrote a great deal {non pauca) on the same subject (rhetoric), Stertinius something, and the elder Gallio « a little. But the predecessors of Gallio, Celsus and Laenas,* and in our own day \'erginius,\'ill by praising our services without arrogance and revealing also our past conduct toward the republic, or toward our parents, friends, or the audience, and by making some reference to provided that all such references are pertinent to the matter in question likewise by setting forth our disabilities, need, loneliness, and misfortune,^ and pleading for our hearers' aid, and at the same time showing that we have been unwilling to place our o>\'n
pei*son, the
.
.
.
;
hope
in
anyone
else.
From the discussion of the person of our adversaries we shall secure goodwill by bringing them into hatred, unpopularity, or contempt.*^
We
shall force
hatred upon them by adducing some base, highhanded, treacherous, cruel, impudent, malicious, or author accords with the early Greek rhetoric based on the divisions of the discourse. Nowhere does he make a profound analytical study of the emotions such as we find in Aristotle, Bhet., Bk, II. In Anon. Seg. 6 (Spengel-Hammer 1 [2]. 353 are list-ed five emotions of the hearer which play a part in the j
function of the Proem pity, anger, fear, hate, and desire. ' e^dpa or ^laos, (f>d6to;, opyT]. :
15
[CICERO] malitiose, flagitiose factum proferemus.
In invidiam vim, si potentiam, si factionem, divitias, incontinentiam, nobilitatem, clientelas, hospitium, sodalitatem, adfinitates adversariorum proferemus, et his adiumentis magis quam veritati eos confidere aperiemus. In contemptionem adducemus si inertiam, ignaviam, desidiam, luxuriam adversariorum proferemus. Ab auditorum persona benivolentia colligitur si res eorum fortiter, sapienter, mansuete, magnifice
trahemus
si
iudicatas proferemus
quae
iudieii
;
expectatio
et
si
quae de
iis
existimatio,
aperiemus.
sit
Ab rebus ipsis benivolum efficiemus auditorem si nostram causam laudando extollemus, adversariorum per contemptionem deprimemus. VI. Deinceps de insinuatione aperiendum est. Tria sunt tempora quibus principio uti non possumus, quae diligenter sunt consideranda aut cum turpem causam habemus, hoc est, cum ipsa res animum auditoris a nobis alienat aut cum animus auditoris persuasus esse videtur ab iis qui ante contra dixerunt aut cum defessus est eos audiendo qui ante dixerunt. Si causa turpitudinem habebit, exordiri poterimus his rationibus hominem, non rem,^ spectari oportere non placere nobis ipsis quae facta dicantur ab adver:
;
:
^
;
hominem non rem Thieh rem non hominem hominem E rem hominem PCMx rem non hominem HP^ II.
non rem
:
:
:
In Cicero, De Inv. 1. xvii. 23, the Subtle Approach is used in the admirabile genus causae. The three causae of Cicero correspond to the " occasions " classified by our author. Anon. Seg. 21 £F. (Spengel-Hammer 1 [2]. 357 &.) gives four occasions on which the Prooemion should be dispensed with, and discusses the view that it must always be "
epecifically
used.
i6
AD HERENNIUM,
I.
v.
8-vi. 9
act of theirs. We shall make our adunpopular by scttin*^ forth their violent behaviour, their dominance, factiousness, wealth, lack
shameful versaries
of self-restraint, hi