Sumários
Essays: Discussion with students
5 Maio 2020, 14:00 • Fotini Hadjittofi
Essays: Discussion with students
Genre and Reception
28 Abril 2020, 14:00 • Fotini Hadjittofi
Rhetoric and Other Genres / Reception of Rhetoric
Questions
Do the sermons on martyrs that you have read continue or disrupt the classical tradition of rhetorical encomium and panegyric? Think especially in terms of the structure and style.
How accessible do you think these speeches would have been for their intended audience, and how would (or should) they have been received? What is their overall objective?
Primary Text
John Chrysostom, Homilies on Martyrs (tr. Wendy Mayer), in J. Leemans, Wendy Mayer, and P. Allen, ‘Let Us Die That We May Live’: Greek Homilies on Christian Martyrs from Asia Minor, Palestine and Syria (c. AD 350–AD 450): 111–161. London.
Secondary Reading
Kennedy, G. A. 1983. Greek Rhetoric Under Christian Emperors: 180–264, esp. 180–186 (introduction), 241–254 (on Chrysostom).
Maxwell, J. 2018. ‘Sermons’, in S. McGill and E. Watts (eds.), A Companion to Late Antique Literature: 343–357. Oxford.
Reception of Roman Rhetoric: Example of Pliny’s Panegyricus
Questions
How has the Panegyricus traditionally been interpreted? How has it been “received” during various periods?
What are the major themes and functions of the Panegyricus?
What are the ways in which the Panegyricus has been used in the different iterations of its afterlife?
Primary Text
Pliny, Panegyricus 1–10, 81–95.
Secondary Readings
Dominik, W. J. 2020. ‘Reading Pliny’s Panegyricus Within the Context of Late Antiquity and the Early Modern Period’, in M. Edwards, S. Papaioannou, and A. Serafim (eds.), Brill’s Companion to the Reception of Ancient Rhetoric. Leiden. (forthcoming)
Rees, R. 2011. ‘Afterwords of Praise’, in P. Roche (ed.), Pliny’s Praise: The Panegyricus in the Roman World: 175–188. Cambridge.
Body language and genre
21 Abril 2020, 14:00 • Fotini Hadjittofi
Greek: Body Language and Gestures Questions
The sophists and teachers of rhetoric who traversed the Roman Empire giving lectures or participating in diplomatic missions were preoccupied not only with language but alsowith physical appearance, including dress and deportment. For the following questions please re-read Lucian’s The Teacher of Rhetoric, which you already read for Week 9:
What does physiognomy have to do with rhetorical delivery? How important is delivery for a speech’s reception?
Nonnus’ sprawling epic poem, the Dionysiaca (fifth century CE), includes frequent
references to pantomime, which was an extremely popular form of theatrical entertainment in the Imperial period. After reading Nonnus’ description of a pantomime competition, consider the following questions:
Why do you think pantomime was so maligned by elite intellectuals?
What can the orator and the pantomime dancer possibly have in common?
If rhetoric in the Imperial period becomes increasingly gestural, how does this development
influence rhetorical style (you may consider Nonnus’ style too)?
Primary Text
Nonnus, Dionysiaca 19.118-348 Lucian, The Teacher of Rhetoric
Secondary Readings
Gleason, M. W. 1995. Making Men. Sophists and Self-Presentation in Ancient Rome: 82–130. Princeton.
Lada-Richards, I. 2008. “Was Pantomime ‘Good to Think With’ in the Ancient World?”, in E. Hall and R. Wyles (eds.), New Directions in Ancient Pantomime: 285–313. Oxford.
Roman: Rhetoric and Poetry / Body Language and Gestures
Questions
What is the relationship between rhetoric and poetry?
How instrumental were body language and gestures to the delivery of a speech?
Primary Texts
Tacitus, Dialogue on Orators 5.3–13.6
Quintilian, Institutio Oratoria 11.3.65–184
Secondary Readings
Dominik, W. J. 1992. “Roman Poetry and Rhetoric: A Reminder of the Affinity Between the Two Arts”, Akroterion 37.2: 61–67.
Hall, J. 2007. “Oratorical Delivery and the Emotions: Theory and Practice”, in W. Dominik and J. Hall (eds.), A Companion to Roman Rhetoric: 218–234. Oxford.
Wülfing, P. 2003. “Classical and Modern Gesticulation Accompanying Speech: An Early Theory of Body Language by Quintilian”, in O. Tellegen-Couperus (ed.), Quintilian and the Law: The Art of Persuasion in Law and Politics: 266–275. Leuven.
Women as Speakers
7 Abril 2020, 14:00 • Fotini Hadjittofi
Greek: Forgotten Voices and Free Speech Questions
Do you know of any ancient women praised for their rhetorical skill? How about modern women?
Julian’s Speech of Thanks to the Empress Eusebia is the only surviving panegyric about a woman. For which virtues is Eusebia praised? Do you agree with Liz James (below) that author and audience share a “complicit silence”, an understanding that the author could never express his true opinion?
Primary Text
Julian, Speech of Thanks to the Empress Eusebia Secondary Readings
Glenn, C. and Lunsford, A. A. 2017. “Rhetoric and Feminism”, in M. MacDonald (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Rhetorical Studies: 583–597. Oxford.
James, Liz. 2012. “Is there an Empress in this Text? Julian’s Speech of Thanks to Eusebia”, in N. J. Baker-Brian and S Tougher (eds.), Emperor and Author: The Writings of Julian “the Apostate”: 47–59. Swansea.
Roman: Female Speakers in Roman Oratory and Literature
Questions
Why does there appear to have been so few female orators in Roman society?
Does it make sense for female scholars of Roman rhetoric (Richlin, Connolly) in the “Secondary Readings” below to discuss female orators and speakers with reference to
male orators and speakers? Why or why not?
What types of roles do female speakers assume in Roman literature, for example, Livy’s
History of Rome (Ab Urbe Condita) and Vergil’s Aeneid, in comparison with their male counterparts? What does the depiction of female speakers suggest about their role in Roman culture in comparison with males?
Primary Text
Livy, History of Rome 1, esp. 13 (Sabine Women, pp. 22-23), 41 (Tanaquil, pp. 59-60), 47 (Tullia, pp. 66-67), and 58 (Lucretia, pp. 80-81)
Vergil, Aeneid 4 (with focus on the speeches delivered by Dido, Ana, and Aeneas) Ovid, Heroides 7
Secondary Readings
Stevenson, T. 2011. “Women of Early Rome as Exempla in Livy, Ab Urbe Condita”, Classical World 104.2: 175-189, esp. 179–181 (Sabine Women), 183–184 (Tanquil), 184–185 (Tullia), and 185–187 (Lucretia).
Richlin, A. 1997. “Gender and Rhetoric: Producing Manhood in the Schools”, in W.J.Dominik (ed.), Roman Eloquence: Rhetoric in Society and Literature: 74–90. London.
Connolly, J. 2007. “Virile Tongues: Rhetoric and Masculinity”, in W. Dominik and J. Hall (eds.), A Companion to Roman Rhetoric: 83–97. Oxford.