E. M. Cope, Commentary on the Rhetoric of Aristotle

---

---

Personal beauty has no absolute standard or uniform expression, manifesting itself in the same forms at all periods and under all circumstances. It is relative, not only to the three stages of human life, youth, prime (ἀκμή) and old age, but also to the habits and functions natural and appropriate to each of those stages; manly and athletic exercises, in the way of training, to youth; military service, the imperative duty of an active and able-bodied citizen, to middle age; sedentary and intellectual pursuits, to old age, yet so that strength and vigour remain adequate to the endurance of ordinary or ‘necessary’ labours— extraordinary exertions, as in athletic exercises and service in the field, being no longer required. The habit of body which is fitted to the exercise of these several functions at the corresponding period of life is a constituent element of its personal beauty.

νέου μὲν οὖν κάλλος κ.τ.λ.] When it is said that the beauty of a young man consists partly in the possession of a body in a serviceable state for undergoing the labours and pains incident to the race and feats of strength, the meaning seems to be that the robust habit of body and the muscular development required for the one, and the indications of activity combined with strength, which appear in the outward form, necessary for the other, are pleasant to the eye, both in themselves and also as suggesting a fitness or adaptation or harmony of the exterior of the person with the habits and pursuits which are appropriate to youth.

πρὸς ἀπόλαυσιν] means no more than the mere enjoyment afforded by the sight of personal beauty. Victorius, who suggests another interpretation, concludes finally in favour of this.

οἱ πένταθλοι κάλλιστοι] The combination of a natural aptitude or capacity (πεφύκασι πρός) for strength and speed, vigour and activity, as evidenced by success in the various exercises of the πένταθλον, and the outward expression of these faculties in the configuration of the body, when accompanied with beauty in the shape, symmetry, and expression of the features, is the highest form of personal beauty in the young man. ‘Die übung im Pentathlon war wegen der verschiedenartigkeit der fünf wettkämpfe ganz vorzüglich das werk junger rustiger männer mit elastischem leibe. Die Pentathlen zeichneten sich daher durch gleichmässige stärke der glieder, allseitige gewandtheit und körperlich harmonische bildung vor allen übrigen vortheilhaft aus, und werden daher vom Aristoteles als die schönsten Agonisten genannt.’ Krause, Gymn. u. Agon. der Griechen, Vol. I, p. 494, abschn. VI § 31. The exercise of the πένταθλον is therefore mentioned in the passage before us as belonging solely to the period of youth¹.

The πένταθλον consisted of five exercises as the name implies. These are enumerated in an epigram of Simonides, Anthol. 67 (73), Bergk, Fragm. Lyr. p. 791,

Ἴσθμια καὶ Πυθοῖ Διοφῶν ὁ Φίλωνος ἐνίκα ἅλμα, ποδωκείην, δίσκον, ἄκοντα, πάλην,

and in an epigram of unknown authorship quoted by Eustath. ad Il. Ψ. p. 1320, Anthol. ἐπιγράματα ἀδέσποτα CCCLIV,

ἅλμα ποδῶν, δίσκου τε βολή, καὶ ἄκοντος ἐρωή, καὶ δρόμος, ἠδὲ παλή: μία δ᾽ ἔπλετο πᾶσι τελευτή.

The same five are named in the Schol. on Pind. Isthm. I 35, and in the Schol. on Plat. Erast. c. 4. 135 D, πάλη, σίγυννος (i. e. ἄκων), ἅλμα, δίσκος, καὶ δρόμος. On the πένταθλον and its contents, see Krause, Op. cit. p. 476 seq. abschn. VI § 29.

Πυγμή, boxing, was therefore not included in the πένταθλον; and we are driven to suppose that the concluding words of § 14, ὁ δὲ πᾶσι πένταθλος, which certainly according to the ordinary laws of the interpretation of language ought to include it with the rest of the foregoing exercises, are one amongst many instances of Aristotle's carelessness in expressing himself, and affirm something which he could not really have meant. πᾶσι, if it can be said to have any meaning at all, must be understood simply to imply, that the πένταθλον combines in one the greatest number and variety of the single and separate exercises. Such is also the opinion of Krause, Op. cit. p. 258, n. 6. He observes that such a conclusion (as would naturally be drawn from the words of Arist.) is opposed to all the notices which we find in the ancient writers. Aristoteles konnte hier in bekannten dingen die mehr worte bedürfende deutlichkeit einer gedrungenen präcisen, und in gemessener gradation fortschreitender redeweise, welche ihm eigenthümlich ist, aufopfern, da ja doch jedem Hellenen die fünf bestandtheile des Pentathlon bekannt waren.

ἀκμάζοντος δέ κ.τ.λ.] The simplest way of filling up the elliptical construction seems to be to supply κάλλος after ἀκμάζοντος, and γέροντος in the next clause, and πεφυκέναι from the immediately preceding πρεφύκασιν after πολεμικούς in the former clause and ἱκανόν in the latter. The required sense may be equally well supplied by repeating (as Victorius) the first words of the sentence, ἀκμάζοντος δὲ (κάλλος) (τὸ) πρὸς μὲν πόνους τοὺς πολεμικούς (χρήσιμον ἔχειν τὸ σῶμα); but the consideration of the immediate proximity of πεφύκασιν seems more in favour of the other.

ἱκανόν] fit for, strong enough for, capable of.

ἄλυπον] causing no pain, no painful impression or repulsion, in consequence of the absence of all the ordinary deformities or disfigurements incident to old age.

ὧν τὸ γῆρας λωβᾶται] i. e. ἐκείνων ἃ τὸ γῆρας λωβᾶται. This unusual and irregular form of attraction of the relative to the case of its antecedent, where, had the antecedent been expressed, the relative should have been the nominative to a succeeding verb, is exemplified by Matthiae, Gr. Gr. § 473, obs. 1, from Herod. I 68, οὐδέν κω εἰδότες τῶν ἦν..., Thuc. VII 67 ἀφ᾽ ὧν ἡμῖν παρεσκεύασται. Add to these, Plat. Protag. 334 C ἐν τούτοις οἷς μέλλει ἔδεσθαι, de Rep. V 465 D, εὐδαιμονίζονται ἐκεῖνοι ὧν τούτοις ύπαρχει. Dem. de Cor. p. 318, 19, § 277, οὐδ᾽ ἐφ̓ ἃ συμφέρει τῇ πόλει χρῆται. And from Aristotle, this passage, and Rhet. I 2, 11, ἐξ ὧν ἔτυχεν. In Dem. c. Steph. p. 1116, περὶ ὧν μὴ κατηγόρηται λέγειν, which has been cited as an instance, κατηγόρηται is the irregular passive ‘has been accused’, and therefore περὶ ὧν need not be interpreted as περὶ ἐκείνων ἅ; it is for περὶ ἐκείνων περὶ ὧν. Another doubtful example is Eur. Med. 262, τὸν δόντα τ᾽ αὐτῷ θυγατέῤ, ἥν τ̓ ἐγήματο, where Seidler retains this (the v. l.), and regards ἥν as a case of attraction for αὐτὴν ἥ. An analogous case of this kind of attraction is Sophocles' οἵας γ᾽ ἐμοῦ, Trach. 443, for οἵα ἐγώ εἰμυ