Reading Roman Declamation: Seneca the Elder 0198746016, 9780198746010

Citation preview

Reading Roman Declamation

Reading Roman Declamation Seneca the Elder Edited by

M A RT I N T. D I N T E R C HA R L E S G U É R I N M A R C O S M A RT I N HO

1

1 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 2020. Copyright to the editors’ contributions remains vested in the editors The moral rights of the authors have been asserted First Edition published in 2020 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: 2020937509 ISBN 978–0–19–874601–0 Printed and bound in Great Britain by Clays Ltd, Elcograf S.p.A. 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.

Acknowledgements The papers in this volume stem from a conference held at the Université de Montpellier in November 2012, which has been generously supported by the Institut Universitaire de France. King’s College London has kindly provided funds for purchasing the image rights for the volume cover. The present book is the third in a series of three edited volumes that showcase current research in Roman declamation under the heading ‘Reading Roman Declamation’. The two preceding volumes, on Ps-Quintilian and Calpurnius Flaccus, appeared with De Gruyter in 2016 and 2017 respectively. Special thanks in the name of all the participants are due to Charles Guérin (Sorbonne Université, Paris) whose travails and organizational skills made the event possible—gratias tibi agimus. We would also like to thank Marcos Martinho, who has helped spearhead the Reading Roman Declamation trilogy, as well as the editorial team at Oxford University Press, and copyeditor Ian Brookes, for their swift, kind, and professional co­oper­ation. Antonia Ruppel’s and Astrid Khoo’s astute formatting as well as Antonio Stramaglia’s eagle-eyed assistance with proofreading has made life easier for all of us, many thanks to them. Astrid Khoo has also kindly compiled the Index Locorum and the Index Rerum for this volume. Martin T. Dinter Charles Guérin Marcos Martinho

Table of Contents List of Contributors

ix

1. Introduction: What Is Declamation? Martin T. Dinter and Charles Guérin

1

I . D E C L A I M E R S A N D D E C L A M AT IO N 2. The Bitter Medicine of History: Seneca the Elder on the Genre of Declamation Yelena Baraz 3. Seneca and the Past Martin T. Dinter 4. Greek Declaimers, Roman Context: (De)constructing Cultural Identity in Seneca the Elder Charles Guérin 5. Nomination and Systematization in Seneca’s Controversiae Orazio Cappello

15 37

57 87

I I . P H YSIC A L T E C H N IQ U E : AC T I O 6. Physical Excess as a Marker of Genre in the Elder Seneca Anthony Corbeill 7. Between Real and Fictional Eloquence: Some Observations on the Actio of Porcius Latro and Albucius Silus Andrea Balbo

115

134

I I I . L I N G U I S T IC T E C H N IQ U E : M O T I F S A N D D EV IC E S 8. The Ocean (Seneca Suas. 1): Community Rules for a Common Literary Topic Bart Huelsenbeck

151

viii

Table of Contents

9. The Mythical Exempla of Faithful Heroines in Seneca the Elder’s work: Literary Occurrences of a Declamatory Device Beatrice Larosa 10. The Rhetoric of Decline and the Rhetoric for Declamatio Christopher S. van den Berg

186 201

I V. T H E DA R K SI D E O F D E C L A M AT IO N 11. Objection! Contesting Taste and Space in Seneca’s Declamatory Arena Jonathan E. Mannering 12. Color Medius or the Colour of Suspicion Yazmín Victoria Huerta Cabrera 13. Laughing Is No Laughing Matter: Laughs and Laughter in Seneca the Elder’s Oeuvre Catherine Schneider

221 240

254

V. I N T E RT E X T UA L I T Y 14. Intertextuality in Seneca the Elder Julien Pingoud and Alessandra Rolle

279

15. The Use of the Apostrophe and the Fictionality of Declamation Stefan Feddern

307

16. Controversial Games: Didactical Voices and the Construction of Discourse in Seneca’s Controversiae and Suasoriae 318 Danielle van Mal-Maeder Bibliography Index Rerum Index Locorum

333 355 358

List of Contributors Andrea Balbo  is Associate Professor of Latin Language and Literature at the Department of Humanist Studies of the University of Turin and Lecturer of Latin Literature and Civilization at the University of Italian Switzerland in Lugano (CH). He has written six monographs (two on the didactics of Latin, two on Neolatin and two on the oratory of the Imperial period), more than sixty articles and scholarly contributions in Italian, English, and French, as well as numerous reviews. At present he is preparing a critical edition of Calpurnius Flaccus’ excerpta and of the fragments of Roman orators of the Imperial Age. Yelena Baraz is Associate Professor of Latin Literature and Language at Princeton University. She is author of A Written Republic: The Cultural Politics of Cicero’s Philosophy (Princeton University Press, 2012) as well as co-editor, with Chris van den Berg, of Intertextuality and Its Discontents, a special issue of the American Journal of Philology (2013). Her research interests centre on the relationship between written texts and sociocultural values, with particular emphasis on the corpora of Pliny, Virgil, and both Senecas. She is currently working on a monograph about pride in Roman society across periods and genres. Orazio Cappello is the author of The School of Doubt. Skepticism, History and Politics in Cicero’s Academica (Brill, 2019). He has also published articles on Cicero’s epistolary collection, declamation, rhetoric, and philosophy, and the intellectual history of the Roman Republic. He is currently preparing a monograph on Stoicism in the first century ad. Anthony Corbeill,  Basil L. Gildersleeve Professor of Classics at the University of Virginia, is author of Controlling Laughter: Political Humor in the Late Roman Republic (Princeton University Press, 1996), Nature Embodied: Gesture in Ancient Rome (Princeton University Press, 2004), and Sexing the World: Grammatical Gender and Biological Sex in Ancient Rome (Princeton University Press, 2015). He is currently preparing a commentary on Cicero’s De haruspicum responsis with Andrew Riggsby at the University of Texas at Austin. Martin T. Dinter  is Senior Lecturer in Latin Literature and Language at King’s College London. He is author of Anatomizing Civil War—Studies in Lucan’s Epic Technique (Michigan University Press, 2012), editor of the Cambridge Companion to Roman Comedy (CUP, 2019) as well as co-editor of A Companion to the Neronian Age (Malden, 2013). He has published articles on Virgil, Horace, Lucan, Seneca,

x  List of Contributors Roman Comedy, and Flavian epic and recently completed a book-length study on Cato the Elder. He has co-edited two volumes on Roman declamation: Ps-Quintilian (De Gruyter, 2016) and Calpurnius Flaccus (De Gruyter, 2017), as well as a special issue of Trends in Classics on Intermediality (2019). Stefan Feddern  studied Classics (Latin and Greek), Philosophy, and Spanish at the Universities of Kiel (Germany) and Salamanca (Spain). He received his PhD in Classics (Latin) in 2010 for an edition and commentary of Seneca the Elder’s Suasoriae (published in 2013). In his German Habilitation he analysed the ancient theories of literary fiction (published in 2018). He is currently Assistant Professor at the University of Kiel (Germany) and is writing an introduction to ancient narratology. Charles Guérin is Professor of Latin Literature at Sorbonne Université, Paris. He is the author of two volumes on ancient rhetoric: Persona. L’élaboration d’une notion rhétorique au 1ersiècle av. J.-C.: Antécédents grecs et première rhétorique latine (Vrin, 2009) and Persona. L’élaboration d’une notion rhétorique au 1er siècle av. J.-C.: Théorisation cicéronienne de la persona oratoire (Vrin, 2011). In 2015, he published a monograph on witnesses and testimony in Republican Rome, La Voix de la vérité. Témoin et témoignage dans les tribunaux romains du premier siècle avant J.-C. (Les Belles Lettres), which received the Georges Perrot prize, awarded by the French Académie des Inscriptions et Belles Lettres. He has recently co-edited Reading Roman Declamation: The Declamations Ascribed to Quintilian (De Gruyter, 2015), as  well as Reading Roman Declamation: Calpurnius Flaccus (De Gruyter, 2017), L’infraction stylistique et ses usages théoriques de l’Antiquité à nos jours (Presses ­universitaires de Rennes, 2016) and Le Brutus de Cicéron: Rhétorique, politique et histoire culturelle (Brill, 2014). Bart Huelsenbeck  is Assistant Professor of Classics at Ball State University, USA, where he teaches a broad range of language, literature, and culture courses. His research concentrates on Roman literature, particularly rhetoric and his­tori­og­raphy, and the transmission and reception of classical texts. Studies in these fields include: Figures in the Shadows: The Speech of Two Augustan-Age Declaimers, Arellius Fuscus and Papirius Fabianus (2018); an edited volume, in collaboration with E. Amato and F. Citti, Law and Ethics in Greek and Roman Declamation (2015); and several articles in the forthcoming Oxford Guide to the Transmission of the Latin Classics. He is currently at work on the transmission of Curtius Rufus’ Histories and a study of Cicero’s De oratore, looking at its dialogic organization and examining to what extent this organization reflects the social procedures of scholastic debates and speech performances. Yazmín Victoria Huerta Cabrera completed her undergraduate degree at Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, where she also obtained her MA and her PhD with honours. She has published several papers, including ‘El ideal educativo del orador en

List of Contributors  xi los prefacios de Séneca el Viejo’ (2008) and ‘Roma Aeterna. Imagen literaria’ (2010), along with two books: Breve antología de textos clásicos para la enseñanza del latín (Mexico City, 2007) and Miscelánea de textos latinos para lectura de comprensión (Mexico City, 2012). She has taught etymology at the high-school level and Latin as well as Latin Literature at Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (Facultad de Filosofía y Letras), where she currently works as a Level-A teacher. Beatrice Larosa  is docente a contratto in Latin Language and Literature at the Faculty of Humanities at the Sapienza University of Rome. After her PhD, she spent a post-doc year at the University of Geneva (CH) within the exchange framework of scholarships promoted by Ministero Affari Esteri (2015–6). She specializes in Ovidian elegy, having edited Ex Ponto 3.1 (De Gruyter, 2013) and authored art­icles on the presence of paralinguistic aspects in Ovid’s elegiac poetry of exile (Prometheus 2013) on conjugal fidelity and mythical parallels in Ovid’s exile poetry (Latomus 2014) and on Amor in Ex Ponto 3.3 (Museum Helveticum 2016), along with a chapter on the presence of declamation in Ovid’s work (Collection Caesarodunum, 2015). She is currently preparing a commentary on Ex Ponto 3.2. Jonathan E. Mannering  holds degrees in Classics from the University of Chicago and Cambridge. His interests are in Roman oratory, rhetorical theory and per­form­ ance, and he has published on topics such as Roman declamation and intermediality in Roman letters. He is currently a Senior Lecturer in the Department of Classical Studies at Loyola University, Chicago. Julien Pingoud completed his undergraduate degree in Latin, German, and History at the University of Lausanne (2005), followed by a PhD in Latin (2012) with a thesis on the Ovidian ‘I’ and the translator. As postdoctoral researcher he worked on two projects linking intertextuality and secondary-school outreach to Roman declamation. His publications include the chapter ‘Noverca et mater crudelis. La perversion féminine dans les Grandes Déclamations à travers l’intertextualité’ (2016) and a book entitled Déclamations et intertextualité. Discours d’école en dialogue (Peter Lang, 2020), both co-authored with Alessandra Rolle. Alessandra Rolle obtained her PhD in Greek and Latin Philology at the University of Florence in 2011. She has been postdoctoral researcher and teaching fellow at the University of Lausanne and at the Scuola Normale Superiore of Pisa. She was also visiting scholar at the University of Florence, at University College London and at the University of Toronto. At present, she is junior lecturer at the University of Lausanne. She has published several articles and book chapters on Varro, Roman religion, and Latin declamation, as well as a book on the role of the ‘Oriental’ deities Cybele, Isis, and Serapis in Varro’s works (Dall’Oriente a Roma. Cibele, Iside e Serapide nell’opera di Varrone, ETS, 2017). She has also co-authored the volume Déclamations et intertextualité. Discours d’école en dialogue (Peter Lang, 2020).

xii  List of Contributors Catherine Schneider is Associate Professor at the University of Strasbourg, where she teaches Latin language and literature. A specialist in ancient rhetoric, she has published numerous works on Latin declamation, including translations and commentaries of the pseudo-Quintilianic Major Declamation 3, The Soldier of Marius (Cassino, 2004) and Major Declamation 10, The Bewitched Tomb (Cassino, 2013). She has also co-edited the volumes Présence de la déclamation antique. Controverses et suasoires (Clermont-Ferrand, 2015) and Fabrique de la déclamation antique (Lyon, 2016), in collaboration with Rémy Poignault. She is currently working on the edition, translation, and commentary of Calpurnius Flaccus’ Excerpta in collaboration with Andrea Balbo for Belles Lettres. Christopher S. van den Berg is Associate Professor of Classics at Amherst College, specializing in the rhetorical and intellectual cultures of the late Republic and early Empire. He has published a book on Tacitus’ Dialogus de Oratoribus (Cambridge, 2014) and has a book forthcoming on Cicero’s Brutus. He is currently working on two projects. One is an interpretive survey of Greco-Roman literary criticism, with an emphasis on the role of material objects in literary-critical practice. The second is a historical survey of Imperial rhetoric and oratory, with a focus on the interaction of Greeks and Romans and the legacy and reception of Cicero. He has also written on literary theory, declamation, deliberative rhetoric, and lexicographical articles for the Thesaurus Linguae Latinae. Danielle van Mal-Maeder  is Professor of Latin Language and Literature at the University of Lausanne, where she also serves as chair of the Classics and Archaeology department. As a specialist in the ancient novel and latin declamation, she has published two commentaries on Apuleius Metamorphoses Book 2 (Groningen 1998 and 2001), a new translation of this novel into French (Paris, 2016) as well as the monograph La fiction des déclamations (Leiden and Boston, 2007) and a commentary on the fifth Major Declamation of Ps.-Quintilian ([Quintilien]. Le malade racheté. Grandes déclamations, 5. Texte, traduction et notes, Cassino, 2018). In recent years, she has also co-edited two volumes with A. Casamento and L. Pasetti, a study of Ps.-Quintilian’s Minor Declamations (2016) and an essay collection on declamation in Imperial Rome entitled Eloquentiae itinera (2018).

1

Introduction What Is Declamation? Martin T. Dinter and Charles Guérin

The genre of declamation proves elusive to scholars and students alike. The various definitions in current discourse have little in common apart from broad themes of fictionality and pedagogy. Thus, Bloomer considers dec­ lam­ation to be ‘simultaneously a show performance [. . .] and the common school training of the elite’.1 Gunderson, however, instead describes dec­lam­ ation in terms of its unreality, summarizing it as ‘a rhetorical performance whose imagined occasion differs from its concrete occasion’.2 In turn, Bernstein defines declamation by way of contrast: ‘A more complex and restrictive set of rules govern forensic activity as opposed to the improvisa­ tory, free-form performance of school declamation.’3 The diversity of these definitions does not speak in their disfavour. Far from it: we ourselves have previously advocated for a unique conceptualiza­ tion of Roman declamation. In our introductions to the previous volumes in this series—on the declamations ascribed to Quintilian (2016) and Calpurnius Flaccus (2017)—we called declamation ‘a genre situated at the crossroad of rhetoric and fiction, [which] offers the freedom and ability to experiment with new forms of discourse and calls for both a technical and literary analysis’.4 Now that we have arrived at the final book of our planned trilogy, however, we feel that the time has come to suggest a universal definition of Roman declamation which is acceptable—and therefore ­ ­useful—to all who are studying this genre. 1  Bloomer (2011) 297. 2  Gunderson (2017) 267–8 provides a full definition of declamation as an act based on ‘imagination’. 3  Bernstein (2013) 166. 4  Dinter, Guérin, and Martinho (2016) 2; Dinter and Guérin (2017) 2. Martin T. Dinter and Charles Guérin, Introduction: What Is Declamation In: Reading Roman Declamation: Seneca the Elder. Edited by: Martin T. Dinter, Charles Guérin, and Marcos Martinho, Oxford University Press (2020). © Martin T. Dinter and Charles Guérin. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198746010.003.0001

2  What Is Declamation? At first sight, this task appears Herculean, for declamation is such a s­lippery concept that even its practitioners struggled to encapsulate it in brief. Seneca the Elder thus wrangles with terminology in the preface to his Controversiae: Declamabat autem Cicero non quales nunc controversias dicimus, ne tales quidem quales ante Ciceronem dicebantur, quas thesis vocabant. Hoc enim genus materiae quo nos exercemur adeo novum est ut nomen quoque eius novum sit: controversias nos dicimus; Cicero causas vocabat. Hoc vero alterum nomen Graecum quidem, sed in Latinum ita translatum ut pro Latino sit, scholastica, controversia multo recentius est, sicut ipsa ‘declamatio’ apud nullum antiquum auctorem ante Ciceronem et Calvum inveniri potest, qui declamationem distinguit; ait enim ­declamare iam se non mediocriter, dicere bene; alterum putat domesticae exercitationis esse, alterum verae actionis. (Now Cicero used to declaim, but not the controversiae we speak now­ adays, or even the kind called theses which were spoken before Cicero. The type of theme we now use for our exercises is so new that its name too is new. We speak of controversiae. Cicero called them ‘causes’. A second name, scholastica, a Greek word for sure, but taken over to serve as a Latin one, is much more recent than controversia: just as declamatio itself can be found in no old author before Cicero and Calvus. Calvus distinguishes declamatio from dictio, saying that he is by now not bad at ‘declaiming’ but good at ‘speaking’. The former he regards as to be used of exercises at home, the other of a real speech.) (Sen. Contr. 1.praef.12, transl. adapted from Winterbottom)

This passage nevertheless provides a few key principles, which guide towards a more specific summary of declamation than has been put forward in scholarship to date. Seneca distinguishes between declamare (the verb ‘to declaim’) and the genre of declamation (declamatio). The former might be used of any rhetorical exercise—from ‘controversies’ to ‘theses’—but the lat­ ter refers to a new practice grounded in a specific timeframe. To Seneca, the ‘recent’ genre and associated practice of ‘declamation’ is a late Republican invention originating in the first century bc with Cicero and Calvus. Apart from chronological specificity, declamation is also characterized by its particular purpose: as Calvus’ contrasting of ‘exercises at home’ (declamatio) and a ‘real speech’ (actio) suggests, declamation is fundamentally ­peda­gogic­al. These elements are not new to us; on the contrary, they have

Martin T. Dinter and Charles Guérin  3 been addressed throughout our series.5 In addition, scholarship on Roman ­dec­lam­ation in recent years has deeply engaged with questions of chronology and purpose by detailing the sociocultural milieu in which declaimers ­produced their speeches.6 However, there must be more to Roman declamation than its date of birth and motive for existence. Seneca emphasizes its novelty, but what exactly distinguishes it from other genres which flourished during Rome’s transition from Republic to Empire, such as Latin epic, philosophy, histori­ ography, and to a lesser extent satire? In our view, declamation possesses three key defining characteristics, all of which cannot be divorced from the context in which the genre was produced: declamation is very much a prod­ uct of the political turmoil which seized Rome towards the end of the Republic. The foremost attribute of declamation is its fictionality, which from the get-go separates it from philosophy and historiography.7 As with epic and satire, it provides a glimpse into an alternative universe—one in which important figures’ inner motivations are dissected to the bone. Unlike these genres, however, declamation does not seek to challenge the past and thus construct new possibilities for the present, but instead serves as a coping mechanism for how events have turned out. As Beard suggests, declamation is to Romans what myth was to the Greeks: an opportunity for storytelling, imagination, and—most importantly—rationalization.8 By providing two separate ‘opportunities’ for Cicero to save his own life (Sen. Suas. 6 and 7), declamation does not advocate that Cicero should have chosen a safer path. The conclusion—that Cicero was right to die for his convictions—is assumed from the very beginning. The task of declamation is not to refute but to reinforce: for Rome’s youths to convince themselves once more of the dignity derived from defending their beliefs. For this rea­ son, declamation always takes place in a sterile environment, namely that of the schoolroom, where real-world imperatives do not come into play; 5 On the formative function of Roman declamation, see Corbeill (2016) 11–24 and Stramaglia (2016) 25–48 in our Ps-Quintilian volume. Furthermore, many chapters in our Calpurnius volume—most notably Santorelli (2017) 129–42 on the utility of metrical clausulae in dating works—discuss the historical background underlying declamation. 6  See Gunderson (2003), Schröder and Schröder (2003), Bernstein (2013), Lentano (2014), Amato, Citti, and Huelsenbeck (2015), Poignault and Schneider (2015) as well as Casamento, van Mal-Maeder, and Pasetti (2016). 7  Van Mal-Maeder (2007) maps out the literary texture of this fictionality. Nevertheless, Bloomer (2007) 298 argues that declamation-as-literature is an Imperial rather than late Republican phenomenon. 8  Beard (1993).

4  What Is Declamation? within this safe space, students can exercise virtue without wrestling with its unpleasant consequences. To characterize declamation as a vehicle for fantasies is nevertheless sim­ plistic. The study of declamation is also defined by its practicality. Epic, sat­ ire, historiography, and philosophy are all pragmatic in their own ways: as Augustine indicates, the first was used to teach grammar well into late antiquity, the second informs its readers about societal issues, and the latter two contain key information and instruction for the politically active Roman citizen. Nevertheless, none of these genres prepares its students for public life as declamation does. The elite Romans who underwent rhetorical training would have spoken publicly in everyday life: both at the Senate and in court as legal patrons for their friends and clients. In addition to being functional and practical, declamation is also allinclusive. It belongs to both oratory and literature, since declamations are not only spoken but also transmitted as both reproductions and com­pil­ ations. For this reason declamation can also be considered intermedial in its blending of verbal and textual communication.9 What is more, it does not replace but rather combines its fellow literary genres: it consciously alludes to epic and elegy,10 includes legal language alongside stock charactertypes,11 and engages in intertextual play with historiographical, political, and also rhetorical texts.12 The multifarious nature of declamation has thus far contributed to its elusiveness; nevertheless, only by acknowledging the diversity inherent to the genre can we begin to understand its character. Based on these observations, our renewed definition of declamation reads as follows. Declamation is a rhetorical and literary genre which first concretized into its most prevalent form—that practised by Calvus, Cicero, Seneca the Elder, Quintilian, and Calpurnius Flaccus amongst others—in the first centuries bc and ad. This chronological background proved ­crucial to the development of declamation, which constitutes a response to political turmoil. As a fictional genre, produced in safe pedagogical envi­ ron­ments, declamation provided elite Roman youths with an opportunity to come to terms with the past and with their moral duty as citizens. Through declamation, these students acquired crucial skills of impromptu story­ telling and public oratory which they used throughout their adult lives. Finally, declamation is characterized by its integration of other genres—ranging 9  Henderson (2018) 179–80. 10  See Baraz in this volume. 11  Mannering (2017), especially 11–24. 12  Pingoud and Rolle (2016); Spielberg (2017); Schneider (2017).

Martin T. Dinter and Charles Guérin  5 from epic poetry to historiography—and its intermedial nature: often ­dec­lam­ation is oral performance either responding to, or resulting in, a written speech. At the beginning of this Introduction, we set out to produce a ‘universal’ definition. This does not mean that our view of declamation is comprehen­ sive. Rather, it provides a starting point from which readers will eye the contributions presented in this volume: Baraz defines declamation in terms of its kinship to poetry instead of prose. As she observes, Seneca frequently references epic while critiquing the speeches of others, which suggests that declaimers were expected to possess a thorough knowledge of Latin verse. By contrast, he expected his audience to be ‘lost in gloom’ when reading historiography (Sen. Suas. 6.16). However, Seneca did not set apart declamation from historical writ­ ing; on the contrary, the sixth and seventh Suasoriae on Cicero exemplify how he combined these genres. This difficulty in situating declamation, poetry, and historiography along a fixed continuum stems from the muta­ bil­ity of ‘declamation’ as a practice: even in its Republican heyday, during which its cultural identity was strongest, the declamatory tradition found itself in a state of constant flux. It vacillated in format from forensic oratory to contests of witty sententiae, in location from the school to the forum, and, so Baraz emphasizes, in genre from historical fact to poetic fiction. Owing to these complexities, Roman declamation has not yet been—and may never be—conclusively defined. Dinter delves into Seneca’s treatment of the past by exploring the theme of ‘memory’ in the Controversiae and Suasoriae, beginning from Seneca’s claim to have assembled all the declamations in his works through recall alone (Contr. 1.praef.2–3). Even though such a feat is beyond the realm of human ability, Seneca’s emphasis on memory comes to dominate all aspects of his work, from his authorial approach to structure and language. To use the terminology of cultural memory theory, Seneca is both a ‘commemora­ tor’—who ensures that the Roman declamatory tradition is passed down between generations—and a ‘specialist’, for he does not merely regurgitate but also reinterprets his sources. What is more, Seneca situates his portrayal of declamation practices within its social and historical context by alluding to the ‘ideal orator’ as constructed by Cato the Elder and Cicero. As a result of these processes, Seneca is able to ‘time-travel’: he invites his present audi­ ence to participate as ‘spectators’ in past declamations while influencing their perceptions of the declaimers involved so as to reflect his own assessments.

6  What Is Declamation? The Controversiae and Suasoriae feature two main groups of declaimers: the shadowy ‘Greeks’ and the prominent ‘Latins’. In Seneca’s mind, these groups are not alike in dignity, or even in nature. They operate in different areas, and each develops a peculiar approach to declamation. By analysing the relations and rivalries between these factions, Guérin demonstrates that these rigid categories were largely invented by Seneca. In reality, a per­me­ able and flexible social membrane lay between Greek and Latin declaimers. Even when differences did arise among them, language was rarely a point of contention: social and economic factors were far more potent in generating an unofficial hierarchy of declaimers. Ultimately, however, these ranks and rules counted for little. By Seneca’s time, declaimers from across the empire had already banded together to create, consciously or not, a cogent GraecoLatin cultural project. What’s in a name? According to Cappello, everything: a declaimer’s ­status and origin can be derived from his appellation alone. His chapter therefore addresses nomenclature and onomastic patterns in Seneca. By per­forming a statistic analysis on foreign and Roman names in Seneca’s cor­ pus, Capello observes how Seneca’s mentions of Greek, Spanish, and Roman orators change over time. In turn, these trends reflect each group’s fluctuat­ ing prominence in the world of declamation. He also explores how names can be used for selection and valuation; by citing some names more often than others, Seneca reveals which declaimers he personally favours. These micro-relations combine into an overarching hierarchy of declaimers, who are identified and ranked according to Seneca’s willingness to name them. The degree to which Seneca names them is also significant; some declaim­ ers are honoured with cognomina, while others must make do with generic praenomina. Moreover, given that the Controversiae and Suasoriae are fun­ damentally archival works, names serve as itemizing components of Seneca’s self-referential catalogue: names create a sense of identity and individuality, helping readers to differentiate between various declaimers. It is tempting to dismiss declamation as an oral exercise, which consists only of what is said. Nevertheless, physical actions are also a pivotal ­element of Roman declamation. Corbeill’s approach towards actio consists of exploring the excessive use of such gestures. In his chapter, he takes a closer look at this phenomenon by analysing bodily movement and vocal modula­ tion among Seneca’s declaimers. He concludes that seemingly outlandish movements were in fact stylistic flourishes, which declaimers used to dif­ ferentiate themselves from rhetoricizing schoolboys. No longer constrained by pedagogical exercises, they celebrated their right to speak and move

Martin T. Dinter and Charles Guérin  7 freely in public. Hence, declaimers used their physical actions to mark out a new literary genre, distinct from staid oratory and buffoonish theatre. Balbo explores the role of actio in Roman declamation on a different level. He highlights how physical movements and gestures were utilized in both forensic and didactic speeches. Supporting his argument with ex­amples from both the Controversiae and Suasoriae, he showcases how fic­ tional declamation exercises improved an orator’s command of actio. Through practice, declaimers learned the importance of modulating their voices and movements (Sen. Contr. 7.4.6). In a detailed analysis he contrasts Arruntius’ methods with those of Albucius, and examines Latro’s oratorical style for signs of actio. As becomes clear, actio was difficult to master: it required practice and confidence; orators who were accustomed to public dec­lam­ation therefore fared better than school declaimers who only prac­ tised their gestures in private. Forensic orators were better able to suit their gestures to their speech, and came across as more self-confident. This fun­ damental difference explains why Seneca so strongly disdained school declaimers, whom he saw as semi-amateurs, limited to declaiming exercitationis causa, ‘for the sake of practice’ (Sen. Contr. 9.1.13). The foremost pleasure in reading Roman declamation lies in observing how different declaimers modulate on the same theme. Huelsenbeck ap‑ proaches this phenomenon by studying the recurrent use of ‘Ocean’ motifs. He concludes that two overarching concepts governed declamatory im­pro­ visa­tion. ‘Scalability’ allowed declaimers to compose speeches of different lengths while maintaining thematic coherence through the use of similar core structures. Similarly, the idea of ‘sequence’ meant that each declaimer spoke in response to another. Hence, themes gained new meanings through an ongoing accumulation of arguments, ensuring that the well of declama­ tory material never ran dry. Indeed, Roman declamation was a dynamic activity, which involved fluid and inexhaustible variations on common topoi. Conjugal fidelity is a popular theme among declaimers (Sen. Contr. 2.2, 2.5). The theme of a heroic wife sacrificing herself for her husband is not, however, limited to the declamatory world, for poets, not unlike declaimers, also developed variations on similar mythological exempla (Ov. Trist. 5, Prop. 1). Larosa explores how this common motif appeared in both dec­lam­ ation and poetry. She concludes that this shared topos was a potent indica­ tor of declaimers’ cultural authority. Indeed, Roman declamation was so highly regarded and widely practised that its themes transcended the schools and crossed into the realm of literature more generally. By focusing

8  What Is Declamation? on declaimers’ treatment of female figures, Larosa also draws attention to the oft-overlooked phenomenon of women in Roman declamation. In doing so, she highlights quiritarian expectations of female behaviour, and emphasizes how morality in declamation mirrored contemporary societal values. The spectre of decline loomed over the halcyon years of the Empire. From Velleius Paterculus to Tacitus, Roman writers lamented that oratory had lost its original eloquence. Van den Berg explains this pessimism by examining the topos of decline in Seneca. He establishes that Seneca’s com­ plaints were not political in nature; by attacking contemporary declaimers, he instead targeted social concerns such as effeminate youth and immoder­ ate luxury. Moreover, Seneca employed the concepts of memoria (memory) and desidia (indolence) so as to connect himself with past orators, hence portraying himself as the heir to an illustrious rhetorical tradition. Indeed, the rhetoric of decline in the Controversiae and Suasoriae does not reflect an actual degeneration. In the same vein as other imperial writers, Seneca pri­ marily chose this narrative framework to organize, justify, and showcase his material. Roman declamation was not only a battle of wits, but also a fight for attention. By focusing on examples where declaimers interrupt and critique each other, Mannering reveals the hidden rules that governed rhetorical contests. Despite being carried along in a mad dash for the wittiest sententia, declaimers were nevertheless expected to maintain a certain level of decorum. They displayed good taste by avoiding overtly sexual comments, paying attention to semantic details, and by quoting poetry. Mannering also highlights the various interactions, from imitation to mockery, which declaimers exhibited towards one another. He emphasizes that these actions were restricted by a framework of unspoken regulations, within which declaimers battled for first place. Indeed, declamation was a high-stakes game, played only by the creative and competitive. There were no consola­ tion prizes: just as the victors were covered in fame and admiration, the ­losers were relegated to oblivion. A color, in the language of declamation, refers not to a visible ‘colour’ but instead to the ‘angle’ which runs throughout a speech. Huerta Cabrera out­ lines this concept, focusing in particular on the color of suspicion. By utiliz­ ing this motif, declaimers are able to impugn their opponents’ integrity without resorting to open accusations: to study suspicion in declamation is therefore to learn the mysterious act of ‘half-saying’. This color is most often employed in ‘sensitive’ cases, such as those concerning rape and adultery

Martin T. Dinter and Charles Guérin  9 and includes methods such as strategic word choices. Albucius’ use of the phrase filius sciens—the knowing (and conniving) son—in Controversia 1.4 constitutes a striking example. Declaimers also planted suspicion through more subtle means; by calling attention to a woman’s calm demeanour, Cestius Pius cast doubt on her alleged rape (Sen. Contr. 1.5.1). As these complex tactics suggest, suspicion was not an easy color to declaim with: it demanded patience, tact, and sensitivity. However, given that a masterful touch of suspicio was as effective as damning evidence, declaimers boldly endeavoured to paint their words with this color. In her chapter on the role of laughter in Roman declamation, Schneider traces the thin line between mirth and tears, suggesting that jokes served as offensive weapons in the declamatory world. Laughter was aggressively deployed in power struggles; Cassius Severus humiliated Cestius by pub­ licly mocking his rhetorical ineptitude, provoking ‘universal roars of laugh­ ter’ (Sen. Contr. 3.praef.16). Indeed, instead of laughing with each other, declaimers often provoked audiences to laugh at rival speakers. Despite emphasizing the acerbic nature of declaimers’ jokes, however, Schneider also argues that raillery and badinage constituted indispensable adornments of speech. Laughter was therefore a double-edged sword. While cheerful banter created the impression of wit and eloquence, malicious derision became both cruel and exclusionary. Pingoud and Rolle examine intertextuality in the Controversiae and Suasoriae, placing special emphasis on Seneca’s use of allusion. As part of his linguistic analysis, Pingoud demonstrates that Cicero, Ovid, Horace, and Lucretius wielded a significant influence on the language of dec­lam­ ation. Seneca imitates these authors both to teach and to entertain his audi­ ence. Rolle complements Pingoud’s argument by examining how Greek oratorical texts influenced Latro’s characterization (Sen. Contr. 1.praef.). She reveals that every part of Latro—from his stentorian voice to his vigorous body—corresponded to Greek ideals of the perfect declaimer. However, she also highlights that Latro’s persona deviated from that of Demosthenes, painting a more nuanced portrait of Latro in the process. Feddern’s chapter addresses the concept of fictionality in declamation. He explores the idea of an unseen audience, whose presence is implied through the device of ἀποστροφή (apostrophe). These appeals include a wide range of addressees, from the accused (Sen. Contr. 9.2.4) to more dis­ tant heroic figures: in his indignant indictment, Capito invokes the ‘Brutuses, Horatii, and Decii’ (Sen. Contr. 9.2.9). Indeed, declaimers call upon a dazzling array of phantasmata from history and mythology in order

10  What Is Declamation? to arouse pathos in their listeners. By arranging these figures on a spectrum based on their degree of fictionality, Feddern creates a novel systematization of the uses of apostrophe. He further suggests that his methodology when applied to ancient speeches more generally helps to demarcate the differ­ ences between oratory and declamation. At heart, the Controversiae and Suasoriae are collections of voices. Van Mal-Maeder examines this aspect of Roman declamation by analysing oral­ ity in Seneca’s corpus. On the most basic level of discourse, Seneca assumes the dominant auctorial voice as narrator and editor. However, each de­­ claimer also plays an indispensable part in the chorus; their voices, so skil­ fully preserved in the retelling, merge to create an entertaining and educational work. Even when these voices clash, they still form part of a coherent whole. Seneca layers declaimer upon declaimer in polyphonic har­ mony, threading voices together through recurrent themes and motifs. His declaimers also channel external voices by quoting from historical figures and poets; they address Alexander by citing Homer (Sen. Suas. 1), and advocate for Cicero by alluding to Lucretius (Sen. Contr. 6). Indeed, Seneca’s writing exhibits a distinct oral character, which is well-suited to its focus on the spoken art of declamation. Scholarship on Seneca the Elder has enjoyed a revival of interest in the past two decades, which manifests in the monographs of Berti (2007) and Migliario (2007) as well as Huelsenbeck’s two articles (2011a and  2011b), and recent tome discussing two of Seneca’s preferred declaimers, Arellius Fuscus and Papirius Fabianus (2018). A spate of commentaries has, more­ over, helped to clarify the intricacies of Seneca’s text, ranging from Feddern (2013) on the Suasoriae to Huerta Cabrera (2015) and Håkanson as edited posthumously by Citti, Santorelli, and Stramaglia (2016). The pronounced enthusiasm with which these volumes have been met leads us to believe that the present volume on Seneca will be a timely addition to existing studies and provide impetus for further research. It has been almost forty years since a full-length work of scholarship on Seneca the Elder has been pub­ lished in the United Kingdom (Fairweather (1981)). Seneca’s ‘insider’ access to the most famous declaimers of the Latinspeaking world enabled him to imbue his works with biographical insight: each of the seven prefaces which were preserved in the Controversiae tells the tale of a different declaimer, for example Latro in Book 1, Papirius Fabianus in Book 2, and Cassius Severus in Book 3. Seneca’s historical importance—largely stemming from his influence on his son Seneca the Younger, his grandson Lucan, and, by extension, on the thinkers of the

Martin T. Dinter and Charles Guérin  11 Empire—also contributes to the appeal of his works. He provides us with the single largest collection of Roman declamation which survives to date. Even so, what we have is marred by lacunae: originally there were ten books of Controversiae, each treating between six and nine themes, but in the pre­ sent day only Books 1, 2, 7, 9, and 10, reconstructed from a single manu­ script tradition, might be deemed ‘complete’. Editors have had to use a separate tradition for the other books, which only contains excerpts per­ taining to each declamation theme and not the ‘full text’ as Seneca wrote it. Winterbottom, who edited the most recent Loeb Classical Library edition of Seneca’s writings, thus summarizes but a few of the challenges posed by our reliance upon this second tradition: Normally only epigrams are reproduced, and by no means all of those: nor are they attributed to individual declaimers. Divisions and colours largely go overboard; a few spicy anecdotes survive from the wreck. Worse still, the excerpts adapt the full text even where they do not suppress it. A fas­ cin­at­ing study has shown how the excerptor re-handled the epigrams to improve their rhythm. He also tampered with the epigrams to make them clearer, adding subjects and objects not present in the original. Occa­ sionally he mistook the meaning and produced a new epigram out of the flotsam of the old.  (Winterbottom (1974) I, xix)

Despite these obstacles, we do have enough evidence to identify general trends in Seneca’s writing, many of which the reader will find discussed in detail by the contributions to this volume. We thus wish to draw attention to but one overarching point at this stage. Readers of Seneca’s work will find it rewarding to observe his emphasis on contrasts, most notably the op­pos­ ition between public and private phenomena. Even though Seneca writes about declaimers who were once his friends and addresses his sons through his work (Contr. 1.praef.1), he nevertheless considers declamation to be the collective inheritance of Roman youth: populo dedicabo (‘I shall dedicate this to the people’; Sen. Contr. 1.praef.10). In contrast to prefatorial conven­ tion in Latin writing, therefore, even though Seneca’s sons are his addressees they are not strictly his dedicatees. From the very start his anthology is thus imbued with universalizing tendencies: it is not meant for his family alone, but for the overall good of Roman society, which Seneca considers to be in a state of decline (Sen. Contr. 1.praef.8–9). Tellingly, however, Seneca’s pro­ posed solution to collective decay is individual effort: he exhorts his readers to ‘admire’ and ‘emulate’ noteworthy orators, thereby effecting small-scale,

12  What Is Declamation? ‘private’ change rather than banding together to t­ransform the Res publica, the Roman state (for Seneca’s encouragements, see Sen. Contr. 1.praef.19). Seneca also makes much of the contrasts between the Greek and Latin declamatory traditions. Not unlike Cato the Elder, a figure whom he deems an ‘oracle’ (oraculum) out of admiration (Sen. Contr. 1.praef.9), he harbours a complex attitude towards Greek culture.13 Even though the origins of Roman declamation are found in the Greek rhetoric of the Hellenistic period, Seneca tends to prefer the ‘Latin’ tradition insofar as that can be distinguished from Greek oratory. Apart from comparing the cultures which make up the world of declamation, Seneca also delineates boundaries in social behaviour, thus generating a topography of Roman etiquette. Most notably, the declaimers in his compilation castigate the proconsul Fla­ mininus for beheading a condemned criminal during a feast, not because of the ethical quandaries posed by executing a prisoner without warning, but because such a bloody spectacle does not accord with the atmosphere of a dining-room: ‘Who can think of a feast amidst all this?’ (Sen. Contr. 9.2.6). Seneca’s penchant for listing the constituent parts of each argument as a ‘division’ (divisio) and for comparing one declaimer’s response against that of another is but an extension of this tendency to categorize, contrast, and ‘put in order’ the sources in his possession. Nevertheless, the burden of organization does not fall on Seneca alone. As readers of Roman declamation, our mission is also to engage with the themes presented and, in extension, evaluate, rank, and reinterpret each declaimer’s speech. When we act as ‘students’ of declamation, we encounter Seneca’s work within the didactic milieu for which it was created. The essays presented in this volume are designed to accompany this process along with the two other volumes on Reading Roman Declamation (Ps-Quintilian (2016) and Calpurnius Flaccus (2018)) stemming from our multi-year pro­ ject. We hope they will encourage the reader to mine Roman declamation— so far still one of the lesser-studied genres—for the literary, sociocultural, historical, and linguistic treasure it contains. The time has come for Roman declamation to shine.

13  Cato has traditionally been viewed as a rabid anti-Hellenist, as exemplified by his lobby­ ing for the departure of Athenian philosophers from Rome in 155 bc (Plut. Cat. Mai. 22.5). Eckert (2018) 21, however, makes the point that he was not as reactionary as has been por­ trayed; he merely lobbied against what he saw as ‘excessive’ Greek influence on Roman youth rather than against Greek culture in general. See also Guérin in this volume.

2

The Bitter Medicine of History Seneca the Elder on the Genre of Declamation Yelena Baraz

Introduction What exactly is declamation? Where does it belong? The question of trying to define this slippery genre still occupies us today, as we look at the scanty remains preserved for us by a largely indifferent tradition. This question already occupied the Romans of the generation in which the genre may be said to have, if not emerged, then crystallized, in the period that we may well refer to as early post-Ciceronian. That is not surprising: by the end of the Republic, Roman intellectuals had assimilated much of the scholarly and taxonomic legacy of Hellenistic Greece and were on their way towards developing a domestic theory and history of literature. The advent of a new kind of literary product would probably appeal to the newly conceived taste for definition and classification.1 Indeed, much of what we hear of early declamation does seem to manifest an interest in explicit self-definition on the part of the practitioners. Most of what we do hear, however, does not come from one of their number, but rather a member of the audience. Accordingly, we ought to acknowledge at the outset that Seneca’s concerns frame our access to early declamation’s fragmentary textual remains as well as to the framework of social practice in which these were originally located. In this chapter I want to address the basic question of genre in Seneca’s ­representation of declamation and show that the issue of genre is of great *  I am grateful to the organizers and participants of the original conference in Montpellier, the volume editors, and the audience at the University of Pennsylvania for their feedback on earlier versions of this paper and to Robert A. Kaster for comments on the near-final version. All translations are my own. 1  See Moatti (1997). Yelena Baraz, The Bitter Medicine of History: Seneca the Elder on the Genre of Declamation In: Reading Roman Declamation: Seneca the Elder. Edited by: Martin T. Dinter, Charles Guérin, and Marcos Martinho, Oxford University Press (2020). © Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198746010.003.0002

16  The Bitter Medicine of History concern to him. Such concern is an integral feature of his project as he, in effect, constitutes for the first time on the page, as a coherent body of text, the product of performative practice that is still relatively new and does not allow for easy definition and classification. It is perhaps an indication of that difficulty that the very word declamatio refers to two sets of practices, interrelated, to be sure, but distinguishable. One is the pedagogical declamation, exercises practised by students as part of general training in rhetoric. The other features declamatory performances by accomplished practitioners, in a context that I think was analogous to the recitatio, a further practice that takes shape in the same period.2 Only the latter performative adult dec­lam­ ation is the subject of Seneca’s work.3 A keen interest in declamation as a genre, and in understanding dec­lam­ ation in relation to other, more established genres is at the heart of the paratextual portions of Seneca’s work, the prefaces to the books of Controversiae, as well as the discussions found alongside his presentation of both the Controversiae and the Suasoriae. These sections of the text show that Se­ neca’s approach to discussing genre is twofold. In the first place, it is des­ criptive, as one would expect given the nature of his project: recording for his audience actual material declaimed and transmitting portraits of particularly outstanding declaimers. Secondly, Seneca, far from being a mere scribe, engages critically with both the declamations he presents and with the genre as a whole.4 This critical facet of his work is also closely tied to the highly didactic authorial position that he creates for himself in the text, that of a father instructing his sons. In this chapter I will give an account of how Seneca conceives of dec­lam­ ation’s generic entanglements. My discussion will explore Seneca’s treatment of philosophy, forensic oratory, and poetry, leading to a more extended look at how he presents declamation in relation to one genre in particular, his­ tori­og­raphy. I will argue that Seneca’s interest in historiography in general, as an author of a historical work, and his identification of historiography as the genre to which young declaimers ought to turn in order to move dec­ lam­ation in a direction that he approves, are significant in two ways: they draw our attention to the role that fictionality plays in the way Seneca 2  On the recitatio see Dupont (1997); cf. Dalzell (1955). 3 Cf. Bloomer (2011) 178: ‘While born out of school, declamation’s popularity as adult entertainment is well attested.’ 4  On Seneca as critic see, e.g. Sussman (1978) 94–136; Fairweather (1981) 50–73. Both see Seneca largely as a Ciceronian. I hope to show that Seneca’s critical principles differ from Cicero’s in several key ways.

Yelena Baraz  17 conceptualizes the genre and allow us to understand important structural features shared by the two works.5 I will, however, begin with examining the role played in the text by a figure central to this move towards his­tori­og­ raphy, which Seneca envisions as provoking resistance, and one that is also crucial to the structuring of the work as a whole: Cicero, the great orator who never quite wrote history, but did dabble in poetry, who then became a victim of history and a subject of historiography. After viewing declamation in the light of its generic neighbours, I will then suggest that we can read the structure of the two connected declamatory collections in terms of a movement away from forensic oratory, closely identified with the figure of Cicero, through the current state, closely interconnected with poetry, to his­tori­og­ raphy, which is Seneca’s desired, though not necessarily most likely, des­tin­ ation.6 As we will see, Seneca’s framing authorial posture crystallized in a Lucretian allusion underpins this move and invites us to think about the progress that Seneca envisions for his readers in Lucretian terms.

1.  Seneca’s Cicero This section explores the role that Cicero plays in Seneca’s staging of dec­ lam­ation for his audience. The first notable fact is that Cicero, or more precisely, the theme of Cicero’s absence, frames the collection. His first mention occurs in the preface to the first book of the Controversiae and sets up the absence of Cicero the speaker, as opposed to Cicero the character or Cicero the subject matter, from what is to come. In this very preface Seneca presents the work as arising in response to his sons’ request, frustrated at having no access to the great declaimers of the past whom their father was able to hear:7 Omnes autem magni in eloquentia nominis excepto Cicerone videor audisse. Ne Ciceronem quidem aetas mihi eripuerat sed bellorum civilium furor, qui tunc orbem totum pervagabatur, intra coloniam meam me continuit; alioqui in illo atriolo, in quo duos grandes praetextatos ait secum 5 On fictionality as a key feature of declamation as a genre, van Mal-Maeder (2007) is essential. 6  Seneca explicitly indicates that the two are planned as a whole when he promises (Sen. Contr. 2.4.8) to record a suasoria by Latro when he gets to the latter collection, cum ad suasorias venero. 7  On this ‘transfer of memory to Seneca’s sons’, see van den Berg in this volume.

18  The Bitter Medicine of History declamare, potui adesse illudque ingenium, quod solum populus Romanus par imperio suo habuit, cognoscere. (I believe that I heard all those whose reputation for eloquence was great, except for Cicero. And even Cicero was not snatched away from me by age, but the madness of civil wars, which were at the time spreading over the whole world, and kept me within the walls of my colony. Otherwise I could have been present in that little hall in which he says the two overgrown youths declaimed with him, and could have got to know that talent, the only one which the Roman people had that equalled its empire.) (Sen. Contr. 1.praef.11)

Cicero’s double singularity—his is the only talent equal to the empire, he is the only important speaker whom Seneca did not get to hear—opens up a number of avenues in the text that lead to the two Suasoriae centred on the events surrounding his death. The lack of direct contact, attributed to major historical cataclysms of the period that put Seneca at the far end of the empire, and the empire-wide perspective more generally, make Cicero appear in the guise of a historical character, distanced already even though he is still alive. The verb that Seneca uses to introduce his failure to hear Cicero, eripuerat, combined with the order in which the ideas of the sentence are presented, produces a startling effect. The violent action and the reference to civil wars would naturally lead the reader to think that Seneca is referring here to Cicero’s death. Only when he gets to the picture of the atriolum where Cicero declaims with Hirtius and Pansa does the reader realize that the damage attributed to the violence of the civil wars amounts to no more than Seneca’s lost opportunity. But Cicero’s death, which will conclude Seneca’s work, is foreshadowed and then undercut by the image of Cicero declaiming with his pupils. Seneca, in a sense, allows the image to linger, as all the declaimers, all students of eloquence in Rome are Cicero’s pupils, and their declamations occupy the books until the end. There Cicero’s actual death will finally be explored in detail, and he will be transformed from an orator and a teacher into the subject of declamation and of history. This presentation, then, allows Seneca, from the start, to have a double ­perspective on the role of Cicero in relation to declamation. In one sense, he is the primus inventor, his declamation with Hirtius and Pansa, seen retrospectively, is the beginning of the practice and the genre as a whole. The mention of the atriolum contributes to this picture by leading the reader to imagine something rather like the performance context of the later declamatio: public, accessible, where Seneca could have potentially

Yelena Baraz  19 been present, had he only been in Rome at the time. This picture is of course false, as Cicero’s exercitationes with his pupils, whatever precise form they might have taken, were private in nature and seem to have been confined to the private space of the villa, rather than the more public domestic spaces of Rome, such as the word atriolum might evoke.8 But even as Seneca uses his image of Cicero declaiming to suggest continuity, he is also clearly invested in emphasizing the rupture and the distance between the declamations that he will record and the Ciceronian practice. This perspective is emphasized in the passage of the preface that follows, in which Seneca painstakingly distinguishes the types that Cicero practised—causae, as well as θέσεις, which he associates with the pre-Ciceronian period—from the Controversiae he will be describing in his work.9 It is instructive to contrast Seneca’s allusion to Cicero’s unusual peda­ gogic­al arrangement with the Caesarians to that found in Suetonius’ De rhetoribus, a passage that appears to go back to the same lost source as Seneca, since both treatments share the phrase grandes praetextati, which probably goes back to Cicero.10 In his discussion of the fortunes of the teaching of rhetoric in Latin after it was attacked in the censors’ edict of 92,11 Suetonius cites Cicero’s practice as the first step in the discipline’s progress towards respectability: Paulatim et ipsa utilis honestaque apparuit, multique eam et praesidii causa et gloriae appetiverunt. Cicero ad praeturam usque etiam Graece declamitavit, Latine vero senior quoque et quidem cum consulibus Hirtio et Pansa, quos discipulos et grandis praetextatos vocabat. Cn. Pompeium quidam historici tradiderunt sub ipsum civile bellum, quo facilius C.

8  Cicero as a teacher of rhetoric to Caesarians: Cic. Fam. 9.18.1 (=SB 191), general reference to the practice and to discipuli; Cic. Fam. 9.16.7 (=SB 190), Hirtius and Dolabella; Cic. Fam. 7.33.1 (=SB 192) and Cic. Att. 14.22.1 (=SB 376), Hirtius; Cic. Att. 14.12.2 (=SB 366), Hirtius and Pansa (designati). The opening of Cic. Fam. 7.33, in response to Volumnius Eutrapelus’ apparent expression of regret at missing out on these proceedings, indicates that Cicero’s practice was known at the time. 9 Sen. Contr. 1.praef.12. His claims for a clear progression and division do not align with the evidence of other authors, including Cicero. This is usually treated as a result of error or ignorance, but there is a case to be made for a purposeful shaping of a tradition that suits Seneca’s overarching agenda in the work. For an overview of the early development of the genre and declamatory terminology, see Bonner (1949) 1–31; Sussman (1978) 6–10; Fair­ weather (1981) 104–31; Stroh (2003); Migliario (2007) 33–50; Berti (2007) 110–14; Bloomer (2011) 173–8. 10  See Kaster (1995) 275–6. 11 On the edict, see Gruen (1990) 179–91; Kaster (1995) 273–4; Stroup (2007) 28–33; Bloomer (2011) 37–53.

20  The Bitter Medicine of History Curioni promptissimo iuveni, causam Caesaris defendenti, contradiceret, repetisse declamandi consuetudinem; M.  Antonium, item Augustum ne Mutinensi quidem bello omisisse. Nero Caesar primo imperii anno pu­ blice, quoque bis antea, declamavit. (Little by little both the discipline itself began to appear beneficial and honorable and many men pursued it both for the sake of protection and of glory: Cicero up to the time of his praetorship declaimed in Greek, but in Latin too, as he got older, and even with the consuls Hirtius and Pansa, whom he referred to as his students and overgrown boys. Certain his­tor­ ians have reported that right before the civil war Gnaeus Pompey returned to the practice of declamation in order to more easily argue against Gaius Curio, a very quick youth, who was defending the cause of Caesar; similarly, Mark Antony and Augustus did not interrupt their declaiming even during the war of Mutina. Nero Caesar declaimed publicly in the first year of his reign, and twice before.)  (Suet. Rhet. 25.3)

Several things are noteworthy about this passage and help clarify what is particular about Seneca’s presentation. One is that Suetonius is uninterested in the two sets of distinctions that are essential to Seneca: the first is the difference between declamation as an exercise, or performance, and dec­lam­ation as practice for delivering a speech in a more traditional context; the second that between Cicero’s practice and what came after. Further, Suetonius’ identification of the two unusually mature students as Hirtius and Pansa draws attention to the fact that Seneca leaves their identity vague. This general reference helps Seneca achieve another major goal of the section of the preface to Book 1 of the Controversiae: in addition to setting up the longing for Cicero through its emphasis on his absence, it also constructs a didactic position for Seneca himself that is modelled on Cicero’s. Just as Cicero is imagined teaching declamation to the grandes praetextati, made children again, so Seneca finds himself in the position of teaching his grown children about declamation. In Cicero’s case, as we can see from his letters, this arrangement was forced by circumstances, as he tried to remain relevant and find allies among the Caesarians. The practice, from his point of view, was not an end in itself, but rather an opportunity to have close contact with influential Caesarians and perhaps sway them in a beneficial direction. Seneca presents himself as also forced, though in a much more benign, and more perfunctory, prefatory fashion, by his sons’ request.12 Thus Seneca 12  On the topos of request in Latin prefaces, see Janson (1964) 116–20 and passim; Stroup (2010) 181–6; in Seneca, Sussman (1978) 53–4.

Yelena Baraz  21 would seem to be taking up, in relation to his sons, and through them, the general audience of educated young men, the task that Cicero’s death left undone, teaching the new generation to speak. The position Seneca occupies is not only analogous to that of Cicero teaching in private, but also to his self-positioning in his last major work, De officiis, a philosophical didactic that addresses the young generation of the elite through the dedication to his son.13 Thus, we can see the two collections as Seneca stepping into the gap left by Cicero’s absence, taking on his didactic stance, and filling the lack with his overview of declaimers and declamation, a sort of mini version of the Brutus for the new genre, or perhaps a Brutus in reverse: taking its start from the recently departed great orator and moving into a future filled with lesser figures. The genre itself, defined in the section that follows this passage, is described by Seneca as rem post me natam, ‘a thing born after me’, that is, it too is imagined as a child, if not his, at any rate one whose development he saw. Seneca is, then, creating a position for himself from which, in addition to teaching his sons and others like them, he will be educating this other child, the genre of declamation itself. I suggest that, like Cicero, he too has an ulterior motive and a goal that lies outside the sphere to which his students’ original request was addressed, namely, the implied call for declaimers and declamation to go in the direction of historiography. Before I pursue this motive, I will outline how Seneca portrays the relationship between declamation and philosophy, forensic oratory, and poetry, and how the resulting generic picture fits into the overall structure of the text.

2.  Declamation and Philosophy Declamation, as represented by the Elder Seneca, is in a sense bracketed by two prime examples of the potential for interaction between oratory and philosophy: the works of Cicero in the preceding generation and the works of Seneca the Younger in the following. Even though Seneca explicitly sep­ ar­ates Cicero’s declamatory practice from declamation as practised by the declaimers in his text, Cicero made the unity of rhetoric and philosophy as essentially and crucially related practices the cornerstone of his thinking in both areas.14 The influence of declamation on Seneca the Younger’s 13  Sussman (1978) 51–8 discusses Seneca’s prefaces in relation to the prefatory tradition, using the framework presented in Janson (1964). He does not treat Cic. Off. as a precedent because he focuses on the rhetorical tradition (51). On the dedication of De officiis to Marcus and Cicero’s didactic posture in that work, see Baraz (2012) 212–13. 14  See most recently Grilli (2002), Gildenhard (2011), Baraz (2012) 128–40.

22  The Bitter Medicine of History formulation of his philosophy is well known.15 So how does philosophy ­figure in the practice of Seneca the Elder’s cohort of declaimers? Two de­ claimers, each featured in a preface to a book of the Controversiae, are particularly associated with philosophy. One is Papirius Fabianus, presented in the preface to Book 2; the other, Albucius Silus, in the preface to Book 7.16 Fabianus,17 who was to be an important philosophical influence and a model for the Younger Seneca, is repeatedly identified by Seneca the Elder as a philosophus and his declamatory practice is associated with the earlier stage of his life: Cum repeterem quos umquam bene declamantes audissem, occurrit mihi inter alios Fabianus philosophus, qui adulescens admodum tantae opini­ onis in declamando, quantae postea in disputando fuit. (When I was trying to recall the good declaimers whom I had heard at any point, among others the philosopher Fabianus came to my mind who, as a youth, had the same reputation for his declaiming as he later acquired for his dialectic.)  (Sen. Contr. 2.praef.1)

The choice of disputando in contrast to declamando in this passage, I suggest, indicates that Seneca, in introducing his first declaiming philosopher, is specifically thinking of Cicero’s attempts at integrating the two genres, or practices, and, in particular, the developmental presentation of the relationship between the two that Cicero outlines in the preface to the first book of the Tusculan Disputations. In a passage that begins with an evocation of the rivalry between Aristotle and Isocrates that led Aristotle to add the teaching of oratory to his curriculum, Cicero presents Academic philosophy as a perfect unity of rhetoric and philosophy and then describes his own practice as an Academic: Sed ut Aristoteles, vir summo ingenio, sapientia, copia, cum motus esset Isocratis rhetoris gloria, dicere docere etiam coepit adulescentes et prudentiam cum eloquentia iungere, sic nobis placet nec pristinum dicendi 15  On the role of rhetoric in Seneca’s philosophy, see the overview in Wilson (2007); on the influence of declamation in the entire corpus, Bonner (1949) 160–7. 16  For a detailed discussion Seneca’s treatment of Papirius and Albucius and their philo­ soph­ic­al procedures within a broader first century context, see Guérin (2013). 17  For an extended treatment of Papirius Fabianus’ use of language to fashion a philo­soph­ ic­al identity, see Huelsenbeck (2018) ch. 2; on his influence on Seneca, see Inwood (2005) 9–11 and 13–15.

Yelena Baraz  23 studium deponere et in hac maiore et uberiore arte versari. Hanc enim perfectam philosophiam semper iudicavi, quae de maximis quaestionibus copiose posset ornateque dicere; in quam exercitationem ita nos studiose operam dedimus, ut iam etiam scholas Graecorum more habere auderemus. Ut nuper tuum post discessum in Tusculano cum essent complures mecum familiares, temptavi, quid in eo genere possem. Ut enim antea declamitabam causas, quod nemo me diutius fecit, sic haec mihi nunc senilis est declamatio. Ponere iubebam, de quo quis audire vellet; ad id aut sedens aut ambulans disputabam. (But just as Aristotle, a man of greatest talent, knowledge, eloquence, after he was bestirred by the glory of the orator Isocrates, also began to teach the youth how to speak and to unite knowledge with eloquence, thus I have decided not to put aside my old pursuit of speaking and to engage in this greater and more fertile art. For I have often judged that kind of ­philosophy most accomplished which was able to speak about the most significant issues with eloquence and elegance; and I devoted myself to this exercise so studiously that I even dared to have learned disputations in the manner of the Greeks. So recently, after your departure, when a number of close friends were with me at my Tusculan villa, I tried to see what I was capable of in this genre. For as before I would declaim cases, a thing that no one did longer than I, so this [learned philosophical discussion] will now be declamation for my old age. I told [my friends] to put forward what question each one wanted to hear about; in response to it I gave a discussion, either sitting down or walking around.)  (Cic. Tusc. 1.7)

Of course, this new declamation, appropriate for old age, is in fact no longer a declamation, but rather a disputatio, the Latin equivalent of the Greek schola, referred to earlier in the passage, and an exercise that gives the title to Cicero’s work. The use of senilis, as I have argued elsewhere,18 suggests that there is a kind of qualitative shift at the end of a long period of declamatory practice that leads to greater engagement with and integration of phil­ oso­phy without rejection of oratory and style. If we accept that Cicero posits a development but ultimately advocates unity, a concordia disciplinarum of sorts, then it is clear that Seneca’s view is rather different. He sees dec­lam­ ation and rhetoric as ultimately a subsidiary, though certainly useful,

18  See Baraz (2012) 146–8 (140–9 on this preface more generally).

24  The Bitter Medicine of History pursuit for Fabianus and emphasizes that Fabianus, though an enthusiastic declaimer, lacked oratorium robur, oratorical power. If Seneca’s presentation of Fabianus shows a disjunction between the two disciplines and stresses declamation’s usefulness for a philosopher, his depiction of Albucius is more explicit in criticizing the inappropriateness of philosophy’s generic contributions to declamation, which he describes as follows (Sen. Contr. 7.praef.1): illa intempestiva in declamationibus eius philosophia sine modo tunc et sine fine evagabatur (‘that philosophy of his, unsuitable in declamations, wandered then without limit and without end’). Here philosophy appears, on the one hand, as an uninvited guest who disturbs the social equilibrium19 and, on the other, as an invader, endlessly expanding inside declamation and undermining its ability to function properly. One of the examples of Albucius’ color explicitly refers to his philo­soph­ ic­al inclinations; this is the case of the ‘madman who married his daughter to a slave’: Albucius et philosophatus est: dixit neminem natum liberum esse, neminem servum; haec postea nomina singulis imposuisse Fortunam. Denique, inquit, scis et nos nuper servos fuisse. (Albucius even took the philosophical approach: he said that no one is by nature free, and no one a slave; fortune later imposed these names on individuals. Lastly, he says, you know that we too were recently slaves.) (Sen. Contr. 7.6.18)

Here Albucius is appealing to Stoic views on slavery and freedom that, although they are rather briefly referred to here, clearly anticipate the treatment of slavery in Seneca the Younger’s letter on the subject, Letter 47.20 Seneca’s own authorial criticism is echoed by the criticism coming from another declaimer, Cestius, mentioned in the divisio of the controversia about an unchaste woman who is condemned to be thrown from the

19  Cicero, for example, uses intempestivus, often in conjunction with molestus, to describe socially inappropriate intrusions. People arriving at an inappropriate time: qui ad nos intempestive adeunt saepe molesti sunt (Cic. Fam. 11.16.1) and intempestive accedentibus (Cic. Off. 1.88); by contrast, friendship is always welcome, and so are the letters of Atticus: nullo loco excluditur, numquam intempestiva, numquam molesta est (Cic. Amic. 22), numquam enim mihi tua epistula aut intempestiva aut loquax visa est (Cic. Att. 4.14.2). 20 On slavery in Seneca the Younger, see Griffin (1976) 256–85; Roller (2001) 214–33; Edwards (2009).

Yelena Baraz  25 Tarpeian rock, but survives her fall (Sen. Contr. 1.3). Cestius is said to have disapproved of Albucius for his manner of approaching the question of the divine interest in the affair because his discussion lost touch with the spe­ cifics of the case: he had treated them not as small issues bearing on the main question, but as if they were problems being treated philosophically (Sen. Contr. 1.3.8: improbabat Albucium, quod haec non tamquam particulas incurrentes in quaestionem tractasset sed tamquam problemata philosophumena). Cestius’ use of Greek terms to describe Albucius’ practice emphasizes the distance between the type of rhetoric that Cestius implies should be the norm and the philosophically tinged discussion in which Albucius indulged on this occasion. In sum, Seneca represents philosophy as benefiting from declamatory training, yet itself at best unhelpful, at worst damaging to a successful dec­ lam­ation.21 This approach, while appearing to replicate Cicero’s developmental, unifying account of the relationship between declamation and philosophical disputation, is in fact rather disjunctive. Philosophical reason­ing, in its brief appearances in declamation, is shown to be pointlessly expansive and incapable of making itself relevant to the particulars of individual cases.

3.  Declamation and Forensic Oratory Seneca’s desire to reverse Cicero’s unifying efforts and reassert the distance between philosophy and rhetoric could easily be seen as a return to the mainstream of Roman thinking about philosophy. The same cannot be said about what Seneca does in his portrayal of the relationship between two kinds of oratory, the new, declamatory and the traditional, primarily forensic. The preface to the third book of the Controversiae is the main locus where Seneca emphasizes the generic difference between declamation and forensic oratory. The prompt for making this distinction is the declaimer at the centre of this preface, Cassius Severus, noted for his inability to equal his achievements in the forum when declaiming despite apparently having all the necessary talents. Seneca takes an agnostic stance on the reasons for

21  Cf. Guérin (2013) 41: ‘Sénèque le Père . . . refuse toute possibilité d’enrichissement philo­ sophique de l’éloquence scolastique, mais souligne son utilité stylistique pour le philosophe.’

26  The Bitter Medicine of History this failure, and instead represents Cassius himself addressing the subject.22 I cannot engage with Cassius’ extensive and programmatic speech fully, but I want to discuss several important points. As part of his defence, which is also an attack on declamation as childish and removed from reality, Cassius generalizes his inability to do well as a declaimer, in two ways. First, he declares that good forensic orators are generally less successful as d ­ eclaimers, citing other examples: Diligentius me tibi excusarem, tamquam huic rei non essem natus, nisi scirem et Pollionem Asinium et Messalam Corvinum et Passienum, qui nunc primo loco stat, minus bene videri dicere quam Cestium aut La­ tronem. Utrum ergo putas hoc dicentium vitium esse an audientium? Non illi peius dicunt, sed hi corruptius iudicant. Pueri fere aut iuvenes scholas frequentant; hi non tantum disertissimis viris, quos paulo ante rettuli, Cestium suum praeferunt, sed etiam Ciceroni praeferrent, nisi lapides timerent. (I would be presenting a more elaborate defence, claiming that I was not naturally inclined to this pursuit, if I did not know that both Asinius Pollio, and Messala Corvinus, and Passienus (who is now occupying the leading position) are judged less well than Cestius and Latro. Do you think the fault lies with the speakers or the audience? They do not speak less well, but the audience—boys or young men who frequent the lecture halls—judges more perversely. They would prefer their Cestius not only over those most eloquent men whom I just mentioned, but even over Cicero, if only they weren’t afraid of being stoned.) (Sen. Contr. 3.praef.14–15)

What Cassius’ defence emphasizes here are, in effect, generic differences. While he acknowledges the overlap in practitioners, he points to the different performance contexts, different audiences, and, perhaps most importantly, different standards that the audience applies in judging the quality of the performance. In terms of the chronological progression through life, where philosophy was associated with older age, declamation is here attached to youth, though not youth of the practitioners, but rather that of the audience. Finally, Seneca has Cassius insert Cicero into this newly disjunctive 22  The assignment of the argument that is hostile to declamation to Cassius shows the same concern for not offending his audience on Seneca’s part, which we will see later when I discuss his negotiations with his readers around the introduction of historiographical material.

Yelena Baraz  27 picture of the genres of eloquence: not simply has the unity he exemplified disintegrated afterwards; Cicero himself would no longer be able to perform equally well in the newly developed genre of declamation. In addition to generalizing his own declamatory troubles to other successful orators, Cassius also frames this disjunction, at the very opening of his speech, as part of a universal limitation: people are generally capable of high achievement in only one particular genre or area of endeavour: Quod in me miraris, paene omnibus evenit. Magna quoque ingenia (a quibus multum abesse me scio) quando plus quam in uno eminuerunt opere? Ciceronem eloquentia sua in carminibus destituit; Vergilium illa felicitas ingenii in oratione soluta reliquit; orationes Sallustii in honorem historiarum leguntur; eloquentissimi viri Platonis oratio, quae est pro Socrate scripta, nec patrono nec reo digna est. (What you find surprising in my case happens to virtually everyone. Even great talents (I know I am far removed from them), when have they been prominent in more than one type of work? Eloquence deserted Cicero when it came to his poems; that happy genius left Virgil in prose; Sallust’s speeches are read in recognition of the value of his histories; the speech of Plato, a most eloquent man, which was composed on behalf of Socrates, is worthy neither of the advocate nor of the defendant.) (Sen. Contr. 3.praef.8)

One of the striking things about this passage is that Cassius, in effect, constructs the generic difference between declamation and forensic oratory as being of the same kind, and separated by the same distance, as not only that between historical narrative and speeches found within that narrative, a comparison we might have expected, but as that between poetry and prose. But Cassius’ distinction between declamation and forensic oratory is far from neutral. In the first passage from the speech quoted above he im­pli­ cit­ly ranked the two in terms of audience and the validity of their criteria for judging excellence. In another part of the speech, he compares them in light of his own individual experience and affect, yet his account clearly has broader implications as well: Ego tamen et propriam causam videor posse reddere: adsuevi non auditorem spectare sed iudicem; adsuevi non mihi respondere sed adversario; non minus devito supervacua dicere quam contraria. In scholastica quid non supervacuum est, cum ipsa supervacua sit? Indicabo tibi affectum

28  The Bitter Medicine of History meum: cum in foro dico, aliquid ago; cum declamo, id quod bellissime Censorinus aiebat de his, qui honores in municipiis ambitiose peterent, videor mihi in somnis laborare. (Nevertheless, I think I can also give you a reason [for being worse as a declaimer] that is peculiar to me: I am accustomed to look not at the audience, but at the judge; I am accustomed to respond not to myself, but to my adversary; I avoid saying what is unnecessary no less that what is ­contrary to my goals. What is not unnecessary in a declamation, when dec­lam­ation itself is unnecessary? I will describe my disposition to you: when I speak in the forum, I am doing something; when I declaim, I feel what Censorinus used to say about those who would seek municipal offices with ambition: I seem to myself to be toiling in a dream.) (Sen. Contr. 3.praef.12)

Cassius’ rant zeroes in on what makes the performer’s experience so different: not so much the composition of the audience, but the type of inter­action and the outcome that is expected. The presence of the judge and an adversary triangulates the orator’s performance in front of the audience, whereas the declaimer moves through multiple parts in a circular manner, splitting into several characters that respond to each other, and is to be judged by the audience. The implication is that this difference has a dis­orient­ing effect on the orator accustomed to the forum. Even more im­port­ant for Cassius is the lack of tangible outcome: nothing is achieved by a dec­lam­ation, whereas forensic speech is active, as he makes clear when he emphasizes that in the forum aliquid ago, I am doing something. Disorientation and fruitlessness come together in the final deadly image, when Cassius describes his experience when declaiming by a window allusion to the helpless disorientation of Turnus at the end of the twelfth book of the Aeneid through a certain Censorinus’ description of candidates in municipal elections: videor mihi in somnis laborare.23

23 Verg. Aen. 12.908–12: ac velut in somnis, oculos ubi languida pressit / nocte quies, nequiquam avidos extendere cursus / velle videmur et in mediis conatibus aegri / succidimus; non lingua valet, non corpore notae / sufficiunt vires nec vox aut verba sequuntur (‘And as in dreams, when languorous sleep has weighed down our eyes at night, we seem to strive in vain to press on our eager course, and in mid-effort collapse helpless: our tongue lacks power, our wonted strength fails our limbs, and neither voice nor words will come’). On the simile, see Tarrant (2012) 324–5, esp. on videmur (325 ad 12.910) highlighting Virgil’s change to first person from the third person of the Homeric source.

Yelena Baraz  29 At the same time, declaimers in courts are described as helpless, ­ ourished as they are in a closed, indulgent, and, in Cassius’ description, n rather incestuous conditions: not only is the declaimer talking to himself, as in the passage above, but the third element of the courtroom context is also presented as circular, in that ‘they are used to be eloquent according to their own judgment’ (Sen. Contr. 3.praef.13: adsuerunt enim suo arbitrio diserti esse). As we saw, Cassius also makes a developmental argument, describing declamation as childish and its audience as consisting primarily of the young, thus applying lower standards and showing less understanding. This programmatic contrast follows the general structure of Cicero’s presentation in the preface to the Tusculans, but adopts a condescending view of the original activity, and Cicero himself plays an important part. The speech culminates in Cassius’ narration of how provoked he was when another declaimer, Cestius, dared attack Cicero, by putting on a performance of In Milonem, meant to respond to and, presumably surpass, Cicero’s famous speech. After being chased out of the audience, Cassius avenges himself, Cicero, and forensic oratory more generally by dragging Cestius into court and repeatedly humiliating him. The picture of the relationship between declamation and forensic oratory, outlined in this programmatic and clearly biased tirade of Cassius, is supplemented by instances of declaimers appearing in the courts that are found in other parts of the work.24 I will mention one example that well represents the dynamic of these encounters, as Seneca narrates them. Albucius Silus, the philosophically inclined declaimer we already encountered, apparently stayed away from the forum after a traumatic case in front of the centumviral court (Sen. Contr. 7.praef.6). Albucius grandly challenged his opponent to swear an oath, as one might in a declamation, for added pathos. The opponent quickly offered to do so, the judge accepted, and the case was lost, despite Albucius’ protestations that he was simply using a figura and not offering terms.

4.  Declamation and Poetry The next piece in the generic mapping of declamation is the genre to which the declaimers themselves appeal most frequently and most comfortably,

24  See Berti (2007) 139–49.

30  The Bitter Medicine of History poetry.25 Here Ovid occupies a special place, as a declaimer himself.26 If, in the case of philosophy, the key generic issue is overindulgence in abstract argument, Ovid’s example is used to show that poetry lies at the other extreme. He rarely declaims Controversiae, only ones that involve getting into character, and otherwise prefers Suasoriae. The reason given by Seneca is that all argumentation was an annoyance for him,27 but his brief characterization reveals that this poetic approach to declamation is opposed not only to philosophy, but also to forensic oratory, as presented by Cassius in his speech: getting into character and having to converse with himself are precisely the things that Cassius dislikes about declamation. The closeness of declamation as practised by Ovid and his actual poetry is illustrated, on the one hand, by his borrowing from Latro (Seneca cites lines from the Metamorphoses and the Amores28) and, on the other hand, by the description of his early declamation as solutum carmen, poetry freed from metre (Sen. Contr. 2.2.8). Seneca gives the latter description in impersonal terms, nihil aliud poterat videri, emphasizing that this was a common perception. How pervasive the poetic influence was in declamation is demonstrated by Seneca’s report of a certain Publius Vincius’ recommendation to declaimers to memorize a line from the Metamorphoses for the purpose of pro­du­ cing sententiae on its basis (Sen. Contr. 10.4.25). Another example is found in the case of Cestius, the same declaimer who criticized Albucius for allowing philosophy to intrude into his declamation and attacked Cicero in his In Milonem. Seneca reports that Cestius criticized Alfius Flavus for borrowing a paradoxical description of a man tearing his own flesh from Ovid’s description of Erysichthon and for reading poetry in general (Sen. Contr. 3.7): apparet . . . te poetas studiose legere. Yet this very Cestius is shown to have recourse to poetry and borrow from Virgil’s description of night when hampered by his limitations in Latin, his second language (Sen. Contr. 7.1.27). The result is characterized by Seneca as self-indulgent (placuit sibi) and unfortunate (explicatione una et infelici). The slippage is apparent also 25  The relationship between the two genres is discussed by van Mal-Maeder (2007) 65–94 (with a focus on shared generic features) and Berti (2007) 155–82 (with a focus on specific instances of mutual imitations, and sections on Virgil and Ovid). 26  On the mutual influence of Ovid and the declaimers, see Bonner (1949) 149–56. 27 Sen. Contr. 2.2.12: Declamabat autem Naso raro controversias et non nisi ethicas. libentius dicebat suasorias. Molesta illi erat omnis argumentatio (‘However, Naso rarely declaimed controversiae and only ones that are character-based. He declaimed suasoriae more readily. All argumentation was an annoyance to him’). 28 Sen. Contr. 2.2.8 cites Ov. Met. 13.121–2. Seneca’s reference is derived from what Latro said in a suasoria on the judgment between Ajax and Ulysses over the arms of Achilles; Ov. Am. 1.2.11–12 is derived from an image Latro used in his preliminary comments.

Yelena Baraz  31 in how Seneca himself handles his material. On this occasion, Seneca’s ­discussion of declamation’s borrowings from poetry, which he implicitly disapproves, seamlessly transitions to that of poetic imitation: his discussion of Cestius’ failed imitation of Virgil in the controversia leads into an analysis of Virgil’s adaptation of Varro of Atax and Ovid’s comment on how Varro’s line could have been improved. To sum up the discussion so far, of the three genres treated by Seneca, philosophy is portrayed as largely incompatible with declamation; forensic oratory as now firmly distinct and even opposed to it; in both cases, the practitioners are presented as naturally disposed to one or the other, and having to make a choice. Thus poetry emerges as the genre that has the closest and easiest, if not entirely problem-free, commerce with declamation. With this in mind, I come now to consider the place of historiography in Seneca’s presentation of declamation.

5.  The Role for Historiography The Suasoriae can be described as historical declamation, with six out of seven in Seneca revolving around historical personages and events, and the Controversiae are legally based declamation; but this division between these two types is not absolute. In the Controversiae, just as in forensic speeches, declaimers have recourse to historical exempla to support their arguments. In fact, surprisingly few historical exempla are found in the Controversiae reported by Seneca, given how much exemplarity as a mode permeates Roman literature and Roman discourse more generally. I suggest that this is not necessarily an accurate reflection of how much historical material was generally used in such declamation (Valerius Maximus is evidence to the contrary) but is rather a symptom of Seneca’s desire to represent dec­lam­ ation as emphatically fictional. The same tendency can be seen in the few historical themes that do appear as the subjects of Controversiae. Though based on historical characters and events, their attractiveness as subjects for declamation hinges, for the most part, on a fictional element.29 Thus, Sen. Contr. 4.2 on the rescue of the Palladium by Lucius Caecilius Metellus in 241 bc is grounded in a dramatic event also found in Cicero, Ovid, and Livy:30 29  Cf. van Mal-Maeder (2007) 5–9. 30 Cic. Scaur. 48; Ov. Fast. 6.437–54; Liv. Per. 19. Cf. van Mal-Maeder (2007) 6–7.

32  The Bitter Medicine of History Metellus pontifex, cum arderet Vestae templum, dum Palladium rapit, oculos perdidit. Sacerdotium illi negatur. (The high priest Metellus, when the temple of Vesta was on fire, lost his eyesight when he was grabbing the Palladium. His priesthood is denied to him.)  (Sen. Contr. 4.10)

The crucial element of the case, the blindness that results from touching the cult image and disqualifies Metellus from the priesthood, is not mentioned in the other sources and appears to be an invention.31 Likewise, other Controversiae that appear to derive from historical events are in fact rather loosely based on those events, as the central feature on which the disputation is based turns out to be fictional. Examples are Sen. Contr. 6.5 on Iphicrates’ using violence to influence the outcome of his trial; Sen. Contr. 8.2 on the Eleans cutting off Phidias’ hands for allegedly stealing gold from Olympia and the resulting dispute between the Eleans and the Athenians; Sen. Contr. 9.1 on Cimon, son of Miltiades, killing his adulterous wife, the daughter of his benefactor Callias; and Sen. Contr. 9.2, on the proconsul Lucius Flamininus’ slaughtering a condemned man at the request of a prostitute. This last case is also attested in Livy (39.52–3), who cites two versions, one close to Seneca’s, which he attributes to Valerias Antias (also found in Cic. Sen. 42), the other, involving a male prostitute and an innocent victim, which is derived from a speech of Cato the Elder, but Seneca cites no historical discussion.32 This feels particularly pointed, as he does quote Livy in this section (9.2.26), but only for his stylistic views, as if to underline the exclusion of the historian’s take on the incident related. But the pattern is most obvious in the only controversia that overlaps thematically with the two concluding Suasoriae, to which I will be turning next. Sen. Contr. 7.2 imagines an accusation against Popillius, the killer of Cicero. ‘Imagines’ is the crucial word here since both the background used to make the situation all the more poignant, Cicero’s prior defence of Popillius on the charge of parricide, and the very accusation around which the disputation is conducted, are inventions:

31  It is found in a later account of Pliny (Nat. 7.141), probably derived from the declamatory tradition. 32  Van Mal-Maeder (2007) 6 suggests that the reason the declaimers preferred the version reported by Seneca is that it provided better opportunities for defending the proconsul. Cf. also Suerbaum (1993) on this passage.

Yelena Baraz  33 Popillium pauci ex historicis tradiderunt interfectorem Ciceronis et hi quoque non parricidi reum a Cicerone defensum sed in privato iudicio; declamatoribus placuit parricidi reum fuisse. (Few historians have reported that Popillius was Cicero’s killer; and even these report that he was defended by Cicero not on the charge of parricide, but in a private case. The declaimers like the idea that he was charged with parricide.)  (Sen. Contr. 7.2.8)

Not by accident does Seneca contrast for the first time the treatment of the subject by declaimers and historians in this controversia and zeroes in, though briefly, on the fictional nature of declamation, laying the foundation for the discussion that will follow in the divisio of the sixth suasoria. Seneca’s most explicit engagement with historiography comes in the sixth suasoria where he finally allows historical facts to intrude into the fictionality of the world of declamation. Even though four out of the five preceding Suasoriae are connected to historical events, two involving Alexander the Great, and two the Persian wars, historical accounts do not enter Seneca’s discussion of them. Only when he approaches a subject derived from Roman history, one most proximate to himself and his audience in time, and one in which the very fate of the meaning of eloquence appears to hang in the balance, does he engage explicitly with historiography as a genre and presents historians’ accounts of Cicero’s death alongside the Suasoriae of the declaimers.33 In the transition from declamation to history he showcases the difference in this regard between oratory, broadly understood, and history, when he contrasts Asinius Pollio’s behaviour in the two generic arenas (Sen. Suas. 6.14–15). He first presents Pollio as an exception among historians, who otherwise agree that Cicero did not attempt to plead for his life. Yet then he specifies that Pollio, though identified as a historian, kept his attacks on Cicero’s memory exclusively within the realm of oratory. First, within the purview of declamation proper, he is credited with originating the subject of the suasoria that will follow, the seventh in the collection, on whether 33  The role of declamations on the subject of Cicero’s death in creating the quasi-historical tradition is discussed by Roller (1997), Wright (2001), Keeline (2018) 102–18; in constructing Cicero the Classic, by Kaster (1998); with an emphasis on Cicero as a father-figure, Gunderson (2003) 79–88; on the gruesomeness, Berti (2007) 325–32; on the individual declaimers, Migliario (2007). For the broader context of contestation around the figure of Cicero in the early Empire, see further Keeline (2018) chs. 2–4, Gowing (2013), Degl’Innocenti Pierini (2003), La Bua (2019) 100–12.

34  The Bitter Medicine of History Cicero offered to burn his speeches in exchange for Antony’s pardon. Seneca contrasts Pollio’s willingness in a forensic speech to claim that Cicero made promises to Antony in exchange for pardon and the absence of this claim from Pollio’s history. He then proceeds to make a further distinction still, attributing the anti-Ciceronian claims to the published version of Pollio’s speech, since the presence of the triumvirs in the audience prevented him from lying. In this short vignette that explores how genre conditions expression, the conclusion is clear: the oratorical genres, especially declamation, give space to Pollio’s hostility by providing an environment welcoming to fiction (haec inepte ficta, falsum, mentiri). In fact, the very presence of the seventh suasoria, in which Cicero is urged (or not) to destroy his speeches, demonstrates the genre’s ability not only to accommodate but also to successfully reproduce fiction. In this instance, it becomes clear that what’s at stake for Seneca is not how one would persuade Cicero, but what he actually did; for him, this is the point which most clearly shows the failure of the fictional nature of the genre to do justice to this kind of a subject matter. The case of Cicero is for Seneca a limit case for the viability of declamation. But before Seneca continues with properly historical accounts of Cicero’s death, he makes one more detour to negotiate with his audience about the intrusion:34 Nolo autem vos, iuvenes mei, contristari, quod a declamatoribus ad historicos transeo. Satisfaciam vobis, et fortasse efficiam ut his sententiis ­lectis solida et verum habentia recipiatis. Et quia hoc statim recta via consequi non potero, decipere vos cogar, velut salutarem daturus pueris potionem, summa parte poculi. (I do not, however, wish you, my young men, to be lost in gloom because I  am moving from declaimers to historians. I will compensate you and perhaps I will bring it about that, once you have read these views, you will accept things that are substantial and contain the truth. And since I will not be able to achieve this by a straight path, I am forced to deceive you, just as one who is about to give a healthful drink to children, at the very edge of the cup.)  (Sen. Suas. 6.16)

Seneca expects his sons, and, through them, his readers, to be distressed (contristari) by the introduction of historiographical texts, which are seen as

34  The passage contains serious textual problems. I follow Håkanson’s (1989) Teubner ed­ition.

Yelena Baraz  35 being outside the relevant generic niche. Yet he has insisted on an extensive engagement with historical treatments as non alienum, not foreign, to the subject (Sen. Suas. 6.14). This juxtaposition of attitudes suggests that Seneca shares the awareness on the part of his audience of declamation’s generic identity centred on fictionality, a feature that unites it with poetry and sep­ ar­ates it from history. Seneca’s negotiations around the introduction of historical texts reveal a desire to move the genre towards both further prose models and greater realism.35 To do so, Seneca here adopts a didactic posture through an evocation of the famous Lucretian image of knowledge as medicine:36 sed vel uti pueris absinthia taetra medentes cum dare conantur, prius oras pocula circum contingunt mellis dulci flavoque liquore, ut puerorum aetas inprovida ludificetur labrorum tenus, interea perpotet amarum absinthi laticem deceptaque non capiatur, sed potius tali facto recreata valescat, sic ego nunc . . . (But just as doctors, when they try to give boys foul-tasting wormwood, first they apply the sweet yellow liquid of honey around the edges of the cups, so that the age of boys, lacking in foresight, may be deceived, as far as their lips, and meantime drink the bitter flow of the absinth, and, deceived, not be taken in, but rather restored by such an act grown strong, so now I . . .) (Lucr. DRN 1.936–43=4.11–17)

Yet the way the image functions in Seneca is notably different. In Lucretius’ text, the image comes for the first time at the end of Book 1, and for the second at the opening of the second half of the poem, and is thus central to his negotiations with his audience about the manner of presentation in the poem. This distribution is also in tune with the relatively equal weight of

35  Cf. Roller (1997) 119–20 and 124–8 who also sees ‘truth value’ as central to Seneca’s priv­ il­eging of historiography. Roller’s analysis emphasizes the influence of declamation and its topoi on the historiographical tradition; this is not, however, Seneca’s own emphasis in presenting the historical material. 36  On Lucretius’ didactic posture and his construction of a reader-character, see Clay (1983) 212–25; Volk (2002) 73–83; on the simile as articulating the relationship between poetry and philosophy, see Gale (1994) 138–55; Volk (2002) 94–9.

36  The Bitter Medicine of History honey and medicine in the poem itself, in which philosophical exposition and poetic description alternate.37 The proportions are quite different in Seneca’s concoction. To follow the Lucretian terms, the overwhelming majority of the work is the honey of declamation. Only in a very small dose is the medicine of history infused into it, only to be drowned in honey again, as Seneca moves on to the last suasoria. Seneca’s appeal to the Lucretian image, and his willingness to explicitly claim that he is engaging in deception, produces a paradoxical picture in which the whole edifice of the Controversiae and the Suasoriae is built up to provide Seneca with the opportunity to advocate before the ­dec­lam­ation-obsessed younger generation on behalf of historiography. Even poetry, which has been aligned with fictionality throughout the work, takes a star turn in these surroundings, as Seneca assigns the highest praise to Cornelius Severus’ treatment of Cicero’s demise in a historical poem (Sen. Suas. 6.26).38 The structure of Seneca’s work seems to suggest that, if Cicero’s death did not mark the death of eloquence, it certainly occasioned a transformation, and declamation was born as a result. Even as he describes the early days in the development of the new genre for the benefit of his sons and the new generation, he explores declamation’s position in relation to established and familiar genres and presents it as having broken with its parent, forensic oratory, and moved in the direction of poetry. He then stages the treatment of the most historically proximate and, arguably, most significant subject of declamation, the death of Cicero, which is also implicated in the new genre’s birth, as declamation’s failure, and uses it to direct his readers to the advantages of historiography as a model. While history is by no means free of the advantages and disadvantages associated with rhetoric, its crucial difference from declamation, as Seneca presents it, is the goal of getting at the truth.

37  I take it that in employing the Lucretian allusion as he does Seneca indicates that he reads the honeyed cup simile as referring to the two styles or modes, deriving from the two different traditions (best discussed by Kenney (1971) 14–20), rather than the combination of philo­soph­ ic­al content and poetic speech more generally, which is the dominant way of interpreting the simile in the scholarship. The relationship between honey and medicine in Seneca is interpreted in a more local way by Roller (1997) 120, who takes honey as referring to the declamatory flavour of the historiographical passages Seneca cites. 38  This praise forms part of Sussman’s (1978) 72–5 argument for a different set of generic hierarchies being established in this passage: he sees epic poetry as occupying the top position in Seneca’s view.

3

Seneca and the Past Martin T. Dinter

Those new to the Controversiae and Suasoriae are often impressed by their comprehensiveness. In these works, Seneca provides an astounding number of direct quotes, peppered with his own comments and entwined into biographical anecdotes about selected orators. At the same time, however, he fosters the impression that these are but the dregs of a once-powerful memory, for as a young man he could have produced an even greater number of declamations on command: Hanc aliquando in me floruisse ut non tantum ad usum sufficeret sed in miraculum usque procederet non nego; nam et duo milia nominum recitata quo erant ordine dicta reddebam, et ab his qui ad audiendum praeceptorem mecum convenerant singulos versus a singulis datos, cum plures quam ducenti efficerentur, ab ultimo incipiens usque ad primum recitabam [. . .] nunc et aetate quassata et longa desidia, quae iuvenilem quoque animum dissolvit, eo perducta est ut, etiamsi potest aliquid praestare, non possit promittere. (I do not deny that my own memory was at one time so powerful as to be positively prodigious, quite apart from its efficiency in ordinary use. When two thousand names had been reeled off I would repeat them in the same order; and when my assembled school-fellows each supplied a line of poetry, up to the number of more than two hundred, I would recite them in reverse. [. . .] Now it has been undermined by age, [. . .] to such an extent that though it may be able to come up with something, it cannot make any promises.)  (Sen. Contr. 1.praef.2–3)1

The ‘false modesty’ which he conveys in this disclaimer is a rhetorical device common to ancient prologues: by claiming that he is operating at reduced 1  All translations of Seneca are adapted from Winterbottom (1974). Martin T. Dinter, Seneca and the Past In: Reading Roman Declamation: Seneca the Elder. Edited by: Martin T. Dinter, Charles Guérin, and Marcos Martinho, Oxford University Press (2020). © Martin T. Dinter. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198746010.003.0003

38  Seneca and the Past capacity, he pre-empts criticism against his collection.2 Moreover, by indicating that his past capabilities exceeded those demonstrated in the Controversiae and Suasoriae—which are immense achievements in their own right—he solicits the reader’s admiration for a ‘superlative’ version of himself, albeit one which no longer exists and which may never have existed. Seneca also implies, through his choice of verbs, that he has cobbled together the declamations from memory alone: he ‘recites’ (reddere) and ‘comes up’ (praestare) with information but does not ‘copy’ or ‘read’ it. As such, he never admits to using written notes as sources, and goes as far as to say that such records do not exist: ‘In general there are no extant drafts from the pens of the greatest declaimers, or, what is worse, there are forged ones’ (Sen. Contr. 1.praef.11). This feat inflates the impressiveness of his endeavour. To work hard at reconstructing the past through records is praise­ worthy, but to simply pluck out memories as they ‘arrive at hand’ (praesto esse, Sen. Contr. 1.praef.5) is nothing short of miraculous.3 As scholars have observed, however, Seneca’s claim to have plucked the Controversiae and Suasoriae out of thin air is disingenuous. By highlighting similarities between Seneca’s quotations and works which are known to have circulated in written form, most notably Scaurus’ pamphlets (libelli), Lockyer demonstrates that Seneca did rely on textual sources while compiling his collections.4 Similarly, Sussman points out that Seneca only drew upon his memory for ‘a small proportion of the material’.5 Nevertheless, Seneca’s failure to regurgitate everything from memory is no cause for dishonour, but rather constitutes a point in his favour: For if Seneca was relying on memory alone, the authenticity of the excerpts would be greatly suspect. On the other hand, reliance on written sources [. . .] argues for fidelity of transmission, and thus we can be rather rea­son­ ably sure that Seneca’s extracts faithfully portray stylistic characteristics. In

2  On the topos of false modesty (affectata modestia), see Thraede (1965) 48–72. Classical examples include Cic. Fam. 9.8.1, a dedicatory letter in which he downplays the Academica by claiming that it has been written only ‘in such form as was within my ability’ (quo possem [. . .] genere); Liv. 1.praef.1, which questions whether the Ab urbe condita will be ‘worth [his] effort’ (facturusne operae pretium). 3  Bloomer (2011) 119 notes that memorization was a crucial part of ancient intellectual life; hence, Seneca’s talent in this area is not only remarkable but valuable. Fairweather (1981) 38 provides an overview of the discussion on Seneca’s use of or distancing from written sources. 4  Lockyer (1971) 173–6. 5 Sussman (1978) 78–9. On Seneca’s use of written sources, see also Guérin (2015), Håkanson (2016) 3-16 and van den Berg in this volume.

Martin T. Dinter  39 turn, scholarship on Silver Age stylistics may now use the elder Seneca as a primary source with confidence.  (Sussman (1978) 79)

What is more, that Seneca claims to have written out his declamation accounts from memory is in itself significant. By attributing preternatural powers of recollection to himself, Seneca highlights that rhetoricians should have a good memory; this specification is but one part of the ‘ideal orator’ which he constructs based on treatises by Cato the Elder and Cicero. In addition, in order to uphold the illusion that his testimonies derive from off-the-cuff recollections, Seneca organizes his information using ordered lists, a mnemonic technique often recommended in pedagogical texts about oratory. As I will demonstrate throughout this chapter, moreover, presenting each declamation session as a personal memory enables Seneca to ‘timetravel’ by inviting his present audience to participate as ‘spectators’ in past declamations. In addition, he is thus simultaneously also able to tint our perceptions of historical declamations using his own opinions. In what follows, I will examine these interactions within the Controversiae and Suasoriae, prefacing my analysis with a few observations linking culturalmemory theory to Seneca’s self-fashioning as the sole ‘commemorator’ and ‘specialist’ of Roman declamation.6

1. Commemoration Seneca delineates his authorial role in the preface to the Controversiae. He perceives his main duty to be the transmission of memory, lamenting that declaimers ‘face oblivion unless something to prolong their memory is handed on to posterity’ (Sen. Contr. 1.praef.11). He views himself as qualified for this role because of his personal experience in the world of dec­lam­ ation, which has enabled him to befriend the very declaimers whose orations he must preserve.7 These close relationships stem from a chronological stroke of luck: Seneca’s lifespan overlaps with Rome’s greatest or­ators, ranging from Cicero—whom he claims he ‘could have got to know’ if not

6  For these terms, see J. Assmann (2001); Assmann and Czaplicka (1995). 7  Keith (2013) 106 (on Propertius) exemplifies the workings of a Roman personal network: ‘By addressing members of the Roman social and political elites as patrons, friends, and literary rivals, Propertius appeals to and consolidates the homosocial bonds of elite Roman male friendship and implicitly documents the social and political entitlements of his own class.’

40  Seneca and the Past for the civil wars (1.praef.11)—to Marcus Porcius Latro, with whom he was close (Sen. Contr. 1.praef.13).8 Seneca frequently draws attention to these personal experiences. To name but one example, he feigns surprise at his readers’ anticipated reaction to his narration of Latro’s memory: ‘I can see, my dear young men, that you are more astonished (obstupescere) by this talent [. . .] than you should be’ (Sen. Contr. 1.praef.19). The unspoken corollary to this aside is that Seneca himself would never be ‘astonished’ by Latro, with whom he—unlike his readers—enjoyed frequent contact.9 Similarly, by demonstrating knowledge not only of Latro’s working habits but even of his digestion, Seneca emphasizes that they shared a close friendship: Saepe cum per totam lucubraverat noctem, ab ipso cibo statim ad declamandum veniebat. Iam vero quin rem inimicissimam corpori faceret vetari nullo modo poterat: post cenam fere lucubrabat, nec patiebatur alimenta per somnum quietemque aequaliter digeri, sed perturbata ac dissipata in caput agebat: itaque et oculorum aciem contuderat et colorem mutaverat. (Often, having stayed up all night, he would come to declaim straight from a meal. Again, he could just not be put off doing something very harmful to the body: he generally worked into the night after dinner, so that his food, instead of being smoothly digested in a restful sleep, was driven to his head, disturbed and scattered—hence his weak eyesight and bad complexion.)  (Sen. Contr. 1.praef.17)

What is more, these intimate insights qualify Seneca as an insider within the declamatory community, and thus confer upon him the necessary authority to represent that tradition.10 Despite painstakingly noting down biographical minutiae, however, Seneca does not reproduce their speeches in equal detail. Instead, he sets himself up as a mediator of past declamations, whose role is not limited to passing memory in its static form but also entails careful selection and editing: 8  Kaster (1995) 329–31 and Berti (2007) 44–5 summarize Latro’s oratorical career along with his relationship to Seneca. On this claim that declamation was ‘born after him’ and its consequences, see Baraz and van den Berg in this volume. 9  Cf. Fairweather (1981) 228–9, who reads Seneca’s statement to his ‘dear young men’ as encouraging rather than condescending: ‘He goes on to assure his sons that there is nothing to prevent them from achieving similar feats [to those of Latro].’ 10  By adding ‘excerptable’ details into his works Seneca invests them with cultural capital; cf. Dinter (2016) 128–9.

Martin T. Dinter  41 Interponam itaque quibusdam locis quaestiones controversiarum, sicut ab illo propositae sunt, nec his argumenta subtexam, ne et modum excedam et propositum, cum vos sententias audire velitis et quidquid ab illis abduxero molestum futurum sit. (So I shall put in at various places the points at issue in the Controversiae just as he set them out: but I won’t add the arguments that went with them—that would be excessive and irrelevant, for it is the epigrams you want to hear, and any space I deprive them of will annoy you.) (Sen. Contr. 1.praef.22)

The multiple duties which Seneca takes upon himself as reporter seem to conflict. On the one hand, he promises adherence to the original (‘just as he set them out’), and on the other he commits himself to making alterations (‘I won’t add the arguments’). The framework of cultural-memory theory nevertheless goes a long way in resolving the apparent discrepancies in Seneca’s outlook. Aleida Assmann divides records of the past into two cat­ egor­ies. These are ‘remembered history’, which is informal and disorganized, as opposed to ‘commemorated history’, which is ‘intentional, formalized, and collective’.11 The unaltered memories which Seneca retains in his mind belong to the former group; it is only through editing that they can transform into commemorations and therefore pass on the information which they contain to future generations. Hence, by altering the dec­lam­ations he has heard, Seneca is not erasing past memory but rather perpetuating it as a ‘commemorator’.12 Apart from ‘commemorating’ declamation, Seneca also acts as a ‘specialist’ within that tradition. The latter role features prominently in Jan Assmann’s division of cultural memory into five main elements: concretion, reconstruction, formation, organization, and obligation.13 By preserving a repository of knowledge which characterizes a group as different from ­others, it brings out the ‘concretion’ of their identity. Moreover, cultural memory does not preserve the past in its original context but reframes it according to the present environment: Cultural memory works by reconstructing, that is, it always relates its knowledge to an actual and contemporary situation. True, it is fixed 11  A. Assmann (2001) 6823. 12  As Steinbock (2005) 4 points out, however, commemoration is an imperfect method of retaining past knowledge: ‘The focus shifts and details are left out or added in accordance with the specific interests of the commemorators.’ 13  Assmann and Czaplicka (1995) 130–1.

42  Seneca and the Past in  immovable figures of memory and stores of knowledge, but every ­contemporary context relates to these differently, sometimes by appropriation, sometimes by criticism, sometimes by preservation or by transformation [. . .] each contemporary context puts the objectivised meaning into its own perspective, giving it its own relevance. (Assmann (1995) 130)

This process of moulding historical experiences into contemporary terms is one which requires external intervention. Assmann therefore conceives of cultural memory as a phenomenon which needs to be intentionally ‘formed’; heritage does not perpetuate itself, but only through man-made products such as myths, texts, and artworks. The creation of these works is, however, not sufficient in itself for the transmission of cultural memory. Heritage products must be interpreted by ‘specialists’; these ‘bearers of cultural memory’ tend to work as part of organized institutions, and might, for example, take the form of priests passing down religious rituals from one generation to the next. Their interpretations in turn provide a ‘normative self-image’, to which individual members of the group must conform.14 This obligation gives rise to a ‘chicken-and-egg’ problem: do members join the group and then take its values upon themselves, or are they con­ sidered to be ‘members’ precisely because they have adopted the communal ideology? Assmann suggests that the former is true, in that cultural memory primarily stabilizes existing social groups whose sense of community is under attack by external forces.15 This unitive effect has also been observed by Pierre Nora, who understands ‘sites of memory’—locations, monuments, or rituals in which past traditions are encapsulated—as replacements for wider ‘environments of memory’.16 Nevertheless, since cultural memory gives a group its identity, it can also be viewed as a prerequisite to the formation of groups: as Assmann observes with regard to religion, individuals signal their allegiance to new sects by ‘choosing how and what to remember’.17 14  For the terms used in this paragraph, see Assmann and Czaplicka (1995) 131. 15 Assmann and Czaplicka (1995) 132: ‘Cultural memory [. . .] comprises that body of re­usable texts, images, and rituals specific to each society in each epoch, whose ‘‘cultivation’’ serves to stabilise and convey that society’s self-image.’ On Seneca and the Greeks, see also Guérin in this volume. 16  Nora (1989) 7: ‘There are lieux de mémoire, sites of memory, because there are no longer milieux de mémoire, real environments of memory.’ 17  Assmann (2006) 38. For a discussion of Suas. 6 from the perspective of cultural memory, see Dinter (forthcoming).

Martin T. Dinter  43 Read within this framework, Seneca’s goal is the concretion of Rome’s rhetorical identity, which he feels has been ‘on the decline’ since his schooldays (Sen. Contr. 1.praef.6).18 To this end, he reconstructs the clean-living habits of Republican declaimers and identifies them as possible remedies for the ‘feeble and spineless’ inertia of early Imperial youth (Sen. Contr. 1.praef.9). Apart from seeking to rectify perceived lapses in Roman eloquence, Seneca also solidifies the links between Roman and Greek culture by including Hellenistic historical themes for declamation (see e.g. Suas. 1 on Alexander the Great).19 These processes of concretion and reconstruction depend upon a variety of sources, including the oral histories which Seneca attributes to his memory. By actively interpreting these sources, he fulfils the role of ‘specialist’ and accomplishes his aim of passing down the cultural memory of declamation from one generation to the next.20 The importance which Seneca places on this transfer is perceptible from the prefaces which precede each book of the Controversiae. With the exception of the dedicatory epistle before Book 1, which sets the tone for the entire oeuvre, introduces its themes of memory and morality, and justifies Seneca’s endeavour, these prologues are only tangentially related to the declamations which follow.21 Even though Seneca introduces his second book with a biography of Fabianus, whose quotes he promises to ‘collect’ throughout the volume (Sen. Contr. 2.praef.5), Latro’s responses continue to be listed first after each theme (Sen. Contr. 2.1.1). Similarly, Seneca occupies much of the preface to Book 4 with admiration for Haterius’ oratorical aggressiveness, ending with the phrase: ‘He provided more to praise than to forgive, as in the declamation in which he burst into tears’ (Sen. Contr. 4.praef.11). However, Haterius is not mentioned in the following declamation, which concerns a grieving father who was dragged

18  On Seneca’s discourse about the ‘decline of Roman eloquence’, see Sussman (1972) and van den Berg in this volume. 19  This is not to say that Seneca generally perceives Hellenism as a positive point; cf. Guérin in this volume on the strained relationship between Greek and Roman rhetoric. 20  Cross-generational transmission is a crucial factor distinguishing cultural memory from other types of memory. Assmann (2008) 111: ‘In order to be re-embodied in the sequence of generations, cultural memory, unlike communicative memory, exists also in disembodied form and requires institutions of preservation and disembodiment.’ 21  My interpretation of the prefaces as thematic statements which pertain to Seneca’s entire work rather than to specific declamations is in accordance with that expressed by Sussmann (1971) 285–91 and (1977) 303–23. The statement by Fairweather (1981) 33 that the prefaces ‘lead in’ to the declamations which follow is somewhat overstated; as my discussion of Sen. Contr. 4 in this chapter indicates, there is but a superficial link between preface and the following set of declamations.

44  Seneca and the Past off to a party by a debauched youth and appears to be linked to the preface only by its frequent allusions to ‘tears’ (lacrimae, Sen. Contr. 4.1). These instances demonstrate that Seneca’s intention in his prefaces is not so much to synthesize as to mediate. By constantly reasserting his presence, he invests his recommendations with personal authority.22 His sons, for whom the Controversiae were explicitly written (see e.g. Sen. Contr. 1.1), would be more likely to follow their father’s advice rather than the dispassionate recollections of a stranger.23 Hence, Seneca’s propensity to alter the declamations which he recounts stems neither from a desire to correct nor from a need to censor. His intention is simply to render his advice more compelling and thus more firmly oblige his target audience to adopt the rhetorical and moral virtues of their ancestors. Even when Seneca does not actively tamper with declamatory history, however, the act of recall tends to alter the past. This is especially true of Seneca’s experiences with declamation, since they are personal and involve ‘the declaimers who have been [his] contemporaries’ (Sen. Contr. 1.praef.1). When remembered, these memories provoke emotional arousal, which in turn ‘alters the subjective experience of remembering such that the memory is associated with greater vividness’, causing physiological effects and imposing a more coherent narrative structure upon the episode.24 These effects do not, however, render memories more accurate. On the contrary, when stored memories are reactivated in the brain, they become ‘destabilized’.25 As such, whenever Seneca remembers and records information about a declamation, he transforms that specific memory. Hence, the act of commemoration is somewhat paradoxical. On the one hand, it entails preserving past events for posterity, yet on the other it forces com­mem­or­ators to change these very recollections within their memories.

2.  The Ideal Orator Seneca’s interactions with the past also manifest in his depiction of the ideal  orator as ‘virtuous’. This topos is shared by his main predecessors in

22  On this strategy (as opposed to Cicero’s in Brutus), see Guérin 2010. 23 Gunderson (2003) 57: ‘Seneca uses his memories to ensure the reproduction of [. . .] desire [for rhetorical learning] for his sons and subsequent generations.’ See also Baraz, Man­ nering, and van den Berg in this volume. 24  Talarico et al. (2004). 25  Lee, Nader, and Schiller (2017).

Martin T. Dinter  45 rhet­oric­al pedagogy, Cato and Cicero, who likewise value both moral probity and technical skill. Seneca explicitly advertises his connections with these writers: he quotes from Cato the Elder, who characterizes the ideal orator as a ‘good man skilled in speaking’ (vir bonus dicendi peritus, Sen. Contr. 1.praef.9), and—as we have seen—mentions that he could have known Cicero had circumstances been in his favour (1.praef.11). In what follows, I will outline the ways in which Cato (234–149 bc) and Cicero (106–43 bc), two of Seneca’s most significant influences, associated virtue with the art of rhetoric. The importance of Cato the Elder within the Roman rhetorical tradition is evident from the popularity of his catchphrase, Carthago delenda est (‘Carthage must be destroyed’). This phrase, which Cato allegedly uttered at the end of all his senatorial speeches, was first reported two centuries after his death by Plutarch (Cat. Mai. 27). This interval suggests that it is most likely apocryphal.26 Nevertheless, to borrow from the language of cultural memory, it has been transformed into a ‘mnemonic trigger’ which, once mentioned, reminds the reader of Cato’s oratorical gifts.27 Cato himself did not, however, count eloquence as one of his main assets. In a speech ‘On His Own Virtues’, delivered against Lucius Thermus after his Censorship (De suis virtutibus contra Lucium Thermum post censuram), he instead focuses on three moral values, namely ‘thrift’, ‘hardship’, and ‘industry’: Ego iam a principio in parsimonia atque in duritia atque industria omnem adulescentiam meam abstinui agro colendo, saxis Sabinis silicibus repastinandis atque conserendis. (I spent my whole youth, from the very beginning, in thrift and hardship and industry, scrimping and saving when tilling the land, digging and sowing over the rocks in Sabine fields.)  (ORF 128)

To conclude that all orators should be thrifty, hardy, and industrious would nevertheless be disingenuous. First, Cato’s biographical tone is noteworthy: here as elsewhere, he does not explicitly prescribe the moral values of an

26  Vogel-Weidemann (1989) 79: ‘although Little and Kienast expressed doubts about the authenticity of Cato’s saying as early as 1934 and 1954, it was left for Sylvia Thürlemann to prove in 1974 that its formalized version first appeared in English and French contexts at the turn of the 18th to the 19th centuries, and that it cannot be traced in the German-speaking countries until 1821.’ 27  See e.g. Tert. Ad Nat. 2.15; Veg. Epit. 1.13; and in more recent years, Asimov (1985).

46  Seneca and the Past ideal orator but instead exemplifies them.28 Moreover, as the title of the speech indicates, Cato composed it in self-defence with the most likely aim of refuting Thermus’ accusations about improper conduct during his censorship. Hence, the three virtues mentioned in this quote are not specifically geared towards orators but rather towards statesmen in general. Finally, the poeticism of Cato’s words suggest that they were designed for rhetorical rather than pedagogical effect. This fragment contains a chain of interlocking adverbial expressions which, in their length and plodding rhythm, parallel Cato’s drawn-out and difficult youth (principio in parsimonia atque in duri­ tia atque industria). Similarly, the assonance of saxis Sabinis silicibus, which resolves in the gerund conserendis, evokes the repetitive toil in which the young Cato engaged. Cato thus styles himself subtly not just as any farmer but as a somewhat heroic figure who tames the land and makes it arable.29 In spite of these caveats, Cato’s self-presentation can nevertheless be read as a model for orators. By expressing his own moral probity through eloquent language, Cato sets up a connection between virtue and oratory: while he does not recommend that every public speaker live ‘in thrift and hardship and industry’, it is nevertheless through public speaking that he communicates his own adherence to these values.30 What is more, that Cato allocates his ‘whole youth’—the period of life which elite Romans spent in rhetorical education—to character-building is significant: he thus counterbalances intellectual learning with moral training and implies that both are necessary to create the perfect orator.31 Hence, even though Cato does not explicitly list out the virtues that an orator should have, he makes the crucial point that an orator should have virtues. By contrast, Cicero meticulously spells out the moral prerequisites for an ideal orator. In the voice of Mark Antony—quoting the (rather extreme) Stoic position of Mnesarchus—he refutes the idea that rhetorical proficiency alone suffices: to define an orator merely as an ‘eloquent man’ would be ‘entirely out of harmony’ with his opinion (Cic. De Or. 1.83). On the contrary, as Crassus outlines in a later passage, moral virtues are all the more necessary in a skilled orator:

28 Cicero picks up on Cato’s self-characterization as moral example and reiterates that depiction in his pedagogical works; on which, see Calboli (1975); Gildenhard (2007); Aubert and Guérin (2014) 3–7. 29  Cf. López (1998) 20 on this passage. 30  Pociña (1989) outlines how rhetoric is both an instrument for the promotion of Cato’s ideals and the end product of those virtues. 31  Kaster (1997) 272–4.

Martin T. Dinter  47 . . . quae quo maior est vis, hoc est magis probitate iungenda summaque prudentia; quarum virtutum expertibus si dicendi copiam tradiderimus, non eos quidem oratores effecerimus, sed furentibus quaedam arma dederimus. (. . . the stronger this faculty [of speaking] is, the more necessary it is for it to be combined with integrity and supreme practical wisdom. For if we pass along the full resources of speech to those who lack these virtues, we will certainly not have made them orators, but will have put weapons into the hands of madmen.)  (Cic. De Or. 3.55, trans. Sutton and Rackham)

In this passage, Cicero also identifies two qualities as especially crucial for  the rhetorically gifted: integrity (probitas) and practical wisdom (prudentia).32 His definitions of these virtues are nevertheless not to be found in his oratorical works, but in his philosophical treatise De finibus bonorum et malorum (‘On the Ends of Good and Evil’). There, he sum­mar­ izes integrity as a ‘strong sense of duty’, taking as his example the philosopher Epicurus, who even on his deathbed observed ‘solemn duties’ such as providing for his children and remaining loyal to his friends (Fin. 2.31).33 He also cites as a model Sextus Peducaeus, who, despite being able to appropriate a friend’s estate for himself, respected the secreted wishes of the deceased and gave up the money to the widow (2.18).34 Practical wisdom is in turn described as ‘the choice of goods and evils’ (5.23). This enigmatic statement receives clarity when read alongside Cicero’s earlier description of 32  On the nuances of probitas, see Forbis (2013) 87–8; on prudentia, Hariman (2010) 50–1. For further virtues ascribed to the ideal orator, see Pascal (1984). 33 Cicero Fin. 2.31 refers to Epicurus’ dying wishes, of which Warren (2011) 23–46 provides a concise overview: Huc et illuc, Torquate, vos versetis licet, nihil in hac praeclara epistula scrip­ tum ab Epicuro congruens et conveniens decretis eius reperietis. ita redarguitur ipse a sese, con­ vincunturque scripta eius probitate ipsius ac moribus. nam ista commendatio puerorum, memoria et caritas amicitiae, summorum officiorum in extremo spiritu conservatio indicat inna­ tam esse homini probitatem gratuitam, non invitatam voluptatibus nec praemiorum mercedibus evocatam. quod enim testimonium maius quaerimus, quae honesta et recta sint, ipsa esse opta­ bilia per sese, cum videamus tanta officia morientis? (‘Yes, Torquatus, you people may turn and twist as you like, but you will not find a line in this famous letter of Epicurus that is not inconsistent and incompatible with his teachings. Hence he is his own refutation; his writings are disproved by the uprightness of his character. That provision for the care of the children, that loyalty to friendship and affection, that observance of these solemn duties with his latest breath, prove that there was innate in the man a disinterested uprightness, not evoked by pleasure nor elicited by prizes and rewards. Seeing so strong a sense of duty in a dying man, what clearer evidence do we want that morality and rectitude are desirable for their own sakes?’; trans. Rackham) 34  Peducaeus was a friend of Cicero’s; he served as governor of Sicily during Cicero’s quaestorship in that province (Ward (1970) 58).

48  Seneca and the Past the ‘unwise’ individual, who ‘acts such a way as to offend public opinion or from which pain might result’ (2.21). The ‘wise’ orator is thus expected to behave antithetically: he should consider the consequences of his actions before committing them, so as to minimize ‘evils’ such as offence and pain.35 The ideal orator as envisioned by both Cicero and Cato is therefore one who possesses both rhetorical skill and moral virtues, which include—but are not limited to—integrity and practical wisdom. Seneca is heavily influenced by this conceptualization: he tends to judge declaimers com­mem­or­ ated based solely on probitas and prudentia, even in cases where these qualities compromise their oratorical ability. Seneca thus considers the orator Buteo worthy of inclusion in his volume despite having a ‘dry’ style (ari­ dus), because he is ‘wise’ (prudens) when dividing up declamations (2.5.15). Similarly, he praises Albucius in the preface to Book 7 for being a ‘man of the highest integrity’ (homo summae probitatis), although it is this sense of honour which causes him to ‘never again speak in court’ (7.praef.7). Hence, out of the two qualities which make up the ideal orator, Seneca prioritizes morality over technique. We might find this valuation paradoxical, for modern social and economic ideologies typically centre upon the figure of the ‘professional’, an individual who is judged based on his or her ability to perform a certain skill—such as oratory—and not on general character traits.36 This sep­ar­ation between ability and morality was, however, far less pronounced in antiquity. As we have observed, Cato thought it fitting to defend his political actions as Censor by detailing his moral conduct from childhood onwards, and Cicero even argues that the more skilled an orator is, the more he should possess integrity and practical wisdom, for otherwise his persuasiveness would become a danger to society (see Cic. De Or. 3.55, quoted above).37

35  The trope of defining virtue negatively (i.e. in relation to its antithesis) is integral to ancient philosophy; As Aristotle notes at NE 1106b28–33 and 1109a24–30, describing what is ‘good’ (καλὀν) is difficult, and so men should be guided by their natural avoidance to that which is ‘shameful’ (αἰσχρόν). 36  Larson (1997) 63 attributes our current mindset to the transformation from ‘the model of the gentleman’ to the ‘model of the professional man’. Whereas in pre-industrial societies— including Ancient Rome—moral authority was reserved for the aristocracy, who absorbed virtue both through education (e.g. at declamation schools) and by token of their noble birth, from the nineteenth century onwards the rising ‘tradesmen’ class encouraged the valuation of learned skill rather than inherited virtue. 37  Hariman (1995) 110–11 explains this mentality by stating that the Roman Republic was constituted in discourse. Since orators sustain the Republic, if they fail to bring up the requisite moral issues, ‘virtue could wane, citizens become distracted, [and] forces of change gather strength as political energies dissipate’.

Martin T. Dinter  49 When considered within the ideological framework of Roman antiquity, therefore, Seneca’s decision to prioritize virtue in declaimers is not only sens­ible but also conventional. By perpetuating the moral messages of Cicero and Cato, he establishes himself as the legitimate heir to the Latin rhetorical tradition, of which they constitute the most illustrious rep­re­sen­ta­tives. What is more, by organizing his list of ‘acceptable’ declaimers based on traditional values held in the world of declamation, Seneca grounds his quotations within the very attitudes which produced them. He thus extends the Controversiae beyond a compilation of past speeches and into a representation of the past and its ideals.

3.  Lists: A Mnemonic Technique Morality is nevertheless but one of the many organizing principles which Seneca utilizes in structuring his collection. He also employs linguistic strategies which help to break down the large amounts of information presented. These include repetition; within each declamation, each response is separated from the preceding one by the name of its declaimer, which most of the time is given in the genitive case.38 In the first declamation of Book 2, for example, the initial four quotations are introduced with the words Porci Latronis [. . .] Rufi Vibi [. . .] Cesti Pii [. . .] Arelli Fusci patris (‘[The speeches] of Porcius Latro [. . .] Rufius Vibius [. . .] Cestius Pius [. . .] Arellius Fuscus the Elder’, Contr. 2.1.4).39 Seneca also makes use of signposts such as pars altera (‘the other side’), used to separate arguments in favour for the proposition from their refutations (e.g. Contr. 2.1.17). Moreover, the internal structure of every Controversia is the same: Seneca begins by stating the theme, moves on to its arguments, then expounds upon specific lines of argument in a section marked divisio (‘division’).40 He delineates each of these segments not only through explicit subheadings but also through implicit markers, most not­ably changes in authorial tone. When outlining the theme or quoting responses, he never

38  Seneca uses two different schemes in his quotes: genitive + sententia; name at whatever case required + verb introducing an excerpt of a narration, a divisio, or a color. See Guérin (2010) 148 as well as Huelsenbeck (2018) 9–10. 39  These names are not editorial additions, but part of the original manuscripts; on which, see Fairweather (1981) 32. 40  The ‘division’ in Roman rhetoric refers to the partition of the discourse, in other words the main issues to be addressed in the debate (Baird (1965) 174).

50  Seneca and the Past brings in his own opinion: the material is simply reproduced for the reader’s reference and presented continuously, so as to evoke the impression of being present at a declamation contest. By contrast, Seneca frequently incorporates commentary when outlining ‘divisions’: Non puto vos quaerere quomodo haec controversia divisa sit, cum habeat negotii nihil. (I cannot imagine you want to know how this controversia was divided, for it has no complications.)  (Sen. Contr. 2.1.19)

As this passage demonstrates, these authorial asides help to recontextualize Seneca’s work, thereby lending structure to what would otherwise read as a sea of declamatory responses.41 Seneca personalizes his writing using the first-person verb of thinking (puto, ‘I imagine’), through which he expresses his own opinion and not that of another orator. In addition, the pronoun vos (plural ‘you’) directly addresses the reader (and his sons) and thus breaks his or her immersion in the fictional world constructed by the declaimers’ speeches.42 Seneca’s asides also transfer elements of the present into the past. By adding value judgments to certain responses, Seneca superimposes his current opinion upon previous declamations and thus influences how these historical responses are perceived by present readers. Most notably, he ‘remembers Junius Otho the Elder introducing a stupid color’ (Sen. Contr. 1.11).43 Although Seneca goes on to reproduce a quote from Otho for the reader’s own consideration, the adjective ‘stupid’ has already tinted the reader’s perception of that speech. Nevertheless, he explicitly raises the possibility that readers may choose their own in­ter­pret­ ations of past events by prevailing upon them to judge the worth of Fuscus’ response: ‘It will be up to you to decide whether you think his developments self-indulgent or lively’ (Suas. 2.10). Seneca thus integrates his audience into the arena as observers by investing them with the power to evaluate. Readers are invited to engage with Seneca’s declaimers by choosing to focus on certain declaimers and reflecting upon why some responses are more appealing than others.44

41  See Huelsenbeck in this volume on the modulation of the same theme in Suas. 1. 42  On focalization in Seneca, see Sussman (1978) 64; Fairweather (1981) 143. 43 On color, cf. Huerta Cabral in this volume. 44  Huelsenbeck (2011b) 267, with specific reference to late antique readers: ‘There is a palp­ able human presence, a readerly, culturally informed engagement with the text of Seneca.’

Martin T. Dinter  51 As these examples highlight, Seneca prefers to inform and influence the reader rather than present a dogmatic version of the past. Accordingly, at their most basic level, Seneca’s works are annotated lists of rhetorical themes and quotations. As we have seen, moreover, within the structure of a single controversia there are multiple sub-lists: a group of arguments in favour of the proposition, then another set to the contrary, and finally a catalogue of ‘divisions’. Each of these sub-lists is also organized in ‘list’ format, with the names of declaimers denoting the beginning of each ‘item’, which in this context always takes the form of a speech. The ideas within these speeches are then further organized using mini-lists, most notably the tricolon, a rhetorical unit consisting of three parallel words or phrases which are listed in quick succession.45 Due to its brevity, this technique is often used to sketch out a point in general terms. As Seneca observes, for example, Cestius utilizes a tricolon so as to establish the qualities proper to a priestess without elaborating upon them: Cestius timuit se in narrationem demittere; sic illam transcucurrit: haec dixit in sacerdote futura maxime debere aestimari: pudicitiam, innocentiam, felicitatem. (Cestius feared to let himself go in narrative. This was how he skated over it. He said that three things have particularly to be prized in an aspiring priestess: chastity, innocence, luck.) (Sen. Contr. 1.2.19)

In this case, the order of the items in the tricolon does not reflect their relative importance; Cestius could have said ‘luck, innocence, and chastity’, ‘innocence, chastity, and luck’, or any other permutation of these attributes without impacting his point. Nevertheless, just as other lists are meant to be read in a fixed order—for example ‘top ten’ classifications—some variations upon the basic tricolon do take the reader through a set sequence of ideas. Among these is the ‘interrogative tricolon’, as exemplified by Arellius Fuscus the Elder’s ‘division’ in defence of an adulterous woman who is to be thrown down again from a rock after having once survived that punishment: Fuscus Arellius pater sic divisit: utrum incestae poena sit deici an perire; utrum providentia deorum an casu servata sit; si voluntate deorum servata est, an in hoc, ut crudelius periret. 45  On the tricolon in Latin rhetoric, see e.g. Nesholm (2010) 483.

52  Seneca and the Past (Arellius Fuscus the Elder’s division went like this: Is the penalty for an unchaste woman to be thrown down or to die? Was she saved by the foresight of the gods or by chance? If she was saved by the will of the gods, was it to ensure she died a more cruel death?)  (Sen. Contr. 1.3.8)

Here, each question is conditional upon that which precedes it; Arellius’ argument can therefore be read as a flowchart. The listener must first establish whether the punishment relates to the case at all; if so, then the speech must proceed, but if not, then the woman cannot be thrown from the rock and so there is no logic in continuing the argument further. Similarly, one must then decide whether the woman was saved by the foresight of the gods or by chance; if the former is true, then the third question comes into play, namely whether the gods have done so in order that she may be punished twice and thus experience a ‘more cruel death’. If the jury assents to that proposition, then the declaimer has satisfactorily proved that the woman should indeed be thrown down again; as Seneca demonstrates, this end goal was indeed what Arellius had in mind. This sequential method of organizing information is helpful to the budding declaimer, Seneca’s target audience, since it provides a structure of argument which can be adapted to other cases. Moreover, it sketches out the broad skeleton of Arellius’ speech without delving into its details. In a similar vein, the tricolon crescens (‘rising tricolon’) guides the reader from the least important item in a list to the most important one.46 One of the young Ovid’s sayings demonstrates this pattern: Discedam e civitate, fugiam, exulabo (‘I shall leave the city, flee, go into exile’; Sen. Contr. 2.2.11). The subject of the controversia is summarized as follows: a woman makes a suicide pact with her husband, to the effect that if something should happen to either of them, then the other will die. Her husband is believed to have died abroad, and so she throws herself off a cliff, but he returns and she survives. Her father then asks her to leave him, but she refuses and is disinherited. Ovid is speaking in the voice of the husband, who offers to leave so that his wife can escape the censure of her father.47 The first verb, discedere, is a universal term which can be used when leaving all situations, whether temporarily or permanently.48 In contrast, 46  On this technique, see Monti (2012) 104, where it is termed a ‘tricolon crescendo’. 47  Given that Ovid was later exiled, however, there is a certain irony in his choice of words, and Seneca may well have selected this particular speech as evidence of the young Ovid’s abil­ ities due to its historical resonance. 48  ThLL V.1.1283.

Martin T. Dinter  53 the following verb fugere (‘to flee’) has military connotations, and typically refers to the escape of a routed combatant or war-victim.49 Ovid therefore uses it to suggest how cruelly he—in the persona (‘role’) of unwelcome husband—has been persecuted by his father-in-law. The sympathy which he generates for his character reaches a climax in the final word of the tricolon: to be an ‘exile’ (exsul) in ancient Rome, from which noun the verb ex[s]ulare is derived, does not merely entail physical separation but also legal de­priv­ ation. Exiles could be killed with impunity if they attempted to return to their land of origin.50 What is more, sentences of exile were often combined with the ‘interdiction of water and fire’ (aquae et ignis interdictio), so that the targets of such mandates would be refused sustenance and shelter by all states allied to Rome.51 For these reasons, exile was a highly dreaded punishment; that Ovid’s character voluntarily takes this burden upon himself thus draws attention to his love for his wife and demonstrates, to the audience’s expected outrage, the lengths to which he has been pushed by his father-in-law’s venality. Ovid’s use of a tricolon crescens in order to stir up emotional support for his cause goes some way to justifying Seneca’s reliance on lists. Since declaimers used linguistic ‘lists’ as part of their rhetorical strategy, it is lo­gic­al to incorporate these structures into pedagogical texts about oratory. Moreover, Seneca had committed in his preface to outlining arguments ‘just as [their orators] set them out’ (1.praef.22). In accordance with this rule, if a given declaimer makes use of the tricolon in his speech, then Seneca should also reproduce his ideas using that structure. Nevertheless, the desire to reproduce declamations in their original form does not satisfactorily explain why lists feature so prominently in the Controversiae and Suasoriae. After all, Seneca does not only incorporate lists into quotations, but also in au­thor­ial self-insertions: Latro in has quaestiones divisit: an licuerit illi quod iubebat pater facere. Non licet, inquit, fratrem necare; ille damnatus erat: non enim iudicio publico ceciderat. [. . .] Novissimas illas partes fecit: quamvis non occiderit, si tamen puniit damnatum, an abdicari non debeat. [. . .] Hic descriptio supplicii, quod dixit gravius etiam culleo fuisse.

49  ThLL VI.1.1475; see e.g. Cic. Rep. 2.19, Aeneas fugiens e Troia (‘Aeneas escaping from Troy’); Caes. BG 1.53.1, oppido fugit (‘He escapes from the town’). 50  Bauman (2012) 45. 51  Kelly (2006) 25–32.

54  Seneca and the Past (Latro’s division was into the following questions. Was he allowed to do what his father told him to? ‘I am not allowed’, he said, ‘to kill my brother. He had not been legally convicted, for he had not lost his case in a public tribunal.’ [. . .] Those are the final parts which Latro made: granted he did not carry out the killing, ought he to be disinherited if he did punish the convicted man? [. . .] Here came a description of the punishment, which, Latro said, was worse even than the sack.)  (Sen. Contr. 7.1.16–18)

At first sight, this passage may not appear to be a ‘list’ at all. It does not take the syndetic format typically associated with lists, and as each segment is separated from the other by large paragraphs of intervening text, it does not meet the classifying criteria for a tricolon.52 Indeed, even though this list is sequential in that it guides the reader from the beginning of Latro’s argument to the end, each constituent ‘item’ is not denoted by serial conjunctions (‘Firstly’, ‘Secondly’, etc) but instead by either a demonstrative pronoun or a preposition: has (‘the following’), illas (‘those’), and hic (‘here’). Nevertheless, as these particles clearly divide the declamation into constituent parts, which Seneca then ‘stacks’ upon each other to create the impression of a full speech, they do combine into an organized list. This structure of the Controversiae indicates that ‘organization’ is indeed the key purpose behind Seneca’s lists.53 Out of the sixty-seven lists in that work, nine are found in the initial paragraphs of each declamation, and if this search is expanded to include lists in the second and third paragraphs, this number increases further to twenty. In other words, linguistic lists ranging from tricola to polysyndeta and asyndeta are most likely to be found at the beginning of thematic lists (i.e. all the responses to a given declamatory theme). This distribution suggests that lists are primarily used to organize information. After all, readers studying the first few responses to a new brief are not yet familiar with its details, and therefore require additional guidance. Seneca obliges by writing more lucidly than usual, for which reason he structures the initial arguments around easy-to-follow lists. Apart from improving comprehension, Seneca’s lists also promote retention. In each declamation, the most important responses are presented first: Latro, whom Seneca considers his ‘dearest friend’, is prioritized above other

52  On the syndetic quality of lists, see Oliver and Smiley (2004); on the ‘uninterrupted’ format of a tricolon, Stocks (2012) 27. 53  In communications theory, lists are often recommended as a method of increasing the ‘readability’ of a text; see e.g. Hartley and Bruckmann (2008) 193–4.

Martin T. Dinter  55 declaimers not only in that his life is recounted within the first preface of the Controversiae but also because his ‘divisions’ are typically listed before those of his peers, for example at Suas. 6.8–11, where his argument precedes those of Albucius, Cestius, and Varius Geminus. The student of declamation would ostensibly be most interested in learning these initial arguments, in keeping with their significance, as opposed to the less important ones listed at the end of each section. Seneca facilitates this process by including lists, whose function as mnemonics was heavily discussed in late Republican rhetoric.54 Cicero’s memory palace—though visual in nature—is at heart a ‘list’ in that it consists of ordered and discrete items: Itaque eis qui hanc partem ingeni exercerent locos esse capiendos et ea quae memoria tenere vellent effingenda animo atque in eis locis collocanda: sic fore ut ordinem rerum locorum ordo conservaret, res autem ipsas rerum effigies notaret, atque ut locis pro cera, simulacris pro litteris uteremur. (Therefore persons desiring to train this faculty must select localities and form mental images of the facts they wish to remember and store those images in the localities, with the result that the arrangement of the localities will preserve the order of the facts, and the images of the facts will designate the facts themselves, and we shall employ the localities and images respectively as a wax writing tablet and the letters written on it.) (Cic. Or. 86)

Seneca’s use of lists is thus multifarious in both execution and purpose. There are many different types of lists in Seneca, ranging from the Con­ troversiae and Suasoriae in their entirety, which serve as ‘macro-lists’, to ‘micro-list’ formats such as the tricolon and its variations. While the overall purpose of these lists is ‘organization’, this aim can be subdivided into mul­ tiple objectives. Seneca uses lists to present his declamations in a comprehensible manner, but also to structure them in such a way that reflects the order in which they were originally delivered. What is more, by incorporating lists into particularly significant parts of his text, he renders these sections easier to memorize for students of declamation. Far from acting as mere shortcuts to information conveyance, therefore, the humble list reflects the philosophy of memory which dominates Seneca’s works. 54  Jaeger (1997) 19–20 outlines the ‘mnemonic system preserved in the Roman rhetorical handbooks’ (ars memoriae).

56  Seneca and the Past

Conclusion That Seneca should link his Controversiae and Suasoriae to the past is unsurprising. After all, his explicit purpose is to reconstruct Republican declamation so as to ‘remove the sting of [his sons’] complaint against Time— that [they] were unable to listen to men of such reputation’ (1.praef.1). To this end, Seneca does not only commemorate the past by citing declaimers and providing contextual information about their speeches, but also serves as a ‘specialist’ in interpreting and evaluating these sources. His frame of reference is also deeply rooted in the past; declaimers are judged not on oratorical ability alone, but also on the Catonian and Ciceronian criteria of virtue. Nevertheless, Seneca’s aim is not to provide a dogmatic ranking of past declaimers; rather, he presents his information in list form. This organizing principle enables him to reconstruct declamations accurately, structure his works in an easy-to-follow way, and harks back to the crucial role of lists as mnemonic techniques in rhetorical practice. These strategies combine into compilations which are, as I suggested at the beginning of this chapter, remarkably comprehensive. In his role as ‘time traveller’, Seneca not only excerpts worthy declamations and declaimers from the past but also transfers them into the present through writing. His texts in turn perpetuate Roman declamation among future readers. These interactions are never-ending, as is evident from how we continue to analyse the Controversiae and Suasoriae in the present day, and in that respect tinge Seneca’s reflections with irony. Even while claiming that ‘it is memory, of all parts of the mind the most vulnerable and fragile, that old  age first assaults’ (1.praef.2), he conferred agelessness upon his own ­mem­or­ies—and, by extension, upon Roman declamation.

4

Greek Declaimers, Roman Context (De)constructing Cultural Identity in Seneca the Elder Charles Guérin

Born in Gaul, abandoned by his parents, held in slavery and later emancipated, Antonius Gnipho was one of the most highly regarded grammarians of the late Republic.1 After having trained in Alexandria, where he acquired equal competence in Greek and Latin, he settled in Rome and taught grammar and eloquence. On market days, he engaged in public declamations and made a name for himself. He not only attracted students but also appealed to adult listeners, including Cicero: according to Suetonius, in 66 bc, the then praetor attended one of his performances.2 While the transmission of rhetorical knowledge mostly involved notable teachers and practitioners, Gnipho reminds us that, in Rome, it also relied on more humble workers, at the fringe of the free population. However, Gnipho also embodies all that Seneca the Elder dislikes in the intellectual scene of the early Principate, which he describes in his Controversiae and Suasoriae: murky origins, social obscurity, and oratorical skills used for educational purposes. Like Philostratus’ after him, Seneca’s approach was not historical. Instead, he wrote a deeply biased narrative, selectively portraying the declaimers of his time by including some characters and excluding others.3 The picture he painted featured declaimers from the best circles: the rich equites and renowned Romans who took part in this new form of literary expression (the declamatio ostentationis causa). Those who practised and taught 1  Rawson (1985) 74; Garcea (2012) 20–1. 2 Suet. Gramm. 7.1–4. 3  Cf. Sen. Contr. 10.praef.2: transeo istos, quorum fama cum ipsis extincta est. It is impossible to evaluate the number of these ‘forgotten’ characters. On Philostratus’ approach, cf. Eshleman (2012) 125–48. This same type of selective undertaking was done by Cicero in Brutus, but for political reasons; cf. Jacotot (2014) 198–200. Charles Guérin, Greek Declaimers, Roman Context: (De)constructing Cultural Identity in Seneca the Elder In: Reading Roman Declamation: Seneca the Elder. Edited by: Martin T. Dinter, Charles Guérin, and Marcos Martinho, Oxford University Press (2020). © Charles Guérin. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198746010.003.0004

58  Greek Declaimers, Roman Context declamation as a form of training (exercitationis causa) were relegated to the margins.4 Besides the fact that Gnipho lived at the chronological limit of the survey conducted in the Controversiae and the Suasoriae, his status and activities would have made him unworthy of being memorialized. But Gnipho’s faults were heightened by yet another major flaw: a worrying mix of Latinity and Hellenism, which led him to practise and teach in both languages. Since the second century bc, the Roman world of grammarians and rhetors was essentially composed of literate people from Greece who practised their art in both Greek and Latin.5 Bilingualism was expected to feature in the training methods approved by the nobilitas: Cicero spoke Greek while studying in Crassus’ circle and perfected his philosophical and rhetorical education in Greece. He then continued training by declaiming in Greek and imposed this method on those he mentored.6 Although his theoretical texts strove to promote Latin influence in the art of eloquence, Greek heritage was never separate from Latin practice: Cicero highly valued continuity and complementarity in both culture and language.7 Conversely, Seneca contrasted the centre of the declamatory world with its periphery in order to advance his own circle and secure the position his gens held within the space of ­power.8 The practitioners who declaimed in Greek seem to be pushed away, as if Greek eloquence represented a heterogeneous reality bearing no links with Latin declamation in the early Empire. Thanks to his cleverly constructed pretext of amnesia and in opposition to our other sources, Seneca depicted declamation in his preface to Controversiae 1 as a Roman practice, developed in a Latin environment, which owed nothing, or very little, to Hellenism.9 The thirty-three figures who declaim in Greek in his text10 do 4  On this opposition, cf. Sen. Contr. 9.praef.1. 5  Concerning this population ‘poised between two nations and two tongues’, see Bonner (1977) 20–33; Rawson (1985) 72–7. 6  Cf. in particular Cic. Q. Frat. 3.3.4–5 (= SB 23); Cic. Brut. 310; Cic. Tusc. 1.7, and Baraz in this volume. Regarding bilingual teaching, cf. most recently Lechi (2008b) 9–12. 7 Cic. Off. 1.1. 8  Griffin (1972); Bloomer (1997a) 115–17. On the general structuring Seneca imposes on the declamatory arena, see Cappello in this volume. 9 Sen. Contr. 1.praef.12. Regarding the manipulative presentation of the history of dec­lam­ ation and of the Greek sources, which, in fact, underpinned the practice, cf. Bonner (1949) 11–26; Fairweather (1981) 77–9 and 115–31; Winterbottom (1983) 63–7; Russell (1983) 1–20; Gunderson (2003) 2–3; Berti (2007) 254–5; Citti (2007) 57–8. 10  Cf. the slightly different calculations of Bornecque (1902) 143–201; Winterbottom (1983) 67; Citti (2007) 61–3; Echavarren (2007b) 254; Migliario (2012) 112; Citti (2018) 57. This list does not include Dionysius Atticus or Furius Saturninus, both of whom Citti (2007) lists as Greek declaimers. On Dionysius Atticus, see n. 71 in this chapter. As for Saturninus, he is a

Charles Guérin  59 not have the same status as those who declaim in Latin. Mostly quoted in bulk at the end of each section,11 the words of these Greek declaimers have sometimes been erased due to the hazards of textual transmission,12 and in the most extreme cases, their textual existence is limited to a silent inclusion next to Latin declaimers who are, in contrast, extensively cited: In hac controversia dixit Damas: . . . Habet aliquid corrupti haec sententia. Latro dixit: quantum ego tunc questus sum cum fortuna mea, quod non et oculos perdidissem!13 (In this controversia Damas said: . . . This epigram has something decadent about it. Latro said: ‘How heartfelt was my complaint to my fate at that moment, that I had not lost my eyes too!’)  (Sen. Contr. 1.4.10)

Lastly, being entirely absent from the prefaces, the Greeks are deprived of the stylistic and biographical detail with which Seneca adorns the great Latin declaimers: most of them are but mere names appearing before ci­tations. One may lament the fact that Seneca relegated Greek practitioners to the periphery, but must also acknowledge his perspective. While Cicero integrated Greek knowledge into his own thought and practice, it was devoid of any materiality: in his texts, Greek rhetoric and oratory represented cultural heritage rather than contemporary reality. Although Greek rhetors appear in his texts, they are mostly criticized—and rendered almost completely anonymous.14 Conversely, Seneca makes room for Greek practitioners in his memorial project; he names them, includes them in the literary debates of his time, and is interested in their qualities and faults. The few pieces of information we have on Greek declaimers from the early Empire are largely derived from Seneca’s works.15 We must therefore be as attentive to the inclusion of the Greeks within the Latin scene as we are of their apparent Latin rhetor who utters a Greek sententia (Contr. 7.6.22) which might as well be a quotation within an otherwise Latin speech. 11  See Echavarren (2007b) 255, who compares this structure to the binary organization of Valerius Maximus’ Facta et dicta memorabilia. 12  On the transmission of Seneca’s Controversiae and Suasoriae, see most recently Huel­ senbeck (2011b). 13 Sen. Contr. 1.4.10. Texts and translations are adapted from Winterbottom (1974). 14  Cf. for example Cic. De Or. 2.100. Rawson (1985) 76–9 identifies no more than about ten active Greek rhetors at the end of the Republic: they are rarely mentioned in the sources. 15  Russell (1983) 2–3; Citti (2007) 57.

60  Greek Declaimers, Roman Context marginalization, especially since Seneca was not trapped in a negative view of Greek declaimers:16 he lauded many Greeks for their sententiae and even compared them advantageously to Latin practitioners. The Controversiae and the Suasoriae confront us with two contrasting positions towards Greek declamation: inclusion and exclusion. The reader needs to engage with this oscillating movement to understand Seneca’s project and how it relates to contemporary realities. Far from despising the Greek declaimers, Seneca developed an ambiguous relationship with them, just as he sometimes clashed with the intellectual world in which he thrived. This ambiguity occurred mainly because identifying ‘Greek’ declaimers was no easy task. Who, amid the broad bilingualism prevalent among men of letters,17 could be identified as a Graecus declamator? Seneca refers to the existence of a ‘Greek group’ (Graeci, Graeci declamatores)18 several times but avoids giving clear definitions as to what links these men together. Is it their place of birth? The intellectual training they received? Their behaviour? Is it linked to the idiom they most commonly use and their respective abilities in Greek and in Latin?19 The term Graecus was rarely used to qualify ­people20 and is not devoid of ambiguity. Cestius, known as a Graecus homo, never declaimed in Greek. Agroitas, while being explicitly identified as one of the Graeci declamatores, was not raised in a Greek environment (inter Graecos non fuisse) and expressed himself in Greek as a Latin speaker would.21 Given such an unclear situation, two processes become apparent in Seneca’s text. The first process consists in identity assignation, whereby Seneca puts various declaimers in a homogeneous ‘Greek’ group, separate from the Latin one. To achieve this deeply ideological goal, Seneca builds his anthology in a way which highlights the differences between Latin and

16 Sochatoff (1939) 350–2; Fairweather (1981) 23–6; contra Buschmann (1878) 1–2; Bloomer (1997a) 110, 122, 131; Gunderson (2003) 127–8. 17 On the notion of bilingualism in Rome, especially in the higher classes, cf. Adams (2003b) 3–14; regarding the command of Latin in the Greek world, cf. Rochette (1997) and case studies in Adams (2003b) 417–526. 18 Sen. Contr. 1.2.22; 1.4.10; 1.4.12; 1.7.12; 1.8.7; 2.6.12; 9.2.23; 9.2.29; 10.4.18; 10.4.21; 10.5.19; 10.5.21; 10.5.23, Sen. Suas. 1.6; 1.16; 2.14; 3.6. 19  On Hellenism as a ‘cultural identity’, see Goldhill (2001). 20  The following individuals are the only ones who are explicitly called Graeci: Agroitas (Sen. Contr. 2.6.12), Aemilianus (Sen. Contr. 10.5.25), Apollonius (Sen. Contr. 7.4.5), Argentarius (Sen. Contr. 9.3.13), Cestius (Sen. Contr. 7.1.27 and 9.3.13), Damas (Sen. Suas. 2.14), Dorion (Sen. Contr. 10.5.23), Glycon (Sen. Suas. 1.16), Lesbocles (Sen. Contr. 1.8.12), Nicetes (Sen. Contr. 9.2.23). 21  Cestius: Sen. Contr. 7.1.27; Agroitas: Sen. Contr. 2.6.12.

Charles Guérin  61 Greek practitioners: layer after layer, he fabricates a separate declamatory identity.22 The second trend stems from the difficulties of maintaining this first approach: Seneca is unable to preserve the model he has constructed, since he cannot but acknowledge the various forms of contact and exchange between the ‘Greeks’ and the ‘Latins’. The fluidity of the ‘Greek’ and ‘Latin’ identities which appear in Seneca’s text thus reveals the real nature of the declamatory arena during the early Principate. However unwittingly, Seneca does showcase the emergence of a fully Graeco-Latin declamatory space.

1.  Graeci Declamatores: A Fabricated Identity When identifying members of a group, language is a simple way to mark specificities. Despite the ambiguities mentioned above, Seneca and his peers saw the use of Greek or Latin as definite criteria to categorize declaimers: the Graeci declamatores were above all linked by the language they used. Argentarius, who was clearly identified as a Graecus,23 chose to declaim in Latin and maintained his choice. He then had the freedom to condemn those who attempted to practise in both languages: [. . .] illos semper admira[batur] qui, non contenti unius linguae eloquentia, cum Latine declamaverant, toga posita sumpto pallio quasi persona mutata rediebant et Graece declamabant. ([. . .] he was always astonished at those who, not content with eloquence in one language, would, after declaiming in Latin, take off their togas and put on Greek clothing to return—as it were, with a change of mask—and declaim in Greek.)  (Sen. Contr. 9.3.13)

The rhetor Clodius Sabinus was criticized for declaiming in Greek and in Latin on the same day. Cassius Severus ridiculed him;24 Maecenas blamed him for not choosing his ‘camp’ through a reference to the Iliad. Argentarius’ aforementioned criticism was also aimed at Sabinus.25 For these declaimers and for Seneca, those who switched languages misbehaved. Using the terminology of drama, Argentarius denounces the artificial aspects of such

22  Rolle (2018) 49 describes Seneca’s main goal, when he confronts Greek and Latin practitioners, as stressing ‘le differenze per così dire culturali tra eloquenza greca e latina’. 23  See Rochette (1997) 235, no. 27 = PIR2, A 1038. 24  See Schneider in this volume. 25 Sen. Contr. 9.3.14, cf. Winterbottom (1983) 58.

62  Greek Declaimers, Roman Context a performance, in which the declaimer plays a part (persona) and undermines identities. Such an accusation might come as a surprise, since dec­lam­ation required practitioners to embody different roles. Although declaimers could play with social identities, age, or gender, by taking on the voices of multiple characters,26 adopting another language was not one of the authorized variations. While declaimers seemed to enter into linguistic groups by choice,27 this choice was turned into a permanent and defining trait: in Seneca’s text, these groups are sealed and static. This rigidity explains the segmented presentation in the anthology: the Greek-speaking declaimers are often cited together and, at times, only at the end of a chapter. For these declaimers, so radically separate from other declaimers because of their language, would only disrupt the thematic and stylistic threads developed in previous paragraphs. In Sen. Contr. 7.1.25, Diocles, Artemon, and Glycon are cited together and are solely united by language: a quotation of Diocles’ prologue and epilogue appears first, followed by a description of Artemon and, finally, without any additional commentary, three sententiae by Glycon. This section ends with a discussion of Cestius’ linguistic shortcomings, since, as I mentioned previously, Cestius had chosen to declaim in Latin despite being a homo Graecus. Thus, language was the sole element connecting the quotations of these declaimers.28 Nevertheless, Seneca also highlights other elements connecting the members of the group of Graeci declamatores—mostly thematic pe­cu­li­ar­ ities. The Parrhasius et Prometheus (Sen. Contr. 10.5) theme gives him the opportunity to undertake a long and critical review of Greek declaimers’ variations on one of Glycon’s sententiae: Πῦρ καὶ ἄνθρωπος, Προμηθεῦ, τὰ σά σε δῶρα βασανίζει. (Fire and men, your own gifts, Prometheus, put you to the torture.) (Sen. Contr. 10.5.20)

Euctemon, Adaeus, Damas, and Craton each elaborate on the sententia, with some reprehensible excesses (corruptissime): the competition is presented as the consequence of rivalry typical to the Greek group, thus justifying a separate presentation. Similarly, in Sen. Contr. 9.2.29—a dec­lam­ation 26 Quint. Inst. 2.10.12–13; 3.8.51; 11.1.55–6; cf. Bloomer (1997a) 139–41. On these fictional mechanisms of impersonation, cf. van Mal-Maeder (2007). 27  Huelsenbeck (2018) 157–8. 28  We can observe the same phenomenon in Sen. Contr. 1.7.18 (Glyco, Artemon, Adaeus, Nicetes); Sen. Suas. 2.14 (Glycon, Damas).

Charles Guérin  63 based on a Latin historical theme—all seven referenced Greek declaimers expand on the locus of changes in fortune and tragic irony. This was an interpretation not shared by Latin declaimers.29 Here, Seneca’s interest lies in the ways in which sententiae circulate from one Greek declaimer to another. We thus see Adaeus compete with Glaucippus in describing the banquet: Glaucippus Cappadox, cum cenam luxuriosam descripsisset indignam maiestate praetoris, adiecit: διηγήσομαι νῦν καὶ τὸν κῶμον. Hoc idem elegantius dixit Adaeus, cum descripsisset cenam nocturnam: ὡς ἐρωτικὸς ὁ κῶμος. (Glaucippus, a Cappadocian, having described the extravagant banquet as being unworthy of the dignity of a praetor, added: ‘Now I will describe the carousal too.’ The same thing was more elegantly put by Adaeus, after a description of the night banquet: ‘What a loving revel!’) (Sen. Contr. 9.2.29)

The way Seneca organizes his text marks off Greek from Latin declaimers,30 the former mostly preoccupied with competing with one another. Greek declaimers seem to engage in internal battles, as in the declamation of the debauched father and son (Sen. Contr. 2.6). According to Seneca, the Greeks were particularly attracted to this declamation: Agroitas Massiliensis longe vividiorem sententiam dixit quam ceteri Graeci declamatores, qui in hac controversia tamquam rivales rixati sunt. (Agroitas of Marseille produced a much more striking epigram than the other Greek declaimers, who brawled in this controversia as though they were rivals in love.)  (Sen. Contr. 2.6.12)

The internal competition occurring amid the Greek declaimers is reduced to an erotic battle and is clearly separated from the Latin scene since the Greek group repeatedly uses a locus (the taste or aversion for debauchery), which the Latins never take up. The text therefore suggests that the Graeci associate within a specific linguistic, thematic, and stylistic space in which they acquired distinctive habits at odds with Roman practices: one belongs to a group through language, but also through taste and mindset. Certain 29  Lechi (2008a) 102–3. Same thematic organization in Sen. Contr. 1.6.12; 1.8.15–16; 2.1.39; 10.1.15. 30  See Echavarren (2007b) 255–7.

64  Greek Declaimers, Roman Context topics seem to be favoured,31 and the most improper topics are solely declaimed by the Greeks.32 In turn, the latter are offended by certain subjects. Greek declaimers refused to declaim in support of Parrhasius, the painter of Controversia 10.5, who tortured a slave in order to depict pain more accurately.33 Since they were limited to being the accusers in this dec­lam­ ation, they all used an identical sensus,34 thus enhancing the impression of Greek unity. In Seneca’s account, the Greek declaimers shared a rhet­oric­al and declamatory culture that was not only detached from Latin language, but also from Roman culture.35 Seneca aimed to contrast the two groups of declaimers with each other, and used technical arguments to that end. The organization of arguments (divisio) and the choice of quaestiones36 are presented as major points of contention between the two groups. Divisiones are detailed more precisely in Controversiae 1, in which Latro features prominently. Latro always chooses the most efficient quaestiones for organizing a speech, and Seneca disapproves of the modifications that the novi declamatores made within the tradition he established.37 According to Seneca, the influence of the Greeks is behind these aberrations.38 In Controversia 1.1 (Patruus abdicans), following the example of the Greek group, a quaestio was added before the ones used by Latro: an adoptatus abdicari possit (Sen. Contr. 1.13). In Sen. Contr. 1.7.12 and 1.8.7, faulty quaestiones were, once again, used by the Greek declaimers. In the first case, these declaimers are only criticized for adding a quaestio: ‘can the law ordering sons to provide for their fathers be applied to a tyrannicide?’ In the second case, they make the mistake of starting their divisio with the following quaestio: ‘can one disinherit a hero?’ Seneca sees this second proposition as intolerable, although it uses the exact same mechanism as the first one by trying to over-determine a law with ethical considerations.39 As with the two other propositions, it highlights a specific use of the fictitious laws that appear in declamatory themes. This is 31 Sen. Contr. 10.4.18: Celebris haec apud Graecos controversia est. 32 Sen. Contr. 1.2.23: Seneca gives an account of the developments by Hybreas and Grandaus in a controversy where a husband catches his wife with a female lover. On this passage, cf. Citti (2007) 75–81 and p. 74 in this chapter. 33  See n. 59 in this chapter, and Cappello in this volume. 34 Sen. Contr. 10.5.19. 35  Regarding the idea that Greek and Latin declaimers lead a parallel and distinct existence, cf. Berti (2007) 254. 36  Fairweather (1981) 152–65. 37  Fairweather (1981) 161 and (1984) 551. 38  Baumm (1885) 5–6. 39  On this opposition between ethics and law, cf. Citti (2007) 75 and 102; Lechi (2008a) 102; Rolle (2018) 44–6; Citti (2018) 60. See also the various contributions in Amato, Citti, and Huelsenbeck (2015).

Charles Guérin  65 not surprising: inspired by the Greeks,40 the ‘laws’ regarding the repudiation of sons (Sen. Contr. 1.1) and the support due to parents (Sen. Contr. 1.7) were derived directly from the schools. Greek declaimers did not necessarily see these laws as intangible evidence, but instead considered them equal to moral imperatives and overlooked Roman conventions. By identifying discrepancies in the divisiones, Seneca seeks to portray Greek declamation as belonging to a different kind of declamatory culture.41 The Graeci declamatores are therefore bound to upset Roman sensibilities and seem culturally disconnected: their shared affinities—language, themes, loci—make them unable to understand the subtleties inherent to Roman practice. They therefore form a separate group and cannot escape their own alterity. When they seize specifically Latin topics, such as Sen. Contr. 9.2 presenting the shortcomings of the consul L. Quinctius Flamininus, Seneca regrets their intrusion42 as they wreak havoc in an environment to which they do not belong. The double-standard is blatant, since Seneca never regards Latin declaimers developing Greek themes as a scandal or a threat.43 According to Seneca, the declamatory scene was inherently Roman, meaning that Latin declaimers could assimilate any theme of their choosing, while the reverse logic was less acceptable.44 To stress his point, Seneca resorts to exaggeration. He accumulates demeaning characterizations (furiose, furiosissime, corruptissime, etc.)45 especially when the Greeks declaim on specifically Greek topics—since this is the only efficient way to distinguish

40  Bonner (1949) 95 and 102–3. 41  Another salient tendency shared by the Greeks is the frequent use of Homeric quotations: see Berti (2007) 268–73; Citti (2018) 61–2. 42 Sen. Contr. 9.2.29; cf. Citti (2007) 82; Lechi (2008a) 100–1. The case is unique (Russell (1983) 107). For an analysis of Contr. 9.2, see Mannering in this volume. 43  Migliario (2009) 509–10; see, for example, Sen. Contr. 9.1 and 10.5. 44  However, E. Migliario has pointed out that some declaimers who were identified as Greek by Seneca seemed perfectly capable of developing Roman themes which were firmly en­ trenched in the political culture of the time, such as Suasoriae 6 and 7, dedicated to the fig­ ure of Cicero in the context of the civil wars. In these examples, it would be very difficult to differentiate Greek declaimers from Latin ones (Migliario (2008) 87–9), and as these Suasoriae were based on very recent events and debates, they would have given Greek declaimers an ­opportunity to showcase their bilingualism and their familiarity with Latin culture, both written and oral (Migliario (2009) 511 and 517–21; Migliario (2012) 115–17). But these ‘Greeks’ are declaimers whose identity is very unstable: Cestius and Arellius Fuscus, who are both ­described as Greek but always declaim in Latin (see pp. 82-84 in this chapter). We never ­encounter a declaimer engaging with contemporary or politically charged topics in Greek. On this absence, see also Echavarren (2007b) 265. 45 Cf. the criticisms formulated against Aemilianus (Sen. Contr. 10.5.25), Craton (Sen. Contr. 10.5.21), Damas (Sen. Contr. 10.5.21), Dorion (Sen. Contr. 10.5.23), Glycon (Sen. Contr. 10.5.27, Sen. Suas. 1.16), or Metrodorus (Sen. Contr. 10.5.24). See also Citti (2018) 59–60.

66  Greek Declaimers, Roman Context them from the Latins in this context. He also over-determines ‘Greek identity’ by resorting to the negative stylistic category of Asianism.46 In this process of classification, Greek declaimers are assigned to cat­egor­ies from which they cannot escape. In preface after preface, the style of the great Latin declaimers is described, and their identities are recounted through diverse technical vocabulary. Greek characterizations, in contrast, are ­necessarily more rigid and repetitive, when they appear at all: Seneca often contents himself with making broad judgments, while Greek quotes are left largely without comment. Little by little, Seneca constructs the stereo­type of a Greek declaimer who shares very few characteristics with his Latin counterpart.47 A moral layer transpires in these descriptions, since Greek alterity is not only seen as inducing different ways of thinking, but also contains an ἦθος of its own, incompatible with Roman values. Latins must therefore not be surprised by the tendency of Greek declaimers towards indecent subjects: according to Scaurus as cited by Seneca, the Greeks are to blame for the new trend of obscenitas.48 Similarly, it comes as no surprise that the rhetor Timagenes was incapable of respecting the rules of propriety and got himself banned by Augustus: the Greek declaimers exemplify a certain number of deviant attitudes, which Seneca considers as various instances of licentia.49

2.  The ‘Greeks’: A Social Group The criticism directed towards Greek declaimers could be seen as a way of asserting the superiority of Latin declamation50 or, at least, of enhancing a form of Romanocentrism.51 By moving from a linguistic definition of the 46  Four declaimers expressing themselves in Greek are identified as Asiani, without any distinction being drawn between stylistic and geographical considerations: Hybreas and Grandaus (Sen. Contr. 1.2.23), Adaeus (Sen. Contr. 9.1.12), Craton (Sen. Contr. 10.5.21); Bornecque (1902) 139–40 expands the list on the basis of stylistic criteria. Nevertheless, in his comments (Sen. Contr. 10.5.21–2), Craton explicitly presents Atticists and Asianists as the representatives of opposite schools. Concerning these categories, see Blass (1865) 104–68; Baumm (1885) 5–6; Fairweather (1981) 245–6 and 296–7; Winterbottom (1983) 59–65; Huelsenbeck (2018) 158–60. For an analysis of the stylistic peculiarities shared by Greek declaimers, see Citti (2018) 62–6. 47  Such insistence on Greek specificities is highlighted by Citti (2007) 75–81. 48 Sen. Contr. 1.2.22–3. 49 Sen. Contr. 10.5.22; see Russell (1983) 9; Gunderson (2003) 94 and 128. On licentia as a defining feature of Greek declamation, see Sen. Contr. 10.4.23 (quoted in n. 54 of this chapter); Citti (2007) 82–4; Rolle (2018) 42–4; Citti (2018) 58. 50  Sussman (1978) 90–1; Winterbottom (1983) 58; Citti (2007) 82–3. 51  Berti (2007) 256.

Charles Guérin  67 ‘Greek’ group to a behavioural one, Seneca seems to create a counter-model that serves to uphold the standing definition of proper ‘Latin’ declamation. Nevertheless, such an analysis does not explain why Seneca sometimes expresses nuanced opinions and commends the traits of certain Greek declaimers,52 to the extent of sometimes putting Greek declaimers on par with Latin declaimers, especially in the tenth book of Controversiae, the last of the anthology.53 Seneca compares Greek and Latin sententiae without always favouring the latter54 and he even discusses some Greek declaimers with subtlety, weighing their faults and their qualities.55 It becomes obvious that Seneca does not want to prove that Greek declaimers are, generally, of a lesser rank than Latin ones within the same scale of declamation. Instead, he aims to show that Greek declaimers belong, for the most part, to an entirely different realm. His aim is less to hierarchize Greeks and Latins than to differentiate them by highlighting their cultural differences. By focusing on the alterity of Graeci declamatores rather than their infe­ rior­ity, Seneca tries to counter a threat that emanates from the very status of Greek declaimers rather than from their language, their behaviour, or their style. As M. Bloomer points out, declamation was not yet recognized by all as a legitimate literary activity when Seneca wrote his text. Distancing himself from the Greeks was a way for him to ward off suspicions of vulgarity or strangeness,56 which could have placed declamation in disrepute. Beyond these moral reasons, Seneca also wanted to separate the Greeks from the Latins because Greek declamation was too deeply entrenched in pedagogy and exercises. Unlike the great Latin declaimers, many of the Greek practitioners referenced by Seneca presided over schools and made a living from teaching.57 If they were to be assimilated with the Latins, they would be a 52  Especially Adaeus (Sen. Contr. 10.5.21), Artemon (Sen. Contr. 7.1.26), Damas (Sen. Contr. 2.14), Dionysius (Sen. Contr. 1.4.11), Dorion (Sen. Contr. 1.8.15), Hybreas (Sen. Contr. 1.4.11), Glycon (Sen. Contr. 1.7.18; 2.1.39), Nicetes (Sen. Contr. 1.4.12; 9.6.18; Sen. Suas. 2.14). 53  On the particular status of Sen. Contr. 10 (and especially of Sen. Contr. 10.4) with regards to cultural differences, see Echavarren (2007b) 255, Citti (2018) 58, Rolle (2018), and Cappello in this volume. See also Sen. Contr. 10.5.27–8. 54  Buschmann (1878) 1–2, 4–5 (Glycon), 6–8 (Nicetes) and, concerning Seneca’s comment in Contr. 10.4.23 (cogitetis Latinam linguam facultatis non minus habere, licentiae minus), Fairweather (1981) 24–5; Citti (2007) 82–4; Rolle (2018) 42; Citti (2018) 58; Pingoud and Rolle in this volume. See also Sen. Contr. 7.6.24 and 10.5.24. 55 Especially Damas, Dorion, Glycon, and Nicetes—who will be discussed later in this chapter. 56  Bloomer (1997a) 111 and 115–120. 57 Hermagoras (Sen. Contr. 7.praef.5), Lesbocles (Sen. Suas. 2.15), Nicetes (Sen. Contr. 9.2.23 and Hier. Chronicon. Ad Olymp. 186.4 (p. 162.12–19 Helm) = Theod., T4 Woerther), Potamon (Sen. Suas. 2.15), Clodius Sabinus (Sen. Contr. 3.9.14).

68  Greek Declaimers, Roman Context threat to Seneca’s portrayal of declamation: that of a purely autonomous activity—very loosely linked to schooling, and sometimes not at all—­ conducted by Romans from the best circles. While Seneca was fabricating a Latin model of declamation by placing the Greeks in a separate category, he also wanted to legitimize the practice by separating school declamation from declamation intended for performance. The gap he created between Greek and Latin declaimers did not only hide the Greek roots of eloquence; it also suggested that public declamation was a Latin invention, and that it was the only legitimate one. Greek declamation, in contrast, always referred back to the private sphere—in which Cicero spoke Greek—or to the training of youth and its accompanying imperfection.58 It is worth noting that Clodius Sabinus, who was criticized for his assertive bilingualism, was also a teacher and was mocked for it by Haterius: Dixit Haterius quibusdam querentibus pusillas mercedes eum accepisse cum duas res doceret: ‘numquam magnas mercedes accepisse eos qui hermeneumata docerent’. (When some people were deploring that Sabinus got trifling pay even though he taught two things, Haterius said: ‘People who teach translation never make a lot of money.’)  (Sen. Contr. 9.3.14)

Amid the deep-seated bilingualism of the early Empire, the language and methods of the Greeks—such as their excessive divisiones and their refusal to tackle certain themes59—were not inherently problematic, but they all referred back to pedagogical activities, which Seneca the Elder wanted to separate from his own vision of declamation. The Graecus declamator was first and foremost a declaimer who was tainted by the schools. This social reading of linguistic and cultural differentiation explains why the Greeks were not completely set apart by Seneca and why two ‘Greek cultures’ could exist in his eyes: the culture of schools, and the one em­bodied 58  The schools of declamation which opened at the end of civil wars were mainly administered by the Greeks; cf. Migliario (2012) 110–12. 59  Thus the refusal to declaim in favour of Parrhasius stems from the fact that the proposed topic is an ἀσύστατον, a question devoid of consistency belonging to the category of μονομερές (unilateral issue): it offers no possibilities for development because all the arguments follow in one direction (cf. Hermagoras, Incerta T4 and T5 Woerther; Russell (1983) 43; Woerther (2012) 212–20). Parrhasius, in other words, cannot be defended. But this is an academic perception of the problem: for a Latin who declaims ostentationis causa and who doesn’t have a pedagogical imperative in mind, such a topic is above all an occasion to shine. For Seneca, the theme exemplifies the clean break separating the two declamatory practices.

Charles Guérin  69 by a few great practitioners who, despite being identified as Greek by ­Se­neca, were linked to the Latins and singled out from the Greek group he had constructed. Therefore, when Nicetes is cited and discussed, many of the boundaries between him and the Latins fade. Thanks to the quality of  his eloquence, he is seamlessly included in the discussion and on the same terms as a Latin declaimer, save for the language he uses, such as in Con­troversia 9.6 (Filia conscia in filio privigni): Albucius dixit: postquam nominavit filiam, ad me respexit: videlicet ut sciret an satis torsisset. Nicetes egregie dixit in hoc eodem loco: συνοῖδέ μοί, φησιν, ἡ θυγάτηρ· καὶ προσέθηκεν· ἡ τούτου. Montanus, cum diceret illum locum: quamvis sceleratos parentes velle tamen innocentes liberos suos esse, dixit: potest ista filiam veneficam fingere, si potest facere [. . .].60 (Albucius said: ‘After she denounced her daughter, she looked at me, to find out—I suppose—whether she had tortured me enough.’ At this same spot, Nicetes made an excellent remark: ‘She says: My accomplice is the daughter. And she added: of this man.’ Montanus, while on the topic that parents, however criminal, want their children to be innocent, said: ‘This woman is capable of falsely representing her daughter as a poisoner if she is capable of making her one [. . .].’)  (Sen. Contr. 9.6.18)

Without the slightest methodological reserve, Seneca studies the treatment of the same locus or sensus by Latin practitioners and a Greek declaimer, whom he praises.61 Admittedly, such proximity was deliberately constructed and Seneca assigned a specific function to Nicetes, whom he wanted to compare to Latro.62 In his narrative, both declaimers have an ambiguous relationship towards school declamation, since they were the only ones whose students merely listened and received no formal instruction. This context helps us to understand why these two declaimers were brought together. Their method appears to have triggered mockery:

60  Same example in Sen. Contr. 1.5.9 (where Latro and Nicetes use the same sensus, common among the Latins and later taken up by the other Greeks) and 10.2.18–19 (Triarius, Nicetes, Scaurus). 61 Sen. Contr. 9.6.18 (egregie dixit); cf. Sen. Contr. 1.4.12 (sententiam pulcherrimam, qua nescio an nostros antecesserit); Sen. Suas. 2.14 (longe disertius). 62 Sen. Contr 1.5.1 and 9; also Sen. Contr. 1.8.13 (although there is nothing in this passage to indicate that Latro’s critique is directly aimed at Nicetes).

70  Greek Declaimers, Roman Context Initio contumeliae causa a deridentibus discipuli Latronis auditores voca­ bantur; deinde in usu verbum esse coepit et promiscue poni pro discipulo auditor. Hoc erat non patientiam suam sed eloquentiam vendere. (At first, detractors called Latro’s pupils ‘listeners’ as an insult; later the word got into general currency, and ‘listener’ was used commonly instead of ‘pupil’. This was a case of selling one’s oratory, not one’s patience.) (Sen. Contr. 9.2.23)

The purpose of this clarification is to show that, while Latro was surrounded by students, he was not engaged in dishonourable activities (patientiam suam vendere) but was instead an aesthetic model from whom students could draw inspiration instead of precepts. The inclusion of Nicetes is not caused by thematic necessities: the Greek declaimer simply serves as an additional guarantee to Latro, and confirms that teachers do not necessarily have a degraded position. Some of the Greeks linked to schools could paradoxically be used to demonstrate that declamation should not be reduced to teaching. It all depended on the prestige of the declaimers and Nicetes, despite being Greek, was very well regarded. In Suasoria 3, Seneca stages himself in the company of Messala and Gallio. They have just listened to a declamation by Nicetes, perhaps in his school. The discussion ends with a jeering remark based on a Virgilian intertext: Memini una nos ab auditione Nicetis ad Messalam venisse. Nicetes suo impetu valde Graecis placuerat. Quaerebat a Gallione Messala quid illi visus esset Nicetes. Gallio ait: ‘plena deo’.63 (I remember we once both visited Messala after listening to Nicetes. Nicetes’ flood of words had much pleased the Greeks. Messala asked Gallio what he thought of Nicetes. ‘She was full of the god’, said Gallio.) (Sen. Suas. 3.6–7)

The joke evidently refers to a description of the Sibyl that has not been preserved, and which Gallio transformed into a pun, mocking some of the or­ators whom he judged too florid.64 On a basic level, Nicetes is criticized and sent back to his own cultural and linguistic identity, since his speech was mostly appreciated by the Greeks. Gallio—who, according to Seneca, 63 Sen. Suas. 3.6.

64  See Borthwick (1972).

Charles Guérin  71 was one of the four best orators of his time and a good judge of taste—ridicules Nicetes. The joke can be seen as degrading since it feminizes the declaimer65— a classic approach when referring to stylistic excess.66 However, such an attack mainly reveals that the dichotomy between Greeks and Latins was not absolute: Latin enthusiasts went to hear a Greek declaimer and discussed his performance. Even Tiberius took a stand: he enjoyed seeing Nicetes being mocked since he did not appreciate the declaimer’s style. Nicetes therefore wasn’t a peripheral character and caught the attention of powerful people. When he was criticized, it was on the same terms as Q. Haterius, a consul known for his floridity, whom Gallio also perceived as plena deo.67 Along with the praise which he received, the criticism proved that Nicetes had succeeded at integrating into the Roman declamatory scene. The figure of Nicetes highlights the artificiality of the Graeci declamatores group. Through him, we realize that the Greeks did not only declaim for their peers or for apprentices: their talents, as distinctive as they were, caught the interest of many. Nicetes also reveals the existence of powerful interactions between Greeks and Latins: in Controversia 1.5 (Raptor duarum), Nicetes is presented as a link between the two groups through his use of a sensus a Latinis iactatus which was later emulated by the Greeks (ἐπὶ τὴν τρίτην νὺξ ἔκλινεν).68 Nicetes also undermines the idea that the Greeks formed a homogeneous group that could only be appreciated as a whole with no regard for its individual members. On the contrary, although the Greek declaimers are relegated to the periphery in Seneca’s texts, the author’s comments do not all stem from stereotyped thinking, but also contribute to internal rankings within the Greek group. As was the case with Latin declaimers, Greek declaimers varied in quality. While Hybreas is cited as a model of obscenitas, Hermagoras—in direct opposition to the Latin Vibius Gallus—sets the norm of decency for the locus of the spared son in the controversia: Quinquennis testis.69 The frontier between Greeks and Latins is therefore redrawn, or rather, blurred: not all Greek declaimers are separate from all Latin declaimers, since certain Greek declaimers managed to enter the Latin scene. Seneca’s aim is to admit certain exceptional figures of Greek declamation into his legitimate declamatory world. These Greek declaimers must be free of the schools or at least maintain non-degrading

65  Richlin (2003) 78. 66  Delarue (1982); Dugan (2005) 271–83. 67 Sen. Suas. 3.7; cf. Tac. Ann. 2.33 and 4.61. 68 Sen. Contr. 1.5.9. 69 Sen. Contr. 7.5.14.

72  Greek Declaimers, Roman Context links with them. But the rest of the Greek flock is still relegated to a space in which their particularities are largely erased. Whether he deals with Latin or Greek declaimers, Seneca the Elder tries to standardize an intellectual landscape which was extremely varied in an effort to enhance a certain type of practice and single out the members of a given circle. But while the diversity of the Latin environment is clearly discernible in his work, Seneca traps his readers into regarding the Greek group as a single entity. He regrouped these declaimers under the generic title of Graeci declamatores and, by so doing, amalgamated many parameters relative to geography, chronology, and social and stylistic aspects.70 First, Seneca included rhetors from different time periods in this group and ascribed the same cultural identity to all of them. Hybreas, Aeschines, and Gorgias declaimed during the end of the Republic, before Seneca’s arrival in Rome circa 36 bc.71 Later on, the group represented by Lesbocles and Potamon included the first rhetors whom Seneca was likely to have heard and who somehow bridged the Late Republican and Early Imperial rhet­oric­al cultures. We know that Potamon travelled to Rome three times (48, 46, and 25 bc) as the ambassador of Mytilene, and he seems to have settled in Rome from 33 to 26 bc,72 and Seneca describes Lesbocles as a con­tem­por­ary of Potamon.73 The next declaimers in the chronology belonged to another generation: the group is composed of Adaeus and Hybreas the Younger, and its flourishing coincides with the beginnings of Augustus’ rule.74 Adaeus was imitated by Arellius Fuscus75 probably in the mid 20s bc; Hybreas the 70  On this homologizing phenomenon, see also Cappello in this volume. 71  On Seneca, cf. the proposed chronology by Griffin (1972) 7–9. Gorgias was the preceptor of Cicero’s son in Athens and made him practise declamation (Cic. Fam. 16.21.6 = SB 337), cf. K. Münscher, s.v. Gorgias (9), RE 7, col. 1604–19. Aeschines the declaimer is probably the same person as Aeschines of Miletus, a contemporary of Cicero, who died before 46 bc, and who was mentioned in Cic. Brut. 325 (cf. Citti (2007) 73). Concerning Hybreas, see earlier in this chapter. Dionysius Atticus, born c.80 bc (cf. Bornecque (1902) 165) and a student of Apollodorus, could be added to this list (cf. Sen. Contr. 2.5.11), but his mention in Seneca’s text is questioned today since he only appears through an emendation by L. Håkanson: cf. Woerther (2013) 86, who prefers, using convincing arguments, the mention of M. Vipsanius Atticus. 72 W. Stegemann, s.v. Potamon (3), RE 22.1, col. 1025; Parker (1991) 116, Janiszewski et al. (2015) no. 874. Potamon seems to have participated in a sophistic competition with Antipatros and Theodorus of Gadara. The latter won and became Tiberius’ tutor; cf. Theod. T1 Woerther = Souda, Θ 151 Hesychius (II, p. 695.32–696.4 Adler). His exceptional longevity distinguished him from other orators, since his death occurred c.15 ad (Lucian, Macr. 23). Seneca presents Lesbocles as his contemporary (Migliario (2012) 120) and sets him within Hybreas’ generation. 73 Sen. Suas. 2.15. See also Strabo 13.2.3. 74  Migliario (2012) 120–2 expands the list considerably, but the chronological foundations are lacking. 75 Sen. Contr. 9.1.13.

Charles Guérin  73 Younger appeared in a confrontation with M. Tullius Cicero the son while he was proconsul in Asia circa 23 bc;76 Glycon Spiridion should probably also be associated with this generation.77 Lastly, some declaimers were active throughout the reign of Augustus, and even perhaps at the beginning of the reign of Tiberius: Hermagoras, whom Albucius tried to imitate;78 Craton, who was, according to Seneca, known to the princeps;79 and Nicetes, who dominated the whole period and who may have belonged to the same generation as Hybreas.80 In addition to these, other declaimers are harder to situate: Menestratus is presented as an older orator;81 Diocles Carystios is cited numerous times and was apparently active under Augustus, but Seneca states explicitly that he never heard him declaim in person;82 Dionysius was the son of the preceptor of Marcus Cicero.83 There are also Damas Scombrus, whom Seneca claimed to remember and may have heard,84 and Plution, whom Jerome matched with Nicetes and Hybreas.85 The other seventeen Greek-speaking declaimers cannot be placed in one group or another within this chronology. These Graeci were sometimes separated by decades and did not belong to the same geographic region, although Seneca’s text suggests that they all practised in Rome.86 While some of them were certainly resident in Rome,87 others, such as Potamon, only stayed there temporarily. Some might have never travelled to Rome at all: Diocles, for example—whom Seneca cites based on second-hand knowledge88—or Hybreas, who is nevertheless cited eight times. Hybreas was a reputable rhetor and got involved with several Roman authority figures. As one of the leaders of the city of Mylasa, he led

76 Sen. Suas. 7.14, in which Hybreas the Younger is mocked by M. Cicero; cf. R. Hanslik, s.v. Tullius (30), RE 7.2, col. 1286; Janiszewski et al. (2015) no. 509. 77  The sentence id fecit quod solebat (Suas. 1.16) might imply that Seneca had direct contact with Glycon. Migliario (2012) 123, Janiszewski et al. (2015) no. 427. 78 Sen. Contr. 7.praef.5, where Seneca presents himself as an eyewitness. See also Janiszewski et al. (2015) no. 474. 79 Sen. Contr. 10.5.21–2. 80  Migliario (2012) 119. 81 Sen. Contr. 1.13 (declamator non abiectus suis temporibus). 82 Sen. Contr. 10.5.26. 83 Sen. Contr. 1.4.11. 84 Sen. Suas. 2.14: non sane refero memoria ullam sententiam Graeci cuiusquam nisi Damae. Janiszewski et al. (2015) no. 244 places Damas in the older generation (Hybreas). 85 W. Stegemann, s.v. Plution (1), RE 41, col. 988–9. Migliario (2012) 119 situates his birth circa 60 bc, but dating elements are lacking. 86  Winterbottom (1983) 67. 87  Craton, Damas, Hermagoras, and Nicetes are included in anecdotes or linked to events that guaranteed their presence in Rome. 88  Concerning Diocles, cf. Sen. Contr. 10.5.26: Hanc sententiam aiunt et Dioclen Carystium dixisse [. . .].

74  Greek Declaimers, Roman Context his people against Labienus during the Parthian invasion in 40 bc89 and criticized Mark Antony when the latter came to collect taxes in 33–32 bc.90 But he seems to have seldom left his city,91 and his inclusion in the Graeci declamatores group obviously stems from Seneca’s reading of textual sources. This becomes apparent when Scaurus presents Hybreas as embodying the taste for obscenity shared by Greek declaimers: Hoc autem vitium aiebat Scaurus a Graecis declamatoribus tractum, qui nihil non et permiserint sibi et inpetraverint. Hybreas, inquit, cum diceret controversiam de illo qui tribadas deprehendit et occidit, describere coepit mariti adfectum, in quo non deberet exigi inhonesta inquisitio: ἐγὼ δ’ ἐσκόπησα πρότερον τὸν ἄνδρα, ἐγγεγένηταί τις ἢ προσέρραπται. (Scaurus used to say this fault derived from the Greek declaimers, who allowed themselves every licence—and got away with it. Hybreas, he said, speaking the controversia about the man who caught his wife and another woman in bed and killed them both, proceeded to describe the feelings of the husband (who should not be asked to carry out such a shameful examination): ‘But I looked at the man first, to see whether he was natural or artificial.’) (Sen. Contr. 1.2.22–3)

M. Aemilius Scaurus Mamercus, who was consul suffect under Tiberius in 21 ad,92 could not possibly have heard Hybreas declaim: he only knew of the latter’s speeches in writing, and the peculiar Greek obscenity mentioned here is a purely textual construct.93 In Controversia 1.2 (Sacerdos prostituta), Seneca prescribes that declaimers should avoid the use of vulgarity and obscenity at all costs—even when the theme calls for it—and cites Latin declaimers as counterexamples: Julius Bassus, Vibius Rufus, Murredius, and an anonymous former praetor mocked by Scaurus.94 Following the review of these misguided Latin declaimers, Scaurus blames the Greeks and then cites Hybreas in the context of a different declamation having nothing to do 89  Magie (1950) 430–2 and 441–2; Bowersock (1965) 5–6; Osgood (2006a) 225–6. 90  Gabba (1982) 52; Osgood (2006b) 543 and (2006a) 341. 91  Strabo (14.4.24) mentions that he once fled to Rhodes to avoid being punished by La­bienus. 92  P. von Rohden, s.v. Aemilius (139), RE I, col. 583–4. 93  In the same way, Albucius reported second-hand a line by Hybreas which he most likely read: Dixit, inquit, Hybreas: τί οὖν; ἐψεύσατο κατὰ τῆς ἰδίας θυγατρός; οὔκ· ἀλλὰ τῆς ἐμῆς (Sen. Contr. 9.6.16). 94 Sen. Contr. 1.2.21–2: Scaurus interrupts the declaimer by shouting ‘inepta loci’. Con­ cerning this joke, cf. Richlin (1983) 16–18; Beck (2001); and Mannering in this volume.

Charles Guérin  75 with Sen. Contr. 1.2, that of the female lovers caught by the husband (de illo qui tribadas deprehendit), which doesn’t appear elsewhere in the corpus. Grandaus is also cited regarding the same Controversia, but Seneca then returns to the story of the priestess and mentions an obscenity uttered by Murredius. Seneca therefore provides us with only one example of Greek obscenity and bases his entire argument on a quote by Hybreas—who, as we saw, was mainly famous in Asia around 40 bc—and on an indication provided by Grandaus, who is cited on this occasion only. By denying the diversity inherent in the Greek declaimers, Seneca tried to homogenize the group which he had fabricated. To that end, he used the works of a declaimer who did not even truly belong to the Roman declamatory scene of the time. This same process of homogenization is also used to erase the wide social gaps separating members of the Greek group. After all, what could scorned teachers and great rhetors really have in common, other than the fact that Seneca cites them together? Hybreas obtained Roman citizenship and a prestigious priesthood;95 Craton belonged to Augustus’ circle; Potamon enjoyed the support of Tiberius, who guaranteed his safety when he returned to Asia;96 prominent people listened to Nicetes. On the other end of the social scale, Sabinus Clodius barely made a living by teaching Greek and Latin rhetoric. Lodged between these two extremes, a host of teachers formed the bulk of the Greek declaimers. Some of their schools are mentioned by Seneca, such as Hermagoras’ and Lesbocles’, but these declaimers did not enjoy the same prestige as Potamon or Nicetes, who also taught.97 Various categories of declaimers therefore appear before us. Some play the part of mere tutors and are easy targets for Seneca, while others foreshadow the great Sophists who held important political positions and became the focus of Philostratus’ work.98 Unsurprisingly, the same process of homoge­ niza­tion is used for stylistic characterizations, and Seneca does not overly refine his descriptions. The characterizations used to define the Greeks are in no way similar to the ones used to characterize Latin declaimers, as I have previously mentioned. Seneca dispenses criticism or praise, but doesn’t provide detailed descriptions concerning the style of the Greek declaimers. Finally, their affiliation with schools is not clearly exposed. The only figures 95  Bowman, Champlin, and Lintott (1996) 651; Robert and Robert (1959) 176. 96  Parker (1991) 118. 97  The chronological logic and the social logic intersect on this point. Migliario (2012) 114 notices that the social levels of the Greek declaimers cited by Seneca decline at each gen­eration. 98  Anderson (2005) 18.

76  Greek Declaimers, Roman Context reported as being close to Theodorus or Apollodorus were Latin (Syriacus and Tiberius for the former, and Bruttedius Niger for the latter)99 and the description of Nicetes as being a disciple of Apollodorus is based solely on Tiberius’ hostility.100 In his text, Seneca deliberately creates a Greek group which is as undifferentiated as possible. Out of this mass, a few elite figures are allowed to stand out without threatening the quality of declamation as practised in Rome. However, the text also allows for a massive convergence of Greeks and Latins. While trying to master the relationship between Greeks and Latins and to maintain a clear-cut distinction, Seneca had trouble controlling the polyphony of his own text. He let certain cracks appear, providing a glimpse into practical reality, where the circulation of ideas between Greeks and Latins was moving away from the periphery of declamatory practices to its centre.

3.  Moving Towards Graeco-Latin Declamation Once the separation between Greeks and Latins had been established, the declaimers could be freely connected in the Controversiae and Suasoriae. Various treatments of the same theme made by different declaimers could appear next to each other without necessarily implying that a real exchange of ideas had occurred between the two groups. Seneca did not intend to present Greek and Latin declaimers as being in competition with each other, nor did he mean to demonstrate how ideas circulated between Greeks and Latins. Instead, what he was trying to build was a critical perspective. Controversia 10.4, Mendici debilitati, which was popular among the Greeks (celebris apud Graecos, Sen. Contr. 10.4.18), also interested the Latins. Nevertheless, Seneca the Elder insists that the presence of the Latins next to the Greeks is not the result of a wish to imitate the Greeks or compete with them. Thus, despite never having heard Artemon, Latro manages to pronounce a sententia that surpasses that of the Greek declaimer:

99 Sen. Contr. 2.1.36 and 3.7.8. Quintilian reports that Hermagoras was a disciple of Theodorus (Quint. Inst. 3.1.18 = Herm. Theod. disc., T1 Woerther), but this affiliation is never specified by Seneca; cf. Woerther (2012) 164–72. 100 Sen. Contr. 3.7.8. The radical opposition between Apollodorians and Theodorians (cf. Baumm (1885); Buschmann (1878) 3 and 6–7; Bornecque (1902) 140–1) is convincingly put into question by Woerther (2013) xiii–xxxix.

Charles Guérin  77 Artemon dixit: τὰ μὲν τῶν ἄλλων εὔρωστα· πλεῖ, γεωργεῖ. Τὰ δ’ ἡμέτερα ἀνάπηρα· τρέφει ἄρα τὸν ὁλόκληρον. Hanc sententiam Latro Porcius virilius dixit, qui non potest furto suspectus esse; Graecos enim et contemnebat et ignorabat. (Artemon said: ‘The slaves of others are strong—they sail, they till the ground. Ours are cripples—therefore they support a man who is sound of limb.’ Porcius Latro, who cannot be suspected of plagiarism, for he both despised the Greeks and was ignorant of them, put this epigram in a more manly way.)  (Sen. Contr. 10.4.20–1)

Seneca’s approach consists in connecting the Greeks and Latins a posteriori. His memory and the texts he compiles allow him to link the two groups. This explains why M. Aemilius Lepidus—grandson of the triumvir, consul in 11 ad101 and vir egregius, according to Seneca102—can appear in Sen. Contr. 2.3 (Raptor patrem non exorans) among Artemon, Glycon, and Diocles: Glycon dixit: βραδέως ἐλεεῖς με· κηρὸς ῥῦσις οὐκ ἔστι. Φθίνω κρυεροτέραν θανάτου μέριμναν· οὐ περιμενῶ σου τὸν ἔλεον. Hunc sensum commodius dixit Lepidus, Neronis praeceptor: non misereberis nisi ultimo die? ego mei ante miserebor. Diocles Carystius a parte patris ethicos dixit: ‘ἡβῶ θανάσιμος.’ ἀπόθανε [. . .] (Glycon said: ‘Your pity for me is slow to come. There is no deliverance from death. I waste away with an anxiety chiller than death—I will not wait for your pity.’ This idea was put more suitably by Nero’s teacher, Lepidus: ‘Will you not pity me, except on the last day? I shall pity myself before then.’ Diocles of Carystos, for the father, said, in character: ‘ “I am young and near to death.” Die then. [. . .]’)  (Sen. Contr. 2.3.23)

Here, the connection between the declaimers does not highlight a sense of competition but rather stems from a strict thematic logic, as the declaimers all use figurative speech (schema). Hence, Lepidus does not use Glycon’s sensus to compete with him, but nevertheless prevails (commodius dixit) in the comparison established by Seneca.103 The act of juxtaposing various declaimers simply serves as a critical vector and does not provide us with any historical information. 101  P. von Rohden, s.v. Aemilius (63), RE 1, col. 551. 102 Sen. Contr. 9.praef.5. 103  We can observe the same mechanism when Plancus compares the sententiae pronounced by Latro and Lesbocles in Sen. Contr. 1.8.15.

78  Greek Declaimers, Roman Context Seneca does offer several strictly Greek examples in which he clearly refers to emulation and imitation.104 But when Greeks and Latins are presented contiguously, these references disappear and, even when themes and sententiae are obviously shared by both communities, the declaimers are set against each other without challenging the categories established by Seneca, who controls the organization of the common space he creates. These temporary declamatory communities, bound by a theme or by the use of specific patterns,105 only exist in Seneca’s overarching vision and because of the thematic organization he imposes to his text, which often leads him to forget the true origins of a given locus or sententia.106 When direct and identifiable interactions appear in the text, they are not presented as the result of broad and legitimate competition, but rather as individual infractions. Seneca sees Murredius as embodying the utmost stupidity that declaimers could suffer from. Unsurprisingly, Murredius’ attempts to imitate the Greeks lead to ludicrous results: Dixerat Nicetes: . . . Murredius dum hanc sententiam imitari vult, stultissimam dixit: reliqui in acie pugnantes manus. (Nicetes had said: . . . Murredius, wishing to imitate this epigram, produced a very stupid one: ‘I left my hands behind fighting in battle.’) (Sen. Contr. 1.4.12)

The disappearance of Nicetes’ sententia prevents us from delving more deeply into this example. However, it is significant that Seneca chose to highlight Murredius as being the only declaimer who explicitly wished to emulate Greek practitioners. Elsewhere, the direct relationship between 104  See Glycon’s sententia, reused by Plution, Artemon, and Apaturius in Sen. Suas. 1.11: Hoc omnes imitari voluerunt. In the same way, cf. Sen. Contr. 2.6.12; 10.4.18; 10.5.21. 105  Huelsenbeck, in this volume, describes these relationships as ‘vertical’ and ‘horizontal exchanges’. 106  See in particular Sen. Contr. 1.8.13, where Latro criticizes Nicetes’ use of a color. The text doesn’t allow us to conclude whether or not Latro heard Nicetes using this color (or read about it), or if he was articulating a broader criticism against the use of this kind of color. In Sen. Contr. 9.1.12, Seneca brings together sententiae by Latro and Hybreas deriving from a common source which is not identified: Haec tota diversa sententia est a priore, etiamsi ex eadem est petita materia. For similar a posteriori connections, see Sen. Contr. 1.1.25 (Hermagoras, Gallion, Diocles, Euctemon); Sen. Contr. 1.4.10–12 (Damas, Latro, Fuscus, Vibius Rufus, Pompeius, P. Vinicius, Hybreas, Dionysius, Nicetes, Albucius, Asprenas); Sen. Contr. 7.5.14–15 (Gallus Vibius, Cestius, Hermagoras, Blandus, Euctemon, Murredius, Nicocrates); Sen. Contr. 10.2.18–19 (Nicetes, Scaurus, Labienus); Sen. Contr. 10.5.23–5 (illum locum omnes temp­ taverunt: Dorion, Metrodorus, Triarius, Haterius, Licinius Nepos, Aemilianus, Pausanias, Otho pater, Gargonius); Sen. Contr. 10.5.26 (Latro, Diocles); Sen. Suas. 2.14 (Cestius, Nicetes).

Charles Guérin  79 Greeks and Romans is portrayed more ambiguously. In the Mendici de­ bilitati (Sen. Contr. 10.4), Seneca reports on a line by Adaeus and notices troub­ling similarities in the declamations of Blandus, Moschus, and Fuscus: did they borrow their sententiae from the Greek rhetor? Seneca does not settle this point.107 But Greek declaimers could very well fall victim to plagiarism, as it was a pervasive vice in the declamatory world.108 Triarius translated Greek epigrams without changing them at all, or modifying them only slightly.109 Cestius behaved similarly by plundering Damas’ thoughts.110 Asprenas plagiarized Glycon.111 Fuscus translated and credited himself with sententiae by Adaeus or Hybreas.112 These forms of theft occurred in a specific context: Seneca points them out in three Controversiae (Sen. Contr. 9.1, 10.4, and 10.5) which were mainly centred on Greek topics (Cimon ingratus Calliae, Sen. Contr. 9.1; Parrhasius et Prometheus, Sen. Contr. 10.5) or were popular among the Greeks (Mendici debilitati, Sen. Contr. 10.4). In those cases, Greek dec­lam­ations were on each declaimer’s mind and provided a tempting source of available material.113 In this particular case, there were undoubtedly Greek precedents, and the Greek practitioners had transmitted their knowledge directly to the Latin declaimers: Celebris haec apud Graecos controversia est; multa ab illis pulchre dicta sunt, a quibus non abstinuerunt nostri manus, multa corrupte, quibus non cesserunt nec ipsi. (The Greeks are quite fond of this controversia; they said many nice things that our declaimers haven’t kept their hands off, and many things in bad taste, and the Romans haven’t fallen short of them either.) (Sen. Contr. 10.4.18)

This comment reveals a form of intellectual plundering, suggesting that Latin declaimers collected Greek ideas and, more importantly, that they read Greek works. Seneca’s imprint can be seen in the denunciation of such 107 Sen. Contr. 10.4.21. On the tenuous distinction between translation, imitation, and plagiarism in Seneca the Elder and the lexicon he uses (mutare, vertere, transferre, subripere, etc), cf. Berti (2007) 257–9, Citti (2007) 85–7, and, more generally, Peirano (2013). 108  The fight against this practice partly triggered the drafting of the collection, cf. Sen. Contr. 1.praef.11. See, among others, the examples provided in Sen. Contr. 1.4.11 and 9.3.12. 109 Sen. Contr. 7.1.25 (source cited but not attributed); 10.5.20 (borrowed from Glycon). 110 Sen. Contr. 10.4.21. 111 Sen. Contr. 10.4.19. 112 Sen. Contr. 9.1.13 and 9.6.16. See also Echavarren (2007b) 261–3. 113  Berti (2007) 259–60.

80  Greek Declaimers, Roman Context forms of plagiarism and in the parallels he draws between Greeks and Latins. Armed with his retrospective point of view, Seneca retraces the origins of the plagiarized sententia, all the while revealing his own close relationship with literary sources. When he catches Triarius plagiarizing, Seneca is able to cite the source extensively but does not attribute it to a Greek author.114 The source may have been taken from an anthology similar to the ones Junius Otho had published115 or the one which Seneca was in the process of compiling. Seneca therefore acknowledged that the Latins listened to Greek declaimers and held some of them in high regard. He also demonstrates that Latin declaimers broadly used Greek declamatory sources. The very fact that Seneca was able to make parallels between the traits of Latro and Hybreas116 shows that he consulted written works, since Hybreas belonged to the previous generation of declaimers Seneca had not himself heard. Likewise, Latin practitioners read and used Greek writings extensively: this was an open secret. The reading of Greek thought and the use of Greek ideas was so generalized that Seneca had to defend Latro’s originality by arguing that he despised the Greeks: as previously highlighted, one of Latro’s sententiae—in the Mendici debilitati—resembled one of Artemon’s epigrams,117 but such similarities were said to be due to coincidence rather than plagiarism.118 It seems, however, that everyone saw Latro’s sententia as a slavish imitation. Seneca was not the only one detecting these kinds of abuse and the widespread knowledge of Greek texts went both ways: declaimers and the literati could sometimes catch each other in the act of plagiarizing. This happened to Fuscus, who then had to justify himself as best he could: Memini deinde Fuscum, cum haec Adaei sententia obiceretur, non infitiari transtulisse se eam in Latinum; et aiebat non commendationis id se aut furti, sed exercitationis causa facere. (I remember that afterwards Fuscus, when challenged with this epigram of Adaeus’, did not deny that he had translated it into Latin; he said he did so not to win credit for it or as a plagiarism but as part of his training.) (Sen. Contr. 9.1.13)

114 Sen. Contr. 7.1.25. 115 Sen. Contr. 1.3.11; 2.1.33. 116 Sen. Contr. 9.1.12. 117 Sen. Contr. 10.5.20–1, cited on p. 62 of this chapter. 118 On Latro’s relationship to Greek literature and Greek declamation, his depiction by Seneca as an antithesis of Demosthenes, and Contr. 10.5.20–1, see Pingoud and Rolle in this volume.

Charles Guérin  81 Fuscus’ misguided response is doubly revealing. For his justification to be valid, Fuscus needed to refer to a widespread practice: we can therefore surmise that bilingual training was a common method. In such conditions, Greek examples were close at hand, but also limited to declamation in schools: people translated from Greek or declaimed in Greek only during private exercises.119 Fuscus’ only fault was to combine those two aspects of declamation, the exercitatio and the ostentatio. Such an explanation is in keeping with Seneca’s project, which aims at confining Greek declamation to a separate—and mostly pedagogical—space. However, we can also choose not to believe Fuscus and think instead that he truly wanted to deceive his audience. Described as Greek by Seneca, Fuscus could have taken advantage of his own linguistic skills and his familiarity with Greek texts120 to make his plagiarism go unnoticed. This was his mistake: Fuscus failed to measure the extent to which Latin declaimers knew Greek dec­lam­ation, and ignored the fact that certain Greek sententiae had by then been fully included in declamation’s common heritage.121 This game of plagiarism and its denunciation allows us to see behind the scenes of Latin declamation, which seems to have been much more Hellenized than Seneca was willing to admit. Although these examples do not enable us to conclude that the Latins depended on the Greeks, or that they wished to compete with them,122 Fuscus’ misadventure reveals that Greek and Latin practices were already intertwined deeply at the time. Evidently, the issues of transfer and circulation encountered with Nicetes— who imitated a Latin sententia and thus transmitted it to the Graeci—cannot be construed solely as plagiarism. Some sententiae were pronounced in Greek but are quoted in Latin123—a likely sign that they were assimilated by all—and some traits mixed both languages.124 There were even cases, described by F. Lechi as a ‘parafrasi contestuale’, in which a Greek or Latin expression was immediately adopted in the other language.125 Although we do not know at which stage such a transfer occurred from one language to the other,126 these examples indicate that declaimers fully embraced a form 119  Cf. the examples of bilingual exercitationes provided by Cic. De Or. 1.155; Cic. Brut. 310; Quint. Inst. 10.5.2–3. 120  According to Seneca, Fuscus’ Asian origins serve to explain his plagiarism: hanc senten­ tiam [. . .] cum esset ex Asianis, non casu dixit sed transtulit ad verbum (Sen. Contr. 9.6.16). 121  In particular those of Glycon (Sen. Suas. 1.11 and 2.12); cf. the review of Lockyer (1970) 162–3. 122  Pace Berti (2007) 261. 123  See in particular Sen. Contr. 7.1.26. 124 Sen. Contr. 1.8.11 and 7.4.8. 125  Lechi (2008b) 18–19 on Sen. Contr. 1.2.23 and 7.1.26. 126  Lechi (2008b) 20.

82  Greek Declaimers, Roman Context of bilingualism. The declamatory scene was evolving and was progressively transforming into a Graeco-Latin space. This transformation could take place because declaimers and rhetors were circulating intensively between the Greek world and Rome.127 Agroitas provides us with a good example. As a native of Marseille, his style was midway between Greek and Latin: Dicebat autem Agroitas arte inculta, ut scires illum inter Graecos non fuisse, sententiis fortibus, ut scires illum inter Romanos fuisse. (Now Agroitas had an unpolished technique -which showed he had not frequented the Greeks- and employed powerful epigrams -which showed he had frequented the Romans).  (Sen. Contr. 2.6.12)

In his bilingual province, Agroitas frequented the Latins more than the Greeks, and his style is imbued with that influence. Although he declaimed in Greek, his statements had a Latin quality, thus blurring his identity.128 He was not alone in this situation. Cestius Pius was presented as Greek,129 and Arellius Fuscus as an Asianus,130 but both chose to declaim in Latin.131 According to Seneca, this explains Cestius’ linguistic shortcomings, given that his Latin vocabulary was somehow limited. Cestius sometimes ­interrupted his declamations without warning, unable to find the right

127  Potamon circulated several times between Greece and Rome; Cestius was active both in Rome and in Asia (Sen. Suas. 7.13; cf. Spawforth (2012) 76, see p. 72 in this chapter). Apollodorus and Theodorus frequently circulated between both linguistic spaces; cf. Woerther (2013) xviii–xix. The fact that peace was restored and that roads were secured largely explains the phenomenon; cf. Migliario (2012) 117. 128  Cf. Ramage (1963) 413–14; Gleason (1995) 4; Connors (1997) 62; Pingoud and Rolle in this volume. Such a confused identity has, of course, moral consequences in Seneca’s eyes; cf. Gunderson (2003) 127–8. 129 Sen. Contr. 7.1.27; Fairweather (1981) 283; Citti (2018) 57. See Rochette (1997) 234–5, who includes Cestius in his prosopography of Latin-speaking Greeks (no. 26 = PIR2 C 575) and makes him a native from Smyrna. 130 Sen. Contr. 9.6.16, cum esset ex Asia, corrected as ex Asianis (in parallel with the description of Adaeus, rhetor ex Asianis, in Sen. Contr. 9.1.12). On Asianism, see n. 46 in this chapter. 131  Cestius only declaimed in Latin (Sen. Contr. 9.3.13), but Fuscus’ situation is less straightforward, since Seneca declares in Suas. 4.5 that: dicebat autem suasorias libentissime et frequen­ tius Graecas quam Latinas. The critical tradition is almost unanimous in saying that Fuscus declaimed the Suasoriae in Greek (cf. among others Buschmann (1878) 12; Bloomer (1997a) 276 n. 28; Berti (2007) 254; Lechi (2008b) 15; Huelsenbeck (2018) 157 and the translations by Winterbottom (1974) ad loc.). But Seneca’s remark might not be linguistic, but thematic instead, meaning (Feddern (2013) 356) that Fuscus preferred the Suasoriae with Greek subjects (Sen. Suas. 1–5), which would explain the complete absence of Greek citations for him: he might very well have always declaimed in Latin.

Charles Guérin  83 word,132 and his declamations were full of linguistic pe­cu­li­ar­ities.133 It is therefore tempting to view Cestius as a Greek speaker who trained intensively in Latin in order to declaim and teach. Fuscus’ language was also riddled with Graecisms134 and he may have followed the same path as Cestius before him. Nevertheless, their complex situations cannot be explained by a simple transfer from the Greek-speaking world to the Latin world. In the absence of any conclusive clues, it is impossible to say whether or not Greek speakers could have benefited from Latin-language training at the end of the first century.135 Furthermore, as J.-L. Ferrary has highlighted, the Graecus signifier often served to name Eastern provincials as opposed to Roman citizens, rather than Greek speakers per se.136 A closer look may reveal that Fuscus and Cestius were actually Latins who belonged to families of negoti­ atores established in Asia.137 In that light, the circumstances of these declaimers change radically: far from being Greeks imbued with Latin culture, they may have been Latins who mastered Greek culture perfectly and navigated between both spaces with ease, as they were doing so since childhood.138 The linguistic peculiarities of the two declaimers would then stem from the fact that they frequented the Greeks and not from their later acquisition of the Latin language; their eccentricities were therefore similar to those found in Agroitas’ discourse. This particular situation would explain why Fuscus and Cestius are cited as belonging both to the Greek and Latin groups and, even more, why Seneca would list Fuscus among the four best declaimers he knew, along with three proper Latini.139 These two declaimers shatter the rigid categories established by Seneca. Whether Cestius was originally a Greek or a Latin speaker, he was still defined as a Graecus despite the fact that he never used Greek in his public declamations. The criteria for inclusion in the Graeci declamatores group thus become unstable. Either Seneca chose to include him for geographical reasons or—more likely—because he mastered and used Greek literary and rhetorical traditions. But if Cestius is labelled as Graecus, it is, above all, 132 Sen. Contr. 7.1.27. See p. 62 of this chapter. 133  Lechi (2008b) 23–7. He also quotes Homer, as is typical with Greek declaimers (see n. 41 in this chapter). 134  Huelsenbeck (2018) 215. 135  Rochette (1997) 166–7; Lechi (2008b) 22–3. 136  Ferrary (2001) 31. 137  Cf. Spawforth (2012) 75–7, whose argument is based on Hatzfeld (1919) 40ff. and 99ff. and on Ferrary (2001). 138  The hierarchical relationship between both languages, inevitable in all code-switching practices (Migliario (2012) 117), is then reversed. 139 Seneca placed Fuscus in the primum tetradeum with Latro, Albucius, and Gallio (Sen. Contr. 10.praef.13), who are indisputably Latini.

84  Greek Declaimers, Roman Context because he endorses Greek heritage: at the time when he was declaiming, the definition of Greek identity was inching towards the cultural and pedagogical approach that would become prevalent in the following centuries.140 It is thus virtually impossible to assign a fixed place to Cestius within the cultural landscape of the early Empire. Hence, Cestius can shed light on other declaimers who give out more elusive clues. Q. Haterius was mocked by Gallio in the same terms as Nicetes141 and Seneca presented Haterius as being the only one to have imported the Greek facultas to the Latin language:142 Haterius maintained a very close relationship to Greek ­declamation, to a surprising degree given his senatorial rank. He is often cited along with Greek declaimers, particularly with Fuscus and Cestius.143 He even competes with Fuscus on the sententia that the latter had plagiarized from Hybreas.144 Triarius also found himself caught in networks of citations which reflected thematic and stylistic affinities as well as close links with Greek sources: he is often quoted along with Haterius, Fuscus, Cestius, or various Greeks.145 The consistent grouping of these particular Latin practitioners might suggest that different movements existed, some of which considered Greek declamation less as a simple training tool and more as a true source of inspiration. In Q. Haterius’ case, such a phenomenon seemed to stem from his individual motivation: the fact that he mocked Sabinus, the poor bilingual teacher,146 proves that he had to navigate carefully through the symbolic implications of his philhellenic position. Triarius’ situation was, however, different. Given that he was a student of Cestius and a close associate of the Greeks, and that other students of Cestius were also deeply involved in Hellenism,147 we are led to believe that the members of Cestius’ intellectual circle did not agree with Seneca’s views on Hellenism. Unsurprisingly, however, Seneca carefully avoided any mention of this approach to declamation and of a school which, even though it was led by a rhetor who only declaimed in Latin, advocated a mutual enrichment ­bet­ween Greek and Latin declamation.148 140  Goldhill (2001) 13–16; Webb (2006) 32–7. 141 Sen. Suas. 3.7: plena deo. 142 Sen. Contr. 4.praef.7. On Haterius and his command of Graeca facultas, see most recently Citti (2018) 58–9. 143 Sen. Contr. 1.6.12; 7.2.5; 7.8.3; 9.4.16; 10.5.24; 9.6.8; Sen. Suas. 2.14. 144 Sen. Contr. 9.6.16. 145  See, for example, Sen. Contr. 7.1.25; 9.4.16; 9.6.8. 146 Sen. Contr. 9.3.14. 147  Argentarius and Surdinus specifically, identified as a translator of Greek theatre in Sen. Suas. 7.13. 148  Generally speaking, Seneca does everything to conceal the importance and influence of Cestius’ circle, which regrouped top-ranking students and had a lasting influence through Argentarius; cf. Bloomer (1997a) 131.

Charles Guérin  85 Seneca therefore insisted on maintaining linguistic and cultural ­ ifferences—for the social reasons I have developed above—at a time when d these differences were actually starting to fade within certain areas of Latin dec­lam­ation. From respected Greek declaimers who were heard by powerful nobiles and became de facto members of the high society of the time, to the existence of Latin movements that incorporated Greek practices openly, such conflicting signals had begun to overturn Seneca’s simple and structured representation of cultural boundaries. The scene was not clearly divi­ded be­tween dominant Latin declaimers on one hand and overpowered Greek declaimers on the other. Beyond the norm established by Seneca lay a diverse and fluid world where identity assignations were not as rigid as the Controversiae and the Suasoriae would first lead us to believe. Despite the initial intentions of Seneca’s text, certain elements filtered in, hinting at the increased cultural circulation between the Greek and Latin worlds during the early Principate. Hence, Seneca could not maintain his fictitious representation of a heterogeneous Greek declamation scene. Due to the contradictions inherent in his position, Seneca could only provide us with a partial description of the transformations and political interests of his time. By rejecting Asian eloquence, Seneca adhered to the conception of Classicism which was dear to Augustan power and which the Roman authorities were trying to impose—a fantasized form of Atticism.149 However, Seneca did not remain true to the spirit of such a conception: while he managed to stigmatize the Asiani, he didn’t identify ‘Attic’ practitioners, thus adopting a largely negative view150 and breaking away from the Augustan cultural project. Augustus and his close circle did not intend to relegate all of Greek declamation to the periphery. When they undertook the construction of the Agrippeum in Athens, c.16 bc, they wanted to create a cultural space reserved for the Greek elite where the latter could declaim or listen to dec­lam­ations far from the schools, just like the Latin elite in Rome. The main goal was to mix the dominant cultural practices of Greece with those in Italy, and to impose a unified cultural model on the Empire as a whole.151 But Athens had yet to be completely conquered, and the Roman authorities did not want to reject the Asian declaimers who were internalizing the practices that were valued in Rome. Contrary to Seneca’s fears,

149  Connolly (2007); Spawforth (2012) 20–6. 150  Cf. the taunts of Craton against the Atticists (Sen. Contr. 10.5.21), which do not mention any declaimer by name. 151  Spawforth (2012) 39 and 59–86.

86  Greek Declaimers, Roman Context these Greek declaimers were developing a legitimate Graeco-Latin cultural project rather than weakening a Latin model that was no longer autonomous. Still, Seneca attached himself to a dwindling model by assigning rigid cultural identities to practitioners whom he identified either as Latin or Greek, or by presenting Greek ‘intermediaries’ as exceptions. This might explain why he would defend the idea that the Ciceronian acme outmatched the achievements of Greece and that this high point marked the beginning of a steady decline.152 Although he was close to the imperial court and keen on social advancement, Seneca was nevertheless attached to the Republican roots of eloquence and could not help but look dubiously upon evolutions that broke away abruptly from this heritage. Like Latro and his deliberate rejection of the Greeks,153 Seneca kept entertaining the idea of a specifically Latin form of eloquence—an idea which may already have struck his own con­tem­por­ar­ies as a mere fiction.

152 Sen. Contr. 1.praef.6–7. On this topos of decline, see van den Berg in this volume. 153 Sen. Contr. 10.4.21, and Pingoud and Rolle in this volume.

5

Nomination and Systematization in Seneca’s Controversiae Orazio Cappello

Introduction Since the beginning of the twentieth century, interest in the Elder Seneca’s Controversiae has been characterized by a return to the topic of memory. Memoria is one of the focal points, if not the focal point, of many of Seneca’s extant prefaces, performing a number of different functions in the elab­or­ation of his autobiography, in the creation of a diverse and extensive pantheon of practitioners, in the portrayal of father–son relations, and in his reflections on the declining moral health of the Empire.1 In light of this manifest polyvalence, of its dominant role in the biographic economy of the prefaces, as well as of its unifying and structuring role across the ten books, the number and variety of perspectives from which memoria has been analysed is hardly surprising. Bookending the 1900s, Henri Bornecque (1902) and Janet Fairweather (1981) discuss memory in relation to source material and compositional practice; Lewis Sussman (1971) maps out the trajectory, that is the aesthetic unity, of the Controversiae (and the Suasoriae) according to prefaces and their continual references to memory; with Erik Gunderson (2003) memory becomes an established theme of the work, investigated for its psychoanalytic, literary, and social implications; the social and political dimensions   I wish to thank the organizers, Martin Dinter, Charles Guérin, and Marcos Martinho, for this opportunity, John Henderson for trawling through an early version of the paper, and Charles Guérin for significantly improving a later one. Translations are my own, though heavily indebted to Michael Winterbottom’s Loeb edition. 1  Cf. Sen. Contr. 1.praef.2–5; 1.praef.8–11; 1.praef.17–18; 1.praef.20; 4.praef.6; 9.praef.1–2; 10.praef.1; 10.praef.6–7. Orazio Cappello, Nomination and Systematization in Seneca’s Controversiae In: Reading Roman Declamation: Seneca the Elder. Edited by: Martin T. Dinter, Charles Guérin, and Marcos Martinho, Oxford University Press (2020). © Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198746010.003.0005

88  Nomination and Systematization of memory are further explored by Martin Bloomer’s work (1997a), where attention to the strategic rationale of Seneca’s anthology makes recollecting a formidable instrument; Emanuele Berti (2007) argues that memory-asmemorialization is one of two objectives that gives shape and imparts a sense of direction to the compendium.2 Numerous articles and contributions from across the board—from the literary and philological to the socio-political, from the pedagogic to the philosophical—adopt memoria as a starting point for their reading and as the cornerstone of interpretation. This chapter takes a different approach to the question, by interrogating certain formal qualities of Seneca’s text in relation to the theme of memory. The present analysis studies the operations of Seneca’s memory as it sets out, through the conceit of spontaneous memorization, to order the landscape of Roman declamation for the benefit of his children. Despite the author’s insistence on the unpredictable and extemporaneous nature of his ability to  remember the protagonists of this Imperial practice, the text of his Controversiae develops according to a clearly organized regime.3 On a structural level, the work is indexed according to two coordinated principles each book is divided into a prose preface and a series of Controversiae, and the contribution of Seneca’s declaimers to each controversia is arranged into sententiae, divisiones, and colores.4 Below the surface, a multitude of other structuring patterns are discernible, ranging from the narrative ring, which determines the exhaustion of Seneca’s memory decried in the preface to the last book, to the direct link between declaimers mentioned in the preface and their presence in that book’s controversiae.5 2  See also Bonner (1969) and Citti (2005). 3 Sen. Contr. 1.praef.2–5 connects the self-confessed frailty and weakness of Seneca’s memory (Inter ea quae rettuli memoria est, res ex omnibus partibus maxime delicata et fragilis (‘Among these faculties I am calling to mind, memory is the most vulnerable and frail of all parts of the mind’), Sen. Contr. 1.praef.2) to the purported lack of order that will shape his work (Illud necesse est inpetrem, ne me quasi certum aliquem ordinem velitis sequi in contrahendis quae mihi occurrent; necesse est enim per omnia studia mea errem et passim quidquid obvenerit adprehen­ dam (‘I must ask you for this: do not to make me follow any specific order in the assembly of my memories; I must roam freely across all my studies and randomly pick whatever comes my way’), Sen. Contr. 1.praef.4). The haphazard configuration Seneca advertises is underpinned by the ruse that he is subject to the whims of his memory or the requests of his children (as is evident from the preface to Book 9), rather than the other way around. On the unreliability of memory, see Sussman (1971) 289–91; Gunderson (2003) 29–56; and Connolly (2009) 331. 4  On the basic plan of the Controversiae, see Fairweather (1981) 30–4. As Citti (2005) 186 observes, the celebration of Latro’s subtilitas at Sen. Contr. 1.praef.20–1 introduces the tripartite scheme employed throughout the work. Seneca often showcases both sides of the argument in each analytical field, designating a further distribution into ‘for’ and ‘against’. 5  See Bloomer (1997a) 125 and Sussman (1971) on the relationship between preface and book.

Orazio Cappello  89 Among this complex of structural and thematic geometries, Seneca’s use of proper names plays a fundamental part in the architecture of his work, connecting the superficial configuration of each controversia to the archival mechanisms of his memory and to the social, political, and cultural world he is evoking. The aim of this essay is to study the practice of nomination, paying close attention to the patterns that emerge from Seneca’s deployment of names and from his use of onomastic formulae. After establishing the relationship between names and memory in the first section, the discussion turns to the socio-political significance of this connection in terms of the normative world-picture Seneca’s declamatory anthology is bringing to life. The main body of the argument develops over sections 2 to 8, through a close analysis of nomination in the tenth book—a book whose preface, as Bloomer has already recognized, ‘bares Seneca’s criteria’ for selection and inclusion of declaimers.6 Building on Bloomer’s extensive engagement with declamation, the essay explores the ways in which names are exploited to homologize Seneca’s Empire, not only in terms of social class, geographic provenance, and proximity to the Imperial court, but also in terms of the asymmetries of GraecoRoman cultural transactions, and access to and exploitation of properly Roman mythical and historical resources. As the first part illustrates how the Elder Seneca deploys the names of his protagonists to structure his work and his world, the second part interrogates this systematizing regime, suggesting ways in which this declamatory archive operates both as a reflection on Seneca’s aristocratic milieu and as a strategy of social and cultural legitimation. The argument draws on two distinct approaches. First, it relies on studies of Roman nomenclature patterns and in particular on Arturo Echavarren’s analyses of Seneca’s oeuvre as a precious resource for understanding how  onomastic paradigms evolved from the Late Republic to the Early Principate.7 Scholarship generally agrees that Roman onomastic practice underwent radical transformations throughout the period in step with moments of social, political, and economic instability.8 Bridging a momentous period in Roman history, Seneca shows himself not only aware of these 6  Bloomer (1997a) 127. 7  Echavarren (2007a), (2007b), (2012), and (2013) passim. 8  For a wide angle on the period, see Salway (1994); other historical narratives are found in Gallivan (1992), who looks at the Early Empire in particular; see also Jones (1996) 38–9 and Dickey (2002) 46–72. For studies of specific cases, see Syme (1958) on Augustus; Wiseman (1970) on the Claudii Pulchri; and Adams (1978) on Cicero. Other important studies are Salomies (1987); Shackleton Bailey (1991); Solin (2002).

90  Nomination and Systematization transformations and their social implications,9 but he also participates in the development of the rise of binominal onomastic formulae priv­il­eging the cognomen, in particular the ‘cognomen followed by nomen’ system.10 Names matter a great deal in Seneca’s world, denoting or publicizing aristocratic privilege and Romanitas, and his handling of the flexible onomastic system offers a fertile area of study for social and cultural his­tor­ians of Rome. This chapter also studies the Controversiae as an archive of the declamatory practice, where names function as the anthology’s indices, shaping a system through their coordination and interrelation. This perspective draws on the foundational works in archival theory, namely Foucault’s The Archaeology of Knowledge (2002) and Derrida’s Archive Fever (1998), and more recent studies, also influenced by these doyens of postmodern thought, on the great compendiary authors of the Roman Empire, from Pliny to Isidore.11 Archives, or compilations of knowledge, emerge as loaded forms of intellectual and textual production, arrangements the systematicity of which underpins social, political, and cultural discursivity. The archive represents a creative and determinative tool, performing a particular au­thor­ial and/or political agenda. Conceptualizing Seneca’s compendium in terms of this archival model, the essay aims to present his Controversiae as governed by a similar ‘ “compilatory” aesthetic’ as that which has been investigated by scholars in this field and to demonstrate the value of such an analysis to shed light on the educative and normative agenda at the heart of the Elder Seneca’s project.12

1  Seneca the Elder’s interest in names is programmatically expressed in the preface to the first book of the Controversiae. At Sen. Contr. 1.praef.10–11 he turns to his children after lamenting the disastrous state of oratory and 9  The vignette at Sen. Contr. 2.4.13 shows Augustus’ general Marcus Agrippa being repeatedly taunted for his adoption of the formula praenomen + cognomen, reflecting a practice adopted by patricians at the end of the Republic, and for dropping his less than illustrious gen­ tilicium, Vipsanius. See Echavarren (2012) 1069. 10  Echavarren (2013). 11  All the contributions to König and Whitmarsh (2007) are relevant; see the introduction for the intellectual genealogy of their project. Gunderson (2009) and Henderson (2011) test the cosmic and bibliographic boundaries of the ancient archive. 12  König and Whitmarsh (2007) 3.

Orazio Cappello  91 morality in their generation and defines the objectives of his project. We can distinguish at least three aspects of the programme: first, the work is composed in response to his sons’ request;13 second, it bridges the gap between the private sphere, constituted by Seneca’s immediate dedicatees and the personal nature of his recollections, and the public, whom he claims as secondary dedicatees of the work;14 finally, there is the turn to the declaimers themselves, the authors of the facunde dicta (‘elegant sayings’), for the preservation of whose memory the work is also said to have been written. It is in relation to this final objective that the practice of nomination acquires greater importance. Correct attribution is of the essence to Seneca’s project as he labours to preserve not only the words of the declaimers, but also their names. In the first controversia, he further details the rationale of his work by anticipating how the declaimers’ names enable the author to render a double service to the world of declamation: Ipsis quoque multum praestaturus videor, quibus oblivio inminet nisi aliquid quo memoria eorum producatur posteris tradetur. Fere enim aut nulli commentarii maximorum declamatorum extant aut, quod peius est, falsi. Itaque ne aut ignoti sint aut aliter quam debent noti, summa cum fide suum cuique reddam. (I think I will be of great help to the declaimers themselves, who risk obscurity unless something to prolong their memory is handed on to posterity; for there are almost no extant drafts penned by the greatest declaimers, or, what is worse, there are forged ones. So, to prevent them being unknown, or known in the wrong light, I shall be scrupulous in giving each his due.)  (Sen. Contr. 1.praef.11)

Seneca’s anthology poses as a substitute for the outright absence of commen­ tarii: the Controversiae promise to bring tradition to life by evoking both the substance of declamation, filling in for the absence of the original drafts of speeches, as well as by recollecting the character and merit of its greatest 13  Eo libentius quod exigitis faciam (‘All the more gladly shall I comply with your request’), Sen. Contr. 1.praef.10. 14 Sen. Contr. 1.praef.10: Quaecumque a celeberrimis viris facunde dicta teneo, ne ad quem­ quam privatim pertineant, populo dedicabo (‘All the eloquent sayings of famous men that I can remember, I will make a gift of these to the public so that they don’t remain merely someone’s private possessions’). Cf. Derrida (1998) 2–3: ‘the dwelling, this place where [the archives] dwell permanently, marks this institutional passage from the private to the public, which does not always mean from the secret to the nonsecret’.

92  Nomination and Systematization performers. Moreover, the work of restoration extends to authorization. The author is equally concerned with loss of material as he is with forgery, attentive as he is to the existence of false or wrongly attributed commentarii. His project is consequently presented as an effort to put the material in order and so authorize correct attribution. In commenting on the formal onomastic pattern adopted to distribute sententiae in the first part of each contro­ versia, Echavarren suggestively compares Seneca’s task to ‘copyrighting’ and, indeed, section 11 of the preface to Book 1 sets the ground for this undertaking.15 This struggle against both oblivion and forgery is crucially a unified effort which equates the preservation of the tradition with setting it in order.16 Two passages framing this statement of intent clearly connect it with nomination. In the line immediately following the promise ‘to give each his due’ (suum cuique reddere), Seneca embarks on his historiographical essay into the origins of declamation. That line identifies Cicero as the starting point of the process of populating the declamatory practice with names, and also highlights the connection between nomen as fame and Seneca’s living memory. The cornerstone of his anthology is the recollection of Cicero’s name: Seneca admits never having heard the great Late Republican orator speak live, yet mention of Cicero introduces the use of nomina to denote reputation, as Seneca reassures his readers that he watched all the other celebrities of established oratorical fame (magni in eloquentia nominis) perform.17 At Sen. Contr. 1.praef.2–3, Seneca had already anticipated this connection. In the autobiographical sketch, his miraculous capacity for recollection is clearly defined according to two parallel abilities, coordinated by the double conjunction et . . . et: to memorize and recite names, as well as to  repeat lines of poetry delivered by an audience of his school friends.18 There are two significant elements in this confession that prefigure the 15 Echavarren (2007a) 317–18. The critic comments on this link earlier in his analysis, describing the act of naming as constituting ‘a priority in the author’s writing process’ (312, my translation). Echavarren (2013) 355 discusses the importance of nomination in the first section in terms of ‘restoring “literary property” ’. 16  For examples of misattribution, see Sen. Contr. 9.2.23 and 10.praef.12. 17  Omnes autem magni in eloquentia nominis excepto Cicerone videor audisse (‘With the exception of Cicero, I believe I have heard everyone who was anyone in oratory at the time’), Sen. Contr. 1.praef.11. 18  Nam et duo milia nominum recitata quo erant ordine dicta reddebam, et ab his qui ad audiendum praeceptorem meum convenerant singulos versus a singulis datos, cum plures quam ducenti efficerentur, ab ultimo incipiens usque ad primum recitabam (‘When two thousand names had been reeled off, I would repeat them back in the same order; and when my

Orazio Cappello  93 development of Seneca’s work. The first is the focus on the operation of memory: Seneca portrays this faculty empirically, as an effective mech­an­ ism deployed in particular contexts and crucially centred on nomina and artistic materia. Over these two paragraphs, he is clearly foreshadowing the format of the ten books of Controversiae, where extracts from the declaimers are consistently introduced by their name. In this sense, he is anticipating the structure of his work just as his comments on Latro’s rhetoric in the second half of the preface introduce the tripartite scheme of sententiae, divisio, and color.19 Secondly, arrangement is a key constituent of this op­er­ation. In recitations of both names and verses, Seneca underlines the  im­port­ance of orderliness to his performance, as evidenced by the ­expression quo erant ordine dicta reddebam (‘I would recite them in order’) followed by ab ultimo incipiens usque ad primum (‘I would recite them in reverse’). Furthermore, the verb reddere suggestively looks forward to section 11. As a redistributive economy, memory is deeply implicated not simply in the act of repetition, but also—and significantly—repetition in itself is seen as orchestrating the structured and closely ordered regime of the work. Seneca alerts the reader to the connection between memory and structure, drawing attention to the way in which names are distributed in relation to the cor­ res­pond­ence between the formal aspects of the text and the workings of his memory. Moreover, as the passage ends with Seneca performing from memory, this cognitive tool is characterized by a dual process: on the one hand, it is defined by comprehension and containment, with Seneca scholas­ ticus listening to and memorizing names and verses in a particular order; on the other hand, as the emphatic positioning of recitabam indicates, mnemonic ability is about performance. Defining memory in terms of cognition and action, Seneca’s Controversiae elevate the principles of selection and arrangement to be synonymous with the logic underpinning his compilatory architecture.20

assembled classmates each supplied a line of poetry, up to the number of more than two hundred, I would recite them in reverse, from the first to the last’), Sen. Contr. 1.praef.2. 19  Latro’s biography is at Sen. Contr. 1.praef.13–24. See Citti (2005) 186. 20  On the ‘fiction of remembering’ in Seneca, see Lockyer (1970), who lucidly argues for the  author’s recourse to published orations, collections, and commentarii to compose the Controversiae; see also Guérin (2015) on textual references. The present argument tracks the figure of memoria and its mechanisms as these take shape in Seneca’s prefaces.

94  Nomination and Systematization Before the connection between memoria and nomination slips into the automatism of each controversia’s catalogue, Seneca offers another interesting indication of how his mind works in the preface to the ninth book.21 The correspondences, both thematic and verbal, with the preface to the first book are numerous. In this particular case, however, the author invites his children to prompt his failing memory by putting forward names, a stimulus which allows his memory to collect itself, in order to respond to his children’s request and complete the assignment. Participation of his dedicatees underscores that middle-voice quality of Senecan memory, which, although governing two verbs, marcet and colliget, is activated by the mentio of Votienus Montanus, and is passively called back (evocetur) to its pursuit by nomina.22 Crucially, nomination signals once again the indexical structure of the work. Indeed, it is the name Montanus which coordinates the interest of the ninth book as a whole, extending the classification to the item labelled ‘Votienus Montanus’, which in turn integrates and develops the catalogue of protagonists.23

2  Through this act of selection and labelling, what kind of ‘archive’ is ul­tim­ ate­ly produced? What does it put on display, and what is the significance and effect of this integrated ‘system’? Studying the question of Seneca’s cast of characters, Bloomer argues that one of the author’s greatest accomplishments is not only to repackage declamation as a quintessentially Roman

21 Sen. Contr. 9.praef.1: Iam videbar promissum meum implesse; circumspiciebam tamen num quid me praeterisset. Ultro Votieni Montani mentionem intulistis; et velim vos subinde ali­ qua nomina mihi offerre, quibus evocetur memoria mea, quae quomodo senilis per se marcet, admonita et aliquando lacessita facile se colliget (‘Just now I thought I had fulfilled my promise—but then I began looking around to see if I had missed anything. Out of the blue, you brought up Votienus Montanus: and I should like you to keep throwing names my way in order to jog my memory. I am an old man, my memory fails without prompts; but if it is given its cue and prodded from time to time, it easily pulls itself together’). 22  An interesting echo is triggered by the verb colligere, which we find at Sen. Contr. 1.praef.1 when the work itself is described as the activity of colligere ab illis dicta (‘to collect their sayings’). In relation to Lockyer (1970) and, in particular, Guérin (2015) cited in n. 20 above, col­ ligere is a textual activity and marks the diaphanous boundary between remembering and excerpting. As Guérin (2015) 58 observes, ‘Sénèque désigne son activité d’écriture par le syntagme dicta colligere, le verbe colligere étant le seul, dans l’ouvrage tout entier, à désigner l’opération matérielle de la compilation des extraits.’ 23  On the relationship between characters named in the preface to the book which follows, see Sussman (1971); Bloomer (1997a); and, Citti (2005).

Orazio Cappello  95 practice, severing it from its Greek origins and promoting it as heir to Cicero and Late Republican oratory, but also to assimilate Spanish elements, among whom Latro stands out, into the pantheon of this institution.24 Mirroring the pedagogic finality of schoolroom declamation to train the pupil to become a socialized Roman, Seneca’s understanding of the history of the practice as it is set forth in the Controversiae constitutes a strategy for the integration of provincial nobility into the heart of the Roman elite. Declamation, a practice of dubious origin, performed by what Bloomer calls a ‘suspect lot’ of provincials, represents a coordinated attempt to make the new provincial elite into ‘new old Romans’ and to write Seneca and his crew into the ‘authoritative genealogy’ of Roman oratory.25 The catalogue of performers around which he develops the Controversiae therefore underpins his strategy of institutionalization of declamation as literary practice, as well as of legitimation of his Spanish amici as guarantors of this expression of Romanitas. The new social and political order is at once represented and fashioned as Seneca the Elder enumerates the individual qualities and social connections characteristic of his network of declaimers. This position can be nuanced and developed through a closer analysis of how the archive is onomatologically constructed. From an overview of the statistics drawn from Echavarren’s monograph, it is immediately clear how the incorporation and distribution of declaimers’ names is one of the main vehicles of such homogenization. Out of 164 individuals listed across the ten books, 116 are declaimers.26 Out of the total of these practitioners, Echavarren indicates that Seneca enlists forty-one Greeks and twenty-four Spaniards. These two geographic groupings constitute well over half the total, with the next two groups, Italians and Gauls left rather far behind. The Gauls, for example, are represented by no more than five or six

24  Bloomer (1997b) 199. Cicero provides the virtual background to Seneca’s project at Contr. 1.praef.11–13, as his readers are told that the Civil War prevented the author from hearing the Republican orator declaim, though his participation in this practice marks the beginning of the use of the Roman terms declamatio and causae against the Greek thesis. Cicero is at one and the same time severed from Senecan declamation—cf. Bloomer (1997a) 119 and (1997b) 211— and its patriarch—cf. Bloomer (1997b) 201. 25  Bloomer (1997b) 200, (1997a) 153, and (1997b) 202 respectively. 26  Echavarren counts 297 names in total Seneca’s oeuvre. The 2007 book in which he studies the nomenclature of Seneca’s 164 named contemporaries—orators, declaimers, or individuals somehow linked to that world—is complemented by a 2007 article focusing on Seneca’s ‘personajes griegos’ and a 2012 article in which he looks at the seventy-three Roman historical characters identified in the exempla.

96  Nomination and Systematization declaimers.27 Echavarren’s calculations, particularly with regard to the Greek population of his Controversiae, are not uncontroversial; his numbers are based on the prosopography that makes up section II of his monograph, in which he infers ethnic provenance—the raíces—of these figures from a variety of factors, not least analysis of the anthroponyms themselves. As Charles Guérin’s contribution to this volume shows, establishing who is or counts as a ‘Greek’ in Seneca’s work is a complex question that seems to depend on several factors, including ethnic identity, geographic provenance, language, cultural affectation, and declamatory style.28 The difficulty in dispensing such labels arises, in large part, because Seneca says precious little about geographic origin, just as he is quiet about social class or professional involvement in declamation. The critic must, by and large, infer from names the origin of the declaimer. Despite the geographic and social connotations of the onomastic forms employed, the slim—and frequent absence of—background information promotes amalgamation among the protagonists. A name is identified entirely with its contribution to the controversia, assuming the function of little more than a label in the strictest sense of the term. If we follow Echavarren’s argument, apart from those declaimers bearing Greek names who declaim in Greek and so readily identified as Greek and relegated to the final section of each controversia, it is remarkably difficult to locate a declaimer—in terms of both geographic and social origin—simply by his name. As mentioned above, even the apparently straightforward case of Greek provenance or ethnic origin is complicated by a variety of factors. Arellius Fuscus, Marcus Argentarius, and Cestius Pius are three declaimers who bear Latin names and perform in Latin, though they are labelled by Seneca as ‘Greek’ (Graecus esset, Sen. Contr. 9.3.13; hominem Graecum, 7.1.27) or as belonging to the Hellenic world (in the case of Arellius Fuscus, cum esset ex Asianis, Sen. Contr. 9.6.16).29 This trio, none of whom may have been ethnically Greek, appear in the earlier sections of the Controversiae, 27 For the figures and commentary on Greek and Spanish declaimers, see Echavarren (2007a) 351–8 and Echavarren (2007b); on Italians and Gauls, see Echavarren (2007a) 359–69. 28  Guérin counts thirty-three ‘Greeks’, i.e. thirty-three figures who declaim in Greek. 29  Whatever that label ‘Greek’ might mean is subject to debate: Guérin in this volume and Huelsenbeck (2018) provide a sensitive reading of these geographic tags, arguing that they deliver stylistic judgments. Indeed, Cestius and Fuscus may have been scions of Latin families who grew up in Asia and adopted Greek culture—so Huelsenbeck (2018) 159–65 on Fuscus and the expression ex Asianis: ‘the phrase tells us nothing about his place of origin’.

Orazio Cappello  97 just like their Italian and Gallic colleagues.30 And in the case of Moschus, whom Echavarren identifies as the only ‘protagonist’ with a Greek name, the name may in fact not be Greek after all: at Contr. 10.praef.10, Pacatus calls him using the Latin vocative Mosche, indicating perhaps an Italic etymon for his name.31 Onomastic configurations provide a less than certain indication of origin, to the extent that Echavarren admits his reliance on deductive work on the form of the name itself or on the character’s relation to others.32 In places where origin is explicitly noted or clearly implied, the mention necessarily commands the reader’s attention. Latro, for example, is a key figure in the Spanish cultural conquista. His provenance introduces the lengthy biographical sketch dedicated to him in the first preface of the collection, where Seneca recalls the familiaris amicitia that linked the two since childhood.33 He overshadows all other declaimers due to the importance attributed to him in the preface, but also in his employment throughout the Controversiae: his divisiones are cited in the first position most consistently across the ten books, thus acquiring a paradigmatic significance;34 he is also quoted directly thirty-six times in the first part of each controversia; and he is by far the most cited declaimer with a total of 145 references.35 It is initially Latro’s relation to Seneca that indicates his provincial origin, and it is his privileged position in the anthology that sets the standard for Spanish integration. This integration does not, however, amount to hegemony, and the whole model positing a marginalization of the Greeks and a centralization of the Spanish is misleading.36 In the first instance, the number of direct citations in the first half of each controversia, where personal names in the 30  Echavarren (2007a) 341–7 tells us that the onomastic morphology of this group alone could not reveal their provenance. 31  Moschus, who performs in Latin, is quoted ten times throughout the work, and five of those citations see him headline a section of sententiae: Echavarren (2007a) 353. 32  Echavarren (2007a) 351. 33 Sen. Contr. 1.praef.13. Echavarren (2007a) 355 also conjectures that Marullus’ school, which Seneca and Latro attended as condiscipuli (1.praef.22), was in Corduba. On this Spanish town and its relation to Seneca, see also Griffin (1972) 4–8. 34 Sen. Contr. 1.1.13; 1.2.13; 1.3.8; 1.4.6; 1.5.4; 1.6.8; 1.7.11; 2.2.5; 2.3.11; 2.4.7; 2.6.5; 7.1.16; 7.2.8; 7.4.3; 7.6.13; 7.7.10; 7.8.7; 9.1.9; 9.3.8; 9.4.9; 10.1.9; 10.3.7; 10.4.11. On Latro’s approach to divisio and Pollio’s critique, see Berti (2007) 135–7. 35 The figures in this and the following paragraph are drawn from Echavarren (2007a) 315–16. 36  Bloomer (1997a) 124 claims that the ‘Greeks are marginalised’.

98  Nomination and Systematization genitive—what we might call with Echavarren the genitive paratext37— index the contribution of declaimers with their sententiae, the Latinspeaking ‘Greeks’ Arellius Fuscus and Cestius Pius are pre-eminent. The former appears forty-six times and the latter forty-one. If we ask who speaks most often in the extant Controversiae, the answer is not Seneca’s Spanish amici, his ­chosen foursome (tetradeum) listed at Sen. Contr. 10.praef.13 or Latro; it is in fact these two figures whom Seneca marks as Greek.38 A pattern, furthermore, seems to emerge from the use of Latro and Cestius in the sententiae section: Cestius appears often—sixteen times—in the first two positions, and in nine of those he comes after Latro. In relation to Fuscus and Cestius, their dominant position is undoubtedly linked to the fact that they perform in Latin, as I discuss in section 4 below. Nonetheless, the paradigms of Roman declamation are constructed through both a Spanish and a Greek voice.39 With all due caution for statistical methodology applied to such a fragmentary corpus, these figures draw attention to an incongruity between personal preference and the actual deployment of declamatory models that is significant in its own right. Homogenization operates precisely because the pantheon of declaimers is somewhat autonomous of Senecan preferences, and accordingly each entry in the catalogue—each name—develops a significance in terms of its place and status in the network.

3  The present critique can be further refined through a close reading of the tenth book, a part of the work that notoriously plays with notions of hier­ archy and selectivity. After a brief address to his sons, to whom Seneca announces his exhaustion and desire to bring the work to an end, the preface elaborates an idiosyncratic list of individuals and details different 37  The ‘identificadores en genitivo’, which visually organize the epigrammatic first third of each extant controversia, are discussed in Echavarren (2007a) 312–19. See Mal-Maeder (2007) 18–24 on the paratextual mechanics of declamation in general. 38 The tetradeum includes Latro, Fuscus, Albucius, and Gallio. 39  In the following Cestius succeeds Latro who is cited first in the controversia: Sen. Contr. 1.3, 1.6, 1.7, 1.8, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, and 2.6 (at 7.8 Latro occupies second position and Cestius third); at 7.3, 7.4, 9.4, and 9.6 we find Cestius introducing the case; at 7.6, 7.7, and 9.5 Cestius comes in second, though not following Latro. On the relationship between Greek and Roman declamation in Seneca, see Berti (2007) 251–62 and Guérin in this volume. For the relationship between Seneca and Cestius, see 3.praef.15–18 with Berti (2007) 140–1; also, Echavarren (2013) 359.

Orazio Cappello  99 reasons for their citation.40 The praeteritio of three mediocre declaimers is followed by an extensive list of individuals, including the aristocratic and unequivocally Roman Scaurus, the unpopular historian Labienus, and the (pre­sum­ably) Greek names of Moschus and Musa.41 Finally, he juxtaposes the tetradeum, his list of top four outstanding declaimers, with mention of Clodius Turrinus, whom he positively compares with Latro, his son, and Gavius Silo. These final three practitioners are included, so the reader is told, because of their place of origin: Spain.42 In sum, the preface to Book 10 exhibits three principles of selection: filial request, geographic provenance, and oratorical ability. Emerging from this composite group is an explicit reflection on selectivity as a whole, which concludes the preface by contrasting Seneca’s iudicium with favor in the matter of setting down names: Horum nomina non me a nimio favore sed a certo posuisse iudicio scietis cum sententias eorum rettulero aut pares notissimorum auctorum sententiis aut preferendas. (You will see for yourself that I have canonized the names of these declaimers not due to an excess of personal enthusiasm for their work but on the basis of pondered judgment, once I have set out their sententiae, which are equal if not perhaps superior to those of the most renowned authors.) (Sen. Contr. 10.praef.16)

The expression nomina posuisse, emphatically placed at the start of the clause and interspersed in the syntactical coordination of judgment and favour, relates the position of names to the question of selectivity. It also prepares the reader for a critical encounter with the anthology to follow in the main body of the book, as the concept of quality is openly tested against the demands of social and emotive bonds. The introduction to the tenth book thematizes the connection between the chaotic operations of Senecan memoria, with its numerous and often inconsistent mechanisms, and his critical supervision in matters of rhetorical judgment. In this last book, in fact, the author coordinates a double approach to his archive, alerting his 40 Sen. Contr. 10.praef.1. 41 Musa is also numbered among this small population of Greek-sounding Latin per­formers. 42 Sen. Contr. 10.praef.2 on the overlooked Lucius Magus, L.  Asprenas, and the old Quintilian; 10.praef.2–12 accommodates the second group; and the preface concludes with the tetradeum at 10.praef.12–16.

100  Nomination and Systematization readers to the question of selectivity and, thereby, dictating an openly self-conscious perspective on the anthology as a whole.43 The use of declaimers fulfils the promise of integration made in the preface by eschewing any pattern of ordination and prioritization in the dis­ position of their names. The figures introduced in the preface as a fully ­heterogeneous group, characterized just as much by their individual qual­ ities as by the differences between each other, are homologized in the content of the Controversiae themselves, appearing side by side throughout in an order that does not reflect the preferences voiced by Seneca in the preface. In the sententiae, Clodius Turrinus intervenes more often than Latro, Albucius, and Gallio, and matches the citations from Fuscus.44 Membership of the tetradeum does not, in other words, guarantee a dominant position in the hit parade of sententiae. Furthermore, although Latro provides substantial contributions to the first, third, and fourth controversiae, the sententiae of Turrinus in the second controversia receive extensive treatment, just as Fulvius Sparsus’ do in the fourth.45 Bassus, Gavius Silo, Sparsus, Musa, and Moschus all appear regularly; certainly more regularly than Scaurus, Labienus, or Capito, three characters who are of great interest to Seneca in the preface, and the last of whom is linked to the tetradeum.46 The order and frequency with which these characters appear do not allow for an individual or a distinctive group to stand out. Nonetheless, the impression of a homologous community of artistic production and exchange arises clearly from the sections elaborating divisio and color. This observation is applicable to all the controversiae, but is particularly relevant to the tenth. The paratext introducing names, preponderantly in the binominal formal address of nomen and cognomen, is dropped in favour of the more informal uninominal address, with usually either the nomen or cognomen being employed, especially in the final section on color,

43  On the tenth preface’s linguistic and thematic echoes of the first, see Sussman (1971) 291 and Citti (2005) 201–10. 44  Turrinus appears in all six controversiae, as does Fuscus. Latro is, however, missing from the second; Albucius from the second and sixth; and, Gallio from the third, fifth, and sixth. 45 Clodius Turrinus is summarized at Sen. Contr. 10.2.5–6 and Fulvius Sparsus at 10.4.8–10. 46  On Scaurus nihil erat illo venustius, nihil paratius, see Sen. Contr. 10.praef.2–3; on the private and admirable Labienus, 10.praef.4–8; on Capito the bona fide scholasticus, 10.praef.12.

Orazio Cappello  101 where Seneca relishes depicting individuals engaging with each other.47 The picture gains in dynamism, as the declaimers are not merely juxtaposed but are commenting on each other’s work. The color of the first controversia, for example, stages the aristocratic Gallio critiquing the lowly Moschus’ unlikely spin (Sen. Contr. 10.1.12), while Albucius, on listening to Bassus’ vulgar version of a plea, attacks this declaimer alongside some epigrams of Latro’s sententiae, before putting forward his own line of attack (10.13–14).48 The interaction can also be collaborative, especially when Seneca expands and works out divisiones by using a single declaimer to sketch an outline, which is then expounded and developed through the contribution of other declaimers. Again, this is a characteristic of many of the divisiones throughout the ten books, but it is particularly visible in the last where the cumulative effect is regularly produced by the verb addere. So, for example, Scaurus provides an addendum to Latro’s divisio at Sen. Contr. 10.1.9, just as Clodius Turrinus and Gallio integrate sententiae within an already outlined case at 10.2.10. The tenth book reveals Seneca’s rich historical tapestry in all its composite uniformity.49 Whatever the prefatorial considerations, wherever memory leads his critical instincts, the content of the Controversiae brings together his cast of characters only in terms of their contribution to the particular question. It is the catalogue itself which legitimates its members.

4  The role of declaimers labelled by Seneca as Greek is to be differentiated from the role of declamation in Greek. And Book 10 provides, once again, the ideal test case for the exploration of this distinction. Those speakers who reportedly declaim in Greek are only ever referred to in uninominal fashion: 66 per cent of Greeks are defined by a single name, against the remaining 34 47  Echavarren (2007a) 303–4 and 327–30, and (2013) 355–7 are exhaustive on this onomastic transformation, which the critic makes sense of in terms of diacritic functionality and informal context: once the declaimer has formally introduced his characters with a binominal appellation, it is no longer necessary to repeat the full formula later in the text, nor, Echavarren argues, is it desirable to do so when the writing becomes anecdotal. Note that Ciceronian epistolography exhibits the same transition from binominal to uninominal nomination, cf. Jones (1996) 96. On the informal modus appellandi in Cicero, see also Adams (1978) 148 and Dickey (2002) 53–63. 48  Cf. Sen. Contr. 10.4.15–18, where Montanus attacks Sparsus and Labienus’s scandalous color. 49  For the metaphor, see Echavarren (2012) 1055.

102  Nomination and Systematization per cent, who receive either a nickname, an ethnonym, or have a Latin name.50 This largely coordinates with their exclusion from the genitive paratext, which employs binominal forms of address. As noted in section 2 of this chapter, however, these Graeci or Asiani with Latin names alone qualify to participate equally throughout the three sections, and only those who declaim in Latin. Arellius Fuscus, Cestius Pius, and his disciple Argentarius are the main exponents of this pattern. This group dominates the epigrammatic third of Seneca’s Controversiae with eighty-seven citations in total, making the voice of what we might call Greek declamation resound throughout Seneca’s text. Argentarius is an interesting exception to two onomastic patterns: he is the only one of this elite declamatory group to be known by nomen alone; he is also one of three individuals who appears in the genitive paratext in that particular uninominal formula, the other two being Labienus and Passienus.51 Both these statistical irregularities, when examined in relation to the distribution of the genitive paratexts in Book 10, further nuance the picture of the roles of Graeci in declamation. Across the ten books, utilizing a nomen alone as index to the sententia is a rare occurrence, totalling twenty-seven occurrences in 495 names in the genitive. However, use of this unusual formula does not denote social status or geographic origin. The distribution of Passienus, who is un-locatable though a dear friend of Seneca, Labienus the senator, and the Greek Argentarius throughout the sententiae of the tenth book is a reminder of this integration.52 Furthermore, the concurrent incidences of those three Greek masters of declamation in the tenth book indicate the flexibility with which Greeks adopted Latin nomenclature, and how that nomenclature in itself does not imply social status. The use of the nomen alone could, for example, suggest that Argentarius was hiding his servile origin—a lowly ancestry that otherwise a cognomen might have revealed.53 However, the nomen plus cognomen 50  Echavarren (2007a) 340. 51  Arellius Fuscus and Cestius Pius are designated by the more widespread nomen and cog­ nomen formula. There are other Greeks who are known by cognomina, among which clan we find Barbarus, Grandaeus, Musa, and Aemilianus. 52  Passienus noster at Sen. Contr. 3.praef.10; Labienus is one of the protagonists of the preface, Contr. 10.praef.4–8; on Argentarius as Cestius’ Greek grand singe, see Contr. 9.3.12. 53  Though late in being adopted by the aristocracy at Rome, cognomina appear more commonly towards the end of the Republic and early Principate, going so far as to replace the praenomen in composite forms of address. Having acquired this diacritic function, an in­herit­ed cognomen could thus highlight the acquisition of a name on the part of a slave more clearly. Cf. Gallivan (1992) 53–4.

Orazio Cappello  103 formula adopted by Arellius Fuscus and Cestius Pius is not enough to determine their social origin. Echavarren believes the latter to be a freedman, though he is now identified as the son of a negotiator; the same cannot be said of the former. Used most frequently by Seneca in the paratext and only second to the isolated cognomen in the overall preferred forms of nomenclature, the nomen–cognomen appellation is in fact so widespread in the first century ad that scholars see in it a clear indication of the period’s social mobility.54 Ultimately, concentration of such a wide sampling of Imperial society in the tenth book, with a flexible use of onomastic patterns, alerts the reader to the radical integration of the declamatory world.55

5  The tendency to assimilate Greek and Roman elements is visible even in the micro-relations described in the final part of each controversia, where dec­ lam­ation reclaims its bilingual identity. Although it conforms to the pattern of relegating citations in Greek to the final part, seemingly marginalizing them (as happens in the first controversia),56 the second controversia is the point from which this pattern is radically deconstructed. In that case, in fact, suggestively about a heroic son overcoming his equally heroic father, Nicetes’ Greek contribution is rephrased by the Italian senator Scaurus, and the piece is closed by another man of senatorial rank, Labienus.57 The fourth controversia, apparently ‘popular among the Greeks’, is even more emblematic of this integration.58 In the final third, Seneca pairs each

54  On the frequency in Seneca, see Echavarren (2007a) 307–8 and the table at Echavarren (2012) 1057. Jones (1996) 39 asserts that this modus appellandi is a ‘new practice’ employed ‘by people of ambiguous or not unequivocally aristocratic status’. 55  Across both his monograph and the two articles he has published on this phenomenon, Echavarren suggests that this process of onomastic transformation is visible in Seneca. The figures he comments on do not produce a stable and constant pattern, and this repeatedly leads him to claim that no social or geographic origin can be deduced from names alone. The present thesis argues that the Senecan text is not only a symptom of this revolution, but deliberately engages with and capitalizes on the ongoing development. 56  For a discussion of this pattern, see Guérin in this volume. 57 The thema outlines a paradoxical situation in which a heroic son will not yield to his heroic father and takes him to court over this request. The son then celebrates his courtroom victory over his father by setting up statues in his honour. The interaction is at Sen. Contr. 10.2.18–19. On the special status of Nicetes as a Greek in Seneca’s text, see Guérin in this volume. 58  Celebris haec apud Graecos controversia est, Sen. Contr. 10.4.18.

104  Nomination and Systematization Greek sententia with its Latin translators and interpreters, thereby illustrating the privileged position of Greek declamation over and above its Latin counterpart.59 The section makes the case for the influence of Greek dec­ lam­ation, and of Glycon in particular, on Latin oratory as well as poetry, specifically in relation to Ovid’s Metamorphoses.60 In this controversia, as in the next, the Graeci are not relegated to the end along with outlandish speakers, as Echavarren claims is the case in general.61 Here, a catalogue of esteemed Romans and Spaniards brings the case to an end, just as will happen in the fifth, with, among others, Cassius Severus, Julius Bassus, Labienus, and Asprenas closing the fourth, and Licinius Nepos, Latro, and Haterius thrown in with Spyridion and Murredius in the fifth.62 There is a reverence shown by the collector towards the originality and refinement of the Greek side of the practice, which is structurally articulated through the deployment of names in stemmatic fashion, with a Greek single name generating the inclusion of two or three Latin ones. However, while the fourth controversia outlines a downward trajectory for the reader from Greek to Latin, and a sense of hierarchy begins to develop, the fifth promptly undoes the threat of these new geometries within the declamatory community. In discussing Parrhasius’ violence towards the Olynthian slave, Seneca simultaneously constructs the geographical category of ‘Greek’ and undermines it.63 In line with elements of the fourth contro­ versia studied above, Cassius Severus intervenes to condemn certain appropriations from the Greek as theft, reflecting on Triarius’ translation of Glycon and complaining about the Latin abuse of Hellenic models. Yet Seneca redresses this immediately by showing that Greeks themselves participate in the same economy of imitation as the Latin-speaking world. The identical verb, surripere, is employed to underline the parallel activity of Triarius and Euctemon, Adaeus, Damas, and Craton, who steal from and remodel Glycon.64 The stemmatological arrangement is rethought, or rather reapplied to the community as a whole in terms of individuals rather than geographical groups.

59 Sen. Contr. 10.4.15–25, in particular sections 19–25. 60  Publius Vinicius, summus amator Ovidi, pointed out that the ‘sense’ (sensum) of Glycon’s sententia is translated by Ovid at Met.12.607–8. Cf. Sen. Contr. 10.4.25. 61  Echavarren (2007a) 353. 62 Sen. Contr. 10.5.19–28. 63 Sen. Contr. 10.5.19–21. Cf. Morales (1996). 64  Triarius hoc ex aliqua parte, cum subriperet, inflexit, Sen. Contr. 10.5.20; sed et Graeci il­ lam subripuerunt, 10.5.21.

Orazio Cappello  105

6  There are two further archival strategies in Book 10 that reinforce the homologizing programme: the first concerns the diaphanous boundary between the (provincial) declamatory and the political worlds, while the second relates to the cultural and historical register employed by declaimers. Observing the community of declaimers at work in the fifth controversia, the vignette about Craton and Timagenes at Sen. Contr. 10.5.21–2 stands out not only for its vividness, but also for the way it portrays the assimilation of Greek declaimers, performing in Greek, into the Imperial court. Both these figures do not only play to Caesar and frequent his court, but they freely interact with him to the point of confrontation. Craton, who only answers in Greek to Imperial questions posed in Latin, refuses Imperial commendation, while Timagenes, whose career from slave to court intellectual is narrated as a story of struggle and success, enacts a reversal of Scaurus’, Labienus’, and Cassius Severus’ punishment by burning his own Imperial histories as revenge for exclusion from the court.65 A one-time Greekspeaking cook enjoys a literary fate similar to that of senators and Italians. In addition, the only other person in this book whose ascent to status and wealth is shown to culminate in a restoration of dignitas to a noble house that once played host to a Caesar—a reinstatement that is entirely ­dependent on declamatory success—is Clodius Turrinus (Sen. Contr. 10.praef.14–16). His eloquentia sustains a return to pecunia and dignitas for this Spanish family after the civil wars had damaged their fortunes. The triangulation involving a provincial declaimer of equestrian class, a Greek freedman, and the Caesars speaks volumes for the ways in which Seneca’s cast of characters redefines the boundaries of not only geography, but social status as well. Furthermore, the relation between the political pantheon, as it were, characterized by relations to the Imperial house, and the declamatory one, designated by Turrinus’ relation to Latro, run a parallel course in the Senecan narrative. This treatment is, in turn, brought to bear on future generations, on Clodius Turrinus filius, a brother to Seneca’s own sons and a son to Seneca himself. Declamatory performance represents a vehicle for social

65  Scaurus’ works are burned senatus consulto at Sen. Contr. 10.praef.3; Labienus is the first to suffer such punishment at the hands of the Emperor, 10.praef.5–6; Cassius Severus could be the referent of eius at 10.praef.7, as Winterbottom suggests, though it is unclear.

106  Nomination and Systematization advancement, mapping the route that takes Spanish provincials to the heart of Rome. The mechanisms of nomination function with interesting effects when operated by the declaimers themselves. Looking at the use of historical exempla from Roman history and myth in Book 10, it is immediately clear that Seneca does not limit assimilation of this cultural heritage to Romans or aristocrats. In the second controversia, for example, the list of mythhistorical exempla proposed by the senator Junius Gallio is matched by that delivered by Turrinus: the former calls on the bravery of Horatius, Mucius, and Decius, while the latter looks to the virtus of Scipio and Decius. In the first controversia, the Spanish Latro reaches out to the Middle Republic and the civil war for examples of individuals attacked by oratory and for models of clemency, and the Gallic Albucius Silo will do the same in the third.66 Echavarren (2012) demonstrates how the approach to nomination of Republican heroes across the Controversiae and Suasoriae suggests a codified nomenclature for that historical group on which Seneca’s contemporaries draw. Establishing that there are two coexisting onomastic systems in Seneca, those referring to contemporaries and those referring to figures of the past, Echavarren reinforces the concept of a common cultural register that all declaimers, professional or amateur, Roman or provincial, exploit.67

7  Just as Seneca’s Controversiae do not deploy names in such a way as to generate a hierarchy of declamatory (or other) merit in terms of geographical provenance, the same can be said of professional or social status. Seneca rarely discusses the social origin of a declaimer, and even more rarely whether that declaimer is a professional or an amateur. By and large the reader is exposed to the same homologizing effect: the absence of a rigorous differentiating mechanism is not only epitomized by the indexical, neutral use of personal names, but the declaimer himself is often identified as significant only by the act of inclusion in the archive. Seneca highlights this principle of destabilizing hierarchies and obfuscating boundaries in the tenth book, where his community emerges as united 66  Respectively Sen. Contr. 10.2.3 and 10.2.5; also 10.1.8 and 10.3.3. On Seneca and the civil war, see Canfora (1998) and Mazzoli (2006); on exempla, see van der Poel (2009). 67  This parallel is usefully presented in a table at Echavarren’s table to which I refer in n. 54 above.

Orazio Cappello  107 by its commitment to declamation.68 The fact that he discusses his prin­ ciples of selectivity in the preface and relates it to nomina alerts the reader to the process of onomatothesis which regiments the rest of the book. The occurrence and distribution of names is, in other words, signalled as an important way of creating and thinking about that community. The model that suggests that the Greeks were marginalized is imprecise—and so is the paradigm claiming the Spaniards were centralized. The structure of the model positing a centre and margins is inadequate: Seneca seems to priv­il­ ege individual relations on the microcosmic scale, identifying parallels and correspondences between names rather than groups, and so, in a radical sense, the community emerges as homogeneous. This also obtains in the historical anecdotes of interactions with the emperor that highlight the way in which the community is integrated with the external, political world. Individual stories define individual trajectories. This Senecan shaping of an intellectual community is a process reenacted by the declaimers themselves through use of myth-historical ex­amples. The use of exempla by declaimers from across all socio-political and geographic divides indicates a society of performers sharing the same language of ethical normativity.

8  Book 10 develops an additional idiosyncratic approach to nomination that further consolidates the relationship between the Senecan archive and the idealization of a community: the production of names that auto-referentially describes the practice and its practitioners. Both Labienus’ and Passienus’ names are vandalized in the tenth preface, leading them to acquire new ones linked to a critique of their oratory: Labienus’ excessive vigour and

68  Across his works, Echavarren claims that Seneca’s use of nominal formulae denotes three aspects of the declaimer: whether he is close to the declaimer in question, whether he admires the declaimer, and finally, in some cases, as an indicator of the declaimer’s social class. Reading his 2012 article, one can use the figures to demonstrate the opposite, as most formulations are used for all ordines. This distribution is seen especially in the use of the binominal praenomen + cognomen, which is a late pattern seemingly reserved for aristocrats, but which is used for novi homines in Seneca. Nomen + cognomen is the second most used, after the uninominal cognomen, and as cognomen it refers to all ordines. From an onomatological perspective there is in fact a coincidence between how Seneca deploys names and the social significance of the formulae he employs.

108  Nomination and Systematization libertas makes him into a ‘Rabienus’ while Moschus twists Passienus’ name into an obscenity (Sen. Contr. 10.praef.5 and 10.praef.11). Declamation absorbs its practitioners into a group to the extent that even the stable referentiality of nomination is erased and transformed into one that is referentially valid only from the standpoint of the practice itself. At Sen. Contr. 9.2.23 this process of creative auto-referentiality is extended to defining a whole sector of this institution. Here, Seneca is not discussing personal names, but the way in which the group as a whole refers to itself. Latro, by claiming for himself a paradigmatic role in declamation, professing that he is no magister but only an exemplum, gives rise to the use of the word auditores, as opposed to discipuli, to refer to students of dec­lam­ ation. Linking Latro, his function as declamatory archetype, and the new terminological armature of the practice allows Seneca to draw boundaries around his project and characterize his work as both ‘institutive’ and ‘conservative’: declaiming is something wholly new, wholly contained in his treatment, while also being an activity with a prehistory, an exterior.69 In the preface to Book 1, Seneca indicates that Cicero participates in causae, originally known as theses and later called controversiae or (even later) scholasticae. Declamatio is also described as a recent invention by Seneca, though he dates it back to Calvus and Cicero.70 This rhetorical exercise is not an Imperial invention, but a practice that has continuity with Greek and Republican precedents, while being populated by a new group of in­di­vid­uals who operate according to a different set of standards and ­hierarchies. These differences inform a distinct referential system that is characteristic of Seneca’s tribe; they shape a new framework that represents an act of intervention in and appropriation of the Roman oratorical trad­ ition on the author’s part. This shift inflects the relationship between nomination and the characteristics of the community. But it also, perhaps most importantly, shows a degree of flexibility in the way names are understood to operate and organize the text. In the context of their structural valence, names actually become indices that acquire significance only in so far as they are part of a catalogue. In this sense—much like Borges’ infamous Chinese encyclopaedia, whose fourteen categories for animals include ‘embalmed ones’, ‘those

69  Cf. Derrida (1998) 7. 70 Sen. Contr. 1.praef.12. On the history of declamation, see Fairweather (1981) 109–29; Berti (2007) 111–14; and, Stroh (2003). On Seneca’s presentation of Cicero and his declamatory practice, see Baraz in this volume.

Orazio Cappello  109 drawn with a very fine camel hair brush’, and ‘those that are included in this classification’—Seneca draws attention to the concept of taxonomy and how it is used by himself and by the community of declaimers.71

9  Names perform an essential function in the architecture of the work, linking taxonomy, memory, and community. In this context, the genitive paratext serves a variety of purposes: primarily, to divide each controversia into two halves, the formal epigrammatic and the anecdotal divisio–color. In the first half, the voice of the declaimers is introduced directly, and the reader gains immediate access to the style and thematic preoccupations of each individual. This implicitly draws the reader into looking for individual features and coherence to the overall picture behind the label. The succession of labels identifies the voices in a synchronic way, creating a panorama with little context, of great formality and little dynamism—a still frame, as it were, of the declamatory world. The second half develops the picture dynamically: Seneca’s world is characterized by interactions, both within and without, and the catalogues of names are relationally presented. Second, this onomatological rationale is deeply embedded in the or­gan­ iza­tion­al objective of Seneca’s programme: as discussed in the introduction to this chapter, especially in the preservation of fragments characteristic of the first part, names differentiate contributions and thereby make sense of their inclusion in the context of the anthology. Implicitly, however, the for­ ging of a homologous community of declaimers is brought about by the disordering of names. The way personal nouns are deployed, in defiance of consistent patterns, amounts to a sophisticated method of levelling differences, certainly at least of a social, political, and geographical nature. The paradox generated between these two finalities is suggestive of and important to the way in which Seneca invites the reader to interpret the anthology. The mechanisms of memoria play with the figure of the name as index. Names are ciphers that, on the one hand, mean everything: they order the text, stage these great individuals as persons, and show them interacting with each other and with the world at large. On the other hand, they mean nothing outside of the ‘text’ or ‘voice’ they contribute. They are

71  Quoted and discussed in Foucault (1966) 8–11.

110  Nomination and Systematization tags which are generated mechanistically by recollection itself and (so) ex­ist merely as place holders for the declamatory content, prompting its re-performance.72 Seneca’s taste for the paradoxical and his defiance of straightforward categorization has already been noted and explored by those scholars who have studied his prefatory biographies. Among these, Fairweather and Citti have shown not only the ways in which contradiction governs the logic of Senecan ‘pen portraiture’, but also how difficult it is to construct a positively consistent and coherent picture of the same individual across the ten books in terms of style and characterization.73 The present study of Senecan ono­ matothesis has suggested that this general anti-systemic attitude, which has created so many interpretive difficulties, connects the prefaces and the main body of the work and is moreover calculatingly operationalized in the (dis-) organization of the catalogue itself. Thinking the Controversiae alongside the encyclopedic works of the Roman Imperial period, the archival condition of post-structuralism, and the statistical inflections of traditional prosopography offers a fertile context within which to study the Elder Seneca’s declamatory anthology. Focusing on how onomastic diffusion works as a cataloguing device, ordering the text and separating the world of declaimers into significant units, the argument has shown that, on both the macro- and micro-cosmic level, naming undermines geographic hierarchies. What matters is the nameless world of dec­ lam­ation itself, and the opportunities these hypothetical cases offer to the real life of provincials.74 Through the ersatz filius of Book 10, Clodius Turrinus Jr, the Elder Seneca delivers to his sons a social tool in the Controversiae. The anthology as a whole provides the ultimate demonstration of the importance of content above name, and this is particularly relevant to those provincial sons whose fathers’ oratory has carried from the periphery of a world torn by civil war to the centre of the new Imperial world order.75

72  They are, in fact, the first thing to drop out of the excerpted books. Cf. Gunderson (2009) 268 on Macrobius and Gellius: ‘The names, the nomina, are mere nouns. They are readily swapped for one another. The sentiments are true as cited and true because cited . . . A head filled with books does not differ from a head filled with books of books. And one’s own head is but a placeholder, a momentary repository for various fragments of the great archive. Your caput is but another chapter, your name but another entry in the index nominum.’ 73  Fairweather (1981) 67. She goes so far as announcing that Seneca ‘shows no desire to be systematic’ (55). Cf. Citti (2005). 74  For this simple yet powerful observation, see Dickey (2002) 43. 75  I am grateful to Martin Dinter for this intuition.

Orazio Cappello  111 The anthology is in itself a work of and for the new world. Running from Cicero’s experimenting with causae to Clodius Turrinus’ modesta cupidi­ tas for success, Seneca authors a collection that documents and seeks to stimulate a world in transformation, where changing rhetorical paradigms map out the course for social and political change. The range of vignettes, with their multiple socio-political and historical contexts, the familiarity of Seneca’s promises and judgments, work together with the formal distribution of sententiae, the inclusion of discrete voices, to cohere an exhaustive portrait of society. As the indexing and itemizing logic of the catalogue, nomination acts as the collagen for the project, legitimizing the picture as comprehensive and truthfully reflecting an institutional reality. It also links the literary-critical enterprise to the reflection on the socio-political situ­ ation. Crucially, therefore, this is a work that institutionalizes a practice, that systematizes it, and that sets out the coordinates for the rhetoric of the future: a dynamic work about power, over and above an inert compendium.

6

Physical Excess as a Marker of Genre in the Elder Seneca Anthony Corbeill

Introduction The rise of declamation went hand in hand with the decline of oratory as Cicero had known it. This trope is a tired one that has been repeated for the past two millennia, and it finds early expression from the Elder Seneca himself.1 I wish here to particularize what constitutes this so-called ‘rise of dec­lam­ation’, but not by judging Senecan declamation as a practice that supplanted traditional oratory. Rather, treating the Elder Seneca as a witness to, and not a critic of, declamation’s contemporaneous development allows the type of declamation that he describes to emerge as a practice that is in fact attempting to define itself as something not only new, but as something explicitly and intentionally non-Ciceronian. I shall be examining in particular the ways in which the role of the body shifts as it moves from the Republican forum and courtroom to the declamatory lecture hall. A telling entrée into this discussion can be located at the Republic’s end, in the last instances of body language ascribed to Cicero himself. Cicero’s final gestures of surrender at the time of his murder mark a moment that is simultaneously mimetic and metaphorical. Plutarch supplies one detail of how the greatest speaker in the history of Rome made his final statement to the world not with words but with silent movements of his body. As his assassins finally caught up with him on 7 December, 43 bc, Cicero ordered the litter in which he was travelling to be lowered. Plutarch tells us that the orator then made one of his favourite gestures: staring resolutely at *  I am grateful to Christopher van den Berg for a conversation that helped shape the central argument of this paper. 1  E.g. Sen. Contr. 1.praef.6–7 and 9–11. Anthony Corbeill, Physical Excess as a Marker of Genre in the Elder Seneca In: Reading Roman Declamation: Seneca the Elder. Edited by: Martin T. Dinter, Charles Guérin, and Marcos Martinho, Oxford University Press (2020). © Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198746010.003.0006

116  Physical Excess as a Marker of Genre his murderers, he clasped his chin with his left hand, his hair squalid and unkempt (Plut. Cic. 48.4). The ancient biographer neglects to gloss the meaning of this gesture, but its ambivalence would have been clear to all onlookers. Conveying pensive reflection, as it still does today, it also carried in antiquity the additional overtones of grief and lamentation, representing in particular the thought that accompanies death and mortality. These connotations are clear from, among other sources, the ubiquity of this ‘thinker’ pose on Roman sarcophagi and in the personification of captured prov­ inces.2 According to the ancient tradition, Cicero’s grievous thought leads to action. Livy is the earliest source for the second gesture that Cicero then allegedly made, one that reflects a pose of surrender especially familiar from the animal world: the orator leaned out from his litter and, in submission, offered a bare neck to the sword of his opponent.3 And yet, as familiar as this movement may seem, it too acquires greater cultural resonance in the Roman context since it seems intended to reflect the pose of the defeated gladiator.4 With this simple movement, Cicero identifies himself as the foe to a gladiator—perhaps he is to be considered a fellow combatant or, perhaps, a condemned criminal—who must finally yield his neck to the victorious gladiator, in this case Mark Antony and his fellow triumvirs. These final gestures of Cicero, regardless of their historicity, correspond to the ex­pect­ ations raised by his writings. Contemplating death while delivering over his life, Cicero carries with him to the grave his life-long conviction, one stressed in his own rhetorical writings, that the language of the body and that of the soul must always cohere.5 The subsequent portion of Livy’s narrative shows that immediately after Cicero’s death the relationship between the body and its signification quickly came to be crudely literal. Cicero’s assassins immediately display ‘stupid cruelty’ (stolida crudelitas) by severing his hands on account of their use in composing the anti-Antonian Philippics.6 It is not incidental, I shall argue, that the Ciceronian eloquence of the non-verbal, of the body that speaks without words, finds little place in the Senecan collection, where the evidence that can be inferred indicates that the body acts simply as an added stress, as extra punctuation, to a striking 2  Corbeill (2004) 77–80. 3  Liv. apud Sen. Suas. 6.17: prominenti ex lectica praebentique inmotam cervicem caput praecisum est (cf. Plut. Cic. 48.5). 4 Petr. Sat. 101.1 (iugulo . . . detecto: ‘Aliquando,’ inquam, ‘totum me, Fortuna, vicisti!’) with Schmeling (2011) 401; Barton (1993) 39 n.101. 5  Full discussion in Corbeill (1996), especially 20–56. 6  For the role of declamation in accounts of Cicero’s death, see Roller (1997), especially 121–2 on the motif of severed hands.

Anthony Corbeill  117 sententia. In one of the few direct statements in Seneca’s compilation that treat the declaimers’ use of the body, Votienus Montanus tells us that gesturing has a single aim, namely, to please the audience and thereby win approval. Montanus is aware of the limitations of this aim. Once these same speakers arrive in the forum to act as a public orator, he tells us, this means of delighting the new set of hearers is lost, and the declaimer who sticks to the gestural tricks of his art totters, or even topples completely, in the court of law.7 Montanus’ account clearly illustrates that the distinction between orator and Senecan declaimer can be read in bodily disposition. Different areas of performance require different forms of physical expression. Elsewhere in this volume, Andrea Balbo considers the rhetorical delivery of two men in particular—Porcius Latro and C.  Albucius Silus—and argues that their mode of presentation varied depending on whether they were declaiming among peers or speaking in the courts. In this chapter I provide a possible explanation for why a speaker’s context alters the ways in which he will present his speaking body to an audience. And yet, both here and throughout my discussion of the difference between declamation and public oratory, I do not wish simply to rank relative levels of inferiority or superiority. I will maintain that, when it comes to the use of the body, the declaimers described by Seneca the Elder are very conscious of their differences from previous oratorical models, and that the excerpts preserved by Seneca find these speakers using a new form of bodily expression to stake out a distinct claim on a new genre of literature.8 My focus will be exclusively upon declamatory techniques mentioned by Seneca and revealed by his speakers. I make no claim that my conclusions apply more generally to declamation as a pedagogical method used in the schools.

1.  Declamation as a Genre What I envision developing in the relationship between Republican oratory and declamation has analogies with the relationship in fifth-century

7 Sen. Contr. 9.praef.2: Quid quod laudationibus crebris sustinentur, et memoria illorum ad­suevit certis intervallis quiescere? Cum ventum est in forum et desiit illos ad omnem gestum plausus excipere, aut deficiunt aut labant (‘What about the fact that [declaimers] are sustained by frequent applause, and the memory has got used to resting at regular intervals? When they get to the forum and stop receiving applause for every gesture, they either totter or topple’). 8  See Berti (2007) 132, after discussing the lack of success of declaimers in the forum and of orators in the halls of declamation.

118  Physical Excess as a Marker of Genre Athens between tragedy and Old Comedy. These two types of drama shared numerous traits, both in literary form and in their association with public institutions—metrical elements, the use of a chorus, public performance at a festival. As a result of these similarities, Old Comedy sought to establish a discrete identity. It identified itself ‘in some measure as “not-tragedy,” but did so by taking advantage of its pronounced formal and institutional similarities to tragedy’.9 Sluiter finds a similar tendency at work in prose works from Greek and Roman antiquity. Among newly emerging genres, from literature to medicine to mathematics, she identifies ‘an explicit attempt at cornering a market, finding a niche, that is, defining an author or work by opposition to the available competition’.10As a clear example of this tendency she cites the division that the second-century Greek rhetorician Hermogenes makes in his On Types of Style between ‘political speech’ and ‘panegyric’.11 In this division, Hermogenes identifies as a distinguishing characteristic of panegyric the absence of any clear political purpose. I will argue that a development parallel to these two examples unfolds in the case of Senecan declamation. While inheriting structures and techniques from the Roman oratorical tradition that had preceded them, Seneca’s declaimers consciously manipulated aspects of this inheritance in order to characterize their own practice as ‘non-oratory’, that is, as a newly emergent form of literary expression independent of past practice. This consideration of literary genres in antiquity entails a second consequence for Senecan declamation. In such cases of ‘generic doubling’, it is claimed, one of the genres in question enjoys a ‘higher’ status than the other, whether because it is of greater antiquity . . . or simply as a matter of def­in­ ition. [. . .] In such situations, it is the ‘lower’ genre . . . that comments on the relationship, whether that relationship is constructed along lines of succession or of parody.12

This contrast between high and low characterizes well the sentiments expressed throughout the Elder Seneca’s collection, especially in his prologues, where he draws a distinction between two apparently discrete forms:

9  Farrell (2003) 389. 10  Sluiter (2000) 196. 11 Hermog. Id. 380–95 and 403–13 (Rabe); discussion in Wooten (1987) 138–40. 12  Farrell (2003) 390.

Anthony Corbeill  119 ‘Go now, look for orators among the plucked and scraped of today, who are men only in their lust’ (Sen. Contr. 1.praef.10). The ideal past of the Republican orators continually intrudes upon the jaded present of the Senecan declaimers, inevitably to the disservice of the latter. Kaster has noted that throughout Seneca’s collection there is little evidence that the speakers he quotes have actually read much Cicero, a fact that implies that ‘the idea of Cicero the orator and stylist matters more to the declaimers than his oratorical style itself ’.13 Cicero acts either as the disembodied and so inimitable ideal of eloquence or as ‘the cultural father who must be displaced’—not as part of an active tradition of oratory that continues into Seneca’s present.14 As a result, when the declaimers most directly confront the tradition of active political oratory in Suasoriae 6 and 7, it is the end of that tradition upon which they focus: the murder and maiming of Cicero.

2.  Characteristics of Senecan Declamation Authors from antiquity repeatedly view declamation as a practice marked by excess. This characterization has often been repeated in our own modern surveys: overly exuberant language, excessively effeminate attention to the body, unduly enthusiastic metaphor. I do not intend here to dispute this characterization—it strikes me as accurate, if not particularly revealing. Instead, I would like to consider whether excess can have a point. Before focusing on the use of the body, I would like to begin by surveying a few areas in which the nature of the excess described in the Elder Seneca can be clearly contrasted with precedents from the allegedly more enlightened golden age of oratory. In pointing up these contrasts, I do not intend so much to be reviewing new ideas as offering a different perspective on some old ones, as I highlight the ways in which Seneca alternately praises and criticizes certain pronounced features of his speakers. As a practice halfway between being a school exercise and an activity invested with political consequences in the real world, the excerpts from his Controversiae and Suasoriae correspondingly offer up a series of hybrid phenomena that serve to demonstrate that Seneca intends to be staking claims for a newly emergent genre.

13  Kaster (1998) 254, emphasis original.

14  Quotation from Kaster (1998) 258.

120  Physical Excess as a Marker of Genre

Persona I begin with a defining difference between oratory and declamation, one that the ancient critics consistently mention but do not fully assess. In Senecan declamation, particularly in the Controversiae, who is it who is doing the speaking? We all know the answer, or should I say the answers: characters such as disloyal sons, cruel fathers, tyrannicides, and pirates interchange in outlandish situations. It is tempting to characterize the situ­ ation as displaying an excess of persona, as the ethos of the declaimer often plays no role, hiding as it does behind the character of the person imagined to speak. The contrast with Ciceronian oratory is obvious: on the vast majority of occasions, the Republican orator practises what George Kennedy has called the ‘rhetoric of advocacy’.15 Not only is the speaker arguing over real events and actual persons, but he is doing so on the basis of his own ethos. Although such authority could be constructed with varying degrees of elaboration depending upon the case at hand, the dominant persona of a speech during the Republic is that of the speaker. Except during the infrequent displays of prosopopoeia, which will be considered in section 4 of this chapter, the public orator only on rare occasions explicitly adopts the character of another person. The stress placed upon establishing the credibility of the orator’s ethos and of conveying it successfully to an audience was a crucial, if not indeed the most crucial, aspect of advocacy under the Republic.16 My point, then, is simple: the representational basis of Republican oratory differs from the declamatory situation, in that the declaimer consistently adopts a persona other than his own. Representation has been replaced by imitation.17

Sententiae The exotic character of the declaimer extends to his means of expression. Seneca relates two amusing stories about speakers whose use of exuberant but inapposite language in the declamatory arena handicaps them when they come to plead as an advocate in the forum. Once again the sources 15  Kennedy (1968). 16  For full discussions of this complex process, see May (1988); Wisse (1989); and, particularly on the distinctions between Greek ethos and Latin persona, Guérin (2009a). 17  Webb (2006) 34–44 acutely analyses the tension in Greek declamation between sim­ul­tan­ eous­ly re-presenting the past and separating speakers from it.

Anthony Corbeill  121 contrast declamatory performance with real-world rhetoric. Both examples clearly illustrate the differences in the ways in which declamation and oratory perceive the connection between language and truth. As one orator of the time, Publius Vinicius, said in response to a declaimer’s love for the flagrant epigram, ‘Nothing is more lovable than careful stupidity.’18 The first anecdote finds this very Vinicius accusing the declaimer Vo­tienus Montanus at a judicial proceeding before the emperor (Sen. Contr. 7.5.12). Later on that same day, Seneca tells us, Montanus publicly praised Vinicius’ earlier speech, even though it was directed against him, and he even proceeded to recount some of the choicer sententiae that Vinicius had employed. In reaction to this oddly laudatory response to an opponent’s rhetoric, a friend of Montanus quipped ‘What do you mean?—do you think that he was your opponent in a declamation?’19 This anecdote has been identified as indicating the beginnings of a process by which the boundaries between oratory and declamation become difficult to distinguish.20 Perhaps we can be more generous to Montanus by viewing the incident from a different perspective. Rather than illustrating a stage in the blurring of boundaries, I suggest that the anecdote in fact provides evidence for adult declamation beginning actively to define itself, deliberately and selfconsciously, as a literary endeavour discrete from formal oratory. My second anecdote also finds the declaimer failing in the courtroom because of adherence to what I am claiming is a generic topos of dec­lam­ ation that is in the process of development. In declamation, the sanctity of an oath becomes a moot point, since any circumstances under which an oath may be sworn will have no counterpart in the real world. This explains Albucius’ predicament when appearing as an advocate in an actual courtroom.21 Carried by the momentum of his own rhetoric, and overcome with its alleged truth-value, he dictates to his opponent in court an oath. The opponent gladly agrees to swear by the proposed terms. As a result, under the rules governing legal proceedings, the judgment automatically is rendered in favour of the oath-taker since it is assumed that the oath binds him to the truth.22 The befuddled Albucius, realizing that he had been led to lose

18 Sen. Contr. 7.5.11: Nihil est autem amabilius quam diligens stultitia. 19 Sen. Contr. 7.5.12: Rogo: numquid putas illum alteram partem declamasse? 20  See Berti (2007) 130–1. 21 Sen. Contr. 7.praef.7; more details in Quint. Inst. 9.2.95, Suet. Rhet. 30.4. Balbo (elsewhere in this volume) relates this anecdote further to Albucius’ misunderstanding of proper actio in the courtroom. 22  Greenidge (1901) 259–63.

122  Physical Excess as a Marker of Genre the case by a confusion of genres—one grounded in fact, the other in ­fiction—replied ‘I wasn’t offering terms. I was simply using a rhetorical figure!’23 As in the previous example, Albucius’ misstep arises from dec­lam­ ation’s lax treatment of language, as verbal expressions come unmoored from their literal application. In a well-known passage from Cicero’s De oratore, Crassus warned orators to beware of overusing figurative expressions precisely because of this very lack of concreteness. Instead, he advised that when using a particularly blatant figure the public speaker should apologize for the laxness of language by adding an appropriate warning, such as ‘so to speak’ (ut ita dicam; Cic. De Or. 3.165). Don’t say, for example, that the senate was left an orphan by Cato’s death, but that it became ‘an orphan, as it were’. In declamation, by contrast, such apologetic manoeuvres are not only unnecessary but, as Albucius implies, metaphorical figures have come to characterize the genre of declamation.

Prose Rhythm Moving away from verbal figures to auditory stylistic effects, we once again find declaimers seemingly trying to define the boundaries of their practice in contradistinction with oratory. As evidenced by both his rhetorical discussions and his oratorical practice, Cicero valued the ability of a particular set of prose rhythms to delight his audience.24 At all times, however, the rhythms employed must reflect the sentiments expressed: ‘The orator binds his meaning to his words, embracing it in a rhythm that is simultaneously restrained and loose.’25 According to Seneca, such care does not characterize practitioners of declamation. In pursuing their own rhythmic effects, they once again betray a tendency to sacrifice sense to style. After citing a tricolon to which a meaningless fourth member has been added in order to improve the rhythm of the fourth and final colon, Seneca offers the following general lesson: ‘I recorded this epigram because both in the case of tricola and in all epigrams of this type we [declaimers] take care to have acceptable

23 Sen. Contr. 7.praef.7: Non detuli condicionem; schema dixi! 24  See in particular Cic. De Or. 3.173–98; Cic. Or. 168–236; Oberhelman (2003) offers a convenient survey of the phenomenon in Latin. 25 Cic. De Or. 3.175: Orator autem sic illigat sententiam verbis ut eam numero quodam complectatur et astricto et soluto.

Anthony Corbeill  123 rhythm, but we don’t take care about the sense.’26 Porcius Latro further demonstrates that this love of sound over sense is not a concern felt by Seneca alone. In order to expose the scholastici for their excessive attachment to particularly entrancing cadences of words (conpositio verborum belle cadentium), Latro intentionally rounded off an argument with a phrase that was arresting in rhythm but devoid of meaning. Predictably, his demonstration meets with loud shouts of praise.27 Once again excess, in this case in the very cadences of words, has become the declamatory norm.

3.  The Senecan Corpus Versus Other Collections of Declamation A recent trend in classical scholarship has looked for ways of forgiving these types of excess by considering pedagogical context. Declamatory exercises, the argument goes, do not of course pretend to replicate the conditions of the Roman legal process, but it does not necessarily follow from this that they are unconcerned with training young Roman males for speaking in the forum and courts. Instead, the superfluities and exaggerations, the outrageously fictional situations, help keep the students entertained while sim­ul­ tan­ eous­ ly inculcating values promoted by the Roman male elite. The repeated references to rape, for example, have been argued to instill in the young male students the need for self-control, as these students replay to one another in detail the various types of disruption that rape causes in familial and social structures.28 Similarly, the constant presence in Controversiae of conflict between father and son never questions the le­git­im­acy of paternal authority (except in extreme cases such as insanity). Instead, they offer a series of ways in which filial actions must, without exception, be reconciled with a father’s will.29 Similar arguments have been made about how the themes of rich vs. poor or of slave vs. master ultimately serve to support the 26 Sen. Contr. 9.2.27: Hanc ideo sententiam rettuli quia et in tricolis et in omnibus huius generis sententiis curamus ut numerus constet, non curamus an sensus. For an analogous example of a nonsensical tricolon, see Winterbottom (1974) II.265 n. 7. 27 Sen. Contr. 7.4.10: inter sepulchra monumenta sunt; as Winterbottom (1974) II.99 n. 2 observes, the phrase is ‘[v]irtually (and intentionally) meaningless’. The appeal seems to lie in the closing double cretic (with the first cretic resolved), a clausula type highly favoured by Seneca, Latro, and Fuscus: see chart in Fairweather (1981) 44; Berti (2007) 180–1 and Håkanson (2016) 12. 28  Kaster (2001). 29  Gunderson (2003) 59–89 (on Sen. Contr. 9.4).

124  Physical Excess as a Marker of Genre legitimacy of the status quo.30 Declamation emerges from these studies as a genuine and effective pedagogical tool. And yet, as enlightening as these studies are regarding rhetorical exercises in the schools, they do not accord with the situation found in Senecan declamation. In Seneca’s collection, of course, the declaimers are not children in training, but fully grown adults who normally have well-established reputations as speakers.31 Moreover, the Senecan corpus makes clear that these declaimers are not only not looking forward to a successful career in the courts but that, not infrequently, they appear as constitutionally unsuited for the demands of public oratory. Indeed, a clear indication that Senecan declamation seeks to carve out for itself a literary area distinct from oratory can be found in the figure of Porcius Latro. It is plain that Seneca presents Latro as his declamatory ideal—‘a singular example of declamatory excellence’.32 And yet, in the same passage in which Seneca provides this characterization, he relates a much-heard anecdote concerning how this ideal speaker appeared as a public orator only once. The results were disastrous.33 These observations further support my attempt to turn the arguments of ancients and moderns on their head. Rather than representing failure, Senecan declamation lays claim to its own territory not only through the emphases on excess that I have just outlined but through its very prac­ti­ tioners. In other words, by embracing excess as a deliberate literary ploy and as a generic marker, Seneca offers access to this new genre in its infancy, witnessing the growing pains as boundaries are created and tested. And, as my reference to ‘growing pains’ hints, I would suggest that the recent development of declamation as a recognized literary genre helps explain a famous crux from Seneca’s first preface. When Seneca makes the prima facie in­accur­ ate claim that the practice of declamation was ‘born after me’ (Sen. Contr. 1.praef.12), I do not believe that he is misrepresenting the facts in order to make his own account more groundbreaking. In this account of declamation’s origins he refers, we can now see, not to the rhetorical exercises so well documented in Cicero and elsewhere, but to a newly arising genre whose faults and virtues he intends to display to a new audience.34 30  Corbeill (2007) 74–81 offers a review of recent scholarship on these and other issues; see too Bloomer (2011) 178–88. 31  See the remarks of Gunderson (2003) 2–4. 32 Sen. Contr. 9.praef.3: declamatoriae virtutis unicum exemplum; Berti (2007) 45. 33 Sen. Contr. 9.praef.3; Quint. Inst. 10.5.18. 34  Cf. the complementary suggestion at Corbeill (2007) 72 that forms of declamare referred to the oratorical training resumed by adult orators in the 40s.

Anthony Corbeill  125 I have already surveyed some of the more obvious excesses highlighted in Seneca’s texts, and have tried to explain them as generic markers. I would now like to support this point further by examining those aspects of excess that are less visible to the modern reader of these texts, namely the scattered references made to oratorical delivery. In light of my previous remarks I shall pay particular attention to comments that indicate a perceived superfluity of physical movement or exaggerated variations in the use of the voice.

4.  Delivery as a Generic Marker Although Seneca’s extant text appears not to contain any single declamation in full, scholarly analyses of his excerpts have determined that his authors did observe the five traditional canons of Roman rhetoric, normally translated into English as invention, arrangement, style, memory, and delivery.35 I would now like to concentrate on the last and most transient of these features: delivery. Normally rendered by the Latin words actio or pronuntiatio, delivery is traditionally treated last and most cursorily in Republican discussions of rhetoric: as the author of the treatise Ad Herennium laments, the difficulty of describing physical movement in words necessitates that young orators learn these gestures best from daily exercise and from observation of practised orators. Unfortunately, our texts choose not to relate the details of these exercises until we reach Quintilian.36 Further complicating analysis of delivery is the fact that those written discussions of actio that do survive use ambiguous vocabulary that only hints at what the orators are expected to with their bodies: what type of voice modulation, for example, does Cicero praise with the phrase cantus obscurior—a lilting delivery? or what does the Auctor ad Herennium see when he recommends that students debate acri et defixo aspectu—a cold, unflinching stare?37 The situation in Seneca, being as he is unconcerned with any systematic treatment of rhet­ oric­al principles, is exponentially more difficult to assess. Prior to the appearance of this volume, the only detailed scholarly discussion of delivery in Seneca was that of Fairweather, who concludes that 35 Sussman (1978) 111–36; Fairweather (1981) 151–239. Sen. Contr. 2.7 was apparently intended to be presented in full but the manuscript tradition is lacunate. 36  Rhet. Her. 3.19–27 (with 3.19–25 devoted to vocal technique); for a survey of ancient treatments of delivery, see Hall (2007) 220–7. 37 Cic. Or. 57; Rhet. Her. 3.27.

126  Physical Excess as a Marker of Genre the aspects of delivery that can be recovered from the remarks of Seneca and Latro largely conform with the advice offered in the extant rhetorical treatises.38 In what follows, I shall be using much of the same evidence to reach opposite conclusions. In accordance with my preceding remarks, I shall maintain that an excessive physicality distinct from Republican precedents constitutes a new and deliberate move on the part of Seneca’s declaimers, a move that often meets with Seneca’s open censure.39 A comparison of his text with the strictures found in rhetorical handbooks suggests that physical excess represents yet another generic marker by which adult ­speakers could self-consciously distinguish their own form of declamation from the exercises found in the schools and from oratory as practised in forum and curia. In the process, physical excess constitutes another marker that helps define the emerging genre. A helpful point of departure for this discussion is offered by the Ciceronian examples of prosopopoeia. In contrast with the Greek world, oratorical advocacy in Rome gave rise to new views of the relationship between rhetorical truth and bodily movement. Since, as I have already noted, in a forensic context the Roman orator as a rule spoke on behalf of another person, perhaps even one with whom he did not have close ties, his relationship to the truth of his arguments and the knowledge of evidence always ran the risk of being compromised, and even of giving rise to accusations of deliberate misrepresentation. It became imperative, therefore, that the body not lie. As a result, Cicero writes that the best orator should acquire the ability to convey feelings through a canonical body of gestures in order to demonstrate that he truly feels the emotions that his body conveys to the audience; the continual danger is that the orator may become an actor, an artist who simply strives for imitation, and not truth.40 The clearest situation in which the boundaries between actor and orator could blur is in the rhetorical use of prosopopoeia. This figure will be familiar to all those conversant with Roman oratory, even though its sheer impressiveness caused Cicero to use it on only a handful of occasions. In prosopopoeia, the orator introduces into his speech a character that is not physically

38  Fairweather (1981) 235–9 (235: ‘The attitudes of Seneca and Latro towards [actio] seem closely comparable with those of Cicero and Quintilian’); see too Sussman (1978) 132–4 and Balbo in this volume. For Greek declamation, Russell (1983) 82 judges the evidence too scanty to allow comparison with forensic practice. 39  For Seneca’s ambivalent relationship with contemporary declamation, see e.g. Sussman (1978) 94–136. 40  Corbeill (2004) 115–16.

Anthony Corbeill  127 present, and allows that character to speak in propria persona. This character can be either a personification such as Patria—who appears in the First Oration against Catiline on two separate occasions—or a real figure, for which every reader of Cicero remembers the surprising appearance in Pro Caelio not only of the hallowed Appius Claudius Caecus (34) but also, immediately thereafter, of the rambunctious Publius Clodius Pulcher (36). The device of prosopopoeia would seem to offer a precise parallel to the practice of the declaimer of Controversiae and Suasoriae since in these cases the orator does not, as he does in every extant forensic speech from the Republic, speak in his own person as advocate for a third party. Furthermore, Quintilian does explicitly note parallels between declaiming Controversiae and Suasoriae and the mature orator’s later use of prosopopoeia in forensic and deliberative situations (Quint. Inst. 3.8.49–54). But similarities end in the actual delivery of the prosopopoeia. Accounts of Cicero’s use of the device stress that the orator must take special care to distinguish himself from an actor: in other words, he must limit his range of gesture and not inflect his voice to match the character of the persona that he has adopted (see e.g. Quint. Inst. 11.3.88–91). Even in the later Empire the third-century rhetorician Aquila stresses the inherent dignitas involved in Cicero’s classic uses of prosopopeia, a dignitas that presumably is reflected in the orator maintaining his bodily integrity (Aquila Rhet. 3). Quintilian is emphatic at the close of his section on oratorical gesture: ‘It is with good reason that we object to a delivery marked by exaggerated expressions, extensive gesticulation, and modulations of voice tone.’41 There is no doubt that, despite its grandiose pretensions in other aspects—calling forth figures from the dead, allowing the Roman state to speak on her own behalf—prosopopoeia was not a tour de force of acting. The situation for the Senecan declaimer seems to be rather different. It is only rarely that the speaker does not adopt a character other than his own, such as when he speaks on behalf of a woman or a slave.42 In this context Quintilian compares the declaimer’s range to the roles that are demanded of the comic actor: declaimers ‘commonly turn into sons, fathers, wealthy men, the old and harsh and lenient and greedy, even the superstitious, frightened, and ridiculing. One can scarcely imagine comic actors having

41 Quint. Inst. 11.3.183: Quare non immerito reprenditur pronuntiatio vultuosa et gesticulationibus molesta et vocis mutationibus resultans. 42  Bonner (1949) 52–3, who notes that the deliberative character of Suasoriae normally necessitates that the declaimer adopt the role of advisor.

128  Physical Excess as a Marker of Genre more roles while acting than declaimers do while speaking.’43 Lucian echoes this contrast more explicitly in his treatise On Pantomime. After first noting similarities between the pantomime dancer and the orator, Lucian changes his focus, noting that pantomime resembles ‘especially the composer of dec­ lam­ations, whose success, as the pantomime knows, depends like his own upon verisimilitude, upon the adaptation of language to character. Prince or tyrannicide, pauper or farmer, each must be shown with the peculiarities that belong to him.’44 In other words, the spiritual connection of the declaimer lies with the fiction of public literary performance rather than the verisimilitude of oratory. Before turning to reconstruct how this persona was represented phys­ic­ al­ly, we should recall the situation that confronts any study of bodily display in antiquity: the scarcity of evidence. This evidence rests in the case of Senecan declamation entirely upon two problematic sources: first, references in the texts of the declamations themselves, which are disappointingly rare and implicit; and second, Seneca’s own editorial comments. These comments, although normally more explicit, often do not make clear the basis for their aesthetic evaluation. Indeed, they give the impression that the use of the body in this emerging genre remains a matter of debate.

Voice Ancient discussions of delivery contain two principal subcategories: voice and gesture. Cicero advises extensive training of the voice so that the orator can have access to the whole range of its sounds, since, he writes, each tone of the voice corresponds to a different human emotion.45 He relates with approval an incident from the early first century bc concerning the orator Marcus Antonius; in speaking forcefully on his own behalf, the power of Antonius’ voice drove him down onto one knee (Cic. Tusc. 2.57). Quintilian’s 43 Quint. Inst. 3.8.51: Plerumque filii patres divites senes asperi lenes avari, denique superstitiosi timidi derisores fiunt, ut vix comoediarum actoribus plures habitus in pronuntiando concipiendi sint quam his in dicendo. 44 Lucian, Salt. 65: Ἡ δὲ πλείστη διατριβὴ καὶ ὁ σκοπὸς τῆς ὀρχηστικῆς ἡ ὑπόκρισίς ἐστιν, ὡς ἔφην, κατὰ τὰ αὐτὰ καὶ τοῖς ῥήτορσιν ἐπιτηδευομένη, καὶ μάλιστα τοῖς τὰς καλουμένας ταύτας μελέτας διεξιοῦσιν. Οὐδὲν γοῦν καὶ ἐν ἐκείνοις μᾶλλον ἐπαινοῦμεν ἢ τὸ ἐοικέναι τοῖς ὑποκειμένοις προσώποις καὶ μὴ ἀπῳδὰ εἶναι τὰ λεγόμενα τῶν εἰσαγομένων ἀριστέων ἢ τυραννοκτόνων ἢ πενήτων ἢ γεωργῶν, ἀλλ᾽ ἐν ἑκάστῳ τούτων τὸ ἴδιον καὶ τὸ ἐξαίρετον δείκνυσθαι; translation from Clark (1957) 222. Compare Webb (2006) 34–7 on the first-century ad progymnasmata. 45 Cic. De Or. 3.216; for details of the variations that the voice must control, see Rhet. Her. 2.20–5.

Anthony Corbeill  129 later details about the care and training of the voice also underscore the key  importance of forceful delivery to the public speaker (Quint. Inst. 11.3.19–27). Contrast the more intimate environs of the Senecan declaimer’s lecture hall, which now permits a broader range of qualities of the voice. Starkly ignoring the warnings of the rhetorical treatises, Latro, according to Seneca, ‘never exercised care in training his voice’, saying that he lived life as it came and that this meant that his voice needed no special attention.46 Latro’s natural stamina compensated for this lack, but such an advantage apparently did not rescue his similarly reckless colleagues. Seneca criticizes Gargonius for the blunt edge of his voice, so extreme in its rasping quality that a fellow declaimer derided him for ‘having the voice of a hundred hoarse men!’ (Sen. Contr. 1.7.18). Gargonius elsewhere comes under harsh criticism for the quality of his rhetoric as well.47 That these alleged weaknesses may have represented a self-conscious opposition to forensic practice is indicated by Gargonius’ eventual success in succeeding the established declaimer Buteo as the head of Buteo’s school. Finally, even Seneca admits that as a youth he and his fellow students ‘used to sing excerpts from Fuscus, each with his own change of voice, as if singing in his own key’.48 This type of singing in the declamatory schools is explicitly identified by Quintilian as one of the chief problems of declamatory education, and his impassioned attack explicitly contrasts this sort of training with oratorical practice (Quint. Inst. 11.3.57–60). These examples, then, show three prominent declaimers— Latro, Gargonius, and even Seneca himself—exhibiting preferences in the use of the voice that explicitly contrast with the recommendations offered throughout the rhetorical tradition.

Physical Gesture Moving from the audible aspects of the voice to the visible manifestations of bodily movement, we find declamation once again adopting a new

46 Sen. Contr. 1.praef.16: nulla umquam illi cura vocis exercendae fuit . . . utcumque res tu­lerat, ita vivere, nihil vocis causa facere; contrast, however, Latro’s training of his voice for per­ora­tions at Sen. Contr. 7.4.6. For the ancient treatises’ stress on training the voice, see Hall (2007) 220–4. 47 Sen. Contr. 9.1.15 and 10.5.25; Sen. Suas. 7.14. 48 Sen. Suas. 2.10: Recolo nihil fuisse me iuvene tam notum quam has explicationes Fusci, quas nemo nostrum non alius alia inclinatione vocis velut sua quisque modulatione cantabat.

130  Physical Excess as a Marker of Genre perspective. A recent survey of rhetorical actio concludes that the ‘selfconscious analysis of hand gestures would have been quite unfamiliar to the late Republican orator’.49 Once again, the notion that political gesture represents a natural manifestation of internal emotions provides the dominant paradigm. In contrast, one particularly striking remark in a Senecan preface provides an indication of the degree to which self-consciousness has infected declamation. In response to the wild applause that came to greet their every gesture, declaimers became accustomed to exploiting the resulting pause in order to give themselves time to plan what to say next. As a result, Votienus Montanus notes that, when declaimers have the op­por­tun­ity of speaking outside the lecture hall, their skills become compromised: ‘When they’ve got to the forum and no longer receive the expected applause at their every gesture, they either slip or even fail utterly.’50 Generic ex­pect­ations have clearly come to influence audience expectations as well. Seneca elsewhere offers a specific example of a calculated gesture that conflicts with recommendations found in the rhetorical tradition. He describes a certain Seneca Grandio as employing in a suasoria the following body language: ‘raising his hands and standing on tip-toes—he tended to do that to make himself taller—he shouts “I rejoice! I rejoice!” ’51 Quintilian does indeed advise raising the hands in imagined supplication of the gods, but only in times of the most extreme happiness or anger (Quint. Inst. 11.3.116); Grandio here is applauding the departure of the Greeks sent to help the Spartans at Thermopylae. Surely the exaggerated joy expressed by the pseudo-Spartan Grandio, standing on his tiptoes, receives further emphasis from the overly emotive gesture. Another category of gesture shows that the source of criticism lies in the dissonance between the declamatory gesture and what the body is thought to express naturally. Both Cicero and Quintilian stress that orators should avoid pantomime gestures, such as pretending to reach for a cup or feigning a blow, since these bodily actions threaten to resemble the artistry of the comic actor.52 Contrast with this precept the excerpts that Seneca records at Controversiae 1.7. The theme includes a father offering to pay double to

49  Hall (2007) 227. 50 Sen. Contr. 9.praef.2: Cum ventum est in forum et desiit illos ad omnem gestum plausus excipere, aut deficiunt aut labant. 51 Sen. Suas. 2.17: sublatis manibus, insistens summis digitis—sic enim solebat, quo grandior fieret—exclamat. 52 Quint. Inst. 11.3.107; cf. Quint. Inst. 11.3.90–1 for the comparison with comoedi and Cic. De Or. 3.220 for avoidance of mimetic gestures ab scena et histrionibus.

Anthony Corbeill  131 ransom his son from pirates provided that (for the usual tortuous reasons) they cut off both the hands of the son before releasing him. The pirates refuse. The citations offered by Seneca contain a consistent use of deictic forms to indicate the gestural activity of his speakers. The declaimer Julius Bassus took a distinct approach to this theme. He portrays the father offering his body over to his son for punishment. The father not only consents to undergo the same punishments that his son had while in captivity— whippings, the branding iron—but also to suffer those things that even the pirates had refused to do: ‘Cut off my hands. I show them to you. These (hae) are those [hands] . . .’53 The conceit seemed to contain declamatory appeal, since Seneca records Vibius Rufus using the same motif, with a deictic adjective once again indicating that a gesture was expected: ‘These (hae) are the hands that wrote the letter. I show them to you. Cut them off!’54 Such emotional appeals on his own behalf, echoed in bodily mimesis, would have been beneath the dignity of the Republican orator. The clearest evidence for the contrast between declamation and forensic or judicial oratory appears in Seneca’s own editorial remarks regarding the gestural practice of Cassius Severus. In the preface to his third book, Seneca presents Severus as an example of one of several orators who excelled in the forum but, when they turned to declamation, their talent left them (Sen. Contr. 3.praef.1: desertos ab ingenio suo). What is especially interesting about Severus in the context of gesture is that he was well known in an­tiquity for possessing an impassioned delivery, one of several characteristics that Seneca lists to show that Severus should have been an ideal declaimer (Sen. Contr. 3.praef.7).55 In fact, Seneca also notes that Severus’ immense success in the forum would not necessarily have been predicted from the written texts that he left behind. More so than with most orators, ‘he was far better to hear than to read’ (Sen. Contr. 3.praef.7). The implication is unavoidable: much of Severus’ success must be due to the style of his delivery. Regarding details, Seneca unfortunately provides only imprecise allusions, but sufficient enough to indicate that Severus’ delivery matches our discussion of bodily display in public cases. That is, his bodily performance (actio is the term Seneca uses) had nothing that was superfluous; presumably this style of delivery contributed to his unparalleled ability to control the emotions of those listening (Sen. Contr. 3.praef.2). The most telling description that 53 Sen. Contr. 1.7.9: Manus praecide. Exhibeo tibi. Hae sunt illae . . . 54 Sen. Contr. 1.7.10: Hae nempe scripserunt epistulam manus: praebeo; praecide. 55  See Winterbottom (1964) 90–2.

132  Physical Excess as a Marker of Genre Seneca offers recalls the dangerous paradox that the orator constantly faced but that Severus was able successfully to transcend: he possessed ‘the style of delivery that could benefit an actor, and yet he was able to seem not actorly’.56 Why then did this apparently ideal orator fail when he entered the halls of declamation? Seneca records Severus’ own explanation for this alleged lack of success. Not even the greatest of geniuses, he observes, can excel in more than one area of activity—for example, Cicero’s eloquence disappeared when he attempted to write poetry, whereas Virgil’s genius cannot be detected by reading his prose writings. To put Severus’ claim in terms suitable to my principal thesis: like oratory and epic poetry, so too do dec­lam­ation and oratory belong to different spheres of creative activity; that is, to different genres.

Conclusion I shall conclude with brief references to Quintilian that indicate that the generation after the Elder Seneca had begun to recognize declamation as a genre independent of the types of performances found either in forensic oratory or at the theatre. Quintilian devotes a section of Book 2 of his Institutio to the role that declamation plays in educating the aspiring young orator. He begins with disparaging remarks about how misguided application by teachers has led students to consider that these declamatory exercises alone could provide sufficient training for young speakers who desired a career in the forum (Quint. Inst. 2.10.1–3). After offering suggestions for remedying this situation, Quintilian breaks off in what I suggest is a nod to the adult genre over whose beginnings Seneca reminisces in his own collection: ‘If [this exercise] is not in fact offering preparation for the forum, then it most resembles either performances in the theatre or the ravings of a madman.’57 The reference to ‘performances in the theatre’ (scaenica ostentatio) recalls Seneca’s own concerns over the declaimer’s precarious relationship with the stage actor. More importantly, Quintilian’s overall characterization indicates the success that the adult declaimers were enjoying in staking out the generic middle ground that I have argued for here, namely between

56 Sen. Contr. 3.praef.3: pronuntiatio quae histrionem posset producere, tamen quae histrionis posset videri. 57 Quint. Inst. 2.10.8: Si foro non praeparat, aut scaenicae ostentationi aut furiosae vociferationi simillimum est.

Anthony Corbeill  133 forensic activity and theatrical entertainment.58 At the same time, Quintilian’s mention of an excessive manipulation of the voice that verges on the ­irrational (furiosa vociferatio) mirrors Seneca’s references to the shouting that characterizes the declamatory practice of his contemporaries.59 While the fantastic situations and verbal pyrotechnics prevalent in the Senecan collection strike even the modern reader as extreme, Quintilian adds an extra dimension by calling attention to a bodily mani­fest­ation that must have been equally striking for its histrionics. The new genre has impressed as both a textual and physical presence. Gunderson aptly observes that ‘declamation is not “failing” to be Cicero any more than Lucan fails to be Virgil’.60 I hope here to have placed this remark in a clear literary context. As not-oratory, not-theatre, and notrhet­oric­al exercise, Seneca’s declamatory offerings point in the direction of a new genre, distinct from the political oratory that had preceded it, and one that intends to impress through excess. This excess encompasses not only language, but the body as well.

58  Cf. Berti (2007) 149–53. 59  On shouting in declamation, see Reinhardt and Winterbottom (2006) 169. 60  Gunderson (2003) 6.

7

Between Real and Fictional Eloquence Some Observations on the Actio of Porcius Latro and Albucius Silus Andrea Balbo

1.  The Problem In my critical edition of fragmentary Roman oratory of the Augustan and  Tiberian periods,1 I have described the activity of many declaimers who both delivered speeches in the schools and were active as accusers or defenders in the forum or in centumviral trials. In this paper I intend to discuss some testimonia of their oratorical features from Seneca the Elder and other sources such as Quintilian and Suetonius, in order to deepen our understanding of an element of their oratorical activity which has been neglected by twentieth-century scholarship: actio. Indeed, this topic has not attracted much scholarly interest: despite some significant analyses by Fairweather (1981) and incisive remarks by Citti (2005), who connected declaimers’ actions with their animi (‘spirits’), the subject did not find attention in Berti (2007), in Hall (2007), or in Cavarzere (2011); Nocchi (2013) is engaging, but not useful for our purposes. Recently Balbo (2018) has studied the problem in Calpurnius Flaccus’ declamatory fragments and Huelsenbeck (2018) has also opened new perspectives in the literary context of Senecan declamations; other elements relevant to the discussion will be available in Balbo (forthcoming). Nonetheless, a fresh reappraisal of the problem is needed, as Corbeill’s paper in this volume shows, and this chapter aims to be a step towards this goal.

*  I am grateful to John Dugan for his careful revision of my paper. 1  Balbo (2007a) and Balbo (2007b). Andrea Balbo, Between Real and Fictional Eloquence In: Reading Roman Declamation: Seneca the Elder. Edited by: Martin T. Dinter, Charles Guérin, and Marcos Martinho, Oxford University Press (2020). © Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198746010.003.0007

Andrea Balbo  135

2.  Declaimers Who Were Also Orators Before proceeding to a deeper analysis of some passages, it is important to define the context of our investigation. Very few declaimers were also active as orators between the first century bc and the first part of the first century ad. In the following chart, I list the most relevant testimonies about their fictional2 and actual oratorical activity: Name

Testimonies about activity Actual speeches as declaimers

L. Arruntius Pater

Sen. Contr. 7.praef.7

C. Albucius Silus M. Porcius Latro

Sen. Contr. 7.praef.1–9 and passim Sen. Contr. 1.praef.13–24

T. Labienus

Sen. Contr. 10.praef.4–8

Cassius Severus

Sen. Exc. Contr. 1.praef.1–18

In centumvirali iudicio Balbo (2007b) 4–6 In centumvirali iudicio Balbo (2007b) 10–12 Pro Porcio Rustico Balbo (2007b) 15–16 In Bathyllum Balbo (2007b) 24 In Pollionem Balbo (2007b) 25 Pro Figulo contra heredes Urbiniae Balbo (2007b) 26–9 Orationes contra Cestium Pium Balbo (2007b) 32 Contra Nonium Asprenatem Balbo (2007b) 33–7 Pro se contra Fabium Maximum Balbo (2007b) 38 Contra Pomponium Porcellum Balbo (2007b) 39

Here we find prominent figures within the political history of the late Roman Republic and early Empire, such as Cassius Severus and T. Labienus, important exponents of the Sophistopolis,3 and Porcius Latro, Seneca’s closest friend.4 It is well known that we do not have their orations and Seneca the Elder is thus our main source about the characteristics of their oratory. The paucity of surviving fragments cannot give us a satisfactory idea of the 2  I will also use the information concerning delivery contained in declamation fragments, but I do not list this information here due to its unmanageable quantity. 3  See van Mal-Maeder (2007) passim. 4  See Balbo (2007b) 71–2; Echavarren (2007a) 221–6.

136  Between Real and Fictional Eloquence oratorical style of these figures, but our sources provide a useful piece of information: many declaimers, such as Albucius or Porcius Latro, were not at ease in the forum or in iudicium centumvirale, while other orators, such as Cassius Severus, were surely more effective in the forum than in the schools.5 This opposition between schola and forum is a common topic of first and second century ad discussions of the features of oratory: it has been already studied in depth and I shall not rehearse the discussion here.6 In general, I agree with Emanuele Berti’s analysis: declamation gradually lost its character as an exercitatio and became a type of ostentatio (‘show piece’), changing into a form of literature for entertainment. This evolution also involved a methodological change: orators paid more attention to the rhetorical element of delectare (‘to delight’) than docere (‘to teach’) and move­ re (‘to move’), and to elocutio (‘style’) rather than other parts of eloquence. The school became another world, Sophistopolis, with rules and relations of its own which made it different from the actual world.7 From a rhetorical point of view, the situations we find in the speeches of the corpus declamatorium are always so extreme that they are placed at the very limits of how the case at hand has been imagined by the law. The declaimers faced the challenge of determining the resistance and the effectiveness of the law under the pressure of such special and unusual events, a sort of crash test for the legal system and for rhetoric, to use a phrase coined by Gualtiero Calboli. Although we see the general framework clearly enough, we still have only a limited knowledge of many details concerning the forms and the features of the two oratorical approaches, including the particularly important role played by actio. According to Fairweather (1981), however, declaimers were not always particularly effective in their use of actio: Porcius Latro had a vox robusta, sed surda, lucubrationibus et neglegentia, non natura infuscata (‘a voice strong but dull, thickened not by nature but by overwork and lack of care’; Sen. Contr. 1.praef.16); other declaimers liked a violent delivery: Albucius

5  See Balbo (2007b) 143–76 and also Casamento (2007); about Cassius Severus, Seneca says (Sen. Contr. 3.praef.1): Quosdam disertissimos cognovi viros non respondentes famae suae cum declamarent, in foro maxima omnium admiratione dicentes, simul ad has domesticas exercita­ tiones secesserant desertos ab ingenio suo (‘I know several cases of gifted speakers who did not match up to their reputation when they declaimed. In the forum they spoke to the admiration of all who heard them, but as soon as they retreated to our private exercises they were deserted by their talents’). All translations are adapted from Winterbottom (1974) unless noted otherwise. 6  See, for instance, Berti (2007) 128–54 with further bibliography. 7  For an overview of the problems of ethics between the two worlds, see the recent Bern­ stein (2013).

Andrea Balbo  137 omnes vires advocabat (‘Albucius summoned up all his energies’; Sen. Contr. 7.praef.1); they enjoyed changes in posture, from sitting to standing up; there are some examples of this both in Albucius and Latro. In general, declaimers were aware of the importance of voice and gestures: in epilogis nos de industria vocem quoque infringere et vultum deicere et dare operam ne dissimilis orationi sit orator (‘in the perorations we even make our voices break on purpose, bow our heads and ensure the speaker doesn’t clash with what he is speaking’; Latro in Sen. Contr. 7.4.6). What is more, they could also make mistakes in vocal delivery (‘excessive rapidity of speaking’), gestures (‘inability to project violent emotions’), and exaggeration. Some declaimers also underestimated the role of actio: Quintilian criticizes Albucius because he belongs to a group of rhetoricians who think that memoria and actio are not products of technical education (ars), but a gift of nature:8 Nec audiendi quidam, quorum est Albucius, qui tris modo primas esse partis volunt quoniam memoria atque actio natura, non arte contingant: quarum nos praecepta suo loco dabimus; licet Thrasymachus quoque idem de actione crediderit. (Those -and Albutius is among them- who maintain that there are only three departments on the ground that memory and delivery -for which I shall give instructions in their proper place- are given us by nature not by art, may be disregarded, although Thrasymachus held the same views as regards delivery.)9 (Quint. Inst. 3.3.4)

Hence, for many declaimers such as Albucius (the quidam reveals that they were not so rare), actio is not governed by ars: so, there are orators who have a better or worse actio, but it cannot be used as a criterion to evaluate them. Quintilian’s passage suggests that delivery was not a major concern for some declamatores, due to their self-confidence, which explains why they sometimes did not pay enough attention to this part of rhetoric.10 Our sources describe different attitudes and behaviours, but the rarity of precise descriptions makes in-depth analysis very difficult. Nonetheless, we have to ask ourselves if it is possible to find some differences in the delivery of the same declaimers in their school speeches and real speeches; and, further, we must determine how to isolate these differences when the 8 Quint. Inst. 3.3.4. See also Cavarzere (2011) 24. 9  Translation by Butler (1921). 10 According to Lindner (1861) 10, medium videtur tenuisse Albucius inter oratorem et de­clam­atorem: dixit enim et in foro et in schola.

138  Between Real and Fictional Eloquence testimonia and fragmenta of real speeches are so scant. Answering these questions is not easy. I intend, therefore, to explore this topic through some test cases that clarify the situation. To this end, I will scrutinize two characters who are very often quoted by Seneca the Elder, Porcius Latro and Albucius Silus, examining in particular the problems posed by the fragments of their actual speeches.

3.  An Example from Porcius Latro Hoc quod vulgo narratur an verum sit tu melius potes scire: Latronem Porcium, declamatoriae virtutis unicum exemplum, cum pro reo in Hispania Rustico Porcio, propinquo suo, diceret, usque eo esse confusum ut a soloecismo inciperet, nec ante potuisse confirmari ac parietem desiderantem, quam impetravit, ut iudicium ex foro in basilicam transferretur. (You are in a better position than I to know what truth there is in the popular tale that Porcius Latro, unsurpassed pattern of excellence in declamation, when speaking for a relation, Porcius Rusticus, on trial in Spain, was so confused that he began with a solecism and—so great was his need of ceiling and four walls—couldn’t regain his self-confidence before he made a successful application to have the trial transferred from the forum to a basilica.)  (Sen. Contr. 9.praef.3)

This is one of the few reports of Porcius Latro’s real oratorical activity as retold by Votienus Montanus.11 Accounts of this case are preserved only by Seneca the Elder and Quintilian,12 suggesting that, when the Institutio ora­ toria was composed, Latro’s behaviour had become a stock example of what one should not imitate. The trial was held in Spain13 and Porcius Rusticus was Latro’s relative.14 Latro had become unaccustomed to speaking in a real trial, so he could not properly concentrate and was so confused that he began with a great error and experienced a panic attack. Therefore, he asked

11  On Votienus Montanus, see Balbo (2007b) 294–308; Echavarren (2007a) 276–8. 12 Quint. Inst. 10.5.18–19. 13  Although we do not have any information on the town, we could suppose that this was Corduba. See Balbo (2007b) 84. 14  We have no other information about him: see PIR III P644e; Bornecque (1902) 200–1.

Andrea Balbo  139 to move the trial into a basilica,15 to recreate the conditions of a declamatory lecture hall. We do not know the specifics of the trial: the charge and the date are unknown, though it should be dated to when Latro was already a famous declaimer (probably at the height of his career under the emperor Tiberius). A declaimer in his early career would not easily have obtained a change of venue for the trial. Moreover, Quintilian states explicitly that Porcius was already famous when he delivered this speech.16 However, the uncertain nature of the testimony—‘You are in a better position than I to know what truth there is in the popular tale’—suggests that Seneca received only second-hand news about the trial, perhaps from eyewitnesses. Sussman (1978) 21–2 supposes that the speech could have taken place during Seneca’s return to Spain. The version of the anecdote which is preserved by Quintilian,17 who highlights the distinction between school exercises and forensic oratory, has been thoroughly studied by Berti (2010) 101–8. Berti has shown the role that anecdote played in the development of the antithesis between school and shade on one side, and the forum and daylight on the other: ‘Il passaggio dalla scuola al forum non si configura solo come un passaggio dall’ombra alla luce (e dall’addestramento militare alle vere battaglie), ma anche da un “luogo di finzione” a un “luogo di realtà”.’18 Nonetheless, this passage perhaps

15  Corduba had a basilica from the time of Caesar, as we know from Caes. Bell. Alex. 52.2, but this building was probably not unique in Baetica, even if the archaeological excavations have found no trace of basilicas in Malaca, Gades, Hispalis, Nova Carthago, and Castulo. 16  See Bornecque (1902) 188. 17 Quint. Inst. 10.5.17–18: Sed quem ad modum forensibus certaminibus exercitatos et quasi militantis reficit ac reparat haec velut sagina dicendi, sic adulescentes non debent nimium in falsa rerum imagine detineri et inanibus simulacris usque adeo, ut difficilis ab his digressus sit, adsue­ facere, ne ab illa, in qua prope consenuerunt, umbra vera discrimina velut quendam solem refor­ mident. Quod accidisse etiam M. Porcio Latroni, qui primus clari nominis professor fuit, traditur, ut, cum ei summam in scholis opinionem obtinenti causa in foro esset oranda, inpense petierit uti subsellia in basilicam transferrentur: ita illi caelum novum fuit ut omnis eius eloquentia contineri tecto ac parietibus videretur (‘But although those who find their practice in the contests of forensic warfare derive fresh strength and repair their forces by means of this rich fare of eloquence, the young should not be kept too long at these false semblances of reality, nor should they allowed to become so familiar with these empty shadows that it is difficult for them to leave them: otherwise there is always the danger that, owing to the seclusion in which they have almost grown old, they will shrink in terror from the real perils of public life, like men dazzled by the unfamiliar sunlight. Indeed it is recorded that this fate actually befell Marcus Porcius Latro, the first professor of rhetoric to make a name for himself; for when, at the height of his fame in the schools, he was called upon to plead a case in the forum, he put forward the most earnest request that the court should be transferred to some public hall. He was so unaccustomed to speak in the open air that all his eloquence seemed to reside within the compass of a roof and four walls’). Translation adapted from Butler (1921). 18  Berti (2010) 107.

140  Between Real and Fictional Eloquence also provides a useful starting point for reflection upon Latro’s actio. It does not only deal with problems of elocutio and Latinity, issues that are the proper domain of soloecismus (solecism),19 but also with Latro’s state of mind during his speech. His blunder is a clear symptom of a significant psychological problem. Latro does not feel at ease, his concentration is unsatisfactory, and Montanus reproaches him for his confusion, one of the worst faults in an orator since it betrays a lack of confidence, as Cicero explains in Part. 29.20 Confusion thus reveals the imperfect attitude of the speaker, a state ultimately caused by the neglegentia for which Porcius is criticized by Seneca (Contr. 1.praef.16) and stigmatized by Quintilian (Inst. 11.3.19). Latro, perfectly at home in the scholastic system, is completely unsuited to the new situations that an actual trial presents. In my opinion, therefore, his attitude merits Quintilian’s criticisms: Nam certe bene pronuntiare non poterit cui aut in scriptis memoria aut in iis quae subito dicenda erunt facilitas prompta defuerit, nec si inemendabilia oris incommoda obstabunt. (For a good delivery is undoubtedly impossible for one who cannot remember what he has written, or lacks the quick facility of speech required by sudden emergencies, or is hampered by incurable impediments of speech.) 21 (Quint. Inst. 11.3.12)

In these passages, actio also highlights the key difference between declaimers in the school and the real world: their speaking style becomes ineffective and weak when faced with actual circumstances and locations. Moreover, Porcius Latro’s behaviour seems to result directly from a bad habit. Seneca thus describes Latro’s declamatory practice: Id, quod nunc a nullo fieri animadverto, semper fecit: antequam dicere inciperet, sedens quaestiones eius quam dicturus erat controversiae 19 Porph. Epod. 5.59–60; see also Quint. Inst. 1.5.5. 20 Cic. Part. 29: Sed facillime auditor discit et quid agatur intellegit si complectare a principio genus naturamque causae, si definias, si dividas, si neque prudentiam eius impedias confusione partium nec memoriam multitudine; quaeque mox de narratione dilucida dicentur, eadem etiam huc poterunt recte referri. (‘But it is easiest for the hearer to learn them and to understand the matter at issue if you include in your opening a statement of the class and nature of the case and define it and divide it into parts and do not handicap his intelligence by confusing and mixing up the parts with one another or his memory by making them too numerous; and the same set of rules that will shortly be given as to clearness in the narration will be able with propriety to be transferred to this matter also’). Translation by Sutton and Rackham (1941). 21  Translation by Butler (1921).

Andrea Balbo  141 proponebat. Quod summae fiduciae est: ipsa enim actio multas latebras habet, nec facile potest, si quo loco subtilitas defuit, apparere, cum orationis cursus audientis iudicium impediat, dicentis abscondat; at ubi nuda proponuntur membra, si quid aut numero aut ordine excidit manifestum est. (I don’t notice anyone nowadays doing what he always did: before beginning a speech, he used, while still seated, to set out the points at issue in the controversia he was to declaim—a mark of supreme confidence. An actual speech gives much scope for concealment; if acuteness is anywhere lacking, the lack is not obvious, for the impetus of the speech prevents the audience judging—and hides the judgment of the speaker. But, when the bones of the speech are set out in advance unadorned, it is obvious if anything is left out or misplaced.)  (Sen. Contr. 1.praef.21)

This practice was normal in schools, where setting out in advance the points of the speech could not give a great advantage to one’s opponent in a fictive trial, but was very dangerous in court. The reference to the change of venue could also hint at this behaviour, as Latro needed to follow in a trial the same method he practised in the schools. As Seneca emphasizes, Latro’s approach is detrimental to actio, because his premature presentation of arguments does not allow him to gain the advantage of surprise.

4.  Albucius vs. Arruntius Tristis, sollicitus declamator et qui de dictione sua timeret etiam cum di­ xisset: usque eo nullum tempus securum illi erat. Haec illum sollicitudo fugavit a foro [. . .]. Nam in quodam iudicio centumvirali, cum diceretur iurisiurandi condicio aliquando delata ab adversario, induxit eiusmodi figuram qua illi omnia crimina regereret. Placet, inquit, tibi rem iureiu­ rando transigi? Iura, sed ego iusiurandum mandabo: iura per patris ­cineres, qui inconditi sunt, iura per patris memoriam; et executus est ­locum. Quo perfecto surrexit L.  Arruntius ex diverso et ait: accipimus condicionem; iurabit. Clamabat Albucius: non detuli condicionem; ­schema dixi. Arruntius instabat. Centumviri rebus iam ultimis properabant. Albucius clamabat: ista ratione schemata de rerum natura tolluntur. Arruntius aiebat: tollantur; poterimus sine illis vivere. Summa rei haec fuit: centumviri dixerunt dare ipsos secundum adversarium Albucii si iuraret; ille iuravit. Albucius non tulit hanc contumeliam, sed iratus ­ ­calumniam sibi imposuit: numquam amplius in foro dixit.

142  Between Real and Fictional Eloquence (He was a gloomy, anxious declaimer, one who worried about his ­performance even at the end of a speech—in fact no moment was free of care for him. And it was this anxiety that drove him away from the forum—and in particular the cruel outcome of a single figure. Once, at a trial in a centumviral court, because he was told that the terms of an oath had on one occasion been prescribed by his adversary, he brought in a figure involving an oath that enabled him to make all the charges recoil on him. ‘You want,’ he asked, ‘to settle the point by means of an oath? Swear— but I will dictate the oath. Swear by the unburied ashes of your father. Swear by your father’s memory.’ And he finished the topic. When he had finished, Lucius Arruntius got up on the other side and said: ‘We accept the terms, he will swear.’ Albucius screamed, ‘I wasn’t putting forward terms, I was using a figure of speech’; Arruntius insisted. The centumviri were at the end of their business and in a hurry. Albucius cried: ‘At this rate figures of speech are banished from the world.’ Arruntius said: ‘Let them go: we shall be able to survive without them.’ The outcome of the matter was this: the centumviri said they would decide for Albucius’ opponent if he would swear. He did swear. Albucius couldn’t take this insult: in his anger he condemned himself and never again spoke in court.) (Sen. Contr. 7.praef.7)22

As in the case of Porcius Latro, the circumstances of this trial and its date are not clear. The reference to the dead parents of the defendant perhaps suggests that the topic was part of a series (see Gagliardi (2002) 204–6 and 465–6).23 The anecdote, related for the first time by Seneca the Elder, was later also told by Quintilian and Suetonius and became a topos in rhetorical schools for the teaching of dissimulatio, the attitude of the orator who pretends not to understand what his opponent says (see Quint. Inst. 6.3.85 and Kaster (1995) 313–14 and 346–59). In Seneca’s account, Albucius was probably just finishing the peroratio, for after the altercatio, the judgment is issued without any other intervention. Albucius tries to finish by employing a figure (schema) of irony:24 he is accusing the defendant of being impius erga parentes, but he aims to force him to swear fictitiously in the name of

22  See Corbeill in this volume for further analysis of the use of sententiae in this case study. 23  It is also possible, as Kaster (1995) 322 suggests, that this interpretation is conditioned by the structure of the oath. 24  For the meaning of schema, see Quint. Inst. 9.1 and Lausberg (1990³) §§ 499, 600–2.

Andrea Balbo  143 the ashes of his parents.25 At the same time, Albucius thought that a direct address to his opponent would increase the effectiveness of his statements, but his choice was dangerous: if the defendant had considered his oath real and not fictitious, the prosecution strategy would have collapsed, as indeed it did.26 When Arruntius strikes back, moreover, Albucius first cries out again and again (clamabat . . . clamabat). This verb describes a situation of emotional distress,27 for which reason it is often used in declamations, such as the Declamationes maiores (fifteen occurrences) and Seneca the Elder (fourteen occurrences).28 However, both Cicero and Quintilian view this behavi­ our negatively. As Crassus notes in De Or. 3.227: a principio clamare agreste quiddam est (‘It is something barbaric to shout from the beginning’) while Quint. Inst. 2.12.9 attacks the orators who try to gain a good reputation through their pronuntiatio (enunciation): Nam et clamant ubique et omnia levata, ut ipsi vocant, manu emugiunt, multo discursu, anhelitu, iactatione gestus, motus capitis furentes.29 Hence, this appears to be a hint that Albucius is losing control over the situation and is adopting an ineffective strategy to solve the problem. He claims licence for school oratory over the practical requirements of a real court case, he tries to use hyperbolic clauses, but he doesn’t understand that he is becoming ridiculous, as is shown by the bombastic and excessive ista ratione schemata de rerum natura tolluntur, where 25  Concerning this element, which is defined as inartificialis, see Quint. Inst. 5.1.1 and 5.6.1; Dig. 12.2–3 and Kaser and Hackl (1996) 266–9 and 590–2; the oath is considered particularly suited to problems of inheritance: Dig. 12.2.11–12. An oath in the name of one’s parents (dead or alive, human or divine) is traditional, even if not very common in literary texts: see Prop. 2.20.15; Ov. Pont. 3.3.68. The linguistic pattern with the imperative form also helps to increase the irony of the expression: see Quint. Inst. 9.2.48. 26  Afterwards Albucius refused to speak outside of the schools: this is an important piece of evidence that allows us to date the Mediolanum trial as earlier: see Lebek (1966) 363–4 and Balbo (2007b) 66–8. The fragments of this speech and the argumentative patterns have been analysed by Balbo (2007b) 32–4 and 68–70 and Berti (2007) 145–9. 27  See, for instance, Sen. Contr. 2.4.6: Clamavit pater: in domum ergo meam meretrix veniet aut, quod turpius est, filius ad illam ibit? (‘My father cried: “Shall a whore then come to my house—or, what is more shameful, shall my son go to her?” ’) 28 Stramaglia (2016) 41 focuses on the use of clamat in Decl. Mai. 10.4 and 10.11 and observes that it ‘take[s] the value of a didascalie, explaining the inflections that the speaker has to give to his voice during the performance, when playing the role of the tearful mother’. 29  Translation by Butler (1921): ‘For they shout on all and every occasion and bellow their every utterance “with uplifted hand”, to use their own phrase, dashing this way and that, panting, gesticulating wildly and wagging their heads with all the frenzy of a lunatic.’ Reinhardt and Winterbottom (2006) 183–4, referring to Winterbottom (1964), think that here Quintilian ‘has in mind the eloquence of at least some of the delatores who were of such sinister importance in the courts, and to some extent in the system of government, at certain periods of the early Empire, including the time of Domitian’. Nonetheless, I would not exclude a more general reference to orators with unsatisfactory delivery (or theory of delivery) as Albucius.

144  Between Real and Fictional Eloquence the reference to nature is easy to turn around, as Arruntius does, repeating the same verb with derivatio (tolluntur) and giving a general meaning (poterimus sine illis vivere), which sounds ironic. Albucius contracts Latro’s disease: his actions (surrexit) and his usage of voice are symptoms of a lack of control and security, against the recommendations of Quintilian who asks for a vox that is bona firmaque, but also libera maculis.30 The accuracy, the clearness, the precision and the absolute control of gestures, movements, voice, and face that together form a perfect delivery are in complete antithesis to Albucius’ reaction and show once more the lack of real passion in the schools and the distance between the fictive world of education and the actual world of the courts. We can notice here the presence of an opposing orator as yet another element of influence. A real opponent, who does not play the game according to the abstract rules of the school, is a surprising and unpredictable enemy, who can derail all the plans and strategies that one has prepared. This also entails the difficulty of dealing with an unforeseen situation, a risk, for instance, described by Cassius Severus, who said: adsuevi non mihi respondere sed adversario (‘I am not used to responding to myself, but rather to my opponent’; Sen. Contr. 3.praef.12).31 In this situation, Albucius seems to have acted as Porcius Latro did, remaining a good school declaimer, but no more than that. Nevertheless, Albucius did not always behave in an unsatisfactory way during his career. From an episode some years before this incident, we can see that Albucius also knew how to use his rhetorical skills in a different and effective way. Suetonius relates that Albucius pleaded a case in Mediolanum in a court presided over by a proconsul. When the lictores stopped a group from applauding, he cried out and invoked Marcus Brutus: Et rursus in cognitione caedis Mediolani apud L. Pisonem proconsulem defendens reum cum cohiberent lictores nimias laudantium voces et ita excanduisset ut, deplorato Italiae statu, quasi iterum in formam provinciae redigeretur, M.  insuper Brutum cuius statua in conspectu erat invocaret legum ac libertatis [auctorem ac] vindicem, paene poenas luit. (Again, when he was defending a client in a murder trial at Mediolanum before the proconsul Lucius Piso, and the lictors tried to suppress the immoderate applause, he grew so angry, that lamenting the condition of Italy and saying that ‘it was being reduced once more to the form of a

30  See Quint. Inst. 11.3.13: ‘A good and firm voice’ but also ‘free from flaws’. (Translation by Butler (1921)) 31  Translation is mine.

Andrea Balbo  145 province’, he called besides upon Marcus Brutus whose statue was in sight, as ‘the founder of our laws and the defender of our liberties’; and for that he narrowly escaped punishment.)32 (Suet. Gramm. 30.5)

I have extensively dealt with this trial elsewhere.33 Sometime between 25 and 13 bc, perhaps in 1634—and yet before the centumviral case already described—Albucius defended a man in front of the governor of Mediolanum, whose name was Lucius Piso.35 We do not know much about this case,36 but it is possible to argue from Albucius’ attitude that he was one of the orators who belonged to the supporters of Republican freedom, such as Asinius Pollio and Cremutius Cordus. Albucius’ reaction deserves attention: as Kaster (1995) 324 has observed, ‘that Albucius takes offence at the lictors’ attempt to keep order implies that he was already accustomed to, and regarded as his due, the sort of clamorous approval that attended scholastic declamations’, thinking that the customs of the school also applied to the actual world of the trial. However, Kaster’s interpretation is only partially right. It is certain that Albucius expected approval, but his reaction is not the same as the one he would later display in the centumviral trial. In Milan he seems to lose control, but he succeeds in channelling his energies towards a passionate and strong delivery. His voice acquires strength and credibility and shows his rage perfectly. Quintilian, however, would probably not have approved: he liked a pronun­ tiatio emendata [et] suaviloquens, that is, non-violent, natural, clear, and without grammatical mistakes or solecisms.37 Albucius’ gestures are not clearly described, but the use of the verb invo­ care seems to suggest a reference to the fact that he pointed at Brutus’ statue, a gesture with strong political significance. In fact, invocare is strictly connected by Cicero with the emotional elements that belong to the actio: Cum C. Marius maerorem orationis meae praesens ac sedens multum la­ crimis suis adiuvaret cumque ego illum crebro appellans conlegam ei suum 32  Translation adapted from Rolfe (1914). 33  See Balbo (2007b) 63–8. 34  There is no agreement on the date. Personally, I think that the trial should be dated to before the centumviral case and perhaps to 16 bc, due to the testimony of Oros. Hist. 6.21.22. 35  We know almost nothing about the charges: Laffi (2001) suggests they refer to a comes of the proconsul or to a soldier, who was directly under his jurisdiction. 36  According to Laffi (2001) 231, ‘in circostanze normali il processo si sarebbe svolto dinanzi al tribunale dei magistrati cittadini o sarebbe stato deferito a Roma . . . e nell’uno e nell’altro caso si sarebbe svolto secondo la procedura delle quaestiones’. In fact, as a quaestio, it would have been de sicariis et veneficis (see Santalucia (1998) 145–8 and Kaster (1995) 323). Bleicken (1962) 188 has already explained that Suetonius’ testimony seemed to confirm that criminal courts also existed away from Rome. 37 Quint. Inst. 11.3.30. See Cavarzere (2011) 171–4.

146  Between Real and Fictional Eloquence commendarem atque ipsum advocatum ad communem imperatorum fortunam defendendam invocarem, non fuit haec sine meis lacrimis, non sine dolore [magno] miseratio omniumque deorum et hominum et civi­um et sociorum imploratio. (While Gaius Marius, from his seat in court, was strongly reinforcing, by his weeping, the pathos of my appeal, and I, repeatedly naming him, was committing his colleague to his care, and was calling upon him to speak himself in support of the common interests of commanders in chief, all this lamentation, as well as my invocation of every god and man, every citizen and ally, was accompanied by tears and vast indignation on my own part.)38 (Cic. De Or. 2.196)

Hand gestures are an important part of the pronuntiatio, accurately described by Quintilian, who observes in his Inst. 11.3.85: prope est ut dicam, ipsae loquuntur [sc. manus].39 Albucius deals here with an instrument of delivery that is absent in the centumviral trial, where only the logic of argumentation and the voice are significant. In the Mediolanum trial he seems to be a completely different speaker and this, in my opinion, confirms Seneca’s statement: alius erat cum turbae se committebat, alius cum paucitate contentus erat (‘he was one man when he entrusted himself to a crowd, another when he contented himself with a small audience’; Sen. Contr. 7.praef.1). What is the difference between these two situations? In the first trial Albucius led the game. Certainly, the attack against his supporters awoke his rage and caused his reaction, but he made a decision (to shout), chose a tactic (the complaint for the conditions of Italy), invented a system to strengthen his position (the reference to Brutus), and showed his ability to change his oratorical strategy with the circumstances. Elsewhere I have suggested we can identify this situation as an example of the ‘call–response’ model that is activated when orators are compelled to change their tactics unexpectedly.40 In the centumviral case, Albucius, facing a real opponent, loses the lead position and is not able to revise his strategies while under attack. What could be the role of actio in the context of Roman oratory? Quintilian Inst. 11.3.31 criticizes orators who use excessive pathos, referring 38  Translation by Sutton (1942). 39  ‘As I might say, the [hands] speak for themselves.’ On hands in oratory, see Maier-Eichhorn (1989) 51; Hall (2004) 143 n. 2 and 148–59. 40  See Balbo (2007a).

Andrea Balbo  147 to Cicero, who accuses them of barking like dogs.41 Albucius, with his outburst, probably comes close to the following definition, which described an eloquence ‘volta più a commuovere che a persuadere i giudici, e quindi infuocata, patetica e soprattutto espressione di una violenza e di un’aggressività che si traduce in un’actio concitata e istrionica’ (Cavarzere (2011) 173). Albucius’ actio seems to fit this description and he achieves his goal of gaining attention and dominating the scene. There is a final issue concerning Albucius: as we have seen, Quintilian criticized him for a delivery connected with ingenium but not ars. Given that Albucius also underestimates actio, it is likely that he did not pay attention to his own performance, thinking that through his experience, he could gain victory in any case. We find this attitude confirmed in the fact that Albucius always wanted to give the last speech, the peroratio.42

Conclusion As we have seen, the difference between the abstractness of the scholastici and the concreteness of the orators who pleaded in the forum and in the centumviral courts was reflected in their actio: the real circumstances of a court speech sometimes constrained the skills of good declaimers, who lost their confidence and obtained poor results. Nonetheless, those orators, who were also declaimers, could apply their abilities advantageously if they followed the rules correctly but, most of all, if they seized the leading role in the speech. Self-confidence, intuition, and the ability to adapt such physical elements as voice and gestures to the circumstances seem the main features of good actio for Albucius, who, nonetheless, did not think that actio was really a part of oratory, at least according to Quintilian. However, as we have seen, the actio of declaimers, whilst often underestimated and unsuccessful, represents, as Anthony Corbeill puts it, a ‘generic marker’ for declamation.43

41 Cic. Brut. 58: Latrant enim quidam oratores, non loquuntur. 43  See Corbeill in this volume.

42 Suet. Gramm. 30.3.

8

The Ocean (Seneca Suas. 1) Community Rules for a Common Literary Topic Bart Huelsenbeck

. . . we have to realize that the oral tradition of the declamation was strong and constant and that the same expressions recur again and again. A. D. Leeman (1963) 1.2561

Introduction In 1839 Charles Darwin published his memoirs and observations collected during a five-year voyage to South America aboard the Beagle. The epochmaking book, The Voyage of the Beagle (as it came to be called), helped establish a foundation for the revolutionary concepts of natural selection and evolution. In a well-known passage,2 Darwin remarks on variations between species of finches found on the Galapagos Islands, noting a ‘perfect gradation’ in beak sizes for the different species of the genus Geospiza. The observation is accompanied by the ornithologist John Gould’s illustration of four juxtaposed finch heads, inviting the reader to see the range of beak size *  The bulk of this study was written in the years 2010–12 and submitted for acceptance to the present volume in March 2014. I am grateful to an audience at Cornell University who heard an earlier version of this paper. Work on this study was supported by an ACLS New Faculty Fellows award and the Andrew  W.  Mellon Foundation. My heartfelt thanks to Martin Dinter and Charles Guérin for their work on the present volume and its spirit of broad-mindedness. 1  Leeman attributes the similarities between Curtius Rufus (9.4.17–18) and passages from the Elder Seneca to the declamatory ‘oral tradition’; similarly, Tandoi (1992a) 446. Cf. also Pianezzola (1984) 201: ‘Les convergences dans l’emploi de ce sémantème [sc. ultra] entre ­plusieurs textes, même de genres littéraires différents, s’expliquent évidemment par la matrice commune que représentent les écoles de rhétorique.’ 2  Chapter 17 in the second and later editions; see online at http://darwin-online.org.uk. Bart Huelsenbeck, The Ocean (Seneca Suas. 1): Community Rules for a Common Literary Topic In: Reading Roman Declamation: Seneca the Elder. Edited by: Martin T. Dinter, Charles Guérin, and Marcos Martinho, Oxford University Press (2020). © Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198746010.003.0008

152  The Ocean ( Seneca Suas. 1 ) among different species in a single view. Besides allowing the reader to compare the finch heads, marking how the birds are both similar and different, the illustration bears an argument: the differences between finch heads do not occur randomly, so as to underscore the individuality of the several species; rather, variation occurs according to some systematic principle (namely, survival of the fittest). The principle is effectively invisible. It cannot be seen apart from looking at the several different species side by side, as component pieces all driven by something larger than themselves. By this principle the variations between finches draw them together rather than divide them. This brief excursion into naturalism, and its visualization, is not without purpose. The illustration of Darwin’s finches, I have come to think, can serve as an instructive analogy, at least initially, for the interests of this ­art­icle—though, predictably, the analogy ceases to be helpful if pushed too far. The analogy runs as follows: in looking at Darwin’s birds, what exactly do readers of Darwin see? Where’s the meaning? The meaning, as suggested, is not in the look of one bird or even all the birds separately. The meaning is in what all the birds pictured make together. Forces are at work that guide the manifestation of each species, that live through all of them, and drive why they are both different and similar to each other. The subject of this study is not similar species of birds, but a group of similar textual passages. The study’s argument is that these similar passages are related by a process: their similarity develops out of forces not seen directly, when sought in a single passage, but that nonetheless methodically guide their production. They can be made out only when the passages are viewed together. What are these methodical forces? Here this study takes leave of Darwin. He is looking into natural selection. (To be clear, I shall not argue that the passages studied were subject to forces similar to natural selection.) I seek to look at similar passages as turns in a communicative exchange—as contributions to something like an ordinary conversation. The socially determined principles, or rules, of this conversation guide their products. My treatment of common textual passages here shares with Darwin’s natural selection an emphasis on the need to understand individual samples by seeing their place in a group; and it shares an emphasis on system. Instead of seeing each created object as cleanly individuated, the design of a single-minded creator-agent, originating causes are found in a shared, multi-participant system. Passages collected in the Appendix, most of which derive from the compilation of the Elder Seneca, share characteristics. They are connected.

Bart Huelsenbeck  153 Assembled there are: quotations of the declaimers Argentarius, Pompeius Silo, Moschus, Musa, Albucius Silus, and Papirius Fabianus (Sen. Suas. 1.1–4); verses by Albinovanus Pedo (Sen. Suas. 1.15); and excerpts from the History of Alexander by Q.  Curtius Rufus (9.3.7–8; 9.4.16–18; 9.9.7–22).3 That the passages are, somehow, related is undeniable. It has been recognized for over a century, and confirmed subsequently by many scholars.4 The concern of the present article is why and how the passages are similar. I intend to take up these questions, why and how, in what seems to me a fundamentally different way, combining methodologies from sociology and traditional philology and emphasizing the interactional process that produced the passages. I start with a fundamental, non-presumptive question: What are the passages about? One reasonable answer, applying to a large proportion of the texts quoted, is that they offer a ‘description of the Ocean’. The topical label ‘description of the Ocean’ seems especially appropriate for certain quotations, or parts of quotations: those by Moschus, Fabianus, Albinova­ nus, Curtius Rufus, and by the first speaker (the mutilated manuscript ­tradition does not preserve his name, so I shall call him ‘Anonymous’).5 However, we might notice that not all passages are descriptions exactly— for example, the quotation from Albucius Silus. And, on closer inspection, one observes that Alexander, the Macedonian king and conqueror, is a central figure. Furthermore, it turns out that the verses by Albinovanus,

3 Bornecque (1902) and Echavarren (2007a) provide basic information on declaimers appearing in Seneca’s collection; and see Migliario (2007) 22–31, with chronological con­sid­er­ ations specific to Suas. 1 on pp. 2–4. All the named declaimers and authors, although of different generations (older: Pompeius Silo, Volcacius Moschus, Albucius Silus; younger: Argentarius, Fabianus, Albinovanus Pedo), flourished in the Augustan age, with the exceptions of Musa (about whom almost nothing is known) and Curtius Rufus. It is widely held that Curtius was writing during the reign of Claudius (41–54 ad), though some think the reign of Vespasian (69–79 ad) more likely; see Baynham (1998) 201–19. More recently on this question, Power (2013) sees the rhetorician Curtius Rufus, mentioned in the index of Suetonius’ Grammarians and Rhetoricians, as identical to the historian. Feddern (2013) 148–224 provides a full commentary on Sen. Suas. 1. 4  Bornecque (1902) 123; Edward (1928) 83–98; Bongi (1949); Bonner (1949) 9, 60, and 160; Bardon (1956) 2.72; Leeman (1963) 1.256; Winterbottom (1974), footnotes to Suas. 1; Pianezzola (1984); Braccesi (1991) 29–30, 75–8 and Braccesi (2006) 117–57; Tandoi (1992a) and (1992b); Cozzolino (1992); Romm (1992) 20–6, 138–9, and 142–4; Courtney (1993) 316; Atkinson (1997) 3467 and 3473; Baynham (1998) 27–30; Berti (2007) 340–58; Hollis (2007) 375–81; Migliario (2007) 51–77, on both Suasoriae 1 and 4; La Bua (2015). Berti (forthcoming) studies how episodes of deliberation in Book 9 of Curtius Rufus’ Histories are modelled on declamatory suasio and dissuasio. 5  See Huelsenbeck (2011b) on the textual tradition of the Elder Seneca.

154  The Ocean ( Seneca Suas. 1 ) which were also included by Seneca under Suas. 1, are not about Alexander, but about Germanicus.6 There are, then, multiple facets to what these passages have in common, and it is impossible to provide a concise, comprehensive label to the group indicating all its constitutive elements. Still, in spite of this multiplicity, we can devise a circumlocution that more or less names the topic shared by the passages. Something like this: they talk about the Ocean and its marvels and, simultaneously, are concerned with imperial power and the limits of the known world.7 The circumlocution appears to cover the passages with tolerable ac­cur­ acy. However, I wish to forestall any assumption that we already know the passages—know them either because we are familiar with the ideas expressed in them from other ancient texts,8 or even simply because as readers we can make sense of them. If these passages are to be seen (as, in my opinion, sensitivity to context demands) as something other than pale reflections of more original cultural expressions produced earlier, under other circumstances, it is necessary to have fresh eyes—to treat the passages as foreign to us and as having their own internal purposes. Put differently, the ideas expressed in the passages have already been catalogued; what has not been taken into account is how the passages containing the ideas functioned in a synchronic, interactional context.9 How did the similar passages relate to one another? What did they mean in context? This context was the

6 Sen. Suas. 1.15: nemo illorum potuit tanto spiritu dicere quanto Pedo, qui navigante Germanico dicit. Scholars have generally assumed that the nephew of the Emperor Tiberius is meant (Tac. Ann. 1.60.2 mentions a Pedo who was cavalry commander under the Younger Germanicus); if true, the verses refer to the disaster of 16 ad suffered by Germanicus’ troops on the North Sea: Tac. Ann. 2.23–4. Comparisons between Alexander and Germanicus were not uncommon; see Braccesi (1991) 65–80 and Gissel (2001), who, surprisingly, does not cite the verses by Albinovanus. However, Bornecque (1932) 2.569 says Pedo’s verses describe the Elder Germanicus’ expedition into Germania in 12 bc, and a study by Labuske (1989) argues persuasively for this latter view. The earlier date, at any rate, is better suited to explain simi­lar­ ities between the excerpt from this Augustan-age poet (friend of Ovid) and the quotations of Augustan-age declaimers. 7  Berti (2007) 341 and 348 uses the section headings: 1. Alexander and the limits of the world (‘Alessandro e i limiti del mondo’). 2. The wonders of the Ocean (‘Le meraviglie dell’Oceano’). Tandoi (1992b) calls it the ‘rhetoric of conquests’ (retorica delle conquiste). 8  See the seminal study by Romm (1992) for an overview of ancient geographic thought; also Bichler (2011). Parker (2008) 313–14 reflects on how Roman declamation, by drawing on a common fund of ethnographic data, circulated, and sometimes fabricated, ideas about the edges of the world. 9  Cf. the assertion of Schegloff (2007) 1, regarding conversation, that it is ‘better examined with respect to action than with respect to topicality, more for what it is doing than for what it is about’ [italics original].

Bart Huelsenbeck  155 declamatory oral tradition, as alluded to by A. D. Leeman in the epigraph above. More specifically, it was sessions of declamatory performances. The premise, then, of the proposed discussion is that these similar passages belong to a specially defined ‘topic’: they belong together, and they belong together in a way not obvious to an outsider, that is, to one who has not been acculturated to the group. The topic, what I shall simply call ‘the Ocean’,10 can be regarded as a kind of ‘inside’ subject insofar as insider knowledge is required to participate. If, hypothetically, we wished to contribute and try our hand at a description, it would be insufficient simply to say something descriptive about the Ocean. The description would need to be done in a particular way, conforming to a specific protocol that would serve to articulate our own description to what others have said. The ‘topic’, in other words, is composed of idiosyncratic definitions, boundaries, and guidelines. These are known to participant contributors, whereas they are not available to us, at least not immediately and intuitively. Reference Idea or Text

Participant A

Participant B

Participant C

Participant D

The ‘inside’, local nature of the topic can be seen in the figure above. The diagram illustrates the existence of two separate channels of influence ­motivating authors to say what they say. Not only is there vertical movement, from canonical idea or text to more recent speech, but there is also horizontal exchange between those who were (roughly) contemporaries.11 10  Tandoi (1992b) 517, in his excellent study of Albinovanus’ verses, speaks of the ‘topic of the Ocean’ (topica dell’Oceano). 11 The Rhetorica ad Herennium offers a good illustration of the distinction of the two ­movements. In Book 4 appear many passages, serving as illustrations of rhetorical figures, whose genesis, arguably, can be traced back to Greek sources (e.g. Aeschines, Demosthenes)

156  The Ocean ( Seneca Suas. 1 ) Without denying the importance of the movement from the smaller to larger oval, the present investigation concentrates on local movement within the larger oval. This latter movement has a different nature from that of vertical movement. Local movement, since it occurs not in an abstract world of ideas but within a social order and among people who knew one another, is communicative. Language takes on meanings that do not inhere in its form or referents, but that depend on particulars of context. Among the features that reveal the collected passages as a connected group and support the premise that they belong to a precisely defined, ‘inside’ topic is the repetition, by multiple contributors, of just a few ideas involving the Ocean. What is there to say about the Ocean, about being at the world’s end? It is surely a fantastic sight. The descriptive possibilities, one might assume, are numerous; the only limit is one’s imagination. But, as it turns out, there are just a few, specific things said about the Ocean. And these are said again and again. They are:12 A. The waters are preternaturally sluggish and heavy. B. There are monstrous, portentous beasts. C. There is a dark, impenetrable gloom. D. At nature’s end, another world arises. E. There is a mysterious fluctuation of tides. F. Nature has a limit: at the Ocean, nature is raw, half-finished, or perishing. In producing their speech about the Ocean, contributors linger over these features.13 What makes them do it? What keeps them in their courses, orbiting the features as if about some invisible suns? The orbiting movement is evident, but the complex of forces that moves contributors so far remains invisible and unaccounted for. The objective of what follows, then, is to develop some description of these forces, rendering them observable. Two phenomena in particular are identified. Both served as ground rules to the topic of the Ocean and guided the production of similar passages. These are: (1) scalability and (2) se­quence. The rules, roughly stated, are: [= vertical movement]. However, the same passages must have had a local context [= horizontal movement]: they were in common use and were applied also by other, contemporary speakers. 12  See nn. 4 and 8 for references to other, earlier texts containing similar ideas about the Ocean. 13  The list could also include the frequent comparison of Alexander with Hercules and Bacchus; Edward (1928) 84–5; Winterbottom (1974) 2.485 n. 2.

Bart Huelsenbeck  157 1. Scalability: Passages may vary in size—but they must do so according to a basic core-structure composed of community-shared phrases and ideas. 2. Sequence: Passages may alter the core-structure—but they must do so by articulating to a current set of related passages.

1. Scalability In reading through the quotation from Anonymous (Suas. 1.1), we can readily tally commitments to several features given in the list of Oceanic attributes. Specific, isolatable segments of the quotation (taken in order of appearance) show commitments to F, D, A, B, and C.14 F. Cuicumque rei magnitudinem natura dederat, dedit et modum. Nihil infinitum est nisi Oceanus. [. . .] quasi deficientis in suo fine naturae . . . D. ultraque Oceanum rursus alia litora, alium nasci orbem, nec usquam rerum naturam desinere sed semper inde ubi desisse videatur—novam exsurgere. A. Stat immotum mare . . . naturae pigra moles; . . . ipsum vero grave et defixum mare B. novae ac terribiles figurae, magna etiam Oceano portenta C. confusa lux alta caligine et interceptus tenebris dies Passages by other authors, too, are seen to contain various attributes from the list. So, in what is clearly a descriptio (1.2),15 Moschus, probably an Augustan-age rhetor,16 has attributes E and C, and perhaps also A.17 The 14  F. ‘To whatever matter nature gave greatness, it gave also a limit. Nothing is without boundary except the Ocean. . . . nature giving out (as it were) at its own terminus.’ D. ‘and beyond the Ocean there are again more shores, another world is born. The universe nowhere ceases but always where it seems to end—it rises anew.’ A. ‘The sea stands motionless . . . a sluggish heap of nature; . . . the very sea is heavy and fastened still.’ B. ‘There are strange and terrifying shapes, monsters great even for the Ocean.’ C. ‘The light is intermingled in a deep murk and the daylight interrupted by darkness.’ Translations are my own except where stated otherwise. 15  For declamatory descriptiones, see Bonner (1949) 58–60; van Mal-Maeder (2007) 65–93. 16  Migliario (2007) 25 n.70. 17  A. Immensum et humanae intemptatum experientiae pelagus, totius orbis vinculum terrarumque custodia, inagitata remigio vastitas (‘A sea enormous and untouched by human activity; it is the band of the entire world, the guardian of the lands, a wasteland unstirred by oars’). E. litora modo saeviente fluctu inquieta, modo fugiente deserta (‘Its shores are now agitated by waves raging, now deserted by waves retreating’). C. taetra caligo fluctus premit, et nescio qui,

158  The Ocean ( Seneca Suas. 1 ) quotation of Papirius Fabianus (Sen. Suas. 1.4), an Augustan-age declaimer and philosopher, and teacher of the younger Seneca, contains C, B, F, and E.18 The verses of Albinovanus Pedo (Sen. Suas. 1.15), an Augustan-age poet and friend of Ovid, have A, B, E, C, and D.19 It is revealing that the quotation of Albucius Silus, another famous rhetor of the Augustan age,20 offers contribution after contribution to the same single idea, F.21 The consistency argues for the well-established existence of such categories. It also gives a sense of how the categories were defined, particularly in terms of language (application of keywords and specific phrases), and were made recognizable. Commitments, by multiple contributors, reveal what amount to ‘gathering points’—as if our contributors were travellers and the shared Oceanic ­features were destination points, where contributors now assemble and move about, but also stick relatively close. Just as actual destination points have spatial limits, so too these shared points possess some narrow quod humanis natura subduxit oculis, aeterna nox obruit (‘A foul darkness presses on the waves and, strangely, what nature withdraws from human sight is buried by an eternal night’). 18  C. Quid? ista toto pelago infusa caligo navigantem tibi videtur admittere, quae prospicientem quoque excludit? (‘Tell me. Does it seem to you that that murk shed over the sea will admit sailing into it when it excludes even gazing into it?’) B. Non haec India est nec ferarum terribilis ille conventus. Immanes propone beluas (‘This is not like India and its frightful assembly of beasts. No: imagine unholy monsters’). F. Rudis et imperfecta natura penitus recessit. Ista maria ne illi quidem petierunt, qui fugiebant Alexandrum. Sacrum quiddam terris natura circumfudit Oceanum (‘Raw and incomplete, nature has entirely withdrawn. Not even the men fleeing from Alexander made for these awful seas. Around the lands nature poured the Ocean—a sacred object’). E. dubitant utrumne terras velut vinculum circumfluat an in suum colligatur orbem et in hos per quos navigatur sinus quasi spiramenta quaedam magnitudinis exaestuet (‘They are uncertain about the Ocean: whether it flows around the lands like a band or if it gathers in its own circle and seethes out into those channels where there is sailing, as if into kinds of breathing-holes for its massiveness’). On Fabianus, see Huelsenbeck (2018) 65–152. 19  A. pigris . . . sub undis (v.5, ‘beneath its sluggish waves’). B. immania monstra . . . saevas undique pristis / aequoreosque canes. (vv. 5–7, ‘prodigious monsters . . . everywhere savage seabeasts and sea-dogs’). E. nunc illum . . . Oceanum . . . ratibus consurgere prensis . . . iam sidere limo navigia (vv.5–9, ‘the famed . . . Ocean . . . now snatches up boats and swells, . . . the next moment, the boats alight on the water’s floor’). C. fugit ipse dies orbemque relictum / ultima perpetuis claudit natura tenebris (vv.16–17, ‘The day itself flees and nature at its limit encloses the relinquished world in perpetual darkness’). D. Anne alio positas ultra sub cardine gentes / atque alium bellis intactum quaerimus orbem? (vv.18–19, ‘Are we seeking peoples located beyond, under another sky? another world untouched by wars?’). On Albinovanus Pedo, see Bardon (1956) 2.69–73; Courtney (1993) 315–19; Hollis (2007) 372–81. 20  On Albucius Silus, see Sen. Contr. 7.praef.; Suet. Gramm. 30; Lebek (1966); Assereto (1967); Kaster (1995) 313–16 and 346–59. 21  This evidence suggests a correlation between ‘ideas’ about the Ocean and the definition and constitution of ‘entries’—i.e. the typically small units of speech that make up a declaimer’s quotation in the Elder Seneca; on entries, see Huelsenbeck (2018) 30. Both Huelsenbeck (2015) and (2018) detail how such entries can create sites of verbal interaction and exchange, called ‘shared loci’.

Bart Huelsenbeck  159 ­ efinitions in terms of language and argument. So, for example, confirmation d that the segments of Albucius’ quotation pertain to the same gathering point F (nature has a limit) is the appearance in each segment of phraseology expressing ‘limit’: finem § modum § moderatio § supergressa § modus . . . terminos § summum. Recognition of the presence of such gathering points is necessary in order to appreciate the principle of scalability. This is because scalability does not happen without gathering points. Scalability allows that passages, which pertain to the same gathering point, may be of very different sizes. However, there is a critical stipulation: contributing passages, though of different modules, are in their essential make-up—their core genetics— identical. Below is an instance from our group of passages where we witness contributors operating on the principle of scalability. The essence of these contributions is gathering point E, ‘There is a mysterious fluctuation of tides’.22 Moschus. litora modo inquieta modo deserta.   modo . . . modo Albinovanus Pedo. nunc illum, pigris immania monstra sub undis    nunc . . . qui ferat, Oceanum, qui saevas undique pristis aequoreosque canes, ratibus consurgere prensis (accumulat fragor ipse metus), iam sidere limo    . . . iam navigia et rapido desertam flamine classem (Moschus: ‘its shores now agitated . . . now deserted’. Albinovanus Pedo: ‘. . . the Ocean . . . now snatches up boats and swells . . . the next moment, the boats alight on the water’s floor . . .’)  (Sen. Suas. 1.2; 1.15, vv. 5–9)

From Curtius Rufus, 9.9.7–22 (see Appendix): ‘Now (iamque) the ships had been lifted by the tide.’ (9.9.11) ‘Now suddenly (cum subito), they were struck with fresh terror, greater than before: the sea began to ebb.’ (9.9.19–20)

22  Additional examples where scalability is at work: (1) exempla of virtuous women: Sen. Contr. 2.2.1 (Arellius Fuscus), 2.2.11 (Ovid), 2.5.8 (Triarius), 10.3.2 (Clodius Turrinus); Ov., Ars Am. 3.15–22; see Huelsenbeck (2011a) 187–90 and (2018) 223–9, and Berti (2007) 295–300. (2) Catalogue of mutilations: Sen. Contr. 10.4.2 (Cassius Severus), 10.4.3 (Vibius Gallus), and 10.4.5 (Julius Bassus); see Huelsenbeck (2015).

160  The Ocean ( Seneca Suas. 1 ) Moschus’ version is the shortest, Albinovanus’ version slightly longer, and in Curtius the gathering point is extended into a full-blown dramatic episode. A contributor can scale up a gathering point, he can scale it down—by various degrees. Scalability requires that, despite size differences, the core of a gathering point must be identifiable in the version of the smallest module, here the contribution by Moschus, where all hangs on just five words—two correlated phrases: the tide now rises, now falls (modo . . . modo; cf. Pedo, nunc consurgere . . . iam sidere). In this way, scalability is reductive, limiting how far passages differ from each other and compelling them to fit into a narrow definition. An objection: How can one version be thought identical to the next? It is quite obvious, from the plain fact that they are different (size being one difference but not the only one), that they cannot be altogether identical. This is undeniable. Contributions are also viewable as different, and, as I shall stress when discussing ‘sequence’, these differences can be significant in other operations. Nonetheless, even though they are viewable as different, contributions bear the same identity with respect to the trained practice by which they were made, and by the perception synonymous with this practice. Speakers have learned to see different-sized passages as closely related, as deriving from the same core identity. Participants, as a matter of schooling and training in a social context (rhetorical performance),23 have come to know what is entailed—what the condensed features are that acceptably will unfold when the small-module version is expanded. Those who contribute to these shared ideas, what I have been referring to as ‘gathering points’, need to be able to produce contributions of different sizes. In order to do this, a contributor must be able to see the shared gathering point in a passage of whatever size. He must be able to see a known ‘idea’, and he must know how, appropriately, to scale up this idea or scale it down. Contributions are all products, ‘merely’ different outcomes of the same trained operation. If by appeal to scalability we can claim, justly I believe, that these different passages are viewable as—at core—identical, how do we take stock of what is happening? What do we learn by calling attention to this phe­nom­ enon and giving it a name? 23  Webb (2001) offers a good discussion of how rhetorical education, particularly in progymnasmata, was a training in procedure; e.g. the exercise of ‘paraphrase’ involved a particular know-how to adapt passages, including adding, subtracting, and substituting elements when expressing the same idea (310). See Theon Progymnasmata 139.22–142.10 (Spengel); Patillon and Bolognesi (1997) civ–cvii and 107–10.

Bart Huelsenbeck  161 I have called scalability a trained practice, and it is hard to overlook the impressive economy whereby the practice works. A seed of an idea is, when appropriate, able to be expanded into a fully ramified tree. And, since expanded arguments can be shrunk down to a basic idea expressed in just a few words, scalability also has the effect of making arguments easier to remember. They are made more easily portable, with little or no assistance from writing. Scalability, on this analysis, is a technology that a person can acquire: observe the emphasis on the individual. Furthermore, insofar as the technology bestows these skills (enhanced memory, argument expansion and reduction), it finds representations in ancient rhetorical doctrine, for example, in techniques of artificial memory and argument amplification and diminution.24 But the effects of scalability are more profound than those of a technique possessed by an individual. Scalability amounts to an organizing medium, affecting everyone to whom these bits of information are somehow relevant.25 As happens with other kinds of media, scalability transforms the organization—and, therefore, the nature—of information known to all. It is on this basis that a new term seems justified: ‘scalability’ registers the conformative effect of this operation of ‘producing passages of different sizes on the same topic’. Passages from contributors, which may appear different in size and details, are, again and again, funnelled to the same ‘gathering point’ or ‘topic’. Scalability is aggregative: out of many individual variations is maintained a collective mass, or series of such collectively recognized masses. Contributors, in spite of whatever idiosyncrasies they may have, are rolled up into the aggregate and thereby kept together. The function of this equivalence maintained by scalability between contributions is, quite simply, recognition and comprehensibility. You do not make sense if you isolate yourself from the aggregative points. In this way, scalability is what we had been seeking: a force that tirelessly keeps together.

24  Regarding artificial memory, I mention only the most extensive ancient passages: Rhet. Her. 3.28–40; Cic. De Or. 2.351–60; Quint. Inst. 11.2.1–51. For argument amplification and diminution (αὔξησις, ταπείνωσις; amplificatio, minutio), see Arist. Rhet. 1391b30–1392a7; Rhet. Her. 3.3.6; Cic. Brut. 47; Cic. Or. 125–39; [Long.] De Subl. 12.2; Quint. Inst. 4.3.15, 8.4.1– 29, and 10.5.7–11; Calboli Montefusco (2004). 25  The term ‘scalability’ is borrowed from media studies; see Manovich (2001) 38–40, who employs the concept of scalability in a list of criteria defining New Media. Foley (2012) argues that there are fundamental similarities between the technologies of oral tradition (within which, in my view, can be classed many practices of declamatory performance) and the Internet.

162  The Ocean ( Seneca Suas. 1 )

2. Sequence The second principle to be considered—sequence—is also understood with reference to the list of Oceanic gathering points. But, whereas scalability funnels contributions into these gathering points, sequence is concerned with how passages that pertain to the same gathering point fit together, while also pushing against each other.26 Scalability is conformative; sequence is progressive. In the abstract, what is being proposed could sound strange. But it is in fact something familiar to all of us, instinctively if not always consciously. If one wishes to say something on a topic, one will do so in such a way that what is said ties in to what is already known. New contributions to a topic are made to ‘hook into’ what others are saying about the topic. The idea behind calling this need to ‘hook into’ ‘sequence’ is that these articulations occur in a kind of string, or sequence, where it is precisely from the articulations that new meanings arise.27 How might this be important for our subject? The potentially big idea in incorporating sequence into the investigation is that we thereby come to look at these classical literary passages, and others like them, as moves in a turntaking system.28 A turn-taking system, for example ordinary conversation (the object of study for Conversation Analysis, or CA), has certain prominent characteristics not often acknowledged as pertaining to classical texts. I mention two.29 First, a turn-taking system has a system organization: participants do not act independently, but are subsumed into a multi-piece, organized machinery. Second, a turn-taking system is practical. By participating, you are attempting to do something, to bring something about, in a particular context. The language of a system is not abstract ideas or aesthetics, nor does it disinter26  The metaphor points to ‘friction’ as a way to generate meaning; cf. Wittgenstein (2009) 107, who argues that language, to be meaningful, must have applications in real, ordinary contexts (i.e. friction): ‘We have got onto slippery ice where there is no friction and so in a certain sense the conditions are ideal, but also, just because of that, we are unable to walk. We want to walk so we need friction. Back to the rough ground!’ 27  The term ‘sequence’, as a heuristic for investigating the organization of speech-exchanges, has its origins in Conversation Analysis (CA), particularly in the transcribed lectures of the sociologist Harvey Sacks (1992), a founder of CA. For CA after Sacks, who died young (1935–75), see the works of Sacks’s colleague Emanuel Schegloff (e.g. 2007). 28  The ground-breaking study on turn-taking systems, with emphasis on conversation, is Sacks, Schegloff, and Jefferson (1974). 29  For these two characteristics, see Duranti (1997) 214–44 (speech as social action) and 245–79 (speech as exchange-system); Schegloff (2007) 1–3.

Bart Huelsenbeck  163 estedly transmit information. It attempts to communicate not for eternity, but here and now, with results that apply to local circumstances. Observe that these characteristics (system organization, context-bound communication) are the very things that our classical literature, in more traditional views, was not supposed to be. Classical literature is assumed to be monumental, its meanings profound and eternally meaningful. It is not supposed to be an ordinary30 conversation with its meanings embedded in local, here-and-now activity. The purposes, then, in this demonstration of sequence are, first, to describe how a set of related passages fits together: to describe a communitybuilt order. (This purpose corresponds to CA’s interest in system organization.) Such a description, moreover, is not merely formal, but necessarily involves discussion of meaning. While describing sequential articulations, we want also to attempt an account of motives—to grasp meanings created out of these articulations of contributions-in-sequence. This is the second purpose. (It corresponds to CA’s interest in the situational nature of meaning in speech-exchange.) We concentrate now on one developing sequence (C. ‘there is a dark, impenetrable gloom’), following it step by step. Five contributors are represented. Bold print marks the most relevant portions. C. There is a dark, impenetrable gloom (Oceanic gloom): Anonymous. confusa lux alta caligine et interceptus tenebris dies (The light is intermingled in a deep murk and the daylight interrupted by darkness) (Sen. Suas. 1.1) Moschus. taetra caligo fluctus premit et nescio qui quod humanis natura subduxit oculis aeterna nox obruit. (A foul darkness presses on the waves and, strangely, what nature withdraws from human sight is buried by an eternal night.) (Sen. Suas. 1.2)

30  The ‘ordinary’, the ‘everyday’, have become key terms in critical perspectives, e.g.: Lefebvre (1971), de Certeau (1984), Lynch (1993), Hester and Francis (2007).

164  The Ocean ( Seneca Suas. 1 ) Fabianus. Quid? ista toto pelago infusa caligo navigantem tibi videtur admittere, quae prospicientem quoque excludit? (Tell me. Does it seem to you that that murk shed over the sea will admit sailing into it when it excludes even gazing into it?) (Sen. Suas. 1.4) Albinovanus Pedo Atque aliquis prora caecum sublimis ab alta aera pugnaci luctatus rumpere visu, ut nihil erepto valuit dinoscere mundo, obstructo talis effundit pectore voces:        15 ‘Quo ferimur? Fugit ipse dies orbemque relictum ultima perpetuis claudit natura tenebris. Anne alio positas ultra sub cardine gentes atque alium bellis intactum quaerimus orbem? Di revocant rerumque vetant cognoscere finem  20 mortales oculos.’ (And someone who, aloft from the high prow, fought with combative vision to burst through the sightless air, when the world had been snatched away and he could make nothing out, pours forth these words from his muffled breast: ‘Where are we being carried? The day itself flees and nature at its limit encloses the relinquished world in perpetual darkness. Are we seeking peoples located beyond, under another sky? another world untouched by wars? The gods call us back; they forbid to mortal eyes knowledge of the boundary of nature.’) (Sen. Suas. 1.15) Curtius rufus Indomitis gentibus se obiectos, ut sanguine suo aperirent ei Oceanum; trahi extra sidera et solem cogique adire, quae mortalium oculis natura subduxerit . . . caliginem ac tenebras et perpetuam noctem profundo incubantem mari . . . (They were thrown before savage tribes so that they could by their blood open up a path to the Ocean for him; they were dragged beyond the stars and the sun and made to visit places that nature had removed from the sight of mortals . . . Darkness and a perpetual night lying on the deep . . .) (Curt. Ruf. 9.4.17–18)

Bart Huelsenbeck  165

Anonymous The passage by Anonymous represents a prior stage of the sequence. The justification for seeing his contribution as sequentially prior rests (as we shall see) in how other contributions develop out of Anonymous’s language and his conceptions of Oceanic gloom. Support for the priority of Anonymous’s quotation comes from a suggestion by Lewis Sussman (1977) that its author is the Augustan-age rhetor Arellius Fuscus.31 Fuscus, a teacher of Papirius Fabianus and Ovid, was born c.65–60 bc. He is one of the most senior and most influential speakers quoted not just in this set of passages, but in the Elder Seneca’s extant collection. The idea that Anonymous is Fuscus, and thus that his passage is probably prior to others’, has further support in the kind of language appearing in the quotation: it shows characteristics distinctive of Fuscus’ speech elsewhere in Seneca’s collection.32 In particular, Anonymous’s quotation shares with Fuscus’ quotations generally the use of sound and rhythm to give structural shape, especially in the form of binary cola. (Still, it must be conceded that definitive proof is unobtainable, so the idea that An­onymous is Fuscus must remain credible, rather than proven.) Anonymous’s short contribution to ‘Oceanic gloom’ consists of just two clauses, the second a variation on the first, in the manner of ‘theme and variation’.33 The two separate clauses, both ending in a cretic (– ˘ –) and evenly divided into ten syllables, are further defined by sound, with c and al predominating in the first, and palatals t and d predominating in the second:34 31  Sussman bases this suggestion on an observed pattern in how the Elder Seneca arranges each book in his collection. Typically, for each book, a particular speaker is given special attention: his character and speaking style are described in the preface, and his quotations appear first for each declamation. Sussman notes that Fuscus receives much attention in the Suasoriae, so suggests the first quotation of Sen. Suas. 1 comes from him. The attribution, however, cannot be guaranteed solely on these grounds because it is not certain that the quotation of Anonymous is the first quotation of Sen. Suas. 1. His quotation is where the extant medieval MSS begin Seneca’s work; Feddern (2013) 152–3. 32 Huelsenbeck (2018) 153–327. For a list of characteristics of Fuscus’ speech, see Huelsenbeck (2018) 196 and the index in the same study (‘speech-identity of Arellius Fuscus’). 33  On ‘theme and variation’, particularly as a defining characteristic of Virgil’s poetry, see Henry (1873–92) 1.745–51 (Verg. Aen. 1.546–51). 34  The idea that this sense-unit organization, and in particular the utilization of sound to help build architectural shape, is distinctive of Anonymous’s contribution is confirmed by a similar organization seen elsewhere in the same quotation (sound pattern: m sifi): Stat immotum mare quasi deficientis in suo fine naturae pigra moles.

166  The Ocean ( Seneca Suas. 1 ) confusa lux alta caligine  et interceptus tenebris dies The phonetically defined clauses contain similar but separate models of how light meets Oceanic darkness at the world’s terminus. In the first clause, light and darkness are poured and mingled together: confusa.35 In the second, light is broken off—excluded—by darkness: interceptus. The phrasal architecture, since it presents two possibilities, marks the opportunity for variation: it draws attention to the fact that a speaker may creatively provide different models of how light meets darkness. Simultaneously, the architecture highlights precisely the two models offered by Anonymous: (α) that these elements are poured together, and (β) that light is excluded by darkness. The two, slightly different visions of light’s encounter with Oceanic darkness (α and β) are distinctive for the contribution of Anonymous. They are what  make his contribution noteworthy. Something else, besides, is prominent in the contribution and attention-grabbing to other potential contributors: interceptus. A form of intercipio, used to describe the breaking off of sunlight, first appears here in our extant Latin corpus.36 The strangeness of the Ocean, the world’s edge, is fittingly embodied in a verbal innovation. The ­unexpectedness of the language signals that we are in the realm of ‘the marvellous’.37 Observe that this third distinctive feature (γ, the marvellous) is not a separate idea or description, but a certain perceptual attitude towards what is described. It could be assumed that the topic of these passages, the Ocean, is inherently marvellous. But, in verbal description (as opposed to the ‘reality’ of being at the Ocean), this is not the case. To convey ‘marvel’ requires some instrument of expression. It is not enough simply to name Oceanic phenomena or beasts. By using an arresting expression to verbalize Ocean’s strangeness, Anonymous effectively invites responses and adaptations to 35  It is not uncommon to speak of caligo being ‘shed’, e.g.: Cic. Tusc. 5.2.6; Liv. 26.45.3; Curt. 4.3.16; Sen. Nat. 5.3.2; Plin. Ep. 6.20.13. 36  Thus, use here of the verb intercipio appears to stake out new linguistic ground. Related uses of the verb, where it is sometimes applied to eclipses: Man. 4.841–4, causa patet, quod, Luna quibus defecit in astris / orba sui fratris noctisque immersa tenebris, / cum medius Phoebi radios intercipit orbis / nec trahit assuetum quo fulget Delia lumen; Sen. Nat. 1.12.1, defectio quae . . . intercipit lucem; Sil. 3.486, erigitur tellus et caelum intercipit umbra. Some comparable passages from Virgil, where notably the verb is absent: Aen. 1.88–9, 6.733–4, 10.215, 11.186–7. It deserves mention that quotations of Arellius Fuscus reveal a studied interest in innovative compound verbs; Huelsenbeck (2018) 173, 191, 194, 196, 209–10, 285, 299, 302, 320. 37  For ancient literature on the marvellous and paradoxography, see Deremetz (2009), who lays out distinctions between paradoxography, the marvellous, the strange, and the fantastic; Myers (1994), esp. 133–66; Schepens and Delcroix (1996) 410–52, covering the Roman period; Hardie (2009) 1–18.

Bart Huelsenbeck  167 this perspective. The ‘marvellous’ and its modulations, as will be seen, play a pivotal role in the development of other contributions.

Anonymous—Fabianus Papirius Fabianus (born c.35 bc),38 who authored influential treatises on natural history (and therefore knew better, we might think), formulates his own description of ‘Oceanic gloom’ in a way that is patently false, at least with respect to the known world. With reference to its shape and symmetry, however, the contribution is perfect: it successfully articulates to passages from others. ‘Oceanic gloom’ (caligo) is spoken of as a thing known (ista), as something talked about, as it certainly was in the context of these related passages. This initial, fronted portion of the first sentence poses the subject, gloom:39 ista toto pelago infusa caligo (That gloom we all know about that is shed over the entire deep . . .)

Next, once the subject is established, binary phrases follow: navigantem tibi videtur admittere, quae prospicientem quoque excludit? (Does it admit sailing into it,    when it excludes even gazing into it?) (Sen. Suas. 1.4)

As in the contribution from Anonymous, Fabianus’ description of the caligo is set out in binary, correlated phrases that are phonetically and prosodically defined: what cannot be ‘seen through’ (prospicientem) surely cannot be ‘sailed through’ (navigantem).40 Phonetic and prosodic similarities assimilate 38  On Fabianus, see Huelsenbeck (2018) 65–152. 39  The sentence, as its layout above is meant to show, is tripartite: (1) an introducing phrase (ista . . . caligo), and two binary, corresponding phrases: (2a) (navigantem . . . admittere), and (2b) (quae . . . excludit). In his studies of colometry, Fraenkel (1965) 23 would call the first colon a ‘Basis’ to the two dependent cola that follow. See Scheppers (2011) 11–12, for this type of fronted colon, and 7–17 in the same work, for an overview of Fraenkel’s work on colometry. 40  Prosody defines the close of each phrase: a double cretic (-detur admittere, – ˘ – | – ˘ x) and cretic + spondee (-tem quoque excludit, – ˘ – | – x). Both clausulae are canonical, which is to say that they were felt to mark the boundaries of sense-unit segments. As regards the verb prospicio, Curtius (9.4.21) too uses it to describe seeing the Ocean. For use of the verb in the general context of peering through darkness or gloom, see e.g. Verg. Aen. 2.732–3.

168  The Ocean ( Seneca Suas. 1 ) navigantem (– ˘ – –) to prospicientem (– ˘ ˘ – –). The gloom blocks out one activity (looking), and another activity (sailing), since it is called by something that sounds similar, will surely also be blocked. Sound reveals meaning; argument is achieved in the medium of sound. Though binary, Fabianus’ phrases are not, like Anonymous’s, on the pattern of ‘theme and variation’. Nonetheless, the use of a sharply defined binary architecture to frame a contribution on the same point (‘Oceanic gloom’) is hardly random.41 Fabianus has picked up this architecture (binary pair, sharply defined through sound and shape) as part of the available, onhand material—the raw lumber—for doing ‘Oceanic gloom’.42 The recurrence of raw material is significant. Its use is partially revealing of generative process, even if this aspect of the process was largely unconscious. Other linkages between Anonymous’s and Fabianus’ contributions are probably more conscious. Fabianus conceives of the interaction of light and  darkness by reference to the models (α and β) in the quotation of Anonymous. Anonymous’s idea that elements are ‘mingled together’ (confusa) is taken up by Fabianus’ infusa: the murk is ‘shed over’ the sea (α). Furthermore, the leading idea for Fabianus’ contribution is darkness’s breaking off (excludit) of both sight and bodily entrance—an ‘exclusion of light’ (β).43 Here again Fabianus’ quotation connects to Anonymous’s (interceptus tenebris dies).44 It is precisely this idea in which Fabianus’ sound-play described above is invested. If, as suggested, Anonymous is the rhetor Arellius Fuscus, Fabianus’ teacher, close similarities between the two would have been hearable by an audience as results of a student–teacher relationship. The relationship of student–teacher is

41  Close, subtle interactive similarities in sentence architecture between Fabianus and his teacher Arellius Fuscus can be seen at Sen. Contr. 2.5.4 and 2.5.6; see Huelsenbeck (2018) 122–7. 42  Sacks (1992), see e.g. 2.291–3, 2.305–9, and 2.321–5, describes an analogous phe­nom­ enon in conversation where participants select certain words and phrases because of a shared sound-value current in a given exchange. Sacks (2.324) likens these shared phonetic values to pieces in a board game: participants add to a commonly-built structure by applying re­com­bin­ ations of shared bits of speech. 43  The idea of ‘exclusion of daylight’ in the context of the world’s terminus can be further traced through the phrase claustra mundi (‘enclosings of the world’): Sen. Ep. 119.7, quaerit (sc. Alexander) quod suum faciat, scrutatur maria ignota, in Oceanum classes novas mittit et ipsa, ut ita dicam, mundi claustra perrumpit; Luc. BC 9.864–5, arcani miles tibi conscius orbis / claustra ferit mundi; Cozzolino (1976) 55 n. 8, 57 n. 14. Cf. also, in similar contexts, the idea of ‘opening’ (aperire): Curt. 9.4.17; Luc. BC 4.352–3. 44  The idea that Anonymous’s interceptus and Fabianus’ excludit are linked as versions of ‘exclusion of daylight’ is supported by comparing these two passages with verses (16–17) from Albinovanus Pedo: as described later in this chapter, all three authors are at the same gathering point, and Pedo’s version combines elements of versions by Anonymous and Fabianus.

Bart Huelsenbeck  169 among the most basic relationship categories—not as elemental as connections between members of immediate family (mother–child, ­ brothers, etc), but still among those most basic relationships by which a person can be identified. To the extent that it is basic, a student–teacher relationship carries with it firmly established assumptions about what takes place and about the behaviours that go with each of the roles, student and teacher. Similarities between the two speakers’ contributions examined here would have been meaningful with reference to assumptions about the student–teacher relationship and what is presumed to happen in it. It is expected that the student will resemble the teacher, so any resemblances or similarities are hearable as outcomes of this relationship. For the Romans, the expectation that the student will, to some degree, resemble the teacher rests not solely on the view that teaching is the transmission of doctrine—in the presumption that a teacher imparts precepts, which are then set into practice by an attentive student. The expectation that the student will resemble the teacher further arises in reference to a system of modelling that formed an integral part of ancient rhetorical education, particularly in the Republican period. Various names attach to this modelling, among them imitatio (‘imitation’) and tirocinium fori (‘judicial internship’).45 This view of modelling is worth remembering because it shows explicit awareness, on the part of the Romans, of the social, interpersonal, and moral (as opposed to the purely doctrinal) aspects of the student–teacher relationship. Certain behaviours—interactions between ­ teacher and student, the comportment of one towards the other—fall within the expectations of the student–teacher relationship. There are complexities involved, the Romans knew, in how a student responds to modelled behaviour and how he acknowledges an authority figure. In considering, then, the quotation of Fabianus and why it resembles the quotation of his teacher,46 we have available to us the socially conscious interpretation that the former’s contribution is similar not simply because he has absorbed his teacher’s stated rules and guidelines, and so has turned out somewhat like his teacher. Through this similarity Fabianus is able to demonstrate himself as student. His productions can be seen as actively

45  Clark (1951); Fantham (1978a) and (1978b); David (1992a) 336–41, (1992b), and (2006) 428–34; Cizek (1994); Cic. De Or. 2.87–98; Cic. Off. 2.46; Tac. Dial. 34.1–2. 46  The Elder Seneca, Contr. 2.praef.2, describes how Fabianus sought to imitate his teacher Fuscus, then tried to distance himself from Fuscus and not to speak like him, but was only partly successful.

170  The Ocean ( Seneca Suas. 1 ) being like his teacher, thus responding to the social respect the role of teacher demands. Beyond this, we noted that Fabianus, too, pays close attention to how light meets darkness. Shared with Anonymous is the conception that darkness is mingled with light (α). But here a key distinction arises, one consistent with Fabianus’ self-presentation elsewhere in the Elder Seneca’s col­lection. To Anonymous’s confusa, Fabianus responds with infusa. While obviously similar, infusa carries its own peculiar overtones and contextual associations. To use infundere, as here, to describe the fluid mechanics of gases is technicalscientific. It is a modulation of Anonymous’s presentation of the scene as marvellous (γ). Confirmation of the ‘scientific’ character of infundere, and also revealing of the kind of context evoked by the compound, are the several occurrences of the verb in the Younger Seneca’s Quaestiones naturales.47 Furthermore, a ‘scientific’ manner of treating the marvels of the Ocean is seen in full force in the latter part of Fabianus’ quotation.48 The method of interaction just detailed—the incremental movement between contributions, and between bits within each contribution—deserves notice. The analysis offers a sense of the minute level at which progress could be made. An incremental sequence brings out differences at precisely the unit of measure where they were felt as meaningful and practical. Fabianus’ contribution communicates: ‘Yes, I acknowledge what has been said (confusa). But observe how, under this narrow categorical umbrella, I am actually doing something else: the scientist-philosopher.’ The language employed by Fabianus, in its inflections of the current state of the aggregate, achieves a precise focus. The marvellous is inflected into the speculative-scientific, and Fabianus achieves a particular identity: the philosopher. This does not happen by individual invention, out of the blue. Fabianus’ voice is not that of a god creating out of a void, simply willing himself into existence. He becomes something slightly different only by engagement with community-owned equipment and by acting at turn in sequence.49

47 Sen. Nat. 3.24.3, spiritus in illa (sc. balnearia) fervens infunditur; also Sen. Nat. 2.9.1; 3.7.2; 3.8.1; 5.1.2; 6.14.3; 6.16.1; 6.18.3. Nikolic (2011) examines the language of fluid mechanics, including discussion of two passages from Sen. Nat. (2.9.2–3; 6.14.1–2): a form of infundere occurs in these contexts (2.9.1, 6.14.3). See also Plin. Ep. 6.20.13, on the eruption of Mount Vesuvius. On technical Latin more generally, see De Meo (1986); Fögen (2009). 48  See Appendix (fourth entry of Fabianus’ quotation: Illi, qui . . . spiritum). 49  Sacks (1992) 2.318–31 (esp. 327–30) similarly concentrates on a speech-exchange where a participant’s social identity is brought into more precise focus through particular moves in a sequence.

Bart Huelsenbeck  171

Albinovanus Pedo The philosopher-declaimer Fabianus connects not only with Anonymous. As part of a string of passages, his contribution ties back to Anonymous while also connecting with subsequent contributors. The particular threads of this serial connection are those identified already: (α) the shedding and mingling of darkness (confusa—infusa), (β) the exclusion of light (interceptus tenebris dies—excludit), and (γ) the marvellous and its modulations. These threads, as held in common, are subject to various methods of development and alteration. In the verses of Albinovanus Pedo, the ideas of ‘pouring together of elem­ ents’ (α) and daylight’s ‘exclusion’ at world’s end (β) are at a subsequent stage of development. The poet’s treatment of the two points depends on others’ contributions, particularly those of Anonymous and Fabianus. The ana­lyt­ ic­al, hitherto unpoetic compound dinoscere (v.14, ‘differentiate’, ‘discern’) first emerges in the Augustan age,50 and in epic poetry it first appears in Ovid, Met. 13.835 (speech by the Cyclops Polyphemus to Galatea) and the present fragment. Pedo’s application of the verb absorbs and transcends versions of α from the two declaimers: the elements that Fabianus and Anonymous had mingled together, shedding gloom into light, Albinovanus’ sailor attempts (and fails) to tease apart. He cannot ‘differentiate’ the elem­ ents to see anything. Anonymous’s phrase interceptus tenebris dies (β)—an expression of ‘exclusion’ that, in its innovative use of intercipere, at the same time embodies ‘the marvellous’—correlates with an expression of daylight’s exclusion by Albinovanus: orbem . . . / ultima perpetuis claudit natura tenebris (vv.16–17, the latter verse a so-called golden line). The phrases of all three participants (Anonymous, Fabianus, Pedo) reside at precisely this same point (β, ‘exclusion’). Anonymous: interceptus tenebris dies Fabianus: ista caligo . . . prospicientem excludit Pedo: fugit ipse dies orbemque relictum / ultima perpetuis claudit natura tenebris

50 Hor. Epist. 1.15.29. The analytical character of the verb is seen from the fact that it is overwhelmingly technical writers who use it: Columella especially, but also Manilius, Pliny the Elder, and Frontinus.

172  The Ocean ( Seneca Suas. 1 ) Pedo’s contribution is a combining of phrases from the other two contributors. Fabianus’ excludit is reflected in Pedo’s claudit, and Anonymous’s tenebris (a word absent from the quotation of Fabianus, who uses caligo) now resurfaces. In these close lexical reflections (claudit, tenebrae), there would appear to be little sequential progress. Yet we should resist a presumption that nothing is happening—only repetition. At a minimum, the recycling of (nearly) identical language can serve in speech-exchanges as active acknowledgment, a confirming iteration to say, ‘I’ve understood’. In the case of Pedo, an effect of this kind of acknowledgment is that the status of point β within the topic of the Ocean is corroborated. The point remains current. Further, Pedo’s combining of language from separate speakers alters the make-up of β and refocuses it, even if only slightly.51 Since Pedo’s is the most current version of β, it is this recombination against which others should next have to respond. If this progression is less obvious, highly conspicuous is Pedo’s modulation of ‘the marvellous’ (γ), both in language already quoted (fugit ipse dies, ‘the day itself flees’), and elsewhere (e.g., v.14, erepto mundo, ‘the world was snatched away’). Throughout the quoted verses, Pedo develops language that is especially intense, a peculiarity noted by several modern critics.52 The man looking out from the ship into the ‘excluding’ darkness does not simply try to peer into the gloom: ‘he fights to burst through the sightless air by means of a combative looking’ (caecum . . . / aera pugnaci luctatus rumpere visu, vv.12–13).53 Intensity focuses expressions of ‘the marvellous’ in such a way that mirabilia are no longer just strangely ‘wondrous’: now they are horrenda (‘dreadful’). Intensity is a newly emergent, distinctive feature within this string of passages on Oceanic gloom. With this observation it must be acknowledged that Pedo’s verses, in their current state, are somewhat removed from the quotations of the declaimers. They are later, so they are not immediately present in the exchange. (Of course, the same is true also of the passages from Curtius Rufus.) Though separated to some degree, the excerpt retains 51  Schegloff (1996) examines a feature of ordinary conversation, called ‘confirming allusion’, where a speaker repeats in paraphrase what another speaker has said. Schegloff argues that such repetition is not simply agreeing with what a speaker has said, but rather the repetition is communicative, focusing the exchange in a certain way and moving it in a particular direction. Also see Schegloff (2007) 8–9. 52  Edward (1928) 98; Tandoi (1992b) 518. Bardon (1956) 2.72 speaks of Pedo’s ‘amour de la violence’ and ‘recherche d’un grandiose’, tendencies later inherited by Lucan. 53  Hollis (2007) 378 calls pugnaci . . . visu an ‘awkward phrase’; Edward (1928) 98, a ‘bold phrase’. Supporting the authenticity of the reading, Tandoi (1992b) 518 aptly compares Sen. Ep. 89.2.

Bart Huelsenbeck  173 features, such as ‘intensity’, that were integral to the original exchanges and evolved out of their pressures.54 Features of Pedo’s verses, therefore, are here regarded as representative of part of the tradition no longer extant.55 What can we make of ‘intensity’, this new development in the exchange? What insights will it yield? The feature itself limits and guides what can be said about it. It will be more accommodating to certain observations and methods, less so to others. I wish to gesture towards two areas where I believe ‘intensity’ leads, namely, literary influence and performative context. The principle of sequence provides for the feeling that what is said next is a response.56 As next in sequence, therefore, intensity in expressing ‘the marvellous’ is hearable as a response to the contributions that immediately preceded it. One reason this matters, especially in the case of a post-Virgilian author such as Albinovanus, is that it involves a different way of looking at literary influence and change. Identifying intensity, or any other characteristic, as ‘next-in-sequence’ is not a simple matter of chronology. It does not just mean that the salient characteristic happened later. Nor does it mean that intensity is a kind of (decadent, derivative) aesthetic distortion of what others said. It is insufficient to conclude, as traditionally has been done about Silver Latin, that what we have in the ‘intensity’ of Pedo’s verses is an instance of literary mannerism. Furthermore, it is to misunderstand the nature of the situation—the fact that similar passages work together, not individually, making sense by how they fit into the group—to say that, by 54  Both Pedo and Curtius Rufus are commonly regarded as rhetorical authors—that is, both heavily influenced by declamation. The position here is that rhetorical influence need not be taken merely in a vague sense, as a kind of uniform declamatory training. Rather, elements of their passages are representative of what actually took place in declamatory performances—the ‘messy business’ of declamatory gatherings and exchange. It is notable that ‘intensity’ in Lucan’s highly ‘rhetorical’ poetry is typically attributed to declamation. In antiquity the attribution is apparent, e.g. in how Quint. Inst. 10.1.90 describes Lucan’s manner as ardens et concitatus (‘passionate and impetuous’), which is precisely the phrase used by the Elder Seneca (Contr. 3.praef.7, genus dicendi . . . ardens et concitatum) to describe how a good declaimer (in this case, Cassius Severus) might speak; Bonner (1966) 260. Since intensity in the verses of Lucan is already recognized as an outcome of its connection to rhetorical performances, it is hardly a stretch to see this feature as having evolved out of the communicative interactions inherent in these performances. For intensity of actio in the context of declamation, see Corbeill in the present volume. 55  An analogous case is how Homerists interested in oral composition treat the multi-layered language of the extant Homeric texts: it is not the direct product of oral composition, but is representative of such language and retains original patterns of oral composition. 56  Schegloff (2007) 20 discusses how this feature of conversation is one significant reason that computers can have difficulty comprehending human speech. Two sequentially adjacent utterances, one responding to the other, may on the surface look unrelated. As Schegloff memorably remarks in the same work, meaning of language is often grounded in its position, not just its composition.

174  The Ocean ( Seneca Suas. 1 ) making his verses similar to other passages, Albinovanus is being cleverly allusive (allusion being a standard tactic to defend Latin authors’ indebtedness to earlier literature). Any impulse to see literary cleverness on the part of Albinvovanus must reckon with the fact that Albinovanus is playing not as a free, independent agent, but rather he plays by community-owned rules. Second, intensity points to performative aspects of these literary passages. Understanding that the passages belong to a community—a community that was not limited in its mode of engagement to solitary, remote reading of one another’s texts, but that interacted face-to-face and at physical venues—carries with it a corollary idea: the language of the related passages was closely tied to material context—place and activity, habitat and physical habits. In its stability and predictable concurrence with performances, the passages’ language amounts to pieces of equipment among the other phys­ ic­al equipment of the declamatory setting. This perspective on language, that it is performative equipment, is consistent with a statement by the rhetor Porcius Latro (Sen. Contr. 1.praef.23), an outstanding performer and the Elder Seneca’s dear friend. Latro refers to his compositions on commonplace topics, prepared in advance, as his supellex (‘occupational equipment’, ‘tools’). A context demands a specific stock of language. One carries language to an event the way a craftsman carries tools to a job.57 Similarly, we learn that Latro, when about to deliver a court speech rather than a dec­lam­ ation, found speaking outdoors so unusual that he could not perform until proceedings were transferred inside (Sen. Contr. 9.praef.3).58 So accustomed was he to speaking in a basilica that it was as if ceiling and walls held his entire store of eloquence (Quint. Inst. 10.5.18, omnis eius eloquentia contineri tecto ac parietibus videretur). Such is the tight association between physical setting and language. If we grant, then, that community language is attached to its use in performance (i.e. to its community setting), the emergent feature ‘intensity’ found in Pedo’s verses points to a change in performance. A change in the kind of language used should be understood as a change also in method of performance. Linguistic ‘intensity’ implies a raising of performative energy. Such a connection between language and performance, where the latter 57  Or how soldiers and gladiators carry arms to a fight: they know to bring the appropriate weapons because opponents will have them too. Orators are commonly likened to soldiers, declaimers (often disparagingly) compared to gladiators, or athletes training out of the sunlight: Cic. De Or. 1.157, 2.84; Or. 42 and 121; Sen. Contr. 3.praef.13 and Contr. 4.praef.1; Quint. Inst. 10.5.17–20. 58  On this episode, see also Balbo (pp. 138–39) in the present volume.

Bart Huelsenbeck  175 supplies the required occasion and methods for the former, brings about a profound shift in our interpretive orientation to the language of these passages—to how we analyse it, searching for meaning and purpose. By virtue of this connection, the literary language of performance is made continuous with routine, ordinary activities. Analysis of this sort does not value linguistic aesthetics over description of how performances were done; they are seen in combination. Nor does the analysis treat language as reducible to its referents, to abstracted ‘content’. Rather, we attempt to follow the application of language in context, to see language in the full complement of its contextual associations: what it was like for the performer to perform these words, and what associations the language had, both within the setting of the performative session and even outside it, in the declaimer’s personal and mundane experiences. How the kind of analysis described might be more thoroughly justified, and what methods might be used to pursue it, must wait. Still, some preliminary idea of what such an analysis might look like can be gained from studies covering some of the same ground, though in other disciplines: ethnography of communication, ethnomusicology, and sociology.59

Moschus—Curtius Rufus Moschus and Curtius Rufus, too, contribute to the developing sub-topic of the ‘exclusion of daylight’ (β). Pedo proves now to be an integral link in maintaining the relevance of the sub-topic: his contribution both looks back to Anonymous and Fabianus and is at home among Moschus and Curtius Rufus, as is seen in how these latter two and Pedo speak of ‘perpetual darkness’ (underlined). Pedo (vv. 16–17): orbem . . . ultima perpetuis claudit natura tenebris (Nature at its limit encloses the relinquished world in perpetual darkness.)

59  For the ethnography of communication, see Hymes (1974); Duranti (1997) 13–14 and 284–94. Monson (1996) and Feld (2012) examine how the meanings of music are embedded in social life. Berliner (1994) is a seminal study in the production of jazz—an improvisatory art already acknowledged as similar to rhetorical performance (Marrou (1964) 274; Bernstein (2013) 6). For patterns of the body in the production of music, see Sudnow (1978). Although fictionalized history, Pascal Quignard’s Albucius (1990), whose subject is the famous declaimer Albucius Silus, offers a thought-inspiring demonstration of how method of performance (e.g. Albucius’ use of verba sordida; Sen. Contr. 7.praef.3–4) might reverberate into mundane life.

176  The Ocean ( Seneca Suas. 1 ) Moschus: taetra caligo fluctus premit et nescio qui quod humanis natura subduxit oculis aeterna nox obruit. (A foul darkness presses on the waves and, strangely, what nature withdraws from human sight is buried by an eternal night.) Curtius Rufus (9.4.18): caliginem ac tenebras et perpetuam noctem profundo incubantem mari (Darkness and a perpetual night lying on the deep)

The three contributions fit together. But Moschus and Curtius Rufus bear a tighter connection to each other than either does to Pedo. They reflect new forward movement in modulating ‘the marvellous’ (γ). It can be seen, for example, that they share a newly emergent detail in describing how the elem­ents meet: the darkness lies on the waters.60 But Moschus and Curtius Rufus are even closer in another particular, a relative clause shared nearly word for word: Moschus: nescio qui quod humanis natura subduxit oculis . . . (strangely, what nature withdraws from human sight . . .) Curtius Rufus (9.4.18): quae mortalium oculis natura subduxerit (places that nature had removed from the sight of mortals)

Here Moschus and Curtius join in formulating a new variety of expressing ‘the marvellous’: nature’s ghost-like withdrawal of familiar, worldly objects. The underlying idea remains ‘exclusion’ (β)—the great divide that severs the light of this world from the darkness of the world beyond Ocean. But ‘exclusion’ has been inflected slightly: subducere suggests a dream-like apparition, visible for a moment, then vanishing into the mist.61 Moschus’ nescio qui (‘strangely’, ‘I know not how’)62 is an overt gloss on the target manner of perception, signalling an attitude of wonder towards the objects and events 60  Noted by Edward (1928) 87. Cf. Verg. Aen. 1.88–9, eripiunt subito nubes caelumque diem­ que / Teucrorum ex oculis; ponto nox incubat atra; Cozzolino (1976) 56. 61  Cf. Curt. 3.3.3, where a vision of Alexander appears to Darius in a dream, then disappears: Castra Alexandri magno ignis fulgore conlucere ei visa sunt et paulo post Alexander adduci ad ipsum in eo vestis habitu, quo ipse factus rex fuisset, equo deinde per Babylona vectus subito cum ipso equo oculis esse subductus. 62  Cf. Ov. Met. 7.62–5, where, in the manner of a suasoria, Medea debates whether to help Jason. She has heard about the rocks that, strangely (nescio qui), clash together: quid quod nescio qui mediis occurrere in undis / dicuntur montes ratibusque inimica Charybdis / nunc sorbere fretum, nunc reddere, cinctaque saevis / Scylla rapax canibus Siculo latrare profundo?

Bart Huelsenbeck  177 described. It is a simple, moderate wonder—the kind appropriate to paradoxography. Though the phenomena in the various quotations are the same, the perspective adopted towards them varies. Here is not the scientism of Fabianus, the Younger Seneca, or Pliny the Elder. Nor is this the horror of Albinovanus Pedo. Instead, the perspective adopted is the unquestioning, straightforward wonder found in paradoxography’s cataloguing of mirabilia, for example, in the (mostly) lost works on Admiranda by Varro, Cicero, and Licinius Mucianus, and also seen in Ovid Met. 15.63 This observation, regarding the variety of perceptual attitudes adopted towards Oceanic phenomena, reveals an interesting possibility, a consequence of a minute, step-wise analysis of the extant linguistic evidence. The contributors, I have argued, stand in relation to one another in a sequence. As just observed, it turns out that their manoeuvres in this sequence bear some correspondence to generic characteristics. Anonymous is poetic. Fabianus is philosophical-scientific. Albinovanus offers terror-inspiring epic. Moschus and Curtius Rufus are paradoxigraphical, a generic characteristic readily subsumed within historiography, especially in the case of the history of Alexander, whose campaigns provided a rich fund of paradoxa. This analysis, then, leads to the perspective that social interactions in sequence, rather than abstract rules for genre, could be a driving force bringing about differences between authors of literary works. The common assumption is that declamation is one thing, literary genres another—each with its own separate rules. Even when conceded that Roman authors at some point engaged in declamation, it is often assumed that authors knew, for the most part, to keep the rules for literary genres and declamation sep­ ar­ate. The current analysis, by contrast, suggests how generic features, presumed to be fixed, were not viewed as predetermined rules simply to be followed, but were malleable and available for mobilization in context. In declamation, such features could be applied in social interaction—tools used by participants to push against each other and highlight differences. In literature, such features are fluid, appearing across various genres precisely because of their flexibility. Silver Latin products, infamously, are known for mixing different generic characteristics, for example, combining poetic with

63  Hardie (2009) 15: ‘the response called forth from the reader of these “wonder books” (sc. paradoxography) is primarily one of pleasurable amazement, rather than an incentive to understanding’; Schepens and Delcroix (1996) 390–2. For the tradition of paradoxography consisting of unadorned collections of paradoxa, see Schepens and Delcroix (1996) 432. Giannini (1966) is the standard collection of fragments of Greek paradoxographers; Ziegler (1949).

178  The Ocean ( Seneca Suas. 1 ) prose elements.64 However, the possibility raised here is that it is not, say, aesthetic decadence or mannerism that drives such new combinations, but procedural sensitivities. The possibility turns on its head the default understanding of the relationship between declamation and literature, where it is usually assumed that declamation mimics or reflects what is happening in literature. It often could be the other way round: the mingling of generic elements in literature may reflect and be in response to sequentially-driven speech exchanges that have occurred in declamation.

Conclusion Passages on the Ocean are connected. But how do they connect—what draws them together, pressing them to be similar? This was the question posed at the outset. I have attempted to account for this connection in two different but complementary ways, referring to the forces guiding the connection as ‘rules’. Definitions were given to the two rules proposed. However, it is unlikely they ever received such explicit definitions in antiquity. Nor would they have been identified as rules at all, at least in the standard, administrative sense of the word (e.g. game).65 ‘Rules’ is a metaphor, intended to describe language-use in practice. In approaching the central question in this way, I have emphasized the community- and performativenature of ancient Roman literature. While often ignored or forgotten when canonical literary works are considered in isolation, or even when con­ sidered in their (often indirect) relations to each other, the public and inter­ action­al nature of literature during the early Empire appears front and centre when a source such as the collection of the Elder Seneca is admitted into analysis. Though usually treated as a minor work, the collection in this respect can be thought a more accurate representation of the literary scene generally. In the case of scalability, the first rule proposed, coherence between passages of the group was seen as based in a community’s need for efficiency. The material is put to use, and exigencies of use impose limitations on the volume and constitution of material. These limits, as was observed, are

64  The so-called ‘Kreuzung der Gattungen’; Kroll (1924) 202–24; Galinsky (1989) considers this tendency in the case of Ovid. 65  Duranti (1997) 236–7 relates how Wittgenstein’s metaphor of language-games has sometimes been taken too literally.

Bart Huelsenbeck  179 useful to the individual, since they make the task of performance manageable and accommodating to technique. A topic that is well-defined, in terms of argument and formulaic language, is easier to remember, to manipulate, and easier to comprehend. The speaker understands what his assignment is and what the expectations are. But definitions are also, perhaps we should say primarily, a function of a community operation—emerging and kept in place in order to render social gatherings practicable and meaningful. They are needed. From this perspective we might say that the individual was compelled to fit in: it is not possible to say just anything, even when the topic concerns fantastical phenomena at the earth’s edges. The second rule proposed, sequence, notices the passages gathered together, recognizes such a gathering as an environment of performance and communication, and searches movement within the group for par­ticu­ lar­ities of this communication. Sequence is interested in how contributors meaningfully push against each other through differences. The complementary nature of the two rules (scalability and sequence) can be seen from how essential similarity is to the purpose of communication. Similarity gauges difference. In the second section, I have attempted to describe some of these movements. Specifically, I have tried to demonstrate that quotations on ‘Oceanic gloom’, a strand within the topic of the Ocean, fit together. They connect as parts to a multi-piece machinery, or as pieces in a game. The shape and structure of this machinery are constantly developing. Each contribution, each piece, is applied with awareness of the current state of the structure. What the purposes and effects of these connections are, how they connect and what methods of examination may best yield insight, will necessarily vary according to the material. Analysis and commentary in this section, in addition to describing connections between passages, have been directed towards constructing such methods—finding ways to chart sequential contributions. But ‘sequence’ in the exchange of literary passages, as a subject of investigation, remains wide open. It is a vast subject, on the scale of a (sub-)discipline, a fact suggested by how Conversation Analysts treat sequence as central to their own endeavour.66 Centrality of sequence 66  Given the importance of sequence to the study of speech-exchanges, it could be argued that ‘sequence’ is not so much a rule (as treated in this paper) as it is the fact that there are rules, linking passages together in such ways as I have attempted to register here. However, proposing ‘sequence’ as a rule simply reflects the incipient nature of this investigation that seeks to incorporate tools and perspective from interactional sociology into study of Roman literary practices.

180  The Ocean ( Seneca Suas. 1 ) there, in a social science, further justifies its interest here, in considering ancient literary practices. But there are, necessarily, limitations of method. A type of progress is to recognize with increasing precision what the possibilities and limitations are. One significant limitation, endemic to studies of antiquity, is the partial nature of the historical record. It is possible to argue, as I have done, that passages on a topic were involved in interpersonal exchanges; but, of course, the historical record does not preserve the full transcript of these exchanges. This fact impacts how we approach the passages that do survive. Some quotations are immediately adjacent to one another: we have the actual exchange. There are, I believe, frequent instances of this in the Elder Seneca’s compilation, a reason why the work is so valuable to us. Between other exchanges, though they are related and responsive to each other, space intervenes. Other, lost passages mediate the connection between two surviving passages. Obviously this limits the precision with which we can describe the connections, and the meanings of the connections, between two extant passages—one subsequent to the other. For this reason, I have spoken of Albinovanus’ excerpt as representative. Some of its features, linking it to earlier passages, represent features of now-lost, intervening contributions. But this necessary distinction between adjacent pairings and representative passages is also a source of progress. In distinguishing between the two, we come closer to understanding the scale and par­ticu­lar­ ities of difference between original, face-to-face exchanges.

Appendix Seneca, Suas. 1.1–4.67 [1] [declamatoris?] Cuicumque rei magnitudinem natura dederat, dedit et modum. Nihil infinitum est nisi Oceanus. § Aiunt fertiles in Oceano iacere terras ultraque Oceanum rursus alia litora, alium nasci orbem, nec usquam rerum naturam desinere sed semper inde ubi desisse videatur—novam exsurgere. Facile ista finguntur, quia Oceanus navigari non potest. § Stat immotum mare, quasi deficientis in suo fine naturae pigra moles; novae ac terribiles figurae, magna etiam Oceano portenta, quae profunda ista vastitas nutrit; confusa lux alta caligine et interceptus tenebris dies; ipsum vero grave et defixum mare et aut nulla aut ignota sidera. [2] Argentari. Resiste, orbis te tuus revocat. Vicimus qua lucet. 67  The text adheres closely to that of Håkanson (1989). I have added section markers (§) to indicate breaks within quotations.

Bart Huelsenbeck  181 Pompei Silonis. Venit ille dies, Alexander, exoptatus, quo tibi opera desset: idem sunt termini et regni tui et mundi. Moschi. Immensum et humanae intemptatum experientiae pelagus, totius orbis vinculum terrarumque custodia, inagitata remigio vastitas; litora modo saeviente fluctu inquieta, modo fugiente deserta; taetra caligo fluctus premit, et nescio qui, quod humanis natura subduxit oculis, aeterna nox obruit. Musae. Foeda beluarum magnitudo et immobile profundum. Testatum est, Alexander, nihil ultra esse quod vincas; revertere. [3] Albuci Sili. Terrae quoque suum finem habent et ipsius mundi aliquis occasus est. Nihil infinitum est. § Modum magnitudini facere debes, quoniam Fortuna non facit. § Magni pectoris est inter secunda moderatio. § Eundem Fortuna victoriae tuae quem naturae finem facit: imperium tuum cludit Oceanus. § O quantum magnitudo tua rerum quoque naturam supergressa est: Alexander orbi magnus est, Alexandro orbis angustus est. § Aliquis etiam magnitudini modus est: non procedit ultra spatia sua caelum; maria intra terminos suos agitantur. § Quidquid ad summum pervenit, incremento non reliquit locum. Non magis quicquam ultra Alexandrum novimus quam ultra Oceanum. [4] Fabiani. Quid? ista toto pelago infusa caligo navigantem tibi videtur admittere, quae prospicientem quoque excludit? § Non haec India est nec ferarum terribilis ille conventus. Immanes propone beluas. § Aspice quibus procellis fluctibusque saeviat, quas ad litora undas agat. Tantus ventorum concursus, tanta convulsi funditus maris insania est. Nulla praesens navigantibus statio est, nihil salutare, nihil notum. Rudis et imperfecta natura penitus recessit. Ista maria ne illi quidem petierunt, qui fugiebant Alexandrum. Sacrum quiddam terris natura circumfudit Oceanum. § Illi, qui iam siderum collegerunt meatus et annuas hiemis atque aestatis vices ad certam legem redegerunt, quibus nulla pars ignota mundi est, de Oceano tamen dubitant utrumne terras velut vinculum circumfluat an in suum colligatur orbem et in hos per quos navigatur sinus quasi spiramenta quaedam magnitudinis exaestuet; ignem post se, cuius alimentum ipse sit, habeat an spiritum. § Quid agitis, commilitones? Domitorem[que] generis humani, magnum Alexandrum, eo dimittitis, quod adhuc quid sit disputatur? Memento, Alexander, matrem in orbe victo adhuc magis quam cato relinquis. Albinovanus Pedo (Sen. Suas. 1.15).68 Iam pridem post terga diem solemque relictum iamque vident noti se extorres finibus orbis, per non concessas audaces ire tenebras Hesperii metas extremaque litora mundi, nunc illum, pigris immania monstra sub undis qui ferat, Oceanum, qui saevas undique pristis 68  Text of Håkanson (1989), with some punctuation from Courtney (1993).

5

182  The Ocean ( Seneca Suas. 1 ) aequoreosque canes, ratibus consurgere prensis (accumulat fragor ipse metus), iam sidere limo navigia et rapido desertam flamine classem, seque feris credunt per inertia fata marinis iam non felici laniandos sorte relinqui. Atque aliquis prora caecum sublimis ab alta aera pugnaci luctatus rumpere visu, ut nihil erepto valuit dinoscere mundo, obstructo talis effundit pectore voces: ‘Quo ferimur? Fugit ipse dies orbemque relictum ultima perpetuis claudit natura tenebris. Anne alio positas ultra sub cardine gentes atque alium bellis intactum quaerimus orbem? Di revocant rerumque vetant cognoscere finem mortales oculos. Aliena quid aequora remis et sacras violamus aquas divumque quietas turbamus sedes?’

10

15

20

Q. Curtius Rufus69 9.3.7–8 [speech by Coenus, Macedonian infantry commander] [7] ‘Vicisti, rex, magnitudine rerum non hostes modo, sed etiam milites. Quidquid mortalitas capere poterat, inplevimus. Emensis maria terrasque melius nobis quam incolis omnia nota sunt. [8] Paene in ultimo mundi fine consistimus. In alium orbem paras ire et Indiam quaeris Indis quoque ignotam. Inter feras serpentesque degentes eruere ex latebris et cubilibus suis expetis, ut plura quam sol videt victoria lustres.’ 9.4.16–18 [16] At Macedones, qui omni discrimine iam defunctos se esse crediderant, postquam integrum bellum cum ferocissimis Indiae gentibus superesse cognoverunt, inproviso metu territi rursus seditiosis vocibus regem increpare coeperunt: . . . [17] Indomitis gentibus se obiectos, ut sanguine suo aperirent ei Oceanum; [18] trahi extra sidera et solem cogique adire, quae mortalium oculis natura subduxerit. Novis identidem armis novos hostes existere. Quos ut omnes fundant fugentque, quod praemium ipsos manere? Caliginem ac tenebras et perpetuam noctem profundo incubantem mari, repletum inmanium beluarum gregibus fretum, inmobiles undas, in quibus emoriens natura defecerit. 9.9.7–9.9.22 [7] Tertio iam die mixtum flumini subibat mare leni adhuc aestu confundente dispares undas. [8] Tum aliam insulam medio amni sitam evecti paulo lentius, quia cursus aestu reverberabatur, adplicant classem et ad commeatus petendos discurrunt, securi casus eius, qui supervenit ignaris. [9] Tertia ferme hora erat, cum stata vice Oceanus exaestuans invehi coepit et retro flumen

69  Text based on Lucarini (2009) and Müller and Schönfeld (1954).

Bart Huelsenbeck  183 urgere: quod primo coercitum, deinde vehementius pulsum maiore impetu adversum agebatur, quam torrentia praecipiti alveo incurrunt. [10] Ignota vulgo freti natura erat, monstraque et irae deum indicia cernere videbantur. Identidem intumescens mare, et in campos paulo ante siccos descendere superfusum. [11] Iamque levatis navigiis et tota classe dispersa, qui expositi erant, undique ad naves trepidi et inproviso malo attoniti recurrunt. . . . [19] cum subito novus et pristino maior terror incutitur. [20] Reciprocari coepit mare, magno tractu aquis in suum fretum recurrentibus, reddebatque terras paulo ante profundo salo mersas. . . . [22] Nec finis malorum: quippe aestum paulo post mare relaturum, quo navigia adlevarentur, ignari famem et ultima sibimet ominabantur. Beluae quoque fluctibus destitutae terribiles vagabantur. Seneca the Elder, Suasoriae 1.1–4 [1] Anonymous [name of declaimer lost]. To whatever matter nature gave greatness, it gave also a limit. Nothing is without boundary except the Ocean. § They say there are fertile lands lying in the Ocean and beyond the Ocean there are again more shores, another world is born. The universe nowhere ceases but always where it seems to end—it rises anew. Such things are easily invented since the Ocean cannot be sailed. § The sea stands motionless, a sluggish heap of nature giving out (as it were) at its own terminus. There are strange and terrifying shapes, monsters great even for the Ocean, which that deep wasteland nourishes. The light is intermingled in a deep murk and the daylight interrupted by darkness. The very sea is heavy and fastened still; there are strange stars or none at all. [2] Argentarius. Stand still, your world is calling you back. We’ve conquered as far as the sun shines. Pompeius Silo. That longed-for day has come, Alexander, when your work is done: the boundaries of your kingdom and the universe are one and the same. Moschus. A sea enormous and untouched by human activity; it is the band of the entire world, the guardian of the lands, a wasteland unstirred by oars; its shores are now agitated by waves raging, now deserted by waves retreating. A foul darkness presses on the waves and, strangely, what nature withdraws from human sight is buried by an eternal night. Musa. A foul enormity of beasts and a motionless deep. Here’s testimony, Alexander, that there is nothing beyond this for you to conquer; turn back. [3] Albucius Silus. The lands too have their boundary and the very universe has some kind of horizon. Nothing is without boundary. § You ought to set a limit to greatness since fortune does not do it. § Limitation in success is the mark of a great heart. § Fortune sets one and the same limit to your victory and to nature: the Ocean encloses your reign. § Oh, how much your greatness has transcended even the universe! To the world Alexander is grand, to Alexander the world is narrow. § There is some limit even to greatness: the heavens do not move beyond their own space; the seas are stirred within their own boundaries.

184  The Ocean ( Seneca Suas. 1 ) § Whatever has reached the limit leaves no room for growth. We know no more about what lies beyond Alexander than what lies beyond the Ocean. [4] Fabianus. Tell me. Does it seem to you that that murk shed over the sea will admit sailing into it when it excludes even gazing into it? § This is not like India and its frightful assembly of beasts. No: imagine unholy monsters. § Look with what storms and surges the Ocean rages, what waves it drives to the shores. There is such a collision of winds, a great fury of sea stirred to its depths. No available resting-place for ships, there’s no point of safety, nothing familiar. Raw and incomplete, nature has entirely withdrawn. Not even the men fleeing from Alexander made for these awful seas. Around the lands nature poured the Ocean—a sacred object. § Men who have already documented the movements of the stars and reduced to a fixed law the annual cycles of winter and summer, men to whom no part of the world is unknown—even they are uncertain about the Ocean: whether it flows around the lands like a band or if it gathers in its own circle and seethes out into those channels where there is sailing, as if into kinds of breathing-holes for its massiveness. Beyond it, does it have fire, which it itself nourishes, or air? § What are you doing, fellow soldiers? You send the great Alexander—the master of the human race—to a place whose nature is still open to debate. Remember, Alexander, you leave your mother in a world that is still more conquered than pacified. Albinovanus Pedo (Sen. Suas. 1.15). Already they see the daylight and sun are behind their backs. They see they are exiles from the boundaries of the known world, see that they rashly travel through forbidden darkness to the limits and ul­tim­ate shores of the Hesperian world. They see that the famed Ocean, which beneath its sluggish waves bears prodigious monsters and everywhere savage seabeasts and sea-dogs, now snatches up boats and swells (the very noise heaps up fears)—and, the next moment, the boats alight on the water’s floor and the fleet is forsaken by the seizing wind. They believe that, by an idle fate, they are abandoned to sea-beasts to be ripped apart by a now unfortunate lot. And someone who, aloft from the high prow, fought with combative vision to burst through the sightless air, when the world had been snatched away and he could make nothing out, pours forth these words from his muffled breast: ‘Where are we being carried? The day itself flees and nature at its limit encloses the relinquished world in perpetual darkness. Are we seeking peoples located beyond, under another sky? another world untouched by wars? The gods call us back; they forbid to mortal eyes knowledge of the boundary of nature. Why do we violate otherworldly seas and sacred waters with oars? Why disturb the tranquil seats of the gods?’ Q. Curtius Rufus70 9.3.7–8 [speech by Coenus, Macedonian infantry commander] [7] ‘By your magnificent achievements, King, you have triumphed not over your enemies 70  The translation, which I have occasionally modified, is by Yardley (1984).

Bart Huelsenbeck  185 alone but over your own soldiers, too. Whatever mortals were capable of, we have achieved. We have crossed lands and seas, all of them now better known to us than to their inhabitants. [8] We stand almost at the end of the earth; you are preparing to enter another world and you seek an India even the Indians do not know. You wish to flush out from their coverts and lairs men who live among wild animals and serpents, so that you may traverse in victory more land than the sun looks upon.’ 9.4.16–18 [16] The Macedonians, who had believed themselves quit of any danger, were suddenly terror-stricken when they realized that a fresh war with India’s most belligerent tribes still lay before them, and once more they began to criticize their king with seditious talk: . . . [17] They were thrown before savage tribes so that they could by their blood open up a path to the Ocean for him; [18] they were dragged beyond the stars and the sun and made to visit places that nature had removed from the sight of mortals. Each successive re-arming met with fresh enemies. And suppose they scattered and routed those enemies— what reward lay in store for them? Darkness and a perpetual night lying on the deep, a sea filled with shoals of savage sea monsters, stagnant waters where dying nature had lost her power. 9.9.7–9.9.22 [7] Two days later they came into mixed sea- and river-water, the still gentle tide blending the two. [8] Then, approaching another mid-stream island at a slightly slower pace (since their progress was retarded by the current), they landed the fleet and split up to look for provisions, not expecting the calamity which now took them by surprise. [9] At about the third hour the Ocean tide, in its regular alternation, began its flow, pushing back the riverwaters. At first the river-current was arrested; then, driven with increased violence, it ran backwards with greater force than that of torrents rushing on a downhill course. [10] The rank and file were ignorant of the behaviour of the sea, and they thought they were witnessing prodigies and signs of heaven’s displeasure. Time after time the sea would swell and come pouring over fields that had been dry shortly before. [11] By now the ships had been lifted by the tide and the entire fleet scattered. The men who had been set ashore came running back to their vessels from every direction, alarmed and panic-stricken by this unforeseen disaster. . . . [the rising of the Ocean waters causes confusion and panic] [19] Then, suddenly, they were struck with fresh terror, greater than before. [20] The sea began to ebb and the waters ran back to their former position with a strong undertow, restoring land that had been submerged in deep sea-water a little while before. . . . [22] Nor was this all they suffered: not knowing that the tide would shortly return to float their vessels, they foresaw starvation and utter catastrophe for themselves. There were also frightful sea monsters wandering around, left by the tide.

9

The Mythical Exempla of Faithful Heroines in Seneca the Elder’s work Literary Occurrences of a Declamatory Device Beatrice Larosa

Introduction The exemplum in declamation is a notoriously important tool used by rhetoricians in order to clarify, emphasize, or reinforce their arguments.1 This chapter will examine the literary exploitation of a particular de­clama­tory device—the series of exempla of mythical heroines used to showcase the paradigm of conjugal fidelity—and I shall offer an analysis of relevant sections in some Controversiae quoted in Seneca the Elder. The presence of this same tool in different literary contexts confirms the idea of osmosis between declamatory inventio and literary composition, while also underlining the autonomy of declamation as a genre. The four sections, transmitted by Seneca the Elder, belong to Controversiae given by Arellius Fuscus, Triarius, Clodius Turrinus, and Ovid. They all deal with the topic of extreme conjugal fidelity, although they develop different plots, with the exception of the thema treated by Arellius Fuscus and the young Ovid.2 1  The knowledge of exempla, above all those belonging to history, was a prerogative for a good orator: cf. Sen. Contr. 1.praef.18; Quint. Inst. 10.1.34 and 12.4.1. The tendency to exaggerate the use of exempla in declamations is defined by Seneca the Elder as a morbus in Contr. 7.5.12–13; cf. Berti (2007) 198–202. On the probative and persuasive value of exempla in relation to preceding authoritative statements, a concept that already occurred in Arist. Rhet. 2.20.1393b, cf. Cic. Inv. 1.49; Cic. Part. 96; Rhet. Her. 4.1–2; Quint. Inst. 5.9.1; 5.11.1. For a survey of the theory of exemplum in rhetoric and its use in collections of declamations, cf. Van der Poel (2009) 338–9, who critiques Contr. 7.5.12–13. For a more detailed discussion about the use of exemplum in declamation, with a particular focus on the text of Ps.Quint. Decl. Mai. 3, cf. Brescia (2004) 134. 2  In particular, the controversia pronounced by Arellius Fuscus and his pupil Ovidius develops the thema of the extreme oath between lovers: two spouses promise each other that if a Beatrice Larosa, The Mythical Exempla of Faithful Heroines in Seneca the Elder’s work: Literary Occurrences of a Declamatory Device In: Reading Roman Declamation: Seneca the Elder. Edited by: Martin T. Dinter, Charles Guérin, and Marcos Martinho, Oxford University Press (2020). © Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198746010.003.0009

Beatrice Larosa  187 1. Arellius Fuscus ‘Moriar’ inquit; ‘habeo et causam et exemplum: quaedam ardentibus rogis se maritorum miscuerunt,3 quaedam vicaria maritorum salutem anima redemerunt. Quam magna gloria brevi sollicitudine pensata est!’ O te felicem, uxor! Inter has viva numeraris. (‘I shall die,’ she says. ‘I have a motive, and a precedent. Some have joined their husbands on their blazing pyres, some have bought their husband’s safety at the cost of a life in exchange. What immense glory won by a short agony!’ How lucky you are, wife! You are numbered among women like these—while you are still alive.)4 (Sen. Contr. 2.2.1)

2. Ovidius Non est quod tibi placeas, uxor, tamquam prima peccaveris: perit aliqua cum viro, perit aliqua pro viro; illas tamen omnis aetas honorabit, omne celebrabit ingenium.5 (There is no need, wife, for you to pride yourself on being the first to sin thus. Women have perished with their husbands, women have perished for them: they will be honoured by every age, sung by every genius.) (Sen. Contr. 2.2.11)

3. Triarius Expectasse aliqua per longum tempus maritum dicitur: quanta laus est servasse cum expectasse tanta sit? Alia desiderio viri attonita in ardentem disgrace happened to one of them, the other would kill himself/herself; the husband left for a trip; the wife receives a false message announcing his death; she, faithful to their oath, tries to kill herself and fails; the wife’s father instructs her to leave her husband, but she refuses and is disowned. The speech by Triarius deals with a wife tortured by a tyrant in order to make her reveal the plans of her husband, the future tyrannicide; the declamation of Clodius Turrinus deals with a spouse forced by her father to kill herself for having followed her husband in the opposing faction during the civil war. 3  Håkanson (1989) accepts Schott’s conjecture miserunt. For a synthetic reconstruction of the history of this conjecture, see Huelsenbeck (2011a) 188 n. 1, who, however, is inclined to accept the reading miscuerunt. 4  Text and translation of the Senecan Controversiae have been adapted from Winterbottom (1974). 5  As to the similarities between this controversia and the Ovidian Heroides, which are a symbol of the connections between declamation and poetry, cf. Piazzi (2007) 71–3.

188  The Mythical Exempla of Faithful Heroines rogum se misisse: haec non cum viro arsisset, quae pro viro arsit? Alia pro incolumitate mariti vicaria morte decidit . . . (They say a woman waited for her husband a long time: if it is a distinction to have waited, what distinction to have saved! Another, crazed for loss of her husband, projected herself onto his burning pyre: this woman would have been prepared to burn with her husband—she burnt for him. Another settled to save her husband by dying in his stead . . .) (Sen. Contr. 2.5.8)

4. Clodius Turrinus Adeo tibi vetera exempla exciderunt bonarum coniugum, in quae filiam tuam solebas sanus hortari? Aliqua spiritum viri redemit suo, aliqua se super ardentis rogum misit. (Have you so totally forgotten the ancient instances of faithful wives, to emulate which you used to exhort your daughter—when you were sane? One bartered her life for her husband’s, another flung herself on his blazing pyre.)  (Sen. Contr. 10.3.2)

All these passages refer to the mythical stories of Evadne and Alcestis, even though their names are never explicitly mentioned.6 Triarius, whose pericope is characterized by his utmost care for colouristic details, also introduces the exemplum of Penelope. The heroines are caught by the very actions that have made them exemplary: Evadne joins Capaneus in death; Alcestis has chosen to die in place of her husband Admetus; Penelope is reminded of her long wait for Ulysses. In the first three passages, the sacrifices made by mythical women are directly linked to the fame and renown that they will enjoy in the course of time. All these sections share a number of lexical and stylistic features, which offers possible proof of the reciprocal influences existing among rhetoricians despite their different styles. Evadne, therefore, is portrayed as going through the flames of her husband’s funeral pyre. In the passage, it is noteworthy that each declaimer has recourse to the same words, with a similar disposition:7

6  For a survey of these series of exempla, see Berti (2007) 298–300; Huelsenbeck (2011a) 187–90 and (2018) 223–8. 7  On the mechanisms underlying these similarities, see Huelsenbeck in this volume.

Beatrice Larosa  189 quaedam ardentibus rogis se maritorum miserunt (Fuscus) alia desiderio viri attonita in ardentem rogum se misisse (Triarius) aliqua se super ardentis rogum misit (Turrinus)

In the reference to the story of Alcestis, great attention is paid to the concept of substitute sacrifice, as the presence of the adjective vicarius8 in Fuscus’ declamation and the use of the verb redimo by Triarius and Turrinus clearly demonstrate: quaedam vicaria maritorum salutem anima redemerunt (Fuscus) alia pro incolumitate mariti vicaria morte decidit (Triarius) aliqua spiritum viri redemit suo (Turrinus)

On the contrary, in the text attributed to the young Ovid, the references to the two mythical heroines are very brief and the recurrence of nearly the same string of words (perit aliqua cum viro, perit aliqua pro viro) is only broken by a different use of internal prepositions (namely, cum and pro), which seem to underline the different endings of the two stories. In the case of Alcestis, her husband survives thanks to her own sacrifice. Outlining the use of the exempla of faithful heroines also means identifying the possible sources of the related theme of extreme conjugal fidelity, that is, locating the phases of Latin literary production in which the ornamentum, typical of declamatory practice, meets poetry and, eventually, prose. This analysis allows us to sketch this literary development through the use of these exempla, which gradually develop more and more stereotyping, and to consider their use in the light of their historical context, including socio-cultural changes to the concept of wives and marriage that began in the first century bc. Along this literary path, from Ovid to Claudian, we can distinguish two different functions for exempla: a didactic and paraenetic purpose, recognizable in the above-mentioned passages of Seneca the Elder, and a pan­ egyr­ic purpose, a more cogent aspect of evolution in rhetorical practice, that will be accompanied, over the course of time, by the decline of argumentative material in favour of the epideictic one. 8  Moreover, the character of the vicarius, willing to give his life for the sake of fidelity, is typical of the declamatory repertoire (cf. Quint. Decl. 257 and 302; Ps.Quint. Decl. Mai. 6, 9, and 16). On the motif of the substitute sacrifice and the use of the term vicarius in the de­clama­ tory literature, with its ‘female value’, cf. Raccanelli (2000) 108 n. 8.

190  The Mythical Exempla of Faithful Heroines

1.  Elegiac Sources and Historical Background The theme of extreme conjugal fidelity is, however, not extensively dealt with in Seneca the Elder, though it had some points of contact with a topic that is more prominent in his anthology: adulterium.9 This declamatory theme suited quiritarian morals and echoed wellknown situations in contemporary society. Adultery was certainly very common, for the emperor Augustus himself promulgated the lex Iulia de adulteriis coercendis in order to prevent it, and he also promoted a series of measures to revalue wedlock; these were a central part of his political campaign aiming at the restoration of the mores maiorum. Similarly, literature from the later Republican period onwards exalts the conjugal tie and eulogizes the coniunx who, as a holder of traditional values, supports her husband or shares his fate, according to a model also frequent in the laudatio funebris. Famous stories in this genre include Lucretia made famous by Livy’s account (1.57–8) or Arria, who decided to die together with her condemned husband (Plin. Ep. 3.16). Moreover, the topos of extreme conjugal fidelity, which characterizes the myths of Alcestis and Evadne, typically contains elegiac resonances. Ac­cordingly, there are frequent references to these Greek heroines in Proper­ tius’ elegies which address the theme of fidelity/infidelity.10 When we consider how mythological exempla in the passages quoted by Seneca the Elder are worded, we realize that the exemplum of Evadne is expressed according to a fixed model, which suggests Euripidean influence: the heroine will be remembered as the one who threw herself onto her partner’s funeral pyre (cf. Prop. 1.15.21–2).11 The adjective felix in particular deserves further attention as it is present in the Fuscus passage quoted above (Sen. Contr. 2.2.1) where it refers to the uxor, who, unlike mythical heroines, will be able to enjoy fame in her lifetime. This attribute is common in conjugal contexts and was used by Propertius prominently: within the structure of the makarismòs (Prop. 2.6.23), for example, felix describes both Alcestis and Penelope, who became symbols of ancient womanly virtue.12

9  This theme is dealt with in Sen. Contr. 1.4; 2.7; 4.7; 6.7; 7.5; 8.3; 9.1. Cf. Migliario (1989) 538–43. 10  Cf. Prop. 1.15.21–2 (Evadne); 2.6.23 (Alcestis); 3.13.24 (Evadne). 11  Cf. Eurip. Supp. 1019; Fedeli (1977) 93. 12  Cf. Labate (1975) 108–9 and n. 13.

Beatrice Larosa  191 Felix is also the adjective used by Propertius to describe the oriental custom, according to which wives follow their husbands in death, throwing themselves in the flames of their husbands’ funeral pyres (Prop. 3.13.15): a behaviour echoed in Evadne’s story, which the poet contrasts to the unfaithful consorts of contemporary Rome (Hoc genus infidum nuptarum, hic nulla puella / nec fida Evadne nec pia Penelope, ‘Here the race of brides is treacherous; here no girl has Evadne’s loyalty or Penelope’s piety’; Prop. 3.3.23–4).13 On the basis of these considerations, we might argue that the use of mythological exempla to define the topos of fidelity, arranged in the form of a catalogue, was originally developed in elegiac poetry and particularly in the poetry of Propertius, which responded to the mythical components of Hellenistic literature. Literary tradition and declamatory practice find a meeting point in the use of exempla, which, in the case of Greek heroines as symbols of conjugal devotion, seem to acquire a fixed and almost serial form, not dissimilar to how the exemplum was already being used in Hellenistic literature.

2.  The Use of Exempla with Paraenetic and Didactic Value The catalogue of exempla of mythical heroines in relation to marriage is prominently used in Ovid’s exile poetry, where the poet uses it for persuasive purposes, in order to urge his wife to persist in her fidelity towards him even in misfortune, and to act in his favour.14 Si nihil infesti durus vidisset Ulixes, Penelope felix, sed sine laude foret.             Penelope Victor Echionias si vir penetrasset in arces, forsitan Evadnen vix sua nosset humus.    Evadne Cum Pelia tot sint genitae, cur nobilis una est?    Alcestis Nempe fuit misero nupta quod una viro. Effice ut Iliacas tangat prior alter harenas, Laudamia nihil cur referatur erit.                Laodamia

13  Translations of Propertius are adapted from A.S. Kline (2001). 14  For the use of these series of exempla of faithful heroines in the whole Ovidian corpus, not only in the exile poetry, in comparison to previous Latin elegiac poetry, see Larosa (2014).

192  The Mythical Exempla of Faithful Heroines (Had sturdy Ulysses seen no misfortune, Penelope would have been happy but unpraised. Had her husband pressed victoriously into the citadel of Echion, perchance Evadne would scarce have been known to her own land. Though Pelias had so many daughters, why is one only famed? Doubtless because she  alone wedded an ill-starred husband. Let but another be first to touch the  sands of Ilium and there will be no reason why Laodamia should be remembered.)15 (Ov. Trist. 5.5.51–8) Aspicis ut longo teneat laudabilis aevo nomen inextinctum Penelopea fides?    Penelope Cernis ut Admeti cantetur et Hectoris uxor     Alcestis, Andromache ausaque in accensos Iphias ire rogos?    Evadne Ut vivat fama coniunx Phylaceia, cuius              Laodamia Iliacam celeri vir pede pressit humun? (Do you see how Penelope’s faith is praised in the long reaches of time and how her name never dies? How Admetus’ wife and Hector’s are sung, and the daughter of Iphis, who dared to mount the lighted pyre? How the wife of the hero of Phylacos lives, whose husband touched with his swift foot the soil of Ilium?) (Ov. Trist. 5.14.35–40)

These exempla prove that fame is earned through hardship: the notoriety the heroines enjoy is strictly linked to that of their husbands, the protagonists of mythical stories.16 Just as in the passages quoted in the Senecan an­thol­ ogy, in Ovid’s Tristia the topos of the undying fame of mythical heroines occurs as well. The adjective felix here applied to Penelope is used to define the condition in which she would have lived if Ulysses had not had to face the adversities of fate. Ovid calls upon his wife to revive the example of these virtuous women and to become herself a symbol of marital fidelity.17 The persuasive and didactic features of exempla become more evident in Ovid’s final elegy to his spouse due to the urgency of his request that she intercede on behalf of 15  Text and translation of the Tristia are adapted from Wheeler (1965). 16  The theme of female glory as acquired through husbands’ difficulties has been attributed to Alcestis since Plato (Symp. 208d). References to Admetus’ wife and Penelope occur in Ps.Arist. Oec. 3.1.141 (also cited as 29–142, 18 Rose) and it is not unlikely that in the schools of rhetoric a behavioural code of bona coniunx was created, possibly going back to Xenophon and Pseudo-Aristotle’s Oeconomici: cf. Citroni Marchetti (2004) 17. 17 Ov. Trist. 4.3.71–2.

Beatrice Larosa  193 her exiled husband at the imperial court. The visual component, similar to Ov. Trist. 4.14.35 is here condensed in the phrase ante oculos ponere: the technique of evidentia, which rhetorical theory recommends using during the demonstratio, follows the purpose of docere through the pathetic evocation of images.18 Si mea mors redimenda tua, quod abominor, esset, Admeti coniunx, quam sequereris, erat.              Alcestis Aemula Penelopes fieres, si fraude pudica                       Penelope instantis velles fallere nupta procos. Si comes extincti manes sequerere mariti,                       Laodamia esset dux facti Laodamia tui. Iphias ante oculos tibi erat ponenda volenti                   Evadne corpus in accensos mittere forte rogos. (If you had to redeem my death at the price of your own—away with the thought!—Admetus’ wife would be a model to follow. You would become a rival of Penelope if by chaste deceit you, a bride, should wish to beguile insistent suitors. If you should follow your dead husband to the shades, Laodamia would guide you in your deed. Iphias would have to be kept before your eyes, should thou wish to hurl thyself bravely upon the kindled pyre.)19 (Ov. Pont. 3.1.105–12)

In this passage the verb redimo (‘redeem’) defines Alcestis’ sacrifice, whereas the action of Evadne’s action is described with an almost formulaic cadence and in the same terms (in rogos mittere) used in the pericopes of Senecan Controversiae. In Ovid’s Ars Amatoria 3.15–22, the same catalogue of faithful heroines occurs, showing similarities both with the passages of the declaimers quoted in the collection of Seneca the Elder (see the presence of the verb redimo) and with that of the young Ovid (the use of the expression pro viro). In this case, the verb fero, previously used by Propertius in relation to Evadne (Prop. 1.15.21–2: Coniugis Evadne miseros elata per ignes / occidit Argivae fama pudicitiae, ‘Evadne plunged on her poor husband’s flames and died, that legend of Argive chastity’), recalls the substitute sacrifice of Alcestis. Evadne’s action is described according to a fixed form, constantly referring to the image of the fire into which she threw herself.

18  Cf. Gazich (1995) 58 and Larosa (2013) 105, s.v. ante oculos tibi erat ponenda. 19  Text and translation of the Epistulae ex Ponto have been adapted from Wheeler (1965).

194  The Mythical Exempla of Faithful Heroines est pia Penelope lustris errante duobus                         Penelope et totidem lustris bella gerente viro. Respice Phylaciden et quae comes isse marito            Laodamia fertur et ante annos occubuisse suos. Fata Pheretiadae coniunx Pagasaea redemit:              Alcestis proque viro est uxor funere lata viri. ‘Accipe me, Capaneu: cineres miscebimur’ inquit  Evadne Iphias, in medios desiluitque rogos. ([. . .] yet Penelope is chaste, though for ten years her lord was wandering, and fighting for as many years. Consider Phylacides and her who is said to have accompanied her spouse, and to have died before her time. The Pagasaean consort of Pheretiades redeemed his fate, and in her husband’s funeral his wife was borne in her husband’s stead. ‘Take me, Capaneus; we will mingle our ashes,’ cried the daughter of Iphis, and leapt into the middle of the pyre.) 20 (Ov. Ars Am. 3.15–22)

As we can see from these passages, Ovid’s poetry represents a conscious combination of declamatory tradition and literary composition: the poet’s training in the schools of rhetoric21 is evident both in his early works and his exile poetry. Particularly in the latter, exempla in the form of catalogues of faithful heroines feature a relationship sealed by marriage in contrast to their use in the elegiac genre. The theme of extreme conjugal fidelity is also present in the Metamorphoses in the story of Philemon and Baucis, who express the wish to die together.22 It seems to me, however, that some reminiscences of the declamatory theme, recited by Fuscus and his pupil Ovid, also occur in the myth of Pyramus and Thisbe, the two unlucky lovers. They finally decide to kill themselves—the result of a fatal error. Thisbe, in particular, displays a firm will towards suicide which permeates her words, which are spoken over the dead body of her beloved, and call to mind the perseverance shown by the uxor of Fuscus’ controversia (see Sen. Contr. 2.2.1: ‘Moriar’…; ‘habeo et causam et exemplum’):

20  Text and translation of the Ars amatoria have been adapted from Mozley (1969). 21  Cf. Sen. Contr. 2.2.8–12. Concerning the relations between Ovidian poetry and his rhetorical education, see: Mariotti (1957); Arnaldi (1958); Higham (1958); Naumann (1968); Pianezzola (1999a and 1999b); Casamento (2002) 17–19; Tarrant (1995) 72–4; Malaspina (1995) 83–90; Berti (2007) 290–304. For the presence of the exempla of Evadne, Alcestis, and Penelope in Ovidian poetry, as a legacy of his rhetorical education, cf. Berti (2007) 298–300; Huelsenbeck (2011a) 187-90 and (2018) 223–8. 22  Cf. Mastrorosa (2002) 165–6.

Beatrice Larosa  195 Persequar extinctum letique miserrima dicar causa comesque tui: quique a me morte revelli heu sola poteras, poteris nec morte revelli. (I will follow you in death, and men shall say that I was the most wretched cause and comrade of your fate. Whom death alone had power to part from me, not even death shall have power to part from me.)23 (Ov. Met. 4.151–3)

3.  The Use of Encomiastic Exempla If the schools of rhetoric play an important role in the Ovidian corpus, they are just as fundamental for one of the addressees of the anthology of Seneca the Elder: his own son Seneca, whose work is inevitably affected by the precepts of his father. Seneca the Younger’s proximity to the traditional Catonian morals of his father has already been noted, and find their expression in the Consolatio ad Helviam, written by Seneca to console his mother when he was exiled.24 In this dialogue we find many traces of the topics discussed in the schools of rhetoric, such as the convicium saeculi, which touched upon the impudicitia of contemporary women and the role of the bona coniunx, issues which we encounter in Seneca the Elder’s anthology as well. Helvia is described as a matron who stands apart from her contemporaries: intelligent, modest both in conduct and appearance, similar to the women of the past. She is admonished to imitate her sister’s example, who appears superior even to Alcestis: during a shipwreck, Helvia’s sister had put her own life at risk in order to save the body of her dead husband and assure proper burial.25 O quam multarum egregia opera in obscuro iacent! Si huic illa simplex admirandis virtutibus contigisset antiquitas, quanto ingeniorum certamine celebraretur uxor, quae, oblita imbecillitatis, oblita metuendi etiam firmissimis maris, caput suum periculis pro sepultura obiecit et, dum cogitat de viri funere, nihil de suo timuit! Nobilitatur carminibus omnium, quae se pro coniuge vicariam dedit. Hoc amplius est, discrimine vitae sepulcrum viro quaerere; maior est amor, qui pari periculo minus redimit. 23  Text and translation of the Metamorphoses have been adapted from Miller (1971). 24  Cf. Degl’Innocenti Pierini (2008) 153–76 (above all 154). 25  This episode features philosophical and poetic elements that are typical of the moral discourse on marriage; cf. Torre (2000) 51–4.

196  The Mythical Exempla of Faithful Heroines (O how many noble deeds of women are unknown to fame! If she had had the good fortune to live in the days of old when men were frank in ad­mira­ tion of heroic deeds, with what rivalry of genius would her praise be sung—a wife who forgetful of her own weakness, forgetful of the sea, which even the stoutest hearts must dread, exposed her own life to peril to give another burial, and, while she planned her husband’s funeral, had no fear at all about her own! She who gave herself to death in place of her husband has fame from the songs of all poets. But for a wife to seek burial for her husband at the risk of her own life is far more; for she who, enduring equal danger, has smaller recompense shows greater love.)26 (Sen. Ad Helv. 19.5)

Seneca the Younger recounts the event in ways similar to those used by rhetoricians in the aforementioned passages of Seneca the Elder’s an­thol­ ogy.27 The opening exclamation is reminiscent of the one uttered by Fuscus (Quam magna gloria brevi sollicitudine pensata est!), while the theme of fame gained through remarkable deeds and immortalized by poetry recalls the exemplum of Alcestis, with the use of the usual attribute vicarius and the verb redimo. The catalogue of exempla of faithful heroines is also present in a fragment attributed to a lost work of Seneca, De matrimonio, in which Alcestis, Penelope, and Laodamia all appear.28 For the composition of this treatise, Seneca will have used mythological catalogues, compiled from the Alexandrian originals.29 We can cite Hyginus as example who mentions Penelope, Evadne, Laodamia, and Alcestis as symbols of chastity and refers to Evadne and Alcestis according to the usual paradigm. pro quo cum neque pater neque mater mori voluisset, uxor se Alcestis ob­tulit et pro eo vicaria morte interiit. (When neither his father nor his mother was willing to die for him, his wife Alcestis offered herself, and died for him in vicarious death.)30 (Hyg. Fab. 51.3.10) Evadne Phylaci filia propter Capaneum coniugem qui apud Thebas perierat in eandem pyram se coniecit. 26  The translation has been adapted from Basore (1970). 27  Cf. Degl’Innocenti Pierini (2008) 144 and 168. 28 Sen. Matr. fr. 53 Vottero. For a discussion of the attribution to Seneca, see Torre (2000) 137. 29  Cf. Treggiari (1991) 214 and 218. 30  Translations of Hyginus’ Fabulae are Grant’s (1960).

Beatrice Larosa  197 (Evadne, daughter of Phylacus, because Capaneus, her husband, perished at Thebes, threw herself on the same funeral pyre.)  (Hyg. Fab. 243.2.8) Alcestis Peliae filia propter Admetum coniugem vicaria morte obiit. (Alcestis, daughter of Pelias, for the sake of her husband, Admetus, died a vicarious death.)  (Hyg. Fab. 243.4.16)

These collections most likely contributed to the fixed and formulaic structure of mythological exempla. Exempla thus contribute, as in the above-mentioned episode of Consolatio ad Helviam, to the characterization of women whose actions and virtue exceeds that of the heroines of the past, according to a widely used panegyric technique.31 Martial Epig. 4.75 thus defines the relationship between two spouses through the use of a mythological exemplum. Negrina, characterized by the adjective felix, just like her husband, is praised for having shared her father’s inheritance with him. Arserit Euhadne flammis iniecta mariti, nec minor Alcestin fama sub astra ferat: tu melius: certo meruisti pignore vitae ut tibi non esset morte probandus amor. (Let Evadne burn, cast on her husband’s flames, let no lesser fame carry Alcestis to the stars: you surpass them. By a sure pledge in your lifetime you have de­served that your love needs no proving by your death.)32 (Mart. Epig. 4.75.5–8)

The epigram, which shows clear links to the contemporary debate on ­luxury, a theme also found in the Senecan anthology,33 employs the exempla of Evadne and Alcestis, thus highlighting the contrast between the wife of Antistius Rusticus and the mythical heroines. The sacrifice of life, which had seemed to be the greatest proof of love, is devalued in favour of the more humble fidelity of daily life, in accordance with a concept already expressed by the exiled Ovid in his final elegy to his wife (Ov. Pont. 3.1.113: Morte nihil opus est, nihil Icariotide tela: / Caesaris est coniunx ore precanda tuo, ‘But you have no need of death, no need of the Icarian woman’s web; your lips must pray to Caesar’s spouse’).

31  Cf. Laurens (1965). 32  Text and translation have been adapted from Shackleton Bailey (1993). 33  Cf. in particular Sen. Contr. 2.1.

198  The Mythical Exempla of Faithful Heroines The debate on the depravity of contemporary women also influenced Juvenal, who, according to ancient biographers, had declaimed from his youth until adulthood. He particularly attacks women committing coldblooded crimes by quoting the exemplum of Alcestis subverted with sarcasm. Spectant subeuntem fata mariti Alcestim, et similis si permutatio detur, morte viri cupiant animam servare catellae. (Our wives look on at Alcestis undergoing her husband’s fate; if they were granted a like liberty of exchange, they would much rather let the husband die to save a puppy-dog’s life.)34­  (Juv. Sat. 6.652–4)

Extreme fidelity between spouses also features in the Letters of Pliny the Younger. He tells the story of Arria (Ep. 3.16.2: quae marito solacium mortis et exemplum fuit, ‘Who was a solace and an example in death to her ­husband’), who decided to commit suicide, just like the protagonist of the controversia pronounced by Fuscus, despite the attempts of her family to dissuade her: Potestis enim efficere ut male moriar, ut non moriar non potestis. (You can make me choose an ignoble death, but you cannot make it im­ possible.)35 (Plin. Ep. 3.16.11–12)

In another letter, Pliny tells the lesser known story of a common woman, who urged her seriously ill husband to kill himself. She eventually committed suicide by throwing herself tied to him into a lake. Both Arria and this unnamed wife serve as an example to their husbands. Vidit desperavit hortata est ut moreretur, comesque ipsa mortis, dux im­mo et exemplum et necessitas fuit; nam se cum marito ligavit abiecitque in lacum. (She saw that there was no hope and urged him to take his life; she went with him, even led him to his death herself, and forced him to follow her example by roping herself to him and jumping into the lake.) (Plin. Ep. 6.24.4) 34  Text and translation have been adapted from Ramsay (1969). 35  Text and translation have been adapted from Radice (1972).

Beatrice Larosa  199 Finally, the device of the catalogue of exempla of faithful brides is used with a laudatory intent in the Laus Serenae of Claudian, the first Latin poetic praise addressed to a woman, where the features of elegy join the characteristics of eulogy. At the beginning of the poem, Claudian juxtaposes Serena, the wife of Stilicho, and the heroines of the past, in order to show that none of them was more worthy of praise than Serena. Among others, the poet also recalls the story of Alcestis, whose sacrifice allowed her husband to stay alive (Claud. Laus Serenae 12–14: Quod sponte redempto / casta maritali successit Thessala fato / inque suos migrare virum non abnuit annos, ‘who, to win her husband from death, freely offered herself in his stead, allowing him to enjoy her own span of life’),36 and the sacrifice of Penelope (Claud. Laus Serenae 19), which was also present in the declamation recorded by Seneca the Elder. Both exempla are related to the concept of immortality. A novelty is Claudian’s use of exempla featuring figures from Roman history (Claudia, Cloelia, and Tanaquilla):37 the encomiastic principle of synkrisis intends to emphasize Serena’s superiority both compared to mythological and historical women (non tamen audebunt titulis certare Serenae).38 The exempla of faithful heroines at Claud. Laus Serenae 149–53 (Laodamia, Evadne, and Lucretia) fulfil the same purpose: young Serena exemplifies these values from both a pagan and a Christian point of view.39 Nobiliora tenent animos exempla pudicos: Laodamia sequens remeantem rursus ad umbras Phylaciden et prona ruens Capaneia coniunx, communes ardente viro mixtura favillas, et gravis incumbens casto Lucretia ferro

36  The expression fatum redimere in regard to the sacrifice of Alcestis occurs also in Ov. Ars Am. 3.19 (quoted earlier in this chapter) and Sen. Med. 662. Text and translation for Laus Serenae here and elsewhere in this chapter have been adapted from Platnauer (1972). 37  It should not be forgotten that these heroines of Roman history had long become tradi­tion­al exempla of female virtues. Claudia, Cloelia, and Lucretia (cf. Claud. Laus Serenae 157) are also present in the collection of Valerius Maximus (respectively in Facta et Dicta Memorabilia 1.8.2, 3.2.2, and 6.1.1), notoriously used by rhetoricians (cf. Sinclair (1984); Combès (1995); Schneider (2001)). Combinings of Greek and Roman exempla of virtuous women occur in Aelian Var. Hist. 14.45 (Penelope, Alcestis, Laodamia, Cornelia, Porcia and Cloelia) and Hyg. Fab. 256 (Penelope, Evadne, Laodamia, Hecuba, Hypatia, Alcestis, and Lucretia). 38 Claud. Laus Serenae 31. In regard to this aspect, cf. Consolino (1986) 19. 39  Cf. Consolino (1986) 21.

200  The Mythical Exempla of Faithful Heroines (Thy chaste mind fastens upon examples more noble: Laodamia following Protesilaus as he returned to the shades; Evadne who cast herself on the flaming pyre whereon her husband Capaneus perished, wishing to mingle her ashes with his; grave Lucrece who fell upon a chaste sword.)40 (Claud. Laus Serenae 149–53)

In particular, the term mixtura recalls the verb miscebimur used by Ovid in relation to Evadne (Ov. Ars Am. 3.21). The recollection of the story of Lucretia41 and the mixing of myth and history give the image of the future spouse of Stilicho a more worldly dimension: the woman who reads their deeds is lucky, we may say felix, because she did not suffer such a cruel destiny. Talia facta libens non tu virtute minore, sed fato meliore legis. (Of such deeds thou dost read with joy, thyself not less in virtue though more blessed of fortune.)  (Claud. Laus Serenae 158–9)

As we have seen, the use of mythological exempla is a common practice both in rhetoric and in poetry, and the common use of catalogues of exempla in literature, especially from Ovid onwards, seems to follow the de­clama­ tory convention tapping into condensed archives of exempla. The influence of the declamation schools and the training received there thus endured over time and clearly shows that declamation was not just a marginal practice. The use of exempla in different literary contexts confirms the notion that Seneca’s anthology should not be considered as merely documenting rheto­ ric­al training, but as a collection which tests the boundaries between rheto­ ric­al inventio and literature.

40  Text and translation have been adapted from Platnauer (1972). 41  In declamation, references to her exemplum, together with Verginia’s one, occur in Sen. Contr. 1.5.3; Calp. Decl. 3; Ps.Quint. Decl. Mai. 3.

10

The Rhetoric of Decline and the Rhetoric for Declamatio Christopher S. van den Berg

1.  Decline: Convention and Topos Even at distance of nearly two millennia, most of us still appreciate the humour in Pliny’s account of Iavolenus Priscus and his friend, the aspiring poet, Passennus Paulus (Plin. Ep. 6.15). At a recitation Paulus announced that Priscus had requested some verses (Prisce iubes . . .). Perhaps the recipient misunderstood the convention (or, more likely, he understood it all too well), but his lacklustre rejoinder would cause Paulus considerable embarrassment: Ego vero non iubeo. The failed interaction is based on the wellknown convention of an imagined request from a comrade in letters, and Pliny goes on to note how social damage attaches to both men: to Priscus for not playing along and to Paulus for not securing someone who would. The foreign observer can learn much from so botched an example of literary request and exchange. The trick had a well-known past in Roman letters, in Cicero’s treatises, Tacitus’ Dialogus, and the first letter of Pliny’s epistolary corpus (to name only a few texts), and so it comes as no surprise that Seneca resorts to it to begin the Controversiae. His three sons, Novatus, Seneca, and Mela, we are told, have asked, in fact, demanded, that Seneca share with them his memory of past declaimers, both their sayings and his opinions of them. Seneca presses not one but two verbs into service for the imagined request from his addressees, iubetis, a few words in, and exigitis, the word which begins the collection. The widespread artifice, however much it might reflect the reality of a formal request or a passing wish, had a practical function above all. It captured a specific cultural and historical moment for a piece of literature and at the same time offered the pretext of social obligation to mask what Christopher S. van den Berg, The Rhetoric of Decline and the Rhetoric for Declamatio In: Reading Roman Declamation: Seneca the Elder. Edited by: Martin T. Dinter, Charles Guérin, and Marcos Martinho, Oxford University Press (2020). © Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198746010.003.0010

202  The Rhetoric of Decline probably amounted in many cases to little more than authorial initiative.1 Pliny’s famous letter (discussed above) sheds light on the pragmatic workings of the convention not only because of the humorous account but also because of yet another even more famous letter, the one immediately following it. Epistle 6.16 (and its companion 6.20) is addressed to Tacitus and details the final hours of Pliny the Elder, who succumbed to ash and smoke while investigating the famous eruption of Mount Vesuvius in 79 ad. The letter to Tacitus begins with Pliny’s claim, ‘You ask me to write to you about the death of my uncle, in order that you can provide a better account for posterity. Thank you.’ (Petis ut tibi avunculi mei exitum scribam, quo verius tradere posteris possis. Gratias ago.)2 Tacitus appears to have asked Pliny for an account of his uncle’s death, but the request ascribed to Tacitus immediately follows the anecdote about of how such an interaction can go wrong, as it did in the case of Paulus and Priscus. Readers who are now coming to appreciate Pliny’s careful manipulation of structural parallels and the placement of letters in his books are right to suspect that Pliny virtually guarantees Tacitus’ compliance.3 It is easy to discern the pragmatic value of such literary transactions: our scrutiny falls less on the truth underlying the scenarios, such as how often Brutus pressed Cicero for a detailed account of the best genus dicendi before composing the Orator, or how many times Fabius Iustus beseeched Tacitus (saepe requiris, ‘you often beseech’, Tac. Dial. 1.1) to explain the differences between modern and ancient oratory, before Tacitus at last acquiesced and set himself to composing the Dialogus. Modern readers are unlikely to press these scenarios for factual details, which is perhaps for the best, since such efforts would probably yield few useful answers. Yet reverence for literary practice over historical accuracy weakens when we turn to a different kind of literary convention, the topos of decline, which also makes an appearance in the first preface to Seneca’s Controversiae, shortly after Seneca’s ac­know­ ledg­ment of his sons’ request to hear about famous and notorious declaimers of bygone years: Facitis autem, iuvenes mei, rem necessariam et utilem, quod non contenti exemplis saeculi vestri priores quoque vultis cognoscere; primum quia, quo plura exempla inspecta sunt, plus in eloquentiam proficitur. Non est 1  See Janson (1964) on the prefatory topos and Stroup (2010) on the ‘sociopractical’ dynamics of literary dedication. 2 Plin. Ep. 6.16.1. 3  Gibson and Morello (2012) 66–7.

Christopher S. v an d en Berg  203 unus, quamvis praecipuus sit, imitandus, quia numquam par fit imitator auctori. Haec rei natura est: semper citra veritatem est similitudo. Deinde, ut possitis aestimare, in quantum cotidie ingenia decrescant et nescio qua iniquitate naturae eloquentia se retro tulerit. Quidquid Romana facundia habet, quod insolenti Graeciae aut opponat aut praeferat, circa Ciceronem effloruit; omnia ingenia, quae lucem studiis nostris attulerunt, tunc nata sunt. In deterius deinde cotidie data res est sive luxu temporum, nihil enim tam mortiferum ingeniis quam luxuria est, sive, cum pretium pulcherrimae rei cecidisset, translatum est omne certamen ad turpia multo honore quaestuque vigentia, sive fato quodam, cuius maligna perpetuaque in rebus omnibus lex est, ut ad summum perducta rursus ad infimum velocius quidem quam ascenderant relabantur. (My dear young men, you’re indeed doing something necessary and useful, in that you’re not content with the models of your own day and want to know earlier ones too. First, because the more models you’ve examined, the greater the benefit for eloquence. One man alone should not be imitated, no matter how good he is, since an imitator never equals the original. That’s the nature of the thing: a likeness always falls short of the real thing. Second, you can judge for yourself how much talents wane on a daily basis and eloquence bears itself back by some adverseness of nature. Whatever Roman eloquence has to set against or outstrip haughty Greece flourished around Cicero. All talents which have shone on our pursuits were born then. Since then things have grown worse by the day, either because of the luxuriousness of the age, since nothing kills talent like luxury, or because, after the reward for this most beautiful thing collapsed, the entire struggle was transferred to lurid affairs bringing much honour and riches, or perhaps because of some stroke of fate, whose perpetually stingy law governs all: the things that once rose quickly to the top fall back even more quickly to the bottom.)4 (Sen. Contr. 1.praef.6–7)

As an expert observer Seneca avows the decline of speaking, and we are all too ready to believe him. It is worth considering if such a claim about decline—so prominent in the middle of his first preface and familiar from the rhetorical topos de saeculo—should be taken as a statement of absolute fact, either as a real reflection of the state of oratory and rhetoric, or as a position that Seneca himself embraced. Put otherwise, do we recognize in

4  Translations are my own except where stated otherwise.

204  The Rhetoric of Decline this case a straightforward assertion that seeks to document or establish historical fact, or do we place less emphasis on the propositional force of the statement and more on its pragmatic function, that is, to what extent is such a statement part of the literary workings of rhetorical texts?5 We can begin to consider these questions by looking to the longer history of claims about the demise of the rhetorical arts. Many imperial prac­ti­tioners and theorists of eloquentia draw on the topos of decline. Under the JulioClaudians the works of Seneca the Elder, Velleius Paterculus, Petronius, and Seneca the Younger voice criticisms of oratory, often accompanied by claims about the vitiating influence of declamation. Similar sentiments occur in authors who were active under the Flavians and their successors: Tacitus, Quintilian, and Pliny.6 It was perhaps Gordon Williams, in his 1978 book Change and Decline, who made the idea of decline so prominent for modern readers of Imperial literature, at least in the Anglophone scholarship.7 Yet modern observers have since grown far more sceptical of the ancient claims.8 Tacitus’ Dialogus, for example, offers two possible accounts of decline. First, Vipstanus Messalla’s masterful tirade against contemporary declamation, which is among the most spirited criticisms of the art in an­tiquity, and second, Curiatius Maternus’ inspired indictment of contemporary circumstances and institutions. Maternus adduces the abeyance of 5  Looking at a similar claim in Latin literature, the alleged ‘poverty of Latin language’, can also shed light on the conflict between factual assertion and literary device. It has been amply shown that such claims are themselves the means by which Roman authors, such as Lucretius and Cicero, seek to win the reader over to what is ultimately impressive and confident assertions of their own literary enterprises. See especially Fögen (2000) 23–6 (general), 61–76 (on Lucretius’ patrii sermonis egestas), and 77–141 on Cicero, esp. 79–91. Such appeals to the common (mis)conception of Latin’s inferiority are part and parcel of the author’s assertion of his authority to remedy any shortcomings through his writings. Restrictions of space prevent pursuing here the similarities between this Roman topos and that of decline. 6 Sen. Contr. 1.praef.6–10; Vell. 1.16–18 (and cf. 1.13; 2.9–10; 2.36); Petr. Sat. 1–5, 88, 118; Plin. Nat. 14.1–7; Sen. Ep. 90, 114 (Maecenas); Quint. Inst. 2.10 (on declamation) and passim; Quint. Inst. 10.1.80 (decline in Greek rhetoric with the example of Demetrius of Phaleron); Plin. Ep. 2.14 (centumviral courts). For Greek authors consider [Long.], De Subl. 44; Lucian Saturnalia 20. Williams (1978) has been among the greatest exponents of the decline of oratory and especially the Dialogus’ central role as a document in the debate. His larger aim was to discount so-called Silver Age Latin poetry by using ancient dismissals of oratory and rhetoric as a putatively neutral background against which to establish the demise of culture generally. His reading of prose texts required two assumptions: first that such texts were transparent witnesses to rhetorical culture, and second that they corroborated his own perception of poetic decline. Hinds (1998) 83–91 has seriously challenged the second tenet; one aim of this paper is to show the shortcomings in the first. 7  No less important is the influential, if sometimes neglected, study by Heldmann (1982). 8  Berti (2007) 219–47 is the most recent reader of Seneca the Elder to express doubt about the topos generally. The reading offered here seeks to move a step beyond scepticism of the topos by explaining its pragmatic workings in rhetorical texts.

Christopher S. v an d en Berg  205 judicial practice and the tranquillizing effects of the Principate on public speech. Yet for all their force, and for all the appeal of a seemingly historical explanation, neither explanation can withstand close scrutiny.9 Scholars have long seen Messalla’s exaggerations for what they are: wistful Ciceronian ideals which fail to depict the orator’s training in Cicero’s day or Tacitus’. No less than his interlocutor Messalla, Maternus too misrepresents the contemporary situation and the forensic circumstances of the late Republic. Rhetoric and legal advocacy still held a central role in the Roman aristocratic mindset and its pursuit of honour and renown.10 The utterly pervasive physical presence of oratory and judicial advocacy is well attested in the Imperial period: large court spaces in various venues, the addition of new fora to handle the explosive growth in legal activity, the expansion of the centumviral courts in the Basilica Julia on the south end of the Forum, and other venues for criminal and civil procedure.11 The Dialogus suggests just as well the continued viability of oratorical traditions which date back at least to Cicero.12 Petronius’ treatment of the topos of decline in the Satyricon suggests a larger pattern on which authors relied when discussing declamation and decline.13 Encolpius scathingly criticizes declamation for its irrelevance, unmanly manner, and bloated style. Yet Encolpius classifies his criticisms as a declamation, ‘Agamemnon didn’t allow me to declaim any longer’ (non est passus Agamemnon me diutius declamare).14 Agamemnon is a professional instructor of rhetoric and goes on to praise Encolpius’ good judgment and to decry the shortcomings of contemporary students and their parents. The larger pattern that seems to emerge in 9  See, for example, Brink (1989); Crook (1995); Bablitz (2007); van den Berg (2014). 10  Many of the underlying ideas were quite forcibly, and to my mind quite rightly, articulated by Crook (1995). Crook’s book has garnered less attention than it deserves, in large measure because its sober assessment of the historical evidence goes against the modern commonplace of the decline of oratory after the death of Cicero, which is itself little more than an unadulterated adoption of the ancient commonplace at face value. It is worth noting that Crook’s scepticism of the Dialogus’ depiction of pedagogical and forensic circumstances, especially in the last two speeches of Messalla and Maternus, led him to dispute Tacitean authorship, on the grounds that Tacitus could not have so thoroughly misunderstood the contemporary scene. 11  Bablitz (2007) builds on Crook (1995) and rightly notes the physical enhancements to the forum as a reflection of oratory’s continued centrality. 12  In this sentence and the following paragraph, I compress some arguments made in van den Berg (2014), especially in Chapters 2 and 5. Van den Berg (2014) 48 n. 91 calls attention to similarities in the criticism of declamation by Tacitus, Petronius, Quintilian, and Seneca the Elder, without however pursuing those similarities. 13  See Bonner (1949) 76–7 and Kennedy (1978) for a reading of this passage, with Schmeling (2011) for general commentary and bibliography. Cf. also Berti (2007) 233–8. 14 Petr. Sat. 3.

206  The Rhetoric of Decline rhet­oric­al texts can be described as follows: criticism and complaints about ill-preparation or moral and stylistic failings are often accompanied by statements that promote declamation and rhetoric by that same author. Consider as well the case of Pliny’s Epistles, which often discuss the state of oratory. Pliny derides, for example, the folly of young men who come from the schools to the courts with little or any sense of the realities of forensic practice (Plin. Ep. 2.14). This would seem to be good evidence against the schools and dec­lam­ ation, and possibly even proof that the tirocinium fori (‘orator’s apprenticeship’) had disappeared. In his letters Pliny also notes the signal importance of the Greek declaimer Isaeus (Plin. Ep. 2.3), Tacitus’ prominent role as a role model for younger orators (Plin. Ep. 4.13.10), and Pliny’s own role as a mentor to his protegé, Cremutius Ruso (Plin. Ep. 6.23). He also offers a spirited defence of his own oratorical values (Plin. Ep. 1.20).15 Pliny’s complaints are surrounded by attempts to assert his own authority on rhetorical style and oratorical practice. These disparate pieces of evidence suggest that criticism of rhetoric, including the criticism of declamation, fulfilled a pragmatic role in rhet­ oric­al texts and that such criticism was in fact a mainstay of the genre. In criticizing some aspect of eloquentia, authors could draw attention to and demonstrate their own rhetorical prowess. But as they assert their authority, these authors also outline what is necessary for rhetoric to be successful, a gesture which implies not irretrievable decline, but a sense that rhetoric can and will thrive, provided that the author’s own values are adopted by his readers.16 That Roman authors offer such forcible criticisms may seem to undermine their own projects, but the tendency may originate in rhetorical culture itself. Rather than merely theorize about rhetorical norms and cri­ teria, authors such as Petronius and Seneca incorporate the criticism of rhetoric into skilled pieces of rhetoric, thereby embedding an exposition of principles into a masterful demonstration of rhetorical criticism.17 Seneca knew the value of dissimulatio (‘hidden artistry’), as evidenced by the pre­ face’s discussion of Latro’s subtilitas (Sen. Contr. 1.praef.21). There Seneca 15  See Whitton (2019) 192–248 for a recent reading of the letter and its relationship to the rhetorical tradition. 16  Heldmann (1982) 97 rightly notes Seneca’s positioning of himself as an authority on dec­ lam­ation who will pass on his knowledge of declamation to future generations. He goes on to remark that ‘That is precisely the self-imposed and optimistically undertaken function of his work’ (‘Eben das ist die selbstgestellte und mit Zuversicht in Angriff genommene Aufgabe seines Werkes’). 17  For a reading in this direction, see Gunderson (2003) esp. 1–25.

Christopher S. v an d en Berg  207 notes that some critics misunderstood Latro’s subtilitas precisely because he hid it so effectively and goes on to note that ‘hidden fineness is surpassingly useful’ (utilissima est dissimulata subtilitas, Contr. 1.praef.21).18 In his as­sessment of a figure such as Latro, Seneca also reveals the rhetorical techniques he will use in writing about the Roman declaimers. Understanding Seneca’s text within these historical and textual frameworks helps us to overcome a central paradox in the criticisms of rhetoric: ancient authorities on rhetoric and oratory appeal to decline even as they engage in projects of considerable rhetorical sophistication. Why would they resort to a proposition that seems to undermine so thoroughly the authority and value of their own artistic creations? Certainly, instructors knew the limitations of declamation either as an end in itself or for the purpose of oratorical preparation. Quintilian is perhaps the best witness to the dual nature of rhetorical exercises, as he adamantly promotes declamation as a means of preparation but grows adamantly critical when it becomes an end in itself. At the same time, authors who criticize declamation sim­ul­tan­ eous­ly promote declamation’s ability to facilitate the acquisition of eloquence, if, of course, the author’s own precepts on the art are followed. This does not mean that we should dismiss outright such claims about decline, but that we should attempt to understand their discursive and pragmatic value in works of rhetoric.19 As will become apparent, Seneca ultimately provides more than enough evidence to counter the initial assertions of decline, and he will instead stress the value of declamation as well as the importance of his own work’s documentation of the craft. Seneca is the first in a long line of observers and documenters of declamation, but he provides a careful analysis of the art that ultimately seeks to instruct future generations about its past and to defend its utility in the future. Put in other terms, Seneca offers sustained critique (in the traditional sense) rather than dismissive criticism. We might expect little else from the first author to compose a major work on the art of declamation, which by Seneca’s day had come to play a central role in both learned public entertainment and also in the educational curriculum. 18  Compare the judgment on Cassius Severus: ‘nothing however is so unwelcoming as obvious preparation’ (nihil est autem tam inimicum quam manifesta praeparatio, Sen. Contr. 7.praef.3). 19  Hinds (1998) 83–91 tries to untangle the interwoven threads of ‘decline’ and decline in Ovid’s exile poetry and in Lucan. The present study focuses on what Hinds calls ‘the discursive approach to decline’ (85), although it should be noted that his formulation was intended to distinguish the practices of post-Augustan poets from the ‘overt theorizations of the period in moralizing prose’ (85) that Williams (1978) had adduced as evidence for his thesis of poetic decline. As should be obvious by now, this essay seeks to demonstrate that even such ‘overt theorizations’ are themselves discursive structures susceptible to interpretation.

208  The Rhetoric of Decline

2.  Decline in Seneca It might be tempting to read Seneca’s assertions of decline within a political context, and specifically to see his claims as acknowledgment that the great luminaries of the late Republic have passed away along with the freedom of speech they possessed. Lewis Sussman first advanced this argument in detail, seeing Seneca as a forerunner—indeed as the original formulator—of Maternus’ (and therefore Tacitus’) connection of great oratory with the Republic at the conclusion of the Dialogus.20 Whether Tacitus espoused such an idea is largely tangential to Seneca’s opinions, but Seneca’s discussion merits close examination: Quidquid Romana facundia habet, quod insolenti Graeciae aut opponat aut praeferat, circa Ciceronem effloruit; omnia ingenia, quae lucem studiis nostris attulerunt, tunc nata sunt. (Whatever Roman eloquence has to set against or outstrip haughty Greece flourished around Cicero. All talents which have shone on our pursuits were born then.)  (Sen. Contr. 1.praef.6-7)

Seneca does not, in fact, connect decline to the political dispensation.21 While Seneca cites Cicero, he also notes that the great figures of eloquentia are those who were contemporaneous with or after Cicero. Seneca is not being as clear here as we might like, but his emphases of time and subject matter can still be discerned. Seneca’s interest is in nostra studia, which for the purpose of his collection means especially declamation. Seneca names Cicero but includes other figures who also long outlived Cicero. This would include eminent speakers such as Messalla Corvinus, Asinius Pollio, Votienus Montanus, and, of course, Seneca himself. In fact, the temporal framing of Seneca’s interest in past greats directly contradicts the idea of the decline of oratory at the fall of the Republic. The central role played by the great declaimers who lived into the Empire makes the early Empire the focal point of his history. The decline he suggests does not happen with advent of the triumvirate or Augustan rule, but later, in Seneca’s old age and after at least some of the oldest of the past luminaries had passed away, such as Pollio and Messalla, who died in the first decade or so of the first century ad, or Votienus Montanus, who died around 30 ad: ‘after the reward for this most beautiful

20  Sussman (1972) and (1978) 85–91.

21  Heldmann (1982) 90–1.

Christopher S. v an d en Berg  209 thing collapsed, the entire struggle was transferred to lurid affairs bringing much honour and riches’ (cum pretium pulcherrimae rei cecidisset, translatum est omne certamen ad turpia multo honore quaestuque vigentia).22 Seneca seems to assert, but does not document, the decline of postRepublican oratory. The precise terms he uses and his claims in the preface are part of a traditional topos about decline. Seneca can rely on the topos of decline without necessarily demonstrating the decline of oratory in absolute terms. This may seem like a lo­gic­al contradiction, but again comparison with other topoi is instructive. We do not, for example, require factual accuracy from the assertions of Passennus Paulus or Seneca himself that they were asked (iubere) to prod­uce their works: we know that such a request is probably a conventional fiction, and that it serves a different pragmatic purpose. With this pragmatic purpose in mind, it will be possible to gain a different sense of the ultimate message and structure of the preface.

3.  The Pragmatic Workings of Decline in Seneca Seneca’s discussion of decline largely centres on the laziness and resulting effeminacy of young men, and we recognize it as a topos de saeculo, itself a theme the declaimers loved to rework in the collection (see the dozen or so references in Winterbottom’s (1974) indices). Indeed, Seneca explicitly lists the topic de saeculo among the loci communes which Porcius Latro would weave into his Controversiae when practising: quae nihil habent cum ipsa controversia implicitum sed satis apte et alio transferuntur, tamquam quae de fortuna, de crudelitate, de saeculo, de divitiis dicuntur (Which are not inherently attached to a specific controversia but are quite fittingly moved somewhere else too, such as those spoken concerning fortune, cruelty, the age, or riches)23 (Sen. Contr. 1.praef.23).

The philosopher Fabianus would happily introduce criticism of the age (convicium saeculi), whenever the occasion presented itself. Seneca soon

22 Sen. Contr. 1.praef.7. Compare as well the injunction to Mela to pursue declamation for the sake of eloquentia in Sen. Contr. 2.praef.3. 23 Seneca says that these are sententiae in the original sense, which—as Winterbottom (1974) 25 n.1 remarks—means here not the sententiae of the declamatory collection, but the rhetorical commonplaces (loci communes).

210  The Rhetoric of Decline gives us a masterful example at Contr. 2.1.10–13, in which Fabianus inserted a lengthy digression on wealth and luxury into the criticism of the rich man who disinherits his three sons and seeks to adopt the son of a poor man: ‘Are you still surprised when men who struggle in their distaste for anything natural do not also like children—unless they’re someone else’s?’24 The careful placement of topoi was part and parcel of the rhetorical craft, and this practice can provide some sense of Seneca’s appeal to decline in the preface. In the second Controversia of Book 2, famous for its discussion of Ovid’s declamation, Seneca claims that Ovid adapted Latro’s words for his poetry: Et alium ex illa suasoria sensum aeque a Latrone mutuatus est: memini Latronem in praefatione quadam dicere quod scholastici quasi carmen didicerunt: non vides, ut immota fax torpeat, ut exagitata reddat ignes? Mollit viros otium, ferrum situ carpitur et rubiginem ducit, desidia dedocet. (And he similarly borrowed from Latro another idea in the same suasoria. I recall that in some preface Latro said something which the scholastici learned almost as if a jingle: ‘Don’t you see how an unmoved torched grows dim but rekindles itself when shaken? Leisure makes men soft, iron is attacked by disuse and grows rusty, sloth makes men forget what they’ve learned.’) (Sen. Contr. 2.2.8).

Latro’s jingle resembles in a number of ways Seneca’s own description of the causes of decline, which emphasized the lazy and effeminate proclivities of young men: Torpent ecce ingenia desidiosae iuventutis nec in unius honestae rei labore vigilatur; somnus languorque ac somno et languore turpior malarum rerum industria invasit animos: cantandi saltandique obscena studia effeminatos tenent, [et] capillum frangere et ad muliebres blanditias extenuare vocem, mollitia corporis certare cum feminis . . . Quis satis vir est? (Just look, the talents of slothful youth are growing dull and they can’t stay awake working away a single honest thing. Sleep and apathy and diligence (for bad things!), which is more shameful than sleep and apathy, has invaded their minds: the obscene pursuits of singing and dancing has transfixed

24 Sen. Contr. 2.1.13: Et miraris fastidio rerum naturae laborantibus iam ne liberi quidem nisi alieni placent?

Christopher S. v an d en Berg  211 these feminized boys; doing up their hair, fine-tuning the voice to acquire feminine charms, vying with women in physical softness . . . who’s a real man anymore?)  (Sen. Contr. 1.praef.8–9)

Seneca in his first preface gives us an elaborate version of the memorable tag for which Porcius Latro and his imitators were known. There are a number of shared details of language: torpere, desidia, otium (somnus/languor), mollitia, and vir. It’s worth keeping in mind that Latro is the hero of Seneca’s first preface, if not in many ways the collection as a whole, and here Seneca demonstrates his ability to rework declamatory material into his prefatory statements about oratory.25 That Seneca too, perhaps self-consciously, indulges in well-worn topoi to make his point is suggested by his subsequent call only sentences later on the authority of Cato the Elder, who was wont to scold mankind (convicium facere, Sen. Contr. 1.praef. 9) and who provides a counter-model for allegedly feminized oratory. ‘What does that famous man have to say? “The orator, my son Marcus, is a good man skilled in speaking.” ’ (Ille ergo vir quid ait? ‘Orator est, Marce fili, vir bonus dicendi peritus.’ Sen. Contr. 1.praef.9). Seneca steps into the legacy of Cato the Elder as he employs declamatory motifs and language and emulates Cato’s model.26 Seneca not only visibly draws on traditional topoi, he also leaves clues within the declamatory collection to suggest how we might interpret his use of such topoi. The much larger issue underlying such parallels is the relationship of the prefaces to the core material of the Controversiae and Suasoriae. To what extent do the two different parts comment on one another in a way that is not immediately apparent? The prefaces, no less than the declamations they introduce, are skilled pieces of rhetoric with a persuasive design. They can also be conceived of as rhetorically and artistically integrated into the declamatory material they introduce. Such a global conception opens up the possibility that Seneca uses notionally distinct parts of his text (prefaces and declamations) to productively comment on one another. And so, rather than see the prefaces as primarily serving to introduce the collection, as a monodirectional commentary of a preface ‘on’ the collection, we can also think of the collection as a vehicle through which Seneca revisits and reconsiders key ideas and motifs from the prefaces. The collection as a

25  And in a collection so obsessed with policing the production, adaptation, and occasional pilfering of declamatory gems, Latro/latro (‘thief ’, ‘pilferer’) is a marvellously ironic name for the work’s hero. 26  On Cato’s model in Seneca, see Dinter in this volume.

212  The Rhetoric of Decline whole thus potentially contains several instances of implicit self-reflection on the art of declamation, including on its conventions, its history, and its reuse of past texts.27

4.  Memoria and Decline Seneca moves from his discussion of decline to memoria with a question, asking ‘who strives for memory?’ (quis est qui memoriae studeat?).28 Memoria has a number of functions throughout the preface, in fact part of the difficulty of the term lies in how often Seneca calls on it for different purposes. At a basic level memoria is an essential part of the orator’s training and craft. It is a combination of innate ability and assiduous practice, a point that recurs in the later description of Latro’s incredible ability in this area: ‘He had an abundant natural ability to be sure, which was still greatly helped by technique’ (Natura ei quidem felix, plurimum tamen arte adiuta).29 Memoria is also essential to Seneca’s role in the prefatory narrative, as his self-description focuses largely on the functioning of his own memory to recall the great and notorious sayings of the declaimers. He formerly commanded a noteworthy recall of detail, but his once prodigious faculty appears now to be failing him: hanc [memoriam] aliquando in me floruisse (Sen. Contr. 1.praef.2). He employs a standard programmatic verb, florere, which is commonly used to describe the flourishing of individuals or ages, as in the parallel usage in the description of the age of Cicero (effloruit, Sen. Contr. 1.praef.6).30 The repeated verb suggests a parallel between the former flourishing of his memory and the prime age of great declaimers. Beyond this initial parallel, memoria will become crucial to the larger narrative of the preface, since it is the single guiding motif that spans Seneca’s justification of his work in the first half (Sen. Contr. 1.praef.1–12) and his discussion of Latro in the second (Sen. Contr. 1.praef.13–24). Se­ne­ca carefully interweaves memoria into the larger and often implicit ­program­matic assertions of the preface. Seneca’s preface is, in fact, a complex exploration 27  Cf. Goldberg (1997) 173 on declamation’s penchant for ‘metatheatrical allusion’. 28 Sen. Contr.1.praef.10. The term here may suggest ‘future renown’ (Winterbottom’s (1974) translation), but the question also seems to be directed at the faculty of memory generally, the ability to recall past declamations specifically, and the larger question of cultural memory, whether of past or future declaimers. Seneca’s subsequent sentences focus on the role of past declamations in the oratory of the present. 29 Sen. Contr. 1.praef.17. 30  Cf. Cic. De Or. 1.1, 2.5, and 3.7; Tac. Dial. 1.1.

Christopher S. v an d en Berg  213 of how cultural rejuvenation is possible, and memoria is central to that project. Seneca does this first by indicating the problem of decline and then by suggesting a remedy as well. The decline of memoria is inherently connected to desidia, another key term of the preface. Seneca attributes his lagging memory partly to age and partly to idleness: ‘it has been weakened by age and lengthy idleness’ (nunc iam aetate quassata et longa desidia, Sen. Contr. 1.praef.3). This is the same vice that besets young men in their pursuit of luxury (Sen. Contr. 1.praef.8, discussed earlier in this chapter). It is also the vice that allows the sententiae of the learned to be pilfered by the indolence of other men: sententias a disertissimis viris factas facile in tanta hominum desidia pro suis dicunt (Sen. Contr. 1.praef.10). Through verbal echoes Se­neca aligns the functioning of his own memory, its glorious past and its devolution in the present, with the larger cultural decay which he so forcibly attacks. Yet Seneca will take an additional step and suggest that his return to the declaimers is a move away from desidia: ‘I will often be forced to revisit my memory [of Latro]’ (memoriam saepius cogar retractare, Sen. Contr. 1.praef.13). Seneca’s memory will, not unlike Latro’s torches (Sen. Contr. 2.2.8, cited above), regain their former vigour when moved back into action. Reading Seneca’s claims about the vicissitudes of memory alongside the preface’s narrative of Latro’s activities brings to light the possibility of a cultural renaissance. And once again memoria and desidia will play a key role. Latro’s conduct of his own life is itself cyclical: he would go from impassioned devotion at work to a state of leisure and indolence in which he became fully engrossed. He would then return again to his pursuits with even greater zeal only to repeat the cycle. He laboured intensely, staying up through the night to work,31 but subsequent periods of otium, with their desidia, would ultimately prove beneficial: At cum sibi iniecerat manum et se blandienti otio abduxerat, tantis viribus incumbebat in studium, ut non tantum nihil perdidisse sed multum ad­quisisse desidia videretur. (Whenever he had gained control over himself and extricated himself from alluring leisure, he would apply himself to his studies with such great strength that he seemed not only to have lost nothing but in fact to have gained much in his idleness.)  (Sen. Contr. 1.praef.14).

31 Sen. Contr. 1.praef.14.

214  The Rhetoric of Decline Through the parallel employment of desidia and memoria in the story of Latro, Seneca suggests the possibility that declamation can in fact flourish again. He embeds the discussion of memoria into a far more capacious narrative. He creates a distinct sense of what declamation is and how it can be passed on to future generations, aligning the commemorative and programmatic functions of the work with his own biography. In the same sentence in which Seneca notes his own flagging memory, he says that memory can also fail young men if they are idle: ‘it [memory] is now weakened by age and lengthy idleness, which can ruin a youthful mind as well’ (nunc iam aetate quassata et longa desidia, quae iuvenilem quoque animum dissolvit, Sen. Contr. 1.praef.3). Verbal and conceptual echoes align Seneca’s failed but now rekindled memory with a failed declamatory art now brought back to life in Seneca’s own writings. Memoria recollects the past and anchors that past in conventional obligations: to pass down the art to future generations. In this sense the preceding citation of Cato’s vir bonus is the right choice for Seneca not only because of Cato’s moral definition of the orator, but because Seneca appropriates the father–son relationship of a past authority as part of his own strategic aims in this new context.32 The entire work itself is written in the service of memory and the transfer of memory to Seneca’s sons.33 Seneca claims that they marvel at Latro’s memory and tells them that they too can learn to command an impressive memoria without too much labour: non operosa arte tradi potest.34 Yet he also remarks that they are eager to do so right away: ‘You want to learn right now? I’ll hold your desire in suspense and create a chance for another good deed, and in the meantime can discharge the duty I already owe you’ (Cupitis statim discere? Suspendam cupiditatem vestram et faciam alteri beneficio locum; interim hoc vobis, in quo iam obligatus sum, persolvam.)35 Seneca’s own work is itself memoria in a range of senses: instructions and material for readers developing their faculty of memory, the cultural memory of an educational institution, and a monument to past declaimers. The second and third senses emerge most clearly in the discussion of Latro’s memory, which Seneca claims, became a virtual replacement for books: ‘and so he had made books superfluous for himself; he said that he would write in his mind’ (itaque supervacuos sibi fecerat codices; aiebat se in animo scribere).36

32  The dedication to sons has precedent in Roman prose works (cf. Janson (1964)), but is far less common than dedication to peers, and is for that reason more meaningful. 33 Sen. Contr. 1.praef.11, and Baraz in this volume. 34 Sen. Contr. 1.praef.19. 35 Sen. Contr. 1.praef.19. 36 Sen. Contr. 1.praef.18.

Christopher S. v an d en Berg  215 Inclusion of the detail reminds us that books are themselves a tangible substitution for mental memory, and Seneca’s books in particular constitute the memoria of past declaimers. The claim also pointedly complicates and reverses Plato’s injunction against writing in the Phaedrus, in which Socrates famously claims that writing undermines the faculty of memory and thus the transmission of true knowledge. Seneca likewise creates a parallel between his own activity and the presumed diligence his sons will take in reading his work. His faculty of memory is connected to his status as a young man (iuvenis), both his prodigious memory of yesteryear at the beginning of the preface and his reminiscences (memini) of Latro at Marullus’ school.37 Seneca also repeatedly designates his sons as iuvenes.38 One of his most famous tags suggests his own return to youth in the writing of the collection: mittatur senex in scholas (‘let an old man be sent to school’). Seneca throughout the preface carefully maps the declamatory material onto his own life. This is part of a larger strategy to align the history of the art with his own life’s history, as he carefully interweaves his own biography and biology into the literary history he presents, the growth and decay of the declamatory art.39 Indeed this would largely help to explain the motivation behind one of his most perplexing—and probably wrong—statements, that declamation is something born (soon) after him: ‘And so it’s easy for me to know the thing from birth since it was born after me’ (ideo facile est mihi ab incunabulis nosse rem post me natam, Sen. Contr. 1.praef.12). It is difficult to overemphasize how audacious and yet how subtly crafted Seneca’s assertions are in the preface. Behind the virtual contemporaneity of his life and the life of declamation, and also behind the façades of old age and cultural decline, Seneca implicitly and boldly proclaims: ‘I am declamation.’40 In mapping his own life onto the life of declamation, Seneca holds out the possibility of cultural renaissance through his declamatory corpus. Seneca’s putative biological decay, if we believe his autobiographical account of failed memory, is turned to good account in the preface. The discussion of memoria plays a key organizational role, as Seneca uses the failure of his memory to grant himself considerable licence in the structural layout of the work and the arrangement of the material. His failed memory becomes the pretext for 37 Sen. Contr. 1.praef.3 (Seneca) and Sen. Contr. 1.praef.19 (Latro). 38 Sen. Contr. 1.praef.6, 9, and 19; cf. iuvenilem, Sen. Contr. 1.praef.3; iuventus, Sen. Contr. 1.praef.8, both for (potential) shortcoming of youth. 39  Feddern (2013) 7–35 illuminates Seneca’s odd claims that declamation postdates his birth. 40  On this aspect of Seneca’s self-fashioning, see Dinter in this volume.

216  The Rhetoric of Decline seeking indulgence from his sons because he will be required to select sometimes randomly from among the material he recalls, distributing epigrams from one declamation across many and following the dictates of his recalcitrant and uneven memory, which fails to yield material at the right time (Sen. Contr. 1.praef.4–5). The main function of his failed memory seems to be to allow Seneca considerable latitude to organize his material.41 He could hardly be faulted for having such a prodigious memory and losing it (which is quite different from never having mastered the faculty), but he thereby insulates himself from criticism and grants himself licence to compose the collection as he sees best. Romans often found ingenious ways to draw attention to the organization and invention of their material and in such cases we are dealing with a convention whose claims to truth were rarely tested. Pliny claims to organize his collected letters as they came to his hand (Plin. Ep. 1.1.1), Tacitus to follow the sequential order of the speeches and arguments he overheard in the Dialogus (Tac. Dial. 1.4), and Cicero to transcribe the conversation of De oratore as it was reported to him by a third party. These are, again, literary fictions which most probably served to draw attention to the author’s compositional artistry. At the same time we know that these authors enjoyed considerable latitude to subject their material to invention and arrangement. Claims of random and haphazard ordering without authorial intervention are among the surest guarantees that an author has carefully manipulated his material to produce a collection whose organization and structure are meaningful.

Conclusion Seneca’s claims about decline now seem rather hackneyed, but this does not mean that we can ignore them any more than we are forced to accept them 41  Some scholars have suspected Seneca’s claim to work entirely from memory. Hendrickson (1906) 198 n. 1 remarks: ‘Again, is there possibly an element of literary fiction in the assurances of Seneca Rhetor that he has drawn only upon his memory for the maze of detail which he presents.’ Lockyer (1970) explores the conventions of memory in various Greek and Roman authors. For Seneca he concludes that the appeal to memory is essentially a fiction and that written sources were probably used, though he does not explore the structural implications for Seneca’s work that result from that fiction. Håkanson’s (2016: 3–21) statistical analysis of prose rhythm leads him to the (quite similar) conclusion that Seneca largely relied on written sources rather than his memory. Guérin (2015) concludes that the structure of Seneca’s text hints at a process of extraction and compilation of written sources. In particular, the access Latin declaimers had to Greek declamation was sometimes entirely dependent on published speeches: see Guérin on the declaimer Hybreas in this volume.

Christopher S. v an d en Berg  217 outright. We are more likely to understand their purpose by considering not whether the author (or the author through his characters) espouses a view when it is expressed, but what the discourse of decline means in pragmatic terms whenever authors advance such (hackneyed and superficial) assertions.42 As far as their truth value is concerned, the ancient accounts of cultural decline are now coming to be read quite differently. Seneca, like many other authors of the imperial period, was not producing rhetorically un­adorned positions that are immediately transparent, at least not in the way that Gordon Williams read them in Change and Decline, when he scoured rhetorical texts to bolster assumptions about ‘Silver Age Latin literature’ and to argue that a general decline in the standards of prose and poetry was the hallmark of Imperial literature. Seneca’s discussion of decline can be better understood as a rhetorical strategy that situates Seneca in relation to contemporaries and to the Roman past, creating a sense of cultural identity and continuity. If Seneca did not invent the topos (there are already forerunners in Cicero’s dialogues), he is still our first full witness to its workings in the rhetorical tradition at Rome. Decline functioned not as a statement about the state of oratory, but as part of a literary strategy through which Seneca justified his rhetorical program, his diligent recollection of individual artists, and his transformation of the copious material into an impressive declamatory collection for subsequent generations.

42  On this score the present essay pursues a different direction from Heldmann (1982) and Berti (2007). The former in many regards saw Tacitus as the culmination of the topos in the mature perspective of historical understanding. The latter largely dismisses the topos as it appears in Petronius and Tacitus, for example, by claiming that we cannot equate the positions espoused by a character or interlocutor with the position of an author. Berti draws on the sens­ible stricture not to equate an author with a speaker or character, but this insight need not license outright rejection of all speakers’ or characters’ views. Reluctance to locating the ‘au­thor­ial voice’ in specific characters still allows readers to arbitrate between competing perspectives in a work and to explain them in its textual economy.

11

Objection! Contesting Taste and Space in Seneca’s Declamatory Arena Jonathan E. Mannering

From the moment he addresses his three sons collectively, Seneca conjures the fiction of a genial gathering of intimates for his readership, and im­pli­cit­ly offers an invitation to any reader who picks up his anthology to share in the nostalgic reminiscences of a wily octogenarian. This epistolary sense of familial community anticipates the announcement of Seneca’s ambitions at the conclusion of his preface: ‘I will dedicate this work to all the people’ (populo dedicabo, Sen. Contr. 1.praef.10).1 Although his sons are the addressees, they are not strictly the dedicatees, a notable deviance from prefatorial convention in Latin writings.2 As Seneca gradually slots his personal life and biographical details into a system of generic tropes and m ­ odels, so do his sons become types of young Romans aspiring to get ahead socially and politically. Father to son, heart to heart, Seneca becomes the Roman Father, and his sons are now Everyson.3 Seneca’s anthology thus extends beyond the scope of one family, and can appeal to the widest pos­sible audience, the populus. * Parts of this chapter have been drawn and reworked from my doctoral dissertation, Mannering (2008) 130–61. I wish to offer my thanks to the conference organizers and participants for their constructive comments, to the editors for their patience and care, and to John Henderson. 1  Translations are my own. 2  Pace Sussman (1978) 51–5; Janson (1964) 50. Notably, Seneca is the first to cast his preface in epistolary form; cf. Janson (1964) 116–24. 3  How fathers figure into considerations of morality and/as aesthetic taste can be discerned in Seneca’s own take on Cato’s immortal words: ‘An orator is, Marcus my son, a good man skilled at speaking’ (Orator est, Marce filii, vir bonus dicendi peritus, Sen. Contr. 1.praef.1). Eloquence may be the measure of a man, but this quotation serves a double function within Seneca’s own preface: Seneca now defines his paternal role by aligning himself with Cato as archetypal father figure, and the insertion of his son Marcus as addressee renders the interpolated quotation the instantiation of the particular kind of relationship to be shared between the author and his reader. For paternity in Seneca broadly, see Gunderson (2003), esp. 12–17. Jonathan E. Mannering, Objection!: Contesting Taste and Space in Seneca’s Declamatory Arena In: Reading Roman Declamation: Seneca the Elder. Edited by: Martin T. Dinter, Charles Guérin, and Marcos Martinho, Oxford University Press (2020). © Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198746010.003.0011

222 Objection! Seneca also makes a textual virtue of his plurality of sons, and expands his opening tactic of epistolary togetherness to a fully developed literary strategy. The fiction of genial spontaneity warms up the reader for Seneca’s unique, altogether startling portrayal of declamation as volatile competition whose participants vie without a moment’s pause. For Seneca has vetted the full, original declamations in favour of the more refined and sparkling epigrams. These fly thick and fast in unrelenting, asyndetic transitions from one declaimer to the next throughout the anthology, challenging the reader to keep up with the seemingly endless permutations and rhetorical refinements of the same themes, but also leaving us open to surprise and thrill.4 Seneca’s own pedagogical technique, in the form of brief asides and fleeting commentary, descriptive and open, and nowhere near as prescriptive as that of either Cicero or Quintilian, lends itself to the modality of his astonishing brand of Controversiae and Suasoriae.5 By virtue of the anti-narratological volatility of Seneca’s text the declamatory competitions attain uncanny resonance as the imaginary space of an arena, at once forensically agonistic and domestically intimate, is constructed. Faced with authorial blow-by-blow recap the reader assumes the role of spectator to a cavalcade of speakers jousting for their audience’s attention and respect.6 The textual space of this community, then, is constructed along lines of rhetorical decorum, and the contest for the most effective, memorable expression of language transforms this textual space into a site to articulate shared values. Declamation’s space is available to all discursive

4  Holistic treatments of specific themes running through Seneca’s Controversiae must al­ways look past their ostensible and deliberate fragmentation. Fairweather (1981) 31 concedes ‘the logical sequence between sentences in the samples is sometimes extremely torturous’, and hopes that groups of sentences can be linked together and ‘attributed to the declaimers rather than to Seneca excerpting’. Gunderson (2003) 36 suggests the shredded condition of Seneca’s work renders these declamations imitations of declamations, which are themselves imitations of ‘real’ oratory: ‘if [Seneca] can reproduce [the declaimers’] reproduction of commonplaces and if he can reinvoke the spirit of that community, then perhaps Seneca succeeds [in recovering declamation lost]’. For a general model explaining the underlying structure of the sections dedicated to sententiae, see Huelsenbeck in this volume. 5  Cf. Fairweather (1981) 56–67. 6  As self-appointed munerarius (giver of a gladiatorial exhibition, Sen. Contr. 4.praef.1), Seneca orchestrates a pompa (procession, Sen. Contr. 1.praef.24) of declaimers who have all the celebrity allure of actors, gladiators, and orators combined (Sen. Contr. 4.praef.2). The first two figures of the declaimer’s tripartite persona are held in ironic and complex contradistinction to the prestige of the orator, reflecting societal reservations towards declamation, especially if, as Gunderson (2000) 115 articulates, ‘as woman is to man, so actor is to orator: each is a parodic, castrated double whose failures of being support an ontology of authentic masculinity’. For a survey of passages in Seneca which discuss the relationship between stagecraft and oratory, see Bonner (1949) 20–2.

Jonathan E. Mannering  223 genres and ethical considerations to intersect with each other, a testing ground to evaluate meaning, merit, and masculine identity.7 This chapter focuses analysis on selected contestations over the ‘centre’ of attention as cued by objections raised from the sidelines. When declaimers are interrupted and critiqued, these objections arrest attention from the speaker to an individual in the audience, and recalibrate the community’s balance of power as the spectators steal the show. Decorum is at the heart of these disputes, which reveal myriad factors operating to distinguish the proper from the unacceptable. At stake also is authoritative influence over declamation’s audience, which may extend to influence Roman culture writ large.8 The ultimate preference for the victor is always left to the readers by the author himself ‘so you may form your own judgments’ (ut iudicetis, Sen. Contr. 1.praef.1), but declaimers, in the moment of asserting their claim to the meaning and worth of epigrams and rhetorical colours, do not give ground so easily; for these speakers, the game is nothing less than zero-sum, and the very identity of the speaker himself may be jeopardized by a misjudged turn of phrase, which can preserve a declaimer’s name in infamy or even erase the declaimer from collective social memory.

1.  A Space for Everything By virtue of its salient position in only the second controversia of the entire anthology, one example of a striking breach of decorum may be construed as defining, programmatically, the boundaries of declamation’s environment both spatially and conceptually, as it grapples with issues of appropriate setting as well as semantic meaning in explicit terms. Furthermore, the particular way in which Seneca introduces the anecdote of the faux pas may also function as a hermeneutic for the reader: while recounting the various colores of the speakers in one controversia, Seneca digresses into his memory (cf. memini, Sen. Contr. 1.2.22) on a separate but similarly themed controversia for the purpose of illustrating his larger point. This act of digression mirrors the interjections that erupt from the sidelines at declamatory performances. Seneca will marshal illustrative counterexamples from memory just as spectators react with praise or censure on the cusp of the moment; here, the process of free association governs the negotiation of decorum, as 7  Cf. van Mal-Maeder (2007) 1–39; Gunderson (2003) 153–90; Beard (1993) 55–62. 8  Cf. Berti (2007) 178–82.

224 Objection! both author and spectators-cum-participants cooperate to sift through ­layers of discursive meaning in a joint effort to define and influence the proper moral space of declamation. The second controversia of the anthology deals with a virgin priestess who, kidnapped by pirates and sold into prostitution, kills a soldier in a struggle at a brothel; now, returned home, she seeks her priesthood again. This scenario tempts many of the declaimers to fashion lurid accounts of the brothel which will violate the sense of propriety that a real law court would demand.9 While on the topic of sexual vulgarity, Seneca digresses to recall one such breach of decorum which occurred during a different dec­lam­ation involving a woman who divorces her husband for not ­consummating their marriage, and who now seeks her priesthood again. An individual of praetorian rank, who will and must go unnamed (cf. quendam praetorium) for the entirety of the anthology, prosecutes the divorcee by suggesting she cannot be considered chaste once married, and is unable to restrain his vulgar innuendo: Novimus . . . istam maritorum abstinentiam qui, etiamsi primam virginibus timidis remisere noctem, vicinis tamen locis ludunt. (We know . . . the sort of abstinence practised by husbands who, even if they don’t insist on having their proper wedding night because virgin brides are timid, nonetheless sport about in places close by.)

Even though the woman’s husband may never have properly consummated their marriage, he still is considered to have a man’s needs, and likely had some way with her on their wedding night, playing around other parts of her body. Out in the audience is Mamercus Aemilius Scaurus—orator, poet, one-time consul under Tiberius, and last of the notorious Scauri clan—who cannot let the insinuation pass.10 With two words he cuts off the praetor for good: inepta loci, or, ‘Not the right place’. Scaurus zeroes on the praetor’s crude implication of ‘places close by’ (vicinis locis) by smartly redefining the nature of the locus shared by all in attendance: the present circumstances of a declamation are in no way appropriate for mentioning, however obliquely, the intimate regions of a woman’s body. Reminding the praetor of what 9  On varieties of cacozelia (bad taste in words or selection of metaphor) in Seneca, see Berti (2007) 212–18; Fairweather (1981) 215–24. 10  Cf. Sen. Contr. 2.22. For full biography of the elder Scaurus, one of the most influential politicians between the Gracchi and Sulla, see Bates (1986) 251–88.

Jonathan E. Mannering  225 belongs rightly to the erotic space of after-dinner elegy, Scaurus promptly puts this speaker in his place, outside the arena, and justifies his anonymity in Seneca’s textualized memory book. We are told that inepta loci is an ‘Ovidian phrase’ (Ovidianum illud). Its precise literary context is not ascertainable, but it does contain an unmistakable sexual connotation.11 In virtue of the way in which Scaurus’ use of the phrase is layered with literary and anatomical references, it is possible to see in this anecdote a correspondence of sensibilities and sensitivities drawn between Seneca the judicious anthologizer and Scaurus the cultured spectator who feels compelled to re-establish the boundaries of acceptability for the company present. Just as Seneca corroborates his broader observation on vulgarity’s deplorable effects on polite discourse by referencing this exchange that occurred during a different declamation, again demonstrating the labyrinthine extent of his memory and his masterful knowledge of his subject,12 in a similar manner Scaurus asserts his authority over the situation in the name of propriety by means of a phrase defined by complex referentiality. Scaurus also displays the breadth of his social, cultural, and literary awareness in the way the discursive restraint of the phrase gains control over the situation. However Ovid may have used the phrase, inepta loci can be separated from its context and wielded as a morally corrective instrument in any situation; the ‘location’ marred by obscenity here is public declamation. Such bawdy topics are the subject matter of post-prandial epigrams, and are hardly appropriate to the respectable Latinity of a public 11  The phrase is found in the erotic Carmina Priapea, generally assumed to be from the 1st century ad, in reference to the alternative port of bodily entry of a virgin on her wedding night: ‘What a virgin gives her amorous husband on their first night together, from inexperience and fear of injury in another locale’ (quod virgo prima cupido dat nocte marito, / dum timet alterius vulnus inepta loci, Priap. 3.7–8); see Berti (2007) 289–90; Hooper (1999) 28–31; Goldberg (1992) 70–1; Richlin (1992) 230 n.18, 246 n.1; Parker (1988) 34–6. Anatomical discourse can use locus to refer to anus, whether of humans (Celsus Med. 6.18.9) or hyenas (Plin. Nat. 28.106), if that is what was also meant by Ovid. 12  It has been argued that Seneca’s memory is both a trope and a theme of the text, and invokes the sanction and authorization of the wider community. The text’s authority is the result of the double meaning of the Latin word memoria, which denotes both the process of remembering and also its product, a manifest object which can be anything from the communal memory of the past to a memorial or monument: ‘[M]emory as a thing or possession implies not just facts, but also collective memory, tradition, and memorialisation. Thus as a possession or property memory always looks towards the broader community, not just towards some lone owner’ (Gunderson (2003) 30, emphasis mine). Seneca’s memory is also public memory, and we should therefore rely upon the validity of these speeches as once having been spoken by others, and not having been concocted by an eccentric old timer. Quintilian is somewhat incredulous about such colossal capacities for memory as Seneca’s, though he encourages us to believe that men can expand their minds to the power of truly total recall because ‘believing gives us hope’ (ut qui crediderit et speret, Quint. Inst. 11.3.51).

226 Objection! environment. Together, both Seneca and Scaurus isolate the ill-spoken praetor from the declamatory arena, the author who refuses to record his name for posterity, and Scaurus who, as will be shown, strengthens his ties of allegiance with the audience through the resonances of his pithy response. The boundaries of propriety which have been transgressed are swiftly reconstituted through a literary reference that at once reminds the audience of the type of sex act lewdly hinted at by the unnamed praetor but which also bars him entry to the space they presently occupy. A truly dexterous declaimer like Scaurus can vet even laddish humour into an air of acceptability, a skill which makes him, in Seneca’s estimation, both quite witty and eloquent (non tantum disertissimus . . . sed venustissimus, Sen. Contr. 1.2.22). Point: Scaurus. Sexual propriety is not the only moral axis operating to define the boundaries of the declamatory arena. The second controversia of Seneca’s ninth book is derived from a historical event, and centres on the issue of capital punishment to negotiate the meaning of three communal events and their locales: dinner party, execution room, and declamation. For this case, participants must defend or prosecute L. Quinctius Flamininus, who in 184 bc was expelled from the senate by the censors for executing a condemned criminal eight years earlier at a dinner party at the behest of his courtesan.13 Flamininus was also consul in the year of his crime, and declaimers now must bring attention to the offence he has caused the state by corrupting the process of capital punishment. The case is an opportunity for declaimers to consider how authority and hierarchy should be configured in the Roman legal system, which has been subverted by a prostitute assuming the powerful role of praetor and conducting an execution. Declaimers are also given the opportunity to re-establish the difference between the private dinner table and the public chopping block.14 The execution scene (in descriptione supplici, Sen. Contr. 9.2.21) is wired for declaimers to trip themselves up, though not, as might be expected, from lacing the descriptions with excessively gruesome, orgiastic imagery.15 Mistakes are made, rather, when speakers either fail to re-distinguish the 13  Two versions of the story are recorded by Livy 39.42–3, one involving a toy boy in Gaul, the other a courtesan in Placentia in northern Italy; the latter is represented in this controversia. For the divergent accounts and Cato’s prosecutorial speech, see Carawan (1990) 316–29. 14  For the different places executions could take place at Rome, whether inside or outside the prison, see Cadoux (2008) 202–21; Bodel (2000) 144–8. 15  Such digressions are typically referred to as descriptio by Seneca, and usually follow the narration before the argument; cf. Sussman (1978) 116–17. On the distinctiveness of violent imagery in the Elder Seneca, see Henderson (2018) 179–214.

Jonathan E. Mannering  227 space of the cena (dining room) from the carcer (prison) or even re-conflate the two settings, as the rhetorical foray by Triarius exemplifies.16 While often cited in Seneca’s anthology for his worthy contributions, Triarius has a reputation for gratuitous indulgence in well-turned phrases and also for his imprecise grasp of legal terminology.17 Here Triarius starts well enough (non male) recalling the scene of execution: ‘Clear away. Are you listening, lictor? Clear away the whore from the praetor’ (Summove. Audis, lictor? Summove a praetore meretricem). Triarius begins to restore integrity to the legal process of capital punishment by reclaiming the procedure’s official discourse (i.e. legitima supplici verba) from the prostitute: initially the command and direct address to the lictor seem to be spoken, prosopoetically, in the voice of the prostitute, as Triarius conjures the narrative of events for the audience, but the reiteration of ‘clear away’ (summove) is the critical moment which disambiguates the identity of the speaker as, in fact, the prosecutor himself appointing a lictor to ‘clear the prostitute (meretrix) away’ from the praetor’s presence.18 No longer a figure of authority capable of issuing commands, the courtesan is made the object of state punishment. Her discursive and physical isolation from the judiciary divests her of the praetorship she had temporarily held by Flamininus’ consent, and is the essential preparatory step towards her corporal punishment and the re­habili­ta­tion of Roman society, as metonymized in Flamininus’ dining area, heretofore contaminated by her influence.19 But Triarius blunders in the next line, as table manners are suddenly made part of the lictor’s prerogatives: ‘Strike. But see your sticks don’t knock our tumblers over’ (Verbera. Sed vide ne virgae tuae pocula nostra disturbent). In suddenly making the cups (pocula) a priority, Triarius confuses the judicial procedure he had only begun to put back to order; the line between courtroom and dining room is once again blurred as the integrity of the pocula, the most rudimentary of drinking vessels, is raised to a level of 16  Prison scenes were a topos of Roman declamation, and the carcer itself could serve as rhetorical exemplum; cf. Schwennicke (2018) 483–510. 17 Triarius’ tendency to fashion epigrams from technical language (Sen. Contr. 7.6.23) results in him misusing the word for stay of execution (e.g. ampliatio, Sen. Contr. 1.3.9), misrepresenting the process for summoning an executioner (Sen. Contr. 2.3.19), and even attempting to change a verdict after the fact (Sen. Contr. 2.3.21). For his inclination towards pandering at the expense of the facts of the case, see Sen. Contr. 7.4.10; Fairweather (1981) 226–7. 18  The usual word for clearing the courtroom of the condemned, one of the lictors’ tasks; cf. Liv. 3.48.3; 28.27.15; 45.29.2; Mommsen (1899) 915–18. 19 While dinner hosts did have some latitude to rearrange social stratifications at their soirées, Flamininus’ actions were an impeachable misdemeanour; cf. Garnsey (1999) 134–8; Gowers (1993) 24–32.

228 Objection! concern at or above the lictor’s immediate task of flogging the criminal.20 And the fear which ought to be associated with the impending corporal punishment is defused by playful alliterative ties to the subsequent commandment to spare the cups: Triarius succumbs to his fondness for sound over sense, and uses the word for beating (verbera) primarily as a phonetic platform to craft a jingly yet conceptually and decorously jarring follow-up: ‘Beat away. But be sure your batons don’t . . .’ (Verbera. Sed vide ne virgae . . .).21 The reassuring clarity which had been established by the prior disambiguation of the speaker of ‘clear away’ (summove) is compromised, since it seems the speaker could once again be construed as Flamininus or even the courtesan. The sudden shift of concern towards dining decorum effectively returns the audience to the societal disorder of the night of the crime, away from the light of day in court. Triarius’ third and final epigram ultimately vitiates the solemnity of the language for punishment: ‘Strip. You recognize this word, whore? Certainly the province does’ (Despolia. Meretrix, agnoscis hoc verbum? Certe provincia agnoscit). While this injunction prudently takes no explicit interest in the dining area, Triarius’ allusion to a striptease trivializes the judicial proceedings, as he invites the prostitute to reflect on her familiarity with the word ‘strip’ from her nights on the job. Nor can the epigram’s neat chiastic arrangement overcome or disambiguate his discursive playfulness: as stripping for her customers’ delectation is conceptually aligned with her compulsory stripping by the agent of the state, the epigram’s brevity cannot sufficiently distinguish how the declamatory audience, now cast in the role of the provincia writ large, is supposed to understand the proper connotation of despolia from how she understands the term from her work experience.22 Lucid comprehension of proper semantic meaning is Triarius’ primary objective,

20  Made from clay, wood, or glass, and lacking handles, pocula are not designed with elegance or libation in mind; cf. Faas (2003) 91–3. 21  Alliteration may have lured Triarius to use the word for lictor’s rods more often found in poetry, but virgae were always a source of alarm. For Plautus and Ovid, rods themselves could do the lictors’ talking: ‘Let neither the lictor say a word nor the rods make their clatter’ (neu lictor verbum aut virgae muttiant, Plaut. Poen. 18); ‘A respectful clearance is made . . . for those whom the praetexta and the rod of authority exalt with their cries’ (ceditur . . . quos praetexta verendos / virgaque cum verbis imperiosa facit, Ov. Trist. 5.6.31–2). The crack of the lictor’s staff can startle even someone unfamiliar with the sound (Florus Epit. 1.17.26). For more on beatings by rods, see Bauman (1996) 130–5. 22  Momentarily turning his triclinium into a courtroom, Trimalchio plays judge when he orders the forgetful cook be stripped for a thrashing, or worse (‘despolia’, Petr. Sat. 49). Even a dethroned emperor can be stripped before his execution, as when Gordian III was ousted by his praetorian prefect (Gordiani Tres 30.9).

Jonathan E. Mannering  229 manifested by the redoubled emphasis of ‘agnoscis . . . agnoscit’, but, in an irony lost on Triarius, his technique of repetition which served him so well in the first epigram (summove . . . summove) fails in the third; his insistence (certe) betrays clear ‘understanding’ and weakens the audience’s hold on his semantic point. Because he does not fully appropriate the correct meaning of formulaic language of punishment from the perverted frolic of the night of the crime, Triarius’ teasing pun ends up spoiling the judicial procedure he had begun to rehabilitate, as well as his own bid for the audience’s respect, as the entire sphere of provincial influence slips through his grasp. Triarius’ failure to draw salutary boundaries between criminal behaviour and penal procedure is at once instantiated and caused by his confusion of layers of linguistic meaning. The integrity of the judicial—and declamatory— space is, therefore, compromised commensurately with the violated integrity of the word. The reaction to the two connotations Triarius derives from ‘despolia’ is evidence of the risks posed by punning in declamation more generally, and reveals another—if not the fundamental—space which can be contested in declamation, that of the primary meaning of words as accepted by society.

2.  Occupying the Centre of Meaning: Puns and Overburdened Semantics In his role as authorial commentator, Seneca critiques his declaimers in a style indicative of the contest itself, one which is freewheeling, open, and not subject to closed, finalized reading. For Seneca’s readers, the competition of a declamation is unlike that of the law court because declaimers are not engaged in a zero-sum game.23 There can be several winners, as Seneca ranks his top four declaimers in the final book (Sen. Contr. 10.praef.13), and readers are encouraged to choose their own favourites (Sen. Contr. 1.praef.1; Sen. Suas. 2.10). But, in the intensity of the joust, speakers are not so inclined to yield their claim to attention and merit, even when they strain the meaning of words. In the following examples, two declaimers attempt to make their mark on Latinity by means of radical discursive innovation; in  expanding the connotations of words beyond the parameters of social acceptability, both declaimers incur the disapproval of their author and their audience, whose collective censure polices semantic boundaries. 23  Cf. Beard (1993) 59.

230 Objection! In the fourth controversia of the seventh book, a mother has cried her eyes blind because her husband has been captured by pirates, and now is trying to punish her own son for abandoning her while attempting to rescue his father. In his first and final appearance in the anthology, a rhetor named Festus defends the mother, and perpetrates a rather jarring wordplay in a Publilianesque epigram (Publilianam sententiam, Sen. Contr. 7.4.8), one which stretches the meaning of a participle just as it strains, seemingly, the comprehension of the audience: ‘ “My father is captured,” said the boy. “If people who are captured move you to pity, then this woman here may also be considered captured” ’ (Captus est, inquit, pater. Si te capti movent, et haec capta est). Sensing his audience does not understand his meaning, Festus then explains the usage of ‘capta’ in the medical sense of ‘captos luminibus’, or ‘seized blind in the eyes’.24 But Festus has overestimated his wit while underestimating the intelligence of his listeners, and flops in several ways which are implicit in the arch-irony of Seneca’s comment, ‘as if we hadn’t understood him’ (et quasi non intellexissemus). There is a degree of focalization, cued by quasi, to the audience’s point of view: Seneca implies that the audience does understand his wordplay, but Festus is so smitten with his rhet­ oric­al trick that he believes he is talking over the heads of uninformed listeners. In deigning to enlighten his audience, he condescends and comes across as pretentious. Even if there is any merit to his wordplay, he is himself ‘blind’ to the fact that he undermines it by his gesture of over-explanation. If a pun needs explaining, it can’t be much good, and any attempt to do so puts the wordplay beyond redemption. Festus may be well taken with his own inflated sense of erudition, but his epigram is anything but captivating, and Festus must take his leave of Seneca’s memory book as soon as he enters. If Festus’ pretentious explanation of his epigram did not betray his character, his self-conscious pun is inherently problematical. The rhetorical twist on captus/capta does not suffice in aligning the father’s kidnapping with the mother’s ocular plight, and, as will be revealed in a different 24  The idiom oculis/luminibus captus refers to blindness, and eyes as well as ears and limbs can be incapacitated for a variety of reasons: villainous Verres is lured by the mere thought of temple robbing, his eyes in need of no visual enticement (ne oculis quidem captus in hanc fraudem, Cic. Verr. 2.4.101); one can be blinded by age or disease (Cic. Tusc. 5.117), possibly, in Appius Claudius’ case, by the gods (Liv. 9.29.11), but in Tiresias’ case one may acquire the gift of divine insight in return (Cic. Div. 2.9); temple violators may be punished with ocular impairment as well as bodily paralysis before death (oculis membrisque captum occidisse, Plin. Nat. 33.83); Hannibal’s troops are temporarily deafened and blinded by a ferocious storm in the Apennines (capti auribus et oculis, Liv. 21.58.5); cf. Berti (2007) 186.

Jonathan E. Mannering  231 ­ ec­lam­ation, such a conflation between disparate situations is more than a d solitary participle can or should accomplish. The third controversia of the same book involves a troublesome son who is caught by his father while mixing a potion. The father has already tried and failed to disinherit his son three times, and reasonably suspects him of trying to poison him.25 He accuses him of parricide. Speaking in the role of the father is a certain Murredius, known for verbosity and occasional obscenity.26 In an effort to horrify the audience he says something altogether far-fetched: ‘ “My son mixed the number of times he had been disinherited with an equal dose of  poison,” and again, “My very death is what he pours on the ground!” ’ (Abdicationes, inquit, suas veneno diluit; et iterum: mortem, inquit, meam effudit, Sen. Contr. 7.3.8). Characteristic of the speaker’s fatuous ways of thinking (cf. pro cetero suo stupore), the problem of this color is the way the circumstantial facts of the case are intermingled with the father’s suspicions in the same way that the son concocts the poison: the son is first portrayed as requiting each effort of ­disinheritance on his father’s part by infusing the drink with equal measures of poison; second, the father’s impending death (mortem) is conceptualized as poison by the verb effudit as the son is caught red-handed, hastily pouring it away, just as the process of disinheritance is liquefied (diluit) by poison. Outright liquefaction of death as such is unusual in Latin, and because of his semantic category violation Murredius ultimately dilutes his own chance for success.27 Seneca digresses here to reflect on the state of rhetoric at the time, and how this sort of clever, self-satisfied wordplay was enjoyed and practised by the aspiring young minds of his day. The mime-playwright Publilius Syrus, a regular in Seneca, is allegedly responsible for the widespread vice of overburdening the semantic meanings of words (vitium, quod ex captione unius

25  The preponderance of declamatory cases involving abdicatio, while legally possible and historically attested, reflects not societal epidemic as much as declamation’s interest in challenging speakers’ powers of analysis and adeptness with status theory; cf. Fantham (2004b) 65–82. 26  Although Murredius did not fail to influence more impressionable adherents; cf. Fairweather (1981) 176, 224–5, 298. 27  The conflation of potable liquid and death into mors can be found in heightened discourse: Lucan’s Cato reassures his exhausted troops that only the snakes’ fangs and not the spring water they infest are lethal, and takes the first drink in the desert (fatum dente minantur: / pocula morte carent. dixit, dubiumque venenum / hausit, Luc. BC 9.615–17); and where Murredius accuses the suspicious young man of ‘pouring away death’, an innocent boy in one of Apuleius’ declamatory trial scenes accidentally ‘drinks death’ prepared by his wicked stepmother (fratri suo paratam mortem ebibit, Apul. Met. 10.5.2); for declamatory designs in this scene and the novel generally, see van Mal-Maeder (2007) 115–45.

232 Objection! verbi plura significantis nascitur, Sen. Contr. 7.3.9). Interestingly, a defence of Publilius is made by Cassius Severus, who argues it was never the playwright’s intention for his technique to be so abused.28 Exactly what makes Murredius’ wordplay distasteful here becomes clear in light of a cluster of positive counterexamples drawn from Publilius’ works forthwith: Tam dest avaro quod habet quam quod non habet; desunt luxuriae multa, avaritiae omnia; o vita misero longa, felici brevis. (Greedy people don’t have what they possess any less than what they don’t possess; much is lacking in living luxuriously, but everything in living rapaciously; that’s life—long for the unhappy, short for the happy.)  (Sen. Contr. 7.3.5)

The technique of these epigrams is the same as that of Murredius’; formally, both Murredius’ and Publilius’ epigrams are syntactically uniform, since it is the first word, noun or verb, of each epigram which is unpacked to reveal a double meaning by what follows: abdicationes, mors, dest avaro, desunt, vita. This seems to be a rule of thumb for crafting epigrams which, if they do not strictly pun, deconstruct key words. The crucial difference, however, is what the two Romans make of their deconstructions. Publilius delivers his paradoxical observations on insatiable desire and life in broadest terms; Murredius, in contrast and to his detriment, seeks to reify or concretize intangible experiences into a tangible substance in the context of a single occasion, as the legal process of disinheritance and death are here liquefied into poison. The conflation of events as serious as these with a material object is what cheapens the rhetorical effect, rendering Murredius’ colores, in a manner similar to Festus’ pun on captus, distasteful. Publilius deserves praise in his own right for keeping his sententious observations in the realm of the general and the philosophic; by contrast, particular, unusual, or unrepeatable events should not be subject to undue semantic manipulation.

3.  Mastering the Master: Students and their (L)imitations In a game where contestants engage in endlessly reiterating the same sentiments while also striving for distinctive innovation, verbatim quotations stand as the rarefied embodiment of the limits of declamation’s possibilities, 28  On Publilius’ influence, see Berti (2007) 186–93; Fairweather (1981) 221, 224–5.

Jonathan E. Mannering  233 when someone endeavours to authorize his own voice by employing the exact same words of another voice in a way at once transparent and ori­gin­al.29 A verbatim quotation fully realizes the paradox of the declamatory process, and can be met with either praise or criticism.30 The following two passages are centred on moments when students imitate their former mentors not to flatter but to surpass their previous rhetorical accomplishments. Reaction by the old experts is swift, and can take the form of anything from a retaliatory swipe to a more extended confrontation. As former students attempt to outwit and even co-opt the reputations of their mentors in the centre of the arena, these exchanges reveal the limits of imitating others, and how originality and merit are constructed and evaluated. In Seneca’s fourth suasoria, the potential of poetic quotation is evaluated in the light of the demands of different situations, as the limits of the ap­plic­ abil­ity and interchangeability of a sententious color are put to the test over the meanings of a quotation from Virgil’s Aeneid. Here speakers are debating whether Alexander the Great should take the fateful step of entering Babylon after he has heard dire omens of his death from an augur. At this point in the divisio (Sen. Suas. 4.4), Seneca offers an example of the possibilities for success and for failure of imitation through verse quotation, regardless of the quote having been recited flawlessly, when Arellius Fuscus, one of Seneca’s quartet of champions,31 objects to one of his students. It is also a lesson on how one should gauge one’s epigrams, whether crafted by oneself or appropriated from someone else. In trying to persuade Alexander to take the city, the unnamed student dismisses the warnings of the omen by quoting a line from Dido when she bitterly dismisses Aeneas’ excuse for leaving her for Italy because the gods demand it: ‘Clearly this is a task for the gods, clearly this concern disturbs their tranquillity’ (scilicet is superis labor est, ea cura quietos / sollicitat, Verg. Aen. 4.379–80)—the implication being that the gods are not concerned with humans’ petty affairs. The student, whose name is spared us by Seneca

29  For considerations of how Seneca’s declaimers negotiated linguistic authenticity and what counts as over-imitation, see Sen. Contr. 2.19; Bloomer (1997a) 143–53. For citations, quotations, and quotational markers in Roman prose generally, see Tischer (2018); Mannering (2008). 30  Latro deftly deploys a line of Thyestean tragedy to rounds of applause (Sen. Contr. 1.1.21); cf. Berti (2007) 320–5. 31 Cf. Sen. Contr. 10.praef.13. Fuscus influenced the rhetoric of students like Ovid and future generations of speakers in the forum with his Asianist style, and his Fuscine manner was on full display in his floridly elaborate descriptiones; cf. Sen. Contr. 2.2.8; Huelsenbeck (2011a); Fairweather (1981) 214, 245–51, 265–77; Sussman (1978) 69–75.

234 Objection! (Sen. Suas. 4.5), is actually making two allusions, one to Virgil, and one to his mentor Arellius Fuscus, who used this very line to great success in a different controversia; the premise of that one involved a woman who claims she gave birth to a son after having a dream, but the grandfather refuses to recognize the child because the woman has a history of multiple stillbirths (Sen. Suas. 4.4). On the side of the grandfather, Fuscus concluded his argument against the woman with these words from Dido. As the scornfully sibilant scilicet and sollicitat convey the contemptuous tone, Fuscus cut through the opposition sharply; the tactic was greeted with resounding applause (summis clamoribus). The student in the present suasoria tries to accomplish a twofold allusion, perhaps in an attempt to double down on and, thus, surpass his mentor’s former success. His hopes are quickly dashed. Fuscus interrupts, reminding him of whom he is supposed to be addressing, Alexander the Great; the degree of scorn in Dido’s tone is entirely inappropriate when responding to a capricious tyrant, who, Fuscus suggests, might alert the young speaker to another line from the Aeneid when Neoptolemus offs Priam: ‘He buried his sword to the hilt’ (capulo tenus abdidit ensem, Verg. Aen. 2.553).32 Arellius Fuscus was enamoured of Virgil’s work, often borrowing lines to impress Maecenas.33 In this cut-and-thrust exchange between mentor and pupil, we bear witness to a dynamic contest for authority waged along poetic lines informed with multiple points of reference—to two particular conflicts between various characters in the Aeneid, to the fictional settings and characters of the present suasoria as well as the prior controversia, and to the relationship between Fuscus and his student. For the student’s poetic quotation to achieve its desired effect, all four of these scenes as well as the dispositions of each of their characters—Dido and Aeneas; Fuscus and the fictional mother; the counsellor and Alexander; the student and his mentor—must be properly calibrated; they are not, and the master reasserts his expertise by means of deft deployment of a quotation from a fifth scene, one of a different confrontation from the same poem.34 Fuscus reveals the cre­ 32  Cestius Pius gives salutary advice elsewhere on the scrupulous deference required when counselling kings, especially ones with Alexander’s archetypally hubristic ego (Sen. Suas. 1.5). On this passage, see van Mal-Maeder in this volume. 33  At least as Fuscus himself so often liked to tell it (Sen. Suas. 3.4–5). For the extent of Virgil’s influence in declamatory circles and how declaimers could strain their Virgilianisms, see Berti (2007) 268–90. 34 As discours cité, quotations of the Aeneid introduce a third dimension of discursive interaction, one which is itself a realm of fiction, in addition to the two as schematized by van MalMaeder (2007) 42: Argentarius and his student contend via quotations in le monde extratextuel

Jonathan E. Mannering  235 ative potential for poetic quotations, and gestures towards an unspoken rule that one should not requote somebody else’s clever quotation. The young man has overstepped his station by talking himself into a perilous position, while his teacher momentarily takes aim with steel-tipped words. Poetry suddenly becomes a site of contest between teacher and student as the student cheekily tries to surpass his teacher by quoting the same verse to greater effect, only to be duly swatted via counter-quotation. To examine the manoeuvres in finer detail, the efficacy of Fuscus’ original quote lies in the way Dido’s invective sets up its specific targets for scorn, for its sarcasm is directed not simply at augury and divination but at the sort of person who believes in these practices. When Fuscus used Dido’s invective to impugn the mother as dissembling in the previous controversia, his target could readily be positioned in the role of a disingenuous Aeneas. The result in the context of this suasoria, however, is that Alexander the Great is insulted. Arellius Fuscus brings this peril to his student’s attention by firing a warning shot across his bow, quoting the moment Neoptolemus slays Priam over the altar. There is something of an ironic reversal of roles which happens through this second quotation: Fuscus refers to the moment in the poem when the young hothead callously slays the feeble king in order to warn his student that, if this suasoria were really happening, it would be the young king who would not hesitate dispatching with an ill-spoken counsellor.35 The antagonistic struggle beneath the surface of these two quotations also has relevance to the characters of the declaimers themselves, since Fuscus was known for his expertise in portents, visions, and meteorological phenomena.36 In trying to impress or surpass his teacher, the student attempts to claim knowledge in this area; Fuscus reminds him he is not trained in these matters, and even outsmarts him in poetic knowledge. By drawing corrective discourse from a different scene of the Aeneid (the third dimension of discours cité) to chide his student, both as mentor (from the

(réalité); the student’s persona curtly counsels Alexander in le monde intratextuel (univers fictionnel); the roles of Dido and Aeneas and also Neoptolemus and Priam are played out in, for lack of a better term, le monde intra-intratextuel. 35  Nor would the risk of offending the gods prevent Alexander from killing the young man, if overtones of Neoptolemus’ sacrilege are still present from the quote’s original context; cf. Keith (2002) 118; Sklenář (1990) 73. 36  Cf. Sen. Contr. 1.1.16; Sen. Suas. 3.4–5; Fairweather (1981) 173. With his knowledge of astrology, Fuscus might be qualified to discern Epicurean implications in Dido’s outburst; cf. Skulsky (1987) 75–6; Edwards (1960) 158–9.

236 Objection! primary monde) and also as Alexander (secondary monde), Fuscus exerts control over all three conceptual realms. The critical discourse in this contest lies within the gambits of poetic quotation, as mentor schools young declaimer that his audience, both fictitious as well as those gathered to hear him, should shape and determine his choice of words. In the declamatory arena, power may be constituted not only from literary knowledge but from collective social memory and sensitivity to different facets of decorum and authority. If discourse is misappropriated from shared memory, such a mistake may be punishable by the speaker’s erasure from collective memory, as the name of this particular student is conspicuously suppressed by Seneca. Furthermore, if it is within reason to consider the implication that Neoptolemus is figured by Virgil as Achilles reborn,37 then Fuscus’ quotation will also hint that he is aware his former student is attempting to appropriate his mentor’s reputation. The normative codes governing imitation of one’s mentor are laid fully bare, however, in a more openly antagonistic relationship between two Greek declaimers38 vying in the Roman declamatory arena, as one tries to supplant his former teacher—and not merely his reputation—with his own self. In the third controversia of Book 9, L. Cestius Pius accuses Argentarius, a one-time student, of shamelessly imitating him, only for Argentarius to counter by wryly imitating the language of the accusation itself.39 In this declamation, a man has raised twin sons who were exposed as infants; the natural father seeks to claim his sons again after compensating the fosterfather for his years of raising them. The two men have agreed the fosterfather could keep one boy as his own, but the natural father reneges on the bargain. Speaking in the role of the foster-father, Cestius poses a rhetorical question to evoke pathos: ‘I am happy if we could annul what we agreed upon. What do I give not to have revealed the boys’ identity in the first place?’ (Placet mihi in inritum revocari quae gesta sunt. Quid do ne indicaverim?, Sen. Contr. 9.3.11). Argentarius proceeds to mimic his mentor-opponent’s

37  See Mills (1978) 162–3 on Pyrrhus’ snake simile (Verg. Aen. 2.471–5). 38  On Fuscus’ (and Cestius’, on whom see n.39 below) ‘Greekness’ (ethnic, linguistic, behavioural . . .), and the inclusion of Greek declaimers in the Roman declamatory milieu, see Cappello and Guérin in this volume. 39 Notorious for his scathing attacks on Cicero’s legacy, Cestius became an influential schoolmaster, one never lacking in self-esteem despite his linguistic shortcomings; cf. Sen. Contr. 3.praef.13ff.; Fairweather (1981) 283–5. The extant Seneca cannot say for certain if this Argentarius, a regular speaker in his anthology, is the Marcus of the Greek Anthology; cf. Small (1951) 65–145. On their conflict as described in Contr. 9.3, see also van Mal-Maeder in this volume.

Jonathan E. Mannering  237 tactic in order to frame the dilemma of his persona, the natural father; he suggests the natural father is in greater distress after having discovered his sons are alive and well than when he did not know about their fate: ‘I still want to bargain. What do I give to take back my sons? What do I give to un-recognize them?’ (Etiamnunc pacisci volo. Quid do ut liberos meos recipiam? Quid do ne agnoverim?, Sen. Contr. 9.3.12). Argentarius reduplicates Cestius’ technique, posing two rhetorical questions to his mentor’s one and purloining much of the language; the natural father’s inner conflict is elicited through Argentarius’ alternation between the positive (ut) and negative (ne) clauses both dependent on ‘quid do’, overshadowing Cestius’ single quid-do-ne construction.40 And—if native familiarity with classical tragedy has any influence on these two Greeks at this moment—the moment of anagnorisis (cf. agnoverim) is marked as the source of the father’s tragic anguish in contrast to the foster-father’s hamartia of first introducing the boys (indicaverim).41 Cestius is sorely put out by the contorted elaborations of his own words and sentiments (indignabatur Cestius detorqueri ab illo totiens et mutari sententias suas), and a testy quarrel breaks out between the two. It is possible to read this quarrel as a transmutation of that between the two fictional father figures: where the two fathers are arguing over their parental rights to the sons, now two declaimers are arguing over who deserves credit for the production of these colores. As Cestius and Argentarius are vying over the rightful parentage to epigrammatic offspring, the stakes of both intratextual and extratextual discursive worlds become uncannily cognate. Here imitation is the site of what may be an obliquely Oedipal struggle between declaimers. Argentarius knows all too well how to fluster his mentor, since Cestius frequently criticized his own students for using the rhet­oric­al device of echo, or ending a declamation with the same words with which it began;42 it would be one of Argentarius’ habits to copy the man on cue. Cestius rebukes his student with a cold shoulder, speaking of him in the third person to the audience present: ‘What do you all think . . . Argentarius is? Cestius’ ape, that’s what’ (Quid putatis . . . Argentarium esse? Cesti simius 40  Morse (1956) 197–8 reads the quid-do-ut/ne constructions here as quasi-deliberative; my explanation of Cestius’ pique depends more on Argentarius’ rhetorical, not conceptual, detorsio of his color. 41  For the ethnic allegiances of Seneca’s declaimers, see Bloomer (1997a) 129–35. For the practicalities and difficulties of foreigners speaking Latin in the empire, see Adams (2003a) 185–91 and n.38 above. 42 Sen. Contr. 7.7.19; for Cestius’ sarcastic, sometimes unduly harsh, criticism of other declaimers, see Fairweather (1981) 179–82.

238 Objection! est).43 Cestius has accused him of uncritically aping him in the past, on one occasion labelling him ‘my monkey’ in Greek (ὁ πίθηκός μου); since Argentarius never declaimed in his native language (Sen. Contr. 9.3.13), the Greekness of the insult stymies his aspirations to Roman identity as a sharp reminder that he has not fully acculturated himself beyond his origins.44 But Argentarius seems wilfully incorrigible. He goads Cestius here by ­counter-mimicking his language once again, not only talking about him in third person to the audience but also drawing attention to the lofty manner in which Cestius referred to himself in third person: ‘What do you all think Cestius is? Cestian ashes, and little more’ (Quid putatis esse Cestium nisi Cesti cinerem?). There is a telling difference between being a Greek and a Latin monkey on Argentarius’ reckoning: the modest μου was sufficient for Cestius to refer to himself before a bilingual audience, but Argentarius points to possible insecurity on Cestius’ part by drawing attention to the way Cestius feels the need to identify himself by name to a Roman audience. The cutting crackle and double use of Cestius’ name (Cestium . . . Cesti cinerem) mean to suggest that Cestius is so stuck in his own rut of self-importance and ashen vestiges of whatever spark of originality he once had that he can barely choke past avocal plosives. Argentarius’ trashing of Cestius runs so deep as to betray his own character and accomplishments. He retorts here that Cestius has become an ashen shadow of his former self, and even takes this criticism on the road, suggesting on more than one occasion that Cestius is as good as dead as a professional declaimer; he is known to swear by his mentor’s memory even while Cestius was alive if not necessarily within earshot.45 There is some poetic justice in the fact that Cestius is now pestered by his own gadfly trying to consign him to the ashcan of irrelevance, since he himself engaged in outright polemic against Cicero’s record.46 But Seneca suggests that Argentarius mimics to a fault. Even when standing his ground in his riposte, the former student tries to occupy the same vestigial space of his mentor’s beaten path,

43  On the ignorant, unthinking simius according to Roman satire, see Scodel (1987) 200–5; for Greek precedent, see Anderson (1980) 259–60; McDermott (1936) 148–67. Imitator was itself a label of derision; cf. Hor. Ars 134; Cic. De Or. 2.90; Cic. Or. 171. 44  Cf. Bloomer (1997a) 147. 45  ‘And so he used to swear, “By the soul of my mentor, Cestius,” even when Cestius was alive’ (et sic solebat iurare, ‘per manes praeceptoris mei Cesti,’ cum Cestius viveret, Sen. Contr. 9.3.12–13). 46  And would suffer a tongue-lashing by Latro (Sen. Contr. 3.praef.14–17) and a real thrashing by Cicero’s son (Sen. Suas. 7.13); cf. Gunderson (2003) 84–7, 231; Fairweather (1981) 146–7. Argentarius even riffs on Cicero perhaps to rile his mentor another way (Sen. Suas. 6.7; Cic. Phil. 2.77); cf. Gunderson (2003) 84 n.65.

Jonathan E. Mannering  239 if not assume his entire identity: ‘He used to keep after all the pathways Cestius forged without let up’ (omnibus autem insistebat Cesti vestigiis). Insisting on the obsolescence of his mentor’s skill and reputation, he reveals latent desire not simply to overtake his mentor’s position of authority, but to become a Cestius reborn. The lesson to learn: merely repeating your master’s techniques cannot an original declaimer make, as Argentarius’ attempts to incinerate his teacher’s legacy amount to so much monkey business.

Conclusion: When to Read This Seneca Closely The impression of rhetorical jousting, of what it would be like to attend a contest of impromptu oratory, is exactly what those complete, model dec­lam­ations mistakenly ascribed to Quintilian cannot provide us. The declamatory arena is preserved instead by the metastatic proliferation of voices that is Seneca’s anthology. As the declaimers’ rapid turnover from each to next captures the rollicking thrill of the contest, the anthology’s appeal begins at the surface level, and in the final preface the author even advocates maintaining a healthy distance from declamation, since close study only saps enjoyment.47 It would seem, then, that my efforts to analyse scenes from the highlight reel in slow-motion have served only to misread Seneca. ‘Inepta loci,’ he objects? It has been Seneca’s compensatory invitation ‘to judge for myself ’ that has led to these considerations of discursive moments that prompt objections per se. Accounting for the mistakes of various speakers yields the social and cultural assumptions which could be contained in Latinity’s economy and which govern the shared space of community and value. Here, matters of sex, capital and corporal punishment, the perceived dilution of the semantic integrity of words, knowledge of poetry and quotations’ provenance, and (over)familiarity between teachers and students are all possible loci for speakers and spectators to negotiate and contest. A stray comment can suddenly unbridle the proceedings, shaming a speaker out of the arena and even into the oblivion of anonymity. Gaining full membership to the mannered community of declamation and, thus, collective Roman memory is worth the risks.

47  ‘There’s one thing to know about studying the masters of rhetoric: it’s a pleasure when done with a light touch, but pored over and scrutinized it becomes a drag’ (hoc habent scholasticorum studia: leviter tacta delectant, contrectata et propius admota fastidio sunt, Sen. Contr. 10.praef.1).

12

Color Medius or the Colour of Suspicion Yazmín Victoria Huerta Cabrera

1  In his treatise Περὶ στάσεων (On Issues), Hermogenes of Tarsus, who lived in the second half of the 2nd century ad, established a classification of three kinds of act to which forensic speeches make reference.1 The first kind of act comprises those in which someone is directly accused of having committed the act; Hermogenes provides the example of a man who is apprehended burying a recently slain corpse and then charged with homicide. The second type of act is committed by one person, but attributed to another, while the third type of act is pinned upon someone whose suspected involvement is based on circumstantial evidence. This last category, which is original and exclusive to Hermogenes, has been classified as an act ‘by suspicion’ (ἐξ ὑπονοίας) by later writers.2 In discussing this type of act, the commentator Sopater claims that the essence of the matter is not the act itself, but the character of the people involved.3 Following in these footsteps, I would like to point to a similar idea put forward by Seneca the Elder. Given that there are more than one hundred years separating Seneca the Elder and Hermogenes, one might suggest that the former in a way anticipated the theory of Hermogenes.4 The colour of suspicion belongs to a series of colores that are collected in the work of Seneca the Elder, but employed most prominently in the Controversiae.5 The chromatic variety of the Controversiae demonstrates the 1  See Hermog. Stat. 30.20–31.5. I follow the dating of Fernández Garrido (2010) 13. He proposes Hermogenes’ date of birth as 160 ad and his death as occurring shortly before 230 ad. 2  Fernández Garrido (2010) 34 and 147 n.12. 3  Fernández Garrido (2010) 34. Based on Sopater RhG 5.53.1–55.16. 4  Cf. Heath (1994) and (1995), who traces Hermogenes’ classification back to Plato’s Gorgias. 5 On the notion of color, see Fairweather (1981) 166–78; Calboli-Montefusco (2003); Lévy (2006). Yazmín Victoria Huerta Cabrera, Color Medius or the Colour of Suspicion In: Reading Roman Declamation: Seneca the Elder. Edited by: Martin T. Dinter, Charles Guérin, and Marcos Martinho, Oxford University Press (2020). © Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198746010.003.0012

Yazmín Victoria Huerta Cabrera  241 suitability and significance of colores for discourse; for the purpose of this paper and for reasons of space, however, I shall confine myself to discussing but one color of Seneca’s polychromatic oeuvre.6 Color, including the color of suspicion, serves as an ingenious argument for suggesting guilt in rhet­ oric­al discourse. Suspicion should thus not be understood only as a de­duct­ ive process of everyday life that arises from the imaginary, from appearances, and the untrue—that is, from the subjective.7 Instead, suspicion should also be considered as part of the discourse in the works of Seneca the Elder. Accordingly, the present discussion aims to set out the elements which Seneca’s declaimers employ to create suspicion.

2  The intermediate category outlined above, and thus by extension the intermediate color (genus medium) involves maintaining a neutral position: no explicit accusation is made, but neither is the action justified; this tactic is based on the use of a colourless colour. A via media (middle way) according to Seneca: De colore quaesitum est: quidam aperte invecti sunt in divitem, quidam ex toto nihil dixerunt, quidam secuti sunt mediam viam. Cum praeter haec nihil sit, Latro volebat videri invenisse quartum genus, ut hoc modo in divitem diceret: tu quidem non fecisti, sed tamen ego habui causas propter quas possem decipi et de te aliquid frustra suspicari: quia inimicus eras, quia inspoliatus pater inventus est, et cetera. Hoc est autem medium illud genus nec dimittendi divitem nec accusandi; nam et dimittere non debet quem distulit et accusare propter hoc ipsum non debet, quia distulit. (Questions were raised about the color. Some openly attacked the rich man, some said nothing at all against him, some took a middle way. Though there is no course apart from these three, Latro wanted the prestige of discovering a fourth type; this involved addressing the rich man as follows: ‘No, you didn’t do it, but all the same I had reasons for being misled and for entertaining false suspicions about you: you were my enemy, my father was found unrobbed’, and so on. But this in fact is the middle course, that of neither letting off the rich man nor accusing him: he 6  Roller (1997) showcases the use of color in one of Seneca’s suasoriae. 7  Veres Royal (2015) 411 explains the neurological processes behind fear and suspicion.

242  Color Medius or the Colour of Suspicion ought not to let him off, despite having put off the accusation, and he ought not to accuse him, just because he has put the accusation off.) (Sen. Contr. 10.1.10)8

If the orators did not dare to speak openly (dicere aperte) against the accused, or even preferred to remain silent and say nothing (dicere nihil), this served to arouse suspicion (suspicio) against the accused;9 to be suspected of some ulterior motive was enough (ego habui causas propter quas possem decipi et de te aliquid frustra suspicari, ‘I had reasons for being misled and for entertaining false suspicions about you’). In Controversia 10.1, which deals with the murder of a father, the grieving son believes that the rich man, who was his father’s enemy, is the guilty party. However, he does not accuse him directly; instead he insinuates that he is guilty by following him everywhere in silence and by donning filthy garments as a symbol of defamation.10 As a result, the rich man accuses the son of slander, since his loss of public prestige made him fail in his bid for election for public office. Albucius Silus, as counsel for the son, does not attempt to say anything against the rich man, but asserts in his color that, although he has no reason to accuse him, he does have cause to distrust him: non est, quare accusem, est quare suspicer.11 Conversely, despite the rich man believing that the evidence presented against him by the son is of little consequence and of ­meagre argumentative weight (haec levia argumenta sunt),12 he nevertheless acknowledges that some view him with suspicion (at me quidam propter hoc suspectum habent);13 for this reason he demands that the suspicion be 8  All translations are adapted from Winterbottom (1974). 9  This strategy has strong ties with oratio figurata (λόγος ἐσχηματισμένος), ‘eine Art von indirekter Mitteilung’ (a form of indirect discourse) (Breij and Zinsmaier 2012). See in particular Ahl (1984); Schouler (1986); Chiron (2003); Desbordes (1993); Franchet d’Espèrey (2016); and the bibliography provided by Breij and Zinsmaier (2012). On silence, see Bardon (1943–4) 102–20. 10  See Adiego Lajara et al. (2005) n.206, which states that, according to the Digest (Ulpian XLVII 10.15.27.5), wearing mourning clothes served to attract hatred towards a person: Proinde quodcumque quis fecerit vel dixerit, ut alium infamet, erit actio iniuriarum. Haec autem fere sunt, quae ad infamiam alicuius fiunt: ut puta ad invidiam alicuius veste lugubri utitur aut squalida, aut si barbam demittat vel capillos submittat, aut si carmen conscribat vel proponat vel cantet aliquod, quod pudorem alicuius laedat (‘And so whatever one may do or say to bring another into disrepute gives rise to the action for insult. Here are instances of conduct to another’s disrepute: to lower another’s reputation, one wears mourning or filthy garments or lets one’s beard grow or lets one’s hair down [in mourning] or writes a lampoon or issues or sings something detrimental to another’s honour’). Trans. adapted from Watson (1998). 11 Sen. Contr. 10.1.11: ‘I have here no reason to accuse you—but I do have reason to suspect.’ 12 Sen. Contr. 10.1.11: ‘Mine are feeble proofs.’ 13 Sen. Contr. 10.1.11: ‘But some people regard me as suspect because of this.’

Yazmín Victoria Huerta Cabrera  243 c­ larified in order to clear his reputation (potes discutere istam suspicionem: quaere, quis fecerit).14 Gallio, citing the same arguments, states without reservation that he suspects that the father of the young man had been murdered by the rich man (suspicor a te patrem meum occisum).15 In this specific case, the suspicion is instilled by the subtle indicators (signa) that the orators spread here and there; for example, Porcius Latro affirms that there are two elements that indicate the rich man was behind the crime: a) the rich man was an enemy of the deceased father (quia inimicus eras); b) nothing had been stolen from the murdered father (quia inspoliatus pater inventus est). Gallio also helps to increase the level of suspicion by means of three explicit allusions: a) the rich man greatly hated the deceased father (quis enim illum magis oderat);16 b) the rich man, thanks to his power, was the only one who could have taken revenge on the deceased father (quis tam potens alius est);17 c) any ordinary murderer would have taken the victim’s clothes (vestem sine dubio alius nescio quis percussor concupierat).18 In Seneca’s section on sententiae, Albucius Silus is also quoted as saying that: a) the rich man had his reasons for taking revenge on the victim, since the latter had the habit of denouncing and offending the powerful (vitium me meum sequitur: taceo. Utinam hoc vitium habuisset et pater! Dum libere loquitur, multos offendit);19 b) the rich man, freed of his opponent following the father’s death, sought to enter public office (nostis populi loquacis suspiciones. Quare iste honores illo vivo numquam petit?).20 Finally, Fulvius Sparsus asks: if the rich man sued the son for slander because he followed him around the city in silence, what would he do if he accused him openly (quid iste accusanti fecisset qui persequitur tacentem)?21 With this rhetorical question the speaker, Fulvius Sparsus, who is defending the son, asserts that the rich man was indeed capable of killing anyone who opposed him.22

14 Sen. Contr. 10.1.11: ‘You can dispel that suspicion: look for the man responsible.’ 15 Sen. Contr. 10.1.12: ‘I suspect that you killed my father.’ 16 Sen. Contr. 10.1.12: ‘Who else hated him more than you?’ 17 Sen. Contr. 10.1.12: ‘Who else is so influential?’ 18 Sen. Contr. 10.1.12: ‘Without doubt, some other murderer would have coveted his clothes.’ 19 Sen. Contr. 10.1.1: ‘But my usual fault dogs me—I keep silent. Would that my father too had had this fault! By speaking freely, he caused much offence.’ 20 Sen. Contr. 10.1.1: ‘You know the suspicions entertained by a gossipy people: “Why did he never seek office while the father was alive?” ’ 21 Sen. Contr. 10.1.5: ‘What would he have done if I had been accusing him, considering that he harasses me even when I keep quiet?’ 22  Cf. Igualada Belchí (1994) 333, 341, and 343, which treats the rhetorical question as a mitigating or reinforcing communication strategy that depends on the illocutionary act.

244  Color Medius or the Colour of Suspicion As may be observed from this Controversia, suspicion allows orators to ‘half-say’ something in a discourse. When this color is used, the accused is indirectly implicated through all the apparent evidence that orators scatter throughout their speeches. The orators who chose to justify and defend the son who dressed in rags and followed the accused around make use of the following colores: Vibius Rufus says that the son wore such garments because he was grieving, and that he followed the rich man in order to be safe, since proximity to him would provide protection and security (sordidatus sum; lugeo; sequor te ut tutior sim; timeo nescio quem illum, qui patrem meum occidit; scio me quamdiu tecum fuero perire non posse).23 Similarly, Euctemon asserts that accompanying rich men provided security (διὰ τοῦτο ἀσφαλέστατόν ἐστιν μετὰ πλουσίων περιπατεῖν);24 Moschus claims that the purpose of following each step taken by the suspect was to discover who had committed the crime (sequor, inquit, ut inveniam quis fecerit);25 finally, Murredius, using his color, declares that the son sought the company of the rich man to avoid being murdered alone, as had happened to his father (quare te sequor? Pater meus quia solus inambulabat, occisus est).26 Other Controversiae also feature the color of suspicion. It is found in declaimers’ dialogues whenever they explicitly provide a glimpse of ‘certain clues’ that suggest probable guilt. In Controversia 1.4, which revolves around the disinheritance of a son, the father—a soldier who had lost his hands in battle—repudiates his son for not having killed his mother when he caught her committing adultery. Latro, speaking for the slighted father, raises suspicion against the son by way of the blatantly telltale behaviour of the lover who, upon meeting the son face to face, greets him in a familiar manner (filium vocavi: ut intravit, ab adultero salutatus est).27 This action is in­dub­it­ ably revealing to both the father and the audience, since the affirmation ab adultero salutatus est suggests two possibilities: a) it was not the first time the mother had committed adultery, and the son was used to seeing his mother’s lover come and go; b) the lover confidently visited the mother in her house. I believe it is no accident that Latro’s subtle declaration is

23 Sen. Contr. 10.1.12: ‘I am in mourning—I grieve. I follow you so as to be safer. I am afraid of whoever it was who killed my father; I know that I cannot perish so long as I am with you.’ 24 Sen. Contr. 10.1.15: ‘That is why it is safest to go about with rich men.’ 25 Sen. Contr. 10.1.12: ‘ “I follow you,” said Moschus, “to find who did the deed.” ’ 26 Sen. Contr. 10.1.12: ‘Why do I follow you? My father was killed because he walked the streets alone.’ 27 Sen. Contr. 1.4.11: ‘I called my son. When he came in, the adulterer greeted him.’

Yazmín Victoria Huerta Cabrera  245 expressed in the passive voice, since this construction implies that the son is aware of his mother’s actions, and reveals that he is indifferent towards avenging his father. Publius Vinicius, speaking on behalf of the son, reveals a valuable piece of information that subtly points to his complicity in the adultery. Vinicius sows this suspicion when he claims that the son burst into the adulterers’ room in order to surprise them, but then corrects himself and calls himself a liar, because in fact the son did not have to use force to enter the bedroom, since the door was already half open (inrupi in cubiculum adulterorum: quid mentior, miser? aperto cubiculo expectabant adulteri).28 What is more, the adulterers were waiting for him and were perhaps not even worried about being discovered. The son’s lack of surprise in turn suggests that their affair was a well-known fact to which he tacitly consented. Thus, in this case, the signum of the ‘open chamber’ indirectly creates a lack of trust in the son. Vibius Rufus continues this line of thought; speaking in the name of the father, he remarks in a suggestive tone that the adulterers acted in a calm and assured manner upon being discovered and that both left unharmed since the son did nothing to detain them (quam otiosi, quam securi adulteri transierunt praeter oculos meos, praeter filii manus!).29 Here, the qualifiers (otiosi, securi)—emphasized by the repetition of the adverb quam—prepare the ground for casting doubt upon the son and sow distrust against him. Thus, Rufus’ statement aims to grab the attention of the audience asking them to deduce what he really means to say, without expressing it bluntly.30 In short, Vibius Rufus gives us to understand that the son is the ‘pimp’ of the adulterers; indeed, the repetition of the preposition praeter and the order expressed in the final words praeter filii manus! emphasizes the reaction of the son, who was remarkably unmoved. Without a doubt, the declaimer who is most direct in invoking suspicion is Albucius, for he literally calls the son the conscius of his mother. Moreover, the speaker maintains that adultery had been committed with the son’s full knowledge (filius sciens) thus making him the prime subject of suspicion (Albucius sic narravit, tamquam filio sciente factum esset adulterium;

28 Sen. Contr. 1.4.11: ‘I burst into the adulterers’ bedroom. Why should I lie, alas? The room was unlocked—they were waiting for me.’ 29 Sen. Contr. 1.4.12: ‘How casually, how carelessly the adulterers went past my eyes, past my son’s hands!’ 30  This is what is understood by the ‘illocutionary force’ used by the speaker in his in­sinu­ ation. Cf. Beristáin (2010) s.v. insinuación.

246  Color Medius or the Colour of Suspicion suspectum quasi conscium matri suae fecit).31 By encouraging us to make these conjectures, the declaimers lay the basis for further suspicion, this time concerning the paternity of the war hero. Cestius, representing the father, points out that the lover began to laugh when the father called upon his son to punish his mother, since he was not the war hero’s son but his own (voca filium; risit adulter tamquam qui diceret ‘meus est’).32 Remarkably, with a single word (risit), the orator gives the audience a clue for inferring the unusual nature of the link between the lover and the child; if the action had stopped at that point, the reader could have assumed that the lover’s laughter was due to the physical inability of the father, who was reliant on his son to avenge him; however, the narration continues to a striking and conclusive end, as the adulterer openly admits that this is ‘my son’ (meus est). Publius Asprenas also raises suspicion about the son, who refused to kill his mother and her lover and implied that he had not done so because the lover was indeed his true progenitor (matrem occidere non potes? Adulterum certe occide: an et iste pater est?).33 Undoubtedly, the rhetorical question ‘serves to temper the potential aggression of the assertion’34 of the speaker—the father—who, employing this strategy of communication, ‘leaves unsaid precisely what he wishes to say, while at the same time giving the necessary indications for the listener—the son—to discover it for himself ’.35 In this way, the rhetorical question heightens suspicion and outlines the truth, which the son already knows;36 hence, the orator succeeds in disarming the son, leaving him unable to defend himself. Controversia 1.5 presents a similar example. This case centres on a law which provides a choice between punishment and reparations. A woman who is abducted and raped could either demand the death of the aggressor, or force him to marry her.37 As for the application of this law, the issue revolves around a man who had abducted and raped two women in a single

31 Sen. Contr. 1.4.12: Albucius’ narrative was based on the supposition that the adultery took place with the connivance of the young man: he caused him to be suspected of being in his mother’s confidence. 32 Sen. Contr. 1.4.11: ‘I called my son. The adulterer laughed, as though to say: “He’s mine.” ’ 33 Sen. Contr. 1.4.12: ‘You cannot kill your mother? At least kill her lover. Or is he your father?’ 34  Igualada Belchí (1994) 339, following Grésillon (1981) 62. 35  Igualada Belchí (1994) 337. 36  Igualada Belchí (1994) 336 and 341, which indicates that the goal of the rhetorical question is to make the answer evident to the participants in the dialogue. See also Beristáin (2010) s.v. interrogación retórica. 37  On this fictitious law, see Bonner (1949) 89–90. On the status of the laws used in Roman declamation, see the contributions in Amato, Citti, and Huelsenbeck (2015).

Yazmín Victoria Huerta Cabrera  247 night: one of them demands his death, and the other marriage. In Seneca’s collection of sententiae, Cestius Pius, taking the role of prosecutor, raises suspicion against one of the victims by ascribing great significance to her emotional state. Her lack of outward indignation is perceived as a sign of the accused man’s innocence (quantum suspicior, ne rapta quidem es. Quaeris argumentum? Non irasceris).38 In other words, for the orator the irrefutable proof (argumentum) that the second woman suffered no physical or moral harm is her lack of anger and resentment. For many readers, this claim may appear irrelevant, yet for a specialist in kinesis this answer would be a trustworthy indication that facial expressions convey certain emotions without speech.39 The declaimer, not unlike a modern psychologist, asserts to know that the woman has lied about everything, was never kidnapped (ne rapta quidem es) and, therefore, has in fact plotted a means of achieving marriage—all by reading her fictitious facial expression. Recent studies on non-verbal communication have discovered that people are capable of controlling their faces and use them to convey messages, that is, they know how to fake expressions of joy, sadness, and anger; however, they do not know how to do so suddenly or continuously.40 Indeed, this case supports the above hypothesis on non-verbal communication, since the woman apparently was unable to sustain ‘her truth’, and gave herself away with a bodily message.41 Cestius Pius would not have put his trust in words alone, nor made a literal or plain reading of the indictment, but was able to ‘decipher’ in a person’s face the information that could be used against them.42 He thus uses his empirical knowledge against the woman. With his malicious statement, Cestius Pius succeeded in establishing elements that favoured the accused man and questioned the credibility of the aggrieved woman. This example demonstrates how declaimers lay the foundations of suspicion on the basis of such ‘visible signs’. The same strategy plays out in Controversia 2.5. In this case, a tyrant distrusts a man supposedly plotting to kill him, although he cannot be certain of it. Cestius Pius declares that there are signs in the face of the accused that 38 Sen. Contr. 1.5.1: ‘To my mind, you were not even raped. You ask for proof? You show no anger.’ 39  Davis (2005) 71. 40  Davis (2005) 70. 41  Davis (2005) 52. 42  The idea of ‘reading’ the behaviour of the raped woman is central here, and fits perfectly with the Latin habit—as seen in Cicero, and in rhetorical texts in general (actio)—of looking for ‘signs’ in a person’s appearance, physiognomy, gait, or behaviour. See in particular Corbeill (2004), and, on actio within the genre of declamation, see Balbo and Corbeill in this volume.

248  Color Medius or the Colour of Suspicion give away his future plans: tyrannus suspicatus est nescio quid istum de tyrannicidio cogitare, sive isti aliquid excidit, sive magna consilia non bene voltus texit.43 Moreover, suspicion about the potential tyrannicide is increased not only because of his body language, but also because the suspect involuntarily lets out ‘something imperceptible’ (sive isti aliquid excidit): such signs indicate probable guilt. In another passage from the same Controversia, Romanius Hispo reaffirms, in dialogue with the accused, that the spontaneous impulses of the soul betrayed the individual and fuelled suspicion about him: ‘nihil’ inquit ‘ego isti narraveram; ista, ut erat necesse, aliquid ex vultu, aliquid ex nocturnis vigiliis suspicata est.44 As may be observed, the wife of the accused man instinctively deciphered ‘this something’—note the insistent anaphoric double repetition of the pro­nom­inal aliquid for emphasis—in the behaviour of her husband without needing to receive a verbal confession; his agitation and insomnia raised her suspicions. In short, it is precisely ‘this something’ that the orators exploit to manufacture suspicion in their discourse.45 Sometimes ‘this something’ can be a gesture, a word, a feeling or an action that the orator can use to weaken the argument of his opponent and gain ground in his defence. Once again, the example above confirms the importance of kinesis. Studies have shown that the fleeting facial expressions of any person may contradict their words, and that these brief appearances reveal true feelings, since they represent ‘escape valves’ for impulses or emotions.46 This occurred in the case of the husband, since he did not say (‘nihil’ inquit ‘ego isti narraveram’) what his bodily movements and gestures expressed (aliquid ex vultu, aliquid ex nocturnis vigiliis). I will conclude this discussion with two further examples from Seneca’s collection of Controversiae. Controversia 2.3 concerns the law that stipulates the death penalty for a rapist who does not win the pardon of two fathers, that of the victim as well as his own.47 It revolves around the case of a rapist who is granted forgiveness from the former, but not the latter. Pompeius Silo extends suspicion to the father of the raped woman, noting that his indulgent and venal (exorabilis) character had allowed the kidnapping and 43 Sen. Contr. 2.5.2: ‘The tyrant suspected that this man had some thought of tyrannicide: perhaps because some word escaped him, perhaps because his countenance did not well conceal his great plans.’ 44 Sen. Contr. 2.5.20: ‘I had told her nothing; she, inevitably, had her suspicions from my look, from my sleepless nights.’ 45 Sen. Contr. 2.5.19: Sed apparet ei aliquid de tyrannicidio cogitatum, de quo tyrannus usque eo suspicatus est, ut torqueret. (But it is obvious that he had had some thoughts of tyrannicide— for the tyrant had formed such suspicions about the plot that he put her to the torture.) 46  Davis (2005) 77. 47  On this fictitious law, see Bonner (1949) 91.

Yazmín Victoria Huerta Cabrera  249 rape to be carried out with his permission: Silo Pompeius eandem suspicionem in omnia contulit: ‘Exoravi’ inquit ‘raptae patrem’. Immo tu, cum exorabilem haberet patrem, rapuisti.48 Hispanus contributes to raising suspicion when he points to the speed (cito) with which the events occurred: the sudden kidnapping, the swift rape, the hasty absolution. His declaration suggests a strange and abnormal relationship between the father of the raped woman and the rapist: omnia cito facta sunt: iste cito rapuit, ille cito ignovit. Nisi demens sum, aliquid suspicandum.49 Hermagoras draws attention to ‘the suspicion of collusion’ between the two figures, the rapist and the father: cum suspicionem facere vellet inter raptae patrem et raptorem collusionis.50 Likewise, in Controversia 2.7, the issue of suspicion in the case is raised from the outset.51 A man accuses his wife on suspicion of adultery (accusat adulteri ex suspicione) for having accepted the inheritance of a foreign trader who had been her suitor while the husband was away. The merchant, once his amorous pursuits had failed, left all his possessions to the woman and acknowledged her exemplary chastity. In the Controversia, the offended husband, whose part is played by Latro, makes repeated and explicit reference to the suspicious gain of his wife and the surprising generosity of her benefactor.52 The monologue of the husband attempts to cast doubt on the reputation of his wife, making assertions that corroborate her indecency and the crime of adultery. Some of the most significant claims made by Latro that serve to increase the suspicion concerning the accused are: a) The wife was a beautiful woman who enjoyed too much freedom during his absence:53 quemadmodum adulescens formosus, dives, ignotus

48 Sen. Contr. 2.3.17: ‘Pompeius Silo brought this same implication in everywhere. “He says, I won over the girl’s father. Put it rather that you chose to rape her because she had a father who was easy to win over.” ’ 49 Sen. Contr. 2.3.17: ‘Everything happened quickly. The one raped quickly, the other forgave quickly. Unless I am mad, there is room for suspicion.’ 50 Sen. Contr. 2.3.22: ‘When he wanted to hint at collusion between the seducer and the girl’s father.’ 51  On the analysis of this Controversia, see Berti (2007) 44–78. 52  Cf. Sen. Contr. 2.7.2: poteram ego salvo pudore meo nihil de hereditate suspicari in qua etiam nomen auctoris ab uxore doctus sum? (‘Could I, without hurting my pride, have no suspicions about a bequest when I had to learn from my wife even the name of the person who made it?’) See also Contr. 2.7.7: Tace paulisper nomen auctoris: numquid non testamentum viri creditis? (‘Suppress for a moment the name of the writer; would you not suppose this was the will of a husband?’) 53  On the association between the notion of beauty and the impudicitia of elegiac poetry, see Berti (2007) 62 n. 3.

250  Color Medius or the Colour of Suspicion in viciniam formonsae et in absentia viri nimium liberae mulieris commigraverit.54 b) The civil status of the wife, as a married woman, was not an obstacle to seducing her. On the contrary it served as an incentive for corrupting her:55 erratis vos, iudices, si non maius ad sollicitandam matronam putatis inritamentum spem corrumpendi quam faciem quamvis amabilem venustam.56 c) Her attitude, cosmetics, gait, speech, and gaze suggested those of an adulteress.57 This inference is based on a series of recommendations drawn up by Latro to define the archetypal Roman matron: she should be decently dressed without appearing obscene (prodeat in tantum ornata quantum ne immunda sit);58 her friendships should be with women of the same age in order to drive away libertines and inspire respect (habeat comites eius aetatis quae impudicum, si nihil aliud, in verecundiam annorum movere possit);59 she should keep her eyes focused on the ground in order to come across as cold and inhuman, better to seem rude than to appear shameless (ferat iacentis in terram oculos; adversus officiosum salutatorem inhumana potius quam inverecunda sit);60 her face, even when she is silent, should counter any shamelessness ( longe ante inpudicitiam suam ore quam verbo neget).61 By listing these details and using a preceptive verbal mood (a hortatory/optative subjunctive) the orator appears to suggest that the wife lacks all these qualities and was indeed the opposite of the ideal of the demure woman. d) The jealousy of the husband was roused also by the fact that his wife did not write to him to tell him of the suitor, or make the offence 54 Sen. Contr. 2.7.2: ‘for the story of how a handsome, rich, and unknown young man moved into the neighbourhood of a beautiful woman, one who was all too free in the absence of her husband.’ 55 The spes corrumpendi is enough to encourage seducers and make the woman indecent; see Berti (2007) 62 and 66. 56 Sen. Contr. 2.7.3: ‘You are mistaken, judges, if you think that the prospect of being able to seduce her is not a greater incentive to make proposals to a married woman than a face however pretty and attractive.’ 57  These are the proofs used to demonstrate the impudicitia of a woman; see Berti (2007) 65. 58 Sen. Contr. 2.7.3: ‘Must go out dressed up only so far as to avoid unkemptness.’ 59 Sen. Contr. 2.7.3: ‘Let her have companions old enough, at the very least, to make the shameless respect their years.’ 60 Sen. Contr. 2.7.3: ‘Let her go about with her eyes on the ground. In the face of the overattentive greeting, let her be impolite rather than immodest.’ 61 Sen. Contr. 2.7.3: ‘Let her guarantee her modesty by denying her unchastity with her look well in advance of her words.’

Yazmín Victoria Huerta Cabrera  251 public:62 cum quo questa est? Apud quem indignata es? [. . .] quando de iniuria tua viro scripsisti et, ne in occasionem similis iniuriae solitudo tua pateret, maturiorem reditum rogasti?63 e) Her face displayed no sign of indignation at the harassment:64 totiens sollicitata non istam faciem qua placere poteras convestisti?65 f) To the suspicious husband, it seemed incongruous that the wife should use the testimony of the merchant as witness to her chastity: adeone iam ad omnem patientiam saeculi mos abiit ut adversus querimoniam viri uxor alieno teste defendatur?66 g) Finally, the husband claimed that his wife was shameless, and caused the merchant to become her suitor: interim, quod rogat, conperi im­pudicam.67 As may be observed in these last examples, the declaimers also raise suspicion by ‘manufacturing’ the character of the people in question. They assign certain qualities to them which are expressed with a simple adjective or which emerge from the image they create through an accumulation of eth­ ic­al signposting. According to Seneca, some declaimers particularly liked to make use of this kind of color.68 Junius Otho, considered ‘a master’ in the art of controversiae, thus expertly triggered mistrust through suspicion: Otho tamen Iunius bene dicebat has controversias quae suspiciose dicendae erant.69 In the opinion of Seneca, this argumentative technique was a vice (vitium) that he disagreed with, as he believed it was unnecessary to employ ‘indirect’ or oblique forms of discourse when what needed to be said could be said openly and explicitly:

62  The absence of the explicit word accompanied by the ‘language of the body’ confirmed the behaviour of the woman. See Berti (2007) 64 and 69–70. 63 Sen. Contr. 2.7.5: ‘When did you write to tell your husband of the wrong done to you, ask him to return sooner so that in your solitary state you should not remain open to the possibility of a similar outrage?’ 64  Recall the considerations on kinesis from earlier in the chapter. 65  Sen. Contr. 2.7.6: ‘If you were so often pestered, did you not veil the beauty which could give the beholder such pleasure?’ 66 Sen. Contr. 2.7.8: ‘Has our age become so permissive that a wife has to be defended against the complaints of her husband by means of the testimony of a stranger?’ 67 Sen. Con. Exc. 2.7: ‘Meanwhile, despite her denials, I have found her unchaste.’ 68  Albucius Silus (Sen. Contr. 7.praef.3) and Bassus (Sen. Contr. 10.1.13). Cf. Sen. Contr. 7.1.20: Fuerunt et qui in novercam inveherentur; fuerunt et illi qui non quidem palam dicerent, sed per suspiciones et figuras (‘There were some who did inveigh against her, and others who, without open assaults, employed hints and figures’). 69 Sen. Contr. 2.1.34: ‘However, Junius Otho was good at declaiming controversiae which needed to be spoken allusively.’

252  Color Medius or the Colour of Suspicion Totam [inquit] bene dixit controversiam, sed hoc genere ut putares illo dicente sic esse dicendam, deinde mirareris quid illi suspiciosa actione opus fuisset cum aperta uti liceret. (He spoke the whole controversia well, but in such a way that while he was speaking you would think that that was the only way to speak it—afterwards you would wonder what need there had been for that allusive manner when it was possible to be open.)  (Sen. Contr. 2.1.39)

Accordingly, Otho earned himself the sobriquet of one who ‘read the news aloud’.70

3  In short, the examples discussed above suggest that suspicion in discourse is produced through the presence of certain ‘markers’ (habere causas; aliquid; multa esse71) which declaimers place (literally ‘sow’ (spargere)) in their discourses.72 These small hints generate a cumulative effect in the listener or reader, who, among the verbal fireworks, manages to ‘discover’ and deduce the function and meaning of such assertions. Arousing mistrust in any given context seems to be a simple matter; yet as the Controversiae show, it is a highly complex task, requiring the speakers to ‘discover’ and exploit the weak point of their opponent, based on their knowledge of the case. Thus the declaimers knew precisely how to ‘discover’ in regard to people (a persona) and situations (ex re) ‘this something’ (aliquid) that appeared in­crim­ in­at­ing. As a result, the argumentative weight of these conjectures and suspicions devised by the declaimers acquires evidential value.73 Hence the signa were a fail-safe means of substantiating suspicion and—in the opinion of Cicero—were viewed as ‘tacit proof of the crimes’.74 70 Sen. Contr. 2.1.39: Belle de hoc vitio illius Scaurus aiebat illum acta in aurem legere (‘Scaurus said nicely of this fault of his that he “reads the newspaper into your ear” ’). 71 Sen. Contr. 1.2.14: Non enim ponitur adhuc virginem , et multa sunt propter quae credibile sit non esse (‘It is not stated that she is still a virgin, and there are many reasons to make it credible that she is not’). 72 Sen. Contr. 1.5.9: Latro aiebat non quidquid spargi posset suspiciose (‘Latro used to say that there was no need to make an obvious show of everything that could be scattered about to arouse suspicion’). 73  Rhet. Her. 2.15: indignum facinus esse sine testibus coniecturam et suspicionem firmamenti satis habere (‘It is a shameful outrage to consider suspicion and conjecture, in the absence of witnesses, as sufficiently corroborative’). 74 Cic. Part. 114: Quae (sc. signa) quidem vel maxime suspicionem movent et quasi tacita sunt criminum testimonia (‘It is these [signs] which arouse suspicion most strongly and which

Yazmín Victoria Huerta Cabrera  253 In light of the examples set out above, I suggest that in the rhetorical and legal context of the Controversiae, suspicion has the character of damning evidence, something not the case in Roman jurisprudence,75 which con­ siders it to be devoid of legal significance, as expressed in the following phrase: de suspicionibus non debet aliquem damnari.76 Moreover, creating suspicion in discourse manifests the declaimers’ skills of inventio and plays a mind game which showcases their intellectual ability.77

are, in a way, silent witnesses of crimes’). On signa in argumentation, see also Cic. Top. 52; Quint., Inst. 5.9. 75  It is very interesting to compare Mexican law, in which suspicion is called presumption. In procedural law, presumption is not a form of proof, nor can it be presented as proof, unlike the evidence known as circumstantial evidence, which does have this probative value. The distinction between evidence and presumption also lies in the fact that evidence is a previously proven fact or act without which there would be no presumption, that is, it is a factor of the latter, so that a presumption is an ‘inference made on the basis of the evidence’. Hence a presumption is the logical outcome and assessment of information or proof. Thus presumption is the conclusion of a syllogism in which evidence or proof is the premise. See Díaz de León (2000) ch.16–17 for a detailed discussion of the issue. 76  Digesta 48.19.5.praef.: ‘No one should be condemned on the grounds of suspicion alone.’ 77 This personal deduction coincides with the definition of presumption in the field of criminal law as ‘the product of the mental effort of the judges in the process of the analysis, synthesis and evaluation of the evidence and in general of the proofs’; cf. Díaz de León (2000) 691.

13

Laughing Is No Laughing Matter Laughs and Laughter in Seneca the Elder’s Oeuvre Catherine Schneider

Nothing is more fun than laughing when we laugh at the expense of others.1 Video, quid velitis: sententias potius audire quam iocos, ‘I can see what you want—to hear epigrams, not jokes,’2 writes Seneca the Elder to his sons in his preface to Book 7 of the Controversiae. However, laughter and jokes feature several times, not so much in the declamations themselves, as these deal with subjects that do not particularly lend themselves to laughter, but in the petty world of venomous declaimers. Risus (laughter) and derisus (mockery), ioci (jokes) and sales (raillery), urbanitas (wit) and venustas (charm) set up a syntax of laughter where the rules are good timing and placement as well as apt subject and object.3 Laughter is more standardized *  I would like to thank Maria Silvana Celentano for sending me her works on rhetoric and laughter, Michael Winterbottom for reading the first draft of this paper, and the editors of this volume for correcting the English text. 1 Molière, Psyché V.6, ll. 2105–6: ‘Rien n’est si plaisant que de rire / quand on rit aux dépens d’autrui’. 2 Sen. Contr. 7.praef.8–9; texts and translations of Seneca are quoted from Winterbottom (1974). 3  The main theoretical texts on ancient laughter are Arist. EN 2.7.1108a, 4.14.1128a–b, and 10.6.1176a–1177a, Poet. 5.1449a, with commentary by Plebe (1952); Gauthier and Jolif (1958–9); Fortenbaugh (2000); Taylor (2006); Beard (2014) 40–7; Cic. De Or. 2.216–90, with commentary by Monaco (1964); Manzo (1966) and Leeman, Pinkster, and Rabbie (1989); Fantham (2004a) 186–208; Cic. Or. 87–90; Cic. Off. 1.103–4, with commentary by Dyck (1996); Quint. Inst. 6.3, with commentary by Sehlmeyer (1912); Kroll (1934); Kühnert (1962); Monaco (1967); Manzo (1973); Desbordes (1998). On the specific links between laughter and rhetoric, see Celentano (1995), (1997), (2004a), (2004b), (2007), and (2009); Rabbie (2007); Guérin (2009b) 197–204 and (2011) 145–303. Catherine Schneider, Laughing Is No Laughing Matter: Laughs and Laughter in Seneca the Elder’s Oeuvre In: Reading Roman Declamation: Seneca the Elder. Edited by: Martin T. Dinter, Charles Guérin, and Marcos Martinho, Oxford University Press (2020). © Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198746010.003.0013

Catherine Schneider  255 than one might think. It is a highly social act which must comply with the combined requirements of ethics, aesthetics, and even politics.

1.  Laughter: A Balance of Power Fleeting bursts of collective laughter occur twice in Seneca’s corpus. The first instance takes place during a very uneven joust between Cassius Severus and the declaimer Cestius. Cassius Severus attacks Cestius on his own ground, in his own school, and in the presence of his own students. The rhetorician Cestius is a narcissist who is particularly in love with himself; as Seneca writes, ‘He was an admirer of no talent, and felt positive hostility to Cicero.’4 Indeed, in his own account, Cassius Severus claims that he targeted his opponent’s Achilles heel: I recall going into his school when he was going to recite a speech against Milo. Cestius, with his usual admiration for his own works, said: ‘If I were a Thracian, I should be Fusius. If I were a mime, I should be Bathyllus. If I were a horse, I should be Melissio.’ I couldn’t contain my rage. I shouted: ‘If you were a drain, you’d be the Great Drain.’ Universal roars of laughter. The schoolmen looked at me to discover who this bull-necked lout was. Cestius, who had geared himself up to reply to Cicero, could find nothing to reply to me, and he said he wouldn’t go on if I didn’t leave. I said I wouldn’t leave the public bath until I’d had my wash.5 (Sen. Contr. 3.praef.16)

A good joke must be followed by laughter.6 Here, the accuracy of Cassius Severus’ witticism is proved by the loud and unanimous laughter that acknowledges it.7 As pretentiousness and complacency usually inspire little 4 Sen. Suas. 7.12: Erat autem Cestius nullius quidem ingenii , Ciceroni etiam infestus. 5  Memini me intrare scholam eius cum recitaturus esset in Milonem; Cestius ex consuetudine sua miratus dicebat: si Thraex essem, Fusius essem; si pantomimus essem, Bathyllus essem; si equus, Melissio. Non continui bilem et exclamavi: si cloaca esses, maxima esses. Risus omnium ingens; scholastici intueri me, quis essem qui tam crassas cervices haberem. Cestius Ciceroni responsurus mihi quod responderet non invenit, sed negavit se executurum nisi exissem de domo. Ego negavi me de balneo publico exiturum nisi lotus essem. 6  As explained by Freud (1905). 7  For an anthropology of laughter in Antiquity, see Arndt (1904); Grant (1924); Saint Denis (1965); Cataudella (1971); Arnould (1990); Jäkel and Timonen (1994–7); Corbeill (1996); Bremmer and Roodenburg (1997); Fernández (1997); Hoffmann and Trédé  (1998); Desclos (2000); Minois (2000); Halliwell (2008); Heuzé and Veyrard-Cosme (2010); Beard (2014). The ‘superiority theory’ conceptualized in Antiquity has been widely developed by modern critics:

256  Laughing Is No Laughing Matter sympathy, Cassius Severus can target this weakness relentlessly by creatively aping Cestius, thus ridiculing his unwarranted pride. In this case, laughter is a weapon that hurts the vanity and narcissistic image of the victim. While it highlights Cassius Severus’ superiority, it also emphasizes that Cestius is a failed rhetor who cannot defend himself: he is at a loss when responding to a real audience and is reduced to defending his authority as a teacher. However, the verbal abuse does not stop there. In his own words, Cassius Severus resolves ‘to revenge Cicero on Cestius, in the courts’; like a rabid dog, he drags his prey to court and sues him three times, constantly hurling verbal abuse and jokes at him. The three successive trials are directly inspired by the trials held in declamation schools. One would expect that Cestius would put his expertise to good use, but he in fact gets so worried that he asks for an adjournment. This downward spiral eventually comes to an end at the request of his friends who, taking pity at his discomfiture, intercede on his behalf.8 Here, the mocker plays the role of a censor or a public prosecutor who aims to punish ‘wrongdoers’. What Cassius Severus denounces and condemns above all is not Cestius’ over-inflated ego, but his incapacity, stemming from a lack of practice, to react to rhetorical reality. By jeering at Cestius, he uses mockery to highlight the superiority of the orator over the declaimer.9 This comedic event shows how closely linked meanness and laughter are. Laughter is cruel: it hurts and is always earned at someone else’s expense. cf. Morreall (1983) 4–14; Atkinson (1993) 11–15; Lippitt (1995); Billig (2005) 37–56; Morreall (2009) 4–9. 8 Sen. Contr. 3.praef.17–18: Deinde libuit Ciceroni de Cestio in foro satisfacere. Subinde nanc­ tus eum in ius ad praetorem voco et, cum quantum volebam iocorum conviciorumque effudissem, postulavi ut praetor nomen eius reciperet lege inscripti maleficii. Tanta illius perturbatio fuit ut advocationem peteret. Deinde ad alterum praetorem eduxi et ingrati postulavi. Iam apud prae­ torem urbanum curatorem ei petebam; intervenientibus amicis, qui ad hoc spectaculum concur­ rerant, et rogantibus dixi molestum me amplius non futurum si iurasset disertiorem esse Ciceronem quam se. Nec hoc ut faceret vel ioco vel serio effici potuit. Hanc [. . .] tibi fabellam rettuli ut scires in declamationibus tantum non aliud genus hominum esse. Si comparari illis volo, non ingenio mihi maiore opus est sed sensu minore . . . (‘After that, I resolved to revenge Cicero on Cestius, in the courts. Soon, I met him and summoned him before the praetor, and when I’d had enough of deriding and abusing him, I requested the praetor to admit a charge against him under the law on unspecified offences. Cestius was so worried that he asked for an adjournment. Next, I haled him off to a second praetor and accused him of ingratitude. Finally, before the Urban Praetor, I requested a guardian for him. His friends, who had thronged to the spectacle, put in a word for him, and in response to them I said I should give no further trouble if he swore he was less eloquent than Cicero. But neither joke nor serious argument would induce him to do that. I’ve [. . .] told you this little tale to show that declamations breed a virtually separate race of men. To be comparable with them, I need not more genius but less sense . . .’). 9  Cassius Severus is first and foremost an orator and seldom declaims, whereas Cestius is and will remain a scholasticus; cf. Bornecque (1902) 157–9 and 160–2; van Mal-Maeder in this volume.

Catherine Schneider  257

2.  ‘Laughter of Inclusion’ Versus ‘Laughter of Exclusion’ A similar amusement again occurs in Cestius’ school, but this time not at his expense, for he is not always the victim. Cestius is also an acerbic rhet­or­ician, and Albucius Silus is his whipping boy and favourite target.10 Laughter involves a balance of power which can always tip into reverse. Hence, as the following example demonstrates, a joke is always a risky venture. Albucius declaims in a controversia (one wonders what the subject might have been): ‘Why is a cup broken if it falls—but not a sponge?’, which earns him a mocking comment from Cestius: ‘Go to him tomorrow. He’ll give you a declamation on why thrushes fly, but not pumpkins!’11 But the scoffing does not end here: In the controversia on the man who set his parricide brother adrift in a disabled boat, Albucius had said: ‘He put his brother on a wooden sack.’ Cestius, about to declaim the same controversia, put the theme thus: A man put his brother, who had been convicted privately by his father on a charge made by his step-mother, and whom he had received for punishment, into a wooden sack. Universal shouts of laughter followed.12 (Sen. Contr. 7.praef.8)

This time the victim is mocked while absent, as Cestius derisively quotes Albucius’ exact words in the presence of a third party. Laughter in fact establishes a triangular relationship between the mocker, the mocked one, and any further witnesses.13 Whether the mocking occurs in the presence or in the absence of the victim—over his head or behind his back—the

10  On Albucius Silus, see Bornecque (1902) 145–8. 11 Sen. Contr. 7.praef.8: Nec in scholasticis tamen effugere contumelias poterat Cestii, morda­ cissimi hominis. Cum in quadam controversia dixisset Albucius: quare calix si cecidit frangitur, spongia si cecidit non frangitur? aiebat Cestius: ‘ite ad illum cras; declamabit vobis quare turdi volent, cucurbitae non volent.’  12 Sen. Contr. 7.praef.9: Cum dixisset Albucius in illa fratre qui fratrem parricidii damnatum in exarmata nave dimisit: ‘inposuit fratrem in culleum ligneum’, Cestius eandem dicturus sic exposuit controversiam: quidam fratrem domi a patre damnatum noverca ­accusante, cum accepisset ad supplicium, imposuit in culleum ligneum. Ingens risus omnium secutus est. 13  The mocker and the mocked one usually assume, but not always, the roles of speaker and addressee; in addition to speaker, addressee, and audience, ‘there are a number of further distinctions [. . .] to be made. We know that, interactionally, important distinctions are often made between overhearers, unratified vs. ratified participants, those of the latter who are addressees and those who are non-addressed participants, and so on’, according to Levinson (1983) 72. For linguistic approaches to humour, see especially Attardo (1994); Attardo (2008) with bibliography.

258  Laughing Is No Laughing Matter speaker also seeks to garner public support. Laughter occurs in or generates small circles of complicity, for example at school, in court, or within the city. It is an easily decipherable code to individuals of the same circle and thus it excludes as much as it unites; the cohesion it creates almost always comes at the cost of the exclusion of others. This is the famous ‘laughter of exclusion’ that pitches two entities or two groups against each other. This is precisely what happens to Porcius Latro’s students, who were mockingly stigmatized because of the passivity which their teacher demanded from them in class: Indeed, Latro would never hear anyone declaim—he merely declaimed himself, saying he was a model, not a schoolteacher. [ . . .] At first, de­trac­tors called Latro’s pupils ‘listeners’ as an insult; later the word got into general currency, and ‘listener’ was used freely instead of ‘pupil’.14 (Sen. Contr. 9.2.23)

Here, taunts are initially used to stigmatize a declamatory practice which does not comply with Roman rules. Nevertheless, the criticism eventually wears off and the insulting term ‘listeners’ is gradually accepted. Following the same pattern, a group of individuals took aim at one of Clodius Sabinus’ habits. Unlike Argentarius and his former master Cestius, who, although both Greek, had made it a rule never to declaim in their own language, Clodius was one of those rhetoricians who declaimed in Latin, then took off their togas, put on Greek cloaks and, coming back, declaimed in Greek as if they had changed persona. This bilingual declamation practice15 earned Clodius the criticism of Haterius and Maecenas, as well as Cassius Severus: When some people were deploring that Sabinus got trifling pay even though he taught two things, Haterius said: ‘People who teach translation have never got a lot of money.’ Maecenas said: ‘You could not tell which side the son of Tydeus was fighting on.’ Cassius Severus said the prettiest

14  Neque enim illi mos erat quemquam audire declamantem; declamabat ipse tantum et aie­ bat se non esse magistrum sed exemplum; [. . .] Initio contumeliae causa a deridentibus discipuli Latronis auditores vocabantur; deinde in usu verbum esse coepit et promiscue poni pro discipulo auditor. 15  On the peculiarity of this practice, see Guérin in this volume.

Catherine Schneider  259 thing of all. Coming back from listening to Sabinus and being asked how his speech had gone, he replied: ‘Badly—et mal.’16  (Sen. Contr. 3.praef.16)

3.  Laughing Matter ‘Anything can be funny, but nothing is funny per se.’17 Laughter only occurs if we perceive something to laugh at, be it a physical characteristic, a stylistic idiosyncrasy or a psychological trait. We generally laugh at situations where inadequacy causes a feeling of absurdity;18 laughter is typically triggered by an exaggeration of traits or an inadequacy that is ridiculed, especially when it comes to making fun of a physical feature. Mockery serves to highlight some features over others: it makes people laugh in the same way a caricature would, because it magnifies and exaggerates some traits. It functions like a ‘hyperbolic characterization’, a ‘hypertypose’, to use a phrase coined by Philippe Heuzé.19 This is exemplified by the ‘clown’ Barrus jokingly telling Gargonius that he had ‘the voice of a hundred hoarse men’20 since he did indeed have, as Seneca informs us, a hoarse but powerful voice. Euctemon, too, mocks the rhetorician Festus, who was known for his brevity: ‘Before I saw you, I didn’t realize there were sixpenny rhetoricians.’21 16  Dixit Haterius quibusdam querentibus pusillas mercedes eum accepisse, cum duas res doceret: numquam magnas mercedes accepisse eos qui hermeneumata docerent. Maecenas dixit: Τυδείδην δ’οὐκ ἂν γνοίης, ποτέροισι μετείη. Cassius Severus venustissimam rem ex omnibus: qui ab auditione eius cum rediret, interrogatus quomodo dixisset, respondit: male καὶ κακῶς. 17  Blondel (1988) 19: ‘Tout peut faire rire, mais rien n’est drôle en soi.’ He adds: ‘Rien n’est risible, mais tout peut faire rire. Le rire est assez arbitraire. Personne ne vous oblige à rire, il n’y a pas toujours de quoi rire dans l’objet. C’est donc vous qui déclarez l’objet risible: le pouvoir hilarant n’est que dans votre pensée’ (Blondel (1988) 37). 18  On the ‘incongruity theory’, see Morreall (1983) 15–19; Atkinson (1993) 15–17; Lippitt (1994); Billig (2005) 57–85; Morreall (2009) 9–15. 19  For a definition of caricature, see Heuzé (2010) 177 and Cèbe (1966) 8–9: ‘La caricature se nourrit des défauts, physiques, intellectuels, ou moraux, de ceux qu’elle prend pour cible. Non seulement elle met ces défauts en lumière, mais elle les force jusqu’à l’outrance.’ 20 Sen. Contr. 1.7.18: Gargonius fuit Buteonis auditor, postea scholae quoque successor, vocis obtusae sed pugnacissimae, cui Barrus scurra rem venustissimam dixit: centum raucorum vocem habes (‘Gargonius was a pupil of Buteo, and later successor to his school, a man with a dim but combative voice; the buffoon Barrus said a very pretty thing to him: “You have the voice of a hundred hoarse men” ’). 21 Sen. Contr. 7.4.8: In hac controversia Publilianam sententiam dedit Festus quidam rhetor, staturae pusillae, in quem Euctemon, homo venustissimi ingeni, Graece dixit: antequam te viderem, nesciebam rhetoras victoriatos esse. (‘In this controversia an epigram of the Publilian kind was spoken by a rhetorician called Festus. He was a tiny man, of whom Euctemon, who

260  Laughing Is No Laughing Matter Both cases are described by Seneca as very funny and particularly witty (venustissimi).22 More often than not, mockery and ridicule do not target a physical feature, but an intellectual foible betrayed by the declamations themselves. They are used to highlight any form of inconsistency and to pinpoint all that is irrelevant or nonsensical,23 as Votienus Montanus does when he comments on the controversy Filia conscia in veneno privigni: Cestius divided the ‘conjecture’ into two parts, first asking: Did she need an accomplice? Next, if she has or had need of one, did she use this girl as one? But he kept no sense of proportion: for he spent a long time treating the point that a sister cannot be driven to kill her brother, while at the same time wanting to make her out so young as to be incapable of rendering any kind of assistance. Hence in this controversia the very pretty play that Votienus Montanus made of the stupidities of the rhetoricians: they declaimed as though the accused were an infant, not realizing that if that was so she could not even stand trial. ‘Thus what we must represent to ourselves’, he said, ‘is a girl of such an age as to make her committing a crime conceivable.’ He described as insupportable Cestius’ picture of the mother saying to her daughter, ‘Give your brother poison’ and the girl replying, ‘Mummy, what is poison?’24 (Sen. Contr. 9.6.10)

Seneca also criticizes Varius Geminus because, in Suasoria 6, he dares to suggest that Cicero should beg pardon of Antony, in blatant contradiction to Cicero’s personality. Seneca quotes just a few lines of his declamation and dismisses the rest of his speech, saying that Geminus added several other

had a very pretty wit, said in Greek: ‘Before I saw you, I didn’t realize there were sixpenny rhetoricians.’) 22  On the meaning and uses of venustus, see Krostenko (2001) 40–51 and 99–111; Lévy (2010). 23  Cf. Sen. Contr. 7.6.24, where Asinius Pollio mocks all declaimers for their illogical interpretation of a controversy. 24  Cestius in duas partes coniecturam divisit, et primum quaesiit an illi conscia opus fuerit; deinde: si opus est aut fuit, an hanc habuerit. Non servavit autem modum; nam et illum locum diu tractavit: non posse sororem in mortem fratris impelli, et interim tam puellam voluit videri ut nulli esset idonea ministerio. Itaque elegantissime deridebat Montanus Votienus in hac controver­ sia ineptias rhetorum, quod sic declamarent tamquam haec quae nominata est infans esset, nec intellegerent si talis esset ne futuram quidem ream. Itaque hoc debemus, inquit, nobis proponere: puellam eius aetatis, in qua †et torta† credibile scelus. Illud quidem intolerabile esse aiebat: induxerat Cestius matrem dicentem filiae: ‘da fratri venenum’,

Catherine Schneider  261 ‘jeers’, as usual.25 The use of repressive derision is based on superior know­ ledge. No utterance which is out of place or irrelevant, no sententia which is deemed childish,26 foolish,27 or stupid28 will escape the scrutiny of the mocker. Vinicius applies these principles in the following example: Vinicius, a man of extreme precision of mind, who could neither speak nor tolerate foolish things, used to make fun of another epigram of Saenianus’, and to compare it with one spoken in a speech of Votienus Montanus. Saenianus had said in this same controversia: ‘Nothing is more reliable than a child as witness, especially a five-year-old: he has reached the age where he can understand, but not yet the age where he can invent.’ ‘This definition’, said Vinicius, ‘is absurd: “Nothing is more reliable than a child as witness, especially a five-year-old”! Not if the witness is a child of four or six?’ He added, very nicely: ‘You might suppose something was at stake. Everything in this epigram betokens the circumspect man—the definition, the limitation: but nothing is more attractive than scrupulous stupidity.’ The epigram of Votienus Montanus which he said was similar to this he also derided: ‘The dog is an unsleeping and wakeful animal, particularly one on a chain, at the ready.’29 (Sen. Contr. 7.5.11–12)

25 Sen. Suas. 6.12: Et complura alia dixit scurrilia, ut illi mos erat. 26  Cf. Sen. Contr. 1.7.10, where Porcius Latro mocks a sententia of Blandus he considers childish; a color of Otho Senior is mocked in the same way in Sen. Contr. 10.5.25. On the use of puerilis, stultus, and ineptus as a way to criticize a vitium elocutionis, see Fairweather (1981) 221–7 and Sussman (1978) 94–131. 27  Cf. Sen. Contr. 1.5.3, where Cestius mocks a sententia of Argentarius as quasi improba; Sen. Contr. 1.7.18 also mentions one of Albucius’ sententiae, ‘disputed between the admirers and the mockers’. 28  According to Sen. Suas. 2.21: ‘an award for stupidity (testimonium stuporis) should go to the rhetorician Corvus’; ‘It was this Corvus who, while in charge of a school in Rome, declaimed to the Sosius who had conquered the Jews the controversia about the woman who argued before matrons that children should not be reared, and is therefore accused of harming the state. On this theme one of Corvus’ epigrams drew laughter: ‘Amid the scent-pots and the breath-lozenges stood the turbaned assembly’ (inter pyxides et redolentis animae medicamina constitit mirata contio). 29  Vinicius, exactissimi vir ingeni, qui nec dicere res ineptas nec ferre poterat, solebat hanc sententiam Saeniani deridere et similem illi referre in oratione dictam Montani Votieni. Saenianus in hac eadem controversia dixerat: nihil puero est teste certius, utique quinquenni; nam et ad eos pervenit annos ut intellegat, et nondum ad eos quibus fingat. Haec finitio, inquit, ridicula est: ‘nihil est puero teste certius, utique quinquenni’; puta nec si quadrimus puer testis est nec si sex annorum. Illud venustissime adiciebat: putes, inquit, aliquid agi: omnia in hac senten­ tia circumspecti hominis sunt, finitio, exceptio; nihil est autem amabilius quam diligens stultitia. Montani Votieni sententiam huic aiebat esse similem et deridebat hanc: insomne et experrectum est animal canis, utique catenarius, paratus. But Vinicius, as Seneca reports, ‘wasn’t altogether fair to Montanus as a man. He had accused him before the emperor, appearing for the colony of Narbo.’

262  Laughing Is No Laughing Matter Mockery can also target the style of a speech itself, as is the case with the rhetorician Moschus, whose manic dependence on figures of speech is ridiculed: Moschus spoke not badly, but he was his own worst enemy: he burned to say everything by means of a figure, with the result that his oratory was not figured but warped. And so it was not without wit that the rhetorician Pacatus, meeting him one morning in Marseille, greeted him with a figure: ‘I could have said: Hail, Moschus.’30 (Sen. Contr. 10.praef.10)

Mockery here is pastiche. By parodying the format of a greeting, Pacatus uses an apophasis to highlight Moschus’ stylistic idiosyncrasies. Cassius Severus, as we have seen, uses the same process when he makes fun of the fatuity of Cestius31 or Fabius Maximus’ infatuation with speaking in tricola— a disease that turns into an epidemic and infects the whole forum: But, to introduce a lighter note, Fabius Maximus was a very well-born man; he was the first to introduce to the Roman court the new evil that now afflicts it. Of him Cassius Severus, before being prosecuted by him, had said: ‘You are as it were eloquent, as it were handsome, as it were rich: the only thing you are not as it were is a good-for-nothing.’ Now when Maximus was declaiming this controversia, he uttered one of the tricola of the type affected by habitués of the basilica; he said (on the father’s side): ‘We have all of us weak ones brought you something to decide, one bringing the burdens of another. A father is accused in his last years, a grandson in his first, †no-one is being disinherited†.’32 (Sen. Contr. 2.4.11–12)

30  Moschus non incommode dixit, sed ipse sibi nocuit; nam dum nihil non schemate dicere cupit, oratio eius non figurata erat sed prava. Itaque non inurbane Pacatus rhetor, cum illi Massiliae mane occurrisset, schemate illum salutavit: ‘poteram’, inquit, ‘dicere: ave, Mosche’. Seneca says about him that ‘he was far from eloquent; born to brand insults on the talents of all, he saddled everyone with something that could not be escaped’. 31 Sen. Contr. 3.praef.16–18; see sections 1 and 2 of this chapter. 32  Sed ut aliquid iocemur, Fabius Maximus nobilissimus vir fuit, qui primus foro Romano hunc novicium morbum quo nunc laborat intulit; de quo Severus Cassius, antequam ab illo reus ageretur, dixerat: quasi disertus es, quasi formonsus es, quasi dives es; unum tantum es non quasi, vappa. Hanc controversiam cum declamaret, Maximus, dixit [quasi] tricolum tale qualia sunt quae basilicani sectantur. Dicebat autem a parte patris: Omnes aliquid ad vos inbecilli, alter alte­ rius onera, detulimus: accusatur pater in ultimis annis, nepos in primis, †abdicatur nullus†.

Catherine Schneider  263 Whereupon Seneca concludes: ‘I often record these things, because I ought to give you examples of things to avoid as well as things to imitate.’33 This shows the normative function of laughter; it provides countermodels, because these anecdotes, as amusing as they may be, are also instructive. Laughter acts as a signpost for ancient aesthetics and thus has an educational dimension. Both dogmatic and repressive, laughter and jokes can serve as a sometimes brutal corrective sanctioning any form of exaggerated expression or verbal excess, as in the case of Seneca Grandio:34 There was a Seneca [. . .], a man of disordered and wild character, who had a passion for big things: to such an extent that he eventually succumbed to a positive disease in this matter, and became a laughing stock for it. He wanted to have only big slaves and big silver dishes. You must believe me—I’m quite serious: his madness went so far that he even wore shoes too big for him, ate no ordinary figs but only marisks, and had a mistress of vast dimensions. As he approved everything that was big, he was given a cognomen (or, as Messala puts it, a cognomentum), and came to be known as Seneca Grandio. Once when I was a youth, during this suasoria, after posing the objection ‘But the Greek contingents have all fled’, he raised his hands, stood on tip-toe (as he normally did in his desire to get bigger) and shouted: ‘I am glad, I am glad!’ We wondered what good fortune could have befallen him. Then he added: ‘Xerxes will be all mine.’ He also said: ‘A man who has stolen the seas with his fleets, who has set a limit to the earth, while extending the deep, who orders nature to put on a new look, can certainly fortify his camp against the sky: I shall have the gods in the ranks with me.’35 (Sen. Suas. 2.17)

33 Sen. Contr. 2.4.12: Haec autem subinde refero quod aeque vitandarum rerum exempla ponenda sunt quam sequendarum. 34  On Roman cognomina, see Corbeill (1996) 57–98. 35  Seneca fuit, [. . .] ingenii confusi ac turbulenti, qui cupiebat grandia [dicere] adeo ut novis­ sime morbo huius rei et teneretur et rideretur; nam et servos nolebat habere nisi grandes et argentea vasa non nisi grandia. Credatis mihi velim non iocanti, eo pervenit insania eius ut cal­ ceos quoque maiores sumeret, ficus non esset nisi mariscas, concubinam ingentis staturae haberet. Omnia grandia probanti inpositum est cognomen vel, ut Messala ait, cognomentum, et vocari coepit Seneca Grandio. Aliquando iuvene me is in hac suasoria, cum posuisset contradictionem: ‘at omnes qui missi erant a Graecia fugerunt’, sublatis manibus, insistens summis digitis—sic enim solebat, quo grandior fieret—exclamat: gaudeo, gaudeo. Mirantibus nobis quod tantum illi bonum contigisset, adiecit: totus Xerses meus erit. Item dixit: iste, qui classibus suis maria sub­ ripuit, qui terras circumscripsit, dilatavit profundum, novam rerum naturae faciem imperat, ponat sane contra caelum castra: commilitones habebo deos. On Seneca Grandio, see Feddern (2013) 287–90.

264  Laughing Is No Laughing Matter Within this satirical portrait, the close relationship between lexis and ethos stands out. One might almost say—repeating the famous phrase of Buffon— that ‘the style is the man’. Especially wanting in those statements is the pre­ pon, the appropriateness of style; however, the delivery must also be appropriate. Failing that, both style and man can appear ridiculous. This involuntary ridiculousness which can discredit the speaker is that of ‘the clumsy one who fails at his effect, and is laughed at by ignoring (or misusing) the rule or by not having a sense of proportions, turning himself into a buffoon, since he unintentionally makes the others laugh at his expense’.36 This is precisely what happens to Q. Haterius who ‘in his anxiety to say nothing that was not elegant and brilliant, often fell into expressions that could not escape derision’. Seneca gives an account of a number of his blunders: I recall that he said, while defending a freedman who was charged with being his patron’s lover: ‘Losing one’s virtue is a crime in the freeborn, a necessity in a slave, a duty for the freedman.’ The idea became a handle for jokes, like ‘you aren’t doing your duty by me’ and ‘he gets in a lot of duty for him’. As a result the unchaste and obscene got called ‘dutiful’ for some while afterwards. I recall that much scope for jest was supplied to Asinius Pollio and then to Cassius Severus by an objection raised by him in these terms: ‘Yet, he says, in the childish laps of your fellow-pupils, you used a lascivious hand to give obscene instructions.’ And many things of this sort were brought up against him. There was much you could reprove— but much to admire; he was like a torrent that is impressive, but muddy in his flow.37 (Sen. Contr. 4.praef.10–11)

Haterius is a prolific orator who gets carried away by his own eloquence, without always being able to channel it, which is why he occasionally blurts out questionable sententiae.38 Mockery here punishes an at times debatable 36  Jaulin (2000) 320: ‘le ridicule involontaire [. . .] du maladroit qui rate son effet, et qui produit le rire par ignorance (ou mésusage) de la règle ou de la mesure, se trouvant ainsi être un bouffon malgré lui, puisqu’il fait rire l’autre à ses dépens sans l’avoir recherché’; on this subject, see Guérin (2009b) 197–204 and (2010) 265–303. 37  Memini illum, cum libertinum reum defenderet, cui obiciebatur, quod patroni concubinus fuisset, dixisse: inpudicitia in ingenuo crimen est, in servo necessitas, in liberto officium. Res in iocos abiit: ‘non facis mihi officium’ et ‘multum ille huic in officiis versatur’. Ex eo inpudici et obsceni aliquamdiu officiosi vocitati sunt. Memini et illam contradictionem sic ab illo positam magnam materiam Pollionis Asinii et tunc Cassi Severi iocis praebuisse: ‘at, inquit, inter pueriles condiscipulorum sinus lasciva manu obscena iussisti’. Et pleraque huius generis illi obiciebantur. Multa erant quae reprehenderes, multa quae suspiceres, cum torrentis modo magnus quidem sed turbidus flueret. 38  Augustus said about him ‘Haterius needs a brake’, as reported by Sen. Contr. 4.praef.7. On Q. Haterius, see Bornecque (1902) 170–1; Sussman (1978) 108–9.

Catherine Schneider  265 lexis, casting a shadow on the ethos of the orator. This example also shows that laughter is about control—Haterius here loses control over his own witti­cisms which come, so to speak, into a life of their own. With this in mind, one understands better why Cassius Severus out of precaution wrote down most of his speeches, even including the witticisms, although he would have happily made do without the support of his notes, given his remarkable improvisation abilities.39 Successful mockery in fact implies expertise and know-how: it requires subtlety and imagination as it runs counter to any learning or preparation.40 Effective mockery is all-powerful; it attests to the superior intellect of its author as the one who will have the last word. Asinius Pollio’s derision of the sententia of the rhetorician Triarius exemplifies this,41 or indeed the disertissima sententia of Dorion, who ‘made Leonidas say to the three hundred what [. . .] is also in Herodotus: “Take breakfast: you will dine in Hades,” whereupon Asilius Sabinus adds: “I should have accepted for breakfast, but declined for dinner.” ’42 Laughter is obviously not only a matter of control over others, but also of control over oneself and one’s faults.

4.  A Question of Control The rhetorician Cestius proves better than expected at this little game; in Sen. Contr. 9.6, he has the mother say ‘Give your brother poison’ and the

39 Sen. Contr. 3.praef.6: Sine commentario numquam dixit, nec hoc commentario contentus erat in quo nudae res ponuntur, sed ex maxima parte perscribebatur actio; illa quoque quae salse dici poterant adnotabantur; sed cum procedere nollet nisi instructus, libenter ab instrumentis recedebat. Ex tempore coactus dicere infinito se antecedebat. Numquam non utilius erat illi depre­ hendi quam praeparari; sed magis illum suspiceres quod diligentiam non relinquebat cum illi tam bene temeritas cederet. (‘He never spoke without notes, and he was not content merely with the sort that contain the bare bones of the speech, but to a large extent the whole would be written out. In this text, he used to note even possibilities for wit. However, though he was not ready to set off without equipment, he was glad to lay it aside. When he had to speak extempore, he far excelled himself, and it always paid him to find himself in a tight corner rather than to be prepared; all the more admirable that he did not abandon his care, considering that his daring was so successful.’) 40  Guérin (2011): 146–8. 41 Sen. Contr. 2.3.19. 42 Sen. Suas. 2.11–12: Non quidem in hac suasoria, sed in hac materia disertissima illa fertur sententia Dorionis, cum posuisset hoc dixisse trecentis Leonidam, quod puto etiam apud Herodotum esse: . Sabinus Asilius, venustissimus inter rhetoras scurra, cum hanc sententiam Leonidae rettulisset, ait: ego illi ad prandium promi­ sissem, ad cenam renuntiassem. (‘There is a very clever epigram of Dorion (spoken, admittedly, not on this theme, but on this topic); he made Leonidas say to the three hundred what I think is also in Herodotus: “Take breakfast: you will dine in Hades.” Asilius Sabinus, the most agreeable jester among the rhetoricians, after relating this remark of Leonidas’, said: “I should have accepted for breakfast, but declined for dinner.” ’)

266  Laughing Is No Laughing Matter girl answer ‘Mummy, what is poison?’43 We recall that this gave Votienus Montanus an opportunity to sneer at him, but soon Cestius regains the upper hand: Cestius realized he had been childish to say: ‘Mother, what is poison?’ For he laughed at Murredius, who imitated this epigram in his epilogue. Starting to address the girl, he had said: ‘Make yourself look like one in danger of condemnation. Pour forth tears, put your hands on the judges’ knees. You are a defendant.’ Then he had made the girl reply: ‘Father, what is a defendant?’ Cestius said: ‘If he said this to mock me, he was a witty man—and I now realize that mine is a foolish epigram. However, there is much that I say not because I like it but because the audience will like it.’44 (Sen. Contr. 9.6.12)

Cestius acknowledges his mistake and analyzes it, showing both intelligence and a sense of decorum. The inability to suffer even small-scale derision is the prerogative of the grumpy, but also of the boorish and the ignorant. The educated man is, however, capable of stoically suffering innocuous taunts: he can hide his chagrin, pretending to laugh first. The rules of urbanity demand that one keep up appearances even when made the target of a joke. The one who is laughed at must become the one who is capable of laughing at himself when necessary. Laughter is a weapon and, like many weapons, it is double-edged: one day you laugh at the expense of others and the next you become the laughing stock, like Q. Haterius.45 Cestius knows and accepts this, as shown by the story of the ‘wooden sack’, in which he cruelly ridicules Albucius Silus.46 Although Cestius’ declamation was greeted with laughter, it was overall unsuccessful, because he said very few good things. Noticing that his students did not praise him, he exclaimed: ‘Why does nobody put these people in a wooden sack and send them somewhere in the world where cups get

43  Cf. Sen. Contr. 9.6.10, quoted in Section 3. 44  Cestius pueriliter se dixisse intellegebat: ‘mater, quid est venenum?’; deridebat enim Murre­ dium qui hanc sententiam imitatus in epilogo, cum adloqui coepisset puellam et diceret: ‘compone te in periclitantium habitum, profunde lacrimas, manus ad genua dimitte, rea es’, fecerat respon­ dentem puellam: pater, quid est rea? Et aiebat Cestius: quod si ad deridendum me dixit, homo venustus fuit, et ego nunc scio me ineptam sententiam dicere; multa autem dico non quia mihi placent sed quia audientibus placitura sunt. 45  Q. Haterius is mocked by Seneca, Asinius Pollio, and Cassius Severus in Contr. 4.praef.10, whereas he mocks Clodius Sabinus in Contr. 9.3.14. 46  Cf. Sen. Contr. 7.praef.9, quoted in n. 12 of this chapter.

Catherine Schneider  267 broken but not sponges?’47 Undeterred by the audience’s disapproval, he continues to use this double mockery directed against Albucius Silus. He thereby displays here strength of character, in stark contrast to the weakness that he displayed in the presence of Cassius Severus.48 One of the basic rules governing the small world of orators and rhetoricians is that communication should never be broken off or interrupted. It is vital to have the last word, or at least not to be reduced to silence, unlike a certain ex-praetor whose name Seneca discretely keeps undisclosed: I remember a certain ex-praetor using this type of idea when he declaimed the controversia on the woman who sued her husband for maltreatment because she was still a virgin, and got him convicted: afterwards she seeks the priesthood. ‘We know’, he said, ‘the kind of abstinence displayed by husbands who, even if they don’t insist on the first night because the bride is frightened, nevertheless play about in the neighbourhood.’ Scaurus was listening—he was a witty as well as eloquent man, who allowed no folly to pass unpunished. At once he came out with ‘Wrong place’ from Ovid, and the other lost his thread and said no more.49 (Sen. Contr. 1.2.22)

The joust between Cicero and Laberius is exemplary in this regard, even if it does not receive Seneca’s full approval. He considers it elegant, but excessive: The blessed Julius Caesar presented Laberius as a mime at some games of his, then he assigned him equestrian rank; he told him to go and sit in the knights’ seats—and everyone huddled up so as not to let the newcomer in. Cicero used to be abused for being a friend of neither Pompey nor Caesar, though a flatterer of both. Caesar had at this time drafted many people into the senate, to fill up a class that had been drained by the civil wars,

47 Sen. Contr. 7.praef.9: Sed nec ipsi bene cessit declamatio; paucas enim res bonas dixit. Et cum a scholasticis non laudaretur, nemo, inquit, imponit hos in culleum ligneum, ut perveniant nescio quo terrarum, ubi calices franguntur, spongiae non franguntur? 48  Cf. Sen. Contr. 3.praef.16–18; see sections 1 and 2 of this chapter. 49  Hoc genus sensus memini quendam praetorium dicere, cum declamaret ­controversiam de illa quae egit cum viro malae tractationis quod virgo esset et damnavit: postea petit sacer­ dotium. Novimus, inquit, istam maritorum abstinentiam qui, etiamsi primam virginibus timidis remisere noctem, vicinis tamen locis ludunt. Audiebat illum Scaurus, non tantum dis­ ertissimus homo sed venustissimus, qui nullius umquam inpunitam stultitiam transire passus est; statim Ovidianum illud: ‘inepta loci’, et ille excidit nec ultra dixit. Scaurus (ibid.) ‘used to say this fault derived form the Greek declaimers, who allowed themselves every licence— and got away with it’. For further commentary, see Buchheit (1988) and (2001); Beck (2001); Mannering in this volume.

268  Laughing Is No Laughing Matter and also to pay off men who had deserved well by his party. Cicero made a joke about both these things. He sent a message as Laberius passed: ‘I should have let you in—but I was rather cramped in my seat.’ Laberius sent a message back to Cicero: ‘Yet you generally sit on two seats.’ Both sayings are very witty, but neither man can restrain himself in this field. From them imitation of this habit spread widely.50 (Sen. Contr. 7.3.9–10)

The scathing but ever so witty reply of Laberius to Cicero elevates him from the rank of mimus to that of eques,51 from a jester who unintentionally makes others laugh at his own expense to an ironist who, to use Aristotle’s taxonomy, intentionally makes others laugh at the expense of others.52 Aristotle establishes one essential distinction between laughing and making others laugh—he not only categorizes individuals based on the topics that make them laugh and on the way they laugh, but also on the way they make others laugh. At the top of the hierarchy of laughter is the eutrapelos, the witty man, who knows how to avoid the abrasiveness of the boorish (the agroikos) and the excessive jesting of the buffoon (the bоmolochos).53 According to Aristotle, ‘People who make jokes to excess are regarded as vulgar buffoons, always on the look-out for what is funny and trying to raise a laugh rather than to speak decorously and to avoid offending the person who is being made fun of.’54 In this regard Thersites, in the Iliad, represents the archetypal buffoon who cannot refrain from jesting and is driven only

50  Laberium divus Iulius ludis suis mimum produxit, deinde equestri illum ordini reddidit; iussit ire sessum in equestria; omnes ita se coartaverunt ut venientem non reciperent. Cicero male audiebat tamquam nec Pompeio certus amicus nec Caesari, sed utriusque adulator. Multos tunc in senatum legerat Caesar, et ut repleret exhaustum bello civili ordinem et ut eis qui bene de parti­ bus meruerant, gratiam referret. Cicero in utramque rem iocatus ; misit enim ad Laberium transeuntem: recepissem te nisi anguste sederem. Laberius ad Ciceronem remisit: atqui soles dua­ bus sellis sedere. Uterque elegantissime, sed neuter in hoc genere servat modum. Ab his huius studii diffusa est in plures imitatio. This joust is also reported by Macr. Sat. 2.3.10 and 7.3.8; cf. Panayotakis (2009) 56–7; Beard (2014) 121 and 246 n.14. 51  As explained by Cassius Severus in Sen. Contr. 7.3.9: ‘The author of this vice—the one arising from a play on a single word that means more than one thing—was the writer of Atellans, Pomponius. The habit spread by imitation first to Laberius, then to Cicero; and it was he who brought it to the level of a virtue.’ 52  According to Arist. Rhet. 3.18.1419b, as for jests, ‘some of them [are] becoming [to] a gentleman, others not. You should therefore choose the kind that suits you. Irony is more gentle­man­ly than buffoonery; for the first is employed on one’s own account, the second on that of another’ (tr. Freese). That is perhaps why Cicero’s enemies used to call him a consularis scurra, according to Macr. Sat. 2.1.12; on Cicero as ‘the most infamous funster, punster, and jokester of classical antiquity’, see Haury (1955) and Beard (2014) 116–22. 53  See most recently Walker (2019) 113–18, Guérin (2019) 134–7. 54 Arist. EN 4.8.1128a (tr. Taylor).

Catherine Schneider  269 by his desire to make those around him laugh;55 in Seneca, this role is played to a lesser extent by the rhetorician Asilius Sabinus who, a few cen­ tur­ies later, represents a version of Thersites’ character. Seneca even awards him, so to speak, the title of venustissimus inter rhetoras scurra, ‘the most agreeable jester among the rhetoricians’.56

5.  The Asilius Sabinus ‘Case’ Seneca paints a nuanced portrait of Asilius Sabinus who, in his own words, ‘was a very witty man [. . .] and so he made up by his wit for any deficiency in his eloquence’.57 He also reports several well received witticisms of his own.58 No sooner, however, does Seneca approve of Sabinus’ treatment of the famous controversy A filio in arce pulsatus—which, as he says, was declaimed well even by Asilius Sabinus—than he immediately withdraws his approval because of Sabinus’ unwelcome propensity to laugh at everything: ‘I didn’t approve of his trying to jest so frequently on a serious subject.’59 Some subjects simply are no laughing matter; this rule has been well known since Plato, but Asilius Sabinus seems to ignore it. As a consequence, his constant jesting is deemed out of place. To avoid indecency or buffoonery, a good orator must take both his audience and the speech’s wider circumstances into account. There is a time and a place for everything, austere or light, serious or fun:60 the assembly, the court, and especially prison are—usually—places where it is not acceptable to laugh. Cassius Severus is, from this point of view, a model of reliability and professionalism; he accurately discriminates between the private and public spheres, and between the personal and official. Seneca tells us that ‘the dignity which he lacked in his life he possessed in plenty in his speech. So long as he steered clear of jokes, his oratory was worthy of a censor.’61 Accordingly, there is an implicit rule that imposes limits on laughter or bans 55 Hom. Il. 2.265–71. 56 Sen. Suas. 2.12. On the scurra, see Corbett (1986); Guérin (2011) 265–88; Beard (2014) 176–9. 57 Sen. Contr. 9.4.17: Erat autem urbanissimus homo, ut vobis saepe narravi, ut quidquid in eloquentia illi deerat urbanitate pensaret. On Asilius Sabinus, see Bornecque (1902) 153. 58  As in Sen. Suas. 2.11–12, quoted in n.22 of this chapter. 59 Sen. Contr. 9.4.17: Hanc controversiam et ab Asilio Sabino bene declamari memini. [. . .] Illud non probavi, quod multa in re severa temptavit salse dicere. 60  For Cicero’s rhetorical and philosophical approach to that rule, see Guérin (2019). 61 Sen. Contr. 3.praef.4: Nec enim quicquam magis in illo mirareris quam quod gravitas, quae deerat vitae, actioni supererat: quamdiu citra iocos se continebat, censoria oratio erat.

270  Laughing Is No Laughing Matter it on any occasion where one should at least appear serious. Sabinus, however, ignores these limits or exceeds them frequently: He had accompanied the proconsul Occius Flamma to his province, Crete. The Greeks began to demand in the theatre that Sabinus should have the highest powers. Now in Crete magistrates customarily wear beard and hair long. Sabinus got up, and gestured for silence. Then he said: ‘I have twice carried out this office in Rome.’ For he had twice been accused in court. The Greeks did not understand, but showered blessings on the emperor, and begged that Sabinus should have the honour a third time too. Later, the Greeks were offended by the whole troop of camp-followers. These were besieged in a temple by the whole mob, which demanded that Sabinus should go to Rome with Turdus—Turdus being one of the most infamous and hated of them. Turdus promised to go, so as to get out of the temple. Sabinus called for silence and said: ‘I don’t propose to go to the emperor with a titbit.’ Later this was made a charge against Sabinus at his trial.62 (Sen. Contr. 9.4.19–20)

Asilius Sabinus fails in this political and diplomatic context through badly timed jokes: intent on being facetious at all costs, he aims at being funny rather than to observe the decorum required in this situation. After all, one of the main duties of the mocker is to take into account the people that make up his audience. Sabinus’ first joke is not understood by the Greeks and therefore has no effect. But the second one hurts both the jester and the victim: there is always the danger that a failed bon mot will offend the audience. It is precisely one of the faults—and risks—of the jester that he ends up upsetting or insulting the audience while meaning to make ­people laugh. Useful as it may be, laughing and making people laugh is a perilous practice, insofar as it can obscure the orator’s sense of proportion and his awareness of the rules of decorum. In addition, it poses the constant threat

62  Secutus erat in provinciam Cretam Occium Flammam proconsulem. Graeci coeperunt in theatro postulare ut Sabinus maximum magistratum gereret. Mos autem est barbam et capillum magistratui Cretensium summittere. Surrexit Sabinus et silentium manu fecit; deinde ait: hunc magistratum ego Romae bis gessi. Bis enim reus causam dixerat. Graeci non intellexerunt, sed bene precati Caesari petebant ut illum honorem Sabinus et tertio gereret. Postea deinde offendit illos tota comitum cohors: oppressi sunt in templo ab omni multitudine, quae postulabat ut Romam Sabinus cum Turdo proficisceretur: erat inter infames maxime et invisos homines Turdus. Cum Turdus promitteret iturum se, ut inde posset exire, Sabinus silentio facto ait: ego ad Caesarem non sum iturus cum mattea. Postea hoc Sabino cum causam diceret obiectum est. The name Turdus means ‘thrush’ (Winterbottom (1974) 2. 302 n. 2).

Catherine Schneider  271 of making the orator lose control of himself: ‘The only completely effective way to preserve his [the orator’s] dignity is therefore to shun making ­others laugh.’63 Constantly on the lookout for a way to entertain, the buffoon loses selfrestraint; he is a slave to his own desire to make people laugh. Sparing no one, he does not spare himself either—yet another trait found in Asilius Sabinus who, even during the darkest hours of his life, cannot help but laugh at his own expense. Imprisoned by Sejanus and literally starving, he is brought from prison to the Senate to ask for a daily ration of food; he begins to speak eloquently, but soon, his nature gets the best of him, as reported by Seneca: He moved people by his pitiful and eloquent speech, but he returned to jesting: he asked to be transferred to the stone-quarries. ‘None of you need be deceived by the word stone-quarry (lautumia): the actual thing is far from cushy (lauta).’ I have related this to you [adds Seneca] so that you could get to know the man himself a little, and see how difficult he found it to escape from his own nature. How could he be got to steer clear of jokes in his declamations, this man who used to jest amid his troubles and dangers? We all know he shouldn’t have joked in those circumstances, but no one believes that he was capable of it.64 (Sen. Contr. 9.4.21)

Here, the freedom of laughter stands in stark contrast to the taboo of death. Only two kinds of men can defy this taboo: buffoons and heroes. Since he makes a pun despite his critical circumstances, Asilius Sabinus stands between these two categories. Freud observed that individuals who practise ‘gallows humour’, as it has been called, have some ‘magnanimity’. He even goes as far as to speak of the ‘magnanimity of humour’65 which can rise above reality. Laughter and ridicule, which would later be employed by saints and martyrs, therefore constitute a triumph over death.

63  Guérin (2009b) 199: ‘Le seul moyen parfaitement efficace de conserver sa dignité consiste donc à refuser de faire rire autrui.’ 64  Et cum dixisset Seianianos locupletes in carcere esse: homo, inquit, adhuc indemnatus, ut possim vivere, parricidas panem rogo. Cum movisset homines et flebili oratione et diserta, redit tamen ad sales: rogavit ut in lautumias transferretur: non est, inquit, quod quemquam vestrum decipiat nomen ipsum lautumiae; illa enim minime lauta res est. Hoc rettuli ut et ipsum hominem ex aliqua parte nossetis et illud sciretis, quam difficile esset naturam suam effugere. Quomodo posset ab illo obtineri ne in declamationibus iocaretur qui iocabatur in miseriis ac periculis suis, in quibus iocari eum non debuisse quis nescit, potuisse quis credit? 65  Freud (2002 = 1905) 367.

272  Laughing Is No Laughing Matter

6.  The Buffoon, the Boorish, and the Witty Choices regarding jokes and laughter always imply social positioning: our judgments judge us. Appreciating and making acceptable jokes is a sign of social distinction: it is the mark of the eutrapelos, i.e. the ‘witty’, who is also a man of taste. Unlike the buffoon, he has enough self-restraint66 and tact, as well as a sense of propriety, to entertain his audience without shocking them. He knows and adheres to the decorum of laughter that enhances humour’s courteous and civilized forms—thus displaying what Romans call urbanitas.67 It is precisely the posture of the eutrapelos that Seneca the Elder himself adopts when he in turn approves or disapproves of the sententiae of the rhetoricians Albucius, Fabius Maximus, Seneca Grandio, or Asilius Sabinus, posing as an ‘arbiter of elegance’, or rather an ‘arbiter of intelligence’. In the person of Seneca as well as in the eutrapelos, discernment meets good taste. Unlike the bоmolochos and the eutrapelos, however, the agroikos (i.e. the ‘boorish’) never makes any jokes and cannot even stand jokes to be made in his presence. He belongs to the agelastes, the dreadful group of people who do not know how to laugh.68 Laughing too much and never laughing are two extremes that are equally frowned upon. These categories are represented at least twice in Seneca the Elder’s work. When it comes to laughter and mockery, no one is spared, not even politicians, as shown by the epigram of Calvus against Pompey69 or the witticisms of the rhetorician Craton: This is Craton, a very witty man and professed Asianist, who waged war on everything Attic. When the emperor gave him a talent he said: ‘Either add something or take something off, to stop it being Attic.’ He also said to the emperor, who only came to listen to him in the month of December: ‘You are using me as a furnace.’ And when he was commended by the 66  Guérin (2009b) 202. 67  On the meaning and uses of urbanus and urbanitas, see Quint. Inst. 6.3.17–18 and Lutsch (1881); Bléry (1909); Heerdegen (1918); Frank (1932); De Saint Denis (1939); Ramage (1960), (1963), and (1973); Saint Denis (1965) 144–65; Valenti (1976); Celentano (1997); Guérin (2011) 240–65. 68  Aristotle deals with this subject in EN 10.6.1176b; see afterwards Cic. Fin. 5.92; Cic. Tusc. 3.31; Plin. Nat. 7.79; Sol. Polyhistor 3, etc. and Walker (2019). On the relationship between laughter and power, see Corbeill (1996) 174–217 and Beard (2014) 149–55. 69  On Calvus, see Sen. Contr. 7.4.7: Et carmina quoque eius, quamvis iocosa sint, plena sunt ingentis animi. Dicit de Pompeio: digito caput uno / scalpit. Quid credas hunc sibi velle? Virum. (‘His poetry, too, though not serious, is full of great spirit. He says of Pompey: “With one finger he scratches / His head. What do you think he wants? A man.” ’)

Catherine Schneider  273 emperor to Passienus and didn’t bother about it, he said to someone who asked why he didn’t welcome the friendship of so great a man: ‘I don’t light the lamp when the sun is blazing.’70 (Sen. Contr. 10.5.21)

In the first example, jesting occurs in the absence of the target; in the second example, in the presence of the target. The taunts are so elegant and skilfully coined that they are harmless and therefore safe for their author. In addition to the question of place and time, the relationship between the subject and the object of laughter is indeed finely tuned. Taunting someone entails treating him as an inferior or, at most, as an equal—an acceptable practice among rhetoricians or orators of the same rank, but a dangerous one with the great and mighty, because it does not show due respect. Timagenes was perhaps denied access to the house of Caesar precisely because of his acid tongue; Seneca says that he was ‘over-free with it because [. . .] he hadn’t been free himself over a long period’: From a captive he had become a cook, from a cook a chair-carrier; from being a chair-carrier he had struggled into the friendship of the emperor. But he despised both his present and his past fortunes to such an extent that, when the emperor, angry with him on many counts, barred him from his house, he burned the histories he had written recounting the emperor’s deeds, as though barring him, in his turn, form access to his genius. He was a fluent and witty man, who came out with many outrageous but at­tractive things.71 (Sen. Contr. 10.5.22)

Besides elegance, caution becomes increasingly necessary in a state where republican liberties are restrained by potentates, who self-consciously and jealously guard their authority. While discussing the suasoria of Deliberat Alexander, an Oceanum naviget, Cestius emphasizes how risky it is to make

70  Hic est Craton, venustissimus homo et professus Asianus, qui bellum cum omnibus Atticis gerebat. Cum donaret illi Caesar talentum: ἢ πρόσθες, φησίν, ἢ ἄφελ’, ἵνα μὴ Ἀττικὸν ᾖ. Hic Caesari, quod illum numquam nisi mense Decembri audiret, dixit: ὡς βαύνῳ μοι χρῇ; et cum commendaretur a Caesare Passieno nec curaret, interroganti, quare non conplecteretur tanti viri gratiam: ἡλίου καίοντος, λύχνον οὐχ ἅπτω. 71  Saepe solebat apud Caesarem cum Timagene confligere, homine acidae linguae et qui nimis liber erat: puto quia diu non fuerat. Ex captivo cocus, ex coco lecticarius, ex lecticario usque in amicitiam Caesaris enixus, usque eo utramque fortunam contempsit, et in qua erat et in qua fuerat, ut, cum illi multis de causis iratus Caesar interdixisset domo, combureret historias rerum ab illo gestarum, quasi et ipse illi ingenio suo interdiceret: disertus homo et dicax, a quo multa inprobe sed venuste dicta.

274  Laughing Is No Laughing Matter fun of the powerful and how this insidious weapon can unpredictably turn against those who wield it in defiance of established hierarchies:72 Cestius used to say that this type of suasoria should be declaimed differently in different places. ‘One’s opinion should be stated in one way in a free country, in another before kings, who need to be given even salutary advice in such a way as to give them pleasure. And even among kings distinctions are to be made. Some can tolerate the truth better than ­others. Alexander is to be classed among those who are by tradition particularly proud, puffed up beyond mortal standards [. . .]’. Cestius accordingly used to say that nothing should be said that did not show the highest respect towards the king, in case the speaker should meet with the same fate as Alexander’s tutor, a cousin of Aristotle, whom the king killed because of a witticism that was both outspoken and untimely. Alexander wanted to be regarded as a god; once he was wounded, and, seeing his blood, the tutor said he was surprised that it was not the ‘ichor, such as flows in the veins of the blessed gods’. Alexander used the spear to get revenge for this joke. The point is neatly made in a letter of Cassius to Cicero: after a good deal of pleasantry about the stupidity of the young Pompey, who recruited an army in Spain and was defeated at the battle of Munda, he says: ‘Here we are deriding him—but I’m afraid he may have his sneer back—with his sword.’ In dealings with every king, one has to be shy of this sort of wit.73 (Sen. Suas. 1.5)

Laughter is, in this case, an offence against sacred values which set strict boundaries. Its irreverence makes it seem lawless or criminal: ‘It is suspected

72  On Cestius’ advice, see also van Mal-Maeder in this volume. 73  Aiebat Cestius hoc genus suasoriarum aliter declamandum esse [quam suaden­ dum]. Non eodem modo in libera civitate dicendam sententiam quo apud reges, quibus etiam quae prosunt ita tamen ut delectent suadenda sunt. Et inter reges ipsos esse discrimen: quosdam minus, alios magis veritatem pati; Alexandrum ex iis esse quos superbissimos et supra mortalis animi modum inflatos accepimus. [. . .] Itaque nihil dicendum aiebat nisi cum summa venera­ tione regis, ne accideret idem quod praeceptori eius, amitino Aristotelis, accidit, quem occidit propter intempestive liberos sales; nam cum se deum vellet videri et vulneratus esset, viso san­ guine eius philosophus mirari se dixerat, quod non esset ἰχώρ, οἷός πέρ τε ῥέει μακάρεσσι θεοῖσιν. Ille se ab hac urbanitate lancea vindicavit. Eleganter in C. Cassi epistula quadam ad M. Ciceronem missa positum: multum iocatur de stultitia Cn. Pompei adulescentis, qui in Hispania contraxit exercitum et ad Mundam acie victus est; deinde ait: ‘nos quidem illum deridemus, sed timeo ne ille nos gladio ἀντιμυκτηρίσῃ’. In omnibus regibus haec urbanitas extimescenda est.

Catherine Schneider  275 of treason and feared of all the secular and spiritual powers. Intrusive, it undermines values and status. Its power lies in denial.’74 The syntax of laughter thus imposes several important rules, summarized by Cicero in the Orator: We here merely suggest that the orator should use ridicule with a care not to let it be too frequent lest it become buffoonery; nor ridicule of a smutty nature, lest it be that of low farce; nor pert, lest it be impudent; nor aimed at misfortune, lest it be brutal; nor at crime, lest laughter take the place of loathing; nor should the wit be inappropriate to his own character, to that of the jury, or to the occasion; for all these points come under the head of impropriety. He will also avoid far-fetched jests, and those not made up at the moment but brought from home; for these are generally frigid. He will spare friends and dignitaries, will avoid rankling insult; he will merely prod his opponents, nor will he do it constantly, nor to all of them nor in every manner.75 (Cic. Or. 88–89)

Unlike Cicero, however, Seneca does not compose a theoretical treatise on laughter; he prefers to teach his sons by example, rather than precept. Seneca’s work presents itself as a kind of ars, a pleasant and practical handbook of laughter for the future vir bonus iocandi peritus. His rules are the very same ones that we find enacted in Renaissance courtesy books or Italian treatises of courtisanerie, such as the famous Libro del cortegiano by Baldassar Castiglione:76 do not lend yourself to ridicule, do not laugh at yourself, do not laugh at everything or everybody. In the Rome of Seneca the Elder, as in the Italian Renaissance, laughter is definitely no laughing matter.

74  Blondel (1988) 87–8: ‘il est suspect de lèse-majesté et redouté de toutes les puissances temporelles et spirituelles. Attentatoire, il met à mal toutes les valeurs et dignités. Sa toutepuissance tient à la négation’. 75  Illud admonemus tamen ridiculo sic usurum oratorem, ut nec nimis frequenti ne scurrile sit, nec subobsceno ne mimicum, nec petulanti ne improbum, nec in calamitatem ne inhumanum, nec in facinus ne odi locum risus occupet, neque aut sua persona aut iudicum aut tempore alienum. Haec enim ad illud indecorum referuntur. Vitabit etiam quaesita nec ex tempore ficta sed domo allata quae plerumque sunt frigida. Parcet et amicitiis et dignitatibus, vitabit insanabi­ lis contumelias, tantummodo adversarios figet nec eos tamen semper nec omnis nec omni modo (tr. Hubbell). 76  On this subject, see Ménager (1995) 149–85; Galimberti Biffino (2010); Fontaine (2010) 447–510.

14

Intertextuality in Seneca the Elder Julien Pingoud and Alessandra Rolle

Ex illis, qui res ineptas dixerant, ‘primus ibi ante omnis’ Musa voster (‘Of those who said foolish things, first before all was your friend Musa’):1 it is with this remark that, in the seventh book of the Controversiae, Seneca the Elder introduces a sententia of the rhetor Musa, whom his sons, who are the dedicatees of the Controversiae and Suasoriae, are quite fond of. Here, Seneca obviously differs from them. The formula primus ibi ante omnis, ‘first before all’, is borrowed from the passage in the second book of the Aeneid that describes the discovery of the wooden horse by the Trojans.2 In Virgil, these four words are applied to Laocoön, when he guides the crowd out of the city of Troy.3 The association of Musa with this mythological figure, through the reference to Virgil, can be interpreted in many ways. Laocoön is famous for his failure to persuade his fellow citizens of the danger represented by the Greek gift and especially for his speech, which was wholly unpersuasive. By evoking him, Seneca shapes his readers’ judgment and makes them aware of the highly ridiculous character (cf. res ineptas) of Musa’s sententia. In Virgil, however, Laocoön is presented as a noble figure who is the misunderstood bearer of truth:4 as such, he appears as a counterexample to the figure of Musa, who is all the more denigrated in the light of this comparison. What, then, is the relationship that ties Seneca to intertextuality? Until now, critics have mostly been preoccupied with showing that this inherent aspect of literary creation—as the ancients conceived it—is of great 1 Sen. Contr. 7.5.10. Unless otherwise specified, the text of Seneca the Elder used as well as the translation (with adaptations) are those of Winterbottom’s edition (1974). These reflections are part of a larger project ‘L’intertextualité des déclamations’, funded by the Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF) and directed by Danielle van Mal-Maeder. For the final result of this project, see Pingoud and Rolle (2020). 2  This famous citation is picked up in each and every commentary. See, for example, in Berti (2007) 207 n. 1. 3  Cf. Verg. Aen. 2.40. 4  Cf. Verg. Aen. 2.40–56 and 220–7. Julien Pingoud and Alessandra Rolle, Intertextuality in Seneca the Elder In: Reading Roman Declamation: Seneca the Elder. Edited by: Martin T. Dinter, Charles Guérin, and Marcos Martinho, Oxford University Press (2020). © Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198746010.003.0014

280  Intertextuality in Seneca the Elder relevance in the commentaries that punctuate the Controversiae and Suasoriae. As Berti has already emphasized, Seneca’s analysis is carried out through the prism of the imitatio/aemulatio process: Seneca evaluates the excerpts cited in relation to the success—or failure—of the author’s ability to outdo his model, be it a rhetorical text or a poetic work.5 Moreover, Seneca’s work is significant, since he bears witness to the antique conception of inter­text­ual­ity, which is based on the complicity between the author and the listener/audience.6 He does not, however, limit himself to literary criticism, but actively practises an allusive writing style. Our study aims to reveal that the texts written by him, namely the prefaces and the commentaries that are intermeshed with citations, are constructed on the basis of echoes of other works. We want to stress a specific function of intertext which is well represented in the Controversiae and Suasoriae: the characterization of the different speakers in the collection. In the first section, we observe how Seneca uses this process to display aspects of his own persona. In the second part, we show how Seneca plays a complex game of allusions to the rhetorical works of Cicero, thus constructing the figure of Marcus Porcius Latro in opposition to Greek models of eloquence.7

1.  The Construction of a Didactic Persona Julien Pingoud Does the work of Seneca the Elder have a pedagogical purpose? At the very least, it seems to fulfil a documentary purpose, if we consider that the goal announced in the first preface of the Controversiae—which also operates as a prologue to the entire collection—is to make the texts of previous declaimers accessible.8 Another of Seneca’s aims, expressed in the same preface, consists of encouraging his three sons, and probably also a larger audience, to improve their eloquence. The memorialist highlights the didactic potential of declamatory excerpts in his book, which he offers as a series of

5  Cf. Berti (2007) 251–64. 6  In this respect, see, for example, the famous anecdote in Sen. Suas. 3.6–7 concerning the ‘Virgilian syntagm’ plena deo reused by Ovid. On this passage and the theories of intertextuality in Seneca the Elder, see Berti (2007) 282–290 and Peirano (2013). 7  The authors are grateful to Danielle van Mal-Maeder and Olivier Thévenaz for reading and commenting on this chapter. Thanks are also due to Anas Sareen for his English translation. 8  Cf. Sen. Contr. 1.praef.1.

Julien Pingoud and Alessandra Rolle  281 ­ odels to be imitated as much as possible: quo plura exempla inspecta sunt, m plus in eloquentiam proficitur (‘the more examples one examines, the greater advantage to one’s eloquence’).9 However, a simple repertoire of citations cannot allow readers to become better orators. Indeed, they must differentiate among all these texts, choosing by which they should be inspired and which they should reject. Nevertheless, the citations are sometimes accompanied by positive or negative evaluations, in which Seneca expresses himself employing the technical vocabulary that he otherwise uses as a literary critic.10 Furthermore, in the last preface of the Controversiae, he establishes a hierarchy among authors by electing his top four declaimers, called the primum tetradeum, where Latro and Gallio hold the first rank, Arellius Fuscus and Albucius the second.11 We might consider these different stances as fulfilling a pedagogical function, for they are intended to ‘correctly form the judgments’ of readers.12 Despite these aspects, one might ask whether Seneca has set out to construct his image as a teacher of rhet­ oric. Indeed, such a posture is never explicitly assumed in the prefaces and in other passages where the reader perceives his voice. Nevertheless, this section aims to show how the didactic ego of the collection manifests itself through intertextual links. My aim is to examine a series of parallels pointed out by critics, which have not yet been analysed in depth.

Seneca and Cicero In the preface to Book 2 of the Controversiae, Seneca discusses the life, declamatory style, and education of Fabianus, without forgetting to mention the mentors from whom he received his rhetorical instruction, especially a certain Blandus: Habuit et Blandum rhetorem praeceptorem, qui primus eques Romanus Romae docuit; ante illum intra libertinos praeceptores pulcherrimae disciplinae continebantur, et minime probabili more turpe erat docere quod honestum erat discere. 9 Sen. Contr. 1.praef.6. Concerning Seneca’s different didactic postures, see van MalMaeder in this volume. 10  Cf. Bardon (1940). 11  Cf. Sen. Contr. 10.praef.12–13. On the competitive aspect of Seneca’s criticism, see Barney (2018) 42–68. About the figures of Latro and Albucius, see pp. 294–306 and 287–291 below. 12  Our translation of Guérin (2009a) 11.

282  Intertextuality in Seneca the Elder (He also had the rhetorician Blandus for his teacher, the first Roman knight to teach in Rome. Before his time, the teaching of the most noble of subjects was restricted to freedmen, and by a quite unsatisfactory custom it was accounted disgraceful to teach what it was honourable to learn.) (Sen. Contr. 2.praef.5)

By underlining the paradoxical nature of the circumstances in which rhet­ oric was taught in Rome, Seneca seems to adapt a sentence from Cicero’s Orator to his own perspective. Indeed, the final phrase of the excerpt, turpe erat docere quod honestum erat discere, reminds us of a passage in which Cicero deplores the lack of consideration that rhetoricians faced: Num igitur aut latere eloquentia potest aut id quod dissimulat effugit aut est periculum ne quis putet in magna arte et gloriosa turpe esse docere alios id quod ipsi fuerit honestissimum discere? (For all that, can eloquence be hidden, or does what it tries to conceal really escape notice, or is there any danger that anyone will think in connection with this great and glorious art that it is a disgrace to teach others what it was highly honourable for himself to learn?)13 (Cic. Or. 145)

Besides the emphasis with which oratory is qualified in these two passages (cf. pulcherrimae disciplinae/magna arte et gloriosa), the verbal echoes are so poignant that one could see the passage as a kind of quote: turpe erat docere/turpe esse docere; quod honestum erat discere /quod [. . .] fuerit hones­ tissimum discere. In the Orator, Cicero’s sententia is all the more salient as it paraphrases a rhetorical question asked previously: cur [. . .] quod nosse pul­ cherrimum est id non gloriosum est docere? (‘Why is it not honourable to teach that which is most important to know?’)14 Through this echo, Seneca seems to be relying on Cicero’s authority—and therefore on that of an outstanding orator—to give weight to his own opinion and convince the reader that the teaching of rhetoric is a noble activity. However, one may also interpret this recollection as a way for Seneca to assimilate his persona with that of Cicero in the Orator, which depicts the ‘ideal orator’ or summus orator, by pursuing a pedagogical goal.15 The treatise addresses those who devote themselves to studium eloquentiae, and encourages them in the preface to

13 Trans. Hendrickson (1939). Parallel noticed by Bornecque (1932) 2.312 n. 5 and Win­ terbottom (1974) 1.202. 14 Cic. Or. 142. 15  Cf. Cic. Or. 7.

Julien Pingoud and Alessandra Rolle  283 pursue the best possible mastery of rhetoric.16 Here, the sentence imitated by Seneca originates from a passage located halfway through the Orator, in which Cicero justifies his stance as a teacher by affirming his intention to ‘instruct students of oratory’.17 In this instance, Seneca compares himself to other Roman orators and even designates—probably in false modesty—his qualities as a teacher to be better than his capacities as an orator: illi dicere melius quam praecipere, nos contra fortasse possumus (‘they were better able to speak than to lay down precepts’).18 Admittedly, one could establish a long list of differences that emerge when reading Seneca’s work alongside that of Cicero. The most important of those differences would be that highlighted by Guérin in his comparison of the Controversiae and Suasoriae with another rhetorical treatise by Cicero, the Brutus: Seneca’s voice discreetly allows the readers the freedom to forge their own opinion of the declaimers under discussion, unlike Cicero who assumes ‘the monopoly of competence’ and ‘the exclusive right to voice a fully receivable rhetorical appreciation’.19 Despite this difference and the fact that Seneca is also attempting to instruct his readers on matters of eloquence, it seems reasonable to suppose that he considers Cicero’s treatises as models—and even as counter-models on certain subjects. His use of a sentence from the Orator therefore seeks to underline this link. By redeploying this sententia on his own account, Seneca also activates the context from which it arises and therefore adopts the mask of Cicero the rhetorician.

Seneca and Ovid Insofar as the image of an ‘I’ is built in relation to that of a ‘you’, the selfrepresentation that Seneca offers is constructed by the ways in which his addressees are defined. His three sons are always addressed as ‘young ones’, iuvenes, as in the following: facitis autem, iuvenes mei, rem necessariam et utilem quod non contenti exemplis saeculi vestri prioris quoque vultis cognos­ cere.20 This apostrophe constitutes a fictional mise en scène.21 On the one 16  Cf. Cic. Or. 6: neque illud ipsum quod est optimum desperandum est (‘For we must not despair of attaining the best’). 17  For the Latin text, see Cic. Or. 141: me studiosis dicendi praecepta [. . .] traditurum; trans. Hendrickson (1939). 18 Cic. Or. 143. 19  Cf. Guérin (2010) 149–55. 20  ‘Well, my dear young men, you are doing something necessary and useful in refusing to be satisfied with the models provided by your own day and wanting to get to know those of the preceding generation too.’ Sen. Contr. 1.praef.6. Cf. also Sen. Contr. 1.praef.9; 1.praef.19; Suas. 6.16. 21  On the use of apostrophe in Seneca, especially in Sen. Suas. 1, see Feddern in this volume.

284  Intertextuality in Seneca the Elder hand, we must acknowledge that dedicating a didactic work to a member of one’s family was a conventional practice in antiquity. In the more specific act of addressing his own offspring, Seneca is preceded by figures such as Cicero in the Partitiones oratoriae, as well as Cato the Elder, of whom an excerpt is cited in the first preface of the Controversiae.22 Seneca defines himself as an elder or senex, as demonstrated by the famous sentence mit­ tatur senex in scholas, ‘an old man is sent to school’.23 The appellation iuvenes does not only insist on the age difference between Seneca and his addressees, but also states the filial link that binds them.24 Additionally, we can interpret these lexical choices as an echo of the numerous themes of ­declamation that involve sons and fathers, who are respectively designated by the terms iuvenis and senex. Among other examples, we can cite a controversia by the declaimer Argentarius in which he pleads for a debauched young man who accuses his father of imitating his debauchery: duo luxuriantur una in domo: alter iuvenis, alter senex; alter filius, alter pater (‘Two were debauched in the same house; one young, one old; one a son, one a father’).25 In any case, we can affirm that the style employed by Seneca in his address signals that his book finds his place within the well-defined trad­ition of didactic literature. On the other hand, Seneca’s sons—who were about forty years old at the time of publication—were far from young, a fact that the contemporary audience would have been aware of.26 It is also not trivial that apart from the epistolary formula that opens these texts, Seneca never uses the more natural term filii to designate his children.27 Signalling fictionality, the term iuvenes mei indicates that the memorialist is addressing a larger audience than the restricted circle of his sons and that he seeks to become ‘a generic father offering advice to any reader who would accept his authority’.28 Therefore, in tandem with the father–son relationship, a teacher–student one is also constructed between Seneca and his audience. From this perspective, it seems possible to take the term iuvenis as re­miniscent of a particular didactic work, in which the addressees share no blood link with the author: the Ars amatoria. Although this poem by Ovid contains an indubitable touch of irony, it is inspired by the tradition of the 22  Cf. Fairweather (1981) 27. 23 Sen. Contr. 1.praef.4. 24  On other examples of cross-generational dialogue in Latin literature (Cicero and Pliny), see Leach (2006). 25 Sen. Contr. 2.6.11. 26  Cf. Sussman (1978) 84. 27  See the greeting formula in the prefaces to Books 1, 2, 3, 7, 9, and 10 of the Controversiae: Seneca Novato, Senecae, Melae filiis salutem (‘Seneca, to his sons Novatus, Seneca, and Mela, greetings’). 28  Gunderson (2003) 13–14. See also Mannering in this volume.

Julien Pingoud and Alessandra Rolle  285 Greek erotodidaxis, erotic manuals aimed at courtesans, and the structure of Ovid’s poem thus owes much to preceding works of didactic poetry.29 His final four lines effectively evoke the interpenetration of the amusing and the pedagogical, especially when, just after announcing the end of his lusus, the poet expresses his hope to have been a good magister.30 In his first two books, while initiating his reader-students to the techniques for seducing young girls, Ovid addresses them with the substantive iuvenes, for example when he advises them to forget about their mistresses’ infidelities: quo magis, o iuvenes, deprendere parcite vestras (‘All the more, young men, should you spare your mistresses, despite having detected them’).31 At first glance, this similarity in the designation of the addressee may seem for­tuit­ ous, as the link between the subject developed in the Ars amatoria and the subject discussed by Seneca is weak. However, as the Controversiae and Suasoriae inform us, Ovid had extensively practised declamations in his youth, when he was Arellius Fuscus’ auditor and Latro’s admirator.32 Hence, he benefited from classes delivered by the two declaimers whom Seneca considered the most important.33 By listing some of Ovid’s borrowings from Latro’s ­declamations, the memorialist underlines the profound effect his rhetorical training had on the poet’s writing.34 Moreover, in a letter from the Epistulae ex Ponto, Ovid claims to have written his poetic works as an artis ingenuae cultor, an ‘admirer of the liberal arts’.35 Accordingly, one is not surprised by the poet’s decision to model the title of his Ars amatoria on the expression ars oratoria. This choice ‘reminds us of what Ovid owes to his education as a rhetor’ and implicitly indicates that his poem, ‘despite the apparent lightness of the subject, must be read with the same seriousness as the rhetorical works’.36 In fact, occasionally the poem truly becomes an ars oratoria. In the first book, the magister invites his apprentices not to neglect their training as lawyers in love, as it can be put to good use in order to obtain the favours of the young girls they covet: Disce bonas artes, moneo, Romana iuventus, non tantum trepidos ut tueare reos; quam populus iudexque gravis lectusque senatus, tam dabit eloquio victa puella manus.

29  Cf. Ver Eecke (2010) 2–4. 30 Ov. Ars 3.809 and 3.812. 31 Ov. Ars 2.557. Also see Ov. Ars 2.9: Quid properas, iuvenis? and 2.667: Utilis, o iuvenes, aut haec aut serior aetas. Ovid uses the substantive on several other occasions to designate his audience, without however addressing them: cf. e.g. Ars 1.382, 1.705, and 1.733. 32  Cf. Sen. Contr. 2.2.8. 33  Cf. p. 281 above. 34  Cf. Sen. Contr. 2.2.8. 35 Ov. Pont. 2.5.66. 36  Our translation of Ver Eecke (2010) 4.

286  Intertextuality in Seneca the Elder (Learn noble arts, I counsel you, young men of Rome, not only that you may defend trembling clients: a woman, no less than populace, grave judge, or chosen senate, will surrender, defeated, to eloquence.)37 (Ov. Ars 1.459–62)

The lines which frame this passage offer explanations as to how one must write to a puella.38 This call to consider one’s education in the bonae artes not as an end in itself, but as the way to become more successful in another domain, finds its parallel in the Controversiae. Seneca addresses a few lines on the topic to his youngest son in the preface to Book 2. In this little excursus, he tells us that his son is very much interested in philosophy, like the declaimer Fabianus, who is the subject of this preface. Fearing that his son might neglect his education in favour of his passion, Seneca encourages him to study rhetoric, which in his view is also useful when learning other disciplines: Tu eloquentiae tamen studeas: facilis ab hac in omnes artes discursus est; instruit etiam quos non sibi exercet. (But do study eloquence. You can easily pass from this art to all others; it equips even those whom it does not train for its own ends.)39 (Sen. Contr. 2.praef.3)

Since both are charmed by the same intellectual activity, Mela is invited to follow the example of Fabianus, who trained in eloquence to become a better philosopher but also, according to Seneca, declaimed ‘so enthusiastically that you might have supposed he was preparing for [eloquence]—not being prepared for something else’.40 Hence, we may note that Seneca insists on the indirect usefulness of learning oratory. Even if it seems obvious that in antiquity such arguments were often addressed to young and reluctant students, Seneca’s advice might have reminded readers of Ovid’s advice to Romana iuventus. After all, it was probably a well-known fact that Augustus banished Ovid to Tomis possibly due to the immorality of the Ars amato­ ria.41 Furthermore, the notion of an Ovidian echo in the second preface of the Controversiae is supported by the fact that this echo appears at the opening of the book which offers the most thorough details on Ovid and his

37  Trans. Mozley (1939). 38  Cf. Ov. Ars 1.453–58; 463–86. 39  The parallel with the excerpt from Ovid is noted in Bornecque (1932) 2.312, n.3. 40 Sen. Contr. 2.praef.4; trans. Winterbottom (1974). 41  Cf. e.g. Ov. Trist. 2.7–12 and passim.

Julien Pingoud and Alessandra Rolle  287 declamatory practices.42 Therefore, such an echo may fulfil the implicit function of announcing that the figure of the poet-declaimer is central to Book 2, alongside Fabianus who—as Seneca informs us—was, like Ovid, a student of Arellius Fuscus.43 Finally, we can consider the vocative iuvenes an Ovidian particularity, since it resurfaces in the Remedia amoris: ad mea, decepti iuvenes, praecep­ta venite (‘Come, cheated youth, to my teachings’).44 Written to heal the ­broken hearts of young men, the poem constitutes the sequel to the Ars amatoria and is a hefty composition of over eight hundred lines. In addition to teaching therapies based on the medical knowledge of the time, it contains poetological instruction, which is also found in the Ars amatoria.45 In the Controversiae, Seneca refers to a passage in which Ovid invites his reader to convince himself of the physical and psychic faults of the girl who is causing him pain, and therefore delivers a course in auto-persuasion: Et mala sunt vicina bonis; errore sub illo pro vitio virtus crimina saepe tulit. Qua potes, in peius dotes deflecte puellae, iudiciumque brevi limite falle tuum. (Faults too lie near to charms; by that error virtues oft were blamed for vices. Where you can, turn to the worse your girl’s attractions, and by a narrow margin criticize amiss.)46 (Ov. Rem. 323–6)

The words vicinus, vitium, and virtus are also found in the preface to Book 7 in a commentary on Albucius’ style. Seneca describes the use of familiar language—excessive for the said declaimer—as a quality that can rapidly turn into a fault: Nec tamen mirum est si difficulter adprehenditur vitio tam vicina virtus. (And it is not surprising that a virtue so close to a fault should not be easy to master.)  (Sen. Contr. 7.praef.5)

The assonance produced by the three terms is perceptible as they form a neat and compact group. The proximity between quality and fault, expressed 42  Cf. Sen. Contr. 2.2.8–12. 43  Cf. Sen. Contr. 2.praef.1. On the declaimers Arellius Fuscus and Fabianus, see Huel­ senbeck (2018). 44  Cf. Ov. Rem. 41. 45  Cf. Fréchet (2006). 46  Trans. Mozley (1939). Parallel noted in Bornecque (1932) 2.358.

288  Intertextuality in Seneca the Elder by the association of these terms or by their derivatives, constitutes a topos, and is related to a proverb already found in Livy: adfingens vicina virtutibus vitia (‘inventing faults that neighboured on his virtues’).47 Quintilian also uses it on numerous occasions, either in a form close to that found in Livy: cum in hac maxime parte sint vicina virtutibus vitia, or slightly modified: est praeterea quaedam virtutum vitiorumque vicinia.48 The way the terms are used by Seneca (vitio-vicina-virtus), however, produces a phonetic match with the Remedia amoris. Inserted into a critique on declamatory style, the echo directs the reader’s attention towards the rhetorical foundations of Ovid’s poem. Taking this additional link into account, a number of features seem to indicate that Seneca nourished his own characterization through Ovid’s ethos—a pedagogue influenced by declamation—by insisting on the didactic aim of his literary project as well as on the omnipresence of oratory.

Seneca and Horace The description of Albucius’ style and peculiarities offers another inter­text­ ual reference. This reference allows Seneca to present himself not only as a teacher and literary critic, which are, as we saw, complementary stances in the Controversiae and Suasoriae,49 but also in a satirical posture. According to Seneca, the reason for which the declaimer uses familiar language lies in the fear of expressing himself like a scholasticus, a ‘schoolmaster’, which makes him ‘fall into the opposite excess’: Dum alterum vitium devitat, incidebat in alterum, nec videbat nimium illum orationis suae splendorem his admixtis sordibus non defendi sed inquinari. (While avoiding one fault he fell into another, and failed to see that his exceedingly brilliant style was not safeguarded but polluted by the admixture of these vulgarities.)  (Sen. Contr. 7.praef.4)

The beginning of this excerpt reminds readers of passages in two works by Horace, the Satirae and the Ars poetica,50 which evoke the ideal of the ‘golden mean’, notably dear to Aristotle.51 47  Liv. 22.12.12. 48  Cf. Quint. Inst. 8.3.7; 2.12.4. 49  Cf. p. 281 above. 50  Cf. Bornecque (1932) 2.358. 51  For a juxtaposition of these two excerpts, cf. Brink (1971) 115–16.

Julien Pingoud and Alessandra Rolle  289 Seneca’s expression of this concept primarily reminds us of a line from Satira 1.2, a work that presents an entire gallery of characters who all exhibit excessive behaviours. This line is all the more important as it announces the poem’s leitmotif, which is expressed in the form of a proverb: Siquis nunc quaerat ‘quo res haec pertinet?’ illuc: Dum vitant stulti vitia, in contraria currunt. (Should one now ask, ‘What is the point of all this?’ ’tis this: in avoiding a vice, fools run into its opposite.)52 (Hor. Sat. 1.2.23–4)

Both sentences express a similar idea, but Horace uses the notion in a ­general sense, while Seneca applies it specifically to Albucius. One must remark upon their common use of the subordinate dum, the substantive vitium, the verb vitare (or its prefixed form devitare), as well as the preposition in. Although he places Albucius among his four top declaimers,53 Seneca can be quite critical towards him, as we shall see later in this chapter. In this case, the echo to Satira 1.2 presents him in an unflattering light by a­ ssociating the declaimer with the numerous stulti mocked in Horace’s poem, such as a certain Maltinus, who, afraid of showing his privates, wears an overlong tunic, or Rufillus, who abuses drops against bad breath.54 Moreover, the commentary on Albucius and his excessive use of familiar language echoes a line at the beginning of the Ars poetica. Deploring the absence of moderation in literature, it is with the following rule that Horace invites his apprentice writers to refrain from exaggeration: In vitium ducit culpae fuga, si caret arte. (Shunning a fault may lead to error, if there be lack of art.)55 (Hor. Ars 31)

Besides the semantic proximity of Seneca’s sentence with Horace’s line, we may also trace other parallels by observing the context in which both passages are written. Let us first note that in the Ars poetica, the Horatian rule frames a list of faults committed by overzealous poets: Decipimur specie recti. Brevis esse laboro, obscurus fio; sectantem levia nervi

52  Trans. Rushton Fairclough (1929). 53  Cf. p. 281 above. 54  Cf. Hor. Sat. 1.2.25–7. 55  Trans. Rushton Fairclough (1929).

290  Intertextuality in Seneca the Elder deficiunt animique; professus grandia turget; serpit humi tutus nimium timidusque procellae. Qui variare cupit rem prodigialiter unam, delphinum silvis adpingit, fluctibus aprum. (We deceive ourselves by the resemblance of truth. Striving to be brief, I become obscure. Aiming at smoothness, I fail in force and fire. One promising grandeur, its bombastic; another, overcautious and fearful of the gale, creeps along the ground. The man who tries to vary a single subject in monstrous fashion, is like a painter adding a dolphin to the woods, a boar to the waves.)56 (Hor. Ars 25–30)

The warning is mostly concerned with the last fault on the list, namely the absence of unity caused by an excessive desire for variation, which is the main subject of the beginning of the Ars poetica. To illustrate his argument, Horace metaphorically associates poems that are too diverse with disharmonious bodies. This association gives way to the famous description of the multiform monster, which is part man, horse, bird, woman, and fish,57 alongside the evocation of surreal figures whose feet and head do not match.58 In order to convince his reader to avoid multiplying descriptions without any link to the subject discussed, the poet emphasizes the ludicrous nature of bodies composed of ‘heterogeneous parts’, undique collatis mem­bris.59 In the preface to Book 7 of the Controversiae, Albucius’ declamations also take the form of monstrous creatures. Seneca tells us that the rhetor treats all the quaestiones ‘not as parts of a controversy, but as a controversy’ and equips them with the same structural elements such as the propositio, ­exsecutio, excessus, indignationes, and epilogus.60 By comparing Albucius’ dec­lam­ations to bodies, the memorialist assimilates each of those parts into an entire body of inadequate proportions: nullum habile membrum est si corpori par est (‘no limb is manageable if it is as large as the body’).61 Additionally, Seneca stresses Albucius’ desire to expose ‘not all that must be, but all that can be said’ and to stack ‘argument upon argument’.62 His verbosity—of which the use of trivial terms is a symptom—is displayed in his habit of juxtaposing disparate styles, therefore giving himself up, in Seneca’s terms, to assidua mutatio, or ‘perpetual change’:

56  Trans. Rushton Fairclough (1929). 57  Cf. Hor. Ars 1–4. 59 Hor. Ars 3. 60  Cf. Sen. Contr. 7.praef.2. 61  Cf. Sen. Contr. 7.praef.2. 62  Cf. Sen. Contr. 7.praef.1.

58  Cf. Hor. Ars 7–9.

Julien Pingoud and Alessandra Rolle  291 Dum genera dicendi transfert et modo exilis esse volt nudisque rebus hae­ rere, modo horridus et valens potius quam cultus, modo brevis et concinnus, modo nimis se attollit, modo nimis se deprimit, ingenio suo inlusit. (He would swap styles of speech, sometimes wanting to be lean and stick to the bare facts, sometimes bristling and strong rather than pretty, sometimes brief and balanced: sometimes he went too high, sometimes too low. Thus he made a mock of his abilities.)63 (Sen. Contr. 7.praef.5)

Many of the elements present in this enumeration also figure in Horace’s catalogue, whether they are qualities to be sought out by poets or faults that result from the excess of these qualities: vigour (cf. valens/v.26 nervi, v.27 animi), elegance (cf. cultus/v.26 levia), conciseness (cf. brevis/v.25 brevis), grandiloquence (cf. nimis se attollit/v.27 grandia), and humility (cf. se deprimit /v.28 serpit humi). Albucius appears to have been worse than the poets mocked by Horace for, instead of accumulating too many subjects, he is prone to frequently changing his style of speech and to using stylistic devices both excessive and conspicuous (cf. pejorative terms such as exilis, horridus, nimis). However, perhaps Seneca’s main aim is not to mock Albucius, for his faults do not hinder one’s pleasure when listening to him: quamvis paenitui­ sset audisse, libebat audire (‘However sorry one was to have heard him, one was always happy to listen again’).64 This is perhaps the most important point: by taking his cue from the Ars poetica for his description of the declaimer and wearing Horace’s mask, Seneca occupies the posture of a literary critic and underscores the pedagogical dimension of his collection. Finally, one might ask if the motif of ‘vitium avoiding vitium’ hints at the Satirae or at the Ars poetica. Probably both, as the passages in these two works seem to complement one another. It could be that in the Ars poetica Horace’s auto-quotation of the virulent line from his Satira 1.2 is purposefully done in order to mock excessive descriptions. An auto-textual citation seems credible as the two texts show a genuine continuity: the Ars poetica, like the other Epistulae, is an extension of the Satirae both metrically (­dactylic hexameters) as well as in regard to content (moral and literary considerations). Accordingly, it is possible that Seneca, conscious of the close links between the two texts, reuses the line from the Satirae on the

63  Albucius’ declamations are also qualified as inaequalitas: Sen. Contr. 7.praef.3. 64 Sen. Contr. 7.praef.6.

292  Intertextuality in Seneca the Elder formal level, while referring to the beginning of the Ars poetica on the content level.

Seneca and Lucretius Suasoria 6 invites students to convince Cicero to ask, or to refrain from asking, Antony to spare his life. At the end of that chapter, Seneca, in a long excursus, quotes different texts which describe Cicero’s death extracted from the historical writings of Livy, including Aufidius Bassus, Cremutius Cordus, and Bruttedius Niger, as well as the orator Asinius Pollio and the poet Cornelius Severus.65 The excursus precedes Suasoria 7, whose theme yet again involves the figures of Cicero and Antony. In the following passage, Seneca introduces his historiographical section (which is also oratorical and epic), placed between two chapters of a book devoted to declamations: Nolo autem vos, iuvenes mei, contristari, quod a declamatoribus ad historicos transeo. Satisfaciam vobis, et fortasse efficiam, ut his sententiis lectis solida et verum habentia recipiatis. Et quia hoc statim recta via consequi non potero, decipere vos cogar, velut salutarem daturus pueris potionem, summa parte poculi. (However, my dear young men, I do not want you to get depressed because I am passing from declamation to history. I will make amends to you, and I may perhaps make you, once you have read these epigrams, receive these solid and truly powerful passages. And, as I shan’t be able to bring this about immediately, straightforwardly, I shall have to deceive you through the upper part of the glass, like someone wanting to give medicine to a child.)66 (Sen. Suas. 6.16)

As scholars have noticed, the image of the potio echoes the famous lines of the De rerum natura in which poetry is compared to honey that is applied to the rims of cups in order for children to drink bitter absinth.67 Through this metaphor, which shows poetry as capable of rendering the

65  On the presence of historiography in Seneca, see Baraz in this volume. 66  Text from Håkanson (1989); trans. Winterbottom (1974) modified. 67  Cf. Lucr. DRN 1.936–50; 4.11–25. Cf. Bornecque (1932) 2.395 n. 16; Fairweather (1981) 315; Berti (2007) 222 n. 1; Feddern (2013) 433. On this passage (containing Müller’s conjecture sumite pocula for summa parte), see also van Mal-Maeder in this volume.

Julien Pingoud and Alessandra Rolle  293 subject discussed more pleasant, Lucretius justifies his composition of a treatise in verse inspired by Epicurus’ philosophy, which was uncongenial to poetry, the language of fiction.68 With regard to the excerpt from the Suasoriae, the text transmitted by the manuscripts contains numerous uncertainties.69 However, all editors have accepted the words velut, datu­ rus, and pueris in the last sentence. As markers of intertextuality, these three words remind us of Lucretius’ poem where we find the comparative subordinate veluti pueris absinthia taetra medentes / cum dare conantur (‘as with children, when phys­icians try to administer rank wormwood’).70 It is not possible to understand Seneca’s sentence without remembering the function that the author of the De rerum natura gives to poetry: from the memorialist’s perspective, declaimers’ sententiae adorn historical texts which, given their conformity to stylistic norms (cf. solida) and historical reality (verum habentia), may become tiresome.71 Compared with Lucretian honey and opposed to bitter historiography, declamation is defined by the lightness of its style and the fictionality of its developments. Therefore, the intertext is associated with captatio benevolentiae: Seneca uses the promise of a new chapter of Suasoriae to mitigate the annoyance that may be caused by the interruption of historiographical excerpts. He does so to maintain the attention of the reader, much like Lucretius uses poetry to ‘keep the soul’ (tenere animum) of Memmius.72 Simultaneously, it is possible to read this allusion from an identical perspective as the echoes analysed above. Buying into the auctoritas of the famous didactic poet, Seneca encourages the audience to associate his persona with that of Lucretius on a more general level. Through the superimposition of auctorial images at the end of his collection, he is underlining his hope for a positive result: to have taught his audience profitable skills.73 Finally, given that Seneca read the Ars poetica, he knew that every writer seeks either to be useful, or to please, or to do both at the same time.74 In 68  Cf. Diog. Laert. 10.121b. 69  Cf. Feddern (2013) 431–4. 70 Lucr. DRN 1.936–7. 71  This interpretation is similar to that of Berti (2007) 222 n. 1 and Feddern (2013) 433. For a different reading, see Roller (1997) 120, according to whom Seneca assimilates Lucretius’ honey to characteristic elements of declamation contained in the excerpts of the historiographical works he cites. 72 Lucr. DRN 1.948. 73  We know that at least concerning Seneca’s lessons about imitatio/aemulatio his hope is fulfilled by Seneca the Younger: see Trinacty (2009), who stresses the influence of Seneca the Elder on his son, highlighting intertextual links between their works. 74  Cf. Hor. Ars 333–4.

294  Intertextuality in Seneca the Elder summary, we may affirm that Seneca himself indicates, through the inter­ text­ual network woven into the prefaces and the commentaries, that his project is articulated around the concept of prodesse. However, the as­so­ci­ation of declamation with Lucretius’ honey, which suggests that matter treated in the collection is entertaining, may also signal that Seneca seeks to create a work that should please the reader. Indeed, one can also detect a poetics of delec­ tare in other references. By adorning his discourse with characteristic elements of the ‘I’ that emanates from the Ars amatoria and the Remedia amoris, the memorialist reminds us of Ovid’s badinage, particularly when he mixes poetry and declamation. The attacks against Al­bucius, which are sharpened through references to Horace’s satirical persona, may be meant as comic material. Finally, with the allusion to Cicero’s Orator, or rather, with an imitation close to plagiarism, one detects a challenge set for the audience, who are expected to recognize the model from which the memorialist borrows his sententia. Indeed, it is possible that Seneca implicitly invites the reader to play such a game, when he deplores in Suasoria 2 that in his time a declaimer might use as if it were his own a quote from In Verrem without the audience even noticing.75 Thus, inter­text­ual­ity appears with a pleasing or entertaining dimension, which strengthens the didactic efficiency of Seneca’s persona.

2.  Marcus Porcius Latro: an Anti-Greek Model for Latin Eloquence Alessandra Rolle The first part of this chapter analyzed how Seneca the Elder builds his own authorial ethos as based on various Roman authors. In this section, I will examine the role of Greek oratory in the construction of the character presented by Seneca the Elder as the model of ‘post-Ciceronian’ eloquence in Latin: the rhetor Marcus Porcius Latro.76 In the preface to the first book of Controversiae, Seneca paints a portrait of Latro and his rhetorical art by underlining their long friendship a prima pueritia usque ad ultimum eius diem (‘from early childhood to his last day 75 Sen. Suas. 2.19. On the concept of seeking intertextuality as a game for the reader, see van Mal-Maeder (2007) 84. 76  Cf. Sen. Contr. 1.praef.21: in illo cum omnes oratoriae virtutes essent (‘since all the virtues of oratory were within him’) and 9.praef.3: declamatoriae virtutis unicum exemplum (‘the sole example of declamatory virtue’).

Julien Pingoud and Alessandra Rolle  295 alive’).77 The vigorousness of Latro’s body is presented as the necessary ­complement of his proud and virile temperament: Nesciebat dispensare vires suas, sed inmoderati adversus se imperii fuit, ideoque studium eius prohiberi debebat quia regi non poterat. Itaque solebat et ipse, cum se assidua et numquam intermissa contentione fregerat, sentire ingenii lassitudinem, quae non minor est quam corporis sed occultior. Corpus illi erat et natura solidum et multa exercitatione duratum, ideoque numquam impetus ardentis animi deseruit. Vox robusta, sed surda, lucubrationibus et neglegentia, non natura infuscata; beneficio tamen laterum extollebatur, et, quamvis inter initia parum attulisse virium videretur, ipsa actione adcrescebat. Nulla umquam illi cura vocis exercendae fuit; illum fortem et agrestem et Hispanae consuetudinis morem non poterat dediscere: utcumque res tulerat, ita vivere, nihil vocis causa facere, non illam per gradus paulatim ab imo ad summum perducere, non rursus a summa contentione paribus intervallis descendere, non sudorem un­ctione discutere, non latus ambulatione reparare. (He had no idea how to husband his strength, but ruled himself ruthlessly—his zest had to be stopped altogether just because it could not be regulated. And so he himself, broken by constant and unremitting effort, used to feel a lassitude of mind that is as debilitating as bodily tiredness, though less obvious. He had a body that nature had made strong and exercise hard, so that it never failed the impulses of his passionate spirit. His voice was strong but dull, thickened not by nature but by overwork and lack of care. But it was capable of being raised, thanks to the strength of his lungs, and though at the start of a speech it might be thought to have too little power in reserve it grew with the impetus of the speech itself. He never took any trouble to exercise his voice; he could not put off his steadfast, rustic, Spanish character: his motto was to live as circumstances suggested, without doing anything for the sake of his voice (such as ­gradually taking it up from low to high, and then going down again from the highest pitch by equal intervals), and without inhibiting sweat by means of oil or renewing his lungs by walking.)  (Sen. Contr. 1.praef.15–16)

In this passage, Seneca highlights the fact that Latro did not take care of his own voice, naturally robust as it was, but relied only on the vigorousness of his athletic body and on the surge of his overflowing enthusiasm, without 77 Sen. Contr. 1.praef. 13.

296  Intertextuality in Seneca the Elder following the good precepts of rhetorical education. We can observe precise parallels on the linguistic level with regard to recommendations about the voice found in the Rhetorica ad Herennium (3.12.21), in the Institutio orato­ ria by Quintilian (11.3.19 and 11.3.22) and in the Ars rhetorica by Fortunatianus (3.16–17 = Halm 130–1).78 However, it is also possible to draw another parallel which, as far as I know, has not been observed so far. Latro’s description may be read in relation to—or rather in opposition to—the renowned passage in Cicero’s De oratore where we find a description of Demosthenes’ effort to build up a strong voice, in spite of his naturally weak body: Imiteturque illum, cui sine dubio summa vis dicendi conceditur, Atheniensem Demosthenem, in quo tantum studium fuisse, tantusque labor dicitur, ut primum impedimenta naturae diligentia industriaque superaret cumque ita balbus esset, ut eius ipsius artis, cui studeret, ­primam litteram non posset dicere, perfecit meditando, ut nemo planius esse locutus putaretur; deinde cum spiritus eius esset angustior, tantum continenda anima in dicendo est adsecutus, ut una continuatione verborum—id quod eius scripta declarant—binae ei contentiones vocis et remissiones continerentur; qui etiam—ut memoriae proditum est—coniectis in os calculis, summa voce versus multos uno spiritu pronuntiare consuescebat; neque is consistens in loco, sed inambulans, atque ascensu ingrediens arduo. (Let us do as the famous Athenian Demosthenes, whose pre-eminence in oratory is unhesitatingly admitted, did, and whose zeal and exertions are said to have been such that at the very beginning he surmounted nat­ural drawbacks by diligent perseverance: and though at first stuttering so badly as to be unable to pronounce the initial ‘r’ of the name of the art of his devotion, by practice he made himself accounted as distinct a speaker as anyone; later on, though his breath was rather short, he succeeded so far in making his breath hold during a speech to such an extent that a single oratorical period—as his writings prove—covered two risings and two fallings of tone; moreover—as the tale goes—it was his habit to slip pebbles into his mouth, and then declaim a number of verses at the top of his voice and without drawing breath, not only as he stood still, but while walking about, or going up a steep slope.)79 (Cic. De Or. 1.260–1)

The first element opposing Latro to Demosthenes is their relation to studium. Latro ‘needs to restrain his zeal because he is not capable of

78  See Bornecque (1932) 2.296, n. 16.

79  Trans. adapted from Sutton (1942).

Julien Pingoud and Alessandra Rolle  297 controlling it’, studium eius prohibere debebat, quia regi non poterat. Instead, Demosthenes makes full use of his energy: it is precisely studium and labor which motivate him in his struggle against the natural weakness of his body, in quo tantum studium fuisse tantusque labor dicitur. Seneca’s Latro has a voice which is ‘strong but dull, thickened not by nature but by overwork and lack of care’ (vox robusta sed surda, lucubra­ tionibus et ne­glegentia, non natura infuscata). On the other hand, Demosthenes seems to have vanquished his stammering thanks to scrupulous care and exercise (ut primum impedimenta naturae diligentia industriaque superaret). More specifically, it has to be noted the opposition between the terms ­neglegentia and diligentia; the former is present in Seneca’s excerpt, and the latter in that of Cicero. Moreover, Seneca says about Latro that he could count on the strength of his lungs to raise his voice, reinforcing it as the declamation went on: benefi­ cio tamen laterum extollebatur et quamvis inter initia parum attulisse virium videretur, ipsa actione adcrescebat. By way of contrast, Cicero says that Demosthenes had patiently corrected his breathing—which was naturally too short-spaced—through a rigorous discipline: cum spiritus eius esset angustior, tantum continenda anima in dicendo est adsecutus. Furthermore, Latro is described as gifted with a strong ability to adapt (utcumque res tulerat, ita vivere), while Demosthenes is celebrated for his will to overcome his natural feebleness and for his capacity to completely overthrow it (cumque ita balbus esset [. . .] perfecit meditando, ut nemo pla­ nius esse locutus putaretur). Finally, Seneca notes that Latro never devoted himself to vocal training to strengthen his voice by making it ascend and descend ‘from the highest pitch by equal intervals’: non illam [sc. vocem] per gradus paulatim ab imo ad summum perducere, non rursus a summa contentione paribus intervallis descendere. However, Demosthenes’ victory over his naturally short breathing is illustrated by his capacity to gradually elevate and reduce the tone of his voice, in one breath, during his speeches: una continuatione verbo­ rum . . . binae ei contentiones vocis et remissiones continerentur. When considered separately, these textual correspondences may seem weak, but when combined together they become significant. In this passage from Seneca, the contrast with Demosthenes should have been easily recognizable for readers since the latter was famous for his ferocious resolve to become an excellent orator despite his precarious physical condition and his stammering, as attested by both Greek and Latin authors.80 80  Cf. Plut. Dem. 11; Dion. Hal. Dem. 53; Q. Cic. Comment. Pet. 2; Quint. Inst. 11.3.54; and in particular Cic. Fin. 5.5.  In Div. 2.96, Cicero indicates his Greek source,  Demetrius of

298  Intertextuality in Seneca the Elder In this first parallel, Latro, presented by Seneca as a model for eloquence in Latin, seems to be constructed antithetically to Demosthenes, the auc­ toritas of Greek oratory, in terms primarily of corporality and partly of personality. But in his portrait, Seneca also talks of Latro’s declamatory style and emphasizes that he subordinated the use of rhetorical figures to real requirements of expression, condemning their purely ornamental use: Iudicium autem fuit strictius: non placebat illi orationem inflectere nec umquam recta via decedere nisi cum hoc aut necessitas coegisset aut magna suasisset utilitas. Schema negabat decoris causa inventum, sed ­subsidii, ut quod [palam] aures offensurum esset si palam diceretur, id oblique et furtim subreperet. Summam quidem esse dementiam detorquere orationem cui esse rectam liceret. (His taste was pretty restrained—he didn’t like to twist language, to leave the straight and narrow path, unless he had to, or unless there was some great advantage to sway him. He said figures were not discovered to ­beautify but to aid, enabling something that, said openly, would offend the ear, to creep in from the flank, furtively. But he thought it the height of madness to distort language if it could be straightforward.) (Sen. Contr. 1.praef.23–4)

In this passage, I would suggest the presence of a second intertextual link with Cicero: an excerpt of Brutus related to another important Greek orator, Demetrius of Phalerum. In the brief history of Greek eloquence established by Cicero in this work, Demetrius is con­sidered as the first to have, so to speak, ‘softened’ the art of oratory by renouncing gravitas in favour of suavitas:81 Hic primus inflexit orationem et eam mollem teneramque reddidit et suavis, sicut fuit, videri maluit quam gravis, sed suavitate ea, qua perfunderet animos, non qua perfringeret. Phalerum, who is also used by Plutarch (Dem. 11) and by many of the authors who recount to this story; see Pease (1963) 512–13 n. 5. 81  On this issue, see Heldmann (1979) 317–25 and Marchese (2011) 264, who underlines that an eloquence that is mollis and tenera is destined to entertain (delectare) the public, but is not able to move it (movere animos). In Cicero’s work, the figure of Demetrius of Phalerum, who also appears in the De oratore (2.95) and the Orator (92), seems to occupy an ambiguous status between decadence and individuation of a different model. In general, concerning Demetrius of Phalerum, see Heldmann (1982) 98–122.

Julien Pingoud and Alessandra Rolle  299 (He was the first to modulate oratory and to give it softness and pliability. He chose to use charm, as was his nature, rather than force, a charm which diffused itself through the minds of his listeners without overwhelming them.)82 (Cic. Brut. 38)

In Seneca the Elder’s passage, the collocation orationem inflectere may be con­ sidered to echo the sequence primus inflexit orationem present in Cicero’s excerpt: this link is all the more significant as there is no other use of this expression in Latin literature.83 Once again, Latro’s image appears to be constructed in opposition to a Greek oratorical authority through an inter­text­ ual play. The only derogations to the choice of a simple and sober eloquence allowed by Latro are determined by necessitas and utilitas, and correspond to a clearly ethical motivation (to avoid offending the audience’s ears). Instead, the ‘softening’ of oratory introduced by Demetrius merely seeks to achieve an effect of suavitas in discourse: he aims to charm the audience and is impelled by purely aesthetic considerations. Accepting this second Ciceronian parallel, we encounter a new element in the (re)construction of Latro’s character: he would not only be described for his natural vigorousness as an anti-Demosthenes, but also be represented, for the rigorousness of his stylistic choices, as an anti-Demetrius of Phalerum. Seneca emphasizes how Latro only admitted the use of rhetorical figures in relation to a certain number of themes which, had they been expressed too directly, would have upset the ears (and the sensibility) of the audience. However, he was able to do it without removing any strength from his speeches. In Sen. Contr. 1.1.25, speaking of a figure used by the Greek declaimer Hermagoras, Seneca states that it was ‘a figure that wounds, rather than tickles’ (schema quod vulnerat, non quod titillat), and this statement is followed by the remark: ut Latroni placebat. Once more, Latro’s character appears as (impli­ citly) opposed to Demetrius, who, as noted, is said by Cicero to have sought to produce an effect of pleasure qua perfunderet animos, non qua perfringeret. Latro is offered as a model for vigorous expression, in opposition to a type of eloquence associated more closely to the pursuit of suavitas, also in Contr. 1.8: 82  Cicero himself speaks here; trans. by Hendrickson (1939). 83  In the tenth book of the Institutio oratoria, Quintilian alludes to this famous remark by Cicero concerning Demetrius of Phalerum with the use of a synonymous expression: Quint. Inst. 10. 1.80, quin etiam Phalerea illum Demetrium, quamquam is primus inclinasse eloquen­ tiam dicitur, multum ingenii habuisse et facundiae fateor.

300  Intertextuality in Seneca the Elder Latro vehementer egit a parte patris et adiecit: abdicato quoque non permittam exire, iniciam manus, tenebo, novissime ante limen exeuntis cadaver hoc sternam: ut ad hostem pervenias, patrem calca. Putabat Plancus, summus amator Latronis, hunc sensum a Latrone fortius dictum, a Lesbocle Graeco tenerius, qui dixit sic: κείσομαι· ὡς τεῖχος, ‹ὡς› τάφρον ὑπέρβηθι καὶ πατέρα. (Latro pleaded forcefully on the father’s side, adding: ‘Even when I have disinherited him, I shall not let him go out to fight, I shall lay my hands on him, hold him, and at the last let my dead body fall on the threshold as he goes. To get to the enemy you must trample over your father.’ Plancus, a great admirer of Latro, thought that Latro put this idea too strongly, but that Lesbocles the Greek put it too feebly, thus: ‘I shall lie in your path: pass over your father too—as over a wall or a ditch.’) (Sen. Contr. 1.8.15)

This passage originates from a controversy in which a vir fortis is ­summoned by his father because he desires to go to war for the fourth time, despite being exempted from military service as he has already accomplished three heroic acts. Seneca quotes a part of Latro’s plea in the father’s defence, and after doing so, notices that a certain Plancus, who was ‘a great admirer of Latro’, had compared Latro’s words to a similar expression by the Greek rhetor Lesbocles. In this way, Plancus wanted to show that the same idea had been rendered fortius, ‘too strongly’, by the first and tenerius, ‘too feebly’, by the latter. Yet again, we may see an implicit opposition between the figure of Latro and that of Demetrius of Phalerum, as well as the ‘softening’ of eloquence the latter had introduced. In fact, Latro’s vigorous eloquence is opposed to that of the Greek Lesbocles, which is qualified with the same adjective, tener, used by Cicero to describe Demetrius’ oratory in the Brutus. Strength appears to be a specific feature of Latro’s figure. It is present in his body,84 as well as in his temperament,85 and in his eloquence.86 His force of expression had to be considered as a typically Roman attribute. Indeed, 84 Sen. Contr. 1.praef.16: corpus illi erat et natura solidum et multa exercitatione duratum (‘his body was not only robust by nature but also hardened with much exercise’). 85 Sen. Contr. 1.praef.13: in utramque partem vehementi viro modus deerat: nec intermittere studium sciebat nec repetere (‘this passionate man lacked moderation in two respects: he could not stop work—and could not start it again’). 86 Sen. Contr. 1.praef.20: putant enim fortiter quidem, sed parum subtiliter eum dixisse (‘men think that he spoke strongly but not acutely enough’). On the topic of physical virility in relation to rhetoric, see Lucian. Rhet. Pr. 9–13; Apul. Apol. 4 (with the commentary of Hunink (1997) 20–8) and Gunderson (2003) 36–41. More generally, see also Gunderson (2000).

Julien Pingoud and Alessandra Rolle  301 Indeed in Sen. Contr. 2.6.12, it is said of the Greek rhetor Agroitas that his eloquence, deprived of stylistic refinements (arte inculta), betrayed his nonGreek formation and that his use of vigorous expressions (sententiae fortes) revealed his Roman acquaintances (rather than Greek ones):87 Agroitas Massiliensis longe vividiorem sententiam dixit quam ceteri Graeci declamatores, qui in hac controversia tamquam rivales rixati sunt. Dicebat autem Agroitas arte inculta, ut scires illum inter Graecos non fuis­se, sententiis fortibus, ut scires illum inter Romanos fuisse. (Agroitas of Marseille produced a much more forceful epigram than the other Greek declaimers, who brawled in this controversia as though they were rivals in love. Now Agroitas had an unpolished technique— which showed he had not frequented the Greeks—and employed vigorous ­epigrams—which showed he had frequented the Romans.) (Sen. Contr. 2.6.12)

Latro’s rhetorical force would thus be especially linked to his Roman spirit, which in his case was bolstered by his Hispanic roots as described in Sen. Contr. 1.praef.16: illum fortem et agrestem et Hispanae consuetudinis morem non poterat dediscere (‘he had not been able to ­un-learn that strong, rustic, Spanish character’). However, Latro’s expressive strength also gave his detractors a pretext to criticize him. In his initial portrait by Seneca, we can observe that he was accused for having more strength than sobriety (subtilitas) in his style: Putant enim fortiter quidem sed parum subtiliter eum dixisse, cum in illo, si qua alia virtus fuit, et subtilitas fuerit. [. . .] Nihil est iniquius his, qui nusquam putant esse subtilitatem nisi ubi nihil est praeter subtilitatem; et in illo cum omnes oratoriae virtutes essent, hoc fundamentum superstructis tot et tantis molibus obruebatur, nec deerat in illo sed non eminebat. Et nescio an maximum vitium subtilitatis sit nimis se ostendere. Magis nocent insidiae quae latent: utilissima est dissimulata subtilitas, quae effectu apparet, habitu latet. (Men think that he spoke strongly but not acutely enough. In fact, if he had any quality, it was acuteness. [. . .] Nothing is more unfair than to think that acuteness is only present when there is nothing present but 87  On Agroitas and his Greek identity, see also Guérin in this volume.

302  Intertextuality in Seneca the Elder acuteness. Latro possessed every oratorical quality, so that this foundation was obscured by the vast superstructure, and so, though present, was not obvious: indeed, perhaps the greatest fault of acuteness is to flaunt itself unduly. Plots that are hidden are more dangerous; the most useful sort of acuteness is the sort you hide—its effect is plain to see, its presence obscure.) (Sen. Contr. 1.praef.20–1)

Yet again, I would suggest here a correspondence with an excerpt from Cicero’s Brutus. This reference to a lack of sobriety in Latro’s style may be compared with a passage concerned with the polemic engaged by Cicero against the Atticists, and which also focuses on subtilitas:88 Sed ea in nostris inscitia est, quod hi ipsi, qui in Graecis antiquitate delectantur eaque subtilitate, quam Atticam appellant, hanc in Catone ne noverunt quidem. Hyperidae volunt esse et Lysiae. laudo: sed cur nolunt Catones? Attico genere dicendi se gaudere dicunt. sapienter id quidem; atque utinam imitarentur nec ossa solum, sed etiam sanguinem! (But observe the ignorance of our Romans! The very men who find such pleasure in the early period of Greek letters, and in that simplicity which they call Attic, have no knowledge of the same quality in Cato. Their aim is to be like Hyperides and Lysias; laudable certainly, but why not like Cato? They profess to have delight in the Attic style, and in that they show sound sense; but I wish they might imitate not its bones only, but its flesh and blood as well.)89 (Cic. Brut. 67–8)

In addition to antiquitas, it seems that what the Atticists preferred in their Greek models was subtilitas: a stylistic sobriety that must have been con­ sidered as typically Greek, for it is qualified as ‘Attic’. In general, Roman ­orators were certainly not appreciated for that quality, which Cicero, however, reclaims for Cato. He affirms that Cato is ‘archaic’ and sober in his style, just as the great Attic oratorical authorities were. Seneca’s expression nihil est iniquius his, qui nusquam putant esse subtilitatem nisi ubi nihil est praeter subtilitatem may remind us of Cicero’s ex­clam­ation utinam imitarentur nec ossa solum, sed etiam sanguinem! Both passages exhort readers not to go too far in the search for sobriety, which may lead to aridity. If we read the polemic concerning the subtilitas of Latro’s style in the light of this passage 88  For a more detailed analysis of this excerpt, see Desmouliez (1982) 70–89. 89  Cicero is speaking; trans. by Hendrickson (1939) modified.

Julien Pingoud and Alessandra Rolle  303 from Brutus, we notice that, for the rhetor presented as a model of Latin eloquence, Seneca claims the specific virtue of stylistic sobriety, which was generally associated with Greek eloquence, and with the Attic style in particular. This game of allusions to the two most important treatises on rhetoric by Cicero allows Seneca to construct a portrait of Latro by mixing elements of opposition and continuity in relation to Greek eloquence and its models. In terms of his body and character, Latro is opposed to Demosthenes, who was the major orator in the Greek language, and the main authority for Greek as well as Roman declaimers. In terms of style, he is opposed to the last of the great Greek orators in the history of eloquence traced by Cicero: Demetrius of Phalerum. Indeed, the latter was held responsible for the first ‘softening’ of oratorical style, which would only minimally concern Latro. Nevertheless, Seneca also underlines an element of continuity between Greek oratorical tradition and Latro’s eloquence through subtilitas, which was a quality overall attributed to Attic orators only, but which Latro did not lack. Besides, in his portrait of Cato, Cicero had already reclaimed s­ubtilitas for one of the oldest Latin oratorical authorities. Through this composite intertextual framework, Latro appears as the ideal declaimer in Seneca’s prologue because of his ability to recreate the clear and organized skeleton of Attic oratory beneath the complex articulation of his speeches, which were characterized by a typically Roman vigour and morality. In this respect, Latro seems to perfectly fit with Seneca’s argument on the relationship between Greek and Latin eloquence.90 Actually, in Contr. 10.4.23 Seneca affirms that he combined Greek and Latin examples to point out that the Latin language has no less expressive ability, but less licentia, less expressive freedom due to more ethic and ­stylistic constraints.91 To conclude this study of the ‘intertextual construction’ of Latro’s figure in relation to Greek oratorical authorities, I would like to focus on an excerpt of Sen. Contr. 10.4. In this passage, Seneca compares one of Latro’s sentences to a sentence by the Greek rhetor Artemon in order to

90  The existence of a Senecan prejudice against the Greeks was maintained by Buschmann (1878) 1–3; Edward (1928) xxix; Bonner (1949) 147. In more recent studies, this opinion appears increasingly nuanced: see in particular Sochatoff (1939), 350–1; Fairweather (1981) 23–6; Berti (2007) 255–6; Citti (2007) 82; Citti (2018), and Guérin in this volume. 91 Concerning this well-known and debated passage, see Fairweather (1981) 25; Berti (2007) 261–3; Citti (2007) 83–4; Rolle (2018).

304  Intertextuality in Seneca the Elder demonstrate, yet again, the greater virility of Latro’s sententia, but also to defend him against an accusation of furtum, of which he was probably suspected:92 Artemon dixit: τὰ μὲν τῶν ἄλλων εὔρωστα· πλεῖ, γεωργεῖ. τὰ δ’ ἡμέτερα ἀνάπηρα· τρέφει ἄρα τὸν ὁλόκληρον. Hanc sententiam Latro Porcius virilius dixit, qui non potest furto suspectus esse; Graecos enim et contemnebat et ignorabat. Cum descripsisset debiles artus omnium et alios incurvatos, alios reptantes, adiecit: pro di boni! ab his aliquis alitur integer?93 (Artemon said: ‘The slaves of others are vigorous: they sail, they cultivate the soil; ours are crippled: they feed a healthy man.’ Porcius Latro, who cannot be suspected of theft, since he despised the Greeks and ignored their works, has expressed this idea with more virility. After describing the crippled limbs of all the children, some bent, some crawling on the floor, he added: ‘Great gods! Is a man of good health fed by these?’)94 (Sen. Contr. 10.4.20–1)

Many critics have interpreted the expression Graecos enim et contemnebat et ignorabat literally as an affirmation of Latro’s lack of knowledge and interest concerning Greek declaimers and Greek culture. But a parallel with an excerpt, once again, from De oratore may suggest a different interpretation: Sed fuit hoc in utroque eorum, ut Crassus non tam existimari vellet non didicisse, quam illa despicere, et nostrorum hominum in omni genere prudentiam Graecis anteferre; Antonius autem probabiliorem hoc populo orationem fore censebat suam, si omnino didicisse numquam putaretur. Atque ita se uterque graviorem fore, si alter contemnere, alter ne nosse quidem Graecos videretur.

92  On Latin plagiarism of Greek declaimers in general, see Guérin in this volume. 93  For this excerpt, I have decided to follow the edition by Håkanson (1989) 314. His text seems preferable to me as he accepts the corrections incurvatos and reptantes from Schulting and Kiessling respectively instead of incursantes and repentes, which are present in the manuscripts but do not give a satisfactory meaning to the sentence. Contra Winterbottom (1974) 2.442–3, who adopts the lectio tradita and translates: ‘Artemon said: “The slaves of others are strong—they sail, they till the ground. Ours are cripples—therefore they support a man who is sound of limb.” Porcius Latro, who cannot be suspected of plagiarism, for he both despised the Greeks and was ignorant of them, put this epigram more strongly. After describing the crippled limbs of all the children, how some ran up, some crawled, he added: “Good God! Is a whole man fed by these?” ’ 94  Translation is mine.

Julien Pingoud and Alessandra Rolle  305 (There was nevertheless this point of difference between the two men, that Crassus did not so much wish to be thought to have learned nothing, as to have the reputation of looking down upon learning, and of placing the wisdom of our own fellow-countrymen above that of the Greeks in all departments; while Antony held that his speeches would be the more acceptable to a nation like ours, if it were thought that he had never engaged in study at all.)95 (Cic. De Or. 2.4)

Seneca’s argument in Latro’s defence seems to recall Cicero’s remark concerning the attitudes adopted by Antony and Crassus, who, to please their fellow citizens, avoided showing that they were deeply imbued with Greek culture: ita se uterque graviorem fore, si alter contemnere alter ne nosse qui­ dem Graecos videretur. In Seneca’s passage we find an allusion with variatio as the syntagm ne nosse quidem is replaced by the verb ignorare, and the two actions are attributed to the same person. However, the echo had to be easily recognizable given the fame of the Ciceronian passage, as demonstrated by the fact that this excerpt is also evoked in another work concerned with rhetoric, the Dialogus de oratoribus by Tacitus. Of the orator Aper it is said: Aper omni eruditione imbutus contemnebat potius litteras quam nesciebat (‘Aper, who was grounded in all learning, scorned letters more than he was ignorant of them’; Tac. Dial. 2.1). In my opinion, the parallel with Cicero’s passage suggests that the emphatic affirmation of Latro’s ignorance and scorn towards the Greeks must not be taken at face value. In defending his friend against the accusation of plagiarism of a Greek rhetor, Seneca seeks to move him closer to two important Latin oratorical authorities and to their self-distancing from Greek eloquence (rather than their real ignorance of Attic models). We may admire here the elegance of Seneca’s didactic approach, as his own allusion implicitly illustrates the imitatio by Latro. Moreover, he emphasizes that the audience ought to be attentive and experienced: they should be capable of noticing Latro’s allusion to Artemon’s words, but also of appreciating his ori­gin­al­ity, which arises both from his distancing of Greek models and from his typically Roman virility. Ultimately, we could interpret this reference to De oratore as suggesting a reconsideration of the relationship between Greek and Latin rhetoric. In order to defend Latro against an accusation of furtum, Seneca resorts to arguments used nearly a century before by Antony and Crassus, who sought 95 Cic. De Or. 2.4; trans. by Sutton (1942).

306  Intertextuality in Seneca the Elder to be accepted by fellow citizens hostile towards Greek eloquence. In this way, he seems to implicitely denounce the lack of culture, and so to say ‘modernity’, of the audience of his time: an audience that was not capable of recognizing and appreciating the practices of allusion and rewriting through which the Roman declaimers held dialogue with their Greek models. Seneca’s explicit remarks of literary criticism coupled with the intertextual references that he scatters throughout his work would then be aimed to instruct and refine the rhetorical taste of his readers, by simultaneously offering them a theoretical basis and a practical guidance for the art of allusion. To conclude, the intertextual construction of Latro’s figure appears emblematic of Seneca’s attitude towards Greek eloquence. On the one hand, his character is built as the opposite, concerning the vigour of his body and the rigour in his stylistic choices, to two famous Greek models, respectively Demosthenes and Demetrius of Phalerum. On the other, as he is continuing the Roman tradition of oratory established by Cato, Crassus, and Antony, he is certainly neither unaware of Greek eloquence (and Attic subtilitas), nor does he reject it as a whole. Indeed, he knows how to play a subtle and allusive game with it, in order to showcase the superiority of Latin eloquence.

15

The Use of the Apostrophe and the Fictionality of Declamation Stefan Feddern

When we talk about declamation we talk about a fictive world.1 This means that declamation has many things in common with a real speech, but there are some differences between the two forms of discourse that make the ­former appear as a fictional kind of the latter. These differences can be described—to use a common modern distinction of literary theory—on the level of the fabula (histoire) and on the level of the discours—fabula understood in the sense of ‘what is told?’ and discours in the sense of ‘how is it presented?’2 As the level of the fabula has been analyzed thoroughly by Danielle van Mal-Maeder with regard to Roman declamation and by Donald Russell with regard to Greek declamation,3 the main focus of the following investigation will lie on the discours: from a narratological point of view, we shall examine how the declaimer composes his speech and which narrative licence he uses, so that we can perceive differences—if there are any—between fictional declamation and forensic oratory. For practical reasons, the subject will be limited in two ways: on the one hand, inside the discours we choose the literary device of apostrophe as the object of investigation;4 on the other hand, the investigation will be restricted to 1  Cf. van Mal-Maeder (2007) 3: ‘La déclamation est un discours fictif ayant l’apparence d’un discours réel.’ 2  Cf. Todorov (1966) 126. 3  Cf. van Mal-Maeder (2007); Russell (1983). 4  The apostrophe is not included in Riffaterre’s (1990) 29f. list of ‘Signs pointing to the fictionality of fiction’. Nonetheless, it seems to be an object worthy of investigation, because declaimers are particularly fond of the figure; cf. Bonner (1949) 69, who especially refers to the raptor in Contr. 2.3: quid contremescis, pectus? quid, lingua, trepidas? quid, oculi, obtorpuistis? (§1) (‘Why do you tremble, heart? Why stutter, tongue? Why be dimmed, eyes?’); Quid me intempestivae proditis lacrimae? (§4) (‘Why do you betray me, unseasonable tears?’); , anime, dura; here fortior eras (§6) (‘Be strong, my mind, be strong—you were stronger yesterday.’) All translations of Seneca the Elder are adapted from Winterbottom (1974). Stefan Feddern, The Use of the Apostrophe and the Fictionality of Declamation In: Reading Roman Declamation: Seneca the Elder. Edited by: Martin T. Dinter, Charles Guérin, and Marcos Martinho, Oxford University Press (2020). © Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198746010.003.0015

308  The Use of the Apostrophe some declaimers whom Seneca the Elder cites, although attention will be paid to both the Suasoriae and the Controversiae.5 Therefore, the question that the following investigation tries to answer must be formulated thus: ‘Is the apostrophe (or some forms of the apostrophe) to be regarded as a sign of the fictionality of declamation?’ When we apply narratological theory to declamation, and especially to the declamations of Seneca the Elder, we have two possible approaches to the text. We can analyze the text as a text written by Seneca the Elder. Or we can focus on the excerpts of the declaimers that Seneca the Elder cites.6 In  the first case, we would identify Seneca the Elder as the author and ­postulate a frame of extradiegetic narration inside which the intradiegetic narration takes place. In the present investigation, however, I shall pursue the second approach. We shall focus on the declaimers’ narrative strategies, and analyse the excerpts of their declamations as texts that were originally ­spoken, that is, transmitted orally. As we are dealing with direct speech, we must first of all distinguish between the author and the speaking characters. The author is the historical declaimer who declaimed his piece during Augustus’ or Tiberius’ reign. The speaking character is the figure that the declaimer impersonates. For ex­ample, in the first Suasoria, in which Alexander is deliberating whether he should cross the Ocean,7 the declaimers impersonate a soldier who gives advice to Alexander.8 In this case, the character remains quite vague. We can just say that he belonged to the group of soldiers who advanced with Alexander to India in 326 bc, as required by the situation of the first Suasoria.9 While the distinction between author and narrator does not seem to be of much value for the declamation, the distinction between the author and the characters is fundamental: it reminds us that we should not interpret the characters’ statements as opinions and attitudes of the historical

5  I follow the text of the Controversiae edited by Håkanson (1989) and my own text of the Suasoriae: Feddern (2013) 99–146. 6  As Berti (2007) 28 says, the work of the Elder Seneca presents itself ‘a più voci’. On this polyphony, see also van Mal-Maeder in this volume. 7 Cf. Suas. 1: Deliberat Alexander an Oceanum naviget (‘Alexander deliberates whether to sail the ocean’). On the rules governing the treatment of this theme, see Huelsenbeck in this volume. 8 Cf. e.g. Suas. 1.2 (Argentarius): Resiste, orbis te tuus revocat. Vicimus qua lucet. Nihil ­tantum est, quod ego Alexandri periculo petam (‘Stop; the world that is yours calls you back. We have conquered wherever light shines. There is nothing worth my seeking if the cost is peril to Alexander’). 9  Cf. my commentary (2013) 148f. on the theme of the first Suasoria.

Stefan Feddern  309 declaimer.10 It is rather the task of the declaimer, while impersonating a character, to find and use any argument that helps him to persuade the person he addresses in the fictive world. The addressee of the character’s speech is, in the case of the first Suasoria, Alexander the Great. Unlike the speaking character, the addressee is a wellknown person from history. Although the theme of the first Suasoria evokes a situation that did not exist in that form, we are supposed to imagine Alexander approaching India in 326 bc, having conquered almost the whole known world in the East.11 The historical readers, or, in this case, as the declamation is originally an oral text, the listeners are those who are present when the declaimer holds his declamation in Augustan or Tiberian Rome. We know little about this audience. It probably consisted of a more or less heterogeneous group of schoolmen or, when we look at the showdeclamations, of more or less educated citizens interested in declamation. The narratological distinction presented above enables us to describe accurately the literary phenomenon of apostrophe. There is a large amount of literature about the apostrophe, but researchers have concentrated on apostrophe as a literary device applied in poetry, particularly in Lucan.12 There has been little attempt to engage with apostrophes in prose works,13 and a comprehensive study about it seems to be a desideratum. In an apostrophe the speaker turns away from his principal addressee in order to address someone or something else.14 Characteristically, the apo­ strophe arouses strong emotions, as Quintilian observes:15 Aversus quoque a iudice sermo, qui dicitur apostrophe, mire movet. (Speech ‘averted’ from the judge, which is called Apostrophe, is also remarkably effective.)  (Quint. Inst. 9.2.38)16 10  Migliario (2007) problematically interprets the declaimers’ statements in the sixth and seventh Suasoriae in a biographical manner; cf. further Feddern (2013) 67–75. 11  Cf. Feddern (2013) 148 on the theme of the first Suasoria. 12  Cf. D’Alessandro Behr (2007), Asso (2009), and the corresponding chapter of Ludwig’s (2014) dissertation about focalization in Lucan (‘Die narrative Funktion von Apostrophen in der Pharsalia’). 13  Cf. Usher’s (2010) study of ἀποστροφή in Greek oratory; Hutchinson (2010) about various Greek and Latin authors and works, including Cicero’s Pro Milone (Hutchinson (2010) 104–6); Pöschl (1975) about present persons and things in Cicero’s speeches. 14  Cf. Lausberg (2008) 762–5 and 848–51; Halsall (1992). Lausberg (2008) 762: ‘Die apostrophe [. . .] ist die Abwendung vom normalen Publikum . . . und die Anrede eines anderen, vom Redner überraschend gewählten Zweitpublikums.’ As Lausberg (2008) 848 observes, also the aversion from a thing has to be seen as ἀποστροφή (Lat. aversio); cf. Quint. Inst. 9.2.39. In the present investigation we focus on the aversion from the main audience. 15  Cf. also Quint. Inst. 4.1.63–70; Rhet. Her. 4.22. 16  All translations of Quintilian are adapted from Russell (2001).

310  The Use of the Apostrophe A typical emotion aroused by apostrophe is indignation.17 In declamation, however, a rapist can also express love for his victim by means of an apo­ strophe, as Sopater advises:18 εἶτα τὴν συγγνώμην πλατυνεῖς ὡς ἔνι μάλιστα ἀποστροφαῖς τε καὶ ποικίλοις ἐπιχειρήμασι, τῷ πῇ μὲν φυσιολογεῖν περὶ τοῦ πάθους, πῇ δὲ τὸν λόγον ἀποστρέφειν πρὸς τὴν κόρην. (You will amplify your claim for pardon, if possible, by means of apostrophe and various epicheiremas, making observations about the feeling of love and deflecting the speech towards the girl.) 19  (Sopater 75.3)

In the declamations of Seneca the Elder, we find various types of apostrophe. Let us begin with the Suasoriae. An example of the apostrophe can be found in the first Suasoria in the excerpt of Fabianus: Quid agitis, commilitones? *** domitoremque generis humani, magnum Alexandrum, eo dimittitis, quod adhuc quid sit disputatur? (What are you about, fellow-soldiers? Are you letting the conqueror of the human race, great Alexander, enter something whose very nature is still in dispute?) (Sen. Suas. 1.4)

In this example, Fabianus turns away from Alexander in order to address his comrades. As usual, the apostrophe expresses indignation: the declaimer reacts as if his comrades were advising Alexander to cross the Ocean—a venture that, according to the declaimer, cannot be successful because of the unknown nature of the Ocean. From a narratological point of view, the apostrophe highlights that the speaking character turns away from his addressee (Alexander) and turns to other characters of the fictive world: his comrades. Regarding the fictionality of declamation, there is no particular licence connected with this apostrophe because the Alexander of the fictive world is imagined to be accompanied by his soldiers just as the real Alexander was. Moreover, as the speaker’s comrades are imagined to advise Alexander to do the opposite of what the speaker advises, this apostrophe is 17  Cf. Quint. Inst. 4.1.63–70; Rhet. Her. 4.22. 18  Sopater 75.3 Weißenberger (2010) 232 = 8.365.3-5 Walz; cf. Hutchinson (2010) 97. 19  This translation is the author’s own.

Stefan Feddern  311 comparable to the very common apostrophe of judicial speeches where the speaker turns from the judges to the adversaries.20 Another example can be found in the fifth Suasoria, in which the Athenians deliberate whether they should destroy the trophies of the battle of Salamis (480 bc).21 The declaimer Arellius Fuscus impersonates one of the deliberating Athenians and uses the following apostrophe: Quid Cynaegiron referam et te, Polyzele? Et hoc agitur, an viceris! (What of Cynaegiros and Polyzelos? And still the question is raised, did you win?)  (Sen. Suas. 5.2)

In this apostrophe, Fuscus, impersonating an Athenian, turns away from his main addressees, the Athenians, and turns to Polyzelos, who is probably the man named Epizelos about whom Herodotus writes; he allegedly lost his eyesight in the battle of Marathon (490 bc) while battling a giant hoplite.22 This apostrophe serves as an indirect exhortation of the Athenians, who should feel reassured that they defeated the Persians completely, thanks to heroic fighters such as Polyzelos. The second person viceris has been questioned,23 but given that we have an apostrophe in which Polyzelos is addressed instead of the Athenians, it makes perfect sense here. Regarding the fictionality of declamation, this apostrophe belongs to a different cat­ egory than the first example. In this case, the speaker addresses a person not easily imagined as being present. Indeed, we imagine Polyzelos as being present because of the apostrophe, for without it nobody would have expected him to be present among the Athenians who deliberate whether they should destroy the trophies. Possibly, he was already dead by the time 20  Cf. Cic. Lig. 9: Quid enim tuus ille, Tubero, destrictus in acie Pharsalica gladius agebat? Cuius latus ille mucro petebat? Qui sensus erat armorum tuorum? Quae tua mens, oculi, manus, ardor animi? Quid cupiebas, quid optabas? (‘When your sword, Tubero, was unsheathed on the field of Pharsalus, what was its object, at whose breast was its blade directed, what was the significance of your weapons, upon what were your thoughts, your eyes, your strong right arm, your fiery spirit bent? What desires, what dreams did you cherish?’; transl. adapt. from Yonge). A special case is the first Catilinarian, where Cicero addresses himself more to Catiline than to the senators; cf. e.g. the first sentence (Cic. Cat. 1.1): Quo usque tandem abutere, Catilina, patientia nostra? (‘Until when will you abuse our patience, Catiline?’) For the deliberative type of speech, cf. Cic. Phil. 2.75–84. 21 Cf. Suas. 5: Deliberant Athenienses, an tropaea Persica tollant Xerse minante rediturum se, nisi tollerentur. (‘Xerxes has threatened to return unless the trophies of the Persian war are removed; the Athenians deliberate whether to do so.’) 22  Cf. Herodotus 6.117.2 and Feddern (2013) 367. 23  Cf. Feddern (2013) 126.

312  The Use of the Apostrophe the Athenians held their fictive debate (after 480 bc). This apostrophe thus breaks the laws of time and space of the real world and moves into the realm of fictionality. In the sixth Suasoria, where Cicero is deliberating whether he should beg Antony’s pardon,24 we have an apostrophe that can be compared to the one employed in the first Suasoria. The declaimer Haterius impersonates an adviser of Cicero and uses the following apostrophe: ‘Vetat’ inquit ‘Milo rogare iudices’; i nunc et Antonium roga. (‘Milo’, said Cicero, ‘forbids me to beg the judges.’ ‘Go ahead, beg Antony.’) (Sen. Suas. 6.2)

In these words, the speaking character refers to Cicero’s speech on behalf of Milo, at the end of which Cicero states that Milo forbids him to beg the judges’ pardon.25 Using this reference, the speaker ironically exhorts Cicero to beg Antony’s pardon. This means that he uses the Argumentum a minori: given that Milo did not want to beg for pardon, all the more should Cicero not do so.26 We are dealing with an apostrophe because the impersonating declaimer turns away from Cicero when he uses the third person inquit. Indeed, this form has been questioned and substituted by inquis.27 But there is no need to have doubts about this apostrophe be­cause apostrophe is a common device of declamation. More difficult is the question to whom the speaking declaimer turns. He might imagine to be in a circle of friends who are trying to persuade Cicero to take their advice. Accordingly, the speaking character could be identified as one of Cicero’s friends. It is also possible that he imagines himself speaking in the senate and being one of the sen­ators. The text does not offer further pointers to answer this question. Nonetheless, with regard to the fictionality of ­declamation, we may consider this an example for an easy apostrophe, because it is no great licence to address the group of advisers instead of the deliberating person himself—just as in the first Suasoria it is easy to imagine Alexander’s soldiers as the audience.

24 Cf. Suas. 6: Deliberat Cicero, an Antonium deprecetur. (‘Cicero deliberates whether to beg Antony’s pardon.’) 25  Cf. Cic. Mil. 92 and 105. 26  Cf. Feddern (2013) 390. 27  Cf. Feddern (2013) 128.

Stefan Feddern  313 A similar instance of apostrophe can be found in the same Suasoria. Varius Geminus tries to persuade Cicero to beg Antony’s pardon and uses the third person: Quod grandia loquitur et dicit: ‘Mors nec immatura consulari nec misera sapienti’, non movet me; idiotam petit. Ego belle mores hominis novi: faciet, rogabit. Nam quod ad servitutem pertinet, non recusabit; iam collum tritum habet. Et Pompeius illum et Caesar subiecerunt. Veteranum mancipium videtis. (I am not moved by his fine talk, the way he says: ‘Death is not early for a former consul nor distressing for a wise man.’ He addresses an idiot. I am pretty sure of the character of the man; he will do it, he will beg pardon. As to slavery, he will not refuse it; his neck is already worn—Pompey and Caesar have broken him in: you see before you an experienced slave.) (Sen. Suas. 6.12)

Like Haterius, but on a larger scale, Varius Geminus impersonates one of Cicero’s friends and talks about Cicero in the third person. In this case, we may say with more certainty that he is impersonating one of Cicero’s friends because he has called him ‘my Cicero’ (meus Cicero) before.28 As the speaking declaimer imagines other friends of Cicero to be his second audience, we have again a small licence connected to this type of apostrophe.29 We will now turn to the Controversiae. In the fictional type as in the real type of judicial speech, it is a common device to turn away from the judges as the primary audience to address the adversaries, as we have already mentioned. Examples can be found in Controversia 9.2, in which Lucius Quinctius Flamininus is accused of having diminished the maiestas of the Romans because he has decapitated a guilty man during a banquet at the

28 Cf. Suas. 6.12: Geminus Varius declamavit alteram quoque partem et ait: spero me Ciceroni meo persuasurum, ut velit vivere. (‘Geminus Varius declaimed this side as well as the other, saying: “I hope I will persuade my friend Cicero to consent to live.” ’) 29  As we are dealing with quite a large address in the third person lacking sentences in which the speaking declaimer addresses Cicero in the second person, we might also interpret the present excerpt as a form of a praelocutio. A praelocutio is an introductory talk before a declamation that can serve several purposes (cf. the introduction in Feddern (2013) 40 and 42). In this case, the historical declaimer would address his real audience in Imperial Rome and make some statements about the declamation he was going to present.

314  The Use of the Apostrophe request of a meretrix.30 In this Controversia, various declaimers address Flamininus instead of the judges,31 for example Julius Bassus: Servum si verberari voluisses, extra convivium abduxisses. (If you had wanted a slave flogged, you would have had him taken outside the dining room.)  (Sen. Contr. 9.2.4)

In the character of the accuser, Julius Bassus points to the cruel deed ­committed by Flamininus when he says that he would have punished a slave away from the banquet. Regarding the fictionality of declamation, this is a simple apostrophe because the accused person has to be imagined as present. There are, however, further types of apostrophe in this declamation. The same declaimer uses the following example just before the aforementioned apostrophe: Gratulor sorti tuae, provincia, quod desiderante tale spectaculum meretrice plenum carcerem damnatis habuisti. (I congratulate you on your luck, province: when a whore felt in need of such a spectacle, you had your prison full of condemned prisoners.) (Sen. Contr. 9.2.4)

In this sarcastic statement, the speaking character also points to Flamininus’ cruel deed and congratulates the province Gallia that the prison was full of guilty people and not of innocent men. In this case, we are dealing with an apostrophe in which the speaker addresses an inanimate thing.32 It is similar 30 Cf. Contr. 9.2: MAIESTATIS LAESAE SIT ACTIO. Flamininus proconsul inter cenam a meretrice rogatus, quae aiebat se numquam vidisse hominem decollari, unum ex damnatis occidit. Accusatur maiestatis. (‘An action shall lie for lèse-majesté. Flamininus, when proconsul, was once asked a favour by a whore while dining. She said she had never seen a man’s head being cut off. He had a condemned criminal killed. He is accused of lèse-majesté.’) 31  Cf. Albucius Silus in Sen. Contr. 9.2.7: O qui crudelitate omnis superasti tyrannos! (‘In sadistic practices you have surpassed every tyrant!’); Hispo Romanius in Sen. Contr. 9.2.7: Quis ferret te, si in triclinio tuo iudicium coegisses? . . . Ad arbitrium meretricis de reis pronuntiasti, nisi forte facilius in honorem eius decollas quam iudicas. (‘Who would tolerate your behaviour if you had held a trial in your dining-room? It was at the whim of a whore that you pronounced sentence on accused men, unless you are readier to behead men for her sake than to judge them.’) 32  Cf. Cic. Verr. 2.5.163: O nomen dulce libertatis! O ius eximium nostrae civitatis! O lex Porcia legesque Semproniae! O graviter desiderata et aliquando reddita plebi Romanae tribunicia potestas! (‘Does freedom, that precious thing, mean nothing? Nor the proud privileges of a citizen of Rome? Nor the law of Porcius, the laws of Sempronius? Nor the tribunes’ power, whose loss our people felt so deeply till now at last it has been restored to them?’); Cic. Mil. 85: Vos

Stefan Feddern  315 to a personification (prosopopeia), the difference being that in a per­ sonification an inanimate thing (or dead person) speaks.33 The declaimer Capito uses another type of apostrophe: Exsurgite nunc, Bruti, Horatii, Decii et cetera imperi decora: vestri fasces, vestrae secures in quantum, pro bone Iuppiter, dedecus recciderunt! Istis obscenae puellae iocantur. (Arise now, you Brutuses, Horatii, Decii, and all the other glorious names of our empire. To what disgraceful depths, by heaven, have sunk your rods, your axes! Obscene girls make jest with these.)  (Sen. Contr. 9.2.9)

In this pathetic apostrophe, Capito, impersonating the accuser, addresses the heroes of the past: Lucius Junius Brutus, who avenged the rape of Lucretia and freed Rome from the reign of the Tarquins; the Horatii triplets, who fought against the Curiatii and killed their sister who lamented the death of one of the Curiatii; and Publius Decius Mus, who saved his beleaguered army in the first war against the Samnites (343 bc) and died in battle against the Latini at Capua after he had devoted himself to the gods.34 Addressing these Roman heroes, the speaking character contrasts the le­git­ im­ate use of the fasces (as traditional signs of the magistrates) with their illegitimate use by the meretrix. The aim is to arouse indignation about Flamininus’ execution of the guilty man at the request of the meretrix. Regarding the fictionality of declamation, this is an example of an apostrophe that involves great licence since deceased heroes are addressed. The same declaimer also addresses another deceased person in an apostrophe: Heu quam dissimiles exitus initiis habes! Accusavit te eques Romanus, iudicaverunt equites Romani, praetor damnatum pronuntiavit, occidit meretrix.

enim iam, Albani tumuli atque luci, vos, inquam, imploro atque obtestor; vosque, Albanorum obrutae arae . . . (‘For to ye now, hills and groves of Alba, to ye, I say, I appeal and pray; and to ye, ruined altars of the folk of Alba . . .’) 33  Cf. the definition cited by Quintilian (Inst. 9.2.31), who himself does not distinguish between prosopopeia and ethopoiia; Hermogenes RhG 2.15 Spengel; Aphthonios RhG 2.44 Spengel; Aquila RhLM 23 Halm. As an example, cf. Cic. Cael. 34. 34  The plural Decii must not be generalizing because the son P.  Decius Mus also fought ­successfully against the Samnites.

316  The Use of the Apostrophe (How different your beginning from your end! You were accused by a Roman knight, judged by Roman knights, pronounced guilty by a praetor: killed by a whore.)  (Sen. Contr. 9.2.10)

This time, the speaking character addresses the guilty man who was executed at the request of the meretrix. He contrasts his legitimate sentence with his death that has to be viewed as scandalous. The function of this apostrophe is to arouse pity for Flamininus’ victim, and to simultaneously create resentment towards Flamininus himself. If we want to distinguish within the category of addressing the deceased, this is an address to a person who is more closely related to the process than the dead heroes of the past whom the speaking character previously addressed. By recapitulating the different uses of apostrophe we have seen so far, systematization according to various parameters can be attempted. As this study, however, is primarily concerned with the fictionality of declamation, I will arrange the different types of apostrophe according to the degree of their fictionality:



I. People are addressed who necessarily have to be imagined as present: the adversaries or the other side in a deliberation: Alexander’s soldiers (Sen. Suas. 1.4); Flamininus (Sen. Contr. 9.2.4) II. People are addressed who are easily added to the fictive world: a group of Cicero’s friends (Sen. Suas. 6.2 and maybe 12) III. People are addressed who are not so easily added to the fictive world: Polyzelos (Sen. Suas. 5.2) [who may perhaps belong in cat­egory V] IV. An inanimate thing is addressed: the province (Sen. Contr. 9.2.4) V. A deceased person is addressed: a) a dead person who in time and space is closely related to the ­process (deliberation): the executed man that gives rise to the process (Sen. Contr. 9.2.10) b) a dead person who in time and space is not so closely related to the process (deliberation): the heroes of the past (Sen. Contr. 9.2.9)

Such systematization can, of course, only be an attempt and the bound­ aries between some types of apostrophe overlap. Nevertheless, it may help to build the basis for a future comparison between fictional declamation and forensic oratory which will depend on a still non-existent collection of the different types of apostrophe used in forensic oratory. In the meantime we can only formulate assumptions. It seems that—apart from the different

Stefan Feddern  317 narrative levels—there is no difference concerning the apostrophe of ­fictional declamation and that of forensic oratory. All these types may prob­ ably be found in Cicero’s speeches. Moreover, the addressees to whom the declaimers turn are not random fantasy figures but usually bear some relation to the subject matter. We gain the impression that in the Controversiae there are more apostrophes than in the forensic speeches, as Sen. Contr. 9.2 suggests. This may be due to the fact that Seneca the Elder selected the most striking sentences delivered by the declaimers. In the Suasoriae, we find only a few apostrophes, perhaps not more than Cicero uses in his genus deliberativum speeches.

16

Controversial Games Didactical Voices and the Construction of Discourse in Seneca’s Controversiae and Suasoriae Danielle van Mal-Maeder

Seneca’s collection of Controversiae and Suasoriae offers a concerto of ­ ultiple discordant and occasionally fiercely duelling voices. These voices m belong to Seneca and the rhetors or declaimers to whom he cedes the floor, citing them, in most cases, in direct discourse. In this chapter I will take a closer look at this multiplicity of voices, in particular their striking sententiae, but also their more ample and didactical declarations. I will show how these voices centre around recurrent and related themes such as imitation, immortality of literature and of the written word, decadence and the decline of eloquence, as well as the relationship between eloquence and power, to name but a few. This requires distinguishing different levels of discourse: 1. Seneca’s discourse addressed to his sons and, through them, to a larger audience. 2. The discourses of the rhetors and declaimers cited by Seneca a. Their phrases articulated as ‘fictitious’ declaimers, addressing ‘fictitious’ juries.1 These are found, primarily, in the sections dedicated to the sententiae, but also in those concerning colores. b. Other phrases and bon mots these same rhetors and declaimers actually pronounced, addressing either their pupils, colleagues, or, sometimes, Seneca himself. These citations are found in the pre-faces as well as in the sections on divisio and colores. 1  On this terminology, see van Mal-Maeder (2007) 41–2. Danielle van Mal-Maeder, Controversial Games: Didactical Voices and the Construction of Discourse in Seneca’s Controversiae and Suasoriae In: Reading Roman Declamation: Seneca the Elder. Edited by: Martin T. Dinter, Charles Guérin, and Marcos Martinho, Oxford University Press (2020). © Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198746010.003.0016

Danielle van Mal-Maeder  319 A certain number of these phrases are citations from authors like Homer, Caesar, Cicero, Virgil, or Livy. They appear at every level of this discourse: Seneca as well as his declaimers resort to this form of intertextuality, which is, as we will see, not merely ornamental. A striking orality dominates the collection although Seneca highlights four times over that he is composing a written work.2 The manner in which he addresses his children creates the impression of a casual conversation—a conversation with only one voice, since he always incorporates his sons’ answers into his own discourse: Video vos, iuvenes mei, plus iusto ad hanc eius virtutem obstupescere; [. . .] Cupitis statim discere? Suspendam cupiditatem vestram et faciam alteri beneficio locum; interim hoc vobis in quo iam obligatus sum persolvam. (I can see, my dear young men, that you are more impressed by this talent of Latro than you should be; [. . .] You want to learn straight away? I will keep your eagerness in suspense, and leave myself room to do you a se­cond service; meanwhile I shall pay my present debt to you.) (Sen. Contr. 1.praef.19)3 Iam videbar promissum meum implesse; circumspiciebam tamen num quid me praeterisset. Ultro Votieni Montani mentionem intulistis. (Just now I thought I had done all I promised—but I was looking around to see if I had forgotten anything. Without any prompting you brought up Votienus Montanus.)  (Sen. Contr. 9.praef.1) Quod ultra mihi molesti sitis non est: interrogate si qua vultis, et sinite me ab istis iuvenilibus studiis ad senectutem meam reverti. Fatebor vobis, iam res taedio est. (You must trouble me no further: ask, if you have any request, and let me get back from these youthful pursuits to my old age. I will confess to you: by now I am tired of the whole thing.)  (Sen. Contr. 10.praef.1) Et, quia hoc [si tam] recta via consequi non potero, decipere vos cogar, velut salutarem daturus pueris potionem. Sumite pocula.

2 Sen. Contr. 2.praef.5 and 4.praef.1; Sen. Suas. 6.16 and 6.7. The edition I cite is that of Winterbottom (1974). For further study concerning Seneca’s work and its structure, see Fairweather (1981); Berti (2007) 25–39; Huelsenbeck (2018); Guérin (2009a), (2010), (2015); Feddern (2013) 3–61 (on the Suasoriae in particular). 3  Here and throughout, all translations are adapted from Winterbottom (1974).

320  Controversial Games (And, as I shan’t be able to bring this about straightforwardly, I shall have to deceive you, like someone wanting to give medicine to a child. Take up your glasses.)4 (Sen. Suas. 6.16)

The verbs employed (iubere, videre, audire, interrogare), the adverbs of place and time (statim, interim, hodie, diutius, hic), and the frequency with which Seneca calls upon his sons create an enunciative oral setting, at times even comprising a fictitious non-verbal communication (videos vos . . . obstupescere, sumite pocula). Naturally this vocabulary (in particular the imperative ­sumite pocula, if we accept this conjecture5) should be understood in a ­figurative sense. But it does add a certain dynamism to the discourse and contributes to its didactical aims. Seneca’s account unfolds in an apparently aleatory fashion, floating along on a current of association, memories, and ideas.6 In addition, it is punctuated by dispersed comments that refer to preceding material, or announce what is yet to come.7 The whole leaves the impression of an informal lesson held in the presence of Seneca’s children and, for their sake, spiced with citations. The Controversiae and the Suasoriae are, however, not didactical treatises in the strict sense. Seneca does not dictate rules or norms. He does not transmit a method. He does, however, give his opinion—in plain Latin—on the quality of certain declaimers, as well as a number of recommendations destined to make his sons ‘good men skilled in speaking’.8 The didactical dimension of the collection rests on the continuous presence of Seneca’s ‘I’, intimately and paternally addressing his sons, who are the only openly 4  Cf. also Sen. Contr. 4.praef.2: Non tamen expectationem vestram macerabo singulos producendo: liberaliter hodie et plena manu faciam (‘But I won’t keep you on tenterhooks by bringing them on only one at a time; today I shall be liberal and open-handed’); Suas. 2.23: Sed ne vos diutius infatuem, quia dixeram me Fusci Arelli explicationes subiecturum, hic finem suasoriae faciam (‘But so as not to craze you further, I will end this suasoria here, for I have promised to add developments by Fuscus’). 5  Sumite pocula is a conjecture by Müller (1887) for the reading sum(p)ti poculi or populi; Håkanson (1989) prints summa parte poculi, Feddern (2013) sumpti poculi: see his commentary ad loc. 433–4. This passage may be an allusion to Lucr. DRN 1.936–8 = 4.11–25: see later in this chapter. 6 Sen. Contr. 1.praef.4: Illud necesse est inpetrem, ne me quasi certum aliquem ordinem velitis sequi in contrahendis quae mihi occurrent; necesse est enim per omnia studia mea errem et passim quidquid obvenerit adprehendam (‘But I must ask you not to insist on any strict order in the assembling of my memories; I must stray at large through all my studies, and grab at random whatever comes my way’). 7  Cf. e.g. Sen. Contr. 1.2.21; 2.1.37; 2.4.8; 7.3.10; 7.4.3; Suas. 1.7; 2.22; 3.4; 6.10; 6.25. 8  Cf. Sen. Contr. 1.praef.9, where Cato’s famous definition is cited: Orator est, Marce fili, vir bonus dicendi peritus (‘An orator, son Marcus, is a good man skilled in speaking’), a definition taken up by Quint. Inst. 12.1.1. Also see Guérin (2009a).

Danielle van Mal-Maeder  321 acknowledged recipients of his discourse. Other ‘I’s do, however, make their appearance to reinforce this didactical dimension: those of the figures whose words Seneca recites from memory, having heard them as a student or listener. As it happens Seneca does indeed regularly lend his voice to some other figures, which, for the duration of the citation, then become ‘auctorial’. This is the case, for example, in the preface to Book 3, where he evokes the memory of Cassius Severus, who was, according to him, a better orator than declaimer.9 When Seneca asked him how this was possible, Severus answered that pleading at the forum and declaiming in a school were two quite different matters. He, who had high regard for pragmatic eloquence himself, profoundly regretted that the young preferred the declaimer Cestius to Cicero. Severus then adds an anecdote about the same Cestius, who pretended to match himself against Cicero while delivering a discourse Against Milo (in Milonem) in front of his pupils:10 Memini me intrare scholam eius cum recitaturus esset in Milonem; Cestius ex consuetudine sua miratus dicebat: ‘Si Thraex essem, Fusius essem; si pantomimus essem, Bathyllus essem, si equus, Melissio.’ Non continui bilem et exclamavi: ‘Si cloaca esses, maxima esses.’ (I recall going into his school when he was going to recite a speech against Milo. Cestius, with his usual admiration for his own works, said: ‘If I were a Thracian, I should be Fusius. If I were a mime, I should be Bathyllus. If I were a horse, I should be Melissio.’ I couldn’t contain my rage. I shouted: ‘If you were a drain, you’d be the Great Drain.’)  (Sen. Contr. 3.praef.16)

The anecdote, resembling an epigram or chreia,11 rests on citations given in direct discourse, with Severus’ pun pinning Cestius’ vanity to the wall. Its purpose extends beyond merely ridiculing the rhetor; the pun also underlines Severus’ argument on the superiority of the forum’s eloquence over didactical declamation. We observe layer upon layer of citations: Seneca recalls (memini) how Severus told him that he recalled (memini) how Cestius said this and how he answered that. A true labyrinth of citations 9 Sen. Contr. 3.praef.1: Memini itaque me a Severo Cassio quaerere quid esset cur in declamationibus eloquentia illi sua non responderet (‘And I remember that I once asked Cassius Severus why it was that his eloquence failed him in declamation’). 10  On Cassius Severus’ witticism in this anecdote, see also Schneider in this volume. 11 The chreia belongs to the progymnasmata; on these rhetorical exercises, see Webb (2001); Patillon and Bolognesi (2002); Patillon (2008); Penella (2011); Gibson (2014); Berardi (2017).

322  Controversial Games exists in which different voices take turns at playing the part of the ­discourse’s authority. In other passages of the collection the opinion of the same Cestius, here ridiculed by Severus, becomes the rule: Seneca cites his recommendations several times using imperatives and verbal adjectives.12 This mishmash of voices assuming an ‘auctorial’ position and often opposing one another virulently is an integral part of the didactical aim of the collection. In the first preface, Seneca states his desire to satisfy his sons’ taste for the sententiae.13 But before anything else the citations are intended to illustrate the good, the bad, and the ugly in eloquence. Beneath the ­surface, the theme of the era’s decadence is ever-present throughout the collection. Seneca submits the words of past and present masters of ­ ­eloquence to his sons’ judgment. The juxtaposition of citations offers them the possibility to judge and compare: Exigitis rem magis iucundam mihi quam facilem: iubetis enim quid de his declamatoribus sentiam qui in aetatem meam inciderunt indicare et, si qua memoriae meae nondum elapsa sunt ab illis dicta colligere, ut, quamvis notitiae vestrae subducti sint, tamen non credatis tantum de illis sed et iudicetis. (What you ask is something I find agreeable rather than easy. You tell me to give you my opinion of the declaimers who have been my contempora­ ries, and to put together such of their sayings as I haven’t yet forgotten, so that, even though you were not acquainted with them, you may still form your own judgment on them without trusting merely to hearsay.) (Sen. Contr. 1.praef.1) Horum nomina non me a nimio favore sed a certo posuisse iudicio scietis cum sententias eorum rettulero aut pares notissimorum auctorum sententiis aut praeferendas. (Once I have recounted their epigrams, which are equal or perhaps superior to those of the most renowned authors, you will see that I have set down the names of these men not out of excess of enthusiasm for them, but on the basis of a considered judgment.)14 (Sen. Contr. 10.praef.16)

Seneca thus supplies his sons with an opportunity to develop their judgment by comparing the words of one author to those of another. At the same time 12  E.g. Sen. Suas. 1.5 (cited later in this chapter). 13 Sen. Contr. 1.praef.22. 14  Cf. also Suas. 1.16.

Danielle van Mal-Maeder  323 he also likes to give his own opinion on certain declaimers, with wit and finesse, mocking, for example, a phrase from the rhetor Musa, dear to his sons, with the aid of intertextuality: ex illis qui res ineptas dixerant ‘primus ibi ante omnis’ Musa voster (‘Of those who said foolish things, “first before all” was your friend Musa’).15 In a certain sense the form of Seneca’s collection reproduces the learning process of classical eloquence, which was based on listening, reviewing, imitating, and emulating others. The latter two points are fundamental. We are familiar with the importance of imitation and emulation in classical literary creation. The Controversiae and Suasoriae illustrate the pivotal part they play in rhetorical education.16 Declaimers imitated great authors, while at the same time imitating each other, to a point where their words become downright pyramids of inter­ text­ual­ity. An anecdote relating a skirmish between Cestius and his former pupil, Argentius, illustrates this very well.17 The theme of the declamation opposes a biological father who exposed his two children to the man who took them in and raised them; the father obtained their whereabouts from the latter and took them back: Et illud dixerat [Cestius] ‘Placet mihi in inritum revocari quae gesta sunt. Quid do ne indicaverim?’ Argentarius dixit ex altera parte miseriorem se nunc esse quam cum ignoraret suos; et cum tormenta paterni animi des­ cripsisset, ait: ‘Etiamnunc pacisci volo. Quid do ut liberos meos recipiam? Quid do ne agnoverim?’ Indignabatur Cestius detorqueri ab illo totiens et mutari sententias suas. ‘Quid putatis’, aiebat, ‘Argentarium esse? Cesti simius est.’ Solebat et Graece dicere: ‘ὁ πίθηκός μου’. Fuerat enim Argentarius Cesti auditor et erat imitator. Aiebat invicem: ‘Quid putatis esse Cestium nisi Cesti cinerem?’ Et sic solebat iurare: ‘Per manes praeceptoris mei Cesti’, cum Cestius viveret. (And he [Cestius] had also said: ‘I am happy that what has been done should be annulled. What would I give not to have revealed the information?’ Argentarius, on the other side, said he was now more wretched than when he did not know about his sons; after describing the agonies of a 15 Sen. Contr. 7.5.10: cf. Verg. Aen. 2.40; see Pingoud and Rolle pp. 279–80 in this volume. Compare Suas. 3.6, where the orator Gallio uses a Virgilian expression to describe the emphatic verve of certain orators (plena deo: these words are not attested in Virgil’s text as it has reached us: see Feddern (2013) 307–11, and Guérin pp. 70–1 and 84 in this volume). 16  Berti (2007) 251–64 with further references; see also Pingoud and Rolle (2020) passim; Pasetti et al. (2019) xxi–xxx. 17  On Argentarius’ reworking of Cestius’ sententiae, see also Mannering in this volume.

324  Controversial Games father’s feelings, he said: ‘I still want to bargain. What would I give to take back my sons? What would I give not to have recognized them?’ Cestius was angry that Argentarius so often twisted and changed his epigrams, and he said: ‘What do you think Argentarius is? He is Cestius’ ape.’ He also used to say ‘my ape’ in Greek. For Argentarius had been a pupil of Cestius’, and was still his imitator. He said in return: ‘What do you think Cestius is but the ashes of Cestius?’ And he used to swear ‘by the ghost of my teacher Cestius’ while Cestius was still alive.)  (Sen. Contr. 9.3.11–12)

The opening sententia (from the declaimer Cestius) serves as a trigger for an animated and amusing short narratio on the theme of imitation-emulation. On another level, the anecdote also raises the concomitant question of ­plagiarism, a subject that preoccupies Seneca, who raises it on several ­occasions. Not only does he desire to save the words of the masters of ­eloquence from oblivion, he also wishes to give each and every one of them his due: return to Caesar what is rightfully his.18 In this sense his catalogue of cit­ations, accompanied by the authors’ names, functions as a verbal me­mor­ial.19 The anecdotes with which Seneca spices his collection are, indeed, seldom meant for entertainment only. They are part of the didactical aims of the collection. In the preface of Book 4, for example, Seneca resorts to the practice of parallel (another type of school exercise20) to expose the diametrically opposed reactions of Asinius Pollio and Haterius when confronted with the death of each’s child. The first returns to declaiming only three days after the event, while the second never recovered from the blow; years after, when he had to play the part of a mourning father, he still burst out in tears.21 Although this might at first sight appear as a digression, it is not superfluous. The anecdotes are, in fact, closely connected to the subject of the first controversia of this same book, which contrasts a father incapable of tearing himself away from the tomb of his three children to the de­bauch­ee who forced him to drop his mourner’s dress and participate in a

18  This is literally the case in Suas. 2.22: Tuscus ille [. . .] dixit: ‘expectemus, si nihil aliud hoc effecturi, ne insolens barbarus dicat: veni, vidi, vici’, cum hoc post multos annos divus Iulius victo Pharnace dixerit (‘Tuscus [. . .] said: “Let us wait. We shall at least ensure that the arrogant ­barbarian does not say: I came, I saw, I conquered.” In fact, it was many years later that Julius Caesar said this, after his victory over Pharnaces’); on this ‘anachronism’, see Feddern (2013) 61–3. 19  See also Guérin (2010), in particular 147–8 and 152–4, and Cappello in this volume. 20  See n. 11 in this chapter. 21 Sen. Contr. 4.praef.4–6; on this passage and the confusion between real and fictitious declaimers concerning pathos, see van Mal-Maeder (2016 ) 104–5.

Danielle van Mal-Maeder  325 party.22 Above all, they demonstrate that declamation was considered as a social activity, implicating, normally, a separation between private and public spheres. In the same vein, Seneca evokes the relation between eloquence and power through other anecdotes built around sententiae and citations. In the first Suasoria where Alexander wonders if he should brave the ocean or not, Seneca inserts a lengthy argument from the orator Cestius between two excerpts from the philosopher Fabianus, to mark the differences between the two declaimers. Seneca introduced Fabianus in the preface to the se­cond book of the Controversiae as a role model for his son Mela, preoccupied with philosophy rather than politics. Fabianus, although a philosopher, attached great importance to eloquence.23 The excerpts Seneca cites in this suasoria reflect the approach of the philosopher in his advice to Alexander not to defy the Ocean, by developing the topoi of man’s helplessness facing nature and the whims of fortune. The pragmatic declaimer Cestius, on the contrary, insists on the necessity of adapting a discourse to the character of its recipient—in this case a king too proud to tolerate comments criticizing his hubris.24 To support his opinion, Cestius cites an anecdote related to the subject of this suasoria illustrating the vanity of Alexander. The king, a selfproclaimed god, had been wounded. One of his intimates, a philosopher, wondered out loud why red blood dripped from the wound rather than ‘that clear blood floating in the veins of the blessed gods’ (ἰχώρ, οἷός πέρ τε ῥέει μακάρεσσι θεοῖσιν): an amusing take on a Homeric verse, which provoked Alexander to impale the impertinent man’s chest with his spear.25 Various authors transmit this famous anecdote.26 It appears notably in a letter to Lucilius from the Younger Seneca, who does, however, place the Homeric verse in Alexander’s own mouth. Anything but a joke, the citation takes here the dimension of an apophthegm: Alexander cites Homer’s verses when he realizes that he is nothing but a man, a victim of excessive adulation from his entourage.27 The anecdote reported by Cestius can be related to another bon mot, building on intertextuality, again aimed at Alexander’s vanity: in the fourth Suasoria the world-conquering king wonders whether he should enter Babylon in spite of a danger foreseen by his augurs. Seneca reports how the 22 Sen. Contr. 4.1. 23 Sen. Contr. 2.praef.3–4; see Pasetti (2008) 116–17. 24 Sen. Suas. 1.5. See also Schneider in this volume. 25 Hom. Il. 5.340. 26  Feddern (2013) 181–3 identifies the philosopher to whom Cestius refers as Anaxarchus of Abdera. 27 Sen. Ep. 59.12.

326  Controversial Games declaimer Fuscus, while dealing with another subject, won acclaim from his audience when he illuminated his discourse by citing verses from Virgil to develop the topos of divine providence: scilicet is superis labor est, ea cura quietos / sollicitat (‘Naturally that is a task for the gods, that is a care that troubles them in their calm’).28 Inspired by this success, someone from Fuscus’ audience (whose name Seneca withholds—possibly because he was still alive) used the very same verses from Virgil to develop the topos of  the impossibility of predicting future events when declaiming the ­above-­mentioned suasoria on Alexander. Fuscus, who happened to be in the ­audience, comments: Si hoc dixisses audiente Alexandro, scisses apud Vergilium et illum versum esse: ‘Capulo tenus abdidit ensem’ (‘If you had said that in the hearing of Alexander you’d have been made aware there’s another verse in Virgil: “He buried the sword to its hilt” ’).29 The reference to Virgil is in this case coated with didactical purpose: its goal is to demonstrate that one does not cite just anything to anyone.30 Fuscus’ intervention might also be related to the issue of plagiarism: citing a classical author was considered an art and a creative act in its own right. Fuscus consequently berates the anonymous declaimer for pinching his find. His phrase refers, of course, to the death of Alexander’s companion, the one who cited Homer rather unfortunately: a remarkable imbrication of inter- and intratextual references (Virgil 2 responds to Virgil 1 and alludes at the same time to Homer, while the passage of the fourth Suasoria echoes that of the first). Such anecdotes are not simply entertaining. They allow us to reflect on the relation between eloquence and power, as well as on the limits of the freedom of expression. They demonstrate how scholastic declamation, although (apparently) apolitical,31 made students aware of these issues. Moreover, Seneca adds two further, more contemporary Roman anecdotes to Cestius’ in the first Suasoria. Both concern civil war figures, sensitive to mockery and flattery: the younger Pompey and Mark Antony.32 The relation between eloquence and power had already been tackled in the Controversiae.33 In the book of the Suasoriae it comes into full bloom, culminating in two

28 Sen. Suas. 4.4–5; cf. Verg. Aen. 4.379–80 (Dido to Aeneas, ironizing on the fact that the gods might command him to go to Italy). On this topos in declamations, see Pasetti (2008), 117–24; van Mal-Maeder (2020) 125–6. 29  Cf. Verg. Aen. 2.553 (Neoptolemus killing Priam). 30  Compare Quint. Inst. 10.2.25–6, who remarks that imitation of authors should adapt according to style and context. See also Mannering in this volume. 31  See Feddern’s discussion (2013) 67–75 (principally concerning the Suasoriae). 32 Sen. Suas. 1.5–7. 33 Sen. Contr. 2.4.12–13.

Danielle van Mal-Maeder  327 scenes where Cicero and Mark Antony stand opposed.34 It is linked to other themes that surface, disappear, and resurface throughout the collection: a kaleidoscope of themes carried by a kaleidoscope of voices. Among these, as we have seen, are the decline of eloquence, the decadence of the era, the immortality of works and words in their relation to politics, and imitation. I would like to end with this thematic imbrication, showing how it ensures the coherence of a work with so many and often contra­dict­ory voices. Let us resume from the beginning. In the preface of Book 1, Seneca admitted his desire to indulge himself in childhood memories.35 In the preface to Book 10, however, he expresses his weariness with an exercise that has taken up too much time.36 This change of attitude increases the rhythm of his delivery. Where he consecrates all his attention solely to Latro in the first preface, elaborating extensively on his positive qualities (while including few faults), in the tenth he rapidly enumerates examples of other orators. Amongst these is Scaurus, to whom Seneca quickly concedes some talents only to reproach his idleness afterwards.37 This passage echoes the first preface, where Seneca developed the topos of decadence and young people so idle that they content themselves with repeating the sententiae of their elders as their own.38 Concerning Scaurus, Seneca subsequently relates how he once published seven discourses that were thrown into the flames on the orders of a senatus consultum. He concludes the episode with a severe sentence: bene cum illo ignis egerat (‘the fire served him well’).39 Besides the theme of idleness, the passage dedicated to Scaurus also comes back to that of the immortality of works, in relation to the motif of auto-da-fé. An association of ideas then leads Seneca through the case of Scaurus to the next declaimer, Titus Labienus, a former partisan of Pompey, whose works were also condemned to the flames. At this point Seneca launches a tirade against the practice of auto-da-fé and against an era authorizing such a practice. He delivers a passionate plea, which resounds like a peroratio in this ultimate

34  The figure of Cicero provided several subjects for declamations in schools: see Feddern (2013) 381–5; Wolff (2013) 270–4. In Seneca’s corpus, cf. Contr. 7.2. 35 Sen. Contr. 1.praef.1 (cited earlier in this chapter). 36 Sen. Contr. 10.praef.1 (cited earlier in this chapter). 37 Sen. Contr. 10.praef.2–3. 38 Sen. Contr. 1.praef.10: Sententias a disertissimis viris iactas facile in tanta hominum desidia pro suis dicunt, et sic sacerrimam eloquentiam, quam praestare non possunt, violare non desinunt (‘Undetected by so casual a public, they can easily pass off for their own epigrams thrown off by the really able, thus constantly violating the holiness of an eloquence they cannot attain’). 39 Sen. Contr. 10.praef.3.

328  Controversial Games preface.40 It is crowned with a citation from Cassius Severus referring precisely to the theme of memory and the immortality of works:41 Cassi Severi, hominis Labieno invisissimi, belle dicta res ferebatur illo tempore quo libri Labieni ex senatus consulto urebantur: ‘Nunc me’, inquit ‘vivum uri oportet, qui illos edidici.’ (A pretty saying of Cassius Severus, a great enemy of Labienus, was in ­circulation at the time when Labienus’ books were burnt at the decree of the senate: ‘I ought to be burnt alive now—I have those books by heart.’) (Sen. Contr. 10.praef. 8)

There are two more observations to be made concerning this passage. The first is the evident contradiction between Seneca’s sentence concerning Scaurus and his tirade against the auto-da-fé. The second contradiction concerns Cicero. After stating his relief that nothing like the auto-da-fé had been invented in the orator’s day,42 Seneca first rejects and later admits the possibility that he, Cicero, may have considered burning his work to save his life. The collection of Suasoriae ends, as we know, with two subjects, both presenting Cicero facing a dilemma. In the sixth Suasoria the orator wonders whether he should beg Antony for his life.43 At the heart of the divisio, Seneca inserts the judgments that historians have passed on Cicero’s memory. Quoniam in hanc suasoriam incidimus, non alienum puto indicare quomodo quisque se ex historicis adversus memoriam Ciceronis gesserit. Nam, quin Cicero nec tam timidus fuerit ut rogaret Antonium nec tam stultus ut exorari posse eum speraret nemo dubitat, excepto Asinio Pollione, qui infestissimus famae Ciceronis permansit. Et is etiam occasionem scholasticis alterius suasoriae dedit; solent enim scholastici declamitare: deliberat Cicero an salutem promittente Antonio orationes suas comburat. Haec inepte ficta cuilibet videri potest. Pollio vult illam veram videri. (Since I have happened on this theme, it’s not, I think, irrelevant to point out how each of the historians showed up in treating the memory of Cicero. All concede that Cicero was neither coward enough to plead with Antony, nor stupid enough to hope that Antony could be won over: all, that is,

40 Sen. Contr. 10.praef.6–7. Compare Tac. Agr. 2 and Ann. 4.35. 41  On the theme of memory in Seneca the Elder’s oeuvre, see also Dinter in this volume. 42 Sen. Contr. 10.praef.6. 43  On this theme, see Feddern (2013) 381–5; Wolff (2013) 270–3.

Danielle van Mal-Maeder  329 except Asinius Pollio, who remained the most implacable enemy of Cicero’s reputation. And he actually gave the schoolmen a handle for a second suasoria—for they often declaim on the theme ‘Cicero deliberates whether to burn his speeches on Antony’s promising him his life’. Anyone must rea­ lize that this is a crude fiction. Pollio wants to make us think it the truth.)44 (Sen. Suas. 6.14)

Here Seneca resolutely rejects this hypothesis and, as he announces to his sons, continues his reflections by citing excerpts from authors who recorded Cicero’s last moments. A new intervening commentary puts the passage in perspective, while an allusion to Lucretius underlines its didactical purpose. Nolo autem vos, iuvenes mei, contristari quod a declamatoribus ad historicos transeo: satis faciam vobis. Sed fortasse efficiam ut his sententiis lectis solidis et verum habentibus recedatis; et, quia hoc [si tam] recta via consequi non potero, decipere vos cogar, velut salutarem daturus pueris potionem. Sumite pocula. (However, my dear young men, I don’t want you to get depressed because I am passing from declamation to history. I will make amends to you: though I may perhaps make you give up the schoolmen once you’ve read these solid and truly powerful sentiments. And, as I shan’t be able to bring this about straightforwardly, I shall have to deceive you, like someone wanting to give medicine to a child. Take up your glasses.)45 (Sen. Suas. 6.16)

Seneca then adds a survey of citations from authors, historians, but also poets, who were inspired by Cicero’s death, juxtaposing them so that his sons can compare their eloquence. Among them Titus Livius ‘the most ­fair-minded judge of all great genius’ (candidissimus omnium magnorum ingeniorum aestimator), whose relation culminates in a funeral oration, and Asinius Pollio who, though himself an adversary of Cicero’s, so full-heartedly recognizes his merits that Seneca maliciously remarks: Adfirmare vobis possum nihil esse in historiis eius hoc quem rettuli loco disertius, ut mihi tunc non laudasse Ciceronem sed certasse cum Cice­ rone videatur. 44  Compare Quint. Inst. 2.10.5–6, who recommends imagining (fingentur) credible subjects that are not stupid (stulta) or ridiculous (inepta). The theme of auto-da-fé is mentionned by Quint. Inst. 3.8.44: see Feddern (2013) 483–6 ad loc. 45  See n. 5 in this chapter.

330  Controversial Games (I am ready to swear to you that there is nothing in his history more ­eloquent than the passage I have cited; Pollio, I think, here not merely praises Cicero—he rivals him.)46 (Sen. Suas. 6.25)

This brings us back to the theme of imitation-emulation, on which Seneca elaborates by citing twenty-five verses from the poet Cornelius Severus,47 before concluding with an anecdote mocking the vanity of Asinius Pollio. One of the hexameters of Cornelius Severus (conticuit Latiae tristis facundia linguae: ‘the eloquence of the Latin tongue grew dumb with sadness’) was indeed an imitation of Sextilius Ena, a Corduban poet, who, during a recitation at Messala’s in the presence of Cornelius Severus and Asinius Pollio, was acclaimed for declaring deflendus Cicero est Latiaeque silentia linguae (‘Bewail Cicero and the silence of Latin eloquence’). The verse pleased Se­verus so much that he used it as an inspiration for his poem on the death of Cicero, but displeased Asinius Pollio, who walked away angered saying: Messala, tu quid tibi liberum sit in domo tua videris; ego istum auditurus non sum, cui mutus videor (‘Messala, you can decide for yourself what goes on in your own house; I do not propose to listen to someone who thinks I am dumb.’)48 This line concludes the reflections on authors inspired by Cicero’s passing; his death was deemed a turning point, as the beginning of the decline of eloquence. At this point Seneca, once again, intervenes in the discourse: Si hic desiero, scio futurum ut vos illo loco desinatis legere quo ego a ­scholasticis recessi; ergo, ut librum velitis usque ad umbilicum revolvere, adiciam suasoriam proximae similem. (If I stop at this point, I know you will stop reading where I abandoned the schoolmen; so, to encourage you to unwind the book right to the end of the roll, I shall append a suasoria on a subject related to its neighbour.) (Sen. Suas. 6.27)

The reflections devoted to Cicero’s historians are thus caught between vigorous intervening commentaries, which reflect the lassitude Seneca expressed in the preface to the tenth book of the Controversiae. They also bear witness to his clear preference for history: history and its authors claim precedence over declamation. Seneca ends this digression by returning to the fiction of 46  See Feddern’s commentary (2013) 464 ad loc. 47  See Feddern’s commentary on this excerpt (2013) 465–79. 48  See Feddern (2013) 480–1 ad loc.

Danielle van Mal-Maeder  331 declamation in the seventh Suasoria presenting precisely the subject proposed by Asinius Pollio, whom he had previously criticized so severely. The confusion grows when Seneca remarks that, as far as he is aware, nobody ever advised Cicero to give in to Antony’s blackmail, noting in passing: Huius suasoriae alteram partem neminem scio declamasse; omnes pro libris Ciceronis solliciti fuerunt, nemo pro ipso, cum adeo illa pars non sit mala ut Cicero, si haec condicio lata ei fuisset, deliberaturus non fuerit. (I know of no-one who declaimed the other side in this suasoria, everybody worrying about Cicero’s books, no-one about Cicero: though in fact that side is not so bad that Cicero would have been unready to consider it if he had really been faced with these terms.)49 (Sen. Suas. 7.10)

This remark, which acknowledges the possibility of Cicero burning his work to save his life and thus contradicting his own words from the sixth Suasoria, makes sense when we take into account how much Seneca enjoys playing the game of controversy himself: he is an old man back in class,50 taking pleasure in pleading both sides. In summary, my analysis first demonstrates how the oral character of Seneca’s work corresponds to its didactical goals, allowing the dynamic delivery of his message by mimicking declamatory practice. It reveals how the discourse unfolds through different voices, which answer, echo, and oppose each other. It also points out how the coherence of Seneca’s writing resides, paradoxically, in this plurality of voices borrowing contradictory phrases and opinions from each other and from classical authors. Finally, my analysis demonstrates how the strangely unstructured structure of Seneca’s work supports the elaboration of a number of recurrent themes and motifs.

49  See Feddern (2013) 513 ad loc. 50  Cf. Sen. Contr. 1.praef.4: Fiat quod vultis: mittatur senex in scholas (‘Be it as you wish, then: let an old man be sent to school’).

Bibliography Adams, J.  N. (1978). ‘Conventions of Naming in Cicero’, Classical Quarterly 28: 145–66. Adams, J. N. (2003a). ‘ “Romanitas” and the Latin Language’, Classical Quarterly 53: 184–205. Adams, J. N. (2003b). Bilingualism and the Latin Language. Cambridge. Adiego Lajara, I. J., Artigas Álvarez, E., and de Riquer Permanyer, A. (trans.) (2005). Séneca El Viejo, Controversias (2 vols). Madrid. Ahl, F. (1984). ‘The Art of Safe Criticism in Greece and Rome’, American Journal of Philology 105: 174–208. Amato, E., Citti, F., and Huelsenbeck, B. (eds) (2015). Law and Ethics in Greek and Roman Declamation. Berlin. Anderson, A. (1980). ‘Simulator simius’, Classical Quarterly 30: 259–60. Anderson, G. (2005). The Second Sophistic: A Cultural Phenomenon in the Roman Empire. New York. Arnaldi, F. (1958). ‘La “retorica” nella poesia di Ovidio’, in N.  I.  Herescu (ed.), Ovidiana. Paris: 23–31. Arndt, E. (1904). De ridiculi doctrina rhetorica. PhD Diss. Kirchhain. Arnould, D. (1990). Le rire et les larmes dans la littérature grecque d’Homère à Platon. Paris. Asimov, I. (1985). Robots and Empire. New York. Assereto, A. (1967). Gaio Albucio Silo. Genoa. Assmann, A. (1995). ‘Funktionsgedächtnis und Speichergedächtnis: Zwei Modi der Erinnerung’, in K.  Platt and M.  Dabag (eds), Generation und Gedächtnis: Erinnerungen und kollektive Identitäten. Wiesbaden: 169–85. Assmann, A. (2001). ‘History and Memory’, in N. J. Smelser and P. B. Baltes (eds), International Encyclopedia of Social and Behavioural Sciences. 1st ed. Amsterdam: 6822–9. Assmann, J. (2001). Cultural Memory and Early Civilization: Writing, Remembrance, and Political Imagination. Cambridge. Assmann, J. (2006). Thomas Mann und Ägypten: Mythos und Monotheismus in den Josephsromanen. Munich. Assmann, J. (2008). ‘Communicative and Cultural Memory’, in A.  Erll and A. Nünning (eds), Cultural Memory Studies. An International and Interdisciplinary Handbook. Berlin and New York: 109–18. Assmann, J. and Czaplicka, J. (1995). ‘Collective Memory and Cultural Identity’, New German Critique 65: 125–33. Asso, P. (2009). ‘The Intrusive Trope: Apostrophe in Lucan’. Materiali e discussioni 61: 161–73.

334 Bibliography Atkinson, J.  E. (1997). ‘Q.  Curtius Rufus’ Historiae Alexandri Magni’, Aufstieg und Niedergang der Römischen Welt 2.34.4: 3447–83. Atkinson, R. F. (1993). ‘Humour in Philosophy’, in K. Cameron (ed.), Humour and History. Oxford: 10–20. Attardo, S. (1994). Linguistic Theories of Humour. Berlin and New York. Attardo, S. (2008). ‘A Primer for the Linguistics of Humour’, in V.  Raskin and W. Ruch (eds), The Primer of Humour Research. Berlin and New York: 101–55. Aubert, S. and Guérin, C. (2014), ‘Introduction’, in S. Aubert and C. Guérin (eds), Le Brutus de Cicéron: Rhétorique, politique et histoire culturelle. Leiden: 1–15. Bablitz, L.  E. (2007). Actors and Audience in the Roman Courtroom. London and New York. Baird, A. C. (1965). Rhetoric: A Philosophical Inquiry. New York. Balbo, A. (2007a) [2009]. ‘Alcuni esempi di interazione oratore-pubblico a Roma tra il I secolo a.C. e il I d.C.’, Cahiers du Centre Gustave Glotz 18: 375–88. Balbo, A. (2007b). I frammenti degli oratori romani dell’età augustea e tiberiana. Parte prima: età augustea. Seconda edizione riveduta e corretta. Alessandria. Balbo, A. (2018). ‘Cetera non sunt narranda, pingenda sunt. Retorica visuale e actio in Calpurnio Flacco’, Maia 70 (1): 149–59. Balbo, A. (forthcoming). ‘Ora voltus manus: la rhétorique des éléments visuels dans les Suasoires 6 et 7’, in C. Guérin and M. Ledentu (eds), Lire les Suasoires 6 et 7 de Sénèque le Père: mémoire politique et mémoire culturelle dans les écoles de ­rhétorique à Rome au début du Principat. Interférences, https://interferences.revues. org/. Baraz, Y. (2012). A Written Republic. Cicero’s Philosophical Politics. Princeton. Bardon, H. (1940). Le vocabulaire de la critique littéraire chez Sénèque le rhéteur. Paris. Bardon, H. (1943–4). ‘Le silence, moyen d’expression’, Revue des Études Latines 21–2: 102–20. Bardon, H. (1952) [1956]. La littérature latine inconnue (2 vols). Paris. Barney, N. (2018). Beyond the Speaker: The Audience in Seneca the Elder, Master’s Thesis, University of Victoria, Electronic Theses and Dissertations, https://dspace. library.uvic.ca//handle/1828/9877 (accessed 15 February 2020). Barton, C. (1993). The Sorrows of the Ancient Romans: The Gladiator and the Monster. Princeton. Basore, J. W. (1970). Seneca. Moral Essays II. Cambridge, MA. Bates, R. L. (1986). ‘ “Rex in senatu”: A Political Biography of M. Aemilius Scaurus’, Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 130: 251–88. Bauman, R. A. (1996). Crime and Punishment in Ancient Rome. London. Bauman, R. A. (2012). Human Rights in Ancient Rome. London and New York. Baumm, W. (1885). De rhetoribus graecis a Seneca in suasoriis et controversiis ­adhibitis. Kreuzburg. Baynham, E. (1998). Alexander the Great: The Unique History of Quintus Curtius. Ann Arbor. Beard, M. (1993). ‘Looking (Harder) for Roman Myth: Dumézil, Declamation and the Problems of Definition’, in F. Graf (ed.), Mythos in mythenloser Gesellschaft: Das Paradigma Roms. Stuttgart: 44–64.

Bibliography  335 Beard, M. (2014). Laughter in Ancient Rome. On Joking, Tickling and Cracking Up. Berkeley, Los Angeles, and London. Beck, M. (2001). ‘Inepta loci (Sen. Contr. 1.2.22) – Ein Ovidianum?’, Hermes 129: 95–105. Berardi, F. (2017), La retorica degli esercizi preparatori. Glossario ragionato dei Progymnasmata. Zürich and New York. Beristáin, H. (2010). Diccionario de Retórica y Poética. Mexico City and Porrúa. Berliner, P. F. (1994). Thinking in Jazz: The Infinite Art of Improvisation. Chicago and London. Bernstein, N.  W. (2013). Ethics, Identity, and Community in Later Roman Declamation. Oxford. Berti, E. (2007). Scholasticorum Studia: Seneca il Vecchio e la cultura retorica e ­letteraria della prima età imperiale. Pisa. Berti, E. (2010). ‘All’ombra della scuola: declamazione (e oratoria) fra tarda ­repubblica e primo impero’, in G.  Petrone and A.  Casamento (eds), Studia in umbra educata. Percorsi della retorica latina in età imperiale. Palermo: 101–23. Berti, E. (forthcoming). ‘Alessandro e l’Oceano. Modelli declamatòri nelle Historiae Alexandri Magni di Curzio Rufo e nell’Anabasi di Arriano’. Bichler, R. (2011). ‘Die Fahrt zu den Grenzen der Erde: von Herodot bis zur Alexander-Histriographie’, Gymnasium 118: 315–44. Billig, M. (2005). Laughter and Ridicule. Towards a Social Critique of Humour. Theory, Culture & Society. London, Thousand Oaks, and New Dehli. Blass, F. (1865). Die griechische Beredsamkeit in dem Zeitraum von Alexander bis auf Augustus. Berlin. Bleicken, J. (1962). Senatsgericht und Kaisergericht. Eine Studie zur Entwicklung des Prozessrechtes im frühen Prinzipat. Göttingen. Bléry, H. (1909). Rusticité et urbanité romaines. Paris. Blondel, E. (1988). Le risible et le dérisoire. Paris. Bloomer, W. M. (1997a). Latinity and Literary Society at Rome. Philadelphia. Bloomer, W. M. (1997b). ‘Whose Speech? Whose History? A Preface to the History of Declamation’, in T.  Habinek and A.  Schiesaro (eds), The Roman Cultural Revolution. Cambridge: 199–215. Bloomer, W. M. (2007). ‘Roman Declamation: The Elder Seneca and Quintilian’, in W. Dominik and J. Hall (eds), A Companion to Roman Rhetoric. Malden, MA and Oxford: 297–306. Bloomer, W. M. (2011). The School of Rome: Latin Studies and the Origins of Liberal Education. Berkeley. Bodel, J. (2000). ‘Dealing with the Dead: Undertakers, Executioners and Potter’s Fields in Ancient Rome’, in V. M. Hope and E. Marshall (eds), Death and Disease in the Ancient City. London: 128–51. Bongi, V. (1949). ‘Nuova esegesi del frammento di Albinovano Pedone’, Istituto Lombardo di scienze e lettere: Rendiconti (Classe di Lettere) 82: 28–48. Bonner, S.  F. (1949) [1969]. Roman Declamation in the Late Republic and Early Empire. Liverpool. Bonner, S.  F. (1966). ‘Lucan and the Declamation Schools’, American Journal of Philology 87: 257–89.

336 Bibliography Bonner, S. F. (1977) [2012]. Education in Ancient Rome. From the Elder Cato to the Younger Pliny. London. Bornecque, H. (1902). Les déclamations et les déclamateurs d’après Sénèque le père. Lille [Hildesheim 1962]. Bornecque, H. (1932). Controverses et Suasoires (2 vols). Paris. Borthwick, E. K. (1972). ‘Nicetes the Rhetorician and Vergil’s plena deo’, Mnemosyne 25: 408–12. Bowersock, G. W. (1965). Augustus and the Greek World. Oxford. Bowman, A.  K., Champlin, E., and Lintott, A.  W. (1996). The Cambridge Ancient History. Vol. X: The Augustan Empire, 43 BC.–AD. 69. Cambridge. Braccesi, L. (1991). Alessandro e la Germania: Riflessioni sulla geografia romana di conquista. Rome. Braccesi, L. (2006). L’Alessandro occidentale: Il Macedone e Roma. Roma. Breij, B. and Zinsmaier, T. (2012). ‘Oratio figurata’, in G. Ueding (ed.) Historisches Wörterbuch der Rhetorik 10, Tübingen: 781–7. Bremmer, J. and Roodenburg, H. (1997). A Cultural History of Humour: From Antiquity to the Present Day. Cambridge. Brescia, G. (2004). Il miles alla sbarra. [Quintiliano] Declamazioni maggiori III. Bari. Brink, C. O. (1971). Horace on Poetry. The ‘Ars Poetica’. Cambridge. Brink, C.  O. (1989). ‘Quintilian’s De causis corruptae eloquentiae and Tacitus’ Dialogus de oratoribus’, Classical Quarterly 39: 472–503. Buchheit, V. (1988). ‘Priapeum 3 und Ovid’, Rheinisches Museum 131: 157–61. Buchheit, V. (2001). ‘Scaurus venustus (Sen. Contr. 1.2.22)’, Hermes 129: 283. Buschmann, H. (1878). Charakteristik der griechischen Rhetoren beim Rhetor Seneca. Freiberg. Butler, J. E. (1921). The Institutio oratoria of Quintilian. Cambridge. Cadoux, T. J. (2008). ‘The Roman carcer and its Adjuncts’, Greece & Rome 55: 202–21. Calboli, G. (1975). ‘Cicerone, Catone e i neoatticisti’, in A. Michel and R. Verdiere (eds), Hommages à K. Kumaniecki. Roma aeterna 9. Leiden: 51–103. Calboli Montefusco, L. (2003). ‘Ductus and color: The Right Way to Compose a Suitable Speech’, Rhetorica 21: 113–31. Calboli Montefusco, L. (2004). ‘Stylistic and Argumentative Function of Rhetorical amplificatio’, Hermes 132: 69–81. Canfora, L. (1998). ‘Seneca e le guerre civili’, in P. Parroni (ed.), Seneca e il suo tempo. Atti del Convegno Internazionale di Roma-Cassino. Rome: 161–77. Carawan, E. M. (1990). ‘Cato’s Speech against L. Flamininus: Liv. 39.42–3’, Classical Journal 85: 316–29. Casamento, A. (2002). Finitimus oratori poeta. Declamazioni retoriche e tragedie ­senecane. Palermo. Casamento, A. (2007). ‘Voci, rimbombi ed eloquenza: Cassio Severo, oratore di ­confine’, Aevum Antiquum N.S. 7: 75–91. Casamento, A., van Mal-Maeder, D., and Pasetti, L. (eds) (2016). Le Declamazioni Minori dello Pseudo-Quintiliano. Discorsi immaginari tra letteratura e diritto. Berlin and Boston. Cataudella, Q. (1971). La facezia in Grecia e a Roma. Saggio introduttivo e ampia antologia. Florence.

Bibliography  337 Cavarzere, A. (2011). Gli arcani dell’oratore. Alcuni appunti sull’actio dei Romani. Rome and Padua. Cèbe, J.-P. (1966). La caricature et la parodie dans le monde romain antique des ­origines à Juvénal. Paris. Celentano, M.  S. (1995). ‘Comicità, umorismo e arte oratoria nella teoria retorica antica’, Eikasmos 6: 161–74. Celentano, M.  S. (1997). ‘Umorismo, urbanitas e polemiche retoriche’, in P.  D’Alessandro (ed.), ΜΟΥΣΑ. Scritti in onore di Giuseppe Morelli. Bologna: 323–30. Celentano, M. S. (2004a). ‘Smiles and Laughter: the Comic in Ancient Greece and Rome. A Rhetorical Perspective’, in L.  Calboli Montefusco (ed.), Papers on Rhetoric VI. Rome: 55–80. Celentano, M.  S. (2004b). ‘L’oratore e lo spazio comico: Emozioni e parole’, in G. Petrone (ed.), Le passioni della retorica. Palermo: 29–39. Celentano, M.  S. (2007). ‘Spazio comico e precettistica retorica antica’, in C.  Mazzucco (ed.), Riso e comicità nel cristianesimo antico. Atti del convegno di Torino, 14–16 febbraio 2005, e altri studi. Alessandria: 47–57. Celentano, M. S. (2009). ‘Smiles and Laughter: The Comic in Ancient Greece and Rome. A Rhetorical Perspective’, JGRS (The Journal of Greco-Roman Studies, Korea) 38: 47–77. [Updated version of Celentano, M. S. (2004a)] Chiron, P. (2003). ‘Le logos eskhèmatisménos ou discours figuré’, in G.  Declercq, M. Murat, and J. Dangel (eds), La parole polémique. Paris: 223–54. Citroni Marchetti, S. (2004). ‘La moglie di Ovidio. Codici letterari e morali per un’eroina’, Aufidus 52: 7–28. Citti, F. (2005). ‘Elementi biografici nelle “Prefazioni” di Seneca il Vecchio’, Hagiographica 12: 170–222. Citti, F. (2007). ‘La declamazione greca in Seneca il Vecchio’, in L. Calboli Montefusco (ed.), Papers on Rhetoric VIII. Bologna: 57–102. Citti, F. (2018). ‘Declamazione greca e Romanae aures: osservazioni sulle citazioni greche in Seneca il Vecchio’, in G. Matino, F. Ficca, and R. Grisolia (eds), Generi senza confini. La rappresentazione della realtà nel mondo antico. Napoli: 57–69. Cizek, A. N. (1994). Imitatio et tractatio. Die literarisch-rhetorischen Grundlagen der Nachahmung in Antike und Mittelalter. Tübingen. Clark, D. L. (1951). ‘Imitation: Theory and Practice in Roman Rhetoric’, Quarterly Journal of Speech 37: 11–22. Clark, D. L. (1957). Rhetoric in Greco-Roman Education. Morningside Heights, NY. Clay, D. (1983). Lucretius and Epicurus. Ithaca, NY. Combès, R. (1995). Valère Maxime, Faits et dits mémorables 1.1–3. Paris. Connolly, J. (2007). ‘Being Greek/Being Roman: Hellenism and Assimilation in the Roman Empire’, Millennium Jahrbuch zu Kultur und Geschichte 4: 21–42. Connolly, J. (2009). ‘The Strange Art of the Sententious Declaimer’, in P.  Hardie (ed.), Paradox and the Marvellous in Augustan Literature and Culture. Oxford: 330–49. Connors, C. (1997). ‘Field and Forum: Culture and Agriculture in Roman Rhetoric’, in W. Dominik (ed.), Roman Eloquence: Rhetoric in Society and Literature. New York: 71–89.

338 Bibliography Consolino, F. E. (1986). Claudiano, Elogio di Serena. Venice. Corbeill, A. (1996). Controlling Laughter. Political Humor in the Late Roman Republic. Princeton. Corbeill, A. (2004). Nature Embodied: Gesture in Ancient Rome. Princeton. Corbeill, A. (2007). ‘Rhetorical Education and Social Reproduction in the Republic and Early Empire’, in W.  Dominik and J.  Hall (eds), A Companion to Roman Rhetoric. Malden, MA and Oxford: 69–82. Corbeill, A. (2016). ‘A Student Speaks for Social Equality in the Roman Classroom (Quintilian, Declamationes Minores 260)’, in M.  T.  Dinter, C.  Guérin, and M. Martinho (eds), Reading Roman Declamation: The Declamations Ascribed to Quintilian. Berlin and Boston: 11–24. Corbett, P. (1986). The Scurra. Edinburgh. Courtney, E. (1993). The Fragmentary Latin Poets. Oxford. Cozzolino, A. (1976). ‘Due precedenti lucanei’, Vichiana 5: 54–61. Cozzolino, A. (1992). ‘Sul frammento di Albinovano Pedone’, in E.  Flores, A.  V.  Nazzaro, L.  Nicastri, and G.  Polara (eds), Miscellanea di studi in onore di Armando Salvatore. Naples: 109–19. Crook, J. A. (1995). Legal Advocacy in the Roman World. Ithaca, NY. D’Alessandro Behr, F. (2007). Feeling History. Lucan, Stoicism, and the Poetics of Passion. Columbus. Dalzell, A. (1955). ‘Asinius Pollio and the Early History of Public Recitation at Rome’, Hermathena 86: 20–8. David, J.-M. (1992a). Le patronat judiciaire au dernier siècle de la république romaine. Rome. David, J.-M. (1992b). ‘Compétence sociale et compétence oratoire à la fin de la République: Apprendre à ressembler’, in E. Frézouls (ed.), La mobilité sociale dans le monde romain. Strasbourg: 7–19. David, J.-M. (2006). ‘Rhetoric and Public Life’, in N.  Rosenstein and R.  MorsteinMarx (eds), A Companion to the Roman Republic. Malden, MA: 421–38. Davis, F. (2005). La comunicación no verbal. Madrid. De Certeau, M. (1984). The Practice of Everyday Life. Translated by S.  Rendall. Berkeley. Degl’Innocenti Pierini, R. (2003). ‘Cicerone nella prima età imperiale’, in E. Narducci (ed.), Aspetti della fortuna di Cicerone nella cultura Latina. Florence: 3–54. Degl’Innocenti Pierini, R. (2008). Il parto dell’orsa. Studi su Virgilio, Ovidio e Seneca. Bologna. Delarue, F. (1982). ‘L’asianisme à Rome’, Revue des Études Latines 60: 166–85. De Meo, C. (1986). Lingue tecniche del latino. Bologna. Deremetz, A. (2009). ‘The Question of the Marvellous in the Georgics of Virgil’, in P. Hardie (ed.), Paradox and the Marvellous in Augustan Literature and Culture. Oxford: 113–25. Derrida, J. (1998). Archive Fever. A Freudian Impression. Translated by E. Prenowitz. Chicago. Desbordes, F. (1993). ‘Le texte caché: Problèmes figurés dans la déclamation latine’, Revue des Études Latines 71: 3–86.

Bibliography  339 Desbordes, F. (1998). ‘La rhétorique et le rire selon Quintilien’, in P. Hoffmann and M. Trédé (eds), Le rire des anciens. Actes du colloque international (Université de Rouen—École normale supérieure, 11–13 janvier 1995). Paris: 307–14. Desclos, M.  L. (2000). Le rire des Grecs. Anthropologie du rire en Grèce ancienne. Grenoble. Desmouliez, A. (1982). ‘A propos du jugement de Cicéron sur Caton l’Ancien (Brutus XVI–XVIII 63–69 et LXXXV–LXXXVII 202–300)’, Philologus 126: 70–89. Díaz de León, M. A. (2000). Tratado sobre las pruebas penales II. Mexico City and Porrúa. Dickey, E. (2002). Latin Forms of Address: From Plautus to Apuleius. Oxford. Dinter, M. T. (2016). ‘Fama in Ps-Quintilian’s Major Declamations’, in M. T. Dinter, C.  Guérin, and M.  Martinho (eds), Reading Roman Declamation: The Declamations Ascribed to Quintilian. Berlin and Boston: 127–44. Dinter, M. T., Guérin, C., and Martinho, M. (2016). ‘Introduction: Reading Roman Declamation – The Declamations Ascribed to Quintilian’, in M.  T.  Dinter, C.  Guérin, and M.  Martinho (eds), Reading Roman Declamation: The Declamations Ascribed to Quintilian. Berlin and Boston: 1–8. Dinter, M.  T. and Guérin, C. (2017). ‘Introduction: Calpurnius – A Postmodern Author?’, in M.  T.  Dinter, C.  Guérin, and M.  Martinho (eds), Reading Roman Declamation—Calpurnius Flaccus. Berlin and Boston: 1–8. Dinter, M. T. (forthcoming). ‘Memories of Future Past: Seneca the Elder and Cultural Memory’, in C. Guérin and M. Ledentu (eds), Lire les Suasoires 6 et 7 de Sénèque le Père: mémoire politique et mémoire culturelle dans les écoles de rhétorique à Rome au début du Principat. Interférences, https://interferences. revues.org/. Dugan, J. (2005). Making a New Man: Ciceronian Self-Fashioning in the Rhetorical Works. Oxford. Dupont, F. (1997). ‘Recitation and the Reorganization of the Space of Public Discourse’, in T. Habinek and A. Schiesaro (eds), The Roman Cultural Revolution. Cambridge: 44–59. Duranti, A. (1997). Linguistic Anthropology. Cambridge. Dyck, A. R. (1996). A Commentary on Cicero De Officiis. Ann Arbor. Echavarren, A. (2007a). Nombres y personas en Séneca el Viejo. Pamplona. Echavarren, A. (2007b). ‘Los declamadores griegos en la obra de Séneca el Viejo: Retrato de una minoría’, in À. Sánchez-Ostiz, J. B. Torres Guerra, and R. Martínez (eds), De Grecia a Roma y de Roma a Grecia: Un camino de ida y vuelta. Pamplona: 253–68. Echavarren, A. (2012). ‘Fórmulas onomásticas en Séneca el Viejo: dos patrones en liza’, Latomus 71: 1055–76. Echavarren, A. (2013). ‘The Emergence of a Novel Onomastic Pattern: cognomen + nomen in Seneca the Elder’, Classical Quarterly 63: 353–60. Eckert, A. (2018). ‘Roman Orators between Greece and Rome: The Case of Cato the Elder, L. Crassus, and M. Antonius’, in C. Gray, A. Balbo, R. M. A. Marshall, and C.  E.  W.  Steel (eds), Reading Republican Oratory: Reconstructions, Contexts, Receptions. Oxford: 19–32.

340 Bibliography Edward, W. A. (1928). The Suasoriae of Seneca the Elder. Cambridge. Edwards, C. (2009). ‘Free Yourself! Slavery, Freedom and the Self in Seneca’s Letters’, in S. Bartsch and D. Wray (eds), Seneca and the Self. Cambridge: 139–59. Edwards, M.  W. (1960). ‘The Expression of Stoic Ideas in the Aeneid’, Phoenix 14: 151–65. Eshleman, K. (2012). The Social World of Intellectuals in the Roman Empire. Sophists, Philosophers, and Christians. Cambridge. Faas, P. (2003). Around the Roman Table: Food and Feasting in Ancient Rome. New York. Fairweather, J. (1981). Seneca the Elder. Cambridge. Fairweather, J. (1984). ‘The Elder Seneca and Declamation’, Aufstieg und Niedergang der Römischen Welt 2.32.1: 514–56. Fantham, E. (1978a). ‘Imitation and Evolution: The Discussion of Rhetorical Imitation in Cicero De oratore 2.87–97 and Some Related Problems of Ciceronian THeory’, Classical Philology 73: 1–16. Fantham, E. (1978b). ‘Imitation and Decline: Rhetorical THeory and Practice in the First Century after Christ’, Classical Philology 73: 102–16. Fantham, E. (2004a). The Roman World of Cicero’s De oratore. Oxford. Fantham, E. (2004b). ‘Disowning and Dysfunction in the Declamatory Family’, Materiali e discussioni 53: 65–82. Farrell, J. (2003). ‘Classical Genre in Theory and Practice’, New Literary History 34: 383–408. Feddern, S. (2013). Die Suasorien des älteren Seneca. Einleitung, Text und Kommentar. Berlin and Boston. Fedeli, P. (1977). ‘Properzio 1.15: Arte allusiva e interpretazione’, in M. Bigaroni and F.  Santucci (eds), Colloquium Propertianum. Atti: Assisi, 26–27 marzo 1976. Assisi: 73–99. Feld, S. (2012). Sound and Sentiment: Birds, Weeping, Poetics, and Song in Kaluli Expression. Durham, NC and London. Fernández, L. G. (1997). ‘La risa y lo cómico en el pensamiento antiguo’, Cuadernos de Filología Clásica 7: 29–54. Fernández Garrido R. (trans.) (2010), Hermógenes de Tarso, Sobre los estados de la causa. Logroño. Ferrary, J.-L. (2001). ‘Rome et la géographie de l’hellénisme: Réflexions sur “hellènes” et “panhellènes” dans les inscriptions d’époque romaine’, in O. Salomies (ed.), The Greek East in the Roman Context. Proceedings of a Colloquium Organised by the Finnish Institute at Athens. May 21 and 22, 1999. Helsinki: 19–35. Fögen, T. (2000). Patrii sermonis egestas, Einstellungen lateinischer Autoren zu ihrer Muttersprache. Ein Beitrag zum Sprachbewußtsein in der römischen Antike. Berlin and Boston. Fögen, T. (2009). Wissen, Kommunikation und Selbstdarstellung: Zur Struktur und Charakteristik römischer Fachtexte der frühen Kaiserzeit. Munich. Foley, J. M. (2012). Oral Tradition and the Internet: Pathways of the Mind. Urbana, IL. Fontaine, M.-M. (2010). Rire à la Renaissance. Colloque international de Lille, Université Charles-de-Gaulle-Lille 3, 6–8 novembre 2003. Geneva.

Bibliography  341 Forbis, E. (2013).  Municipal Virtues in the Roman Empire: The Evidence of Italian Honorary Inscriptions. Stuttgart and Leipzig. Fortenbaugh, W. (2000). ‘Une analyse du rire chez Aristote et Théophraste’, in M.  L.  Desclos (ed.), Le rire des Grecs. Anthropologie du rire en Grèce ancienne. Grenoble: 333–54. Foucault, M. (1966). Les mots et les choses. Paris. Foucault, M. (2002). The Archaeology of Knowledge. Translated by A. M. Sheridan Smith. London. Fraenkel, E. (1965). ‘Noch einmal Kolon und Satz’, Sitzungsberichte der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Phil.-Hist. Klasse 2: 3–73. Franchet d’Espèrey S. (2016). ‘La controuersia figurata chez Quintilien (Inst. 9.2.65–99). Quelle figure pour quel plaisir?’, in M. Dinter, C. Guérin, and M. Martinho (eds), Reading Roman Declamation. The Declamations Ascribed to Quintilian. Berlin and Boston: 51–90. Frank, E. (1932). De vocis urbanitas apud Ciceronem vi atque usu. Berlin. Fréchet, C. (2006). ‘Les Remèdes à l’amour d’Ovide ou l’hygiène d’un genre’, in C. Cusset (ed.), Musa docta. Recherches sur la poésie scientifique dans l’Antiquité. Saint-Etienne: 193–214. Freese, J. H. (1926). Aristotle, The ‘Art’ of Rhetoric. London and Cambridge, MA. Freud, S. (1905). Der Witz und seine Beziehung zum Unbewussten. Leipzig and Vienna. (Translated (2002) as The Joke and Its Relation to the Unconscious. London.) Gabba, E. (1982). ‘Political and Cultural Aspects of the Classicistic Revival in the Augustan Age’, Classical Antiquity 1: 43–65. Gagliardi, L. (2002). Decemviri e centumviri. Origini e competenze. Milan. Gale, M. R. (1994). Myth and Poetry in Lucretius. Cambridge. Galimberti Biffino, G. (2010). ‘L’élégance du rire, de Quintilien au Livre du Courtisan de Baldassar Castiglione’, in P. Heuzé and C. Veyrard-Cosme (eds), La grâce de Thalie ou la beauté du rire. Paris: 147–64. Galinsky, K. (1989). ‘Was Ovid a Silver Latin Poet?’, Illinois Classical Studies 14: 69–89. Gallivan, P. (1992). ‘The Nomenclature Patterns of the Roman Upper Class in the Early Empire: A Statistical Analysis’, Antichthon 26: 51–79. Garcea, A. (2012). Caesar’s De Analogia. Edition, Translation, and Commentary. Oxford. Garnsey, P. (1999). Food and Society in Classical Antiquity. Cambridge. Gauthier, R.-A., and Jolif, J. Y. (1958–9). Aristote, L’éthique à Nicomaque. Introduction, traduction et commentaire (2 vols). Louvain and Paris. Gazich, R. (1995). ‘Exemplum’ ed esemplarità in Properzio (Scienze filologiche e ­storia). Brescia. Giannini, A. (1966). Paradoxographorum Graecorum reliquiae. Milan. Gibson, C.A. (2014). ‘Better Living through Prose Composition? Moral and Compositional Pedagogy in Ancient Greek and Roman Progymnasmata’, Rhetorica 32: 1–30. Gibson, R. K. and Morello, R. (2012). Reading the Letters of Pliny the Younger: An Introduction. Cambridge and New York.

342 Bibliography Gildenhard, I. (2007). Paideia Romana. Cicero’s Tusculan Disputations. Cambridge Classical Journal Supplementary Volume 30. Cambridge. Gildenhard, I. (2011). Creative Eloquence: The Construction of Reality in Cicero’s Speeches. Oxford. Gissel, J. A. P. (2001). ‘Germanicus as an Alexander Figure’, Classica et Mediaevalia 52: 277–301. Gleason, M. (1995). Making Men. Sophists and Self-Presentation in Ancient Rome. Princeton. Goldberg, C. (1992). Carmina Priapea: Einleitung, Übersetzung, Interpretation und Kommentar. Heidelberg. Goldberg, S.  M. (1997). ‘Melpomene’s Declamation (Rhetoric and Tragedy)’, in W. Dominik (ed.), Roman Eloquence: Rhetoric in Society and Literature. London and New York: 166–81. Goldhill, S. (2001). ‘Introduction. Setting an Agenda: “Everything is Greece to the Wise”  ’, in S.  Goldhill (ed.), Being Greek under Rome: Cultural Identity, the Second Sophistic and the Development of Empire. Cambridge: 1–25. Gowers, E. (1993). The Loaded Table: Representations of Food in Roman Literature. Oxford. Gowing, A. (2013). ‘Tully’s Boat: Responses to Cicero in the Imperial Period’, in C. Steel (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Cicero. Cambridge: 233–50. Grant, M.  A. (1924). The Ancient Rhetorical Theories of the Laughable. The Greek Rhetoricians and Cicero. Madison, WI. Grant, M. A. (1960). The Myths of Hyginus. Kansas. Greenidge, A. (1901). The Legal Procedure of Cicero’s Time. Oxford. Grésillon, A. (1981) ‘Interrogation et interlocution’, Documentation et recherche en linguistique allemande contemporaine 25: 61–75. Griffin, M.  T. (1972). ‘The Elder Seneca and Spain’, Journal of Roman Studies 62: 1–19. Griffin, M. T. (1976). Seneca: A Philosopher in Politics. Oxford. Grilli, A. (2002). ‘Cicerone tra retorica e filosofia’, in E. Narducci (ed.), Interpretare Cicerone. Percorsi della critica contemporanea. Florence: 53–65. Gruen, E. S. (1990). Studies in Greek Culture and Roman Policy. Berkeley. Guérin, C. (2009a). ‘La persona oratoire entre rhétorique, biographie et histoire. Le cas des Controverses de Sénèque le Rhéteur’, Interférences 5, https://journals. openedition.org/interferences/897 (accessed 15 February 2020). Guérin, C. (2009b). Persona. L’é laboration d’une notion rhétorique au Ier siècle av. J.-C., I. Antécédents grecs et première rhétorique latine. Paris. Guérin, C. (2010). ‘Références aux orateurs et usages de la citation chez Cicéron et Sénèque le rhéteur’, in L. Calboli Montefusco (ed.), Papers on Rhetoric X. Bologna: 141–56. Guérin, C. (2011). Persona. L’élaboration d’une notion rhétorique au Ier  siècle av. J.-C., II. Théorisation cicéronienne de la persona oratoire. Paris. Guérin, C. (2013). ‘Intempestiua philosophia? Éloquence déclamatoire et éloquence philosophique au Ier siècle ap. J.-C.’, Ítaca: quaderns catalans de cultura clàssica 28–29: 21–43.

Bibliography  343 Guérin, C. (2015). ‘Extraction, remémoration et discontinuité dans les Controverses de Sénèque le père: du déclamateur au texte’, in S. Morlet (ed.), Lire en extraits. Lecture et production des textes, de l’Antiquité à la fin du Moyen Âge. Paris: 53–71. Guérin, C. (2019). ‘Laughter, Social Norms, and Ethics in Cicero’s Works’, in P.  Destrée and F.  V.  Trivigno (ed.), Laughter, Humor, and Comedy in Ancient Philosophy. Oxford: 122–44. Gunderson, E. (2000). Staging Masculinity: The Rhetoric of Performance in the Roman World. Ann Arbor. Gunderson, E. (2003). Declamation, Paternity and Roman Identity: Authority and the Rhetorical Self. Cambridge. Gunderson, E. (2009). Nox Philologiae. Aulus Gellius and the Fantasy of the Roman Library. Madison, WI. Gunderson, E. (2017). ‘Rhetoric and Declamation’, in M.  J.  MacDonald (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Rhetorical Studies. Oxford: 267–78. Håkanson, L. (1989). L.  Annaeus Seneca maior. Oratorum et rhetorum sententiae divisiones colores. Leipzig. Håkanson, L. (2014). Unveröffentliche Schriften I (ed. B.  Santorelli). Berlin and Boston. Håkanson, L. (2016). Unveröffentliche Schriften II (ed. F.  Citti, B.  Santorelli, and A. Stramaglia). Berlin and Boston. Hall, J. (2004). ‘Cicero and Quintilian on the Oratorical Use of Hand Gestures’, Classical Quarterly 54: 143–60. Hall  J. (2007), ‘Oratorical Delivery and the Emotions. Theory and Practice’, in W. Dominik and J. Hall (eds), A Companion to Roman Rhetoric. Malden, MA and Oxford: 218–34. Halliwell, S. (2008). Greek Laughter. A Study of Cultural Psychology from Homer to Early Christianity. Cambridge. Halsall, A.  W. (1992). ‘Apostrophe’, in Historisches Wörterbuch der Rhetorik I. Tübingen: col. 830–6. Hardie, P. (ed.) (2009). Paradox and the Marvellous in Augustan Literature and Culture. Oxford. Hariman, R. (1995). Political Style: The Artistry of Power. Chicago. Hartley, P. and Bruckmann, C. (2008). Business Communication. London and New York. Hatzfeld, J. (1919). Les trafiquants italiens dans l’Orient hellénique. Rome. Haury, A. (1955). L’ironie et l’humour chez Cicéron. Leiden and Paris. Heath, M. (1994). ‘The Substructure of Stasis-Theory from Hermagoras to Hermogenes’, Classical Quarterly 44: 114–29. Heath, M. (1995). Hermogenes On Issues. Strategies of Argument in Later Greek Rhetoric. Oxford. Heerdegen, F. (1918). De vocabuli quod est urbanus apud vetustiores ­scriptores Latinos vi atque usu commentatio semasiologa. Erlangen. Heldmann, K. (1979). ‘Hic primus inflexit orationem und die gute alte Redekunst’, Rheinisches Museum 122ː 317–25. Heldmann, K. (1982). Antike Theorien über Entwicklung und Verfall der Redekunst. Munich.

344 Bibliography Henderson, J. (2011). ‘The Nature of Man: Pliny, Historia Naturalis as Cosmogram’, Materiali e discussioni 66: 139–71. Henderson, J. (2018). ‘Tales of the Unexpurgated (Cert PG). Seneca’s Audionasties (Controversiae 2.5, 10.4)’, in M. R. Gale and J. H. D. Scourfield (eds), Texts and Violence in the Roman World. Cambridge: 179–214. Hendrickson, G. L. (1906). ‘Literary Sources in Cicero’s Brutus and the Technique of Citation in Dialogue’, American Journal of Philology 27: 184–99. Hendrickson, G. L. (1939). Cicero. Brutus and Orator. London and Cambridge. Henry, J. (1873–92). Aeneidea (5 vols). New York. Hester, S., and Francis, D. (eds) (2007). Orders of Ordinary Action: Respecifying Sociological Knowledge. Aldershot and Burlington, VT. Heuzé, P. (2010). ‘Gracieuse caricature’, in P. Heuzé and C. Veyrard-Cosme (eds), La grâce de Thalie ou la beauté du rire. Paris: 173–8. Heuzé, P. and C. Veyrard-Cosme (eds) (2010). La grâce de Thalie ou la beauté du rire. Paris. Higham, T.  F. (1958). ‘Ovid and Rhetoric’, in N.  I.  Herescu (ed.), Ovidiana. Paris: 32–48. Hinds, S. (1998). Allusion and Intertext: Dynamics of Appropriation in Roman Poetry. Cambridge. Hoffmann, P. and Trédé, M. (1998). Le rire des anciens. Actes du colloque inter­ nation­al (Université de Rouen–École normale supérieure, 11–13 janvier 1995). Paris. Hollis, A. S. (2007). Fragments of Roman Poetry, c.60 BC–AD 20. Oxford. Hooper, R.  W. (1999). The Priapus Poems: Erotic Epigrams from Ancient Rome. Urbana, IL and Chicago. Huelsenbeck, B. (2011a). ‘Seneca Contr. 2.2.8 and 2.2.1: The Rhetor Arellius Fuscus and Latin Literary History’, Materiali e discussioni 66: 175–94. Huelsenbeck, B. (2011b). ‘The Rhetorical Collection of the Elder Seneca: Textual ­Trad­ition and Traditional Text’, Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 106: 229–99. Huelsenbeck, B. (2015). ‘Shared Speech in the Collection of the Elder Seneca (Contr. 10.4): Towards a Study of Common Literary Passages as Community Interaction’, in E.  Amato, F.  Citti, and B.  Huelsenbeck (eds), Law and Ethics in Greek and Roman Declamation. Berlin: 35–62. Huelsenbeck, B. (2018). Figures in the Shadows: The Speech of Two Augustan-Age Declaimers, Arellius Fuscus and Papirius Fabianus. Berlin and Boston. Huerta Cabrera, Y. V. (2015). La retórica de los colores. Tipología en las Controversias de Séneca el Viejo. Diss. UNAM. Mexico City. Hunink, V. (1997). Apuleius of Madauros. Pro se de magia (Apologia). Amsterdam. Hutchinson, G. O. (2010). ‘Deflected Addresses. Apostrophe and Space (Sophocles, Aeschines, Plautus, Cicero, Virgil and others)’, Classical Quarterly 60: 96–109. Hymes, D. (1974). Foundations in Sociolinguistics: An Ethnographic Approach. Philadelphia. Igualada Belchí, D.  A. (1994). ‘Estrategias comunicativas. La pregunta retórica en español’, Revista Española de Lingüística 24: 329–44.

Bibliography  345 Inwood, B. (2005). Reading Seneca. Oxford. Jacotot, M. (2014). ‘De re publica esset silentium. Pensée politique et histoire de l’éloquence dans le Brutus’, in S. Aubert and C. Guérin (eds), Le Brutus de Cicéron: Rhétorique, politique et histoire culturelle. Leiden: 193–214. Jaeger, M. (1997). Livy’s Written Rome. Ann Arbor. Jäkel, S. and Timonen, A. (1994–7). Laughter down the Centuries (3 vols). Turku. Janiszewski, P., Stebnicka, K., and Szabat, E. (2015). Prosopography of Greek Rhetors and Sophists of the Roman Empire. Oxford. Janson, T. (1964). Latin Prose Prefaces: Studies in Literary Conventions. Stockholm. Jaulin, A. (2000). ‘Le rire logique: Usages du geloion chez Aristote’, in M. L. Desclos (ed.), Le rire des Grecs. Anthropologie du rire en Grèce ancienne. Grenoble: 319–32. Jones, F. (1996). Nominum ratio. Aspects of the Use of Personal Names in Greek and Latin. Liverpool. Kaser, M. and Hackl, K. (1996). Das römische Zivilprozessrecht. Munich. Kaster, R. (ed.) (1995). Suetonius. De Grammaticis et Rhetoribus. Oxford. Kaster, R. A. (1998). ‘Becoming “Cicero” ’, in P. E. Knox and C. Foss (eds), Style and Tradition. Stuttgart: 248–63. Kaster, R. A. (2001). ‘Controlling Reason: Declamation in Rhetorical Education at Rome’, in Y.  Lee Too (ed.), Education in Greek and Roman Antiquity. Leiden: 317–37. Keeline, T.  J. (2018). The Reception of Cicero in the Early Roman Empire: The Rhetorical Schoolroom and the Creation of a Cultural Legend. Cambridge. Keith, A. M. (2002). ‘Ovid on Vergilian War Narrative’, Vergilius 48: 105–22. Keith, A. M. (2013). ‘Propertius’, in T. S. Thorsen (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Love Elegy. Cambridge: 97–113. Kelly, G. P. (2006). A History of Exile in the Roman Republic. Cambridge. Kennedy, G. (1968). ‘The Rhetoric of Advocacy in Greece and Rome’, American Journal of Philology 89: 419–36. Kennedy, G. A. (1978). ‘Encolpius and Agamemnon in Petronius’, American Journal of Philology 99: 171–8. Kenney, E. J. (1971). Lucretius. De Rerum Natura. Cambridge. Kiessling, A. (1891).‘Tacitus Ann. IV 43’, Hermes 26: 634–5. Kline, A. S. (2001) Sextus Propertius: The Elegies. A Complete English Translation. https://www.poetryintranslation.com/PITBR/Latin/Prophome.php (accessed 28 February 2020) König, J. and Whitmarsh, T. (eds) (2007). Ordering Knowledge in the Roman Empire. Cambridge. Kroll, W. (1924) [1964]. Studien zum Verständnis der römischen Literatur. Stuttgart. Kroll, W. (1934). ‘Rhetorica IV. Der Witz bei Quintilian’, Philologus 89: 341–8. Krostenko, B. A. (2001). Cicero, Catullus, and the Language of Social Performance. Chicago and London. Kühnert, F. (1962). ‘Quintilians Erörterung über den Witz (Inst. VI 3)’, Philologus 106: 29–59 and 305–14. Labate, M. (1975). ‘Amore coniugale e amore “elegiac” nell’episodio di Cefalo e Procri (Ov. Met. 7.661–865)’, Annali della Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa ser. 3, 5: 103–28.

346 Bibliography La Bua, G. (2015). ‘Nihil infinitum est nisi Oceanus (Sen. Suas. 1, 1). Il mare nelle declamazioni latine’, Maia 67: 325–39. La Bua, G. (2019). Cicero and Roman Education: The Reception of the Speeches and Ancient Scholarship. Cambridge. Labuske, H. (1989). ‘Die Römer am Kimberknap’, Klio 71: 138–45. Laffi, U. (2001). ‘La provincia della Gallia Cisalpina’, in U. Laffi (ed.), Studi di storia romana e di diritto. Rome: 209–35. Larosa, B. (2013). Publi Ovidii Nasonis Epistula ex Ponto 3.1. Berlin and Boston. Larosa, B. (2014). ‘Conjugal Fidelity and Mythical Parallels in Ovid’s Exile Poetry. Continuity and Evolution of Literary Models’, Latomus 73: 368–84. Larson, M. S. (1997). The Rise of Professionalism: A Sociological Analysis. Berkeley, Los Angeles, and London. Laurens, P. L. (1965). ‘Martial et l’épigramme grecque du Ier siècle après J.-C.’, Revue des Études Latines 43: 315–41. Lausberg, H. (1960) [2008]. Handbuch der literarischen Rhetorik. Eine Grundlegung der Literaturwissenschaft. Ismaning bei München and Stuttgart. Leach, E. (2006). ‘An gravius aliquid scribam: Roman seniores Write to iuvenes’, Transactions of the American Philological Association 136 (2): 247–67. Lebek, W. D. (1966). ‘Zur vita des Albucius Silus bei Sueton’, Hermes 94: 360–72. Lechi, F. (2008a). ‘Et ad hanc controversiam Graeci porrexerunt manum: declamatori Greci et controversie “Romane” ’, in P.  Arduini, S.  Audano, A.  Borghini, and A. Cavarzere (eds), Studi offerti ad Alessandro Perutelli. Rome: 99–106. Lechi, F. (2008b). ‘Greco e latino nelle scuole di retorica’, in F. Bellandi and R. Ferri (eds), Aspetti della scuola nel mondo romano: Atti del convegno (Pisa, 5–6 dicembre 2006). Supplementi di Lexis 51. Amsterdam: 9–27. Lee, J.  L.  C, Nader, K., and Schiller, D. (2017). ‘An Update on Memory Reconsolidation Updating’, Trends in Cognitive Sciences 21: 531–45. Leeman, A.  D. (1963). Orationis ratio: The Stylistic Theories and Practice of the Roman Orators, Historians, and Philosophers (2 vols). Amsterdam. Leeman, A. D., Pinkster, H., and Rabbie, E. (1989). M. Tullius Cicero De oratore libri III Kommentar, 3. Band: Buch II, 99–290. Heidelberg. Lefebvre, H. (1971). Everyday Life in the Modern World. New York. Lentano, M. (2014). Retorica e diritto. Per una lettura giuridica della declamazione latina. Lecce. Levinson, S. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge. Lévy, C. (2006). ‘La notion de color dans la rhétorique latine: Cicéron, Sénèque le Rhéteur, Quintilien’, in A.  Rouveret, V.  Naas, and S.  Dubel (eds) Couleurs et ­matières dans l’Antiquité. Textes, techniques et pratiques. Paris: 185–99. Lévy, C. (2010). ‘Venustas chez Cicéron’, in P. Chiron and C. Lévy (eds), Les noms du style. Louvain: 165–78. Lindner, F. G. (1861). De Albucio Silo. Wrocław. Lippitt, J. (1994). ‘Humour and Incongruity’, Cogito 8: 147–53. Lippitt, J. (1995). ‘Humour and Superiority’, Cogito 9: 54–61. Lockyer Jr, C.  W. (1970). The Fiction of Memory and the Use of Written Sources: Convention and Practice in Seneca the Elder and other Authors. PhD Diss. Princeton.

Bibliography  347 López, A. (1998). Modelando con palabras: La elaboración de la imagenes ejemplares de Catón y Cornelia. Madrid. Lucarini, C. M. (2009). Q. Curtius Rufus. Historiae. Berlin and New York. Ludwig, K. (2014). Charakterfokalisation bei Lucan. Eine narratologische Analyse. Berlin. Lutsch, O. (1881). ‘Die Urbanitas nach Cicero’, in Festgabe für Wilhelm Crecelius zur Feier der fünfundzwanzigjährigen Lehrthätigkeit in Elberfeld. Elberfeld: 80–95. Lynch, M. (1993). Scientific Practice and Ordinary Action: Ethnomethodology and Social Studies of Science. Cambridge and New York. McDermott, W.  C. (1936). ‘The Ape in Roman Literature’, Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association 67: 148–67. Magie, D. (1950). Roman Rule in Asia Minor to the End of the Third Century After Christ. Princeton. Maier-Eichhorn, U. (1989). Die Gestikulation in Quintilians Rhetorik. Frankfurt. Malaspina, E. (1995). Nimia veritas. Il vissuto quotidiano negli scritti esilici di Ovidio. Rome. Mannering, J. (2008). Momentous Masks: Verse Quotation in Roman Authorship from the Late Republic to the Early Empire. PhD Diss. Cambridge. Mannering, J. (2017). ‘Declamation 2.0 – Reading Calpurnius “Whole” ’, in M. T. Dinter, C.  Guérin, and M.  Martinho (eds), Reading Roman Declamation—Calpurnius Flaccus. Berlin and Boston: 9–44. Manovich, L. (2001). The Language of New Media. Cambridge, MA. Manzo, A. (1966). ‘Dalla teoria alla prassi del faceto in Cicerone’, Istituto Lombardo di scienze e lettere: Rendiconti (Classe di Lettere) 100: 397–411. Manzo, A. (1973). ‘Il De risu di Quintiliano nel contesto della retorica antica’, Istituto Lombardo di scienze e lettere: Rendiconti (Classe di Lettere) 107: 73–107. Marchese, R. R. (2011). Cicerone Bruto. Rome. Mariotti, S. (1957). ‘La carriera poetica di Ovidio’, Belfagor 12: 609–35. Marrou, H. I. (1964). A History of Education in Antiquity. Translated by G. Lamb. New York. Mastrorosa, I. (2002). ‘Rhetoric between Conjugal Love and patria potestas: Seneca the Elder, Contr. 2.2’, in L. Calboli Montefusco (ed.), Papers on Rhetoric IV. Rome: 165–90. May, J. M. (1988). Trials of Character: The Eloquence of Ciceronian Ethos. Chapel Hill. Mazzoli, G. (2006). ‘La guerra civile nelle declamazioni di Seneca il retore’, in Ciceroniana. Atti del XII Colloquium Tullianum. Rome: 45–57. Ménager, D. (1995). La Renaissance et le rire. Paris. Migliario, E. (1989). ‘Luoghi retorici e realtà sociale nell’opera di Seneca il Vecchio’, Athenaeum 67: 525–49. Migliario, E. (2007). Retorica e storia. Una lettura delle Suasoriae di Seneca Padre. Bari. Migliario, E. (2008). ‘Cultura politica e scuole di retorica a Roma in età augustea’, in F. Gasti and E. Romano (eds), Retorica ed educazione delle élites nell’antica Roma. Atti della VI Giornata ghisleriana di filologia classica (Pavia, 4–5 aprile 2006). Pavia: 77–93.

348 Bibliography Migliario, E. (2009). ‘Storia romana e cultura latina per i retori greci di età augustea’, Lexis 27: 509–24. Migliario, E. (2012). ‘Intellettuali dei tempi nuovi: retori greci nella Roma augustea’, Quaderni del Dip. di Lettere e Filosofia—Trento 2: 109–23. Miller, F. J. (1971). Ovid. Metamorphoses. Cambridge, MA. Mills, D. H. (1978). ‘Vergil’s Tragic Vision: The Death of Priam’, Classical World 72: 159–66. Minois, G. (2000). Histoire du rire et de la dérision. Paris. Moatti, C. (1997). La raison de Rome. Paris. Mommsen, T. (1899). Römisches Strafrecht. Leipzig. Monaco, G. (1964). Cicerone. Il trattato de ridiculis (De oratore II 216–290). Palermo. Monaco, G. (1967). Quintiliano. Il capitolo de risu (Inst. or. VI 3). Palermo. Monson, I. (1996). Saying Something: Jazz Improvisation and Interaction. Chicago. Monti, R.  C. (2012). ‘Poetry, Rhetoric, and Science: The Case of Plaustra Bootes’, Mnemosyne 65: 94–111. Morales, H. (1996). ‘The Torturer’s Apprentice: Parrhasius and the Limits of Art’, in J. Elsner (ed.), Art and Text in Roman Culture. Cambridge: 182–209. Morreall, J. (1983). Taking Laughter Seriously. Albany, NY. Morreall, J. (2009). Comic Relief: A Comprehensive Philosophy of Humor. Malden, MA and Chichester. Morse, C. J. (1956). ‘Quid do ut (ne): A Bargaining Construction in Juvenal and the Senecas’, Classical Review 6: 196–8. Mozley, J.  H. (1929) [1939] [1969]. Ovid. The Art of Love and Other Poems. Cambridge, MA and London. Müller, H. J. (1887). L. Annaei Senecae Oratorum et Rhetorum sententiae divisiones colores. Vienna [Hildesheim 1963]. Müller, K. and Schönfeld, H. (1954). Geschichte Alexanders des Großen. Munich. Myers, K. S. (1994). Ovid’s Causes: Cosmogony and Aetiology in the Metamorphoses. Ann Arbor. Naumann, H. (1968). ‘Ovid und die Rhetorik’, Der altsprachliche Unterricht 11: 69–86. Nesholm, E. J. (2010). ‘Language and Artistry in Cicero’s Pro Archia’, Classical World 103: 477–90. Nikolic, M. (2011). ‘An Investigation of Vitruvius’ Technical Vocabulary Relating to Water Conduits and Pipelines in De Arch. 8.6.6–9: vis spiritus and colluviaria (Re)examined’, Mnemosyne 64: 424–46. Nocchi, F. R. (2013). Tecniche teatrali e formazione dell’oratore in Quintiliano. Berlin and Boston. Nora, P. (1989). ‘Between Memory and History: Les lieux de mémoire’, Representations 26: 7–24. Oberhelman, S. (2003). Prose Rhythm in Latin Literature of the Roman Empire: First Century B.C. to Fourth Century A.D. Lewiston, NY. Oliver, A. and Smiley, T. (2004). ‘Multigrade Predicates’, Mind 113: 609–81. ORF = Malcovati, E. (ed.) (1976). Oratorum Romanorum fragmenta liberae rei publicae. 4th ed. Turin. Osgood, J. (2006a). Caesar’s Legacy: Civil War and the Emergence of the Roman Empire. Cambridge.

Bibliography  349 Osgood, J. (2006b). ‘Eloquence under the Triumvirs’, American Journal of Philology 127: 525–51. Panayotakis, C. (2009). Decimus Laberius. The Fragments. Cambridge. Parker, G. (2008). The Making of Roman India. Cambridge. Parker, R. W. (1991). ‘Potamon of Mytilene and his Family’, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 85: 115–29. Parker, W. H. (1988). Priapea: Poems for a Phallic God. London. Pascal, N. R. (1984). ‘The Legacy of Roman Education’, Classical Journal 79: 351–5. Pasetti, L. (2008). ‘Filosofia e retorica di scuola nelle Declamazioni Maggiori pseudoquintilianee’, in F. Gasti and E. Romano (eds), Retorica ed educazione delle élites nell’antica Roma. Atti della VI Giornata ghisleriana di filologia classica (Pavia, 4–5 aprile 2006). Pavia: 113–47. Pasetti L. et al. (eds) (2019). Le Declamazioni Minori attribuite a Quintiliano, testo, traduzione e commento. Bologna. Patillon, M. (2008). Corpus rhetoricum, [I], Anonyme, Préambule à la rhétorique; Aphtonios, Progymnasmata; Pseudo-Hermogène, Progymnasmata. Paris. Patillon, M. and Bolognesi, G. (1997) [2002]. Aelius Théon, Progymnasmata. Paris. Pease, A. S. (1963). M. Tullii Ciceronis De divinatione libri duo. Darmstadt. Peirano, I. (2013). ‘Non subripiendi causa sed palam mutuandi: Intertextuality and Literary Deviancy between Law, Rhetoric, and Literature in Roman Imperial Culture’, American Journal of Philology 134: 83–100. Penella, R.  J. (2011). ‘The Progymnasmata in Imperial Greek Education’, Classical World 105: 77–90. Pianezzola, E. (1984). ‘Au-delà des frontières du monde: un topos rhétorique pour un rétablissement du texte d’Albinovanus Pédo (p. 116 Mor. = 148 Buechn., v. 19)’, Revue des Études Latines 62: 192–205. Pianezzola, E. (1999a). Ovidio. Modelli retorici e forma narrativa. Bologna. Pianezzola, E. (1999b). ‘Dalla figura retorica al procedimento diegetico’, in W. Schubert (ed.), Ovid. Werk und Wirkung. Frankfurt: 331–42. Piazzi, L. (2007). P. Ovidii Nasonis Heroidum epistula VII Dido Aeneae. Florence. Pingoud, J. and Rolle, A. (2016). ‘Noverca et mater crudelis. La perversion féminine dans les Grandes Déclamations à travers l’intertextualité’, in M. Dinter, C. Guérin, and M. Martinho (eds), Reading Roman Declamation. The Declamations Ascribed to Quintilian. Berlin and Boston: 147–66. Pingoud, J. and Rolle, A. (2020). Déclamations et intertextualité. Discours d’école en dialogue. Bern. Platnauer, M. (1972). Claudian II. Cambridge, MA. Plebe, A. (1952). La teoria del comico da Aristotele a Plutarco. Turin. Pociña, A. (1989). ‘La oratoria de Catón el Censor: su significado actual’, in La oratoria en Grecia y Roma. Su vigencia en la actualidad. Actas de la Universidad de Verano de Teruel 4. Teruel: 79–96. Poignault, R. and Schneider, C. (eds) (2015). Présence de la déclamation antique (controverses et suasoires). Caesarodunum 46–7. Clermont-Ferrand. Pöschl, V. (1975). ‘Zur Einbeziehung anwesender Personen und sichtbarer Objekte in Ciceros Reden’, in A. Michel and R. Verdière (eds), Ciceroniana. Hommages à Kazimierz Kumaniecki. Leiden: 206–26.

350 Bibliography Power, T. (2013). ‘Suetonius and the Date of Curtius Rufus’, Hermes 141: 117–20. Quignard, P. (1990). Albucius. Paris. Rabbie, E. (2007). ‘Wit and Humour in Roman Rhetoric’, in W. Dominik and J. Hall (eds), A Companion to Roman Rhetoric. Malden, MA and Oxford: 207–17. Raccanelli, R. (2000). ‘Parenti e amici a confronto: Per un sistema degli affetti nelle declamazioni latine (Ps. Quint. decl. mai. 9 e 16; decl. min. 321)’, Bollettino di studi latini 30: 106–33. Rackham, H. (1931). Cicero, De finibus bonorum et malorum. Cambridge, MA. Radice, B. (1972). Pliny. Letters and Panegyricus. Cambridge, MA. Ramage, E.  S. (1960). ‘Early Roman Urbanity’, American Journal of Philology 81: 65–72. Ramage, E.  S. (1963). ‘Urbanitas: Cicero and Quintilian, a Contrast in Attitudes’, American Journal of Philology 84: 390–414. Ramage, E. S. (1973). Urbanitas. Ancient Sophistication and Refinement. Norman, OK. Ramsay, G. G. (1969). Juvenal and Persius. Cambridge, MA. Rawson, E. (1985). Intellectual Life in the Late Roman Republic. London. Reinhardt, T. and Winterbottom, M. (2006). Quintilian Book 2. Oxford. Richlin, A. (1983) [1992]. The Garden of Priapus: Sexuality and Aggression in Roman Humor. New Haven, CT. Richlin, A. (2003). ‘Gender and Rhetoric: Producing Manhood in the Schools’, in W. Dominik (ed.), Roman Eloquence: Rhetoric in Society and Literature. 2nd edn. New York: 74–90. Riffaterre, M. (1990). Fictional Truth. Baltimore. Robert, J. and Robert, L. (1959). ‘Bulletin épigraphique’, Revue des Études Grecques 72: 149–283. Rochette, B. (1997). Le Latin dans le monde grec. Recherches sur la diffusion de la langue et des lettres latines dans les provinces hellénophones de l’Empire romain. Brussels. Rolfe, J. C. (1914). Suetonius, Lives of the Caesars, Volume II. Cambridge, MA. Rolle, A. (2018). ‘L’importanza del confronto. Un’analisi di Sen. contr. X 4, 23’, Maia 70: 42–9. Roller, M.  B. (1997). ‘Color-blindness: Cicero’s Death, Declamation and the ­Production of History’, Classical Philology 92: 109–30. Roller, M.  B. (2001). Constructing Autocracy. Aristocrats and Emperors in ­Julio-Claudian Rome. Princeton. Romm, J.  S. (1992). The Edges of the Earth in Ancient Thought: Geography, Explo­ ration, and Fiction. Princeton. Rushton Fairclough, H. (1929). Horace. Satires, Epistles and Ars poetica. Cambridge and London. Russell, D. A. (1983). Greek Declamation. Cambridge. Russell, D. A. (2001). Quintilian. The Orator’s Education. Cambridge, MA. Sacks, H. (1992). Lectures on Conversation (2 vols). Oxford and Cambridge, MA. Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., and Jefferson, G. (1974). ‘A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn-taking for Conversation’, Language 50: 696–735. Saint Denis, E. de (1939). ‘Évolution sémantique de urbanus-urbanitas’, Latomus 3: 5–24. Saint Denis, E. de (1965). Essais sur le rire et le sourire des latins. Paris

Bibliography  351 Salomies, O. (1987). Die römischen Vornamen: Studien zur römischen Namengebung. Helsinki. Salway, B. (1994). ‘What’s in a Name? A Survey of Roman Onomastic Practice from c. 700 BC to AD 700’, Journal of Roman Studies 84: 124–45. Santalucia, B. (1998). Diritto e processo penale nell’antica Roma. Milan. Santorelli, B. (2017). ‘Metrical and Accentual Clausulae as Evidence for the Date and Origin of Calpurnius Flaccus’, in M. T. Dinter, C. Guérin, and M. Martinho (eds), Reading Roman Declamation—Calpurnius Flaccus. Berlin and Boston: 129–42. Schegloff, E.  A. (1996). ‘Confirming Allusions: Toward an Empirical Account of Action’, American Journal of Sociology 102: 161–216. Schegloff, E.  A. (2007). Sequence Organization in Interaction: A Primer in Conversation Analysis I. Cambridge. Schepens, G. and Delcroix, K. (1996). ‘Ancient Paradoxography: Origin, Evolution, Production and Reception’, in O. Pecere and A. Stramaglia (eds), La letteratura di consumo nel mondo greco-latino. Atti del convegno internazionale, Cassino, 14–17 settembre 1994. Cassino: 373–460. Scheppers, F. (2011). The Colon Hypothesis: Word Order, Discourse Segmentation and Discourse Coherence in Ancient Greek. Brussels. Schmeling, G.  L. (2011). A Commentary on the Satyrica of Petronius. Oxford and New York. Schneider, C. (2001). ‘La réception de Valére Maxime dans le recueil des Grandes déclamations pseudo-quintiliennes’, Invigilata Lucernis 23: 223–37. Schneider, C. (2017). ‘(Re)lire la déclamation romaine: Le Soldat de Marius par Calpurnius Flaccus’, in M. T. Dinter, C. Guérin, and M. Martinho (eds), Reading Roman Declamation—Calpurnius Flaccus. Berlin and Boston: 77–98. Schouler, B. (1986). ‘Le déguisement de l’intention dans la rhétorique grecque’, Ktema 11: 265–72. Schröder, B.-J. and Schröder, J.-P. (eds) (2003). Studium declamatorium. Unter­ suchungen zu Schulübungen und Prunkreden von Antike bis Neuzeit. Munich and Leipzig. Schwennicke, A. (2018). ‘The carcer in Roman Declamation: Formation and Function of a Topos’, American Journal of Philology 139: 483–510. Scodel, R. (1987). ‘Horace, Lucilius, and Callimachean Polemic’, Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 91: 199–215. Sehlmeyer, F. (1912). Beziehungen zwischen Quintilians Institutiones oratoriae und Ciceros rhetorischen Schriften. Münster. Shackleton Bailey, D. R. (1991). Two Studies in Roman Nomenclature. Atlanta, GA. Shackleton Bailey, D. R. (ed. and trans.) (1993). Martial. Epigrams. Cambridge, MA. Sinclair, B. W. (1984). ‘Declamatory sententiae in Valerius Maximus’, Prometheus 10: 141–6. Sklenář, R. J. (1990). ‘The Death of Priam: Aeneid 2.506–558’, Hermes 118: 67–75. Skulsky, S. (1987). ‘The Sibyl’s Rage and the Marpessan Rock’, American Journal of Philology 108: 56–80. Sluiter, I. (2000). ‘The Dialectics of Genre: Some Aspects of Secondary Literature and Genre in Antiquity’, in M.  Depew and K.  Obbink (eds), Matrices of Genre: Authors, Canons, and Society. Cambridge, MA: 183–203.

352 Bibliography Small, S.  G.  P. (1951). ‘Marcus Argentarius: A Poet of the Greek Anthology’, Yale Classical Studies 13: 65–145. Sochatoff, A. (1939). ‘Basic Rhetorical Theories of the Elder Seneca’, Classical Journal 34: 345–54. Solin, H. (2002). ‘Zur Entwicklung des römischen Namensystems’, in D. Geuenich, W. Haubrichs, and J. Jarnut (eds), Person und Name. Methodische Probleme bei der Erstellung eines Personennamenbuches des Frühmittelalters. Berlin: 1–17. Spawforth, A. (2012). Greece and the Augustan Cultural Revolution. Cambridge. Spielberg, L. (2017). ‘Non contenti exemplis saeculi vestri: Intertextuality and the Declamatory Tradition in Calpurnius Flaccus’, in M.  T.  Dinter, C.  Guérin, and M. Martinho (eds), Reading Roman Declamation—Calpurnius Flaccus. Berlin and Boston: 45–76. Steinbock, B. (2005). Social Memory in Athenian Public Discourse: Uses and Meanings of the Past. Ann Arbor. Stocks, S. P. (2012). The Form and Function of the Tricolon in the Psalms of Ascents: Introducing a New Paradigm for Hebrew Poetic Line-Form. Eugene, OR. Stramaglia, A. (2016). ‘The Hidden Teacher. “Metarhetoric” in Ps.-Quintilian’s Major Declamations’, in M. Dinter, C. Guérin, and M. Martinho (eds), Reading Roman Declamation—The Declamations Ascribed to Quintilian. Berlin and Boston: 25–48. Stroh, W. (2003). ‘Declamatio’, in B.-J.  Schröder and J.-P. Schröder (eds), Studium Declamatorium. Untersuchungen zu Schulübungen und Prunkreden von der Antike bis zur Neuzeit. Munich: 5–34. Stroup, S.  C. (2007). ‘Greek Rhetoric Meets Rome: Expansion, Resistance, and Acculturation’, in W. Dominik and J. Hall (eds), A Companion to Roman Rhetoric. Malden, MA and Oxford: 23–37. Stroup, S. C. (2010). Catullus, Cicero, and a Society of Patrons: The Generation of the Text. Cambridge. Sudnow, D. (1978). Ways of the Hand: The Organization of Improvised Conduct. Cambridge, MA. Suerbaum, W. (1993). ‘Sex und Crime im Alten Rom: von der humanistischen Zensur zu Cato dem Censor’, Würzburger Jahrbücher für die Altertumswissenschaft 19: 85–109. Sussman, L. A. (1971). ‘The Artistic Unity of the Elder Seneca’s First Preface and the Controversiae as a Whole’, American Journal of Philology 92: 285–91. Sussman, L.  A. (1972). ‘The Elder Seneca’s Discussion of the Decline of Roman Eloquence’, California Studies in Classical Antiquity 5: 195–210. Sussman, L. A. (1977). ‘Arellius Fuscus and the Unity of the Elder Seneca’s Suasoriae’, Rheinisches Museum 120: 303–23. Sussman, L. A. (1978). The Elder Seneca. Leiden. Sutton, E. W. (1942). Cicero. De oratore. Books I and II. Cambridge, MA and London. Sutton, E.  W. and Rackham, H. (1941). Cicero. De oratore, De fato, Paradoxa Stoicorum, Partitiones oratoriae. Cambridge, MA. Syme, R. (1958). ‘Imperator Caesar: A Study in Nomenclature’, Historia 7: 172–88. Talarico, J. M. et al. (2004). ‘Emotional Intensity Predicts Autobiographical Memory Experience’, Memory and Cognition 32: 1118–32.

Bibliography  353 Tandoi, V. (1992a). ‘Curzio Rufo e le declamationes. Per una datazione del De gestis Alexandri Magni’, in F. E. Consolino et al. (eds), Scritti di filologia e di storia della cultura classica. Pisa: 440–8. Tandoi, V. (1992b). ‘Albinovano Pedone e la retorica giulio-claudia delle conquiste’, in F. E. Consolino et al. (eds), Scritti di filologia e di storia della cultura classica. Pisa: 509–85 [= SIFC 36 (1964) 129–68, and SIFC 39 (1967) 5–66]. Tarrant, R. J. (1995). ‘Ovid and the Failure of Rhetoric’, in D. Innes, H. Hine, and C. Pelling (eds), Ethics and Rhetoric. Oxford: 63–74. Tarrant, R. J. (2012). Virgil. Aeneid Book XII. Cambridge. Taylor, C. C. W. (2006). Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics. Books II–IV. Oxford. ThLL (1900–) = Thesaurus Linguae Latinae. Munich. Thraede, K. (1965). Studien zu Sprache und Stil des Prudentius. Göttingen. Tischer, U. (2018). Zitat und Markierung: Signalisieren und Erfassen von Zitaten in römischer Prosa. PhD Diss. Potsdam. Todorov, T. (1966). ‘Les catégories du récit littéraire’, Communications 8: 125–51. Torre, C. (2000). Il matrimonio del ‘sapiens’. Ricerche sul ‘De matrimonio’ di Seneca. Genoa. Treggiari, S. (1991). Roman Marriage. Iusti coniuges from the Time of Cicero to the Time of Ulpian. Oxford. Trinacty, C. (2009). ‘Like Father, Like Son?: Selected Examples of Intertextuality in Seneca the Younger and Seneca the Elder’, Phoenix 63 (3/4): 260–77. Usher, S. (2010). ‘Apostrophe in Greek Oratory’, Rhetorica 28: 351–62. Valenti, R. (1976). ‘Per un’analisi semantica di urbanitas in Cicerone’, Bollettino di studi latini 6: 54–61. van den Berg, C. S. (2014). The World of Tacitus’ ‘Dialogus de Oratoribus’: Aesthetics and Empire in Ancient Rome. Cambridge and New York. van der Poel, M. (2009). ‘The Use of exempla in Roman Declamation’, Rhetorica 27: 332–53. van Mal-Maeder, D. (2007). La fiction des déclamations. Leiden and Boston. van Mal-Maeder, D. (2016). ‘Entre raison et émotions: L’ethos du déclamateur de la cinquième Grande déclamation’, in M. Dinter, C. Guérin, and M. Martinho (eds), Reading Roman Declamation—The Declamations Ascribed to Quintilian. Berlin and Boston: 91–108. van Mal-Maeder, D. (2020), ‘Des progymnasmata à la déclamation entre hier et aujourd’hui’, in P. Chiron and B. Sans (eds), Les progymnasmata en pratique, de l’Antiquité à nos jours. Practicing the progymnasmata, from Ancient Times to Present Days. Paris. Ver Eecke, M. (2010). ‘Enseigner L’art d’aimer’, L’art d’aimer (conférence), http://menapia.discipline.ac-lille.fr/stages-et-conferences/lart-daimer (accessed 20 August 2017). Veres Royal, S. (2015). ‘Fear, Rhetoric, and the “Other”  ’, Race/Ethnicity: Multidisciplinary Global Contexts 4: 405–18. Vogel-Weidemann, U. (1989). ‘Carthago delenda est: Aitia and Prophasis’, Acta Classica 32: 79–95. Volk, K. (2002). The Poetics of Latin Didactic: Lucretius, Vergil, Ovid, Manilius. Oxford.

354 Bibliography Walker, M. D. (2019). ‘Aristotle on Wittiness’, in P. Destrée and F. V. Trivigno (eds), Laughter, Humor, and Comedy in Ancient Philosophy. Oxford: 103–21. Walz, C. (1832–6). Rhetores graeci. Stuttgart. Ward, A. M. (1970). ‘Cicero and Pompey in 75 and 70 BC’, Latomus 29: 58–71. Warren, J. (2011). ‘Epicurus’ Dying Wishes’, The Cambridge Classical Journal 47: 23–46. Watson, A. (trans.) (1998). The Digest of Justinian, volume IV. Philadelphia. Webb, R. (2001). ‘The progymnasmata as practice’, in Y. Lee Too (ed.), Education in Greek and Roman Antiquity. Leiden: 289–316. Webb, R. (2006). ‘Fiction, Mimesis and the Performance of the Greek Past in the Second Sophistic’, in D. Konstan and S. Saïd (eds), Greeks on Greekness: Viewing the Greek Past under the Roman Empire, Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society (Supplement Volume 29): 27–46. Weißenberger, M. (2010). Sopatri Quaestionum Divisio. Sopatros: Streitfälle. Gliederung und Ausarbeitung kontroverser Reden. Würzburg. Wheeler, A. L. (1965). Tristia. Ex Ponto. Cambridge, MA. Whitton, C. (2019). The Arts of Imitation in Latin Prose. Cambridge. Williams, G. (1978). Change and Decline: Roman Literature in the Early Empire. Berkeley. Wilson, M. (2007). ‘Rhetoric and the Younger Seneca’, in W.  Dominik and J.  Hall (eds), A Companion to Roman Rhetoric. Malden, MA and Oxford: 425–38. Winterbottom, M. (1964). ‘Quintilian and the vir bonus’, Journal of Roman Studies 54: 90–7. [reprinted in Winterbottom 2019: 3–15]. Winterbottom, M. (1974). Seneca the Elder. Declamations (2 vols). Cambridge, MA. Winterbottom, M. (1983). ‘Declamation, Greek and Latin’, in C.  Perelman, G.  Calboli, and M.  Winterbottom (eds), Ars rhetorica antica e nuova. Genoa: 57–76. [reprinted in Winterbottom 2019: 103–118]. Winterbottom, M. (2019), Papers on Quintilian and Ancient Declamation (ed. A. Stramaglia, F. R. Nocchi, and G. Russo). Oxford. Wiseman, T. P. (1970). ‘Pulcher Claudius’, Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 74: 207–21. Wisse, J. (1989). Ethos and Pathos from Aristotle to Cicero. Amsterdam. Wittgenstein, L. (2009). Philosophische Untersuchungen. Philosophical Investigations. Translated by G. E. M. Anscombe, P. M. S. Hacker, and J. Schulte. Rev. 4th edn. Malden, MA. Woerther, F. (2012). Hermagoras de Temnos, Fragments et témoignages: édition, traduction et commentaire. Paris. Woerther, F. (ed.) (2013). Apollodore de Pergame, Théodore de Gadara: fragments et témoignages. Paris. Wolff, E. (2013). ‘Déclamation et fiction historique’, in C.  Bréchet, A.  Videau, and R. Webb (eds), Théories et pratiques de la fiction imperial. Paris: 269–76. Wooten, C. (1987). Hermogenes on Types of Style. Chapel Hill. Wright, A. (2001). ‘The Death of Cicero. Forming a Tradition: The Contamination of History’, Historia 50: 436–52. Yardley, J. (1984). Quintus Curtius Rufus. The History of Alexander. Harmondsworth. Ziegler, K. (1949). ‘Paradoxographoi’, Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertums­ wissenschaft 18.3: 1137–66.

Index Rerum actor  126–27, 130–32, 222 adultery  190, 244–46, 249 allusion  17, 19, 28, 44, 131, 172, 174, 228, 234, 280, 293–94, 303, 305–6, 320, 329 ambiguity  60, 69, 79, 103, 125 Assmann, Jan See cultural memory theory audience  9, 16–17, 26–29, 34–35, 39, 44, 50, 52–53, 117, 130, 223, 226, 230, 237–38, 270, 293–94, 313, 326 authenticity  38, 45, 172, 222, 233 bilingualism  58, 60, 65, 68, 81–82, 84, 103, 238, 258 blindness  32, 230 brother  54, 105, 169, 257, 260, 265–66 Cato the Elder  32, 39, 45, 211, 284 character, declamatory  18, 28–30, 53, 94–95, 97, 120, 127–28, 287, 308–10, 312, character, moral  45–46, 48, 66, 190, 193, 195, 225–26 character, poor  123, 193, 210 character, rich  123, 210, 242–44 characterisation  41, 65–66, 75, 259 city  52, 73–74, 233, 243 color  9, 24, 50, 88, 93, 100–1, 223, 231–33, 240–41, 244, 251 comedy  118, 294 conflict  130, 234, 237 connections  45–46, 77, 89, 92–94, 121, 128, 169, 171, 178–80 convictions, criminal  54, 257, 267 convictions, moral  3, 116 court, imperial  89, 105, 193 court, judicial  117, 121, 123–24, 141–44, 147, 205–6, 224, 256, 269–70 crime  198, 243, 244, 249, 260, 264, 275 cruelty  9, 52–53, 116, 120, 142, 200, 209, 256, 266, 314 crying  43–44, 146, 230, 266, 324 cultural memory theory  41–43, 45, 214, 236

danger  48, 126, 141, 143, 185, 196, 266, 270, 302 daughter  24, 32, 69, 188, 192, 194, 197, 260 death  45, 52, 77, 122, 188, 191, 193, 195–99, 202, 231–33, 243, 246, 271, 316, 324 death of Cicero  18, 21, 33–34, 36, 116, 205, 292, 313, 329–30 death penalty  248 declaimer, ethos of  120, 264–5 declaimer, ideal See declaimer, Senecan declaimer, prominent  6, 27, 129, 135, 206 declaimer, role of  43, 101 declaimer, Senecan  117, 119, 127, 129 declamation, Senecan  94, 98–99, 104–7, 110, 133 delectare  136, 294, 298 dissimulatio  142, 206 divisio  12, 19, 24, 33, 49–52, 54, 64–65, 68, 88, 93, 97, 100–1, 233, 328 duty  4, 39, 47, 214, 264 education  10, 46, 57–58, 129, 137, 144, 169, 207, 263, 285–86, 296 emotion  53, 126, 128, 130–31, 137, 143, 145, 247–48, 309 errors See mistakes ethics  64, 107, 223, 251, 255, 299, 303 exaggeration  65, 123, 125, 127, 130, 137, 205, 259, 263, 289 exclamation  196, 302, 321 exercise, physical  295, 300 exercise, rhetorical  2, 6–7, 16, 23, 67, 81, 108, 123–26, 207, 257, 297, 327 Fama/Rumour  192, 197, 328 family See brother, daughter, father, father-in-law, husband, infant, mother, sister, son, step-mother, wife fate  59, 105, 190, 192, 194–95, 198, 203 father  16–17, 43–44, 52, 63–64, 77, 103, 110, 123, 127, 130–31, 142, 187, 214, 221, 230–31, 236–37, 242–46, 248–49, 284, 300, 324

356  Index Rerum father-in-law 53 fiction  1, 3–4, 16–17, 31–34, 36, 50, 122–23, 128, 209, 216, 221–22, 234, 284, 293, 307, 310–17 forensic See court, judicial

oath  29, 121, 142–43 oratory  4, 7–8, 12, 16–17, 21–23, 25–29, 33, 36, 59, 95, 104, 106–7, 117–19, 120–21, 132–33, 135–36, 139, 146–47, 202–6, 298–300, 303, 316–17

genre  1–4, 15–17, 21–23, 27, 31, 34, 36, 117–22, 124, 132–33, 177, 190, 206 gesture  7, 115–17, 125–27, 129–31, 137, 144–47, 248 grief 116

paradox  36, 44, 48, 70, 109, 207, 232–33 pedagogy  4, 19, 39, 45–46, 53, 67–68, 81, 84, 88, 117, 123–24, 280–82, 285, 291 perception  30, 50, 68, 160, 176 persona See character, declamatory personality  260, 298 personification  116, 127, 315 pirate  131, 224, 230 poetry  5, 29–31, 35–36, 92–93, 104, 132, 191, 194, 196, 210, 235, 285, 292–94 prose rhythm  122–23, 216 prostitute  32, 226–28 proverb 288–89 provinciality  83, 95, 97, 105–6, 110, 229 public vs. private  7, 11–12, 19, 21, 68, 81, 91, 226, 269, 313, 325

hero  46, 64, 103, 106, 211, 246, 271, 300, 315–16 heroine  186–92, 197, 199 historiography  3, 5, 16–17, 31–33, 36, 177, 293 homosexuality 64 humour  201, 226, 271–72 husband  7, 52–53, 75, 187–88, 190–94, 196–98, 200, 224, 248–51, 267 identity  6, 35, 42, 60–62, 66, 70, 82, 85, 103, 118, 160, 170, 223, 238 imitation  72–73, 78, 80, 104, 126, 130, 169, 195, 203, 233, 236, 263, 266, 281, 283, 305, 323–24, 330 impersonation  308, 311–13, 315 infant  236, 260 innovation  166, 229, 232 intention  41–42, 44, 85, 115, 123, 258, 283 intertextuality  70, 279–80, 284, 293–94, 303–6, 319, 323, 325 inventio  125, 186, 200, 216, 253 irony  63, 142, 229–30, 284 law  64–65, 136, 246, 248 lawlessness 274 letters  24, 131, 198, 201–2, 216, 274, 285, 302, 325 masculinity 222–23 mistakes  64, 81, 137, 145 226–27, 239, 266, 289 mother  195, 230, 234, 244–46, 265–66 movere  136, 250, 298 murder  115–16, 119, 144, 242–44

rape  123, 246–49, 315 rapist  248–49, 310 rhetorical technique  179, 193, 197, 206–7, 212, 229, 232, 251, 309–17 school  65, 67–70, 75, 81, 84–85, 117, 119, 124, 126, 129, 136, 139–41, 144, 194–95, 200, 206, 215, 258, 288, 309, 321, 329 sententiae  30, 60, 62–63, 67, 78–81, 98–101, 120–22, 213, 243, 247, 264, 272, 293, 301, 318, 322–23, 325, 327 singing  129, 210–11 sister  195, 260, 315 slave  24, 64, 77, 104–5, 127, 263–64, 271, 304, 313–14 social status  102, 105, 106, 227 soldier  184, 244, 308, 310, 312 son  17, 21, 44, 64–65, 91, 242–46, 254, 280, 283–84, 318–20, 322, 328–29 speaker  18, 117, 124, 126–29, 137, 140–41, 179, 223, 225–29, 233–34, 309–11 status theory  231, 275 step-mother  231, 257 stigma  85, 140, 258

Index Rerum  357 stultitia  121, 267, 274 suicide  52, 194, 198 tears See crying torture  62, 64, 69, 187, 248 tragedy  118, 233, 237 tyrant  187, 234, 247–48, 314

urbanity 266 virgin  224–25, 252 wealth  105, 127, 210 wife  32, 52, 187, 191–92, 198–99, 249–51

Index Locorum Aquila Romanus De Figuris Sententiarum et Elocutionis Liber 3 127 Aristotle Nicomachean Ethics 4.8.1128a 268 Carmina Priapeia 3.7–8 225 Cato the Elder De suis virtutibus ORF 128  45 Cicero Brutus 38 299 58 147 67–68 302 De Amicitia 22 24 De Officiis 1.88 24 De Oratore 1.260–61 296 1.83 46 2.4 305 2.196 146 3.55 48 3.165 122 3.175 122 3.227 143 Epistulae ad Atticum 4.14.2 24 In Catilinam 1.1 311 In Verrem 2.4.101 230 2.5.163 314 Pro Caelio 34 315 Pro Ligario 9 311

Pro Milone 85 314–15 Tusculanae Disputationes 1.7 23 2.57 128 Claudian Laus Serenae 12–14 199 19 199 149–53 199–200 158–59 200 Curtius Rufus Historiae Alexandri Magni 3.3.3 176 9.3.7–8  182, 184–85 9.4.16–18  182, 185 9.4.17–18  151, 164 9.9.7–9.9.22  182–83, 185 9.9.19–20 159 Florus Epitome 1.17.26 228 Historia Augusta - Gordiani Tres 30.9 228 Hermogenes of Tarsus Peri Ideon 380–95 118 403–13 118 Peri Staseon 30.20–31.5 240 Homer Iliad 2.265–71 269 5.340 325 Horace Ars Poetica 25–30 290 31 289

Index Locorum  359 Epistulae 1.15.29 171 Satirae 1.2.23–24 298

Tristia 5.5.51–58 192 5.6.31–2 228 5.14.35–40 192

Hyginus Fabulae 51.3.10 196 243.2.8 196–97 243.4.16 197

Petronius Satyricon 3 205 49 228 101.1 116

Juvenal Satirae 6.652–54 198

Plautus Poenulus 18 228

Livy Ab Urbe Condita 21.58.5 230 22.12.12 288 39.42–43 226

Pliny the Elder Historia Naturalis 33.83 230

Lucan Bellum Civile 9.615–17 231 9.864–65 168 Lucretius De Rerum Natura 1.936–37 293 1.936–43 35 4.11–17 35 Martial Epigrammata 4.75.5–8 197 Ovid Amores 1.2.11–12 30 Ars Amatoria 1.459–62 286 2.557 285 3.15–22 159 3.809–12 285 Ex Ponto 3.1.113 197 3.1.105.12 193 Metamorphoses 4.151–53 195 7.62–65 176 10.5.2 231 13.121–22 30 Remedia Amoris 41 287 323–26 287

Pliny the Younger Epistulae 1.1.1 216 1.20 206 2.3 206 2.14 204 3.16.11–12 198 4.3.10 206 6.15 201 6.23 206 6.24.4 198 Plutarch Life of Cicero 48.4 116 Propertius Elegiae 1.15.21–22 190 2.6.23 190 3.3.23–24 191 3.13.15 191 Quintilian Institutio Oratoria 2.10.1–3 132 2.10.8 132 2.12.9 143 3.3.4 137 3.8.49–54 127 9.2.38 309 10.5.17–18 139 10.5.18 174 10.5.18–19 138 11.3.12 140 11.3.19 140

360  Index Locorum Institutio Oratoria (cont.) 11.3.19–27 128–29 11.3.30 145 11.3.31 146–47 11.3.57–60 129 11.3.85 146 11.3.88–91 127 11.3.116 130 11.3.183 127 11.3.51 225 Rhetorica ad Herennium 2.11.15 252 2.20–5 128 3.19–27 125 3.28–40 161 4.22 309 Seneca the Elder Controversiae 1.praef 9 1.praef.1–12 212 1.praef.1–18 135 1.praef.2  56, 88, 212 1.praef.2–3  5, 37, 92–93 1.praef.2–5 88 1.praef.3 215 1.praef.4  88, 284, 320, 331 1.praef.4–5 216 1.praef.5 38 1.praef.6  43, 212, 281, 283 1.praef.6–7  86, 115, 202–3, 208 1.praef.7 209 1.praef.8–9 210–11 1.praef.9  12, 43, 45 1.praef.9–11 115 1.praef.10 212–13 1.praef.10–11 90 1.praef.11 38 1.praef.12  2, 19, 58, 108, 124, 215 1.praef.13  40, 97, 213, 295, 300 1.praef.13–24  93, 135, 212 1.praef.14 213 1.praef.15–16 295 1.praef.16  129, 136, 140, 300–1 1.praef.17  40, 212 1.praef.18 214 1.praef.19 214–15 1.praef.20–21 88 1.praef.21  140–41, 206 1.praef.22  41, 53, 97 1.praef.23  174, 209

1.praef.23–24 298 1.1  44, 65 1.2.19 51 1.2.21–22 74 1.2.22  223, 226, 267 1.2.22–23  66, 74 1.2.23 64 1.3 25 1.3.8  25, 52 1.4.10 59 1.4.11  73, 245–46 1.4.12  78, 245–46 1.5.1  9, 247 1.5.9  69, 71, 252 1.7 65 1.7.9 131 1.7.10  131, 261 1.7.12 64 1.7.18  62, 129, 259, 261 1.8.13  67, 78 1.8.15  77, 300 1.13 64 2.praef.1 22 2.praef.3  209, 286 2.praef.3–4 325 2.praef.5  43, 282, 319 2.1.10–13 210 2.1.19 50 2.1.39 252 2.2.1  187, 190, 194–95 2.2.8  30, 210, 213 2.2.11  52, 187 2.3  77, 307 2.3.17 249 2.3.19  227, 265 2.3.21 227 2.3.22 249 2.3.23 77 2.4.6 143 2.4.8 17 2.4.11–12 262 2.4.13 90 2.5.2 248 2.5.8 188 2.5.19 248 2.5.20 248 2.6.11 284 2.6.12  63, 82, 301 2.7.2 249–50 2.7.3 250 2.7.5 251

Index Locorum  361 2.7.6 251 2.7.7 249 2.7.8 251 3.praef.1  131, 136 3.praef.2 131 3.praef.3 132 3.praef.4 269 3.praef.7 131 3.praef.8 27 3.praef.10 102 3.praef.12  28, 144 3.praef.13 29 3.praef.14–15 26 3.praef.14–17 238 3.praef.16  255, 258–59, 321 3.praef.17–18 256 3.7 30 4.praef.2  222, 320 4.praef.4–6 324 4.praef.10–11 264 4.10 32 7.praef.1  24, 136–37, 146 7.praef.1–9 135 7.praef.4 288 7.praef.5  72, 287, 291 7.praef.6  29, 291 7.praef.7  48, 121–22, 135, 141–42 7.praef.8 257 7.praef.9  257, 267 7.1.16–18 53–54 7.1.25  62, 79–80, 85 7.1.27  30, 60, 82, 96 7.2.8 33 7.3.5 252 7.3.8 231 7.3.9  232, 268 7.3.9–10 268 7.4.6  7, 129, 137 7.4.8  81, 230, 259 7.4.10  123, 227 7.5.10  279, 323 7.5.11 121 7.5.11–12 261 7.5.12  121, 186 7.6 24 7.6.22 59 7.6.23 227 9.praef.1  94, 319 9.praef.2 130 9.praef.3  124, 138, 174, 294

9.praef.5 77 9.1.13  7, 72, 79–80 9.2.4 314–16 9.2.6 12 9.2.21 226 9.2.23  70, 108, 258 9.2.27 123 9.2.29  62–63, 65 9.3.11 236 9.3.11–12 324 9.3.12 237 9.3.12–13 238 9.3.13  61, 82, 96, 238 9.3.14  61, 68, 238 9.4.17 269 9.4.17–18 151 9.4.19–20 270 9.4.21 271 9.6.10  260, 266 9.6.12 266 9.6.16  74, 79, 81–82, 84, 96 9.6.18 69 10.praef.1  239, 319, 327 10.praef.4–8 135 10.praef.8 328 10.praef.10  97, 262 10.praef.13  98, 229, 233 10.praef.14–16 105 10.praef.16  99, 322 10.1.9 101 10.1.10 242 10.1.12 243–44 10.1.13 244 10.2.10 101 10.2.18–19  69, 103 10.3.2 188 10.4.15–25 104 10.4.18  64, 76, 79, 103 10.4.20–21 304 10.4.21  79, 86 10.4.25  30, 104 10.5.20  62, 104 10.5.20–21 80 10.5.21  104, 273 10.5.21–22 105 10.5.22  66, 273 10.13–14 101 Suasoriae 1.1  153, 157, 159, 163–64, 1.1–4 180–81 1.2 163

362  Index Locorum Suasoriae (cont.) 1.4  158, 164, 167, 310, 316 1.5  274, 322, 325 1.5–7 326 1.15  153–54, 158, 164, 181–82, 184 2.10  50, 129, 229 2.12 269 2.17  130, 263 2.22 324 3.4–5 234–35 3.6–7  70, 280 4.4 233–34 4.4–5 326 4.5  82, 234 5 311 5.2  311, 316 6.2  312, 316, 330 6.8–11 55 6.12  261, 313 6.14  35, 328–29 6.14–15 33 6.16  34, 292, 319–20, 329 6.25 329–30 6.26 36 6.27 330 7.10 331 Seneca the Younger Ad Helviam Matrem de Consolatione 19.5 195–96 De Finibus Bonorum et Malorum 2.18, 2.31, 5.23  47

Epistulae 59.12 325 119.7 168 Quaestiones Naturales 3.24.3 170 Sopater Diairesis Zetematon 75.3 310 Suetonius De Grammaticis et Rhetoribus 25.3 19–20 30.5 144–45 Tacitus Dialogus de Oratoribus 1.1 202 1.4 216 2.1 305 Virgil Aeneid 1.88–89 176 1.546–51 165 2.40–56 279 2.220–27 279 2.253 324 2.471–75 236 2.553 234 2.732–33 167 4.379–80  233, 326 12.908–12 28