Call #: + 051 .A52 Borrower: RAPID:AFU Location: MAIN MSTCK NEW: Main Library

Lending String: Date: 8/15/2018 Email: Odyssey: 206.107.44.64 Journal Title: The Ancient history bulletin

Volume: 12 Issue: 1-2 This material may be protected by MonthNear: 1998Pages: 8-18 copyright law (Title 17 US Code).

Article Author: Scott, James Morgan ITEM NOT ON SHELF: • Title not on shelf Article Title: The of suppressed speech: Volume not on shelf ' omission of direct discourse in his Annals • Issue/article missing from volume

as a technique in character denigration ITEM NOT FOUND AS CITED: Volume/year mismatch z • Not found in volume .... • Not found in year "'C Need more information ns ILL Number:+13561'15~ ::J • Checked index ::! • Checked TOC 1111111111I11111I111111111111111111I11\11\ 1\1\1 \1\\ \11\ No article by author/title on pages given • Checked TOC

OTHER:

SCANNED BY: (initials) THE RHETORIC OF SUPPRESSED SPEECH: TACITUS' OMISSION OF DIRECT DISCOURSE IN HIS ANNALS AS A TECHNIQUE IN CHARACTER DENIGRATION

acitus boldly states in his Annals (13.3) that when Seneca penned for t~e eulogy of this was the first time that an empe:or had .to r,elyo~ an~ther s Teloquence (alienae eloquentiae). This statement begms Tacitus denigration of Nero's character by means of manipulating direct speech in the last books of the Annals. However, Tacitus is not reproducing Nero's speeches verbatim nor is he recreating them for an altered reality or for the sake of convenience; rather he is suppressing the historical response of Nero.' Earlier Tacitus in the Dialogue identified immorality with the decline of oratory; that is to say, the Quintilianic idea that an immoral person could not become a good speaker." Continuing this theme in the Annals, Tacitus develops dramatic situations in which Nero's depravity is magnified by his oratorical deficiencies- or from Tacitus' perspective and intention, it is Nero's rhetorical failure that betrays and confirms his immoral nature."

1Woodman speaks in general of historians and their reproductions of speeches (A.J. Woodman, Rhetoric in Classical Historiography [Portland, Oregon: Areopagitica Press, 1988112-15), but in Tacitus' case the motives and results must be different from those of other historians. Martin provides the traditional view of Tacitus manipulating the content of the speeches, but the issue of the deliberate omission of direct speech as a means of characterization is not discussed (Ronald Martin, Tacitus [Berkeley: University of California Press, 1981] 165-75). That Tacitus actually improved the original speech (11.24) of the loathed Claudius reveals by contrast the conscious refusal to do the same for Nero (Ronald Mellor, Tacitus [New York: Routledge, 19931115-16. Benario speaks of Tacitus' indirect manner of characterization: '...it is their actions and words, rather than the historian's verdict, which mark them for good or ill' (Herbert Benario, An Introduction to Tacitus: [Athens: University of Georgia Press, 1975] 121. But in Nero's case here it is the absence of words that marks him for ill. On the subject of Tacitus' improvement of Claudius' speech, Syme says, 'A speech ought to dramatize a situation or depict a personality' (Ronald Syme, Tacitus [Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1958] 319. Again, what effect does the suppression of speech have on a personality? Later Syme says, '...speeches ...are often a clue to the writer's closest preoccupations' (320). 2 The concept of a 'good man' as identified with an precedes and Tacitus. See F.H. Colson, M. Fabii Quinti/iani Institutionis Oratoriae Liber I (Cambridge: Cambridge Press, 1924) 6, n.9; R.G. Austin, Quintiliani Institutionis Oratortae Liber II (London: Oxford Press, 1948) 51-53; Hans Kurt Schulte, 'Orator: Untersuchungen uber das ciceronianische Bildungsideal,' Frankfurter Studien II (Tubingen: 1935) 16-18. For a discussion on why Quintilian thinks the study of oratory, rather than of philosophy, makes a person morally good, see also my 'Quintilian's 'Good Man' Reconsidered,' Utah Foreign Language Review (1993-94) 138-42. 3 Moreover, Tacitus goes further in his general opinion that oratory has become the property of informers and a 1001 to discredit emperors and bureaucrats (George Kennedy, The Art of Rhetoric in the Roman World [Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1972] 523-24. Sinclaire, speaking of the power of rhetoric, says, '...if one was perceived to fall short of its (rhetoric's) standards, one risked becoming the object of ridicule and not being taken seriously within the social hierarchy.' (patrick Sinclaire, Tacitus the Sententious Historian [University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press, 1995] 30. But historians themselves have become part of the rhetorical tradition, and they use this craft to penetrate and interpret the subtext of political discourse. Specifically 'it is precisely Tacitus' skill in rhetoric that makes him so perceptive an observer, so brilliant and credible a witness of the political culture of his own age.' (A. wallace-Hadrill, 'Reading Tacitus: Observed,' Der A/tsprachliche Unterricht 34.3 [1991] 76-78. Syme surveys the rhetorical influence throughout the Annals (322-40).

AHB 12.1 (1998) 8-18. THE RHETORIC OF SUPPRESSED SPEECH 9

Historiographical Antecedents Attempting to demonstrate Tacitus' originality in his technique of silencing Nero, I will first briefly examine earlier Roman historians in the matter of distributing direct speech.' , , and , although they differ considerably in their style of representing historical personages speaking, nevertheless treat them equally. This is not to say that some character in his reported words may not appear more duplicitous, ignorant, or cowardly than another character whose speech agrees with the author's sympathies; but major figures are not silenced. A certain equity exists for all in expressing themselves.e Looking at Caesar, one realizes that there are very few direct speeches for anyone and that neither party has the rhetorical advantage. In the first major show-down of the Gallic War, when Caesar is invading Helvetian territory with an avenging spirit, first Divico, the Helvetian envoy, is given an indirect speech in which he expresses both concessions and threats. Caesar, also with an indirect speech, immediately replies with firmness and diplomacy, to which Divico again indirectly gives an arrogant refusal (1.14). This indirect exchange is typical throughout the Gallic War. Elsewhere in this work are other crucial situations with famous insurgents to whom Caesar grants no less opportunity for speech than to the author himself." In his Civil War Caesar's treatment of reported speech remains equitable. This is all the more remarkable since he is defending his actions in a bitterly fought civil war with his former ally and son-in-law, Pompey. Perhaps the best example occurs at the end of the Civil War, just before the final battle at Pharsalus, when Caesar brings all three principles together and gives them each a direct speech. First Caesar exhorts his men to seize the moment for battle (III.85); then Pompey explains his strategy and confidence in

_ Lombardo points out in Longinus (IX.2-3), in Sophocles' Ajax, and inAeneidVI with Dido the powerful expression of silence. However, Lombardo discusses emotive, not character, description (Giovanni Lombardo. 'II Silenzio di Mace,' Helikon 29-30 [1989-901 281-92). For a survey on ancient theories of historiographical speech-writing, see Charles William Fornara, The Nature of History in Ancient Greece and Rome (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1983) 142-63. Although Kerferd USesGeorgias as his example and Woodman Thucydides (1-69), both provide discussions on the shifting relationship between the facts of an event and the words used to explain the event (G.B. Kerferd, The Sophistic Movement [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981] 78-82. In his explanation of the rising importance of archeology, Finley's chapter, 'The Ancient Historian and his Sources,' deals with 'the ability of the ancients to invent and their capacity to believe,' which, he says, is 'persistently underestimated' (9). This is in the context of the absence of ancient documents and other primary sources and thus the historian's need to fill in the gaps (M.l. Finley, Ancient History, Evidence, and Models [New York: Viking Pengnin, 1986] 7-26). 5 Miller's article, the central theme of which is that speeches inserted by historians are not merely ornamental, provides useful data for rhetorical analysis of Sallust, Caesar, Livy, and Tacitns. Among other things, he has calculated the percentage between speech and narrative and between direct and indirect speech for each historian (N.P. Miller, 'Dramatic Speech in the Roman Historians, Greece and Rome 22 [1975] 45-57). 6 Sacks speculates that Diodorus has changed direct speech to indirect speech for the sake of com- pression. Apparently this means that the author can more easily curtail and control the length of speeches once he has reconstituted the syntax to the indirect form. Caesar, known for his succinctness, may also have had this in mind (Kenneth S. Sacks, and the First Century [Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1990) 98-100). Further examples of Caesar's balanced reported speech are found in the Gallic War with Dumnorix (V.6-7), Vercingetorix (VII.14-30), and Critognatns (VI1.77-8) and in the Civil War (1.7-9; 84-5). 10 JAMES M. SCOTI

his cavalry to carry the day (86). Finally Labienus, a bridge between the two as. he deserted Caesar for Pompey, encourages Pompey by saying t~at as a f~r~er Caesanan, he knows that Caesar's army has few of the seasoned legionnaires remaining who fought so well in Gaul and Germany (87). Caesar's words, of course,. turn out to be the correct ones, but the opposition has equal opportunity for self expression. . Sallust, Caesar's younger contemporary, also gives his historical char~cters equitable occasion for speech.' In his Bellum Catilinae Sallust first. allows a dIr~ct speech to Catiline Rome's own citizen who is on the verge of launching a revolution (20.2-17). Althoudh Sallust has vilified Catiline in the earlier chapt~r~, nevertheless this s~eech creates some sympathy by raising popular themes; namely, It ISbetter to fight and die ~or freedom than to remain in a servile condition, and that the old guard has abused Its power at the expense of those who are younger and of better charact~r. After the plot .has failed, the senate is deliberating on the fate of the captured conspirators. Sallust gives both sides a lengthy, direct speech: Caesar argues for exile (51.1-43) and Cato for execution (52.2-36). Although Sallust was disappointed that Cato prevailed, the historian still provides a balanced presentation of the issue. Finally one should look at Livy to see how he distributes reported speech among his historical personalities," Livy's literary corpus is far too large to examine for the limits of this paper, but the books involving the kings and Hannibal will serve as examples. In the beginning of his history Livy assigns almost no lengthy direct speeches. Instead, he himself narrates most of the thoughts and actions of his characters and then at some significant moment has the historical person give a concluding statement or engage in a brief exchange with another figure. These few directly quoted words have the effect of dramatizing the situation and vivifying the person, and they say just enough to reveal a significant trait of character. These are found, for examples, in such exciting passages as the dual between the Curiatii and the Horatii brothers (1.26), Mucius' attempt on King Porsinna's life (II.12), the reaction to the , when both sides respond to the disastrous defeat of the Romans (XXII,49-51), and even a debate among the Carthaginian leaders reflecting on the progress of the war (XXIII.12-13). To the Etruscan and Carthaginian as well as to the Roman points of view Livy provides a just distribution of direct speech. Livy's use of the long direct speech also fairly represents both parties. Hannibal is given speeches that portray virtues admired and requisite in Roman generals; namely, courage, patriotism, inspiration, and invention (XXIII,45; XXV.ll). Elsewhere Livy allows anti-Roman, and well founded, vitriol to be expressed (XXVI.13; XXIX.17-8). A final example is the paired speeches that Livy gives to Scipio and Hannibal as the latter sues the Roman general for peace (XXX. 30-31). Although Scipio denies Hannibal's grounds on which he requests the terms of peace and so the two return to arms, Livy

. 7 On this observation see Fornara, 72. In Sallust's other surviving work, the Jugurtha, the author fairly grves Jugurtha, a North African king and one hostile to Rome, ample opportunity to speak-often in a compIimeutary and sympatheic manner (io-n, 85; 102).

8 For the cat~goriza~on and statistical analysis of Livy's speeches see Konrad Gries, 'Livy's Use of Dramatic Speech, Amencon Journal of Philology 70 (1949) II8-41. P.G. Walsh's Livy, His Historical Aims and Methods (London: Cambridge University Press, 1961) has a useful chapter, 'The Speeches' (219-44) in ,,:hich he explains Livy's 'attempts to 'get inside' the speaker, and to present, through the words attributed to him, a psychological portrait of his qualities' (219-20). THE RHETORIC OF SUPPRESSED SPEECH 11 gives the Carthaginian a noble speech. In an address four times longer than that of Scipio, Hannibal respectfully acknowledges the military achievements of Scipio and his ancestors, reflects on the ironies and fortunes of war, and admonishes Scipio of the value of a present peace rather than of a potential defeat in the form of a tragic fall, and pleads for the acceptance of Punic honor and a solution for the common good. The reader is so moved by the impassioned, yet rational, petition of the enemy that it comes as a surprise and disappointment that Scipio is intractable. Livy has in no way diminished the stature of Rome's greatest foe by denying him powerful speech.?

Tacitus' Critique of Contemporary Rhetoric It thus appears that the major Roman historians before Tacitus were equitable, if not generous, in granting both sides the power of direct speech. Turning to Tacitus, I will begin with his remarks on the decline of oratory found in the Dialogue, his earliest work in which various and older contemporaries of the author discuss, among other topics, the current state of oratory. In this dialogue it is commonly believed that Messala and Matemus speak for Tacitus.v Messala enumerates the causes of oratory's decline, to which he attributes sloth of the youth, neglectful parents, poor teaching, and general disregard for the old masters (28). Although Nero's name is never mentioned, Tacitus' selections and elaboration of examples strongly call the emperor to mind-even to the most impartial reader. When Messala says that the future orator as an infant must be embraced in the bosom of his mother whose complete devotion should be directed at the child's development, what reader cannot but smile at the ironic image of Agrippina in this role? Tacitus also does not mention his tutor Seneca by name, but it seems that Tacitus has him in mind-that is, the foreign-born philosopher trained on the controuersiae of his father-when he (Tacitus) excoriates the typical teacher of the future orator as a 'little Greek servant girl' who takes control of the young orator's mind with her own biases. And surely Tacitus is speaking specifically of Nero as he goes on to say that the young student develops almost in utero a passion for acting, horses, and gladiators (29, 35), an exact depiction of the future emperor. In his turn to speak, Maternus says that good oratory is a product of the times. The free, rebellious state produces good , such as the Gracchi and , but where, Maternus asks, is the outstanding speaker in a state like Sparta or Macedonia (30-32). And what Maternus can leave unasked is, where is the outstanding speaker in the Neronian court. Through Messala and Maternus in the Dialogue Tacitus is thus saying

9 On the other hand, , dealing with the same material, explains his reasons for resisting to interrupt the historical narrative with speeches (XXXVl.1.l-7). On this subject see also Emilio Gabba, Dionysius and the History of Archaic Rome (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1991) 92; Fornara, 151; Sacks, 93-95, where he says that Diodorus shares Polybius' opinion on this matter.

10 Ou Tacitus' point of view in the Dialogue see John P. Murphy, 'Tacitus on the Education of the Orator,' ANRW 11.33.3 (Berlin: 1987) 2290; Kennedy, 517-18; C.O. Brink, 'Quintilian's De Causis Corruptae Eloquentiae and Tacitus' ,' Classical Quarterly 39.2 (1989) 479; Ronald Syme, Tacitus (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1958) 109; T.J. Luce, 'Reading and Response in the Dialogus,' Tacitus and the Tacitean Tradition (Luce and Woodman, editors) (Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1993) 15-16. 12 JAMES M. SCOTI' that the present failure of oratory is due to a corruption in the family, in the education, and in the government of the future leader. Again, the Dialoque, s~t in ~ 75, makes no mention of Nero, but the allusions to acting and horse-racing m particular must be directed at the emperor. So by the time Tacitus began work on the Annals two matters ar~ ~ertain. One, he has identified the cause of oratory's decline as a breakdown of moral traimng. The youth w~o lacks the proper home nourishment and inspiring models of noble Ro~ans and .who IS further constrained by the state cannot learn to speak well. Two, Tacitus, by his ?Wll admission (1.1; 4.33), was silenced in the reign of ." The Neroman regime, horrendous by any fair judgment, was viewed even more darkly by one who could not help but retroject so many and similar ills experienced under Domitian. The application, then, of these two strands is Tacitus' use of oratorical situations as a means of adding further weight to the moral condemnation of Nero . So how has Tacitus done this?

Tacitus Silencing Nero Examining Tacitus' treatment of Nero, one needs to focus on two matters. The first is those situations in which circumstances of state compelled Nero to speak, even though Tacitus has minimized these occasions. The second is Tacitus' deliberate manufacture of situations in which Nero appears inept in speaking; yet these are circumstances that require Nero to speak, and apparently he has done so effectively,v Throughout Annals 13-16 Nero, as chief of state, is called upon to speak in somewhat forensic, deliberative, and epideictic situations. Nero seems to be competent enough to succeed in these occasions, but Tacitus refuses to provide any details that illuminate-not to mention praise-Nero's effectiveness. For examples, Nero speaks (not directly) and reconciles the generals Ummidius and Corbulo (13.9), elsewhere he explains that it is in the best interests of Rome not to extend Britannicus' funeral with panygyrics and processions (13.17), Nero announces the need for public notice of tax regulations (13.51), he acquits two defendants in a sticky case involving alleged abuse of pro-consular power (13.52), and the emperor addresses the troops and Senate in a mop-up effort regarding the executions in the Pisonean conspiracy (15.72). These examples illustrate a wide variety of speaking situations in which Nero evidently is competent, but Tacitus never

11 This subject is discussed by D.CA. Shetter, 'Tacitus' View of the Emperors and the ,' ANRW 11.33.5 (Berlin: 1987) 1972-87. Sholter concludes by saying that Tacitus wrote history according to his own court experience. It seems that the gag placed upon Tacitus has ironically been inverted to the author's treatment of Nero. It is additionally ironic that in a time of order and peace, the contemporary Roman can now turn his eloquence to and history (Murphy, 2291-2). Oratory is not required 10 this period of relative civil stability, and so even Tacitus checks Nero's occasions for rhetorical delivery. See also Sinclaire (2804) for retrojecting the suppression ofDomitian upon first century emperors.

12 Although Tacitus uses various techniques for concealing the identity of the speaker, my contention is that Tacitus, while clearly referring to Nero, deliberately suppresses his opportuuities to speak. For the former, see Marie-Dominique Joffre, 'Le signifie diathetique des formes passives en -*1:-,' L'information. grammaticale 48, 3-7; E. Aubrion, Rhetorique et histoire chez Tacite (Metz: 1985) 57-59; Sinclaire explains another kind of sleight of hand, not concealing the source of speech but rather providing a deceptive and irresponsible portrait of the speaker (Patrick Sinclaire, 'Rhetorical Generalizations in 1-6,' ANRW 11.33.4, 2800). He also (2816) points out that ionuendo and fioesse of expression are not necessary to castigate Nero, since his 'open vices such as profligacy, slaughter, stupidity. and greed ...' speak for themselves. Perhaps this too motivates Tacitus to keep Nero's words to a minimum. THE RHETORIC OF SUPPRESSED SPEECH 13 allows Nero a direct speech and refers to his expression in the briefest ofterrns, usually through the introduction with 'he ordered' (iussit) or 'his edict was' (edixit.).13 In addition to what seems like a minimum competence in Nero's oratorical abilities, Tacitus very grudgingly allows the evidence to suggest that Nero's education was adequate, if not respectable. In the very beginning of the Nero books, Tacitus speaks of Seneca's instruction to Nero in eloquence and good manners (13.2). In discussing the uncertainties regarding the youthful inexperience of Nero, Tacitus indirectly has the voices of some citizens praising Seneca for his wide experience in public affairs and the positive affect this has upon Nero (13.6). When Seneca requests retirement from Nero, the emperor gives high praise to Seneca for his powers of expression both prepared and impromptu (14.55). Since this is not a speech of Nero's exact words, that is, the vehicle in which Tacitus could exploit Nero's sarcasm or ignorance, but rather 'almost' (sicferme) his exact words, it then seems that Tacitus is probably being sincere in his praise of Seneca's rhetorical training upon Nero. Finally, when Tacitus expresses the popular and negative view toward Seneca-namely, that the teacher is about to surpass the student in arrogance, wealth, and frivolity 04.52)-even here there is no denial of Seneca's eloquence and his effective role as a tutor. One must conclude that Tacitushas implicitly validated the rhetorical education ofNero as provided by Seneca.> However, portraying Nero as an orator, Tacitus has arranged his material so as to associate the emperor's evident oratorical ineptitude with his immorality. Tacitus, early in Book 14, provides a sequence that denigrates Nero's rhetorical ability and culminates in an attack on his moral probity. This sequence begins when violence breaks out between the Pompeians and their neighbors, the Nocerians. Tacitus says the matter was referred to the emperor, who passed it off (permisit) to the Senate. Tacitus does not allow to Nero a word of explanation regarding his refusal of the case. The emperor is made to appear irresponsible and incompetent in his silence (14.17). Immediately following is another provincial squabble over the ownership of bequeathed land in Cyrene 04.18). Nero accomplishes what appears to be a neat piece of diplomacy and a successful compromise. Tacitus, however, does not so much as give a word-direct or indirect-to Nero. Rather, Tacitus immediately followswith the account of the deaths of two famous orators, Domitius Mer and Marcus Servillius, of whom Tacitus speaks with such laudatory terms as summis honoribus, magna eloquentia, elegantia vitae, and ingenio (14.19).The identity is clear: Eloquence is a meritorious life and life style and vice versa. And the contrast to Nero immediately above is unmistakable; namely, the ignoble emperor who passed the buck in a provincialproblem and next,when he did resolve a difficultmatter, is still gagged.

13 For the sake of brevity I have chosen not to summarize and comment upon the preceding events, as the historical details are not significant to my thesis. However, one may find expansion upon these events and others to which I allude in the commentary of Henry Furneaux, The Annals of Tacitus (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1965). l4 Martin indicates that 'Only here (14.53-6) in the whole of the Annals does Tacitus allow himself the luxury of giving in oralio recta [direct speech] the pro and contra of an argument. There is intended irony in the fact that the device, so loved of rhetorical historians, is used by Tacitus only when the artificiality of the occasion is apparent; ars est non celare ortem' [art is not to conceal art] (177). I agree and reiterate that this too obvious construct of speech is consistent with Tacitus' methods of undercutting the character of Nero. 14 JAMES M. SCOTT

Next Tacitus creates the relationship between speaking well a?d moral action. In .the very next chapter (20), Tacitus speaks of the games-the Neroma of.AD 60-as. a tune when the national morality was being over thrown from the foundations (funditus) by imported licentiousness. Moreover" it was oratory in particular. that promote? th~s debasement of values. This said, Tacitus then relates that Nero received first place in ~his most degrading performance of oratory; and to make this award. even more condemmng, the reader learns that Nero did not compete per se (14.21). Tacitus, however, leaves out this detail so as to make it appear that Nero-solely on his own perfo~mance-e.arned first prize in this immoral competition. Finally in the next chapter Tacitus descnbes a blazing comet which the populace interprets as the impending fall of Nero (1:4.22). These five consecutive chapters, then, first establish a connection between speakmg well ~nd good character (and their opposites), and at the same time trace N:ro'~ oratoncal opportunities from irresponsibility and evident resourcelessness to public disgrace and immorality and finally to his dethroning. In another situation Tacitus accomplishes much the same effect. In Book XV Cassius speaks in favor of executing all of a particular household's slaves as a collective penalty and prevention against one of this group who murdered his master. It is one of the longer speeches in Tacitus, direct and highly rhetorical, supporting the status quo and the interests ofthe family and state, and is fully invested with moral content (42-43). Cassius prevailed, but the dissenting party, about to hurl stones and fire brands, blocked the way of the slaves who were being marched off to execution. This highly charged situation must remind the reader of the simile in Aeneid I, where Vergil explains that the speech and presence of a distinguished person can 'rule the minds and soothe the hearts with his words' (153) and turn sedition into tranquility. Tacitus, however, gives Nero no such possibility. In this situation Tacitus says only that Nero harangued the people with an edict and called out the soldiers (14.45), with no direct speech, no rhetorical response to the crowd, no address to the moral and civic issues given; just a harsh word or two and a call to arms '..Caesare dicta increpuit...' (14.45). Here, then, is a situation in which Tacitus introduces a moral issue and seems himself to be sympathetic to the rebellious faction who want to spare the slaves. Nero has the precise opportunity to take up this ethical matter in a speech that would swing the factions either way. But Tacitus denies him this and again makes the connection between the lack of oratorical performance and the decline and disregard of morals. Since Nero is not given the chance to speak, Tacitus has implied both that Nero does not speak well and that he has not upheld the correct moral position on the issue at hand. Another example of this connection is seen with , who, having been assassinated, was decapitated. When his head was brought back to Nero, Tacitus, who rarely quotes Nero, makes a point of citing the emperor with his exact words (ipsa principis verba... (14.59). Although the text is corrupt at this point, the emendation has Nero saying, as he looks at Plautus' head, 'Nero, why did you fear a man with such a nose' (59)? The intention and effect are clear: The few words that Nero does get to say show that his only utterance is a derisive remark about a murdered man's homely features. And to solidify this impression, Tacitus-with hardly any transition-describes Nero now occupied with casting off the beloved Octavia for Poppaea (59). Speech, either what little THE RHETORIC OF SUPPRESSED SPEECH 15

is said or nothing at all, and immoral behavior are conjoined: Nero is a bad fellow, and his failed words prove this. Finally, returning to the scandal of Octavia, Tacitus narrates the appalling fabrication of the charges of adultery, the exile itself of Octavia, and at last her execution (14.53). In this scene, which vilifies Nero perhaps more than anywhere else in the Annals, Tacitus again says that Nero's verbal role in all of this was merely an edict, which, mendacious and vicious as it was, still was bungled by the emperor. That is to say, Nero announces Octavia's infidelity and her subsequent abortion, but does not recall an earlier charge concerning her sterility C43). So here Tacitus shows the reader that vileness of character has become so great that edicts, false and flimsy as they are, cannot even be remembered and uttered with accuracy. Not just oratory, but even the recollection of one's vilification, are impossible for the morally corrupt man.

Rhetorical Antecedents If Tacitus is not imitating a technique found in , where else might one look for antecedents?» The rhetoricians may have given Tacitus guidance in the matter of ethos, that is, the delineation of character, and in this case, bad character. In judicial, or forensic, speech in particular one finds character denigration as a standard tool.> The basic rhetorical treatises are full of suggestions on how to diminish the integrity of one's opponent. For examples, Aristotle outlines in the Rhetoric the artifices for finding fault with the speaker's target C1367a-b); and the first half of Book II treats the aspects of human nature that can be exploited and manipulated to the orator's advantage. C1377b-1391b) In Cicero's De Inventione he explains how hatred can be created by presenting a person as arrogant, cruel, malicious, lazy, and luxuriating and as one who relies on his political power rather than on a sense of justice (XVI.22). A similar list occurs in his De Oratore, where Cicero discusses the effect upon a listener of a virtue and its corresponding vice (XXI.70-XXIII.82). The author of the Rhetorica ad

'5 Gabba summarizes the development of Roman historiography from chronicling political situations to creating character portrait, 160-61. See also Fornara, 148-51. It should be pointed out that even in Roman epic, where the narrative is driven by character portrait and political interest, the anti-heroes have their turn to talk-sometimes promoting their sympathies, other times not. In the Aeneid one only needs to think of the final speeches by Mezentius ex. 900-06) arid Turnus (XIl. 931-38). Both characters, first representing the native resistance to the future civilization of Rome and later in their death scenes making full concession to the new power, utter words of courage, reason, and compassion. In 's Civil War , venomously portrayed as the villain responsible for the collapse of the Republic, has numerous opportunities to speak-and to display his self-serving motives and methods. Most illustrative of Lucan's use of speech to depict Caesar's dark character are his addresses to his soldiers after they have. crossed the Rubicon 0.299.351), his speech to his mutinous soldiers (V.319-64), his exhortation to his troops before the major battle with Pompey (VII. 342-82), and Caesar's response to the gift of Pompey's severed head aX. 1064-1104). 16 Woodman discusses historiography as being rooted injudicial oratory, 95-8. Russel also speaks of the functions of ethos in judicial oratory and simiIar purposes found in historiography. However, he points out that 'the situation in Rome was different. There the patronus spoke in his own person, and it was his standing and authority that mattered. This is probably why Roman rhetoric has relatively little to say about the ethos in speaker: (D.A. Russell, 'Ethos in Oratory and Rhetoric,' Chracterizations and Individuality in Greek Literature [Christopher Pelling, editor] [Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990] 198-9.) This would suggest that Tacitus had all the more reason to allow Nero to speak for himself-that is, to let the speaker create his own. character, and in this case, create it badly. 16 JAMES M. SCOTT

Herennium also provides a catalog of characteristics that will evo~e contempt to,:~rd t~e subject (V.8). Although this kind of advice is for a speaker negatively charactenzmg his opponent, it does not apply directly to the method of reporting another's words.'? In fourth century Athens a debate arose that may bear upon Tacitus' treatment of Nero's speech. At issue is the difference between the spontaneous speech and the carefully crafted one. Alcidamas in his Against the Authors of Wrztten Speeches describes the word that is prompted inImediately from thought as having a soul and vitality (28), whereas the written, deliberated word is only an 'image, model, imitation' and is lifeless and remote. strongly supports this position in his with much the same language (276a) as that of Alcidamas, and to some extent agrees with these two by saying that the written word is weakened once it is isolated from its speaker (Epistle 1.3).'8 Is it possible that this philosophical issue regarding the superiority of the spoken word, as a platonic Form, vis-a-vis the imperfect copy of the written word, has a parallel with Tacitus' use of direct and indirect speech ?19 This is to say that when the historian gives a personality a direct speech, the quoted speaker shows 'a serious purpose' (276b) and is likely to be pursuing what is true, just, permanent, and wise; the historical personality without a direct speech would belong to the group that Socrates calls 'a poet or writer of speeches or of laws' (278e). This seems like the distinction and characterization that Tacitus wants to give Nem. 20 At the end of the Phaedrus Socrates predicts that Isocrates has a brighter future as a speaker than does Lysias, since the former possesses stronger powers in part due to his superior character (279a). This faith in innate nobility is evident as far back as Homer. In the Iliad Thyrsites, one of the very few ignoble characters with a name, dares to give an

17 The seminal work on this subject is WIlhelm Suss' Ethos, Studien zur alteren griechischen rhetorik (Berlin: Teubner, 1910). Especially useful here is his chapter on the difference between ethos and pathos; that is, the distinction between the portrait of the speaker's character and the intended response of the listener, 147-73. See also Jakob Wisse, Ethos and Pathos from Aristotle to Cicero (Amsterdam: Adolf M. Hakkert, 1989) 4-8. But it is Russell in particular who points out Quintilian's unconventional definitions and applications of ethos and pathos (211-12). By his own admission Quintilian does not always follow the traditional teachings (6.2.25). He groups ethos and pathos both under the heading of 'emotion' (6.2.8), but sees each performing quite different functions from one another. Ethos, he says, evokes the gentle and agreeable emotions of conciliation and good humor-the sort that one would find in comedy and from a speaker describing his client. Pathos, on the other hand, excites the violent and disturbing emotions, such as anger, hatred, or profound disgust (6.2.9-24), typical of tragedy and the forensic procedure of vilifying one's opponent. Moreover, Quintilian says that ethos is possible only if the speaker himself is 'good and gentile' (6.2.10). It seems, then, that Quintilian would say that Tacitus is engaged in pathos, not ethos. Although there remains the question of the proper label, I do not see this as a problem for the current investigation. Quintilian does not speak of silence or reported speech as techuiques for the orator in portraying his client or opponent, and so it makes little difference under what heading one would place Tacitus' contempt for Nero. IS For the scholarship and amplification on this subject see Paul Friedlander, Plato, An Introduction (New York: Harper and Row, 1958) 356, n.6. 19 In his commentary C.J. Rowe expands this passage and explains the power of direct words as giving the other party the opportunity to question and challenge the speaker (Plato: Phaedrus [Wiltshire, England: Aris and Phillips, 1986] 211-12). 20 Griswold takes up the idea of speech as being 'en-souled' and superior to the written word (Charles L. Griswold, Jr., Self-Knowledge in Plato's Phaedrus [New Haven: Yale University Press, 19861 211-14, 225- 32). THE RHETORIC OF SUPPRESSED SPEECH 17 abusive speech to Agamemnon, the commander-in-chief of the Greek host (11.225-42). His accusations, though finding sympathy with the modem reader, breach all heroic codes of conduct, and for a kind of blasphemy he is scourged and ridiculed. The message is clear; namely, a lowly character does not have the capacity to think and to speak well, and effective expression is the single most important skill for success in the classical world. It is no surprise, then, that Aristotle in the Rhetoric spends so much time on delineating character types and human vices and virtues and in particular the effects of high birth, wealth, and power (II. IS-I?). Aristotle concludes this lengthy section by defining the function of speaking as a means to persuade a reader or listener-that is, some kind of 'judge' -to make the desired decision; and the manner and means of this are by appropriately 'investing the speech with the necessary character' (ILlS). A final speculation upon the influences of Tacitus and a further connection between historiography and judicial speech converge with the second century Be rhetorician Hermagoras, whose lost work is largely known through Cicero and Quintilian." In Tacitus' Dialogue 19 Aper, speaking in behalf of the strengths of modern oratory and thus opposed to Tacitus' position, disparages Hermagoras as prolix, pedantic, and out- dated. This is interesting, because Hermagoras was, if not innovative, at least significant in defining certain key areas, called staseis, of legal disputation between litigants (Quintilian 3.6.3). Hermagoras' fourth stasis involves the defendant's right to reply that 'the prosecutor has no right to prosecute him or that the court has no right to hear the case, or when he in some way objects to the legal prccess.P- The rejection of Hermagoras and his fourth stasis is parallel to Tacitus' 'putting Nero on trial' and not allowing him opportunity to respond. Here again judicial speech seems to be the basis for historiographical procedure.P

Conclusion Quintilian says that an orator is 'a good man skilled in speaking' (Institutes of Oratory Ll) and spends the rest of his Institutes proving that a man does become good through learning to speak well; and this too is one of Tacitus' themes and motives in the Dialogue. However, by the time he gets to the Annals, Tacitus has inverted this proposition and uses it against the character of Nero. It now would read: 'A bad man is one not skilled in speaking.' And since Tacitus prevents Nero from speaking well-or in most cases, from speaking at all-,24 Tacitus, in his original rhetorical device of denying

21 For Hermagoras' probable influence on and upon the zeal of the Roman youth for rhetorical studies see George Kennedy's The Art of Persuasion in Greece (Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1963) 318-19, n. 97.

22 Kennedy, 312, n. 90. 23 The intersection of forensic rhetoric and historiography is passionately discussed by Diodorus Siculus, who asserts that the two styles are incompatible and produce distinct purposes (Sacks, 96-99). 24 1 think it is significant that Miller, first indicating the variety of speeches and speakers in Tacitus, remarks that 'the 22 per cent of Ann ales XIV, for example, presents Nero at a turning-point of his reign, and presents him dramatically through speeches by and conversations between interested persons' (54-5): in other words, not through Nero's own words themselves. Miller later uses Subrius Flavus' brief but vitriolic attack to Nero's face as an example (XIV.67), but makes no mention that Tacitus stifles Nero's own response (56). In another article ('Dramatic Speech in Tacitus,' American Journal of Philology 85 [1964] 279-96) Miller, following Konrad Greis' work on Livy, classifies the speeches in Tacitus according to types, contents, JAMES M. SCO'IT 18

Nero a rhetorical demonstration, has successfully proved the depravity of the emperor in the final books of his Annals.

JAMES M. SCOTI UNIVERSITY OF MONTANA

speakers, and circumstances. He also quantifies them in terms of length and distribution in the Tacitean corpus. Although he refers to 'a variety of speakers' (283), he seems not to notice or to find important the few direct words given to Nero. Walsh says, '...the reader forms his impression of (historical) individuals in three ways. First, the speeches and remarks made by a person give the reader an insight into his character; here the historian, allowed by convention some freedom in reporting of speeches. has his greatest opportunity (my emphasis) to influence our assessment' (82). ThatTacitus does not exploit this opportunity surely must be deliberate and indicative of a new technique for characterization. This is all the more remarkable when one considers that in his earlier Agricola Tacitus was traditional in providing matched eloquence between Galgacus, a Briton chief (30-32), and his hero and father-in-law, Agricola (33-34). This is consistent with Eduard Norden's evaluation of Tacitus (Die Antilce Kunstprosa [Stuttgart: Teubner, 1958]) who he says uses all the oratorical styles and conventions throughout his works (321-43). Even in the first six books of the Annals Tacitus gives the emperor , whom he clearly loathes, multiple occasions to speak directly and indirectly-and in many instances to express himself well. Tiberius demonstrates his ability to produce the much admired sententia, the weighty and compressed tum of phrase (I.51,73; I1.I?; IlI.65; N.30), the long speech to the Senate wherein he treats matters of state and of his own position (III.l2, 53-4; N.37-8), and other insightful expressions about the complexities of ruling and maintaining good character (I.II, 69; 11.36, 38). Doubtless these words are not the eloquence and wisdom seen in Caesar's, Sallust's, and Livy's characters, but they are more frequent and skillful than those ofTacitus' Nero.