Lamar Tsiskaridze biography. Nikolai Tsiskaridze: personal life, wife, children, photo

In Rome, as in Greece, the oratorical word was considered the most important weapon of political struggle. But Rome was not a democratic republic, like Athens, but an aristocratic one: power was in the hands of a narrow circle of noble families, and the secrets of oratory were inherited. 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; also expelled Greek teachers philosophy - as corrupting 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. becomes 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. Cicero's works had a strong influence on religious thinkers, in particular St. Augustine, representatives of the Renaissance and humanism (Petrarch, Erasmus of Rotterdam, Boccaccio), French educators (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 masses gift of words, 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 speeches of his 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. More more success He achieved this 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 distortion 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 an exceptional historical and cultural value. Already in the Middle Ages, and especially during the Renaissance, specialists were interested in the rhetorical and philosophical works of Cicero, and according to the latter they became acquainted with the Greek philosophical schools. Humanists especially appreciated Cicero's style.

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.

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 the humanities education of Europe from the time of 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.

Although Aristotle remained for ancient Rome the highest authority in the field of rhetoric, 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, the manual “On the Syllable”, written by Theophrastus - which has not come down to us, was of much greater importance, 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, agreements, 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 opposed such dogmatic schemes, rightly emphasizing that the invention and discovery of suitable arguments and patterns of reasoning is a creative process and requires a wide 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 occupied theoretical issues 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 difficulties and hardships 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 decreased markedly, with the exception of judicial oratory. But even the very nature of judicial eloquence has changed significantly. A business style began to predominate in it and instead of verbose and long arguments, short, exact wording, 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.

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 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 onto the path of positive morality, we must attribute to the Roman a legal soul and, in accordance with it, the desire for a negative morality of 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:

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 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 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, 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 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 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 worldview disputes of philosophers and rhetoricians 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 more and more formed into a solid system, in the speeches of court speakers there remained less and less legal content and more and more formal shine. 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 adventure novel and other equally fruitful genres of the “second sophistry”, which had a huge influence on the development of European literature. 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 moving from school to the forum, the orator 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 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 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”. Most fully reflected a new style Seneca 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 most interesting comedy Seneca.

Gaius Sempronius Gracchus. By rights, Gaius Gracchus can be considered the first orator of the Roman Empire; he was a prominent political figure of Ancient Rome who turned his face to the people: before him, orators addressed the Senate, judges, their speeches were not intended for people in the square. Thus, turning specifically to the people, Gaius Gracchus made it clear that he was looking for support and justice from the people, he recognized their strength, their opinion was considered, which later became decisive.

Marcus Tullius Cicero. After Gaius Gracchus, Roman orators, following his example, began to address their people, who listened to the orators. Subsequently, the orators of Rome began to study the psychology, interests, and tastes of their people. Thus, oratory began to mean not only what and how to say, but also what, to whom, and to what audience should be said. One of the outstanding speakers of Republican Rome can be considered a political and statesman, writer and philosopher, Marcus Tullius Cicero (105-43 BC), who went down in the history of world culture as a brilliant orator. Undoubtedly, Marcus Tullius Cicero is a historical figure and a famous theorist of oratory.

Cicero believed that it is the art of eloquence that has enormous power impact on the audience, skillful speakers are necessary in government affairs. Filasov believed that all politicians should master the art of oratory. In his famous treatises on oratory: “On the Orator”, “Brutus”, “Orator”. Whipper B.R. Oratory Art of Ancient Greece and Rome. M., "Science", 1972.P.8-11. Whipper B.R. believes that Cicero in his works creates the image of an “ideal orator”, convinced of the rightness of his cause and a comprehensively educated political figure. Before the speaker. Cicero poses three main tasks:

• - prove your position, i.e. demonstrate the truth of the facts and arguments presented;
• - provide aesthetic pleasure;
• - influence will and behavior, encourage people to be active.

Thus, the author of the article emphasizes that Roman society highly appreciated the merits of Cicero; even during his lifetime he was called the father of Latin literature and eloquence. Interest in the legacy of Cicero's works also arose during the Renaissance.

In the era of the Great French bourgeois revolution of the 18th century, they again turned to the legacy of Cicero, this time as a political orator. He was quoted and his works were studied. M.V. Lomonosov also valued the great philosopher of antiquity. Cicero's works also influenced the Russian Decembrists, who saw in him a fighter for republican freedoms.

Another famous orator of the Roman Empire can be considered Marcus Fabius Quintilian (30-96 BC). Marcus Fabius Quintilian lived at a time when Roman society was experiencing a process of economic and spiritual decline. As once in Ancient Greece, oratory in Rome began to lose its significance as a weapon of social struggle, becoming more and more closed in on itself and turning into a chamber, declamatory art for the elite. Quintilian was one of those who tried to resist this. Marcus Fabius Quintilian, came up with the slogan of a return to the classical eloquence of Cicero, and led the fight against supporters of the new, “theatrical” style. "Rhetorical Instructions" by Quintilian - a major work of 12 books, this a real encyclopedia rhetoric, the result of the achievements of oratory of the classical period. Quintilian failed to revive “great eloquence.” It disappeared with the Roman Republic. And with the fall of Rome the ancient ends, classical period in the development of oratory. Kuznetsova T.I. Classics and classicism in the theory of Quintilian. // Kuznetsova T. I., Strelnikova I. P. Oratory in ancient Rome. -- M.: Science. 1976. -- Ch. 5. -- P. 174

Gaius Julius Caesar- is one of the greatest commanders and statesmen of all times and peoples. The name Gaius Julius Caesar, who became a household name. Julius Caesar, while still a young man, plunged into politics. The young politician and commander showed particular interest in the art of eloquence. Before Caesar stood the example of Cicero, who made his career thanks to his mastery of oratory. Art that helped convince the audience that they were right. Caesar dressed in a one-color toga (toga virilis), which symbolized his political maturity. Toga, this outerwear male citizens in Ancient Rome, began his political career, Caesar began his career by becoming a priest supreme god Rome of Jupiter. Soon, after the first performance, he asked for Cornelia's hand in marriage. Having received the consent of the bride he had chosen, he also received support from the authorities. It was this conclusion and eloquence that helped G. Yu. Caesar determine his brilliant and great future.

Gaius Julius Caesar will take an honorable special place in our study, for two reasons, one of them is that his phrase “Divide and conquer” became a catchphrase. This phrase is the epigraph of this study. The second reason, despite the fact that G. Yu. Caesar did not have outstanding achievements in the field of oratory, the oratorical path of the great politician and commander occupies a special place, and there was a special reason, Caesar’s personality was multifaceted and versatile.

My military career Guy Julius Caesar begins with a campaign in the East, he took part in his first military campaign under the leadership of Minucius (Marcus) Termus, the purpose of this campaign was to suppress pockets of resistance to power in the Roman province of Asia (Asia Minor, Pergamon). Thus, after the first military campaign, Julius Caesar received his first military glory.

Thus, in 66 BC. e. Yu. Caesar is elected curule aedile for the next year. His responsibilities included organizing urban construction, transport, trade, daily life in Rome and ceremonial events. Moreover, as a rule, all of the above activities were carried out at their own expense. In April 65 BC. e. the new aedile organized and conducted the Megalesian Games, and in September the Roman Games, which amazed everyone with their luxury, even the Romans, experienced in entertainment, were surprised. Yu. Caesar shared the costs of both of these events equally with his comrade-in-arms Marcus Calpurnius Bibulus, and only Caesar got the glory. From the very beginning, according to one version, it was planned to show a record number of gladiators at the Roman Games, in those days, according to another version, gladiatorial fights were organized by Caesar, in memory of his father. The Council of Rome, fearing that a large gathering of gladiators could lead to an uprising, forbade Caesar from all the events he had planned in one person. Of course, Caesar obeyed the order, and so his comrade-in-arms appeared, sharing with him the costs of organizing the events. orator rome caesar cicero

Gaius Julius Caesar is also known for heading the criminal court for special cases, robberies, and murders. A large number of Romans were condemned by Caesar. Caesar often acted as an opponent of many of the decrees of the dictator Sulla; these speeches made Caesar Great Pontiff for life, which attracted everyone's attention to him and almost certainly guaranteed a successful political career. The only thing that Caesar's compatriots blamed was his excessive ambitions. Goldsworthy A. Julius Caesar: commander, emperor, legend. - M.: Eksmo, 2007. - P. 182

Caesar was not only an accuser, but also a defender, so once Caesar defended a noble nobleman, the Numidian Masinta, but lost the trial. The trial became notorious due to the fact that Guy, in the heat of legal disputes, grabbed the heir to the Numidian throne, Juba, who was to become king Juba I, by the beard. It is unclear why Caesar insulted the influential prince; perhaps it was his spontaneous outburst of anger, or a carefully calculated action that took advantage of the xenophobic sentiments of the Roman plebs. After the conviction, Guy sheltered Masinta and managed to take him to Spain, which showed others Caesar's reliability as a patron, ready to protect his clients at any cost. Finally, Gaius Julius Caesar created his first triumvirate. It happened like this

The Senate, having received reports of Caesar's victories, considered him worthy of triumph. This honorable celebration took place in the summer of 60 BC. e. After this, Caesar hoped to take part in the election of consuls the following year, since he had reached the minimum age for office new position and passed all previous master's degrees. But while the candidate for triumph did not yet have the right to cross the sacred borders of the city before the start of the event, and personal presence in Rome was required to register the candidate for consul, he violated this prohibition. The date of the elections themselves had already been set, and Caesar asked the senators to grant him the right to absentee registration. The Senate decided to allow Gnaeus Pompey, who was also preparing a triumph, to nominate his candidacy.

All of Caesar's opponents, and there were quite a few of them, were not in the mood to meet Caesar halfway. Thus, having presented Caesar with a choice between triumph and consulate, they hoped that Caesar would choose triumph, hoping that Guy's creditors would not wait another year, but would demand their money immediately. Caesar also had his own personal reasons for not postponing participation in the elections until next year: election to a new position, since in the first year when this was permissible by law, it was considered especially honorable. At the last meeting of the Senate before the elections, when it was still possible to pass the resolution, it was Cato who took the floor and spoke all day, until the very end of the meeting. By using this trick, Cato made it impossible for Caesar to obtain permission, but, nevertheless, he had a triumph, entered the city, choosing to take up a new position and abandoning the triumph. Utchenko S. L. Julius Caesar. - M.: Mysl, 1976. - pp. 91-98 Thus, the career of the great orator Gaius Julius Caesar in a high position was over; before he could take the position, he lost it.

Regarding this situation that developed with Caesar, one of the Roman authors reports that senators often bribed voters, and in in this case, Cato called this bribery, which was dictated by the interests of the state. Further, the author, whose name is unknown, writes that each tribe had a group of people who were engaged in bribery, they distributed money to individual voters, instructing them for whom they should vote. Numerous irregularities were observed in many elections of magistrates and only in the 2nd century BC. uh, laws began to appear that,

regulated individual parts election campaign. Those responsible were first subject to a ten-year excommunication from participating in elections, and then to perhaps the most serious penalty in peacetime, expulsion, accompanied by confiscation of property. However, between 67 and 50 BC. e. different kinds Bribery of voters began to be practiced annually, so that during the election campaign, due to the huge demand for cash, moneylenders doubled loan rates, from 4% to 8% per annum. According to the results of the elections of consuls for 59 BC. e. became Caesar and Bibulus. Billows R. Julius Caesar: The Colossus of Rome. -- London; New York: Routledge, 2009. -- P. 105.

This story, described by us, has a continuation. Caesar's pride was hurt and hoping to still achieve his goal, at approximately the same time, Gaius Julius Caesar entered into an agreement with Crassus and Pompey, they wanted to create some kind of political union. This alliance, as Caesar expected, would help support him in working with these rather rich and influential people to pass several laws supporting their common interests in the Senate. Caesar had previously made an attempt, but the Senate rejected these laws. The essence of the matter was that when Pompey returned after the end of the Third Mithridatic War, in 62 BC. e., then, did not achieve ratification of all orders made in the eastern provinces. He was unable to overcome the resistance of the Senate on the issue of providing land plots to veterans of his army. Crassus also had his own reasons for dissatisfaction with the Senate, who defended the interests of the publicans (tax farmers), who unsuccessfully asked to reduce the amount of taxation for the province of Asia. Thanks to this unification around Caesar, both politicians hoped to overcome the resistance of the senators and pass laws beneficial to themselves. It was unclear what Caesar himself received from the alliance. Perhaps the very rapprochement with two influential politicians and their equally high-ranking friends, clients and, at the same time, relatives was beneficial to him. There is a version that with the formation of such a triumvirate, Caesar could have hatched a plan to seize power with its help. This position is shared by Theodor Mommsen and Jerome Carcopino. But N.A. Mashkin does not agree with this version and believes that such a union was intended to be short-term, but the change in the situation united the participants of the triumvirate and turned their union into a long-term one. It is possible that, with the help of the triumvirate, Caesar hoped to implement his own program of sweeping reforms.

Before the agreement, Pompey and Crassus were at enmity, but even here Caesar showed his eloquence, he reconciled the rivals, uniting them into an alliance. Many Roman historians come to the conclusion that Caesar first entered into an alliance with Pompey, only then with Crassus. There is another version according to which it was supposed to include a fourth member in the union, who it could be is unknown. One way or another, the triumvirate took place, and noble men of Roman society became its members. This situation arose immediately after the elections, it was approximately 59 BC. e. Gaius Julius Caesar nevertheless became consul.

At the beginning of his career, Cicero was close to the people, every day he gave the people all the information about the results of the Senate meetings, but he did this not out of affection for the people, but in order to hide the actions of politicians. Cicero even accepted new project law on agrarians, since he was one of the two chief consuls. The people also supported this law, because, as planned, the law provided for the confiscation of land from large landowners, and whoever had the desire could buy it back. There was little free land in Italy, but, in fact, Cicero wanted to speculate in land. According to the law, land that had already been purchased could not be sold by those who bought it for 20 years. The control commission was headed by Pompey and Crassus. Influential politicians also supported the law, but Cicero's opponents, Cato and his supporters protested against the law.

“...Before the vote on the agrarian law, at the popular meeting, the situation in Rome was very difficult, and supporters of the adoption of the law fought with opponents, according to Plutarch. On the way to the forum, a basket of dung was turned over Bibulus's head, then they attacked his lictors and broke their rods, and finally stones and darts flew, many were wounded. Others who protested ran headlong from the forum. Despite the resistance of Bibulus and a number of senators led by Cato, who feared the further growth of Caesar’s popularity, the proposal was adopted in the popular assembly.” Goldsworthy A. Julius Caesar: commander, emperor, legend. - M.: Eksmo, 2007. - p.101-103 Bibulus was Cato's son-in-law.

It must be emphasized that there were quite a few people who wanted to buy the land, and those from whom the land was to be taken away resisted the law. For this reason, a huge portion of the confiscated land had to be state property. It was on this site that the land was to be given to large families. There were about 20 thousand such families with more than three children. Again Cato intervened and tried to protest, but was again repulsed by the consul. This time, Cicero arrested his adversary and opponent and put him in prison. The land law was adopted. Cato's son-in-law, Bibulus, was removed from the Senate. Bibulus himself doubted the sincerity and honesty of Cicero, constantly spoke about this to the Senate, and finally, Cicero limited this opponent in his powers. Caesar's comrade, the second consul was a supporter of Bibulus, trying to discredit him, he spread rumors about the personal lives of Cicero and Pompey, gossip spread at cosmic speed, and this undermined Caesar's authority. They began to accuse him of bribery and self-interest. The result of Cicero's activities as consul ended with the fact that all the charges brought against Cicero were dropped for a huge sum, which Cicero paid. The fact that Cicero was not honest is confirmed by numerous Roman historians. Ibid., p.117

However, the political career of young Caesar was not destined to take off too quickly, since after the change of power in Rome, Sulla became ruler.

captured by Sulla (82 BC). The new ruler ordered Caesar to urgently divorce his young wife. In response, Sulla, having heard a categorical refusal, deprived Julius Caesar of the title of priest and all his personal property. Only the protective position of Caesar's relatives, who were in Sulla's inner circle, helped save the life of the talented commander. Works of K. Yu. Caesar. Everything that has come down to us from him or under his name. With the appendix of his biography, written by Suetonius. / From lat. translated and published by A. Klevanov. M., 1857.S. 340. p.76-88

The end of the life of the great commander and politician was terrible. As a result of the conspiracy, he was killed. A group of Caesar's opponents, led by both Gaius Cassius Longinus and Marcus Junius Brutus, organized a conspiracy. IN last years own life, greatest commander of all eras and times, actually became the sole ruler of Rome. The career of a military leader was a thing of the past, and Cicero plunged headlong into politics. Many of his laws, which he carried out in the Senate, provoked protest. There was no way to overthrow him the only way to eliminate Caesar became murder. The conspirators killed Caesar on March 15, 44 BC. BC, which led to another civil war and, ultimately, to the establishment of Caesar's heir Octavian as Roman emperor.

Mark Antony, friend, follower and comrade-in-arms of Gaius Julius Caesar. Mark Antony is also one of the most prominent commanders and statesmen of ancient Rome. Despite the fact that his ancestors were at enmity with the Julias, Mark Antony was a devoted supporter and friend of Gaius Julius Caesar. After the death of Caesar, Mark Antony formed a political alliance with Caesar's adopted son Gaius Octavius ​​and Marcus Lepidus, which today historians call the Second Triumviate.

This triumvirate ceased to exist in 33 BC. Insurmountable differences between Antony and Octavian eventually resulted in the civil war known as the Last Civil War in Rome. Mark Antony's defeat in this war marked the final transformation of the Roman Republic into an Empire.

Roman society developed and the slave system was replaced by feudalism. Along with the new system came other values, with the proclamation of the inviolability of the existing order, the divine predestination of feudal inequality. Thus, the traditions of the ancient philosophers Demosthenes, Aristotle, Cicero, Quintilian, who saw oratory as a means of persuasion and political struggle, turned out to be incompatible with the Christian dogmas of humility and unquestioning faith.

When asked who owns winged quote: “Divide and conquer”, historians do not have an exact answer. Some suggest that the author of this quote is Gaius Julius Caesar. Other historians believe that the author of the quote was the Macedonian king Philip, father of Alexander the Great, 359-336. BC A definite answer has not been found, but, one way or another, “divide and conquer”, this was the formula of the Roman Senate. This formula was simply necessary, since the Roman Empire had huge colonies and applied this main principle to your enemies. Having numerous colonies, in different parts light, it was by inciting hostility between the colonies and within the colonies themselves that the Great Empire maintained relative order. Caesar often said this quote when he needed to defeat his rivals in a power struggle.

Tracing human history, one can come to the conclusion that it was in the Roman Empire that the principle of “Divide and Conquer” is traced as the main principle of action in this quote. Almost the entire Eastern Mediterranean was at the complete disposal of the procurators, and at the same time, to their civil clashes and inconsistencies, Roman culture, religion, customs and political system were added as a counterweight. Internet resource. Access mode: http://fb.ru/article/134045/frazu-razdelyay-i-vlastvuy. Date of the application. 10/06/2016

To summarize this study, it can be noted that it was Rome that became famous to the world for its public discussions. Almost all state and social issues were resolved in the public forms of Rome. The topics of discussion were different, including legal, civil, internal and external political problems, known to everyone as daily events. Thus, the citizens of Rome learned about the news of the country. As a rule, many consider “daily acts” to be similar to modern newspapers. From the very beginning, such newspapers were written on stones or metal and distributed throughout Rome. Local newspapers wrote about military victories, games held, upcoming gladiator fights and the winners of these fights. They also wrote about the birth of noble nobles, the day of death of statesmen, and there were cases when interesting stories were written. It was Gaius Julius Caesar who decreed that all the reforms he carried out should be written in such newspapers, saying: “... 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? What speech can be considered the most effective? Internet resource. Access mode: http://lib.ru/POEEAST/CICERON/cicero1_1.txt. Date of the application. 10/06/2016

Carried away by his eloquence, Cicero often said that the word is the science and skill of persuading, enticing and delighting the listening audience.

ROMAN ORATORS

In Rome, as in Greece, the oratorical word was considered the most important weapon of political struggle. But Rome was not a democratic republic, like Athens, but an aristocratic one: power was in the hands of a narrow circle of noble families, and the secrets of oratory were inherited. 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 itself and expelled them from the city several times (in 161 and 92 BC); Greek teachers of philosophy were also expelled as corrupters of morals.

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.

Roman oratorical prose reached its maturity under Gaius Gracchus (153-121 BC). After being killed by enemies in 133 BC. e. his brother Tiberius, he continued the fight for the redistribution of Italian lands in favor of the peasants, to whom Rome owed its successes in wars and whom these same wars ruined. Gracchus wrote: “Wild beasts have holes and lairs to hide in, but those who fight and die for Italy have only light and air... Generals lie when they call on them to defend the graves of their ancestors and their native sanctuaries - none of them they have neither a paternal altar nor a family tomb... They are called the rulers of the Universe, but they do not have even a piece of land in their possession.” Two thousand years later, these words were paraphrased by A. N. Radishchev in “Journey from St. Petersburg to Moscow,” speaking about the fate of the Russian peasant.

Marcus Tullius Cicero.

The greatest orator of Ancient Rome is rightfully considered Marcus Tullius Cicero (106-43 BC), whose name has become a household name for an eloquent person. Cicero did not belong to the Roman nobility - people like him were derisively called homo novus (literally " new person", i.e. upstart). He owed his position in society and his brilliant career as a lawyer solely to his natural talents and education. Therefore, Cicero devoted so much effort to the education of Roman society. His rhetorical and philosophical treatises were written in brilliant and fascinating prose, which, of course, attracted the attention of the public to the questions that the speaker posed. But if philosophy in an artistically perfect form was familiar to antiquity according to Plato, then treatises on the theory of eloquence, which would have been simultaneously literary masterpieces, no one - neither before nor after - wrote.

Among Cicero's treatises on oratory, the dialogues “On the Orator”, “Brutus” and “The Orator” stand out. They discuss various techniques and styles of rhetorical art, as well as the ideal image of the speaker. For Cicero, the ideal speaker is both an ideal person He must have that quality which in Latin is called the difficult-to-translate word humanitas. It means that a person’s attention and vital interests are directed to thought and feeling, to the structure of his own soul and mind (this word is close to the concept of “intelligence”; the adjective “humanitarian” is derived from it). Cicero in his treatises “On the Boundaries of Good and Evil”, “On Friendship”, “On Duties” points the way to such an ideal. This is a combination of rhetoric and philosophy, and philosophy should not serve the speculative comprehension of abstract truths, but the idea of ​​right and wrong, should and should not.

When it comes to theoretical subjects (the treatises “Timaeus”, “On the Nature of the Gods”, “On Fate”, “On Divination”), Cicero sets out through the mouth of his characters the positions of different philosophical schools, without giving preference to any of them. He seems to be saying: positive knowledge in these matters is not given to man, and, in essence, it does not matter what he thinks about this, if he distinguishes well between good and evil, remembers loyalty, duty and justice. In the dialogue “On Old Age” (“Cato”), the author convinces the reader that there is no need to be afraid of death, since either there is no afterlife at all, or bliss awaits the just after death. Contempt for death, pain and other misfortunes is the theme of one of his best dialogues, “Tusculan Conversations” (named after the Tusculan estate where the action takes place).

But Cicero would not have been a Roman if he had not correlated his thoughts about man with thoughts about the state (he devoted his treatises “On the State” and “On Laws” to this topic). The model of the state for him was the Roman Republic. This was a responsible choice and not at all obvious: Cicero had to live in an era when the republic was degenerating into an empire in blood and pain.

Cicero's youth coincided with the dictatorship of Sulla (82-79 BC). In the first cases that brought fame to the young lawyer, he opposed the dictator’s favorites. Then followed a high-profile trial against Verres, the Roman governor of Sicily, accused of extortion and violations of laws.

Speeches against Verres brought Cicero into the forefront of Roman orators. In Cicero's speeches, Latin acquired an unprecedented variety of styles and intonations - from high pathos to sober and precise storytelling, from caustic irony to shy tenderness. He was called the "master of ten thousand flowers." The great orator tempered the Asian pomp with the severity of Atticism, thus “removing” the conflict between the two styles.

Oratory skills paved the way for Cicero to high positions. At the peak of his career, while serving as consul, he was faced with a new attempt to establish sole power in Rome - this was the conspiracy of Catilina. Cicero considered saving Rome from this threat his main merit: he made four speeches against Catalina, which became perhaps the most famous. For preventing the coup d'etat, Cicero was awarded the highest honorary title - “father of the fatherland.”

But after the takeoff there was a rapid fall. When the power changed, Cicero was sent into exile, and meanwhile the struggle was in full swing in Rome. When he returned, he wanted to join those forces that promised to preserve the republic. So the orator ended up in Pompey’s camp against Caesar. However, Pompeii was defeated. Fortunately for Cicero, Caesar, himself no stranger to literature, did not raise his hand against the one who was the pride of Roman culture. But Cicero had to abandon political activity, and in the speeches of these years he calls on the dictator to show mercy to the fallen.

Scenes from Roman life: procession of consuls; dispute; wedding. Roman relief. Ill in. AD

After the murder of Caesar, Cicero perked up: it seemed that tyranny had fallen and the republic had been restored. But this was an illusion: a struggle for power immediately developed between Antony and Octavian. Cicero sided with Octavian, who constantly swore by the republic. Anthony openly behaved like an eastern monarch. Therefore, the famous rhetorician made about 20 furious speeches against him. Cicero called them “Philippics” in memory of the famous speeches of the Greek Demosthenes directed against the Macedonian king Philip II. It was a proud gesture: before, Roman orators did not dare to compete with the Greek classics.

Cicero's speeches were really good - so much so that Antony began to consider him one of his main personal enemies. Having concluded a temporary alliance with Octavian, he immediately demanded the head of the speaker. The murderers overtook Cicero at his estate. Having made sure that it would be impossible to escape, Cicero ordered the stretcher to be placed on the ground and sat calmly, waiting. fatal blow... His head was displayed on the rostra (tribune in the forum, decorated with the bows of captured ships. - Ed.), from where he once delivered his speeches. The Republic ended - the Empire began.

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, student who prepares messages for lessons or club activities, speaks at school and class meetings, at ceremonial events, etc. You've probably had to worry more than once about your unsuccessful performances, or get bored listening to your speaking comrades. 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.

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 had a very great importance: possession of it was the most important way to achieve authority 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 flowed from his lips like a snowstorm.” For a long time, oratory existed only in oral form. 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 decorations 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 subject.” 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 about whom you speak or write; 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 listeners, 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. He called the obligatory structural parts of a speech: preface, accusation and methods of refuting it, story-statement of facts, evidence, conclusion. Aristotle's works on rhetoric had a huge influence on the further development of the theory of eloquence. Aristotle's rhetoric touches not only the area of ​​oratory, it is devoted to the art of persuasive speech and dwells on the ways of influencing a person with the help of speech.

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 have been 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. Cicero summarized the achievements of ancient rhetoric and his own “practical experience” 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 national assembly, a square, a center of political and cultural life Roman people); for Quintilian, the standard of the educational system is the 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 of 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 works, 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 of OOU. 2nd ed. - M.: Education, 1996

2. R.Ya. Velts, T.N. Dorozhkina, E.G. Ruzina, E.A. Yakovleva., Fundamentals of rhetoric - 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