1. This essay began as a paper I read at a UC Irvine Department of Classics Colloquium and repeated at a USC/UCLA Roman Studies Seminar devoted to the topic of ‘Latin Literature and Imperial Ideology’ (April 17, 1993). Both audiences offered constructive comments which I have tried to address in preparing this article for publication, but in general the text given here faithfully reproduces my talk on those occasions with the addition of the relevant documentation. I would especially like to thank the following scholars for their friendly criticism and encouraging advice: Luci Berkowitz, Walter Donlan, Dana Sutton and Shirley Werner of UC Irvine, Tony Corbeill of the University of Kansas, and Tony Boyle and Tom Habinek of USC. I am grateful to Professor Theodore F. Brunner, Director of the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae Project at UC Irvine, and Dr Peter Flury, General Editor of the Thesaurus Linguae Latinae in Munich, for making the resources and facilities of their institutes available to me. Of course, I alone am responsible for any and all errors in this work. A more detailed exploration of the subjects presented here is contained in the fourth chapter of my book The Sententious Historian: A Sociology of Rhetoric in Tacitus’ Annates 1–6 (forthcoming from Penn State University Press). Throughout this paper I follow the Teubner texts of Caesar’s fragmentary De Analogia (Funaioli, Gramm. Rom. Frag., pp. 145–57), the elder Seneca (Håkanson), and Tacitus’ Annates (Heubner); otherwise, quotations are from Oxford Classical Texts.

2. Cf. Hendrickson, G.L., ‘The De Analogia of Julius Caesar; its Occasion, Nature, and Date, with Additional Fragments’, CP 1 (1906), 105–10Google Scholar; Palmer, L.R., The Latin Language (London 1954; repr. 1989), 124–29Google Scholar; Ramage, E. S., ‘Cicero on Extra-Roman Speech’, TAPA 92 (1961), 481–94Google Scholar, and his Urbanitas: Ancient Sophistication and Refinement (Norman 1973), 59f. and 64–76Google Scholar; MacMullen, R., Roman Social Relations (New Haven 1974), 30f. and 58Google Scholar; and David, J.-M., ‘Les Orateurs des municipes à Rome: intégration, reticences et snobismes’, in Les ‘Bourgeoisies’ municipales italiennes aux He et ler siècles av. J.-C. (Paris and Naples 1983), 314–23Google Scholar. On consuetudo in general see Lausberg, H., Handbuch der literarischen Rhetorik (Munich 1960), 256f.Google Scholar (§469).

3. See Hendrickson (n.2 above), 110f. I do not share the reservations about Hendrickson’s dating and interpretation of De Anal, that Dahlmann, H. expresses in ‘Caesars Schrift über die Analogie’, RM 84 (1935), 259fGoogle Scholar. Gelzer, M., Caesar, Politician and Statesman, tr. Needham, P. (Cambridge MA 1968), 139Google Scholar, unhesitatingly assigns Caesar’s work to ‘the early summer of 54’.

4. Dahlmann (n.3 above), 264–66, correctly stresses that De Anal, was not limited to problems of grammar, but was ultimately a tract on oratory (eloquentia) in general. Nonetheless, it is important that Caesar took grammar as his starting point (cf. Hendrickson [n.2 above], 99f. and 113f.).

5. Again, 1 follow the views of Hendrickson (n.2 above) against the reservations of Dahlmann (n.3 above).

6. Cf. Dahlmann (n.3 above), 262–65. For another use of a nautical metaphor in arguments for analogia see Varro LL 9.6. Rawson, E., Intellectual Life in the Late Roman Republic (London 1985), 121–27Google Scholar, discusses the dispute between analogia and anomalia during this period.

7. Cf. Gelzer (n.3 above), 139.

8. It is important to remember that Caesar had appointed Brutus to the administration of Cisalpine Gaul when we read the discussion of urbanitas at Cic. Brut. 171: turn Brutus: quid tu igitur, inquit, tribuis istis externis quasi oratoribus? quid censes, inquam, nisi idem quod urbanis? praeter unum, quod non est eorum urbanitate quadam quasi colorata oratio. et Brutus: qui est, inquit, iste tandem urbanitatis color? nescio, inquam; tantum esse quendam scio. id tu, Brute, iam intelleges, cum in Galliam ueneris; audies turn etiam uerba quaedam non trita Romae, sed haec mutari dediscique possunt; illud est maius, quod in uocibus nostrorum oratorum retinnit quiddam et resonat urbanius. nee hoc in oratoribus modo apparet sed etiam in ceteris. then Brutus asked, ‘What do you, then, ascribe to those orators who are outsiders, as it were?’ ‘What do you suppose,’ I said, ‘if not the very same thing I ascribe to those from the city? Excepting only that their speech is not, so to speak, shaded with that quality characteristic of the city.’ To which Brutus asked, ‘So what is this “shade characteristic of the city”?’ ‘I do not know,’ I answered. ‘That such a thing exists is all I know. You will find out, Brutus, when you go to Gaul. You will hear words then that are not in circulation at Rome; but those can be replaced and unlearned. The more important thing is that which rings and reverberates in the voices of our orators. Nor is this evident in orators alone, but even in the other residents, too.’

9. In Aulus Gellius’ view, Augustus was linguae Latinae non nescius munditiarumque patris sui in sermonibus sectator (‘an adept at proper Latin and the promoter of his father’s views on purity of speech’, NA 10.24.2.—On the meaning of munditiae in such a context see Brink, CO., Horace on Poetry III: Epistles Book II—The Letters to Augustus and Florus [Cambridge 1982], 203Google Scholar [on Hor. Epist. 2.1.159]). Cf. M. Schanz and C. Hosius, Geschichte der römischen Literatur, vol. 8.2 in Otto, W. ed., Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft (Munich 1935; repr. 1959), 8–12Google Scholar; Bardon, H., Les Empereurs et les lettres latines d’Auguste à Hadrien ² (Paris 1968), 7–14 and 62Google Scholar; Leeman, A. D., Orationis Ratio (Amsterdam 1963), 221Google Scholar; Gagé, J. ‘Auguste écrivain’, ANRW 11.30.1 (1982), 613–17Google Scholar.

10. In Spain, for example, Augustus heard a man from Tarraco named Gavius Silo declaim (probably in 26 or 25 BCE), and is reported to have proclaimed afterwards numquam audiui patrem familiae disertiorem (‘I have never heard anyone declaim the part of a paterfamilias so well’, Sen. Controu. 10 pref. 14). An advertisement ‘blurb’ like this one could make a man’s career (cf. Controu. 2.5.20, where Augustus proclaimed L. Vinicius ingenium in numerato habet [‘L. Vinicius has his talent in cash’; cf. Quint. 6.3.111]). Seneca interprets this anecdote as proof of Gavius’ ability to plead a case effectively without obtruding his own personality. In Gavius Seneca finds an example of ‘eloquence concealing eloquence’. Bornecque, H., Les Déclamations et les déclamateurs d’après Sénèque le Père (Lille 1902Google Scholar; repr. Hildesheim 1967)—the scholarly Bible on these declaimers—expresses disappointment (168) that the examples of Gavius’ eloquence Seneca quotes do not distinguish him from the other declaimers. But that is surely the point of Augustus’ remark, of Seneca’s interpretation, and of the ethos of the declamatory schools in general. What might we suppose Augustus found praiseworthy in Gavius? His ideal paterfamilias out in the province undoubtedly used standard language, in an impeccably urbane but plain style, to express traditional tenets of commonplace morality (cf. H. de la Ville de Mirmont, ‘Les Déclamateurs espagnols au temps d’Auguste et de Tibère’, Bulletin Hispanique 15 [1913], 154f.). Augustus’ ‘blurb’, while it is meant to praise, has another side to it as well. Praise like this from the princeps himself has the effect of pigeonholing a man: Augustus simultaneously endorses and delimits the boundaries of Gavius’ talents and career within the ethos of his principate. And to conform to that ethos, to master its idioms and succeed within its standards is the goal of men like Gavius Silo and Seneca.

11. Cf. Griffin, M., ‘The Elder Seneca and Spain’, JRS 62 (1972), 1–19Google Scholar, and her Seneca: A Philosopher in Politics (Oxford 1976; repr. 1991), 29–34Google Scholar and 509f. Ferrill, A., Seneca: The Rise to Power (Diss. Univ. of Illinois at Urbana 1964), 8–15Google Scholar, succinctly lays out the information for the elder Seneca’s worldly ambitions.

12. Fairweather, J., Seneca the Elder (London 1975), 27–29Google Scholar and 59, discusses Seneca’s purpose in writing along different, more literary lines.

13. Seneca’s interests in his fellow Spaniards are especially apparent throughout the prefaces to Controu. 1 and 10 (notably, 10 pref. 4). Cf. Mirmont (n.10 above), 154–69. Fairweather (n.12 above), 93, makes the curious statement that ‘…Nepos displays an interest, shared by Seneca…, in a highly unusual subject, the breaking of class barriers by men of letters’.

14. Cf. Ramage (n.2 above [1973]), 107f., and, on Roman attitudes towards Spaniards during the principates of Augustus and H. de la Ville de Mirmont, Tiberius, ‘Les Déclamateurs espagnols au temps d’Auguste et de Tibère’, Bulletin Hispanique 14 (1912), 341–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

15. Winterbottom, M., The Elder Seneca, Declamations, (Cambridge MA 1974), xvGoogle Scholar, and Fairweather (n.12 above), 29, mention the motif.

16. Winterbottom (n.15 above), i.379 n.3, cites Pliny NH 7.55.

17. This is also the view of Cassius presented by the ‘modernist’ Aper in Tac. Dial. 19. See Fairweather (n.12 above), 200–14, and Sussman, L.A., The Elder Seneca (Leiden 1978), 127–29Google Scholar, on the general characteristics of this style and especially its use of sententiae.

18. An illuminating illustration of Seneca’s technique in using stultus is the way he mercilessly singles out a man named Saenianus as his whipping boy: Saenianus rem stultissimam dixit: diues me semper contempsit, numquam nisi pro mortuo habuit. ut aliquid et ipse simile Saeniano dicam, post hanc sententiam semper Saenianum pro mortuo habui (‘Saenianus said an unbelievably stupid thing: “The rich man always despised me, treated me like I was dead.” To do Saenianus one better—after his sententia, I always treated him as dead.’ Controu. 5.2 ext.). Notice Seneca’s ‘take’ on the situation and his tone of triumph and self-congratulation. As far as he is concerned, after this incident Saenianus was truly, socially speaking, dead in the water. History knows nothing more of this man than that Seneca brands three out of four quotations from his declamations stultissimus (‘unbelievably stupid’). Saenianus had apparently staked his hopes for achieving fame and fortune on his abilities as a speaker, but he strained himself beyond his limits. For his part, Seneca’s attitude is paradigmatic: his critique of Saenianus enforces the standards of urbanity in terms of which elite society of the early Principate views itself. He obviously relishes putting down Saenianus, finding in this sort of contention both intellectual stimulation and immense personal satisfaction. Much in Opelt, I., Die lateinischen Schimpfwörter und verwandte sprachliche Erscheinungen (Heidelberg 1965), 217–37Google Scholar, is relevant to Seneca’s ‘literary criticism’.

19. See Bardon, H., Le Vocabulaire de la critique littéraire chez Sénèque le rhéteur (Paris 1940), 65–100Google Scholar, and ‘Mécanisme et stéréotypie dans le style de Sénèque le rhéteur’, AC 12 (1943), 5–24Google Scholar (esp. 13 and 24).

20. Bardon, Vocabulaire (n.19 above), 78–89 (but see 90–100, where he lists various aspects of originality in Seneca’s vocabulary and style). Cf. the criticisms of Bardon by Fairweather (n.12 above), 68–71.

21. N.b. that an important step in Seneca’s ‘set up’ for this ‘joke’ is his preparation for it in the preface by the anticipatory allusion in which he observes that Haterius, after his son’s death, became emotional in the midst of a speech about a father who had lost his sons (Controu. 4 pref. 6).

22. See Coleman, K.M., ‘Fatal Charades: Roman Executions Staged as Mythological Enactments’, JRS 80 (1990), 50f.Google Scholar, who, though discussing the subject of munerarii from a different perspective, mentions interesting social aspects of their function and has a useful bibliography. I use the term ‘impresario’, which she uses to convey ‘the glamour and publicity attached to the munerarius’.

23. See Ville, G., La Gladiature en Occident des origines à la mort de Domitien, BEFAR 245 (Paris 1981), 186–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and TLL 8 (1966), 1640–41 [Tessmer].

24. On Cicero’s use of gladiatorial and military imagery cf. Fantham, E., Comparative Studies in Republican Latin Imagery (Toronto 1972), 30–32 and 155–58Google Scholar.

25. Cf. Dalzell, A., ‘C. Asinius Pollio and the Early History of Public Recitation at Rome’, Hermathena 86 (1955), 20–28Google Scholar.

26. Cf. inepte at Controu. 1.6.11 and 9.2.23; rem ineptam dicere at 7.5.11 and 9.6.11. Bardon, Vocabulaire (n. 19 above), 36f., cites other Senecan uses of inepte, ineptiae and ineptus; cf. the exchange on the concept of ineptus in Cic. De Or. 2.16–18 (esp. 17) and TLL 7.1 (1943), 1302.37–39 [Rehm]. Cf. also improba sententia at Controu. 1.5.3 and 7.5.14.

27. Especially used to stigmatise a style ridden with sententiae tumidae [‘bombastic epigrams’, 10.1.14]: Controu. 2.1.25 bis, 26; 7.3.8; 9.2.26, 28; 10.4.22; 10.5.25, 27; Suas. 1.1, 13, 16; 2.16, 17. As ‘literary terms’, insania, insanire and insanus occur more frequently in Seneca Maior (a total of 16 times) than in Cicero (5 times: De Or. 2.305; Brut. 238; 284; Orat. 89; 236) or Quintilian (Inst. 11.3.45; 12.10.73); they are not used in this way in Rhet. Her. or Cic. Inu. rhet. Cf. TLL 7 (1958), 1827.70; 1828.64; 1830.71; 1831.28; 1834.83–1835.7 [Lumpe] and Bardon, Vocabulaire (n.19 above), 38. Fairweather (n.12 above), 214–27, discusses the place of corruptus and related terms in Roman discussions of ‘vices’ in elocutio. Suet. Diu. Aug. 86.2 records that Augustus called Antony insanus for his oratorical style.

28. See especially Williams, G., Change and Decline: Roman Literature in the Early Empire (Berkeley and Los Angeles 1978), 6–51Google Scholar.

29. Cf. Quintilian, who writes of a genus dicendi quod specie libertatis insanit (‘rhetorical style that goes raving mad under the pretext of free speech’, Inst. 12.10.73).