RUTLEDGE. Delatores and The Tradition of Violence in Roman Oratory PDF

Delatores and the Tradition of Violence in Roman Oratory
Author(s): Steven H. Rutledge

Source: The American Journal of Philology, Vol. 120, No. 4 (Winter, 1999), pp. 555-573
Published by: Johns Hopkins University Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1561805
Accessed: 12-01-2016 19:25 UTC
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Johns Hopkins University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The American Journal
of Philology.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 198.91.37.2 on Tue, 12 Jan 2016 19:25:54 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
DELATORES AND THE TRADITION OF VIOLENCE
IN ROMAN ORATORY
Steven H. Rutledge
Two very prominent

scholars have asserted that oratory became
more violent
and aggressive during the early Principate, as delatores
(professional accusers and informants) came to dominate the genre.1
This assumption has a place in a number of studies on Roman history,
culture, and literature which accept their premise.2 However, such an
assumption, before it is accepted, needs to be set in the larger context
of Roman oratory over the period from the Republic to the Empire. It
is my object here to do just that, for I propose that the new style?one
which is generally perceived as more violent?represents not so much a
change as a continuity in Roman rhetorical practice, and that the per?
ceived transformation is more a product of how our sources represent
orators in the first century CE. rather than oratory's metamorphosis
into something with a perceptibly more violent style. To that end my ar?
gument has two parts. First, we need to put professional accusers into
their republican as well as imperial context. Professional accusers in
xSee Syme 1958, 100, characterizing their oratory as "violent, aggressive, savage,
and pointed"; see also Winterbottom 1964, 94: "Regulus himself knew what his oratory
was like. He enjoyed contrasting himself with Pliny. 'Tu omnia quae sunt in causa putas
exsequenda; ego iugulum statim video, hunc premo.' There, uniquely and memorably,
speaks the violent oratory of the delatores ... Regulus, in fact, was not just a violent and
unscrupulous orator. He could see himself in a wide literary context, and recognize that
he, and orators like him for nearly a hundred years, were, for good reasons quite unlike
Cicero." I use the term "professional accuser" throughout this essay as a convenient term
for orators who specialized in accusation.
2See, e.g., Kennedy 1972, 440-42; Williams 1978, 26-51; Brink 1993, 340; Brink
1989, 496; and Barnes 1986, 237 (representative of the opinion held by other scholars):
"[Aper] betrays himself completely when he names his oratorical heroes (Eprius Marcel-
lus and Vibius Crispus). The manner [of Aper's speech] as weil as the content mark the
man on the make: Aper speaks vehemently and intently, and he launches into his second
speech by rudely interrupting Messalla (16.4)." For discussion of Aper as a problematic
and ambiguous character see Champion 1994, astutely setting Aper in his larger historical
and cultural context.
AmericanJournal
ofPhilology
120(1999)
555-573
? 2000
byTheJohns
Hopkins Press
University
556 STEVEN H. RUTLEDGE
particular were by no means exclusive to the Empire, and even in Cic?

ero's time they were associated with a more violent style.3 After we set
them in their larger historical context, we may then set them in their
rhetorical context: Roman rhetorical theorists
expected prosecution, in
which delatores specialized, to be more
violent by its very nature?
something generally overlooked by scholars. All of this is not to deny
that rhetoric underwent a fundamental change between the Republic
and Empire; that is indisputable. Rather, I suggest that given the nature
of what delatores did, in and of itself, and given our sources, it is very
difficult to conclude that the style of delatores was essentially more
"savage and aggressive" than that of their predecessors under the Re?
public. It was the inherent nature of Roman oratory and the ever-com-
petitive milieu of Roman politics?during both the Republic and the
Empire?which worked in unison to create such continuity. It is the na?
ture of our sources under the Empire, on the other hand, which has led
scholars to a distorted
impression of oratory in the first century ce.
Let us turn first to accusatio under the Republic. Accusation ap?
pears to have always been a morally dubious undertaking, and the re-
vulsion felt by Tacitus and Pliny under the Empire at those who pur-
sued it professionally was by no means unique to their age. Cicero, our
main source for this activity during the late Republic, by all indica-
tions felt accusation generally unethical and something to be avoided,
for while he noted that it could indeed make a reputation, he also re-
marked that prosecution ought to be undertaken only in certain circum?
stances.4 Pursuit of such activity, if it turned into a habit, could become
3It should be noted that the word delator used to refer to an orator who specialized
in accusation is post-Augustan (with the exceptions of Livy 42.17, 45.31) and was "popu-
larized" by Tacitus in the sense we have come to know it. He uses the word to refer to
professional accusers and informants both, painting these creatures with a broad brush
(Hist. 1.2.3).
4See Cic. Off. 2.49-50, citing L. Crassus, M. Antonius, P. Sulpicius, and G. Nor-
banus as men who had made their mark initially through accusing prominent figures in
Roman politics. For discussion see Dyke 1996, 432-35; also Holden 1966, 310-12. Cf. Cic.
Quinct. 51 (which seems to prefigure Regulus' comment concerning rhetoric in Plin. Ep.
1.20.14);Div. Caec. passim; Rosc. Am. 55, 57; Clu. 11, 42; and cf. Verr.2.3.1;Brut. 130; Quint.
Inst. 12.7.3;Mommsen 1899, 490-94, 189 n. 6. Indeed, in Divinatio in Caecilium 5 Cicero
represents his prosecution of Verres as tantamount to a defense to secure the goodwill of
his audience. Romans appear to have been indulgent toward prosecutors in certain cir?
cumstances: prosecution was acceptable if the accuser acted out of pietas, as was the case
with Atratinus in his prosecution of M. Caelius. Caelius had prosecuted Atratinus' father;
DELATORES AND VIOLENCE IN ROMAN ORATORY 557
an embarrassment for the accuser's family, as Cicero indicates it was for

M. Brutus': Isdem temporibus M. Brutus, in quo magnum fuit, Brute,
dedecus generi vestro, qui, cum tanto nomine esset patremque optimum
virum habuisset et iuris peritissimum, accusationem factitaverit (Brut.
130). But even if it was not the habit of an individual to accuse, it was
necessary to justify at length the acceptance of a case for the prosecu?
tion, as Cicero illustrates in his apology, in Divinatio in Caecilium (pas-
sim), for taking up the accusation against Verres. That prosecution was
an ethically questionable activity is by no means in doubt; we see an in?
herent bias against prosecution in Rome in Cicero's day, one which was
carried over into the Empire and which left its mark on our sources.5
This did not prevent orators, however, from habitually undertak-
ing prosecutions. One of the initial indications that orators had started
to specialize in accusation is found in Cicero's Pro S. Roscio Amerino
(89-90), where he notes that the dominatio of Cinna and Sulla served as
impetus for such activity:6
Verum ego forsitan propter multitudinem patronorum in grege adnume-

rer, te pugna Cannensis accusatorem sat bonum fecit. Multos caesos non
ad Trasumenum lacum, sed ad Servilium vidimus. Quis ibi non est vul-
neratus ferro Phrygio? Non necesse est omnes commemorare Curtios,
Marios, denique Memmios, quos iam aetas a proeliis avocabat, postremo
Priamum ipsum senem, Antistium, quem non modo aetas, sed etiam leges
pugnare prohibebant. Iam quos nemo propter ignobilitatem nominat, ses-
centi sunt, qui inter sicarios et de veneficiis accusabant; qui omnes, quod
ad me attinet, vellem viverent.
That the practice of accusing professionally was well established by Cic?

ero's day is indicated not only in Pro S. Roscio Amerino but elsewhere
in his works. Indeed, perhaps the most significant evidence for this ac-
hence Atratinus' attack against Caelius was understandable, even to Caelius' defenders
(Cic. Cael. 2). Prosecution was also acceptable when young men were just embarking on
their careers and eager to build a reputation. See, e.g., Cic. Cael. 76; Dig. 48.5.16.6; and
Tac. Dial. 34.7, citing Caesar's prosecution of Dolabella, Asinius Pollio's prosecution of
Cato, and Calvus' prosecution of Vatinius.
5The bias against accusation may have been in place weil before Cicero's own day.
See Plaut. Persa 61-14, denouncing the greed of quadrupulatores] for discussion of the ac?
tivities of quadrupulatores during the Republic see Cloud 1992, 175-86.
6For a general discussion of the dominatio of Cinna and Sulla and the trials that
ensued see Gruen 1968, 215-78.
tivity is found in Brutus, a work in which Cicero also gives us a glimpse

of the sort of rhetoric these speakers practiced. From every indication it
was harsh stuff, and virtually every individual he cites as a notorious ac-
cuser is characterized as using a style which was vehemens, acer, acer-
bus, or the like. The first well-known (and notorious) accusator he men?
tions in Brutus is M. Brutus (a relative of M. Brutus, Caesar's assassin),
who apparently made a regular profession out of prosecution (Brut.
130) and who, as an accuser, was violent and irksome, fuit accusator ve?
hemens et molestus.1 Cicero thereby sets the stage for the other accusa-
tores whose style he assesses in his work. The next notorious accusator
whose style he notes is L. Sabellius, whom he calls an infimus homo
(Brut. 131); he claims that he never heard anyone who could speak in a
more insinuating or incriminating manner, qui suspiciosius aut crimino-
sius diceret audivisse me neminem. The characterization of Sabellius'
style as criminosius is telling, for while the word can mean "reproach-
ful," it also had come, by Cicero's time, to be associated specifically with
accusation, which in turn (as he shows elsewhere) is expressly con?
nected with a violent manner of speaking.8 C. and L. Memmius are then
noted as orators of mediocre quality, but they were apparently fierce
and harsh prosecutors who chose the role of accuser more often than
that of defender and in that capacity were violent and harsh: accusatores
acres atque acerbi; itaque in iudicium capitis multos vocaverunt, pro reis
non saepe dixerunt (Brut. 136).9 Cicero indicates that this was the ex?
pected style for accusatores in his assessment of Q. Rubrius Varro, acer
et vehemens accusator, in eo genere sane probabilis (Brut. 168). Equally
telling about the style of accusers is Cicero's remark concerning Philip-
pus, whose oratory had both the violence and the fullness suited to a
prosecutor, cuius in testimoniio contentio et vim accusatoris habebat et
copiam (Brut. 304).10
7For this M. Brutus see Cic. Clu. 140-41; Sumner 1973, 77. He prosecuted M. Scau?
rus de repetundis (Cic. Font. 38), although the date is uncertain; see Gruen 1968, 125;
Bloch 1909, 26. For his prosecution of C (Munatius) Plancus (possibly before 91) see RE
X s.v. Iunius (50); Gruen 1966, 59; Alexander 1990,19.
8See Cic. Clu. 94, ille autem acerbus, criminosius, popularis homo ac turbulentus.
9See Alexander 1990, 25; Sumner 1973, 85-90. The Memmii brothers may have
gained their reputation in wake of the massacre at Cirta (according to Sumner, citing Sall.
lug. 26); they are the same Memmii mentioned by Cicero in Rose. Am. 90.
10Cicero also tells us something of the style which marked accusatio when he re?
marks on the style of accusations practiced by M. Caelius and M. Cato. He describes the
accusationes taken up by Caelius (who, it is implied, took up more than his share) as acres
(Brut. 273). Cf. his description of Cato the Elder in De Or. 1.227, where he indicates that
Beyond this direct discussion in Brutus, Cicero provides other in-

dications that a more violent style was inherently a part of accusatio.
Thus at one point in Brutus he relates how, in the case of Quintus Gal-
lius, in which he spoke for the defense, he was able to exploit the fact
that the accuser, M. Calidius, did not use in his attack a violent, emotive
style which was suited to an accusation; this ultimately cost Calidius his
case. Cicero's counterattack, as he himself recalls it, went as follows:
Tu istuc, M. Calidi, nisi fingeres, sic ageres? praesertim cum ista eloquen-
tia alienorum hominum pericula defendere acerrime soleas, tuum negle-
geres? Ubi dolor? ubi ardor animi, qui etiam ex infantium ingeniis elicere
voces et querelas solet? Nulla perturbatio animi nulla corporis, frons non
percussa non femur, pedis, quod minimum est, nulla supplosio. Itaque
tantum afuit ut inflammares nostros animos, somnum isto loco vix tene-
bamus. (Brut. 278)
Thus because Calidius did not display the impassioned style befitting an
accusation, Cicero was able to break down his opponent's argument as
specious.
Brutus gives us our best view of the style suited to accusation in
general under the Republic?although Cicero's own speeches are not
wanting in generally violent depictions of the prosecution. Unfortu-
nately, these speeches are of little use for our assessment, since in them
(as opposed to Brutus) Cicero will have had an interest in misrepre-
senting his opponents' speeches, depicting them as excessively violent
or harsh.11 Nonetheless, Brutus shows that there was indeed a speci?
fic style?fierce and biting?associated with accusation. And Cicero's
characterization of republican accusers, in which their style is variously
described as vehemens, acer, or acerbus, sounds remarkably similar to
the style (and let me emphasize just style, as opposed to character) em?
ployed by some of the most notorious delatores under the Empire.
Cato was not above using a rough style for accusation, noting that he had attacked Galba
aspere et vehementer in his speech which was still extant in Cicero's time: idemque
Servium Galbam, quem hominem probe commeminisse se aiebat, pergraviter reprehendere
solebat, quod is, L. Scribonio quaestionem in eum ferente, populi misericordiam concitasset,
cum M. Cato, Galbae gravis atque acer inimicus, aspere apud populum Romanum et vehe?
menter esset locutus, quam orationem in Originibus suis exposuit ipse.
11For a discussion on this point see Gotoff 1986,
esp. 126. For Cicero's depiction of
accusers as particularly violent see, e.g., Cael. 25; Sest. 135;Rosc. Am. 62,152; Scaur. fr. 2.6;
Deiot. 2, 30; Sull. 35, 46, 48; Flacc. 2; Quinct. 66.
The style which came to be associated with delatores originated

with Cassius Severus, although he himself was not a delator per se.12 His
rhetoric is specifically discussed in three sources, Seneca the Elder,
Quintilian, and Tacitus, and all remark one quality in particular, his
acerbitas.13, Cassius Severus commenced his career under Augustus and
lived weil into the reign of Tiberius; he was an intimation of what was to
come. One of his initial successors under Tiberius was Fulcinius Trio, a
delator who was involved in the prosecution of Piso in 20 C.E. (Tac.
Ann. 3.13.2). At the end of the case Trio received an imperial commen?
dation, which was tempered by a warning from Tiberius to tone down
the violence of his speech, monuit ne facundiam violentia praecipitaret
(Ann. 3.19.1).14 Domitius Afer was yet another Tiberian delator who de?
liberately modified his style, according to Quintilian, so that his speech
would have a harsher tone to it, traiicere in clausulas verba tantum as-
perandae compositionis gratia (Inst. 9.4.31).15 Hispo too was a notorious
12SeeWinterbottom 1964, 90. Cassius Severus did, however, take a greater pleasure
in accusation than he ought to have, according to Seneca the Elder (Controv. 3 praef. 5)
and Quintilian (Inst. 11.1.57). For Cassius Severus as the popularizer of a new (senten-
tious) style see Tac. Dial. 19.1-2, 26.4-5.
13Forsome of Cassius' more bitter comments and his harsh style see Sen. Controv.
4 praef. 2, 10 praef. 8. For his fighting manner and his use of the image of a gladiator see
Controv. 3 praef. 13-14; cf. Controv. 3 praef. 10, 17, and Plin. NH 7.55; for discussion see
Sinclair 1995, 122-32. The image of speech as a weapon was by no means new or unique
to the rhetoric of the Empire; see, e.g., Cic. De Or. 1.242, a quo cum amentatas hastas ac-
ceperit, ipse eas oratoris lacertis viribusque torquebit; cf. Quinct. 8. See also Tac. Dial. 26.4
for Messalla's judgment on Cassius: plus bilis habeat quam sanguinis. Cf. also Quint. Inst.
8.3.89; 10.1.117,sed plus stomacho quam consilio dedit; cf. also 11.1.57, 12.10.11.For dis?
cussion see Winterbottom 1964, 91. For the more urbane side to Cassius' style see Sen.
Controv. 2.4.11, 3 praef. 4-5, 7.3.10, 9.3.14, 10 praef. 8; Suas. 6.11; Quint. Inst. 6.1.43,
6.3.78-79, 8.2.2, 10.1.116-17,11.3.133;Suet. Gram. 22.1; Tac. Dial. 26.5.
14ThatTrio ignored Tiberius' warning we may divine from his will and the scathing
attack in it against Sertorius Macro, Tiberius' praetorian praefect. In 35 ce. Trio was at?
tacked (ingruentis accusatores) presumably for friendship with Seianus (Ann. 6.38.1). He
anticipated condemnation by suicide, but not before he made public his will with harsh
words against Macro, as well as certain imperial freedmen, and the emperor himself
(6.38.2).
15Thisaspect of Afer's style is generally suppressed in Quintilian, whose admira-
tion for Afer is apparent (Inst. 5.7.7, 10.1.118,12.10.11).The only accusation of Afer's that
Quintilian mentions (6.3.81) is that of a freedman of Claudius, a case which would have
been to Afer's credit. For discussion concerning the relationship of Quintilian to Afer see
Winterbottom 1964, 92. In Quintilian Afer also comes off as a notable wit (5.10.79, 6.3.27,
32, 42, 54, 68, 81, 84-85, 92-94); cf. Cass. Dio (Xiph.) 61.33.8.
delator known for a style which was composed spitefully and in the
manner of an accuser, maligne et accusatorie (Sen. Controv. 2.5.20); ve?
hemens, durus, and asperior are other adjectives Seneca used to de?
scribe Hispo's style throughout his Controversiae (e.g., 2.4.9).16 Laelius
Balbus, one of the last of the delatores to make his mark under Ti?
berius, was noted by Tacitus for his savage eloquence and his readiness
to pounce on the innocent, Balbus truci eloquentia habebatur, promptus
adversum insontes
(Ann. 6.48.6).
The reigns of Claudius, Nero, and the Flavians are noteworthy for
a number of delatores who practiced a rough-and-ready eloquence.
Suillius was active under Claudius, and Tacitus notes his audacia (Ann.
11.5.1) and his acerbitas (11.43.3).17 Eprius Marcellus commenced his ca-
reer under Nero, and Tacitus characterized him as torvus ac minax, voce
vultu oculis ardescens. Having made his name as one of Thrasea Paetus'
prosecutors, Eprius became noted for his fierce eloquence, acer elo?
quentia (Ann. 16.28-29), for his threatening demeanor (he is consis?
tently described as minax in Dialogus de Oratoribus, Annales, and His?
toriae), and for his violence.18 Some of the most prominent and vicious
talents arose under the Flavian emperors. Of these Regulus, whose ca-
16Seealso Controv. 1.2.13 and 9.1.11 (where Seneca's remark is made in reference to
a tough line of questioning Hispo took in a declamation against a defendant). See further
Controv. 9.3.11 (in reference to the nature of Hispo's invective against the accused). Hispo
was known for following a very rough path of speaking (Hispo Romanius erat natura qui
asperiorem dicendi viam sequeretur), and it is perhaps significant that Seneca notes in
declamationes that Hispo more frequently chose the side of the prosecution rather than
the defense. Seneca specifically comments on Hispo's use of accusatoria pugnacitas (the
combativeness of an accuser) in his declamations, a quality which emerges in his rhetoric
more than once. See Controv. 1.2.16, Hispo Romanius accusatoria usus pugnacitate, and,
e.g., 1.3.6, 1.6.9, for just how vicious Hispo's rhetoric could be. Hispo's nomen (Romanus
or Romanius) is problematic; see Badian 1973 (with a convincing argument for Roma?
nus); Syme 1949, 14-15.
17Tacitussupports his characterization in the blistering assault he has Suillius de-
liver against Seneca, which uncovers the false pretenses and corruption on which Seneca's
own life was based (Ann. 13.42.1-8).
18WhenEprius prosecuted Thrasea, writes Tacitus, he attacked maiore vi, with very
great violence, and reproached the Senate for its excessive gentility, nimium mitis ad eam
diem patres (Ann. 16.28.1-2). Tacitus uses minax to describe Eprius on more than one oc?
casion; thus in reference to a bitter exchange between Eprius and Helvidius Priscus in the
Senate in 70 c.e., Eprius is said (by Aper) to be girded for battle and threatening, accinc-
tus et minax (Dial. 5.7). Something further may be adduced about Eprius' style by the
context of Aper's discussion: Aper asserts that eloquence is a weapon for both attack and
defense; it is Eprius who furnishes the comparanda between orator and warrior.
reer actually started in Nero's reign (Tac. Hist. 4.42), is the most infa-
mous, and he is depicted negatively by Pliny the Younger, who noted
that Regulus had nothing to offer praeter ingenium insanum (Ep. 4.7.4).
Pliny in fact knew Regulus personally and relates a premise of Regulus'
oratory which he had been appalled to receive from Regulus himself:
Tu omnia quae sunt in causa putas exsequenda; ego iugulum statim vi-
deo, hunc premo (Ep. 1.20.14). He notes more than once the violence
which pervaded Regulus' language. These instances include the ugly re?
marks Regulus made in a published speech against the dead Arulenus
Rusticus (one of his victims under Domitian), referring to him as a
"Stoic ape" (Stoicorum simiam) and as "branded with a Vitellian scar"
(Vitelliana cicatrice stigmosum)?a harsh attack, which was a hallmark
of Regulus' oratory (agnoscis eloquentiam Reguli, Ep. 1.5.2).19 Pliny also
writes (Ep. 7.4.5) that Regulus' oratory bore the stamp of madness (fu?
ror) and insolence (impudentia) and provoked the jibe from Herennius
Senecio that Regulus was vir maius dicendi imperitus?the opposite of
Cato's definition of an orator. Regulus had some company under the
Flavians. Mettius Carus rose to prominence under Domitian; as was the
case with his predecessor, Eprius Marcellus, a threatening tone appears
to have been his signature style, quaerente minaciter Mettio Caro (Ep.
7.19.5). Catullus Messalinus was another whose cruel rhetoric finds com?
ment in Pliny; he knew neither fear, nor shame, nor pity and was him?
self used like a weapon by Domitian to fly unthinkingly and blindly
against any mark (Ep. 4.22.5).
Whenthe professional accusatores of the Republic and the dela?
tores of the Empire are juxtaposed, one may readily see a common
thread of violence which marks their style; it is now time to account for
why this is the case. The reason is found, in part, in the very nature of
accusation itself as practiced in Rome under both the Republic and the
Empire. There was something inherent in accusation, according to Ro?
man rhetoricians, which was either violent by nature or which could
easily lead to such an impression. Recognition of this fact led them to
develop what was tantamount to a theory of accusation.20 All of our
19Indeed, Pliny writes that Regulus lashed out so violently against Herennius Se-
necio, a victim of Carus' under Domitian, that Carus himself was forced to retort, "Quid
tibi cum meis mortuis? Numquid ego Crasso aut Camerino molestus sum?" (Ep. 1.5.2-4).
20Winterbottom (1964, 90) is not far from the truth in noting that delatores had
something virtually equivalent to a theory of violent oratory. But we can go beyond him
and further note that it was a theory arguably already in place during the Republic.
major writers in this area, the author of the Rhetorica ad Herennium,

Cicero, and Quintilian, note that accusation by its very nature was vio?
lent.21 Terror, treachery, and singularity of purpose were the founda?
tion blocks of the accusator, whose task was to excite odium, ira, and
invidia in his audience by drawing a caricature of the accused based on
innuendo and probability.22 The accuser found himself at a certain ad-
vantage, according to Quintilian, because accusation was easier than
defense and lent itself to a more powerful presentation. This was some?
thing Cicero had already recognized, weil before Quintilian; he remarks
in De Inventione (2.53) that the prosecutor has the advantage of a
clearly marked end, which makes for a lucid (and no doubt pointed)
presentation of his case. For his part, Quintilian advises the accuser to
begin his case with questions of a seemingly irrelevant and innocent na?
ture, to throw the opponent off balance (Inst. 5.7.17-18, 27). Having
commenced his oration with this treacherous maneuver, the accuser is
at his (relative) ease to relax: there is less concern for the prosecution's
presentation since it tends to be simpler, more straightforward, and vo-
ciferous (recta atque clamosa), whereas defense is more difficult, for it
involves refutation, which requires numerous strategems, hinc mille
flexus et artes desiderantur (5.13.2). Moreover, the accuser has the ad?
vantage of preparation, whereas the defense (who is not privy to his op-
ponent's plan of attack) must answer both the prosecutor and his wit?
nesses (5.13.3). All of these things work to the prosecution's advantage;
it is easier to inflict wounds than to cure them (5.13.3).
One of the more important aspects of prosecution was the ability
to caricature the defendant, to present him or her in as negative a light
as possible in order to rouse the audience's emotions. Quintilian in par?
ticular notes the significant role that caricature plays in a prosecution's
success. Whether the orator will prevail or not depends not on the
crime itself, but on how the prosecution represents it. The character of
the accused must be represented in such a way that it corresponds to
the type of crime the defendant is accused of having committed. Thus
Quintilian advises the orator to depict one accused of theft as greedy,
21See Quint. Inst. 10.1.30,

noting that it is the orator's task in general to strike ter-
ror into the hearts of his opponents. Cf. Cic. De Or. 2.185-91 and Sen. Dial. 4.17.1,which
expresses what appears to have been a general principle: "Orator," inquit, "iratus ali-
quando melior est."
22See Cic. De Or. 3.217, observing that anger takes on and requires a particular
style: Aliud enim vocis genus iracundia sibi sumat, acutum, incitatum, crebro incidens.
one accusedof adultery as lecherous, and one accused of homicide as

rash (Inst. 4.2.52, 7.2.15, 7.2.28). The prosecution should exploit age, so?
cial status, and the occasion to excite the emotions of the jury (6.1.16). If
no argument based on character is possible, the accuser can argue that
there must always be a first step in crime (7.2.33). It is the place of the
accuser to argue that certain motives (especially fear, anger, hatred, and
greed) can move any man to commit a crime; but if no motive can be
found, then the accuser should note that a crime without a motive is by
far more heinous (7.2.35-36). The accuser should also present the facts
of his case in a suspicious manner, through innuendo (4.2.81), and use
amplificatio in his depiction of the accused to east his or her actions in
a malicious light.23 Hence Quintilian urges his student to add a touch
of spite when prosecuting (adiecit invidiam), to exacerbate the case
through his words (rem verbis exasperavit), to incense in his conclusion,
and to leave all his hearers full of anger, peroratio incendit etplenos irae
reliquit (4.2.75).
This emotive aspect of accusatio no doubt added to the perception
that it was more aggressive; it was the task of the prosecution to excite
feelings of anger and hatred in the audience and to drive away all pity.
Seneca the Elder noted that prosecution's use of harsh diction (amari-
tudo) for the vilification of the defendant was a mainstay of accusation
(Controv. 9.2.28), and Quintilian remarks that it was the task of the ac?
cuser to rouse his audience (Inst. 6.1.9): the peroration offers the orator
a particularly excellent opportunity to excite anger or hatred against the
defendant (6.1.14). And if the orator is to be successful in instilling cer?
tain emotions in his audience, he must express the very emotions he
hopes to arouse: An ille dolebit, qui audiet me, qui in hoc dicam, non do-
lentem? irascetur, si nihil ipse, qui in iram concitat se idque exigit, similia
patietur? siccis agentis oculis lacrimas dabit? Fieri non potest (6.2.27-
28). The accuser must be remorseless and unrelenting, driving away all
sympathy from the accused, saepius id est accusatoris avertere iudicem a
miseratione (6.1.20); he must, in short, make the defendant's crime ap?
pear as savage as possible, quam atrocissimum (6.1.15).
That Quintilian's remarks concerning accusatio were not necessar-
ily based entirely on delatores, their influence, and the style of rhetoric
23Cf.Albinus De Arte Rhet. Dial. 16 = Halm 533: accusator intentione ad amplifi-

candam causam.
they practiced in his day, is supported by Cicero and the author of Rhe?
torica ad Herennium; both note this more aggressive aspect of oratory
weil before the advent of delatores under the Empire.24 Caricature of
the accused and violent emotional appeal to obtain conviction had al?
ways had a place in oratory. Cicero notes in De Inventione (2.108) that
the accuser may east any good done by the accused into a bad light by
magnifying the accused's offenses; the prosecutor must attribute even
ostensibly good deeds to cruelty, ill will, or other ulterior motives.25 The
author of Rhetorica ad Herennium likewise asserts that increasing the
crime leads the listener to anger, peccatum amplificans auditorem ad
iracundiam adducit (3.13.24). It was a point of attack for Cicero in Di-
vinatio in Caecilium that Caecilius, because of his self-interest
in the
case, would be unable to rouse himself sufficiently to sway the emotions
of his audience, and Cicero asked him directly (38) whether he believed
that he would be able to do that which a prosecutor was obliged above
all to do, to make those things done out of lust, wickedness, or cruelty
seem equally bitter and ignominious to the audience: Putasne te posse,
id quod in huius modi reo maxime necessarium est, facere ut quae ille li-
bidinose, quae nefarie, quae crudeliter fecerit, ea aeque acerba et indigna
videantur esse his qui audient atque illis visa sunt qui senserunt? Cae?
cilius, in Cicero's view, was incapable of representing Verres' actions in
the way they deserved.26
The ability to rouse the audience to hatred was thus also inextri-
cably connected to the orator's ability to achieve conviction, as Cicero
24That Quintilian's remarks were not merely a response to the type of oratory de?
latores used is also indicated by his misgivings about the activities of delatores, and by his
advocation of a middle ground in accusatio, which he recognized could turn excessive at
times. See Inst. 2.12.4-5, 4.1.10, 4.1.21-22, 5.14.30, 6.2.16, 7.2.34,11.1.57-58. He would by no
means have advocated rhetorical methods associated with delatores, whose actions he
seems to despise; he was also careful to note that there was a difference between accusa?
tion and abuse. Cicero makes the same distinction?it is not merely a view shaped by the
oratory of the first century ce. For Cicero's remarks that the accuser must be careful to
avoid abuse see Verr.2.3.4.
25Cf. Cic. De Or. 1.221, Orator autem omnia haec, quae putantur in communi vitae
consuetudine mala ac molesta et fugienda, multo maiora et acerbiora verbis facit; itemque
ea, quae vulgo expetenda atque optabilia videntur, dicendo amplificat atque ornat. Cf. Verr.
2.3.164, where Cicero notes implicitly that it is in the nature of accusatory speech to exag-
gerate; see also 2.4.2.
26See Brut. 218 for a similar attack against an opponent.
tells his readers in De Oratore (1.202): qui scelus fraudemque nocentis

possit dicendo subicere odio civium supplicioque constringere.27 The ac-
cuser's ultimate task, as he understood it, was to discredit the life of the
accused (Inv. 2.32); such a goal will no doubt have given rise to fierce in?
vective. Aggressive parody of the defendant's character, inciting (and
assuming) anger or hatred to manipulate the audience: these made for
successful prosecutions. How could those whose task it was to accuse,
under the Empire, help but develop reputations as violent orators?
Clearly however, whether under the Republic or the Empire, to accuse
someone entailed harsh rhetoric.
Thus far accusers and the theory of accusation. It is now necessary
to address two important questions. First, whence came the impression
that delatores had a more violent style? Second, how does what we
know of their rhetoric in general compare to what had come itbefore
under the Republic?
In answer to the first question, there are several (virtually self-
evident) reasons for that impression in addition to those already cited.
Chief among them is that ostensibly the stakes had been raised under
the Empire, whereby the end result of accusation was exile or worse.
Consequently how oratory was applied in that era was perceived to
have become substantially more violent?lucrosa et sanguinans elo-
quentia, as Maternus states in Tacitus' Dialogus de Oratoribus (12.2).
But such application of rhetoric was by no means unique to the Empire;
during the Republic the victim
of an accusatio could face equally dire
consequences.28 Among other significant factors for the impression that
rhetoric had turned more violent, weight must be given to the preva-
lence of professional accusers under the Empire and also of the sources
which relate and depict their activities (and characters) in largely nega?
tive terms.29 Given the tendency the Romans had to draw a connection
27Therecan be little doubt that this remark is intended to refer to accusation, for in
the subsequent sentence he deals explicitly, in opposition to his previous discussion, with
defense (De Or. 1.202).
28Some of the better-known men to endure the fate of exile during the Republic
include Verres, Milo, and P. Rutilius Rufus; the accusatio against the father of Q. Lutatius
Catulus by M. Marius Gratidianus led to his suicide. For penalties of the law courts during
the Republic see Epstein 1987, 93. See also Jones 1972, 73-77.
29Tacitus'Historiae and Annales are full of negative characterizations of delatores.
Consider the Tiberian books of the Annales alone, where he simply characterizes (with?
out comment as to their style) the most prominent accusers in pejorative terms: Romanus
Hispo (or possibly Caepio Crispinus; the Latin is ambiguous), 1.74.1-3; Firmius Catus,
between character and style, it is little wonder that there was an im?
pression that rhetorichad grown more acerbic; violent men beget a
harsh style.30 Moreover, Tacitus and Pliny, our two best sources for this
sort of activity, naturally give a negative picture of delatores, and one
can scarcely blame them.31 Their reasons are not hard to find. Senatorial
bias against those who worked against the Senate on the side of the
princeps is one factor. Another is no doubt class bias, since it appears
that a number of delatores had risen to great prominence through the
ranks of the lower orders. The likes of Iunius Otho, Romanus Hispo,
Domitius Afer, Eprius Marcellus, and Vibius Crispus could not have sat
well with more conservative-minded Romans.32 An additional reason
for their distaste will have been that not only were there careers to be
made out of delatio, profits were to be had as well. Hence the disgust
expressed by the likes of Maternus Curiatius in Tacitus' Dialogus de
2.27.2, 4.31.7; Fulcinius Trio, 2.28.3-5; Vibius Serenus the Elder, 2.30.1-2; Iunius Otho and
Bruttedius Niger, 3.66.2-6; Satrius Secundus and Pinarius Natta, 4.34.2; Domitius Afer,
4.52.1-8; Latinius Latiaris, Porcius Cato, Petilius Rufus, and M. Opsius, 4.68-70; D. Lae-
lius Balbus, 6.47.1-2. This list does not include accusers whom Tacitus does not dignify
with editorial comment, letting the case speak for itself. The negative impression adds up
rather quickly.
30For association between style and character see Sen. Controv. 1 praef. 10, talia
habent exempla qualia ingenia. See also Cato's dictum, orator vir bonus dicendi peritus, re?
ported in Quintilian (Inst. 12.1.1) and Seneca (Controv. 1 praef. 9) and parodied by one of
Pliny's friends (Ep. 4.7.5) as vir maius dicendi imperitus. (For context see discussion above,
on Regulus.)
31But this, in and of itself, is problematic, since their own narratives are
highly criti?
cal of the early principes and their supporters. It has been noted that in the course of the
fifty-four years covered by Tacitus' Annales (14-68 C.E.) the number of dead is relatively
small, around 55 (Barthes 1982, 162-66). Even were we to include exiles and impeach-
ments, and even if we should have Tacitus' entire work intact, the count would certainly
be nowhere near the level and concentration of dead we find in the Sullan proscriptions.
The impression is a result of Tacitus' senatorial bias, which focuses on the destruction of
members of his own order, and of his own idiosyncratic representation of the early Princi?
pate. Since he depicts delatores as frequently involved in the destruction of senators, the
actual threat they posed to society at large is difficult to assess.
32Rhetoric was an important means of social advancement in the first
century c.e.
Eprius Marcellus and Vibius Crispus were to become the exemplars par excellence of
what oratory could and did achieve under the Empire (Tac. Dial. 8.1-3). For a good dis?
cussion of rhetoric as a means of social advancement under the Empire see Sinclair 1995,
123,130,134-35. For Iunius Otho's humble origins see Tac. Ann. 3.66.4; for Hispo (or Cae-
pio) see 1.74.1-3; for Afer, 4.52.2, 4.66.1. Such social prejudice was not exclusive to the
Empire; see, e.g., Cic. Verr.2.5.181.
Oratoribus or by Seneca the Elder in the preface to his Controversiae.33

Yet here too one can easily be misled; profit-seeking prosecutors were
by no means a phenomenon exclusive to the Empire.34 None of this is
intended to deny that delatores were violent, nor is it to deny the sig?
nificant factors which led our ancient sources to make such an assess-
ment, such as the popularity of sententious rhetoric in the first century
CE.
And here something must be said about the sententious style and
its association with delatores. There can be little doubt that certain dela?
tores did develop such a style, availing themselves of sententiae, as Sen?
eca the Elder clearly indicates; nor can there be any doubt that this style
had certain sociological implications, as Patrick Sinclair's study (see
note 32 above) has recently shown. But this style can by no means (as
Syme and Winterbottom both imply) be associated particularly with de?
latores.35 If delatores employed a sententious form of rhetoric, so too
did many of the literati of the period, as the style of such writers as
Seneca, Tacitus, and Lucan shows, and so too did many of the rhetori-
cians found in Seneca's Controversiae and Suasoriae who are by no
means associated with delatio. It was the style not exclusively of dela?
tores but rather of almost any Roman educated in rhetoric in the first
century ce.36 This is not to deny that sententiae could add to our im-
33See Controv. 1 praef. 6-7. Seneca's concern for

profit motive is in agreement with
the historical record. Fortunes were being made under Tiberius. See, e.g., the conclusion
to the prosecution of Libo Drusus in Tacitus: Bona inter accusatores dividuntur (Ann.
2.32.1). Libo's assets?at least 1 million sesterces as a senator but in his case probably
much larger (see Talbert 1984, 10, for the financial requirements for senatorial status)?
would have been divided up among his four accusers.
34See, e.g., Cic. Rose. Am. 83; Balb. 54; cf. Plaut. Persa 61-74.
35For Cassius Severus' connection to the sententious style see Tac. Dial. 19.1-5,
26.2-5; Sen. Controv. 3 praef. 2, 7.3.8, 7.3.10, 9.2.12,10.4.2; cf. Controv. 3 praef. 8, Suas. 6.11.
For a largely negative assessment of Iunius Otho's sententious rhetoric see Controv. 1.3.11,
2.1.33, 2.1.37, 7.3.10, 7.7.15,10.5.25; cf. Quint. Inst. 4.2.94. For a more positive assessment of
Otho see Controv. 1.8.3, 2.1.33-34, 2.1.37-39, 2.6.3, 7.3.5. For Romanus Hispo's sententiae
see Controv. 1.1.10, 1.7.6, 2.2.7, 2.3.21, 2.4.5, 2.4.6, 7.5.9, 7.6.21, 10.1.13, 10.5.23. For Brutte-
dius Niger see Controv. 2.1.35 and Suas. 6.20-21 (both negative assessments). Cf. also
Domitius Afer in Quint. Inst. 8.5.3, 8.5.16, although Afer was said generally to have disap-
proved of the sententious style. Also on record in Quintilian (8.5.15, 8.5.17) are several
sententiae from Vibius Crispus.
36Forthe connection between declamatio and sententiae see Sinclair 1995, 13; Win?
terbottom 1964, 95. It is best represented in Seneca's Controversiae (passim). For discus?
sion see Sussman 1978, 35-38; Summers 1910, xxix-xli; cf. Fairweather 1981, 243-303. The
pression of violence, given their ability to penetrate succinctly the ar?

mor of an opponent. However, while sententiae certainly must have
made for powerful rhetoric, that rhetoric cannot be proven to have
been substantially, if at all, more violent than what came before?espe?
cially given the paucity of extant oratory directly from the hand of a
known It is the perception
delator. (and representation) of writers such
as Tacitus and Quintilian that is responsible for our impression. Indeed,
I would argue that were we to set the speeches of delatores as repre?
sented by Tacitus, a hostile witness if ever there was one, against Cic?
ero's In Pisonem, In Catilinam, In Verrem, In Vatinium, Philippicae, or
any number of Ciceronian orations, we would find that Cicero's own
words are equally, indeed more, harsh than what we find in anything at?
tributed to Cossutianus Capito, Suillius Rufus, or Eprius Marcellus in
Tacitus or attributedto any of our other delatores in Seneca the Elder,
Quintilian, or Pliny the Younger.37
And this brings us to our second question: How did the rhetoric of
delatores stack up against their predecessors'? Were new social and po?
litical forces under the Principate really influential in creating a more
violent rhetoric than had existed under the Republic, as some scholars
think? We can detect, during the Principate, motives of political compe-
tition, factionalism, and inimicitia involved in prosecutions which will
connection is explicitly made by Tacitus through the character of Vipstanus Messalla in

Dialogus de Oratoribus (32, 35). While they were among the more noteworthy aspects of
a rhetorical style which reached the height of its popularity under the early Empire, sen?
tentiae in fact had their origins substantially earlier. Aristotle referred to them as gnomai
(Rhet. 2.21.2, 2.21.15-16, 3.17.9);his discussion was followed in the Roman period first by
the author of Rhetorica ad Herennium (4.17.24-27). Cicero was fully aware in his day of
the coming into vogue of sententiae, although how he understood the word is open to
some controversy; see Sinclair 1995, 119-21, for discussion. Quintilian himself devoted a
lengthy discussion to this aspect of rhetoric (Inst. 8.6).
37Winterbottom (1964, 94) notes the violence of Regulus' language (Vitelliana cica-
trice stigmosum, Plin. Ep. 1.5.2). But, we should ask, is this any more violent than Cicero's
branding of Antony as Helen of Troy or Charybdis (Phil. 2.55, 2.66), with all the sexual
dynamics such rhetoric entailed? Indeed, the delatores in Tacitus, if they are perceived as
harsh in any way, are depicted as saying what is little more than the hard and unpleasant
truth. See Eprius Marcellus' assault against Helvidius Priscus (Hist. 4.8.1-4), the com-
bined prosecution of Thrasea Paetus by Eprius Marcellus and Cossutianus Capito (Ann.
16.22.1-10, 16.28.1-6), and Suillius' denunciation of Seneca (Ann. 13.42.1-8). Any acer-
bity in the rhetoric of the delatores as represented by Tacitus stems not from exaggerated
fictions, as is the case with Cicero, but from their cruel willingness to speak the bitter
truth.
have no doubt made for harsh rhetoric.38 But the same motives are
clearly in evidencefor the Republic. As David Epstein has pointed out
in his study on inimicitia, during the Republic taking up a prosecution
was almost synonymous with inviting or declaring enmity, and the cir?
cumstances under which prosecutions took place must have given rise
to powerful oratory.39 To mention but one of his examples, Cicero notes
(Att. 1.16.2-4) that Hortensius, in his zeal to prosecute Clodius, became
overly zealous as a result of his hatred for the man. It is not hard to ap?
preciate why taking on an accusation would be tantamount to incurring
inimicitia: to be prosecuted was always a dubious and dangerous propo-
sition, which could result in destruction of everything a man had spent
his life and career building and entail catastrophe for his family and his
posterity, as weil as creating a lasting enmity not only among family
members of the accuser and the accused, but among the amici of both.40
It must have been a very violent affair for an individual to undergo un?
der any circumstances, and could give rise to hatreds resulting in feud?
ing between family and friends which spanned over the generations.41
To the highly personal motives which Epstein shows could some?
times prompt an accusatio during the Republic, we could add as impe-
38See, e.g., Tac. Ann. 4.68.2 for the aspect of political competition and promotion
and, e.g., Hist. 4.6-11, 4.40-44, for the factionalism prosecution could entail under the
Principate. For inimicitia involved in a prosecution see, e.g., Ann. 3.12.1-5,11.6.3.
39Epstein 1987, citing, e.g., Cic. Mur. 56; Verr. 1.51, 2.2.16, 2.3.130, 2.5.183, 2.5.180;
Fam. 3.10.5, 3.11.2;Rosc. Am. 55. For a good discussion of how prosecution could result in
inimicitiae, and the dynamics of inimicitia and its relationship to prosecution in general,
see Epstein 92-95. A prosecution could result in enmity not only between prosecutor and
prosecuted but between members of their families as weil (Epstein cites Cic. Flacc. 11).
Although the motives for prosecution during the Republic are admittedly problematic, it
was not uncommon for private motives of personal animosity to lie at the heart of the
matter. For the problems concerning motives for prosecutors under the Republic see Ep?
stein 100-102; for a discussion of specific trials, 104-26.
40See Epstein 1987, 94, citing Cic. Q. Fr. 3.2.2. Cf. Rosc. Am. 90, where Cicero re?
marks that Erucius accused Roscius to satisfy family hatred. For similar motives under the
Principate see Tac. Hist. 4.6-9, where Helvidius Priscus, the son-in-law of Thrasea Pae?
tus, moves to impeach Eprius Marcellus in the Senate in 70 c.E., motivated in no small
part by revenge.
41Epstein 1987, 93-94,
citing both general and specific instances, e.g., Cic. De Off.
2.49-50, Acad. 2.1, Clu. passim; Plut. Lucull. 1.2; Quint. Inst. 12.7.4;Cass. Dio 36.40.4; Val.
Max. 5.4.4. See also the case of M. Calidius mentioned in Cic. Fam. 8.4.1, 8.9.5; he may
have been prosecuted by the sons of Q. Gallius who had prosecuted Calidius in the 60s
(Brut. 211 \ Val. Max. 8.10.3). For the quarrel between Crassus and Carbo the Younger see
Val. Max. 3.7.6, Cic. De Or. 3.10.
tus the extremely factional nature of Roman politics during this period,
which will no doubt have invited an element of ferocity into the rhetoric
of those active in politics, such as we find in Cicero's speech In Verrem
or in his Philippicae. No less a source than Tacitus, through the charac?
ter of Maternus in Dialogus de Oratoribus (40.2), notes that political
competition, factionalism, and enmity had made for much more fiery
oratory under the Republic than in his own day.42 The accusations of
powerful men (accusationes potentium reorum), the enmity inherited by
whole families (adsignatae etiam domibus inimicitiae), and factionalism
(procerum factiones et adsidua senatus adversus plebem certamina) had
made rhetoric morepotent under the Republic (Dial. 36.3). Moreover,
says Maternus, there
were greater incentives during the late Republic,
since the political rewards were more enticing than in his own time
(36.4). Maternus thus argues that the oratory of the Republic was of a
more violent sort than in his own day, whose fuel was flamed by the
conflicts of that era (39-40). Some of these conflicts will have arisen
during the trials after the fall of the Gracchi, during the proscriptions
and tyrannies of Sulla and Cinna, and during those of the second trium-
virate; such discord gave ample opportunity for the activities of accusers
and informants in each of these periods, something of which Maternus
and his audience were no doubt aware.43 The profits to be had from de-
nunciation in the late Republic were lucrative, and the blood that
flowed in the general mayhem, one suspects, was considerably greater
than that under the most oppressiveprmceps.44
There is no denying that our contemporary sources under the
early Empire believed that oratory had become more violent, and it is
42Maternus remarks that even though oratory (eloquentid) is now lucrosa et san-
guinans, under the Republic it had a fiery quality which has now fallen into abeyance:
Non de otiosa et quieta re loquimur et quae probitate et modestia gaudeat, sed est magna
illa notabilis eloquentia alumna licentiae, quam stulti libertatem vocabant, comes seditio-
num, effrenati populi incitamentum, sine obsequio, sine severitate, contumax, temeraria,
adrogans, quae in bene constitutis civitatibus non oritur (40.2).
43A number of famous prosecutions took
place in the wake of the Gracchan re-
forms (see Gruen 1968, 55-105), although anonymous (and malicious) accusers also ex-
ploited the situation; see Vell. Pat. 2.7.3-4; Liv. Per. 61; Cic. Amic. 37; App. BC 1.22; Plut.
Ti. Gracch. 20; Val. Max. 4.7.1.For accusers under Sulla see Cic. Rosc. Am. 90; for accusers
under Cinna see Keaveney 1982, 153, citing Oros. 5.21.3; Cic. Clu. 161; Plut. Sert. 6.3-5,
Pomp 10.1;cf. Cic. Fam. 13.5.2-3.
44See App. BC 1.57-60, 1.74, 1.95-96; Val. Max. 6.5.7, 8.2.3; Vell. Pat. 2.19.1; Plut.
Sull. 10.2.
not difficult to understand why scholars have been influenced by them.

The oppressive nature of the early Principate has surely exacerbated
this impression, both at the time and in our own era. But whether the
oratory of the first century ce. was any more violent than that prac-
ticed in the time of Cicero or during the late Republic is difficult to sup?
port. And, set in their larger context both in terms of their activities as
professional accusers and of the rhetorical style such activity demanded,
delatores may represent not so much a change as a continuity in Roman
rhetorical practice. The almost complete lack of extant oratory from the
hand of any delator and the lack of context in those instances where de?
latores are (possibly) directly quoted make assessment problematic, to
say the least. But given the perceived nature of accusation as hostile or
aggressive and the methods required to mount a successful prosecution,
and given the fiercely competitive context in which Roman oratory was
always practiced, delatores could
scarcely have escaped earning a repu?
tation for rhetorical violence, a violence by no means unique to them
but inherent in the oratory demanded of a prosecutor. The impression
we have is a product of sources understandably hostile to them.45
University of Maryland, College Park

e-mail: srutled@deans.umd.edu
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Alexander, Michael C. 1990. Trials in the Late Roman Republic 149 B.C-50 B.C.
Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Badian, E. 1973. "More on Romanus Hispo." RSA 3:77-85.
Barnes, T. D. 1986. "The Significance of Tacitus' Dialogus de oratoribus." HSCP
90:225-44.
Barthes, Roland. 1982. "Tacitus and the Funerary Baroque." In A Barthes
Reader, edited by S. Sontag, 162-66. New York: Hill & Wang.
Bloch, G. 1909. "M. Aemilius Scaurus." Melanges dHistoire Ancienne 25:1-81.
451thank the readers at AJP for their helpful suggestions and comments in com-
pleting the final draft of this work; any errors are mine alone. I also thank the General
Research Board of the Graduate School at the University of Maryland at College Park
for their support, which helped me to complete this project, and my colleague Gregory
Staley for his useful comments on an earlier draft.
Brink, C. O. 1989. "Quintilian's De Causis Corruptae Eloquentiae and Tacitus'

Dialogus de Oratoribus." CQ 39:472-503.
-. 1993. "History in the 'Dialogus de Oratoribus' and Tacitus the Histo?
rian: A New Approach to an Old Source." Hermes 121:335-47.
Champion, Craige. 1994. "Dialogus 5.3-10.8: A Reconsideration of the Charac?
ter of Marcus Aper." Phoenix 68:152-63.
Cloud, J. D. 1992. "The lex Papiria de sacramentis." Athenaeum 70:159-86.
Dyke, Andrew. 1996. A Commentary on Cicero's De Offtciis. Ann Arbor: Uni?
versity of Michigan Press.
Epstein, David. 1987. Personal Enmity in Roman Politics 218-43 B. C. London:
Croom Helm.
Fairweather, Janet. 1981. Seneca the Elder. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Gotoff, Harold. 1986. "Cicero's Analysis of the Prosecution Speeches in the Pro
Caelio: An Exercise in Practical Criticism." CP 81:122-32.
Gruen, Erich. 1966. "Political Prosecutions in the 90's B.C." Historia 15:32-64.
-. 1968. Roman Politics and the Criminal Courts, 149-178 B.C. Cambridge,
Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Holden, Hubert A. 1966. M. Tulli Ciceronis De Offtciis. Amsterdam: Adolf
Hackert.
Jones, A. H. M. 1972. The Criminal Courts of the Republic and Principate. To-
wota, N.J.: Rowman & Littlefield.
Keaveney, Arthur. 1982. Sulla: The Last Republican. London: Croom Helm.
Kennedy, George. 1972. The Art of Rhetoric in the Roman World. Princeton:
Princeton University Press.
Mommsen, Theodor. 1899. Romisches Strafrecht. Leipzig.
Sinclair, Patrick. 1995. Tacitus the Sententious Historian: A Sociology of Rhetoric
in Annales 1-6. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.
Summers, W. C. 1910. Selected Letters of Seneca. London: Macmillan.
Sumner, G. V. 1973. The Orators in Cicero's Brutus: Prosopography and Chro?
nology. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Sussman, Lewis A. 1978. The Elder Seneca. Leiden: Brill.
Syme, Ronald. 1949. "Personal Names in Annals I-VI." JRS 39:6-18.
-. 1958. Tacitus. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Talbert, Richard J. A. 1984. The Senate of Imperial Rome. Princeton: Princeton
University Press.
Williams, Gordon. 1978. Change and Decline: Roman Literature in the Early
Empire. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Winterbottom, Michael. 1964. "Quintilian and the Vir Bonus." JRS 54:90-97.

RUTLEDGE. Delatores and The Tradition of Violence in Roman Oratory PDF

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

RUTLEDGE. Delatores and The Tradition of Violence in Roman Oratory PDF

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Delatores and the Tradition of Violence in Roman Oratory

Author(s): Steven H. Rutledge

Two very prominent

particular were by no means exclusive to the Empire, and even in Cic?

an embarrassment for the accuser's family, as Cicero indicates it was for

Verum ego forsitan propter multitudinem patronorum in grege adnume-

That the practice of accusing professionally was well established by Cic?

tivity is found in Brutus, a work in which Cicero also gives us a glimpse

Beyond this direct discussion in Brutus, Cicero provides other in-

The style which came to be associated with delatores originated

major writers in this area, the author of the Rhetorica ad Herennium,

21See Quint. Inst. 10.1.30,

one accusedof adultery as lecherous, and one accused of homicide as

23Cf.Albinus De Arte Rhet. Dial. 16 = Halm 533: accusator intentione ad amplifi-

tells his readers in De Oratore (1.202): qui scelus fraudemque nocentis

Oratoribus or by Seneca the Elder in the preface to his Controversiae.33

33See Controv. 1 praef. 6-7. Seneca's concern for

pression of violence, given their ability to penetrate succinctly the ar?

connection is explicitly made by Tacitus through the character of Vipstanus Messalla in

not difficult to understand why scholars have been influenced by them.

University of Maryland, College Park

Brink, C. O. 1989. "Quintilian's De Causis Corruptae Eloquentiae and Tacitus'

S-ar putea să vă placă și