Deconstruction and Rhetorical Strategies
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
appendix Deconstruction and Rhetorical Strategies Shared Rhetorical Background Whereas the main differences between the three modes of deconstruction were high- lighted in the concluding chapter, this Appendix draws attention to their most crucial common ground. All the literary strategies that are applied to deconstruct imperial rep- resentation are based on rhetorical strategies. We have seen this implicitly throughout the study; this Appendix will make the rhetorical strategies explicit. It complements the conclusion offered in the last chapter by looking at the results of this study from a strictly rhetorical perspective and by asking which general rhetorical strategies under- lie the techniques of deconstruction analysed in this book (in particular in chapters 4, 7, and 10). Tacitus, Suetonius, and Cassius Dio, who all received rhetorical training and were familiar with the theory and practice of rhetoric, adapt rhetorical measures in vari- ous ways, but the underlying principles—the rhetorical operations—are the same. My analysis of historiographical strategies deployed against Nero and Domitian as rhetorical strategies builds on the branch of scholarship that has shown that Roman historiography cannot be separated from rhetoric.1 The study of connections between historiography and rhetoric most often takes the form of analysing speeches in his- toriographical works. My approach is broader: I read historiography and biography as persuasive genres that aim to make their accounts plausible. Their presentation is also directed against other versions of the same topics and personalities, especially in the form we find them in panegyrical discourse. To achieve plausibility for its own version of Nero and Domitian, historiography draws on genuinely rhetorical devices. The most important of these are strategies of character depiction, strategies of biased narratio, and strategies of invective.2 1 See, in particular, Dunkle 1971; Plass 1988; Woodman 1988; Marincola 1997; Baltussen 2002; Laird 2009. 2 I have used the translations of Rackham 1942; Hubbell 1949; Radice 1969; Russell 2001 for the rhetorical works dealt with in this chapter. © koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2019 | doi:10.1163/9789004407558_021 Verena Schulz - 9789004407558 Downloaded from Brill.com10/02/2021 06:45:35PM via free access 368 appendix Character Depiction: Topoi a Persona, Semantic Non-Ambiguity, Probabile e Vita For persuasive character depiction, which is a crucial strategy of historiographical deconstruction, rhetoric provides lists of character qualities. They may be used by orators and historians to find both positive and negative attributes of a person. These so-called topoi a persona are highly important for character depiction in the status coniecturalis, i.e. when a speaker has to argue whether a certain person committed a crime or not, and in the genus demonstrativum, i.e. when a speaker has to praise or to vituperate against a person. A general division of such personal traits is that between animus, corpus, and extra posita/extraneae res/externa.3 In the De inventione, for example, Cicero gives the following list of personal attributes, which he elaborates later (Cic. Inv. rhet. 1.34–36): ac personis has res attributas putamus: nomen, naturam, victum, fortunam, habitum, affectionem, studia, consilia, facta, casus, orationes (Cic. Inv. rhet. 1.34).4 Attributes of persons according to Cicero are thus someone’s name, nature, manner of life, fortune, habit, feeling, interests, purposes, achievements, accidents, and utterances. Additionally, Quintilian mentions elements of praise that are based on the time before the person was born such as patria, parentes, maiores, as well as omina, prophecies, and oracles (Quint. Inst. 3.7.10–11).We have seen that historiography makes use of such topoi to discredit an emperor and to assign negative features to him. To mention only a few examples, Nero’s artistic interests, his studia, are decon- structed throughout. Cassius Dio uses the nomen of Caracalla against this emperor: by calling him by his nicknames “Tarautas” or “Caracallus” instead of his dynastic name “Antoninus”,he deprives him of his genealogy. In Suetonius, some topoi appear as head- words for rubrics such as the emperor’s remarkable sayings, his orationes, omina, or—in particular in Nero’s case—the maiores, who foreshadow Nero’s bad behaviour at the very beginning of the biography. Once the orator or writer has found a certain character trait to talk about there is usually a variety of words which could refer to this character trait. Rhetoric clearly advises that the character trait be expressed in biased, advantageous terms. Quintilian suggests that if the orator has to reply to a narratio that was negative and harmful to his case, he should repeat this narratio, but use different terms. The orator will give different motives, a different attitude of mind, and a different interest; he will be able to extenuate some points only by a new wording: alias causas, aliam mentem, aliam rationem dabo.Verbis elevare quaedam licebit: luxuria liberalitatis, avaritia parsimoniae, 3 See Rhet. Her. 3.6.10; Cic. Inv. rhet. 2.177; Quint. Inst. 3.7.12. 4 For other lists see Rhet. Her. 3.6.10; Quint. Inst. 3.7.10–18. Verena Schulz - 9789004407558 Downloaded from Brill.com10/02/2021 06:45:35PM via free access deconstruction and rhetorical strategies 369 neglegentia simplicitatis nomine lenietur (Quint. Inst. 4.2.76–77).5 In this case, ‘luxury’ and ‘liberality’ (luxuria and liberalitas), ‘avarice’ and ‘thrift’ (avaritia and parsimonia), as well as ‘carelessness’ and ‘simplicity’ (neglegentia and simplicitas) denote the same ‘facts’. But the choice of one of the two alternatives is a semantic operation that tries to make an ambivalent character trait, action, or event unambiguous.6 The process that Quintilian describes, namely the reaction of one narration to another narration that is to be refuted, is comparable to the process of historiography deconstructing panegyr- ical narratives. We have seen the rhetorical process of biased wording and the produc- tion of semantic non-ambiguity, by way of example, in Suetonius’ different terms for two comparable utterances by Vespasian on the one hand and Domitian on the other.7 While Vespasian’s dictum (Suet. Vesp. 23.4) about his divinity is termed dicacitas (in the corresponding rubric on banter), Domitian’s utterance (Suet. Dom. 13.1) about his divinity is semanticized as arrogantia (in the corresponding rubric on arrogance). The emperor’s statements about his divinity are highly ambivalent. But Suetonius’ strategy of integrating them into a certain rubric under a specific headword makes them appear unambiguous. Rhetoric closely links character depiction, which is constructed on the basis of topoi a persona and formulated accordingly in a convenient, biased way, with the actions described in the narratio. The presentation of a meaningful relationship of character to action is a central rhetorical strategy for creating plausibility, which is called proba- bile e vita. It is based on the assumption that we can explain what a person does by referring to his or her way of life and character. Cicero deals with the relationship of action, motive, and character in De inventione 2.32–34.8 The motive of someone’s deed (causa facti) has to be explained by this person’s character (animus); this involves ref- erences to the person’s way of life (vita) and earlier deeds (ante facta) (Cic. Inv. rhet. 2.32). We have seen that, likewise, the relationship of imperial representation to the emperor’s character, way of life, and motives is crucial to negative images of emperors. The construction of motives based on character depiction, which directly or indirectly challenges the official reasons presented by the emperor, is one of the most import- ant strategies of deconstruction.9 To mention just one outstanding example, Cassius Dio depicts Domitian at the beginning of his reign as driven by hatred for his father 5 See also Rhet. Her. 3.3.6; Quint. Inst. 3.7.25. 6 Suetonius does so when he reframes Vespasian’s greed (pecuniae cupiditas) as economy: sunt contra qui opinentur ad manubias et rapinas necessitate compulsum summa aerarii fis- cique inopia (“on the other hand, some argue that the drained resources of the treasury and the imperial fund absolutely compelled him to pursue spoil and plunder”, Suet. Vesp. 16.3). 7 See p.303–308 on Suetonius’ coding through rubrics. 8 See also Rhet. Her. 2.2.3–2.3.5; Quint. Inst. 7.2.27–35. 9 See p.115–123; 198–215; 298–302. Verena Schulz - 9789004407558 Downloaded from Brill.com10/02/2021 06:45:35PM via free access 370 appendix and brother. This emotion provides the motive for Domitian’s decree against castra- tion: Dio’s Domitian thereby wants to insult the memory of his brother Titus, who was fond of eunuchs (Cass. Dio 67.2.3). Narratio: Bias, Plausibility, Chronology The connection of causality to action is important for every rhetorical and every his- toriographical narrative. Rhetorical narratio does not aim to represent ‘facts’ but to construct an advantageous, biased version of these ‘facts’.Quintilian points out that the narratio is useful for persuasion and that it sets forth an event that really happened— or that might have happened: narratio est rei factae aut ut factae utilis ad persuadendum expositio (Quint. Inst. 4.2.31).10 The purpose of the rhetorical narratio is accordingly not that the judge learn the facts but to make the judge agree with the version of the facts presented: neque enim narratio in hoc reperta est, ut tantum congnoscat iudex, sed ali- quanto magis ut consentiat (Quint. Inst. 4.2.21). Such a persuasive narratio is based on a partial selection of facts (as part of the inventio), a suggestive order of these facts (as part of the dispositio), and the correct wording and style (as part of the elocutio).