Retórica a Herenio. Períodos - GOTOFF, H. C. (1973)

8/10/2019 Retrica a Herenio. Perodos - GOTOFF, H. C. (1973)

1/8

Department of the Classics Harvard University

The Concept of Periodicity in the Ad HerenniumAuthor(s): H. C. GotoffSource: Harvard Studies in Classical Philology, Vol. 77 (1973), pp. 217-223Published by: Department of the Classics, Harvard UniversityStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/311070.

Accessed: 02/09/2014 05:55

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at.http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Department of the Classics, Harvard Universityis collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend

access toHarvard Studies in Classical Philology.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 212.128.182.231 on Tue, 2 Sep 2014 05:55:47 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=dchuhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/311070?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/311070?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=dchu


2/8

THE

CONCEPT OF PERIODICITY

IN

THE

AD

HERENNIUM

H. C. GOTOFF

MODERN

scholars

and

critics seem

to have

a

clear

and

fairly

consistent

notion of what

periodic style

entails.' It is a

complex

sentence in which both sense and syntax are held in suspension until

the end

of

the construction when

they

are

simultaneously

resolved.

The

idea that

the

period

is

complete

in

itself and at

every

point

anticipates

its

own

conclusion

goes

back to

Aristotle,

Rhet.

3.9.3-4: h

'

S'

7rrEpd'ov

AE'etw

EJXOvUaT'

cPX7p)

Kal

-rEAEUcvV aa'77rV

KaO'

5r7')i

Kat

1dEyaJos

EVUOrVVO'7TT...V

Sct SE'

7r'v 7TEoSOV

Kat

a%

(Lco coa

He

makes

his case for this

very

strongly

by

his criticism of

the

articula-

tion of

the

opening

lines

of

Euripides'

Meleager.2

His

point

is

that

1

See

J.

E.

Sandys,

M. Tulli

Ciceronis ad M. Brutum

Orator

(Cambridge

I885) 217, n. to 204, and G. M. Z. Grube, Thrasymachus, Theophrastus,

and

Dionysius

AJP

73

(I952)

253f

n.

4,

among

others

for

the articulation

of

the

general

view.

The

difficulties created

by

Aristotle

are

discussed

by

E. M.

Cope,

Introduction to

the

Rhetoric

of

Aristotle

(London 1867)

3o6f;

J. Zehetmeier,

Die

Periodenlehre

des

Aristoteles,

Philologus

85

(I930)

192-208,

255-284,

414-436;

W.

Schmid,

Ueber die

Klassische

Theorie

und

Praxis des

Antiken

Prosarhythmus,

Hermes

(Einzelschrift

i2)

1959,

I12-I

30;

and L.

P.

Wilkinson,

Golden

Latin

Artistry

(Cambridge

I963)

167-170,

among

others. No

one

study

has been

definitive;

various scholars have made

suggestive

contributions,

such

as

Zehetmeier's

relating

periodicity

to

prose-rhythm

under Aristotle's

aesthetic

heading

of

limit,

or

Schmid's

understanding,

however

imperfect

(see

Wilkinson, ibid., I69n), of the racetrack metaphor. E. Norden, Antike Kunst-

prosa

(Leipzig; 5th

ed.,

Darmstadt

1958)

I

42,

and

n.,

dealing

particularly

with

the ancient

concept,

maintained

that

periodicity

is

indivisible from

prose-

rhythm.

In this

he is followed

by

W. Schmid

(ibid.),

among

others,

and

opposed

by

Grube

(ibid.)

254

and

n.

There

is need for a

study

of

how and

when the

concept

of

periodicity

developed

from the

more restricted

ancient

technique

to

what

scholars from the

Renaissance

on

picture

it to

be.

I wish

to

thank Professor

G.

Kennedy

for his

reference

to

H.

Lausberg,

Handbuch

der

literarischen

Rhetorik

(Munich

1962)

vol.

I,

where Ad

Herennium

4.27

is

discussed

in

sections

943

and

945.

It

seems to

me that in

returning

periodos

to a

purely bipartite,

Aristotelian

sense,

Lausberg,

in

section

924f,

ignores another meaning of the word and another kind of rhetorical sentence

structure.

2

Aristotle

quotes

the first

line

only

and

attributes

it

to

Sophocles.

The

scholiast

to

Ar.

Frogs 1269,

assigns

it

to the

opening

of

the

Meleager

of

Euripides.

The

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/8

218

H. C.

Gotoff

there

is

enough grammatical

material

in the first trimeter to be

rendered

as a

complete

unit,

although

the

meaning

would be distorted

because

the thought in fact continues grammatically into the next line. This is

not the

only

somewhat

surprising

limitation of Aristotle's idea

of

a

period.

In his further

remarks,

he makes

it

quite

clear,

although

scholars

have not

always

acknowledged

it,

that

by

periodos

he

conceived

of

a

unit of

sentence

structure far more restricted

than

the

modern

notion

envisions.

The definition he

proposes

can

never

have included

the

sophisticated

architectonics

of

his

contemporary

Demosthenes,

much

less the writer

whose name

is

most

closely

associated

with the

periodic

style,

Cicero.

G. Kennedy maintained that, in considering periodos, Aristotle had

in

mind first and foremost the

balanced, antithetical,

essentially bipartite

sentences that

mark

the

style

of

Gorgias

and

later

of

Isocrates.3

Aristotle

is not consistent even

in

insisting

that

a

period

be

bipartite,

for he

allows

for

a

simple period

-

presumably,

a

sentence

without subordina-

tion

in

which sense

and

simple grammar

are

not

resolved

until the

last

word.4

Nevertheless,

there

can

be little

doubt,

pace

Grube,5

that

when

talking

about

complex periods,

Aristotle

understood

the

structure

to

be

bipartite,

i.e.

composed

of two cola

(Rhet.

3.9.5): KWAhov

'

a7rt

Td

T'rEpov

d0PLov

ra7;r.

This is not the place to try to reach a

definition of colon

that

would

satisfy every

use

of

it

by

Greek

and

Latin

writers;

for,

like

many

of the words we

are

pleased

to think

of

second

verse is

found

in

several

sources,

among

them Dem. De

Eloc.

58.

Aristotle's

objection

is

too

severe;

the

standard

applied

here would

render

much of

classical

composition

open

to the

charge

of

poor

and

confusing

con-

struction. Demetrius cites the

lines to how

actors'

interjections

can miscast

the

emphasis

of a

statement. The lines as

they appear

in

Demetrius,

with

the

added,

artificial

pause

created

by

the

expletives,

argue

Aristotle's

point

ratherbetter than the single line he himself cites:

KaAVL)sv~Lev

E

yaYac

EAo7TELcX

OoVdo'

EP

aVT7TrdpO~Lot 7TrES ' E4ova' 4Et?VLova

at,

at-

3

George

Kennedy,

Aristotleon the

Period,

HSCP

63

(1958) 283ff.

4

Presumably any

sentence without

subordinationthat

suspends

the verb

until the end

would

come under the

heading

of

eA*

eptloSos.

Attempts

to

reconcile

the

simple period

with the

statement that the

period

consists of

two

cola

have

not,

unsurprisingly,

been

successful.

'

Grube,

A

Greek

Critic:

Demetrius

Toronto

1961)

35

n.

41,

suggests

the

possibilitythat

7ra-vldh

oes not referbackto replo8o0s,ut ratherto the trimeter

quoted

from

the

Meleager.

Demetrius

34

did

not so

understand

Aristotle,

nor

would this

rendering

make

sense.



4/8

Periodicity

in the Ad Herennium

219

as

technical

terms

in Classical

treatises,

its use

by

the ancient

authorities

was not consistent.6

It seems to

me that we

can

extract more out

of

Aristotle's definition without doing violence to his intent or to the

Greek,

if

we

allow colon

to

refer

to

a

unit

larger

than a clause

in

the

modern sense

of the

word. We

think of

a

clause

as a

single

verbal

notion

containing

a

finite

verb,

an

accusative-and-infinitive

construc-

tion,

or the like. What

Aristotle

was

referring

to,

I

think,

was a

sentence

the structure of which

could be reduced

to a

pair

of

discrete

units,

e.g. protasis-apodosis,

relative clause-main clause

(with

an

explicit

antecedent

if

the

main clause should

precede),

when

-clause-

then -

clause, etc.,

whether

or

not

either or

both units contained

a

subordi-

nate element. Each of these discrete units was to Aristotle a colon.

This

view,

perhaps,

makes sense of

the

metaphor

of the race

track

in

which the runner would

start

out,

say,

on a

dorcEp-clause,

round

the

post,

and

return

with

the

0'vrwos-clause.

Thus,

even

a

highly

complex

sentence

like

Dem.

Aristocr.

99,

quoted

by

Demetr.

De

Eloc.

31:

WUor7T

yyap EZ

7L6-KEWCWV

E(XAW,

OvTows

X

cr

vfv

acogS,

'AAosog0

YPwEL...

or

the

several

examples

of

antithesis

quoted

by

Aristotle

himself

at

3.9,7,

from

Isoc.,

Panegyr. 35f

come under

his definition

of a

period.

On the other

hand,

sentences like Thuc.

2.102,

cited

by

Dem.

45:

yAEp XEAPOs oc PA V EKH'I

ov opovs &(XJoAoXasK11

A

ypt.cwv

EV

XEtItLWV

Ur-pa7-Er;E

at;

or

even

Demosth.

Lept.

init.

(Dem.

Io):

CtaA&yra

tl0g

EWVEKC

01)V0OLVEK

TU7LV/pEY

77

StEL

AEOUO7'L

V VOXLOV

LT(

KaM701

7TAtL0'0

LVEK(

oo

XTplov

p1)oXdy o

70Uo70Vro'

v '

E

e

,

vrvEpetv

re

not.

The fact is that

in

Aristotle's

mind

the

period

is

closely

related

to the

enthymeme,

and the

enthymeme

is

constructed

as

a

two-

6

I

have not seen A.

DuMesnil,

Begriff

der

drei

Kunstformen

des Rede:

Komma,

Kolon,

Periode,

nach der

Lehre der Alten

in

Zum

zweihundertjahrigen

Jubildum

des

k6nigl.

Friedrichs-Gymnas

(Frankfort

1894)

32-I21,

cited

by Caplan,

Ad

Herennium

Libri IV de

Ratione Dicendi

(Harvard

University

Press

1954)

294

n. b.

I am

not,

however,

hopeful

that

order

can have

been

created from a

situa-

tion in

which

a

prepositional phrase

can be

called a

colon

(Demetr.

io

on

Dem.

Lept.

init.)

or an

independent

predicate

be

called

a

comma

(ibid.

9,

yviot oaTEvL-rv,

t

al.).

Similarly,

the

opening

sentence of Herodotus can be cited

as

an

example

of

unperiodicity

by

Aristotle

(Rhet.

3.9.2)

and

of

periodicity

by

Demetrius

(I7).



5/8

220

H. C.

Gotoff

part

parallelism

or

antithesis.'

Thus,

each

of

the two basic units

of

the

period

is a

colon,

as Aristotle

insists;

within this framework

the

structure

may

be

strictly

antithetical or otherwise divided.8

Thus,

while

agreeing basically

with

Kennedy,

I

find that

Aristotle's

analysis

can

accommodate a

larger

number

of

periods

in our

sense

than

Kennedy suggests.

Not,

unfortunately,

that

complete consistency

can

be

derived

from

Aristotle's

account;

the

notion

of the

simple period

cannot be

incorporated

into this

system.

But,

leaving

that

aside,

the

present

explanation

is

supported

by

the ease

with

which Aristotle

moves to his

discussion

of the

Gorgianic

figures

at

Rhet.

3.9.9.

Gorgias

is

identified

with

antithesis and other

figures

that arise

from and

support

two-part balance. In this treatment, Aristotle seems to be following

Theodectes, who,

we

are

told, listed,

in

the

context

of

antithesis,

parison,

and

homoeoteleuton most of

the

beginnings

of

periods.9

He

was

thus

considering

in

close

conjunction

periodicity

and the

Gorgianic

figures.

It

cannot be said that

later writers on

the

subject

of

prose composition

were

prevented

entirely by

the

Aristotelian

view

from

proceeding

to

a

more

complex

definition of

the

period

-

a

definition that

could embrace

the

constructions of

Demosthenes

and

Cicero.

Nevertheless,

the

limitation was a pervasive one. Dionysius of Halicarnassus uses the

word

periodos

without

definition,

sometimes to

mean

little more

than

we do

by

sentence. 10o

When he

speaks

of

periodic

style,

moreover,

he

gives

no

indication

of

whether

he has

in

mind

the

bipartite

con-

structions

predicated

on

Gorgianic parallelism

and

antithesis,

or

the

freer-flowing,

more

complex

periods

of

Demosthenes or Cicero.

In

7

Aristotle,

Rhet.

3.9.8,

cf.

2.9.

In

the

first cited

passage

Aristotle states

his

preference

for

antithetical

periods

of the

Isocratean sort.

8

Arist., Rhet.

3.9-7.

Although

Aristotle

favors the

AEe'S

&aV7TKELLEVrq,

here

is

nothing

about the

AELSe

8tqpv-qtt7

intrinsically

incompatible

with a

bipartite

framework

as

defined

in our

discussion.

9

In

3.9.9,

Aristotle

moves

from the

antithetical

period

to a

discussion of

parisosis,

isocolon,

and

paromoiosis

(homoeoteleuton).

At

the

end of the

section

he

says

at

8'

pcXal

'V

7rEpLOdSWV

XE8Ov

v

70~S

OEO8EK7ELOL9~

'OjIPrqV7.raL.

f

my

interpretation

of

Aristotle's

meaning

is

correct,

this

list

may

have

included

elements

both

syntactic

(relative

pronouns,

conjunctions,

etc.)

and

rhetorical

(i.e.

tdv,

o

~dto'vov)

hat

anticipate

a

second unit

to

resolve

them.

aperar

for

apxalc

is,

therefore,

an

unnecessary

change.

10

For

example,

Dionysius

usually

introduces

a

sentence with

the

word

AEl7

rqe

v

.'8 8

17

Coam-VLK7.V

AExLV

bu-aV-7Vt

TiVi

7ThOeE

sAAO

KOL07EF(aV

OuTCS

fo4LCthLa7LK7eV

i-iv

q

&TtV

v...

(De

Comp.xviii), but in ix he uses

7rEpIo8oS

purely

for

the sake of

variety:

KCUo~'it

r'7v

HAcV7-WVLK77V

EKE7qV

TEpLOSOV,

V

EV

TrO

L

rrO

0v-Vp

bpdEL,

49

OUK

V

(Xal

7MparrA7IpO~irTL

AEeES~J

VK

cwVytKXCq0,

7rpoUrqpavLurOL...



6/8

Periodicity

in

the Ad Herennium

221

Lys.

8,

he

appears

to

judge

periodicity

to be

a

highly

artificial

technique

that

militates

against

verisimilitude,

perhaps suggesting

the

very

formal and artificial Gorgianic figures.

Demetrius,

on

the

other

hand,

is

quite

specific

both

in

acknowledging

his

debt

to Aristotle's discussion

in

Rhet.

3.9,

and

in

his

determination

to

expand

the

compass

of

the

period

to include

suitable

constructions

of

three

or

four

members.11

His

first

example

of a

period,

that from

Demosth.

Lept.

init.,

cited

above,

is

of a

type

not

included

by

Aristotle,

since

it

cannot

be

reduced

to two units.

Further,

his subdivision

into

rhetorical, narrative,

and

conversational

periods

reveals

an

inclusiveness

that

practically

makes the

word

periodos

useless

as a

critical

term.12

Nevertheless, in

22f,

he singles out for special notice the kind of period

that is constructed

from

antithetical

and

parallel

members. There

follows

a discussion

of

antithesis,

isocolon,

and

homoeoteleuton,

the

Gorgianic

figures.

After

this nod to

Aristotle,

it

cannot

be

coincidental

that he

next

distinguishes

between the

enthymeme

and

syllogism

(32).

He

may

be

correcting

Aristotle,

but he is

certainly

at that

point

involved

in

the

Aristotelian

conception

of the

period

as a

basically

bipartite

structure.

The

relationship

of the

concept

of

periodicity

to

the

Gorgianic

figures in the rhetorical works of Cicero deserves full treatment else-

where.

It

may

suffice here

to

say

that nowhere

in

his

discussion of

composition

does Cicero reveal

an

awareness

of

that

complex

periodicity

that

distinguishes

his

style

and

that of

Demosthenes

from

the

bipartite,

often

antithetical,

and

frequently

redundant

structure associated with

Gorgias

and

Isocrates.13

What

may,

I

think,

be established

fairly

succinctly

is

the

strong

Aristotelian flavor

of the

discussion of

periodicity

in

the

ad Herennium.

In

4.27,

we are told:

continuatio

est

densa et continens

frequentatio

verborumcum absolutione sententiarum, translated by H. Caplan as, A

Period

is

a

close-packed

and

uninterrupted

group

of words

embracing

a

complete

thought. 14

This

definition is

compatible

with

the

modern

11

Demetr. De Eloc.

I6.

It

is

indicative of

the

problems

involved

with

treating

the ancient critical treatises as

technical works

that,

after

setting

two to four

cola as

the limits of a

period,

Demetrius introduces the

monocolon in the

next

paragraph.

12

Demetrius all but

acknowledges

this

in

De Eloc.

21.

13

See,

for

example,

the

discussions

in

Orator

38-38

and

219-220. Quint,

9.3.74,

credits Cicero's restraint

in

the use of Isocratean

periods.

See, also,

n. 18 below.

14

H.

Caplan,

Ad

Herennium

...

297.

The textual

problem

in the first

line

is

of no

consequence

to

this

discussion.



7/8


8/8

Periodicity

in the Ad Herennium

223

contrarium

?)

or

in

the form of

a

consequence

(Ev

&KoAovOL'a

crxWatr

=

conclusio

?).16

It would seem, then, that the author of the Ad Herennium was

following

in

his discussion of continuatio

a

view of

periodicity

as

old

as

Theodectes

and one

enunciated

by

Aristotle

- a

view that

pervaded

the works

or

influenced

the attitudes

of

rhetorical

writers

down

to

Cicero

and

Quintilian

on the Latin side. Cicero

may

have

accepted

this

view

uncritically

from

tradition,

or he

may

have

limited

himself

intentionally

by

tradition to

make

a

point

about

his

style

that was

only

partially

literary.1

The

fact

is

that,

following

the

account that is

found

in

Aristotle,

Cicero,

in

treating

periodicity,

describes

a

structure that

is more readily found in Isocrates than in Demosthenes or himself.

This is

part

of the

explanation

of

why posterity

has

identified

him

with

Isocrates

far

more

closely

than an

analysis

of

their

styles

would

justify.18

HARVARD

UNIVERSITY

16

I

am not

suggesting

that

these are

equivalent

technical

terms

in

the

Ad.

Her.,

or

elsewhere.

In

fact,

see

Quint.

5.10.2,

where

enthymeme

is

defined as a

conclu-

sion from antithesis

(or

contrarium).

The

similarity

of the

discussion in

Demetrius

and the Ad

Her. is

patent

in

general

terms.

17

This requires full discussion. I plan to deal elsewhere, at

greater length,

with the

contradiction

between

theory

and

practice

in

Cicero's

rhetorical

treatises. It

may

be

suggested

briefly

here that

in his

treatment of

periodicity,

no less

than of

rhythm

-

two areas in which

his

contribution to

prose

style

was

most

original

-

Cicero is at

great pains

to

insist

upon

and

identify

himself

with a

tradition,

even

when he

does not

-

as with

that of

the

Gorgianic

figures

-

in the main

follow that

tradition.

18

E.

Laughton,

Cicero

and the Greek

Orators,

AJP

82

(1961) 27-49,

shows

masterfully

that

the

periodic

constructions

of Isocrates and

Demosthenes

are

very

different and that

Cicero has a

fondness

for

the latter

type.

The article

may suggest

that

Cicero

eschewed

two-part

constructions and

Isocratean

parallelism. This is not the case by any means; but the formal balance, thrice

repeated,

of

the first

sentence of

the

pro

Archia,

often

cited

as

an

example

of

Ciceronian

periodity,

is hard

to

parallel

elsewhere in the

corpus.

This content downloaded from 212.128.182.231 on Tue, 2 Sep 2014 05:55:47 AM
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

Retórica a Herenio. Períodos - GOTOFF, H. C. (1973)

Documents

Transcript of Retórica a Herenio. Períodos - GOTOFF, H. C. (1973)