OXFORDCLASSICALMONOGRAPHSPublished under the supervision ofaCommittee oftheFacultyof Classicsinthe University of OxfordThe aimof the Oxford Classical Monographs series (which replaces theOxford Classical and Philosophical Monographs) is to publish booksbased on the best theses on Greek and Latin literature, ancient history,andancientphilosophyexaminedbytheFacultyBoardofClassics.MarcusTulliusCiceroTopicaEditedwithatranslationintroduction,andcommentarybyTOBIASREINHARDT11Great Clarendon Street, Oxford ox2 6dpOxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford.It furthers the Universitys objective of excellence in research, scholarship,and education by publishing worldwide inOxfordNew YorkAucklandCape TownDar es SalaamHong KongKarachiKuala LumpurMadridMelbourneMexico CityNairobiNew DelhiShanghaiTaipeiTorontoWith offices inArgentinaAustriaBrazilChileCzech RepublicFranceGreeceGuatemalaHungaryItalyJapanPolandPortugalSingaporeSouth KoreaSwitzerlandThailandTurkeyUkraineVietnamOxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Pressin the UK and in certain other countriesPublished in the United Statesby Oxford University Press Inc., New York Tobias Reinhardt 2003The moral rights of the author have been assertedDatabase right Oxford University Press (maker)First published 2003First published in paperback 2006All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced,stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means,without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press,or as expressly permitted by law, or under terms agreed with the appropriatereprographics rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproductionoutside the scope of the above should be sent to the Rights Department,Oxford University Press, at the address aboveYou must not circulate this book in any other binding or coverand you must impose the same condition on any acquirerBritish Library Cataloguing in Publication DataData availableLibrary of Congress Cataloging in Publication DataData availablePrinted in Great Britainon acid-free paper byAntony Rowe LtdChippenham, Wiltshire ISBN 0-19-926346-9978-0-19-926346-2ISBN 0-19-920771-2978-0-19-920771-813579108642Fu rEva,AnnaundArthurReinhardtThis page intentionally left blank PrefaceTheTopicaisamarginalwork,iftheattentionithasreceivedinits ownright fromclassical scholars is acriterion, or thespacetypically devoted to it in historical surveys of Latin literature. Foracommentatorthisstateof affairshasitsobviousattractions: itposestheinterestingtaskofshowingthattheworkinquestionisactuallycentral.An argument for the centrality of the Topica would look like this:the treatise is the theoretical crystallization of one aspect ofCicerospersonal understandingofrhetoric. Theorator, hesaystime and again, should be capable of leaving behind himthepeculiarities of a particular case, focusinginhis speechonthefundamentalproblemsunderlyingthequestionunderdiscussion.StandardrhetoricalteachingofCicerosdayprovidednotheoret-ical preceptssuitableforthispurpose, but thedoctrineof t oopoiwhich gives the work its name is just such a theory (Ch. 1).Further,theTopicaoccupiesanimportantplaceinthehistoryofargumentation: it reflects a Hellenistic development of the Aristo-telian theory of t oopoi and since most of Hellenistic prose-literaturehas not come down to us, studying the Topica and inquiring into itssources canelucidate thehistory oftopical doctrineafter Aristotleand the relationship between rhetoric and philosophy in the secondand first century (Chs. 2 and 3). Finally, the Topica is dedicated toa jurist, C. Trebatius, and Cicero tries to adapt not only the theoryof loci, but also other source-material of philosophical origin to thejurists needs. As a result, the book may be read as the first attemptto analyse legal argument in terms of a theory of argumentation notspecificallydesignedfordealingwithlegalargumentsinthefirstplace; this idea has appealed very much to modern lawyers with aninterest injuridical logic andinthe analysis of legal decision-making.Thereismoretothisintermsofhistoricalcontext.Thefirstcenturybciswidelyregardedasthetimewhenlegalsciencecameintobeing, andithasbeensuspectedthatjuristsborrowedelements of their methodology from philosophers and rhetoricians.SinceCicerodeliberatelyappliesvariousphilosophical doctrinescurrent in the first century to legal problems, the question arises inwhat relationshiptheTopicastandstothedevelopment of legalscience. Moreover, the Topica is not the only work in which Ciceroreflects onjuridical methodology, andit canbeshownthat theTopicatiesupwithideasdevelopedelsewhere(Ch. 4).If one of the tasks a commentary is supposedtofulfil is toprovide a reconstruction of the cultural and intellectual back-groundanauthor presupposedat thetimeof writing, thentheTopicaisanextremecase. Fortheexpertiseinrhetorical theoryandRepublicanprivatelaw,aswellasanacquaintancewithcon-temporary philosophical doctrines, which men of the ruling classesinRomein44bc self-evidentlyhad, is today, inmodernaca-demicinstitutions,thesubjectofthreedifferentareasofexpertise(classicalstudies,ancientphilosophy,andlegalhistory).Owingtothisinterdisciplinarynatureofthebook, acommen-tator attempting to pay equal attention to the various aspects of theTopicaisinconstantdangerofproducinganindigestiblecocktailof obscureerudition. Thenotesonagivenpassagearelikelytoinclude philosophical, philological, and legal points. And what forthecontemporaryreadershipwasamoreorlesscoherentunityisinevitably fragmented in a commentary divided into lemmata(whichcomesontopofthefragmentationwhichischaracteristicof the commentary mode anyway). I have therefore adoptedamannerofpresentationinwhichIcombineageneralnotewithaline-by-line commentary on a section forming a unity. Dependingon the situation, the introductory note provides more generalbackgroundinformationorisaclosereadingofthesectionunderdiscussion.Next, the references. In most cases it will be clear why I quote acertain text, but it may be useful to put some citations into context.There are passages in the Topica, e.g. 2634 on definition, wheresome of the doctrines discussed by Cicero are Aristotelian inorigin.ThenIshalltrytosignalthisbyquotingapertinenttext;asarule,thisdoesnotimplythatCiceropossessedacopyof,say,Aristotles Metaphysics nor that he had studied it. The reason whyI shalloccasionally quote fromtextswhichCicerois veryunlikelyto have known is that there were philosophical traditions, bodies ofknowledgewhichwerehandeddownfromoneagetothenext,fromoneschooltotheother,sometimesputtoacertainusetheyoriginally were not set up for and thereby reshaped. And often onecan assign a particular idea to such a tradition. Matters are slightlyviii Prefacedifferent withlegal texts. Sinceit is oftenhardtotell whetherCicero is straightforwardly drawing on a legal source, merelyadaptingmaterialhefoundthere,orpositivelymanipulatingit,Ishall sometimes quote legal texts in order to settle such a question.Or Imayquotetheminorder toshowthat, whilewehavenoevidencethatCiceroisusingalegal source, wecaninferfrommostly latertexts that he addressed a problem which later juristsfoundworthdealingwith.Onafewoccasionstherewillbeadigressionaboutthesource-backgroundofaparticularpassage.Nowhereshouldthisbecon-fused with Quellenforschung in the usual sense; for it is obvious thattheTopicaonlytaketheirstart fromaGreeksourceand, whilepreservingmuchofitsoriginal characterandpurpose, turnitintosomething completely new. Sometimes I shall compare Cicerowitha later Greek rhetorical treatise, the so-calledAnonymusSeguerianus,inmostcasesinordertoshowindetailwhatIhavearguedforinCh. 3oftheintroduction:thatCicerossourcemusthavecoveredAristoteliant oopoiinawayverysimilar, incontentandpresentation,tothatoftheAnonymus.OnotheroccasionsIshall follow up a problem relating to Ciceros source, because otherscholarshavebasedconclusionsabouttheTopicaonsuchconsid-erations; the Stoic portions, for instance, together with the Aristo-teliant o opoi havefrequentlybeentakenas pointingtowards theAcademic philosopher Antiochus of Ascalon. AquestionaboutCicerossourcemayalsoarisewhereCicerohasbeenaccusedofmuddling up his source-material, for instance in the case oftheStoicIndemonstrablesin537.SometimesIshalltreattheTopica as a text fromwhich we may infer something aboutthehistoryofHellenisticrhetoricandphilosophyandofRomanlaw which seems worth being stated independently of my attemptstoexplainwhatCiceroisdoinginthebook.The treatise is not a work usually found an undergraduate sylla-bus,andIamundernoillusionthatthepresentworkislikelytochangethis. Myintendedreadershipis, therefore,advancedstu-dents and scholars in the various fields named above for which thistext has relevance. Further, the Topica andthe tradition(s) towhichitbelongsexercisedconsiderableinfluenceinthemedievaleraandtheRenaissance(inparticularonthethoughtofLorenzoVallaandRudolphAgricola), andIhopethat studentsof theseperiodstoomayfindsomethingofinterestinthepresentwork.Preface ixThe commentary began its life as a D.Phil. thesis written at CorpusChristi College, Oxford, between1997and2000, andhassincebeensubstantiallyrevised. Myworkwas jointly supervisedbyMichaelFredeandMichaelWinterbottom.Theyknowhowpro-foundlyI amindebtedtothem. I amalsograteful toSusanneBobzien,whoco-supervisedmyworkinthefirstyearandhelpedmeformaclearerideaofwhatIshouldbedoing, andtoDavidIbbetson, who allowed me to try out on him some early versions oftheideaspresentedinCh.4.Myexaminers,MylesBurnyeatandJonathan Powell, made many useful and illuminating suggestions.DonaldRussellprovidedinvaluablehelpwiththetransformationof thethesisintoabook, inparticularwiththetranslation. JimAdams readthe Latintext andthe philological sections of thecommentary, and generously discussed his findings with me.PeterSteinkindlyreadCh. 4andmostofthelegalsectionsofthecommentary, doing his best to prevent me frommaking too many ofthe errors enthusiastic dilettanti tend to make. More support, in oneformor another, came fromEwen Bowie, Stephen Harrison, Greg-ory Hutchinson, Matthew Leigh, the late Leighton Reynolds, andGiorgio Di Maria. I am also grateful to the anonymous committeewhichawardedtheConingtonPrize2002(jointly)toanear-fin-ished version of the manuscript.Thecriticaleditionwaspreparedinthetwoyearsfollowingthecompletion of my doctorate. Alarge number of libraries have givenmeaccesstotheircollectionsorhavesuppliedmewithreproduc-tions of their manuscripts; I owe special thanks to Pater Odo Langof the Stiftsbibliothek at Einsiedeln, to the Institut de Recherche etdHistoire des Textes in Paris, to the staff of the manuscriptreadingroomof LeidenUniversityLibrary, tothe staff of theBiblioteca Comunale in Trento, to Julia Walworth, Fellow Librar-ianatMertonCollege, andtoClareWoodsofDukeUniversity,whokindlyinspectedMSDuke31(s.xv)forme.ThePresshasbeenveryhelpfulindeed,andIamgratefultoLeofrancHolford-Strevensinparticularfortheacumenandcareheappliedtothetypescript.From1997to2001Ireceivedfinancialsupportfromthe Gottlieb-Daimler-und-Karl-Benz-Stiftung, fromthe Fazit-Stiftungof the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, fromthe Fritz-Thyssen-Stiftung,whichalsoprovidedmewithagenerousgranttowards the acquisition of manuscript reproductions, and from myparentsSabineandMathiasReinhardt.x PrefaceIhavehadthe privilegeof beingamember of three Oxfordcolleges, Corpus Christi, where I was a graduate student, Merton,whereIspentablissful yearasaJuniorResearchFellowinAn-cientPhilosophy,andSomerville,whichhasmademeaTutorialFellowinLatinandGreek.The book is dedicated to my wife Eva, who not only accompan-iedmetoEnglandbuteventookcareofthebibliography,andtoourwonderfulchildren.T.R.OxfordNovember 2002Preface xiThis page intentionally left blank ContentsEditionsoftheTopica xivAbbreviations xvIntroduction 11. TheTopicainCicerosOeuvre 32. AShortHistoryofthe t oopoB 183. TheAnonymusSeguerianus 364. TheLegalAspectoftheTopica 535. TheTransmissionoftheTopica 73ListofSigla 113Latintextwithfacingtranslation 116AppendixCritica 170Commentary 177Appendix:Cicero,AdFamiliares 7. 19 369Bibliography 371IndexLocorum 413IndexofLatinterms 427IndexofGreekterms 429GeneralIndex 431EditionsoftheTopicaMANUTIUS, P., RhetoricorumadC. Herenniumlibri quattuorincerto auctore. Ciceronis de inventione libri duo. Topica adTrebatium,Oratoriaepartitiones(Venice, 1559).LAMBINUS, D., M. Tullii Ciceronis Operaomniaquaeexstant(Paris, 1566).SCHU TZ,C.G.,M.TulliiCiceronisOperaquaesupersuntomniaacdeperditorumfragmenta,iii(Leipzig, 1824).KLOTZ,R.,M.TulliiCiceronisTopica,Partitionesoratoriae,Deoptimogenereoratorum(Leipzig, 1851).FRIEDRICH, W., M. Tulli Ciceronis Rhetorica, ii (Leipzig,1891).WILKINS, A. S., M. Tulli Ciceronis Rhetorica, ii (Oxford, 1903).HUBBELL,H.M.,M.TulliusCicero:Deinventione,DeOptimoGenere Oratorum, Topica(LondonandCambridge, Mass.,1949).BORNECQUE,H.,Ciceron:Divisionsdelartoratoire,Topiques2(Paris, 1960).DIMARIA,G.,MarciTulliCiceronisTopica(Palermo, 1994).RICCIOCOLETTI, M. L., M. Tulli Ciceronis Topica(Chieti,1994).AbbreviationsCGL G. Goetz and G. Loewe, Corpus Glossar-iorum Latinorum, 7 vols. (Leipzig and Berlin,18881923)ErnoutMeillet A. Ernout andA. Meillet, Dictionnaireety-mologiquedelalanguelatine4(Paris, 1979)HeumannSeckel H. G. HeumannandE. Seckel, HeumannsHandlexikon zu den Quellen des ro mischenRechts9(Jena, 1907)HofmannSzantyr J. B. HofmannandA. Szantyr, LateinischeSyntaxundStilistik(Munich, 1965)Hu lser K.-H. Hu lser, Die Fragmente zur Dialektikder Stoiker, 4 vols. (Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt,19878)K.St. R. Ku hner andC. Stegmann, Ausfu hrlicheGrammatikderlateinischenSprache, zweiterTeil:Satzlehre5, 2vols.(Darmstadt, 1976)OLD OxfordLatinDictionaryODML OxfordDictionaryof Medieval LatinfromBritishSourcesRoscher W. H. Roscher, Ausfu hrliches Lexikon dergriechischenundro mischenMythologie(Leip-zig, 18841937)WaldeHofmann A. Walde andJ. B. Hofmann, Lateinischesetymologisches Wo rterbuch4, 3vols. (Heidel-berg, 1966)Allotherworksarequotedaccordingtotheauthor-datesystem.Ihavetriedtomakethisbookaccessiblebyincludingatranslation,by translating all quotations in the introduction, and by translatingGreekquotationsandthosefromtheDigestinthecommentary.Thetranslationof theDigest passagesisalwaysthat inWatson(1998),inallothercasestheauthorofthetranslationisacknow-ledgedunlessit ismyown. Referencestoancient workswill bemadeasintheOLD(withtheexceptionof CicerosAcademica,whereIrefertothetwoextantbooksasAcad. 1andLuc.).xvi AbbreviationsINTRODUCTIONThis page intentionally left blank 1TheTopicainCicerosOeuvreThe Topicahas oftenbeenstudiedinisolationfromCicerosotherworks. Thishasimpairednot onlytheappreciationof thework itself but also the soundness of conjectures as to its source orsources.In thischapter, Iseektodo twothings, relyingprimarilyon evidence from Cicero. In the first half, I shall explain which sortofargumentativetheorytheTopicacontains;inthesecondhalf,Ishallsketchtheintellectualcontextinwhichthistheorybelongs.THENOTIONOF THETICALRHETORICInthe year 46, two years before he wrote the Topica, CicerodedicatedtheOratortoM. Brutus. InthisworkhetakesupthethemeofthedeOratoreof55,theoratorperfectus,andpayspar-ticularattentiontothetreatment of proserhythm. Inventionofarguments, their arrangement, and the proper delivery of a speechreceive only brief treatments, and Cicero proposes to give a sketchof the species et forma perfectae eloquentiae rather than actualprecepts (43). The section on inventio (446) runs as follows:Nam et invenire et iudicare quid dicas magna illa quidem sunt et tamquamanimiinstarincorpore,sedpropriamagisprudentiaequameloquentiae:qua tamen in causa est vacua prudentia? Noverit igitur hic quidem orator,quemsummumessevolumus,argumentorumetrationumlocos.Namquoniam, quicquidest quodincontroversiaaut incontentioneversetur,ineoautsitneautquidsitautqualesitquaeritursitne,signis;quidsit, definitionibus; qualesit, recti praviquepartibus; quibusututipossit orator, nonillevulgaris sedhicexcellens, apropriis personis ettemporibus semper, si potest, avocet controversiam; latius enim de generequamde parte disceptare licet, ut quod in universo sit probatumid in partesit probari necessehaec igitur quaestio a propriis personis et temporibusaduniversigenerisrationemtraductaappellatur 0 ccsiB.InhacAristotelesadulescentisnonadphilosophorummoremtenuiterdisserendi, sedadcopiamrhetoruminutramquepartem, utornatiusetuberius dici posset, exercuit; idemque locossic enimappellatquasiargumentorumnotastradiditundeomnisinutramquepartemtrahereturoratio.Faciet igitur hic nosternon enimdeclamatoremaliquemde ludoautrabulamdeforo,seddoctissimumetperfectissimumquaerimusut,quoniamloci certi traduntur, percurrat omnis, utatur aptis, generatimdicat.Fortodiscoverandjudgewhattosayisimportant,tobesure,andistoeloquencewhat themindistothebody; but it isamatterof ordinaryintelligenceratherthanofeloquence.Forthatmatteristhereanycaseinwhichintelligence is superfluous? Our perfect orator, then, shouldbeacquaintedwiththetopicsofargumentandreasoning.For in all matters under controversy and debate the questions which areasked are: (1) Was it done? (2) What was done? (3) What was the nature ofthe act? The question Was it done? is answered by evidence; the questionWhatwasdone?bydefinition;thequestionWhatwasthenatureoftheact? bytheprinciplesof right andwrong. Tobeabletousethesetheoratornot an ordinary one, but this outstanding oratoralways removesthediscussion,ifhecan,fromparticulartimesandpersons,becausethediscussion can be made broader on the general level than about theindividual.Suchaninquiry,removedfromparticulartimesandpersonstoadiscussionofageneralissue,iscalled 0 ccsiBorthesis.Aristotle trained young men in this, not for the philosophical manner ofsubtlediscussion,butforthefluentstyleoftherhetorician,sothattheymight be able to uphold either side of the question in copious and elegantlanguage. He also taught the Placesthat was his name for thema kindofsignorindicationoftheargumentsfromwhichawholespeechcanbeformedoneithersideofthequestion.Therefore our oratorit is not a mere declaimer in school that we seek,or a ranter in the forum, but a scholarly and finished speakerour orator,finding certain definite places enumerated, will run rapidly over them all,select those which fit the subject, and then speak in general terms. [Trans.Hubbell,revised.]This text is relevant for our purposes because it outlines veryconcisely Cicerosideaof howrhetorical invention shouldbe con-ducted, and it does this with reference to standard methodsrejectedbyCicero. Contemporaryreaderswill havefounditex-travagant in some respects or, if they were well acquainted with deOrat., will have knownalreadythat Ciceros idea of rhetoricalinventionwasdifferentfromthemainstreamview.4 IntroductionTheprominentroleassignedtothelocationsofargumentsandreasons isthefirstsurprise; standardtheory, itistrue, includedheuristic devices that were termed loci, but their place inthesystemwasasubordinateoneandtheyweredifferent fromtheAristoteliant oopoi Cicerohas inmind, whichwere not inwidecirculationinhisday.At the beginning of the second paragraph the contemporary willfindwhathehaslearntinhisrhetoricaltrainingasthetheoryofstatus,amethodtodeterminewhatisatissueinacaserequiringrhetorical argument. Everyquestiontobedecidedina lawsuit(controversia) or a political debate (contentio) may be classifiedunder oneof thethreequestion-typesansit, quidsit, andqualesit,thatis,itwilleitherbeaquestionoffactoraboutthecategor-ization of acknowledged facts or about their evaluation. Guided bythese questions (and further similar devices not spelt out byCicero), the orator can think through his case, thereby determiningthemost promisingargumentativestrategy. Moreover, thecon-temporaryreaderwouldknowthatthismethodofinventionwasfirmlyassociatedwiththenameoftherhetoricianHermagorasofTemnos, whointhemiddleofthesecondcenturyhadcompiledwhat was tobecomeaninfluential codificationof thetheoryofstatus (staasciB).1In his handbook, Hermagoras defined the subjectof rhetoric as the politiK oonzZZtZma (political question), andamongthepolitiKaazZtZZmatahedistinguishedabstract, generalquestions (0 ccsciB) and particular questions (upo0 ccsciB) whichincludedreferences toindividuals involvedinacase, particularplaces,timesandthelike.Likewiseitwaswellknownthatstand-ardrhetoricaltheoryandtraining,despiteclaimstothecontrary,providedalmostexclusivelyforthetreatmentofparticularques-tions. Inhis youth, Ciceroregardedthis as a wise restrictionwhichrhetoricimposedonitself,sincehetookabstractquestionstobelongwithphilosophy.2Inhis mature works, however, hecomplains about the neglect of the 0 ccsiB, which, he thought,resultedinashort-sightedwayofconsideringproblemsandinaflatstyleofspeaking.1OnHermagorasseeMatthes (1958)andthecommentary on7986.2This emerges from his rejection of the Hermagorean division of questions (Inv.1. 8).TheTopicainCicerosOeuvre 5However, with ordinary rhetoric focusing on the particularquestion, Ciceros audiencewill haverecognizedthedeliberateunorthodoxyinhisstatementthattheexcellensoratorwillnotusethe status as everyone does, i.e. apply them to particular questions,butwillrathertrytostripthecaseofallitsindividual aspectsandthenapplythe question-types towhat he is left with, the caseconsideredonanabstractlevel,inordertoarriveatthe 0 ccsiB.The plan hinted at here is worked out in full in the third part oftheTopica(79100).ThereCicerogivesadivisionofthegen-eral question, with the three questions mentioned as crucial elem-ents. And just as he proposes here that the argumentative strategiesdeveloped on the 0 ccsiB level may later be applied to theup oo0csiB aswell,heintroducesthedivisionof0 ccsciBintheTopicabysayingthatitismeanttocaterforbothgeneralandparticularquestions(86; cf. de Orat. 3. 111). Yet it needs to be emphasized that Ciceroretainsthemethodof staasiBdoctrineassuch.FortherhetoricallyeducatedRoman, itwasinprincipleclearwhatwastobeexpectednext.Oncethecaseisbrokendownintooneormorequestionstobesettled,theoratorneedsamethodoffinding arguments pertinent to each question. The standardmethods, however, aresupposedtoprovideforparticularques-tions,i.e.areprimarilyapplicabletothem(seeCh.2).SoifonefollowsCiceroandtriestoconsiderthecaseonanabstractlevel,the applicability of the standard methods will at least be impaired.What is needed, then, is a method of invention for tackling abstractquestions. Aristoteliant oopoi aresuchamethod, indeedtheonlymethodofthistypeinancientrhetoric(standardrhetoricprovidesmerely a few general precepts). And to these Aristotelian t oopoi thereader is referredat the endof the thirdparagraphof the Or.passage.By outlining the relationship between the upgraded staasiB-theoryandtheAristoteliant oopoiinthisway,Cicerohasgivenusthe rationale of the Topica, which, with its treatment of the loci andthediscussionofthequaestioinfinita(propositum;0 ccsiB),formsaunity in the sense that it contains a method of treating a case (in thebroadsenseoftheword)rhetoricallyonthelevel ofthegeneralquestion.However, inorder to account for the overall outlook of theTopica, one needs to bear inmind the particular purpose forwhichtheworkwaswritten.Cicerodiscussestheloci inthefirst6 Introductiontwopartsofthebookandillustratesthemwithlegalexamplesinorder to demonstrate their usefulness to the dedicatee, the jurist C.Trebatius(on thispointsee Ch. 4 andthecommentaryon 15).In the last part, however, where the detailed division of the 0 ccsiB isgiven,3supplemented by exemplary 0 ccsciB which rather coverthemesofmoral philosophyorepideicticoratory, nospecificallylegal examples are inserted. This has puzzled some interpreters. Itis arguable that Cicero would envisage a jurist making good use ofthe0 ccsiBdivisionjust asit stands, preciselybecausehethoughtthatdiscussionsoflegalcasesshouldbeinformedbyaconsider-ationofthewiderissuesraisedbythem(seeagainCh.4).More-over, Ciceroinsertsphilosophical material intothediscussionoftheloci, inmost cases veryappositewithrespect tothejuristsneeds andinterests; this represents another move toadjust therhetorical theoryformingthebasisof theworktoitsimmediatepurpose. That the natural order of 0 ccsiB and t oopoi in the Topica isinverted is duetothe fact thatitwas thelatterin whichTrebatiushadshownaninterest.InventioofthetypeproposedinOr.446andintheTopicaisonlyoneelementinalargerplanofCicerotopromoteatypeofrhetoricaltheorywhichismoresophisticatedthanthetraditionalone. Other elements include the theory ofZ0oB and paa0oB along thelines of Aristotles Rhet. in the second book of de Orat.as esoterica piece of theory as the loci inCiceros dayor the elaboratetreatmentofproserhythminOr.THEORIGINSOF THETICALRHETORICOf coursethequestionariseswhat influencesinspiredCicerotochampiontheticalrhetoricandwheretheideacomesfrom.WhatmakesthisquestiondifficulttoanswerisprimarilyCicerosownmultiple accreditation of it,4i.e. to Aristotle and the Peripateticson the one hand (as in Or. 446), and to the Academy (the so-calledFourthAcademyofPhiloofLarissa,notAntiochusFifthAcad-emy)ontheother.Here we may anticipate the conclusion of Chs. 3 and 4 (which islogically independent of the argument here): an analysis of the wayinwhichCiceroslociworkandofsomeparalleltextsshowsthat,3See introductory n.on 7986.4Long (1995a), 57.TheTopicainCicerosOeuvre 7materially, Ciceros loci have their origin in a Peripatetic rhetoricaltradition, i.e. atraditionthat drawsinthelastinstanceonAris-totlesRhet.Thedivisionofthequaestioinfinita,however,whichforms the thirdpart of the Topica, is inde Orat. more or lessexplicitlyassignedtoPhiloofLarissa(seemydiscussionbelow).As things stand, one is left with two possibilities: either (a) Philousedthedivisionofthe0 ccsiBalone,anditwasCicerowhocom-bineditwiththetopical doctrinehefoundelsewhere,forinstancein Antiochus, or (b) Philo had already used the t oopoi together withthe 0 ccsiB, and Cicero has adopted the whole complex from himinwhich case Philo himself would have made use of Peripateticsource-material. In what follows I shall argue for the secondoption.5But first somebackground. Thequarrel betweenthe rhetor-iciansandthephilosophershadbeenafeatureof GreekculturesincePlatoscriticismofrhetoricinitsestablishedform.Aroundthe middle of the second century this antagonism was revived. It isless easythanit might seemtonamethereasons for this. Thetraditional view that the philosopherstried to maintainthe educa-tionalroleofphilosophyagainsttheincreasinginfluenceofrhet-oricaleducationisprobablyamisrepresentation.6Aconcretemanifestationof thequarrel wasthedisagreementaboutthequestionwhetherrhetoricisanart,at ccwnZ,andhencesystematic and capable of being imparted by a teacher.7It was, forexample, not difficult tociteexamplesof brilliant speakerswhonever had enjoyed formal rhetorical training. That one couldemploythepreceptsof rhetorictobadendslikewisecast doubtonitsstatusasanart, sinceanart wasbydefinitionsomethingthatservedpositivepurposes.Bythemiddleofthesecondhalfofthe second century, the Academy had moved froma positionentirelyhostiletorhetorictotheviewthatanacceptableformofrhetoric was conceivable, but that the training the teachersof rhetoricofferedwasinappropriateandirresponsible, aknack5However, Ishall not godeeper intothequestionof howPhilos rhetoricalteaching fitted into his philosophy; on this see Brittain (2001), 32842, whose entirech. 7shouldbereadalongside myCh. 2,andReinhardt(2000a).6Theclassictreatmentofthisperiodofthequarrel,vonArnim(1898),4114,hasnowbeen superseded byBrittain (2001), 298312.7The main texts are Cic. de Orat. 1; Philod. Rhet. 2; Quint. Inst. Or. 2; S.E. Adv.Math. 2. SeeBrittain(2001), 299302forananalysisofthephilosophers mainobjections torhetoric aspractised bynon-philosophersatthetime.8 Introductionwithoutanyeducationalvalue.8Clearly,fromthereitwasonlyaslight steptothe introductionof analternative rhetoric inthephilosophicalcurriculum.TheHermagoreandivisionofquestionsinevitablybecamethesiteofaclashbetweenrhetoriciansandphilosopherswhodidnotrejectrhetoricentirely, butthoughtitshouldbepractisedprop-erly. There hadbeena philosophical use of the term0 ccsiB forcenturies, inthe sense of (discussionof a) philosophical prob-lem,9andHermagoras decisionto distinguishbetween0 ccsciBandupo0 ccsciBandtoassignbothtypesofquestiontorhetoricwascertainly intended to lay claim to a field at least partly occupied byphilosophers. Posidoniusis reportedtohavetakenupthechal-lenge, givingalectureagainstHermagoras claimonthe0 ccsiB.10And even if there were no evidence to that effect, it would be clearwhyphilosopherswentintotheteachingofthetical rhetoric: be-cause real rhetoric had intheir viewto pay attention to thefundamental problems underlyingconcretequestions, that is tothetical aspectsin which they were the experts. This was the waytogoalsobecausetherhetoricians,despiteHermagorasself-con-fident declaration, in reality neglected the 0 ccsiB, as Cicero lamentstimeandagainindeOrat.The0 ccsiBwasmerelyassignedaplaceamong the preliminary exercises, the p,ogumnaasmata, which had tobeundertakenbystudentsofrhetoricbeforetheypractisedargu-inglegalcases,andatacorrespondinglyprimitivelevelofsophis-tication.HOWANDWHYWASCICEROATTRACTEDBYTHETICALRHETORIC?In88bc Philoof Larissa came fromAthens toRome, wherehe gave lectures onphilosophical topics andtaught rhetoric.118IndeOrat. 1. 84, theAcademicphilosopherCharmadasvigorouslyattacksstandardrhetoricinbothitspracticalexecutionanditstheoreticalself-perception,but states at the same time neque posse quemquam facultatem adsequi dicendi, nisiquiphilosophoruminventadidicisset(thatnomancouldattainskillinspeakingunlesshehadstudiedthediscoveriesof thephilosophers: trans. Rackham). OnCharmadasseeBrittain (2001), 31228.9ThusD.L.7.189mentions0 ccsciBlogiiaiiasthetitleofoneofChrysippusbooks.10Plut. Pomp. 42. 5 fr. 43EdelsteinKidd.11Cic. Tusc. 2. 9(fr. 9Mettetest. xxxvBrittain): Itaquemihi semperPeripateticorumAcademiaequeconsuetudodeomnibusrebusincontrariaspartisTheTopicainCicerosOeuvre 9AlthoughonewouldexpectCicerototellusmoreabouthim,itisclear anyway that Philo had a formative influence on him; his ownphilosophical stance remained for all his life the position Philo hadadoptedas scholarchinAthens.12Cicero, whoheardhimas ayoung man, does not tell us more about Philos rhetorical teachingin Tusc., but in Or. 12 he says that he, as an orator, was the productnot of the workshops of the rhetoricians, but of the spacious walksof the Academy.13With reference to the context of this passage, ithas been argued that Cicero is merely stressing the positive effectswhich his philosophical education had on his oratory.14In a sense,this is true, but the contrast of narrowness and space ties up neatlywithotherstatementsthatthetical rhetoricbroadenstheviewoftheoratorandthattheup oo0csiBresemblesanarrowandtroubledcorner withinthebroadarearhetoriccouldpotentiallyoccupy.And the 0 ccsiB is, after all, the gateway through which philosophicaleducationgetsintorhetoric.This emerges inparticular fromthe thirdbookof de Orat.,wherethedivisionofthe0 ccsiBoccupiesaprominentplaceinthefamousdigressionontherelationshipbetweenrhetoricandphil-osophyinhistory.ThereCiceroarguesthatatanearlystagebothdisserendi non ob eamcausamsolumplacuit, quod aliter non posset, quid in quaquereverisimileesset,inveniri,sedetiamquodesseteamaxumadicendiexercitatio.Qua princeps usus est Aristoteles, deinde eumqui secuti sunt. Nostra autemmemoriaPhilo, quemnosfrequenteraudivimus, instituit aliotemporerhetorumpraeceptatradere,aliophilosophorum:adquamnosconsuetudinemafamiliaribusnostris adducti in Tusculano, quod datum est temporis nobis, in eo consumpsimus(ThusIhavealwaysagreedwiththePeripateticsandAcademyintheircustomofarguingeithersideinallmatters,notonlybecausewhatapproximatesthetruthineach case could not otherwise be discovered, butalso because it is the best exerciseforpublic speaking. Aristotle wasthe firsttouse thismethod, andthen hisfollow-ers. In my own life-time, however, Philo, whom I often heard, made it his practiceto teach rhetoric at one time, and philosophy at another. And since my friends havecoaxed me to adopt this practice, I spent the time in my house in Tusculum in thisway: trans. Brittain). The secondtext torepresent direct evidence for Philosrhetorical teaching(deOrat. 3. 110, discussedbelow)refersto91bc. ItisverylikelythatPhilo taughtrhetoric notonly inRomebutalready inAthens.12Philo modified his epistemological position in the course of his life more thanonce; cf. Brittain (2001),chs. 2 and 3,and hisIntroduction. Philo started off as anorthodox Clitomachian sceptic but then moved towards a more relaxed scepticism,whichinturnwas adoptedbyCicero. IntheRomanbooks Philopressedtherelaxationof hisscepticismfurthertothepoint that criticscouldaccusehimofabandoning scepticismaltogether.13Et fateor me oratorem, si modo simaut etiamquicumque sim, non exrhetorum officinissedexAcademiaespatiisexstitisse.14Wisse(1989), 1712.10 Introductionprofessionswereone,butthattheywereseparatedbecauseoftheinfluence of Socrates. Since the separation, rhetoric has conti-nouslydeclinedpreciselybecausewhat giveslifetorhetoricisitsconnectionwithphilosophyandfindsitselfnowpressedintothe narrowcorner which is the (sc. forensic)up oo0csiB. Ciceroadumbrates the wayinwhichrhetoric andphilosophymaybebrought together again: the orators needtoget the 0 ccsiB backfromthephilosophers. It isnoexaggerationtosaythat hisideaof the reunificationof rhetoric andphilosophycomes downtowinningbackthe 0 ccsiBforrhetoric.Itisnecessarytolookmorecloselyattheimmediatecontextinwhichthe0 ccsiBdivisionisplaced. Itisprecededbythistext(deOrat. 3. 107):Alii[sc.locicommunes]veroancipitisdisputationes[sc.habent],inqui-busdeuniversogenereinutramquepartemdisseri copioselicet. Quaeexercitatio nunc [at the dramatic date of de Orat., 91 bc] propria duarumphilosophiarum,dequibusantedixi[3. 67:AcademicsandPeripatetics],putatur, apud antiquos [i.e. before rhetoric and philosophy were separatedby Socrates] erat eorum, a quibus omnis de rebus forensibus dicendi ratioet copia petebatur; de virtute enim, de officio, de aequo et bono, dedignitate, utilitate, honore, ignominia, praemio, poenasimilibusquederebus inutramque partemdicendi etiamnos et vimet artemhaberedebemus.Whereasothersonthecontraryinvolvedebatesoneitherside, allowingcopiousargumentstobeadvancedbothproandcontrainregardtothegeneral question. Thelatterexerciseisnowconsideredthespecial pro-vince of the two schools of philosophy of which I spoke before, but in earlydays it was the function of the persons who used to be called on to furnish acompletelineofargument andsupplyofmatterforspeechesonpublicaffairsthefact beingthat weoratorsareboundtopossesstheintelli-gence, capacityandskill tospeakbothproandcontraonthetopics ofvirtue, duty, equityandgood, moral worthandutility, honouranddis-grace,rewardandpunishment,andlikematters.[Trans.Rackham.]Speaking on either side is introduced as an exercise commonamong Academics and Peripatetics; in it, one argues for andagainst ageneral questionabout thetical matters.15Presumably,15Thatthespeakingoneithersideisintroducedin3.107asonetypeoflocuscommunis, i.e. of the commonplace, is to be explained by the fact that Cicero insertedthe Academic andPeripatetic speakinginutramque partemat that place of thecurriculumof the Progymnasmata where normally the training with the 0 ccsiBTheTopicainCicerosOeuvre 11theAcademicdialectical methodofinutramquepartemdisserere,ubiquitousinCicerosphilosophicalwritings,isnotatissuehere.Rather, thereferenceistoa rhetoricalexercise indialectical form.Thisissuggestedbytheuseofthenotiondisputatiodeuniversogenere and the way in which it is picked up in the next paragraphs.Universumgenus does not merelymeanabstract problem, thetypicaldomainofphilosophers,butreferstothetwofoldHerma-goreandistinctionbetweengeneral andparticularquestions. Forthe poor position which is allotted to rhetoric after its divorce fromphilosophyisillustratedbyCiceroimmediatelyafter3.107withreferencetothedistinctionbetween 0 ccsiBandup oo0csiB,inasmuchas the philosophers are saidto have stolenthe 0 ccsiB fromtherhetoricians(sc. rhetoriciansasconceivedintheretrospectiveof3. 107).Thephilosophersnowhavethevastgroundsofthe 0 ccsiBattheirdisposalandareabletotalkabouteverythingthetically,whiletheoratorshavetoconfinethemselvestotheup oo0csiB.Andbecausethey, moreover,restricttheup oo0csiBtoforensicmatters,theirrealmischaracterizedasanarrowandtroubledcornerandsocontrastedwiththeamplefieldofthe 0 ccsiB.Butnoteventherearetheysafefromtheencroachmentsofthephilosophers, as Philo has now intruded into this area too (de Orat.3. 110):Atque [hactenus loquantur] etiamhac