Abstract This article is based on a general principle: the study of a fragmentary author should begin with a study of the sources. The particular subject is Cicero as a source for Theophrastus' rhetorical doctrine. The works On Invention, On the Orator andOrator are considered one after the other. The reliability of Cicero is tested by comparing what is said about Aristotle with what we read in the existingRhetoric. Grounds for caution will be found. In the case of Theophrastus, we shall discover that Cicero does have value as a source, but his value should not be overstated. The reports are often quite general and sometimes they involve Ciceronian additions.

This article is based on a general principle: the study of a fragmentary author should begin with a study of the sources. The particular subject is Cicero as a source for Theophrastus’ rhetorical doctrine. The works On Invention, On the Orator and Orator are considered one after the other. The reliability of Cicero is tested by comparing what is said about Aristotle with what we read in the existing Rhetoric. Grounds for caution will be found. In the case of Theophrastus, we shall discover that Cicero does have value as a source, but his value should not be overstated. The reports are often quite general and sometimes they involve Ciceronian additions.

Abstract: In On Invention, Cicero discusses both induction and deduction. In regard to the latter, Cicero presents a controversy between those who advocate a five-part analysis of deductive reasoning and those who prefer three parts. The issue is not practical or pedagogical, but conceptual in nature. Cicero himself prefers analysis into five parts, and rather confusingly he presents the argument of the advocates of five parts as if it were his own. The argument is striking in that it makes elaborate use of mixed hypothetical syllogisms in order to argue for five parts. Cicero claims that the five-part analysis has been preferred by all who take their start from Aristotle and Theophrastus. A survey of what Theophrastus is reported to have said concerning the hypothetical syllogism renders Cicero's claim intelligible. That is not to say that Theophrastus himself advocated a five-part analysis. Most likely the association with him derives from his known interest in hypothetical syllogistic. Later rhetoricians who identified themselves with the Peripatos made the cormection with the founders of the school, thereby gaining authority for a controversial analysis.

In the course of this paper, I shall say some things about Cicero’s discussion of induction, but my primary concern will be with his account of deduction. In particular, I want to call attention to Cicero’s argument for a quinquepartite analysis of deductive reasoning (Ded. 3). It is remarkable in that it makes elaborate use of the mixed hypothetical syllogism, and also of some importance in that it supplements our evidence for early Peripatetic interest in syllogisms of this land. Recent scholarship on the history of ancient logic has generally focused on later sources—like Alexander of Aphrodisias, Boethius, Philoponus and Simplicius— and pointed to Theophrastus as a significant contributor to the development of hypothetical syllogistic. Cicero, writing three centuries before Alexander, seems not only to confirm the importance of Theophrastus but also to indicate that his contributions were recognized as such by Hellenistic rhetoricians. In presenting this thesis, I shall not be accepting Cicero’s claim to have written more accurately and diligently than others (Ded. 7), but I will suggest that the argument in favor of quinquepaitite analysis (Ded. 3) is more coherent than what precedes (Ded. 2) and that this difference is largely attributable to Cicero’s use of sources.

Research Article| August 01 1992 Aristotle on Persuasion Through Character William W. Fortenbaugh William W. Fortenbaugh Dept. of Classics, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey 08903-0270. Search for other works by this author on: This Site PubMed Google Scholar Rhetorica (1992) 10 (3): 207–244. https://doi.org/10.1525/rh.1992.10.3.207 Views Icon Views Article contents Figures & tables Video Audio Supplementary Data Peer Review Share Icon Share Facebook Twitter LinkedIn MailTo Tools Icon Tools Cite Icon Cite Search Site Citation William W. Fortenbaugh; Aristotle on Persuasion Through Character. Rhetorica 1 August 1992; 10 (3): 207–244. doi: https://doi.org/10.1525/rh.1992.10.3.207 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 This content is only available via PDF. Copyright 1992, The International Society for the History of Rhetoric1992 Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

Research Article| August 01 1988 Benevolentiam conciliare and animos permovere: Some remarks on Cicero's De oratore 2.178–216. William W. Fortenbaugh William W. Fortenbaugh Department of Classics, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey 08903. Search for other works by this author on: This Site PubMed Google Scholar Rhetorica (1988) 6 (3): 259–273. https://doi.org/10.1525/rh.1988.6.3.259 Views Icon Views Article contents Figures & tables Video Audio Supplementary Data Peer Review Share Icon Share Facebook Twitter LinkedIn MailTo Tools Icon Tools Get Permissions Cite Icon Cite Search Site Citation William W. Fortenbaugh; Benevolentiam conciliare and animos permovere: Some remarks on Cicero's De oratore 2.178–216.. Rhetorica 1 August 1988; 6 (3): 259–273. doi: https://doi.org/10.1525/rh.1988.6.3.259 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 This content is only available via PDF. Copyright 1988, The International Society for the History of Rhetoric1988 Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.