Rhetorical Argumentation in Philo of Alexandria

Abstract

Rhetorical Argumentation in Philo of Alexandria, by Manuel Alexandre, Jr. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1999. Pp. xx + 302. $34.95. Alexandre declares that his purpose in this book to show that ancient rhetorical theories of argumentation can help us understand the and basic literary motivation (p. xiii) of Philo's discourse. He believes this the case not only with the speech-- like discourses but also with Philo's exegetical comments on scripture. The book commences with a commendatory preface by Burton L. Mack, after which Alexandre offers a general introduction to the current status of Philonic studies. Part 1 of the book, comprising 80 pages, situates Philo in the context of rhetorical argumentation. In part 2 (150 pages) Alexandre sets out his analysis of the formal structure of De Vita Mosis and Quod Omnis Probus Liber Sit and of five discourses embedded in treatises, for example, De Sacrificiis Abelis et Caini 21-44. In ch. 4 of part 2, he tracks the structure of complete arguments in such documents as Legum Allegoriae II and De Joespho, as well as the elaborate development of a theme in, e.g., De Migratione Abrahami. In ch. 5 he scrutinizes rhythmic and periodic structures in such discourses as Legatio ad Gaium 53-56. The work ends with observations on the philosophical character of Philo's rhetorical argumentation as a technique of argumentation and exposition. The book contains a thirty-three-page bibliography as well as indices on passages from Philo, ancient and modern authors, and Greek, Latin, and English rhetorical terms. In the general introduction Alexandre does an excellent job in short order of depicting the present state of Philonic studies. Though he published a book in Portuguese, Argurnentaco Retorica em Flon de Alexandria, in 1990, he has brought this 1999 English version up-to-date in comment and bibliography. He mentions the work of the major Philo scholars and the Philonic centers in Chicago, Claremont, Berkeley, Lyon, Italy, and Trondheim. Alexandre himself was involved in the first two centers. He declares that this book is the fullest investigation ever attempted of Philo's knowledge and use of (p. 18). I concur and affirm that any future scrutiny of Philonic rhetoric must commence with this book. In part I Alexandre situates Philo in the context of ancient rhetorical argument. This an insightful, thorough, and judicious presentation. Alexandre cites not only the appropriate ancient rhetorical works but abreast of current discussions in Europe and America. He takes up the rhetoricians historically beginning with the Greeks. He notes that the Greeks focused on the differences between philosophical and rhetorical arguments locating the differences, especially after Aristotle, in formal logic and enthymemes. Alexandre, however, more interested in the formal structures of the manner in which arguments unfold than in those views of the audience that determine the beginning points for arguments, which was the focus of Aristotle's observations. Alexandre writes that the success of the arguments depends upon -the listener's cooperative interaction (p. 43). I suggest that Aristotle gave the audience a more significant role. For him persuasion was based upon the speaker identifying the premises of the audience and employing them as beginning points for arguments. The premises located in the auditors were, for Aristotle, the grist of enthymemes. The later rhetoricians refocused the enthymeme, centering rather upon the form. Alexandre traces developments from Aristotle through the Rhetorica ad Alexandrum, Rhetorica ad Herennium, Cicero, Quintilian, Aelius Theon, and Hermogenes, ending with a synoptic chart. While such a chart of help in locating the varying observations, no ancient prepared a discourse employing such a synopsis. At first I was skeptical of Alexandre's efforts to establish that Philo was educated in and deeply immersed in ancient rhetoric. …