Porphyry's rhetoric

Classical Quarterly

Volumn 53, Issue 1, 2003, Pages 141-166

  Heath, Malcolm ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LEEDS   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 67650115444     PISSN: 00098388     EISSN: 14716844     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/cq/53.1.141     Document Type: Review

References (157)

1. See R. J. Penella, Greek Philosophers and Sophists in the Fourth Century A.D. (Leeds 1990), 42-3.
2. A. Smith, 'Porphyrian studies since 1913', ANRW II.36.2 (1987), 717-73;
3. Porphyrius. Fragmenta (Leipzig 1993).
4. This project will be developed further in a book on Menander Rhetor currently in preparation; for an interim report, see M. Heath, 'Rhetoric in mid-antiquity', in T. P. Wiseman (ed.), Classics in Progress (Oxford, 2002), 419-39. I gratefully acknowledge the support of a British Academy Research Readership towards the project's completion.
5. Longinus' fragments are cited from M. Patillon and L. Brisson, Longin. Fragments. Art Rhétorique. Rufus. Art Rhétorique (Paris, 2001);
6. some additional evidence is adduced in my review, CR 52 (2002), forthcoming.
7. M. Heath, 'Caecilius, Longinus and Photius', GRBS 39 (1998), 271-92.
8. Herodes had different teachers for rhetoric and (Lives of the Sophists 564); Pollux gained expertise in from his father, but studied with Hadrian (592); Antipater studied with Hadrian and Pollux, and also learned theory with Zeno (607). That it was worth commenting on the fact that Lollianus gave classes in theory as well as declamation (527) suggests that a stricter division of labour was normal at the highest level of the profession.
9. M. Heath 'Longinus On Sublimity', PCPS 45 (1999), 43-74, at 48-9;
10. on this fragment, see also I. Männlein-Robert, Longin. Philologe und Philosoph (Munich and Leipzig, 2001), 251-92.
11. RG 4.324.13-325.4, 352.5-354.11;
12. Syrianus 2.67.1-6;
13. v (L. Schilling, 'Quaestiones rhetoricae selectae', Jahrbuch für classische Philologie Suppl. 28 [1903], 663-778, at 710, n. 1, n. 3, 744).
14. For the attribution of RG 4.352.5-354.11 to Maior, see H. Rabe, 'Aus Rhetoren Handschriften: 11.
15. Der Dreimänner Kommentar WIV, RM 64 (1909), 578-89, at 588.
16. Rabe's corrections to Walz's attributions, based on his collation of Par. 2923 (Py), will be cited repeatedly in the following notes (see also G. Kowalski, 'De commentarii in Hermogenis Status e tribus interpretibus confectis [Rh. Gr. IV Walz] in codice Par. Gr. 2923 obvia', Eos 41 [1940-6], 46-80 and 42 [1947], 122-41, at 60, 62). Unfortunately, the manuscript attributions in the composite commentary of RG 4 remain unreliable even when Walz's errors are removed, as comparison of the two recensions of Syrianus shows.
17. Nicagoras: the evidence is summarized in M. Heath, 'The family of Minucianus?', ZPE 113 (1996), 66-70, at 67 (to the bibliography add now FGrH 1076);
18. for the unrevised chronology, see O. Schissel, 'Die Familie des Minukianos', Klio 21 (1926/7), 361-73, at 367;
19. K. Clinton, The Sacred Officials of the Eleusinian Mysteries (Philadelphia, 1974), 80.
20. Philostratus: I. Avotins, 'The year of birth of the Lemnian Philostratus', AC 47 (1978), 538-9 argues for 187 as an alternative possibility
21. but see S. Rothe, Kommentar zu ausgewahlten Sophistenviten des Philostratos (Heidelberg 1988), 262, n. 1;
22. L. de Lannoy, 'Le problème de Philostrate (Etat de la question)', ANRW II.34.3 (1997), 2362-449, at 2369-72
23. agrees on 190/1. Apsines: M. Heath 'Apsines and pseudo-Apsines', AJP 119 (1998), 89-111, at 90-1 (with further bibliography).
24. For Minucianus and the younger Nicagoras, see Heath (n. 9), 67.
25. Chronology: A. Frantz, Late Antiquity: A.D. 267-700 (Athenian Agora 24, Princeton, 1988), 9-10,
26. followed by E. Sironen, 'Life and administration of late Roman Attica in the light of public inscriptions', in P. Castrén (ed.) Post-Herulian Athens (Helsinki, 1994), 15-62, at 20.
27. Bidez, Vie de Porphyre (Gent, 1913), 30;
28. cf. Schissel (n. 9), 368.
29. Heath (n. 9), 69-70.
30. The argument of this paragraph is presented in more detail in Heath (n. 5), 280-1.
31. Smith (n. 2), xii.
32. Cf. (sch. Ar. Clouds 1115a), referring to a commentary on the first Clouds. If this is right, it is also possible that the Suda's reference to Metrophanes' Art is a doublet created by citations of the same work under both styles.
33. C. A. Behr, 'Citations of Porphyry's qAgainst Aristides preserved in Olympiodorus', AJP 89 (1968), 186-99.
34. R. Jackson, K. Lycos, and H. Tarrant, Olympiodorus. Commentary on Plato's Gorgias (Leiden, 1998), 22, 240 are more inclined to concede first-hand knowledge of Aristides to Olympiodorus.
35. On Minucianus, see Heath (n. 9).
36. S. Glocckner, Quaestiones Rhetoricae (Breslauer Philologische Abhandlungen 8.2, 1901), 22-50 provides helpful overview of the evidence for Minucianus' theories, but is out of date;
37. W. Stegemann, 'Minukianos (1)', RE XV.2 (1932), 1975-87 is not consistently reliable.
38. Some of the material is discussed in my commentary on Hermogenes (M. Heath, Hermogenes on Issues. Strategies of Argument in Later Greek Rhetoric [Oxford, 1995]).
39. On Zeno, and the grounds for thinking that his work antedates that of Minucianus, see M. Heath, 'Zeno the rhetor and the thirteen staseis', Eranos 92 (1994), 17-22;
40. references are by page and line in Sulpicius Victor (RLM 313-352 Halm).
41. From the fourth, fifth, and sixth centuries we have evidence of commentaries on Hermo-genes by Aphthonius (if a comma is placed after in Suda A4630), Athanasius, Eustathius, Georgius, John of Caesarea, 'John(?)' Marcellinus, Phoebammon, Photius, Sopater, and Syrianus. H. Hunger, Die hochsprachliche profane Literatur der Byzantiner (Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaften XII.5, Munich, 1978), 77-88 provides a useful way into the literature.
42. As assumed by Schissel (n. 9): contra Heath (n. 9), 68-9;
43. G. A. Kennedy, Greek Rhetoric under Christian Emperors (Princeton, 1983), 76.
44. Sopater, RG 5.14.19-28, 4.140.10-11;
45. anon. RG 7.139.4-5;
46. PS 60.16, 294.17-22, 317.12 app., 317.19-320.3.
47. M. Heath, 'Hermagoras: transmission and attribution', Philologus 146 (2002), has more detail and further references.
48. Schilling (n. 8), 751, n. 4.
49. r (Schilling [n. 8], 711-12); RG 7.595.6 (∼ 5.337.23-338.6).
50. r (Schilling [n. 8], 743);
51. r (H. Rabe, 'De Christophori commentario in Hermogenis librum', RM 50 [1895], 241-9, at 248).
52. The Suda gives us Gaius, Aelius, and Valerius Harpocration (A4012-4014).
53. 2 10826 (= Peek 558, Kaibel 106): compare the third-century philosopher and sophist Tiberius (Suda T550).
54. We should probably eliminate Valerius, the Alexandrian lexicographer, on whom see J. J. Keaney, Harpocration. Lexeis of the Ten Orators (Amsterdam, 1991), ix-x. Aelius' works included an Art of Rhetoric and On Types of Style a work on idea-theory implies a date in the late second or third century. It may seem tempting to identify his Art with that cited by the Anonymus, especially since the citations display a marked interest in style; but they contain nothing distinctive to idea-theory. No positive conclusion is warranted.
55. Schilling (n. 8) 743, 749.
56. Heath (n. 16), 92-4.
57. Gloeckner (n. 16), 76
58. conjectured that Porphyry replied to Hermogenes' criticisms of Minucianus; contra H. Rabe, Prolegomenon Sylloge (Leipzig, 1931), xiii.
59. M. Heath, 'Porphyry's rhetoric: texts and translation', Leeds International Classical Studies 1.5 (2002), 1-38 (at http://www.leeds.ac.uk/ classics/lics/).
60. Text: at 5.9.20 for read cf. 26-7 PS 293.25.
61. r (Schilling [n. 8], 756) cites this comment in support of his contention that copyists had given Hermogenes' treatise the title Art of Rhetoric in error
62. cf. ?Marcellinus, PS 292.13-293.8. Anon. PS 245.20-249.1 surveys the discussion of why Hermogenes had given his work this title before deducing from this passage that he did not.
63. On prolegomena to commentaries, see J. Mansfeld, Prolegomena. Questions To Be Settled before the Study of an Author or a Text (Leiden, 1994);
64. Prolegomena Mathematica. From Apollonius of Perga to Late Neoplatonism (Leiden, 1998);
65. M. Plezia, De commentariis isagogicis (Polska Akademia Umiejetnosci, Archiwum filologiczne 23, Kraków, 1949);
66. R. E. Heine, 'The introduction to Origen's Commentary on John compared with the introductions to the ancient philosophical commentaries on Aristotle', in G. Dorival and A. le Boulluec (edd.), Origeniana Sexta (Leuven, 1995), 3-12.
67. Kennedy (n. 19), 78 suggests that it may have been Porphyry 'who began the custom of writing prolegomena to the study of rhetoric which fit the discipline into a philosophical scheme and deal with the delicate question of why rhetoric should be taken seriously, given Plato's objections to it in the Gorgias'. However, the fragments contain no evidence for such general prolegomena to rhetoric, as distinct from prolegomena to the particular text in question, nor of anything as elaborately systematized as the later prolegomena.
68. The reference is not to Hermagoras of Temnos, in the second century B.C., but to a homonym dating (like Lollianus) to the early second century A.D.; on the transmission and attribution of fragments of rhetoricians named Hermagoras, see Heath (n. 21).
69. The fragments of Lollianus are collected in O. Schissel, 'Lollianus aus Ephesos', Philologus 82 (1926/7), 181-201.
70. According to the transmitted text at 5.8.19-20, it was Lollianus who held that there were seven issues, and Hermagoras 'after him' five, but comparison with RG 5.79.10-15 and PS 60.13-15 shows that the two names have been accidentally transposed: Gloeckner (n. 16), 52-3.
71. Rabe (n. 29), xi-xiv.
72. Cf. K. Schöpsdau, 'Das Nachleben des Technon Synagoge bei Cicero, Quintilian und in der griechischen Prolegomena zur Rhetorik', in W. W. Fortenbaugh and D. C. Mirhady (edd.), Peripatetic Rhetoric after Aristotle, Rutgers University Studies in Classical Humanities 6 (New Brunswick, 1994), 192-216, at 215, n. 63.
73. Gloeckner(n. 16), 33.
74. The argument of this paragraph is presented in more detail in Heath (n. 21).
75. For this attribution of the section starting at 63.6 see Rabe (n. 8), 587.
76. M. Heath, 'The substructure of stasis-theory from Hermagoras to Hermogenes', CQ 44 (1994), 114-29, discussing Lollianus at 123-5 (I do not accept Rabe's supplement at 330.27), Minucianus at 125-6.
77. Gloeckner(n. 16), 33.
78. Schilling (n. 8), 711-12.
79. A. D. Nock, 'Kornutos', RE Suppl. 5 (1931), 995-1005.
80. J. Graeven, Cornuti artis rhetoricae epitome (Berlin, 1891).
81. contra F. Marx, BPW 12 (1892), 776-82, at 780.
82. Seen. 16 above.
83. In sch. min. RG 4.63, n. 20 (cf. The extract from John Do.xapatres in S. Glocckner, Über den Kommentar des Johannes Doxopatres zu den Staseis des Hermogenes I, Wissenschaftliche Beilage zum Jahresbericht des Königlichen Gymnasiums zu Bunzlau 244 [Kirchhain, 1908], 31) the doctrine attributed to Minucianus is the same as that attributed to Lollianus in RG 4.63.9-18; the possibility must therefore be recognized that is a mistake for the less familiar But if, as suggested below, Porphyry and Minucianus accepted Lollianus' scheme, the information might be authentic.
84. The image was extensively developed by later writers; for references see Rabe's annotation to PS 205.1-4,
85. and M. Heath, Unity in Greek Poetics (Oxford, 1989), 134-6.
86. H. Rabe, 'Aus Rhetoren Handschriften: 3. Die Quellen des Do.xapatres in den Homilien zu Aphthonios', RM 62 (1907), 559-86, at 561, n. 2.
87. It may be relevant that Porphyry's commentary on Aristotle's Categories begins (56.14-57.18) with the title and subject-matter of the base-text. Cf. Dexippus, In Cat. 5.25-6.26, covering purpose usefulness, and title.
88. On Minucianus' definition of issue, see Heath (n. 39), 125-6.
89. Etymology: Sopater, RG 5.77.12-22 ∼ 4.199.4-13;
90. anon. RG 7.170.11-13; cf. Syrianus 2.47.13-20. Hermogenes 35.17-19 dismisses the topic.
91. Heath (n. 16), on Hermogenes 31.19-34.15, with 36.7-9 (themes lacking issue); 34.16-35.14 (class and mode).
92. Rabe (n. 24), 246-7.
93. Gloeckner (n. 16), 33.
94. For example, Zeno: objection, practical, counterplea, counterposition; Hermogenes: counterplea, counterposition, practical, objection; Sopater, Division of Questions (and according to Syrianus 2.151.22-3): counterplea, counter-position, objection, practical.
95. Minucianus' order is also followed by Syrianus, and in Sopater's Division of Questions; see too RG 4.239.14-21 (Marcellinus), 4.532.18 ('Syrianus, Sopater and Marcellinus'), 648.22 (Sopater), 651.4 (Marcellinus).
96. At 389.31 supply
97. At 595.10 read for
98. At 316.4 supply (cf. 316.12).
99. Rabe (n. 29), xc-xci draws attention to the three-way parallel RG 5.17.27-18.26 ∼ RG 4.46.20-48.25 ∼ PS 320.16-321.10.
100. The answer to his question, 'quis tandem est genuinus Sopatri textus?', must be that RG 5 presents an (often radically) abbreviated version of the genuine text, and RG 4 an (also, often radically) redacted one. In this case the redactor has replaced RG 5.17.27-30 ∼ PS 320.16-19 with RG 4.46.20-6, and effected a return to the original by transposing (PS 320.20, omitted in the RG 5 recension) before RG 5.17.30 ∼ RG 4.46.27 ∼ PS 320.9.
101. Since the sequence of events is the sign, the schematization of the heads of conjecture in Heath (n. 16), 80-1 is seriously flawed. Sequence of events should be grouped in (C) with the heads that respond to it; hence (B) examines the probability of the crime (witnesses, motive, capacity) and (C) examines the alleged signs. This in turn means that (C) should be regarded as the primary argument, (B) as preparatory. Note that Minucianus placed the transposition of cause immediately after sequence of events, unlike Hermogenes, who placed it after the counterplea: see Heath (n. 16), 86 on Hermogenes 48.3-9.
102. Text: there is a lacuna at 4.397.23; read.
103. The theme is that of a rich young man who boasts at a party that he will become tyrant: see Sopater, RG 5.52.14-15-4.122.5-6,4.406.13-20;
104. Marcellinus, RG 4.407.14-19.
105. A more complex variant appears at Zeno 332.27-333.29;
106. sch. Dem. 19.101 (228, p. 41.20-7);
107. Sopater, Division of Questions 51.9-16;
108. Epiphanius, RG 4.465.7-15;
109. Syrianus 2.94.8-13;
110. anon. RG 7.382.15-21, 383.22-384.4.
111. Other themes mentioned in this context are the rich young man who maintains disinherited sons, and the man found burying a recently killed corpse: see Heath (n. 16), 83 (on Hermogenes 47.2-5) and 88 (on 49.16-19), respectively.
112. Heath (n. 16), 88-9 (on 49.23-50.2).
113. Text: at 397.31 Kowalski (n. 8), 58 recovers from Py.
114. Cf. Sopater, RG 5.135.22-7 ∼ 4.388.27-389.6;
115. Marcellinus, RG 4.453.28-454.3;
116. a more elaborate formulation in Sen. Contr. 2.7.
117. Heath (n. 16), 88 (on Hermogenes 49.21-3).
118. Text: 398.23-4 is corrupt, has arisen from assimilation to the end of previous sentence: read (e.g.): At 399.10-11 Kowalski (n. 8), 77 recovers from Py.
119. This section is echoed in Georgius: Schilling (n. 8), 762, n. 3.
120. For this attribution of the section starting at 363.25, see Rabe (n. 8), 588;
121. for Polemo, see F15 below.
122. Cf. (e.g.) Sopater, RG 5.52.13, 95.14-15;
123. Marcellinus, RG 4.135.23-9, 324.17-20 (citing Maior);
124. Syrianus 2.84.11-16;
125. anon. RG 7.309.2-7.
126. Text: note the corrections in D. Innes and M. Winterbottom, Sopatros the Rhetor, BICS Suppl. 48 (1988), 39-40.
127. See further Heath (n. 16), 97, on Hermogenes 57.14-58.2.
128. At 520.29 read.
129. At 522.6 read for.
130. On technical elaboration as an opportunity for competitive display, see T. Barton, Ancient Astrology (London, 1994), 139-41.
131. Heath (n. 9), 115-16.
132. Cf. (e.g.) [Apsines] 1.98-100; Sopater, RG 5.173.16-18, 4.587.24-6, 588.1-15;
133. Marcellinus, RG 4.616.4-9.
134. Cf. (e.g.) Zeno 339.11-14;
135. Sopater, RG 4.189.12-22;
136. Syrianus, 2.44.5-8, 154.1-7,155.8-11.
137. Walz's punctuation does not make it any easier to follow this argument: the full-stop at 235.7 should be deleted (235.5-7, is parenthetic); at 235.20 the colon after should be replaced with a comma, and deleted.
138. Rabe (n. 24), 247;
139. Schilling (n. 8), 731.
140. Heath (n. 16), 129.
141. Abas wrote historical monographs as well as an Art of Rhetoric (Such A20); the identification of the historical works with those of RE Abas (11) = FGrH 46 has been questioned.
142. Schilling (n. 8), 751-2.
143. In fact, Sopater, RG 4.703.9 says (if the comma which Walz places before the is transposed, as it must be, after it) that the practical issue uses only the heads of purpose.
144. Gloeckner (n. 16), 43.
145. This part of Marcellinus' discussion appears in almost identical terms at 265.12-28 ('Syrianus, Sopater and Marccllinus': Rabe [n. 8], 588), without reference to Porphyry. At 265.19 is careless, since it implies that the example involves a prosecution for a judicial problem that would not fall under the practical issue; the formulation at 268.22-3 makes it clear that what is in question is a deliberative debate about a legislative proposal.
146. Against the identification, see Heath (n. 16), 245, citing evidence of doctrinal differences. The cross-reference to 106 (on Hermogenes 60.15-18) remains valid; but that to 95 (on 55.17-56.3) must be deleted in the light of Rabe (n. 8), 588 (RG 4.444.8-32, attributed to Sopater in Walz, is headed in the manuscript).
147. Text: at 423.4 read (Finckh) for in the following line a lacuna can be supplied from Anon. Seg. 208; at 426.18 read (cf. Anon. Seg. 204).
148. See Graeven (n. 42), xix.
149. The following readings are drawn from Kowalski's collation of Py (n. 8): 422.24 422.25 424.5 424.6 (but here one should restore from Plato Ap. 34c); 424.9 424.29 425.18 425.20 426.28 427.8 27.14 427.23.
150. Rabe (n. 8), 588. Walz presents this section as part of the extract from Marcellinus beginning at 417.1.
151. 426.17-19 ∼ Anon. Seg. 204; 426.20-31 ∼ [Apsines] 10.3.3-30 Patillon
152. (discussed in M. Heath, 'Notes on pseudo-Apsines', Mnemos. 55 [2002]);
153. 426.31-427.2 sim; Anon. Seg. 212; 427.8-10 ∼ Anon. Seg. 205; 428.4-30 ∼ Anon. Seg. 19-20,237.
154. Heath (n. 16), 90-1, 109-10.
155. Text: at 536.26-7 read with Gloeckner (n. 16), 34; at 536.28 Gloeckner deletes but I would prefer to supply before this phrase.
156. Schilling (n. 8), 748.
157. W. W. Fortenbaugh, 'Theophrastus fragment 65 Wimmer: is it important for understanding Peripatetic rhetoric?', AJP 111 (1990), 168-75, at 174, n. 11 notes that reflects later terminology in his cautious discussion of Ammonius, Int. 65.31-66.10 = Theophrastus F78.