Masters of Eloquence and Masters of Empire: Quintilian in Context A dissertation submitted to the Graduate School of the University of Cincinnati in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Department of Classics of the College of Arts and Sciences by Kyle Helms A.A. Santa Fe Community College B.A. University of Florida M.A. University of Iowa M.A. University of Cincinnati April 2016 Committee Chair: Daniel Marković, Ph.D. Abstract This dissertation focuses on the curious situation of the Latin rhetor Marcus Fabius Quintilianus (b. ca. 35 CE). In the early 70s CE, Quintilian received an annual salarium of 100,000 HS from the emperor Vespasian. As a result, Quintilian is commonly cited in classical scholarship as Rome’s “first public professor of rhetoric” or “first state professor.” But while this feature of Quintilian’s biography is often repeated, it is seldom explained. Essentially, previous scholarship has offered two interpretations of Quintilian’s situation, either creating a genealogy for public higher education in the first century CE, or emphasizing imperial euergetism and liberalitas. While the latter approach is on the right track, it does not explain why a Latin rhetor in particular should have been the object of such benevolence, and nearly all scholarship on the topic emphasizes the novelty of Quintilian’s situation, but without sustained inquiry into historical precedents. This study reconsiders this problem by examining the relationship between Latin rhetorical education and Roman political power diachronically, beginning with the advent of Latin rhetors in the 90s BCE and concluding with Quintilian himself. I advance the status quaestionis with two central arguments. First, I argue that Quintilian’s situation was conditioned by over 150 years of close connections between Latin rhetors and Rome’s governing aristocracy. Second, I argue that the advocates of Latin rhetoric successfully positioned their discipline to appeal to Rome’s ruling elite by constructing a justificatory narrative that claimed that technical rhetoric was crucial for political success and civic flourishing. These arguments combine to provide a more complete and contextualized account of Quintilian’s relationship with Vespasian and the accompanying ii salarium, and they correct previous interpretations by emphasizing the reciprocity involved in this connection. Methodologically eclectic, I integrate close readings of Cicero’s rhetorica and Quintilian’s Institutio with prosopographical analyses that uncover dense networks of connections between rhetorical educators and Rome’s rulers. This project thus contributes to a new phase in the history of rhetoric, focused less on cataloging rules and tropes, and more on seeing rhetoric as a social and cultural phenomenon embedded in a particular historical context. Taking a broader perspective, this study reveals how rhetoric in this period positioned itself as the master discipline for Rome’s masters. iii Acknowledgements First, I offer my heartfelt thanks to my committee. Daniel Marković has been an outstanding chair, and has helped guide my work on Quintilian from special author to proposal and, now, to defense. He has always challenged me to be clearer in thought and writing, and he has the virtue of inspiring calm and optimism whenever we meet. I am very grateful for his learning, wisdom, and humanity. Peter van Minnen has been an excellent reader, most recently returning ca. 355 pages with learned comments and criticisms, copy-edited with meticulous care, all within about 60 hours. I have learned a great deal about the demands of scholarship while working at his side, whether in coursework, as his editorial assistant for BASP, or in the generous amount of time he has let me linger in his office over the years. It has been a pleasure and a privilege. Duncan MacRae arrived on campus while this dissertation was in its formative stages— fortunately for me. His characteristically penetrating comments have always challenged me to make this project better, and I am very grateful for the time that he has invested in helping me with this dissertation. I thank the Classics department for generous funding and support, and the many excellent faculty members who have taught me during my time in Cincinnati. This has been a wonderful place to learn and work. Thanks also Mike Braunlin, Cade Stevens, Jacquie Riley, and the staff of the John Miller Burnam Classical Library for their help. I would also like to express my gratitude to many contubernales, in Cincinnati and elsewhere, for their friendship, help, and encouragement over the years. Among these: Simone Agrimonti, Mohammed Bhatti, Gabriele Busnelli, Charlie Campbell, Austin Chapman, Chris Cloke, Marcie Handler, Mike Hanel, Chris Hayward, Emily Egan, v Allison Emmerson, CJ Miller, Carina Moss, Emilia Oddo, Adrienne and Thomas Rose, John Ryan, Katie Swinford, and Meg Sneeringer. Special thanks to Mitch Brown, Taylor Coughlan, and David Schwei. Many others could have been thanked here as well, and I hope that they know that I am grateful for their kindnesses. To my family and dear friends, I am grateful for their love and support over the years. Thanks to Peter and Kathy Cleary, Mack Costello, Simon Crider, Tyler Hope, the Gahl family, Lucinda Lawson and Josh Miller, and the Mills family. I owe great thanks to my mother, Eileen Carroll, who has always believed in me. Finally: I am at a loss for words as to how I could adequately thank my wife, Caitlin. I never could have reached this point without her love, friendship, encouragement, and help. I am so grateful. Thanks also to Harriet and Phoebe, who, together with their mother, bring so much joy and meaning to my life. I dedicate this work to Caitlin, Hattie, and Phoebe. vi Table of Contents Abstract .............................................................................................................................. ii Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................... v Table of Contents ............................................................................................................ vii Abbreviations ................................................................................................................... ix Ancient authors and works ...................................................................................................... ix Scholarly corpora, instrumenta, and reference works ........................................................... x Introduction: The Strange Case of Quintilian ............................................................... 1 Chapter 1: The Beginning of Latin Rhetorical Education .......................................... 19 §1.1 The introduction of Latin rhetorical education in the Late Republic ......................... 21 §1.2 The edict of the censors .................................................................................................... 37 §1.3 A different reaction: The governing aristocracy and Rome’s rhetors ........................ 47 §1.4 Conclusion: A new baseline, and further challenges .................................................... 51 §1.5 Appendix: Freedmen Latin rhetors (Sen. Contr. 2 pr. 5) ............................................. 54 Chapter 2: Cicero, Eloquentia, and Justifying Rhetoric in the Republic .................. 60 §2.1 The context of Cicero’s contributions ............................................................................ 63 §2.2 The significance of eloquentia ......................................................................................... 73 §2.3 Cicero’s vision for eloquentia in de Inventione 1.1–5 .................................................... 84 §2.4 Cicero’s enduring vision for rhetoric: The oratorii libri ............................................. 101 §2.5 Conclusion: The influence of Cicero’s vision and the significance of praise ............ 115 Chapter 3: “A Noisy Menagerie,” “A Demoniac Legion”? ....................................... 123 §3.1 Background: Seneca’s anthology, declamation, and political power under the Principate ................................................................................................................................ 125 §3.2.1 The rhetorical interests of Augustus (as well as Q. Haterius, Q. Varius Geminus, the Passieni, Cn. Domitius Ahenobarbus, and Occius Flamma) ....................................... 140 §3.2.2: The rhetorical interests of the broader governing aristocracy: L. Munatius Plancus, C. Asinius Pollio and his progeny, Quintilius Varus; the Nonii, and C. Sosius 161 §3.3 Conclusion: The noisy menagerie (?) and beyond ...................................................... 180 Chapter 4: Quintilian in Context................................................................................. 189 §4.1 The life and work of Marcus Fabius Quintilianus, briefly ......................................... 192 §4.2 Quintilian and Vespasian: An argument for continuity ............................................. 200 §4.2.1: A Julio-Claudian connection: Gnaeus Domitius Afer ............................................ 202 §4.2.2: Quintilian, Marcus Vitorius Marcellus, and Gaius Plinius Caecilius Secundus .. 209 §4.2.3: Quintilian in the courts of emperors ........................................................................ 216 §4.2.3.1: Quintilian and Servius Sulpicius Galba ...............................................................