Sedlmeyr was the author of a recent paper on the influence of Academic philosophy on the construction of the characters in Cicero’s late dialogues.[1] This book is the revised version of a dissertation submitted to the Catholic University Eichstätt-Ingolstadt.
A brief introduction surveys earlier studies. Sedlmeyr notes that Plato’s dialogues, and their successors in the Renaissance and more recent times, have influenced the way the Roman dialogue has been read, with an initial tendency to identify a specific character as the author’s mouthpiece. In the meantime, a subtler analysis has gained ground in which the conversation itself is treated as an action or event that carries weight in the process of theorizing (sometimes called “performativity”). Moreover, a dialogue allows for self- and community-fashioning and for critical reflection about this process. It also permits the author to stand back so that the reader can reflect independently on the problems raised.
Sedlmeyr focuses on the shaping of the characters (“Figurengestaltung”), an important but relatively neglected topic. He takes as his analysand sixteen Ciceronian dialogues, omitting the Tusculan Disputations and Timaeus, as justified on p. 22. Though the Tusculans do not lend themselves to the same kind of treatment as the dialogues Sedlmeyr studies, they do nonetheless allow for some interesting observations about the interlocutors (cf. Schofield 2009, 130 and 2023, 131), so their exclusion is regrettable.
Sedlmeyr bases his approach on the famous passage in Ad Atticum 13.19.4 (326 S.B.), where Cicero describes his recent dialogues as following the Aristotelian custom of assigning the author the leading role. Accordingly, Sedlmeyr divides the dialogues into three groups: (1) historical dialogues not involving Cicero’s character; (2) historical dialogues featuring a young Cicero; and (3) historical dialogues in which Cicero appears as the protagonist. This classification elides, however, an important difference. Some of these “historical dialogues” (“Vergangenheitsdialoge”) are, in fact, set in the present (or very recent past): De legibus, Brutus, Academici libri posteriores, De divinatione, De fato, Partitiones oratiae. Only belatedly does Sedlmeyr recognize the important category of “Gegenwartsdialoge”: p. 593. If he had made more use of this category, he could have explored them from the standpoint of criticism of the times (cf. the critique of De re publica by Cicero’s friend Sallustius, reported at Ad Quintum fratrem 3.5.1-2). Sedlmeyr’s purely structural classification does have the potential advantage of bringing together some works not normally compared, in particular De finibus 5 and De natura deorum (as members of group 2). It turns out, however, in Chapter IV, that the comparison yields little except that “young Cicero” is already represented as an Academic, since his character is mute for almost the whole of the latter dialogue.
Sedlmeyr’s approach is to begin his discussion of each work with an overview of the work and then to turn to the speakers individually, including background on the historical figures on which they are modeled. Each individual chapter has its own conclusion, and there is a summarizing chapter as well.
In his introductions to the individual dialogues Sedlmeyr generally follows received opinions as to dating and the like. An exception is Partitiones oratoriae, for which he argues for a late dating, to the years 46-45 (587; 589 n. 1255). But the arguments are unconvincing. The “great enthusiasm” (magnum studium) of Cicero Jr. need hardly suggest that the conversation takes place on the eve of his trip to study in Athens, and the same is true of the possibility raised by Cicero Sr. that his son may use either “the same or other guides” than he himself had used (§140). Sedlmeyr, by the way, identifies Cicero Jr. as “M. Tullius Cicero, M(arci) f(ilius),” presumably to distinguish him from his father (11); he seems to forget that the orator, too, was “M.f.”
Sedlmeyr sees the Cicero figure as fulfilling two functions: in the dialogues in which he appears as an Academic, he is a kind of Roman version of Socrates, i.e., his primary mode is a speech in refutation of a thesis previously argued, rather than rapid-fire give-and-take; his other role is to represent the positions of Cicero the politician (590-91). The other characters play essentially supporting and structuring roles. Cicero the author is painting an ideal intellectual community peopled by seniors like Scaevola in De oratore, who are willing to share their views and facilitate the transmission of knowledge between generations, and the younger generation eager to learn. Problems arise, however, when Cicero seeks to press figures into roles which they do not naturally fit. This was most obviously the case with the original speakers in the Academici libri priores, whom Cicero exchanged for ones more knowledgeable about epistemology in the new edition (356-58). There is another such problem in the case of M. Brutus in his eponymous dialogue, who is forced into the role of eager pupil unsuited to a man of his age and learning, as Sedlmeyr should have made clear. A different type of problem of compatibility is the double role that Antonius plays in De oratore, first disputing Crassus’ expansive conception of the orator but then embracing it in Book 2. One might have thought that in light of his detailed study of Cicero’s character-drawing Sedlmeyr could make a useful contribution to the discussion, but his treatment is more descriptive than analytical (79-80); for further discussion, see Dyck 1998.
The question arises as to why Cicero as author was so intent on this particular act of creation. Sedlmeyr lists seven reasons under three categories. These are either reasons Cicero himself supplies (to do educational work in service to the republic, to replace his political activity, and to provide personal consolation [in light of Tullia’s death]) or are readily inferable (self-staging [“Selbstinszenierung”], honoring individuals, emulation of literary models, aesthetic pleasure) (32-36). But the process was perhaps more complex and the factors more interconnected than Sedlmeyr indicates. Thus, for instance, the self-staging or self-fashioning (a term Sedlmeyr also uses) may intersect with the desire to honor individuals, i.e., he places himself in a circle of noble optimates (Hortensius, Catulus, and Lucullus) both to honor them and to upgrade himself to their social level, and that might help explain Cicero’s reluctance to abandon the Academici libri priores in the face of Atticus’ criticism.
One may grant Sedlmeyr that it would be reductive to see the communicative space of the dialogues only in relation to Roman politics (591). But Roman politics do play a role, perhaps a larger one than Sedlmeyr allows. He may be too hasty in claiming that the deaths of Scipio, Crassus, and Antonius appear not as a result of false politics but the circumstances of the times (“Zeitumstände”: 255). Surely political conclusions can and should be drawn from the moving depiction of Crassus’ final exertions for the republic and the events that followed (De or. 3.1-8), i.e., there is an implicit criticism of the policies of his opponents. The fates of other speakers, including Antonius and Sulpicius, are likewise narrated, to telling effect (ibid. 10-11); on Sulpicius, Hodgson 2017 would have been worth citation and discussion. And though Scipio’s demise is not narrated in the De republica, his position in the state and the cause of his death are hinted at (Rep. 6.12 = 16 P.), so the political implications are clear.
One problem that might have been addressed is whether the dialogues we have should be read as a corpus or treated as autonomous units. Are we, for instance, to see a process of maturation of the “young Cicero” of De finibus 5 and De natura deorum to the mature consular who speaks in other dialogues? This possibility is raised by Woolf and J. Müller in Diez and Schubert 2022. Sedlmeyr speaks of a “connecting line” (“Verbindungslinie”) being created between dialogues with shared characters (596) but does not directly address the issue.
There are various minor problems. The introductory remarks about De oratore create a misleading schematism. The graphic on p. 42 with accompanying discussion divides the interlocutors into three generations: (1) Q. Mucius Scaevola, Q. Lucius [sic for Lutatius] Catulus; (2) L. Licinius Crassus, M. Antonius; (3) C. Aurelius Cotta, P. Sulpicius Rufus, C. Iulius Caesar Strabo. But Scaevola (cos. 117) was much older than the other participants, and deliberately so, Cicero having modeled his appearance on that of the elderly Cephalus in Plato’s Republic, as he remarks at Att. 4.16 (89).3. On the other hand, the consulate of Catulus was only three years prior to that of Antonius (102 and 99 respectively), so it is odd to see the two men assigned to different generations. In addition, Catulus was the stepbrother of Caesar Strabo; there was, to be sure a gap, in age between the two, so they could plausibly be assigned to successive generations, but they should not be so far separated as by Sedlmeyr. On p. 307, Sedlmeyr confuses prosopopoeia with apostrophe. The table of speakers on p. 594 contains misinformation, including impossible dates for the Elder Cato; the fact that, if, as Sedlmeyr holds on p. 446, Torquatus committed suicide after Thapsus, his death should be dated to 46, not 47; and the death of Triarius, who is attested with Pompey at Pharsalus, would better have been placed in 48 than 46. Both Latin and German are marred by some typos.
Sedlmeyr, then, has produced a compendium to which one can turn for information about the different characters of Cicero’s dialogues, their historical prototypes, and the roles they play. The emphasis is on Cicero’s creation of dialogic communities and their various functions. Throughout the dialogues Cicero depicts a clear generational hierarchy, with the historical dialogues featuring principal speakers of consular rank. Historical figures are intellectualized so as to justify Cicero’s own intellectual activities as traditional but also to serve as a model for other upper-class Romans. In the later dialogues school affiliation is important, and a certain tone may go with a given role, as with the Stoic speakers Cato Uticensis and Balbus, both of whom adopt a serious manner. There are variations, however, with Velleius as a caricature of the Epicurean but Torquatus, in view of his family traditions and ties to Cicero, treated more mildly. When Cicero depicts interlocutors/dedicatees who are still alive, like Varro and Hirtius, the dialogue may also function as metatextual communication. Sedlmeyr’s weaknesses are in the treatment of historical matters, for which he relies on handbook-type information, and politics and a general tendency to content himself with easy answers. He deserves thanks, however, for creating a resource that will assist future studies of the Ciceronian dialogue.
References
Diez, C. and C. Schubert. 2022. Zwischen Skepsis und Staatskult: Neue Perspektiven auf Ciceros De natura deorum. Stuttgart.
Dyck, A. R. 1998. “Cicero the Dramaturge: Versimilitude and Consistency of Characterization in Some Ciceronian Dialogues,” in Qui Miscuit Vtile Dulci: Festschrift Essays for Paul Lachlan MacKendrick, ed. Gareth Schmeling and Jon D. Mikalson, 151-64. Wauconda, IL.
Hodgson, L. 2017. “‘A Faded Reflection of the Gracchi’: Ethics, Eloquence and the Problem of Sulpicius in Cicero’s De oratore.” Classical Quarterly 67: 163-81.
Schofield, M. 2009. Review of I. Gildenhard, Paideia Romana. Classical Review 59: 128-30.
Schofield, M. 2023. “Debate of Guidance? Cicero on Philosophy.” Oxford Handbook of Roman Philosophy, ed. D. Konstan et al., 119-40. New York.
Notes
[1] Reviewed by BMCR at 2021.06.19 (Dyck on Müller, Figurengestaltung und Gesprächsinteraktion im antiken Dialog)