What do you think?
Rate this book
That Tyrant, Persuasion: How Rhetoric Shaped the Roman World
How rhetorical training influenced deeds as well as words in the Roman Empire
The assassins of Julius Caesar cried out that they had killed a tyrant, and days later their colleagues in the Senate proposed rewards for this act of tyrannicide. The killers and their supporters spoke as if they were following a well-known script. They were. Their education was chiefly in rhetoric and as boys they would all have heard and given speeches on a ubiquitous set of themes—including one asserting that “he who kills a tyrant shall receive a reward from the city.” In That Tyrant, Persuasion , J. E. Lendon explores how rhetorical education in the Roman world influenced not only the words of literature but also momentous the killing of Julius Caesar, what civic buildings and monuments were built, what laws were made, and, ultimately, how the empire itself should be run.
Presenting a new account of Roman rhetorical education and its surprising practical consequences, That Tyrant, Persuasion shows how rhetoric created a grandiose imaginary world for the Roman ruling elite—and how they struggled to force the real world to conform to it. Without rhetorical education, the Roman world would have been unimaginably different.
The assassins of Julius Caesar cried out that they had killed a tyrant, and days later their colleagues in the Senate proposed rewards for this act of tyrannicide. The killers and their supporters spoke as if they were following a well-known script. They were. Their education was chiefly in rhetoric and as boys they would all have heard and given speeches on a ubiquitous set of themes—including one asserting that “he who kills a tyrant shall receive a reward from the city.” In That Tyrant, Persuasion , J. E. Lendon explores how rhetorical education in the Roman world influenced not only the words of literature but also momentous the killing of Julius Caesar, what civic buildings and monuments were built, what laws were made, and, ultimately, how the empire itself should be run.
Presenting a new account of Roman rhetorical education and its surprising practical consequences, That Tyrant, Persuasion shows how rhetoric created a grandiose imaginary world for the Roman ruling elite—and how they struggled to force the real world to conform to it. Without rhetorical education, the Roman world would have been unimaginably different.
328 pages, Paperback
Published December 17, 2024
4 people are currently reading
70 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews
October 11, 2023
This one of those books which pulls the curtain and sheds light on an entire culture, in this case ancient Rome and Greece. The education of elite Greeks and Romans concentrated heavily on rhetoric. One established one's credentials as an "influencer" by the art of declamation, or speechifying. That Tyrant, Persuasion: How Rhetoric Shaped the Roman World by J. E. Lendon shows how this slightly unreal world of declamatory addresses sometimes impacted the real world of actual law.
Lendon uses as his prime example the assassination of Julius Caesar by Brutus, Cassius, and their allies who were acting under the influence of speeches delivered over the centuries regarding the benefits of killing a tyrant. Principally:
People were more likely to be convinced by forensic declamations than by actual laws. Especially in the provinces, there was no particularly deep knowledge of the law, whereas all the local schools produced students of rhetoric who measured success by the quality of their oratory.
In many ways, the situation is not that different today. Where do groups like QAnon get their talking points if not from social media? Our eyes tend to glaze over listening to speeches, but Facebook and TikTok and Tweet/X fill cyberspace with conspiracy theories and even outright lies.
Lendon uses as his prime example the assassination of Julius Caesar by Brutus, Cassius, and their allies who were acting under the influence of speeches delivered over the centuries regarding the benefits of killing a tyrant. Principally:
Why, other than descending to give speeches, did the conspirators apparently have no plans for what to do after they ascended the Capitoline Hill, given that the reactions of Lepidus, Antony, their troops, and Caesar's veterans could have been predicted?In ancient Rome, there was no radio or television, books (in the form of handwritten scrolls) were not generally available. People's beliefs were primarily affected by listening to speeches delivered by the rich and educated who wore togas in public.
People were more likely to be convinced by forensic declamations than by actual laws. Especially in the provinces, there was no particularly deep knowledge of the law, whereas all the local schools produced students of rhetoric who measured success by the quality of their oratory.
In many ways, the situation is not that different today. Where do groups like QAnon get their talking points if not from social media? Our eyes tend to glaze over listening to speeches, but Facebook and TikTok and Tweet/X fill cyberspace with conspiracy theories and even outright lies.
October 27, 2024
The way we publicly engage with issues shapes the Overton window around them. In ancient Rome, by far the most prevalent means of civic engagement was the practice of rhetoric, whether public oratory or writing meant to incite meaningful action. Roman education also offers an entire world in which assumptions and case studies used to sharpen students’ rhetorical capabilities can be analyzed for the influence they wrought in political and social life. In “That Tyrant Persuasion” (Princeton University Press, 2022), J.E. Lendon looks at how rhetorical education in the Roman world guide public actions.
The first assumption that needs to be taken seriously here is that rhetorical education is not a neutral body of knowledge for intellectual debate that produces eloquence or moral sophistication. How we frame issues and the primacy we give them within the educational sphere both go on to deeply, profoundly influence civic life. Just as in today’s world, there were ways in which Roman education does little more than reaffirm the existing status quo and others in which it seeks to resist it. To that end, Lendon smartly begins his book by discussing and classifying grammatical and rhetorical forms that were prevalent in the education provided in the Roman Empire.
The second part looks at the defining moment in the late Republic: the assassination of Julius Caesar and the events that immediately follow it. Lendon examines the ways in which the assassins planned the murder, why they all wanted to stab Ceasar, and the fascinating question of why they chose to not kill Caesar’s political allies, especially when they had the opportunity to exact even more damage to Ceasar’s dictatorial ambitions. Why did the conspirators so clearly fail to think through their plan after the assassination? And why did they make the decision – which surely would strike most contemporary readers of history today as bizarre – to give public speeches admitting to their crime immediately after committing it? Lendon concludes that many outcomes can be explained by the ways in which rhetoric was taught. He argues that declamatory rhetorical exercises (which often involved scenarios of multiple assassins killing a dictator and being greeted by a rapturously grateful public) exerted such an influence that later emperors like Domitian would build their public images by deliberately avoiding the autocratic tropes that were so popular at the time. This was by far the most convincing and effective part of the book, even if all the arguments are built around ex post facto evidence.
The rest of the book was much weaker, not only because the arguments are fewer and more speculative, but the examples are more abstruse for the average reader. The third part takes up public buildings in the eastern part of the empire. He argues that the nymphaeum – public grotto-like monuments to water nymphs that served as sources of water – were encouraged by forms of oratory, notably panegyric. Similarly, public encomia given in praise of cities encouraged the construction of colonnaded streets. No one thinks that philotimia (the love of honor) was unimportant to Romans, but the degree to which rhetorical handbooks are responsible for this is debatable. Lendon claims that frequent mentions of nymphaea in rhetoric were responsible for their later construction. On its own, I find this unconvincing.
The last part, on the Roman legal concept of stellionatus (dishonest or irresponsible behavior that isn’t explicitly illegal) is even more speculative with his argument preceding in much the same way, i.e., that the discussions of law in the Roman rhetorical curriculum exerted an influence on imperial legal tradition. Lendon admits the influence here is more attenuated and less direct, even making the (self-defeating?) claim that many Roman laws flatly contradicted the legal concepts set out in declamatory rhetoric.
The problem with the approach Lendon uses is that he is inevitably forced to rely on a poor argument that goes something like: X directly caused Y because it happened before Y. While it can sometimes appear convincing when a lot of evidence is brought to bear on the case, this amounts to nothing more than a series of post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacies. Even when Lendon harnesses his evidence well (as in his discussion of Caesar’s assassination), there are still other factors that could have contributed to the observed outcomes. Drawing one throughline from rhetorical education to these outcomes may place undue emphasis on them at the expense of other explanatory causes. For example, is it possible that the emergence of nymphaea could be partially explained by shifting ideas around the use of public space or that nymphaea might be more effective as means of imperial propaganda than other buildings? As an obvious non-classicist, I’m not equipped to assess the weights of all these factors, but a book like this should have at least given them some consideration. At a slim 150 pages, Lendon certainly had the space to do so. In its current form the book presents a provocative thesis that can only be supported by weak, circumstantial evidence.
It’s worth noting that a proper review of this book would take a specialist, which I’m clearly not. But since I review everything I read, I wanted to put something here for future reference. If anyone else – specialist or not - has read this and wants to weigh in on how convincing you found its arguments, please leave a comment and let me know. I’d love to hear differing opinions.
The first assumption that needs to be taken seriously here is that rhetorical education is not a neutral body of knowledge for intellectual debate that produces eloquence or moral sophistication. How we frame issues and the primacy we give them within the educational sphere both go on to deeply, profoundly influence civic life. Just as in today’s world, there were ways in which Roman education does little more than reaffirm the existing status quo and others in which it seeks to resist it. To that end, Lendon smartly begins his book by discussing and classifying grammatical and rhetorical forms that were prevalent in the education provided in the Roman Empire.
The second part looks at the defining moment in the late Republic: the assassination of Julius Caesar and the events that immediately follow it. Lendon examines the ways in which the assassins planned the murder, why they all wanted to stab Ceasar, and the fascinating question of why they chose to not kill Caesar’s political allies, especially when they had the opportunity to exact even more damage to Ceasar’s dictatorial ambitions. Why did the conspirators so clearly fail to think through their plan after the assassination? And why did they make the decision – which surely would strike most contemporary readers of history today as bizarre – to give public speeches admitting to their crime immediately after committing it? Lendon concludes that many outcomes can be explained by the ways in which rhetoric was taught. He argues that declamatory rhetorical exercises (which often involved scenarios of multiple assassins killing a dictator and being greeted by a rapturously grateful public) exerted such an influence that later emperors like Domitian would build their public images by deliberately avoiding the autocratic tropes that were so popular at the time. This was by far the most convincing and effective part of the book, even if all the arguments are built around ex post facto evidence.
The rest of the book was much weaker, not only because the arguments are fewer and more speculative, but the examples are more abstruse for the average reader. The third part takes up public buildings in the eastern part of the empire. He argues that the nymphaeum – public grotto-like monuments to water nymphs that served as sources of water – were encouraged by forms of oratory, notably panegyric. Similarly, public encomia given in praise of cities encouraged the construction of colonnaded streets. No one thinks that philotimia (the love of honor) was unimportant to Romans, but the degree to which rhetorical handbooks are responsible for this is debatable. Lendon claims that frequent mentions of nymphaea in rhetoric were responsible for their later construction. On its own, I find this unconvincing.
The last part, on the Roman legal concept of stellionatus (dishonest or irresponsible behavior that isn’t explicitly illegal) is even more speculative with his argument preceding in much the same way, i.e., that the discussions of law in the Roman rhetorical curriculum exerted an influence on imperial legal tradition. Lendon admits the influence here is more attenuated and less direct, even making the (self-defeating?) claim that many Roman laws flatly contradicted the legal concepts set out in declamatory rhetoric.
The problem with the approach Lendon uses is that he is inevitably forced to rely on a poor argument that goes something like: X directly caused Y because it happened before Y. While it can sometimes appear convincing when a lot of evidence is brought to bear on the case, this amounts to nothing more than a series of post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacies. Even when Lendon harnesses his evidence well (as in his discussion of Caesar’s assassination), there are still other factors that could have contributed to the observed outcomes. Drawing one throughline from rhetorical education to these outcomes may place undue emphasis on them at the expense of other explanatory causes. For example, is it possible that the emergence of nymphaea could be partially explained by shifting ideas around the use of public space or that nymphaea might be more effective as means of imperial propaganda than other buildings? As an obvious non-classicist, I’m not equipped to assess the weights of all these factors, but a book like this should have at least given them some consideration. At a slim 150 pages, Lendon certainly had the space to do so. In its current form the book presents a provocative thesis that can only be supported by weak, circumstantial evidence.
It’s worth noting that a proper review of this book would take a specialist, which I’m clearly not. But since I review everything I read, I wanted to put something here for future reference. If anyone else – specialist or not - has read this and wants to weigh in on how convincing you found its arguments, please leave a comment and let me know. I’d love to hear differing opinions.
January 7, 2026
great for no good reason. could have been an overly dense monograph, but was a witty, fun to read little study of rhetorical education in ancient rome. rigorously researched, punchy prose, and meaningful takeaways even for non experts of the subject. love it.
January 9, 2024
Lendon rhetoric >>> ancient Roman rhetoric
June 21, 2025
3 stars feels so mean because i actually enjoyed this a lot but there were some parts that felt very tangential and superfluous 😓 i really enjoyed the first few chapters!!
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews