According to Cicero, Marcus Porcius Cato was the first to produce samples of oratory worth reading (Brut. 60). Born in the Sabine country in 234 bce, Cato did not belong to the traditional Roman aristocracy, but thanks to his exceptional versatility he achieved the consulship in 195 bce, became censor in 184 bce, and as an ex-consul made his opinions heard in the senate for about forty years. In the Brutus Cicero states that he has read more than 150 of Cato’s speeches and compares his style to that of Lysias, the Attic orator whom Cicero’s critics used to cite as a model of plain and unaffected style. Although Cicero asserts that Cato was acutus (‘‘acute’’), elegans (‘‘charming’’), facetus (‘‘witty’’), and brevis (‘‘brief’’) like Lysias, he objects that his detractors are prone to overlook Cato’s speeches altogether (Brut. 63). Later on Cicero adds that Cato had a peculiar way of being solemn in praising, harsh in chastising, shrewd in preaching, and subtle in arguing (65). Although Cicero finds Cato's language rather archaic and uncouth, he suggests that by changing what Cato could not at the time, that is, by adding rhythm, by rearranging the words, and by tying everything up, Cato would not be surpassed by anyone (68).
Of the 150 speeches that Cicero had a chance to peruse, only fragments derived from eighty speeches have survived. These fragments are citations extracted from later sources which philologists have painstakingly collected and systematized by drawing on a variety of related evidence. The oldest fragments of oratorical prose attributed to Cato belong to a speech delivered in 195 bce at Numantia (Spain). In this speech he addressed the Roman equites that were under his consular command with the aim of stimulating their military ambitions (1.1-2; Cugusi 1982: 67). In the same year Cato spoke against the abrogation of a sumptuary law (lex Oppia) promulgated during wartime that limited expenditure on women’s clothing and carriages. All that remains of Cato’s intervention on that occasion is a speech recounted by the Augustan historian Livy in his account of the turmoil that took place during the discussion (34.2-4). In 191 bce Cato responded to the accusations leveled by a plebeian tribune regarding his conduct as a consul in 195 BCE with a speech that goes under the title Dierum Dictarum De Consulatu Suo (4.5-39; Cugusi 1982: 68-74). In the following year Cato spoke against usury with the speech Dissuasio Legis luniae De Fener-atione (5.40-1; Cugusi 1982: 74) and attacked Quintus Minucius Thermus (consul 193 bce) with two orations (6.42, 7.43-7; Cugusi 1982: 74-6). After defeating the Ligurians, Thermus had asked to celebrate his triumph and it is plausible to think that he was denied this privilege because of Cato’s accusations (Livy 37.46.1-2).
Cato’s censorship became famous for being both severe and innovative (e. g., Nep. Ca. 2.3; Livy 39.44.1). He did not limit himself to the traditional production of notae whereby the censors used to strike off misbehaving senators and equites from the censorial lists, but he also delivered speeches to support his decisions (Livy 39.42.6). In these speeches Cato addressed the most pressing issues of his time: the control of lavish expenditures (11.52, 12.52-3; Cugusi 1982: 78), the regulation of private habits and the illicit use of public resources (13.54-6, 14.57-8, 15.59-69, 20.73-9, 21.80; Cugusi 1982: 78-82, 84-5), the improper display of war spoils in private houses (18.71, 19.72; Cugusi 1982: 83), and the abuses of power by magistrates (23.54; Cugusi 1982: 78-9). His censorship became so notorious that Cato gained the nickname of Censor and on numerous occasions he had to defend himself from the attacks of his peers (Plin. HN 7.100; Plut. Cat. Mai. 15.4; Nep. Ca. 2.4; Val. Max. 3.7.7). All that remains of the forty-four self-defense speeches noted in later sources are fragments relating to eight ofthem. Among these, the most important are the Dierum Dictarum De Consulatu Suo mentioned above, the Ad Litis Censorias (23.90-1; Cugusi 1982: 87) and the Si Se M. Caelius Tribunus Appellasset (22.81-9; Cugusi 1982: 85-7) delivered in 184 bce, the De Suis Virtutibus Contra <L> Thermum Post Censuram (24.93-9; Cugusi 1982: 88-90) of 183 bce, and the De Sumptu Suo (51.169; Cugusi 1982: 110-11), possibly performed in 159 or 154 bce.
After his censorship Cato became a most authoritative presence in the senate. In 171 BCE he spoke in favor of the Hispanic populations who complained about their unfair treatment by Roman governors (29.109-11; Cugusi 1982: 92). In 167 bce he promoted the liberation of Macedonia (31.116; Cugusi 1982: 94) and sustained the pardon of the Rhodians after the victory against Perseus (32.118-27; Cugusi 1982: 94-9). In all of these speeches Cato supported a foreign policy that looked to the public interest and took into account the problems connected with ruling over an extended empire. As a senator he intervened in the discussion of the lex Voconia, which interdicted female inheritance (30.112-15; Cugusi 1982: 93) and supported the lex Orchia, which regulated convivial expenditures (34.128-32; Cugusi 1982: 100). In the year of his death (149 bce) he acted as prosecutor and spoke virulently against Servius Sulpicius Galba, who had been brought to trial by the tribune Lucius Scribonius Libo (41.150-4; Cugusi 1982: 105-7). Apparently during his campaign against the Lusitanians Galba had massacred the surrendering population and had made money by selling many locals into slavery. Cato lost the case, but inserted a written version of this speech together with the one he delivered in support of the Rhodians in the now pitiably fragmentary Origines, a work generally identified as the first example of historiographical prose in Latin (but see Sciarrino 2004). From the speech against Galba only two short fragments remain, but longer passages of the oration on behalf of the Rhodians survive because it attracted the attention of Tiro, the faithful freedman and secretary of Cicero.
In a letter to Quintus Axius, Tiro used the text of the Pro Rhodiensibus to draw a comparison between the oratory of Cato and Cicero. In that context he criticized the former for failing to construct a suitable enthymeme and for not following the proper rhetorical procedure in structuring his discourse. In the second century ce Aulus Gellius would cite the letter and refute Tiro’s criticism by quoting and commenting on seven long passages (NA 6 (7) 3). He would conclude that Cato used all the weapons and means of the rhetorical discipline, but that his prose lacked rhythmical elaboration (6 (7) 3.52, 53). In other places of his Noctes Atticae, Gellius adds that Cato tried to overcome the limits of his own time, looked to Cicero, and paved the way to the future development of Roman oratory (10.3.16, 13.25 (24).12). What is noteworthy about this temporally long-distance debate is that, though expressing different opinions, both Tiro and Gellius reenacted and reinforced the teleological framework purveyed by Cicero.
The effects of Cicero’s assessment of Cato’s rhetorical refinement can be detected well beyond post-Ciceronian commentators. Indeed, even today whether Cato knew of and relied on Greek rhetorical theories remains a contested issue that is deeply embroiled in the assessment of his anti-Hellenism (e. g., Clarke 19963: 38-42; Kennedy 1994: 110-11; Leeman 1963: 43-9; Astin 1978: 147-56; Albrecht 1989: 11-20; Cavarzere 2000: 47-56). Although it is generally recognized that the fragments do not offer enough ground to give a definite answer, the discussion continues to draw force from three scraps of evidence. The first consists of Quintilian’s assertion: Romanorum primus, quantum ego quidem sciam, condidit aliqua in hanc materiam M. Cato... ille censorius (‘‘as far as I know, the first among the Romans who founded something in this field [i. e., rhetoric] was Marcus Cato, the censor,’’ Inst. 3.1.19). This testimony is often discussed in association with two Catonian precepts addressed to his son in a work generally identified as Ad Filium. The first precept, orator est, Marcefili, vir bonus dicendiperitus (‘‘an orator, my son Marcus, is an honorable man skilled in speaking,’’ preserved in Sen. Controv. 1 praef. 9), would seem to reveal Cato’s intention to subordinate Greek rhetoric to the traditional reliance on the moral and social authority of the speaker. The second precept, rem tene verba sequentur (‘‘hold the subject matter, the words will follow,’’ Iulius Victor 17; Halm 1863: 374), would point to his rejection ofverbal embellishments dictated by Greek rhetoric.
Continuing to argue in favor or against the influence of Greek rhetoric on Cato’s oratory imposes a very restricted view on an already limited body of evidence. At best, it means to take sides in the ancient struggle over social and cultural authority where archaism was conceptually opposed to Greekness and where defining each of these notions served to prove or disprove mastery over the practice of speech making. At worst, it means to accept Cicero’s theoretical stance and his oratorical prose as absolute standards and therefore to invest early oratorical texts with an air of pre-liminarity or to conceptualize them as somewhat underdeveloped cultural specimens. A way to avoid these predicaments, perhaps, is to approach anew the features that make second-century bce oratory distinctive within its own milieu.
World History
