Hermogenes' On Types of Style

Cecil W. Wooten III, Cecil W. Wooten III

• Publisher: The University of North Carolina Press
• Year: 2012
• ISBN:
  9781469610306
• Topic: Littérature
• Subtopic: Collections littéraires anciennes et classiques

Cecil Wooten has produced the first translation into any modern langauage of a key treatise of the ancient world. He provides a faithful English translation of Hermogenes' analysis based on a reliable Greek text established by Rabe at the beginning of this century and includes a substantial scholarly introduction and notes that will help the reader better understand Hermogenes, his exposition, and the historical and cultural context in which it was produced. Hermogenes' work is both systematic and complex. He outlines, with almost mathematical precision, seven basic types of ideal forms of style -- Clarity, Grandeur, Beauty, Rapidity, Character, Sincerity, and Force -- some of which he breaks down into subtypes. Wooten explains how the stylistic system works, what it has in common with other systems developed in antiquity, and the special problems it presents to the translator. Wooten also provides two short essays. The first compares the system of stylistic analysis developed by Hermogenes with those of earlier critics, in particular Cicero and Dionysius of Halicarnassus. A single passage of Demosthenes is analyzed according to these three systems in order to illustrate how Hermogenes' system best captures its subtleties and nuances. The second essay discusses Hermogenes' concept of panegyric oratory and how it relates to the larger problem of secondary rhetoric. This translation makes On Types of Style accessible to classicists as well as Byzantinists, students and scholars of the Renaissance, rhetoricians, and, more broadly, students of literary criticism at any level. Originally published in 1987. A UNC Press Enduring Edition -- UNC Press Enduring Editions use the latest in digital technology to make available again books from our distinguished backlist that were previously out of print. These editions are published unaltered from the original, and are presented in affordable paperback formats, bringing readers both historical and cultural value.

Book 1

Introduction

1 I think that the types (ideai) of style are perhaps the most necessary [213] subject for the orator to understand, both what their characteristics are and how they are produced.¹ This knowledge would be indispensable to anyone who wanted to be able to evaluate the style of others, either of the older writers or of those who have lived more recently, with reference to what is excellent and accurate, and what is not. And if someone wished to be the craftsman of fine and noble speeches himself, speeches such as the ancients produced, an acquaintance with this theory is also indispensable, unless he is going to stray far from what is accurate. Indeed imitation and emulation of the ancients that depend upon mere experience and some irrational knack cannot, I think, produce what is correct, even if a person has a lot of natural ability. Natural abilities, [214] without some training, dashing off without guidance at random, could in fact go particularly badly. But with a knowledge and understanding of this topic, when anyone wishes to emulate the ancients he would not fail even if he has only moderate ability. Of course he will be most successful if he also has natural talents, in which case he would produce a much better speech. But if we do not have natural abilities, we must try to achieve what can be learned and taught, since that is in our control. Those with less natural ability could quickly overtake those who are naturally talented, by means of practice and correct training.

Since, therefore, the study of the types is so important and so necessary to those who want to be good speakers and good critics (and even more so to those who want to do both), you should not be amazed if we should discover that this is a difficult topic and not such as to require simple handling. Nothing good can be produced easily, and I should be surprised if there were anything better for men, since we are logical animals, than fine and noble logoi and every kind of them.

Before I proceed to the actual instruction concerning each of these topics, I shall make one preliminary point. Our discussion will not be [215] concerned with the style peculiar to Plato or Demosthenes or any other writer, although that will be discussed later. For now, we propose to consider each type in itself, to show, for example, what Solemnity is and how it is produced, or what Asperity is or Simplicity, and likewise in respect to the other types. But since we need this study in order to appreciate individual authors, if we choose the author who uses a style that is especially varied and that really combines all the types, in discussing his style we shall have discussed them all. For if we demonstrate the individual features of such an author and the general character of his work, what its constituents are, and what sort of thing it is and why, we shall have given an accurate account of every type of style and we shall have demonstrated how they can be combined and how, as a result of these combinations, the style can be poetical or unpoetical, panegyrical, deliberative, forensic, or, in general, of any particular kind.

Now, the man who, more than anyone else, practiced this kind of oratory and was continuously diversifying his style is, in my opinion, Demosthenes. Therefore if we discuss him and what is found in his work, we shall in effect have discussed all the types of style. No one [216] should criticize my approach or my choice of Demosthenes until he has studied everything that I am going to say. I think that if one will pay close attention to what follows, he will find me worthy of admiration, especially for my clarity of arrangement, rather than criticism.

This is the main point in reference to Demosthenes: he had so mastered political oratory that he was always combining styles everywhere. When he gave a deliberative speech, for example, he did not separate it rigorously from a judicial speech or a panegyrical speech, but mixed the characteristics of all three in the same speech, regardless of what kind of oratory he was practicing. Anyone who studies his style carefully will easily recognize this. But it seems to me to be very difficult to discover exactly what elements he uses to create such a style, elements which, in combination with one another, produce panegyric and other kinds of oratory. It is no less difficult, indeed, for one who has discovered them to explain them clearly. Nor is there anyone, as far as I know, who has yet dealt with this topic with precision and clarity. Those who have undertaken it have discussed it in a confused and hesitating way, and their accounts are totally muddled. Moreover, even those who have seemed to make valid observations about the orator, because they have [217] studied his works in detail, at least to the best of their ability, say little or nothing about the general characteristics of his work. In other words they do not discuss types of style such as Solemnity or Simplicity. Consequently, although they might tell us something about Demosthenes and the individual aspects of his work that they discuss, they tell us nothing about style in general or the types of style, whether in meter, in poetry, or in prose.

Now, although it is difficult to perceive these types and to explain them clearly and to avoid the faults of our predecessors, nevertheless we must attempt to do so in the manner that we proposed earlier. If we can demonstrate accurately and specifically, in reference to the individual elements and basic principles of composition that make up the style of Demosthenes, how many there are and how they are produced and in what way they are combined to generate this effect or that, we shall have discussed all the various styles in general. As Demosthenes himself says, “This is a bold promise, and it will soon be put to the test, and whosoever wishes will be my judge” (4.15).

These are the elements that make up the style of Demosthenes taken [218] as a whole: Clarity, Grandeur, Beauty, Rapidity, Character, Sincerity, and Force. I say “taken as a whole” because these are interwoven and interpenetrate one another, for that is the nature of Demosthenes’ style. Of these types some exist separately and by themselves, others have subordinate types under them through which they are produced, and others share certain elements in common with other types. In general, to repeat what I have just said, some of the types are classes of other more general types, some share common elements with other types, although they are quite distinct from all the others, and some exist on their own quite independently of the others. Exactly what I mean by all this will become clearer as we proceed to discuss each type individually.

But first we must state the elements that are common to all speeches and without which no speech could exist, since once we have understood these we shall follow more easily when we discuss the subordinate types, mentioned earlier, out of which other types are produced.

Every speech has a thought or thoughts, an approach to the thought, and a style that is appropriate to these.² Likewise, style has its own peculiar properties: figures [of speech], clauses (kōla), word order, cadences, and rhythm.³ Rhythm is produced by word order and pauses, since to arrange words in a certain way and to pause at certain times gives the speech a certain rhythm.

[219]

Since what I have said may not be clear, I shall clarify it with an example. Suppose you want to create Sweetness. The thoughts that are characteristic of Sweetness are those that are related to mythology and similar topics, which we shall discuss later in the section on Sweetness. The approaches [or modes of treating the subject matter] involve dealing with the topic as the principal theme and in a narrative fashion rather than treating it allusively or in some other indirect way. The style is that which depends much on adjectives and is subtle; if poetical, it must avoid elevation and natural diffuseness. All diction characteristic of Purity will also be appropriate. Figures of speech are permitted, but only those that involve straightforward grammar and no interruptions. The clauses should be short, a little longer than kommata or even equal to kommata. The arrangement of the words, because of the nature of the diction, should be relaxed but should not, on the other hand, be totally disjointed, since some of the pleasure derived from Sweetness is achieved through rhythm. The basic metrical unit employed should be dactylic

or anapaestic

. (Anyone who discusses rhythm and word order should also treat syllables and letters, since rhythm is created from these, along with cadences, as will become clear later in our discussion. The cadences appropriate to Sweetness are rather [220] stately.) Rhythm results from word order and cadence, although it is separate from them, just as the shape of a house or of a ship is created when stones or pieces of wood are put together in a certain way with certain restrictions placed on the construction, although the shape of the house or of the ship is quite different from the manner of putting the building materials together and the limitations on that.⁴

All kinds of style, consequently, can be classified under the following headings, which denote those factors through which a particular style is produced: thought, approach, diction, figures, clauses, word order, cadence, and rhythm. I am sure that in spite of what has already been said there is need for some further clarification about these matters, but I do not agree with those who think that they can be clarified by means of examples. Of course I agree that examples should eventually be adduced, but I do not think that everything would be clear in this discussion if we brought forth some examples now. On the contrary, if we here produced examples of each of the factors mentioned above, the discussion would become very lengthy, and greater confusion might arise because of that. Moreover, it was not my object to discuss Sweetness at the moment, since we shall discuss that later in detail, but only to show through what factors each kind of style is produced in its pure state. Having been instructed concerning these things, we will be able, I hope, to follow the rest of the discussion more easily. To that I now return.

Thus every type of style is created out of the elements discussed above. [221] But it is very difficult, nearly impossible in fact, to find among any of the ancients a style that is throughout composed of elements such as thought, approach, diction, etc., characteristic of only one kind of style; it is by the predominance of features belonging to one type that each acquires his particular quality. I exclude Demosthenes. Unlike others, he does not favor features that are characteristic of one particular type, although there is one subtype that he does use more often than the others. That is Abundance. (In the discussion of Grandeur and Abundance I shall discuss in detail why that is the case.) But as I was saying, he shows a preference only for a style that is a fraction or subclass of one type. Otherwise he uses each type when and where it should be used. He can scale down excessively elevated and brilliant thoughts by certain approaches or figures or by some other means.⁵ Similarly, he can raise up and give vigor to thoughts that are trivial and of little importance. And in a similar way, by mixing each of the other types with features that are not appropriate or peculiar to it, he diversifies his style and thus makes everything fit together and creates a unity in which all the various types are interwoven. Thus from all the beauties of style, this one, the Demosthenic, the most beautiful, has been created.

[222]

Therefore, as I said before, strictly speaking, it is not possible to find accurately in any of the ancient orators a single style, because it is clearly a mistake to use only one and not to vary one’s style. But each has a predominance of characteristics that are typical of one style or another, and that is what produces his own peculiar style. By “having a predominance of” I do not mean that he uses a greater number of those elements that create a particular type, such as approach, figures, word order, cadence, etc., although that may be so, but that he uses those elements that are most characteristic of each type. This is really what creates a particular type, and “having a predominance of” means “uses those elements that are most effective in creating each type.” Sometimes, if someone uses, even excessively, some of the factors that produce a particular style but does not employ those that are most characteristic of that style, he will fail to produce the effect at which he was aiming. We shall turn now to the effect that is produced by the various elements that make up the different styles.

First of all, and the most important, is the thought. Second comes the diction. Third in importance are figures of speech and fourth are figures [223] of thought, which are the same as the approach. Figures of thought, however, hold the most important position in the type Force, where they are the most important of all the elements that produce that style, as will be shown later. We shall put word order and cadence last, although they are often more important than their ranking here would indicate, especially in poetry. For one of these factors without the other contributes little or nothing to the style of the speech, but together, especially in combination with rhythm, they can have a tremendous impact. Musicians, in fact, would probably argue that they are more important than the thought itself. They will say that rhythm in and of itself, even without any meaningful speech, is more effective than style. And suitable rhythms, they say, can please the soul more than any panegyrical speech, or cause it more pain than any rhetorical appeal to pity, or stir up our spirits more than any vehement and violent speech. They may provoke us about all these points, but we shall not quarrel with them. Put rhythm first or last in importance or in the middle, as you wish. I shall be content to show what rhythms are appropriate to each type of style and to what extent rhythm can be applied to prose without turning it into song. If rhythm is as important in prose style as it is in music, let it be put first in importance. If not, it will be put in the order of importance that seems suitable to me. My feeling is that rhythm does sometimes contribute a great deal to the production of one style [224] rather than another, but not so much as the musicians say.

We have summarized briefly everything that has been said previously, and now we shall come to a discussion of the types themselves. We have already discussed (a) what the elements are that create the types of style, (b) what the effect of these is, (c) from what elements the style of Demosthenes is composed, and (d) why we think that it is necessary to choose this orator as our example. I also made the following point: it is not possible to find any of the types of style, such as Solemnity, used continuously and elaborated in isolation from the other types in any of the ancient orators—unless one calls an individual manner of speaking a “type” and speaks, for example, of the “Demosthenic” or “Platonic” type. Moreover, since it is not possible to understand or appreciate a mixture, in reference to style or anything else, and it is certainly not possible to create a mixture until we recognize the various ...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Hermogenes’ On Types of Style
• Copyright Page
• Dedication
• Contents
• Preface
• Introduction
• Book 1
• Book 2
• Appendix 1 Hermogenes and Ancient Critical Theories on Oratory
• Appendix 2 Hermogenes on Panegyric
• Notes
• Bibliography
• Index of Passages Cited
• Index of Topics and Names
• Index of Technical Terms