Escritura e historia literaria en el <i>Brutus</i>

José Carlos Fernández Corte; Susana González Marín

doi:10.3989/emerita.2013.01.1221

Authors

José Carlos Fernández Corte Universidad de Salamanca
Susana González Marín Universidad de Salamanca

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.3989/emerita.2013.01.1221

Keywords:

Cicero, Brutus, Orality, Writing, auctoritas, Dialog, Chronology, End of Times, Literary History

Abstract

In this paper we try to present Cicero’s Brutus as a product of the tension of that age between writing and orality. The work is a history written in dialogue form whose content is basically a product of orality, the speechs delivered by the most famous roman orators. Cicero, writer of this history, is a speechmaker (orator) as much as a speechwriter who proclaims itself as the pinnacle of the genre thanks to his mastery of writing. Cicero uses the written texts of the orators as the source and also as the support for his critical judgment. From his point of view, writing is a way of development and learning for the orator and one important instrument of inuentio; also, as a result of a continuous practice, writing (and publishing) transforms himself in Cicero hands in a method to extend his auctoritas beyond the circumstances in which the original speech was delivered. Cesar supports Cicero by calling him princeps atque inuentor romanae copiae, a title that, in his view, confers him an auctoritas to judge any work of Latin prose and invent a genre hitherto non-existent in Latin letters, the history of literature.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Barthes, R. 1984 (19671): «Le discours de l’histoire», en Le Bruissement de la langue, Essais Critiques IV, Paris, pp. 163-167.

Butler, S. 2002: The Hand of Cicero, London.

Codoñer, C. 1996: «El diálogo», en Estefanía, D. y Pociña, A. (eds.), Generos Literarios Romanos, Aproximación a su estudio, Madrid, pp. 71-89.

Clackson, J. y Horrocks, G. 2007: The Blackwell History of the Latin Language, Oxford.

Douglas, A. E. (ed.) 1966a: M. Tulli Ciceronis Brutus, Oxford.

Douglas, A. E. (ed.) 1966b: «Oratorum aetates». AJPh 87, pp. 290-306.

Dupont, F. 1994: L’invention de la littérature, de l’ivresse grecque au livre latin, Paris.

Dupont, F. 1997: «Recitatio and the reorganization of the space of public discourse» en Habinek, Th. N. y Schiesaro, A. (eds.), The Roman Cultural Revolution, Cambridge, pp. 44-59.

Dupont, F. 2004: «Comment devenir à Rome un poète bucolique? Corydon, Tityre, Vergile et Pollion», en Calame, C. - Chartier, R. (eds.), Identités d’auteur dans l’Antiquité et la tradition europeénne, Grenoble, pp. 171-189.

Dupont, F. 2009: «The Corrupted Boy and the Crowned Poet: or, The Material Reality and the Symbolic Status of the Literary Book at Rome», en Johnson W. y Parker, H. (eds.), Ancient Literacies, Oxford, pp. 143-162.

Feeney, D. 2007: Caesar’s Calendar: Ancient Time and the Beginnings of History, Berkeley; Los Angeles; London.

González Marín, S. 2003: «Una lista de autores literarios en Plinio el Viejo: Naturalis Historia VII, 107-117», Emerita 71.1, pp. 95-114. http://dx.doi.org/10.3989/emerita.2003.v71.i1.104

Gowing, A. 2000: «Memory and Silence in Cicero’s Brutus», Eranos 98, pp. 39-64.

Habinek, Th. N. 1998: «Writing as Social Performance», en The Politics of Latin Literature: Writing, Identity, and Empire in Ancient Rome, Princeton, pp. 103-21.

Habinek, Th. N. 2009: «Situating Literacy at Rome», en Johnson, W. y Parker, H. (eds.), Ancient Literacies, Oxford, pp. 46-68.

Hardie, Ph. y Moore, H. (eds.) 2010: Classical Literary Careers and their Reception, Cambridge. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511778872

Hinds, S. 1998: Allusion and Intertext: Dynamics of Appropriation in Roman Poetry, Cambridge.

Humbert, J. 1925: Les plaidoyers écrits et les plaidoiries réelles de Cicéron, Paris.

Kennedy, G. 1985: Classical Rhetoric and its Christian and Secular Tradition from Ancient to Modern Times, Chapell Hill.

Kytzler, B. 1973 (19701): «Ciceros Literarische Leistung im Brutus», en Kytzler, B. (ed.), Ciceros Literarische Leistung, Darmstadt, pp. 460-488.

López Eire, A. 2002: Poéticas y Retóricas griegas, Madrid.

Mañas, M. 2000: «Introducción», de Cicerón, Bruto, Madrid.

Moatti, C. 2008 (19971): La razón de Roma: el nacimiento del espíritu crítico a fines de la República, Madrid.

Muckelbauer, J. 2003: «Imitation and Invention in Antiquity: An Historical-Theoretical Revision», Rhetorica 21.2, pp. 61-88. http://dx.doi.org/10.1525/rh.2003.21.2.61

Narducci, E. 2002: «Brutus: The History of Roman Eloquence», en May, J. M. (ed.), Brill’s Companion to Cicero: Oratory and Rhetoric, Leiden, pp. 401-425.

Novara, A. 1982-1983: Les idées romaines sur le progrès d’après les écrivains de la République: Essai sur le sens latin du progrès, 2 vols, Paris.

Perkins, D. 1993: Is Literary History Possible?, Baltimore.

Rodríguez Mayorgas, A. 2007: La memoria de Roma: oralidad, escritura e historia en la república romana, Oxford.

Schwindt, J.P. 2000: Prolegomena zu einer Phänomenologie der römischen Literaturgeschichtsschreibung - Von den Anfängen bis Quintilian. Götingen. PMCid:PMC1734619

Sinclair, P. 1995: «Political Declensions in Latin Grammar and Oratory 55 BCE-CE 39», en Boyle, J. (ed.), Roman Literature and Ideology, Ramus Essays for J. F. Sullivan, Bendigo, pp. 92-109.

Sumner, G. V. 1973: Orators in Cicero’s Brutus: Prosopography and Chronology, Toronto.

White, P. 2009: «Bookshops in the Literary Culture of Rome», en Johnson, W. y Parker, H. (eds.), Ancient Literacies, Oxford, pp. 268-287.

Wisse, J. 2002: «The intellectual Background of Cicero’s Rhetorical Works», en May, J. M. (ed.), Brill’s Companion to Cicero: Oratory and Rhetoric, Leiden, pp. 331-374.