Against Theopompus: Rhetorical Training and the Writing of History in Polybius
This article addresses the critique launched by Polybius against Theopompus of Chios from a perspective focused on his rhetorical training. It aims to move the focus of attention of the motives that drive the man from Megalopolis to cast an invective against Theopompus by emphasizing not what it is...
Guardado en:
| Autor principal: | |
|---|---|
| Formato: | Artículo publishedVersion Artículo evaluado por pares |
| Lenguaje: | Español |
| Publicado: |
Facultad de Filosofía y Letras, Universidad de Buenos Aires
2020
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | https://revistascientificas.filo.uba.ar/index.php/analesHAMM/article/view/7644 https://repositoriouba.sisbi.uba.ar/gsdl/cgi-bin/library.cgi?a=d&c=moderna&d=7644_oai |
| Aporte de: |
| Sumario: | This article addresses the critique launched by Polybius against Theopompus of Chios from a perspective focused on his rhetorical training. It aims to move the focus of attention of the motives that drive the man from Megalopolis to cast an invective against Theopompus by emphasizing not what it is written, but how it is written. Thus, the matter under consideration is to what extent the lógos could be more effective to persuade in respect to a specific knowledge that historiographical discourse wishes to convey. The lack of coherence and clarity attributed to Theopompus undermines the effectiveness of the discourse. That is why the debate does not ponder the truthfulness of events or their interpretation, but the ability to present them with clarity, conciseness and plausibility. As a conclusion, it is stated that in the heart of this diatribe exists a rhetorization of the historiographical discourse, in partly due to the awareness that the use of rhetorical exercises is linked to particular virtues of the lógos. |
|---|