De provinciis consularibus (Prov. Cons.) holds an odd place in Cicero's corpus. Delivered in 56 b.c.e., the speech argues for an extraordinary extension of Caesar's command in Gaul. Since this would leave the Senate short of provinces to assign to the consuls to be elected for 55, Cicero further suggests that Piso and Gabinius, the consuls of 58, should be recalled from Macedonia and Syria respectively. On the one hand, with its efforts to portray Piso and Gabinius as dangerously incompetent, Prov. Cons. continues the invective that characterises Cicero's post reditum rhetoric. On the other hand, it is a speech given on behalf of the so-called First Triumvirate and tries a little too hard to convince its audience of a deep friendship between Cicero and Caesar. Scholars have attempted to detect coercion in the speech and, in a view that is no longer widely accepted, it has at times been equated with the ‘palinode’ that Cicero mentions in Att. 4.5.1–2, which he characterises as his break with his principles and his practice of telling the truth.
Prov. Cons. therefore stands between Cicero's angry attempts to recapture his legacy in the post reditum speeches and his putting his rhetorical powers at Caesar's disposal a decade later. For historians the text is a gold mine – it provides, for example, our best evidence for understanding how provincial governors were assigned in the Late Republic – but it has received little attention as a work of Ciceronian rhetoric. G.’s commentary – the first one on the speech in almost a century – is set to change that.
The commentary is the last offering of the unfortunately discontinued APA (now SCS) Texts and Commentaries series, which in recent years has also seen commentaries on Demosthenes’ Philippic I by C. Wooten (reviewed by J. Trevett in CR 60 [2010]) and on Cicero's Pro Murena by E. Fantham (reviewed by D. Berry in CR 65 [2015]). As with the other volumes in the series, it is targeted at undergraduate classroom use, but will find a wider readership. This commentary, like Wooten's, displays a strong interest in matters of style and the question of how the speech compares and contrasts with ancient rhetorical theory. The technical aspects of Ciceronian oratory – especially his syntax and use of prose rhythm – have received much discussion in recent years, and the clarity of G.’s expositions and his extensive supporting materials make this volume a particularly suitable introduction to such issues.
We start with a 50-page introduction that covers the historical background of the speech, the most significant scholarly controversies surrounding it (including the exact date of its delivery and its relationship with the ‘palinode’), issues of rhetorical structure and prose rhythm, a brief discussion of delivery technique and an overview of the manuscripts. For the text, G. reproduces Peterson's OCT with some changes (these are discussed in the commentary, but not listed separately). An extensive set of notes follows to elaborate on material discussed in the introduction and provide assistance with translating the trickier parts. Four maps, a glossary of rhetorical terms and an up-to-date bibliography round out the work.
Together the introduction and the commentary have two major aims: first, to show how the speech is organically connected to the other post reditum speeches and, second, to give the reader an appreciation of its sophisticated rhetorical qualities. In both these areas, G. addresses a gap in the scholarship of the speech, which has focused primarily on historical matters such as the exact delivery date, Cicero's relationship with Caesar and the mechanics of provincial assignments. Because of the focus of the commentary, historians of Roman imperialism will find little new here, although they may appreciate the clear summaries and the thorough bibliography. Scholars of rhetoric, however, will likely benefit greatly from G.’s discussions of Prov. Cons. as a model of Ciceronian oratory and its relationship to ancient rhetorical handbooks. Undergraduates reading one of their first Ciceronian speeches, in turn, will appreciate the commentary as a model for how many different disciplinary avenues one can pursue in the study of a work of oratory.
G.’s notes are particularly targeted at those who have not had extensive exposure to the post reditum speeches or ancient oratory more generally. Since the speech relies on its audience knowing a lot about Cicero's personal enmities and his preferred lines of attack, this guidance is valuable. As an example, the attack on Piso and Gabinius (especially Prov. Cons. 4–12) takes up a considerable part of the speech, but can be difficult to appreciate because it relies on the audience also remembering matters brought up in earlier speeches. G. here provides ample summaries, quotations and cross-references to make sure that readers know what Cicero is talking about. Content is as important as rhetorical technique here: G. carefully notes parallels in word choice and Cicero's habit to suppress the names of his opponents in his attacks. The reader is therefore not only guided through what would otherwise be a difficult and highly allusive passage, but also emerges with a wider understanding of Ciceronian oratory.
The sheer bulk of the commentary (almost 230 pages for a speech with only 47 sections), the extensive cross-referencing and G.’s desire to include as much relevant information as possible lead to some problems with user-friendliness. The phrase patres conscripti, for example, receives very similar glosses at Prov. Cons. 1.1 and 3.7. Given that clausulae and prose rhythm are discussed in the introduction with ample examples from the speech, it is not always clear why the commentary highlights a use of one of Cicero's preferred clausulae. Some notes – such as the introduction to Clodius and the Bona Dea affair in Prov. Cons. 24 – are so extensive that they would be better off in the introduction. The occasional patch of untranslated (and untransliterated) Greek, for example at 11.1, would likely cause some consternation among undergraduates. Nevertheless, given the relatively narrow attention that the speech has received in the past century, it is better that the commentary errs on the side of too much information rather than too little. Furthermore, a detailed index orients those who are not looking to read the entire work.
The series in which G.’s book is published has long provided us with works that advance our understanding of the literary and historical contexts of important texts while making them accessible to undergraduates. This commentary is no exception. It will serve those looking to read Prov. Cons. with their students well. More importantly, however, it helps us find a new appreciation for the speech as an example of Cicero's post reditum rhetoric and serves as a model for how to articulate the relationship between ancient oratorical theory and practice. This is perhaps the work's biggest contribution: it allows us to appreciate Prov. Cons. as just another successful example of senatorial oratory.
