Conclusions

We need to use the terms ‘‘rhetoric’’ and ‘‘literature’’ with some caution. It is clear that the boundaries between the written world and the world of lived experience are different in the Roman context from how we experience them. If we approach Roman rhetoric with that in mind, and with an awareness of the difference between our understanding of rhetoric and the Roman one, then the study of texts as expressions of the social forces of their time will continue to shed light upon how Roman rhetoric exerted its effect in different kinds of representation. We should be wary of limiting that effect to formal qualities, however, and focus instead upon the persuasive strategies and social function of textual representation. However, as Cicero’s theoretical writings make clear, the situation at Rome is ambiguous: political power and rhetoric do not have a direct relationship; and the relationship between poetry and politics is even more contentious. There are clearly moments where a reading of Roman texts will suggest points of contact between ancient and modern conceptions of the role of literature. The Augustan poets’ insistence on poetry as a form of social resistance is the most important example, as it seems to suggest that literature is a place where the world of the artist is different from the social world. Again, however, this continuity is only of partial value; it needs to be balanced by an understanding of the representative function of poetry, that is, by the rhetorical techniques whereby poetry is integrated within a network of social values, values which, although they may be explored, are also in the process being restated.

In parallel to the social focus of recent studies of rhetoric, criticism of poetry is now also moving toward a more holistic approach which integrates the study of formal aspects with the political and social reality (see, e. g., Barchiesi 1997; Feeney 1998). These trends are positive, but we must be aware of the difficulty of assuming too close a match between rhetorical representation and lived reality. Texts at Rome represent a wide range of different positions: philosophers can be castigated for being irrelevant to the concerns of real life; Roman historians routinely base their vision of decline upon a distinction between the immoral world they are describing, and the much more moral world of their projected readership; which of these is more real than the other it is impossible to say. If rhetoric and literature is about dividing up experience into different categories, then we need, when thinking about Rome, to ensure that those categories do not become rigid, and that in looking at the rhetorical effect of individual pieces of writing, we do not turn a blind eye to inconsistencies or ambiguities in the status of the texts themselves.

FURTHER READING

This survey chapter necessarily touches swiftly on many points that are tackled in more detail elsewhere in this volume, so only a few suggestions are made here for those wishing to follow up particular arguments. For information on the circulation of texts, and the likely forms of reading implied, see Starr (1987) and Habinek (1998a), in particular chapter 5 entitled ‘‘Writing as Social Performance.’’ The prejudice against rhetoric is exhaustively examined by Vickers (1988). For the difficulty of real life and representation in Cicero, see S. Butler (2002) and Vasaly (1993). Gleason (1995) breaks new ground on the relationship between gender, sexuality, and rhetoric; she is part of a wider trend in the reassessment of the sophists of the early empire: see Swain (1996) and Goldhill (1995b); Gruen (1992) makes it clear that we need to think of the Roman world as part of this Greek world (rather than being separate from it) and that there is much to be learned about Roman rhetoric from the contemporary Greek scene. On declamation Russell (1983) is still vital. On Rome the seminal contribution is Beard (1993); these ideas have now been explored in greater detail in Gunderson (2003). On hermeneutics Gadamer (19892) gives a classic account of the shift in sensibilities marked by Romanticism; Eagleton (1990) gives an accessible treatment of some of the same material; and Dostal (2002) provides a companion to Gadamer (19892).

A Companion to Roman Rhetoric Edited by William Dominik, Jon Hall Copyright © 2007 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd