Roman rhetoric

William Dominik examines a few of the more important passages on style from the works of Quintilian, Seneca and Tacitus. Dominik's purpose is to appraise their purpose and intent within the context of their authors' works and the ancient debate on style generally in the first century CE. Since Quintilian's polemic against Seneca has heavily influenced ancient and modern scholarship, this passage raises the question as to what sty}istic model Quintilian was promoting in his judgment of Seneca. Seneca's discussion of style in his Epistles and Marcus Aper's defence of postclassical rhetoric in Tacitus' Dialogus help to place Quintilian's criticism of Seneca and his style in its rhetorical, literary and historical contexts. While Quintilian disparaged the postclassical style as exemplified by Seneca, Aper argued that this style reflected the changed social and political circumstances of the early imperial period and therefore was a form of expression particularly suited to the contemporary age.

William J. Dominik discusses both scholarly and non-scholarly opinions about Quintilian in the present day.

The Classical Review 73.1 (2023) 146:  'W. J. Dominik (‘Modern Assessments of Quintilian’) presents a bravura, telegraphic Sammelrezension of around half the 600-odd scholarly publications (and several ‘pseudo-scholarly’ ones, p. 465) on Quintilian between 1980 and 2016; they range beyond the usual languages into tongues as diverse as Ukrainian, Armenian and Japanese (most of these last, it is true, on Wikipedia)'.

In his introductory survey of ancient Roman rhetoric that opens Part II of the Handbook, William J. Dominik (ch. 12: “The Development of Roman Rhetoric”) argues that while Roman rhetoric is often treated as an adumbration of Greek models and doctrines, another useful method is to analyze the uniquely Roman “cultural dynamic” that shaped Latin rhetorical theory and practice. In addition to Romanizing Greek terms and employing Latin literary and legal examples, theorists strove to develop a native Latin rhetoric that reflected its agrarian roots and reinforced elite male Roman attitudes toward national, class, and gender identity. This attention to the singularities of the Roman social context also leads Dominik to contest the view that rhetoric degenerated under the Empire: law courts remained arenas of rhetorical activity, genres such as epic, lyric, historiography, and the novel flourished, and declamation—often criticized for its lurid, improbable, and artificial themes—emerged as a vital cultural practice intimately connected to the “social and political realities” of Roman life.

Taken together, the chapters that comprise The Oxford Handbook of Rhetorical Studies show that rhetoric is not only a body of precepts for stylish, effective communication in speech, writing, and other media but also a social process embedded in manifold areas of culture, a process that both mirrors and engenders the society in which it operates. “Rhetoric, like any other field of activity,” observes William J. Dominik, “is constructed socially, politically and cognitively in ways that reflect, express and extend—through its rules, structures, processes and values—the culture that produces it” (1997: 11).

In the Laudatio Turiae, Turia saved her property from her male relatives, and provided her husband (who was under her protection) with money. She also gave financial support to her sister, who was under legitimate guardianship. During the defence of her father’s will, she undertook the case. Being childless, she suggested to her husband to remarry, willing to share her property with the eventual children. In the Laudatio Murdiae, Murdia, had been married twice to worthy husbands and had children from both marriages. She left a will settling all her legal issues, making all her sons equal heirs after she made a bequest to her daughter. She also left her second husband a fixed sum, as a dower. Hortensia delivered a speech in front of the members of the Second Triumvirate against their decision to impose taxes on 1400 wealthy women, in order to sponsor the military legions. The women refused to contribute because their social position would be seriously aggravated if they lost their properties. These texts give a unique insight into the Roman family ideology and mentality, related often with the Roman law. In this article we try to illuminate the legal aspects dominating Roman society, but also the wife's position as the true guardian of the house.

""Book abstract: Despite the crucial role played by both law and architecture in Roman culture, the Romans never developed a type of building that was specifically and exclusively reserved for the administration of justice: courthouses did not exist in Roman antiquity. The present volume addresses this paradox by investigating the spatial settings of Roman judicial practices from a variety of perspectives. Scholars of law, topography, architecture, political history, and literature concur in putting Roman judicature back into its concrete physical context, exploring how the exercise of law interacted with the environment in which it took place, and how the spaces that arose from this interaction were perceived by the ancients themselves. The result is a fresh view on a key aspect of Roman culture.

My chapter discusses the location(s) and functions of the Praetor's tribunal from the 4th c. BCE down to the Augustan era, and how each location affected or influenced the 'identity' of teh urban praetor.""

I giorni 15–17 febbraio 2022, in modalità ibrida, si terranno, proseguendo una tradizione ormai consolidata, i «Semi di Sapienza», la rassegna degli interventi delle dottorande e dei dottorandi attualmente iscritti al Corso di Dottorato di Ricerca in Filologia e Storia del Mondo Antico o che hanno conseguito la Laurea Magistrale presso «Sapienza» Università di Roma prima di proseguire gli studî dottorali in altri Atenei.
Durante i varî incontri, che si terranno sia in presenza (Aula XXII, III piano) sia a distanza, saranno discusse questioni di storia antica e filologie del vicino e medio Oriente, nonché di filologia e letteratura greca e latina, classica e cristiana.
I seminari sono aperti a tutti (docenti, dottorandi, studenti); gli interessati a partecipare a una o più giornate sono pregati di contattare gli organizzatori ai seguenti indirizzi: [email protected]; [email protected], scrivendo nell’oggetto della mail Partecipazione Semi Sapienza 2022.

In 75 B.C.E., two events affecting the tribuni plebis occurred: their right to stand for further office, previously interdicted by Sulla, was restored; and the praetor’s tribunal was moved away from the Comitium and the Rostra, a main area of tribunician activity. This essay attempts to locate, link, and interpret these events within a broad social and historical context.

The connection between oratory and power is further explored by Steven Rutledge (chapter 9), who along with William Dominik (chapter 24) challenges the view,
sometimes asserted by the Romans themselves and hence by modern scholars, that oratory experienced a decline during the early imperial period. Rutledge and Dominik maintain that there were numerous opportunities for the pursuit of oratory under the emperors.
    As the discussions by Roger Rees (chapter 11) and Dominik (chapter 24) show, there is room for different views on the function and potential irony of imperial panegyric, and in such cases the approach taken in this volume is an inclusive one.
    Other important figures from this period are Tacitus and Pliny, treated by Dominik (chapter 24), and the elder Seneca, discussed by Bloomer (chapter 22) in his assessment of the influential Roman practice of declamation.

In his introductory survey of ancient Roman rhetoric that opens Part II of the Handbook, William J. Dominik (ch. 12: “The Development of Roman Rhetoric”) argues that while Roman rhetoric is often treated as an adumbration of Greek models and doctrines, another useful method is to analyze the uniquely Roman “cultural dynamic” that shaped Latin rhetorical theory and practice. In addition to Romanizing Greek terms and employing Latin literary and legal examples, theorists strove to develop a native Latin rhetoric that reflected its agrarian roots and reinforced elite male Roman attitudes toward national, class, and gender identity. This attention to the singularities of the Roman social context also leads Dominik to contest the view that rhetoric degenerated under the Empire: law courts remained arenas of rhetorical activity, genres such as epic, lyric, historiography, and the novel flourished, and declamation—often criticized for its lurid, improbable, and artificial themes—emerged as a vital cultural practice intimately connected to the “social and political realities” of Roman life.

Taken together, the chapters that comprise The Oxford Handbook of Rhetorical Studies show that rhetoric is not only a body of precepts for stylish, effective communication in speech, writing, and other media but also a social process embedded in manifold areas of culture, a process that both mirrors and engenders the society in which it operates. “Rhetoric, like any other field of activity,” observes William J. Dominik, “is constructed socially, politically and cognitively in ways that reflect, express and extend—through its rules, structures, processes and values—the culture that produces it” (1997: 11).

In the study of Roman historiography, little attention has been paid to the spectacular and performative representation of embassies, despite the important role they play in Ancient historical narratives. This article analyzes some diplomatic-related scenes with Eastern settings in Livy, Curtius Rufus and Ammianus, to emphasize the non-verbal aspects transmitted by these passages.

The connection between oratory and power is further explored by Steven Rutledge (chapter 9), who along with William Dominik (chapter 24) challenges the view,
sometimes asserted by the Romans themselves and hence by modern scholars, that oratory experienced a decline during the early imperial period. Rutledge and Dominik maintain that there were numerous opportunities for the pursuit of oratory under the emperors.
    As the discussions by Roger Rees (chapter 11) and Dominik (chapter 24) show, there is room for different views on the function and potential irony of imperial panegyric, and in such cases the approach taken in this volume is an inclusive one.
    Other important figures from this period are Tacitus and Pliny, treated by Dominik (chapter 24), and the elder Seneca, discussed by Bloomer (chapter 22) in his assessment of the influential Roman practice of declamation.

This book offers a detailed overview of the influence, theory and application of Roman rhetoric with a wealth of individual analyses of the role played by rhetoric in Roman culture. It utilises a wide variety of critical approaches and methodologies to present a contemporary critical, cultural and literary context for the study of Roman rhetoric. The book’s emphasis is upon rhetoric’s theory and practice within a broad variety of social, political and literary contexts. While this volume covers the major aspects of Roman rhetoric, fresh treatment is given to Roman authors and works that have emerged as key figures and texts in the past two generations of critical inquiry. Background material orients the reader and provides the contextual basis for the innovative, critical work that occurs in the rest of the work, which includes perspectives on rhetoric and society such as the link between rhetoric and social power, the relationship between rhetoric and gender, and alternative approaches to rhetoric.

Chapters by M. Alexander (Illinois, Chicago), G. Anderson (Kent), V. Arena (London), U. Auhagen (Freiburg), J. Barsby (Otago), M. Bloomer (Notre Dame), J. Connolly (Stanford), A. Corbeill (Kansas), C. Craig (Tennessee), C. Damon (Amherst), W. Dominik (Otago), J. Dugan (Buffalo, New York), J. Fernández, La Rioja), M. Fox (Birmingham), R. Gaines (Maryland, College Park), J. Hall (Otago), D. Hooley (Missouri, Columbia), R. Kirchner (Jena), J. May (St Olaf), C. McNelis (Georgetown), E. Narducci (Florence), E. Rabbie (Constantijn Huygens Institut), J. Ramsey (Illinois, Chicago), R. Rees (Glasgow), S. Rutledge (Maryland, College Park), E. Sciarrino (Canterbury), J. Small (Rutgers), C. Steel (Glasgow), S. Stroup (Washington), J. Ward (Sydney), M. Wilson (Auckland).

This book on Roman rhetoric examines its role in society and relationship to various literary genres. This volume not only examines the origins, development and theory of Roman rhetoric but also its practice, role and influence in antiquity. There are fourteen chapters, each focusing on particular aspects concerned with the function and exploitation of rhetoric. The introductory chapter deals with the development of Roman rhetoric from the beginning and outlines the contributions of each of the essays, while the subsequent chapters explore the function of rhetoric in Roman society, the transitions and tensions between various movements of rhetoric, between the adherents of different styles, and the relationship between rhetoric and various genres.

Chapters by S. Braund (London), G. Calboli (Bologna) and W. Dominik (Natal), R. Cape (Austin), C. Connors (Washington), W. Dominik (Natal), E. Fantham (Princeton), J. Farrell (Pennsylvania), S. Goldberg (California, Los Angeles), J. Hughes (Southwest Missouri State), J. Kirby (Purdue), N. O’Sullivan (Western Australia), A. Richlin (Southern California), M. Ronnick (Wayne State), P. Toohey (New England).

Chapter 7, “Reading Pliny’s Panegyricus Within the Context of Late Antiquity and the Early Modern Period” by William J. Dominik, maintains that the reception of Pliny’s Panegyricus by writers of late antiquity and the early modern period not only demonstrates its critical, even seminal, role in the history of the genre of panegyric but also serves to illustrate the potential functions of the Panegyricus’s own narrative. The reception of Pliny’s Panegyricus reflects its formative role in the development of panegyric in late antiquity, as reflected in the Panegyrici Latini, and in the early modern periiod, as shown in the panegyrics of such writers as Erasmus and Dryden. Pliny’s Panegyricus seems to accord generally with the practice of imperial panegyric. As Dominik notes, the necessity of flattering emperors such as Tiberius, Gaius, Claudius, and Nero for fear of the consequences is well attested, for example, in Tacitus, whose comments on the use of praise during the empire are especially instructive for reading the Panegyricus. Dominik points out how other strategies available for reading Pliny’s Panegyricus are based upon the various functions of epideictic in the social, political, and literary contexts of the Greek and Roman worlds. One hitherto neglected approach to the reading of Pliny’s Panegyricus is the way in which manifestations of panegyric during late antiquity and the Renaissance suggest further possible functions of the Panegyricus’s narrative. Although the function of the Panegyricus is indisputably laudatory on the surface, Dominik argues that later reiterations of panegyric suggest other functions that can be applied to its narrative: ceremonial and celebratory; authorially self-positioning and self-positioning; exhortative and admonitory; and potentially admonishing and critical.

Review (in German, ca. 700 words) of Manuwald's new commentary on Cicero's Agrarian Speeches against Rullus (De lege agraria). This is the manuscript version submitted for publication in "Forum Classicum" [where it is scheduled for a 2019 fascicle].
A fuller review will appear in 'Arctos' 53 (2019).

While the development of Roman rhetoric is usually examined from the perspective of the Roman adoption and adaptation of Greek rhetoric, an equally useful approach to the study of Roman rhetoric is to view it as a reflection of the natural process of cultural and political change. A positive account of the development of Roman rhetoric may seem difficult to extract from the sources because of the theme of secondariness and decline that runs through the narrative of its evolution. This chapter attempts to suggest the ways in which Roman rhetoric not only evolved from Greek rhetoric 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.

tic frames that suggest a unified interpretation. Morphological analysis points to feminine forms (supaf acc. pl.) and neuter forms (supa acc. pl.). W. suggests feminine and neuter substantives of an original thematic adjective formation. Phonologically, the stems must have a short syllable-initial vowel. The spelling sopa in the Latin script make this clear. In terms of meaning, supa must refer to a part of the sacrificial animal, cf. katles supa ‘the supa of the puppy’ (IIa 22). W. rejects etymological connections with Hittite suppa ‘taboo meat’ even though there is a certain appeal to a Hittite-Umbrian etymon when it comes to religious terminology. He makes a strong case for a vrḍdhi derivation from *sup‘above’, thus *sewp-o-. The Umbrian forms with short syllable-initial vowel and double consonant (/soppa-, soppo-/) can be gotten by regular sound change from *sōpo-/*sōpā(Umbrian regularly takes *ew to ō) via the littera-rule. The semantic developments from the meaning ‘on top’ → ‘supine’ → ‘the under-part(s) (of an animal)’ are arduous but paralleled in Greek in the same adverbial root, cf. ὕπτια ‘belly’, neuter plural of ὕπτιος ‘supine’. W. suggests ‘intestines’ as a likely meaning. In the Tablets the supa/ sopa were not eaten and not directly sacrificed. The result is an interpretation that fits well in all contexts, and an etymology that finds phonological and morphological support within Italic. The volume has many strong points, but what stands out is W.’s ability to bring a wide range of linguistic and ritual data to bear on his analyses, both textual and etymological, and to do so in a clear and coherent manner. His analyses are always carefully crafted and supported by as much linguistic evidence as can be mustered; they reveal a comprehensive command of Italic and Indo-European languages; and they demonstrate a wideranging knowledge of the religious texts of ancient Italy, Greece and beyond. This book is a must read for anyone interested in Italic religious studies, regardless of home discipline. Indo-Europeanists will find plenty to like too; dense etymological discussions fill pages of text. Perhaps, though, the book has a more important role to play. The etymological analyses offered by W. stand as a more impassioned defence of the methods of historical linguistics than the one offered in the introductory section of the book.

Savino's book is a contribution to a growing number of studies trying to grasp the meaning of the evasive collection of imperial biographies that goes under the name of Historia Augusta (henceforth: HA). The studies by Rohrbacher (2016) and Thomson (2012) may be mentioned as forerunners that serve as points of reference for Savino to build upon.1 Savino's book, however, is rooted more deeply in existing scholarship, and consequently it is also more traditional in its approach. Every aspect raised in the study is contextualized and accounted for with discussion of the state of scholarship and with reference to varying opinions.

The connection between oratory and power is further explored by Steven Rutledge (chapter 9), who along with William Dominik (chapter 24) challenges the view,
sometimes asserted by the Romans themselves and hence by modern scholars, that oratory experienced a decline during the early imperial period. Rutledge and Dominik maintain that there were numerous opportunities for the pursuit of oratory under the emperors.
    As the discussions by Roger Rees (chapter 11) and Dominik (chapter 24) show, there is room for different views on the function and potential irony of imperial panegyric, and in such cases the approach taken in this volume is an inclusive one.
    Other important figures from this period are Tacitus and Pliny, treated by Dominik (chapter 24), and the elder Seneca, discussed by Bloomer (chapter 22) in his assessment of the influential Roman practice of declamation.

Modern discussions of Roman rhetoric predominantly have explored the rules, principles, and the role of public speaking in politics, law, and education. Recent publications have broadened this perspective by examining the complex practices of Roman rhetoric as well as its societal and cultural roles, impact, and intrinsic limitations. With its diverse perspective and multifaceted role, Roman rhetoric played a crucial part in shaping cultural attitudes toward national, class, and gender identity. The objective of this chapter is to outline the subject matter and role of Roman rhetoric from the second century BC to the second century AD by presenting twelve propositions that deal with the following themes: historical context, rhetorical theories, issues of style, cross-cultural and intersectional rhetoric, cultural and social contexts, political context and power dynamics, educational and literary contexts, dominant and marginalized rhetorical voices, rhetorical theory versus oratorical practice, rhetorical performance and embodied rhetoric, material and para-literary rhetoric, and the "traception" of Roman rhetoric.

This article examines a passage from Columella’s agronomy (De re rustica, 1st cent.
AD) that has often stood in the focus of scholarship because of the political and moral relevance of
its content. Here, the author takes a socio-political and moral stance to argue that a farmer should
keep the size of purchased land within reasonable limits. According to most scholars, economic
considerations are here, contrary to the rest of Columella’s work, subordinate to virtue ethics,
ideological or social concerns. However, a detailed analysis of the passage’s structure shows that
the reader is not supposed to limit ventures according to ‘higher’ concerns; rather, the socio-political and moral aspects of the argument point to an economic model fundamental to Columella’s
teachings. Furthermore, several of these non-economic considerations are contradicted by
profit-oriented instructions, either within the argument itself or throughout the rest of the work.
Thus, Columella’s morally informed argument against an unlimited acquisition of land can be
considered a key text not only for the history of ‘land grabbing’, but also for the ambivalent
relationship between rhetoric and environmental ethics or, by extension, ‘sustainability’. Although
Columella is mainly concerned with profits, he shows himself aware of the wider effects and
responsibilities of farming on the one hand. On the other hand, Columella’s suggestion that
commercial interests and social demands might somehow be reconciled proves more often than not
to be unrealistic and is repeatedly not supported by his own technical instructions.

O desenvolvimento da retórica romana geralmente é examinado a partir da perspectiva da adoção e adaptação romana da retórica grega. Enquanto o desenvolvimento teórico e prático da retórica romana, sem dúvida, pode ser traçado das suas origens gregas, uma abordagem igualmente útil do estudo da retórica romana é vê-Ia como um reflexo do processo natural de mudança cultural e
política. Apesar de a retórica, em seu mais básico nível em Roma, ter envolvido o ato de falar e, em um nível mais acadêmico, ter sido legitimado por um complexo conjunto de regras, o melhor é considerá-la cotno parte de um processo cultural muito mais amplo. Utn positivo relato do desenvolvimento da retórica romana pode parecer difícil de se extrair das fontes por causa do tema de secundaridade e do declínio que atravessa a narrative de sua evolução. Esta conferência tenta sugerir as formas em que a retórica romana não somente evoluiu a partir de retórica grega, mas também como ela deixou sua marca sobre a disciplina
para que ela se tornasse um exercício acadêmico e um fenômeno cultural distintivo em seu próprio direito.

Modern assessments of Quintilian are still ambivalent, though investigation during the past third of a century has tended to focus on an examination of his rhetorical theories and techniques. While on a general level Quintilian is most often cited for his definition of a good rhetorician (vir bonus dicendi peritus), on a scholarly level during the past thirty-five years seemingly every conceivable topic on Quintilian has been explored. In comparison with other parts of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries there has been almost an exponential growth in scholarship on Quintilian, as exemplified not only by this Oxford volume on Quintilian but also other large collections on Quintilian, particularly those by Galland-Haylen (2011), Tellegen-Couperus (2003), Tomás Albaladejo (1998) and James Murphy (1995), not to mention the hundreds of other chapters and articles on Quintilian during this period. Altogether in the past thirty-five years almost 500 articles, chapters, books and dissertations have been published on Quintilian, the majority by continental European scholars.

The scholarship on Quintilian, though it has much improved in attitude toward and coverage, still remains prone to uninformed bias. While discussion of Quintilian in reference works such as the Oxford Classical Dictionary and the Ancient World Encyclopedia are more factual and generally discuss briefly his role in the history of rhetoric, criticism of Quintilian and his theories and approaches tends to be confined to discussions by critics or students who have not re-evaluated his critical role in Roman rhetoric and depend on some of the scholarly judgements made by past scholars. This is evident, for example, in some of the Wikipedia articles in English, Spanish, Portuguese, French and Italian. While scholars may be generally dismissive of Wikipedia scholarship, it holds an enormous influence over students and the general public and is often the first source for students and even scholars confronting an ancient figure such as Quintilian. The anonymous, (presumably) collectively produced and unreferenced Wikipedia article in English is extremely unhelpful to serious students of Quintilian. He is damned for being so heavily immersed in the culture of rhetoric so as to have lost perspective on its shortcomings, for being a victim of the education he advocates, for being compelled to adopt the unnatural language of his age, and for promoting the idea of an ideal orator whose existence was unrealisable. 

Fortunately, though, other modern assessments are much more positive in their approach, as evidenced by the enormous number breadth of topics undertaken on his theories and techniques that provide a foundation for an informed critical judgement of Quintilian. This chapter discusses the scholarly work undertaken and the approaches evident toward Quintilian during the past thirty-five years and attempts to illustrate how this scholarship not only ultimately provides a positive appraisal and reassessment of Quintilian’s role in the history of rhetoric but also reflects his important role in the modern resurgence of scholarly interest in rhetoric.