BMCR 2009.08.12: de Jonge on Marini, Demetrio, Lo Stile. Pleiadi 4

Nicoletta Marini (ed.), Demetrio, Lo Stile. Pleiadi 4.  Roma:  Edizioni
di storia e letteratura, 2007.  Pp. x, 353.  ISBN 978-88-8498-352-7.
EUR 48.00 (pb).

Reviewed by Casper C. de Jonge, Leiden University
([email protected])
Word count:  2617 words
-------------------------------
To read a print-formatted version of this review, see
http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2009/2009-08-12.html
To comment on this review, see
http://www.bmcreview.org/2009/08/20090812.html
-------------------------------

Demetrius's On Style is one of the most valuable works of ancient
rhetoric and literary criticism for several reasons. First, it offers a
very detailed and instructive account of ancient stylistic theory that
shows us the development of rhetorical teaching after Aristotle.
Second, it informs us about several topics for which we do not have
many other sources, in particular musical theory, prose rhythm, and the
ancient theory of letter writing. Finally, Demetrius cites and
discusses a great number of classical models and thereby preserves some
important fragments from prose writers including Ctesias, Demades and
Sophron, and poets such as Anacreon, Archilochus and especially Sappho.
His observations on these authors are in many cases illuminating for
modern readers.

The most recent editions with translations of Demetrius are those of
Chiron (1993, Bude/) and Innes (1995, Loeb).[[1]] The latter
translation is based on the earlier one by Rhys Roberts (Cambridge
1902, revised for the Loeb series in 1927), whose original notes are
still worth consulting.[[2]] Nicoletta Marini has now produced an
elegant and useful introduction, translation and commentary in Italian.
Her text (without apparatus criticus) is based on Chiron's edition,
from which she departs in 36 places. The introduction deals with the
date and authorship of the work, the title, structure and contents, the
rhetorical system that On Style represents, Demetrius's place in the
tradition, the modern reception and the textual transmission of the
work. As far as a non-native reader of Italian can judge, the
translation is clear and correct. But this is the third Italian
translation of the work to appear in a decade, so it will have to
compete with Lombardo (1999) and Ascani (2002); the former translation
has detailed annotations, but no Greek text; the latter comes with a
Greek text and a fine introduction by Schenkeveld.[[3]] Marini's book,
on the other hand, has the advantage of a rich commentary, which
contains many helpful observations on textual criticism, linguistic
difficulties and ancient rhetorical theory. It is therefore a welcome
addition to the annotations that accompany earlier translations,
especially those of Rhys Roberts, Chiron and Lombardo.

One important predecessor of Marini has not yet been mentioned: in
1968, Doreen Innes completed an introduction and commentary on
Demetrius that has, unfortunately, never been published. This Oxford
dissertation (by one of the most learned specialists in the world) can
still be consulted in the Bodleian Library.[[4]] It is both
understandable and regrettable that it does not appear in Marini's
otherwise comprehensive bibliography.

The most remarkable aspect of Marini's book is her view on the date of
the treatise. Scholarship on the treatise On Style has always
concentrated on its date and authorship. It was traditionally ascribed
to Demetrius of Phaleron (ca. 360-280 BC). This is the attribution in
the superscription of the important manuscript P (Parisinus gr. 1741,
tenth century), but the simpler version in the subscription of the same
manuscript is 'Demetrius On Style' (<greek>*Dhmhtri/ou peri\
e(rmhnei/as</greek>), which is probably correct. The author was thus a
certain Demetrius, but according to most scholars it was not Demetrius
of Phaleron. Various Demetrii have been suggested, including Demetrius
of Tarsus (first century AD: Rhys Roberts 1927) and Demetrius of Syria
('an experienced and famous teacher of eloquence' who taught Cicero
around 80 BC in Athens, as we learn from Brutus 315: Chiron 1993). But
the author may also be a Demetrius not known from other sources.

Concerning the date, many possibilities have been suggested, from the
early third century BC to the second century AD. In the beginning of
the twentieth century, Radermacher (1901) and Rhys Roberts (1902 and
1927) argued for a late date, in the first century AD.[[5]] In recent
scholarship, however, there was a growing consensus that the work
belongs to a relatively early period, in the first century BC
(Schenkeveld), second or early first century BC (Chiron, Innes) or even
third century BC (Morpurgo Tagliabue).[[6]] Against this tendency,
Marini now argues that On Style belongs to the first century AD, thus
giving yet another turn to this ongoing debate.

Why does Marini disagree with the recent specialists who favor an
earlier date? Having discussed the traditional arguments concerning the
language and contents of the treatise, she attaches great importance to
three arguments in particular, which she borrows from Rhys Roberts
(1927) and Calcante (2000, 2004).[[7]] First, she argues, following
Calcante (2000), that Demetrius's theory of four styles is an extension
and adaptation of the earlier system of three styles that we find in
Rhetorica ad Herennium, Cicero and Dionysius of Halicarnassus.
Demetrius would have inserted a fourth style into the traditional
system of three styles  by dividing the middle style into the elegant
style on the one hand, and the forceful style on the other. According
to this reconstruction, Demetrius would come at the end of the
development of stylistic theory, after rhetoricians like Cicero and
Dionysius. But other scholars have convincingly argued that Demetrius's
system of four styles belongs to a period in which the system of three
styles had not yet become canonical. So the difference between the
unusual system of four styles and the common system of three styles can
in fact be an argument for an early rather than a late date.

Second, Marini draws attention to Demetrius's discussion of figured
speech or innuendo (par. 287-295), which is to be used in addressing
tyrants. Following Rhys Roberts (1927: 277), she argues that this
passage, which can be compared with Quintilian's discussion of emphasis
(9.2.64-99), reflects a period in which the freedom of speech was
limited: this would fit the second half of the first century AD.
However, Demetrius's advice on this topic seems useful for orators in
many periods, not just in the context of imperial Rome. His examples
are concerned with tyrants of earlier periods (e.g. Plato addressing
Dionysius in par. 290 and Demetrius of Phaleron addressing the
Macedonian Craterus in par. 289). The same passage has even been used
in support of the authorship of Demetrius of Phaleron himself (third
century BC), who was clearly interested in methods of addressing both
tyrants and assemblies.[[8]] In other words, scholars have employed
this evidence for completely opposite claims,  consequently it cannot
decide the matter. A link between Demetrius's ideas on innuendo and the
situation in the Roman Empire remains possible, but not at all
necessary.

Marini's final argument for a date in the first century AD, which I
will discuss at more length, concerns her interpretation of Demetrius
36: here she again follows the ideas of Calcante (2004: 111). Having
introduced the four styles (the plain, the grand, the elegant and the
forceful), Demetrius points out that most of these four styles can be
combined, except for the grand and the plain. He then adds that 'some
writers maintain that only these two styles (i.e. the grand and the
plain styles) exist, and the remaining two (i.e. the elegant and the
forceful) are between them (<greek>tou\s de\ loipou\s du/o metacu\
tou/twn</greek>)'. According to Calcante, Demetrius here refers to
Dionysius of Halicarnassus (On Demosthenes 33), who distinguishes three
styles, namely the elevated style, the plain style and the style
'between those styles' (<greek>to\n metacu\ tou/twn</greek>). Marini
adopts Calcante's interpretation: when Demetrius rejects the idea of
some predecessors who treat the elegant and the forceful styles as
'between the other two', he is thinking of Dionysius's presentation of
the mixed style as intermediate between the elevated style and the
plain style. We would then have a terminus post quem for Demetrius's On
Style, namely 30 BC, the year in which Dionysius came to Rome and
started to work on his history of Rome and his rhetorical treatises.

This argument is in fact rather problematic, for two reasons. First,
Dionysius of Halicarnassus distinguishes between three styles (the
elevated, the plain and the middle or mixed), whereas Demetrius refers
to a theory of two styles ('some writers maintain that only these two
styles exist', i.e. the grand and the plain), which he opposes to his
own theory of four styles (grand, plain, elegant, forceful). Dionysius
does not say that only two styles exist. Second, <greek>metacu\
tou/twn</greek> (Demetrius 36) does not mean that the elegant and
forceful styles together formed one middle style between the grand and
the plain styles (this would be the meaning that is required for the
supposed reference to Dionysius). Demetrius himself explains what he
means by <greek>metacu\ tou/twn</greek>: his predecessors do not give
the elegant and the forceful styles a separate status, that is, they
believe that the elegant belongs to the plain and the forceful to the
grand. In other words, Demetrius does not mention Dionysius's system of
three styles (grand, plain, intermediate), but he objects to a system
of two styles, in which the elegant is covered by the plain style and
the forceful by the grand style. My explanation of the passage agrees
with the interpretations of both Chiron (1993: 14 n. 55: 'De/me/trios
ne mentionne pas la division du style en trois types') and Innes (1968:
51: Demetrius 'combats only a theory of two styles'). Her translation
of Demetrius 36 (in the 1995 Loeb) is illuminating: 'For this reason
some writers maintain that only these two styles exist, and the other
two are subsumed within them; and instead they assimilate the elegant
to the plain, and the forceful to the grand, as though the first
contained something slight and refined, the second something massive
and imposing.'

It is clear that in this passage Demetrius opposes his own system of
four styles to an earlier system of two styles, thereby ignoring the
system of three styles that we find in Dionysius of Halicarnassus. In
my view, therefore, Demetrius 36 does not contain any reference to
Dionysius, and there is no 'rilettura critica dello schema dionisiano'
(Marini 2007: 37 citing Calcante 2004: 111). Consequently, there is no
terminus post quem, so this argument for dating Demetrius in the first
century AD seems untenable. There is no reason to believe that
Dionysius and Demetrius would necessarily have known each other's work.
In general, arguments based on supposed references between the two
authors (as well as arguments based on the silence of one author about
the other) are to be distrusted.[[9]]

Apart from the three arguments mentioned, Marini also points to
linguistic aspects of the treatise, but this is very uncertain
evidence. It is true that Demetrius shows  an incipient interest in
linguistic Atticism (e.g. in the use of the dual), but recent scholars
have rightly emphasized that our knowledge of Hellenistic prose
language is too limited to draw sweeping conclusions. The few terms
that Demetrius explicitly mentions as usages that had recently been
introduced in his own time form the most interesting category
(<greek>lo/gios, kako/zhlos</greek>, etc.), but they do not preclude a
date in the second or first century BC.[[10]]

Why is it that other specialists have argued for an early date? The
main argument remains the fact that the treatise On Style contains many
ideas that are traditional and relatively early, whereas it ignores a
number of later rhetorical theories. Demetrius's treatment of figures
of style (which ignores the category of tropes), the strong influence
of Aristotle and the early Peripatos, and Demetrius's familiarity with
authors of the fourth and third centuries all point to a relatively
early date. I would add two further arguments, which are not usually
mentioned. First, Demetrius does not employ the terminology of the
sublime (<greek>u(/yos</greek>), which we do find in Dionysius of
Halicarnassus and later authors. Second, Demosthenes is an important
model in the treatment of the forceful style, but Demetrius does not
give him the supreme status that he will have in the works of Cicero,
Dionysius and Hermogenes. These points may not be decisive, but I agree
with recent scholars that it is on the whole more likely that Demetrius
precedes Dionysius. In short, Marini's arguments for a late date (first
century AD, after Dionysius) have not convinced me.

Leaving the complex issue of the date, I would like to emphasize once
more that Marini's commentary contains numerous useful observations,
even if one can disagree on details. A few examples will be sufficient.
In her discussion of Demetrius par. 106 (on 'epiphoneme'), Marini gives
relevant parallels from Hermogenes and Quintilian, and she discusses
the uncertain authorship of Demetrius's example (Sappho fr. 105b
Voigt). Sappho is Demetrius's model for the elegant style, whereas the
epiphoneme (and its illustration traditionally attributed to Sappho) is
treated under the grand style. Therefore Marini concludes that the
attribution of this citation to Sappho may be wrong. Her doubts may be
justified, but I would argue that the 'epiphoneme' is closely related
to the elegant style because it is 'decorative' (Demetrius uses the
verb <greek>e)pikosmei=n </greek> three times in par. 106).
'Decoration' or 'adornment' (<greek>ko/smos</greek>) is especially
characteristic of the elegant style (see par. 164-165), so Sappho might
be the right model for the epiphoneme after all.

In her comment on Demetrius par. 199 (on natural word order in the
plain style), Marini helpfully refers readers to similar discussions in
Dionysius (Comp. 5) and Longinus (22.1). According to Marini, Stoic
influence on this passage is possible. Stoic thought can indeed be
traced in Dionysius's chapter on natural word order. However,
Demetrius's theory ('mention first what it is about, then what it is')
seems more pragmatic and rather related to Aristotelian ideas:
Aristotle (Rh.  1415a12-21) already recommends beginning a text by
mentioning 'what it is about'. Demetrius applies the same principle to
the order of words.[[11]]

One of the most fascinating aspects of On Style is the rewriting or
rearrangement of texts, so-called metathesis. In many cases Demetrius
analyzes his examples by changing the word order of the original text,
so that he can compare two different versions of one text. In this way,
he is able to illustrate the stylistic qualities or shortcomings of a
text. The same technique can be found in the works of Philodemus,
Cicero, Dionysius and Longinus. This intriguing instrument of literary
analysis, which also has a pedagogical function, does not receive much
attention in Marini's commentary. Some important studies of this
phenomenon should at least have been mentioned.[[12]]

Where Marini departs from Chiron's text, she gives instructive
discussions of the textual problem and the solutions that have been
suggested, and she provides sound arguments for her reading. Among her
interesting and convincing choices I should mention her readings of
'Herodorus's instead of 'Herodotus's in par. 66 (an emendation by Orth)
and <greek>*)Illurikw=n </greek> ('Illyrian') instead of
<greek>Laurikw=n</greek> ('of Laurium') in par. 121 (an emendation by
Gaertner, supported by Schenkeveld). In both cases Marini's text
differs from the editions of Chiron and Innes, and in both cases I find
her arguments convincing. In par. 66, the citation of 'Herodotus's is
absent from our text of Herodotus's Histories (Herodotus 1.203.1 has
been suggested, but this passage is in fact rather different). However,
the same text does fit the interests of the historian Herodorus of
Heraclea: thus, 'Herodorus's might indeed be the correct reading
here.[[13]] In par. 121, the hills 'of Laurium' would be called
<greek>Laureiwtikw=n</greek> or <greek>Laurewtikw=n</greek> rather than
<greek>Laurikw=n</greek>, so the emendation 'Illyrian' is indeed
attractive.[[14]]

Although I do not agree with Marini's arguments concerning the date of
the treatise, I think that her book is an important contribution to the
scholarship on Demetrius. The strongest part of this book is the
commentary: when reading On Style, everyone will profit from her
comments, which are more extensive than the notes by Rhys Roberts,
Chiron and Lombardo. This book will be useful for many scholars,
including those who are interested in the history of rhetoric. We may
hope that Marini's work will stimulate other scholars to think further
about this fascinating text.


------------------
Notes:


1.   Pierre Chiron (ed., trans.), De/me/trios, Du style, Paris 1993;
Doreen C. Innes (ed., trans.), Demetrius on Style, based on W. Rhys
Roberts, in Aristotle, Poetics. Longinus, On the Sublime. Demetrius, On
Style, Cambridge, MA / London, England 1995 (reprint with corrections:
Cambridge, MA / London, England 1999).

2.   W. Rhys Roberts (ed., trans.), Demetrius On Style. The Greek Text
of Demetrius De Elocutione, edited after the Paris Manuscript,
Cambridge 1902 (reprint Hildesheim 1969); W. Rhys Roberts (ed.,
trans.), Demetrius On Style, London / Cambridge, MA 1927 (Loeb, based
on 1902 edition). Another good translation is G.M.A. Grube, A Greek
Critic. Demetrius on Style, Toronto 1961.

3.   Giovanni Lombardo (trans.), Demetrio, Lo stile, Palermo 1999;
Alessia Ascani (trans.), Demetrio, Sullo stile, introduzione di Dirk M.
Schenkeveld, Milano 2002. Ascani also wrote two unpublished
dissertations on Demetrius: Ricerche sul Peri Hermeneias di Demetrio
Ps.-Falereo, Diss. Bologna 1994; and De sermone figurato quaestio
rhetorica. Per un'ipotesi di pragmatica linguistica antica, Diss. VU
Amsterdam 2006.

4.   Doreen Innes, Introduction and Commentary on the Peri hermeneias
ascribed to Demetrius of Phaleron, Diss. Oxford 1968.

5.   Ludwig Radermacher, Demetrii Phalerei qui dicitur de Elocutione
libellus, Leipzig 1901.

6.   G. Morpurgo Tagliabue, Demetrio: dello stile, Roma 1980; D.M.
Schenkeveld (trans.), Demetrius. De juiste woorden, Groningen 2000;
D.M. Schenkeveld, 'The Intended Public of Demetrius's On Style: The
Place of the Treatise in the Hellenistic Educational System', Rhetorica
18 (2000), 29-48.  In his earlier work, Schenkeveld argued that On
Style belongs to the first century AD but reflects theories from the
second century BC. See D.M. Schenkeveld, Studies on Demetrius On Style,
Amsterdam 1964, 135-148. G.M.A. Grube, 'The Date of Demetrius "On
Style"', Phoenix 18 (1964), 294-302 argues for a date around 270 BC.

7.   M.C. Calcante, Genera dicendi e retorica del Sublime, Pisa / Roma
2000; M.C. Calcante, 'Il De elocutione di Demetrio e il De Demosthene
di Dionigi di Alicarnasso', RIL 138 (2004), 99-124.

8.   Grube (1961) 52-53. The fact that Demetrius of Phaleron is
mentioned in par. 289 does not exclude the possibility that this
Demetrius is himself the author (as some scholars have claimed): many
ancient authors refer to themselves in the third person: cf. Grube
(1961) 39-40.

9.   In par. 179, Demetrius points out that no previous writer has
discussed the elegant composition type. This remark implies ignorance
of Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Comp.  23 and Dem. 40. Scholars have
therefore argued that Demetrius predates Dionysius. Marini (pp.
246-247), however, again following Calcante (2000: 140-142), argues
that Demetrius merely means to say that no earlier writer has discussed
one specific aspect of elegant composition, i.e. rhythm. With this
interpretation, Demetrius could still be later than Dionysius. But
Calcante misrepresents Demetrius's words: he does not say that one
aspect of elegant composition has been neglected. He states that 'no
one has spoken about elegant composition'. We can only conclude that
Demetrius did not know Dionysius's treatment: either Demetrius was
earlier, or, if he was later, he just did not know Dionysius's work.
Note that this is another argument against Calcante's idea that
Demetrius par. 36 refers to Dionysius, Dem.  33.

10.   Innes (1995) 320-321.

11.   Demetrius's ideas on this topic remind us of modern discussions
of word order. See now C.C. de Jonge, 'From Demetrius to Dik. Ancient
and Modern Views on Natural Word Order', in R. Allan & M. Buijs (eds.),
The Language of Literature. Linguistic Approaches to Classical Texts,
Leiden / Boston 2007, 211-232.

12.   C. Damon, 'Aesthetic Response and Technical Analysis in the
Rhetorical Writings of Dionysius of Halicarnassus', Museum Helveticum
48 (1991), 33-58; C.C. de Jonge, 'Dionysius of Halicarnassus and the
Method of Metathesis', Classical Quarterly 55 (2005), 463-480. See also
R. Janko, Philodemus On Poems Book 1, Oxford 2000, 227 n. 2, who lists
the instances of metathesis in Demetrius.

13.   See E. Orth, 'Ein Fragment des Herodorus. Zu Demetrios par. 66',
Philologische Wochenschrift 45 (1925), 778-783.

14.   See D.M. Schenkeveld, Review of Chiron 1993, Mnemosyne 50 (1994),
403. <greek>Lokrikw=n</greek> has also been suggested.