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

---

---

‘Now first of all, inquiry was naturally directed to that which is first in the natural order, the sources from which things themselves derive their plausibility or power of persuasion’ (i. e. what are the sources of rhetorical proof of facts themselves; which of course is the basis of the entire art or practice, and therefore ‘first in the order of nature’); ‘and secondly, the due setting out (disposal) of these by the language; and thirdly (τούτων, of such things as these, the divisions of Rhetoric), what has the greatest force (or influence, is especially effective as a means of persuasion), but has not yet been attempted (regularly, systematically, as an art, no serious attempt has yet been made upon it), that which relates to delivery’.

πρῶτον ἐζητήθη κατὰ φύσιν] A similar phraseology occurs at the beginning of the Poetics, I 1, ult. ἀρξάμενοι κατὰ φύσιν πρῶτον ἀπὸ τῶν πρώτων. And de Soph. El. init. ἀρξάμενοι κατὰ φύσιν ἀπὸ τῶν πρώτων. Victorius.

διαθέσθαι] denotes the ‘disposal’ or ‘disposition’, i. e. the investing of the speech with a certain character, putting it in a certain state, by the use of language: as the ἀκροαταί of a speech are said διατίθεσθαί πως, to be brought into such and such a disposition or state of feeling by it: a common use of the verb. It does not mean here distribution, ordering, arrangement, which is not the special office of the graces and proprieties of language or style. There is another sense in which this verb is used by later writers, as Polybius, Dionysius, Diodorus, with λόγους and the like, disponere, in publicum proponere, in medium proferre, to dispose or set out (διά), as wares in a market for sale, étaler; which may possibly be the meaning here, though, I think, it would be less appropriate. Victorius renders it explanare. διάθεσις, in Longinus quoted below, seems to correspond to διατίθεσθαι here in the sense in which I have explained it.

ἐπικεχείρηται] is a striking instance of that abnormal formation of the passive, which I have explained and illustrated in Appendix B on I 12. 22 [Vol. I. p. 297].

ὑπόκρισις, ‘acting’, properly includes, besides declamation, the management of the voice, to which Aristotle, as already mentioned, here confines it, § 4, that of the features, arms, hands, and the entire body: and so it is treated by the Latin rhetoricians, Cicero, Quintilian, &c. Longinus, Ars Rhet., (apud Spengel, Rhet. Gr. I 310,) has a chapter upon it, following another περὶ λέξεως. His description of it is, μίμησις τῶν κατ᾽ ἀλήθειαν ἑκάστῳ παρισταμένων ἠθῶν καὶ παθῶν καὶ διάθεσις σώματός τε καὶ τόνου φωνῆς πρόσφορος τοῖς ὑποκειμένοις πράγμασιν. δύναται δὲ μέγιστον εἰς πίστιν κ.τ.λ. Dionysius, de admirabili vi dicendi in Demosthene, c. 22, p. 1023 (Reiske), says of the great orator, κοσμοῦντος ἅπαντα καὶ χρηματίζοντος (σχηματίζοντος, Sylburg) τῇ πρεπούσῃ ὑποκρίσει ἧς δεινότατος ἀσκητὴς ἐγένετο, ὡς ἅπαντές τε ὁμολογοῦσι καὶ ἐξ αὐτῶν ἰδεῖν ἔστι τῶν λόγων, κ.τ.λ. See Quint. XI 3. 5, on the effect of pronuntiatio, ‘delivery, declamation’, where he says that even an indifferent speech set off by the vigour and grace of action will have more weight or effect than the very best without it: in § 6 he quotes the opinion of Demosthenes, who assigned successively the first, second, and third place to declamation (pronuntiatio), and so on till his questioner stopped. In § 7 he quotes Aeschines' saying to the Rhodians, who were admiring the de Corona as he recited it to them, Quid si ipsum audissetis? et M. Cicero unam in dicendo actionem dominari putat. Cic. de Or. III 56. 213, from which the whole passage of Quintilian is taken. Also Brutus, LXVI 234, Lentulus' opinion. XXXVIII 141, 142. XLIII 168 (Spalding ad loc. Quint.). On Demosthenes' dictum, Bacon, Essays, Of Boldnesse, init., has this remark: A strange thing that that part of an Oratour which is but superficiall, and rather the vertue of a Player, should be placed so high above those other noble parts of Invention, Elocution, and the rest; nay almost alone, as if it were all in all. But the reason is plaine. There is in humane Nature generally more of the foole then of the wise; and therefore those faculties by which the foolish part of men's mindes is taken are most potent.

‘(And this is not at all surprising) because in fact it was not till late that it made its way into the tragic art and rhapsody; for the poets at first (in the earliest stages of the drama) used to act their tragedies themselves’ (and therefore, as there was no profession of acting or professional actors, it was not likely that an art of acting should be constructed; the poets acted, as they wrote, as well as they could by the light of nature, without any rules of art).

ῥαψῳδία. On ῥαψῳδοί and ῥαψῳδεῖν, see Plat. Ion, 530 B, et seq., Müller, Hist. Gr. Lit. c. 4 § 3. Heyne, Excursus II ad Il. Ω, § 3; Vol. VIII. p. 792. F. A. Wolf, Proleg. ad Hom., p. 99 seq. Nitzsch, Quaest. Hom. IV. p. 13 seq.

ὀψὲ παρῆλθεν] infra § 5, ὀψὲ προῆλθεν; Poet. IV 17, τὸ μέγεθος (τῆς τραγῳδίας)...ὀψὲ ἀπεσεμνύνθη, also V 3.

ὑπεκρίνοντο αὐτοί] Plut. Sol. XXIX (Victorius), ὁ Σόλων ἐθεάσατο τὸν Θέσπιν αὐτὸν ὑποκρινόμενον ὥσπερ ἔθος ἦν τοῖς παλαιοῖς. Liv. VII 2, Livius —idem scilicet, id quod omnes tum erant, suorum carminum actor. Victorius thinks that this statement is confirmed by Hor. A. P. 277, quae canerent agerentque peruncti faecibus ora, which means that ‘the poets themselves had their faces smeared’. Donaldson, Theatre of the Greeks, Ed. vii. p. 59, n. 10.

‘It is plain then that there is something of this kind in Rhetoric also as well as in poetry’ (declamation may be studied and practised for the purposes of Rhetoric, as well as for those of acting in tragedy and comedy or of rhapsodical recitation): ‘which, in fact, (i. e. the ‘poetical’ declamation), has been dealt with (treated artistically, see note on I 1. 3), besides others, by Glaucon of Teos in particular’.

This tautological repetition of καί, καὶ περὶ τὴν ῥητορικήν, καὶ περὶ τὴν ποιητικήν, is not unfrequent in Aristotle. Compare Pol. I 2, 1252 b 26, ὥσπερ δὲ καὶ τὰ εἴδη—οὕτω καὶ τοὺς βίους τῶν θεῶν. Ib. 1253 a 31, ὥσπερ γὰρ καὶ τελεωθέν—οὕτω καὶ χωρισθέν.

Glaucon of Teos, an Ionian city on the coast of Asia Minor, is most probably the same as a Glaucon mentioned by Ion, Plat. Ion 530 D (so Stallbaum's note ad loc.), as following his own profession as a rhapsodist, which seems suitable enough for one who writes on the art of tragic declamation, especially as acting and rhapsodizing are actually coupled together by Aristotle in the preceding sentence. I should be disposed also to identify with him of Teos, the Glaucon quoted in Poet. XXV 23 —seemingly as a poetical critic, which is also a kindred pursuit. See in Smith's Biogr. Dict. the third article on Glaucon.

Tyrrwhitt ad loc. Poet. seems in favour of the supposition that the three Glaucons are one. A Glaucon who wrote a work on γλῶσσαι (sic), Athen. XI 480 F, was at all events not far removed from the same studies. Schneider, ad Xen. Conv. III 6.