Eros appears frequently in the four groups of Latin declamations, but two of the 19 major declamations are particularly interesting in this regard. In declamation XIV a meretrix gives her lover a hate potion and is accused of poisoning. In declamation XV we have the defense of the meretrix. These two declamations are interesting also because, together with declamations XVIII and XIX, they are the only ones which have accusation and defense, exploring similar arguments.

Eros appears frequently in the four groups of Latin declamations, but two of the 19 major declamations are particularly interesting in this regard. In declamation XIV a meretrix gives her lover a hate potion and is accused of poisoning. In declamation XV we have the defense of the meretrix. These two declamations are interesting also because, together with declamations XVIII and XIX, they are the only ones which have accusation and defense, exploring similar arguments.

L’article est partagé en deux parts. Dans la première on considère l’άλλοίωσις comme figure qui dans la poésie correspond au solécisme de la prose ainsi que le métaplasme correspond au barbarisme et on étudie le group des figures qui se rangent autour de l’άλλοίωσις comme <i>hysteron proteron, hyperbaton, hypallagé</i>. Car άλλoίojσtς n’indique pas seulement une figure particulière, mais aussi un group des figures, il s’agit des outilles stylistiques employés comme des étiquettes d’une façon plutôt mécanique pour obtenir des effets spéciaux. Chez les grammariens et les rhéteurs latins l’<i>hyperbaton</i> est devenu une sort de trope général pour indiquer un changement de l’ordre normal des mots. Dans la deuxième part de l’article on examine quelques exemples d’ <i>hyperbaton</i>, en particulier Horace, <i>Epistulae</i> 1, 20,25 <i>me primis urbis belli placuisse domique</i> pour démontrer comment le poète en a obtenu une double référence en faisant ainsi une discrète allusion à son service militaire dans l’armé de Brutus et à son amitié avec Mécène et Auguste.

Abstract This article is divided in two parts. In the first, αλλοίωσισ is considered as a figure which in poetry corresponds with solecism in prose just as metaplasm corresponds with barbarism, and the group of figures which is ranged around αλλοίωσισ such as hysteron proteron, hyperbaton, hypallagé is studied. Since αλλοίωσισ means not only a particular figure, but also a group of figures, it is a matter of stylistic tools employed as tags in a more or less mechanical way to achieve special effects. Among Latin grammarians and rhetoricians, hyperbaton became a sort of general trope used to indicate a change in word order. In the second part of the article, some examples ofr hyperbaton are examined, particularly Epistulae 1,20,25 me primis urbis belli placuisse domique to show how the poet has made of this a double reference, making a discreet allusion to his military service in the army of Brutus as well as his friendship with Maecenas and Augustus.

Research Article| February 01 1998 From Aristotelian λέξις to elocutio Gualtiero Calboli Gualtiero Calboli Via Riccoboni 12, 40127 Bologna, Italy. Search for other works by this author on: This Site PubMed Google Scholar Rhetorica (1998) 16 (1): 47–80. https://doi.org/10.1525/rh.1998.16.1.47 Views Icon Views Article contents Figures & tables Video Audio Supplementary Data Peer Review Share Icon Share Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Email Tools Icon Tools Cite Icon Cite Search Site Citation Gualtiero Calboli; From Aristotelian λέξις to elocutio. Rhetorica 1 February 1998; 16 (1): 47–80. doi: https://doi.org/10.1525/rh.1998.16.1.47 Download citation file: Ris (Zotero) Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All ContentRhetorica Search Copyright 1998, The International Society for the History of Rhetoric1998 Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

Gualtiero Calboli From Aristotelian \é£iç to elocutio 1. Introduction o ver the last few years it has become fashionable to criticize Robert Pfeiffer for overestimating the contribution of the Stoics and underestimating drat of the Peripatetics towards the development of rhetoric, grammar and philology. In fact Aristotle deserves the credit for connecting rhetoric with dialectic and poetry, without losing sight of its practical employment in the assembly and courts of law. Another development of rhetoric which occurred after Aristotle and perhaps Theophrastus was the development of an excessive number of rules, especially in the doctrine of tropes and figures of speech. That happened during the second century B.C. on the island of Rhodes and may be considered a kind of Asianic rhetoric. It was introduced into Rome through at least two handbooks, Cicero's De Inventione and the Rhetorica ad Herennium. However, in 55 B.C., at the beginning of his Platonic dialogue De Oratore, Cicero disowned his early work {De orat. 1.5). 1 R. Pfeiffer, History of Classical Scholarship, From the Beginnings to the End of the Hellenistic Age (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1968). 2 This is the opinion of F. Montanari in La philologie grecque à l'époque hellénistique et romaine, ed. F. Montanari (Vandoeuvres - Genève: Fondation Hardt, Entretiens XL, 1994), p. 29. I agree with him but recall that Pfeiffer also pointed out the importance of Aristotle and the Peripatos for Hellenistic philology: cf.z e.g., pp. 192; 197 of the Italian translation by M. Gigante and S. Cerasuolo (Napoli: Macchiaroli, 1973). 3 The origin and development of the doctrine of tropes and figures is not clear. It has been investigated by K. Barwick, Problème der stoischen Sprachlehre und Rhetorik (Berlin: Abhandlungen der sàchsischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Leipzig, Philol.-hist. Kl., Bd. 49, Hft. 3, Akademie-Verlag, 1957), pp. 88-111, but must be reconsidered now (see below)._____________ __ __________© The International Society for the History of Rhetoric, Rhetorica, Volume XVI, Number 1 (Winter 1998) 47 RHETORICA 48 The date of composition of De Inventione is about 87 B.C., only one year after Cicero heard Philon of Larissa in Rome, as has been recently noted by C. Lévy.4 5 Both Cicero's De Inventione (8887 B.C.) and the Rhetorica ad Herennium (86-82) were composed at a time when the democratic party dominated Rome and before Sulla came back from the Orient (82). I do not want to discuss the political position of the author of Rhetorica ad Herennium here, although the idea that he was a democrat has recently been confirmed by G. Achard and J.-M. David.6 In the period between the Ars Rhetorica written (but not completed) by the great orator M. Antonius (about 96 B.C.)7 and Sulla's dictatorship (82), there are about fifteen years of rhetorical activity8 during which the censorial edict by L. Crassus and D. Ahenobarbus of 92 was ineffective. This edict, as has been demonstrated by Emilio Gabba, became effective with Sulla who continued the action that the nobility's faction had brought under the law proposed by the tribune Livius Drusus in 91 B.C. in order to reorganize the Roman State.9 We know that the orator L. Crassus, a teacher of Cicero, was another of the promoters of this law but died before its approval. After considering Gruen's position on this subject, I 4 Cf. Cic. Brut. 306; Tusc. 2.9. When did Philo come to Rome? The answer is given by W. Kroll in his Commentary ad loc., p. 217f.: "Die glücklichen Erfolge des Mithridates verleiteten die Athener, an deren Spitze sich der Peripatetiker Aristo stellte, im J. 88 von den Rômem abzufallen und sich mit Archelaus, dem Feldherm des Mithridates, zu verbünden. Die Optimaten, welche treu zu den Rômem hielten, mufiten nun flüchten". Cf. also J.-M. David, Le patronat judiciaire au dernier siècle de la republique romaine (Roma: Ecole Française de Rome, Palais Famèse, 1992), pp. 371 f. C. Lévy, "Le mythe de la naissance de la civilisation chez Cicéron", in Mathesis e Philia, Studi in onore di...