§ p  Dionysius of Halicarnassus, excerpt from Ancient Orators
“Great is the gratitude due to our own age, most excellent Ammaeus, not only on account of the recent improvement in other pursuits, but above all because of the great advance made in the study of Civil Oratory. In the times before our own the ancient and philosophic rhetoric was flouted, grossly outraged, and brought lower and lower. Its decline and gradual decay began with the death of Alexander of Macedon, and in our own generation it reached the verge of final extinction. Another rhetoric stole into its place,—one intolerably ostentatious, shameless and dissolute, and without part in philosophy or any other liberal discipline. Craftily it deluded the ignorant multitude. Not only did it live in greater affluence and luxury and style than its predecessor, but it attached to itself those offices and those foremost public positions, which should have been held by the philosophic rhetoric. Very vulgar it was and offensive, and in the end it reduced Hellas to the same plight as the households of miserable prodigals. For just as in their houses the wedded wife, free-born and virtuous, sits with no authority over what is hers, while a riotous mistress, by her presence spreading confusion in the home, claims rule over all the property, spurning and intimidating the wife: so in every city and not least (which was the worst calamity of all) in the recognised centres of culture, the Attic Muse, ancient and sprung from the soil though she was, had been robbed of her dignities and covered with dishonour, whereas her rival, who had come but yesterday from one of the dens of Asia, a Mysian or Phrygian wanton or some Carian abomination, presumed to govern Greek states, driving the true queen from the public council-chambers,—the ignorant ousting the philosophic, the wild the chaste.’

§ 1  Dionysius to his friend Ammaeus WITH CORDIAL GREETINGS.
Our age has produced many strange paradoxes; and among them I was inclined to class the following proposition when I first heard it from yourself. You said that a certain Peripatetic philosopher, in his desire to do all homage to Aristotle the founder of his school, undertook to demonstrate that it was from him that Demosthenes learnt the rules of rhetoric which he applied in his own speeches, and that it was through conformity to the Aristotelian precepts that he became the foremost of all orators. Yow my first impression was that this bold disputant was a person of no consequence, and I advised you not to pay heed to every chance paradox. But when on hearing his name I found him to be a man whom I respect on account of his high personal qualities and his literary merits, I did not know what to think; and after careful reflection I felt that the matter needed a more attentive inquiry. It was possible that I had failed to discern the truth and that he had not spoken at random. I wished, therefore, either to relinquish my previous opinion if convinced that the Rhetoric of Aristotle preceded the speeches of Demosthenes, or to induce the person who has adopted this view, and is prepared to put it in writing·, to change it before giving his treatise to the world.

§ 2  You have yourself furnished me with a powerful motive for a thorough investigation of the truth. For you have invited me to state the arguments by which I have convinced myself that it was not till Demosthenes had reached his prime, and had delivered his most celebrated speeches, that Aristotle wrote his Rhetoric. And you seemed to me, further, to be right in counselling me not to rest my case on mere indications or probabilities or pieces of extraneous evidence, since no such proof is absolutely’ conclusive, but rather to bring forward Aristotle himself as witnessing by' means of his own treatise to the truth of my view. This I have done, my dear Ammaeus, out of regard not only for the truth, which I think ought to be fully sifted in every’ issue, but for the satisfaction of all who are interested in civil oratory’. I would not have them think that all the precepts of rhetoric are included in the Peripatetic philosophy, and that nothing important has been devised by men such as Theodorus and Thrasymachus and Antiphon, nor by Isocrates and Anaximenes and Alcidamas, nor by their contemporaries who composed rhetorical handbooks and engaged in oratorical contests—such men as Theodectes and Philiscus and Isaeus and Cephisodorus, together with Hyperides and Lycurgus and Aeschines. Nor would I have it thought that Demosthenes himself, who surpassed all his predecessors and contemporaries and defies the rivalry of the ages, would not have risen so high if he had only obeyed the precepts of Isocrates and Isaeus and had not mastered the Rhetoric of Aristotle.

§ 3  ‘That story is not true,’ my dear Ammaeus, nor did the Rhetoric of Aristotle, which was issued at a later date, govern the composition of the speeches of Demosthenes. These were indebted to other teachers, concerning whom I will state my views in a separate work, since the subject needs full discussion and could not well be treated by the way. Meanwhile I will endeavour to show that, at the time when Aristotle wrote his Rhetoric, Demosthenes was already at the height of his public career and had delivered his most celebrated speeches, forensic and deliberative, and was famous throughout Greece for his eloquence. And perhaps I ought first of all to mention the facts I have taken from the current histories, which the compilers of biographies have bequeathed to us. I will begin with Demosthenes.

§ 4  Demosthenes was born in the year preceding the hundredth Olympiad. In the archonship of Timocrates [364/3 BCE] he had entered upon his seventeenth year....He commenced to write public speeches in the archonship of Callistratus [355/4 BCE], when twenty-five years of age. The first of his forensic speeches is that against Androtion, written for Diodorus, who was arraigning the proposal of Androtion as unconstitutional. Another belonging to the same period—that of the archonship of Callistratus—is the speech on the Exemptions. This he delivered himself; it is the most graceful and the best written of all his speeches. Under Diotimus, who succeeded Callistratus, he pronounced before the Athenians his first parliamentary oration, that entitled On the Navy Boards in the bibliographical lists of the orators. In this speech he urged the Athenians not to break the peace concluded with the Persian King nor be the first to make war, unless they should have organised their navy, in which their chief strength lay. He himself suggests a method of organisation. Under Thudemus, who succeeded Diotimus as archon, he wrote the speech Against Timocrates for the use of Diodorus, who was prosecuting Timocrates as the proposer of an unconstitutional measure. The oration On the Relief of the Megalopolitans he delivered himself in the assembly. Thudemus was succeeded by Aristodemus, in whose archonship Demosthenes began his orations against Philip, and delivered a speech before the people on the dispatch of the mercenary force and of the flying squadron of ten galleys to Macedonia . At this time he also wrote his speech Against Aristocrates for Euthycles, who was arraigning an unconstitutional proposal. Under Theellus, who came next after Aristodemus, he delivered his oration On the Rhodians, in which he sought to persuade the Athenians to abolish the Rhodian oligarchy and enfranchise the commons. Under Callimachus [349/8 BCE], the second archon in succession to Theellus, he delivered three orations, urging the Athenians to send reinforcements to the Olynthians, against whom war was being waged by Philip. The first begins, ‘In many instances, men of Athens, one may see"; the second, ‘Not the same thoughts present themselves to my mind, men of Athens’; the third, ‘You would, men of Athens, give a great price .’ During this same archonship was written the speech Against Meidias, which Demosthenes composed after the vote of censure passed on Meidias by the people.
I have so far mentioned twelve public speeches, seven of the deliberative, five of the forensic order. All of these are earlier than the Rhetoric of Aristotle, as I will prove both from what others relate concerning that author and from his own writings. I begin with his biography.

§ 5  Aristotle was the son of Nicomachus, who traced his pedigree and his profession to Machaon, the son of Asclepius. His mother, Phaestis, was descended from one of those who led the colony to Stageira from Chalcis. He was born in the ninety-ninth Olympiad, when Diotrephes was archon [384/3 BCE] at Athens, and was, therefore, three years older than Demosthenes. In the archonship of Polyzelus, after his father’s death, he went to Athens, being then eighteen years of age. Having been introduced to the society of Plato, he spent a period of twenty years with him. Upon Plato’s death, in the archonship of Theophilus, he repaired to Hermias, despot of Atarneus, and after spending three years with him retired to Mytilene in the archonship of Eubulus [345/4 BCE]. Thence he proceeded, during the archonship of Pythodotus, to the court of Philip, and spent eight years there as Alexander’s tutor. After the death of Philip, in the archonship of Evaenetus [335/4 BCE], he returned to Athens, and taught in the Lyceum for a space of twelve years. In the thirteenth year, after the death of Alexander in the archonship of Cephisodorus [323/2 BCE], he betook himself to Chalcis, where he fell ill and died at the age of sixty-three.

§ 6  Such, then, are the records transmitted to us by the biographers of Aristotle. What the philosopher says of himself in his own writings completely cuts away the ground beneath the feet of those who wish to assign him honours to which he is not entitled. In addition to many other proofs, none of which I need recall at present, there is the passage he has written in the First Look of the treatise in question. Here we have the strongest evidence that he was no stripling when he composed the Rhetoric, but in the prime of life, having previously published his treatises the Topics, the Analytics, and the Methodics. At the commencement of the section in which he sets forth the advantages embraced in the art of rhetoric, he has the following words which are here quoted as they stand: 'Rhetoric is useful because truth and justice are, by nature, stronger than their opposites. If, therefore, judicial trials do not end as they should, a man’s defeat must be due to himself; and this is deserving of censure. Moreover, in addressing some audiences, it is not easy, even when we possess the most exact and methodical knowledge, to carry conviction by means of it. For methodical statement is a kind of instruction; and instruction is here out of the question. But in our proofs and arguments we must make use of processes understood by all, as we remarked in the Topics when treating of the manner of addressing the multitude.

§ 7  In the passage in which he sets himself to show that ‘examples’ and ‘enthymemes ’ are equivalent to ‘inductions' and ‘syllogisms,’ Aristotle has the following reference·to his Analytics and his Methodics. ‘Of proofs obtained by real or apparent demonstration there are, in Dialectic, these varieties; induction, syllogism, and apparent syllogism. So also in Rhetoric, where example corresponds to induction, enthymeme to syllogism, and apparent enthymeme to apparent syllogism. By “enthymeme” I mean a rhetorical syllogism, and by "example” a rhetorical induction. Everyone relies for demonstrative proof in Rhetoric upon examples and enthymemes; upon these and these only. If, therefore, it is absolutely necessary that whatever is proved should be proved either by syllogism or by induction—and this is plain to us from the Analytics—it follows of necessity that enthymeme and example are respectively identical with syllogism and induction. The difference between example and enthymeme is clear from the Topics. In that work we have already said, when treating of syllogism and induction, that the proving of a rule in many similar instances is called an induction in Dialectic and an example in Rhetoric; while the conclusion that from certain premisses something different follows, because of these and owing to the fact that these are true either universally or as a general rule, is called a syllogism in Dialectic and an enthymeme in Rhetoric. It is evident that each form of rhetorical argument has its own strong points, the statement made in the Methodics holding good here also.’ In writing thus Aristotle has given unequivocal evidence about himself to the effect that he composed the Rhetoric in his later years and after the publication of his most important treatises. These are the proofs by which I think I have sufficiently demonstrated what I proposed to make clear, that the orator had practised the art of speaking before the philosopher had formulated the theory. In fact, Demosthenes began at the age of twenty-five to engage in public affairs, to address the assembly, and to write speeches for the lawcourts. About the same period Aristotle was still a disciple of Plato, and he lived to be seven-and-thirty without any school to lead and without any body of personal adherents.

§ 8  Possibly, however, some captious critic will raise an objection even in the face of these conclusions. He may admit that the Rhetoric was written later than the Analytics and Methodics and Topics, but maintain that Aristotle may very well have composed all these treatises while still a disciple in the school of Plato. Such a contention is absurdly improbable; it is a violent attempt to commend the wretched paradox that it is likely that the unlikely may at times occur. Omitting, therefore, what I could have said in reply, I turn to the pieces of evidence which Aristotle himself furnishes in the Third Book of the Rhetoric, where he has these words (here quoted word for word) on the subject of metaphor: ‘Of the four kinds of metaphor, the proportional are the most in repute. It is thus that Pericles compared the loss of the youth of a state in war to taking the spring out of the year....So also, when Chares was eager to have his conduct in the Olynthian War submitted to a scrutiny, Cephisodotus impatiently exclaimed that he wanted to secure such a scrutiny while he had the people by the throat.’

§ 9  Thus does the philosopher himself clearly prove that he wrote the Rhetoric after the Olynthian War. Now that war took place in the archonship of Callimachus, as Philochorus shows in the Sixth Book of his Atthis, where his words (exactly given) are: ‘Callimachus of the deme Pergase. In his time the Olynthians, attacked by Philip, sent ambassadors to Athens. The Athenians made an alliance with them and sent to their aid two thousand targeteers, and thirty galleys under the command of Chares, as well as eight others which they put into commission for the occasion'-.’ Next, after describing the few intervening events, he proceeds: ‘About the same time the Chalcidians of the Thracian seaboard were harassed by the war and sent an embassy to Athens. The Athenians dispatched to their assistance Charidemus, who held command in the Hellespont. Charidemus brought with him eighteen galley’s and four thousand targeteers and a hundred and fifty’ horsemen. Supported by the Olynthians, he advanced into Pallene and Bottiaea, and ravaged the country.’ Later on he writes thus on the subject of the third alliance: ‘The Olynthians sent a fresh embassy to the Athenians, begging them not to see them irretrievably ruined, but to send out, in addition to the troops already there, a force consisting not of mercenaries but of Athenian citizens. Thereupon the Athenian people sent them other seventeen galleys, together with two thousand heavy-armed infantry and three hundred horsemen conveyed in transports, the whole force being composed of citizens. The entire expedition was under the command of Chares.’

§ 10  Enough has been already said to expose the vain pretensions of those who affirm that the Rhetoric of Aristotle inspired Demosthenes. Before the date of the Rhetoric, Demosthenes had already delivered four orations against Philip and three on the affairs of Greece. He had also written for the law-courts five public speeches, which no one could brand as inferior, poor, and showing no signs of technical mastery, because composed earlier than the Rhetoric. Having, however, advanced thus far, I shall not halt, but show that his most famous speeches generally, whether addressed to the people or to the law-courts, had been delivered before the publication of the Rhetoric. Once more Aristotle himself shall be my witness. After the archonship of Callimachus, in whose year of office the Athenians sent their reinforcements to Olynthus at the instance of Demosthenes, came the archonship of Theophilus, in whose time Olynthus fell into the hands of Philip. Next came Themistocles, under whom Demosthenes pronounced the fifth of his orations against Philip. This speech, which is concerned with the protection of the islanders and the cities of the Hellespont, begins as follows: ‘This, men of Athens, is what I have been able to contrive.’ Under Archias, the successor of Themistocles, Demosthenes urged the Athenians not to attempt to hinder Philip from becoming a member of the Amphictyonic Council, nor to give him an occasion for reopening the war, now that they had recently made peace with him. This oration begins thus: 'I see, men of Athens, that the present crisis .’ Archias was succeeded by Eubulus, and he by Lyciscus. It was in Lyciscus’ year of office that Demosthenes pronounced the seventh of his orations against Philip. He there replies to the envoys from the Peloponnese, and begins thus: ‘When, men of Athens, speeches are made .’ The next archon to Lyciscus was Pythodotus, [343/2 BCE] under whom Demosthenes replied to the envoys of Philip by the delivery of the eighth of the orations which bear the king’s name. The opening of this speech is: ‘It is not possible, men of Athens, that the accusations.’ At the same time he also composed the speech against Aeschines, who had to render an account of his conduct in the second embassy, the object of which was to bind Philip by oaths. The successor of Pythodotus was Sosigenes, under whom he delivered the ninth oration against Philip, that on the soldiers in the Chersonese, the aim of which was to prevent the disbandment of the mercenaries commanded by Diopeithes. This begins: ‘It would be best, men of Athens, that all public speakers .’ Under the same archon he delivered the tenth speech, in which he endeavoured to show that Philip was violating the peace and was the aggressor in the war. The speech begins: ‘Although many speeches, men of Athens, are made.’ After Sosigenes the next archon was Nicomachus, in whose time he delivered the eleventh oration, on the subject of the violation of the peace by Philip, and urged the Athenians to send reinforcements to the people of Byzantium. It begins: ‘Serious as I consider, men of Athens.’ In the archonship of Theophrastus, who followed Nicomachus, Demosthenes urged the Athenians to sustain the war bravely. Philip having already declared it. This, the last of the orations against Philip, opens thus: ‘The fact that Philip did not, men of Athens, make peace with you, but only deferred the war.’

§ 11  To show that all the speeches I have enumerated were delivered by Demosthenes before the publication of the Rhetoric of Aristotle, I will bring forward Aristotle himself as witness. In the course of the passage in the Second Book of the Rhetoric, in which he defines the topics from which enthymemes are derived, he deals with that of time and illustrates it by examples. I will quote his actual words. ‘Another topic has reference to time. For example, Iphicrates in defending himself against Harmodius said, “ If before rendering these services I had claimed the statue in the event of rendering them, you would have granted it. Will you refuse it, when they are already rendered? Nay, do not promise a reward in anticipation, and withhold it after realisation.” Again, with the object of inducing the Thebans to allow Philip a passage through their territory into Attica, it might be urged that if he had made the demand before he helped them against the Phocians they would have promised, and it would therefore be a scandal if they refused the request now because he then trusted to their honour and forbore to extort pledges .’
Now the date at which Philip called upon the Thebans to grant him a passage into Attica reminding them of his help in the Phocian War, is clear from known facts. The circumstances were as follows. In the archonship of Themistocles, after the capture of Olynthus, Philip made a treaty of friendship and alliance with the Athenians. This covenant lasted seven years, till the year of Nicomachus. It was brought, to an end under the archon Theophrastus, who succeeded Nicomachus. The Athenians accused Philip of beginning the war, while Philip blamed the Athenians. The reasons for which the two parties, each of which claimed to be in the right, engaged in the war, and the date at which they violated the peace, are precisely indicated by Philochorus in the Sixth Book of his Atthis, from which I will quote simply the essential particulars: ‘Theophrastus of the deme Halae. Under his archonship Philip, first of all, attacked Perinthus by sea. Failing here, he next laid siege to Byzantium and brought engines of war against it .’ Afterwards he recounts the allegations which Philip made against the Athenians in his letter, and adds these words which I quote as they stand: ‘The people, after listening to the letter and to the exhortations of Demosthenes, who advocated war and framed the necessary resolutions, passed a resolution to demolish the column erected to record the treaty of peace and alliance with Philip, and further to man a fleet and in every other way to prosecute the war energetically.’
After assigning these events to the archonship of Theophrastus, he describes the occurrences of the succeeding year when Lysimachides was archon after the violation of the peace. Here again I will quote only the most essential particulars. ‘Lysimachides of the deme Acharnae. Under this archon the Athenians, in consequence of the war against Philip, deferred the construction of the docks and the arsenal. They resolved, on the motion of Demosthenes, that all the funds should be devoted to the campaign. But Philip seized Elateia and Cytinium, and sent to Thebes representatives of the Thessalians, Aenianians, Aetolians, Dolopians, Phthiotians. An embassy, headed by Demosthenes, was at the same time despatched by the Athenians, with whom the Thebans resolved to enter into alliance.’ Now it is clear that it was under the archonship of Lysimachides, when both sides had already made preparations for war, that the Athenian envoys headed by Demosthenes and those sent by Philip entered Thebes. Demosthenes himself, in his speech On the Crown, will show clearly what were the claims preferred by the two embassies. I will quote from the actual text the parts which bear upon the question. By these means Philip sowed discord among the Greek states; and encouraged by the decrees and answers already mentioned, he came with his army and seized Elateia. He assumed that, whatever happened, we and the Thebans could never again act in concert.’ Moreover, after describing the events which then ensued and describing also the speeches delivered by himself before the public assembly and the circumstances under which he was sent by the Athenians as an ambassador to Thebes, he adds (to quote his actual words): ‘When we arrived at Thebes, we found representatives of Philip, of the Thessalians and of the rest of the allies, already there and our friends in a state of alarm, his full of confidence.’ Then, after requesting a certain letter to be read, he continues: ‘So when the Thebans had convened the assembly, they introduced Philip’s representatives first, because they had the status of allies. And these came forward and addressed the people, paying many compliments to Philip, and laying to your charge many faults, recalling every instance in which you at any time opposed the Thebans. In brief, they urged them to show their gratitude for the favours conferred upon them by Philip, and to seek satisfaction for the wrongs done them by you. They might avenge themselves in either of the two following ways as they pleased; they might allow Philip’s troops to pass through their territory to attack you, or they might join him in invading Attica.’ Now if it was in the archonship of Lysimachides, the successor of Theophrastus, and after the peace had been dissolved, that the ambassadors of Philip were sent to the Thebans urging them to join in invading Attica, or (failing that) to allow Philip the right of passage in recognition of his services in the Phocian War, and if further this is the embassy mentioned by Aristotle, as I showed a little earlier when I cited his own words, then surely it is demonstrated by irrefutable proofs that all the speeches of Demosthenes which were addressed to public assemblies and to law-courts before the archonship of Lysimachides are earlier than the Rhetoric of Aristotle.

§ 12  I will add another piece of evidence furnished by the philosopher, from which it will appear still more plainly that his Rhetoric was composed after the war which broke out between Philip and the Athenians, when Demosthenes had reached his prime as a statesman and had delivered all the deliberative and the forensic speeches which I mentioned a little while ago. Among the topics of enthymemes enumerated by him, the philosopher includes that of cause. I will adduce his· own words. ‘Another topic consists in regarding what is no cause as a cause, because (it may be) one thing happens with or after another. Post hoc is assumed to be identical with propter hoc; and this is specially the case in the world of politics. Demades, for example, considered the administration of Demosthenes to have caused all the troubles of the state, for it was thereafter that the war occurred.’ Now what can the speeches have been which Demosthenes composed under the guidance of the Rhetoric of Aristotle if (as I have previously shown) all the public addresses on which his reputation and fame depend preceded the war ? The sole exception is the speech On the Crown. This, and this alone, came before a tribunal after the war, in the archonship of Aristophon [330/29 BCE], eight years after the battle of Chaeroneia, six years after the death of Philip, at the time of Alexander’s victory at Arbela.
If some captious critic suggests that possibly Demosthenes did not write this, the best of all his speeches, before he had perused the Rhetoric of Aristotle, I have much to say in reply to him. But in order that my discussion may not run to undue length, I engage to show, on the evidence of Aristotle himself, that this oration also was completed before the publication of the Rhetoric. In dealing with the topic of enthymemes derived from relative terms, he writes the exact words which follow. ‘Another topic is that derived from relative terms. If the terms “honorably” or “justly” can be applied to the man who acts, they can also be applied to the man who is affected by the action; if they can be applied to a command, they can also be applied to its execution. In this spirit the tax-gatherer Diomedon exclaimed: “If it is no discredit to you to sell the taxes, it is no discredit to us to buy them.” And if the terms “honorably ” or “justly” can be applied to a man affected by an action, they can also be applied to the action itself and to the man who has done or is doing it. This is a case of unsound argument. For if a man has been justly treated, it does not necessarily follow that he has been justly treated by a particular agent. Accordingly we must consider separately whether the treatment is right and whether the action is right, and then deal with the case in whichever of the two ways seems the more suitable. For sometimes there is a distinction to be made, as in the Alcmaeon of Theodectes.
Another example is the trial in which Demosthenes and those who slew Nicanor were involved.’ What, then, is the trial of Demosthenes [and of those who slew Nicanor] to which Aristotle here refers, in which the most important point in the controversy was derived from the topic of relative terms? It is that in which he defended, against Aeschines, Ctesiphon, who had proposed to crown Demosthenes and was on his trial as the author of an unconstitutional measure. For in this case the point at issue was not the general question whether Demosthenes deserved honours and crowns as having provided for the construction of the fortifications out of his own means, but whether he deserved these things while he was an official liable to account, and notwithstanding the fact that it was illegal to crown men who were so liable. Here we have the topic of relative terms: the point is whether a man liable to account had the same right to receive, as the people to give, the crown. It is my opinion, therefore, that Aristotle refers to this trial. If, however, it is maintained that the reference is to the accusation of corruption against which Demosthenes pleaded in the archonship of Anticles, about the time of the death of Alexander, this will prove that the Rhetoric of Aristotle is later than the speeches of Demosthenes by a still greater interval.
But enough. The orator did not derive from the philosopher the rules of rhetoric which he embodied in his celebrated speeches. On the contrary, Aristotle wrote his Rhetoric with the works of Demosthenes, and the other orators, within his reach. I have, I think, proved my point.