Cookies Policy

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies.

I accept this policy

Find out more here

Cicero de Oratore 2.51-64 and Rhetoric in Historiography

No metrics data to plot.
The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.
The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.
MyBook is a cheap paperback edition of the original book and will be sold at uniform, low price.

Buy this article

$30.00+ Tax (if applicable)
Add to Favorites

image of Mnemosyne

An analysis of Cicero's vocabulary, argumentation, and views on Greek historians in de Orat. 2.51-8 shows that he criticizes the early Roman historians for failings in both style and content. This contradicts A.J. Woodman's claim that the views of Cicero's 'Antonius' have “nothing to do with style”. Furthermore the idea that Cicero considered the exaedificatio of an historical work not to be subject to the leges historiae is based on a mistaken interpretation of de Orat. 2.63. It is argued that this text provides no theoretical foundation for a “hard core” of material subject to the leges historiae and a “superstructure” subject only to the rhetorical requirement of plausibility.


Article metrics loading...


Affiliations: 1: University of Leiden, Faculty of Arts, Department of History, P.O. Box 9515, 2300 RA Leiden, The Netherlands;, Email:


Can't access your account?
  • Tools

  • Add to Favorites
  • Printable version
  • Email this page
  • Subscribe to email alerts
  • Get permissions
  • Recommend to your library

    You must fill out fields marked with: *

    Librarian details
    Your details
    Why are you recommending this title?
    Select reason:
    Mnemosyne — Recommend this title to your library

    Thank you

    Your recommendation has been sent to your librarian.

  • Export citations
  • Key

  • Full access
  • Open Access
  • Partial/No accessInformation