1 Introduction
In his analysis of Quintilianâs theoretical concerns about pedagogy, Martin Bloomer defines the child educated at schools of grammar and rhetoric as an âactive agentâ, cooperating with the teacher in the learning process and developing his cognitive abilities by reading, interpreting, and imitating the best models of the past.1 Eruditio, fashioning and moulding the uneducated minds of the young by means of pure and correct Latin (Latinitas) and creative imitation of the models,2 relied on an interactive dialogue between teacher and students, based on joint interpretative activity.3 The construction of the vir bonus dicendi peritus, âthe good man skilled at speakingââthe basic principle of Quintilianâs pedagogical project (and of any handbook or educational text aimed at establishing the moral and cultural background of Roman male elite students)â, was a dynamic process implying communication of ideas and notions, a process envisioning the formation of an accultured man, capable of emulating and competing with his model in the ars dicendi.4
This image of the student as an active reader, supporting his master in understanding a particular text and taking responsibility himself in embracing or rejecting one interpretation in favour of another, may well be applied to a large part of the late antique exegetical tradition. When dealing with literary conventions in ancient commentaries and the readerâs role in the practice of learning, Raymond Starr opportunely observes that âeach reader is conceived of as an individual, not as an automaton, and as someone who had an active, not a passive, role: he or she had to decide independently on the meaning of each word and lineâ.5 The corpus of the late antique scholia and commentaries on Ciceroâs speeches, published by Thomas Stangl in 1912, provides us with an interesting view on this âactiveâ relationship between teachers and readers/students and the long-established practice of reading, teaching, and interpreting Cicero in the schoolrooms. They help us to illuminate the process of the studentsâ maturation through their training at the school of rhetoric, assisted by the teacher on their path towards the acquisition of those abilities that could render them ânew Cicerosâ. Starting from the recognized function of the commentaries as auxiliary texts supporting the interpretation and clarification of rhetorical, linguistic, and textual issues arising during the reading and learning process (as stated by Jerome in his self-apologizing discussion of the art of commentary in the polemical response to Rufinus), this paper aims to throw further light on teaching strategies in the scholia Ciceronis. It revisits the well-known passage about the standard teaching procedure in the rhetorical school (from the second book of Quintilianâs Institutio: 2.5.5â11) and shows how the commentaries on Ciceroâs oratory reflect this conventional practice, shared by the students with their teacher. It then points to the scholiastâs self-presentation as schoolteacher and intellectual guide and examines the studentâs role in the exegesis of Ciceroâs speeches, with special emphasis on the Scholia Bobiensia and the Scholia Gronoviana, both providing good insights into the complexity of the relation between teacher and students in the interpretative process. It is my goal to demonstrate that the scholia testify to the teacher/student cooperation in acquiring and replicating methods and content of good oratory, and thus are far from merely a telling test-case for illustrating the impact exercised by the persona of Cicero, icon of eloquence, on the moral and cultural growth of the young. They enable us to look at the art of expounding and interpreting Cicero as the result of a common effort conducted by teachers and students side by side: the commentator and the reader develop a dual relationship that also entails the participation of the particular author in the interpretative process.
2 Commentaries and Scholia as âDidacticâ Texts
Jeromeâs celebrated passage in the Apology against Rufinus (1.16), a self-defending response to Rufinusâ allegations of plagiarism in his commentary on Ephesians, is an eloquent testimony to the art of commentary in Late Antiquity. It distils three basic functions of a good commentary: explanation of the words of another author, clarification of obscure words, and discussion of earlier opinions. The prudens lector, the learned and sensible readerâand the intelligent student, I would addâis to be held responsible for evaluating contrasting interpretations and judging what is worthy of accepting or refusing:
commentarii quid operis habent? alterius dicta edisserunt, quae obscure scripta sunt, plano sermone manifestant, multorum sententias replicant, et dicunt: hunc locum quidam sic edisserunt, alii sic interpretantur, illi sensum suum et intelligentiam his testimoniis et hac nituntur ratione firmare, ut prudens lector, cum diversas explanationes legerit et multorum vel probanda vel improbanda didicerit, iudicet quid verius sit, et quasi bonus trapezita, adulterinae monetae pecuniae reprobet.
What is the task of commentaries? They explain the words of another, they elucidate in plain speech what is written in obscure terms, they repeat earlier opinions, and they say: âThere are many who expound on this passage in this way, many others interpret it differently, and by these citations and this method they attempt to confirm their interpretation and opinionâ, so that the prudent reader, once he has looked through contrasting interpretations and has learned what is worthy of being accepted or rejected, can make his own judgement on the subject and, like a good money-changer, will reject the false coinage.6
Jerome is evidently referring to what we usually call a variorum commentary, in terms like those used by Donatus in the prefatory letter to Munatius. All the commentaries mentioned in the passage (Asper on Vergil and Sallust, Volcacius on Ciceroâs speeches, Victorinus on Ciceroâs rhetoric, Donatus on Terence and Vergil, and other commentaries on Plautus, Lucretius, Horace, Persius, and Lucan)7 are variorum works, assembling and discussing previous exegetical material. The reader-student makes his judgement under the guidance of the schoolteacher, who establishes his prominent position in the tradition and develops reading and learning strategies with his pupil.8
In addition to occupying a significant place in the history of classical scholarship,9 Jeromeâs passage clarifies two important aspects of teaching practice in the school. First, it points to the interactive dialogue between the composer of the commentary and his readership (teacher and student) by emphasizing the strategic role of the lector, cooperating with his authoritative guide in textual exegesis.10 Secondly, it assumes the didactic nature of the commentary, intended to serve as an auxiliary text, a support for the pupil in the knowledge process and a practical instrument for the correct understanding and explanation of textual issues, baffling words, or difficult passages of the text commented upon.11
Leaving aside the question of the origin of the scholia, either marginal/interlinear notes later recombined and assembled in a continuous text or separate commentaries, or variorum works preserving and discussing ancient material,12 what we possess of the exegetical tradition on Ciceroâs speeches seems to confirm Jeromeâs statement. In particular, Asconiusâ historical commentary, the Scholia Bobiensia, and Ps.-Asconiusâ commentary on part of the Divinatio and the Verrines, all serve a didactic purpose and may easily be understood as auxiliary texts (or para-texts), as practical forms of support in the process of acquisitionâand appreciationâof Ciceroâs rhetorical tactics and stylistic elegance.13 As Zetzel puts it, âcommentaries are practical books, valued by readers as aids to comprehension of a text; they are not valued for their ipsissima verba, and can be rewrittenâabridged, expanded, revisedâto fit the needs of the immediate audienceâ.14 It might be tempting to say that the scholia or commentaries on Ciceroâs speeches operated as necessary textual âsupplementsâ, assisting the teacher-scholiast in his teaching duties and helping the pupil to face the historical, literary, and linguistic obscurities of the scrutinized text.15
3 Teaching Strategies in the Scholia
Before turning our attention to the teaching system in the commentaries on Cicero, it seems useful to reanalyse briefly the usual classroom procedure for the teaching of rhetoric as described in Quintilianâs second book of his Institutio (2.5.5â11), a passage of the greatest significance for our understanding of the didactic function of the scholia Ciceronis. Correctly deemed âa blueprint for a rhetorical commentary on a speech of Ciceroâ,16 Quintilianâs passage tells us much about the different stages which a student had to go through to become familiar with the arguments, language, and stylistic features of an oration.17 In Quintilianâs words, the main task of the teacher was first to âpoint out merits, and, where necessary, faultsâ of the text (demonstrare virtutes vel, si quando incidat, vitia), proceeding then to the explanation of the causa by appointing a student as a reader. Cooperation and active participation in the learning process smooth the way for a correct understanding of style and subject of the speech. By showing what comprises a good exordium, illuminating the oratorâs stratagems of winning the benevolence of the audience, illustrating the artifices of oratory, and discussing the speakerâs selection and division of the arguments,18 Quintilianâs ideal teacher should direct his studentâs mind towards an appreciation of Ciceroâs oration as a specimen of the art of illusion (ut denique dominetur in adfectibus atque in pectora inrumpat animumque iudicum similem iis quae dici efficiat, âand in conclusion how the orator established his sway over the emotions of the audience, forces his way into their very hearts and brings the feelings of the jury into perfect sympathy with all his wordsâ), also paying due attention to the language and style of the speech as an example of masculine oratory:
tum, in ratione eloquendi, quod verbum proprium ornatum sublime, ubi amplificatio laudanda, quae virtus ei contraria, quid speciose tralatum, quae figura verborum, quae levis et quadrata, virilis tamen compositio.19
Finally, as regards the style, he will emphasize the appropriateness, elegance or sublimity of particular words, will indicate where the amplification of the theme is deserving of praise and where there is virtue in a diminuendo; and will call attention to brilliant metaphors, figures of speech and passages combining smoothness and polish with a general impression of manly vigour. (tr. Russell)
The teacher outlines the features of a good speech by disclosing what is needed to win the goodwill and docilitas of the listeners/readers. In so doing, he solicits imitation from his students, actively engaged in the learning project and expected to master the skills of successful oratory. The teacherâs appointment of a skilful pupil as lector, fitted to the role of guide for his classmates by offering a penetrating and sensitive reading of the speech, points to the teacherâs expectations on the one hand, and to the role played by the student in the interpretation of the text on the other. The teacher shares his knowledge with his audience and elicits an active response. The joint act of learning motivates students and inspires them to follow in Ciceroâs footsteps, a precondition for the acquisition of the rhetorical instruments that make a good student into a vir bonus dicendi peritus.
Quintilianâs lectio is not just the most âexplicit evidence for the enarratio of prose texts by Latinâ.20 In addition to being an oratory lesson par lâexemple, it also represents an implicit invitation to readers/students, budding orators aspiring to become ânew Cicerosâ, to appreciate oratory as the art of persuasion, founded on the subtle and elegant manipulation of rhetorical and stylistic artifices, powerful tools of deceit in the hands of skilled speakers. Applied to our understanding of the techniques of teaching in the scholia, Quintilianâs lecture on Ciceroâs mastery of oratory supports us in observing how Ciceronian scholiasts were accustomed to discuss and dissect Ciceroâs speeches in detail, stimulating their students to admire and imitate the oratorâs deployment of arguments, his command of style and language, his irony and artful manipulation of passionsâin other words, his unsurpassed capacity for exercising control over his adversaries and judges by making proper use of rhetorical stratagems and words. Alongside Quintilian, the ancient commentaries on Ciceroâs orations show the Republican orator to be a teacher of dissimulatio, a crafted speaker and an able manipulator of the minds of his potential hearers by means of emotional devices and cunning language.
We will return to the presentation of Ciceroâs art of advocacy in the scholia later. It is time now to move to teaching strategies in the commentaries and the related relationship between commentator and reader in the process of knowledge. Without doubt, crucial to a constructive teaching method was the teacherâs self-establishment as an authority in the exegetical tradition along with the acceptance, on the studentâs part, of the key role played by the teacher in the learning process. As expected, the scholiast constructs his persona as teacher and establishes his role as intellectual guide by means of a typical teaching mechanism, the use of the first-person singular (e.g., Schol. Bob. 81.18 St. on Sul. 26: et hic, quantum mea opinio est, imitatus est C. Gracchum; 81.30 St. on Sul. 28: verum mihi altius consideranti â¦). At the same time, the notion of good teaching as depending on active cooperation between teacher and student accounts for the repeated use of the first-person plural (e.g., Schol. Bob. 82.23 St. on Sul. 32: ab hoc comperimus â¦; 84.7 St. on Sul. 41: ut diximus; 87.31 St. on Clod. frg. 14: ut scimus; 148.4 St. on Vat. 23: notissimum habemus):21 apparently an emphatic maiestatis plural, this linguistic device relates directly to the union of teacher and student and highlights the true nature of a commentary as a means of sharing knowledge and binding teacher and students, encouraged by the examination of Ciceroâs text with the teacherâs eye. âIâ, the commentator, and âweâ, the commentator and his readers, coordinate their efforts to interpret Cicero: the third-person singular, âheâ, the most common form of person used in the commentary, refers to the author himself, Cicero, who implicitlyâand virtuallyâdialogues with his interpreters and helps them in the exegesis of his own text by offering interpretative clues in more or less direct ways.
This relationship between commentator and students/readers is particularly evident in a case of textual emendation in a work entitled Si eum P. Clodius legibus interrogasset, a rhetorical interrogatio which was presumably placed after the Pro Flacco as the speech opening the corpus of post-exile orations in the collection available to the Bobbio scholiast (a fictitious controversia over the Cicero-Clodius theme, comparable to the preserved Pridie quam in exilium iret introducing the group of post reditum speeches in the earliest medieval manuscript, Paris, BNF Lat. 7794).22 This was a repetitive replication of exile topoi, a text of no benefit to the students.23 The commentator first invites his students to consider and follow the order of the Ciceronian speeches: Oratioâ¨num ordoâ© Tulliâ¨anarum⩠⦠â¨posâ©tulat ut praecedentis commentario eam subiceremus quae inscribitur: Si eum P. Clodius legibus interrogasset, quae oratio videtur post mortem eius inventa (âIf I had followed the order of the Ciceronian speeches (as I see it), I would have commented upon the speech titled If P. Clodius had sued him according to laws, appending it to the commentary of the preceding oration. This speech seems to have been discovered after Ciceroâs deathâ, Schol. Bob. 108.16â18 St.); the first-plural person subiceremus unequivocally indicates a joint textual act, pointing to the necessity of commenting upon a pre-exile text. The scholiast then reasserts his authorial role by taking the responsibility for omitting the speech from the collection, in consideration of the fact that ânothing of Ciceroâs argumentation shall be missedâ (eximendam numero arbitratus sum, quando rebus nihil depereat). The final act is a new, renovated invitation to his students to proceed further with the commentary (consideremus igitur, 108.22 St.). Embodying the good teacher, the scholiast selects what is worth reading and what is not. Preoccupied with choosing the texts that could refine his studentsâ intellectual faculties, he opts for a drastic elimination of a boring, useless speech from Ciceroâs oratorical canon. This deliberate exclusion of texts devoid of any didactic interest from the school curriculum is effected through a textual emendatio, shared by the teacher with his audience.24 The scholiast thereby deals with the question on a twofold basis: first, by setting the agenda and demanding acceptance of his textual action from his student, and second, by associating himself with his students to elicit a direct involvement of his readers in the act of emendatio.
To be effective, teaching demands an attentive use of formulas or fixed locutions that could support students in recognizing the qualities of Ciceronian prose.25 They function as a means of activating the interpretative process and show how teachers and students work side by side to illuminate peculiarities of the text being commented upon. The verb notare, âto point outâ (usually in subjunctive form), is peculiar to the teaching strategy in the scholia: it is not only used to signal textual problems or cases of incorrect use of words but also to show features of style and language that could illustrate Ciceroâs mastery of Latin prose at its best. Again, the use of the first-person plural is quite illustrative of this cooperation between teacher and students, cf. Schol. Bob. 90.20 St.: notemus verborum medietates elegantissime ab oratore suspendi (cf. also 97.14 and 152.4 St., for the use of notabile).26 Other cases of this active involvement of the reader in the interpretative process may usefully be cited. On Sest. 120 the scholiast shows how compelling Ciceroâs reminder of the senatus consultum in the temple of Virtue was by the first-plural person movemur (Schol. Bob. 136.24 St.). Later, commenting on Ciceroâs joke about Vatiniusâs tumour (struma) at Sest. 134, the commentator correctly understands the political sense of the medical metaphor and joins himself and his students in the interpretation of Ciceroâs allegory (intellegere debemus, 149.9â12 St.).27 Again, historical events or figures are explained by a recurrent use of the first-person plural (e.g. 142.25â26 St., on Sest. 141: breviter consideremus et â¦; 148.4 St., on Vat. 23: notissimum habemus).
Teaching Cicero (like any other classic) implied inviting students to ponder questions of content and style.28 The scholiast alerts his pupils to textual issues, discussing variants of collation or legitur variants and commenting upon supposed linguistic and syntactical anomalies by voicing earlier opinions, thereby embarking on the long academic debate over Ciceroâs verbal creativity.29 Notably, at the very moment in which the scholiast refutes earlier interpretations, he presupposes that the student sympathizes with his reasoning. Each time the commentator expresses his thoughts about a passage or a feature of Ciceroâs style, he asks for his studentâs cooperation and approval. A good example may be provided by a note in the Gronovian scholia on Actio II in C. Verrem (2.1.45; 344.11 St.: velim tamen et in hac brevitate perspicias non abesse Ciceronis studium
It may also happen that the scholiast stimulates imitation and invites his readers to appreciate Ciceroâs rhetorical tactic in an indirect way, that is, by propounding his interpretation and thereby expecting a âpositiveâ reaction from his audience. It seems to me that we may place at least two examples into this category. First, we may note the Bobbio scholiastâs comment on Ciceroâs De consulatu suo (165.7â9 St.: nam de consulatu suo scripsit poetico metro: quae mihi videntur opera minus digna talis viri nomine, âhe composed a versified poem on his consulship; this work, however, gives me the impression of being unworthy of the fame of such a great manâ).31 Here, echoing general criticism of Ciceroâs poetic activity, the commentator tacitly advises his students not to imitate and replicate Ciceroâs versification (a low-grade literature, unfavourably compared with his excellence in oratory). Second, the scholiastâs stance on the controversy over the Pro Marcello as a âfiguredâ text, a covert attack on Caesar (Schol. Gron. 295.23â296.2 St.) may be noted. By reconsidering earlier interpretations and refusing an ironical reading of the speech (plerique putant figuratam esse istam orationem et sic exponent, quasi plus vituperationis habeat quam laudis, âmost think that this speech is âfiguredâ and explain it this way, as if the speech has more invective than praiseâ), the scholiast indirectly encourages his students to look at the text from a historical perspective.32 By advocating a realistic, historically founded, reading of the praise of Caesar the scholiast teaches how to approach and evaluate a speech of Cicero, its ambiguity and apparent insincerity: in other words, he gives a lesson in textual exegesis and offers a portrait of Ciceroâs persona that seems in accord with the historical and political circumstances of the time. Moving from imitation to historical interpretation, the scholiast tries, more or less explicitly, to elicit an active involvement of his readers in the learning process.
To sum up so far, the scholiastâs self-fashioning as the only trustworthy exegetical guide does not automatically result in a passive response or acquiescence from the student. As has been shown for Serviusâ commentary on Vergil, the shift from the first-person singular in the authorial preface to the first-person plural, recurrently used when commenting upon Vergilian lines, originates from an interactive act of knowledge and interpretation that anticipates the concurrent participation of the master-teacher, reader, and the work being commented upon.33 It is an act that involves the readerâs relative independence in the learning process. Cooperation between teacher and student requires a preliminary acceptance of the role played by the scholiast in interpreting the examined text. Yet, recognizing the crucial, if not pivotal, role of the commentator facilitates the transition from a passive to an active response to the issues and linguistic intricacies posed by the text. When implicitly requested to express his preference, accepting or refusing earlier interpretations, the reader incorporates himself into any particular tradition and approves of his teacherâs exegetical choices. Like Jeromeâs prudens lector, the wise and expert reader puts his knowledge, shared with his teacher, in the service of a more reliable comprehension of the text he is reading and commenting upon.
4 Teaching and Imitating Ciceroâs Art of Advocacy
Imitation of Ciceroâs rhetorical tactic and language was the key to success and acquisition of a status of authority in Roman elite society. Teaching Cicero was thereby a means of showing what true oratory consists of and, above all, what a would-be orator should do to become a new âCiceroâ. Two points, in particular, attracted the commentatorsâ attention and were reputed to be essential to the rhetorical formation. First, the composition of a good and effectiveâI would say, âCiceronianââspeech was necessary. As we have seen in the discussion of Quintilianâs praelectio, the teacher was responsible for making the students sensible to the difficulties arising during delivery: by a perceptive reading and interpretation of the text-model, he should train his students in the successful handling of all rhetorical artifices. The argumenta, the explanatory proemial sections devoted to introducing the historical and rhetorical background of the speech, even to elucidating the inscriptio of the text (the title, as it happens in the De aere alieno Milonis, cf. Schol. Bob. 169.30 St.), contained subtle cues indicating how a speech should be arranged and composed to win the approbation of the audience, without deviating from rhetorical theory. A pertinent example is, in my opinion, the argumentum to the Pro Archia in the Scholia Bobiensia (175.1â20 St.). By attracting attention to Archiasâ literary doctrine and his outstanding cultural and moral qualities, Cicero shifts from the status coniecturalis to the status qualitatis and, in the absence of legal arguments, focuses on the ethos of the prosecuted, who is praised for his âpoetic skills and very pleasing learningâ (poetica facultas et doctrina iucundissima). This is the only strategy at Ciceroâs disposal and the only strategy a good orator should use, when feeble or absent forensic argumentations impel him to follow a different line of defence. As James May has demonstrated, Ciceroâs art of verbal persuasion is founded on the presentation of the moral character of the speaker (and, accordingly, of his client).34 So, the Bobbio scholiast not only offers his students suggestions about the best way of dealing with citizenship issues, but also implicitly restates the force of the eloquence of Ciceronian ethos and points to the importance of character portrayal in the rhetoric of advocacy.35
Second, dissimulation, a technique crucial to oratorical success, was used by Cicero on more than one occasion. The portrait of Cicero as a master of the art of dissimulatio is a common feature of the scholia. The comparison between Cicero and Sinon in the comment on the opening lines of the Pro rege Deiotaro (Schol. Gron. 299.1â7 St.) is eloquent concerning the notion of ars dicendi as a tool of deceit:
Tum in hac causa ita me â¨m.â© perturbant] amamus periclitantibus subvenire. hac arte dixit quemadmodum in Cornelianis et in Cluentiana. et dedit exemplum Virgilius. Sinon â¨nisiâ© miserabilem personam sumpsisset, et non haberet quemadmodum Troianis extorqueret misericordiam, quippe hostis. ut eius fallax audiretur oratio, finxit turbari: turbatus inquit inermis constitit. sic et modo Cicero, quia apud Caesarem de hoste Caesaris loquitur, finxit se moveri, ut eius audiatur oratio.
Then in this case I am so perturbed by many things] We usually long to support those who are in danger. By means of this device Cicero pleaded in such a manner as he had spoken in the speeches on behalf of Cornelius and Cluentius. Vergil gave an example of this. If Sinon had not taken on a pitiable figure, he would not have had any possibility to induce the Trojans to clemency, as he was an enemy. He pretended to be perturbed so that they would listen to his false and deceitful speech: [Vergil] says: âhe stood anxious and unarmedâ. Similarly, Cicero, for he spoke before Caesar on behalf of an enemy of Caesar, pretended to be perturbed, so that his speech could be paid attention to.
Relying on the technique of insinuatio, already used in the proemial sections of the Pro Cornelio and the Pro Cluentio (cf. Grill. 89.88â91 Jakobi; for the Pro Cluentio as an example of intentional oratorical deceit cf. Quint. Inst. 2.17.20â21), Cicero portrays himself as an afflicted, anxious, pleader manipulating feelings and eliciting compassion from the judge by means of deceitful and duplicitous language. The Vergilian counterpart, the mendacious Greek orator Sinon, exemplifies the figure of the orator as a potential liar swaying the minds and souls of his listeners through emotional tactics and captivating words. From a pedagogical point of view, the note of the scholiast underscores the persuasive function of the art of calliditas, oratorical astutia, achieved through artifices of subtlety and deceit. The key verb fingere, âto feign, simulateâ, is revealing of the essence of manipulative, effective oratory: the teacher tacitly invites his students to simulate fear and anxiety before speaking in public if they want to win benevolence from the audience.36
As we have said above, notes on Ciceroâs art of simulatio/dissimulatio are quite common in the scholia (cf. Schol. Gron. 287.15â16 St., on the tactic deployed in the Fourth Catilinarian). Flattery of the judges, misrepresentation and manipulation of the truth, tricky language, and denigration of the adversaries, attract interest from the scholiasts, engaged in making students familiar with the instruments of the art of persuasion. As Gotoff puts it, the speeches of Cicero served as âexamples of the techniques for enchanting audiences, discomfiting opponents, changing minds and winning in argument and debateâ.37 Within this scientific-didactic presentation of rhetorical strategies and forms of persuasion, it was Ciceroâs witticism and argutia, his unrivalled ability to destroy the credibility of his opponents by humour, that elicited most reactions from the scholiasts, who provide us with several positive comments on Ciceroâs irony and mira urbanitas (âremarkable turn of witâ). By means of linguistic mechanisms of recognition of Ciceroâs aggressive humour and verbal jokes (such as adverbs and fixed formulas: summa cum festivitate, Schol. Bob. 102.20â24 St.; festivissime, Schol. Gron. 292.6â8 St.) and, at the same time, by lingering over the political and moral force of humour (cf. Schol. Bob. 141.9â12 St., on Vatiniusâ tumour, strumae, and the medical metaphor of the state infected by Vatiniusâ illness), the scholiasts portray Cicero as a facetious orator, a joker passionate about puns and urbane irony.38 In the note on Planc. 35 (Schol. Bob. 159.16â22 St.) the scholiast comments on Ciceroâs self-presentation as an âurban speakerâ and reminds his students of irony as a pervasive feature of the speeches against Verres:
ad quod optinendum contra insimulationes inimicorum subnectit exemplum Cicero ipse de se: quem non ignoramus multum facetiis et urbanioribus dictis indulsisse, id quod locis pluribus in Verrinis orationibus potuimus adgnoscere. hoc ergo ait: quoniam soleo quaedam non ingrata festivitate secundum sales urbanitatis dicere, idcirco plerique huiusmodi omne quod dicitur, etiam si ab alio dictum sit, in me conferunt. quare nihil mirum est si quaedam falso etiam de Planci libertate iactentur.
In order to refute his opponentsâ allegations Cicero provided himself as example. We know well that Cicero was very fond for jokes and urbane sayings, something which we can easily observe and verify in the orations against Verres. For that reason, he said: since I am used to insert humorous words in my discourse, in line with the concept of urbane irony, there are many who ascribe to me anything that is said with humour, even if this has been said by others. So it is not surprising if some false allegations have been made concerning Planciusâ freedom of speech.
Interestingly, Cicero exploits the allegations against his client, accused of speaking in injurious and vilifying words, to depict himself as a cultor Latinitatis, a learned man whose predilection for tongue-in-cheek humour is in fact an aspect of his cultivated, refined language. Viewed in didactic terms, the note outlines the way forward for the creation of the ideal orator, an educated man discrediting his adversaries and alluring audiences by means of proper and felicitous use of ironic language.
Cicero was reputed as a master of witticism and his humour was a topic for imitation in the schools.39 Moreover, irony, as we know, played such an important role in the rhetorical formation. Scholiasts and later commentators looked at Ciceroâs art of wit as a relevant part of persuasion strategy. The numerous comments on Ciceroâs jeu dâesprit aim to stimulate students to replicate one of the most significant features of his style. Yet, Ciceroâs excessive use of jokes and ironic language was at the same time also a target of criticism (cf. Sen. Contr. 7.3.9; Quint. Inst. 6.3.2â5; 12.10.12; Tac. Dial. 23.1; Plu. Cic. 5.6; 27.1; Comp. Dem. Cic. 1.5; Cat. Mi. 21.5, on Catoâs reply to Cicero). Cicero himself, paradoxically, warned against an incautious and unrestrained recourse to irony (Cic. De orat. 2.244â246). While encouraging students to imitate Ciceroâs humour, scholiasts and later commentators recommended moderation and restraint, virtues peculiar to the notion of Latinitas. âBecoming Ciceroâ (to borrow the expression coined by Robert Kaster)40 meant emulating the champion of irony and manipulative language without giving the appearance of violating the basic rules of good Latin.
5 Conclusion
From a pedagogical perspective, the scholia Ciceronis represent a valuable piece of evidence for the reception of Cicero in the school curriculum in Late Antiquity. They offer precious indications of what comprised the teaching and learning of Cicero. Moreover, by showing features of Ciceronian style and illustrating Ciceroâs strategies of persuasion, the late commentators stimulated students to an act of âcreative imitationâ, a replication of themes and language of the model with an eye to modus, moderation, and a proper redeployment of rhetorical devices. This is particularly evident in the case of Ciceroâs use of mockery and irony, a powerful instrument of persuasion in the hands of talented speakers who are strongly advised not to exceed the limits of urban Latin. The student envisaged in the scholia is the âactive agentâ of Quintilianâs Institutio. He cooperates with his teacher in the process of acquisition of the rhetorical instruments, displayed in an urbane and elegant language. Becoming a ânew Ciceroâ required knowledge, critical intelligence, and an attentive and efficacious use of all the instruments that could make the orator into a âgood oratorâ.
Naturally enough, the different sets of scholia on Cicero we possess seem to be very different concerning the aims and involvement of the student/reader in the process of acquiring knowledge. Asconius Pedianusâ commentary was conceivably aimed at instructing his sons about the historical and political circumstances of Ciceroâs speeches, although, as Thomas Keeline suggests, it was probably intended for a wider audience.41 It avoids commenting on philological and rhetorical details and instead focuses on historical aspects; as Bishop has demonstrated, Asconiusâ approach finds a good precedent in Didymus Chalcenterusâ commentaries on Demosthenesâ Philippics.42 Asconiusâ notes are largely dedicated to explaining controversial passages in Ciceroâs orations or solving problems for readers potentially unfamiliar with Roman history and Republican institutions. It is particularly significant that in the commentary we do not read first-person plural notes: the use of first-person singular (âIâ) is dominant and demonstrates that Asconius tends to reassert his exegetical authority and emphasizes his readersâ quest for knowledge (e.g., credo vos quaerere, 14C; quis his M. Piso fuerit credo vos ignorare, 15C).43 Quite different is the case of the Scholia Bobiensia and the Scholia Gronoviana. These are eminently rhetorical commentaries, the purpose of which was to promote linguistic and rhetorical knowledge. This explains, as we have seen, the higher level of cooperation between teacher and student, with the student not only requested to accept his teacherâs authority but also to display critical skills and language competence, assisting his teacher in the interpretative process and redeploying those rhetorical and linguistic devices that could render a âgoodâ student into a ânew Ciceroâ.44
In a note on Rosc. 1 the Gronovian scholiast observes that the requirements for a good orator are auctoritas, âprestige, dignityâ, and eloquium, âability in speakingâ (302.11â14 St.: duo sunt quae quaeruntur in oratore, auctoritas et eloquium. auctoritas ex nobilitate, eloquium ex doctrina. ut ait Virgilius: ex auctoritate âtunc pietate gravem ac meritisâ; ex eloquio âille regit dictis animosâ [Aen. 1.151; 153]; âtwo things are, above all, required in a good orator, authority and ability to speak. The authority comes from nobility, the ability to speak from doctrine. As Vergil says: from authority, âa man honoured for noble character and serviceâ; from speaking well, âwith speech he sways their passionââ¯â). The vir bonus dicendi peritus constructs his image by oratorical achievements and doctrine. The scholia Ciceronis teach how to appreciate and love Cicero and, above all, how to become a vir bonus dicendi peritus by means of a perceptive replication of Ciceroâs strategies of persuasion and elegant language. The reader actively participates in this teaching process. He reads, interprets, and comments upon the text with his teacher: imitation of Cicero is the direct consequence of this concerted interpretative action.
Bloomer 2011.âAll translations in this chapter are my own, unless otherwise indicated.
On the canon of the idonei auctores and the practice of reading and commenting upon the âclassicalâ texts, see De Paolis 2013 (with further bibliography).
For the notion of Latinitas, âcorrect Latinityâ, see Rhet. Her. 4.12.17 (also Quint. Inst. 1.6; 10.1.27â36; see Coleman 2000; Grebe 2001). For the place of Latinitas in the acculturation process, see La Bua 2019, 125â130.
On Quintilianâs cultural ideal and the âsystem of communicationâ in the Institutio, see Bloomer 2015. On Quintilian and education, see now the recent volumes by Nocchi 2020 and Raschieri 2020.
Starr 2001, 443.
Text and English translation: Williams 2006 (with minor alterations).
Volcacius is identified with the author of the Bobbio commentary by Schmidt 1989 (see also Piacente 2014, 49â54). On the question, see La Bua 2019, 79â80.
Lardet 1993; La Bua 2019, 169â172; on Jeromeâs passage, see also Starr 2001, 435â437. For Jeromeâs interpretation of the art of the commentary, see Jay 1985, 69â80; for the polemical response to Rufinus and the literary dispute over the structure and meaning of a good commentary, see Gamberale 2013, 153â168.
Jeromeâs list of commentaries includes the auctores of the so-called quadriga Messii, namely Terence, Sallust, Cicero, and Vergil, alongside Plautus, Lucretius, Horace, Persius, and Lucan (a similar canon, excluding Terence, is in Sidonius Apollinarisâ Panegyric of Anthemius: Carm. 2.182â192). On this list, see Zetzel 2018, 122.
On Jeromeâs definition of the prudens lector as a bonus trapezita and its origin from an anagraphon of Jesus, cf. Lardet 1993, 85. Starr 2001, 437, notes that âthe prudens lector is the reader who is not merely thoughtful and intelligent but who can draw on his own experience as a reader to guide his decisionsâ.
On the function of the commentaries as âauxiliary paratextsâ, supporting the readerâs interpretation of the text commented upon, see also Williams 2006, 105â106. For the notion of âauxiliary textâ and its practical use, see Dubischar 2010.
On the history of Latin scholia, see Zetzel 1975 and 2005; see also Zetzel 2018.
For a different interpretation of the purposes of Asconius (not only didactic), see Bishop in this volume.
Zetzel 2018, 130.
That the commentaries on Cicero were used as âauxiliaryâ texts, in support of reading and learning, seems to be evident in the case of Asconius. Lewis 2006, XVI, correctly notes that âthe remarks which occur at the beginning of each section of his exposition of each of his speeches, indicating how far from the beginning or ending of the roll (volume) containing the speech this section is to be foundâ demonstrate unequivocally that Asconiusâ commentaries were âintended to be read alongside the text of Ciceroâs speechesâ.
Winterbottom 1982, 247.
On Quintilianâs passage, see Reinhardt and Winterbottom 2006, 120â141. See also La Bua 2019, 184â190.
Quint. Inst. 2.5.7â8: tum, exposita causa in quam scripta legetur oratio (nam sic clarius quae discentur intellegi poterunt), nihil otiosum pati quodque in inventione quodque in elocutione adnotandum erit: quae in prohoemio conciliandi iudicis ratio, quae narrandi lux brevitas fides, quod aliquando consilium et quam occulta calliditas ⦠quanta deinceps in dividendo prudentia, quam subtilis et crebra argumentatio (âthe case for which the speech selected for reading was written should then be explained for if this be done they will have a clearer understanding of what is to be read. When the reading is commenced, no important point should be allowed to pass unnoticed either as regards the resourcefulness or the style shown in the treatment of the subject; the teacher must point out how the orator seeks to win the favour of the judge in his exordium, what clearness, brevity and sincerity, and at times what shrewd design and well-concealed artifice is shown in the statement of facts ⦠The teacher will proceed further to demonstrate what skill is shown in the division into heads, how subtle and frequent are the truths of argument â¦â; text and English translation: Russell 2001).
Quint. Inst. 2.5.9.
Reinhardt and Winterbottom 2006, 120.
Cf. also Schol. Bob. 87.1 St. on Clod. frg. 7: diximus in argumento â¦; 99.4 St. on Flacc. 16: legimus enim â¦
La Bua 2019, 81â84. The manuscript was written in Tours.
On this Ciceronian âfakeâ, see La Bua 2001.
A similar case is in the argumentum to the speech Pro Sestio (Schol. Bob. 125.7â126.5 St.). Here, after illustrating the historical and political background of the oration, the scholiast chooses not to comment upon much of Ciceroâs arguments and words, as this will result in a useless replication of post-exile themes. Notably, the commentator uses the first-person plural (praetermittemus ⦠ostendimus ⦠iteremus), attributing to himself and his students an action of textual emendatio and inviting his readers to cooperate in âdeletingâ portions of the text unworthy of being commented upon.
It goes without saying that the scholia Ciceronis are abundant in comments on Ciceroâs elegance and urbanitas: for the sake of exemplification, here it is sufficient to remind readers and scholars of the recurrent use of adverbs (eleganter: cf. Schol. Bob. 90.20; 103.2; 103.18: eleganti verbo usus est amplecteretur; 104.3; 124.24; 127.7; 134.18; 163.13; 169.6; 176.13; Schol. Gron. 306.21; 334.33 St.) or expressions denoting Ciceroâs cultivated language and his long-appreciated fondness for words suited to the context (cf. Schol. Bob. 112.26 St., on the use of the verb iacto in Mil. 7; Ps.-Asc. 244.25 St. on Ver. 2.1.90, for occido as a suspiciosum verbum, making the audience sceptical about the arguments put forward by Ciceroâs opponent).
Cf. Schol. Bob. 128.31â129.2 St. on Sest. 28 and 131.28â30 St. on Sest. 49, for the use of notabiliter; cf. also 141.3 on Sest. 135 (de verbis notabilibus scalpellum).
On this passage, see La Bua 2019, 254â255. In general, on Ciceroâs mockery of his adversariesâ physical deficiencies, see Corbeill 1996, 14â56.
Ciceroâs language and his use of obscure or obsolete words allured readers and commentators, as it may be suggested by the collection of rare words and singularia compiled by the second-century scholar Statilius Maximus (see La Bua 2019, 139â147).
On this question and the relationship between the surviving scholia on Cicero and earlier exegesis, see now La Bua 2019, 162â182.
Interestingly, in the explanation of the narrative of the Pro Milone, a patent case of manipulation of truth, the commentator directly addresses his reader and invites him to examine the pattern of arguments used by Cicero in his defence of Milo (Schol. Bob. 120.2â3 St. on Mil. 24: invenies ita narrari).
Cf. also Schol. Bob. 144.24 St. on Vat. 8.
The passage of the scholiast is examined by Dugan 2013 (see also La Bua 2019, 209â214, and Margiotta in this volume).
Stok forthcoming.
May 1988.
In the comment on Rosc. 37 the Gronovian scholiast (306.1â5 St.) shows that the difference between defence and accusation speeches, defensiones and accusationes, plays a role in the proper placement of the figures of amplification (extollit magnitudinem criminis, ut â¨fidesâ© derogetur ⦠hoc in defensionibus recte facimus ante probationem, in accusationibus autem probato crimine debemus augere, âhe exaggerates the gravity of the crime to reduce its credibility; the more things become bigger, the more they become incredible. We correctly do that in the defence speeches, before giving proofs: in the prosecution speeches, instead, we have to increase the seriousness of the crime, after demonstrating that it has been committedâ).
On this passage, see La Bua 2019, 263â265. For Ciceroâs use of forms of emotional appeal, as in the Norbanus case, amply described De orat. 2.178â216, see Fortenbaugh 1988.
Gotoff 1993, 297.
Cf. also Schol. Bob. 140.11 St. on Sest. 135.
Corbeill 1996, 7.
Kaster 1998.
See Keeline in this volume, p. 49.
Bishop 2015.
Cf. also Asc. Sc. 26.14â15C: ne forte erretis et eundem hunc Cn. Dolabellam putetis esse in quem C. Caesaris orationes legitis, scire vos oportet ⦠For Asconiusâ self-justifying assertion of exegetical inability (in the case of the use of ac neque in a passage of Pro Scauro) cf. 24.9â13C: quo autem casu acciderit quave ratione ut hoc loco Cicero hoc verbo ita usus sit, praesertim cum adiecerit illam appositionem, ut non intulerit postea alterum, neque perspicere potui et attendendum esse valde puto: moveor enim merita viri auctoritate ⦠Notably, on more than one occasion Asconius reminds his sons/readers of points already commented upon in order to stimulateâand reinforceâtheir historical âmemoryâ (e.g. puto iam supra esse dictum â¦, Mil. 53.13C; puto vos reminisci, Corn. 68.22C). For Asconiusâ readers as âengaged and knowledgeable readers, not aspiring practitioners, and Ciceroâs speeches as part of a shared cultural landscape rather than as tools to improve oratorical practiceâ, see Steel 2022, 239.
Ps.-Asconiusâ commentary on the Verrines is largely dominated by the third-person singular (âheâ, sc. Cicero). Even in those notes devoted to rejecting earlier interpretations, the image of the commentator as textual âauthorityâ is practically absent.
Bibliography
Bishop, C. (2015). Roman Plato or Roman Demosthenes? The Bifurcation of Cicero in Ancient Scholarship. In: W.H.F. Altman, ed., Brillâs Companion to the Reception of Cicero, Leiden, pp. 283â306.
Bloomer, W.M. (2011). Quintilian on the Child as a Learning Subject. CW 105.1, pp. 109â137.
Bloomer, W.M. (2015). Quintilian on Education. In: W.M. Bloomer, ed., A Companion to Ancient Education, Malden, MA/London, pp. 347â357.
Clark, A.C., ed. (1907). Q. Asconii Pediani Orationum Ciceronis quinque enarratio. Oxford.
Coleman, R. (2000). Quintilian 1.6 and the Definition of latinitas. In: C. Moussy, ed., De lingua Latina novae quaestiones, Louvain, pp. 917â930.
Corbeill, A. (1996). Controlling Laughter. Political Humor in the Late Roman Republic. Princeton.
De Paolis, P. (2013). Le letture alla scuola del grammatico. Paideia 68, pp. 465â487.
Dubischar, M. (2010). Survival of the Most Condensed? Auxiliary Texts, Communications Theory, and Condensation of Knowledge. In: M. Horster and C. Reitz, eds., Condensing TextsâCondensed Texts, Stuttgart, pp. 39â67.
Dugan, J. (2013). Cicero and the Politics of Ambiguity. Interpreting the pro Marcello. In: C.E.W. Steel and H. van der Blom, eds., Community and Communication. Oratory and Politics in Republican Rome, Oxford, pp. 211â225.
Fortenbaugh, W.W. (1988). Benivolentiam conciliare and animos permovere. Some Remarks on Ciceroâs De Oratore 2.178â216. Rhetorica 6, pp. 259â273.
Gamberale, L. (2013). San Girolamo intellettuale e filologo. Rome.
Gotoff, H.C. (1993). Oratory. The Art of Illusion. HSPh 95, pp. 289â313.
Grebe, S. (2001). Views of Correct Speech in Varro and Quintilian. In: G. Calboli, ed., Papers on Grammar VI, Bologna, pp. 135â164.
Hildebrandt, J.P., ed. (1907). Scholia in Ciceronis orationes Bobiensia. Leipzig.
Kaster, R.A. (1998). Becoming âCICEROâ. In: P. Knox and C. Foss, eds., Style and Tradition. Studies in Honor of W. Clausen, Stuttgart, pp. 248â263.
Jay, P. (1985). Lâexégèse de Saint Jérome dâaprès son Commentaire sur Isaïe. Paris.
La Bua, G. (2001). Sulla pseudo-ciceroniana Si eum P. Clodius legibus interrogasset e sullâordine delle orazioni negli Scholia Bobiensia. RFIC 129.2, pp. 161â191.
La Bua, G. (2019). Cicero and Roman Education. The Reception of the Speeches and Ancient Scholarship. Cambridge.
Lardet, P. (1993). LâApologie de Jérome contre Rufin. Un commentaire. Leiden/New York.
Lewis, R.G. (2006). Asconius. Commentaries on Speeches of Cicero. Revised by J. Harries, J. Richardson, C. Smith, and C. Steel, with Latin text edited by A.C. Clark. Oxford.
Marshall, B.A. (1985). A Historical Commentary on Asconius. Columbia.
May, J.M. (1988). Trials of Character. The Eloquence of Ciceronian Ethos. Chapel Hill, NC/London.
Nocchi, F.R. (2020). Quintiliano. Modelli pedagogici e pratiche didattiche. Brescia.
Piacente, L. (2014). Cicerone a riflettori spenti. Episodi della tradizione testuale di orazioni ed epistole. Bari.
Raschieri, A.A. (2020). Lettura degli autori e insegnamento retorico. Ricerche intorno a Quintiliano e alla retorica antica. Canterano.
Reinhardt, T., and Winterbottom, M. (2006). Quintilian, Institutio oratoria Book 2. Oxford.
Russell, D.A., ed. (2001). Quintilian, The Oratorâs Education. (5 vols). Cambridge, MA/London.
Schmidt, P.L. (1989). §526.1 Volcacius (?), Commentarii in orationes Ciceronis (Scholia Bobiensia). In: R. Herzog and P.L. Schmidt, eds., Handbuch der lateinischen Literatur der Antike, Vol. 5: Restauration und Erneuerung. Die lateinische Literatur von 284â374 n. Chr., Munich, pp. 140â142.
Stangl, T., ed. (1912). Ciceronis orationum scholiastae. Asconius, Scholia Bobiensia, Scholia Pseudasconii, Sangallensia, Scholia Cluniacensia et recentiora Ambrosiana ac Vaticana, Scholia Lugdunensia sive Gronoviana et eorum excerpta Lugdunensia. Vol. 2: Commentarii. Vienna/Leipzig.
Starr, R.J. (2001). The Flexibility of Literary Meaning and the Role of the Reader in Roman Antiquity. Latomus 60, pp. 433â445.
Steel, C.E.W. (2022). The Reception of Ciceroâs Speeches in the Early Empire. In: F.R.Berno and G. La Bua, eds., Portraying Cicero in Literature, Culture, and Politics. From Ancient to Modern Times, Berlin/Boston, pp. 233â246.
Stok, F. (forthcoming). Teaching Strategies in Serviusâ Commentary. In: Symposium Cumanum. Rerum cognoscere causas: Learning in the Late Republic and the Augustan Age (26â30 June 2018).
Williams, M.H. (2006). The Monk and the Book. Jerome and the Making of Christian Scholarship. Chicago.
Winterbottom, M. (1982) Cicero and the Silver Age. In: W. Ludwig, ed., Ãloquence et rhétorique chez Cicéron = Entretiens sur lâantiquité classique 28, VandÅuvres/Geneva, pp. 236â274.
Zetzel, J.E.G. (1975). On the History of Latin Scholia. HSPh 79, pp. 335â354.
Zetzel, J.E.G. (2005). Marginal Scholarship and Textual Deviance. The Commentum Cornuti and the Early Scholia on Persius. London.
Zetzel, J.E.G. (2018). Critics, Compilers, and Commentators. An Introduction to Roman Philology, 200BCEâ800CE. New York.