at the affront which your adultery had inflicted upon them, mortals [homines] who put into your hands weapons to be used either against me, or later against our invincible fellow-citizen; mortals [hominum], I grant you freely, have done you benefits that could not be exceeded. But what punishment could be visited upon a man by the immortal gods severer than madness and infatuation?” (Har. resp. 38–39).
192. For earthquakes considered as portents, see Pliny the Elder, Nat. 2.181.191–192, 86.200. After noting several earthquakes, he writes: “Nor yet is the disaster a simple one, nor does the danger consist only in the earthquake itself, but equally or more in the fact that it is a portent; the city of Rome was never shaken without this being a premonition of something about to happen” (Nat. 2.86.200).
193. See Litfin, St. Paul’s Theology of Proclamation, 91–108, 109–36. In these two chapters, Litfin analyzes the importance of persuasion as described by Cicero and Quintilian (ibid., 91–108), and by other ancient rhetoricians (109–36). He also helpfully includes a discussion of the role of the audience and the need for rhetoricians to adapt their speeches to the intended audience in order to be persuasive. I am indebted to Litfin for the primary references in this section.
194. In comparing the emphases of philosophy and rhetoric as seen in the writings of Cicero and Quintilian, C. Neumeister (Grundsätze der Forensischen Rhetorik, 23–24) argues that for the rhetor, “Zweckmäßigkeit” was paramount, as opposed to a determination of the “Wahrheit” in the case of the philosophers.
195. The practical nature of this aspect of rhetoric is reinforced by Cicero’s statement in De inventione (which directly precedes Cicero’s concept of the function of rhetoric given above): “Therefore we will classify oratorical ability as a part of political science” (Inv. 1.5.6). This is a linkage which has already been noted.
196. See Litfin, Paul’s Theology of Proclamation, 92–97, 104–6. In these sections, Litfin discusses the views of Cicero and Quintilian regarding adapting a speech to the audience. For example, Litfin cites Quintilian, Inst. 12.10.56, in which Quintilian states: “The judge’s attitude to what he hears is also very important— . . . his face is often itself the speaker’s guide. You must therefore press points you see are to his liking, and retreat smartly from those which are not well received.” Cf. Cicero’s thoughts on adapting the style of the speech to the audience in De or. 3.55.210–12. Here, I am extrapolating from Cicero’s admonition to modify the style of the speech to correspond to the audience to include the choice of content in a speech as well.
197. See Brunt, Roman Imperial Themes, 297: “The frequency of [Cicero’s] public appeals to religion is surely proof that belief was still widespread.”
198. Beard, “Cicero and Divination,” 33–46, esp. 33.
199. At the beginning of the treatise, Cicero has Quintus state: “My own opinion is that, if the kinds of divination which we have inherited from our forefathers and now practice are trustworthy, then there are gods and, conversely, if there are gods then there are men who have the power of divination” (Div. 1.5.9).
200. Beard emphasizes the polemical tone of the second half of the treatise when she states that Cicero “ridicules” his brother’s positions. Beard attributes Marcus’s position on divination to his rationalism; see Beard, “Cicero and Divination,” 33.
Конец ознакомительного фрагмента.
Текст предоставлен ООО «ЛитРес».
Прочитайте эту книгу целиком, купив полную легальную версию на ЛитРес.
Безопасно оплатить книгу можно банковской картой Visa, MasterCard, Maestro, со счета мобильного телефона, с платежного терминала, в салоне МТС или Связной, через PayPal, WebMoney, Яндекс.Деньги, QIWI Кошелек, бонусными картами или другим удобным Вам способом.
