The Dialogus de Oratoribus was probably composed during the reign of Nerva (96-8 ce; cf. Murgia 1980; Barnes 1986: 244) or at least before 103 of Trajan’s reign (cf. Brink 1994: 251-80). It supposedly constitutes a response to Tacitus’ dedicatee Fabius lustus, consul in 102, whose question about the reasons for the decline of contemporary oratory motivates Tacitus to narrate a debate on the topic he claims to have been witness to during his youth, probably in the mid seventies or earlier.
Tacitus first introduces the subject of the discussion, the alleged decline in oratorical eloquence (1.1-4), then sets the scene (2.1-5.2). A day earlier Curiatius Maternus had recited Cato, his new tragedy. Maternus had taken on the role of the younger Cato with such enthusiasm that the tragedy had reportedly offended those in power (2.1). Aper and Iulius Secundus find Maternus in his house with the offending manuscript (3.1). Secundus exhorts Maternus not to be so careless in giving offense and advises that he publish a less dangerous, if inferior, Cato by expunging the incriminating passages (3.2). Maternus replies that he will not alter the contents of the Cato but will rush to put his final touches on it so that he can turn to the writing of Thyestes, a tragedy that will supply whatever he has left unsaid (3.3; cf. 3.4). After this introduction there are three sections, each consisting of two speeches; the first speech argues on behalf of a particular viewpoint, while the second attempts to respond to and refute the points made in it. In the first section Aper and Maternus examine the question whether poetry or oratory is better (5.3-13.6). Aper, who takes the side of oratory, argues for the utility, pleasure, and power of oratory (5.3-10.8). While Aper’s goals are those of the Roman aristocracy and form part of a positive portrait of oratory, Maternus’ case for poetry (11.1-13.6) is based partly upon a false dichotomy between the two arts (cf. 12.1-5; cf. Dominik 1992).
In the second section Vipstanus Messalla and Marcus Aper debate the merits of past and present oratory. Aper advances the case of contemporary orators (15.1-23.6), while Messalla puts forward the case of the past orators (24.1-27.2). The need for the artist to change with the times is a key theme in the vigorous apology that Aper conducts of contemporary rhetoric in the Dialogus. Aper’s defense forms a striking contrast to the canon advanced by Tacitus’ contemporary Quintilian. The issue of style in the Dialogus arises in the course of the discussion on the decline of oratory. The issue of a contemporary decline in the standard of oratory is itself not new, of course, and is debated in the works of writers other than Tacitus. Many modern critics maintain that oratory declined during the imperial period (e. g., G. Williams 1978; Clarke 19963: 100-8). Admittedly it is easy to claim that there was a decline in eloquence since the Romans and Greeks themselves argued for it (cf. Heldmann 1982: 213-99; Kennedy 1972: 446-64), as evidenced not only in Tacitus (Dial. 1.24-41 passim) but also in Cicero (De Off. 2.67), Petronius (Sat. 1-4, 88, 118), the elder Seneca (Controv. 1 praef. 6-7), the elder Pliny (HN 14.2-6), Persius (1.15-18, 32-6, 121), Juvenal (1.1-4, 12-14; 7.105-49), Velleius Paterculus (1.16-18), Quintilian (Inst. 10.1.80; cf. 2.4.41), and Longinus (Subl. 44).
As this list of writers attests, the decline of oratory was mainly a Roman trope and it provoked a response among the Romans themselves, which in the Dialogus is represented in the figure of Aper. But as the Dialogus dramatizes, there was much debate and disagreement about whether there was such a decline. How seriously should we take Roman self-evaluations attesting to a decline in eloquence? The various Roman discussions of decline occur in contexts where this traditional trope, deeply etched in the Roman mindset, is brought to bear upon a series of essentially unconnected social, moral, and political issues. The Roman self-evaluations attesting to a decline are seriously undermined since these statements are made with considerable articulacy. Aper makes precisely this point in respect of oratory: he insists that Messalla’s predilection for past standards blinds him to his own eloquence and that of his brother, Marcus Aquilius Regulus, who was the archrival of Pliny:
Non desinis, Messalla, vetera tantum et antiqua mirari, nostrorum autem temporum studia inridere atque contemnere. nam hunc tuum sermonem saepe excepi, cum oblitus et tuae et fratris tui eloquentiae neminem hoc tempore oratorem esse contenderes <parem> antiques, eo, credo, audacius, quod malignitatis opinionem non verebaris, cum eam gloriam quam tibi alii concedunt ipse tibi denegares. (Tacitus, Dialogus 15.1)
You do not refrain, Messalla, from admiring only what is old and antiquated, while moreover you ridicule and despise the learning of our time. I have often listened to you speak when, forgetting how eloquent you and your brother are, you maintained there was no orator of the present age who could match those of the past. You asserted this all the more boldly, I believe, because you were not afraid of the imputation of jealousy seeing that you were denying to yourself the glory that others concede to you.
Modern commentators have argued that the debate in the Dialogus is framed within the context of Tacitus’ acceptance of Fabius Iustus’ question about the reasons for the decline of contemporary eloquence in comparison with previous ages (e. g., Rudich 1985: 99; Mayer 2001: 31). Some scholars have argued that Tacitus believed that oratory had generally declined or even died (e. g., Kennedy 1972: 517; Deuse 1975: 51-68, esp. 65-8; Luce 1993a: 35; Mayer 2001: 33). It is unlikely, however, that Tacitus accepted that there had been a decline in the standard of contemporary oratory. He does not himself endorse this statement of decline (Dial. 1.1), which is particularly thin in content. Furthermore, he (or one of his interlocutors in the Dialogus) directly comments upon or implies the eloquence of the five orators mentioned by Quintilian as exemplars of contemporary oratory (Inst. 10.1.11821): Domitius Afer (Dial. 13.3, Ann. 14.19; cf. Dial. 15.3), lulius Africanus (cf. Dial. 15.3), Galerius Trachalus (Hist. 1.90), Vibius Crispus (Dial. 8.1-3, 13.4), and Secundus (Dial. 23.6). Undoubtedly there were bad orators, as evidenced in the historical works of Tacitus, just as there were during the time of Cicero. Aper argues in the Dialogus for the relativity of eloquence (16.4-23) and exposes the automatic veneration of the past and the false canonization of its orators (17.6; cf. 25.2). According to Aper there is no real difference between the orators of his day and those of Cicero’s; the main difference is in the preference of contemporary audiences for point and elegance (17.1-20.7). The main point he demonstrates is that eloquence does not have a single face (18.3).
The third section of the Dialogus begins with Maternus, who has no doubt that the orators of the past were better, interjecting to bring the focus of the discussion back to Fabius Iustus’ original question - the reasons for the alleged decline in oratory (27.1-3). Messalla, who has already argued that the orators of the past were better (25.3-26.8), criticizes the rhetorical teaching of his day and maintains that the standard of education has declined (28.1-35.5). During the empire the final stage of a Roman’s formal education consisted of declamatory exercises known as suasoriae (‘‘deliberations’’) and controversiae (‘‘disputations’’). Messalla, a practicing forensic orator (cf. 15.1), asserts that proper rhetorical training was not based on the fantasies of the declamation school but on real issues (29.1-35.5). Whereas children used to be taught under a disciplined program by experienced orators whom they watched in actual practice (34.1-7), children in the present age are trained in the schools to expound bombastically upon fantastic subjects that bear no connection with the practical issues of everyday life (35.1-5).
Indeed the world of declamation was often violent and spectacular; this atmosphere both reflected and was reinforced by the outbursts of political violence at Rome, including that which occurred during the reigns of the Julio-Claudian and Flavian emperors. Declamationes, which required the ability to engage in clever argument, were excellent preparation for the public hall (see chapter 22 on declamation). In this setting rhetoric functioned as a social pastime where orators practiced their skills for intellectual fame and enjoyment. Some orators turned to the public hall in order to display their talents, and the exercises they declaimed were considered by Messalla and other ancient critics often to be too distinct from practical oratory (e. g., Sen. Ep. 114; Petron. Sat. 1-2). Modern scholars (e. g., Caplan 1944: 162-73), following in the path of these ancient critics, generally condemn the schools that gave rise to public declamations. And yet, despite the criticism of Pliny (Ep. 2.14) and his teacher Quintilian (Inst. 2.10; cf. Ep. 2.14.9) of the bad practice of declamation, it is apparent that they hold a high opinion of the utility of declamation in general and its role in rhetorical training (Ep. 2.3.5-6; Inst. 2.10.1-2, 10.5.14). The popularity of such training is attested in the large number of schools and the large classes (cf. Ep. 2.18; Inst. 1.2.9-15). Notwithstanding Messalla’s criticism, it is apparent that declamatory rhetoric flourished in the schools and in the public halls.
After what is probably a short break in the manuscript, the text resumes with Maternus rebutting Messalla and maintaining in effect that the standard of education and moral decline do not account for the difference in the standard of oratory. Most modern critics claim that Maternus represents the real feelings of Tacitus (e. g., Barwick 1954: 17-18, 23-4, 30; Syme 1958: 111; Kennedy 1972: 518; Luce 1982b: 1014, but not 1993a; cf. Rudich 1985: 99). Maternus argues that great oratory can only exist if subjects of the highest importance are at issue (Dial. 36.141.5). The political conditions of the republic, with its civil wars and factional conflicts, were most suited to oratorical eloquence (36.1-37.8). In contrast the comparatively peaceful and stable conditions of the empire, with the strong presence of the emperor in the senate, militate against eloquence (cf. 38.2, 39.4-41.5). Cases are no longer about corrupt electioneering practices, provincial extortion, and the murder of fellow citizens (37.4). Maternus’ arguments are similar to those adduced in Cicero’s Brutus about oratory of the highest standard not being possible with the rise of Caesar and fall of the republic (21-38, 45-6, 331-2). In the Agricola Tacitus mentions the numerous political trials leading to death or exile under Domitian as a manifestation of the emperor’s dominance over senatorial proceedings (45.1-2). Pliny similarly mentions how it was dangerous to express an opinion in the senate and that its function had been reduced mainly to serving as a court in political trials and debating routine matters (Ep. 8.14.8-9, 54.4, Pan. 76.3; cf. Ep. 9.2.2). Mater-nus’ analysis shows that the causal relationship is not just between time and style but also between politics and genre. The entire discussion is notable for its treatment of the influence of the political circumstances of the age upon oratory and the responses of individual orators to the altered social and political conditions. Although the Dialogus ostensibly reflects upon the reasons for a decline in oratory, the discussion really explores the aesthetic, political, social, and moral keystones of eloquence. The changed political conditions ofthe empire cannot easily be separated from the oratory that existed (see chapter 9 on oratory and politics). Perhaps this is one reason why the
Dialogus has often been interpreted as a document that argues for, illustrates, or reflects a declining standard of oratory in the imperial period at Rome.
Closely related to this interpretive stance is the frequently held assumption that Tacitus himself had become disillusioned with the state of oratory and had already abandoned his endeavors in this field for a literary career by the time the Dialogus was composed (see e. g., Barwick 1954: 30-1; Syme 1958: 111; Mayer 2001: 8). This conventional view basically is an argumentum ex silentio since there is no record of Tacitus practicing oratory after his prosecution along with Pliny of Marius Priscus in 100 CE (Ep. 2.11.2). However, it is apparent from Pliny, who describes Tacitus as eloquentissimus (2.1.6; cf. 2.11.17), that his reputation as an orator extended beyond 104-5 at least into 106-8, the approximate dates of the publication of Epistles 4 and 9 respectively (Sherwin-White 1966: 32-4, 39-41). In book 4 Pliny describes Tacitus as an orator surrounded by copia studiosorum (‘‘many students,’’ 4.13.10); in book 9 Pliny reports that Tacitus replied to a Roman knight who had enquired about his identity, nosti me, et quidem ex studiis (‘‘certainly you know me from your studies,’’ 9.23.3), meaning the knight’s study of legal oratory and possibly Tacitus’ published speeches. Although it is impossible to say whether or not Tacitus still practiced oratory even just as an advocate when this passage was composed, the verb nosti suggests that he was still known for his oratorical talent. Whether or not Tacitus abandoned oratory totally, he undertook to write history as a means of expressing himself, while Maternus abandoned legal oratory to write tragedies (cf. Dial. 3.4). On the other hand, Pliny could not bring himself to write history since he believed it was incompatible with oratory (Ep. 5.8.7-11).
World History
