Search

This note adduces three passages in Seneca the Elder to reinforce a demonstration in CQ 69 (2019), 793–8001 that the text of Plin. HN 7.117 has suffered corruption in one of its clauses and requires emendation to restore Pliny's intent. This additional evidence concerns a trope employed by declaimers which could have predisposed a scribe to alter Pliny's text to state that Cicero proscribed Mark Antony. Such a statement has no place in a list of achievements that otherwise all belong to Cicero's consulship twenty years earlier in 63 b.c.

Previous studies on the relationship between rhetorical theory and Roman poetry have generally taken the form of lists enumerating elements of style and arrangement that poets are said to have 'borrowed' from rhetorical critics. This book examines, and ultimately questions, this entrenched theoretical model and the very notion of rhetorical influence on which this paradigm is built. Tracing key moments in the poetic and the rhetorical traditions, in the context of which the problematic relationship of difference and similarity between rhetorical and poetic discourse is discussed, the book focuses on the cultural relevance of this intellectual divide in Roman literary culture. The study of rhetorical sources, such as Cicero, Seneca the Elder and Quintilian, and of select responses in Roman poetry, sheds light on long-standing scholarly assumptions about classical poetry as artless language and about the role of rhetoric in the construction of the decline of post-classical cultures.

Search Results

Refine search

Refine search

Actions for selected content:

2 results

ADDENDUM TO ‘DID CICERO “PROSCRIBE” MARCUS ANTONIUS?’

Persuasion, Rhetoric and Roman Poetry

Search Results

Refine search

Refine search

Actions for selected content:

Save Search

2 results

ADDENDUM TO ‘DID CICERO “PROSCRIBE” MARCUS ANTONIUS?’

Persuasion, Rhetoric and Roman Poetry