Name: FABRIZIA NICOLI DIAS
Publication date: 29/11/2021
Advisor:
Name |
Role |
|---|---|
| LENI RIBEIRO LEITE | Advisor * |
Examining board:
| Name |
Role |
|---|---|
| LENI RIBEIRO LEITE | Advisor * |
| RAIMUNDO NONATO BARBOSA DE CARVALHO | Internal Examiner * |
Summary: The paradoxical encomium, a variety of praise in which the same epideictic techniques of the common rhetorical repertoire are applied to matters traditionally less exalted, was exercised by Marcus Cornelius Fronto, one of the only Roman authors to insert himself in this laudatory practice. The orator produced letters that are usually presented under the headings Eulogy of
smoke and dust (Laudes fumi et pulveris), Eulogy of negligence (Laudes neglegentiae) and On the alsian holidays 3 (De Feriis Alsiensibus 3), in which, in turn, it is possible to observe an elevation of sleep and, more generally, of idleness. Sometimes, in the critical fortunes existing on that eulogistic modality, there is a perspective according to which ludic compositions would
be meaningless, in order to be linked to the notion of rhetorical game and to that of gratuitousness. Given this scenario, this research proposes to discuss the possible functions performed by the paradoxical encomium in the latin literature from the examination of the corpus of analysis constituted by the frontonian epistles listed above. Therefore, assumptions contemplated in the ancient rhetorical theory are approached, especially with regard to the
perceptions of the epideictic (or demonstrative) genre, praise and, more specifically, paradoxical encomium. Concerning these considerations, we present those of Aristotle, PseudoAnaximenes, the anonymous Rhetoric to Herennius, Cicero, Quintilian, Pseudo-Aristides, Menander of Laodicea, Aelius Theon, Hermogenes, Aphtonius, the Sophist, and Nicolas, the Sophist. Furthermore, to discuss the concept of the Second Sophistic, we refer mainly to Flavius Philostratus, who is considered to have coined this expression. With such ancient reflections, we especially intersperse the modern comments of Pernot (1993), Dandrey (1997; 2015), Bowersock (1969), Anderson (1993) and Goldhill (2009). In conclusion, from the case of Fronto, we understand that the elevation of the rhetorical experience is common to the three letters studied, that they convey part of the retor`s conception according to which the exercise of eloquence is an integral part of the imperial civic life and that, finally, the paradoxical encomium, according to the frontonian perspective, undoes the correlation usually made between the ludic character and frivolity.
