Persuasive History: Roman Rhetoric And Historiography

This question, put in the mouth of the great orator Marcus Antonius, has come to represent the Roman--and, to some extent, ancient--attitude toward the relationship between historiography and rhetoric
Written in 1997 by Robert W. Cape, Jr., “Persuasive History: Roman Rhetoric and Historiography” thoroughly examines and analyzes Cicero’s written work, De Oratore, and the arguments he provides for the connection between rhetoric and historiography. An ultimate connection is made throughout the piece that the orator is the only man with the right capability to write and present history properly. In the article, there seems to be a struggle to understand what type of rhetoric should be used to keep history alive, and Cicero’s main point is that the ordinary man has been trained in rhetoric in a court case kind of setting and history shouldn’t be taught that way. He states that while the Greeks gave rhetoric some rules to follow, he also believes the rhetoric for use of history does not have to have rules, but rather a way to pull …show more content…
Cicero realized that some of his views on the relationship between oratory and history were not necessarily shared by others (cf. Leg. 1.5). Yet some of those views, such as the didactic function of history, were also held by earlier and later practising historians. Unmistakably Ciceronian are his comments on style, which are pivotal for the direction of Roman historiography. But in order to recognize what is new about Cicero 's position it is necessary to understand what is traditional. In addition, we must ask why Cicero made statements about historiography in a rhetorical treatise. It was not obvious that he should have done so (cf. De Or. 2.62,