Abstract
AbstractAn analysis of Cicero's vocabulary, argumentation, and views on Greek historians in de Orat. 2.51-8 shows that he criticizes the early Roman historians for failings in both style and content. This contradicts A.J. Woodman's claim that the views of Cicero's 'Antonius' have “nothing to do with style”. Furthermore the idea that Cicero considered the exaedificatio of an historical work not to be subject to the leges historiae is based on a mistaken interpretation of de Orat. 2.63. It is argued that this text provides no theoretical foundation for a “hard core” of material subject to the leges historiae and a “superstructure” subject only to the rhetorical requirement of plausibility.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
