Rhetors

Rhetors were typically in a better position. Like grammarians, rhetors concerned themselves with proper speech and demanded attention to the detail of literary works, particularly how they constructed narrative, descriptions, comparison and other essential points of public speeches (Kennedy 1983: 54-73). The ultimate aim of rhetoric, however, was persuasion (Quint. Inst. 2.15.4), and it is clear that this skill has a more immediate payoff than does the reading of the poets taught by grammarians. For instance, despite their humble origins and limited financial resources, Vibius Crispus and Eprius Marcellus rose to prominence during Vespasian’s rule because of their rhetorical skills (Tac. Dial. 8.3). In addition to being respected for their ability to influence one’s career, rhetors taught older students and consequently had another leg up on grammarians (Atherton 1998: 228). In fact, Suetonius reports that Caeci-lius Epirota refused to teach boys except when asked by fathers whom he could not spurn (Gram. 16.2), so once again the exception proves the rule. Finally, rhetoric was the final step of the ladder of education, and thus it was by nature open only to those who came from financially secure backgrounds and were afforded the opportunity to spend more time and money on education. The study of rhetoric had prestige as well as practical benefits.

Juvenal suggests that teachers of rhetoric were paid more than were grammarians (7.217). And indeed some rhetoricians - particularly those who were more like sophists - could charge particularly high fees. As they traveled around the Mediterranean and appeared in cities like Rome, Greek sophists such as Scopelian demanded a lot of money from their students. Rewards could come from no less than the emperor: Philostratus records that Domitian gave Scopelian many presents for a speech on vines in Asia (VS 520) and that Trajan honored Polemo (531).

Since rhetoric was a more advanced course of study, it is reasonable to assume that the art was taught by experienced professionals. Or, to put it another way, we may expect that rhetors were typically not of servile origin. And indeed it is the case that only one of the rhetors mentioned by Suetonius is explicitly said to be a freedman (Rhet. 27.1). Moreover, the rhetors included in the account do have better social standing than the grammarians. Marcus Epidius claimed descent from a god (28.2), Albucius Silus was an aedile in his hometown of Novaria (30.1), and Sextus Clodius was an extremely close friend of Mark Antony (29.2). That rhetors were not of servile origin also meant that they could advance their public career: the rhetor Iunius Otho, for example, reached the senate. But Otho was not always a rhetor, and in a statement that reveals the limits faced by lower level teachers, Tacitus disparages him as a teacher of letters, which was the first stage of ancient education (Ann. 3.66.3). Juvenal also suggests that one can use rhetorical skills as a springboard to the consulship, if one’s luck breaks right (7.197-8).

Quintilian, whose entry in Suetonius’ list has virtually disappeared, is a prominent example of the success that could be achieved through rhetorical skill. He returned home to Spain as a young man after some time in Rome and then became acquainted with the future emperor Galba. He followed the imperial entourage back to Rome, and he subsequently stayed in imperial circles. At some point after becoming emperor, Vespasian set aside a salary of 100,000 sesterces for teachers of

Greek and Latin rhetoric, and Quintilian was the initial appointee in Latin. He then tutored the grand nephews of Domitian (Inst. 4 praef. 2) and was awarded consular rank (Auson. Grat. Act. 731). He was thus known in the highest levels of Roman society for a number of years.

Latin rhetors were not the only ones to have connections with those in high places at Rome. Apollodorus of Pergamum was a famous rhetor who was at Rome in 45 bce and was chosen by Julius Caesar to teach Octavian (Suet. Aug. 89). Empylus of Rhodes, according to Plutarch (Brut. 2), was a close friend of Marcus Brutus, who is also alleged to have studied rhetoric with Strato (52.3). Gorgias taught Cicero’s son in Athens (Cic. Fam. 16.21.6) and then went to Rome. Augustus listened to Craton (Sen. Controv. 10.5.21), and Tiberius was instructed by Theodorus of Gadara (Suet. Tib. 57). Timagenes was captured, freed, and brought to Rome by Sulla’s son, and then became a celebrated rhetor who, for some time at least, had access to Augustus (Sen. Controv. 10.5.22) and to Antony (Plut. Ant. 72.3). Like Quintilian, such men became known to the imperial circle through their accomplishments in rhetoric. In fact they follow a familiar pattern in which, as Millar has argued, those from outside the imperial circle who came into the service of the emperor were prominent in rhetoric in their native cities (Millar 1977: 60).

But not every rhetor was a Quintilian. Juvenal, in a poem in which he argues against entering the teaching profession, has an interlocutor adduce Quintilian as an example of the benefits of becoming a teacher (7.186-9). Juvenal dismisses the claim, however, and adds that Quintilian is the lucky exception, that rhetoricians had to go to court to obtain the fees owed to them (7.228-9), and that they depended upon the grain that was distributed by the state (7.174-5). The extremes that Juvenal mentions are part of the satirist’s toolbox, but nonetheless the ancient evidence suggests that Quintilian was exceptionally fortunate in his accomplishments. Indeed, Suetonius indicates that Epidius was guilty of calumnia (knowingly bringing baseless legal charges against another; Rhet. 28.1); and the penalty for such a charge precluded one from further participation as a legal advocate and may have resulted in having the letter K tattooed onto one’s forehead (Kaster 1995: 303). Another rhetor, Silus, stopped participating in legal cases in part because of shame incurred in a case before the centumviral court (Sen. Controv. 7 praef. 6). And we also know from Seneca that Cestius, for whom Suetonius’ account is merely fragmentary, was flogged by the younger Cicero after the rhetor called his father illiterate (Sen. Suas. 7.13). The punishment is obviously unsuited to a Roman of high social rank.