The Rhetorical Works of George of Trebizond and Their Debt to Cicero Author(s): C.

Joachim Classen Source: Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes, Vol. 56 (1993), pp. 75-84 Published by: The Warburg Institute Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/751365 Accessed: 04/10/2008 06:14
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=warburg. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

The Warburg Institute is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes.

http://www.jstor.org

THE RHETORICAL WORKS OF GEORGE OF TREBIZOND AND THEIR DEBT TO CICERO C. Joachim Classen
For R. Klibansky eorge of Trebizond, Georgius Trapezuntius Cretensis (1395/6-1472/3?), was a very exceptional man. Both adventurous and original, even revolutionary, and influential, he lived and worked in a country and culture other than the one in which he was born, brought up and educated. While rhetoric was taught in Italy in the first half of the fifteenth century on the basis of Cicero's rhetorical works (including the Rhetorica ad Herennium) and to some extent also of Quintilian's Institutio oratoria,2 and no one saw any reason for writing a new textof Verona obviously was not willing to do so3-the immigrant from book-Guarino Crete published his Rhetoricorum libri quinque late in 1433 or early in 1434.4 For he had observed, as he pointed out in the preface, that the oratoria facultas was generally despised and neglected by his contemporaries, and that while there were excellent Latin and Greek manuals on the subject by ancient authorities, virtually no new work was being produced in his own time. Thus he felt called upon, in view of the usefulness of oratory, to put together both what others had said and what he had noticed in reading Cicero's speeches.5 A few years earlier, soon after his arrival, he had provided the famous educator Vittorino da Feltre, his own teacher, with a synopsis of Hermogenes's De formis orationum (De generibus dicendi). In 1426 he had added the treatise De suavitate dicendi, also based on Hermogenes.6 But his intellectual and cultural independence, and also probably his ambition, took him much further. Having succeeded in striking a welcome middle ground between Quintilian's elaborate Institutio oratoria and Cicero's rather limited De inventione, or the dull and dreary rules of the Rhetorica ad Herennium, he wrote a brief manual of logic. In this he concentrated on what seemed useful for oratorical practice and omitted
G
1 For his life and works see J. Monfasani, Georgeof A Biography 7rebizond. and a Studyof his Rhetoric and Logic, Leiden 1976 (hereafter 'Monfasani'); Collectaneatrapezuntiana. 7Txts,Documents,and Bibliographies of Georgeof ed. idem, Binghamton 1984 (hereafter Collec7rebizond, tanea trapezuntiana);see further E. Lojacono, 'Giorgio da Trebisonda: la tradizione retorica bizantina e l'idea di metodo', Acta conventusneo-latinibononiensis, ed. R. J. Schoeck, Binghamton 1985, pp. 80-100. N. G. Wilson, FromByzantiumto Italy. Greek Studies in the Italian Renaissance, London 1992, became available to me after this paper had been sent to the Journal's editors. 2 See e.g. R. G. G. Mercer, 7Fle 7eaching of Gasparino Barzizza: with Special Referenceto his Place in Paduan London 1979, pp. 91-105, 145-47; R. SabbaHulmanism, dini, La scuola e gli studi di Guarino Ieronese,Catania 1896, pp. 59-65; cf. also K. Mfillner, 'Acht Inaugural-

reden des Veronesers Guarino und seines Sohnes Battista', WienerStudien,xviii, 1896, pp. 283-306, esp. 28689, 296f, 303-06, and xix, 1897, pp. 126-43. 3 Cf. Sabbadini (as in n. 2), pp. 61f. 4 For the date see Monfasani, 26; for editions Collecp. tanea trapezuntiana, pp. 459-61; the edition used here is Rhetoricorum libri quinque,Lyons 1547 (hereafter Rhetoricoruin libri); cf. H. S. Wilson, 'George of Trebizond and Early Humanist Rhetoric', Studies in Philology,xl, 1943, pp. 367-79; Monfasani, pp. 241-99, esp. 261-89. 5 Cf. Rhetoricorum litbi, pp. 3-6. 6 See Monfasani, pp. 17f, 21, 255f; Collectaneatrapezuntiana, pp. 225-34, 329-38. On Vittorino (1373/8da Feltreand Other 1446) see W. H. Woodward, Vittorino Humanist Educators, Cambridge 1897, pp. 1-92; G. Muiller, Mensch und Bildung im italienischenRenaissanceHumanismus,Baden-Baden 1984, pp. 71-360.

75
Journal of the atrburuand (oulrauldlt Insltlule, X\lumt e 56, 1993

C. JOACHIM CLASSEN many of the details indulged in by medieval logicians; but unlike Lorenzo Valla he treated logic as a separate science and did not subject it to rhetoric. 7 In yet another area he did not hesitate to demonstrate his conviction that he had something new to offer. Though Cicero's works and especially his speeches were read widely, no one was prepared to write commentaries on them after Antonio Loschi had published his Inquisitio artis in orationibus Ciceronis on eleven speeches, and Sicco Polenton, a few years later, his meagre argumenta on sixteen others.8 Probably no one had the courage to challenge Loschi's magisterial work. George of Trebizond did, and he did so in the most direct manner, writing a commentary on Pro Ligario, one of the speeches Loschi had chosen for comment a generation before.9 Already in antiquity this speech had generated considerable interest. Quintilian refers to it frequently and for a great variety of aspects: invention with regard to exordium (introductory section), narratio (narration) and loci (places from which arguments may be drawn), argumentatio (argumentation), exempla (examples), refutatio (refutation), enthymema (incomplete syllogism), and also for matters of style. Most later rhetoricians exploit the speech to illustrate rhetorical figures or rules, and some late scholia have been preserved.10 Loschi his usual manner-a brief subjected it to a thorough rhetorical analysis, giving-in the of and constitutio causae case) genus (kind argumentum (summary), determining (type of issue), discussing exordium, narratio, confirmatio (with conclusio: proof with conclusion), exordii sententia (main purpose of the introductory section), confutatio (refutation) and conclusio, and ending with some remarks on the elocutio (style) and colores (stylistic devices).11 George wrote four times as much. Several questions arise which cannot all be answered within the space available here.12 Some of them, such as the question of George's influence, have been dealt
7 For the date see Monfasani, pp. 37f [c. 1440]; for editions Collectanea trapezuntiana,pp. 473-77. J. Argyropoulos, Dialectica ad Petrum de Medicis, ed. D. M. Inquanez and D. G. Muller, Monte Cassino 1943, is in fact an edition of George's work. On the Isagogesee C. dell'Umanesimo. 'Invenzione' Vasoli, La dialetticae la retorica e 'Metodo' nella culturadel XVe XVIsecolo,Milan 1965, pp. 81-99. On Valla (1407-57) see S. Camporeale, Lorenzo Valla. Umanesimo e teologia, Florence 1972, on the Dialecticae disputationesesp. pp. 33-87 with notes pp. 109-24, pp. 149-71 with notes pp. 193-202; H.-B. Gerl, Rhetorikals Philosophie.LorenzoValla,Munich 1974, esp. pp. 191-231; for his works L. Valla, Opera,Basle 1540 (repr. Turin 1962, ed. E. Garin, with a second volume of appendices). 8 On Loschi (1365-1441) see G. da Schio, Sulla vita e sugli scritti di Antonio Loschi Vicentinouomo di letteree di stato commentarii, Padua 1858; L. Pastine, 'Antonio Loschi umanista Vicentino', Rivista dItalia, xviii, 1915, pp. 831-79; D. Girgensohn, 'Antonio Loschi und Baldassarre Cossa vor dem Pisaner Konzil von 1409', Italia e umanistica, xxx, 1987, pp. 1-93. On Polenmedioevale ton (1375-1447) see A. Segarizzi, La Catinia, le Orazioni del secoloXV, e leLpistoledi SiccoPolentonumanista Trentino Bergamo 1899, pp. XIII-LXIII. For the texts see Q. Asconii Pediani in CiceronisorationesCommentarii. Georgii de artificiociceronianae oratonisPro. Q. Iigario 7Trabezuntii: ad VictorinumFeltrensem.Antonii Lusci Vicentini super Vndecim ciceronis Orationes Expositio. Xicchoni Polentoni Patavini super decem Ciceronis orationes argumenta et super quattuor inuectivis in Catilinam et super inuectivis inter Salustiumt et Ciceronem, Venice 1477, sigs AI'-GIII' and GIIIr-VIr; see also In omnes M. 7iTllii Ciceronis orationes, quot quidem extant, doctissimorlum viiorum enarrationes, summa diligentia, ac singulari erga Ciceronianae eloquentiae studiosos fide in ununi velut corpus collectae..., Basle 1553 (hereafter In omnes Ciceronis).

76

9 For its date see Monfasani, pp. 38f, 46f [c. 1440]; for editions Collectanea pp. 463f. The text may trapezuntiana, be found in the Venice 1477 edition (as in n. 8), sigs eIP-gIV', or In omnes Ciceronis(as in n. 8), I cols 195094; for the preface see also Coll. trap.,pp. 339-41. 10 For Quintilian's references see M. 1abi Quintiliani libri duodecim, 2 vols, ed. M. WinterInstitutionisoratoniae bottom, Oxford 1970, ii, p. 770 (index); for the later ed. C. Halm, Leiprhetoricians cf. Rhetores Latini minores, zig 1863, p. 622 (index); for the scholia see Ciceronis orationumscholiastae,ed. T. Stangl, ii, Vienna 1912, pp. 271f, 291-95. 11 Cf. In omnesCiceronis (as in n. 8), I cols 1940-50. 12 E.g. which elements are new in George's Rhetoricorun libri in comparison with the traditional Latin manuals, and which distinctive features may be used, when appearing later, to determine George's influence with a reasonable degree of certainty.

GEORGE OF TREBIZOND

77

with by John Monfasani, who has named a number of authors of handbooks on rhetoric and other works who are indebted to George's Rhetorica (for example Filippo Buonaccorsi, Giacomo Publicio, Guillaume Fichet, loannes Caesarius, Christoph Hegendorff, Bartolomeo Cavalcanti and Mario Nizolio), together with others who indicated interest in or appreciation of his work (Giovanni Andrea de' Bussi, Jacopo di Porcia, Erasmus, Hernando Alfonso de Herrera and Leonard Cox); he has also outlined briefly the influence of the Isagoge dialectica.13 In view of this, my intention in the present essay is to remark on the role played by Cicero's speeches in George of Trebizond's Rhetoricorum libri quinque; to make some observations about his commentary on Pro Ligario; and finally to examine the influence of both works on later commentators on Cicero.

In his Rhetoricorum libri quinque George depends on the rhetorical tradition of both the Greeks and the Romans. He refers to Cicero's rhetorical works, to Quintilian, to Marius Victorinus and Martianus Capella (except for Cicero, he always refers to their errors), as well as to Aristotle, Hermagoras, Dionysius of Halicarnassus and more frequently to Hermogenes (not naming others whose ideas he 'borrows'). While Demosthenes's orations are occasionally adduced to illustrate a particular point (more often than by Cicero, Quintilian or the minor Latin rhetorical writers), George frequently discusses passages from Cicero's speeches. Instead of merely elucidating them by means of his theory, he sometimes appears even to derive rules or precepts from exceptionally ingenious ideas of the master of eloquence, whom he is never tired of praising, or at least to confirm them by citing his practice as authority. On the other hand, where he cannot support rules or distinctions by examples from Cicero's speeches, he attributes this to the orator's technique of concealing his art, and invents his own examples.14 In his preface George finds fault with contemporary teachers of rhetoric, as they make their pupils copy the books of Bartolinus and Alanus.15 In the body of the Cicero's work, however, he accuses them more than once of misunderstanding
13 Monfasani, pp. 318-37; see also below, pp. 81-84. Monfasani seems to have overlooked the debt of Giovanni Pontano to George of Trebizond; cf. G. Ferrau, Pontano critico, Messina 1983, pp. 81-103; see also L. D'Ascia, 'La retorica di Giorgio da Trebisonda e l'umanesimo ciceroniano', Rinascimento, ser. 2, xxix, 1989, pp. 193-216, and recently J. Monfasani himself, 'Episodes of Anti-Quintilianism in the Italian Renaissance', Rhetoica, x, 1992, pp. 134f. 14 For rules or precepts derived from Cicero's speeches see Rhetoricorum libri (as in n. 4), p. 194, where George remarks, 'multa etiam Ciceronis orationes legendo nos invenisse neque aliquid hic positum esse quod usu eius comprobari non possit'; also ibid., p. 330, 'Attamen si Ciceronem diligenter legis, ab eo quod ille fecerit, nos praecepisse intelliges'; and p. 361, 'nam inventionem quidem, dispositionem, et elocutionem, si cui aliquid quum artificii, tum mentis inest, multo copiosiorem, ordinationem elegantioremque conficiet, si ex orationibus eius praecepta sibi proponat, quod nos in hoc libro fecimus, quam si ad ea praecepta solum quae scripsit, tanti viri orationes omni refertas artificio, velit redigere'. For rules confirmed see also ibid., pp. 332f, 'Si primum (semper enim ita invenio Ciceronem factitasse) quod obstantia occupat primo locandum est ut pro Pom. praeficiendo, in Verrem, pro Sexto Roscio...'; or ibid., p. 340, 'quam rem si volueris etiam oculis videre, quamvis Ciceronis orationem tibi proponere'. For Cicero concealing his art see ibid., p. 194: George explains why in some cases he cites Cicero's theoretical works, not his speeches, saying, 'nam et si plurima huiusmodi in orationibus inveniuntur, tamen aut quia brevius dicuntur, quam clare ars intellegi possit, aut quia non ita ordine perficiuntur, vel ad caelandam artem, vel ut vehementiora sint quae dicuntur, vel ut varietate delectent confusiora sunt, atque ideo intellectu difficiliora'. 15 Op. cit., pp. 3f. On Bartolinus see S. Karaus Wertis, 'The Commentary of Bartolinus de Benincasas de Canulo on the Rhetorica ad Herennium', Viator, x, 1979, pp. 283-310 (with further literature); on Alanus see ibid., p. 290 n. 27.

C. JOACHIM CLASSEN artificium in a speech, or of failing to appreciate the nuances of a particular passage. Presumably, it is especially Guarino of Verona whom he has in mind,16 but in all probability his polemical remarks are directed against Antonio Loschi as well. When one examines George's references to and discussions of Ciceronian passages more carefully, one notices quickly that the great majority of them are taken from the speeches on which Loschi had written his Inquisitio, especially De lege Manilia and Pro Milone (least often Pro rege Deiotaro). Of the others the Verrinesoccur most frequently-which may however simply be due to their sheer bulk; moreover, many of the references are to matters of detail only. The speech Pro Roscio Amerino is given particular attention, perhaps because it had been discovered very recently, or because it was a favourite of Guarino, whose commentary was not published until later but of whose lectures on the speech George may have had some knowledge.17 It should be noted also that of the other speeches which had become available through Poggio's efforts, Pro Murena, Pro Caecina and Pro Rabirio perduellionis reo are mentioned but rarely, while the orations Pro Roscio comoedo, Pro Fonteio, De lege agraria, In Pisonem and Pro Rabirio Postumo (if I am not mistaken) are never adduced.'l In some cases George criticises his predecessor Loschi, without ever mentioning his name; in others he provides additional observations. But there are also cases of course, without acknowledging his debt.19 where he borrows from him-again, Indeed, as Loschi had taught the rules of rhetoric by writing a commentary on some of Cicero's speeches, and others were doing the same by giving lectures on them, in some sections of his handbook George of Trebizond simply gives the rules on the basis of these speeches, rather than illustrating rules by examples taken from them. I should add, however, that the references to Cicero's orations are rather unevenly distributed; they are conspicuously absent from the sections on status (types of issue), on loci confirmationis and refutationis (places of arguments for confirmation and refutation), de diffinitiva constitutione (on the issues arising from or resting on definition), de absoluta iuridiciali (on the absolute type ofjuridical issue which concentrates on an act itself), de assumptiva iuridiciali (on the assumptive type of juridical issue which draws on extraneous matters), de negociali et translativa (on issues concerned with affairs in general or with pleas that a law or court is not to be applied), de locis dialecticis (on places for logical arguments), de peroratione (on the concluding part of speeches), de genere deliberativo (on the deliberative kind), and de ductu causae (on the general line of treatment) .20
18 Monfasani, p. 290 n. 193, 16 On Guarino (1374-1460) see Sabbadini (as in n. 2); gives a different list; he is G. Bertoni, Guarino da Verona fra letteratie rortigiani a certainly wrong in saying that the speeches Post reditum Ferrara(1429-1460), Geneva 1921; R. Schweyen, Guarino ad Quirites and Pro Rabirio perduellionis reo are not Veronese. Pddagogik,Munich referred to by George. Philosophieund humanistische 19 See lilri (as in n. 4), p. 311, where 1973; also Etpistolario di Guarino Veronese, 3 vols, ed. R. Rheton'coruin Sabbadini, Venice 1915-19; Mullner (as in n. 2); for the George reproduces almost verbatim Loschi's reference controversy between George and Guarino see Mon- in his commentary on De legeManilia (cf. In omnesCicerfasani, pp. 29-32; and for criticism of Guarino in the onis, as in n. 8, I col. 249, 40-44) to Quintilian's remark Rhetoricorum libri quinque see Collectaneatrapezuntiana, about Caesar (Institutiooratoria iii.7.28). 20 Rhetoiicorum libri (as in n. 4): status pp. 62-74 (Pro pp. 361-64. 17 On the discovery of Pro RoscioAmerino see R. Sabba- Miloneas example only on pp. 74-77); loci colfirsnationis di testi Latini, edn Padua 1971, pp. and refutationispp. 87-112 (Pro Milone thrice as exdini, Storia e cMrtica 23-25; on Guarino's commentary, printed about 1475, ample: pp. 95, 106, 107); diffinitivar( constititio pp. 112der Wiegen- 28; absolutaiusidicialispp. 128-38; assumpztiva iuridicialis ibid., pp. 27, 41-44; cf. also Gesamtkatalog drucke, vi, Leipzig 1934, p. 545 (no. 6764); Sabbadini (as pp. 138-48 (Pro Miloneonce as example: p. 141); negociin n. 2), pp. 90-92, 110. alis et translativa pp. 148-70; loci dialectiri pp. 215-45

78

GEORGE OF TREBIZOND

79

The Rhetoricorum libri quinque are characterised by a complete amalgamation of the Greek and Roman traditions. George relies heavily on Cicero's speeches and takes them as authoritative, but also draws on Greek poetry, from which many lines are quoted. He frequently starts from Greek terms, but invariably gives Latin equivalents and does not hesitate to introduce new Latin words, nor only for technical matters. The other distinctive feature is the author's criticism of contemporary teachers of rhetoric, of which there are more examples than can be cited here.

The commentary George published a few years later, on Cicero's Pro Ligario, was in part a reaction to criticism voiced by Agaso (Guarino?) against his interpretation of the speech.21 Here a direct comparison with Loschi's work suggests itself. While both commentators on Pro Ligarao place an argumentum at the head of their explanation and next assign the case to the genus iudiciale (judicial type), Loschi after a brief discussion determines the constitutio (iurdicialis: juridical type of issue), adding reasons and a more detailed classification, and summarising his views by saying: 'Fit iuridicialis adsumptiva in concessione, per purgationem a necessitate, et per deprecationem' ('An assumptive juridical issue comes about when the defendant acknowledges the charges and seeks exculpation from necessity or pleads for 22 mercy'). George, on the other hand, claiming that before the status the ductus of the speech needs to be fixed in accordance with what he says in his Rhetorca), embarks on a very complicated discussion which leads him to consider other fundamental concepts and distinctions, largely on the basis of his handbook to which he refers more than once.23 Similarly, throughout the commentary he is not content to explain numerous details of Cicero's speech, its composition and its elocutio, and to correct what he regards as the mistaken views and errors of others. He analyses the structure of the speech as a whole, labels its main parts and describes their functions, thus revealing Cicero's strategy in general. Moreover he subjects the argumentation to a thorough examination, classifying each argument and thereby explaining the logical operations in their phases. He deals with the style and especially the choice of words in the same manner, naming rhetorical figures or clausulae and explaining their effect in each case. Pointing to parallels in other speeches by Cicero or by Demosthenes as well as to defects in particular instances,24 he emphasises his intention to help others to understand and appreciate Cicero's artificium as a masterly application of the rules of rhetoric, which when absorbed and adopted can be applied successfully by anyone. For this reason he draws attention to precepts which can be illustrated by (or even derived from) Pro Ligario, or to elements or features which are universally applicable. 'We use this genus', he says for instance, 'when the case itself offers room for confidence'; or he enunciates general principles, giving advice or warnings, such as,I have said this so that from these few
(Pro Roscio Amerino thrice as example: pp. 217, 221, 241); peroratio pp. 266-81; second half of de genere deliberativo pp. 289-304; de ductut caosae pp. 322-29. 21 See Monfasani, pp. 30-32; for Agaso's letter to Paullus Reginus see Collectanea trapezunltiana, pp. 364-72 (text), 372-76 (notes); for George's letter to Leonello d'Este and his response see ibid., pp. 377-81, 381-407 (text), 407-11 (notes). 2 In omnes Cicefronis (as in n. 8), I cols 1940, 40 to 1941, 56. -'3 Ibid., I cols 1950, 21 to 1953, 11. 24 For parallels see ibid., I cols 1960, 2-4 aiid 1961, 11-23; in general col. 1958, 47-52; for defects col. 1967, 31-40.

C. JOACHIM CLASSEN remarks those who read this all may find more.25 Having introduced a good many new concepts, ideas and distinctions from the Greek tradition and provided a Latin terminology for them in the Rhetoricorum libri quinque, George now uses these new terms freely. Whilst hardly ever returning to the original Greek terms, he stops more than once to explain a new term, for example recriminatio (countercharge) or attributio (attribution of qualities),26 or to give a proper Latin equivalent to a Greek loan-word, for example 'membra brevissima, immo commata, quae Latine caesa possunt dici' ('very short clauses, rather phrases, which could be called "cutting" in Latin').27 But more than once new terms are used without warning or explanation, for example ordinatio, comparitas, subcontinuatio.28 This does not apply to technical terms alone. By no means does George always stick to the traditional vocabulary of his model and master Cicero. Rather he introduces new words such as acuties, sonoritas, fictorius;29 and this is a point that his critic, Giorgio Merula, was later to take up against him. In 1467 the Senate in Venice appointed Merula, a pupil of Francesco Filelfo and Johannes Argyropoulos, to the chair of eloquence and humanities in the place of George of Trebizond.30 In 1478, a few years after George's death, Merula published (together with an annotated edition ofJuvenal) his own commentary on Pro Ligario. In doing so his explicit intention was to attack the interpretation of his predecessor, whom he accuses of inadequate knowledge of Roman antiquity and whose rhetorical teaching, as laid down in the Rhetoricorum libri quinque, he emphatically rejects. 31 While George's commentary suffers from the author's arrogance and aggressiveness, Merula's work is spoilt by his continuous concern to contradict and refute his predecessor. He begins with a general attack, first criticising George's attempt to elicit from Cicero's speech that of the plaintiff and especially its ductus.32 Next he shows that what George says about Tubero's intention and Cicero's strategy, as well as the ductus and status of his speech, is erroneous, and accuses George of not knowing enough about the historical background and of being insufficiently familiar with the realities of life ('rerum et vitae usum omnem ignorasse'). He charges him with plagiarising Consultus [Fortunatianus]'s and Martianus Capella's teachings on
25 Cf. ibid., I col. 1968, 45f, 'quo genere turn potissimum utimur, cum res ipsa fiduciam praebet'; col. 1961, 28-29, 'Haec diximus, ut ex his paucis plura qui legunt inveniant'; see also cols 1951, 30f; 1960, 47-49; 1970, 32-36; 1971, 5-9; 1991, 35-39. 26 For Greek terms cf. e.g. ibid., I col. 1968, 35-37; for recriminatiocol. 1965, 50-54 (used previously without explanation: cols 1951, 54 and 1956, 6; recriminari col. 1964, 1); for attributiocol. 1963, 5-6 (with reference to libri:as in n. 4, p. 172). his Rhetoricorum 27 In omnesCiceronis (as in n. 8), I col. 1956, 23-25; see also Rhetoricorum libri,p. 408. 28 In omnesCiceronis (as in n. 8): for ordinatio(arrangement, actually first used by St Augustine) see I col. 1956, 20; for comparitas(isokolon, i.e. sentence the two parts of which are of roughly the same length) col. 1965, 39 (see also compar:col. 1965, 24, 30); for subcontinuatio (short sentence) cols 1956, 40-42 and 1968, 29-31. 29 For acuties (sharpness) see ibid., I col. 1961, 57; for sonoritas(fullness of sound) cols 1961, 34 and 1967, 44; forfictorius (fashioned, devised) col. 1971, 18. 30 See Monfasani, p. 148; on Merula (1424-94) see R. Sabbadini in Encidopediaitaliana, xxii, 1934, p. 926. On Filelfo (1398-1481) see C. de' Rosmini, Vita di Francesco Filelfo de Tolentino, 3 vols, Milan 1808; V. Rossi in italiana, xv, 1932, pp. 281f. On Argyropoulos Enciclopedia degliItaliani (1415-87) see E. Bigi in Dizionariobiografico (hereafter DBI), iv, 1962, pp. 129-31; Vasoli (as in n. 7), pp. 110-15. 31 See the preface 'Georgius Merula Alexandrinus Bernardo Bembo Nobilissimo lurisconsulto et Equiti Splendidissimo Salutem', dated 'Venetiis idibus Martiis MCCCLXXVIII' (sig. qIr), preceded by G. Merula, Venice 1478 (sigs AIIrIuvenalis Enarrationes, Satyrarum IVv, alr-mIIIr) and the second commentary on Juvenal directed against Domizio [Calderini] (sigs mVr-V', mVV-pVIII'), followed by the commentary oni Pro Ligario (sigs qIIr-rVIIIr), for which here the edition of 1553 is referred to: In omnesCiceronis(as in n. 8), I cols 1994, 42 to 2018, 58. 32 In omnes Ciceronis (as in n. 8), I cols 1995, 47-49; 1996, 17-19; and for George col. 1951, 37-39.

80

GEORGE OF TREBIZOND

81

ductus, and blames him for introducing a new word (recriminatio) without a corresponding new status and for calling firmamentum (corroborative argument) what he designates as infirmatio.33 After determining the genus causae and explaining why Cicero had recourse to the figure of insinuatio (subtle opening), Merula adds a long section elucidating the function of irony in the exordium, as shown by Quintilian but denied by George of Trebizond without good reason.34 It would be tedious to list all the passages where Merula attacks or refutes, criticises or ridicules his victim. His comments concern George's omissions and errors, which he ascribes to insufficient knowledge of historical facts, erroneous interpretations, inadequate arguments, fanciful reasoning, obscure language, wrong classifications, unfortunate new terminology and unjustified claims with regard to new observations. Though Merula does not hesitate to call George's views childish,35 occasionally his own remarks seem petty too. He complains for example that George of Trebizond claimed to have been the first to notice and label what Quintilian already called commonitio (act of reminding: with reference to Pro Ligario 4), whereas in fact George said only that he calls this commonitio in the Rhetorica.3 Indeed, Merula's criticism takes up so much space that after a few pages he himself feels the need to insert a long justification of his views and his interpretation.37 In his introductory letter Merula stresses that he was at first much impressed by George's Rhetorica and that, when careful study led him to a less favourable view and he made this known, he met with criticism.38 Clearly George of Trebizond had followers, and his books were widely used, as is also indicated by the fact that both the Rhetoricorum libri quinque and the commentary were printed early, reprinted several times, and moreover both praised and plagiarised.39 But his presumptuousness, and not least his hostility towards Italian teachers of rhetoric in both the Rhetoricorum libri quinque and his commentary, provoked the rather damaging
33 Ibid., I cols 1998, 54 to 2000, 27; for the quotation see col. 1996, 32; for the charge of plagiarising col. col. 1999, 32-57; on firma1999, 16-23; on recriminatio mentum col. 2000, 21-27, and for George ibid., col. 1952, 26-29. 34 Ibid., genus rausae I cols 2000, 34 to 2001, 4; irony cols 2001, 5 to 2002, 35. 35 Ibid., I col. 2003, 22-24. On omissions and errors see further cols 2011, 39 to 2012, 10; 2012, 28-36. On erroneous interpretation see cols 2003, 22-24; 2011, 113; 2013, 4-35. On inadequate arguments see col. 2002, 21-25; on fanciful reasoning col. 2009, 23-46; on wrong classification col. 2006, 9-14; and on new terminology cols 2008, 32-36 and 2008, 47-58. 36 Ibid., I col. 2005, 8-9; for George see col. 1957, 47f; cf. Quintilian, Institutiooratoriaiv 2.51, with reference to Pro Ligario4. 37 Op. cit., I col. 2010, 9-46. 38 For ref. see n. 31. 39 See Collectaneatrapezuntiana,pp. 459-61, 463f. For praise see the remarks of Monfasani, p. 320 on Giovanni Andrea de' Bussi (1417-75; see also Collectanea trapezuntiana, pp. 461f) and p. 321 on Hernando Alfonso de with additions of his Herrera, who edited the Rhetorica own (see Lojacono, as in n. 1, p. 99 n. 64); see also

Wilson (as in n. 4), p. 369 n. 9, on Paolo Cortesi (14651510); and Lojacono (op. cit.), pp. 90f n. 4, on others. For plagiarism by Guillaume Fichet (1433-80 or later, cf. R. d'Amat in Dictionnaire de biographie francaise, xiii, 1975, cols 1283-85) in his own Rhetorica(Paris 1471), see E. Beltran, 'Les sources de la "Rhetorique" de Fichet', Bibliothequed'Humanisme et Renaissance, xlvii, 1985, pp. 7-25. For plagiarism by Filippo Buonaccorso (1437-96: see D. Caccamo in DBI, xv, 1972, pp. 78written c. 1476 but printed only re83) see his Rhetorica ed. C. F. Kumacently: Philippus Callimachus, Rhetorica, niecki, Warsaw 1950. For plagiarism by Giacomo Publicio see his Oratoriaeartis epitomata(Venice 1482); on him see A. Sottili, Giacomo Publicio, 'Hispanus' e la diffusione dell'Umanesimo in Germania,Barcelona 1985; idem, 'Note biografiche sui petrarchisti Giacomo Publicio e Guiniforte Barzizza e sull'umanista valenziano Giovanni und Wirkung, Serra', Petrarca1304-1374. Beitrigezu Werk ed. F. Schalk, Frankfort 1975, pp. 270-86. Already in 1476 Giovanni Calfurnio questioned George's authorship; cf. J. Monfasani, 'Calfurnio's Identification of Pseudepigrapha of Ognibene, Fenestella, and Trebizond, and His Attacks on Renaissance Commentaries', RenaissanceQuarterly, xli, 1988, pp. 32-43.

82

C. JOACHIM CLASSEN

reaction of Giorgio Merula. Evidently George's books contintued to be read for a while; but the number of printed editions was comparatively small, and thus the influence of his two major rhetorical works was somewhat limited.
*

By using this phrase, I am implying a verdict on the commentary on Cicero's in 1475, a Philippics which was printed under George's name in Venice-probably little before Giorgio Merula's commentary on Pro Ligario.40 These notes on the Philippics are totally different from both George's Rhetoricorum libri quinque and his commentary on Pro Ligario. They are restricted to factual and linguistic matters, neither interested in such rhetorical aspects as the structure of the speeches or their ductus, nor (much) in rhetorical figures41 or other matters of style; nor are they aggressive in tone or concerned to illustrate rhetorical theory through examples from oratorical practice. Instead, frequent synonyms are given, together with a surprisingly large number of Greek equivalents and also some Greek quotations from Homer and Demosthenes.42 The impression is of someone trying to introduce Greek pupils to Cicero's speeches on a fairly elementary level. Though it cannot be ruled out that George did give this kind of instruction, he can hardly be regarded as the author of these notes. For when Greek words or expressions are given,
phrases like 'quos Graeci...vocant, quod Graeci... dicunt' are used, not 'vocamus',

as George is wont to do. In one place, one even reads: 'pater dictus a Graeco vomutatis quibusdam literis' ('pater [father] is called cabulo quod est apud eos nacntToC for them is at6ci0co; after the Greek term which [father] with only some letters of Trebizond was not the author of changed').43 I conclude, therefore, that George these notes on Cicero's Philippics. However, as they were published under his name, they testify to his fame at least in the years immediately following his death. Of later writers influenced by George of Trebizond, Juan Luis Vives (14921540) and loannes Caesarius (1468-1550) both studied in Paris, where they may have become familiar with the Rhetoricorum quinque libri, and both showed their appreciation or indebtedness to George of Trebizond when they published their respective works many years later.44 Even before this, however, Jakob Locher wrote his Compendium Rhetorices (Strasbourg 1518). Locher studied in both Germany and Italy (Bologna, Padua, Florence and Venice). He was the first German humanist to edit a commentary on speeches by Cicero with rhetorical notes (1494), which he followed two years later with his Epithoma rhetoricesgraphicum (1496).45 Both works
Caesarius see H. Grilmm in Neue Dettsche Biographie (hereafter NDB), iii, 1957, pp. 90f; cf. Rhetorica Ioanniis p. 458 (no. 7610). For the text used here see In omnes Caesarii in septem libios sive trartatils, digesfa, Hagenau Ciceronis(as in n. 8), II cols 398; 411-25; 490-95; 592f; 1534. Caesarius was a pupil of Jacques L,eftvre d'Etaples, 605; 618f; 631f; 639; 659f; 666f; 673f; 685f; 697; 709f. who edited George's Isagogein 1508: cf:.Vasoli (as in n. 41 7), pp. 186, 211f, and ibid. pp. 195, 207, 210f for Exception: ibid., II col. 424, 15-19. 42 Ibid., II cols 422, 56 to 423, 1. George's influence on Lefevre d'Etaples, p. 256 for his 43 Cf. ibid., II cols 412, 12-13; 490, 28-29; 491, 24-26; iinflueniceon Latomus (see below, pp. 83f), and pp. 273, 283, 293 for his iinfluence on Caesarius. On George's 494, 30f; 593, 1-3. 44 On Vives see T. B. Deutscher in Contemporaries The of followers in Paris, the 'Georgiani', see R. Klibanlsky, Continuity Erasmus, ed. P. G. Bietenholz et al., 3 vols, Toronto of thePlatonicTraditionduring theMiddleAges... zvithPlato's Parmenidesin the Middle Ages anid the 1985-87, iii, pp. 409-13; cf.J. L. Vives, De disciplinislibri together XX, inl tres tomnosdistincti... (first edn Antwerp 1531), Renaissance,Millwvood1982, p. 15 (=p. 295 n. 2 in first Cologne 1532, p. 315 (also critical: see p. 310). On edn, 1943).
40 See Collectanea trapezuntiana, p. 759; cf. L. Hain, Reperto7izimbibliographicum, 2 vols, Stuttgart 1826-38, i.2,

GEORGE OF TREBIZOND

83

were designed for immediate practical use: by pointing to the most important features in a speech, briefly summarising the main precepts and classifying the basic concepts, Locher tried to make his pupils, or readers, understand the rules of rhetoric in theory and their application in practice, in order that they might make use of them to speak or write successfully. Twenty years or so later, in 1518, he published an annotated edition of Cicero's Pro Milone and the Compendium Rhetorices.46 As he said in the dedicatory letter to Blasius Kotterle, it was his intention in view of the large number of rhetorical handbooks and their high prices to help the poor with this Compendium, in which he presented in short form Cicero's 'new rhetoric' (i.e. the Rhetorica ad Herennium), which George of Trebizond followed so closely.47 The work itself, divided into four books, offers no more than the most essential definitions and classifications with a noticeable liking for stemmata, so that one feels reminded more of Celtis's Epitoma in utramque Ciceronis rhetoricam (Ingolstadt 1492)48 than the verbosity of George of Trebizond, especially as such a distinctive feature as the ductus is absent. At any rate, Locher is clearly familiar with George's Rhetoricorum libri quinque. He refers to them in the Compendium in a general manner,49 and in his commentary on Pro Milone for a number of details. Thus he has recourse to the Rhetorica where George explicitly cites passages or phrases from Cicero's speeches in order to illustrate a type of ratiocinatio (deduction), conquestio (complaining to excite pity), or commiseratio (appeal to pity).50 Locher also makes use of George's work where it gives an interpretation of a particular passage or uses or defines a term: for exthis case without mentioning ample, seiunctio (section to separate two issues)-in that George cited Pro Milone as an example.51 But it seems also that he is the last of those who wrote commentaries on Cicero's speeches to do so. Of the later commentators nobody mentions George's work, except for his refusal to accept Quintilian's interpretation of the beginning of Pro Ligario, which Bartholomaeus Latomus refers to briefly only to reject (1536), as does Veit Amerbach (1545).52 Others, Franciscus Sylvius, Philipp Melanchthon, Xystus Betuleius and Caelius Secundus, ignore it.53 However, it should be noted that Latomus did make use of George's Rhetorica in his
45 On Locher see G. Heidloff, Unte'sutchungen zu Ieben und Work des HumanistenJakob LocherPhilomusus(14711528), Mfinster 1975; P. Ukena in NDB, xiv, 1985, pp. 743f. On the two works see Heidloff, op. cit., pp. 21-23, 28-30; C. J. Classen, 'Cicero orator inter Germanos redivivus', Humanistica Lovaniensia, xxxvii, 1988,
48 Cf. Gesamntatalog (as in n.

103-05. 46 Cf. Heidloff, op. cit., pp. 86f, 91-94; Classen, op. cit., p. 106; for the commentary see also In omnes Ciceronis (as in n. 8), I cols 1636-42. 47 Cf. Compendium ex 7itlliano thesaurodiducRhetorices tulm ac concionatum: per lacobumnLocher Philomusum oratoriae Strasbourg 1518, fol. AIIr: 'Rhetoriprofessorfem, cam Ciceronis novam quam Georgius Trapezuntius vir disertissimus non solum filo praetento sequitur, verum etiam pene excribit, in compendium tractabile redegi et nihil penitus addidi quod Tulliana praecepta obscurare posset'. Philipp Melanchthon, on the other hand, a year later in his Ie Rhetorica lilbi tres,Wittenberg 1519, has no more than two references to George (pp. 49, 78), indicating, however, that he had originally intended to follow George's Rhetoricorml libriclosely (p. 78).

pp.

6463); Classen (as in n. 45), p. 98; on Celtis (14591508) see D. Wuttke in Iiteraturlexikon,ed. W. Killv, 15 vols, Gutersloh 1988-91, ii, pp. 395-400. 49 Cf. Compendium Rhetorices(as in n. 47), fol. CIII' (beginninggof fourth book).
50 Cf. In omnes Ciceronis (as in n. 8), I col. 1640, 38-41

17), vi, pp. 365f

(no.

libri,as in n. 4, p. 433); col. 1641, (George Rhetorirorum 58-61 (George p. 366); col. 1642, 14-17 (George p. 390). 51 Cf. ibid., I col. 1637, 44-48 (George p. 20); col. 1638, 7-11 (George p. 46). 52 On Iatomus's edition see L. Bakelants in Bibliotheca Belgica, ccxxxiv/v, Brussels 1965, p. C991; for his life
(1498-1570) see idem, ibid., ccxxvii/viii,

On Amerbach (1503-57) see W. Trusen in NDB, i, 1953, p. 248; for his commentary see Brevesenarrationesorationum Cic. pro I. Corn. Balbo, pro Iigario, pro Deiotaro,ad iret in exililm, post reditumn , & Quiint., antequtam populuml ad Quirites,et pro Q. Sestio,Ingolstadt 1545. Both texts are also in In omnesCiceronis (as in n. 8): I cols 2035-38 aind 2039-45, with references to George of Trebizond cols 2036, 2 and 2040, 43-49.

1963, p. 1,704.

C. JOACHIM CLASSEN own Summa totius rationis disserendi uno eodemque corporeet dialecticas et rhetoricaspartes complectens (1527).54 The same can be said of Bartolomeo Cavalcanti,55 of Ioannes Caesarius in his Rhetorica (1534) for some details,56 and of Mario Nizolio in his De veris principiis et vera ratione philosophandi to prove 'rhetoric's superiority over logic'. 57 Others, Leonard Cox and Natalis de Comitibus, are content to name or to praise his Rhetorica.58 In addition it should be noted that the Isagoge received far more attention, was printed more frequently and was also commented upon, for example by Christoph Hegendorff, Bartholomaeus Latomus andJohannes Noviomagus.59 There is, however, one last rather mysterious figure I have to mention here at the end: Jacob Bugelius, who published several commentaries on Ciceronian in Paris and In between 1538 1543.60 his on Pro Sestio, after speeches commentary the last of the sentence third he remarks with reference to quoting paragraph 'pietatis potius quam defensionis' ('of gratitude rather than of defence'): 'Trapezuntius hanc figuram electionem vocat, et inter schemata circumductionis recenset' ('George of Trebizond calls this figure electio [choice] and places it amongst the forms of an elaborate period').61 Indeed, in his discussion of the schemata circumductionis George defines electio: 'When though we believe that something must most certainly be done because of something, yet we show that it also has to be undertaken because of something else', and he adds, 'ut pro L. Cor. Balbo', citing the sentence mentioned above.62 Bugelius aptly adduces George's definition, ignoring the wrong reference. Clearly the polemical spirit which permeated George's Rhetoricorum libri quinque and his commentary, provoking such attacks as that of Giorgio Merula, had died away, while his Rhetorica as a whole still provided arguments which could be used to prove rhetoric's special worth; and some particular observations, definitions and precepts lived on in various handbooks. However, it was his Isagoge dialectica which was widely read and commented on. Thus it was not the originality of George's approach to rhetoric, but rather the usefulness of his introduction to argumentation which secured him fame long after his death.
GEORG AUGUST UNIVERSITAT, GOTTINGEN Noviomagus (Jan Bronchorst, 1494-1570) see Bakelants (as in n. 52), ccxxix/xxx, 1964, p. L763 (also on Noviomagus's life); the work of the two authors was published first in Paris in 1527 and again in 1528, but only copies of later editions have been preserved; J. Monfasani assumes the Cologne 1533 edition to have been the first with Noviomagus's commentary (as in n. 1, p. 334; Collectaneatrapezuntiana,p. 475). For an Italian translation by Orazio Toscanella (Venice 1567; Coll. trap., p. 477) see Bakelants, op. cit., p. 769. 60 Pro Sestio, Paris 1538; 1546; De lege agraria I, Paris 1540; Post reditum ad Senatum, Paris 1540; Pro rege Deiotaro,Paris 1543. All appear also in In omnesCiceronis (as in n. 8): I cols 1441-43; 691-93; 1249f; 2098-100; also commentaries on De domosua, cols 1250-1253; and cols 1598f. Deprovinciisconsularibus, 61 Cf. ibid., I col. 1441, 21-24. 62 Rhetoricorum libri (as in n. 4), p. 457: 'Electio est quum, etsi alicuius gratia maxime quicquam faciendum arbitramur, tamen et propter aliud suscipiendum ostendimus, ut pro L. Cor. Balbo'.

84

53 For the commentaries of Franciscus Sylvius and the others see ibid., cols 2019-35; 2038f; 2045-50; 2050-67. 54 Cf. Bakelants (as in n. 52), ccxxix/xxx, 1964, L735. p. 55 Della retorica, Venice 1528; on the author (1503-62) see C. Mutini in DBI, xxii, 1979, pp. 611-17. 56 Cited in n. 44: cf. fols CVIIr, EVIIr, GIII'-IVr, and fols GIVr, GVIIr-', for excerpts from George's Rhetorica GVIII' etc. 57 Parma 1553; e.g. pp. 228, 272f, 304, 306, 309, 31114, 317 passim; cf. Vasoli (as in n. 7), pp. 603-32; Monfasani, p. 320. 58 For Cox's Arte or (1532) see MonCrafteof Rhethoryke fasani, p. 319; on the author (1500-49) P. G. Bietenholz in Contemporaries of Erasmus (as in n. 44), i, p. 354. For de Comitibus, De terminisrhetoricis libri V, Basle 1560, see Lojacono (as in n. 1), p. 99 n. 69; on the author (152082) R. Ricciardo in DBI, xxviii, 1984, pp. 454-57. 59 Cf. C. Hegendorphinus, Isagoge,de rectodecem praediDialectica 7rapezontii.. camentorum usu, inter profitendum dictata, Hagenau 1529; on the author (1500-40) see H. Grimm in NDB, viii, 1969, pp. 227f; for Latomus and