A commentary on Cicero's oration De haruspicum responso 9783111666846, 9783111282107

Table of contents :
Preface
I. Introduction
II. Dating
III. Publication and Delivery of the Speech
IV. The Haruspices
V. Authenticity
VI. The Manuscripts
VII. Commentary
Bibliography
Index

Citation preview

STUDIES

IN

CLASSICAL

LITERATURE,

5

A COMMENTARY ON CICERO'S ORATION DE HARUSPICUM RES PON SO by

JOHN O. LENAGHAN

1969

MOUTON THE H A G U E · PARIS

© Copyright 1969 in The Netherlands. Mouton & Co. N.V., Publishers, The Hague. No part of this book may be translated or reproduced in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm, or any other means, without written permission from the publishers.

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS CATALOG CARD NUMBER: 68-17906

Printed in The Netherlands by Mouton & Co., Printers The Hague.

TO MY WIFE

PREFACE

It is the principal purpose of this commentary to explain the historical allusions and background of Cicero's oration De Haruspicum Responso. It is my secondary purpose to date the oration. If, as I believe, it can be demonstrated that the oration was delivered in the first half of May 56, it gains considerably in importance. It would then provide an interesting example of Cicero's public views in the period immediately after the conference at Luca. The commentary is based upon the Oxford Classical Text of Peterson. The numbers before the individual lemmas represent the section number and the line number of Peterson's text. I have used the Oxford Classical Texts whenever possible; otherwise, I have used Teubner or Loeb texts with the standard section references. In cases which might prove confusing, however, I have indicated the editor. When I have done this, the numbers refer, not to the sections of the text, but to the pages of that particular edition (e.g. Ascon. 70 Clark).1 I have generally followed the abbreviations of the Oxford Classical Dictionary. Where these seemed cumbersome or were nonexistent, I have frequently adopted those used by Broughton in his Magistrates of the Roman Republic. When there is no indication of author in the citation of an ancient work, it is to be understood that the author is Cicero. When neither author nor work is specified, the reference is to this oration. A reference to another part of the commentary will be given by the number of the section and 1

I have made an exception to this practice in my citation of Maurenbrecher's edition of Sallusts' Histories.

8

PREFACE

the line of the lemma. Full citation of the lemma will be supplied only when necessary for clarity. Monographs of modern authors are cited only by the author's name; the full title may be found in the bibliography. When I have used more than one work of the same author or when there is a chance of confusion, I have indicated the work by an abbreviated title. A final note: numbers in parentheses after a man's name are those under which he is found in Pauly-Wissowa. Unfortunately only after this commentary was in page proof have I seen Wuilleumier and Tupet's edition and translation in the Bude series. I have, nevertheless, as much as possible taken cognizance of their work, especially their succinct and excellent introduction. There is, however, one embarrassment. They have used, and generously acknowledged, my dissertation, which is an earlier version of this book. It is then not always easy to distinguish agreement from independent judgement. Accordingly I have decided that it would be unnecessary, and even pedantic, to give a specific citation, on each occasion on which we agree. I should like to acknowledge the following help and advice which I have received. My wife, Lydia, who had done work on De Haruspicum Responso for her master's thesis at Bryn Mawr College, has contributed much, especially in the introduction and the first part of the commentary. Professor Herbert Bloch of Harvard University has provided specific and detailed criticism, which has both helped and encouraged me. Professor Frank Bourne and Professor Emeritus Paul R. Coleman-Norton of Princeton University read the manuscript and suggested improvements, when it was submitted as a dissertation. Professor Herbert Rowen of Rutgers University has been especially kind in his general advice, which has helped to remedy some of the defects of inexperience. And I also wish to thank the Rutgers University Research Council for a subvention toward the cost of publication.

CONTENTS

Preface I. Introduction II. Dating III.

Publication and Delivery of the Speech

IV. The Haruspices V. Authenticity VI. The Manuscripts VII. Commentary

7 11 22 29 32 38 42 46

Bibliography

199

Index

206

I INTRODUCTION

In order to understand the issues and allusions of the oration De Haruspicum Responso, a brief and necessarily condensed account of the events in Cicero's life from his consulship in 63 to 56 will be helpful.1 The most important event of his consulship was the Catilinarian conspiracy. Its author, Catiline, was an impoverished patrician who plotted to overthrow the government and to introduce radical changes for the benefit of the desperate of all orders. Cicero, warned of the impending danger, was able to take timely action and to uncover the plot, although it did not subside until after an armed conflict, in the course of which Catiline was killed. A senatus consultum ultimum sanctioned Cicero's actions against the conspirators whom he caught in Rome, and the Senate likewise voted in favor of their execution, but the responsibility remained his. The execution of Roman citizens without trial, however, was in general illegal. Cicero, who believed that the conspirators had forfeited their citizenship and were to be regarded as hostes, had no clear acknowledged precedent for such action.2 For his courageous leadership in this crisis Cicero was thanked and honored by a grateful Senate, but he also incurred a great deal of unpopularity, both from those men who may have begrudged the senatorial faction such a victory and from others who may have been honestly 1

There are many such summaries serving a similar purpose: Nisbet, Dom. vii-xxiii; Nisbet, Pis. v-xiv; Gardner, 1-35; Butler and Cary, 5-12. For more detailed accounts of all or part of this period v. D.-G., 176-280; Holmes, 53-75; Gelzer, Pomp. 113-150. 1 For a discussion of the legality of Cicero's action and of the views of modern scholars v. Nisbet, Dom. viii-ix.

12

INTRODUCTION

perturbed by the arbitrary punishment of Roman citizens (cf. 5.16n. and 58. 6n.; for Cicero's unpopularity v. 17. 7-8n.). It was Cicero's contribution to have saved the government and public order by obtaining the co-operation of the senators and the equites, both of whom would have lost much through the change of the established order and the economic innovations proposed by Catiline and his group. This policy of co-operation he termed concordia ordinum, which he hoped to fuse into a working alliance between the better and more reliable segments of society {Cat. 4.15, Att. 1.17.10).3 The first trial of concordia ordinum came in December 62 when P. Clodius violated the sacred mysteries of the Bona Dea (v. infra sections 4 and 8 and notes). The scandal was immediate; the matter was referred to the Senate and then to the Vestals and pontifices, who declared it nefas {Att. 1.13.3). The Senate then wished to have a law passed empowering the praetor to select a special jury {Att. 1.13.3, 1.14.1-2, 5), but this came to nothing. A tribunician law was passed, which merely authorized a trial, and the jury was selected in the regular way {Att. 1.16.2). Clodius was tried de incesto, but he was acquitted, allegedly through bribery financed by Crassus (v. infra sections 36-37 and notes). The trial and its unsavory conclusion not only created enmities within the Senate, but also weakened the reputation of the knights, whose honesty in the law courts had once again been questioned. Cicero himself was drawn into this affair; he testified that he had seen Clodius in Rome on the very day of the offense, when Clodius claimed to have been at Interamna (probably Interamna Nahars; Ascon. 49 Clark; Dom. 80, Mil. 46, Att. 2.1.5; Schol. Bob. 85 Stangl). He also engaged in a battle of wits with Clodius in the Senate, in which he was evidently the victor {Att. 1.16.9-10). As a result of these two incidents, and also because of his intemperate pre-trial speeches, Cicero earned the hatred of Clodius which was to be satisfied later.4 8

Strasburger, 39-58, 71-72. For a recent discussion of these events, sympathetic to Clodius, v. Balsdon, Historia, 15 (1966), 65-73. He is even dubious about Clodius' guilt, wrongly, I think, in view of Cicero's nearly contemporary reports (Att. 1.12.3, 1.13.3).

4

INTRODUCTION

13

Another and even more serious difficulty for Cicero's concordia presented itself in late 61, when the Asian tax-collectors, whose contracts had just been issued, attempted to have them cancelled (v. 1. 2n.). Most of the Senate supported them, but Cato stubbornly frustrated their expectations, at first through delay and then by influencing the Senate to deny the request. The equites were considerably annoyed, and, once Caesar has passed a law in their favor in 59, the concordia of the two orders was never fully restored (cf. 60. 7n.). But this was not all: the position of Pompey was also a disturbing and ambiguous factor. He had returned from the East in 62 where he had held an extraordinary command under the lex Manilla. He might, on the one hand, have stabilized the situation, if he had joined the conservative element, as Cicero hoped. Yet the expected savior was also something of a threat, since he had a large army and no job. The Senate had awaited his homecoming apprehensively, but no immediate problem arose. When, however, the Senate refused Pompey's two requests, ratification of his eastern settlement and a land grant for his soldiers, it alienated the triumphant general and drove him into the arms of two men ready to effect their ends with less compunction, Caesar and Crassus. Until this time Caesar had been relatively inconspicuous, in spite of his illustrious connections with Marius, his bold resistance to Sulla, and his capture of the coveted office of pontifex maximus. Crassus was a consularis, the richest man in Rome, a financier with many connections, and at this time he had much to offer. Caesar was elected consul for 59, perhaps by the influence of Pompey and Crassus, individually or together. His colleague was M. Calpurnius Bibulus (v. 48. 21-22n.). Inasmuch as Caesar had probably pledged a program in the interests of Pompey and Crassus, he arranged in short order, not without violence and disregard of the auspices, the land settlement, the ratification of Pompey's eastern settlement, and the satisfaction of the Asian tax-collectors (Att. 2.16.2; Suet. Jul. 20.3). Caesar's reward, secured for him by the lex Vatinia, was the command of Cisalpine Gaul and Illyricum for five years. The Senate later added Transalpine Gaul (Suet. Iul. 22.1; Dio 38.8.5). These highhanded actions were not unopposed.

14

INTRODUCTION

Bibulus, finding resistance ineffectual, retired to his home and continued to watch the heavens and to report inauspicious signs (section 48; Suet. Iul. 20.1; Plut. Caes. 14.6). Such resistance did not move Caesar, and, after Cicero had been overly critical of the new regime in his defense of C. Antonius, Clodius, whose earlier efforts had failed, was promptly transferred to plebeian status by adoption (v. section 45 nn.). At the ceremony Pompey officiated as augur (Att. 8.3.3). The significance of Clodius' adoption was not immediately perceived, but it indicated that Caesar meant to have his way, even with Cicero, and it allowed Clodius to stand for the tribunate. Clodius obtained the tribunate for 58, and, with the assistance of the consuls Gabinius and Piso (Caesar's father-in-law), both pictured by Cicero as unscrupulous political adventurers, he first secured the passage of four popular bills (for Gabinius and Piso v. 2. 13n.).5 The first bill provided the distribution of grain (Sest. 55; Dio 38.13.1; Schol. Bob. 132 Stangl). Another bill modified the Aelian and Fufian laws about the auspices and restricted the right of any magistrate servare de caelo and obnuntiare in order to block legislation (v. 58. 10η). A third law prohibited the censors from removing anyone from the Senate unless formally accused before them and found guilty by both (Ascon. 8 Clark; Dio 38.13.1; Schol. Bob. 132 Stangl). A fourth law reactivated and reconstituted the conlegia compitalicia, which had been disbanded in 64 (v. 11. 5n. and 22. 27-28n.). These laws helped to win for Clodius a basis of popularity, which would enable him to carry further legislation, in particular that against Cicero. Other Clodian legislation soon followed. Piso and Gabinius were to be rewarded with the provinces of Macedonia and Syria respectively (v. 3. 19-20 n.); Cato was to be removed with an extraordinary commission to manage the annexation of Cyprus (v. 58. 13n.). Clodius' most important achievement, however, was the exile of Cicero, whose presence was regarded as a distinct threat to Caesar's work of 59. Clodius, as we have seen, bore a personal grudge against Cicero. 8

For Clodius' legislation v. Niccolini, 286-293.

INTRODUCTION

15

He found an opportunity for revenge in the exploitation of Cicero's role in the Catilinarian conspiracy; he only needed to develop the ill will, which Cicero had already acquired by executing Roman citizens without trial. Early in the year, probably in February, Clodius proposed a law banning from fire and water all those who had put Roman citizens to death without a trial; Cicero, though not specially named, was the obvious target (Veil. Pat. 2.45.1; Dio 38.14.4). The entire Senate, inasmuch as it had consented to the measures of December 63, was in a sense responsible {Dom. 50, Sest. 53), but Cicero, who had been consul in 63, committed the tactical error of understanding the bill perfectly and in panic began to supplicate the people. In February a large number of equites decided to put on mourning in sympathy (Plut. Cie. 31.1), while Hortensius and Curio prepared to lead a delegation on Cicero's behalf before the Senate (v. 3.18n.). Gabinius, the presiding consul, was distinctly hostile; he would not allow the delegation to appear before the Senate and later threatened in a contio to exact punishment from the knights for the events of December 63 {Red. Sen. 12, Dom. 55). When Clodius held a contio in the Circus Flaminius in March, Gabinius declared his objection to the execution of Roman citizens without trial, and Piso said that he had never been a friend of violence {Red. Sen. 17, Sest. 33, Pis. 14). Piso, Cicero's distant relative by marriage {Red. Sen. 17, Red. Pop. 11, Sest. 20, Pis. 11), was originally mild and well disposed, but he failed to give any effective assistance and urged Cicero to depart and to save his country a second time by averting bloodshed {Pis. 78; Plut. Cie. 31.4; Dio 38.16.5). Furthermore, both consuls were indebted to Clodius for their provincial commands and were thereby obliged to support his actions. Cicero's subsequent hatred of Gabinius and Piso and his reluctance to miss an opportunity of maligning them are readily understandable in view of their decisive and discreditable role in this affair. The triumvirs, who had once wanted Cicero to be one of their number {Att. 2.3.3.-4), remained aloof and allowed Clodius to claim their support (v. section 47 and notes). In this crisis Cicero went into feverish consultation with his friends. Cato, Hortensius,

16

INTRODUCTION

and Atticus urged him not to use arms (Dio 38.17.4; cf. Att. 3.15.4), and, although Lucullus thought that patient waiting would settle the question (Plut. Cie. 31.4), Cicero decided that departure was more prudent and left Rome voluntarily, after he had dedicated a statue to Minerva (Dom. 144, Leg. 2.42, Fam. 12.25.1). On the following day, probably March 20, Clodius' law de exilio Ciceronis was passed (Sest. 53). This exiled Cicero by name and carried the customary provision that no subsequent bill was to change its conditions (Att. 3.15.6, 3.23.2-4, Red. Sen. 8, Dom. 47, 50, Pis. 29; Dio 38.17.7; Schol. Bob. 153 Stangl). Cicero's house on the Palatine and his Tusculan villa were plundered and were burned and his other property was confiscated (v. 3. 25n.). After his return Cicero frequently asserted that these measures were all illegal, since he had never been accused, summoned before a jury, or convicted (Red. Sen. 8, Dom. 26, 43, 83, 86, Sest. 65, 73, Leg. 3.45). Clodius in the exuberance of his triumph, whether by design or by accident, went too far. As early as April or May he provoked a quarrel with Pompey, when he released Tigranes of Armenia whom a praetor, L. Flavius, was holding in custody for Pompey (Att. 3.8.3, Dom. 66; Ascon. 47 Clark; Plut. Pomp. 48.5-7; Dio 38.30.1-2; cf. 28. 18-19n.). The immediate benefit for Cicero was slight, but, as the quarrel grew worse, Pompey decided to work for Cicero's recall. A slave of Clodius supposedly attempted to murder Pompey in the Senate on August 11. From that time Pompey was one of the leaders in the movement for Cicero's return (cf. 49. 4n.). In the meantime, however, Clodius effectively resisted all efforts in favor of Cicero. On June 1 the tribune Aelius Ligus, a supporter of Clodius, vetoed the bill of Ninnius Quadratus for Cicero's restoration (Red. Sen. 3, Sest. 68; for Ligus v. 5. 18n.). But by August Cicero's prospects were improving. Domitius Ahenobarbus was planning to bring the case before the Senate (Att. 3.15.6), and a tribune-elect, Sestius, went to consult Caesar in Gaul (Att. 3.20.3, 3.23.4, Sest. 71). The consular elections for 57 also gave Cicero encouragement. The one consul-designate, L. Cornelius Lentulus Spinther, not onlv was a friend of Cicero, but also was thought

INTRODUCTION

17

to have influence with Pompey (Att. 3.22.2, Red. Pop. 15), and his colleague Metellus Nepos was, if not effusive, at least co-operative, although he had once been Cicero's bitter enemy (Att. 3.24.2; cf. 13.13n.). In October (Att. 3.23.4) and in December (Red. Sen. 21) those tribunes of 58 and 57 respectively who were friendly to Cicero proposed bills for his restoration, but without success. On 1 January 57 at a meeting of the Senate in the Temple of Juppiter Capitolinus, Lentulus appealed for Cicero's recall (Red. Pop. 11), and Metellus assented (Sest. 62). L. Aurelius Cotta declared that a decree of the Senate would be adequate for Cicero's return, since the lex Clodia had no validity (Dom. 68, Sest. 73, Leg. 3.45), but Pompey wanted a law passed and the rest of the Senate agreed (Dom. 69, Sest. 74). Sex. Atilius Serranus Gavianus, another of Clodius' friends, requested a night for deliberation, and by this exploitation of his tribunician privilege blocked proceedings for the whole month (Sest. 74; cf. Att. 4.2.4; for Serranus ν 32. 21n.). On January 23 the tribunes made another attempt. On this occasion Clodius occupied the Forum with gladiators obtained from his brother Appius and drove his opponents away (v. 6. 5n.). Clodius' violent activities were matched on the other side by those of the tribunes, Milo (Ascon. 30 Clark) and Sestius, both ardent and effective allies of Cicero. Clodius generally launched his attacks from the Temple of Castor, which, situated at the end of the Forum and approached by a long flight of steps, was a strategic position and convenient headquarters for this period, an "arx civium perditorum" (Pis. 11,; cf. sections 28 and 49). Skirmishes between the forces of Milo and Clodius were frequent, and Milo's service to Cicero in controlling the sheer physical power of Clodius' gangs was great, especially since, after many bloody encounters, Milo and Sestius were victorious (Red. Sen. 20, 30, Red. Pop. 15). Cicero was always grateful to Milo for these services (section 6, Red. Sen. 19, Sest. 86, Mil. 34). In spite of Clodius' use of force, Cicero's return became increasingly certain. Pompey, at this time duovir of Capua, had a resolution carried there which declared the law de exilio Ciceronis a Privilegium and called on all Italy to aid Cicero (Red. Sen. 29, 31, Prov. Cons. 43, Pis. 80, Mil. 39). Pompey was undoubtedly

18

INTRODUCTION

motivated as much by the need for an ally against Clodius as by any particularly amiable feelings for Cicero; yet his actions supported Lentulus' appeal, at a meeting of the Senate in May, that all Italy vote for Cicero's restoration (Red. Sen. 24, Dom. 85, Sest. 50, 128, Plane. 78; Plut. Cie. 33.4). Both the Senate and various organizations of knights drafted elegant resolutions and votes of thanks to those who had aided Cicero (Red. Sen. 24, Dom. 74), and the Senate took the definitive step in July, when Lentulus once more introduced the question. P. Servilius persuaded the reluctant Metellus to join his colleague in bringing the matter before the comitia centuriata (Red. Sen. 25, Sest. 130, Prov. Cons. 22, Fam. 5.4.2). A decree of the Senate, which requested the consuls to pass a law rescinding Cicero's exile and ordering complete restitution of his goods, was passed 416 to 1 (Red. Sen. 26, Red. Pop. 15).® On the following day the Senate passed a decree upon the motion of Pompey that anyone who should try to obstruct this law would be acting against the interests of the State; furthermore, if the law were not passed within five days, Cicero should return with the same rights as if it had been passed (Red. Sen. 27, Sest. 129, Pis. 35). On August 4 the comitia centuriata passed the law and thereby returned Cicero's property to its former status (section 11, Red. Sen. 27, Pis. 35-36, Att. 4.1.4. Fam. 1.9.16). On August 5 Cicero was in Brundisium (Sest. 131). Heprogressed triumphantly to Rome and arrived at the Porta Capena on September 4 (Sest. 131, Att. 4.1.5). On the next day he delivered a speech of thanks in the Senate and shortly thereafter he made a similar one before the people (Att. 4.1.6). Cicero's glory was brief, for Clodius resumed his activities almost immediately. He tried to blame Cicero for the current grain shortage and organized demonstrations against him (v. 31. 7-8n.). Cicero met the emergency by proposing on September 7 that Pompey be put in charge of the grain supply, a suggestion that did not fail to irritate Clodius. Clodius, possibly after Pompey's appointment, had appealed to • The lone dissenter was, of course, Clodius. It is surprising and indicative that he had the courage to attend. For these meetings of the Senate v. Stein, 33.

INTRODUCTION

19

the sanctity of the dedicated shrine in Cicero's house (for the shrine v. 33. 27n.). The Senate then, on the motion of Bibulus, referred the case to the pontifices (section 11, Dom. 69). On September 29 they heard Cicero's oration De Domo Sua, in which he defended his title to the property (Att. 4.2.2.) basing his claim upon the illegality of Clodius' adoption, and subsequently of his tribunate; the invalidity of the law by which he had been exiled; and the violation of the lex Papiria, which forbade consecrations iniussu plebis. The last reason persuaded the pontifices to decree that the property could be restored sine religione (v. 14. 21 note on sacer non esse). Clodius and his brother Appius pretended to think that the pontifical decision had been in their favor, but senatorial feeling was against them and, after two days of meetings, a senatus consultum was passed on 2 October 57 (v. 12. 29n., 31. 6-7n., and sections 11-15). This provided for the reconstruction of Cicero's house on the Palatine, the re-erection of the portico of Catulus, and the allotment of a sum of money to Cicero for damages {Att. 4.2.4-5; v. 15. 5-6n.). Thereafter Cicero could justly assert that his title was cleared legally and religiously by the votes of the comitia centuriata, by the decision of the pontifices, and by the decrees of the Senate (sections 11 and 14). Cicero was not allowed to enjoy this victory in peace. Clodius attacked Cicero's house on November 3 with his gangs. Another battle occurred on November 10 and on the following day Clodius unsuccessfully tried to set fire to Milo's house (Att. 4.3.2-3; v. infra 58. 15 note on inimicorum domus). These attacks achieved little; Clodius seemed to be losing the battle and, as winter approached, he was increasingly threatened by prosecution from Milo de vi (Att. 4.3.4-5, QF 2.1.1-3; cf. 7. 9n.). It was Clodius' hope to evade this prosecution by being elected aedile for 56 (QF 2.2.2, Fam. 1.9.15). Milo, however, had effectively thwarted the attempts to hold the elections and Clodius' prospects looked dim indeed, when at the end of the year new developments secured for Clodius an escape and renewed influence. Pompey's alliance and co-operation with the stubborn optimates had been short and for a specific purpose, the return of Cicero.7 7

Cf. Miltner, RE, 21.2134-2136.

20

INTRODUCTION

It had never been especially firm. These optimates had already been irritated in September 57 by Pompey's new commission, the cura annonae (Att. 4.1.7, Dom. 3,29). This relation was now further embittered by the Egyptian question. Ptolemy XI Auletes of Egypt wanted the Romans to restore him to his throne and had shunned no violence in silencing his enemies (v. 34. 7n.). Lentulus, the consul of 57, had been authorized to undertake this task, but it was known that the king preferred Pompey, who, in spite of silence or disclaimer, seemed to desire it too (Fam. 1.1.3-4, 1.2.3). Disgust and jealousy inflamed the affair. In the beginning of 56 a Sibylline oracle appeared. The king of Egypt was to be helped, but not with an army (Dio 39.15.2). It was fraudulent and everyone knew it, but it could not be ignored {Fam. 1.1.1-2, 1.4.2, QF 2.2.3). Some relevant aspects of this should be emphasized. As an example of manipulation of the state religion it is an interesting forerunner of our speech. The maneuver dashed Pompey's hopes so that he no longer seemed particularly interested. Clodius, his bitter enemy, was a Sibylline priest (v. 26. 30n.); naturally he would have had a hand in it. Finally, the Egyptian question, combined with fear and distrust of Pompey, brought the optimates and Clodius together in an unholy alliance. It was undoubtedly because of this that Clodius was suddenly elected aedile in January 56 {QF2.2.2, Fam. 1.9.15; cf. section 50). Thereafter the hostility grew worse. Clodius, enjoying the full support of the die-hard optimates, undertook a prosecution of Milo (v. 7. 9n.). On February 7 Pompey, while attempting to speak on Milo's behalf, engaged in a violent verbal battle with Clodius and the meeting ended in a chaotic scuffle {QF 2.3.2). Two days later Pompey was attacked in the Senate by Cato, the tribune; he replied bluntly by naming Crassus as his real enemy {QF 2.3.3). He told Cicero privately that the stern optimates and Crassus were supporting Clodius against him {QF 2.3.4; v. 46. 20-21n.). The discord between Pompey and the Senate was now worse than ever. Cicero, however, remained on good terms with both, especially Pompey. In early 56 Cicero's forensic activities were extremely encouraging. After a successful defense of Calpurnius

INTRODUCTION

21

Bestia on February 11 (QF 2.3.6: cf. Cael. 1, 16, 26, and Austin, ad loc., vii, and 154), Cicero gained a momentous victory in the trial of Sestius in March. It was in effect a successful defense of his recall and his policies in general. In a passage of extreme significance he formulated with clarity and eloquence the development of his political thought since 63 (Sest. 97-98). All citizens of goodwill who desired peace and order were optimates, even freedmen; the optimates were no longer the narrow senatorial oligarchy, but the broad and decent basis of society.8 This triumph was followed, probably on April 4 (v. 22. 27-28n.), by his defense of Caelius de vi, in which Cicero seized the opportunity to win a brilliant personal victory, excoriating Clodia and Clodius in one of his most amusing and devastating speeches. On April 5 at a clamorous and noisy meeting of the Senate a grant of money was made to Pompey for his cura annonae. It was also decreed that the question of the Campanian land should be discussed on the 15th of the following month (QF 2.6.1). We learn from a letter to Lentulus written two years later that it was Cicero who made this daring proposal (Fam. 1.9.8). Two days later Cicero paid Pompey a cordial visit and no sign of irritation was shown or expected. On the next day, April 8, Cicero left for his villas in southern and central Italy (QF 2.6.3-4). Pompey himself was to leave for Sardinia on the 11th. After this we hear nothing more of events in Rome for a month. The conference at Luca and Cicero's painful retreat from his bold motion followed in rapid succession. These are the events which, I believe, form the immediate background of the oration De Haruspicum Responso, the date of which we must now consider.

8

Strasburger, 59-70; for an opposite view v. Baisdon, CQ, 10 (1960), 47, who finds Cicero's efforts "brave, muddled, and illogical". Balsdon's estimate of this speech is, in turn, ably challenged by Lacey (CQ, 12 [1962], 67-71.

II DATING

The events themselves are simple. An earthquake occurred in the ager Latiniensis.1 The Senate acknowledged the prodigy and thought it sufficiently serious, or deemed it expedient, to summon the haruspices.2 Their answer, which had probably already been suggested to them, was given at a later meeting of the Senate.3 Probably at the same meeting the Senate decided that the matter should be reintroduced and discussed at a later date (sections 11 and 14). At a third meeting Cicero attacked Clodius violently, because he was making trouble for the tax farmers (section 1). On the next day at a fourth meeting Cicero delivered the speech De Haruspicum Response. At some point after the haruspices had given their responsum and probably before the third meeting "hesterno die" (section 1), Clodius held a contio, in which he expounded his interpretation of the responsum. He maintained, on the basis of the haruspices'' announcement "loca sacra et religiosa profana haberi" (section 9), that Cicero was the cause of the gods' displeasure, since he had reoccupied his house, where Clodius had dedicated a shrine to Liberty (v. 33nn.). All this comes from the speech itself; yet there is very little that one can say with certainty about its date. Mention of Cn. 1

Har. Resp. 20 and 62; cf. D.-G. 2.275-276. Cf. Har. Resp. 61 "sententiae quidem omnes haruspicum, ad quos aut referri nuntiata ostenta non convenit aut eorum responsis commoveri necesse est", Leg. 2.21 "prodigia, portenta ad Etruscos haruspices, si senatus iussit, deferunto". These passages indicate that the haruspices had been called in by the Senate and not just privately consulted (v. 61. 24-25n.). s Wissowa (RK, 545.4) gives a consecutive text of the response. It is drawn from De Haruspicum Response sections 20, 21, 9, 34, 36, 37, 40, 55, 56, 60. 2

DATING

23

Cornelius Lentulus Marcellinus as the presiding consul indicates the year 56 (sections 2 and 22), and it must have followed the Megalensian games of April 4-9, which are mentioned in section 22.4 It is furthermore likely that the speech precedes the return of Cato from Cyprus, inasmuch as Cato, whose glorious homecoming was a rallying point for the optimates, is not mentioned at all (Plut. Cat. Min. 39; Dio 39.22-23). It is almost certain that Cato reached Rome in late summer or early autumn, at least before the middle of November, when the Senate ceased to function.5 The incidents preceding the speech are also described by Dio (39.20), who relates that, after an earthquake and other prodigies had occurred, the haruspices (οί μάντεις) announced that the gods were angry because holy places were being inhabited. Next Clodius attacked Cicero in a speech, on the grounds that his house was occupying the ground of the shrine of Liberty. He led an attack upon the house, but was repulsed by Milo. The quarrel then shifted (39.21), as Cicero undertook to remove the tablets with Clodius' tribunician laws from the capitol. He was successful in the second attempt, and this stage of their feud came to an end only when Cato defended the legality of Clodius' tribunician laws in the Senate (Plut. Cat. Min. 40; Dio 39.22). The speech of Clodius against Cicero in Dio is most reasonably the contio to which Cicero refers in section 8. Since the events subsequent to Clodius speech are not mentioned by Cicero, it is probable that the attack on Cicero's house had not yet occurred. If such an outrageous thing had just happened, Cicero would almost certainly have found something to say about it. The emphasis with which he cites Clodius' recent contio confirms this (sections 8 and 50-52), and Dio even implies that Clodius' speech and the attack were two separate actions, not a rally and an immediately subsequent assault. In fact, Dio's account might be a confusion of the two previous attacks by Clodius (Att. 4.3.2-3): a successful one on 3 November 57 against Cicero's new house under construction and the house of his brother, Quintus; an unsuccessful one on 4

Wissowa, RK, 318, 574-575. Dio, 39.30; Stein, 42, 98-99. Oost's date for Cato's return, late May or June {CP, 50 [1955], 107-108), is too early. 6

24

DATING

11 November against Milo's house. The passage in Dio looks like a conflation and transposition of these two events. He nowhere mentions the earlier attacks and describes this incident as if it were the only one of its kind. A passage in a letter to Atticus might be relevant (Ait. 4.7.3). Cicero writes, "Mea mandata de domo curabis, praesidia locabis, Milonem admonebis". In a general way these requests seem to vindicate the trustworthiness of Dio's story, since they show that Cicero was concerned once again for the safety of his house.6 It is difficult, however, to see any specific connection between this passage and the attack in Dio. The letter was written from Arpinum where Cicero had expected to stay from 11-15 April (QF 2.6.4).7 This is rather too early, since the speech De Haruspicum Responso followed the Megalensian games of 4-9 April (section 22). Not only that, but the prodigies, the answer of the haruspices, and Clodius' contio about it, must all have come after the games, since Cicero refers the gods' anger to Clodius' violence at these games. There have been three serious attempts to fix the date of the oration in the last 40 years.8 The first of these, Stein dates the speech in September. Previous attempts to place it in April or May are, he feels, impossible, because the Senate was generally on vacation in this period. His evidence for this is imposing, but not absolutely convincing. In our case the fact that the Senate on April 5 set a relatio for May 15 would indicate, he continues, that there were to be no meetings in the interim. For positive arguments he uses Dio's account (39.20-22). A new quarrel broke out between Cicero and Clodius, beginning with Clodius' contio and attack and ending with Cato's return, which Stein dates quite convincingly in late summer or early autumn. Since Lentulus, who had the fasces in the odd-numbered months, was presiding, the speech in all • Contrast the good progress and lack of worry in March and on 9 April (QF, 2.4.2, 2.5.1, 2.6.3; cf. Stein, 98). 7 For the date of the letter v. Shackleton Bailey Letters to Atticus, 2.233. 8 Stein, 42, 97-100, 110-111; Gelzer, Klio, 30 (1937), 1-9; Kumaniecki, Klio, 37 (1959), 135-152. Kumaniecki (135) lists all the important scholars who have dated this speech. V. also Courtney, Philologus, 107 (1963), 155-156, who dates it to late May, and Wuilleumier and Tupet, Ciciron, Discours XIII.2, 1966, 8-10, who favor early May for approximately the same reasons as have influenced me.

DATING

25

probability must have been delivered just before Cato's return, sometime in September. Gelzer fully agrees with Stein, adding arguments of a more political nature. Both the response of the haruspices and Cicero's commentary on it betray knowledge of the conference at Luca, though not, of course, an awareness of the precise details, which only later were revealed. The discordia, which forms the chief topic of the speech sections 40-63), is the discordia between the Senate and the triumvirs. We have then an example of Cicero's transformation of his concordia program, made after he was compelled to support Caesar (cf. Balb. 2-4, 17, 50, 59, Prov. Cons. 47). Kumaniecki disagrees with Stein and Gelzer. Most important, he asserts, is the fact that Cicero's renewed quarrel with Clodius, which Cato's return interrupted, took a long time and hence we are here dealing with only the first phase. Dio's account, if it is to be used, cannot give a precise date, since it begins immediately after Clodius dropped his prosecution of Milo and concludes with Cato's arrival. Kumaniecki is, I believe, absolutely right, although I have less confidence in Dio's version. Dio proceeds almost imperceptibly from what is probably a description of the contio of 7 February 56 to Cato's return (cf. Dio 39.19 with QF 2.3.2). Transitions in the narrative are vaguely marked and prove nothing. After a discussion of Clodius' indictment of Milo, we are told that Milo continued "for a while" (39.20.1, τέως μέν ούν) to serve as a pretext for Clodius' activities. "During this time" (39.20.1, έν τούτφ) the prodigies which led to our oration occurred. From then the quarrel takes its course, beyond the events of the De Harttspicum Responso and with no indication of interval, right up to Cato's return. Accordingly, the story continues from February to September without any indication of dates in the interim. I agree that the speech belongs to the beginning rather than the end of the summer. But it can, I feel, be more correctly dated to early May, in spite of Stein's objections. Gelzer (7-8) and Kumaniecki (136, 140) are probably correct in asserting that both response and oration show an awarenese of the conference at Luca and that the response was probably aimed at Pompey.9 This has '

For the latter point especially v. Miltner, RE, 21. 2142-2143.

26

DATING

not, however, been proved. It is quite easy for us to find revealing references to Luca. Yet the political situation was nearly as grim before the conference, and furthermore haruspices' responses had a certain conservative tone, so that political references may have been somewhat stylized and formulaic (v. introduction 38-47, sections 10, 19-20n., 40. 7-8n., and 55. 26n.). A solution can be found on the basis of evidence from the speech itself far more easily than from Dio. The most important evidence is Clodius' reconciliation with Pompey. Cicero tells us that Clodius has just gone over to Pompey and praised him in a contio, presumably the infamous one of section 8 (sections 51-52). Cicero's description shows that this was sudden and unexpected, so that it was probably not preceded by a period of long silence or neutrality. The conclusion is obvious. Clodius was reconciled because of the conference at Luca. Whether by command or by swift self-interest does not matter. He would not be slow to change course; his brother Appius had been with Caesar since March (QF 2.5.4). The reconciliation of these two deadly enemies undoubtedly occurred in April or May; this may explain why Clodius suddenly lost interest in his prosecution of Milo (Dio 39.20.2). The next argument concerns Cicero's attitude toward Caesar. In our speech he is cool, almost unfriendly, in his courteous, but cutting, references to Caesar (v. 5. 20n.; cf sections. 38, 45, 47).10 It should then absolutely precede the speech De Provinciis Consularibus, which can be dated to late May or June.11 It should undoubtedly also precede the proposals Cicero made in the Senate in favor of Caesar in late May.12 It belongs rather to the group of speeches from De Domo Sua to Pro Sestio. If the speech was delivered between April and June, May is the only suitable month, since Lentulus, the presiding consul (sections 2, 21, and 22), held the fasces in May.13 If May is the month, I should think it must have been before the 15th. Gabinius was 10

Pocock, 7. Saunders, CP, 12 (1917), 304-305; Butler and Cary, 106; Shackleton Bailey, Letters to Atticus, 2, 233-234. 18 Prov. Cons., 28, Balb., 61; Stein, 41. 13 Taylor and Broughton, Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome, 19 (1949), 1-14; cf. especially 4. 11

DATING

27

denied a supplicatio on that day and Cicero was jubilant (QF 2.7.1). He rarely omitted an opportunity to berate Gabinius, but has nothing to say about this in our speech (sections 2-4; cf. Prov. Cons. 15-16). On the basis of this argument ex silentio I suggest a date in early May, perhaps the two-day series of May 7-8 for our speech and the meeting of the previous day.14 The prodigies themselves and the decision of the Senate to acknowledge them then might be assigned to April or even early May, if events moved swiftly enough. The only objection to this theory is that it puts all this activity in the vacation period of the Senate. I feel, however, that the evidence demands it. In any case, the Senate's vacation is an inference; there is no clear and official ancient evidence for it. A few figures should also be mentioned. A very full meeting of nearly all the senators in Rome came to 417 (Red. Sen. 26, Red. Pop. 15). There were supposedly more than 200 senators at Luca (Plut. Caes. 21.2). Even if this is a reliable figure, these 200 would not all come from the number of senators in Rome for normal duty. Appius, the brother of Clodius, is an example; he was at the time the governor of Sardinia. A letter of Cicero to Quintus, written in December 57 (QF 2.1.1), is relevant here. He calls a meeting of about 200 senators better attended than was thought possible "mense Decembri sub dies festos". From all this I conclude that there were still enough senators left in Rome in April-May 56 to conduct relatively unimportant business. In conclusion we should summarize Cicero's movements and attitudes during this period. 15 His motion to review Caesar's Campanian legislation was a serious attempt to strike at Caesar (QF 2.6.1, Fam. 1.9.8); he obviously did not intend to irritate Pompey, whom he wished to win over to an ungrateful Senate.1® 14

This is practically the same conclusion as that of Lange, 3.330. I am now pleased to see that Wuilleumier and Tupet (8-10) agree with this view. 15 There are many accounts, from every point of view, of the actions of Caesar, Pompey, and Cicero before and after the confcrence of Luca. For a sampling v. Gelzer, Pomp., 150-153, RE, 7, Supp., 936-945; Klass, 92-107; Meyer, 134-146; Lazenby, Latomus, 18 (1959), 67-76; Smith, Cicero, 163-183; and, especially good, Stockton, TAFhA, 93 (1962), 471-489). 16 Cary, CQ, 17 (1923), 103-107. Cf. Baisdon, JRS, 47 (1958), 18-20, who thinks that Cicero had little to do with this motion. His arguments are answered by Dorey, CQ, 9 (1959), 13, and Stockton, TAPhA, 93 (1962), 471-473.

28

ϋΑΉΝΘ

The reaction was immediate; Pompey sent Vibullius to Rome to stop Cicero and he himself went on to Sardinia, where he upbraided Quintus (Fam. 1.9.9-10). Cicero, returning to Rome in early May (QF 2.6.4), would have received the message from Vibullius. He probably did not hear about it from Quintus, since he had received only one letter from his brother in these months and it was lighthearted in tone (QF2.7.1 "iucundissimas"). The message from Vihullius was enough to induce Cicero to absent himself from the big meeting of May 15. This is the background which is reflected throughout our speech, especially in sections 40-63. It could be a last defiant attempt to bring the optimates and Pompey together. More likely it is an angry accusation of optimate selfishmess and stupidity, an accusation made at that time when his hopes to win over Pompey were already ruined and many senators fearfully suspected new arrangements. Cicero may have known about them, if Vibullius had been explicit. In any case, it would not hurt to state his past policy clearly and to make it obvious where the blame lay.

III PUBLICATION AND DELIVERY OF THE SPEECH

L. R.Taylor in a recent article calls it "the insoluble question of the relation of the published form to the speech or speeches actually delivered".1 As far as certainty is concerned, this is about it. Still, a few obvious qualifications are necessary; inference and even guesswork may lead to a cautious optimism. It is, to be sure, widely agreed and it can be shown that there was a difference between the delivered and the published speech.2 The extent and nature of the difference, however, is far from certain. What lapse of time are we to assume?3 To what extent will it depend on the type of speech?4 For the De Haruspicum Responso the problem can be stated with some simplicity. If Cicero committed no anachronisms of fact and reference in his published oration, but merely added wisdom and foresight, we may still use it to date 1

Athenaeum, 42 (1964), 27.45. Schanz-Hosius, 1.453; Humbert, 253-276. Cf., Kroll, RhM, 86 (1937), 127-139. 3 In special circumstances nearly three years (Att., 2.1.3). Normally, I should think, the interval would be much shorter. The oratio Metellina received some additions a year after its delivery (Att., 1.13.5). This was, however, another speech of the Catiline series, and therefore the case is similar to those mentioned in Att. 2.1.3. On the other hand, the Pro Scauro and the Pro Plancio, both delivered in late August or early September 54, were completed and ready for the public by September (QF, 3.1.11; cf. Schanz-Hosius, 1.434-435; Gelzer, RE, 72.960-961). The De Domo Sua was also probably published shortly after delivery (Att., 4.2.2.) 4 Humbert, who stresses the difference between published and delivered speech, deals with the court speeches. Kroll agrees and points out that much of this difference results from the conditions of a trial (136-137). One might suspect that a senatorial speech concerning policy such as the De Haruspicum Responso would be less likely to be altered. 2

30

PUBLICATION AND DELIVERY OF THE SPEECH

the delivered one. The difficulty is rather that, if the published oration has been improved beyond recognition, the attempt to date the delivered one is no longer so relevant for an understanding of the extant oration. I obviously prefer to believe that publication followed closely, in time and context, the delivery of the speech in the Senate. There are, furthermore, some reasons for suspecting that this was so in our case. The oration is of such a topical nature that one can hardly imagine the relevance or purpose of its publication after a significant lapse of time. There is no indication whatsoever that the issue over the dedication of a part of Cicero's house was alive after the summer of 56.5 This is merely a reason of general probability and is by no means conclusive. One could object that the most important part of the oration is certainly the last third, which is not concerned with Cicero's house. It could then reflect the situation of autumn 56 or even two years later.6 According to this view it would be both a defense of Cicero's adherence to the triumvirs and a suggestion that the optimates were to blame (cf. Fam. 1.9.14-18). Such an interpretation of Cicero's motives may be at least partially correct, but the pronounced coolness to Caesar in the extant oration makes it highly unlikely that it was delivered or published after the spring of 56.7 Finally, the oration itself supports the contention that it was published quickly and without too much revision. That it is not one of Cicero's best proves nothing. There is, however, a lack of clarity in some parts: Clodius' actions in the Senate are not satisfactorily presented (cf. section 2 with section 7), and it looks as if Ligus is confused with Clodius in section 5 (v. 5. 20n.). The quickly repeated reference to poetic ingenuity and actual turpitude in sections 57 and 59 seem to reflect the delivered speech. I should expect that it would probably not have been left in this way in a carefully revised and polished version. Still, I must emphasize that this is not proof. The question 8

Or September, if one follows the dating of Stein and Gelzer; cf. introduction

22-28. β 7

This is essentially Gelzer's view (Klio, 30 [1937], 1-9). Introduction 26.

PUBLICATION AND DELIVERY OF THE SPEECH

31

remains "insoluble". It is in a way reassuring that scholars who have discussed the dating have not treated this question. Apparently they take it for granted that the published version is close in time and content to the original.

IV THE

HARUSPICES

Since the De Haruspicum Responso centers ostensibly about the interpretation of the responses given by the haruspices in 56, it is useful to consider the origin and function of this group, its history in Rome, and the nature of its method.1 Antiquity attributed the Etrusca disciplina practiced by the haruspices to Tages. One day a farmer at Tarquinii was plowing his field when suddenly Tages sprang up from the furrow. The Etruscans quickly assembled to see this marvelous person, who had the appearance of a boy but the wisdom of an old man, and, when he spoke, they noted his words, which became the basis of their discipline, to which those who had charge of it added in the course of time {Div. 2.50; Ovid. Met. 15.553-559; Lyd. Ost. 2-3). After Tages came a nymph, variously called Begoe, Vegoe, or Vegoia. She was supposedly responsible for books on fulgural art (Serv. Aen. 6.72) and on the proper definition and observance of boundaries (Gromatici Veteres 1.350 Lachmann). The Etrusca disciplina comprised three groups of books: the libri haruspicini, fulgurates, and rituales (Div. 1.72). The first dealt with the examination and interpretation of entrails. The second explained thunderbolts and related phenomena. The third contained prescriptions for the founding of cities, classification of the citizens, constitution of the army, and other matters relating to war and peace (Festus 358 Lindsay); the libri Acherontici concerning the fate of the individual; the libri fatales regarding the 1

For a convenient treatment of the haruspices and the etrusca disciplina v. Thulin, RE, 7.2431-2468, and Bloch, Les prodiges, 43-76.

THE "HARUSPICES"

33

destiny of the State; and finally, the ostentaria referring to all portents except exta and fulgura. Later there were also libri exercituales, perhaps for the benefit of the military haruspex (Amm. Marc. 23.5.10). The haruspices used this reference collection to answer questions about entrails, prodigies, and thunderbolts, but the last was their specialty. There are three main ancient sources for their elaborate science (Sen. QNat. 2.39-51; Plin. HN 2.138-144; Lyd. Ost. 43-52), which Weinstock discusses at length in his article on the libri fulgurates? In brief, the method of the haruspices consisted of dividing the heavens into regions to determine the nature and author of the thunderbolt, in revealing its significance, and in recommending an expiation. Although the analogy between the organization of the State prescribed in the libri rituales and that of Rome is striking, the haruspices probably consulted these books mainly for the ostentaria. In early times they recommended the best means for expiating prodigies in order to re-establish the pax deorum (Livy 1.31.4, 1.55.6). In the time of Cicero they began to give more detailed explanations and, when strange noises were heard in the ager Latiniensis, they indicated five abuses and omissions (sections 9, 21, 34, 36, 37). During the Empire, the prophetic interpretation of prodigies by the haruspices was predominant. For example, the sudden uprighting of a fallen cypress portended, they thought, prosperity for Vespasian (Tac. Hist. 2.78). The third skill of the haruspices was the examination of entrails. The regular Roman method of inspection showed whether or not the gods were willing that a proposed action should take place; the litatio answered only "yes" or "no". The Etruscan technique was more complex, as the Piacenza liver illustrates,3 and consequently the haruspices could give details beyond those furnished by the Roman auspices. The haruspices advised about these exta, prodigia, and fulgura in private, public, and military consultation. Private consultation 8

Weinstock, Papers of the British School at Rome, 19 (1951), 122-153. * Found in 1877 at Settima near Piacenza, it is currently in the Civic Museum of Piacenza, Room Π.

34

THE "HARUSPICES"

occurred when an individual referred to an haruspex an incident which, although irregular, was not of concern to the well-being of the State. An example of this is the explanation given to the father of Scipio Africanus Maior (Gell. ΝΑ 6.1.3-4). Later, men like Sulla and Caesar apparently had private haruspices in constant attendance, while some haruspices must have functioned in both private and public capacity (Dessau 4959). Official consultation took place only by express order of the Senate after an occurrence of public significance. Then the haruspices were summoned ("acciti"), from all Etruria in cases of the greatest emergency (Cat. 3.19). Since the haruspices never became sacerdotes publici populi Romani, they probably continued to have their headquarters in Etruria, although doubtless some of the private haruspices were resident at Rome. It is impossible to establish what cases made their consultation imperative beyond that these cases were always of the greatest moment (Div. 1.3). Once summoned, they proceeded to cope with four questions: which god was responsible for the sign, why it had been sent, how it should be expiated, and what it meant. The haruspices presented their conclusions (responsa) to the Senate either orally by the oldest of their number (Luc. 1.585-586) or in written form as indicated in the De Haruspicum Response. This speech is particularly illuminating, because, unlike most of the other references, it gives all four parts of the responsum. Often the nature of the reply required the Senate to empower the proper Roman authority to execute the prescriptions of the haruspices (Luc. 1. 592-595; Obseq. 44; cf. 14.21 note on verum referte). In some circumstances the haruspices co-operated with other priesthoods from the beginning, as in the expiation of the dire events of 207 (Livy 27.37). which necessitated the combined resources of the haruspices, the decemviri, the pontifices, and the Vestals. The third type of consultation was the military, and the military haruspex was apparently a specialized one (Dessau 4956). Originally, when a magistrate with the right of spectio still led the army, the findings of the haruspex only supplemented those of the augur, and both were consulted (Livy 27.16.5). Later, when promagistrates, without the right of spectio, led the army, the

THE "HARUSPICES"

35

influence of the haruspices probably increased, and the influential but infamous Volusius, who appeared with Verres, was perhaps not a unique example (Verr. 2. 27, 2.33, 3.28, 3.54, 3.137). Postumius accompanied Sulla (Div. 1.72), and Spurinna advised Caesar (Suet. Iul. 81), yet their counsel was not always followed, nor was it always solicited. When the haruspices held these private, public, or military consultations, they did not act as a group in an official way, but they must have had some kind of order, since there are references to an haruspex maximus (Dessau 4951a), summus (Div., 2.52), magister publicus (Dessau 4955). In an inscription probably of the late Republic they appear to belong to an order of 60 (Dessau 4955), but the date of its establishment is uncertain. When Emperor Claudius was taking precautions for the preservation of the "vetustissima Italiae disciplina", he referred to its members as a collegium (Tac. Ann., 11.15), but this too is unsupported by further evidence. Whatever the organization of the haruspices was, it did not prevent them from going to different places in professional capacity. Mithridates had his own haruspex (Obseq. 56), and Cicero mentions that Telmessus in Caria prided itself on its Etruscan skill, while Elis in the Peloponnese had two resident families of haruspices (Div. 1.91). They probably came to Rome in the time of the Etruscan kings, who apparently consulted them regularly on public prodigies (Livy 1.56.5). From the beginning of the Republic to the period of the Second Punic War cases requiring their advice were infrequent, but thereafter they were consulted almost as often as the decemviri. In 186, the year of the Bacchanalian scandal, Postumius praised them as part of the traditional Roman religion (Livy 39.16.7). The interpretations of the haruspices were generally conservative in tone. In 99 they obstructed a land bill proposed by Sextus Titius (Obseq. 46); and in 87 they gave Octavius assurances against Marius (App. BC, 1.71; Plut. Mar., 42.) They were equally against one-man rule and issued warnings against Sulla (Plut. Sull. 7) and Augustus (App. BC, 4.4). The most complete account of an interpretation is that given in the De Haruspicum Responso. This

36

THE "HARUSPICES"

speech is not only an example of action by the haruspices, but also a measure of their political importance. In the disturbed times of the late Republic frequent consultations were inevitable. Equally inevitable was the skepticism in their technique expressed by the educated and enlightened. They had, in fact, already been subject to ridicule in the second century. Cato supposedly said that one haruspex ought to laugh at the sight of another (Div. 2.51); Plautus mocked them and put them in a class with other soothsayers {Mil. 693); and Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus, consul for the second time in 163, called them "Tusci ac barbari", when they announced that his conduct of the elections had not been religiously proper {Nat. Deor. 2. 10-11). When a group of haruspices was found guilty of having given a false recommendation, they were put to death (Gell. ΝΑ, 4.5). The incident is undated, but Gellius found it in the Annales Maximi, which had been published in the late second century {De Or. 2.52). In the first century Cicero's attitude was doubtless typical of his class. He began his amusing exposition of the physiological impossibilities of their procedure with the assertion that the haruspices should be cultivated for the sake of the State and of common religion {Div. 2.28). There was, in addition to the political interest in the haruspices, also an antiquarian interest, which enjoyed a considerable vogue at the end of the Republic and in the early Empire. There were several scholars of Etruscan lore. Tarquitius Priscus wrote two works on Ostentaria (Macrob. Sat. 3.7.2, 3.20.3). Aulus Caecina, who had been carefully initiated by his father {Fam. 6.6.3), was the author of a De Etrusca Disciplina, of which Seneca preserves a fragment (Sen. QNat. 2.39-41). Nigidius Figulus, who was interested in Pythagoreanism, astrology, and Roman antiquities, wrote a b o o k o n e x t a (Gell. ΝΑ 16.6.12). Clodius Tuscusanda Fonteius Capito also did research on the haruspices.4 Although the position of the haruspices under the Empire was enhanced by the interest of persons such as Maecenas, Sejanus, and Claudius, they fell under the suspicions attaching to all soothsayers. Augustus, who used their services (Suet. Aug. 29, 90), forbade * Weinstock, Papers of the British School at Rome, 18 (1950), 44-49.

THE "HARUSPICES"

37

consultation of the haruspices about anyone's death (Dio 56.25). Tiberius went beyond this and prohibited consultation of the haruspices without witnesses (Suet. Tib. 63). The succeeding emperors varied in faith toward the haruspices, but many of them questioned them about their future, which became progressively more hazardous. Alexander Severus even endowed a chair of Etruscan studies (SHA Alex. Sev. 44.4). This favor did not last. In 319 Constantine I began the persecution of the haruspices (Cod. Theod., 9.16.1, 2),5 and, although there were lulls, their position thereafter was not happy. Yet they continued to exist and were represented as late as 534 under Justinian I (Cod. Just. 9.18.3, 5, 7). In the sixth century Johannes Laurentius Lydus was sufficiently interested in their work to incorporate appropriate parts of their books into his De Ostentis. Nothing more is heard of them after the seventh century.®

s

Yet two years later the same sovereign ordered consultation of them, when his palace or any other public work should be struck by lightning {Cod. Theod., 16.10.1). 4 For a discussion of the haruspices in Rome v. Thulin, Die etruskische Disciplirt, 3.131-149.

ν AUTHENTICITY

The authenticity of the speech De Haruspicum Responso is now generally accepted, but in the 18th and 19th centuries it was subject to vigorous controversy.1 The question of its genuineness has then a certain historical interest, which deserves a brief discussion. It should be observed that our speech does not occupy a central position in the controversy. In the manuscripts it comes much later than the three speeches which Cicero made right after his return from exile. The other three were delivered in September 57, the first month of his return. Ours, which does not belong to this group chronologically, must have been included in it because of its similarity in subject matter with the De Domo Sua, the third of the group. Most of the attacks upon, and defenses of, their authenticity are primarily concerned with the first three speeches. Since, however, the De Haruspicum Responso is counted as the fourth in the Post Reditum group, it was drawn into the controversy and received a modest share of specific attention. Cicero's authorship of the Post Reditum speeches was first attacked by Markland in 1745.2 Gesner refuted many of his arguments and contended that all four were genuine. The most devastating attack, however, was that of the famous philologist and critic, F. A. Wolf, whose Prolegomena ad Homerum of 1795 gave impetus to the great Homeric controversy. Now in 1801, in his edition of these four speeches, he pronounced them all to be forgeries. The arguments against authenticity were based upon their 1

For a good summary of the controversy v. Nisbet, Dom., xxix-xxxiv. The writings of Markland and Gesner may be most conveniently found apud Wolf, XLVII-LXXX and LXXXI-XCIX respectively. 2

AUTHENTICITY

39

supposed general worthlessness and un-Ciceronian Latinity. The attacks were sometimes captious and usually far from convincing. Markland imagined that they had been forged by a declamator in the middle of the 1st century A.D. (apud Wolf, LXXVI-LXXVII). Wolf more cautiously did not specify who the forger was, but imagined that the writer had real Ciceronian speeches before him, when he wrote the four which we possess (XXXI-XL). Wolf's skill and reputation won adherents to his views.3 As late as 1856 the English editor of Cicero's orations, Long, agreed with Wolf completely and merely expanded his ideas. Nonetheless, many scholars rallied to the defense. Savels published a pamphlet in 1828, in which he undertook to prove that Cicero had composed orations with subject matter similar to that of the existing Post Reditum speeches, that our speeches were accepted as Cicero's in antiquity, and finally that they contain nothing unworthy of Cicero (VI). He was not principally concerned with the De Haruspicum Responso, but he devoted several pages to its interpretation (XI-XII, XXXIV-XXXVI). The defense continued. Lahmeyer, writing solely about the De Haruspicum Responso, examined the arguments of Wolf in detail in 1850 and carefully answered them point by point. He stressed the author's accurate knowledge of historical details and, what was even more conclusive, his remarkable fondness for Ciceronian locutions, of which he gave an extensive list (54-61). Then, in a pamphlet of 1878, Hoffmann also upheld the authenticity of our speech. He too conscientiously answered Wolf's external and internal arguments. He especially criticized the lack of impartiality and the captiousness of Wolf and Markland (10-11). If they found something which does not occur elsewhere in Cicero, it was proof that Cicero was not the author. But if a passage were demonstrably Ciceronian, then the forger had ineptly transferred it from a genuine speech. At this point unanimity had practically been achieved and in 1888 Mommsen, in reference to De Domo Sua, declared that no serious scholar continued to doubt its authenticity (Str., 3.1038). 8

For a discussion of Wolf's influence v. Hoffmann, De fide et orationis Ciceronianae (3-4).

auctoritate

40

AUTHENTICITY

But the controversy had still not run its course. In 1900 Leopold published a dissertation, disputing the authenticity of all four Post Reditum speeches. In a departure from the more brilliant and rhetorical attacks of Markland and Wolf, he examined the four speeches systematically and decided that they were spurious. He had sufficient respect for the author to allow that he was thoroughly acquainted with Cicero (69-77). Still, he had a very low opinion of the author's oratorical ability and his adverse judgment rested partly upon what he considered to be the feebleness of these speeches (77-79). Leopold's arguments have had little effect upon scholarly opinion. In fact, a compelling new argument for the authenticity for the Post Reditum speeches was found only four years after Leopold's dissertation. Zielinski, in his impressive work on Cicero's clausulae, investigated the rhythmical endings of Cicero's sentences. The pattern of usage and the preference for certain metrical clausulae endings were discovered to be so regular throughout the speeches that they might fairly be called rules. Since Cicero's practice varied widely from that of other authors, Zielinski realized that this would be a useful way to approach problems of authenticity. Accordingly, after a comparison of the clausulae endings of De Domo Sua with the figures based on a tabulation from all the speeches, he felt that its genuineness had been conclusively proved (806-808). Although he did not say so explicitly, a similar comparison gives almost identical figures and equally conclusive proof for the De Haruspicum Responso (v. table facing 844). It is hard to deny such evidence and from this time on the controversy has lapsed. Recent scholars who have dealt with the speech simply take it for granted that it is Cicero's.4 If any further proof were needed, there are two points which might be emphasized. First, it is hard to imagine a situation and motive which would compel a forger to write such a specific speech with so many topical allusions. It suggests an incredible amount of research for 4

Stein, 97-100; Gelzer, Klio, 30 (1937), 1-9; Taylor, PP, 88-90; Kumaniecki, Klio, 37 (1959), 135-152. Holmes (1.482), who clearly doubts its authenticity,

is an exception.

AUTHENTICITY

41

this type of activity.6 Secondly, the correspondence in both diction and thought between our speech and the undisputed speeches of Cicero is so extensive that coincidence or even deliberate imitation must, I think, be excluded.®

6

Hoffmann (20) has already said much the same. • Cf. Lahmeyer, 54-61. The briefest perusal of this commentary will also demonstrate this, e.g. notes on sections 3, 38, and 39.

VI THE MANUSCRIPTS

Although I have paid little attention in the commentary to textual problems and have done nothing with the manuscripts, it might nonetheless be helpful to give a summary of the principal manuscripts available for De Haruspicum Responso and their interrelationship. There is a convenient and brief discussion with a valuable list of variations in the most important manuscripts in Wuilleumier and Tupet's recent Bude edition.1 More detailed accounts may be found in Clark's Descent of Manuscripts, in Klotz's articles in Rheinisches Museum 1912 and 1913, and in his preface to the Teubner edition of 1919.2 Clark and Klotz, in the first of his two articles, devote much of their emphasis to the different tradition represented by the marginalia of Parisinus 14 749 (Σ), which is available only for Pro Caelio in the Post Reditum speeches. Similarly, apart from the discussion of individual passages, most of Klotz's second article is concerned with the independent tradition represented by the second hand of Erfurtensis, nunc Berolinensis 252 (E2). This independent tradition exists only for Cum Senatui Gratias Egit, nor do later manuscripts show any more extensive trace of it (480, 503-505). The best and clearest general survey is that given by Klotz in the preface to his edition. It is worth noting that Klotz, who has probably done the most to establish the text of the Post Reditum speeches, was himself unable to examine Ρ or Η (Preface IV). 1

Wuilleumier and Tupet, 23-27. Clark, 266-280; Klotz, RhM, 67 (1912), 358-390; 68 (1913), 477-514; Preface, Ill-XL. Cf. also Peterson, Ciceronis Orationes (OCT), 5. vi-xv and CQ, 4 (1910), 167-177. 2

THE MANUSCRIPTS

43

The four most important manuscripts for De Haruspicum Responso are: Parisinus 7794 (Ρ) ninth century Gemblacensis, nunc Bruxellensis 5345 (G) twelfth century Erfurtensis, nunc Berolinensis 252 (E) twelfth-thirteenth century Harleianus 4927 (H) twelfth century All of these contain the speeches of 57 and 56.3 G and Η also have Pro Marcello, Pro Q. Ligario, and Pro Rege Deiotaro. E, which has these three as well as many others, presents the largest collection of the group. It is interesting that, although the other speeches of 57 and 56 are given in chronological order, the position of De Haruspicum Responso is not consistent in the four manuscripts, an indication of the uncertainty which has always surrounded this speech. The four manuscripts belong to the same family, although their relationship is intricate and not one of direct dependence. The best and also the oldest is P, which contains only the speeches of 57 and 56 preceded by the spurious Pridie quam in Exilium Iret. It is the most closely related to the archetype, which, judging from the average length of the omissions, contained 19-21 letters a line and was written in maiuscule.4 Between the archetype and Ρ it is probable that an insular tradition has intervened, inasmuch as some errors in transmission seem to result from a failure to understand the abbreviations of British manuscripts. Ρ itself is carefully written, omits what was illegible in the exemplar, which was apparently in bad condition, and in general abstains from conjecture. 5 In many occasions it is the only manuscript among the four most important to preserve the correct reading, or what is considered to be the correct reading.6 The condition of the exemplar and the caution of Ρ apparently led to an almost immediate correction. The corrector (P2) used a 3

Ε lacks Cum Senatui Gratias Egit, De Domo, and Pro Sestio. Klotz, Preface, XI-XIV, XXXIV-XXXV. 6 E.g. 20 lati*ensi, 30 liberast/***atinis, 40 optimatiu*, 45 post**(t in ras.). β Wuilleumier and Tupet (25) give sixteen examples in De Haruspicum Responso, one of which, "simpuio" 26, is not accepted by Peterson, who prefers "simpuvio", the reading derived from Arnobius, Adv. Nat. 4. 31. 4

44

THE MANUSCRIPTS

manuscript related to the as yet unwritten G and E, perhaps their archetype. P2, G, and Ε are then closely related and present many divergencies from P. In several cases the members of this group, individually or in combination, give the correct readings, but in general they are subject to error, arbitrary emendation, and inversion of word order, and so are far less reliable than P. It is now accepted that they represent a cognate, not a dependent, branch of the tradition in respect to P.7 Accordingly, although not of the same quality as P, their readings must be examined and taken into account. G and Ε were copied from a manuscript in the insular tradition, and this has resulted in more serious and consistent errors than in the case of P.8 Η has many good readings alone or in combination with P2, as well as many mistakes and omissions, not, however, so many as G and Ε. Η is more closely related to Ρ than to G and E, but it is not directly descended from P. Rather the scribe of Η seems to have consulted the corrected version of P, which would explain the particular correspondence of Η with P 2 . Finally Η shows some similarity with G and E, but great individuality in relation to all the other manuscripts. To summarize: all the manuscripts derive from one archetype of late antiquity. 9 Ρ is oldest and closest to the archetype; G and Ε were written about three centuries later from a different descendent of the archetype. The parent manuscript, or tradition, of G and Ε had already been consulted by the corrector of Ρ (Ρ2). Η comes from yet another independent copy of the archetype, but shows awareness of the corrected version of P. This relationship of individual manuscripts to the archetype reveals more independence for the lesser manuscripts than was 7

Klotz, RhM, 67 (1912), 370-373; Preface, vi-x, xxxviii-xl; Clark, 270-271; Wuilleumier and Tupet, 24-25. Peterson (viii-xi) differs from this view, but with some equivocation and inconsistency, which Klotz in turn criticizes {RhM, 68 [1913], 477-479). 8 The frequent corruption of autem results from the failure to understand the insular abbreviation for it (Klotz, Preface, vi). 9 Naturally the outline is hypothetical and simplified. There may have been more copies and parent manuscripts, yet the general relationship is probably as outlined here.

THE MANUSCRIPTS

45

admitted in the last century.10 For the editor this means greater selectivity and even cautious eclecticism. Tn some cases the accepted readings are even derived from other manuscripts, more recent than these four principal ones.11 In conclusion a few words about the text of De Haruspicum Responso. It is in reasonably good condition; the most recent editions show divergencies for the most part only of detail, and the meaning is quite clear throughout the speech. There are two passages, however, where the text is seriously in doubt. 12 The first, section 29 "pecunia Brogitarus per te appellatus", is probably beyond any solution (v. 29. 3n.). Still, Cicero's intention, to emphasize the contrast between Deiotarus and Brogitarus, is perfectly plain. The other is the warning of the haruspices in section 40. Here too there is no general agreement or completely satisfactory solution.13 The sense of the warning is clear, but, inasmuch as this is one of the most important passages in the speech, it is extremely unfortunate that we cannot be confident about the precise and formal expression of the haruspices. It is all the more irritating, since Cicero assures us that he is quoting them exactly (v. 40. 12-13n.).

10

Klotz, Preface, xl. For a list of such readings v. Wuilleumier and Tupet, 26. 12 Perhaps section 62 "cum quibusdam multis metuendisque rebus" should be added. 13 Peterson considers the text corrupt here. Klotz accepts the emendation of Lambinus "ad unius imperium res redeant", but marks the next clause as corrupt. Wuilleumier and Tupet print the text with Lambinus' emendation and no dagger, but express their lack of confidence in the text as printed. 11

VII

COMMENTARY

Oratio De Haruspicum Responso: this is probably the correct form of the title, although the manuscripts give responsis. Quintilian speaks of the libro de haruspicum responsis (5.11.42), but Asconius, citing it twice in the same section, calls it de haruspicum responso (70 Clark). In this oration Cicero uses the singular five times (9, 10, 11, 18, 37) and the plural three times (29, 34, 61) with one doubtful reading (60). Lahmeyer (27-28) has argued that Cicero uses the singular when he means the entire responsum, understood as a whole, but uses the plural in referring to the separate sections of this responsum (29, 34, 37, 60) or to haruspicum responsa in general (61). This is plausible, but a precise distinction cannot, and need not, always be made in individual passages. It is interesting to observe that in two cases where Lahmeyer accepted the plural more recent editors prefer the singular (37, 60). Wuilleumier and Tupet prefer the plural, responsa (7-8). In addition to the evidence of Quintilian and the manuscript titles they cite Cicero's reference to the responsa of 65 (Div. 1.97, Cat. 3.20; I do not believe Cat. 3.9 is applicable). I confess that I am now uncertain about the title, although I still prefer the singular, responsum. 1.1. hesterno die: for the date v. introduction 22-28. 1.2 frequentia equitum Romanorum praesentium : this meeting of the Senate was probably devoted to settling the eastern tax contracts. Under the Gracchan law of 123, the contracts for the province of Asia were leased by the censors to companies of equites (Verr. 2.3.12, Att. 1.17.9, Prov. Cons., 12; Schol. Bob. 157 Stangl; Veil. Pat. 2.6.3; Gell. 11.10 = FOR 187-188; Frank

COMMENTARY

47

ES 1.244-245; Broughton ES 4.511-512; Magie 164), which probably accounts for the large attendance of that group. A somewhat modified, but similar, arrangement prevailed for the new provinces of Pompey's settlement, Syria, and the enlarged provinces of Bithynia and Cilicia (Frank ES 1.344; Broughton ES 4.533, 4.537-538). The latest contracts for the province of Asia seem to have been made in 61, evidently by the unnamed censors of that year (Att. 1.17.9; Dio 37.46.4; Broughton ΜRR 2.179). The publicani overbid for the contracts, and as early as December 61 they were asking for their cancellation in the Senate (Att. 1.17.9, 1.18.7, 2.1.8; introduction 12-13). Their mistake may even have been occasioned by the expectation that Pompey's acta would be quickly ratified, and that this would in turn lead to a great increase in prosperity in the province (Baisdon JRS 52 [1962] 135-137). After their repeated failure in the Senate, Caesar, presumably for the sake of Crassus, obtained their wishes, when he passed a law granting them a remission of a third from their original bid (Suet. Jul. 20; cf. Plane. 35). These contracts, made in 61 under a five-year lease, might now in 56 be coming up for renewal. So probably would those of Syria, Bithynia, and Cilicia, since their contracts may also date from the censors of 61; at any rate, Syria and Bithynia received their first governors in 61 (Broughton, Μ RR, 2.180-181). Further support for the renewal of contracts sometime early in 56 may be seen in the fact that the subcontracts for Cilicia had already been made in late July 51 (Att. 5.13.1, 5.14.1). This, of course, presupposes that these contracts too were quinquennial (Broughton ES 4.537; but cf. Magie 1054). It seems probable that this incident concerns the tax-farmers of Syria. In addition to the fact that the provincials' representative is called a Syrian, a consideration of Clodius' position leads to this conclusion. It is unlikely that Clodius would be bothering the publicani of Asia, whose interests were close to the heart of Crassus. Gabinius, the governor of Syria, on the other hand, had tried to restrict the activities of the tax-farmers and thereby incurred their enmity (Prov. Cons. 10-12, Pis. 41, QF 3.2.2; Dio 39.59.2). It is interesting to compare this meeting with that of 15 February 54 "Tyriis est senatus datus frequens; frequentes

48

COMMENTARY

contra Syriaci publicani" {QF 2.12.2; some manuscripts have "Syriis" instead of "Tyriis". This is almost certainly a mistake suggested by "Syriaci" in the next clause). This crowded scene was further enlivened by the presence of Gabinius himself and the vehemence of the consul, L. Domitius Ahenobarbus, who sharply criticized the publicani, because they had condoned Gabinius' Egyptian venture. The wording of this passage suggests that this meeting of the De Haruspicum Responso dealt with some complaints or requests of the tax-farmers ("quibus senatus dabatur"). Clodius' action on this occasion may even be another sign of his reconciliation with Pompey (section 51), since Gabinius might be included in it (cf. Gelzer, Klio 30 [1937] 3). This was a sure way to irritate Cicero who had partisan feelings for the publicani {Dom. 74, QF 3.2.2), though he was well aware of their faults {Att. 1.17.9, 2.1.8). 1.4 impudicam impudentiam: for the circumstances cf. Att. 2.1.8 "quid impudentius publicanis renuntiantibus?" There is similar alliteration in O f f . 1.123 "impudentiorem intemperantiam" and Phil. 2.81 "verum implicata inscientia impudentia est". Markland and Wolf have both objected violently to this phrase (Wolf 307), Markland because of the alliteration and the conjunction of two similar words, Wolf apparently because of the conjunction of the two words. The two examples just given clearly show that the alliteration is possible, and there are several examples in Cicero of similar word play with impudentia {Leg. Agr. 2.36, QRosc. 21, Verr. 2.1.2). Impudicus is actually combined with impudens or impudentia in Plaut. Rud., 115 "et impudicum et impudentem"; Fronto 40.6 Ν oratio?) impudens atque impudica"; Cyprian ad Donat. 9 "impudentia congruens impudicis". Wolf rightly observes "impudicus ad corpus pertinet, impudens ad animum", and this is just the point. Impudicus is a strong word, "indecent", often connoting homosexuality, and as such is reserved for Cicero's most personal enemies {Dom. 126 and Red. Sen. 12, Gabinius; and Phil. 2.6, 2.70, 3.12, 3.15, 3.35, Antony). It is perfectly consonant with the general violence of language in the Post Reditum speeches (v. 3 and 17nn.). 1.5 stultissimis interrogationibus: Clodius, who was a curule

COMMENTARY

49

aedile (cf. infra section 27), was using his magistrate's right to question (Mommsen Str. 3. 943). Stultissimis, "silly, frivolous"; this accords well with the content of his recent contio (section 8). 1.6 P. Tulliorti Syro: nothing else is known about this man. "Syrus" is probably not a cognomen; he may have been called a Syrian as an insult merely because he represented their interests (D.-G. 2.276; Münzer RE2 7.800; cf. Prov. Cons. 10, Pis. 1). 1.7 venierat ... venditaret: cf. sections 46, 48, 52, all of which refer to Clodius' utterly unprincipled political opportunism. Here, however, the reference is to Clodius' outright venality, which he practiced chiefly in foreign affairs (sections 28-29nn., 58; Dom. 23-24, 129, Sest. 56, 84), and there is, of course, the suggestion of physical prostitution (cf. section 59). It is true that Clodius must have needed a tremendous amount of money for the patronage of his wide following and the maintenance of his private army, part of which expense may have been defrayed by Crassus. Venality is also a frequent charge against Gabinius and Piso, who purchased their provinces from Clodius (v. 3. 19-20n.) and then set about profiteering in a scandalous manner (Red. Sen. 10, Red. Pop. 21, Pis. 48, 84, 96, Prov. Cons. 7-9). 1.8 furentem: cf. Sest. 95 "furorem exsultantem". For the furia and furor of Clodius v. 39.17 note on furore atque dementia. 1.9 iudici: v.l. 16 and 17 nn. 1.9 duobus inceptis verbis: Wolf (308-309) is particularly hard on this. It is not quite so singular as he thinks (cf. Verg. Aen. 6.470 "nec magis incepto vultum sermone movetur"; Stat. Silv. 5.5.2 "neque enim verbis sollemnibus ulla/incipiam"). If they are to be taken literally, these two words might refer to the nominis delatio of a prosecution (v. 7.17n.). 1.10 gladiatoris: this is one of Cicero's favorite derogatory titles for Clodius (cf. section 15; Red. Sen. 18, Sest. 55, 88, Pis. 19, 28). It refers to his unruly activities in general and especially to the fact that Clodius had borrowed gladiators from his brother Appius Claudius Pulcher (297), who was praetor in 57 (Sest. 77 "tam magnificum apparatum non privatum aut plebeium, sed patricium et praetorium", 85 "gladiatores ex praetoris comitatu comprensi").

50

COMMENTARY

2. This section is also heartily attacked by Wolf and Long. Wolf reduces the action to absurdity by literal overinterpretation and misinterpretation; he forgets, for example, that Cicero wrote "insequi coepissem" and evidently imagines Cicero (310 "insequitur Cicero"), the knights, and the Senate all to be milling about toward the exit. Long (433) remarks "The absurdity of this chapter is unequalled by anything I have ever read". But this is too harsh. There is naturally a good deal of exaggeration; still it must have been a tumultuous scene. It is not too hard to imagine Clodius in utter confusion rushing toward the door with wild threats, as if he were still enjoying his old supremacy. Cicero then continued his previous attack and, with some signs of approval from the Senate, may even have gone a few steps, if "insequi" means anything more than just "to reproach violently". Clodius, when he realized that the consul, Marcellinus, was hostile and resolute, came to his senses and slunk back to his seat (cf. section 7 "consedit ille"). Immediately thereafter Servilius spoke. This, at least, is the vivid picture which Cicero gives us. 2.11 consules: Lentulus Marcellinus and Marcius Philippus. Cn. Cornelius Lentulus Marcellinus (228) was the grandson of M. Claudius Marcellus (226), who served as a legate under Marius in 102. His father was adopted into the patrician family of the Cornelii Lentuli. He appeared, as a descendant of M. Claudius Marcellus, the conqueror of Syracuse, as a patron of the Sicilians in the case against Verres in 70 (Div. Caec. 13, Verr. 2.2.103, 2.4.53; Ps.-Ascon. 190 Stangl). Evidently in conjunction with family policy, he began his career on good terms with Pompey (Syme RR 44). In 67 he was one of Pompey's legati pro praetore in the war against the pirates (Flor. 1.41.9; App. Mith. 95) and in 61 he supported, along with L. Lentulus, the flamen Martialis, (v. 12.24-25 note on L. Lentulus, flamen Martialis), L. Lentulus Crus in his accusation of Clodius for violation of the Bona Dea rites (sections 4,8,36 and notes). From 59 to 58 he was probably promagistrate in Pompey's new province of Syria (App. Syr. 51), and in 57 he was elected consul for the following year. He was friendly to Cicero; as consul designate he spoke favorably in the Senate on October 1 about Cicero's house (v. 13. 15n.). In December he

COMMENTARY

51

refused to discuss the Campanian legislation in the absence of Pompey (QF 2.1.1) and was a consistent opponent of Clodius (section 22, Att. 4.3.3, QF2.1.2). In spite of his earlier connection with Pompey, he revealed considerable hostility toward him during his consulate, and was influential in preventing both Pompey and Lentulus Spinther, the consul of 57 (v. 12, 23n.), from restoring Ptolemy Auletes to his throne (Fam. 1.1.2, 1.2.1, QF 2.5.3). He continued to resist the triumvirate, even after Luca, until it was obvious that Pompey and Crassus wanted the consulate for 55 (Dio 39.30). The failure of his resistance may have induced him to retire from political life or he may have died shortly thereafter; at any rate, nothing more is heard of him. His son was on Caesar's side in the Civil War, and he was married to Scribonia, later a wife of Octavian (Caes. BC 3.62.4; CIL 6.26033; Syme RR 229). L. Marcius Philippus (76) was praetor in 62 and was the predecessor of Marcellinus as promagistrate of Syria from 61 to 60 (App. Syr. 51). In 58 or 57, or perhaps after he was consul (Taylor PP 228-229), he married Caesar's niece Atia, the widow of C. Octavius and the mother of Octavian. He was therefore closely associated with the future Augustus. Macrobius (Sat. 3.15.6) cites him, with Lucullus and Hortensius, as a piscinarius, one of those optimates whom Cicero always wanted to rouse to greater action (Att. 1.19.6, 1.20.3). His daughter Marcia was the wife of Cato, later divorced and married to Hortensius with the approval of all concerned (Plut. Cat. Min. 25). In the consulate he played a lesser role than his colleague, and Cicero refers to him in a lukewarm manner (QF 2.4.4; cf. Pro v. Cons. 21 and 39). Neutral in the Civil War, he retired from politics, but made a last and creditable appearance as one of the three envoys on a mission to make peace with Antony in 43 (Phil. 8.28, 9.1). Syme (RR 128, 134) emphasizes his caution and discretion in political matters. 2.11 exsanguis atque aestuans: "in a cold sweat". Cf. Sest. 16 "omni inaudita libidine exsanguis". He did not, of course, actually leave the Senate (infra section 2 "in curiae paene limine"). 2.12 fractis iam atque inanibus minis: cf. Sest. 89 "fracti erant animi hominis", Att. 4.3.3 "ille postea, si comitia sua non fierent,

52

COMMENTARY

urbi minari", and section 7 "cum mihi stanti tacens minaretur". 2.13 illius Pisoniani temporis Gabinianique terroribus: Gabinius and Piso, the consuls of 58, were Clodius' allies in his campaign against Cicero. They were obligated to the tribune by the deal for the governorships of Macedonia and Syria, which he had arranged for them, and they shared in, or at least acquiesced in, Clodius' attacks on Cicero and his other violent activities (v. introduction 14-15 and section 3nn.). Cicero tirelessly contrasts their behavior with that of their successors Lentulus Spinther and Metellus Nepos and that of the two consuls of 56. L. Calpurnius Piso Caesoninus (90) was quaestor in 70, aedile in 64, and praetor in 61, obtaining the magistracies "sine repulsa" {Pis. 2; for a synopis of his career v. Butler and Cary 82-89; Nisbet Pis. v-vi, xiv-xv). He may then have gone out to govern a province, perhaps Spain, in which case he may be the Piso of Catullus 28 and 47 who treated Catullus' friends badly (Syme C & Μ 17 [1956] 129-134; Nisbet Pis. 180-182 is dubious about this). Upon his return a certain L. Claudius Pulcher accused him of "graves et intolerabiles iniurias sociis", but he was acquitted (Val. Max. 8.1.6. The name of the accuser L. Claudius is open to suspicion; v. 12.26 note on L. Claudius rex sacrorum. Nisbet Pis. vi thinks this refers to another Piso). In 59 his daughter married Julius Caesar, and this relation was probably influential in securing Piso's election to the consulship of 58. Although he was initially on good terms with Cicero (Pis. 11, Red. Sen. 17, Sest. 20), Piso changed his attitude after Clodius had bought his goodwill. This, Piso's mockery of Cicero's poem on his consulship (Pis. 72), and Cicero's dislike of Piso's Epicurean affiliations (cf. sections 18 and 19) caused the especial bitterness toward him which Cicero expressed after his return. At the end of 58 Piso went to Macedonia, his province, where his behavior prompted Cicero's constant criticism (v. 3 and 35nn.). His return in 55 occasioned slanderous verbal battles. He attacked Cicero, who replied violently with the speech In Pisonem of 55 (Ascon. 1 Clark). Piso then replied to Cicero's attack with a pamphlet in 54, which some think is identical with the Sallustian In Ciceronem (Meyer 163-165; Nisbet Pis. 197-198 disagrees). In this same year both appeared in the defense of M.

COMMENTARY

53

Scaurus (Ascon. 28 Clark). In 50 Piso was reluctantly made censor with Ap. Claudius Pulcher, Clodius' brother, as colleague (Dio 40.63.2). He did not take part in the Civil War and adopted an independent line with Caesar (Att. 7.13.1, Fam. 14.14.2; Plut. Caes. 37). He was, with Philippus (v. supra), one of the three senior consulars on a peace mission to Antony in 43 (Phil. 8.28, 9.1; for further references v. Broughton MMR, 2.350). Thereafter nothing is heard from him. He could not have been as foul as Cicero painted him, and even Cicero mellowed after a while to such an extent that he could say of Piso in 49, when he remonstrated with Caesar, "arao etiam Pisonem" (Att. 7.13.1; cf. Phil. 1.15-16). On the other hand, Syme certainly goes too far (RR 135): "Piso, an aristocrat of character and discernment, united loyalty to Roman standards of conduct with a lively appreciation of the literature and philosophy of Hellas." Cultural attainments apart, his political career was not outstanding; he did temporize in 58, and, if "loyalty to Roman standards of conduct" has any real meaning, Piso did not qualify. A. Gabinius (11) may be identified with the tribunus militum of 86 and Sulla's legate of 81 (Badian Philologus 103 [1959] 87-99; for his career v. Butler and Cary 89-97; Sanford TAPhA 70 [1939] 64-92; Nisbet Pis. 188-192). In 67 he entered upon a violent tribunate in the course of which he secured, among other things, Pompey's command in the war against the pirates. Although he was not legally permitted to serve under a general whose command he himself had established, he was Pompey's legate in the East from 66 to 63 (Leg. Man. 57) and was especially active in Palestine. After he was praetor, probably in 61, he became consul for 58 with Pompey's support and Caesar's agreement (App. BC 2.14). His hostility toward Cicero was more pronounced than that of his colleague (v. introduction 15), and he even removed from the city L. Aelius Lamia, one of Cicero's most vigorous supporters (Sest. 29, Red. Sen. 12, Fam. 12.29.1; Ascon. 9 Clark). Gabinius, however, ultimately broke with Clodius rather than Pompey, whereupon the tribune consecrated his property (Dom. 124; Dio 38.30.2). Before the year was ended, Gabinius left for his proconsulship in Syria. Cicero accused him of misgovernment too (Sest.

54

COMMENTARY

71, Prov. Cons. 9-13; 3, 22-23 n.), but, though his request for a supplicatio was refused on the Ides of May 56 {QF 2.6.1; v. introduction 31), his term was prolonged until 54, when Crassus relieved him. He had been planning a campaign against the Parthians, but these plans were discarded, when he restored Ptolemy Auletes to the Egyptian throne. This exceeded his rights, and, when he returned, he faced trial on three counts: maiestas, res repetundae, and ambitus {QF 3.1.15, 3.2.1-2, 3.3.3, 3.4.1, 3.7.1, Att. 4,18.1-2). Pompey's influence helped to secure an acquittal on the first count {QF3.4.1 "incredibilis contentio, preces Pompei", Att. 4.18.1 "Pompei mira contentio"). He was convicted on the second charge, despite Cicero's defense, and he went into exile before the third trial was held. During the Civil War he was recalled by Caesar; he died in Illyricum fighting for Caesar {Att. 10.8.3; Bell. Alex. 42.4; Dio 39.63, 42.11). As in the case of Piso, we cannot take Cicero's accusations too seriously. In the days of Gabinius' tribunate, when both were supporting Pompey, Cicero speaks rather kindly of him {apud Ascon. 72 Clark "quae vir fortis ... A. Gabinius in re optima fecit omnia," Leg. Man. 52, 57 "ipse cuius lege salus ac dignitas populo Romano atque omnibus gentibus constituta est"). Cicero accuses him of close connections with Catiline {Red. Sen. 10, 12, Dom. 62, Pis. 20, Plane. 87), and there may be a grain of truth in this, inasmuch as P. Gabinius Capito, one of the conspirators (Sail. Cat. 17), may have been a distant relative (cf. CIL l 2 2.2500). Cicero especially delights in painting his moral turpitude, among other things his fondness for dancing {Red. Sen. 13). This receives an amusing confirmation from Macrobius {Sat. 3.14.15), who says that Gabinius was proud of his reputation as one of the three best dancers of his day. Still, as a politician and soldier, he was a consistent popularis and one of Pompey's most trusted and effective lieutenants. 2.15 ex consurrectione omnium vestrum: cf. Att. 1.16.4 "Me vero teste producto credo te ex acclamatione Clodi advocatorum audisse quae consurrectio iudicum facta sit, ut me circumsteterint, ut aperte iugula sua pro meo capite P. Clodio ostentarint" (during Clodius' trial in 61, v. introduction 12, and sections 8 and 36).

COMMENTARY

55

This is the only other known occurrence in classical Latin of consurrectio (Thesaurus 4.622). Cf. also QF 3.2.2" consurrexit senatus cum clamore ad unum sic ut ad corpus eius accederet". It was a fairly normal way to express enthusiastic support or indignation (O'Brien-Moore RE Supp. 6.706). 2.16 ex comitatu publicanorum: they formed a comitatus for Cicero only in the sense that they appreciated his help. They were already present in the Senate on their own business (section 1). 2.16-17 sine ... sine ... sine: the anaphora and asyndeton convey a swift and dramatic image of Clodius' discomfiture; cf. Cael., 78. 2.17-19 respexit ... aspexit: for the word play, a type of paronomasia or adnominatio, cf. Auct. ad Her. 4.29-30. It also adds to the pictorial quality of Cicero's description. 2.1 de ecfrenato etpraecipitifurore: cf. Sest. 82 "ipsi illi parricidae, quorum ecfrenatus furor alitur impunitate diuturna". V. 39.17 note on furore atque dementia. 2.3 in facto ipso: this is a little difficult. It seems to mean "in the very act" and to suggest a contrast with Cicero's words, whereas Cicero too certainly attacked Clodius "in facto ipso". Nonetheless the point remains that Servilius' speech was particularly effective, because he allowed no time to elapse and also because he was not a personal enemy, inimicus, of Clodius, but a kinsman (v. 2. 7n.). 2.4 P. Servilio: Publius Servilius Vatia Isauricus (93) was a staunch and long-lived aristocrat. He was born about 134 (Aelian frg. 110 Hercher); in 100 he took part in the action against Saturninus (Rab. Perd. 21). He was praetor in 90 and then governor of a province, probably Sardinia or Cilicia, earning a triumph upon his return to Rome in 88 (Inscr. Ital. 13.1.563; Broughton Μ RR 2.30). In 87 he tried to block Marius' return, but, since he was defeated, he probably fled to Sulla in Greece and perhaps returned with him in 83. In 79 he was consul with Appius Claudius and received a five-year proconsular command in Cilicia against the pirates (Verr. 2.3.211); one of his young officers was Julius Caesar (Suet. Iul. 3). After an energetic campaign he triumphed a second time in 74 and took the cognomen Isauricus (for the campaign v. Sail. Hist. 1.127, 2. 81-87 Maurenbrecher; for the triumph v.

56

COMMENTARY

Inscr. Ital. 13.1.564). He became a pontifex before 76 (Taylor AJPh 63 [1942] 391-393) and a censor in 55. Although he supported the Manilian Law in favor of Pompey because of his quarrel with Lucullus (Leg. Man. 68, Prov. Cons. 22), his sympathies were with the optimates. He opposed the Catilinarians and aided in the restoration of Cicero (Ait. 12.21.1, Dom. 132, Red. Sen. 25, Sest. 130; and introduction 18). Consequently he had little reason to like Clodius, whom he had encountered, as a pontifex, in the case of the Bona Dea violation and in that of Cicero's house. He was neutral in the Civil War, but his son was a Caesarian. He died in 44 after the murder of Caesar (Fam. 16.23.2, Phil. 2.12). Although Servilius was probably not, as Willems thought, the princeps senatus from 55 on (1.114-121; cf. Mommsen RhM 19 [1864] 455-477 and Broughton ΜRR 2.130; for Servilius as princeps v. Helm RE 22.2022), he was one of the senatorial leaders or principes (cf. section 40). At the time of this meeting he was perhaps the oldest consular, certainly the oldest active consular (v. 2.6n. and 2.7n.). 2.6 tela: this as well as "confectus ac trucidatus" perhaps recall the military exploits of Servilius, the triumphator. This brief description of his onslaught against Clodius fits well with the proverbial gravity and severity of Servilius. Cf. the anecdotes of Quint. 6.3. 25, 6.3.48 (he beat his consular son) and Dio 45.16.1. In Red. Pop. 17 and Flacc. 5 he is "gravissimus", and Cicero stresses his "gravitatem plenam antiquitatis" in Sest. 130. 2.7 conlega patris: Servilius was not only the consular colleague of Publius' father, Appius Claudius Pulcher, but the two families were related. The wife of Appius Claudius and mother of Publius, Metella, was Servilius' first cousin. Her father, Q. Metellus Balearicus, and Servilius' mother were brother and sister. This, of course, renders his attack on Clodius all the more telling. It was not just the gravitas of an elder statesman, but that of a kinsman. Servilius was also related in the same way to Q. Metellus Nepos (v. 13. 13n.); Q. Metellus' father was his first cousin and a brother of Clodius' mother (Syme RR 20.4 and Table I; cf. 45. 26 note on frater Metellus). 2.8 esse videantur: this is a variation, based upon resolution,

COMMENTARY

57

of the most common form ("Normaltypus") of clausulae endings in Cicero (Zielinski 614-651). This particular form "esse videantur" is the most common of the variations, occurring 772 times in the speeches (Zielinski 634). 3.10 dolore ... elatum et iracundia: that Cicero had spoken violently and without restraint may be inferred from sections 1-2 and 17. Although he denies it, Cicero had probably let himself go in much the same manner as he did later against Crassus (Fam. 1.9.20): "cum inclusum illud odium ... residuum tamen insciente me fuisset, omne repente apparuit." His private feelings seem to have been that a touch of dolor did not hurt at all (Att. 4.2.2 "tum profecto doloris magnitudo vim quandam nobis dicendi dedit"). In the speech in the Senate on the consular provinces he makes a similar disclaimer to dolor and iracundia (Prov. Cons. 2, cf. Sest. 4,14, Vat. 1). The violence of these speeches, and especially the extemporaneous exchanges, give the impression that the meetings of the Senate were getting more and more out of hand. On the preceding Ides of April the question of the ager Campanus was conducted "clamore senatus prope contionali" (QF 2.6.1). For the violence of the senatorial meetings and speeches v. Clarke 71; for a contrary view v. Quint. 8.3.14 and also 3.7.2. 3.12 nihil ... nihil ... nihil: the anaphora not only gives added emphasis, but, with insistent repetition, gives the impression of greater sincerity and even ofthat artlessness, which naturally comes from sincerity and directness. 3.13 diu consideratum ac mult ο ante meditatum: Meyer (140.2) accepts this as partially true, since it was Cicero's considered policy to widen the gulf between Clodius and Pompey and to bring Pompey closer to the Senate. This passage, however, does not refer to Cicero's allusions to the relation of Clodius and Pompey with its subtle political overtones, but merely to his direct and personal attack on Clodius on the previous day. It was probably quite similar to his speech in the Senate against Clodius in December 57 (QF 2.1.3), and in this sense may have been "diu consideratum ac multo ante meditatum." 3.15 duobus: Piso and Gabinius. 3.15-21 qui me, qui rem publicam cum defendere deberent...

58

COMMENTARY

funditus una cum re publica oppressum exstinctumque voluerunt: this motif of the consuls, who not only do not defend Cicero, but even actively work against him, is very frequent in the Post Reditum speeches. Cf. Red. Sen. 10, 31, 32, 33, Red. Pop. 21, Dom. 2, Sest. 24, 25, 42, Prov. Cons. 7. 3.16-17 ipsis insignibus illius imperii the dignity and majesty of the consular insignia are properly emphasized by a four-member alliteration. 3.18 precibus vestris: in 58, shortly before Cicero left Rome, Hortensius and Curio had tried to introduce a deputation of equites into the Senate on Cicero's behalf, but Gabinius would not allow it {Mil. 37; Dio 38.16.3-4). Ninnius, the tribune, thereupon urged the people to change to mourning garb for Cicero (Dio 38.16.3); many of the senators also did this, until they were prevented by an edict of both consuls (Pis. 18, Plane. 87, Red. Sen. 12, Red. Pop. 13, Dom. 55, Sest. 26, 27, 32). 3.19-20 praemiisque nefariae pactionis: Clodius rewarded Piso and Gabinius for supporting the acts of his tribunate by granting them respectively the provinces of Macedonia and Syria with extraordinary powers. Accordingly there are repeated references to the mercatores provinciarum and the disgraceful pactio (cf. sections 47 and 58; Red. Sen. 3, 10, 16, 18, 32, Red. Pop. 11, 13, 21, Dom. 23-24, 55, 60, 66, 70, 124, 129, Sest. 24, 33 "pacto iam foedere provinciarum", 34, 55, 64 "cesseram ..., si societas magistratuum, pactioni", 69 "provinciarum pactione", 84, Vat. 36, Prov. Cons. 2, 3 "pro perversae rei publicae praemiis", 13 "iis ipsis praemiis", Pis. 86, and Fam. 1.9.13). 3.20 una cum re publica: cf. section 4 "sed tantum quantum vester atque omnium bonorum dolor postulavit", section 5 "non me magis violavit quam senatum". Cicero usually equates his disaster with that of all sound men and the Republic itself (e.g. Sest., 15, 33 "contra me contraque rem publicam", 83 "causam civis calamitosi, causam amici, causam bene de re publica meriti, causam senatus, causam Italiae, causam rei publicae", Balb. 58 "sive meum sive rei publicae fatum"; cf. also Caes. BG 4.17 "neque suae neque populi Romani dignitatis esse statuebat"; cf. Graff. 35). Vatinius had the misfortune to say to Cicero that the optimales

COMMENTARY

59

had desired his return, not for his own sake, but for political reasons (Vat. 7 "non mea sed rei publicae causa")· Cicero, of course, interpreted it to mean "for the welfare of the country" (Pocock 85-86). Wirszubski (JRS 44 [1954] 9) points out that the Republic as such possessed no dignity of its own apart from that of the magistrates who represent it. This rendered the identification of the Republic with his own person natural and easy for Cicero, or for any leading Roman statesman. Cf. O f f . 1.124 "est igitur proprium munus magistratus intellegere se gerere personam civitatis debereque eius dignitatem et decus sustinere". Wirszubski's view, accepted by Baisdon (CQ 10 [1960] 49), has recently been challenged, not, I believe, convincingly (Lacey CQ 12 [1962] 70-71). 3.22-23 supplicia ... potuerunt: this is one of Cicero's many criticisms of the proconsulships of Gabinius and Piso. He accused Gabinius of military reverses, of inefficient control over the pirates, and of mistreating the publicani (e.g. Sest. 71 "neque nos provinciam Macedoniam cum exercitu neque equitatum in Syria et cohortes optimas perdidissemus", Prov. Cons. 9 "deinde adventus in Syriam primus equitatus habuit interitum, post concisae sunt optimae cohortes"; v. 1. 2n.; for further references v. Broughton MRR 2.203). He blamed Piso for military failure against the Thracians and for robbery and extortion (section 35; for a discussipn of Piso's prnconsulship v. Nisbet Pis. 172-188). There is interesting numismatic evidence of Gabinius as governor of Syria. The first Roman coins in the new province of Syria, tetradrachms with the familiar portrait of Philippus Philadelphus and a monogram A B, were probably issued by Gabinius (Bellinger Studies in Roman Economic and Social History 64-65). 3.24-25 excisionem, inflammationem, eversionem, depopulationem, vastitatem: cf. Dom. 146 "non me bonorum direptio, non tectorum excisio, non depopulatio praediorum, non praeda consulum ex meis fortunis crudelissime capta permovet". Asyndeton and the consecutive similar endings make the charge seem more serious. These are exaggerated terms, but that is just the point. Gabinius and Piso, by the enormity of their crimes, have done their best to create these conditions.

60

COMMENTARY

3.25 sua cumpraeda: after the law against him had been passed, Cicero's property was confiscated. His house on the Palatine was burned, but not before all the movable items had been transferred to the near-by house of Piso's mother-in-law. In like manner his Tusculan villa burned, after its valuables, even the trees, had been moved to Gabinius' conveniently near-by villa (Dom. 60-62, 113, 124, 146, Red. Sen, 17-18, 22, Sest. 44, 54, Pis. 26; Nisbet Dom. 206-207; D.-G. 2.228-230). 3.25 meis omnibus: "omnibus" and especially "meis" are in the emphatic position before the nouns. Again it is Cicero's astonishment that the magistrates of the Roman State should lend themselves to a personal war against himself and his property. 4.26 furiis et facibus: this alliterative doublet is probably not a case of hendiadys. Clodius, at least, was an example both of madness and incendiarism (cf. 39. 17 note on furore atque dementia and 45. 12n.). We may readily imagine that the same is true for Gabinius and Piso. 4.26-27 cum his, inquam, exitiosis prodigiis ac paene huius imperi pestibus: cf. Sest. 65 "in illis duabus huius imperi pestibus", Vat. 36 "in duobus prodigiis rei publicae", Prov. Cons. 2 "duo rei publicae portenta ac paene funera", and infra section 49 "paene deletrix huius imperi". Gabinius and Piso are "pestes" (Dom 24. Vat. 6,18, Prov. Cons. 13) and "prodigia" (Sest. 38). Clodius too is constantly referred to as "pestis", his tribunate "pestiferus", and as the architect of Cicero's "pestis", "ruin" (cf. sections 6 and 50, Dom. 2, 5, 26, 72, Sest. 33, 43, Vat. 33, Red. Sen. 16). "Inquam" and "paene" serve to apologize for the violence of the following phrases, and at the same time to emphasize and to attract attention to them. 4.27-28 bellum mihi inexpiabile dico esse susceptum: cf. Prov. Cons. 24 "iis ... bellum indixi atque intuli". 4.30 vester atque omnium: a graceful gesture with the hint of a suggestion. Cf. 3. 20n. 4.31 non est hodie meum maius odium: cf. Alt. 1.13.3 (25 January 61) "nosmet ipsi, qui Lycurgei a principio fuissemus, cotidie demitigamur." It is clear that at the time Cicero felt no personal hatred against Clodius.

COMMENTARY

61

4.1 ilium ambustum religiosissimis ignibus: this refers to Clodius' violation of the mysteries of the Bona Dea (v. section 8 for the Bona Dea; for a discussion of the incident v. introduction 12 and for further mention of the affair v. sections 8, 12, 37-39, 44, 57). In December of 62 Clodius, then a quaestor designate, was caught disguised as a woman in the house of the urban praetor, Caesar, when the Bona Dea rites were being performed there, but he apparently managed to escape with the aid of a slave girl (Att. 1.12.3, 1.13.3, Dom. 104-105, Pis. 95, Fam. 1.9.15; Ascon. 52-53 Clark; Plut. Caes. 9-10, Cie. 28; Schol. Bob. 85-86, 89-91 Stangl). According to Plutarch and the scholiast Bobiensis, Clodius intended to conduct a love affair with Caesar's wife, Pompeia, who was closely watched by her mother-in-law. If this is true, it furnishes an illuminating example of the flamboyant nature of Clodius, who chose this melodramatic way to overcome the difficulties that stood in their path. "Ambustum" and "religiosissimis ignibus" (cf. section 9 "ab altaribus religiosissimis fugatus") are allusions to the presence of the Vestals at this ceremony, the sanctity of which is further stressed by the prepositive position of the superlative "religiosissimis" {Att. 1.13.3; Plut. Cie. 19-20; Schol. Bob. 85 Stangl; cf. Mil. 12 "huius ambusti tribuni plebis"). Cf. also the explanation of Manutius (apud Wolf, 313) "quasi ad sacrificia ita prope accesserit, ut ignibus ambustus videri possit". "Incesto stupro" alludes to the charge on which Clodius was tried (Ascon. 45 Clark; Schol. Bob. 85 Stangl; cf. Dom. 105 "incesto flagitio et stupro", Mil. 13 "incesto stupro"). Incestus is a concept closely related to that of fas and nefas, and signifies an action contrary to the rules of religion (Klingmüller RE 9.1246; cf. Koch, RE2 8.1749-1750). Accordingly Clodius' crime was labeled nefas by the Vestals and pontifices {Att. 1.13.3), and he was tried de incesto. Similarly sexual intercourse between blood relatives was probably considered an offense against the gods and, as such, incestus. This sexual aspect of incestus eventually became the common and prevalent meaning of the term, so that "incesto stupro" would, of course, also suggest Clodius' affairs with his sisters (v. section 9). These affairs had, in fact, been brought into the open and used against Clodius at

62

COMMENTARY

his trial (Plut. Cie. 29). This and the ambiguity of the term evidently led Dio to think that incest with his sisters was part of the charge (37.46.2). 4.2-3 ex domo pontificis maximi emissum: Caesar was elected pontifex maximus in 63 to succeed Metellus Pius (Sail. Cat. 49.2; Plut. Caes. 7; Suet. Iul. 13, 46; for further references v. Broughton Μ RR 2.171) and therefore lived in the domus publica on the Via Sacra (for the domus publica v. Platner-Ashby 58-59; Lugli RA 212). That Caesar was pontifex maximus had nothing to do with the fact that the ceremony was performed in his home; the rites were conducted by the Vestals in the house of a magistrate with imperium (section 37; Plut. Cie. 19-20, Caes. 9; Dio 37.45). Yet the words "pontificis maximi" not only give this celebration a kind of fortuitous solemnity and serve to emphasize the outrageousness of Clodius' behavior, but also remind the audience that this was no ordinary domus but the public one of this priest (cf. Dom. 104; Taylor PP 87). One suspects that this coincidence appealed to Clodius' somewhat perverted sense of humor. For similarity in phrasing cf. section 37 "quod te iudices emiserunt excussum et exhaustum", section 44 "ancillarum beneficio emissus esset", and Pis. 95. Clodius was "emissus" both from the ceremony itself and from the subsequent trial; cf. Att. 1.16.9 where Clodius is "in rem publicam inmissum". 4.3 tum vidi: this is at least partially true. In January 61 Cicero wrote to Atticus (1.13.3) "vereor ne haec neglecta a bonis, defensa ab improbis magnorum rei publicae malorum causa sit". Cicero was, of course, not so indignant at the enormity of the crime or so worried about the harm that Clodius would do, as he was concerned lest this affair cause a break in the precarious concordia ordinum, which he had established (v. introduction 12). 4.4-5 quanta tempestas ... rei publicae: cf. Dom. 137 "tu, procella patriae, turbo ac tempestas pacis atque oti", Cael. 59 "quanta inpenderet procella mihi, quanta tempestas civitati". 4.6 adulescentis: although an adulescens was usually a person older than 15 and younger than 30 (Varro apud Censorinum 14; Isid. Orig. 11.2.4), usage permitted great variation. In a moment of impassioned oratory Cicero speaks of himself as an adulescens

COMMENTARY

63

at the time of his consulship when he was 43 {Phil. 2.118). In Rep. 1.18 he speaks of "doctos adulescentes, iam aetate quaestorios", i.e. approximately the same age as Clodius in 61. if Clodius obtained the quaestorship in 61 at the earliest possible age, 31, he would have been born in 92 (Mommsen Str. 568ff.) and would at the time of his offense have been at least 30 years old. 4.6 furentis: v. 39. 17 note on furore atque dementia. 4.6 nobilis: the word applies to anyone, patrician or plebeian, whose father or whose family had gained the consulship (Gelzer Die Nobilität 21-32), but its use here suggests Clodius' patrician origin and his disgraceful adoption into a plebeian family (v. sections 44-45 and 57; cf. Mil. 18 "homo enim nobilis in suis monumentis equitem Romanum occiderat"). 4.7 vulnerati: Clodius was not only "ambustus religiosissimis ignibus", but also was thoroughly discredited as a result of his trial (cf. section 37 "excussum et exhaustum, suo iudicio absolutum, omnium condemnatum"; for the trial cf. section 36). He was therefore "wounded" by both gods and men; this idea is developed in detail in sections 37-39. 4.7 oti finibus: Clodius is frequently called an enemy of otium (e.g. Dom. 12, 137, Sest. 15, Fam. 1.9.10). Otium usually signifies domestic peace and tranquillity and is used by Cicero to indicate the peace and order characteristic of the established republican government (cf. Baisdon CQ 10 [1960] 47). Cicero uses it as a political slogan as early as 63 {Leg. Agr. 2.8), and it may well have been used even earlier by other optimate leaders. At any rate, the idea was especially important for Cicero in 56 at the time of this oration in view of his recent pronouncement of the optimate ideal "cum dignitate otium" in March of this year {Sest. 98). 4.8 si impunitum fuisset: cf. section 61 "nam ut meliore simus loco ne optandum quidem est illo impunito". In Red. Pop. 14 "omnis ... impunitas" is one of the ruinous conditions under which Rome suffered during Cicero's exile, and, although he discreetly does not mention him by name before the people, Cicero clearly has Clodius in mind. It is amusing to compare these passages with sections 37-39 below, which show that Clodius had, in fact, been severely punished.

64

COMMENTARY

4.9 non multum mihi ... accessit: Watt's translation (319), "True, indeed, that as regards myself there was little addition afterwards to his hate", is mistaken. As both the context and the dative "mihi" indicate, it is Cicero's hatred for Clodius that is in question. Long correctly paraphrases (434) "there was in truth after this no great increase in his hatred to Clodius". 5.9-10 nihil enim contra me fecit odio mei: cf. Dom. 66 "non hominibus istum sed virtutibus hostem semper fuisse". Here again Cicero diplomatically shifts from a private quarrel to a quarrel of the orders, the nation, and even religion (v. 3. 20n.). He is especially concerned to show that this is not just another private feud, which the other senators may ignore or, as in the case of Pompey, may divert to their own purposes. 5.10-11 odio ... odio ... odio ... odio: for a similar use of anaphora and asyndeton v. 2. 16-17n. and 3. 12n. The anaphora continues with "quam" repeated five times, ascending to a climax in "quam in ipsos deos immortalis". 5.16 familiar is Catilina: L. Sergius Catilina (23) was an active follower of Sulla. In 68 he was praetor and from 67 to 66 he was propraetor of Africa. Upon his return he was brought to trial in the summer of 65 for res repetundae with Clodius as the accuser (QCic. Comment. Pet. 10; Cael. 10; Ascon. 9, 66, 85 Clark). Two letters of Cicero written just before the trial show both that Catiline's case was scandalous and disreputable and that his prospects were quite good, inasmuch as favorable jurors had been obtained with the goodwill of the prosecutor (Att. 1.1.1, 1.2.1). Catiline was, of course, acquitted, and the case was notorious for the bribery of the jurors and the praevaricatio of the accuser (QCic. Comment. Pet. 10 "ex eo iudicio tam egens discessit quam quidam iudices eius ante illud in eum iudicium fuerunt"; section 42, Pis. 23, Tog. Cand. 4, 8, 16, 24; Ascon. 87, 89, 92 Clark). It is extremely unlikely, as Asconius has shown (85-87 Clark), that Cicero defended him, although he had once considered it (Att. 1.2.1). Perhaps the other precautions rendered Cicero's help superfluous. Multiple defeats for the consulship embittered Catiline, and he formed a revolutionary plan (Cat. 2.18ff.; Sail. Cat. 21), which included Cicero's assassination (Cat. 1.15). As consul of

COMMENTARY

65

63 Cicero undertook drastic measures and brought the affair in hand (introduction 11-12). Clodius' part in the conspiracy is vague: according to Plutarch {Cie. 29.1), he helped Cicero actively, but according to Asconius (50 Clark), the common story was that, when Catiline fled to Manlius at Faesulae, Clodius wanted to go with him and started, but then changed his mind and returned to Rome. However this may have been, Cicero considered Clodius as the political heir of Catiline {Mil. 37, Sest. 42, Pis. 14-16, 23, Att. 2.1.5; cf. Dom. 72 where his own followers are said to call him the "lucky Catiline"), and his gangs are referred to as the remnants of Catiline's following {Red. Sen. 33, Red. Pop. 13, Dom. 58, 61, 92, Sest. 42, Pis. 16,23). A similar, but more personal, relation with Catiline is laid to Gabinius {Red. Sen. 10, 12, Dom. 62; cf. Sest. 28). Wolf (314) and Long (434-435) are especially offended by this section. Their objections, however, are nothing but quibbling and misinterpretation: e.g. how could Clodius, who did not hate Cicero, be of the same mind as Catiline would have been? The passage is perhaps exaggerated and even a little tiresome, but one need only to compare it with Wolf's improvement to see how flat it might have been. 5.16. si vicissetyfuisset; cf. Verr. 2.3.66 "Nonne omnia potius eius modi sunt quae, si Athenio rex fugitivorum vicisset, in Sicilia non fecisset?" 5.16-17 numquam a me esse accusandum putavi: Gelzer, who thinks that this speech was made in September, suggests that Cicero had been advised from within Pompey's circle not to institute any court proceedings against Clodius {Klio 30 [1937] 5; for the dating of the speech v. introduction 22-28). According to this view, Cicero is passing off as his own decision what has in reality been forced upon him. But, if this meeting of the Senate took place in the first half of May, as it most likely did, this becomes extremely improbable. For at that time the only message that Cicero had received from Pompey since the conference of Luca was that of Vibullius {Fam. 1.9.10; introduction 27-28), which was probably brief and to the point and concerned with more important matters. It would also be very odd, if such secondary ramifications

66

COMMENTARY

of the meeting at Luca were elaborated and implemented with this promptness. But, whatever may be the date of this oration, Clodius' reconciliation with Pompey is very recent (v. section 51), whereas Cicero is explaining why he has not accused Clodius, and this really can only apply to the time before Clodius was elected aedile on January 20. A simple and more obvious reason for Cicero's failure to prosecute Clodius lies in the latter's popularity and formidable strength. This violent and difficult task, from which Cicero could hardly expect to gain in dignity and position, was clearly a job for Milo. Cicero, however, a little later threatens to bring Clodius to court, if he continues his wanton attacks (v. section 7). Gelzer evidently thinks that this is a bluff, and he may be right (v. 7 nn. for the legal battles with Clodius). 5.17 stipitem: cf. Red. Sen. 14 (about Piso) "cum hoc homine an cum stipite in foro constitisses, nihil crederes interesse". 5.18 Ligurem: this is Aelius Ligus (83) about whom nothing whatsoever is known beyond what Cicero tells us (the correct form of his name might be Ligur, since this is an accepted alternate form). An adopted member of the Aelii Ligures, he was elected tribune for 58 and, although he was initially, as the eight other tribunes, favorable to Cicero, he soon became one of Clodius' disreputable supporters {Dom. 49, Sest. 69, 94). He vetoed the bill for Cicero's recall which Ninnius Quadratus proposed on June 1 of that year (Red. Sen. 3, Sest. 68). Since the Ligurians were noted for their deceit and also for their rustic boorishness (Serv. Aen. 11.715, 11.711 = Cato the Elder 2.31 and 2.32 Peter, HRR), Cicero used his cognomen to taunt and ridicule him. It is interesting to observe that Cicero used this pun as early as 66 (Clu. 72 "hoc enim sibi Staienus cognomen ex imaginibus Aeliorum delegerat ne, si se Ligurem fecisset, nationis magis suae quam generis uti cognomine videretur"). Either Ligus had already been adopted at that time or more probably it was merely a stock joke suggested by the name. Cicero was especially fond of these punning allusions: Clodius realized that he was far removed a pulchris (Schol. Bob. 89 Stangl) and Vatinius boasted that he would hold a second consulship "impudenter vaticinando" (Vat. 6; cf. Att. 6.1.25). Cicero's jibe against Ligus is remarkably similar to the taunting question

COMMENTARY

67

that Clodius put to Cicero on the previous day (v. section 17). Aelius' brother, Papirius, with whom he had been on bad terms (Dom. 49), may have been the Papirius, a friend of Pompey, who was killed by a band under the leadership of Sex. Cloelius in a fight on the Via Appia over Tigranes (Mil. 18; Ascon. 47 Clark; cf. 28. 18-19 note on locum fanumque vendideris). 5.20 pabulo inimicortim meorum et glande corruptum: although Clodius is clearly indicated, this description fits Ligus better, whose obscurity Cicero emphasizes whenever he mentions him. It is unusual to find Clodius so described, inasmuch as Cicero generally speaks of him as the master mind, using Gabinius, Piso, and others as his tools and puppets. It is even more unusual when we consider that the inimici can really be none other than Crassus and Caesar. If this is so, it is an extremely frank statement and goes well beyond his other more guarded public references to the triumvirs (cf. sections 38, 45, 57, Dom. 22, 41, Sest. 15-16, 39; cf. introduction 26). It is, in fact, comparable to the remarks which Cicero said he made in reply to Vatinius at the trial of Sestius (Fam. 1.9.7). Inasmuch as they are not found in the existing speech In Vatinium, either they may have been toned down in the published version (Meyer 135.1), or they may have been in the missing portion of the speech (Pocock 197). 5.21 qui si sensit: v. 38. 7n. 6.24 fortissimo et clarissimo viro: the prepositive position of the adjectives is emphatic. 6.24 T. Annio: T. Annius Milo (67) was a native of Lanuvium, where he was also the dictator (Mil. 27). As tribune in 57 he worked hard for Cicero's recall (Red. Sen. 19, 30, Red. Pop. 15, Sest. 95; v. Broughton Μ RR 2.201 for further references) and rendered practical service in countering Clodius' violence and defeating his private army (introduction 17). During this year and the next he and Clodius tried alternately to prosecute each other (v.7. 9n.), but their quarrel gradually subsided after 56. He was evidently praetor in 55 and in the following year, as a private citizen, gave such lavish games that Cicero says that he had spent three patrimonia on them (QF 3.6.6, 3.7.2, Mil. 95). Hostilities with Clodius were renewed in the winter of 53, when Milo

68

COMMENTARY

was a candidate for the consulship and Clodius stood for the praetorship. When on 18 January 52 a chance meeting between Milo and Clodius and their respective retinues near Bovillae developed into a scuffle, Clodius was wounded and retired to Bovillae. In order to finish the job, Milo had him dragged from his hiding place and killed (Ascon. 31-32 Clark). Milo was accused under a special Pompeian law de vi, and, when the trial, mobbed by the gangs of Clodius, ended in an unfavorable verdict, he went into exile at Massilia (Liv. Per. 107; Veil. Pat. 2.47.4; Ascon. 35-42, 53-54 Clark; Dio 40.54). Although Cicero displayed courage and pertinacity in his determination to conduct Milo's defense, he was so badgered by Clodius' followers during his speech that he was unable to give any effective help (Ascon. 38, 41-42 Clark; cf. Settle TAPhA 94 [1963] 268-280). In 48 Milo returned on appeal from Caelius, the revolutionary praetor of that year, and he was killed at Compsa in southern Italy (Caes. BC 3.21.4-3.22.2; Yell. Pat. 2.68.3; Plin. ffiV 2.147; Dio 42.24.1-42.25.3). 6.25 devota et constituta ista hostia: cf. section 7 "consecratum Miloni". As has been noticed long ago ("aliquis veterum Intpp". apud Wolf 317) Cicero is actually threatening Clodius with judicial ruin at the hands of Milo, but he uses language which implies that Milo is about to kill him. It was customary to speak of condemnation and exile in terms of actual destruction (Wolf 316-317), perhaps because this involved the loss or destruction of caput, the legal personality of the individual (Mommsen Str. 3.7-8). It is noteworthy that as early as December 57 Milo openly threatened, however, to kill Clodius, if he should have the opportunity {Att. 4.3.5). 6.27 dignitatem: "position, political prestige". That Cicero wins it back though another's agency is a good illustration of the nature of dignitas. As Wirszubski says (JRS 44 [1954] 12), "Cicero conceived his dignitas primarily in terms of political prestige, influence, and worthiness, and not in terms of integrity of character and devotion to duty". Cf. Balb. 59 "ut eos qui principes fuerunt conservandae salutis aut dignitatis meae diligitis et caros habetis". 6.28 P. Scipio: P. Cornelius Scipio Aemilianus Africanus Minor Numantinus (335) was born in 185/4 and lived until 129. He served

COMMENTARY

69

in Greece and Spain and in 149 he was military tribune at the siege of Carthage. In 148 he settled the succession of Masinissa. In 147 he became consul and obtained the command against Carthage, which he reduced within the year, and in 146 he attended to its total destruction (v. Broughton ΜRR 1.467 for references). Besides his military activities he was the center of the so-called Scipionic Circle (Orat. 2.154, Acad. 2.5, Mur. 66). A Stoic and a firm aristocrat, he was opposed to the Gracchan reforms despite close family connections {Orat. 2.106, Mil. 8). Cicero is extremely fond of citing him (v. list of references in Rambaud 31-32), for which he is apparently ridiculed by the author of the Sallustian In Ciceronem (1.1, 4.7; this is not directly stated, but these sneering allusions are more relevant exactly because these are the personages whom Cicero is constantly introducing. Cf. Verr. 2.4.79-81). The comparison of Milo to Scipio, though exaggerated, is not so singular as it may seem; in a letter to Pompey written in 62 Cicero had said (Fam. 5.7.3) "ut tibi multo maiori, quam Africanus fuit, me ... facile et in re p. et in amicitia adiunctum esse patiare". 6.3-4 armatum civem: there is particular odium in these words. During the year 57 Clodius was a private citizen in arms. Cf. Red. Sen. 19 "sceleratum civem aut domesticum potius hostem". 6.4-5 qui ... qui: for the anaphora and asyndeton v. 2. 16-17n. and 3. 12n. The horror of Clodius' action grows worse, until it reaches a climax in the sixth and final clause (cf. 5. 10-1 In.). 6.4-5 alios domi contineret: notably Pompey (v. 49. 6-7n.). 6.5 curiam ... forum ... templa: cf. similar charges in Dom. 5, Red. Pop. 14, and Red. Sen. 1 (other examples of Clodius' violence passim, e.g. Dom. 12, 13, 67, 89, Sest. 2, 53, 88, Mil. 41). There is no record of any specific direct attack by Clodius on the Senate, but there are four occasions on which Clodius or his gangs either interfered with the meetings of the Senate or showed violent disrespect to the curia. (1) In December 57 a sudden uproar was raised by his gangs in the Forum and caused the Senate, which was then meeting in the curia, to adjourn (QF 2.1.3). Although it was very convenient for Clodius, it was apparently a coincidence. (2) According to Plutarch, Clodius was in arms around the Senatehouse at the time of Cicero's exile in 58 (Plut. Cie. 31.1 "Κλωδίου

70

COMMENTARY

δέ σιδηροφορομένου περί τό βουλευτήρια"). (3) On the night before Fabricius' proposal of 23 January 57 for Cicero's return, Clodius' men occupied the curia, as one of the strong points for the next day's battle in the Forum (Sest. 75). (4) The Senate meeting of 6 or 7 September 57, in which Pompey's new command was proposed, was influenced by Clodius' mobs outside, and an atmosphere of crisis and unease prevailed (Ait. 4.1.6, Dom. 5-6, 8, 10). This meeting, however, was on the Capitol, not in the curia, but it is a good example of what sort of pressure Clodius could apply to the Senate. His activity in the Forum is much better attested; its proximity to the comitium and its central location made it the principal field of action for his gangs. They were registered and marshalled at the tribunal Aurelium (Dom. 54, Sest. 34, Pis. 11), and the Temple of Castor at the southeast corner of the Forum, which was an established location for contiones (Taylor R VA 25-28), was used as a kind of citadel and base of operations (Red. Sen. 32, Dom. 54, 110, Sest. 34, 35, Pis. 11; cf. introduction 17 and Taylor RVA 41). Clodius removed or remodeled the steps of the temple in such a way as to render access difficult for others, while its location and lofty podium made it especially convenient for sorties into the Forum. Two examples of violence in the Forum were particularly emphasized. On January 23 (mentioned above) the tribunes, Fabricius and Cispius, were driven from the Forum, Q. Cicero was driven from the rostra and forced to hide, and so much blood was shed that the sewers backed up, and the Forum had to be mopped up with sponges (Sest. 75-77, Mil. 38; Plut. Cie. 33.3). Shortly thereafter Sestius, another tribune, went to the Temple of Castor to serve an obnuntiatio (cf. 58. lOn). He was suddenly attacked, wounded, and left for dead in the Forum (Sest. 79, QF 2.3.6). In addition to the attacks launched from the Temple of Castor, templa is also an allusion to Clodius' assault on the Temple of the Nymphs (section 57). 6.6-7 vinci ... vinciri: this figura etymologica, though it seems a little forced, was a commonplace; cf. Auct. ad Her. 4.29 "hie, quos homines alea vincit, eos ferro statim vincit". 7.9 reum: an allusion to Milo's two attempts in 57 to accuse

COMMENTARY

71

Clodius de vi (Mil. 40, Att. 4.3.2. 4.3.5, Sest. 89; Plut. Cie. 33; Dio 39.7; cf. section 15). Meyer is probably right, when he suggests that these attempts fell in February and December respectively (109-112; February: Att. 4.3.2 and Red. Sen. 19; December: QF 2.1.2. Cf. also Stein 37). Both failed, and Clodius was elected aedile for 56, from which position he accused Milo on the same charge before the comitia tributa populi (Sest. 89, 95, QF 2.3.1, 2.6.4, Vat. 40-41, Mil. 40; Ascon. 48 Clark; Dio 39.18; Greenidge, LPCT 342, 353). This accusation also came to no conclusion; the quarta accusatio, scheduled for May 7, apparently did not take place (cf. Dio 39.18.2, 39.20.1). Compare the similar references to Clodius as reus in Mil. 35 "reus enim Milonis lege Plotia fuit Clodius quoad vixit" and QF 2.1.3 "tamquam reum accusavi". 7.11-13 inlaqueatus ... inretitus ... implicatus: this metaphor continues the thought of section 5 "pecudem ac beluam". Clodius is a wild beast netted and trapped in the snares of justice. Cf. Mil. 40 "atque illam beluam, iudici laqueos declinantem, iam inretitam teneret", Sest. 88 "sed ilium ... legum, si posset, laqueis constringeret", Vat. 12 "hominesque negoti gerentes iudiciis iniquissimis inretires", Cael. 71 "eo maleficio tamen erant implicati ut ex nullius legis laqueis eximendi viderentur", and also Ps. Cyprian Merced. 3 "qui in deliciis ... mundi huius occupatus et obsidione perniciosa diabuli illaqueatus". Inlaqueo is a rare word and appears only here in Cicero's writings. 7.16 cum mihi stanti tacens minaretur: for the action see note on section 2; cf. section 2 "fractis atque inanibus minis". While Cicero was on his feet and speaking (v. sections 1 and 2), Clodius, who must also have been standing, was casting threatening glances at him. Clodius was apparently now "in curiae paene limine" (section 2) and during or after Cicero's attack he resumed his seat, "consedit ille". It is rather difficult to synchronize this with the action in sections 1 and 2 above, since Clodius' flight toward the door is here omitted, but in these brief and highly colored references consistency is hardly to be expected. Similarly we must imagine him catching sight of the consul (section 2) at about the same time as he is glancing at Cicero. Courtney tentatively

72

COMMENTARY

favors emendation (CR 10 [1960] 96). Either "concidit" for "consedit", in which case he thinks Clodius actually left the Senate, or Graevius' emendation of "tacenti stans" for "stanti tacens", in which case Cicero remained seated and Clodius' actions are quite comprehensible. Although some such change may be correct, I feel that the passage does make adequate sense as it is and emendation is not necessary. 7.17 attigi legum initium et iudici: in spite of the above-mentioned inconsistency this is clearly identical with the threat of section 1 "simul ac periculum iudici intendi: duobus inceptis verbis In both passages Cicero emphasizes that the merest allusion to legal action was sufficient to crush Clodius; from this we see that Cicero did not dwell on the subject and probably did not reintroduce it. What sort of legal procedure was meant is a matter of doubt. Mommsen (Strafr. 168.5, Str. 1.195.4) and Greenidge (LPCT 330.2) think that Cicero is threatening Clodius with a trial de capite before the comitia centuriata. In such a case "the tribune approaches the centuries through the praetor, whom he asks for a day on which he may appear as accuser" (LPCT 330; for the procedure v. Str. 1.195-196; LPCT329-331,342, RPL 161; Botsford 259-260). Gelzer, however, points out that "legum initium et iudici" and "periculum iudici" indicates a charge on the basis of a law and refer more naturally to a trial before a quaestio (RE 72.945). This would probably be another attempt to accuse Clodius de vi. The technique of initiating such a case is discussed by Greenidge (LPCT 459ff.). The first step was the request of the accuser to bring the charge before the praetor. This was the postulatio, or more loosely, nominis delatio, which may be the "duobus verbis" of section 1. Tertius dies, as Gelzer thinks, may refer to the minimum time which elapsed before the accuser could be summoned by the praetor to bring his charge, although there is no indication whatsoever that tertius dies was, in fact, the minimum time (Mommsen Strafr. 396). The objection to Gelzer's view is that, although Clodius, as aedile, was not liable to any normal prosecution before a quaestio

COMMENTARY

73

(Dio 39.7.3; Greenidge LPCT 461; Mommsen Str. 1.707-708; Kübler RE 14.428), Cicero says that he will institute proceedings immediately, "statim". On the other hand, a trial of a magistrate before the people or the comitia centuriata was legally and technically possible, though in reality very improbable (Mommsen Str. 1.707, 2.319; Kübler RE 14.429; cf. Plut. Marc. 2 and Val. Max. 6.1.7). All that would have been needed was a friendly tribune, in this case Racilius (QF 2.1.3, 2.5.3), to make the request to the praetor, but it was almost a certainty that another tribune would stop the proceedings. It is possible that both Mommsen and Gelzer are in a sense correct. It must be remembered that the threat was really just a brief allusion and that it probably was not ever intended to be executed (v. 5.16-17n.). Cicero uses the language of the quaestiones and at the same time contents himself with the theoretical possibility that a trial before the people could be undertaken. In view of this we must assume that Clodius' panic in the face of this accusation is considerably exaggerated; he knew that he was safe. 7.18 iecerat: Clodius had evidently threatened to bring Cicero to trial before the comitia tributa in the same manner that had almost succeeded in the case of Milo (v. 7. 9n.). 7.21-22 statim me esse arrepturum arma iudiciorum atque legum: this is a more cautious repetition of the previous day's threat (v. 7. 17n.). "Statim" is softened by the future perfect tense of "intenderit", and it requires no great effort to consider this as a threat applicable to the time when Clodius will leave office. 8.23 contionem: a contio was a public meeting which could be called by any magistrate, the pontifex maximus, or the rex sacrorum for the purpose of discussion (for contio v. Mommsen Str. 1.197202; Greenidge RPL 158-160; Botsford 139-151; Liebenam RE 4.1149-1153; Taylor RVA 2-3, 15-33, 57. Mommsen [1.200] thinks that the aediles and quaestors were not entitled to hold a contio, but Greenidge [159], Botsford [140-141], and Liebenam [1150-1153] disagree, basing their opinion on the convincing testimony of Gellius [13.16.1].) The presiding officer could grant permission to private persons to address the assembly, because it, unlike the comitia and concilium, was unofficial, and anyone could attend, inasmuch as

74

COMMENTARY

there was no voting. The contio had a double function; to obtain from the people indicative reactions on important issues before legislative assemblies, and to raise issues which would bear on these other assemblies. Clodius as curule aedile was probably entitled to hold a contio like this one on religious problems so long as a superior magistrate did not cancel the meeting or a tribune veto or adjourn it. 8.24 quae est ad me tota delata: there was no public record or transcription of the speeches made in contiones. Accordingly interested parties would take some pains to acquire a reasonably accurate record of speeches (contiones) which they deemed important, or in the case of surprise attacks, as this contio of Clodius may have been, someone may have offered a full account to those concerned. Important speeches were written, and they could be circulated, when it was to somebody's advantage. Two passages, section 51 "legant hanc eius contionem de qua loquor" and Vat. 3 "denique contiones P. Sesti scriptae, quas neque nosset neque reperire posset, te Albinovano dedisse" show clearly enough that contiones were copied by someone, but that circulation was a more or less private matter (cf. Leg. Agr. 2.13). Wolf (376) is perverse to say that this contio was supposed to have been held "forsitan paucis ante horis". It may have been held a few days before the previous day. or on the previous day itself, but hardly on the same day as our speech. He is also too dogmatic, when he asserts that deferre is not used "de scriptis exemplaribus". If nothing else, the legal and financial terms nomen deferre and rationes deferre suggest that it may be used of a written document. However, it makes no difference whether Cicero received a transcript of the contio, or had a reasonably faithful oral account, which he could have had copied and circulated (cf. section 51). 8.27 de religionibus et caerimoniis: this is calculated to arouse mingled indignation and amusement, inasmuch as religiones et caerimonia are the proper realm of the pontifices (v. infra 11. 12-13n.). 8.31 ducentis confixum senati consultis: two senatus consulta were passed between late December 62 and 25 January 61 which by

COMMENTARY

75

implication at least were aimed at Clodius pro religionibus {Att. 1.13.3). A third, which might have satisfied this definition, was vetoed in early February {Att. 1.14.5; for other senatus consulta against Clodius v. section 15 "tot senati consultis" and QF 2.3.5). This remark shows the open contempt with which Clodius regarded the Senate, when he was addressing a contio. 8.2 pulvinaribus: cf. section 28 "sacerdotem ab ipsis aris pulvinaribusque detraxeris", section 33 "Quo pulvinari? quod stupraras", Pis. 95 "cum stuprum bonae deae pulvinaribus intulisset", Mil. 72 "nefandum adulterium in pulvinaribus sanctissimis". The pulvinar, a cushioned couch for the gods, was one of the implements used at the festive celebration of the rites of the Bona Dea (for pulvinar v. Hug RE 23. 1977-1978). The mention of the very cushions of the goddess appropriately emphasizes the unspeakable villainy of Clodius' crime. This is about as specific as Cicero could be without causing offense to religious secrecy (cf. section 37). 8.2 Bonae Deae: Bona Dea was perhaps originally the epithet of Fauna, the cult associate of Faunus, but eventually it came to be used as if it were a proper name (for a discussion of the Bona Dea and citation of the ancient references v. Wissowa RK 216-219, RE 3.686-694; Marquardt 3.345-347). Since the real name was secret and could not be known by men (section 37), the precise identity and nature of the goddess was not clear (cf. Macrob. Sat. 1.21.20-29). According to Verrius Flaccus (Festus 60 Lindsay), she is identical with Damia, a Greek divinity honored by women, whose cult was superimposed upon the native Roman ritual of Fauna. Although it is uncertain when and how this happened, it is likely that her cult came to Rome from Tarentum some time after 272. Her festival was celebrated every year on a night in early December, and the rites, from which men were rigidly excluded, were executed by women (Sen. Ep. 97.2; Juv. 6.314; sections 37 and 38). The sacrifice was, however, on behalf of the Roman people (section 37 "fit pro populo Romano"), as is indicated by the presence of the Vestals and the fact that the ceremony took place in the home of a magistrate with imperium (v. 4. In. and 4. 2-3n.). As might be expected in view of the prevailing secrecy, the details of the ceremony are extremely obscure. Yet

76

COMMENTARY

some facts are known: the room where the ceremony occurred was decorated with vine leaves (Plut. Caes. 9.3); a sow was sacrificed (Juv. 2.86; Macrob. Sat. 1.12); wine played a considerable role, but was called milk, and there were music and dancing (Juv. 2.87, 6.314, 9.117; Plut. Caes. 9.4; Macrob Sat. 1.12.25). 8.2-3 quae viri oculis ne imprudentis quidem aspici fas est: cf. section 37 "id quod non solum curiosos oculos excludit, sed etiam errantis, quo non modo improbitas, sed ne imprudentia quidem possit intrare? quod quidem sacrificium nemo ante P. Clodium omni memoria violavit, nemo umquam adiit, nemo neglexit, nemo vir aspicere non horruit, quod ... fit ei deae cuius ne nomen quidem viros scire fas est". For a similar description of impiety cf. Verr. 2.5.187 "ut simulacrum Cereris unum, quod a viro non modo tangi sed ne aspici quidem fas fuit". Cicero frequently stresses the pollution which Clodius has brought upon his eyes (cf. section 26 "quos ... violatis oculis legis", 37-39passim, 44, Dom. 105; Schol. Bob. 88 Stangl). For the related idea of Clodius' blindness v. 38. 6n. 9.6 proxima contio ...de pudicitia: Cicero is fond of sarcastic remarks about Clodius' old-fashioned virtue: Schol. Bob. 88 Stangl "primum homo durus ac priscus invectus est in eos qui mense Aprili apud Baias essent et aquis calidis uterentur. quid enim cum hoc homine nobis tam tristi ac severo? non possunt hi mores ferre hunc tam austerum et tam vehementem magistratum"; apud Quint. Inst. 8.6.56 "integritas tua te purgavit, mihi crede, pudor eripuit, vita ante te acta servavit"; cf. also Dom. 105 and 127. For ironic references to Clodius as priest v. 9. 13n. 9.7 ab altaribus religiosissimis: v. 4. In. 9.8-9 ex sororum cubiculo: according to Cicero, the entire family was a veritable den of incest and perversion. Clodius was the leader; he seduced all his sisters, especially the notorious Clodia, wife of Metellus (cf. sections 27, 39, 42, 59, Dom. 26 and Nisbet ad loc. 91, 92, Sest. 16, 39, 116, Pis. 28, Mil. 73, Cael. 32, 36, 78, Att. 2.1.5, QF 2.3.2, Fam. 1.9.15; Catull. 79; for Metellus v. 45. 26 note on frater Metellus). He was also guilty of homosexuality and profligacy outside the family (cf. sections 42, 59, Dom. 139). The trouble, however, went still further: Appius

COMMENTARY

77

the eldest had seduced, or was seduced by, both Clodius and a sister (Schol. Bob. 127 Stangl), while Sextus Cloelius, as befitting his position, was employed in the most beastly and servile perversion (Dom. 25, 83). These charges, or rather slanders, were a common aspect of personal Roman politics and need not be taken too seriously. Still it goes beyond Cicero: the evidence of Catullus and Lucullus, one of the outraged husbands (Mil. 73), as well as obscene verses shouted by the mob at a contio (QF 2.3.2), attest to the widespread bad reputation of the family. There is no doubt that they were unusually indifferent to conventional morality. Even Cicero was charged with incest (Sali. Im. Cie. 2.2 "filia matrix paelex"; Dio 46.18.6); this is probably representative of the current slander circulated by his political enemies (the authorship and time of composition of the Sallustian invective are still far from agreement. For recent discussions and surveys v. Vretska 1.12-26; Ernout 7-8; Syme Sallust 314-318, 348-351; cf. Taylor Athenaeum 42 [1964] 26.44). A further hint of some such charge may be seen in Dom. 92. 9.9-10 responsum haruspicum: for a discussion of the haruspices and their reply v. introduction 32-37. 9.13 a religiosissimo sacerdote: Clodius was evidently a xv vir s.f. (v. 26 30n.). This is another one of Cicero's favorite modes of sarcasm (cf. 9. 6n.): section 12 "huius unius casti tutoris religionum" 14 "uno illo solo antistite sacrorum", 22 "ab hoc aedile religioso", Dom. 103 "illius castissimi sacerdotis superstitiosa dedicatio", 105 "hoc auctore tam casto, tam religioso, tam sancto, tam pio", 111 "ab hoc religioso Libertatis sacerdote", 116 "homo religiosus", 127 "sed tarnen disce ab homine religionibus dedito ius totum omnium religionum", Sest. 39 "cum stuprorum sacerdote", 66 "ipsi illi populari sacerdoti", Pis. 89 "populari illi sacerdoti", Att. 2.4.2 "iste sacerdos Bonae deae". There is perhaps in many of these passages the notion that what is religiosus is taboo, and so a passing allusion to Clodius' infamous past. 9.13-14 domum meam ... consecratam: for consecratio v. 14. 21 note on sacer non esse. 10.14-18 ostento ... prodigio: v. Nat. Deor. 2.7 "praedictiones vero et praesentiones rerum futurarum quid aliud declarant nisi

78

COMMENTARY

hominibus ea ostendi, monstrari, protendi, praedici? ex quo ilia ostenta, monstra, portenta, prodigia dicuntur" (for further references v. Pease ad loc. 2.561-562; cf. Div. 1.93; Festus 125 Lindsay). Prodigia are extraordinary and terrifying manifestations of nature, which indicate that the natural relation between the community and the gods has been disturbed in such a way as to threaten serious danger to the former (for a discussion of prodigium v. Wülker 1-5; Wissowa RK 390-391; Händel RE 23.2283-2296; R. Bloch RIDA 2 [1949] 120-131; for ostentum v. Riess RE 18.1642-1646). They could take various forms: meteorological phenomena, physiological "improbabilities", earth tremors, rains of blood or stone, eclipses, etc. Ostenta have no real existence of their own independent of prodigia and omens, and a satisfactory separate definition cannot be given (Riess RE 1646, although Thulin 3.77 suggests that the concept of prodigium was Roman and far more restricted than the Etruscan one of ostentum). 10.18 furore: v. 39. 17 note on furore atque dementia. 10.19-20 Iovis Optimi Maximi: Juppiter Optimus Maximus (Wissowa RK 125-129), associated in the Capitoline temple with Minerva and Juno Regina, was the greatest of the Roman gods and the one most closely bound with the State through his connection with triumphs, political counting of years, magisterial sacrifices, and public banquets on the anniversary of the founding of the temple, which housed treaties on bronze tablets. That the warning came "prope iam voce Iovis Ο. M." may be explained in several ways. Jupiter was clearly involved in these prodigia, since he was the first to whom a postilio was owed. Whether his role in this affair was merely a precaution and customary for all such disturbances or he was in some special way responsible is hard to discern. Although Cicero does not mention it, Dio tells us that among these prodigia of 56 were some lightning bolts (39.20.1), and bolts of lightning on the Capitolium in 65 were quite naturally regarded as omens from Jupiter {Cat. 3.19-22). There is, however, a far more direct similarity between these two events. The political message of the haruspices in 65, as reported by Cicero, shows a striking resemblance to that in section 40 below (cf. Cat. 3.19 and 3.21). It is true that this warning is

COMMENTARY

79

probably a stock one of the haruspices (cf. introduction 35-36, section 40. 7-8n.) but the important fact is that, in the passage of the Third Catilinarian cited here, Cicero's reaction was to stress Jupiter as the savior of the city. So here too, in view of the dire threats to Rome, which will be mentioned later and are presumably already known to the audience, the warning naturally comes from Jupiter himself, rather as the god concerned with the political safety of Rome than because the prodigia are his particular manifestations. 11.26 tam vacua atque pura: cf. Dom. 116 "domus ilia mea prope tota vacua est", and Nisbet ad loc. 167; Wolf (438), following Garatoni, cites Ulpian apud Justinian Dig. 11.7.2: "purus locus dicitur, qui neque sacer neque sanctus est neque religiosus, sed ab omnibus huiusmodi nominibus vacare videtur." 11.29 iudiciis omnibus: the Senate and the comitia centuriata had cleared Cicero's legal title to his house, and the college of the pontifices had vouched for its freedom from religious claims (introduction 18-19; cf. section 14). 11.5 Sex. Clodi: his name was evidently not Clodius (12), but Cloelius (Shackleton Bailey CQ 10 [1960] 41-42; accepted by Nisbet Cicero, Studies in Latin Literature and its Influence 71.7). He was apparently a legal expert and helped P. Clodius in the formulation of his laws and important contracts (Dom. 47, 83, 129, Sest. 133). He played a prominent part in the restoration of the collegia, celebrating the revived ludi compitalicii on 1 January 58 (Pis. 8; Ascon. 6-7 Clark), and after that he took charge of the administration of Clodius' lex frumentaria (Dom. 25-26 and Nisbet ad loc. 91). He also shared in the tribune's wrecking projects in such a way that they are attributed indifferently to Clodius or Cloelius (Cael. 78 and Austin ad loc. 140; cf. section 57). Milo, acting on behalf of Pompey, brought him into court in March 56, but he was acquitted (QF 2.5.4, Cael. 78). However, his scandalous behavior at the riots at Clodius' funeral in 52 (Mil. 33, 90) led to another prosecution, and this time he was condemned (Ascon. 33, 35 Clark). He went into exile, from which he returned in 44 by permission of Antony (Att. 14.13.6, 14.13a.2-3, 14.13b.3-5, 14.14.2, 14.19.2). In addition to his share in Clodius' political

80

COMMENTARY

crimes, he seems to have emulated him in his unsavory relations with Clodia {Dom. 25, 83, Cael. 78; v. 9. 8-9 n.). 11.5-6 ne una quidem attigit littera religionis: evidently the law de exilio Ciceronis contained no reference whatsoever to any subsequent religious dedication of part of Cicero's property. What it provided was its confiscation, and it also authorized Clodius to administer it in the name of the State {Dom. 47, 50-51; Nisbet Dom. xvii and 206-209). Nisbet thinks that Clodius only later decided to dedicate a shrine on the site (207), and then the lack of any specific authorization from the people eventually resulted in the adverse judgment of the pontifices {Dom. 127; v. 14. 21 note on sacer non esse and 33. 27 note on quod ereptum ex meretricis sepulcro). 11.12 decrevistis: v. introduction 19. Some time after August 4 the Senate, on Bibulus' motion, decreed that the pontifices should be consulted about Cicero's house {Dom. 69; Stein 39). 11.12-13 pontificum conlegium: this college, which developed from a consilium of the king, supervised caerimonia and sacra and the proper form relating thereto {Leg. 2.21; v. sections 12 and 14. For a discussion of the college v. Wissowa RK 501-523; for its political importance during this period and the family connections of its members v. Taylor AJPh 63 [1942] 385-412 and PP 90-97). The entire college consisted of four groups: (1) the 15 pontifices, including the pontifex maximus, and the three pontifices minores; (2) the fiamines, 12 minores and 3 maiores, i.e. Dialis, Martialis, and Quirinalis; (3) the rex sacrorum; (4) the Vestals, who naturally did not join the rest of the group when it acted in its legal capacity (Wissowa RK 501.2). The office of the flamen Dialis remained vacant from 87, when the incumbent L. Cornelius Merula died, until 11 (Tac. Ann. 3.58; Dio 54.36.1), for Caesar, who was to have been honored with this position, was never inaugurated. He seems to have declined it voluntarily, since it was so rigidly encumbered with taboos, that no one could hold it and lead a normal political life (Taylor CPh 36 [1941] 113-116). It is also quite probable that all or many of the posts of the 12 fiamines minores were vacant at the end of the Republic, simply because they involved too many

COMMENTARY

81

ritual observances and sanctions to be worth-while (Wissowa RK 71, 501.2). 12.15 P. Servilio aut M. Luculli response ac verbo: since the pontifex maximus, Caesar, on 29 September 57 was proconsul in Gaul and Illyricum, it is likely that one of the senior members of the college, Servilius Isauricus (v. 2. 4n.) or M. Lucullus, took his place. M. Terentius Varro Lucullus (Licinius 109) was the brother of the general L. Lucullus. He was an aristocrat, a Sullan, and later one of the piscinarii (Macrob. Sat. 3.15.6). In 79 as an aedile he gave splendid games and, during his consulship in 73, he was partly responsible for a lex Terentia Cassia, which renewed the distribution of Sicilian grain. From 72 to 71, while proconsul of Macedonia and Thrace, he achieved some victories, and the Senate recalled him to assist Crassus in dealing with Spartacus. In or after 70 he served on a commission of nine to organize Pontus (Att. 13.6a; for further references v. Broughton Μ RR 2.129). Along with his brother, he was an opponent of Catiline (Att. 12.21.1). He had become a pontifex before 76 (Taylor AJPh 63 [1942] 394-395), and, when the pontifices had discussed Cicero's case, he delivered their decision to the Senate {Att. 4.2.4). His mother was a Caecilia Metella, and he was the first cousin of Q. Metellus Pius, the previous pontifex maximus, who was the adoptive father of Q. Metellus Scipio (v. 12. 24n.). 12.20 quod tres pontifices statuissent: Cicero, although he does not specify, presumably understood the precise nature and extent of the competence of three pontifices to determine religious decisions, but the legal force of these decisions is obscure. Both Wissowa and Mommsen cite this passage as the sole example of the weight carried by a judgment of three pontifices (RK 514; Str. 2.14). 12.23-29 list of pontifices: the following list of the college is the second of two extant. The older reproduces Metellus Pius' list of guests at a dinner party given probably in 70/69 in honor of the inauguration of L. Lentulus as flamen Martialis (Macrob. Sat. 3.13.11; for the date v. Taylor AJPh 63 [1942] 400.48 and 411). L. R. Taylor compares the two lists and finds that the unsystematic appearance of the lists, with one easily explained exception, really

82

COMMENTARY

conceals a listing in the order of seniority, based on entry into the college {op. cit. 385-412; cf. Marquardt 243.1). The list is imposing for the distinction of its members. Eight pontifices (Lentulus Spinther, Servilius, Lucullus, Metellus Creticus, Glabrio, Messala, Curio, and the absent Caesar )were consulars, and Scipio and Lepidus were to become consuls in 52 and 46 respectively. There is however, a cleavage in the membership; for in 63 the lex Labiena restored the pontifical elections to the people, whereas the new priests had since Sulla's time been co-opted by the college (Dio 37.37.1). From this time onward all the new members (from Lepidus through Sex. Caesar in the list; the newest member Pinarius Natta was absent from the meeting) were all adherents of one or another of the triumvirs, at least at the time of their election. The result was the complete disappearance of the traditional harmony of the college, which Julius Caesar may already have put to considerable strain (Taylor AJPh 63 [1942] 403-404, 408-411). But there was no change at all in the caste of the new members; they were all nobiles with the exception of the elderly consular, Curio. Finally there is an impressive nexus of interfamily relations, particularly, but not exclusively, in the pre-63 section of the college. There were, for example, in the college of 57 four members who, through their father or mother, belonged to the Caecilii Metelli, a fifth was an adopted Caecilius Metellus, and a sixth may have been the husband of a Caecilia Metella {op. cit. 402; for the identity of M. Crassus v. 12.27 note on M. Crassus). 12.23 P. Lentulus: P. Cornelius Lentulus Spinther (238) was curule aedile in 63, the year of Cicero's consulship. He helped Cicero against the Catilinarians {Red. Pop. 15; Sail. Cat. 47.4) and gave unusually extravagant games {Off. 2.57), whose splendor he repeated in the ludi Apollinares of his praetorship in 60. In the following period he was indebted to Caesar for his entrance into the pontifical college, his propraetorship in Spain, and for assistance in his campaign for the consulship (Caes. BC 1.22.3-4). As consul in 57 with Q. Metellus Nepos, he worked persistently for Cicero's recall (v. introduction 16-18). From 56 to 54 he was proconsul of Cilicia and in 51 he received a triumph {Att. 5.21.4). During the

COMMENTARY

83

Civil War he fought on the Pompeian side and was put to death by Caesar during the war (De Vir. III. 78.9; cf. Fam. 9.18.2). Lentulus is not, as the other members of the college, listed in the order of seniority. Cicero mentions him first both because he was consul at the time of the meeting and because of his out standing efforts on Cicero's behalf (Taylor AJPh 63 [1942] 391). He was undoubtedly elected to the college after the lex Labiena had been passed, probably between 62 and 59 (ibid.). 12.24 Q. Metellus: Q. Caecilius Metellus Creticus (87) was the cousin of P. Servilius Isauricus and the father in-law of M. Crassus, the son of the triumvir. He was praetor in 74, consul in 69, and from 68 to 65 proconsul in Crete and Greece. There he won extensive victories over the pirates, but his opposition to Pompey, who was then the commander-in-chief with equal imperium in his territory, was the cause of a bitter hostility between the two (Dio. 36.17-19). Consequently Metellus was kept waiting for his triumph until 62 (Veil. Pat. 2.34.2; cf. Pis. 58). He continued his opposition to Pompey, but probably died before the Civil War had compelled him to choose a side. 12.24 M\ Glabrio: M'. Acilius Glabrio (38) was the grandson of a Mucius Scaevola and married to the daughter of M. Aemilius Scaurus, the princeps senatus, and therefore brother-in-law of his fellow pontifex, M. Scaurus (12.26-27n.). His first notable public appearance was as praetor over the quaestio de repetundis in Cicero's prosecution of Verres in 70. In 67 he was consul and helped to pass a law de ambitu. His proconsulship in 66 in Bithynia and Pontus was unsuccessful and he was soon superseded by Pompey under the Manilian Law. In 63 he spoke against the Catilinarians (Ait. 12.21.1). 12.24 M. Messalla: M. Valerius Messalla Niger (76) was a patrician, a conservative, and a Sullan. He was consul in 61 and at the Bona Dea trial he tried to restrict the lenient measures of his colleague M. Pupius Piso (Att. 1.13.3 and 1.14.5-6). In 55 he was censor with P. Servilius Isauricus, but did not complete the lustrum. He was interrex in 55, 53, and 52. On the basis of his elogium, which is extant, it can be inferred that he must have entered the college between 79 and 76 (Dessau 1.46; CIL 6.3826; Taylor AJPh 63 [1942] 394-395).

84

COMMENTARY

12.24-25 L. Lentulus, flamen Martialis: L. Cornelius Lentulus Niger (234) was the flamen in honor of whose inauguration the pontifical banquet of 70/69 was given (Macrob. Sat. 3.13.11). In 61 he, with Lentulus Marcellinus, supported the prosecution of Clodius de incesto by Lentulus Crus. Since he tried to obtain the consulship for 58, he must have been praetor by 61. Vettius accused him among others of being in a plot against Pompey (Vat. 25, Att. 2.24.2). In 56 he was a iudex in the trial of Sestius (Vat. 25) and within that year he died (Att. 4.6.1-2). As flamen Martialis, he was one of the flamines maiores, a patrician priesthood (Tac. Ann. 4.16; Festus 137 Lindsay; for further references v. Samter RE 6.2484-2492). The flamen Martialis was appointed by the pontifex maximus and initiated by an augur (Livy 27.8.4-5). With his colleagues he was present at the Tigillum Sororium and he probably officiated at the offering of the October horse on the 15th of that month, although Festus does not mention him in his description of this rite (Festus 190 Lindsay; Wissowa RK 144-145; Samter RE 6.2491; cf. Dio 43.24.4). He was less restricted by his priesthood than the flamen Dialis and, as Lentulus' career shows, could pursue the ordinary cursus honorum, although he too was probably, or had been until recently, forbidden to leave the city (Wissowa RK 507; Samter RE 6.2490). 12.25 P. Galba: P. Sulpicius Galba (55) was politically insignificant. He held the office of curule aedile and praetor probably in 69 and 65 and tried unsuccessfully to obtain the consulship for 63 (Att. 1.1.1, Mur. 17; QCic. Comment. Pet. 7). He probably became a pontifex between 73 and 69 (Taylor AJPh 63 [1942] 395). 12.25 Q. Metellus Scipio: Q. Caecilius Metellus Pius Scipio Nasica (99), through his adoption by Q. Metellus Pius, related two prominent and distinguished families (Brut. 211-213; cf. Schol. Bob. 137 Stangl). After he had been elected tribune for 59, he was accused de ambitu by Favonius, and Cicero defended him (Att. 2.1.9). In 57, perhaps as curule aedile, he gave gladiatorial games in honor of his adoptive father (Sest. 124; Schol. Bob. 137 Stangl). Amid the political confusion of 53, he sought the consulship for 52, but he became involved in a prosecution for ambitus, from which his father-in-law, Pompey, rescued him (Val. Max.

COMMENTARY

85

9.5.3; Plut. Pomp. 55; Dio 40.51.3). He then achieved the consulship as Pompey's colleague for the last five months of 52 (Broughton MRR 2.234-235). During his proconsulship he served the Pompeian cause: in Syria from 49 to 48 he gathered arms and supplies and in Africa from 48 to 46 he was the commander-in-chief. He fought at Pharsalus and was defeated at Thapsus, after which he committed suicide. He was born a patrician, but entered the pontificate as a plebeian. Since he was adopted posthumously by the will of Metellus Pius, the previous pontifex maximus, who died in 64/63, he could not have become a pontifex until after that date (Taylor AJPh 63 [1942] 395). He was probably co-opted into his adoptive father's vacant place shortly thereafter, before the lex Labiena went into effect (op. cit. 398). 12.26 C. Fannius: C. Fannius (9), an ardent conservative, was probably the last pontifex to be co-opted (op. cit. 398). An accuser of Clodius in 61, he was himself named by Vettius as an accomplice in a plot against Pompey in 59, the year in which he was tribune (Att. 2.24.3). Possibly he obtained the praetorship in 54 or 50; he became propraetor, first of Sicily and then of Asia, from 49 to 48. In the Civil War he was a Pompeian and he presumably died at Pharsalus or soon afterward (Att. 11.6.6). If, however, this is not the case and he survived, he may possibly be identical with the C. Fannius who served on the delegation to Sex. Pompey in 43 (Phil. 13.13; Münzer RE 6.1992). 12.26 M. Lepidus: M. Aemilius Lepidus (73) was born about 89 and lived until 13/12. The principal events of his career come after the De Haruspicum Responso. He became pontifex not long after 63 (Taylor AJPh 63 [1942] 392). In 52 he was interrex and from 48 to 47 proconsul of Spain. In 46 he was consul and from 46 to 44 Caesar's magister equitum. In 44 he succeeded Caesar as pontifex maximus. From 44 to 43 he was proconsul in Gallia Narbonensis and Nearer Spain, and in the autumn of the latter year he joined Antony and Octavian at Bononia (App. BC 4.2; Dio 46.54-55). In 42 he was again consul and, a member of the second triumvirate, he was to hold Rome, while his partners attacked Brutus and Cassius. After Philippi he obtained Africa

86

COMMENTARY

which he held from 40 to 36, when he was compelled to retire to private life, from which he did not emerge, although Augustus allowed him to remain pontifex maximus until his death. 12.26 L. Claudius rex sacrorum: it is uncertain whether the praenomen Lucius is correct. Suetonius (Tib. 1) says that the patrician Claudii avoided the name Lucius, but a L. Claudius appears in the Consilium of the consuls of 73 and as praetor in 174 (Taylor VDRR 203, AJPh 63 [1942] 398.40; Broughton ΜRR 2.187; Münzer RE 3.2669-2670). In any case Claudius (21) probably became rex sacrorum about 60, apparently before he had held any political position, which, as rex, he could no longer obtain (for a discussion of the rex v. Rosenberg RE2 1.721-726). For this reason the office was unpopular in the Republic (Livy 40.42.8; Wissowa RK 71), although it was the highest in the ordo sacerdotum (Festus 198 Lindsay) and endowed with many of the functions of the king (Livy 2.2.1; Festus 422 Lindsay). According to Varro (Ling. 6.13, 28) and Macrobius (Sat. 1.15.9-13) the rex originally gave the people information about the calendar, and regularly sacrificed on the Kalends and the Nones (Wissowa RK 103-104; Rosenberg RE2 1.725). His wife, the regina sacrorum, was his official partner and in some way joined in the sacrifices on the Kalends (Macrob. Sat. 1.15.19; Wissowa RK 103; Rosenberg RE2 1.474; cf. Festus 101.6 Lindsay). He was associated with the cult of Janus, to whom the sacrifices on the Kalends were offered (Wissowa RK 103; Fowler 282, 288, 335). Two days, March and May 24, were set aside for him in the calendar. On February 24 at the festival of the regifugium, which was closely related in procedure to the above two days, he conducted the sacrifice in the Forum after which he immediately fled from the scene as part of the ritual (Plut. Quaest. Rom. 63; Wissowa RK 436.5; Rosenberg RE2 1.469-472, 723-725). 12.26-27 M. Scaurus: M. Aemilius Scaurus (141) was the son of the princeps senatus of the same name. His blood and marriage relations are an interesting commentary on Roman political life. His mother was a Caecilia Metella, who became the wife of Sulla. Scaurus was then the stepson of Sulla and half-brother to his twin children, Faustus and Fausta, the wife of Milo. His sister, Aemilia,

COMMENTARY

87

was first the wife of Glabrio, the pontifex, and then Pompey's second wife until her death. He was Pompey's quaestor in the Third Mithridatic War and returned to Rome in 61. Shortly thereafter he married Mucia, the daughter of Q. Mucius Scaevola, who had been Pompey's third wife until she was divorced in December 62 because of an affair with Caesar. She was herself the daughter of a Metella and a first cousin to the consul of 57, Metellus Nepos (v. infra 13. 13n.). He was probably elected pontifex in 60 (Taylor AJPh 63 [1942] 399) and in 58 as curule aedile he gave games of such extravagance that he ruined his fortune. While praetor in 56, he presided over the quaestio de vi which handled the case of P. Sestius (Sest. 101, 116). The following year he was propraetor in Sardinia, where he set about recouping his fortunes. In 54 he began to canvass for the consulship, but in July he first defended C. Cato, then was himself accused, de repetundis (Att. 4.15.9,4.16.6). The defense was splendid and impressive. Scaurus himself and six advocates spoke; among the latter were Cicero, whose speech is partially preserved, P. Clodius, Messala Niger, the pontifex, and Hortensius (Ascon. 20 Clark). He was acquitted {Att. 4.17.4, QF 3.1.11), but he was next charged with ambitus in connection with the election scandal of 54 (QF 3.2.3, Att. 4.17.5), from which, perhaps through Pompey's ill will, he did not escape, and by 52 he was in exile. His life thereafter is obscure. It is difficult to assess his relations with Pompey. He was his quaestor in the East and was trusted with an important position (Joseph. AJ 14.79). He was also probably elected to the pontificate as a follower of Pompey. He was ostensibly helped by Pompey's favor at his first trial (Att. 4.15.7; Ascon. 19 Clark), but this was undoubtedly a pretense for form's sake, inasmuch as, according to Asconius, Pompey had already been somewhat angry with Scaurus, ever since he cheerfully married Pompey's divorced wife (Ascon. 19-20 Clark). At any rate, in his second trial Scaurus was deserted by Pompey, who even contributed to his condemnation (QF 3.8.4; App. BC 2.24; for a recent discussion of his career v. Henderson CJ 53 [1957-1958] 194-206). 12.27 M. Crassus: this is either M. Licinius Crassus Dives (68) or more probably his son of the same name (56; Taylor AJPh 63

88

COMMENTARY

[1942] 393-394, PP 215). The former began his career with military experience, first under his father, then fighting for Sulla. Quite early he began accumulating that vast wealth in real estate and silver mines which soon became proverbial {Off. 1.25, Att. 1.4.3, Div. 2.22). After the consuls had been defeated in 72, he received a proconsular command against Spartacus (v. 26. 24 note on Spartad), and held it until the end of the uprising in 71. In 70 he was consul with Pompey; later, when Pompey was in the East, Crassus supposedly tried to secure his own position against Pompey's return by seeking the goodwill of ex-Catilinarians (Sail. Cat. 17.7), gaining control in Egypt, and proposing, as censor in 65, enfranchisement of the Transalpine Gauls. In 63 or earlier he won over the heavily indebted Caesar, who some time thereafter organized the coalition known as the first triumvirate (Dio 37.56). According to Cicero, he secured the acquittal of Clodius, when he bribed the jurors at his trial (v. introduction 12). Crassus' feeling for Pompey did not improve, in spite of their second consulship together in 55, but he was consoled by the lexTrebonia, which gave him a five-year command in Syria with extraordinary power. He was killed in a battle with the Parthians at Carrhae in 53. His elder son, Marcus, was quaestor for Caesar in Gaul in 54 and proquaestor in 53 (Caes. BG 5.24.3, 5.46.1, 5.47.1,6.6.1). During the Civil War he was, of course, on the Caesarian side, although he probably died 49/48, when his command of Cisalpine Gaul was transferred to M. Calidius (App. 5C2.41; for the transfer v. Jerome Chr. ad ann. 57, 154 Helm). He was the husband of Caecilia Metella, whose tomb stands on the Via Appia, and the son-in-law of Metellus Creticus, the pontifex. He is probably identical with the son of Crassus, who, along with Gabinius and Caelius, was considered one of the best dancers in Rome (Macrob. Sat. 3.14.15; Münzer RE 13.268). 12.27 C. Curio: C. Scribonius Curio (10) came from an established senatorial family, but was its first member to reach the consulship. He was born about 125, and as a young man took part in the fight against Saturninus (Rab. Perd. 21). In 90 he was tribune and a few years later was with Sulla in Athens. In 80 he was praetor and in 76 consul, when he resisted the restoration of tribunician

COMMENTARY

89

powers. In 63 he spoke against the Catilinarians and highly praised Cicero's consulship (Att. 12.21.1, 1.16.13). In 61, the year in which he may have become censor, he defended Clodius in the Senate and also at his trial (Ait. 1.14.5, 1.16.10; Schol. Bob. 85-86, 89 Stangl). In connection with this affair he quarreled with Cicero. He wrote some kind of a pamphlet against Cicero, who was stung to a reply, but did not publish it. Unfortunately someone else did when Cicero was in exile (Att. 3.12.2), but, since they had already been reconciled, especially by their mutual distaste for the triumvirate, no harm was done (Att. 2.7.3, 3.15.3). In 55 Vettius tried to implicate his son in a plot against Pompey (Vat. 24), whereupon the father took the matter to Pompey and revealed it (Att. 2.24.2-3). He became a bitter enemy of Caesar, against whom he published an insulting dialogue in 55 (Brut. 218-219; Suet. Iul. 49.1, 50.1). He died in 53 (Fam. 2.2). His election to the priesthood probably occurred in 61 or 60, shortly after the Bona Dea affair and before his pronounced hostility to Caesar (Taylor AJPh 63 [1942] 399). 12.27-28 Sex. Caesar, flamen Quirinalis: this man is either the son (152) or grandson (153) of the consul of 61, who was Caesar's uncle. Nothing is known about the son, but the grandson, Sex. Iulius Caesar, fought for Caesar in Spain in 49 (Caes. BC 2.207). He was probably quaestor in 48 (Broughton MRR 2.274, 285.5), and in 47 he was a promagistrate in command of a legion in Syria, where he was killed in the following year (App. BC 3.77; Dio 47.26.3-7). L. R. Taylor believes that this man was the flamen, apparently because of his later appearance as a Caesarian in the Civil War (AJPh 63 [1942] 397). Münzer, however, thinks that his father was the flamen, and suspects that some of the ritualistic restrictions of the flamen Dialis would have devolved upon the flamen Quirinalis, which would then explain the absolute obscurity of the elder Sextus (RE 10.477; for the lack of a flamen Dialis v. 11. 12-13n.). He also suggests that it may have been a family tradition for a member of the Julian gens to be one of the flamines maiores, inasmuch as Julius Caesar was destined to become the flamen Dialis (cf. Koch Religio 39). At any rate, the flamen Quirinalis, whatever his current status may have been, was ordinarily

90

COMMENTARY

no more encumbered by religious sanctions than the flamen Martialis (v. 12. 24-25 note on L. Lentulus, flamen Martialis). His normal duties included a sacrifice at the tomb of Acca Larentia on December 23 and to Robigus on the Robigalia on April 25; he also seems to have been closely connected with the Vestals (Samter RE 6.2491; Fowler 88-91, 275-276, 324). L. Pinarius Natta (not in text): L. Pinarius Natta (19) was one of the two members of the college absent from the meeting about Cicero's house (for Julius Caesar's absence v. 12. 15n.). He was a member of an ancient patrician family, whose origins went back to the days of Evander, but which had long since fallen into obscurity and had not held a consulship since the fifth century or a praetorship since 181. In the early Republic they were associated with the gentilician cult of Hercules and they may have continued to be active in religious positions after they had disappeared from public life. This man was the half-brother of Clodius' wife Fulvia; he was elected pontifex in 58, presumably through Clodius' influence, and was persuaded to take part in Clodius' dedication of Cicero's house (Dom. 118, 139; Taylor AJPh 63 [1942] 396-397). Accordingly he had an excellent reason for staying away from the meeting of the pontifical college on 29 September 57. As Cicero indicates he was the most recently elected pontifex, and, as such, he would have been at the end of the list of the pontifices maiores. He is probably identical with the Natta who died in 56 (Att. 4.8.3). It is also just possible that this Pinarius is the father of the L. Pinarius, who, as grandnephew of Julius Caesar, shared the second place in his will (Taylor AJPh 63 [1942] 397). 12.28-29 pontifices minores·, the three pontifices minores, who were always plebeians, were originally subordinates of the pontifices and called scribae (Livy 22.57.3), but later gained in prestige. Two of the ones named here, Q. Cornelius and P. Albinovanus, were present at the dinner party mentioned by Macrobius, and their names are given in the same order there as in Cicero (Macrob. Sat. 3.13.11). It appears then that the three pontifices minores were also listed by seniority (Taylor AJPh 63 [1942] 395). Q. Cornelius (51) may be the same as the person to whom Cicero refers in his letters in 62 and 54 (Fam. 5.6.1, 7.8.2, 7.17.3).

COMMENTARY

91

P. Albinovanus (3; cf. 1 and 2) is unknown except for this reference. He may be the same man or related to the man who was a leader in the Marian party (App. BC 1.60); he could also be identical with, or the father of, the Albinovanus who accused P. Sestius de W, an accusation which Vatinius thought collusive (Vat. 3, 41; Pocock 134-145). Q. Terentius Culleo (44) was a younger man than his two colleagues and joined the college some time after the banquet of Metellus Pius. As tribune in 58, he tried actively to help Cicero's cause. In 43 he served under Lepidus in Narbonese Gaul and was entrusted with guarding the Maritime Alps, through which he allowed Antony to pass (App. BC 3.83). Lepidus professed to be annoyed (Fam. 10.34.2), but as he was about to join Antony himself, he probably bore Culleo no ill will. 12.29 duobus locis dicta: cf. Dom. 3 "hos talis viros ... et aliud de summa religione hoc tempore sensuros ac me absente senserint arbitrere?" and Nisbet ad loc. 69. As Nisbet indicates, these passages apparently say that the case was heard twice, once before Cicero's return, and then again in the hearing of September 29. But, since nothing is known of any prior meeting of the college of the pontifices, Ferratius and others have suggested that the earlier discussion was in the Senate (Ferratius apud Wolf 325-326). The occasion would probably have been the meeting of the Senate in the curia in July (introduction 18), when the Senate decreed that, if no law were passed within five days, Cicero should return with all rights restored. Although this would not have been a meeting of the pontifical college, all the pontifices who were senators would have been present (v. 13. 14n.), and the leading members of the college may have expressed weighty opinions about the validity of Clodius' dedication. It seems to me, however, possible, or even likely, that these two passages do not refer to the same two occasions, though, of course, they both refer to the one known meeting of the pontifical college. It also seems quite clear that there was only one formal meeting of the college. In the passage from De Domo Cicero says that, of course, the pontifices will still hold the same opinion that they had formerly expressed. He is probably only referring to the

92

COMMENTARY

sententiae of the senatorial pontifices in the meeting of the Senate mentioned above. This is further indicated by the preceding lines of the De Domo passage, which stress the political importance and responsibility of the pontifices rather than their official position as a college. Nor does the passage from De Haruspicum Responso call for two pontifical meetings. Cicero's case was pleaded in two places: first before the college on September 29, after which the pontifices evidently gave their decision; then on the following day in the Senate the issues were clarified, a number of speeches were made in Cicero's favor, and a senatus consultum was formulated (Att. 4.2.4). Each senator, when asked for his view, "multa secundum causam nostram disputavit", and this could very easily have been the second occasion referred to by locis duobus dicta. 13.3-4 de capite ... virginum Vestalium: the failure of a Vestal to keep the vow of chastity was the greatest possible religious scandal, involving, as it did, the entire community. The pontifex maximus could try a suspected Vestal and, if she was found guilty, have her solemnly entombed alive and her lover scourged to death. Evidently the pontifex maximus himself had the power of judgment in such cases, but he exercised it in conjunction with the entire college, and it shared the responsibility with him (Mommsen Str. 2.22, 2.55.2; Ascon. 45-46 Clark; cf. Livy 4.44.11, 8.15.7). Although it is clear that he could punish the guilty, there is no certainty whatsoever why or in what capacity he possessed this jurisdiction. It may have been either a direct survival of the kingly prerogative or a domestic authority, the patria potestas, under which the Vestals would come as the king's symbolic daughters or, taken collectively, as his wife (for a recent discussion of this problem v. Koch RE2 8.1740-1752; again in Religio 1-5 Koch vigorously rejects the idea that the Vestals are the wife of the pontifex maximus and regards his power as the kingly prerogative rather than patria potestas·, for the other views v. Wissowa RK 158.7, 508, 509.5; Klingmüller RE 9.1246-1247; Mommsen Strafr. 18; Latte 110.2; Bleicken Hermes 85 [1957] 360). 13.6 interpretatio ilia pontificum: the legal relation between a civil judge and a pontifex, or the pontifex maximus, is uncertain. That it is more than honorific appears from the fact that some

COMMENTARY

93

pontifices also commanded a thorough knowledge of civil law {Leg. 2.47, De Or. 3.134), and P. Mucius Scaevola even regarded this knowledge as a prerequisite of a good pontifex. The association probably stems from the early co-operation of the pontifical college, which was patterned after a consilium (v. 11. 12-13n.), with the judges, although the two were never equivalent in power (Greenidge LPCT 26). If the ius sacrum was part of the ius publicum, though separately administered (op. cit. 373), the pontifices would be restricted to their own field in which they presumably held a competence analogous to that of a civil court in civil law, and one should remember that the ius sacrum extended beyond religious formula to very concrete matters such as legacies. This seems to be the relation indicated by Lucullus, when he explained in the Senate the decision of the pontifical college on Cicero's house (Att. 4.2.4): "religionis iudices pontifices fuisse, legis esse senatum." This is the view adopted by Mommsen {Sir. 2.44-47) and is supported by Festus' definition of the pontifex maximus (113 Lindsay), but it falls considerably short of the latter's extended definition of the pontifex maximus as "iudex atque arbiter ... rerum divinarum humanarumque (200 Lindsay)"; for a view which emphasizes the restriction of the pontifices to sacred matters v. Bleicken Hermes 85 (1957) 446-480. 13.7-8 ab uno pontifice: Mommsen questions the validity, beyond that conferred by prestige, of a decision of a single pontifex, for the college generally acted as a body, with apparently a threemember minimum attendance requirement {Sir. 2.46; v. 12. 20n.). If this assertion of Cicero refers to real behavior on the part of the pontifices, and not to merely theoretical prerogatives, then the "religionis explanatio" would be the interpretations given by single priests to private citizens (Mommsen op. cit. 246 doubts that private interpretations were ever given). The pontifices, however, functioned individually in consecration ceremonies, where they were not specifically required (Wissowa RE 4.898-899; v. 14.21 note on sacer tion esse). 13.8-9 in iudicio capitis: v. 13. 3-4n. The pontifex maximus, as noted above, possessed the power to try a Vestal, but he was expected to consult the college in such important cases (Mommsen

94

COMMENTARY

Str. 2.55.2). He could also levy fines on the members of the college whom he had appointed, i.e. the flamines and the rex sacrorum, as well as inflict lesser punishment on the Vestals (op. cit. 2.57-59; Wissowa RK 510-511). A fragmentary account in Festus seems to indicate that he could even fine an augur for refusal to appear for an official ceremony (462 Lindsay; restored by Mommsen Str. 2.35.1). These fines against members of the college or augurs were, however, subject to provocatio. In all these lesser cases it is uncertain to what extent the pontifex maximus co-operated with the other members of the college. 13.11-13 postero die ... statuit: the senatus consultum of October 2 CAtt. 4.2.4-5; introduction 19). 13.13 P. Lentulo et Q. Metello consulibus: P. Cornelius Lentulus Spinther and Q. Caecilius Metellus Nepos (96), the consuls of 57. Metellus began his known career as a legate of Pompey in the East from 67 to 63. He arrived in Rome to stand for the tribunate through which he expected to benefit Pompey (Plut. Cat. Min. 20.2). He was elected for 62, but among his colleagues was M. Cato, who opposed his policies (Mur. 81; Plut. op. cit. 20.1-21.2). Among the first acts of his tribunate was his criticism of Cicero's procedure against the Catilinarians (Fam. 5.2.6, Cat. 4.10 and Schol. Gron. 289 Stangl; Plut. Cie. 23.1). When the tribune prevented him from addressing the people at the end of his term of office {Fam. 5.2.7; Plut. Cie. 23), Cicero retaliated with a Metellana oratio {Att. 1.13.5). Metellus next introduced a bill to bring Pompey back to Rome to take charge of the situation and to restore order. Cato resisted furiously, and, when in the ensuing violence martial law was declared, Metellus fled to Pompey (Plut. Cat. Min. 26-29; Dio 37.42-44). Although no more is heard about it, his quarrel with Cicero probably continued right up to the latter's exile. Accordingly the prospect of Metellus as consul did not cheer Cicero (Att. 3.12.1). Yet for some reason or other his feelings toward Cicero had already been moderated when he entered office (Sest. 72, 87), and eventually he was persuaded to help, or not to hinder, in the matter of Cicero's recall (Red. Sen. 9, Red. Pop. 15, Dom. 70; v. introduction 16-18). It is very difficult to know Metellus' exact position during these years. The Metelli, or at

COMMENTARY

95

least the brother of Nepos, Metellus Celer (v. 45. 26 note on frater Metellus), had been angry with Pompey, because he had divorced their cousin, Mucia (Dio 37.44.3; v. 12. 26-27 note on M. Scaurus); nonetheless, Nepos' kindness to Cicero may even have been motivated by respect for Pompey, who had helped him to win the consulship (Syme RR 43). On the other hand, he was involved in a battle in the Forum against the unfortunate Sestius in January or February 56 [Sest. 79; cf. Fam. 5.4.2), and even after Cicero's return he patronized Clodius' efforts to secure the aedileship and to escape prosecution by Milo (Att. 4.3.3-4; Dio 39.7.439.8.1). In 56, however, while he was proconsul of Nearer Spain, he and Clodius came to an open break, and Clodius attacked him in several contiones, one of which may have been that of section 8. At this point we find a very amiable letter from Metellus to Cicero, which treats Clodius as a common enemy (Fam. 5.3). Metellus returned to Rome in 54 and probably died not long after. Metellus was a first cousin to Clodius, and the parents of both were cousins of Servilius. Servilius used this relationship, in an eloquent speech in the Senate, to compel Metellus to take an active part in proposing the bill for Cicero's recall (v. introduction 18 and 2. 7n.). Cicero was especially grateful for Metellus' goodwill, and always mentions him kindly in these speeches (cf. his cautious and courteous letter to Metellus from exile, Fam. 5.4). 13.14 qui erant huius ordinis: this takes note of the fact that not all the pontifices were senators; cf. Att. 4.2.4 "adhibentur omnes pontifices qui erant senatores" (v. Nisbet Dom. 65). It is hardly an inaccuracy of Cicero's that one senator, the pontifex maximus, was absent in Gaul, since this was so obvious that he was just not taken into account. The other absentee from the pontifical meeting, Pinarius, was not a senator, and so would not have been at this meeting anyway. Of the remaining 13 pontifices maiores, 2 were probably not senators, M. Lepidus and M. Crassus the Younger (if he was the son of the triumvir and not the triumvir himself; v. 12. 27n.), and they both became senators shortly thereafter. Of the flamines, rex, and pontifices minores, only L. Lentulus, the flamen Martialis, and Q. Terentius were at this time senators. 13.15 alii qui... antecedebant: according to Att. 4.2.4, Lentulus

96

COMMENTARy

Marcellinus, the consul designate, and Lucullus, as representative of the college, spoke, and after them suo quisque loco. Even if we make allowances for Cicero's pride and exaggeration, it must have been a considerable personal triumph that so many eminent senators both expressed their opinions on his behalf and witnessed the senatus consul tum. 13.16-17 omnes idem scribendo adessenf. the presiding magistrate, who had proposed a resolution in the Senate, appointed at least two, and usually more, senators to write and to witness the official text of a senatus consultum after it had been passed (Mommsen Str. 3. 1004-1005). These were, of course, generally the senators who had suggested the bill or were interested in it. 14.21 sacer non esse: the pontifices decreed (Att. 4.2.3) "si, neque populi iussu neque plebis scitu is qui se dedicasse diceret nominatim ei rei praefectus esset neque populi iussu aut plebis scitu id facere iussus esset, videri posse sine religione earn partem areae M. Tullio Ciceroni [mihi in the letter] restitui". A person or thing (temple, altar, statue, etc.) is sacer when, by virtue of a competent dedication and consecration, he or it has been transferred from the realm of ius humanum into that of ius divinum (Wissowa RE 4.896-902). According to the lex Papiria, a magistrate who lacked imperium required special authorization by a law or a plebiscite to perform this ceremony {Dom. 127; Nisbet Dom. 209-210). Since Clodius, a tribune, had not received any such authorization, the pontifical decree was clearly directed against him on just these grounds (v. introduction 19; cf. section 33). One wonders that Clodius was not more punctilious in his maneuver; for, although the pontifices were sympathetic to Cicero, their ruling was based on a legal flaw, not on the general depravity and worthlessness of Clodius' tribunate. It would seem easy for Clodius to have had a tribunician law passed or to have had Gabinius perform the ceremony. That he did neither is strong support for Nisbet's view that the dedication was an afterthought. By the time that Clodius had decided on this course of action, Gabinius was probably already alienated, and popular opinion was such that he would have to be more cautious. It is also possible that Clodius was fully aware of . his failure to conform with the lex

COMMENTARY

97

Papiria, but counted on his dedication as a source of future trouble for Cicero. In a way both were rewarded; Cicero was put to no end of difficulty and torment, but he received in return some glorious opportunities to expound his case. 14.21 verum referte: when the Senate decided to acknowledge a prodigy, it could undertake the expiation (procuratio) itself or it could delegate the decision to any one of three groups: the pontifices, the haruspices, or the xv viri (R. Bloch RID A 2 [1949] 120-131; Wülker 31-37). When the consulting body had given its decision, the Senate met to implement it and to approve the methods of dealing with the prodigy (Bloch ibid.·, Wülker 38-39). This would be the relatio referred to here and in section 11, which had been set, but had not yet taken place at the time of this speech (Stein 42; D.-G. 2.276). Ordinarily this would be a mere formality; the proper sacrifices or dedications would be authorized by the Senate and conducted generally by the consuls (cf. section 63). Now, however, because of the vagueness and seriousness of the warning, which might require more wordly action that the specified postiliones, and because of Clodius' inflammatory contio, Cicero addresses himself to the possibility of renewed discussion and interpretation of the prodigy, or rather of the haruspices' interpretation of it. It is not quite clear to what extent the possibilities here visualized by Cicero correspond to the normal procedure outlined above. The language certainly suggests further interpretation, not just the authorization which we should expect, so apparently the whole process has been set back a stage, as it were. 14.22-26 vobis ... senatus ipse ... pontifices: the matter (1) could be given to the consuls for their special investigation, or (2) the Senate would discuss it and pass a senatus consultum, or (3) it would go to the pontifices. "Reicietur", because they have in effect already treated the same thing on 29 September 57, since Cicero is now considering the matter as it is affected by Clodius' attack on his house. The same applies to the Senate and the consuls; no matter how it is handled, they will merely be reviewing decisions which they had already made (introduction 18-19; cf. section 11 "iudiciis omnibus"). Cicero's speech may even have succeeded in ending further investigation and bringing the affair

98

COMMENTARY

back into its normal course, i.e. authorization by the Senate of the recommended procuratio. 14.24-25 mo illo solo antistite sacrorum: introduction 19; this was the vote on October 1 for the senatus consultum which was passed on the next day (Att. 4.2.4 "cum fieret senatus consultum in sententiam Marcellini omnibus praeter unum adsentientibus"). "Antistite sacrorum", "overseer of the sacred rites", is an allusion to the Bona Dea affair (v. 9. 13n.). Antistes is more commonly used for priests of foreign rites; when it is used for Roman priests, it often has a special or, as here, an unsavory connotation (Wissowa RK 483). 14.27-28 sacra religionesque et privates et publicas: v. 11. 12-13n. 14.1 optimo iure: the anaphora and asyndeton in the following list emphasize Cicero's complete and perfect title to his property (cf. 2. 16-17n. and 3. 12n.). "lure optimo" is the larger category; the list thereafter gives the various ways by which a Roman could acquire property "iure optimo", i.e. in Roman law allodially. The private means of getting possession is buttressed in this case by public and divine ones also. 14.1 iure privato: "the law which governs relations among individuals and primarily concerns the benefit of private persons" (Berger 532). 14.1 iure hereditaria: "by virtue of universal succession as heir". Ius hereditarium concerns "the rights of an heir as opposed to those of a legatee" (Berger 529). 14.2 iure auctoritatis: apparently has no technical force whatsoever, but indicates the rights sanctioned by long custom, by the mos maiorum. 14.2 iure mancipii mancipium is part of the earliest juristic terminology, but its original meaning is obscure. At any rate, it expressed the idea of power over persons or things. Res mancipi were things the ownership of which was transferred by the act of mancipatio (Berger 573) or by in iure cessio (Berger 496). They included buildings and land on Italian soil, rustic servitudes connected with such land, slaves, and farm animals of draft and burden (Berger 574 and 678). 14.2 iure nexi: nexus is already mentioned in the Twelve Tables,

COMMENTARY

99

but at the end of the Republic it was no longer clearly understood even by jurists. It was probably a bilateral transaction accomplished per aes et libram. By the procedure of nexus a debtor may have assumed an obligation, as in the case of a loan, or he may have sold himself to, or put himself at the disposal of, the creditor as a guarantee for his debt (Berger 595). 14.3-4 publico ...et humano et divino iure: ius publicum is "the law which is concerned with the existence, organization (status) and functioning of the state .... What is in the interest of the state or the people belongs to the field of ius publicum" (Berger 532). Ius publicum comprises both ius humanum and ius divinum. Ius humanum is "a counterpart to ius divinum. It is created by men and protected by sanctions imposed by men. Its field is the government of relations between man and man. The distinction between ius humanum and ius divinum appears in the definition of marriage and in the division of things into res divini et humani iuris" (Berger 529). Ius divinum is the law "created by gods and governing relations of men to gods ... A similar, but not identical, distinction is fas-ius" (Berger 527). 15.5 ex auctoritate senatus: again the senatus consultum of 2 October 56 (Att. 4.2.4-5; cf. section 13). 15.5-6pecuniapublica: cf. Pis. 52 "in ea ipsa domo ... pontifices, consules, patres conscripti conlocaverunt mihique, quod ante me nemini, pecunia publica aedificandam domum censuerunt", and Ascon. ad loc. 13-14 Clark. In September, before the pontifical decision, the Senate had directed the consuls to estimate the damage to Cicero's property or, if the pontifices upheld the validity of the dedication, to pay a compensation for the entire loss of that part of his property {Att. 4.1.7). After the pontifices had given a favorable decision, the consuls made their estimate of the damages to Cicero's various properties some time in early October (Att. 4.2.5); the money was, of course, paid from the State treasury (cf. section 16). 15.6 gladiator is: v. 1. 10η. 15.6-7 tot senati consultis: cf. 8. 3In. The well-known senatus consultum of October 2 and the two mentioned below are the

100

COMMENTARY

only ones known on this subject, but there may have been more. 15.8-9 ut sine vi aedificare mihi liceret: v. Att. 4.2.4 "senatui placere ... auctoritatem ordinis ab omnibus magistratibus defendi, si quae vis esset facta senatum existimaturum eius opera factum esse qui senatus consulto intercessisset". 15.10-11 cum ille ... vastitatem meis sedibus intulisset: on November 3 Clodius drove the construction workers away from Cicero's house, and from this newly won position set fire to the house of Cicero's brother Quintus (Att. 4.3.2). 15.11-12 decrevit senatus: Stein (36) is probably right in assigning this senatus consultum to the meeting of the Senate of November 14, although Cicero does not mention it in his account of the meeting (Att. 4.3.3). This meeting was concerned with Clodius' recent violence and would have been a fitting one for such a decree. 15.12 lege de vi: either the lex Plautia or lex Lutatia, more probably the former. The law against armed violence and related crimes is usually referred to as the lex Plautia or Plotia de vi (e.g. Ascon. 55 Clark; Sail. Cat. 31.4). Yet Cicero in his defense of Caelius certainly implies that the law de vi was a consular law of Catulus, which would then be dated to 78 (Cael. 70). The most reasonable solution is that of Niccolini (252-253), who suggests that the lex Plautia introduced amendments and improvements of the previous law; in this way Cicero could still refer to Catulus as the originator, although the law currently used was the lex Plautia. Niccolini dates the law to 69, but Broughton argues convincingly for 70 (MRR 2.130; but cf. Smith CQ 7 [1957] 82-85, who dates it to 69 for entirely different reasons). There are, however, still other views: Hough believes that the lex Lutatia became void after the particular circumstances with which it was to deal had passed, and that the lex Plautia was passed in 65/64 as a re-enactment of the earlier law (AJPh 51 [1930] 135-147); Cousin thinks that the two laws dealt with different categories of violence, the lex Plautia with vis contra privatos, the lex Lutatia with vis contra rem publicam (RD 22 [1943] 88-94). 15.15 decrevit idem senatus: nothing is known about this decree. "Vobis vero referentibus" clearly indicates Marcellinus and Philip-

COMMENTARY

101

pus and puts it in 56. Stein dates it to September, shortly before his date for the De Haruspicum Responso (42; cf. Dio 39.20.3). If it is to be connected with the haruspicum responsum and Clodius' subsequent activity against Cicero's house, then it could be dated to May shortly before this speech, or even in April, if paulo ante of section 8 can mean several weeks. It could, as Stein thinks, have been an independent decree of a separate meeting, or it may have been included in the senatus consultum of sections 11 and 14, which provided for a future relatio about sacred places on the basis of the response of the haruspices. If it were included in this senatus consultum, it must have preceded Clodius' contio and subsequent attack, since it is only natural to suppose that the Senate scheduled the relatio immediately upon receipt of the haruspices'' report. In this case the decree might have included a warning against any hasty interpretation of the haruspices' response and unauthorized action against Cicero's house. It would be tempting to relate these events to Cicero's letter to Atticus written from Arpinum, probably in mid-April. There he actually requests Atticus to set guards about his house and to warn Milo (Att. 4.7.3), but it is unfortunately rather too early to be consequent upon the haruspices' answer. There remains, however, the difficulty that the Senate meeting in question was very well attended, "frequentissimus", and one wonders how likely this would be in the first half of May or in the latter part of April, inasmuch as crowds of senators were probably out of Rome for one or another reason (cf. Plut. Caes. 21.2). It is also hard to understand why, if this decree were so recent, Cicero did not find more to say about it. It is a less satisfying but more probable answer that we simply have no record of it and that it could have been made any time in January, February, or March. I tentatively suggest that it might have been part of the senatus consultum of February 9, which decreed "ea quae facta essent a.d. vii Id. Febr. contra rem publicam esse facta" {QF2.3.3). This condemned the tumultuous uproar of the previous day's contio, and it is just possible that some stray threats or assertions about Cicero's house were made on this occasion. In this way a passing proviso on this matter might have been inserted into the

102

COMMENTARY

senatus consultum. Cicero's statement would then be a considerable exaggeration, but not an outright lie. 16.19 ex aerario aedificandum: rebuilding Cicero's house at public expense seemed all the more glorious, because the public treasury was suffering from lack of funds (v. section 60 aerarium nullum est and QF, 2.6.1). Again there is a certain elusive honesty in Cicero's claim. Other notable men had been given houses or lots at public expense after some egregious service to the Roman State (e.g. P. Valerius Publicola), but Cicero was the only man whose house was publicly restored, reconstructed, freed from religious claims, etc. Actually his case is somewhat less honorific than that of the others (for a good discussion of this claim v. Ascon. 13-14 Clark; cf. 15.5-6n. and 16.25n.). 16.21 P. Valerio: P. Valerius Publicola (302) is a shadowy figure of the early Republic, but one whose deeds and fame were an accepted part of the Roman tradition by Cicero's time. He was supposed to have been consul suffectus in 509, consul in 508, 507, and 504. He was credited with popular legislation from which he received the cognomen Publicola, and was given at public expense a site on the Velia for his house, but, when he was accused of aiming at regal power, he voluntarily relinquished it and moved to the bottom of the hill (Livy 2.7; Ascon 13 Clark. For further references v. Broughton MMR 1.2; for Cicero's allusions to Publicola v. Rambaud 28). 16.25 quae quidem ego: cf. Dom. 93 "non tam sum existimandus de gestis rebus gloriari quam de obiectis confiteri". Cicero's real feelings about the compensation for damages were somewhat different. He felt that the consuls, who had estimated the damages in conjunction with a selected committee, had, out of jealousy or grudge, deliberately set an utterly unsatisfactory compensation (Att. 4.2.5). Although he complains about this to Lentulus as if he had nothing to do with it (Fam. 1.9.5, 15-16), there is a hint that he considered his dear friend and savior somewhat responsible {QF 2.2.3 "quamquam multa fecit qua re, si fas esset, iure ei suscensere possemus"). Cicero's public attitude about his house and his insistence on the theme of its glorious restoration seems tiresome and inflated,

COMMENTARY

103

but possibly there may be a lurking feeling of sarcasm and an injured sense of disproportion, which makes it quite sincere. If he persists in recounting the affair so fulsomely, it is only because his enemies will not let him have it in peace. It is almost to invite criticism for his conceit, since such criticism lies open to the retort that he himself was not the one who brought the mattei up again in the first place (v. 17.5n.). He also may have hoped, in lingering proudly over the details of the restoration of his house, to get even with those who had maliciously curtailed his compensation. Finally the effect of conceit is mitigated, when he adroitly gives credit not to himself, but to the Senate ("non de meis sed de vestris factis loquor"; cf. Red. Sen. 39 "cum ea mihi sint restituta quae in postestate mea non fuerunt"). 17.5 ad gloriam in refutandis maledictis: cf. Dom. 93 "quis umquam audivit cum ego de me nisi coactus ac necessario dicerem", 95-96 "quod non dicerem nisi coactus, nihil enim umquam de me dixi sublatius adsciscendae laudis causa potius quam criminis depellendi", 99 "qua re dirumpatur licet ista furia atque pestis, audiet haec ex me, quoniam lacessivit", Phil. 14.13 "equidem invitus, sed iniuriae dolor facit me praeter consuetudinem gloriosum", Sest. 31 "ac si in exponendis vulneribus illis de me ipso plura dicere videbor"; cf. also Sest. 4 and 14. This is the consistent and honorable excuse which Cicero gives for his conceit: he was stung to action on each occasion by irresponsible charges and a grudging lack of appreciation. The sincerity of the reply is not necessarily diminished by its frequency, or by the fact that it is something of a rhetorical stand-by. It is significant that Quintilian regards this defensive self-praise as fully justified and indeed necessary (11.1.18; cf. 11.1.22-23. For a brief discussion of Cicero's conceit v. Nisbet Dom. xxviii and StrachanDavidson 192-196; for a comprehensive and sympathetic treatment of the problem, which departs from this passage, v. Allen TAPhA 85 [1954] 121-144). In considering Cicero's boastfulness and his sharp attacks on his enemies, it is well to remember that he himself was the subject of extremely violent attacks, which were partly distorted half-truths and partly outright lies. The violence, audacity, and utter dis-

104

COMMENTARY

regard for decency, which characterize the Sallustian invective and the speech of Fufius Calenus in Dio (46.1-28), are the equal of Cicero's In Pisonem and may give us an indication of what contemporary invective was like. If so, they serve to put Cicero's pronouncements in their proper perspective (v. 42. 12-13n.). The charges against Cicero may be grouped under three headings. First his autocratic actions in 63 and his consequent predominance constituted a regnum, and he had become an intolerable rex (so Clodius, when he drove Cicero into exile, was the restorer of liberty: v. 33. 27 note on quod ereptum ex meretricis sepulcro). Then he, of humble birth and Italian origin, had the effrontery to lay claim to leadership at Rome and to parade all of Rome's great past history as his heritage and himself as its heir. Finally he had been recalled by force and was to be regarded as an exile, not a citizen. Hints at all these charges are made in this exchange of the preceding day (v. 17. 7-8n. and 17.9 note on cuius essem civitatis) 17.7 hesterno die: cf. section 1; for the date v. introduction 22-28.

17.7-8 quem aiebant negare ferri me posse: cf. Dom. 92 "negas esse ferenda quae soleam de me praedicare". This was an extremely common complaint against Cicero. To say that he was insufferable usually suggested, and often led to the allusion, that he had become a veritable rex in Roman politics after the suppression of the Catilinarian conspiracy. Cf. Att. 1.16.10 (Clodius speaking) "'quousque', inquit, 'hunc regem feremus'", Sull. 21 (Torquatus) "hie ait se ille, iudices, regnum meum ferre non posse. Quod tandem, Torquate, regnum? consulatus, credo, mei", 22 "cum Tarquinium et Numam et me tertium peregrinum regem esse dixisti", 23-25, Plane. 75 "atque etiam clamitas, Laterensis: 'quo usque ista dicis?' nam istius verbi 'quo usque?' haec poterat esse invidia: 'datus est tibi ille, condonatus est ille; non facis finem; ferre non possumus'", Fam. 7.24.1 "olim cum regnare existimabimur", Sest. 109 (Clodius) "quem tyrannum atque ereptorem libertatis esse dicebat"; [Sail.] Inv. Cie. 3.6 "quasi vero togatus et non armatus ea quae gloriaris, atque inter te Sullamque dictatorem praeter nomen imperii quicquam interfuerit", 4.7 "Romule Arpinas"; and section 58 "deinde everso senatus, ut ego semper

COMMENTARY

105

dixi, comite, duce, ut ille dicebat". Cf. also Vat. 23 and Mil. 12 (for a discussion of this charge v. Allen TAPhA 75 [1944] 5-7). 17.9 parricida: cf. Dom. 26 "patricida, fratricida, sororicida" and Nisbet ad loc. 91, 57 "ipse iam parricida," 133 "in patriae parricidio"; Sest. I l l "is interfuit epulis et gratulationibus parricidarum". Clodius, as Cicero conscientiously relates, had overthrown and ruined his country, i.e. the traditional form of optimate government, and in so doing he could be considered as a parricide. Consequently "parricida" becomes a strong word for "traitor" (Nisbet Dom. 91). It is probably reading too much into these passages to see an allusion to the fact that Cicero, who had been hailed as pater patriae (Cie. Sest. 121, Pis. 6; Plut. Cie. 23.6), was deprived of his rights and, so to speak, judicially murdered by Clodius. 17.9 cuius essem civitatis: this question has a double meaning. Cicero is an Italian and no real Roman citizen, as well as a novus homo politically, and he is also by virtue of Clodius' law of 58 an exile, from which his enemies would say he was recalled only by violence and party faction (v. 17. 5n.). For the slurs on Cicero's origin, both his municipal origin and his father's low station, v. Att. 1.16.10 (Clodius speaking) "'Quid' inquit 'homini Arpinati cum aquis calidis'", Sull. 21-25; [Sail.] Inv. Cie. 1.1 "quasi unus reliquus e familia viri clarissimi, Scipionis Africani, ac non reperticius, accitus ac paulo ante insitus huic urbi civis", 3.4 homo novus Arpinas, 4.7 Romule Arpinas; Dio 46.4-5; Plut. Cie. 26.6; Quint. 9.3.94. Cicero's defiant answers are interesting and further illustrate the idea that much of his boasting was forced upon him : Sull. 23 "ex eo municipio unde iterum iam salus huic urbi imperioque missa est", and Sest. 48 "praesertim cum eius essem civitatis ex qua C. Mucius solus in castra Porsennae venisset". Cicero himself cheerfully used a man's origin as testimony for his worthlessness (v. 5. 18n.; Pis. 14; Ascon. 2-5 Clark). For Cicero as exile v. Dom. 72 (to Clodius) "hunc tu etiam ... exsulem appellare ausus es". Gabinius also, who was genuinely unpopular, had the bad taste to call Cicero an exile in the Senate under quite similar circumstances (QF 3.2.2; Dio 39.60.1 is probably a garbled version of this incident). 17.10-11 quae carere me non potuisset: cf. Dom. 4 "'tune es ille'

106

COMMENTARY

inquit 'quo senatus carere non p o t u i t ' F o r Cicero's restoration v. introduction 16-18 and section 46. 17.11-12 quid igitur responderem: for a similar dilemma, put in the same lively question-and-answer sequence, v. Dom. 95. 17.16 sine sua laude: cf. Dom. 95 "cui ego crimini respondere sine mea maxima laude non possum". 17.18 quid respondeat admoneri: the entire passage is one of the best of this speech for the cleverness and apparent simplicity with which Cicero lightly disarms criticism of his previous day's behavior. This description of the meeting of the Senate is really excellent and is a good illustration of the tumultuous nature of these affairs (v. 3. 10n.; cf. also sections 1, 2, and 7). It is entertaining to imagine some of Cicero's wearier listeners groaning and passing their comments to their neighbors, while his friends, and others who had their own reasons for doing so, urged him on. These side shows were a more or less frequent occurrence, and, as Cicero himself tells us, some kind of a reply was expected. 18.20-21 et magnitudine ostenti et gravitate responsi: v. introduction 22-23 for the prodigy and the consultation of the haruspices. Cf. sections 20 and 62. 18.25-26 quae nostros animos ... a religione: this seems to be directed principally against the Epicureans (cf. 19. 13n.). 18.26-27 auctores ac magistros religionum colendarum maiores nostros: cf. Nat. Deor. 3.5 "utopiniones quas a maioribus accepimus de dis immortalibus, sacra, caerimonias religionesque defenderem. ego vero eas defendam semperque defendi, nec me ex ea opinione, quam a maioribus accepi de cultu deorum immortalium, ullius umquam oratio aut docti aut indocti movebit." For further references v. Pease ad loc. 2.983. 18.28 tanta fuisse sapientia: cf. Dom. 2 "erit causa cur consilium maiorum in amplissimis viris ad sacerdotia deligendis iure ac merito laudare possumus". 18.1-3 pontificatu ... augurio ... vatum libris ... Etruscorum disciplina: cf. Nat. Deor. 3.5 "cumque omnis populi Romani religio in sacra et in auspicia divisa sit, tertium adiunctum sit si quid praedictionis causa ex portentis et monstris sibyllae interpretes haruspicesve monuerunt", Leg. 2.20 "eorum autem genera

COMMENTARY

107

sunto tria, unum quod praesit caerimoniis et sacris, alterum, quod interpretetur fatidicorum et vatium ecfata incognita, quorum senatus populusque asciverit; interpretes autem Iovis optumi maxumi, publici augures signis et auspiciis postera vidento, disciplinam tenento; Varro in the Antiquitates according to August. De Civ. Dei 6.3 "ita subdivisit ut primus sit de pontificibus, secundus de auguribus, tertius de quindecemviris sacrorum". Cicero, in the other two passages, is clear about a three-fold division of the official Roman religion, assigning the haruspices a place with the Λ*ν viri s.f. {Nat. Deor. 3.5) or giving them an entirely separate and secondary position (Leg. 2.21). Varro simply omits them from the triad. It is, of course, understandable that Cicero should have given them considerably more importance in this oration, where they receive an equal and independent position in a quadripartite division of Roman religion. In actual fact, however, the haruspices were not official members of the Roman priesthood. Val. Max. 1.1.1 "maiores statas sollemnesque caerimonias pontificum scientia, bene gerundarum rerum auctoritates augurum observatione, Apollinis praedictiones vatum libris, portentorum depulsiones Etrusca disciplina explicari voluerunt" is probably taken directly from this section of De Haruspicum Responso in spite of Markland's assertion to the contrary (apud Wolf, 332-334). For the (1) pontifices v. 11. 12-13n. (2) The augurs are the priests, at this time 16 in number, who interpreted or observed signs in order to ascertain whether the gods approved or disapproved any important action which was being proposed (Wissowa RK 523534). (3) Vatum libri are the Sibylline books, which possessed, at least since the Second Punic War, an oracular quality, and were entrusted to thecareofthexv v/n's./. (Hoffmann; Wissowa RK534549; Boyce TAPhA 69 [1938] 161-187). (4) Etruscorum disciplina refers, of course, to the haruspices, for whom v. introduction 32-37. 18.5 Italici belli funesta ilia principia: after the murder in 91 of the tribune M. Livius Drusus, who had planned to extend the citizenship to include the Latin allies, the Italians decided to revolt. The war began when the praetor or ex-praetor Q. Servilius, who had been sent to Asculum to watch the Picentes, was murdered there along with his legate Fonteius (Diod. 37.13.2; Livy Epit.

108

COMMENTARY

72; App. BC 1.38; v. Broughton Μ RR 2.20-22 for further references). Numerous prodigies are recorded just at the beginning of this war or in the year 90, and, although there is no specific mention of them, it is fairly certain that the haruspices were consulted (Cie. Div. 1.99; Plin. HN 8.221 and 2.98). As might be expected, Cicero, who himself was an Italian, views this war in a more benevolent light elsewhere (Phil. 12.27, O f f . 1.35; more ambiguous is O f f . 2.75. For Cicero's attitude towards the Italians v. H. D. Meyer 22-72, especially 68 on the Social War). It must be remembered, however, that Cicero's treatment of historical incidents, though it may express his own opinion and may reveal his own predilections (cf. 6. 28n.), is primarily suited to the exigencies of the moment. His purpose, accordingly, is to adduce exempla, which support or illustrate his thesis, and not to give an exposition of his own feelings (Rambaud 46-50; cf. 24. 26-27n.) and sections 16, 27, 41, 43, 51). 18.5-6 Sullani Cinnanique temporis: for these events v. section 54. This is the Civil War of 88-82, which began when Sulla marched on Rome during his consulship to subdue his enemies in Rome and to check the legislation of Sulpicius and ended only with Sulla's complete victory in 82 and his assumption of the dictatorship. It is noteworthy that Cicero names the war after Sulla and Cinna, not Sulla and Marius. It seems that, especially during this period, when Cicero wished to illustrate the odius events of the Civil War, he chose to omit Marius, and to give the place of prominence to Sulla or Cinna. Cf. Red. Sen. 9 "excepto illo Cinnano tempore", Dom. 43 "proscriptionis miserrimum nomen illud et omnis acerbitas Sullani temporis", 79 "ilia Sullani temporis arma", 83 "propter iniquitatem illius Cinnani temporis", Vat. 23 "in contentione Sulpici et in cruore Cinnano, etiam inter Sullana arma vixerunt", Fam. 1.9.11 "ego si ab improbis et perditis civibus rem publicam teneri viderem, sicut et Cinneis temporibus". Contrast Att. 9.10.3 (49) "at Sulla, at Marius, at Cinna recte, immo iure fortasse; sed quid eorum victoria crudelius, quid funestius?" The reasons for this kindly neglect of Marius are not hard to find. Marius died very early in 86, whereas Cinna lived for two more years, and consequently Cinna and Sulla could be regarded as the protagonists

COMMENTARY

109

of the war (cf. Tac. Ann. 1.1.3). But even more important is the fact that Cicero himself entertained genuinely sympathetic, or at least ambivalent, feelings for Marius, and this resulted in a predominantly favorable treatment in his speeches (for Cicero's attitude toward Marius v. 51. 30n.). As one would expect, there were many prodigies in connection with the Civil War too (Nat. Deor. 2.14 and Pease adloc. 2.583-585, Div. 1.4; Plin. HN 2.92; Plut. Sull. 7). Plutarch actually states that the haruspices were called, and from a passage of Granius Licinianus (23 Bonn) it appears that the Sibylline books were also consulted, apparently for direct political purposes. 18.6-7 hanc recentem ... coniurationem: the Catilinarian conspiracy was also foretold by prodigies, both in 65 (Cat. 3.19-20, Div. 2.45 and 2.47) and in 63 (Cat. 3.18; Plin. HN 2.137; undated Dio 37.25.1-2). In 65 the haruspices were summoned and gave an answer which closely resembles that of section 40 (v. 10. 19-20n.). 19.12 maiores nostri docuisse illos: cf. Nat. Deor. 3.5 (Cotta speaking) "sed cum de religione agitur, Ti. Coruncanium, P. Scipionem, P. Scaevolam, pontifices maximos, non Zenonem aut Cleanthem aut Chrysippum sequor, habeoque C. Laelium, augurem eundemque sapientem, quem potius audiam dicentem de religione, in ilia oratione nobili, quam quemquam principem Stoicorum". 19.13 etenim quis est tarn vaecors: v. Mil. 83-84 for a similar rhetorical expression of belief in the gods and a Divine Providence, which has fostered the growth and prosperity of Rome. For a more serious view v. Div. 2.148 "nam et maiorum instituta tueri sacris caerimoniisque retinendis sapientis est, et esse praestantem aliquam aeternamque naturam et earn suspiciendam admirandamque hominum generi pulchritudo mundi ordoque rerum caelestium cogit confiteri" (for a discussion of Cicero's views on divinity and further references v. Pease 1.15). Cf. Nat. Deor. 1.4 (Cicero on the Stoics) "atque haut scio an pietate adversus deos sublata fides etiam et societas generis humani et una excellentissuma virtus iustitia tollatur. sunt autem alii philosophi, et hi quidem magni atque nobiles, qui deorum mente atque ratione omnem mundum administrari et regi censeant, neque vero id solum, sed etiam ab isdem hominum vitae consuli et provideri"; cf. also Leg. 2.15-16, 2.19.

110

COMMENTARY

The emphasis on the existence of the gods and their control of, and concern for, the universe may be an oblique hit at the Epicureans, who denied Divine Providence and were more or less indifferent about the existence of the gods themselves (cf. De Lacy TAPhA 72 [1941] 51-52). 19.15 ut vix quisquam arte ulla: contrast Nat. Deor. 2.153, where Cicero lists the achievements of human research, which have led man to a profounder piety and better knowledge of the gods, with this more popular description of piety through awe. 19.20 nec numero Hispanos: cf. Sail. Cat. 53 "facundia Graecos gloria belli Gallos ante Romanos fuisse". 19.23 sed pietate ac religione atque hac una sapiential cf. Nat. Deor. 2.8 "quorum exitio intellegi potest eorum imperils rem publicam amplificatam qui religiones paruissent. et si conferre volumus nostra cum externis, ceteris rebus aut pares aut etiam inferiores reperiemur, religione, id est cultu deorum, multo superiores" (for further references to the connection between Roman political supremacy and religious superiority v. Pease ad loc. 2.566-567). Polybius, in a somewhat similar passage, discusses the Roman superiority in religion, but with a completely skeptical analysis of its purpose and method (6.56.6-12). For the importance of pietas in the good Roman way of life cf. Rep. 6.16 and Leg. 2.19. 20.28 in agro Latiniensi: the exact location of the ager Latiniensis is not known, except that it was very close to Rome ("in agro propinquo et suburbano"). From Pliny's account it seems to have been directly north of Rome on the nearer side of the Anio, perhaps quite close to the Via Salaria ( H N 3.54). It was in the first region of Italy under the partition made by Augustus and was known for its wine (Plin. H N 3.63, 14.67; v. also Nissen 2.556). 20.30 ab ipsis dis immortalibus: this is slightly exaggerated. V. introduction 32 for the origin of the disciplina Etrusca. 20.4 ex gigantibus illis: Wolf (336) notes the resemblance of this passage to Sen. 5 "quid est enim aliud gigantum modo bellare cum dis nisi naturae repugnare?" 20.4 quos poetae ferunt: cf. sections 57 and 59. Cicero's poetic quotations and allusions are particularly frequent in the period after his return from exile (v. Clarke 75).

COMMENTARY

111

20.8 postiliones: the word postilio, which is related to postulo and postulatio, seems originally to have signified a claim or demand of the gods, usually expressed by means of a prodigy, for the performance of some omitted service (Wissowa RK 545.7). By this time, however, it also seems to mean the sacrifice itself, which was demanded in expiation (cf. section 31 and Varro Ling. 5.148). A comparison of this passage with section 31 indicates some slight confusion between these two meanings. Here the haruspices indicate that postiliones belong to, or concern, these divinities, and this can mean either the demand or the sacrifice commanded, but in section 31 Cicero definitely interprets postilio as the required expiation. It should be noted that postiliones is the generally accepted emendation of Orelli for postulationes of the manuscripts. 20.8-9 Iovi, Saturno, Neptuno, Telluri, dis caelestibus: there may be no particular significance in this list of gods; they could merely be the ones in whose service the haruspices had been able to detect some flaw or omission. On the other hand, the naming of Jupiter, Neptune, and Tellus may indicate the systematic inclusion of the divinities of heaven, sea, and earth. In this case, as Wuilleumier and Tupet point out (15.2), the presence of Saturn is anomalous. They attribute it to the influence either of Etruscan religion or of astrology, according to which his star was endowed with special lightning (Plin. HN 2.139). 20.8 Iovi\ v. 10. 19-20n. 20.8 Saturno: the origin and nature of the Roman Saturn is a matter of debate. Wissowa thinks that he is the god of sowing, a chthonian deity, and one of the oldest of the Roman gods, whose nature was, however, very soon transformed under Greek influence (RK 204-208). Rose thinks that he really was originally a Greek god, identified with Kronos, and that he was transmitted to the Romans by the Etruscans (OCD 797). 20.8 Neptuno: the early Roman god of water of all sorts, who was at a quite early date thoroughly Hellenized, and assimilated to the Greek god of the sea, Poseidon (Wissowa RK 225-229). 20.8 Telluri: the early Roman earth goddess, who was very closely connected with Ceres, the goddess of the harvest. In their combined worship the Ceres element predominated; the combina-

112

COMMENTARY

tion was influenced by Greek ideas, which eventually transformed the nature of this Roman divinity too (Wissowa RK 193-195; for the aedes Telluris v. 31. 1 note on Telluris). 20.8-9 dis caelestibus: all the heavenly gods, to whom white sacrifices were made, are here included, as a precaution to cover any possible omission. 21.12 Lentule: the consul Cn. Cornelius Lentulus Marcellinus. On the basis of this passage it is certain that he was a septemvir epulo. Although he is the only patrician in the Republican period known to be a member of this college, his very presence in it makes it likely that it was open to both patricians and plebeians (Münzer RE 4.1390). Willems, with less probability, believes that it was accessible only to plebeians and that his father, plebeian by birth patrician by adoption, had re-entered the plebeian order by transitio ad plebem (444-447). 21.12 tensae: the sacred chariots, or cars, in which the images of the gods were borne to the circus for the games. V. Festus (500 Lindsay) "tensam ait vocare Sinnius Capito vehiculum, quo exuviae deorum ludicris circensibus in circum ad pulvinar vehuntur. fuit et ex ebore, ut apud Titinium in Barbato, et ex argento" (Sinnius Capito was a scholar of the Augustan period); cf. also Verr. 2.5.186 "omnesque di qui vehiculis tensarum sollemnis coetus ludorum invisitis". 21.12 curricula: the chariot races which followed the epulum Iovis. For the ludi Romani they took place in the Circus Maximus; for the ludiPlebeii the Circus Flaminius was used (Wissowa RKA5A). 21.12 praecentio: a singing or playing before a sacrifice or battle (cf. Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 7.72.5, 7.72.13; Gell. ΝΑ 1.11.14). 21.12 ludi: either the games and all that goes with them are spoken of as belonging to the sphere of the epulo, because the epulum Iovis, which the priests celebrated (v. 21. 13 note on epulaeque ludorum), was the religious high point of the ceremonies, or, more likely, the epulones now also managed the pompa circensis and the other ceremonies of the game (Latte 398). According to Marquardt, the epulum Iovis was at this time performed only on November 13 during the ludi Plebeii (349), but Wissowa and Fowler believe that there were two epulae, one on September 13 for

COMMENTARY

113

the ludi Romani and the one in November (RK 423; RF 217; cf. Latte 398-399). The ludi here mentioned might then be either the ludi Romani or the ludi Plebeii, or, more simply, both. 21.13 libationes: drink offerings, which would be set before the gods as part of the sacred feast or epulum (cf. Macrob. Sat. 3.11.6). 21.13 epulaeque ludorum: the epulum lovis was the feast in honor of Jupiter, which was attended by the entire Senate, as well as by the statues and implements (exuviae) of the Capitoline Triad (Wissowa RK 423; Fowler RF 216-220; Marquardt 347-350). The gods were treated as if they were personally present in the guise of their statues, which were equipped and decorated for the feast like humans. The epulum lovis was performed on the Ides of November as the principal ceremony of the ludi Plebeii, and probably also on the Ides of September for the ludi Romani (v. 21. 12 note on ludi); it was administered by the septemviri epulones. 21.14 epulones lovis Optimi Maximi: the priesthood, which was at this time seven in number, had been created in 196 for the specific purpose of conducting the epulum lovis. Although they were a separate college, they were still somewhat dependent upon the authority of the pontifices, to whom they apparently submitted the question of instauratio (Wissowa RK 518; Marquardt 350. Both base their judgment upon the evidence of this passage). 21.20 omnia sollemnia ac iusta: the games were essentially religious ceremonies and had to be performed properly with extreme care about the details of sacrifice, procession, etc. Any small error or untoward event would necessitate the re-execution of that day of the ceremony, or even of the entire ludi (Plut. Cor. 25; Habel RE Supp. 5.612; Marquardt 485; cf. section 23). This ceremonial repetition was called instauratio and was decided by the pontifices. Dionysius of Halicarnassus gives a good account, which he says comes from Fabius Pictor, of the pageantry and formality of the ludi Romani {Ant. Rom. 7.71-73; cf. also Marquardt 508-517). 22.24 ilia mater Idaea: the great mother goddess of Anatolia, Cybele, who was worshiped together with her youthful lover Attis. She was a goddess of fertility and also the mistress of wild nature (Walton OCD 246). The cult of Cybele was introduced to Rome in 204 and she was called the Magna Mater (for the Roman Magna

114

COMMENTARY

Mater v. Marquardt 367-374; Wissowa RK 317-327; for the details of her introduction into Rome v. section 27). 22.24 cuius abavi: while the sacred stone of the Magna Mater was being brought to Rome in 205, it was announced by the Delphic oracle that the best man in Rome should receive the goddess (Livy 29.11.6-8; v. section 27). P. Cornelius Scipio Nasica (350), who was to be the consul of 191, was selected for the honor, although at the time he was quite young and had not yet even been a quaestor (Livy 29.14.6-12: for further references v. Münzer RE 4.1495). It has, in fact, been suggested that he was chosen, exactly because he was young and inexperienced, for both religious and political reasons (Köves Historia 12 [1963] 322-335). This Scipio Nasica was actually the great-great-great-grandfather (atavus) of Marcellinus on his mother's side, and not the great-great-grandfather (abavus) (Long ad loc. 445; Münzer RE 4.1595-1596). His identity was often confused with that of his son P. Cornelius Scipio Nasica Corculum (353) (Münzer RE 4.1494-1495), but, since Cicero elsewhere correctly distinguishes between these two, it is better to regard this as a simple mistake. 22.25 spectatorem: although the epulones did not preside over the ludi Romani or the ludi Plebeii, they were connected with them by means of the epulum Iovis (v. 21. 12 note on ludi). Consequently Lentulus is appealed to in his official capacity to vouch for the propriety of the games. For the Megalesia, however, he was not responsible; there he was only a spectator, though an important one, inasmuch as he was consul. 22.25 Megalesia: the ludi in honor of the Magna Mater, which took place April 4-9 (Habel RE Supp. 5.626-628). This festival differed from the other great Roman games in that its activity was almost entirely theatrical (Graillot 84-86), whereas the ludi Romani and the ludi Plebeii, for example, were more evenly divided between performances in the theater and in the circus (for the distinction v. Leg. 2.38). The performances apparently occurred on the Palatine in front of the Temple of the Magna Mater (v. 23.23-24n.). Bruwaene thinks that Cicero has managed to introduce the Megalesia as the "ludos minus diligenter factos pollutosque" only by means of a learned syncretism of Cybele with Tellus (AC 17 [1948]

COMMENTARY

115

81-92). Proceeding upon the assumption that the haruspicum responsum was directed against Cicero in the first place, he suggests that Tellus was introduced into the response (sections 20 and 31) in order to suggest the profanation of sacred land by the reconstruction of Cicero's house. Cicero would then have turned the tables by making use of the scholarly identification of Tellus with the Magna Mater to mention Clodius' uproar at the recent games (Bruwaene 87; Graillot 71). This explanation is interesting in that it reveals how much of this affair was a contest of cleverness, but it rests upon Bruwaene's unsatisfactory interpretation of the haruspicum responsum. However, quite apart from this, it seems far more probable that Cicero introduced the Megalesia simply because the games offered to him the most suitable explanation of "minus diligenter factos pollutosque", and that no more direct connection between the Magna Mater and the response was needed. It is certainly unnecessary to assume that the deity offended by the ludi had to be one of those specifically mentioned in the response. 22.27-28 vis ... conlecta servorum: the use of slaves for private bodyguards had been quite normal procedure, but during these years such bodyguards were expanded into miniature armies (cf. Plut. Crass. 2.7). In this Clodius was a model of efficiency; his gangs were the best organized, equipped, and led. Although his forces were composed indiscriminately of freemen, freedmen, and slaves, Cicero naturally stresses the servile element, since this was the most outrageous aspect of these private armies (Dom. 5-6, 13, 54, 79, Sest. 34, 53, 55, 75, 78, 81, 85, 95, Mil. 26, Leg. 3.45, Att. 4.3.2 and 4; cf. App. BC 2.21-22). Milo and Pompey retaliated with equally powerful gangs conscripted, not from the city, but from Pompey's estates in Picenum and Gaul (QF 2.3.4, Att. 4.3.3-4). The organization of Clodius' urban army rested upon the conlegia compitalicia, which had been disbanded in 64, but were reconstituted by a tribunician law of Clodius (Ascon. 7 Clark). These were religious associations of the various city districts (vici), whose purpose was to celebrate the yearly games and feast of the Lares Compitalicii, the neighborhood Lares of the crossroads (Marquardt 203-204; WissowaÄiC 167,171-172; Taylor VDRR11, 145). The festival followed the Saturnalia and was popular in character,

116

COMMENTARY

belonging principally to slaves and freedmen. Consequently the colleges lent themselves to political misuse by demagogues, and this led to their suppression in 64. According to Cicero's colored, but probably accurate account, Clodius reorganized them on a more grandiose scale in 58 with distinctly political intentions. The members were even marshalled into squads of 10 and were provided with leaders from Clodius' supporters: v. Red. Sen. 33 "cum viderem ... servos simulatione conlegiorum nominatim esse conscriptos", Red. Pop. 13 "cum homines in tribunali Aurelio palam conscribi centuriarique vidissem", Dom. 13 "cum desperatis ducibus decuriatos ac descriptos haberes exercitus perditorum", 54 "cum in tribunali Aurelio conscribebas palam non modo liberos sed etiam servos, ex omnibus vicis concitatos", 79 "servorum omnium vicatim celebrabatur tota urbe descriptio", Sest. 34 "isdem consulibus inspectantibus servorum delectus habebatur pro tribunali Aurelio nomine conlegiorum cum vicatim homines conscriberentur, decuriarentur, ad vim, ad manus, ad caedem, ad direptionem, incitarentur", 55 "ut conlegia, non modo ilia vetera contra senatus consul tum restituerentur, sed ab uno gladiatore innumerabilia alia nova conscriberentur", Pis. 9 "conlegia non ea solum quae senatus sustulerat restituta, sed innumerabilia quaedam nova ex omni faece urbis ac servitio concitata". "Ex omnibus vicis" in our passage is clearly an allusion to this method of recruiting throughout the different city quarters under the guise of neighborhood religious conlegia. It is generally accepted on the basis of section 26 that slaves were excluded from the games or at any rate from the Megalensian games (Graillot 82-83; Bruwaene 86), and it is highly unlikely that Cicero would falsify such a matter (since slaves wore no distinctive clothing, they were sometimes able, however unwelcome, to insinuate themselves into the theatrical performances; cf. Plaut. Poen. 23-25). Clodius, then, probably did not admit slaves as such to the performances, but may have let all the membership of his mobs pour into the theater. In view of the mixed membership of these gangs, he could maintain the pretense that they were free, even though it was well known that a large percentage of them were slaves. The exact day and reason for this disturbance is not

COMMENTARY

117

known. Since it had to occur between the 4th and the 9th of April, this provides a terminus post quern for the date of the oration (introduction 22-23). The disturbance must precede, not only the oration itself, but also the prodigies which led to the consultation of the haruspices, or Cicero's interpretation of the response would appear absurd to his hearers. The incident of which Cicero speaks occurred in the theater, not in the circus (Hanson 14), so it probably took place on one of the first five days of the ludi, inasmuch as the last day was mostly devoted to games in the circus (Graillot 85). The 5th through the 7th of April may also be eliminated, since Cicero, in a full account of these days, makes no mention of this event (QF 2.6). Bruwaene suggests that Clodius' action was a retaliation against Cicero's proposal of April 5 to reopen the question of the ager Campanus (86). It might equally show his irritation at Cicero's speech Pro Caelio and Caelius' subsequent acquittal, both of which probably came on the 4th (Austin 151-152). In any case it is unlikely that Clodius selected as the occasion for this affair the exact day on which a case concerning his family was coming to a verdict. Accordingly, by the process of elimination, this disturbance may be tentatively assigned to April 8. Finally it should be noted that the aristocratic and patrician traditions of the cult of the Magna Mater made this festival a particularly appropriate occasion for Clodius' display of force (Graillot 57-58). This entire incident seems to have been somewhat magnified by Cicero, especially since we have no other record of it. Although it is not clear just what did happen, Lentulus, by his resolute behavior, evidently managed to spoil the affair for Clodius and at the same time to avoid violence. Perhaps he succeeded in leading many senators and magistrates in a dignified withdrawal from the theater. This would have cast a distinct pall over Clodius' games, if it did not actually constitute a religious flaw. But the incident was not serious, and both sides were probably content to let it drop (Bruwaene 86). 22.28-29 ab hoc aedile religioso: the Megalensian games were regularly given by the curule aedile (Mommsen Str. 2.501.3; Habel RE Supp. 5.628). For the sarcasm v. 9.13n. 22.1 proavo: P. Cornelius Scipio Nasica Serapio (354) was

118

COMMENTARY

Marcellinus' great-grandfather on his mother's side, and a grandson of the Scipio who received the Magna Mater (v. 22. 24n. and section 27). He was consul in 138 and he also became pontifex maximus, perhaps in 141 and before 133. In that year, when the Senate was in a tumultuous debate about Ti. Gracchus and the consul refused to use violence, Scipio rushed forth, as a private citizen, at the head of a band of senators to attack Gracchus. In the ensuing struggle Gracchus and many of his followers were killed. According to hostile tradition, Scipio himself killed Gracchus with his own hands (Rhet. Her. 4.68; for further references v. Münzer RE 4.1503). Scipio Nasica is one of Cicero's favorite exempla, especially when he wishes to show that some extraordinary or extraconstitutional action in defense of the State is not only justified or necessary, but also highly laudable and praiseworthy (Orelli 8.190-191; cf. sections 41 and 43). 22.4-5 senatum populumque Romanum vinctum ipso consessu et constrictum: cf. Dom. 113 "sunt inventi qui senatum tribuno furenti constrictum traderent", Sest. 24 "si ipsi prius tribuno plebis adflictam et constrictam rem publicam tradidissent". 23.6-9 an si ludius ... simpuvio aberravit: cf. Arnobius Adv. Nat. 4.31, who, in a polemic against the pagan gods, gives a detailed paraphrase of this passage. 23.6 ludius: a dancer or pantomimist, probably synonymous with the ludiones who were originally only dancers; cf. Livy 7.2.4 "sine carmine ullo, sine imitandorum carminum actu ludiones, ex Etruria acciti ad tibicinis modos saltantes haud indecoros motus more Tusco dabant." In the solemn procession to the circus (pompa circensis), which preceded the games, there were several types of dancers and pantomimists (Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 7.72.5-6, 7.72.10). Ludiones also took part in the analogous procession to the theater, which inaugurated the ludi scaenici (Dion. Hal. op. cit. 2.71.4). For the importance of the dance in Roman religious ceremonies v. Wissowa RK 449. 23.7 tibicen: the flute was used as accompaniment to the act of sacrificing in both public and private sacrifices (Wissowa RK 417). Flute players appeared with and after the dancers

COMMENTARY

119

in the pompa circensis (Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 7.72.5, 7.72.13). 23.7-8 patrimus et matrimus: v. Festus 113 Lindsay "matrimes ac patrimes dicuntur, quibus matres et patres adhuc vivunt". This was the accepted meaning in the later republician period, but originally patrimus et matrimus signified a child whose parents were both patricians, that is, married by the formal patrician ceremony of confarreatio, and were also still living (Koch RE 18.2250-2253). Such children were considered especially suited for religious ceremonies and dealings with the gods; in the procession to the circus (pompa circensis) they held the reins of the sacred chariot (tensa). If they dropped the reins or took them in their left hands or one of the horses shied, it was considered a flaw, and instauratio was necessary. Evidently the tensae were horse drawn (Plut. Cor. 25.2), although there is no mention of horses here. If this were so, it is difficult to see how tensam tenere could mean "to grasp the tensa". Perhaps the boy walked beside the chariot with the reins in his right hand and his left hand on the chariot itself. 23.8 tensam: v. 21. 12 note on tensae. 23.9 simpuvio: v. Festus 455 Lindsay "vas parvulum non dissimile cyatho, quo vinum in sacrificiis libabatur; unde et mulieres rebus divinis deditae simpulatrices". A simpuvium or simpulum was a small, wide, shallow bowl, which served as a ladle, and was used at sacrifices (Leonard RE2 3.213-216). By the first century it had been replaced in private usage by the similar, but more elegant, Greek cyathus (Varro Ling. 5.124). 23.11 instauratione: v. 21. 20n. The formulaic religious nature of the games rendered them particularly susceptible to flaws. As Cicero indicates here, three possibilities were: (1) an interruption in the ceremony ("si ludius constitit, aut tibicen repente conticuit"); (2) a mistake in the ritual (cf. Livy 5.52.9 "recordamini, agite dum, quotiens sacra instaurentur, quia aliquid ex patria ritu neglegentia casuve praetermissum est"); (3) some really offensive crime or act of violence. A fourth cause for instauratio was the occurrence of a prodigy during the performance of the games (for prodigy v. 10. 14-18n.). For a discussion of instauratio v. Habel RE Supp. 5.612 and Boyce TAPhA 68 (1937) 165.

120

COMMENTARY

Cicero's description of possible flaws clearly refers to the pompa circensis, and the question of instauratio here apparently concerns only the ludi Romani and the ludi Plebeii (Habel RE Supp. 5.612; Wissowa RK 454). Yet Cicero manages to apply this entire procedure to the theatrical performances of the ludi Megalenses, to which it is not strictly relevant, or rather he uses it to introduce his claim that these Megalensian games were the ones which were polluted — and foully polluted at that. 24.19-20 cum quodam strepitu fremituque peragrare: Cicero announces that the prodigy of section 20 "quod ita agro Latiniensi auditus est strepitus cum fremitu" is the Magna Mater herself ranging through the woods in anger at the disrespect shown to her festival. As Graillot suggests (83), this passage is an allusion to the lions of the Magna Mater, who pull her chariot (e.g. Catull. 63. 76-90). Bruwaene thinks that Cicero has introduced the Magna Mater as the offended deity by identifying her with Tellus, who was really meant by the "strepitu fremituque" (AC 17 [1948] 87; v. 22. 25 note on Megalesia). Consequently this description, he asserts, does not harmonize with the known habits of Cybele, and the words "accepimus ... quodam" reveal Cicero's embarrassment over the facts. I have argued above that no special justification was needed to assign the prodigy to the Magna Mater. Furthermore, the account given here does not seem incompatible with the current ideas about Cybele; Catullus emphasizes her fondness for nemora (63.12, 63.26, 63.32, 63.79, 63.89), while the fremitus and the strepitus could easily be the roaring of the lions and the wild music of her followers (63.20-25, 63.86-90). Cf. Michels Melanges Carcopino 675-679, who argues that Cicero's interpretation "added fuel to the arguments current in philosophical circles as to the relations between gods and men". These arguments, she suggests, will have influenced Lucretius to compose his much discussed lines on the Magna Mater (2.600-660). 24.23-24 in ipso Matris Magnae conspectu: on the basis of this passage Hanson affirms that the ludi scaenici in honor of the Magna Mater were performed in a temporary theater in front of her temple on the Palatine (14-15). The archaeological remains allow, and even support, the suggestion that this area was artificially enlarged

COMMENTARY

121

and buttressed by a terrace wall. Hanson further points out that the Magna Mater herself was actually present in the theater, since a special chair with the symbols of the goddess was brought to the theater and was given a place of honor, so that she could view the games (15). This rite, the sellisternium, was the main part of the pompa theatralis, just as the tensae with the exuviae of the gods were for the pompa circensis (Hanson 81-85; cf. 21. 12 note on tensae and 23. 6n.). 24.25 casti, sollemnes, religiosi: not only the games in the circus, but even such apparently secular affairs as these ludi scaenici were considered as religious events (Hanson 13). Still it should be realized that Cicero emphasizes the sanctity of the games to accentuate the depravity of Clodius' behavior. A swarm of slaves in the theater was more of a social scandal than a religious one, and as such it was undoubtedly deeply resented by many senators. The religious associations are naturally invoked, but rather to arouse a genuine sense of social horror, than to appeal to the piety of the audience. 24.26-27 P. Africanus: v. Ascon. 69-70 Clark; Livy 34.44.5 "[censores] gratiam quoque ingentem apud eum ordinem pepererunt, quod ludis Romanis aedilibus curulibus imperarunt, ut loca senatoria secernerent a populo; nam antea in promiscuo spectabant", 34.54.4-8 "horum aedilium ludos Romanos primum senatus a populo secretus spectavit, praebuitque sermones sicut omnis novitas solet ... Postremo ipsum quoque African um, quod consul auctor eius rei fuisset, paenituisse ferunt"; Val. Max. 2.4.3 "per quingentos autem et quinquaginta et octo annos senatus populo mixtus spectaculo ludorum interfuit. sed hunc morem Atilius Serranus et L. Scribonius aediles ludos Matri deum facientes, posterioris Africani sententiam secuti, discretis senatus et populi locis solverunt, eaque res vulgi animum et favorem Scipionis magnopere quassavit"; cf. 4.5.1. There is a good deal of confusion about this event, yet the story is reasonably clear. The best account is that given by Asconius, which he says comes from Valerius Antias. Livy's is in substantial agreement and probably also comes from Valerius Antias. P. Scipio Africanus the Elder (336) was consul for the second time in

122

COMMENTARY

194. He may have recommended in the Senate, or lent his authority to the motion, that a special section be reserved for the senators at the ludi Romani, not the ludi Megalenses, as Cicero states here. The censors would then have directed the curule aediles, who presided over the games, to implement the measure (Weissenborn 73.171). When the innovation proved unpopular, Scipio may well have expressed his regret over the matter. This, at any rate, is the explanation of Valerius Antias and Livy; that there were other versions is shown by the mutilated reference in Asconius 70 Clark "et collega eius Sempronio Longo hoc tributum esse senatui scribit, sed sine mentione Megalesium — aediles enim eos ludos facere soliti erant — votivis ludis factum tradit quos Scipio et Longus coss. fecerint". The slightly garbled story of Valerius Maximus also suggests the existence of another version. Although his attribution of this measure to the Megalensian games might come from this passage of Cicero, it is hard to understand how he could confuse the two Scipios, if he were consulting the De Haruspicum Responso, since Cicero is quite specific. Cicero himself follows the Livy-Valerius Antias account in his defense of Cornelius (apud Ascon. 69 Clark) "P. Africanus ille superior, ut dicitur, non solum a sapientissimis hominibus qui tum erant verum etiam a se ipso saepe accusatus est quod, cum consul esset cum Ti. Longo, passus esset tum primum a populari concessu senatoria subsellia separari". Asconius' explanation for this discrepancy is worth quoting: "non praeterire vos volo autem esse oratoriae calliditatis ius ut, cum opus est, eisdem rebus ab utraque parte vel a contrariis utantur. nam cum secundum Ciceronis opinionem auctore Scipione consule aediles secretum ante omnis locum spectandi senatoribus dederint, de eodem illo facto Scipionis in hac quidem oratione, quia causa popularis erat premebaturque senatus auctoritate atque ob id auctoritatem eius ordinis quam posset maxime elevari causae expediebat, paenituisse ait Scipionem quod passus esset id fieri; in ea vero de haruspicum responso, quia in senatu habebatur cuius auribus erat blandiendum, et magnopere ilium laudat et non auctorem fuisse dandi — nam erat levius — sed ipsum etiam dedisse dicit." Asconius is undoubtedly right; Cicero adapts his treatment of this

COMMENTARY

123

event to suit the opinions of his audience. This passage and the other mention of the affair in Pro Cornelio are a perfect instance of Cicero's self-contradiction in the use of historical exempla (for Cicero's use of history v. 18.5 note on Italici belli funesta ilia principia; for a list of similar contradictory treatments of historical events v. Rambaud 47-48). That Cicero assigns the innovation to the ludi Megalenses may, however, be a genuine mistake, and not a deliberate falsification, inasmuch as the curule aediles were responsible for both games (Mommsen Str. 2.517,520.3). 24.27-28 ut ... pollueret: cf. Cael. 34 "ideone ego pacem Pyrrhi diremi ut tu amorum turpissimorum cotidie foedera ferires, ideo aquam adduxi ut ea tu inceste uterere, ideo viam munivi ut earn tu alienis viris comitata celebrares?" 24.1 quorum religio tanta est', cf. Verr. 2.5.187 "teque, Ceres et Libera, quarum sacra ... populus Romanus a Graecis adscita et accepta tanta religione et publice et privatim tuetur, non ut ab illis hue adlata, sed ut ceteris hinc tradita esse videantur." 24.1 ex ultimis terris: from Pessinus in Phrygia. V. section 27. 24.3-4 ne verbo quidem appellantur Latino: cf. CIL 12.234 and 314 "Megalensia vocantur quod ea dea Megale appellatur" and Varro Ling. 6.15 "Megalesia dicta a Graecis, quod ex libris Sibyllinis ab Attalo rege Pergama; ibi prope murum Megalesion, id est templum eius deae, unde advecta Romam." Cicero is right; the cult of the Magna Mater did receive extraordinary treatment. It was normal for an imported cult to retain its native ritual, but socially and politically it was assimilated as much as possible (cf. Balb. 55 "sed cum illam quae Graecum illud sacrum monstraret et faceret ex Graecia deligerent, tamen sacra pro civibus civem facere voluerunt, ut deos immortalis scientia peregrina et externa, mente domestica et civili precaretur"). The cult of the Magna Mater, however, though her games were Roman in character, remained utterly foreign. Her priests had to be eunuchs, and this alone at that time prevented them from being Roman citizens like the priests of Ceres (Graillot 74-78). Both the cult itself and the participation of Roman citizens in it were rigidly restricted; this very fact enables Cicero to emphasize its strangeness, its sanctity, and its generally awesome character.

124

COMMENTARY

24.5-6 servi ... servi ... servorum: the proper slave festival was the Saturnalia (Marquardt 586-588). Clodius, in turning the Megalesia into a sort of Saturnalia, was committing an especially outrageous crime against Roman propriety (v. 24. 25n.). 25.10-11 in alteram scaenam inmissum, alteri praepositum: cf. section 26 "tu in alteram [caveam] servos inmisisti, ex altera liberos eiecisti", supra section 22 "vis enim innumerabilis ... in scaenam signo dato inmissa inrupit". What is meant by the two caveae or the two scaenae is an utter mystery. Nor is it at all clear what Clodius did differently in each of the two scaenae and caveae (i.e. "inmissum ... praepositum", "inmisisti ... eiecisti"). Hanson tentatively suggests that perhaps two theaters were in use at the same time, "one on the platform beneath the temple and one below on the slope of the Palatine (14.29)". This might be possible, since the censors of 155 had, in fact, attempted to build a theater probably on the Palatine slope below the Temple of the Magna Mater (Hanson 24-25; Veil. Pat. 1.15.3). If, however, as is more likely, there was only one theater, one may despair of explaining the two caveae. It is clear that the action, whatever it was, concerned the audience, but how could a swarm of slaves rushing onto the stage (scaena) affect the composition of the audience (consessus)? Although it would give the word an otherwise unparalleled meaning, one is almost compelled to assume that scaena here refers either to the audience or to sections of the theatre where the audience sat, both because of this passage and because in the similar description in section 26 of what must have been the same action cavea is used. The conventional distinction between the two, "in scaenam caveamve", which follows immediately, might seem embarrassing to this view, but this is only Mommsen's emendation for caenam caveam of P. Klotz, in fact, evidently considers this a reduplication and reads only caveam {ad loc. 137). Finally, this assumption also agrees with the account of section 22, where again the crowd pours onto the scaena ("in scaenam ... inmissa"), and again in a seemingly inexplicable way this traps the audience and throws it into confusion. If then this interpretation should be correct, the two caveae could be the result of either a vertical or a horizontal division of the seating area. The seats

COMMENTARY

125

may have been located on either side of the temple or perhaps even separated by the temple steps (as in the Theater of Pompey; cf. Hanson 44-45). A better solution, and one which explains the action, would be the presence of two seating areas, one above the other, separated by a diazoma or something like it. The theatrical structure was wooden and temporary, so it could not have been too elaborate, but such a division is quite possible and even is implied in the segregation of senatorial places (for seating in the pre-Pompeian Roman theater v. Duckworth 79-81). In this case Clodius would have led his crowd into the upper sections in such a way that it occupied a commanding position ("praepositum") over the lower more privileged section, which was then at the mercy of his mobs ("potestati servorum obiceretur"). By so doing, he may have compelled the occupants of the lower sections to leave or, as Cicero puts it, he may have ejected them (section 26 "ex altera liberos eiecisti"). In section 25 the order is chiastic: (a) "in alteram scaenam inmissum, (b) alteri praepositum, ut (b) alter consessus potestati servorum obiceretur (a) alter servorum totus esset." There is another explanation for the doubled action, which is recommended by its simplicity. The two scaenae and the two caveae might be different performances on different days in the same theater. In order to understand the entire incident, one must still assume an unusual meaning for scaena, but this suggestion would at least obviate the necessity of explaining the doubled scaena and cavea. 25.13 examen apium: a swarm of bees was considered a seriously bad omen, and the haruspices were usually consulted for it (Plin. ΗΝ 11.55 "qui dirum id ostentum existimant semper"; Thulin 3.98-101; for a list of such prodigies v. Wiilker 16). 26.19 monstro: as Cicero uses it, monstrum is synonymous with prodigium or ostentum. Cf. 10. 14-18n. 26.22 pater tuus: Ap. Claudius Pulcher (296). This is the only evidence for his aedileship, which Broughton places in or before 91, since he was praetor in 89 (ΜRR 2.21,24.8). He was, however, unsuccessful in his first attempt to be elected aedile in spite of his brother's influence (Plane. 51 "Appium Claudium, nobilissimum

126

COMMENTARY

hominem, vivo fratre suo, potentissimo et clarissimo civi, C. Claudio, aedilem non esse factum et eundem sine repulsa factum esse consulem"). Miinzer suggests that his unsuccessful candidacy would have been in 92, while his brother was consul, and that he became aedile somewhat later {RE 3.2849). He would then have been aedile either in 90, the year before his praetorship, or later after his praetorship, both of which are highly unlikely. After Sulla's victory in the Civil War, he was elected consul for 79, as a colleague of P. Servilius Isauricus (cf. 2. In.). He died in 76, while conducting military operations in his province, Macedonia (Livy Epit. 91). 26.23 patruus: the elder brother of Clodius' father, C. Claudius Pulcher (302). The Megalensian games which he gave as curule aedile in 99 were so lavish that they became famous in the history of Roman entertainment (cf. Verr. 4.6 "C. Claudius, cuius aedilitatem magnificentissimam scimus fuisse", 4.133 "C. Claudio, potentissimis hominibus, quorum aedilitates ornatissimas vidimus"). He was the first to present elephants in the circus (Plin. ΗΝ 8.19), and the staging for his theatrical performances was so realistic, that crows tried to alight on the painted roof tiles (Plin. HN 35.23). He died shortly after his consulship of 92. 26.24 Athenionis: Athenio (6), a slave of Cilician origin, was the administrator of an estate in Sicily. When in 104 a slave revolt started in eastern Sicily under the leadership of a certain Salvius, he undertook the leadership of a similar rebellion in the western part of the island. After some reverses he joined forces, as a subordinate, with Salvius, who had now become King Tryphon. Triocala, a mountain fortress near the south coast, was captured and was fortified. After a short imprisonment at the hands of Tryphon and near-death in battle, Athenio took command of the entire slave force after the death of Tryphon in 102. For a while his fortunes prospered, and he had free run of the island. In 101 the consul M \ Aquilius began a serious campaign against Athenio and in a great battle Aquilius killed Athenio in personal combat. The insurrection was finally crushed (this account rests upon the evidence of Diod. 33.5-10). This man's good qualities were, for the Romans, obscured by the unspeakable social horror of a slave uprising. It is interesting,

COMMENTARY

127

therefore, that, when Cicero wants a contemptuous name for Clodius' right-hand man Sextus (cf. 11. 5n.), he refers to him as "signifer Athenio" (Att. 2.12.2). 26.24 Spartaci: Spartacus, a leader of the slave rebellion which lasted from 73 to 71. He was a Thracian by birth, perhaps even connected with a kingly family, but very little is known about his early life (Münzer RE2 3.1528-1529). He had been a soldier in the Roman army and later fell into slavery (App. BC 1.116). In 73 he led a band of about 70 gladiators in an escape from a gladiatorial establishment in Capua (Münzer 1530). During the next two years his numbers grew rapidly, and he enjoyed considerable success, beating Roman armies again and again in the field (Münzer 15301533). In 72 he defeated the proconsul of Cisalpine Gaul at Mutina and he defeated the consuls of that year twice, before and after the battle at Mutina. Finally in 71 Crassus was put in charge of the Roman forces as propraetor. He energetically pushed the campaign and rushed it to a conclusion, because he wished at all costs to forestall Pompey's intervention and the subsequent loss of credit for finishing the war (Plut. Crass. 11.2-8; App. BC 1.120). In a decisive battle Spartacus died a hero's death, and thousands of his followers were killed (Münzer 1535). It remained for Pompey to come upon the scene and finish off the fugitives (Plut. Crass. 11.7). Spartacus' nobility of character and his ingenuity are well attested. His first plan was to force his way over the Alps so that the men could return to their native Gaul or Thrace (Plut. Crass. 9.5; App. BC 1.117). When his very success at Mutina frustrated this plan by turning the heads of his followers, he withdrew to the wild parts of south Italy. At one point he planned to cross into Sicily, but transportation failed him (Plut. Crass. 10.7). In victory he was moderate and tried to control his men (Sail. Hist. 3.98 Maurenbrecher). Plutarch describes him as "better than his fortune and more Greek than Thracian" (Crass. 8.2). Münzer compares his adroit maneuvering in south Italy to that of Hannibal (1536). Sallust too seems to have treated him sympathetically, citing his moderation and good sense {loc. cit.), as well as his bravery (Hist. 4.40 Maurenbrecher). As we have seen, it is the horror of the

128

COMMENTARY

social situation which leads Cicero to compare Clodius with such a man as Spartacus (cf. 26. 24 note on Athenionis and 24, 25n.). The comparison not only alludes to the fact that Spartacus too was the leader of an army of slaves, but it may also be a specific reference to the funeral games which he gave in honor of Crixos, at which games he made Roman captives fight in gladiatorial contests (App. BC 2.117; Flor. 2.8.9). 26.25 C. aut Appi Claudiorum: the contrast between the shameful contemporaries and their noble ancestors is a commonplace of Cicero's oratory against the Clodii. Cf. the particularly amusing passage in Cael. 33-34, where the venerable Appius Claudius Caecus, the censor of 312, is summoned from Hades to address Clodia, especially 33 "non patrem tuum videras, non patruum, non avum, non proavum, non abavum, non atavum audieras consules fuisse", also Sest. 125 "at vero ille praetor, qui de me non patris, avi, proavi, maiorum denique suorum omnium, sed Graeculorum instituto contionem interrogare solebat", apud Non. 537 "in tarn longo spatio numquam te Appi Claudi nepotem esse recordatus es?" Gaius and Appius were the favored praenomina of the Claudian gens (cf. Miinzer's table RE 3.2665-2666). There were only two consular Publii in the family, and one of these, the consul of 249, came to an unfortunate end. 26.25-26 servos de cavea exire: v. 22. 27-28 note on vis ... conlecta servorum. Slaves were clearly not supposed to be present at the ludi; cf. Plaut. Poen. 23-26 "servi ne opsideant, liberis ut sit locus,/ vel aes pro capite dent; si id facere non queunt,/ domum abeant, vitent ancipiti infortunio,/ ne et hie varientur virgis et loris domi". 26.27 praeconis: the praeco was the public crier and filled the lowest position among the official public servants (Schneider RE 22.1193-1199). He could be either a freedman or a freeman and he needed only a strong voice. Criers were divided into groups or decuriae, and each of these decuries were placed at the disposal of one of the various magistracies. The praecones of the presiding magistrate, here the curule aedile, would serve as ushers and criers at the theater (cf. Plaut. Poen. 11-20). 26.30 Sibyllino sacerdoti: from this reference it is reasonable to assume that Clodius was a xv vir s. / . by 56 (Broughton Supple-

COMMENTARY

129

ment 16; Long ad loc. 449. For the college v. Wissowa RK 534-549; Boyce TAPhA 69 [1938] 161-187). This helps to explain the numerous sarcastic references to Clodius, the sacerdos (v. 9. 13n.). 26.30-1 haec sacra ... expetisse: v. Livy (29.104-5 "civitatem eo tempore repens religio invaserat invento carmine in libris Sibyllinis propter crebrius eo anno de caelo lapidatum inspectis, quandoque hostis alienigena terrae Italiae bellum intulisset, eum pelli Italia vincique posse, si Mater Idaea a Pessinunte Roman advecta foret", and 29.10.6-11.8; cf. also Diod. 34.33.2; App. Hann. 56. For a discussion of the introduction of the Magna Mater to Rome v. Graillot 25-69; Wissowa RK 317-318; Habel RE Supp. 5.626-627. Graillot suggests a threefold influence which motivated the decemviri in their examination of the Sibylline books (43-44): in the religious sphere they wanted some powerful divinity who might help the Roman cause; politically they considered the Magna Mater as an aid to senatorial policy; finally aristocratic vanity was flattered by the consideration that the Magna Mater was closely connected with the Trojans and Aeneas, the founder of Rome (42-43). In this case, however, the pretensions of the aristocracy were in accord with the interests of the Roman State as a whole, inasmuch as the importation of the Magna Mater emphasized Rome's connection with Asia Minor and enabled Rome to pose as its natural heir. 26.2 violatis oculis: v. 8. 2-3 note on quae viri oculis ne imprudentis quidem aspicifas est; cf. section 33 "qua mente? ... qua manu? ... qua voce?" Clodius' eyes had been polluted by his intrusion into the rites of the Bona Dea. 27.4 defessa Italia Punico bello atque ab Hannibale vexata: in 205 Rome was in the 14th year of the Second Punic War. In spite of a decisive victory at the river Metaurus in 207, the war showed no signs of an early conclusion. The continuous presence of the foreign enemy on Italian soil was in itself felt as a kind of religious pollution; already in 212 the problem of hostes alienigenae had led to the introduction of new rites, the ludi Apollinares (Graillot 31-32, Livy 25.12). 27.5 exPhrygia: according to Livy (39.10.7; cf. 34.3.8), Attalus I, king of Pergamum, took the Roman delegates to Pessinus, where

130

COMMENTARY

they were presented with the sacred stone of Cybele (cf. Strabo 12.4.3). This is directly contradicted by the evidence of Varro, who says that the goddess was brought to Rome from the Megalesion, her temple in Pergamum {Ling. 6.15, quoted supra section 24 note on ne verbo quidem appellantur Latino). Modern authorities are almost unanimous in their preference for Varro's account (L. Bloch Phil. 52 [1893] 580-581; Graillot 46-51; Wissowa RK 318.2; Habel RE Supp. 5.626; Magie 2.770). Pessinus was at this time an independent state, far removed from the boundaries of Pergamum, and it did not come into the Pergamene sphere of influence until 183 (Graillot 47; Ruge RE 19.1106). Cicero's "ex Phrygia" is noncommittal; it could mean either Pergamum or Pessinus (cf. Magie map facing 2.1616). Pessinus was adjacent to Phrygia and had previously been part of Phrygian territory. Graillot (47-48) points out that Cicero would have mentioned this event specifically in section 28, when he stresses the sanctity of Pessinus and its previous relations with the Romans, if they had, in fact, brought the goddess directly from Pessinus to Rome. That Cicero does not is a good indication that he realized that it came from Pergamum. In this case he might have said Phrygia quite deliberately in order to suggest Pessinus, which was the seat of her worship (section 28 "sedem domiciliumque Matris deorum"). Magie evidently believes that Cicero is here saying that the Magna Mater was brought from Pessinus (2,770), but his vagueness probably indicates exactly the opposite. "Ex ultimis terns" of section 24 undoubtedly refers to Pessinus, but only as the ultimate origin of the cult, not as the place from which it was brought to Rome. The stone did, however, originally come from Pessinus, and the good relations between Pessinus and Pergamum suggest that it may have been transferred to Pergamum as a sign of goodwill. Magie believes that Attalus I obtained it for the express purpose of delivering it to the Romans (1.25). It is perhaps more likely that its arrival in Pergamum had some connection with the Attalid constructions in Pessinus (Strabo 12.567), either in gratitude for their munificence or as part of a deal (v. 28. 20-21 note on quae Persae, quae Syri, quae reges omnes for the relations between Pessinus and Pergamum). 27.6 P. Scipio: P. Cornelius Scipio Nasica (350) was appointed

COMMENTARY

131

by the Senate to receive the Magna Mater as she left the ship at Ostia and then deliver her to the Roman matrons (v. 22. 24 note on cuius abavi). Because of this honor he acquired a reputation for sanctity (Juv. 3.137-138 cited by Graillot 58; Val. Max. 7.3.2, 8.15.3). His hospitality toward the goddess probably did not include an official reception of her in his own house (Graillot 58-60; Münzer RE 4.1495), although this is implied by Livy 39.11.8 and Valerius Maximus 8.15.3. 27.1 Q. Claudia: this Claudia (435) was one of the eminent Roman matrons in the group which received the Magna Mater from Scipio; she was perhaps even the leader of the delegation. Cf. Livy 29.14.12 "matronae primores civitatis, inter quas unius Claudiae Quintae insigne est nomen, accepere; cui dubia, ut traditur, antea fama clariorem ad posteros tam religioso ministerio pudicitiam fecit," and also Cael. 34. Her participation in the arrival scene was consequently transformed into an even more impressive legend (Graillot 60-65). She became a good, but imprudent, woman wrongly accused of adultery. The boat bringing the Magna Mater was stuck on the shallows and could not be moved, until she, in vindication of her honor, herself freed it. Later she came to be described as a Vestal, and further dramatic touches were added to the story. The early stages of this process can be seen in Livy's sober account: her participation in the event dissipates suspicion and embellishes her reputation (for the political ramifications of her selection v. Köves Historia 12 [1963] 335-347). 27.8-9 mirifice tua soror existimatur imitata: v. 26.25 note on C. Appi Claudiorum. 28.15 Pessinuntem: Pessinus was the center and capital of the worship of Cybele (Ruge RE 19.1106-1107). It was located on the upper reaches of the Sangarius River at the foot of Mount Dindymus, between Phrygia and Galatia. Its origin as a priestly city-state goes back to a remote age and must antedate the arrival of the Phrygians, since the Magna Mater was one of the native divinities of Asia Minor. In the third and second centuries Pessinus maintained itself as an independent priest-state against the Gauls, although the priestly aristocracy seems to have intermarried with the Galatian nobles (Jones 118-119; Ruge ibid). In the first half

132

COMMENTARY

of the second century it enjoyed cordial relations with Pergamum and also with Rome. Finally after the Third Mithridatic War it appears to have lost its political independence and to have come under the power of the Galatian tetrarchs. 28.16 Brogitaro: Brogitarus was the son-in-law of Deiotarus (v. 29. 27n.) and the tetrarch, or tribal ruler, over the Trocmi, the easternmost of the three Galatian tribes (Kroll RE Supp. 7.82-83; Magie 2.1235-1236). He received the title of king in 58 from Clodius, in return for which he both paid and promised Clodius large sums of money (v. 28. 18-19n.). A coin struck by Brogitarus in the sixth year of his kingship at his capital Tavium shows that he was still living and ruling in 53-52 {BMC Galatia xvii). He was probably dead, however, in 51, since he is not mentioned in Cicero's correspondence from Cilicia, and certainly by 47, when the Galatians complained to Caesar about Deiotarus {Bell. Alex. 6.7.1). 28.17 dividere: an allusion to the disreputable activity of the divisores, the agents who distributed money to the tribes for electoral bribes (v. 42. 26n.). Brogitarus either used these agents for his payments or his legati behaved like them in paying Clodius' gangs. "Solebant" seems to indicate that this business took some time (Jollife 73). 28.17-18 in aede Cast oris: the Temple of Castor seems to have been the headquarters of Clodius (introduction 17 and 6. 5n.). 28.18-19 locum fanumque vendideris: v. Sest. 56 "lege tribunicia Matris Magnae Pessinuntius ille sacerdos expulsus et spoliatus sacerdotio est, fanumque sanctissimarum atque antiquissimarum religionum venditum pecunia grandi Brogitaro, impuro homini atque indigno ilia religione, praesertim cum earn sibi ille non colendi, sed violandi causa adpetisset; appellati reges a populo qui id numquam ne a senatu quidem postulassent". Cf. section 58 "reges qui erant vendidit, qui non erant appellant", section 59 "quantas iste Byzantiorum Brogitorumque praedas exsorbuit", Dom. 60. "tetrarcharum ac regum bona spe atque avaritia devorasses", 129 "si tuus scriptor in illo incendio civitatis non syngraphas cum Byzantiis exsulibus et cum legatis Brogitari faceret", Sest. 84 "reges appellaret". The provisions of Clodius' law about Deiotarus and Brogitarus cannot be determined with certainty.

COMMENTARY

133

It probably removed the current priest of the Magna Mater from his position ("sacerdotem ab ipsis aris pulvinaribusque detraxeris") and installed Brogitarus in his place (D.-G. 2.231-232; Ruge RE 19. 1107; Jones 119; Jollife 72.74). It is also possible that a nominee of Brogitarus, not Brogitarus himself, was the new high priest (Magie 2.1236), but Cicero seems to say quite explicitly that Brogitarus himself was the new priest (v. section 29 "Brogitaro, ut ante dixi, addictum pecunia tradidisti" and "quod caerimonias ab omni vetustate acceptas a Brogitaro pollui non sinit, mavultque generum suum munere tuo quam illud fanum antiquitate religionis carere"). If Brogitarus were the new high priest, this was a considerable innovation. For the priest-rulers of Pessinus had in the past been independent of the Galatian tetrarchs (Strabo 12.5.3; cf. 28. 15n.) and, though they were no longer independent dynasts, they probably continued to hold a separate and distinct position until 58. Since Brogitarus was also tetrarch of the Trocmi, his position as high priest of Pessinus, which lay in the territory of the Tolistobogi and had been under the power of Deiotarus, their tetrarch (Plut. Cat. Min. 15), must have been extremely disagreeable to Deiotarus. In any case, he had ejected Brogitarus or his nominee by the date of this oration (v. section 29 "quod Pessinuntem per scelus a te violatum et sacerdote sacrisque spoliatum reciperavit"). Brogitarus not only paid Clodius for these privileges, but he also gave a promissory note for further payments in the future (v. section 29 "si habuerit unde tibi solvat quod ei per syngrapham credidisti", Dom. 129 quoted supra; Jollife 73; cf. section 59 and Dom. 60). Evidently Brogitarus retained some of the benefits gained by Clodius' law, since in 55 Clodius wanted a libera legatio to Brogitarus, obviously to collect some more money (QF 2.8.2 "illud autem quod cupit Clodius est legatio aliqua (si minus per senatum, per populum) libera aut Byzantium aut ad Brogitarum aut utrumque. plena res nummorum"). Clodius wanted this so badly that he was willing to compromise in his hatred toward Cicero. For some reason, however, he did not go. Perhaps, as Jollife suggests (74), the mere threat of Clodius' arrival induced Brogitarus to settle the debt.

134

COMMENTARY

This law of Clodius which disturbed Pompey's settlement in the East and offended Pompey's ally, Deiotarus, is dated by Niccolini between April and the Kalends of June of 58 (296; cf. Dio 38.30.4). It is interesting to observe that this law must have been passed at about the same time as Clodius' abduction of Tigranes, the son of the king of Armenia (Att. 3.8.3; Ascon. 47 Clark; Niccolini 296). The abduction and the ensuing scuffle led to the first hostilities between Pompey and Clodius (introduction 16), and it too was an interference with Pompey's eastern policy. There may, then, have been some closer connection between the law and the abduction. 28.19 sacerdotem: the identity of this priest is unknown. Throughout the second century the priests of Pessinus seem to have come from one dynastic family and to have been named Battacus or Attis (Magie 2.770; Jones 118-119). The last priest mentioned by name is a Battacus, who came to Rome in 102 (Diod. 36.13; Plut. Mar. 17.5-6; v. 28. 24n.). It is probable that this family continued to hold the priesthood until 58. 28.19-20 ab ipsis aris pulvinaribusque: for references to Clodius and pulvinaria v. 8.2 note on pulvinaribus. Although Clodius himself had no dealings with the pulvinaria of the Magna Mater, it is quite natural that they should be mentioned. It serves to remind the audience of his previous crime against the Bona Dea and thereby magnifies the enormity of the present act: Clodius had brought the gods themselves and their belongings into the sphere of his political maneuvers. 28.20 quae vetustas: the origin of Pessinus as the shrine of the Magna Mater goes back to an extremely remote period, probably sometime in the second millennium, well before the migration of the Phrygians to this area (Graillot 9-24; Ruge RE 19.1106). 28.20-21 quae ... quae ... quae ... quae: for the anaphora and asyndeton cf. 2. 16-17n. and 3. 12n. In our passage kings and past history are invoked in order to enhance the sanctity of the legitimate priest and to arouse pity for his mistreatment. 28.20-21 quae Persae, quae Syri, quae reges omnes: there is very little evidence for any specific acts of patronage by these groups. King Midas of Phrygia was supposed to have constructed the Temple of the Magna Mater or, at least, to have enriched it (Diod.

COMMENTARY

135

3.5.9; Arn. Adv. Gent. 2.73; cf. Graillot 14). The Persians worshiped her by identifying her with the Persian goddess Anahita (Graillot 18). "Syri", as the order indicates, refers to the Hellenistic kings. It should, of course, mean the Seleucid kings of Syria, but they had nothing to do with the shrine of Pessinus, whereas the Pergamene kings had very close connections with it. The latter even contributed a shrine or temple and some marble stoas (Strabo 12.567; cf. Magie 2.770). Philhetaerus, the founder of the Pergamene dynasty, erected a sanctuary to Cybele in his territory (Schwenn RE 11.2267); Attalus I must have obtained the sacred stone from Pessinus (v. 27. 5n.); and a diplomatic correspondence of Eumenes II and Attalus II with Pessinus has survived (Magie 1.25, 2.770; Ruge RE 19.1106). 28.24 nostri imperatores: cf. Val. Max. 1.1.1 "cuius cum in urbe pulcherrimum templum haberent, Gracchano tumultu moniti Sibyllinis libris ut vetustissimam Cererem placarent, Hennam, quoniam sacra eius inde orta credebantur, xv viros ad earn propitiandam miserunt. item Matri deum saepe numero imperatores nostri conpotes victoriarum suscepta vota Pessinuntem profecti solverunt." The similarity in thought and phrasing suggests that Valerius Maximus was using this passage of Cicero (cf. 18.1-3n.). This is all the more probable since there is no other evidence whatsoever that the Roman commanders actually went to Pessinus and paid their vows there after victory. Nonetheless the Magna Mater was especially concerned with the success of Roman armies, and Pessinus maintained very cordial relations with Rome (Graillot 93-97). The importation of the Magna Mater was designed to serve a military end, the expulsion of the Carthaginians from Italy (Livy 29.10.5; v. 26. 30-31 note on haec sacra ... expetisse). Her swift and complete success in this venture was enough to ensure her position as a kind of patroness of Roman arms. In 189 a deputation of her priests came to Cn. Manlius Vulso, the consul, who was then in the vicinity of Pessinus, and assured him of his forthcoming victory over the Galatians (Polyb. 21.37.5; Livy 38.18.9). In 102 Battacus, the high priest of the Magna Mater at Pessinus, made the journey to Rome to demand public expiation for some offense to the goddess, but he also promised them

136

COMMENTARY

victory over the enemy, who would in this case have been the Cimbri and the Teutones (Diod. 36.13.3; Plut. Mar. 17.5-6; D.-G. 4.321; Magie 2.770; Broughton Μ RR 1.568; Thrämer RE 3.146, and Miltner RE 21.2053 all date this visit to 102, but Graillot 95 puts it in 103). 29.27 Deiotarus: Deiotarus (2) was the Galatian tetrarch of the Tolistobogi. A loyal ally of the Romans, he supplied military support to, and enjoyed the friendship of, several Roman commanders in Asia (v. 29. 32-ln.). In Pompey's settlement of eastern affairs his territories were considerably extended, and he was granted the title of king (Magie 1.373, 2.1237-1238). Both title and territory were probably ratified in 59, when Pompey's enactments were passed (v. 29. 3In.). Clodius apparently reaffirmed the royal title in his tribunician law of 58 (v. 28. 18-19n. and 29. In.). This law, however, can hardly have pleased Deiotarus, since it seriously interfered with his power. In the Civil War he loyally joined Pompey, but soon after his defeat he made peace with Caesar and even lent his army to Caesar's legate Calvinus (for the ancient references v. Niese RE 4.2402). His territory was somewhat reduced by Caesar, but he was confirmed in his kingdom. In 45, while his envoys were in Rome seeking some important territorial favor, he was accused there before Caesar by his grandson Castor. The charge, which ostensibly centered about his Pompeian sympathies and an attempt to murder Caesar, was really prompted by internal Galatian politics (Magie 1.425-426, 2.1275-1276; Niese RE 4.2403). Cicero defended him in a speech, which he said was as worthless as the gifts of Deiotarus himself (Fam. 9.12.2). Caesar's murder forestalled any decision, and Deiotarus helped himself to more territory. In the next Civil War, he at first remained aloof, then he supported Brutus, and finally, after the death of Cassius, he went over to the triumvirs. He died prosperous and in possession of his kingdom about 40. He was ruthless and determined in his unremitting and largely successful struggle to bring all of Galatia under his own control. In pursuit of this end he even murdered his daughter and son-inlaw, a prince of the Galatian Tectosagi (Strabo 12.568; for the date of this murder v. Magie 2.1276). The resourcefulness and

COMMENTARY

137

success with which he maintained his position in such uncertain and difficult times somehow extort a certain grudging admiration. 29.30-31 addictum pecunia tradidisti: this seems to be a favorite expression of Cicero. Cf. Phil. 7.15 "regna addixit pecunia", Red. Sen. 16 "cum hoc coire ausus es ut consularem dignitatem, ut rei publicae statum, ut senatus auctoritatem, ut civis optime meriti fortunas provinciarum foedere addiceres", Sest. 38 "sed duo importuna prodigia, quos egestas, quos aeris alieni magnitudo, quos levitas, quos improbitas tribuno plebis constrictos addixerat", Pis. 37 "lege autem ea quam nemo legem praeter te et conlegam tuam putavit omnis erat tibi Achaia, Thessalia, Athenae, cuncta Graecia addicta", 56 "addicebas tribuno pi. consulatum tuum", 86 "ultro Fufidium, equitem Romanum, hominem ornatissimum, creditorem debitoribus suis addixisti", Verr. 2.3.24 "huius audaciae, nequitiae, crudelitati fidelissimos socios optimosque civis scitote hoc praetore traditos, iudices, atque addictos fuisse". 29.31 saepe a senatu: it is not entirely clear who bestowed the royal title on Deiotarus, nor upon what occasion, nor for what territory. Strabo, Appian, and Eutropius assert that Pompey appointed Deiotarus king (Strabo 12.547; App. Mithr. 114, Syr. 50; Eutropius 6.14.1). Cicero and the author of the Bellum Alexandrinum say that he was given this title by the Senate (Deiot. 10; Bell. Alex. 67; cf. Att. 5.17.3 "Deiotarus filius, qui rex ab senatu appellatus est"). The occasion was probably his acquisition of lesser Armenia (v. Magie 2.1237-1238, who suggests an emendation to bring the conflicting testimony of Strabo into agreement. For another view v. Adcock JRS 27 [1937] 12-17). If this is so, Pompey must be the giver. Yet if we assume that the royal prerogative is connected with Armenia, we must consider two other passages of Cicero, which specify that Deiotarus received Armenia from the Senate {Phil. 2.94, Div. 2.79). Magie presents a reasonable solution: Deiotarus' kingdom was indeed part of Pompey's eastern settlement, which was ratified only in 59, but the royal title, though assigned by Pompey, was formally bestowed by the Senate at the same time as the ratification of his other acts (2.1237). "Saepe" refers to the honorific use of the new title, not to any

138

COMMENTARY

repetition of the grant (Deiot. 10 "is rex, quem senatus hoc nomine saepe honorificentissimis decretis appellavisset"). 29.32-1 imperatorum: cf. Deiot. 27 "sed tarnen quidquid a bellis populi Romani vacabat, cum hominibus nostris consuetudines, amicitias, res rationesque iungebat, ut non solum tetrarches nobilis sed etiam optimus pater familias et diligentissimus agricola et pecuarius haberetur", 37 "omnium imperatorum de Deiotaro decreta delere? ab omnibus est enim is ornatus qui, postea quam in castris esse potuit per aetatem, in Asia, Cappadocia, Ponto, Cilicia, Syria bella gesserunt", Phil. 11.33-34 "qui non solum socius imperatorum nostrorum fuit in bellis verum etiam dux copiarum suarum. quae de illo viro Sulla, quae Murena, quae Servilius, quae Lucullus, quam ornate, quam honorifice, quam graviter saepe in senatu praedicaverunt? quid de Cn. Pompeio loquar? qui unum Deiotarum in toto orbe terrarum ex animo amicum vereque benevolum, unum fidelem populo Romano iudicavit. fuimus imperatores ego et Μ. Bibulus in propinquis finitimisque provinciis: ab eodem rege adiuti sumus et equitatu et pedestribus copiis." Although the sincerity of these passages is open to suspicion, it is only reasonable that Deiotarus should, in the course of a long career, have been on good terms with the various Roman commanders. He not only possessed a well-trained army (Bell. Alex. 34.4; Phil. 11.33), but was undoubtedly a gifted and interesting person as well (cf. Att. 5.17.3, 5.18.4). 29.1 regem: Clodius' tribunician law confirmed Deiotarus in his royal title. His motives for this are obscure. He may have expected payment from Deiotarus, but this was hardly reasonable, inasmuch as Deiotarus' power was probably diminished by this law (v. 28. 18-19; cf. Jollife 73). If this was Clodius' intention, he was disappointed, for Deiotarus refused to pay ("quod tibi nummum nullum dedit"). 29.3 Brogitarus per te appellatus: the manuscript reading here is difficult to accept. It can be translated, but "Brogitarus ... alterum" is a clumsy and uneven antithesis to "alter". Long (450) accepts the reading, rather from contempt than because he thinks it sound. Peterson follows Kayser and Baiter in indicating a lacuna. Klotz simply marks it corrupt.

COMMENTARY

139

There are three ways of emendation: (1) "Brogitarus" is an intrusion, "alterum" is changed to or replaced by "alter", and "quem", "eum", or "hunc" is inserted before "putabo" (Garatoni apud Wolf 348; Jeep apud Klotz, and Klotz himself, "quod haud scio an debeat esse 'hunc'"); (2) Brogitarus is an intrusion into a clause describing Deiotarus, and this evidently caused "non" to disappear. The correct reading would then be " pecunia [Brogitarus]" (Garatoni apud Wolf 348; Vassis Athena 6 [1894] 392); (3) the simplest, but not the most convincing, solution is to delete the offending "pecunia Brogitarus per te" (Schütz apud Klotz). 29.4 syngrapham: cf. section 34, Dom. 129. Syngraphae were legal credit documents between Roman financiers or politicians and provincial communities or princes (Kunkle RE2 4.1384-1385). In Cicero they apply only to dealings between Roman citizens and noncitizens, never between Romans and Romans. In Greek law a syngrapha was any official contract, but in Roman usage it is a general term for official documents wherein the debts of foreigners to Romans are acknowledged. In this case Clodius accepted a promissory note for his services to Brogitarus in lieu of or in addition to a cash payment (v. Jollife 73.121 "It is better to regard this as a promissory note rather than as an acknowledgment of money loaned. The meaning of credidisti, 'trusted him for', finds a parallel in ad Att. 1.16.10, where Cicero rallies Clodius because the jurors refused to trust him for their bribes and demanded cash down." Cf. 28. 18-19n.). 29.15 praedictum: this is troublesome. How could the haruspices make a prediction about a past event, the ludi Megalensesl Gesner's answer is sensible and revealing: the haruspices are predicting the danger of the future, which exists because of a past offense (apud Wolf 349-350). "Ex quibus est primum de ludis, quis est qui id non totum ..." shows that we are here dealing with just one of the responsa, the one previously mentioned in section 21 (cf. section 1 note on oratio de haruspicum response). It is only a slight distortion to say that this section is a prediction about the games. Actually the various causes of divine discontent are given first (sections 21, 34, 36, 37); then the admonition and prediction follow. It would have been accurate, but hair-splitting, to say that that

140

COMMENTARY

portion of the prediction which concerned the first mentioned manifestation of divine anger (section 21) naturally concerned Clodius and the Megalensian games. It is also possible that "praedictum" could signify merely "warn" or "admonish" (cf. Div. 1.48; Caes. BC 3.92). But the repeated use of "praedicere" in the sense of "predict" (sections 53, 56, 63) makes this interpretation less likely. Courtney emends "praedictum" to "praedicatum", calling attention to the fact that the manuscript reading in section 18 is really "praedicationes" (CR 10 [1960] 95-99). Emendation, however, is hardly necessary, since the text as it stands makes good sense. It is interesting to see that Cicero is careful to point out that this is the first section of the responsum; cf. section 60 "id quod extremum est in haruspicum responso". This lends support to the assumption that this speech contains a systematic interpretation of the entire responsum. 30.17-18 vel consulibus vel senatui vel conlegio pontificum: the three possibilities envisaged in section 14 (v. 14. 22-26 note on vobis ... senatus ipse ... pontifices). 30.19 ut dixi antea: in section 14. For the circumstances v. introduction 18-19 and 14.22-26n.). 30.19-20 in iis aedibus: the house of Q. Seius Postumus. Clodius was eager to purchase it for his new building project. When Seius refused, he threatened to obstruct its light. Seius continued to refuse, and Clodius had him poisoned. He then outbid everyone else and purchased the house at an inflated price (Dom. 115; cf. Dom. 129). Allen concludes that the house of Seius must have been adjacent to that of Clodius (CJ 35 [1939] 139-141). This is true, but it need not, as Allen thinks, have been between the houses of Clodius and Cicero. We can only marvel at the speed and efficiency of Clodius, if he managed to negotiate with Seius, to poison him, and then to buy his house, beginning after Cicero had left Rome and completing the transaction in time to co-ordinate the new acquisition with his other building plans of 58. 30.20 Q. Seio: Q. Seius Postumus (12), the Roman knight mentioned above, who was allegedly murdered by Clodius in 58 (cf. Dom. 115, 129). Nothing else about him is known.

COMMENTARY

141

30.21 sacellum: v. Trebatius apud Gell. 7.12.5 "sacellum est ... locus parvus deo sacratus cum ara"; Festus 423 Lindsay "sacella dicuntur loca dis sacrata sine tecto". It was a small shrine to a god, whose image would be placed in a niche or aedicula (Rosenberg RE2 1.1625-1626). The word sacellum was used for private shrines or chapels of all types. Therefore Cicero could refer to any small shrine in the former house of Seius, perhaps that in which the Lares were kept. There would be no reason for retaining such a shrine in a newly acquired house. The empty niche would have no significance, and it, or the entire wall, might have been destroyed in the remodeling done by a new owner ("tibi tantum modo sit demoliendum"). 30.22 tabulis ... censoriis: are simply the records and documents of censorial activity compiled over the years by the censors and their secretariat (Kubier RE2 4.1899-1900). They contained taxation lists, financial records of State wealth and the contracts relevant thereto, and religious formulae for the census and the lustrum. Kübler takes this passage as evidence that sacella and arae of Rome were included in the tabulae. This does not seem probable. The sacellum in question was private and probably obscure, perhaps, as suggested above, merely the lararium of Seius' house (contrast section 32 the more specific account of the "Dianae sacellum in Caeliculo"). For the censors to keep records of all such shrines and chapels in Rome would be a staggering task. Although Cicero implies that the whole sordid story may be found "in tabulis censoriis", their content would really be more restricted. Every Roman citizen was required at each new census to declare his wealth, including, of course, his real property (Mommsen Str. 2.362-363, 2.388-391). Accordingly the property of Q. Seius and its value would be recorded in the census of 61 (for this census v. 1.2n.). This, combined with the public knowledge of the recent sale and the scandalously high price paid for the property, would, we may assume, lead an intelligent observer to the proper conclusions (cf. Dom. 115). Furthermore, in the next census Clodius would have to declare the property and, if anyone contested his right to it, he would probably have to prove it with a record of the sale (Mommsen Str. 2.391).

142

COMMENTARY

30.23 senatus consulto: the senatus consultum mentioned in sections 11 and 14 (v. 14. 21 note on verum referte). The Senate, upon reception of the haruspicum responsum, passed a decree fixing a date for the discussion of the prodigy, the responsum, and its implementation. 31.26 sacellum: this refers to the sacellum of Seius mentioned above. It cannot, as Lugli thinks (MP 130), be the shrine to Libertas. The context shows this, Cicero never dignifies Clodius' shrine with the word sacellum (Nisbet Dom. 207), and, above all, Cicero would not have spoken of it as being in Clodius' house. 31.1 magmentarium: Mommsen's emendation for "acmentarium". V. Varro Ling. 5.112 "magmentum a magis quod ad religionem magis pertinet; itaque propter hoc