however, enough material is extant to suggest that they used particular rhetorical features or specific types of prose rhythm.16
Because an overview of Roman Republican oratory is closely linked with Roman Republican politics, the source texts exhibit a number of key technical terms that are notoriously difficult to translate. For those the following solutions have been adopted: senatus and populus Romanus have been translated as (capitalized) “Senate” and “Roman People” to indicate the official roles of these bodies and to avoid confusion with more general uses of “people.” res publica has been rendered as “Republic,” although this transliteration, as it were, is not without its problems. The capitalization is meant to define it as a Roman political term (rather than a “republic” in the modern sense) and thus to convey its connotations. contio is translated as “meeting of the People” or “public meeting” to indicate the openness of such an assembly in contrast to comitia. curia is rendered as “Senate house,” while forum and rostra are not translated (just capitalized as “Forum” and “Rostra”), as there is no proper equivalent in English, and a paraphrase seemed unnecessarily clumsy. The addresses patres conscripti and Quirites are reproduced as “Members of the Senate” and “Romans,” respectively. iudices is given as “judges” to mark the decision-making role of these individuals. Of the main charges brought against politicians in the late Republic, de (pecuniis) repetundis is generally rendered as “extortion / extortion of money / recovery of extorted money,” and de maiestate
as “treason.” As regards general legal terminology, for ius civile, “civil law” is used, implying a contrast to “public law.”Further reading
Since Roman oratory is not only a literary but also a political and forensic genre, background reading in a variety of areas can contribute to a fuller appreciation of the context.
Useful reference works therefore include overviews of Roman oratory (e.g., Clarke 1953 and 1996; Dominik and Hall 2007; Kennedy 1972; Porter 1997; Cavarzere 2000 [with discussion of fragmentary orators]; Steel 2006); recent collections of case studies of individual orators and speeches (Steel and van der Blom 2013; van der Blom 2016; Gray, Balbo, Marshall, and Steel 2018); studies and commentaries on Cicero’s rhetorical treatises (for Brutus see n. 1; for De oratore see the five volumes of Leeman and Pinkster 1981–2008); introductions to the Roman judicial system or discussions of aspects thereof (e.g., Greenidge 1901; Jones 1972; Kunkel 1973; du Plessis, Ando, and Tuori 2016; see also Bauman 1967; Gruen 1968a; Bauman 1996; Lintott 1999a) and of the Roman law-making process (e.g., Williamson 2005); descriptions of the workings of the political system and the Roman Senate (e.g., Bonnefond-Coudry 1989 [with a list of attested meetings of the Senate]; Lintott 1999b) as well as of the contio in Republican Rome (e.g., Pina Polo 1989 [with a list of attested contiones]; 1996; Millar 1998; Mouritsen 2001 and 2013; Morstein-Marx 2004).
Some of the orators in these volumes are not well known as individuals and have not received any major