Search Results

This chapter discusses the practice of rhetorical education in the Greek-speaking parts of the Roman Empire as well as Menander’s commentary on Demosthenes, drawing on the evidence of Quintilian and Libanius, and technical writers such as Theon and Hermogenes of Tarsus. The structure of the rhetorical curriculum is discussed, and it is shown that the developments of rhetorical theory in the 2nd century AD had consequences for the shape of the curriculum. The relationship between practical exercises (such as progymnasmata and declamation), the study of classical models, and the study of theory is examined.

This chapter considers the nature of the technical literature on rhetorical theory and its relationship to teaching. It begins by addressing problems about the composition and transmission of these texts. Evidence from Galen shows that technical literature was composed in a variety of ways and for many different purposes; its public circulation did not always involve formal publication. The diversity of the technical literature on rhetoric confirms this complicated picture. Its composition may have involved dictation, perhaps assisted by shorthand, or reconstruction of lectures from the notes or memories of students. Although the texts were not necessarily addressed to students, they were designed to inform rhetorical training, at least indirectly.

An ubiquitous feature of the Historiae is the comparison between past and present. Its aim is not just to demonstrate the superiority of the Christian present, but also to undermine the positive view of the Roman past created by rhetorical training. To that end, Orosius questions the traditional perception of the past as a series of exempla, either by omitting good ones or by expanding bad ones, and profiles himself as a true historian who states the facts, in contrast with his supposedly biased predecessors. Orosius' attitude is peculiar: in contrast with Ammianus he rejects the authority of the pagan past, but in comparison with Christian authors he does not propose alternative, Christian exempla, because his main aim is to question the traditional perception.

The prefaces to the Historiae and to another, minor work of Orosius, namely, the ‘consultation to Augustine about the errors of the Priscillianists and Origenists’, strategically deploy biblical and Vergilian citations, as well as allusions to Augustine's literary production (in particular the Confessions and the City of God). Whilst suggesting his submission to Augustine, Orosius also claims Augustine's authority for the works he is publishing. As such, the prefaces construe a rhetoric persona for Orosius, which need not be identical to the historical one. This literary self‐presentation, in conjunction with the well‐chosen Vergilian allusions, shows that some views of Orosius as a superficially educated clergyman are incorrect. In fact, Orosius was esteemed by his contemporaries for his clear rhetorical ability.

This chapter looks at family history in the northern and western provinces of ancient Rome, mainly by contemplating the potential value of certain aspects of culture, such as a rhetorical education and Roman law, as agents of change and as inducements for family members to adopt Roman family values and structure. It suggests that ‘going Roman’ had the greatest appeal for men, but in many aspects Gallo-Romano families, like those in Egypt and Lusitania, probably exercised choice in the ways in which they conformed to Roman models. The delineation of cultural identity presents similar problems in North Africa for Corbier, not for lack of evidence but for its complexity. Ethnographic analogies suggest that dramatic changes in family structure — including assertions of traditional values — often manifest wider changes in the balance of social power. In times of rapid social change, family structure is expected to be susceptible to sudden transformations. The myth of Roman patriarchy is also discussed.

This chapter addresses two issues. First, it is traditionally stated that the Historiae are a universal history. Although Orosius suggests a universal geographical scope, this should be understood as another technique that helps to suggest the vastness of the suffering in the past. No continuity with earlier forms of universal history can be asserted. Second, it is debated whether Orosius had a positive or negative view of the barbarian invaders. In fact, we should understand that the barbarian functions as a figure of contrast, much as he did in earlier Roman histories. Depending on the context, Orosius can efface the distinction between barbarians and Romans or stylize pagan barbarians as the archenemies of Rome. Both elements help to destabilize the romanocentric view of traditional education.

Although some scholars have written of an end of dialogue coinciding with the rise of Christianity, the composition of prose dialogues was far from moribund during late antiquity. During this period, Christian authors exploited and transformed the ancient dialogue form in the composition of new, culturally contingent forms of dialogue, which were designed as tools of opinion formation within the religious controversies of the time. The burgeoning production of these prose dialogues sheds light on the cultural toolbox of late antique writers and readers, and, by extension, on their education and culture, but it also shows that the prose dialogue was a form of choice for many Christian authors. The extraordinary success of the prose dialogue in late antiquity indicates the endurance and the evolution of ancient rhetorical instruction and traditions; in addition, it helped propagate the idea that orthodoxy would be recognized as the correct and rational doctrine in the context of a public debate.

The conclusion argues that the stichometric documents have been inserted in the speeches in an Athenian environment at the beginning of the 3^rd century BCE, presumably by Demochares of Leuconoe, the nephew of Demosthenes and an active politician himself. His was the first edition of the Demosthenic corpus. The non-stichometric documents are instead a very early product of the tradition of historical declamations and progymnasmata, witnesses of the development, side-by-side, of rhetorical education and antiquarianism. They were mostly fabricated during the Hellenistic age and spread in part of the ancient tradition of the corpus in the following centuries. They are important evidence for Hellenistic rhetoric and rhetorical education, and for the development of antiquarianism.

Heraclitus’ Peri Apiston is obviously modeled on that of Palaephatus, but is more eclectic in its approach, reflecting the environment of rhetorical education for which it was produced. The less polemical tone of Heraclitus suggests that rationalization was an established mode of interpretation by the Imperial period; it was included in some progymnasmata. Heraclitus’ blending of rationalistic, allegorical and Euhemeristic elements likewise reflects the vibrancy of interpretative practice at this time, as seen in other schoolroom texts. This chapter argues that ancient interpreters were concerned overall with efficacy rather than purity, which is why some popular figures (especially Odysseus) were understood in similar ways across interpretative modes and thus came to be read according to pervasive ‘habits of interpretation’.

This chapter examines the literary presence of a declamatory device: the reference to mythical heroines to express the paradigm of conjugal fides. It takes its starting point from the analysis of the sections of some controversiae quoted in Seneca the Elder’s anthology. The use of mythological exempla is a common practice both in rhetoric and in poetry and the customary quotation of these in Latin literature seems to manifest the influence exerted by the declamation schools and the rhetorical education a Roman would receive. In particular, comparison between passages of the rhetoricians (Arellius Fuscus, Triarius, Clodius Turrinus) and those quoted above reveals stylistic correspondences and compositional patterns that become authoritative for later authors. The influence of declamation is also significant in a number of passages on faithful wives in Ovidian poetry, the writings of the younger Seneca, the letters of Pliny the Younger, Martial’s epigrams, and Claudian’s poetry. The presence of declamatory influence in such a great variety of literary works confirms the notion of Seneca the Elder’s anthology as a collection in which the frontiers between declamatory inventio and literary material are allowed to blur.