Addressing Matters in Context The Art of

University of Cyprus 27-29 August 2015
INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE
Addressing Matters in Context:
The Art of Persuasion across Genres and Times
PROGRAMME
Thursday 27/08/2015
08:30-09:45 Registration/ Tea & coffee
09:45 Welcome: Constantinos Christofides (Rector of the University of Cyprus)

09:55 Welcome: Kyriakos Demetriou (Department of Social and Political Science,
University of Cyprus)
10:05 Welcome: Antonis Tsakmakis (Department of Classics and Philosophy,
University of Cyprus)
10:15 Welcome by the organizers: Sophia Papaioannou (University of Athens) &
Andreas Serafim (University of Cyprus/ Open University of Cyprus)
10:30 -12:30 Session 1 - Persuasion across times

Chair: Jon Hesk (St Andrews)
10:30-11:00 Christopher Carey (UCL): In praise of the dead: the epitaphios logos
ancient and modern
11:00-11:30 Adele Scafuro (Brown): The rhetoric of impeachment: trials in England,
the United States, and ancient Greece
11:30-12:00 Brenda Griffith-Williams (UCL): “We’re all in this together”: the art of
(un)communication in political discourse
12:00-12:30 Andreas Hetzel (Fatih/ Magdeburg): Persuasive language beyond giving
reasons: from Gorgias to Jane Austen
12:30-13:30 Lunch
13:30-16:00 Session 2 - Persuasion in Historiography

Chair: Adele Scafuro (Brown University)
13:30-14:00 Tazuko Angela van Berkel (Leiden): Pericles’ rhetoric of numbers
14:00-14:30 Roger Brock (Leeds): Public and private persuasion in the historical
works of Xenophon
1
14:30-15:00 Antonis Tsakmakis (Cyprus): Thucydides and Mytilene’s revolt: rhetoric

and beyond
15:00-15:30 Maria Kythreotou (Cyprus): Persuasion in Thucydidean speeches
15:30-16:00 Jessica Evans (Middlebury): Sophistic effeminacy and Athenian
manhood: gendered truths and patriotism in Thucydides' History and Plato's Gorgias
16:00-16:30 Tea & coffee break
16:30-19:00 Session 3 - Persuasion across boundaries: Oratory and Historiography

Chair: Michael Gagarin (Austin)
16:30-17:00 Stephen Todd (Manchester): Greek historians and the language of
rhetorical proof
17:00-17:30 Jon Hesk (St Andrews): Thucydides and Xenophon on deliberative
pathologies and the contingency of rhetorical situations
17:30-18:00 Rebecca Van Hove (KCL): Oracles as tools of persuasion and sources of
authority in Herodotus and Attic Oratory
18:00-18:30 Kostas Vlassopoulos (Crete): Appeals to class in Greek oratory and
historiography
18:30-19:00 Robert Sing (Cambridge): Assessing Financial Power in War in
Thucydides and Demosthenes
19:00 End of panel
19:15-20:15 Keynote lecture

Chair: Antonis Tsakmakis (Cyprus)
Michael Gagarin (Austin): The Greek art of persuasion and its influence
20:15 End of panel
20:30 Dinner at a local restaurant
Friday 28/08/2015
09:00-09:30 Tea & coffee
09:30-11:00 Session 4 - The language, style and performativity of persuasion I

Chair: Christopher Carey (UCL)
09:30-10:00 T. Davina McClain (Northwestern State University): Women speak:
direct dpeech in Livy’s Ab Urbe Condita
10:00-10:30 Andreas Serafim (Cyprus/ OU Cyprus): Persuasive conventions:
imperative and questions in Attic oratory
2
10:30-11:00 Tzu-I Liao (UCL): Rhetoric on the border: De Corona as both judicial
and deliberative speech
11:00-11:30 Tea & coffee
11:30-13:00 Session 5 - The language, style and performativity of persuasion II

Chair: Roger Brock (University of Leeds)
11:30-12:00 Eleni Volonaki (Peloponnese): Narrative persuasion in forensic oratory
12:00-12:30 Flaminia Beneventano (Siena): Apophainein. Demonstration and
performance between forensic oratory and Herodotus’ Histories
12:30-13:00 Alessandro Vatri (Oxford): Poetry in the Attic lawcourt: how to (re)cite
it, and how to recognize it
13:00-14:00 Lunch
14:00-16:00 Session 6 - Emotional persuasion

Chair: Sophia Papaioannou (Athens)
14:00-14:30 Ricardo Gancz & Gabriel Danzig (Bar Ilan University): Arousing the
emotions by speech: an Aristotelian theory
14:30-15:00 Dimos Spatharas (Crete): Enargeia and emotions in the Attic orators
15:00-15:30 Jennifer Devereaux (Southern California University): Embodied
metaphor and the rhetoric of emotion in Greek and Latin Prose
15:30-16:00 Sophia Xenophontos (Glasgow): The art of persuasion in Galen’s medical
and ethical writings
16:00-16:30 Tea & coffee
16:30-19:00 Session 7 - Persuasion in Roman rhetoric and historiography

Chair: Michael Paschalis (Crete)
16:30-17:00 Thierry Hirsch (Oxford): “Rectumne fuerit ab Oreste matrem occidi”.
Examples in the two oldest extant Roman treatises on rhetoric
17:00-17:30 Jakob Wisse (Newcastle): Left to one’s own deliberative devices: orators,
historians, and rhetorical theory
17:30-18:00 Victoria Pagan (Florida): Dialogus de Principibus? Tacitus on the art of
persuasion in the Julio-Claudian era
18:00-18:30 Benoit Sans (Brussels): Battle speeches and narrative strategies in ancient
historiography
18:30-19:00 Georgios Vassiliades (Paris IV-Sorbonne): The debate on the lex Oppia
in Livy: juxtaposing two failed strategies for persuasion
19:00 End of panel
20:00 Dinner in the hotel
3
Saturday 29/08/2014
09:00-09:30 Tea & coffee
09:30-11:00 Session 8 - Persuasion across genres: literature I

Chair: Judith Mossman (Nottingham)
09:30-10:00 Costas Apostolakis (Crete): The rhetoric of Athenian imperialism through
genres: some aspects in fifth century literature
10:00-10:30 Antonis Petrides (OU Cyprus): λελάληκεν ἡδέως ἐν τῷ βίῳ οὐδενί:
Knemon’s apologia pro vita sua in Menander’s Dyskolos
10:30-11:00 Francesca Scrofani (EHESS/ Università degli Studi di Trento): Bodily
language of persuasion in Euripides’ Medea
11:00-11:30 Tea & coffee
11:30-13:00 Session 9 - Persuasion across genres: literature II

Chair: Kathryn Tempest (Roehampton)
11:30-12:00 Andreas Michalopoulos (Athens): The art of persuasion in Seneca’s
Agamemnon: the debate between Clytemnestra and her nurse
12:00-12:30 Michael Paschalis (Crete): The art of ruling an empire: persuasion at
point zero
12:30-13:00 Sophia Papaioannou (Athens): The poetics and politics of persuasion in
Ovid’s and Quintus’ reconstructions of the Hoplon Krisis
13:00-14:00 Lunch
14:00-16:00 Session 10 - Persuasion across genres: prose

Chair: Stephanos Efthymiades (OU Cyprus)
14:00-14:30 Judith Mossman (Nottingham): A ghostly presence: the strange absence
of persuasion from Plutarch’s Cimon
14:30-15:00 Kathryn Tempest (Roehampton): The Pseudepigrapha of M. Junius
Brutus: persuading whom, when, how and why?
15:00-15:30 Margot Neger (Salzburg): Pliny’s Letters and the art of persuasion
15:30 End of panel
15:30-16:00 Closing remarks

Sophia Papaioannou (Athens) & Andreas Serafim (Cyprus/ OU Cyprus)
16:00 End of the conference
4
ABSTRACTS
Adele Scafuro ([email protected])

The rhetoric of impeachment: trials in
England, the United States, and
ancient Greece
Early editors of the Attic orators (e.g., Reiske’s Aeschines 1771; Babington 1853,
Hyperides’ Lycophron, Euxenippus) usually transliterate the term eisangelia;
likewise slightly later (legal) historians such as Wilamowitz in 1893 (Aristoteles und
Athen) and Lipsius at the beginning of the twentieth century (Das attische Rechte und
Rechtsverfahren, 1905-15). Translators have different obligations and already in 1852
(Demosthenes, xvi) the distinguished English lawyer and classicist Charles Rann
Kennedy had set forth the case for translating technical terms and praised Lord
Brougham’s 1840 On the Crown for doing precisely that; and indeed, we find
eisangelia translated there as ‘impeachment’ (pp. 12 and 171). In Kennedy’s 1857
volume of Demosthenes, he could say ‘The law of Athens, in cases of high crimes and
misdemeanors against the state, afforded a method of proceeding not unlike an
impeachment in our own law’ (Demosthenes, 1857, vol. 2, p. 118). By 1840 and even
moreso in the 1850s, the lawyer/translators were certain: eisangelia was a kind of
impeachment and referred to a ‘method of proceeding’ at law for ‘high crimes and
misdemeanors.’ ‘Impeachment’ as a piece of technical legal vocabulary appears to
have entered English history in French: in an account of the trial of Lord Latimer by
the Good Parliament in 1376 (Rotulli Parliamentorum ii.L.20). The procedure itself
would evolve quickly in the following years and steadily in the next centuries.
While the reticence of early Greek legal historians is salutary—for it cautions us that
the procedure of one place and period cannot be pasted onto another—nevertheless,
perceived parallels are remarkable: the interpretation of substantive offence (e.g.,
‘high crimes and misdemeanor’), repetition of rhetorical topoi, essential aspects of
procedure and protocol. The first two of these phenomena are explored here.
The conflation of the ‘high crimes and misdemeanors’ of modern Anglophone (=

England and the US) procedure with that in Athens may be heuristic rather than
downright deceptive; this is demonstrable by examination of variants of one set of
rhetorical topoi that look to the definition of the offence under the law (e.g., ‘the
pettiness of the offence does not fit the procedure;’ ‘the alleged offence is not
1
impeachable;’ ‘the defendant is not so distinguished as earlier offenders’; i.e.: ‘wrong
procedure!’ and ‘wrong kind of defendant’!). Among Athenian cases, the topoi appear
in Hyp. Lycophron and Euxenippos, and in Lyc. Leocrates. Comparison can be made
to early impeachments in the US (e.g., vs. Samuel Chase, Supreme Court Judge
1804/05; Judge Mark Delahay in 1872 for high crimes and misdemeanor, for
drunkenness on the bench) and more recent (notably, President Clinton, 1998/99).
While the topoi of the ‘trivialization of impeachments’ in Athens have sometimes
been persuasively explained as politically or ideologically inspired (Philipps 2006,
Volonaki forthcoming), comparison with modern topoi suggests that they may also
reflect the impulse to extend the offences to categories of immoral conduct and thus
are symptomatic of the working of the ‘open texture of the law.’
Alessandro Vatri ([email protected])

Poetry in the Attic Lawcourt: how to
(re)cite it, and how to recognize it
Poetic quotations do not appear too often in the transmitted texts of the Attic orators;
however, the practice of citing poets in the lawcourt was far from outlandish. Judging
from the examples included in the early rhetorical treatises and from instances in the
Attic speeches, quoted (or quotable) material was mostly drawn from drama and epic
poetry as well as from epigrams and gnomic poetry.
The purpose and effect of quotations could vary greatly. Poets could be brought in as
‘witnesses’ and quoted for what they say; in such cases, presumably, poetic recitation
was neither necessary nor desirable. Conversely, when poetry is quoted for the sake
its aesthetics, recitation itself becomes its hallmark. Demosthenes’ mockery of
Aeschines’ histrionics (τραγῳδεῖν, Dem. 19.189), for instance, consists of a fake
quotation of a non-metrical pseudo-tragic line whose vocabulary is rather
ordinary.
Such susceptibility to parody betrays the delicate role of quotation as a rhetorical

device in an orator’s persuasive strategy. The very selection and manipulation of the
source material could contribute to the construction of the speaker’s ethos.
Performance was also crucial: pathetic recitation could be perceived as mere
histrionics, whereas a sober rendition by a clerk could mitigate the potential downside
of the orator’s own theatricality.
A fundamental factor in producing the desired effect on the audience was the manner
in which a quotation was made recognizable as such. This depended on a number of
elements. First, an orator would in all likelihood quote a passage that he presumed to
be known to the audience. Formal features could make a poetic quotation stand out
from the rest of the speech even without recitation. As to metre, iambics would not be
far removed from the rhythm of ordinary language, especially if they were not recited;
in such cases, the perception of poetry would be conveyed by vocabulary and diction.
Epic poetry would stand out more easily, given the large gap distinguishing its rhythm
and diction from those of the rest of a speech. Evidence for its recitation in quotation
is scantier, but instructive passages from Aristotle’s Poetics and Rhetoric will be
brought in for discussion.
2
Andreas Hetzel ([email protected])
Persuasive language beyond giving
reasons: from Gorgias to Jane Austen
I start from the premise that it is not the allegedly unconstraint obligation of the better
argument which forms the centre of Greek peithein and Latin persuadere but a free
offer for agreement which constitutively can always be refused. Precisely because
there is no logical necessity to agree, we become disposed to agree: rather enticed
than forced.
In a first section of my paper I want to give a brief summary of Gorgias’ theory of the
persuasive force of language which he develops in his Encomium of Helen. Here
Gorgias compares the power of language with the power of the gods and physical
violence. Human beings cannot resist any of these powers. But only speech can
become a peithous demiourgos or megas dynastes because it does not force us.
Rhetorical persuasion works without the necessity of violence or reasons, it works
because it can always fail. Protachos says in Plato’s dialogue Philebos: “I often heard
Gorgias, distinguishing the art of persuasion [peithein] from all other arts, because in
rhetoric everything is done freely and willingly, but not forcedly, and so it is the best
of all arts” (Philebos 5a-b) The ability of peithein lies in convincing rather than force.
It seduces us and offers us an opportunity for a free agreement, for consent beyond
reason.
In a second section I suggest a reading of Jane Austen’s Persuasion which focuses on
traces of classical Rhetorics in the novel. We will see that Austen’s novel is first of all
about “persudability, unpersuadability and over-persuadebility” (Ryle 1966: 287).
Everything which happens in the novel happens in persuasive speech acts. Persuasion
offers a theory of verbal persuasion which comes close to Gorgias. Two types of
persuasion are confronted in the novel: The first one is represented by Lady Russell
who is a personification of a rationalistic notion of convincing by giving reasons. But
for that very reason she is not very convincing to Ann, who represents the second,
more rhetorical type. Ann is “totally persuaded” that Lady Russell’s reasons can never
convince her, that real persuasion works without any reason, and that reasons always
indicate a lack of persudability.
Andreas Michalopoulos ([email protected])
The art of persuasion in Seneca’s
Agamemnon: the debate between
Clytemnestra and her nurse
Seneca’s plays is an obvious choice for rhetorical analysis, given the playwright’s
rhetorical skills and his warm interest in the art of persuasion. Rhetoric plays a vital
part in the beginning of Act 2 of Seneca’s Agamemnon (125-225), the domina-nutrix
scene between Clytemnestra and her nurse. The aim of this paper is to discuss the
rhetorical aspects of this controversia. Clytemnestra presents the reasons why she
seeks revenge against Agamemnon (the sacrifice of Iphigenia / her injured pride /
Agamemnon’s infidelities / his new mistress, Cassandra), while her nurse struggles to
persuade her to change her mind and abandon her disastrous plans. I will explore the
principles and techniques of persuasion employed by the two women in this debate,
the way they present their arguments, the content and nature of their argumentation,
3
the depiction of their character, the power play and the relationship between them, the
performance of their speeches, and their appeal to logic and/or emotions.
Furthermore, in order to evaluate the effectiveness of rhetorical persuasion in this

scene I will also discuss the following issues: in what way does the nurse’s rhetoric
affect Clytemnestra? Does the nurse manage to persuade the queen? If not, what are
the reasons for her failure? What is the importance of this rhetorical exchange for the
development of the play? To what extent does the gender of the speakers affect their
rhetoric and their persuasiveness? How does the nurse’s speech relate to Aegisthus’
effort to convince Clytemnestra to stick to their original decision and to further their
plan? Does Aegisthus feel compelled to rebut any of the nurse’s arguments when he
appears on stage after the exchange between Clytemnestra and the nutrix?
Andreas Serafim ([email protected])

Persuasive conventions: imperative
and questions in Attic oratory
In Rhetoric 1356a1-4, Aristotle lists three means of persuasion: argument, the

character of the speaker, and the disposition created in the hearer. In respect to the last
of these, I will consider the role of two under-studied devices of language register –
imperatives and questions. By considering passages in Aeschines 2 and Demosthenes
19 where these devices are present in high concentration, I argue that they serve as a
means for the speaker artfully to construct the audience’s frame of mind.
Imperatives are one of the commonest features of speeches. While they may often be
used conventionally (e.g., when the speaker calls the herald to read a decree), there
are instances where their concentration in a limited space (Aeschines 2.8: three;
Demosthenes 19.262: two imperatives reinforced by medical terminology, §97: three,
§§8, 75: four) indicates that their use is more than merely a matter of convention. The
imperative’s demand for the audience to think, listen and act, or react, in a specific
way is an undisguised linguistic gesture of direct authority over the judges. In
Demosthenes 19.75, 97, for example, repetitive imperatives invite the audience to
prevent Aeschines from making his speech by heckling, questioning and shouting at
him.
Questions may also be considered a matter of convention, being ubiquitous in

speeches. With no fewer than thirteen questions, however, Aeschines 2.136-9
represents the highest concentration of questions in the Attic speeches (cf. Aeschines
1.158: four, 3.130-2: seven; Demosthenes 19.303-4: six; Isaeus 8.28: seven, 7.40:
six). This concentration must, I suggest, be considered and artful, with their relentless
succession intended to leave the hearers/viewers with no opportunity to come up with
and vocalise a response and to thereby direct them to the answers Demosthenes wants.
Antonis Petrides ([email protected])

λελάληκεν ἡδέως ἐν τῷ βίῳ οὐδενί:
Knemon’s apologia pro vita sua in
Menander’s Dyskolos
TBA
4
Antonis Tsakmakis ([email protected])
Thucydides and Mytilene’s revolt:
rhetoric and beyond
TBA
Benoit Sans ([email protected])

Battle Speeches and Narrative
Strategies in Ancient Historiography
It is well known that in Antiquity, rhetoric and historiography are closely connected
(see for instance, Marincola, 2001, p. 3-7). Ancient historians do not only use rhetoric
to tackle and rebuild the past, to give a specific and oriented vision of the events, like
in the narratio of an actual speech (Woodman, 1988; Sans, 2012) and to make the
narrative more attractive and aesthetic, they also often demonstrate their rhetorical
skill and technical mastering by attributing various speeches to the protagonists of
their narrative (Marincola, 2007). Among these speeches, it is possible to recognize
some regularities, that seem to correspond to specific patterns and rhetorical genres,
but also singularities corresponding to the context (Goyet, 2013a). Although, we do
not find a proper description of these patterns in theoretical treatises (Aristotle,
Cicero, Quintilian,…), whose main concern is rather forensic and political
(deliberative) speeches. The best example of this gap between theory and practice is
probably the battle speech (exhortatio), for which we find numerous examples in
ancient historiography (Iglesias Zoido, 2008), but only a few clues in rhetorical
treatises (especially in late treatises and exercises). In this paper, I will first try to
describe the battle speech pattern. Then, I will describe the functions of such speeches
and show how the particular adaptations of this pattern in various examples
sometimes fit with the global persuasive strategy of the narrative and, in short, how
rhetorical theory and technical knowledge can contribute to a better understanding of
the ancient texts (Goyet, 2013b). Finally, I will briefly tackle the modernity of the
exhortatio and the usefulness of practicing the technique linked to this rhetorical
genre.
Brenda Griffith-Williams ([email protected])

“We’re all in this together”: the art of
(un)communication in political
discourse
Elections will be held this year in several member states of the European Union,
including the United Kingdom, with the main focus on economic policy. “We’re all in
this together”, the slogan adopted by the British Conservative Party to justify fiscal
austerity, seems to echo the conclusion of Demosthenes’ Second Olynthiac: Λέγω δὲ
κεφάλαιον, πάντας εἰσφέρειν ἀφ’ ὅσων ἕκαστος ἔχει τὸ ἴσον. Both, ostensibly, appeal
to a spirit of national unity and a principle of fairness, but both, in reality, are asking
poorer citizens to make sacrifices not demanded of the rich: Demosthenes wanted to
divert money from the theoric fund to finance military campaigns against Macedon,
while the British government insists that cutting welfare benefits and public services
is the best way of reducing the budget deficit.
In any society where wealth is distributed unequally, the inevitable tensions between
the “haves” and the “have nots” come to the fore at times of national crisis. The
5
problem for democratic politicians, dependent as they are on popular support, is that
most people, rich or poor, put their own immediate interests before the longer term
needs of the state. Effective rhetoric sometimes persuades people to accept an
unwelcome message, but all too often, as the former UK prime minister Tony Blair
puts it in his autobiography, politicians are “obliged to conceal the full truth, to bend
it and even distort it, where the interests of the bigger strategic goal demand it be
done”. One need not be unduly cynical to paraphrase this as “politicians often lie, in
the interest of gaining or retaining power”. Instead of presenting their policies
positively – and being honest about the cost – they resort to “uncommunication”:
negative tactics such as evasion, false promises, and smears against their opponents.
Small wonder, then, that mistrust of politicians is a phenomenon common to the
ancient and modern worlds.
My paper selects some (un)communication strategies and techniques from the British
general election campaign of 2015, and compares them with the political rhetoric of
the Athenian democracy which, despite its very different social and political
institutions, faced some strikingly similar problems.
Christopher Carey ([email protected])

In praise of the dead: the epitaphios
logos ancient and modern
As Elroy Bundy famously observed, the tropology of praise shows a striking
consistency across time. This is especially so in the public praise of the war dead. For
ancient rhetorical theory this fell into the category of epideictic oratory. Unlike much
epideictic the public praise of the war dead has a pronounced ritual function and the
recurrent topics reflect not just generic convention but emotional, social and political
needs. This paper will examine the way those needs are reflected in the
memorialization of the heroic dead in poetry and prose, focusing on archaic and
classical Greece from Tyrtaios to democratic Athens and looking at modern
receptions of those motifs in a range of oratorical and poetic texts.
Costas Apostolakis ([email protected])

The rhetoric of Athenian imperialism
through genres: some aspects in fifth
century literature
It is well known that the debates in the Assembly played an important role for the
shaping of the Athenians’ imperialistic policy. Unfortunately, we do not have at our
disposal original speeches delivered by Pericles, Cleon, Hyperbolus and Alcibiades at
the second half of fifth century, i.e. the heyday of the Athenian imperialism.
Thucydides includes in his work some speeches of these Athenian leaders, while the
characters in the plays of the Old Comedy, on the other hand, present on stage –
though exaggerated or distorted- certain pieces of contemporary deliberative oratory.
This paper will deal with the rhetoric of the Athenian imperialism, as it is expressed in
speeches delivered both in the Assembly and in the comic theatre. It will investigate
recognizable arguments, slogans and rhetorical techniques. My main focus will be
Aristophanes’ comedy, namely the Knights and Birds. The controversy between
Paphlagon and Sausage-Seller contains hints to contemporary imperialist rhetoric, as
6
this is expressed, for example, in the Mytilenean debate narrated by Thucydides.
Peisetairus’ attempts to persuade the winged chorus to follow his utopian proposition,
i.e. to build a city on air, might also be read as an allusion to the Sicilian expedition.
More specifically, the arguments of the Aristophanean hero recall Alcibiades’ rhetoric
in the Sicilian debate in Athens, whereas the birds can be assimilated with the
Athenians. This material can be enriched by selected surviving fragments of the Old
Comedy, which satirize Athenian leaders for their imperialistic policy. Besides, it has
been suggested (Malcom Heath 1997) that fourth century orators employ specific
types of argumentation, which were already in use in the deliberative oratory of the
previous century; in fact, a recognizable imperialistic argumentation (though modified
and adapted) survives in the speeches delivered by pro-Macedonians and anti-
Macedonians in the second half of the fourth century.
Dimos Spatharas ([email protected])
Enargeia and emotions in the Attic orators
Recent work on ancient oratory tends to emphasize that the surviving speeches
display significant features of literary composition. In the frame of this new approach,
forensic speeches are seen as pieces of literature rather than as pieces of evidence
concerning the history of Athenian law. In this paper, I propose to discuss enargeia,
an important quality that forensic narratives share with other genres of literary
composition, such as historiography and the ancient novel. Although ancient sources
associate enargeia primarily with rhetorical practice, in modern studies of ancient
oratory the notion remains largely under-explored. Usually translated as ‘vividness’,
enargeia describes narratives which are so designed as to add visibility to the narrated
events. Ancient discussions of enargeia derive from rhetorical treatises composed
long after the surviving forensic speeches of the Attic orators. However, it has been
suggested that Greek orators were well aware of the notion of enargeia. This
suggestion gains important ground from the fact that as early as the Sophists, Greek
rhetoricians addressed the problem of the representational potentialities of logos. At
the same time, and, perhaps more importantly, ancient theories of enargeia emphasize
vivid narratives’ ability to elicit emotions. In view of modern theoretical approaches,
showing that narratives are complex cognitive phenomena, the relationship of
enargeia with emotions is hardly surprising. If emotions require complex evaluative
judgments frequently concerning moral, ideological or normative considerations,
vivid narratives are informed by potent cultural understandings that secure
verisimilitude. Hence, vivid narratives must be seen as an effective tool that enabled
speakers to offer jurors a conceptual framework in the context of which they invited
them to endorse appropriate sentiments and, ultimately, decide the cases at hand.
Furthermore, vivid narratives gave speakers the opportunity to simplify the
complexities of their cases. My aim in this paper is to discuss enargeia in the light of
modern advancements in the fields of cognitive psychology and philosophy and show
how narratives contributed to what ancient rhetoricians labeled as pahtopoiia. My
paper will also use case studies from the corpus of the orators in an attempt to show
how speakers employed enargeia as a means of producing narratives that elicited
audiences’ appropriate emotional responses.
7
Eleni Volonaki ([email protected])
Narrative persuasion in forensic oratory
In forensic oratory, narratives are regularly the background to a suit described in the
form of a summarized story. According to Aristotle the narrative is different in nature
and content from the other parts of the speech, though in practice the distinction
between different parts of a speech is not always so clear. The principal purpose of the
speech’s narrator is to compile the “real” events of the case into a story that is
persuasive to his audience and in order to win one’s case the narrator is deliberately
using deception. and to that end he deliberately uses deception. The speaker, in a
forensic speech, turns into a primary narrator at the point of the speech where he starts
narrating the events of his case, addressing the jurors as his external audience and
sometimes his opponents as his internal audience.
Various rhetorical strategies are employed by logographers to add vividness and
persuasiveness in the narration of the speaker’s story and the aim of this paper is to
examine the convergences and divergences of the narrative techniques in forensic
oratory, based on a few samples of narrative composition. In Antiphon, for example,
we can notice a distinct strategy between his sole prosecution speech (Against the
stepmother) and the two defence speeches (On the murder of Herodes, On the chorus-
boy), concerning the length and the content of the narrative section. Furthermore, he is
employing a mixing of narrative and proofs, which is also found in later orators.
Breaking up the narrative into smaller sections and the frequent insertion of meta-
narrative narratorial interventions is a common technique also found in Andocides (In
the Mysteries). In Lysias’ speeches the narrative plays a key role in the portrayal of
characters (e.g. On the killing of Eratosthenes). Demosthenes’ narratives undeniably
present a similar vividness and persuasiveness to that of Lysias but his most
noticeable feature is the vehemence of the personal attacks his narrators make on their
opponents (Against Conon, On the embassy, On the crown). Thus, the present paper
presents a variety of perspectives in the narrative persuasion as derives from the
examination of specific forensic cases, in connection with the ethos (characterization),
the form of composition consisting either of distinct narrative parts or mixing
elements of narration and argumentation, the different extent of details in the
presentation of a case, depending on the side of a litigant, the performance and
physical appearance of the narrator, the pathos in personal attacks and finally the
meta-narrative techniques in a form of intervention and rhetorical strategy.
Flaminia Beneventano ([email protected])

Apophainein. Demonstration and
performance between forensic oratory
and Herodotus’ Histories
In this paper I wish to consider the relationship that exists between classical oratory
and historiography, especially Herodotus’ Histories, focusing my analysis on the use
of apophainein, a verb which appears to be common to both genres and particularly
relevant to forensic speech. In juridical settings apophainein is apparently used to
indicate an authoritative and effective demonstration, either physical – based on the
display of material elements of proof (eg. D. XXVII; Is. III; Is. IX) – or metaphorical,
thus relying on a powerful discourse and on the influence of the speaker on the
recipient (eg. Antipho VI; D. XXXIII; D. LIX). The shift between a physical and a
8
metaphorical exhibition (apophainein es opsin, apophainein toi logoi) suggests a
performative efficacy of apophaino. It can be considered as what Austin would call a
speech act which enables the speaker to state a truth as clearly as it were shown and
displayed to the eyes of the audience and to effect reality according to the speaker’s
expectations.
In Herodotus’ work, the use of apophaino seems to anticipate the technical specificity
the verb has in fourth century oratory, as it often appears in juridical contexts, forensic
disputes and accompanied by other terms which recall the semantic field of law,
courts and trials and which can be related to rhetorical technique (eg. Hdt. I 82; V
45). My aim is to focus on those elements which enable us to connect the two genres,
especially concentrating on the forensic vocabulary employed, on reference to proof
and on the analysis of the argumentative strategy.
To deal with these issues and to look into the cultural categories which the use of
apophaino implies, a pragmatic perspective is required. In particular, attention must
be paid to what Malinowski refers to as context of situation. Authority and agency of
the speaker, for instance, appear to be essential for the performative effectiveness
apophaino, together with the participation of the audience which has the role of
understanding, certifying and eventually accepting the intentions of the speaker, in
order to make the act successful (eg. Hdt. I 82; Hdt. IV 81; Hdt. V 45; Hdt. VI 65).
Francesca Scrofani ([email protected])

Bodily language of persuasion in Euripides’ Medea
Gesture and bodily language play an important role in the act of persuading. For this
reason, the insights into ancient persuasion offered by oratory and historiography can
benefit from its study in ancient drama. If drama resorted to the modes of public
persuasive discourse, persuasion had also to be enacted on the stage. Therefore,
words and gestures co-operated in the construction of persuasion.
Dramas made use of a large range of bodily practices, ranging from ritual acts with a
great visual import (e.g. supplications and oaths), to gift exchange, to a variety of
gestures such as veiling or concealing, gazing down or turning the back, which
defined attitudes, positions and degrees of involvement of the participants in the
persuasive exchange. Moreover, in theater the effects of persuasive practices on their
targets are also shown.
I therefore propose, as a complement to the main focus of the colloquium, an analysis
of some features of Euripides’ Medea, in which all the different persuasive strategies
mentioned above are enacted. Persuasion is one of Medea’s most powerful
instruments. Whereas she proves impervious to persuasion, she successfully
persuades the other characters in order to achieve her goals: she obtains the
permission to extend her stay in Corinth from Creon; she coaxes Aegeus into granting
her hospitality in Athens; she lures Jason into accepting the gifts for his new wife.
I will analyze the gestures attributed to the characters in the scenes of persuasion, by
means of an attentive analysis of enonciative marks. First, I will analyze the
characterization of Medea’s gaze and the metaphors associated with her gestures,
when nurse and chorus attempt to persuade and comfort her (vv. 26 – 29; 173 – 177;
9
185 – 189). I will then move to the four acts of supplications, pointing out their role as
the last-resort attempt for persuasion. Finally, I will deal with Medea’s gifts to Jason’s
new wife, focusing on the description of their supernatural power as well as on the
gestures through which Glauce accepts them: reluctant at first, when she sees Medea’s
children, Glauce is eventually won over the charm of Medea’s gifts (1144 – 1166).
Georgios Vassiliades ([email protected])
The debate on the lex Oppia in Livy:
juxtaposing two failed strategies for
persuasion
In the debate on the abrogation of the lex Oppia (Liv. 34.1-8), Livy puts into the
mouth of his speakers two different perceptions of the purpose and relevance of this
law, which was voted in 215 B.C. amidst the Second Punic War. From the perspective
of Cato the consul, it was a sumptuary law aiming to slow down women’s appeal to
luxury. Accordingly, its abrogation would bring about the propagation of luxuria. On
the other side, the tribune Valerius considers that the law was just an austerity
measure which was voted for confronting the exceptional circumstances of the war.
Its abrogation, thus, constituted no threat to morality. Metaphors, historical exempla
and the appeal to the character of the speakers are among the most predominant
stylistic devices and rhetorical means for persuasion in both speeches.
The aim of this paper is to demonstrate that the way in which Livy builds up each
speaker’s argumentation encapsulates his own view on the abrogation of the lex
Oppia. More precisely, both speakers appear to draw their arguments from the very
livian narrative. However, while Cato’s previsions concerning the dangers of the
abrogation are confirmed by Livy’s account, his understanding of the scope of the law
in the past is shown to be erroneous. Inversely, although Valerius’ interpretation of
the law as an austerity measure sits in accord with the quasi-absence of luxury in the
third decade, the tribune did not appreciate properly the future perils stressed by Cato
and reinforced in the rest of the extant books. Unlike all scholars who maintain that
Livy gives reason to one of the two speakers, this paper shows that Livy juxtaposes
two strategies for persuasion which equally failed to prevent Rome’s decline. In other
words, Valerius has persuaded his contemporary audience, but neither him, nor Cato
achieve to persuade Livy (and his readers). This juxtaposition, as shall be argued,
serves to prompt our reflection on the abrogation of the lex Oppia, allowing us thus to
explain and better understand the propagation of luxuria in the next few books, and
offering a prominent example of how persuasion in historiographical discourse can
raise questions of historical and philosophical importance.
Jakob Wisse ([email protected])

Left to one’s own deliberative devices:
orators, historians, and rhetorical
theory
To what extent did deliberative orators in antiquity follow rhetorical theory when
composing their speeches? And to what extent do deliberative speeches found in the
historians conform to the theory? Do we in fact need theory at all to analyse such
speeches?
10
The usual answers to these questions are fairly straightforward. Rhetorical theory is
often taken to be a (relatively) unproblematic guide to oratorical practice: orators, in
the speeches they made and published, as well as historians, in the speeches they
(re)present in their work, are supposed to have used the rules found in the ancient
rhetorical handbooks. Accordingly, scholars often analyse speeches – deliberative as
well as judicial ones – in terms of these rules. However, this is far from
unproblematic, and the ‘fit’ of such analyses with the actual speeches is often not
particularly good.
In the case of deliberative speeches, the problem is compounded by the nature of the
rhetorical rules: the judicial genre received most attention in the rhetorical handbooks,
and accordingly the rules for judicial speeches were elaborate and complex (often to
the point of caricature); but those for deliberative speeches were underdeveloped.
This paper, mainly on the basis of Roman material, will suggest ways of going
beyond the usual, fairly mechanical picture of the relationship between deliberative
speeches and rhetorical theory. I hope that this will also contribute to a better
understanding of the much-discussed relationship between actual speeches and
speeches found in the ancient historians.
Jennifer Devereaux ([email protected])
Embodied metaphor and the rhetoric
of emotion in Greek and Latin Prose
An important point of divergence when comparing classical Greek oratory and

historiography with the Roman tradition is that extended and embodied metaphor is
more difficult to find in the Greek texts than the Roman. In the Roman tradition, both
oratory and historiography make extensive use of this rhetorical device to engage and
influence judgment. Detailed by Cicero (Orat.155-169), the use of metaphorical
constellations in historiography is of interest to classicists and modern political
scholars concerned with linguistic modeling and the entailment of emotionological
frameworks. In this paper I will first discuss one of the few occurrences of the
phenomenon in Herodotus (Hist. 3.64), wherein verbs of striking (παίει, ἔπληξε, etc.)
follow the metaphorical phrase ἔτυψε ἡ ἀληθείη (Καμβύσεα), helping to elicit pathos
through the embodied communication of an internal mental state. Next, I will outline
the evolution of embodied metaphor in Cicero, using his discussion of Charybdis at
Orat.163 to analyze his use of the same metaphor elsewhere (Phil.2.27.67; Ver.
2.5.146; Har.59.8) as an element of compelling rhetoric. I will next discuss examples
from Tacitus (1.74) and Livy (42.54) that demonstrate parallels to Herodotus’
dramatic use, and conclude with AUC. 21:35-36 and 21.40, wherein we find examples
of the sort of rhetoric pointed to by Cicero. The hortatory speech of Hannibal is
undermined by Livy through the use of extended metaphor (caput Italiae in manu ac
potestate habituros… aegre expeditus miles temptabundus manibusque retinens…non
recipiente), while that of Scipio is affirmed (effigies, enecti, rigentes, torpida,
quassata fractaque). In the course of my discussion on these linguistic constellations,
I argue that the psychological feeling states produced by extended and embodied
metaphors are integral aspects of persuasive speech that offer insight into the role of
emotion in historiography. I support this claim with modern evidence of metaphor’s
ability to impact the reasoning process (cf. Thibodeau and Boroditsky 2011; 2013),
and the insights that embodied simulation (cf. Gallese et al. 2011; 2009; 2005) offers
11
into why skillfully arrayed words were believed to have the power to shape human
behaviour.
Jessica Evans ([email protected])

Sophistic effeminacy and Athenian
manhood: gendered truths and
patriotism in Thucydides' History and
Plato's Gorgias
Patriotism has traditionally been associated with political actors who historically have
been men. Patriotic identities thus played a key role in shaping masculinity. The aim
of this paper is to examine the intersections of gender and patriotic rhetoric by
situating the emergence of a key sophistic framework culturally, and by exploring the
role of masculinity in Alcibiades' patriotic entreaty concerning the invasion of Sicily
(Thuc. 6.16-18, 24). Lastly, this paper will explore Socrates' response to the plurality
of perspectives engendered by sophism in Plato's Gorgias.
The exposure to diverse cultures that allowed the sophists to argue from multiple
perspectives rendered them liable to two charges: they threatened the natural order by
blurring the lines between nature and convention, and they were foreigners, whose
masculinity and patriotic commitments were necessarily suspect from an Athenian
perspective. The sophists, therefore, embodied a critical intersection of gender and
ethnicity that shaped the Athenian identity. This “otherizing” process was inherently
symbiotic, as the very skills taught by the sophists allowed citizen men to compete for
honor as public speakers, a key component to constructing masculine identities.
However, the process of persuasion rendered assembly speakers slaves of the demos,
limiting both autonomy and masculine capital. Thucydides' presentation of Alcibiades
calls into question the efficacy of rhetoric to promote the common good in a post-
Periclean Athens, as appeals to competitive feats and the promise of expansion--
appeals promoting the speaker's masculinity--were deemed more patriotic than sound
reason or calculation. Such quandaries inform Socrates' critique of rhetoric in the
Gorgias, in which "real" men should possess an understanding of the truth. However,
a gendered reading of the Gorgias compels us to question whose truth is being
privileged, as the very sophistic frameworks that allowed for the possibility of plural
perspectives were denied.
While modern readers recognize the conflation of masculinity with patriotism and
otherness with effeminacy as a reflection of power inequalities, for Thucydides and
Plato this binary was natural. Lastly, this paper will consider the invisible effects of a
naturalized discourse of gender in media representations of both democratic
politicians and female presidential candidates.
Jon Hesk ([email protected])

Thucydides and Xenophon on
deliberative pathologies and the
contingency of rhetorical situations
The particular political, moral and intellectual agendas of Thucydides and Xenophon
obviously shape their respective representations of deliberative rhetoric in assemblies
and ‘wide advisors’. But in this paper I will point to their shared interest in
highlighting certain pathologies and vices of mass deliberation which are rooted in the
12
specifics and contingencies of sequencing and situation. This interest is displayed via
certain narrative techniques which engender vividness and irony as much as via the
form and content of the speeches themselves. Alongside a critical stance on
democratic deliberation and its limitations, these historians also frame certain
speeches and characterizations of wise advice in ways which clearly offered
instructive perspectives and salient narratives to real orators. These included some
consideration of the most effective forms of debate and deliberation which the orator
can engage in privately as preparation for his public performances and the implication
that the reading of historiography must form a part of good rhetorical training for
politicians, ambassadors and generals.
Judith Mossman ([email protected])

A ghostly presence: the strange
absence of persuasion from Plutarch’s
Cimon
We think of the Athenians as the great rhetoricians, not only because of the flowering
of Attic oratory but also because of the accounts of Athenian persuasion in Herodotus
and Thucydides. Plutarch’s Themistocles is also a great persuader in his own life and
in the life of Aristides. But the Cimon is rather different: it opens with a ghost story
which begins with failed erotic persuasion, and recounts another similar tale about
Pausanias. And in its account of Cimon’s career it vastly privileges the influence of
money over that of words in a rather disconcerting way. Cimon’s lavish generosity is
seen as a better argument in his favour than any opposing speech. Indeed the narrative
tends to mute voices other than the narrator’s. The image which Cimon sees in the
dream which portends his death, that of a dog baying and speaking at the same time
(interpreted as referring to the Persians) is also emblematic of a hushing of political
voices in Athens. This may be because Plutarch is also employing Golden age
imagery to characterise the dominance of Cimon, and the Golden Age is monoligual
in Greek thought; but the absence – or rather ghostly presence - of persuasion is also
rather disconcerting.
Kathryn Tempest ([email protected])

The Pseudepigrapha of M. Junius
Brutus: Persuading whom, when, how
and why?
The collection of Greek letters attributed to Marcus Junius Brutus consists of seventy
short epistles in total, half of which were allegedly written as he made his
preparations for war in the East. An introductory letter written by the compiler of the
collection, the unidentified Mithridates, explains that he personally composed the
other half, because his nephew had wanted to know how the communities to whom
Brutus had written might have responded to his repeated demands for money and
military support. There is no doubt, then, that the responses from the communities are
imaginary letters, but the letters attributed to Brutus, too, are in all likelihood entirely
fictitious.
It is perhaps unfortunate, however, that modern scholarly discussions have focused

almost exclusively on the question of the authenticity of the Brutus letters; that is, on
one half of the collection. Now almost universally regarded as rhetorical exercises of
the first century AD, there has been a hiatus of almost two decades in their study. And
13
a large number of questions remain unanswered. What training was provided in the
rhetorical schools for the composition and declamation of military despatches? What
evidence do they provide more generally for the role played by letters in military
envoys? How were written communications conveyed to mass audiences? And what
argumentative techniques worked best in this context? In this paper, I shall aim to
demonstrate how a clearer understanding of the letters’ audience, authorship, and
function may help us examine the art of persuasion from a new and fruitful
perspective. Indeed, as the only extant collection of letters by, or purporting to be by,
a military commander, these letters offer unique evidence for understanding the role
of letters within rhetorical education; they also attest to the strong connection between
epistolography and ambassadorial rhetoric.
Kostas Vlassopoulos ([email protected])

Appeals to class in Greek oratory and historiography
TBA
Margot Neger ([email protected])

Pliny’s Letters and the art of persuasion
Recent scholarship has demonstrated the many ways in which Pliny the Younger’s
Letters were influenced by the rhetorical and historiographical (together with the
biographical) tradition and that the epistolary corpus can be read as a form of “small
scale prose”. Pliny shows profound awareness of the similarities and differences
between the genres in question (as e.g. in Ep. 5.8). Thus it might not be too surprising
that the art of persuasion also plays an important role within the context of the letter-
collection. Due to the conventions of epistolary writing and the design of the
collection as a whole we can distinguish three different groups of addressees who are
the target of Pliny’s ars persuadendi: 1. the various addressees of single letters, 2. the
general reader of the published letter-collection and 3. the internal audience of Pliny’s
speeches which are described in several letters (e.g. Epist. 2.11-12; 4.9; 5.20; 6.5;
6.13; 6.33; 7.33; 9.13).
The paper wants to examine how the art of persuasion is employed on these different
levels of communication: With regard to single letters it asks which rhetorical
techniques Pliny applies in order to influence a particular addressee. On the other
hand, the collection as a whole is designed as a kind of “autobiography” through
which Pliny tries to create a positive self-image as a statesman and member of the
Roman upper class in the post-Flavian era. The paper discusses how this larger
“image-campaign” is designed and compares the literary strategies Pliny applies with
instructions in rhetorical treatises such as in Plutarch’s De se ipsum citra invidiam
laudando (= Mor. 539 A-547 F). Within this larger project of self-fashioning, Pliny’s
self-depiction as a successful orator in the senate and the Centumviral Court plays an
important part: Several letters serve as a kind of “commentaries” to Pliny’s speeches
(of which only the Panegyricus has survived) and contain vivid descriptions of the
respective trials; in these texts we are also informed about the audience’s reactions
both to Pliny’s own speeches and those held by his opponents. Through the art of
enargeia the reader of these letters is virtually turned into a part of Pliny’s audience in
court (cf. Epist. 6.33.7).
14
Maria Kythreotou ([email protected])
Persuasion in Thucydidean speeches
Among the speeches of Thucydides some prove completely effective (e.g. Pericles’
speeches), others only partially influence the course of the events (e.g. the Corcyrean
– Corinthian antilogy), while others do not seem to affect in any way the process of
the war. In this last case, other factors prove more decisive than the persuasiveness of
the speaker. Thus, the impact of these speeches on the narrative seems to be
insignificant. And what is worth noticing is that the historian himself mentions this
insignificance at the very end of the speech. There are nine speeches of this kind: the
tetralogy at Sparta before the outbreak of the Peloponnesian war (1.68-86), the speech
of the Corinthians at Sparta (1.120-124), Teutiaplus’ speech at Embaton (3.30), the
Plataians’ – Thebans’ antilogy (3.53-67) and the speech of Brasidas at Acanthus
(4.85-87). As a characteristic example, we will mention the speech of Brasidas∙ a
seductive speech according to Thucydides. As the historian points out, the speech
does not play any role in the final decision of the Acanthians to let Brasidas and his
army enter their city walls. On the contrary, the decisive factor seems to be the fear of
the vintage. In this and similar cases fear and other feelings seem to be more
important than persuasion in the decision making process. But what should be noticed
is that the speeches under examination create these feelings due to the use of different
figures of speech (e.g. antitheses, repetition). Is Thucydides in the cases under
examination trying to undermine the power of logos (i.e. persuasion) so much
widespread through the teachings of his contemporary sophists? Taking also into
account that in the majority of these cases the speaker addresses a Doric (mainly
Spartan) audience, can we assume that Thucydides is trying to show that this power of
logos is only effective in cases of democratic cities, while in the oligarchic ones only
emotion prevails? Additionally, why does he seem to “ignore” the fact that the speech
creates this feeling that at last dominates? Does he want his careful readers to notice it
and therefore perceive the power logos has in creating any feeling the speaker thinks
proper for his purposes?
Michael Gagarin ([email protected])

The Greek art of persuasion and its influence
Persuasion has been a human activity as long as humans have existed. Arguably, even
animals seek to persuade. Those who study or teach about persuasion have always
looked to the Greeks, but what exactly did the Greeks contribute to our understanding
of persuasion, and why are they of continuing interest to us today, as they have been
to the whole Western cultural tradition from the Romans on down? Because they first
made persuasion an Art (technē), something that could and should be studied and
taught. None of this is especially controversial; what is controversial is who first made
persuasion an art (and how did they do it): Corax and Tisias? The Sophists? Plato?
Isocrates, Aristotle? My paper will explore the contributions of all of these, not
necessarily in order to provide a conclusive answer to the question but to better
understand the process leading to the creation of the Art, and in particular the role of
the written word in this process.
15
Michael Paschalis ([email protected])
The Art of Ruling an Empire: Persuasion at Point Zero
By comparison with Homer in Virgil’s Aeneid dialogues are greatly reduced, the
speakers are normally only two, while 127 speeches receive no reply at all. Often
dialogues are in essence parallel monologues. The Aeneid differs in these respects
also from the Argonautica, though Apollonius’ epic contains far fewer speeches than
Homer. On the whole the role of persuasion is drastically reduced in the Aeneid, an
immensely influential epic narrating the beginnings of the Roman Empire. In the
words of T. S. Eliot «Aeneas is the symbol of Rome; and, as Aeneas is to Rome, so is
ancient Rome to Europe. Thus Virgil acquires the centrality of the unique classic».
Relevant to any discussion of the character and function of persuasion in the Aeneid
are Anchises’ words to Aeneas, when the hero descends to the Underworld to meet
his father: “others will hammer out bronzes that breathe in more lifelike and gentler/
ways, I suspect, create truer expressions of life out of marble,/ make better speeches
(orabunt causas melius), or plot, with the sweep of their compass, the heaven’s/
movements, predict the ascent of the sky’s constellations. Well, let them!/ You, who
are Roman, recall how to govern mankind with your power (tu regere imperio
populos, Romane, memento)./ These will be your special ‘Arts’: the enforcement of
peace as a habit,/ mercy for those cast down and relentless war upon proud men”.
(6.847-853, tr. by Fred Ahl). In Anchises’ vision of Rome the art of persuasion is set
completely apart from the task of governing an Empire. Aeneas, the archetypal
Roman emperor, stands practically alone among the characters of the epic and carries
alone the burden of founding an empire. Persuasion is therefore inherently irrelevant
to Aeneas’ mission and to the course of history as reflected in the epic, and has little
meaning in the world the poet creates around the hero. For about 100 years, from the
times of Tiberius to the age of Trajan, the Romans debated the issue of the decline of
oratory. In the Dialogus de oratoribus, the last document in this almost 100-year-long
debate, Tacitus offered a historically determined view, that oratory was suppressed by
the sole government of the Princeps.
Rebecca Van Hove ([email protected])

Oracles as tools of persuasion and
sources of authority in Herodotus and
Attic Oratory
Recent studies of Herodotus’ Histories have sparked interest in the techniques the
historian uses to build up the text’s argumentative structure, and the tools of
persuasion used to construct the authority of his own voice as narrator. It has been
recognised that Herodotus’ oracle stories play an important role in this construction of
authorial authority, as vehicles for statements which require a greater authority than
he himself can possess (Barker 2006, Kindt 2006).
This paper will argue that Herodotus’ presentation of oracles can be used to make
sense of Lykourgos’ oracle quotations and their marked differentiation from those
found in other orators. It is well-known that quotations of oracular divination in
forensic and deliberative speeches are rare: only three speeches in the Demosthenic
corpus quote an oracle (Dem. 19.297; 21.51; [Dem.] 43.66), as well as Aeschines 3
(107, 130), Dinarchus 1 (78, 98) and Lykourgos 1 (83-88, 93, 98-101, 105-107).
Lykourgos’ Against Leokrates stands apart; not only does it contain four references
to different oracles, these also differ significantly from those quoted by the other
16
orators in form, function and purpose. Lykourgos’ oracles are namely the only ones to
be presented as part of the narrative of the speech, rather than as formal depositions of
evidence to be read out by a clerk. Furthermore, it is particularly in Lykourgos’
references that we find the ambiguity of oracles and the need for interpretation
emphasised.
Similar to Herodotus, Lykourgos uses the ambiguity of oracular responses to amplify
their authoritative nature and to present them as sources of evidence for divine will, in
order to attribute to the gods particular actions and attitudes which endorse and
authorise his arguments against Leokrates. Demosthenes, Dinarchus and Aeschines,
on the other hand, present oracles, in format and function, in a manner similar to laws
and other atechnoi pisteis. It will be shown that Lykourgos’ unique portrayal of
oracles is due to his employment of a different technique of argumentation, which is
comparable to that used by Herodotus. This paper will thus address the cross-generic
use of oracle stories as tools of persuasion in historiography and oratory.
Ricardo Gancz ([email protected]) & Gabriel Danzig

([email protected])
Arousing the emotions by speech: an Aristotelian theory
This paper discusses Aristotle’s theory of the causes for the arousal of emotions.
While Aristotle does not discuss the arousal of the emotions in his more theoretical
writings, some scholars hold that it is possible to extract such a theory from what
Aristotle writes in the Rhetoric (mainly Rhet. 2.1-11). These scholars argue that for
Aristotle the arousal of emotion is necessarily dependent on belief (as Nussbaum,
1996; Fortenbaugh, 2002; Dow, 2011). However, there are those (as Sihvola, 1996;
Striker, 1996; Cooper, 1996) who deny that emotion is dependent on belief, pointing
out that animals (which, according to Aristotle, are incapable of having beliefs)
do have emotions.
I will propose a way of reconciling these two approaches and acknowledging what is
valid in both positions. According to De Anima 3.3, 3.10 and 3.11, phantasia is the
necessary cause of emotions, and both sensations and beliefs participate in the arousal
of emotions by influencing phantasmata (the objects of phantasia). Since
aisthetike and bouletike phantasia (sensitive and deliberative phantasia) influence the
emotions, animals can have emotions too. Their phantasmata are generated through
sensation by means of the aisthetike phantasia. In humans, both sensations and beliefs
can generate phantasmata. These phantasmata are combined and processed in
the phantasia with all other phantasmata generated by previous experiences.
This approach allows me to accept the valid evidence of both positions and create a
theory that is consistent with Aristotle’s different works. Further, it allows for a more
nuanced reading of the explanations of emotions found in Rhet 2.1-2.11 as the closest
we have to an Aristotle’s theory of emotion, as far as it applies to rhetoricians. It does
not include either physiological explanations or other explanations for the arousal
of emotions that are unavailable to rhetoricians, limited as they are to the spoken
word. Finally, my explanation gives an underlying reason why some emotions will be
easier or harder for the rhetorician to arouse as it takes account of both the context of
the speech and the existing ideas/beliefs of the audience. The phantasmata that
are generated by the belief the rhetorician is trying to instill will combine with those
17
from previous beliefs and enhance, change or balance them. This shows the
importance of taking on account the audience's previous experiences for deciding how
to appeal to them and induce the desired reactions.
Robert Sing ([email protected])

Assessing Financial Power in War in
Thucydides and Demosthenes
Pericles’ speeches in Thucydides suggest that the dêmos was poorly equipped to make
decisions about the financial dimension of warfare without extensive guidance from
orators (Kallet 1994). They indicate that this guidance was based on orators’ special
access to factual information about Athenian finances and those of the enemy. The
nature of financial discourse in present-day democracies reinforces this Thucydidean
picture of a dêmos reliant on its rhêtores for guidance in matters beyond the
experience of most citizens. We might expect that this knowledge-based power
disparity between rhêtôr and dêmos became even greater after the financial crisis and
the rise of the Theoric Board in the mid-350s.
I argue that Thucydides has exerted a distorting influence on our picture of Athenian
financial discourse. The fact-driven rhetoric of Pericles is shaped by Athens’ unique
financial position in 432/1 and Thucydides’ construction of the ideal democratic
leader as the instructor the people.
Demosthenes’ self-presentation as an advisor may owe much to Thucydides’ Pericles
(Yunis 1996), but although Demosthenes and Pericles both share the task of making
persuasive assessments of financial power in war, Demosthenes takes a different
approach. For Demosthenes, facts alone do not enable sound foresight and good
policy. His assessment of Athenian and Macedonian financial power in the 340s
stresses the primacy of politics over hard economic facts. The former determines how
well a state can convert wealth into military might. Rather than presenting a dossier of
facts, Demosthenes relates financial power in terms of ideological assumptions and
historical analogy.
Is Demosthenes’ strategy here simply to mislead? By not quantifying financial power,
it is easier for him to argue that a cash-strapped Athens can fight Philip. I argue that
Demosthenes’ ideological and historical construction of financial realities render him
more trustworthy and intelligible and hence, more persuasive. More importantly, he
provides the dêmos with a broader interpretative framework for deliberating
intelligently on the financial dimension of war. Self-evident, ‘common-sense’
understandings are invested with greater interpretative significance than the technical
knowledge wielded by orators. The result is a financial rhetoric which underscores the
limitations of the Periclean model as a representation of the relationship between
instruction and persuasion.
Roger Brock ([email protected])

Public and private persuasion in the
historical works of Xenophon
Xenophon’s use of direct speech in his historical works is strikingly varied. As

continuator of Thucydides in the Hellenica, he maintains his predecessor’s use of
18
formal speeches in contexts of political decision-making and diplomacy (e.g. the
Peace of 371 BC: VI.3), judicial proceedings (e.g. the ‘trial’ of Theramenes: II.3)
and military activity. At the same time, he regularly uses OR in a more informal
manner which recalls Herodotus: often these conversational episodes function in the
same way as in the Histories, to illuminate the issues at stake or the causation behind
events, but at times they seem to point a moral lesson, as in the dialogue between
Dercylidas and Meinias (III.1), or to throw light on more informal methods of
persuasion by contact between individuals (e.g. the encounter of Agesilaus and
Pharnabazus: IV.1) and at times come close to the contemporary practice of lobbying
(as before the trial of Sphodrias V.4). Likewise in the Anabasis we sometimes see the
use of public rhetoric to address the Ten Thousand like a polis assembly, but again,
there are more informal speeches which at times (notably in Xenophon’s encounter
with Seuthes in VII.7) come close to the kind of overt morally didactic agendas which
give rise to passages of outright Socratic dialogue in the Cyropaedia (notably I.6 and
V.5). My paper will consider how Xenophon adapts his characters’ use of direct
speech according to context, addressee and objectives, in a way that a contemporary
Director of Communications might well recognise.
Sophia Papaioannou ([email protected])
The Poetics and Politics of Persuasion
in Ovid’s and Quintus’
Reconstructions of the Hoplon Krisis
The ‘Judgement of the Arms’ (Hoplon Krisis) has been interpreted as an agon, already
since Aeschylus’ original treatment of the episode in the lost Hoplon Krisis tragedy;
there, contrary to the epic tradition (depicted likely in Athenian iconography) the
judges of the contesting heroes were not the Achaeans or the Trojan captives but the
Thetis and the Nereids (cf. esp. TrGF iii fr. 350). This innovation significantly alters
the orientation of the contest from the perspective of the mortal audience-the Argives
are not judges but an audience: for them, the agon between Odysseus and Ajax is now
a spectacle, perhaps for the first time ever and the perspectives of Aeschylus’
extradamatic spectators and the Greek army on stage identify. This metadramatic
dimension of the Hoplon Krisis narrative informs the treatment of the same episode
first in Ovid and subsequently in Quintus of Smyrna (who composed his epic
independently from Ovid, but was certainly informed by the same intertexts). Both
epic accounts of the agon center around two contestants who try to win by combining
performance and persuasion for primarily metaliterary purposes. I propose to examine
the persuasiveness of the argumentation employed by each of the two contestants in
two different epic narratives of Ovid and Quintus, that engage with the same epic
sources antagonistically, motivated by the same aspirations to emulate the model.
Both Ovid and Quintus emulate archaic epic as known to us through the only
surviving Homeric poems. More specifically, both reproduce the speech contest
between Odysseus and Ajax as conflicted readings—one in favor of the Cyclic
version of the epic order, the other proposing a revised version of traditional epic and
so, an alternative epic system of values. I intend to assess the persuading strategies of
the two contestants by examining their alternative readings of the same epic moments.
Due to time limitations I shall focus on those episodes based on epic material from the
Iliad (the only surviving part of the Trojan careers of Odysseus and Ajax), study the
diverse assessments each speaker gives on the same episodes and appreciate the
19
effectiveness of their accounts—in terms of persuasion as part of an oratorical
performance (for the intradramatic audience) and in terms of proposing an alternative
epic reading based on principles of a different heroic code (for the reading audience of
Ovid’s and Quintus’ audiences across time).
I hope to show that they offer two independent but poetically similar metaliterary
critical readings of the Trojan war as archetypally recorded in the Epic Cycle.
Sophia Xenophontos ([email protected])

The art of persuasion in Galen’s
medical and ethical writings
Modern scholars have tended to examine Galen’s animal dissections not just for their
anatomical significance, but also for the way they operated as public performances
(Von Staden 1995; Gleason 2009). Galen himself was heavily depended on the
rhetorical strategies promoted by the intellectual movement of the ‘Second Sophistic’,
and used strong – at times highly bombastic – language to persuade his audience of
his medical competence. In this paper, I would like to turn mainly to Galen’s methods
of persuasion in his ethical writings – a largely neglected group of texts, and discuss
the rhetorical means he employs in encountering patients with emotional disturbances
or in addressing moral advice to a wider readership. His recently discovered treatise
Avoiding Distress (Περὶ ἀλυπίας) is a good staring point, as it provides us with
instances in which the autobiographical perspective of Galen’s narrative and the
intimacy between author and addressee ensure the efficient treatment of anxiety.
Additional persuasive techniques applied in the therapy of emotions involve the
construction of authority on Galen’s part, the ‘character assassination’ of
contemporary figures, and the play with his audience’s sense of honour (αἰδώς) and
ambition (φιλοτιμία). In a larger project that I currently run, I show that Galen’s role
as a healer of the soul corresponds to his role as a practising physician on a number of
levels, and in this paper I hope to make clear that Galen’s persuasion techniques
across his medical and ethical treatments of patients is one such level.
Stephen Todd ([email protected])

Greek historians and the language of
rhetorical proof
Historians, like orators, have a vested interest in presenting a persuasive version of
past events. It is therefore not surprising to find the earliest Greek historians (and
some at least of their successors) utilising the terminology of rhetorical proof, i.e.
terms such as tekmērion, sēmeion, and marturion; the use of such terminology
especially by Herodotus and Thucydides has been well analysed by scholars such as
Simon Hornblower, John Marincola, Rosalind Thomas, and Jonas Grethlein. This
paper takes the opportunity further to explore questions surrounding the distribution
of such terminology. One set of questions concerns its use in orators vis-à-vis
rhetorical theorists. A second set concerns its deployment by historians, including e.g.
the question of how far such terminology appears in the context of evidential
statements made in the historian’s own voice, and how far in contexts that are
themselves presentations of the rhetoric of his characters. Attention will be paid not
only to the presence of such terminology, but also to its absence in contexts where we
might have expected it. For instance, Thucydides is often considered the inventor of
20
the distinction between the use of eyewitness testimony in contemporary history and
the use of oral tradition when writing about the distant past, but it is notable that his
methodological discussion of this point does not use the language of marturia,
preferring instead to speak of “those present” (hoi parontes, 1.22.3); an explanation of
this dogged silence will be proposed in terms of Athenian forensic practice in the use
of witnesses.
T. Davina McClain ([email protected])
Women Speak: Direct Speech in Livy’s Ab
Urbe Condita
While scholars have examined the use of direct speech in Livy’s Ab Urbe Condita,
this paper will offer the first detailed examination of direct speech by women. Livy
has women use indirect discourse to give advice (Sabines 1.13.2), whereas his female
speakers employ direct discourse to convey actions that must happen (Sabines 1.13.3).
By making this shift, Livy heightens the authority with which he has these women
address men. Lucretia, for example, responds to the question “satin salve?” with
direct speech to present her rape to her father and husband and to declare her
determination to commit suicide (1.58.7). In comparison, when Fabia Minor responds
to the same question from her father (6.34.8), Livy has Fabia use indirect discourse to
address him about the disparity between her marriage to a pleb versus her sister’s
marriage to a patrician. That the indirect speech emphasizes the appropriateness of her
speech has been missed by scholars (Phillips 1983; Krause 1991). Similarly, while
Livy limits Sophoniba’s persuasion of her first husband, Syphax, to abandon his
alliance with the Romans to blanditiis … adhibitis (29.23.7), the historian employs
direct speech in the situation of Sophoniba – Masinissa – Scipio to convey how easy it
is to manipulate Masinissa. The captive Sophoniba’s direct plea results in a hasty
marriage to Masinissa (30.12.12). Then Scipio’s direct address results in Masinissa’s
agreement to hand the Carthaginian Sophoniba over to the Romans (30.14.4).
Masinissa, however, sends a message and poison to Sophoniba to allow her to commit
suicide. Livy has Sophoniba use direct speech to define her suicide (30.15.7).
Because historians primarily employ indirect discourse, the instances of direct

statement represent an important shift for the writer and the reader, as well as a
change in tone for the speaker and his/her audience within the narrative. The use of
indirect versus direct speech informs the way that Livy wanted his reader to
understand both the speaker and the results of the speech. For women in particular,
direct speech represents a heightened sense of authority, whereas indirect speech
represents a greater restraint.
Tazuko Angela van Berkel ([email protected])

Pericles’ rhetoric of numbers
In Classical Athens, politics was in an important sense conducted through numerical
data, ranging from the publication of financial records to audit procedures and
deliberative speeches shaped as public calculations. However, ancient rhetorical
theory is remarkably silent on the topic of numbers. This paper will offer an analysis
of the rhetoric and ideology of numbers implicit in Thucydides’ representation of
Pericles’ Third Speech (2.13). I will argue that the speech offers a problematizing
reflection, not so much on the rhetoric of money, but on the rhetoric of numbers. In
the tension between Thucydides’ narratorial ex eventu use of figures and the numbers
21
used by characters in the context of decision making we find an implicit theory of the
rhetoric of numbers.
The following aspects will be discussed: (i) The argumentative power of numbers:
Pericles’ use of numbers imply preliminary decisions about what to count that are not
accounted for; the audience is provided with an avalanche of data but is withheld
information crucial to assess the meaning of these numbers; by contrast, Thucydides’
narrative voice abounds in authorial remarks about the quality and meaning of
numerical data, leaving the audience to draw the inferences from these data (i.e. the
calculations) themselves (e.g. 1.10.3-5, 5.68.1-4).
(ii) The epistemology of numbers: Thucydides’ authorial use of numbers displays
self-consciousness about the quality of numerical information. The epistemological
quality of these ex eventu-numbers contrasts with the numbers used by characters in
contexts of decision-making where they are part of predictions that are often negated
by the course of events following them. (iii) The authorial framing of “number
speeches”: the narrative framing of both Pericles’ speech in 2.13 and its counterpart,
Nicias’ speech in 6.24-26, suggests that the communicative power of numbers
consists not in promoting collective rationality but in appealing to mass emotions.
Analysis along these lines will shed light on a phenomenon overlooked by ancient
rhetorical theory but abundantly used in practice and reflected upon in historiography.
Thierry Hirsch ([email protected])

“Rectumne fuerit ab Oreste matrem occidi”.
Examples in the two oldest extant Roman
treatises on rhetoric
The first two rhetorical treatises that are extant after Aristotle’s Art of Rhetoric are
Cicero’s De Inuentione and the anonymous Rhetorica ad Herennium. Similarly to
Anaximenes’ Rhetorica ad Alexandrum, and rather unlike Aristotle’s treatise, these
two Roman handbooks give more or less concise rules about how to compose a
successful speech, and seem to reflect what a young Roman would learn in the
rhetor’s classroom. To illustrate these rules, both authors provide examples, some of
them very short, some more extended, some taken from literature (both Greek and
Roman), some from real-life oratory, some from the fantastical world that would later
characterise the domain of declamation, and some from still other sources like
philosophical treatises.
In this paper, I will investigate which types of examples are found in these treatises,
where they come or might come from, whether there are any significant differences
between the types and sources of examples for Cic. Inu. and Rhet. Her. Furthermore, I
will analyse what kinds of examples occur in [Arist.] Rh. Al. and Arist. Rh., and also
in Quint. Inst., in order to examine whether there are any traditions of examples from
4th-century Greece that are passed down to 1st-century AD Rome. Although there have
already been individual studies investigating certain types of examples in one of these
handbooks, e.g. the popular examples in Rhet. Her., this paper will analyse all
examples found in both treatises, which might give us an idea of what Roman authors
from the Late Republic, and possibly until Quintilian’s times, might have come across
in their rhetorical education.
22
Tzu-I Liao ([email protected])
Rhetoric on the border: De Corona as both
judicial and deliberative speech
The Aristotelian division of speech genres is based on two criteria: persuading
addressees into action and the time of the topic issue (Aristotle Rhetoric 3.14). While
generations of scholars ascribe to this paradigm on which ancient persuasion studies
have their basis, the persuasion mechanism presented by surviving speeches appears
to be more vigorous and complex than Aristotle claimed. Borders between speech
genres were never rigid as theoreticians presented—in fact, the crossing and the
manipulation of the borders between speech genres are common practices of ancient
practitioners of persuasion. This paper examines how Demosthenes' De Corona
transcends generic borders as an example of the persuasion mechanism in the ancient
political context.
The speech plays on the boundary line not only in its discussion of themes of
statesmanship (which is considered of the deliberative genre) in the judicial context,
as Usher (1999:270) points out, but also in its structure and its formal profile which
are finely tweaked for persuasive purposes. Subscribing to functional linguistic
theories on genre study, I investigate the contextual values (Hasan 1996; Martin &
Rose 2012) in order to understand this particular case of political speech, and I
compare the structure of De Corona to the generic structure of deliberative speeches.
This paper then focuses on how in three aspects of language— experiential,
interpersonal and textual (Halliday & Matthiessen 2004)—the speech exemplifies the
interactions between the judicial and the deliberative genres. These aspects of
language are manipulated as the speaker exploits the persuasive resources from both
genres: 1) experientially, how the representation of activities reflects deliberative
formulae in a judicial context; 2) interpersonally, how the use of personal references,
illocutions and registers demonstrates the similarities between this particular judicial
speech and the deliberative corpus; 3) textually, how the transitioning of
argumentation and narratives in this judicial speech resembles a typical deliberative
speech. This paper concludes with a comparison between similar practices in the
classical deliberative corpus (Demosthenes’ Philippics) and shows how through such
manipulation of generic borders Demosthenes maximises the persuasive potential of
deliberative conventions in the judicial context, turning a personal political enemy
into a national menace.
Victoria Pagan ([email protected])
Dialogus de Principibus? Tacitus on the art of
persuasion in the Julio-Claudian era
In his recent study on the Dialogus (The World of Tacitus’ Dialogus de Oratoribus:
Aesthetics and Empire in Ancient Rome, Cambridge 2014), Christopher van den Berg
posits that the work chronicles how changes in the rhetorical arsenal, like the
historical circumstances that led to them, “define a new era of modern eloquentia” (p.
296), and he proposes a reading of the dialogue that denies the central tenent of the
decline of oratory, to ask instead what might be at stake for Tacitus in choosing to
frame the problem in terms of decline. His conclusions gesture toward Tacitus’
historical works: “The values which Tacitus documents in the Dialogus can be read as
a programmatic framework for his rhetorical enterprise, be it as advocate or as author”
23
(p. 300). I should like to test the application of van den Berg’s conclusions
on Annals 13.3, the report of the funeral oration for Claudius composed by Seneca for
Nero and the comparison of Nero’s oratorical skills to previous principes. This
paragraph encapsulates the nominal themes of the Dialogus: the decline of oratory,
the periodization of the genre, and the influence of politics on the art. Given these
obvious parallels, how does van den Berg’s thesis hold up? Does the Dialogus inform
the Annals, or has Tacitus’ conception of the art of persuasion, its transmission
through education, and its practice changed in any way? Is oratory as practiced
by principes even the same art as that practiced by the sort of elite who engage in
the Dialogus?
24
CONFERENCE DELEGATES
CONVENERS
Kyriakos Demetriou is Professor of Political Science, Department of Social and
Political Sciences, University of Cyprus. As an intellectual historian, Kyriakos
Demetriou specializes in the history of classical reception(s), with emphasis on
eighteenth and nineteenth-century Platonic interpretations, the classical heritage in
Victorian Britain, and the history of Greek historiography. His teaching is mainly
focused on the history of political thought (ancient and modern), political
ideologies and the interpretative approaches in political theory.
Sophia Papaioannou teaches Latin language and literature at the National and
Kapodistrian University of Athens. Her principal areas of research include ancient
epic, the literature and culture of the Age of Augustus, and Roman drama,
especially comedy. Her main publications include two books on
Ovid’s Metamorphoses and the reception of the earlier epic tradition, the first
interpretative commentary on Plautus’ Miles Gloriosus since 1963, the first
translation of Miles Gloriosus in Modern Greek, and (in collaboration with Antonis
Petrides) a collective volume on the work and the heritage of Menander,
entitled New Perspectives on Postclassical Comedy. Her forthcoming publications
(2014-15) include a collection of essays on Terence as agent and object of
interpretation; the first edition of the unpublished verse translation of
Ovid’s Amores by the early 20th century Greek author Christos Christovassilis; and
two collections of conference papers. She is currently occupied with the first
translation of the unpublished Latin philosophical treatise De Statu Hominis by the
15th century Greek Catholic theologian Leonardus, archbishop of Chios, and she is
writing a book on the manipulation of prevalent mythological tradition in
Ovid’s Fasti.
Andreas Serafim is an Adjunct Lecturer at the University of Cyprus (2014-2015)

and the Open University of Cyprus (2014-2015) and an Honorary Research Fellow
at University College London (2013-2015). He received his Ph.D. from the
Department of Greek and Latin at University College London (viva passed with no
corrections on 30 Sept. 2013/ PhD received: 28 Oct. 2013; supervisor: Christopher
Carey). His postgraduate studies were generously supported by the
State Fellowship Foundation of Cyprus, the A. G. Leventis Foundation, University
1
College London (Lloyd Scholarship in Greek), and University of Texas at Austin
(Leon Fellowship). He is specialist in Greek oratory/rhetoric and in performance
criticism. He is also interested in ancient Greek medicine (esp. Hippocrates) and
prose (esp. Xenophon). Selected publications include: Attic Oratory and
Performance (Routledge: forthcoming); Papaioannou, Sophia, Andreas Serafim,
and Beatrice da Vela (eds.). Theatre of Justice: Aspects of Performance in Greco-
Roman Oratory and Rhetoric (Brill: forthcoming); Serafim, Andreas. “Making the
audience: ekphrasis and rhetorical strategy in Demosthenes 18 and 19”, Classical
Quarterly 65 (2015) 96-108.
KEYNOTE SPEAKER
Michael Gagarin is James R Dougherty, Jr. Centennial Professor of Classics
Emeritus at the University of Texas at Austin. He is the author of many books and
articles, including Early Greek Law (1986), Antiphon the Athenian: Oratory, Law,
and Justice in the Age of the Sophists (2002), Writing Athenian Law (2008),
and Speeches from Athenian Law (2010), and is the Editor-in-Chief of the Oxford
Encyclopedia of Ancient Greece and Rome (2010). His latest book, The Laws of
Ancient Crete 650-400 BCE, will be published in 2015. He has been President of
the Classical Association of the Middle West and South (1989-90) and of the
American Philological Association (now the Society for Classical Studies) in 2002.
CONFIRMED SPEAKERS
Adele Scafuro is Professor of Classics at Brown University where she has taught
since 1983. She has been a recipient of numerous awards, including those from: the
Japanese Society for the Promotion of Science (University of Tokyo, March 2013);
Loeb Classical Library Foundation (2012); ACLS (2003-04); von Humboldt
Stiftung (summer 2004, Munich and 1989, Berlin); the Center for Hellenic Studies
(Washington, D.C., 1987-88) and Fulbright (summer 1987, American Academy in
Rome). She was Whitehead Visiting Professor at the American School of Classical
Studies (2004-05) and has been an International Scholar at the Leopold Wenger-
Institut für antike Rechtsgeschichte und Papyrusforschung in Munich (2003-04)
and in the Dept. of Philology/Classical Studies at the University of Crete,
Rethymnon (May-Oct. 1997). She is the author and editor of books and essays in
the fields of Greek (especially Athenian) and Roman law, Greek (especially
Athenian) epigraphy, and Greek and Roman drama. These include: The Oxford
Handbook of Greek and Roman Comedy (co-edited with M. Fontaine);
Demosthenes Speeches 39-49; The Forensic Stage: Settling Disputes in Graeco-
Roman New Comedy; Athenian Identity and Civic Ideology (co-edited with A.L.
Boegehold). She is series editor (on the Greek side) for Brill Studies in Greek and
Roman Epigraphy. She is currently finishing a book on political trials in Athens.
Scafuro is a frequent visitor to Athens and has served on the Managing Committee
of the American School of Classical Studies since 1997.
Alessandro Vatri (DPhil Oxon) is Postdoctoral Research Assistant in

Comparative Philology at the University of Oxford and Junior Research Fellow of
Wolfson College. His research looks into literary texts as a form of communication
and addresses the connection between their linguistic form and the original
communicative circumstances of their reception. He has published on ancient
reading techniques and mnemonics, and currently focuses on ancient Greek
2
rhetorical literature as evidence for the native linguistic perception of classical
Greek. His doctoral thesis is under revision for publication under the title “Orality
and Performance in Classical Attic Prose: A Linguistic Approach”.
Andreas Hetzel, PhD, after teaching Philosophy as Full Professor a Fatih

University in Istanbul he now holds at visiting professorship at the University of
Magdeburg, Germany. He studied Philosophy and German Literature at the
universities of Münster and Frankfurt am Main and obtained his PhD (1999) and
his Habilitation (2009) at Darmstadt University (TU Darmstadt). His research
interests include political philosophy, contemporary French theory, critical theory,
German idealism and ancient philosophy. He currently focuses on theories of
rhetoric and philosophies of language. He has published a book on the concept of
culture (Zwischen Poiesis und Praxis. Elemente einer kritischen Theorie der
Kultur, 2001) and a book on the concept of language in classical rhetoric and
modern pragmatics (Die Wirksamkeit der Rede. Zur Aktualitaet klassischer
Rhetorik fuer die moderne Sprachphilosophie, 2011).
Andreas Michalopoulos is Associate Professor of Latin at the National and

Kapodistrian University of Athens. He is the author of Ancient Etymologies in
Ovid’s Metamorphoses: A Commented Lexicon (Leeds, 2001), Ovid, Heroides 16
and 17: Introduction, Text and Commentary (Cambridge, 2006), and Ovid,
Heroides 20 and 21: Introduction, Text, Translation and Commentary (Athens,
2014). His research interests include Augustan Poetry, Ancient Etymology, Roman
Drama, Roman Novel, and Modern Reception of Classical Literature.
Antonis Petrides (BA Thessaloniki, MPhil, PhD Trinity College Cambridge) is

Assistant Professor of Classics at the Open University of Cyprus. His research
focuses mainly on Greek and Roman theatre and its modern reception. Some of his
publications include the following: New Perspectives on Postclassical Comedy,
Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing 2010 (co-edited with
Sophia Papaioannou); Menander, New Comedy and the Visual, Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press 2014.
Antonis Tsakmakis is Associate Professor of Greek literature and Chair of the

Department of Classical Studies and Philosophy at the University of Cyprus. He
studied Greek Literature at the Universities of Thessaloniki and Munich and
received his PhD from the Ludwig-Maximilians University of Munich in 1991. His
main research interests are Greek historiography, old comedy (esp. Aristophanes),
the sophistic movement, classical political theory, archaic lyric poetry, Greek
stylistics and literary pragmatics, the reception of antiquity, and the teaching and
didactic of Greek in secondary education. His publications include the
books Thukydides über die Vergangenheit, Tübingen: Gunter Narr 1995; Brill’s
Companion to Thucydides (co-edited with A. Rengakos), Mnemosyne
Supplements, Leiden: Brill 2006; Thucydides between History and Literature (co-
edited with M. Tamiolaki), Berlin: de Gruyter 2013. He also wrote articles and
chapters in books on Herodotus, Thucydides, Xenophon, Euripides, Aristophanes,
Plato, Polybius, Greek historiography and biography, Greek sports, Greek
particles, Greek prose style, and the history of classical scholarship.
3
Benoit Sans is a classical philologist, Latin teacher and post-PhD researcher at
Brussels’ University (Université Libre de Bruxelles), in the Research Group in
Rhetoric and Linguistic Argumentation (Groupe de recherche en Rhétorique et en
Argumentation Linguistique - GRAL), directed by Prof. Emmanuelle Danblon. His
PhD dissertation was devoted to the relations between rhetoric and ancient
historiography through a comparison of parallels extracts of Polybius and Livy.
His current research topics are the speeches genres in ancient historiography and
rhetorical exercises. He is now working with his research team on a project
called “Training Rhetoric: practical reason, creativity, citizenship”, financed by the
Belgian National Research Funds (FNRS) that aims to recreate and to test a
practical course of rhetoric based on the ancient rhetorical teaching and to
reintroduce rhetorical formation and exercises in secondary schools and at
university.
Brenda Griffith-Williams is an Honorary Research Associate in the Department

of Greek and Latin at UCL, and her main research interest is Athenian inheritance
law. She has published A commentary on selected speeches of Isaios (Brill, 2013,
based on her 2009 PhD thesis), and she is under contract to produce a
Forschungsbericht on Isaios for the journal Lustrum. Her other publications include
a number of book reviews, and articles about the Athenian legal system.
Christopher Carey is Emeritus Professor of Greek at University College

London (UCL). Christopher Carey began his career at Cambridge University, as a
research fellow at Jesus College, before moving to St Andrews University, where
he taught from 1977 to 1991 except for a visiting professorship at University of
Minnesota in 1987-8. While in Minnesota he also taught at Carleton College. In
1991 he was elected Professor of Classics at Royal Holloway, before moving to
UCL to take up the Chair of Greek in 2003.
Costas Apostolakis is Assistant Professor in the Division of Classical Studies of

the University of Crete at Rethymnon (Field research: Attic and Latin Oratory and
Attic Comedy). He is the author of two books on Lysias and Demosthenes and of a
series of articles on Attic Rhetoric and Comedy. He is currently preparing a
Commentary on Timocles, the poet of Middle Comedy, in the series “Fragmenta
Comica”, which is edited by the Academy of Heidelberg.
Dimos Spatharas is Assistant Professor of Ancient Greek Literature at the

Department of Philology, University of Crete. He is the author of a commentary on
Isocrates’ Against Lochites and co-editor of two volumes. He has written several
articles on Attic oratory, the Sophists, Athenian Law and emotions. His recent
publications include: “Kinky stories from the rostrum: storytelling in
Apollodorus’ Against Neaira”, Ancient Narrative 9 (2009); “Self-praise and envy:
from rhetoric to the Athenian courts”, Arethusa 44 (2001); “Liaisons Dangereuses:
Procopius, Apollodorus and Lysias”, CQ 62.2 (2012).
Eleni Volonaki studied Ancient Greek Literature in the Department of Philology,

University of Crete and continued her postgraduate studies at the Department of
Classics, Royal Holloway, University of London. She did her PhD under the
supervision of Christopher Carey [entitled A Commentary on Lysias’ speeches
Against Agoratos (13) and Against Nikomachos (30)], which has been published in
4
Greek (editions: Papazisi 2010). Research interests focus on Ancient Greek Law,
Greek Rhetoric (esp. forensic and epideictic rhetoric and oratory), Greek values
and epic poetry, and Hellenistic rhetoric. She is currently working on the
completion of a Commentary on Lycurgus’ speech Against Leokrates, which is to
be published as a supplementary volume of BICS.
Flaminia Beneventano della Corte is an Italian PhD student at the University of

Siena (Centro di Antropologia del Mondo Antico) where she was awarded both her
BA (2010) and Master (2013) degrees. Her academic interests are mostly related to
the topic of demonstration, evidence and persuasion, especially addressed from the
point of view of pragmatic linguistics. Her Master dissertation (supervisors: Prof.
Maurizio Bettini; Prof. Stefano Ferrucci) was focused on the use of the verb
phaino and its compounds/derivatives in oratory and fifth century historiography.
Large part of the research was carried out at UCL under the supervision of
Christopher Carey. She is currently conducting her PhD research between Siena,
London and Paris (EHESS). The subject of her thesis (supervisor: M. Bettini) is the
study of the word phasma and its semantic field in classical culture through an
anthropological approach.
Francesca Scrofani is a Phd student from the University of Trento (Italy) and the
Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Science Sociales (EHESS) of Paris. Using a
philological and semantic method, her dissertation with the working title “the
Minos in the Corpus Platonicum” focuses on the re-evaluation of this dialogue.
The dissertation examines the relations between the Minos and the main political
dialogues of Plato and the notion of nomos related with the platonic imagery. She
also wrote a thesis on "Persuasion in Medea and Hippolytus of Euripides" during
her previous bachelor degree at the EHESS and the Sorbonne University.
Gabriel Danzig is Senior Lecturer in the departments of Classical Studies and

Philosophy at Bar Ilan University. He has published extensively on Plato, Aristotle
and especially Xenophon. He is the author of Apologizing for Socrates: How Plato
and Xenophon created our Socrates, and of a translation of Xenophon's Socratic
Dialogues into modern Hebrew. He is currently working on a project on political
and ethical terminology in Xenophon's writings.
Georgios Vassiliades is a PhD candidate in Classics at the University of Paris-

Sorbonne since November 2011. He has completed his Bachelor’s Degree in
Classics at the University of Athens and his Master at the University of Paris-
Sorbonne. His postgraduate studies have been generously supported by the A. G.
Leventis Foundation and the Sophia Saripolou Foundation of the University of
Athens. In his PhD Thesis, he deals with “The decadence of the res publica: from
Sallust to Livy”. His principal research interests include Roman Historiography,
Roman political Philosophy, Roman Law, interaction of Greek and Roman culture.
Publications: “Les sources et la fonction du metus hostilis chez Salluste”,
BAGB 2013 (1), 127-168 ; “La relation exemplaire de Scipion l’Africain avec la
foule chez Tite-Live”, forthcoming in the online journalCamenulae ; “Nec remedia
pati possumus: Tite-Live et les remèdes à la crise de la res publica”, forthcoming in
the Proceedings of the International Conférence on Crisis in the Greek, Roman and
Byzantine World, organised by the University of Turin in 2013 (Edizione
dell’Orso).
5
Jakob Wisse is Professor of Latin Language & Literature at Newcastle University,
where he is also head of Classics. His book publications centre on ancient rhetoric,
in particular Cicero and his “magnum opus”, De oratore. Further research interests
include intellectual life (esp. in the Roman republican period); Greek and Roman
historiography; literary theory; and Greek and Latin language. His next book
project is a commentary on Sallust’s War with Jugurtha, to be written with his
Newcastle colleague Federico Santangelo.
Jennifer Devereaux is a graduate student of Classics at the University of Southern

California, and is the first classicist member of the Computational Social Science
Laboratory at USC’s world-renowned Brain and Creativity Institute. Her research
engages with neuroscience and theories of embodied cognition to explore the role
of embodied linguistic processing in narrative construction. She is primarily
interested in unearthing Roman emotionological frameworks and understanding
their role in the rhetoric of historiography. Some of what she will present today is
from her forthcoming work for the volume Embodiment in Latin Semantics that is
under contract with John Benjamins.
Jessica Evans received her PhD in 2012 from Trinity College, Dublin, where she
wrote her dissertation on the discourses of political freedom in Greek
historiography. Since completing her PhD she has taught at both the University of
Vermont and Middlebury College, where she will be a Visiting Assistant Professor
of Classics next year. In addition to teaching a variety of courses in classics, she
has also taught Sociology of Gender.
Jon Hesk is Senior Lecturer in Greek and Classical Studies in the School of
Classics at the University of St Andrews. Jon Hesk is the author of Deception and
Democracy in Classical Athens (Cambridge, 2000) and Sophocles’ Ajax (London,
2003). He has also published numerous chapters and journal articles on Homer,
Sophocles, Euripides, Aristophanes, and the Athenian orators. Jon Hesk also has a
blog called ‘Ancient and Modern Rhetoric’, has been known to do podcasts and
occasionally writes book reviews for the Times Literary Supplement. He is just
starting work on a new book which is provisionally entitled Decision-making and
evidence in Archaic and Classical Greece: an archaeology of intellectual and
discursive virtue. This will look at will at representations and thinking about what
constitutes a good decision and how good decisions get made (or thwarted) in
archaic and classical Greek poetry, drama, philosophy, historiography and oratory.
Judith Mossman studied Classics at Corpus Christi College, Oxford and then held
a Junior Research Fellowship at Christ Church, Oxford before leaving for a post at
Trinity College, Dublin, where she was a Fellow and Senior Lecturer in Classics.
In 2004 she took up a Chair in Classics at the University of Nottingham. She has
published a book on Euripides' Hecuba, an edition of Euripides' Medea, and a
number of articles on Plutarch and Lucian.
Kathryn Tempest is Senior Lecturer in Roman History and Latin Literature at the
University of Roehampton. Her research field is ancient oratory, especially Cicero
and the Attic orators, upon which she has published several articles and book
chapters. She is the author of Cicero: Politics and Persuasion in Ancient Rome
(Continuum, 2011; reprinted by Bloomsbury, 2013) and Hellenistic oratory:
6
Continuity and Change (Oxford University Press, 2013), which she co-edited with
Christos Kremmydas. Kathryn is currently completing a book on Caesar’s
Assassin: Marcus Brutus for Yale University Press, and she has just started work
on her new project, funded by a Leverhulme Research Fellowship: The
Pseudepigrapha of M. Iunius Brutus.
Kostas Vlassopoulos is Associate Professor of Greek History at the University of

Nottingham. His main research interests concern the study of cross-cultural
relations in antiquity, slavery, and the history of ancient historiography and
political thought and their modern reception. He is the author of Unthinking the
Greek Polis: Ancient Greek History beyond Eurocentrism (2007), Politics:
Antiquity and its Legacy (2010) and Greeks and Barbarians (2013).
Margot Neger gained her MA (2005) in Classics at the Karl-Franzens-University

in Graz and her PhD (2011) at the Ludwig-Maximilians-University in Munich,
Germany, with a thesis on Martial (Martials Dichtergedichte. Das Epigramm als
Medium der poetischen Selbstreflexion, Tübingen 2012). From 2006-2013 she has
been a member of the Classics Department in Munich; currently (since March
2013) she holds a postdoc position at the Classics Department of the University of
Salzburg, Austria. Apart from Martial and epigrammatic poetry, her research
interests lie in ancient epistolography, especially Pliny the Younger. Her current
research project deals with Pliny’s literary strategies of constructing social
interaction in his letters.
Maria Kythreotou is a Teaching Fellow at the Department of Classical Studies

and Philosophy at the University of Cyprus. She has taught Ancient Greek and
Latin courses to the undergraduate students. She studied Classical Studies (2008)
and received her Master’s degree (Classics, 2010) from the University of Cyprus.
She is currently writing her Ph.D. Thesis on the Figure of Antithesis in the
Speeches of Thucydides. She is interested in Greek historiography and rhetoric and
in teaching Ancient Greek and Latin to beginners.
Michael Paschalis is Professor of Classics at the University of Crete, Department

of Philology, and Director of the Division of Classics. He has published numerous
articles on Hellenistic Poetry, Classical Roman Poetry, and the Poetry of Late
Antiquity; Senecan drama; Ancient Historiography and the Ancient Novel. He has
also worked on (the Reception of the Classics in) Modern Greek literature and in
Italian, English, and French literature. He is the author of Virgil’s Aeneid:
Semantic Relations and Proper Names (Oxford 1997) and the editor of three
volumes of Rethymnon Classical Studies (Horace and Greek Lyric Poetry; Roman
and Greek Imperial Epic; Pastoral Palimpsests: Essays in the Reception of
Theocritus and Virgil). He has co-edited five volumes of AN Supplementa (Space
in the Ancient Novel; Metaphor and the Ancient Novel; The Greek and the Roman
Novel: Parallel Readings; Readers and Writers in the Ancient Novel; The
Construction of the Real and the Ideal in the Ancient Novel; Holy Men/Women
and Charlatans in the Ancient Novel) and the volume The Reception of Antiquity in
the Byzantine and Modern Greek Novel. He recently published a book on the
reception of Italian and Classical Literature in the poetry of Andreas Kalvos (Re-
reading Kalvos: Andreas Kalvos, Italy, and Greco-Roman Antiquity, C. U. P.
2013), which received the 2014 essay award of the book journal O Anagnostis and
7
the 2014 Athens Academy essay award. Another book entitled Nikos Kazantzakis:
From Homer to Shakespeare. Essays on his Cretan Novels is currently at the
printer. Projected books for 2015-2016: C. P. Cavafy: The Poetics of Middle
Ground; The Cretan Renaissance and 16th Century Italian Literature; Andreas
Kalvos: New Interpretations of the Odes.
Rebecca Van Hove is a second-year PhD student at King’s College London. Her
thesis examines religion in the Attic orators, supervised by Dr Hugh Bowden and
funded by an AHRC doctoral studentship. Before moving to London Rebecca
studied at the University of Edinburgh, first as an undergraduate student in History
and Classics, before completing a Master’s (by Research) degree with a thesis on
Persian and Macedonian identity in Isocrates’ political ideology. Her research
interests include Greek religion (in particular divination), Athenian oratory and
law, and discourses of identity in antiquity.
Ricardo Gancz was born in Brazil. He pursued his undergraduate studies in
education and physical education and his postgraduate studies in psychopedagogy.
Besides, since 2006, he has been a philosophy student of Olavo de Carvalho.
Ricardo moved to Israel and joined the M.A. programme in Classical Studies under
the supervision of Gabriel Danzig. He is currently a PhD candidate. Ricardo is
interested in rhetoric and in ancient and contemporary philosophy.
Robert Sing completed a BA in Ancient History and a Masters thesis on jury

pay in classical Athens, both at the University of Western Australia in Perth. He
came to Cambridge in 2012 for his PhD. Robert is now in his third year at Trinity
Hall, Cambridge and is currently working towards completion of his doctoral
thesis entitled “The Rhetoric of Public Finance in Demosthenes”. He is being
supervised by Robin Osborne.
Roger Brock is Senior Lecturer in Classics at the University of Leeds, where he

has worked since 1990. His research interests lie mainly in Greek historiography,
particularly Herodotus, and ancient Greek politics, especially citizenship and
political thought. He is co-editor, with Steven Hodkinson, of Alternatives to
Athens (OUP 2000, revised paperback 2002), and author of Greek Political
Imagery from Homer to Aristotle (Bloomsbury 2013, pb. 2014) and of articles on
democratic and oligarchic ideology, as well as on wider topics in Greek history and
literature. His major research project at present is on ancient Greek citizenship,
especially non-political aspects, and the related topic of the functioning of Greek
oligarchies. In addition, he is currently editor of the Journal of Hellenic Studies.
Sophia Xenophontos was educated at the University of Cyprus and the University
of Oxford (MSt., DPhil. Oxon) and is currently a Lecturer in Classics at the
University of Glasgow. She has published extensively on ethics and education in
Plutarch, and worked on his revival in the Byzantine era and the period of the
Modern Greek Enlightenment. She is now about to publish her monograph entitled
Teaching and Learning in Plutarch: the dynamics of ethical education in the
Roman Empire (de Gruyter 2016) and is preparing an English translation with
Introduction and Notes of Metochites’ Ethikos for the Dumbarton Oaks Medieval
Library series (2016). She is also co-editing the first Companion to the Reception
of Plutarch for the Brill Companions to Classical Reception series. In her new
8
project, she is interested in Galen’s psychological writings with a view to exploring
his moralising rhetoric along the therapy of the soul.
Stephen Todd is Professor of Ancient History at the University of Manchester.

Todd is the author of The Shape of Athenian Law (OUP, 1993), and of A
Commentary on Lysias, Speeches 1-11 (OUP, 2007). He is currently working on
the next volume of the Lysias commentary.
T. Davina McClain is the Theodore Harris Roberts Endowed Professor of Speech

and Debate at Northwestern State University in Natchitoches, LA. She teaches
Latin and Greek in the Scholars’ College at NSU, after serving as the Director of
the College for over seven years. She has been Assistant Editor and Editor of
Amphora and currently serves as the Secretary-Treasurer of the Classical
Association of the Middle West and South – Southern Section. Originally from
Texas, she earned her BAs in History and Classics at Trinity University (San
Antonio), MA in Latin and PhD in Classical Studies at Indiana University
(Bloomington). Her research has delved into Greek pedagogy, comparative
mythology, prostitution in the Mediterranean, and the Roman historian Livy.
Tazuko Angela van Berkel is a postdoctoral researcher in Ancient Greek

Language and Literature. Her research focuses on history of ideas and ancient
philosophy. She got her PhD (2012, cum laude) on a dissertation dealing with
monetization and conceptualizations of reciprocity in classical Athens (The
Economics of Friendship. Changing Conceptions of Reciprocity in Classical
Athens). In Spring 2012 she was fellow at the Netherlands Institute for Advanced
Study in the Humanities and Social Sciences as part of the research group Mass
Communication in Classical Antiquity. In 2013 the Netherlands Organisation for
Scientific Research (NWO) awarded her a VENI grant for her current research
project Counting and Accountability (2013-2017). Her other current research
projects include translation and annotation of a critical text edition of Eudemus of
Rhodes (in collaboration with Dr. P. Stork and Prof. Dr. J.M. van Ophuijsen) and
the preparation of a digital edition of the fragments of Protagoras of Abdera (in
collaboration with Dr. M. van Raalte).
Thierry Hirsch is reading for a Doctor of Philosophy in Classical Languages and

Literature at Lincoln College, Oxford, where he is writing the first modern
commentary in English on Book 1 of Cicero’s De Inuentione under the supervision
of Prof. T. Reinhardt. For this project, he was awarded a Research Fellowship by
the International Society for the History of Rhetoric in 2014. He holds Master’s
degrees from the universities of Oxford (M.St. in Greek and Latin Languages and
Literature, 2012) and Tuebingen (M.A. in Classics and in Musicology, 2011).
Alongside his doctorate and teaching, he is currently working on bilingual editions
of four Latin rhetorical texts for Reclam Verlag and Harvard University Press.
Having won several Premiers Prix at the Luxembourg Conservatoire, he was
appointed the first holder of the postgraduate organ scholarship at University
College, Oxford, in 2012 and regularly gives organ recitals in Germany,
Luxembourg, and the UK.
Tzu-I Liao is studying for a PhD in Classics at University College London under
the supervision of Chris Carey and Stephen Colvin. Her research interests include
9
ancient rhetoric, functional grammars, and the application of text linguistics on
classical texts, in particular Greek oratory and historiography. Her thesis examines
the corpus of Demosthenic symbouleutic speeches, investigating the relationship
between linguistic variations and communication strategies, with the hope to
understand the communicative and social dynamic within the Athenian assembly.
Victoria Pagan, Professor of Classics at the University of Florida, is a Research

Foundation Professor for 2014-2016 and College of Liberal Arts and Sciences
Teacher of the Year for 2010. She is the author of twin studies from the University
of Texas Press: Conspiracy Narratives in Roman History (2004) and Conspiracy
Theory in Latin Literature (2012). Known also for her work on gardens, she has
written Rome and the Literature of Gardens (Duckworth 2006); she is co-editing
Disciples of Flora: Gardens in History and Culture (Cambridge Scholars
forthcoming); and she will contribute an article on “Horticulture and the Shaping
of Roman Nature”, to the Oxford Handbooks Online in Classical Studies, edited by
Gareth Williams. Her textbook, A Sallust Reader (Waucanda 2009) is widely used
in the US. She is the editor of Blackwell's Companion to Tacitus (Malden 2012)
and is editing Blackwell's Tacitus Encyclopedia. She has published over a dozen
articles on Vergil, Statius, Pliny the Younger, Seneca the Elder, Caesar, and
Tacitus. She is currently finishing an Introduction to Tacitus for I.B. Tauris
Publishers. Born and raised in Ravenna, Ohio, Victoria spent a year at the Naval
Academy Preparatory School in Newport, Rhode Island, before she earned her BA
in Latin at Kent State University, her MA at the University of Michigan, and her
PhD at the University of Chicago, under the direction of W. Ralph Johnson.
10

Addressing Matters in Context The Art of

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Addressing Matters in Context The Art of

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Addressing Matters in Context The Art of

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

University of Cyprus 27-29 August 2015

Addressing Matters in Context:

The Art of Persuasion across Genres and Times

08:30-09:45 Registration/ Tea & coffee

09:45 Welcome: Constantinos Christofides (Rector of the University of Cyprus)

10:30 -12:30 Session 1 - Persuasion across times

13:30-16:00 Session 2 - Persuasion in Historiography

14:30-15:00 Antonis Tsakmakis (Cyprus): Thucydides and Mytilene’s revolt: rhetoric

16:00-16:30 Tea & coffee break

16:30-19:00 Session 3 - Persuasion across boundaries: Oratory and Historiography

19:00 End of panel

19:15-20:15 Keynote lecture

20:15 End of panel

20:30 Dinner at a local restaurant

09:00-09:30 Tea & coffee

09:30-11:00 Session 4 - The language, style and performativity of persuasion I

11:00-11:30 Tea & coffee

11:30-13:00 Session 5 - The language, style and performativity of persuasion II

14:00-16:00 Session 6 - Emotional persuasion

16:00-16:30 Tea & coffee

16:30-19:00 Session 7 - Persuasion in Roman rhetoric and historiography

19:00 End of panel

20:00 Dinner in the hotel

09:00-09:30 Tea & coffee

09:30-11:00 Session 8 - Persuasion across genres: literature I

11:00-11:30 Tea & coffee

11:30-13:00 Session 9 - Persuasion across genres: literature II

14:00-16:00 Session 10 - Persuasion across genres: prose

15:30 End of panel

15:30-16:00 Closing remarks

16:00 End of the conference

Adele Scafuro ([email protected])

The conflation of the ‘high crimes and misdemeanors’ of modern Anglophone (=

Alessandro Vatri ([email protected])

Such susceptibility to parody betrays the delicate role of quotation as a rhetorical

Furthermore, in order to evaluate the effectiveness of rhetorical persuasion in this

Andreas Serafim ([email protected])

In Rhetoric 1356a1-4, Aristotle lists three means of persuasion: argument, the

Questions may also be considered a matter of convention, being ubiquitous in

Antonis Petrides ([email protected])

Benoit Sans ([email protected])

Brenda Griffith-Williams ([email protected])

Christopher Carey ([email protected])

Costas Apostolakis ([email protected])

Flaminia Beneventano ([email protected])

Francesca Scrofani ([email protected])

Jakob Wisse ([email protected])

An important point of divergence when comparing classical Greek oratory and

Jessica Evans ([email protected])

Jon Hesk ([email protected])

Judith Mossman ([email protected])

Kathryn Tempest ([email protected])

It is perhaps unfortunate, however, that modern scholarly discussions have focused

Kostas Vlassopoulos ([email protected])

Margot Neger ([email protected])

Michael Gagarin ([email protected])

Rebecca Van Hove ([email protected])

Ricardo Gancz ([email protected]) & Gabriel Danzig

Robert Sing ([email protected])