Ancient Latin Rhetoric

This essay investigates the impact of Cicero's rhetoric surrounding Marcus Marcellus in the Verrines on subsequent historical studies of the general. I begin by scrutinizing the actions of Marcellus during the sack of the city of Syracuse, particularly regarding his abstention from spoils, and compare these actions to that of his successors in order to determine what impact he had on Roman visions of merciful conquerors. I then analyze how Cicero utilized this developing historical memory of Marcellus as a foil in his prosecution of the praetor Verres. I show how Cicero created an image of an exemplary general as a rhetorical device, but one which was inconsistent with less demanding past recollections. I then examine how post-Ciceronian historians struggled to reconcile these two contradictory versions of Marcellus, and how Cicero's own censure of Verres' plundering darkened the memory of Marcellus in turn. I conclude by arguing that historical interpretations of Marcellus in the early Republic demonstrate a split personality, vacillating between Marcellan clemency and Verrine brutality within the same literary character.

Artis rhetoricae enchiridion sive Martiani Capellae (c. 500 p. C. ?) operis, quod De nuptiis Mercurii et Philologiae inscribitur, liber V ad usum Academiae Vivarii novi discipulorum a Georgio A. Laminario (Čepelák) in novam hanc formam digestus et aliquot exemplis additis auctus.

The Theater of Virtues. Pathos and Ethos on the Tragic Scene in Cicero’s Testimony
This contribution focuses on the reception of the Roman tragedy of the archaic age,
as can be retrieved from Cicero’s testimony, based on the attendance of the atrical
representations and stimulated by the contiguity between the dramatic performance
and that of the orator (as often emphasized by Cicero himself), with regard,
in particular, to vocal and gestural language and to the role played by pathos for the
purpose of capturing the audience. After a quick synthesis on the innovations introduced
by Cicero in rhetorical theory in relation to these aspects, an anthology of
passages illustrates the dramatic techniques adopted by the actors, the use of dramatic
representations for political purposes, and the different responses of the audience to
the ethical and emotional solicitations produced by the texts performed on stage.
For full text: http://aevumantiquum.vitaepensiero.it/

In this paper we analyze the poorly studied use of the proper name as a means of self-designation in the Aeneid, by trying to place it within the rhetorical theory and to identify its principal values. As some passages of Quintilian show (inst. 9,3,21 e 1,5,41-54), it is a well-known rhetorical device, part of the wider phenomenon of inmutatio. This expedient, skillfully placed in icastic positions, covers various values, such as the κλέος, the εὐγένεια, the public role (political, military and religious), the pietas and the tragic πάθος. Moreover, this type of inmutatio regularly contributes to increasing the solemnity and gravitas of the speech and the situation. Finally, the greater occurrence of anthroponyms in the speeches of the three main characters (Aeneas, Dido, Turnus) does not seem casual and underlines their dominant qualities.

In composing his famous Tome, Pope Leo I leaned heavily upon classical rhetoric, and an examination of his use thereof in the Tome will demonstrate that Leo’s attention to detail and balance runs not just through the dogmatic aspects of the Tome but down to the very formation of the sentences. In my article I shall contend that Leo wrote with such rhetorical precision because rhetoric is the art of persuasion, and he sought with this particular document more than any other to persuade, time and again, until the Church catholic, at Chalcedon, was persuaded to accept the content of this document as its official statement of faith. To demonstrate how thoroughly Leo’s Tome is imbued with and influenced by classical rhetoric, I shall examine the four virtues of elocutio: Latinitas, ornamentation, appropriateness, and clarity, as described by Cicero and Quintilian. Leo’s display of these virtues shows how the entire Tome was a construction of balance, not only theologically but also rhetorically. The content and the style cannot be divorced from one another, tightly woven together in the Tome’s fabric. When Leo gets his elocutio right, he is spot on; when he falters, so does his theology. Through the failures of Leo’s rhetoric, the Tome was easily misread and misused by his opponents whose intransigence was to have dire consequences for the unity of the Church.