Sometime after mid-second century bce, doctrines from the speech-part, Aristotelian, and Hermagorean handbook traditions were fused into a new eclectic theory, which began to inform handbooks and classroom instruction. We do not have exemplars of the handbooks in this tradition, but we do have a fairly detailed outline of its principles. Cicero provides this outline in the dialogue De Oratore, where he has Crassus summarize the art of oratory as he was trained in it (1.137-45). Given the historical lifespan of Crassus (140-91 bce), this outline is evidently meant by Cicero to typify the contents of Greek rhetorical instruction and associated rhetorical handbooks around 125 bce. Moreover, since a younger interlocutor in the dialogue, Sulpicius (124/123-88 bce), indicates that he has previously encountered the very doctrines outlined by Crassus (1.148), I think we are to understand that the outline was still relevant around 91 bce (the dramatic date of the dialogue, see Leeman and Pinkster 1981: 84-6), though presumably by this time the eclectic theory of rhetoric was available in Latin (evidence coherent with this presumption is treated by Calboli 1982; 1993: 19-25). Thus, within the outline, Cicero provides very important information regarding the state of traditional rhetoric just after Hermagoras and just before the appearance of the Latin rhetorical manuals, De Inventione and Rhetorica ad Herennium.
Within the eclectic theory as Cicero outlines it, the influence of the Aristotelian handbook tradition may be noted in its conceptualization of the faculty of the orator with recourse to functional activities, particularly invention, arrangement, expression, memory, and delivery:
Cumque esset omnis oratoris vis ac facultas in quinque partis distributa, ut deberet reperire primum quid diceret, deinde inventa non solum ordine, sed etiam momento
Quodam atque iudicio dispensare atque componere; tum ea denique vestire atque ornare oratione; post memoria saepire; ad extremum agere cum dignitate ac venustate. (Cicero,
De Oratore 1.142)
And, since the entire power and faculty of the speaker is divided into five parts, he ought first to discover what he should say, then to arrange and compose the discoveries not only with order, but also with a certain weight and through the exercise of judgment, then to dress and adorn them with language, and after that to surround them with memory, and finally to deliver them with distinction and grace.
To be sure, memory has been added to the functions that Aristotle envisioned, but it would appear that this addition is simply an extension of Aristotle’s functions to make them consistent with contemporary pedagogy. Particular influence of Aristotelian handbooks may also be noted in the focus of the theory upon three kinds of rhetorical speeches (judicial, deliberative, demonstrative) and four qualities of rhetorical style (correctness, clarity, ornament, aptness - systematized after Aristotle by his student, Theophr. frag. 684; Fortenbaugh et al. 1992):
Sed causarum, quae sint a communi quaestione seiunctae, partim in iudiciis versari partim in deliberationibus; esse etiam genus tertium, quod in laudandis aut vituperandis homi-nibus poneretur; . . . audieram etiam quae de orationis ipsius ornamentis traderentur: in qua praecipitur primum, ut pure et Latine loquamur, deinde ut plane et dilucide, tum ut ornate, post ad rerum dignitatem apte et quasi decore; singularumque rerum praecepta cognoram. (Cicero, De Oratore 1.141, 144)
But of the causes that are distinct from a general dispute, some have to do with legal proceedings, other with deliberations, and there is a third kind, which is thought to consist in praising and censuring persons. ...I also heard what is imparted concerning enhancements of the speech itself, regarding which it is taught that we should speak, first, in pure and correct Latin, second, simply and clearly, third, ornately, and last, aptly and suitably, as it were, to the dignity of our subject matter. For these specific things, I learned precepts.
The influence of the Hermagorean tradition is also obvious; the eclectic theory envisions invention as concerned with general and special matters, and it prescribes an account of issues in dispute that parallels Hermagoras’ theory of rational and legal questions:
Deinde esse omnem orationem aut de infinitae rei quaestione, sine designatione perso-narum et temporum, aut de re certis in personis ac temporibus locata; in utraque autem re quicquid in controversiam veniat, in eo quaeri solere aut factumne sit aut, si est factum, quale sit aut etiam quo nomine vocetur aut, quod nonnulli addunt, rectene factum esse videatur; existere autem controversias etiam ex scripti interpretatione, in quo aut ambigue quid sit scriptum aut contrarie aut ita ut a sententia scriptura dissentiat ... (Cicero, De Oratore 1.138-40)
Next, every speech either concerns a dispute of a general matter without specification of persons or times, or it has to do with a matter dependent upon specific persons and times. Also, in each matter, whatever comes into controversy, it is usual for there to be inquiry whether or not a deed was done or, if it was done, what is its character, or again by what name it should be called, or, as not a few add, whether or not it appears to have been done rightly. Further, controversies also proceed from interpretation of writing, in which something is written with ambiguity, or contradiction, or such that the wording is at odds with the thought...
The influence of speech-part handbooks upon the eclectic theory is apparent in its six-part organizational scheme for speeches, including exordium, narration, partition, confirmation, refutation, and conclusion:
Etiam illa cognoram et acceperam, ante quam de re diceremus, initio conciliandos eorum esse animos qui audierent; deinde rem demonstrandam, postea controversiam constitu-endam, tum id quod nos intenderemus confirmandum, post quae contra dicerentur refellenda, extrema autem oratione ea quae pro nobis essent amplificanda et augenda, quaeque essent pro adversariis infirmanda atque frangenda. (Cicero, De Oratore 1.143)
I also studied and learned that before we speak on a matter, we must at first conciliate the mind of the audience, next we must give an account of the matter, after this we must establish the controversy, then we must prove what we claim, and afterwards we must refute what has been said in opposition, and at the end of the speech, we must amplify and intensify those things in our favor, while we weaken and break down those things in favor of our adversaries.
Certainly it is hard to explain the presence of separate parts for confirmation and refutation without contemplating the early handbooks that Aristotle criticized for distinguishing these very parts. We should also recognize the likely influence of Hermagoras on the speech-part ‘‘partition.’’ In his advanced analysis of disputable issues, he recommends partition as an indispensable part of every speech that identifies a controversy to be settled in a discursive context.
World History
