Classical World

This volume is a spin-off from the Fragments of the Roman Republican Orators project, meant to supersede H. Malcovati’s work. The Introduction explains the problems that attend such work and the organization of this volume. Let it be said at once that this is a stimulating and valuable collection. The following will feature contributions that seem most worthy of note.

The authors who quote fragments are now receiving due attention, with several studies in this collection showing how fruitful it can be to attend to the [End Page 226] quoting authors’ methods and biases. Thus S. J. Lawrence shows that, far from being the neutral reporter once claimed, Valerius Maximus pursues identifiable political goals. Again, by close study of his method of work, C. Burden-Strevens plausibly revives the suggestion that the amnesty speech Dio writes for Cicero in the aftermath of the Ides of March may have been based upon written testimony for a speech now lost.

The editors’ willingness to entertain several different approaches is exemplified by two papers discussing the single preserved fragment of Gaius Titius, a description of gourmandizing, drinking, and debauchery in a forensic context. J. Dugan notes the issues raised by collections of fragments and the cultural-historical context and presuppositions on which they are based, as opposed to the interests that drove the quoting authors, for whom the concept “fragment” was at best tenuous and lacked the Romantic haze with which the nineteenth century surrounded it. Dugan warns against allowing the authors of extant testimonies to narrow our vision of the fragments, a point he illustrates by showing that in the Brutus Cicero applies to Titius the categories he uses in the teleology by which all of past Roman oratory is depicted as culminating in himself. Dugan offers instead a “thick description” based upon hints in Macrobius, the quoting author, and drawing out the implications of the vignette presented by Titius for Roman society of the mid-second century. But “thick description” is at most a supplement to traditional literary history; one would have welcomed a concluding section of Dugan’s paper explaining how “thick description” and literary history can enter into dialogue. A. Cavarzere, on the other hand, supplements Dugan with a detailed discussion of the legal issues raised by the fragment (it surely depicts, as Cavarzere argues, a trial before a single judge, the others mentioned being his consilium) and the analysis of Macrobius’ source.

Several papers discuss non-extant contiones. A. Corbeill reconstructs the contio delivered by P. Clodius on the day before Cicero spoke in the senate De haruspicum responso (this form of the title, given by Asconius [62C], is preferable to responsis, as I will argue elsewhere) and supports his reconstruction with copious references. Corbeill’s product reads like (an English version of) a Ciceronian speech based upon Clodian talking points, but that is inevitable, since we lack continuous texts or even unbiased judgments of Clodius’ oratory. Of particular interest is the argument that Clodius’ claim of having been “pierced by two hundred senatorial decrees” suggests that the fact that contional speeches otherwise avoid direct criticism of the senate may be due to the bias of our sources (183 n. 66). On the other hand, B. Gladhill discusses Fulvia’s moving lamentation in the forum the day before Cicero delivered his Pro Milone. Gladhill argues convincingly that Cicero’s ill success that day was due not least to Fulvia’s performance.

In the final paper, J. P. Hallett argues for including Cornelia, mother of the Gracchi, among the orators edited in Malcovati’s collection, based upon Cato’s definition of an orator (vir bonus dicendi peritus) transposed to the feminine gender. However, Cato’s definition was not Malcovati’s. One doubts that this argument would have swayed the Italian scholar, since Cornelia is not known to have delivered a public speech. By the...