We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 08 May 2015
In recent years, the idea of ‘performance’ has become a more and more important concept for the analysis of literary texts, even if the notion of ‘performance’ in literary criticism still does not denote a single agreed theory, but is a collective term referring to a number of different aspects and methods. The performance approach seems obvious for some literary genres, like drama and also oratory, for which performance is an essential characteristic. In the case of orations, in antiquity already a detailed doctrine of the perfect performance was established, both in theory and practice. Building on this knowledge and trying to recover the quintessential context of a speech, people have successfully attempted to explore a Roman orator's potential and to contexrualize Roman orations by reconstructing the delivery of sample speeches.
An oral version of this paper was delivered at the “Pacific Rim Roman Literature Seminar” 2004 (Sydney, July 2004), held on the topic of ‘Performance in Roman Literature’. 1 would like to thank the two organizers, Frances Muecke and Charles Tesoriero, for having me and particularly the audience at the talk, who engaged in a lively and fruitful discussion. This paper is dedicated to Charles' memory, of whose sad death 1 learned during publication.
1 Cf. Hall, J., ‘Performing Cicero in the Classroom’, CJ 95 (1999) 163-72Google Scholar; Hall, J. / Bond, R., ‘Performative Elements in Cicero's Orations: An Experimental Approach’, Prudentia 34.2 (2002) 187–228 Google Scholar; S.M. Goldberg, http://cicero.humnet.ucla.edu.
2 On this issue cf. e.g. the opposing views of Humbert, J., Les plaidoyers écrits et les plaidoiries réelles de Cicéron (Paris 1925 Google Scholar; repr. Hildesheim / New York 1972) and Stroh, W., Taxis und Taktik. Die advokatische Dispositionskunst in Ciceros Gerichtsreden (Stuttgart 1975 CrossRefGoogle Scholar); cf. most recently Riggsby, A.M., Crime and Community in Ciceronian Rome (Austin [Texas] 1999) 178-84Google Scholar; Morstein-Marx, R., Mass Oratory and Political Power in the Late Roman Republic (Cambridge 2004) 25-30CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
3 The written texts are designed to be effective pieces as well, although Cicero himself is aware of the fact that written speeches do not convey the same spirit as the actual delivery (cf. Orat. 130: ‘quae qualiacumque in me sunt – me [enim] ipsum paenitet quanta sint –, sed apparent in orationibus, etsi carent libri spiritu illo, propter quern maiora eadem ilia cum aguntur quam cum leguntur videri solent.’; Brut. 93-4: ‘quern [sc. Galbam] fortasse vis non ingeni solum sed etiam animi et naturalis quidam dolor dicentem incendebat efficiebatque ut et incitata et gravis et vehemens esset oratio; dein cum otiosus stilum prenderat motusque omnis animi tamquam ventus hominem defecerat, flaccescebat oratio. quod eis qui limatius dicendi consectantur genus accidere non solet, propterea quod prudentia numquam deficit oratorem, qua ille utens eodem modo possit et dicere et scribere; ardor animi non semper adest, isque cum consedit, omnis ilia vis et quasi flamma oratoris exstinguitur. hanc igitur ob causam videtur Laeli mens spirare etiam in scriptis, Galbae autem vis occidisse.’; cf also Quint, . Inst. 12.10.50 Google Scholar; Hal, Dion.. Dem. 22 Google Scholar).
4 All references to and quotations from Cicero's Philippics are based on P. Fedeli's edition ( M. Tulli Ciceronis scripta quae manserunt omnia. Fasc. 28. In M. Antonium orationes Philippicae XIV [Leipzig 1982, 1986]Google Scholar); translations are taken from Shackleton, D.R. Bailey's bilingual edition (Cicero. Philippics. Ed. and transl. [Chapel Hill / London 1986]Google Scholar), slightly adapted by the present author in cases. For a general introduction to the Philippics cf. J. Hall's overview (‘The Philippics’, in May, J.M. [ed.], Brill's Companion to Cicero. Oratory and Rhetoric [Leiden / Boston / Cologne 2002] 273–304).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5 The importance of taking all aspects of an oration's delivery into account in order to appreciate its effect on the audience was generally recognised by Pöschl, V. (‘Zur Einbeziehung anwesender Personen und sichtbarer Objekte in Ciceros Reden’, in Michel, A. / Verdiére, R. [edd.], Ciceroniana. Hommages á Kazimierz Kumaniecki [Leiden 1975: Roma aeterna IX] 206-26Google Scholar; reprint in Pöschl, V., Literatur und geschichtliche Wirklichkeit. Kleine Schriften II, ed. by Liebermann, W.-L. [Heidelberg 1983: Bibl. d. klass. Alt., N.F., 2. R., Bd. 74] 17–37 Google Scholar), but not systematically investigated. Pöschl (225-6 = 36-7) thinks that the importance of an overall performance is specifically Roman. Besides, scholars have only recently begun to be interested in performative aspects of Roman orations and have looked at a few speeches and different aspects so far, asking, for instance, what roles the orator assigns to himself, his clients and his opponents, how he governs audience reactions or how he adapts the argument to a given performance situation (cf. e.g. Vasaly, A., ‘The Masks of Rhetoric: Cicero's Pro Roscio Amerino’, Rhetorica 3 [1985] 1–20 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Gotoff, H., ‘Oratory: The Art of Illusion’, HSPh 95 [1993] 289–313 Google Scholar; Burnand, Chr.J., Roman Representations of the Orator during the Last Century of the Republic [Diss. Oxford 2000]Google Scholar; Morstein-Marx [n. 2], esp. 136-43). Bumand's study is the only more extended discussion of the Philippics since he analyses a number of late-republican speeches, among them the Philippics (146-97), with respect to how the orator presents himself. Burnand acknowledges that the delivery of a speech is a two-sided performance, but he rather uses this idea to develop more general conclusions about oratory and does not look at the speeches in greater detail. Enos, R.L. (The Literate Mode of Cicero's Legal Rhetoric [Carbondale / Edwardsville 1988]Google Scholar) looks at Cicero's court speeches and the relationship between the actually delivered version and the published form aimed at a larger and more distanced audience. He distinguishes between ‘the oral arguments as rhetoric and the post-trial literary compositions as rhetorical interpretations’ (92) and argues that the published speeches have been reworked in a literate mode. His focus is on the difference between rhetorical theory and practice and on the possibility to spread views on social and political issues by the published literary compositions. For some ideas about oral performances in ancient Greek political rhetoric cf. Worthington, I., ‘Oral Performance in the Athenian Assembly and the Demosthenic Prooemia’, in Mackie, C.J. (ed.), Oral Performance and its Context (Orality and Literacy in Ancient Greece, Vol. 5) (Leiden / Boston 2004: Mnemosyne Suppl. 248) 129-43 (with further references).Google Scholar
6 In the course of the Philippics, the orator also carries out various performative acts (on speech-act theory cf. e.g. Abrams, M.H., A Glossary of Literary Terms. Seventh Edition [Fort Worth et al. 1999] 291-4Google Scholar). For instance, Philippic Nine is a kind of funeral oration or a state funeral among his fellow senators for Servius Sulpicius Ruftis, the envoy who died during the embassy to Antony; and in Philippic Fourteen those soldiers of the legio Martia who died in the battle at Mutina are honoured similarly ( Phil. 14.29–35 Google Scholar). Philippic Twelve is Cicero's refusal to participate in a second embassy. A large part of Philippic Thirteen is a (subjective and suggestive) commentary on a letter by Antony ( Phil. 13.22–48 Google Scholar). Most of the senate speeches end with a definite motion; they thus equal a proposal for a senatorial decree. These elements, however, are not particularly specific to Cicero's aim in these cases, but illustrate what functions senate speeches may fulfil or to what uses they can be put.
7 In this study, the expression ‘audience’ is used as a general and collective term denoting all people present at Cicero's respective speeches. Historical details, e.g. that the audience is a body of interest groups, of which Cicero is certainly aware, cannot be discussed here. Anyway, regarding the audience as one entity is in line with Cicero's explicit technique in the Philippics since he typically addresses himself either to individuals or to the audience as a whole.
8 For a comparison between speeches before the senate and before the people cf. e.g. Mack, D.. Senatsreden und Volksreden bei Cicero (Würzburg 1937: Kieler Arbeiten zur klassischen Philologie 2 Google Scholar); Fogel, J., Cicero and the “Ancestral Constitution”: A Study of Cicero's Contio Speeches (Diss. Columbia University, New York 1994).Google Scholar
9 Cf. e.g. Mack (n. 8), 50-1; 78-9; Shackleton Bailey (n. 4), 135; contrast Fogel (n. 8), 241 with n. 2.
10 Korenjak, M. (Publikum und Redner. Ihre Interaktion in der sophistischen Rhetorik der Kaiserzeit [Munich 2000: Zetemata 104]Google Scholar) discusses the relationship between orator and audience with respect to the different circumstances of a later period; in this context he attributes an active and important role to the audience, also recognized in texts from this epoch.
11 Cf. e.g. Laurand, L., Études sur le style des discours de Cicéron. Avec une esquisse de l'hist-oire du “cursus”, 3 torn. (Paris 1936-1938; repr. Amsterdam 1965) 340 Google Scholar; von Albrecht, M., ‘M. Tullius Cicero, Sprache und Stil’ RE Suppl. XIII (1973) 1237–1347 Google Scholar, esp. 1252; Cicero's Style. A synopsis. Followed by selected analytic studies (Leiden / Boston 2003: Mnemosyne Suppl. 245) 26 Google Scholar. Cicero comes back to a similar expression in Philippic Thirteen without that having been provoked (cf. Phil. 13.48 Google Scholar: ‘quin tu abis in malam pestem malumque cruciatum?’). Generally, most speeches exhibit some passages in colloquial phrasing, especially when a dialogue with an individual member of the audience is being envisaged (cf. e.g. Phil. 8.12 Google Scholar: ‘sed quaeso, Calene, quid tu?’).
12 On that passage cf. also Pöschl (n. 5), 223-4 = 34-5.
13 On composition and circulation of the Verrines cf. Frazel, Th.D., ‘The composition and circulation of Cicero's In Verrem’, CQ 54 (2004) 128-42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14 Cf., e.g., Denniston, J.D., M. Tulli Ciceronis in M. Antonium orationes Philippicae prima et secunda. Edited, with Introduction, Notes (mainly historical) and Appendices (Oxford 1926) xvii.Google Scholar
15 Cf. esp. Fuhrmann, M., ‘Mündlichkeit und fiktive Mündlichkeit in den von Cicero veröffentlichten Reden’, in Vogt-Spira, G. (ed.), Strukturen der Mündlichkeit in der römischen Literatur (Tübingen 1990: ScriptOralia 19, Reihe A: Altertumswiss. Reihe, Bd. 4) 53–62.Google Scholar
16 Cf. Phil. 1.31 Google Scholar: ‘tu autem, M. Antoni, – absentem enim appello - unum ilium diem quo in aede Teiluris senatus fuil non omnibus his mensibus quibus te quidam multum a me dissentientes beatum putant anteponis?’
17 For instance, in Philippic Thirteen Lepidus is addressed several times ( Phil. 13.10; 13.14-15; 13.21 Google Scholar). In Philippic Fourteen Cicero even addresses the soldiers who died while fighting against Antony ( Phil. 14.33 Google Scholar). That gives Cicero's plea to honour them on account of their services for the Roman state a more emotional appeal and allows him to express his appreciation of their deeds in a more personal manner.
18 On the use of Quirites cf. Léovant-Cirefice, V., ‘Le rôle de l'apostrophe aux Quirites dans les discours de Cicéron adressés au peuple’, in Achard, G. / Ledentu, M. (edd), Orateur, auditeurs, lecteurs: à propos de l'éloquence romaine à la fin de la République et au début du Principat. Actes de la table-ronde du 31 Janvier 2000 (Lyon / Paris 2000: Collection du Centre d'Études et de Recherches sur l'Occident Romain, Nouvelle série n° 21) 43–55 (56: discussion).Google Scholar
19 Cf. Fuhrmann, M., Marcus Tullius Cicero. Sämtliche Reden. Eingei, übers. u. erl. Band VII (Zurich / Munich 1982: Bibliothek der Alten Welt. Römische Reihe) 103-7Google Scholar; Marcus Tullius Cicero. Die politischen Reden. Band III. Lateinisch – deutsch. Hg., übers. u. erl. (Munich – Darmstadt 1993) 609-13Google Scholar; Cicero und die römische Republik. Eine Biographie (Munich / Zurich 1989, 2. durchges. Aufl. 1990, 3. durchges. u. erw. Aufl. 1991, 4. durchges. und bibliogr. erw. Aufl. 1997) 287-9Google Scholar; English translation of 1990: Cicero and the Roman Republic. Translated by Yuill, W. E. (Oxford / Cambridge [Mass.] 1992) 205-6Google Scholar; contrast Stroh (n. 20).
20 Generally, Philippics 3-14 exhibit a thematic coherence and close connections among each other, in contrast to other Ciceronian speeches against Antony not found in the corpus and not preserved. Accordingly, a good case has been made that Philippics 3-14 only constitute the Philippics proper, intended to be read as a corpus, and that the first two speeches were later added. On this issue cf. Stroh, W., ‘Ciceros demosthenische Redezyklen’, MH 40 (1983) 35–50 Google Scholar; ‘Ciceros Philippische Reden. Politischer Kampf und literarische Imitation’, in Hose, M. (ed.), Meisterwerke der antiken Literatur. Von Homer bis Boethius (Munich 2000) 76–102 Google Scholar; Schäublin, Chr., ‘Ciceros demosthenische Redezyklen: ein Nachtrag’, MH 45 (1988) 60-1Google Scholar [taken up by Leonhardt, J., ‘Cicero. II. Cicero als Redner und Schriftsteller’, Der Neue Pauly 2 (Stuttgart / Weimar 1997) 1196–1202 Google Scholar, esp. 1197; English translation: ‘Cicero. II. Cicero as orator and writer’, Brill's New Pauly. Encyclopaedia of the Ancient World (Leiden / Boston 2003) 321-7, esp. 322]Google Scholar; Manuwald, G., ‘Cicero versus Antonius. On Structure and Construction of the Philippic Collection’, in Stevenson, T. / Wilson, M. (edd.), Cicero's Philippics: History, Rhetoric and Ideology, Prudentia (2006) (forthcoming); contrast Fuhrmann (n. 19).Google Scholar
21 On the selection of speeches for the corpus and its possible original structure see above n. 20.
You have
Access
