Translated by Robert Morstein-Marx and Robert Martz
As in all ancient cities, Roman politics in the age of the Republic were characterized by the form of interaction that linked together all its political agents and, for the most part, took the form of public, verbal debate. Consequently every politician was necessarily defined as an orator - one capable of making speeches before large audiences and of persuading them (Figure. 21.1).
Yet as obvious as this simple necessity may appear, it was hardly available to just anyone. Indeed, one who ventured to address the Senate or the Roman People already had to enjoy a recognized position within the community. Contrary to the practice in democratic cities, an ordinary citizen had no opportunity to take the floor and participate in a political debate. Only members of the aristocracy were able to do so, and more precisely, those who had already held a magistracy. These were men who possessed powerful social influence as a result of their wealth or their network of clients, or had the prior benefit of prestige conferred by the splendor of their achievements or the antiquity of their family. They therefore enjoyed what was called auctoritas (‘‘authority,’’ ‘‘credibility’’), which gave them the right to speak publicly and to persuade their fellow-citizens that their proposals were best.
This crucial quality, however, was not enough. One also had to be able to deliver a coherent and well-argued speech. This long presented little difficulty, since the public expected nothing more than a firm and clear statement that conformed to a set of principles shared by the community. But a change came when philosophy and rhetoric, brought in the train of Hellenism, became fully integrated into the cultural universe of the Roman aristocracy. Henceforth orators had to raise themselves to the higher intellectual standards that now prevailed. Neither personal authority nor appeals to ancestral tradition (mos maiorum) were enough. It was necessary to justify one’s decisions by accommodating one’s arguments to general principles of truth and justice. Above all, one had to perfect the techniques of argumentation and ornamentation that gave speeches their power. Not everyone was equally capable of this.
This change had a number of consequences. First of all it imposed on members of the aristocracy the need to acquire the principles and methods on which this new art of oratory rested. This was not the greatest difficulty: for this purpose study would suffice, with Greek teachers of rhetoric and philosophers and subsequently with those Romans who had become skilled in these disciplines. But the rise of oratorical standards also had the effect of adding a new dimension to the field of aristocratic competition. To be heard and to convince, it was no longer enough to have a strong record of accomplishment or to belong to a famous family; one also had to prevail in rhetorical duels that were fought out at the level of the general principles on which the city rested. Now that eloquence had become a technical discipline it was transformed into an instrument of power that opened new avenues to the ambitious. It therefore posed a threat that called for control. Politicians at the end of the Republic had only two ways to do this: to be great orators themselves, or to secure the assistance of better ones among their networks of patronage and amicitia (‘‘friendship,’’ including the political and instrumental as well as affective senses of our word). And since these two methods were hardly contradictory, they were both employed.
The history of the relationship between rhetoric and public life in the Roman Republic is an aspect as much of social history as cultural history. To the extent that oratorical ability was primarily a means of political action, it was one of the qualities that defined membership in the Roman aristocracy (see also Chapter 17). A Roman politician possessed no other means of communication by which to make himself known and appreciated by his fellow-citizens than the speeches he made, the arguments he used, and the self-image that he created in this way. Rhetoric was as much an art of aristocratic behavior and of the ethos of leadership as it was an art of speaking. The following study will focus sharply on the relationship between these two aspects of oratory, the cultural and the political, since it was through their intersection that public action took on its specific character.
World History
