Cover Page
The following handle holds various files of this Leiden University dissertation: http://hdl.handle.net/1887/79945
Author: Ooms, S
Title: How to compose great prose: Cicero, Dionysius of Halicarnassus and stylistic theory in Late-Republican and Augustan Rome
249
Chapter 6
G
ENERALC
ONCLUSIONIn this dissertation, I have offered, for the first time in more than a century, a systematic comparison of the two most important extant experts on prose style from the first century BC —the Roman orator, rhetorician, politician and philosopher Cicero, and the Greek historian, literary critic and teacher of rhetoric Dionysius of Halicarnassus. While previous discussions of their relationship were primarily concerned with identifying the sources of their common ideas, I have adopted a synchronic approach to their works: I have consulted Cicero and Dionysius (as well as several of their fellow critics and rhetoricians) on how to compose great prose in Late-Republican and Augustan Rome. My attention, in other words, has been focused on the Greek and Roman discourse on stylistic theory during the city’s turbulent transition from Republic to Empire. In this final chapter, I will briefly summarize the most important conclusions of this study.
Each of the foregoing chapters concentrates on a separate recurring theme in the stylistic discussions of Cicero, Dionysius and their Greek and Roman colleagues— specifically, the enthusiastic praise for the Athenian orator Demosthenes and the ruthless criticism of the Hellenistic orator and historian Hegesias of Magnesia (chapter 2), the division of style into three basic types as a means to analyze, categorize and compare artistic prose (chapter 3), the emphasis on the aural aesthetics of literature through the careful review of the harmonic and rhythmical aspects of word arrangement (chapter 4), and the exploitation of Atticism as a malleable vehicle for promoting one’s ideas about brilliant eloquence, prudent politics and superior morality (chapter 5). These chapters not only discuss the Greek and Latin sources for these specific topics, but they also exemplify and corroborate my three overarching contentions about stylistic theory in Late-Republican and Augustan Rome (section 1.1).
CHAPTER SIX
250
period of decline in Hellenistic Asia, and an ultimate era of revival in contemporary Rome (section 1.6): on the basis of this classicizing periodization, Cicero and Dionysius adopt a prejudiced approach to the Classical prose of the Athenian Demosthenes and to the Hellenistic prose of the Asian-born Hegesias (section 2.2). Moreover, in their evaluations of the stylistic achievements of these two opposite men, Cicero and Dionysius reach similar conclusions: they both applaud Demosthenes’ stylistic versatility, the force of his thunderbolts, and his virtuoso word arrangement (section 2.3), while they criticize Hegesias on exactly these points, viz., his formulaic monotony, his lack of vigor, and the awkwardness of his rhythmical composition (section 2.4). These like-minded analyses of genius and ineptitude reveal Cicero’s and Dionysius’ joint approach to the evaluation of prose style.
In other aspects of their stylistic theories, too, the authors apply a shared critical apparatus, which stood at the disposal of Greek and Roman writers alike. We have seen, for instance, that Cicero and Dionysius both build their three-style formulas on an antithesis between two diametrically opposed extreme styles, supplemented by a third intermediate type (section 3.2), while their classifications of Greek prose authors according to these three categories are largely compatible with each other (section 3.3). Concerning the theory of word arrangement, Cicero and Dionysius present a strikingly similar comparison between oratory and theatrical performance that serves to illustrate the same basic natural law of combination (section 4.3), and they also dictate analogous principles for the production of rough and smooth acoustics (section 4.4). As for the omnipresent Atticism of our sources, I have observed that Cicero, his opponent Calvus, and Dionysius articulate their conceptions of Attic style by selecting elements from a commonly accessible reservoir of political and moral virtues that were typically associated with Classical Athens (section 5.3): each author, hence, presents his Lady Eloquence as a pure, prudent, freeborn and moderate woman (section 5.4). In sum, there is more than enough common ground between Cicero, Dionysius and their fellow scholars to vouch for my contention that they participated in a close-knit common discourse.
251 purposes, as I have argued in my discussion of the theory of three styles: the emphasis on the simple and grand registers in Orator seems to be part of Cicero’s strategy to refute the claims of the self-styled Attic orators in Rome (section 3.4), whereas the focus on the intermediate register in On Demosthenes can be connected to Dionysius’ case for a versatile style with universal appeal (section 3.5). The fact that neither author consistently retains the three-style doctrine throughout his oeuvre should not be understood in the context of a development in their thought: rather, I have argued that Cicero and Dionysius use their critical tools for pragmatic reasons, omitting them from their discussions if they have no use for them.
Another factor in the diverse applications of stylistic theory is aesthetic taste. Particularly, there appears to be a general difference between the Greek and Roman literary palate: Dionysius, for instance, assumes that the uneducated masses appreciate simple oratory, whereas the intellectual elite craves for an elevated style, but according to his Roman colleagues the situation is completely reversed (section 3.6). Greek crowds apparently require a different approach from the speaker than Roman audiences. Furthermore, Greek and Roman authors as a rule exhibit disparate attitudes toward verbal arrangement: the Romans tend to be suspicious of meticulously arranged words, although many Greeks are wont to praise the art of composition as the culmination of creative artistry (section 4.2). Accordingly, our sources preserve two approaches to the disharmonious tones and limping rhythms of rough arrangement: in Latin texts, they are usually regarded as emblematic of authentic sincerity (section 4.5.1), and in Greek discussions as signs of sublime grandeur (section 4.5.2). In other cases, however, we have seen that the borderline between Greece and Rome does not account for differences of taste: Roman Calvus and Greek Dionysius both praise crude, ear-piercing sounds as the time-honored echoes from a legendary past, while Cicero rejects such acoustic effects as the outdated remnants from a simplistic stone age (section 4.5.3).
CHAPTER SIX
252
theories but also to his other activities: he criticizes the leading politicians of his day, Caesar and Pompey, for their supposed extravagance and effeminacy (section 5.6.1), while he seemingly recommends the use of lead and cold water to prevent such vices in private life (section 5.6.2). In a word, the critics and rhetoricians variously interpret elements from their common discourse in order to demarcate their position in Roman society as authors, citizens and men.
My third crucial claim, which has been a continuous thread running through this dissertation, is that Greek and Roman authors alike engage in a mutual exchange of ideas on prose style. In my view, we should not strictly mark off separate Roman and Greek stylistic traditions nor should we impose an inherent hierarchy on the surviving Greek and Latin sources: all texts should be regarded as full-fledged contributions to a common discourse. I have proposed the notion of a ‘koine’, a buzzword in recent scholarship on cultural interaction, to make sense of the relationship between Greek and Roman scholars: all these authors, with their diverse interests and objectives, speak the same language, that is, a rhetorical-critical koine (section 1.7). This common, intercultural discourse functions on the basis of two interrelated processes: the theories, techniques and terminologies of individual participants can become part of the koine (‘universalization’), and can thus subsequently be used by other participants, who can adapt them to suit their own objectives (‘particularization’), whence they can once again end up in the koine, and so on. In my opinion, we thus have a convenient conceptual framework to understand how both Greeks and Romans could be active contributors to a shared discourse on prose style, whilst allowing us to interpret their views in the context of their own goals and motivations.
253 appears not to have taken hold in Rome before the quarrel between the renowned Roman orators Calvus and Cicero, after which it inevitably became a commonplace topic for Greek scholars working in the city who subsequently passed their conceptions of the issue on to their Roman students (section 5.2). It is very likely, then, that Greek and Roman authors not only had access to a shared discourse, but that both groups also developed it further in a continuous dialogue.
