Rhetoric, Philosophy, and Law in Late Republican Rome

In this paper I contrast different versions of Greek rhetoric that in the late Hellenistic period were exported to Rome by both rhetoricians and philosophers, and show how with regard to Roman law these versions differed in aim and in application. With regard to the application in law, I argue that in Rome’s unique practice of resolving disputes between citizens – i.e. done with the help of specialists – the Stoic conception of rhetoric as the longer, explanatory version of dialectic, aiming at what is correct and true, was useful in conveying the correct answer to non-specialists, the judge included, whereas the Academics’, and more specifically Philo of Larissa’s, conception of rhetoric, aiming at what is verisimilar, is above all useful in the public realm, that is in political and forensic speeches.