1 Introduction
While one of the most significant features of ancient epics is their speeches, perhaps the most prominent subject matter is war. Therefore, battle speeches and exhortations are a predictably present element, especially in historic epic poetry. Historical epics represent more or less authentic historical characters as army commanders controlling their troops, whose mass combat ultimately decides the outcome of the battles. This is different from the heroic epics, which by contrast above all feature representative single combats.1 Furthermore, historical epic poetry was influenced by its sources in this regard, as the speeches of commanders have been an important feature of Greek and Roman historiography since Herodotus and particularly Thucydides.2 Consequently, the exhortations in Livyâs Ab urbe condita certainly had a significant impact on the exhortations in the most extensive Roman historic epic handed down to us, Silius Italicusâ Punica. In the scholarship on these battlefield exhortations, the relation between Livy and Silius has so far been the principal research interest, since Ab urbe condita is the main source for the Punica.3 Instead of revisiting this intertextual mode of analysis, we take a different, intratextual approach focusing on the exhortations within the Punica to point out their internal value for the epic and to observe how ingeniously Silius works with the epic tradition.4 Based on the database of DICES, we first provide a short statistical overview and present the most important types of exhortations. Secondly, we examine their speakers and addressees. Thirdly, we take a closer look at these speeches and identify signs and formal elements that indicate success and failure; and we show how these speeches characterize the speakers and contribute to the epic structure as a whole.
In our paper we point out that the number and rhetorical elaboration of speeches is inversely correlated with military success; that speeches are used to show the evolution of characters and armies from weakness to strength and vice versa; and that they are used to contrast the characterization of Romans and Carthaginians.
2 General Considerations
In general, two main subtypes of the commanderâs exhortation can be distinguished. The first subtype comprises commandersâ speeches immediately before the action. The main aim of these instigating speeches is to encourage the troops to fight right before or at the launch of battle. As might be expected, the protagonist Hannibal gives several such speeches including, for example, his first exhortation in the epic at Saguntum (2.44â53), his speech before Cannae (9.184â216),5 and his last and longest exhortation at Zama (17.295â337). The second subtype comprises speeches delivered before or during the march into battle. The most prominent example of the pre-march exhortation is Hannibalâs speech before crossing the Alps (3.506â511).6
A different type of exhortation, which we are excluding at this point, is a commanderâs speech during or at the end of a battle. These are usually given in critical situations, for instance, when the army has begun to flee and must be stopped to stand their ground.7 These can therefore also mark a general development based on the battles. To name just a few prominent ones, Scipio the Elder (4.402â412), Flaminius (5.633â643), Regulus (6.242â247), Hannibal (12.204â209) and Hasdrubal (15.742â751) deliver such speeches.8 These speeches are (apart from Regulusâ speech) not successful. We do not analyze them here in order to focus on the more important and variable type of speech.
Table 4.1
Commandersâ exhortation speeches in the Punica; success = S / failure = F / inconclusive = I / in vain = V / aborted = A
|
2.44â53 |
Hannibal at Saguntum |
S |
|
3.506â511 |
Hannibal at the Alps |
S |
|
4.68â80 |
Scipio the Elder at the Ticinus |
I |
|
4.500â509 |
Hannibal at the Trebia |
S |
|
5.151â164 (166â185) |
Flaminius at the Trasimenus |
F |
|
7.100â115 |
Hannibal confronted with Fabius |
V |
|
7.219â252 |
Fabius confronted with Hannibal |
S |
|
7.531â535 |
Hannibal confronted with Minucius |
S |
|
8.233â241 |
Hannibal marching to Cannae |
S |
|
9.25â36 |
Varro at Cannae |
S |
|
9.184â216 |
Hannibal at Cannae |
S |
|
12.45â49 |
Hannibal at Naples |
F |
|
12.68â82 |
Hannibal at Cumae |
F |
|
12.511â517 |
Hannibal marching to Rome |
S |
|
12.577â586 |
Hannibal at Rome |
I |
|
12.600â602 |
Fulvius at Rome |
I (A) |
|
12.674â680 |
Hannibal at Rome |
I (V) |
|
13.99â103 |
Fulvius at Capua |
S |
|
14.134, 136â139 |
Marcellus at Syracuse |
S |
|
15.443â446 |
Scipio Africanus confronted with Hasdrubal |
S |
|
15.638â651 |
Hasdrubal at Metaurus |
I |
|
15.652â657 |
Nero at Metaurus |
I |
|
15.659â665 |
Livius at Metaurus |
I |
|
16.83â93 |
Scipio at Ilipa |
S |
|
17.295â337 |
Hannibal at Zama |
I |
Overall, based on DICES we identify 25 speeches as a commanderâs pre-battle or pre-march exhortation.9 As there are 314 individual direct speeches in the Punica, these exhortations amount to around 8â¯% of all speeches, which per se demonstrates their importance in this epic. When we now take a closer look at how the 25 exhortations are distributed over the individual books, we see that thirteen books have this type of speech, while four books have no commanderâs exhortation before events: books 1 (see below), 6, 10 and 11. Book 12 has six speeches and therefore is the one with the largest number of these speeches, followed by book 15 (four) and book 7 (three). Together, these three books make up more than half of all examples of this speech-type.10
The distribution per book can generally be explained by the plot: the most important Roman and Punic defeats or decisive events are linked by means of speeches by commanders. It is precisely in critical situations in warfare, when defeat is imminent, that more and longer exhortations are delivered before battle. This is especially true for the Punic side (corresponding also to the prominence of Hannibal) and it explains the occurrence in book 17 of the longest speech and the high frequency of speeches in book 12. Speeches delivered before victories, on the other hand, are rather the exception (2.44â53; 4.500â509; 9.184â216): in these cases, Hannibal inflames his men although they seem already sufficiently furious (cf. especially 2.36â43). Usually, the commanderâs speech proves to be the hallmark of the loser: victors do not need (m)any words.11
Table 4.2
Distribution of exhortations in the Punica
|
book |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
10 |
11 |
12 |
13 |
14 |
15 |
16 |
17 |
|
exhortations |
â |
1 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
â |
3 |
1 |
2 |
â |
â |
6 |
1 |
1 |
4 |
1 |
1 |
We exclude a very prominent example from this list of exhortations, which should be justified in detail: the direct speech at the beginning of the attack on Saguntum could be evaluated as Hannibalâs first exhortation (1.340â344).12 In this case, it may seem as if Hannibal is giving a commanderâs speech right at the beginning of the war, which would also be parallel to the one before the second phase of this battle (2.44â53). The reason why we do not include it as a commanderâs speech is quite simple: in the transmitted text, the speech is introduced with clamant; that means, it is attributed to the Punic soldiers.
1.338â344certamine tantoconseruere acies, veluti circumdata valloRoma foret, clamantque super: âtot milia, gentesinter tela satae, iam capto stamus in hoste?nonne pudet coepti, pudet ominis? en bona virtusprimitiaeque ducis! taline implere paramusItaliam fama? tales praemittere pugnas?â
The battle lines joined in a great struggle, as if encircling Rome itself with fortifications, and above it all they called out: âSo many thousands of us, people born under arms: now do we stand among a captured enemy? Does not this beginning, this omen cause shame? Look at our commanderâs fine courage and his first sacrificial offerings. Are we getting ready to fill Italy with such rumors, to send advance notice of such battles?â13
If it were intended to be read as a commanderâs speech, clamant would have to be changed to clamat. Actually, this correction (for the worse, in our opinion) was made in individual manuscripts and adopted in the editions until Delz (in the 1987 Teubner edition) rejected it. Admittedly, an error that turns a singular form into a plural is easy to imagine. Nevertheless, this emendation represents a simplification of the text, which is neither necessary in terms of content nor linguistically justifiable. As Delz points out in the critical apparatus, such self-encouragement by soldiers occurs elsewhere in the Punica.14 There is also no commanderâs speech on the Punic side before the battle at Lake Trasimenus, but self-prompts are mentioned (5.217â219).15 Indeed, the existing union of the Punic soldiers with their leader is emphasized by the narrator after the speech (1.345â346): accensae exultant16 mentes haustusque medullis / Hannibal exagitat (âTheir inflamed minds rejoiced, as if their marrows had absorbed Hannibalâs messageâ). It is hard to find a more apt statement in Latin literature that conveys the case of corporate identity.17 The connection between the leader and his troops is paradigmatically hallmarked here, as the latter have already absorbed Hannibalâs spirit completely. Even the context and linguistic reasons make the transmitted text probable: the narrator described earlier how the soldiers tried to imitate Hannibalâs zeal (1.310â317); immediately beforehand, the common effort is referred to (1.334â335) and the plural conseruere (1.339) is used, which is aptly continued in clamant.18 Furthermore, in this collective speech, the first person plural is used, which is not used in any of Hannibalâs exhortations.19 The soldiers are not addressed as viri, socii or miles as usual, but as gentes / inter tela satae (âpeople born under armsâ, 1.340â341).20 Finally, the speech clearly speaks about the commander. Although a speaker can also speak about himself in the third person, it does not seem very credible that Hannibal speaks of bona virtus / primitiaeque ducis (âour commanderâs fine courage and his first sacrificial offeringsâ, 1.342â343). Rather, it illustrates a priori how enthusiastic the Punic soldiers are about their leader. For these reasons, it seems sensible to keep the plural and to see it as a sign of Siliusâ sophistication that he subverts the audienceâs expectation of a commanderâs speech right at the beginning of the war. In addition to this, the contrast between a collective speech in the first book and an excessive commanderâs speech in the last book (the longest of all exhortations, 43 verses, 17.295â337) demonstrates the decline of Punic commitment to fighting.21
3 Speakers, Addressees and Characterization
Speeches always characterize their speakers andâin the case of exhortationsâalso those addressed. In the Punica, exhortations before critical events are allocated to a very small circle of eleven speakers. Although 107 people give direct speeches, the number of commanders who speak is naturally far more exclusive. Although Hannibal delivers the most speeches in the epic in general, his role is particularly important in terms of exhortations, too. Half of all exhortations are attributed to the Punic commander-in-chief.22 It is a remarkable and a rather unique feature that Siliusâ Hannibal is directly characterized as an excellent speaker by the epic narrator, especially in the context of exhortations. In the opening book his powerful vis ⦠fandi (1.188) is emphasized and at the end, in conjunction with his last speech, he is described as scitus ⦠accendere corda / laudibus (âskilled at igniting the soldiersâ hearts with praiseâ, 17.292â293), thus framing the epic with descriptions of his prowess.23 Moreover, at the heart of the epic, in the context of the great battle at Cannae, his manner of exhortation is explicitly defined:
9.245â248hortandoque iterum atque iterum insatiabilis urgetfactis quemque suis et se cognoscere iactatqua dextra veniant stridentis sibila teli,promittitque viris nulli se defore testem
spurred them on insatiably, urging on each man with memory of his own deeds. He boasted that he recognized from whose hand the rush of a whirring javelin came from. He promised his men that he would not miss being an eyewitness of any of their accomplishments.24
Besides Hannibal, only his brother Hasdrubal appears as a hortative speaker on the Punic side. Hasdrubal acts independently, taking the place of his brother in the fifteenth book, whom he tries to emulate. In his exhortation before the battle at Metaurus, he appears as a Hannibal en miniature presenting in his words a pallid effigy of his admired brother (15.638â651).25 Hannibalâs and Hasdrubalâs exhortations amount to approximately 186 verses; that is more than 60â¯% of the total number: therefore, the exhortation in Silius is predominantly a Punic type of speech. There are two main reasons, which we are going to address more thoroughly below: on the one hand, this refers to the increasing weakness of the Punic forces who are in desperate need of exhortation; on the other hand, this implies a kind of Punic garrulousness and boastfulness in contrast to Roman vigour and virtue.
Nevertheless, almost all of Romeâs important military leaders deliver speeches. These characters, initially often characterized as bad, then progressively as good leaders, are also generally the essential plot-carriers of the Punica, the Roman viri who are introduced in the proem (1.5). Yet some important commanders such as Sempronius and Paulus are absent from this group of exhorters.26 For Sempronius, one exhortation is at least mentioned (4.517â518); but even in the historiographical tradition, Sempronius turns out to be rather inconspicuous. Paulus, the âgood consulâ at the Roman disaster at Cannae, only delivers an encouraging speech in mid-battle (10.6â10) when the damage is already done: Being a fundamentally positive figure, but tragically unable to counter the demagogic and all too fiery nature of his co-consul Varro, Paulus should not appear to be jointly responsible for the disastrous defeat, for it was Varroâs error to initiate the battle.27 It is notable that Flaminius, who leads his army into a terrible defeat, addresses individual soldiers (5.166â185) in addition to his commanderâs speech before the battle (151â164).28 As with Hannibalâs and Hasdrubalâs last speeches, military success is thus indirectly proportional to rhetorical appeal. Conversely, successful army leaders in the ongoing war, such as Marcellus, Nero and Livius, do not speak much, but let their motivated soldiers act autonomously. Fabius, generally the most frequent Roman speaker after Scipio, does indeed deliver the longest Roman commanderâs speech (7.219â252). It is significant, however, that this should be evaluated as a variation of the battle-speech in that he speaks out against battle in the menacing phase of the war. Thus, Silius twists a traditional epic feature.
The addressees of a commanderâs speech are always his own soldiers, but there may also be others (albeit non-attendant). A negative example of this feature is Varroâs demagogic speech, which is directed not only at the soldiers but above all, seditiously, against his co-consul Paulus (9.25â36).29 The speeches of Scipio, on the other hand, have the character of prayers, since they are also addressed to the gods or deified ancestors (15.443â444 and 16.83â93).30 This is evidence of Scipioâs pietas and indicates that further motivation on the part of the soldiers is not at all necessary and that this is not the essential aim of the speech. Therefore, the progress on the Roman side can be demonstrated: from discord and impietas to unity and pietas.31 Consequently, such speeches are important markers that characterize the speakers and trace the progress of the action and therefore the structure of the whole poem, as we demonstrate below.
4 Success and FailureâEpic Structure
In which cases can a commanderâs speech be evaluated as successful? Two parameters seem possible: one could point to the immediate effect of a speech (positive responses of the soldiers) and to the ultimate outcome, that is, victory in battle. In our paper we concentrate on the first of these aspects, for defeat in battle is not necessarily connected to the value of a speech delivered before fighting. As general goals of rhetoric are persuasion and animation, in our view a successful commanderâs speech is one which clearly stimulates its listeners, and a negative response indicates a failure. In cases where the effect is unclear, we regard the speech as inconclusive (see table 4.1 for our classification of the exhortations). Of the 25 exhortations we identify 14 as successes (56â¯%), 3 as failures (12â¯%), and 8 as inconclusive (32â¯%). Moreover, two of Hannibalâs speeches are delivered in vain, although in themselves they do not seem to be ineffective (meaning that the current situation simply does not allow a speech-effect to prevail).32 One can assume that no exhortation is without any effect at all; but occasionally this effect is not reported, and this makes the evaluation of the speeches quite tricky.
Furthermore, as already mentioned, Silius plays with the expectations of the epic reader. Most of the speeches given before battles have aâsometimes only insinuatedâpositive effect. Often, the narrator emphasizes this by describing the reaction of the addressees, the listening army. A simple but effective way of achieving this is through the description of the soldiersâ immediate action:33 for example, Scipioâs men start fighting before their general has stopped speaking (15.446â447). Likewise, the narrator vividly describes the reactions of the Punic soldiers before the second phase of the battle for the city of Saguntum. After Hannibalâs inflammatory speech, the soldiers express their hatred for Rome with groans and shouts (2.54â55).34 The description of their reaction to Hannibalâs speech before the attack on Rome is similar: here, the narrator also describes the thoughts that correspond to the previous speech, since the Punic army has finally received the command to attack the opponentâs heart (12.518â521).35 Elsewhere, the narrator in his introductory sentence anticipates the success of the speech. For example, he introduces Hannibalâs speech at the crossing of the Alps with the sentence: âHe prodded them on and revived their strength with these wordsâ (3.504â505). The introduction to his speech before the march to Cannae is analogous: his soldiersâ joy is expressed immediately before he speaks (8.232 socios stimulat tumefactus ovantes: âswollen with pride ⦠he spurred on his rejoicing comradesâ).
Although the majority of these speeches are assigned a reaction or effect, some speeches are presented without any narratorâs comment, and sometimes they are followed by an immediate change of scene.36 It is striking that these exhortations without an obvious effect include two speech pairs: 4.61â66 (an indirect speech) and 4.68â80,37 15.638â651 and 15.652â655.38 Here, the narrative reasons for the omission are an immediate change of scene to the other side, thus conveying rapid action in the moments before battle and confirming the importance of the commanders. In some cases, it is completely left to the reader to decide whether the speech is a good one, appropriate to the moment or successful. In some cases, you can judge only by an overall impression of the tone of speech or the broader context in which it is delivered.
Passages in which the narrator (on rare occasions) explicitly marks a negative effect are all the more striking, as he (sometimes only allusively) characterizes the speech as a bad one. At Lake Trasimenus, the battle exhortation of the Roman consul Flaminius, who is traditionally blamed for the nearly fatal outcome of the war, seems to have a negative effect: after Flaminiusâ fiery speech, there may justifiably be a negative connotation in the comment about the impatient leader, who does not wait for the army to be supported by his colleague Servilius: nec iam ultra monitus et verba morantia Martem / ferre valet (âFlaminius was unable to tolerate warnings or words that held off battle any furtherâ, 5.186â187).39 His impulsive action is shown to be inopportune. Just as Flaminius is held responsible for Trasimenus, Varro is held responsible for Cannae: his delirious speech in which he argues that battles should not be delayedâalthough not technically an exhortationâis immediately followed by his threatening address to his wavering men (9.267 minitans):40 Demagogues are no leaders, and although Varro is introduced as a skilful speaker, his characterization is strikingly negative: immodice vibrabat in ore canoro / lingua procax (âhis shameless tongue quivered nonstop in his melodious mouthâ, 8.247â248) and turbarum sator atque accendere sollers / invidiam pravusque togae (âThe same Varro would stir up mobs and knew how to kindle hatred. He was unworthy of his togaâ, 8.258â259).41 In these cases, military success is inversely related to the intensity of the speeches.
Furthermore, there is the case in which the narrator inserts the speech in a setting in which there clearly is no chance to succeed at all. A striking instance is Hannibalâs speech in 7.100â115, when the Punic leader suffers his first setback in his Italian campaign as he faces his first equal opponent, the Roman general Fabius, the famous cunctator. The immediate effect of Hannibalâs exhortation may be positive, but the speech is nevertheless delivered in vain because there is no way to act as the speaker has intended: although Hannibal urges his troops on in the course of his speech (7.116), the Punicsâready for battleâare not able to fight because Fabius simply does not allow his men to participate in the encounter.42 Fabius puts pressure on the foe with his strict no-battle tactics while Hannibal and his troops are eager to take their unbroken energy into action and constantly long for confrontation. Although the speech conveys this energy, it is ineffective; it blows out into nothingness.43
As we have pointed out, the frequency of Hannibalâs speeches in book 12 stands out even more than in book 7, owing to the critical situations in which the Punic army finds itself. Considering the situations and the speeches in the two books, there is a significant difference between the impacts of the speeches: in book 12, there is not much left of the former dynamicsâin respect of the army as well as of the leader. In this book we find the only exhortations of Hannibal that are explicitly marked as ineffective by the narrator. They therefore deserve special attention: at the very outset of the book, the Punic army turns out to be unusually weak and makes no progress at Naples. There, Hannibalâs querulous speech in 12.45â49 introduces the reader to the change of course. And, shortly after, the clearest sign in the whole epic that an exhortation has failed is the narratorâs comment right after the speech of Hannibal in 12.68â82, while again not making any progress, this time at Cumae: sic ductor fessas luxu attritasque secundis / erigere et verbis temptabat sistere mentes (âSo the Carthaginian general was trying to rouse the soldiersâ hearts, as luxury had relaxed them and successes had worn them outâ, 83â84). Now he is only trying and is no longer able to connect with his soldiers.44 Within the speech, two verbal markers also indicate that Hannibal has lost his poise and his rhetorical vigour: firstly, his frustration can be seen in his sarcasm, among other things strongly expressed in the negative connotation of the particle nimirum: âAlpibus astat / nimirum maior molesâ (âNo doubt, a mass greater than the Alpsâ, 70â71).45 Secondly, he speaksâand blamesâexclusively in the second person: âdignos iam vosmet reddite vestra / quam trahitis famaâ (âshow yourself now worthy of your reputationâ, 81â82).46 Shortly before, Hannibal unwittingly seems to prove his estrangement from his army by negating the former unity in a (allowedly rhetorical) question: ânon ibis et arduus arma / me ducente feres?â (âwould you not go there and rising up high bear your arms under my leadershipâ, 74â75).47
Two other exhortations delivered by Hannibal appear to be inconclusive (12.577â586 and 674â680). It should be noted that after the speech in 12.674â680, Hannibal is depicted trying to encourage his men until dusk forbids any further action; this is an indication that the speech and the possible attempts that follow it (if any) are made in vain.48 We can conclude not only that the marked presence of these repeated exhortations is a sign of crisis, but also that their language and rhetorical composition are indicators of the imminent defeat. Because of their disastrous stay in Capua, all the Carthaginians seem to have lost not only their individual energy, but also the corporate identity which they possessed from the beginning of the epic (cf. 1.345â346).49 Thus, in the twelfth book, a special demand for exhortation is evident. And where else could a new spark come from, and how could the vigour of the Punic army, which seems to have been extinguished (12.15 sed non ille vigor), be reanimated, if not by a fiery speech from their iconic leader? But as already pointed out, the widespread weakness can also be detected in Hannibalâs rhetorical estrangement from his men, as his speeches take on the character of laments and taunts.
The fact that the ethnically diverse Carthaginian army constantly requires extrinsic motivation works against them, and the mainly intrinsic motivation of the Romans prevails:50 the Punic soldiers apparently have an insatiable need for Hannibalâs words, like a motor that constantly requires fuel so that it can move.51 That is certainly the case, even if before the supposedly decisive battle of Cannae the rhetorically skilled general himself states: ânon verborum ⦠stimulantum ⦠egetisâ (âYou have no need of words to encourage youâ, 9.184).52 Ironically, this is exactly what will apply to the Roman side after the battle at Cannae. When the Punic army loses its vigour, the Romans gain a new kind of corporate identity and act autonomously as a unit.53 Of course, the absence of exhortations, where you would actually expect them, does say something, too. And in the special case of the Punica, Silius plays with the literary topos by pointing out non-speeches or almost-speeches: Repeatedly, a Roman leader, who clearly does not need to give a speech to exhort his troops (but certainly could have given one), is shown contentedly observing his soldiers rushing forward, motivated from withinâstrikingly so at Rome, Capua, Syracuse and especially at Zama.54 This new Roman strength could serve as a political message of the Punica favoring the principate, with a strong leader figure as well as strong people.55 Consequently, during the march to the Metaurus, each Roman soldier motivates himself (15.571â573). On the other hand, Fabius Maximus Cunctator, distinguished as vir (7.217) from the iuvenis Hannibal (7.98â99), is tellingly successful with his extraordinary speech not to start a battle (7.219â252).56 Furthermore, although a direct reaction to Scipioâs exhortation before his last Spanish battle is not expressed (16.83â93),57 there is an oblique intertextual sign of its success: the formula dixerat et (16.94) is notably Vergilian and mostly appears after impactful speeches (Aen. 2.621; 3.607; 5.740; 6.633; 7.212; 8.387; 9.410; 10.246): by using it only once, Silius implies the importance of the speech and, ultimately, the following victory.58
5 Hannibalâs Final Speech as Mirror and Closure
Finally, back to Hannibal. Right after the first achievements in the war, his speeches all contain to some extent a reference to his own exploits and those of his army. In the course of the epic, this seems to become more and more a focal point of his manner of speaking, culminating in Hannibalâs longest speech in front of his army right before the decisive battle of Zama, which the Carthaginians are going to lose (17.295â337).59 This extraordinary exhortation includes those very features that the epic narrator, before Cannae, indicated as typical (9.246â248, see above), and it therefore refers back to Hannibalâs vis fandi: 1. reminding his men of past achievements; 2. demonstrating the bond between leader and army by knowing every soldier; 3. giving the assurance that in battle he will be an eyewitness to every glorious (and inglorious) deed. In fact, this speech incorporates the whole epic in a nutshell. Hannibal represents all the Punic exploits by addressing soldiers individually.60 Of course, his reference to the past could simply be identified as a general theme of speeches by ductores,61 but it is actually very relevant to the course of the action in terms of the success or failure of the speeches themselves or of the development of the action or of character: the enumeration of past exploits provides an en passant resume of the war and thus is a retrospective sign of closure. At the same time, Hannibalâs constant reference to the great achievements in the first phase of the war could be seen as an implicit sign of his current weakness: Hannibal must constantly refer to the past because he has not achieved anything significant after Cannae. Although Hannibal keeps using second person forms of address,62 he recapitulates his own accomplishments through his soldiers, once more displaying the connection between leader and his troops (cf. 6.715 o iuvenes, quorum dextris mihi tanta geruntur, âyou young men, you who performed for me such great thingsâ).63 Even if there is no sign after Hannibalâs speech to show whether he has been successful in his exhortation of his soldiers, his long speech is unlikely to be read as a failure per se (even if the battle will be lost). Right before it, Hannibal is emphatically introduced as a great orator (17.292â294): he is vetus armorum and scitus accendere corda (âa veteran in war ⦠skilled at igniting the soldiersâ heartsâ) and has regained his old fiery energy. But furiabat and urebat (17.293â294) could again be interpreted as conative.64 As shown, the multitude of exhortations on the Punic side can be explained by the fact that the losers in the end have to motivate more than the victorsâtherefore, the striking contrast to the Roman autonomy stands out here.
17.338â340Hannibal haec. sed non patiens remorantia verbaAusonius miles, quotiens dux coeperat orasolvere ad effatus, signum pugnamque petebant
Hannibal said these words. But when Scipio began to speak, the Roman soldiers did not endure to hear any words that would delay them. They sought the signal for battle.65
This last exhortation forms a well-designed contrast to the first exhortation in the epic, in which, for the only time, the Punic army speaks to itself.66 Consequently, all this effort is now of no importance, because the Punic army is no longer a match for the newly arisen Roman strength.
6 Conclusion
While the greater part of the exhortations held by the outstanding leaders in the Punica at least has a short-term successful effect, it does not necessarily have to be linked to military victory. Of course, the latter becomes all the more difficult if not even exhortations manage to achieve an extra boost of motivation. It is remarkable how the narrative composition of the Punica and the development of the war are reflected in the exhortations of the commanders. For example, books 7 and 12, both of which do not feature a major battle, nevertheless play a decisive role in the work as books of resistance and prevented offensives. In book 12 in particular, the many speeches go hand in hand with the crisis of the Punic army, while the passage around Hannibalâs last and longest exhortation at Zama in book 17 can serve as an impressive blueprint for the general tendency: the necessity of speeches on the one side, which is portrayed as entirely dependent on one person, and self-motivation of a nation presented as a unit on the other, indicate in the further course of the epic that success is based on strong leaders, but also on a self-determined people. Therefore, the Punica could also in this respect transport a message for the contemporary Roman reader.
Acknowledgements
This chapter was conceived together with Simone Finkmann, who originally planned to compare the exhortations of the Punica with Lucanâs Bellum Civile. At this point we would like to thank her very much for her great ideas, her help and her powerful initiative. We would also like to express our gratitude to the editors of this volume.
See Telg genannt Kortmann 2019, 112, who contrasts the Flavian âepics of heroesâ (Argonautica and Thebaid) with the historic epics of the âcollective and the individualâ (Bellum Civile and Punica) (129â152). Of course, this does not imply that heroic epics do not feature battle exhortations. They are a constant device since Homer, see Keitel 1987 and Kyriakou 2017. On battle speeches in the Aeneid, see Highet 1972, 82â89; on battle speeches in the Thebaid, Dominik 1994, 140â149; Touahri 2005 provides an overview. However, in historical epic the combination of history and epic leads to the narrative feature that exhortations are more prominent and have a special coloring due to the connection between army and commander.
On battle speeches in historiography, see e.g. Adema 2016, Anson 2010, Iglesias Zoido 2007a and 2007b, Hansen 1993, Albertus 1908.
Villalba Ãlvarez 2007, 348â363, and Touahri 2004; cf. also Oughton (chapter 7) in this volume. For the influences of Livy on Silius, see e. g. Pomeroy 2010; Burgeon 2020, 98â109; in a nutshell Jacobs 2021, 53â56; Gibson 2010, 67â71, on Siliusâs use and variation of prose speeches. An overall analysis on speeches in the Punica still remains a desideratum.
Lundström (1971) 65â100 examines the exhortations of the Punica in general (âMahnredenâ), but focusesâsometimes too rigidlyâon Vergilian transitional verbal markers after the speeches (âÃbergangsphrasenâ).
This is the only speech of the Punica that Albertus 1908, 28â36, includes in his list on
See Augoustakis, Littlewood 2020, 271 ad loc.
The prototype of this particularly epic speech-type is Aiasâ urgent appeal in Hom. Il. 15.735â738.
On this basis, it is quite easy to trace the development of Roman defeats at the beginning and Punic defeats towards the end of the war (and of the epic). This trend is also illustrated by the pre-battle exhortations, see section 4, 92â98.
See table 4.1. The DICES database is very helpful not only to extract these speeches from the work and to collect statistical data, but also for detailed work, for example, on literal markers or formulas. A much more extensive (and unspecific) list of exhortations in Silius and Lucan is to be found in Villalba Ãlvarez 2007, 346â347, who also includes political speeches (as 8.265â277), short calls to arms (as 4.98; 12.167â168), exhortations of individual soldiers (5.166â169. 171â174. 181â185; 13.99â103), mid-battle cries to horses (4.265â269), soliloquies (9.375â378), indirect speeches (as 4.59â66), and speeches that are mentioned, but not represented in full (as 1.452â455; 9.244â248). He also includes 17.127â131, a collective speech of the Roman army. On the other hand, Hannibalâs speech in 4.500â509 is missing. Furthermore, this list is rather inaccurate (e.g. â5.149â188â, which covers introductions and transitions).
See table 4.2.
Cf. below section 4, 92â98.
It is listed as such in the DICES database, which follows Duffâs 1934 Loeb edition for Silius. See also the editorsâ note 8 in the introduction, p. 7.
The translations are taken from Augoustakis, Bernstein 2021.
Speeches delivered by many people are a special feature of Lucanâs Bellum Civile, see Schmitt 1995. Therefore, one could discern an influence of this epic here; on Silius and Lucan, see especially Marks 2010.
See Wissel 2019, 230â231. As the war progresses, this state changes. The Punic soldiers need their commanderâs speeches more, the Romans need them less, cf. section 4, 92â98.
Lundström 1971, 86â87, shows the pejorative connotation of exultare, and further points out that the enthusiasm of the Punic soldiers after the speech is rather ill-advised: they rush forward without any caution.
For Hannibalâs army, see Augoustakis, Littlewood 2022, 18â33. For the corporate identity, cf. Stocks 2014, 153: âWhen Hannibal speaks to his men, they act as one, becoming an extension of the man himselfâ (Stocks favors clamat, 103). On the other hand, the Punic army is basically so much overshadowed by their synecdochic leader that his speeches to the army somehow point out to the reader that, after all, not only does the army need Hannibal, but Hannibal needs his men, too. For the synecdochic hero Hannibal, see Marks 2005, 78â81.
Spaltenstein 1986, 58â59, and Feeney 1982, 187, notice the abrupt change of the subject, but try to give a reason for it. However, the subject acies (both opposing battle lines), which belongs to conseruere, can certainly still resonate partially with clamant (now just the Punic lines).
Hannibal uses the first-person singular (negem 2.51, mecum 4.503, posco 9.200, dabo 9.206, nosco 17.296), the second person (egetis 9.184, moves 9.210, capietis 12.583, portas 17.295) and imperative forms (revocate 2.47, tradite 2.48, rape 7.531, tende 9.216, audete 12.579).
Hannibal usually addresses socii (e.g. 2.44; 12.578), miles (7.532; 12.511), viri (7.535).
See pp. 92â98. We may add as a hint that, in this last exhortation, Hannibal as a last remembrance recalls Saguntum by addressing his men in the second person plural (hence collective as in book 1), while elsewhere he mostly uses the singular: quid vos, quis claro deletum est Marte Saguntum, / exhorter, quos nobilitant primordia belli? (17.328â329 primordia recalling primitiae 1.343). The comprehensive analysis of the speeches can therefore also help to answer individual text-critical questions.
It is therefore quite natural that, when the focus shifts from the Punic leader at the beginning of book 13, the exhortations on the Punic side (with the one exception in book 15 before the major battle at Metaurus, see below) disappear, too, until Hannibal gives a special final performance at Zama (see below pp. 98â100).
Lundström 1971, 75, sums up some evidence of Hannibalâs thundering voice. Take, for example, 12.210â211 vincebat clamore tubas vocisque vigore / quamvis obstructas saevus penetrabat in auris (in contrast, Scipio loses his voice in 4.412â413). The terminus vis (instead of e.g. ars) could directly refer to Hannibalâs energetic (sometimes aggressive) manner of speaking; but cf. also Cic. orat. 61 dicendi ⦠maxima vis soli huic (sc. perfecto oratori) conceditur.
See Bernstein 2022, 169â170, and cf. Liv. 21.45.4 nihil umquam satis dictum praemonitumque ad cohortandos milites ratus.
He beseeches his army not only in terms of their recent exploits, but especially in emulation of Hannibalâs past deeds: âper decora extremo vobis quaesita sub axe, / per fratris laudes oroâ (15.638â639). For his gesture tendens vocemque manusque (15.637), cf. Hannibal in 12.509â510: impellit in agmen / voce manuque viros. For Hasdrubal and Hannibal, see Stocks 2014, 170â178; and for Hannibal and his other brother Mago, 178â181.
Besides them, other Roman commanders who are reasonably present in the text, Gracchus, Servilius and Minucius, are also not credited with any exhortations.
In order to maintain the tragedy of the thwarted reasoner Paulus (cf. e.g. 8.284â288), it would therefore only have been possible here to insert an unsuccessful speech trying to stop the battle.
As Hannibal does before the equally lost battle at Zama, see pp. 98â99,, and especially for Flaminius, note 60. Cf. also Wissel 2019, 200â201.
See Bernstein 2022, 102â103. Although this speech is successful, its profile is nevertheless rated negatively (for this characteristic of Varro, cf. p. 94). For Varroâs foul taunting, cf. his speech in 9.262â266 (which must not be counted as an exhortation).
For the religious tendency of Scipioâs speeches, see Helzle 1996, 260â261.
For civil war and unity in the Punica, see the literature in Telg genannt Kortmann 2018, 50 n. 196.
For these speeches, see p. 95.
On the other hand, it is negatively contextualized when Flaminius himself, at Lake Trasimenus, is impatient to begin the fighting immediate after his own words (see p. 94). For a more extensive analysis of Flaminius at Lake Trasimenus, see also Oughton in this volume (chapter 7, 169â174).
There is an overall tendency to characterize Hannibalâs habit of encouragement with fire-imagery, which may also be regarded as a negative indication, for it could be seen as an implicit judgment of the excessive Punic joy to fight, which already borders on madness, thus characterizing both the speaker and the addressees. Cf. e.g. the fire-imagery in Hannibalâs first and last exhortation: incensi (2.36. 41), ardor (2.39) and particularly 17.292â294 dux, vetus armorum scitusque accendere corda / laudibus, ignifero mentes furiabat in iram / hortatu decorisque urebat pectora flammis (see also p. 99). Cf. also the characterization of the blameable Roman leader Varro with pestifero pugnae ⦠incendebat amore (37)âVarroâs speech in itself is a success but is nevertheless rated negatively by the epic narrator (cf. ardens animi in 9.262). Varro, like Flaminius in 5.165, is also described as turbidus in the speech-frame (9.24 and 36). For the failure of the exhortations indicated by markers like turbidus, see Lundström 1971, 78â79.
Cf. especially 518â519 instincti glomerant gressus. Roma auribus haeret, / Roma oculis.
For the last type, compare table 4.1 (label I = inconclusive).
Before 4.68â80, on the one hand there isâmorally speakingâa positive comment in pulchra suos vocat ad discrimina consul (67), on the other hand discrimina may already indicate the future crisis.
Lundström 1971, 80, points to at contra (15.652).
Note that the verba morantia would have been Flaminiusâ own words! Cf. Wissel 2019, 218.
See Bernstein 2022, 175.
Silius plays with the readerâs expectation for there is no real exhortation granted to the acid-tongued rabble-rouser Varro immediately before the all-time disaster Cannae. For a study on Varro, cf. Ariemma 2010; for the negative characterization by his manner of speaking Helzle 1996, 247â248.
When battle finally is possible again, the introduction of Hannibalâs speech torquet totas in proelia vires Poenorum ductor / propellitque agmina voce (7.529â530) points to success after the enforced idleness.
Cf. Lundström 1971, 74â78.
With the verb temptare, the conative imperfect form does not even need to be highlighted specifically, cf. note 48 and p. 99.
Silius uses nimirum only four times: apart from the passage here, tellingly in connection with a (Roman) flight reproached by the epic narrator in 5.478 (in 5.475, the narrator addresses the men, too: quid vobis?); then in a speech of the Capuans, who decide to defect from the Romans (11.151), and in another speech of Hannibal in 12.633. For nimirum, see Schrickx 2011, 185â194.
For the imploring tone, cf. especially 12.678â680; and 577â579 (âper plurima vestra, / o socii, decora et sacras in sanguine dextras, / vobis ite paresââHannibal here adjures the army, referring back to 12.81â82).
Cf. the hyperbaton in 79â81 âper vos Tyrrhena faventum / stagna deum, per ego et Trebiam cineresque Sagunti / obtestorâ; cf. also 69â70 âoblite tuorum / factorum milesâ; 75â76 âtene heu Cumanus hiantem / agger adhuc murusque tenetâ. In contrast, cf. e.g. 6.715 âiuvenes, quorum dextris mihi tanta gerunturâ.
Although with flammat (680; for the fire metaphor, see above p. 93, note 34) there seems to be an immediate sign of successful exhortation, the troops obviously remain trepidos (684; most likely, with Telg genannt Kortmann 2018, flammat here has a conative touch). Lundström 1971, 81â82, quite convincingly uncovers the tendency of a failure. But note also that the speech itself with its unique philosophical character tends to have a more universal direction than exhortations that are aimed at a direct impact. For the decline of Hannibal and his army in book 12, also by means of the leaderâs speeches, see Telg genannt Kortmann 2018, 23â29. Regarding Hannibalâs unsuccessful speeches in book 12 note also the flight scene and the speech in 12.204â209 (see Lundström 1971, 79).
See above, p. 88.
The Punic army is characterized by a parendi ⦠vigor (13.21â22). For the intrinsic motivation of the Romans, see Telg genannt Kortmann 2018, 189â191. In Liv. 28.42.11â13, Fabius fears that the Punics might in turn gain this kind of intrinsic motivation when they fight in front of their own hometown (cf. Liv. 30.33.11). In the Punica, this motivation for the Punic side may only be hinted at in Hannibalâs words in 17.331â335.
Even when the soldiers of the Punic army motivate themselves, the connection to their leader, who is able to see and judge them, is stressed (5.217â218); cf. of course 1.340â346 (see p. 88).
There is irony in the fact that he begins an exhortation with these words and, even more, that a short time later he is depicted by the narrator executing his professional skill: hortandoque iterum atque iterum insatiabilis urget (9.245). Likewise, Silius uses the narrative technique to announce that no speech is necessary only to present a speech afterwards for the Romans in 12.587â588 (the difference is that the Romans actually do not need extra motivation to defend their hometown, see below n. 53 and 54).
Cf. especially 10.640â658 with the concluding statement in 657 haec tum Roma fuit. After that, the Romans do not require extra motivation. But they still get some (see below), since exhortations are in general an important and expected narrative device, and they nevertheless illustrate the character of the leaders (for instance, the reader would certainly miss such a speech type from Scipio).
Noting Capua in 13.186â187 and Syracuse in 14.299 and soon coming to Zama (see p. 100), we here elaborate one example a little further: though at Rome the consul Fulvius tries to exhort his soldiers, he is tellingly prevented by the storm which Jupiter evokes, who is now in charge to ward off Hannibal: subnectere plura / conantem tristis caeli cum murmure vasto / turbavit fragor (12.602â604). The narrator shortly before stated for the first time that there is no need for a speech (in contrast, of course, to the Punic troops): sed contra Oenotria pubes / non ullas voces ducis aut praecepta requirit (12.587â588); this time it is in a very concrete way proved true by the godâs intervention but it is also sustained by the Romans themselves. So, the newly won strength on the Roman side even includes faith in the gods, a theme that will be apparent in the speeches of Scipio (cf. p. 92).
Cf. Marks 2005, 209â288.
For Fabius, see e. g. Fucecchi 2010, 221â230, Tipping 2010, 107â137, and Marks 2005, 21â27. Cf. also above p. 95.
The promptly following raucus clangor (94) could at least suggest an extra motivation on the Roman side, but is basically to be assigned to the general beginning of the battle.
Lundström 1971, 68â69.
On this speech, see Oughton (chapter 7, 176â177) in this volume.
In contrast to the elsewise same modus operandi of the consul Flaminius before the battle at Lake Trasimenus, which will lead to an almost fatal debacle for the Romans, Hannibal concentrates (naturally, from a narrative point of view in the line of events) on the past in addressing his men. His addressees have a much more paradigmatic function than the soldiers approached by turbidus Flaminius (5.165), who speaks to the single addressees (166â185) only after his exhortation to the whole army (151â164)âwhich therefore all the more seems to be a failure (cf. p. 94). At first sight, this technique to motivate the soldiers personally seems not bad at all, but the outcome of the battles tellingly contradicts this impression. For the speech to individuals, cf. also Fulvius in 13.98â103 (98: tum prensans passim, cuicumque est nomen in armis).
This may draw a relevant connection from Siliusâs Hannibal to Lucanâs Pompey, but it is also basically a motif in exhortations in Greek and Roman historiography.
Just to mention the first five lines (295â299) with repeated addresses tuâtuâtibiâtibi.
For example, it is remarkable that in 17.324â327 Hannibal claims that one soldier had taught him, while he himself was hesitating during his attacks on Rome, that the repeated thunderstorms were just natural phenomena without divine origin. However, in 12.668â680 Hannibal himself provided this lesson to his anxious men.
Particularly, as they are now both in the typical imperfect form. Cf. 12.680 with the conative flammat (see above, note 48 and cf. also temptabat, p. 95).
Cf. with the situation at Rome after his speech in 12.577â586: In both cases Hannibalâs speech stands without a reported result as the perspective immediately shifts, Hannibal haec. sed ⦠(17.338) and talibus hic Poenus. sed ⦠(12.587) (see above, n. 54).
See above, pp. 87â89.
Bibliography
Adema, S. (2016). Encouraging Troops, Persuading Narratees. Pre-Battle Exhortations in Caesarâs Bellum Gallicum as a Narrative Device. In: V. Liotsakis, S.T. Farrington, eds., The Art of History. Literary Perspectives on Greek and Roman Historiography, Berlin/Boston, pp. 219â239.
Albertus, J. (1908). Die ÏαÏακληÏικοί in der griechischen und römischen Literatur. StraÃburg.
Anson, E. (2010). The Generalâs Pre-Battle Exhortation in Graeco-Roman Warfare. G&R 57, pp. 304â318.
Ariemma, E. (2010). Fons Cuncti Varro Mali. The Demagogue Varro in Punica 8â10. In: Augoustakis, A. (ed.), Brillâs Companion to Silius Italicus. Leiden/Boston, pp. 241â276.
Augoustakis, A., and Littlewood, R.J. (2022). Silius Italicus. Punica, Book 3 (Oxford Commentaries on Flavian Poetry). Oxford.
Augoustakis, A., and Bernstein, N.W. (2021). Silius Italicusâ Punica. Romeâs War with Hannibal. London/New York.
Bernstein, N.W. (2022). Silius Italicus, Punica Book 9. Edited with Introduction, Translation, and Commentary. Oxford.
Burgeon, C. (2020). La uirtus, la fides et la pietas dans les Punica de Silius Italicus (GIF Bib 23). Turnhout.
Dominik, W.J. (1994). Speech and Rhetoric in Statiusâ Thebaid. Hildesheim/Zürich/New York.
Delz, J. (1987). Silius Italicus, Punicas. Stuttgart.
Duff, J.D. (1934). Silius Italicus, Punica. Vol. 1. Cambridge, MA.
Feeney, D. (1982). A Commentary on Silius Italicus Book 1. Diss. Cambridge.
Fucecchi, M. (2010). The Shield and the Sword. Q. Fabius Maximus and M. Claudius Marcellus as Models of Heroism in Siliusâ Punica. In: Augoustakis, A. (ed.), Brillâs Companion to Silius Italicus, Leiden/Boston, pp. 219â239.
Gibson, B. (2010). Silius Italicus: A Consular Historian? In: Augoustakis, A. (ed.): Brillâs Companion to Silius Italicus, Leiden/Boston, pp. 47â72.
Hansen, M.H. (1993). The Battle Exhortation in Ancient Historiography: Fact or Fiction? Historia 42, pp. 161â180.
Helzle, M. (1996). Der Stil ist der Mensch. Redner und Reden im römischen Epos (BzA 73). Stuttgart/Leipzig.
Highet, G. (1972). The Speeches in Vergilâs Aeneid. Princeton, NJ. (https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400869466)
Iglesias Zoido, J.C. (2007a). The Battle Exhortation in Ancient Rhetoric. Rhetorica 25, pp. 141â158.
Iglesias Zoido, J.C. (2007b). La arenga militar en la historiografÃa griega. El modelo de TucÃdides y sus antecedentes literarios y retóricos. In: Iglesias Zoido, J.C., ed., Retórica e historiografÃa. El discurso militar en la historiografÃa desde la antigüedad hasta el renacimiento, Madrid, pp. 238â257.
Jacobs, J. (2021) An Introduction to Silius Italicus and the Punica. London.
Keitel, E. (1987) Homeric Antecedents to the Cohortatio in the Ancient Historians. CW 80, pp. 154â160.
Kyriakou, P. (2017). Able Leaders and Fallible Men. Success and Excess in Iliadic Battle Exhortations. Trends in Classics 9, pp. 22â70.
Lundström, S. (1971). âSprachâsâ bei Silius Italicus. Lund.
Marks, R.D. (2005). From Republic to Empire. Scipio Africanus in the Punica of Silius Italicus (Studien zur klassischen Philologie 152). Frankfurt am Main.
Marks, R.D. (2010). Silius and Lucan. In: Augoustakis, A., ed.: Brillâs Companion to Silius Italicus. Leiden/Boston, pp. 127â153.
Pomeroy, A.J. (2010). To Silius Through Livy and his Predecessors. In: Augoustakis, A., ed., Brillâs Companion to Silius Italicus, Leiden/Boston, pp. 27â45.
Rebischke, R. (1913). De Silii Italici orationibus. Diss. Danzig.
Schedel, E. (2022). Ambiguities of War. Studies in the Narrativity of Silius Italicusâ Punica. (narratological commentary on book 4). Leiden/ Boston.
Schmitt, A.W. (1995). Die direkten Reden der Massen in Lucans Pharsalia. Frankfurt a. Main.
Schrickx, J. (2011). Lateinische Modalpartikeln. Nempe, quippe, scilicet, videlicet und nimirum (Amsterdam Studies in Classical Philology 19). Leiden/ Boston.
Spaltenstein, F. (1986). Commentaire des Punica de Silius Italicus (livres 1 Ã 8). Geneva.
Stocks, C. (2014). The Roman Hannibal. Remembering the Enemy in Silius Italicusâ Punica. Liverpool.
Telg genannt Kortmann, J.R. (2018). Hannibal ad portas. Silius Italicus, Punica 12,507â752. Einleitung, Ãbersetzung und Kommentar (Wissenschaftliche Kommentare zu griechischen und lateinischen Schriftstellern). Heidelberg.
Telg genannt Kortmann, J.R. (2019). Mass Combat in Ancient Epic. In: C. Reitz and S. Finkmann, eds, Structures of Epic Poetry, vol. 2.1: Configuration. Berlin/Boston, pp. 111â158.
Tipping, B. (2010). Exemplary Epic. Silius Italicusâ Punica. Oxford.
Touahri, O. (2004). Harangue de chef avant la bataille. Comparaison entre Tite-Live (Histoire Romaine, livre XXVII) et Silius Italicus (Punica, XV, 320â823). VL 171, pp. 121â129.
Touahri, O. (2005). Aspect de la parole guerrière dans lâépopée latine. Bulletin de lâAssociation Guillaume Budé 2, pp. 99â116.
Villalba Ãlvarez, J. (2007). Ãpica e historiografÃa. La arenga militar en los Punica de Silio Itálico y su relación con Tito Livio. In: J.C. Iglesias Zoido, ed., Retórica e historiografÃa. El discurso militar en la historiografÃa desde la Antigüedad hasta el Renacimiento. Madrid, pp. 341â366.
Wissel, F. (2019). Punica. Buch V, 1â400. Einleitung und Kommentar. Diss. Halle-Wittenberg.