The Influence of the Caesarianae on Seneca's De Clementia

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0041788/00001

Material Information

Title: The Influence of the Caesarianae on Seneca's De Clementia
Physical Description: 1 online resource (73 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Knight, Jayne
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2010


Subjects / Keywords: Classics -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Classical Studies thesis, M.A.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation


Abstract: Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts THE INFLUENCE OF THE CAESARIANAE ON SENECA?S DE CLEMENTIA By Jayne Elizabeth Knight May 2010 Chair: Victoria Paga acuten Major: Classical Studies Cicero's Caesarian speeches and the De Clementia share several elements that make them ideal specimens for a comparative study. They are in essence inaugural works which mark the investment of power in an absolute ruler. Both Cicero's speeches and Seneca's essay address the topic of political clementia. The authors use similar strategies to promote clemency as a policy to their superiors, most notably panegyric. In addition, Cicero and Seneca have as much in common as Julius Caesar and Nero. It is possible to draw analogies between the works on several levels. Because of the similarity of Cicero's position to his own and because of Caesar's status as the original enactor of political clemency, it is unlikely that Seneca would ignore Cicero as a rhetorical predecessor when he set out to write a comprehensive treatise on clementia. Comparative rhetorical analysis highlights the ways in which Seneca imported certain aspects of Cicero's speeches into his essay. Julius Caesar, however, is virtually absent from Seneca's work. Caesar's assassination makes him a complicated model and a dangerous exemplum. He represents the ultimate failure of clementia to protect a ruler and stabilize a system of government. A close reading of the De Clementia together with the Caesarianae reveals the subtle ways in which Seneca weaves a Ciceronian subtext. The shadowy figure of Julius Caesar lurks within this subtext, tacitly suggesting to Nero the dangers of absolute power.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Jayne Knight.
Thesis: Thesis (M.A.)--University of Florida, 2010.
Local: Adviser: Pagan-Wolpert, Victoria E.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2010
System ID: UFE0041788:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0041788/00001

Material Information

Title: The Influence of the Caesarianae on Seneca's De Clementia
Physical Description: 1 online resource (73 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Knight, Jayne
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2010


Subjects / Keywords: Classics -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Classical Studies thesis, M.A.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation


Abstract: Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts THE INFLUENCE OF THE CAESARIANAE ON SENECA?S DE CLEMENTIA By Jayne Elizabeth Knight May 2010 Chair: Victoria Paga acuten Major: Classical Studies Cicero's Caesarian speeches and the De Clementia share several elements that make them ideal specimens for a comparative study. They are in essence inaugural works which mark the investment of power in an absolute ruler. Both Cicero's speeches and Seneca's essay address the topic of political clementia. The authors use similar strategies to promote clemency as a policy to their superiors, most notably panegyric. In addition, Cicero and Seneca have as much in common as Julius Caesar and Nero. It is possible to draw analogies between the works on several levels. Because of the similarity of Cicero's position to his own and because of Caesar's status as the original enactor of political clemency, it is unlikely that Seneca would ignore Cicero as a rhetorical predecessor when he set out to write a comprehensive treatise on clementia. Comparative rhetorical analysis highlights the ways in which Seneca imported certain aspects of Cicero's speeches into his essay. Julius Caesar, however, is virtually absent from Seneca's work. Caesar's assassination makes him a complicated model and a dangerous exemplum. He represents the ultimate failure of clementia to protect a ruler and stabilize a system of government. A close reading of the De Clementia together with the Caesarianae reveals the subtle ways in which Seneca weaves a Ciceronian subtext. The shadowy figure of Julius Caesar lurks within this subtext, tacitly suggesting to Nero the dangers of absolute power.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Jayne Knight.
Thesis: Thesis (M.A.)--University of Florida, 2010.
Local: Adviser: Pagan-Wolpert, Victoria E.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2010
System ID: UFE0041788:00001

This item has the following downloads:

Full Text




2 2010 Jayne Elizabeth Knight


3 To Christopher


4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I thank my chair, Dr Victoria Pagn, for her guidance and support throughout my undergraduate and graduate career in classics at the Unive rsity of Florida. I could not have written this thesis without her enthusiasm, insight, and encouragement. I also thank the members of my committee, Drs. Timothy Johnson and Andrew Wolpert, for their helpful comments. I thank my friends and colleagues for their companionship and advice. I would especially like to thank Shawn Daniels, with whom I spent many late nights in the department, James Lohmar, who always had something brilliant to say, and Dan Schneck, for making me laugh. Finally, I thank my parents for always supporting me and believing that I am capable of anything.


5 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 4 A BSTRACT ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 6 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 8 2 PRO MARCELLO ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 19 3 PRO LIGARIO ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 38 4 PRO REGE DEIOTARO ................................ ................................ ......................... 53 5 CONCLUSION ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 67 LIST OF REFERENCES ................................ ................................ ............................... 71 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ................................ ................................ ............................ 73


6 Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts THE INFLUENCE OF THE CAESARIANAE DE CLEMENTIA By Jayne Elizabeth Knight May 2010 Chair: Victoria Pagn Major: Classical Studies and the De Clementia share several el ements that make them ideal specimens for a comparative study. They are in essence inaugural clementia The authors use similar strategies to promote clemency as a policy to their superiors, most notably panegyric. In addition, Cicero and Seneca have as much in common as Julius Caesar and Nero. It is possible to draw analogies between the works on several levels. Because o status as the original enactor of political clemency, it is unlikely that Seneca would ignore Cicero as a rhetorical predecessor when he set out to write a comprehensive treatise on c lementia Comparative rhetorical analysis highlights the ways in which s ination makes him a complicated model and a dangerous exemplum. He represents the ultimate failure of clementia to protect a ruler and stabilize a system of government. A close reading of the De Clementia together with the Caesarianae reveals the subtle ways in which Seneca


7 weaves a Ciceronian subtext. The shadowy figure of Julius Caesar lurks within this subtext, tacitly suggesting to Nero the dangers of absolute power.


8 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION In her biography of Seneca, Miriam Griffin says of the Caesarianae that it perfection that mixture of flattery and admonition that had served the Greeks and 1 In an article on early imperial panegyric, Susanna Braund cites the Caes arianae as a panegyric predecessor to De Clementia 2 for thoroughly explored. 3 Both the Caesarianae and the De Clementia mark critical and delicate occasions of the investment of power in a single man. They designate clemency as the paramount virtue of an absolute ruler. Perhaps the most striking similarity is the adulatory tone that both authors assume when addressing their audience. In light of such intersections, the question arises: to what extent was Seneca influenced by Cicero when he wrote the De Clementia ? Through comparative rhetorical analysis of the Caesarianae and the De Clementia s possible debt to Cicero and the implications of using Cicero as a model. If Seneca conspicuously uses Cicero as a model, he openly creates an analogy between himself and Cicero, Julius Caesar and Nero, for better or for worse. 1 Griffin 197 6 : 149. 2 Whitby ed. 19 98: 71. 3 Griffin 1976: 149; Levene 1998; Pag n 2004: n. 2; Konstan 2005.


9 commentary on the Caesarianae is particularly useful to this study because of his keen awareness of the relationship between Cicero and Caesar. The relationship between author and audience is an important point of comparison with the De Clementia. For Got off the speeches are dramatic performances geared toward psychological manipulation. H e context as the product of a professional politician. Gotoff analyzes the speeches senten ce by sentence to elucidate how Cicero uses rhetoric as an instrument of particular attention to word choice and placement and the sound and rhythm of phrases. This stylistic method of analysis departs from the conventional method of analyzing oratory through structural outlines and labeling figures of speech; he subtle attention often given to poetry. ws attention to the H e cites their unusual circumstances as a reason for their less periodic and embellished style. The Pro Marcello an extemp ore speech of thanksgiving, is unique in genre. The Pro Ligario and Pro Rege Deiotaro lack the ambience in which Cicero was accustomed to deliver his speeches; he could not depend on a crowd of spectators for support. Finally, Gotoff returns to the importa intellectual, rhetorically skilled, all 4 man. He argues that it would be 4 Gotoff 1993 : xliii.


10 wrong to think that Cicero would use the same techniques he always had in so unique a situation. e speeches is detailed and insightful, but it is by nature subj ective. Many of his points on idiosyncratic; his engagement with the works of other scholars is sparing. Despite such shortcomings its focus on the relationship between Cicero and Caesar, the contemporary For the De Clementia, invaluable r esource The introduction includes historical background, information on kingship theory and the concept of clementia a section on the influence of the De Clementia on later authors, an d an outline of previous scholarship on the work. In the commentary, Braund illuminates parallels to other authors, stylistic elements, and grammatical issues. She correct context. The Caesarianae are cited at sever al points for comparison, though Braund does not assert that Seneca points directly at Cicero when a parallel is drawn. De Clementia is conservative; she rarely makes claims without substantial argument to support them. Gotoff ta kes liberties in his without substantial elaboration or evidence. Braund supports her observations on


11 co nventions. Her faithful presentation of the text and careful explanations provide a clear picture of the De Clementia that is a useful resource for my investigation. T o understand the relationship between the Caesarianae and the De Clementia it is necess ary to place the works in their historical context. In the years 46 and 45 BCE, Cicero delivered three speeches before Caesar, Pro Marcello Pro Ligario and Pro Rege Deiotaro. They have been collectively called the Caesarianae because Julius Caesar is th eir primary audience. The speeches Civil War. The political circumstances of the speeches were unusual; at the time of their delivery, Caesar had been appointed to his third dict atorship for a ten year term, and Cicero had not spoken in public since his pardon by Caesar six years prior. The Caesarianae show Cicero in a unique and delicate position: he must not only secure clemency for his clients, but also promote it to Caesar as a the Republic is unfailing, even in the most panegyric moments of the Caesarianae. winning over the powerful ge beloved Republic. At a meeting of the Senate in September of 46, Caesar announced that he planned to recall Marcus Claudius Marcellus at the request of the Senate. As consul in 51 Marcellus had staunchly opposed Caesar at every turn. He early


12 had a senator from the colony of Novum Comum in Transpadane Gaul whipped there. 5 Marcellus left Rome in 49 and followed Pompey to Pharsalus. He chose close friend of Cicero, having trained under him as an orator and supported him during the Catilinarian crisis of 63. They also worked together, defending M. Aemilius Scaurus together in 54 and Milo in 56 and 52. It was clearly surprising that Caesar would pard on one of his most outspoken enemies, and the event inspired Cicero to break his public silence and deliver the impromptu sententia Pro Marcello in the Senate. 6 It is a sententia rather than a true judicial speech because Marcellus was already pardoned at clemency. The tone is overwhelmingly laudatory, and Braund (1998) nominates this speech and the other two Caesarianae as the first examples of Roman imperial panegyric. 7 Ther e is no direct evidence that Cicero saw to the publication of the speech. Gotoff notes that the impromptu speech may have not been recorded by a stenographer, but since it was his first speech since his 5 See Gotoff 1993: xxx 6 In a letter to Aulus Caecina ( Fam. pardon of Marcellus as evidence of his clemency and equanimit y (misidentified by Gotoff 1993: xxxii as Att. 6.6.). 7 Gotoff 1993: xxxii notes that W olf and Orelli considered Pro Marcello a f orgery, probably due to its panegyrical overtones. He suggests that their evidence of linguistic peculiarities and the fact that Quintilian does not cite the speech is not unique to Pro Marcello


13 return from exile and it surely was pleasing to Caesa r, it is likely that Cicero circulated it. 8 Caesar in the forum for the pardon and recall of Quintus Ligarius, another former Pompeian. 9 Ligarius had gone to Africa in 50 BCE as a legate to the provincial governor C. Considius ( Lig. 2 ) Considius left the province to run for consulship at Rome, leaving Ligarius in his place. After the Civil War broke out, Attius Varus, a lieutenant of Pompey, took control of the province and Ligariu s served in his government. He fought in the battle of Thapsus and was captured at Hadrumetum ( Bell. Afr. 89). Caesar secured the province in January of 46 and spared his surviving opponents. Ligarius was ordered to remain in exile. His brothers, using Cic ero as an intermediary, immediately petitioned Caesar for his recall. During this time Quintus Aelius Tubero brought a case against Ligarius, charging him with treason on the grounds that he played a part in the alliance of th King Juba of Numidia (Quintilian 11.1, 80). Caesar fully exercised his rights as dictator in dealing with the case ; he decided whether the case should be tried, appointed himself as the sole judge, and heard the case publicly in the forum. Gotoff note s that a central problem for the interpretation of Pro Ligario is the possi bility that the outcome of the trial was predetermined. 10 According to 8 Gotoff 1993: xxxii. 9 Gotoff 1993 concludes from Att. 13. 12.2 that Pro Ligario was delivered in the first of two intercalary months between November and December of 46 and was copied for publication not long afterward. 10 Gotoff 1993: xxxiv.


14 Plutarch, Caesar was resolved to convi ct Ligarius, but was so moved eloquence that he acquitted him ( Cic. 39.6 7). Modern scholarship generally rejects Plutarc the notion that Caesar allowed the case to be tried in order to advertise his political propaganda. 11 In this case, clementia and illuminated it for the public. Cicero delivered the third Caesarian speech, Pro Rege Deiotaro in the intimate setting of Cae king of Galatia had been a supporter and friend of Cicero during his proconsu lship in Cilicia in 52. Like securing victory in Egypt, Caesar met Deiotarus in Galatia, and the king subsequently begged him for clemency. Caesar allowed him to continue his rule an d departed to defeat Pharnaces at Zela. He then returned to Galatia and kept Deiotarus on the throne with a diminished realm. The king sent an embassy to Caesar during his Spanish campaign seeking return of his former possessions and support in a power str son soon brought a case against Deiotarus, accusing him of plotting against this younger Castor was the sole prosecutor, and his primary evidence was the eyew itness account of one of 11 Craig 1984: note 1 surveys the opinions of scholars on this issue. Dru mann 1901 29 proposes that the trial was a prearranged charade. Walser 1959 and Kumaniecki 1967 maintain that premeditated between Cicero and Caesar. Craig agrees that the acquittal had certain political motivations, but argues that Cicero may not have conspired with Caesar before the trial. The orator could have simply understood what kind of speech the situation required.


15 It is particularly difficult to understand t he circumstances of this speech because it lacked a public audience. The speech held political significance; ient kings like Deiotarus. Gotoff suggests that the purpose of the trial may have been to get Caesar to take a large view of an eastern potentate and ally of Rome who had, as things 12 Cicero opinion of Pro Rege Deiotaro is preserved in Fam. 9.12, a letter to his son in law Dolabella, who had requested a copy of the speech. He calls it a causa tenuis et inops and deems it unworthy of publication. 13 A century after Cicero delivered the Caesa rianae, Seneca produced the essay De Clementia for the young emperor Nero. 14 He had previously composed a speech on clementia for Nero to deliver the Senate in early 55. 15 In the early years of his reign, Nero enjoyed a reputation of clemency and earned popu lar 16 De Clementia is clearly addressed to Nero, but as Griffin points out, it was also meant to restore the and rumors of tensions in the royal family. 17 In addition to guiding Nero and 12 Gotoff 1993: xxxix. 13 Gotoff 1993: xl. 14 Braund 2009: 16 dates De Clementia to 55 CE, after the murder of Britannicus. The strongest evidence to support this date is that Seneca states that Nero is just past his eighteenth year at 1.9.1. 15 Griffin 1976: 133. 16 Dowling 200 6 : 194. 17 Griffi n 1976: 138.


16 improving the public image of the government, Seneca may have also wanted to bolster his own reputation as a giver of sound advice. 18 Seneca, however, had a valid reason for wanting to display his talents. There was strong opposition to Stoic philosophy during his time. 19 De Clementia can therefore partly be seen as an attempt to improve the popular opinion of Stoicism. Braund proposes that the power. De Clementia be modeled on Hellenistic kingship treatises, the panegyrical oration, and the philosophical treatise. 20 protrepic: a wor k intending to turn its audience toward philosophy. 21 While the De Clementia as a philosophical essay is not oratorical in genre, the panegyric element is consonant. As p speaking before Caesar so in the De Clementia superfluous praise is mixed with admonition. Braund calls the Caesarianae proto panegyrics whose characteristics manifest themselves again in the De Clementia 22 Both the Caesarianae and the De Clementia are in essence inaugural works, which B raund identifies as a frequent occasion of Latin panegyric. 23 Panegyrists writing 18 Griffin 1976: 140 notes that the idea that Seneca desired to show off is found in Tacitus Ann. 13.2 19 Seneca refers to this opposition at De Clem. 1.5.2 20 Braund 2009: 17. 21 Braund 2009: 23. 22 Whitby ed. 1998: 55. 23 Whitby ed. 1998: 55. For Braund, the Caesarianae and the De Clementia Panegyricus are examples of accession literature with common form and function. She isolates pre sent in Seneca and Cicero.


17 at the beginning of a reign do more than simply praise; they are also in a position to suggest a program of action to a new ruler. Panegyric is an apt medium for making this k ind of admonition palatable. admired Cicero as a master prose stylist, unmatched orator, and an important literary figure and credited him with furnishing Latin with philosophical vocabulary. 24 In Ep. 58.6, for example, Seneca cites Cicero for his use of the word essentia : Non celabo te: cupio, si fieri potest, propitiis auribus tuis 'essentiam' dicer e; si minus, dicam et iratis. Ciceronem auctorem huius verbi habeo, puto locupletem. I shall not keep you in the dark; I desire, if possible, to say the word essentia to you and obtain a favourable hearing. If I cannot do this, I shall risk it even though it put you out of humour. I have Cicero as authority for the use of this word, and I regard him as a powerful authority. 25 Ep. 100.9 when he recommends that Lucilius read him: Lege Ciceronem: composit io eius una est, pedem curvat lenta et sine infamia mollis. 26 The numerous testimonia of Cicero in the Epistulae Morales show that Seneca often had the orator on his mind and was quite familiar with his life and works. He would not have ignored the importance of Cicero as a predecessor when writing the De Clementia 24 Gam bet 1970: 173. 25 Translation from Grummere 1917: 390. 26 Gambet 1970: 174 provides more examples of Seneca praising Cicero as a literary virtuoso: Ep. 40.11, Cicero noster, a quo Romana eloquentia exiluit ; Ep. 107.10 and 118.1 vir disertissimus


18 Because the Caesarianae and the De Clementia address the topic of clemency, it is important to understand what clementia meant to each author. Clemency achieved true political importanc e with Julius Caesar, and Seneca addresses this type of clemency in his essay, as opposed to forgiveness between private individuals. Because the origins of political clementia lie with Caesar, Seneca must acknowledge Caesar as a predecessor to Nero if he seeks to produce a comprehensive essay on clemency. In this thesis, I argue that the Caesarianae played an important role in shaping of the De Clementia Comparison reveals similarities and difference in liarity with the circumstances and content of the Caesarianae Armed with this evidence, it will be possible to evaluate what Seneca stood to gain or lose by appropriating as a model for his 27 27 Griffin 197 6 : 149.


19 CHAPTER 2 PRO MARCELLO Helv. 9.4 8. According to Seneca, Brutus reported that Marcellus was happy while in exile because he tter to his mother is a consolatio however, and his motives sure affected the veracity of his story. Because Seneca is in exile himself, he wants to convince his mother that exile is not an unpleasant fate. According to Seneca, Marcellus was not unhappy i n exile, but those who knew him felt like they were in exile without him. He claims that Caesar sailed past Mytilene to avoid seeing Marcellus as an exile because he was embarrassed to see such a great man in that state. He goes so far as to write Caesar e rubuit ( Helv. 9.6). He neglects to mention that Caesar was the agent of the recall. events surrounding Pro Marcello : Illi quidem reditum inpetrauit senatus publicis precibus, tam sollicitus ac maestus ut omnes illo die Bruti habere animum uiderentur et non pro Marcello sed pro se deprecari, ne exules essent si sine illo fuissent (9.6). The senate did indeed by public petitions secure his recall, being meanwhile so anxious and sad that all its members on that day seemed to feel as Brutus did and to be pleading, not for Marcellus, but for themselves, lest they should be exiles if they should be left without him. 28 Seneca attempts to ameliorat e p ersistent happiness and resolve; he then claims that the senators wanted Marcellus to 1 Translation from Basore 19 28


20 return because of their own inability to bear being without him, not because they cared about him and his interests. Seneca echoes the N on pro Marcello sed pro se deprecari Pro Marcello is indeed not a speech in defense of Marcellus. The title suggests that it is a judicial speech, but it is in fact a sententia This referenc e suggests that Seneca was familiar with the historical events surrounding the Caesarianae, but also that he was uns unimpressed by The beginning sections of the Pro Marcello t hat the senate and Cicero were grieving for themselves more than for Marcellus. Cicero begins the speech by talking about himself, and the personal significance M. enim Marcello vobis, patres conscripti, reique publicae reddito, non illius solum, sed etiam meam vocem et auctoritatem et vobis et rei publicae conservatam ac restitutam puto (2). For in this restoration of Marcus Marcellus, Conscript Fathers, to yourselves and to the state I feel that my own voice and influence, as well as his, have been preserved and restored to yourselves and to the state 29 From his account in Ad Helviam Seneca seems critical of attitudes, and as a Stoic, disapproved of Gambet 29 Translation from Watts 1931 : 423.


21 stems from his own admiration of Cato, who makes Cicero look like a poor Stoic. 30 The Pro Marcello changing political environment. His opposition t clementia once Marcellus is pardoned. However, the relationship between Caesar and Cicero would not necessarily have compelled Seneca to ignore his speech, especially since it deals so directly with clementia surrounding the Caesarianae are only one way of evaluating the relationship between the Pro Marcello and the De Clementia A more honest picture of the interplay between the works Cicero begins the Pro Marcello by announcing to the patres conscripti how this day end s the long silence in which he has indulged, and he can now return to his old way of expressing his wishes and opinions. He then explains the reason why he is compelled to speak out: Tantam enim mansuetudinem, tam inusitatam inauditamque clem entiam, tantum in summa potestate rerum omnium modum, tam denique incredibilem sapientiam ac paene divinam, tacitus praeterire nullo modo possum (1.1). For such humanity, such exceptional, nay, unheard of clemency, such invariable moderation exhibited by one who has attained supreme power, 30 Gambet 1970: 181.


22 such incredible and almost superhuman loftiness of mind I find it impossible to pass by in silence 31 mansuetudino to clementia shows the need to search for the right word due to the incipient nature of political clementia 32 Cicero presents a tetracolon of qualities, increasing in volume, and enhanced by the alternating anaphora of tantam and tam and the alliteration of tacitus. His inclusion of paene divinam is interesting; Cic ero will be reluctant to call Caesar or his wisdom divine, while Seneca as we shall see is much more comfortable with this concession in the De Clementia The position of sapientia at e motional trait of mercifulness and associates mercy with the mind. Cicero proceeds to name the restoration of Marcellus as the reason why absence, and explains that he could no t go about his usual business as a civic orator illo aemulo atque imitatore studiorum ac laborum meorum, quasi quodam socio a me et comite distracto This compound ablative absolute reflects perhaps n, and as Gotoff notes, is 33 He then addresses Caesar directly, proclaiming that he has reopened opportunities for Cicero and men like him to participate in public life and even implicates Caesar as a protector of the Repu his omnibus ad bene de omni re publica sperandum quasi 31 Translation from Watts 1931 : 423. 32 Gotoff 1993: 15 ; Braund 2009 : 243 402 Seneca uses mansuetudo as a virtual synonym for clementia 33 See Schlicher 1936: 218


23 signum aliquod sustulisti. He uses a military metaphor with signum which 34 This statement reflects Cice n his clemency beyond all doubt since Marcellus was such a bitter opponent in the past. Cicero again appears to want to believe that Caesar will be the restorer of th e Republic: intellectum auctoritatem huius ordinis dignitatemque rei publicae tuis vel doloribus vel suspicionibus anteferre (3) Ex quo profecto intellegis quanta in dato beneficio sit laus, cum in accepto sit tanta gloria. His words are slightly tinged with admonition, as if Caesar himself has learned a lesson about clemency from the pardon he has given. While Cicero with hypothetical speec 35 use of the word intellegere is saying. This is a dangerous suggestion, because it gives Caesar license to eeper level, which could lead to misunderstanding. Seneca does not take this risk with Nero; his words are to be taken at face value. In 4.2, Cicero assumes a full panegyrical stance, remarking upon the Nullius tantum flumen e st ingeni, nullius dicendi aut scribendi tanta vis, tanta copia, quae non dicam exornare, sed enarrare, C. Caesar, res tuas gestas possit. Although no one is able to faithfully relate 34 Gotoff 1993: 21. 35 De Clem. 1.1.2.


24 he pardon granted today is greater than all others in the past: Tamen adfirmo, et hoc pace dicam tua, nullam in his esse laudem ampliorem quam eam quam hodierno die consecutus es. Th e hyperbole Caesar will revi ve the Republic. Cicero enthusiastically continues to accomplishments but only to set up his argument that sunt alia maiora (5 6). victories, in t he clemency he exhibited today he has neminem socium (7): totum hoc quantumcumque est (quod certe maximum est) totum est, inquam, tuum. The homoioteleuton of totum and tuum praise must accrue to Caesar. N o other gene ral can lay claim to this and he quin etiam illa ipsa rerum humanarum domina, Fortuna, in istius societatem gloriae se non offert: tibi cedit; tuam esse totam et propriam fatetur. A conquering peoples and lands, Cicero discounts them as things conquerable because they are meant to be conquered: sed tamen ea vicisti, quae et naturam et condicionem ut vinci possent habebant (8) impressive feat: Animum vincere, iracundiam cohibere, victoriam temperare, adversarium nobilitate, ingenio, virtute praestantem non modo extollere iace ntem, sed etiam amplificare eius pristinam dignitatem, haec qui fecit, non ego eum cum summis viris comparo, sed simillimum deo iudico.


25 But to conquer the will, to curb the anger, and to moderate the triumph not merely to uplift from the dust the foe whos e rank, genius, and merit were preeminent, but even to enhance his previous greatness him who acts thus I do not compare to the greatest of men, but I judge him most like to God. 36 irtues as facts rather than actions. 37 The simillimum deo at the end is striking but does not signify that Caesar was yet considered divine. This language is appropriate to panegyric, and as Gotoff notes, this type of hyperbole cannot be translated as poli tical reality. 38 sapientia as paene divina (1.1). it with his glorious pardon of Marcellus. He states that his mil itary efforts will be celebrated in Roman literature and in the literature of other nations. Nor will nec ulla umquam aetas de tuis laudibus conticescet (9) However, memories of military feats are always neg atively tinged with clamor militum or sonus tubarum The reader can imagine Cicero becoming excited and speaking quickly when he contrasts this with memories of clemency: At vero cum aliquid clementer, mansuete, iuste, moderate, sapienter factum in iracun dia praesertim, quae est inimica consilio, et in victoria, quae natura insolens et superba est audimus aut legimus, quo studio incendimur, non modo in gestis rebus, sed etiam in fictis, ut eos saepe, quos numquam vidimus, diligamus! 36 Translation from Watts 1931 : 429. 37 Gotoff 1993: 34. 38 Go toff 1993: 35.


26 But when we hear or re ad of some act of mercy, of kindliness, of justice, of moderation, and of wisdom, above all if performed in the hour of wrath, which is the foe of counsel, and of triumph, which in its very nature is haughty and overweening, how our hearts burn within us, whether it be fact or merely fiction that we study, so that our affection oft goes forth to men whom we have never seen! 39 Gotoff notes the asyndeton of the five adverbs clementer, mansuete, iuste, moderate, and sapienter which again shows Cicero searchin g for the perfect word. 40 The use of the first person plural denotes the commonality of the sentiment among all men. Cicero chooses a metaphor of fire incendere to describe the natural reaction to acts of clemency in times of anger, even if the incident hap pens in the realm of fiction. should be praised. He asks, quibus laudibus efferemus? quibus studiis prosequemur? qua benevolentia complectemur (10)? Gotoff observes that the asyn growing enthusiasm. 41 Cicero then personifies the walls of the senate house, hyperbole which flows naturally from the enthusiastic tricolon that proceeds it: Parietes me dius fidius ut mihi videtur huius curiae tibi gratias agere gestiunt, quod brevi tempore futura sit illa auctoritas in his maiorum suorum et suis sedibus. Here again Cicero implies that Caesar is the restorer of the Republic. At this point Cicero finally makes brief m ention of Marcellus and his family. After spending two sentences praising the nobilissima familia of the Marcelli, he 39 Translation from Watts 1931 : 429. Seneca discusses employing exempla of great men in Ep 1.11. See Roller 2004 for exemplarity in Roman culture. 40 Gotoff 1993: 36. 41 Gotoff 1993: 38.


27 returns to his argument that the glory Caesar has gained from this deed is better than that of his other achievements because he is the so le agent. He says, huius autem rei tu idem es et dux et comes (11). The glory of this deed will not be destroyed over time, but haec tua iustitia et lenitas animi florescit cotidie magis tues seem even greater. The hyperbole intensifies as Cicero continues. He proclaims that on this day, after surpassing all others in civil wars, equanimity, and mercy, Caesar has surpassed himself and even victory herself: ipsam victoriam vicisse videris cum ea quae illa erat adepta victis remisisti. Victory is negative because of the way it makes victors behave, and by pardoning Marcellus, Caesar is defying the norm. Now Cicero makes a statement that suggests that all Romans were conquered and have been pardoned like Marcellus: nam cum ipsius victoriae condicione omnes victi occidissemus, clementiae tuae iudicio conservati sumus. Here Cicero does not search for a word, but confidently singles out clementia Iudicio indicates that Caesar did not exercise clemency from a whim or otherwise emotional impulse but made a deliberate decision. Because Caesar has conquered the normal violent and unmerciful conditions of victory, he alone is unconquerable: recte igitur unus invictus es, a quo etiam ipsius victoriae condicio visque devicta est. exercised violently and is used to rebuild the Republic.


28 Cicero continues to expan else who fought on the wrong side of the civil war: omnes enim, qui ad illa arma fato sumus nescio quo rei publicae misero funestoque compu lsi, etsi aliqua culpa tenemur erroris humani, scelere certe liberati sumus (13). He then recalls memories of the war, explaining that Caesar understands that those who opposed him did so out of ignorance and fear, rather than from cupiditas or crudelitas not opposed him out of personal enmity. Cicero claims that throughout the war he, Caesar, and Marcellus only wanted peace (15 16). He removes responsibility from Caesar for the death of citizens, even saying that Caesar would raise them from the dead if he could: quos amisimus civis, eos Martis vis perculit, non ira victoriae; ut dubitare debeat nemo quin multos, si fieri posset, C. Caesar ab inferis excitaret, quoniam ex eadem acie conse rvat quos potest (17). Cicero attempts to soften the memories of the civil war and remove blame from all parties involved while at the same time defining Caesar as the victor and hence the one man on whom everyone now depends: omnem spem salutis ad clement iam victoris et sapientiam contulisse (18) He again ties clementia to sapientia and makes clear that everything hinges on its presence in a conquerer, who is in essence a ruler. Cicero issues an imperative to Caesar to delight in his character. He says, qua re gaude tuo isto tam excellenti bono, et fruere cum fortuna et gloria, tum etiam natura et moribus tuis: ex quo quidem maximus est fructus iucunditasque


29 sapienti (19) 42 The Stoic sapiens is prominent. 43 ahead of his good fo beneficium, liberalitas, and sapientia are the only true bona Because of the glory gained by exhibiting such virtues, Caesar should continue to pardon good men, especially those who have erred because they were misled or mista ken (20). Cicero does not consider Caesar culpable for the because of his clementia : non enim tua culpa est si te aliqui timuerunt, contraque summa laus, quod minime timendum fu isse senserunt. In fact, those whom Caesar has conquered and subsequently pardoned are now amicissimi (21). 44 the fallible nature of men, it is possible that some might be insane enough to oppose him, although the thought of this is ridiculous: nam quis est omnium tam ignarus rerum, tam rudis in re publica, tam nihil umquam nec de sua nec de communi salute cogitans, qui non intellegat tua salute contineri suam, et ex unius tua vita pend ere omnium ? (22) For what man on earth is there so ignorant of life, so unversed in politics, so utterly careless of his own wellbeing and that of the community, as not to realize that his own wellbeing is bound up in yours, and that on your sole life h ang the lives of all ? 45 42 2.2: bene factis dictisque tuis quam familiarissimum esse te cupio 43 Gotoff 1993: 59 notes that Caesar is identified with Epicureanism, but that wisdom is not only a virtue of a Stoic, and Cicero is not writing a philosophical treatise. 44 Seneca recou Ex hodierno die inter nos amicitia incipiat; contendamus, utrum ego meliore fide tibi vitam dederim an tu debeas (1.9.11). 45 Translation from Watts 1931 : 441.


30 At this point in the speech, Caesar has been described several times as the leader and savior of the Republic; the fate of the state depends solely on him. nd De Clementia A bit of unintentional irony can be read in the final sentence of the section: cum res publica immortalis esse debeat, eam in unius mortalis anima consistere. Cicero seems to be caught between his drea m of a perpetual republic and the necessity of single man rule. Now Cicero turns to address the current state of the Republic and its need for improvement: omnia sunt excitanda tibi, C. Caesar, uni, quae iacere sentis, belli ipsius impetu, quod necesse f uit, perculsa atque prostrata (23). He takes care not to blame Caesar for the destruction by implicating its necessity. Instead he says that only Caesar can provide the needed assistance, and characterizes him as a doctor of the Republic: quae quidem tibi nunc omnia belli volnera sananda sunt, quibus praeter te nemo mederi potest (24) administering contradictory advice. Likewise, es Nero in 1. 2.2 : Egone ex omnibus mortalibus placui electusque sum, qui in terris deorum vice fungerer ? satis diu vel naturae vixi vel gloriae. Cicero argues that while Caesar may have lived long enough for nature and even for glory, he has not lived long enough for his country. 46 He urges him not to use the expression as frequently as he is accustomed to do, and noli nostro periculo esse sapiens do not be a wise man at our expense. Throughout this admonitory 46 Cf. Olim eni m ita se induit rei publicae Caesar, ut seduci alterum non posset sine utriusque pernicie; nam et illi viribus opus est et huic capite (1.4.3).


31 discussion, Cicero is careful to inject laudatory points, reminding Caesar of the greatness of his accomplishments but always returning to the idea that there is lived enough for himself, the republic (or at least Cicero) is still counting on him to restore it to its former status. Cicero close s the speech with an emphasis on the relationship between Nisi te, C. Caesar, salvo, et in ista sententia qua cum antea tum hodie vel maxime usus es manente, salvi esse non possumus (32) He then makes a promise that Caesar will be defended against hidden dangers: omnesques tibi, ut pro aliis etiam loquar quod de me ipse sentio, quoniam subesse aliqu id putas quod cavendum sit, non modo excubias et custodias, sed etiam laterum nostrorum oppositus et corporum pollicemur. The image of people exposing their sides in defense of their leader is echoed in De Clementia. 4.1: Suam itaque incolumitatem amant, c um pro uno homine denas legiones in aciem deducunt, cum in primam frontem procurrunt et adversa vulneribus pectora ferunt, ne imperatoris sui signa vertantur The equation of the safety of a ruler and the safety of the people is of central importance to bo th Thus the Pro Marcello ends with the same sentiment as it began, but this time Cicero uses the first person plural to convey the participation of all in his gratitude: maximas tibi omnes gratias agimus, C. Cae sar, maiores etiam


32 habemus (33). 47 finale ; although he mentions him, Cicero seems more grateful to be relieved of Mar fortitude while in exile, or an attempt to emphasize the personal benefit Cicero Now that the Pro Marcello has b Seneca begins the De Clementia by clearly stating his purpose: ut quodam modo speculi vice fungerer et te tibi ostenderem perventurum ad voluptatem maximam omnium Caesar to clemency. He immediately employs divine language, stating that Nero can view himself as performing the function of the gods on earth (1.2). 48 In the list of quid cuique mortalium Fortuna datum velit, meo ore pronuntiat recalls the image of Fortuna yielding to Caesar in the Pro Marcello Both Cicero and Seneca use divine compar status as a virtue and to flatter their audience. Seneca equates the duties of a Princeps with those of a god from the beginning (1.2). He elaborates the way in which a ruler imitates a god in 5.7: Deorum itaque sibi animum adse rens 47 Compare with De Clem. 1.1.6: Refertur tibi gratia; nemo unus homo uni homini tam carus umquam fuit, quam tu p opulo Romano, magnum longumque eius bonum 48 Cf. Marc 8 simillimum deo as his tutor and elder was more i nformal than that between Cicero and Caesar.


33 princeps alios ex civibus suis, quia utiles bonique sunt, libens videat, alios in numerum relinquat; quosdam esse gaudeat, quosdam patiatur. Cicero called paene divina at the start of the Pro Marcello While this remark seems to keep C aesar on a human plane, later in the speech Cicero implies that simillimum deo (8) Seneca is more direct and profuse with religious language in the De Clementia an emperor. 49 Cicero admired C Seneca also advocated this type of clemency, most notably in his anecdote of especially because of his behavior toward those who h ad injured him: bonum fuisse principem Augustum, bene illi parentis nomen convenisse fatemur ob nullam aliam causam, quam quod contumelias quoque suas, quae acerbiores principibus solent esse quam iniuriae, nulla crudelitate exsequebatur (1.10 .3 ). We d eclare that Augustus was a good emperor and that the name of avenge insults, even personal ones, which emperors ususally feel more acutely than injuries, with cruelty 50 Seneca str ongly recommends this course of action at 1.20: nunc illum hortamur, ut manifeste laesus animum in potestate habeat et poenam, si tuto poterit, donet, si minus, temperet longeque sit in suis quam in alienis iniuriis exorabilior. While se attempts to define clementia in all its manifestations (1.2.3), 49 See Weinstock 1971: 241 Clementia Caesaris 50 Translation from B raund 2009 : 113


34 of his political enemies. 51 Throughout the De Clementia Seneca is primarily concerned with the place of clementia in the character of an abso lute ruler, whether a princeps or a rex (1.3.3). 52 Seneca was clearly living in a different political climate than Cicero. Although the empire is young, the absolute power of Nero is unquestioned. Cicero does not attribute regal titles to Caesar in the Pro Marcello ; he mainly describes him as a talented and enormously powerful general (5 6, 8). Cicero is tasks in the De Clementia. 53 Cicero does, however, consistently imply that C when he repeats that the safety of the republic and supreme political position in 27: Haec igitur tibi reliqua pars est: hic restat actus, in hoc elabor andum est, ut rem publicam constituas, eaque tu in primis summa tranquillitate et otio perfruare The prepositional phrase in primis repeats the etymological stem of princeps Cicero is not comfortable with fully acknowledging is point ; he still hop es that his Republic will be restored by Caesar. 54 as an absolute ruler to practice clemency, while Cicero seems to want Caesar to 51 See Inv. clement ia per quam animi temere in odium alicuius iniectionis concitati comitate retinentur 52 See Griffin 1976: 146 rex. 53 Griffin 1976: 153. Seneca must define not only clementia itself, but also a good ruler. 54 Griffin 1976: 139. There was probably no conspiracy to restore the Republic after the failure of the Senate to stop the accession of Claudius.


35 employ clemency in a temporary leadership r ole in which he will restore a Republican form of government. victory: ita enim magnae vires decori gloriaeque sunt, si illis salutaris potentia est; nam pestifera vis est valere ad nocendum (1.3 3). The guarantee of clemency to Caesar. Seneca does not emphasize this point as heav ily ; he instead stresses the moral value of clemency over cruelty and describes clemency as a divine virtue (1.5.5 7). This difference in approach can be attributed to the occupation of Seneca as a moral philosopher and Cicero as an orator. Seneca compare s the head of state to a physician in 1.17.2, recalling He briefly outlines what separates a good doctor from a bad one: Mali medici est desperare, ne curet: idem in iis, quorum animus adfectus e st, facere debebit is, cui tradita salus omnium est, non cito spem proicere nec mortifera signa pronuntiare A good ruler does not attempt to solve the problems of his people with harsh punishments and severe policies but rather assumes the role of a heale r. Seneca recommends using a molla curatio to restore the health of the people without leaving a scar. This gentle treatment is clemency, the policy which both Cicero and Seneca believe to be effective in solving the problems of their times.


36 Seneca contra sts clementia with crudelitas at 1.25, condemning cruelty as inhuman behavior: Crudelitas minime humanum malum est indignumque tam miti animo; ferina ista rabies est sanguine gaudere ac volneribus et abiecto homine in silvestre animal transire. He goes on to say that cruelty is abhorred because delectatur malis hominum Cicero implies that cruelty towards an enemy is expected after a victory. Caesar is impressive because he conquered the condicio visque ipsius victoriae (12). Cicero also says that Caesar dr eaded the ferocitas victoriae ipsius (16). Both Seneca and Cicero suggest that gaining power leads to violence, but it is the mark of an extraordinary ruler to exhibit upright hu mans. Seneca closes Book 1 of the De Clementia with a definition of happiness: Felicitas illa multis salutem dare et ad vitam ab ipsa morte revocare et mereri clementia civicam. Nullum ornamentum principis fastigio dignius pulchriusque est quam illa cor ona ob cives servatos, non hostilia arma detracta victis, non currus barbarorum sanguine cruenti, non parta bello spolia. Haec divina potentia est gregatim ac publice servare; multos quidem occidere et indiscretos incendii ac ruinae potentia est. Real hap piness consists of giving safety to many people, of calling them back to life from the point of death and of earning the civic crown through an emperor tha the crown which is given f or saving fellow not weapons removed from conquered enemies, not chariots bloody with barbarian gore, not booty acquired in war. This is power on a divine level to save lives in droves and for the whole community. But multiple and indiscrim inate murder is the power of a conflagration or a collapsing building 55 Morte revocare from the dead who had died during the war if he were able (17). Non hostilia 55 Translation from Braund 2009 : 139


37 arma detracta victis, non currus barbarorum sanguine cruenti, non parta bello spolia recalls the military imagery of the Pro Marcello especially when Cicero says that memories of military victories are always tarnished by the cries of soldiers and sound of trumpets (9). Seneca and Cicero agree that practicing clemency is a divina potentia, separate from the human ability to conquer and enact violence upon the vanquished. Clearly the Pro Marcello left footprints on the De Clementia but it is only one third of the picture.


38 CHAPTER 3 PRO LIGARIO Confusion is the hallmark of the Pro Ligario At the outset, a bewildered Cicero blatantly confounds the facts of the case and expresses desperation about how to proceed. Gotoff suggests that by omitting a formal exord ium and feigning desperation through dubitatio 56 Because his partner in the defense has already conceded that Ligarius is guilty as charged, Cicero cannot deliver a traditional defens deprecatio a pure appeal for mercy. 57 to the case is three pronged: emotional deprecatio dubitatio and general co nfusion to undermine the validity of the charge, and a ethos as prosecutor. Because Cicero had no real opponent in the Pro Marcello the Pro Ligario offers more fruit for comparison to the De Clementia Tubero represents active opposi tion to clementia and Cicero must respond by promoting mercy to Caesar like Seneca does in his essay. The deprecatio of the Pro Ligario sets this speech apart from the other Caesarianae clementia in a unique way. This chapter will highlight points of comparison from both works at the same time. 56 Gotoff 1993: 105. 57 Quintilian 5.13.5, 5.13.31. Cited by Montague 1992 : 561.


39 Lausberg defines deprecatio the unlawfulness of the deed and the wongful intent of the perpetrator are here 58 Cicero desc ribes deprecatio in De Inv. 2.104: 59 Deprecatio est, in qua non defensio facti, sed ignoscendi postulatio continetur. Hoc genus vis in iudicio probari potest, ideo quod concesso peccato difficile est ab eo, qui peccatorum vindex esse debet, ut ignoscat, i mpetrare. Quare parte eius generis, cum causam non in eo constitueris, uti licebit. Deprecation is when it is not attempted to defend the action in question, but entreaties to be pardoned are employed. This kind of topic can hardly be approved of in a cou rt of justice, because, when the offence is admitted, it is difficult to prevail on the man who is bound to be the chastiser of offences to pardon it. So that it is allowable to employ that kind of address only when you do not rest the whole cause on it. 60 While Quintilian cites the Pro Ligario deprecatio the speech contains argumentation that distinguishes it from a pure appeal for mercy (6 29). Cicero focuses his arguments on the character of the prosecutor, defendant, and judge since th e charge itself cannot be refuted. He ultimately asks Caesar to grant clemency, not only to benefit the guilty but rep entant Ligarius, but also to nd between his normal sense of justice and clementia, 61 58 Lausberg 1998: 79. 59 Cited by Craig 1984: 195. 60 Translation from Yonge 1888: 238. 61 Lausberg 1998: 80.


40 quo me vertam nescio the speech has deep roots in the literary tradition of dubitatio 62 Cicero quotes words simila Medea ( Quo nunc me vortam? Quod iter mincipiam ingredi? 63 ) ( Quo me miser conferam? quo vortam? 64 ) in De orat. 3.21 7 and 21 4 as examples of effective rhetorical desperation. 65 ation is purely an affectation; he does not expect Caesar to believe that he is desperate. 66 His purpose is probably twofold: to mock the seriousness of the trial, and to give the speech a pleasing theatrical flair. The theatricality of the speech has fuele d the popular notion that the outcome of the trial was predetermined and that the entire event clementia 67 Seneca writes, Esse autem aliquos scio, qui clementia pessimum quemque putent sustineri, quon iam nisi post crimen supervacua est et sola haec virtus inter innocentes cessat (1.2.1). He further explains that clemency is only sought by the guilty: clementiam poena digni invocent Cicero turns to deprecatio because Ligarius deserves punishment by law and his guilty was confirmed earlier in the proceedings: 62 Fowler 1987 collects examples of rhetorical desperation in Greek literature. 63 De Orat. 3.217. 64 De Orat. 2.214. 65 Cited by Fowler 1987: 5 Cicero gives these examples to illustrate ways to incite an emotional response from an audience. 66 Gotoff 1993: 109. 67 Craig 1984 : in Cic. 39 Craig argues that while t he outcome of the trial was politically motivated, Caesar and Cicero did not necessarily conspire beforehand.


41 sed quoniam diligentia inimici investigatum est quod latebat, c onfitendum est, opinor, praesertim cum meus necessarius Pansa fecerit ut id integrum iam non esset, omissaque controuersia omnis orati o ad misericordiam tuam conferenda est, qua plurimi sunt conseruati, cum a te non liberationem culpae sed errati ueniam impetrauissent. (1) But now that his dark secret has been disclosed by an indefatigable opponent, there is nothing for it, I suppose, b ut to plead guilty to the charge, especially as, thanks to my friend Pansa, it is no longer a debatable question. So I must eschew controversy and convert my whole speech into an appeal to your compassion, to which so many have owed their safety, winning f rom you not indeed absolution from guilt but pardon for their errors. 68 At this early point in the speech Cicero already set s the stage for his unusual approach to the case, abandoning all pretext of a true defense and making the speech essentially a monu Cicero calls the charge against Ligarius a novum crimen (1). He says that Q. Ligarium in Africa fuisse, as we know from Quintilian. 69 ecution as an example of accusing someone of a crime when they have already been proven guilty. Tubero accused Ligarius of having an alliance with King Juba of Numidia contra rem publicam case. If Ligarius ha s committed treason, Caesar must find him guilty as a fair judge. If he has not, clementia is not required to acquit him. the war broke out (2 4). He claims that Ligarius was free from blame until Varus, a lieutenant of Pompey, took control of his province. Ligarius then served in his 68 Translation from Watts 1931 : 459. 69 Quintilian 11.1,80, cited by Montague 1992: 561 and Craig 1984: 194.


42 government, but Cicero says, si est criminosum, necessitatis crimen est, non voluntatis ily at Rome as reason why he would not stay in Africa if he were able to leave. Craig observes that Cicero avoids making the strongest legal argument against : he was just following orders, yet such a defense weakens It would not be as impressive if bestowed upon an innocent person. 70 Furthermore, it the war To actions could offend Caesar. 71 Cice ro does however make an apologetic statement about Pompey and his past supporters later in the speech, explaining that each side in the war was fighting for the safety of the R epublic: Secessionem tu illam existimauisti, Caesar, initio, non bellum, nec ho stile odium sed ciuile discidium, utrisque cupientibus rem publicam saluam, sed partim consiliis partim studiis a communi utilitate aberrantibus. (19) At the outset, Caesar, you held that that movement was a secession, not a war, not an outburst of hatred between foes, but of dissension between citizens, a dissension in which either party had the welfare of the state at heart, but in which each, through policy or through passion, swerved from the interest of the general body. 72 Cicero cannot say that Ligari wants to make a point that Ligarius and Pompeians in general are not wicked 70 Craig 1984: 195. 71 Cicero was also ethos as a part of his argument, cf. Pro Murena, De Lege Agraria 72 Translation from Watts 193 1: 475.


43 is sues an imperative to Caesar: Nullum igitur habes, Caesar, adhuc in Q. Ligario signum alienae a te uoluntatis; cuius ego causam animaduerte, quaeso, qua fide defendam; prodo meam. The causa that Cicero reveals is his own political opposition to Caesar in t Ligarius did not possess the same hostility towards the general that Cicero admittedly had: O clementiam admirabilem atque omnium laude, praedicatione, litteris monumentisque decorandam! M. Cicero apu d te defendit alium in ea uoluntate non fuisse in qua se ipsum confitetur fuisse, nec tuas tacitas cogitationes extimescit, nec quid tibi de alio audienti de se occurrat, reformidat (6). O marvelous clemency and worthy to be adorned by every commendation and advertisement that literature and historical record can supply! When Marcus Cicero maintains in your presence that another was not an adherent of the cause which he admits that he himself embraced, he feels no fear of what unspoken reflections may fill your mind, nor does he shudder at what thoughts about himself may be suggesting themselves to you as you listen to his defense of that other. 73 Cicero does not search for the perfect word for clemency as he did in Marc. 1. He confidently uses an exclamato ry accusative clementiam Bringing up his own past political indiscretions in order to defend Ligarius is a risky move, but he removes a sense of ownership by speaking in the third person. again with an imperative: Vide quam non reformidem, quanta lux liberalitatis et sapientiae tuae mihi apud te dicenti oboriatur Quantum potero, uoce contendam, ut hoc populus Romanus exaudiat (6) Here, as in Marc. 1, Cicero ties clemency 73 Translation from Watts 1931 : 465.


44 to wisdom inste ad of emotion. The participle dicenti looks back to audienti in the proceeding sentence, drawing attention to the relationship between Cicero as speaker and Caesar as willing listener. Seneca also depends on Nero to give a receptive ear to his essay. He us es a metaphor of rising sunlight to describe the Likewise, Seneca uses a sunlight metaphor in De Clem. 1.8.4: Multa circa te lux est, omnium in istam conversi oculi sunt; prodire te putas? Oriris At De Clem. 1.5.7 Seneca men tions the gods, quorum beneficio in lucem edimur tam boni quam mali He compares the emperor to a bright star in 1.3.3: tamquam ad clarum ac beneficum sidus certatim advolant People are drawn to the emperor like a star and depend on him like the sun. An i nteresting Domitius, an unwilling recipient of clementia : 74 scit Caesar poenamque peti ueniamque timeri. 'uiue, licet nolis, et nostro munere' dixit 'cerne diem uictis iam spes bona partibus esto exemplumque mei. uel, si libet, arma retempta, et nihil hac uenia, si uiceris, ipse paciscor.' (2.510 15) Caesar knows he wants the final penalty and fears a pardon. look upon the light of day. Be now a bright hope to the conquered side, a proof of my behavior. Even take up weapons again, if you wish: I myself seek nothing in return for this pardon, if you win. 75 76 74 Fantham 1992: 176 notes that the man of honor prefers death to pardon. 75 Translation from Braund 1992: 35. 76 Lucretius often defines the orae luminis as a place only accessible to those possessing wisdom about the universe ( DRN 1.22, 170, 179; 2.577, 617).


45 appealing to the populus Romanus is somewhat ironic since Caesar is the only judge, but as Gotoff notes, Cicero was still inter ested in inciting the response of the audience to create a favorable ambiance. 77 Seneca also invokes the populus Romanus when he describes the uncertainty it faced Magnam adibat aleam populus Romanus, cum in certum esset, quo se ista tua nobilis indoles daret; iam vota publica in tuto sunt; nec enim periculum est, ne te subita tui capiat oblivio. clementia with the fate of the Roman people. Cicer o next recalls his opposition to Caesar and subsequent pardon in greater detail.: Suspecto bello, Caesar, gesto etiam ex parte magna, nulla ui coactus, iudicio ac uoluntate ad ea arma profectus sum quae erant sumpta contra te. 78 Apud quem igitur hoc dico? N empe apud eum qui, cum hoc sciret, tamen me ante quam uidit rei publicae reddidit, qui ad me ex Aegypto litteras misit ut essem idem qui fuissem, qui me, cum ipse imperator in toto imperio populi Romani unus esset, esse alterum passus est. (7) Not until w ar had been engaged, Caesar, not indeed until it had run most of its course did I, constrained by no compulsion, but led only by a deliberate act of will, go forth to join those who had taken up arms against you. And in whose presence do I aver this? Why, in the presence of one who, though he knew all this, yet restoed me to the commonwealth before he had seen me; who sent me a letter from Egypt, bidding me remain what I had always been; who, though he himself was the only true d that the Roman people commanded, yet suffered me to be the second. 79 77 Gotoff 1993: 122. 78 Cicero takes up a Caesarian style with the comp ound ablative absolute here as he did in Marc. 2. 79 Translation from Watts 1931 : 465.


46 De Clem. 1.9 paralells this passage Both passages contain dubitatio and discuss the relationship between the pardoned and their pardon er Here a comparison can be drawn between Seneca describes Augustus in a state of indecision about his punishment of Cinna. The emperor exhibits dubitatio s theatrics at the opening of the Pro Ligario: Gemens subinde voces varias emittebat et inter se contrarias : 'Quid ergo? Ego percussorem meum securum ambulare patiar me sollicito? prodess e tuae famae potest purpose in the Pro Ligario (1.9.6). Seneca tells that Cinna became a fidelissimus amicus to Augustus and even made the emperor his sole heir (1.9.11). After Cicero received pardon from Caes clemency through the Caesarianae The end results of these stories are radically different, as Caesar became the victim of conspiracy, and Cicero did not remain supportive of his cause. next assails Tube ethos as prosecutor. He launches a personal but restrained attack. He begins with the circumstances of the enmity between Tubero and Ligarius: Cessit auctoritati amplissimi viri vel potius paruit: u na est profectus cum iis quorum erat una causa; tard ius iter fecit; itaque in Africam uenit iam occupatam. Hinc in Ligarium crimen oritur uel ira potius. Nam si crimen est uoluisse, non minus magnum est uos Africam, arcem omnium prouinciarum, natam ad bellum contra hanc urbem gerendum, obtinere uoluisse qua m aliquem se maluisse. Atque is tamen aliquis Ligarius non fuit; Varus imperium se habere dicebat; fascis certe habebat. (22)


47 He yielded to, or rather obeyed, the compelling force of a great personality. He left the country in company with his fellow adher ents. His journey was protracted; and consequently he found Africa already under occupation. Hence arises this charge, or rather this outburst, against Ligarius. For if the mere wish is a chargeable offence, it is no less a crime in you to have wished for possession of Africa, the key of all the provinces, designed by nature as a base for hostile operations against this city, than for another to have preferred keeping it for himself. But that other was not Ligarius. Varus maintained that the authority was accredited to himself; at any rate he was in possession of the symbols of power. 80 denied permission to disembark when he arrived because Varus recently seized command there The Tuberones blamed Ligarius for the insult. 81 Throughout the speech Cicero uses the fact that the Tubero was also an adamant Pompeian to challenge his ethos as a prosecutor of Ligarius. In this speech so riddled with confusion, Cicero attacks Tubero by recalling the conflated definition of the charge against Ligarius, fuisse in Africa opposition to Caesar: Sed hoc quaero: quis putat esse crimen fuisse in Africa? Nempe i s qui et ipse in eadem prouincia esse uoluit et prohibitum se a Ligario queritur, et certe contra ipsum Caesarem est congressus armatus. Quid enim tuus ille, Tubero, destrictus in acie Pharsalica gladius agebat? Cuius latus ille mucro petebat? Qui sensus e rat armorum tuorum? Quae tua mens, oculi, manus, ardor animi? Quid cupiebas, quid optabas? Nimis urgeo; commoueri uidetur adulescens. Ad me reuertar; isdem in armis fui. (9) My question, however, is this: who thinks it an indictable offence in expressed a wish to be in Africa and complains that he was excluded by Ligarius, and who undoubtedly met Caesar himself in armed encounter! When your sword, Tubero, was unsheathed on the field of Pharsa lus, 80 Translation from Watts 1931 : 479. 81 Gotoff 1993: xxxiv.


48 what was its object, at whose breast was its blade directed, what was the significance of your weapons, upon what were your thoughts, your eyes, your strong right arm, your fiery spirit bent? What desires, what dreams did you cherish? I am too insiste nt; my young friend betrays embarrassment; I will return to myself. I fought upon the same side. 82 clem ency. The prosecutor and the defendant were both Pompeians, and this fact makes Caesar appear merciful for agreeing to hear the case. By drawing attention to his own allegiance with Pompey in the past, Cicero attempts to alleviate the seriousness of the ch arge against Ligarius and remind Caesar that those whom he has pardoned can serve him well. The contrast between crudelitas and clementia is important to both authors. Cicero accuses Tubero of attempting to dissuade Caesar from mercy: Quid autem aliud egi mus, Tubero, nisi ut quod hic potest non possemus? Quorum igitur impunitas, Caesar, tuae clementiae laus est, eorum ipsorum ad crudelitatem te acuet oratio? (10) Seneca describes crudelitas as a vice in De Clem. 1.25: Crudelitas minime humanum malum est in dignumque tam miti animo; ferina ista rabies est sanguine gaudere ac volneribus et abiecto homine in silvestre animal transire. Cicero uses similar language at two points in the Pro Ligario ike clothing. He impersonates Tubero with a hypothetical demand: omnem humanitatem exuisses ? Cicero uses the verb abicere when he says that 82 Translation from Watts 1931 : 467.


49 someone who urges Caes ar to refrain from pardoning Ligarius suam citius abiciet humanitatem quam extorquebit tuam (16) Cicero and Seneca both invoke Sulla to condemn capital punishment and illustrate crudelitas Cicero accuses Tubero of wanting Caesar to behave like Sulla: At istud ne apud eum quidem dictatorem qui omnis quos oderat morte multabat, quisquam egit isto modo. Ipse iubebat occidi; nullo postulante, praemiis inuitabat; quae tamen crudelitas ab hoc eodem aliquot annis post, quem tu nunc crudelem esse uis, uindicata est. (12) But even under the dictator who visited with death all whom he disliked, no one did what you are doing and as you are doing it. He ordered men to be murdered, though none accused; he lured men by bribes to commit murders; but his cruelty was req uited years afterwards by the very man whom you today are urging to cruelty. 83 Seneca uses Sulla as a hyperbolic example of cruelty in action: et L. Sullam tyrannum appellari quid prohibet, cui occidendi finem fecit inopia hostium? Descenderit licet e dic tatura sua et se togae reddiderit, quis tamen umquam tyrannus tam avide humanum sanguinem bibit quam ille, qui septem milia civium Romanorum contrucidari iussit et, cum in vicino ad aedem Bellonae sedens exaudisset conclamationem tot milium sub gladio geme ntium, exterrito senatu: 'Hoc agamus' inquit, 'P.C.; seditiosi pauculi meo iussu occiduntur. (1.12.2) And what stops Lucius Sulla from being labeled a tyrant? He only stopped killing because he ran out of enemies. Although he stepped down from his posit ion as dictator and returned to civilian life, yet was there ever a tyrant who d rank in human blood more greedily than him? He gave the orders for seven thousand Roman citizens to be butchered together. When he heard the collective shriek of all those thou sands groaning beneath the sword as he was presiding nearby in the temple of Bellona over a dumbstruck 84 Sulla is an exemplum of tyr annical rule without clementia for both authors. Gotoff 83 Translation from Watts 1931 : 469. 84 Translation from Braund 2009: 115.


50 notes that Sulla became an exploited rhetorical figure even for orators like Cicero who might praise his conservative republicanism elsewhere. 85 Lucan als o incorporates Sulla into his poem, provi ding another Neronian comparandum to Cicero: Sulla quoque inmensis accessit cladibus ultor. ille quod exiguum restabat sanguinis urbi hausit; dumque nimis iam putria membra recidit excessit medicina modum, nimiumque secuta est, qua mo rbi duxere, manus. periere nocentes, sed cum iam soli possent superesse nocentes. (2.139 144) Sulla too increased the countless slaughter as avenger. What little blood remained to Rome he drained; and while he cut back limbs now grown too rotten, his rem edy exceeded limit and his hand pursued too far where disease let it. The guilty died, but at a time when the only survivors must be guilty. 86 This passage shows a reversal of the medical metaphors Cicero and Seneca use to describe clementia For Cicero and Seneca, a good ruler is like a physician who uses the gentle medicine of clementia to heal transgressors, and here Lucan characterizes Sulla as a doctor of death. Seneca warns against this type of malpractice: si quando misso sanguine opus est, sustinenda est acies ne ultra quam necesse sit incidat (1.5.1) Cleme n cy as a parental virtue is one of the strongest intersections between the Pro Ligario and the De Clementia Cicero states that his entire mercy, and not his sense justice: Quidquid dixi, ad unam summam referri volo vel humanitatis vel clementiae vel 85 Gotoff 1993: 134. 86 Translation from Braund 1992: 25.


51 misecordiae tuae (30). He explains that he has not used ordinary legal speech to defend his client against the charge, he says ego apud p arentem loquor Seneca describes the duty of a ruler as that of parents: Quod ergo officium eius est? Quod bonorum parentium, qui obiurgare liberos non numquam blande, non numquam minaciter solent, aliquando admonere etiam verberibus. Numquid aliquis s anus filium a prima offensa exheredat? (1.14.1) So what is his duty? It is that of good parents, who as a rule scold their children sometimes gently, sometimes with threats, and on some occasions even chastise them with a flogging. Does anyone in his rig h t mind disinherit a son for his first offence? 87 Patrem quidem patriae appellavimus, ut sciret datam sibi potestatem patriam, quae est temperantissima liberis consulens suaque p ost illos reponens. Seneca often refers to Augustus as an example of a good ruler throughout the De Clementia and says that he deserved the nomen parentis (1.10.3) I will discuss more fully in my conclusion, but no w we should see that serving motives for granting clementia By omitting Caesar, Seneca also avoids bringing up a fatherhood that ended in patricide. De Clementia is strikingly similar to the end of the Pro Ligario : Nihil est tam populare quam bonitas, nulla de virtutibus tuis plurimis nec admirabilior nec gratior misericordia est. Homines enim ad deos nu lla re propius accedunt quam salutem hominibus dando. Nihil habet nec fortuna 87 Translation from Braund 2009: 121.


52 tua maius quam ut possis, nec natura melius quam ut uelis servare quam plurimos. (37 38) Nothing is so dear to the people as kindness, and none of your many high qualities arous es such admiration and such pleasure as your compassion. For in nothing do men more nearly approach divinity than in doing good to their fellow men; your situation has nothing prouder in it than the power, your character nothing in it more noble than the w ish, to preserve all whom you can. 88 At the end of Book 1, Seneca says, haec divina potentia est gregatim ac publice servare (1.26.5). Both authors emphasize the importance of granting clemency to many and the divine nature of the virtue. The attributi on of mercy to the innate panegyric. 89 The points of comparison offered so far have shown that the Pro Marcello and the Pro Ligario contain material and themes that resurface in the De Clementia In the next chapter I will discuss the third and final Caesarian speech the Pro Rege Deiotaro 88 Translation from Watts 1931: 493. 89 Cf. De Clem. 1.1.


53 CHAPTER 4 PRO REGE DEIOTARO clementia from the Pro Marcello and the Pr o Ligario into his essay. The Pro Rege Deiotaro lends traditional defense speeches, but its circumstances were extraordinary. It was mited audience. Cicero defends a king Seneca likewise strives to create a picture of an ideal ruler for Nero in the De Clementia These notions derive in part from Greek treat ises on kingship, which attempt to theorize monarchy and describe the virtues of a just ruler. 90 This chapter will focus on the ways in which the authors approach advising a ruler about how to rule. At the outset of the speech Cicero expresses anxiety abo ut the difficulties posed by the unusual circumstances of the case: his client is a king, the king has faithfully served the republic in the past, the character of the prosecutors is outrageous, and he must plead to the man against whom his client has been character: nemo enim fere est qui sui periculi iudex non sibi se aequiorem quam reo praebeat: sed tua, C. Caesar, praestans singularisque natura hunc mihi metum minuit. (4). Cicero public image and its effect on his judicial decisions: Non enim tam timeo quid tu 90 Republic; (does not survive). Braund 2009: 18 notes that Hellenis tic neo Pythagorean tracts attributed to Diotogenes, Exphantus, and Sthenidas provide the fullest extant theorization of kingship.


54 de rege Deiotaro, quam intellego quid de te ceteros velis iudicare Seneca also strives to remind Nero of his own good char acter and how it influences him to bene factis dictisque tuis quam familiarissimum esse te cupio, ut quod nunc natura et impetus est fiat iudicium Moveor et iam loci ipsius insolentia, quod tantam causam, quanta nulla umquam in disceptatione versata est, dico intra domesticos parietes, dico extra conventum et eam frequentiam, in qua oratorum studia niti solent: in tuis oculis, in tuo ore voltuque adquiesco, te unum intueor, ad te unum omnis mea spectat oratio: quae mihi ad spem obtinendae veritatis gravissima sunt, ad motum animi et ad omnem impetum dicendi contentionemque leviora. (5) I refer to my embarrassment because this trial is being held in such an un familiar place. Here is a more important case than any that has ever been debated before, and yet I am pleading it within the four walls of a private house, far from any court of law, far from the crowded audiences which generally provide speakers with the ir inspiration Instead, Caesar, it is your own eyes, your regard, your expression that I have to rely upon to give me assurance. My whole speech is directed to you and you alone. Certainly, this is a situation which gives me the strongest possible reason to hope, with complete confidence, that the truth will prevail. As incentives to oratorical passions, however, and as stimulants to the fire and fervor of eloquence, such circumstances are considerably less effective! 91 puts Cicero in a position even more similar to without the support of an assembled frequentia an aid which Seneca also lacked. He conveys the physical closeness between himself and Ca esar with corporeal language: in tuis oculis, in tuo ore voltuque adquiesco He dwells upon te unum 91 Translation from Grant 19 90 : 3 05.


55 s to reveal veritas by means of sound argumentation. This agenda reflects the opposite of what C icero sought to accomplish in the Pro Ligario ; because Ligarius was guilty he persuaded Caesar by means of an emotionally charged deprecatio for mercy. own grandson and his run away slave. He characterizes them as opportunists ; they can tak e advantage of it for their own ends. 92 happening, however: Quam ob rem hoc nos pr imum metu, Caesar, per fidem et constantiam et clementiam tuam libera, ne residere in te ullam partem iracundiae suspicemur. The ideal ruler does not hold grudges; Seneca teaches this lesson against his life (1.9). Cicero next reminds Caesar of his previous forgiveness of Deiotarus: itaque non solum in eum non animadvertisti, sed omni metu liveravisti, hospitem agnovisti, regem reliquisti (10). Cicero uses the word metus frequently for his anxiety and that of others before Caesar but always follows with reasons why fear is unnecessary (4, 8, 16, 35). Seneca detests the maxim oderint, dum metuant (2.2.2); both authors believe that a good ruler is respected but not feared. Cicero praises Caesa r for the ease and finality of his mercy: Cum facile 92 Reg. Deiot. 8: Fore putabant ut in exulcerato animo facile fictum crimen insi deret


56 orari, Caesar, tum semel exorari soles Nemo umqum te placavit inimicus, qui ullas resedisse in te simultatis reliquias senserit (9). T clemency benefits both Cicero and the othe r pardoned Pompeians. Resedisse recalls residere in the previous section T perturbat us homo longinquus et alienigena, unaware of the true state of affairs at Nihil ille de condicionibus tuis, nihil de studio concordiae et pacis, nihil de conspiratione audiebat certorum hominum contra dignitatem tua m (11). He then asks for Caesar to pardon Deiotarus for siding with Pompey, eulogizing the general throughout: Ignosce, ignosce, Caesar, si eius viri auctoritati rex Deiotarus cessit, quem nos omnes secuti sumus; ad quem cum di atque homines omnia ornament a congessissent, tum tu ipse plurima et maxima (12) Cicero is careful not to suggest that Pompey was greater than Caesar: itaque Cn. Pompeii bella, victorias, triumphos, consulatus admirantes numerabamus: tuos enumerare non possumus Seneca must also use discretion when using Augustus as a model for Nero. He writes, comparare nemo mansuetudini tuae audebit divum Augustum (1.11). Augustus only exercised clemency after staining the sea at Actium with Roman blood, while Nero is still innocent. Seneca states that nemo iam divum Augustum nec Ti. Caesaris prima tempora loquitur nec quod te imitari velit exemplar extra te quaerit; principatus tuus ad gustum exigitur (1.1.6). Both Cicero and Seneca


57 flatter their audience have no past or present equal in authority or virtue. Cicero next attacks the charge against Deiotarus, that he conspired to kill Caesar when the general was his house guest: Ut enim omittam cuius tanti sceleris fuerit in conspectu deorum penatium necar e hospitem, cuius tantae importunitatis omnium gentium atque omnis memoriae clarissimum lumen exstinguere, cuius tantae ferocitatis victorem orbis terrarum non extimescere, cuius tam inhumani et ingrati animi, a quo rex appellatus esset, in eo tyrannum inv eniri ut haec omittam, cuius tanti furoris fuit, omnis reges, quorum multi erant finitimi, omnis liberos populos, omnis socios, omnis provincias, omnia denique omnium arma contra se unum excitare? (15) The monstrous wickedness of a host murdering his gues t under the very eyes of his own household gods, the barbaric brutality of wrenching from mankind the most brilliant light that has ever vouchsafed illumination to the human race, the crude impudence of failing to revere the conqueror of the entire world, the inhuman ingratitude of acting like the most brutal despot toward the very man who had granted him the name of king leave all these terrible thoughts aside, if you can, and just reflect, purely and simply, upon the insane stupidity of such an action. Fo r at one single blow Deiotarus would have stirred up, in alliance against himself, all the kings of every realm that exists upon the earth many of them his own neighbors and all the great array of free peoples, allies, and provinces of Rome. 93 scription of Caesar as a lumen recalls the light imagery of the Pro Ligario ruler as a shining light is polyvalent I power, as well as his level of exposure to the public, and hence the fact that he is always being watched. Attention to public opinion is present in Cicero and rhetoric of both authors. According to Cicero, if Deiotarus plotted to kill Caesar, 93 Translation from Grant 1 9 90 : 310


58 he would have to think of Caesar as a tyrant, deserving to be assassinated. Here Cicero takes the opportunity to use Deiotarus as an example of a ruler who chooses not to kill his political enemies. He describes the co nsequences of the crime as far sweeping and dire the king would lose all of his allies and incite the animosity of the entire world. This passage can be read as a warning to Caesar of what could happen if he did not exonerate Deiotarus and maintain a polic y of clemency : people may turn against him or even plot against his life. Cicero treads lightly on this point ; he stresses that Deiotarus would be mad if he chose to plot against Caesar, who had allowed him to retain the title rex pro tection against plots like those Deiotarus has been accused of orchestrating. Seneca also emphasizes the personal safety gained by clemency in the De Clementia He says clementia ergo non tantum honestiores sed tutiores praestat ornamentumque imperiorum est simul et certissima salus (1.11.4). He states that the emperor is made safe by his own good will, and not by arms: Hic princeps suo beneficio tutus nihil praesidiis eget, arma ornamenti causa habet (1.13.4). Seneca compares the long dynasties of kings with the brief reigns of tyrants: quid enim est cur reges consenuerint liberisque ac nepotibus tradiderint regna, tyrannorum exsecreabilis ac brevis potestas sit? His use of kings as of regal model for Caesar. Both authors draw a bold line between kings and tyrants, although their audiences take neither title. Cicero incorporates some panegyric elements into the Pro Rege Deiotaro aimed at both Caesar and Deiotarus. He praises Deiota Cui porro,


59 qui modo populi Romani nomen audivit, Deiotari integritas, gravitas, virtus, fides non audita est? home, defending against all charges of conspiracy levied by his slave (19 25). Cicero takes on a comedic tone when he defends a specific accusation that Deiotarus was drunk and dancing when he heard news of Caesar surrounded in a fortress. He asks, Deiotarum saltantem quiquam aut ebrium vidit umquam? (26) He then enumerates kingly virtues, nominating frugalitas ( taken here to mean sobriety ) as the highest of all: Omnes in illo sunt rege virtutes, quod te, Caesar, ignorare non arbitror, sed praecipue singularis et admiranda frugalitas: etsi hoc verbo scio laudari regem non sol ere; frugi hominem dici non multum habet laudis in rege: fortem, iustum, severum, gravem, magnanimum, largum, beneficum, liberalem: hae sunt regiae laudes, illa privata est. Ut volet quisque, accipiat: ego tamen frugalitatem, id est modestiam et temperanti am, virtutem maximam iudico. (26) This king is a man of the highest character, and you, Caesar, I believe, are extremely well aware of this. And conspicuous among his merits is an admirable sobriety. I know this is a quality not often praised in kings. T o be called sober does not seem an especially glorious compliment for a royal personage. People are more accustomed to acclaim kings as brave, just, upright, dignified, magnanimous, open handed, philanthropic, munificent. Those are the qualities that we de scribe as royal. Sobriety, on the other hand, is a private characteristic. Yet in my view for what it is worth sobriety, that is to say moderation or temperance, is an extremely valuable and significant virtue 94 Cicero appears to be poking fun at himself after he has spent so many words upholding clemency before Caesar as the greatest virtue of all. Because he has nness made against him. 94 Translation from Grant 1990 : 318


60 Cicero chastises Castor for bringing charges against his own grandfather, saying that he should have modeled himself after Deiotarus instead: Imitari, Castor, potius avi mores disciplinamque debebas quam o ptimo et clarissimo viro fugitivi ore male dicere (28). He reminds Castor of the pardon his family received from Caesar for being Pompeians: Felix ista domus quae non impunitatem solum adepta sit, sed etiam accusandi licentiam: calamitosus Deiotarus qui, quod in eisdem castris fuerit, non modo apud te, sed etiam a suis accusetur! Vos vestra secunda fortuna, Castor, non potestis sine propinquorum calamitate esse contenti? (29) That royal house has been privileged indeed! For not only has it managed to rema in unpunished, but it has even been given a free hand to incriminate other people! Deiotarus, on the other hand, is peculiarly unfortunate, because he actually finds himself prosecuted by a man who was on the same side as himself. It is bad enough for him, Caesar, to be brought before you yourself for trial. But he has also suffered the additional calamity of prosecution by his own flesh and blood. Will you not be prepared, Castor, to accept the good luck that has already come your way, and leave it at that ? Will you never be content until you have brought total destruction upon your own family? 95 Seneca when writing the De Clementia for Nero. Given the established tendency tow ard discord among the Julio Claudians, the maintenance of peace and stability within royal families seems like it would be an important aspect of clementia, in quamcumque domum pervene rit, eam felicem tranquillamque praestabit, sed in regia, quo rarior, eo mirabilior (1.5.4). domesticum exemplum suggests that he 95 Translation from Grant 1990: 320.


61 wanted Nero to be respectful of his family, but his avoidance of the subject of in the royal family: in lucem evocavit: quis tuum patrem antea, quis esset, quam cuius gener esset, audivit? -sed quamvis ingrate et impie necessitudinis nomen repudiaretis, tamen inimicitias hominum more gerere poteratis, non ficto crimine insectari, non expetere vitam, non cap itis arcessere. (30) It was thanks to the king that your family, which had previously been quite obscure, emerged from darkness into light. For who had ever heard of your fat h er until he had a father in law to his credit? But feud or no feud, and however ungratefully and unnaturally you chose to repudiate your family ties, you could at least have carried on your quarrel humanely, instead of persecuting your victim with a fabricated accusation, and thirsting after his life, and menacing him with a capital c harge. 96 Cicero again uses light imagery in lucem to convey the status of rulers as public figures. He implies that seeking capital punishment is inhumane; he also made this argument against Tubero in the Pro Ligario In these speeches, Cicero argues agai nst capital punishment before both his opponents and before Caesar. His opponents allow him to chastise a policy openly without running the risk of insulting Caesar. Seneca does not have the benefit of an actual opponent to speak against in the De Clementi a but he could have benefited from studying Augustus a respectable but ultimately imperfect ruler could opponent He says that the emperor did not show clemency nempe post mare 96 Translation from Grant 1990: 320.


62 Actiacum Romano cruore infectum lassa crudelitas condemnation of his murder of Britannicus. 97 The circumstances of the third of the Caesarianae may have influenced Seneca in his construction of this criticism. So far I have drawn an analogy between speaker and audience. Cicero is to Seneca a s Caesar is to Nero but it may be possible to draw an addition al analogy between Deiotarus and Britannicus. Cicero defends Deiotarus, who has panegyrical promotion of cle mency to Nero, Seneca could be tacitly defending the already dead Britannicus, and hoping to inspire guilt in Nero. If so, then Seneca is far bolder than Cicero. Seneca may also intend to defend the Roman people as a whole against Then Deiotarus would be analogous to the vigilant public Cicero uses Deiotarus to suggest the threat of conspiracy if Caesar fails to make the right decisions. The unspoken defendant in the De Clementia is one of these extremes, o r an amalgamation of the two. While Seneca must use the figured speech of panegyric to advise Nero, he still has the 97 Braund 2009 : 16 17 accounts for other reasons why Seneca would stress Ne ro innocentia Perhaps Seneca believed that Britannicus died from an epileptic fit, which was the official version of the story given to the public and found in Tacitus Ann. 13.16. He may have also seen the murder as a necessary evil in the establishment of Nero most, so his familial misconduct could be overlooked.


63 ability to create a multilayered text that can be interpreted in many ways, including ways that are critical of the principate. Cicero i nsists that Deiotarus was not motivat ed to plot against Caesar because of his virtue and more importantly because he is grateful for his pardon (35 37) ; rather, Caesar might suspect that Deiotarus retains some animus against him: non enim iam metuo ne tu i lli suscenseas; illud vereor ne tibi illum suscensere aliquid suspicere: quod abest longissime, mihi crede, Caesar (35) Here again Cicero discusses fear, switching from metuo to vereor to strengthen is responsible for Deiotaru pleasant old age: verum omnem tranquilitatem et quietem senectutis acceptam refert clementiae tuae In the end reception by the public matter most : sed cum de illo laboro tum de multis ampliss imis viris, quibus semel ignotum a te esse oportet, nec beneficium tuum in dubium vocari, nec haerere in animis hominum sollicitudinem sempiternam, nec accidere ut quisquam te timere incipiat eorum, qui sint semel a te liberati timore. (39) And yet, in th e midst of this concern for Deiotarus, I cannot help sparing an anxious thought also for the many other distinguished men to whom you have extended a pardon. For the forgiveness they received at your hands ought to be a single act of mercy, granted once an d for all. It would be terrible if they had to feel that there was something impermanent about and on surely cannot be right. When you have once freed a man from his fears, it would be q uite wrong if he then had to start being afraid all over again. 98 Cicero himself is one of the amplissimi viri whom Caesar has pardoned, and so the permanence of his mercy is of personal importance. By injecting fear into his 98 Translation from Grant 1990: 327.


64 speech, Cicero may intend for Caesar to absorb some of the anxiety of his subordinates and share in their concerns. Cicero close s compassion ; rather, the facts should speak for themselves: Non debeo, C. Caesar, quod fieri solet in tantis periculis, temptare ecquonam modo dicendo misericordiam tuam commovere possim. Nihil opus est. Occurrere solet ipsa supplicibus et calamitosis nullius oratione evocata. There is one method, Caesar, which is quite commonly practiced when people ar e being tried on grave charges; but I certainly do not need to adopt it today. I refer to the attempts by advocates to find the best ways of arousing compassion. In the present case, that is wholly unnecessary. For when a man is down, and is begging for me rcy, his fate arouses compassion spontaneously, unbidden by the words of any speech. 99 2 of the De Clementia that he will not employ flattery to persuade Nero is reminiscent of this : diutius me morari hic patere, non ut blandiar auribus tuis ( nec enim hic mihi mos est; maluerin veris offendere quam placere adulando misericordia a trait which Seneca calls the defect of a weak mind (2.5). Cicero stresses the glory of Ca result from his pardon of a king: Multa sunt monumenta clementiae tuae, sed maxima eorum incolumitates, quibus salutem dedisti; quae si in privatis gloriosa sunt, multo magis commemorabuntur in reg ibus (40). Seneca conveys a similar thought: servavit quidem nemo nisi maior eo quem servabat (1.21 1). By pardoning a king, Caesar becomes greater than a king. 99 Translation from Grant 1990: 327.


65 decision on other client ki ngs of Rome: Quocirca, C. Caesar, velim existimes hodierno die sententiam tuam aut cum summo dedecore miserrimam pestem importaturam esse regibus aut incolumem famam cum salute: quorum alterum optare illorum crudelitatis est, alterum conservare clementiae tuae. (43) So I beg you to bear in mind, Caesar, that your verdict upon the two kings today will mean either their utter destruction and irreplaceable disgrace, or their salvation; the salvation of their lives and their honor alike. Our opponents are cru el: what they are after is the ruin of Deiotarus and his son. But you are a clement man, and I implore you to come to their rescue! 100 In this final sentence Cicero contrasts the cruelty of his opponents with the clemency of Caesar, which mirrors an import in the De Clementia Caesar must choose between destroying the kings or restoring their good reputation, and Cicero attempt s to compel him toward mercy with a simple pair of contrasting genitives of description, crudelitati s and clementiae reputation, and if he does not, he may become a victim of real conspiracy. In comparison wi th the De Clementia, the circumstances of the Pro Rege Deiotaro set this case apart from the other Caesarianae Seneca could benefit nd by using Deiotarus as an example of the possible threat to his life. This speech most strongly employs the subtle 100 Translation from Grant 1990 : 329.


66 decision about Deiotarus will have an impact on a vigil ant world Now that all three speeches have been analyzed and discussed, it is possible to form a conclusion about the relationship between these speeches and the De Clementia


67 CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSION I have demo nstrated through comparative rhetorical analysis the ways that Caesarianae into the De Clementia He Instead he subt complex figure of Julius Caesar is an important motivation for this approach. Caesar is a problematic figure, but aspects of the De Clementia Caesariana e as a beneficial subtext. Famous for his clementia Caesar would be an obvious choice of an exemplum assassination, however, complicates his memory and burdens him with a conn otation of century earlier, it was still a lucid popular memory. If Seneca were to directly put forth Caesar as a model for Nero, he would have to account for the fail ure of clementia to save the general from those whom he had pardoned. He may not have wanted to darken his essay with such negative ideas, but he employs a Ciceronian subtext to delicately suggest the dangers of being an absolute ruler, even when fortified by a policy of clemency. Seneca frequently uses Augustus as an exemplum domesticum for Nero, and each time he calls the emperor Augustus, Divus Augustus or Caesar Augustus 101 Only once does Seneca refer to a figure as Caesar : Olim enim ita se induit rei publicae Caesar ut seduci alterum non posset sine utriusque pernicie; nam et illi viribus opus est 101 De Clem. 1.1.5, 1.9.1, 1.10.3, 1.11.1, 1.15.1, 1.15.3.


68 et huic capite. (1.4.2) Braund argues that this too is a reference to Augustus, but I Augustus in his referen ces to Octavian, this is actually an allusion to Julius Caesar. 102 The adverb olim also suggests that this occurred a very long time ago. The meaning of the statement also corroborates reality, republic. Seneca additionally may have made this statement ambiguous precisely because of the problems of interpreting Caesar as a model. I give Seneca credit for the ability to construct polyvalent allusions which he uses to communicate his ideas while s aving himself from suspicion. The De Clementia survives incomplete; only the entirety of Book 1 and part of Book 2 have been preserved. Seneca implies that his work will comprise three books in his outline at the beginning of the essay: Nunc in tres part es omnem hanc materiam dividam. Prima erit manumissionis; secunda quae naturam clementiae habitumque demonstret: nam cum sint vitia quaedam virtutes imitantia, non possunt secerni, nisi signa, quibus dinoscantur, impresseris; tertio loco quaeremus quomodo ad hanc virtutem perducatur animus, quomodo confirmet eam et usu suam faciat. (1.3.1) Now I shall divide my subject as a whole into three sections. The first will concern setting free. The second is to demonstrate the nature and the habit of mercy; after all, since it is a fact that there are some vices which imitate virtues, they cannot be separated unless you brand them with marks which distinguish them. In the third place, we enquire how the mind can be led to adopt this virtue and how it can strengthen it and through practice own it. 103 The first of the Caesarianae the Pro Marcello is a speech in praise of a pardon, and it is focused on the elevation of clementia as an outstanding virtue. The Pro Ligario attempts to secure and promote cl em ency as a policy by defeating its opposition and 102 Braund 2009 : Res Gestae to emphasize his maintenance of the political system 103 Translation from Braund 2009 : 99. The asterisks indicate a lacuna in the text.


69 calling it cruelty. The Pro Rege Deiotaro showcases the external and far reaching implications of clemency, and especially the unstable position of an absolute ruler under the unyielding gaze of his subjec ts. Perhaps Seneca loosely modeled his three sections on the three Caesarianae Seneca did not ignore Cicero as a rhetorical predecessor and he did not remove Caesar from the history of clementia His audience and his circumstances forced him to find a w ay to instruct and advise and without running the risk of offending his superiors discount his ability to include Cicero and Caesar in his essay in order to remain faith ful the subtext of the De Clementia with an eye toward obscuring the negative implications of his sources Seneca has the advantage of hindsight and he has the ability to pick and Whether Seneca was conscious of the subtle and meaningful methods of importation that I have appreciated in this thesis or he simply chose to selectively include what he sa w beneficial to his endeavor, I believe that reading the Caesarianae and the De Clementia together is a fruitful exercise because of the the similarity of the circumstances the authors faced. We, like Seneca looking back on Cicero, have the benefit of dist ance and perspective when reading these texts and can appreciate them from a unique vantage point. In these texts we see great men struggling under the pressure of speaking before power ful figures, producing masterfully composed pieces that demonstrate the ir ability to influence their superiors with words. They provide a


70 granted today. Perhaps most poignantly, these works address the difficulties and dangers facing abs olute rulers and their subjects, and the human anxieties that are inspired by such great power. The close relationship between the Caesarianae and De Clementia is clear to us when we take a distant view. Seneca was also aware of his similarity to Cicero a nd his debt to the orator, as well as the necessity of a nuanced approach toward using him as Caesarianae 104 Cicero ability to develop a rich language of admonitory praise to be appreciated and emulated by later authors in similar circumstances is a grand tribute to his skill as an orator and a testament to his permanence as a literary icon. 104 Griffin 1976 : 149.


71 LIST OF REFERENCES Basore, J. W. 1928. Moral essays, With an English translation London: W. Heinemann. Braund, S. M. 1992. Civil war. Oxford. Braund, S. M. 2009 De clementia Oxford CJ 79.3: 193 199. Dowling, M. 2 006. Clemency and Cruelty in the Roman World Ann Arbor JRS 80: 17 30. Fantham, E. 1992 De bello civili. Book II Cambridge. HSCP 9 1: 5 38. TAPA 101: 171 183. Gotoff, H. (ed.) 1993. Chapel Hill Grant, M. 1990 Murder trials Harmondsworth: Penguin. Griffin, M. 19 76. Seneca: A Philosopher in Politics Oxford. Grummere, R. (ed. and tr.) 1917. Seneca Epistles 1 65 London: Loeb Classical Library. CP 100: 337 46. Lattimore, R. A. (tr.) 1962 The Iliad Chicago : University of Chicago Press. Lausberg, H., O rton, D. E., and Anderson, R. D. (trans.) 1998 Handbook of literary R hetoric: A F oundation for L iterary S tudy. Le iden. PCPS 43: 66 103. Montague, H. Advocacy and Politics: The Paradox of Cicero's Pro Ligario AJP 113.4: 559 574.


72 I. Sluiter and R. Rosen, ed. Free Speech in Classical Antiquity Leiden, 369 390. Rol Exemplarity in Roman Culture: The Cases of Horatius Cocles and Cloelia CP 99.1: 1 56. CP 31.3: 212 224. Watts, N. 1931 The speeches, With an English translation. Pr o T. Annio Milone -In L. Calpurnium Pisonem -Pro M. Aemilio Scauro -Pro M. Fonteio -Pro C. Rabirio Postumo -Pro M. Marcello -Pro Q. Ligario -Pro rege Deiotar o London: Loeb Classical Library. Weinstock, S. 1971. Divus Julius Oxford. Whitby, M. (ed.) 1998. The Propaganda of Power: The Role of Panegyric in Late Antiquity Leiden Yonge, C.D. 1888. The Orations of Marcus Tullius Cicero. London: George Bell and Sons.


73 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Jayne Elizabeth Knight was born in Jacksonville, Florida in 1986. She graduated from Paxon School for Advanced Studies in 2004. She graduated cum laude from the University of Florida with a Bachelor of Arts in classical studies in 2008. Jayne earned a Master of Arts in classical studies from the University of Florida in 2010.