O encômio paradoxal nas cartas laudatórias de Frontão

Abstract

The paradoxical encomium, a variety of praise in which the same epideictic techniques of the common rhetorical repertoire are applied to matters traditionally less exalted, was performed by Marcus Cornelius Fronto, one of the only authors who was involved in this laudatory practice. The orator wrote letters that are usually presented under the titles Eulogy of smoke and dust (Laudes fumi et pulveris), Eulogy of negligence (Laudes neglegentiae) and On the Alsian holidays 3 (De Feriis Alsiensibus 3), in which, in turn, it is possible to observe an elevation of sleep and, more generally, of idleness. In the current critical fortunes on that eulogistic modality, sometimes there is a perspective according to which the ludic compositions would be meaningless, so that the notion of rhetorical game is linked to that of gratuity. Given this scenario, this research aims at discussing the possible functions performed by the paradoxical encomium in the Latin literature from the examination of the analysis corpus, constituted by the frontonian epistles mentioned above. Therefore, assumptions contemplated in the ancient rhetorical theory are approached, especially concerning the perceptions of the epideictic (or demonstrative) genre, praise and, more specifically, paradoxical encomium. Are presented, with respect to these considerations, those of Aristotle, Pseudo-Anaximenes, the anonymous Rhetoric to Herennius, Cicero, Quintilian, Pseudo-Aristides, Menander of Laodicea, Aelius Theon, Hermogenes, Aphtonius, the Sophist, and Nicolas, the Sophist. Furthermore, to discuss the concept of the Second Sophistic, we refer mainly to Flavius Philostratus, who is considered to have coined this expression. With such ancient reflections, we especially intersperse the modern comments of Pernot (1993), Dandrey (1997; 2015), Bowersock (1969), Anderson (1993) and Goldhill (2009). In conclusion, from the case of Fronto, we understand that the elevation of the rhetorical experience is common to the three letters studied, that they convey part of the rhetor’s conception according to which the exercise of eloquence is an integral part of the imperial civic life and that, finally, the paradoxical encomium, according to the frontonian perspective, undoes the correlation made usually between the ludic nature and frivolity.