Author: Aubert, Sophie
Title: Cicéron et la parole stoïcienne: polémique autour de la dialectique
Review/Collection: "Revue de Métaphysique et de Morale", 57
Year edition: 2008
Pages: 61-91
Keywords: Philosophie - Filosofia - Philosophy
Description: [Abstract] In many passages, Cicero analyzes Stoic language in a precise, though polemical, way. Since a syllogistic style coexists with a more abundant one in the same speech, he wholly discredits Stoic rhetoric and declares that the philosophers of the Porch only possess one way of expressing themselves, the dialectical one, whose validity he contests both in the practice of philosophy, which he thinks is ineffective, and in the field of oratory, because such a style is fundamentally inappropriate to every possible audience. In De Oratore, Crassus analyzes Stoic philosophical expression from a rhetorical point of view, whereas he studies Academic and Peripatetic philosophical eloquence without examining if it would suit an orator. In Brutus, the eponymous character insists on the so-called unity and homogeneity of Stoic eloquence, both in Athens and in Rome, in philosophical conversations and in forensic, deliberative or encomiastic speeches. The description of Diogenes of Babylon’s style by Antony confirms that Stoic language is restricted to dialectic, and thus unable to delight, to move or even to teach. It is also dry, obscure (because of a constant gap between res and uerba), useless as far as invention and topics are concerned, and above all, self-destructive. However, Stoic dialectic did have a heuristic function, and not only a defensive or an agonistic one.
Works:
Author initials: Aubert 2008
Title: Cicéron et la parole stoïcienne: polémique autour de la dialectique
Review/Collection: "Revue de Métaphysique et de Morale", 57
Year edition: 2008
Pages: 61-91
Keywords: Philosophie - Filosofia - Philosophy
Description: [Abstract] In many passages, Cicero analyzes Stoic language in a precise, though polemical, way. Since a syllogistic style coexists with a more abundant one in the same speech, he wholly discredits Stoic rhetoric and declares that the philosophers of the Porch only possess one way of expressing themselves, the dialectical one, whose validity he contests both in the practice of philosophy, which he thinks is ineffective, and in the field of oratory, because such a style is fundamentally inappropriate to every possible audience. In De Oratore, Crassus analyzes Stoic philosophical expression from a rhetorical point of view, whereas he studies Academic and Peripatetic philosophical eloquence without examining if it would suit an orator. In Brutus, the eponymous character insists on the so-called unity and homogeneity of Stoic eloquence, both in Athens and in Rome, in philosophical conversations and in forensic, deliberative or encomiastic speeches. The description of Diogenes of Babylon’s style by Antony confirms that Stoic language is restricted to dialectic, and thus unable to delight, to move or even to teach. It is also dry, obscure (because of a constant gap between res and uerba), useless as far as invention and topics are concerned, and above all, self-destructive. However, Stoic dialectic did have a heuristic function, and not only a defensive or an agonistic one.
Works:
Author initials: Aubert 2008
