|UFDC Home||myUFDC Home | Help|
This item has the following downloads:
1 POST REDITUM By JAIME CLAYMORE A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOP HY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2011
2 2011 Jaime Claymore
3 FAMILIIS MEIS
4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS When I was a new Latin tea cher with very much to learn, I frequently called upo n a former professor for advice and inspiration. On one of those occasions, he mentioned to me a program in which I could further my studies while working as a teacher and raising my family. Intrigued by the opportunity and challenge, I entered the University of Florida to obtain my doctorate in Latin and Roman Studies. That was in 200 4 I owe much to Professor Hans Friedrich Otto Mueller. Semper mihi, Molinarius e ri s. Class after class, I never really thought I would finish; I struggled with the idea of a dissertation. It was out of my reach. Then, on an evening in the fall of 2006, I casually entered a post online for a course on the pro Caelio asserting that perhaps Caelius had Maximas gratias tibi ago Professor Lewis A. Sussman. As I reflect on the important moments of my learning career, I cannot help think about the impact that my teachers had on me outside the classroom. I too, hope to have the same kind of impression o n my students over the next thirty years. More powerful than the lessons embedded in the PhD process has been the lesson in pedagogy: one look, one word, one smile can change a life. I would not have achieved anything without the guidance and encour ag ement of all of my teachers. Along with the distinguished gentlemen above, I would like to thank the members of my committee, Professors Tim othy S. Johnson, Jennifer A. Rea, and Robert A. Hatch. I cannot leave out Professor Velvet L. Yates, whose helping hand spanned great distances of space and time.
5 Another outstan ding teacher friend has been and still is Dr. Robert Patrick who worked through this program with me. We met in Ancient Greece, crossed paths in Lawrenceville, journeyed to Rome and Naples and supported each other through the challenges of simultaneous student, teacher, and parent hood. He is the most selfless, non judgmental man I have ever met, and he has always taken the time to calm me down. Although h e finished the PhD race first, h e still made time to offer his advice and wisdom. As my colleague, there are few I trust more. There are many other people who helped make this a reality for me. I received funding from the American Classical League, Georgia Classical Association, and Na tional Endowment for the Humanities, which helped make this a possibility, even for a mom like me. Also for my colleagues, friends, and babysitters who each provided patience, assistance, and understanding, there are no t enough words of appreciation. I must mention Jim Van Every, who always listened carefully to the boring parts ; the Madsen Family, and especially my mother, Nancy Jo who turned Summer Institutes into summer camps for my children ; the Claymore Family, for their neverending love and enco uragement ; B everly K Oatman, for being my lifelong fr iend; Theresa Louella Walsh Scyoc for the much needed breaks; Alejandra Palacio, fo r the time to write and relax; the Ryals Family, for their devotion to my very young family; and my Mountain View f ami ly, who gave me a stable and energetic working environment in which I could create. Without their strength and kindness none of this could have happened. Above all, I give my love and gratitude to my own family. To my children, Sophia Rene and Connor Ja mes and to my favorite Seminole, my beloved husband, Carl I owe everything e i s hoc op us dedico
6 TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 4 ABSTRACT ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 7 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 9 2 DE CICERONE ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 19 3 REASSERTION: IN VATINIUM ................................ ................................ .............. 35 4 REDEMPTION: PRO SESTIO ................................ ................................ ................ 68 5 RESTORATION: PRO CAELIO ................................ ................................ ............ 103 6 RETRIB UTION: DE CLODIO ................................ ................................ ................ 136 7 CONCLUSION ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 162 APPENDIX A SUMMATION OF THE CLODIA/LESBIA DEBATE ................................ ............... 167 B ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 170 LIST OF REFERENCES ................................ ................................ ............................. 177 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ................................ ................................ .......................... 189
7 Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy POST REDITUM By Jaime Claymore May 2011 Chair: Lewis Sussman Major: Classical Studies The title of this Post Reditum investigat e structing characters in select defense speeches while attempting to build his own reputation post exile. Through a careful reading of In Vatinium p ro Sestio and p ro Caelio I show how Cicero uses character portraits not only for the speech at hand but also as a means of self promotion. Th is work is divided into five chapters, with an int roduction and a conclusion. The introduction deals with Roman oratorical practice, the lifetime discuss the nuances of courtroom o rator y a s well as the circumstances influencing Roman judicial decisions. In Chapter 2, I T he major events of his career are treated here in conjunction with accounts from his own letters An essential part of thi s chapter is political environment upon his return, and his state of mind as he re entered the Forum with his own letters as evidence
8 In Chapters 3, 4, and 5, I examine three s forensic speeches of early 56. In Chapter 3 I discuss the In Vatinium the first extant forensic speech given b y Cicero following his return. In this invective Cicero attempts to disqualify Vatinius as a witness and further damage his position in Ro me Cicero uses this cleverly contrived negative character construction to reassert his own political position in Rome by In Chapter 4 my focus is pro Sestio In h is final speech o f not only defends Sestius, but also creates a defense on behalf o f his own past actions so that he c an redeem himself in the eyes of Rome. Then, in Chapter 5, I discuss the pro Caelio Cicero develop s a variety of character constr uctions as he defen ds Caelius In this highly entertaining speech, Cicero also produce s a strikingly negative characterization of Clodia Metelli. But also, w ith the pro Caelio Cicero intends to restore himself to oratorical prominence. In Chapter 6, I e xamine Publius Clodi us in the aforementioned speeches. Although he did not defend or prosecute Clodius during his phenomenon. Their relationship playe d an important part of late Republic an politics In the conclusion, I draw upon the details from each oration discussed throughout the dissertation to demonstrate how Cicero used his characterizations of others and himself to rebuild his reputation. In an immediate sense, successful but ultimately the triumvirate prevailed, and Cicero had to knuckle under to it.
9 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Habitavi in oculis, pressi forum; neminem a congressu meo neque ianitor meus neque somnus absterrui t...itaque si quam habeo laudem, quae quanta sit nescio, parta Romae est, quaesita in foro; meaque privata consilia publici quoque casus comprobaverunt, ut etiam summa res publica mihi domi fuerit gerenda et urbs in urbe servanda Cicero, p ro Planco 66 1 Marcus Tullius Cicero left Rome in spring of 58 following abusive threats (and legislation) by his long time enemy, Publius Clodiu s Pulcher. 2 The day after his departure, a law was promulgated which exiled him from Rome by name and also stripped away his home. Alone and seemingly helpless, Cicero s a nk into a deep state of depression. His correspondence reveals that he even contemplated suicide. The one time consul had fallen from his former glory and had been forced to leave his beloved Rome. 3 For over a year, Cicero suffered from afar while writing numerous letters and pleading his case His selfish entreaties aimed at only one goal: to return to Rome. 4 With a change in political power, at last Cicero achieved his goal, strolling into Rome in grand s tyle at the end of the summer in 57 Nevertheless, when Cicero once again took 1 All translations in this work are taken from the Loeb Classical Series unless otherwise noted. Chapter 1 I lived in the public eye, I frequented the Forum; neither my doorkeeper nor sleep prevented anyone from having audience of me. In this way, any reputation I possess, and for all I know it is but small, has been won at Rome and earne d in the Forum; my private plans have been justified by public events, so that in my home I have had to direct even the vital issue of state policy, and in the city the city has had to be preserved. 2 All dates BC. 3 For an excellent account of this per iod, see Shackleton Bailey (1971) and, more recently, Powell and Paterson, eds. (2004). 4 affairs rather than that of his family, perhaps rightfully so. Evidence of this is the amount of self reference in the letters rather than familial inquiry. In addition, there are only four extant letters from Cicero in exile to his wife, Terentia (whereas there are three times as many to Atticus).
10 residence in his beloved city, he did not automatically regain his former prominence as he had hoped There was an air of uncertainty in the political arena and, in order to achieve a fully satisfactory return, there was still much work to do From September 57 to May 56, Cicero launched a campaign on his own behalf in order to regain his previous status. While the evidence from this period is abundant, there are only a fe w examples of his normally copious daily letters from this particular time period Rather, antiquity has given us three deliberative speeches delivered within the first month of his return as well as three forensic speeches, delivered in the spring of 56. 5 In this study, I intend to examine the different methods used by Cicero in his post exile speeches to reinstate his formerly influential position in Roman politics. Much has been written about the manner in which Cicero asserts his political opinions i n his speeches, yet I concentrate on the ways in which Cicero uses his post reditum oratory to test the political climate and then regain lost ground. However, the extant forensic speeches from 56, the pro Sestio pro Caelio and in Vatinium do not follow conventional practices of oratory. 6 Instead, Cicero creates speeches which are focused on the characters involved in Roman politics at this time, and above all, himself 7 It is through his ability to paint pictures of others tha t we can 5 In 57, Cicero delivered P ost reditum ad senatum P ost reditum ad quirites and D e domo sua In 56, we have In Vatinium and the pro Sestio both delivered in March, and the pro Caelio delivered in April. 6 The foci of this dissertation are the circumstances surrounding De provincii s consularibus delivered in the Senate years later probably in May 56, with which Cicero supports t he programs and policies of Caesar. Cicero himself reports on his recantation. cf. Fam 1.9.; Q.fr. 2.6. 7 maintains his own auctoritas See also Paterson (2004) 79
11 see glimpses of Cicero or at least how he intended others to see him. I examine complete restoration after his return from exile. By drawing on details from each speech, including rhetorical figures, literary devices, word play, and placement, I demonstrate how Cicero used his characterizations of others (and himself) to rebuild his reputation. Following a brief treatment of in Chapter 2 I address each f orensic speech of 56 in chronological order. First, in Chapter 3, in his speech against Vatinius, a witness for the prosecution against Sestius, Cicero attacks the politics of Caesar in order to reassert his own position in Roman politics. He attempts to take advantage of an assumed weakness in the alliance between Pompey and Caesar, as politicians, especially those who do not work on behalf of the State, should not be trusted. In Chapter 4, I examine the concluding speech in the case for Sestius. Cicero seizes this oppor tunity to retell the stories about his last days in Rome prior to his exile, the crimes committed by the unchecked consuls during his absence, and the overtures made by his family and friends to secure his return. Throughout his narrative, which focuses l ittle on Sestius, Cicero rewards his own past and present allies with character praise while waging a war of words against those who harmed the Republic and who continue to threaten it. With his intentional digressions, Cicero seeks to redeem himself refe
12 and his past actions in the eyes of the jurymen and all of Rome. As one of the only true protectors of the State at least in his own eyes ideal statesman, himself. In April of 56, Cicero defended another young figu re (he was a knoght) from his past, Marcus Caelius Rufus. In his speech for Caelius, however, Cicero spends little time building a defense. Rather, he creates two character types, that of adulescens and mulier of these character izations His speech leads the jury through an en tertaining account of the life and times of one of Cicero, notorious) Roman matron, the sister of hi s hated enemy, Clodius. The techniques and strategies that Cicero employs in this speech speak to his mastery of oratory and his ability to manipulate the jury for his own purposes. With this speech, Cicero means to restore his oratorical reputation by m eans of humorous invective at the expense of Clodia Metelli. Woven among his speeches following his return from exile, Cicero continuously disparages the character, deeds, and family of Clodius. In Chapter 6, I discuss the relationship between Cicero a nd Clodius. While the focus of this exposition is the manner in which Cicero deals with Clodius in his post reditum speeches, I also treat the invective, Cicero seeks ret ribution for the numerous crimes that Clodius committed both against the State and Cicero himself. In order to understand how Cicero could have used his speeches to achieve personal and political reinstatement, it is necessary to discuss the Roman judic ial
13 culture, which differs substantially from modern ideals and practice. I begin with the politically charged time when Sulla became dictator because that is when Cicero entered the Forum. As self appointed dictator of Rome in the late 80s following a b rief civil struggle between himself and Gaius Marius, Sulla immediately began his own reforms to Roman law, restoring more conservative policies. During this time, Roman oratory was conventionally divided into three forms: deliberative, epideictic, and ju dicial. Deliberative oratory consisted of speech es concerning public policy. These speeches were delivered at contiones for purposes of election of magistrates, ratification or rejection of laws, or hearing judicial a for military reasons. 8 Although the original meaning of the word contio term contio also came to apply to any speech given at a meeting outside of the Senate, and are often so designated in the Ciceronian corpus. 9 Formal deliberative oratory in the Senate compose d in accordance with the rules of rhetoric was prevalent during the time following the third Punic War when Greek teachers of rhetoric heavily influenced their Roman students. However, many deliberative speeches were given o utside the Curia in the Forum where orators had a much larger audience. Public opinion was important, and this was also a way of influencing legislation in the popular assemblies. 10 Late second century speakers such 8 Kennedy (1972) 18. Kennedy for any scholarship on Roman oratory. 9 Ci de Domo Sua is an example of a deliberative speech. 10 determined not only events in and around the Forum but also his future. He said, Nihil est in certius volgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fa llacius ratione tota comitiorum ( Mur. 36) uncertain than the mob, nothing more obscure than the will of the people, nothing more deceptive that the
14 as Licinius Crassus and the Gracchi brot hers made brilliant use of the Forum as a venue for their deliberative oratory. Epideictic oratory or demonstrative oratory was not common in Rome. Its origin lies with the Greeks who would publicly mourn the loss of Greek soldiers at annual events as mem bers of the state first rather than the family. The closest form of epideictic oratory in Rome is the laudatio funebris or funerary eulogy, in which speakers described the virtues of the deceased. Because the literary tradition of these speeches did not value them as works of art, few have survived. 11 Criminal courts had long been established by the time Cicero comes to the stage, but the administration of the most important courts, especially the quae stio de pecuniis repetundis or extortion court, furnished [provincial] governors and the knights, the financial class of citizens among whom belonged the members of co 12 There were other quaestiones divided according the major crimes in the late Republic. Juries for these courts were made up of citizens from different classes chosen to serve from a panel at the beginning of the year. prominence. As a life persuasive influence accompanied his unique command of the art. Cicero himself tel ls us the speeches as a gauge for the next speech. 11 As Lintott (2004) 61 summarizes 12 Kennedy (1972) 12.
15 purpose of forensic speech: quod saepe iam dixi, tribus rebus homines ad nostram said already, we bring people over to our point of view in three ways, either by i 13 His long honed oratorical expertise combined with the nature of the Roman court system provided Cicero with a stage on which to reposition himself following his exile. In fact, in any case Cicero tells us in his de Oratore : Valet igitur multum ad vincendum probari mores et instituta et facta et vitam eorum, qui agent causas, et eorum, pro quibus, et item improbari adversariorum, animosque eorum, apud quos agetur, conciliari quam maxime ad benevolentiam cum erga oratorem tum erga illum, pro quo dicet orator. Conciliantur autem animi dignitate hominis, rebus gestis, existimatione vitae ( de Orat 2. 182) The character, the customs the deeds, and the life, both of those who do the pleading and those on whose behalf they plead, make a very important contribution to a winning case. These should be approved of, and the corresponding elements in the opponents should meet with disappro val, and the minds of the audience should, as much as possible, be won over to reputation he has acquired by h is way of life. 14 ne of the key features of a speech in a Roman courtroom auctoritas on the proceedings. So it was acceptable to talk about oneself when approp 15 Advocacy was usually han dled by educated, influential, and wealthy Romans who were often politically ambitious. Consequently advocates would use these courtroom opportunities to enhance their 13 de O rat 2. 310. Translation by May and Wisse (2001) 64. 14 Translation by May and Wisse (2001) 171. 15 Paterson (2004) 82. See also n. 4.
16 p restige Advocacy was embedded in the Roman social system as part of the patron client relationship. Personal and political ties, which we see in each of the speeches of 56, were established long before the courtroom event. Therefore, the advocate himself, reputatio n was an essential part of the case. The juries would consider the character of advocates and their clients in their decisions because with each case, the jury was able to make a decision about legal fate. 16 This practice differs substantially from modern courtrooms in Englis h and American jurisprudence where character evidence is not normally permitted in order to prove guilt or innocence. 17 That is because modern judicial practices revolve around the burden of proof through means other than character evaluations, which are n ot based on fact. 18 Roman advocacy relied heavily upon character construction due to the patron client relationship. Therefore, strong character constructions could be considered by ancient juries to be strong ev idence or even proof of guilt or innocence. 16 Riggsby (1997) 235 reputations, making. Other scholars touch upon the various ways that Cicero is able to persuade his juries to vote in his favor: Craig (1993) shows how Cicero used dilemma to feign the complexity of h is case for Caelius while simultaneously entertaining the jury Zetzel (1994) claims that juries voted for Cicero because they were amazed by his audacity. Even the ancient scholar Quintilian reveals that Cicero fooled juries. ( Inst II. 17. 21) 17 It is, h Riggsby (2004) 178 179. Using the law books of his own state Texas, Riggsby compares modern court rules for the submission of character evidence. It may surprise the average s tudent of courtroom television dramas to realize the extent to which character evidence, at least in Texas, is allowed and even welcome. Key to this explanation is the sum mary so), 18 For an excellent rendering of this argument, see Riggsby (2004) 176 180. Riggsby explains how Roman juries would have believed that character determines action, would have been oblivious to any need to have proof for acquit could turn a jury one way or another.
17 As a result, Cicero filled his speeches post reditum with either praise for his own against the State. He knew that creating such character evidence could rebuild his reputation, since Romans conventionally believed that character was immutable and fixed from birth. 19 But for Cicero to achieve his goal of creating character evidence by means of his forensic oratory, he knew that he had to be able to appeal to the emotions of his audiences. Her e, we must pause to consider the concepts of ethos and pathos 20 These two concepts, combined with logos or ratio nal argument, made up the three methods with which an audience may be persuaded. 21 throughout his career and he tells us in his d e Oratore about how a speaker may appeal to an audience. Sed est quaedam in his duobus generibus, quorum alterum lene, alterum vehemens esse volumus, difficilis ad distinguendum similitudo; nam et ex illa lenitate, qua conciliamur eis, qui audiunt, ad hanc vim acerrimam, qua eosdem excitamus, influat oportet aliquid, et ex hac vi non numquam animi aliquid inflandum est illi lenitati; neque est ulla temperatior oratio quam illa, 19 De. Off 1. 107 114; Inv 2. 32. For the importan ce of character or ethos in Roman oratory, see Kennedy (41 42, 57, 100 102). Most authors agree the Romans believed character to be fixed and events to be evidence of character. See also Hands (1974) 313, who uses writings of Tacitus to discuss the issue 11, 16, 22, 75, 163, who provides general discussion in relation to the orator and rhetoric. Riggsby (2004) 165 185 shows how the Roman interpretation of character immutability has been used in rhe toric as an element of argument. 20 Wisse (1989) 4. 21 These definitions are the common link between Cicero ( de Oratore ) and Aristotle ( Rhetorica ) as the three parts of invention, one of the duties of an orator. For full explanation of the concepts as well as the Aristotilian versus Ciceronian, see Wisse (1989), whose work on Ethos and Pathos redefines ethos at least for Cicero and other Roman orators. Wisse finds that Cicero was more interested in an ethos heory of Aristotle, in which the speaker persuades the listener to think him trustworthy, and that of Quintilian, in which the speaker attempts to gain full sympathies of listeners (by leniores affectus difference between t hese t wo theories is the appearance of the advocate between Greek and Roman oratory
18 in qua asperitas contentionis oratoris ipsius humanitate conditur, remissio autem lenitatis quadam gravitate et contentione firmatur ( de. Orat. 2.212) But ther e is a certain resemblance in these two kinds (one of which we have to be gentle, the other vehement) that makes it difficult to distinguish them. For something of that lenity with which we conciliate the affections of the audience ought to mingle with th e ardor with which we awaken their passions; and something of this ardor needs to communicate with our gentleness of language; nor is there any species of eloquence better tempered than that in which the asperity of contention of the orator is mitigated by his humanity, or in which the relaxed tone of lenity is sustained by a becoming gravity and energy. 22 23 Cicero understood that the three ways to persuade an audience included rational, reliable arguments dependent upon, but not limited to, emotion. Therefore, Cicero constructed his forensic post reditum speeches with a deliberate combination of emotional and reasonable arguments filled with ta ilored character depictions of self and others in order to win over his audiences. It is in this way that Cicero knew he could win his cases, and this reposition himself in Roman politics. 22 Translation by May and Wisse (2001) 180. 23 Wisse (1989) 239.
19 CHAPTER 2 DE CICERONE Speremus quae volu mus, sed quod accideri t feramus. Cicero, p ro Sestio 68 1 Si scelestum est amare patriam, pertuli paenarum satis. Cicero, p ro Sestio 145 In suo anno Cicero attained the highest office in the Roman cursus honorum the consulship. 2 The difficulties, however, that he endured toward the end of that year, 63, caused Cicero great turmoil for the rest of his life. 3 On the day of his departure from the office, he was even denied the traditional speech delivered on this occasion. 4 Despite praise from many, Cicero had to spen d a g reat deal of time defending his actions. 5 In a letter to Pompey in April of 62, Cicero wrote, S ed scito ea quae nos pro salute patriae gessimus orbis terrae iudicio ac testimonio comprobari; quae, cum veneris, tanto consilio tantaque animi magnitudine a m e gesta esse cognosces ut tibi multo maiori quam 1 The first quote of the epigraph is drawn from the p ro S estio endur pro S estio 2 Cicero reached the consulship as a novus homo and in the first year he was eligible. He was the first man of his fa nobilitas and the Senate straight to the consulship See also Scullard (1964) 1 25, Wiseman (1971) 100 107, and Gelzer (1969) 50 53 for more info rmation about the novus homo. As a novus homo 3 Cicero discovered and stifled a conspiracy to overthrow the Republic by Lucius Sergius Catiline. Five of senatorial conspirators were subsequently put to death without a trial upon the recommend ation of the Senate (although there were dissenters, primarily Caesar). Sources for the Catilinarian conspiracy: Cic. Cat 1 4 and Sal. Cat 4 A beuntem magistratu contionis habendae potestate privavit Fam 5.1 2. Q. Metellus Nepos had demonstrated hosti lity to Cicero since assuming the office of Tribune in December 63. He deprived Cicero of the power to address the assembly at the end of his term. 5 A public Thanksgiving had been declared by the Senate
20 Africanus fuit a me non multo minorem quam Laelium facile et in re publica et in amicitia adiunctum esse patiare ( Fam 5.7) But I must tell you that what I have done for the safety of the country stands app roved in the judgment and testimony of the whole world. When you return, you will find that I have acted with a measure of policy and a lack of self regard which will make you well content to have me as your political ally and private friend a no much les ser Laelius to a far greater Africanus. From across the Mediterranean, Cicero was trying to appeal to the sensibilities of Pompey, whose favor and friendship Cicero needed in order to maintain at least some vestige of his former prestige. 6 rs to his lifelong friend Titus Pomponius Atticus in 61 provide a detailed running account of his actions throughout that year. By the date of the first 7 Cicero then sends regular updates t o Atticus regarding his relationship with Pompey as though it were of vital importance. At times, Cicero reports that Pompey is jealous of his oratorical skills ( Att 1. 13. 4) and consular successes ( Att 1. 14. 3), as he reintegrates himself into Roman life as a distinguished ex consul. All the while, Cicero maintains to Atticus that he is busy, almost too busy with public matters to write. One of the most significant events of 61 was the trial of P. Clodius Pulcher, who ome during a religious festival reserved for women. Following this trial, where Cicero had provided evidence trumped by later bribery, Cicero seems to be at a peak of self confidence, for his letters describing the events of the trial boast of his persona l initiative in the Senate. Yet his own health serves as a contrast to that of the Republic. 6 Pompey spent many years in the 60s in the East from Anatolia to Judea. His task was to bring the region under control. 7 Pompeium nobis amicissimum constat esse. Att 1.12.
21 Along with the full accou nt of the trial contained in his letter s we also see the first emains a steadfast and resolute member of the Roman political establishment. His actions following the trial deprived Clodius, who had been a cq uitted due to the lavish bribes of M. Crassus, of his quaestorship in Syria alongside P. Piso. 8 Cicero continue d his efforts to rebuild senatorial morale, warning the Senate in May 61 about the character of Clodius, who had viciously attacked Cicero. The exchange between the two men ended in a sullen, silent and dangerous Clodius ( Att 1. 16. 7) Following this a ccount, Cicero explains his position to Atticus, realizing that the trial may have redirected the anger against Cicero for his consular decisions over to Clodius and those who worked with him (or on his behalf) in obtaining his acquittal 9 He also now bel ieves that he has finally obtained and friend and ally in Pompey. Their relationship has yielded positive results for Cicero with the Roman public while irritating the barbatuli iuvenes ( Att 1. 16. 8 ) 10 changed decidedly for the worse. nos hic in re publica infirma, misera commutabilique versamur Att 1. 17. 8 ) With 8 Att 1.16.8. Pisonem consulem nulla in re consistere umquam sum passus, desponsam homin i iam Syriam ademi; senatum ad pristinam suam severitatem revocavi atque abiectum excitavi; Clodium drove Consul Piso from pillar to post, and deprived him of Syria, which had already been pledged to him. I recalled the Senate to its earlier strict temper and roused it from despondency. Clodius I quashed face to 9 Att 1.16.11. videri nostrum testimonium non valuisse, missus est sanguis invidiae sine dolore, me no harm that my evidence apparently failed to carry weight. My unpopularity has been reduced by a 10 Cicero often calls t he young men who associated with Catiline by various derogatory names. Here, bearded disrupt public order in Rome. Tatum (1999) 142ff discusses the Clodi ani in depth.
22 each letter to his friend, Cicero reported a new cal amity. He vigorously defended his role as healer during these unfortunate times but was resolved to the fact that res Romanas diutius stare non posse or as Sha c 11 Cicero also announces to Atticus that his work f or a harmony among the orders or concordia ordinum has failed ( Att 1. 16. 9 ) This was a fierce blow to Cicero as he had consistently tried to forge a union of the various classes of Rom e for the greater good, or for the health of the Republic. With thi s admission, Cicero himself has admitted f ailure. Still, he maintains letter writing therapy with Atticus both from Rome and other locations. 12 Each subsequent letter almost rewrites the last. The formula of his compositions to Atticus begins with a repor t on the state of affairs in Rome, how the Senate and the Knights do not work in tandem, how Clodius is actively seeking to be transferred to plebeian maintain his reputation. A t various times Cicero writes that he deems himself to be a valuable member of the Senate, yet he criticizes the inactivity of the boni because of their lack of action ( Att 1. 19. 6 ) Each letter does contain extraneous personal items or concerns for Att intentions for the immediate future: S ed mehercule rei publicae multo etiam utilior quam mihi, civium improborum impetus in me reprimi cum hominis amplissima fortuna, auctoritate gra tia fluctuantem sententiam confirmassem et a spe malorum ad mearum rerum laudem convertissem ( Att 1. 20. 2 ) 11 Sha c kleton Bailey (1999) 105. 12 Perhaps in Antium. Shackleton Bailey (1999). This translation gives Antium as a possible location for
23 I believe [ it ] far more advantageous to the State than to myself; namely, to check the onslaughts of rascally citizens upon myself by strengtheni ng the mind of one who stands preeminent in fortune, prestige, and influence, and turning him away from the hopes of wicked men to become an encomiast of my record. Cicero, of course, is referring to Pompey, with whom he claims he has built a working relat ionship. In these repetitive epistolary references, Cicero seems to believe that he is safe from the powerful men working for their own personal gain: Clodius, Caesar, and Crassus. Cicero is intent upon maintaining the Republic through his own self procl aimed selfless actions yet he does not fail to note the benefit he may receive in return. lmost immediately. The initial bill proved to be inadequate and therefore required a supplement later in the year. 13 Cicero tells Atticus that he believed Caesar expected his support of ornelius Balbus, who presented him with a proposal of sorts in which Caesar claimed to align of the proposal and promises Atticus that he will stick to his plan and fight for the Republic at all costs ( Att 3. 2. 3 ) So it seems that rather than publicly dispute Caesarian policies, Cicero retires to Antium once again. His letters reflect his happiness there: they are full of personal 13 Sha c first agrarian bill, which he put to the Senate early in his At t 2. 16. 1 2; 17.1, 18. 2; Q.fr. 2.1; Fam 1.9.8 10.
24 literary pursuits, including a work on geography ( Att 1. 19. 6 ) Yet, his letters are also filled with political concerns. 14 which he reported conversations with both Clodius and his sister, whom Cicero playfully calls or as Shackleton Bailey translates: Lady Ox Eyes ( Att 2. 9. 1 ) Cicero rants in his letter about how Clodius at last transferred to plebeian status with the help of Caesar and, of all people, Pompey ( Att 2. 9. 1 ) Cicero contemplates possible that Cicero is upset by the news, he remains hopeful: patria propitia sit. habet a nobis, etiam si non plus quam debitus est, plus certe quam postulatum est May the cou ntry be with me! I have given her, if no more than was due, yet more at any rate than was demanded Att 2. 9. 3 ) Cicero returned to Rome sometime in May 59. His despair in the first letter to ed control over the Roman government. While Cicero readily reports this to Atticus, he decides again to remain silent publicly. Cicero also informs Atticus that Caesar offered him a commissionership on his staff. His refusal to accept the role fits with the past six months of decisions in which Cicero chose to passively resist Caesar and his actions. Cicero explains in his next letter some of the reasons for his decisions. E go autem ne irasci possum quidem iis quos valde amo; tantum doleo ac mirifice qu idem peace and quiet as much as is now rotting out fiber than to fight with the rosiest 14 Att 2. 5. 2; 2. 6. 2; 2. 7. 2 4.
25 prospect of success Att 2. 14. 1 ) Yet according to Cicero, few in Rome share hi s sentiments. Pompey is the object of hissing at public venues. Caesar receives the same sort of treatment. Cicero seems to patiently observe this situation, although he admits that he may not be able to maintain his silence for much longer. The timin power but he seems genuinely worried in July 59 as Clodius began to openly threaten him. He repeats his V ideor mihi nostrum illum consularem exercitum bonorum omnium, etiam satis bonorum, habere firmissimum. Pompeius significat studium erga me non mediocre. idem adfirmat verbum de me illum non esse facturum; in q uo non me ille fallit; sed ipse fallitur ( Att 2. 19. 4 ) I think I have very firm backing in my old consular army of all honest 15 men, including the moderately honest. Pompey signifies good will towards me out of the ordinary. He also assures me that Clo dius will not say a word about me, wherein he does not deceive me but is himself deceived. and his curious place between Caesar and Clodius. Cicero does not want to join t he forces which work against the constitution nor does he wish to see the state in ruins. He continues: Caesar me sibi vult esse legatum. honestior haec declinatio periculi, sed ego hoc non repudio. quid ergo sit? p ugnare malo. nihil tamen certi ar wants to have me on his staff. That would be more respectable evasion of the danger, which however I do not decline. It comes to this, I would rather fight. But my mind is not 15 boni Throughout his Loeb editions, he uses boni honorable Optima tes were a group of conservative, mostly Loeb edition of the pro Sestio
26 Cicero is obviously scared of the unknown. He feels that all h ope is lost, especially without his friend, Atticus, whom he begs to return to Rome. From this point in his letters, a new program of self persuasion emerges. 16 Each letter contains news about Clodius, who is constantly threatening, about Pompey, who is c onsistently reassuring, and about the political situation as a whole, which would be better if the boni would do something. In each letter, Cicero urgently requests that Atticus hurry home. ff in the late summer or early fall of 59, after he writes, sed prorsus vitae taedet; ita sunt omnia omnium miserarum plenissima wherever you look Att 2. 25. 1 ) The next letter to At ticus is written en route to his exile ( Att 3. 1 ) Why did Cicero, the savior of the Republic, become an exile? Why had Clodius must look at his career. As a novus homo Cicero stood on the edge of Roman politics despite his brief, triumphant consular year. Most known for his oratorical brilliance, Marcus Tullius Cicero hailed from the same Italian town as the general Gaius Marius, Arpinum. His well to do equestrian fat her had brought both him and his brother, Quintus, to Rome for the customary studies in literature, rhetoric, and philosophy at a young age. While in Rome, Cicero focused his studies on the Greek classics. Because he was able to observe and listen to gre at speakers in the Forum such as Antonius and ( Brut 305 ) 16 Att 2.19 22, 23 excludes mention of Clodius, 24 includes the Vettius affair, 25 focuses on the State itself.
27 Born the same year as Cn. Pompeius, 106, Cicero served during the Social Wars become Pompey the Gr eat, but was not himself suited for military activities. Due to the internal strife which followed, including a series of proscriptions, Cicero started his career in the courts rather late. His first forensic attempts were minor and unknown to us. It w as during this time that the d ictator Sulla conducted his pr oscriptions. An unfortunate case of At the behest of the Cicero def ended Sextus Roscius from Ameri a, who had been speech was a masterpiece, and with the win, Cicero was on his way to oratorical greatness. After only a few years of advocacy however, Cicero decided to journey to the East so that he could improve his mind and body, for his health had been poor. During this voyage, Cicero renewed his study of rhetoric and philosophy under various masters in the East. He practiced rhetoric every day; and he was fortunate to have studied additionally under Apollonius Molo of Rhodes ( Brut 307 ) At the close of two years abroad Cicero returned to Rome refreshed in his theory and practice, ready to continue his career in the Forum. 17 Cicero entered the cursus honorum in 75 BC when he was elected to his first admini strative role as quaestor and assigned to 17 xcerpts from his orations or philosophical treatises.
28 western Sicily. The most important lesson from his time as quaestor was the importance of being in Rome not in the provinces In fact many years later, in correspondence to a young friend, he wrote, Urbem, urb em, mi Rufe, cole et in ista luce vive Rome! Stick to Rome, my dear ( Fam 2. 12. 2 ) True, it was not until after his quaes torship in Sicily that Cicero became well known. Upon the request of the Sicilians, he prosecuted Gaius Verres, a corrupt governor there and a well prosecution, and simultaneous defeat of Hortensius the leading orator of the day, brought the new man into prominence. Because he entered each office in suo anno Cicero enjoyed increasing power and influence in the Roman political arena. Along the way, he mostly served as a defense advocate, making mo ney and a name for himself in his trials. Cicero reached the consulship in 63, defeating Catiline, who subsequently raised an armed force with the intention of attacking Rome herself. As Cicero tells it, he was able to learn about the impending insurrecti on and warn the Senate and People about Catiline. His actions saved Rome but in turn led to even greater controversy. Although Catiline himself had escaped from Rome some of his more prominent senatorial conspirators were apprehended in the city and, up on recommendation by Cicero and the concurrence of the Senate, were put to death immediately. 18 This action would 18 Caesar opposed the execution of the conspirators. Sal. Cat 49 52.
29 Yet Cicero chose, at least following his consulship, to focus on the positive: his preservation of the Roman Republic. This proved to be a difficult task considering the political environment. Pompey had just been informed that Cicero and his allies had been able to thwart the Catilinarians without his assistance, which hurt his pride and may have spoiled his own plans for a glorious return to Rome from Pontus. 19 At the end of 62, the young patrician, Publius Clodius Pulcher, had dared to enter the home of the Pontifex Maximus C. Julius Caesar during a sacred festival to the Bona Dea, from which men were excluded In the business world, there was a struggle between the knights led by Marcus Crassus, a wealthy consular general and the Optimates a group of conservative senators who blocked reform le gislation. The political and economic climate was rather challenging therefore Cicero turned his attention to his literary pursuits. (and shortsightedly) snubbed the req uests of Pompey, Caesar, and Crassus, actions which led to the formation of the coalition among these men known generally to history 20 The three men entered into a coalition in order to achieve their 19 Fam 5.7.3. Cicero makes overtures to Pompey in order to gain his political and personal friendship. Although many modern schola rs comment on the relationship between Cicero and Pompey, it is not the focus here. Cicero mentions Pompey often in his letters, especially prior to his exile. 20 May (1996) 10. For more information and discussion about the first triumvirate, see Sanders ( 1932), who seeks to prove that Cicero never knew about the secret coalition, using his letters from exile as to his return from the East. Gruen (1966) discusses o win him over. Gruen (1974) revisits the subject, surveying 78 49 using o understanding events. Ward (1977) carefully assesses major events in 59 which led to the development of the first triumvirate, questioning t
30 own personal and political go in to this alliance, but he was unable to persuade him ( Att 2. 18. 3 ) Following much negotiating and bribery, Caesar became consul in 59. With the background support of Crassus and Pompey, and an ineffective co consul, Bibulus, Caesar began to wield his power, with increasing disregard for Republic sensibilities ( Att 2. 18. 1 ) s methods during the trial of his consular colleague, C. Antonius Hybrida. 21 Almost immediately after his trial speech, Caesar allowed Clodius to become a plebeian by the passing of the lex curiata 22 Because Cicero had withdrawn from Rome after the trial with the tells Atticus (and himself) that he wishes to avoid such matters ( Att 2. 6. 2 ) Cicero is very suspicious of the consul, his coalition and their treatment of Clodius, having been informed of the events in Rome by Atticus ( Att 2. 7. 3 ) for information on which Cicero regularly comments, revealing his level of concern for llowing the marriage alliance of Caesar and Pompey, Cicero returns to Rome ( Att 2. 18 19 ) He laments over the new political situation in 21 Hybrida was ac cused of mismanaging his province as well as conspiring with Catiline in 63. 22 Dom 41, Prov Cons 42; Suet. Iul 20.4. Clodius had been trying to become a plebeian for quite some s ince he wished to hold the tribunate, an office reserved for this class See Tatum (1999) 87 108 Dom 34 42; Sest 15 16; Prov Cons 45 46; A pp. B. Civ 2. 14; Plut. Caes 14. 9; Dio 38. 12.1 2, 39. 21. 4. Also, Cic. Att 2.7.2, 2.12.1, 8.3.3; Dom 77; Leg 3.9.21. Recent two factions w orked together at times, see esp. Gruen (1966) 120 130 and Lintott (1967) 157 169. For 531.
31 the city ( Att 2. 19. 1 ) Helpless to make a difference, Cicero attempts to form an alliance with Pompey in order to counter the now endless threats from Clodius. As his first act as tribune of the plebs in 58, Clodius enacted a series of laws which proved to be very popular. 23 In order to counter this power play by Clodius, Cicero attempted to block this legislat ion with the help of another tribune, Ninnius. However, an apparent truce between Cicero and Clodius silenced Cicero for the time being. 24 the tacit approval of the tr iumvirs, Clodius dealt his crushing blow to Cicero, promulgating a law which directly attacked him. 25 On the same day, Cicero left Rome ( Sest 25 ) Cicero lived in exile from March 58 to September 57. 26 Campaigns for his recall began almost immediately up desperation and personal sadness were immense. His letters to Atticus clearly show his state of grief, depression, even contemplation of suicide, which he admitted no less 23 Dio 38.12.8. Cf. Plut. Cic ed to senators and common people. They were the Lex Clodia de collegiis; Lex Clodia frumentaria; Lex Clodia de agendo cum populo; and Lex Clodia de censoria natione See Tatum (1999) 114 135 for a full explanation of these laws and their significance in e arly 58. 24 Tatum attempts to sort through Cic a typical Roman politician. His work is well 25 Clodius introduced the Leges Clodia na e which threatened to exile anyone who had pu t Roman citizens to death without a trial. Cicero was clearly the intended target of the law since he had executed the Catilinarian conspirators four year earlier. Although Cicero argued that the senatus consultum ultimum had excused his actions, the pop ularity of Clodius and the lack of optimate support led to his exile. For 26 Att 3.1 Att 4.1.
32 than ten times. 27 Indeed 28 From the moment of his exile, though, Cicero was making efforts to insure his eventual return to Rome. His initial letters to Atticus, full of anguish, discuss his travels ( Att 3. 1 7 ) By the time he reaches Thessaloni ( Att 3. 1. 8 ) He began to appeal to his friends for help, yet the threatening political situation in Rome had escalated since his exit. Clodius, perhaps bored with his victory, had resorted to attacking Pompey. Furthermore, d de exilio Ciceronis which prohibited repeal or discussion of the matter allies of Cicero needed to wait until power over the city ended prior to affecting any hope for recall. 29 emotional state as the new consuls and tribunes came into office. The last he hears lf, renewing his state of utter anguish. 30 Certainly, as events in Rome unfolded, Cicero was anxious for real progress ( Att 3. 23 ) After this break, in our next correspondence from Cicero he tells Atticus about his return, describing his journey like a triumph in which he was praised and congratulated by every onlooker ( Att 4. 1. 1 ) One must examine carefully this initial report of victory account of his first day s back in Rome, he tells Atticus, alterius vitae quoddam initium 27 Red. Sen 17; Red. Quir 13; Sest 20, 42; Pis 11; Q.fr 1.3, 1.4, 1.12; Att 3.7.2; 3.9.2; 3.15.2; Fam 1.19.13. Cf. Att 3.3, 3.4, 3.7.2, 3.9.1, 3.19.1; Q.fr 1.3. 28 Att 3. valde paenitet vivere ; Att 3. ego vivo miserrimus et maximo dolore conficior 29 Sest 32. cf. Att 3.15.6. 30 Att 3.27. ex tuis litteris et ex re ipsa nos funditus perisse video.
33 ordimur iam quidam qui nos absentis defenderunt incipiunt praesentibus occulte irasci, aperte invidere. vehementer te requirimus Already now th at I am here, secret resentment and open jealousy are setting in among those who championed me when I was away Att 4.1.1 ) Needless to say, Cicero is cautious. Once back in Rome Cicero gave two speeches: Post reditum in senatu and Post reditum ad Qu irites Carefully measuring his words in the initial speeches of gratitude, Cicero is able to g auge the political climate. In his second letter upon his return, he writes, V erum iidem illi quos ne tu quidem ignoras qui mihi pinnas inciderant, nolunt eas dem renasci. sed ut spero iam renascuntur ( Att 4. 2 ) size. However, I hope they are growing already. Cice ro is aware of the forces against him and is resolved to take action in order to return to his deserved status in Rome. He elaborates on his plans for the next year, which include freeing his schedule from too many obligations so that he can reassert hims elf in the eyes of the people ( Att 4. 2. 6 ) In his next letter, when Cicero explains the violence to which he has been victim, he remains positive: nos animo dumtaxat vigemus, etiam magis quam cum florebamus pa lmy days Att 4. 3 ) 31 31 Att 4.2.7. amicorum benignitas exhausta est in ea re quae nihil habuit praeter dedecus, quod sensisti tu absens (nos) praesentes; quorum studiis ego et copiis, si esset per meos defensores licitum, facile essem omnia consecutus.
34 Cicero returns the favors of his friends, returning to oratory in order to reposition himself and hi s influence in Rome. In defending Sestius, Cicero has the opportunity to speech takes aims at Clodius, in every aspect of his existence. Following that victory, Cicero h as the chance to slander the Clodians again: Clodius as aedile and his sister, Clodia. His forensic career gave him the confidence to reach out to the Senate, calling acta The self assurance to do so came from his spee ches delivered post reditum in which he consistently provided justification for his campaign of reassertion, redemption, and restoration was complete.
35 CHAPTER 3 REA SSERTION: IN VATINIUM E go te quaecumque rogabo de te ipso rogabo, neque te ex amplissimi viri dignitate, sed ex tuis tenebris extraham; omniaque mea tela sic in te conicientur ut nemo per tuum latus, quod soles dicere, saucietur; in tuis pulmonibus ac visc eribus haerebunt Cicero In Vatinium 13 1 In the pro Sestio ( 96 143 ) Optimates 2 the cross examination of the witness Vati nius marked a shift p ublic attitude of Roman politic s. 3 P olitical events during the first half of 56 led Cicero to believe that the time was right to develop what he had called in a letter to Atticus dissensio 4 With the defense of Sestius Cicero gained the opportunity to deepen the rift between those forces which had contributed to his exile and those which had obtained 1 Whatever I ask you will be something about yourself. I shall drag you from your own proper obscurity, not from the dignified company of a great man. And all of my sha fts will be so aimed against you that no one else will be wounded as you are in the habit of saying, through your body; they will remain fixed in your lungs and vitals. 2 Gardner (1984) 199. 3 pro Sestio was the concluding speech of the tr ial ; cf. Gardner (1984) 34. During his consulship, Cicero worked for a concordia ordinum or harmony of orders. Unreachable, he shifted his focus to otium cum dignitate which has numerous and much debated interpretations, discussed at the conclusion of C hapter 3. For a sum of the various interpretations on this phrase, see Wirszubski (1954) 1 13. He concludes and the dignity of the best '. This is indeed what the traditional form of aristocratic republicanism normally produced at Rome, and Cicero believes that that form of government can be restored and preserved because there is at the time no real cause for difference between the people and the principes 4 Att 2.7.3. una spes est salutis istorum inter ipsos dissensio falling out among themselves. Smith (1966) does not regard Cicero's activity as designed to separate Pompey from Caesar so much as to discredit Caesar s actions and policies. See R ice Holmes (1923) 65 ; How (1926) 1 48; Dorey (1964) 3, whose work is an indispensible introduction to the rhetoric of Cicero; Stockton (1962) 471 who pr Ager Campanus ; and Smith (1964) 303 the next decade, for similar conclusions
36 his recall. 5 The new political atmosphere in Rome, charged due to the f ailure of the Senate to prosecute Clodius for h is violent activities had led Pompey to confide in Cicero about his troubles. Pompey had been attacked by Clodius on a number of occasions, yet at the beginning of February, 6 as Clodius prepared to bring Milo to trial on the charge d e vi ( quod gladiatore s adhibuisset ut rogationem posset de Cicerone perferre ), 7 C lodius had attacked Pompey perhaps at the behest of Crassus quite possibly his em ployer. 8 Only days later, the trial impending trial, he began to canvas for him even prior to its start. So prepared was he to defend Sestius that he spoke on his behalf in the trial immediately before (that of Bestia ) 9 Cicero calculated the reactions of the F orum throughout this time in 5 This rift, deeply embedded in the political landscape, may have presented itself in February 56 when his status from Caesar (and Pompey) in 59 but had lost t he trust of his own people following his imposition of numerous taxes in order to repay Caesar and Pompey for their assistance. Although Lentulus had received this commission, which had probably included some sort of proconsular imperium, ers campaigned on his behalf for the position. Fam 1.1, 1.2, 1.4; Q. fr 2.2.3. 6 February 7, 56. cf. Q.f r 2.3; Fam 1.5b. See also Marsh (1927) 35. 7 Sest 95; cf. Mil 40. Q. fr. 2.3. 8 his political biography of Crassus and however, fall short of flawless argumentation and the dealings with Cicero in each text are filled with conjecture, e Also Gruen (1966) 129 offers the revolutionary perspective that Clodius acted without the triumvirs. Crassus defended Sestius alongside Pompey and Cicero opposin g Clodius, whose role in the prosecution is controversial. For a summary of this argument, see Tatum (1999) 206f. 9 Q.f r 2.3.6 7 A. d. III. Idus Febr. dixi pro Bestia de ambitu apud praetorem Cn. Domitium in foro medio maximo conventu incidique in eum lo cum in dicendo, cum Sestius multis in templo Castoris vulneribus acceptis subsidio Bestiae servatus esset. Hic quiddam de ii quae in Sestium apparabantur crimina, et eum ornavi veris laudibus magno assensu omnium: res homini fuit vehementer gratia. Quae tibi eo scribo quod me de retinenda Sestii g ratia litteris saepe monuisti. Pridie Idus Febr. haec scripsi before the praetor Cn. Domitius, in the middle of the forum and in a very crowded co urt; and in the course of my speech I came to the incident of Sestius, after receiving many wounds, in the temple of Castor, having been preserved by the aid of Bestia. Here I took occasion to pave the way beforehand for a
37 preparation for Sesti pro Sestio which actually deals very little with Sestius himself. Before Cicero had the opportunity to deliver his political manifesto, it was necessary to counter the evidence given by Vatinius. plea of the defense that Sestius had been driven to use force, the 10 The prosecution chief witness was Vatinius, well known to Cicero, having served under him at Puteoli ( S est 110 ) However, since that time, Vatinius had developed a connection to Caesar, whom he assisted as tribune in 59. Cicero seized t his opportunity to exact revenge upon the forces which worked against him at the time of his exile He later told his brothe r, Quintus, following the trial: Nam defendendo moroso homini cumulatissime satisfecimus et, id quod ille maxime cupiebat, Vatinium, a quo palam oppugnabatur, arbitratu nostro concidimus dis hominibusque plaudentibus ( Q. fr. 2. 4. 1) I n conductin g the defense [of Sestius], I cut up Vatinius, by whom he was being openly attacked, as I pleased with applause of gods and men Therefore, decision to defend Sestius gave him an opportunity to both attack Caesar through Vatinius further divide the triumvirate (through his assumed dissensio ) and reassert his presence in Roman politics. T 11 was the speech against Vatinius, which we have either as a political pamphlet only generally reflecting the actual tr ial speech or refutation of the charges which a re being got up against Sestius, and I passed a well deserved encomium upon him with the cordial approval of everybody. He was himself very much delighted with it. I tell you this because you have often advised me in your letters to retain the friendship o f Sestius. I am writing this on 10 Gardner (1984) 33. Cf. Sest 84. 11 In Vatinium is still the authority. See also Maslowski (1992) who has an updated text with c ommentary of the In Vatinium, also, MacKendrick (1995) for textual nuances, and Corbeill (1996) for brief treatment of In Vatinium.
38 as the published record of a part of the speech delivered. 12 The reason for the excitement is the fact that Cicero really spends very little time impugning the evidence presented by Vatinius. 13 Instead, Cicero assaults Vatinius surgically cu t ting through his character while simultaneously building his own position through positive character construction. As Cicero later wrote in a letter to Lentulus Spinther his longtime ally : I n omnibus meis sententiis de re publica pristinis permanebam. Ego sedente Cn. Pompeio, cum, ut laudaret P. Sestium, introisset in urbem dixissetque testis Vatinius me fortuna et felicitate C. Caesaris commotum illi amicum esse coepisse, dixi me eam M. Bibuli fortunam, quam ille afflictam putaret, omnium triumphis vic toriisque anteferre, dixique eodem teste alio loco eosdem esse, qui Bibulum exire domo prohibuissent, et qui me coegissent: tota vero interrogatio mea nihil habuit nisi reprehensionem illius tribunatus; in quo omnia dicta sunt libertate animoque maximo de vi, de auspiciis, de don atione regnorum ( Fam 1 9. 7 8 ) sentiments. When Pompey came into town to speak to character on behalf of P. Sestius and witness Vatinius said that I ha d made friends with C. 14 At another point in I said that the same people who had not allowed Bibulus to leave his home had forced me to leave mine. My whole cross Tribune. In it I spoke throughout with the greatest frankness and spi rit, 12 See Pocock (1967) 4 5 for the debate about the nature of the speech. The fact that it is the only record of an interrogat io This interrogatio reputatio n, was one of the few speeches delivered between his return from exile and May 56, when he withdrew from his fight against Caesar and the triumvirate. Stockton (1962) 471 89 discusses the importance of the ideas of In Vatinium as part of rhetoric so damaging to Caesar and likewise emboldening for Cicero, f or he challenged the Campanian land laws (in April 56), which then led to the conference at Luca. 13 Only the first three and the last two paragraphs actually deal with the case against Sestius and interrogatio so it is unclear if this approach was normal. In his refutation but counter o it. If this hard to believe that Vatinius would have opened himself up to such ridicule. 14 The comment here regarding Bibulus does not occur in the e xtant speech In Vatinium
39 dwelling on the use of violence, the auspices, and the grants of foreign kingdoms. 15 Indeed, Cicero spoke libertate animoque maximo de vi, de auspiciis, de donatione regnorum e of violence, the auspices, and the grants of foreign kingdoms Fam 1. 9. 7 ) B ut, to which man was he referring? 16 Bec ause the letter was written two years following the event, Cicero has retrospective calm. Therefore, he checks his anti Caesar attitude in the le tter so that he will not seem cowardly or inconsistent. Nevertheless, in the speech against Vatinius, Cicero directs his insults at Vatinius, specifically 17 It was necessary for Cicero to weaken Caesar by demonstrating that his actions, as well as those of Vatinius (and by comparison Clodius) threatened the health and stability of the Republic so that he could present himself and his ideas as the medicine. 18 H e had 15 This letter was written in December 54, over 2 years after the trial of Sestius. 16 Fam 1 .9.11 ; non putavi famam inconstantiae mihi pertimescendam, si quibusdam in sententiis paullum me immutassem meamque voluntatem ad summi vir i de meque optime merit i dignitatem aggregassem ( following the meeting at Luca ) Cicero is also explaining how he came to defend Vatinius in 54. 17 Pocock (1967) 6. 18 defining must be Cicero spends much of his time waging a war of words against Vatinius, demonstrating the evils of Clodius, Piso, and Gabinius, especially within the context of their political roles, defending his own pre exile actions, and finally, heralding his own (new) political age often intimately connected with the political struggles of the day, and the verdict was given on political p ro Sestio see May (1988) 90 105, who does not treat In Vatinium Rather, he mentions Vatinius as an enemy of Cicero and Sestius while discussing the Sest 96 143, the otium cum dignitate portion of the pro Sestio
40 hoped that the attacks would be excused as part of a forensic cr oss examination or interrogatio as part of his strategy to win over his audience 19 Yet, following his forensic victory Cicero maintained his anti Caesarian po sition as he made a proposal about the question of the Campanian land in the Senate. 20 This lan d bill, tied to Caesar because it was part of his consular legislation caused Caesar to close ranks and re establish the triumvirate, whi ch in turn led to Fam 1. 9 ) 21 Cicero himse lf understood best the ramifications of his speech against Vatinius and his following actions in his letter to Lentulus. 22 N um potui magis in arcem illius causae invadere aut magis oblivisci temporum meorum, meminisse actionum? Hac a me sententia dicta m agnus animorum motus est factus cum eorum, quorum oportuit, tum illorum etiam, quorum numquam putaram? hac a me sentential dicta magnus animorum motus est factus cum eorum quorum oportuit tum illorum etiam quorum numquam putarem ( Fam 1. 9. 8 ) 19 de Orat. 2. 310. Riggsby (1997) 247f i dentifies that direct attacks on an opponent increases the Clodius in the Senate as his evidence ( Att 1. 16. 10) For a discussion of the value of tr oratory, see Gotoff (1993) 288 313. 20 Riggsby (2002) 174 post reditum specifically within three contexts: in relationship to Clodius (and the triumvirate, Caesar alone, and in his relationship to Cicero. He asserts that throughout his mentioning of Cicero in the post reditum speeches (which include Har Resp .), Cicero was very careful not to offend the general but also may have been pressing him to Op. cit. Mitchell (1991) 189, 244. While I see Riggsby as quaint, I believe that the context of advocacy cannot be ignored, especially in this invective speech. Riggsby himself cites in his discussion of praise and blame in In Vatinium charge was an injury to the dignity of th 248. Therefore, as Vatinius on him. 21 cf. Att 4. 5.1: Holmes (1920) who seeks to identify the date and circumstances pp. 39 45; Tupet ( 1966) 238 253 22 Mitchell (1991) 174 176 discusses the importance of this letter to Lentulus in the interpretation of the ev ents following the speech.
41 Was that no t invading the innermost citadel of the ruling clique with a vengeance ? And could I have shown myself more oblivious to my past vicissitudes or mindful of my political record ? That speech of mine caused a sensation, not only where I had intended but in qu ite unexpected quarters campaign against those who had h armed his interests prior to his exile b egan with his speech against Vatinius. 23 From the start, Cicero does not hide his displeasure, stating in § 1 how much he hates Vatinius three times. 24 Continuing contradicted and perjured himself. While Cicero may seem at the outset to lack control of his emotions, perhaps intentionally, the organization in the speech indicates otherwise. to attack Vatinius ( and Caesar ) Proof of suc h is the frequency of the word tu which occurs 385 times and all refer to Vatinius. 25 This tactic also gives Cicero a chance to refer to himself in context with the words ego and me as a character in opposition to Vatinius. 26 The numerous ways that 23 In his speeches immediately upon his return, Cicero begins his campaign of restoration although the Both speeches consist of (1) a comparison with others who endured a similar fate, (2) inv ective against enemies and expressions of thanks and/or praise of those who have helped him and of his resolve for the future, and (3) a narrative of the decision to depart and the process of his recall with the ways in which Cicero attempts to explain his voluntary departure into exile in his post reditum speeches. 24 Vat. 1. 1. odio tui vincor; cum te non minus contemnerem quam odissem 25 MacKendrick (1995) 244. (only 23) include background summaries, explanations of the parts of each speech, examinations of the laws involved, and inventories of words and figures. 26 Vat 6, 7, 8, 9 10, 11 12, 37. MacKendrick (1995) 255 shows 42 examples of such antitheses, of wh ich 30 are aimed at Vatinius, of which 8 are linked specifically to Cicero, 7 to Caesar. Vat 1, 6 (twice), 7, 10 (thrice), 29; 13 (twice), 15 (thrice), 30, 33, respectively.
42 Cicero draws the audience to consider the baseness and treachery of Vatinius indicate that Cicero did not necessarily intend to cross examine. 27 Craig writes, 28 Although this speech masquerades as an interrogatio 29 it is easy to appreciate its fundamentally inv ective nature when the conventional invective loci are found and examined. 30 Below is a list of 27 MacKendrick (1995) 244 as cross Corbeill (2002) 197 217 on the other hand, treats the speech as formal invective. Usher (2008) 88 sums that although the title comes down from manuscripts as In P. Vatinium Interrogatio the speaker does not expect answers, and the refore is not a true cross examination. Usher further explains that the speech is 28 See Burrow ( 2008 ) 7 The Romans took over this threefold classifica tion from Greek rhetoricians, employing the equivalent Latin terms, judicialis deliberativus and, for epideictic, demonstrativus Medieval readers would have encountered it in the early Latin handbooks of rhetoric most widely studied in the schools, the a nonymous Rhetorica ad Herennium and the De Inventione of Cicero. Thus: Tria genera sunt causarum quae recipere debet orator: demon strativum, deliberativum, iudic ale. are three kinds of causes which the speaker must treat: Epideictic, Deliberative, and Judicial. The epideictic kind is The two terms laus and vituperatio recur constantly in other Latin discuss ions of epideictic. Quintilian observes that the epideictic has no monopoly of laus or vituperatio but he is content with that traditional characterisation nonetheless, even preferring to speak of laudativum rather than demonstrativum The latter contin ued to be the regular term In his Etymologiae ). De Inventione censu 29 MacKendrick (1995) 244 finds 38 instances of what he calls 30 Powell (2007) 19 20 sums what he calls the stages of invective scholarship: Stage 1, characterized by Pocock (1926) and Syme (1937), in which abuses dire cted at people were normal, but expected to be taken with a certain amount of grace because invectives do not necessarily have lasting effects. Stage 2, characterized by the works of Nisbet (1961), Crook (1967), and Kelly (1976), in which invective is a c onstruct of the court system and not to be believed. Stage 3, characterized by work of Corbeill (1996), who asserted that invective was a social as well as literary construct for which the intent is humorous because it is believable. Stage 4, characteriz ed by Riggsby (1997) and Craig (2004) for whom invective concerns the performance surrounding the attack, who hears it, how it is presented, and how it is received. It is harmful no matter what the context yet credibility of the speaker (and therefore, be lief of the invective) matters more in judicial context.
43 invective loci as identified by Craig with exempla from In Vatinium 31 I also include impietas as part of the invective loci because of the frequency of refe rences to religion. 32 I nvective Loci 33 In Vatinium embarrassing family origin § 1: sordes domesticas § 29: contumeliosissime totiens male dicas quotiens te illi adfinem esse dicis physical appearance § 4 : te tamqu am serpens e latibulis oculis eminentibus, inflato collo, tumidis cervicibus intulisti 34 eccentricity of dress § 30: more feceris gluttony and drunkenness § 32: famen illam veterem tuam non expleras hypocr isy for appearing virtuous § 3: pro testimenio esse mentitum bribery § 37: legem tu eam esse legem non putes 31 Craig (2004) In Pisonem offered a list of such loci (11) based in part upon the topoi of invective that Sss (first) had located in the practice of the Greek orators that occur in In Pisonem and that are further shown to be literary or conventional by their recurrence in the pseudo Sallustian In vectiv a in Ciceronem or the speech of Fufius Calenus at Dio 46.1 28. Later, Merrill collected loci that have antecedents in Roman oratory. So, by combining the sets of loci offered by Nisbet, S ss, and Merrill, one can arrive at a working list of practical loci ated and experienced hearers might expect an orator to use in a vituperatio 7; Sss (1975) 245 262; Merrill (1975) 203 4. Specifically, v ituperatio is a type of invective in which the author intends to harm the object of the invective, here, Vatinius and Caesar. It is the opposite of laus praise. Rhet. Her 3.10; Cic. Inv s Koster (1980), who conducted a lengthy study of the loci of invective, of which he includes (only) ten common topics He then reaches further into Cicero asking wh at behaviors Cicero meant to control with his invective. 32 Craig (2004) chooses not to include impietas disrespect for the gods and their rites, as a locus of Ma Vatinius himself becoming an augur upon the untimely death of Metellus Celer. Cicero also mentions auspicia or auspices 17 times and there are a number o 14, 20, 22, 25, 32, 34. Achard (1981) 281 points out impietas in his invective model. 33 patrimony/financial e mbarrassment as loci of invective. There are no instances of these loci found in I n Vatinium pp 189 192. 34 Also, § 10: ista, quae sunt inflata, rumpantur ; § 39: strumae ab ore improbo demigrarunt et aliis iam se conlocarunt.
44 pretentiousness § 15: id tu tibi furcifer, sumes, et Vatini latronis ac sacrilegi vox audietur hoc postula ntis, ut idem sibi concedatur quod C aesari hostility to family § 11: licet impune per me matrem v erberaris aspi ring to regnum or tyranny § 7 : te perdi torem et vexatorem rei publicae fero 35 cruelty to citizens and allies § 12: mercatore s e navi egredientes terreres, conscendentes morarere 36 plunder of private / public property § 5: rem publicam compilarit oratorical ineptitude § 5: defensio numquam vitu perari (implied) impietas § 22: scelere vero atque audiacia tua 37 Vatin become obvious when Cicero manipulates the direction of the invective to certain aspects of the tribunate rant which reflect directly on Caesar. This is because Cicero seeks to use the politically charged judicial context to expose the policies and procedures of Caesar that were detrimental to the State. By demonstrating that Caesar through Vatinius is guilty of acts contra rem publicam Cicero extrinsically ties the character of Vatinius to Caesar, hence connecting the invective against Vatinius to Caesar as well. Cicero explains to his audience, who would have been well prepared fo is the tea m which has spoken against his defendant and therefore, against the State. 38 35 Also, § 11: tu de altero co nsulate gerendo te dicer e s cogitare ; § 19 in illo tuo intolerabili non regno (nam cupis id audire) sed latrocinio. 36 Also, § 6: cum tu ceteraeque rei publicae pestes armorum causam quaereretis, et cum per meum nomen fortunas locupletium diripere, sanguinem principum civitatis exsorbere, crudelitatem vestram 37 Also, § 14 15: tantus furor ut, cum inaudita ac nefaria sacra susceperis, cum inferorum animas elicere, cum puerorum extis deos manis mactare soleas, auspicia quibus haec urbs condita est, quibus omnis res publica atque imperium tenetur, contempseris, initioque tribunatus tui sen atui denuntiaris tuis actionibus augurum responsa atque eius conlegi adrogantiam impedimento non f utura?  Secundum ea quaero servarisne in eo fidem? num quando tibi moram attulerit quo minus concilium advocares legemque ferres, quod eo die scires de caelo esse servatum? See also note 29. 38 Craig (2004) 198.
45 The whole process provides Cicero with the basis from which to present his political manifesto. 39 In his refutatio Cicero speaks directly to the character Vatinius nimium es v collo, tumidis intulisti throat, in you came ( Vat 4 ) Cicero creates a monster out of Vatinius in the first few lines concerning his physical characteristics and then gives a actions. The subsequent list of offenses (which Cicero explains were not com mitted by his own defendant C. Cornelius in a previous trial ) calls in complacent t olerance 40 He then says, tua sunt, tua sunt haec omnia Vat 5 ) Th e double affirmation calls attention to the fact that these crimes were committed not only by V atinius but also by his patron, C aesar. Returning to men who deserve defense, Cicero further supports his past client, C. Cornelius cleverly playing on the ver y words spoken by Vatinius in his evidence, that those who had spoken against Cornelius were part of the boni viri or good men. 39 Craig (2004) 197 n in rhetorical textbooks, there is a space for such arguments in judicial oratory; one subspecies of the status of quality, comparatio ( Inv 2.72 3; Rhet. Her 2.21 2), based purely on what is advantageous, argues that an act which could not be countenanc ed in itself may 40 Vat 5. The list of offences not committed by his defendant Cornelius which Cicero mentions: carrying laws in defiance of the auspices; laying violent hands on a consul; occupying a temple w ith an armed band; throwing a man down the steps of the Temple of Castor, profaning religious observances; emptying the treasury; and plundering the State.
46 political group had conventionally call ed themselves. 41 Cicero turned the phrase to his optimi viri mea ning men who are honorable and just. 42 He will use this comparative device constantly, portraying himself, but as morally superior to Vatinius. Cicero will further develop this juxtaposition in his political manifesto at the conclusion of the trial. In § 6 8, Cicero responds to a taunt made by Vatinius regarding why Cicero left th of others, was eager to take up arms, to plunder and kill, and he delight ed i n the hatred he held towards honest men. Cicero, on the other hand, as preserver and guardian of the Republic yielded so that violence would not occur. Once again, as in § 6, Cicero State; rei publicae causa rei publicae causa Cicero reverses the insult against Vatinius showing that even if he had been an objectionable person (and he was not) the State recalled him because of his usefulness to the State. Further, since Cicero displayed excellent character, it is actually Vatinius 41 Vatinius had intended to further politicize the trial with his reference to the optimi 42 Sest 6 quam tu bonis viris displuisse dicis; me cum universi populi Romani summa voluntate, tum my defense] which you say displeased Good Men I was elected con sul with the complete approval of the whole Roman People, with remarkable enthusiasm of all the best men
47 bject of hatred to the State Vat 6 9 ) 43 narratio the greatest portion of the speech, begins with comparative lofty personal position as evidence of his superiority and asks rhetorically, which of the two men would be better for the State, everything in it, its people and its future. Cicero is careful to men tion those elements which had been harmed by Vatinius and Caesar previously: the Republic itself, the treasury, the au spices and the religious observances. A series of insults regarding what Vatinius may have done in his youth follows. As quaestor, Vatinius is compared to Publius Sestius, who had properly served the State according to tradition as quaestor is called into question 44 As quaestor, Vatinius acted as thief rather than guardi an and he failed to abide by certain restrictions as he made his journey to Spain on the staff of a governor. Gardner (1984) assumes that Vatinius had been acting in the interest of Caesar on a secret mission based on the l o ose evidence in Suetonius. 45 The nius in every crime possible: quod genus improbitatis et sc e leris in eo magistrate praetermiseris What kind of iniquity 43 Vat 9. omni diritat e atque immanitate taeterrimus, odio civitati. 44 Gardner (1984) 255. 45 Gardner (1984) 256. In notes a and b, since Numidia was not under Roman jurisdiction, no Roman could visit it without the permission of the Senate. Cicero implies here that Vatinius visited Numidia on a secret mission from Caesar. C f. Div. Iul. 71.
48 and crime di d you no t commit during your tribunate? ( Vat 13 ) Cicero then warns 46 Cicero has shifted any potential wrongdoing against Caesar to Vatinius, essen tially excusing anything Cicero may say. With this statement, Cicero Q uaecumque rogabo de te ipso rogabo, neque te ex amplissimi viri dignitate, sed ex tuis tenebris extraha m; omniaque mea tela sic in te conicientur ut nemo per tuum latus, quod soles dicere, saucietur; in tuis pulmonibus ac visceribus haerebunt ( Vat 13 ) Whatever I ask you will be something about yourself. I shall drag you from your own proper obscurity, no t from the dignified company of a great man. And all my shafts will be so aimed against you that no one else will be wounded, as you are in the habit of saying, through your body; they will remain fixed in your lungs and your vitals. These unnecessary add intent. His overuse of superlatives in reference to Caesar gives way to sarcasm. Obviously, Cicero understands the gravity of his forthcoming attack, for he alters his delivery from the previous comparisons of § 4 6, 6 9, 9 11, and 11 speech, with the air of innocent frankness and a deft ambiguity of argument and really aimed at Caesar. 47 I mmediately following Cicero lands a ridiculous blow against virility He states that although Vatinius calls himself a Pythagorean, he participated in monstrous and perverse rites with spirits of the underworld and entrails of young boys all of which led to his madness. Cicero then offers the question: 46 Vat 13. ac tibi iam inde praescribo ne tuas sordis cum clar issimorum virorum splendore permisceas 47 Pocock (1967) 6. C f. Vat 15.
49 qui tantus furor ut, cum inaudita ac nefaria sacra susceperis, cum inferorum animas elicere, cum puerorum extis deos manis mactare soleas, auspicia, quibus haec urbs condita est, qu ibus omnis res publica atque imperium tenetur, contempseris initioque tribunatus tui senatui denuntiaris tuis actionibus augurum responsa atque eius conlegi adrogantiam impedimento non futura ? ( Vat 14 ) However much you have engaged in unknown and mysterio us rites, however much accustomed you may be to evoke spirits from the underworld, and to appease the infernal deities with the entrails of boys, what monstrous perversity, what madness led you to show contempt for the auspices under which this city has be en founded, upon which the whole State and its authority depend and to declare to the Senate, in the first days of your tribunate, that the pronouncements of the augurs and the T his line of questioning certainly reflect s on Caesar, but I call attention to the degree to which character immediately carries over to Caesar. In his note on this line, Gardner (1984) states, The members of the College of Augurs possessed almost unlimited powers of political obstruction since they pronounced judgment upon the validity of the auspices taken before the transaction of every piece of public business. Although there is no evidence that Caesar formally endorsed this d eclaration by Vatinius, which was without precedent, and was apparently made on his own initiative, the legislation of 59 was, in effect, carried through by such means. 48 explanation that Vatinius may have acted on his own was first mentioned by P 49 Caesar was doing everything in his power to win over the Senate, so for him to have acted against the Senate would have caused great upheaval. Yet, for Vatinius to act on his own for the 48 Gardner (1984) 259. 49 Pocock (1967) 94.
50 himself. Still, Vatinius probably did not act on his own because, by his acts and words, 50 still casting Vatinius as a malefactor. He then his relationship to Caesar : E t quoniam his locus est unus, quem tibi cum Caesare communem esse dicas, seiungam te ab illo non solum rei publicae causa verum etiam Caesaris, ne qua ex tua summa indignitate labes illius dignitati aspersa videatur ( Vat 15 ) And since this is the only point in which you claim to have something in common with Caesar, I will separate your case from his, not only for the sak e of the State, but for Caesar also, lest a stain from your gross unworthiness should seem to tarnish his worthy name. Cicero takes specific aim at Vatinius, calling attention to his character and then cter. Here the words used a re indignitate and its opposite, dignitati ( Vat 15 ) The dichotomy highlights how the two men are intertwined each sha ring in worthiness and unworthiness. As Vatinius took it upon himself to speak contra auspices Caesar did not act at all on their beh alf Cicero continues, primum quaero num tu senatui causam tuam permittas, quod facit Caesar? deinde, quae sit auctoritas eius qui se alterius facto, non suo defendat? entrust your cause to the Senate, as Caesar does; in the second place, what is the authority of a man who defends himself by the act of another, not by his own ? accuses prestigious name. Moreover, Cicero is in effect criticizing Caesar for 50 Pocock (1967) 94.
51 not entrusting his cause to the Senate, as he, through Vatinius, whether done willingly or not, sought to achieve his legislation regardless of the consequences. 51 Cicero also draws attention to the authority o f Caesar when h e uses the word, auctoritas ( Vat 15 ) The close proximity of the words dignitas and auctoritas in this passage is no accident. Balsdon shows the link, especially through Greek, of the two concepts: If auctoritas dignit as The two words were very closely linked, the one static, the other dynamic. Auctoritas was dignitas though in his early de Inventione 2.166, Cicero had put it the other way about: dignitas est alicuius honesta et cultu et honor e et verecundia digna auctoritas ]. In politics, a dignitas was his good name. The concept was of overwhelming importance to every outstanding politician of the late Republic. 52 Cice ro aims in § 15, therefore, to call into question both the dignitas and auctoritas of Caesar. 53 Buried within the rhetorical questioning, entertaining banter, and quick witted sarcasm directed seemingly towards Vatiniu s, this attack tarnishes Caesar. Cice ro intends to harm Caesar, his consulship, and his reliance upon Vatinius, who has now become a source of humiliation. 51 pro Sestio. See Chapter 4, note 71. 52 Bal s d on (1960) 44 46. In his article, Balsdon discusses the significance of and the relationship between auctoritas dignitas and otium specifically at this time in Roman history in order to demonstrate what Cicero meant as he requests otium cum dignitate as part of the pro Sestio contented populace, a responsible, effective, and respected government that was 'otiosa dignitas', 'cum dignitate otium' ( Sest 98 ) his ex periences and perspectives following his political surrender in 56. I treat the pro Sestio in Chapter 4. 53 Kennedy (1968) 419 rity, Cicero attempts to increase his own. Cf. note 18. An extension of this idea of personal authority: Cicero intended to destroy the character of Vatinius, whose credibility as a witness was strong because of his association with Caesar. By challengin g Caesar authority, Cicero further damages Vatinius, his character, and his credibility as a witness. For dependence upon associations as character evidence, see Cael 19 22; Planc 10 11, Scaur 14.
52 Cicero next presents a hypothetical situation with the pretense of obtaining the truth. The condition is contrary to fact, implying fa lsity, but contained in the suggestion statement should be obliterated from memory. Yet the same allowance, according to Cicero, cannot be given to Vatinius. Caesar acts howev er, have already been tied to attempted at the beginning of § 15 is now impossible, although another attempt is forthcoming ( Vat. 16 ) With this consistent message used throughout the speech, Cicero intends to mask his attack on Caesar, perhaps as a way to ensure a sort of plausible deniability if questioned about it later or, perhaps because Cicero knew his audience. As many times as he claims to separate C a esar and his greatness from Vatinius and his lowness the connection between the two men had been established for some time, and the audience would be aware of the sarcasm embedded in the invective. In § 16, although Cicero seems to focus on Vatinius and his fellow tribunes while they participated in the lawmaking process, the central concern of the section actually addresse n spite of his position as tribune of the commons. 54 Cicero speaks to the audacia of Vatinius but in fact he is addressi 55 ) either allowed Vatinius the leeway to disregard laws (Aelian and Fufian) 56 in order to achieve his own goals or 54 Cicero comments that Vatinius received his position by default. 55 cf. Vat 14 15. 56 Sumner (1963) he Aelian law was concerned with the practice of obnuntiation and intercession 350 : promulgated or put to the people in the period of trinum nundinum before elections. This was probably declared a period of dies non comitiales (even though, by the calendar, it might contain dies comitiales ). By a logical connection the law confirmed that business must not be trans acted with the popular
5 3 encouraged Vatinius to create turmoil in the law making process. His quest ioning includes asides such a s unus t u and praeter te nemo which squarely place the blame on Vatinius Yet t hen, Cicero calls attention to duo viri who previously failed to follow these laws. 57 The audience knows that Cicero is refer ring to the consuls of 58, Gabinius and Piso, alt hough a parallel to Vatinius and Caesar is strongly suggested 58 W ith this allusion Cicero attack s Vatinius specifically as tribune who helped consul Caesar, by defying the mos maiorum 59 Furthermore, each reference condemns Caesar because he participate d in making Clodius eligible for the tribunate and was instrumental in providing political clout to Vatinius as tribune. In § 19 20, Cicero lightens his interrogation bringing up hopes of achieving the augurate upon the sudden death of Quintus Metellus Celer that Vatinius was the choice of the triumvirs to fill the vacancy, although it did not occur. While this section serves as a breath of fresh air, or comic relief to offset the serious and powerful invective of the previous chapters, Cicero does not stop his references to Caesar. The hypothetical acts would have created: ruin of the State. To aggravate the issue even more, Cicero assemblies on days other than dies comitiales The main purpose of the law was evidently to prevent candidates from influencing the elections by proposing vote catching legislation. Its author was presumably a tribune of 132, one of the enemies of Gracchus backed by at the elections in 133. 57 speaking ex parte his evidence on constitutional as on other matters must be treated with the greatest 58 cf. Sest 33. 59 Vatinius and Caesar did not follow custom in the design or promulgation of their legislation. Cicero draws attention to their relationship. He implies the connection between Vatinius and Clodi us, who acted in the same capacity for Gabinius and Piso.
54 employs long, drawn out questions, multiple asides, and complex phrasing until he finally delivers an entertaining and sarcastic inquiry: S ed quaero, si a d ceter a vulner a quibus rem p u blic a m p u t a sti deleri, h a nc qu oque mortifer a m pl a g a m inflixisses augur a tus t u i, u tr u m decret u r u s f u eris, id quod aug u res omnes u sque a b Romulo decrever u nt, Iove f u lgente c u m pop u lo a gi nef a s esse, an qui a t u semper sic egisses, auspici a l f u eris aug u r dissol u t u r u s ( Vat 20 ) But I ask you, after all those other wounds, by which you thought the State was being destroyed, if you had inflicted this mortal blow also by your augurate, did you propose to decree, as all augurs since Romulus have decreed, that when Juppiter lightens it is sacri lege to transact business with the People, or, because you had always so transacted it, did you propose as augur to make a complete end of the auspices? (shown in boldface above) taunting him wit h the notion of an augurship carefully pointing out that Vatinius is not worthy. While focused on this theme, Cicero turns his focus to the situation the destruction of the State. 60 As Cicero sets the s tage, he asks Vatinius about Marcus Bibulus, Caesar co 61 Cicero claims to be treading lightly with his explanation here so as not to 62 It is obvious that Cicero refers to Caesar. But Cicero at last breaks from cautiousness a nd launches into a quickened frenzy of explanation as he details the crime that Vatinius committed against Bibulus. The period climaxes with a rhetorical flourish as Cicero concludes with an exaggerated untruth vi perditorum hominum incitata turp issimo miserrimoque spectaculo non in carcerem, 60 Vat 21 ad scelera veniam to come to your crimes. 61 Vat 21 hominem certe nusquam progredient em, nihil in re public moliente m 62 Vat. 21 ne tu mihi homo potens irascare
55 sed ad supplicum et ad necem duceretur Having been shut off from his friends by the excited vio lence of a band of scoundrels, a most disgraceful and deplorable sight, ( Bibulus ) was led to prison, if not ( Vat 21 ) Cicero quickly asks whether there has ever been anyone so wicked who would have committed such a crime, referring to 63 Cicero wields this double edged sword, mimicked by the structure of the line itself, as he introduces the mastermind behind these crimes. This same paral lel structure continues through the next period, which is marked by a number of sets of two in opposition. He says, I demque tu cum his atque huius modi consiliis ac facinoribus nomine C. Caesaris, clementissimi atque optimi viri scelere vero atque audac ia tua 64 M. Bibulum foro, curia, templis, locis publicis omnibus expulisses inclusum domi contineres cumque non maiestate imperii, non iure legum sed ianuae praesidio et parietum custodiis consulis vita tegeretur, miserisne viatorem, qui M. Bibulum domo vi extraheret, ut, quod in privatis semper est servatum, id te tribuno pl. consuli domus exsilium esse non posset ( Vat 22) Further, when by these crimes and the like designs and atrocities, committed in the name of that most merciful and excellent man, G aius Caesar, but really by your own criminal audacity, you had driven Marcus Bibulus from the Forum, the Senate House, the temples and all public places, kept him shut up in his house, and when the life of a consul was no longer protected by the prestige o f his power nor by the authority of the laws, but by such defense as a door, such security as the walls of a house afforded, did you not send an usher to drag Bibulus from his house, so that rson, might be no refuge for a consul while you were tribune of the commons? The parallelism obviously encourages the audience to compare Bibulus and Caesar, which began at the outset of this section, but the opposing pairs also provide a 63 Vat 21 utrum veteru m facinorum sis imitator an inventor novorum 64
56 better view of Ci Cicero marks and condemns the actions of Vatinius (and therefore, Caesar ) He compares them to the actions of Bibulus, who man did not defy Caesar. 65 Cicero f orm s his dichotomy between the forces in the State which are currently clashing, the populares and optimates, as well as deepening the rif t between Caesar and Pompey. Cicero even plays on the word optimi above, as he refers to Caesar, who generally is not considered a member of the opt imates 66 Cicero cleverly ends § 22 with specific reference to Vatinius as being the tribune of the commons who enacted all of the legislation directed against Bibulus At the conclusion his third person narrative about a tribune of the commons who was able to carry legislation, Cicero refers to a consul. This is, of course, a reference to Bibulus, yet Cicero seemingly attacks, in the subsequent line of questioning, one who fits a description of Caesar. 67 xecution of the Catilin arian conspirators; who granted the disregard of the auspices, who ignored the Aelian and Fufian laws, who allowed the abuse against Bibulus, and who now terrifies the people. 68 Vatinius, in his 65 Vat 21 c onsul populi Roma n i mo deratissimus et constantissimus. 66 oble families associated themselves with the Optimates Caesar, however, he aligned himself politically with the populares 67 Simulque mihi respondeto tu, qui nos, qui de communi salute consentimus, tyrannos vocas, same time answer me this, you wh ion. 68 Vat. 23 simulque mihi respondeto tu, qui nos qui de communi salute consentimus tyrannos vocas, fuerisne non tribunus plebis, sed intolerandus ex caeno nescio qui atque ex tenebristyrannus qui primum eam rem publicam, quae auspiciis inventis consi tuta est, isde m auspiciis sublatis conarere pervertere, deinde sanctissimas leges, Aeliam et Fufiam...qui consulem morti obieceris, inclusum obsederis, W ere you not a tribune of the
57 lowly role of the Caesarian follower s and as tribune of the commons. In addition, the powerful invective in § 23 reminds the audience of the manner in which Cicero treated Vatinius at the beginning of the interrogation. Nevertheless, the ambiguity of the central portion of the chapter invites question especially since Cicero published this speech in order to be sure that he could spread his message to the people. 69 After inquiring about how Caesar favored Vatinius rather than his co con sul Bibulus, Cicero questions Vatinius about his role in the Vettius affair. Although these chapters are best described as Ciceronian storytelling, throughout, Cicero intertwines random attacks on criptors. Cicero depicts Vatinius as jealous, vehementer invidebas ( Vat. 24); hateful, commune odium ( Vat. 25) ; wicked, tuo scelere ( Vat. 25); and, mad, tantus furor ( Vat. 26 ) A few phrases appear in the vocative as if Cicero pauses and turns to Vatinius. B reaking from the narrative in order to speak directly to the witness certainly adds to the force of attracting the audience attention. One of these direct addresses, impurissime et perditissime hostis ed of the enemies of the State ( Vat. 26) comes at the end of the Vettius narrative so that Cicero is able to create tension for what he is about to propose. Cicero accuses Vatinius of strangling commons but an insufferable tyrant, a nobody sprung from mud and obscurity? You who first, by abolishing the auspices, attempted to destroy this State founded upon these same auspices; who next alone trampled underfoot and reckoned naught those most h who exposed a consul to death, imprisoned and beleaguered him in his own house, and endeavored to now terrify us by your wealth? Cf. Sest 40. 69 Pocock (1967) limits his commentary regarding §23 to the plethora of names mentioned by Cicero. The list of powerful and prominent statesmen from the past does not help Vatinius or Caesar in any way. Each man described by Cicero in §23 lacked control: in Gracchorum ferocitate; in audacia Saturnini; in co l luvione Drusi; in contentione Sulpici; in cruore C i nnano; inter Sullana arma MacKendrick ( 1995 ) 239 regards §23 as a passage in which Cicero demonstrates that Vatinius himself emulates some of the same qualities as an optimate because he shares their attitudes toward the auspices the consul, and their own wealth.
58 Vettius so that his knowledge of the whole affair would no t come to light. Although there is no evidence that Vatinius did indeed murder Vettius, Cicero does make the plausible planner of the failed event. 70 Furthermore, Cice ro only makes this accusation following a second reference to the planned death of Bibulus (although it was not carried out) at the hands of Vatinius. These accusations speak volumes to the character of Vatinius, even without Caesar to take the blame. Fol lowing the mention of the Vettius affair, Cicero shifts his invective to a variety of subjects ; he intends to slander chastises Vatinius when he suggests that Vatinius proposed laws to help his allies a nd hurt his enemies ( Vat. 27 28 ) He accuses Vatinius of stealing away not only a incriminates every member of his family because the law that he promulgates led to the condemnation of that man ( Vat. 28 ) 71 He suggests that Vatinius uses the name of previous ly mentioned illustrious men to benefit his personal status and implies that he became rich by being allowed to evade a law against extortion sponsored by Caesar ( Vat. 29 ) Cicero even attacks a seemingly insignificant matter yet a conventional locus ( Vat. 30 32 ) With this rather exaggerated and extended recollection of a time when Vatinius wore inappropriate dress to a public festival, Cicero intends to remove the 70 Vat. 26 quibus rebus omnium mortalium non voluntate, sed convicio repudiat i s fregerisne in carcere cervi ces ipsi illi Vettio, ne quod indicium corrupti indicii exstaret euisque sceleris in te ipsum quaestio flagitaretur? And when these proceedings had been repudiated by the whole words, not merely in thought but in open reproaches, did you not cause this sa me Vettius to be strangled in prison, that there might be no trace of his false information and that no commission to investigate that crime might be demanded against yourself? 71 familia Pocock claims a
59 quality of being Roman from Vatinius, who, according to Cicero, had been out of his mind ( amentia ) ( Vat. 30 ) Vatinius lacks sound judgment This technique of releasing the jury and corona from paying close attention to the subject matter is a built in rest from the tension that Cicero masterfully builds throughout his speech. The lighter tone gives way to a steady aggregation of violations by Vatinius as the speech reaches a climax. In § 33 39, Cice ro specifically mentions and demonstrates that Vatinius had attempted to use his relationship with Caesar in order to benefit himself even after he had left his office as tribune of the commons. 72 In addition, Cicero ties the character of Vatinius to his own most despised enemy, Clodius. The transfer of epithets as Cicero introduces Clodius further blacken s 73 A ppellarisne tribunos pl., ne causam diceres levius dixi; quamquam id ipsum esset et novum et non ferendum sed appe llarisne nominatim pestem illius anni, furiam patriae, tempestatem rei publicae, Clodium. Qui tamen cum iure, cum more, cum potestate iudicium impedire non posset rediit ad illam vim et furorem suum ducem que se militibus tuis praebuit ( Vat. 33) Did you not appeal to the tribune of the commons to save you from answering the charge I have spoken too lightly, although by itself this would be strange and intolerable but did you not appeal by name to the curse of that year, to the evil spirit of his country, to the storm that burst over the State, to Clodius who, although he could not, either by law, by custom, or by authority obstruct your trial, had recourse to that mad violence of his, and put himself at the head of your armed bands. 72 Vat 33 in quo certe iam tibi dicere non licebit cum clarissimis viris causam tuam esse c oniunctam 73 It is interesting to note that Cicero does not name Clodius at first here yet he waits until the end of his first sentenc names are used by Cicero throughout this speech when referring to Caesar (usually with the use of sarcastic superlatives) and throughout the previous post reditum sp eeches. See especially Chapter 3. I
60 The multiple series of tricolon sets emphasize the importance of this connection between Vatinius and Clodius, one the ruin of the state and the other, referred to here as a curse, an evil, and a storm. Cicero the past actions of Vatinius to the more recent act Romanitas since he had been unable to adhere to the customs and laws established by the Roman people as he attempted to avoid prosecution in 58. 74 Cicero promises, however, to refrain from declaim ing against Vatinius now, ironically, in the late stages of the speech, ( ne quid a me dictum in te ); he will maintain his line of questioning, rather than bring accusations and evidence against Vatinius Cicero frequently uses sarcasm such as this, irony and dramatic pauses in his speech as a chance for both Cicero and his audience to take a breath. It also creates more suspense (and irony) as the speech is building to its climax. 75 Following this promise to actions which destroyed against the dutifulness of Gaius Memmius ( Vat. 34 ) The reference to Me mmius serves as a contrast to Vatinius, who d id not follow long established constitution al procedures. failed to follow the precedents established by the Senate. Instead, Vatinius received his position as part of spec ial legislation, the lex 74 Vat 34. quaero ex te, Vatini, num quis reus in tribunal sui quaesitoris escenderit eumque vi deturbarit, subsellia dissiparit, urnas deiecerit, eas de nique omnes res in iudicio disturbando commiserit, quarum reru m causa iudicia sunt constituta, 75 As identified by MacKendrick (1995): Irony: Cat 1. 21; 2.4, 12, 14, 16, 23, 24; Mur 57, 61, 74; Arch 10, 11, 25; Red. Sen 8, 13, 14, 17; Red. Pop 10, 11; Dom 47, 54, 71, 79, 82; Sest 16, 23, 44, 56, 72, 76 79, 80, 84, 93, 111, 116, 127, 134; Cael 3 3, 36, 37, 38, 48, 50, 52, 62, 67.
61 Vatinia de Caesaris provincia, which was sponsored by Vatinius himself. This law empowered Caesar to choose his own staff of legati for his proconsular governorship of Gaul. Cicero creates a link between Vatinius as lawmaker to V atinius as traitor. He asks, E sne igitur patriae certissimus parricida? ne hoc quidem senatui relinquebas, quod nemo umquam ademit, ut legati ex eius ordinis auctoritate legarentur ? ( Vat 35) Are you then beyond all doubt a traitor to your fatherland? Was it your object that not a trace of the Senate should be left in the State? Did you wish to rob the Senate of even that prorogative which no one had ever denied to it, the right of appointing staff officers by a resolution of the house? These questions demand answers that Cicero himself provides. Vatiniu robbed ( eripueras ) the Senate of its power ( potestatem ). What is left unsaid at this point is the connection between Vatinius and Caesar, whose actions made all of this possible. Furthermor e, authority granted by the bill, gave Vatinius un constitutional power, which he used for evil. A nte te ne m o post continuo fecit ide m in duobus prodigiis rei publicae Clodius; quo etia m m aiore es m alo m actandus, quod non solu m facto tuo sed eti a m exe m plo re m publica m vulnerasti neque tantu m ipse es i m probus, sed etia m aliud docere voluisti ( Vat. 36 ) Before you no one; immediately after you Clodius did the same thing in the matter of two public monsters so that still heavier curses should be in voked upon you. Seeing that you have dealt a cutting blow against the State, not only by your acts but also by your example; that not content with being a scoundrel yourself, you have also desired to teach others to become the same. Once again, Cicero dra ws a connection between Vatinius and Clodius. This sentence, coupled with the one that follows, is filled various literary devices, which add to the effect of the words themselves. First, with alliteration of the M sound, Cicero lengthens each word, maki ng Vatinius responsible for the corruption of Clodius, whose
62 name sits in the middle, as well as for the destruction of the Republic, which is personified as victim. Falling between the heaviness of the M in the sentence above, ds with the words vulnerasti and voluisti, report ing that he wanted to hurt the Republic He continues (below) with the heaviness of M and again ends with hissing: perdidisse the Republic. Througho ut this passage, Cicero repeatedly calls on Vatinius himself as the originator, instigator, and perpetrator of all recent crime. Ob hasce o m nes res sciasne t e severissi m oru m viroru m M arsoru m et Paelignoru m tribunius tuoru m iudico notatu m nec post Ro m a m condita m praeter te tribule m que m qua m tribu m Sergia m perdidisse ( Vat. 36) For all these offenses, do you know that the Sabines, most austere of people, the Marsians and the Paelignians, most heroic of men, your fellow tribesmen, branded you as dishonored and that, since the foundation of Rome, you are the first member of the Sergian tribe who has lost his tribal vote? The invective in the above sentence also stings Vatinius, who did not carry his own Cicero emerges from §3 7 as the opposite of Clodius as well as Vatinius. 76 His actions as law abiding citizen rather than law breaking citizen exaggerate the differences between Cicero and Vatinius, but also between Cicero and Caesar. 77 In ow one of his laws, the lex Tullia de ambitu which forbade giving gladiatorial shows during candidacy or while holding office. He 76 Seager (2007) 31 character foil to Vatinius, concluding with this instance at Chapter 37. He also considers Vat 5 9, 11, and 29 77 Vat 37. Atque illud etiam audire de te cupio, quare, cum ego legem de ambitu tulerim ex senatus consulto, tulerim sine vi, tulerim salvis auspiciis, tulerim salva lege Aelia et Fufia, tu eam esse legem non putes, praesertim cum ego legibus tuis, quoqu o modo latae sunt paream from you for what reason this law against bribery, which passed by the authority of the Senate, which I passed without violence, without neglecting the auspices, without infringing the Aelian and Fu fian Laws, is
63 then blasts Vatinius for venturing to create one of his own laws, since he cannot seem to follow any others. Cicero finishe s §37 with a connection of Vatinius to an unnamed Clodius, again, marking their relationship as obstructive forces in Rome. 78 At this point in the speech, Cicero brings his argument to a climax, stating that Vatinius has no regard for anything that he has s aid, because he will be able to gain 79 Yet even ar did not offer an opinion about the character of Vatinius, he did remark that Vatinium in tribunatu gratis nihil fecisse; qui omnia in pecunia posuisset, honore animo aequo carere debere nothing during his tribunate without being paid for it; that a man who thought that money was everything ought to bear the loss of office with equanimity ( Vat. 38 ) 80 This comment serves to damage Caesar as much as Vatinius who served Caesar as a means o f payment, while Cae sar paid for his legislation Further, Cicero adds that Caesar did not view Vatini This leads to a lengthy explanation about how each member of Roman society, both friend and foe to Vatinius, think him most unworthy; indignissimum The people have thes e reactions to Vatinius: vitant fugunt nolunt metuunt erubescunt and he ultimately becomes odium publicam populi, senatus, universorum hominum 78 Vat. 37. num quem putes illius tui certissimi gladiatoris similem tribunum plebis posse reperiri qui se interponat quo minus reus mea lege fi as?, Do you think that a tribune of the commons can be sufficiently like that most loyal swordster of yours, to offer an obstruction and prevent you from being excused under 79 Vat 38. te dis hominibusque invitis amore in te incredibili quodam C. Caesaris omnia quae velis. 80 Vatinius lost his bid for the aedileship of 57.
64 As he finally has become hated by all, Vati nius will soon be allowed to chapters of the speech, however, are not concerned with the ch arges against Sestius, at first. Rather, Cicero pulls the characters of this and another recent prosecution together and sets them side by side with the characters for each defense. Cicero questions Vatinius for having tanta vanitas, tanta levitas 81 in his comments about Milo, whose trial was only a month prior. 82 The charges brought against Milo by illa taeterrima furia 83 Clodius, were disrupted and eventually dropped; yet, at one of the preliminary contiones according to Cicero, Vatinius gave falsum t estimonium Cicero tells us that Vatinius was eager to give false evidence against Milo, a man whom Cicero describes as civem singulari virtute, fide, constantia but only in certain company. Following this tricolon of praise, Cicero unites the clarissi m us vir Milo with Publius Sestius, because of their partnership in public affairs. The forging of battle lines is quickly completed by Cicero, who then bonds Vatinius to Clodius, who were parts of the prosecutions the former against Milo and the latter a gainst Sestius. Once Cicero has set the pairs of men opposite each other, he brings his speech to a close with another careful play with the term boni. Of course, when used by Vatinius at any previous time, 84 he would have intended for the word to mean Optimates 81 Vat 40 quaero quae tanta in te vanitas, tanta levitas fuerit Tell me, why were you so untruthful, so 82 February 56. 83 Vat 40. ab eadem illa taeterrima furia by 84 See Gardner (1984) 296 note c.
65 However, when used by Cicero in § 41 and 42, the term applies to all honest or morally good men, who, by virtue of being decent citizens, follow the rules customs and practices set forth in t he Roman constitution. reference to events of February 56 i n the speech against Vatinius should only be examined in the greater context of the trial against Sestius and beyond: in the Roman political arena Cicero reported to his brother about the contio and following events (o f Feb. 56) in the Senate in his letters ( Q. fr. 2. 3. ) He then recognized the opportunities presented by the many complaints of the Republic. 85 Using his relationship with Pompey as his leverage, Cicero launched a careful attack on Caesar in his In Vatin ium in which he also sets the stage for his audience to hear his new political manifesto in the upcoming pro Sestio Both the forensic situation and the status of Vatinius provided Cicero with enough of a barricade to shield him from any immediate repercu ssions. The key to this speech was how to harm Caesar, 86 who was not present, without embraces the lesser figures in Rome, namely Milo, Sestius, Vatinius, and Clodius and how they each fit in to the greater system of populares versus optimates By showing the connections between Caesar, Vatinius, and Clodius, and then contrasting them to Milo, Sestius, and Pompey, 85 multis quer elis de re publica interponendi s, Q. fr 2. 3. 1 86 Caesar granted the quick transfer of plebeian status to P. Clodius, who then set out to remove Cicero from Rome. See Tat um (1999) 87 113 for a complete explanation of the adoption of Clodius.
66 Cicero managed to create the context for his newly configured plan for the Republ ic, otium cum dignitate. 87 Cicero only once purports to offer a working definition of the word popularis. Populares are contrasted with optimates: alteri se popularis, alteri optimates et haberi et esse uoluerunt. qui ea quae faciebant quaeque dicebant multitudini iucunda uolebant esse, populares, qui autem ita se gerebant ut sua consilia optimo cuique probarent, optimates habebantur. 88 The polemical character of this definition is already clear in the contrast between m ultitudo almost always a term of disparagement in its own right and optimus quisque. But the latent hostility becomes much more overt and more pronounced when optimus quisque itself is defined. The optimates include all those qui neque nocentes sunt nec na tura improbi nec furiosi nec malis domesticis impediti 89 The implied dismissal of populares as criminal, naturally wicked, mad, or poor is shortly afterwards rephrased in a positive form when Cicero lists the possible grounds for opposition to the optimat e values of which he gives a catalogue: metus poenae, insitus quidam animi furor, and implicatio rei familiaris 90 The manifesto at the conclusion of his defense speech for Sestius became the gime. Cicero explains abiding citizens and of all the most respectable elements in Italy in defense of the established order against s of various past and present players in Roman politics to justify his exposition throughout both the speech against Vatinius and the speech for Sestius ( Sest 96 98 ) Cicero 87 of the word popularis in order to gain a better understanding of the how Roma ns viewed populares and optimates 88 Sest those who acted so as to win by their policy the approval of all the best citizens were reckoned as 89 Sest 90 Sest.
67 encompasses the whole Roman populus as he defines all good men, excluding, of co urse, the populares whose aim it is to secure brief appeasement. 91 By the creation of this distinction, Cicero sets the stage for his future plan to gradually remove power from Caesar, and eventually emerge as the savior of the Republic again. 91 Sest 97. omnes optimates sunt qui neque nocentes sunt nec natura improbi nec furios i nec malis domesticis impediti, crats who are neither criminal nor vicious in disposition, nor frantic, nor
68 CHAPTER 4 REDEMPTION: PRO SESTIO P ertuli crudelitatem inimicorum, scelus infidelium, fraudem invidorum. si hoc non est satis, quod haec omnia deleta videntur reditu meo, multo mihi, multo, inquam, iudices, praestat in eandem illam recidere fortunam quam tantam imp ortare meis defensoribus et conservatoribus calamitatem Cicero, pro Sestio 145 46 1 The year 58 witnessed a great upheaval in Roman politics because of the unchecked actions of tribune Clodius His dealings reveal alignment with no particular interest save his own. He interfered with judicial, legislative and international affairs, momentarily eclipsing the dominance of Pompey in public life. 2 If we are to believe Cicero in his speeches post reditum semblance of order in Rome. 3 To what end Clodius acted is debated, 4 yet the results led the Senate and even Pompey, who had been ineffectively reassuring during exile, to initiate his recall ( Att 2. 10. 2 ) But attempts to recall Cicero were d isputed and disrupted by Clodius and his supporters. 5 1 I have borne the cruelty of enemies, the crime of traitors, the perfidy of those who wish me ill. If this is not enough, because all seems to be wiped out by my return I would much rather, I repeat, gentlemen, fall back into the same ill fortune, than to bring so disasterous a calamity on my defenders and saviors. 2 In October of 58, Clodius did not support a bill which was put forth b ( Att 3.23) Clodius interrupted the assembly held to vote on a measure promulgated in December 58 for Sest 75) In February and March of 57, public business was suspended ( iustitium ), ( Red. sen. 6 8) T Sest 75, 85, 89) 3 Dom 40; Red. pop. 43; Har resp. 48. 4 Gruen (1966) gives an excellent summary of the debate which began with Pocock (1924) who maintained that Pompey was th e peacekeeper while Clodius was a pawn of the populares Marsh (1927) to harm Pompey. These arguments followed another work by Pocock (1927), who argued that Crassus and Caesar worked hand in hand throughout this time period and that the legislation was never in danger. Yet the ancient sources also debated this issue: Dio 38. 12.1 3; 38.14.3; 39.6.1; Plut. Cato Min. 31.2; 33.3 4; Cic. 30.3; Caes 14.9; Suet Iul. 20. 5 Sest 53 66. Cicero spends this section of his speech narrating the events of 58, noting the acts of the consuls, Piso and Gabinius, who failed to check Clod
69 to events in Rome, and so Cicero tells us that tribune elect Publius Sestius made a in an attempt ( Sest 71 ) Perhaps this plea set matters in motion because those who had been vocally opposing legislation to recall Cicero were relatively silent in 57, when the newly elected consuls and tribunes favorable towa campaign to recall him. However, this progress was slow because of tribunician vetoes had hired gladiators to appear at the forum, comitium, and curi a e ffecting a mur derous upheaval from which barely escaped ( Sest. 75 76 ) It was during the first half of 57 that Sestius and Milo, another tribune of the pleb eians began to resort to the same violent methods used by Clodius to disrupt pol itical order. When Sestius was c harged with vis or political violence contra rem publicam on February 10, 56, Cicero immediately sought to serve as his advocate because he ( Sest 3 ) 6 This charge was another aspect of the battle between Clodius and Cicero, each man fighting not only for power in Roman politics but also for personal dignitas Cicero, as usual, was the last to speak in defense of Sestius. 7 His task was to answer confusa atque universa defensione comprehensive and general defence ( Sest 5 ) May (1988) expertly explains the 6 See Lintott (2008) 430 431 and (1968) 114 115,119 and Riggsby (1999) 79 119 for discussion of the laws de vi background information for various events t reated very briefly elsewhere. Riggsby discusses the circumstances and players of crimes and trials in the late Republic. Each treat the laws on which many of the late forensic trials are based, including the pro Sestio pro Caelio and pro Milone 7 cf. pro Caelio
70 nuances of this trial speech, noting how Cicero made the most of this opportunity to defend not jus t Sestius, but even more, to defend himself and his own actions prior to 8 is character themes, specifically certain metaphors in which he shows that the state had be en harme d by Clodius and his allies, then saved by Cicero. 9 By healing the wounds to the Republic and setting the ship of state back on the conservative course, according persona 10 The motifs treated by May, however, are subsets of a greater scheme throughout the speech. May tells us that Cicero employed the framework of good versus evil. Indeed this theme is repetitive in each aspect of the speech. His explanation shows how Ci cero set the optimates including himself, Sestius, and also the personified Republic against the populares Clodius, Gabinius, Piso and the anarchy which they fomented. 11 I argue that as Cicero does this, he is actually waging war on his enemies in order to redeem himself in the eyes of his peers. The speech is in part a dutiful defense on behalf of Sestius, yet, Cicero himself tells us ut in hac confusa atque universa defensione nihil ab me quod ad vestram quaestionem, nihil quod ad reum, nihil quod ad r em publicam pertineat praetermissum esse videatur [I shall do my utmost to see] that while making this comprehensive and general defence, I may seem to have overlooked nothing which 8 character presentation in select speeches (only 23; May excludes In Vatinium and others) as they relate cter as orator and novus homo 9 For the pro Sestio May (1988) focuses on two specific metaphors: the ship of state and the body of the state. Cicero continuously employs these metaphors throughout the speech. 10 May (1988) 90. 11 May (1988) 105.
71 is relevant to your investigation, to the accused, or to the public inte rest ( Sest 5 ) He will address these concerns while escalating his attack upon those people whom he believes responsible for his exile a continuation of his strategy that permeates his previous post reditum speeches. While making his attack, Cicero w ill use the characters of all the key players in the war: Sestius, Clodius, Piso, Gabinius, Cicero himself, and even Rome. Before explaining how Cicero moves to attack his enemies in the pro Sestio it is necessary to understand the political climate of t in exile was full of humiliation and despair; so it would make sense that his return would feel like a glorious victory for him ( Att 4 3 ) In a letter to Atticus, he describes his reentry into Rome: A d urbem ita veni ut nemo ullius ordinis homo nomenclatori notus fuerit qui mihi obviam non venerit, praeter eos inimicos quibus id ipsum, se inimicos esse, non liceret aut dissimulare aut n egare. cum venissem ad portam Capenam, gradus templorum ab infima plebe completi erant. A qua plausu maximo cum esset mihi gratulatio significata, similis et frequentia et plausus me usque ad Capitolium celebravit in foroque et in ipso Capitolio miranda m ultitudo fuit. So I arrived at the outskirts of Rome Not a man whose name was known to my nomenclator no matter what his rank, but ca me out to m eet me, except for e nemies who could neither conceal nor deny th e fact that they were such. When I reached t he Porta Capena, I found the steps of the temples thronged by the common people who welcomed me with vociferous applause. Like numbers and applause followed me to the Capitol In the Forum and on the Capitol itself the crowd was spectacular. In the Se nate on the following Nones of September, I delivered a speech of thanks to the House. 12 12 Att 4.5; cf. Sest 131
72 Nicholson (1992) he senate and people in this pair of full dress speeches formally inaugurating his return to 13 Nicholson refers to the two immediate speeches post reditum composed and read aloud, within which Cicero establishes those elements that will ap pear throughout the speeches of the next year: gratitude, self justification, and attack. 14 Initially, Cicero does not dive into the politically unknown waters; rather, he carefully dips his toes into the shallows, barely penetrating the surface in order to put himself back into the political and social dialogue. Nicholson argues that the post reditum as Cicero proudly returned to Rome and prepared to resume his old influence and rank as a leading senior statesman. He adopts a bold tone as though scarcely conscious of 15 I contend is a rhetorical strategy which actually reveals that he was very aware of his humbling situation Cicero, therefore designed the post reditum speeches deliberately, creating a n essential foundation from which the invective in his later forensic (and epideictic) speeches grows. 16 13 post reditum speeches: Ad Senatum and Ad Quirites His introduction to the period which includes a discussion of the authenticity of the speeches, supersedes that of Nisbet (1939) He then discusses the background, strategies, and effects of the two speeches. 14 Planc. 74. Cicero claims that this was propter rei magnitudinem Dyck (20 04) 301 suggests that Cicero had lacked practice and therefore needed to write his script in order to be able to recall those whom he wanted to thank. 15 Nicholson (1992) 129. 16 e, full of self praise and self pity, they undeniabl y deserve some of the harsh things that have been said of them. But they are not words, which even Mo
73 Part of the craft of the post reditum speeches is described by Catherine Steel in her recent article investigating Ci was that Cicero could not assume that his return from exile was also an automatic return to the status quo ante in terms of his position and authority within Roman 17 I agree with Steel that since there were many issues that Cicero had to deal with, above all, his enemies, who, aside from Piso and Gabinius, currently in their respective provinces, were still present in Rome. Those senators post reditum speech would have known well about the circumstances surrounding his exile, and they probably would have been interested in how Cicero would handle himself in his initial political appearance, pa rticularly in response to his own absence. 18 The irony of the situation of his exile is not lost on scholarship. Nisbet (1939) discusses the situation reader remembers, as his enemies remembered, how closely this corresponded to his 19 Did Cicero make this connection? Either Cicero himself did not see merely hoping for t he best. Regardless, his actions toward the end of 59 showed steadfast resolve until his spirit was broken ( Att 3.1.1 ) And then, upon his return, 17 works by various scholars on the subject of Ciceronian invective across his corpus. 18 For an excellent, brief summari 19 De Domo Sua is a valuable source of original and early criticism of the time period from the exile of Cicero to immediately following h is return.
74 20 He does not howev er, and his speech reflects this strategy of hesitance. His opening is full of gratitude, similar to an award acceptance, and then he to eighteen specific individ uals, none of whom is named 21 Steel relays the intricacies of naming versus not naming in the speech, noting the effects that it audience to think about to wh o m Cicero refers, and drawing attention to the roles of those unnamed. It is important, however, also to note the effect of this strategy on enter. Cicero places his account of events, so well kn own and understood that names are unnecessary, at the forefront of sen creating a dialogue (in which the senators, and perspective ). 22 It forces his audience to revisit, ponder, and reconsider to evaluate the events which took place while Cicero was gone and what events led to his return. 23 20 Nicholson (1992) 129. 21 Steel (2007) 109. 22 opportunity to re tell the events surrounding his exile, thereby becoming the canon of events re membered by the Senate and People. 23 pro Sestio as he introduces a nameless enemy, then introduces the enemy accompanied by an additional evil act and then tells about the person, in depth, r ecapitulating the crime.
75 As the initial post re ditum speech unfolds, harsh invective against both Piso and Gabinius, which will reappear in the pro Sestio speech in even more severe form, gives 24 Quae cum liben ter commemoro, tum non invitus non nullorum in me nefarie commissa praetereo. non est mei temporis iniurias meminisse, quas ego, etiam si ulcisci possem, tamen oblivisci mallem. alio transferenda mea tota vita est, ut bene de me meritis referam gratiam, am icitias igni perspectas tuear, cum apertis hostibus bellum geram, timidis amicis ignoscam, proditores vindicem, dolorem profectionis meae reditus dignitate consoler ( Red. Sen. 23 ) I t is a pleasure to put such acts on record. On the other hand, I am littl e loath to pass over the scandalous crimes committed against me by certain persons. To call to mind my wrongs would sort ill with my present position; I should prefer to forget them, even were it in my power to avenge them. M y whole life should be lifted to a different plane; I should show gratitude for services reveived, I should cherish the friendships that have been proved sterling in the fire, I should wage war against our avowed foes, pardon my timorous partisans, forbear to expose traitors, and moll ify the resentment roused by my departure by the magnanimaty of my return. Cicero claims that he will change the course of his life, not recalling the past, even forgetting the injustices done to him. His refusal to name names supports that notion. Howe the key to here it works by concealing the identity of those to whom Cicero is referr 25 Cicero portrays himself as a peacekeeper, yet he focuses on the violent intentions of his enem ies who are responsible for the (past and) current state of affairs. For, if Cicero had not fled Rome, h exercitus ) that he had 24 Steel (2007) 113. 25 Steel (2007) 113.
76 26 By limiting his use of force to words and in defense of the State, he creates a divergence between the kind of war t hat he must wage and the kind that his enemies choose to wage. 27 Cicero shows us throughout his post reditum career that he wishes to avoid military confrontation yet he will still confront the nameless menace 28 By completing this initial step in his re e ntry into the Roman political world, Cicero creates a crucial dialogue with in his senatorial audience, which is well aware of his general intentions, yet still in the dark as to their specifics. He deliberately continues the association of Clodius, 29 unna 30 This carefully designed speech, one which h e wrote beforehand and then read aloud to the senators, was consciously constructed in order to elicit a specific response: either the confidence to remain in pursuit of his program or the apprehension by which to fall back into the shadows. The response of the senators gave him the courage to continue his program, which included his speech to the people just a few days later. In th at speech Cicero once again relays his same message, although with less passion and more vagueness. By not naming his e nemies, who, according to the 26 Lintott (2008) 37. 27 This is the exact argument of his defense on behalf of Sestius. 28 See also Sest 36 50. 29 30 See Red Sen 32. The military imagery is employed by Cicero throughout the post reditum speeches. For more about the similarities between Clodius and Catiline, see Tatum (1999) 40 who sums up the ancient and modern sources. Tatum also treats Catiline as an element in Ci ceronian invective, pp. 142 145, 277 (n.117).
77 speech, come in four unique categories, 31 someone who is capable of taking revenge that is, one who possesses the necessary courage and strong position to do so but without committing himself to a particular 32 Again, Cicero contribute s to a dialogue, this time among the Quirites who witnessed his oration, and surely some of the same senators who had witnessed the previous speech. It is important for Cicer o to distinguish himself from notable politicians who have returned from exile in the past, namely Gaius Marius who upon his return, publicly conducted a vengeful bloodbath proscribing his enemies and seizing their estates 33 Even though Cicero is not kn own for his military prowess, he must make his intentions known to the people, which he does. Unlike Marius, Cicero will wage a war of words: But between Marius and myself there is this difference: he took vengeance on his enemies ( inimicos ) by just the m eans wherein he was strongest, that is by arms ( armis ); I shall use speech, as I have been wont to do. The former art finds its place in war and civil strife ( in bello et seditione ), the latter in peace and tranquility ( in pace atque otio ). 34 31 Red. Pop. 21: me quattuor omnino hominum genera violarunt, unum eorum, qui odio rei publicae, quod eam ipsis invitis conservaram, inimicissimi mihi fuerunt ; alterum, qui per simulationem amicitiae me nefarie prodiderunt: tertium, qui propter inertiam suam eadem adsequi non possent, i nviderunt laudi ei dignitati meae: quartum, qui cum custod es rei publicae esse deberent, salutem meam, statum civitatis, di gnitatem eius imperii, quod erat penes ipsos, vendiderunt divided into four classes. There are, first, those who have become my bitter enemies owing to their hatred of the republic, because its preservation by me was contrary to their wishes; there are, secondly, those who outrageously betrayed me by assuming the mask of friendship; third comes the class of those who were envious of my credit and reputation, which they were prevented by their own lack of energy from attaining; while the fourth consists of those who, through their position constituted them the guardians of the republic, bartered away my prosperity, the security of the community and the prestige of Pompey, Clodi us, and Piso and Gabinius come to mind respectively in each category. However, the about whom Cicero was referring. 32 Steel (2007) 117. 33 See Scullard (1963 ) 66 70 for more information about this time period. 34 Red. p op. 20 21 sed hoc inter me atque illum interest, quod ille, qua re plurimum potuit, ea ipsa re inimicos suos ultus est, armis, e go qua consuevi utar oratione quoniam illi arti in bello ac sediti one locus
78 What occurs i n the period immediately following, including approximately three weeks of fervent discussions among the Romans, both commoners and senators, is yet he is speaking abo ut the time until May 56, a period of at least six months, when we know that Cicero makes an about face in terms of political affiliation. 35 Nicholson does public at lar ge accepted the validity of his self defense, and that they acknowledged the fundamental injustice of his exile and loss of status to a malicious political 36 This short term acceptance gave him confidence to continue with his intentions as st ated in his speeches to the Senate and People. De domo sua falls between the deliberative and forensic genres because of its lack of personal defendant although Cicero general defends his own actions in order to regain his home and property on the Palatine, confiscated upon his exile, and destroyed by Clodius. In this speech, Cicero attempts to convince a panel of pontifices that his property should be returned to him and that he should receive compens ation for his home. It i s very interesting to note that by this point in the Ciceronian post reditum speeches, Cicero had not yet mentioned the name of Clodius as his enemy. I contend that he intended to do so in order to test the political waters; and the situation had not est, huic in pace atque otio. Quamquam ille animo irato nihil nisi de inimicis ulciscendis agebat, ego de ipsis amicis tantum, quantum mihi res publica permittit, cogitabo These same sentiments appear throughout the first third of the pro Sestio 35 Cicero retracted his previous position in the speech concerning legislation of the consular provinces, an unexpected acquiescence to Caesar. C f. Har. Resp 47. 36 Nicholson (1992) 130.
79 yet presented itself where Cicero could openly attack Clodius. Following the speeches to the Senate and People, Clodius made a serious allegation claiming that the current grain shortage was due to the increased number of strangers (supporters of Cicero) in Rome as well as divine disapproval of the law recalling Cicero. 37 Cicero turned the allegation into an opportunity to reaffirm his leadership role in politics by proposing that Pompey be put in charge of the corn supply in an unprecedented position with p owers for the next five years. Yet alternative proposals especially from Clodius, and the college of pontifices forced Cicero to defend his recall, the presence of his supporters, and the bill which allowed his return and the return of his property ( Att 4. 1. 7 ) On September 29, 57, at a meeting of the pontifical court, the two enemies came face to face, perhaps the first formal and public meeting between Cicero and Clodius of this contentious, to all. Yet, by not naming him in the previous speeches, Cicero intentionally waited to see how the public and senatorial opinion would respond. The confid ence with which Cicero now attacks Clodius con firms public and senatorial approval of his recall. The opportunity to openly wage war came in his speech regarding the return of his property on the Palatine, which had been stripped from him by Clodius afte r his exile. in early 58 Since then, Clodius had initiated a quarrel with Pompey by essentially kidnapping one of his 37 Dom 90; Att. 4.1.4; Dio 39.8. In July 57 the Senate issued a decr ee which maintained that a law should be put forth to the people who would allow Cicero to return to Rome and receive his confiscated property. Clodius alone was the dissenting voice in the Senate. The vote was taken on August 4 in the centuriate assembl y. Both Pompey and Lentulus worked hard to pass the bill. See also Sha c kleton Bailey (1971) 72 and Stockton (1971) 192 194.
80 wards, a prince of Armenia, which was an affront against his auct oritas 38 He openly boni In August 58 Clodius Pompey then withdrew from public life until Clodius was no longer tribune. Nevertheless, Clodius further pu Gabinius, whose f asces 39 Because t he Senate could not tolerate a tribune demeaning a consul Clodius subsequently lost some of his support. Thereafter, motions to recall Cicero were passed, which in effect further weakened With his campaign to restore his property, t could not have been more perfect. His position had been weakened by his own transgressions. 40 According to Quintilian, Cicero and Clodiu s each had the opportunity to speak to the jury regarding the property on the Palatine, perhaps even in debate form. 41 Whether abusive speech, and apparently was prese nt during the rest of proceedings (since Cicero at int ervals turns and addresses him ) 42 Cicero responds to Clodius in a lengthy speech which does not focus on the issue of his property until the last third. Instead, 38 As reported by Tatum (1999) 169f, Clodius tried unsuccessfully to return the son of the king to his father in Armenia. When both auctoritas of Pompey made them quick enemies. Tatum also explains that the Senate would not act on behalf of Pompey in prosecuting Clodius for his act, further enraging Pompey while passively substantiating Clodius. 39 Nisbet (1939) xix xx. 40 41 E asdem causas ut quisque egerit utile erit scire. D om 3. 42 Nisbet (1939) xxii.
81 43 which essentially places Clodius on trial. This strategy also forces the pontifices to view the proceedings and their decision as concerning a matter of state. The continuation of this theme is also seen in the later speeches against Vatinius and for Sestius and Caelius Cicero thus begins his campaign to promote his own political restoration. After a brief opening in which he defends his proposal in favor of Pompey as corn supply regulato consequently, on the validity of the bill of banishment ( Sest 34 42 ) 44 Yet the most position a nd legislation ; they are attacks against his character In § 26, 79 and 104, 45 These powerful assaults scattered thro ughout the whole of t he speech in addition to the ascension of Pompey to commander of the grain supply and overwhelming victory, caused Clodius to counterattack later in 57. We know procee ding and furthermore that he made frequent violent attacks against Cicero as he moved about the city. 46 43 Steel (20 07) 117. 44 Shackleton Bailey (1991) 37. 45 Steel (2007) 119. 46 Att 4.3.2ff. Cf. Sest 85; Cael 78; Mil 38, 87. Lintott (1999) 198 argues that once Cicero and Pompey Clodius resorted to extremes of violence in the winter of 57 also Stockton (1971) 196ff and Tatum (1999) 193.
82 In a letter to Atticus after delivering the De domo sua Cicero claimed that the speech was one of his finest and that he wanted to have i t published a s soon as possible ( Att 4. 3 ) While the exact publication date is unknown, Cicero obviously wished to place the speech permanently into contemporary social and political dialogue, to inflict further damage on Clodius. Also in this letter, Cicero tells Atticus of the dealings following the proceedings about the return of his properties. He feels slighted by the insufficient monetary sums awarded to him and claims that the people who had previously pennas inciderant nolunt easdem renasci see them grow back ( Att. 4. 2. 5 ) Cicero responds s ed, ut spero, iam renascuntur are 47 After only a month or so since his recall, Cicero feels positive about his return from exile because of general senatorial and public responses to his recent speeches. 48 He even tells Atticus of his plans to campaign for the position of censor, if the mood is right i n the eyes of the voters for that campaign. In doing so, Cicero has another opportunity to capitalize on his recent successes as well as to revisit the themes from these speeches post reditum Yet this time, in a defense speech, Cicero also launches an o ffensive attack. Enough time has passed for Cice now believes that he can begin his post exile assault upon the factions which had contributed to both the exile and the trial because they are one in the same The first 47 Shackleton Bailey (1999) 297. 48 Evidence for this generalization is the fact th at Cicero immediately reentered the political arena and won back his property.
83 half of the speech for Sestius includes a narrative of events leading up to exile one carefully woven together with events leading to the trial This technique creates an association intended to gather sympathy for both Cicero a nd Sestius. Cicero begins this battle by introducing a common character device in his speeches, a casual observer, 49 who would happen u pon the trial and wonder why nequaquam satis multi cives forti et magno animo invenirentur qui auderent se et salutem su am in discrimen offerre pro statu civitatis et pro communi libertate no sufficient num b er of brave and great hearted men could be found who would dare to expose themselves and their very lives for the general liberty ( Sest 1 ) Of course, speaking about himself and his client, Cicero establishes both himself and Sestius as part of this group. He then invite s 50 stressin 51 The language of the exordium is full of war 52 disrupted the peacefulness of the State. 53 n order to maintain peace. 54 But he interjects that the judges do not 49 Div Caec 1; Cael 1; Rab Post 1; Sex Rosc 1. 50 Sest 1, uno aspectu 51 (19 84) Loeb edition as well as detailed notes and explanations for much of the background information needed to obtain a full understanding of the pro Sestio. 52 latrocinio Sest. 1. 53 latrocinio Sest. 1. 54 dimicantes. Sest. 1.
84 precisely what Cicero intends to do. In fact, Cicero wants to instigate his own version of the wa r to those who fortissimis atque o ptimis civibus periculum moliri de se nihil timere, e vi s e danger for the b ravest and best citizens while ente rtaining no fear for themselves ( Sest 1 ) Cicero asks the judges to excuse his sharp tongue as he takes on a role tha t owes its character more to pio dolori et iustae iracundiae ( Sest 4 ) Escalating the importance of his own character, Cicero adds to his excuse that he is bound by duty: N am neque officio coniunctior dolor ullius esse potest quam hic meus susceptus ex hominis de me optime meriti periculo, neque iracundia magis ulla laudanda (est) quam ea quae me inflammat eorum scelere qui cum omnibus meae salutis defensoribus bellum esse sibi gerendum iudicaverunt ( Sest 4 ) For no sorrow can be more closely united to duty than this of mine, which has been caused by the peril of a man who has done me the greatest service; nor does any indigantion deserve greater praise than this of mine, which has been fired by the villainy of those who have decided to wage war against all the champions of my welfare. Here, Cicero further establishes his defensive role (as one of necessity) even though he claims not done. 55 Cicer o plans to address the character of Sestius, who was fortunate enough to have been tribune when the state had been in ruinis eversae et afflictae in ruins overturned and battered ( Sest 2 ) and, by association that Cicero draws the character of Sestius. Cicero begins his treatment of Sestius with a discussion of father, who was wise, scrupulous and strict ( Sest 6 ) These attributes were of course passed to 55 singulis criminibus. Sest 5.
85 Sestius, who married well and then had loyal children ( Sest 6 ) He was even able to retain the support of his father in law when his wife died and he remarried ( Sest 7 ) olleague ( Sest 8 ) This passage must have been difficult for Cicero, as he stumbles a bit over the activities and behaviors of his colleague, who may have been a tacit supporter of Catiline during his attempted coup. This fact actually works in favor of Sestius, who was able to persevere and not be spoiled by any of favorably mentions a military commander when he heroically saved Capua from Catilinarian attack ( Sest 9 ) Appealing to gratitude from the Capuans to the court. This use of a recited letter reoccurs in the next section as one in which he asks Sestius to return to Rome to assist hi m in the capture of Catiline is read aloud ( Sest 11 ) The mode of discourse, far ( Sest 13), and ability to follow orders e state from the Catiline. Ci cero continues to emphasize his excellent character citing examples such as y as quaestor in Macedonia, his dedication as tribun e four years later and finally to the matter at hand. Sestius is introduced as an ideal young Roman, who conducts himself and his affairs honorably Following his brief treatment of Publius Sestius, the family minded citizen, whom Cicero named in the first fourteen sections no less than seventeen times, Cicero asks his audience: qua in oratione si asperius in quosdam hominess invehi vellem, quis concederet, ut eos, quorum sceleris furore violatus essem, vocis libertate perstingerem?
86 who would not gra nt me the freedom to bruise with my speech those whose frenzied Sest 14 ) This rhetorical question tells the audience exactly what Cicero intends to do: he will mount an a ssault against his enemies. Immediately following, however Cicero says that he will use act moderate ; he wants that his enemies lateant so that we may simus obliti bygones Sest 14 ) By combining the force of an attack with the quality of patience, Cicero demo nstrates to his audience that he (and his defendant) did not start this war. But Cicero will do what is necessary in order to defend himself, Sestius, and the state. This is why he must recount events in the distant past to begin his case. Cicero con siders the charge against Sestius as an attack upon himself because exordium 56 Kaster comments, A t this point in a conventional defence speech, the advocate would give his version of the acts that provoked the charge, stressing the aspects favourable to his case, explaining, downplaying, or suppressing those that e tale as effectively as he could; and that is what Cicero does, though not in a conventional way. 57 Cicero designed his strategy so that he would be able to recount the events, actions and behaviors of his enemies, which were contra rem publicam in orde r to pro re publica 56 Kaster ( 2006 ) 141 57 Kaster (2006) 141.
87 narrated but stated and then restated, amplified and generalized, to make them seem 58 A s part of the strategy, Cicero uses military imagery and vocabulary to show that the violence 59 committed by his enemies warranted the actions of Sestius and others friendly to Cicero on behalf of the state. 60 As Cicero develops the war theme throughout the speech, he us es general imagery of combat situations against the State Further, he expresses his own opposition to these hostile criminal activities in order to encourage his audience to sympathize with him personally as well as his defense. 61 Once Cicero has introduced and developed t his theme he then launch es declaration In the first occurrence of his strat egy Cicero recounts when intentus est arcus in me unum, sicut vulgo ignari rerum loquebantur, re quidem vera in universam rem publica a bow was bent against [Cicero] alone but in reality against the entire 58 Kaster ( 2006 ) 145 59 Since the case is one de v i, the word vis in its various forms occurs throughout the speech, yet Cicero MacKendrick (1995) 214. Cicero focuses his use of the word on Clodius and his gangs in 34, 82, 88, 135, and especially against Cicero in 40, 53, 64, 75, 127, and 133. 60 As in MacKendrick (1995) 218: T he sense of defendo travels 20 times from battlefield to law court, mostly in reference to Cicero ( Sest 4, 14, 26, 31, 44, 67, 75, 146 ) With contendo and its relatives, the meaning travels from battlefield to a civil venue in various ways ( Sest 38, 40, 44) Negative examples of orno ornamentum surround Gabinius and Piso as enemies of the Republic (17, 60, 83, 110, 134). Everto home (17, 35, 121, 145). 61 As in MacKendrick (1995) 215: Scelus speech? Attacking Cicero himself (14, 17, 53, 133), attacking his defenders (4), being disloyal to him (145), attacking his brother (76), attacking C apua (9), or the Republic (17), confiscating the property of the friendly king of Cyprus (2); Gabinius In 106.
88 commonwealth It was the unnamed Clodius, des cribed as furibundi irati and inimici was transferred from patrician to plebe i an status ( Sest 15 ) Caesar himself approved the legislation which allowed a patrician ( Clodius ) to become a p leb e ian, and thus paved the way for him to become a tribune of the plebs. The imagery of the bow, showd his audience how he was under attack by both Caesar and Clodius, here, both unnamed. The strategy, explained by both Steel and Kaster independently, p uts the unnamed parties into a realm of the unknown, thereby assigning them sinister status. 62 However, the audience is fully aware of the people to whom Cicero refe rs. This rhetorical device adds suspense to the performance and piques the interest of the audience. The established enemy (Clodius) now has the reins of government, and so the weapons change. This enemy, because he lacks vigor ( Sest 16), must recruit two in order to perform wicked crimes agains t bo th nature and the state. Who would harm the state? Not just any men did the wicked enemy enlist, but two consuls ( Sest 17) who have the fasces as weapons, which they use in the wrong ways: ad delendum senatum, adfligendum equestrem ordinem, exsting uenda omnia iura atque instituta to confound the Senate, to humiliate the Equestrian Order, to abolish all the laws and institutions of our ancestors. 63 The force of these long winded, heavily alliterative words would have sounded dolorous and cumbersom e indicative of the impending doom of the republic. 62 Kaster (2006); Steel (2007). 63 attendants called lictors. These rods were symbols of power both
89 Cicero describes the first of these two consuls, still unnamed, as effeminate, not worthy of possessing the fasces ( Sest 18 ) His actions indicate that he is virtually a criminal, already a debtor an d monster. His colleague is worse: he looks regal and worthy yet this is a deception ( Sest 19 ) These are the first glimpses the audience gets of the enemies of Cicero, of Sestius, and, by association, of the state. Cicero mentions them again as he res tates and amplifies the evil qualities that each man possesses. 64 Patriots follow even the weakest of rulers, Cicero continues, because of their sense of duty to the state. Still, this second consul does not even have a sense of duty, because he agreed w ith philosophers : Sapientes omnia sua causa facere, rem publicam capessere hominem bene sanum non op o rtere, nihil esse praestabilius otiose vita plena et conferta voluptatibus ( Sest 23 ) 65 The wise do everything for their own interests; no sane man would engage in public affairs; nothing was preferable to life of tranquility crammed full of pleasures Cicero does not think that this man could harm anyone, but he summarizes what he and the other two men were capable of in his introduction to their deeds: S i gladium parvo puero aut si imbecillo seni aut nudum vel fortissimi viri corpus accesserit, possit acie ipsa et ferri viribus vulnerare, sic, cum hominibus enervatis atque exsanguinibus consulatus tamquam gladius esset datus, qui per se pungere neminem umq uam potuissent, ii summi imperii nomine armati nudatam rem publicam contrucidaverunt ( Sest 24) If you gave a sword to a little boy or a weak old man or a cripple, he could harm no one by making a frontal attack but could wound even the bravest man with so, when the consulship was given like a sword to people without strength 64 Cicero introduces Gabinius and Piso in 14 17 and then expounds upon his first introduction with detailed information about each man independently and then together: their personal qual ities (18 20a), rise to power (20b 23), actions as consuls (24 26), the laws they instituted (27 33) and illegal happenings under their rule (33 35). 65 Again, Cicero uses the heavy gerundives to make his point about Gabinius and Piso.
90 and vigor, who on their own could never have stabbed anyone, they found the commonwealth exposed, and they cut it to pie ces, armed with the title of supreme power. The weapons of the two consuls, and their compact with the tribune, harmed the state. Cicero claims that they sealed their pact with his sacrifice, when Clodius immediately introduced legislation which compelled Cicero to leave Rome. The people of Rome fought back, however, with the weapons of citizens: demonstrat ions, mourning dress, and tears ( Sest 25 ) This sets the stage for the defenders of the republic, s) rescue ( Sest 25 26 ) A t this point in the speech Cicero explains the circumstances of his own exile at listening and here, as he recalls their suffering, Cicero explains t hat their misery was operarum suarum gladiis et lapidibus swords and ston es of his hirelings Sest 27 ) Cicero compares one henchman, the consul Gabinius enemy, because he attempted to make a speech threatening the Roman knights for defending Cicero in this instance not only shows that the consulship was used as a we apon against the friends of Cicero but also demonstrates how even lawabiding citizens can Rome to men whose actions make them enemies of the state. It is not until § 31 that Cicero brings the audience back to the present. Here Cicero ceases his storytelling to remind the audience that he is defending the named Publius Sestius, who is presently the one suffering as a defendant, who devoted himself
91 and his force ( vim ) to secure the return of Cicero ( Sest 31 ) 66 Here Cicero deftly ties Sestius to himself, as each defended the State from the same enemies. This clever aside in mid take a breath durin g the fretful narrative about their own suffering, at the same time as Cicero prolongs the suspense to hear the names of the yet unnamed enemies. Cicero promises to reveal the relevance of his digressions, and then plunges immediately back into the narrat ive. Now that Sestius and Cicero share the role of defendant also Cicero can reveal the names of the enemies: tyrannical Piso and cruel Gabinius, entrenching himself and his defendant opposite them ( Sest 32 ) While the conventional types of consuls help maintain the peace and prosperity of the state, these madman that curse of his against [Cicer o] and against the commonwealth ( Ses t 33 ) ir evil: Isdemque consulibus inspectantibus servorum dilectus habebatur pro tribunali Aurelio nomine collegiorum, cum vicatim homines conscriberentur, decuriarentur, ad vim, ad manus, ad caedem, ad armati homines forum et contiones tenebant, caedes lapidationesque fiabant ( Sest 34) And while the same consuls sat and looked on, a levy of slaves was conducted at the Aurelia n tribunal for the alleged purpose of forming clubs, as street by street people were enlisted, formed up into squads, and incited 66 ac si in exponendi s vulneribus illis de me ipso plura dicere videbor, ignoscitote; nam et illam meam cladem vos et omnes boni maximum esse rei publicae vulnus iudicastis, et P. Sestius est reus non suo, sed meo nomine: qui cum omnem vim sui tribunatus in mea salute consumps erit, necesse est meam causam praeteriti temporis cum huius praesenti defensione esse coniunctam, And if in laying open these wounds, I se e m to say rather much about myself, you must pardon me. For both you and all loyal citizens held that the disaster t hat befell me was the greatest possible wound to the State, and that Publius Sestius is a defendant not on his own account, but on mine; and since he devoted all the strength his tribunate gave him to promoting my welfare, my cause in past time must needs be linked with the defense of Sestius in the present.
92 Weapons were openly stockpiled Armed men controlled the fo rum and the assemblies of the people, murders were committed, and people were stoned. The person responsible, because of the ineffectiveness of the consuls, becomes the ultimate enemy, also the hand behind the prosecution for vis Cicero dramatizes the i rony of the situation, for this is exactly the charge against Sestius: unus omnem omnium potestatem armis et latrociniis possidebat non aliqua vi sua, sed, cum duo consules a re publica provinciarum foedere retraxisset, insultabat, dominabatur, aliis polli cebatur, terrore ac metu multos, plures etiam spe et promissis tenebat ( Sest 34 ) 67 One man alone held all power with the help of arms and brigand age, not by any force of his own, but after he had diverted the two consuls from the interests of the State by the bargain over the provinces, he behaved insolently, played the tyrant, made promises to some, kept his hold on many by fear and terror, on still more by hopes and promises. Cicero pauses again, at the climax of his narrative about his enemies, this ti me to provide a defense of his actions and intentions when Clodius and the two consuls came to power. This consular apologia in § 36 50, which gives Cicero the opportunity to expand the brief arguments of the same sort offered in the previous post reditum speeches, 68 is approximately the same length as his depiction of his enemies and their deeds ( Sest 15 35 ) parent weakness in his position: in this case, the feebleness of his withdrawal ( Sest 36), in the latter, the in consistency of his stance and then affirms that the apparent weakness in fact manifests the most 67 Note the language used here (a tricolon): armis et latroniciis and vi show how Clodius used his power against the State. Cicero also employs tricolon crescens (with three increasing verbs) and then descens (with three decreasing ablatives the tools he used to harm Rome) in the conclusion of the period which insultabat, dominabatur, aliis pollicebatur ; terrore ac metu, plures etiam spe et promissis 68 Red. sen 33 4; Dom 96 9.
93 69 enemies, he uses favorite fellow novus homo Gaius Marius (again) 70 as an histo rical 71 in this justification for his own actions. Cicero twice manipulates the figure of Marius as it suits him in this speech. The exemplum of Gaius Marius is ambiguous because of the extent and characteristics of his car eer in Roman politics. Here he cites the example that uses Marius as an enemy, who forced his counterpart, Metellus Numidicus to withdraw from Rome rather than see her succumb to violence. Marius, backed by Saturninus, thought he was acting in the inte rest of the people. By contrast, Cicero becomes like Metellus, and an additional exemplum M. Aemilius Scaurus, whose actions prevented civil war, whereas his own enemy, Clodius, seems to seek out civil war with his actions ( Sest 37 ) n continues through § 49. During the continuation of his apologia he consistently compares himself to a strong fighter who chooses not to go to violence. The language in each chapter is clearly militar y : erat autem mihi contentio non cum victore exercitu, sed cum operis conductis et ad diripendam urbem concitatis I had to contend not with a victorious army, but with gang s of hirelings, made eager to plunder the city ( Sest 38 ) And later, verebar, ne quis aut vim vi depulsam reprehenderet aut perditorum civium vel potius 69 Kaster (2006) 202. 70 Carney (1960) 82 113 examines how Cicero uses Marius as an exemplum in his speeches. 71 exemplum using him t hroughout his speeches for various reasons. Marius, too, was a new man who saved Rome but in the end led Rome into a civil war to increase his own powers. Op. cit. Sull. 23; Red. Pop. 9; Leg. 2; Div. 1. 106.
94 domesticorum hostium mortem maereret If I had overcome these men by force of arm s I had no fear that any one blame me for repelling force with force, or that anyone would lament the death of abandoned citizens or rather enemies in our midst ( Sest 39 ) These reasons which bothered Cicero were the words of Clodius, who had used the names and reputations of three powerfully influential Romans for political leverage. This so called first triumvirate was formed in 60 in order to benefit each member, Caesar, Crassus, and Pompey, in a unique way. 72 Cicero was perfectly awar e of the capa bilities of Pompey, his and also those of Crassus, his current colleague in the defense of Sestius. Clodius played the three against Cicero, claiming that one of them had a very lar ge army in Italy, while the other two c ould raise their own armies quickly. And he made Cicero and all Romans believe that signa legionum against Rome ( Sest 42 ) The digression abou t the triumvirs is an ext ension of the tactic used by Cicero in his exemplum of Marius, Saturninus and Metellus. There, Cicero carefully points out that Marius was a worthy foe, a consular, former savior of the country, and was accompanied by the tribune Saturninus who was n a lert fellow and a popular 72 For more information and discussion about th e first triumvirate, see Sanders (1932), who seeks to prove that Cicero never knew about the secret coalition, using his letters from exile as evidence. He also Cary the traditional framework of the constit revisits the subject, surveying 78 Ward (1977) carefully assesses major events in 59 which led to the development of th e first triumvirate, career up to and throughou t his consulship. Riggsby (2002) 95 triumvirate both as one entity and the three individuals.
95 73 Marius and Saturninus, 74 subsequent actions. Cicero compares them to the consuls G abinius and Pi us, both unworthy: consigned [ them ] 75 Clodius and the consuls, unworthy foes, needed to use the names of the most powerful men in the R epublic in order to affect the exile of Cicero. Cicero has thus spent roughly thirty chapters speaking of the evil power of Clodius and his hired thugs. By giving credit to Clodius and his supposed leverage, the triumvirate, Cicero magnifies their import ance and consequently, their evil status. The triumvirs also become public enemies of Cicero. 76 Even though he treads lightly about his relationship with each man and their actions, just by using them in his speech, Cicero has tied their actions to Clodiu s. As they treated Marcus Portius Cato, also a vocal anti Catilinarian, and harsh foe of the 73 Sest 37, res erat cum L. Saturnino, iterum tribuno plebis, vigilante homine, et in causa populari si non moderate a t certe populariter abstinenterque versato 74 Lucius Appuleius Saturninus was a tribune of the plebs in 103 and 100, He assisted consul Marius with an agrarian law which provided land for the veterans of his campaigns against the Germans. With these exempl a of Bibulus. 75 Sest 38, sed duo importuna prodigia, quos egestas, quos aeris alieni magnitudo, quos levitas, quos improbitas tribuno plebis constrictos addixerat 76 Lintott (1999) 198 n. 1 exonerates Crassus from this union somewhat because Crassus seemed to stay on the political fence. Crassus did not enjoy any military successes like those of Pompey and may have tried to aggravate him by using Clodius as a hench man, but there is much argument that Clodius was an group the triumvirate (even Crassus, who defended Sestius with Cicero) and Clodius into the same factio n, contra rem publicam because Cicero had always opposed its existence and he aims to show Pompey has been difficult to uncover. I treat this section of t he speech, known for its message of otium cum dignitate in Chapter 3.
96 populares ly hurt Cicero, who at the time had already become an exile. 77 another purpose: He is in effect declaring his independence from the three, especially now during his triump one who uses rumor and hearsay to accomplish his goals. The reference to Catiline who mounted his conspiracy using similar means actions, reinforces Cic ( Sest 42 ) Furthermore, although Cicero did This is very important in the early spring of 56 as Cicero is forensically re establishing his role in Roman politics. failed ultimately to benefit Rome, also corresponds with his previous citation of Gabinius, Piso, and Clodius who tried to attack the state ( 15 35 ) Again, the im agery is militar y The verb s, highly alliterative with numerous instances of the pluperfect subjunctive isse suffixes (and similar sounds) 78 In each instance, the propose d situational alternatives yield defeat yet then, as the narrative reaches a climax, Cicero launches his own volley of questions. This bombardment of rh etorical questions 77 Att 2.18.3), Cato proudly accepted a post in Cyprus, recently annexed by Rome from Ptolemy XI Auletes of Egypt. 78 defuisse. vicissent; interfectus esset; dixisset; decertassem, fuisset impos uisset, maluissem; concidissem ( Sest 43) S enatum consules, credo, vocassent, quem totum de civitate delerant; ad arma vocassent, qui ne vestitu quidem defendi rem publi cam sissent (abbreviated form of sivissent) ; a tribuno plebis post interitum dissedissent, qui eandem horam meae pestis et suorum praemiorum esse voluissent ( Sest 44 )
97 mimick s the cacophony on a battlefield and perhaps, the tormented mindset of Cicer o while deciding to leave Rome. The denouement of his apologia comes with another round of exempla although here, following his fierce attacks, Cicero employs a mythological reference followed by historical exempla of revered heroes ( Sest 44 ) The trico lon of examples here completes a tricolon of allusions in the narrative, which focus es on the episode involving the most powerful men in Rome: Crassus, Pom pey, and Caesar, who failed to save Cicero from his exile 79 Cicero may be implying that their power ful reputation s which w er e effectively misappropriated by Clodius w ere nothing more than criminal inactivity apologia or what he called omnem rationem facti et consilii mei ( Sest. 36 ) doe 80 ty. 81 His tactic of showing how very powerful men had been essentially impotent when the state needed them most also climaxes with an exemplum this time, and once again, of Marius. In contrast to the enemy that Cicero described at the beginning of his apologia he now utilizes Marius as a savior of Rome. Cicero describes Marius, his fellow Arpinate, as active even into his old age. § 50 is filled with a lively narrative of 79 The structure of the apologia exempla : Marius, Saturninus, Metellus (36 38); Crassus, Pompey, Caesar (39 41); Erechtheus, Gaius Mucius, Publius Decius (44) 80 Kaster (2006) 211. 81 dilemma as he faced Clodius and the consuls, Kaster does show tha extent possible, quoad licuit (39); who was not obliged to be estranged, (39), et al.) were characteristic of the care he took in treating these men in his post reditum speeches. The three are only also mentioned together in Har. resp
98 Africa to ultimately benefit Rome ( Sest 50 ) Immediately following his depiction of Marius, Cicero inserts himself as a recent day Marius, braving the greatest challenges because he lived at the 82 Following his apologia Cicero claims to return to the events which le d to the charge against Sestius ( Sest 51 ) This transition is the calm following the storm of questions in the previous section, where Cicero carefully recapped his argument. He also gives his audience a chance to pause before he describes the events of 58 Again the imagery of war is substantial, as Cicero claims through a series of praeterit iones civilians with threat of armed military force, nor a general by the city gate s Cicero has returned. 83 He says, Quae cum omnia atque etiam multo alia maiora, quae consulto praetereo, accidissent, videtis me tamen in meam pristinam dignitatem brevi tempore doloris interiecto rei publicae voce esse revocatum ( Sest 5 2 ) Although all of these things have come to pass and other, much more serious things that I intentionally set aside you see that the commonwealth has nonetheless called me back, after a brief interval of grief, to the worthy standing that I previously em ployed. This rather bold statement, buried in the peaceful intermission betwe apologia and the events of 58, is the first of its kind since his return. Cicero has just 82 Gardner (1984) 99 note d. 83 P rimum non est periculum ne quis umquam incidat in eius modi consules, praesertim si erit iis id quod debetur persolutum. deinde numquam iam, ut spero, quisquam improbus consilio et auxilio bonorum se oppugnare rem publicam dicet illis tacentibus, nec armati exercitus terrorem opponet togatis; neque erit iusta causa ad portas sedenti imperatori qua re suum terrorem falso iactari opponique patiatur. Sest. 52
99 completed what will become one third of his first defense speech post reditu m. In it, rather than provide a true defense of his client, Cicero gave the onlookers, the jury, and the Roman Forum itself, the sights and sounds of its savior. This, I believe, is the endpoint of the praemunitio pro Sestio A praemun itio t o set aside any doubts the prosecutor had raised under that heading, and any other doubts or side issues that might hinder him from presenting the relevant facts of the 84 Rather than provide advance fortifications for Sestiu s in his praemunitio Cicero pleads a case on his own behalf in order to redeem himself in the eyes of Rome. In this speech, and in his next ( pro Caelio ) Cicero forcefully departs from the conventional speech structure. Granted the conventional struct u re was more of a guide than a strai tjacket, Cicero nonetheless seized the opportunity presented by the defense of Sestius to give an account of his own life and career immediately prior to his exile for the purpose of his own political redemption. He fill s this elaborate narrative with invective (against Clodius and his accomplices ) and blame (on the triumvirs) to help his audience understand and perhaps forgive his past crimes. 85 This section of the pro Sestio contains a tactic frequently employed in defe ns e speeches: the mourning family ( Sest 53 ) 86 Cicero pointedly seeks the sympathy of his audience in order to prepare them for the attack forthcoming. 84 Kaster (2006) 23. 85 i.e. the reasons for his exile. 86 cf. Sest 6; Cael 4 5; Sull 19 20; Flac 106; Clu 12
100 Sed ut revertar ad illud, quod mihi in hac omni est oratione propositum, omnibus malis illo anno scele re consulum rem publicam esse eripuissem et metu vestri periculi, non mei, furori hominis, sceleri, perfidiae, telis minisque cessissem patriamque, quae mihi erat carissima, propter ipsius patriae caritatem reliquissem ( Sest 53 ) But to return to the object which I have set before me throughout the whole of my speech, to show that in that year the State was ruined by all manner When I had torn myself away from the arms of my country and from the sight of you; when, through fear of danger to you, not to myself, I had yielded arms and threats, and had left my country, which was dearer than anything else to me, for the very reason it was so dear. Cicero personifies the Fatherland as he reluctantly departed from her embrace. The imagery of parent and repeated use of patria further suggest a child parent bond. The depictions of his own selflessness mirror that of a parent sacrif icing self for a child, yet the imagery is reversed, since Cicero is the child of his patria carissima This sad the possibilities proposed by Cicero when he was con sidering the attacks of his enemies, once again engages the audience and prepares them for what comes next. Once Cicero explains his departure, he and his family become the passive victims of Clodius and his gangs. The verbs concerning Cicero in § 54 are all passive voice while his enemies actively use force against him. 87 The focus moves from Cicero to his attackers because Cicero intends also to utilize this praemunitio to advance his planned attack on his enemies in the narratio which follows ( Sest 5 6 92 ) Because Cicero designed the beginning of his speech as a device of redemption, he has built the confidence needed to continue with his defense of Sestius, which truly 87 P assi sunt; me perculso, vexabatur uxor mea, liberi quaerebantur, gener reiciebatur, bona deripiebantur eaque deferebantur, consules epulab antur, laetabantur, commoverentur Sest 54.
101 lies between § 55 and § 95. His successful strategy was to show that Clodius was g uilty of physical violence against the R epublic so that no deed which opposed those actions against the R epublic could be considered an act against it However, an important aspect of his strategy was the character portraits painted in his praemunitio of redemption. By making Gabinius, Piso and Clodius the embodiments of evil, criminal behavior, and war like violence, all of their activities leading to 58 and following until contra rem publicam 88 They acted against Cicero, who alway s patria carissima suffered at the hands of his enemies. When Cicero describes the actions of those forces which countered evil, especially Sestius, as well as Milo and others he speaks of heroes vanquishing evil. It was through these clever characterizations of himself, his enemies, his allies, and the state that Cicero was able to create a battle between good versus evil and successfully defend Sestius. It also gave Cicero the opportunity to elevate the status of a certain kind of Roman in his ethica disgressio which follows in § 96 143. 89 88 A definition of vis discussed at length in Riggsby (1999) 79 119. 89 Much scholarship about the pro Sestio 143, specifically questioning and discussing what Cic otium cum dignitate see Gardner (1984), Kaster (2006) 31 40; May (1988) 90 105; Remy (1928) argues that in the Pro Sestio otium cum dignitate applies to the State and the government, whereas in all other instanc es it applies to individuals. Wirszubski (1954) explains and condenses prior arguments to derive that it the words mean What was meant by Cicero he avoids. Balsdon (1960) 43 71 argues otium cum dignitate a call to defend lex and ius against vis and to urge the young to take to the optimate way with courage and energy. For this study, I intentionally avoided discussion of the meaning of otium cum dignitate manifesto in which he defines the roles of populares and optimates in order to attempt to break apart the union of Caesar, Crassus and Pompey. I briefly discuss this part of the speech in Chapter 3.
102 At the conclusion in what is called a commiseratio Cicero appeals to the jury, restating his personal request for justice. After plead ing on behalf of fathers and sons, friends and companions, Cicero glorifies the State above all the rest: ipsa res publica, qua nihil est sanctius then establishes himself as partner of Rome, his ultimate character creation, in his final statement: vos me reficere et renovare rem publicam It is your [judgment] to restore m e and make the commonwealth new Sest 147 ) By their judgment, the jury did indeed restore Cicero, who redeemed himself in their eyes, but ultimately failed to rejuvenate Rome.
103 CHAPTER 5 RESTORATION: PRO CAE LIO N emo qui breviter arguetque incluso adversario laxaret iudicum animos atque a severitate paulisper ad hilaritatem risumque traduceret Cicero, Brut us 322 1 E go n ihl dicam nisi depellendi criminis causa Cicero, pro Caelio 31 The string of forensic successes experienced by Cicero following his return to Rome had giv en him great courage. He wrote: nos adhuc in nostro statu quod difficillime recuperari posse arb itrari sumus, splendorem nostrum illum forensem et in senatu auctoritatem et apud viros bonos gratiam, magis quam optaremus consecuti sumus ( Att 4.1 ) Of my general position it can thus far be said that I have attained what I thought would be most diffi cult to recover, namely my public prestige, my standing in the Senate, and my influence among the boni, in larger meas ure that I had dreamed possible The two weeks following his victory in the case of Sestius were filled with even more politically charged trials. 2 This busy time for Cicero and his supporters must have given him the confidence about his newly strengthened public position because, in the next trial, he deliberately attacked the noble and influential family of the Claudii. In his defense o f Marcus Caelius Rufus, the high living, young and aspiring Roman politician, Cicero launches bitter invective against both Clodius and his sister, Clodia Metelli. The charges de vi a collection of alleged offenses both international and domestic in nat ure, forced a trial during the Ludi Megalenses a festival honoring the 1 From the Brutus [There was] n as able to relax the attention of the court and pass for a moment from the seriousness of the business in hand to provoke a smile or open laughter. pro Caelio I will say no more that what is necessary to repel the charge. 2 Milo prosecuted Sextiu s Cloelius just prior ( paucis his diebus ) to the trial for Caelius, ( Cael 78 ) Cicero successfully defended Publius Asicius of the murder of Dio of Alexandria, ( Cael 3 4).
104 Magna Mater 3 The circumstances of the trial, the citizens involved, and the innocence. 4 In de fense of this tendency there are few words besides those of Cicero regarding the events and characters involved with this scandalous trial. And it is analysts. 5 Could Ca elius have committed murder? Was he even capable of such a deed? The Roman jury a cq uitted him of the charges; yet, was he totally innocent? The Roman legal system assumed innocence until guilt was proven 6 ; and scholars have largely focused on the unlik elihood of the major charge, the attempted poisoning of Clodia Metelli. Very little consideration has been given to the possibility that Caelius was guilty on some, if not all charges in the indictment Scholars have been misled, as was the ancient jury, dingly clever and witty denial of the poisoning charge in the comic scene he paints of the supposed transfer of the drug at the Senian bath ( Cael 56 69 ) masterpie ce, I aim to uncover his purpose and explain his methods. 3 Var. L. 6. 15. 4 E.g. Austin ( 1960 ) 152 ts 3 rd edition) has become the authoritative text for the pro Caelio offering a detailed introduction and numerous appendices to give every reader a full understanding of the circumstances surrounding the trial, the prosecution, the defense, the charges, and the effects. 1934 ) 137 147, who writes from a different era. Her argument is almost humorously subjective and very antiquated. I chose her much of the pre WWII scholarship. It is not until post modernist and more feminist views of the later 1980s and following that scholarship appreciates, with perhaps a bit more objectivity, the circumstances of the trial and our sources for it. 5 Craig (1 depicts Clodia as a spurned lover paving the course for Cicero to detail an affair without truly admitting it, invent an exha ustive argument, and validate to his own version of events through his repetition. 6 Clarke (1953) 64 65, 78.
105 There were numerous political considerations involved in the trial. Scholars agree Lucius Calpurnius Bestia, whom he had prosecuted previously (and unsuccessfully) for electoral malpractice in the praetorian election of 57 B.C. 7 According to Roman law, when one citizen was being charged with a crime, he could not make a charge against another. Thus, scholars believe t vis against Caelius in order to block a second suit against his father. Following the argument Craig argues that the prosecution misused the charge of vis, that the charges of gold and poison were The defense initiated by Cicero seems to support this idea, because only a fraction of the speech is dedicated to the actual legal defense of Caelius (only about 29 c hapters of the 80 ) But there are serious problems here First, who was Caelius, really? From this speech we learn t hat the young man was an apprentice in politics and rhetoric under both Crassus and Cicero, though briefly distracted from his mentors by ising star status warrant character destruction by others? Alexander gives a more objective explanation regarding the severity and number of the charges: 7 This is one of the very few instances recorded in which a man who had been acquitted previously would be tried again for the same crime. Alexan der (1982) discusses the few occurrences in his article.
106 We know relatively little about the vis laws. We cannot discern whether all the allegations, if true would have constituted violations of the vis law under which this trial was conducted; clearly, some of them could have been handled under other laws. We also cannot know to what extent the jury was likely to take a strict legalistic position, or whether they would regard any violent conduct as falling within their purview. But they ought to have found Caelius guilty if they decided that he had violated the law in any way, so the prosecution was not risking much by including everything that might impress the jurors as a violation of the vis law. 8 Since the Romans believed that bad character led to criminal acts, in order to create a more solid case against Caelius the prosecution stacked up charges against his character. The prosecution alleged eight spe cific offenses against Caelius: civil disturbances, assault, property damage, the murder of Dio, an attack on a senator, an 9 These were bundled together by the prosecu tion and they filed these as charges under the vis law. 10 But some, or all, may well have had some basis in truth. 11 8 charges submitted at the beginning of the trial, as to the charges he was allowed to bring be f ore the scholars have assumed little legal significance may have had more trial related significance than previously thought. 9 ere for a summary of the charges (1982) 164. Op cit. Austin (1960) 152. 10 There is controversy as to which vis law governed this trial, the lex Lutatia or the lex Plotia and, furthermore, as to the jurisdictional relationship between the two. Second, sch olars disagree as to which allegations against the defendant are part of a general denigration of the defendant and which represent charges relevant to the business of the courts; the fact that Cicero weaves in and out between the two complicates the analy sis. The skill with which Cicero misleads the jury by mixing refutation of real charges with character defamation is well explicated by Stroh (1975) 243 95. 11 Several scholars make this same statement but none move past it. See Austin (1960), Gotoff (1986 ), strategy in which he created a defense through practical inventio in order to achieve a win for his client. He does not go beyond the statement because the aim of his discussion in practical criticism. Ciraolo (2003) uses Austin as his basis for background information. I have not found a scholar who challenges the innocence of Caelius or seeks to challenge the veracity of the charges against him. This is due to the charges against him. I have incl uded much of this argument in Appendix B.
107 According to Cicero, the charges were fictitious and merely a way to destroy the character of Caelius. Yet Cicero needed to make this argum ent in his speech in order to 1) obtain an a cq uittal for his client (and therefore a win for himself) and 2) justify his greater purpose: the character assassination of Clodia. In order to do this, Cicero contended that only the last two charges were real 12 ( Cael 30, 51) while brushing off the others as irrelevant slander. 13 As a result, his defense focused on the charges made by Clodia. 14 Yet Cicero did not actually defend his client against these last two charges but, rather, he used the circumstances and t he trial to conduct an attack on Clodia. This also explains why Cicero radically departed from the standard speech outline 15 In his own de Inventione 16 Cicero lays out the conventional structure of forensic speech. The pro Caelio however, excludes the narratio and divisio the parts of the speech which normally follow the exordium He focuses less on the facts of the case and more on the c haracters of Caelius and Clodia, since Cicero was not interested in defending Caelius per se ored status in Roman politics and recent 12 defense speech ( Cael 13 upon this is part of his strategy for acquittal 14 Heinze (1925) 60, among others, interpreted §25 specifically that Cicero responds to the speeches of the prosecution, namely Herennius Balbus, when he fo cuses on the charges relating to Clodia. In response, Gotoff (1986) 123 brilliantly summarizes a caveat advocate, whether concerning the facts of the case, th e characters and attitudes of the principals in the trial, the charges and laws involved, or the conduct of the trial, represents the highly controlled and manipulated result of a very practical application of inventio 15 Ciraolo (2003) xxxi. 16 Inv I.20 1 09.
108 who had harmed him. 17 Yet why did Cicero d irect the majority of his speech against Clodia and not her brother? The effect of the pro Caelio in a long lasting, commonly accepted characterization of not only Clodia, 18 but also her brother, Clo dius, Caelius, as well as Atratinus, and the other ingeniously contrived personae in the speech. First mentioned passively as the instigator of the trial and then Cael 18), Clodia suffered severe blows when Cicero used scathing invective against her as a defensive strategy. Because of his invective, ancient and modern scholars alike have focused on this anti Cornelia as the bad girl of faltering Republican Rome. Few scholars have departed or tried to defend her. 19 17 Clarke (1953) 78. 18 Clodia also be lost forever See Skinner (1983) 275. Also see Appendix A for a summary of the identification of sible connection to this trial. 19 R. Heinze ( 1925) 193 258 and E. Ciaceri (19 3 0) 1 24 have shown that Cicero deliberately magnified Clodia's part in the prosecution. Heinze holds that the prosecution of C aelius was the result of a combination between Bestia's friends and family and the family of Clodia, and he goes on to say that Cicero tried to gain a tactical advantage by giving the impression that Clodia was the heart and soul of the prosecution, a nd th at it all derived from her, pp. 197. It is doubtful, however, whether Clodia's family gave any official backing to the prosecution. Cicero's remark in Pro Caelio 68 tandem aliquid invenimus quod ista mulier de suorum propinquorum sententia atque auctorit ate fecisse dicatur implies that they did not, but Cicero's word, in such circumstances, carries very little weight as evidence. However, there can be no doubt about Cicero's contempt for the performance of P. Clodius, the subscriptor. This Clodius was cl early a man of very little oratorical ability or standing, and it is inconceivable that, had Clodia's family been giving their official sanction to the prosecution, they would not have selected some more weighty and responsible representative. It seems tha t he was some nonentity whom Clodia had induced to appear to give the impression that she had the support of her family. have always been portrayed as vindictive spite and the desire to revenge herself on Caelius for casting her off. But there is no authority for this view apart from Cicero himself, and to implant in the minds of the jurors the idea that Clodia was a vengeful cast off lover was an essential part of his case. of the charges and their implications show how and why the ancient jury could have been so easily suaded as was modern scholarship.
109 Before examining her character as portrayed by Cicero here, we must ask ourselves, why did Clodia open herself to ridicule, given the possibility that Cicero could indeed ruin her reputation? If she was as clever as Cicero hims elf claims her to be, and if we assume as most do that she is the docta puella of Catullus, why would Clodia align herself with a prosecution that may have only peripherally involved her brother? 20 Clodius seems to have been implicated at least tangentiall y to the prosecution, led by Atratinus. 21 The dutiful son, Atratinus was also politically motivated to charge Caelius in 22 His contention is ba rather than on sound historical evidence. Still, how were the Clodii and Atratinus add any substance to the indictment? Rather than treating the charges of gold and poison as peripheral additions to the other charges de vi perhaps they were the heart of the case against Caelius because scholarship, pro vides an alternate viewpoint into the mindset of Clodia. Rather than a vengeful lover, who had been jilted by a younger man, Dorey argues that Clodia may 20 Austin (1960). 21 ition of the last "generation" of the title is the period 78 to 49. Gruen's aim is to examine those years from a contempo rary Roman point of view while attempting to untwist the perspective of Cicero, treating the time period both chronologically and them atically. His main hypothesis contrasts a majority of scholars, who believe that the destruction of the Roman republic was gradual. 22 Austin (1960) viii. See also Salzman (1982), who attempts to show that Cicero uses the setting of the Ludi Megalensis t o further attack the Clodii family with yet another reference to their unorthodox religious
110 23 thereby inciting his fury agai nst her. This initial challenge to accepted scholarship may have influenced the al truth. 24 Skinner establishes that Clodia was an independent and influential woman who wielded the often envied power of a self sufficient sexual being. Consequently, Clodia joined the prosecution because she was a victim of Caelius, as the charges stat e, and therefore sought to seek justice for the crimes against her. 25 In so doing, she required the assistance of her b rother. Skinner further states, [Clodia] did adhere to the recognized norms of conduct for the noblewomen of her generation even when s he involved herself in supposedly party in disputes involving members of her family could conceivably be relatives. 26 Yet here I argue that rather than providing evidence in a case which Clodius may the point needs to be made that initially Clodia could have asked her brother to support Atratinus lest Caelius elude prosecution for his crimes against her and by extension, her family. 27 Inciting Clodius 23 Dorey (1958) 178. 24 Skinner (1983) 273 287. 25 Wiseman (1979) 122 states and his sisters too, for that matter would stand time of crisis here. 26 Skinner (1983) 273 287. The Laudatio Turiae CIL VI 1527, is strong evidence for this role. 27 Dorey (1958) 178 explains a number of reasons for the presumed enmity between Cicero and Clodia, specifically citing that 1) Clodia may h Palatine upon his exile ( Dom 62, Red. S en. 18, Sest 54); 2) Clodia wanted Cicero to divorce Terentia and marry her (Plut. Cic 2 9 .); and 3) Clodia may have misrepresented Cicero to the Metell i in 62 to hurt Cicero ( Fam 5. 2. 6.) I find these citations to be entirely circumstantial.
111 further against the defense team were the recent speeches made by Cicero. 28 Clodius therefo re agreed to help Atratinus in his prosecution in order to support his sister. His involvement was simple and detached, since he did not have to be present during the trial. 29 30 When the Clodii joined Atratinus in the prosecution of Caelius Cice ro joined the defense Why else would Cicero have chosen to involve himself with the ungrateful youth who had disappointed him by associating with Catiline and defeating him in the case which led ultimately to his departure from Rome? 31 Certainly these events were openly and copiously about the circumstances of his exile since his return. 32 The opportunity to complete his political resto the establishing the defensive strategy, Crassus and Caelius himself deal with most of 28 See Chapter 3 for speeches leading up to and including pro Sestio ; Chapter 6 for the relationship between Cicero and Clodius. 29 As stated, the trial took place during the Ludi Megalenses April 3 4, 56 BC. For more about the role of curule aedile in 56 BC, could not be at the trial due to his civic and ritual responsibilities at the festival. See Ta tum (1999) for the most comprehensive look into the life of Clodius. 30 Cicero refers to the P. Clodius present at the trial, and probably a speaker for the prosecution, in §27. Austin (1952) 153 154 in §27 to stand as is if he was most likely not in attendance at the trial in the Forum, but rather overseeing the Ludi Megalenses see note above. This gens 31 In his speech in defense of Hybrida, Cicero may have offended Caesar. That very day in 59 BC, Clodius was allowed by Caesar to transfer to plebian status. This gave Clodius the opportunity to become t ribune of the p lebs. He then began his campaign to remove Cicero from Rome, ( Dom 41). 32 establish his reputation began with the speeches Post Reditum, de Domo Sua and pro Sestio; each mentioned causes and effects of his exile. T he first speech of this post exile period that we have in which Cicero does not include this material is the pro Caelio I argue that the absence of
112 the charges, leaving to Cicero the charges of gold and of poison directly involvi ng Clodia, which are a major component of the speech. 33 Cicero could not change or lie about the events that happened at the Senian bath, yet he could exaggerate them into a comedic scene as part of his fabula for the jury. Indeed, much of the latter par ( Cael 30 70 ) He knew that in order to gain an a cq uittal reputation), he needed to discredit the party with the most leverage and power. Clodia was the key witne ss for the prosecution because she was a victim of the defendant. Cicero, however, uses her vulnerability to ruin her by means of his inaccurate portrayal of her as meretrix Medea and mulier 34 In a reversal of sorts, I give more credit to Clodia. She w as not only the emotional victim of Caelius, but also the physical victim. Should scholars ignore the possibility that she managed to escape his attempted murder of her? Because Cicero alone controls his own invective, scholars have not given Clodia any chance for respect or credibility. The method of his inventio is to establish two stock characters: adul e scens and mulier. Through the use of these two words as well as their context, placement, and a tool by which a culpable man is raised above suspicion and a victimized woman is made a laughable object of invective This strategy provided Cicero with another means to attack Clodius and his family. T he defense constructed by Cicero in t he pro 33 In Cael 1 3, 29 31 Cicero specifically mentions t he charges of gold and poisoning, whereas in § 30 70, Cicero discusses the influence of mulier (Clodia) over the adulescens (Caelius) See below. 34 Cicero uses meretrix sparingly and for dramatic effect, but esp. in 1, Medea in 17, and mulier throughout a s an epithet connoting evil.
113 Caelio was one based on character, not o n factual guilt or innocence, and was a chanc e to help prosecute the man who tried to kill her. The prosecution presented their speeches and then the speeches of Caelius, speaking on his own behalf, and of Crass of the trial and teased his audience with the real reason for a trial on such a festive day, when he implies that the trial was caused by a woman, or, even worse, a prostitu te. meretriciis opibus ( Cael 1 ) 35 In order to make up for the lack of holiday mood in the court, Cicero ing spectacle. As stated previously, Cicero was riding high on the successes of the past month. 36 His strategy was set from the beginning: discredit Clodia and hurt the Clodians. 37 His speech allowed him the scope to create a defense using insinuation rat her than fact. As if the situation and involved persons were too easily understood by Cicero, in his exordium, he invents two new, additional characters that he alone will have the opportunity to control and manipulate in order to capitalize on all of the circumstances of 35 The use of meretrix here would have also served to diminish the credibility of Clodia as a witness for the prosecution. 36 37 In his own de Inventione Cicer o comments on the necessity of appealing to the jury through establishment of character in order to achieve good will: bene volentia quattuor ex locis comparatur: ab nostra, ab adversariorum, ab iudicum persona, a causa. (22) and in Orator a way of creatin g an association between advocate and juror so that one can identify with the other to achieve good will: ad benevolentiam conciliandam paratum (128)
114 the trial. At the heart of his argument is his first creation, a personified adulescentia quickly introduced in his opening. 38 Cicero had initially used a shock technique to reel in his audience, introducing the casual passerby, a homo ignarus unaware along with everyo ne within earshot of himself, of the crimes of the meretrix mentioned at the very center of his opening. Certainly, this scandalous word ( meretriciis Cael 1) was called out with great emphasis, gesture and volume. By twisting the trial into a show, Cicero explains very quickly that his client, identified by his youth and a triplet of modifiers any of them, including members of the c ourt, are present on this holiday, is because of the charges instigated by the meretrix She becomes the wicked mistress while Cicero becomes the benevolent master guiding the audience out from under her spell. Cicero uses the ignarus a tool similar t o the narrator in a Plautine comedy, to provide himself with an opportunity to immediately create a farcical atmosphere in which he can blame both Atratinus and the unknown meretrix for why the people present at the trial could not be at the Ludi Megalense s. This unknowing passive man, appalled at why any Roman would be in court on a holiday quickly learns the reason: not the actions of the adulescentem illustri ingenio industria but those caused Atratinus and also Clodia izes the men of the trial, even including the exordium 39 By spending time with the s light invective against Atratinus, Cicero attacks Youth, and 38 adulescentia (3, 6, 15, 28, 30, 39, 41, 42, 43, 70, 76, 79, 80), i ts adjective form adulescens (1, 2, 5, 7, 10, 15, 18, 24, 38, 39, 47, 49, 50, 61, 69, 73, 75, 76, 78) as well as The diminuitive adulescentulus is used in §34 and §36; Iuventus youth, the age of youth (13, 25, 29, 30, 36, 42, 48); Iuven i s young man (67). See note 39 below for specific occurrences of adulscen used throughout. 39 Cicero mentions Atratinus by name four times total in §1, 2, and 7.
115 taking the role of master, he teaches Atratinus how to overcome Youth, and therefore his obvious inability to be successful in his prosecutorial endeavor. The quick switch from stinging invective to sweet parental kindness confuses, entertains, and creates a mood of empathy towards Cicero on the part of the jurors, a tactic carefully constructed ( Cael 2 ) 40 characteristics as if Youth wielded its own power. Cicero utilizes adulescens and adulescentia no less th an 39 times in his speech. 41 Although in his exordium Cicero 40 Sed ego Atratino, humanissimo atque optimo ad ulescenti meo necessario, ignosco. ( Cael .2) Calling attention to Atratinus gives Cicero more credibility as his takes on a magisterial role in order to appeal to the jury. The excusatory tone of this passage would have been insulting to a hopeful, dutiful young p rosecutor, and hurt his personal credibility. 41 Cael. 1: sed adulescentem illustri ingenio, industria; 2: adulescenti meo necessario; 3: hic introitus defensionis adulescentiae M. Caeli; 5: Nam quod est obiectum municipibus esse adulescentem non probatum suis; 6: quorum in adulescentia forma et species fuit liberalis; 7: pudor patiebatur optimi adulescentis in tali illum oratione versari; 10: Hoc enim adulescente scitis consulatum mecum petisse Catilinam. Ad quem si accessit aut si a me discessit umquam (quamquam multi boni adulescentes illi homini nequam atque improbo studuerunt); 15: sed vix diserti adulescentis cohaerebat oratio; numquam coniurationis accusatione adulescentiam suam potissimum commendare voluisset; 18: hanc adulescenti causam; 24 : sed etiam adulescentes humanissimi et doctissimi; 28: sed qui totam adulescentiam voluptatibus et ipsa natura profundit adulescentiae cupiditates ; 30: erat enim meum deprecari vacationem adulescentiae veniamque petere; 34: Mulier, quid tibi cu m Caelio, quid cum homine adulescentulo quid cum alieno?; 36: Vicinum adulescentulum aspexisti; 38: quae etiam aleret adulescentes et parsimoniam patrum suis sumptibus sustentaret; 39: sic tu instituis adulescentes ? ob hanc causam tibi hunc puerum parens commendavit et tradidit, ut in amore atque in voluptatibus adulescentiam suam collocaret, et ut hanc tu vitam atque haec studia defenderes?; 41: multas vias adulescentiae lubricas ostendit; 42: sit adulescentia liberior; dederit aliquid temporis ad ludum a etatis atque ad inanes hasce adulescentiae cupiditate; 43 : quorum cum adulescentiae cupiditates defervissent ; quorum partim nimia libertas in adulescenti ; quae multis postea virtutibus obtecta adulescentia e 47: consularem hominem admodum adulescens in iu dicium vocavisset ; 49: cum hac si qui adulescens forte fuerit; 50: cum hac aliquid adulescentem hominem habuisse ; 61: Datum esse aiunt huic P. Licinio, pudenti adulescenti et bono, Caeli familiari; 69: est enim ab aliquo adulescente fortasse non tam insuls o quam non verecundo; 70: hac nunc lege Caeli adulescentia non ad rei publicae poenas, sed ad mulieris libidines et delicias deposcitur; 73: Voluit vetere instituto eorum adulescentium exemplo; 75: fama adulescentis paulum haesit; 76: in adulescentia vero tamquam in herbis significant, quae virtutis maturitas et quantae fruges industriae sint futurae. Etenim semper magno ingenio adulescentes refrenandi potius a gloria quam incitandi fuerunt; 78: honestissimum adulescentem oppressisse videatur; 79: Quod cum huius vobis adulescentiam proposueritis; 80: aut adulescentiam plenam spei maximae.
116 claims that a meretrix was at the heart of the trial, the subject of his praemunitio, 42 used in place of a narratio focuses around Youth, the root of any character flaws, and subsequently the me retrix the guilty party behind any alleged transgressions of Caelius. 43 Ac mihi quidem videtur, iudices, hic i n troitus d efe n sio n is adulesc en tiae M. Caeli maxime co n ve n ire, ut ad ea, quae accusatores d eforma n d i huius causa, d etrah e n d ae spoli a n d aeque d ig n i tatis gratia d ixeru n t, primum respo n d eam ( Cael 3 ) I think, gentlemen, that the defense of a young man like Marcus Caelius can best be introduced if I begin by answering what his accusers have said to disgrace my client and to strip him and despoil him of his good name. praemunitio filled with harsh consonants of N and D, actually sounds like an attack, being launched carefully against the people who have put Caelius in his current situation not because of something he did but rat her due to his adulescentia The adulescens engaged in various activities because of the influence of his adulescentia and therefore Cael i us should be excused of any blame. adulescentiae M. Caeli the Youth of Marcus Caelius ( Cael 3 ) townspeople, who were his character witnesses as the fundamenta firmissima, ( Cael 5.2), explaining away any objections that the adulscentem lacks dignity. Does Cice ro mean that the adulescentia M. Caeli did not lack dignity or the adulescentem himself? 42 An anticipatory review of character and career is usually used after a narratio or explanation of the facts of a case. 43 Rather than mention (and perhaps overuse) the wo rd meretrix again, Cicero lets his audience wonder if he actually used that word to begin with as he launches into a lengthy explanation and defense of the at was a very slanderous term for a Roman matron, would have helped Cicero maintain his corona or circle of gathered audience members.
117 The careful movement between the two terms and in the nearly synonymous use makes it difficult to distinguish Caelius from his characterization throughout the praemun itio Cicero also inserts various asides completely off topic from the case at hand, as in the next few sections, to maintain the attention of his audience. With his defense of videor mihi ieciss e fundamenta defensionae meae neque enim vobis satis commendata huius aetas esse posset ( Cael 5 ) not come before you w With the change in subjec t so quickly, the aetas becomes the f ocus, then his father, then the townspeople. With an abrupt stop, Cicero then speaks about himself, virtually adopting Caelius as his own child. Cicero forces the jury to identify Caelius with himself, incorporating a ll of the same characteristics of a young man who is not from Rome, who suffers a reputation yet who is nevertheless reinforced by supportive fellow townsmen. By using this transference from Caelius to himself yet then immediately jumping to his own public successes and recognitions, Cicero transfers his current power and authority back to Caelius. This build up prepares the audience for the next topic: obiectum de pudicitia ( Cael 6 ) As the master again, Ci cero once more refers to the age and youth of Caelius, although he mentions Youth as positive attributes which can not detract from the defendant. On the other hand, in an underhanded attack, Youth becomes a liability for Atratinus, once again the subject the young prosecutor in this trial. Instead of focusing on the slanders, Cicero addresses Atratinus, here, for the second time, excusing him from his role as prosecutor in such a
118 scandalous case, an d again, playing the role of the understanding adult teacher ( Cael 7 ) His condescending tone sets the questionable sexual morals of Caelius against the immature intention s of Atratinus, 44 redirecting attention from Caelius. Why? Was it because Caelius w as in fact guilty of such evil deeds, or even worse? This aside completely discredits Atratinus, making him look like an inexperienced member of the court whereas the youthful Caelius is an experienced member of society. The diversion technique proved rather effective in avoiding any real attention to reputation so that the jury had no time to think about the lack of any real argument. He then immediately moved into a long Catiline, still another diversion. 45 about his own struggles, and § 11, in which Cicero carefully dances around the subject draw attention to age, time, and youth. 46 Then again in § 11, Cicero belittles Atratinus and, by association, his efforts for the prosecution, and gradually reduces the suggested sexual expl oits of Caelius to the point 44 means of secu Cicero wished to do this to put himself in a good light for his insinuatio to follow when he creates the character trial of Clodia, both a foil to himself and he hopes, Caelius. Yet, it is my argument that by doing good will, but also himself apart from the severity of Herennius Balbus. 45 It seems that Cicero cannot help boasting of his own reputation in this refe rence to Catiline. Caelius may have been involved with Catiline for a time, but this rather long exposition again diverted the jury from the indictments at hand. 46 Cael. 6 : natum, in adulscentia, 7 : aetas, pudor adulescentis, agam lenius, te parentemque; 8 : seiungas, erubescas, ingenii; 9 : brevis, aetas M. Caeli, patris diligentia dis cipl inaque munita, virile togam, a patre continuo ad me esse deductum, in illo aetatis flore; 10 : adulescente, adulescentes, illud tempus aetatis, annus.
119 where he is merely a boy in a crowd of other adulscentes ( Cael 11 ) I t is only when Caelius became a member of the crowd, out from under the wings of Cicero and Crassus, the experienced surrogate fathers taking care of their wayward youthful tiro, that finally Cicero admits that Youth desired Catiline 47 the very end of the first s entence in § 12, within a crowd young men just like him. By maging admission and is able to focus on 48 This tactic keeps the jury blameless; focusing their attention on those Catilinarian charms which may have fooled even them when Catiline conspired against th e state. While explaining Catiline away ( Cael 12.2 14.4), Cicero does not once mention Youth or Caelius. 49 Instead he refers to himself, the master orator, admitting that even he fell under argues Cicero. By referring to himself, Cicero distances himself as master teacher from his student Caelius, influenced only due to his impressionable age, only a friend of the conspirator. As Cicero moves from the influence of Youth over Caelius to hi s activities as a young prosecutor in Rome, the frequencies of adulescen become understandably less frequent since Cicero is addressing his more adult activities which are under attack: the slanders of electoral malpractice and extravagant living. These sections are 47 Tot igitur annos ve rsatus in foro sine suspicione, sine infamia studuit Catilinae iterum petenti. Quem ergo ad finem putas custodiendam illam aetatem fuisse? Cael. so many years frequented the Forum without reproach or dishonor tha t he attached himself to Catiline, then a second time candidate for the consulship. How long do you think that his youth should have been protected. 48 Ciraolo explains that this characterization of Catiline is an outright lie, as compared to the character drawing done by Cicero In Catilinam 49 Riggsby (1999) 104 discusses the technique that Cicero uses here of constructing a different reality for the jury. He argues that the context of the trial, including the festival date, the characters of the persons
120 characterized by specious logic and incessant transference of blame. Cicero buries the weakest aspects of his case in the middle sections, where they can more easily escape notice by the jury. It is indeed here that Cicero discusses the more mundane arguments of the case intermixed with directions on how the jury and the audience should react to almost been forgotten when it is at last re introduced into the dialog ue immediately before the entrance of 29 3 1 Cicero makes frequent use of Y outh, citing it as three times as the source for indiscretion. There are those who and become respectable or by common consent a young man is allowed some dalliance, and but the defendant. Sed vestrae sapienti ae, iudices, est non abduci ab r eo nec, quos aculeos habeat severitas gravitasque vestra cum eos accusator erexerit in rem in vitia in mores, in tempora emittere in hominem et in reum, cum is non suo crimine sed multorum vitio sit in quoddam odium iniustum vocatus ( Cael 29 ) But your good sense, gentlemen, must not allow you to be diverted from the defendant. Your ideals of strictness and responsibility provide you with a sting; and, since the prosecutor has aroused it against a topic against vices, morals and this age, you must not dire ct it against a person who is facing a charge, when undeserved odium has been called upon his head, through no fault of his own but through the failings of many others. First, Cicero draws attention specifically to the jurymen. Their wisdom, severity and seriousness counteract the vices of youth, giving them the power to make a proper decision regarding the case. Cicero dismisses all previous charges made by the prosecution, stating that they are merely charges against youth directed against a person who must answer to the transgressions of the many. Y et, Cicero must be sure
121 to request that Caelius not be made into a scapegoat for the crimes of others. And so he continues. Using the cunning device of praeteritio Cicero says that he does not dare t o re spond to criticisms as he c ould ( Cael 30 ) He e xplain s what he could do in order to youth, he could seek freedom from blame. He claims not to do this, not once, but three times, throughout the first half of § 30 Itaque severitati tuae, ut oportet, ita respondere non audeo; erat enim meum deprecari vacationem adulescentiae veniamque petere; non, inquam audeo; perfugiis non utor aetatis concessa omnibus iura dim itto... ( Cael 30 ) And therefore I do not venture to reply as it is fitting to your severe remarks for my answer might have been to plead the indulgence allowed to youth and to ask you to pardon it I say, I do not venture to do that; I do not seek ref uge in the plea of his youth; I renounce the rights which are granted to all. The curious arrangement of this first sentence: erat enim meum deprecari vacationem adulescentiae veniamque petere; non, inquam, audeo is explained by erat is unusual and highly idiomatic: it basically expresses a present unreal condition (here the protasis or si esset according to the usual rule for present unreal conditions. 50 Cicero explains his choice not to excuse youth in order to draw attention to both his mastery of the situation as well as the forthcoming explanation for the whole trial at hand. The suspense throughout § 28 31 heightens with each period. 50 Ciraolo (2003) 121.
122 Cicero refuses to use Youth as a defense, stating that he sees in the faces of the aside and see that the charge before them today was levie d by someone worse. T antum peto, ut, si qua est invidia communis hoc tempore aeris alieni, petulantiae, libidinum iuventutis quam video esse magnam, ne huic aliena peccata, ne aetatis ac temporum vitia noceant. ( Cael 30) All I ask is that, however disc profligacy may be generally regarded at this present time (and I see this So while claiming not t o use Youth as an excuse, Cicero immediately does so. His 51 Cicero reveals his motivation: he plans to attack the prosecution, namely its font, Clodia. Following the conclusion of a praemunitio his second character creation, the mulier And although he tries to explain to the jury in the first half of § 30 about what h e has not done, even though he already did, and what he will do, but has promised not to do, 52 now that the jury is sufficiently confused, Cicero makes swift and direct discourse regarding the charges against which he will defend Caelius. Yet more specific ally, Cicero launches his attack on the lady who made the charges, 53 one involving gold and the other of poison ( Cael 30 ) At first, Cicero names her frequently. By doing so, he makes the jury and audience aware of her ancestry and 51 From the Loeb translation, Gardner (1984) 443. Atque ego idem, qui haec postulo, quin criminibus, quae in hunc proprie conferuntur, dili gentissime respondeam, non recuso. Cael 30. 52 Cael 30.1 2 Cicero claims not to take refuge in Youth, but he has already done so (1 30.2). He also 2, but he will do so between 30.3 8. 53 A point I have dispute d a jilted lover, yet I argue that they originated with her because Ca elius attempted to poison her.
123 affiliations. She is both a Claudian and a Metellan, two of the most powerful and well known families of the Roman Republic. only uses Caelius as 54 All of the actions described by Cicero make Clodia the active participant by the repetition of her name, while Caelius remains in the background as a passive observer. Sunt autem duo crimina, auri et veneni; in quibus una atque eadem persona versatur. Aurum sumptum a Clodia venenum quaesitum, quod Clodiae daretur, ut dicitur. However, there are two charges, of gold and of poison; in which one and the same person is involved. Gold was taken from Clodia, poison which was sought, would be given to in the crimes implicated by the charges with the passive construct ion of the verbs both here and later ( Cael 31 ), Cicero blames Clodia for the charges. Here, it is important to remember what semantic advice Cicero gave to Atratinus earlier in the speech: S ed aliud est male dicere, aliud accusare. Accusatio crimen desi derat, rem ut definiat, hominem notat, argumento probet, teste confirmet; maledictio autem nihil habet propositi praeter contumeliam; quae si petulantius iactatur, convicium, si facetius, urbanitas nominatur ( Cael 6 ) But abuse is one thing, accusation is another. Accusation requires ground for a charge, to define a fact, to mark a man, to prove by argument, to establish by testimony. The only object of slander, on the other hand, is to insult; if it has a strain of coarseness, it is called abuse; if o ne of wit, it is 54 Auro opus fuit Cael 31.2. In addition to the passive voice, Cicero also utilizes the im personal construction.
124 Cicero explained that he would be defending his client with wit. 55 Here he begins his defense with a carefully constructed play on figures in Roman society. Following the expanded defense of the Youth of Caelius in § 1 30, Cicero now focuses on Clodia a woman, about whom Cicero will say nothing except for what is necessary to repel the charge ( Cael 31 ) To conclude §31, Cicero specifically names Clodia as the reason that all of them are participating in a trial that day. His defense, however, becomes offense. Cicero insults Clodia violently, although not for the first time but in a variety of ways, each representing the type of invective used l ater in the speech. 56 First, Cicero refers to hac sola she alone is the reason; next, ista muliere remota without her there would be no trial; then, mulieris viro fratre volui dicere an incest jab; and finally, by calling Clodia amicam omnium he che apens Clodia, reducing her to the meretrix to whom he casually referred in §1. And all of this, Cicero tells the jury, he does modice At this point, it is necessary to pause, if only to consider the clear disregard for civic and social decency that Cic ero has displayed. Is he truly out to destroy Clodia? He claims to be merely defending his client. What was the jury thinking? Or was this type of invective really a show, expected by the audience? Yes, Caelius had been but he had wandered far. The force and severity of the medium in which to produce the show about to begin. The remainder of the speech, with its contemptuous invective, could only be staged successfully (and without severe 55 maledicere and accusare comes (here). The textbook clarity of the distinction is an invitation to the audience to consider the accu 56 Cael .1 opibus meretricibus ; Cael .17 as Medea
125 recourse) in the court. He creates his spectacle using three personae to address Clodia. 57 First, Cicero digs up the memory and the mask of Appius Claudius Caecus, an ancestor of Clodia. This senex caecus all the more powerful because of his ability to see despite his blindness, calls upon Clodia: Mulier, quid tibi cum Caelio, quid cum homine adulescentulo, quid cum alieno ? Woman what were you doing with Caelius, what were you doing with a man bar ely a youth, what were you doing with a stranger? 58 company, thereby multiplying h er sin. Furthermore, the use of mulier is damning. 59 Both the use and application of mulier from this point in the speech onward, become negative, callous, and derogatory. 60 By calling u pon her in this severe manner, Caecus draws attention to what Clod ia is. As Woman, she is set opposite to Caelius, the adulescentulus Cicero places Clodia in the older, command position contrasted with the use of the diminutive form of adulescens She, therefore, assumes all responsibility 57 At 30.9, Cicero does point out that he is responding to the two charges levied by one persona which cero meant manipulate the characters of the defense and prosecution from the outset. Prosopoeia is the literary device in use here. 58 i.e. a man who is not part of the family unit. 59 The word mulier, is derived from the Latin word for soft, mollis. Lewis and Short give a second definition as stemming from its use in Plautus Bac. 4,8,4 OLD the second definition is: a woman who is marri ed or has had sexual experience (opp. virgo ); while the third is: the woman who cohabits with a man, his wife or mistress. 60 Once C aecus has used it in this manner, he has given Cicero permission to do so as well. This is because the commemoratio antiquita tis exemplorumque prolatio Cic. de Orat I. 120. See also de Orat I. 18, 201, 256 for the need for an historical education. As the elder and first persona used by Cicero, Caecus educates Clodia, who apparently needs such instruction, while also providi ng instruction to channeling the persona of Caecus while also diminishing the credibility of the prosecution.
126 for the relationship which will unfold throughout the remaining speech. Caecus then mentions the kinds of other male family members with whom Clodia could have had a more acceptable relationship. Caecus also reminds Clodia that she had been married hed citizens. Throughout this section ( Cael 34) Cicero makes frequent use of tricolon to describe the superlative character of her dead husband, Metellus Celer, as well as the nature of his gravitas. 61 This man, along with Roman heroes, represented by imagines virile s are coupled with the virtuous women of Roman history ( Quintia Claudi a and the vestal virgin Claudia) in order to establish which characters possess modesty and respect. 62 Rather than utilize the now loaded word, mulier Cicero must employ more suitable descriptors, and therefore, he strips them of their negative woman hood. The two references demonstrate to the jury and the audience that Clodia is everything that these two perceptually pristine women are not. Cicero highlights their chasti ty, one as virgo, the other as a domestic model. Their actions provided help to the selfless, distinguished men heroes of Rome, and their putation because of her activities, while comparing her unfavorably to the respectable famous women of her own family whom, as Cicero explains, Clodia has dishonored through her alleged lascivious behavior. 61 Cael 34. C larissimi ac fortissimo viri pat g loria, dignitate suberabat The use of the word gravitas is mine here. Gravitas is a word commonly used by 62 See Wisem an (1979) 95 96 on the comparison of Clodia to Quintia Claudia, who argues on the historiography of the period and the negative connotation of the Claudii name. Also, Fraschetti (1999) 23 33 gives thorough background information on Quintia Clodia, her pop ularity, and her association with Clodia.
127 As previously mentioned, once Cicero has put his invective mulier into the mouth same way. He does just that in §35, iam enim [itur]. In his direct address to Clodia, he calls on her not only to reveal her motives for the charges, but also her motivations behind every life decision, which Cicero hypothetically provides for her. Turning the tables completely on her, Cicero names Clodia as the one responsible for the entire prosecut ion. The last periods of § 35, with its extensive list of fire, frenzied words to match the mente effrenata which Cicero puts forth as the reason in court. It is at this point that Cicero has successfully transformed Clodia into a villain. It is because of her that the jury is working on a holiday. It is due to her actions. Yet, Cicero or this reason he must introduce two additional personae In order now to appeal to the younger, less rigid members of the jury, first Cicero becomes in § 36 Clodius, her minimum fratrem a young opposite of Caecus. As stated earlier, Cicero and Clodius were enemies. The Yet, the most important part of his questioning is his treatment of Clodia as maiore sorore mulier who H e asks, quid clamorem facis ? The 2 nd person verbs make Clodia accountable and while speaking to her as a bothersome younger brother would, Clodia ages into a ruthless lecher. As instigator of the relationship between herself and Caelius, she is the evil, older woman; he, the innocent, attractive youth, devinctum y,
128 jealous, scorned woman. He calls her molesta, one who has motive to destroy Caelius, described as physically beautiful normally an asset for a Roman man Later, when ( Cael 49 ) The last of the personae portrayed by Cicero are the two types of fathers from draw attention t stock characters from a well known theatrical tradition, Cicero creates the comical images of wise fathers who teach an errant son in opposite ways, one strict, one on is equally without blame. 63 First in § 37, Cicero further widens the age gap between Clodia and Caelius by activities, even going so far as to allege that Caelius shoul d share the blame for the focus; rather, the severe father blames his son for not taking action when the 64 Unl ike the previous personae who speak and question without response, Caelius has the chance, through his nd her brother! Next Cicero introduces the indulgent father also a stock figure from Roman comedy ( Cael 38 ) Using the device of praeteritio the indulgent father excuses the son who is beyond reproach. He speaks nothing in istam mulierem but someon 63 Perhaps from Caecilius Statius, a comedy writer c. 291 168 B.C. In his De optimo gerene oratorum i. 2, Cicero calls him fortasse summus comicus 64 Cicero used the genitives of meretrix and mulier in §37, which assigned the ownership of the disreputable qualities to Clodia.
129 her. Here, Cicero names all of the accusations and abuses levied earlier or about to be levied against Clodia. The extent of the slander is magnified as Cicero even draws possesses. She is vidua libidinosa meretricio more amor ous widow living a loose At last the father generously excuses the behavior of any man who gave in to such a woman. Rather than have Caelius respond to the indulgent fathe r, Cicero allows the audience to respond to his lenience. They ask: is this the moral code to which you adhere? To which Cicero answers with a justification fit for any one of his defendants, returning himself as advocate to the stage. Cicero becomes mo re solemn, attempting to teach Clodia, the jury, and his audience about that qualities that define the great men, just like Caelius, of Roman history. It is here that mulier and adulescens are frequently opposed in a struggle for dominance. Cicero focuse s on adulescens in § 39 47, describing the educational processes that produce great men, and how they can be and have been interrupted by certain excesses, impediments and forces. Cicero craftily excludes any mention of mulier from these chapters so that he may focus on the characteristics of great men. Throughout this exposition however, Cicero returns to explaining away the vices of youth, building up the importance of the public, moral, and rhetorical education of the adulescens When he specifically refers to Caelius, in §44, Cicero does not use or refer to adulescens, creating the separation from the vices of Youth and the now mature Caelius. Here, Caelius is described with anaphora, alliteration, and tricolon as having the knowledge and skills nece ssary to overcome those forces which can impair
130 character. This combination of both great men and the man that Caelius will become climaxes with a flourish in § 47 where Caelius actively participates in the duties of a righteous Roman citizen. This climax is cleverly positioned immediately before Cicero describes those very H uc unius mulieris libidinem esse prolapsam, ut ea non mo do solitudinem ac tenebras atque haec flagitiorum integumenta non quaerat, sed in turpissimis rebus frequentissima celebritate et clarissima luce laetetur. There is one woman whose amorous passions are so degraded that, far from seeking privacy and darknes s and the usual screens for vice, she revels in her degraded lusts amid the most open publicity and in the broadest daylight. Cicero has created the ultimate enemy: a person who, possessing all the evils which threaten the future of the youth of Rome, comm its her sins no matter where she is and therefore, within Rome itself. It is the lust of a single woman that has caused such destruction. Now, returning to the mulier Cicero will not name her. 65 Instead, he theme repeated from § 1, while referring to a Cicero immediately addresses Clodia, who had even hurt Cicero himself ( Cael 50 ) With the careful positioning of these topics from the education of an adulescens to the corruption by a mulier Cicero has positioned even himself, as a victim of Clodia. For the next twenty periods Cicero makes light entertainment about the alleged transfer of poison at the baths ( Cael 5 1 69 ) These chapters serve as comic relief from 65 Cael 48. mulierem nullam nominab o Naming is a strategy which Cicero utilizes in his other post reditum speeches. See Steel (2007) and Nicholson (1992) for further use as naming as a stra tegy, esp. in speeches post reditum.
131 the previous grave didactic oratory. There is little mention of mulier or adulescens as if Cicero has completed his task. These sections are full of faulty logic, misdirected blame, and slapstick. Cicero frequently tells the jury that his client would certainly not have been so stupid to have been associated with such people in such activities. Aside from comic relief, Cicero has turned the tables once again on Clodia, for it is her story of the poison tra nsfer that becomes farce. She ultimately looks stupid. Keeping within the rhetorical conventions for the conclusion of his speech, Cicero revisits his carefully crafted opposition: young man versus woman. Following the comic farce, his jury has all but su rrendered themselves to his brilliant performance. The opening of his conclusion, the peroration, § 70 is full of witty sarcasm, or is it? Cicero tells his jury that iam intellegitis, quantum iudicium sustineatis, quanta res sit commissa vobis de vi qua eritis You can now appreciate how serious a matter has been entrusted to your decision. You are inquiring into a change of viol This is a half hearted jab at the fact that the trial is being held on a holiday. Perhaps Cicero did design this peri od as such. With a second reading, however, Cicero seems serious. Within his speech, he has outlined and detailed just how important this hard working youth is to the future of Rome. He says that Caelius has the potential to be a great man who will serv e Rome well. And now, the significant threat of a woman may stand in the peroratio indeed revisit the argument that hac nunc lege Caeli adulescentia non ad rei publicae poenas, sed ad mulieris l ibidines et delicias deposcitur Is it under this law that there is now a demand
132 satisfy the wanton whims 66 of a woman? ( Cael 70 ) It is at this point that Cicer o has reduced the judgment to adulescens versus mulier Or rather, Cicero has convinced 67 Yet I ask, why is Clodia made guilty? W expense of Clodia? The answers are hiding in centuries of scholarship, which for too slippery oratory. Furthermore, the ancient Roman world has given rise to scholarship which has delighted in the sexual life of Clodia, often also considered to be the famed Lesbia of Catullus. 68 The focus of vis but rather a systematic trivialization of the charges as a whole and an intentional character assassination of the primary witness, Clodia and her brother as well. Cicero was very aware of the tactics he needed to employ to gain an acquittal for his client, and so he appeals to those who must make that decision as his speech concludes. In § 76 80 the uses of adulescentia adulescens or any reference to striving to become ripe, strong and prosperous. As a plant ( Cael 76) passively growing, Caelius had to endure the rocky soils of the Palatine, the weeds of its 66 libidines et delicias 67 Riggsby (1999) 100. Riggsby studies the way that Romans viewed and handled four different charges (crimes): vis mu rder, repetundae and ambitus He then demonstrates in his final chapter that the Roman legal system was highly political, and did not serve purposes similar to modern legal systems where courts are intended to curb criminal acts. 68 A point well disput ed attempt to read the poems of Gaius Valerius Catullus in his own context. The first three chapters deal with late Republican attitudes and behavior, an account of Clodia Metelli, and the trial of M. Caelius, each was not Clodia Metelli, a point with which I agree. See Appendix A for a brief summary of this debate.
133 residents, and the drought of sound judgments. But Caelius is the future of Rome ( Cael 78), climbing his way through various positions within the cursus honorum a nd mingling with the current great men. Throughout the metaphor, Cicero sustains his careful to remind the jurors of the mulier He begs to the jury not to allow them selves to be influenced by a woman ( Cael 78), or to allow Caelius to suffer on account of her. Even at the end, Cicero does not fail to use insinuatio, with which he upholds the blasphemous rumors that Clodia maintained an incestuous relationship with he r brother, Clodius. 69 80, the jury is once almost stream of consciousness evolution of life: father, son, chil d, family, country, roots, and ripening plants. At last, Cicero recalls to the jury what they stand to gain by an a cq uittal in contrast, there will be no benefit with a vote for condemnation. could win. 70 Yet, the fruits promised to the jury during the Ludi Megalenses failed to nic it is that Cicero assures the jury that they will make the best decision in an a cq uittal. His claim: 69 See Wiseman (1969) for an explanation of these rumors of the Claudian family. This early work, easily superceded by what follows in 1985, is an attempt to answer the Catullan questions: Did Catullus himself arrange the poems as we have them now (and if so how?) and w hen were the poems composed, and who, at that time, was Lesbia? 70 I find it very interesting how some of these same themes, especially the criminalization of female accusers, exist in modern courtrooms.
134 Promitto hoc vobis et rei publicae spondeo, si modo nos ipsi rei publicae satis fecimus, numquam hunc a nostris rationibus seiunctum fore. Quod cum f retus nostra familiaritate promitto, tum quod durissimis se ipse legibus iam obligavit ( Cael 77 ) I promise you this, and I pledge the State that, if I myself have served the State well, he will never swerve from my political principles. This I promise, relying on the friendship between us, and also because he has already bound himself by the strictest of covenants. In fact, Caelius did break from Cicero, socially and politically. It is the end of Caelius and subsequent information about him which furthe r removes his credibility. Caelius wavered in his allegiances to Gaius Caesar and Pompeius Magnus during the 50s. After feigning allegiance to Caesar, Caelius fled with his friend Curio south and fomented. What of Clodia? Did her public humiliation force her from the public literary map? We do not have much evidence of her activities following the trial. The only evidence concerning her is a letter nt Atticus regarding the possible sale of her properties near the river 71 Without her voice, however, we do not truly know of her end. What of Cicero? Following this victory, he entered the Senate on 5 April 56. 72 Obviously empowered by his recent success es, he proposed that the Senate review led to the reformation of the accord between Pompey, Caesar, and Crassus. Cicero position toward Caesar in previous 71 Att 12, 29.2, 42.2. 72 Cicero tells us this meeting took place on the Nones of April, the day after the conclusion of the trial for Caelius. For a retrospective account of this event in the Senate and its immediate consequences, see Fam 1.9.9.
135 months. 73 While Cicero thought that he was pushing Pompey further away from Caesar, in reality, he gave Pompey reason to seek out a renewal of their alliance. 74 t for th e Ides of March, Cicero left Rome for brief retreat ( Att 4.6), during which time he wrote to Atticus about various trivialities. 75 from those of only a year prior. Even the tal k about Pompey, who apparently had visited with Cicero in Cuma and Puteoli, lacked any real concern. Cicero seems in control of his surroundings, the situation, and restored to his pre exile life. 73 Cicero in fact wrote that Pompey left him after their brief meeting in Puteoli cum mihi nihil ostendisset se offensum Fam 1.9.9) 74 Mitchell (1969) 298 attacks the standard view meeting at Luca stating that the discussion of the ager Campanus was not very important; Cicero's proposal to postpone the debate was insignificant; the defense of Sestius and the attack on Vatinius had no unusualiv significant political overtones. Mitchell also argues that Cic ero's position was one of "uneasiness, indecision, and caution unhappiness and perplexity amid the hopeless dissensions which then permeated Roman politics." He also suggest s that "Cicero has been given a prominence in the course of politics before Luca w hich he clearly does not deserve, and he has been credited with a boldness and initiative which he did not possess in this period." 75 A tt 4.6, 4.10, 4.6. cf. Q. fr. 2.6.
136 CHAPTER 6 RETRIBUTION : DE CLODIO Q uod simul ab eo mihi et rei publicae denuntiabatur. Cicero, In Clodium et Curionem frag. 3 1 multa feci verba de tota furore latrocinioque P. Clodi. tamquam reum accusavi multis et secundis admurmurationibus cuncti senatus Cicero, Q. fr 2.1.3 2 life greatly affected the policies and programs of Cicero. 3 That the two men were enemies, there is no doubt. The degree of their enmity, the times immediately be fore, during, and after his exile, it is necessary to take a look at how Cicero draws Clodius. Clodius descended from a long line of consuls whose prominence was virtually as old as the Roman Republic herself. His large immediate family, stricken fatherle ss in 76, was left to the care of the eldest son, Appius Claudius 4 The family received the patronage of Licinius Lucullus ( cos a straight 1 Schol. Bob 86.17 St. In Clodium et Curionem frag. 3 as it appears in Crawford (19 9 4) 239. Translation is my own Because it was threatened by him both toward me and the Republic. 2 Again, my translation as the Loeb do es not do the selection justice I spoke at length about all of the fury and banditry of P. Clodius. I impugned hi m as if guilty with many favorable murmurs of the whole senate. 3 I use the words of Tatum (1999) 246 whose seminal work on the life and times of Clodius are without a doubt, the most comprehensive as well as entertaining. 4 Clodius had two brothers and three sisters. The identity of their mother is debated. See Shackleton Bailey (1977). The literature written about Publius Clodius is extensive: Heaton (1939) preface; Taylor ( 1960) ; Lintott (1967) rstand his significance in ; Gelzer (1968) provides a history of the republic from Caesarean perspective Gruen (1966) Rundell (1979) discusses the dif ficulty of discerning who the true Clodius was from extant texts The most comprehensive work on Clodius is Tatum (1999).
137 path to fame He served his brother in law abroad for a short time, and then moved on (perhaps in shame). 5 He returned to Rome afte r assisting Q. Mucius Rex in Ci li ci a and, after a failed prosecution of L. Sergius Catilina, he joined L. Licini Gaul. Clodius, who befriended Murena, assisted him in his campaign for consul in 63, electoral bribery. During the Catilinarian conspiracy, while Mu rena was tried for electoral malpractice (with Cicero defending), Clodius stood by both his friend and the Republic, Although Cicero and Clodius undoubtedly knew each other, or at least knew of each ot her, prior to 62, it was not until the aftermath of the Bona Dea scandal that their relationship grew to mutual hatred. 6 During the rites of the Bona Dea, a cult limited to women only and celebrated in December of 62, Clodius entered the house of the Pont ifex Maximus, C. Julius Caesar, and disrupted the ritual, seeking a rendezvous with Atticus, in which he merely mentions the event rather casually. 7 It is only after mu ch t ime that the matter escalates into a forensic drama, 8 Indeed Cicero expresses concern over the legal proceedings surrounding the event. 9 5 Clodius staged a revolt against his brother in law, L. Lucullus, in 67. Plut. Luc 33 34. See also Tatum (1991), Tatum (1999) 43 48 6 Plutarch claims that they were friends. Cic 29.1. 7 Att. 1.12.3 P. Clodium Appi f. credo te audisse cum veste muliebri deprehensum domi C. Caesaris cum sacrifi cium pro populo fieret, eumque p er manus servulae servatum et eductum; rem esse insigni i nf amia, I imagine you will have heard that P. Clodius, son of Appius was caught dressed up as a woman in C. 8 The Bona Dea a person to prosecute; there was difficulty in determining a charge against Clodius, because there was no ns and trial became the central political
138 As reported by Cicero, the political debate which surrounded Clodius attract ed great attention. Supporters of Clodius attempted to make a cause out of the legal issues, questioning the authority of the Senate, and therefore calling for others to doubt the power of certain individuals in the Senate. At the time, especially consi dering the called upon as he was a leading figur e in the Senate. pulled 10 Cicero into political battles which he did not want. 11 They also tied all undesirable was to attack Clodius and every individual who supported him in ord er to defend both himself and his past actions. Despite evidence to the contrary, in a stunning turn of events according to Cicero, Clodius was a cq uitted due to large scale bribery by Crassus. 12 This caused uproar in issue because of the factions that formed surrounding the issue. For more on the background and circumstances of the Bona Dea scandal, see Tatum (1999) 62 84; Tatum (1990); Moreau (1982); Scullard (1981) discusses the significance of the religious observances surrounding the Bona Dea. 9 Att. 1.13.3. vereor ne haec invidia a bonis, defensa ab improbis magnorum rei publicae malorum causa sit, rascals these proceedings 10 Att 1.13.3. operae comparantur op erae Clodianae pontis occuparent 11 Att 1.16.1. Saepe, ita me di iuvent! te non solum auctorem consiliorum meorum, verum etiam spectatorem pugnarum mirificarum desideravi, only as an advisor to follow but as a spectator of those 12 Att 1.16 5. Nosti Calvum illum laudato rem meum, de cuius oratione erga me honorifica ad te scripseram. Biduo per unum servum et eum ex ludo gladiatorio confecit totum negotium; arcessivit ad se, promisit, intercessit, dedit. Iam ve ro (o di boni, rem perditam!) etiam noctes certarum mulierum atque adulescentulorum nobilium introductiones non nullis iudici bus pro mercedis cumulo fuerunt You know s, with a single slave (an ex gladiator at that) for a go between, her settled the whole business called them to his jurors actually received a bonus in the form of assignations with certain ladies or introductions to youths
139 where he claims that the event shook the very foundation of the Republic. 13 Inflammatory exchanges between Clodius and Cice ro, during the trial and beyond led to savage enmity between the two men. In the following excerpt, we can see how Cicero triumphan tly reported to Atticus about an exchange between himself and Clodius, whom he blasts as a coming Catiline. A fierce and slanderous exchanged followed. Erras, Clodi; non te iudices urbi, sed carceri reservarunt, neque te retinere in civitate, sed exsilio privare voluerunt. Quam ob rem, patres conscripti, erigite animos, retinete vestram dignitatem. Manet illa in re publica bonorum consensio; dolor accessit bonis viris, virtus non est imminuta; nihil est damni factum novi, sed, quod erat, inventum est. In unius hominis perditi iudicio plures similes reperti sunt." Sed quid ago ? paene orationem in epistulam inclusi. Redeo ad altercationem. Surgit pulchellus puer, obicit mihi me ad Baias fuisse. Falsum, sed tamen quid hoc? "Simile est," inquam, "quasi in ope rto dicas fuisse." "Quid," inquit, "homini Arpinati cum aquis calidis?" "Narra," inquam, "patrono tuo, qui Arpinatis aquas concupivit"; nosti enim Marinas." Quousque," inquit, "hunc regem feremus ?" "Regem appellas," inquam, "cum Rex tui mentionem nullam f ecerit?"; ille autem Regis hereditatem spe devorarat. "Domum," inquit, "emisti." "Putes," inquam, "dicere: Iudices emisti." "Iuranti," inquit, "tibi non crediderunt." "Mihi vero," in quam, "XXV iudices crediderunt, XXXI, quoniam nummos ante acceperunt, tib i nihil crediderunt." Magnis clamoribus adflictus conticuit et concidit ( Att 1.16.9 11 ) of Rome, but for the death chamber. Their object was not to keep you in the community but to deprive you of the chance of exile. And so, gentlemen, take heart and maintain your dignity. The political con s ensus of honest men still holds. They have gained a spur of indignation, but lost nothing of their manly spirit. No fresh harm has been d one, but harm already there has come to light. The trial of a single wretch has unmasked Our little Beauty 14 gets on his feet and accuses me of having been at 13 Att 1.16.6. rei publicae statum fixus et fundatus elapsum scito esse de manibus uno hoc iudicio the settlement of the republic, which seemed unshakeably establ ished has slipped through our fingers in this one trial. 14 pulchellus the diminuitive form. Corbeill (1996) 79. See n.77 for an explanation of the origin of the Pulcher cognomen. cf. 2.1.4, 2.18.3, pulchellus to describe Clodius. He does not use this name for Clodius following his return from exile.
140 Baiae not true, but any 15 16 H ) contrary, 25 jurymen gave me credit and 31 gave you none they got their ch for him and he collapsed into silence. It is from this period that we have fragments of a Ciceronian speech known as In Clodium et Curionem. 17 In these fragments are found comic and bitter invectives against Clodius, mostly relating to the Bona Dea scan dal, in many of the traditional invective loci Pulcher beautiful. S ed, credo, postquam speculum tibi adlatum est longe te a pulchris abesse sensisti ( In Clod 25 ) s handed over you realized you were far from being amoung the beautiful. Geffcken has demonstrated how many of the fragments align with the comedic elements found later in the pro Caelio. 18 Cicero expressed regret as to the circulation of this text while i n exile, yet Tatum reports that he held onto the content of the speech 15 Here, Cicero reminds the audience of Clodius illegal entrance into the festival of the Bona Dea which was supposed to be unknown to men. 16 in law, Q. Marcius Rex (cos.68) who had recently died and left Clodius out of his will. Shackleton Bailey (1999) 86. 17 The exact date of this speech is unknown. Geffcken (1974) im mediately following the Bona Dea trial and does not focus much on Curio. Whatever fragments we have, they were written before July 58, when Cicero tells Atticus that he thought he had suppressed publication of a speech, but failed to do so. For more abou t this fragmentary speech, see Crawford (1994). 18 Geffcken (1995) 70 89. Geffcken argues that the invective begun by Cicero with his speech I n Clodium et Curionem laid the foundation for the comedic overtones and invective in the pro Caelio.
141 until Clodius made an appearance in the Senate in July 61, indicating a premeditative 19 For the remainder of 61, there is little mention of Clodius i he resurfaces, in a letter dated January 60, Cicero first reports that Clodius is seeking to transfer to plebian status. Cicero seems to dismiss the attempt and repeats the rumor, almost exactly in his next letter, dated March of 60. Again commenting on the impending downfall of the republic due to this and other recent events, Cicero appears to resign himself. It is following this that he travels to Antium to work on an autobiographical account of his consulship ( Att 2.1 ) No intrude into his thoughts and letters for he tells Atticus of a time, prior to his departure, in Senate Att 2. 1. 5 ) In this same letter, Ci manners, even exchanging jokes with him. This record provides us with early evidence humor and distaste for Clodia, sister to Clodius and wife of Metellus Celer ( cos. 61 ) It is fai r to say that Clodius and his activities haunt Cicero throughout the period following the Bona Dea scandal. Cicero felt understandably threatened by him due to nobilitas as well as his desire to seek plebian status, a reason for which, as Cic ero surely must have considered was for Clodius to become a t ribune. His attempts, however, did not come to fruition until three months into Caesar consulship. his tribu ne, Vatinius, immediately resorted to violent, popularis tactics in order to 19 Tatum (199 9) 88.
142 facilitate his legislation. The Senate did not quickly respond to these devices, mostly because of their shocking nature. But in March 59, Cicero, while defending his consular c olleague C. Antonius for his association with the Catilinarians, used his trial speech to 20 contumacious diatribe, exposing the threat posed to the republic by violence and in particular denounc ing 21 The results of the trial only damage to his dignitas and, in retribution, initiated the lex curiata which sanct ioned eian ( Att 2. 7 .2 ) With the triumvirate firmly in place and Clodius poised to become tribune, Cicero departed from Rome for academic pursuits. 22 After Clodius announced his candidacy for the tribunate, he began to attack Cicero, having returned to Rome in late 59. Despite reassurances from Pompey, who and his coalition to popular 23 And because Vettius had named Cicero as one of the conspirators in the attempted murder of Pompey, 24 the friendship between the two men was in jeopardy. Clodius sei zed the opportunity to establish a political relationship with the triumvirs. 20 Att 1.12.1. Cicero here expresses his desire not to work with Antonius again, perhaps an indication of dislike for Antonius. 21 Tatum (1999) 103ff. 22 Att 2ff. 23 Tatum (1999) 112. 24 Att 2.24.3; Sest 41.
143 Following this newly forged alliance, Clodius became t ribune, and immediately endeavored upon a legislative program to gain the favor of the urban plebs He introduced four laws which helped establish his power and prestige in Rome. 25 Dio tells us that Cicero attempted to block this legislation, but instead made a compromise with Clodius on his word that he would not harm Cicero. 26 It is curious that Cicero does not report this deal with the tribune, probably so as to not admit such coercion and betrayal. Yet later, in a letter to Atticus, Cicero does regret his actions prior to his exile, specifically in relation to the legislation of Clodius. Unfortunately, our knowledge of t his time is limited. explicit attack s on Cicero. 27 In order to guarantee his success by means of their proconsular provincial assignments, Clodius procured the support of the consuls, Piso and Gabinius, whom Cicero later vehemently attacks for their role in his exile. 28 Thereafter, Clodius proposed the lex Clodia de capite civis Romani provocatio by interdicting from fire and water anyone who had put 29 Clodius easily secured support for his law, and thus regarding the execution of the Catilinarian conspirators solely onto Cicero. I mmediately following, he appointed M. Portius Cato to a post in Cyprus. This appointment garnered the backing of the boni of 25 On the first day of his tribunate, 10 December 58. 26 Dio 38.14. 27 cf. Sest 25. 28 See Chapter 4 on the pro Sestio. 29 Tatum (1999) 153.
144 whom Cato was a leading figure All the while, Caesar remained camped just outside Rome, giving his passive support acta about joining his staff ( Att 2.19 ) Backed into a corner politically, threatened with hostility at every turn, and having been advised to a cq uiesce, Cicero refused Caesar and left Rome on the day the legislation against him passed ( Sest 53) 30 te. Unfortunately, he straight away turned his political triumph into a personal vendetta by promulgating a new law: the lex Clodia de exsilio Ciceronis This law stripped Cicero of his property, his friends, and his future at Rome while making it a crime to institute his recall. Clodius even demolish ed Libertas in its place. The patrician tribune Clodius had totally and utterly defeated Cicero at last. Perhaps he was obsessed with power, perhaps he enjoyed contests, or maybe it was because his tribunate was only a few months old, but Clodius was not finished. Repositioning his focus and receiving more silent acknowledgement from the senatorial elite, Clodius began to harass and annoy Pompey by attacking his former conquests and challenging his past successes. The tactics used by Clodius mirrored those from own during the promulgation of his early legislation as tribune. So vicious were his activities the general eventually retreated to his house where he remained until the days Clodius was no longer tribune and the new c onsuls came to power. 30 de capite civis Romani and de provinciis were passed on March 20. A few days later, he passed another bill which formerly declared Cicero an exile ( de exsilio Ciceronis ). This second law was passed by the concilium plebis in April.
145 Elections of 58 had produced magistrates favorable to Cicero in 57, especially Clodius. He did not end his fierce presence in the streets nor did he stay away from the political arena. On January 23, a day on recall, bloody violence broke out in the Forum ( Sest 75 ) This was followed by a fierce attack against tribune Sestius ( Sest 77 ) Both tribunes Milo and Sestius resorted to establishing their own hired street protection in order to shield themselves and their With a lack of necessary order and increased daily violence, the Senate began to a cq uiesce aties, allowing him to make motions in favor of Cicero and 31 the Senate and People welcomed Cicero back to Rome in late summer of 57. And so or justice. in senatu and ad quirites focused on gratitude. His carefully sculpted oratory utilized various techniques which play on the knowledge of his audience. By specifically recalling or withholding inform ation, Cicero creates suspense as he refers to those people who either helped or harmed him prior to and during his exile. He also creates a dialogue with his audience; a necessary feature of these speeches. Cicero displays both knowledge and courage whi le giving the initial post reditum speeches. He needs these qualities to affect his redemption, restoration, and reassertion within the Roman political arena. Cicero also succeeds in demonstrating that he is able to deliver retribution through these spee ches ( Quir 21 ) 31 Red. Sen 25f., 31, Dom 30, Sest 129f; Sest 108; Plut. Cic 33.3, Pomp 49.3.
146 The state, however, was in crisis, as a rise in grain prices caused unrest. Clodius sought to blame Cicero in the Senate. He roused the mob against him in a setting where he lost control and even the consul was harmed. 32 As a result, m any senators measure which asked Pompey to solve the grain crisis. Pompey may have been taking adva ntage of the debt Cicero owed him for his past efforts, which put Cicero in a difficult position. While Clodius focused his efforts on arousing hatred against Cicero, Pompey used his Yet it wo uld seem that all Cicero really wanted to do was recover his home ( Att 3.15.6 ) With his next speech, De domo sua, Cicero fights for the return of his property. As 33 he spends the first two thirds of the speech reacclimating himself to the forensic arena through a detailed exposition of the recent events in his life. 34 Sprinkled frequently throughout these topics a re venomous attacks against aracter. 35 Since Cicero had already delivered a speech focusing on the Bona Dea affair the material he presents here, while not new to many of the pontiffs who are listening, had 32 late summer 57. cf. Sest 130; de prov. cons. 22. 33 Given before the College of Pontiffs at the end of September, 57. MacKendrick (1995) 147. 34 35 MacK incestuous relations with his sister (25, 83, 92). Probably t he frequent references to stuprum (50, 105, 125: a general word for sexual immorality) allude also to Clodia. Clodius himself is called a public i mmorality is apparently contagious: his gang is contaminated (108), and marriage into his family makes the unfortunate in law superlatively impure (135).
147 to be presented in a way for Cicero to win the favor. This speech is all about how Cicero spins the past so that he may have a future. 36 Of course, legality plays an property, now home to a shrine to Libertas was ever properly consecrated in order to determine if Cicero is entitled to recover the property now. 37 fact makes the invective all the more striking because Cicero may actually have been looking at Cl odius while insulting him. Some of the terms and phrases used to defame Clodius at the beginning of the speech include labes et flamma de re publicae ( Dom 1), ille demens ( Dom 2), and funesta pestis ( Dom 5 ) Thereafter, Cicero focuses his invective on policies. The speech is divided almost evenly into three topics : Dom 1 Dom 32 99), and, at last, the consecration of his hous e ( Dom 100 141 ) The ma jor complaint against him is his gross and immoral nature. The assaults made by Cicero are often sexual and familial in nature. H ic non illudit auctoritati horum omnium, qui adsunt, summorum virorum non vestra, pontifices, gravita te abutitur? ex isto ore religionis verbum excidere aut elabi potest? quam te eodem ore accusando senatim, quod severe de religione deverneret, impurissime taeterrimeque 38 violasti ( Dom 104 ) resent, men word of religious scruple fall or slip from this mouth of yours? With the 36 Cicero makes the connection between Clodius and Catiline throughout the speech Sest 13, 62, 72, 75. 37 also counters the lex Clodia de exsilio Ciceronis hastily and poorly written. cf. Tatum (1999) 192. 38 cf. Vat 9 for use of this word, taeterrimus to refer to Clodius.
148 same mouth, you have violated these scruples most uncleanly and most foully by accusing the se nate because it made a severe decree concerning religion. taints any past or future words that migh t come from it. has used his mouth to violate religion and mora lity. This passage follows a number of passages which describe the impure activities of others, especially those related or friendly to Clodius, right hand man, Sextu s Cloelius. By mentioning the relationship that Clodius has with Sextus Cloelius, a man of lower stature than Clodius, Cicero can then create an unholy and immoral connection between them, further removing of the city, espe cially in terms of religiosity. 39 Cicero creates that connection w ith constant assaults : Scilicet tu helluoni spurcatissimo, praegustatori libidinum tuarum, homini egentissimo et facinerosissimo, Sex. Clodio, socio tui sanguinis, qui sua lingua etiam sororem tuam a te abalienavit, omne frumentum privatum et publicum, omnis provincias frumentarias, omnis mancipes, omnis horreorum clavis lege tua tradidisti; qua ex lege primum caritas nata est, deinde inopia. Impendebat fames, incendia, caedes, direptio: imminebat tuus furor omnium fortunis et bonis ( Dom 25 ) You, forsooth, passed a law by which you made over all supplies both public and private, all the corn supplying provinces, all the contractors, and all the keys of the granaries to Sextus Clo el ius, 40 a man deep in destitution and crime, a foul glutton who sampled your debaucheries for you, who shared your blood, and who by his tongue had estranged even your sister 39 Corbeill (1996) 112. 40 Sextus Cloelius, or perhaps Sextus Clodius, as earlier texts refer to him, was an associate of Clodius. ritings and contracts. He may have been a freedman of Publius Clodius. Shackleton Bailey (1960) 41 42 uncovers the relationship between the man and his name, identifying him as Cloelius, rather than a freemand of Clodius. Damon (1992) extends S hackleton assertions such as T. Loposko ( 1989 ) 498 503 who claims to settle the question by identifying the Sex. Clodius with a fr eedman of P. Clodius, one Damio.
149 from you a law whose first fruits were high prices, and whose aftermath was famine. By means of the relationship between the two men, Cicero has exposed their public and private crimes, implying favoritism in law, sexual improprieties, and a lack of competence in each. 41 He also creates a connection between the improper mach Cicero, had been stripped as a consequence of the appointment of and approval of Pompey. 42 relationships in his speech, he does not fail to point o ut a most shocking and repeated type of invective in the De domo centered around the relationship of both Clodius and Cloelius with Clodia, his sister. 43 Indeed the word, soror occurs ten times. 44 Cicero employs this strategy in order to cripple the pont iff s opinion of Clodius (and his family) He does not fulfill the obligations within his family; rather, he violates them. By showing the priests that Clodius has not conformed to 41 Se e Corbeill (1996) 112 124 for a full explanation of the sexual innuendo of this speech. 42 Dom. 26 Queritur etiam importuna pestis ex ore impurissimo Sex. Clodi rem frumentariam esse ereptam, summisque in periculis eius viri auxilium implorasse rem publica m a quo saepe se et servatam et amplificatam esse meminisset! Extra ordinem ferri nihil placet Clodio. Quid? de me quod tulisse te dicis, patricida, fratricida, sororicida, nonne extra ordinem tulisti? And the inconscionable scoundrel actually grumbles th at the administration of supplies has been snatched from the filthy maw of Sextus Clodius, and that in her gravest peril the republic has implored the aid of a man who, she remembers, has often preserved and glorified her. Clodius is opposed to the passin g of any extraordinary measured. What! You slayer of father, brother, sister! Was not the measure which you say you passed concerning myself an extraordinary measure? 43 44 In various forms: qui sua lingua etiam sororem tuam a te abalienavit (25); soror icidia ( 26); invenient hominem apud sororem tuam occultantem se capite demisso (83); eundemque dictitare Minervam esse sororem meam. Non tam insolens sum, quod Iovem esse me dico, quam ineruditus, quod Minervam sororem Iovis esse existimo; sed tamen ego mihi sororem virginem adscisco, tu sororem tuam virginem esse non sisti. Sed vide ne tu te soleas Iovem dicere, quod tu iure eandem sororem et uxorem appellare possis (92); Adfuit is, si modo adfuit, quem tu impulisti, soror rogavit, mater coegit. (118); ne valeat id quod imperitus adulescens, novus sacerdos, sororis precibus, matris minis adductus, ignarus, invitus, sine conlegis, sine libris, sine auctore, sine fictore, furtim, mente ac lingua titubante fecisse dicatur (139)
150 social and familial religious norms, Cicero discredits the religious beha viors of Clodius. This should in effect, according to Cicero, invalidate the construction of the shrine to Libertas antiquarian legalism and quasi philosophical moralism went a long way toward too 45 The pontiffs agreed with Cicero. But this was not necessarily good news for him because he suffered considerably from ed rage following the decision. 46 47 The Senate was even forced to me e t on 14 November 57 to discuss the issue of Clodi violen t activities and the upcoming elections ( Att 4.3.5 ) Despite strong feelings against Clodius, his powerful family intervened, claiming that the elections must be held as usual. Milo countered this sentiment, charging Clodius de vi and ma king daily obnuntiationes to block the elections, but they were finally held in mid January. Milo could no longer bring Clodius to trial because as aedile, he was immune from prosecution. His popularity and his power remained intact. Milo, on the other h and, was not immune from prosecution. In early February, Clodius brought charges against Milo for violence during his tribunate. The prosecution may have been motivated by current events, but the politically charged atmosphere of 45 Tatum (1999) 192. 46 enough. Att 4. 2. 5. 47 Att 4. 3. 2ff.
151 the trial resulted in vi olent outbursts by both Clodian and Pompe ian bands. 48 One contributing factor to this violence was the appearance of Pompey, who ser ved as one 49 The trial was suspended and rescheduled for later in February. During the interim, the Se nate met again to discuss the violence. Because the Senate w as united against Pompey due to an impending political battle in order to secure the transfer of an additional proconsular imperium in Egypt for him, Pompey actions at ed. 50 once again embarrassed. Clodiu as were his ties to Crassus. 51 Cicero, however, expressed his grief ( dolor ) as a result of his failure to help Pompey achieve this assignment in to him. 52 fellow tribune of Milo was charged de ambitu and de vi In his speeches, both the pro Sestio and in Vatinium Cicero claims that Clodius had a hand in the prosecution 53 B y claiming that 48 Dio. 39. 18. 2.; Cic. Q.fr. 2. 5. 3. 49 And Cicero. 50 nt of the controversy surrounding this special commission to Egypt, see Fam 1. 1. 3, 1. 2. 1f., 1. 4. 1f, 1. 6; Q.f r 2. 2. 3. Pompey had already been appointed the task of cura annonae or care of the grain supply. 51 The allegiances of M. Licinius Cra ssus are always in flux, as a prudent businessman and leading advocate, he aligned himself according to his own needs. 52 Q. fr. 2. 2. 3. 53 of motive. Sestius was originally tried both de ambitu and de vi which may have been instigated by Clodius, but the trial continued only on the charge de vi Also, as Tatum points out, the prosecution have only helped Sestius ( Sest 86f,
152 Clodius was involved, even peripherally, with the prosecution, Cicero a CQ uired the opportunity t o slander Clodius. After all, he had not spoken against Clodius in court since the de Domo superseded in this situation that Cicero finds an opportunity to attack Clodius, who apparently needed to be put in his place, to reassert his own standing as a leading advocate by defending Sestius, and to lend political clout to the optimates so that they once again resume power in the State. The concern here is the attack on Clodius in both speeches de Sestio What we have as the speech against Vatinius occurred first. It is clear rathe r early in the speech that Cicero intends to launch invective. The assault on Vatinius is bitterly fierce; that on Clodius, on the other hand, is indirect. 54 What is curious, however, is how Cicero s on Cicero, he argues, was when he colluded with Clodius in 58 to exile Cicero. 55 Vatinius is an object of supporting Clodius. Following the initial assault, Cicero focuses his speech on how Caesar and Vatinius 90, 135; Vat 40) This may have led Vatinius to think that the prosecution and defense were in collusion, and which Cicero laughs away. ( Vat 3. 41) Further, in Fam 1.9, Cicero only mentions his success from the Sesti argument, too, because of the context. Although I am cautioned against producing a timeline, the indictment against Sestius came on 10 February, in the midst of Clod violent and formidable enemy. Vatinius helped Clodius in the prosecution of Milo. Gardner (1984) 330. The presence of any Claudius, even a minor one such as the prosecutor, helped Cicero prepare a speech, within which he intended to make a production about the status of the Republic, as he does at the last third of the pro Sestio Cf. Pocock (1926) 134ff, and Seager (1979) 120. 54 control as well as to address the witness in this speech p recludes severe attack on Clodius, for the time being. He knows that he will also give the concluding speech. 55 Vat 1.
153 b time, and especially illegal methods to pass the legislation, Cicero implies that ar would m, when Vatinius was indicted in 58. In § 33 34, Cicero goes to great lengths to d escribe the courtroom hostility that resulted when Vatinius had illegally appealed to a tribune of the plebs, Clodius, ne causam diceret to avoid trial. 56 A ppellarisne tribunos pl. ne causam diceres levius dixi; quamquam id ipsum esset et novum et non fere ndum sed appellarisne nominatim pestem illius anni, furiam patriae, tempestatem rei publicae, Clodium. Qui tamen cum iure, cum more, cum potestate iudicium impediere non posset, rediit ad illam vim et furorem suum ducemque se militibus tuis praebuit. Did you not appeal to the tribune of the commons to save you from answering the charge I have spoken too lightly, although by itself this would be a strange and intolerable but did you not appeal by name to the curse of that year, to the evil spirit of this co untry, to the storm that burst over the State, to Clodius, who, although he could not, either by law, by custom, or by authority, obstruct your trial, had recourse to that mad violence of his, and put himself at the head of your armed bands. Cicero assails Clodius while in his capacity as tribune, the office which Vatinius and Caesar had allowed him to undertake, and the office which Vatinius, too, had abused. He then describes Clodius with a tricolon of insults, referring to his cruel methods. These meth ods are further exploited as Cicero illustrates events in the forum 56 The charge against Vatinius was probably maiestas Vatinius may have violated the lex Licinia Iunia with his ratification of Pompey 179 defends Vatinius and Clodius for their actions concerning this trial on the grounds that the prosecution did not follow past protocol in the assignment of the quaestor or court pre sident.
1 54 In short, in order to upset a trial, [has any person] committed all those excesses, which were the very reason why the trials were established? Do you not know that the presidents of neighboring courts were turned out of their seats? That in the Forum, in broad daylight, in view of the Roman People, a court of law, magistrates, old customs, laws, judges, a defendant, a penalty, were set at nought? 57 Cicero aims to de monstrate that while this courtroom drama unfolded years prior, it could have occurred just days prior. As Cicero reminds the jury that Vatinius had sought favor from Clodius, he also recalls events from the trial de Milone 58 For the remainder of the sp eech against Vatinius, whenever possible, Cicero makes use of a different and colorful phrase to describe Clodius while naming him. Among the phrases used: illius tui certissimi gladiatoris that most loyal swordster of yours; cum Clodianas operas et faci nerosorum hominum et perditorum manum videris 59 In contrast to the speeches post reditum In Vatinium demonstrates that Cicero no longer feel s concern for how the public will view Comparatively, the In Vatinium is a short speech, designed as an interrogatio and delivered as a vituperatio. It provides the jury with a taste of what is to come, with the final speech pro Sestio which led to his banishment, and to the early and un successful state of the movement 57 Vat 34. eas denique omnes res in iudicio disturbando commiserit, quarum rerum causa iudicia sunt populo Romano quaestionem, magistratus, morem mai orum, leges, iudices, reum, poenam esse sublatam. 58 Cf. Q. fr. 2. 3. 2. 59 Vat 37 and 40, respectively.
155 for his restoration politics. 60 The invective in the pro Sestio has developed from that in the de domo In addition to committing incest, Clodius is now repr esented as a prostitute. 61 In order to reach his position as tribune (and now as aedile), Cicero claims that Clodius sold himself for favors, both to Caesar and the consuls of 58, as well as to prominent cter, Cicero recalls the most S ed cum scurrarum locupletium scorto, cum sororis adultero, cum stuprorum sacerdote, cum venefico, cum testamentario, cum sicario, cum latrone ( Sest 39) But I had to dea l with a debauched favourite of wealthy rakes, a lover of his own sister, a priest of profligacy, a poisoner, a forger of wills, an assassin, a brigand Cicero describes his enemy as illa furia 62 The explicit name calling aimed to remind the jury of Clodi us makes him all the more menacing. Because immediately become associated to Clodius, his actions, his crimes, or his bands of men. These references number in the hu ndreds. Conversely, Cicero presents himself as from assaulting Rome and his submission to Clodius prevented a bloody battle between their factions prior to his exile. 60 Gardner (1984) 299. 61 Sest 39, 46, 48, 52. 62 Sest 39. Cicero uses many insults when he refers to Clodius throughout the speech.
156 wields the names of those friendly to him, Sestius and Pompeius, frequently. 63 It is essential in this speech that Cicero demonstrates the two sides of the battle as his narrative unfolds. This will p repare the jury and his audience to accept the political manifesto which concludes the speech. 64 After Cicero has placed all blame for the disruption in the city on Clodius, he shifts his focus to demonstrat e that Clodius did not allow order to be restore d. Clodian laws become Clodian crimes. 65 Cicero then essentially draws a line in the sand, claiming that legal procedures 66 Cicero divides the jury, the audience, and the factiones in Rome: one can either be with that demented and abandoned enemy of modest y and decency or against him, and stand for peace, order, and safety. 67 own claim. Yet Cicero speaks as though he addresses Clodius He asks, G ladiatores tu novicios, pro exspectata aedilitate suppositos, cum sicariis e carcere emissis ante lucem inmittas? magistratus templo deicias, caedem maximam facias, forum purges? et c um omnia vi et armis egeris, accuses 63 s used 45 times throughout the speech. Pompey received a dozen nods. Even other Ciceronian enemies: Caesar (7), Gabinius (5) and Piso (3) are named. 64 Sest 66. damnatis de vi restitutio, consulatus petitio ipsi illi populari sacerdoti comparabatur. haec gemebant boni, sperabant improbi, agebat tribunus plebis, consules adiuvabant. 65 Sest 68 69: throughout the speech (he uses epithets or nicknames: sacerdos, ille tribun us becomes significant, especially when used so close to each other. Cicero is drawing this parallel with the Clodius becomes a bad wor d. 66 Sest 67 Sest 73. illum amentissimum et profligatissimum hostem pudoris et p udicitia.
157 eum qui se praesidio munierit, non ut te oppugnaret, sed ut vitam suam posset defendere ? ( Sest 78 ) Are you to send in the Forum before daybreak your raw gladiators, provided for an expected aedileship, with a pack of a ssassins discharged from prison? Are you to drive magistrates from the Rostra? Are you to wreak great slaughter? Are you to empty the Forum and, after you have done all this by force of arms, are you to accuse one who protected himself with a guard, not to attack you, but to defend his own life? The interrogation forces not only the persons at whom Cicero was pointing his f inger while speaking but also each member of the jury and audience to decide what kind of activities define them. He follows these d eliberately quick bombarding questions wi th a narrative about Sestius, who had suffer ed through a sudden attack by manus illa Clodiana 68 The crimes of Clodius and his band are compared to those of Sestius Acting in defense of the Republic he countered C lodius and his manus gens facinora and exercitus 69 A lmost a month passed between the trial of Sestius, a CQ uitted unanimously, and activities are unknown. 70 The succ ess of Cicero at the trial of Sestius, which concluded in mid March, surely would have been a blow to Clodius, despite his current role as aedile. Cicero, on the other hand, slowly rebuilt his senatorial and forensic relationships. Then, on the festive L udi Megalenses Cicero defended Marcus Caelius 68 The Clodian band also violated religious law when they attacked Sestius, who, as a tribune, was an untouchable. Sest 79. cf. Q.fr 2.3.6. Within this brief exposition, the word Clodiana is used twice, first in and second in reference to the Clodian brothers, Appius and Publius. See Gardner (1984) 146ff. 69 Sest 79, 81, 82, 87, respectively. Cicero mentions Sestius beneficial role 11 times in these sections. 70 Gardner (1985) 403 states that if Clodius did have a hand in the prosecution, it may have been another political scheme in order to further aggravate and discredit Pompey, who had desired a position in Egypt. Caelius had been implicated in the death of Dio, part of a delegation from Egypt to Rome. One of the charges against Caelius was de Dione for conspiracy to commit his murder with P. Ascinius, successfully defended by Cicero between the trial for Sestius and this one.
158 Rufus on charges de vi brought by a lesser P. Clodius. 71 Here was another opportunity for Cicero to destroy the character of his enemy, Clodius. The types of invective in the pro Caelio differ from the pro Se stio because of the nature of the case s. As the last speaker, Cicero allowe d his colleagues to deal with the main charges of the case, whereas Cicero focused his attention on those which related to Clodia Metelli, the sister of Clodius and widow of Q. Met ellus Celer, consul in 60 Understandably, the nature of the invective relates to Clodia as well. The references to Clodius and his past activities also sting the character of Clodia in order to damage her credibility as a witness. The only mention of a development of the relationship between brother and sister established in the De domo sua Cicero expl ains to the jury, Q uid est aliud quod nos patroni facere debeamus, nisi ut eos, qui insectantur, repellamus? Quod quidem facerem vehementius, nisi intercederent mihi imicitiae cum istius mulieris viro fratre volui dicere; semper hic erro ( Cael 32 ) What other course is open to us who are his counsel than to refute those who attack him? And that I should do with all the more vehemence, were I I mean her brother; I always make that slip. Cicero cl aims that his will not attack Clodia through a vehement refutation of the charges. Yet by merely mentioning that he will avoid this, Cicero announces his intentions. The slip foreshadows personae 71 See Chapter 5 on the pro Caelio
159 She is visit ed by two of her relatives: Appius Claudius Caecus and Publius Clodius. 72 Caecus speaks condescendingly while Clodius wonders why Clodia has brought Caelius to trial for such trivialities. 73 up family members is to re move him self from responsibility for the mocking invective he will deliver. Through Caecus, Cicero reminds the court about the Clau dian gens illustrious and respected for its numerous consulships. 74 He also recalls the upstanding character ead husband, whom she was suspected of poisoning. Caecus further draws a comparison between Clodia and Quintia Claudia, the mode l of a Roman matron. He asks, Cur te fraterna vitia potius quam bona paterna et avita et usque a nobis cum in viris tum etiam in feminis repetita moverunt? move thee rather than the virtues of thy father and thy ancestors, kept alive since my time by not only the men but also the women of my family? Cael 34 ) The question remains unanswered. With each reminder from Caecus, he begs the jury to see the was demonstrated earlier in the speech ( Cael 17 ) The introduction that Cicero offers, however, is highly exaggerated. 72 Cael 33 35. 73 The introduction of personae ad ds a comedic element to the invective, by which Cicero appeals to the jury. The Clodian characters are balanced later by visits from the two types of comedic fathers, who 74 Allen, Jr. (1937) argues that the spe (in 59) signifying a break from his patrician family to seek a plebeian office. This is refuted in Riggsby (2002) because Clodius had used the name prior to that event. Riggsby offers a s ystematic discussion of all previous theories, including phonetics, and synthesizes them to produce the idea that Claudius became Clodius upon a change in political stance.
160 E x his igitur tuis sumam aliquem ac potissimum minimum fratrem, qui est in isto genere urbanissimus; qui te amat plurimum, qui propter nescio quam, credo, timiditatem et noctu rnos quosdam inanes metus tecum semper pusio cum maiore sorore cubitavit. [Therefore I] take one of your present relatives, and by choice your youngest brother, who is in that respect a perfect man of the world; who loves you most dearly; who, I suppose, being prey to a sort of nervousness and certain idle terrors in the night, always when a little fellow went to bed with you, his elder sister. Cicero clearly means to draw the relationship between Clodius and Clodia as incestuous, a continuation of his pa st implications. Nevertheless, the tone of the passage ( sarcastic ), word use ( frequent superlatives ), and recurrent alliteration ( m ) tell the jury that Cicero means to say so much more about the family. Clodius has substantially departed from the values of his past, the revered consulares who kept Rome safe rather than ruin her. He has corrupted the lives of many, including his own sister, with whom he maintained an improper relationship And then, because of his shortcomings both as a man and citizen, Clodius fails to address his sister with the upright and morally sound values that both Caecus and even Cicero embodied while talking to her. Quid tumultuaris, soror? quid insanis? Quid clamorem exorsa verbis parvam rem magnam facis? Sister, why are you making such a to do? Why do you shout so loud, why do you fuss about a trifle? ( Cael 36 ) Cicero represents Clodia as guilty for the events that she now has brought to the attention of the court. It is her failure to conduct herself as a p roper Roman ma tron which has put her into this position. As the living, present relative of Clodius, she too has been affected with his madness, for she has become crazy ( insanis ) With these references, Cicero damages the Clodian gens.
161 In his forensic speeches post r editum Cicero embarks on a campaign of deliberate and bitter invective against Clodius, at last named as his enemy. 75 Throughout these s peeches, the methods of invective against Clodius vary according to the purposes of each speech Cicero relies on the dialogue which occurs among the Roman elite between the speeches in order to gauge his next action. It is this dialogue, initially riddled with tension, which Cicero count ed on so that he could continue to undermine the position in Roman politics By doing so, Cicero carefully employs a kind of retribution, or payback against Clodius. Probably more so than anyone else in his time, Cicero knew the power of forensic oratory as a tool to disseminate political and personal agendas. Therefore, it is only through his systematic character assassination of his enemy that he can complete his own character reconstruction and by association, a rebuilding of the res publica 75 Cicero does not mention Clodius by name in the deliberative post reditum speeches
162 CHAPTER 7 CONCLUSION E a nos cum iacentia sustulimus e medio, sicut mollissimam cer am ad nostrum arbitrium formamus et fingimus. Itaque ut tum graves sumus, tum subtiles, tum medium quiddam tenemus: sic institutam nostram sententiam sequitur orationis genus idque ad omnem aurium voluptatem et animorum motum mutatur et vertitur Cicero, de Ora tor, 3. 177 1 Ego me hercule mihi necessitatem volui imponere huius novae coniunctionis, ne qua mihi liceret labi ad illos qui etiam tum cum misereri mei debent non desinunt invidere Cicero, Att 4.5 2 In January 56, as Cicero turned 50, he enter ed the Forum to rebuild a career that had included the highest office in Rome. At first, his appearances were marked with violence. 3 Neverthess, he attended Senate meetings and participated as he had prior to his exile ( Q. fr. 2.3.7 ) Later that month Sestius, the tribune who had fought for his return was charged de ambitu and de vi On the next day, while defending Bestia, 4 Cicero laid the foundations for his defense of Sestius. In so doing he defeated his former student, Caelius, and won his firs t forensic case since his return. Then, in March, the trial of Sestius began. At last Cicero had the opportunity to explain the events surrounding his exile, so 1 Translation by May and Wi sse (2001) 278 : The way we speak is sometimes grand, sometimes plain, and sometimes we hold to the middle course. Thus, the style of our speech follows our thought as we have established it, changing and turning to delight the kinds of emotions in their souls. 2 The truth is, I wanted to bind myself irrevocably to this new alliance so as to make it quite impossible for ousy even when they out to be sorry for me. 3 The initial trial contio for Milo. Q. fr. 2.3.7. 4 Caelius had accused L. Calpurnius Bestia of ambitus (electoral bribery) in February of 56. cf. Q. fr 2. 3. 6.
163 Si in exponendis vulneribus illis de me ips o plura dicere videbor, ignoscitote; nam et illam meam cladem vos et omnes boni maximum esse rei publicae vulnus iudicastis, et P. Sestius est reus non suo, sed meo nomine ( Sest 31 ) If, in laying open these wounds, I seem to say rather much about myself, you must pardon me. For both you and all loyal citizens held that the disaster that befell me was the greatest possible wound to the State, and But prior to his speech for Sestius, the trial gave Cicero the chance to attack a witness for the prosecution who had helped exile him. Against Vatinius, Cicero did not merely criticize, but push ed past the case at hand to criticize those powers responsible for his exile. H is invective, eit her as a response to testimony or as propaganda, was an As he construct ed this separation from those whom Vatinius represent ed Cicero reassert ed that the offenses described in this invective o utweigh ed any he himself may have committed. Cicero cut up Vatinius to the applause of gods and men. 5 With Caesar abroad in Gaul, and Pompey next to him serving as a character witness for Sestius, Cicero had a plan: create dissension between these two t riumvirs. In his concluding speech for Sestius, Cicero did not actually present his defen se for Sestius until Chapter 71. This digressive oratory was a tool by which Cicero attempted to redeem his own persona in the eyes of his audience. He did so by rev ealing the truly evil forces in Rome: the consuls Piso and Gabinius, and their tribune, Clodius. These men, who were were connected politically to Caesar, Vatinius, and Clodius, combined to work against the mos maiorum wreaking havoc in the city and 5 Q. fr. 2. 4. 1 concidimus dis hominibusque plau dentibus
164 beyo nd. Cicero offered men like Pompey, Sestius, Milo and above all, himself, as the only answers to this malevolence. Sestius was acquitted. Following three successful trials, Cicero gained great confidence in himself. 6 Then, in early April, he defended Because of the circumstances of the trial, Cicero had to invent a new case, focused on his own ideal of the good versus the evil characters of adulescens and mulier By associating himself with adulescen tia Cicero attempt ed to restore his position in politics as the good that is in constant battle with the evil, represented by the Clodians. This trial, spread over the festival days of the Ludi Megalenses, allowed Cicero the jury, and his audience to e njoy themselves with the forensic stage play concocted by Cicero and gave him another victory to enjoy. 7 On the day after his speech pro Caelio 8 and should be 9 Cicero knew two years later as he revealed in his letter to Lentulus that he had caused an uproar with his propos al. But did he know then? num potui magis in arcem illius causae invadere aut ma gis oblivisci temporum meorum, meminisse actionum? Hac a me sententia dicta magnus animorum motus est factus cum eorum, quorum oportuit, tum illorum etiam, quorum numquam putaram ( Fam 1. 9. 8 ) 6 Cicero had also defended Publius Asicius, a man accused of murdering Dio of Alexandria ( Cael 23) 7 theater, and by reference to comic cha racters, he leads the audience into looking at parties of the trial in his own way. 8 Gardner (1958) 525. 9 Fam 1. 9. 8 quin etiam Marcellino et Philippo consulibus Nonis Aprilibus mihi est senatus assensus, ut de agro Campano frequenti senatu Idibus Ma iis referretur.
165 Was not that invading the innermost citadel of the ruling cl ique with a vengeance? And could I have shown myself more oblivious of my past vicissitudes or more mindful of my political record? That speech of mine caused a sensation, not only where I had intended but in quite unexpected quarters. Since his triumpha nt return, Cicero had managed to speak on separate occasions to the Senate and people H e regained possession of his home and property; he won a series of cases; and, he influenced important legislation for his friend Pompey. Throughout these speeches, a vengeful Cicero was able to weave coarse invective against his enemy Clodius and expose his crimes Clodius, for the time being, was quiet. Cicero had won. His campaign of reassertion, redemption, restoration and retribution was complete. Cicero had succeeded in repositioning himself in Roman politics through his expert forensic oratory. He created and manipulated the characters of Sestius, Caelius, Vatinius, and C lodius, each in different way s, yet all for the same purpose: to rebuild his own reput ation. In doing so Cicero meant also to rebuild that which was most important to him, the res publica This effort, although clever, was not able to overcome the power of the triumvirate and Cra ssus had rejoined forces at Luca. 10 Their accord strengthened at the Luca conference following the attacks made on Vatinius and in the Senate by Cicero, Collegi ipse me et cum ipsa quasi re publica collocutus sum me and my country Fam 1.9.10 ) He did not attend the meeting of the House on the Ides of May. 10 Suet Div. Iul. 24.1.
166 Thereafter, he composed a letter to Pompey. This letter is now referred to as Ci letters to Atticus ( Att 4. 5, 4. 6 ) expedient, and a helpless captive if I say nothing how am I supposed to 11 De provinciis consularibus in which Cicero uttered complimentary approval of Caesar and his activities in Gaul. At the end of 56 BC, following political reversal, Cicero delivered speeches t hat lacked his previous ingenuity and zeal which eventually presaged his withdrawal from politics. 12 11 Att 4. 6. 2. ego vero qui, si loquor de re publica quod oportet, insanus, si quod opus est, servus existimor, si taceo, oppressus et captus, quo dolore esse debeo? 12 Speeches such as Pro Balbo; D e Cons ularibus Pro v inciis, and even Pro Vatinio
167 APPENDIX A SUMMATION OF THE CLODIA/LESBIA DEBATE 1 By the time my research had entered the conversation concerning the pro Caelio, the characterizations of Clodia Metelli had already been thoroughly confused with the Lesbia of Catullus. No brief treatment can do this debate justice yet it seems appropriate here to attempt a summary of the conversation. Apuleius first identified the Lesbia of Catullus as C lodia in his writings about other poetic mistresses ( l.10 ) His source was Suetonius, whose lost treatise De poetis, de scortis illustribus writing in 47 BC as the director of the Palatine Library after Varro. A friend of Ovid, Hyginus wrote De vita rebusque illustrium virorum Although each of these sources named a Clodia as Lesbia, they did not provide which of the three Clodiae was the Clodia. Nevertheless, many scholars agree with th e traditional identification of Lesbia pro Caelio 2 Various passages from the other speeches of Cicero, especially those concerning her brother, Clodius, have been used by scholars to trace the relat ionship between the Clodii and Cicero. 3 Also used in this identification is the poetry of G. Valerius Catullus datable to this same time period. Catullus refers to a Caelius and a Rufus, although it is unclear whether these men were the one and same M. C aelius Rufus. 4 The poems 1 I am indebted to my class and my professor at the University of Florida during the summer of 2009 for the excellent debate and conversations concerning this topic. Special thanks to Melissa Burgess, who created notes and b ibliography with which I created this summary. 2 Cael 36, 38, 68, 78 3 Sest 16, 19, 116. Q.fr. 2 .3 4 Cat 58, 69, 77, 100. Dettmer (1997) and Noonan (1979) both maintain that these characters of Catullus were M. Caelius Rufus. Wiseman (1985) disputes this, saying neither one was Caelius of pro Caelio
168 distinguish the men as one a friend, the other as an enemy of Catullus, yet scholars have also assumed that the girls mentioned in the poems are each Lesbia. 5 This assumption, coupled with the very strong evidence given by the in itial line and the Lesbius est pulcher have encouraged scholars to create the narrative surrounding Clodia Metelli as Lesbia. Since Cicero depicted Lesbia as a beautiful, intelligent, rich, powerful and spoiled, and the Catul lus of Lesbia has been interpreted as sharing some, if not all of these attributes, the identification is very easily achieved. Couple this with the tendency of romanticized Rumor to prevail, even in scholarship, and the Lesbia/Clodia Metelli story is dif younger sister of Clodia and one time wife of L. Licinius Lucullus, is Lesbia. Wiseman cites as his evidence much of the literature surrounding the daily events of Cicero recorded in his letters as well as the events surrounding Clodius, when he served u nder Lucullus in Asia and following, during the Bona Dea scandal of 61 BC. 6 There is also a third sister of Clodius, a lesser Clodia married to Q. Marcius Rex. Each of the three Clodiae had been either divorced or widowed prior to the trial against Caeli us, which may mean that the references in Catullus to a married Lesbia would 5 6 W printed Dyson Hedjuk (2008), a new sourcebook for Clodia. See Dixon (2001) for the argument that Lesbia was a fictional character.
169 preclude each of the Clodiae, from what we know about them. 7 Further complicating The most important aspect of the Clodia/Lesbia scholarship as it relates to this paper is the fact that much of the scholarship has conflated the historical figure of Clodia Metelli with the fictional Lesbia. This is the predominant view. It is rather enticing to associate the woman scandalized by C Skinner (1983) maintains, objectivity should at least be attempted while examining the primary sources. 7 Cat 68b and 83.
170 APPENDIX B Cicero went to great lengths for Caelius. Their relationship, explained by Cicero himsel f in the pro Caelio, rhetoric while Caelius was a young man ( Cael 9 ) Cicero tells the jury that both he and Crassus were surrogate father figures for Caelius. The short explanation for why Cice ro (and Crassus) defends Caelius is rather misleading. Cicero attempts to create by association a new set of comites for Caelius, specifically himself, a very successful orator, and Crassus, a very wealthy and influential Roman. This tactic insulates the upcoming associations with both Catiline ( Cael 10 15) and Publius Ascius ( Cael 23 24 ) As the audience, we also are to assume that Caelius was a model student of of man Caelius was without the portrayal provided in this context by Cicero? Most of the sources about him are posthumous, including one by Cicero: Nec vero M. Caelium praetereundum arbitror, quaecumque eius in exitu vel fortuna vel mens fuit; qui quamdiu auctoritati meae paruit, talis tribunus plebis fuit, ut nemo contra civium perditorum popularem turbulentamque dementiam a senatu et a bonorum causa steterit constantius. quam eius actionem multum tamen et splendida et grandis et eadem in primis faceta et perurbana commendabat oratio. graves eius contiones aliquot fuerunt, acres accusationes tres eae que omnes ex rei publicae contentione susceptae; defensiones, etsi illa erant in eo meliora quae dixi, non contemnendae tamen saneque tolerabiles. hic cum summa voluntate bonorum aedilis curulis factus esset, nescio quomodo discessu meo discessit a sese ce ciditque, posteaquam eos imitari coepit quos ipse perverterat ( Brut 273 )
171 Marcus Caelius again was a man whom I should not pass over, whence chance or choice determined the end of his political career. So long as he had regard for me and my counsel, in his capacity as tribune, he held out with incomparable firmness on the side of the senate and the best men of the state against the turbulence and madness of the most reckless demogogues. [A delivery uneven and unconciliatory] was offset by a style brilli ant and impressive, conspicuous especially for its cleverness and wit. He made some important public speeches and three merciless prosecutions, all of which arose out of political ambition and rivalry. His court speeches on behalf of himself and others, a lthough inferior to those which I have mentioned, were not negligible, indeed quite tolerable. He was made curule aedile with the full support of conservative men, but to my sorrow after my departure he fell away from his own past standards, and imitating the example of men whom he himself had misled, he brought about his own fall. Velleius Paterculus also commented abo ut Caelius and his associates, vir eloquio animoque Curioni simillimus sed in utroque perfectior nec minus ingeniose nequam 1 A man most similar to Curio in eloquence and spirit but in each more polished and not less brilliant. Quintilian commented: Caelius dignusque vir cui et mens melior et vita longior contigisset 2 Caelius was a worthy man whom both a better mind and a longer life These authors agree that Caelius should have made better decisions with his abilities and talents. From these sources, we can see that Cicero does not allow the audience to see the real Caelius. All mention of his decisions and chara cter are masked in verbose defense. used by his master. The only place to find what seems to be honest communication from Caelius is in the series of letters to Cicero several years after the trial, most of 1 Hist. Rom 2.68.1 2 Inst. Orat. 10.1.115 for more fragments, see ORF 162.
172 which were sent to Cicero while he was serving reluctantly as governor of Cicilia. 3 It is from these seventeen letters to Cicero written between the years 51 48 that I have tried to uncover hints to the real character of Caelius. The letters detail some of the prominent political happenings in Rome, court cases, news from Caesar in Gaul, as well as some minor gossip, which Caelius offers to Cicero with his own commentary and id for the aedileship. He nearly begs Cicero to supply him with panthers for games upon which subsequent electoral victories would demand. For the most part, it is rather difficult to dig under the pleasantness between Caelius and Cicero in order to exp be argued that Caelius, as reporter of the activities at Rome for Cicero, attempted to portray himself in the best light, not only to impress his friend with his literary skill, but also to display his abilities in the Forum. 4 The private correspondence served as a stage on which Caelius could perform. 5 When he describes court scenes that he witnessed to Cicero, Caelius utilizes the present tense, 1 st person verbs, and swift action, providing Cicero with a lively first hand account of the event. 6 On the other hand, when Caelius disapproves of an occurrence or a person, his narrative slips into 3 Fam 8.1.1. 4 Fam 8.1.1. Quod tibi d is cedens pollicitus sum me omnis res urbanas diligentissime tibi perscripturum, 5 The likelihood of this argument should be considered as Caelius completed his tirocinium fori under Cicero and given the relation of the Pro Caelio to matters of the stage. See Geffcken (1995). As Cicero uses allusions to the stage he gives the jury the comic show it missed being stuck in the c ourtroom rather than at the Ludi Megalenses. Geffcken does suggest that Cicero paints Caelius as an almost colorless figure, therefore making him resemble the typical, boring adulescens of comedy. I do not see this representation, rather, the opposite, a his character comes alive. However, for reasons of the defense, Cicero must repress his youthful urges. 6 Fam 8.8.1. a rponam et illam
173 passivity and therefore, a pointed disdain or rather, a feeling of personal helplessness for his subject. 7 But the letters were not just a stage for Caelius; in fact he treated politics in the letters as aesthetic performances. 8 In reporting the situation at Rome, Caelius often gives advice and makes comments concerning various topics, a task requested by Ci cero, yet his literary expositions are delivered as if Caelius was a member of an audience. Rome, specifically where the Senate met and the goings on in the Forum, st. Each evaluation would have been slanted to serve his own interests best, yet his narrative as communicated to Cicero served as part of a literary performance, and again it must be remembered that the events as reported were manipulated by Caelius to s aesthetic performance and, thus, as indicative of an ideology in which one upmanship is valued, in which wittiness and deliberate social posturing serve as a vehicle for members 9 Caelius sought to climb the political and social ladder at all times. Since much of what Caelius reports to Cicero involved others in Rome, the situations that he describes which conce rn himself are of particular interest to this study. In one letter, he offers advice to Cicero regarding the public matters of Dolabella, a 7 Fam 8.5.1. hanc autem nemo ducit rationem, sed omnia desiderantur ab eo, tamquam nihil denegatum sit ei quo minus quam paratissimus esset, qui publico negotio praepositus est. 8 Walters (2003) 10. 9 Walters (2003) 3.
174 10 He writes, unum illud mone re te possum, si res tibi non displicebit, tamen hoc tempore nihil tua voluntate ostendas et expectes quem ad modum exeat ex hac cause denique. invidiosum tibi sit si emanarit The only advice I can give you is this: even if you are not against the idea i how he comes out of this case finally. It would not be good for your reputation if the thing leaks out; and if any hint is forthcoming, it would get more publicity tha n would be decent o r expedient ( Fam 8.6.2 ) Caelius goes on to advise his friend about damages to his reputation as a result of this matter. So while Caelius seems genuinely concerned for Cicero, as it is in a matter pertaining to his reputation, Caelius himself would ver y well also be affected, as frequently entreated Cicero for panthers from Cicilia for use in his games. By the end of ve soured to turpe tibi erit pantheras Graecas me non habere It will be bad for you th at I do not have Greek panthers ( Fam 8.6 ) This is may be lighthearted jest; yet, the placement in the letters is interesting. It comes right after a plea from Cae lius for Cicero to put a good word on his behalf to Appius Clodius, a friend of Cicero who had recently been charged by Dolabella for electoral corruption. 11 writing happened in stages. 12 By doing so, he 10 Sh ackleton Bailey (1979) 398. 11 Amabo te, si quid quod opus fuerit Appio facies, ponito me in gratia Fam 8.6.5. 12 Fam 8.6.5. Caelius reports news that happens since he began a letter: hoc nondum fecerat cum priorem partem epistulae scripsi.
175 used his information as a bargaining tool to get what he wanted from Cicero. Since Caelius had not been able to give up his request for panthers, 13 his statement here is matter of for Curio, a collea gue with whom was in competition. Caelius surely was disappointed that he could not put on the same sp ectacle with panthers as Curio ( Fam 8.8.10 ) At the end of the correspondence between Cicero and Caelius, one event in particular has revealed much about the deviant character of Caelius. After describing from this, Caelius relates to Cicero that Appius, Domitius, and Servius Pola have decided to prosecute him on trump ed up charges under the lex Scantinia a law that penalized homosexual acts among freeborn citizens. In the passage that follows, actions. 14 Vix hoc erat Pola elocutus cum ego Appiu m censorem eadem lege postulavi. Quod melius caderet nihil vidi. Nam sic est a populo et non infimo quoque adprobatum ut maiorem Appio dolorem fama quam postulatio attulerit ( Fam 8.12.3 ) h when I charge d Censo r Rome (and not just the lower orders) approves; so that Appius is more upset by the sc andal than by the prosecution t may also reveal his willingness to stoop to any level to protect his own reputation, which, Wiseman 13 Caelius menti ons the panthers in Fam 8.3, 8.9, 8.8, 8.6, and 8.7 over the course of one year. 14 Walters (2003) 98.
176 comments, had been put on public display here. 15 writing seems most inflamed with emotion. He concluded the lett er: a te peto ut meas iniurias proinde doleas ut me existimas et dolere et ulcisci tuas solere I ask that you may grieve over my injuries in the same manner that you think that I should grieve and avenge yours ( Fam 8.12.4 ) This statement almost mirror s an earlier one made by Cicero, and this is where I believe we can deduce that Caelius was capable of nearly anything. Cicero wrote: te vero, mi Rufe, diligo, quem mihi Fortuna dedit amplificatorem dignitae meae, ultorem non modo inimicorum sed etiam inv idorum meorum, ut eos partim scelerum suorum, partim etaim ineptiarum paeniteret My dear Rufus, you are my enviers, making some sorry for their villanies an d others for ( Fam 2.10.3 ) Cicero and Caelius confirmed to each other that Caelius has done great service for Cicero. Each man would do virtually anything for the other. At this, almost the end for news of the political happenings at h ome similar to the way that Caelius depended on Cicero for an a cq uittal years before. have been foolish to reveal them, yet the cunning, wit, and foresight displayed in his letters along with the careful design of his writings in order to gain social and political status, tells us that Caelius could have been exactly the kind of man who was capable of just about anything Was he capable of poisoning Clodia? 15 Fam 8.12.1 3 and 8.14.4 as Dom 111 2.
177 LIST OF REFERENCES Texts and Commentaries Austin, R., ed. 1952. M. Tulli Ciceronis pro M. Caelio Oratio. Oxford. Pro Caelio 2003. Wauconda, IL.: Bolchazy Carducci. Kaster, R.A., ed. 1995. Su etonius. De Grammaticiis et Rhetoribus. Oxford. ----., ed. 2006. Cicero: Speech on Behalf of Publius Sestius. Ox ford. Nisbet, R.G., ed. 1939. M.Tulli Ciceronis De Domo Sua. Oxford ., ed. 1961. M. Tulli Ciceronis in L.Calpiurnium Pisonem Oratio. Oxford. Pocock, L.G., ed. 1967. A Commentary on Cicero In Vatinium. Amsterdam: Adolf M. Hakkert Wistrand, E.K.H. 1976. The so called Laudatio Turiae Gteborg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis. All translations used in this work come from the Loeb Classical Libra r y Harvard University Press unless otherwise noted The Loeb series works usually include introductory notes, usually by the translator. Loeb w orks used in this dissertation: Cicero. De Inventione trans., 1949. Cicero. Pro Archia, Post Reditum, De Domo, Pro Planco trans. N.H. Watts. 1965. Cicero. De Oratore III. trans., H. Rackham. 1982. Cicero. Pro Sestio and In Vatinium ., trans., R. Gardner. 1984. Cicero. Letters to Quintus and Brutus. trans., D. R. Shackleton Bailey. 1988 Ci cero. Brutus, Orator trans., G. L. Hendrickson. 1988. Cicero. Letters to Atticus, Vols. 1 7., trans. D.R Shackleton Bailey. 1999. Cicero. Letters to Friends, Vol s. 1 2 ., trans. D.R. Shackleton Bailey. 2001. Cice ro. Pro Caelio, De Provinciis Consula ribus, Pro Balbo trans., R. Gardner. 2005
178 Quintilian. Institutio Oratorio trans., H.E. Butler. 1922 Plutarch Varro. On the Latin Language trans., Kent, R.G. 1993. Books and Articles The abbreviations for Greek and Latin texts follow the conventions of the most recent editions of the Oxford Latin Dictionary and the Oxford Classical Dictionary. Periodicals have been abbreviated according to the guidelines Frequently used abbreviations: AJP American Journal of Philology CJ Classical Journal CP Classical Philology CQ Classical Quarterly CW Classical Weekly G&R Greece and Rome HSCP Harvard Studies in Classical Philology JRS Journal of Roman Studies TAPA Tr ansactions of the American Philo logical Association Achard, G. 1981. Pratique rhetorique et ideoligie politique dans les discours Leiden: E.J. Brill. Adams, J.N. 1978 Conventions of Namin g in Cicero. CQ 28 : 145 166. Alexander, M. C. 1982 tions in the Standing Criminal Classical Antiquity 1: 141 166. Allen, J. T. 1927. Stage Antiquities of the Greeks and Romans and Their Influence London : Longmans, Green and Co. Allen Jr., W. 1937. Claudius or Clodius? CJ 33: 107 110. 1954. Cicero's Conceit. TAPA 85 : 121 44.
179 Bailey, C. e d. 1926. The Mind of Rome Oxford. Balsdon, J.P.V.D. 1957 Roman History 58 56 BC: Three Ciceronian Problems. JRS 47: 15 20. 1960. Auctoritas, Dignitas, Otium CQ 10: 43 50. Barrett, A. A. 1972 a Catu llus 52 and the Consulship of Vatinius. TAPA 103 : 23 38. 1972 b Macrobius and the Consulship of Vatinius. Phoenix 26: 394 6. Baxter, J. 1890. Cicero, Pro Sestio, 126. The Classical Review 4: 49. Benario, Herbert W. 1973. Reipublicae amantissimus. CJ 69: 12 20. Berger, A. 1953. Encyclopedic Dictionary of Roman Law. TAPA 43 : 333 809. Berry, D. 2000. Cicero's Defense Speeches Oxford. Booth, J ed. 2007. Cicero on the Attack Swansea Bruun, C. 1997. Water for Roman Brothels: Cicero Cael. 34. Phoenix 51 : 364 373 Burrow, J.A. 2008. The Poetry of Praise Cambridge. Bush, A. C. and S. Cerutti. 1986. A Use of the Term Frater in the Pro Caelio. CJ 82 : 37 39. Butrica, J. 1999. Using Water Unchastely: Cicero Pro Caelio 34 Again Addendum. Phoe nix 53 : 336. Canter, H. 1931 Digressio in the Orations of Cicero. AJP 52: 351 361 1936. Irony in the Orations of Cicero. AJP 57: 457 464 Ciaceri, E. 1960. 'Il Processo di M. Celio Rufo e l'Arringa di Cicerone.' Atti della Reale Accademia de Archeologia, Lettere e Belle Arti di Napoli, N.S. 9: 1 24. Carney, T.F. 1960 Weiner Studien 73: 83 122. Cary, M. 19 32 Asinus germanus. CQ 17: 103 Cary, M. and H. H. Scullard. 1975. A History of Rom e London. Clarke, M. C. 1945. Ciceronian Oratory. G&R 14: 72 81 1953. Rhetoric at Rome London
180 Connolly, J. 2007. The State of Speech: Rhetoric & Poltical Thought in Ancient Rome Princeton Conte, Gian Biagio. 1994. Latin Literature: A History Translated by J. B. Solodow. Revised by D. Fowler and G.W. Most. Baltimore Corbeill, A Rhetoric. Ed., James M. May. pp. 197 217. Leiden: E.J.Brill. 1996. Controlling Laughter: Political Hum or in the Late Roman Republic. Princeton. Craig, C.P. 2004. Audience Expectations, Invective, and Proof I n Cicero the Advocate eds., Powell and Paterson pp. 186 213. Oxford. 2001 ius in Wooten, C.W., ed. The Orator in Theory and Practice in Greece and Rome pp. 111 122. Boston. 1993. Form as Argument in Cicero's Speeches: A Study of Dilemma Atlanta : 1989. Reason, Resonance, and Dilemma in Cicero's Speec h for Caelius. Rhetorica 2 : 4. 1995. Teaching Cicero's Speech for Caelius: What Enquiring Minds Want to Know. CJ 90 : 407 422. 1981. The Accusator as Amicus: An Original Roman Tactic of Ethical Argumentation. TAPA 111 : 31 37. Crawford, J. 19 9 4. The Fragmentary Speeches Atlanta: The American Philological A ssociation Crook, J.A. 1967. Law and Life of Rome. London. 1995. Legal Advocacy in the Roman World Cornell Crownover, E. 1934. The Clash between Clodia and Cicero. CJ 30 : 137 147 Damon, C. 1992. Sex. Cloelius, scriba. HSCP 94: 227 250. Davies, J. 1969. A Slip by Cicero? CQ 19: 137 147 De Temmerman K. 2010. Ancient Rhetoric as a H ermeneutical Tool for the Analysis of Characterization in Narrative Literature. Rhetorica 28 : 23 51. Dettmer, H. 1997. Love by the Numbers: Form and Meaning in the Poetry of Catullus New York.
181 Dickison, S. K. 1988 Women in Rome Civilization of the Ancient Mediterranean. pp. 1319 1332. New York: Scribner. Dixon, S 2001. Reading Roman Women: Sources, Genre and Real Life L ondon : Duckworth Dorey, T. 1958. Cicero, Clodia, and the 'Pro Caelio G&R 5 : 175 180 196 5 Studies in Latin Literature and its Influence : Cicero New York. Dufallo, B. 2001. Appius' Indignation: Gossip, Tradition, and Performance in Republican Rome. TAPA 131 : 119 142 Dugan, J 2005. Make a New Man Ciceronian Se lf Fashioning in the Rhetorical Works Oxford. Dyck, A. 2004. Cicero's "Devotio": The Rles of Dux and Scape Goat in His "Post Reditum" Rhetoric HSCP 102 : 299 314 Dyson Hejduk, J. 2008. Clodia: A Sourcebook. Norman: University of Oklahoma Epstein, D.F. 1987. Personal Enmity in Roman Politics, 218 43 B.C. London F antham, E. 2004. Oxford. Fraschetti A., ed. 1 999. Roman Women. L. Lappin t rans Chicago. Francken, C. 1880. Ciceronis Oratio pro Caelio. Mnemosyne 201 29. Fredricksmeyer, E. 1973. Catullus 49, Cicero, and Caesar. CP 68: 268 278. Gaffney, G. 1995. Severitati Respondere: Character drawing in 'Pro Caelio' and Catullus' Carmina. CJ 90: 423 431. Geffcken, K. A. 1973. Comedy in the Pro Caelio Leiden: E.J.Brill. Gelzer, M. 1968. Cicero Und Caesar W iesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag. ----. 1960. Caesar: Politician and Statesman Trans, P. Needham. Oxford. 2008. Caesar: Der Politike r und Staatsmann (Neudruck der Ausgabe von 1983) Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag. Gilliam, J. 1953. The Pro Caelio in St. Jerome's Letters. Harvard Theological Review 46 : 103 107. Gotoff, H. 1986. Cicero's Analysis of the Prosecution Speeches in the Pro Caelio: An Exercise in Practical Criticism. CP 81 : 122 132.
182 1993. Oratory: The Art of Illusion. HSCP 95, 289 313. Griffin, M. 1986. Cicero and Rome. Oxford History of the Classical World pp. 454 478. Oxford. Gruen, E. 1966. P. Clodius: Instrument or Independent Agent? Phoenix 20, 120 30. 1967. Review: Cicero. Studies in Latin Literature and Its Influence by T.A. Dorey. AJP 88 : 213 218. 1969. Pompey, the Roman Aristocracy, and the Conference of Luca. Historia: Zeitschrift fr Alte Geschichte 18: 71 108. 1974. The Lost Generation of the Roman Republic. Berkeley Habricht, C. 1990. Cicero the Politician Baltimore: Johns Hopkins. Hands, A. Postremo Suo Tantum Ingenio Utebatur. CQ 24: 312 317 Harrington, K. P. 1923. C atullus and His Influence. New York: Marshall Jones. Heinze, R. 1925. Ciceros Rede Pro Caelio. Hermes 60.2 : 193 258. Heller, J. 1934. Cicero Pro Caelio 55. CP 29: 141 143. Hollis, A. 1998. A Tragic Element in Cicero Pro Caelio 67? CQ 48 : 561 64. Houg h, J. 1930. The Lex Lutatia and the Lex Plautia de Vi. AJP 51 : 135 14. How, W.W 1926. Select Letters Vols. 1 2. Oxford. Hutchison, G. 1998. Cicero's Correspondence: A Literary Study. Oxford Kelly, J. M. 1976. Studies in the Civil Judicature of the Roman Republic Oxford. Kennedy, G. 1968. The Rhetoric of Advocacy in Greece and Rome. AJP 89: 419 436. 1972. The Art of Rhetoric in the Roman World Princeton. Lacey, W. 1962. Cicero, Pro Sestio 96 143. CQ 12: 67 71. 1970. Boni atque Imp robi. G&R. 17: 3 16. Lausberg, H. 1988 Handbook of Literary Rhetoric: A Foundationf or Literary Study. Trans. M.T. Bliss, A. Jansen, & D. E. Orton. Eds. D.E. Orton & R. D. Anderson Leiden: E.J.Brill. Leen, A. 1990. Teaching Two Speeches of Cicero. CJ 85: 350 356.
183 Leon, H. J. 1935. The Technique of Emotional Appeal in Cicero's Judicial Speeches. CW 29 : 33 3 7. 1959. Cicero the Lawyer as Seen in His Correspondence. CW 52: 147 154. Linderski, J. 1961. Ciceros Rede Pro Caelio Und Die Ambitus U nd Vereinsgesetzgebung Der Ausgehenden Republik. Hermes 89 : 106 19. Linto t t, A. W. 1968. Violence in Republican Rome Oxford. 1974. Cicero and Milo. JRS 64, 62 78 1981. The Leges de R epetundis and Associated Measures under the Republic. Zeit schrift der Savigny Stiftung fr Rechtsgeschichte 98: 162 212. 1999. The Constitution of the Roman Republic Oxford. 2008. Cicero as Evidence. Oxford. Historia : Zeitschrift fr Alte Geschichte 38: 498 503 MacKendrick, P. 1995 The Speeches of Cicero London: Duckworth. Marsh, F. B. 1927. The Policy of Clodius from 58 to 56 BC. CQ 21 : 30 6. Marshall, B.A. 1976. Crassus. A Political Biography Amsterdam: Hakkert. Maslowski, T. 1991. Cicero, Pro Caelio 31. AJP 112 : 507 11. May, J.M. 1988. Trials of Character: The Eloquence of Ciceronian Ethos Chapel Hill. 1995. Patron and Client, Father and Son in Cicero's Pro Caelio. CJ 90: 433 441. 1996. Cicero and the Beasts. Syllecta Classi ca 7: 143 153. ., ed. 200 2 : Oratory and Rhetoric Leiden: E.J.Brill May, J.M. and J. Wisse., trans. 2001. Cicero On the Ideal Orator Oxford. McDermott, W.C. 1972. Cicero's Use of Historical Exempla. Phoenix 26: 82 4. McDonald, W. F. 1929. Clodius and the Les Aelia Fufia. JRS 19 : 164 79. Merrill, N.W. 1975. Cicero and Early Roman Invective Ph.D. diss. University of Cincinnati. Metzger, E. 1997. A New Outline of Roman Civil Trial Oxford.
184 2004. Roman Ju dges, Case Law, and Principles of Procedure. Law and History Review 22: 243 275. Champaign, IL. Mitchell, T. N. 1969. Cicero before Luca. TAPA 100 : 295 320. 1973. Cicero, Pompey and the Rise of the First Triumvirate. Traditio 29: 1 27. 1986 The Leges Clodiae and obnuntiatio. CQ 36 : 172 176. 1991. Cicero The Senior Statesman New Haven. Mommsen, T. 1883. Zu Ciceros Reden. Hermes 18.1 : 160. Moreau, P. 1982. Cicron, Clodius et la bannissment de Ciceron. Athenaeum 75: 465 92. Mulro y, D. 1988. The Early Career of P. Clodius Pulcher: A Re Examination of the Charges of Mutiny and Sacrilege. TAPA 118 : 155 78. Nicholson, J. 1992. Cicero's Return from Exile: The Orations Post Reditum New York : Peter Lang Noonan, J.D. 1979. Mala be stia in Catullus 69.7 8. CW 73: 155 64. Onians, R. 1927. Cicero, Pro S estio VIII.18 and the 'Columna Rhegia CR 41.5: 171 2. Osgood, J. 2005. Cicero's "pro Caelio" 33 34 and Appius Claudius' "Oratio de Pyrrho." CP 100: 355 358. Paterson, J. 2004. Sel Cicero the Advocate Eds., J. Powell and J. Paterson. pp. 79 96. Oxford. Pernot, L 2005. Rhetoric in Antiquity. trans., W.E. Higgins. Washington, D.C.: Catholic University Press. Peterson, W. 1909. Notes on Cicero, Pro Sestio. CQ 3: 266 71. 1910. Cicero's Post Reditum and Other Speeches. CQ 4 : 167 77. Pocock, L. 1924. Publius Clodius and the Acts of Caesar. CQ 18: 59 65. 1925. A Note on the Policy of Clodius. CQ 19: 182 4. 1927 Pompeiu sve Parem. CP 22: 301 306. Poynton, J.B. 1927 Review of a Commentary on Cicero In Vatinium by L. Pocock. CR 41 : 88.
185 Powell, J. G. F. 2007. Invective and the Orator: Ciceronian Theory and Practice. In J. Booth ed., Cicero on the Attack pp. 1 24. Swan sea. Powell, J. G.F. and J. Paterson, eds. 2004 Cicero the Advocate Oxford. Prill, P. 1986. Cicero in Theory and Practice: The Securing of Good Will in the Exordia of Five Forensic Speeches. Rhetorica 4: 93 109 Remy E. 1928. Dignitas cum otio. Mus ee Belge 32: 113 27. Rice Holmes and Questions Therewith Connected. CQ 14: 39 45. 1923. The Roman Republic Vols. 1 2. Oxford. Riggsby, A.M. 1995. Appropriation and Reversal as a Basis for Oratorical Proof. CP 90, 245 56 1997. Did the Romans Believe in their Verdicts? Rhetorica 15: 235 25 1. 1999. Crime and Community in Ciceronian Rome Austin. 2002. Clodius/Claudius. Historia: Zeitschrift fr Alte Geschichte 51: 117 123. ----. 2002 Rhetoric. Ed., James M. May pp. 159 196 Leiden: E.J.Brill. 2004. The Rhetoric of Character in the Roman Courts. In Cicero the Advocate Eds., J. Powell and J. Paterson. pp. 165 185. Oxford. Robinson, A. Cicero's References to His Banishment. CW 87: 475 480. Robson, E. I. 1897. Notes on Cicero, Pro Sestio. CR 11 : 303 4. Rosivach, Vincent J. 1980. Caelius' Adherence to the Caesarian Cause. CW 71: 201 212. Rowland, R. J. 1966. Crassus, Clodius, and Curio in the Year 59 BC. Historia: Zeitsschrift fur Alta Geschichte 15 : 217 23. CJ 6 5 : 193 8. Rundell, W. 1979. Cicero and Clodius: The Question of Credibility. Historia: Zeitschrift fur Alte Geschichte 28 : 301 28. Rutledge, S. H. 1999. Delatores and the Tradition of Violence in Roman Oratory. AJP 120: 555 73.
186 Salzman, M. 1982. Cice ro, the Megalenses and the Defense of Caelius. AJP 103: 299 304. Sanders, H. A. 1932. The So Called First Triumvirate. Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome 10 : 55 68. Saunders, C CP 14 : 201 215. Schmid, Walter. 1963. Die Komposition der Invektive Gegen Cicero. Hermes 91: 159 178. Scullard, H. 1963. From the Gracchi to Nero: A History of Rome from 133 BC to AD 68. London: University Paperbacks. 1981. Festivals and Ceremonies of the Roman Republic. Cornell. Seager, R. 1965. Clodius, Pompeius and the Exile of Cicero. Latomus 24: 519 531. 1972. Cicero and the Word Popvlaris. CQ 22, 328 338. 1979. Pompey A Political Biography Lon don. 2007. Ciceronian invective: themes and variations. In J. Booth ed., Cicero on the Attack pp. 25 46. Swansea. Shackleton Bailey, D. R. 1960. Sex. Clodius Sex. Cloelius. CQ 10:41 42. 1971. Cicero: Classical Life and Letters New York: Sc ribner and Sons. 1979. On Cicero's Speeches. HSCP 83 : 237 285. 1981. Ecce iterum Cloelius. Historia: Zeitschrift fr Alte Geschichte Vol. 30: 383. 1985. More on Cicero's Speeches. HSCP 89 : 141 51. 1987. On Cicero's Speeches. TA PA 117 : 271 280. 1991 Cicero Back from Exile: Six Speeches Upon Hi s Return. T APA. Chicago. Skinner, M. B. 1983. Clodia Metelli. TAPA 113 : 273 287. Skutsch, O. 1943 a Cicero Pro Sestio 72. CR 56 : 116 7. 1943 b Cicero Pro Sestio 72 Again. CR 57 : 67. Smethurst, S. 1955. Politics and Morality in Cicero. Phoenix 9 : 111 21 Smith, R.E. 1964. The Significance of Caesar's Consulship in 59. Phoenix 18: 303.
187 1966. Cicero the Statesman Cambridge. Solmsen, F hetorical Analysis. TAPA 69: 542 566. Steel, C. 2001. Cicero, Rhetoric, and Empire. Oxford. 2005. Reading Cicero Genre and Performance in Late Republican Rome London: Duckworth. 2006. Roman Oratory Cambridge. 2007. Name and Shame? Invec tive against Clodius and others in the post exile speeches. In Cicero on the Attack Ed., J. Booth pp. 105 128. Swansea. Stockton, D. 1962. Cicero and the Ager Campanus. TAPA 93, 471 89. 1971. Cicero A Political Biography. Oxford. Stroh, W. 197 5. Taxis und Taktik: die advokatische Dispositionskunst in Ciceros Gerichsreden. Stuttgart Sumi, G. 2005. Ceremony and Power pp. 1 46. Michigan. Sumner, G.V. 1963. Lex Aelia, Lex Fufia. AJP 84: 337 58. Sss, W. 1975. Ethos: Studien zur lteren g riechischen Rhetorik pp. 245 262. Aalen. Syme, R. 1939. The Roman Revolution. Oxford. 1963. Ten Tribunes. JRS 53: 55 60. Tatum, W.J. 1990. The Lex Clodia de censoria notione. CP 85:34 43. 1991. Lucullus and Clodius at Nisibis. Athena eum 79: 569 579. 1993. The Lex Papiria de Dedicationibus," CP 88: 319 28. 199 9. Cicero's Opposition to the Lex Clodia de Collegiis. CQ 40 : 187 94. 1999. The Patrician Tribune: Publius Clodius Pulcher. Chapel Hill Taylor, L.R. 1949. Pa rty Politics in the Age of Caesar Berkeley. 1960. The Voting Districts of the Roman Republic Rome. Tupet, A M. 1966. Revue des tudes latine 44 (I966), 238 253. Socit d'dition Les Belles Lettres. Paris. Usher, S. 2008. s : The Critic in Action Gateshead: Stephen Usher.
188 Weiand, H.E. 1917. The Position of Women in the Late Roman Republic. Part II. CJ 12 : 423 37. Walters, B. 2003. Politics of Performance in the Correspondence of Marcus Caelius Rufus and Marcus Tullius Ci cero Thesis MA. University of Kansas Classics. Ward, Allen M. 1972. against Crassus and Caesar in 65 and 63 B.C. Historia: Zeitschrift fur Alte Geschichte 21 : 244 258. Watt, W.S. 1949. Cicero, Ad Atticum 4.3. CQ 43 : 9 21. Weinstock, S. 1937. Clodius and the Lex Aelia Fufia. JRS 27 : 215 22. Wilson. J.P. 1974. Das Verhnagnisvolle Jahr. Zum Text Von Ciceros Rede Pro Sestio §15. Hermes 102: 467 75 1988. Three Non Uses of Frater in Pro Caelio 32. CJ 83 : 207 211. Wimmel, W. 1984. Catilinarischer Erfolg Auf Den Almen? Zwei Uberlieferungsfragen Bei Cicero, Pro Sestio 12. Hermes 112 : 121 6. Wirszubski, C. 1954. JRS 44: 1 13. Wiseman, T. 1969. Catullan Questions. Leicester. 197 9. Clio's Cosmetics Leicester. 1985. Catullus and his World. Cambridge. Wisse, J. 1989 Ethos and Pathos Amsterdam: Hakkert. Wood, N. 1988. Cicero's Social and Political Thought. Los Angeles. Wooten, C W. e d. 2001 The Orator in Action a nd Theory in Greece and Rome Boston: Brill Zarker, J.W. 1973. CJ 68 : 107 115. Zarecki, J. P. 2005. Cicero's Ideal Statesman in theory and practice Ph D. diss. Gainesville: University of Florida.
189 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Jaime Claymore w as born in Ft. Lauderdale, F lorida to Kirk and Nancy Madsen. After spending most of her youth in southern Florida, Jaime attended Florida State University from 1994 1999. She graduated magna cum laude with a Bachelor of Arts in c la ssical c ivilization and a nthropology in 1997 After a semester as a graduate student in the department of Anthroplogy Department Jaime moved into the College of Education. While working as a student teacher in Tallahssee, s he married Carl Claymore in 1998 Jaime then receiv ed her Mast er of Social Science Education in 1999 and became a curriculum writer for the Florida Heritag e Education Project under the State of Florida Department of Education. The Claymores moved to southern Georgia at the end of 1999, where Jaime taught s ocial s tud ies and Latin for six years She then entered the University of Florida as a graduate student in the d istance l earning p rogram in the Classics Department in January 2005 Thereafter, the Claymores, with their two young children, t ransferr ed to Lawrenceville, G eorgia where s h e taught Latin and History at Norcross High School and Mill Creek High School. She now teaches Latin at Mountain View High School, where she also serves as JCL Sponsor, Faciliator of Professional Development and Direct or of the Advisement Program. Jaime has attended numerous professional conferences as a presenter for the American Classical League and the Foreign Language Association of Georgia. She is an active participant in Latin language advocacy in northern Georgia as well. Upon receipt of her PhD i n Classical Studies from the University of Florida in May 2011 Jaime continue s to teach and be an advocate for Latin in Gwinnett County, Georgia.