Reading Republican Oratory Reconstructions Contexts Receptions Christa Gray All Chapter

Reading Republican Oratory:
Reconstructions, Contexts, Receptions

Christa Gray
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmass.com/product/reading-republican-oratory-reconstructions-contexts-r
eceptions-christa-gray/
OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 1/12/2017, SPi
READING REPUBLICAN ORATORY

Reading Republican
Oratory
Reconstructions, Contexts, Receptions
Edited by
C H R I S T A GR A Y , A N DR E A B A L B O ,
RICHARD M. A. MARSHALL,
and
C A T H E R I N E E. W. S T E E L
1
3
Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, OX2 6DP,
United Kingdom
Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford.
It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship,
and education by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of
Oxford University Press in the UK and in certain other countries
© Oxford University Press 2018
The moral rights of the authors have been asserted
First Edition published in 2018
Impression: 1
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in
a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the
prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted
by law, by licence or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics
rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the
above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the
address above
You must not circulate this work in any other form
and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer
Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press
198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States of America
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data
Data available
Library of Congress Control Number: 2017946743
ISBN 978–0–19–878820–1
Printed and bound by
CPI Group (UK) Ltd, Croydon, CR0 4YY
Links to third party websites are provided by Oxford in good faith and
for information only. Oxford disclaims any responsibility for the materials
contained in any third party website referenced in this work.
Preface
This volume originated in a conference held at the University of Turin on

15–17 April 2015, organized by Catherine Steel and Andrea Balbo as part of the
Fragments of the Roman Republican Orators project based at the University of
Glasgow and funded by the European Research Council (2012–17). We are
grateful to the School of Humanities at the University of Glasgow and to the
Dipartimento di Studi Umanistici dell’Università di Torino for their assistance
in running the conference and to all the participants at the conference for their
contributions to our discussions. The conference organizers have been joined in
the process of editing by two of the Research Assistants on the FRRO project,
Christa Gray and Richard Marshall, and the task of putting the volume together
has been smoothed for us by the quick and responsive collaboration of all the
contributors. The editors are grateful to Zara Chadha, who assisted with putting
the typescript together and prepared the indexes with skill and accuracy.
Additional research costs were generously subsidised by the Alexander von
Humboldt Foundation. Finally, we must thank Oxford University Press for
their support and encouragement with this project from its outset.
Contents
List of Figures and Tables ix

List of Abbreviations xi
List of Contributors xiii
Introduction 1
PART A: TRANSMISSION
i. Republican Rome 17
1. Roman Orators between Greece and Rome: The Case of
Cato the Elder, L. Crassus, and M. Antonius 19
Alexandra Eckert
2. Republican Satire in the Dock: Forensic Rhetoric in Lucilius 33
Ian Goh
3. Plautus and the Tone of Roman Diplomacy of Intervention 49
Elena Torregaray Pagola
4. The Eloquence of Publius Sulpicius Rufus and Gaius
Aurelius Cotta in Cicero’s Brutus 59
Alfredo Casamento
ii. Imperial Rome 75
5. The Fragments of Republican Orators in Quintilian’s Institutio
oratoria 77
Amedeo Raschieri
6. Vis and Seruitus: The Dark Side of Republican Oratory
in Valerius Maximus 95
S. J. Lawrence
7. Reconstructing Republican Oratory in Cassius Dio’s
Roman History 111
Christopher Burden-Strevens
8. Netting the Wolf-Fish: Gaius Titius in Macrobius and Cicero 135
John Dugan
viii Contents
PART B: RECONSTRUCTION OF THE FRAGMENTS

AND THEIR SOCIAL AND POLITICAL
CONTEXTS
i. Reconstructions in the Literal Sense 151
9. Gaius Titius, Orator and Poeta. (Cic. Brut. 167 and Macrob.
Sat. 3.16.4–16) 153
Alberto Cavarzere
10. Clodius’ Contio de haruspicum responsis 171
Anthony Corbeill
11. ‘Certain gentlemen say . . .’: Cicero, Cato, and the Debate
on the Validity of Clodius’ Laws 191
Kit Morrell
ii. Oratorical Performance 211
12. The Politics of Pronuntiatio: The Rhetorica ad Herennium
and Delivery in the Early First Century BC 213
Jennifer Hilder
13. Traces of Actio in Fragmentary Roman Orators 227
Andrea Balbo
14. I Said, He Said: Fragments of Informal Conversations and
the Grey Zones of Public Speech in the Late Roman Republic 247
Cristina Rosillo-López
iii. Gender in Fragmentary Oratory 261
15. Of Fragments and Feelings: Roman Funeral Oratory Revisited 263
Hans Beck
16. Fragments of Epideictic Oratory: The Exemplary Case of the
Laudatio Funebris for Women 281
Cristina Pepe
17. Women from the Rostra: Fulvia and the Pro Milone 297
Bill Gladhill
18. Oratorum Romanarum Fragmenta Liberae Rei Publicae:
The Letter of Cornelia, Mater Gracchorum, and the
Speeches of Her Father and Son 309
Judith P. Hallett
Bibliography 319
Index Locorum 355
General Index 362
List of Figures and Tables
Figures
5.1. Citations per orator 79
5.2. Citations per book 80
Tables
13.1. Voice 231
13.2. Gestures 231
13.3. Movements 231
13.4. Combined elements 231
List of Abbreviations
AE (1888–), L’Année épigraphique. Paris.

CIL (1862–), Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum. Berlin.
FGrHist F. Jacoby (ed.) (1923–), Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker. Berlin.
FIR7 C. G. Bruns, T. Mommsen, and O. Gradenwitz (eds) (1887), Fontes Iuris
Romani Antiqui. Tübingen.
FIRA2 S. Riccobono, (ed.) (1968‒9), Fontes Iuris Romani Antejustiniani. Florence.
FRH H. Beck and U. Walter (eds) (2001–), Die frühen römischen Historiker.
FRHist T. J. Cornell et al. (eds) (2013), Fragments of the Roman Historians, 3 vols.
Oxford.
GLK H. Keil (ed.) (1855–1923), Grammatici Latini, 8 vols., repr. 1961. Leipzig.
Halm K. Halm (1863), Rhetores Latini minores. Leipzig.
HRR H. Peter (ed.) (1870–1906), Historicorum Romanorum Reliquiae, 2 vols.
Leipzig.
IGRR R. Cagnat (1901–27), Inscriptiones Graecae ad res Romanas pertinentes,
4 vols. Paris.
ILS H. Dessau (ed.) (1892–1906), Inscriptiones Latinae Selectae, 5 vols. Leipzig.
MRR T. R. S. Broughton (1951–2, 1986), The Magistrates of the Roman Republic,
3 vols. New York and Atlanta.
OLD P. G. W. Glare (ed.) (2012), Oxford Latin Dictionary, 2nd ed. Oxford.
4
ORF E. Malcovati (ed.) (1976), Oratorum Romanorum Fragmenta Liberae Rei
Publicae, 2 vols. Turin.
PIR2 E. Groag et al. (eds) (1933–2015), Prosopographia imperii Romani saec.
I. II. III. 8 vols. Berlin.
RE G. Wissowa et al. (eds) (1893–1978), Paulys Realencyclopädie der
klassischen Altertumswissenschaft. Stuttgart.
TLL (1900–), Thesaurus Linguae Latinae. Leipzig.
TLRR M. C. Alexander (1990), Trials in the Late Roman Republic, 149 BC–50 BC.
Toronto and London.
List of Contributors
Andrea Balbo is Lecturer at the University of Turin and also teaches at the
University of Italian Switzerland in Lugano.
Hans Beck is Professor of Ancient History and John MacNaughton Chair of
Classics at McGill University.
Christopher Burden-Strevens is Lecturer in Ancient History at the Univer-
sity of Kent.
Alfredo Casamento is Associate Professor of Latin Language and Literature
at the University of Palermo.
Alberto Cavarzere is Professor of Latin Language and Literature at the
University of Verona.
Anthony Corbeill is Basil L. Gildersleeve Professor of Classics at the Univer-
sity of Virginia.
John Dugan is Associate Professor in the Department of Classics at the State
University of New York at Buffalo.
Alexandra Eckert is Assistant Professor in Ancient History at the University
of Oldenburg.
Bill Gladhill is Associate Professor in History and Classical Studies at McGill
University.
Ian Goh is Lecturer in Classics at Swansea University.
Christa Gray is Lecturer in Classics at the University of Reading and
a Postdoctoral Fellow of the Alexander-von-Humboldt Foundation at the
Humboldt University in Berlin.
Judith P. Hallett is Professor of Classics at the University of Maryland,
College Park.
Jennifer Hilder is Lecturer in the Department of Classics and Ancient History
at Durham University.
S. J. Lawrence is Charles Tesoriero Lecturer in Latin at the University of New
England.
Richard M. A. Marshall is Lecturer at the University of Glasgow and
Research Associate on the ERC-funded project ‘Fragments of the Republican
Roman Orators’.
xiv List of Contributors
Kit Morrell is Research Associate in the Department of Classics and Ancient

History at the University of Sydney.
Elena Torregaray Pagola is Lecturer in Classics at the University of the
Basque Country.
Cristina Pepe is Research Associate in Classical Philology at the University of
Campania ‘L. Vanvitelli’.
Amedeo Raschieri is Research Associate in the Department of Literary
Studies, Philology, and Linguistics at the University of Milan.
Cristina Rosillo-López is Senior Lecturer in History at the Universidad Pablo
de Olavide, Seville.
Catherine E. W. Steel is Professor of Classics at the University of Glasgow
and Principal Investigator on the ERC-funded project ‘Fragments of the
Republican Roman Orators’.
Introduction
Recent decades have seen a vigorous discussion among scholars about the
significance of public speech in the workings of the Roman Republic.1
Although Rome had developed into a vast empire by the first century BC,
it retained the political structures of the city state from which it had
originated.2 These included citizen participation in political decision-making
and a concomitant role for political oratory. In a society without mechan-
ically reproduced mass media, oratory represented a uniquely effective way
to communicate with a large number of people, and the contio was the chief
means of disseminating information to the citizen body as a preliminary
to legislative activity. Such information could include reports of debates in
the Senate, and senators could also disseminate versions of their contribu-
tions to senatorial meetings.3 Alongside these occasions for speech were
others, less directly connected with specific decisions but not irrelevant to
the civic life of the community, such as speeches delivered at the funerals of
those prominent in public life, as well as a range of utterances which took
place in public and had the potential to contribute to the reputations and
perceptions of politicians.
A major challenge in the analysis of political oratory in the Roman Republic
is the partial nature of the surviving evidence. We are well supplied with
oratorical texts for the end of the Republic, but these are all by Cicero. The
purpose of this volume is to explore the ways in which we can recover oratory
by men (and, in exceptional cases, women) other than Cicero. It is concerned
with both the methods by which we can reconstruct non-Ciceronian oratory
and with the results of such reconstructions: what can we know about the
1
Some milestones are Millar 1998; Morstein-Marx 2004; Achard 2006; Blom 2016; Blom,
Gray, and Steel (forthcoming). This volume itself is part of the European Research Council
funded project ‘The Fragments of Republican Roman Oratory’ (FRRO), which seeks to identify
all the evidence for oratory by speakers other than Cicero during the Roman Republic.
2
The extent to which these mechanisms of participation made Republican Rome democratic
has been hotly debated; see, in addition to n. 1, Millar 1984; 1986; Jehne 1995.
3
Before Caesar’s legislation to publish the acta senatus in 59 BC, this was often the only way to
publicize such information.
2 Introduction
content, context, allusions, and delivery of such speeches? In part, the chal-
lenges involved in accessing fragmentary oratory are identical to the problems
of understanding the transmission processes of ancient Roman literature in
general. But, as we will argue below, oratory is a genre which is uniquely
difficult to pin down because it is an oral phenomenon which needs no writing
at all; even where writing and spoken oratory intersect, the written traces that
survive of this process are not, in the case of Republican Rome, straightfor-
ward transcripts of speeches as these were actually delivered.
One method of transmitting oratory was through texts which purported to
record in writing what had been said in speeches, and which were dissemin-
ated by those who delivered the speech. In this way the spoken word was
replaced by an authoritative written analogue that could enter the literary
tradition and be quoted, excerpted, or alluded to like any other work of
literature. The prime examples of this type are the speeches of Cicero, many
of which have come down to us in their entirety through the literary tradi-
tion. However, Cicero is in many ways a unique case. As an outsider to the
senatorial nobility, he was very conscious of the need to base his career on
substantive achievements, namely his prowess as an orator. As a result, the
emphasis in his theoretical works on the importance of oratory in Roman
politics may well be exaggerated; the scale of publication of his speeches, and
perhaps even their circulation as works of literature, also reflects his distinctive
profile. Other politicians found other ways of promoting themselves: Caesar,
for example, published his Commentarii on the Gallic and Civil Wars; Pom-
pey’s supporters produced terracotta busts in his image.4 Because Cicero
foregrounded oratory and many of his ‘speeches’ survive, his oratorical prac-
tice has generated huge amounts of scholarship in its own right.5 This volume
will focus instead on public speech which survives only in pieces, whether in
quotations, citations, theoretical discussions, or the creative reworkings of
historians and others. Of these snatches of oratorical expression, some had
their origins in speeches that were published on behalf of their authors—like
Cicero’s—but were later lost from the record. Others may have been remem-
bered as dicta or ‘winged words’, sayings that entered popular consciousness
and became emblematic of their speakers’ characters, such as the notorious
Carthago delenda est of the elder Cato.6 Yet more survive merely through
summaries of what was said on particular occasions. In other cases again, the
character of a performance is recorded implicitly through the reactions to it.
Here the notion of ‘character’ combines views of the speaker’s personality with
4
Rosillo-López in Blom, Gray and Steel (forthcoming).
5
Tempest 2011; Gildenhard 2011.
6
Incidentally, the earliest evidence for this saying appears to belong to the Imperial period:
Plin. NH 15.74, clamaret omni senatu Carthaginem delendam.
Introduction 3
his (hardly ever her)7 rhetorical technique—including the use of voice, facial
expression, and gesture—and the content of his words. Sometimes these
aspects are itemized in our sources, but more often the impression given is
an integrated one of the performance as a whole.8 Furthermore, not all public
speech took the shape of formal set pieces: spontaneous and even casual
remarks had the potential to become equally notorious.9 Our intention is to
supplement the complete (Ciceronian) works preserved in written transmis-
sion and to investigate, as far as is possible, the relationships between the
fragmentary and tangential evidence that is recorded and the oral contexts in
which it (only supposedly, in some cases) originated.
The methodological problems in getting to grips with Roman Republican
speech as it was spoken and heard are deep and varied. There are numerous
factors that influence the means by which a speech was recorded and the
content that was ultimately preserved. From the delivery of a speech on-
wards, the priorities of a variety of agents determined what was recorded
and remembered, and, of course, the criteria of relevance were constantly
being negotiated. Even if the intention in a specific case was to preserve a
verbatim account, the gap between what was actually said and what was
written down was, in technical terms, nearly unbridgeable. Even if an orator
is assumed to have spoken from a script that is extant, there is no guarantee
that he stuck exactly to this script; nor is it possible to reconstruct from a
script the orator’s delivery or the mood of the audience.10 In fact, the use of
scripts does not appear to correspond with what is known of oratorical
practice in this period,11 and no surviving text purports to be an absolutely
accurate transcript of a speech recorded for the speaker during the actual act
of delivery.
Nonetheless, it remains useful to treat an orator’s authorized written text as
a distinctive form of evidence: given the difficulties outlined above, it would be
unwise to treat this as a record of the exact words spoken on a particular
occasion, but it does preserve what an orator wished it to be remembered that
he had said, with consequent implications for the probability, if not the
veracity, of his words: it might be said that such a text preserves what an
orator believed he was plausibly capable of saying under the most favourable
7
The vast majority of public speakers we know of are male. See section B.iii in this volume
for a discussion of women in oratory.
8
Relevant papers in this volume: especially Balbo; Hilder; Casamento.
9 10
Rosillo-López in this volume. Cf. Balbo in this volume.
11
The emphasis on memoria within ancient rhetorical practice (cf. e.g. Rhet. Her. 3.28–40;
Cic. De or. 2.351–3; Quint. Inst. 11.2.11–16) points to an environment in which orators spoke
from memory, even if the text they memorized had been prepared using writing. In fact Cicero,
of whose practice we know most, seems to have combined detailed textual preparation of some
parts of speeches with a willingness to extemporize, increasing the difficulties in taking his
speeches as direct transcriptions.
4 Introduction
of performance circumstances.12 In all cases except that of Cicero, the only
remains of this kind of textual evidence are preserved in the excerpts of later
writers, and consequently we have only fragments. According to this line of
thinking, the definition of an oratorical fragment is a faithfully transmitted
excerpt copied from a text which was published by an orator and records the
exact words which he spoke (or rather, wished to be remembered as having
spoken) on the occasion.13 Such fragments are vulnerable to the vicissitudes
common to fragments of ancient texts in general: it is not always clear how
faithfully the excerpters copied their originals, and, additionally, their own
works were not exempt from copying errors, manuscript damage, and the
like. A further difficulty with oratorical fragments is that the information
about the quoted text is often partial or absent in the quoting authority. An
ancient author who purports to quote what an orator said without identify-
ing his source may have had in front of him (or stored in his memory) the
text of the speech as originally disseminated by the orator, but it is also
possible that the information comes from another kind of source, such as a
historiographical text, in which case the words cannot, on this definition, be
treated as a fragment of that orator.
It may be the case, therefore, that a fragment contains strong, verbatim
evidence about the content of a speech, but equally, owing to the problems of
recording and transmission that we have outlined above, a passage that
appears to be a fragment may in reality be something else. Further, not all
orators chose to publish their speeches in the first place: Cicero explicitly tells
us, for example, that Scipio Africanus did not engage in this practice.14 And
an excerpted passage can only reveal a limited amount of information if the
context is not recorded—never mind such details of a performance as venue,
audience, the speaker’s voice, appearance, gestures, and so on, absences
which even affect the value of Cicero’s transmitted speeches.15 For all these
reasons, testimonia, which summarize arguments, occasions, and delivery,
may be equally, if not more, informative, and even, in some respects, more
‘truthful’. By extension, even the reimagined speeches found in historical
writings may preserve genuine aspects of an original performance, even if
12
This point is well illustrated by the case of Cicero’s two speeches Pro Milone: Cass. Dio
40.54.3–4; Asc. Mil. 42C.
13
This is the definition of a fragment which the FRRO project uses; it classes all other
evidence as testimonia.
14
Cic. Off. 3.4: quamquam Africanus maiorem laudem meo iudicio adsequebatur. nulla enim
eius ingenii monumenta mandata litteris, nullum opus otii, nullum solitudinis munus exstat
(‘And yet Africanus, in my view, achieved the greater glory, as no records of his talent were
preserved in writing, no product of his free time, no work arising from his solitude exists’).
Translation: FRRO.
15
For extratextual aspects of public speech, see especially in this volume: Hilder; Balbo; Beck.
Introduction 5
they are additionally refracted through the practice of declamation and the
conventions of historiography.16
In whatever ways these utterances were recorded, read, quoted, or otherwise
remembered and passed on, they became part of a wider tradition which left
its stamp on all sorts of media.17 Literary, didactic, and political currents
constantly reframed and reshaped the expressions of Roman values and
identity that relate to public oratory. In many cases it is impossible to separate
a piece of evidence from its transmission context, let alone restore it to its
original, pristine state, with all the accretions of history removed.18 A sensitive
analysis of fragmentary oratory therefore requires not only knowledge of the
historical circumstances of the original speech, but a thorough awareness of
the literary, cultural, and ideological factors (among others) whose interaction
produced and preserved the material we have today. From our end of the
tradition, an ostensibly verbatim quotation of a speech may look more ‘au-
thentic’ or ‘original’ than a summary or an adaptation—but how certain can
we be in each case that the quotation reaches back unchanged to the vocal
apparatus of the speaker, or at least to a published version of a speech?
A summary or adaptation, on the other hand, may accurately record infor-
mation regarding the delivery of the speech, though not the ipsissima uerba of
the orator.
These various problems come with crucial implications for reconstructing
and analysing Roman public speech as a whole: it may be possible to classify
our evidence according to a hierarchy of authority with varying degrees of
confidence, but there is no criterion which guarantees absolute certainty. The
entire ‘experience’ of fragmentary oratory (i.e. oratory as we may seek to
reconstruct it from both fragments and testimonia) depends on a series of
interpretative screens imposed during antiquity and beyond: these are in many
ways more varied than we find with other fragmentary genres, because we are
not simply dealing with the willingness of later generations to read and copy
texts, but also with the variable processes of creating oratorical and quasi-
oratorical texts in the first place, and with the different interests—moralizing,
biographical, geopolitical, educational—upon which the recording of orator-
ical testimonia is predicated. The distinctive approach of this volume therefore
consists in foregrounding the issues that confront the modern critic in reach-
ing back to Roman Republican speech through the (mainly textual) evidence
that we rely upon today.
16
See Burden-Strevens in this volume for a defence of the usefulness of Dio Cassius in
this regard.
17
See Eckert 2016 for a case study of ancient memorialization of a prominent Republican
figure, L. Cornelius Sulla.
18
See Dugan in this volume.
6 Introduction
One central question concerns the impact of the end of the Republic: to
what extent did this condition Imperial authors to view oratory in their own
day as qualitatively or functionally different to oratory as practised before
Augustus? There are two main transformations which are likely to have
influenced their reception of Republican oratory: the loss of parrhesia or
‘free speech’ under the emperors (a topic foregrounded in Tacitus’ Dialogus),
and a fundamental change in the uses to which oratory was put. Deliberative
oratory survived, albeit restricted mainly to senatorial debates; judicial ora-
tory continued, sometimes in new spaces, and with more emphasis on the
centumviral courts; and epideictic oratory flourished thanks to the new import-
ance of praise speeches. Together, many contemporary sources perceived these
changes in terms of decadence (for example, the elder Seneca,19 Petronius,20
Velleius Paterculus,21 Quintilian,22 Pseudo-Longinus,23 and others). As Andrea
Balbo has shown in his edition of Tiberian oratorical fragments, however, the
concept of decadence, with its ethical connotations, is not a particularly app-
ropriate way of explaining these transformations: not only did many of the
older speeches continue to be read and copied as examples (as attested by
Quintilian,24 Suetonius,25 Tacitus,26 and others), but the practice of oratory
continued to be relevant. The oratory of the Imperial age was different, but not
necessarily less ‘valuable’ than that of the Republican period. Contemporaries,
however, perceived these functional changes as marking a qualitative decline
in oratory.
Their negative outlook was partly conditioned by the spaces in and occa-
sions upon which oratory was practised. The presence of the princeps placed a
constraint on the opportunities for political speech, and the increase in
maiestas-cases illustrated not only the limitations in free speech, but often
brought contemporary oratory into disrepute as the tool of tyranny. Changes
in the law removed Imperial practitioners and theoreticians (causidici and
iurisconsulti, according to the famous distinction at Sen. Apocol. 8.2) further
away from their Republican forebears: the system of cognitiones extra ordinem,
which allowed for the same official both to investigate and to judge a case,
forced orators to address predominantly an individual rather than a large jury.
This necessarily led to a complete transformation in oratorical strategies.27
19
Sen. Contr. 1 pr. 6–10.
20
Petron. Sat. 1–2: Encolpius’ declamation on the decline of oratory.
21
Vell. Pat. 1.17.3: Cicero’s time was the high point of oratory.
22
Quint. Inst. 10.1.125–31 blames the popularity of Seneca for the contemporary decline. His
earlier work (now lost) De causis corruptae eloquentiae evidently expanded on the subject.
23
On the Sublime 44 diagnoses a worldwide decline of eloquence and literature in general.
24
See Raschieri in this volume.
25
Suet. Rhet. 1 gives an account of students learning to analyse (exponere) speeches; Rhet. 2
quotes from the speech which M. Caelius gave in his own defence against Atratinus.
26
Tac. Dial., e.g. 21.1–2 on the twenty-one books of speeches left by Calvus.
27
See Bablitz 2007.
Introduction 7
Further, the transmission and representation of the Republican oratorical
record was liable to distortion from subsequent educational needs and prac-
tices within an increasingly methodical and structured teaching environment.
Within this teaching environment, proficiency in declamation—the compos-
ition and performance of oratorical set pieces—increasingly became a goal, not
merely a means, of instruction. A large proportion of the material that we have
defined above as fragments is transmitted through the declamations of Seneca
the Elder, Pseudo-Quintilian, and Calpurnius Flaccus, in Quintilian’s manual
of education, and the rhetorical and grammatical treatises of Late Antiquity.
Many references to fragmentary oratory are thus conditioned by the needs of
these different school texts. For example, grammatical works required short
portions of text with precise boundaries in order to highlight the point under
discussion, and tended, quite naturally, to gravitate to passages containing
lexical or grammatical oddities. The perceived authority of the speaker, in such
cases, was frequently more important than bibliographical or other contextual
information about the ultimate source of the material quoted. Quintilian,
though he tends to pay more attention to specifying the orator and the context,
confined his selection of material to a canon of orators he considered to be
suitable models for his pupils;28 the declaimers, on the other hand, liked to
quote passages for their pathos.
One must also factor in simple changes in interests and fashions: those
literary genres where we find references to speeches (apart from school texts)
have very different emphases. For example, in biographical works quotations
are determined by the need of the anecdote and an interest in the protag-
onists’ ethos; history is somewhat less selective than biography, but the need
to focus on the most important facts necessarily entails leaving out or
obscuring others. For example, Tacitus describes trials when they have a
function in his narrative construction; sometimes he recreates them, but
otherwise he omits them.29 The epitomes from the fourth and fifth cent-
uries AD were even more selective about the material they used, and were
often concerned to provide useful pieces of information for imperial bur-
eaucrats, who necessarily worked in a system far removed from that in place
during the Republic. Christian texts are more interested in a theological and
teleological conception of history and life. In addition, all the above were
often indebted to earlier compendia for their material, which might circum-
scribe the choice of material transmitted and influence the way this was
subsequently packaged.
28
See Raschieri in this volume.
29
See Damon 2003; Rogers 1952, 1959; Davies 2004: 143 (on Tacitus’ use of religious
elements in terms of ‘a coherent programme, shaped by selectivity, powerful timing and
presentation’); Mayer 2010. In Late Antiquity cf. Amm. 26.1.1: history must speak of the
negotiorum celsitudines.
8 Introduction
As a result, the selection and presentation of earlier speeches is contingent
on a range of subsequent factors, and we must be aware of the influence of
these developments on our understanding of Republican oratory. After all, it
was the Imperial period which shaped all subsequent access to this body of
material: authors like Quintilian, and even later writers, had access to speeches
which only dropped from the record much later.30
The contributions to this volume seek to take these methodological issues
into account as they come to terms with the questions that fragmentary
oratory can allow us to answer. Some offer a perspective on the sociological
aspects of Roman Republican oratory: how it was used in practice and with
what effect. On the prosopographical side, some papers seek to give a broader
answer to the question ‘who spoke in the Republic?’ Other papers explore
means for dealing with the filters affecting all stages of the transmission, and
reflect on aesthetic considerations that may enable the (re)writing of a stylistic
history of Roman Republican oratory independently of Cicero, on the basis of
fragmentary information about other speakers and speeches.31
* * *
V O L U M E S T R U C T U R E AND C ONTRI B U TI ONS
The structure of this volume moves from questions and analysis of transmis-
sion (Part A) to the reconstruction of speeches whose remains are transmitted
in fragmentary fashion, along with their social and political contexts (Part B).
This order is designed to emphasize the screening effects of those who selected
and passed on the material of oratory on the evidence we can use to interpret
oratorical events in the Roman Republic. Accordingly, Part A is divided into a
‘Republican’ and an ‘Imperial’ subsection to bring out the changes in status
and usefulness which oratory underwent during the transition to the Princi-
pate. The fact that oratory ceased to be a medium of political mass commu-
nication means that oratory was probably treated quite differently by authors
like Quintilian, Valerius Maximus, Cassius Dio, and Macrobius than by their
Republican predecessors, who discussed oratory as a living political practice.
The close interaction between scholarly analysis of the texts transmitting
fragmentary oratory and the reconstruction of the original context is dem-
onstrated by the transition from Part A to Part B: the last paper of the first
Part and the first of the second Part deal with the same fragment of the
orator Titius as recorded in Macrobius’ Saturnalia, Sat. 3.16.15–16 = ORF4
51 F2. Whereas John Dugan investigates the literary and cultural reasons
30
Including, for example, speeches by C. Sallustius Crispus Passienus and Cn. Domitius Afer
in Quint. Inst. 6.1.50 and 8.5.16.
31
See in this volume Goh; Torregaray; Casamento; Cavarzere; Dugan.
Introduction 9
which may have motivated Macrobius to include this citation, Alberto
Cavarzere situates Titius in his own rhetorical environment. This chapter
introduces the subsection which deals with reconstructions in the literal
sense (B.i); the two following subsections address broader thematic con-
cerns, specifically oratorical performance (B.ii) and the significance of gen-
der in fragmentary oratory (B.iii).
Part A
A.i
The first part of this volume is designed to address directly questions of
reception, selection, and transmission. The first subsection considers evidence
from the Republican period from the second century BC onwards. It focuses on
comments about Roman public speech not just by well-known practitioners of
oratory, such as Cato the Elder and Cicero, but also from satirical and dramatic
perspectives. Thus the section assesses the usefulness of analysing different
genres as sources for oratory and its background as they reflect a wider literary
and cultural discourse about oratorical practice in a time when public speaking
was an essential political tool, and when the question of how one became an
effective public speaker was of deep concern to the ruling senatorial elite.
Alexandra Eckert revisits the misgivings of a number of Roman aristocrats
when Rome was first faced with a dazzling display of oratorical brilliance
from Greek ambassadors visiting the city in the course of Rome’s Greek wars
in the mid second century. The popularity of these performances appeared to
some—Cato in particular—to tilt the balance between appropriate and excessive
familiarity with foreign culture, and consequently Cato made a point of arguing
in favour of a return to the ‘appropriate’ (dismissive) estimation of Greek
culture. Eckert then traces how a more general pressure to be seen as appropri-
ately critical of Greek learning led Roman orators to adapt their techniques to
conceal the extent to which they had learned from and were indebted to Greek
models. This chapter thus outlines the place of oratory in Roman culture as
a whole.
Following this discussion of propriety and the limits of intercultural influ-
ences, Ian Goh discusses the presentation of appropriate and inappropriate
(styles of) oratory in the satires of Lucilius. Awareness of the generic posi-
tioning of different verse formats and items of vocabulary in a poetic context
helps to throw light on the interpretation of the oratorical fragments reported
in Lucilius, however unreliably.
Of course satire can only be effective if there is some relationship between it
and the audience’s experience of ‘real world’ oratory, or at least with their tacit
assumptions concerning this practice. This is the approach taken by Elena
10 Introduction
Torregaray Pagola, who analyses a speech from Plautus’ comedy Amphitruo
that relates to the contexts of diplomatic oratory: the slave Sosia’s account of
his master Amphitruo’s victory over the Teleboeans. Torregaray shows how a
careful comparison of this speech with what is known about contemporary
diplomatic practice may enable us to extrapolate further insights into the ‘real
world’ phenomenon.
Finally, Alfredo Casamento addresses Cicero’s habit of evaluating orators in
pairs by looking at the presentation of Publius Sulpicius Rufus and Gaius
Aurelius Cotta in the Brutus. Although Cicero’s analysis resists straightfor-
ward interpretations because of his own self-positioning, Casamento argues
that it is still possible—especially if we pay attention to the features of the
orators in question that are not explicitly contrasted—to extract from Cicero’s
evidence a sense of the acceptable range of oratorical behaviour.
In concentrating on the evidence which Republican writers provide con-
cerning the oratory of their own time and the relatively recent past, these four
chapters establish the existence of what could be described as a normative
discourse, in which public speeches were evaluated in terms of their suitability
for their respective circumstances, their ideological implications, and by the
relationship of an orator’s self-positioning with his style.
A.ii
The second subsection of Part A discusses the reception of Republican oratory
in the Imperial period. The main question dealt with here concerns the effects
that later authors’ preoccupations and methods of working have on their
presentation of Republican oratory. Though a different story could be told
of this material, namely its (potentially) formative influence upon later quot-
ing authorities, the broad theme that unites these contributions is instead the
distortions imposed upon quoted material by citing authors; in other words,
the often insidious influence exercised by later authorities over our under-
standing of the fragments of Republican oratory.
This section opens with Amedeo Raschieri’s study of the fragments of
Republican oratory transmitted by Quintilian, which shows that his choice
of what to cite and whom to name was prompted by a range of considerations,
from a pedestrian requirement to find grammatical illustrations, to questions
of canonicity, moral exemplarity, and pedagogical utility. The aggregate of
Republican oratorical material in Quintilian is shown to be highly heteroge-
neous, and Quintilian’s immanent authorial concerns emerge as an important
factor in the patterns of citation observable in his work. Quintilian is argued to
have known much of the Republican oratory he cites at first hand, and thus,
rather than recycle judgements or passages from his predecessors, was fully
equipped to make a personal intervention in the critical traditions concerned
with Republican oratory.
Introduction 11
The contribution of Sarah Lawrence likewise illuminates the investment of
Valerius Maximus in the material he cites, arguing against traditional views
that see him as merely a mechanical compiler of exempla, devoid of creative
agency. Focusing on section 8.9 (‘How great is the force of eloquence’),
Lawrence shows that Valerius Maximus had a surprisingly negative opinion
of the power of oratory. Comparing the illustrative examples chosen by
Valerius Maximus with the traditions on which he was reliant, these examples
are seen to have been selected and manipulated to suit his particular agenda.
Drawing attention to the marked absence of Cicero from the roll call of the
past’s most powerful speakers, and the subtle redrawing of material taken
from Cicero’s own rhetorical treatises, Lawrence uncovers a strategy designed
to implicate oratory systematically in the corruption of liberty, argued to stem
from a post-Augustan pessimism. The material recycled in Valerius Maximus
cannot be treated as ‘uncontaminated’ historical evidence, but bears the
imprint of the time and personality of its quoting author.
A contrasting case is investigated by Christopher Burden-Strevens, who
shows that scholars have been too hasty in writing off as pure invention the
Republican speeches reported in Cassius Dio. A comparison with Cicero
shows that, if Dio’s account cannot claim to be faithful in reporting the facts
of a speech (who spoke, what were their precise words, and when exactly these
were uttered), and even if he is not above combining several discrete incidents
for the sake of simplifying the narrative, Dio nevertheless took care to give
what he thought to be an accurate impression of the arguments employed in
discussions of general problems, and did so by consulting relevant evidence.
Thus, although portions of Cicero’s speech in favour of the lex Manilia in
66 BC are placed in the mouth of Gabinius and transposed to the lex Gabinia
debate of 67 BC, Dio is found to preserve not only the content, but also the
rhetorical strategies of his source. While Dio cannot be used to reconstruct
the lost speeches of orators such as Gabinius, his work took pains to capture
the genuine character of Republican oratory to an extent not previously
suspected. Future work on this neglected resource may one day yield major
insights into lost oratorical traditions, notwithstanding the distortions intro-
duced by Dio himself.
In the final paper of this section (which can be read as a counterpoint to that
of Alberto Cavarzere at the beginning of the next), John Dugan subjects an
extensive fragment of Gaius Titius and its presentation in Macrobius to the
methods of New Historicism, showing the interrelatedness of quoted and
framing texts, and how the boundaries between these may be purposefully
elided to make a more meaningful whole. Dugan’s paper also draws attention
to programmatic statements made by Macrobius concerning the inter-
pretation and ‘digestion’ of fragmentary material, which in some respects
prefigure—and can be brought into productive dialogue with—recent trends
in cultural anthropology.
12 Introduction
Part B
B.i
The second part of the volume returns to the Republican period, presenting a
number of case studies that bring out the possibilities for reconstructing, con-
textualizing, and interpreting various types of public-speech acts in Republican
Rome, as well as a number of specific speeches. The first subsection offers three
examples of the results that can be achieved by detailed work with fragments and
testimonia to reconstruct specific oratorical performances and careers.
Alberto Cavarzere’s paper offers an exhaustive study of the orator Gaius
Titius, known from the passage of Macrobius quoting a fragment that has
been discussed by Dugan in the preceding chapter, and another in Cicero’s
Brutus summarizing his career. Through a careful study of this material and
analysis of earlier discussions, Cavarzere concludes that the surviving frag-
ment can be located with fair confidence in the period between 145 and 131 BC,
and that Titius was a distinctively memorable orator and poet.
Anthony Corbeill uses Cicero’s speech De haruspicum responsis alongside
other material to reconstruct a lost contional speech of Clodius that discussed
a decision of the haruspices. The exercise demonstrates the extent to which
informed imagination permits us to recreate the oratory of the late Republic,
as well as offering a philologically rigorous discussion of Clodius’ style and
linguistic usage. In treating reconstructions of Clodius’ speech as ‘fragments’,
Corbeill disagrees with the definition of an oratorical fragment as offered in
this introduction (see above, p. 4). The methodological discrepancy between
Corbeill’s approach and that of the editors highlights the difficulties in using
precise terminology about something as fundamentally irrecoverable as an-
cient speech. In this case, the dispute centres on the weight that should be put
on different kinds of evidence, and more specifically, pits the textual authority
of the speaker against the record of a witness, who was, it seems, working from
detailed evidence about the contio at which Clodius had spoken. It would be
interesting to see whether Corbeill’s convincing reconstruction can be paral-
leled using the same methods in other contexts.
Kit Morrell’s paper looks at oratory more broadly: not a single event or
orator, but a series of linked oratorical occasions are the focus of an inquiry
into whom Cicero may have meant when he talked about anonymous oppon-
ents in the period after his return from exile. Cicero’s attacks on these
unnamed opponents is part of a wider strategy of misrepresentation relating
to his legal and religious position and that of his property in this period.
B.ii
This section deals with questions of formal and informal speech, and espe-
cially with oratorical delivery. First, Jennifer Hilder develops the argument
Introduction 13
that the Rhetorica ad Herennium, written in the early first century BC,
engages with concrete practices of speakers from the conclusion of the
second century BC onwards. The didactic features of the handbook help
students to develop their skills in actio; in particular, the anonymous treatise
shows how gestures were taking a relevant role in the context of oratorical
performance.
Andrea Balbo approaches oratorical delivery from another perspective, with
a diachronic description of some general features of the testimonia about this
officium oratoris collected in Enrica Malcovati’s Oratorum Romanorum Frag-
menta (1976) and in FRRO. He then provides several case studies, concen-
trating on the contrast between speakers characterized by suauitas uocis and
those who, on the contrary, pronounced in an unpleasant way.
The third contribution raises the complex and intriguing question of the
boundaries of oratory and, by extension, the definition of fragmentary oratory:
Cristina Rosillo-López discusses whether fragments of informal speeches can
be considered part of public speech. As she demonstrates, informal speech of
this kind, while posing its own considerable interpretative challenges and
pushing the boundaries of any definition of oratory, was nonetheless of vital
importance in political debate and the formation of public opinion at Rome.
Rosillo-López’ paper is thus a challenge to the very idea of oratory as a distinct
kind of speech.
B.iii
The final section situates our evidence for oratory in wider communicative
and social settings. First, Hans Beck raises questions about the meaning of
oratory in ritual scenarios, exemplified by the Roman funeral, where the
laudatio funebris forms only a small part of the spectacle offered to the
audience. Here an awareness of the other aspects of an event, including
the extent to which one funeral might differ from the next, can help us interpret
the form and significance of funerary speeches and thus place the very modest
surviving direct attestations of funerary oratory into a broader context.
A key theme in this section is gender. Cristina Pepe shows that women
could frequently be the subjects of funerary eulogies after their death. Unlike
much of the other evidence which we have for oratory as an elite practice,
inscriptions like the Laudatio Turiae and the Laudatio Murdiae show that
funeral speeches could also be delivered by ordinary people in a private
context. Although these inscriptions belong to the early Imperial period,
there is no reason to doubt the existence of similar speeches in the time of
the Republic.
Women’s role as mourners in funerary contexts might even allow them to
stage a narrative which informs and complements any speeches that a man
might give, as Bill Gladhill argues with respect to Fulvia’s dramatization of
Clodius’ body. He shows that the gendered conventions of public ritual can be
14 Introduction
used to make a powerful impression on a crowd. This scenario shows that
actio and other aspects of spectacle have the potential to be effective even
without words.
This possibility sets the tone for the final contribution, in which Judith
Hallett argues that we should take seriously the oratorical achievements
of Cornelia, mother of the Gracchi, as she is revealed to be a mulier bona
dicendi perita. Although there is no evidence that she ever spoke in public, a
letter preserved by Cornelius Nepos reveals her to be an active link between
the oratorical prowess of her father, Scipio Africanus, and her radical sons
Tiberius and Gaius.
This section reveals that women’s public presence and oratorical agency—
although they were already relatively marginal in the Roman Republic
itself—have been further obscured in the course of the textual and scholarly
tradition. It is only by piecing together and thinking about the scant
fragments—transmitted almost incidentally—that we can challenge the
overwhelming prominence of the male voice preserved in the speeches that
gained textual authority.
Part A
Transmission
i
Republican Rome
Roman Orators between Greece and Rome

The Case of Cato the Elder, L. Crassus,
and M. Antonius
Alexandra Eckert
INTROD UCTION : ROM AN NOBI L ITY

AND G REEK CULTURE IN THE SECOND
AND E ARLY FIRST CENTURIES B C
During the second century BC, Rome became increasingly engaged in military
conflicts in the Greek East. Roman victories over Philip V, king of Macedonia
(197 BC), Antiochus III, king of Syria (188 BC), and Philip’s son Perseus, king
of Macedonia (168 BC), resulted in the establishment of the provinces of
Macedonia (148 BC) and Asia Minor (133–129 BC); as a result of this sustained
contact with the East, Roman commanders and magistrates became familiar
with the Greek language and with Greek culture more broadly.
In Rome itself, learned Greeks worked as personal tutors for young mem-
bers of the Roman elite and provided the main source of Greek paideia:
education in Greek language, literature, philosophy, and rhetoric.1 The sons
of Aemilius Paullus, victor in the Third Macedonian War, are prime examples
of Roman nobiles being educated by Greek teachers.2 As a young adult, Scipio
Aemilianus had regular contact with Polybius, and famous Greek orators and
philosophers—Diophanes of Mytilene, Blossius of Kyme, and Menelaus of
Marathos—taught Tiberius and Gaius Gracchus.3
1
Polyb. 32.10 testifies to the presence of Greek philosophers in Rome during the 160s BC. Cf.
Scholz 2011: 131.
2
Plut. Aem. 6.8–10; cf. Scholz 2011: 130 and 141–50.
3
For Scipio Aemilianus: Polyb. 31.23–25.1. For Diophanes of Mytilene: Rawson 1985: 76. For
the Greek tutors of the Gracchi: Scholz 2011: 132–3. For Menelaus of Marathos, see also Wisse
2013: 183.
20 Alexandra Eckert
After their first contact with Greek learning in Rome, many Romans chose
to continue their education during their time in the Greek East. Athens, with
its famous schools of philosophy, Rhodes, Alexandria, and several other Greek
cities attracted members of the elite, who made use of short stopovers in such
places while travelling to Greece, Asia Minor, and Egypt in their capacity as
legates or promagistrates. The renowned orator Marcus Antonius, consul in
99 BC and grandfather of the triumvir of the same name, reportedly engaged in
sophisticated discussions with prominent Greek speakers and philosophers.
In 102 BC, he was assigned the command against the pirates in Cilicia as
praetor with proconsular power (praetor pro consule), and on his way to Asia
Minor he stayed in Athens and Rhodes to converse with learned Greeks of his
time.4 At the beginning of the first century BC, some Romans chose to visit the
Greek East for the sole purpose of completing their Greek paideia. In 88 BC,
C. Aurelius Cotta spent some months in Athens as a private citizen, having
been convinced by Philo of Larissa—then head of the Platonic Academy—that
it would be well worth hearing the famous Epicurean, Zeno of Sidon.5 Without
doubt, Cicero is the most prominent of these Romans: he privately travelled to
Athens, Rhodes, and other parts of the Greek East to further refine his already
excellent rhetorical skills.6
Such visits were not the only factor contributing to the growing popularity
of Greek paideia in Rome, however. As the emerging capital of the Mediter-
ranean, Rome also saw the arrival of distinguished Greek philosophers during
the second century BC, and their public speeches attracted large audiences. In
155 BC, the heads of the three most renowned philosophical schools in Athens—
the Academy, the Peripatos, and the Stoa—visited Rome on a diplomatic
mission. During the Athenian embassy’s stay, many Romans listened in awe
to their public performances and supreme eloquence.7 Between 144 and
129 BC, the famous philosopher Panaetius, later to become the head of the
Stoa, visited Rome several times and counted many young Romans among his
followers.8
Given this background, we may assume that Roman nobiles, and members
of the Roman Senate in particular, were well versed in the Greek language by
the second century BC, and that knowledge of Greek culture and learning was
an acceptable attribute for an elite Roman male to display.9 Nevertheless,
when the heads of the Athenian embassy brought their plea before the
4
For the command of M. Antonius in 102 BC, see Cic. De or. 1.82; Cic. De or. 2.3; Livy, Per. 68;
Scholz 1962: 22–4.
5
Cic. Nat. D. 1.59. Cf. Rawson 1985: 7 and Crawford 1978: 199.
6
Cic. Fin. 5.1–2 (Athens); Cic. Brut. 307 (Rhodes); Cic. Tusc. 3.53 (Corinth).
7
Plut. Cat. Mai. 22; Gell. NA 6.14.8–10. Cf. Heusch 2011: 290.
8
Cic. Brut. 114; Cic. Off. 3.10. Cf. Scholz 2011: 135.
9
The first Roman historian, Fabius Pictor, used Greek for at least some of his work: FRHist
1.160–78.
Roman Orators between Greece and Rome 21

Roman Senate in 155 BC, they were not allowed to directly address the senators in
their native tongue, but instead had to resort to an interpreter.10 The popularity
of their public speeches outside the Senate house also met with considerable
criticism. Cato the Elder lobbied for a quick decision on the Athenian pleas and a
speedy departure of the philosophers, as prolonging their stay would prevent
young Romans from obeying the laws and the will of the magistrates:
καὶ παρελθὼν εἰς τὴν σύγκλητον ἐμέμψατο τοῖς ἄρχουσιν, ὅτι πρεσβεία κάθηται
πολὺν χρόνον ἄπρακτος ἀνδρῶν, οἳ περὶ παντὸς οὗ βούλοιντο ῥᾳδίως πείθειν
δύνανται· δεῖν οὖν τὴν ταχίστην γνῶναί τι καὶ ψηφίσασθαι περὶ τῆς πρεσβείας,
ὅπως οὗτοι μὲν ἐπὶ τὰς σχολὰς τραπόμενοι διαλέγωνται παισὶν Ἑλλήνων, οἱ δὲ
Ῥωμαίων νέοι τῶν νόμων καὶ τῶν ἀρχόντων ὡς πρότερον ἀκούωσι.11
M. Porcius Cato F27 Cugusi and
Sblendorio Cugusi 2001: 512–13
(= Plut. Cat. Mai. 22.5)
This speech by Cato demonstrates that Greek education could be perceived as a
threat to Roman values and Roman identity in the second century BC. At that
time, a large majority of the Roman elite was nearly fluent in the Greek language.
Forcing the embassy of the Athenian philosophers to speak through an inter-
preter was a general rule in Roman politics. Similarly, when Roman magistrates
conversed with Greeks about official administrative business, they addressed the
Greeks in Latin irrespective of their command of the Greek language.12
Other episodes in the career of Cato the Elder point in a similar direction.
When visiting Athens in 191 BC, he insisted on addressing the Athenian people
in Latin despite his well-known command of the Greek language. He left it to a
subordinate to translate his words for the benefit of the crowd listening to him.13
He criticized the historian (and consul) A. Postumius Albinus for his choice of
Greek for his work.14 Towards his son, Cato even expressed serious concerns
about the harmful influence of Greek learning on Rome. The Romans would
lose their supremacy if they immersed themselves in Greek learning:
dicam de istis Graecis suo loco, M. fili, quid Athenis exquisitum habeam et quod
bonum sit illorum litteras inspicere, non perdiscere, uincam. nequissimum et
10
Plut. Cat. Mai. 22.4. According to Plutarch, the speeches of the envoys were interpreted by
one Gaius Acilius.
11
‘So he came forward to speak in the Senate and criticized the senators for keeping an
embassy idly waiting for such a long time, men who could easily persuade anyone of anything
they wanted. “We should” he said, “quickly come to a judgement, and decide on the matter of the
embassy to allow these men to return to their schools and practise dialectics with the sons of
Greece, while young Romans shall obey the laws and magistrates, as before.” ’ This speech is not
recorded in Malcovati’s treatment of the fragments of Cato the Elder (ORF4 8), but it is discussed
by Cugusi and Sblendorio Cugusi 2001: 512–13 (F27); see also Steel 2006: 67. Plin. HN 7.112
confirms that Cato lobbied in the Senate for the speedy departure of the Athenian philosophers.
12 13
Val. Max. 2.2.2. Plut. Cat. Mai. 12.4–5.
14
Polyb. 39.1.5–9; Plut. Cat. Mai. 12.6; Plut. Mor. 199e; Gell. NA. 11.8; see further FRHist 3.59–60.
22 Alexandra Eckert
indocile genus illorum, et hoc puta uatem dixisse: quandoque ista gens suas
litteras dabit, omnia conrumpet . . . 15
M. Porcius Cato Ad Marcum Filium F1,
Cugusi and Sblendorio Cugusi 2001: 422–5
(= Plin. HN 29.14)
In Culture and National Identity in Republican Rome, Erich S. Gruen explains
these ambivalent attitudes by a single ‘discernible pattern’, namely a Roman
feeling of superiority and the ensuing desire to exploit Greek culture to serve
Roman interests.16 According to Gruen, Rome’s elite judged Greek culture to
be ‘welcome and serviceable’.17 Gruen’s book is an excellent study of the
influence of Greek learning in Republican Rome. He may, however, have
underestimated the tensions and conflicts that arose when Romans adopted
elements of Greek paideia and differences which arose between spoken and
written forms of oratory. This chapter proposes to take these Roman doubts
and conflicts seriously, and to investigate their underlying causes.
THE ROMAN O RA TORS L. CRASSUS

AND M. ANTONIUS
A closer look at the orators L. Crassus and M. Antonius complements the

picture provided by Cato the Elder’s attitude towards the growing influence of
Greek paideia and rhetoric in Rome. Most of the extant information for
L. Crassus and M. Antonius originates from Cicero’s De oratore, a fictional
dialogue between several prominent Romans of the early first century BC.18
Crassus and Antonius, the leading orators of their time, are the chief partici-
pants, and Cicero sets the dialogue in September 91 BC, shortly before the
death of Crassus and the beginning of the Social War.19 Although the
encounter is fictional, we know from Cicero’s letters that he aimed to ensure
that his interlocutors and their roles in the dialogue were as realistic as
possible, and that the words he ascribed to them were consistent with what
15
‘I should speak about those Greeks in their proper place, my son Marcus, and tell you what
I have found out at Athens, to persuade you of what can be gained from quickly reading through
their literature, instead of thoroughly studying it. They are quite dissolute and rude people, and
you should believe that I am giving a prophecy here: when these people give us their literature,
they will corrupt everything . . . ’
16 17
See Gruen 1992: 269. Jehne 1999: 118.
18
May and Wisse 2001: 14–15; cf. May and Wisse 2001: 17 for the conventions of the genre
which allow for dialogues that never took place in reality.
19
For the setting of the dialogue cf. Leeman, Pinkster, et al. 1981–2008: 1.17–25 and Mankin
2011: 28–35.

each individual would have said.20 Cicero also points out in De oratore itself
how important he deemed it to present his interlocutors authentically.21
Maintaining a high degree of plausibility is in line with Cicero’s intention
that his dialogue should be a means of preserving the memory of Crassus and
Antonius.22
It would also have been imprudent for Cicero to displease members of the
Roman elite by portraying Crassus and Antonius in a way which conflicted
with the expectations of their friends and relatives or of anyone who had first-
hand information about their characters.23 In 55 BC, when Cicero published
his work, the triumvir M. Licinius Crassus, a relative of L. Crassus, was one of
the most powerful men in Rome, and the future triumvir M. Antonius,
grandson of the orator, was also taking his first steps into the military and
political arenas.
Cicero certainly had access to reliable information on both orators. We
know from epigraphical evidence that Cicero’s uncle, Lucius, had accompan-
ied M. Antonius on the latter’s proconsular command to Cilicia in 102 BC.24
So, Cicero probably knew from his uncle that Antonius had conferred with the
most learned Greek philosophers and teachers of rhetoric.25 Cicero also
mentions that he himself had asked Antonius many questions as a boy. Yet,
it cannot be deduced with certainty from the brief passage in De oratore
whether the ties between Cicero and Antonius were as close as those between
Cicero and Crassus.26 Crassus was Cicero’s mentor and oversaw his early
20
See Cic. Att. 13.16.1 ((SB 323) 26 June 45 BC) and Cic. Fam. 9.8.1 ((SB 254) 11/12 July
45 BC), regarding Varro being the perfect choice as an interlocutor in the Academica.
21
See Cic. De or. 2.9, where Cicero states that he is not inventing things at will and that the
memory of others should not conflict with his depiction. Cic. Fam. 7.32.2—a letter dating to the
end of 51 BC or the beginning of 50 BC—does not contradict Cicero’s aim for authenticity. In this
letter, Cicero describes how he crafted the style of a passage in the second book of De oratore to
give M. Antonius’ remarks on humour in oratory a witty and sophisticated appearance. Based on
his comments elsewhere, we may assume that Cicero—while changing the form—still strove for
plausibility and considered what the ‘real’ M. Antonius would have said on the matter. So, Cic.
Fam. 7.32.2 should not necessarily be seen as a testimony for the interlocutor M. Antonius more
or less expressing ‘Cicero’s own ideas’, as Wisse 2002b: 377 assumes.
22 23
Cic. De or. 2.7; Cic. De or. 3.13–15. Cic. De or. 2.9.
24
Cic. De or. 2.2. Cicero’s uncle, Lucius Tullius, is recorded in an inscription from the island of
Samothrace documenting a stopover by Lucius on his way back from Cilicia in September 100 BC.
See Dimitrova 2008: 152–3.
25
Cic. De or. 1.82 and 2.3. May and Wisse 2001:17–18 raise certain doubts about Cicero’s
statement that M. Antonius was a learned man (Cic. De or. 2.1–6) based on Cic. Brut. 214. Yet,
both scholars may have overlooked that a full picture of Cicero’s judgement on the education of
M. Antonius in Brutus has to take into account not only Cic. Brut. 214, but also Cic. Brut.
215–16. In the second passage, Cicero points out M. Antonius’ excellent oratorical skills and
depicts him as being on a par with L. Crassus in many areas and even surpassing him in some. In
the end, it is entirely possible that Cic. Brut. 214 alludes to only minor gaps in M. Antonius’
education in one of the many fields listed, namely poetry, studying the speeches of other orators,
and history, as well as public, private, and civil law.
26
Cic. De or. 2.3.
24 Alexandra Eckert
rhetorical education.27 Therefore, years of personal acquaintance, if not close
familiarity, inform Cicero’s statement that Crassus had been one of the most
learned Romans in the field of Greek paideia while Cicero himself was young.28
A telling passage in De oratore reveals that Antonius shared Crassus’ high
esteem for Greek rhetoric. Both men chose not to publicly disclose their true
opinion of Greek learning, but they employed different strategies to conceal
this. Crassus, despite being educated in Greek paideia, pretended to disap-
prove of Greek learning and insisted on the superiority of Roman wisdom.
Antonius maintained the illusion that he had no knowledge of Greek learning
at all when he was speaking in public. Cicero briefly summarizes their different
positions: ‘ . . . atque ita se uterque grauiorem fore, si alter contemnere, alter ne
nosse quidem Graecos uideretur.’29 The actions of both men reveal a deeply
rooted ambivalence towards Greek learning in Roman society, and suggest
that a Roman orator who wanted to win over his audience had to distance
himself from Greek paideia as far as possible.
Crassus and Antonius were by no means the only Romans who concealed
their Greek education in public. In the speeches against Verres, Cicero stated
that he had learned the names of renowned Greek artists just before the trial,
and this was probably an attempt to downplay his superior Greek learning.
While discussing a statue of Praxiteles as an example for Verres’ thefts of art,
Cicero even went so far as to feign uncertainty about other works by the same
artist, though he must have seen or at least heard of several of them during his
stay in the Greek East.30
Roman ambivalence towards Greek learning was still prevalent in 45 BC,
when Cicero was composing his De finibus bonorum et malorum. In the
preface to this work, Cicero justifies his decision to write a philosophical
treatise in Latin.31 It is striking to see Cicero anticipating harsh criticism for
his efforts. He expects negative reactions from different groups within his
audience, which consisted of educated Roman nobiles who were familiar with
the Greek language. Some would reject his book for the sole reason that it dealt
with Greek philosophy; others would look suspiciously at his work because
they deemed Greek philosophy to be unworthy of any great investment of
time. While some among Cicero’s fellow citizens would object that a man of
27
Cic. De or. 2.2.
28
On the general reliability of De oratore as source for L. Crassus and M. Antonius,
specifically for information on their performance in public orations, in the light of Cicero’s
tendency for self-fashioning, see Fantham 2004: 27.
29
Cic. De or. 2.4: ‘ . . . and so both thought to gain more prestige, the one by seemingly despising
the Greeks, the other by pretending to know nothing about them.’
30
Cic. Verr. 2.4.4. Cf. Crawford 1978: 198; Scholz 2011: 128. As Verres voluntarily went into
exile after the first hearing, Cicero did not present the five orations of the second hearing in
court. Yet, he decided to publish his speeches. See Axer 1995 (58) for the reliability of Cicero’s
published speeches against Verres.
31
Cic. Fin. 1.1–12.

his status should avoid investing time in a task of such little value, others
would ignore his De finibus because they preferred to read philosophical works
in their original language.
AVCTORITAS AT RISK
To gain a better understanding of the reasons for this ambivalence towards

Greek learning and towards Greek rhetoric in particular, we must take a closer
look at the crucial role of oratory in Roman political life. The ability to deliver
good speeches was a prerequisite for influencing decisions in the exclusive
circle of the Roman Senate. Moreover, gaining popularity with the Roman
people greatly depended on presenting oneself as a successful orator to larger
audiences in the courts or at contiones. So, if oratory was so important in
Roman politics, why did Cato the Elder react so fervently when young Romans
listened in awe to the speeches of the Athenian philosophers?
Martin Jehne has made an important contribution to our understanding of
Cato’s objections to the Athenian embassy by suggesting that we can under-
stand Cato’s position from the perspective of the mos maiorum, a cornerstone
of the Roman political system. According to Jehne, Cato perceived the oratory
of Carneades, who had delivered speeches for and against the idea of justice on
two subsequent days, as a danger to the hierarchical structure of Roman
society, in which young Romans had to accept that the elder magistrates and
their achievements on behalf of the res publica took primacy in political life.32
Jehne is certainly right that conservative Romans like Cato could not accept
the Greek concept that the more convincing argument should win in a debate,
as Carneades demonstrated through his speeches in Rome, because the Greek
philosophical tradition of speech and counter-speech presented a counter-
model to Rome’s hierarchical political system and firm belief in the mos
maiorum.33 To illustrate his point, Jehne refers to a passage in Cicero’s De
officiis, in which Cicero elaborates on the duties of young Roman nobiles, who
should honour senior members of the Roman elite and follow the best and
most experienced of these men, relying on their advice and authority.34
32
Jehne 1999: 120–1.
33
Jehne 1999: 121. Jehne holds the opinion that Carneades’ speeches pro and contra justice
were incompatible with the Roman understanding of ius. For Carneades’ speeches, see Quint.
Inst. 12.1.35. Carneades is supposed to have held these lectures on justice on the two days prior to
his speech in the Senate. Powell 2013: 240 argues that Carneades’ ‘Roman lectures’ on justice are
‘a deliberate fiction by Cicero’. Powell has undertaken a thorough analysis of the extant sources
on the matter, but his conclusion does not seem fully convincing.
34
Cic. Off. 1.122: est igitur adulescentis maiores natu uereri exque iis deligere optimos et
probatissimos, quorum consilio atque auctoritate nitatur.
26 Alexandra Eckert
While Cicero had previously mentioned the maiores en bloc,35 this passage
from De officiis also refers explicitly to auctoritas: quorum consilio atque
auctoritate nitatur. The concept of auctoritas was not only essential for the
relationship of young members of the Roman elite to their elders, but it also
governed the relationship between the Roman people and the nobility. In De
legibus, Cicero explains that the reliance of the populus Romanus on the
consilium and auctoritas of the nobility was fundamental for the functioning
of the res publica.36 Therefore, a closer look at the Roman notion of auctoritas
may further improve our understanding of Cato’s concerns regarding the
influence of Greek paideia in Rome, and of the ambivalent attitudes towards
Greek learning demonstrated by orators such as Crassus and Antonius.
In Roman thought, auctoritas was more than the level of prestige a citizen
had in Roman society. In the political arena, auctoritas was strongly tied to the
auctoritas patrum, the weight and influence of the Roman Senate.37 For a
member of the Roman elite, auctoritas represented the influence granted to
any individual on account of his rank, age, and achievements while serving the
res publica in executive military and administrative positions. From an
abstract perspective, auctoritas may be understood as a socially determined
capability to produce an allegiance among fellow citizens that can neither be
demanded nor enforced.38 Thus, in Rome, a socially superior citizen could
employ his auctoritas to have social subordinates adhere to his recommenda-
tions. A proposal made by an orator with sufficient auctoritas could even
outweigh logically compelling arguments made by an opposing party.39
When Roman nobiles made public speeches, auctoritas mattered. Speak-
ing in the Senate represented a markedly different oratorical setting than
speaking before an assembly of the Roman people in a contio. Yet, in both
contexts the effects of auctoritas can be observed. In the Senate, the order of
the speakers reflected their auctoritas. The presiding magistrate—generally
one of the consuls—first presented the issue to be decided. He then asked the
princeps senatus for his opinion before the former consuls (consulares) could
express their positions according to age.40 It was customary to conclude an
assembly of the Senate within a day, including the final vote on the matter at
hand.41 Although senators were generally expected to speak briefly, there
was no time limit on the speeches.42 Moreover, the size of the voting body in
the Senate was substantial—300 senators until 82 BC and 600 after Sulla’s
35 36
Cic. Off. 1.121: imitandos esse maiores. Cic. Leg. 2.30.
37
Cf. Graeber 2001, esp. 174–6 and 215–52.
38
For this definition of auctoritas, see Nippel 2007: 27.
39
Cf. Dugan 2009: 179–80; Pina Polo 2011a: 288.
40
See Cic. Att. 1.13.2 (25 January 61 BC) and Gell. NA 14.7.9, who refers to information
provided by Varro. Cf. Bonnefond-Coudry 1989: 482, 490.
41 42
Gell. NA 14.7.8. Cic. Leg. 3.40.

reforms.43 Owing to these constraints in the decision-making process, a
senatorial debate generally closed after the speeches of the consulares (former
consuls) and the praetores (former praetors). So, younger senators of lesser
auctoritas almost never had a chance to demonstrate their rhetorical skills on
a particular subject. These ‘silent’ senators were called pedarii, because the only
way they could express their opinion was to walk to the senator who had first
outlined the position they chose to follow.44
Auctoritas also mattered in the contio. Though the contio was a venue in
which to transmit information rather than to persuade, speaking before the
Roman people was regarded as one of the most honourable tasks for a Roman
orator.45 Only magistrates with certain auctoritas could convene a contio and
only distinguished senators were deemed worthy to address the populus
Romanus in the Forum. In De lege Manilia, Cicero points out that he felt
that he lacked the auctoritas necessary to speak in a contio until his praetor-
ship.46 The significance of an orator’s auctoritas in the contio is also illustrated
in the second book of De oratore. Antonius voices his view that the contio is
the most important arena for orators: quia maxima quasi oratoris scaena
uideatur contionis esse.47 He continues by explaining that an orator with
sufficient auctoritas is even able to stop widespread interjections of displeasure
in a contio by admonishing the crowd.48
We see, then, that the concept of auctoritas played a fundamental role in
Roman society. It was not only the governing principle behind the order of
speech in the Senate, but it was also a key element of the relationship between
43
This argument still holds true, even if only 50 per cent or less attended the meetings. The
senators were expected to visit the meetings. However, this duty was not enforced in a strict
sense. In case too many senators were absent, decrees could not be passed. Cf. Livy 2.23.12–13
and Bonnefond-Coudry 1989: 364. In case a high rate of attendance was required, the presiding
senator expressed his wish that a senatus frequens be summoned. Cf. Cic. Cat. 3.7; Cic. De or. 3.2;
Cic. Att. 9.17.1 (27 March 49 BC); Cic. Att. 16.7.1 (19 August 44 BC); Cic. Phil. 3.19 (20 December
44 BC); Bonnefond-Coudry 1989: 358–61.
44
The order of speech was determined by the censors’ list, the so-called lectio senatus. Before
the censors had enrolled magistrates into the list after their year in office, the latter were allowed
to attend meetings of the Senate and place their vote, but they did not have the right to give a
speech. See Gell. NA 14.7.9. For the order of speech in the Senate, see Kunkel and Wittmann
1995: 311–18; Lintott 1999a: 78; Steel 2006: 13. Kunkel and Wittmann 1995: 313–14 point out
that the order of speech changed in the late Republic: from this period onwards, the designated
consuls and praetors voiced their opinion before the consulares and praetores respectively.
45
For the informative character of the contiones cf. Mouritsen 2001: 38.
46
Cic. Leg. Man. 1. Cf. the remarks in Pina Polo 1996: 18 and Pina Polo 2011a: 287. See also
Jehne 2011: 112; Jehne 2013: 56–7; Jehne 2014: 126–32.
47
Cic. De or. 2.338. The conclusion reached in Leeman, Pinkster, et al. 1981–2008: 4.55, that
this passage carries the connotation that an orator speaking in a contio behaved like an actor,
does not seem to be completely convincing. Hölkeskamp 1995: 27 interprets this passage more in
the sense of a contio being the largest and most important arena for an orator. See also Cic. Brut.
185–8 for how important it was for an orator to be recognized by the Roman people as the best.
48
Cic. De or. 2.339. Cf. Hölkeskamp 1995: 37 and Hölkeskamp 2013: 24 for the significance of
an orator’s auctoritas in the contio.
28 Alexandra Eckert
the nobility and the Roman people. In the contio, the role of the ordinary
citizen was to listen or to participate in collective utterings of consent or
refusal, but not to speak as an individual. The Roman notion of auctoritas
therefore conflicted with the ideas at the heart of Greek paideia as it was taught
in schools of philosophy: speech and counter-speech, as well as the primacy of
the logically compelling argument over a speaker’s social status.
When Cato the Elder stated that young Romans should obey the laws and
the magistrates instead of listening to the speeches of the Athenian philo-
sophers, he was expressing what he perceived to be a severe threat to the
hierarchical Roman political system: the possibility that young Roman nobiles
would employ Greek oratory to challenge the supremacy of auctoritas. Cato
wished that in Rome, in contrast to Athenian schools of philosophy, the
auctoritas of senior senators should remain the decisive factor in political
matters rather than oratorical skill or the weight of an argument.
A closer look at dicta which Cicero attributes to Crassus and Antonius in De
oratore can also show that auctoritas mattered when Romans discussed the
influence of Greek paideia. While these points have been constructed by
Cicero, his concern with realism and his desire not to misrepresent the
historical figures he includes in his dialogue allow us to interpret them as
views which would have been compatible with those held by the real Crassus
and Antonius. In the first book of De oratore, Crassus elaborates on the value
which studying the laws of the Twelve Tables had for a young Roman orator.
The Twelve Tables described both the structure and the fundamental values of
Roman society; contrary to Greek custom, the Romans did not learn from
endless, heated debates (et docemur non infinitis concertationumque plenis
disputationibus), but from these laws.49 Crassus rates the auctoritas and
the usefulness of these ancient statutes more highly than all of the libraries
of Greek philosophers: bibliothecas . . . omnium philosophorum unus mihi ui-
detur XII tabularum libellus . . . et auctoritatis pondere et utilitatis ubertate
superare.50 In the second book of De oratore, Antonius illustrates that
Roman orators who had familiarized themselves with Greek paideia had to
cope with a fundamental contradiction: while their rhetorical skills benefited
from Greek learning, they could not show any sign of it when speaking in
public without risking their auctoritas. An orator should, therefore, try to
acquire some knowledge of Greek learning, but only secretly: . . . et, si palam
audire eos non auderes, ne minueres apud tuos ciuis auctoritatem tuam, sub-
auscultando tamen excipere uoces eorum et procul quid narrarent attendere.51
49
Cic. De or. 1.193–4.
50
Cic. De or. 1.195: ‘it seems to me . . . that the little book of the Twelve Tables . . . excels the
libraries of all philosophers in both weight of authority and abundance of usefulness.’
51
Cic. De or. 2.153: ‘ . . . and, if you do not dare to listen to them openly, in order to not
diminish your auctoritas with your fellow citizens, yet, you should pick up what they say by
eavesdropping and absorb their teaching from afar.’ Subauscultare is also used in the comic

This verdict is reinforced a little later in the dialogue when Antonius explains
that feigning knowledge of Greek philosophy would impair an orator’s
authority and the credibility of his speech (imminuit enim et oratoris auctoriate
et orationis fidem).52
But why should demonstrating close familiarity with Greek paideia in
public speech threaten the auctoritas of members of the Roman elite? This
question remains unsolved in De oratore, but an answer may be found in the
close ties that existed between a Roman’s auctoritas and his achievements in
service of the Republic. Roman magistrates were expected to employ them-
selves for the benefit of the res publica. Openly displaying deeper knowledge
of Greek paideia in public oratory may have signalled to the wider audience
that this particular member of the Roman elite had chosen to prioritize the
time-consuming and laborious task of studying the many works of Greek
philosophers over service to the res publica.53 Consequently, his auctoritas
should suffer.
ROMAN I DENTITY AND ROMAN CITIZENSHIP
It becomes obvious how problematic it could be for an ambitious, or even

moderately ambitious, member of the Roman elite to immerse himself too
deeply in Greek culture when we take a closer look at an encounter between
two such Romans in Athens in 120 BC, which can provide some context for the
preceding discussion of our three orators.54 T. Albucius had chosen to live in
Athens for some time and to adopt a Greek lifestyle. He immersed himself so
thoroughly in Greek culture—he acquired Greek paideia and openly declared
that he preferred Greek over his native Latin—that he was called ‘almost
Greek’.55 When the praetor Mucius Scaevola visited Athens on a stopover
between Rome and his province, he came into contact with T. Albucius.
Scaevola called Albucius a man who preferred to be named a Greek rather
than a Roman and addressed him with the Greek greeting ‘chaere’. Scaevola
sphere. Cf. Plaut. Asin. 586 and Leeman, Pinkster, et al. 1981–2008: 3.92. In this passage,
however, a comic or ironic undertone is unlikely. For a neutral usage of subauscultare in the
sense of ‘secretly listening’, see Cic. Att. 10.18.1 ((SB 210) 19 May 49 BC) and Cic. Top. 75.
52
Cic. De or. 2.156.
53
Cf. Wisse 2002a: 334: ‘ . . . intellectual activities were “Greek” and therefore not properly Roman.’
54
Albucius lived in Athens as a young man but later returned to Rome. His ambitions to
pursue the cursus honorum are demonstrated by his praetorship in 105 BC. After returning from
his propraetorship, he was convicted (Cic. Scaur. 40) and went to Athens into exile (Cic. Tusc.
108). For Albucius, see Habicht 1995: 294; Scholz 2011: 140.
55
Cic. Brut. 131: Doctus etiam Graecis T. Albucius uel potius plane Graecus. Cf. Cic. Fin.
1.8–9; Cic. Tusc. 5.108.
30 Alexandra Eckert
also encouraged his large entourage of Romans to follow his example. When
Scaevola greeted Albucius in Greek in the presence of other Romans, he not
only signalled his disapproval of Albucius’ Greek way of living, but even made
him an object of public ridicule, the strongest insult possible. Scaevola’s
decision to use a Greek word to express his dissatisfaction is probably a direct
consequence of Albucius’ publicly declared preference for the Greek language.
Albucius’ furious reaction illustrates that Scaevola had indeed made his point:
he called Scaevola his enemy and once back in Rome he even tried to sue him
for extortion of his province.56
Albucius’ strong reaction shows that even when a Roman immersed himself
in the Greek way of life, he still could not reconcile being addressed in Greek
by a Roman fellow-citizen with his—still Roman—identity. Albucius’ hostile
behaviour towards Scaevola indicates that using the Latin language was at
the heart of ‘being Roman’. The importance of the Latin language for
Roman identity is also illustrated by Roman magistrates insisting on using
the Latin language when on official missions in the Greek East, despite their
fluency in Greek.57
The Roman tendency to strongly distinguish their identity from other
cultures also becomes visible when the Roman notion of citizenship is
contrasted with Greek ideas on that matter. Through epigraphic evidence,
we know of some Romans who decided not only to live in Athens for
some time like Albucius, but even to involve themselves in the city’s civic
and political life. Around 138 BC, Athens began to permit foreigners to
serve as ephebes. Any foreigner who chose to become an ephebe automat-
ically acquired Athenian citizenship at the end of his service.58 In the
first century BC, we know of Romans who acquired Athenian citizenship
because they served as public officials and higher magistrates.59 However,
such activities had dire consequences for a Roman: according to Roman
law, he lost his Roman citizenship, because, contrary to the Athenian
custom, the Roman notion of citizenship was exclusive and did not allow
dual or multiple citizenships.60
Cicero provides further evidence for the exclusivity of Roman citizenship in
the Pro Caecina (69/68 BC).61 Cicero outlines that Roman citizens could only be
deprived of their citizenship under very rare and exceptional circumstances.62
He illustrates how Roman citizenship expired when an exile permanently
56
Lucil. 87–93 Warmington = 88–94 Marx, quoted in Cic. Fin. 1.9. See also the discussion of
Goh in this volume.
57 58
Val. Max. 2.2.2. See the discussion in section 2. Habicht 1995: 343.
59
Habicht 1995: 342–3.
60
Under the Roman Empire, dual citizenship became more and more accepted. See Sherwin-
White 19732: 295; Talamanca 1991: 725–33.
61 62
Cic. Caecin. 97–100. Cic. Caecin. 98–9.
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
Billy Jack.
LP43345.
Billy Two Hats.
LP43310.
Biology today.
MP25430.
Bird predators of the mountain water world.
MP24792.
Birth of a nation.
LP43201.
Birth of a notion.
R576597.
Bison.
MU8911.
Black pirate.
LP43608.
Blake, Robert R.
MP25291.
MP25292.
Blatty, William Peter.
LP42969.
Blaze of noon.
R574034.
Blessings of liberty.
LP42994.
Blind goddess.
LF152.
Blind spot.
R572330.
Blonde for a day.
R569728.
Blondie knows best.
R567675.
Blondie’s big moment.
R575614.
Blondie’s holiday.
R575615.
Blood feud.
LP43280.
Blood line.
LP43329.
Blue Christmas.
MP25097.
Blue Racer series.
LP43130.
LP43137.
Blue skies.
R574028.
Blume in love.
LP42955.
BNA Communications, Inc.
MP25013.
MP25135.
MP25136.
MP25291.
MP25292.
Bobby Riggs.
MP25125.
Bobcat hunting.
MP24782.
Bobcat: mother and cubs.
MP24783.
Bobwin Associates, Inc.
LP42942.
LP42943.
Body English — elementary.
MP25366.
Bold ones.
LP43103 - LP43104.
LP43106 - LP43117.
LP43188.
Boltons Trading Corporation.
LP43608.
Boot.
LP43404.
Bootle Beetle.
R577487.
Bootleggers.
LP43576.
Borden, Dick.
MP25166.
Born to kill.
R575635.
Boston Blackie and the law.
R567580.
Botulism.
LP43178.
Boulevard Communication Group, Inc.
MU8892.
Boulle, Pierre.
LP43205.
Bowery bombshell.
R569473.
Bow Wow Boutique.
LP43515.
Box, Sidney.
LF139.
LF140.
Boy and his dog.
R576593.
Boyd, Grace Bradley.
R573666.
R573667.
R575365.
R578418.
Boyd, William L.
R573666.
R573667.
R575365.
R578418.
Boy of Quebec.
MP25203.
Boy Scouts of America, North Brunswick, NJ.
MP24982.
Brakes and clutches.
MP25274.
Brakhage, Stan.
MP25380 - MP25384.
Brasher doubloon.
R573495.
Bread and wine.
MP24901.
Breaking of the habit.
LP43045.
Breezy.
LP43605.
Brekke, Paul.
MP25434.
Brener, Michel.
MU8896 - MU8901.
Bride and gloom.
R577563.
Brigham Young University, Provo, UT.
LP42982.
MP24897 - MP24899.
Brigham Young University, Provo, UT. Motion Picture Department.
LP42982.
MP24897 - MP24899.
Bringing up father.
R577413.
Brink of doom.
LP43587.
Broken gun.
LP43625.
Bronco babes.
R578363.
Brooklyn Botanic Garden.
MP25416.
Brothers.
R578285.
Brother Sun, Sister Moon.
LP42961.
Brouillet, Frank R.
MP25429.
Brown, David.
LP43102.
Brown wolf.
LP43090.
Broyles, Allebaugh and Davis, Inc.
MP25202.
Brushfire.
LP43180.
Brush with death.
LP43473.
Brute man.
R569739.
Buck privates come home.
R574037.
Buffalo Bill rides again.
R572753.
Bulldog Drummond at bay.
B578531.
Bullfighting.
LP43541.
Bullfrogs protecting territory.
MP24778.
Bulo Productions, Inc.
LP43617.
Burke Museum.
LP42981.
Business and office.
LP42946.
Business man’s lunch.
MP24929.
Busting.
LP43134.
But Jack was a good driver.
MP25464.
Butterfly.
LP43128.
By Hoot or by crook.
LP43635.
C
Cadre Films.
MP25181.
Cahill, United States Marshal.
LP42957.
Calculus in motion.
MP24732.
MP25051 - MP25057.
Calcutta.
R578390.
Calendar.
LF150.
California.
R574031.
California gold rush.
MP25421.
Caller.
LP43401.
Calling on Costa Rica.
R572097.
Camaro versus competition.
MU8944.
Camel.
MP24755.
Camera, action, murder.
LP43435.
Camino.
MU8945.
Camouflage beneath the sea.
MP24776.
Campus, Steve.
MP25165.
Campus (Steve) Productions, Inc.
MP25165.
MP25330 - MP25335.
Cana Media, Inc.
MU9016.
Cancel my reservation.
LP43625.
Candidate for murder.
LP43270.
Candy and Dick.
MP24851.
Caprice Classic versus LTD Brougham.
MU8949.
Caprice Estate versus Country Squire.
MU8946.
Capricorn murders.
LP43271.
Captive.
LP43255.
Carbon dioxide: Preparation.
MP24975.
Cardboard cavalier.
LF153.
Care is no cure.
LP43287.
Carnival.
LF129.
R574819.
Carnow, Lawrence Edward.
LP42983.
Carolyn Lois White’s preschool years at home: 1969 - 1973.
MU8991.
Carr, Clark.
MP24829.
Carters meet Frankie Avalon.
LP43521.
Casanova, Joseph.
MP25299 - MP25300.
MP25316 - MP25320.
MP25398 - MP25399.
Case of impotence.
LP43188.
Casey Productions, Ltd.
LF125.
Casler, Christopher G.
MU8905.
Caspary, Vera.
LF124.
Cassidy (Hopalong) Productions, Inc.
R573666.
R573667.
R575365.
R578418.
Catalon Productions.
MU9013.
Catch a ring that isn’t there.
LP43396.
Cat concerto.
R574264.
Cate and McGlone Films.
MP24737.
Caterpillar.
LP43050.
MU8994.
Cat fishin’.
R570603.
Catholic dilemma.
MP25091.
Cation analysis: Chromatography and ion exchange.
MP25304.
Cation analysis: Wet chemical methods.
MP25303.
Cats.
LP43528.
Cat trouble.
R579973.
Cause of liberty.
LP43064.
Cavern of chance.
R577567.
CBS evening news with Walter Cronkite.
MU8862 - MU8891.
MU8913 - MU8935.
MU8953 - MU8967.
MU8976 - MU8985.
CBS News.
LP43357 - LP43369.
MP25084 - MP25107.
CBS News special.
MP25084.
MP25086 - MP25100.
MP25104 - MP25107.
CBS Television Network.
LP42947.
LP42948.
LP42949.
LP43048.
LP43049.
Centennial summer.
R567997.
Center for Mass Communications of Columbia University Press. SEE
Columbia University Press. Center for Mass Communications.
Center for Southern Folklore.
MP25277.
Centron Corporation.
MP25137.
MP25138.
MP25139.
Centron Corporation, Inc.
MP25064.
MP25065.
MP25113.
MP25325.
Centron Educational Films.
MP25113.
Cervantes (Paalo) Ltd., a subsidiary of Colgate Palmolive Company.
SEE Colgate Palmolive Company. Paalo Cervantes, Ltd.
Chain other than roller chain.
MP24928.
Challenge in the air.
MP24938.
Challenge of the mountains.
MP25485.
Challenge to Hollywood.
R568206.
Chamber theater — secondary.
MP25377.
Chandar, the black leopard of Ceylon.
LP43193.
LP43195.
Chappaquiddick report.
MP25089.
Charade.
LP43214 - LP43225.
Charger / Coronet / Chevelle and Torino comparison.
MP25033.
Chariot.
LP42958.
Charley Varrick.
LP43604.
Charlie Barnet and his orchestra.
R578386.
Charlie gave me your number.
LP43145.
Charlie Spivak and his orchestra.
R578385.
Chartoff, Robert.
LP43134.
Chase of the onager.
MP25440.
Chaser.
LP43452.
Cheetah.
LP42936.
Chemical change.
MP25222.
Chemical hazards.
MP25232.
Chemical properties.
MP25229.
Chess game.
LU3674.
Chevelle versus competition.
MU8948.
Chevrolet Motor Division, General Motors Corporation. SEE General
Motors Corporation. Chevrolet Motor Division.
Chevrolet trucks, 1974 pickup comparison.
MU8947.
Childbirth.
MP24986.
Child of divorce.
R570312.
Children of the fields.
LP42942.
Chinatown.
LP43628.
Chinese sunset.
LP43040.
Chlorine and the firefighter.
MP25290.
Chlorine Institute, Inc.
MP25290.
Choice.
LP43324.
Choice not chance - career development in New Jersey.
MP25062.
Choral reading — secondary.
MP25371.
Christian Science Board of Directors.
MU8968.
MU8969.
MU8970.
Christmas looking.
LP43120.
Chromatography and ion exchange.
MP25304.
Chrysler Corporation.
MP25021 - MP25036.
MP25140 - MP25146.
MP25321 - MP25322.
MP25400 - MP25401.
Chrysler Newport versus Buick LeSabre and Olds 88.
MP25022.
CIBA Corporation. CIBA Pharmaceutical Company.
MP25255 - MP25259.
MP25265 - MP25267.
CIBA Pharmaceutical Company, division of CIBA Corporation. SEE
CIBA Corporation. CIBA Pharmaceutical Company.
CIBA Pharmaceutical Products, Inc.
MP25254.
MP25260 - MP25264.
MP25268.
CICS applications programming.
MP25127 - MP25131.
Cigarette girl.
R572327.
Cinderella liberty.
LP43260.
Cine Film.
LP43118.
Cineguild.
LF146.
Cinema Center Films.
LP43129.
LP43370.
Cinemasonics, Inc.
MU8975.
Cinevision, Ltee.
LP42933.
LP42934.
LP42935.
Cipher in the snow.
LP42982.
Circle of power.
LP43334.
Circus horse.
R571696.
Citizen’s arrest — 484.
LP43380.
City builders.
MP25335.
City University of New York. Board of Higher Education. SEE
Queens College, Flushing, NY.
Civilizations of ancient America.
MP24744.
Civil War: promise of reconstruction.
LP43091.
Civil War: the anguish of emancipation.
LP43092.
Clarion call.
MU8968.
Clash.
LP43591.
Claudia and David.
R568000.
Clean and quiet town.
LP42993.
Clearing timber on construction work.
MP25329.
Clear with a civilian.
LP43376.
LP43377.
Cleaver, Bill.
LP43371.
Cleaver, Vera.
LP43371.
Clemens, Samuel Langhorne.
MP25284.
Cleopatra Jones.
LP42954.
Climates and seasons.
MP25205.
Clothing: a pair of blue jeans.
LP43077.
Clown of the jungle.
R570686.
CMC. SEE Columbia University Press. Center for Mass
Communications.
Coca-Cola Company.
MP25166.
Cockatoos for two.
R572337.
Code of the West.
R575633.
Coding classroom activities situations utilizing the teacher self
appraisal observation system.
MP25047.
Coding classroom discussion situations utilizing the teacher self
MP25045.
Coding classroom introduction situations utilizing the teacher self
MP25044.
Coding classroom review situations utilizing the teacher self
MP25046.
Coffee planters near Kilimanjaro.
MP24873.
Cold, hard cash.
LP43440.
Colgate Palmolive Company.
MP24842 - MP24843.
MP24977 - MP24981.
MP25041.
MP25424.
MP25426.
MP25443.
MP25490 - MP25493.
Colgate Palmolive Company. Paalo Cervantes, Ltd.
MP24910.
Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc.
LP42947 - LP42949.
LP43048 - LP43049.
LP43357 - LP43369.
MP25084 - MP25107.
MU8862 - MU8891.
MU8913 - MU8935.
MU8953 - MU8967.
MU8976 - MU8985.
Columbia Pictures Corporation.
R567579 - R567593.
R567675.
R570066 - R570073.
R570076 - R570080.
R572325 - R572336.
R572338.
R572340 - R572344.
R575614 - R575615.
R577558 - R577569.
R577572 - R577575.
R578420 - R578431.
R578896 - R578908.
Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc.
LP43203.
LP43356.
R567579 - R567593.
R570066 - R570080.
R572325 - R572344.
R577558 - R577575.
R578420 - R578431.
R578896 - R578908.
Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc. Learning Company of America.
LP43050 - LP43064.
LP43067 - LP43098.
LP43264.
Columbia University Press. Center for Mass Communications.
MP24896.
Columbus and Isabella.
LP43368.
Combatants.
LP43289.
Come over to my house.
LP42942 - LP42943.
LP43312 - LP43317.
Comet Productions, Inc.
R568607.
R568608.
Commonwealth Film Unit of Australia.
MP24875.
Communicable diseases.
MP25262.
Communications Foundation, Inc.
LP43574.
Community sing.
R567590.
R570077.
R572341.
R577573.
R578421.
R578907.
Compact truck features and comparison.
MP25021.
Concavity and points of inflection.
MP25054.
Concept Films.
MP24841.
Concept instancing of role enactment.
MP25332.
Concrete evidence.
LP43021.
Concrete finishing.
MP25171.
Condemned.
LP43482.
Condition: red.
LP43244.
Coney Island eats.
MU8951.
Confession.
LP43328.
Conflict.
LP43327.
Conflict and awareness: a film series on human values.
MP25463 - MP25470.
Conformation in ring compounds.
MP25299.
Conformations of cyclohexane.
MP25319.
Conqueror Films, Inc.
LU3666.
Conrack.
LP43373.
Conroy, Pat.
LP43373.
Conscience.
LP43524.
Conspiracy.
LP43341.
Conspiracy of silence.
LP43006.
Consultants Associated, Inc.
MP24959 - MP24967.
MP25182 - MP25201.
MP25436.
Consumers Power Company.
LP43126.
MP24938.
MP24939.
Controllers’ functions and general accounting.
MP25453.
Controlling absenteeism.
MP25013.

Reading Republican Oratory Reconstructions Contexts Receptions Christa Gray All Chapter

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Reading Republican Oratory Reconstructions Contexts Receptions Christa Gray All Chapter

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Reading Republican Oratory:

Reconstructions, Contexts, Receptions

READING REPUBLICAN ORATORY

This volume originated in a conference held at the University of Turin on

List of Figures and Tables ix

PART B: RECONSTRUCTION OF THE FRAGMENTS

List of Figures and Tables

AE (1888–), L’Année épigraphique. Paris.

xiv List of Contributors

Kit Morrell is Research Associate in the Department of Classics and Ancient

V O L U M E S T R U C T U R E AND C ONTRI B U TI ONS

Roman Orators between Greece and Rome

INTROD UCTION : ROM AN NOBI L ITY

Roman Orators between Greece and Rome 21

THE ROMAN O RA TORS L. CRASSUS

A closer look at the orators L. Crassus and M. Antonius complements the

Roman Orators between Greece and Rome 23

Roman Orators between Greece and Rome 25

To gain a better understanding of the reasons for this ambivalence towards

Roman Orators between Greece and Rome 27

Roman Orators between Greece and Rome 29

ROMAN I DENTITY AND ROMAN CITIZENSHIP

It becomes obvious how problematic it could be for an ambitious, or even

You might also like