Writers during the early empire were remarkably conscious of the way in which contemporary politics had intruded on and radically transformed the nature and scope of political oratory. Not for the imperial senate the fierce invective and rancorous verbiage of the Verrines, the Catilinarians, or Philippics. The advent of the princeps, sapientissimus et unus (‘‘one man wise before all others,’’ Tac. Dial. 41) had changed the landscape on which rhetoric could range. Those authors active in the government of the empire, Tacitus and Pliny in particular, are especially sensitive to the restraints and limits that the new political reality imposed. However, imperial sources are at times equally conscious of the social and political dynamics that continued to make rhetoric as essential a part of Roman political life as it had been during the republic. The situation - and occasional resultant tension - is exemplified in Tacitus’ Dialogus, set in 75 ce, where Marcus Aper notes assertively the political and social benefits of oratory (5-8), while Curiatius Maternus argues that the changed historical situation has diminished its importance, if not rendered it superfluous altogether (3 6-41). To what extent was either of them right? The question has been asked, in one form or another, by numerous scholars, most notably Syme (1958:100-16), Winterbottom (1964), and Caplan (1944), and all have a decidedly negative view of imperial rhetoric, though their arguments tend to be informed by a perceived negative view in our ancient sources. More recent studies (Kennedy 1994; Fantham 1997) have given the political context of imperial oratory greater attention, if not entirely its due. It is the intent of the current study to assess what role oratory still had in political life - what were its capacities, what were its limitations, and what are our own in understanding the political context of imperial oratory.
World History
