UNIVERSITY of CALIFORNIA Los Angeles the Ethics and Politics of Style in Latin Rhetorical Invective a Dissertation Submitted In
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA Los Angeles The Ethics and Politics of Style in Latin Rhetorical Invective A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree Doctor of Philosophy in Classics by Nathan Kish 2018 © Copyright by Nathan Kish 2018 ABSTRACT OF THE DISSERTATION The Ethics and Politics of Style in Latin Rhetorical Invective by Nathan Kish Doctor of Philosophy in Classics University of California, Los Angeles, 2018 Professor Amy Ellen Richlin, Chair This study investigates how literary battles fought over rhetorical style in ancient Rome and in the Renaissance concerned far more than style. Rather, the invective deployed in such disputes emerged in direct response to important sociopolitical changes and presented speakers and writers with a means to define and control the ethical and political boundaries of their societies. The six chapters within explore this idea in Roman rhetorical theory and in the works of Cicero, Seneca the Elder, and Poggio Bracciolini. While the “Republic of Letters” familiar from the study of Early Modernity did not exist in ancient Rome, the term describes what happened when the traditional civic functions of oratory declined in the transition from Republic to Principate: writers attributed greater meaning to rhetorical style in itself. As eloquentia retreated from the Forum and the political assemblies to the study and the schoolroom, writers constructed their own identities through their style, and ii engaged in stylistic polemics in order to attack personal enemies and ethical and political systems. Ultimately, this practice has its origins in the belief that speech reveals character. Chapters 1 and 2 lay the foundation for the later chapters, as Chapter 1 reviews discussions of invective in ancient Latin rhetorical treatises, and Chapter 2 considers the understanding that speech corresponds to character: talis oratio, qualis vita. Chapters 3 and 4 cover works Cicero composed after the outbreak of the Civil War: Chapter 3 investigates Cicero’s polemical defense of his own style and attack on the Neo- Atticists in the Orator (46 BC); Chapter 4 takes up the Second Philippic (44 BC), which, besides smearing Antony’s morals and lambasting his oratorical blunders, serves as a meditation on the metaphorical violence of invective. Chapter 5 examines the elder Seneca’s attitude towards the effect of style on morals and the effect of politics on oratory in his anthology of school practice speeches. Chapter 6, a prolegomenon to further study, considers Poggio’s complex relationship to foul language: while Poggio utters strictures against obscenity in his letters, he embraces it in his own invectives, attacking Francesco Filelfo obscenely for his obscene poetry. iii The dissertation of Nathan Kish is approved. David L Blank Robert A Gurval Debora K Shuger Amy Ellen Richlin, Committee Chair University of California, Los Angeles 2018 iv TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT………....…………………....……………………....…………………II ACKNOWLEDGMENTS………....…………………........………....………....…….VII VITA………....…………………....……….......…………....……...……………VIII INTRODUCTION………....………………....…………....……...……....………..…1 CHAPTER ONE: ANCIENT RHETORICAL THEORY, PART 1: LATIN RHETORICAL INVECTIVE IN THEORY……………...……………………………..…………..13 I. VITUPERATIO AND THE LATIN RHETORICAL HANDBOOKS…………........17 II. ENLARGING THE SCOPE OF INVECTIVE: FOUR TOPICS…………………21 CHARACTER………………..………………....…………………....…...21 ANGER………………....………………....……………………......…...25 HUMOR………………....…………………....…………………....……55 SPIN AND SMEAR………………...………………....……………….….69 III. PROGYMNASMATA: COMMONPLACES………………………….....…100 IV. CONCLUSION………………..………………..……………....…..….123 CHAPTER TWO: ANCIENT RHETORICAL THEORY, PART 2: THE ETHICAL COMPONENT OF THE CRITICISM OF STYLE………………...……………....…126 I. “STYLE IS THE MAN”: TALIS ORATIO QUALIS VITA………………………132 II. FAULTS IN RHETORICAL THEORY…………………………………......158 THE METAPHORICAL CRITICISM OF BAD STYLE …………………...….160 ETHICS AND THE BODY IN THE THEORY OF TYPES OF STYLE…………..167 CACOZELIA: OMNIUM IN ELOQUENTIA VITIORUM PESSIMUM……………..177 III. CARICATURE OF STYLE……………………………………………...193 IV. CONCLUSION: THE THREAT TO ELOQUENTIA AND SOME BROADER IMPLICATIONS OF STYLE…………………..…..214 CHAPTER THREE: THE POLITICS OF STYLE AND THE STYLE OF POLITICS: RHETORICAL THEORY AND POLITICAL PRACTICE IN CICERO’S ORATOR…………………………………...…………………….224 I. THE POLITICS OF STYLE……………………………………………….238 DEFINING ATTICISM…………………………………………...………238 THE STRENGTH OF ELOQUENCE………………………………………..245 II. THE STYLE OF POLITICS……………………………………………...260 ORAT. 1-2: THE PREFACE………………………………………………264 ORAT. 33-35: THE CATO……………………………………………….265 ORAT. 140-48: INTERLUDE IN DEFENSE OF TEACHING………………….271 ORAT. 237-238: CICERO’S CLOSING WORDS……………………………282 III. CONCLUSION……………………………………………………...…285 v CHAPTER FOUR: FICTIONAL ORATORY AND IRONIC INVECTIVE IN CICERO’S SECOND PHILIPPIC………………....…………......………….………………290 I. BACKGROUND………………………………………………………...292 II. EXORDIUM (PHIL. 2.1-2) ……………………………………………..312 III. REFUTATIO (PHIL. 2.3-42A) ……………………………………...….318 IV. SEXTUS CLODIUS AND CICERO THE RHETOR (PHIL. 2.42-43) ………..344 V. OTHER INSTANCES OF ANTONY’S ORATORY…………………………346 VI. FORGET THE PAST (PHIL. 2.112) …………………………………....351 VII. PERORATIO (PHIL. 2.115-9) …………………………………….......353 VIII. AFTERMATH………………………………….……………...…….357 CHAPTER FIVE: A RHETORICAL WORLD: SENECA THE ELDER’S ANTHOLOGY OF DECLAMATION………………...………………………………………….363 I. BACKGROUND AND SCHOLARSHIP…………………………………….369 II. PREFACE TO CONTROVERSIAE BOOK 1………………………………..376 III. SELECT PASSAGES OF ORATORICAL CRITICISM……………………...403 IV. CONCLUSION: PREFACE TO CONTROVERSIAE BOOK 10………………409 CHAPTER SIX: POGGIO BRACCIOLINI AND THE RHETORIC OF DECORUM AND OBSCENITY…………...………………………………….…………………..413 I. BACKGROUND………………………………………………………...415 POGGIO BRACCIOLINI’S LIFE AND WORKS………………………..…...415 HUMANIST INVECTIVE…………………………………………………417 II. POGGIO AND PANORMITA ON OBSCENITY……………………………423 III. IN PHILELPHUM INVECTIVA PRIMA PRO NICOLAO PULCHRA ET ELEGANS…………………………………………………………432 BIBLIOGRAPHY……………………………………………………..…………...439 vi Acknowledgments Over the course of this project I have incurred many debts. My greatest intellectually is to Amy Richlin. Looking back, I realize this dissertation was born on 1 April 2010, between 11:00 am and 12:45 pm, when she introduced me to Tacitus’ Dialogus in her survey class on Latin literature. Since I first entered her classroom as a post-baccalaureate student, she has been the most invested and good-humored mentor I could hope for. Over her career she has redefined the field of Classics; if I have managed to acquire but only a small share of her ability to bring neglected topics to life and to inspire students, my own career will be a success. To the other members of my committee, Bob Gurval, David Blank, and Debora Shuger, I owe incalculable thanks for years of scholarly guidance, generosity, and—not least—perseverance. As Dr. Johnson wrote in regard to Paradise Lost, “None ever wished it longer.” As for the rest of the UCLA Classics Department both past and present, I can acknowledge pivotal scholarly debts to Kathryn Morgan and Shane Butler for introducing me to oratory and Cicero respectively, but countless debts of a more general nature to all for warm support and intellectual stimulation throughout the years. And certainly not least, special thanks are due to Bob von Hallberg, who, as a student in an intensive summer Latin course, shaped the course of this dissertation by a few insightful and illuminating comments on Suet. Rhet. 22.2. Although M. Pomponius Porcellus, immortalized for speaking truth to power, does not himself reappear in the pages that follow, his words remain an inspiration throughout. My writing group friends, Audrey Harris, Kathy Carbone, and Melissa Goodnight, have helped me become a better writer and a better thinker. Our meetings somehow enable me to take a break and work diligently at the same time. I owe much to Bill McCrary for encouragement, friendship, and discussion of issues both large and small. It was truly a glorious moment in one of our conversations at the now demolished Norm’s on Pico Boulevard that the mists in my mind were suddenly dispelled and I was able for the first time to articulate my dissertation topic. To Meghan Krantz I owe the dearest thanks for years of patient, selfless support and memories that will never fade. Sharing with you the many milestones along the way lightened the journey considerably. My greatest debts are to my family. I thank you all for your unflagging support. To my dad I owe my ability for hard, earnest work as well as my good humor, both of which were required in abundance. I heartily wish he could see me finish what his lifetime of hard work made possible. This dissertation is a record of yet another way he brought smiles and laughter into the world. And without my mom—who has shown unconditional love in the course of this long voyage and who might be the only person who finds greater relief in its completion than the voyager himself—I could not have reached the harbor. And now that I have you can take a breath. vii VITA Nathan Kish Education M.A., Classics, University of California, Los Angeles 2012 Post-Baccalaureate Certificate, Classics, University of California, Los Angeles 2009 B.A., English Literature, Lawrence University 2006 Conference Presentations “Latinity and Obscenity in the Invectives of Poggio Bracciolini” March 2018 Renaissance Society of America, Annual Meeting, New Orleans, LA “Novum genus disciplinae: Novelty and Alterity