Ministry of Education of the Republic of Bashkortostan

State educational institution of higher education BSPU named after. M. Akmully

Essay

Subject:"The Great Orators of Ancient Greece and Ancient Rome»

Introduction

Chapter 1 Ancient Greek rhetoric

1.1 Sophists - teachers of rhetoric

1.2 Socrates and Plato - creators of the theory of “true eloquence”

1.3 Aristotle and his rhetoric

Chapter 2 Rhetoric of Ancient Rome

2.1 Cicero and his writings on oratory

Conclusion

Literature

Introduction

“The Word is a great ruler who, possessing a very small and completely invisible body, does the most wonderful things. For it can instill fear, and destroy sadness, and instill joy, and awaken compassion,” one of the most ancient philosophers and educators, Gorgias, very aptly and figuratively noted. However, the word is not only the most important means of influencing others. It gives us the opportunity to understand the world, to subjugate the forces of nature. The word is a powerful means of self-expression, this urgent need of each of the people. But how to use it? How can you learn to speak in such a way as to interest your listeners, influence their decisions and actions, and win them over to your side? Which speech can be considered the most effective?

The answer to these and other questions related to the ability to speak is given by rhetoric (from the Greek art of eloquence) - the science of the skill of “persuading, captivating and delighting” with speech (Cicero).

Who is this speaker? In the “Dictionary of the Modern Russian Language” (in 17 volumes) we read the following definition of this word: 1) a person professionally engaged in the art of eloquence; 2) the person making the speech; 3) a herald of something; 4) a person with the gift of speech.

There is probably no need to convince you that every schoolchild or student who prepares messages for lessons or club activities, speaks at school and class meetings, at ceremonial acts, etc. has to speak publicly. You have probably had to either worry about your unsuccessful performances, or get bored listening to your comrades speaking. But at the same time, of course, everyone can remember a bright, interesting, captivating speech by a lecturer, or a favorite teacher, or one of their peers.

In order to be an excellent rhetorician, you need to know the history of rhetoric, where it began, how it developed, and how ancient orators evaluated the word. This is the relevance of this topic.

Chapter 1 Ancient Greek rhetoric

1.1 Sophists - teachers of rhetoric

Ancient Greece is considered the birthplace of eloquence, although oratory was known in Egypt, Babylon, Assyria, and India. In antiquity, the living word was very important: possession of it was in the most important way achieving prestige in society and success in political activity. The ancient Greeks highly valued the “gift of orbit.” They listened with reverence to the “sweet-tongued” Pylos king Nestor and admired Odysseus: “Speeches like snow blizzard, poured out of his mouth"

For a long time, the art of oratory existed only in orally. Samples of speeches, even the best ones, were not recorded. Only the sophists, “teachers of wisdom,” in the second half of the 5th century. BC e. introduced written recording of speeches. Sophists traveled to cities and, for a fee, taught the art of arguing and “making the weakest argument the strongest.” They considered it their task to teach students to “speak well and convincingly” on issues of politics and morality, for which they forced them to memorize entire speeches as role models. The main place in sophistry was occupied by the theory of persuasion. The term “sophism” was generated by the methods of evidence used by the sophists; It is still used today to define a position, evidence that is correct in form but false in essence. In parallel with practical eloquence, the sophists began to develop the theory of oratory - rhetoric. Tradition associates the opening of the first rhetorical schools and the creation of the first textbooks on rhetoric with the names of the sophists Corak and his student Tisias from Syracuse (5th century BC).

The sophist Gorgias of Leontina (485-380 BC) received recognition and contributed to the theory of eloquence. Gorgias paid main attention to issues of style. To enhance the psychological impact of speech, he used stylistic means of decoration known as “Gorgian figures.” Among them are antithesis (a sharply expressed opposition of concepts), oxymoron (a combination of concepts that are opposite in meaning), division of sentences into symmetrical parts, rhymed endings, alliteration (playing with consonant sounds), assonance (repetition for the purpose of euphony and expressiveness of similar vowel sounds) . Gorgias's contemporaries - the sophists Thrasymachus, Protagoras and others - continued to develop and enrich the theory of eloquence. Thanks to the works of the sophists, rhetoric received great recognition and entered the circle of sciences required for citizens.

1.2 Socrates and Plato - creators of the theory of “true eloquence”

To the rhetoric of the sophists, which Plato does not consider science, he contrasts genuine eloquence, based on knowledge of the truth, and therefore accessible only to the philosopher. This theory of eloquence is expounded in the dialogue “Phaedrus,” which presents a conversation between the philosopher Socrates and the young man Phaedrus. The essence of the theory is as follows: “Before you start talking about any subject, you must clearly define this item»

Further, according to Socrates, it is necessary to know the truth, that is, the essence of the subject: “First of all, you need to know the truth regarding any thing you speak or write about; be able to define everything according to this truth; the true art of speech cannot be achieved without knowledge of the truth”; “Whoever does not know the truth, but chases after opinions, his art of speech will apparently be ridiculous and unskillful.”

The dialogue speaks clearly and clearly about the construction of speech. In the first place, at the beginning of the speech, there should be an introduction, in the second place - presentation, in third place - evidence, in fourth place - plausible conclusions. Confirmation and additional confirmation, refutation and additional refutation, collateral explanation and indirect praise are also possible.

What is valuable in Plato’s theory of eloquence is the idea of ​​​​the impact of speech on the soul. In his opinion, the speaker “needs to know how many types the soul has,” therefore “the listeners are such and such.” And what kind of speech, how it affects the soul.

So, according to Plato, true eloquence is based on knowledge of truth. Having learned the essence of things, a person comes to the correct opinion about them, and having learned the nature of human souls, he has the opportunity to instill his opinion in his listeners.

1.3 Aristotle and his rhetoric

The achievements of Greek oratory were summarized and elevated into rules by the ancient encyclopedist Aristotle (384-322 BC). He did this in his Rhetoric, consisting of three books.

The first book examines the place of rhetoric among other sciences; three types of speeches are reviewed: deliberative, epideictic, and judicial. The purpose of these speeches is good, the categories of which are virtue, happiness, beauty and health, pleasure, wealth and friendship, honor and glory, the ability to speak and act well, natural talents, sciences, knowledge and arts, life, justice. The purpose of judicial speeches is to accuse or justify; they are associated with the analysis of a person’s motives and actions. Epideictic speeches are based on the concepts of beauty and shame, virtue and vice; their purpose is to praise or blame.

The second book talks about passions, morals and general methods of proof. The speaker, according to Aristotle, must emotionally influence the audience, express through speech anger, contempt, mercy, hostility to hatred, fear and courage, shame, beneficence, compassion, indignation.

The third book is devoted to the problems of style and construction of speech. Aristotle's doctrine of style is a doctrine of ways of expressing thoughts, of composing speech. He demanded from style, first of all, fundamental and deepest clarity: “The dignity of style lies in clarity, the proof of this is that if speech is not clear, it will not achieve its goal.” The structure of speech, according to Aristotle, must correspond to the style, must be clear, simple, and understandable to everyone. Mandatory structural parts he called speeches: preface, accusation and methods of refuting it, story-statement of facts, evidence, conclusion. Aristotle's works on rhetoric influenced a huge impact for all further development of the theory of eloquence. Aristotle's rhetoric concerns not only the field of oratory, it is dedicated to art persuasive speech and dwells on the ways of influencing a person through speech.

Chapter 2 Orators of Ancient Rome

2.1 Cicero and his writings on oratory

The culture of Ancient Greece, including achievements in the field of rhetoric, was creatively adopted by Ancient Rome. The heyday of Roman eloquence occurred in the 1st century. n. e., when the role of the People's Assembly and courts especially increases. The pinnacle of the development of oratory is the activity of Cicero.

Marcus Tullius Cicero (106-43 BC) is recognized as the most brilliant and famous speaker and theorist of eloquence. His literary heritage is extensive. 58 speeches preserved

Of the three main types of eloquence, Cicero presents two: political and judicial. He developed his own special style, intermediate between Asianism and moderate Atticism. His speeches are characterized by abundant, but not excessive use of rhetorical embellishments, the allocation of large, logically and linguistically distinct and rhythmically designed periods, a change - if necessary - in stylistic tonality; absence of foreign words and vulgarisms.

Achievements of ancient rhetoric and your own " practical experience“Cicero summarized it in three rhetorical treatises: “On the Orator”, “Brutus”, “Orator”. In them he raises problems that are still relevant today. First of all, he was interested in the question of what data a speaker needs, and came to the conclusion that a perfect speaker must have natural talent, memory, have skill and knowledge, be educated person and an actor. Only having all these data, the speaker “will be able to realize the three great goals of eloquence - “to convince, to please, to win (influence).” Cicero continued, following the Greeks, in developing the theory of three styles and advocated for the classical scheme of speech construction, according to which the speaker must find what to say, arrange the material in order, give the proper verbal form, remember everything, and pronounce it.

He especially emphasized the connection between content and verbal form: “Every speech consists of content and words, and in every speech, words without content lose their soil, and content without words loses clarity.”

Another prominent figure of Roman eloquence is Marcus Fabius Quintilian (c. 36-96 BC), the famous rhetorician, lawyer, and author of the lengthy work “The Education of the Orator.” Already from the title itself it is clear that the author did not reduce eloquence to the sum of rhetorical rules, but called for the comprehensive education of the speaker, who should be a sage, highly moral and educated person.

Quintilian's main object of admiration and imitation was Cicero. They have a lot in common. Both distinguished three styles of eloquence and recognized three "great ends"; both divided the work of speech into five stages according to the ancient Greek rhetorical tradition. Both argued that rhetoric is both a science and an art, and thought about the relationship between natural gift and special training in eloquence. But the positions of these two theorists of eloquence are not identical. For Cicero, the orator is first and foremost a thinker, and the basis of rhetoric is philosophy. Quintilian put stylistics in the first place and demanded mastery in this area from the speaker. He praised the sense of proportion and believed that of the three directions of oratory - Asian, Attic, Rhodian - the best is Attic: “Let eloquence be magnificent without excess, sublime without risk..., rich without luxury, sweet without swagger, stately without pomposity ; here, as in everything, the surest path is the middle one, and all extremes are mistakes.” Cicero spoke out against scholasticism, for practical education in the forum (a place for a public meeting, a square, the center of the political and cultural life of the Roman people); for Quintilian standard educational system- rhetoric school. Cicero addressed his speeches to the people at the forum; Quintilian targeted a narrow circle of educated connoisseurs. At the same time, both rhetoricians made a valuable contribution to the development of oratory and the theory of eloquence.

Conclusion

Throughout the entire period ancient culture rhetoric predetermined not only the style of speech, but also, to a large extent, the way of thinking and behavior, that is, the philosophy of life. The works of ancient orators on rhetoric had a huge influence on the entire further development of the theory of oratory; they also made a significant contribution to the development of practical eloquence.

In their writings, speakers raise issues that are still relevant today. They were interested in the question of what a good speaker needs, and concluded that a perfect speaker must have natural talent, memory, have skill and knowledge, be an educated person and an actor.

If for the Greeks the main thing in rhetoric was the art of persuasion, then the Romans valued more the art of speaking well. Rhetoric, born in Ancient Greece and developed in Ancient Rome, did not perish along with ancient civilization, but continued to live in the Middle Ages and “Modern times”.

Literature

1. Kokhtev N.N. Rhetoric: Textbook for students in grades 8-9 OOU. 2nd ed. - M.: Education, 1996.

2. Basics of rhetoric. R.Ya. Velts, T.N. Dorozhkina, E.G. Ruzina, E.A. Yakovleva. – textbook - Ufa: kitap, 1997.

3. Ancient rhetoric. M., 1978. Ancient theories of language and style. St. Petersburg, 1996

4. Losev A.F. History of ancient aesthetics. Aristotle and the late classics. M., 1976

5. Averintsev S.S. Rhetoric and the origins of the European literary tradition. M., 1996

6. Aristotle and ancient literature. M., 1978

Tutoring

Need help studying a topic?

Our specialists will advise or provide tutoring services on topics that interest you.
Submit your application indicating the topic right now to find out about the possibility of obtaining a consultation.

Gaius Julius Caesar, Marcus Fabius Quintilian,

Lucius Anneus Seneca

According to established tradition, the founding year of Rome, first a city, then a state, is considered to be 753 BC. But countless wars with surrounding tribes for the right to rule in the region delayed the development of its spiritual culture for a long time compared to Greece.

Initially, the Roman state was a state of farmers and warriors, a people who looked at the world through the eyes of rational practicality and cold sobriety. The famous Greek cult of beauty in everything and enthusiastic service to it were perceived in Rome as a kind of oriental promiscuity, base voluptuousness and lack of practicality. Compared to the Hellenic world, even geographically oriented towards the more cultural East, Rome was a purely Western civilization of pragmatism and pressure. It was a culture of a different type, a civilization of individuals, but not of a collective. F.F. Zelinsky (in the book History of Ancient Culture. St. Petersburg, 1995.P.274) speaks about it this way: “In contrast to the Hellene with his agonistic soul, which led him quite naturally and consistently on the path of positive morality, we must attribute to the Roman a legal soul and in in accordance with it, the desire for negative morality is righteousness, not virtue. The ideal of positive morality lies in the concept of valor, which goes on to the concept of virtue, its means is activity, and its separate manifestation is feat. This is an ancient ideal, common to all eras. The ideal of negative morality is righteousness, its means is abstinence, its separate manifestation is the avoidance of misconduct or sin; This is a Pharisaic ideal in the objective sense of the word.

The principle of competition, so characteristic of antiquity, contributed to the positive direction of its morality, encouraging each person to perform a feat in the sense of valor and virtue.”

The businesslike and at the same time “negative” nature of the Roman mentality determines the nature of the Roman’s relationship with eloquence. A warlike people could not do without commanders and leaders who turned to the army and the people in moments of difficult trials. But in the Roman mentality there is never a cult of the pure word, sound harmony, or pleasure in the skill of the speaker.

Actually, we know about the eloquence of Republican Rome mainly thanks to the stories of Cicero and a few quotes in the works of other authors. We know the names of famous political figures (in Republican Rome, a synonym for orator), but their speeches have not reached us, since until Julius Caesar there was no tradition of keeping Senate minutes. The utilitarianism of Roman eloquence played a sad role in its history.

The political structure of Ancient Rome required the development of practical eloquence mainly in its political form. State decisions and laws, starting from 510 BC, were most often made collegially, at meetings of the Senate. Oratorical skills played a prominent role in promoting ideas during Senate debates.

The most significant orator of Republican Rome was the defender of the plebeians, Gaius Gracchus, glorified by Cicero, despite the opposite political views. An interesting comparative description of the oratorical practice of the aristocrats who led the struggle of the plebeians for their rights, the brothers Tiberius and Gaius Gracchus, is given by Plutarch in his biographies: “Tiberius’s facial expression, gaze and gestures were softer, more restrained, while Gaius’s were sharper and hotter, so, speaking with speeches, Tiberius modestly stood in place, and Guy was the first among the Romans to walk up and tear his toga off his shoulder during a speech... Guy spoke menacingly, passionately, fieryly, and Tiberius’s speech pleased the ear and easily aroused compassion. Tiberius’s style was pure and carefully crafted, while Guy’s was exciting and lush.”

The pathetic style of Gaius Gracchus and his younger contemporaries Lucius Licinius Crassus and Mark Antony was a natural manifestation of the general trend in the development of Roman eloquence. Having begun with declarative simplicity, the art of oratory in Republican Rome had to strive for pomp and sophistication.

If the Greek art of speaking was born out of the admiration of an inexperienced person for the beauty and skill of a foreign (Sicilian) word, since beauty is pleasing to the gods, then the Romans, strict and businesslike, not thinking in a military way, used speech for its intended purpose. Therefore, the path of Greek rhetoric lay from a heap of beauty and complexity to simplicity, grace and harmony - the defining principles of Greek culture. The souls of the Romans, simple to the point of naivety, were mortally amazed by Greek beauty, so their path was the opposite - from simplification to piling up, Asianism. It is impossible not to note a few more differences between Roman eloquence and Greek:

the political speeches of the Romans were always based on invective, a feature characteristic of archaic societies, when the idea was not yet separated from its bearer: debunking the personality of a political opponent is debunking his ideas;

Another distinctive feature of Roman eloquence was rude humor, which always attracted the sympathy of the crowd to the side of the speaker;

finally, the speeches of Roman orators were distinguished by aphoristic expressions that descendants forever remembered (a cluster of verbs, rhetorical questions, antitheses, narration).

Gaius Julius Caesar (102 - 44 BC) – commander and one of the founders of the Roman Empire. Author of military-historical memoirs and literary works of a highly artistic level. Caesar came from the patrician Julian family and received an oratorical education on Fr. Rhodes with the famous orator Molon. He was a supporter of popular democracy and won the sympathy of the people.

As the heir of the Gracchi and Marius, Caesar could not help but master the art of speech at a level comparable to the leaders of his opponents - the optimates, the leading figure among whom was Cicero.

The idea of ​​the outstanding merits of Caesar as an orator and writer is confirmed by almost all ancient authors who wrote about him. In his youth and in his mature years, he paid tribute to literature: ancient writers more than once mentioned Caesar’s unsurvived poem about Hercules and the tragedy “Oedipus,” and the treatise “On Analogy,” written in response to Cicero’s rhetorical work “On the Orator.” Suetonius also speaks of Caesar, a judicial orator who began his political career by accusing one of the pillars of the Senate party, Dolabella, of covetousness.

Unfortunately, none of Caesar's political speeches have survived to this day. He probably did not consider it necessary to publish the texts of his speeches on the occasion, since, unlike Cicero, he did not consider them works high art, but saw them as a means to achieve a goal.

Nevertheless, contemporaries remembered those that were uttered at turning points in Roman history as examples of persuasiveness. Historians Sallust, Plutarch, Suetonius talk with undisguised pleasure about Caesar’s participation in the Senate meeting on the Catiline conspiracy, when he was able to convince the Senate that it was unjust to kill people without trial. Everyone who spoke after him joined his opinion. Another incident testified to Caesar's skill as a public speaker. Only by the power of his speech did he fearlessly suppress and lead to complete submission legions rebelled in Capua. As Suetonius says, “Caesar, not listening to the excuses of his friends, without hesitation went out to the soldiers and gave them leave; and then, addressing them “citizens!” instead of the usual “warriors!”, with this one word he changed their mood and won them over to him: they shouted vyingly that they were his warriors, and voluntarily followed him to Africa, even though he refused to take them.” Using his brilliant knowledge of soldier psychology, Caesar with one “quirites!” instead of "militas!" achieved a stunning effect.

Caesar himself, who highly valued the beauty and power of thought in Cicero’s speeches, never used speech for the sake of “art for art’s sake.” For him, the talent of an orator was a necessary component for achieving very specific political goals. Therefore, Caesar's eloquence was devoid of poetic beauty and scientific delights, it was filled with liveliness, naturalness and energy. The Senate Party was concerned about the growing authority and military power of the recognized leader of the Democratic Party, Julius Caesar, and brought a number of serious charges against him for lawlessness, violation of elementary norms of Roman law and military honor. The crimes that the Senate accused Caesar of were not something out of the ordinary in the life of Ancient Rome; on the contrary, plundering the treasury and receiving bribes by consuls were common occurrences, and treachery in the war with the barbarians could well be regarded as a military stratagem. But for Caesar such a turn was a disaster. It was necessary to immediately dispel the allegations of the Senate's supporters about the predatory management of the provinces and create a different picture. The function of creating a mythical image of the invincible and fair guardian of the interests of the Roman people, Julius Caesar, was assigned by the author to “Notes on Gallic War" - a work in highest degree tendentious, an apology for oneself. However, being a subtle psychologist, Caesar maintains the illusion of truthfulness and objectivity in his narrative. He enthusiastically talks about the valor of his subordinates, because he knows: the main support of his power is the army. The soldier must feel his importance, the commander’s concern for himself, and then he will serve faithfully. With his essay, Caesar not only successfully refutes his political opponents, but in turn incriminates them in collusion with the barbarians. Justifying his illegal actions, Caesar cites arguments that create at least the appearance of legality and justice. For example, he makes his crossing of the Rubicon, in his words, “for the good of the state,” “in order to restore the tribunes of the people, godlessly expelled from the environment of citizenship...” Not only Caesar’s political, but also stylistic ideas turned out to be victorious. His simple, clear and elegant style is atticism, reminiscent of Lysias and early Attic political speakers, won more and more supporters in Rome.

Caesar became a role model for all later apologists of autocracy, right up to Napoleon and Mussolini. Under Napoleon, Caesar's writings became the model of school Latin, initially due to political trends. Later this reading took root thanks to the correct and exact language, relatively modest vocabulary and an entertaining story. Moreover, Caesar entered the consciousness of Europeans as the archetypal founder of everything: he really was the creator of the idea of ​​Imperial Rome and the first figure among the emperors; his family name became the title of the autocratic rulers of Rome - Caesars(from where the later Caesar, king, etc.); on his instructions, the traditional European chronology was created - the Julian calendar, which Orthodox Church still in use today; he left Europeans with the most ancient information about the history of their ancestors, about barbarian peoples Europe. Under Augustus, the Divine Julius was introduced into the pantheon of Roman deities.

All the great glory of Roman rhetoric can be indicated by one sonorous name: Marcus Tullius Cicero (106 - 43 BC). An outstanding orator and politician, writer, philosopher, author of treatises on morality and education, he became the personification of an entire era in Roman history and the most significant figure in Latin eloquence in general.

Cicero did not belong to the Roman nobility, but came from the “equestrian” class of the city of Arpina. His parents dreamed of a political career for their son and took advantage of their connections in the capital to introduce him to the houses of famous senators.

Cicero received an excellent education and studied Greek poets. He studied eloquence from the famous orators Antony and Crassus, listened to and commented on the famous tribune Sulpicius speaking at the forum, and studied the theory of eloquence. He studied Roman law with the popular lawyer Scaevola. Cicero did not adhere to a specific philosophical system, but in many of his works he expressed views close to Stoicism. In his treatise “On the State,” he talks about the high moral principles that he must have statesman. Cicero expresses his protest against tyranny in a number of works: “On Friendship”, “On Duties”, “Tusculan Conversations”, “On the Nature of the Gods”. But he did not have a specific political platform.

The first speech that has reached us (81), “In Defense of Quinctius,” brought Cicero success. In subsequent speeches, he spoke out against the violence of the Sullan regime and achieved popularity among the people. Fearing Sulla's persecution, Cicero went to Athens and the island of Rhodes. There he listened to Molon, who influenced Cicero's style. From that time on, he began to adhere to the “average” style of eloquence, which occupied the middle between the Asian and moderate Attic styles.

A brilliant education, oratorical talent, and a successful start to advocacy gave Cicero access to government positions. In 76 he became quaestor in Western Sicily. Arguing against Verres, the governor of Sicily in defense of the interests of the people, Cicero won the trial. In essence, the speeches against Verres were of a political nature, since Cicero essentially opposed the oligarchy of the optimates. In 66 he becomes praetor. By supporting the interests of moneyed people in his speech “In Defense of the Law of Manilius,” Cicero again achieves success. But this speech ends his speeches against the Senate and the optimates.

In 63 he was elected consul. Supported the senators and horsemen against the Democrats. Uncovered Catiline's conspiracy. In speeches against Catiline, he attributes all sorts of vices and the most vile goals to his opponent. By order of Cicero, the leaders of Catiline's revolt were executed without trial. The reactionary part of the Senate approved of Cicero’s actions and bestowed on him the title of “Father of the Fatherland.” All this caused displeasure among the popular people. With the formation of the first triumvirate, which included Pompey, Caesar and Crassus, Cicero, at the request of the people's tribune Clodius, was forced to go into exile in 58. In 57 he returned to Rome, but no longer had political influence and was mainly engaged in literary work. At this time, he wrote the famous treatise “On the Orator.” In 51-50 he was proconsul in Asia Minor. In 50 he returned to Rome and joined Pompey. After the assassination of Caesar in 44, he again returned to political activity, speaking on the side of Octavian. He wrote 14 speeches against Anthony, which, in imitation of Demosthenes, are called “Philippics.” For them he was included in the proscription list and in 43 BC. killed.

In his famous essay “On the Orator,” which goes back to the traditions of the philosophical dialogue of Plato and Aristotle, Cicero creates the image of an orator-politician and human rights activist who is familiar with all the sciences, because they provide him with methods of thinking and material for his speeches.

In Cicero's dialogue, Crassus offers a compromise solution: rhetoric is not a true, that is, speculative science, but it is a practically useful systematization of oratorical experience. Cicero is far from the ideological disputes of philosophers and rhetoricians of the Greek classics, therefore he reconciles, on the one hand, the Sophists with Socrates and Plato, and on the other, Aristotle with Isocrates, since for him they are all symbols of great Greek art and role models for the Romans. Cicero agrees with the Greeks in asserting that the speech of an orator should serve only high and noble purposes, and that seducing judges with eloquence is as shameful as bribing them with money. The task of educating a political leader is not to teach him beautiful speech. He must know many, many things. Only the combination of eloquence with knowledge and experience will create a political leader. In the second book, Cicero talked about location, arrangement, memory, and, most interestingly, about irony and wit - material that is least amenable to logical schematization. In the third book he talked about craft, about verbal expression and about utterance.

In general, the book “About the Orator” spoke about the formation of a true, ideal and perfect speaker.

"Brutus" is a book about the history of Roman eloquence.

“The Orator” is the completion of the picture of Cicero’s rhetorical system. Here he discussed the three styles of eloquence, propriety, rhythm, verbal expression, and other aspects of rhetoric.

I century AD - the time of the formation of imperial power in Rome, when the republican traditions of eloquence turned into a fact of distant and glorious history ancestors and a page of prohibitions on republican ideology and its propaganda opens. “With the transition from republic to empire, Latin eloquence repeated the same evolution that Greek eloquence had undergone in its time with the transition from Hellenic republics to Hellenistic monarchies. The importance of political eloquence has fallen, the importance of solemn eloquence has increased. Roman law increasingly evolved into solid system, in the speeches of court speakers there remained less and less legal content and more and more formal gloss. Cicero's verbosity was becoming unnecessary; lengthy periods were replaced by short and catchy maxims, laconically sharpened, sharpened by antitheses, sparkling with paradoxes. Everything is subject to instant effect. This is a Latin parallel to the chopped style of Greek Asianism; however, in Rome this style is not called Asianism, but is simply called “new eloquence.”

The main refuge of eloquence of this period became rhetorical schools, where the classical speeches and treatises of Cicero remained the educational models. But all the school exercises were very far from the practice of eloquence of the previous era, but were not at all useless: they were excellent gymnastics for the mind and language. In addition, the inventiveness and entertaining nature of the plot, purely psychological collisions, pathos, an orientation towards the figurative perception of the conflict, the play of the imagination - everything brought rhetoric and poetry closer together. The result was the development of the genre of the adventure novel and other equally fruitful genres of the “second sophistry,” which had a huge influence on the development of the European literary tradition.

The head of the new rhetorical school, Marcus Fabius Quintilian (c. 35 – 96 AD) reflected “On the causes of the decline of eloquence” in his treatise of the same name. Quintilian answered the question posed as a teacher: the reason for the decline of eloquence is the imperfection of the education of young speakers. In order to improve rhetorical education, he writes an extensive essay, “Education of the Orator,” where he sets out the leading views of his era on the theory and practice of eloquence, of which Cicero continues to serve as an example.

Like Cicero (“Brutus”), Quintilian sees the key to the prosperity of eloquence not in the technique of speech, but in the personality of the speaker: in order to raise the speaker as a “worthy husband,” it is necessary to develop his taste. The development of morality should serve the entire lifestyle of the speaker, especially the pursuit of philosophy. A cycle of rhetorical lessons is designed for the development of taste, systematized, freed from unnecessary dogma, focused on the best classical examples. “The more you like Cicero,” Quintilian tells the student, “the more confident you will be in your success.”

“But it is precisely this effort of Quintilian to reproduce the Ciceronian ideal as closely as possible that most clearly shows the deep historical differences between the Cicero system and the Quintilian system. Cicero, as we remember, advocates against rhetorical schools, for practical education in the forum, where the novice speaker listens to the speeches of his contemporaries, learns himself and does not stop learning all his life. For Quintilian, on the contrary, it is the rhetorical school that stands at the center of the entire educational system; without it, he cannot imagine learning, and his instructions are meant not for mature men, but for young students; Having completed the course and moved from school to the forum, the speaker leaves the field of view of Quintilian, and the old rhetorician is limited to only the most general parting words for his future life. In accordance with this, Cicero always only briefly and in passing touched upon the usual topics of rhetorical studies - the doctrine of the five sections of eloquence, the four parts of speech, etc., and paid the main attention general training speaker - philosophy, history, law. In Quintilian, on the contrary, the presentation of traditional rhetorical science occupies three quarters of his works, and only three chapters are devoted to philosophy, history, and law. last book, presented dryly and indifferently and having the appearance of a forced addition. For Cicero, the basis of rhetoric is the development of philosophy, for Quintilian - the study of classical writers; Cicero wants to see a thinker in the speaker, Quintilian - a stylist. Cicero insists that the highest judge of oratorical success is the people; Quintilian already doubts this and clearly puts the opinion of a literary sophisticated connoisseur above the applause of an ignorant public. Finally - and this is the main thing - instead of Cicero’s concept of the smooth and steady progress of eloquence, Quintilian has a concept of flourishing, decline and rebirth - the same concept that was once invented by the Greek atticists, the inspirers of Cicero’s opponents. For Cicero, the golden age of oratory was ahead, and he himself was its inspired seeker and discoverer. For Quintilian, the golden age is already behind him, and he is only a learned researcher and restorer. There are no more ways forward: the best thing left for Roman eloquence is to repeat what has been passed” (Gasparov M.L. Cicero and ancient rhetoric // Cicero M.T. Three treatises on oratory. M., 1994. P. 68).

The creator of the new style, which replaced the “ancient style” of Cicero, was Lucius Annaeus Seneca (4 BC - 65 AD). Born in Spain, his father, Seneca the Elder, was a horseman, wrote a work on Roman rhetoricians. He had a great influence on his son’s rhetorical training. Lucius Seneca was educated in Rome. He studied philosophy with the Stoics Attalus and Fabian and until the end of his life retained a penchant for Stoicism, although he was interested in Plato and Epicurus.

He began his activities as a judicial orator in 31. His success displeased Caligula, who wanted to kill him. Seneca was also threatened with the death penalty under Claudius. As a result of the intrigues of Messalina, exiled in 41 to the island of Corsica, Seneca remained there until 49. Returning to Rome, Seneca received the position of praetor thanks to the patronage of Claudius' second wife Agrippina, who entrusted Seneca with raising her son from his first marriage, the future Emperor Nero.

When Nero came to the throne, Seneca actually began to rule the state, and this time of a weakened despotic regime is considered the happy "quintuple anniversary of Nero." Invested in power and given the title of consul, Seneca accumulated enormous wealth. This aroused opposition against him. In 62, he retired from the court, but, apparently, continued to take part in politics, since in 65, in connection with the discovery of a conspiracy against the emperor, he, on the orders of Nero, committed suicide.

Seneca's literary heritage consists of works of a philosophical nature and poetic works.

During periods of general decline of civil ideas in societies that have passed the path from democracy to autocracy, there is always a process of reconciliation between rhetoric and philosophy. Seneca the Younger is a typical example of such a symbiosis.

If Cicero wrote his moral and ethical treatises in the form of a dialogue, then Seneca in his philosophical treatises comes to the form diatribes- sermon-dispute, where new and new questions force the philosopher to constantly approach the same central thesis from different angles. If Cicero's treatises were based on a linear composition of the development of the thesis - the logic of the development of thought, then in the works of Seneca there is no composition as such: All beginnings and ends look chopped off, the argumentation is based not on coherence, but on the juxtaposition of arguments. The author tries to convince the reader not by the consistent development of the logic of thought, leading to the center of the problem, but by short and frequent attacks from all sides: logical evidence replaces the emotional effect. Essentially, this is not the development of a thesis, but only its repetition over and over again in different formulations, the work not of a philosopher, but of a rhetorician: it is in this ability to endlessly repeat the same position in inexhaustibly new and unexpected forms that Seneca’s masterly verbal mastery lies.

The tone of the diatribe, the sermon-argument, determines the syntactical features of Seneca’s “new style”: he writes in short phrases, all the time asking himself questions, interrupting himself with the eternal: “So what?” His short logical strokes do not require taking into account and weighing all the accompanying circumstances, so he does not use complex system Ciceronian periods, and writes in concise, monotonously constructed sentences, as if catching up and confirming each other. Strings of such short, abrupt phrases are connected with each other by gradations, antitheses, and repetitions of words. “Sand without lime,” Emperor Caligula, who hated Seneca, aptly defined this fractional friability of speech. Seneca's enemies reproached him for using too cheap techniques in too tasteless abundance: he replied that as a philosopher, words in themselves are indifferent to him and are important only as a means of making the right impression on the soul of the listener, and for this purpose his techniques are good. In the same way, Seneca is not afraid to be vulgar in his language: he widely uses in colloquial words and turns, creates neologisms, and in solemn places resorts to poetic vocabulary. Thus, from a free vocabulary and loose syntax, the language that is commonly called “silver Latin” is formed, and from the logic of short strokes and emotional effect - the style that in Rome was called “new eloquence”. Seneca’s new style was most fully reflected in his satire “The Pumpkin,” which was a poisonous parody of the custom of deifying emperors after their death. After death, Claudius turned into a pumpkin, a symbol of stupidity in Rome, and not into a god - this is the ending of this interesting comedy by Seneca.

In Rome, as in Greece, the oratorical word was considered the most important tool political struggle. But Rome was not democratic republic, like Athens, but aristocratic: power was in the hands of a narrow circle of noble families, and the secrets of oratory were passed down by inheritance. Therefore, when the first teachers of rhetoric appeared in Rome (Greeks, of course), who were ready to teach anyone for a fee, the Senate saw this as a danger to themselves and expelled them from the city several times; Greek teachers of philosophy were also expelled as corrupters of morals.

In the life of Ancient Rome, oratory played no less significant role than in Ancient Greece. The development of eloquence in Rome was greatly facilitated by brilliant examples of Greek oratory, which from the 2nd century. BC e. is becoming the subject of careful study in special schools. Of the orators of Ancient Rome, the most famous are Cicero, Mark Antony, and Caesar.

Mark Antony Orator - ancient Roman Caesarian politician and military leader, triumvir 43-33. BC e., three times consul. He was promoted as commander of the cavalry during the war in Palestine and Egypt (57-55). In 54 he joined Julius Caesar and took part in the Gallic campaigns, governing the eastern possessions of the Roman Empire. Mark Antony Orator was one of the teachers of the famous philosopher Cicero.

After defeat at the Battle of Actium, he committed suicide.

Mark Antony Orator was one of the teachers of the famous philosopher Cicero.

Cicero wrote of Mark Antony as one of the two (along with Lucius Licinius Crassus) most outstanding orators of the older generation. According to Cicero's characterization, Antony was a calculating orator who skillfully selected the strongest arguments to support his position and used them. Thanks to his memory, he made only carefully thought-out speeches with calculated effect, although he always seemed to be speaking impromptu. In addition, Anthony very expressively used non-verbal means of communication, such as gestures, as if “his body movements expressed thoughts, not words.” These qualities made Antony the most sought after court speaker of his time. Anthony wrote a short essay “On Eloquence,” which, however, has not survived.

Marcus Tullius Cicero is an ancient Roman politician and philosopher, a brilliant orator.

He was born in Arpin, came from the equestrian class, and received an excellent education. Cicero's activities in this post were so successful that the fame of his peaceful exploits crossed the borders of the island. Returning to Rome, Cicero joined the Senate and soon gained a reputation as an outstanding orator. Cicero was killed by assassins.

Marcus Tullius Cicero published more than a hundred speeches, political and judicial, of which 58 have been preserved in full or in significant fragments. His philosophical treatises, which do not contain new ideas, are valuable because they present, in detail and without distortion, the teachings of the leading philosophical schools of his time. The works of Cicero have had strong influence on religious thinkers, in particular St. Augustine, representatives of the Renaissance and humanism (Petrarch, Erasmus of Rotterdam, Boccaccio), French enlighteners (Diderot, Voltaire, Rousseau, Montesquieu) and many others. Particularly famous are four speeches delivered in November and December 63 BC. e. in the Roman Senate by consul Cicero, during the suppression of Catiline's conspiracy. Preserved in the literary processing of the author, carried out by him in 61-60 BC. Speeches are a remarkable example of oratory

Recognizing that “the speaker should exaggerate the fact,” Cicero uses exaggeration techniques in his speeches. The liveliness of his speech is acquired through the use of a common language, the absence of archaisms and the rare use of Greek words. A prominent place is given to language, rhythm and periodicity of speech, its pronunciation, and Cicero refers to the performance of an actor who, through facial expressions and gestures, seeks to influence the soul of listeners. He also did not shy away from theatrical techniques. He especially emphasized the connection between content and verbal form: “Every speech consists of content and words, and in every speech, words without content lose their soil, and content without words loses clarity.”

Selected quotes:

Sword of Damocles: From the ancient Greek myth about the Syracusan tyrant Dionysius the Elder, retold by Cicero in his work “Tusculan Conversations.”

Father of History: This honorary title was first assigned to him by the Greek historian Herodotus by Cicero in his essay “On the Laws.”

However, rhetoric was knocking on the door too persistently. Rome, having achieved political dominion in the Mediterranean, diligently assimilated Greek culture, striving in this area, if not for primacy, then at least for equality, and rhetoric (along with philosophy) was the basis of this culture. It was under her influence that oratorical prose became not only a fact of political struggle, but also a literary genre.

Political figures made passionate speeches, such as the reformers the Gracchus brothers, especially Gaius Gracchus, who was an orator of exceptional power. Captivating the masses with the gift of speech, he also used some theatrical techniques in his speeches.

Among Roman orators, for example, such a technique as showing scars from wounds received in the struggle for freedom was widespread.

Like the Greeks, the Romans distinguished two directions in eloquence: Asiatic and Attic.

Atticism was characterized by a concise, simple language, as written by the Greek orator Lysias and the historian Thucydides. The Attic direction in Rome was followed by Julius Caesar, the poet Lipinius Calvus, and the republican Marcus Julius Brutus, to whom Cicero dedicated his treatise “Brutus.”

It was Cicero who is considered the greatest orator of Ancient Rome. Cicero entered the history of rhetoric and oratory primarily as a brilliant stylist and inspired speaker, who with his speeches and written works contributed greatly to the construction, design and persuasiveness of public speaking their colleagues and followers. Here he invariably followed the behest of the greatest orator of antiquity, Demosthenes, who said that in oratory “the first thing, the second, and the third is utterance.”

The first speech that has reached us (81), “In Defense of Quinctius,” about the return of illegally seized property to him, brought Cicero success. In it he adhered to the Asian style, in which his rival Hortensius was famous. He achieved even greater success with his speech “In Defense of Roscius of Ameripus.” Defending Roscius, whom his relatives accused of murdering his own father for selfish purposes, Cicero spoke out against the violence of the Sullan regime, exposing the dark actions of Sulla’s favorite, Cornelius Chrysogonus, with the help of whom the relatives wanted to take possession of the property of the murdered man. Cicero won this trial and achieved popularity among the people with his opposition to the aristocracy. For a political and especially a judicial speaker, it was important not so much to truthfully highlight the essence of the case, but to present it in such a way that the judges and the public surrounding the judicial tribunal would believe in its truth. The public's attitude towards the speaker's speech was considered as the voice of the people and could not but put pressure on the decision of the judges. Therefore, the outcome of the case depended almost exclusively on the skill of the orator. Cicero's speeches, although they were structured according to the scheme of traditional ancient rhetoric, also give an idea of ​​the techniques by which he achieved success.

Cicero himself notes in his speeches “an abundance of thoughts and words,” in most cases stemming from the speaker’s desire to divert the judges’ attention from unfavorable facts, focus it only on circumstances useful for the success of the case, and give them the necessary illumination. In this regard, the story was important for the trial, which was supported by tendentious argumentation, often by distortion of witness testimony. Dramatic episodes and images were woven into the story, giving the speeches an artistic form.

Recognizing that “the speaker should exaggerate the fact,” Cicero in his speeches considers amplification to be natural—a technique of exaggeration. Thus, in a speech against Catiline, Cicero claims that Catiline was going to set fire to Rome from 12 sides and, patronizing the bandits, destroy everyone honest people. Cicero was not averse to theatrical techniques, which caused his opponents to accuse him of insincerity and false tearfulness. Wanting to evoke pity for the accused in a speech in defense of Milo, he himself says that “he cannot speak from tears,” and in another case (speech in defense of Flaccus) he picked up the child, the son of Flaccus, and with tears asked the judges to spare his father .

In theoretical works on eloquence, Cicero summarized the principles, rules and techniques that he followed in his practical activities. His treatises “On the Orator” (55), “Brutus” (46) and “Orator” (46) are known.

The work “On the Orator” in three books represents a dialogue between two famous orators, predecessors of Cicero - Licinnus Crassus and Mark Antony, representatives of the Senate party. Cicero expresses his views through the mouth of Crassus, who believes that only a well-rounded educated person can be an orator. In such a speaker, Cicero sees a politician, the savior of the state in an alarming time of civil wars.

In the same treatise, Cicero touches on the structure and content of speech, its design. A prominent place is given to language, rhythm and periodicity of speech, its pronunciation, and Cicero refers to the performance of an actor who, through facial expressions and gestures, seeks to influence the soul of the listeners.

The works of the speaker that have reached us have exceptional historical and cultural value. Already in the Middle Ages, and especially during the Renaissance, specialists were interested in rhetorical and philosophical works Cicero, the latter became acquainted with the Greek philosophical schools. Humanists especially appreciated Cicero's style.

Departure from ancient tradition in rhetoric, although it emerged in later Roman rhetoric, nevertheless, it was not expressed in an explicit, much less sharp, form. Therefore, this stage in the development of rhetoric can be characterized as transitional from antiquity to the Middle Ages, when faith replaced persuasion, which, according to the church fathers, was supposed to replace all previously created means of persuasion.

The living word has been and remains the most important weapon in the ideological and political struggle of our time. And it is the rhetorical culture of antiquity that underlies liberal arts education Europe from the Renaissance until the 18th century. It is no coincidence that today the surviving texts of the speeches of ancient orators have not only historical interest, but have a powerful influence on modern events, retain enormous cultural value, being examples of convincing logic, inspired feeling and truly creative style.

Despite the fact that Aristotle remained the highest authority in the field of rhetoric for ancient Rome, nevertheless, the Romans contributed a lot of valuable and noteworthy things to this science and especially to the practice of oratory. First of all, their merit lies in the development of techniques for composing speeches, the analysis of those arguments, or arguments that the Stagirite called non-technical, and the improvement of the style and beauty of speech. Here the Roman orators are investigators rather of the tradition that arose in the works of Aristotle’s student Theophrastus than of himself. They believed that his “Rhetoric,” despite its undeniable merits, was better suited for analyzing ready-made speeches than for composing them. Therefore, for Roman rhetoricians and orators it is much higher value had a manual “On the Syllable”, written by Theophrastus - which has not reached us, in which he, relying on the principles of his teacher, summarized the enormous experience accumulated by his predecessors in the field of style and pronunciation of speech.

Roman judicial orators significantly improved the so-called non-technical means of argumentation associated with the use of evidence, testimony, contracts, treaties, and especially the rules of law. It is well known that the intensive development of Roman law stimulated interest in issues of argumentation and persuasion, and the reference to legal laws became indisputable evidence in judicial speeches. Roman judicial orators were attracted by the scheme of reducing all the diverse cases and motives to unified system complex and branched types and varieties - so-called statuses. The foundations of such a system were developed in the middle of the 2nd century BC. Hermagoras, considered a transitional figure from Hellenistic to Roman rhetoric. Roman orators also abandoned the Aristotelian division of premises simply into general and particular. Instead, they began to characterize them as categories of a certain kind, such as cause and effect, actual and possible, etc. Thanks to this, they were able to make a more subtle distinction between premises based on their quality rather than quantity or volume (general and specific judgments).

Under the influence of Hermagorus, Roman judicial orators began to use in their speeches pre-prepared forms, or structures, of arguments or arguments that could be used in future speeches. However, Cicero and Quintillian subsequently spoke out against such dogmatic schemes, rightly emphasizing that the invention and discovery of suitable arguments and reasoning schemes constitutes creative process and requires a broad and free education.

The efforts of ancient Roman orators were concentrated mainly around the problems of political struggle in the Senate, in popular forums, as well as judicial proceedings in civil and criminal cases. Therefore, they were little interested in theoretical issues of argumentation and rhetoric in general. The only exception to this was, perhaps, the outstanding orator of ancient Rome, Marcus Julius Cicero, who invariably emphasized in his writings the need to combine eloquence with persuasiveness, rhetoric with philosophy. True, the philosophical views of Cicero himself cannot be called consistent and monistic, since he tried to combine in his worldview the views of such incompatible ancient schools as the Stoics, Peripatetics and Academicians (followers of Plato), although in theory he was inclined towards skeptical philosophy, and in practice he adhered to Stoicism , who helped him endure the difficulties and hardships of political persecution and persecution. In rhetoric, Cicero tried to combine, on the one hand, the philosophical principles of Plato and Aristotle, and on the other, purely practical techniques and recommendations coming from Isocrates. However, his main attention is not paid to philosophical principles, about which very little is said in his three treatises on oratory. He is most interested in the applied side of rhetoric, its skillful use in the Senate, people's assembly, and court.

As for Roman rhetoric after Cicero, with the fall of the republic and the emergence of monarchies, the need for public speeches fell noticeably, with the exception of judicial oratory skills. But even the very nature of judicial eloquence has changed significantly. A businesslike style began to predominate, and instead of verbose and lengthy arguments, short, precise formulations began to be used, which were better suited to the nature of the trial.

The short rise of oratory and rhetoric after Cicero was associated with the name of Marcus Fabius Quintilian, considered the most famous orator in the last quarter of the 1st century AD. Although Quintilian was a great admirer of Cicero, in his rhetoric he was guided not so much by the people and the general democratic public, but by a select circle of connoisseurs of style and beauty of speech. Therefore, he wanted to see in the speaker not so much a thinker as a stylist. It is characteristic that he also defines rhetoric as the art of speaking well.

The departure from the ancient tradition in rhetoric, although it was evident in later Roman rhetoric, nevertheless it was not expressed in an obvious and even more dramatic form. Therefore, this stage in the development of rhetoric can be characterized as transitional from antiquity to the Middle Ages, when faith replaced persuasion, which, according to the church fathers, was supposed to replace all previously created means of persuasion.

Classical Athenian democracy was formed at the end of the 6th - beginning of the 5th centuries. BC. through the efforts of the famous reformers of the tribal community Solon, Cleisthenes, Ephialtes. The main democratic achievement of Athens is the legal structure of the state. With the coming to power of Solon, the founding father Athenian democracy- A jury trial was established in Athens. It was a democratic supreme court, in which any citizen of Attica of non-property qualifications who had reached thirty years of age could be a judge. However, the Solon court did not have the modern institutions of the prosecutor's office, investigation and defense. Usually the victim himself acted as the prosecutor, and he also performed the functions of defense. And only later - a hired speaker. That is why there was a need for people who knew how to speak convincingly, logically and convincingly in court, and to behave in public, which was of no small importance.

The art of oratory first received practical application in Sicily. Aristotle calls the father of rhetoric and teacher of the sophist-orator Gorgias Empedocles from Agrigentum. In Sicily, the main types of oratory had already emerged, which became widespread in Athens in the 5th century. BC.

This is first of all political eloquence, glorified by the names Themistocles and, mainly, Pericles.

It was no less common judicial eloquence.

The third type of oratory is epideictic, solemn eloquence, in which Gorgias was especially skilled. His appeals, which played the role of political pamphlets, were distinguished by their flowery style and were replete with alliteration, antitheses, semantic opposition, and metaphors.

The division of speech into equal parts, contrasted in meaning, with a semblance of rhyme at the end, is known in ancient literature as Gorgias' rhetorical figures. No one had said this before Gorgias. As a result national assembly gave preference to this political speaker only for his ability to beautifully express his thoughts. After a little time, inspired by success, Gorgias moved to Athens and opened a school of eloquence. The attractiveness of Gorgias's speeches for his contemporaries lay in his ability to use the sound, musical side of speech. For the first time, he carefully analyzes the sound organization of verbal techniques that are used in spells, prayers, and poetry, and transfers them into his speech. Thus, Gorgias develops a method of influencing the listener, which consisted of “magic sorcery”: charming the spirit and “deceiving the mind.” This caused a violent reaction from Plato, who attacked the immorality and insincerity of Gorgian rhetorical teaching. Thus, from the very emergence of eloquence, a fierce confrontation between rhetoric and philosophy, journalism and science begins, which has not been completed to this day.

Gorgias aroused admiration not at all as a political or judicial orator, but as a master of solemn eloquence, or epideictic (as defined by Aristotle).

These three types of oratory did not develop independently of each other. Gorgias delivered not only laudatory speeches, but was also a compiler of judicial speeches; Pericles, a political orator, also delivered panegyrics, and Antiphon, a judicial orator, made political speeches.

Fox

Lysias was born in Athens around 435 BC. His father was a wealthy Syracusan who, at the invitation of Pericles, settled in Athens as a metecus (newcomer), where he had a weapons workshop. Lysias belonged to the Democratic Party. During the reign of 30 tyrants, he and his brother were sentenced to death, and their property was confiscated. Lysias managed to escape, he fled from Athens and returned there after the fall of the tyrants. Aristotle says that Lysias opened his own school of rhetoric, but, having failed, turned to practical eloquence, which he performed during his persecution of the murderers of his brother. The life of Lysias is known from Plutarch’s Lives. Lysias became a popular logographer. He wrote more than 200 speeches, but only 34 have reached us. Most of them were defensive speeches regarding private litigation. But in them Lysias expressed his attitude towards the political system, recognizing only the power of the entire people. These views found expression in a number of his speeches, including the speech against Eratosthenes, which is considered his first speech on the court. The main thing in Lysias’s speech was artless simplicity, clarity combined with brevity of presentation, expressiveness, drama - all this was important for the development of fiction story. The speech against Eratosthenes is not just an accusation of a seducer, it is directed, perhaps, against the murderer of Lysias' brother and against the rule of 30 tyrants and, thus, acquires a political character. Lysias is known mainly as an unsurpassed master of storytelling and in the narrative parts only Herodotus can compare with him.

Among the Romans, Lysias was followed by writers who strived for ancient Attic simplicity and purity of style; Cicero, recognizing the merits of Lysias, preferred Demosthenes to him.

Isocrates

Isocrates had a great influence on the improvement of Attic prose. Isocrates was born in the first half of the 5th century. (c. 436 BC). He is known mainly as a teacher of rhetoric and compiler of epidictic speeches, although at the beginning of his career he wrote judicial speeches, which he himself considered unworthy of attention. In his speech “Against the Sophists” Isocrates conveys the program of his activities. He argues that true philosophy, which he identifies with rhetoric, must not be confused with the tricks of the sophists, who consider dexterity in speeches the only subject worthy of study.

A true orator, according to Isocrates, must have talent, be an educated person and practice, i.e. work painstakingly on writing speeches.

Isocrates lived to a ripe old age and was known as one of the outstanding writers of his time. 21 speeches and 9 letters remained from him.

After the defeat of Athens in 404 BC. Isocrates invariably depicts the disasters of Greece, the salvation of which he saw in the union or under the leadership of Sparta and Athens, or even under the rule of some ruler, for example Philip. His speeches were published as political pamphlets, appeals defending the interests of the Greek people and glorifying Athens. This was his “Panegyric” (speech at the Panhellenic conference), on which he worked for about 10 years.

Isocrates attaches great importance to the art of expressing thoughts: in this regard, an important role belongs to the choice of words and their combination. Condemning the special predilection for metaphors, Isocrates believes that the syllable at the same time should be refined and sublime.

Following Gorgias in the use of decorative agents, Isocrates, at the same time, did not abuse them. In his opinion, it is important to avoid harsh and difficult combinations of sounds and abrupt transitions from one plot to another. He has no equal in the art of making easy and natural transitions.

Isocrates initiated a rounded rhythmic period, with a rhythmic beginning and a rhythmic ending. Isocrates' style was reflected in Aristotle's Rhetoric, in the speeches of Demosthenes, and later in Roman literature by Cicero.

Moralist and mentor, Isocrates creates in 392-352. BC. school of eloquence, which became the largest rhetorical center in Hellas. The head of the school never tired of repeating that learning the art of eloquence lays the foundation of education and develops professional skills for activities of any kind. The school of Isocrates is a school of a new period compared to sophistry; it affirms the high moral aspects of rhetoric as a science. Thanks to this, Isocrates goes down in history as the creator of a comprehensive school, different from the scientific academies and lyceums of Plato and Aristotle.

Demosthenes

Classical Greek rhetoric of the V-VI centuries. BC. crowned with the truly tragic figure of the political and judicial orator Demosthenes, who died in an unequal battle with autocracy, predetermined by history itself.

As a result of the collapse of the second Athens Maritime League, Greece found itself fragmented and in a state of deep economic, social and political crisis. Greece was threatened by Persia and Macedonia. In an effort to subjugate Athens, Philip II exploited the weaknesses between the Greek states. Among the Greeks there were supporters of the unification of Greece under Macedonian rule for the war with Persia. They were opposed by the anti-Macedonian party, whose leader was the famous orator Demosthenes (384-322 BC). Demosthenes' father was a wealthy man, he owned two workshops in Athens - an armory and a furniture workshop. After the death of his father, Demosthenes' fortune was plundered by his guardians, against whom he wrote a number of early speeches. Already in them the power of conviction that Demosthenes was later distinguished is manifested. He also composed court speeches. But more often he acts as a political speaker, devoting his speeches to civic duties. About 60 speeches of Demosthenes are known, the most famous are his political speeches against the Macedonian king Philip and the judicial speech “On the Crown”.

Speaking as the leader of the anti-Macedonian party, Demosthenes calls on the Greeks to unite in the fight against King Philip, and his speeches began to be called “Philippics.” In the Olynthian Speeches, he insisted on the need for financial reforms, the forgetting of personal interests in the name of public needs. Demosthenes used the full power of his oratorical talent to call on the Athenians to vigorous action to create a coalition against the Macedonian king. In the passionate appeal to fight for the freedom of democratic Athens against the tyranny and despotism of Philip, the voice of a patriot sounds, who wants to prevent the death of the state.

Demosthenes personally took part in the Battle of Chaeronea, which put an end to Greek independence. He was instructed to deliver an epitaph - a speech over the soldiers who died in the Battle of Chaeronea. Demosthenes' merits were to be recognized by crowning him with a golden wreath. However, his political opponent Aeschines protested this proposal and insisted on bringing Ctesiphon to trial, whom Demosthenes defended. Demosthenes' answer to Aeschines, “The Speech for Ctesiphon on the Crown,” brought victory to the orator. In this speech, Demosthenes proves to the assembly the correctness of his political actions, dictated by an ardent sense of patriotism.

However, Demosthenes's credibility was shaken when he could not prove that he had spent the money placed under his supervision at the Acropolis for state needs. Demosthenes went into exile and only after the death of Alexander the Great returned to Athens to lead the anti-Macedonian movement. Alexander's successor soon suppressed this movement and demanded the extradition of its leaders. Demosthenes took poison in despair.

Demosthenes is one of the most outstanding orators of antiquity. His speeches were distinguished by high pathos and great power of persuasion. Demosthenes in many ways surpassed his predecessors Lysias and Isocrates. Thus, Dionysius of Halicarnassus said that Demosthenes followed the conciseness and pathos of Thucydides, the strength of the characterization of Lysias, and the skillful distribution of parts of Isocrates. Harmoniously combining all this, he developed his own special style of speeches that shocked listeners. What was especially striking was the enormous pathos and the oratorical force with which he attacked his enemies.

Depending on the content and direction of speech, Demosthenes uses different style. If in judicial speeches he uses common expressions and sayings, then in political speeches he uses an elevated style. Demosthenes attached great importance to the choice of words, but he never engaged in “embellishment” of speeches. More often he resorted to figures of thought. The passionate conviction of his speeches is associated with the power of argumentation, thanks to which every, no matter how insignificant, episode serves as convincing evidence. The liveliness of Demosthenes' speeches, which captivated listeners, was achieved by his ability to introduce colorful stories, poems, dialogues, and give brilliant characterizations. The periods of his speech produced a harmonious impression, and a special euphony was contained in the clauses (conclusions of the period).

Ancient rhetoric called Demosthenes' style "powerful." Cicero ranked him above all other Greek orators, calling him “the perfect orator.”

Orators of Ancient Rome

According to established tradition, the founding year of Rome, first a city, then a state, is considered to be 753 BC. But countless wars with surrounding tribes for the right to rule in the region delayed the development of its spiritual culture for a long time compared to Greece.

Initially, the Roman state was a state of farmers and warriors, a people who looked at the world through the eyes of rational practicality and cold sobriety. The famous Greek cult of beauty in everything and enthusiastic service to it were perceived in Rome as a kind of oriental promiscuity, base voluptuousness and lack of practicality. Compared to the Hellenic world, even geographically oriented towards the more cultural East, Rome was a purely Western civilization of pragmatism and pressure. It was a culture of a different type, a civilization of individuals, but not of a collective. F.F. Zelinsky (in the book History of Ancient Culture. St. Petersburg, 1995.P.274) speaks about it this way: “In contrast to the Hellene with his agonistic soul, which led him quite naturally and consistently on the path of positive morality, we must attribute to the Roman a legal soul and in in accordance with it, the desire for negative morality is righteousness, not virtue. The ideal of positive morality lies in the concept of valor, which goes on to the concept of virtue, its means is activity, and its separate manifestation is feat. This is an ancient ideal, common to all eras. The ideal of negative morality is righteousness, its means is abstinence, its separate manifestation is the avoidance of misconduct or sin; This is a Pharisaic ideal in the objective sense of the word.

The principle of competition, so characteristic of antiquity, contributed to the positive direction of its morality, encouraging each person to perform a feat in the sense of valor and virtue.”

The businesslike and at the same time “negative” nature of the Roman mentality determines the nature of the Roman’s relationship with eloquence. A warlike people could not do without commanders and leaders who turned to the army and the people in moments of difficult trials. But in the Roman mentality there is never a cult of the pure word, sound harmony, or pleasure in the skill of the speaker.

Actually, we know about the eloquence of Republican Rome mainly thanks to the stories of Cicero and a few quotes in the works of other authors. We know the names of famous political figures (in Republican Rome, a synonym for orator), but their speeches have not reached us, since until Julius Caesar there was no tradition of keeping Senate minutes. The utilitarianism of Roman eloquence played a sad role in its history.

Political structure Ancient Rome required the development of practical eloquence mainly in its political form. State decisions and laws, starting from 510 BC, were most often made collegially, at meetings of the Senate. Oratory skills played a prominent role in promoting ideas during Senate debates.

Gaius Gracchus

The most significant orator of republican Rome was the defender of the plebeians, Gaius Gracchus, glorified by Cicero, despite the opposite political views. An interesting comparative description of the oratorical practice of the aristocrats who led the struggle of the plebeians for their rights, the brothers Tiberius and Gaius Gracchi, is given by Plutarch in his biographies: “Tiberius’s facial expression, gaze and gestures were softer, more restrained, while Gaius’s were sharper and hotter, so, speaking with speeches, Tiberius modestly stood in place, and Guy was the first among the Romans to walk up and tear his toga off his shoulder during a speech... Guy spoke menacingly, passionately, fieryly, and Tiberius’s speech pleased the ear and easily aroused compassion. Tiberius’s style was pure and carefully crafted, while Guy’s was exciting and lush.”

The pathetic style of Gaius Gracchus and his younger contemporaries Lucius Licinius Crassus and Mark Antony was a natural manifestation of the general trend in the development of Roman eloquence. Having begun with declarative simplicity, the art of oratory in Republican Rome had to strive for pomp and sophistication.

If the Greek art of speaking was born out of the admiration of an inexperienced person for the beauty and skill of a foreign (Sicilian) word, since beauty is pleasing to the gods, then the Romans, strict and businesslike, not thinking in a military way, used speech for its intended purpose. Therefore, the path of Greek rhetoric lay from a heap of beauty and complexity to simplicity, grace and harmony - the defining principles of Greek culture. The souls of the Romans, simple to the point of naivety, were mortally amazed by Greek beauty, so their path was the opposite - from simplification to piling up, Asianism. It is impossible not to note a few more differences between Roman eloquence and Greek:

1. 1) the basis of the political speeches of the Romans was always invective, a feature characteristic of archaic societies, when the idea was not yet separated from its bearer: debunking the personality of a political opponent is debunking his ideas;
2. 2) other distinctive feature Roman eloquence had a crude humor that always attracted the sympathy of the crowd to the side of the speaker;
3. 3) finally, the speeches of Roman speakers were distinguished by aphoristic expressions that descendants forever remembered (a cluster of verbs, rhetorical questions, antitheses, narrative).

Gaius Julius Caesar

Gaius Julius Caesar (102 - 44 BC) - commander and one of the founders of the Roman Empire. Author of military-historical memoirs and literary works of a highly artistic level. Caesar came from the patrician Julian family and received an oratorical education on Fr. Rhodes with the famous orator Molon. He was a supporter of popular democracy and won the sympathy of the people.

As the heir of the Gracchi and Marius, Caesar could not help but master the art of speech at a level comparable to the leaders of his opponents - the optimates, the leading figure among whom was Cicero.

The idea of ​​the outstanding merits of Caesar as an orator and writer is confirmed by almost all ancient authors who wrote about him. In his youth and in his mature years, he paid tribute to literature: ancient writers more than once mentioned Caesar’s unsurvived poem about Hercules and the tragedy “Oedipus,” and the treatise “On Analogy,” written in response to Cicero’s rhetorical work “On the Orator.” Suetonius also speaks of Caesar, a judicial orator who began his political career by accusing one of the pillars of the Senate party, Dolabella, of covetousness.

Unfortunately, none of Caesar's political speeches have survived to this day. He probably did not consider it necessary to publish the texts of his speeches on the occasion, since, unlike Cicero, he did not consider them works of high art, but saw them as a means to an end.

Nevertheless, contemporaries remembered those that were uttered at turning points in Roman history as examples of persuasiveness. Historians Sallust, Plutarch, Suetonius talk with undisguised pleasure about Caesar’s participation in the Senate meeting on the Catiline conspiracy, when he was able to convince the Senate that it was unjust to kill people without trial. Everyone who spoke after him joined his opinion. Another incident testified to Caesar's skill as a public speaker. Only by the power of his speech did he himself fearlessly suppress and bring to complete submission the legions that rebelled in Capua. As Suetonius says, “Caesar, not listening to the excuses of his friends, without hesitation went out to the soldiers and gave them leave; and then, addressing them “citizens!” instead of the usual “warriors!”, with this one word he changed their mood and won them over to him: they shouted vyingly that they were his warriors, and voluntarily followed him to Africa, even though he refused to take them.” Using his brilliant knowledge of soldier psychology, Caesar with one “quirites!” instead of "militas!" achieved a stunning effect.

Caesar himself, who highly valued the beauty and power of thought in Cicero’s speeches, never used speech for the sake of “art for art’s sake.” For him, the talent of an orator was a necessary component for achieving very specific political goals. Therefore, Caesar's eloquence was devoid of poetic beauty and scientific delights, it was filled with liveliness, naturalness and energy. The Senate Party was concerned about the growing authority and military power recognized leader of the democratic party Julius Caesar and brought him a number of serious charges of lawlessness, violation of elementary norms of Roman law and military honor. The crimes that the Senate accused Caesar of were not something out of the ordinary in the life of Ancient Rome; on the contrary, plundering the treasury and receiving bribes by consuls were common occurrences, and treachery in the war with the barbarians could well be regarded as a military stratagem. But for Caesar such a turn was a disaster. It was necessary to immediately dispel the allegations of the Senate's supporters about the predatory management of the provinces and create a different picture. The function of creating a mythical image of the invincible and fair guardian of the interests of the Roman people of Julius Caesar was assigned by the author to “Notes on the Gallic War” - a highly tendentious work, an apology for himself. However, being a subtle psychologist, Caesar maintains the illusion of truthfulness and objectivity in his narrative. He enthusiastically talks about the valor of his subordinates, because he knows: the main support of his power is the army. The soldier must feel his importance, the commander’s concern for himself, and then he will serve faithfully. With his essay, Caesar not only successfully refutes his political opponents, but in turn incriminates them in collusion with the barbarians. Justifying his illegal actions, Caesar cites arguments that create at least the appearance of legality and justice. For example, he makes his crossing of the Rubicon, in his words, “for the good of the state,” “in order to restore the tribunes of the people, godlessly expelled from the environment of citizenship...” Not only Caesar’s political, but also stylistic ideas turned out to be victorious. His simple, clear and elegant style is atticism, reminiscent of Lysias and early Attic political speakers, won more and more supporters in Rome.

Caesar became a role model for all later apologists of autocracy, right up to Napoleon and Mussolini. Under Napoleon, Caesar's writings became the model of school Latin, initially due to political trends. Later, this reading took root thanks to the correct and precise language, a relatively modest vocabulary and an entertaining story. Moreover, Caesar entered the consciousness of Europeans as the archetypal founder of everything: he really was the creator of the idea of ​​Imperial Rome and the first figure among the emperors; his family name became the title of the autocratic rulers of Rome - Caesars(from where the later Caesar, king, etc.); on his instructions, the traditional European chronology was created - the Julian calendar, which the Orthodox Church still uses; he left the Europeans the most ancient information about the history of their ancestors, about the barbarian peoples of Europe. Under Augustus, the Divine Julius was introduced into the pantheon of Roman deities.

Marcus Tullius Cicero

All the great glory of Roman rhetoric can be indicated by one sonorous name: Marcus Tullius Cicero (106 - 43 BC). An outstanding orator and politician, writer, philosopher, author of treatises on morality and education, he became the personification of an entire era in Roman history and the most significant figure in Latin eloquence in general.

Cicero did not belong to the Roman nobility, but came from the “equestrian” class of the city of Arpina. His parents dreamed of a political career for their son and took advantage of their connections in the capital to introduce him to the houses of famous senators.

Cicero received an excellent education and studied Greek poets. He studied eloquence from the famous orators Antony and Crassus, listened to and commented on the famous tribune Sulpicius speaking at the forum, and studied the theory of eloquence. He studied Roman law with the popular lawyer Scaevola. Cicero did not adhere to a specific philosophical system, but in many of his works he expressed views close to Stoicism. In his treatise “On the State,” he talks about the high moral principles that a statesman must have. Cicero expresses his protest against tyranny in a number of works: “On Friendship”, “On Duties”, “Tusculan Conversations”, “On the Nature of the Gods”. But he did not have a specific political platform.

The first speech that has reached us (81), “In Defense of Quinctius,” brought Cicero success. In subsequent speeches, he spoke out against the violence of the Sullan regime and achieved popularity among the people. Fearing Sulla's persecution, Cicero went to Athens and the island of Rhodes. There he listened to Molon, who influenced Cicero's style. From that time on, he began to adhere to the “average” style of eloquence, which occupied the middle between the Asian and moderate Attic styles.

A brilliant education, oratorical talent, and a successful start to advocacy gave Cicero access to government positions. In 76 he became quaestor in Western Sicily. Arguing against Verres, the governor of Sicily in defense of the interests of the people, Cicero won the trial. In essence, the speeches against Verres were of a political nature, since Cicero essentially opposed the oligarchy of the optimates. In 66 he becomes praetor. By supporting the interests of moneyed people in his speech “In Defense of the Law of Manilius,” Cicero again achieves success. But this speech ends his speeches against the Senate and the optimates.

In 63 he was elected consul. Supported the senators and horsemen against the Democrats. Uncovered Catiline's conspiracy. In speeches against Catiline, he attributes all sorts of vices and the most vile goals to his opponent. By order of Cicero, the leaders of Catiline's revolt were executed without trial. The reactionary part of the Senate approved of Cicero’s actions and bestowed on him the title of “Father of the Fatherland.” All this caused displeasure among the popular people. With the formation of the first triumvirate, which included Pompey, Caesar and Crassus, Cicero, at the request of the people's tribune Clodius, was forced to go into exile in 58. In 57 he returned to Rome, but no longer had political influence and was mainly concerned with literary work. At this time, he wrote the famous treatise “On the Orator.” In 51-50 he was proconsul in Asia Minor. In 50 he returned to Rome and joined Pompey. After the assassination of Caesar in 44, he again returned to political activity, speaking on the side of Octavian. He wrote 14 speeches against Anthony, which, in imitation of Demosthenes, are called “Philippics.” For them he was included in the proscription list and in 43 BC. killed.

In his famous essay “On the Orator,” which goes back to the traditions of the philosophical dialogue of Plato and Aristotle, Cicero creates the image of an orator-politician and human rights activist who is familiar with all the sciences, because they provide him with methods of thinking and material for his speeches.

In Cicero's dialogue, Crassus offers a compromise solution: rhetoric is not a true, that is, speculative science, but it is a practically useful systematization of oratorical experience. Cicero is far from the ideological disputes of philosophers and rhetoricians of the Greek classics, therefore he reconciles, on the one hand, the Sophists with Socrates and Plato, and on the other, Aristotle with Isocrates, since for him they are all symbols of the great Greek art and Roman role models. Cicero agrees with the Greeks in asserting that the speech of an orator should serve only high and noble purposes, and that seducing judges with eloquence is as shameful as bribing them with money. The task of educating a political leader is not to teach him beautiful speech. He must know many, many things. Only the combination of eloquence with knowledge and experience will create a political leader. In the second book, Cicero talked about location, arrangement, memory, and, most interestingly, about irony and wit - material that is least amenable to logical schematization. In the third book he talked about craft, about verbal expression and about utterance.

In general, the book “About the Orator” spoke about the formation of a true, ideal and perfect speaker.

"Brutus" is a book about the history of Roman eloquence.

“The Orator” is the completion of the picture of Cicero’s rhetorical system. Here he discussed the three styles of eloquence, propriety, rhythm, verbal expression, and other aspects of rhetoric.

I century AD - the time of the formation of imperial power in Rome, when the republican traditions of eloquence turn into a fact of the distant and glorious history of our ancestors and a page of bans on republican ideology and its propaganda opens. “With the transition from republic to empire, Latin eloquence repeated the same evolution that Greek eloquence had undergone in its time with the transition from Hellenic republics to Hellenistic monarchies. The importance of political eloquence has fallen, the importance of solemn eloquence has increased. Roman law increasingly developed into a solid system; in the speeches of judicial orators there remained less and less legal content and more and more formal gloss. Cicero's verbosity was becoming unnecessary; lengthy periods were replaced by short and catchy maxims, laconically sharpened, sharpened by antitheses, sparkling with paradoxes. Everything is subject to instant effect. This is a Latin parallel to the chopped style of Greek Asianism; however, in Rome this style is not called Asianism, but is simply called “new eloquence.”

The main refuge of eloquence of this period became rhetorical schools, where the classical speeches and treatises of Cicero remained the educational models. But all the school exercises were very far from the practice of eloquence of the previous era, but were not at all useless: they were excellent gymnastics for the mind and language. In addition, the inventiveness and entertaining nature of the plot, purely psychological collisions, pathos, an orientation towards the figurative perception of the conflict, the play of the imagination - everything brought rhetoric and poetry closer together. The result was the development of the genre of the adventure novel and other equally fruitful genres of the “second sophistry,” which had a huge influence on the development of the European literary tradition.

Marcus Fabius Quintilian

The head of the new rhetorical school, Marcus Fabius Quintilian (c. 35 - 96 AD) reflected “On the causes of the decline of eloquence” in his treatise of the same name. Quintilian answered the question posed as a teacher: the reason for the decline of eloquence is the imperfection of the education of young speakers. In order to improve rhetorical education, he writes an extensive essay, “Education of the Orator,” where he sets out the leading views of his era on the theory and practice of eloquence, of which Cicero continues to serve as an example.

Like Cicero (“Brutus”), Quintilian sees the key to the prosperity of eloquence not in the technique of speech, but in the personality of the speaker: in order to raise the speaker as a “worthy husband,” it is necessary to develop his taste. The development of morality should serve the entire lifestyle of the speaker, especially the pursuit of philosophy. A cycle of rhetorical lessons is designed for the development of taste, systematized, freed from unnecessary dogma, focused on the best classical examples. “The more you like Cicero,” Quintilian tells the student, “the more confident you will be in your success.”

“But it is precisely this effort of Quintilian to reproduce the Ciceronian ideal as closely as possible that most clearly shows the deep historical differences between the Cicero system and the Quintilian system. Cicero, as we remember, advocates against rhetorical schools, for practical education in the forum, where the novice speaker listens to the speeches of his contemporaries, learns himself and does not stop learning all his life. For Quintilian, on the contrary, it is the rhetorical school that stands at the center of the entire educational system; without it, he cannot imagine learning, and his instructions are meant not for mature men, but for young students; Having completed the course and moved from school to the forum, the speaker leaves the field of view of Quintilian, and the old rhetorician is limited to only the most general parting words for his future life. In accordance with this, Cicero always only briefly and in passing touched upon the usual topics of rhetorical studies - the doctrine of the five sections of eloquence, the four parts of speech, etc., and paid main attention to the general preparation of the speaker - philosophy, history, law. In Quintilian, on the contrary, the presentation of traditional rhetorical science occupies three quarters of his works, and only three chapters in the last book are devoted to philosophy, history, and law, presented dryly and indifferently and having the appearance of a forced addition. For Cicero, the basis of rhetoric is the development of philosophy, for Quintilian - the study of classical writers; Cicero wants to see a thinker in the speaker, Quintilian - a stylist. Cicero insists that the ultimate judge of oratorical success is the people; Quintilian already doubts this and clearly puts the opinion of a literary sophisticated connoisseur above the applause of an ignorant public. Finally - and this is the main thing - instead of Cicero’s concept of the smooth and steady progress of eloquence, Quintilian has a concept of flourishing, decline and revival - the same concept that was once invented by the Greek atticists, the inspirers of Cicero’s opponents. For Cicero, the golden age of oratory was ahead, and he himself was its inspired seeker and discoverer. For Quintilian, the golden age is already behind him, and he is only a learned researcher and restorer. There are no more ways forward: the best thing left for Roman eloquence is to repeat what has been passed” (Gasparov M.L. Cicero and ancient rhetoric // Cicero M.T. Three treatises on oratory. M., 1994. P. 68).

Lucius Annaeus Seneca

The creator of the new style, which replaced the “ancient style” of Cicero, was Lucius Annaeus Seneca (4 BC - 65 AD). Born in Spain, his father, Seneca the Elder, was a horseman, wrote a work on Roman rhetoricians. He had a great influence on his son’s rhetorical training. Lucius Seneca was educated in Rome. He studied philosophy with the Stoics Attalus and Fabian and until the end of his life retained a penchant for Stoicism, although he was interested in Plato and Epicurus.

He began his activities as a judicial orator in 31. His success displeased Caligula, who wanted to kill him. Seneca was also threatened with the death penalty under Claudius. As a result of the intrigues of Messalina, exiled in 41 to the island of Corsica, Seneca remained there until 49. Returning to Rome, Seneca received the position of praetor thanks to the patronage of Claudius' second wife Agrippina, who entrusted Seneca with raising her son from his first marriage, the future Emperor Nero.

When Nero came to the throne, Seneca actually began to rule the state, and this time of a weakened despotic regime is considered the happy "quintuple anniversary of Nero." Invested in power and given the title of consul, Seneca accumulated enormous wealth. This aroused opposition against him. In 62, he retired from the court, but, apparently, continued to take part in politics, since in 65, in connection with the discovery of a conspiracy against the emperor, he, on the orders of Nero, committed suicide.

Seneca's literary heritage consists of works of a philosophical nature and poetic works.

During periods of general decline of civil ideas in societies that have passed the path from democracy to autocracy, there is always a process of reconciliation between rhetoric and philosophy. Seneca the Younger is a typical example of such a symbiosis.

If Cicero wrote his moral and ethical treatises in the form of a dialogue, then Seneca in his philosophical treatises comes to the form diatribes- sermon-dispute, where new and new questions force the philosopher to approach the same central thesis from different angles all the time. If Cicero's treatises were based on a linear composition of the development of the thesis - the logic of the development of thought, then in the works of Seneca there is no composition as such: All beginnings and ends look chopped off, the argumentation is based not on coherence, but on the juxtaposition of arguments. The author tries to convince the reader not by the consistent development of the logic of thought, leading to the center of the problem, but by short and frequent attacks from all sides: logical evidence replaces the emotional effect. Essentially, this is not the development of a thesis, but only its repetition over and over again in different formulations, the work not of a philosopher, but of a rhetorician: it is in this ability to endlessly repeat the same position in inexhaustibly new and unexpected forms that Seneca’s masterly verbal mastery lies.

The tone of the diatribe, the sermon-argument, determines the syntactical features of Seneca’s “new style”: he writes in short phrases, all the time asking himself questions, interrupting himself with the eternal: “So what?” His short logical strokes do not require taking into account and weighing all the accompanying circumstances, so he does not use the complex system of Ciceronian periods, but writes in concise, monotonously constructed sentences, as if catching up and confirming each other. Strings of such short, abrupt phrases are connected with each other by gradations, antitheses, and repetitions of words. “Sand without lime,” Emperor Caligula, who hated Seneca, aptly defined this fractional friability of speech. Seneca's enemies reproached him for using too cheap techniques in too tasteless abundance: he replied that as a philosopher, words in themselves are indifferent to him and are important only as a means of making the right impression on the soul of the listener, and for this purpose his techniques are good. In the same way, Seneca is not afraid to be vulgar in his language: he widely uses colloquial words and phrases, creates neologisms, and in solemn places resorts to poetic vocabulary. Thus, from a free vocabulary and loose syntax, the language that is commonly called “silver Latin” is formed, and from the logic of short strokes and emotional effect - the style that in Rome was called “new eloquence”. Seneca’s new style was most fully reflected in his satire “The Pumpkin,” which was a poisonous parody of the custom of deifying emperors after their death. After death, Claudius turned into a pumpkin, a symbol of stupidity in Rome, and not into a god - this is the ending of this interesting comedy by Seneca.

GUY AND TIBERIUS GRACHI, MARK TULLIUS CICERO,

GAIUS JULIUS CAESAR, MARK FABIUS QUINTILLIAN,

LUCIUS ANNEUS SENECA

According to established tradition, the founding year of Rome, first a city, then a state, is considered to be 753 BC. But countless wars with surrounding tribes for the right to rule in the region delayed the development of its spiritual culture for a long time compared to Greece.

Initially, the Roman state was a state of farmers and warriors, a people who looked at the world through the eyes of rational practicality and cold sobriety. The famous Greek cult of beauty in everything and enthusiastic service to it were perceived in Rome as a kind of oriental promiscuity, base voluptuousness and lack of practicality. Compared to the Hellenic world, even geographically oriented towards the more cultural East, Rome was a purely Western civilization of pragmatism and pressure. It was a culture of a different type, a civilization of individuals, but not of a collective. F.F. Zelinsky (in the book History of Ancient Culture. St. Petersburg, 1995.P.274) speaks about it this way: “In contrast to the Hellene with his agonistic soul, which led him quite naturally and consistently on the path of positive morality, we must attribute to the Roman a legal soul and in in accordance with it, the desire for negative morality is righteousness, not virtue. The ideal of positive morality lies in the concept of valor, which goes on to the concept of virtue, its means is activity, and its separate manifestation is feat. This is an ancient ideal, common to all eras. The ideal of negative morality is righteousness, its means is abstinence, its separate manifestation is the avoidance of misconduct or sin; This is a Pharisaic ideal in the objective sense of the word.

The principle of competition, so characteristic of antiquity, contributed to the positive direction of its morality, encouraging each person to perform a feat in the sense of valor and virtue.”

The businesslike and at the same time “negative” nature of the Roman mentality determines the nature of the Roman’s relationship with eloquence. A warlike people could not do without commanders and leaders who turned to the army and the people in moments of difficult trials. But in the Roman mentality there is never a cult of the pure word, sound harmony, or pleasure in the skill of the speaker.

Actually, we know about the eloquence of Republican Rome mainly thanks to the stories of Cicero and a few quotes in the works of other authors. We know the names of famous political figures (in Republican Rome, a synonym for orator), but their speeches have not reached us, since until Julius Caesar there was no tradition of keeping Senate minutes. The utilitarianism of Roman eloquence played a sad role in its history.

The political structure of Ancient Rome required the development of practical eloquence mainly in its political form. State decisions and laws, starting from 510 BC, were most often made collegially, at meetings of the Senate. Oratory skills played a prominent role in promoting ideas during Senate debates.

The most significant orator of republican Rome was the defender of the plebeians, Gaius Gracchus, glorified by Cicero, despite the opposite political views. An interesting comparative description of the oratorical practice of the aristocrats who led the struggle of the plebeians for their rights, the brothers Tiberius and Gaius Gracchus, is given by Plutarch in his biographies: “Tiberius’s facial expression, gaze and gestures were softer, more restrained, while Gaius’s were sharper and hotter, so, speaking with speeches, Tiberius modestly stood in place, and Guy was the first among the Romans to walk up and tear his toga off his shoulder during a speech... Guy spoke menacingly, passionately, fieryly, and Tiberius’s speech pleased the ear and easily aroused compassion. Tiberius’s style was pure and carefully crafted, while Guy’s was exciting and lush.”

The pathetic style of Gaius Gracchus and his younger contemporaries Lucius Licinius Crassus and Mark Antony was a natural manifestation of the general trend in the development of Roman eloquence. Having begun with declarative simplicity, the art of oratory in Republican Rome had to strive for pomp and sophistication.

If the Greek art of speaking was born out of the admiration of an inexperienced person for the beauty and skill of a foreign (Sicilian) word, since beauty is pleasing to the gods, then the Romans, strict and businesslike, not thinking in a military way, used speech for its intended purpose. Therefore, the path of Greek rhetoric lay from a heap of beauty and complexity to simplicity, grace and harmony - the defining principles of Greek culture. The souls of the Romans, simple to the point of naivety, were mortally amazed by Greek beauty, so their path was the opposite - from simplification to piling up, Asianism. It is impossible not to note a few more differences between Roman eloquence and Greek:

1) the basis of the political speeches of the Romans was always invective, a feature characteristic of archaic societies, when the idea was not yet separated from its bearer: debunking the personality of a political opponent is debunking his ideas;

2) another distinctive feature of Roman eloquence was rude humor, which always attracted the sympathy of the crowd to the side of the speaker;

3) finally, the speeches of Roman speakers were distinguished by aphoristic expressions that descendants forever remembered (a cluster of verbs, rhetorical questions, antitheses, narration).

Gaius Julius Caesar (102 - 44 BC) – commander and one of the founders of the Roman Empire. Author of military-historical memoirs and literary works of a highly artistic level. Caesar came from the patrician Julian family and received an oratorical education on Fr. Rhodes with the famous orator Molon. He was a supporter of popular democracy and won the sympathy of the people.

As the heir of the Gracchi and Marius, Caesar could not help but master the art of speech at a level comparable to the leaders of his opponents - the optimates, the leading figure among whom was Cicero.

The idea of ​​the outstanding merits of Caesar as an orator and writer is confirmed by almost all ancient authors who wrote about him. In his youth and in his mature years, he paid tribute to literature: ancient writers more than once mentioned Caesar’s unsurvived poem about Hercules and the tragedy “Oedipus,” and the treatise “On Analogy,” written in response to Cicero’s rhetorical work “On the Orator.” Suetonius also speaks of Caesar, a judicial orator who began his political career by accusing one of the pillars of the Senate party, Dolabella, of covetousness.

Unfortunately, none of Caesar's political speeches have survived to this day. He probably did not consider it necessary to publish the texts of his speeches on the occasion, since, unlike Cicero, he did not consider them works of high art, but saw them as a means to an end.

Nevertheless, contemporaries remembered those that were uttered at turning points in Roman history as examples of persuasiveness. Historians Sallust, Plutarch, Suetonius talk with undisguised pleasure about Caesar’s participation in the Senate meeting on the Catiline conspiracy, when he was able to convince the Senate that it was unjust to kill people without trial. Everyone who spoke after him joined his opinion. Another incident testified to Caesar's skill as a public speaker. Only by the power of his speech did he himself fearlessly suppress and bring to complete submission the legions that rebelled in Capua. As Suetonius says, “Caesar, not listening to the excuses of his friends, without hesitation went out to the soldiers and gave them leave; and then, addressing them “citizens!” instead of the usual “warriors!”, with this one word he changed their mood and won them over to him: they shouted vyingly that they were his warriors, and voluntarily followed him to Africa, even though he refused to take them.” Using his brilliant knowledge of soldier psychology, Caesar with one “quirites!” instead of "militas!" achieved a stunning effect.

Caesar himself, who highly valued the beauty and power of thought in Cicero’s speeches, never used speech for the sake of “art for art’s sake.” For him, the talent of an orator was a necessary component for achieving very specific political goals. Therefore, Caesar's eloquence was devoid of poetic beauty and scientific delights, it was filled with liveliness, naturalness and energy. The Senate Party was concerned about the growing authority and military power of the recognized leader of the Democratic Party, Julius Caesar, and brought a number of serious charges against him for lawlessness, violation of elementary norms of Roman law and military honor. The crimes that the Senate accused Caesar of were not something out of the ordinary in the life of Ancient Rome; on the contrary, plundering the treasury and receiving bribes by consuls were common occurrences, and treachery in the war with the barbarians could well be regarded as a military stratagem. But for Caesar such a turn was a disaster. It was necessary to immediately dispel the allegations of the Senate's supporters about the predatory management of the provinces and create a different picture. The function of creating a mythical image of the invincible and fair guardian of the interests of the Roman people of Julius Caesar was assigned by the author to “Notes on the Gallic War” - a highly tendentious work, an apology for himself. However, being a subtle psychologist, Caesar maintains the illusion of truthfulness and objectivity in his narrative. He enthusiastically talks about the valor of his subordinates, because he knows: the main support of his power is the army. The soldier must feel his importance, the commander’s concern for himself, and then he will serve faithfully. With his essay, Caesar not only successfully refutes his political opponents, but in turn incriminates them in collusion with the barbarians. Justifying his illegal actions, Caesar cites arguments that create at least the appearance of legality and justice. For example, he makes his crossing of the Rubicon, in his words, “for the good of the state,” “in order to restore the tribunes of the people, godlessly expelled from the environment of citizenship...” Not only Caesar’s political, but also stylistic ideas turned out to be victorious. His simple, clear and elegant style is atticism, reminiscent of Lysias and early Attic political speakers, won more and more supporters in Rome.

Caesar became a role model for all later apologists of autocracy, right up to Napoleon and Mussolini. Under Napoleon, Caesar's writings became the model of school Latin, initially due to political trends. Later, this reading took root thanks to the correct and precise language, a relatively modest vocabulary and an entertaining story. Moreover, Caesar entered the consciousness of Europeans as the archetypal founder of everything: he really was the creator of the idea of ​​Imperial Rome and the first figure among the emperors; his family name became the title of the autocratic rulers of Rome - Caesars(from where the later Caesar, king, etc.); on his instructions, the traditional European chronology was created - the Julian calendar, which the Orthodox Church still uses; he left the Europeans the most ancient information about the history of their ancestors, about the barbarian peoples of Europe. Under Augustus, the Divine Julius was introduced into the pantheon of Roman deities.

All the great glory of Roman rhetoric can be indicated by one sonorous name: Marcus Tullius Cicero (106 - 43 BC). An outstanding orator and politician, writer, philosopher, author of treatises on morality and education, he became the personification of an entire era in Roman history and the most significant figure in Latin eloquence in general.

Cicero did not belong to the Roman nobility, but came from the “equestrian” class of the city of Arpina. His parents dreamed of a political career for their son and took advantage of their connections in the capital to introduce him to the houses of famous senators.

Cicero received an excellent education and studied Greek poets. He studied eloquence from the famous orators Antony and Crassus, listened to and commented on the famous tribune Sulpicius speaking at the forum, and studied the theory of eloquence. He studied Roman law with the popular lawyer Scaevola. Cicero did not adhere to a specific philosophical system, but in many of his works he expressed views close to Stoicism. In his treatise “On the State,” he talks about the high moral principles that a statesman must have. Cicero expresses his protest against tyranny in a number of works: “On Friendship”, “On Duties”, “Tusculan Conversations”, “On the Nature of the Gods”. But he did not have a specific political platform.

The first speech that has reached us (81), “In Defense of Quinctius,” brought Cicero success. In subsequent speeches, he spoke out against the violence of the Sullan regime and achieved popularity among the people. Fearing Sulla's persecution, Cicero went to Athens and the island of Rhodes. There he listened to Molon, who influenced Cicero's style. From that time on, he began to adhere to the “average” style of eloquence, which occupied the middle between the Asian and moderate Attic styles.

A brilliant education, oratorical talent, and a successful start to advocacy gave Cicero access to government positions. In 76 he became quaestor in Western Sicily. Arguing against Verres, the governor of Sicily in defense of the interests of the people, Cicero won the trial. In essence, the speeches against Verres were of a political nature, since Cicero essentially opposed the oligarchy of the optimates. In 66 he becomes praetor. By supporting the interests of moneyed people in his speech “In Defense of the Law of Manilius,” Cicero again achieves success. But this speech ends his speeches against the Senate and the optimates.

In 63 he was elected consul. Supported the senators and horsemen against the Democrats. Uncovered Catiline's conspiracy. In speeches against Catiline, he attributes all sorts of vices and the most vile goals to his opponent. By order of Cicero, the leaders of Catiline's revolt were executed without trial. The reactionary part of the Senate approved of Cicero’s actions and bestowed on him the title of “Father of the Fatherland.” All this caused displeasure among the popular people. With the formation of the first triumvirate, which included Pompey, Caesar and Crassus, Cicero, at the request of the people's tribune Clodius, was forced to go into exile in 58. In 57 he returned to Rome, but no longer had political influence and was mainly engaged in literary work. At this time, he wrote the famous treatise “On the Orator.” In 51-50 he was proconsul in Asia Minor. In 50 he returned to Rome and joined Pompey. After the assassination of Caesar in 44, he again returned to political activity, speaking on the side of Octavian. He wrote 14 speeches against Anthony, which, in imitation of Demosthenes, are called “Philippics.” For them he was included in the proscription list and in 43 BC. killed.

In his famous essay “On the Orator,” which goes back to the traditions of the philosophical dialogue of Plato and Aristotle, Cicero creates the image of an orator-politician and human rights activist who is familiar with all the sciences, because they provide him with methods of thinking and material for his speeches.

In Cicero's dialogue, Crassus offers a compromise solution: rhetoric is not a true, that is, speculative science, but it is a practically useful systematization of oratorical experience. Cicero is far from the ideological disputes of philosophers and rhetoricians of the Greek classics, therefore he reconciles, on the one hand, the Sophists with Socrates and Plato, and on the other, Aristotle with Isocrates, since for him they are all symbols of great Greek art and role models for the Romans. Cicero agrees with the Greeks in asserting that the speech of an orator should serve only high and noble purposes, and that seducing judges with eloquence is as shameful as bribing them with money. The task of educating a political leader is not to teach him beautiful speech. He must know many, many things. Only the combination of eloquence with knowledge and experience will create a political leader. In the second book, Cicero talked about location, arrangement, memory, and, most interestingly, about irony and wit - material that is least amenable to logical schematization. In the third book he talked about craft, about verbal expression and about utterance.

In general, the book “About the Orator” spoke about the formation of a true, ideal and perfect speaker.

"Brutus" is a book about the history of Roman eloquence.

“The Orator” is the completion of the picture of Cicero’s rhetorical system. Here he discussed the three styles of eloquence, propriety, rhythm, verbal expression, and other aspects of rhetoric.

I century AD - the time of the formation of imperial power in Rome, when the republican traditions of eloquence turn into a fact of the distant and glorious history of our ancestors and a page of bans on republican ideology and its propaganda opens. “With the transition from republic to empire, Latin eloquence repeated the same evolution that Greek eloquence had undergone in its time with the transition from Hellenic republics to Hellenistic monarchies. The importance of political eloquence has fallen, the importance of solemn eloquence has increased. Roman law increasingly developed into a solid system; in the speeches of judicial orators there remained less and less legal content and more and more formal gloss. Cicero's verbosity was becoming unnecessary; lengthy periods were replaced by short and catchy maxims, laconically sharpened, sharpened by antitheses, sparkling with paradoxes. Everything is subject to instant effect. This is a Latin parallel to the chopped style of Greek Asianism; however, in Rome this style is not called Asianism, but is simply called “new eloquence.”

The main refuge of eloquence of this period became rhetorical schools, where the classical speeches and treatises of Cicero remained the educational models. But all the school exercises were very far from the practice of eloquence of the previous era, but were not at all useless: they were excellent gymnastics for the mind and language. In addition, the inventiveness and entertaining nature of the plot, purely psychological collisions, pathos, an orientation towards the figurative perception of the conflict, the play of the imagination - everything brought rhetoric and poetry closer together. The result was the development of the genre of the adventure novel and other equally fruitful genres of the “second sophistry,” which had a huge influence on the development of the European literary tradition.

The head of the new rhetorical school, Marcus Fabius Quintilian (c. 35 – 96 AD) reflected “On the causes of the decline of eloquence” in his treatise of the same name. Quintilian answered the question posed as a teacher: the reason for the decline of eloquence is the imperfection of the education of young speakers. In order to improve rhetorical education, he writes an extensive essay, “Education of the Orator,” where he sets out the leading views of his era on the theory and practice of eloquence, of which Cicero continues to serve as an example.

Like Cicero (“Brutus”), Quintilian sees the key to the prosperity of eloquence not in the technique of speech, but in the personality of the speaker: in order to raise the speaker as a “worthy husband,” it is necessary to develop his taste. The development of morality should serve the entire lifestyle of the speaker, especially the pursuit of philosophy. A cycle of rhetorical lessons is designed for the development of taste, systematized, freed from unnecessary dogma, focused on the best classical examples. “The more you like Cicero,” Quintilian tells the student, “the more confident you will be in your success.”

“But it is precisely this effort of Quintilian to reproduce the Ciceronian ideal as closely as possible that most clearly shows the deep historical differences between the Cicero system and the Quintilian system. Cicero, as we remember, advocates against rhetorical schools, for practical education in the forum, where the novice speaker listens to the speeches of his contemporaries, learns himself and does not stop learning all his life. For Quintilian, on the contrary, it is the rhetorical school that stands at the center of the entire educational system; without it, he cannot imagine learning, and his instructions are meant not for mature men, but for young students; Having completed the course and moved from school to the forum, the speaker leaves the field of view of Quintilian, and the old rhetorician is limited to only the most general parting words for his future life. In accordance with this, Cicero always only briefly and in passing touched upon the usual topics of rhetorical studies - the doctrine of the five sections of eloquence, the four parts of speech, etc., and paid main attention to the general preparation of the speaker - philosophy, history, law. In Quintilian, on the contrary, the presentation of traditional rhetorical science occupies three quarters of his works, and only three chapters in the last book are devoted to philosophy, history, and law, presented dryly and indifferently and having the appearance of a forced addition. For Cicero, the basis of rhetoric is the development of philosophy, for Quintilian - the study of classical writers; Cicero wants to see a thinker in the speaker, Quintilian - a stylist. Cicero insists that the highest judge of oratorical success is the people; Quintilian already doubts this and clearly puts the opinion of a literary sophisticated connoisseur above the applause of an ignorant public. Finally - and this is the main thing - instead of Cicero’s concept of the smooth and steady progress of eloquence, Quintilian has a concept of flourishing, decline and rebirth - the same concept that was once invented by the Greek atticists, the inspirers of Cicero’s opponents. For Cicero, the golden age of oratory was ahead, and he himself was its inspired seeker and discoverer. For Quintilian, the golden age is already behind him, and he is only a learned researcher and restorer. There are no more ways forward: the best thing left for Roman eloquence is to repeat what has been passed” (Gasparov M.L. Cicero and ancient rhetoric // Cicero M.T. Three treatises on oratory. M., 1994. P. 68).

The creator of the new style, which replaced the “ancient style” of Cicero, was Lucius Annaeus Seneca (4 BC - 65 AD). Born in Spain, his father, Seneca the Elder, was a horseman, wrote a work on Roman rhetoricians. He had a great influence on his son’s rhetorical training. Lucius Seneca was educated in Rome. He studied philosophy with the Stoics Attalus and Fabian and until the end of his life retained a penchant for Stoicism, although he was interested in Plato and Epicurus.

He began his activities as a judicial orator in 31. His success displeased Caligula, who wanted to kill him. Seneca was also threatened with the death penalty under Claudius. As a result of the intrigues of Messalina, exiled in 41 to the island of Corsica, Seneca remained there until 49. Returning to Rome, Seneca received the position of praetor thanks to the patronage of Claudius' second wife Agrippina, who entrusted Seneca with raising her son from his first marriage, the future Emperor Nero.

When Nero came to the throne, Seneca actually began to rule the state, and this time of a weakened despotic regime is considered the happy "quintuple anniversary of Nero." Invested in power and given the title of consul, Seneca accumulated enormous wealth. This aroused opposition against him. In 62, he retired from the court, but, apparently, continued to take part in politics, since in 65, in connection with the discovery of a conspiracy against the emperor, he, on the orders of Nero, committed suicide.

Seneca's literary heritage consists of works of a philosophical nature and poetic works.

During periods of general decline of civil ideas in societies that have passed the path from democracy to autocracy, there is always a process of reconciliation between rhetoric and philosophy. Seneca the Younger is a typical example of such a symbiosis.

If Cicero wrote his moral and ethical treatises in the form of a dialogue, then Seneca in his philosophical treatises comes to the form diatribes- sermon-dispute, where new and new questions force the philosopher to constantly approach the same central thesis from different angles. If Cicero's treatises were based on a linear composition of the development of the thesis - the logic of the development of thought, then in the works of Seneca there is no composition as such: All beginnings and ends look chopped off, the argumentation is based not on coherence, but on the juxtaposition of arguments. The author tries to convince the reader not by the consistent development of the logic of thought, leading to the center of the problem, but by short and frequent attacks from all sides: logical evidence replaces the emotional effect. Essentially, this is not the development of a thesis, but only its repetition over and over again in different formulations, the work not of a philosopher, but of a rhetorician: it is in this ability to endlessly repeat the same position in inexhaustibly new and unexpected forms that Seneca’s masterly verbal mastery lies.

The tone of the diatribe, the sermon-argument, determines the syntactical features of Seneca’s “new style”: he writes in short phrases, all the time asking himself questions, interrupting himself with the eternal: “So what?” His short logical strokes do not require taking into account and weighing all the accompanying circumstances, so he does not use the complex system of Ciceronian periods, but writes in concise, monotonously constructed sentences, as if catching up and confirming each other. Strings of such short, abrupt phrases are connected with each other by gradations, antitheses, and repetitions of words. “Sand without lime,” Emperor Caligula, who hated Seneca, aptly defined this fractional friability of speech. Seneca's enemies reproached him for using too cheap techniques in too tasteless abundance: he replied that as a philosopher, words in themselves are indifferent to him and are important only as a means of making the right impression on the soul of the listener, and for this purpose his techniques are good. In the same way, Seneca is not afraid to be vulgar in his language: he widely uses colloquial words and phrases, creates neologisms, and in solemn places resorts to poetic vocabulary. Thus, from a free vocabulary and loose syntax, the language that is commonly called “silver Latin” is formed, and from the logic of short strokes and emotional effect - the style that in Rome was called “new eloquence”. Seneca’s new style was most fully reflected in his satire “The Pumpkin,” which was a poisonous parody of the custom of deifying emperors after their death. After death, Claudius turned into a pumpkin, a symbol of stupidity in Rome, and not into a god - this is the ending of this interesting comedy by Seneca.