SOURCE: "A Brief History of Aristotle's Rhetoric," in Aristotle's "Rhetoric": Five Centuries of Philological Research, The Scarecrow Press, Inc., 1975, pp. 1-20.

[In the following essay, Erickson traces 2,300 years of the history of Rhetoric, from its probable composition date, the myths regarding the loss and recovery of the text, early translations and publications, and into the twentieth century.]

Tracing the history of Aristotle's Rhetoric logically begins with its "completion" or "publication" date. Although numerous scholars have attempted to date the Rhetoric there is little conclusive evidence to confirm a particular date. Edward M. Cope, a century ago, summarized research concerning the Rhetoric's completion or publication date: "As is usual in these cases the result is meagre and unsatisfactory: no certainty is attainable; we have to content ourselves with sufficiently vague and indefinite conjecture as to the time and mode of the composition of the work."¹ Cope's remarks are echoed by contemporary investigators such as Paul D. Brandes,² who concludes that the Rhetoric's exact completion date remains unknown. There are several reasons for the confusion.

Book publishing as we know it, of course, did not exist in ancient Greece. To "publish" a work held a quite different meaning for Aristotle and his counterparts. One of the principal differences lay in the audience to which scholarly works were addressed. Students enrolled in the Academy, Lyceum, Isocrates' school and the general circle of enlightened scholars at Athens made up the major audience for scholarly works in ancient Greece. Beyond these and similar schools a market for such works did not exist. Many of the philosophers, "perhaps the majority of them, never can be said to have published a philosophical work in any sense other than that in which a lecturer publishes his thoughts to his audience."³ Shute, for example, believes the extant Aristotelian works were in lecture or notebook form during the Stagirite's lifetime, and as such, were never published formally. He notes that, "moreover … those works which have come down to us … are clearly neither prepared nor designed for a large circle of readers. I think, then, we safely may conclude that there was no publication in any sense of these works during Aristotle's lifetime."⁴

The best evidence indicates that Aristotle completed the "final" draft of the Rhetoric during his second residency at Athens. Cope believes 336 B.C. to be the work's earliest possible completion date, as Spengel⁵ has identified a passage referring to Phillip's embassy to Thebes in 338 B.C. and an alliance with Alexander in 336 B.C. The Rhetoric, though, as is generally agreed, was an evolving manuscript, revised and edited over a number of years. There is substantial research indicating that it developed genetically rather than systematically; that it was not written in one inspired seizure but developed over a period of several years. Although we need not fully examine the arguments here, Solmsen, Jaeger, and Hill are of the opinion that the Rhetoric's internal evidence indicates that it was revised many times. The Rhetoric's irregular organization, lack of internal consistency, contradictions, and repetitions support this thesis; no other explanation accounts for these internal faults. Brandes summarizes our point by suggesting: "The clear thrust of internal evidence and scholarly speculation is toward the view that the Rhetoric is not a 'book' in the usual sense but is a set of lecture notes subjected to a series of revisions, not always systematic."⁶ To summarize, the final draft of the Rhetoric, if indeed Aristotle even considered it a completed work, can be attributed reasonably to the second residency.

Loss and Recovery of the Rhetoric

The difficulty of dating the Rhetoric is equaled by the difficulty of reconstructing its history. There are numerous accounts of how the Rhetoric survived antiquity. The topic must be approached with caution, as we are ignorant of much of this period and of the men associated with the work.

The principal ancients advancing an account of the loss and recovery of Aristotle's works are Strabo⁷ and Athenaeus.⁸ By comparing their explanations with modern interpretations a probable account of the Rhetoric's history can be reconstructed. Our story begins with the death of Aristotle in 322 B.C. Theophrastus assumed the Lyceum's leadership, previously held by Aristotle. During the later years of his directorship Theophrastus confronted dissension within the Lyceum; there arose what appears to have been doctrinal as well as personal in-fighting. As old age approached, Theophrastus wished the conservative Neleus of Scepsis to be his successor. Neleus seemed a plausible choice and Theophrastus envisioned little difficulty in having him appointed as scholarchate. Thus, as was the tradition, he willed the Lyceum's library, containing his own as well as Aristotle's works, to Neleus. Due, perhaps, to the conflict existing within the school, the "elders" elected Strato of Lampsacus over Neleus—undoubtedly a surprise to Neleus. He decided, perhaps in light of this, to return to Scepsis, taking with him his newly inherited library. It is at this point that our story takes some interesting turns.

Strabo's intriguing account relates that upon Neleus' death, his collection passed to his family. Said to have been illiterate and generally unaware of the priceless nature of the books, they stored or buried them in a cellar. Strabo suggests they feared that Eumenes II, a neighboring King of Pergamum (who was a noted collector of manuscripts and books), would attempt to recover the collection by force. With time the books and manuscripts deteriorated badly; nearly one hundred and fifty years passed until the library's value was recognized by one of the descendants. The collection was recovered and sold to Apellicon of Teos, reputedly for a huge sum of money. About 100 B.C. the library was transported to Athens, whereupon Apellicon began the difficult task of correcting and publishing Aristotle's works. He was in no sense of the term a philosopher, a handicap which severely hindered his attempt to render faithful copies of the works. No trace of his edition remains. Sixteen years later the library of Apellicon was taken as booty by L. C. Sulla, who defeated Athens in 86 B.C., and returned to Rome. In 78 B.C. Faustus Sulla acquired the library and after twenty-three years of disinterest sold it by auction to Tyrannion of Amisos, a grammarian. One would think Tyrannion suited to edit Aristotle's work. But, like Apellicon before him, he provided an inadequate edition: "Tyrannion apparently not only mishandled the severely damaged texts, but also incorrectly filled in the many and often lacunae."⁹ Strabo also laments at certain manuscript copyists or booksellers who acquired Aristotelian manuscripts from Sulla's auction and later mass-produced copies for sale. These copies are said to have been grossly inadequate and riddled with textual inaccuracies.

Strabo's account of the recovery of Aristotle's works, however, cannot be taken at face value. Strabo tells us, for instance, of the elation of the Peripatetics at having acquired, through the hand of Apellicon, authentic works of Aristotle. He suggests the Peripatetics had been without the majority of Aristotle's works for many years: "The statement at first blush seems so absurd and impossible that one cannot wonder that many editors have rejected it as utterly false."¹⁰ It seems illogical that Theophrastus would not have allowed his school access to the library's manuscripts and books. The Lyceum was his very life, no less upon his death. Likewise, it is not logical that Neleus, irrespective of his disappointment at not having been appointed scholarchate, would have taken the library without allowing his colleagues the opportunity to make copies. Moreover, would the members of the Lyceum have so easily given up their tools—the very life-blood of the institution? "If the books were already in any sense published, there would have been no difficulty about this; if they were not, we must remember that Neleus himself was a Peripatetic, and is hardly likely to have refused his fellow disciples so simple a boon as the right to copy these precious volumes, a boon which involved no loss to himself, but an inestimable advantage to those to whom it was granted."¹¹

Chroust agrees in essence with Shute. He considers Strabo's story, that upon the death of Theophrastus no esoteric copies remained (except those possessed by Neleus), to be untrue—a fantastic myth: "This myth, it might be contended, was probably invented for the purpose of explaining (and incidentally, of excusing) why after the death of Theophrastus the majority of the Peripatetics 'deviated' to a considerable degree from the teaching of both Aristotle and Theophrastus. Also, this would explain why apparently during the second century B. C. the philosophical achievements of the Peripatus, on the whole were negligible. Left without any authoritative guides and materials, the post-Theophrastian Peripatetics simply floundered about badly."¹² The citation of the supposedly lost works by post-Theophrastian authors, however, plainly refutes Strabo's story.¹³ Also, there is little doubt that the immediate disciples of Aristotle possessed copies of his works and that later Peripatetics relied heavily upon them. These notes and copies were used as the basis for their lectures and various investigations: "It is safe to surmise, therefore, that during the period Aristotle's works were located in Scepsis (or essential parts of them) they were still known (and used) through fairly accurate copies that were to be found in the possession of some Peripatetics."¹⁴

We have yet to address ourselves to Athenaeus' account of the corpus. He tells us that the Ptolemys bought Aristotle's works from both Theophrastus and Neleus in order to enrich the Alexandrian library. There is little question that Alexandria was a great center and storehouse of Aristotelian writings. Ptolemy Philadelphus, for instance, is said to have possessed more than a thousand pieces of Aristotelica. There was in general great respect for Aristotle, even to the extent of Aristotelian "clubs" being formed. But Athenaeus' story is marred by a contradiction. In his description of later Athenian history he relates essentially Strabo's account of Apellicon having secured the Aristotelian library at Scepsis. Shute resolves this conflict by suggesting that Ptolemy Philadelphus could not have bought all the books from Neleus; that very likely Theophrastus sold him only those previously published works, such as the historical works and dialogues, and that Neleus sold him books of assembled notes.

What then can be said of the account of Strabo and Athenaeus concerning the disposition of Aristotle's library? Unlike Shute and Vleeschauwer,¹⁵ Chroust suggests Strabo's story to be at best pure fiction. Chroust's reasoning is based upon, in addition to the evidence already cited, Plutarch's¹⁶ mention of Andronicus of Rhodes and Strabo's indirect reaction to him. Plutarch claimed Andronicus saved the corpus Aristotelicum from becoming a textual catastrophe.

Andronicus was schooled at Rhodes, which for many years had reflected the Peripatetic tradition. Here he was steeped in Aristotelian philosophy and quite likely had occasion to examine many Aristotelica dating to Eudemus. Hence, Andronicus possessed a strong background in Aristotelian studies as preserved at Rhodes and taught by the Rhodian Peripatus. Chroust argues that it is not unlikely that Andronicus traveled to Rome for the express purpose of examining Tyrannion's source materials. Once there, he somehow acquired these materials and soon realized their immense value. He was able to compare his knowledge of Rhodian Aristotelica with Tyrannion's, recognizing as he did, that many unique items were among this collection. This presented a spectacular opportunity for an otherwise undistinguished scholar. Here was his chance to refresh the dwindling intellectual storehouse of the Peripatus through the restoration of Aristotle's works. Such an effort, he believed, would restore the Peripatus to a leading position among schools throughout the Hellenistic-Roman world. Beyond that: "If he could successfully convince people that he was in possession of a very large part of Aristotle's writings and that his collection was the only 'authentic' collection in existence of Aristotle's own manuscripts, he would become the undisputed head and leader of the whole revived Peripatetic movement."¹⁷ It is at this point that Andronicus submitted his claim to be the new scholarchate.

Strabo must surely have been aware of Andronicus' claims. He does not mention him by name, however, which suggests ill feeling between them. Strabo, however, does refer to booksellers of Rome who employed poor copyists—a remark apparently directed at Andronicus. Strabo and other Peripatetics, it appears, were putting up strong resistance to Andronicus' claim of possessing the only authentic Aristotelian works. Quite naturally they felt that if anyone was heir to the Aristotelian tradition, it should be a Greek not a Rhodian. In the words of Chroust: "In order to discredit Andronicus and especially his claim that he was in the sole possession of the original manuscripts of Aristotle (and of the only authoritative and 'orthodox' materials dating back to the very founders of the school), these antagonists, who were simply competitors of Andronicus, in all likelihood alleged that if he actually did gain possession of Aristotle's own writings—something which in their opinion was by no means certain; and if these writings had been buried in a damp cellar for so many years, they must be severely damaged and hence, for all practical purposes virtually useless."¹⁸ Extending this reasoning they suggested that both the works of Tyrannion and Andronicus were inferior to those versions already possessed by the Peripatetics. To support their claim they had only to point to the shoddy editing by Apellicon and Tyrannion and to indicate that incompetent Roman copyists and booksellers produced the texts. Chroust concludes that both the Scepsis burial story and any preliminary attempts by Apellicon and Tyrannion to edit Aristotle's works are highly doubtful. Perhaps, suggests Chroust, Apellicon and Tyrannion attempted initial editing but soon found the work exceeding their capabilities. Andronicus, since it cannot be denied that he published an edition of Aristotle's works, at best consulted these earlier efforts while editing his version. This conclusion in many respects runs counter to those of Shute and Vleeschauwer but appears the more logical version.

We have sketched a history of the corpus Aristotelicum without specific mention of the Rhetoric. Apparently, regardless of the authenticity of the Scepsis story, the Rhetoric was never lost but was preserved by members of the Lyceum either before or upon Aristotle's death. Shute believes the work was "continually extant and continually subject to alteration in the whole period between Aristotle and Andronicus."¹⁹ This hypothesis would be in keeping with the thesis of both Shute and Chroust that the lectures continued without interruption. To be sure, as the years passed, men of lesser abilities assumed teaching positions and, with a changing philosophy in the school, the Rhetoric may well have slipped in stature, doomed to gather dust on the shelves of the school. Disuse, therefore, may account for the "disappearance" of the work.

Cicero was familiar with a number of Aristotle's works (all of which, with the exception of the Rhetoric, were in dialogue form). Moreover, he makes frequent mention of the Rhetoric, reflecting his familiarity with the work.²⁰ In comparing his understanding of the Rhetoric with our copy we find them to be remarkably similar: "That Cicero's Rhetoric of Aristotle is substantially the same as ours no one can doubt, nor I think, can any reasonable person dispute that this book at least he read firsthand."²¹ In addition, the Synagôgê technôn is mentioned by Cicero²² in De orator where he speaks of a history of orators, and in the Brutus where he relates incidents of Tisias, Theodorus, and Gorgias which could only have been taken from this source.

After Cicero we have little evidence as to either the use or study of the Rhetoric for at least a century. Oddly, while Rome was now the center of Aristotelian study the Rhetoric enjoyed little popularity. Ciceronian rhetoric, of course, far exceeded any impression the Rhetoric made; nor had the latter an effect upon Greek oratory of this later period. In this period Dionysius of Halicamassus is one of the few commentators on the rhetorical influence of Aristotle. "We notice that his citations from the Rhetoric are not only roughly but actually the same as the text which we now have."²³

The Rhetoric now appears temporarily to have run its course. The early medieval ages were to overlook the work. Lee Hultzen,²⁴ however, identified two rhetorics of this period which were possibly influenced by or familiar with the Rhetoric. Aquilas Romanus' Aquilae Romani de Figuris sententiarum, written in the later part of the third century, cites the Rhetoric as its only reference. Also, Victorinus' commentary upon the De inventione makes references to pistis and arrangement which seem Aristotelian. Since these citations are not found in Cicero's books Victorinus may have had first-hand knowledge of the Rhetoric. Hultzen, though, summarizes the Rhetoric's influence during this period by noting that "there is in the principal medieval rhetorics no evidence of the use of Aristotle's Rhetoric, nothing later than the fourth century."²⁵

There is nearly a six hundred year gap in our history during which little is known of the Rhetoric's fate; it was among the last of Aristotle's works to emerge in the Middle Ages. During the Middle Ages the Aristotelian tradition was at its lowest ebb in Western Europe, with only the Organon attracting scholastic interest. Edgar Lobel, for example, "assigned on palaeographical evidence"²⁶ a Greek manuscript of the tenth century which would constitute the first extant manuscript of Aristotle's Rhetoric [although it is a superior Greek manuscript the copyist is unknown]. There was, however, a strong Arabic tradition. Syrian scholars, who acquired their copies of Aristotle's works from early Syriac versions, are probably to be credited with preserving these works. The extent of Syriac acquaintance with the Rhetoric and its influence on Syrian scholarship is unknown. Severus Sebokht (A.D. 667), a little-known author in an unknown work, reportedly discussed select passages of the Rhetoric." The Fihrist of al-Nadim²⁷ (an encyclopedia of early Arabic scholarship) identifies several Arabic scholars who were familiar with the Rhetoric but makes no mention of a Syriac version. Syrian translations were passed on to Arabic copyists, though, for according to F. E. Peters the colophon to Ishāq ibn Hunayn's translation (to be discussed shortly) indicates Ibn al-Samh had access to a Syriac version of the Rhetoric. Likewise, in an abridgment by al-Kindi (an Arabic scholar) it appears a Syriac version existed at least a generation before Ishaq.

A few Arabic works on poetry and criticism are hypothesized to have been acquainted with the Rhetoric. Taha Husayn,²⁸ in a much referred to study, suggests that Book III of the Rhetoric influenced Qudama's Criticism of Poetry and the anonymous (wrongly ascribed to Qudama²⁹) Naqd an-Nathr (The Criticism of Prose).

Ishāq translated the Rhetoric into Arabic [Paris MS BN 2346] and Abiu 'Ali ibn al-Samnh (m. A.D. 1027) incorporated it in his edition. S. M. Stem notes that the colophon to Book III carries the following cryptic remark: "This book is not very useful and has not been studied, therefore one does not find a correct copy or a person interested in its correction."³⁰ Another scholar, Ibrāhīm ibn 'Abdallāh, translated Ishāq's work, but for some unknown reason burned it shortly before his death. Trabulsi³¹ suggests that Ishāq's translation also spurred Ibn al-Mu 'Tazz to write his Book of the Ornate Style. "Trabulsi's theory is ingenious, but at the same time difficult to accept, for the figures of speech which are the main subject of Ibn al-Mu 'Tazz's book are treated in Aristotle's Rhetoric only in passing and in a manner quite different from that of Ibn al-Mu 'Tazz."³²

Chief among the early Arabic commentators of Ishaq's translation, however, was the tenth-century scholar, AlFarabi.³³ An avid Aristotelian, he is said to have had a special fondness for the Rhetoric, having read it two hundred times and written seventy books on it. Alfarabi's didascalion or "gloss" and a partial translation interspersed with his own comments survives. Approximately three hundred years later, the German scholar Hermannus Alemannus translated portions of the commentary into Latin. [This Declaratio (Paris, MS BN lat. 16097) was edited by Lancilotus Zerlis and published at Venice in 1481.] Until approximately 150 years ago it was assumed that Hermannus Alemannus had not translated the Rhetoric. This issue generated much debate. "The most reputable authorities, relying primarily on the translator's prologues … after brief and infrequent forays into the no man's land of translations themselves, brought back reports so varied and contradictory that one might wonder if they had seen the same thing or were even serving on the same front."³⁴ In an excellent study comparing primary text materials William F. Boggess (see note 34) conclusively proves that Hermannus did execute a translation of the Rhetoric. Boggess demonstrates that a comparison of Hermannus' translation and the Greek Rhetoric shows them to be remarkably similar. Hermannus translated the Rhetoric into Latin from Arabic at Toledo in 1256 A.D. "Whatever the nature or worth of Hermannus Alemannus' translation … it does not appear to have made much of an impression except to draw the censure of Roger Bacon."³⁵ Bacon severely chided the German scholar for his lack of precision and apparent inability to render Arabic into Latin. He thought Hermannus' translations were virtually impossible to understand.

The Arabic books of Aristotle were brought to Spain following the Mohammedan invasion. "It was here that the Rhetoric first re-appeared in Western Europe."³⁶ The Spanish philosopher Averröes composed a Middle Commentary and a paraphrase of the Rhetoric, sections of which were also translated by Hermannus. Aristotelian texts continued to attract Eastern scholars, however. Herrick indicates that Eustathius, Bishop of Thessalonica in the last half of the twelfth century, refers to the Rhetoric in his extended commentary upon the Iliad³⁷

Two translations of the Rhetoric into Latin from Greek occurred in the thirteenth century. Of their existence we have the surest proof—extant copies. The translatio vetus, approximately 1250 A.D., may have ties with the Hermannus Alemannus debate. Its origin and translator, though, are unknown. Spengel believes it a translation of Bartholomaeus of Messina, while Mandonnet³⁸ attributes it to Hermannus (which is unlikely). Only three copies of this manuscript exist; it was little used in schools and less consulted by scholars familiar with its existence. The reason for its lack of popularity is not known, although Murphy suggests that William of Moerbeke's translation, translatio Guillelmi, may have overshadowed it.³⁹

Moerbeke, a Flemish Dominican of the thirteenth century, translated many of the works of Aristotle. Ninety-six manuscripts of his translation of the Rhetoric survive, the most frequently consulted being Parisiensus lat. 7695. The work, like Hermannus' translations of Al-Farabi's and Averroes' glosses, received the censure of Roger Bacon, who termed it unimaginative.

Sandys,⁴⁰ though, thinks the baldness of Moerbeke's knowledge of Greek contributed to the work's literal translation. In any event, Moerbeke's translation was well received. Without doubt, Thomas Aquinas, who sponsored the translation, lent heavily to its credibility. The work appears to have been completed about 1270 (a second manuscript, Parisiensus lat. 14696, bears the date 1281), at the height of Aristotelian interest in Paris. Its popularity far exceeded that of any other version. Curiously, we have no knowledge of the Greek manuscript consulted by Moerbeke. Moreover, "there is no reason to believe that Moerbeke even consulted previous renditions; in any case his independent version so completely dominates schools and libraries that for all practical purposes it may be regarded as the typical medieval Latin version."⁴¹

At the close of the thirteenth century at least twenty-two manuscripts of the Rhetoric had been prepared. The fourteenth century produced fifty-seven manuscripts, the fifteenth century, seventeen. We would assume that extensive scholastic interest accounted for this number of manuscripts; likewise, we would suspect rhetorical training and contemporary rhetorics to reflect the work. The opposite appears to have been the case. Murphy's investigation of the Rhetoric's influence during this period found it to be minimal. He suggests, based in part upon the commentary of Aegidius Romanus,⁴² that the Rhetoric was not thought of as a rhetorical or dialectical work but one allied with political science and ethics. Close examination of manuscript pairings bears out this judgment, for of the seventy-nine instances of the Rhetoric paired with one or more works, sixty-nine include the Politica or Ethica: "In any event, the history of Aristotle's Rhetoric in the Middle Ages indicates quite clearly that even though it did not serve its original purpose directly as a textbook on oral and written discourse, it did find a significant place in European culture, particularly in the areas of ethics, morality and politics."⁴³

The Invention of Printing

Our history of the Rhetoric essentially concludes with Gutenberg's invention of the printing press. This new found art of book manufacturing was to be a boon to European scholarship. While movable type would arrive too late to affect the Italian Renaissance (Bolgar concludes that the "novelty" of the printing press contributed little to the rise of Greek letters⁴⁴), it was nonetheless seized upon for its capacity to reproduce rare manuscripts in quantity. Men of both learning and finance (who soon recognized the commercial possibilities of printing) established presses in centers of learning. All across Europe presses were built and the task of resurrecting the classics from the hand of scribes began. The copyists' monumental efforts to reproduce texts by hand were erased almost overnight. Venice alone licensed between 200 and 268 printing houses by the end of the fifteenth century.⁴⁵ The impact of movable type upon the printing of classical literature was staggering; most of the Latin editiones principes appeared between 1465 and 1475, most of the Greek between 1493 and 1518.⁴⁶

The first published analysis of Aristotle's Rhetoric was prepared by George of Trebizond, published in Paris by Petrus Caesaris and Johannes Stol. Trapezuntius was an avid, if somewhat lackluster, student of Aristotle. As a professor of Greek and rhetoric at Rome and Venice he was perhaps a suitable choice, however, to bring the Rhetoric to the house of Caesaris and Stol. The book's catalogue title runs: Aristotelis Rhetoricorum liber III, ex interpretatione Georgii Trapezuntii. The book does not carry a publication date and as a result many estimates have been made of its entrance into print. I accept the Gesamtkatalog der Wiegendrucke's ascribed date of 1475.⁴⁷

Other incunabula of the fifteenth century present only minor bibliographical problems in comparison with George of Trebizond's. In 1481 Lancilotus Zerlis, whom we have already mentioned, published his edited compendium of Hermannus Alemannus' translations. In 1485 Francesco Filelfo's translation was published, three years following his death—his only translation of an Aristotelian work. Excerpts or paraphrases of the Rhetoric were printed by T. Ferrariis in 1493; portions of the Poetics were included as well. The famed Aristotelian Opera Omnia, printed from 1495 to 1498 by the Aldine Press under Aldus Manutius⁴⁸ (a scholar and exacting printer), excluded the Rhetoric. Some suggest that Aldus Manutius was unable to secure an acceptable manuscript of the Rhetoric, an unlikely hypothesis since nearly one hundred manuscripts were extant at this time. Ten years later, however, with the editorial assistance of Demetrius Ducas,⁴⁹ Manutius included the Rhetoric in the Rhetores Graeci (an exceptionally important collection of Greek treatises on rhetoric). Manutius probably foreplanned the Rhetores Graeci and thought that work a more suitable vehicle for the work's presentation. Georgius Dottanius' assistance on the Moerbeke translation, printed by Jakob Thanner at Leipzig in 1499, concludes our discussion of the fifteenth century.

Numerous paraphrases, commentaries and translations of the Rhetoric emerged from sixteenth century publishers. Counting reprints and revised editions, well over eighty volumes were produced. The twentieth century, by comparison, has less than twenty commentaries or translations in perhaps twice the number of languages. It is neither our intention nor purpose to describe each of these editions or indicate their influence upon Greek letters or rhetorical theory. Suffice it to say that numerous scholars turned their attention to the explication and correction of the Rhetoric. These men include Pietro Vettori (perhaps the greatest Italian Greek scholar), Desiderius Erasmus, Alessandro Piccolomini, Antonio Riccoboni, Bernardo Segni, Carolo Sigonio, Annibale Caro, Robert Estienne, Antonio Majoragio and Isaac Casaubon. The works of George of Trebizond, Ermalao Barbaro, Antonio Majoragio, Alessandro Piccolomini, Antonio Riccoboni and Pietro Vettori appear (judging by the variety and number of reprints) to have enjoyed the greatest popularity. Nearly all the major centers of book production included the Rhetoric among their lists; no English translation or commentary had yet been attempted, however.

Scholars of the seventeenth century likewise translated and commented upon the Rhetoric. The frenzied publication exhibited by the sixteenth century is not characteristic of the seventeenth, however; still, over twenty scholars investigated it. This list includes Francois Cassandre, Christopher Schrader and Emmanuel Tesauro. Of interest to the reader of English is Thomas Hobbes' London edition: A brief art of the rhetorique containing in substance all that Aristotel hath written in his three bookes of that subject, except only what is not applicable to the English tongue. The best evidence suggests it was published in 1637. The first translation of the Rhetoric in England, however, was Theodore Goulston's Greek and Latin version. It was published under the imprint of Eduard Griffin in 1619.

Just as suddenly the eighteenth century, apparently satiated with able editions of the Rhetoric, turned its critical attention elsewhere. Only three new translations were published during this century, although there were reprintings of Caro, Du Val and Hobbes' translations from earlier periods and a spattering of essays and abridgments. The nineteenth century, however, saw a strong revival in the study of Aristotelian rhetoric.

Great interest in classical philology marked European universities (especially German) during the nineteenth century. The whole spectrum of classical literature was investigated with great vigor. Each member of the Aristotelian corpus was studied with careful adherence to establishing critically correct texts. The issuance of periodical journals aided these efforts immeasurably. Now, as never before, scholars shared with the whole of the academic community various philological emendations; prior to this, such research had to be privately circulated. No less than twenty scholars published either translations or commentaries of the Rhetoric, while authors of essays and monographs well exceed one hundred. Thomas Gaisford published the first modern critical edition by comparing five Parisian manuscripts. Immanuel Bekker, using 105 manuscripts, also published a critical edition. Leonhard von Spengel, in addition to a translation, devoted (perhaps more than any other man of the nineteenth century) exacting detail to philological and historical considerations; his interest in the work would span his entire lifetime. Likewise, our understanding of the Rhetoric owes much to the work of Johannes Vahlen and Adolph Roemer. Theodore Buckley published an English translation and analysis imprinted under the popular Bohn series of classical works. The foremost English translator and commentator of the Rhetoric was Edward Meredith Cope. His commentary, published in 1867, and the three-volume translation and interlinear commentary (posthumously edited by John E. Sandys in 1877) remain today standard reference works. It is difficult, in our brief sketch, to assess adequately the contributions of the nineteenth century, for to illuminate the contributions of one scholar necessitates an examination of another.

The twentieth century is not without its contributors. The work of Lane Cooper, Rhys Roberts, Sir W. David Ross, Mederic Dufour, Paul Gohlke, Ignacio Granero, Friedrich Solmsen, Wilhelm Kroll, Richard C. Jebb, Antonio Russo and Armando Plebe long will be felt. The Rhetoric also found its way into new languages during the past seventy-five years. Readers of the Hindi, Japanese, and Polish languages now benefit from the text's availability.

We have briefly traced the course of Aristotelian rhetoric across 2,300 years. While we have noted the Rhetoric's published history, we have done so only briefly. It remains for other studies to explore this area, and we hope that this bibliography, which was compiled with the intent of spurring additional investigations of a critical and historical bent, will contribute to this end.

Notes

¹ Edward M. Cope, An Introduction to Aristotle's Rhetoric; with Analysis Notes and Appendices (London, 1867), 37.

² Paul D. Brandes, "The Composition and Preservation of Aristotle's Rhetoric," Speech Monographs, 35 (1968), 482-91.

³ Richard Shute, On the History of the Process by which the Aristotelian Writings Arrived at Their Present Form (Oxford: Oxford at Clarendon Press, 1888), 1.

⁴ Shute, 1888, 3.

⁵ Leonhard von Spengel, Specimen Commentariorum in Aristotelis Libros de Arte Rhetorica (Munchen: Libraria Scholarum Regia, 1839).

⁶ Brandes, 1968, 487.

⁷ Strabo, Geography, trans. by H. L. Jones (New York, 1929), VI.

⁸ Athenaeus, The Deipnosophists, trans. by C. B. Galich (New York, 1927), 1.

⁹ Anton-Hermann Chroust, "The Miraculous Disappearance and Recovery of the corpus Aristotelicum," Classica et Mediaevalia, 23 (1962), 53.

¹⁰ Shute, 1888, 29.

¹¹ Shute, 1888, 30.

¹² Chroust, 1962, 56.

¹³ Eduard Zeller, "Aristotle, Die Rhetorik," in Die Philosophie der Greichen in ihrer geschichtlichen Entwicklung (Leipzig: Fuece Verlag [R. Reisland], 1879, 147-52.

¹⁴ Chroust, 1962, 62.

¹⁵ Herman Jean de Vleeschauwer, L'Odyssée de la Bibliothèque d'Aristote et ses Répercussions Philosophiques (Pretoria, 1957).

¹⁶ Plutarch, "Sulla," in Plutarch's Lives, trans. by Bernadotte Perrin (London, 1914-16), 407.

¹⁷ Chroust, 1962, 63.

¹⁸ Chroust, 1962, 64.

¹⁹ Shute, 1888, 100.

²⁰ Cicero, De orator, iii, 47, 182-183.

²¹ Shute, 1888, 49.

²² Cicero, De orator, ii, 38, 160.

²³ Shute, 1888, 67.

²⁴ Lee S. Hultzén, "Aristotle's Rhetoric in England to 1600." (Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Cornell University, 1932), 21-23.

²⁵ Hultzén, 1932, 23.

²⁶ Edgar Lobel, The Greek Manuscripts of Aristotle's Poetics (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1933), 6.

²⁷ F. E. Peters, Aristotles Arabus. The Oriental Translations and Commentaries on The Aristotelian Corpus. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1968. 26.

²⁸ Tāhā Husayn, "Le rapport entre la rhétorique arabe et la rhétorique grecque." Paper presented at the Congress of Orientalists in Leiden, 1931. The paper is summarized in Actes du XVIII^e congrès international des orientalistes (Leiden, 1931), 241-42.

²⁹ S. A. Bonebakker, "Aspects of the History of Literary Rhetoric and Poetics in Arabic Literature," Viator, 1 (1970), 89.

³⁰ S. M. Stern, "Ibn al-Samh," JRAS, (1956), 42.

³¹ A. Trabulsi, La critique poétique des Arabes jusqu' au V^e siècle de l'hégire. Damascus, 1956.

³² Bonebakker, 1970, 90.

³³ Aimable Jourdain, Recherches Critiques sur l'age et sur des commentaires Grecs ou Arabes employés par les docteurs scolastiques (Paris, 1843), 139-41.

³⁴ William F. Boggess, "Hermannus Alemannus's Rhetorical Translations," Viator, 2 (1971), 227.

³⁵ Hultzén, 1932, 39.

³⁶ Marvin T. Herrick, "The Early History of Aristotle's Rhetoric in England," Philological Quarterly, 5 (1926), 243.

³⁷ Herrick, 1926, 243.

³⁸ Pierre Mandonnet, Siger de Brabant et l'Averroïse Latin au XIIIme Siecle (Louvain, 1911), I, 14.

³⁹ James J. Murphy, "Aristotle's Rhetoric in the Middle Ages," Quarterly Journal of Speech, 52 (1966), 110-111.

⁴⁰ John E. Sandys, A History of Classical Scholarship (Cambridge, 1896), Vol. I, 564.

⁴¹ Murphy, 1966, 111.

⁴² James J. Murphy, "The Scholastic Condemnation of Rhetoric in the Commentary of Giles of Rome on the Rhetoric of Aristotle," Arts libéraux et Philosophie au moyen age (Montreal, 1969), 833-41.

⁴³ Murphy, 1966, 115.

⁴⁴ R. R. Bolgar, The Classical Heritage (New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1964), 280.

⁴⁵ H. Brown, The Venetian Printing Press (London, 1891), 50.

⁴⁶ Bolgar, 1964, 281.

⁴⁷ In addition to the Rhetoric of Aristotle, Trapezuntius published in 1470 his own Rhetoric based, in part, upon the theories of Hermogenes. Bunker, A Bibliographical Study of the Greek Works and Translations published in France During the Renaissance: The Decade 1540-1550 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1939), p. 3, confusing these editions, advances 1470 as the first edition date. She cites the edition as printed by the Sorbonne Press under Gaguin, Fichet, and Heynlin. No such work appears to have been published; I, at least, have no tangible grounds for belief in its existence. Her authority, Gustav Gröber, Geschichte der mittelfranzosischen Literature, II (Berlin and Leipzig: Zweite Auflage, Bearbeitet von Stefan Hofer, 1933), pp. 235-37, for example, cites the date 1474. However, Bunker may have misread Gröber's citation of an edition of Cicero's published in 1470 for the Rhetoric. Gröber's date of 1474 is in itself puzzling as no catalogue or holding of this edition is cited. Marie Pellechet, Catalogue g_n_ral des incunables des bibliotheques publiques de France, par M Pellechet (Paris: A Picard et fils, 1897), no. 1189, cites the work but gives no date. Likewise the Bibliotheque Nationale does not fix a date. The Gesamtkatalog der Wiegendrucke, which cross-references Pellechet, dates the edition at 1475 and describes the edition in much detail.

⁴⁸ A. Firmin-Didot, Alde Munce et l'hellenisme a Venise (Paris, 1875); E. Goldsmith, A Biographical Sketch of the Aldine Press at Venice (Edinburgh, 1887); F. J. Norton, Italian Printers 1501-1520 (London, 1958); E. Robertson, "Aldus Manutius, The Scholar-Printer," Bulletin of the John Rylands Library, 33 (1950).

⁴⁹ Deno John Geanakoplos, Greek Scholars in Venice (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1962), 227.