3Oportet igitur esse in oratore inventionem, dispositionem,elocutionem, memoriam, pronuntiationem.Inventio est excogitatio rerum verarum aut veri similium quae causam probabilem reddant. Dispositio est ordo et distributio rerum, quae demonstrat quid quibus locis sit conlocandum. Elocutio est idoneorum verborum et sententiarum ad inventionem adcommodatio. Memoria est firma animi rerum et verborum et dispositionis perceptio. Pronuntiatio est vocis, vultus, gestus moderatio cum venustate.
Haec omnia tribus rebus adsequi poterimus: arte, imitatione, exercitatione. Ars est praeceptio, quae
6
3The speaker, then, should possess the faculties of Invention, Arrangement, Style, Memory, and Delivery.a Invention is the devising of matter, true or plausible, that would make the case convincing.b Arrangement is the ordering and distribution of the matter, making clear the place to which each thing is to be assigned. Style is the adaptation of suitable words and sentences to the matter devised. Memory is the firm retention in the mind of the matter, words, and arrangement. Delivery is the graceful regulation of voice, countenance, and gesture.
All these faculties we can acquire by three means: Theory, Imitation, and Practice.c By theory is meant
- aεὕρεσις, τάξις or οἰκονομία, λέξις or ἑρμηνεία or φράσις, μνήμη, ὑπόκρισις. The pre-Aristotelian rhetoric, represented by the Rhet. ad Alexandrum, treated the first three (without classifying them); Aristotle would add Delivery (Rhet. 3. 1, 1403 b), and his pupil Theophrastus did so (see note on 3. xi. 19 below). When precisely in the Hellenistic period Memory was added as a fifth division by the Rhodian or the Pergamene school, we do not know. These faculties (res; see also 1. ii. 3) are referred to in 2. i. 1 below (cf. 1. iii. 4) as the speaker’s funclions (officia = ἔργα τοῦ ῥήτορος). Quintilian, 3. 3. 11 ff., considers them as departments or constituentelements of the art (partes rhetorices) rather than as opera (= officia); so also here at 3. i. 1, 3. viii. 15, 3. xvi. 28, and Cicero, De Inv. 1. vii. 9. ἔργον is an Aristotelian concept (cf. the definition of rhetoric in Rhet. 1. 1–2, 1355b), and Aristotlewas the first to classify the (major) functions. Our author here gives the usual order of the divisions; so also Cicero, De Oratore 1. 31. 142. Diogenes Laertius, 7. 43, presents the Stoic scheme: Invention, Style (φράσις), Arrangement, and Delivery. A goodly number of rhetorical systems were actually based on these ἔργα (e.g., in most part Cicero’s and Quintilian’s); others were based on the divisions of the discourse(μόρια λόγου). See K. Barwick, Hermes 57 (1922). l ff.; Friedrich Solmsen, Amer. Journ. Philol. 62 (1941). 35–50, 169–90. Our author conflates the two schemes he has in- herited; see especially 1. ii. 3–iii. 4, 2. i. 1–ii. 2, and the Introduction to the present volume, p. xviii.
- cpp. 6–19; G. C. Fiske, Lucilius and Horace, Madison, 1920, ch. 1; J. F. D’Alton, Roman Literary Theory and Criticism, London, New York, and Toronto, 1931, pp. 426 ff.; Richard McKeon, “Literary Criticism and the Concept of Imitation in Antiquity,” Mod. Philol. 34, 1 (1936). 1–35, and esp. pp. 26 ff.; D. L. Clark, “Imitation: Theory and Practice in Roman Rhetoric,” Quart. Journ. Speech 37, 1 (1951). 11–22. “Exercise” refers to the progymnasmata, of which our treatise and Cicero’s De Inv. show the first traces in Latin rhetoric, and to the “suasoriae” (deliberationes) and “controversiae” (causae) in which the treatise abounds. See also 4. xliv. 58 (Refining). The divorce between praeexercitamenta and exercitationes belongs to the Augustan period. τέχνη (also παιδεία, ἐπιστήμη, μάθησις, scientia, doctrina), μίμησις, γυμνασία (also ἄσκησις, μελέτη, ἐμπειρία, συνήθεια, declamatio). The usual triad, Nature (φύσις, natura, ingenium, facultas), Theory, and Practice, can be traced back to Protagoras, Plato (Phaedrus 269 D), and Isocrates (e.g., Antid. 187; Adv. Soph. 14–18, where Imitation is also included). Cf. also Aristotle in Diogenes Laertius 5. 18; Cicero, De Inv. 1. i. 2. De Oratore 1. 4. 14; Dionysius Halic. in Syrianus, Scholia Hermog., ed. Rabe, 1. 4–5; Tacitus, Dialog, de Orator., ch. 33; Plutarch, De liberis educ. 4 (2 A); and see Paul Shorey, Trans. Am. Philol. Assn. 40 (1909). 185–201. Imitation is presumed to have been emphasized in the Pergamene school of rhetors under Stoic influence. Quintilian, 3. 5. 1, tells us that it was classed by some writers as a fourth element, which he yet subordinates to Theory. On Imitation cf. Antonius in Cicero, De Oratore 2. 21. 89 ff.; Dionysius Halic, De Imitat. (Opuscula 2. 197–217, ed. Usener-Rader-macher); Quintilian, 10. 1. 20 ff.; Eduard Stemplinger, Das Plagiat in der Griech. Lit., Leipzig and Berlin, 1912, pp. 81 ff.; Kroll, “Rhetorik”, coll. 1113 ff.; Paulus Otto, Quaestiones selectae ad libellum qui est περὶ ὕψους spectantes, diss. Kiel, 1906,
- bThe concept goes back at least as far as Plato (e.g., Phaedrus 236 A); see Aristotle, Rhet. 1. 2 (1355b), on finding artistic proofs.
7
![[Marcus Tullius Cicero]: Book I: Chapter II (2024)]()