In this book, based on the dissertation he wrote at Harvard, Thomas Keeline persuasively demonstrates that the declamatory classroom was central to Cicero's reception in the early Roman Empire. Like the imperial authors he studies, K. exhibits a comprehensive grasp of the Ciceronian corpus. His work is masterful in research, thorough in its attention to detail and provides a useful analysis of the ways in which the schoolroom portrayal of Cicero became embedded in the historical tradition.
The book consists of seven chapters. In ch. 1, K. begins with an intriguing account of how Cicero's texts were taught in the schools of the early Empire. Using the Pro Milone as a template, he brings the Roman classroom to life as he investigates the methods followed by Quintilian, Asconius and the scholia Bobiensia. Through his careful examination of sources, K. confirms that Cicero's dominant place within the classroom was predicated on his eloquence as an orator and that students’ engagement with Cicero was essentially limited to his speeches as models for study and imitation. K. shows sensitivity in arguing for shared educational approaches throughout the Empire, while still recognising cultural differences between authors, and maintaining that earlier ones such as Pollio and Livy would not have been heavily influenced by the declamatory classroom. A minor issue in this chapter is K.’s over-statement of the point that truth was not a concern of rhetoric. On the contrary, Quintilian's extended defence of lying as a means of upholding justice (Inst. 12.1.34–45), which K. himself references, echoes Cicero's argument that even the strictest Stoics justify lying in some circumstances (Off. 2.14.51). For Quintilian, as for Cicero, the question is not simple Realpolitik, but rather an attempt to navigate the ambiguity between motive and action, between moving people toward the right decision and being a vir bonus whose word can be trusted.
Chs 2–4 discuss the imaging of Cicero that developed within the declamatory classroom and its influence on the historical tradition. K. argues that the classroom created simplistic depictions of Cicero. For instance, in designating Cicero as the archetype of eloquence, the vox publica and the courageous orator who defied Antony's tyranny, teachers ignored complexities of his character such as his adherence to the optimates’ party and his opposition to one-man rule. Additionally, propaganda emphasising Octavian's distress at Cicero's proscription and myths such as Cicero's death at the hands of Popillius were first taught in the schools and later accepted and transmitted as fact by historians. At the same time, K.’s examination of pseudepigraphic texts illustrates that the declamatory classroom, through its rhetorical exercises of praise and blame, became the vehicle of nuanced and competing perspectives on Cicero. Thus his conclusion that the declamatory classroom stripped Cicero of ‘complex contradictions’ (336), does not flow inevitably from the evidence presented; nevertheless, K. successfully demonstrates that the political forces and rhetorical pedagogy of the early Empire formed and passed down a uniquely crafted image of Cicero.
K.’s subtle handling of texts is most evident in chs 5–7, when he addresses Ciceronian reception in the work of Seneca the Younger, Tacitus and Pliny. Seneca rejects Cicero and attempts to create his own stylistic model. Tacitus displays his ability to copy Cicero's style, but accepts the end of eloquence under the Empire, choosing to write history instead. Pliny tries to imitate and surpass Cicero, but faces insecurities regarding his ability to match Cicero's greatness. As K. shows in all these accounts, Cicero's influence from their schoolroom days lingers. Despite their differing reactions to Cicero, none of these writers can completely disregard him. Additionally, the decline of eloquence since the days of Cicero's oratory is central to the consciousness of the imperial authors, and Tacitus posits that this decay is inevitable under one-man rule. Although K. highlights this refrain to note their acceptance of Cicero's rhetorical supremacy, it also serves as another instance of imperial writers playing with and perpetuating a Ciceronian theme on the decline of eloquence, principally under Caesar's dictatorship (cf. Off. 2.19.67; Brut. 21–2).
One of K.’s strengths lies in including research that not only supports his claims, but also creates the possibility of alternative interpretations. For example, he argues that the role of Cicero within the schoolroom was limited to his oratory, but includes a passage from Seneca that mentions a grammaticus using De republica (204). He also comments on Tacitus’ and Pliny's familiarity with Cicero's letters and philosophical dialogues. While these instances do not contradict K.’s findings, clarification would have been helpful on whether they point to the use of additional Ciceronian texts within the classroom, even on a limited scale, or whether they indicate alternate readings of Cicero that existed outside the classroom.
Any critiques of this book will be slight. Ultimately, K. proves his thesis that the declamatory classroom shaped Ciceronian reception not only within the early Empire, but also in the ages to come. His true skill, however, is seen in his method. By combining an engaging writing style with substantive research and linguistic depth, K. provides scholars of classical reception studies with an example worthy of imitation.
