Search Results

This chapter introduces the city‐state (polis) as the chief unit of analysis, and the chronological focus on Athens from the time of the outbreak of the Social War 357 to the establishment of the tyranny of Demetrius of Phaleron in 317. During this period (and in particular in the period popularly known as ‘Lycurgan’ Athens) it is possible to observe a growing concern for the performance by citizens of obligations and the development of the notion of social euergetism as part of good citizenship. This is most visible in both the evidence of forensic and symbouleutic oratory, and the evidence of inscriptions, in particular decrees and accounts of the Athenian polis, and dedications made by private individuals. This chapter introduces Lycurgus' prosecution of the runaway Leocrates as a key example of the encouragement of good citizenship.

This chapter considers three problems in Roman (primarily Ciceronian) oratory and rhetoric surrounding the notion of character during a prosecution. The first is the question of how forensic oratory was constrained by external notions of character; this is inextricably tied to a debate of long standing whether antiquity understood a person's character to be ‘fixed’. The chapter argues that the evidence is best accounted for if oratorical practice is seen as being informed by such a view. The second section shows that awareness of this view of character can also aid our understanding of the overall function of the criminal courts in ancient Rome; the differing roles of personality in those courts and our own do not indicate fundamentally different roles for the two institutions. Finally, and more tentatively, the chapter suggests that oratorical practice, shaped by this view of character, in turn affected the reception of theory of ethos proposed by Aristotle.

This chapter discusses Demosthenes' birth year, family, trouble youth and upbringing, being swindled by his guardians, his successful indictment of them, his early career as a speechwriter, how he overcame his speech defects, his marriage and sexuality and his oratorical style.

This chapter comments on the structure of the New Science. The New Science has been interpreted in philosophical terms, which dwells on its theory of knowledge, or in political terms, which places emphasis on its theory of society. GiambattistaVico’s own field of thought is rhetoric as the key to the law as the wisdom and order of civility. On opening the New Science, the reader is immediately puzzled as to what the order of its contents means. Expecting a logical order of topics, the potential reader remains confused but perhaps intrigued by the array of principles and subject matters. This chapter considers a way of comprehending what Vico has in mind as the structure of the New Science by focusing on the divisions of forensic oratory of his Institutes: invention, disposition, exordium, narration, digression, proposition, confirmation, confutation, and peroration. It shows that these divisions of forensic or judicial oration correspond to the parts of the New Science.

This chapter explores the evidence for oratory in Polybius' Histories and stresses the prominent role given to speeches. It distinguishes three types of speeches current in Polybius' world: deliberative speeches addressed to assemblies and councils, pre-battle exhortations by a general to his troops, and ambassadors' speeches which reflect the vibrant diplomatic activity between Hellenistic poleis and federal states. Despite the comparative lack of evidence in the Histories for forensic oratory, it emphasizes that the way Polybius makes his characters speak corresponds to the guidelines given for conducting prosecution and defence cases in rhetorical theory. The centrality of oratory in public life reminds us that the study of rhetoric was intended to train the youth of the upper classes to be effective orators; that is, to become men like Polybius, whose own activity as an orator brings the diplomacy of the Hellenistic period to life.

Like comedy, Athenian forensic oratory provides insight into popular attitudes toward homosexual practices. The orators give a rich store of valuable information about Greek daily life and thus afford a glimpse into some details about the actual practice of Athenian pederasty not available elsewhere. Fragments from On the Mysteries, Against Teisis, Against Alcibiades, Against Simon, On the Estate of Aristarchus, Against Androtion, Against Timarchus, On the Corrupt Embassy, On the Embassy, Against Ctesiphon, Hyperides, Erotic Essay, and Leucippe and Clitophon are presented as well.

This chapter treats the account of the courtroom activities—Q. Mucius Scaevola Augur defending himself when brought to trial for extortion in 119 BC by T. Albucius—in book 2 of Gaius Lucilius’ satires as an example of forensic oratory in post-Gracchan Republican Rome. The fragments of Lucilius’ verse record of the trial are considered in their historical and literary context, with a view to their influence on later satirical tradition. The fragments reveal intimations of force standing in for physical injury, problems resulting from the impact of philosophy on speaking styles, and ironies of mixed identity put to service in courtroom repartee. Lucilius is something of a stenographer, whose take on the trial is slanted towards its relevance for equestrians and its sensational elements redolent of Pacuvian tragedy; finally, the identification of poet and defendant encapsulates the trial’s interest and uniqueness.

This chapter highlights judicial rhetoric which is sometimes called “forensic” oratory, and is primarily engaged by lawyers and law courts during trials. The main purpose of this judicial rhetoric is a speech or writing that considers the justice or injustice of a certain charge or accusation. The chapter describes the Second Corinthians and its relation to the notion of forensic rhetoric. The chapter then looks at the important role of the Pauline epistles in the Second Corinthians and the connection between these epistles and the oration.

In his critical edition of fragmentary Roman oratory of the Augustan and Tiberian periods, Andrea Balbo has dealt with many declaimers who were active both in the schools and the forum or during centumviral trials. We know about their activity in particular from Seneca the Elder: among those are L. Arruntius Pater, C. Albucius Silus, M. Porcius Latro, and T. Labienus, as well as Cassius Severus. This chapter examines some of the school speeches witnessed by Seneca with regard to their stylistic features and compares the characteristics of these fictional orations with fragments of real oratory, giving particular attention to rhetorical elements that can be ascribed to actio, and special emphasis on the declamatory contributions of Albucius Silus and Porcius Latro.

No further definitions of kin were formalized after Solon’s legislation, but in a highly law-conscious society there is ample evidence of disputes between kin. This chapter aims to reconstruct the legal process of such disputes and their effects on the litigants and their kin, drawing on several case studies attested by forensic speeches and stressing the importance of long-term analysis of process as legally dubious compromises led to later lawsuits.