This well-edited collection of papers, the selective and supplemented result of a 2008 conference in Paris, is a welcome addition to the growing body of research on Cicero's Brutus. The editors' avowed aim is to bring together readings of this text which approach it from a variety of angles: as a philosophical treatise, a historiographical exercise, a meditation on style and a contribution to urgent political debate. The Brutus, with its multivocal and frequently inconclusive debates, lends itself well to a discursive approach; and if the results do not offer any astonishing new insights, the editors have none the less orchestrated a pleasing series of readings, consistently insightful and rewarding.
A brief introduction by the editors is followed by four thematically distinct sections. The first, ‘Cicéron et l’écriture de l'histoire: les enjeux historiographiques du Brutus’, opens with J.-M. David's summary of the state of play around the text's chronological organisation, which emphasises the importance of generations of orators as a structuring principle, as the basis on which to argue that Brutus does not simply chronicle oratory in a changing political environment but also asserts its continuing value within the context of generationally-based aristocratic competition. F. Prost's piece pursues a related topic: he explores the autobiographical element within Brutus with a focus on the competition that the text sets up between Hortensius and Cicero, which enables Cicero decisively to win a stylistic competition between the two men. Finally, M. Ledentu provides a valuable study of Brutus as an example of historical research, alongside Cicero's earlier historically minded texts from the 50s, particularly De oratore and De legibus.
The second section focuses on Greek models for oratory in the Brutus, with case studies of three central figures: Menelaus (M. Silvana Celentano), Pericles (M.-P. Noël) and Demetrius of Phalerum (P. Chiron). The latter two, with their focus on a historical figure, reach complementary conclusions: the impact, within this text, of the different models of eloquence offered by Pericles and Demetrius is derived from the distinct political environment at the time of Brutus’ composition, which in turn promotes a schematic view of oratory within civic space, and its decline, within the work.
The third section addresses oratorical style, and lies at the volume's heart – not least because both editors contribute chapters under this heading. A.-B. explores the presentation of a distinctively Stoic style of speaking in Brutus with a careful study of Rutilius Rufus: she argues that Cicero's handling of Rutilius shows him to have a more nuanced understanding of the apparent rigidity of Stoic oratory than is evident elsewhere in his works. A. Garcea and V. Lomanto offer a reading of Hortensius’ style which looks back neatly to Prost's chapter, with its attempt to rehabilitate Hortensius' oratory from Cicero's tendentious analyses. G. concludes this part with a wide-ranging survey of Brutus' contribution to Cicero's stylistic theory across his rhetorical works, which emphasises continuities within the corpus despite Brutus' concentration on a multiplicity of individual styles, above all in Brutus' reliance on a model of two acceptable styles of speaking.
The fourth section turns to political history, and Brutus' status as a contribution to debate on the res publica during Caesar's one-man rule. M. Jacotot explores the overt ban on political discussion which Atticus articulates early in the dialogue (Brut. 10) and the ways in which it is circumvented, and P. Martin concentrates on the character of Brutus within the dialogue that carries his name, in the context of the discussion of his ancestors' oratory within the text and in relation to its broader interests in speech and political libertas.
There is no party line within the volume, and key aspects of Brutus, including its overall tenor and its relationship with Cicero's other work on oratory, remain in dispute. That is not a weakness: the contribution of this volume lies not so much in the solutions which it offers but in its nuanced and probing assessment of where the interest and importance of Brutus lies.
