Description of Papers

Due date: Friday, Dec. 16 by noon. Early submissions gratefully received. Please decide on a topic by the Thanksgiving break at the latest.

Length: About 5-10 pages (typed and doublespaced)…but this is only a guideline. I cannot imagine a paper less than 5 pages, but you may well find you need/want to write more than 10 (I don’t expect more than 10…but don’t feel confined by the number: simply write what your topic warrants)

Purpose: As I have mentioned in class, this paper is meant to be a ‘thinkpiece’ rather than a traditional ‘research’ paper. You should all get in the habit of using writing as a means to think through a particular topic or issue raised by your reading; even if you write only for a few minutes each day – in the form of short notes or a paragraph – writing is an effective means to marshal your ideas and create a storehouse of topics you might want to return to and develop further one day.

Topics: The choice of topic is up to you, but please do clear it with me before you begin. If you wish, you are free to plunder for ideas my running ‘thinkpad’ to which I’ve been adding all quarter. My one caveat is that you choose a topic that is relatively narrow in scope (e.g., ‘Roscius in the De oratore’ as opposed to ‘The Ciceronian Concept of Truth and Beauty in the Speeches (with an appendix on the Philosophical Works’). Your paper may deal with one of the works we’ve read, or (if you find an appropriate topic) with something that spans all three. If you prefer, you may write a critique of some secondary work you’ve read this quarter – either assigned (Fantham, Axer, Duggan) or not, provided that your critique involves advancing some original idea about or improvement over what you’ve read (i.e., write a critique…not a review).

Additional advice: While, as I said, I do not expect a traditional research paper, some of you may prefer to use this as an opportunity to read more deeply in some of the research on what we’ve read…and that’s fine. Moreover, if you have been particularly enthralled by something you’ve read for this class and feel you have an idea you might want to develop into an MA paper, then by all means use this exercise as a launchpad for such a paper (it’s never too early to start thinking about/working on that!).

Who’s doing what: Once you’ve communicated to me what you’re doing, I will add your name and topic to this list – this is simply so you’re aware of what everyone else is doing, in the hope that such an awareness will prompt fruitful conversations and exchange (another habit one should develop!) [NB: let me know if you think I’ve misrepresented what you intend to do]

• Ashli: irony in the Pro Roscio comoedo
• Jason: ‘fingo’ in the three works we’ve read
• Hans: Cicero’s attitude toward/use of Greek rhetorical theory (esp. as represented in Plato’s Gorgias) in the De oratore
• Lindsay: the ‘flaming slander’ metaphor at RoscCom 17 and the discussion of metaphor in De orat.
• Rachel: humanitas/humanissimus in rhetorical strategy of the Pro Archia
• Brent: De oratore I, Antonius, and the first two speeches in Plato’s Phaedrus
• Jaime: humanitas in the Pro Archia
• Ruben: Cicero’s presentation of the craft of the orator as similar to that of the poet in the Pro Archia as a rhetorical device fitting the strategy of Archias’ defense
• Richard: the shifting definitions of the two genres of comedy in De oratore
• Robin: close reading of Arch. 23 and 29, as part of an investigation into the ways in which they relate to each other; and then how the idea of 'limitation' (whether it be geographical, literary and even 'spiritual') is employed as a motif throughout the entire speech, especially in light of Cicero's ultimate goal to prove that someone from 'beyond the limits' (alienus) is in fact part of the state.