Gauls in the Roman Senate: A Rhetorical Analysis of Claudius’ Speech Preserved on the Tabula Lugdunensis

1 Introduction

In 48 CE, emperor Claudius held a speech. A delegation from Gallia Comata (or Tres Galliae: the originally non-Roman part of Gaul) had arrived to plead for eminent citizens of Gaul to be admitted to the Roman Senate.^[1] Among the current senators this request was not received positively: if the request of the Gauls were granted, the floodgates would open.^[2] Was not membership of the Senate exclusive to ‘proper’ Romans? The emperor, however, decided to support the Gauls: he held a passionate and learned speech in which he argued that Rome had always been open to political influence from outsiders. Indeed, in accordance with the wishes of the emperor, the Senate agreed that citizens of northern and western Gaul could take up seats in the Senate. The Senate’s decree (senatus consultum) was inscribed, together with the text of Claudius’ speech, in the Sanctuary of the Three Gauls, where it was rediscovered in 1528.^[3]

How did Claudius convince the Roman senators? And what does the Tabula Lugdunensis tell us about the emperor’s eloquence? In this paper I will present a rhetorical analysis of the surviving parts of Claudius’ oration (at least half of the text has probably been lost).^[4] I will focus specifically on the first three tasks of the orator: inventio (the development of the argument), dispositio (the arrangement or structure of the speech) and elocutio (the diction or style). Of course, the inscription offers us less information about memoria (memorising) and actio (performance), although we will see that Claudius’ style in parts suggests it was an engaging performance.

2 The Rhetoric of a Stutterer?

Thanks to Robert Graves’ I, Claudius, adapted in 1976 into the television series starring Derek Jacobi, Claudius is mostly known to us as a stuttering buffoon. This idea can partly be traced back to ancient sources: Suetonius portrays a shy and insecure Claudius, more a studious academic than a brilliant politician.^[5] However, this is not the whole story: Suetonius also recounts that emperor Augustus expressed in a letter to Livia being happily surprised with an excellent declamation by her grandson, the young Claudius.^[6]

Have scholars of the Tabula Lugdunensis let themselves be influenced unduly by the image of Claudius as a distracted and stuttering idiot? Certainly, modern evaluations of the oration’s style and content are not positive. I will draw on a few examples. Wellesley believes that the historian Tacitus felt called upon to improve Claudius’ Latin:^[7]

If Tacitus has remodelled the speech of Claudius, then that is because Claudius notoriously wrote very muddled Latin: while the emperor fumbled and mumbled, the gifted stylist rendered the gist of his speech with clarity, order, and precision.

George Kennedy, prominent historian of classical rhetoric, condemns both the speech and the speaker: “It is hardly great oratory, but bears the individual stamp of his pedantic and historically informed mind.”^[8] Riess, finally, is highly critical of Claudius’ argumentation: “Die meisten Aussagen sind also entweder irrelevant oder sachlich zumindest schief” [most of the statements are either irrelevant or at least factually skewed].^[9]

Other scholars, too, believe that Claudius presents himself in this oration as a pedantic academic, arguing that his historical examples are pompous, dull and irrelevant.^[10] One exception is Simon Malloch, who has a more positive opinion of Claudius’ rhetoric:^[11]

Rising to the challenge, Claudius delivered a powerful speech […]. Claudius’ speech combined conventional rhetorical figures, attention to rhythm, a varied register, and intricate periods to produce considerable colour and complexity.

It is this more positive view of Claudius’ rhetoric that I will further develop and illustrate here. In order to do so, I will discuss the argumentation, structure and style of Claudius’ speech: in each of these areas the rhetorical skills of the emperor are expressed.

3 Two Rhetorical Situations

In our assessment of Claudius’ rhetoric, we must make a distinction between two rhetorical contexts: two moments of persuasion, each involving different audiences and messages.

The first rhetorical event was the speech Claudius held in Rome in 48 CE to the Roman senators. The purpose of this oration was clear: to convince the Senate that it should henceforth be open to accepting Gauls from Gallia Comata as members. It is debatable how much persuasion the senators actually needed to agree with the emperor. Although there was resistance against the proposal to open up the Senate, as Tacitus tells us, in practice the Senate had little option but to agree to the emperor’s wishes.

The second rhetorical context was the publication of Claudius’ speech on the bronze tablet in the Sanctuary of the Three Gauls. The audience for this second type of persuasion were visitors to the sanctuary: literate Gauls, who were now able to read in Lugdunum how they had been honoured by the emperor. Here, the question arises of who was responsible for this publication: was this an initiative of the Senate, the emperor, or the Gauls themselves?^[12] In any case, all these parties benefited from the publication, and each had their own rhetorical purpose in it. Emperor Claudius and the Roman Senate showed goodwill and generosity towards the Gauls, while the Gauls themselves proudly publicised their new status within the Roman Empire by means of this monumental bronze inscription, and thereby undoubtedly boosted the self-confidence of their fellow countrymen.

The inscription, therefore, shows us two types of rhetoric: political rhetoric (genus deliberativum) and epideictic rhetoric (genus demonstrativum). While the effectiveness of Claudius’ eloquence in the Senate speech is doubtful, the rhetorical impact of the monumental inscription should not be underestimated. The length of the argument, which might have been experienced negatively in the face-to-face session, contributes in the inscription to the greater fame of the Gauls. The many historical exempla presented by Claudius in his speech attain a new purpose in the inscription: while in the genus deliberativum examples have a mostly argumentative function, they additionally perform an aesthetic function in the genus demonstrativum.^[13] They enhance the celebration to the greater honour and glory of the Gauls, who have in fact become the subject of a panegyric: thanks to the many examples they are incorporated into the illustrious history of Rome. Long digressions with historical examples might have bored listeners in Rome, but to those viewing the inscription in Gaul the exempla confirmed the honourable, exalted status they had been granted by Claudius.

What is the relationship between the two rhetorical contexts? Is the text on the bronze tablet in Lyons exactly the same as the one performed by Claudius in the Roman Senate? It is not possible to determine this with certainty, though it is generally assumed that the inscription is an accurate transcript of Claudius’ speech. Most likely, a note-taker (scriba, notarius) present at the Senate session recorded the text, which was then taken to Gaul along with the Senate’s decision, possibly by delegates returning home from delivering their petition to Rome.^[14] Subsequently, the inscription was likely produced in Lugdunum and then installed in the Sanctuary of the Three Gauls.^[15]

4 Inventio

Claudius’ arguments in favour of allowing Gauls entry to the Senate are without exception historical. The extant text is in essence a list of precedents, which are intended to show generally that Rome has always renewed and adapted itself – in other words, the entry of the Gauls is part of a long tradition of constitutional-political reforms – and specifically that Rome had always, ever since its founding, benefited from the political influence of outsiders. In short, Claudius argues that (1) innovation/reform is part of Rome, so no one need fear the proposed expansion of the membership of the Senate;^[16] and (2) outsiders have proved useful many times in the history of Rome – which, according to Claudius, will also prove to be the case for the Gauls.^[17]

What arguments support these propositions? First, Claudius refers back to the earliest history of Rome, when immediately after Romulus’ reign the city was ruled by the Sabine king Numa Pompilius (the second king of Rome) and later by Tarquinius Priscus (the fifth king of Rome) – who was, according to Claudius, of Greek-Etruscan origin – and the Etruscan kings Servius Tullius and Tarquinius Superbus (the sixth and seventh kings of Rome). Claudius is suggesting, then, that the Gauls, who will have political influence in Rome by means of their entry to the Senate, are in a way preceded by Sabines, Greeks and Etruscans. This could be called ‘anchoring innovation’, as Claudius is anchoring his new policy (the admittance of Gauls to the Senate) in the Roman past.^[18]

Second, Claudius remarks that Rome has often introduced new constitutional structures, and lists some of these changes: republic and consuls, dictators, people’s tribunes, the decemvirate with its absolute rule, restoration of the consulate, military tribunes with consular powers, honorary positions and priesthoods for citizens. Claudius seems to suggest that the opening of the Senate to Gauls is only a small change compared to the long list of (much more fundamental) constitutional reforms in the history of Rome.

Third, Claudius argues that emperors Augustus and Tiberius had already allowed “prominent and wealthy men” from the coloniae and municipia into the Senate. In other words: Claudius’ proposal is just an expansion of an earlier decision made by his predecessors.

Finally, Claudius establishes the fact that the Roman colonies of Vienna (Vienne) and Lugdunum (Lyon) in Gallia Narbonensis have already supplied senators in the past. Vienne had been raised up to a colonia by emperor Augustus and Lugdunum had been given that status even earlier, by Lucius Munatius Plancus after the death of Julius Caesar (in 43 BCE). The implication is clear: if these two cities in the region had already been represented in the Senate, why would anyone protest the accession of delegates from Gallia Comata?

Two aspects of the inventio deserve further analysis: the use of exempla (examples) and Claudius’ strategy of ‘anchoring’ a new rule in the history of Rome, which he represents as characterised by constant innovation.

5 Dispositio

Because not the entire inscription has survived, we don’t have a complete text of Claudius’ speech. Even so, it is possible to form a fair idea of how it was constructed. The surviving text can be analysed in three sections, in each of which Claudius responds to a factual or fictional objection by certain senators to the admittance to the Senate of Gauls. The tripartite structure (A-B-C) can be presented as follows:^[32]

[Lacuna: top half of column 1]

 

A. Answer to those senators rejecting the admittance of Gauls because this is a new measure >> exempla showing innovation:

1. There has always been much innovation in our state;

2. Outsiders have always had influence (Numa, Tarquinius Priscus, Servius Tullius, Tarquinius Superbus);

3. Constitutional changes (republic, dictatorship, people’s tribunes, decemvirate, military tribunes, magistrates of the people);

4. We have fought many wars: expansion of the Empire as innovation;^[33]

 

(Lacuna: top half of column 2)

 

5. Augustus and Tiberius already wanted to admit the elites from the coloniae and municipia ‘everywhere’ to the Senate.

 

B. Answer to a hypothetical objection: ‘Is an Italian senator not better than one from the provinces?’

1. Citizens from the provinces should not be rejected if they are able to make a contribution;

2. There are competent people in Gaul (Vienna; L. Iulius Vestinus from Vienna; and a negative example);

 

Interruption: Tiberius Caesar Germanicus, where is your speech going?^[34]

 

3. The presence of Gallic iuvenes in the Senate;

4. Lugdunum has already sent senators.

 

C. Answer to a hypothetical objection: ‘They waged war for ten years against Julius Caesar (59 – 50 BCE).’

1. But since then the Gauls have been loyal to Rome for 100 years;

2. They collaborated well when Drusus carried out the census in Gaul.

 

(Possible lacuna: end of the speech on a second tabula)

This tripartite structure, based on the opposition’s retorts, lends Claudius’ speech a reactive, dialogic character. The emperor is continuously removing and rebutting possible objections to his proposal. Because Claudius covers both the objections and the refutations to them, he seems to offer us a good insight into the debate between supporters and opponents in Rome; that debate probably didn’t take place in the Senate but in a private meeting with the emperor, as Tacitus suggests.^[35]

Claudius ensures his argument hangs together by using several motifs and threads: first, the frequent historical references; second, his focus on the theme of innovation – do not fear novelty, because we have been through many renewals in Rome; third, his use of travel metaphors, especially on the second column. These give his speech the sense of a journey that must be undertaken. For example, after his digression on Vienne, he calls himself to order with these words: “For in the meantime you have arrived at the outer reaches of Gallia Narbonensis” (iam enim ad extremos fines Galliae Narbonensis venisti). Thus, Claudius hints at a connection between his rhetorical journey (and that of his listeners) and the journey the Gallic deputies will have to travel.

6 Elocutio

Although the style of Claudius’ oration is not that easy to follow in parts, because of the long sentences and learned digressions, the listener (or reader) is nevertheless encouraged to keep paying attention.^[36] The audience is regularly addressed directly with rhetorical questions.^[37] Repetitions, particularly of the first words of successive sentences (anaphora), make the argument clearer. And while historical digressions are clothed in long sentences, Claudius packages the key part of his argument in relatively short statements (brevitas), for example (II,7 – 8):

Sed ne provinciales quidem, si modo ornare curiam poterint, reiciendos puto.

But in my opinion not even provincials should be scorned, provided they can adorn the senate.

The signposting that clarifies the structure of the speech is also usually succinct and effective, for example (I,40):

Sed illoc potius revertar.

But I would prefer to return to the subject at hand.

The following passage (I,28 – 37) is particularly interesting from a stylistic point of view:

Quid nunc commemorem dictaturae hoc ipso consulari imperium valentius repertum apud maiores nostros quo in a[s]perioribus bellis aut in civili motu difficiliore uterentur? Aut in auxilium plebis creatos tribunos plebei? Quid a consulibus ad decemviros translatum imperium, solutoque postea decemvirali regno ad consules rusus red[d]itum? Quid in [pl]uris distributum consulare imperium, tribunosque mi[litu]m consulari imperio appellatos, qui seni et saepe octoni crearentur? Quid communicatos postremo cum plebe honores non imperii solum, sed sacerdotiorum quoque?

Need I now recall the devising, among our forefathers, of the imperium of the dictatorship, more powerful than that of the consulship itself, for use in the more dangerous wars or in the more troublesome outbreaks of civil strife? Or the appointment of tribunes of the plebs to safeguard the plebs? Or the transfer of imperium from the consuls to the decemviri, and, when the despotism of the decemviri was later abolished, its restoration again to the consuls? Or the distribution of consular imperium among more individuals, and their naming as military tribunes with consular imperium, who were appointed six or eight at a time? Or, finally, the sharing of offices with the plebeians, and not only those carrying imperium but also priesthoods?

Here, a praeteritio (“Need I now recall …”) is combined with a climactic series of rhetorical questions and a very noticeable anaphora (in the Latin, four successive sentences start with the word quid). Claudius is trying to overwhelm his audience with a series of political innovations he could mention here. Such a mass of stylistic tropes can have a powerful rousing effect, as the rhetorician and critic Longinus notes:^[38]

Ἄκρως δὲ καὶ ἡ ἐπὶ ταὐτὸ σύνοδος τῶν σχημάτων εἴωθε κινεῖν, ὅταν δύο ἢ τρία οἷον κατὰ συμμορίαν ἀνακιρνάμενα ἀλλήλοις ἐρανίζῃ τὴν ἰσχὺν τὴν πειθὼ τὸ κάλλος.

Also highly stimulating is the combination of figures into a unit, when two or three are mixed together and jointly contribute strength, persuasion, beauty.

Rhetorical questions can give the impression that the speaker is improvising and engaging in a real conversation with the audience, especially when the speaker answers his own questions (hypophora):^[39]

Quid ergo? Non Italicus senator provinciali potior est? Iam vobis […]

So what? Surely an Italian senator is preferable to a provincial one? Now when I begin to win approval […]

Having a little chat with yourself like this can convey spontaneity and emotion, according to Longinus:^[40]

Τί δ’ ἐκεῖνα φῶμεν, τὰς πεύσεις τε καὶ ἐρωτήσεις; Ἆρα οὐκ αὐταῖς ταῖς τῶν σχημάτων εἰδοποιίαις παρὰ πολὺ ἐμπρακτότερα καὶ σοβαρώτερα συντείνει τὰ λεγόμενα; […] νυνὶ δὲ τὸ ἔνθουν καὶ ὀξύρροπον τῆς πεύσεως καὶ ἀποκρίσεως καὶ τὸ πρὸς ἑαυτὸν ὡς πρὸς ἕτερον ἀνθυπαντᾶν οὐ μόνον ὑψηλότερον ἐποίησε τῷ σχηματισμῷ τὸ ῥηθὲν ἀλλὰ καὶ πιστότερον. Ἄγει γὰρ τὰ παθητικὰ τότε μᾶλλον, ὅταν αὐτὰ φαίνηται μὴ ἐπιτηδεύειν αὐτὸς ὁ λέγων ἀλλὰ γεννᾶν ὁ καιρός, ἡ δ’ ἐρώτησις ἡ εἰς ἑαυτὸν καὶ ἀπόκρισις μιμεῖται τοῦ πάθους τὸ ἐπίκαιρον.

What are we to say about the well-known figures of enquiries and questions? Do they not, by their very form as figures, give our utterances a far more vigorous and lively tautness? […] As it is, the animated, quick-fire exchange of question and answer, including the retorts to himself as if to another, have made the utterance not only more sublime by the use of figures but also more persuasive. Emotional expression grips us all the more when it does not seem contrived by the speaker himself but generated by the occasion, and question and answer addressed to oneself stimulates the spontaneity of emotion.

In my assessment, two key elements characterise Claudius’ style in this oration. First, in some passages he seems to be imitating historical writing by historians such as Livy, whom he much admired.^[41] We can see this, for example, in the way he introduces the Roman kings (I,8 – 9):

Quondam reges hanc tenuere urbem, nec tamen domesticis successoribus eam tradere contigit.

Kings once held sway over this city, but it did not befall them to pass it down to successors from their families.

We may compare the opening of Tacitus’ Annales:^[42]

Urbem Romam a principo reges habuere.

Rome at the beginning was ruled by kings.

This historical style, in combination with the exempla discussed above, was perhaps more suitable to the epideictic rhetoric of the inscription than the deliberative rhetoric of the oral speech.

A second aspect is the suggestion of informal, spontaneous speech, which Claudius uses in many passages, including the questions he answers himself and the digressions where he wanders off topic, only to then pull himself back. This informal style gives an impression of a charming directness, perhaps even pretending to improvise, as the critic Longinus suggests in the texts cited above. The emperor’s apparent distraction contributes to the ethos he is building up, as von Albrecht has noted:^[43]

Auch die behagliche Mündlichkeit und gelehrtenhafte Zerstreutheit des ‘guten Kaisers Claudius’ ist ein Mittel seiner diplomatischen Beeinflussung der Zuhörer.

This informal style of course also expresses the dialogic character of the text, referred to above: again and again, Claudius cites the real and possible objections of the opposition, in order to counteract them. The result is a speech in which a single speaker brings an entire debate to life, in order to resolve it – which readers in Gaul would have particularly appreciated.

The most notable example of this informal, quasi-improvisational style is the passage in which Claudius interrupts himself and urges himself back to the matter at hand (II,20 – 22):

Tempus est iam, Ti. Caesar Germanice, detegere te patribus conscriptis quo tendat oratio tua; iam enim ad extremos fines Galliae Narbonensis venisti.

It is now time, Tiberius Caesar Germanicus, for you to reveal to the conscript fathers where your speech is heading; for you have now reached the farthest limits of Narbonensian Gaul.

Some scholars have posited that at this point in the speech the emperor was in fact interrupted by an impatient member of the audience, who called him back to his purpose, and that the clerk documented these words, so that they inadvertently ended up in the official publication of the speech.^[44] It seems more likely, however, that Claudius is speaking to himself, and calls himself to order, seemingly improvising. Such a ‘self-apostrophe’ is rare, though examples appear in classical poetry. In Theocritus, the cyclops Polyphemus addresses himself with pity, and Catullus calls himself to order in carmen 51.^[45] A contemporary parallel can be found in a tweet from Donald Trump, who congratulates himself with a ‘self-apostrophe’:

The U.S. Consumer Confidence Index for December surged nearly four points to 113.7, THE HIGHEST LEVEL IN MORE THAN 15 YEARS! Thanks Donald!^[46]

7 Conclusion

The Tabula Lugdunensis is a unique source that allows us to judge the rhetorical skills of an emperor who is usually (thanks to both classical and modern representations) known only as a clumsy stutterer. While his oration is not a perfect example of fluent, accessible prose, the rhetorical strategies Claudius uses are apt, effective and persuasive. The many historical exempla play their part in Claudius’ presentation of himself as a learned, authoritative and open-minded speaker, who is genuinely interested in non-Roman points of view. These examples would have been appreciated particularly by the readers of the inscription at Lugdunum, which confirmed for them that Gaul had become a full member of Rome’s history. The speech is constructed carefully and dialogically around the possible objections and reactions from opponents, always referring to the history of Rome, in which innovation always played a part. Claudius’ historical and informal style stages a debate in which the opposition’s objections are voiced and opposed. The speech contains some powerful moments, which undoubtedly made a great impression on the audience, both on the senators in Rome and on the attentive readers of the inscription in Gaul. The historical digressions, possibly somewhat dull for the first audience, were certainly a source of great pride and happiness for the second.