Matters of Style

The Dialogus de Oratoribus reflects the aesthetic controversies of the imperial age in its choice of style. The style, structure, and diction of the Dialogus appear to have been determined partly by the generic requirements for a dialogue on an oratorical or literary theme, as was first suggested by Leo (1898b: 169-88, esp. 172-83). The style recalls Cicero’s De Oratore, which reports a conversation that took place over thirty years earlier (cf. De Or. 1.24-28, Att. 4.16.2). In addition, Tacitus’ employment of a neo-Ciceronian style, with its balanced syntax, periodic structure, and prose rhythm, to record a conversation taking place a generation earlier has the effect ofsuggesting a different period of time. But the style of the Dialogus probably owes more to aesthetic and political considerations than to generic and temporal factors. The style of the Dialogus arguably represents an ironic challenge to the style employed by Quintilian only a few years earlier in the Institutio and reveals an awareness of the evolutionary nature of society and the conditions under the principate. The latter is no doubt partly due to the fact that Tacitus brings the insight of a senator, magistrate, orator, and historian to his writing of the Dialogus.

The Dialogus too bears testimony to the vigorous debate among writers of the principate on matters of style. This is evident especially in the debate between Aper and his scholastic opponents (16.4-23.6). Recent work has challenged the pessimistic outlook read into the Dialogus by examining the rhetorical, cultural, and literary context of the arguments presented by Aper in favor of contemporary oratory (e. g., Luce 1993a: 11-38; Champion 1994: 152-63; Dominik 1997b; Goldberg 1999: 224-37; Levene 2004: 157-200). Aper defends a style of expression that in his view reflects the changed attitudes and circumstances of the principate. Some modern critics (e. g., Mayer 2001: 46, 138) argue that Aper’s defense of contemporary eloquence is ludic and that essentially he is of the same mind as his opponents. Tacitus mentions in the introduction of the Dialogus that one of the characters in the debate, which turns out to be Aper, will take a point of view opposed to that of the other participants (1.4). Later Messalla (15.2; cf. 28.1) and Maternus (16.3-4, 24.2) remark that Aper, in advocating the case for contemporary oratory, has merely taken on the role of an opponent. Critics (e. g., Hass-von Reitzenstein 1970: 27,13143; Deuse 1975: 51-68 passim; cf. Rudich 1985: 96; Luce 1993a: 18-20) have usually viewed Aper as a pedant, boor, or a devil’s advocate in the manner of Cicero’s Marcus Antonius (cf. De Or. 1.263) and Furius Philus (cf. Rep. 3.8), who assent to having taken on this role (De Or. 2.40, Rep. 3.8); however, at no time does Aper himself admit to the charge. Much has been made of Aper’s nondenial of this claim in an attempt to show that he has taken on the role of a counteradvocate presumably for the sake of robust debate (e. g., Luce 1993a: 19 n26; Mayer 2001: 46). But why should Aper specifically deny the charge? His point lies elsewhere. Aper maintains that styles and trends change according to the conditions and prevailing tastes of the age (Dial. 18.1-19.5). In arguing against a relativity of standards in style and the idea of a decline in oratorical standards, Aper shows that he is able to view the situation from a historical perspective and sees the necessity of adapting oratory to the requirements of a new age. There is no compelling reason to believe that Aper does not support the case he advances just because the other figures in the dialogue argue a different case.

Aper himself gives no such indication that the views he advances are anything but his own; indeed Tacitus describes Aper’s tone as acrius (‘‘somewhat passionate,’’ 11). It is significant that his points in defense of contemporary oratory are never refuted by the other speakers. Although Messalla downplays Aper’s arguments about the artificial demarcation between ancient and contemporary oratory and the different types of eloquence that exist in any given period and across different ages, he concedes them in principle (e. g., Messalla: 25.1-3; cf. Aper: 16.4-17.6, 18.3). When Aper adduces his opponents Messalla, Maternus, and Secundus as exemplars of contemporary eloquence (15.1, 23.5-6), Messalla essentially replicates the argument by stressing Aper’s own eloquence (24.1).

So are we really to disregard Aper’s viewpoint about the eloquence of the orators of his own day? There are some important points to consider when examining this question. Given the narrative complexity of Tacitus’ works, it would be too simple, not to say misleading, to privilege completely the voices of any of his characters to the complete exclusion of others. Furthermore, since he does not participate in the discussion that takes place in the Dialogus, he cannot be explicitly associated with any of the views expressed by the actual participants. It is possible, even likely, that Tacitus has offered some of his own opinions in the speeches of Messalla and Maternus and that these different voices reflect his ambivalent feelings. Stylistically the comments of Tacitus are often pointed and memorable, but none more so than Marcus Aper’s defense of contemporary rhetoric. It is apparent that Tacitus associated himself with the voice of Aper in some important respects (contra Crook 1995: 184). Aper significantly has a larger share of the debate and is delineated more clearly than any of the other interlocutors. The most obvious area of identification between Tacitus and Aper involves their clear preference for oratory and rhetoric over poetry (cf. Dial. 5.3-10.8). In addition, given the terse, pointed stylistic qualities of his later prose works, he probably sympathized with Aper’s arguments on the necessity of a change in style from Ciceronian extravagance, diffuseness, and redundancy (18.120.7, 22.1-23.4), qualities of exuberance upon which even Cicero himself comments in respect of his early style ( Orat. 107-8). In fact, despite his apparent criticism of Cicero in the Dialogus (esp. 22.1-23.1), the arguments that Aper uses in his second speech, where he contends that contemporary oratory is as good as ancient, are based partly upon Cicero’s own ideas concerning the development of oratory at Rome in Brutus (e. g., 138-64) and De Oratore (e. g., 3.28-36). At the beginning of Dialogus 22, Aper notes of Cicero:

Ad Ciceronem venio, cui eadem pugna cum aequalibus suis fuit quae mihi vobiscum est. illi enim antiquos mirabantur, ipse suorum temporum eloquentiam anteponebat: nec ulla re magis eiusdem aetatis oratores praecurrit quam iudicio. (Tacitus, Dialogus 22.1)

I come to Cicero, who had the same battle with his contemporaries that I have with you. While they admired the ancients, he preferred the eloquence of his own time; and he surpasses the orators of his age in judgment more than anything else.

Although Aper promptly proceeds to enumerate Cicero’s faults in Dialogus, it is important to realize that he is not criticizing Cicero or his style as much as he is stressing its unsuitability for the demands of the current age. Like Cicero (e. g., De Or.

3.96-140), Aper realizes that oratory is constantly evolving and progressing (Dial. 18.3, 19.2). Aper’s defense of contemporary oratory helps to situate the new style in its historical context. The transition from republic to empire exerted a deep and lasting influence on the political consciousness of Romans. It also affected the direction of public and political oratory. Such activity was constrained within the limits imposed by the new political order. Maternus (Dial. 37.4-8) and in places even Pliny (Ep. 3.20.10, 8.14.8-9; Pan. 76.3-4) would have us believe that the senate had been lost as a venue for political debate of the highest stakes under emperors who became progressively authoritarian in their rule. In turn some modern scholars have gone as far as to suggest Tacitus believed that oratory had become politically defunct (e. g., Mayer 2001: 8).

Certainly it is difficult under such circumstances to conceive of the type of deliberative oratory that distinguished moments of political crisis in the republic. Yet, as Pliny and Tacitus themselves attest in their mention of various extortion trials in the senate, the senate was still a place where matters of importance were contested. The trials of Baebius Massa (Ep. 7.33; Agr. 45.1), of whom Pliny was co-accuser, and Marius Priscus (Ep. 2.11.2, 17), whom Pliny and Tacitus jointly prosecuted, are two notable examples. The most sensational cases were political and involved life-and-death issues of treason and conspiracy before emperors such as Vespasian and Dom-itian. But an orator could also make his mark in the senate during the discussion of more common issues concerned with social legislation, the conferment of honors and privileges, and even senatorial procedure. The long and bitter speeches, heated emotions, and sharp words in the exchange between Eprius Marcellus (cf. Dial. 13.4) and the elder Helvidius Priscus in 70 concerning whether the members of a delegation to Vespasian should be chosen by the magistrates or selected by lot (Hist. 4.6-8) suggest the high oratory and volatile atmosphere that could attend minor proceedings in the senate. In addition, oratory continued to assume a considerable role in the courts, in the schools, and even an increased role on the public stage. Given the political situation and requirements of the period, it is scarcely surprising that new trends emerged, for the orator and writer were compelled to adapt to the changing circumstances and demands of their age in order to achieve success.

Tacitus seems further to identify himself with Aper through his judgment of the younger Seneca as viro ingenium amoenum et temporis eius auribus adcommodatum (‘‘a man whose pleasant talent admirably suited a contemporary audience,’’ Ann. 13.3). Consistent with a view that is based mainly upon Quintilian’s deprecative view of Seneca’s style (Inst. 10.1.125-31; see Dominik 1997b: 50-9), most modern commentators have interpreted this comment disparagingly. As Tacitus perceived, Seneca was expressive of the Zeitgeist. People were impatient of the elaborate long-windedness favored by earlier generations (cf. Dial. 19.1-5). By his own standards and those of Cicero, to whom in the Brutus the real test of oratory is its ability to win the approval of the multitude (183-9), Seneca has met the requirements of a good style. Seneca himself remarks in Epistles 114.13: oratio certam regulam non habet: consuetudo illam civitatis, quae numquam in eodem diu stetit, versat (‘‘style has no fixed laws; it is changed by the usage of the people, never the same for any length of time’’). Aper too demonstrates an awareness that style changes with altered social conditions and is part of a natural process of aesthetic change in popular taste (cf. Dial. 18.2-19.5). In the view of Aper, an audience now was more sophisticated and knowledgeable, with some training in the rudiments of rhetoric (19.5), and therefore demanded a vivid, ornate, epigrammatic style instead of the homoeological, unadorned, and prolix style of a figure like Cicero (20.1-7). It is clear that Aper believes that the preference for the contemporary style among orators represents an improvement in aesthetic standards, not a decline (cf. 19.6). Aper praises the elegance of the contemporary type of oratory (19.5, 20.2-7, 23.5-6) and criticizes specific flaws in earlier styles (21.1-9), including that of Cicero (22.3). The new style was more graceful, elegant and attractive, as preferable over the old style as a house of marble and gold is over one made of stone and bricks (20.7). Aper touches upon some important points here, since the contemporary style, with its use of short, sharp sentences and avoidance of amplification, represents an attempt to overcome what he identifies are some of the shortcomings of the classical Ciceronian style: pleonasm, repetition, and rhetorical profuseness. The contemporary style, with its use of paradox, asymmetry, shock, and novelty was more emotionally direct, abrupt, spontaneous, variable, forceful, lean and immediate than classical Latin. It transcended the old stylistic bounds of the somewhat logical, predictable, symmetrical and copious manner of Ciceronian expression and restored to the Latin language some of the vigor, density and strength of archaic Latin, thereby helping to fulfill the stylistic potential of the language (cf. Hofmann 19632: esp. 685-838).

Aper attempts to consider oratory in its social, political, and historical contexts. Although Maternus displays an awareness of the political conditions that have given rise to the present state of oratory, he believes that the relative political peace and social cohesion of the empire precludes the possibility of great oratory. Neither Maternus nor Messalla display the same degree of sensitivity as Aper to the social and political conditions that affect oratory and shape its different styles. Indeed this method of criticism for the most part goes unattested in ancient literary criticism. What Aper attempts to explain is the notion of evolution in oratory and the various processes through which it passes. To Aper oratory was, as it was to nearly all Romans, an expression of national life, constantly changing in form, not bound by rigid rules, but responsive to social and political influences, so that it was only in the light of its environment that literature could be fully understood. When there is such a close connection between life and speech, there can be no fixed standards and rules. The new style was both function and product of its age. The differences between the postclassical aesthetic and those of the classical norm cannot be described in absolute terms. While the stylistic qualities of rhetoric in the late first and early second centuries ce reflect a general change in aesthetic sensibilities, the factors responsible for this change defy ready definition and explanation on account of their sociological complexity; however, this shift in aesthetic appears to have been not only a natural extension of the classical norm and an anxious reaction to the influences of the Augustan classical achievement, but also a response to the oppressive political environment and a reflection of changed social conditions, manners, and literary taste. An amalgam of aforementioned factors resulted in a turning away from classical propriety and rigid generic categories and aided in the development of a complex, ornate, and paratactic style whose appeal depended on the finely tuned rhetorical sensibilities of a contemporary audience, which looked for and expected precisely this kind of discourse. In place of Ciceronian correctness, harmony, proportion, fullness, and rhythm, contemporary audiences developed a predilection for incongruity, discordance, disproportion, and point. The postclassical style of expression was an index of the new attitudes produced by the altered social and political circumstances of the empire.

Our own assessment of Tacitean style would be radically different if we were to possess only the Dialogus. The arguments of Aper in the Dialogus serve as a strong defense of contemporary oratory and in the process challenge the notion of a decline in eloquence. Tacitus, like Aper, realized language must change not only to prosper but to survive, as his own works bear witness. The popularity of the Tacitean style is evident in that it immediately established itself alongside Sallust as a model of historical writing in place of Livy and Caesar, who were known for their periodbuilding. The pointed style of his Histories and Annals is probably as much a response to the expansiveness of the neo-Ciceronian style employed in his Dialogus as it is an exemplification of the style required for a historical work. Tacitus most likely identifies more with the arguments of Aper on the issue of style than those of any other figure in the Dialogus and thereby refutes the notion of a decline in the standard of oratory. To Tacitus, as attested in the comments of Aper and in his own style in the Histories and the Annals, this new style was a better way of reflecting upon contemporary society than the classical style. While Pliny’s style in the Panegyricus, published probably after 100 ce, represents an evolution in style from the first couple of books of the Epistles, published in 98-100 (see Sherwin-White 1966: 30), it also exhibits signs of Kunstsprache, or florid speech, required for imperial panegyric (cf. Ep. 3.13.3-4, 3.18.10); as with the works of Tacitus, the stylistic differences cannot be explained by evolutionary or generic factors alone. Not only did individual orators and writers such as Tacitus and Pliny employ different styles according to their stage of development and sometimes according to their particular subjects, but there was also a wide and diverse range of styles in common usage in the first place.