Version classiqueVersion mobile
OpenEdition Books

Fabrique de la déclamation antique

 | 
Catherine Schneider
, 
Rémy Poignault

Valeurs culturelles

Towards the formation of an Attic genre of declamatio

How to focus on Sopatros the Rhetor

Nicholas A.E. Kalospyros

Résumé

Les declamationes étant entrées dans la sphère publique au même titre que les recitationes, le rhéteur grec tardif Sopatros dont on a conservé 82 controverses fictives, la Diairesis Zētēmatōn, apporte un témoignage important sur les procédés et pratiques déclamatoires et sur l’apogée du modèle grec dans l’Antiquité tardive postérieure à Apsinès, Libanius et Himérius. La contribution de Sopatros au genre déclamatoire permettrait d’alimenter la bibliographie portant sur les caractéristiques philologiques propres à la déclamation grecque qui, à la différence de celles de Sénèque le Père, ne sont pas idiosyncratiques, mais mettent à nu l’intime connection entre déclamation et formation rhétorique et d’aborder, le cas écheant, la question de la formation d’un « genre attique déclamatoire » où, avec l’utilisation du rythme et la place laissée à l’émotion, le style devrait servir d’appui à l’argumentation destinée à faire remporter le procès.

Since declamationes entered the public sphere alongside recitations of literary works, the case of the Greek rhetorician Sopatros of the 4th century AD, who treated his subjects in the surviving collection of 82 fictional controversiae (Diairesis Zētēmatōn), seems highly important for the attestation of declamatio in rhetorical devices and practice as well as for the heyday of the Greek model in Late Antiquity after Apsines, Libanius and Himerius. Thus, Sopatros’ contribution to the genre could provide rhetorical bibliography with a twofold desideratum, concerning: 1) the special philological characteristics of Greek declamatio, which unlikely those by Seneca the Elder are not idiosyncratic but they lay bare the intimate connection between declamatio and the rhetorical precept forming an enduring theme in the story of the genre – indeed, a profound stylistic instruction about dispositio and inventio – and, accordingly; 2) a possibility to tackle the question of the formation of an “Attic genre of declamatio”, whereby, together with the consistent use of rhythm and the keeping of emotion in its place, style should support argument (the last being the crucial factor of winning the case).

Texte intégral

  • 1 See Anderson 1993, p. 55‑68 and Korenjak 2000.
  • 2 See Lausberg 1998, § 1146‑1150; Berry, Heath 1997; Dingel 1988; Fairweather 1984; Kaster 2001; Krau (...)
  • 3 See Kennedy 2003, p. XIII for the order in other treatises.
  • 4 Respective editions by Håkanson 1982 and by Winterbottom 1984 and Shackleton Bailey 1989.
  • 5 See Casinos Mora 2009.
  • 6 See Turner 1972 and Van der Poel 1987.
  • 7 See the edition by Margolin 1966.
  • 8 Gibson 2004, p. 105, remarks that “while historical declamation never (to my knowledge) purported t (...)
  • 9 Schiappa 1999, p. 206.
  • 10 See Schenkeveld 2000.

1Since declamationes were practice speeches representing the ultimate stage of education in rhetoric, their study and rhetorical application are of great importance to those interested in focusing on the internal part of ancient rhetorics, i. e. amidst the workshop of its teachers and learning audience, as the students entering the final course on rhetoric should compose the more difficult exercises, commonly termed declamationes, by treating mostly fictitious model cases with the aim of preparing themselves for the pugna forensis (Quintilian, Institutio oratoria). Till this literary genre entered the public sphere alongside recitations of literary works – and it was during the completion of the so-called Second Sophistic that declamation developed into a certain genre not meant to be delivered in court practices but to be read (Lesereden)1 – and after that, the grounding of students in the art of public speaking formed among other technical presuppositions these elaborately ornamented and rehearsed speeches on a fictional situation or hypothetical lawsuit (Übungsreden, in Greek μελέται)2, whilst Greek προγυμνάσματα were smaller-scale exercises of the same sort. In the order attested by Aphthonius3 such rhetorical exercises contain fable (μῦθος), narrative (διήγημα), anecdote (χρεία), maxim (γνώμη), refutation (ἀνασκευή), confirmation (κατασκευή), commonplace, encomium (ἐγκώμιον), invective (ψόγος), comparison (σύγκρισις), speech in character, ecphrasis (ἔκφρασις), thesis (θέσις) and law. Surviving examples from these mainly epideictic preliminary exercises which had their major pedagogic place in Roman evidence and educational sphere are two Pseudo-Quintilian collections (Declamationes maiores/minores)4, as well as excerpts of declamationes by one Calpurnius Flaccus, which reflect the authentic juridic Roman institutions5; this practice model was taken up again in the Renaissance6 in the famous example of this sort by Erasmus’ Declamatio de pueris statim ac liberaliter instituendis7. Apart from historical themes or an established repertory of more or less fabulous events (poisonings, piracy, prostitution, disinheritance, etc.) that were used as the basis for suasoriae (analogous to the genus deliberativum) and controversiae (analogous to the genus iudiciale), into Late Antiquity the genre provoked the artistic ambitions of teachers of rhetoric in the context of restrictions on political activity during the imperial period. Although the goals and literary products of historical declaimers and historians are in many ways quite different8, it is not misleading to speak of students in the ancient rhetorical curriculum as acquiring historical knowledge. The composition of declamations based on mythological, comedic or historical themes did not entail learning of history, though pupils learned how to manipulate historical exempla. In such a disciplining of rhetoric Aristotle’s treatment of epideictic rhetoric will continue to be useful as a case study”9 in the critical assessment of the more poetic” literary styles often found in epideictic addresses that will pour out in the Asian rhetoric school. Thus, the studies of the influence of rhetorical training on ancient historians cannot ignore the modes of discourse as modes of thought, outlining the argument and its credibility, labelling tropes and figures of speech, the development of rhetorical commonplaces and their ancient reception. For instance, a detailed analysis of the language used in Demetrius’ treatise On Style suggests that the public for whom Demetrius wrote his book may have been pupils who have already completed their preliminary courses in rhetoric and should learn to write προγυμνάσματα10.

  • 11 Kennedy 1999, p. 47.

2In this literary tradition the case of the Greek rhetorician Sopatros of the 4th century AD seems highly important for the attestation of declamatio in rhetorical devices and practice as well as for the heyday of the Greek model in Late Antiquity; consequently Kennedy’s remark that our best information about declamation in Greek is found in the rhetorical handbook of Apsines, in speeches of Libanius, and in the work of Sopatros in Late Antiquity”11. Sopatros’ contribution to the genre could provide rhetorical bibliography with a twofold desideratum, concerning:

  1. the special philological characteristics of Greek declamatio, which unlikely those by Seneca the Elder are not idiosyncratic but they exhibit the intimate connection between declamatio and the rhetorical precept forming an enduring theme in the story of the genre – indeed, a profound stylistic instruction about dispositio and inventio – and, accordingly;

    • 12 Russell 1983 offers abundant information about Greek declamation for the later Roman Empire, but sc (...)

    a possibility to tackle the question of the formation of an Attic genre of declamation”12, whereby, together with the consistent use of rhythm and the keeping of emotion in its place, style should support argument as far as the last is the prevalent factor of winning the case. Furthermore, my humble ambition to fulfill such bibliographical references and documentation, follows another challenge: to discuss more complicated issues arising out of Sopatros’ uneven degree of thoroughness and to locate his treatise in the unique insight it affords into the everyday practice of ancient rhetorical teaching.

  • 13 On Sopatros/Sopater, see Glöckner 1927; Kennedy 1983, p. 104‑108; Kennedy 1994, p. 218‑220; Innes, (...)
  • 14 See Walz 1835, p. 318, 29 (RG VIII), where the reading “our learned teacher Himerius” (ὁ σοφὸς ὁ ἡ (...)
  • 15 Though it seems that Sopatros taught at Athens (55, 6‑7), Innes, Winterbottom 1988, p. 1 n. 3 sugge (...)
  • 16 See Innes, Winterbottom 1988, p. 1.
  • 17 It has been edited by Walz 1835, p. 1‑385, in his RG VIII, in an almost scandalous text with many m (...)
  • 18 Available in Walz 1833b, p. 1‑211 (RG V) and Walz 1833a, p. 39‑846 (RG IV) and see further Rabe 190 (...)
  • 19 See Aphthonius, p. 59‑70 (Rabe 1926); on Rabe’s source analysis that identifies Sopatros as the aut (...)
  • 20 See Rabe 1908 and Glöckner 1910.
  • 21 Dindorf 1829, III, p. 744; cf. Lenz 1959.
  • 22 Let apart the discussion of a possible connection with the homonymous Neoplatonic philosopher and s (...)

3Our limited knowledge about Sopatros’ person13 allow us to assume that he was a contemporary and pupil of Himerius (ca 310‑390)14, perhaps both Athenians15, and that he may well have lived in the late 4th century but without certainty16. The whole atmosphere of his declamations is patriotically Athenian. He probably taught at Athens and treated his subjects in the surviving collection of 82 controversiae Diairesis Zētēmatōn (Διαίρεσις ζητημάτων; approx. Discussion of Questions)17; these fictional cases were to be argued, often illustrating with extracts of oratio recta declamation, a kind of exercises in which students of rhetoric were trained so as to give speeches in the law-court. Also preserved in to the name of a Sopatros are a commentary on Hermogenes Περὶ τῶν στάσεων18 and extracts from progymnasmata19, Μεταποιήσεις (paraphrases of sections of Homer and Demosthenes)20 and prolegomena to Aelius Aristides21, but the identification of the author of these writings with that of the Diairesis Zētēmatōn is uncertain22:

  • 23 Innes, Winterbottom 1988, p. 2.

The διαίρεσις (divisio) was the advice given by teachers on the treatment of such declarations. Division “hoc proprium habet, ostendere ossa et nervos controversiae ([Quint.] decl. min. 270.2); and it would normally be given orally as an introduction to each theme (ibid. 314.1; Quint. 2.6.1‑2). What Sopatros gives us is a series of such introductions organized for publication23.

  • 24 See Innes, Winterbottom 1988, p. 2.

4His themes are ordered according to their στάσις or issue. Its overall ordering principle is the status doctrine of Hermogenes, from which, however, Sopatros allows himself to deviate occasionally in reference to subdivision, terminology and sequence. The order of the Sopatrian στάσεις is the following: στοχασμός, ὅρος, ἀντίληψις, ἀντιθετικαί, μετάληψις, παραγραφή, πραγματική, ῥητόν καὶ διάνοια, ἀντινομία, ἀμφιβολία, συλλογισμός. Although in its beginning this list reflects the same order as Hermogenes’ in his treatise Περὶ στάσεων, after the ἀντιθετικαί Hermogenes continues with πραγματική, μετάληψις, ῥητὸν καὶ διάνοια, ἀντινομία, συλλογισμός, ἀμφιβολία. Never citing Hermogenes Sopatros differs from him not only on even the basic matter of the order of the στάσεις but also in the subdivisions and in other terms. Moreover, although Sopatros’ κεφάλαια for particular types of case always bear a family resemblance to those of Hermogenes, they are not always identical with them24.

5To get acquainted with Sopatros’ literary presence we have to focus on his very notions of style, especially the ways he lays bare the character of the impersonated speaker, as Sopatros does not often allude to characterization:

  • 25 Innes, Winterbottom 1988, p. 11‑12.

Unlike Libanius and Choricius, Sopatros seems, on the surface at least, more interested in πάθος than in ἦθος. He often remarks in features of a case that make it παθητικόν (e. g. 28, 8‑11; 78, 26‑28), and he contrasts the arousal of emotion with the argumentative aspect of a speech (ἀγών: 33, 7‑8; 329, 29‑30; 339, 30‑340, 5). Strong emotion could be aroused in the narrative (371, 14‑15; note the abuse at 29, 19‑20) and the argumentation (107, 29 in the ἀνθορισμός). But the natural places for it were the proem and the epilogue. It is partly a matter of content [...] Ethopoeia, remarked upon as “giving life to a narrative (58, 28‑29), is more naturally associated with the emotional parts of the speech (note the implication of 333, 24‑25). Here, naturally, is the home of the style, along with other ἀνακλητικά (56, 29 n.). φεῦ τοῦ δράματος sets off an extract from an epilogue τοῦ πάθους ἔχων τὴν αὔξησιν (31, 23), but such exclamations are no less at home in narrative and argument25.

  • 26 Innes, Winterbottom 1988, p. 2.

6Adjusting himself to the Gorgianic and sophistic tradition preceding him, Sopatros insists on the core of imposing argument which actually overrules accusations and gains forensic cases. It is to that point of exploiting argument and restraining emotion and being extremely sparing of verbal figures (except the trope of anaphora) that we should further discuss Sopatros’ place in Greek declamation and especially his version of Attic” declamation. Though he may proclaim a pendant for patriotic πομπεία and an apt indulgence for love themes, Sopatros hardly breaks away from the traditional themes for declamation, because he normally used traditional examples or variants on them. “Even the ones that lack exact parallel naturally move in the world of Sophistopolis”26. In other words, Sopatros used to incorporate his illustrative material within his theoretical discussion:

  • 27 Hock, O’Neil 2002, p. 103.

Thus the scope of Sopatros’ progymnasmata is similar to the traditional series, which was fixed as early as Theon. In addition, within these standard chapters the fragments from Sopatros treat the usual subjects – definition, etymology, classification, differentiation from similar progymnasmata, and prescriptions for composing each progymnasma. Nevertheless, one feature of Sopatros’ Progymnasmata is not typical. This feature is his practice of illustrating the formal parts of a progymnasma as he discusses each part rather than illustrating all the parts in an independent sample progymnasma at the end of each chapter, as Aphthonius had27.

7Indeed, a discussion of Sopatros’ place in Greek declamation amounts to a special discussion of his particular contribution to an Attic genre of that kind of rhetoric device. Inferences about it may concern primarily the aspects of dispositio, inventio and elocutio.

  • 28 Kennedy 1963, p. 170; cf. Innes, Winterbottom 1988, p. 4.
  • 29 Innes, Winterbottom 1988, p. 4. Cf. Innes, Winterbottom 1988, p. 15 n. 11: “Note the transitions re (...)

8First of all, in terms of disposition: this aspect of declamatio was given attention as early as the First Sophistic, for instance through Gorgias’ Palamedes, which is not an epideictic speech, but an example of arrangement, argument and style, according to Kennedy28; such a rhetor had the target to impress on his pupils the importance of clearly separated proem, narration (where appropriate), argument and epilogue. Later declamation (e. g. in the Declamationes minores) shows the same concern to mark out parts of the same speech clearly. “Sopatros would have admired that; for it is clear that, for all his array of headings, he was concerned to pass as smoothly as possible from one sub-section to another, with no abrupt change of gear”29; but that could hardly be said of Gorgias:

  • 30 Innes, Winterbottom 1988, p. 5.

Sopatros can occasionally be seen managing these things, and with aplomb. At 118, 7‑10, before turning to πηλικότης, he makes elegant allusion to the preceding arguments from συλλογισμός and γνώμη νομοθέτου. Again, at 120, 21‑22 he remarks that an ἐπιλογικὸν νόημα should mark the end of the treatment of the first ὅρος (an illustration follows in 23‑25). Nor were such devices restricted to the declamation30.

  • 31 See Innes, Winterbottom 1988, p. 6.
  • 32 Innes, Winterbottom 1988, p. 6.
  • 33 Cf. examples from Hegesias and Seneca the Elder.
  • 34 Innes, Winterbottom 1988, p. 7‑8.
  • 35 See Innes, Winterbottom 1988, p. 9‑10.
  • 36 Innes, Winterbottom 1988, p. 10.

9Students were not trained to master the system merely for the sake of acquiring theoretical knowledge. Rather, they were acquiring the key to the whole procedure of invention: they had to identify the στάσις of a case before they could know the correct way to argue it; the roots of that system being earlier in Antiphon’s Tetralogies, the treatise ad Herennium and Cicero’s De invention31. Although it was possible to classify real orations according to their στάσις and though the complexities of real life veiled the eyes of pupils from the clear light of rhetorical truth and a declamation theme was a simpler tool for a preceptor to employ, such illustration of theoretical precept on argumentation has always been an important feature of declamation. Thus, in the twelfth declamation the scholiast marks in the margin the Hermogean κεφάλαια: προβολή, ἀνθορισμός, γνώμη νομοθέτου, πηλικότης32. The aspect of elocutio is known best in the terms with the so-called Asian” style. Throughout antiquity declaimers were interested in style, often a distinctive one, vulnerable to parody and hostile comment”, for instance the excesses of Gorgias and the characteristics of the Asian” style33 or the Asian oratory of the following centuries, characterized by concinnity, constant antithetical pairs and insistence upon contrast, word-play, and bombastic effusions in the desire to arouse strong feeling – πάθος above all; and rhythm34. Finally, the question raised induces us to return to an Attic genre35, due to the growing out of Atticism, by means of returning to the vocabulary and standards of the classical period, and consequently avoidance of the excesses blamed; similar examples may be drawn from Lucian, Libanius and Choricius. In Sopatros’ case a particular type of repetition with asyndetic dicolon36, i. e. parallelismus, signifies his own contribution to Attic tradition. We have not to depend further on Seneca the Elder so as to form an impression of the sort of declamation, for he was actually not a rhetor or a declaimer, but an appreciative auditor of declaimers who sees declamation from the outside. On the other side, concerning the cases of the collection of Libanius (4th c.) and Choricius (early 6th c.):

  • 37 Innes, Winterbottom 1988, p. 3.

These speeches were consciously worked up for publication by practising rhetors, and their ἐπίδειξις is meant to impress a wider audience than that found in the classroom. They may well have been recited on public occasions. But, orally or in writing, they aimed to enhance the reputation of the teacher or to impress prospective parents. They are more, that is, than mere fair copies. But it is true that Choricius’ speeches, and some in the Libanius corpus, are prefaced but short introductions where the speaker comments on the tone and treatment demanded by the theme in question37.

  • 38 On the types of ecphrasis in Sopatros’ work On the Division of Questions, see Webb 2009, p. 141‑149
  • 39 On the use of exempla in the Roman declamation, see Van der Poel 2009, suggesting that Seneca’s cri (...)
  • 40 On the realistic elements in the Roman school declamationes concerning examples from Seneca, see De (...)

10Any functional argument bound to win cases had to be lucidly effective. It is therefore tempting to watch over Sopatros’ use of ekphrasis in his general procedure to give a brief account of the case and then to identify the type of issue involved and to proceed to a detailed outline of the speech. Rather than composing a complete model declamation, he intersperses instructions with illustrative examples38. As mock-judicial or deliberative speeches, examining whether a certain person committed a certain act, or should pursue a certain course of action, declamation themes naturally focused on persons and actions (pragmata) deserving further discussion of their status and course of event39. The ekphraseis Sopatros mentions often coincide with the type of subjects prescribed for ekphrasis in the progymnasmata. Historical themes demanded ekphraseis of battles or scenes40: e. g. in 353, or 210, 20 - 211, 1 about the Theban misfortunes, or on the story based on the Athenian generals (failure to pick up survivors after the naval battle of Arginoussai in 406 BC), or in 224, 19‑26, when the student had to lay emphasis on the circumstances and thus include a stirring ekphrasis of the event (storm) highlighting the impact of the natural phenomenon; the speakers’ aim is not to die, but to create for themselves despite their fatal errors.

11I shall make use of three model cases from Sopatros’ στάσεις: (1) case 1 (στοχασμὸς ἁπλοῦς); (2) case 20 (ὅρος διπλοῦς ἐμπίπτων); (3) case 43 (μετάληψις) being an antilogy.

  • 41 See Innes, Winterbottom 1988, p. 21.
  • 42 Innes, Winterbottom 1988, p. 21: No exact parallel, but Alcibiades is tried as a budding tyrant in (...)
  • 43 See Gibson 2004.
  • 44 Cf. Hermog., Rh. 368, 4‑6; Men., Rh. 369, 7‑8; Pernot 1981, p. 63 n. 23.
  • 45 See Innes, Winterbottom 1988, p. 21.
  • 46 On which see Schenkeveld 1991, p. 215.

12(1) The Alcibiades’ case (case 1) is a stochasmos despite the absence of a general discussion of stochasmos indicating a lacuna41. Sopatros’ general practice is to “divide” the first case falling under a particular στάσις at some length, with rhetorical discussion and occasional polemic against rival scholars. Investigation of developments in the treatment of the related concepts of μετάληψις in Greek rhetorical theory from the 2nd century AD onwards reveals that prima facie anomalies in theoretical discussion can be explained as a pragmatic adaptation to contemporary court practice. In this case Sopatros remarks upon Alcibiades’ stubborn spirit (2, 2) depicted in his proud proems (esp. 3, 2‑5) and epilogue (precept 13, 29‑14, 1; example 14, 9‑22), and in his arrogant Caesarism”42, in an interplay with knowledge from Greek history43, whereby Sopatros provides us with unusually elementary instructions to the really difficult defence of Alcibiades. Sopatros’ case begins with the general characterization of Alcibiades: he is αὐθάδης and μεγαλόφρων, i. e. daringly boastful and boldly magnanimous, and his ambitious love towards fame (φιλότιμον 2, 2‑3; 13, 29‑30) drives him to μεγαληγορία (3, 1; 3, 8) and to the inversion of a trial. According to tradition, after the naval victory at Cyzicus Alcibiades returned victorious to Athens in 408 BC. Being the typical ἀριστεύς, he has been given a golden crown of reward for his valour, he was elected as general by sea and land and his property was restored. In the case which we are to consider, Alcibiades will defend himself against a charge of attempting tyranny on his acquisition of a bodyguard which exposed him to the charge of aiming at tyranny (ἐπίθεσις τυραννίδος) as his first step on the supreme road to power. Sopatros’ advice in regard to the element of φαντασία comprising a πεφαντασμένον proem44 (3, 1), “ ‘vividly imagined’; cf. 351, 20 [...], where the noun is similarly linked to grandiosity and the speaker evokes memories of past triumphs”45 concerns a rare dramatic style aroused also by the striking vocatives (3, 2‑4) and the ἀπολογίαν ... ἐσχηματισμένην (3, 26) indicating that there must be an enlivening of the defence by the use of rhetorical figures46. In Sopatros’ coming to terms with the conventions of declamation, the way in which the defendant can deny the charge is determined by Alcibiades’ known character:

  • 47 See Russell 1983, p. 123‑128.

There is no more reason to charge the defendant than there would be to charge his malicious accuser with the same offence. The next move is the topic of “will and means”. Reasons are sure to be advanced why Alcibiades should have wanted to be tyrant. These reasons must be refuted. It will also be said that he could have done it; this cannot be directly refuted for it is undeniable, but it can be countered by asserting that a rebuttal of the allegation that he “wanted” despotic power carries with it a refutation of this point also. So the concentration is on “the will”; it is as though he was saying “where there is no will, there is no way”47.

13Finally, Alcibiades will boast of his future services to his city: that he will use his bodyguard against the Spartans and that, once the fleet launched, he will reconquer Sicily, subdue Italy and make Athens the mistress of the world (14, 10‑22).

14When Alcibiades protests against those pressing charges against him, he seizes the chance to turn the demands of juridicial circumstances against his accusers:

Do you bring me to trial (tell me) and yet fail to show the jury accomplices? Do you charge me with assaulting the citadel and yet fail to show the preparations I made [cf. 9, 5‑9] to those [i. e. the Athenian present] who were to endure the outrage? (8, 15‑18).

  • 48 Innes, Winterbottom 1988, p. 25: “Cf. 11, 14; 61, 18‑19; 155, 14; 216, 21; 235, 3; 318, 23. Also e. (...)

15Even the doctrine for the handling of βούλησις in 10, 24 sq. according to motives for praise of Alcibiades could be read under the delineation of a unique character excelling in leadership48:

  • 49 Russell 1983, p. 49‑50.

Pithanē apologia – “persuasive defence” – is a somewhat obscure name for as particular form of defence argument, in which the accused uses some fact which the prosecution had brought against him and gives it an interpretation in his own interest. The man found in tears at the foot of the acropolis can now say: “If I had wanted to be tyrant, I should have not disclosed my feelings by weeping in public; the very fact on which you base the charge actually proves my innocence!” This move of course is not always possible. If the evidence for an attempt at tyranny is the secret hoarding of arms, we cannot make the accused argue that he would not have stored the weapons if he had wanted to be tyrant. In this case, the best thing would be to urge that the possession of arms does not necessarily entail the intention to subvert the constitution. Sopatros’ Alcibiades, with his bodyguard, does however have a “persuasive defence”49.

16Alcibiades himself should designate his own defence in clever argumentative type:

If I wanted to elevate myself to tyranny, I should not have asked for this reward. [...] The murderer does not walk around with a bloody sword, the poisoner does not display his destructive material in public. [...] How then could I, if I had wanted to be tyrant, have asked for this reward, exposing myself so obviously? (13, 20‑25).

  • 50 Schenkeveld 1991, p. 215.
  • 51 Innes, Winterbottom 1988, p. 25.

17Reality is defined according to the needs of the apology and Schenkeveld rightly points to the right sense of the word reality” in 11, 2 ὡς ἐπἀληθείας:‘Reality’ of the law-court, of ordinary life, of declamatory practice, or what?50. Such a reality” should be presented εὐκρότως sonorously” (14, 17‑18) enough to work as a counter-argument and should be combined to the sense of ὑπτιότητα in 12, 12: “The mention of encomium seems to look back to 10, 24, or else to arise from the allusion to the tempting topic of Harmodius and Aristogeiton”51. Case 1 ends with many promises regarding the enlargement of Athenian glory to the ends of the world. After all, it is a fabricated event, a trial that never occurred, but is suggested by something in the record, whilst the next two cases selected arise out of an individualization of themes that also occur in a general form, with the characters and the places not specified. Antilēpsis (plea) is a major part of the defendant’s answer to his accusers:

You should refute [the prosecution’s account of events “from beginning to end”] by antilēpsis and chrōma. Antilēpsis: “It was open to me to accept what gift I asked [he has asked for a bodyguard as reward for his victory at Cyzicus], for no law objects...” (13, 5‑8).

18And then:

  • 52 On chrōma, see Russell 1983, p. 49 n. 29 (RG VIII, 49 [definition]; VIII, 13; VII, 308, etc.). On c (...)

You can expand the antilēpsis by reading the law and examining it in detail, etc. (13, 10‑12). Chrōma: “I chose this reward because I am envied and have many enemies” (13, 12‑14). You can then substantiate the chrōma from past events: “When there were such attacks and such malice directed against me before I had had any success like the present victory at Cyzicus – when those who were sick with jealousy against me were eager for my death – how could their zeal fail to be even greater now?” (13, 14‑20)52.

19Case 1 derives from Sopatros’ rhetorical toolkit revealing a concrete methodology of restoring argument.

  • 53 Innes, Winterbottom 1988, p. 93: “Hermogenes’ own example, discussed with brief argumentation in Rh (...)

20(2) Next is the case that both Hermogenes and Sopatros cite as empiptōn horos, incidental definition”, the case of the Eleusinian Mysteries’ initiation by sacred dreams (case 20), whereby the charge is against the irreverence shown on revealing the Eleusinian mysteries53 and where the speaker’s piety has to be established (111, 7‑9; 112, 1‑3). After a prophetic dream according to which the secrets of Eleusis are revealed to him, a man wakes and then describes what he has seen to an initiate. When asked if this dream corresponds to the truth, the initiate does not answer in words, but nods assent. Can we condemn him of having revealed the sacred truths and having thus displayed irreverence to the sacred institutions? The matter of his possible guilt involves two definitions”, the primary of which is whether nodding” constitutes revealing. Moreover, the incidental” question of whether such a dream amounts to a kind of an initiation, is discussed by Sopatros in great detail. At first, he has pointed to a crucial remark that δεῖ πρῶτον παντὸς ζητήματος ἐπισκοπεῖν τὴν ποιότητα (110, 24) which reminds us that characterization is important even where Sopatros does not expressly allude to it. In this case there is a series of ποιότης (110, 24 sq.), then six προοίμια (112, 1‑113, 15) and an elaborate narrative of κατάστασις (113, 15‑117, 8) that display Sopatros’ facility in an ample scope for traditional encomia of Athens and of the Mysteries; then γνώμη νομοθέτου (117, 9‑118, 10), πηλικότης (118, 10‑120, 18), ἀρχὴ τοῦ ἐμπίπτοντος ὅρου (120, 19‑121, 2), κατασκευὴ τῆς μυήσεως (121, 2‑19), συλλογισμός (121, 19‑122, 20), πηλικότης (122, 20‑123, 6), τὸ πρὸς τί (123, 6‑18), ἐπιλόγῳ (123, 18‑124, 16). Sopatros’ argumentative intelligence is further elaborated in the syllogismos, whereby the sense of nodding needs amplification next to the lawgiver’s intention”. Since the law provides simply tell” without any qualification, the discussion of the value of silence will serve to establish the importance of the counter-argument. Through relative importance” amplified in this certain context we may conclude that piety towards the gods overrides any other virtue, and that nodding” as an action, which otherwise could reveal nothing to the uninitiated, has been a demonstration of a truly pious attitude; the latter introducing unconstrained the incidental” definition. Therefore, the course of syllogismos proves that the dreamer is indeed an initiate, instructed by the goddesses themselves and not by the hierophants, and, above all, that the lawgiver’s intention” has been replaced by the goddesses’ intention to initiate whom they will – which might seem a greater privilege than an initiation performed in the ordinary manner; gods cannot mistake but their human agents can. Sopatros’ less rigorous but in some ways more practical approach gives ground to

  • 54 Russell 1983, p. 53.

the importance of “reward cases in school practice doubtless encouraged a good deal of refinement of this sort, as many of these are of necessity cases of definition. A single example may suffice to illustrate the application of the diairesis54.

21We learn that ποιότης δέ ἐστιν ἀπὸ φανερῶν ἀξιωμάτων ὁμολογουμένη περὶ τοῦ προσώπου ὑπόληψις (character is the agreed opinion about the person reached from self-evident propositions 110, 25‑26). Since the accused is pious (εὐσεβής), it is uncertain whether he was initiated or no (110, 29‑111, 1). τὸ φυλάττειν τὸν περὶ τῶν μυστηρίων νόμον (111, 3‑4) is what has to be pointed out by the defence, as ὅτι οὐδὲ ἀμύητος οὗτος ὑπὸ τῶν θεῶν ὄναρ τελεσθείς (111, 29‑30). The meaning of the proems is more or less the same: the accuser is a detractor who tries to render the accused man’s devoutness in a crime; the defendant obeys the law and gives his pious apology. As for διπλῆν ... γραφήν (113, 5‑7): the defendant argues that the matter really has two people who have a case to answer, but that the accuser has ignored one of them. His successful defence, however, will be vengeance on the accuser (cf. 112, 29; 116, 24; 229, 13) in the name of both. Then narrate them the dream watching over its integrity (by not revealing the hidden mysteries concealed in it) (115, 8). The line of defence is construed through the re-reading of events”. What is nodding after all? Nodding is a consent to a divine revelation but not a revealing of it. The defendant did not break the rules of silence (the encomia of silence along with paradigms: 118, 12‑119, 13). Besides the γνώμη τοῦ νομοθέτου you should examine the γνώμη τῶν θεῶν (122, 5):

But if, on the other hand, the intention is evident, and if we know perfectly well that the higher powers had wished by this dream to make their intention clear, an intention quite the opposite of those who have disturbed their mystic emblems, then they wished to show quite clearly that they themselves established this (new kind) of initiation ceremony for us, making this most fortunate man an initiate and disclosing to him a type of initiation of the same kind as that of Eleusis (122, 13‑20).

22Then, the initiation by the goddesses is far more complete and more ample than that solemnized by the hierophant:

It is now the time, members of the jury, to lead this man to the secret rites of Eleusis and to teach him what he has learned in riddles from the goddesses. [...] Teach us if we are in any way wrong; add what is missing to our practices. It is just for you to know more than we do, since Kore and Demeter themselves have initiated you (123, 20‑23; 124, 7‑10).

23(3) Case 43 which concerns the wife killing her adulterer husband, is an antilogy; all the μεταλήψεις being antilogies. Sopatros is clearly interested in showing how one side depends on the παραγραφικόν, while the other side has to refute it. The same case recurs as no. 82, but there it is classed under συλλογισμός, and explicitly argued not to be μετάληψις (384, 18‑23). Consequently, in 249, 20‑21:

  • 55 Webb 2009, p. 47.

Sopatros [...] refers to the “places” (topoi) which the student will have learned from the exercise of koinos topos against an adulterer and which he can now adapt (enarmosai) to the speech in question (the defence of a woman who has killed her adulterous husband in a reversal of classical cultural norms)55.

  • 56 Hawley 1995 has discussed feminine characterization in Greek declamation, by drawing examples from (...)

24Case 43 is attached to its context by the reference back to it at 254, 6‑7. In the feminine” case 43, due to the valid law against adulterers, a woman who caught up her adulterous husband in action killed him and therefore has to defend herself against charges for murder. An advocate is supposed to speak (247, 10‑11) who bases the advocacy of the woman on the prudence argument (247, 12), which forms the foundation of democracy (247, 12‑13; 249, 14): ὅτι διὰ σωφροσύνην δημοκρατία συνέστηκεν. It implies that her adulterous husband destroys offensively not only the institutions of the city (polis) but also the rules and the social customs that support matters like natural succession and inheritance and the legitimacy of the heritage in person (247, 21‑25; 248, 23‑27). To a possible counter-argument about the sex of the murderer that avenges himself on the adulterer for adultery, you can oppose the absolute outcome of the case, and that there is no difference between a man or a woman taking revenge for it (248, 11‑20); above all, what matters is the proper character of the very act (εἰ προσηκόντως ἀνῄρηται 248, 20‑21). The second μετάληψις concerns her precipitation to act without informing public authorities, but simply obeying the law, which is the source of validating public authorities (249, 3‑14). The other side (249, 23 sq.) holds form of a line sometimes against the woman committing murder and sometimes in favour of the adulterer husband (249, 25‑26). The main argument is stated at first γνωμικῶς (250, 18): that the law acknowledges the right to avenge himself for adultery only to the husband, because it is a husband who suffers most harm from adultery, and that therefore the law intended him (and not a wife) to take vengeance (250, 21‑26); and secondly: that there is a great difference between a husband catching an adulterer with his wife and a woman killing her adulterous husband (251, 6‑7), a formed reason advanced with πηλικότης (251, 12). After all, it is the wife who destroys the institution of the family by performing the tragedy of filling her heart with misfortunes (251, 17‑19). Then, how could she claim obeying the law that has rescinded along with the community at the same time (251, 22‑26)? We watch an overplay of feminine advocacy and feminine characterization on morality arguments56, and beyond, a token of metalēpsis (translatio):

  • 57 Russell 1983, p. 60-63.

His first instance is the case of the woman who has killed her husband as an adulterer. She will need an advocate, for she cannot speak for herself. The advocate’s speech begins (i) with a katastasis, in which he praises the woman’s chastity and enlarges on the value of domestic loyalty for the community at large and the “democracy”. Then (ii) comes the “demurrer”: she has killed an adulterer, surely she should not even be tried, for she has only doen what the laws allow. [...] Sopatros, as often, gives hints for both speeches, no doubt because it was the practice in his school to have pupils perform against each other – surely the most effective and interesting method of teaching57.

  • 58 See Pernot 1981, p. 81-82.

25These pairs of speeches in the form of antilogiai performed in the same declamation are rather rare in Greek declamatory practice, but they suggest that the practice was usual in Sopatros’ technique, which is what one might naturally expect58.

26In the imaginary city of Sophistopolis the implausible and the conjecture move forward hand in hand, Sopatros keeping at a good pace in constructing or transfiguring occasions and opportunities in rhetorical steps. His contribution to the genre of Greek declamation is unquestionable, provided we consider the intimate connection between declamation and the rhetorical precept forming an enduring theme in the story of the genre, and, besides, the keeping of emotion in its place, in favour of a consistent style supporting argument; the latter exporting passion, drawing character and auguring forensic victory.

Bibliographie

Anderson Gr. 1993, The Second Sophistic. A Cultural Phenomenon in the Roman Empire, Londres-New York.

Berry D. H., Heath M. 1997, « Oratory and Declamation », in S. E. Porter (éd.), Handbook of Classical Rhetoric in the Hellenistic Period 330 BC-AD 400, Leyde, p. 393‑420.

Bers V. 1997, Speech in Speech. Studies in Incorporated oratio recta in Attic Drama and Oratory, Lanham-Londres.

Bonner St. F. 1949, Roman Declamation in the Late Republic and Early Empire, Liverpool (réimpr. 1969).

Casinos Mora F. J. 2009, « Sobre la verosimilitud de la llamada lex raptarum en las Declamationes de Calpurnio Flaco », in M. A. Almela Lumbreras, J. F. González Castro, J. Siles Ruiz, J. de la Villa Polo, G. Hinojo Andrés, P. Cañizares Ferriz (éd.), Perfiles de Grecia y Roma. Actas del XII Congreso Español de Estudios Clásicos, Valencia, 22 al 26 de octubre de 2007, Valence, p. 981‑988.

Deratani N. 1929, « Le réalisme dans les declamationes », RPh 3, p. 184‑189.

Dindorf W. (éd.) 1829, Aristides ex recensione Guilielmi Dindorfii, Leipzig (réimpr. Hildesheim 1964).

Dingel J. 1988, Scholastica materia. Untersuchungen zu den Declamationes minores und der Institutio oratoria Quintilians, Berlin-New York.

Fairweather J. 1984, « The Elder Seneca and Declamation », in ANRW II, 32, 1, p. 514‑556.

Fernández López J. 2005, « Mujeres en Sofistópolis : estereotipos femeninos en la declamación romana », in I. Calero Secall, V. Alfaro Bech (éd.), Las hijas de Pandora : historia, tradición y simbología, Málaga, p. 241‑254.

Gibson C. A. 2004, « Learning Greek History in the Ancient Classroom. The Evidence of the Treatises on Progymnasmata », CPh 99, p. 103‑129.

(trad., éd., comm.) 2008, Libanius’s Progymnasmata : Model Exercises in Greek Prose Composition and Rhetoric, Atlanta.

Glöckner S. 1913, Die handschriftliche Überlieferung der Διαίρεσις Ζητημάτων des Sopatros, Kirchhain.

— 1910, « Aus Sopatros Μεταποιήσεις », RhM 65, p. 504‑514.

1927, « Sopatros. 10 », in RE IIIA/1, col. 1002‑1006.

Håkanson L. (éd.) 1982, Declamationes XIX maiores Quintiliano falso ascriptae, Stuttgart.

Hawley R. 1995, « Female Characterization in Greek declamation », in D. Innes, H. Hine, C. Pelling (éd.), Ethics and Rhetoric. Classical Essays for Donald Russell on his Seventy-fifth Birthday, Oxford-New York, p. 255‑267.

Heath M. 2003, « Μετάληψις, παραγραφή and the Scholia to Hermogenes », LICS 2, p. 1‑91.

Hock R. F., O’Neil E. N. (trad., éd.) 2002, The Chreia and Ancient Rhetoric. Classroom Exercises, Leyde, p. 100‑106.

Hömke N. 2002, Gesetzt den Fall, ein Geist erscheint. Komposition und Motivik der ps.-quintilianischen Declamationes maiores X, XIV und XV, Heidelberg.

— 2009, « The Declaimer’s One-man Show. Playing with Roles and Rules in the Pseudo-Quintilian Declamationes maiores », Rhetorica 27, p. 240‑255.

Innes D., Winterbottom M. 1988, Sopatros the Rhetor, Londres.

Kaster R. A. 2001, « Controlling Reason. Declamation in Rhetorical Education at Rome », in Y. Lee Too (éd.), Education in Greek and Roman Antiquity, Leyde, p. 317‑337.

Kennedy G. A. 1963, The Art of Persuasion in Greece, Princeton.

— 1972, The Art of Rhetoric in the Roman World, 300 B.C.-A.D. 300, Princeton.

— 1983, Greek Rhetoric under Christian Emperors, Princeton.

— 1994, A New History of Classical Rhetoric, Princeton.

— 1999, Classical Rhetoric & Its Christian & Secular Tradition from Ancient to Modern Times (2e éd.), Chapel Hill-Londres.

— (trad., ann.) 2003, Progymnasmata. Greek Textbooks of Prose Composition and Rhetoric, Leyde-Boston.

Korenjak M. 2000, Publikum und Redner. Ihre Interaktion in der sophistischen Rhetorik der Kaiserzeit, Munich.

Kraus M. 1996, « Exercitatio », in G. Ueding (éd.), Historisches Wörterbuch der Rhetorik, Bd. 3, Tübingen, p. 71‑123.

Lausberg H. 1998, Handbuch der literarischen Rhetorik. Eine Grundlegung der Literaturwissenschaft (4e éd.), Stuttgart.

Lenz F. W. 1959, The Aristides Prolegomena, Leyde.

Margolin J. C. (trad., comm.) 1966, Érasme (Didier, de Rotterdam), Declamatio de pueris statim ac liberaliter instituendis, Genève.

Mylonas G. E. 1961, Eleusis and the Eleusinian Mysteries, Princeton.

O’Meara D. J. 2003, Platonopolis. Platonic Political Philosophy in Late Antiquity, Oxford.

— 2005, « A Neoplatonist Ethics for High-Level Officials. Sopatros’ Letter to Himerios », in A. Smith (éd.), The Philosopher and Society in Late Antiquity. Essays in Honour of Peter Brown, Swansea, p. 91‑100.

O’Meara D. J., Schamp J. (éd.) 2006, Miroirs de prince de l’Empire romain au IVe siècle. Anthologie, Paris.

Pasetti L. 2008, « Filosofia e retorica di scuola nelle Declamazioni maggiori pseudoquintilianee », in F. Gasti, E. Romano (éd.), Retorica ed educazione delle élites nell’antica Roma. Atti della VI Giornata Ghisleriana di Filologia Classica (Pavia, 4‑5 aprile 2006), Pavie, p. 113‑147.

Pernot L. 1981, Les discours siciliens d’Ælius Aristide, New York.

Rabe H. 1908, « Aus Rhetoren-Handschriften », RhM 63, p. 127‑151.

— 1909, « Aus rhetoren Handschriften, cap. 11, Der Dreimänner-Kommentar W IV », RhM 64, p. 578‑589.

— (éd.) 1926, Aphthonii progymnasmata, Leipzig.

Richardson N. J. 1974, The Homeric Hymn to Demeter, Oxford.

Russell D. A. 1983, Greek Declamation, Cambridge-New York.

Sandstede J. 1994, « Deklamation », in G. Ueding (éd.), Historisches Wörterbuch der Rhetorik, vol. 2, Tübingen, p. 481‑507.

Schenkeveld D. M. 1991, « c. r. de Doreen Innes & Michael Winterbottom. Sopatros the Rhetor. Studies in the Text of the Διαίρεσις Ζητημάτων », Mnemosyne 44, p. 213‑216.

— 2000, « The Intended Public of Demetrius’ “On style”. The Place of the Treatise in the Hellenistic Educational System », Rhetorica 18, p. 29‑48.

Schiappa E. 1999, The Beginnings of Rhetorical Theory in Classical Greece, New Haven-Londres.

Schröder B.‑J., Schröder J.‑P. (éd.) 2003, Studium Declamatorium. Untersuchungen zu Schulübungen und Prunkreden von der Antike bis zur Neuzeit, Munich-Leipzig.

Seager R. 1967, « Alcibiades and the Charge of Aiming at Tyranny », Historia 16, p. 6‑18.

Shackleton Bailey D. R. (éd.) 1989, M. Fabii Quintiliani Declamationes minores, Stuttgart.

Stramaglia A. 2009, « An International Project on the Pseudo-Quintilianic Declamationes maiores », Rhetorica 27, p. 237‑239.

Stroh W. 2003, « Declamatio », in B.‑J. Schröder, J.‑P. Schröder (éd.), Studium Declamatorium. Untersuchungen zu Schulübungen und Prunkreden von der Antike bis zur Neuzeit, Munich-Leipzig, p. 5‑34.

Turner F. H. 1972, The Theory and Practice of Rhetorical Declamationes from Homeric Greece through the Renaissance, Philadelphia.

Van der Poel M. 1987, De Declamatio bij de humanisten. Bijdrage tot de studie van de functies van de rhetorica in de Renaissance, Nieuwkoop.

— 2009, « The Use of Exempla in Roman Declamation », Rhetorica 27, p. 332‑353.

Walz Chr. (éd.) 1833a, Rhetores Graeci, IV, Stuttgart-Tübingen.

(éd.) 1833b, Rhetores Graeci, V, Stuttgart-Tübingen.

(éd.) 1835, Rhetores Graeci, VIII, Stuttgart-Tübingen.

Weissenberger M. 2008, « Sopater [1] », in H. Cancik, H. Schneider, C. F. Salazar (éd.), Brill’s New Pauly Encyclopaedia of the Ancient World, Antiquity, XIII, Leyde-Boston, cols. 633‑634.

— (éd., trad., ann.) 2010, Sopatri Quaestionum Divisio – Sopatros. Streitfälle : Gliederung und Ausarbeitung kontroverser Reden, Würzburg.

Webb R. 2009, Ekphrasis, Imagination and Persuasion in Ancient Rhetorical Theory and Practice, Surrey-Burlington.

Wilhelm F. 1930, « Zu Iamblichs Brief an Sopatros Περὶ παίδων ἀγωγῆς (Stob. II, 31, 122 p. 233, 17 ff. W.) », PhW 50 p. 427‑431.

Winterbottom M. 1983, « Declamation, Greek and Latin », in Ch. Perelman, G. Calboli, M. Winterbottom, Ars rhetorica antica e nuova. XIe Giornate filologiche genovesi, Gênes, p. 56‑76.

(éd., comm.) 1984, The Minor Declamations Ascribed to Quintilian, Berlin-New York.

— 1988, « Introduction », in D. Innes, M. Winterbottom, Sopatros the Rhetor, Londres, p. 1-20.

Zinsmaier Th. 2009, « Zwischen Erzählung und Argumentation : colores in den pseudoquintilianischen Declamationes maiores », Rhetorica 27, p. 256-273.

Notes

1 See Anderson 1993, p. 55‑68 and Korenjak 2000.

2 See Lausberg 1998, § 1146‑1150; Berry, Heath 1997; Dingel 1988; Fairweather 1984; Kaster 2001; Kraus 1996; Sandstede 1994; Schröder, Schröder 2003; Winterbottom 1983. On the term declamatio and its Greek equivalents, see mainly Stroh 2003.

3 See Kennedy 2003, p. XIII for the order in other treatises.

4 Respective editions by Håkanson 1982 and by Winterbottom 1984 and Shackleton Bailey 1989.

5 See Casinos Mora 2009.

6 See Turner 1972 and Van der Poel 1987.

7 See the edition by Margolin 1966.

8 Gibson 2004, p. 105, remarks that “while historical declamation never (to my knowledge) purported to tell true stories about past events that had actually occurred, ancient historiography nearly always did”.

9 Schiappa 1999, p. 206.

10 See Schenkeveld 2000.

11 Kennedy 1999, p. 47.

12 Russell 1983 offers abundant information about Greek declamation for the later Roman Empire, but scarcely evidence for the preceding four centuries. On Roman declamation, see Bonner 1949.

13 On Sopatros/Sopater, see Glöckner 1927; Kennedy 1983, p. 104‑108; Kennedy 1994, p. 218‑220; Innes, Winterbottom 1988; Weissenberger 2008.

14 See Walz 1835, p. 318, 29 (RG VIII), where the reading “our learned teacher Himerius” (ὁ σοφὸς ὁ ἡμέτερος Ἱμέριος) is probably to be preferred.

15 Though it seems that Sopatros taught at Athens (55, 6‑7), Innes, Winterbottom 1988, p. 1 n. 3 suggested an emendation that would bring the passage into line with words at the end of Sopatros’ Prolegomena to Aristides: ταῦτ’ ἐγώ σοι Σώπατρος ἐπιδ́ιδωμι, ὅσα γε ἔμαθον (v.1. μαθών) παρὰ τῶν διδασκάλων Ἀθήνͅησι.

16 See Innes, Winterbottom 1988, p. 1.

17 It has been edited by Walz 1835, p. 1‑385, in his RG VIII, in an almost scandalous text with many mistakes and misprintings even in punctuation (see Innes, Winterbottom 1988, p. IX n. 4) and recently by Weissenberger 2010. Walz used five Renaissance Mss and the Aldine edition of 1508, which are part of one family; Innes, Winterbottom 1988 improved knowledge of the manuscript tradition presented by Glöckner 1913, who has added seven more Mss and outlined the relationship of all thirteen; Innes, Winterbottom 1988 have collationed one of the primary Mss, Corpus Christi College, Oxford 90 (ca 1300‑1330), i. e. C in their commentary as app. cr., and given their own conjectures with some of Prof. D. A. Russell.

18 Available in Walz 1833b, p. 1‑211 (RG V) and Walz 1833a, p. 39‑846 (RG IV) and see further Rabe 1909; a part of this Sopatros is translated into English by Kennedy 2003; according to Heath 2003, p. 91 it can be argued that Sopatros of Walz 1833a (RG IV) is likely to be an attested Alexandrian sophist of the late 5th century; he should not be identified with the Sopatros of RG V, although he adapted material from the latter’s commentary, as well as from one of the sources of the compilation in RG VII; anyway, on the importance of that text, see Kennedy 1994, p. 218‑220.

19 See Aphthonius, p. 59‑70 (Rabe 1926); on Rabe’s source analysis that identifies Sopatros as the author of this fragmentary elaboration, used by John of Sardis when writing his commentary on Aphthonius, see Hock, O’Neil 2002, p. 100‑106.

20 See Rabe 1908 and Glöckner 1910.

21 Dindorf 1829, III, p. 744; cf. Lenz 1959.

22 Let apart the discussion of a possible connection with the homonymous Neoplatonic philosopher and sophist (on whom see Wilhelm 1930; O’Meara 2003, p. 209‑211 (App. III); O’Meara 2005; O’Meara, Schamp 2006.

23 Innes, Winterbottom 1988, p. 2.

24 See Innes, Winterbottom 1988, p. 2.

25 Innes, Winterbottom 1988, p. 11‑12.

26 Innes, Winterbottom 1988, p. 2.

27 Hock, O’Neil 2002, p. 103.

28 Kennedy 1963, p. 170; cf. Innes, Winterbottom 1988, p. 4.

29 Innes, Winterbottom 1988, p. 4. Cf. Innes, Winterbottom 1988, p. 15 n. 11: “Note the transitions recommended at 12, 14‑15; 58, 1‑5 (going straight into the narration is σφόδρα ... ἀρρητόρευτον); 272, 16 εὐφυῶς καὶ ἀκολούθως ἐκ τῆς διανοίας εἴσβαλλε εἰς τὴν μετάληψιν [...]. Cf. also Sen. Contr. 1.1.25 “Hermagoras ... transit a prooemio in narrationem eleganter, etc.” (also Quintilian IV, 1, 77‑79).

30 Innes, Winterbottom 1988, p. 5.

31 See Innes, Winterbottom 1988, p. 6.

32 Innes, Winterbottom 1988, p. 6.

33 Cf. examples from Hegesias and Seneca the Elder.

34 Innes, Winterbottom 1988, p. 7‑8.

35 See Innes, Winterbottom 1988, p. 9‑10.

36 Innes, Winterbottom 1988, p. 10.

37 Innes, Winterbottom 1988, p. 3.

38 On the types of ecphrasis in Sopatros’ work On the Division of Questions, see Webb 2009, p. 141‑149.

39 On the use of exempla in the Roman declamation, see Van der Poel 2009, suggesting that Seneca’s criticism of the use of exempla in the Contr. VII, 5, 12‑13 is exaggerated.

40 On the realistic elements in the Roman school declamationes concerning examples from Seneca, see Deratani 1929. On the sort of the poetic tradition used whenever Sopatros cites genuine or paraphrased material fron Attic rhetors such as Demosthenes, read the discussion by Bers 1997, passim.

41 See Innes, Winterbottom 1988, p. 21.

42 Innes, Winterbottom 1988, p. 21: No exact parallel, but Alcibiades is tried as a budding tyrant in Rh. 4.332, 9; 343, 9; 347, 31. For the events at Cyzicus (410 BC) see e. g. X. HG 1.1.14‑20. For Athenian fear of Alcibiades as a tyrant cf. Th. 6.15.4 ὡς τυραννίδος ἐπιθυμοῦντι; Seager 1967, p. 6‑18. He is here seen as an ἀριστεύς requesting a prize (for αἰτήσας, cf. 3, 7); for δορυφόροι as a mark of the tyrant cf. 299, 24‑25 and 334, 12 (generally Winterbottom on [Quint.] decl. min. 267.8).

43 See Gibson 2004.

44 Cf. Hermog., Rh. 368, 4‑6; Men., Rh. 369, 7‑8; Pernot 1981, p. 63 n. 23.

45 See Innes, Winterbottom 1988, p. 21.

46 On which see Schenkeveld 1991, p. 215.

47 See Russell 1983, p. 123‑128.

48 Innes, Winterbottom 1988, p. 25: “Cf. 11, 14; 61, 18‑19; 155, 14; 216, 21; 235, 3; 318, 23. Also e. g. Hermog. Stat. 46, 8 sq. (with list of topics); Rh. 7.442, 27. In Rh. 5.10, 14 sq. Sopatros gives topics of praise and blaim for Alcibiades, mentioning e. g. Cyzicus and the training of Socrates.”

49 Russell 1983, p. 49‑50.

50 Schenkeveld 1991, p. 215.

51 Innes, Winterbottom 1988, p. 25.

52 On chrōma, see Russell 1983, p. 49 n. 29 (RG VIII, 49 [definition]; VIII, 13; VII, 308, etc.). On color, see Zinsmaier 2009, who writes that, as designation for arguments providing clever explanations in mock-forensic speeches (controversiae), the technical term color is mainly known from the work of Seneca the Elder; after a reconsideration of the origin and meaning of color, Zinsmaier’s article demonstrates the dual function of colores as a means both of generating arguments and of creating stories, i. e. as a device that is rhetorical as well as literary.

53 Innes, Winterbottom 1988, p. 93: “Hermogenes’ own example, discussed with brief argumentation in Rh. locc. citt. (add 7.453, 7‑16). For the Eleusinian mysteries see e. g. Mylonas 1961, esp. p. 272; Richardson 1974, p. 12‑30. In this traditional genre it is hardly a pointer to Sopatros’ date that Eleusis was sacked in 395.”

54 Russell 1983, p. 53.

55 Webb 2009, p. 47.

56 Hawley 1995 has discussed feminine characterization in Greek declamation, by drawing examples from the declamations and the progymnasmata of Libanius; on Libanius’ work, see Gibson 2008. On the feminine stereotypes in the Declamationes maiores of Ps.-Quintilian, see Fernández López 2005; on how to stretch the boundaries of the traditional conventions in the same work, see Hömke 2002 and Hömke 2009. There is also a philosophical enquiry in the same work (Pasetti 2008), which forms the target of an international project of annotated new re-edition and commentary from an entirely historical and also rhetorical point of view (Stramaglia 2009).

57 Russell 1983, p. 60-63.

58 See Pernot 1981, p. 81-82.

Auteur

Université d’Athènes

Cette publication numérique est issue d’un traitement automatique par reconnaissance optique de caractères.