Beyond the Speaker: the Audience in Seneca the Elder by Neil Barney B.A, University of British Columbia, 2012 A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of MASTER OF ARTS in the Department of Greek and Roman Studies © Neil Barney, 2018 University of Victoria All rights reserved. This thesis may not be reproduced in whole or in part, by photocopy or other means, without permission of the author. !ii Beyond the Speaker: the Audience in Seneca the Elder by Neil Barney B.A, University of British Columbia, 2012 Supervisory Committee Dr. Gregory D. Rowe, Supervisor Department of Greek and Roman Studies Dr. Cedric A. Littlewood, Department Member Department of Greek and Roman Studies !iii Abstract Seneca the Elder’s Controversiae and Suasoriae (c. 39 CE) provide a window onto declamation (fictional forensic or deliberative oratory) during the reign of the Roman emperor Augustus (27 BCE–CE 14). Although widely practiced as a form of elite education and entertainment, declamation was maligned by contemporaries as detrimental to rhetorical development. Modern scholars, such as Bloomer, Gunderson and Imber, have demonstrated how declamation acted as a medium for learning and asserting elite cultural identity. Previous scholarship, however, has focused on only the speaker in declamation. In this thesis I examine the secondary voices present during declamation: other speakers and the audience. In Chapter 1, I place Seneca the Elder and his work in context and examine how the format of his work allowed for the inclusion of voices beyond the speaker’s. In Chapter 2, I examine how declamation allowed its participants to assert a claim on Roman identity and lay out Seneca’s critical model, through which he validated or denied the identity-claims of the men in his work. In Chapter 3, I look at declamation as a multi-participant activity, examining speaker-to-speaker interactions in Seneca’s text and the way he constructs a community of shared speech, one which is tied to successful performance rather than a particular time or place, to support these interactions. In Chapter 4, I argue that Seneca uses the voice of the audience to assert and maintain the boundaries of the community and that he applies the label of scholastici (men who viewed declamation exclusively as entertainment) to audience members who fail to maintain the boundaries and, thus, rebuts the main complaint against declamation by relegating its unsuccessful participants to another genre of speech. !iv Table of Contents Supervisory Committee ii Abstract iii Table of Contents iv Notes on Editions and Translations vi Acknowledgements viii Introduction 1 Chapter 1: Life and Work of Seneca in Context 8 1.1 The Controversiae and Suasoriae 10 1.2 The Presence of the Audience in the Controversiae and Suasoriae 17 Chapter 2: An Audience for What? 20 2.1 Declamation in Rome 20 2.2 An activity for Children? 29 2.3 Becoming a pater 36 2.4 The purpose of adult declamation 40 2.5 Declamation as a mode of aristocratic competition 42 2.6 Seneca’s model of individual criticism 51 2.7 The generational model of criticism (decline of eloquence) 68 Chapter 3: Declamatio, A Multi-Participant Activity 78 3.1 Defining a community of shared speech 79 3.2 Participants in the community of shared speech 85 3.3 A single community of speech 89 3.4 Declaimers in dialogue 96 3.5 Public v. private declamation 100 3.6 Specific composition of the audience 104 Chapter 4: The Audience and Declamation 111 4.1 A vocal audience 111 4.2 Shouts of praise 113 !v 4.3 Criticism (and competition) from the crowd 119 4.4 Ideal and real audience interaction 125 4.5 Voices of authority 130 4.6 Defective audiences in Seneca 133 4.7 Scholastici 137 Conclusion 144 Bibliography 147 Appendices 153 Appendix 1: Declaimers in Seneca’s texts 153 Appendix 2: Rhetorical works and their dates 173 Appendix 3: The surviving content of the Controversiae and Suasoriae 175 Appendix 4: The form of a typical controversia 176 !vi Notes on Abbreviations, Editions, and Translations All abbreviations follow the Oxford Classical Dictionary. All Latin and Greek translations in this thesis are my own, unless otherwise noted. When quoting from Seneca the Elder, I have primarily used: Winterbottom, M., ed. and trans. 1974. The Elder Seneca: Declamations. 2 vols. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. I also make reference to: Müller, H.J. 1887. L. Annaei Senecae: Oratorum et Rhetorum Sententiae Divisiones Colores. Vienna: F. Tempsky. For quotations from other Latin and Greek texts, I have used the following editions, unless otherwise noted: Baiter, J.G., and C.L. Kayser, eds. 1860-69. M. Tullii Ciceronis Opera Quae Supersunt Omnia. 11 vols. Leipzig: B. Tauchnitz. Forster, E.S., ed. and trans. 1960. Topica. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Freese, J.H., ed. and trans. 2006. Aristotle: The “Art” of Rhetoric. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Friedlaender, L., ed. 1967. M. Valerii Martialis: Epigrammaton Libri. Amsterdam: A.M. Hakkert. Halliwell, S., W.H. Fyfe, D.C Innes, W.R. Roberts, eds and trans. 1995. Aristotle: Poetics. Longinus: On the Sublime. Demetrius: On Style. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Heubner, H., ed. 1978. P. Cornelii Taciti Libri Qui Supersunt. 2 vols. Stuttgart: Teubner. Kaster, R., ed. and trans. 1995. C. Suetonius Tranquillus: De Grammaticis et Rhetoribus. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Müller, K. ed. 1961. Petronii Arbitri Satyricon. München : E. Heimeran. Radice, B., ed. and trans. 1995. Pliny. Letters, Volume I: Books 1-7. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. !vii Reynolds, L.D., ed. 1965. L. Annaei Senecae: Ad Lucilium Epistulae Morales. 2 vols. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Shackleton Bailey, D.R., ed. 1985. Q. Horati Flacci Opera. Stuttgart: Teubner. Thilo, G., ed. 1961. Servii Grammatici Qui Feruntur in Vergilii Bucolica et Georgica Commentarii. Hildesheim: Georg Olms. Winterbottom, M., ed. 1970. M. Fabi Quintiliani Institutionis Oratoriae Libri Duodecim. Oxford: Oxford University Press. !viii Acknowledgements This work owes it completion to the wonderful support I have received during my time in the Department of Greek and Roman Studies at the University of Victoria. I would like especially to thank my supervisor, Dr. Gregory Rowe, whose encouragement and willingness to talk through things carried me through the rougher patches and who taught me that it is sometimes better to study a single tree than gaze lost upon an entire forest. I also thank Dr. Cedric Littlewood, both for agreeing to be a member of my committee and for his patience and insight as I worked my way through this project. Further, I thank the entire Department of Greek and Roman Studies—the community of individuals across all levels that provided support and inspiration. Finally, I would like to thank my friends and family who have been extremely patient with me as I confront the successes and setbacks that a project of this nature inevitably faces. !1 Introduction In the public baths, a mixed group of students and enthusiastic amateurs gather in order to hear a wry and bitter man, full of confidence, deliver his In Milonem, a prosecution speech that they are sure will surpass Cicero’s famous defence, only to have the performance interrupted by a loudmouthed brute (Contr. 3.pr.15-6). Meanwhile, in twin halls, two men deliver speeches that touch on the loss of a child. The first man is resolute, his eloquence enhanced by fortitude; the second is awash with emotions that carry away his audience (Contr. 4.pr.6). Across town, an aspiring philosopher acquires habits that it will take his whole life to unlearn from a brilliant teacher who is marred by effeminate rhythms (Contr. 2.pr.1). These scenes represent only some of the ways that Romans participated in declamation, a cultural phenomenon that swept through the Augustan aristocracy. Declamations were speeches on artificial themes; contrived scenarios played out by folkloric characters, who obeyed laws only vaguely resembling those in actual use.1 These themes could be subdivided into two types: (1) controversiae, speeches on the judicial model; and (2) suasoriae, deliberative speeches offering advice to a historical figure or, as in the case of Suas. 2, group. Together, these two types of speech comprised the final stages of a young man’s education.2 Declamation, however, was 1 Beard (1993) compares the practice of declamation to cultural myth-making as a means of exploring irresolvable conflicts. For a survey of the laws of declamation and their relation to actual Greek and Roman legal practice see Bonner 1969, 84-132. 2 Suasoriae were regarded as the more elementary exercise and would be entrusted to children at a young age as Tacitus makes clear: “Ex his suasoriae quidem etsi, tamquam plane leviores et minus prudentiae exigentes, pueris delegantur…” (“From these, suasoriae, as being clearly lighter and less demanding of judgement, are assigned to mere boys…” Tac. Dial. 35.4). !2 not just for children. During the Augustan period, educated adults frequently participated as a form of entertainment.3 Our knowledge of the circumstances and personalities of declamation during the Augustan period derives primarily from the work of Seneca the Elder (hereafter, simply Seneca), who around 39 CE compiled two works of declamation—the Controversiae and Suasoriae.4 These works represented the collection of the best sententiae (epigrams), pithy expressions initially intended to add rhetorical flourish to periodic sentences, from declaimers of Seneca’s generation, assembled both for the edification of his sons, Gallio, Seneca the Younger and Mela (Contr. 1.pr.1), and so that they would not be forgotten during the current crisis of eloquence (Contr.