(avg. read time: 9–18 mins.)
Legal Rhetoric
Cicero, Pro Archia (LCL 158)
Cicero, On His House (LCL 158)
Cicero, Pro Piancio (LCL 158)
Cicero, Pro Caecina (LCL 198)
Cicero, Pro Fonteio (LCL 252)
Cicero, Pro Milone (LCL 252)
Cicero, Pro Ligario (LCL 252)
Cicero, Pro Murena (LCL 324)
Cicero, Pro Sulla (LCL 324)
We distinguish between different types of rhetoric by their differences in setting (in this case, the lawcourt) and, often as a result of the first difference, purpose. The sole representative author of this genre, and one whose works span many other genres outlined here, is the most prolific author of early Latin/Roman literature: Marcus Tullius Cicero (106 BCE–43 BCE). Since Cicero was a lawyer, politician, orator, and philosopher of profound influence in the waning days of the Roman Republic, his works are a prime source for Roman socio-political discourse and for many other subjects about Rome.
Cicero had many legal speeches, of which I have only selected a few. In these legal speeches, Cicero often invoked socio-political tropes and topics that appealed to traditional Roman sensibilities (at least among the aristocracy), which imbued his rhetoric with gravitas and force (although these invocations did not always grant him success). One receives a profound impression of the rights, privileges, and responsibilities of Roman citizenship from Cicero’s various discourses (Pro Archia 4–5, 12; Pro Caecina 33–35). The natural expectation was that the consuls, who represented citizens, would themselves be the citizens with the greatest dutifulness. As such, political corruption and conspiracy against the State were actions that Cicero, like the court he argued in, treated with particular severity (Pro Piancio; Pro Fonteio; Pro Murena; Pro Sulla). In his defenses in such cases, Cicero calls upon evidence of his client’s loyalty to the State—and thus his piety—since such offenses against the State were acts of impiety. One speech that vividly exemplifies this view is his On His House, addressed to the College of Pontiffs after his exile, in which he insisted that his enemy Clodius had committed sacrilege (39–55) by treacherously engineering Cicero’s exile and property confiscation, despite his years of loyal/pious service to Rome (3–37). Precisely because of his insistence that Clodius had acted impiously and tyrannically, Cicero insisted in his defense of Clodius’s murderer that the man only committed tyrannicide, which is no true crime (Pro Milone). Cicero was unsuccessful in this defense, but the fact that he made it still illustrates the Roman political values to which he appealed. In contrast, his rhetoric in Pro Ligario shows that his opposition to dictators was not absolute, since he believed at the time that Julius Caesar would restore the Republic to its state before the First Triumvirate, and so in this case used flattery and appeals to Caesar’s magnanimity and benevolence on behalf of Ligarius (2–3, 10–12).
NT Correlations
Cicero’s rhetoric on citizenship supplies a context for the importance of this status and of the significance of Paul appealing to it in Acts (16:37–38; 22:25–28). On a practical level, it of course guaranteed certain legal rights and privileges, but Cicero also conveys the responsibilities it carries towards the State. It is doubtful that Paul saw Roman citizenship as fundamentally incompatible with his Christian identity, although there was clearly a tension to navigate, especially in light of how others could characterize his statements as subversive and seditious (e.g., 17:6–7). Cicero himself likely would have agreed, given his frequent statements against tyranny (although, see his statements to Caesar below). However, Paul still differed with Cicero in that he never assigned obligations to Rome to a priority nearly as high as Cicero did.
Hebrews is another text that presents a contrast to the Roman vision of piety as expressed by loyalty to the State; here piety is expressed by fidelity to God, enacting allegiance (pledged loyalty) in expectation of God’s own faithful action of fulfilling promises. Although it is not clear that the author of Hebrews is writing to an audience that has experienced their suffering from the Romans, what is clear is the resonance this account of what constitutes piety would have in circumstances in which the State and the Christians were in conflict. In such cases, allegiance to God and fidelity to him by perseverance and trusting in his word would make the State an obstacle for the faithful to overcome.
Political Rhetoric
Cicero, Philippics (LCL 189; 507)
Cicero, Pro Marcello (LCL 252)
Cicero, Against Catiline (LCL 324)
Pliny the Younger, Panegyric (LCL 59)
In distinction from legal rhetoric, political rhetoric has the Senate as its setting, and a deliberative or epideictic purpose. It may be addressed to the Senate or to someone else on behalf of the Senate. Cicero’s Against Catiline represents an achievement in Cicero’s career to which he would make frequent reference later in life. It is a series of speeches Cicero made in 63 BCE to accuse Lucius Sergius Catilina, an erstwhile candidate for consulship who had lost multiple elections, of conspiring to overthrow the Senate. Cicero’s first speech, delivered in the presence of Catiline, is supremely vituperative as Cicero accuses Catiline of every sin under the sun. After all, if he is conspiring to destroy the State, and if he has a record of other vices leading to this point, what is he not capable of doing? His second and third speeches were directed to the public, in which Cicero expertly separates his audience from Catiline and his followers (although there were surely sympathizers in the crowd). Catiline had become a popular figure and attracted followers because of his advocacy for debt cancellation and land redistribution, by which he promised to push back against the wealthy who leveraged these debts. Cicero acknowledges that people in such difficult situations naturally followed Catiline, yet he insists that Catiline has also attracted the worst of the worst elements of society, not including the urban plebeians, his audience (2.17–23). Both the third and fourth speeches, delivered to the public and Senate respectively, are triumphalist, as Cicero has uncovered the conspirators in Rome and argues for their execution (an argument which convinced the majority of the Senate). In the process, Cicero’s rhetoric exemplifies a number of socio-political tropes. In every speech, he states his assurance that Jupiter Stator and the other gods remain the guardians of the city (1.11, 33; 2.29; 3.18; 4.19), which gives assurance that the conspirators will not succeed. Indeed, Cicero claims that his brief time of ruling over the city and investigating conspirators was guided by the wisdom of the gods (3.18–22). In his third speech, he tells the crowd that the gods had so orchestrated events that he caught the conspirators in Rome on the same day he completed the gods’ instructions to build a statue of Jupiter (3.21). Likewise, he appealed to the trope of Rome establishing peace across the world through military exploits, but he supplements this trope by arguing that he is best equipped for this “domestic war” against political intrigue and vice (2.11, 25). Cicero’s self-aggrandizing does not end there, however, as he tells the public that he deserves honor alongside the founder of the city, Romulus, for saving the city (3.2). The Senate decreed a religious thanksgiving celebration for his service, and Cicero made sure to stress that this celebration was unique, because others had won such an honor with military service while he had earned it with statecraft (3.23–24, 27–29; 4.20–22).
The two other cases of political rhetoric by Cicero are starkly different in tone. He delivered his Pro Marcello in the Senate in gratitude for Julius Caesar pardoning former consul Marcus Claudius Marcellus for making a motion to strip Caesar of his command and for supporting Pompey in the civil war. Although Cicero would later state that he wished he could have been part of Caesar’s assassination, at this time he is remarkably flattering to Caesar. He effusively praises Caesar’s magnanimity, placing this virtue embodied in this action above any of his military campaigns. He compares Caesar to a god (3) and states that he has had victory even over Victory herself (4).
In contrast, his Philippics—constructed after the model of Demosthenes’s condemnations of Philip of Macedon—present his tirades against Marc Antony, someone he regarded as an even worse tyrant than Caesar. Such is his opposition that he recites an extensive list of Antony’s offenses and openly states his willingness to go to war against Antony (2; 4.11–16). He even provocatively describes Caesar’s assassins as heroes and liberators (2.114). But he portrays himself as the loyal servant of the State that Antony was not, since he works from gratitude for being elected to the Senate as a novus homo (“new man”: the first in his family line to serve in the Senate), and he will reward this trust with vigilance and rooting out treachery (6.17–18). His dedication to the traditions of Rome is also apparent in Philippic 14, when he proposes a religious ritual of thanksgiving for Octavian’s victory over Antony, but he insists that this ritual must also entail a declaration of Antony as a public enemy.
Pliny the Younger’s (61 CE–ca. 113 CE) Panegyric was delivered in 100 CE and was dedicated to Trajan. Pliny defines Trajan as an exemplar for future emperors to follow if they wish to have a renown comparable to his (Ep. 3.18). As such, the speech is a recitation of Trajan’s deeds and a description of his character. His panegyric opens with a dedication to the gods, citing their will in choosing Trajan, describing the Senate as a sacred assembly for them, and identifying Jupiter as the founder and preserver of Rome (1). He likewise notes that Trajan is deserving of divine honors, but—in terms reminiscent of Augustus’s Res Gestae—he refuses what he regards as excessive honors, reserving divine honor for his father Nerva (10, 21, 23, 55). Indeed, Pliny portrays Trajan as a dutiful emperor’s son by noting that he built temples dedicated to Nerva. But Pliny contrasts Trajan with other emperors who did the same before him (Tiberius, Nero, Titus, and Domitian) in that Trajan’s motives were sincere in believing that Nerva was a god (11). After Pliny recites Trajan’s accomplishments in war, he states that Trajan has remained a lover of peace (16), for he showed his characteristic moderation (2–4, 9, 47, 54–56, 58, 60, 63, 78–79) in war rather than a lust for glory that he surely could have won. Whatever honors Trajan may refuse by his moderation and modesty, Pliny claims that he is the Father of the Country (pater patriae) and that he was this Father before anyone ever declared it (21). In fact, he embodies this identity better than his predecessors, for he is a lover of the gods who preserve the country and (even more so) a lover of the people, so that he links his own happiness with the happiness of the people (72–74). Because of his virtue, Jupiter can entrust him with judging earthly matters while he judges heavenly matters (80). He is also able to share a title with Jupiter as Optimus (“Best”), which Pliny says no one else has been called and everyone else that will be called by it will only be imitators of Trajan (89).
NT Correlations
I comment elsewhere on much of the socio-political material noted for Roman political rhetoric—including the importance of loyalty to the State, the involvement of the gods in history/Roman affairs, and the divinity of the Caesars—in other genres. For this reason, I do not comment on them again here. However, one point that must be noted is the correlation between reactions to honors and Paul’s teaching on humility.
Letters
Cicero, Letters to Atticus (LCL 7–8, 97, 491)
Cicero, Letters to Friends (LCL 205, 216, 230)
Cicero, Letters to Quintus and Letters to Brutus (LCL 462)
Pliny the Younger, Letters (LCL 55, 59)
Sallust, Letters to Caesar (LCL 522)
Seneca the Younger, Epistles (LCL 75–77)
Unsurprisingly, Cicero was the most prolific letter writer in our era of Latin literature. Over 800 letters by him and over 100 addressed to him are extant. The largest collection of letters by Cicero, totaling 426 texts, consists of correspondence from 68 BCE–44 BCE with one of Cicero’s closest friends: Titus Pomponius Atticus. Atticus was a fellow equestrian who was widely known for his affability and Cicero regularly sought his political advice (as only a few examples: Att. 125–126; 131–132; 169; 191; 216; 227; 426). Many of these letters concerned how to approach the conflicts between Pompey and Julius Caesar; thus, they also provide Cicero’s perspective on the deterioration of the relationships between Caesar and Pompey as well as between Caesar and the Senate. In addition to these letters, the collection Letters to Friends contains hundreds of letters by Cicero as well as replies to him. Many of the rest of his extant letters were addressed to his brother Quintus or to Marcus Junius Brutus, the man who would eventually participate in Caesar’s assassination.
Most of the letters relevant to politics concern the political intricacies of the Senate and Cicero’s involvement in them. One notable form of how the letters attest to Cicero’s political activity is the recommendation letter (Fam. 134; 138; 275), which is analogous to Paul’s letter to Philemon. But a few letters are pertinent to the larger socio-political discourse we have been tracking throughout. For example, Cicero wrote many letters articulating his desire for his own triumphal procession (Att. 121–127; 131; Fam. 110–111). He was especially desirous of one to celebrate what he regarded as his second birth in his return from exile (Att. 121). The actual grounds he gave for this triumph was his governance of Cilicia, an office he entered shortly after his exile ended. He thought a triumph upon his return to Rome would be a proper honor for one who had served Rome so loyally (Fam. 201), but Cato did not agree that a triumph was necessary. He convinced the Senate to celebrate Cicero with a ritual of thanksgiving, but he thought a triumph would be excessive for the occasion (Fam. 111). Cicero responded by arguing that it is good to covet one’s due honors and he would continue to argue that he certainly deserved a triumph (Fam. 112). However, he eventually gave up this request in view of the crisis in the Senate that presaged Caesar’s Civil War (Att. 174).
Cicero also shows in his personal correspondence the ideas that germinated into his reflections on despotism and tyranny in his philosophical works (Att. 173). His response to the crumbling of the Republic and to the prospects of Pompey losing his war with Caesar was to practice Stoic principles in bearing through suffering that was beyond one’s control with equanimity, and he made this clear in the letters he wrote during this time (Fam. 186; 246–247). Despite siding with Pompey during the conflicts with Caesar, he was initially hopeful that Caesar could restore the Republic to its state before the deterioration under the First Triumvirate (Fam. 211). Of course, as has been noted already, this hope did not last and Cicero was happy to see him die, since he embodied the spirit of the tyrant that haunted Cicero’s thoughts on politics. But even with his death, tyranny did not die in Rome, as we see Cicero lamenting in a letter concerning Antony (Att. 343).
Sallust’s Letters to Caesar are two letters written around the time of Caesar’s Civil War. The first letter details the debt incurred due to the civil war, though it offers little prescriptions. The second letter, though written first, contains Sallust’s advice that Caesar needs to end financial corruption. Those reforms included a move to encourage new citizens (5.7–8), then to allow them to members of the lower classes to participate in the jury (7.10–12), and finally that the senate size would be increased, and the voting be done in secret (11.2–7).
Seneca’s (ca. 4 BCE–65 CE) Epistles are interesting in their context as they were written during Seneca’s “retirement” as he was exiled by Nero. The letters are addressed to his friend Lucillius, a procurator in Sicily. It seems like Lucillius had Epicurean tendencies, which gives these epistles a strongly moral and philosophical tone as Seneca addresses him as a Stoic.
Pliny the Younger was a successful senator during the reigns of Domitian, Nerva, and Trajan. The letters give an extensive background and understanding of Pliny the Younger’s career. Thus, Pliny’s Letters give us a good historical account of both him as an individual and Roman society during his time. The Letters, furthermore, give us a highly positive account of Pliny as the ideal citizen and family-man. Probably the most famous parts of his correspondence comes from Letters 10.96–97, as the first letter details how Pliny interrogated and tortured Christians, and the second letter from Trajan approves his procedure.
NT Correlations
Obviously, these letters provide a context for how letters were written in the ancient world and thus provide a point of comparison for the NT letters. For such comparisons, I recommend Hans-Josef Klauck’s Ancient Letters and the New Testament. Otherwise, there are three particular correlations worth noting. One, we have already commented on Paul’s teaching about humility in contrast to what we see in some of these letters—particularly from Cicero—but the imagery of the triumphal procession itself also provides background for the language of texts like 1 Cor 4 and 2 Cor 2. Two, obviously, Pliny’s letters provide important context for understanding how persecution of Christians happened within the first century of Christianity’s inception. Three, Seneca’s letters with his moral counsel often resonated with the early Christians as sounding like Paul. He was widely regarded as one who prepared the way for the gospel and Christian teaching among the pagans. In fact, there is an apocryphal collection of letters purporting to be correspondence between Paul and Seneca with each recognizing the other’s brilliance (Letters of Paul and Seneca). Christian moral teachers found in Stoicism, especially as represented by Seneca, a worthwhile resource for building their own moral instruction with more Christian distinctives. The observations of correlations these early Christians found were predecessors to the analyses of today—particularly among those like Troels Engberg-Pedersen—who suggest that Stoicism was a formative influence on the NT itself. I do not agree with such arguments, but they must be explored another time. What matters to note for now is that there is enough resonance that many generations of Christians have had sympathy for aspects of Stoicism, in large part because of Seneca.
Novels
Apuleius, Metamorphoses (LCL 44, 453)
Petronius, Satyricon (portions)(LCL 15)
It is uncertain which Petronius wrote the Satyricon, but the general belief is that it was Gaius Petronius (ca. 27 CE–66 CE), who would have written during the reign of Nero. This text is considered difficult to classify, but the best overall description of it is that it combines the genres of satire and romance in a novel-length story, even if the story that is extant is remarkably incomplete. The episodic narration features scenes that are farcical, lurid, grotesque, and risible as Petronius presents a profoundly caricatured reflection of Roman society. Satyricon is considered a valuable source for recovering perspectives, speech, social relations, and daily life for Rome’s lower classes, with whom most of our sources have little interest. It is especially known for the scene of Trimalchio’s dinner (27–78)—which is hosted by an ostentatious freedman flaunting his wealth—and how it vividly and satirically portrays dinner customs and the social dynamics illustrated therein. Also noteworthy for our purposes is the fact that even this novel demonstrates the importance of certain stories to Rome. On two occasions, the old poet Eumolpus spins verses about the fall of Troy (89) and the harrowing events of Caesar’s Civil War (119–124). (Still, I would not at all recommend reading this work straight through, not least because of the scene of sexual torture.)
Commonly known as the Golden Ass, Apuleius’s (ca. 124 CE–ca. 170 CE) Metamorphoses consists of eleven books. The story begins with the hero Lucius who involves himself in many farcical journeys on the path towards eventually falling in love with a slave girl whose mistress is a witch who transforms at night into an owl. The slave girl, Fotis, takes Lucius to witness this great transformation and afterwards they sneak to try the salve that turns the witch into an owl for themselves. Except, Lucius tries the wrong salve and is turned into a donkey. Lucius then goes on a series of misadventures until he can become human once again. In the final book, after a vision of the Queen of Heaven, Lucius involves himself within a city procession in honor of the goddess Isis. As instructed, Lucius eats a crown of roses held by one of Isis’s priests, and upon returning to human form, he becomes devoted to the cult of Isis.
NT Correlation
These novels attest—satirically or otherwise—to the values and perspectives that shaped the Roman world in which the NT was written. This includes even the mythological foundation we have noted previously, but it also especially comes through in the values surrounding meals as social events (and thus what could be in the background of such texts as 1 Cor 8–11). Apuleius’s novel is also one of our chief sources on the cult of Isis, one of the major cults that Christianity had to struggle against in the Mediterranean world. The miraculous transformation followed by devotion to a goddess resonates—albeit in stark contrast to the manner, means, and miracle workers involved—with stories of miracles in the NT.