Sources

Our sources for the application of rhetoric in the political life of the empire are, at first glance, seemingly sparse. They include the rhetorical exercises handed down to us by

The elder Seneca and Quintilian (who also left us with a handbook of rhetorical theory). In addition, we have some ideas concerning the theory of rhetoric from the epistles of the younger Pliny, Fronto, and the work of Aulus Gellius. We have a single speech by the younger Pliny (the Panegyricus), and a fragment of an oration the emperor Claudius delivered to the senate concerning admission of the Gauls to the senate in Rome (see ILS 212; cf. Tac. Ann. 11.24); our only other direct source, Apuleius’ Apology, concerns a local criminal charge, not high politics. While we know of numerous orators (such as Domitius Afer and Marcus Regulus) and writers of oratory (such as Galerius Trachalus and the younger Seneca), virtually nothing of their own oratory survives, and we depend on other sources for what we know about their style. Such understanding is rendered further problematic for orators who cooperated with the regime (as was indeed the case with Afer and Regulus) against individual senators, since our sources deliver a generally hostile verdict on their style of oratory or its application (for a discussion of Afer’s rhetoric see Rutledge 2001: 220-3; for Regulus, Rutledge 2001: 192-8). Cassius Dio’s Historicus, written in Greek, tends to offer little in the way of a window into the relationship between Roman rhetoric and politics in the high empire, since after the reign of Augustus most orations he relates are either fragmentary or schematic. In terms of the application and scope for oratory, two men - Tacitus and Pliny - give us perhaps our best view of rhetoric in action.

Neither of these sources, however, is without its problems. Tacitus leaves us a relatively detailed narrative of the events from 14 until 96 ce, with some large and frustrating gaps. Yet this is the least of the difficulties we face. Tacitus’ history is highly rhetorical in nature - not surprisingly, since, as the ancients recognized and as modern scholars have come to appreciate, history was at its base a rhetorical endeavor, influenced by techniques that informed the composition both of poetry and oratory (Fornara 1984: 138-41). Speeches, motives for action, the depiction of battles - historians embellished these for dramatic effect (as Cicero knew, see Fam. 5.12). Some skepticism is therefore in order. To cite but one example of the difficulties we encounter, Tacitus’ depiction of the trial of Calpurnius Piso is highly dramatic (Tac. Ann. 3.11-18), but as recent epigraphic evidence shows, it is not entirely accurate in its details (Damon 1999). Pliny is less dramatic, though still somewhat problematic. Although his letters give us a good window into trials in which he himselfparticipated and include greater detail (and less drama) than is the case with his friend and contemporary, he nonetheless published the letters with a view to polishing his own reputation; personally unflattering details he doubtless changed.