Oh gosh this chapter has a list of the primary areas of invective in the Roman tradition of oratory.
Yeah I am definitely going to list them for you.
Yeah I am definitely going to list them for you.
1. servile heritage
2. barbarian (non-Roman) background
3. having a non-elite occupation
4. thievery
5. non-standard sexual behavior
2. barbarian (non-Roman) background
3. having a non-elite occupation
4. thievery
5. non-standard sexual behavior
6. estrangement from family and community
7. melancholy disposition (?!?)
8. unusual appearance, clothing, or demeanor
9. cowardice
10. bankruptcy
7. melancholy disposition (?!?)
8. unusual appearance, clothing, or demeanor
9. cowardice
10. bankruptcy
(I honestly do not know what is meant by 7; I would've thought 'effeminacy' and 'luxuriousness' and 'novel habits' would be high on this list, but those probably fall under 5, 6, and 8.)
(I mean, seriously, Cicero can milk a paragraph of invective out of how someone styles their beard.)
This chapter isn't even really what I should be reading right now, while brushing up on Cicero, but how could I skip it?
"Although the list may seem to include any possible type of unfortunate circumstance or improper behavior, there are in fact surprising omissions: there is little slander of inappropriate religious behavior, and mockery of corpulence is rare."
"By the first century BCE, invective has become such an expected practice that... [Cicero] claims that, since the opposing prosecutors did not attack Fonteius personally in their opening speeches, this lack must provide direct indication's of his client's innocence."
I mean. That is very Roman, and very Ciceronian. "You didn't use an ad hominem? Your argument is invalid."
Reading more about the all-or-nothing approach in rhetoric but also culture is emphasizing some of the things I first learned about sexual invective in Roman speeches.
Like, some of the logic here is fascinating and makes my head hurt. For example: a prosecutor charging Murena with something says that Murena is the sort of person to be guilty because he does un-Roman things like dancing.
Cicero defends Murena by saying that Murena doesn't go to immoral feasts, which also have dancing; and if he's innocent of a type of immorality associated with dancing, he must also be innocent of dancing.
It's... it's like arguing that your client can't have smoked weed because he doesn't live in Colorado. But it's standard rhetoric for its time!
"Three of the commonest topics include mocking the opponent's ethnicity, name, and physical appearance. Each of these personal features is predicated on definitions of the natural," and thus whether someone is a 'real' Roman.
"In the speeches against Verres, [Cicero makes it] abundantly clear through that governor's dress, effeminate behavior, convivial excess, and impiety toward the gods that it is he who is the real 'Greek';"
"...the Sicilians [Cicero's clients] who have brought him to trial, on the contrary, have 'no similarities with the rest of the Greeks.'"
Cicero loves mocking people's appearance and claiming it's an indication of their true nature. Forex: "Surely Fannius's very head and eyebrows, so closely shaven, seem to stink of evil and proclaim his shrewd nature."
...must skim, dammit, I have so much reading yet to do, and also other stuff to do this afternoon. But this chapter is so interesting!
(Never did get clarification on the melancholy.)
Reading about the Caesarian orations makes me sort of sigh quietly when thinking about my community college Latin prof--who was great in so many ways!--being so fond of Julius Caesar and his defense of the republic.
"The _Pro Rege Deiotaro_ of November 45 is perhaps the most baffling of Cicero's speeches." Heck, I don't even remember hearing about it before.
"At some point... Caesar awarded Lesser Armenia to Ariobarzanes and the Eastern tetrarchy of Trocmori along with some of Cappadocia to Mithradates of Pergamon."
...I need a map. And maybe a flow chart.
...I need a map. And maybe a flow chart.
"Precisely what occasioned Caesar's enmity is not clear: in supporting Pompey at Pharsalus, Deiotarus had acted no worse than Ariobarzanes, whom Caesar pardoned and rewarded, or Castor Tarcondarius..."
This is why I'm not a historian.
This is why I'm not a historian.
"The absence of a formal prosecutor as well as the defendant, along with weak charges and the absence of a verdict, make the event at which Deiot. was delivered hard to conceive." Yeah, no heck.
If someone asks me about Caesarian orations when I'm tested, I'm just gonna talk about Caesar, because damned if I can follow most of what's going on here. And if neither can the person /writing the chapter/... Yeah.
Ooo, good reminder that I haven't eaten lunch yet.
Still can't spell Philippics right on my first try. Even with a chapter titled that open right next to me.
Also, regarding the invective categories: I fully support this Snow White retelling.
The second Philippic, a pamphlet distributed in response to Antony's response to Cicero's attack on him in the /first/ Philippic, "contains many passages of vituperative brilliance," and is also the one on my reading list.
You can't trust someone who wears trousers. That's just good old-fashioned common sense.
"Perhaps [Philippic 10]'s most interesting challenge, however, is its attempt to convince the senate that Caesar's veterans will accept Brutus, one of his assassins, as commander."
And apparently it did convince the senate. Good job, Cicero?
And apparently it did convince the senate. Good job, Cicero?
I've forgotten who Dolabella is. Again.
This happens a lot. The Roman civil war(s) have too darn many moving parts.
This happens a lot. The Roman civil war(s) have too darn many moving parts.
"In the second part [of Philippic 13] [Cicero] reads to the senate the contents of Antony's letter and subjects it to extended ridicule."
...the people who talk about the dignity and grandeur of Roman oratory have, presumably, read very little of it.
...the people who talk about the dignity and grandeur of Roman oratory have, presumably, read very little of it.
In Philippic 3, there's a discussion of Antony killing a lot of people, and "what Antony would call the justifiable execution of traitors becomes in Cicero's hands a sadistic slaughter of innocents."
*stares pointedly at Cicero's execution of people after the Catiline thing*
*stares pointedly at Cicero's execution of people after the Catiline thing*
(God, I wish we had some of Antony's speeches against Cicero.)
Fascism was well-named, because the tactic of "portray your enemy as simultaneously impossibly dangerous and ludicrously weak" is very Roman indeed.
Insulting an enemy by implying the man engages in oral sex! Drink!
(Philippic 13: "You would have spent your entire life in brothels, cookshops, gaming, drinking, as you used to do when you laid your mind and mouth in the lap of actresses.")
...okay, no time for reading about the De Oratore now, gotta go pick up prescriptions, walk the dog, prepare to GM, reread Phillipic 2, the usual.
