Fases de intervención

From the Augustan age and the first century A.D., when a major shift in aesthetic values occurs almost universally, we have only the works o f two significant critics on current rhetorical standards and so on previous rhetoricians including Hyperides; the rhetorical treatises o f Dionysius o f Halicarnassus and the work o f Ps. Longinus entitled ‘On the sublime’. As I have argued in the previous chapters, Hyperides’ renown was continuously high among later Greek, especially Rhodian rhetoricians, whose influence seems to explain his ‘popularity’ in first century Rome, both B.C. and A D However, the model represented by him from the second century onwards gradually loses its attractiveness and eventually becomes a mere curiosity. The roots o f this later development can be observed even in the changing evaluation in Cicero, but ultimately they have to be traced back to the rising classicism o f the Augustan age, with its primary interests in Demosthenes as ‘the orator’. Traditionally Dionysius is regarded as the father and inaugurator o f this ‘new’ Augustan rhetorical classicism, i.e. Atticism. Moreover, he seems to be responsible for the rising and eventually overwhelming cult o f Demosthenes.

In this chapter I focus on Hyperides’ place in the Dionysian system, which seems to represent the negative turning point in his ‘Nachleben’. I shall address basically two questions: 1. Did Dionysius write an independent treatise on Hyperides’ style or not? 2. Which are the main characteristics attributed by him to the Hyperidean style and what is their relative importance in comparison with other orators? Some aspects o f the answer to this latter question will perhaps help to solve the previous one too."^^^

further general surveys of Dionysius’ literary criticism, which are not referred to below cf. Kinsdtrand 30, n.52.

A . E s s a y on H y p e rid e s?

Dionysius as a teacher realised the urgent need o f practical advice for students and therefore instead o f vague exultation over the long desired change in rhetorical values (i.e. from Asianism - to (Roman) Atticism cf. D.H OralVettA) decided to present all the valuable models for imitation, since this was the only way o f achieving skills in rhetoric in his consideration:

xtveç elalv xœv àpxoctcûv 'pT]xôpü)v xe m l a\/yYpa(|)écov m l

xtveç abxœv kyàvovxo jcpoaipéaeiç xou xe plou m l xojv Xôycov m l xl m p ' kKàaxou 5eî Xxxppàveiv f| ())uM,xxeo8ai, m X ù 0eœphpaxa m l à v a y m îa xe ptou m l xœv X6yû)i/ m l xi m p ’ kKàaxou Ôeî Accppàveiv fj ({>uXdxxea6ai, mXct Ôecûpfipaxa m l àvayK aîa xoîç àaKoûai xf^v TroX-ixiKfiv (|)iAoao(j)lav m l ob ÔfiTcou pd Ata Koivd ob5è mxTipoÇeupéva xoîç icpôxepov.

‘Who are the most important o f the ancient orators and historians? What manner o f life and style o f writing did they adopt? Which characteristics o f each o f them should we imitate, and which should we avoid? These are worthy subjects, which students o f political thought must examine, yet they have certainly not become commonplace or hackneyed through the attentions o f earlier writers.’'*^'*

The space is limited and therefore he promises to speak only about the most elegant orators (xopieoxdxouç) in a chronological sequence (m xd xàç fi^udocçj'^^^and afterwards perhaps (ectv Se eyxcopfj) about historians too. And here we have his first concrete promise about a Hyperidean treatise:

éaovxai Ôè c l mpaXctppavôpevoi hriwpeç xpeîç pèv kx xcûv ^cpeapuxépcov, Aixyiaç ’laoKpàxrjç T aaîoç, xpeîç 6’ kx xœv kmxpacrdvxcov xobxoiç, Aripoa0évr|ç'Yîcepeiôriç Aloxtvqç, obç kycb xœv dA,A,cûv hyobpai xpaxtaxouç, x a l ôiaipe0qaexai pèv elç ôbo auvxd^eiç fi îcpaypaxela, xf]v 5è dpxî]v ànà

xauxqç A,fi\|/exai xqç bjrkp xœv jcpecjpuxépœv ypacjjeiaqç.

‘The orators to be compared will be three from the earlier generation, Lysias,

'’^Translated by St. Usher (as is any other quotation from Dionysius). '’^^There is no implication about inventors and perfectors!

Isocrates and Isaeus, and three from those who flourished after these, Demosthenes, Hyperides and Aeschines. These I consider to be the best orators. My work will be divided into two sections, the first dealing with the older orators.’"^

His promise is repeated at the very end o f the first book:

kxepav Ôè à.p%i\v îcoiftaopai xoû jrept xe AT]poaGévouç m i

‘ YTcepetÔou m l xpixou A.èycov Aiaxlvon. ft yàp ÔV] xeXeioxdxT) 'pîT^piKf] m l xô Kpàxoç xœv èvayœvlœv Xôyœv èv xouxoiç xoîç àvôpàaiv éoiKev eîvai.

T shall make a fresh start to my treatise, dealing with Demosthenes and Hyperides, and thirdly with Aeschines: for it was probably in these men that oratory reached its highest point o f perfection, and forensic eloquence found its best exponents’.

However, the second book o f the ‘De antiquis oratoribus’ in the Usener- Radermacher edition contains only a treatise on Demosthenes and some fragments about the Aeschinean style collected from scholia. The shadow o f an early Hyperidean ‘damnatio memoriae’ has robbed us completely o f the Dionysian essay, but did it really undergo the same fate as the Hyperidean oeuvre itself or was it never written? Did he really become so insignificant in Dionysius’ eye in comparison with Lysias and Demosthenes that he simply neglected him, so that Wilamowitz’ more or less ex cathedra statement is right: "Who reads through Dionysius’ work will obviously understand that he never wrote about Hyperides

A long debate has developed about the question and scholars interpret the same evidence differently. A detailed presentation o f the history o f research is given by van Wyk Cronjé.'*^^ Without explaining in detail each proposed alternative, I will only refer on

“^ . H . Orat.VettA.

‘‘^’D.H ./s.20; this expression - in my opinion - does not necessarily imply that Dion^^ius considered them the perfectors of the three particular styles and therefore decided to comment on them. In the early essays he never expresses such an aim. He might simply have followed his own ‘canon’ of orators.

^^^U.von Wilamowitz MoIlendorfiF, ‘Lesefrüchte’ Hermes 34 (1886) 626.

van Wyk Cronjé, Dionysius o f Halicarnassus: De Demosthene: A Critical Appraisal o f the Status

Quaestionis (Hildesheim, 1986) 63-92; and A.Hurst, ‘Un critique grec dans la Rome d’Auguste: Denys

particular points to the important.

Still within Dionysius’ oeuvre there is another crucial remark. In his essay on Dinarchus, ch. 1, he explains why he had not written about this minor orator in his previous books:

Ilepi Aeivdpxou to\> 'p^tropcç obôèv elpr|Kà)ç kv xoîç jcepl xcov àpxaicov Ypa^eîaiv Ôià xô pfixe ebpexf^v ISiou Yeyovévai xapaKxqpoq xôv àvSpa, (ÏKJTcep xôv A\xjlav Kai xôv’IaoKpàxr|v Kai xôv’Iaaîov, pf^xe xœv ebprjpévœv kxépoiç xeXeiœxfiv, &omp xôv Ar|poa0évri xa l xôv AlaxivT] Kai <xôv>' YîiepetÔrjv bpeîç Kplvopev,

‘I said nothing about the orator Dinarchus in my writings on the ancient orators because he was neither the inventor o f an individual style, as were Lysias, Isocrates and Isaeus, nor the perfector o f styles which others had invented, as I judge Demosthenes, Aeschines and Hyperides to have been.’

At first glance this statement implies that - as opposed to Dinarchus - he did write about all the others."^® However, there arose some considerable doubts following the suggestions o f Kalinka'*” and the scepticism o f other scholars.'^^^ Kalinka rather vaguely suggests that the aorist participle Ypoapeunv refers only to the completed treatises on the first three orators, as if - as I understand it - the TtEpi xœv àpxrxiœv only covered the first generation and not all his Attic predecessors in Dionysius’ terminology. So, the work on the first three was done, but on the other hand the xplvopev with its present tense means that the second book was only a plan. Moreover, the altered sequence in the mention o f the three later rhetoricians (Demosthenes, Aeschines, Hyperides, instead o f the original: Dem. ,Hyp.,Aesch. ) shows that Dionysius did not have them in a fixed and completed form."’^ This latter suggestion might be thought to have a certain strength, but if we

'’’®Cf. RKTukey, ‘The composition of the De Oratoribus Antiquis of Dionysius’ CPh 4 (1909) 391. ‘’’^E.Kalinka, ‘Die Aibeitsweise des Rhetors Dionys’ WS 43 (1924) 159.

‘‘^^L.Radermacher, ‘Dionysios’ R E V (1903) col. %5; S.F.Bonner, T7te literary treatises o f Dionysius o f

Halicarnassus, a Study in the Development o f Critical Method (Cambridge, 1939) 30.

'^’^Kalinka, 160; cf. A.Gudeman, P.Comelii Taciti Dialogus de oratoribus, 2. ed (Leipzig-Berlin, 1914) 382.

474 consider the generality of the context these arguments lose their power.

On the other hand, another piece o f evidence in favour o f a completed Hyperidean essay was discovered by Blass. In Syrianus’ commentary on Hermogenes he found the following sentence:

Aiovvxnov, ÔÇ Tœpi x«pctKTfjpoç ôiéActpe Aixrloo ÀT|ioo0évouç ’laoKpaxouç 'YrapelSou OooicoôiSou.'’^^

‘Dionysius, who dealt with the styles o f Lysias, Demosthenes, Isocrates, Hyperides and Thucydides.’

Its value was questioned by Wilamowitz and Kalinka because o f the author’s obscurity.'*’^ And finally Dionysius’ critical remarks on Hyperides’ style (see below) give a strong impression that he must have dealt with the orator. However, to what extent is questionable. The general characteristics o f these comments in the ‘De Dinarcho’ could certainly correspond to those about Lysias and Isocrates in the De Demosthene’^^^ and so they too could be the echo o f a more detailed and independent work, in this case devoted to Hyperides. Of course there is no objective evidence.'*’* To try to reconstruct fi*om these remarks the structure o f the lost Hyperidean essay is merely a vain and unnecessary speculation.'*’^

At this point, after counting the pro- and contra-arguments, it would be fiuitless to go further, since any attempt to give a decisive answer would not surpass the level o f a subjective hypothesis. Nevertheless, in considering the general characteristics o f Dinonysius’ stylistic remarks on Hyperides, there could be a further argument, a kind o f

'*’'*Œ van Wyk Cronjé, 67. '*’^Walz, Vn, 1048.

'’’^Kalinka, 159, (F.Blass, De Dionysii Halicamassensis scriptis rhetoricis (1863) 11). Another recurrent argument against the existence of the treatises is the hurry and lack of time to which Dioitysius often refers. This point certainly does not have any convincing force in itself. Nor is this valid in the case of the final sentence of the ‘De Demosthene’ (the opening essay of the second book) where Dionysius promises to write about the TipocYpauioôç iôtioçon a later occasion, namely: èv toîç YPo«PTPopévoiç OTioScœjojiEv ooi

Dov Xoyov. To conclude from this statement that he had planned but never fulfilled the Hyperidean and Aeschinean treatises, since not even the second Demosthenic work was completed in time, is not justified: cf. Kalinka, 160.

'’’’They are very often repeated without mentioning their previous occurrence. See De Demosthene passim. '*’*Cf. Kalinka, 158.

479,

indirect evidence, which would perhaps bring some contribution to the dead-locked debate.

In Dionysius’ estimation Hyperides represented without any doubt the so-called plain style, which was introduced and basically developed by Lysias. In accordance with this principle the majority o f the stylistic observations on Hyperides - wherever the opportunity arises - are paralleled with the similar qualities o f Lysias. From all these comparisons it is generally apparent that Dionysius on the one hand considered Lysias better than Hyperides - not to say the best - in the strict sense o f stylistic technique

(X£KxiKÔç xoTcoç) within the bounds o f the plain style. On the other hand, however, the main virtue o f the Hyperidean style lay in arrangement o f the subject matter (TCpocyjiaxiKoq TOTioç) and from Hyperides this was the element worthy o f imitation. All the three ‘lengthy’ Dionysian statements give this same impression: De Dinarcho 6 and 7 and De Imitatiom 6, 31.

Lysias’ weakness in arrangement is o f course especially discussed in its place, i.e. in the essay on him.'’®® However, in a third, ‘neutral’ field the two representatives o f the plain style are placed after each other with the emphasis on their virtues. Each - by accident or on purpose - seems to supplement the shortcomings o f his counterpart and so create an ideal ‘joint-model’ for the plain style. In any case, in the De Din. 6, Dionysius suggests as the only appropriate method for separating the real and spurious speeches o f Dinarchus a clarification o f the main characteristics o f his three models, Demosthenes, Lysias and Hyperides:

<XXX,o)v 'prjT^pcov, obç p.ep.ip.qxai, peyiaTq yvcbaiq ft bpoetSeia zcbv Xôycov.

abxiKa b jxèv Arxjtaç év xe xoîç lÔtoiç Kai xoîç Ôqpoatoiç ày& aiv abxôç abxw bjioXoYoupevôç feaxiv elç Ôè xôv XeKxiKÔv xôjcov Kaxd xf]v xcûv bvojiàxcov aa<j)fiveiav Kai abvôeaiv abxo(j)uq pèv Kai Xetav eîvai ôoKoûaav, Tcavxôç ôè

Xàyov

ëTci^elpriixa 7cXctx<)vœv.

‘For example, Lysias shows self-consistency in both his private and his public speeches ... and in respect o f diction, the lucidity o f his language, the apparent naturalness and smoothness o f his composition, which, however is pleasing beyond all description. Hyperides on the other hand, is inferior to Lysias in his choice o f words, but superior in his treatment o f subject-matter. He composes his narrative in a variety o f ways, proceeding sometimes according to the natural order o f events, at other times from the end to the beginning. In his proofs he not only uses the enthymeme (as does Lysias cf. Lys. IS), but also expatiates by means o f the epichireme.’

Similarly in chapter 7 o f the same treatise Dionysius emphasises Hyperides’ skills in the arrangement o f the subject matter:

TT1Ç pèv X,é^ecDç xô lax^pôv, xrjç ôè auvôéaecoç xô ôlkXovv, xœv ôè TcpaYpàxœv xô ebxaipov, xfjq Ôè KaxaaKeufjç xô pf] xpayiKÔv pr)ôè byKœôeç

‘they contain his forcefülness o f diction, his simplicity o f composition and his effective timing in the treatment o f subject-matter, and there is no melodramatic or bombastic artificiality’"**^

It is remarkable, however, that even in the case o f his favourite orator, Demosthenes, Dionysius did not fialfil his promise and write on the orator’s TtpocypaxiKÔç

xÔTüoç:

ëàv ôè acpCn ôaipôviov hpâç, Kai itepi xfjç TcpaypaxiKTjç abxofr ôeiv6xr|xoç, éxi pctÇovoç f) xofiÔe x a l fiaupacjxoxépou 0eœpf|potxoç, ëv xoîç ëÇ-pç Ypa(|)TTaopévoiç àTcoÔdxjopév aoi xôv A/yyov.

‘If god preserves me, I shall present you in a subsequent treatise with an even longer and more remarkable account than this o f his genius in the treatment o f the subject-matter.’

'’^’And even more explicit is the De Imitatiom 6, 31: 'O Ôè'Yîcepet5iiç etexo^oç (cf. V.C..209) ^éi/, aïcàviov Ô’ ah^TixiKÔç- Kai xfj )ièv xfjç <tipàaecûç KaxocKevh Axxiiav brcepT]pKa)ç, xfj ôè x t j ç ebpèaexûç

Tcavovpyta ïcàvxaç. èxi ôè xoû Kpivopéi/ov ôuàc navxàq è%exai, Kai xoîç àvayKatoiç xoû icpàypaxoç 7cpoa7cé(|)\)Kev, Kai a\jvéaei TioXXfi Kexopfiynxai, Kai xdpixoç (cf. Lys.\Q ,\\,\2\ Isocr.y) peaxôç èaxv Kai ÔoKœv ànXoûç ol)K à7if)XAaKxai Ôeiv6xr|xoç. xoùxov Ç'nX.œxéov pxiXiaxa xœv ôiTryfjaeœv xô XeTixôv Kai a-Oppexpov, èxi Ôè Kai xàç è(|)6Ôouç, <6ç> èril xd Ttpdypaxa paôtÇei.

A similar inequality is present between the chapters dealing with AfKUKÔç and TtpocyjjiaTiKÔç XOTÜOÇ in the first three essays. For example in the treatise on Lysias the rate is thirty-three to one. This, however, corresponds to Dionysius' declared teaching program, which is presented in the opening chapter o f the De compositiom.

The introduction is addressed to the son o f his fiiend, who at the same time happened to be his pupil as is revealed by a casual remark; bv xaîç xaO' hixépav yupvaalaiç (‘in the daily exercises’)."**^ The boy probably represents the same age-group, which Dionysius supposedly had been teaching in his school, or at least some o f those who were targeted by his rhetorical education. So, the programme outlined in the introduction could in my opinion very possibly be valid - it cannot be proved - both for the main aims o f his rhetorical teaching and for his critical efforts, which walked hand in hand with this practical purpose.

Metilius Rufus is presented with this work on his birthday on the threshold o f his maturity. He must have been about seventeen. Dionysius considers his essay usefijl for everyone:

pdXiaxa ôè xoîç peipaKloiç xe x a l veœaxl xoû paefyiaxoç àTrxopévciç b|xîv, a>'Pou(})e MextX,ie Tcaxpôç dyccfiou Kàpol xi|xicoxàxou (|)1X,cüv. Aixxtiç yàp otxjriç àaxfpecDç Tcepl jcàvxaç d)ç e’iTceîv xobç A-ôyouç, xfjç Tcepl xà vof]jiaxa Kai xfjç Tcepl xà bv6|xaxa, J)v f| pèv xofi irpaypaxixob xôîcou pàX.Xov b(t)à7cxea0ai ôô^eiev àv, f\ ôè xoû XeKxiKoû, x a l Tcàvxcov ôaoi xofi X,éyeiv eu axoxàÇovxai Tcepl à|i(()oxèpotç xàç Gecoplaç xoû AAyou xabxaç OTCOUÔa^ôvxcov laou, h pèv bTcl xà Tcpàypaxa xa l xf|v bv xobxoiç (j>pôvqcjiv dyotxja h^àç bmaxTipri ppaÔeîà baxi xa l %aX.e7n) véoiç, pàX,Xov ôè àôbvaxoç elç àyevetcov x a l peipaxlcDV jreaeîv fiXixlai/' àxjiaÇobcyriç yàp fjÔT] awéaecoç baxi x a l jcoA-iaîç xaxT|pxupévr|ç fiXixlaç [fi xouxcûv xaxàXTi\j/iç] olxeioxépa, TcoXXfj jxèv laxoploc Abyoûv xe x a l épycov, 7coXX,f] Ôè Tcetpa xa l aup,({x)pâ TcaOcov oixetcov xe x a l àA,A,oxplo)v auv-au^opéviy xô Ôè Tcepl xàç X,é^eiç (j)iXàxaXx)v x a l xaîç veapaîç 7cé(j)uxe auvavGeîv fiA-ixlarç. bTcxbiycai yàp àn aoa vécu xj/ux^l Tcepl xôv xfjç bppqvelaç (bpaiapôv, àXôyovç xivàç x a l dxjTcep bv0o\xnc6ôeiç bjcl xoûxo

482

A<a|ipdvo\xja xàç bppiàç- ... elç Sf] xovxo xô fiépoç, ô ôeî jcpœxov véoiç àaKeîa0ai, "avp.pàXAx)p.at aoi p-éA-oç elç èpcoxa" ... ’eàv ô’ kyyéi/T|xoil ^loi axoXf], Kai Tcepl xfjç eKÀoyfiç xœv bvo|xàxœv kxépav ’eÇotaœ aoi Ypa(|)f]v, Iva xôv XeKxiKÔv xôjtov xeXeiœç k^eipyaop.àvov 6%%.