istorica lovenica

H S

letnik 15 (2015), S tudia H istorica S lovenica

istorica lovenica

H S ^{istorica lovenica}

^asopis za humanisti~ne in dru`boslovne {tudije H u m a n i t i e s a n d S o c i a l S t u d i e s R e v i e w

3

2015

Fotografija na naslovnici / Photography on the cover:

Prof. dr. Andrej Vovko (1947-2015) Professor Andrej Vovko, Ph. D. (1947-2015) JANJA ŽMAVC: "Post autem auditis oratoribus Graecis...": Some Notes

on Intercultural Perspective of Classical Rhetoric

MATJAŽ RAVBAR: Maistrova eskadrilja : letalci v Mariboru v letih 1918 in 1919

GREGOR PIVEC: Sanitetna služba Maistrove vojske

ALENKA KORON: Tematizacije vélike vojne pri Jušu Kozaku JOŽICA ČEH STEGER: Stanko Majcen in vélika vojna

KATJA MIHURKO PONIŽ: Prva svetovna vojna v delih slovenskih književnic

BRANISLAVA VIČAR: Vloga vojaka v spomenikih prve svetovne vojne: ideološka reprezentacija vojne v tridimenzionalnih objektih MATEJA MATJAŠIČ FRIŠ: Izvrševanje "poslednje volje" dr. Pavla Turnerja

URŠKA LAMPE: Od prve svetovne vojne do Konvencije o ravnanju z vojnimi ujetniki (1929)

VINKO SKITEK: Nemška poštna služba v Mežiški dolini med drugo svetovno vojno

TOMAŽ IVEŠIĆ: "Compared to Him the Prisoners are Innocent People'': The Fall of Milovan Djilas (1948–1954)

ANDREJ STOPAR: New Relations in the Crumbling Times: Emerging Slovenia's Independence in Russian Diplomatic Sources (1990–1992)

H S ^{istorica lovenica}

S tudia H istorica S lovenica

Časopis za humanistične in družboslovne študije Humanities and Social Studies Review

letnik 15 (2015), št. 3

ZRI DR. FRANCA KOVAČIČA V MARIBORU

Izdajatelj / Published by

ZGODOVINSKO DRUŠTVO DR. FRANCA KOVAČIČA V MARIBORU/

HISTORICAL SOCIETY OF DR. FRANC KOVAČIČ IN MARIBOR http://www.zgodovinsko-drustvo-kovacic.si ZRI DR. FRANCA KOVAČIČA V MARIBORU/

ZRI DR. FRANC KOVAČIČ IN MARIBOR Uredniški odbor / Editorial Board

dr. Ivo Banac (ZDA / USA), dr. Rajko Bratuž, dr. Neven Budak (Hrvaška / Croatia), dr. Jožica Čeh Steger, dr. Darko Darovec, dr. Darko Friš, dr. Stane Granda, dr. Andrej Hozjan, dr. Tomaž Kladnik, dr. Mateja Matjašič Friš, dr. Aleš Maver, dr. Jože Mlinarič, dr. Jurij Perovšek,

dr. Jože Pirjevec (Italija / Italy), dr. Dragan Potočnik, dr. Tone Ravnikar, dr. Imre Szilágyi (Madžarska / Hungary), dr. Peter Štih, dr. Andrej Vovko †,

dr. Marija Wakounig (Avstrija / Austria), dr. Zinka Zorko Odgovorni urednik / Responsible Editor

dr. Darko Friš

Zgodovinsko društvo dr. Franca Kovačiča Koroška cesta 160, SI – 2000 Maribor, Slovenija

telefon / Phone: 00386 2 229 36 58 fax / Fax: 00386 2 229 36 25 e-pošta / e-mail: darko.fris@um.si Glavni urednik / Chief Editor

dr. Mateja Matjašič Friš

Članki so recenzirani. Za znanstveno vsebino prispevkov so odgovorni avtorji.

Ponatis člankov je mogoč samo z dovoljenjem uredništva in navedbo vira.

The articles have been reviewed. The authors are solely responsible for the content of their articles.

No part of this publication may be reproduced without the publisher's prior consent and a full mention of the source.

Žiro račun / Bank Account: Nova KBM d.d.

SI 56041730001421147

Prevajanje / Translation: David Hazemali, Uroš Turnšek, Rok Gorjup Lektoriranje / Language-editing dr. Ines Voršič

Oblikovanje naslovnice / Cover Design: Knjižni studio d.o.o.

Oblikovanje in računalniški prelom /

Design and Computer Typesetting: Knjižni studio d.o.o.

Tisk / Printed by: Itagraf d.o.o.

http: //shs.zgodovinsko-drustvo-kovacic.si

Izvlečke prispevkov v tem časopisu objavljata 'Historical – Abstracts' in 'America: History and Life'.

Časopis je uvrščen v 'Ulrich's Periodicals Directory', evropsko humanistično bazo ERIH in mednarodno bibliografsko bazo Scopus (H).

Abstracts of this review are included in 'Historical – Abstracts' and 'America: History and Life'.

This review is included in 'Ulrich's Periodicals Directory', european humanistic database ERIH and international database Scopus (H).

H S ^{istorica lovenica}

Ka za lo / Con tents

V spomin/ In Memoriam

MATEJA MATJAŠIČ FRIŠ, DARKO FRIŠ, MARTIN GRUM: V spomin

– prof. dr. Andrej Vovko (1947–2015) ...479 STANE GRANDA: In Memoriam – prof. dr. Andrej Vovko (1947–2015) ...485

Član ki in raz pra ve / Pa pers and Es says

JANJA ŽMAVC: "Post autem auditis oratoribus Graecis...": Some Notes

on Intercultural Perspective of Classical Rhetoric ...491

"Post autem auditis oratoribus graecis...": nekaj opomb k medkulturnem vidiku klasične retorike

MATJAŽ RAVBAR: Maistrova eskadrilja : letalci v Mariboru v

letih 1918 in 1919 ...511 Maister Squadron : Pilots in Maribor between 1918 and 1919

GREGOR PIVEC: Sanitetna služba Maistrove vojske ...533 Sanitary Services of the General Maister's Army

ALENKA KORON: Tematizacije vélike vojne pri Jušu Kozaku ...549 Representations of the Great War in Juš Kozak

JOŽICA ČEH STEGER: Stanko Majcen in vélika vojna ...565 Stanko Majcen and the Great War

KATJA MIHURKO PONIŽ: "Prva svetovna vojna v delih

slovenskih književnic ...577 The Great War in the Works of Slovenian Female Writers

BRANISLAVA VIČAR: "Vloga vojaka v spomenikih prve svetovne vojne:

ideološka reprezentacija vojne v tridimenzionalnih objektih ...595 The Role of a Soldier in First World War Monuments: Ideological

Representation of the War in Three-Dimensional Objects

H S S

tudia

istorica lovenica

MATEJA MATJAŠIČ FRIŠ: Izvrševanje "poslednje volje"

dr. Pavla Turnerja ...621 Enforcing the "Last Will" of Dr. Pavel Turner

URŠKA LAMPE: Od prve svetovne vojne do Konvencije

o ravnanju z vojnimi ujetniki (1929) ...649 From the First World War to the Convention relative to the

Treatment of Prisoners of War (1929)

VINKO SKITEK: Nemška poštna služba v Mežiški dolini med

drugo svetovno vojno ... 661 German Postal Service in the Meža Valley during

the Second World War

TOMAŽ IVEŠIĆ: ''Compared to Him the Prisoners are Innocent People'':

The Fall of Milovan Djilas (1948–1954) ... 677 ''V primerjavi z njim so zaporniki nedolžni ljudje'': padec

Milovana Đilasa (1948–1954)

ANDREJ STOPAR: New Relations in the Crumbling Times: Emerging Slovenia's Independence in Russian Diplomatic Sources

(1990–1992) ... 709 Novi odnosi v razpadajočem času: vzpostavljanje slovenske

osamosvojitve v ruskih diplomatskih virih (1990–1992)

Avtorski izvlečki / Authors' Abstracts

Uredniška navodila avtorjem /

Editor's Instructions to Authors

S tudia H istorica S lovenica /

letnik / year 15 (2015)

H S ^{istorica lovenica}

H S ^{istorica lovenica}

V spomin /

In memoriam

V spomin – prof. dr. Andrej Vovko (1947–2015)

Andrej Vovko, zgodovinar, muzealec, univerzitetni profesor, prvi predstojnik Inštituta za slovensko izseljenstvo in migracije ter prvi predstojnik Inštituta za kulturno zgodovino ZRC SAZU (r. 22. 3. 1947, Seeboden, Avstrija; u. 5. 9. 2015, Ljubljana). Oče Vladimir, uslužbenec, mati Vida, r. Lovrenčič, hčerka pesnika in pisatelja Jože Lovrenčiča in Antoinette Manzoni, pranečakinje pesnika Alessan- dra Manzonija.¹

5. septembra 2015 smo izgubili dragega prijatelja in sodelavca znanstvene- ga svetnika izrednega profesorja dr. Andreja Vovka.

Rodil se je 22. marca 1947 v begunskem taborišču v Seebodnu na avstri- jskem Koroškem. Tako kot so ga 'zaznamovale' kraj in okoliščine rojstva, je bila za njegovo nadaljnjo življenjsko pot še pomembnejša odločitev matere, da se s komaj rojenim sinom kljub negotovi prihodnosti vrne v domovino. Osnov- no šolo in gimnazijo je obiskoval v Ljubljani. Nad matematiko navdušenega in nadarjenega dijaka pa je pot zanesla v humanistične vode. Leta 1972 je diplo- miral iz zgodovine in zgodovine umetnosti na Filozofski fakulteti Univerze v Ljubljani. Istega leta je za svojo diplomsko nalogo o La Yougoslavie, reviji slov- enske federalistične emigracije v Švici med I. svetovno vojno, prejel študentsko Prešernovo nagrado. 1978 je na Filozofski fakulteti v Ljubljani magistriral s temo Slovenski begunci iz Italije med prvo in drugo svetovno vojno in oktobra 1992 na isti fakulteti doktoriral z disertacijo Družba Sv. Cirila in Metoda : 1885–1918.

Njegova znanstvenoraziskovalna, uredniška, pedagoška in upravna dejav-

1 To so zapisali v New York Timesu, 19. 11. 2015 v članku, posvečenem Nini Lenček. Andrej ni tega nikoli omenil.

nost je bila zelo razvejana. Od leta 1972 do 1976 je bil asistent na Inštitutu za narodnostna vprašanja v Ljubljani, nato od 1976 do 1985 kustos ter od 1985 do 1987 višji kustos v Slovenskem šolskem muzeju v Ljubljani. 1. novembra 1987 je postal višji raziskovalni sodelavec na Inštitutu za slovensko izseljenstvo Znanstvenoraziskovalnega centra SAZU in od 1. decembra 1987 do 31. maja 1992 njegov upravnik. Marca 1993 je bil izvoljen v naziv višjega znanstvenega sodelavca. Bil je glavni urednik revije 1. in 2.–3. številke Two Homelands/ Dve domovini, ki sta izšli leta 1990 oziroma 1992, bil pa je tudi glavni urednik Valva- sorjevega zbornika, ki je izšel leta 1990.

Od 1. avgusta.1993 do 31. julija 1997 je bil ravnatelj Slovenskega šolske- ga muzeja v Ljubljani, nato do 30. aprila 1998 njegov v.d. direktorja. Decembra 1996 je pridobil naziv muzejski svetnik. V letih 1993–97 je bil odgovorni ure- dnik Šolske kronike in od 1997 dalje član njenega uredništva; od prve številke

Prof. dr. Andrej Vovko (Foto: Gregor Jenuš)

leta 2001 dalje tudi član uredništva znanstvene revije za humanistične in druž- boslovne študije Studia historica Slovenica (SHS) in član glavnega uredništva Enciklopedije Slovenije.

Od 1. maja 1998 je bil zaposlen na Inštitutu za slovensko literaturo in lite- rarne vede, v Sekciji za biografiko, bibliografijo in dokumentacijo. Maja 1998 je bil izvoljen v naziv znanstveni svetnik. Po preoblikovanju Sekcije v Inštitut za biografiko in bibliografijo Znanstvenoraziskovalnega centra SAZU je bil od januarja 2000 do 2009 predstojnik omenjenega inštituta (maja 2005 se je pre- imenoval v Inštitut za kulturno zgodovino Znanstvenoraziskovalnega centra SAZU). Bil je tudi pobudnik in prvi urednik inštitutske zbirke Življenja in dela, Biografske in bibliografske študije, kjer so kot prvi zvezek v zbirki izšla Poskusna gesla za novi Slovenski biografski leksikon. Upokojil se je avgusta 2010.

Bibliografija prof. dr. Andreja Vovka je vsebinsko zelo raznolika. Več kot štirideset let je sistematično in poglobljeno proučeval predvsem novejšo in sodobno slovensko zgodovino: zamejska, izseljenska vprašanja, vprašanja šol- ske zgodovine, zgodovine Primorske, posebno beguncev v kraljevino Jugosla- vijo v letih med obema svetovnima vojnama, zgodovino slovenskih narodno- -obrambnih in narodno-prebudnih društev ter založb in organizacij za pomoč izseljencem, predvsem Družbe sv. Cirila in Metoda, Družbe sv. Mohorja in Slo- venske matice.

Med knjižnimi objavami s teh področij so najpomembnejše: Šolstvo na Slo- venskem skozi stoletja, Slovenski šolski muzej, Ljubljana 1987, 200 str. (soavtor Jože Ciperle), Mal položi dar..., Portret slovenske narodnoobrambne šolske orga- nizacije Družbe sv. Cirila in Metoda 1885–1918, Slovenska matica, Ljubljana 1994, 237 str., Nasmejana zgodovina, Popotovanje skozi čas v 189 nasmehih, Mladinska knjiga, Ljubljana 1996, 199 str., Prvih sto let Kranjsko slovenske kato- liške jednote, Izseljensko društvo Slovenija v svetu, Založba Ilex,, Ljubljana 1997, 294 str (soavtorja Darko Friš in Bogdan Kolar), Odborniki in članstvo podru- žnic Družbe sv. Cirila in Metoda 1885–1918, Življenja in dela, Biografske in bibliografske študije 2, Založba ZRC SAZU, Ljubljana 2004, 520 str. Omenjena knjižna dela in njegovi številni znanstveni ter strokovni članki (več kot 1.000, vseh objav je še bistveno več) so praviloma napisani z jasno vodilno mislijo in vedno zavezani resnici. Dr. Vovko sodi v generacijo zgodovinarjev, rojenih takoj po 2. svetovni vojni, ki so s svežim pristopom pomembno doprinesli k novim spoznanjem na področju slovenskega zgodovinopisja. Dragocen prispevek k promociji in popularizaciji slovenske znanstvene in druge knjižne ustvarjalno- sti pa predstavlja njegovih več kot 400 objavljenih knjižnih ocen.

Z referati in drugimi prispevki je sodeloval na preko štiridesetih znanstve- nih simpozijih in posvetovanjih doma in preko desetih v tujini (Trst, Miami, Rim, Pariz, Dubrovnik, Boca Raton, St. Louis). Prispevki s teh simpozijev so bili objavljeni v domačih in tujih publikacijah. V okviru znanstvenega sodelovanja

s Francijo je oktobra 1988 znanstveno-raziskovalno deloval v pariških Držav- nem arhivu in Nacionalni biblioteki z enomesečno francosko državno štipen- dijo.

Zanimanje in dejavnost dr. Vovka pa je segala tudi na številna področja javnega življenja, kar dokazuje veliko število poljudnoznanstvenih prispevkov, s katerimi je pomembno deloval tudi za približevanje zgodovine širši publiki, med njimi še posebej otrokom s svojimi hudomušnimi prispevki za Veselo šolo Pionirskega lista.

Bogato znanje in izkušenost dolgoletnega raziskovalca zgodovine sta odli- kovala tudi njegovo pedagoško delo. Marca 1999 je bil na mariborski univer- zi habilitiran za docenta za novejšo in sodobno zgodovino, od šolskega leta 1999/2000 dalje je predaval novejšo kulturno zgodovino na Oddelku za socio- logijo mariborske Pedagoške fakultete, od šolskega leta 2004 do 2009 pa pred- met Muzeologija in 2011–14 Kulturno zgodovino na Oddelku za zgodovino Filozofske fakultete v Mariboru. Oktobra 2004 je bil na Univerzi v Mariboru izvoljen v naziv izrednega profesorja za novejšo in sodobno zgodovino. Odli- koval ga je pravi človeški odnos do študentov, ki so znali ceniti njegov skoraj 'očetovski' nastop. Pod njegovim mentorstvom in somentorstvom je nastalo več kot 194 diplomskih nalog, štiri magistrske naloge in ena doktorska diserta- cija, kar je za relativno kratek pedagoški 'staž' izredno bogata bera.

Udejstvoval se je tudi v slovenskem društvenem in političnem življenju.

Bil je ustanovni in častni član ter predsednik izseljenskega društva Slovenija v svetu, vodja strokovne skupine za manjšine in izseljence pri Ministrstvu za kulturo, član slovenskega dela slovensko-italijanske zgodovinske komisije, član Komisije Vlade Republike Slovenije za reševanje vprašanj prikritih grobišč.

Kot eden od ustanovnih članov Nove Slovenije je leta 2000 kandidiral na državnozborskih volitvah.

Široka razgledanost, delavnost, vztrajnost, osebna in strokovna poštenost, pa tudi pravičnost, skromnost in duhovitost so vrline, ki so odlikovale našega prijatelja, med kolegi in študenti izredno priljubljenega profesorja dr. Andre- ja Vovka. S kopico šal in anekdot, ki jih je z lahkoto stresal iz rokava, je znal popestriti tako strokovna predavanja kot tudi priložnostna prijateljska omizja.

Le njemu najbližji pa vemo, da je kot skrben kronist časa in dogodkov dolga leta pisal dnevnik, v najnižjem predalu delovne mize pa shranjeval najgloblje misli in čustva, ki jih je v tihi samoti v pesniški obliki prelival na papir. Pesmi je v periodiki objavljal samo v mladosti. Te, ki so nastale v zadnjem obdobju njegovega življenja, je izdal le nekaj tednov pred smrtjo v zbirki Otočje oka- menele tišine. Temeljne teme v njegovem pesništvu, ki prehaja od sklenjenih oblik k svobodnemu verzu, so iskanje Ljubezni in Resnice ter zlasti vprašanja in občutja, ki jih porajata minevanje in smrt.

Dr. Andrej Vovko je v sebi združeval lastnosti odličnega raziskovalca, dobrega pedagoga-učitelja, zlasti pa človeka v pravem pomenu besede in prijatelja. S svojim delom, ki ga ne bi bilo mogoče opraviti brez njemu lastne vztrajnosti, prizadevnosti in požrtvovalnosti, se je trajno zapisal med pomembne osebno- sti slovenskega znanstvenoraziskovalnega, kulturnega in društvenega življenja.

Dragi prijatelj, pogrešamo te, v naših srcih boš živel večno!

Mateja Matjašič Friš

Dr., znanstvena sodelavka UKC Maribor, Oddelek za znastveno raziskovalno delo

Darko Friš

Dr., redni profesor Filozofska fakulteta Maribor, Oddelek za zgodovino

Martin Grum

Samostojni strokovni sodelavec specialist v humanistiki ZRC SAZU, Inštitut za kulturno zgodovino

In memoriam:

prof. dr. Andrej Vovko (1947–2015)

Tisto, kar je najbližjim in prijateljem že nekaj časa napovedoval, se je dopolni- lo: naš prijatelj in kolega prof. dr. Andrej Vovko nam je odšel utirat pot v več- nost. Ni prvi iz naše generacije. Podobno usodo je kot prvi in najmlajši iz naše generacije že davnega 1990. leta zaradi sorodne bolezni dočakal zgodovinar in arheolog Zorko Harej.

Andrej nas je nase opozoril že ob začetku študija zgodovine s svojo bistri- no, samozavestjo, z jasnostjo misli in stališč ter za naše takratne razmere veli- kim znanjem tujih jezikov. Pristnejši osebni stik je ustvarilo moje zanimanje za njegov dolenjski priimek. Prav to je tudi povzročilo, da mi je povedal, da se je rodil kot otrok beguncev v Seebodnu, da očeta ni nikoli poznal niti v živo videl, da živi pri mami in stari mami in da je aktiven v študentskih veroučnih skupinah. Spoznal sem, da se čuti zelo povezanega na rodbino starega očeta Jožo Lavrenčiča, ki je bil v času med obema vojnama priznan narodni delavec, pesnik in pisatelj ter urednik. S tem je bil močno navezan tudi na Goriško. Šele kasneje sem izvedel, da je nečak znanega slavista Lenčka, daljnega sorodstva z italijanskim pesnikom Alessandrom Manzonijem pa mi ni nikoli omenil. Vseka- kor je bilo takoj jasno, da je revolucija Andrejevo življenje v mnogih ozirih zelo zaznamovala, da je njeno breme, čeprav kot otrok, rojen po II. svetovni vojni, brez lastne krivde, trajno nosil na sebi. Že kot otroku, sinu in mladeniču brez očeta mu resnično ni bilo lahko. Verjetno je prav zato, da bi ta ideološki pritisk nad seboj zlomil, mislil na študij matematike. Strast in ljubezen do zgodovine sta zmagali in zlasti na drugi stopnji, ko se je otresel zahtev študija umetno- stne zgodovine, je postal eden stebrov Zwitterjevega seminarja. To je konkre- tno pomenilo odločitev za raziskovalno delo in posebno skrb do vseh vidikov slovenskega narodnega vprašanja. Posvetil se je narodnoobrambnim orga- nizacijam. Študij je končal s Prešernovo nagrado za študente. Po tem velikem

dosežku je doživel grenko razočaranje. Dr. Tone Ferenc ga je povabil na Inštitut za zgodovino delavskega gibanja v Ljubljani. Ko je bilo praktično že vse dogo- vorjeno, je privihral k njemu njegov direktorski predhodnik, sicer visok poli- tični funkcionar, nekdanji krščanski socialist, in od njega zahteval, da Vovka ne sprejme. Svojo zahtevo je utemeljeval z očitkom, da je v časopisu Družina obja- vil neko pesem, bila je v spomin pokojnemu prijatelju, in da človek, ki objavlja v verskem časopisu, ne more biti zaposlen na takem inštitutu. Ferenc je moral popustiti. Domnevam, da je omenjena oseba dobila informacije z inštituta od enega Ferenčevih nasprotnikov. Nekaj podobnega je Andrej kasneje doživel še na Inštitutu za narodnostna vprašanja.

Kot je bilo že omenjeno, nas je akad. Zwitter usmerjal v raziskave nacional- ne problematike. Andrej Vovko je zato najprej raziskoval primorske begunce med obema svetovnima vojnama in študij zaključil z odmevnim magisterijem.

Po njem se je posvetil vprašanju šolstva, kar mu je dalo podlago za disertaci-

jo o narodnoobrambnem društvu sv. Cirila in Metoda. Svoj znanstveni višek je nedvomno dosegel v sodelovanju z veliko mednarodno skupino evropskih zgodovinarjev, financirala jih je Evropska znanstvena fundacija, ki so raziskova- li nevladujoče narode v Evropi. Izjemno vesel je bil tudi možnosti univerzitetne kariere v Mariboru, čeprav je bila ta honorarna. Že po upokojitvi, predavanja v Mariboru so mu ostala, mi je zaupal, da ga delo s študenti najbolj uresničuje.

Andrejeva obsežna bibliografija s sodelovanjem v številnih revijah in zbornikih, še posebno rad je pisal za otroke in mladino v njihove specializirane publikaci- je, samo potrjuje njegov razkošni znanstveni in kulturni talent.

Andrej je med svojim službovanjem zamenjal kar nekaj institucij. Bil je v Slovenskem šolskem muzeju, na Inštitutu za narodnostna vprašanja, če se prav spomnim, celo na spomeniškem varstvu, kjer naj bi skrbel za partizanske gro- bove, in na inštitutih Slovenske akademije znanosti in umetnosti. Delovnih mest ni menjal, ker bi bil nemiren, ampak zato, ker je bil kot ugleden strokov- njak zaprošen, da prevzame določene naloge. Nekajkrat je moral prevzeti celo vodilne funkcije, kar pa mu ni najbolj uspevalo, ker je bil predober in preveč obziren. Ni znal reči ne.

Naš kolega in prijatelj je bil zelo širok človek. Rad je polno živel. Kot gimna- zijec je bil vnet planinec. Takrat je nekoliko zapadel v duševni krog Klementa Juga. Presenečal nas je s fantastičnim poznavanjem orožja in oborožitvene teh- nike II. svetovne vojne. Njegova specialnost so bila vojaška letala.

Slovensko osamosvojitev in demokratizacijo je navdušeno sprejel. Postal je politični komentator Radia Ognjišče in časopisa Slovenec. Takrat je celo pomi- šljal na politično kariero. K sreči ni bil uspešen, ker je bil prepošten in preveč naiven. Andrej ni bil politikant, ni bil politično nestrpen, pa tudi ne trgovec s svojimi načeli. Zlasti je odklanjal kakršno koli sodelovanje s totalitaristično preteklostjo. Posebno se mu je upiralo politično ali ideološko kolaboriranje s komunisti. To je pri svojih idejnih sopotnikih označil za klerikalni socializem. Iz razočaranja nad politiko, mislim predvsem na krščanske demokrate, je potem zaradi svojega odnosa do resnice postal aktiven in viden član Nove sloven- ske zaveze. Kasneje se je popolnoma predal Izseljenskemu društvu Slovenija v svetu, katerega ustanovni in častni član ter predsednik je bil.

Andrej Vovko je bil velik Slovenec. Izjemno je ljubil družino svoje mame, svojo družino, neskončno je bil predan in zvest Katoliški cerkvi. Ni bil pristaš klerikalizma, ampak je vselej hotel biti odličen katoliški laik. Zdi se mi, da je bilo v njem nekaj mladčevskega, v najboljšem smislu besede. Nekoliko prikrita strast pa je bila literatura, zlasti pesnikovanje. Genov starega očeta Lavrenčiča, kateremu je bil po zunanjosti nemalo podoben, ni mogel zatajiti. Tisti, ki ste Andreju pomagali, da se je od nas poslovil s pesniško zbirko, ste opravili veliko delo. Strokovnjaki pravijo, da je nekaj verzifikacij vrhunskih.

sporoča:

Že kmalu, kmalu, tako bom, moji dragi,

sam k vam molče prihajal vasovat.

Sprejmimo ga in živimo z njim naprej.

Stane Granda

Dr., znanstveni svetnik ZRC SAZU, Zgodovinski inštitut Milka Kosa

H S ^{istorica lovenica}

Članki in razprave /

Papers and Essays

UDC 808.5(37/38):316.722 1.01 Original Scientific Paper

"Post autem auditis oratoribus Graecis..." : Some Notes on Intercultural Perspective of Classical Rhetoric

Janja Žmavc

Ph.D., Associate Professor Educational Research Institute Ljubljana Gerbičeva 62, Sl – 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia e-mail: janja.zmavc@gmail.com

Abstract:

In the paper we explore Greco-Roman rhetoric (also known as classical rhetoric) from the perspective of intercultural communication. Defining rhetoric as a means of interaction between Greek and Roman culture we investigate some of its theoretical and socio-cultural aspects and elucidate rhetoric as: 1) established discipline of public persuasion; 2) connecting socio- cultural component, which as an evolving discipline encouraged and to a certain degree even created intercultural encounters between ancient Greeks and Romans. In order to establish a connection between rhetoric as a discipline and rhetoric as an inter/cross-cultural phenomenon we explore characteristics of public speaking in ancient Greece and Rome and present some of the

"rhetorical" encounters of both cultures.

Key words:

classical rhetoric, Greeks, Romans, intercultural communication

Studia Historica Slovenica Humanities and Social Studies Review Maribor, 15 (2015), No. 1, pp. 491–510, 35 notes, 3 pictures Language: Original in English (Abstract in English and Slovene, Summary in Slovene)

Introduction: Intercultural Communication and Classical Rhetoric A widely known and well-researched fact in contemporary rhetoric, as well as in any other theoretical disciplines associated with the field of (public) disco- urse, is that the tradition of rhetoric as the art of successful public persuasion, which dates back to ancient Greece and Rome, has dominated the entire Euro- pean (and Western) culture until the present-day.¹ In spite of its highly turbu- lent development, with no shortage of dramatic rises and falls throughout the 2,500 years of its history, rhetoric today remains a fundamental tool of public activity as well as it represents a necessary starting point in the field of research of language and communication.²

In this paper we turn back to beginnings of rhetoric and try to shed light on some of its aspects through the lens of intercultural communication. Begin- ning with Edward T. Hall's conceptualizations about the relationship between culture and communication in the second half of 20^th century this contem- porary approach to communication became a vibrant discipline with various theoretical approaches including more recent distinctions such as for example inter and cross-cultural aspects of communication as well as practical dimen- sion in developing an intercultural competence.³ Drawing upon general defi- nitions about culture as a set of shared interpretations about believes, values, norms and social practices that affect certain group of people and language as

1 Cf. George A. Kennedy, Klasična retorika ter njena krščanska in posvetna tradicija od antike do sodob- nosti. Prevedle Nada Grošelj … [et al.] (Ljubljana, 2001).

2 Among large corpus of bibliography related to the research of historical, theoretical and practical dimensions of rhetoric let us mention only two recent handbooks where the latest advances in rhe- torical scholarship can be found: Andrea A. Lunsford et al. (eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Rhetorical Studies (London–New Delhi, 2009); Frans H. van Eemeren et al. (eds.), Handbook of Argumentation Theory (Dordrecht, 2014). It is also worth mentioning that although the starting points of rhetoric as constitutive element of active participation in modern democratic societies date back to the 1980s with Habermas' work, in recent years rhetoric has been noticeably present in conceptualisations of (active) citizenship, European democratic systems and policies, inter-, cross-, multi-culturality etc.

Simultaneously, rhetoric (as a part of communication and social competencies) is becoming an important part of European policies and strategies in the field of lifelong learning. However, it needs to be pointed out that this kind of activity is mostly associated with the tradition of Western European and North American countries, whereas a common symptom is reflected in the former communist countries: in the period of their existence, communist regimes eliminated rhetoric from education as 'dangerous discipline' and its revival did not take place until these regimes were abolished in the 1990's. Cf. also Janja Žmavc, Vloga in pomen jezika v državljanski vzgoji: komunikacijska kompetenca kot nujna sestavina odgovornega državljanstva (Ljubljana, 2011).

3 The term "intercultural communication” was first used in Edward T. Hall's book The Silent Language (New York, 1959) and he is generally acknowledged to be the founder of the field. For the latest advances and diverse perspectives in the research of intercultural communication see William B.

Gudykunst and Bella Mody, Handbook of International and Intercultural Communication (London and New Delhi, 2002) and Jane Jackson, The Routledge Handbook of Language and Intercultural Communication (London–New York, 2012).

one of its main component, which is common to all cultures,⁴ as well as some recent intercultural approaches in the research of classical antiquity⁵, we begin our paper with a working definition of classical rhetoric as a means of inter- action between two cultural entities. Such conception of rhetoric is based on a socio-cultural perspective where rhetoric is seen "as a cultural construct that is embedded within its society" and whose domain is not only public speaking but represents "a body of ideas and practices that radiates into manifold aspects" of the Greco-Roman world.⁶ Our definition of classical rhetoric also refers to one of the most common definitions in the theory of intercultural communication:

Intercultural communication is the symbolic exchange process whereby individ- uals from two (or more) different cultural communities negotiate shared mean- ings in an interactive situation.⁷

In such referential framework we are particularly interested in investigat- ing rhetoric as a process and as a tool of interaction between two cultural enti- ties, the circumstance, which we will try to elaborate in the following sections.

Furthermore, when we think about rhetoric as a kind of universal strategy of communication, there is a connection between rhetoric and its intercultural and cross-cultural value. Namely, as a system of concepts, principles, notions that enable a construction of persuasive message rhetoric is applicable to dif- ferent cultural communities and can serve as a means for negotiating shared meaning in interaction.⁸

The focus of our paper is Greco-Roman rhetoric (also known as classical rhetoric) and by bringing to the front some of its theoretical as well as socio- cultural aspects we will try to illustrate its functional role within the phenom- enon of Greek and Roman culture. We will argue for this point of view by dis- cussing classical rhetoric as: 1) an established discipline of public persuasion, which served as a means of active participation in political, social and cultural world of Greeks and Romans (a tool); 2) a connecting socio-cultural compo- nent, which as an evolving discipline encouraged and to a certain degree even created intercultural encounters between ancient Greeks and Romans (a pro-

4 Larry A. Samovar et al., Communication Between Cultures. Eighth edition (Boston, 2007): 36ss. ‬

5 Kostas Vlassopoulos, Greeks and Barbarians (Cambridge, 2013) (hereinafter: Vlassopoulos, Greeks and Barbarians).

6 John Dugan, "Modern Critical Approaches to Roman Rhetoric,” in: A Companion to Roman Rhetoric, eds. W. Dominik and J. Hall (Malden, 2007, 9–22), 16.

7 Stella Ting-Toomey, Communicating across cultures (New York, 1999), 16.

8 For conception of rhetoric as universally applicable strategies of persuasion see George A. Kennedy, Comparative Rhetoric. An Historical and Cross-Cultural Introduction (Oxford–New York, 1998) (hereinafter: Kennedy, Comparative Rhetoric).

cess). In order to establish a connection between rhetoric as a discipline and rhetoric as an inter/cross-cultural phenomenon we first demonstrate some characteristics of public speaking in ancient Greece and Rome. Through the presentation of encounters of both cultures we then shed light onto specific elements of Greek and Roman rhetoric, which eventually co-formed a disci- pline that is acknowledged as classical rhetoric by modern rhetorical theory.

Classical rhetoric is a result of a long-term development of public oratory and was not a creation ex nihilo. There was oratory (i. e. different forms of pub- lic address) in ancient Greece before Greeks started to study and describe its principles in a systematic manner (i. e. art/discipline of public address). Simi- larly, Romans had performed their oratory long before they accepted, complet- ed and included into their public discourse a system of Greek (i. e. Hellenistic) rhetoric.⁹ It would be wrong to assume that rhetoric as a discipline grew merely from a systemisation of rules and precepts, which were established within rhe- torical education and the tradition of handbook writing. A complex system of classical rhetorical theory (as it was known to Quintilian for example or it is known today) was formed gradually in the period of at least 600 years and in the framework of a broad Greco-Roman social context, wherein theoretical findings went together with a rich everyday oratory practice. And such prac- tice consisted also of intercultural interactions within interconnected worlds¹⁰ in the ancient Mediterranean in the archaic and classical era and particular- ly in the period of the well-known socio-cultural processes of Hellenization and Romanization. In examination of interactions between Greeks and non- Greeks within the processes of globalisation and glocalisation¹¹ in the Mediter- ranean and Near Eastern world of the first millennium BC, Vlassopoulos pro-

9 One of the most thorough and still relevant monographs with extensive owerview of the history of Greek and Roman rhetoric represent George A. Kennedy's The Art of Persuasion in Greece (New Jersey–Princeton, 1963) and The Art of Rhetoric in the Roman World 300 B.C. – A. D. 300 (New Jersey–

Princeton, 1972) (hereinafter: Kennedy, The Art of Rhetoric in the Roman World).

10 The notion of "interconnected world” is taken from Vlassopoulos' work Greeks and Barbarians, where four parallel and interlinked worlds "exemplify four different configurations of economic, social, cultural and political aspects and represent four different contexts of interactions between Greeks and non-Greeks” (ibid., 12–13) in the Mediterranean and Near Eastern world. These four worlds are:

1.) The world of networks (i. e. mobility of people, goods, ideas, technologies and information); 2.) The world of apoikiai (i. e. self-organised and politically often independent communities created by Greeks); 3.) The world of empires (i. e. powerful non-Greek empires in eastern Mediterranean and Near East); 4.) Panhelenic world (i. e. the idea of Greek culture and identity, which is based on imaginary world of literature and myth, Panhelenic institutions with sanctuaries and festivals and discourses about Panhelenic community regarding interests safety, belonging etc.).

11 We use the terms in a very broad sense: globalisation represents a set of social, political and econo- mic changes that arise as a consequence of expanded trade and cultural interchange at the global level; glocalisation (as a notion and a process) combines globalisation and localisation and represents integration of global and local aspects with specifics that are typical for certain geographic areas. Cf.

Karmen Medica, "Globalizacija : glokalizacija”, Monitor ISH 14,2 (2012): 201–207.

vides a definition of intercultural communication, which can represent useful methodological framework for our research as well:

… [i]ntercultural communication in the ancient Mediterranean: in what ways, in which contexts, and for what purposes did Greeks and non-Greeks attempt, suc- ceed or fail to communicate, and what were the consequences …¹²

Within such perspective Vlassopoulos further describes several compo- nents of intercultural communication, which existed in ancient Mediterranean:

1) practices of interlinking that created contexts for intercultural communica- tion (guest-friendship, intermarriage, name-giving, diplomacy, commensality, travel, exchange and labour, cult); 2) different media (oral communication, objects and monuments, texts); 3) contents (exchange of information, words, expressions and manners of speech, ideas, practices); and 4) patterns of com- munication (polarity, commonality/universality, perspective).¹³

Where in Vlasopoulos' model can art of public persuasion be placed? The author seems to leave out rhetoric as a socio-cultural phenomenon of ancient Mediterranean despite the fact that a) ancient Greeks already in their time were widely acknowledged as "founders" of rhetoric, one of the most systematised and widely used discipline throughout the entire antiquity, which particularly during the Hellenistic period and Roman empire represented means of globali- sation and glocalisation; and b) rhetoric as an art of public address represent- ed a constitutive native element in all ancient Mediterranean societies. Hav- ing these two circumstances in mind and considering the nature of rhetoric as a common socio-cultural phenomenon we can now place rhetoric within Vlassopoulos' model. Rhetoric in the context of intercultural interactions rep- resents a meta-element that is realised as important part in every component of intercultural communication: 1) practices (e. g. intercultural public addresses on different occasions, such as public lectures of three famous Greek philoso- phers in Rome in 156 BC¹⁴); 2) media (e. g. public performances of rhetoricians, rhetorical treatises and manuals as specific oral and textual forms as part of cultural practices in Greco-Roman communities); 3) contents (e.g. culture spe- cific forms and strategies of persuasion such as the role of speaker's image in argumentation); and 4) patterns (e. g. interpretations of the role of Greek and non-Greek rhetoric within different cultural communities). In the next chap- ters we explore some dimensions of such perspective of rhetoric.

12 Vlassopoulos, Greeks and Barbarians, 129.

13 Ibid., 131ss.

14 Cic., De or. 2.155; Gell. 6.14.8–10.

Public Speaking, Oratory and Rhetoric in Greek Society

One of the main characteristics of Greco-Roman civilisation, which is closely connected to rhetoric, was the importance of public/formal speaking in both societies. Public speaking can be found in many forms in almost every period of Greek and Roman history. It covers political, judicial and epideictic discour- se, philosophical discussions as well as public debates on various social issues.

Such diversity and omnipresence of public speaking indicate a common cultu- ral assumption of the two ancient civilizations, which is based on a close con- nection between speaking, speaking ability and the social role of the speaker.

At this point it is important to stress out that besides being a part of certain formal events (e. g. meetings and rituals), public speaking is defined by the use of a special language – a formal language (which origins lie in rituals, poetry, oracles etc). Aspects of formality of language use, which can be applied cross- culturally, were defined by Irvine and include: a) increased code structuring by imposing special rules of style and delivery; b) consistent maintenance of conventions of the appropriate code; c) speaker's identity, which is based on their certain political or social public function; d) a central, situational focus of a speech, which deals with important activities and central actors instead of trivial matters.¹⁵ In the context of public speaking in ancient Greece and Rome it is also worth adding some Kennedy's observations: a) language of such for- mal oratory always has to be learned; b) knowledge of the right forms is not available to everyone; c) the ability to perform in the approved way gives a sta- tus to the practitioner, d) formal language represents a form of social control by powerful dominant group.¹⁶

Despite of its worldwide manifestation, the use of the formal language had especially important role in Greek society. As a special communication strategy with persuasive function it represented a tool of social change. Due to the social order public speakers were allowed to influence their audience with every available means in order to convince them of a certain point of view.

Consequently, a persuasive argumentation played an important role in Greek public speaking and had particular characteristics: a) in terms of modality it consisted between two extremes, which are represented by contentiousness and flattery; b) in terms of truth value it was oriented towards probability; c) in terms of manifestation it adopted different forms yet with a clear micro struc- ture that consisted of a (logical) series of claims supporting other claims. Fur- thermore, the phenomenon of persuasion in ancient Greece is often explained

15 Judith T. Irvine, "Formality and Informality in Communicative Events". American Anthropologist, New Series, 81, 4 (1979): 773–790.

16 Kennedy, Comparative Rhetoric, 68.

through the concept of Greek praise of competition and rivalry in all social areas, which origins in the nineteenth century theory of Greek agonal society by Burckhardt and Nietzsche. The meaning of the game (agon) as a part of the broader civilizational context set agonality as an universal system of value.¹⁷ Competition and strife represented beauty, wisdom and means of education.

From the perspective of ancient Greeks the beauty could be discovered only through a comparison, when two elements entered the competition. As Ken- nedy points out in his Comparative Rhetoric it was an assumption of culture that a man (and woman) would have enemies and would attempt to defeat them – the whole live was regarded as a contest. As a constitutive part of society, contention already begins with rivalry among aristocratic families in the eighth century and carries on in democratic Greek city-states in sixth and fifth century BC. From the pursuit of honour, position and influence, in which almost every means (physical or verbal) could be justified, the unbelievable contentiousness and flattery came as an exclusive result in Greek oratory.¹⁸

In other traditional societies (and this also holds for the early Roman peri- od) the primary goal of public/formal speaking is to achieve a group consensus and concord thus preserving traditional political, social and religious values.

Sharp altercation is usually avoided, conventional politeness and composure are predominant ways of address, and criticism is expressed only indirectly with ambiguous references. These elements are completely absent in Greek oratory even in the earliest examples of formal speaking, such as the Iliad (cf.

the notorious quarrel between Agamemnon and Achilles). Composure, polite- ness and mild confrontation were apparently something that was completely alien to Greeks or had already extinct in the earliest period of their history.

Contrary, their public speaking reveals an explicit eristic nature. Even personal invective and slander as extreme manifestations of contentiousness were from the beginning companions of deliberate and judicial discourse and represent a prior element to the first theoretical conceptions of rhetoric.

The origins of contentious/eristic nature of Greek public discourse lie in the competitiveness of speaking and polarised thinking as well as in the pur- suit of speaking efficiency, such as persuading on the base of the probable. We can perceive it as a kind of verbal or rhetorical competition where orators used devices and strategies that have an agonistic character whether in terms of their structure or content. Let us mention three typical agonistic strategies: a) argu- ment from probability (gr. eikos – similar to the truth, probable, which as a rhe- torical device enables defending of every standpoint, b) antilogy (antilogiai)

17 Valentin Kalan, "Tekmovanje, vrednote in ritem življenja: razmišljanja o Antifontu, Tukididu in Aristotelu". Keria 7,1 (2005): 7–38.

18 Cf. Kennedy, Comparative Rhetoric, 191ss.

or corresponding answers (known also as confronting evidences), c) antith- esis (confronting thoughts or a controversy of opinions). The first conceptual traces of these strategies and herewith a theoretical development of rhetoric as a discipline (i. e. Protagoras' and Gorgias' discussions, handbook tradition etc.) come from the fifth century BC and should be seen as a result of cultural, politi- cal and intellectual conditions. Johnstone in his The Origins of the Rhetorical in Archaic Greek speaks of the four main socio-cultural factors, which enabled the development of rhetoric in ancient Greece:

a) The role of oral tradition in Greece and the transition from orality to literacy, which enabled a cultivated audience with special sensitivity to beauty and power of words.

b) Reinvention and increase of the use of writing, which created possibi- lities for critical analysis of speeches.

c) Political situation and the raise of polis, which provided conditions for development of public speaking as a principle of active participation in society.

d) Transition from mythological theogony to naturalistic cosmology (i. e.

from mythos to logos), which enabled the development of abstract ter-

Quarrel of Achilles and Agamemnon, unidentified artist, drawing (Harvard Art Museums/Fogg Museum;

www.harvardartmuseums.org/art/299443)

minology and increased awareness about language and its structure.¹⁹ At first rhetoric did not represent a theoretical system but a network of various precepts, guidelines and examples of good practice. Such network was formed gradually, as knowledge about oratory grew and different oratorical practices in everyday public discourse were used. The first proper systemisation of rhetorical principles is represented in theoretical discussions of Isocrates, Plato and Aristotle, which are based on their study of existing material and par- ticularly on their polemical discussions with the sophists.²⁰ Classical rhetoric as a theoretical system and a rich practice is an invention of the fourth century BC, however it could not exist without the cultural, political and language context of the previous centuries. Without sophistic teachings and discussions, without the activity of logographers and without the extreme influence of oral culture and the development of rational thought there would be no Greek rhetorical theory. The development of theory did not stop there, naturally. At the end of the fourth century BC, there were many theoretical works on rhetoric, which covered single rhetorical topics (e.g. Theophrastus' discussions on style and performance, Hermagoras' innovations in rhetorical system – the concept of stasis; discussions on the orator's tasks by Stoics). Similarly, due to the increased number of rhetorical schools and a prevalent Hellenistic culture in Mediter- ranean a number of traditional rhetorical handbooks (tekhnai logon) grew as well as textbooks with exercises (progymnasmanta). Such diverse and active use of rhetoric gradually lead to the development of a complex Hellenistic sys- tem of art of rhetoric, which became an inseparable part of ancient educational system and a mandatory condition for those who wanted to participate active- ly in the political life and other forms of social and cultural living.

Interactive Perspective: Roman Oratory Meets Greek Rhetoric

The Hellenistic period represents a true meeting point for Greek and Roman rhetoric, the two entities, which in the course of encounters of their users beca- me a conceptual platform for classical rhetoric. The latter became a prevailing communication model of ancient civilization as well as universal educational model, which was not limited to the period of antiquity only, but has had a massive influence on education, public discourse in certain cultural presuppo-

19 Christopher L. Johnstone, "The Origins of the Rhetorical in Archaic Greek”, in: Theory, Text, Context.

Issues in Greek Rhetoric and Oratory, ed. C. L. Johnstone. (Albany, 1996), 1–18.

20 For extensive discussion see Edward Schiappa, The Beginnings of Rhetorical Theory in Classical Greece (New Haven–London, 1999).

sitions in Europe (and North America) until today.²¹

Let us now shortly outline origins of Roman rhetoric. Historical and literary sources speak of many occasions for oratory in Rome, since there were pub- lic and military offices that constituted a large part of public life and, what is important, they all demanded an active rhetorical role of their participants. The development of rhetoric was also stimulated by the class struggle, which came forth as tensions between patrician aristocracy and the class of equites (the knights) as well as the clashes of ruling elite and plebeian crowd.

Rhetoric as an art of public speaking in the early period of Roman repub- lic (and possibly earlier) had an important role, yet it was quite different from rhetoric that more or less simultaneously went on in Greek democratic civic states.

Roman republic was governed by a group of aristocratic families, which due to the oligarchic system more directly than Greek political leaders set rules and ways of living for socially subordinated groups. Roman aristocratic fami- lies directed economic and political development of the res publica Romana as well as they marked all socio-cultural activities of citizens without a possibility of direct debate on the issue (which was the case in Greek societies).

Public speakers or orators were individuals, who could perform publicly due to their social position and whose mission was to conciliate opposing sides and to secure a consensus between social actors. At the same time they would try to preserve values they promoted as members of the ruling elite. Early Roman rhetoric can therefore be defined as traditional rhetoric of consensus, which did not serve as a tool of social change (as in Greek societies) but as a conservative and corrective force.²² This characteristic remained an important part of Roman public speaking even when Roman rhetoric became closely intertwined with the Hellenistic theoretical system. Despite the fact that in the republican era rhetoric represented a tool of political power, it was mainly a means for sustaining and transmitting traditional political, social and religion values of the social group represented by Roman senate.

Before Romans came into a close contact with Greek rhetoric their persua- sive strategies according to the traditional nature of their rhetoric consisted of nonverbal and non-argumentative elements and were based on a family repu- tation, personal authority, power and money. This idea is supported with the fact that first orators were from the higher social class, to which a privilege of public speaking belonged, and who in their speeches were supposed to per- sonify a traditional image on the ideal Roman. He would be more a man of

21 For an overwiev of rhetorical education in Europe and North America see Thomas M. Conely, Rhetoric in the European Tradition (Chicago, 1994).

22 Cf. Kennedy, Comparative Rhetoric, 191ss.

deeds but when speaking, he should speak frankly and with dignity. According- ly, the first public speeches in Rome would display a simple and clear structure without embellishment yet with emphasised elements of speaker's authority, which was based on a pre-existing speakers image/reputation in society.

As an example of such rhetoric let us present a fragment from the defence of Publius Cornelius Scipio Africanus (235–183 BC), a famous Roman politi- cian and a military general from the period of early Roman republic, who was also known for his oratorical skill and public performance. The fragment is

Publius Scipio Afric- anus (c.234–183 BC) (Pushkin Museum, Moscow; commons.

wikimedia.org/wiki/

File:Isis_priest01_

pushkin.jpg)

preserved by Aulus Gellius in his Noctes Atticae and refers to historical events around the year of 184 BC when tribune M. Naevius charged Africanus of accepting money from King Antiochus of Asia:

Cum M. Naevius tribunus plebis accusaret eum ad populum diceretque accepisse a rege Antiocho pecuniam, ut condicionibus gratiosis et mollibus pax cum eo pop- uli Romani nomine fieret, et quaedam item alia crimini daret indigna tali viro, tum Scipio pauca praefatus quae dignitas vitae suae atque gloria postulabat, "Memo- ria," inquit, "Quirites, repeto, diem esse hodiernum quo Hannibalem Poenum imperio vestro inimicissimum magno proelio vici in terra Africa pacemque et victo- riam vobis peperi spectabilem. Non igitur simus adversum deos ingrati et, censeo, relinquamus nebulonem hunc, eamus hinc protinus Iovi optimo maximo gratula- tum." Tum contio universa, quae ad sententiam de Scipione ferendam convenerat, relicto tribuno Scipionem in Capitolium comitata atque inde ad aedes eius cum laetitia et gratulatione sollemni prosecuta est.²³

Reading Scipio's defence in the broader frame, that is, as a specific language activity type (i. e. judicial oratory) with its typical structure, language, code and style, we can interpret the fragment from Gellius as a part of refutation. The general argumentative pattern consists of the main argument from authority about Scipio's merits and moral conduct (i. e. his ethos), followed by a con- versed argument from authority (i. e. ad hominem) about Scipio's opponent.

Both premises support the conclusion about dropping charges against Scipio.

We can reconstruct this in the following scheme:

Premise 1: I am 'such and such' authority, and I believe that charges must be dropped.

Premise 2: My accuser is not an authority (he is a 'nebulo'). – ad hominem Conclusion: Charges must be dropped.

Despite cultural differences between Greece and Rome, which were evi- dently present in their ways of arguing (and persuasion), Roman public speak- ing and the development of effective persuasion strategies were also stimulated by constant military activities as well as intensive economic and cultural rela- tions between Romans and Italic or Mediterranean nations who also had been in contact with Greeks. The fragments of early Roman orators are full of typi- cal elements of Greek rhetoric (antitheses, enthymemes/examples, argument from probability etc.) before Greek rhetoric as a discipline came into Rome.

23 Gell. N. A. 4.18.3–5

Therefore, it would be safe to assume that the first influence of Greek rhetoric resulted as a consequence of direct communicative interaction.²⁴ As a commu- nicative practice it gradually became a part of the Roman public discourse as well and was accepted despite some cultural differences regarding the role of a speaker and the function of public persuasion.

We can demonstrate this process by setting the dynamics of intertwining relationship between Greek and Roman rhetoric in the framework of their social and cultural context. As Enos pointed out in his Roman rhetoric: revo- lution and Greek influence there are two main factors in the period of early Greco-Roman acquaintances that influenced Roman attitude toward Greek rhetoric and consequently the development of classical rhetoric as a discipline:

1. The complexity of transmission and transition of Greek rhetoric to Rome: Romans were exposed to Greek rhetoric through social inte- ractions in three directions: a) from the influence by the century-long domination of the Hellenized Etruscans, b) from the contact with pro- minent mother cities, such as Athens, where political system inheren- tly encouraged rhetoric as a source of power; c) through the military and economic relations with Greek colonies in the Magna Graecia and Sicily, where the system of rhetoric represented constitutive element in the process of interaction between Greeks and Romans.

2. The positioning of Greek rhetoric in the framework of Roman traditi- onal values: despite the conservative desire for preserving traditional values of Roman culture and Latin language, Romans accepted Greek rhetoric because of its social value and benefits as a tool for securing the political power.²⁵

In the period when Romans had already accepted the concept of Greek rhetoric (around the first century BC) and had incorporated it into their cultur- al values they begun to transform Greek rhetoric by adding their own contribu- tions to the system. Rhetoric as an organised system continued its development in the framework of Roman socio-cultural structures. The success of this trans- forming process particularly depended on two circumstances:

1. The popularity of Hellenistic schools of declamations: Greek declama- tions (as a form of rhetorical exercise) played an important part in the process of transfer and Romanisation of Greek rhetoric. The cultural influence of declamations is evident in their popularity (they lasted almost until the end of empire) and in the large number of respected

24 For the role of oral communication as predominant media for circulation of stories, customs, infor- mation and ideas see Vlassopoulos, Greeks and Barbarians, 146ss and 169.

25 Richard L. Enos, Roman rhetoric: revolution and Greek influence (Prospect Hights, 1995), pass.

Romans (orators, politicians, poets, writers etc.) who would benefit from this kind of education.

2. The transformation of Roman rhetoric from political tool into educa- tional value: with the decay of Roman republic rhetoric being its main tool did not disappear but simply took another course in the deve- lopment: because it retained a central place in the education Greco- -Roman rhetoric as a coherent system of rules increasingly became a main feature of literary composition and a basis of literary criticism.²⁶ Since all literature was publicly performed the tendency of writers and poets of the firstand the second century AD to use rhetorical techniques they had learned in schools lead to the new conception of rhetoric as a part of cul- tural and intellectual ideal of Roman empire. This phenomenon can be contex- tualised within the broader context of the process of Roman glocalisation of Greek culture, which is well described by Vlassopoulos in his Greeks and Bar- barians:

Roman glocalisation of Greek culture did not make the Romans Greeks. It pro- vided them rather with a set of cultural practices with which to define and recon- struct Roman identities, and with the manpower and techniques necessary for manning and ruling an empire. Instead of the Hellenization of Rome, the Roman glocalisation of Greek culture allowed Romans to live in a truly 'bilingual' fashion in a number of overlapping cultural identities: as Romans in certain activities and areas of life, and as Greeks in others.²⁷

It is worth mentioning that at this point rhetoric and the notion of inter- cultural communication become relevant in terms of reciprocal exchanging process: it is the period of Roman empire, when rhetoric now as a Roman cul- tural phenomenon with its predominant stylistic perspective sets example for written and oral performances of previously more politically expedient, ago- nistic discourses of Greek writers, poets and orators, as well as enables and sup- ports further development of rhetorical schools in Greek lands.²⁸

26 Ibid.

27 Vlassopoulos, Greeks and Barbarians, 318–319.

28 For analysis of cultural interaction between Romans and Greeks in the period of late republic and empire see Antony J. Spawforth, Greece and the Augustan Cultural Revolution. Greek culture in the Roman world (Cambridge–New York, 2012). He defines the so-called Romanisation of the Greek East as a 're-Hellenisation', which was driven by a distinctly Roman vision of what constitutes Greekness (promoted by two Roman emperors August and Hadrian) and was realized through the relationship between Roman moral discourse and the cultural behavior of provincial Greeks of that time.

In the last part of our paper we return to the period of early Roman repub- lic and present some examples that demonstrate the intercultural dynamics of relationship between Greek and Roman rhetoric in the period of the second and the first century BC. As we already mentioned rhetorical and philosophi- cal schools in south Italy and Sicily were extremely important for transmission of Greek rhetoric to Rome. They represented significant intellectual centres of Hellenistic world and had a direct influence on education of Romans. From there many home tutors came to Rome and young Romans would probably visit these schools far more often than they would travel to distant yet promi- nent schools in Asia Minor or Athens (these could be afforded only by a small rich group of Romans). Additionally, rhetorical and philosophical schools in south Italy and Sicily had a significant influence on literary activities in Rome as well, which is an important circumstance in the development of Roman rheto- ric. An increased interest in the study of language and literary production in the second century BC (such as activities of the members of the famous Scipionic circle) was based on a philhellenic perspective and introduced Greek gram- matical and rhetorical concepts to Romans in a different context than merely everyday political discourse. As Kennedy observes, the consequence of such activity is seen in the higher linguistic self-consciousness since the introduction of terms and categories of Greek grammar, rhetoric and philosophy enabled a creation and maintenance of standards as well as development of new resourc- es in Latin.²⁹

Another important moment of intercultural interaction between Greek and Roman rhetoric from the same period represent oppositions to philhel- lenic movements. We will mention only two examples where structured teach- ings of Greek rhetorical system (first example) or their succeeding Latinised counterpart (second example) clearly were seen as a threat to established hegemony of old traditional values and in particular to the ruling aristocracy.³⁰

The first example is a famous decree of the Roman senate (senatus consul- tum) from 161 BC about the expel of Greek philosophers and rhetoricians from Rome and is preserved by Suetonius in his treatise De grammaticis et rhetoribus:

<C.> Fannio Strabone M. Valerio <Mes>salla coss. M. Pomponius praetor senatum consuluit. quod verba facta sunt de philosophis et <de> rhetoribus de ea re ita cen- suerunt, ut M. Pomponius praetor animadverteret curaretque uti ei e re publica

29 Kennedy, The Art of Rhetoric in the Roman World, 64.

30 Due to the focus on formal context of interactions we did not include the well-known objections to philhellenic movements by Cato Maior. On his actions against the three popular Greek philosphers who in 156 BC came to Rome on an embasy see Plut. Cat. Ma. 22., Plin. NH 7.112.

fideque sua videretur uti Romae ne essent.³¹

Suetonius mentions another event, which is based on an edict of censors from 92 BC and prohibits Latin rhetoricians from teaching rhetoric:

de iisdem interiecto tempore Cn. Domitius A<h>enobarbus <et> L. Licinius Crassus censores ita edixerunt: 'Renuntiatum <est> nobis esse homines qui novum genus dis- ciplinae instituerunt ad quos iuventus in ludum conveniat: eos sibi nomen imposui- sse Latinos rhetoras. ibi homines adolescentulos dies totos desidere. Maiores nostri quae liberos suos discere et quos in ludos itare vellent instituerunt. haec nova quae praeter consuetudinem ac morem maiorum fiunt neque placent neque recta vid- entur. quapropter et iis qui eos ludos habent et iis qui eo venire consuerunt videtur faciundum ut ossenderemus nostram sententiam nobis non placere.³²

When we see both events as a process of dynamic interaction between Greek and Roman communication practices, we can say that by the beginning of the first century BC Greek rhetoric had already been established in Rome and even got a Roman alternative. This also means that Roman orators despite common traditionally oriented rhetorical training, which was based on the direct observation and imitation of senior orators (i. e. tirocinium fori), became familiar with the Hellenistic system of rhetorical theory and probably knew the greatest orators in Greece as well. As Kennedy points out it must not be omit- ted that Roman rhetoric as an artistic form of oratory was in large part possible also because of the direct formal communication between Greeks and Romans (e. g. Greek ambassadors or whoever in the formal manner addressed differ- ent Roman socio-political structures).³³ The influence of such direct contact is explicitly recognised by Cicero in his De oratore when he provides a descrip- tion of the beginnings of oratory at Rome:

Nam postea quam imperio omnium gentium constituto diuturnitas pacis otium confirmavit, nemo fere laudis cupidus adulescens non sibi ad dicendum studio omni enitendum putavit; ac primo quidem totius rationis ignari, qui neque exer- citationis ullam vim neque aliquod praeceptum artis esse arbitrarentur, tantum, quantum ingenio et cogitatione poterant, consequebantur; post autem auditis oratoribus Graecis cognitisque eorum litteris adhibitisque doctoribus incredibili quodam nostri homines di<s>cendi studio flagraverunt.³⁴

31 Suet. Rhet. 25.1.5–10

32 Suet. Rhet. 25.1.5–2; cf. also Cic. De or. 3.93 and Tac. Dial. 35

33 Kennedy, The Art of Rhetoric in the Roman World, 37.

34 Cic. De or. 1.14