The language of the times was Latin, but "Rhetoric" was written in Greek. This posed no problems with regard to Cicero because De Inventione was written in Latin, which made it more readily available in the middle ages. Aristotle's Rhetoric did receive translations into Latin, however the quality and quantity of those translations were lacking.
The first translation of a commentary on Aristotle's rhetoric was done by an Arab. This commentary carried a very poor reputation for two reasons. First, it was not a direct translation, therefore it contained opinion on the text of rhetoric, rather than a pure translation. Second, the translation itself was considered so bad that it was literally impossible to understand. However, this translation was not the only one that gained a poor reputation. The second translation of Rhetoric shared the poor reput ation of the first. It was called the "Old Translation" and it survives in only three manuscripts today. This translation was never used in teaching and it was considered a failure like the first. There were translations, however, that did gain popularit y because of the quality of their translation.
The "Second Translation" was written by an associate of Thomas Aquinas and is considered the typical Latin version of the times. This translation carried no influence from its predecessors in that it was a direct, ver-batim translation. It also carried no commentary. That fact, coupled with support from Thomas Aquinas gained this translation some recognition. Ninety-Six manuscripts of the "Second Translation" exist today. Even though it was considered the typical Latin version at the time, there was one m ore translation that had an even greater impact on the fate of Aristotle's Rhetoric in the middle ages.
A commentary written by Aegidius changed the basis of the rhetoric of Aristotle and its uses when applied to schooling. This translation contained extended commentary on each line and in many cases single words from the Rhetoric. This commentary pointed to Aristotle's rhetoric as being more applicable to morals, ethics and politics, as opposed to dialectic as it was originally intended. Therefore instead of being used in reference to dialectic, it was used as a supplement to teaching morals, ethics and pol itics.
Aristotle did not receive recognition for his work dealing with rhetoric until the late middle ages, and when he did, the practical use of his work took a different route. The translations of his Rhetoric were few and only two were considered credible, therefore when schools did begin using the translations of his work, they were more applicable to politics. Cicero's work was used for teaching rhetoric and Aristotle's work got left behind. Even though Aristotle is considered the source on rhetoric today, in the middle ages, his work was seen in the shadow of Cicero.
Jacqueline M. Lee, JML2384@uncwil.edu