Part IV Romans and Non-Romans

Part IV Romans and Non-Romans

13 The Roman Ambassador’s Speech: Public Oratory on the Diplomatic Stage Elena Torregaray Pagola

As we can see in most of the papers in this volume, any study of republican political oratory must take into consideration its context, undoubtedly influenced by Cicero’s ubiquitous work.1 Immediately, the well-known dialectical battles between great Roman politicians, the debates in the senate and the courts, and the inflamed speeches before the popular assemblies are conjured up. Yet this oratory is seldom approached from beyond the political scene in the urbs itself. Scant attention is paid to the rhetorical display which Roman politicians had to use outside the city and before non-Roman assemblies or interlocutors.2 To do so is the main purpose of this paper. There are, nonetheless, solid reasons to account for this absence or lack of interest, generally linked to the types of sources historians can work with in the field of Roman diplomacy. Sadly, any attempt to identify a diplomatic language in republican Rome is immediately faced with an objective difficulty: the lack of original written documentation produced by the Roman ambassadors whom historical and literary sources record and whose speeches they reproduce.3 This statement may, however, be clarified, given that there are qualified historians such as Polybius, Fabius Pictor or Aulus Postumius Albinus who took part in legationes throughout their public career, and their experience or first-hand information would be reflected in their works.4 But except for those, the most direct references are some treaties preserved in literary form in texts by the main Greek and Roman authors,5 or deditiones, preserved in epigraphic 1 This paper is part of the Research Project HAR2010–21893: ‘El discurso sobre el imperio en la República romana: Estrategias de dominación en la oratoria diplomática’, funded by the Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación (MICINN). 2 Wooten (1973a); Piccirilli (2001a); Kralli (2005); Torregaray (2009). 3 Piccirilli (2001b), 67. 4 Steel (2006), 16–20. 5 Eckstein (2006).

230

Elena Torregaray Pagola

form through inscriptions.6 Unfortunately, these documents mainly report the results of negotiations, barely reproducing the characteristics of diplomatic activity and usually providing few actual details of the arguments used by the ambassadors before their interlocutors when performing their duties.7 This does not mean that we entirely lack the sources to try to reconstruct diplomatic politics in republican Rome, especially in the third and second centuries bc, a particularly fruitful period in this field due to the prolonged process of conquest in the Mediterranean area. We must admit, however, that these mainly literary sources pose several methodological problems regarding their interpretation, above all regarding the Roman legati’s use of words and the restoration of their speeches. First, access to the speeches, either through literary sources or through epigraphy, is complicated because quite often records do not consist of the actual speeches by ambassadors but of reports on the contents of an embassy and, essentially, on its final outcome.8 When reading literary sources it becomes particularly apparent that, quite often, diplomatic speeches are reconstructed from the brief, concise, and succinct information kept in the archives of the city of Rome regarding diplomatic delegations conducted during the republican period.9 In these circumstances, historians have difficulties in grasping the negotiating or persuasive skills of a legatus, although there are some exceptions where the sources find it particularly pertinent to reproduce more or less an accurate account of an embassy speech in order to understand certain decisions taken by Rome. Secondly, there is the question of how ambassadors expressed themselves: that is, to what extent the shape of their speeches corresponds not to the original but to how they are reported by the author. It seems obvious that the almost total subordination to literary sources when attempting to reconstruct diplomatic language—Polybius, Sallust, Livy, Diodorus Siculus10—involves the basic methodological consideration that these authors may have modified the actual communications based on aesthetic or ideological criteria or due to the lack of direct information.11 Hence we tread on uncertain ground regarding diplomatic speeches, since we must take into consideration the fact that these authors probably reported what the ambassadors were supposed to have said in those circumstances rather than what they actually said. This idea is further supported by the fact that the speeches of the ambassadors in each of these authors are usually quite similar, although there are very substantial differences depending on whether they are reported from a Greek or Roman viewpoint given that, as we shall see, their diplomatic cultures are quite different.12 6 7 9 11

López Melero, Sánchez Abad and García Jiménez (1984); Nörr (1989). 8 Simonet (2008), 45–8. Piccirilli (2001b), 65. 10 Muñiz Coello (1997); Demougin (1998). Canali de Rossi (2007). 12 Wooten (1973a); Marincola (2007). Piccirilli (2001a).

The Roman Ambassador’s Speech

231

Thirdly, one of the main sources for the construction of republican diplomacy between the third and second centuries bc is the Excerpta de Legationibus, compiled in the Byzantine period by Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus.13 As its title conveys, it is an attempt at collecting within one volume all Roman diplomatic activity. Given that this text is but partially preserved, only some of that activity can be reconstructed, but the fact that the work deals exclusively with fragments of questions regarding diplomacy is indicative of the enormous relevance it had reached in the period when the volume was compiled, because the text was to serve, without a doubt, as a catalogue of exempla in diplomatic practice, and as a guide for officials in charge of international negotiations. In this context, we must remember that what is reported is considered exemplary and useful. Nonetheless, it is also true, as has recently been pointed out, that most of the legationes we know of from that period were failed ones or did not work properly and for this reason diplomacy could seemingly be perceived as a highly negative practice.14 Successful legationes, which were probably the majority, possibly did not need to be reported and the compiler may have thought that it was more appropriate to learn from mistakes. But we cannot overlook the fact that, as a result, Roman diplomacy in a positive sense is not very well known, and the impression given of it is that of a barely effective institution compared with war, which seems much more successful in the literary sources dealing with this period. We must not forget either that, in principle, Roman diplomacy usually took place in the midst of conflicts or under enormous pressure. It is therefore hardly surprising that ancient diplomacy almost always had this very tense profile. Finally, in order to carry out our study, we need also to consider the existence of a different model of negotiation and, therefore, of persuasion, which must have been adapted and deployed by the interlocutor in Roman diplomacy both in the East and in the West.15 Linked to that, we have to consider the question of the language in which the speeches of the legati were originally delivered. Most of them would obviously be in Latin, except in special circumstances, such as in Greece where some ambassadors spoke in Greek before the interlocutors to whom they were sent.16 This reflects one of the characteristics of diplomatic oratory, which is that when statements are expressed in Latin, it is unlikely that during the third and second centuries bc, when the beginning of Rome’s Mediterranean expansion took place, the audience would have understood that language; so the need for persuasion was replaced by the need for communication and, in this case, forceful communication. In these circumstances, it is likely that the appearance of 13

14 De Boor (1903). Brennan (2009), 174–5. Lemosse (1967); Auliard (1991); (1995); Torregaray (2005); (2011), 15–30. 16 Liv. 45.8, 45.29; V. Max. 2.2.2. For further consideration of language used in diplomatic oratory, see Pina Polo in this volume. 15

232


the legati, and, above all, their gestures would, in many cases, be crucial in achieving their objectives, and would be more important than the speech itself. In this regard, we must not forget that at the beginning of the expansion of Roman diplomacy, the efforts of some Roman ambassadors and envoys to Tarentum in 282 bc were seriously disappointed by the response of the Tarentines who scoffed openly at the Greek of the ambassadors.17 So Romans seldom used languages other than Latin for diplomatic discourse.18 This evidently conditioned the diplomatic discourse which, in many cases, would need an intermediary, usually an interpreter.19 This interpreter would determine Roman diplomatic discourse because, first, he had to interpret what the legatus said in Latin and then he had to adapt it to his own language, so part of the original persuasive value of the speech was lost. Moreover, in many cases, he might not translate exactly what the ambassador had said, but just the ultimate goal of his words; that is, an interpretation of the speech. We must also consider that the interpreter would often fall under the suspicion both of the Roman ambassadors and of his own partners, as they depended entirely on him to communicate his interpretation of the Roman words; so this would often have made him look like a biased stage actor. Under these conditions, it is likely that diplomatic discourse was necessarily transformed, and evolved, into a short speech, apparently poorly designed, essentially seeking communication goals, and simple and straightforward in appearance. Since the objectives of the Romans were often coercive, their speeches usually have little persuasive aspect. However, we must not forget that in many cases the legati were ordered in the embassy to be persuasive in either Latin or in other languages, which would require a great effort. They had to adapt to a nonRoman audience, which had different keys for interpreting the message.20 But still the need for persuasion was valued, as some legati such as Cato and Cicero, despite speaking Greek, used an interpreter, probably seeking the benevolence of the audience and more effective persuasion.21 In conclusion, despite all these drawbacks, I believe that the analysis of literary sources yields some clues which may be useful in suggesting the existence of a specific form of oratory which Romans developed in the diplomatic arena. Let us now see how diplomatic speech was created in the republican period. Difficulties in characterizing diplomatic oratory in republican Rome are posed not only by the sources we have just referred to, but also by the specific characteristics of the very society which these sources come from and its attitude towards diplomacy, in particular regarding negotiations with nonRoman interlocutors.22 If we perceive diplomacy as a form of political communication, it seems reasonable to assume that in an interactive situation 17 19 21

18 D.H. 19.5 (17.7); D.C. 9.39.5–9. V. Max. 2.2.2. 20 Rochette (1996); Peretz (2006); Mairs (2011), 71–3. Liv. 45.8.6, 45.29.1–3. 22 Steel (2006), 16–20. Pernot (2000), 115–28; Steel (2006), 16–20.


233

some kind of negotiation must take place, which somehow involves the existence of a certain level of persuasion. At least this was the case in Hellenistic Greek diplomacy, the type of diplomacy best known to the Romans, where persuasion through the use of words in the course of embassies had a prominent place although, if it came to it, coercion was not ruled out.23 In fact, negotiation between cities, civic communities, and kingdoms was a habitual part of Hellenistic political culture.24 Roman diplomatic culture, however, took a different path. It derived from an institution created in the archaic period, the fetiales, who were part of an order of priests.25 Linked thus to religion, they had a highly ritualized discourse made up of a series of sentences which were to be repeated before a usually very hostile interlocutor. The fetiales generally had two types of role: on the one hand, to proclaim the declaration of war and, on the other hand, to state Rome’s complaints and demands. In any event, it was a tightly controlled form of representing Rome which left little room for fluent political communication with the interlocutor. Besides, it unquestionably restricted the scope of action of these Roman envoys and prevented them from any form of initiative. As the republican period advanced and Rome’s area of action became larger geographically and more complicated militarily, the institution of the fetiales proved to be too rigid and unable to adapt to new political circumstances. As a result, it gradually lost ground in the diplomatic field.26 The turning point in Roman diplomatic behaviour can clearly be noticed from the third century bc onwards, and it continued to evolve throughout the entire republican period. Nevertheless, it is clear that underlying the historical and literary narration of diplomatic events in republican Rome to some extent is an idealization of the behaviour of the fetiales, who did not negotiate but simply set out Rome’s conditions, awaited a response, and ultimately represented Rome’s obvious military power.27 Hence the most renowned embassies in the republican period from the third century bc onwards clearly have the form of ultimata, where the Roman legati simply offer peace or war, without further discussion;28 or else the case of ambassadors, such as Scipio Aemilianus, whose name alone sufficed to conjure up the glory of Rome, without further explanation.29 In sum, most of the sources, in particular those narrating republican history from the Augustan period onwards, paint a picture of Roman ambassadors as individuals who hold Rome’s power and authority and do not need to negotiate, but simply to lay down forceful ultimata.30

23 24 25 26 28 30

Wooten (1973a), (1973b); Elwyn (1993); Erskine (2007); Wiater (2010). Savalli-Lestrade (1998). Auliard (1992); Ferrary (1995); Cimma (2000); Santangelo (2008). 27 Auliard (1992), 13–15. Saulnier (1980); Wiedemann (1986). 29 Torregaray (2009). V. Max. 4.3.13; Knibbe (1960); Mattingly (1986). Torregaray (2009).

234


This picture also matches a wider political ideal as regards Rome’s representation, since Roman culture seeks to convey to society, both its own and others’, an image of men devoted to action rather than to negotiation, which is naturally reflected in the field of diplomatic culture.31 In this area too, Romans are men of action rather than persuasion. We have many and varied examples of the spread of this ideal of behaviour which can be found in Greek and Roman exempla throughout the centuries.32 In the strict field of diplomacy, we could recall here the Ineditum Vaticanum, a document whose date is much debated and which may be a compilation from the Augustan era of Greek authors from previous periods, probably going back to the third century bc.33 This document compiles several diplomatic and military events in republican history. In that context the author, writing in Greek, claims that Romans are not, unlike the Greeks, interested in playing with words and looking for beauty, but they go straight for the facts. This can be seen in Roman diplomatic culture, where coercion prevails over persuasion.34 Of course, Latin sources very often also hint at an attitude not very prone towards negotiation, and we must take into account the fact that their main topic is usually war, ground zero in political communication. Both Cicero and Livy at times state that legationes are useless, suggesting that action is more effective than words.35 They both make their statements in very specific contexts of imminent conflicts of decisive relevance to Rome, and the depiction of Romans as men of action rather than as men of persuasion is evident in each case.36 The Ineditum reinforces the image of Romans as men of action and introduces the comparison between two very different diplomatic cultures: on the one hand, Hellenistic Greek culture, more disposed to the use of words;37 on the other, Roman culture, more inclined to action.38 This directly affects oratory in the diplomatic sphere since, if words are not appreciated as a diplomatic tool, the need for public speeches as a tool for political communication is negligible. Besides the heritage of the fetiales, there are further reasons for the expansion of this peculiar Roman diplomatic culture. One of these reasons is probably the estimation of the interlocutor; for it was considered that no political communication was needed with interlocutors who were not at the same level as Rome. This is particularly obvious when we look into Roman diplomatic practice in the West during the period of conquest.39 We

31

App. Hisp. 6-15. Torregaray (1998). Bonnefond-Coudry and Späth (2001); van der Blom (2010). 33 Von Arnim (1892); Cavallaro (1973-4); Humm (2007) (1) proposes that both events may come from the work of a Greek author of the 3rd century bc, Timaeus of Tauromenium. 34 Ined. Vatican. Cod. 435, fol. 220 = FGrHist 839; Humm (2009). 35 Cic. Phil. 5.25–6, 6.4; Liv. 21.19; V. Max. 6.4.3. 36 Torregaray (2009), 147–50. 37 Mosley (1973); Piccirilli (2001a); Missiou-Ladi (1987). 38 Humm (2007). 39 Mangas (1970); García Riaza (2002); Torregaray (2011), 15–30. 32


235

must not forget that, from the point of view of objective data and figures, the number of Roman embassies sent is remarkably lower than those received. In this sense, Rome receives embassies and only occasionally sends them out.40 This scarcity in diplomatic resources has a direct influence on the development of oratory in this field given the few occasions it is used during the republican period. Finally, it must be underlined that to this attitude regarding negotiation and persuasion with non-Roman interlocutors we must add the typical features of Roman oratorical culture which, unlike the Greek, is based on the forcefulness of strong, brief, and sonorous words rather than on prolonged Greek dissertations.41 The form of political discourse is different in each society and, as a result, diplomatic discourse is too. As a consequence of all of the above, the authors of the Roman period who talk about embassy or ambassador speeches are mainly Greek—Polybius, Diodorus Siculus, Menander Rhetor, Plutarch—for this type of speech is better matched to their own diplomatic culture, where use of words and persuasion is more developed.42 Latin authors, in their turn, do not make specific reference to the existence of embassy speeches but include them within political oratory in general. Thus, it is the Greeks who, as part of their own diplomatic and rhetorical culture, acknowledge the specific existence of embassy or ambassador’s speech.43 Despite all this, the fact that Roman diplomatic culture had some specific features which did not favour the massive production of embassy speeches does not mean that they did not exist or that they were not necessary. We have already pointed out that the diplomatic practice of the fetiales declined because it proved to have little use or agility in the context of conquest of the Mediterranean area. The figure of the legatus-ambassador became more prominent in this context, not as a mere conveyor of the mandata, the instructions of the senate, but as a political figure who was removed from the urbs, who was representing Rome before a foreign and frequently hostile interlocutor, and who had to implement his own strategy in order to complete his task. This task, in contrast to that of the soldier who could count on the pressure of the supporting army, had to be performed with a small number of assistants, ranging from three to ten,44 and had to be based on the capacity of the ambassador to embody with his presence the power of Rome, coercive if necessary, but above all to persuade his interlocutor that the offer made to him was both beneficial and feasible.45 Also in contrast to the soldier, the

40 41 42 43 45

Torregaray (2005); Barrandon (2007); García Riaza (2009). Pernot (2000), 115–28. Plb. 12.25, 36.1.1–7; D.S. 20.1; Men. Rh. 2.423–4 (Gascó et al. [1996]). 44 Wooten (1973a). Bowman (1988), 154–202; Canali de Rossi (2004), (2007). Missiou-Ladi (1987).

236


ambassador might seek to convince his interlocutor to do something such as providing grain or auxiliaries for the army, or collaborate in neutralizing common enemies, and so on. Thus, whenever any type of non-violent exchange is called for, the need for persuasion prevails.46 Diplomacy, a game of political interaction and communication, progressively gained relevance in mid-republican Rome, transforming Roman diplomacy through practice. The most important turning-point in the development of Roman diplomatic practice took place in the early third century bc due to the outbreak of a series of wars—against Pyrrhus, the First Punic War, and the First Illyrian War—all of which defined the specific form that Roman diplomatic discourse was to have: discourse which was under pressure to make its negotiation structure more dynamic and to adapt to the Hellenistic diplomatic model which had larger negotiating capacity.47 Let us go back to the Ineditum Vaticanum,48 the text which claimed that Romans were not keen on beautiful words but on facts, and which features two speeches delivered by Romans in a diplomatic context.49 The first is well known and is a fragment of diplomatic content where Appius Claudius persuades the senate not to accept peace against Pyrrhus;50 the second is the actual speech of an ambassador, given by a Roman legatus called Kaeso who replies to a Carthaginian ambassador, probably within the context of the First Punic War, with an elegant discourse on the Roman capacity to learn from their enemies.51 In terms of its historical plausibility, it is possible that the two texts come from the work of the Greek historian of the third century bc, Timaeus of Tauromenium.52 This historical period, important in terms of the development of the oratorical skills of legati, was perceived and assessed as such by Cicero, who provides an interesting quotation linked to the chronological context. In the Brutus, a book compiling the names of those Cicero considered the best Roman orators, Cicero introduces a brief fragment regarding the speech of Appius Claudius we noted above, and he states: suspicari disertum—that is, it can be presumed that Appius Claudius knew how to speak;53 he next mentions C. Fabricius Luscinus,54 sent as ambassador-orator before King Pyrrhus to negotiate the liberation of Roman prisoners, which is completely unheard-of up until then in Roman history.55 In Cicero’s examples, unlike the Greeks’— Polybius’ and Diodorus Siculus’, who are the closest chronologically—no speech of any ambassador is mentioned; although the work does group 46 48 49 50 51 52 54

47 Harto Trujillo (2007). Schettino (2009); Stouder (2009), 197–200. Von Arnim (1892); Cavallaro (1973-4); Humm (2007). Ined. Vatican., Cod. 435, fol. 220 = FGrHist 839; Humm (2007) (2–3). Ined. Vatican., Cod. 435, fol. 220 = FGrHist 839; Humm (2007) (2). Ined. Vatican., Cod. 435, fol. 220 = FGrHist 839; Humm (2007) (3). 53 Humm (2007), 284–8. Cic. Brut. 55; Humm (2005), (2009). 55 Stouder (2007). Stouder (2009), 197–200.


237

Roman politicians together and grants them remarkable oratorical skills in the diplomatic field. And although their actual speeches are not recorded, the Ciceronian quotations, like the texts in the Ineditum, may serve to place the beginning of Roman diplomatic oratory in the early third century bc. Of those orators mentioned in the Brutus, Appius Claudius delivers a speech of diplomatic content, but before the senate; it is actually Fabricius, a legatus before King Pyrrhus, who has a brilliant ambassador speech attributed to him. The legatus C. Fabricius Luscinus was sent in 280-278 bc before King Pyrrhus to negotiate the release of Roman prisoners. As Stouder rightly states, this practice was usual in Hellenistic diplomacy, since it was considered a gesture of goodwill prior to peace negotiations, but it was exceptional in the Roman case, which merely consisted in the return of prisoners after the war, and was an innovation in Roman diplomatic practice as known up until then.56 Fabricius succeeded in persuading the king and secured the release of the Roman prisoners. Cicero, in his Brutus, emphasizes his role as orator.57 His action was well received in Rome, where he appears to have been rewarded with a house in the Forum, a dowry for his daughter, and, above all, it seems that an honorary inscription was dedicated to him in memory of his achievement, which is quite extraordinary in the Rome of the republican period. Discovered in the nineteenth century on the site of the old Basilica Aemilia, it specifies the glory of Fabricius as linked to the liberation of Roman prisoners.58 We must recall here that the known cases of public homage to ambassadors in the republican period, according to literary sources, are tributes to legati who had been murdered in the course of their mission and therefore had died heroically representing Rome.59 These first attempts at updating Roman diplomacy seem to follow, in their form, the Hellenistic model. Negotiation for the release of prisoners was a common occurrence in Hellenistic diplomacy, which Fabricius successfully completed. The following of this pattern probably evolved from the Pyrrhic War onwards, when Roman ambassadors were increasingly faced with Greek diplomacy, notably more developed than Roman, where the ambassador’s discourse played a key role, and where eloquence and a theatrical approach were deployed.60 Kaeso’s speech, probably rewritten in the Ineditum, perfectly contributes, due to its chronological situation within the context of the First Punic War, to the development of the figure of the legatus-orator, whose next remarkable landmark was to be the renowned embassy, sent to the Illyrian queen Teuta, which brought about the First Illyrian War. The legatio is well known in the field of the debate on the origin and nature of Roman imperialism, and met a 56 58 59

57 Stouder (2009). Cic. Brut. 55. Inscr. Ital. XIII.3.40, n. 63. Stouder (2009), 191–2 n. 44. 60 Torregaray (2009). Wooten (1973a).

238


grisly end—we know that the queen ordered at least one of the Roman ambassadors, Coruncanius, to be murdered, and that this triggered the First Illyrian War.61 It appears that the purpose of the legatio, according to the narrative of most sources, was to complain about the piracy being carried out by the Illyrians in the Adriatic. However, the same sources differ significantly on how the actions of the Roman ambassador are described as well as on the impact of his words. And, therefore, they offer differing evaluations of the diplomatic action as well as—and this is what interests us here—the use of speech by the legatus Coruncanius.62 Polybius records the words of the Roman legatus as follows: ‘The Romans, Teuta, have a very fine custom, both of public punishment of wrongs privately committed, and of assistance to victims of injustice. With god’s will, we shall try to put you under serious and swift compulsion to correct the way you kings are used to behaving towards the Illyrians.’63 At this point, without denying the queen’s responsibility for the murder of the legatus, Polybius criticizes the speech of the ambassador, whom he considers too young and who he claims spoke with too much frankness (ÆææÅÆ), suggesting that his form of addressing the queen was not the most appropriate from a diplomatic point of view. From Livy,64 on the other hand, only a reference to the murder is preserved, which Pliny the Elder mentions as the motive (iniuria causa) for the erection of a statue in the Forum in the ambassador’s honour.65 Later, we have a passage of Florus, probably following Livy’s text, where it is stated that Roman ambassadors protested about the crimes the Illyrian rulers had committed (ob ea quae deliquerant iure agentes).66 Florus’ references stress the Roman wish to exact an explanation and the Latin author talks about custom and law-abiding conduct. Thus, as opposed to the ÆææÅÆ alluded to by Polybius, Florus sticks to the law.67 Appian, in his turn, provides a different version from that of Polybius and simply reports the murder of the Roman envoy.68 He adds a reference to an embassy which Teuta may have sent to Rome with the purpose of delivering captives and defectors, but his narration does not judge the Roman actions at any point. It is Cassius Dio who goes back to Polybius’ version and combines it with Appian’s, since he also cites the handing over of prisoners. Dio claims that Teuta ‘killed some ambassadors and imprisoned others because they had spoken freely’.69 And, once again, he refers to the unsuitable speech of the legatus Coruncanius. It was unsuitable from the point of view of Greek sources, since Latin sources state that the legatus complied with the law in his discourse.

61 63 65 66 68

62 Dzino (2010). Cabanes (1988), 255–80; Cavallaro (2004), 121–30. 64 Plb. 2.8.10–11. Walbank (1957–79), 153–60; Steel (2006), 16–20. Liv. Per. 20. Plin. Nat. 34.24; Torregaray (2009), 133–40. 67 Flor. Epit. 1.21 (2.5), 3; Orosius 4.13.2. Plb. 2.8.3–12. 69 App. Ill. 7. Šašel-Kos (2005). D.C. 12 F 49.3 (Zonaras 8.19).


239

The difference between the narration of Greek and Latin sources is clear and it also reveals the difference in diplomatic cultures.70 Polybius does value the speech of the young ambassador, although he openly admits that he was reckless and spoke bluntly.71 Florus, as a Latin source and probably following Livy’s text, affirms the compliance with the law to justify the actions of the legatus and makes Teuta responsible for the murder. He attributes to the ambassador a different role from that presented by Polybius, since Florus depicts the figure of the legatus as a representative of Rome and her power and does not choose his words but simply narrates his mission, which consisted in informing his interlocutor of the Roman practice. The attack was therefore perpetrated not against the legatus as a result of his actions but against the power of Rome. Thus interpreted, the logical outcome is the declaration of war and the start of the First Illyrian War.72 From this point of view, the Latin sources justify the war since Rome reacts to the attack suffered by her representative, regardless of his performance. Unlike in the case of Fabricius, where we only have the late reproduction of his speech by Dionysius of Halicarnassus,73 Polybius’ account of Coruncanius’ legatio is very interesting because it provides part of the speech of the legatus.74 Even though the fragment is short, it contains some elements which define Roman diplomatic speech as perceived by Polybius: the Roman actions are explained, her claims are expounded, and the obligation to help and the need for justice are mentioned. Besides, the threat of military coercion is implicitly present throughout the entire speech.75 Both embassies, Fabricius’ and Coruncanius’, take place against a similar background, in the East, before a similar interlocutor, a royal figure; Pyrrhus in the case of Fabricius and Teuta in the case of Coruncanius. The objective in both cases is the defence of Romans, prisoners in the first case and traders who suffer piracy in the second.76 The discourse is, however, different and consequently also the outcome of the legationes. Fabricius was more dextrous in his negotiation and obtained a reward from his fellow citizens. Coruncanius was not so adroit, but his lack of oratorical skill was erased and he received the same reward, although differently. Besides this, most important was that a form of diplomatic response, in the form of the ultimatum, became established as a canon to a greater or lesser degree throughout the republican period. The Greeks saw this ultimatum, however, as an example of the lack of debate within Roman diplomatic culture.77 But the ultimatum discourse, which could be useful in a hostile environment, was not always useful in all types of

70 72 74 76 77

71 A similar episode in Liv. 31.18. Plb. 2.8.3–12. 73 Wilkes (1992), 67–74; Cavallaro (2004), 120–30. D.H. 19.15–16; Plu. Pyrrh. 20. 75 Plb. 2.8.3–12. Walbank (1957–79) I. Dell (1967), 206–7; Bandelli (2004); Ceka (2004), 69–73. Rich (1976); Champion (2007).

240


assemblies, where Romans often did not achieve their objective and were mocked because others, the rulers of a city, had better command of assemblies. In conclusion, we have seen how by the third century bc Rome may not have had her own diplomatic discourse or a specific category to deliver diplomatic speeches. Rome’s own cultural idiosyncrasy and its political evolution so far had not made it necessary. As in many other fields, contact with the Hellenistic world was a determining factor in this sense, because it provided the knowledge of Hellenistic diplomatic practice which was essential in the creation of a specific Roman diplomatic discourse. This discourse was initially based on some premises learnt in relations with oriental monarchies, but was soon to adopt its own specific features typical of the Roman political culture which gave a special form to Roman diplomatic discourse as we know it. Around the third century bc, when the need for Roman politics to have its own diplomatic discourse becomes apparent, a mechanism of definition of this discourse is also activated based on the conditions, situations, and motives for it to be delivered in public. In other words, the audience, the political and military context, and the objective of diplomatic speeches were to condition its evolution and to grant it a specific profile. There are three moments in Roman political culture when diplomacy becomes the main objective of oratory. The first is when a debate on international politics arises, either because a certain situation must be analysed or because foreign embassies have been received. In this first stage there is a debate over ‘diplomatic contents’ in the senate, though the interlocutors are habitually senators, Romans, and therefore, this type of oratory can be framed within traditional senatorial debates. The second moment occurs when a legatus, nominated according to precise patterns, is sent before a foreign interlocutor (assembly, monarch, civic community, religious institution) with the purpose of completing a diplomatic mission entrusted to him by the senate of Rome. In this context, the legatus, who has previous instructions drafted by the senate known as mandata, must put into practice his negotiation, persuasion, or coercion skills, as the case may be, in order to secure the success of his endeavour. In fact, this is the proper ambassadorial discourse which provides Rome with its own specific diplomatic culture. On their return to Rome, ambassadors had to produce a report before the senate. This constitutes the third moment, in which a diplomatic discourse is once again delivered before the Romans but here the oratorical skill of the legati does not seem to be of particular relevance. Literary sources mostly provide concise information which seems to have been compiled from a register or archive but does not call for long dissertations.78 What is relevant, in my opinion, is that from that moment on those legati become ‘experts’ on that particular

78

Muñiz Coello (1999); Demougin (1998).


241

diplomatic question, in that geographical area, and their presence is regularly sought to corroborate, condition, or contradict the information and demands received from foreign embassies which, very often, are forced to adapt their discourse depending on the Roman ambassador they previously dealt with before being sent to Rome.79 At times, there is an exchange of opinions in this context which can be more or less friendly, depending on the interlocutors, as on some occasions it would end in bitter recriminations. If we focus on the second type of diplomatic discourse, the ambassador’s speech, in terms of the topics dealt with, they can be classified into five large groups. First are political speeches,80 where the basic issues of international relations are tackled: that is, alliances, treaties, and peace negotiations.81 With these, the purpose was to lay down the conditions for a future relationship between Rome and the allied and or conquered peoples. These relations could be based on amicitia,82 a vast concept in Roman political culture, or, in the case of a military conquest, on deditio, a surrender with a series of provisos intended to regulate the status of the defeated community.83 Bearing in mind the characteristics of Roman conquest in the West, mainly based on military defeat, it is understandable that most diplomatic actions in this area deal with deditiones of all types.84 In the East, however, there are numerous ‘informative’ embassies, that is, those where the Roman envoys visit certain states or civic communities with the purpose of testing the political situation they are in, their loyalty to the agreements reached with Rome, or, where these do not exist, their disposition to reach them.85 They are usually awkward embassies and, at times, physically dangerous for the legati,86 but above all they show the difference in diplomatic practice between East and West, since in these types of legationes persuasion usually prevails over coercion. In them, very often, Roman legati must try to ‘convince’ their interlocutors of the advantages of siding with the Romans. Although more frequent in the East, we know that during the Hannibalic War, Roman ambassadors were sent to the West with the purpose of dissuading several peoples from forming a possible alliance with the Carthaginians and that the ambassadors had to appear before diverse assemblies, where they had little success.87 The persuasive endeavour of these legati, narrated by Livy, notably contrasts with the narration of another well-known embassy led by Fabius Maximus and sent from Rome to a Carthaginian embassy at the beginning of the Second Punic War. In Livy’s text, Fabius Maximus does not waste time with arguments, but resorts to eloquent gestural language,

79 81 82 84 86

80 Clemente (1976), 320–3. Plb. 16.27.1; Liv. 27.4.7–10, 31.2.3; V. Max. 4.3.9. Canfora, Liverani and Zaccagnini (1990). 83 Cimma (1976); Burton (2003); Kroppenberg (2009). Auliard (2009). 85 García Riaza (2002). Torregaray (2011). 87 Liv. 44.32.1; D.C. 9.39.5–9; Simonet (2008); Alvar Nuño (2011). Liv. 21.19.6–11.

242


offering the Carthaginians a choice between peace and war using the folds of his toga.88 The clear form of an ultimatum presented by the legatio takes us back to the model of coercive diplomacy we have already seen in Coruncanius’ legatio. The second group consists in speeches regarding war issues, mainly the return of prisoners and hostages from allied communities to their places of origin.89 Occasionally, for instance, we know of cases concerning the return of Roman prisoners. Although this type of diplomatic interaction was habitual in Hellenistic diplomacy, in the case of Romans, who considered being taken prisoner as humiliating, matters regarding hostages and prisoners are hardly mentioned in historiographical literary sources.90 The third group is speeches regarding arbitration,91 which acknowledge Rome’s mediating role, and therefore its position as a hegemonic power.92 They are more abundant in the East, which is logical if we consider the long tradition and diplomatic experience in this area. In these cases, Rome appears as the arbitrator in international conflicts.93 This situation is not new at all in the sense that it was a common practice in Greek cities to entrust a third city with the decision over their disputes. The idea here is that Roman legati, acting as arbitrators, should listen to the allegations of the parties and dictate a settlement, copies of which are recorded on inscriptions, many of which are still preserved and serve as a direct source in the knowledge of this diplomatic practice.94 The fourth group consists in speeches regarding religious matters.95 Legationes sent for religious reasons are less frequent in literary sources, although the most renowned took place during the Second Punic War. The most frequently recorded were those which were aimed at consulting an oracle or offering a present in gratitude for a victory. The most famous embassies of this type were those bringing the image of a divinity to Rome. Amongst these, the most celebrated was, without a doubt, the arrival of the Magna Mater in 205/4 bc.96 Other embassies, such as that led by Q. Fabius Pictor to the oracle of Delphi, were highly significant given the desperate context of the Hannibalic War.97 Generally, as part of a further strategy of conquest, it was sought to gain the favour of gods alien to Rome to make them allies.98 We could also interpret within this religious context the repeated petition to the senate by foreign ambassadors arriving in Rome to visit the Temple of Jupiter on the Capitol and offer him costly presents in recognition of his dual political and religious role. This would actually be a form of displaying Roman superiority

88 90 92 94 96

89 Torregaray (2009). Plb. 29.27.1, 30.3.6; Liv. 43.4.11, 45.42.6. 91 Allen (2006); Álvarez (2009). Plb. 31.8.1, 31.10.4; Liv. 33.47.4, 34.62.14, 39.22.8. 93 Lemosse (1990). Jal (1985). 95 Ager (1996); Morstein Kallet-Marx (1995), 163–86. Liv. 38.45.12; Plu. Mar. 31.1. 97 98 Liv. 29.11.1. Liv. 22.57.4, 23.11.1. V. Max. 1.8.2.


243

and the public acknowledgement of the subordination of the corresponding people to Rome. Although literary sources only record respectful petitions to pay these visits, epigraphy provides some of the honorific inscriptions from some foreign embassies to Capitoline Jupiter.99 The visit to Jupiter could thus be both a political and a religious sanction of the diplomatic relations between both communities. In the opposite sense, in the eastern region we know of the visits of Roman legati to local temples in recognition of certain gods, although we do not have the speeches of Roman ambassadors paying tribute to those divinities. The Ciceronian passages praising certain Sicilian deities (contained in his Verrine speeches) could be an example of this type of exaltation, although the context of Cicero’s discourse is different.100 The final group is speeches with economic content, regarding the supply of grain to Rome, especially in times of war.101 Rome sent numerous embassies for this purpose, although little is known about them because they are usually simply mentioned, or only the amount of grain and the success or failure of the mission is recorded. It must be presumed that, it being a question of food supply, these embassies were probably of a coercive nature. These legationes were mainly sent to Hispania, western Africa, and Egypt.102 Finally, when considering the construction of diplomatic language in republican Rome, we should think it essential for success that all these speeches were delivered by an appropriate ambassador. The figure of the legatus, as an ambassador, flourished in the third and second centuries bc and enhanced his role as political orator, although with clearly distinct characteristics differentiating him from those acting on the political scene of the urbs. In the first place, these orators were nominated by the senate and subject to its mandata, that is, instructions given by senators on international matters. The content of their speeches was thus tightly controlled from Rome and, to a certain extent, limited the freedom of their speech. This form of control over their words in diplomacy was highly relevant, since it set limits on the scope of individual action by Roman legati. This was perfectly set down by the senate whose collective shadow loomed over all Roman diplomatic strategy in the republican period. It was only from the second century bc onwards, as the scenes of the Roman conquest expanded towards the East and the West, making rapid and constant communication between the imperatores and the senate more difficult, and when the need to take decisions at the site of conflict was pressing, that the imperatores decided to send legati on their own initiative to conflict zones, thus granting them more room for manoeuvre and dialectic possibilities, although they were always subject to the need to report their diplomatic actions before the senate in Rome.103 99 101 103

100 Lintott (1978); Mellor (1978). Vasaly (1993); Torregaray (2007). 102 Auliard (2004). Canali de Rossi (2002). Eckstein (1987); Simonet (2008), 48–50; Torregaray (2009).

244


Nevertheless, there always remained a certain level of mistrust towards ‘dialectic infringements’ in the field of diplomacy and the need to monitor legati’s speech. This supervision started from the very moment the decision was taken to send a legatio, since, given that its political content was set out by the senate, it was also the senate who gave direct orders on the words that ought to be uttered, either replying to certain questions which had been asked or setting out new content. This is reflected in the available literary sources. Usually they claim that the senate set forth what ambassadors were to answer. This obvious self-limitation can also be noted in the form in which Livy conveys the messages taken by Roman ambassadors on their trips to Greek cities where they always report the same instructions at a higher or lower rhetorical level although, unfortunately, Livy does not compile them. However, he does point out that one of the qualities a legatus must have in his oratory, in the composition of a speech before others, is adaptability.104 It is evident in all cases that the political message conveyed by ambassadors was controlled so that they could not go beyond what the senate had decided and considered.105 From all this it could be concluded that Rome did not trust the use of speech in a political-diplomatic scene away from the urbs, probably due to the possibility that legati might take individual decisions that could not be undertaken by the senate.106 Due to this, from the formal point of view, Roman diplomatic speeches seem to be repetitive, in particular in terms of their contents and consequently, hardly original.107 Legati were also orators who, although acting before a friendly assembly, were habitually under the pressure of a hostile environment and frequently accompanied their speech with the threat of the use of force, constantly oscillating between the need to persuade and the need to coerce in order to achieve their ends. We should understand that envoys were practically always chosen from amongst persons of a certain level of oratorical ability, who could also expound the arguments drawn from the senate’s instructions. And, ultimately, they were to put persuasion into practice. But the relevance of persuasion originated in Greek and Hellenistic diplomatic culture, since Roman ambassadors at the beginning of many of their speeches replaced the need to persuade by the need to impose respect and authority; in other words, Roman legati, unlike Greek ambassadors, did not have persuasion as their priority but the demonstration of Roman authority and the exacting of respect as representatives of the Roman state. As a matter of fact, as we have seen, offence and insult to ambassadors sent by the senate are the anecdotal origin of many wars started by the Romans from the third century onwards.108

104 106 108

105 Liv. 31.31.1. V. Max. 2.2.5. 107 Eckstein (1987); Meadows (1993). Plb. 16.27.4; Liv. 29.12.12–14. Briscoe (1964); Meadows (1993); Brizzi (2001).


245

At the same time, the legati’s activities prompted the need for a type of oratory aimed at providing Roman self-representation in the field of diplomacy. This oratory was mainly built in accordance with the concepts of auctoritas, dignitas, and maiestas populi Romani, for which a great effort was made in image-making along with propaganda. The appearance of a diplomatic speech was linked to the creation of a political message which was complex because, unlike notices sent within Rome, this message was addressed to non-Romans and had to be coordinated, uniform, and stable and provide the image Rome wanted to give of herself. Stability and coherence were essential and, due to this, the ambassador speech ‘sounded’ repetitive. It must be borne in mind that the legatus had to represent Rome and her institutions in accordance with the collective identity very clearly set out by the political imagery of the urbs—that is, it had to fulfil the expectations generated by society. The legati, in the performance of their task, had to represent Rome and therefore reflect the image that the city sought to project. This image, from the third century bc onwards and, above all, from the end of the Second Punic War, was unquestionably linked to the power which Rome wished to exert upon others. Above all, it was intended to give a strong image of power and authority linked to Rome’s ideological basis which demanded a high level of ‘representativeness’ within Roman society itself. This characteristic, from the point of view of electing ambassadors, can be perceived in the fact that most of them were ex-consuls or members of the senate, which is to say that senators, by definition, were thought best to represent Rome. Symbolism, gestures, and maximum dignity rather than skilful political contrivance seem to have been expected from Roman legati in representing the Roman people.109 109

Torregaray (2009).