William J. Dominik, ‘The Development of Roman Rhetoric’, in M. MacDonald (ed.), The Oxford...

The Oxford Handbook of

RHETORICAL STUDIES

Edited by

MICHAEL J. MacDONALD

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthersthe University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education

by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford UniversityPress in the UK and certain other countries.

Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States of America.

© Oxford University Press 2017

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored ina retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the

prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permittedby law, by license, or under terms agreed with the appropriate reproduction

rights organization. Inquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of theabove should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the

address above.

You must not circulate this work in any other formand you must impose this same condition on any acquirer.

Library of Congress Cataloging- in- Publication DataNames: MacDonald, Michael John, editor.

Title: The Oxford handbook of rhetorical studies / edited by Michael J. MacDonald.Description: Oxford University Press : New York, NY, 2017. |

Includes bibliographical references and index.Identifiers: LCCN 2016056248 | ISBN 9780199731596 (hardback) |

ISBN 9780190681845 (updf) | ISBN 9780199984626 (online resource)Subjects: LCSH: Rhetoric—History and criticism—Handbooks, manuals, etc.

Classification: LCC P301 .O95 2017 | DDC 808.009—dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2016056248

1 3 5 7 9 8 6 4 2

Printed by Sheridan Books, Inc., United States of America

Contents

List of Contributors xvTimeline xix

Introduction 1Michael J. MacDonald

PART I : ANCIENT GREEK RHETORIC

1. The Development of Greek Rhetoric 33Edward Schiappa

2. Rhetoric and Law 43Michael Gagarin

3. Rhetoric and Politics 53Edward M. Harris

4. Rhetoric and Historiography 63Chris Carey

5. Rhetoric and Pedagogy 73Malcolm Heath

6. Rhetoric and Poetics 85Jeffrey Walker

7. Rhetoric and Tragedy 97Paul Woodruff

8. Rhetoric and Old Comedy 109Daphne O’Regan

9. Plato’s Rhetoric in Theory and Practice 121Harvey Yunis

x contents

10. Aristotle’s Rhetoric in Theory and Practice 133Eugene Garver

11. Rhetoric and Sophistics 143Barbara Cassin

PART II : ANCIENT ROMAN RHETORIC

12. The Development of Roman Rhetoric 159William J. Dominik

13. Rhetoric and Law 173Richard Leo Enos

14. Rhetoric and Politics 183Joy Connolly

15. Rhetoric and Historiography 195Rhiannon Ash

16. Rhetoric and Pedagogy 205Catherine Steel

17. Rhetoric and Stoic Philosophy 215Shadi Bartsch

18. Rhetoric and Epic 225Jon Hall

19. Rhetoric and Lyric Address 237Jonathan Culler

20. Rhetoric and the Greco- Roman Second Sophistic 253Laurent Pernot

21. Rhetoric and Declamation 267Erik Gunderson

22. Rhetoric and Fiction 279Ruth Webb

23. Rhetoric, Music, and the Arts 289Thomas Habinek

contents xi

24. Augustine’s Rhetoric in Theory and Practice 301Catherine Conybeare

PART III : MEDIEVAL RHETORIC

25. The Development of Medieval Rhetoric 315John O. Ward

26. Rhetoric and Politics 329Virginia Cox

27. Rhetoric and Literary Criticism 341Rita Copeland

28. Rhetoric and Poetics 353Jill Ross

29. Rhetoric and Comedy 365Jody Enders

PART IV: RENAISSANCE RHETORIC

30. Rhetoric and Humanism 377Heinrich Plett

31. Rhetoric and Politics 387Wayne A. Rebhorn

32. Rhetoric and Law 397Lorna Hutson

33. Rhetoric and Pedagogy 409Peter Mack

34. Rhetoric and Science 423Jean Dietz Moss

35. Rhetoric and Poetics 437Arthur F. Kinney

36. Rhetoric and Theater 449Russ McDonald

xii contents

37. Rhetoric and the Visual Arts 461Caroline van Eck

PART V: EARLY MODERN AND ENLIGHTENMENT RHETORIC

38. Rhetoric and Early Modern Politics 477Angus Gowland

39. Rhetoric and Gender in British Literature 489Lynn Enterline

40. Rhetoric and Architecture 505Robert Kirkbride

41. Origins of British Enlightenment Rhetoric 523Arthur E. Walzer

42. Rhetoric and Philosophy 535Adam Potkay

43. Rhetoric and Science 547Peter Walmsley

44. The Elocutionary Movement in Britain 559Paul Goring

PART VI : MODERN AND C ONTEMPOR ARY RHETORIC

45. Rhetoric and Feminism in the Nineteenth- Century United States 571Angela G. Ray

46. Rhetoric and Feminism 583Cheryl Glenn and Andrea A. Lunsford

47. Rhetoric and Race in the United States 599Jacqueline Jones Royster

48. Rhetoric and Law 613Peter Goodrich

contents xiii

49. Rhetoric and Political Theory 625Andrew Norris

50. Rhetoric and Presidential Politics 637Karlyn Kohrs Campbell and Kathleen Hall Jamieson

51. Rhetoric and New Testament Studies 649Stanley E. Porter

52. Rhetoric and Argumentation 661Frans H. van Eemeren

53. Rhetoric and Semiotics 673Theo van Leeuwen

54. Rhetoric and Psychoanalysis 683Gilbert Chaitin

55. Rhetoric and Deconstruction 695Paul Allen Miller

56. Rhetoric, Composition, Design 709David Kaufer and Danielle Wetzel

57. Rhetoric and Social Epistemology 721Lorraine Code

58. Rhetoric and Environment 733Andrew McMurry

59. Rhetoric and Science 745Richard Doyle

60. Rhetoric and Digital Media 759Ian Bogost and Elizabeth Losh

Glossary 773Index 793

Chapter 12

The Development of Roman Rhetoric

William J. Dominik

Roman rhetoric is as much a reflection of the natural process of cultural and political change as it is an expression of its theoretical and practical development from its Greek origins. Although rhetoric at its most basic level at Rome involved the act of speaking and at a more academic level was governed by a complex set of rules, it is best considered as part of a larger cultural process. A positive account of the development of Roman rheto-ric may seem difficult to extract from the sources because of the theme of secondariness and decline that runs through the narrative of its evolution. But the Roman conception of rhetoric from the very beginning looked back ideologically to the native, rustic rheto-ric that lay as its ultimate source in practical terms. Therefore a constructive approach involves not only a consideration of the ways Roman rhetoric evolved from the Greek but also how it made its mark upon the discipline so that it became an academic exercise and cultural phenomenon distinctive in its own right. The development of Roman rhetoric reflected established values of the male elite class even as its theory and practice helped to shape in important ways cultural attitudes toward national, class, and gender identity.

As the cornerstone of the Roman educational system, rhetoric played an important role in providing the young male elite at Rome with the training and experience neces-sary to defend and maintain their position in the public arena (see Steel, ch. 16). The practice of rhetoric in public meetings (contiones), law courts, Senate, Forum, and pub-lic funerals and halls was as much a mark of social privilege as it was a reflection of the political and social power of the patrician class. The public assemblies provided adult male citizens with the opportunity to hone their rhetorical skills for legislative and elec-toral purposes in a sometimes boisterous environment (on mass oratory, see Morstein- Marx 2004). But the pinnacle of Roman rhetoric seems to have been achieved in the Senate even though its prescribed and unwritten rules, social hierarchy, and political alliances predetermined, if not constrained, its use by highly skilled practitioners.

In reality only a relatively small number of the male elite class were able to speak at the public assemblies and in the Senate. In the public assemblies only those who had

160 The Development of Roman Rhetoric

been elected or invited could speak, while in the Senate even those who had the privi-lege of speaking did so according to their social rank and seniority. When the Senate increased in size during the first century bce, with some of the new members com-ing from provincial towns and from the equestrian, mainly nonsenatorial, class, it remained a body of status and privilege distinguished by the exercise of rhetoric. It was probably the law courts that provided the greatest number of opportunities for those members of the upper classes who were intent upon making a name for themselves (see Enos, ch. 13). The political advancement of a figure like Cicero, who in 63 bce became the first man in over 30 years to become a novus homo (new man) when he was elected consul (cf. Cicero, De lege agraria 2.3), owed much to the rhetorical and oratorical skills that he had acquired and displayed in his successful defense of prominent clients in the courts.

Early Stages

The earliest extant reference to rhetoric in Roman literature appears in Ennius’s Annals (308; Skutsch 1985: 96), a work that appeared just before or after the beginning of the second century bce. Cicero notes that the reference to Suada is the Roman counterpart of Peithō, the Greek goddess of persuasion (Brutus 59). The reference in Ennius appears about the same time Suetonius observes that rhetoric made its presence known in Rome (De rhetoribus 1). Cicero, the most influential Roman rhetorician and orator of the Republic, observes that formal rhetoric was originally unknown to the Romans but that they achieved success as the result of their own talent and efforts; eventually, according to Cicero, contact with Greek orators and teachers inspired Romans to develop their skills through the study of formal rhetoric (De oratore 1.4.14). From the rhetorical trea-tises it seems that the two principal avenues of entry for Greek rhetoric into Rome were via scholars familiar with rhetoric who came to Rome from Greece and Magna Graecia as teachers and via Romans who traveled for the purpose of study to Greece, especially Athens and Rhodes, and then returned to Rome. Despite the influx of Greek rhetorical ideas into Rome, Cicero suggests that the Romans utilized rhetoric in the public set-ting according to the whims of individual orators without recourse to a systematized form of rhetoric. This usage reflects rhetoric in its original form as a means of persua-sion or celebration in the public sphere. In the early stages of its formal development, however, Roman rhetoric was essentially Greek rhetoric adapted to the Roman environ-ment, principally the law courts and public assemblies, though it always involved more than just public speaking. While rhetoric appeared increasingly to function as a legal instrument whose objective was concerned with persuasion, the political environment assumed an important role in its expansion during the Republic (see Connolly, ch. 14).

One of the defining features of Roman society was its adaptability to and adaptation of the ideas and practices of other cultures, as Caesar observes (Sallust, Bellum Catilinae 51.37– 8). This was the case even when a culture like that of the Greeks was viewed with

William J. Dominik 161

suspicion and intolerance, as exemplified in the attitude of Marcus Porcius Cato: “Since that race will give us their culture, it will corrupt everything” (quandoque ista gens suas litteras dabit, omnia corrumpet; Pliny, Naturalis historia 29.14). The elder Cato himself reveals a familiarity with Greek culture and traces of knowledge of Greek rhetoric in his writings. This ambivalence toward things Greek applied particularly to Greek rhetoric in the early stages of the development of Roman rhetoric. During this period it seems that Rome resented and resisted Greek rhetoric even as it was absorbing its system and rules, as suggested in Cato’s own debt to Greek rhetoric evident in the extant fragments of his speech, Oratio pro Rhodiensibus (Aulus Gellius, Noctes Atticae 6.3; Leeman 1963: 43– 9). This process of assimilation invigorated the discipline of rhetoric and helped to trans-form Roman culture.

Politics of Greek Rhetoric at Rome

The increasing presence of Greek rhetoric in Rome and its growing influence in the sec-ond century bce is apparent from the decree that expelled the rhetoricians from Rome in 161 bce along with the philosophers (Suetonius, De grammaticis 25), who were instru-mental in the teaching of rhetoric. The reason for the rhetoricians’ expulsion is diffi-cult to ascertain, but it was perhaps due to the relative sophistication and effectiveness of Greek techniques in comparison with Roman rhetoric as embodied in the contem-porary figure of the elder Cato, who stood both for rustic simplicity and anti- Hellenic sentiment. But the ban of the rhetoricians may also have had something to do with the concern felt by the senatorial elite over the use of rhetoric by outsiders who were begin-ning to forge careers that were perceived as a threat to the established political order. Although Cato, as a censor, may have been one of the voices behind the decree, he was a distinguished orator himself (cf. Cicero, Brutus 60, 65) and was knowledgeable about rhetoric. According to Quintilian, “Marcus Cato was the first Roman … to handle this topic” (Romanorum primus … condidit aliqua in hanc materiam M. Cato; Institutio ora-toria 3.1.19), which may refer to a discussion of the sort evident in these surviving frag-ments of Cato: “The orator is a vir bonus who is skilled in speaking” (orator est … vir bonus, dicendi peritus; Quintilian, Institutio oratoria 12.1.1); “Grasp the subject matter; the words will follow” (rem tene, verba sequentur; Cato, Libri ad filium; Julius Victor 17, in Halm 1863: 374). While Cato’s definition of vir bonus (“a good man”) alludes to the moral conduct and skills expected of an elite male Roman, his advice to the orator, which stresses that speech follows naturally from having knowledge of the topic under discussion, suggests that the simplicity of the speech act is to be valued over the complex rules that governed formal rhetoric. Cato’s concept of the Roman orator involved more than simply the ability to speak well: gender and status (vir) were closely linked with rhetorical competence, which emphasized the unique role of the male elite class in the social and political hierarchy of Rome. Simply put, rhetoric in Roman hands involved the exercise and maintenance of civic power by this small, privileged class.


It is possible to regard a figure such as Cato, who relied upon practical experience instead of formal training in rhetoric, as representing a crude stage in the development of Latin style and therefore as being deficient in comparison with later orators. Romans were uncertain what to make of the styles of different generations of orators but had the tendency themselves to regard early orators as primitive and less sophisticated. Cicero’s assessment of Cato is an illustration of this tendency, but even he acknowledges that Cato’s antiquated expression was appropriate for his own time (Brutus 68). As sug-gested in Cicero’s observation, a more constructive approach is to consider style to be a reflection of a particular set of linguistic and cultural circumstances at work. Early Roman rhetoric attempted to assert its independence from Greek rhetoric in regard to style even at an early stage of development. In particular, Cato’s approach is exemplary of the native Latin rhetoric that strove for its own effects rather than merely to adopt the models of the Greek rhetorical system (Sciarrino 2007). For Cato Roman rhetoric was as much about attitude and practicality as it was about formal theory and technique. He valued brevity, simplicity, and forcefulness, qualities that mirrored the Attic style of the Greeks, which may seem ironic given the derogatory comments made by him about Greek culture and rhetoric. Asianism, a florid style so called because it was thought to have originated in Asia Minor (Quintilian, Institutio oratoria 12.10.16– 22), was viewed as excessive and therefore antithetical to the Roman character and sensibility.

Whatever the true motivation of the decree in 161 bce may have been in respect of the rhetoricians, it was not able to stem for long the tide of Greek rhetoric in Rome, as suggested by the fact that Greek rhetoricians rather than Cato gained supremacy in the years following the ban. At first it seems that the Greek teachers of rhetoric reemerged in the private homes of elite Roman families (cf. Cicero, Brutus 27.104) and then gradu-ally regained a foothold in the public setting. Famous rhetoricians such as Diophanes of Mytilene and Menelaus of Marathus, teachers of Tiberius Gracchus and Gaius Gracchus, respectively, taught rhetoric to both patricians and plebeians by using handbooks that made the subject comprehensible to those who had a moderate level of education. By the beginning of the first century rhetoric was a permanent fixture in Rome.

Politics of Roman Rhetoric

While the earlier banishment of rhetoricians from Rome may be attributable partly to prejudice against Greek rhetoric, it is apparent that the sentiment toward rhetoric, espe-cially Greek rhetoric, had changed markedly by the turn of the first century bce. This changed sentiment is evident in two seemingly contradictory developments. The first was the composition of a Roman commentarium (notebook; Cicero, De oratore 1.48.208) or libellus (little book; 1.47.206) of rhetoric by the orator Marcus Antonius between 102 and 92 bce. Judging from Cicero’s account and the comments of Quintilian, this book appears to have been a compilation of notes and suggestions derived from Antonius’s oratorical activity at Rome, including his practical experience in the law courts, rather


than an actual rhetorical treatise; in addition, it seems to have been drawn from the Peripatetic and Academic philosophy he encountered in Athens (cf. Cicero, De oratore 1.8.82– 20.93). While the sources convey the impression that rhetoric had become fully entrenched in Roman society by this time, it had been dominated by Greek rhetoricians. Antonius’s commentarium was a reflection of the natural appeal of rhetoric to a Roman mind- set as well as an attempt to popularize it in Rome. This notebook was also a reflec-tion of the increased confidence among Roman practitioners of rhetoric and an attempt to adapt it to prevailing social and political conditions.

The second development occurred in 92 bce when Licinius Crassus and Domitius Ahenobarbus, the censors for this year, promulgated an edict disapproving of the Latin rhetoricians (Suetonius, Rhetorica 1). Crassus, a leader among the optimates, provides us in Cicero’s De oratore with a cultural reason for the attempted suppression of the Latin rhetoricians by remarking that they lacked the education and sophistication of their Greek counterparts (3.24.93– 5). Political motives were also evident, as may have been the case with the earlier ban of rhetoricians in 161 bce. The decree in 92 bce may have originated principally with Crassus, as his character suggests in De oratore, where there is no mention of Ahenobarbus, and may have been intended in part to protect the interests of the elite classes by blocking the path of political and social advancement to other classes. Plotius Gallus, who supposedly was the first rhetorician to teach in Latin (Cicero, Epistula ad Marcum Titinium; cf. Suetonius, De rhetoribus 2), was admired by Gaius Marius (Cicero, Pro archia 9.20). Greek culture and language were associated with the elite classes at Rome, with which Crassus identified and to which Marius was indifferent and even opposed to in Greek culture (Sallust, Bellum jugurthinum 85.32; Plutarch, Marius 2.2; Valerius Maximus, Facta et dicta memorabilia 2.2.3). Although Cicero (Pro archia 9.19) and some modern scholars (e.g., Clarke 1996: 12) have suggested that Marius’s opposition was a reflection of his own ignorance or lack of cultural refine-ment, the privileging of Roman rhetoric itself was a way of asserting Roman superior-ity, a notion with which Marius would have concurred, judging from the comments of Plutarch (Marius 2.2) and Valerius Maximus (Facta et dicta memorabilia 2.2.3; cf. 2.2.2).

The decree may also reflect the political tensions that existed between Rome and her Italian allies that led to the outbreak of the Social War in 91 bce. According to this scenario, the Latin rhetoricians and their schools would have been viewed as the means by which the allies obtained the skills necessary to push their case for a larger voice in public affairs at Rome. Regardless of the precise reasons for the edict in 92 bce, it is apparent that the practice of rhetoric was seldom far removed from the political arena during the Republic.

Reshaping Greek Rhetoric

The censors’ edict does not seem to have had a long- standing effect, however, judging by the appearance of two handbooks of rhetoric that emerged soon afterward. The earli-est extant Roman rhetorical treatise is Cicero’s De inventione, which may have appeared


around 87/ 6 bce or a little afterward; this dating is based on Cicero’s own remark that the De inventione was composed in his youth (De oratore 1.1.5), which was probably in 88 bce at the age of 18 after he had studied philosophy under Philon of Larissa in Rome (cf. Cicero, Epistulae ad familiares 13.1, Tusculanae disputationes 2.3). The De inventione was followed around the same time, possibly 86– 2 or even later, by the Rhetorica ad Herennium, of uncertain authorship, which is the first complete rhetorical treatise in Latin to survive. Both of these works are derived from scholastic activity and a common Greek source that probably developed on the island of Rhodes, an important rhetorical center, and provide a glimpse of the state of rhetoric at Rome in the first couple of decades of the first century bce. These early handbooks follow in the tradition of Greek rhetorical doc-trine, specifically Anaximenes’s Rhetorica ad Alexandrum, the sole extant pre- Aristotelian manual of rhetoric; Aristotle’s Rhetorica; and the work of Hermagoras of Temnos.

Nonetheless, the beginnings of an independent Roman spirit and Roman ideas about rhetorical education can be detected in the De inventione, which possibly signals an attempt on the part of Cicero to establish his reputation as a Roman rhetorician in an environment dominated by Greek rhetorical treatises, and especially the more sophis-ticated Rhetorica ad Herennium. The Rhetorica ad Herennium not only conceives the idea of a Roman rhetoric based on correct Latinity (4.12.17) but also places an emphasis upon clarity, simplicity, and practicality in contrast to the complex, subtle, and theoreti-cal nature of the Greek rhetorical system (cf. 1.1.1). Despite the ambivalent relationship between rhetoric and philosophy, much Roman rhetorical doctrine was influenced by Greek philosophy, as is evident in these texts (e.g., Cicero, De inventione 2.3.8; Rhetorica ad Herennium 2.11.16, 2.21.34, 3.2.3, 4.17.24) and as Crassus in De oratore relates to Antonius (3.15.56– 8.68), whose own doctrine of status, the determination of the issue under dispute, is indicative of such influence (cf. Quintilian, Institutio oratoria 3.6.45; Montefusco 1986: 36– 47, 197– 203).

The system (technē) of rhetoric conveyed in these handbooks, which bear the clear marks of the philosophical and cultural content of Greek rhetoric, suggests that it had arrived in Rome in a comprehensive and sophisticated form. However, the descrip-tion and analysis of rhetorical rules and doctrines in these early Roman manuals bear evidence of some simplification of the complex Greek system of rhetorical rules and doctrines. At the same time, a reflexive, rhetorically self- conscious approach is appar-ent, especially in the Romanization of Greek rhetorical terms and the use of exempla from Roman (as opposed to Greek) literature, history, and politics; this approach is also apparent in the treatment of such matters as style and the arrangement of subject mat-ter in comparison with the Greek system. Despite the growing confidence of Roman rhetoricians evident in the appearance of their own manuals, they contain inconsis-tencies, uncertainties, and cautious remarks. Antonius did not finish his commentar-ium (Quintilian, Institutio oratoria 3.1.19), which Cicero viewed as being a slight work (Brutus 163); nor did Cicero, who repudiated his early commentariola (short treatises) in the later De oratore (1.2.5). The unknown author of the Rhetorica ad Herennium remarks that he is writing his work for his friend and relation Gaius Herennius (1.1.1, 4.56.69), which may suggest that it was not intended principally for a wider readership.


Other treatises soon followed, notably Cicero’s De oratore and Partitiones oratoriae, which were composed in the 50s bce. These were in turn followed by Cicero’s Brutus and Orator, composed in 46 bce, in which the orator placed great emphasis on stylistic and linguistic matters in his polemic against the Atticists. Cicero’s own prose style seems to be a reflection of the views he espouses in these works and represents a notable depar-ture from the native Roman style cultivated by Cato and other early rhetoricians (cf. Leeman 1963: 182– 4). By the end of the first century ce, Roman rhetoric had developed its own systematic body of knowledge sufficiently to enable Quintilian to produce the most comprehensive handbook of rhetoric yet to appear: his Institutio oratoria.

From the beginning Roman rhetoric was much more than the mere systematiza-tion of Greek rhetoric. A Roman cultural dynamic and perspective pervaded even the earliest treatises because rhetoric assumed a significant role in the construction of an elite male identity. On a practical level the influence of rhetoric was felt especially in the political and judicial spheres, which were closely linked (see Enos, ch. 13; Connolly, ch. 14). Political power in republican Rome was concentrated in the Senate, the seat of the central government, and rhetorical activity in this restricted council at Rome took place among a small, elite group of senators. It was not until the latter part of the sec-ond century bce, after the reforms of the Gracchi, that formal rhetoric appears to have assumed a larger role in Roman society. The popularization of the law depended in part on removing the courts from the power of senators, who were accustomed to dominat-ing the judicial landscape and controlling its proceedings. This political development was reinforced in the judicial sphere, where Roman law became entrenched as a codi-fied system, a process that seems to have begun with the De usurpationibus by Appius Claudius Caecus, censor in 312 bce, and to have been continued by Quintus Mucius Scaevola and Servius Sulpicius Rufus into the first century bce (cf. Bauman 1983: 21– 66, 340– 421, 1985: 4– 65). The widespread use of rhetoric at Rome began with the great political trials when the introduction and rapid growth of prosecution on the popular level, that is, by accusers from outside the leading families at Rome, gave rise to much litigation (cf. David 1992: 281– 310, esp. 286). The establishment in 149 bce and growth of quaestiones perpetuae (standing jury courts) provided a legal mechanism by which lead-ing citizens and politicians could institute criminal proceedings against another party (Cloud 1994: 491– 530). Lawyers were senators and former magistrates and, as patrons of clients, were involved in criminal and civil cases. The bond between patroni and clientes, which dominated the Roman social fabric, naturally extended to the judicial arena in which patrons defended the rights of their clients and were supported in turn by them.

Systematizing Rhetorical Education

A picture of the system of rhetorical education in the early part of the first century can be constructed from the early rhetorical handbooks. At this stage there was no formal system of education in which students would progress from one level of competence


to the next level. The role of the rhetor was not clearly defined, and, as Suetonius notes, each taught according to his training and his inclination (Suetonius, De rhetoribus 1). Although the methods of individual rhetores varied, the essential aims of the training remained the same: a thorough familiarization with the principles, rules, and definitions of the Greco- Roman rhetorical system. In addition to acquiring a knowledge of this sys-tem, a student would be expected to become proficient in speaking through the prac-tice of preliminary exercises known as progymnasmata, which were intended mainly to enable students to learn to express the same idea in various ways. Suetonius describes how these exercises involved not only explaining speeches in regard to their figures, sto-ries, and fables but also composing narratives, translating Greek works, praising and blaming notable men, arguing two sides of a given question, and defending or refuting the credibility of myths (1).

These aforementioned exercises were intended to provide a basic preparation for the more advanced exercises to follow. But even during the early part of the first century bce it seems these elementary exercises already were under pressure from the more advanced exercises that dealt more directly with (or were seen to be more relevant to) the issues raised in the public assemblies and cases of the law courts. Many of these cases presumably were used as exercises in the schools. Indeed, Crassus in De oratore stresses not only the value of real- life training and practical experience (3.10.74) but also the importance of debating issues that resemble those of actual cases brought before the court (1.33.149), while he and other speakers allude to a number of cases similar to those of the assemblies and law courts (e.g., 1.57.244, 2.24.100, 2.30.132).

Some of the cases cited in De inventione (e.g., 1.6.8, 2.23.72– 32.98, 2.51.153– 4), Rhetorica ad Herennium (e.g., 1.11.19, 1.15.25), and De oratore (e.g., 2.15.116, 2.16.67, 3.28.109, 3.29.112– 7) are a philosophical exercise of the type known as a thesis or quaes-tio. In this type of exercise the speaker is required to argue between two or more pos-sible courses of action (cf. Rhetorica ad Herennium 3.2.2). Some topics deal with natural themes (e.g., what the shape of the world is [De inventione 1.6.8]) or abstract themes (e.g., whether virtue should be desired for its intrinsic value or for some benefit it brings [De oratore 3.29.112]); others treat issues of social life and mores (e.g., whether it is the duty of a good man occasionally to tell a lie [3.29.113]) as well as law and politics (e.g., whether right is the interest of the majority [3.29.115]). Some of the topics are from Greek and Roman history (e.g., De inventione 2.26.78– 30.94; Rhetorica ad Herennium 1.15.25; De oratore 3.28.109), while the majority have no specific historical or geographical con-text (e.g., De inventione 2.24.72– 6.78).

When a case was given a specific speaker, the exercise was classed as a hypothesis or suasoria (deliberation; Institutio oratoria 3.5.11) and was designed to train the speaker who would give advice in a public meeting. This type of exercise required the speaker to assume the perspective of a famous historical or mythological figure and to deliberate on the course of action to be taken in response to a dilemma or to dispense advice to this fig-ure. Such questions dealing with Carthage cited in the aforementioned works of Cicero include whether any harm would come to the Roman state if Carthage was to be left unscathed (De inventione 1.8.11); whether an army should be sent to Macedonia against


Philip to support Roman allies or left in Italy to confront Hannibal (1.12.17); whether it is better to destroy Carthage or leave her standing (Rhetorica ad Herennium 3.2.2; cf. De inventione 1.12.17); and whether Hannibal, when recalled from Italy to Carthage, should remain in Italy, return to Carthage, or invade Egypt and capture Alexandria (Rhetorica ad Herennium 3.2.2).

Another type of exercise was the controversia (disputation), a forensic exercise that consists of a statement of one or more laws— sometimes related to contemporary Roman law— followed by the circumstances of a fictitious case in which the speaker argued one side or the other. Antonius cites one such example in Cicero’s De oratore: “The law for-bids a foreigner to mount the wall; he mounts the wall, repels the enemy, and is pros-ecuted” (lex peregrinum vetat in murum ascendere; ascendit; hostes repulit; accusatur; 2.24.100). This exercise shows that the controversia itself was already in existence in 91 bce, the dramatic date of the De oratore, or at least by 55 bce, the date of its composition (Clarke 1996: 17– 8).

The Phenomenon of Declamation

The altered political conditions of the Empire naturally influenced the direction of public rhetoric (Dominik 1997: 59– 66, 2007: 332– 4). While the public assemblies seem to have diminished considerably in importance as a venue for the orator during the Empire, opportunities for speaking still existed in the Senate and especially the law courts; in addition, orators turned increasingly to the public halls in order to display their talents. In this setting, rhetoric functioned as a social pastime where orators prac-ticed declamation— the suasoria and controversia— for intellectual fame and enjoyment (see Gunderson, ch. 21). During the Empire, declamation became associated with show-manship and exhibitionism (cf. Pliny, Epistulae 2.14; Quintilian, Institutio oratoria 2.10), but even during the Republic a figure such as Cicero strove for persuasive and emotional effects that depended upon a theatrical mode of delivery (Hall 2007).

There is little to distinguish the themes of these exercises from those practiced in the Republic. Examples of declamatory exercises of the late Republic and early Empire survive in the elder Seneca’s Controversiae and Suasoriae, pseudo- Quintilian’s Declamationes majores and Declamationes minores, and the Declamationes of Calpurnius Flaccus. Subjects from Seneca’s Suasoriae include a historical figure such as Alexander (e.g., 1, 4) and a mythological character such as Agamemnon (e.g., 3). As can be seen in Seneca’s Controversiae, the atmosphere was often violent and spectacular and featured such stock characters as the tyrant (e.g., 1.7, 2.5, 3.6, 4.7, 5.8), the pirate (e.g., 1.6, 1.7, 3.3, 7.1, 7.4), the parricide (e.g., 3.2, 5.4, 7.1, 7.3, 7.5), and the wicked stepmother (e.g., 7.1, 7.5, 7.6, 9.5, 9.6). The practice of declamation, despite criticism by various charac-ters in Roman literature of its themes being removed from practical oratory (cf. Seneca, Controversiae 3, praeface 8– 18; Petronius, Satyricon 1– 4; Tacitus, Dialogus de oratori-bus 35.4– 5; Juvenal, Saturae 10.166– 7), was intimately linked to the social and political


realities of the Roman world. As exemplified in the aforementioned character types, the world of declamation both reflected and was reinforced by social and political problems of Rome involving autocracy, conspiracy, piracy, brigandage, slavery, family disputes, and violence, all of which were the subject of actual cases in the courtroom. On an accul-turative level declamation played an especially important role in reaffirming the status of the budding male elite and in inculcating respect for masculine roles, norms, and val-ues over those of the rest of society, such as stereotyped feminine roles and values.

Modern scholars (e.g., Caplan 1944: 162– 73), following in the path of ancient crit-ics (e.g., Maternus in Tacitus, Dialogus de oratoribus 29.1– 35.5), generally condemn the schools that gave rise to public declamation. But it is apparent that the rhetoricians Seneca (Controversiae 2, praeface 3– 4), Quintilian (Institutio oratoria 2.10.1– 2, 10.5.14), and the younger Pliny (Epistulae 2.3.5– 6) hold a high opinion of the utility of declama-tion in general and its role in rhetorical training. Declamation was valued in the schools because it provided the rhetorical training necessary for social and political advance-ment at Rome. The exercises, which fostered mental agility and required the ability to engage in clever argument, not only had the advantage of providing practice on broader (though still restricted) themes and more extreme situations than were found in real cases but also permitted practitioners to use expression more elaborate than that nor-mally employed in a courtroom or public meeting (cf. Quintilian, Institutio oratoria 2.10.5– 7). By dealing with complex and difficult themes, students learned to develop persuasive arguments and to manipulate legal technicalities so that actual cases would seem easy by comparison.

The Alleged Decline

The major rhetorician of the Empire is Quintilian, whose Institutio oratoria is the larg-est extant manual on Roman rhetoric. For an orator to have spoken well (bene dixisse) meant to Quintilian speaking according to the rules of rhetoric (Quintilian, Institutio oratoria 2.17.25). The size of his treatise reflects both the confidence of Roman rheto-ricians and the sophistication of their rhetorical system at the end of the first century ce. This handbook not only provides an overview of the Roman system of rhetoric during the imperial period but also discusses some of the more controversial subjects among rhetoricians, including the idea of a decline in oratory (10.1.80; cf. 2.4.41). Indeed the notion of such a decline is a locus communis among writers of the first century ce (Velleius Paterculus, Historiae Romanae 1.16– 8; Seneca, Controversiae 1, praeface 6– 7; Petronius, Satyricon 1– 4, 88, 118; Persius 1.15– 8, 32– 6, 121; Pliny, Naturalis historia 14.2– 6; Tacitus, Dialogus de oratoribus 25.3– 6.8, 27.1– 3, 28.1– 35.5; Juvenal, Saturae 1.1– 4, 1.12– 4, 7.105– 49; Longinus, De sublimitate 44), though it had appeared as early as Cicero (De officiis 2.67) in the previous century, and many modern critics have followed suit by arguing for the same idea (e.g., Williams 1978; Clarke 1996: 100– 8). After the early part of the second century the notion of a decline seems virtually to disappear.


The younger Pliny’s own career and reflections upon the state of rhetoric in his Epistulae provide important evidence about the thriving practice of oratory during the Empire and therefore serve as a valuable counterbalance to Roman and modern views of a decline in oratory (Dominik 2007). Over a period of three decades Pliny refers to numerous speeches delivered in the Forum (Pliny, Epistulae 5.8.8), the centumviral court (e.g., 2.11.14, 4.16.1– 3, 6.33.1– 11), Senate houses, and criminal courts (e.g., 3.9.1– 37, 5.20.1– 7, 6.5.1– 7), which demonstrates the large number of venues and opportuni-ties available to orators in the late first and early second centuries ce. Despite Pliny’s own comments (3.20.10, 8.14.8– 9, Panegyricus 76.3– 4) that the Senate diminished in importance as a venue for political debate under the emperor, it is apparent from his own career that important cases were still debated in the Senate (e.g., Epistulae 2.11.2, 17, 7.33); in addition, the Senate continued to serve as a forum for minor proceedings dealing with legislation, the conferment of honors, and routine matters. The continuing evolution of rhetoric in the Empire is best viewed as a process of adaptation and shifting emphasis rather than secondariness and decline.

A host of other famous rhetoricians at the time appear in the works of the imperial rhetoricians. Quintilian mentions a number of rhetoricians who served as exemplars of contemporary oratory (Institutio oratoria 10.1.118– 21): Domitius Afer; Julius Africanus; Galerius Trachalus; Vibius Crispus; and Julius Secundus. These same orators are men-tioned in the works of Tacitus (Dialogus de oratoribus 1– 3, 13.3– 4, 15.3, 23.6, Annales 14.19, Historiae 1.90), who himself was known as an eloquent and distinguished speaker with many students (Pliny, Epistulae 2.1.6, 2.11.17, 4.13.10, 9.23.3). He and the younger Pliny were the leading orators at the turn of the second century ce when they prose-cuted Marius Priscus, proconsul of Africa, for corruption (2.11). Pliny mentions dozens of speakers in his Epistulae who were prominent in the courts, Senate, and public halls of his own day. One of Pliny’s most significant speeches, the Panegyricus, which was a celebration of Trajan’s accomplishments, was delivered before the Senate in 100 ce and published sometime afterward; this speech, the earliest extant Latin panegyric, was the result of an amalgam of social and political factors unique to the imperial ruler cult.

Other Developments

The development of Roman rhetoric can be seen in Latin literature not only in regard to its role in the formation of literary genres such as epic, historiography, novel, and lyric poetry but also in its influence on particular writers such as Virgil, Lucan, Livy, Tacitus, Petronius, Apuleius, Catullus, and Horace (see Hall, ch. 18; Culler, ch. 19; Webb, ch. 22). These and other writers employ rhetoric to achieve certain effects consistent with their literary program, but the representation of Roman identity and values in their works can be attributed in part to the use of rhetorical models, devices, and strategies.

Later in the second century ce— during the age of the Antonines— a movement known as the Second Sophistic flourished, though it seems to have been mainly a Greek phenomenon (see Pernot, ch. 20). Two of the features of this movement were an


attempt to revert to the style and diction of Attic Greek of the fourth century bce and an increased emphasis on epideictic, which emerges from a reading of the letters of Fronto, the only extant Latin writer on rhetorical theory from this age. The rhetorical treatises of later Roman writers on rhetoric after the second century are represented in Carolus Halm’s Rhetores Latini minores (1863).

Rhetoric as a Cultural Process

Roman rhetoric was both an academic exercise and a cultural phenomenon. Becoming well versed with the rules of the rhetorical system was only the first step in the process of becoming an orator. The development of Roman rhetoric involved a mutual process in which rhetoric, with its diverse origins and diverse forms (both Greek and Roman), helped to shape cultural and civic life at Rome; in turn various cultural forces helped to shape the form and practice of Roman rhetoric. The acculturative function of rhetoric cannot be overestimated, for it was in the schools, courts, public assemblies, and public halls that aspiring orators learned the modes of self- presentation and rhetorical skills expected of the elite classes. Rhetoric and oratory were the means by which the elite pub-licly defined their status, attained fame and prestige, empowered themselves, defended their position, met their social obligations, and transmitted their values within Roman society. The high esteem in which rhetoric was held and its vibrancy are evident in both the republican and imperial periods, during which the art of rhetoric dominated the social and political landscape of Rome.

References

Bauman, Richard A. 1983. Lawyers in Roman Republican Politics: A Study of the Roman Jurists in Their Political Setting, 316– 82 BC. Munich: C.H. Beck.

Bauman, Richard A. 1985. Lawyers in Roman Transitional Politics: A Study of the Roman Jurists in Their Political Setting in the Late Republic and Triumvirate. Munich: C.H. Beck.

Caplan, Harry. 1944. “The Decay of Eloquence at Rome in the First Century.” In Studies in Speech and Drama: In Honor of Alexander M. Drummond, edited by Herbert A. Wichelns, Donald C. Bryant, Barnard Hewitt, and Karl R. Wallace, 295– 325. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Clarke, M. L. 1996. Rhetoric at Rome: A Historical Survey, 3rd ed. Revised by D. H. Berry. London: Routledge.

Cloud, Duncan. 1994. “The Constitution and Public Criminal Law.” In The Cambridge Ancient History, vol. 9 of The Last Age of the Roman Republic, 146– 43 B.C., edited by J. A. Crook, Andrew Lintott, and Elizabeth Rawson, 491– 530. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

David, Jean- Michel. 1992. Le patronat judiciaire au dernier siècle de la république romaine. Rome: École française de Rome.


Dominik, William J. 1997. “The Style Is the Man: Seneca, Tacitus, and Quintilian’s Canon.” In Roman Eloquence: Rhetoric in Society and Literature, edited by William J. Dominik, 50– 68. London: Routledge.

Dominik, William J. 2007. “Tacitus and Pliny on Oratory.” In A Companion to Roman Rhetoric, edited by William J. Dominik and Jon Hall, 323– 338. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Dominik, William J., and Gualtiero Calboli. 1997. “Introduction: The Roman Suada.” In Roman Eloquence: Rhetoric in Society and Literature, edited by William J. Dominik, 3– 12. London: Routledge.

Hall, Jon. 2007. “Oratorical Delivery and the Emotions: Theory and Practice.” In A Companion to Roman Rhetoric, edited by William J. Dominik and Jon Hall, 218– 234. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Halm, Carolus, ed. 1863. Rhetores Latini Minores. Leipzig: Teubner.Leeman, Anton D. 1963. Orationis Ratio: The Stylistic Theories and Practice of the Roman

Orators, Historians and Philosophers. 2 vols. Amsterdam: Adolf M. Hakkert.Montefusco, Lucia Calboli. 1986. La dottrina degli “status” nella retorica greca e romana.

Hildesheim: Olms- Weidmann.Morstein- Marx, Robert. 2004. Mass Oratory and Political Power in the Late Roman Republic.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Sciarrino, Enrica. 2007. “Roman Oratory Before Cicero: The Elder Cato and Gaius Gracchus.”

In A Companion to Roman Rhetoric, edited by William J. Dominik and Jon Hall, 54– 66. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Skutsch, Otto, ed. 1985. The “Annals” of Quintus Ennius. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Williams, Gordon. 1978. Change and Decline: Roman Literature in the Early Roman Empire.

Berkeley: University of California Press.

9 780199 731596

William J. Dominik, ‘The Development of Roman Rhetoric’, in M. MacDonald (ed.), The Oxford...

Documents

Transcript of William J. Dominik, ‘The Development of Roman Rhetoric’, in M. MacDonald (ed.), The Oxford...