2. Papirius Fabianus: voice of a philosopher

Bart Huelsenbeck

Chapter

Requires Authentication

2. Papirius Fabianus: voice of a philosopher

Bart Huelsenbeck
Bart Huelsenbeck

Search for this author in:

De Gruyter De Gruyter Brill | Google Scholar

or

Purchase Chapter PDF

$42.00

Published by

Become an author with De Gruyter Brill

Explore this Subject How to publish with us

This chapter is in the book Figures in the Shadows

2 Papirius Fabianus: voice of a philosopherThis and the following chapters are rooted in a central question: If all quota-tions assigned to a given speaker in Seneca’s collection are taken into account,to what extent does a separate and recognizable identity emerge? The viewthat there is little difference between one declaimer and the next, though Idare say not universal, is common and long-standing in modern scholarship.1It is a view with profound consequences. A single literary identity for the multi-tude of declaimers on record (over 100 in the extant collection) justifies lump-ing them together as a subliterary genre unto themselves, different and inferiorto other, ‘legitimate’ literary genres.2Contained in this question, then, whether it is possible to see meaningfuldistinctions among declaimers, are other questions with far-reaching implica-tions: What would it mean for a declaimer to have a distinct, independent‘speech-identity’? What might such an identity be like? If we seem to detectfeatures of an identity for a speaker, what methods should be used to describethe features? How do we get at the identity and best define it? It is seldom1The question of the individuality of the declaimers is seldom mentioned, since Fairweather1981, 243–325; 1984, 542–543. The idea that the declaimers are pretty much the same is oftenimplicit in modern scholarship, a consequence of the interpretive ‘flattening’ of Seneca’s col-lection (see Introduction). The opinion of the legendary Ulrich von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff1900, 6: “Für unsere Empfindung ist der Gradunterschied des Absurden zwischen allen diesenDeclamatoren gering.” Kroll 1949, 1057, “Auscontroversiaedes P[apirius Fabianus] gibt unsSeneca sechs Proben, aussuasoriaeeine [...]; für uns, denen diese ganze Beredsamkeit wieeine Masse ercheint, zeigen sie kaum einen Unterschied von der Art seiner Kollegen.” GeorgeKennedy 1972, 328, “The literary style of the declamations quoted by Seneca shows some, butnot great, variation.” Duret 1983, 1518, too, believes the language of the declaimers nearlyindistinguishable. Bonner 1949, 63 appears to take the opposite view: “Although there wasclearly a ‘declamatory’ style, individual declaimers differed considerably in diction and com-position.” This view is not substantiated with examples, and it is clear from the context, andreferences to D’Alton 1931 and Norden 1958, that Bonner has in mind a hard division between‘corrupt’ and ‘non-corrupt’ eloquence: some declaimers were Asianists (= corrupt), others not.More on Asianism in Chapter 3.2Studies that consider the influence of declamation on literary authors and try to determineto what extent authors are declamatory, while appearing to be sympathetic to declamation,can in effect be quite the opposite; e.g., Rolland 1906; De Decker 1913; Bonner 1949, 149–167;Bonner 1966; Rayment 1969. Declamation is treated as existing outside literature, a contagioninfecting genuine authors. Belief in the separateness of declamation from literature manifestsitself also in complaints from students of a ‘real’ author when the author is frequently con-fronted with the label “rhetorical”; e.g., Tarrant 1995, in the case of Ovid. Studies comparingdeclamation and literary authors and genres are numerous; for examples, see Berti 2007, 251–358, with bibliography; van Mal-Maeder 2007, 115–145; Casamento 2015.https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110306347-003

You are currently not able to access this content.

Not sure if you should have access? Please log in using an institutional account to see if you have access to view or download this content.

Purchase Chapter PDF

$42.00

2 Papirius Fabianus: voice of a philosopherThis and the following chapters are rooted in a central question: If all quota-tions assigned to a given speaker in Seneca’s collection are taken into account,to what extent does a separate and recognizable identity emerge? The viewthat there is little difference between one declaimer and the next, though Idare say not universal, is common and long-standing in modern scholarship.1It is a view with profound consequences. A single literary identity for the multi-tude of declaimers on record (over 100 in the extant collection) justifies lump-ing them together as a subliterary genre unto themselves, different and inferiorto other, ‘legitimate’ literary genres.2Contained in this question, then, whether it is possible to see meaningfuldistinctions among declaimers, are other questions with far-reaching implica-tions: What would it mean for a declaimer to have a distinct, independent‘speech-identity’? What might such an identity be like? If we seem to detectfeatures of an identity for a speaker, what methods should be used to describethe features? How do we get at the identity and best define it? It is seldom1The question of the individuality of the declaimers is seldom mentioned, since Fairweather1981, 243–325; 1984, 542–543. The idea that the declaimers are pretty much the same is oftenimplicit in modern scholarship, a consequence of the interpretive ‘flattening’ of Seneca’s col-lection (see Introduction). The opinion of the legendary Ulrich von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff1900, 6: “Für unsere Empfindung ist der Gradunterschied des Absurden zwischen allen diesenDeclamatoren gering.” Kroll 1949, 1057, “Auscontroversiaedes P[apirius Fabianus] gibt unsSeneca sechs Proben, aussuasoriaeeine [...]; für uns, denen diese ganze Beredsamkeit wieeine Masse ercheint, zeigen sie kaum einen Unterschied von der Art seiner Kollegen.” GeorgeKennedy 1972, 328, “The literary style of the declamations quoted by Seneca shows some, butnot great, variation.” Duret 1983, 1518, too, believes the language of the declaimers nearlyindistinguishable. Bonner 1949, 63 appears to take the opposite view: “Although there wasclearly a ‘declamatory’ style, individual declaimers differed considerably in diction and com-position.” This view is not substantiated with examples, and it is clear from the context, andreferences to D’Alton 1931 and Norden 1958, that Bonner has in mind a hard division between‘corrupt’ and ‘non-corrupt’ eloquence: some declaimers were Asianists (= corrupt), others not.More on Asianism in Chapter 3.2Studies that consider the influence of declamation on literary authors and try to determineto what extent authors are declamatory, while appearing to be sympathetic to declamation,can in effect be quite the opposite; e.g., Rolland 1906; De Decker 1913; Bonner 1949, 149–167;Bonner 1966; Rayment 1969. Declamation is treated as existing outside literature, a contagioninfecting genuine authors. Belief in the separateness of declamation from literature manifestsitself also in complaints from students of a ‘real’ author when the author is frequently con-fronted with the label “rhetorical”; e.g., Tarrant 1995, in the case of Ovid. Studies comparingdeclamation and literary authors and genres are numerous; for examples, see Berti 2007, 251–358, with bibliography; van Mal-Maeder 2007, 115–145; Casamento 2015.https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110306347-003

You are currently not able to access this content.

Not sure if you should have access? Please log in using an institutional account to see if you have access to view or download this content.

Purchase Chapter PDF

$42.00