[Authors and titles are listed at the end of the review]
This volume brings together papers presented at the online conference Ciceronian Invective. Emotions, Reactions, Performance (24/25 September 2020). The explicit aim of the volume is to investigate not only orationes invectivae in the strict sense—such as the in Pisonem—but also the broader phenomenon termed ‘invectivity’. The contributions are organized into three sections: “Emotions,” which focuses on the expression of affect within invective contexts; “Configurations,” which examines the historical and rhetorical framing of the invectives; and “Reactions,” dedicated to the responses of those targeted by the invective.
Invective in Ciceronian oratory is far from a new theme (see, for example, the volume Cicero on the Attack);[1] nevertheless, it would be unreasonable to expect absolute innovation in so well-trodden a field as Ciceronian studies. That said, a re-reading of Cicero’s orations is almost invariably rewarding, and this volume is no exception.
The volume’s most suggestive results are achieved by investigating the scant remains of the multifaceted context surrounding Cicero’s orations, which the manuscript tradition has handed down to us in a splendid, yet deceptive isolation. Thus, the analysis uncovers some traces of voices long since lost, such as those of Cicero’s courtroom adversaries (Tempest), his personal antagonists (Pieper, van der Blom), or other voices raised against Verres (Schwameis).
Another line of inquiry that opens up interesting avenues for further development concerns the reception of Cicero’s oratory and its influence on later tradition, whether in Livy’s account of certain precedents of the causae de repetundis (Steel) or in the historiography of Catiline’s reaction on 8 November 63 BC—even extending to a fictitious medieval reply attributed to Catiline (Pieper).
A third line of inquiry is the more traditional, yet still fruitful, study of the rhetorical strategies deployed by Cicero, examined through close textual analysis: in this area, the interpretation of the apostrophes to Hortensius (Wierzcholowski) is particularly convincing and nuanced, while the other contributions, though not without interesting insights, tend to be somewhat less persuasive, focusing more on theoretical elaboration than on direct engagement with the Latin text (Degelmann, Hack, Heuring).
Christoph Pieper’s contribution, focusing on the comparison of sources regarding Catiline’s reactions to Cicero’s speech on 8 November 63 BC, is particularly compelling, insightful, and well argued. For this very reason, however, it is somewhat regrettable that the author chooses not to pursue the question of ‘what really happened’ in favor of source analysis (p. 207): establishing the historical facts would have made it possible to assess more precisely the extent of their reworking and manipulation by the sources.
Kathryn Tempest offers an intriguing study of the ‘rhetoric of anti-rhetoric’ likely employed by the prosecution in the trial of Cn. Plancius. I am, in general, persuaded by her argument; I would only raise a minor reservation concerning the broader conclusion that, as in Attic oratory, the prosecution in Rome also made greater use of topoi of deception than the defence (p. 199). This impression may in fact stem from our limited evidence for Latin oratory, which—unfortunately—largely coincides with Cicero’s oratory.
Henriette van der Blom’s contribution contains many perceptive observations, although its considerable length (54 pages including the bibliography) occasionally results in some unevenness in depth and precision. For instance, on p. 157 the author refers to ‘the allegation that Cicero placed armed slave gangs on the Capitol’; however, the specific passage at Cic. Phil. 2.16 mentions only armed slaves (servorum armatorum), making the reference to ‘gangs’ slightly imprecise. Particularly noteworthy is her attempt to reconstruct Antony’s invective themes, even if their effectiveness is perhaps somewhat overstated. As far as the scant evidence suggests, his attacks appear rather heavy-handed and formulaic; indeed, as van der Blom herself ultimately acknowledges, ‘Antony’s main weapon was military power’.
Christoph Schwameis provides an in-depth analysis of the ‘pirate chapter’ in Verr. 2.5.80–138, focusing on the ‘internal invectives’—that is, the verbal attacks directed at Verres by others and reported by Cicero in his speech. Curiously, the Latin texts are accompanied by an outdated English translation that often fails to align with the cited readings:[2] for example, on p. 113, the Latin iactabant (2.5.99) is rendered as “he threw down”, an interpretation clearly based on a different textual variant (iaciebat); on p. 115 nudus paene est destitutus (2.5.110) is translated as “[he] had been left nearly destitute”, altogether omitting nudus.
Regarding the presentation of texts and translations, a more consistent approach across all the contributions would have been desirable. As it stands, the formatting varies considerably: at times both the Latin and its translation appear in the main body; elsewhere, the original is relegated to a footnote; and in some cases, the translation is omitted altogether. Some of the longer quotations would have benefited from being shortened or at least made more accessible through typographical emphasis on key phrases (see, for instance, the extended passages from Livy on p. 66 and from Cicero on pp. 193–194).
I also encountered several discrepancies between text and translation throughout the volume. I will limit myself to a single example: concedat laurea laudi (Cicero’s self-quotation of his own verse in Pis. 74), rendered as the incomprehensible ‘and laurels to laudation’ (p. 141), which entirely omits the verb concedat.
A limitation shared by many of the contributions (with the exception of Pieper and Tempest) is their reliance on a bibliography predominantly (or exclusively) in English and German. In some cases, this leads to a somewhat paradoxical situation: contributions written in English, and thus implicitly addressed to an international readership, are nevertheless accompanied by bibliographies largely in German, as if aimed primarily at a German speaking audience (to give one example, Heuring’s bibliography comprises 25 titles, 18 in German and 7 in English).
This limitation is not without consequences: it is unfortunate that the discussion of the role of the equites (Steel, p. 64) does not take into account the still fundamental study by Claude Nicolet;[3] and that stimulating contributions, such as those by Wierzcholowski and Schwameis, do not engage with the commentary on the Verrines by Tommaso Ricchieri.[4] In the conclusion of Wierzcholowski’s contribution (pp. 96-97), for instance, the claim that, in publishing the actio secunda, Cicero sought to demonstrate his rhetorical superiority over Hortensius would have benefited from engagement with Ricchieri’s alternative account of the motivations and the genesis of the publication (2020, 29–31).[5]
It is also somewhat surprising that in some contributions standard commentaries on Cicero’s speeches are not taken into account: for instance, the commentaries on the Pro Caelio by Alberto Cavarzere and Andrew Dyck (Hack); Robin G.M. Nisbet’s commentary on the In Pisonem (Hack); and John T. Ramsey’s commentary on Philippics 1–2 (Hack, Degelmann; see especially p. 11 on Phil. 2.84, a passage for which Ramsey adopts a different textual arrangement).[6]
Unfortunately, the volume is marred by numerous flaws. It would have benefited from more careful editing, which would have avoided a few oversights, such as “opibes meretriciae” (p. 33) for opes meretriciae, and “homo Arpinatus” (p. 131) for homo Arpinas. A curious case concerns Cesare Maccari’s nineteenth-century fresco of Cicero and Catiline. This well-known work is reproduced on p. 208 and discussed persuasively by Pieper (pp. 207–209), who correctly locates it ‘in the Palazzo Madama in Rome (the seat of the Italian Senate)’. Within the same volume, Heuring locates it in ‘Villa Madama’ (p. 46), a sixteenth-century suburban villa on the slopes of Monte Mario and describes the crowd of senator behind Cicero ‘as a homogeneous group of his supporters, sometimes with their mouths agape, that is to say outraged by Catiline’s behaviour’ (my emphasis); yet, as far as I can tell from reproductions of the work, none of the senators is depicted with an open mouth.
In sum, this volume offers a rewarding journey through Cicero’s oratory and provides scholars with fresh and stimulating perspectives, especially where the authors engage most closely with the ancient texts, thereby significantly enriching our understanding of his rhetorical mastery and its enduring legacy.
Authors and titles
Section I: Emotions
- Ex ore impurissimo euomuit. Disgust and vomiting in Cicero’s invective repertoire (Christopher Degelmann)
- Sexual insults in Cicero? (Judith Hack)
- Emotional Language in the second Philippic (Ken Heuring)
Section II: Configurations
- Invective and provincial government. Cicero and his predecessors (Catherine Steel)
- Cicero’s rhetorical technique of apostrophe and attack. The case of Hortensius in the Verrines (Rainer C. Wierzcholowski)
- Incidents of invective in the ‘pirate chapter’ of De suppliciis (Christoph Schwameis)
Section III: Reactions
- The alternative story. Contemporary invective responses to Cicero (Henriette van der Blom)
- Cicero under attack. Deception and emotions in the trial of Plancius (Kathryn Tempest)
- Catilina in senatu obmutuit? Ancient and medieval responses to Cicero’s first Catilinarian speech (Christoph Pieper)
Notes
[1] Cicero on the Attack. Invective and Subversion in the Orations and Beyond, edited by Joan Booth (Swansea 2007).
[2] The Orations of Marcus Tullius Cicero, literally translated by C.D. Yonge, vol. 1 (London 19032).
[3] Claude Nicolet, L’ordre équestre à l’époque républicaine (312-43 av. J.-C.), vol. I (Paris 1966), vol. II (Paris 1974).
[4] Cicerone, Prima della Sicilia. Verrine 2, 1 (De praetura urbana), 1-102, a cura di Tommaso Ricchieri (Pisa 2020).
[5] The bibliography contains errors. There are works cited but absent from the bibliography (e.g., p. 139 n. 50, Gibson 2003; p. 222 n. 60, Muntz 2017) and works listed in the bibliography but not cited in the text (e.g., p. 176, Keeline 2018; p. 177, Martin 1980 and Nicolet 1960). There are also errors in alphabetical order (e.g., p. 237, Sillett is misplaced), incorrect forms of names (e.g., p. 8 n. 19, “Wormington” for Warmington; p. 99, “Peterson” for Paterson; p. 176, “Sciesaro” for Schiesaro), and inaccuracies in dates (e.g., p. 40, the third edition of Austin’s commentary on the Pro Caelio should be dated 1960, not 1988 [reprint]; Denniston’s commentary on Philippicae 1–2 is variously dated 1978 (p. 57) or 1998 (p. 52 n. 35), whereas it was in fact published in 1926).
[6] Pro Caelio: Cicerone, In difesa di Marco Celio, a cura di A. Cavarzere (Venezia 1987); Cicero, Pro Marco Caelio, edited by A.R. Dyck (Cambridge 2013). In Pisonem: M. Tulli Ciceronis In L. Calpurnium Pisonem oratio, edited by R.G.M. Nisbet (Oxford 1961). Philippicae: Cicero, Philippics I-II, edited by J.T. Ramsey (Cambridge 2003).