This paper will examine intertextual references between the Dialogus of Tacitus and the letters of Pliny, in particular those regarding boar hunting. It will argue that there are clues in the letters of Pliny which can help us to understand the relationship between these two writers as well as the tone and purpose of the Dialogus. By studying Pliny's letters to Tacitus on hunting , one can see the specific reference to boars as an allusion to Marcus Aper, the chief (...) spokesperson for contemporary eloquence in the dialogue, indicating a degree of humor and irony in the Dialogus that is further displayed by the similarity of Pliny's opening exhortation in Epistle 1.6, ridebis et licet rideas, to the final words of the Dialogus, cum adrisissent, discessimus. Moreover, the dialogue between Pliny and Tacitus in Pliny's letters can be seen as an indication that the Dialogus itself may have been revised throughout the years, thus problematizing the debate about the “publication date” of the Dialogus. (shrink)

This essay explores an aspect of Cicero's use of cultural writing for political ends: his employment of the epideictic rhetorical mode in two of his speeches, Pro Archia and In Pisonem. The epideictic is a ludic rhetorical domain that embraces paradoxes: it encompasses both praise and blame, is both markedly Greek and proximate to the Romans' laudatio funebris, and is associated both with textual fixity and viva voce improvisation. The epideictic mode is thus an ideal vehicle for Cicero's self-fashioning and, (...) moreover, constitutes a framework which reveals that Cicero's encomiastic defense of Archias' Roman citizenship and his invective against his aristocratic nemesis Piso are polar and complementary opposites. The self-consciously literary quality of epideictic allows Cicero to transform the Pro Archia from a legal defense to a general meditation on literary culture in which Cicero blurs himself with his client to defend his own status within Rome's elite while fixing his version of his consulate in ornate prose. The Pro Archia simultaneously becomes a simulacrum of the poem which Cicero hopes Archias will write and Cicero's own pre-mortem funeral oration. Yet the Pro Archia's suppressed legal arguments pregure the eventual failure of his immediate self-fashioning aims. The In Pisonem's invective inverts the Pro Archia's self-fashioning strategies in order to debunk Piso's image and to recuperate Cicero's own prestige at the expense of Piso's. The In Pisonem has the same long-range cultural ambitions as the Pro Archia, but without the previous speech's hopes for tangible short-term success. Faced with his inability to cause Piso real political damage, Cicero crafts an ornately polished caricature of Piso designed to achieve canonical longevity. Cicero's reception by the orators of Seneca's Suasoriae and Controversiae gives evidence of the successes, and limitations, of these long-term cultural goals. (shrink)

This article argues that the end of Tacitus's Dialogus de Oratoribus is inconclusive in ways that draw attention to the difficulty of interpretation not only of the dialogue, as by modern scholars, but also in the dialogue, as by its leading characters. The inconclusiveness is especially marked by a commonly noted, but little discussed, feature of the end: when the rest of the characters laugh at the point of departure, Tacitus himself does not. Arguing that this difference of affective response (...) on the part of the characters prefigures differences in interpretive response on the part of readers, the article identifies different strains in recent scholarship: pessimistic and optimistic. Both forms of response entail an attribution of a “poetics of conspiracy” (Hinds) to the ultimate speaker of the dialogue, the author Tacitus, and a “hermeneutics of suspicion” (Ricoeur) to its reader. At the same time, the author's double-position, as character and author, between narrated event and narration of the event to the reader, suggests that the other characters in the dialogue may, like the author and reader, also exercise such poetics and hermeneutics on one another and themselves. The article ends with the comparandum of the first satire of Tacitus's near contemporary, Juvenal, suggesting that, in the case of these works that can look with hindsight on the social and political past of the Early Empire, their modes of transmission and reception may be politically determined (e.g., as conspiratorial, suspicious) but may also demonstrate, within the restrictions of social and political determinations, a high degree of contingency, reflexivity, and autonomy. Such possibilities suggest that the text itself is part of a pragmatic and performative tradition of the kind enacted by its characters, in addition to a tradition of the production of (comparatively static and unfree) “literary” works. (shrink)