Memory and Nationalism in Cicero's On the Ideal Orator

Abstract

西賽羅（Marcus Tullius Cicero, 106-43BC）在其政治生涯最高峰時（獲選古羅馬的執政官（63BC）），卻同時面臨卡提里內（Catiline）的謀叛。隨後即在種種政治衝突中於58BC被迫展開流亡生涯。次年，放逐令撤銷，但政治情勢仍不樂觀，羅馬共和岌岌可危。在此背景下，西賽羅於55BC寫下《理想的演說家》（De Oratore），希冀書中所刻劃的理想演說家能成為羅馬的精神（乃至政治）導師，帶領羅馬人度過共和危機，重返屬於羅馬人的榮耀。就此，他訴諸兩大記憶區塊以形塑演說家的圖像：其一為他對克拉賽思（Crassus）與安托尼斯（Antonius）兩大演說家的回憶，於書中透過他們的（想像）對話揭示何謂理想的演說家，設定時間為91BC，其時這兩位演說家也正面臨政治動盪；其二為對蘇格拉底（Socrates）的回憶，在對話開始前，另一（次要）與談者史該摩拉（Scaevola）向克拉賽思說道：「既然您這邊有一株懸鈴木（plane tree），那我們為什麼不學學蘇格拉底在柏拉圖（Plato）《費德魯斯篇》（Phaedrus）中臥躺在此樹下暢談呢？」綜合言之，對於前者的回憶，除了是對於偉人的緬懷，也是西賽羅的自我投射—其演說術中以人為中心的內涵是他當代修辭學教科書中制式的規則遠遠無法觸及、而喪失說服術的淑世功能；對於後者的回憶，則隱含著哲學修辭的倡議，期待演說家的話語總能奠基在知識上，帶領聽眾走向正確的政治決定，這也是他當代修辭學教科書所匱乏的。然而，拼湊這兩大記憶區塊並非天衣無縫，因為上述兩大記憶版圖的消長其實背後指涉了兩種記憶模式，一是屬於蘇格拉底辯證法的回溯術（anamnesis），一是修辭說服術中的（空間）記憶術（mnemonics）。本論文因此旨在探索《理想的演說家》所隱含的這兩大記憶驅力間的交涉如何脈絡化克拉賽思與安托尼斯之間的對話，並指出西賽羅如何挪用及合成這二股驅力於理想的演說家，以及此演說家所對應的國族想像為何。At his peak of political career (elected as consul in 63BC), Cicero nevertheless meets with Catiline's conspiracy. Amid a sequence of political conflicts that follow thereupon, he is forced into exile in 53BC and political prospects remain somber to him even though his exile gets revoked the next year. The Roman Republic is thus placed in a precarious situation. It is under such circumstances that Cicero composes his "On the Ideal Orator". He hopes that the ideal orator as depicted in it can be a mentor for the Romans and guides them through the jeopardized Republic-to retrieve the glory particular to his fellow men. In his work, then, Cicero appeals to two memories. One concerns his reminiscence of the two great orators, Crassus and Antonius, whose envisaging of an ideal orator is revealed in the (imaginary) talks in the text. The time is set in 91BC, when the two orators also face political storms. The other concerns his reminiscence of Socrates: before the talks in the work begin, Scaevola suggests to Crassus that they take the example of Plato's "Phaedrus" and start their discussion under a plane tree just as Socrates does. In a nutshell, the first memory indicates not only Cicero's homage to his forefathers but also his self-projection onto the image of the ideal orator-implying that the technical rhetoric as taught by his contemporaries is too formalistic to ameliorate the then Roman society. On the other hand, the second memory points to the advocacy of philosophical rhetoric-knowledge-based speech, which is also missing in his contemporary rhetoric. However, taken together, the two memories do not form into an organic whole all because they refer to two modes of memorization that have long been set against each other: the mnemonics in rhetoric and the anamnesis in Socratic dialectic. Therefore, this paper aims to contextualize the talks between Crassus and Antonius in the two modes of memorization. It is hoped to see how the two modes are compounded in the image of the ideal orator and to what national identity that image corresponds