Gowing’s Thinkpad

De Oratore

• The image of the house/architectural imagery (e.g., 1.105, 161-162)
• The character of Crassus: exemplary orator...or used car salesman?
• ‘fiction’ vs. ‘reality’, evidenced in (e.g.) uses of fingo and its cognates. What distinction, that is, is drawn (if any) between the ‘real’ world of the Roman forum and the ‘fictional’ world of (again, e.g.) actors, artists, etc.
• acting/actors and their relationship to oratory/orators
• orators: ‘made’ or ‘born’? arguments for and against
• moral dimension – or lack thereof – to De oratore
• the role or place of Plato in this text
• figurative language, i.e., the use of metaphoric language (e.g., nautical, metallurgic, agriculture/farming, etc.). In this regard useful to consider the discourse on metaphor in Book 3 (155ff.)
• to what extent does the De oratore itself constitute evidence that its author was the perfectus orator?
• Any significance to repeated allusions to the ‘divine’ and ‘god’, esp. in association with the perfectus orator? (e.g., 1.106, 115, 2.227)
• The way this text alludes to or cites Roman comedy (and tragedy, for that matter...though it’s difficult for us to discern the context of these). What do these many ‘allusions’ (if that’s what they are) contribute? where does Cicero seem to assume a familiarity with the context of the quotation? or rather, where does familiarity with the context deepen or broaden the point being made?
• Cicero’s references to painting/sculpture. What does he see as the relationship of the ‘silent arts’ (mutae artes, 3.26) to oratory?
• Roscius the comic actor is referenced on numerous occasions in the De oratore. What impression of him do these references conjure up? how do these references advance the arguments being made? and who references him the most?
• Greeks haunt this text to a significant degree. What is the general impression one receives of the Roman view of Greek culture? critical? favorable? disdainful? admiring? does one get the sense that the participants in this dialogue feel ‘captured’ by or enslaved to Greek culture? This is, of course, an important question (and an important text) in Roman aesthetics.

Pro Roscio comoedo

• (prompted by a remark by Ashli): to what extent does Cicero try to distance Roscius from his profession (acting)...and bring Fannius closer? i.e., is there any sense in which Cicero tries to make Roscius appear more like ‘one of us’ (senators), and Fannius more like ‘one of them’ (actors), given the fact that actors would generally be accorded less respect – in the political and legal arena at any rate – than someone of Fannius’ standing? That, by the way, is something of an issue: Fannius’ standing. We do not really know who he was, apart from this speech...apparently. See Münzer’s article in Pauly-Wissowa (s. Fannius, 17).
• Use the character of Roscius as delineated in the De oratore to flesh out the Roscius of this speech. Any points of contact?
• Although most of you seemed to like Axer, many thought he pushed his thesis a bit too hard and far. What are some other aspects of Cicero’s strategy in this speech that Axer then neglects?

Pro Archia

• Humanitas is clearly an important issue for Cicero in this speech: what does he mean by it, and why exactly is it important for him? How does his deployment of the term fit with the speech’s apparent rhetorical strategy?
• If the Pro Archia is in some sense a ‘performance’, then how does it compare in that respect to the ‘performance(s)’ (a la Axer) of the Pro Roscio comoedo?
• At Arch. 3 Cicero claims to be employing an unusual and unprecedented genus dicendi in this speech. What are the specific elements of this genus dicendi that distinguish it from that ‘commonly used in trials and judicial discourse’?