Hermogenes. At the revival of letters the treatise of Aphthonius
once more became a standard text-book; Much 'popularity was
enjoyed also by the exercises of Aelius Theon (of uncertain date;
see THEON). (See further the editions of the Rhetores Graeci
by L. Spengel and by Ch. Walz.) .
During the first four centuries of the empire the practice of the art was in greater vogue than ever before or since. First, there was a general dearth of the higher intellectual Practice
of Rhet- interests: politics gave no scope to energy; philosophy “fi” was stagnant, 'and literature, as a rule, either 'arid or Zizzhe frivolous. Then the Greek schools had poured their rhetoricians into Rome, where the same tastes which revelled in coarse luxury welcomed tawdry declamation. The law-courts of the Roman provinces further created a continual demand for forensic speaking. The public teacher The, ,So of rhetoric was called “ sophist, ” which was now an ph, S, s ., academic title, similar to “ professor ” or “ doctor, ” In the 4th century B.C. Isocrates had taken pride in the name of 0'0¢L0'T'bS, which, indeed, had at no time wholly lost the good, or neutral, sense which originally belonged to it. The academic meaning which it acquired under, the early empire lasted into the middle ages (see-Du Cange, sfo., who quotes from Baldricus, “ Egregius Doctor magnusque Sophista Geraldus ”). While the word rhetor still denoted the faculty, the word sophist es denoted the office or rank to which the rhetor might hope to rise. So Lucian (“ Teacher of Rhetoricians, ” § 1) says: “ You ask, young man, how you are to become a rhetor, and attain in your turn to the repute of that most impressive and illustrious title, sophist.” Lucian also satirizes the discussions of the nature of rhetoric in his parody the Parasite (cf. also his Bis Accnsatus). Vespasian (7o-79 A.D.), according to Suetonius, was the first emperor who gave a public endowment to the teaching of rhetoric. Under Hadrian and the Antonines (A.D. 117-»180) the public chairs of rhetoric became objects of the Chairs of . . . .
Rhetoria highest ambition. The complete constitution of the schools at Athens was due to Marcus Aurelius. The Philosophical school had four chairs (0p61/ol.)-~FPlatonic, Stoic, Peripatetic, Epicurean. The Rhetorical school had two chairs, one for "sophistic, " the other for “political” rhetoric. By “ sophistic ” was meant the academic teaching of rhetoric as an art, in distinction from its “political ” application to the law-courts. The “ sophistical ” chair was superior to the “ political” in dignity as in emolument, 'and its occupant was invested with a jurisdiction over the youth of Athens similar to that of the vice-chancellor in a modern* university. .The Antonines further encouraged rhetoric by granting immunities to its teachers. Three “ sophists ” in each of the smaller towns, and five in the larger, were exempted from-taxation (Dig. xxvii. 1, 6, .§ 2). The wealthier sophists affected much personal splendour. Polemon (c. A.D. 130) and Adrian of Tyre, (c. A.D. 170) are famous examples of extravagant display. The aim of the sophist was to impress the multitude. His whole stock-in-trade was style, and this was directed to astonishing by tours de force. The scholastic declamations were chiefly of Declamations. two classes. (1) The suasoriae were usually on historical or legendary subjects, in which some course of action was commended or censured (cf. Juv. Sat.). These suasorioe belonged to deliberative rhetoric (the Bovhevrixby yéz/os, deliberativum genus). (2) The controversie turned especially on legal issues, and represented the forensic rhetoric (éucavucév 'yéz/os, jndiciale genus). But it was the general characteristic of this period that all subjects, though formally “deliberative” or “forensic,” were treated in the style and spirit of that third branch which Aristotle distinguished, the rhetoric of érriéeiits or “ display.” The oratory produced by the age of the academic sophists can be estimated from a large extant literature. It is shown under various aspects, and presumably at its best, by such writers as Dio Chrysostom at the end of the 1st century, Aelius Aristides (see ARISTIDES, AELIUS) in the 2nd, the chief rhetorician under the Antonines, Themistius, Himerius and Libanius in the 4th. Amid much which is tawdry or vapid, these writings occasionally present passages of true literary beauty, while they constantly offer matter of the highest interest to the student.
In the medieval system of academic studies, grammar,
logic and rhetoric were the subjects of the trivium, or course followed during the four years of undergraduate ship. Mgdiewg] Music, arithmetic, geometry and astronomy con- studyof stituted the quadrivium, or course for the three years R"°f°""°from the B.A. to the M.A. degree. These were the seven liberal arts. In the middle ages the chief authorities on rhetoric were the latest Latin epitomises, such as Martianus Capella (5th cent.), Cassiodorus (5th cent.) or Isidorus (7th cent.).
After the revival of learning the better Roman and Greek writers gradually returned into use. Some new treatises were also produced. Leonard Cox (d. 1 549) wrote The Art or Craft of Rhetoryke, partly compiled, partly original, which was reprinted in'Latin at Cracow. The Art of Rhetorique, by Thomas Wilson (1553), afterwards secretary of state, embodied rules chiefly from Aristotle, with help from Cicero and Quintilian. About the same time treatises on rhetoric were published in France by Tonquelin (1555) and Courcelles (1557). The general aim at this. period was to revive and popularize the best teaching of the ancients on rhetoric. The subject was regularly Rhefo, -ia taught at-the universities, and was indeed important. at the At Cambridge in 1570 the study of rhetoric was U""'°" based on Quintilian, Hermogenes and the speeches of swim Cicero viewed as works of art. An Oxford statute of 1588 shows that the same books were used there. In 1620 George Herbert was delivering lectures on rhetoric at Cambridge, where he held the office of public orator. The decay of rhetoric as a formal study at the universities set in during the 18th century. The function of the rhetoric lecturer passed over into that of correcting. written themes; but his title remained long after his office had lost its primary meaning. If the theory of rhetoric fell into neglect, .the practice, however, was encouraged by the public exercises (“ acts” and “opponencies ”) in the schools. The college 'prizes for “ declamations ” served the same purpose. V
The fortunes of rhetoric in the modern world, as briefiy sketched above, may suffice to suggest why few modern writers of ability have given their attention to the subject. Modern Perhaps one of the most notable modern.contributions Writers on to the art is the collection of commonplaces framed (in R”“"""i”-Latin) by Bacon, “ to be so many spools from which the threads can be drawn out as occasion serves, ” a truly curious work of that acute and fertile mind. He called them “ Antitheta.” A specimen is subjoined 1-V
| For. | Against. |
| “Attachment to the state begins from the family.” | “He who marries, and has children, has given hostages to fortune.” |
| “Wife and children are a discipline in humanity. Bachelors are morose and austere.” | “The immortality of brutes is in their progeny; of men, in their fame, services, and institutions.” |
| “The only advantage of celibacy and childlessness is in case of exile.” | “Regard for the family too often overrides regard for the state.” |
This is quite in the spirit of Aristotle's treatise. The popularity enjoyed by Blair's Rhetoric in the latter part of the 18th and the earlier part of the 19th century was merited rather by the form than by the matter. Campbell's Philosophy of Rhetoric, which found less wide acceptance than its predecessor, was superior to it in depth, though often marred by an imperfect comprehension of logic. But undoubtedly the best modern book on the subject is Whately's Elements of Rhetoric. Wimeb, Starting from Aristotle's view, that rhetoric is “ an offshoot from logic, ” Whately treats it as the art of “argumentative composition." He considers it under four heads: (1) the address* to the understanding (=Aristotle's h0'YLK7}] vriorrcs); (2) the address to the will, or persuasion (=Aristotle's 'f]0LK7!] and
