Rhetoric and the Political Class

The very existence of theoretical handbooks and rhetorical exercises that come down to us from the likes of Quintilian and Seneca seems a clear indication that oratorical virtuosity was still essential for Romans of the political class. Perhaps most telling, however, is the emphasis the younger Pliny put on oratory and the importance he attributed to it throughout his letters. Of the 247 letters in the corpus of the first nine books, approximately one-third attest, in varying degrees, to oratory’s significance among the elite. Pleading in the courts, oratorical style, circulation and revision of

Speeches previously delivered, the passing reference to a sick or dead colleague’s eloquence, all indicate the professional importance oratory had for Pliny and the elite society in which he moved. Other sources, Tacitus in particular, also bear witness to oratory’s abiding importance. A good show in the courts or senate was still the way a young man could and did make his mark. In his late teens, a well-placed Roman would come under the tutelage of a more experienced elder, attending him in the senate, and learning the political and legal lessons necessary for public life. Indeed, our sources indicate a broad ‘‘systemic’’ continuity from Cicero’s time stretching into Tacitus’ own lifetime, a space of some 150 years: Cicero, as ayoung man in the eighties bce, had been ‘‘apprenticed’’ to Quintus Mucius Scaevola Augur for studies in civil law (Brut. 306, Amic. 1), and was under the guidance of Lucius Crassus in oratorical matters (De Or. 2.2; Rawson 1971); in the same way Tacitus had been ‘‘apprenticed’’ to Marcus Aper and lulius Secundus with whom he appears in the Dialogus. The dramatic date of the dialogue is 75 ce, when Tacitus will have been only around twenty years old. Pliny too attests to undergoing a similar training (Ep. 8.14). By the time Tacitus himself was a mature politician, he too was acting as mentor to other rising stars (Ep. 4.13).

A man in his early to middle twenties, even in Tacitus’ day, could still make one of his initial marks in politics through prosecution, and it is entirely possible that Tacitus may have made a name for himself in such a way. Pliny notes his eloquence in 100 ce during the prosecution of Marius Priscus, a corrupt governor of Africa (Ep. 2.11), and in his funeral oration of Verginius Rufus, who died in 97 (2.1), though his admiration was no doubt swayed by friendship. Moreover, throughout the pages of Tacitus there is ample record of ambitious upstarts, such as Romanus Hispo (Ann. 1.74) and Tarquitius Priscus (12.59) who early in their careers sought with varying degrees of success to make names for themselves through prosecution.

It is worth noting that even the principes could not escape the need to show off their rhetorical skills, and their ‘‘peers’’ in the senate remarked a princeps’ ability to speak well, at least according to Tacitus, who gives us a review of the rhetorical prowess (or lack thereof) of the emperors from Augustus’ through Nero (Ann. 13.3). There he notes that Augustus’ was a prompta ac profluens (‘‘ready and eloquent’’) oratory. His successor, Tiberius, was validus sensibus aut consulto ambiguus (‘‘powerful in his expression but ambiguous by design’’), a generous assessment in comparison to Tacitus’ earlier disparagement of Tiberius as one whose suspensa semper et obscura verba (‘‘ever ambiguous and cryptic words,’’ 1.11) constituted a style that mirrored his hypocrisy and treachery. The fact of Caligula’s turbata mens (‘‘disturbed mind,’’ 13.3) did little to damage his vim dicendi (‘‘strength of speaking’’). And Claudius’ speeches did not lack eloquence, provided he practiced. Nero, for Tacitus, was a different matter. He opened his reign with an address to the senate written by Seneca, having alienae facundiae eguisse (‘‘had need of the eloquence of another’’) and having no real taste for rhetoric himself (though in a surprisingly apologetic remark Tacitus notes that his poems displayed some learning).