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 rhetoric of suppressed speech: Volume not on shelf Tacitus' 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 Nero t~e eulogy of Claudius 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 orator precedes Quintilian 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: Rome 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.' Caesar, Sallust, and Livy, 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, Diodorus Siculus 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.