Book ReviewRhetoric in Antiquity , trans. W. E. Higgins by Laurent PernotReview by: William J. DominikRhetorica: A Journal of the History of Rhetoric, Vol. 25, No. 2 (Spring 2007), pp. 205-209Published by: University of California Press on behalf of the International Society for the Historyof RhetoricStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/rh.2007.25.2.205 .

Accessed: 01/12/2014 01:06

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

University of California Press and International Society for the History of Rhetoric are collaborating withJSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Rhetorica: A Journal of the History of Rhetoric.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 139.80.78.9 on Mon, 1 Dec 2014 01:06:53 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

A Journal of the History of Rhetoric

VOLUME 25, NUMBER 2 • SPRING 2007

Published by University of California Press for The International Society for the History of Rhetoric

This content downloaded !Tom 139.80.78.9 on Mon, I Dec 2014 0 I :04:40AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

REVIEWS

Laurent Pernot, Rhetoric in Antiquity, trans. W. E. Higgins (Washing­ton, D. C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 2005), pp. xiv + 269,$27.95, paper, ISBN 0-8132-1407-6.

Rhetoric in Antiquity is one in a series of volumes that have been pub­lished or are in preparation that provide an overview or explore important aspects of rhetoric in the Greek and Roman worlds. Translated by W. E. Hig­gins from the original French version of Laurent Pernot published in 2000 as La Rhetorique dans l'Antiquite (Paris: Librarie Generale Fran<;aise, 2000), this book seems designed mainly to serve as an introduction for general readers and students of rhetorical theory and practice from the Homeric to imperial periods. Pernot' s structure is traditional: there are six chronological chapters covering Homeric, sophistic, Athenian, Hellenistic, republican, and imperial rhetoric; these chapters include six excurses that take up issues of particular significance to the author.

A short introduction (pp. vii-xiv) stresses Pernot's aim of providing a history of the practice and theory of Greek and Roman rhetoric and contains a synopsis of the different conceptions and definitions of rhetoric; the first excursus considers the utility of rhetoric in modern scholarship as evidenced by the popularity of the phrase "the rhetoric of" in the titles of various studies. Chapters 1 and 2 examine the origins of Greek rhetoric. In chapter 1 ("Rhetoric Before Rhetoric," pp. 1-9) Pernot views the speeches of the Iliad and Odyssey as evidence of an awareness of rhetoric, especially technical terms, although he rightly observes that Homer did not anticipate its rules. The speeches of the characters in Homeric epic define their personalities as well as reveal their oratorical abilities. In his treatment of the centuries following Homer, Pernot emphasizes the links not only between oratory and the Greek polis, especially in the development of Athenian democracy, but also between oratory and literature. Chapter 2 ("Sophistic Revolution," pp. 10-23) explores the "invention" of rhetoric and its attribution to various figures such as Empedokles of Agrigentum, Korax and Tisias. The focus is mainly on the sophists, especially Gorgias, and their role in the development of Greek rhetoric and more generally in Athenian society. An excursus on the word rhetorike challenges not only Edward Schiappa's view (American Journal of Philology 111 [1990]: 457-70) that it was coined by Plato but also

Rhetorica, Vol. XXV, Issue 2, pp. 205-209, ISSN 0734-8584, electronic ISSN 1533-8541. ©2007 by The International Society for the History of Rhetoric. All rights re­served. Please direct all requests for permission to photocopy or reproduce article content through the University of California Press's Rights and Permissions website, at http://www. ucpressjournals.com/ reprintlnfo.asp. DOl: 10.1525 /RH.2007.25.2.205.

This content downloaded from 139.80.78.9 on Mon, I Dec 2014 01:06:53 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

205

206 RHETORICA

Thomas Cole's thesis (The Origins of Rhetoric in Ancient Greece [1991]) that the discipline of rhetoric itself was invented by Plato and Aristotle.

Chapters 3 and 4 address Athenian and Hellenistic rhetoric respectively. In chapter 3 ("The Athenian Movement," pp. 24-56) Pernot covers rhetoric at Athens from the end of the Peloponnesian war to the death of Alexander the Great (404-323 BCE). After examining the practice of oratory at Athens in the judicial, political, and ceremonial contexts, Pernot reviews the conditions that made it possible for the different types of speeches to emerge in these different settings, then discusses and compares the careers and works of Isokrates and Demosthenes. One of the more interesting sections, which deals with the reality and image of the practice of oratory, stresses the importance of oratory at Athens even as it draws attention to its limitations. Following M. H. Hansen (The Athenian Democracy in the Age of Demosthenes [1991]), Pernot suggests that the number of citizens active in the assembly was in the hundreds, while the number of leading orators at any given time probably numbered around twenty; thus the oratorical and public aspects of political life at Athens is generally considerably overvalued in both ancient and modern treatments of rhetoric. In an excursus Pernot outlines the origins and history of the canon of the ten Attic orators; his tendency to maintain a balance of scholarly views on controversial issues is illustrated by his balanced assessment of the merits of the various canons (pp. 37-38). The final two sections of chapter 3 are concerned with the teaching and theory of rhetoric, especially as laid down in the Rhetoric to Alexander and Aristotle's Rhetoric, and the philosophical and moral problem of rhetoric. In the latter section Pernot focuses particularly on Plato's negative view of rhetoric and the interchanges between rhetoric and philosophy, which Pernot rightly points out are mutually influential and symbiotic. Chapter 4 ("The Hellenistic Globalization," pp. 57-82) deals with rhetoric in the Hellenistic world from Alexander to Augustus (323-27 BCE). Pernot focuses on the advances in rhetorical techniques in style, argumentation, delivery, and memory; outlines the place of rhetoric in the various philosophical schools; and examines the role of political rhetoric in the Hellenistic period. An excursus on political eloquence cites the scholarship of Louis Robert, a twentieth-century French epigrapher and numismatist, as evidence for the view that Greek political eloquence did not expire after Philip of Macedon's victory over the Athenians and Thebans at Khaironeia in 338 BCE.

In chapters 5 and 6 Pernot discusses rhetoric in the republican and imperial ages. Chapter 5 ("The Roman Way and Romanization," pp. 83-127) commences with the background of Roman rhetoric and its role in the senate, assemblies, courts, and funerals, the settings that provided the most oppor­tunities for public speaking. Since so little evidence survives about early Roman rhetoric and we have to rely upon later authorities whose perspec­tives are coloured by their own prejudices, Pernot' s stress upon non-verbal aspects of early republican oratory such as gravitas and auctoritas in contrast to democratic Athens needs to be viewed with caution. In a section strangely entitled "The Conquest of Greek Rhetoric," Pernot explores the Roman ap-

This content downloaded from 139.80.78.9 on Mon, I Dec 2014 01:06:53 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Reviews 207

propriation of Greek rhetoric and the development of a technical rhetorical vocabulary. Pernot also reviews the major rhetoricians and orators preceding Cicero, including the elder Cato, the Gracchi, Marcus Antonius, and Cras­sus, and the towering figure of Cicero himself, who naturally receives the most attention. In a nod to recent developments in rhetoric involving issues of gender, Pernot observes how the speech of Hortensia cited approvingly by Quintilian draws attention to the absence of women in the history of rhetoric; nevertheless, as Pernot mentions, a study of the male construction of female discourse in antiquity would prove a worthwhile contribution to modern scholarship. An interesting excursus examines the various devices employed by Cicero to create laughter in order to lighten the atmosphere, to deflect attention from a weak argument, and to discredit an opponent.

As a well-known authority on imperial rhetoric, it is no surprise that Pernot reserves his longest and most detailed series of discussions for chap­ter 6 ("The Empire: Innovation in the Tradition," pp. 128-201). In the first section he notes that ancient writers and modern scholars are divided on the question of whether or not there was a decline in rhetoric during the first century CE. He asserts that there was indeed a decline in certain types of oratory in the empire, but then concludes that imperial rhetoric generally represents neither a decline nor a renaissance but a "redeployment." Later on in the chapter Pernot, like most modern commentators, maintains that Tacitus and Petronius are to be included in the group of writers who be­lieve in the decline and who view declamation as one of its symptoms. It is unlikely, however, that Tacitus accepted that there had been a decline in the standard of contemporary oratory. Tacitus does not himself endorse the statement of decline at the beginning of the Dialogus de Oratoribus (1.1), which is particularly thin in content. In fact, Tacitus provides valuable evidence for the status and vibrancy of oratory during the imperial period and the high esteem in which it was held; for example, he (or one of his interlocutors in the Dialogus) directly comments upon or implies the eloquence of the five orators mentioned by Quintilian as exemplars of contemporary oratory. As for Petroni us, the comments of his narrator Encolpius in the Satyricon must be viewed in the general context of the satirical genre: it would be surprising, indeed contrary to the rules of satire, if Encolpius, whose narrative perspec­tive is skewed, had done anything other than to disparage the practice of rhetoric and declamation.

Subsequent sections in chapter 6 treat the general characteristics of imperial rhetoric, especially its diversity within and between different phases of the empire in its various locations; literary criticism, chiefly Dionysios of Halikarnassos and Longinus' On the Sublime; and second-century archaism, as illustrated in the figures of Pronto and Gellius, and the widespread movement of Atticism, which Pernot sensitively notes was not necessarily opposed to Asianism. Pernot' s generally progressive approach to rhetorical phenomena is evident in his comments on declamation, whose relevance and success he attributes to its educational value; its connection not only with contemporary life, including tyrants, pirates, violence, crimes, and torture,

This content downloaded from 139.80.78 .9 on Mon, I Dec 2014 0 I :06:53 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Cond it ions

208 RHETORICA

but also current events, for example, Latro' s declamation on an adoption case before Augustus just prior to his adoption of Agrippa's sons; its ideological ramifications, including its reinforcement of social and political hierarchies and of cultural values; and its value as quality entertainment for the elite. This analysis is followed by an overview of the various treatises on rhetorical theory, especially Quintilian' s Institutio Oratoria and those of Hermogenes. In remarking upon the important place that the emperor was expected to play in Roman society as a model orator, he cites Tacitus' comment in the Annals on Nero's need for borrowed eloquence (13.3) as constituting a criticism of the emperor's oratorical abilities. However, this superficial reading ignores Tacitus' narrative strategy in the Annals of structuring his narrative around extremes and then undermining or at least bringing into question the apparent extremism. Nero is alleged throughout the Annals to be an incompetent orator and uses Seneca as a ghostwriter (13.3, 11; 14.11), yet he is shown to be a competent speaker in his interview with Seneca regarding the latter's secessio (14.55-56; cf. 14.52).

In chapter 6 the discussion of the practice of oratory, which includes the judicial and deliberative contexts, stresses the importance of the epideictic genre during the imperial period as exemplified especially in the epideictic treatises of the rhetor Menander. While Pernot observes that the encomium was a social rite that purportedly affirmed in public terms the social values of consensus and unanimity, he insightfully maintains that imperial panegyric served as a subtle form of communication between the emperor and the rest of the elite classes. Pernot views Pliny's Panegyricus not only as a celebration of Trajan' s rule but also as a portrait of the ideal ruler and a criticism of Domitian' s tyranny. While Pliny's tributes to Trajan are not unlike those composed by poets to Domitian, Pliny urges that his own praises of Trajan' s qualities and deeds are to be understood differently from previous imperial panegyric, that is, literally rather than ironically. It is only a single step from these observations to the view that the Panegyricus may be intended in part not only to encourage Trajan in his virtues and deeds (3.18.2-3; 10.14) but also to suggest subtly the insincerity of the fulsome flattery directed toward Trajan. The final sections of chapter 6 cover the major orators from the first and second centuries such as Cassius Severus, the younger Pliny, Fronto, and Apuleius, as well as lesser known orators and works from the following two centuries; the phenomenon known as the Second Sophistic, which includes a synopsis of the rhetorical activities of the sophists, notably Dio of Prusa, Favorinus of Aries, Lucian, and Cassius Longinus, which is followed by an excursus on Aelius Aristides; and the relationship between rhetoric and literature, with a special focus on Ovid's use of rhetoric, seemingly obligatory in discussions of this type.

Pernot might have continued his study in detail beyond the third and fourth centuries, but any author or editor of a book on rhetoric is inevitably faced with the difficult decision about what to regard as the terminus ad quem of classical rhetoric. Pernot deals with this problem in his conclusion ("The Heritage of Greco-Roman Rhetoric," pp. 202-213) by providing brief

This content downloaded from 139.80.78.9 on Mon, I Dec 2014 01:06:53 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Reviews 209

treatments on the conversion of classical rhetoric in the Christian era, rhetoric from the end of antiquity to the modern age, and Greco-Roman rhetoric in the contemporary world. At the back of the volume there is a thesaurus of concepts and technical terms and a chronological table of important literary and rhetorical events in the Greek and Roman worlds. The bibliography consists of collections of sources; general works; proceedings, melanges, and collections; specialized journals; thematic and diachronic studies; and works relevant to the individual chapters and the conclusion, the references to which are further subdivided into different eras covered. All of these sections are useful in an introductory survey of this type. Relevant passages from the Greek and Latin texts appear only in English translation. Finally, W. E. Higgins' eloquent translation from the French makes Pernot' s text comprehensible to the uninformed reader of rhetoric, which is no mean feat given the technical nature of the material discussed. Inevitably, some infelicities and inconsistencies emerge in respect of translation (e.g., "the encomium readies the reception for hard sayings," p. 181) and transliteration (e.g., "Thucydides" but "Kleon," p.18) respectively.

How does Rhetoric in Antiquity compare with other books on classical rhetoric intended for a general readership that have been published during the past dozen years? Pernot' s volume is generally more accessible and less traditional than George Kennedy's A New History of Classical Rhetoric (1994); more specifically it offers more information on the historical and cultural background of rhetoric and is less text based. Thomas Habinek' s Ancient Rhetoric and Oratory (2005), however, focuses especially on the political, so­cial, and cultural aspects of rhetoric and avoids the traditional structure of Pernot and Kennedy. A great strength of Pernot as a scholar of rhetoric is his positive approach, as evidenced by his generally favourable view of imperial rhetoric and declamation. Rhetoric in Antiquity is therefore partic­ularly suitable as an introductory survey text for a postgraduate or senior undergraduate course on rhetoric.

WILLIAM J. DoMINIK

University of Otago

This content downloaded from 139.80.78.9 on Mon, I Dec 2014 01:06:53 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions