Kenney_and_Clausen B.M.W.(eds.) - Get a Free Blog

THE PEN IN POLITICS
she is able to write so forcefully in Gaius' own language: no Roman lady ever
had the opportunity or occasion to practise public oratory. Cornelia was an
exceptional character: Plutarch comments on her culture (C. Gracchus 19) and
Cicero recognized in her letters the same pure Latin as he admired in her son's
speeches {Brut. 211, cf. Quint. Inst. 1.1.6, Plut. C. Gracchus 13). The style is
virile, and it is noteworthy that Cornelia avoids diminutives even where they
might have been appropriate {pars not particula uitae, breue not breuiculum
spatiuni). The grammarian might criticize the loosely strung clauses of the
opening sentence and the change of construction at praesertim mihias well as the
superabundance of Cornelia's rhetorical questions starting ecquando. ..?. These
features, however, show that we are dealing not with a carefully revised and
elaborate composition but with a spontaneous outburst, and it is therefore the
more striking to note how naturally come the figures of speech which Cornelia
uses — antithesis {quam minimum. . . maxume, ntihi aduersere, rem publicam
prqfliges'), anaphora {quantum. . . quantum), hendiadys (quos uiuos atque praesentes
relictos atque desertos habueris). This is a good example of Cato's precept
rem tene, uerba sequentur observed. In fact, he could not have done better himself,
and the Latinity and directness are precisely his (see below, p. 152).
Although this has the appearance of a private letter intended for Gaius' guilty
eyes alone, Cornelia's forensic vigour suggests that she may have intended to
'play dirty' by circulating copies at Rome to embarrass Gaius. In this case the
ostensibly private letter would, like the Commentariolum petitionis, also be a
political broadsheet.
Gaius himself wrote a memoir addressed to one M. Pomponius (Cic. Div.
1.18.36, Plut. Ti. Gracchus 8) which was clearly intended as an 'open letter' and
contained information about his own and Tiberius' experiences. The autobiographical
memoir is well attested in the period 120-90 B.C. Aemilius Scaurus
wrote three books De vita sua to L. Fufidius (Cic. Brut. 112), Rutilius Rufus
wrote five, and Q. Catulus one De consulatu et de rebus gestis suis, addressing the
work to the poet Furius and affecting Xenophon's style (Cic. Brut. 132). All
these men were considerable orators, and the forensic manner will naturally
have coloured their writings. One can judge by analogy with the popularity in
our own times of politicians' memoirs how such compositions would find a
reading public not only among senators but also among many of lower degree
who would otherwise have little interest in 'literature'.
This kind of prose-work was the special product of the Roman nobility at a
particularly contentious period. Among Hellenes, as far as we know, only King
Pyrrhus (possibly) and Aratus of Sicyon had written political autobiographies
intended for the public and posterity. The later books of Cato's Origines
included lengthy quotations of the author's own speeches, and undoubtedly had
some of the character of political autobiography (see p. 150). Scipio Africanus
M7
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008