Rhetoric, according to one basic formulation, is the art of persuasive speech (see Quint. Inst. 2.15). In ancient Rome, however, its impact went far beyond the act of public speaking. Rhetoric dominated the education of the elite, played a crucial role in the construction of social and gender identity, and shaped in significant ways the development of Roman literature. As well as exercising a vital influence in political debate and the administration of the law courts, it formed one of the most significant modes of acculturation for the Roman aristocratic teenager. We can only fully understand the cultural and political ambitions of the Roman aristocratic classes if we understand the profound role that rhetoric played in their lives.
How we confront Roman rhetoric - how we think and write about it - depends to an extent on our own intellectual interests, preoccupations, and prejudices. As John Dugan’s discussion (chapter 2) makes clear, the critical approaches adopted in many of the following chapters both build upon and react against the methodologies and assumptions of earlier scholars. Recent studies have tended to expand their field of interest so as to consider rhetoric’s significance within a variety of different areas of Roman culture. They interrogate noncanonical as well as canonical texts, and focus on areas where contemporary critical interests coincide with elements of the rhetorical tradition. And yet, while this broadening of critical horizons has deepened our appreciation of rhetoric’s influence in society, it is essential to be able to relate these features to rhetoric’s origins and fundamental elements. Rhetoric was important in the first place because public speech played a vital role in social and political life at Rome. It is crucial then to be familiar with the contexts that generated such a need for persuasive public speaking and the highly intricate theorizing that went with it. The various sections ofthis volume are designed to cover these different aspects ofRoman rhetoric.
Rome’s first encounters with the Greek rhetorical heritage provide a fascinating example of cultural resistance and integration (see chapter 3). What emerges most significantly from the discussions in part I of this volume is the problem inherent in an evolutionary model of Roman oratory’s development. It is tempting - partly because
Cicero himself in his Brutus encourages this view - to regard ‘‘early’’ writers such as Cato and Plautus as seriously disadvantaged by their lack of training in rhetoric. Indeed such authors can all too easily be dismissed as rough-hewn stepping stones on a stylistic path that leads inevitably to the perfection of Cicero. John Barsby (chapter 4) and Enrica Sciarrino (chapter 5) illustrate, however, that a more productive approach is to consider the language of Plautus and the elder Cato from the point of view of a ‘‘native Latin rhetoric,’’ one that strives for its own effects rather than those taught by the Greek rhetorical system; the comments of Catherine Steel (chapter 18) on this evolutionary fallacy are also instructive. Certainly Greek theory brought to the Romans a more self-reflexive approach to matters such as linguistic style and logical organization (see, e. g., Rawson 1978; Moatti 1997: 215-54); but arguably its influence on orators such as Cicero ended up taking Latin prose away from the more authentically ‘‘Roman’’ form cultivated by the likes of Cato and in later times Sallust (cf. Laughton 1942; Leeman 1963: 182-4). How much was gained or lost by such developments is to some extent a matter of taste. As Sarah Stroup (chapter 3) notes, the Roman reaction to these new ways of doing things was a complex one.
The remaining parts of this Companion deal with the Roman social context (part II), the Roman system of rhetoric (part III), individual rhetoricians and orators (part IV), and the relationship between rhetoric and literature (part V). Part II addresses in particular some of the sociological aspects of Roman rhetoric. The pursuit of oratory in Rome was closely linked with power and privilege. The right to speak at public assemblies, for example, was strictly limited to elected officials and their invitees; even in the senate, which was already an exclusive body, only a small proportion of members was called upon to contribute to debates (see chapter 6). Likewise advocacy in the courts was primarily the responsibility of the upper classes, although here more than anywhere perhaps opportunities existed for social and political advancement for those with oratorical talent. The most famous example of course is Cicero, whose successful defense in the courts of numerous influential men earned him significant political clout; but, as Michael Alexander (chapter 8) notes, oratorical skill may well have proved crucial in the political success of other men who lacked family connections at the highest levels.
The schools of declamation have also featured prominently in sociological studies of Roman rhetoric in recent decades. As these have suggested, the issues that students analyze and debate can mold quite significantly the kind of values they acquire. Anthony Corbeill’s analysis (chapter 6) demonstrates that rhetorical education is thus not simply about the imparting of practical skills; it is part of a wider process of acculturation. Moreover, practitioners of oratory at Rome were almost exclusively male, and oratorical performance became one means through which masculinity (or its opposite) could be displayed. In rhetorical texts too the rhetoric of gender combines with the rhetoric of status so as to build, reinforce, and naturalize the ‘‘rhetorical class,’’ the political elite of Rome. Joy Connolly (chapter 7) observes that while the recent scholarly emphasis on issues of masculinity has provided us with valuable insights into the preoccupations and stereotypes of this elite society, it has also diverted attention from other related and no less important matters. The Roman orator was not concerned solely with projecting a manly image; his aim was a much more complete depiction of social and civic competence.
The connection between oratory and power is further explored by Steven Rutledge (chapter 9), who along with William Dominik (chapter 24) challenges the view, sometimes asserted by the Romans themselves and hence by modern scholars, that oratory experienced a decline during the early imperial period. Rutledge and Dominik maintain that there were numerous opportunities for the pursuit of oratory under the emperors. Administrative issues still needed to be debated in the senate, and careers could still be forged in the law courts. Training in oratory thus remained vital for the upper-class Roman, and questions of style and technique retained a very practical relevance and urgency. And if we accept this view, the traditional scholarly portrayal of the declamatory schools also requires some refinement. Certainly declamation became a favored pastime of the elite during the early empire, but this was far from the only oratorical outlet available for ambitious aristocrats. While the schools are roundly condemned in many of the Latin sources, some of which are examined by Dan Hooley (chapter 29), we should bear in mind that educational institutions are easy targets for satire. In fact, as Martin Bloomer shows (chapter 22), the staple exercises of the Roman schools - the suasoria and controversia - provided a legitimate training in many of the skills that the young student required for oratorical success. Once we look past the contrived and lurid nature of many of the themes, which were necessary partly to create challenging points of debate and partly to engage teenage students, we can begin to appreciate how they helped the budding orator cultivate a facility in argument, analysis, and linguistic invention.
The rest of part II explores some of Rome’s distinctive forms of oratory. John Ramsey (chapter 10) draws attention to the fact that speeches in the senate had to be tailored to the unique features of Roman senatorial procedure. The result was a type of speech that differed both from Greek deliberative oratory and from speeches made at Rome in different contexts. The point is worth stressing because senatorial oratory is generally not well served by the standard surveys of Roman rhetoric in English. We may contrast in this respect the contio, the speech at a public assembly, which has recently received comprehensive treatment (Morstein-Marx 2004). In this Companion its basic elements are outlined by Alexander (chapter 8), while further aspects are mentioned in several other chapters also (e. g., 2, 7, 10, 12, 17, 18, 20). The typical challenges presented by forensic oratory in Rome are addressed by Craig (chapter 20), who analyzes a wide selection of speeches delivered by Cicero in the law courts. And while invective was an integral part of Greek culture and discussions of it appear in the standard rhetorical tradition, this kind of vituperative public conflict also had a long heritage in Roman politics. Valentina Arena (chapter 12) demonstrates that Roman oratorical invective was not only informed by Greek theory but owed much also to native subliterary forms as well as to the competitive mentality of the aristocratic senator. The same applies to panegyric. If the end of the republic somewhat dampened the use of political invective, so the emergence of the principate brought with it a new oratorical challenge: the ceremonial celebration of the emperor’s achievements and prestige. While there were Greek precedents for this phenomenon, the Roman imperial court was a unique institution whose procedures and expectations led to the development of a distinctive type of panegyric. As the discussions by Roger Rees (chapter 11) and Dominik (chapter 24) show, there is room for different views on the function and potential irony of imperial panegyric, and in such cases the approach taken in this volume is an inclusive one.
Part III considers Roman rhetoric as a systematic body of knowledge. The best entry to the subject is the earliest rhetorical handbooks in Latin, and Robert Gaines (chapter 13) sets out to identify the most important features of Cicero’s De Inven-tione Rhetorica and the Rhetorica ad Herennium, as well as the various strands of the Greek tradition on which they draw. Roderich Kirchner (chapter 14) provides a synopsis of the rhetorical system of elocutio - a vital subject for our appreciation of the way in which Roman writers were taught to analyze and construct literary language. Kirchner illustrates that the approach of the rhetoricians to the subject was methodical and highly technical; nevertheless it provided the student with a rich store of artistic devices from which a vibrant and forceful language could be fashioned. The discussions of Jocelyn Penny Small (chapter 15) and Jon Hall (chapter 17) provide a more comprehensive treatment of memory and delivery - two of the traditional officia or tasks of the orator - than earlier surveys of Roman rhetoric such as those of Kennedy (1972), Clarke (19963), and Porter (1997). In fact, as Hall reminds us, the ancient theorists themselves devoted little energy to the topic of delivery, and this lack of attention has often been replicated in modern scholarship, which has tended to focus more on the literary aspects of the surviving texts than the performances that derived from them. Hall demonstrates, however, that elements of performance and showmanship were crucial to the persuasive effect of much of Cicero’s oratory. So too was his exploitation of the emotions, a mode of manipulation that depended a good deal on an effective style of delivery. Indeed it was as a live performance - not a written text - that most Romans would have experienced oratory, an important fact to bear in mind if we want to understand the full impact of Cicero’s speeches.
If delivery has received only modest attention in earlier surveys of Roman rhetoric, much the same can be said for memory. Small (chapter 15) goes beyond the mere paraphrasing of ancient discussions and considers the subject instead in the light of recent scientific studies of memory and the human brain. The result is a broader appreciation of the panoply of techniques used by Roman orators to improve their natural memory. This part of the volume also highlights one of the few Roman innovations to the established Greek rhetorical tradition (and another topic often overlooked in existing surveys of Roman rhetoric): Cicero’s theory of oratorical humor as set out in De Oratore 2. Edwin Rabbie (chapter 16) presents a detailed analysis of Cicero’s discussion from a rhetorical perspective and also considers its influence on Quintilian and later rhetorical theory. Rabbie shows that Cicero in effect takes a topic on the margins of traditional rhetorical theory and transforms it into one that merits serious consideration and analysis by later writers.
Part IV discusses Rome’s main writers on rhetoric and its most notable practitioners of oratory. It is here then that the reader will find synoptic surveys of established figures. The most famous, of course, is Cicero. James May (chapter 19) addresses his rhetorical writings, while Christopher Craig (chapter 20) considers his achievements as an orator. As May mentions, Cicero himself would have rejected the label of rhetorician since he considered himself to be primarily a statesman and an orator, roles that the aristocrat, not the rhetorician, were traditionally expected to fulfill. Nevertheless, his rhetorical writings stand as one of his most impressive scholarly legacies. Craig by contrast analyzes Cicero not just as a Roman citizen who exploited public speaking as a route to prestige and power but as the defining figure in Roman oratory. In this survey of his lengthy career, Craig examines both the extraordinary range of Cicero’s orations and the various ways in which modern scholars have approached them.
The major figure of the empire is Quintilian, whose Institutio Oratoria presents us with the largest handbook on rhetoric to survive from the ancient world. Jorge Fernandez Ldpez (chapter 23) draws attention to the valuable information that it provides on most of the contested issues in ancient rhetorical theory and the usually sane and incisive responses it supplies to them. Quintilian’s other legacy is as a teacher: his treatise gives perhaps the best first-hand account of educational principles and methods from the Roman world. Other important figures from this period are Tacitus and Pliny, treated by Dominik (chapter 24), and the elder Seneca, discussed by Bloomer (chapter 22) in his assessment of the influential Roman practice of declamation. In addition, part IV discusses rhetoricians, orators, and grammarians who were prominent in their day but about whom we unfortunately have only limited information. Steel (chapter 18) discusses the major orators of the republican and imperial periods not covered in the other chapters, including their styles, activities, careers and connections. Charles McNelis’s discussion (chapter 21) addresses the social position and function of the grammarian and rhetorician in Roman society, including how the information and training offered by them was important in helping to maintain the status ofthe elite in the social hierarchy. The Second Sophistic, a cultural movement of the second and third centuries ce, is mainly associated with Greek epideictic rhetoric but, as Graham Anderson shows (chapter 25), its values and assumptions both operated in and influenced the intellectual environment of the Roman empire. Moving beyond the world of classical antiquity, John Ward (chapter 26) offers an overview of the pervasive influence of Roman rhetoric, especially the handbooks, on the culture of the Renaissance and beyond in a variety of modes and contexts.
Part V, the final section of this Companion, addresses the influence of rhetoric on Latin literature, both from the perspective of individual poets such as Ovid and the younger Seneca, and from a broader generic perspective, with reference in particular to epic, satire and historiography. Over the last few decades or so discussion of this topic has largely disappeared from the literary critical agenda. There are perhaps several reasons for this. The first is simply the profusion of new theoretical approaches now available to be applied to literary works. Given that scholars during much of the twentieth century catalogued or described in detail the rhetorical tropes employed by Vergil (e. g., Billmayer 1932), Lucan (e. g., Morford 1967), Tacitus (e. g., Sinclair 1995), and other Roman writers, it is natural enough for a later generation of critics to seek new paths. But perhaps more significantly earlier studies tend to represent some of the Roman poets, including Ovid (e. g., Wilkinson 1955: 97) and the younger Seneca (e. g., Canter 1925: 89), as being interested primarily in achieving immediate rhetorical effects and short-lived conceits. More recent scholarship sets out to explore the wider artistic accomplishments of these poets. Arguably, however, the pendulum has swung too far. Emanuele Narducci (chapter 28) maintains that rhetoric in its wide variety of forms makes up an essential part of Vergil’s poetry and that its presence at times has been minimized by scholars. This tendency to downplay the role of rhetoric is particularly evident in recent book-length studies of Lucan (see, e. g., Masters 1992; Bartsch 1997; Leigh 1997), in which rhetoric is scarcely mentioned, as if even to refer to this subject would be to invalidate Lucan’s poetic credentials.
The chapters in this final part of the volume aim to offer a balanced reappraisal of some of these contentious issues. Matthew Fox (chapter 27) argues that our modern conception of the value of literature and rhetoric derives largely from a hierarchical view of literary genres that does not always correspond to that of the Romans. We thus need to think broadly when examining the role of rhetoric in literature. Moreover, different poets can exploit rhetoric in different ways depending on their artistic aims and poetic vision, as Narducci demonstrates in his study of the epics of Vergil and Lucan (chapter 28). Ovid deploys rhetoric in yet another fashion, at times exploiting it in a show of ludic virtuosity, according to Ulrike Auhagen (chapter 30), and on other occasions apparently highlighting the very limitations of rhetorical form and argument. The portrayal of Medea in Metamorphoses 7, for example, finds Ovid provocatively opposing logical reasoning and its rhetorical accoutrements of argument and evidence against the sheer power of emotion.
Our appreciation of these issues is further complicated by the fact that these literary exponents of rhetoric were writing for a readership (or audience) that was itself trained in rhetoric to a degree few of us are today. As Cynthia Damon observes (chapter 32), this is a crucial issue to bear in mind when we consider the narratives presented by Roman historians. These writers had been long trained in the composition of oratorical narrative in which it was not the truth that mattered but the truth-like or plausible. While we today may apply stringent standards of veracity to our historians, this may not have been the case for the Roman reader, who could perhaps appreciate the finer points of narrative invention and embellishment for what they were. In addition, rhetoric came to have a certain ideological bearing that writers could exploit in their literary works. These are especially prominent in satire where Roman identity is often constructed and revealed by its use of rhetorical models and strategies (see chapter 29). Similarly Marcus Wilson (chapter 31) illustrates how Seneca shows himself in his Epistles to be aware fully of the place of rhetoric in his acculturation as a Roman. These two chapters illustrate the potential for rhetoric’s contribution to the cultural identity of Roman society even within a primarily literary context.
To confront Roman rhetoric, then, is to confront much more than a theoretical system of persuasive speech. Rhetoric’s close association with social and political power, with public display and Roman tradition, and with elite education and literary production transformed it into a vibrant cultural phenomenon. It is this vital and wide-ranging role of rhetoric in Roman society that the following chapters set out to explore.
A Companion to Roman Rhetoric Edited by William Dominik, Jon Hall Copyright © 2007 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd
World History
