Speeches in ancient texts

[Agrippina of the Julii]

I am writing an exam soon on the historiography of the ancient world. As any student of ancient history knows, the speeches have been dissected, anaylsed and debated for hundreds of years. No one has come up with an exact answer for the reason that some of them were written as if being quoted from a press conference.

Could it be very simply that it was easier to say "Italy is not so decayed...that she cannot provide her own capital with a senate." instead of the assembly argued that Italy had not fallen into such decayed that she was unable to provide her own capital with a senate" having to deal with all the grammatical niceties of Latin.

Tacitus goes on to almost rewrite Claudius' address to the Senate on the admission of the Gauls, maybe in rewriting instead of simply quoting the senate records, he thought it would be easier to read that way?

Please can I have some thoughts on this.

In Thucydides, the Melian Dialogue was written as in a play. Again was it not simply easier to write it that way?

[Ingsoc]

It's simpley a literature device used to convey the intentions and views of people that the history book deals with.

[Agrippina of the Julii]

It's simpley a literature device used to convey the intentions and views of people that the history book deals with.

 

If that's the simple answer, why are so many theses written about it. It makes sense to me but I need to know why the subject of the speeches is such a problem to historians.

Maybe Tacitus used direct speech to make his book more chatty but then why did he change the words around.

It seems that no one has an answer and either says, as you did that it was a literary device or they write 100 pages of waffle about it.

[WotWotius]

Speeches in the texts of old are almost certainly a fabrication mustered up by the imagination of their authors. There is, however, some degree of necessity in them. Firstly, and most obviously, they lay out the reasons for the conflict between two clearly different forces (for example, two nations before a battle). They additionally emphasis the fact that, through the author's classical education (history was not written by just anybody then; it was a privilege reserved for the elite), he was not ignorant of the opinions of those with whom he disagreed

[Agrippina of the Julii]

Speeches in the texts of old are almost certainly a fabrication mustered up by the imagination of their authors. There is, however, some degree of necessity in them. Firstly, and most obviously, they lay out the reasons for the conflict between two clearly different forces (for example, two nations before a battle). They additionally emphasis the fact that, through the author's classical education (history was not written by just anybody then; it was a privilege reserved for the elite), he was not ignorant of the opinions of those with whom he disagreed

[M. Porcius Cato]

Does anyone seriously think that politicians failed to use their extensive rhetorical training? If not, if politicians actually delivered well-polished speeches, isn't it likely that they had prepared their speeches beforehand? If they prepared their speeches beforehand, isn't it likely too that they shared these speeches with others, via pamphlets, letters, etc? And isn't possible as well that these written records made it into the hands of historians, who would be supremely interested in obtaining them?

 

Just looking at Cicero, we have evidence for all this--extensive rhetorical training, use of rhetoric in public, written publication of speeches to a wider audience, and ensuring that speeches were available to historians.

 

To think that "Speeches in the texts of old are almost certainly a fabrication mustered up by the imagination of their authors" is cynicism beyond reason. Certainly SOME speeches are figments of imagination (e.g., the pre-battle speeches of barbarian warlords), but let's keep our perspective here.

[Ingsoc]

Just looking at Cicero, we have evidence for all this--extensive rhetorical training, use of rhetoric in public, written publication of speeches to a wider audience, and ensuring that speeches were available to historians.

 

To think that "Speeches in the texts of old are almost certainly a fabrication mustered up by the imagination of their authors" is cynicism beyond reason. Certainly SOME speeches are figments of imagination (e.g., the pre-battle speeches of barbarian warlords), but let's keep our perspective here.

 

I think Cicero is the exception rather than the rule about speeches, Thucydides define the use of speeches in ancient texts best:

 

"What particular persons have spoken when they were about to enter into the war or when they were in it, were hard for me to remember exactly; whether they were speeches which I have heard myself, or have received at the second hand. But as any man seemed to me, that knew what was nearest to the sum of the truth of all that had been uttered, to speak most agreeably to the matter still in hand, so I have made it spoken here."(1.22)

 

Of course it's very likely that some historians give way to their own personal view about how the people they wrote about them suppose to say rather than what they actually would say.

[M. Porcius Cato]

I think Cicero is the exception rather than the rule about speeches, Thucydides define the use of speeches in ancient texts best:

"What particular persons have spoken when they were about to enter into the war or when they were in it, were hard for me to remember exactly; whether they were speeches which I have heard myself, or have received at the second hand. But as any man seemed to me, that knew what was nearest to the sum of the truth of all that had been uttered, to speak most agreeably to the matter still in hand, so I have made it spoken here."(1.22)

 

But look at the important qualifier Thucydides makes--"when they were about to enter into the war or when they were in it." I freely grant that war speeches were largely reconstructions from imperfect (or no) source material, but it's hasty to generalize that state to all speeches in ancient texts, especially when we have the example of Cicero.

[Gaius Octavius]

MPC:

 

Do the originals of Cicero's letters (e.g., to Atticus) and speeches actually exist or are they medieval copies?

[Agrippina of the Julii]

MPC:

 

Do the originals of Cicero's letters (e.g., to Atticus) and speeches actually exist or are they medieval copies?

 

 

I will do the research on that. A lot of original speeches do exist. The Romans kept meticulous records so there are a lot of the texts. My example of the Oratorio Lugdunensis, the original does exist in a museum. And of course w have Tacitus in the Annals, his version which is interesting.

My feeling is that the further back you go, the less likely you are to have original text. For instance Herodotus constructed a debate between three Persians on the merits of tyranny as opposed to democracy. When you read it is obious he was looking at it from the Greek point of view, especially since he says later on in his little opinion that freedom is a valuable thing to have. His speeches are definitely fake.

Thucydides speeches, for instance Pericles' funeral oration, I have no doubt he wrote from the original text. I do believe though that a lot of speeches in the ancient text were merely a retellng of something that was said - a conversation for instance, based on hearsay. But my point is that it is a small factor in the studying of anccint text and yet here we have a whole thread debating the ins and outs of it, Something people have been doing for a very long time. Now if only I could take these arguments into the exam room with me.

[Agrippina of the Julii]

A quick look at Wikipedia tells me that of Cicero's works : six on rhethoric have survied and eight on philosophy. Eighty-eight speeches were recorded, only fifty-eight survive.

Interesting.

[Gaius Octavius]

A quick look at Wikipedia tells me that of Cicero's works : six on rhethoric have survied and eight on philosophy. Eighty-eight speeches were recorded, only fifty-eight survive.

Interesting.

 

From the hand of Cicero?

[WotWotius]

Does anyone seriously think that politicians failed to use their extensive rhetorical training? If not, if politicians actually delivered well-polished speeches, isn't it likely that they had prepared their speeches beforehand? If they prepared their speeches beforehand, isn't it likely too that they shared these speeches with others, via pamphlets, letters, etc? And isn't possible as well that these written records made it into the hands of historians, who would be supremely interested in obtaining them?

 

Just looking at Cicero, we have evidence for all this--extensive rhetorical training, use of rhetoric in public, written publication of speeches to a wider audience, and ensuring that speeches were available to historians.

 

To think that "Speeches in the texts of old are almost certainly a fabrication mustered up by the imagination of their authors" is cynicism beyond reason. Certainly SOME speeches are figments of imagination (e.g., the pre-battle speeches of barbarian warlords), but let's keep our perspective here.

 

Yes, but most of the speeches found in the works of the Roman historians (Livy in particular) are either pre-battle speeches, and by you assessment almost certainly an invention, or part of political debates from a time in Roman history that is so archaic it is borderline fantasy (for example the trial of Horatius in the early books of Livy). Further, the speeches to which you refer seem were more spare in number than you imply. Private speeches, for example, were the type of rhetoric favoured by Tacitus the Annals. Almost all of them dealt with the day-to-day political asides of the Imperial Palace, and therefore were not recorded - and therefore it would not be too much of a rash accusation to say that most of these speeches were made-up.

[M. Porcius Cato]

Yes, but most of the speeches found in the works of the Roman historians (Livy in particular) are either pre-battle speeches, and by you assessment almost certainly an invention, or part of political debates from a time in Roman history that is so archaic it is borderline fantasy (for example the trial of Horatius in the early books of Livy).

 

How many speeches are in Livy, Sallust, Polybius, Plutarch, etc? Of these, how many were pre-battle speeches? How many were political speeches? How many were legal speeches? Etc. It would be nice to see something systematic here. Otherwise, we're just trading impressionistic memories, and on that basis, no resolution is possible. Until then, I'm deeply suspicious of sweeping claims, like "Speeches in the texts of old are almost certainly a fabrication mustered up by the imagination of their authors."

[Gaius Octavius]

Perhaps the relaters of some speeches were delivering the sense of the speeches. If I am not mistaken, a lot of history was oral (the Illiad) in those days.