Pompey the Orator
Yüklə 303,66 Kb. Pdf görüntüsü
|
9
emphasises how they were considered similarly gifted in terms of dignity, persuasiveness of speech and winning grace of appearance. 19 This suggests that Pompey and Crassus could have been considered accomplished speakers, at least by posterity, but much more certainly that the long-term rivals were endowed with the same level of eloquence, which again made them useful exempla for Tacitus in his Dialogus.
Quintilian gives us a further clue to Pompey‟s eloquence. In a chapter on the necessity of speaking according to the circumstances, he relates that there is a kind of oratory which becomes great men only, namely the speech given by generals in their hour of triumph. Pompey‟s example is put forward as particularly illustrative of this kind of oratory because he was extraordinarily eloquent in the description of his own exploits (abunde disertus rerum suarum narrator). 20 Rather than praising Pompey‟s eloquence in general, this passage seems to suggest that he was never more articulate than when praising his own victories. Indeed, other sources attest to Pompey‟s boasts of his military achievements as a substantial part of his public performances. 21 We shall see examples of this in the analysis of Pompey‟s contional performances in the next section.
19 Plut. Pomp. 7.1-4. 20 Quint. 11.1.36. 21 Plin. NH 7.99; Oros. 6.6.4; Plut. Pomp. 54.1; the speech put in Pompey‟s mouth by Dio 36.25-6 reflects this self-praise too. Cf. Val. Max. 8.14.3 on Pompey‟s citizenship to Theophanes who had chronicled his military successes. On the difficulties inherent in praising oneself, see R.K. Gibson, „Pliny and the Art of (In)offensive Self-Praise‟, Arethusa 36 (2003), 235-54, whose conclusion could be said to fit Pompey‟s case too, even if the context was different: „Praise of the self is a key mechanism for exercising control in advance over the reception of your deeds by society.‟ (254) 10
We know very little of Pompey‟s rhetorical education or training, apart from the name of Pompey‟s teacher in rhetoric, Manius Otacilius Pitholaus. 22 Quintilian and Suetonius allow us glimpses into Pompey‟s attempts to strengthen his performances through the help of ghost- writers and rhetorical exercises. In his treatment of deliberative oratory, Quintilian has a curious note on Ampius Balbus, whom Pompey defended in 55 B.C. Under the topic of impersonation (prosopopoeia), Quintilian explains the difficulty of the task: the speaker has to be able to on one occasion to impersonate Caesar, while at other occasions act as Cicero or Cato. Yet, it is a truly essential skill for an orator because many Greek and Latin orators have composed speeches to be delivered by others, adapting the words to suit the position and character of the speaker. To exemplify his point, Quintilian argues that Cicero cannot have thought in the same way or assumed the same character when writing speeches for Pompey, Titus Ampius or others:
An eodem modo cogitauit aut eandem personam induit Cicero cum scriberet Cn. Pompeio et cum T. Ampio ceterisue, ac non unius cuiusque eorum fortunam, dignitatem, res gestas intuitus omnium quibus uocem dabat etiam imaginem expressit, ut melius quidem sed tamen ipsi dicere uiderentur? „Do you think that Cicero thought in the same way or assumed the same character when he wrote for Gnaeus Pompeius and when he wrote for Titus Ampius or the rest? Taking into consideration the fortune, dignity and achievements of each individual did he not rather reproduce the character of all those whom he gave a voice so that even if they spoke better than usual they nevertheless seemed to speak as themselves?‟ 23
22 Suet. Rhet. 3 with Kaster (n. 14) comm. ad loc.
23
11
The writing of speeches for others to deliver was common in Greece, where such ghost- writers or logographers often made a living from this service. As far as we know, the phenomenon was much less common in Rome, but Suetonius records that L. Aelius Stilo wrote speeches for all the nobiles in the 90s B.C., including Q. Servilius Caepio, C. Aurelius Cotta, Q. Caecilius Metellus, and Q. Pompeius Rufus. 24 The fact that allegations of delivering a speech written by somebody else could be used to criticise an orator, suggests that the Romans looked down upon such activity. 25 Indeed, Aelius‟ customers appear to have tried to conceal Aelius‟ ghost-writing on their behalf. 26 Kennedy suggests that the Romans distrusted such activity because it was commercial, lacking in ethos or simply because it was Greek. 27
In any case, Cicero‟s speech-writing on behalf of Pompey and Ampius Balbus was not unique, as we know of other such instances. 28 The dishonour of delivering speeches written 24 Suet. Gram. 3 with Cic. Brut. 169, 205-7 providing the names of Stilo‟s customers. See Kaster (n. 14), 75-7 for comment on this passage. For the whole question of speech-writing on behalf of others, see G. Kennedy, „The Rhetoric of Advocacy in Greece and Rome,‟ AJP 89 (1968), 419-36, at 427-8, n. 12 and, shorter, Kennedy (n. 3), 12-13 with n. 14. 25 Cic. Brut. 99-100; Suet. Rhet. 2 = 26 in Kaster (n. 14) with commentary at 295-6. 26 Kaster (n. 14), 75-6. 27 Kennedy (n. 24), 427-8, n. 12. 28 Cicero wrote a funeral speech to be delivered by the father of Serranus (Cic. Q Fr. 3.6.5, November 54 B.C.), and one for Cato‟s sister Porcia to be delivered by her son Domitius or by Brutus (Cic. Att. 13.48.2; 13.37.3, August 45 B.C.). D.R. Shackleton Bailey, Cicero: Epistulae ad Quintum Fratrem et M. Brutum (Cambridge, 1980) commentary ad loc. argues that Serranus, the son of L. Domitius Ahenobarbus, was adopted by an Atilius Serranus, probably the adoptive father of Sex. Atilius Serranus Gavianus, the tribune of 57 B.C.
Yüklə 303,66 Kb. Dostları ilə paylaş:
|