Navigation – Plan du site

AccueilNuméros12Memories of Future Past: Seneca t...

Résumés

Cette contribution présente une lecture de Sen. suas. 6 fondée sur la théorie de la mémoire culturelle. Chaque élément de ce recueil d’extraits, jusqu'au thème lui‑même, a été choisi pour commémorer un aspect de l’histoire romaine que Sénèque croyait perdu au moment où il écrivait : la vertu morale et intellectuelle de la République. En présentant les arguments des déclamateurs qui débattent de différentes valeurs républicaines allant de la noblesse à l'honneur, Sénèque plaide activement pour le renouveau de ces valeurs auprès de son public. Qui plus est, la sixième Suasoria est liée à la mémoire culturelle à plusieurs niveaux. Sénèque, ainsi, agit comme un médiateur mémoriel en choisissant les déclamateurs qu'il juge dignes d'être préservés. Quant aux déclamateurs, ils exploitent eux‑mêmes la mémoire culturelle liée à Cicéron pour rédiger leurs discours, et contribuent ainsi à l'élaboration de la « mémoire littéraire » de l’orateur : leur activité fait émerger le sous‑genre littéraire de l'épitaphe cicéronienne, caractérisé par son insistance sur le contraste entre mortalité et immortalité, ses emprunts aux textes de Cicéron et la réflexion qu’il propose sur la notion de « mémoire ».

Haut de page

Texte intégral

1. Introduction

1Seneca the Elder coats himself in a paternal persona as manifests in his citation of Cato’s dedication : orator est, Marce filii, uir bonus dicendi peritus (« An orator, Marcus my son, is a good man who is skilled at speaking », Sen. contr. 1. praef. 1). This quotation informs his paternal role situating himself besides Cato, the archetypal father figure. In addition, by establishing eloquence as the measure of a man it simultaneously allows Seneca to justify the creation of a new work about declamation. By including « sons » as addressees both Seneca and Cato signpost the paternal relationship they share with their readers :

« The obvious and primary unifying theme throughout the prefaces [...] is Seneca’s avowed purpose of fulfilling his sons’ request to relate specimens for emulation or avoidance according to the contemporary theory of imitation. Thus each surviving preface has at least one reference to this motive, usually in the opening section. The interchange between father and sons is further emphasised by the form each preface takes, namely a letter addressed to his sons in the second person, while Seneca speaks in the first person. The cumulative effect is a thread of continuity linking the whole work loosely together in both style and overall purpose ». (Sussmann 1978, 64)

  • 1 Sussman 1978, 15‑16 and Bloomer 1997, 129‑37 both characterise Seneca’s « society of declaimers » a (...)
  • 2 As Hutchinson 2013, 238 suggests, the brevity with which Seneca passes over his examples further im (...)
  • 3 Dinter 2015, 128.
  • 4 The following draws on Mannering 2020.

2In addition to spontaneity a further characteristic of Seneca’s world of declamation is competitiveness. He paints the image of a combative arena in which speakers vie for dominance of the oratorical world1. Seneca, however, does not recount the full battle but excerpts the heavy artillery, condensing declamations into collections of refined and sparkling epigrams. He thereby speeds up declamation, providing a fast‑paced summary and manifesting the value accorded to snappy one‑liners.2 Throughout Seneca’s focus lies squarely on transmission rather than composition : « The Controversiae of Seneca the Elder show that passing on rhetorical pearls, and in his case that means sententiae [brief and witty comments, typically on moral subjects], from one generation to the next and to future generations is high on the agenda3 » . Seneca’s declamations, however, constitute a memory ; a retelling of a community’s remembered declamations in which Seneca’s own memory is both a trope and a theme4. Thus the double meaning of the Latin word memoria, which denotes both the process of remembering and also its product, allows for a communal process.

« Memory as a thing or possession implies not just facts, but also collective memory, tradition, and memorialization. Thus, as a possession or property memory always looks towards the broader community, not just towards some lone owner ». (Gunderson 2003, 30).

  • 5 Fairweather 1981, 31. See also Gunderson 2003, 36.
  • 6 On the relationship between Senecan and Ciceronian style, see McGill 2005; for a comparison between (...)

3Seneca’s memory, which includes not only the declamations but also background information on Rome’s orators, is therefore also public memory. This observation affects our reading of the Controversiae and Suasoriae in two crucial ways. First, and despite Quintilian’s doubts at the enormous capacity of Seneca’s memory (although ‘believing gives us hope’ (ut qui crediderit et speret, Quint. inst. 11.3.51) we should not regard these speeches and debates as Senecan inventions but as real events which took place in the past. Second, it allows us to string together the lost declamation tradition in various ways despite its fragmented state and with or without speculating which links in the often strenuously connected material can be ‘attributed to the declaimers rather than to Seneca excerpting5’. Seneca’s own voice rather pales in comparison to that of either Cicero or Quintilian which adds the impressions that Seneca’s accounts are unmediated memories, merely reproduced so that readers may « form their own judgments on them without trusting merely to hearsay » (non credatis tantum de illis sed et iudicetis, Sen. contr. 1. praef. 1)6.

4Nevertheless, Seneca’s compilations are far more than mere reproductions of past speeches. As I shall demonstrate in this chapter, a more complex process of commemoration is at work within the Controuersiae and Suasoriae. By outlining the relationship between these works and cultural memory theory, I will explain why Seneca chooses certain themes for discussion – such as the question of whether Cicero should beg Mark Antony’s pardon (suas. 6) – and explore the implications of the memory strategies which he employs. Paying particular attention to the ways in which Seneca’s sixth Suasoria influences its reader, I will then discuss how this text can be read in both the exhortatory and epitaphic modes. In so doing, my intention is to demonstrate the utility of cultural memory in reinterpreting Seneca’s works and promote this framework as both a complement and alternative to « intertextual » approaches.

2. Seneca and Cultural Memory

5Indeed, even though Seneca’s Controuersiae and Suasoriae are quite literally « intertextual » as they constitute compilations of various different « texts » or speeches, they can also be viewed as small excerpts from the « collective memory » of Roman declamation. Within this framework, they are constituents of a wider phenomenon (memory) rather than collections of multiple and distinct works.

  • 7 Halbwachs 1925 and 1950.
  • 8 On Latro’s privileged position in Seneca’s unofficial hierarchy of declaimers, see Berti 2014, 101.

6The concept of « collective memory » was first advanced by Maurice Halbwachs, who wrote in the early twentieth century that not only individuals but also social groups (societies, families, nations, religious communities) can have a « collective memory » or « group memory », which is itself dependent upon the « cadres » within which these groups are situated in a society7. Hence, group memory exists outside of individual memory, and it is to the former that an individual’s understanding of the past is most strongly linked. For example, Seneca’s views of declamation are filtered through the lens of the educated, wealthy equestrian class to which he belongs, and more specifically through the experiences he shared as a young student of rhetoric. The « group memory » to which he is privy as a result of this education in turn influences his approach to declamation, as is apparent from his preference for responses created by his fellow classmate Marcius Porcius Latro8. Suasoria 6 is no exception, for Seneca here invests Latro with such authority that his diuisio (« sequence of argument ») precedes other orators’ diuisiones, which are therefore « demoted » to mere auxiliaries orbiting Latro’s exemplar (Sen. suas. 6.8‑11) :

Diuisio. Latro sic hanc diuisit suasoriam : etiamsi impetrare uitam ab Antonio potes, non est tanti rogare ; deinde : impetrare non potes. In priore illa parte posuit turpe esse cuilibet Romano, nedum Ciceroni, uitam rogare ; hoc loco hominum qui ultro mortem adprehendissent exempla posuit. Deinde : uilis [illis] uita futura <est> et morte grauior detracta libertate. Hic omnem acerbitatem seruitutis futurae descripsit. Deinde : non futurum fidei impetratae beneficium. Hic cum dixisset : “aliquid erit quod Antonium offendat, aut factum tuum aut dictum aut silentium aut uultus,” adiecit sententiam : †aut erit† placiturus es. Albucius aliter diuisit [...] Cestius sic diuisit [...]

  • 9 All translations of Seneca’s texts are adapted from Winterbottom 1974.

« Division. Latro divided this suasoria in this way : ‘Even if you are able to win your life from Antony, it is not worth the price. Then : You cannot win it. In the first part he placed the argument that for any Roman, let alone Cicero, it is shameful to beg for his life. Here he adduced examples of men who had sought death voluntarily. Then : Life will be worthless, harder than death, once liberty has been lost. Here he described all the bitterness of future slavery. Next : You will not benefit of any assurance you win from him. Here, after saying: ‘Surely, there will be something to offend Antony, an action on your part, a word, a silence, a look,’ he added the epigram: ‘you will please.’ Albucius had a different division [...] Cestius’ division was as follows [...] ».9

  • 10 Halbwachs 1950, 13
  • 11 Sussmann 1978, 24 identifies 39 AD as the most ‘reasonable’ date for Seneca’s death, but notes that (...)
  • 12 On Latro’s death by suicide, see Sussman 1978, 23 ; on Celsius and Albucius, see Huelsenbeck 2018.

7Seneca’s ability to determine the order in which declamations are quoted also supports Halbwachs’ assertion that « collective memory » at times operates on the individual level. Indeed, although the values of the wider group determine the relevance of particular memories, it is the oldest living witness who determines their reach10. Seneca fulfils this role, as he most likely wrote the Suasoriae and Controuersiae in the few years preceding his death in 39 AD ; in the preface to the latter, he depicts himself as so old that his sight and hearing are compromised (contr. 1. praef. 211). As such, by the time he composed these works, the declaimers and orators whom he immortalises had already died. The fates of the three declaimers mentioned above in suas. 6.8‑11 illustrate this point. Latro died in 4 BC, Albucius between 10 and 15 AD, and while Cestius’ exact dates of birth and death are not known, he is generally identified as an « Augustan » orator12. What is more, Seneca heavily implies that all of his sources had perished by lamenting that his grandsons « were unable to listen to men of such reputation » (contr. 1. praef. 1).

  • 13 Halbwachs 1950, 126‑29 identifies the perception of time as one especially subjective aspect of col (...)

8Collective memory therefore consists of the memories of individuals, each of whom provides a different perspective. As such, even though collective memory takes place in groups, it is not uniform across all members of a group13. Moreover, when the composition of a community changes drastically in a short period of time, thus replacing its original members with new individuals, the cultural memory of the entire group changes accordingly. This phenomenon is best illustrated by the rise of freedmen and the fall of Rome’s Republican elite following the civil wars of the late first century BC. The violent turmoil of this period led to discontinuities in social codes ; Seneca the Elder presents a controuersia in which a freedman believes himself exempt from the obligations typically owed by freedmen to their masters, since, as he argues, he had saved his master’s life by hiding him from would‑be persecuters (Sen. contr. 4.8).

  • 14 On Lipsius’ role in distinguishing the Elder and Younger Senecas see Grafton 1987, 384.

9As this example highlights, in a world where the original « group » – the privileged, politically‑powerful Republican potentates – no longer existed, at least not in their previous form, cultural memories pertaining to social hierarchies and behavioural norms were also lost. Nevertheless, collective memory does not depend wholly on the survival of individual group members. If correctly interpreted, texts, rites and symbols can serve as means to preserve memories far beyond that scope in time ; in 1580, Justus Lipsius corrected the centuries‑long misconception that there had only been one Seneca by observing their distinct writing styles14. In some cases, moreover, canonisation can form and preserve a collective memory that hardly changes over centuries.

  • 15 Halbwachs 1941.
  • 16 See Nora 1984 for a full‑length study on lieux de mémoire.
  • 17 Nora 1989, 8.
  • 18 For an overview of the school practice of Latin declamation, a mainstay of curricula across the med (...)
  • 19 Nora 1978, 398‑401.

10Apart from texts, moreover, symbolic monuments, places, and landscapes all serve as repositories of collective memory, as Halbwachs demonstrates by using sacred locations in Palestine as his examples15. Nora further develops this concept in his studies on « sites of memory » (lieux de mémoire), stating that certain places, objects or events often possess a special significance which relates to a group’s memory16. These do not solely refer to tangible objects, but also to abstract « gestures » such as etiquette, rituals, or formulaic speech17. The medieval school exercise of declamation can thus be considered a « site of memory » which links its practitioners back to the ancient, Senecan form of this activity18. Nora also rearticulates Halbwachs’ position on the difference between memory and history by defining the former as memories of past events preserved by a group which only allow an approximation of the past, and the latter as historians’ objective recognition of that past19. He also defines the « historical » as a social phenomenon, whereas memory is based on an individual’s ability to recall :

« The transformation of memory implies a decisive shift from the historical to the psychological, from the social to the individual, from the objective message to its subjective reception, from repetition to rememoration ». (Nora 1989, 15)

  • 20 Nora 1989, 7 : « There are lieux de mémoire, sites of memory, because there are no longer milieux d (...)
  • 21 Rigney 2005, 14.
  • 22 Fentress and Wickham 1992, 7.

11Nora’s approach to memory is nevertheless problematic, for he defines a « site » as an artificial placeholder’ for a more extensive « environment » (milieu) of memory which no longer exists20. According to this framework, while we can recreate Roman declamation to some extent through Seneca’s text, we can never truly access the full range of emotions and experiences felt by ancient orators. Rigney casts doubt on the narrative of decline entailed by such a conceptualisation21, as do Fentress and Wickham, who question the existence of the « standard past » which Nora situates exclusively within now‑lost « environments »22.

  • 23 Assmann 2013, 36‑43 elaborates upon these definitions.
  • 24 Assmann 1995, 127. A « specialist » is a « bearer of cultural memory », for example priests who are (...)
  • 25 Assmann 2008, 111.

12Along with that of Halbwachs, Nora’s work has nevertheless proved influential upon Jan Assmann’s prominent conceptualisation of cultural memory. Collective memory, in Assmann’s view, consists of two subtypes : communicative memory, which relates to the diffuse transmission of memories in everyday life through orality, and cultural memory, which refers to objectified and institutionalized memories that can be stored, transferred and reincorporated across generations23. The former is limited to the recent past, evokes personal and often autobiographical memories, and is characterized by its short term (eighty to one hundred years) ; it is personal and therefore does not have to be transmitted by « specialists »24. In contrast, the latter consists of a symbolic heritage embodied in texts, rites, monuments, celebrations, objects, sacred scriptures and other media ; these « mnemonic institutions » evoke meanings associated with past events25. The difference between communicative and cultural memory is best illustrated by Senecan declamation. The personal recollections which Seneca the Younger must have possessed of Seneca the Elder’s conversations on declamation are communicative memories, whereas the skill of declamation forms part of Rome’s cultural memory ; the repository of knowledge associated with this art was traditionally passed down by « specialists » – teachers of rhetoric and their students – from one generation to the next.

  • 26 Assmann 1995, 130.
  • 27 Ibid. The relationship between cultural memory and identity concretion derives from discussions on (...)
  • 28 Assmann 2006, 38.
  • 29 Slaves would have either been educated or attended specialised « trade schools » (Pogoloff 1992, 50 (...)

13Cultural memory thus preserves a « culturally institutionalised heritage », which individuals in turn use in building their own identities and affirming themselves as part of a group26. Considered from this perspective, cultural memory does not only furnish a narrative picture of the past, but also enables the formation of current identities27. Moreover, the act of remembering involves normative aspects ; those who wish to belong to a community must follow its rules of « how and what to remember »28. In Seneca’s time, every Roman from an elevated socio‑economic class would have been expected to « remember » the skill of declamation and its associated history, for this knowledge proved one’s previous participation in the educational system (paideia) for freeborn men29.

  • 30 On the difference between these repositories of memory, see Assmann 1995.
  • 31 Assmann and Assmann 1994, 115

14The limitations of the human mind nevertheless make it impossible for any one individual to personally remember every aspect of his community’s cultural memory. Hence, cultural memory is further divided into two subtypes, which Aleida Assmann terms the « memory reservoir » (Speichergedächtnis) and the « functional memory » (Funktionsgedächtnis)30. The former is a passive and dormant repository of information from which the latter is derived as and when it is needed to guarantee the stability of a group’s cultural identity31. As we have observed, Seneca’s Controuersiae and Suasoriae exemplify this process in action. The declamatory topics which he introduces represent crucial aspects of Republican Rome’s cultural memory, ranging from broad phenomena such as religion and piety (contr. 8.1‑2) to specific events such as Cicero’s assassination as part of Octavian’s peace deal with Antony (suas. 6 and 7). By selecting these particular themes for inclusion out of all the other ones in the « memory reservoir », Seneca imposes value upon them and draws them back into Rome’s « functional memory ». However, declamation tends to negotiate these memories rather than merely exhibiting them as manifests in the fact that in suas. 6 and 7 all declaimers try to exonerate Octavian (or at least avoid naming him).

  • 32 See Assmann 2008, 100.
  • 33 Schubert 2000 outlines the political leanings of Seneca the Elder as expressed in the Controuersiae(...)
  • 34 On Cato’s unyielding defense of the Republic, see e.g. Hooper, p. 248: « Cato the Younger was a sel (...)

15Such transfers are typically motivated by a desire to re‑affirm societal values in a time of turbulence, and Seneca’s efforts are no exception32. By calling attention to the pious and moral responses of Republican declaimers, Seneca presents the Republic in general as a preferable alternative to the moral corruptness of Julio‑Claudian rule33. One denizen of Seneca’s Republican world, Haterius, thus virtuously indicates that Cicero should certainly not save himself by begging Antony’s pardon, for an honourable death is superior to a shameful life. He strengthens his argument by citing Cato the Younger, who similarly perished for the sake of Republican values34 » (Sen. suas. 6.1‑2) :

Q. HATERI. Sciant posteri potuisse Antonio seruire rem publicam, non potuisse Ciceronem [...] Cicero, quid in alieno saeculo tibi ? iam nostra peracta sunt. M. Cato, solus maximum uiuendi moriendique exemplum, mori maluit quam rogare – nec erat Antonium rogaturus – et illas usque ad ultimum diem puras a ciuili sanguine manus in pectus sacerrimum armauit.

“Quintus Haterius: Let posterity know that even if the state was capable of being Antony’s slave, Cicero was not [...] Cicero, what is left for you in a generation you do not belong to? Now our day is over. Cato, himself the finest model of how to live and die, preferred death to begging – and he had not Antony to beg; he put into those hands, clean to the last of Roman blood, a sword to plunge into his hallowed breast”.

  • 35 Assmann 1998, 64.
  • 36 Keeline 2018, 198 highlights that Seneca’s Cicero embodies self‑sacrificing virtue by ‘proffering h (...)

16By citing Haterius, Seneca defines Rome by remembering how it was in the past : a society in which statesmen were unafraid to lay down their lives for the common weal and where orators concerned themselves with moral matters. However, Seneca also constructs an ideal past for Rome by mentioning what it is not at present, in a process which Assmann terms « normative inversion35 ». In suas. 6, Seneca thus shames those few writers who dared to take up the opposing argument by characterising their stances as proper to men who are « cowardly » (timidus), « stupid » (stultus), and, in Asinius Pollio’s case, infected by pernicious bias (infestissimus...permansit, suas. 6.14). By applying these negative descriptors to a hypothetical scenario in which Cicero yields to Antony, Seneca characterises what did happen in reality, namely Cicero’s noble death, as positive. In so doing, he places Cicero’s brave deed into Rome’s functional memory with a view to perpetuating the Republican morality underpinning this act36.

  • 37 Basu 2012, 1‑18.
  • 38 Erll 2018, 274‑75.
  • 39 Cicero’s predominance in Humanist thought is perceptible from how he is the single most quoted auth (...)

17This interpretation of Seneca’s Cicero finds support in Laura Basu’s theory of memory, in which outstanding individuals become dispositifs (« apparatuses ») that encapsulate certain aspects of communal identity within themselves37. Within this framework, Cicero acts as a dispositif for ‘Republican Roman virtue’ by embodying its values of courage, wisdom, and honour. Seneca’s depiction of Cicero’s exemplary conduct in death can moreover be read as what Astrid Erll considers a « mnemohistory »: a narrative which does not only contribute to the identity of a restricted group – for example « Romans in the age of Seneca »  – but has instead transcended its original community38. Indeed, both Renaissance Humanists and seventeenth‑century English Republicans identified with the nobility of soul which Cicero demonstrated in death and thus praised his qualities – and those of Republican Rome more generally – into their writings39. These myriad receptions do not only suggest that Seneca’s strategy of promoting Republican values through Cicero has proved effective in the long term, but also attest to the survival of declamation throughout the ages as part of Roman cultural memory.

3. Hands Up: A Senecan Epitaph for Cicero

  • 40 Huelsenbeck 2018, 303‑10.

18Given its rich connections to cultural memory, it is unsurprising that Suasoria 6 should centre on the theme of memory itself. Its historical theme – « Cicero deliberates whether to beg Antony’s pardon » – provides ample opportunity for declaimers to explore the relationship between noble conduct in life and an enduring legacy after death. As we have seen, most of the responses listed by Seneca argue that Cicero should not debase himself before Antony so as to preserve his honourable reputation. Nevertheless, in declamation language is just as important as content, and so each orator alludes to the themes of remembrance and Ciceronian virtue not only overtly in the content of their speeches but also implicitly, that is, on the semantic level. Consequently, as Huelsenbeck observes, their responses are built using morsels of Ciceronian language which have established themselves as authoritative components for composing a literary epitaph, or in this case the « Ciceronian Epitaph40 ».

  • 41 On the crucial importance of receptions and commemorations in transmitting linguistic components ov (...)
  • 42 Huelsenbeck 2018, 303

19The survival of these components cannot be credited to Cicero alone, for they only become « established » within cultural memory after generations of writers reference them within their own texts41. These linguistic formulae moreover tend to be dynamic; though they have consistently been used over time to craft epitaphs for Cicero, they are often repurposed according to contextual necessities. In addition, not all formulae need to be present in a given version of the Ciceronian Epitaph42.

  • 43 On the scope of Velleius Paterculus’ work, see Rich 2010, 75

20The flexibility of this epitaph type is best illustrated by comparing Fuscus’ tribute to Cicero, which Seneca recounts in Suasoria 6, with that provided by Velleius Paterculus in his Historia Romana. At first sight, these epitaphs appear to be wholly unrelated; the former takes the form of a rhetorical speech on a specific theme, while the latter forms part of a historiographical work covering Rome’s history from Troy to the death of Augustus43. Nevertheless, a closer examination reveals that both passages centre upon three shared components. They contrast the misery of mortal life with the joy of eternal fame, meditate upon the importance of memory in preserving legacies, and create harmonies between language and meaning by utilising Ciceronian phrases to praise Cicero’s eloquence.

21Both Fuscus and Velleius Paterculus indeed compare the mortal body unfavourably against the immortal soul, taking care to highlight the difference between these objects through adversative particles. Fuscus thus organises his ideas around the structure corpus [...] animus uero (‘the body [...] but the soul) (Sen. suas. 6.6) :

Nihil aliud intercidet quam corpus fragilitatis caducae, morbis obnoxium, casibus expositum, proscriptionibus obiectum; animus uero diuina origine haustus, cui nec senectus ulla nec mors, onerosi corporis unculis exsolutus ad sedes suas et cognata sidera recurret.

« Nothing will die except the body, which is frail and fleeting, subject to disease, exposed to chance, open to proscription; the soul, however, which is drawn from divine origins, and knows neither old age nor death, will be freed from the shackles of the body that burdens it and dart back to its home, the stars to which it is akin ».

  • 44 This effect derives from these verbs’ combination of a prefix meaning « outside » (ex‑) or « in the (...)
  • 45 Fuscus’ rhetoric of the « weak body » mirrors Seneca’s characteriz ation of the human memory as fra (...)
  • 46 See Manning 1981, 142, who notes that by depicting the immortal soul as unfettered, Fuscus implicit (...)

22The antithesis between body and soul is further expressed through the descriptors attached to each noun. The former is vulnerable, as Fuscus conveys not only through participles such as expositum and obiectum, both which convey a sense of being laid bare to the vagaries of fortune44, but also through its association with nouns denoting illness, not least fragilitas meaning « frailty » and morbus denoting « disease45 ». The latter, by contrast, is invulnerable: it is incognizant of ailments such as « old age » and « death », and verbal forms connoting weightlessness such as exsolutus (« released ») and recurret (« dart back ») evoke its free spontaneity46.

  • 47 On the adversative force of uero, see Kroon 1995, 315‑18.

23Velleius weighs up the loss of Cicero’s « wretched life » against his enduring fame using similar language. He features the collocation uitam [...] famam uero (« a life [...] but fame »), which implies that « life » and « fame » cannot coexist by harshly contrasting both entities through the adversative conjunction uero47. Moreover, he attaches negatively connoted adjectives to nouns meaning life – most notably in the phrase lucem sollicitam (« anxious days ») – but associates fame with emoluments such as « glory » (Vell. Pat. 2.66.4) :

Rapuisti tu M. Ciceroni lucem sollicitam et aetatem senilem et uitam miseriorem te principe quam sub te triumuiro mortem, famam uero gloriamque factorum atque dictorum adeo non abstulisti, ut auxeris.

« What you snatched from Marcus Cicero, was a life troubled, advanced in years, and an existence that would have been more miserable with you as emperor than death was with you as Triumvir. But the fame and glory of his deeds and words you did not take away and even increased them ». (transl. Huelsenbeck 2018)

  • 48 See e.g. Hardie 2012, 564.

24Although the opposition of infirm mortality against immortal fame is a cross‑cultural literary topos, these similarities are far from merely coincidental48. On the contrary, the large number of linguistic similarities in both passages suggest the deliberate inclusion of organising formulae such as the basic structure underpinning both passages : a noun meaning life is contrasted against a noun meaning death by means of an adversative particle. To this compositional unit are added variations, through which each author brings cultural memory « to life » by incorporating unique lines of argument. In this case, Fuscus chooses to emphasise the body’s physical vulnerability while Velleius instead highlights its potential for mental decline by focusing on anxiety and senility. However, the main building‑block of life versus fame remains constant across both passages and thus represents a focal point upon which diverse iterations of the « Ciceronian Epitaph » hinge.

25Yet another component of this epitaph type is the customary mediation on memory and its role as a preserver of human reputation. Indeed, both Fuscus and Velleius explicitly elevate the status of memoria (« memory »). The former confers titles upon memoria in a paean‑like clause, which conforms well to the high‑flown register of epitaphs: Immortalis humanorum operum custos memoria ( « Memory, undying guardian of human works », Sen. suas. 6.5). The latter similarly fosters a grandiose tone, but does so by employing an arsenal of rhetorical techniques (Vell. Pat. 2.66.5) :

Viuit uiuetque per omnem saeculorum memoriam, dumque hoc uel forte uel prouidentia uel utcumque constitutum rerum naturae corpus, quod ille paene solus Romanorum animo uidit, ingenio complexus est, eloquentia inluminauit, manebit incolume, comitem aeui sui laudem Ciceronis trahet.

« He lives now and in future in the memory of the ages, and so long as this universe will last – which, either created by chance, by divine providence, or by whatever cause, he, almost alone of all the Romans, grasped with his mind and his intellect, and illumined it with his eloquence – so long will it perpetuate the fame of Cicero with itself as a companion throughout its ages ». (transl. author’s own)

  • 49 On the stock wordplay of uiuit uiuetque, see Marchesi 2008, 192.

26By alliterating the letter « u » in the polyptoton uiuit uiuetque, Velleius draws attention to his key point, namely that Cicero, though deceased, does not only live in the present (uiuit) but will continue to live (uiuet) due to his immortal fame49. In addition, the tricolon uel...uel...uel forms a crescendo culminating in the pronoun ille (« he »), which refers to Cicero. The semantic structure of this passage thus mirrors its hierarchy of ideas : Cicero, whose merits Velleius praises in the epitaph, is thus also situated at its linguistic climax. As in Fuscus, however, Cicero’s immortality must share its privileged position with the concept of « memory », which not only gains importance from its emphatic position at the end of the first clause but also from the language of permanence which features throughout, most notably in time markers ranging from saeculorum (« of the ages ») to comitem aeui sui (« companion throughout its ages »).

  • 50 Finney 2016, 10 : « [Plato’s] soul, fastened and welded to the body, regards reality through the bo (...)
  • 51 Meijer 2007, 184‑85 discusses further implications of the mutabile‑mortale connection.
  • 52 See Vell. Pat. 2.66.4 as discussed on p. 10 in this article.
  • 53 As Manuwald 2012, 486‑87 notes, in this passage Cicero equates himself as orator with the people, t (...)

27As befits a « Ciceronian » epitaph, these ideas of the vulnerable body versus the eternal soul and of memory as a conduit to immortality are expressed in terms of Ciceronian philosophy and language. The first of these tropes is a mainstay of ancient philosophy ; Plato conceives of the soul as a divine object which is merely « fastened » to the temporary body (Plat. Tim. 73a50). Nevertheless, Fuscus’ specific line of reasoning – that the body is weak because it is at the mercy of chance happenings (casibus expositum, at Sen. suas. 6.6 above) – is markedly Ciceronian : in his treatise On the Nature of the Gods, Cicero utilises the premise that the body is « liable to change » (mutabile) as proof that it is also « liable to death51 » (mortale, Cic. nat. deor. 3.30). Similarly, Velleius’ use of the adjective sollicitus (« anxious ») to describe life echoes Cicero’s frequent use of this descriptor52. Cicero depicts his mind as sollicitum in a letter to Caelius Rufus (Cic. Fam. 2.16.1 = SB 154.1) and laments that he is sollicitus about his nephew Quintus (Att. 4.7.1 = SB 77.1). What is more, even the author of Ad Herennium advises orators to evoke pity « by showing anxiety » (sollicitudine, Rhet. Her. 2.50). Fuscus and Valerius also tend to describe memory in Ciceronian terms. As we have seen, the former calls memory a « guardian of human works » (memoria... humanorum operum custos), thus extending Cicero’s portrayal of memory as a « guardian that we need to assign to those ideas and phrases which have been thought out and well weighed » (custos inuentis cogitatisque rebus et uerbis adhibeatur, Cic. de orat. 1.18). Similarly, by featuring the phrase omnium saeculorum memoria (« the memory of all ages »), Velleius mimics the language of the Philippics, where Cicero uses the exact same words both to monumentalise Caesar’s deeds and to showcase his own relationship with Roman cultural memory53 (Cic. Phil. 4.1):

Multa memini, multa audiui, multa legi, Quirites : nihil ex omnium saeculorum memoria tale cognoui : qui cum seruitute premeremur, in dies malum cresceret, praesidi nihil haberemus, capitalem et pestiferum a Brundisio M. Antoni reditum timeremus, hoc insperatum omnibus consilium, incognitum certe ceperit, ut exercitum inuictum ex paternis militibus conficeret Antonique furorem crudelissimis consiliis incitatum a pernicie rei publicae auerteret.

« I remember many things, Men of Rome, have been told of many, read of many : the like of this I have never met within the memory of all ages. When we were under the yoke of slavery, with the evil gaining day by day and none to defend us, dreading the return of Marcus Antonius from Brundisium and the death and ruin it would bring, Caesar took a decision which none of us hoped for and certainly none of us knew of in advance : to raise from his father’s soldiers an army which had never known defeat and turn Antonius’ fury and the cruel designs which inspired it, away from the destruction of the Republic ».

  • 54 Huelsenbeck 2018, 303‑4.

28As we have seen, therefore, the Ciceronian Epitaph consists of three components : the contrast between body and soul, a focus on memory as the source of immortality, and the expression of these ideas through philosophies and phrases first introduced by Cicero. Despite these thematic and semantic similarities, however, not all iterations of the Epitaph are based directly on Ciceronian models. As Huelsenbeck points out, authors may also have modelled their own epitaphs directly upon those of others54.

  • 55 Winterbottom 1974, II.580‑81.
  • 56 Keeline 2018, 111‑17.

29This flexible process of composition is perceptible from the various narratives of Cicero’s death as recounted by Seneca, of which all five versions indicate that Cicero gave his life up willingly. Fuscus and Velleius imply that Cicero could have survived by begging Antony’s pardon, albeit at the cost of his immortal reputation. In a more explicit image, Livy depicts Cicero leaning his neck out from his litter, and Bassus has Cicero pull open the curtain to his vehicle and offer himself up by making an eloquent joke : « If you can do this correctly (recte) at least, cut off my head » (suas. 6.18). As Winterbottom explains, there is nothing at all ‘correct’ about assassination, and so these last words are extremely ironic, as befits an orator (Cicero) well‑versed in sarcasm55. Cremutius Cordus does not detail the manner of Cicero’s death, but also emphasises that he could have escaped : « [He] pondered whether to make for Brutus, Cassius, or Sextus Pompeius, but only death found favour with him » (suas. 6.19). Similarly, Bruttedius Niger strongly implies that Cicero faced death without qualms : « At this last moment of his life, [Cicero] did nothing that could be censured one way or the other » (suas. 6.20). The remarkable consensus of these accounts highlights underlying relationships between their authors, who all employ the same topos. Far from being merely « intertextual », therefore, these similar passages are best understood within the framework of cultural memory theory, for they relate to an overall « legend of Cicero » as stored in the « functional memory » of declaimers in early Imperial Rome56.

  • 57 See p. 11 above.
  • 58 The rhetoric of death as preferable to a protracted old age is a mainstay of Latin literature. Cf. (...)
  • 59 On the societal taboo of attacking the old (and defenceless) in ancient Rome, see Cokayne 2003, 95.

30These narratives of Cicero’s death consist of « compositional blocks », upon which each author adds personal variations. One such « block » is their shared employment of the vocabulary of age. As we have seen, Fuscus praises Cicero for shedding physical ailments – such as senectus (« old age ») – by escaping his mortal body, and Velleius likewise draws attention to time markers57. This « block » may well have originated with Livy, who notes that Cicero did not die « prematurely » but at the age of sixty‑three ; it is certainly taken up by Bassus, who fetes Cicero for having served the Republic « for a long time » (diu, suas. 6.23). Even though Asinius Pollio shies away from ascribing excessive praise to Cicero, he nevertheless concedes that the orator « maintained good looks and good health to old age » (suas. 6.24). These recurring emphases on Cicero’s age are not without purpose : they highlight that he has lived a full life and thus convert his death from a tragedy into a « desirable » event58. Moreover, they compound shame upon Antony for flouting Roman social conventions by assassinating an old man59.

  • 60 On Cornelius Severus and anatomical imagery, see Estèves in this issue. [Voir ici]

31Apart from age, « body parts » constitute another compositional block of the Ciceronian Epitaph. Cornelius Severus’ verse commemoration of Cicero, as reproduced by Seneca as one of the responses to the theme of Suasoria 6, thus draws heavily upon anatomical imagery60 (Sen. suas. 6.26) :

Oraque magnanimum spirantia paene uirorum

in rostris iacuere suis. sed enim abstulit omnis,

tamquam sola foret, rapti Ciceronis imago.

[...]

abstulit una dies aeui decus, ictaque luctu

conticuit Latiae tristis facundia linguae.

unica sollicitis quondam tutela salusque,

egregium semper patriae caput, ille senatus

uindex, ille fori, legum iurisque togaeque,

publica uox saeuis aeternum obmutuit armis.

informes uoltus sparsamque cruore nefando

canitiem sacrasque manus operumque ministras

tantorum pedibus ciuis proiecta superbis

proculcauit ouans nec lubrica fata deosque

respexit. Nullo luet hoc Antonius aeuo.

« The heads of great‑hearted men, still almost breathing,

Lay on the rostra that were theirs : but all were swept away

By the sight of the ravaged Cicero, as though he lay alone.

[...]

One day took away the glory of an age, and struck by grief

The eloquence of the Latin tongue grew dumb with sadness.

Once the sole guard and savior of the distressed,

Always the glorious head of his country,

champion of the senate, bar, laws, ritual, civil life,

voice of the public – now silenced for ever by cruel arms.

The defaced face, white hairs horrible sprinkled

with blood, the sacred hands that had served such great works,

his countryman threw down and trampled with haughty feet,

in triumph, not thinking of fate’s slipperiness

or the gods. Antony will never pay in full for this ».

  • 61 On mutilation as a marker of political disunity in Latin literature, see Dinter 2012, 47.
  • 62 Randall 1991, 34‑40.

32This passage parallels Cremutius Cordus’ account of the period directly following Cicero’s death, during which that orator’s body was allegedly displayed « limb by limb » upon the rostra, with his right hand amputated and tied onto the side of his head (suas. 6.19). In both cases, the emphasis on Cicero’s mutilation represents the disunity of the Republic during the civil wars61. Moreover, by drawing attention to symbolic body parts such as the « hands » with which Cicero wrote his orations, the « tongue » and « voice » which produced his famed eloquence, and even the « head » and « face » upon which his listeners’ attention was fixed, Cornelius Severus and Cremutius Cordus underscore the true impact of Cicero’s death : Rome has not only lost one of its citizens but also the rhetorical skill which he possessed within his especially gifted body parts62.

  • 63 Krostenko 2013, 51.
  • 64 Schwindt 2001.

33In addition, references to the « tongue » and speech are particularly common motifs in Roman epitaph, and their inclusion in these passages can be interpreted as signs of literary self‑consciousness63. Indeed, Severus and Cordus do not merely focus on this body part because of its symbolic potential, but also because it is an expected component of pieces belonging to the epitaphic genre64. Naevius’ so‑called « self‑epitaph », as recounted by Gellius, embodies this tradition (Gell. 1.24.3) :

Inmortales mortales si foret fas flere,

flerent diuae Camenae Naeuium poetam.

itaque postquam est Orcho traditus thesauro,

obliti sunt Romae loquier lingua Latina.

« If that immortals might for mortals weep,

Then would divine Camenae weep for Naevius.

For after he to Orcus as treasure was consigned,

The Romans straight forgot to speak the Latin tongue ».
[transl. J.A. Crook]

  • 65 Krostenko 2013, 58.
  • 66 An observation made by Barchiesi in the discussion following Schwindt 2001: « [l’epitaffio di Nervi (...)
  • 67 Schmidt 1998, 4.

34At first sight, this passage appears to be a Hellenistic instead of Roman‑style epitaph. The first line relies on Greek literary models in which gods weep for outstanding mortals, and the third line hinges upon bilingual wordplay : Orcus, the god of the underworld or in many cases the underworld itself, is associated with Pluto (Hades), whose name in turn is a near‑synonym for the adjective πλούτος (« wealthy ») in Greek65. This chain of thought loops back to explain why Naevius would be consigned as « treasure » to Orcus. Despite these Greek influences, however, Barchiesi identifies these lines as the first Latin literary epitaph, since the second and fourth verses emphasise Roman culture, the former by using the Latin equivalent (Camenae) for the Greek Μοῦσαι (« Muses ») and the latter by explicitly referencing the ‘Latin tongue’ and Roman people66. These « self‑definitions » of Latinity distinguish Naevius’ epitaph from its Greek predecessors67. Moreover, that Severus and Cordus work the image of the « Latin tongue » into their Ciceronian Epitaphs demonstrates that by their time, this linguistic convention had come to define the « epitaph » in Roman cultural memory.

  • 68 On this phrase, see von Albrecht 1998, 218‑19 and Esteves in this issue [Voir ici].
  • 69 See e.g. Sen. contr. 1. praef. 11.

35Seneca is not, however, content to list different iterations of the Ciceronian Epitaph. On the contrary, he seizes upon one of Cornelius Severus’ verses – « The eloquence of the Latin tongue grew dumb with sadness » – and traces the evolution of this phrase among contemporary declaimers68. In so doing, he returns to the original purpose of his Suasoriae and Controuersiae : to recapture the « living voice » of declamation and the cultural memory associated with this practice, instead of merely acting as scribe for responses to certain themes69. Accordingly, Seneca notes that Severus’ verse in fact originated from a pronouncement by Sextilius Ena, who stated « I must lament Cicero and the silence of the Latin tongue » (suas. 6.27). In this original form, the line was not well‑received, but rather so objectionable that it caused Pollio Asinius to walk out of the audience, having been insulted by the suggestion that the efforts of all orators after Cicero – himself included – amounted to nothing more than « silence » (Sen. suas. 6.27) :

Pollio Asinius non aequo animo tulit et ait : 'Messala, tu, quid tibi liberum sit in domo tua, uideris ; ego istum auditurus non sum, cui mutus uideor’ ; atque ita consurrexit. Enae interfuisse recitationi Seuerum quoque Cornelium scio, cui non aeque displicuisse hunc uersum quam Pollioni apparet, quod meliorem quidem sed non dissimilem illi et ipse composuit.

« Asinius Pollio did not take this well. He said : Messala, you can decide for yourself what goes on in your own house ; I shall not listen to someone who thinks that I am dumb’ – and he immediately got up. I know that Cornelius Severus was also present at Ena’s recitation ; and it is obvious that he did not dislike the line as much as Pollio, since he composed a similar, though better, line himself ».

36While Pollio’s reaction is amusing, it is less significant for our purposes than Seneca’s emphasis on how Severus first listened to Ena and then refined the line for his own Ciceronian Epitaph. Seneca’s motive in setting out this process is not only to claim some credit for his native Cordoba, from where Ena also hailed (suas. 6.27), but also to demonstrate the self‑referential character of the declamation tradition : it is a practice where orators harvest phrases from each other and adapt them into what they consider to be « superior » versions. In this respect, declamation is a microcosmic representation of cultural memory more generally ; declaimers act as « specialists » who choose promising sayings for inclusion into the « functional memory » of their art. Moreover, the tradition of the Ciceronian Epitaph constitutes both a source and a product of Roman cultural memory about Cicero. It did not only stem from the laudatory legend of Cicero which predominated the Roman consciousness in the early imperial period, but also helps to perpetuate that very image through frequent « commemorations ».

4. Conclusion

37In this article, I have presented a re‑reading of Sen. suas. 6 in accordance with cultural memory theory. Each segment of this collection of responses, down to the theme itself, has been chosen to commemorate a piece of Roman history which Seneca believed lost at the time of writing, namely the moral and intellectual virtue of the Republic. By presenting arguments from declaimers which engage with Republican values ranging from nobility to honour, Seneca actively advocates for the revival of these values among his audience, who do not only include his directly‑addressed descendants but the Roman people as a whole. What is more, the sixth Suasoria encapsulates cultural memory on multiple levels. Seneca himself acts as a mediator for memories on declamation by picking and choosing declaimers whom he deems worthy of preservation. However, the declaimers have themselves harnessed established cultural memories on Cicero in crafting their responses, and have also contributed to the font of « literary memory » by establishing the Ciceronian Epitaph, a literary sub‑genre characterised by its contrasts between mortality and immortality, its borrowings from Cicero’s own words, and its meditations on « memory » as a concept. The focus on « memory » and « legacy » throughout suas. 6 is mirrored in what Seneca proclaims its « neighbour » (suas. 6.27, referring to Suas  7 as a whole), in which declaimers exhort Cicero not to burn his writings even though this would earn him a pardon from Antony. Hence, even though our investigation ends here, it is worth « unrolling the book right to the end of the roll » (suas. 6.27) and examining how cultural memory theory can be used to craft a reading of Sen. suas. 7.

Haut de page

Bibliographie

Assmann A. 1995, « Funktionsgedächtnis und Speichergedächtnis : Zwei Modi der Erinnerung », dans Platt Kristin et Dabag Mihran (éd.), Generation und Gedächtnis : Erinnerungen und kollektive Identitäten, Wiesbaden, Springer, p. 169‑85.

Assmann A. et Assmann J. 1994, « Das Gestern im Heute. Medien und soziales Gedächtnis », dans Merten K., Schmidt S. J. et Weischenberg S. (éd.), Die Wirklichkeit der Medien : Eine Einführung in die Kommunikationswissenschaft, Wiesbaden, Springer, p. 114‑40.

Assmann J. 2008, « Communicative and Cultural Memory », in Erll A. et Nünning A. (éd.), Cultural Memory Studies. An International and Interdisciplinary Handbook, Berlin et New York, De Gruyter, p. 109‑18.

Assmann J. 2013, « Communicative and Cultural Memory », in Varga P. S. et al. (éd.), Loci memoriae Hungaricae : The Theoretical Foundations of Hungarian « Lieux de mémoire » Studies, Debrecen, Debrecen University Press, p 36‑43.

Assmann J. 1998, Moses the Egyptian, Cambridge MA ‑ Londres, Harvard University Press.

Assmann J. 2006, Religion and Cultural Memory (trans. Rodney Livingstone), Stanford CA, Stanford University Press.

Assmann J. et Czaplicka J. 1995, « Collective Memory and Cultural Identity », New German Critique, 65, p. 125‑33.

Basu L. 2012, Ned Kelly as a Memory Dispositif : Media, Time, Power, and the Development of Australian Identities, Media and Cultural Memory 13, Berlin – Boston, De Gruyter.

Berti E. 2014, « Le controversiae della raccolta di Seneca il Vecchio e la dottrina degli status », Rhetorica, 32, p. 99‑147.

Bloomer W. M. 1997, Latinity and Literary Society at Rome, Philadelphia PA, University of Pennsylvania Press.

Bloomer, W. M. 2007, « Roman Declamation : The Elder Seneca and Quintilian », in Dominik, William et Hall Jon (éd.), A Companion to Roman Rhetoric, Boston MA, Oxford and Chichester, Wiley‑Blackwell, p. 297‑306.

Cokayne K. 2003, Experiencing Old Age in Ancient Rome, London and New York, Routledge.

CWE Grant J. N. et al. (éd.), Collected Works of Erasmus, Toronto, Buffalo and London, University of Toronto Press, 1974‑2018, 89 vols.

De Melo W. (éd. et trad.) 2011, Plautus. Amphitryon, The Comedy of Asses, The Pot of Gold, The Two Bacchises, The Captives, Cambridge MA and London, Harvard University Press.

Dinter M. T. 2012, Anatomizing Civil War : Studies in Lucan’s epic technique, Ann Arbor, MI, University of Michigan Press.

Dinter M. T. 2015, « Fama in Ps.‑Quintilian’s Major Declamations », in Dinter M. T., Guérin C. et Martinho M. (éd.), Reading Roman Declamation : The Declamations Ascribed to Quintilian, Berlin et Boston, De Gruyter, p. 127‑ 43.

Erll A. 2018, « Homer : A Relational Mnemohistory », Memory Studies, 11, p. 274‑ 86.

Fairweather J. 1981, Seneca the Elder, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Fentress J. et Wickham C. 1992, Social Memory : New Perspectives on the Past, Oxford, Blackwell.

Finney M. 2016, Resurrection, Hell, and the Afterlife : Body and Soul in Antiquity, Judaism, and Early Christianity, London and New York, Routledge.

Grafton A. 1987, « Portrait of Justus Lipsius », American Scholar, 56, p. 382‑90.

Gummere R. (éd. et trad.) 1917‑25, Seneca. Epistles, Cambridge MA et London, Harvard University Press, 3 vols.

Gunderson E. 2003, Declamation, Paternity, and Roman Identity. Authority and the Rhetorical Self, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Halbwachs M. 1925, Les cadres sociaux de la mémoire, Paris, Librairie Félix Alcan.

Halbwachs M. 1941, La topographie légendaire des évangiles en terre sainte : étude de mémoire collective, Paris, Presses Universitaires de France.

Halbwachs M. 1950, La mémoire collective, Paris, Presses Universitaires de France.

Hammersley R. 2012, « Introduction : The Historiography of Republicanism and Republican Exchanges », History of European Ideas, no 38, p. 323‑37.

Hardie P. 2012, Rumour and Renown : Representations of Fama in Western Literature, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Hooper F. A. 1979, Roman Realities, Detroit MI, Wayne State University Press.

Huelsenbeck B. 2018, Figures in the Shadows : The Speech of Two Augustan‑Age Declaimers, Arellius Fuscus and Papirius Fabianus, Berlin et Boston, De Gruyter.

Hutchinson G. O. 2013, Greek to Latin : Frameworks and Contexts for Intertextuality, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

Janson T. 1964, Latin Prose Prefaces. Studies in Literary Conventions, Stockholm, Göteborg et Uppsala, Almqvist & Wiksell.

Keeline T. 2018, The Reception of Cicero in the Early Roman Empire : The Rhetorical Schoolroom and the Creation of a Cultural Legend, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Kennedy G. A. 1999, Classical Rhetoric and Its Christian and Secular Tradition from Ancient to Modern Times, Chapel Hill NC, The University of North Carolina Press.

Kinneavy J. L. 1987, Greek Rhetorical Origins of Christian Faith : An Inquiry, Oxford and New York, Oxford University Press.

Kroon C. 1995, Discourse Particles in Latin : A Study of Nam, Enim, Autem, Vero and At, Amsterdam Studies in Classical Philology 4, Leyden, Brill.

Krostenko B. A. 2013, « The Poetics of Naevius’ Epitaph and the History of Latin Poetry », The Journal of Roman Studies, 103, p. 46‑64.

Mannering J. E. 2020, « Objection ! Contesting Taste and Space in Seneca’s Declamatory Arena », in Dinter Martin T., Guérin C. et Martinho M. (éd.), Reading Roman Declamation : Seneca the Elder, Oxford, Oxford University Press, p. 221‑239.

Manning C. E. 1981, On Seneca’s « Ad Marciam », Leyde, Brill.

Manuwald G. (éd.) 2012, Cicero, Philippics 3‑9, Volume I, Edited with Translation, Introduction, and Commentary, Berlin et New York, De Gruyter.

Marchesi I. 2008, The Art of Pliny’s Letters : A Poetics of Allusion in the Private Correspondence, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

McGill S. 2005, « Seneca the Elder on Plagiarising Cicero’s Verrines », Rhetorica, 23, 2005, p. 337‑46.

Meijer P. A. 2007, Stoic Theology : Proofs for the Existence of the Cosmic God and of the Traditional Gods, Including a Commentary on Cleanthes’ Hymn on Zeus, Delft, Eburon.

Mlynar J. 2014, « Language and Collective Memory : Insights from Social Theory », Slovak Journal of Political Sciences, 14, p. 217‑36.

Mol H. 1976, Identity and the Sacred : A Sketch for a New Social‑Scientific Theory of Religion, New York, The Free Press.

Nora P. 1989, « Between Memory and History: Les lieux de mémoire », Representations, 26, p. 7‑24.

Nora P. 1978, « Mémoire collective », in Le Goff J., Chartier R. et Revel J. (éd.), La nouvelle histoire, Paris, Retz‑C.E.P.L., p. 398‑401.

Nora P. 1984‑92, Les lieux de mémoire, Paris, Gallimard, 7 vols.

Pogoloff S. M. 1992, Logos and Sophia : The Rhetorical Situation of 1 Corinthians, Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series 134, Atlanta GA, Scholars Press.

Randall D. B. J. 1991, « The Head and the Hands on the Rostra : Marcus Tullius Cicero as a Sign of Its Time », Connotations, 1, p. 34‑54.

Rich J. 2010, « Velleius’ History : Genre and Purpose », in Cowan Eleanor (éd.), Velleius Paterculus : Making History, Swansea, The Classical Press of Wales, p. 73‑92.

Rigney A. 2005, « Plenitude, Scarcity, and the Circulation of Cultural Memory », Journal of European Studies, 35, p. 11‑28.

Schmidt V. 1998, « A Humanist Life Summarised – Leonardo Bruni’s Epitaph », Humanistica Lovaniensia : Journal of Neo‑Latin Studies, 47, p. 1‑14.

Schubert A. T. 2000, Fantasy and Politics in the Declamations of Seneca the Elder, Ithaca NY, Diss. Cornell.

Schwindt J. P. 2001, « Literaturgeschichtsschreibung und immanente Literaturgeschichte. Bausteine literarhistorischen Bewusstseins in Rom », in Schmidt Ernst A. et al. (éd.), L’histoire littéraire immanente dans la poésie latine, Entretiens sur l’Antiquité Classique 47, Genève, Fondation Hardt, p. 1‑38.

Shackleton Bailey D. R. (éd. et trad.) 2000, Valerius Maximus. Memorable Doings and Sayings, Cambridge MA and London, Harvard University Press, 2 vols.

Shipley F. W. (éd. et trad.) 1924, Velleius Paterculus, Compendium of Roman History. Res Gestae Divi Augusti, Cambridge MA and London, Harvard University Press.

Sussman L. A. 1978, The Elder Seneca, Leyde et Boston, Brill.

Von Albrecht M. 1998, Roman Epic : An Interpretive Introduction, Leyde and Boston, Brill.

Winterbottom M. 1974, Seneca the Elder. Declamations. Suasoriae. Fragments, Cambridge MA – London, Harvard University Press, 2 vols.

Haut de page

Note de fin

1 Sussman 1978, 15‑16 and Bloomer 1997, 129‑37 both characterise Seneca’s « society of declaimers » as competitive. See also Mannering (2020).

2 As Hutchinson 2013, 238 suggests, the brevity with which Seneca passes over his examples further implies that they were meant to be taught and discussed rather than merely read: « The general irregularity of the patterning and size of comments must have been compatible with the plans of whoever circulated the work, whether teacher, pupils, or others ; a further ground of communication is implied with the reader, who will likewise be instructed ».

3 Dinter 2015, 128.

4 The following draws on Mannering 2020.

5 Fairweather 1981, 31. See also Gunderson 2003, 36.

6 On the relationship between Senecan and Ciceronian style, see McGill 2005; for a comparison between Seneca the Elder and Quintilian, see Bloomer 2007.

7 Halbwachs 1925 and 1950.

8 On Latro’s privileged position in Seneca’s unofficial hierarchy of declaimers, see Berti 2014, 101.

9 All translations of Seneca’s texts are adapted from Winterbottom 1974.

10 Halbwachs 1950, 13

11 Sussmann 1978, 24 identifies 39 AD as the most ‘reasonable’ date for Seneca’s death, but notes that this event could have occurred anywhere between 37 and 41 AD.

12 On Latro’s death by suicide, see Sussman 1978, 23 ; on Celsius and Albucius, see Huelsenbeck 2018.

13 Halbwachs 1950, 126‑29 identifies the perception of time as one especially subjective aspect of collective memory.

14 On Lipsius’ role in distinguishing the Elder and Younger Senecas see Grafton 1987, 384.

15 Halbwachs 1941.

16 See Nora 1984 for a full‑length study on lieux de mémoire.

17 Nora 1989, 8.

18 For an overview of the school practice of Latin declamation, a mainstay of curricula across the medieval West, see Kennedy 1999, 183‑89.

19 Nora 1978, 398‑401.

20 Nora 1989, 7 : « There are lieux de mémoire, sites of memory, because there are no longer milieux de mémoire, real environments of memory ».

21 Rigney 2005, 14.

22 Fentress and Wickham 1992, 7.

23 Assmann 2013, 36‑43 elaborates upon these definitions.

24 Assmann 1995, 127. A « specialist » is a « bearer of cultural memory », for example priests who are invested with the exclusive authority to perpetuate and interpret sacred rituals (131).

25 Assmann 2008, 111.

26 Assmann 1995, 130.

27 Ibid. The relationship between cultural memory and identity concretion derives from discussions on the human « need for identity » (Mol 1976).

28 Assmann 2006, 38.

29 Slaves would have either been educated or attended specialised « trade schools » (Pogoloff 1992, 50). On the centrality of rhetoric and declamation to Roman schools, see Kinneavy 1987, 20.

30 On the difference between these repositories of memory, see Assmann 1995.

31 Assmann and Assmann 1994, 115

32 See Assmann 2008, 100.

33 Schubert 2000 outlines the political leanings of Seneca the Elder as expressed in the Controuersiae and Suasoriae.

34 On Cato’s unyielding defense of the Republic, see e.g. Hooper, p. 248: « Cato the Younger was a self‑appointed foe of all tyrants. Liberty should be circumscribed only by traditions, never by men [...] There could be no distinction between one tyrant and another whether they were selfless men or self‑serving, reactionary or progressive, a Sulla or a Caesar ».

35 Assmann 1998, 64.

36 Keeline 2018, 198 highlights that Seneca’s Cicero embodies self‑sacrificing virtue by ‘proffering his neck’ to an ex‑client (Sen. suas. 6.17).

37 Basu 2012, 1‑18.

38 Erll 2018, 274‑75.

39 Cicero’s predominance in Humanist thought is perceptible from how he is the single most quoted author in Erasmus’ Adages (see CWE 30: 68). On political receptions of Cicero in early modern England, see Hammersley 2012.

40 Huelsenbeck 2018, 303‑10.

41 On the crucial importance of receptions and commemorations in transmitting linguistic components over time, see Mlynar 2014.

42 Huelsenbeck 2018, 303

43 On the scope of Velleius Paterculus’ work, see Rich 2010, 75

44 This effect derives from these verbs’ combination of a prefix meaning « outside » (ex‑) or « in the way of » (ob‑) and root verbs meaning to « place » and « throw » (ponere and iacio respectively).

45 Fuscus’ rhetoric of the « weak body » mirrors Seneca’s characteriz ation of the human memory as fragile and vulnerable (Sen. contr. 1. praef.2).

46 See Manning 1981, 142, who notes that by depicting the immortal soul as unfettered, Fuscus implicitly characterises the living body as an onus (« burden »).

47 On the adversative force of uero, see Kroon 1995, 315‑18.

48 See e.g. Hardie 2012, 564.

49 On the stock wordplay of uiuit uiuetque, see Marchesi 2008, 192.

50 Finney 2016, 10 : « [Plato’s] soul, fastened and welded to the body, regards reality through the body and wallows in utter ignorance and the lusts of the flesh ». 

51 Meijer 2007, 184‑85 discusses further implications of the mutabile‑mortale connection.

52 See Vell. Pat. 2.66.4 as discussed on p. 10 in this article.

53 As Manuwald 2012, 486‑87 notes, in this passage Cicero equates himself as orator with the people, thus conflating his individual memory (as in memini) with the collective memory and history of which he has heard and read (audiui, legi).

54 Huelsenbeck 2018, 303‑4.

55 Winterbottom 1974, II.580‑81.

56 Keeline 2018, 111‑17.

57 See p. 11 above.

58 The rhetoric of death as preferable to a protracted old age is a mainstay of Latin literature. Cf. Plaut. Bacch. 816‑17 : Quem di diligunt / adulescens moritur, dum ualet, sentit, sapit (« Whom the gods hold dear dies young, with strength and sense and mind intact ») and, in the same vein, Sen. ep. 99.10 and Val. Max. 9.13.

59 On the societal taboo of attacking the old (and defenceless) in ancient Rome, see Cokayne 2003, 95.

60 On Cornelius Severus and anatomical imagery, see Estèves in this issue. [Voir ici]

61 On mutilation as a marker of political disunity in Latin literature, see Dinter 2012, 47.

62 Randall 1991, 34‑40.

63 Krostenko 2013, 51.

64 Schwindt 2001.

65 Krostenko 2013, 58.

66 An observation made by Barchiesi in the discussion following Schwindt 2001: « [l’epitaffio di Nervio] è una testimonianza importante sul modo di pensare la poesia in riferimento a un’epoca di origini ».

67 Schmidt 1998, 4.

68 On this phrase, see von Albrecht 1998, 218‑19 and Esteves in this issue [Voir ici].

69 See e.g. Sen. contr. 1. praef. 11.

Haut de page

Pour citer cet article

Référence électronique

Martin Dinter, « Memories of Future Past: Seneca the Elder and Cultural Memory »Interférences [En ligne], 12 | 2021, document 4, mis en ligne le 08 septembre 2023, consulté le 16 mai 2026. URL : http://journals.openedition.org/interferences/8675 ; DOI : https://doi.org/10.4000/interferences.8675

Haut de page

Droits d’auteur

Le texte et les autres éléments (illustrations, fichiers annexes importés), sont « Tous droits réservés », sauf mention contraire.

Haut de page
Rechercher dans OpenEdition Search

Vous allez être redirigé vers OpenEdition Search