In this paper I propose to continue the analysis of the appeal to authority begun at the last OSSA conference. I proceed by examining the well-documented use of the appeal made by the ancient Roman advocate, Cicero. The fact that Cicero expressed his opinion was expectably sufficient to give his auditors--responsible citizens all--reason to do as he desired. But why? The resolution of this puzzle points to a strong sense in which arguments can be called rhetorical , for the rational (...) force of Cicero's authority depends necessarily on what he says. (shrink)

This article explores the relation between biological life and political life, placing it in the context of the ancient Greek distinction between the life of the home and the realm of politics. In contrast with the oikos, the life of the polis was characterized by attempts to exclude from its sphere both the constraints of necessity that oblige human action to conform to the exigencies of survival as well as the violence that accompanies this pursuit. Although this exclusion has never (...) been successful, the question of how to achieve it lies at the heart of the oldest philosophical reflections on politics and, in a more concealed fashion, remains central to our political concerns today. Invoking the work of Giorgio Agamben, this article explores the earliest discussions concerning the question “what is political life?” to show why so much depends upon how we answer this question. (shrink)

This paper explores the normative implications of Aristotle's concept of politikē and demonstrates its relevance to contemporary debates on legitimate political authority. Section one of the paper provides historical and interpretative background on Aristotle's conception of politikē. The second section examines the central normative role that the common good plays in Aristotle's account of politikē and claims that its capacity to play this role points in the direction of a less exclusionary politics than is suggested by Book 1 of the (...) Politics. Finally, in the third section, with reference to work by Andres Rosler and David Estlund, I consider what Aristotle's account can tell us about contemporary debates on the relationship between political authority, legitimacy and expertise. (shrink)

This article argues that the end of Tacitus's Dialogus de Oratoribus is inconclusive in ways that draw attention to the difficulty of interpretation not only of the dialogue, as by modern scholars, but also in the dialogue, as by its leading characters. The inconclusiveness is especially marked by a commonly noted, but little discussed, feature of the end: when the rest of the characters laugh at the point of departure, Tacitus himself does not. Arguing that this difference of affective response (...) on the part of the characters prefigures differences in interpretive response on the part of readers, the article identifies different strains in recent scholarship: pessimistic and optimistic. Both forms of response entail an attribution of a “poetics of conspiracy” (Hinds) to the ultimate speaker of the dialogue, the author Tacitus, and a “hermeneutics of suspicion” (Ricoeur) to its reader. At the same time, the author's double-position, as character and author, between narrated event and narration of the event to the reader, suggests that the other characters in the dialogue may, like the author and reader, also exercise such poetics and hermeneutics on one another and themselves. The article ends with the comparandum of the first satire of Tacitus's near contemporary, Juvenal, suggesting that, in the case of these works that can look with hindsight on the social and political past of the Early Empire, their modes of transmission and reception may be politically determined (e.g., as conspiratorial, suspicious) but may also demonstrate, within the restrictions of social and political determinations, a high degree of contingency, reflexivity, and autonomy. Such possibilities suggest that the text itself is part of a pragmatic and performative tradition of the kind enacted by its characters, in addition to a tradition of the production of (comparatively static and unfree) “literary” works. (shrink)

The study describes a method created for the analysis of persuasive strategies, called rhetorical heuristics, which can be applied in speeches where the argument focuses primarily on questions of fact. First, the author explains how the concept emerged from the study of classical oratory. Then the theoretical background of rhetorical heuristics is outlined through briefly discussing relevant aspects of the psychology of decision-making. Finally, an exposition of how one could find these persuasive strategies introduces rhetorical heuristics in more detail.

Some of the best recent work on Roman priesthoods under the Republic has engaged with the issue of priestly authority and its role in defining the place of priesthoods vis-à-vis other centres of power, influence and knowledge. The aim of this paper is to make a contribution to this line of enquiry by focussing on the concept of priestlyauctoritas, which has seldom received close attention. The working hypothesis is that the study of priestlyauctoritasmay contribute to a broader understanding of the (...) place of priesthood in Republican Rome, and especially in the Late Republican period, from which most of the evidence derives. The link between religious authority and religious expertise requires special attention. (shrink)