Homeric Rhetoric

Here is a fun article on rhetoric and figures of speech in Homer- Homer Simpson that is. Here's a brief sample:

In this article, we consider some of the ways in which Homeric rhetoric has traveled from The Odyssey to The Idiocy by way of America's favorite cartoon character...

Homer's Rhetorical Questions

Consider this exchange from a Simpson family symposium:

Mother Simpson: [singing] How many roads must a man walk down before you can call him a man?

Homer: Seven.

Lisa: No, dad, it's a rhetorical question.

Homer: OK, eight.

Lisa: Dad, do you even know what "rhetorical" means?

Homer: Do I know what "rhetorical" means?

In fact, Homeric logic often depends on a rhetorical question for its expression:

Books are useless! I only ever read one book, To Kill A Mockingbird, and it gave me absolutely no insight on how to kill mockingbirds! Sure it taught me not to judge a man by the color of his skin . . . but what good does that do me?

Cicero's Rhetorical Theory

Here are some more extracts from Rhetoric at Rome, from Chapter V; Cicero’s Rhetorical Theory.

[In De Inventione] Cicero makes one of his characters, the lawyer Scaevola, dispute the claim of oratory to have civilised mankind. Was it not rather men of practical good sense, without any special gifts for oratory, who performed this function? Eloquence had in fact been actually harmful at times, as in the case of the Gracchi.[1] Moreover it might be said that oratory was merely an instrument to serve certain purposes, ‘to make the case you are pleading in the law courts appear to be the better and more plausible, and to make your speeches to the people and the senate as effective as possible, in fact to make the wise think your speech eloquent and fools even think it true.’[2]… In his practice he might use the arts and crafts of rhetoric to make the worse cause appear the better, and might boast of having thrown dust in the eyes of the jury,[3] but in his theory oratory was purely a power for good. (p. 54)

Cicero is indeed less interested in the appeal to the head than that to the heart. ‘Men’s judgements’, he tell us, ‘are more often formed under the influence of hatred, love, desire, anger, grief, joy, hope, fear, misconception or some other emotion, than by truth or ordinance, the principles of justice, the procedure of the courts or the laws.’[4] (p. 58)

His main emphasis now is on the necessity for the orator to feel the emotions he tries to arouse. ‘It is impossible’, he says, for the hearer to feel grief, hatred, prejudice, apprehension, to be reduced to tears and pity, unless all the emotions which the orator wishes to arouse in the juror are seen to be deeply impressed on the orator himself.’[5] If anyone wondered how the orator could be constantly moved to anger, grief, or other emotions in matters which did not concern him personally, the answer was that the sentiments and topics he made use of had such power to move that there was no need for simulation. The very nature of the speech whose object was to move the audience would be such as to move the speaker more than anyone else. Like the actor, the orator would live his part.[6] Antonius, who in this part of De Oratore serves as Cicero’s mouthpiece, records his defence of M’. Aquilius, and claims that his pathetic peroration came from the heart, and that when he displayed his client’s wounds the action was not premeditated, but inspired by violent grief.[7] Speaking in his own person in the Orator, Cicero says much the same; in all his pathetic passages it was not so much his talent as his capacity for experiencing the feelings he expressed that accounted for his success.[8] (p. 59)

From the appeal to the heart we turn to the appeal to the ear. The consideration of style occupies most of the third book of De Oratore, and though in the main the matter is traditional, it is worth noting where Cicero lays the emphasis. Of the four virtutes dicendi, the first two, ornate and apte congruenterque, are the important qualities. It is these that make men thrill with terror, gaze open-mouthed at the speaker, cry aloud and think him a god among men.[9] Above all it is the ability to use ornatus that constitutes the crowing glory of eloquence.[10] How is this adornment to be come by? The answer is that it will come of its own accord to the learned orator.[11] ‘Rerum enim copia verborum copiam gignit’, says Cicero, giving a new turn to the old maxim of Cato, rem tene, verba sequentur. If the matter is honourable, the words in which it is expressed will have a natural splendour. (p. 60)

[1] De Oratore I. 35f.
[2] De Oratore I. 44
[3] Quintilian II. xvii. 21
[4] De Oratore II. 178
[5] De Oratore II. 189
[6] De Oratore II. 191, 193. But writing as a moralist in the Tusculans he says oratorem vero irasci minime decet, simulare non dedecet.
[7] De Oratore II. 195
[8] Orator 130, 132
[9] De Oratore III. 52-3
[10] De Oratore III. 104
[11] De Oratore III. 124f.

Roman Oratory Before Cicero

I've been reading an interesting book lately, Rhetoric at Rome; A Historical Survey by M.L. Clarke. Here are some highlights from chapter IV- Roman Oratory Before Cicero:

The age of the Gracchi, with its clash of ideals and personalities, was conducive to high and excited political oratory. The two brothers were famous for their eloquence; Cicero, in spite of his disapproval of the uses to which it was put, cannot forbear to praise[1]…

Cicero recalls a passage of one of Gaius’s speeches: ‘Quo me miser conferam? quo vertam? in Capitoliumne? at fratris sanguine madet. an domum? matremne ut miseram lamentantem videam et abiectam?’ [2] Cicero’s theme is the importance of actio, and he tells us that Gaius’s eyes, voice and gestures when uttering these words were such that even his enemies could not refrain from tears…

On the other hand Cicero could give Gaius lessons in rhythm. Take that sentence, he says, From Gracchus: ‘Abesse non potest quin eiusdem hominis sit probos improbare qui improbos probet.’ How much better if he had written ‘qui improbos probet probos improbare.’[3] (pp 43-44)

The stoics believed in speaking the truth in plain words; they eschewed ornament and emotional appeal. Their style, says Cicero, was a meagre one, hardly calculated to win popular applause.[4] How true this was shown by the experience of Rutilius Rufus. As a good Stoic he expressed the strongest condemnation of such theatrical tricks as had won Galba acquittal,[5] and when he was himself accused, quite unjustly, of maladministration, he disdained to use such arts. He made no appeals to the mercy of the jury and would not allow more than the simple truth to be said in his defence.[6] ‘There were no groans or exclamations on the part of his advocates’ says Cicero, ‘no expression of grief or indignation, no appeals to the commonwealth, no supplication; why no one stamped his foot, for fear, I suppose, that the Stoics might hear of it.’[7] (p 45)

Wit as a weapon of oratory belongs to the Roman tradition. So no doubt does pathos. ‘Demosthenes’, wrote Swift, ‘who had to deal with a people of much more Politeness, Learning and Wit, laid the greater weight of his oratory upon the Strength of his Arguments offered to their Understanding and Reason. Whereas Tully [i.e. Cicero] considered the Disposition of a sincere more ignorant and less mercurial Nation by dwelling almost entirely on the Pathetick Part.’[8] Whether this analysis of national character is correct or not, the pathetic is a note which sounds stronger in Roman than in Greek oratory. It sounded at full blast in Antonius’ defence of Aquilius, when he contrasted the former glories of the consul and triumphant commander with his present piteous and precarious condition, displayed his client in person, sorrowing and dressed in mourning, tore open his shirt and showed his wounds.[9] (pp 47-48)

[1] De Oratore I. 38, Brutus 103, De Hauspicum Responsis 41. In early life Cicero was more favourably disposed to the politics of the Gracchi. In De Inventione (I.5) they are bracketed with Cato, Laelius and Africanus as men in whom was ‘summa virtus et summa virtute amplificata auctoritas et quae et his rebus ornamento et rei publicae praesidio esset eloquentia.’
[2] De Oratore III .214, fragment 58 Malcovati, Oratorum Romanorum Fragmenta Liberae Rei Publicae. Cf. Quintilian XI. iii. 115
[3] Cicero, Orator 233
[4] Cicero Brutus (id) 114
[5] Cicero De Oratore I. 228
[6] De Oratore 237-230 Brutus 115. One of his advocates was Q. Mucius Scaevola, also a Stoic, whose sober legal judgements proved ineffective against Crassus’s mockery in the causa Curiana. See p. 47.
[7] De Oratore I 230. Other Stoic orators were Q. Aelius Tubero, whose mode of speaking, according to Cicero, matched the harshness and uncouthness of his life (Brutus 117, De Officiis III. 63), Mummius (Brutus 94, cf De Republica V. 11) and Fannius (Brutus 101).
[8] A letter to a Young Gentleman lately enter’d into Holy Orders.
[9] Cicero De Oratore II. 195.

Yr 12 lesson; Rhetoric now and then

The NSW HSC syllabus includes a list of stylistic features and literary terms with which you should be familiar, to help you describe and analyse the style of the Latin authors we read together. We've already seen many of these features in context, particularly in the speeches of Cicero, who was without doubt one of the greatest Roman orators.

To help us become a bit more familiar with some of these rhetorical techniques, go to the syllabus and read over the list you'll find there (on pages 32-7). If any of the explanations are a bit unclear, have a look at this site, which gives a definition of a variety of rhetorical terms, along with examples.

Then go and read Barack Obama's victory speech and see how many of these rhetorical techniques you can identify in it.

In a word document, make a list of all the techniques you can find, including examples, and email it to me at the end of the lesson.

The Lesser Declamations of Pseudo-Quintilian

Over the school holidays (apart from having a great time in New Zealand) I had the pleasure of borrowing a book from the library which had never been borrowed before. It’s been a really interesting read- though I can understand why The Lesser Declamations II of pseudo-Quintilian isn’t exactly racing off the shelf.

These declamations are essentially speeches given in response to fanciful legal scenarios, used to train young Romans in what was considered to be the most important skill for a Roman statesman- the art of Oratory. The complexity of the cases imagined was designed to test the skills of aspiring lawyers and politicians, and often students were required to present both the for and against arguments of the same case.

Here are a few examples of the kinds of scenarios treated by pseudo-Quintilian which my year 8 class will be looking at over the next week.


#317- A general challenged by his son.

qui provocatus ab hoste non pugnaverit, capite puniatur.

filius imperatoris ad hostes transfugit. provocavit patrem. ille non descendit in certamen solus, sed acie commissa vicit hostes: in quo proelio et filius eius cecidit. accusatur quod provocatus ab hoste non pugnaverit.

Whoever is challenged by the enemy, but does not fight, must be put to death.

A commander’s son deserted to the enemy. He challenged his father. The latter did not come down to fight alone, but joined battle and defeated the enemy; in the same battle his son was also killed. He is prosecuted because he did not fight when he was challenged by the enemy.


# 321- Brother and doctor accuse one another of poisoning.

fratres consortes inimici esse coeperunt. diviserunt. alter ex his medicum instituit heredem. postea redierunt in gratiam.

is qui medicum amicum habebat, cum cenasset apud fratrem et domum redisset, dixit suspicari se venenum sibi datum. respondit medicus potionem se daturum remedii, et dedit; qua epota ille discessit. invicem se reos deferunt veneficii frater et medicus.

Brothers sharing an inheritance became enemies. They went their separate ways. One of them made a doctor his heir. Later they were reconciled.

The one who had the doctor as his friend, after dining with his brother and returning home, said he suspected that he had been given poison. The doctor replied that he would give him a potion as an antidote and did so. Having drunk it the man died. The brother and the doctor accuse each other of poisoning.


#332- The wills of a rich man and a poor man.

pauper et dives amici erant. dives testamento alium amicum omnium bonorum instituit heredem, pauperi iussit dari id quod ille sibi testamento daret.

apertae sunt tabulae pauperis. omnium bonorum instituerat heredem. petit totam divitis hereditatem. ille qui scriptus est heres vult dare tantum quantum in censum habet pauper.

A poor man and a rich man were friends. In his will the rich man made another friend heir to all his possessions, but ordered that the poor man be given what he gave in his will to himself.

The poor man’s tablets were opened. He had made the rich man heir to all his possessions. He claims the rich man’s whole inheritance. The man who was named heir wishes to give as much as the poor man has in his census.

ars oratoris

I came across a site yesterday which should be helpful to my year 11 and 12 students studying Cicero at the moment. It offers an exhaustive glossary of rhetorical terms, and gives examples of how they are used from a variety of classical and modern sources. If you've ever wondered what aposiopesis or paronomasia mean, this is the site for you! Here's a short example:

Alliteration
Repetition of the same sound beginning several words in sequence.
*Let us go forth to lead the land we love. J. F. Kennedy, Inaugural
*Viri validis cum viribus luctant. Ennius
*Veni, vidi, vici. Julius Caesar