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

---

---

‘Another, different, kind of ethical drawing or representation (ἄλλα; no longer confined to moral qualities, but the representation of character in general) are the characteristic peculiarities that accompany each individual character: for instance, “so and so walked on as he was talking”—an indication of audacity and rudeness of character’. The rudeness and insolence are shewn in not stopping to speak to the other; it is a sign of slight esteem and contempt, ὀλιγωρία. The characters here spoken of differ in one point from the dramatic characters of III 7. 6,— though they belong to the same family, the third kind of ἤθη, Introd. p. 112—in that these are the characteristic peculiarities of individuals, the others those of classes. A good specimen of this ethical description occurs in Demosth. de F. L. § 361, a portrait of Aeschines; and two similar traits in c. Steph. ά § 63, οὗτος γὰρ, ἡνίκα μὲν συνέβαινεν εὐτυχεῖν Ἀριστολόχῳ τῷ τραπεζίτῃ, ἴσα βαίνων ἐβάδιζεν ὑποπεπτωκὼς αὐτῷ...ἐπειδὴ δ᾽ ἀπώλετ̓ ἐκεῖνος κ.τ.λ. and § 77, ἐγὼ δ᾽ ...τῆς μὲν ὄψεως τῇ φύσει καὶ τῷ ταχέως βαδίζειν καὶ λαλεῖν μέγα (signs apparently of ill-breeding) οὐ τῶν εὐτυχῶς πεφυκότων ἐμαυτὸν κρίνω. The ἴσα βαίνειν in the former passage, is ‘to keep pace with’, ‘to walk on a level’, ‘place oneself on equal terms with’ another. See Shilleto ad loc. de F. L. (His reference to the passage of c. Steph. should be § 63, not 77.)

‘And again, in speaking, let your words seem to proceed, not from the intellect (as the effect of calculation, deliberation), but as it were from a moral purpose or intention (the will; or, as we should say, the heart)’. “Let your style bear the impress, not so much of intellectual subtlety and vigour, as of good feeling and sound moral purpose: the one may be the mark of a wise man, the other is that of a good—and, what is more to the purpose in Rhetoric, a popular—character.” Introd. (slightly altered). ‘“And I wished this to take place; in fact such was my purpose and intention: it is true that I gained nothing by it; but even so it is better.” The one is characteristic of a wise or prudent man, the other of a good one: for prudence (worldly, practical, wisdom) shews itself in the pursuit of one's interest, goodness in that of the fair, high, noble, right’.

‘If any (trait of character that you introduce) seem incredible, then add the statement (or explanation) of the cause or reason, as (in) the example that Sophocles gives, the passage of (from) his Antigone “that she cared more for her brother than for husband or children, for the one could be replaced (recovered) if they were lost—but when father and mother are buried in the grave, no brother can spring up evermore”’. This is Antigone's reason for preferring the burial of her brother's body to marriage with Haemon, a husband and children: she has shewn her character in the preference, and the obstinacy in which she adheres to it. It is the conclusion of a beautiful passage, beginning, ὦ τύμβος, ὦ νυμφεῖον, Antig. 891—912. Arist. has altered κεκευθότων of the original to βεβηκότων.

The same answer is put into the mouth of the wife of Intaphernes, when Darius, having condemned her husband and the whole of his family to death, allows her to choose one of the number whose life is to be spared. She chooses her brother, and when Darius expresses his surprise and demands the reason, replies thus: Ὦ βασιλεῦ, ἀνὴρ μέν μοι ἂν ἄλλος γένοιτο, εἰ δαίμων ἐθέλοι, καὶ τέκνα ἄλλα, εἰ ταῦτα ἀποβάλοιμι: πατρὸς δὲ καὶ μητρὸς οὐκ ἔτι μευ ζωόντων, ἀδελφεὸς ἂν ἄλλος οὐδενὶ τρόπῳ γένοιτο. ταύτῃ τῇ γνώμῃ χρεωμένη ἔλεξα ταῦτα. The comparison of these two passages of the poet and historian, and another equally close correspondence of Herod. II 35 with Soph. Oed. Col. 337, have led to the inference that there was some connexion or acquaintance between the two. When or where they met, if they ever did meet, cannot now be ascertained: Samos (which has been suggested) is out of the question; for Herodotus was at Thurium before Sophocles was appointed to his command in the expedition under Pericles against that island. The Antigone was produced in 440 B.C. It is probable that some parts of Herodotus' history had been published¹ before the final completion of the work at Thurium, and Sophocles may have thus obtained access to them. That he was the borrower, there can be no reasonable doubt. At all events that Sophocles was an admirer of Herodotus we know from Plutarch, who gives us the first line and a half of an epigram by Sophocles in his honour; ᾠδὴν Ἡροδότῳ τεῦξεν Σοφοκλῆς ἐτέων ὢν πέντ᾽ ἐπὶ πεντήκοντα; adding that it was ὁμολογουμένως Σοφοκλέους.

‘If you have no reason to give, at any rate you may say that “you know that what you say will convince nobody, but such is your nature (you can't help being virtuous and disinterested, do what you will)—for people never believe in disinterested motives²’. (Lit. people always disbelieve that any one does anything intentionally except what is for his own interest.) Even such a reason is better than none at all.