Controlling Laughter: Political Humor in the Late Roman Republic 9781400872893

Table of contents :
Cover
Contents
Acknowledgments
Abbreviations
Introduction
1 Physical Peculiarities
2 Names and Cognomina
3 Moral Appearance in Action: Mouths
4 Moral Appearance in Action: Effeminacy
5 A Political History of Wit
Works Cited
Index Locorum et Iocorum
General Index

Citation preview

C o n tro llin g L aughter

C ontrolling Laughter P O L I TI C A L H U M O R I N THE LATE R O M A N REPUBLIC

A n th o n y Corbeill

PRINCETON

UNIVERSITY

PRINCETON,

PRESS

NEW JERSEY

C o p y rig h t © 1996 by P rinceton U niversity Press Published by P rinceton U niversity Press, 41 W illiam Street, P rinceton, N e w Je rse y 08540 In the U n ited K ingdom : Princeton U niversity Press, C hichester, W est Sussex All R ights Reserved Library o f Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

C orbeill, A nthony, 1960C ontrollin g laughter : political h u m o r in the late R om an R epublic / A n th o n y C orbeill. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISB N 0-691-02739-0 (CL : alk. paper) I. R om e— Politics and g o vernm ent— H u m o r. 2. Political o ratory— R om e. 3. Political ethics— R om e. 4. Politics and culture— R om e. 5. W it and h u m o r— Social aspects. I. Title. D G 82.C 67 1996 320.937— dc20 96-868 T his book has been com posed in B em bo Princeton U niversity Press books are printed on acid-free paper and m eet the guidelines for perm anence and durability o f the C o m m ittee on P ro d u ctio n G uidelines for B ook L ongevity o f the C ouncil o n Library Resources Printed in the U n ited States o f A m erica b y Princeton A cadem ic Press 1 3 5 7 9 10 8 6 4 2

To m y parents

CONTENTS

Acknowledgments

ix

Abbreviations

xi

Introduction

3

C

h apter

I

Physical Peculiarities The Nature o f Roman Oratorical Invective Physical Peculiarities: O n the O rator and Roman Realities Physical Peculiarities: O n the Laws Physical Peculiarities and Political Rhetoric Fannius and Vatinius: Cicero Teaches His Audience to Read Physical Peculiarities As Signs C

hapter

2

Names and Cognom ina The Nature o f the Roman Cognomen The Roman Cognomen and Aristocratic Competition The Power o f a Name Names A s Indicators o f Character Living Your Name Reading Names Punning with the People Distorting Names The Name Is the Named C

hapter

Os A s Metaphor Sexual Language in Roman Oratory Cicero Bad-Mouths H is Opponents The Mouth and Political Ideology hapter

57 58 60 68 74

78 85 91 95 97

3

Moral Appearance in Action: M ouths

C

14 16 20 30 35 43 55

99 101 104 106 124

4

Moral Appearance in Action: Effeminacy Feasting Words The Activities o f the Feast The Dancer Is the Dance

128 131 134 135

v iii

CONTENTS

Political Heavies The Conception o f the Roman Male Λ Man for Every Woman, A Woman for Every Man The Category o f the Effeminate Male Effeminate Signs Coda: Piso Tests the Rules

139 143 147 151 159 169

C ha pter 5

A Political H istory o f Wit Reliquum est iocari Pompeius im perator Pompeius and Civil War Julius Caesar, rerum suarum auctor Julius Caesar A s Statesman Julius Caesar dictator Cicero’s Stomach Epilogue: Cicero afier the Ides

174 175 176 183 189 193 198 209 215

Works Cited

219

Index Locorum et Iocorum

233

General Index

247

ACK N O W L E D G M E N T S

began as a dissertation w ritten for the D epartm ent o f Classics at the U niversity o f California, Berkeley, under the direction o f William S. Anderson, Erich Gruen, and Thom as Habinek. While at Berkeley I also benefited from discussions w ith A ndrew Kelly, Annie Thrower, and Florence Verducci. Financial support for the final year o f thesis writing was provided by a Charlotte W. N ew com be Dissertation Fellowship (W oodrow Wilson Foundation); occasional lunches and a stimulating ex­ change o f ideas were supplied during that same year by a fellowship from the Townsend C enter for the Humanities at Berkeley. I would like to thank both institutions for their generosity and support. After completing m y dissertation, a fellowship from the American Philological Association, sponsored jointly by the National Endow m ent for the Humanities and the Packard Foundation, introduced me to the rigors o f philology as practiced at the Thesaurus linguae Latinae in M unich. Cornells van Leijenhorst, m y editor and friend in Germany, provided a special source o f encouragement and expertise. I can only hope to have brought back w ith me to America at least a small portion o f w hat I learned from m y colleagues at the Thesaurus. Back in the U nited States, the Graduate Research Fund at the Univer­ sity o f Kansas provided generous financial support for revisions and ad­ ditions made during the summ ers o f 1992 and 1993. While I was prepar­ ing the m anuscript for publication the following friends and colleagues read and comm ented at different stages on various parts: Anastasios Daskalopoulos, Judith Hallett, Peter Holliday, Karl Kirchwey, L. R. Lind, Stanley Lom bardo, A ndrew Riggsby, and M arilyn Skinner. I ap­ preciate the time and suggestions o f all and extend a separate thanks to Linda M ontgom ery for relief and to Craig Voorhees for hours w orth of challenges. Tw o anonym ous readers for the press also provided helpful suggestions. Final revisions o f the m anuscript were made during part o f a nine-m onth stay at the American Academy in Rom e in 1994/95, where I had the incomparable privilege o f holding a Rome Prize funded by the National Endow m ent for the Humanities. M y tim e in Rome benefited especially from conversations with, and encouragement from, Malcolm Bell III, John Clarke, and Nicholas Horsfall. Four final expressions o f gratitude: to Am y Richlin, for improving m uch o f this book— if it is not better, that is because I have obstinately and perhaps unwisely stood by m y own ideas; to Erich Gruen, a m odel as

T h is b o o k

both a scholar and a teacher, w ho som ehow seems always to have tim e for his students even after they are long gone; to A rthur Riss, w ho was present from the m om ent the idea for this project appeared in a Berkeley cafe through all the painful steps o f w riting and revision; and to Babette Crow der, for special support.

ABBREVIATIONS

A bbreviations for ancient authors can be found at the beginning o f the “W orks C ite d ” section. C IL F oerster Forcellini FPL HRR K iihner-S tegm ann

LCL LSJ OCT OLD ORF PGM

RE

SB

Stangl TLL

Corpus inscriptionum Latinarum. R. Foerster, Scriptores physiognomonici, 2 vols. (Leipzig 1893). A. Forcellini, Totius latinitatis lexicon, revised by V. D e Vit, 6 vols. (Prati 1858-75). C . B uechner, Fragmenta poetarum Latinorum (Leipzig 1982). H . Peter, Historicorum romanorum reliquiae (S tuttgart 1967). R. K iihner, Ausfihrliche Grammatik der lateinischen Sprache, revised by C. Stegm ann (M unich 1912-14). Loeb Classical L ibrary series o f G reek and R om an authors. H . G. Liddell, R. Scott, and H . S. Jones, eds., A Greek-English Lexicon (O xford 1968). O x fo rd Classical Texts series o f G reek and R om an authors. P. G. W. Glare, ed., Oxford Latin Dictionary (O xford 1982). H . M alcovati, Oratorum romanorum fragmenta liberae rei publicae (Turin 1976). K. Preisendanz, Papyri Graecae Magieae: Die griechischen Zauberpapyri, 2 vols. (Leipzig 1928— 31). A. Pauly and G. W issowa, eds., Real-Encyclopadie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft (S tuttgart 1894-). D . R. Shackleton Bailey, Cicero’s Letters to Atticus, I vols. (C am bridge 1965—70); Cicero, Epistulae ad Familiares, 2 vols. (C am bridge 1977); Cicero, Epistulae ad Quintum fratrem et M . Brutum (C am bridge 1980). T. Stangl, Ciceronis orationum scholiastae (Leipzig 1912). Thesaurus linguae Latinae (Leipzig 1900—).

C o n tro llin g L au g h ter

IN TR O D U C TIO N

Brian: Y ou’ve g o t to th in k for yourself! You are all individuals. Crowd: Yes, w e are all individuals! Brian: You are all different! Crowd: Yes, w e are all different! Voice from crowd: I’m not. — F rom M o n ty P y th o n ’s Life o f Brian

C i c e r o w o u ld n o t have gotten this joke; o r at least he w o u ld n ’t have laughed. P ointedly absurd to a m odern audience, the exchange m anipu­ lates a potential paradox inherent in any society that values individual expression. T h e m ore a co m m u n ity prizes individuality, the greater a role th e concept o f individuality plays in defining that co m m u n ity ’s goals. Yet w h en the expression o f this ideal is taken to its extrem e— that is, w h en g roup values becom e m erely the sum o f the contrasting values o f the individual m em bers— com m unality, o f necessity, becom es diffi­ cult to locate. Individuality endangers the group, w hich m u st contain som e co m m o n points o f agreem ent to ensure cohesion. In the epigraph above, the voice fro m the crow d creates the outcast, paradoxically dam n­ in g the speaker th ro u g h the public affirm ation o f one o f m odern society’s m o st fundam ental values. C icero — as an o rato r shaping public discourse, as a politician develop­ ing public policy, as a thinker transm itting political and m oral ideas— had an im p o rtan t stake in the relationship betw een individual and state. A t a pivotal p o int in his treatise O n Moral Duties, he asserts that “there sh ould be one objective for all persons: that the interests o f each individ­ ual and o f the co m m u n ity as a w hole be the sam e” (unum debet esse om­ nibus propositum, ut eadem sit utilitas unius cuiusque et universorum; Off. 3.26). C icero ’s form ulation initially strikes the m odern reader as hum an­ itarian, as a recognition o f individual w orth. B u t as the M onty P ython skit illustrates so well, individuality is a culture-bound concept, and if co m m u n ity and individual are to share the sam e interests, the goals o f at least one side m u st be com prom ised. In C icero’s subsequent discussion, it becom es clear that it is the individual’s task to conform to the w ishes o f

the state. M onty P ython’s m ockery o f groupthink w ould have been lost on Cicero; for he argues that it is only through the suppression o f per­ sonal desire that individual and com m unal needs can m erge. A ty rant’s m urder is justifiable, for example, because he has put his ow n desires before those o f the com m unity (Off. 3.29—32). Cicero does not explain how to evaluate other, less extrem e instances o f individuality. There re­ mains unansw ered the question o f how the individual citizen m ust be defined in relation to other m em bers o f society and to the com m unity at large. O ne can hardly expect prescriptive w orks such as On Moral Duties to have m uch influence on the reality o f the forum . B ut the converse is not true: C icero’s philosophical notions do not arise in a political vacuum. To exam ine the actual processes operating to define the Rom an self, it is best to turn to another Cicero, Cicero as orator. In the political discourse o f the late Republic, Rom ans define their civic status in part negatively. W omen, o f course, play no significant role; indeed, in chapter 4 I discuss how the conception o f maleness and Romanness are inextricably linked.1 A m ong m en, rhetoric as taught and practiced further defines the narrow body o f persons w ho constitute the elite: by dem onstrating that an oppo­ nent behaves contrary to the well-being o f the state, the orator can isolate that opponent as an individual w ho has.no place in society. In this book I concentrate in particular on how political denigration is effected through hum orous invective. Laughter, even in an apparently innocent form , has long been recognized by theorists as having “an unavowed intention to hum iliate, and consequently to correct our neighbor, if not in his will, at least in his deed. ”2 B y rem oving the w ord “unavowed” from this form u­ lation one finds an apt description o f public hum or in the late Rom an Republic. A d hominem attacks characterize the bulk o f political hum or during this period. A cursory reading o f any o f C icero’s invective texts— the Verrines or Philippics, for example— leads one to suspect that hum or in R om e serves as a m echanism for public hum iliation. An examination o f the only extant treatise on oratorical hum or from the period— Caesar Strabo’s discussion in the second book o f C icero’s On the Orator— confirm s that suspicion. By far the m ajority o f political jokes from the late Repubhc operate according to the principles Freud w ould later as­ cribe to the “tendentious” joke: “By m aking our enem y small, inferior, despicable or comic, w e achieve in a roundabout way the enjoym ent o f 1 H allett 1984: 4 -8 surveys the lim ited legal and civic rights o f w om en in R om an public life. Following de Beauvoir’s The Second Sex, H allett 1989b explores the ways in which R om an w om en were socially defined largely by reference to R om an men and speculates that R om an w om en themselves consented to this m ode o f definition. Richlin 1992b offers an analysis o f “the maleness o f Roman public speech” (1323). 2 B ergson 148.

overcom ing h im — to w hich the third person, w ho has m ade no efforts, bears w itness b y his laughter. ”3 T h e o ra to r conspires w ith his audience to exclude the th ird person, the political opponent. I shall argue th ro u g h o u t this book that aggressive h u m o r exercises real pow ers o f persuasion over a late R epublican audience and that, as a cul­ tural p ro d u ct, this h u m o r also helped shape the ethical standards current d u rin g the politically convulsive period o f the late R epublic.4 I stand firm ly o pposed to the tw o conventional scholarly explanations for the p roliferation o f abusive language in R om an oratory. T he first asserts that public invective— filled w ith extravagant lies and un w arran ted attacks— was unconstrained by w h a t w e w ould consider strictures o f p ropriety.5 T h ere survives no evidence to back such a claim. In fact, one w onders w h eth er a public sphere o f activity can ever rem ain unaffected by forces w ith in its o w n culture. T h e second co m m o n explanation contends that R o m an invective represents an artifice b o rro w ed w holesale fro m G reek trad itio n and th at consequently an o ra to r’s audience was n o t expected to believe the charges it heard publicly advanced.6 Such a theory can hardly be m aintained, for it presupposes a R om an audience m aking legal and political decisions according to a system o f beliefs to w hich it at best only partially subscribes. O n the contrary, I w ish to argue that the topics ex­ ploited in the political invective o f this period participate in specific biases already presen t in R om an society. T h e persuasive pow er o f h u m o r Hes n o t m erely in the speaker’s ability to relax and entertain the audience (captatio benevolentiae). R ather, w ith in each instance o f abuse reside values and preconceptions that are essential to the w ay a R om an o f the late Re­ public defined h im self in relation to his com m unity. Invective at R om e w orks w ith in a w ide pohtical context, beyond the level o f individuals. T he p h enom enon o f exclusion observed by Freud can be applied to an entire com m unity, for R om an hum orous abuse cre5 Freud 103. 4 The first comprehensive attem pt to locate hum or as a prevalent force throughout Ro­ m an literature and culture is that o f Saint-Denis, whose survey covers prose and poetry from Plautus to Hadrian. O th er studies have focused on hum or as a rhetorical device (Brugnola; H aury 1955) or as a means o f understanding Cicero’s personal psychology (Hands; Manzo). M ore recent works have examined Ciceronian invective in light o f parallel literary phenom ena in other genres, such as comedy and satire (Geffcken; Richlin 1992a). N o one, however, has studied Roman hum orous invective strictly w ithin its social and political context. 5 This argum ent is best represented by Syme 1939, especially chap. 11, “Political Catch­ w ords”: “In the allegation o f disgusting im morality, degrading pursuits and ignoble origin the Roman politician knew no compunction or lim it” (149). 6Jerom e 50-65; R. Austin 52; N isbet 1961: 192-96. N isbet’s discussion contains an interesting analysis o f the literary precedents to Roman invective. I do not object so much to his own findings as to how subsequent scholars o f invective cite them as p ro o f o f Roman oratory’s lack o f concern for “tru th .”

ates social n o rm s b y exposing the violators o f those norm s. R o m e ’s h u m o r o f aggression caters to, in C icero ’s w ords, “ the interests o f each in d ividual and o f the co m m u n ity as a w h o le ” by sim ultaneously creating and enforcing th e c o m m u n ity ’s ethical values. Jo k es becom e a m eans o f o rd e rin g social realities. T h e process resem bles the interaction betw een in d ividual and society posited b y recent “labeling” theories o f social de­ viance: “social g ro u p s create deviance b y m aking the rules w hose infrac­ tio n con stitu tes deviance, and b y applying these rules to particular people and labeling th em as outsiders. . . . T h e deviant is one to w h o m that label has successfully been applied; deviant behavior is behavior that p eo p le so lab el. ”7 A t R om e, deviant behavior is behavior that public speakers so define in their invective. As they label deviance th ro u g h po­ litical h u m o r, the positive values o f society— the “p ro p e r” w ay to look and behave— becom e reinforced by contrast. In creating and m aintaining th e ideal society envisioned in O n Moral Duties, C icero ’s R om e does have access to a disciplinary m echanism : laughter. In o n e o f his Moral Epistles, Seneca discusses the im p o rtan ce o f m axim s (praecepta) for an ethical education. T aut, epigram m atic axiom s appeal n atu rally to the h u m an em otions, he argues, and hence ably facilitate the so u l’s p u rsu it o f k n o w led g e.8 T h e preem inence o f the m ax im can be lo­ cated in th e m o re general aspects o f R o m an education as well, for the m oralizing sententia played a central role in the tendency to in stru ct th ro u g h ex em p lary tales (exempla). O n e recalls the idealized tradition p ro p a g ated b y the elder C ato, according to w hich children received m o ral in stru ctio n b y listening to elders sing o f the v irtu o u s deeds o f their an cesto rs.9 Tales such as these w ere to fo rm the basis o f R om an educa­ tio n in th e R epublic and early E m p ire . 10 As a result, teaching th ro u g h exam ples com e to be portrayed as distinctly R om an, and threats to this trad itio n p ro v o k ed C icero ’s lam ents over the co rru p tio n foreign influ­ ences have w ro u g h t o n the old R o m an w it. 11 G iven the value placed on praecepta and exempla in R o m an education, it should com e as little sur­ prise th at the th ree p ro m in e n t shapers o f Latin p ro se style and hence o f R o m an th o u g h t— C ato the elder, Julius C aesar, and C icero— all relied on collections o f o th er p eo p le’s jo k es and sententiae in their training as public 7 B eck er 9, as q u o te d in Schur 7. 8 Sen. Epist. 94; see especially section 28: “m axim s to u ch o u r very e m o tio n s, and are effective since n a tu re is exercising its o w n force” (adfectus ipsos (praecepta) tangunt et natura vim suam exercente proficiunt); section 47: “m axim s check and banish o u r e m o tio n s as i f th ro u g h force o f la w ” (praecepta, quae adfectus nostros velut edicto coercent et ablegant). 9 C ic. Brut. 75; Tusc. 1.3, 4.3; D e orat. 3.197; V arro at N o n iu s pp. 7 7 -7 8 (M ercerus); H o r. Carm. 4 .1 5 .2 9 -3 2 ; Val. M ax. 2.1.10. 10 M aslakov contains the m o st recent th o ro u g h discussion. See also M a rro u 2 3 4 -3 6 , 2 5 2 -5 3 ; Q u in t. Inst. 12.2.30. 11 As m o st clearly expressed in Fam. 9 .15.2 (SB 196); cf. Fam. 7.5.3 (SB 26), Brut. 172; H o r. Sat. 1.7.32.

I N T R O D U C T IO N

7

figures. 12 N or is it surprising that the witticism s and maxims o f these three men should also have been collected and circulated during or soon after their lifetim es. 13 I shall conclude this book by considering the sinis­ ter implications o f one such collection. Julius Caesar, at the close o f the civil war, sent spies to write dow n all the jokes that Cicero may have uttered throughout the course o f his day, both in public and in private. C icero’s hum or had clearly found a rapt audience— at least in the person o f Caesar, w ho, after seizing the republic, wished also to control laugh­ ter, a means o f com munal expression not readily vanquished by arms. O ne can only wonder i f similar motives o f censorship drove Augustus to prohibit the dissemination o f Caesar’s ow n collection o f jok es.14 For, as I mentioned above and shall argue in detail below, the modes o f humor prominent in late Republican political discourse do not provide space for a preeminent individual. The w ritings o f Cicero constitute, by necessity, the basis o f this study. Yet this necessity is a w elcom e one, for not only was Cicero the most popular orator o f his day and am ong the foremost practitioners o f wit, but those speeches that have survived represent (not accidentally) his m ost successful efforts. 15 Even during the orator’s lifetime it seems that his invective and hum or were regarded both in the courts and at school as m odels for im itation. 16 And since, as Cicero him self says, “the aim o f 12 C a to ’s apophthegmata: Cic. Off. 1.104, D e orat. 2.271; the collection m o st likely con­ tained G reek m axim s (cf. Plut. Cat. M a. 2.4), b u t it is d isputed w h e th er C ato included any jo k es o f his ow n (Rossi 177—79, follow ing Jo rd a n cvi, argues against this n o tio n , b u t her o bjections seem adequately m et by A stin 188). Julius C aesar’s dicta collectanea: Suet. Iu l. 56.7, m o st likely to be identified at least in p art w ith the collection referred to at Cic. Fam. 9.16.4 (SB 190); this assem blage, like C a to ’s, seem s to have em phasized the m axim s o f others. C icero; D e orat. 2.216—90 adequately attests to the im p o rtan ce C icero attached to h u m o r as a persuasive tool; for his source m aterial, see R abbie 200—204. 13 C ato: Jo rd a n cites 67 distinct exam ples (c v -c v i, 97-111). Caesar: see P eter 853. A t least three collections by his contem poraries seem to be attested for Cicero: one by P. V olum nius E utrapelus {Fam. 7.32 = SB 113), a second by C . T reb o n iu s (Fam. 15.21.2 = SB 207), and a th ird by his freedm an T iro (or perhaps som eone else) in three books (Q uint. Inst. 6.3.5; Schol. B ob. p. 140, 16—17 [Stangl]; M acr. Sat. 2.1.12); see also Q u in t. Inst. 8.6.73, M acr. Sat. 2.1.13. 14 See Suet. IuL 56.7, w here A ugustus also is said to have suppressed tw o o f C aesar’s youthful w ritin g s, a w o rk in praise o f H ercules and a tragedy Oedipus, p resum ably to pre­ serve his adoptive father’s literary reputation. Yet the princeps apparently did n o t reveal his m otives— the letter fo rbidding publication w as “sh o rt and sw eet” (breoem admodum ac simplicem). 15 See C ra w fo rd 3 -1 6 ; Vasaly 8 -1 0 argues for accepting the extant speeches as “ docu­ m ents o f persuasion. ” 16 Cic. A d Q . fi. 3.1.11. C f. also C ice ro ’s ow n testim o n y at Plane. 35; on this sam e occasion his o p p o n e n t L aterensis had tried to anticipate C ice ro ’s jo k es (85). N o t everyone appreciated C ice ro ’s w it, eith er am o n g his contem poraries (Cic. Phil. 2.39; Plut. Cic. 27.1, 50.5 [w ith L eem an 216-17]) o r am o n g later critics (e.g., Sen. Contr. 7.3.9; Q u in t. Inst. 6 .3 .2 -5 , 12.10.12; Tac. Dial. 23.1; Plut. M or. 803c, Cic. 5.6).

oratory is to w in the approval o f one’s audience” (effectus eloquentiae est audientium approbatio; Tusc. 2.3), his success virtually ensures that the hu­ m orous appeals found in these oratorical texts articulate values and pre­ suppositions present in the m ajority o f his R om an audience. I divide m y initial discussion o f political hum or according to topics o f abuse. These topics include the m ockery o f physical appearance (chapter I); o f nam es (chapter 2); o f the m outh (chapter 3); and o f association w ith feasting and effeminacy (chapter 4). These were the categories I found suggested m ost often by the surviving material. M y analysis o f each separate category begins, w hen possible, w ith examples o f witticism s that Cicero identifies as hum orous and effective in his discussion o f hum or in book 2 o f O n the Orator. B y this empirical m ethod, I am able to separate those areas that the Rom ans distinguished as constituting a sub­ ject o f hum or from those that m erely provided m atter for simple degra­ dation (if indeed such a category as the latter even exists).17 I also include in m y analysis witticism s culled from the w ider range o f political dis­ course. Here I rely prim arily on jokes found in oratory, but I also include, w here applicable, jokes that survive in imperial authors and seem to date to the late Republic.18 Passages from other Republican authors are also frequently cited to support or qualify m y arguments. M y analysis o f each specific object o f abuse involves tw o distinct steps. First, I assess evidence outside o f political discourse— from prayer ritual to philosophical treatises to physiognom ic texts— in an attem pt to locate independently the biases in Rom an society that enabled the orator’s jokes to persuade his hearers. M y second step is to explore how the public speaker uses the m edium o f hum or to articulate these predispositions into com m only acknowledged values. For example, when Cicero ridi­ cules his opponent Vatinius for facial swellings, he appeals to a potential bias in R om an society to equate physical appearance w ith m oral charac­ ter, a tendency one finds confirm ed in contem porary philosophical spec­ ulation. T hrough the course o f the oration against Vatinius, Cicero ex­ ploits this cultural prejudice until it becomes a construct that his audience is compelled to acknowledge. It then becomes a m oot point w hether or not Vatinius can be shown to be in fact culpable o f the fault Cicero con­ structs w ith his rhetoric. In other w ords, I do not wish to claim that 17 In m y b e lie f th at th e m o st v ig o ro u s and m o ralistic denunciation gave pleasure to an audience and even aroused lau g h te r I follow the o b serv atio n o f Frye 224: “ It is an established d a tu m for lite ratu re th at w e like h earing p eople cursed and are bo red w ith h earing them praised, and alm o st any d enunciation, i f v igorous enough, is follow ed by a reader w ith a k in d o f pleasure th a t so o n breaks in to a sm ile. ” 18 T h e m o st im p o rta n t sources for late R epublican h u m o r outside o f C icero are the collections p reserved in Q u in t. Inst. 6.3, P lu ta rc h ’s Lives (especially Cic. 2 5 -2 7 ), and M acr. Sat. 2 .1 -7 , 7.3.

C icero’s audience, if asked, w ould necessarily attribute Vatinius’ despica­ ble character to his physical appearance. For Vatinius’ facial sores act not so m uch as a clear w indow to internal character as a text that Cicero interprets for his hearers. Cicero offers a reading o f Vatinius’ appearance for which contem porary cultural prejudices provide corroborative evi­ dence. Vatinius’ im m oral character depends ju st as m uch on C icero’s ability to articulate for his audience its ow n bias against physical defor­ mities as it depends on the actual appearance o f Vatinius himself. In each o f the categories I discuss, the teller o f the joke isolates his opponent by portraying him as an individual, as som eone w ho stands at odds w ith acceptable Rom an notions o f the role o f the self in society. W ithin every com m unity, Nietzsche has claimed, objects o f truth arise from social conformity, and hum an beings shape for themselves the cate­ gories o f good and evil.19 Rom an society lacked the m odel o f a single all­ m oral deity according to which ethical standards could be form ed and enforced. As a result, the com m unity had to collaborate in the labeling o f deviance in order to define its ow n m oral codes. In m anipulating the beliefs o f his Rom an audience, Cicero was not blind to the role hum or could play in this process o f com m unal self-definition. A t one point in On the Orator, he has Caesar Strabo rem ark that “no type o f joke is such that stern and serious principles may not be draw n from the same source” (nullum genus est ioci quo non ex eodem severa et gravia sumantur, De orat.

2.251). Political hum or, no less than serious political discussion, both creates and enforces a com m unity’s norm s. C hapter I treats the m ockery o f physical peculiarities. T he first tw o por­ tions o f this chapter discuss the ethical biases underlying Rom an invec­ tive. I then analyze C icero’s rhetorical treatises to explain how the m ock­ ery o f physical deformities represents a socially acceptable means for the public castigation o f an opponent. In this section I examine in particular passages from Cicero’s philosophical and rhetorical w orks in order to distinguish betw een Greek and Rom an views o f personal responsibility for physical appearance. There emerges from this analysis a recognition that the Rom ans tended to view physical peculiarities as m arking a devia­ tion from hum anity’s natural state and, m oreover, that the deform ed in­ dividual is responsible for any physical peculiarity he bears. A deform ity signals a m oral fault and hence its bearer represents a potential threat to 19 E .g ., N ietzsche 151: “F ortunately I learned in g o o d tim e to divorce the theological prejudice fro m the m oral a n d n o lo n g er to seek th e o rig in o f evil behind the w o rld . A certain a m o u n t o f historical a n d philological training, to g eth e r w ith a native fastidiousness in m at­ ters o f psychology, before lo n g tran sfo rm ed this p ro b lem in to another, to w it, ‘U n d e r w h at co n d itio n s d id m an co n stru ct the value ju d g m e n ts o f good and etlift’" (original em phases).

society. I conclude the chapter w ith a critical reading o f passages from the speeches O n Behalf o f Quintus Roscius and Against Vatinius. In these tw o orations, C icero exploits his audience’s bias that a p erso n ’s physical ap­ pearance can reveal m o ral character. Fannius and Vatinius are constructed as villains for w h o m external signs reveal internal corruption. T h e m o ck ery o f physical peculiarities leads naturally into an analysis o f the R o m an co g n o m en, o r surnam e. V arro “the k n o ck -k n eed ,” “squintyeyed” S trabo, and “w a rty ” V errucosus all attest to the odd fascination the R om ans had w ith labeling individuals according to their physical defor­ m ities. M y second chapter explores the strong rhetorical force that the m ock ery o f these surnam es and o ther nam es possessed in the late R epub­ lic. I b egin b y o utlining the peculiar nature o f the R om an cognom en d u rin g this period: although com m only pejorative in m eaning, the nam es are largely confined at R om e to m em bers o f the political elite. To explain this anom aly, I suggest that these nam es w ere used in earlier stages o f the R epublic to check families that w ere grow ing in size and im p o rtan ce. S u p port for this contention is so ught in an analysis o f the su pernatural associations nam es carried in archaic and later R om e. In reli­ gious, m ilitary, and m edical language, nam es and nam ing afford a speaker b o th contact w ith and pow er over supernatural elem ents. This pow er, conceived o f as in h eren t in the w o rd , inform s the m any puns on nam es th at occur in political debate. T he chapter closes w ith a selection fro m this m aterial. O ra to rs frequently m ock nam es to reveal a character flaw in an o p p o n en t o r to d em onstrate w h y a person has failed to con­ fo rm to th e expectations raised by his nam e. T he o rato r m akes an appel­ lation in to a label that directs the R om an audience to read the m oral contents o f an individual in a particular way. T h e n ex t tw o chapters exam ine the R om an belief that, ju s t as physical peculiarities could indicate character, so too certain affectations and ac­ quired physical traits provide evidence for m oral depravity. In chapter 3 I analyze jo k es that center on the im m o ral behavior o f the m o u th (os impuTum). In R o m an invective, the m o u th represented an area particularly charged w ith negative connotations. Various activities o f the m o u th — excessive eating and drinking, oral sex— are represented as perform ing a dual function: th ey b o th effect certain types o f evil and, in so doing, tran sfo rm the m o u th into a sign o f co rru p tio n visible to the properly discerning view er. T he exploitation o f an o p p o n e n t’s m outh receives particular atten tio n in C icero’s orations Against Verres (2.3) and On Behalf o f His Home. A fter a close reading o f these tw o w orks, I conclude by suggesting th at this “m orality o f o rality ” does m ore than exclude fro m society those labeled corrupt. E m phasis on the m outh also allows m em ­ bers o f th e political elite to legislate the facial expression o f the “p ro p e r” R om an.

C h a p te r 4 begins b y focusing o n the conventional signs to w hich an o ra to r could appeal in o rd e r to im plicate his o p p o n en t in the im m o d erate feast. As co n stru cted by R o m an rhetoric, the illicit b anquet conjures u p a b ew ild erin g v ariety o f im p ro p e r activities. To succeed in identifying an adv ersary as a participant in these banquets is to label h im as one w h o neglects th e p ro p e r functions o f a R o m an citizen. I concentrate especially u p o n h o w signs o f the feast intersect w ith signs for effem inacy. T h e o ra­ to r h ad access to a specific set o f external indicators th at he could exploit to d em o n strate his adversary’s lapse fro m p ro p e r m ale behavior. T he stran g ely a n d ro g y n o u s figure o f the effem inate m ale appealed to R om an fears o f th e potentially unstable n ature o f m asculinity. I conclude the ch apter w ith C ic e ro ’s p ortrayal o f Lucius C alpurnius Piso C aesoninus. T h e fig u re o f Piso challenged those R o m an representations o f self th at I discuss in m y first four chapters. In physical appearance, nam e, and m an­ nerism s, he seem ed the m odel R om an; yet C icero ’s attack o n Piso show s h o w this ex cep tion does n o t u n d erm in e b u t rath er su p p o rts the principles o f h u m o ro u s invective. Piso, he claim s, has adopted co m m o n ly recog­ nized signs o f the p ro p e r R om an citizen in o rd e r to p ervert th em fo r his o w n insidious ends. In ch apter 5 I historicize m y findings by linking the isolating tenden­ cies o f R o m an h u m o r to political events o f the late R epublic. T h e preced­ in g chapters establish C icero as the p rim ary ex p onent o f a traditional R o m an w it. Yet alternatives existed to the ethical m odes constructed by C icero ’s w itticism s. T h e m ilitary leaders G naeus P om peius and Ju h u s C aesar w ield a bran d o f h u m o r th at tends to valorize the individual at the expense o f trad itional state structures. T h e clash o f the differing m odes o f h u m o r practiced b y C icero and each o f these individuals results in at­ tem p ts to censor C icero ’s public em p lo y m en t o f w itticism s. In particu­ lar, a letter o f C icero dem onstrates th at C aesar as dictator recognized in the o ra to r’s h u m o r a po ten tial threat to the stability o f his rule and that, as a result, he to o k steps to co n tro l C icero ’s freedom o f expression. In the final seg m en t o f this “Political H isto ry o f W it, ” I discuss the p ro m in en t role h u m o r played in the final days o f C icero — and o f the Republic. A lth o u g h the categories I treat in these chapters m ay strik e a m o d ern reader as peculiar and even im m o ral, I hope to d em onstrate th at they do co n stitu te a clear and consistent code. A system o f values underlies them , b u t th e values belong to an elite th at is sm all and pow erful and that w ishes to rem ain so. O th e r types o f jo k es th at I shall n o t be discussing, such as th e m o ckery o f low -class b irth and o f n o n -R o m an origins, also su p p o rt an elite ideology. In these instances, the m echanism s for exclud­ ing persons fro m political pow er are m o re obvious. It is w ell docu­ m en ted h o w th e urb an aristocracy, th ro u g h b o th legislation and m o re

covert means, continually maneuvered to stabilize social and political cat­ egories o f birth and geographical origin.20 The witticisms discussed in the following chapters, however, do not have a clearly discernible cor­ relation to social class and political power. Rather, the political abuse I analyze— and the responsive laughter that continually endorses the con­ tent o f that abuse— shapes an ideology o f the body that Romans are able to accept as objective reality.21 In the following chapters, I show how a trial audience laughs approvingly at the public m ockery o f a m an’s phy­ sique (chapter I), how comic texts reaffirm aristocratic strictures con­ cerning proper sexual behavior (chapter 4), and how a political rally de­ volves into public rebuke o f a m ajor political figure’s personal life (chapter 5). T hrough the m ockery o f a deviant physique, name, appearance, or gesture, the public speaker helps mark, and the public audience helps reinforce, the bodily form and m ovem ent that are im proper for the elite. In so doing, the elite defines its boundaries and excludes those w ho vio­ late these socially constructed norm s. And it would appear that the par­ ticular ideology prom oted at Rom e is peculiar to the capital city itself. O u r sources indicate that orators from the municipalities generally avoid using any type o f hum or w hen speaking in Rome. This avoidance seems to have tw o causes: in part, Rom an hum or has its ow n flavor, and so is not readily accessible to a nonurbanite.22 But m ore significant, I would claim, is the fact that the hum or traditionally employed in Rom e’s forum originated in an elite “education”— and I use the w ord in the broadest sense— to which municipal orators could not easily claim access.23 We hear diverse voices from the early Em pire bewailing the decline o f m oral standards, a lam ent that often links the loss o f m orality w ith a lapse from the rhetorical standards maintained during the glory days o f 20 See W isem an 1—5 (trials for c o rru p tio n used to circu m v en t p o p u lar electoral legisla­ tion), 77—89 (social and legal stigm a attached to low er-class occupations); Salm on 118—21 (political rivalries d e te rm in in g w h ic h Italians are a d m itte d to citizenship); D avid 1983; 3 1 8 22 (biases faced b y n e w ly arrived m unicipals in R om e); Vasaly 191-205 (C icero’s represen­ tation o f n o n -R o m an s in his speeches O n B ehalf o f Fonteius, On B ehalf o f Scaurus, and On B ehalf o f Flaccus). 21 I follow here A lthusser’s n o tio n o f ideology: “T h e id e o lo g ic a l‘level’ . . . represents an objective reality: . . . that is, a reality independent o f the subjectivity o f the individuals w h o are subject to it, even w hilst it concerns these individuals them selves” (23). 22 C icero rem arks in the Brutus on the "particu lar flavor" (nescio quo sapore vemaculo) o f native R o m an h u m o r (170-72). T h e elusiveness o f taste at R o m e is fu rth er attested b y the difficulty m o d e m scholars have had in determ in in g w h at precisely constitutes urbanitas (see R am age and th e b ib lio g rap h y he cites). 23 D avid 1983: 318—22 com piles evidence for this claim . C icero, o f course, provides a n otable exception. P a rt o f his success in overco m in g these obstacles surely lay in his self­ portrayal as a staunch defender o f the status quo. E dw ards 17 discusses the tendency o f R om ans fro m the m unicipalities to m aintain the sternest m oral profile.

th e R ep u b lic.24 I f one understands the role played b y political invective in th e late R epublic, it becom es clear w h y the R om ans linked m o rality and o rato ry . Invective reaffirm ed publicly w h a t was rig h t and p ro p e r for the tru e, elite R om an. M orality, then, did n o t sim ply depend on o ra to ry for its expression. It w as th ro u g h o rato ry th at th e R o m an m o ral codes found co n stan t con firm ation. 24 See Williams 1978: 6-51; Edw ards 137-72.

C hapter ί

PHYSICAL PECULIARITIES T h e skin, after all, is ex trem ely person al, is it not? T h e tem p tation is to b elieve that the ills and the p oison s o f the m in d or the personality have so m eh o w or other erupted straight ou t on to the skin. “U nclean! U n clea n !” yo u sh ou t, rin gin g the bell, w arn in g us to keep off, to keep clear. T h e leper in the B ib le, yes? B u t that is n on sen se, you know . D o yo u k now ? W ell— o n e part o f you d oes, I’m sure.

— D . Potter, T h e Singing D etective 56 sit . . . inscriptum in fron te unius cuiusque quid de re publica sentiat.

(Let it be inscribed o n each in d ivid u al’s forehead w hat that person thinks about the republic.) — C icero, First Speech against C a tilin e 32

o f “n atu re” and “culture” has long oriented discussions ab o u t th e origins o f ethical behavior. This division represents a conflict over the extent to w hich hu m an action is determ ined either by natural causes o r by socially constructed norm s. F rom its ancient G reek form ula­ tio n oiphusis versus nomos (“n atu re” vs. “cu sto m ”), the opposition finds its m o d ern expression in the notions o f essentialism and constructionism . As in m o st dichotom ies, how ever, the distinctions betw een the tw o halves are m o re form al than real. Few so-called essentialists w ould say that they believe social context exerts no influence on hum an behavior. Sim ilarly, it w o uld be difficult (although perhaps less so) to find a con­ stru ctio n ist w h o w ould be w illing to deny that there exist am ong hum an beings certain constants that are n o t culture specific. 1 In this book I adopt an approach clearly sym pathetic w ith constructionism . A t least since N ietzsche it has been co m m o n ly argued that ethical system s consist not o f stable entities b u t o f socially constructed notions that the changing needs o f society are constantly shaping. M y object then is to explore how

T h e d ic h o to m y

1 G eertz offers an en tertaining assessm ent o f the issue; see also B osw ell 1990. Fuss (esp. 1-2 1 ) analyzes the interdependence o f th e tw o concepts, a rguing that “essentialism is essen­ tial to social c o n stru ctio n ism " (I, original em phasis).

the d o m in an t, elite culture at R om e d u rin g the period o f the late R epublic created and reinforced its o w n concept o f “R o m an n ess” th ro u g h the use o f p ublic invective. I shall beg in in this first chapter w ith a p h en o m en o n c o m m o n in h u m o ro u s abuse, one often n o ted b u t seldom co n fro n ted by later adm irers o f R o m an oratory: the public m o ck ery o f physical pecu­ liarities. It w o u ld seem easy to cite this m o d e o f h u m o r as sim ply an o th er exam ple o f co n stru cted no tio n s o f the physical self: for exam ple, that the R o m an s h ad valorized G reek aesthetics o f fo rm and p ro p o rtio n to such an ex ten t th at violation o f these strictures becam e a perm issible subject o f abuse. Yet labeling this practice as sim ply cruel or unenlightened w o u ld be m isguided. T h e R om ans certainly recognized in this case a distinction b etw een n atu re and custom , betw een natural law and h u m an practice. It w as, in fact, precisely this d ich o to m y that th ey attem p t to m ediate in th eir discussion o f physical appearance. Natura— “n a tu re ”— w as a slippery term . In a public context, it could d en o te the character peculiar to an individual, a character that determ ines o n e ’s actions (“th a t’s in his n atu re”). A ccording to this conception o f nature, h u m an behavior is n o t fixed. H ence any p erso n ’s in b o rn quali­ ties, w h e n represented in the co u rtro o m , could vary fro m positive to negative, d ep en d in g o n w h e th e r a speaker w ished to attach praise o r blam e to his subject. In the closing sentences o f his defense o f Sextus R oscius, for exam ple, C icero asserts h o w he and his audience are “natu­ rally v ery g en tle” (natura mitissimv, S. Rose. 154); a passage fro m a speech against V erres, in contrast, finds the w o rd natura bearing responsibility for co n tin u al w ro n g d o in g (“this natura, w hich has co m m itte d so great a c rim e ”— ea natura quae tantum facinus commiserit; Verr. 2.1.40).2 In public depictions o f p ersonal responsibility, natura is fickle and capricious, its activities ran g in g fro m h u m an itarian sy m p ath y to w icked crim e. W hen o ccu rrin g in a philosophical and m oral context, how ever, natura usually denotes a divine agent. T his version o f n ature as fixed and con­ stan t creates standards o f appearance and behavior— “for w h a t is natura o th er th an g o d and divine reason?”3 As a result o f n a tu re ’s preem inence, th ere arises th e co m m o n practice o f appealing to nature to m ake m oral distinctions. A n y deviation fro m the rules o f n ature is “u n n atu ra l” in the strictest sense o f the w o rd . F ro m a m o ral stan d p o in t, then, the R om an co n cep tio n o f physical appearance can be view ed as very m u ch a con­ scious co n stru ctio n , predicated o n the desire to fuse natural law and cul­ tu ral practice. N atu re, endow ed by philosophers w ith com plete perfec­ tio n , becom es the touchstone for determ ining deviance. In the case o f the 2 F or o th e r appeals to the p ositive actions o f natura, see, e .g ., Cht. 200, Suit. 73, L ig . 38; for natura d e n o tin g a m o rally c o rru p t character, C/m. 46, Sm//. 71, Pis. 27. 3 Sen. Ben. 4.7.1: quid enim aliud est natura quam deus et divina ratio? C f. C ic. L eg. 1.26—30 and K enter o n Leg. 1.16.

R om an practice against physical peculiarities, therefore, one can recog­ nize the w o rk in g s o f a “constructed essentialism . ” T o ju s tify the atten­ dant ethical co n struct— that physical appearance provided indications o f m oral character— appeals w ere m ade to essentializing notions o f the the­ oretical perfection o f nature. A naturally beautiful physique bespoke a m orally sound interior. T his fusion o f nature and custom , o f physical beauty and ethical n o rm s, provides a necessary foundation for rhetorical invective. F or th e existence o f a hu m an com m unity, as constructed by public figures at R om e, depended o n the identification o f soul w ith body, on th e ability to recognize the w orkings o f nature in the very face o f the citizen. T h e N a t u r e o f R o m a n O r a t o r ic a l I n v e c t iv e

B efore I exam ine the particular case o f the m ockery o f physical pecu­ liarities, it w ill be useful to outline h ow speakers at R om e defined for them selves the basic character o f hum o ro u s invective. T h ere is no ques­ tion th at th e audience’s adm iration o f a clever tu rn o f phrase o r o f a particularly w itty com eback constituted a part o f the o ra to r’s success. I shall n o t, how ever, be concerned w ith the strictly rhetorical aspect o f these m oves, m aneuvers to w hich rhetoricians and scholars have directed their atten tio n fro m G reek antiquity to the present.4 R ather, I shall con­ centrate o n the assum ptions that the extant texts never explicitly address, the un stated biases to w hich invective m akes its appeal and by w hich it is ju stified . E ven those attacks that seem m o st cruel and unprovoked find their o rigin in the ethical considerations that a skillful speaker was able to com pel his R om an audience to recognize. T h e m o d ern reader o f R om an orato ry cannot fail to be struck by b o th the om nipresence and caustic character o f R om an invective. In his rhe­ torical treatises, C icero does not equivocate in recom m ending attacks on character. In O n the Orator, the abuse o f an o p p o n en t ranks equally w ith the favorable representation o f a speaker and his client: v a le t ig itu r m u ltu m ad v in c e n d u m p ro b a r i m o re s et in s titu ta et facta et v ita m e o ru m , q u i a g e n t causas, e t e o ru m , p ro q u ib u s , e t ite m im p ro b a ri a d v e rs a rio ru m . (D e orat. 2 . 182 ) In p e rs u a d in g successfu lly , it is v e ry im p o r ta n t th a t th e ch a ra c te r, p rin c ip les, a c tio n s, a n d w a y o f life b e a p p ro v e d o f b o th th o s e w h o w ill p le a d th e case as 4 T h e m o st im p o rta n t ancient discussions are in A risto tle’s Rhetoric 2, C icero ’s O n the Orator 2, and Q u in tilia n ’s Institutes 6. M . G ra n t provides a convenient overview o f these treatises. F o r C icero in particular, see H au ry 1955.

w ell as those o n b eh a lf o f w h o m [the case w ill be spoken], and th at likew ise [the corresp o n d in g traits] o f o n e’s o pponents be exposed to disapproval.

To point up the faults o f the opposition constitutes legitimate oratorical practice. The principle applies here to speakers for both defense and pros­ ecution (D e orat. 2.183). In his speech on behalf o f M urena, Cicero con­ centrates specifically upon how the opposing prosecutor has attacked M urena’s character. In referring to the earlier speech o f this prosecutor, Cicero provides general rem arks on the application o f personal invective (reprehensio vitae ): quae gravissim a debebat esse ita fuit infirm a et levis u t illos lex m agis quaed am accusatoria q u am vera m ale dicendi facultas de v ita L. M urenae dicere aliquid coegerit. (Mur. 11) T h a t w hich o u g h t to have been the w eightiest [part o f th e charge] w as so w eak and slight th a t it w as a kin d o f “rule o f the p ro secu tio n ” (lex accu­ satoria) rath er than any real o p p o rtu n ity for slandering that com pelled them to say an y th in g at all ab o u t Lucius M u ren a’s life.

Cicero claims that his client M urena stands free from blame and so he attributes any abuse on the prosecution’s part to a kind o f pro forma exercise. Yet even if one allows for hyperbole here, the force o f the w ord lex (“rule”) attests to the frequency and, presumably, efficacy o f such tactics. In fact, nowhere in his w ritings on oratory does Cicero question the relevance an ad hominem attack m ight have to the case at hand.5 Part o f the accuser’s skill depends upon his ability to expose the faults o f a defendant w ithout slipping into slander. In a context similar to that o f the passage cited above, Cicero finds him self in his speech On B ehalfof Caelius having to refute the accusations o f the young prosecutor A tratinus. His rem arks show that the Romans observed limitations on how far one could go in reproaching another person’s way o f life: sed aliud est m ale dicere, aliud accusare. accusatio crim en desiderat, rem ut definiat, h o m in e m n o tet, arg u m e n to probet, teste confirm et; m aledictio autem nihil h abet pro p o siti praeter contum eliam ; quae si p etulantius iactatur, convicium , si facetius, urbanitas no m in atu r. (Cael. 6) B u t it’s one thing to slander, another to accuse. A ccusation needs a charge so that it m ay define th e m atter at hand, censure th e person [accused] (homi­ nem notet), m ake a d em o n stratio n th ro u g h a p ro o f, and co n firm th ro u g h w itnesses. Slander on the o th e r hand has no agenda o th er th an insulting 5 Stroh 252-53.

language, which, if bandied about rather recklessly, is called abuse, if rather wittily, clever elegance. Few co m m en tato rs on this passage fail to note that the facts o f C aelius’ case com pel C icero to condem n here w hat he him self often practices elsew here.6 B u t the distinction C icero describes betw een slander and a p ro p e r accusation has n o t been entirely fabricated for the occasion. T he passages I have cited from O n the Orator and O n B e h a lf o f M urena , as well as the m any exam ples from the speeches that I shall quote below, all co n firm that at least som e types o f abusive language w ere expected and even encouraged on the part o f counsels for b o th the prosecution and defense. A nd in fact C icero’s rem arks here do n o t exclude the possibility o f a veh em en t attack on character. As defined in this passage, a legitim ate accusation (accusatio) includes censure o f the accused. T he phrase ut . . . hominem notet (“to censure the person accused”) derives from the re p ro o f em ployed by a m agistrate, especially a censor, against citizens leading an illicit lifestyle.7 Such a form ulation provides the o ra to r w ith a legitim ate p retex t to reproach an o p p o n en t’s character vigorously. H ence C icero’s definition o f an accusation here m akes am ple allow ance for contumelia — w h at one m ig h t term “abusive language. ” O n ly one precondition exists: a charge to ju stify the abuse (accusatio crimen desiderat).8 T o understand the circum stances in fo rm in g R om an invective, therefore, it is necessary to concentrate on w hat constitutes a legitim ate charge. It is here, and no t sim ply in th e language o f abuse, w here justification for invective is located. O n those occasions w hen C icero chose to take on a role less fam iliar to h im self— th at o f accuser— he appears on first inspection to have ignored any standards o f discretion. H arsh invective flourishes in the speeches against Verres, Piso, Vatinius, and M arcus A ntonius. In the vivid conclu­ sion o f his scathing invective A gainst Piso, C icero describes the effects the speech has had on his opponent. P roperly em ployed, invective disables its target, m arking him as unfit for hu m an society. 6 R. A ustin ad Ioc.: “ C ice ro ’s audience w h en he delivered the speech In Pisonem a year later m ig h t ju stifiab ly have rem inded him o f his present re m a rk s.” In O n B ehalf o f Murena, C icero m akes a d istinction sim ilar to the one cited from On B eh a lf o f Caelius: “i f one attacks truthfully, it is the slander (maledictum) o f a forceful accuser; b u t i f [one attacks] falsely, [this is the slander] o f a slandering slinger o f abuse” (maledictum est, si vere obicitur, vehementis accusatoris; sin falso, maledici conviciatoris\ Mur. 13). 7 For the phrase aliquem notare in reference to the censors, see Clu. 119, 130; Sest. 101; M il. 31. F or passages outsid e o f C icero, see Forcellini, s.v. noto II 3, 4. 8 Contumelia is a practice accessible to the o ra to r elsew here. Q u in tilian includes am ong his four classes o fjo k e s the contumeliosumgenus\ cf. also De orat. 2.222, w here C rassus deem s his o p p o n e n t B ru tu s “ w o rth y o f contumelia."

n u m q u a m e g o sa n g u in em e x p e tiv i tuum : n u m q u a m illud ex trem u m , q u od p osset esse im p ro b is et probis co m m u n e su p p liciu m legis ac iudicii; sed ab iectu m , co n te m p tu m , d esp ectu m a ceteris, a te ip so desperatum et relictu m , circum sp ectan tem o m n ia , q uidquid increpuisset, p ertim iscen tem , d iffid en tem tuis rebus, sin e v o c e , sin e libertate, sine auctoritate, sine ulla specie consulari, h orren tem , trem en tem , adulantem o m n es, videre te volui; vid i. (Pis. 99) For m y part, I n ever so u g h t to draw you r blood : I never so u g h t the ultim ate p u n ish m en t o f the law and co u rtro o m , a p u n ish m en t w h ic h can be shared b y the g o o d and ev il alike; instead I w a n ted to see y ou spurned, rejected, and scorned b y ev ery o n e else w h ile forsaken and abandoned b y yourself; I w an ted to see yo u lo o k in g around at ev ery th in g , starting at the sligh test n o ise, havin g n o co n fid en ce in you r o w n resources as yo u lack voice, free­ d o m , authority, and an y resem b lan ce to o n e o f consular rank; sh iverin g, trem b lin g, faw n in g u p on all oth ers, that is h o w I w a n ted to see you; and this is w h at I have seen.

D espite its scornful character, this passage reveals that R o m an invective has w h a t I w o u ld call an ethical basis. T h e o ra to r reserves his co n tem p t for the evil citizen; invective provides a kin d o f supplem ent to norm al legal proceedings. T h e language o f Against Piso does m o re than expose P iso ’s crim inality, how ever. It m akes Piso the object o f all R o m e’s con­ tem p t, a m an d eprived o f the attributes p ro p e r to a free R om an citizen, a m an w h o virtu ally becom es a fearful and shivering beast. Invective m ain­ tains th e d istin ction betw een w h a t is p ro p e r for a R om an citizen and w hat is not. Such use o f language as an extralegal m eans o f enforcing m oral codes can be com pared to the archaic R o m an practice o f flagitium (or flagitatio), in w h ich socially unacceptable— b u t n o t strictly illegal— acts w ere exposed to public defam ation.9 W hen effectively em ployed, this fo rm o f public exposure could destroy the social po sitio n o f a citizen. 10 D esp ite ap p arent legislation to curtail the em ploym ent o f flagitium, the practice p ro v ed so effective that, as references in R epublican authors indi­ cate, so m e form s survived to C icero ’s day.11 B o th oratorical invective and flagitium arise fro m sim ilar m otivations: to regulate types o f social b eh av io r th at stand outside the p u rv iew o f form al legislation. T h ro u g h 9 U sen er, co n veniently su m m arized in Kelly 1966: 2 1 -2 3 . T h e effectiveness o f these verbal censures m ay ultim ately derive fro m an archaic n o tio n th a t curses can inflict direct physical h a rm — indeed, a co m p ariso n o f the Against Piso passage cited in the te x t w ith A rchilochus frag. 79a (D iehl) seem s to indicate a c o m m o n lineage; cf. E llio tt 3 -4 8 , w h o discusses curse lite ratu re a m o n g the G reeks, A rabs, and Irish. 10 Fraenkel 1925: 198. 11 U se n e r 18-28; cf. Fraenkel 1961.

o u t this b o o k I shall be exploring how the aggressive tendencies o f R o­ m an h u m o r play a crucial role in effecting m oral denigration and, thereby, in m aintaining ethical and social distinctions. I f the R om ans used invective as an extralegal m eans o f enforcing social codes, h o w th en d o conceptions o f the b o d y tie in w ith these discursive practices? R o m an rhetorical treatises, the distillation o f w h at was taught to the aspiring orator, provide the first step to w ard understanding the relationship betw een natural law and oratorical practice. P h y s ic a l P e c u lia ritie s : O

n

th e

O

rato r

a n d R o m a n R e a litie s

In th e year 55 b c e , political circum stances provided C icero w ith the op­ p o rtu n ity o f com posing a new rhetorical w o rk to supersede the hand­ b o o k o f his youth, On Rketorical Invention (De inventione). H e intended his n ew w o rk to go beyond the alm ost slavish adherence to Hellenistic precedents th at typified b o th this earlier treatise— a w o rk he m ay never even have w an ted published12— and sim ilar w orks such as Rhetorica ad Herennium. O n the Orator (D e oratore), a dialogue in three books, was to convey C icero ’s o w n m ature understanding o f the im portance o f orato ry in th e R o m an w orld. T h e au th o r’s ideal orato r finds a m odel less in A ris­ to tle ’s Rhetoric th an in P lato’s philosopher-king: “no one can be an orator equipped w ith every p raisew orthy attainm ent unless he has first acquired a kn o w led g e o f all im p o rtan t affairs and skills” (nemo poterit esse omni laude cumulatus orator, nisi erit omnium rerum magnarum atque artium scientiam eonsecutus·, D e orat. 1.20). In keeping w ith the R om an conception o f the dialogue, C icero posits as its chief interlocutors the three greatest orators o f th e previous generation: Lucius Licinius C rassus and M arcus A ntonius, betw een w h o m C icero w as unable to decide w ho possessed greater eloquence (Brut. 143, 186), and Julius Caesar Strabo, a speaker w h o se rep u tatio n w as exceeded only by these tw o m ore experienced ora­ to rs (Brut. 207). C icero attributes to these m en an authority in rhetorical m atters th at surpasses even the m ost learned G reek teachers (De orat. 1.23). T h e author, the subject, and the interlocutors o f C icero ’s dialogue O n the Orator all prom ise a w o rk that w ill be the consum m ate expression o f th e R o m an o ra to r’s role in his society. It is C aesar S trabo to w h o m C icero assigns the task o f discussing the role o f w it in R o m an oratory. H e reluctantly agrees: “B u t I do th in k that a m an w h o is the slightest bit charm ing can discourse m ore w ittily on any o th er to p ic th an w it its e lf’ (ego vero . . . omni de re facetiusputo posse ab homine non inurbano, quam de ipsis facetiis disputari; D e orat. 2.217). T he 12 If, as seem s likely, C ice ro ’s w ords in the preface to O n the Orator refer to O n Rhetorical Invention (D e orat. 1.5). See also D e orat. 1.23, 2.117 (A ntonius speaking); Q u in t. Inst. 3.5.15.

PH Y SIC A L PE C U L IA R ITIES

21

topic o f w it does n ot in itself represent a novelty; hum or had lon g been em ployed by orators and prescribed by handbooks as a means o f obtain­ ing the favor o f an audience and o f thereby satisfying the traditional threefold injunction that oratory should not on ly persuade and instruct (imovere, docere) but also entertain (delectare) .13 Yet Strabo’s lengthy dis­ cussion, covering m ore than thirty pages in our m odern texts, contains tw o im portant innovations over previous treatises on rhetorical w it. First, Strabo stresses the applicability o f his remarks to everyday speech: et hercule om nia haec, quae a m e de facetiis disputantur, n o n m aiora forensium actionum quam om nium serm onum condim enta sunt. (De orat. 2.271) A nd in fact all these things I am arguing about w it give no m ore spice to cases conducted in the forum than to all types o f daily conversation.

T his remark suggests that Strabo’s discourse w ill provide insight into the nature o f Rom an hum or as com m on ly practiced am ong aristocrats dur­ ing the late Republic. It thus com es as a surprise to contem porary readers w hen Strabo’s discussion offers its second innovation to previous trea­ tises on rhetorical wit: he includes am ong the acceptable subjects o f hum or the m ockery o f an individual for his physical deform ities. 14 13 T he extant w orks o f A ristotle do n o t contain a com plete discussion o f the rhetorical use o f w it, but he clearly im plies its im portance in the o rato r’s m anipulation o f ethos and pathos; see M . G rant 24—32. I use w ith caution the w ords “novelty” and “innovation” in the subsequent discussion; M . G rant 71 points out that C icero never cites a source for his discussion at O n the Orator 2.216-40 and that any sources may well be lost. T he tw o points I consider innovations, how ever— the application o f h u m o r to everyday speech and the liberty to abuse any physi­ cal deform ity— occur neither in the relevant w orks that precede no r in those that follow On the Orator (e.g., Plut. Mor. 612c—748d and M acrobius’ Saturnalia). Cicero appears to stand outside the tradition on these tw o points. QuellenJorschung is o f especially dubious value here. A rn d t (esp. 25-40) has traced Strabo’s discussion back to a lost Peripatetic w o rk (perhaps D em etrius Phalereus’ On Laughter), w hich derives from a lost w o rk o f T heophrastus, w hich is in tu rn indebted to A ristotle, prim arily the lost second book o f Poetics. Yet even A m d t cannot find precedents for the tw o passages I discuss b elow in the text (De orat. 2.239, 271). A t one p o in t in his discussion he concedes, despite his ow n efforts to the contrary, that “no one will be so stupid as to deny that a very funny m an [i.e., Cicero] added som ething o f his o w n ” (nemo erit tam stultus Ut neget virum facetissimum quicquam de suo adiecisse; 36). 14 C om m entators often cite at this po in t A ristotle’s ostensibly parallel statem ent in Po­ etics that “the laughable is a species o f the ugly”— τού α ίσ χρ ο ΰ έστι τό γελοϊαν μόριον (5 .1449a32-34; cf. Plato Phil. 48—50, Rep. 5.452d—e). B ut as the surrounding context makes clear, A ristotle is thinking here prim arily o f morally base actions and actors (μίμησις φ αυλοτέρω ν), and no t physical ugliness (the sam e can be said for the Plato passages cited). A lthough it is true that the only exam ple the philosopher gives o f this category o f the laughable is a grotesque com ic m ask (τό γελοΐον π ρ ό σ ω π ο ν α ίσ χρ ό ν τι κ α ί διεστραμμένον δ ν ευ όδύνη ς; Poetics 5.1449a34-37), one cannot infer from this that A ristotle w ould con­ done the m ockery o f physical deform ities in the sam e way C icero does. In the Poetics exam -

C o n te x t heightens the surprise. S trabo has ju s t been outlining the lim ­ itations o f rhetorical h u m o r (quatenus autem sint ridicula tractanda oratori; D e orat. 2.237): a speaker should n o t m ock either popular personages, se­ rious crim inals, or victim s o f excessively bad lu c k .15 O n e w ould expect this last g ro u p o f persons, nam ely, those w ho have suffered great m isfor­ tune, to include the physically deform ed. B ut Strabo continues; he ap­ pends a fo u rth category, one that does not, as do these previous three areas, p rovide for a restriction b u t rather describes an allow able space for w it. T h e description o f this new category is itself expressed w ith a w ordplay:16 est etiam deformitatis et corporis vitiorum satis bella materies ad iocandum. (.D e orat. 2 .2 3 9 )

The deformity and faults o f the body also provide some quite “pretty” ma­ terial for jokes. A cu rso ry exam ination o f the p o etry o f C atullus o r o f the C iceronian co rp u s— including n o t only the orations b u t also his correspondence and even the philosophical w o rk s— provides sufficient exam ples o f the m o ck ery o f physical deform ities to indicate that such rem arks pervaded the h u m o ro u s discourse o f the upper classes at R o m e .17 T he m ockery itself m ay n o t surprise the m o d ern reader— consider the political carica­ tures th at appear daily alongside new spaper editorials. Yet the directness w ith w hich S trabo introduces this n ew category, follow ing as it does a careful delineation o f how the orato r should avoid m ocking the u n fo rtu ­ nate, indicates th at the R om ans could conceive o f bodily deform ities as a category separate fro m accidents o f nature. C icero n ian scholarship o f the previous tw o centuries has taken tw o basic approaches to the pro b lem o f jokes o n physical deform ities: an exple, the w earer does n o t bear personal responsibility for the ugliness o f his m ask and so the lau g h te r arising fro m its appearance is directed n o t at the person b u t at the m ask itself; cf. Jan k o 209, w h o discusses th e “new detail” added by the Tractatus Coislinianus to A ristotelian theory: ό σ κ ώ π τω ν έλ έγχ ειν θ έλ ει ά μ α ρ τ ή μ α τα τ ή ς ψ υ χ ή ς κ α ί το ϋ σ ώ μ α το ς (“T h e jo k e r aim s to expose faults o f m in d a n d b o d y ”; [5] VIII = Jan k o 3 6 -3 7 ). T h is im p o rta n t A ris­ totelian d istinction b etw een w h a t aspects o f o n e ’s appearance an individual is and is n o t accountable for— a d istinction n o t recognized by S trabo in his discussion o f w it— w ill be referred to again below . 15 C f. Orat. 88; Q u in t. Inst. 6.3.31. I follow R abbie ad loc. in his in te rp reta tio n o f caritati hominum. 16 Pack, assum ing that “physical blem ishes surely fall un d er the head o f m isfo rtu n es” (407), concludes th at C icero here draw s on a n o th er source w ith o u t recognizing that De orat. 2.239 “ contradicts th e p re ce d in g .” M y discussion rescues C icero in this case fro m the fre­ q u en tly unjustified accusation o f being a m ere copyist. 17 I do n o t discuss directly those poem s o f C atullus that contain m o ck ery o f physical deform ities. F or a sh o rt b u t insightful analysis o f som e o f these poem s using the line o f a rg u m e n t I em ploy below , see C ebe 1967; 174—78.

pressio n o f sim p le an d d irect disapproval— w hich ranges fro m re g ret to co n tem p t, d ep en d in g u p o n the degree o f ad m iratio n felt for the o ra to r— o r an a tte m p t to red eem C icero by p o in tin g to his in ab ility to escape fro m a stro n g , H ellenic rh eto rical trad itio n . T h ese tw o alternatives rep re­ sent ro u g h ly a ch ro n o lo g ical division b etw e en scholars o f the n in etee n th and early tw e n tie th centuries and th o se o f ap p ro x im ately the past fifty years. A b rie f su rv ey o f th eir o pinions w ill help situate m y o w n approach to w a rd this m o d e o f invective. In th eir ed itio n o f C ic e ro ’s correspondence, T y rrell and P u rser display th e n o rm a l n in e te e n th -c e n tu ry reaction w h e n they attrib u te the w id e­ spread abuse o f V atinius’ physical deform ities to “ the lack o f refinem ent o f th e a g e ,” a tim e w h e n such rem ark s “w ere considered n o t m erely allow able, b u t even w itty ” (5:xcv). A n o th e r p ro m in e n t C iceronian, w h o p ro d u c ed the o n ly co m p lete E n g lish co m m en tary on C ic e ro ’s speeches, refers to th e abuse levied on V atinius’ facial sores as “ C ic e ro ’s disgraceful p ra ctice.” 18 O th e r editors a tte m p t greater objectivity, b u t clearly they to o find it difficult to avoid re p rim a n d in g C icero for this type o f abuse. T h e sam e passage con cern in g V atinius is referred to elsew here as “ an allusion in th e bad taste, by w h ich C ic e ro ’s jo k e s w ere so m etim es charac­ te riz e d .” 19 T o a n o th er scholar, C ic e ro ’s rem arks o n the ex p lo itatio n o f physical d efo rm ities at O n the Orator 2.239 “sh o w h o w w id ely his canons o f g o o d taste differed fro m those n o w universally reco g n ized ”; yet even this ap p aren tly balanced ju d g m e n t betrays n o tio n s o f ethical progress w ith th o se final th ree w o rd s, “n o w universally re co g n ized .”20 T h is list could easily g ro w — m ak in g fu n o f an o th er p erso n ’s w a rts w as h ard ly an acceptable p u b lic practice a m o n g classicists o f one h u n d re d years ago. A ccordingly, n in ete e n th -c e n tu ry co m m en tato rs duly observe the phe­ n o m en o n , voice th eir disapproval, and th en pass on. T h e n e x t age p ro d u c ed apologists. In the conclusion to his b o o k on C ic e ro ’s use o f h u m o r and irony, a F rench scholar expresses w h a t earlier critics o f th e o ra to r h ad only im plied: th e harshness o f C icero ’s w it can be a ttrib u te d to his ig n o ran ce o f th e C h ristia n co n c ep t o f charity. N e v e rth e ­ less, th e sch o lar m aintains, this fact should n o t allow us “ to criticize a w itty m an fo r h av in g lived to o early .”21 M o st o th er recent critics w h o excuse C ic e ro ’s abuse o f physical peculiarities display less o f a C h ristian ethical bias. R o m a n o rato rs, th eir a rg u m e n t goes, did n o t have bad taste; th ey sim p ly fo llow ed earlier m odels to o faithfully (as R om ans do). N isb e t b est rep resen ts this tre n d w h e n he asserts th at “R o m an invective 18 L o n g 3:566 (on Sest. 135). 19 H o ld e n ad loc. 20 W ilkins ad loc. 21 H a u ry 1955: 279 (“ a d a m n e r u n h o m m e d 'e sp rit p o u r avoir v6cu tro p to t”).

shows m ore regard for literary convention than for historical tru th .”22 H e bases his conclusion on parallels from Greek m odes o f invective. Aus­ tin takes a sim ilar tack: “lurid personalities w ere a feature o f R om an pub­ lic life, and w ere often neither intended seriously nor taken s o .”23 N isbet and A ustin properly recognize the literary character o f the m ockery o f physical deform ities— it is unquestionably a com m on feature o f the genre o f public oratory— and their view has been adopted by m ost sub­ sequent scholars o f Cicero. Yet a literary explanation ignores Strabo’s assertion that all his com m ents on w it apply equally well to everyday speech (De orat. 2.271). M ore significantly, attributing harsh invective sim ply to generic convention places Rom an oratory in a cultural vac­ uum . T he im m oral pagans o f earlier scholarship have becom e a group o f Greeklings, bound by a tradition o f invective that is n ot native and that som ehow has the pow er to persuade an audience that, it is supposed, does n o t take such abuse seriously. R om an invective exhibits clear generic elements; yet the m ockery o f physical peculiarities does not represent sim ply a literary phenom enon. Invective produced tangible effects in the political sphere. A recent study o f litigation in the late Republic outlines the im portance o f avoiding dis­ grace (infamia) during this period and examines how rhetorical invective — w hich includes, o f course, the m ockery o f physical deform ities— helps effect such disgrace through the low ering o f an opponent’s personal rep­ utation (existimatio). T here is no evidence for believing that the space o f the R om an court provided any type o f legal “privilege” for its speakers. In fact, as seems intuitively m ore likely, public language could do real damage: T h e objection m ight be raised here that insults uttered in court may have som ehow n o t counted as “real” insults, . . . that perhaps they were n o t taken too seriously and so w ere no real danger to one’s existimatio. B ut the sources w ould in fact entirely invalidate such a suggestion; there is no doubt w hatever that court abuse was indeed felt as an attack on existimatio.24

Public insults, the study concludes, fulfill an im portant function: the Ro­ m ans tolerated harsh invective since they recognized in it a means o f inhibiting excessive litigation. T he potential threat o f having one’s way o f life displayed publicly caused the Rom an, it is argued, to avoid in­ stigating legal m atters that were n o t absolutely essential. These argu­ m ents for w h y invective continued to be employed are persuasive. Yet they do n o t account for the origin o f this license, this readiness to raise 22 N isbet 1961: 193. 23 R. A ustin 52. 24 Kelly 1976: 101-2.

issues that appear irrelevant, i f n o t m orally objectionable, to a m odern reader. Evidence survives regarding the status o f physical peculiarities in civic life. As early as the fifth century b c e , the Tw elve Tables prescribed death for any child born w ith a deform ity (Cic. Leg. 3.19; cf. Sen. Dial. 3.15.2). Scattered references also indicate that bodily defects prevented an individual fro m holding political and sacred office in the late Republic. A physical fault could prevent one from becom ing a priest (D H 2.21.3, Sen. Contr. 4.2; cf. O jRF9.1.14-16, Plut. Mor. 281c), Vestal (Gell. 1.12.3; Fronto p. 149 = Loeb 2.73 [Haines]), and, at least under A ugustus, even a senator (Dio 54.26.8—9); in particular, blindness, not surprisingly, pre­ vented one from petitioning for a m agistracy (Ulp. Dig. 3.1.1.5, lust. Cod. 10.32[31].8). For other disabilities and offices in this period, how ­ ever, there are only tentative allusions. Thus in a letter to his friend A tticus, C icero describes a tribune’s political activity w ith the strange ju x ­ taposition “the lam e m an, under good auspices, prom ulgated the law ” (bono auspicio claudus homo promulgavit).25 D ionysius o f Halicarnassus pre­ serves legislation from the period o f the kings and the early Republic that may have been in force in the first century b c e . 26 It m ust be left open to w hat extent a physically abnorm al individual encountered legal obstacles to a political career. Indeed, it is not even possible to define precisely w hat constituted a physical abnorm ality. T he texts cited above are o f little help, as they describe the “disabled” only in the vaguest terms: “de­ fo rm ed ,” “w e a k ,” “m o n stro u s,” “unw hole” (deformis, debilis, monstrosus, non integer). N o r does extant political invective provide m ore precise cri­ teria. As one w ould expect, the public speaker was interested in proving the m oral deviance o f his opponent, n o t in prescribing a set o f beauty standards. Yet in S trabo’s treatm ent o f jokes on physical peculiarities, there are recognizable lim its to this type o f w itticism . As will becom e clear, how ­ ever, this respect for decorum does n o t stem from the sort o f ethical considerations that inform the rhetorical w orks o f the Greeks. In those treatises w ritten before C icero’s O n the Orator, the extent o f an individ­ ual’s personal responsibility is the key to determ ining w hether or n o t he 25 A tt. 1.16.13 (SB 16). C icero probably intends the ju xtaposition to be, at least in part, hum orously ironic. T here may also be a p u n o n the fact that th e law being proposed by the lam e tribune deals w ith ambitus (a legal term that encompasses electoral bribery b u t literally means “w alking about”). 26 D H 2.21.3, 5.25.3 (cf. A ppian Reg. I frag. 10), and 9.13.4. I owe m ost references in this paragraph to M om m sen 1887-88 1:493—94. Cic. A tt. 2.9.2 (SB 29) may provide further evidence. H ere Vatinius is described as covering his swellings (struma) w ith an augur’s robe. T he bitterness o f the rem ark w ould be sharpened i f Cicero regarded Vatinius’ possible position as augur as som ething abnorm al (if n o t illegal).

26

CHA PTER I

m ay be rebuked for physical appearance. A ccording to the Aristotelian tradition, for exam ple, a speaker may not hold an opponent responsible for the social position into w hich he has been born, since personal charac­ teristics such as this arise by chance. But one may attach moral blame to an op pon en t’s poor physical health i f it results from lack o f exercise.27 T he R om ans treated the condem nation o f physical disadvantages quite differently. A ccording to O n the Orator, they em ployed such criticism look in g not to a distinction betw een fate and individual agency but to rhetorical utility, a utility that, as w ill be show n, has its ow n ethical basis. A R om an located the responsibility for any deformity, regardless o f its origin, solely in the person w h o bore that deformity. In the Rom an realm o f the physical, accidents never happen. Strabo delineates the parameters to jok es on physical defects as follow s: e st e tia m d e fo rm ita tis e t c o rp o ris v itio r u m satis b e lla m a te rie s ad io c a n d u m ; se d q u a e rim u s id e m , q u o d in c e te ris re b u s m a x im e q u a e re n d u m est, q u a te n u s; in q u o n o n m o d o illu d p ra e c ip itu r, n e q u id in su lse , sed e tia m , si q u id p e rr id ic u le p o ssis, v ita n d u m e st o ra to ri u tr u m q u e , n e a u t sc u rrilis io c u s sit a u t m im ic u s . (D e orat. 2 .2 3 9 ) T h e d e f o r m ity a n d fa u lts o f th e b o d y also p ro v id e s o m e q u ite “ p r e t ty ” m a ­ te ria l fo r jo k e s . B u t w e a sk th e sa m e th in g th a t m u s t b e esp ec ia lly a sk e d in re la tio n to th e re s t o f o u r c o n c e rn s : to w h a t e x te n t? In re s p o n se , it is ta u g h t n o t o n ly th a t o n e n o t [act] w ith o u t c h a rm , b u t also , i f o n e is a b le [to m a k e ] a v e ry fu n n y p o in t, th e o r a to r m u s t a v o id a j o k e th a t re s e m b le s th a t o f e ith e r an id le w it (scurrilis) o r an a c to r in a m im e (m im icus). 27 M y exam ple is taken from [Arist.] Rh. A l. 1426a3-10; cf. also 1440M 6-23 and Arist. Rhet. 1.9.33. On Rhetorical Invention and Rhetorica ad Herennium, the tw o R om an rhetorical treatises m ost directly influenced by Hellenistic models, do n o t use this dichotom y in their discussion o f the rhetorical use o f physical peculiarities. Instead they b o rro w the alternative tripartite system , by w hich one attributes an individual’s faults to one o f three categories (“external phenom ena, body, or spirit” ; Rhet. Her. 3.10, Inv. 2.177). F o ra fu lllis t o f the use o f this three-part division in b o th Greek and R om an w riters see C aplan’s edition o f the Rhetorica ad Herennium (174 n. a). A ristotle allows a speaker in a speech o f praise o r blam e to refer to bodily attributes arising by chance, b u t only w hen those physical attributes o f the subject are num erous and prom inent; even then, such characteristics can only be employed as points providing secondary p ro o f o f character; cf. Rhet. 1.9.32-33: τά συμ πτώ ματα κ α ί τα ά π ό τύ χ η ς ώ ς έν π ρ ο α ιρ έ σ ει ληπτέον. δ ν γ ά ρ πολλά κ α ι δμ ο ια π ρ ο φ έρ η τα ι, σημεΐον άρετής είν α ι δόξει κ α ι π ρ οαιρέσ εω ς. . . . τδ δ ’ έγκώ μιον τω ν έργω ν έστίν, τ ά δέ κύκλψ είς π ίσ τιν (“one m ust assum e that accidents and strokes o f good fortune are due to m oral purpose; for if a n um ber o f sim ilar examples can be adduced, they will be th ought to be signs o f virtue and m oral purpose. . . . B ut encom ium deals w ith achievem ents— all attendant circumstances conduce to persuasion” [Freese trans.]).

S trabo clarifies th ro u g h his su b seq u en t discussion w h a t he m eans b y the jo k e o f th e idle w it and m im e actor: the w itticism s o f the mimicus depend u p o n res, “ an an ecdote accom panied b y g estu re s,” and th e w itticism s o f the scurra d ep en d u p o n dictum, “the verbal fo rm o f ex p ressio n .”28 In em ­ plo y in g jo k e s d eriv in g fro m res, one m u st avoid th e excessive g estu rin g th at typifies “th e in d ecen t m o v em en t o f m im e acto rs” (m im orum . . . et ethologorum . . . sicut obscenitas; D e orat. 2.242).29 B u t it is S trab o ’s subse­ q u en t discussion o f the h u m o r d ep e n d en t u p o n verbal expression th at is o f in tere st here, fo r this h a lf o f his d ic h o to m y encom passes m o st o f the ex tan t h u m o r in v o lv in g physical deform ities. In fact, w h en S trabo de­ scribes th e allow able p aram eters o f jo k e s arising fro m verbal expression, his tw o p rin cip al exam ples center o n th e m o ck ery o f b odily defects. S trabo in tro d u ces th e subject o f verbal h u m o r ( in dicto) as follows: in dicto autem ridiculum est id, quod verbi aut sententiae quodam acumine movetur; sed ut in illo superiore genere vel narrationis vel imitationis vitanda est m imorum et ethologorum similitudo, sic in hoc scurrilis oratori dicacitas magno opere fugienda est. . . . hoc, opinor, primum, ne, quotienscumque potuerit dictum dici, necesse habeamus dicere. (De orat. 2.244) As for wit deriving from the form o f expression (in dicto),30 laughter arises from a kind o f sharpness o f a word or phrase; but, just as in the type o f narration or mimicry that we discussed above one must avoid seeming like a silent actor in a farce, so too in this type the speaker m ust take great care to shun the hum or befitting an idle wit (scurrilis). . . . I think the most im por­ tant point is this: we should not feel compelled to make a joke (dictum) whenever there is an opportunity for a joke to be made. In the d ep lo y m en t o f w it d eriv in g fro m w ordplay, S trabo cautions the o ra to r to avoid expressions th at m ay cause p ersonal em b arrassm en t. It is significant th at he does n o t m e n tio n th at th e speaker should have any concerns ab o u t offending th e targ e t o f his h u m o r. T o illu strate his ideal o f an effective w itticism , S trabo relates tw o occa28 T h is d ic h o to m y b e tw ee n res and dictum c o rre sp o n d s to the earlier d ivision S trab o m akes b e tw e e n caviliatio and dicacitas (De orat. 2.218). M . G ra n t’s discussion o f C ic e ro ’s div isio n s is flaw ed (108-11); fo r c o rrectio n s, see H e rte r 725—26 and especially R ab b ie 177— 83. 29 T h e ethologoi are m e n tio n e d in classical L atin o n ly in th is passage (D e orat. 2.242, 244) a n d in a d e d ic ato ry in sc rip tio n (C IL 6.10129). It is n o t clear h o w th ey d iffered— i f at all— fro m a n o rm a l a cto r in a m im e (m imus). 30 M y c u m b e rso m e re n d e rin g o f dictum a tte m p ts to con v ey in a single phrase b o th its literal (“a th in g sp o k e n ”) a n d e x te n d ed (“a w ittic is m ”) m ean in g . In the late R epublic the plural fo rm dicta w as c o m m o n ly used fo r th e fuller e xpression facete dicta (“ th in g s said w it­ tily ”), as C ic e ro h im s e lf re m a rk s in a le tte r to C o rn e liu s N e p o s (Cic. E p ist.fr. 2.1 = M acr. Sat. 2.1.14).

sions on w hich a speaker did n ot use enough forethought in m ockin g an opponent’s physique. I shall n ow quote at length a pair o f Strabo’s exam ­ ples, together w ith his ow n explanatory remarks: p usillus testis processit. “licet” in q u it “ro g are?” P h ilip p u s. turn q u aesito r p ro p eran s “ m o d o b re v ite r.” hie ille “n o n accusabis: p erp u sillu m ro g a b o .” ridicule, sed sed eb at iu d e x L. A urifex b re v io r ipse q u a m testis etiam : o m n is est risus in iu d icem conversus; v isu m est to tu m scu rrile rid icu lu m . [A] ergo haec, quae cadere possunt in quos nolis, quamvis sint bella, sunt tamen ipso genere scumlia; u t iste, qui se v o lt dicacem et m eh ercu le est, A p p iu s, sed n o n n u m q u a m in h o c v itiu m scu rrile delabitur. “ce n ab o ” in q u it “ap u d te ,” h u ic lusco fam iliari m eo , C . S extio; “uni en im lo c u m esse video. ” est h o c scurrile, et [B] quod sine causa lacessivit et [C] ta m en id dixit, quod in omnis luscos conveniret; ea, q u ia m ed itata p u ta n tu r esse, m in u s rid en tu r. (D e orat. 2.245—46; m y em phases) A v ery sh o rt w itness step p ed fo rw ard . “M ay I q u estio n h im ?” P h ilip p u s asked. T h e ju d g e , bein g in a h u rry , replied, “O n ly briefly.” W h e reu p o n [P hilippus rem a rk e d ], “Y ou w o n ’t find fault w ith m e; h e w o n ’t be lo n g (perpusillum rogabo).” A fu n n y jo k e ; b u t a ju r o r atten d in g on th e case w as L ucius A urifex , [w h o w as] h im s e lf even s h o rte r th an th e w itness. E v ery o n e d irec ted th e ir la u g h te r to w a rd this ju r o r; th e w h o le affair seem ed a jo k e fit for an idle w it (scurrilis). [A] So those [remarks] which could fa ll upon unwanted targets— no matter how fin e the remarks may be— still befit an idle w it (scurra) by their very nature; it ’s like th a t A ppius w h o w an ts to b e clever (and, in fact, is), b u t w h o occasionally slips in to this fault o f scurrility. H e said to m y friend, G aius Sextius, w h o o n ly has one eye, “I’ll have d in n e r at y o u r place— I see y o u ’ve g o t ro o m fo r o n e m o r e .” T h is befits an idle w it, b o th [B] because he harassed Sextius without provocation and, after all, [C] he said what could apply to all one-eyed men; these [types o f rem arks], because th ey are th o u g h t to b e p rem e d ita ted , excite la u g h te r less.31

Strabo clearly disapproves o f these tw o jokes. T he objections he raises against them fall into the three categories I have labeled [A], [B], and [C]. AU three objections concern matters o f rhetorical utility. T he w itticism , first o f all, [A] m ust n ot apply personally to an individual im portant to the case (other than the opponent, o f course). Philippus’jok e provides a negative exem plum o f this prescription, since he alienated one o f the very 31 O n the im portance o f h u m o r seem ing spontaneous see Orat. 89. Similarly, speakers valued m ost the w itty rejoinder (w it in respondendo); see De orat. 2.230, 236. Strabo goes on to express his adm iration for Sextius’ reply, “manus lava et cena" (“Get your hands clean and then eat”), b o th because it arose ex tempore and because it had rhetori­ cal p oint (2.247). T he reference, as W ilkins says ad Ioc., is “doubtless . . . to his love for ‘filthy lucre.’” M acr. Sat. 7.3.15 and Plut. M or. 614d-615c preserve a sim ilar jo k e about a person’s hands.

people he needed to convince: a ju ro r. Second, [B] the w itticism m ust not be w ith o u t a rhetorical purpose (sine causa)·,32 and finally [C], it m ust n ot be (or at least seem) prem editated. These last tw o strictures constitute the only objections Strabo raises against the jo k e about Sextius’ m ono­ cularity. Strabo, in other w ords, offers no ethical objections o f a JudaeoC hristian nature: that is, he expresses no concern over attacking an oppo­ nent unjustly or offending the sensibilities o f a m em ber o f his audience. It is o f further interest that he phrases all three points negatively. In other w ords, his points restrict; they do not prescribe. A part from these three restrictions— n o t attacking a potential supporter and not using gratuitous or prepared jo k es— the orator appears to have free rein in his abuse o f physical traits.33 Such a conclusion m ay w arrant no surprise. A rhetorical handbook w ould be expected to concern itself only w ith rhetorical considerations w hen outlining speaking strategies. Yet one w ould also expect Strabo to m ention any possible ethical objections on the part o f a speaker’s auditors that could hinder his success in w inning their favor. Instead Strabo gives absolutely no indication that a jo k e concerning a physical trait should be avoided because a m em ber o f the audience may take offense m erely on a principle o f ethics. T he Philippus example, in fact, proves the opposite: far fro m com m iserating w ith the ju ro r Aurifex, those in attendance (who presum ably include the other m em bers o f the jury) direct their laughter tow ard him . T herein lay Philippus ’ failure: in addition to losing the favor o f Aurifex, he caused attention to be diverted from his ow n interroga­ tion. W hat is m ore, w ith the proviso “it doesn’t m atter how fine [inop­ portune jokes] m ay be” (quamvis sint bella), Strabo implies that Philippus ’ w itticism w ould have been perfectly appropriate under other conditions, 32 T he phrase sine causa (“w ith o u t cause”) expresses the antithesis to the ideal goal Strabo later assigns to hum or: “that we [i.e., the speaker] m ig h t achieve som e gain” (ut proficiamus aliquid ; D e orat. 2.247). T his purpose clause provides an explanation for an earlier cum causa, translated by R abbie ad loc. as “zu einem (bestim m ten) Z w eck” (“for a specific goal”). T he phrase sine causa also contains the related idea th at the m ost effective h u m o r arises in respondendo (see previous note). 33 I do n o t claim that o th er restrictions may no t arise under particular circumstances. As one w ould expect, fear o f vengeance can also be a restriction. In m y final chapter I discuss in detail how Julius C aesar w ields this type o f censorship. T he m ockery o f blindness— or, as here, m onocularity— traditionally provided w riters on decorum w ith an example o f uncouth behavior (e.g., A ristotle E N 3.5.1114a24-27; Persius 1.128). Cicero here clearly seems to be draw ing from this tradition, w hich attributes blindness to fate and n o t to personal re­ sponsibility (A ristotle E N 3.5.1114a26-27). H e does no t, how ever, isolate blindness per se as an exceptionable target for m ockery. For another exam ple o f C icero’s sim ultaneous in­ debtedness to, and freedom from , his tradition, see n. 13 above. Orat. 88 offers a one-sentence version o f De orat. 2.237-46: illud admonemus tamen, ridiculo sic usurum oratorem, ut nec nimis frequenti, ne scurrile sit, nec subobsceno, ne mimicum, nec petulanti, ne improbum, nec in calamitatem, ne inhumanum, nec in facinus, ne odi locum risus occupet, neque aut sua persona aut iudicum aut tempore alienum; haec enim ad illud indecorum referuntur.

nam ely, w h e n he did n o t need to persuade a sh o rt person. A b arb di­ rected ag ain st a physical peculiarity, then, can be em ployed p ro v id ed th at th e speaker gives p ro p e r consideration to rhetorical efficacy. O n c e again, C ic e ro ’s treatise reverses earlier G reek view s o n h u m o r. W hereas S trabo stresses th e jo k e and its efficacy in disabling a target, th e H ellenic treatises co n sid er th e v ic tim ’s po sitio n , em phasizing repeatedly th at the speaker sh o u ld avoid seriously d am ag in g a n o th e r’s re p u ta tio n .34 O n the Orator, C ic e ro ’s m o st substantial rhetorical treatise, m akes it clear th at th e h u m o ro u s abuse o f physical peculiarities does n o t arise sim ­ ply o u t o f a R o m an p ro cliv ity fo r ad m ittin g any ty p e o f language in the c o u rtro o m . T h e discourse o f S trabo does prescribe restrictions to this practice in term s o f rh eto rical u tility — b u t m o st o f these w o u ld have b e­ co m e o b v io u s u p o n reflection. Yet despite S trab o ’s em phasis on rh e to ri­ cal efficacy, a sy stem o f values that is distinctly R o m an does in fo rm the practice. I have m en tio n ed h o w the G reeks divided responsibility for physical defects in to tw o areas, those aspects for w h ich an individual b o re d irect resp o nsibility an d those for w h ich he did not. T h e R om ans, in co n trast, o ften ig n o red such a d istinction. A n explanation fo r w h y the R o m an s b lu r this d ic h o to m y can be found in the philosophical w o rk s o f C icero . P h y s ic a l P e c u lia ritie s : O n the L a w s

N a tu re ta u g h t h u m a n beings alone h o w to w alk u p rig h t, C icero says in th e first b o o k o f O n the Laws (D e legibus), and to gaze to w ard the heavens in reco llectio n o f th eir fo rm e r ho m e. C icero closes this pro g ressiv ist ac­ co u n t o f h u m a n ev o lu tio n b y em phasizing the n atu ra l correspondence b etw e en a p e rs o n ’s ex tern al and in tern al nature: turn [natura] speciem ita form avit oris, ut in ea penitus reconditos m ores effingeret; nam et oculi nim is arguti, quem ad m odum anim o affecti sim us, loquuntur, et is, qui appellatur vultus, qui nullo in animante esse praeter h om in em potest, indicat m ores, cuius vim Graeci norunt, nom en om nino non habent. (Leg. 1.27) Then [nature] shaped the facial features (speciem oris) in such a w ay that it represented in them the character hidden deep w ithin. For the eyes tell w ith great clarity h ow w e have been affected in our spirit, and that w hich is called our countenance ( vultus )— and w hich is able to exist in n o living thing other 34 C f. especially A risto tle E N 4.8.1128a, o n p ro p rie ty in w it; A risto tle applies these view s to rh e to ric at R het. 2.2.12, 2.3.12, 2.4.13, and 2.12.16 and to c o m e d y at Poetics 5.1449a32—33. M . G ra n t p assim treats th is G re ek a ttitu d e to w a rd h u m o r; see especially her o b se rv atio n th at P la to , A risto tle, and P lu tarc h lim it th eir h u m o r “ to foibles ra th e r th an serious fau lts” (37).

P H Y S IC A L P E C U L IA R IT IE S

31

t h a n h u m a n b e in g s — r e v e a ls o u r c h a r a c te r. T h e G r e e k s r e c o g n i z e d its p u r ­ p o r t [ i .e ., t h e c o n n o t a t i o n s c o n ta i n e d in t h e L a tin w o r d v u ltu s ], b u t h a v e n o w o r d f o r i t a t a ll.

T he visage as the mirror o f the soul: Cicero uses the word vultus here to refer not to a tem porary expression but to a permanent expression, or set o f expressions, predeterm ined by the physical makeup o f the face (species oris)— those features that one art historian has termed “p hysiognom ic constancy. ”35 As Cicero indicates w ith the phrase “the Greeks recognized its purport” ( vim Graeci norunt), a similar b elief in the pow er o f the face to reflect on e’s essential nature runs throughout ancient Greek thought. B e­ ginning w ith H om er’s Thersites in Iliad 2— for w h o m the adjective aischistos describes both physical and moral ugliness— the Greeks tended “to regard physical appearance as a correlate o f m oral worth, and to re­ late both to social class.”36 From the tim e o f Pythagoras on, this b elief inform s the m any treatises on physiognom ies, a science w h ose subjects include the study o f the relationship betw een physical appearance and inner character or states o f mind. This science and the system o f beliefs from w h ich it arose provide the foundation for A ristotle’s justification o f slavery in Politics and exert an inevitable influence on late H ellenistic rhe­ torical treatises.37 In R om e, one o f the earliest extant inscriptions praises a man “w h o se appearance equaled his virtue” (quoius forma virtutei par35 G o m b ric h 106 (cf. D e orat. 1.127, “ th o se th in g s w h ic h w e can n o t feign: th e face, the exp ressio n , th e vo ice” [ea quae nobis n o n possutnusfingere, facies, vultus, sonus]; Fm . 5.47). T h e b e lie f th a t an in d iv id u a l possesses— o r sh o u ld possess— a p e rm a n e n t a n d u n alterab le set o f exp ressio n s seem s to lie b e h in d Pis. I: P iso ’s d a n g e r to th e state rests in his ab ility to change various features o f his face. K enter ad loc. cites O rai. 60 a n d O e orat. 3.2 2 1 —22 as parallels fo r this passage fro m O n the Law s. A lth o u g h b o th passages d o c ontain th e phrase “th e e xpression is th e m irro r o f the so u l” (imago est animi vultus), th ey refer to the w ays in w h ic h an o ra to r sh o u ld m an ip u late his e x p ressio n (vultus) and eye m o v e m e n t (oculi) to convey his e m o tio n s, n o t to h o w a set o f features specific to th e vultus reflects its b e a re r’s mores. F or vultus o u tsid e o f a ph ilo so p h ical c o n te x t sig n ify in g n o t ju s t a te m p o ra ry facial e x p ressio n b u t ra th e r a k in d o f p e rm a n e n t a ttitu d e , see th e audience aside at P lau t. A u l. 717: Iibi credere certum est; nam esse bonum ex voltu cognosce (“I certain ly tru s t you, fo r I recognize fro m y o u r vultus th a t you are a g o o d m a n ”). 36 T h a lm a n n 15; see also K irk 139. 37 A risto tle Pol. 1.2.14: β ο ύ λ ε τ α ι μέν ο ύ ν ή φ ύ σ ις . . . τ ά σ ώ μ α τα δ ια φ έ ρ ο ν τ α π ο ιε ΐν τ ά τ ώ ν έ λ ε υ θ έ ρ ω ν κ α ί τ ώ ν δ ο ύ λ ω ν (“th e in te n tio n o f n a tu re th erefo re is . . . to m ak e the b odies o f free m en a n d o f slaves d iffere n t” ; R a ck h a m 1944 tran s.). T h is difference, A risto tle goes o n to say, reflects relative differences in the soul; see fu rth e r th e discussion b y M agli 87—88 o f A risto tle ’s D e anima. E vans 1969 surveys the influence o f p h y sio g n o m ic a l p rinciples o n ancient literature. G leason 1991 analyzes th e ir b e arin g o n the S econd S ophistic. F o r details o f th e relation b etw ee n th e p h y sio g n o m ic a l and rheto rical treatises see E vans 1935: 4 5 -5 1 . I k n o w o f n o sim ilar tre a tm e n t o f p h y sio g n o m ic a l treatises a n d R o m an o ra to ry d u rin g th e R epublic.

isuma fit it', C IL I 2.7). T h e eq u atio n o f in tern al and external states o f be­ in g , th erefo re, h ad n u m ero u s precedents before C ic e ro .38 Yet C icero felt h im se lf to be m o re than sim p ly heir to a trad itio n . In th e above passage fro m O n the Law s, h e im plies th at the G reeks place less im p o rtan ce th a n d o the R om ans o n h o w the countenance reveals mores— for alth o u g h th ey recognize its significance, C icero notes th at the G reeks d o n o t even have a w o rd co rresp o n d in g to the L atin vultus. T h e passage co n tain s a ra re excep tio n to the conceit ab o u t the p o v erty o f the Latin lan g u ag e freq u en tly em ployed b y R o m an philosphers fru strated at try in g to express co m p lex philosophical n o tio n s in th eir native to n g u e .39 Yet p erh ap s th e p u tativ e absence o f a G reek te rm co rresp o n d in g to vultus does n o t so m u ch indicate an oversight o n the p art o f the G reeks as p ro ­ vide evidence th at th ey did n o t w h o lly accept the im plications lying b e­ h in d th e w o rd vultus. Indeed, it has recently been argued th at for public speakers in fifth - and fo u rth -c e n tu ry A thens, n atu re (phusis) did n o t de­ scribe a force th at regulated social beh av io r b u t one that reflected an indi­ v id u al’s “u n n eg o tiab le b e n t.”40 As an expression o f the character peculiar an d specific to each person, n a tu re as conceived b y th e G reeks did n o t serve as an inflexible enforcer; instead, it could be represented as fickle and d isorganized. T h is clearly w as n o t the case for the natura envisaged b y C icero in O n the Laws, w h e re n atu re figures as an o m n ip o te n t and ex tern al d e te rm in a n t o f physical appearance. J u s t as S trab o ’s verdict on th e abuse o f p hysical defects seem s to reflect a R o m an innovation in rhe­ to rical technique, so to o th e philosophical precept C icero offers here sig­ nals a ch an g ed p ercep tio n o f th e relationship betw een b o d y and character. W h en this statem en t is considered w ith in the larger co n tex t o f O n the Laws, it b ecom es clear th at C icero m u st establish the relationship be­ tw ee n physical ex terio r an d m o ral in terio r in o rd e r to prove his m o re 38 For the w idespread nature o f this belief throughout antiquity, see the discussions and bibliographies in T arrant 198; W oodm an 166-67. T he belief also inform s Suetonius’ con­ ception that physical appearance portends character (Plass 79). O rigen reveals that this bias continued in early Christianity: “the gentle precision o f G od’s mercy ensures that each body was adjusted to the peculiar needs o f its soul dow n to the finest details” (in P. B row n 16566); w ith A ugustine one begins to see the sym pathetic treatm ent I have been labeling “Judaeo-C hristian” (e.g., City o f God 22.19). Even in the late nineteenth and early tw entieth centuries, Cesare L om broso, the founder o f criminal anthropology, seems to have grounded his theories o f the “b o m crim inal” in the scientific tradition o f physiognom y (Schrader, esp. 63-65). T here existed in antiquity, o f course, exceptions to this tendency. Lucretius 5.1110-12 describes the valorization o f beauty as an elem ent o f prim itive and outdated belief; cf. Sail. Cat. 10.5-6. 39 For full references to the use and range o f this conceit th roughout R om an literature, see Pease’s notes in 1955 1:143-45 and 1963: 368. Pease observes that on occasion the Greeks too expressed dissatisfaction w ith their language. 40 W inkler 64-70; quotation is from 65.

general claim, that justice am ong m ortals derives directly from the w o rk ­ ings o f natura (L eg . 1.18—34). For Cicero, the equation o f m oral and physical appearance in a hum an being provides evidence that nature is inherently just; for i f hum an beings w ere endow ed by nature w ith the ability to use their appearance as a means o f deception, it w ould then be im possible to trust nature in any o f its capacities. T he concept o f natural law depends upon nature itself—including its inhabitants— being decipherable. Im m ediately following his rem arks on the hum an countenance, Cicero seeks to dem onstrate that if hum an beings had retained their natural state, then all persons w ould desire the same (natural) law. This original state, he seems to think, requires that all persons had once resem bled one an­ other. We have deviated from this uniform ity on account o f wicked ways. Cicero form ulates the deviation in the following elliptical m anner: q u o d si d epravatio co n su etu d in u m , si o p in io n u m vanitas n o n im b ecillitatem a n im o ru m to rq u e re t et flecteret q u o c u m q u e coepisset, sui n e m o ipse ta m sim ilis esset q u a m o m n es essent o m n iu m . {Leg. 1.29) N ay, if b ad h ab its an d false beliefs did n o t tw ist th e w eak er m in d s an d tu rn th e m in w h ate v er d irec tio n th e y are inclined, n o o n e w o u ld b e so like his o w n se lf as all m e n w o u ld b e like o th ers. (Keyes tra n s.)41

W ithout evil, then, individuality w ould be nonexistent. T hat is the law. C icero’s language here, describing the tw isting and turning from an im agined ideal (depravatio, torqueret, flecteret), com m only recurs in the in­ vective against physical peculiarities. T he depraved soul, tw isting from the straight path o f nature, is portrayed as the property o f the “unnatural” R om an— the nonelite m em ber o f society w ho possesses “bad habits and false beliefs.” H ence those w ithout access to w hat have been chosen as proper beliefs and opinions are caught in a double bind: if their behavior or appearance betrays them as other— not only as un-R om an b u t as unnatural— the cause m ust be “weakness o f m ind” (imbecillitas an­ imorum), a weakness that will only further aggravate their continual devi­ ance from the established norm s o f society. This ideological representa­ tion o f the relation betw een hum an society and nature can, in the hands o f a pow erful speaker, becom e a means o f ordering and controlling broader political, econom ic, and social realities.42 41 For this curious passage I adopt the translation and interpretation o f C. Keyes 1928, the Loeb editor, who remarks ad Ioc.: “Apparently a paradox, designed to enforce a funda­ mental truth with emphasis. It seems merely to mean ‘men would all be exactly alike.’” 42 See Althusser, esp. 24: “Ideological representations concern nature and society, the very world in which men live; they concern the life o f men, their relation to nature, to society, to the social order, to other men and to their activities, including economic and political prac­ tice” (original emphasis).

C icero refuses to speculate h o w his h y p o th etical “universal sim ilarity ” (similitudo omnium) w o u ld express itse lf in term s o f physique. In o th e r co n tex ts he also seem s u n w illin g to co n fro n t the issue. In his treatise O n the Nature o f the Gods (De natura deorum), the in te rlo c u to r C o tta , a speaker fo r S toicism , argues against an an th ro p o m o rp h ic con cep tio n o f the gods. C o tta objects th at since the gods are perfect, and perfection m u st re p re­ sent a single, u n ch a n g in g state o f being, th en the gods w o u ld all have to ap p ear exactly alike i f they had h u m a n traits. A ny deviation w o u ld con­ stitu te a b lem ish . T h is could o f course n o t be th e case, C o tta asserts w ith ­ o u t arg u m e n tatio n . So here to o one encounters a con cep tio n o f n atural p hysical perfection, a perfection w h o se characteristics are nev er m ade explicit. H o w ev er, o n im p erfectio n C icero is m o re fo rth c o m in g . T h e first pas­ sage I cited fro m O n the Laws, w h e re n atu re plays a role in shaping the h u m a n cou n ten ance (1.27), is relevant here. W icked people, w h o carry th e m ark s o f evil in th eir facial features (speciem oris), have g ro w n apart and have thus b eco m e distinguishable fro m an im ag in ed original u n ifo r­ m ity o f beauty. A physical peculiarity, therefore, m arks an individual. In d ividuality, w h e n u n d e rsto o d as deviation fro m the natural n o rm (depravatio consuetudinum), betrays an evil nature. E x tern al an d in tern al u g li­ ness p ro d u c e and reflect each other. A th ird passage fro m C ic e ro ’s philosophical w o rk s su p p o rts the co n ­ te n tio n th at to a R o m an , a physical peculiarity provides visible evidence o f m o ral deviance. In O n the Limits o f Good and Evil (D e finibus), the in te rlo c u to r P iso argues th at h u m a n beings desire to be physically w h o le and b eautiful and th at this desire arises fro m an innate lo n g in g (natura; 5 .46—47). In his re b u ttal, the re sp o n d en t C icero does n o t take Piso to task fo r this re m a rk . O n e can n o w u n d ersta n d w hy: P iso ’s ob serv atio n ac­ co rd s w ith th e m o d el o f h u m a n d ev e lo p m e n t outlined b y C icero h im self in O n the Laws. A p e rso n ’s lo n g in g to be beautiful reflects the desire to re tu rn to an orig inal state. T h is b elief finds fu rth e r su p p o rt in the basic L atin v o cab u lary fo r beauty and ugliness. B ehind these designations of­ ten stands th e idea o f a beautiful n o rm fro m w h ich deviation has oc­ cu rred ; consider, for exam ple, th e pairs formosus : deformis (“sh ap ely ” : “ u n sh ap e ly ”) o r rectus : pravus (“s tra ig h t” : “ cro o k ed ”).43 It is surely no coincidence th at th e w o rd s d en o tin g m o ral character also refer to an im ­ plied n o rm o f p erfection and balance: aequus : iniquus (“levelness” describ­ in g “j u s t ” b ehavior; cf. pravus, perversus: d epravity as behavior th at liter­ ally de-viates). T h e h u m o r d eriv in g fro m an o p p o n e n t’s physical appearance n o w stands in a n ew light. S tra b o ’s advocacy o f the m o ck ery o f physical pecu43 M onteil 249.

liarities is p red icated u p o n a philosophical u n d ersta n d in g o f n atu ral ju s ­ tice: deviance fro m n o rm a l h u m a n p h y siq u e can signify a m o ral failing hid d en deep w ith in (penitus reconditos mores). In public invective, the o ra­ to r ’s task is to p o in t o u t this deviance, th ereb y reinforcing th e in h eren t ju stic e o f social and political stratification. T h e p ro p e r R o m an can read injustice o n th e face o f the “ o u tla w .” A physical peculiarity dam ns its b earer for in d iv iduality. P

h y s ic a l

P

e c u l ia r it ie s a n d

P

o l it ic a l

R

h e t o r ic

P hysical peculiarities individualize; b u t w h a t th rea t does a d efo rm ed indi­ v idual em b o d y ? A passage fro m o n e o f C ic e ro ’s earliest w ritin g s, O n Rhetorical Invention (D e inventione), provides the final link b etw een an ide­ alized co n c ep tio n o f p rim al m a n (O n the Laws, O n the Lim its o f Good and Evil) and th e application o f the b o d y to political rh e to ric (O n the Orator). In th e first b o o k o f O n Rhetorical Invention, C icero observes h o w th e o ra­ to r m ay u se to equal effect b o th th e po sitiv e an d negative physical fea­ tu res o f his subject. H e includes a m o n g the allow able objects o f abuse th o se w h o have been m isshapen b y n atu re (ab natura . . . deformis·, Inv. 1.35). In the second b o o k , C icero again treats th e subject o f personal characteristics. H e discusses h o w the o ra to r m ay use attributes eith er to s u p p o rt o r to call in to q u estio n a proof: ex persona autem coniectura capietur, si eae res quae personis attributae sunt diligenter considerabuntur. . . . om nia enim haec, vir an mulier, huius an illius civitatis sit, quibus sit m aioribus, quibus consanguineis, qua aetate, quo anim o, quo corpore, quae naturae sunt attributa, ad aliquam coniecturam faciendam pertinebunt. (Inv. 2.28—29; m y emphases) In addition, an inference w ill be m ade from on e’s person, i f those qualities that have been attributed to persons w ill be carefully considered. . . . For these tkings that have been attributed to nature — i.e ., w hether [one’s subject] is a man or w om an , from our state or another, w h o are his ancestors and blood relatives, h o w old h e is, w hat type o f spirit and physique he has— all these things w ill be relevant in m aking an inference.

T h e y o u n g C icero ascribes the o rig in o f b o d ily attrib u tes to a single source, natura. In co n trast, the G reek treatises, as w e have seen, p o sit tw o sources fo r th ese attributes: eith er accident o r personal responsibility. B y th e tim e o f O n Rhetorical Invention, an ind iv id u al has p rim a ry resp o n ­ sibility for any physical fault, regardless o f its o rig in .44 In discussing the 44 I d o n o t necessarily cred it C ic e ro w ith this in n o v atio n . T h e general consensus a m o n g scholars h o ld s th at O n Rhetorical Invention contains very few orig in al ideas and consists largely o f C ic e ro ’s n o tes, co m p iled w h e n he w as still a stu d e n t (see n. 12 above). G. K en-

m ockery o f physical deform ities as form ulated in On the Orator book 2, I noted that Strabo did n o t include the physically deform ed am ong those w ho have been oppressed by exceptionally bad luck (De orat. 2.239), a failure that puzzles a m odern reader. An understanding o f the Rom an conception o f physical appearance explains the apparent contradiction: the Rom ans preferred to conceive o f a physical peculiarity as arising not out o f chance but out o f an evil character. Cicero firm ly m aintains this conflation o f physique and spirit throughout his public career. T h irty years later, the period o f 46/45 b c e finds Cicero once again w riting a treatise on rhetoric. A lm ost a decade has passed since the com ­ position o f On the Orator, the w ork that, as I have already rem arked, expresses m ost fully C icero’s conception o f the ideal R om an orator. In his new rhetorical treatise, On the Classification o f Oratory (De partitione oratoria), Cicero reform ulates the equation o f external and internal ap­ pearance. W hile enum erating the order o f subjects one should treat in a speech o f praise or blam e (Part. 70), the orator advises beginning w ith the subject’s family and then proceeding to his fortune and means. Cicero continues: postea de corporis bonis [erit dicendum ], in quibus quidem quae virtutem m axim e significat facillime form a laudatur. (Part. 74) A fterw ard [one should speak] o f physical advantages, and am ong these beauty is m ost easily praised as it indicates virtue m ost clearly.

T he context— “everything connected w ith virtue should definitely be praised and everything connected w ith faults should be blam ed” (omnia . . . sunt proficto laudanda quae coniuncta cum virtute sunt, et quae cum vitiis vituperanda\ Part. 71)— leaves no doubt that the converse o f the passage cited also holds true; that is, lack o f physical beauty reflects a correspond­ ing deficiency in virtue. This sentim ent recalls C icero’s prim al m an in On the Laws. In their original state, hum an beings possessed uniform ity o f virtue and appearance, and evil b rought about deviance from this ideal state (Leg. 1.29). M oral deviance in tu rn created an ugly exterior. From the early treatise On Rhetorical Invention to the later On the Classification o f Oratory, from the nascent stages o f his oratorical career to the intense nedy, after a detailed discussion o f the relationship betw een On Rhetorical Inuention and Rhetorica ad Herennium, concludes that both w orks stem from the house o f the o rator Crassus (126-38). A lthough such a precise conclusion seems risky, Kennedy’s argum ents suggest that C icero’s com m ents in On Rhetorical Invention on the rhetorical use o f the body reflect a R om an source. In any event, even if the source were Greek, the willingness o f the R om ans to accept such a practice indicates their recognition o f its potential effectiveness for a R om an audience.

period o f literary activity that preceded his death, C icero rem ains con­ vinced o f the advantage a speaker m ight gain from an opponent’s physi­ cal peculiarities. Provided that one interprets it properly— in the best cir­ cumstances, w ith the help o f a C icero— the hum an body provides access to a person’s inner nature. Exposing the faults o f the body strengthens one’s case on the side o f w hat is good and natural. As m ight be expected, an opposing aesthetic is acknow ledged in Cic­ ero’s ethical and philosophical treatises, but even here only rarely. The infrequency w ith w hich m oral and physical beauty are dissociated in these w orks attests further to how inextricably bodies and behavior could be linked in the R om an m ind. O n tw o occasions Cicero cites Socrates as an exam ple o f an ugly m an being able to transcend physical appearance. Yet Socrates provides sim ply a noble exception to the recognized norm . T he Greek philosopher could overcom e his natural disabilities, Cicero argues, only through the earnest pursuit o f tru th — “w ith will, effort, and training” (in voluntate studio disciplina; Fat. 10—11; cf. Tusc. 4.80). The average intellect, it is clearly im plied, w ould not be so fortunate. A m ong C icero’s political enemies, the im pressive physical appearance o f Lucius C alpurnius Piso posed a particular problem . T he noble exterior o f Piso should by all accounts presage a m orally upright interior. I discuss in detail at the close o f chapter 4 the ways in w hich Cicero resolves this dilem m a: Cicero asserts that Piso is especially evil because he attem pts through his attractive exterior to conceal from the citizens o f R om e his base internal character. T he m ost effective m eans o f highlighting an opponent’s deform ities lies, as Caesar Strabo saw, in their m ockery before an audience. T he public exposure o f a person’s physical deviance isolates him as an indi­ vidual and enables the speaker to unite w ith the spectators in a jo in t chorus o f derisive laughter. In the rem ainder o f this chapter I shall con­ centrate on how the public speaker at R om e m anipulates the bias against physical peculiarities. T he texts I have chosen to exam ine show the orator encouraging the presuppositions o f his hearers and thereby helping them to shape their ow n critical reaction to the individual being attacked. A passage from On the Orator provides a rare glim pse o f an audience’s reaction to a jo k e on a physical peculiarity. Strabo recounts an exam ple o f hum orous irony from a public debate in the nineties b c e : invertuntur autem verba, ut, Crassus apud M . P erpem am iudicem pro A culeone cum diceret, aderat contra A cu leon em Gratidiano L. A elius Lamia, deform is, ut nostis; qui cum interpellaret od iose, “audiam us” inquit “p ulchellum puerum ” Crassus; cum esset adrisum , “non potui m ihi” inquit Lamia “form am ipse ftngere, ingenium potui;” turn hie “audiam us” inquit “disertum !” m ulto etiam adrisum est vehem entius. (De orat. 2.262)

Words also are used in irony, like the tim e w hen Crassus spoke on behalf o f A culeo before the ju d ge Marcus Perperna. T he opposing counsel represent­ ing Gratidianus w as Lucius A elius Lamia, a disfigured m an, as you all know. Since this Lamia kept interrupting him in an offensive manner, Crassus re­ m arked, “Let’s hear the pretty little b o y ”; w hen there was a peal o f approv­ ing laughter Lamia replied, “I w asn ’t responsible for m olding m y beauty, but I w as for m y talent.” A t this Crassus responded, “L et’s hear the skillful speaker!” H e w as m et w ith a m uch stronger burst o f approving laughter.45

A few p re lim in ary rem ark s are needed to appreciate this exchange fully. L am ia has so m e ty p e o f d e fo rm ity — w e d o n ’t k n o w exactly w hat. O n e can in fer fro m C ic e ro ’s te x t o n ly th at the n ature o f the d efo rm ity m ade h im far fro m beautiful (pulcher) and that p re su m a b ly it w o u ld have been visible to anyone in his presence. B u t n o te h o w S trabo introduces L am ia’s defect: “ a disfigured m an, as you all k n o w ” (deformis, ut nostis). T h e p h rase teases b y its v ery conciseness. F ro m the p o in t o f v iew o f the in terlo cu to rs, th is aside b y S trabo w o u ld have been gratuitous; after all, th e o th e r p erso n ag e in the anecdote, C rassus, belongs to their n u m b e r and th e particip ants reveal elsew here in the dialogue a close k n o w led g e o f o ne a n o th e r’s ju d icial experience. S trabo need n o t in fo rm th em (as o f course th e ph rase ut nostis itse lf concedes) that Lam ia is disfigured. R ather, th e aside p rovides C ic e ro ’s readers w ith the in fo rm atio n necessary to u n d e rsta n d th e w ittic ism th at follow s and so creates a g roup b o n d b etw een his o w n reading audience and th e spectators in the anecdote. F ro m th e b eg in n in g , Lam ia stands apart. C ic e ro ’s o n e -w o rd description o f L am ia as “d isfig u red ” reaffirm s m y earlier co n clu sio n re g ard in g the R o m an attitude to w ard the re sp o n ­ sibility an in d iv id u al has fo r his physical deform ities. C ic e ro ’s failure here to specify L am ia’s d e fo rm ity dem onstrates th at the precise n atu re o f an o p p o n e n t’s disability sh o u ld n o t concern th e orator. A physical defect o f any k in d pro v id es sufficient p r o o f o f responsibility. T h e ty p e o f defor­ m ity does n o t seem to m atter so m uch as w h a t its existence can reveal a b o u t an in d iv id u a l’s character and his relationship w ith nature. T h e exchange itse lf can n o w be analyzed. S trabo intends to pro v id e an ex am p le o f iro n y (inversio verborum), a n d C rassu s’ initial re m a rk m eets this expectation: he refers to Lam ia as a “p re tty little b o y ” (pulchellus puer). T h is alliterative g ro u p in g involves a do u b le insult. In ch ap ter 4 I discuss th e w ays in w h ich “b o y ” (puer) m arks Lam ia as th e subm issive p a rtn e r in a m ale-m ale sexual relatio n sh ip .46 T h e d im in u tiv e pulchellus 45 I b o rro w th e re n d erin g o f invertuntur (“ to use in iro n y ”) fro m W ilkins ad Ioc.; for adridere in its usual sense o f “ to laugh in approval," see T L L 2:637 .2 7 -4 1 . 46 R ichlin 1992a: 33—44 discusses th e erotic ideal o f th e puer as revealed in the literatu re o f th e period.

(“p re tty little ”), how ever, is the k ey to this jo k e , since it directly answ ers L am ia’s o w n c o m m e n t o n his physical appearance (Jormam). A n d as the au d ien ce’s la u g h te r show s, th e re m a rk has achieved its in ten d ed effect. So far n o th in g strikes the m o d e rn reader as peculiar; an equivalent response to such a jo k e o n the p a rt o f a m o d e rn audience m ay be considered cruel b u t certain ly n o t unusual. L am ia th en a ttem p ts to c o n fro n t C rassus and the lau g h ter w ith reason. H e m ay n o t be h eld responsible for his physical characteristics, he m ain­ tains, b u t o n ly for his intellectual attainm ents. L am ia recognizes th at C rassu s’ re m a rk dep en d ed u p o n the ex p ectatio n th at an u n sig h tly person w o u ld be rude. C ra ssu s’ second response echoes his initial use o f iro n y : “le t’s h ear th e skillful sp eak er” (audiamus disertum). Yet this is n o t a sim ple re p etitio n . I f C rassu s’ statem en t w ere m erely a v ariation o n his first jib e, it w o u ld be d ifficult to explain w h y S trabo stresses its substantially g reater effect o n th e audience— C rassus “ m et w ith a m u ch stro n g e r b u rst o f ap p ro v in g la u g h te r” (multo . . . adrisum est vehementius). In co m m en t­ in g o n th is passage, W ilkins infers th at the h u m o r in C rassu s’ re m a rk relies o n th e fact th at “d oubtless L am ia . . . w as a v ery p o o r sp ea k er.” By this logic, h o w ever, C rassus seem s to in tro d u ce a fault entirely separate fro m L am ia’s physical appearance. T his w o u ld ru n c o n tra ry to C ic e ro ’s usual p ractice in the h u m o r section o f O n the Orator b o o k 2, in w h ich he p ro v id es his reader w ith all the in fo rm atio n necessary to u n d ersta n d a w itticism . S trab o w o u ld have referred in advance to L am ia’s lack o f elo­ quence i f su ch a fact w ere relevant. Yet S trabo o n ly em phasizes th at L am ia is deformis. C rassus has p re te n d ed to yield to L am ia’s a rg u m e n t th at he bears n o re sp o n sib ility for his appearance, b u t b y in co n g ru o u sly ap p ly in g th e ad­ je c tiv e “e lo q u e n t” (disertus) to one w ith a physical d efo rm ity — or, m o re specifically, to a disfigured p erso n having th e ability to shape his o w n ingenium, his o w n intellectual capabilities— C rassus p ro m p ts the R o m an audience to an even stro n g e r degree o f laughter. T h e h u m o r arising fro m C rassu s’ initial iro n ic reference to L am ia as a “p re tty little b o y ” (pulchellus puer) is increased b y the unlikely ju x ta p o s itio n o f a speaker b ein g b o th disertus a n d deformis, e lo q u en t an d yet u g ly .47 S trab o relates a n o th er jo k e on physical peculiarities that w o n great ap 47 T h e re m a rk fro m th e c ro w d c o n ce rn in g C a lv u s’ elo q u en ce th a t C atu llu s finds so w itty — "D i magni, salaputtium disertum!” (“ G re at gods! A n e lo q u e n t salaputtium!''; C atull. 53.5 )— m ay d e riv e at least so m e o f its force fro m th e sim ilar in c o n g ru ity o f a sh o rt m an — i.e ., a m a n w ith a p hysical p e cu liarity — h av in g a forceful and effective sp eaking style. (We k n o w fro m Sen. Contr. I Α . Ί th at th e w o rd salaputtium, a hapax legomenon, refers to C a lv u s’ sm all statu re; any in te rp re ta tio n b e y o n d this req u ires edu cated g u e ssw o rk . W h e th e r the w o rd also served as a slang fo r “p e n is ,” w h ic h w o u ld certainly give a h u m o ro u s p ictu re, is still o p e n to q u e stio n : see A dam s 65.)

proval from the R om an spectators. It involves the public hum iliation o f an opponent by means o f a visual com parison. T he w itticism is one o f Strabo’s own: valde autem ridentur etiam im agines, quae fere in deform itatem aut in all— quod vitium corporis ducuntur cum sim ilitudine turpioris: ut m eum illud in H elvium M anciam “iam ostendam cuius m odi sis,” cum ille “ostende, quaeso;” dem onstravi digito pictum G alium in M ariano scuto C im brico sub N ovis d istortum , eiecta lingua, buccis fluentibus; risus est com m otus; nihil tarn M anciae simile visum est. (De orat. 2.266; cf. Q uint. Inst. 6.3.38, Plin. Nat. 35.25) R epresentations are also very hum orous. T hey are usually directed at a de­ form ity o r at som e bodily fault, w hich is com pared to som ething uglier. For exam ple, there’s that [joke] I directed at Helvius Mancia [when I rem arked], “N o w I’ll show w hat kind o f person you are.” W hen Mancia [replied], “Please do, ” I pointed w ith m y finger to a Gaul that was painted on one o f M arius’ C im brian shields [hanging] near the N ew Shops. [The Gaul was] distorted, w ith his tongue hanging out and flabby cheeks. This stirred up laughter; nothing seemed so m uch like M ancia.

T he h u m o r depends upon the am biguity o f the phrase “I’ll show w hat kind o f person you are” (ostendam cuius modi sis). Mancia, expecting Strabo will launch an attack on his character, defiantly challenges his opponent to proceed. Strabo, playing on a concrete interpretation o f cuius modi sis— “w hat you look like”— instead points to a sign hanging nearby that bears the caricature o f a Gallic savage.48 T hrough his external resem ­ blance to the Gaul, M ancia becomes the foreigner’s m oral equivalent: his physical appearance labels him as an outcast. T he positive crow d reaction shows that Strabo has succeeded in revealing “w hat kind o f person” his opponent is: “nothing seemed so m uch like M ancia” (nihil tarn Manciae simile visum est). T he w it o f Strabo’s attack derives, as I have said, from his interpreting the phrase cuius modi sis in a way his audience did not expect. Yet the jo k e ’s rhetorical pow er resides in the R om an predisposi­ tion tow ard associating physical appearance w ith m oral character. “W hat you look like” and “w hat kind o f person you are” can be rendered as equivalents not only in the Latin language (cuius modi sis) but in the Latin w orldview as well. Strabo attem pted to convince his hearers o f M ancia’s unsavory charac­ ter by appealing to a pictorial caricature. H yperbolic representations sim ­ ilar to that on the shopkeeper’s sign w ould have been familiar to a R om an audience from nonpolitical contexts. Equally familiar w ould have been 48 Perl argues convincingly that Strabo (or Cicero?) errs here, and that the figure on the shield represents n o t a Gaul b u t a G orgon. H owever, this does n o t affect m y conclusions.

th e in te rp re ta tio n o f these representations. T h e m asks w o rn b y actors on th e co m ic stage, fo r exam ple, depict the m arginalized figures o f society as p h ysically o th er, thus re n d erin g th e m m o re susceptible to m ockery. Slaves, m o n ey len d ers, p im p s, and parasites w ere readily recognizable fro m th eir d isto rted features. M asks w ith gaping m ouths, vicious teeth, b ald heads, and d isto rted noses characterize th e evil and absurd to the sp ectato r at th e th eater.49 T h is equation o f ex terio r and in terio r in the d ram atic settin g influenced everyday linguistic usage. T h e Latin w o rd for m ask, persona, cam e to den o te the p erso n ality o f th e character behind the m ask an d th u s, b y extension, w as co m m o n ly applied to any individual’s m o ral te m p e ra m e n t.50 In o th e r w o rd s, w h e th e r in a dram atic o r a p o liti­ cal co n tex t, th e persona did n o t serve as concealm ent b u t as a visual cue to th e p erso n beneath. F ascination w ith the g ro tesq u e w as to peak u n d e r the early E m p ire, as freak show s displaced traditional theatrical perform ances. E ven the co u rts o f em p ero rs becam e p o pulated w ith anatom ically peculiar h u m an b ein g s.51 M o ralizing texts o f th e p erio d conflate this obsession over physical peculiarities w ith a co n tem p o ran eo u s decline in rhetoric. A t one p o in t in his treatise o n the rheto rical education o f children, th e firstce n tu ry CE w rite r Q u in tilian discusses h o w it is som etim es valuable for stu d en ts to read faulty and c o rru p t rhetoric. T hese in ferio r texts, the rh e to ric ian claim s, can pro v id e a helpful counterexam ple o f the style to ­ w a rd w h ich th e aspiring o ra to r should aim . T h e subject stim ulates Q u in ­ tilian to critiq u e the o ra to ry o f his day w hich, h e lam ents, has rejected “n a tu ra l” form s o f expression (secundum naturam): ilia vero, quae utcum que deflexa sunt, tamquam exquisitiora miramur non aliter quam distortis et quocum que m od o prodigiosis corporibus apud quosdam maius est pretium quam iis, quae nihil ex com m unis habitus bonis perdiderunt. (Q uint. Inst. 2.5.11) A nd yet the m ore abnormal the [rhetorical elem ents] are, the m ore w e mar­ vel, as if they were m ore precious. This is no different from those people w h o consider bodies that have som eh ow becom e tw isted and unnatural as m ore valuable than those w hich have lost none o f the qualities people com ­ m only share.

P eople share a recognizable physique, one that, i f m o rality w ere secure, w o u ld b e desirable fo r all p ro p e rly discerning p ersons. T his conflation o f vi Bieber 147-56, 247-48 argues, w ith m any illustrations, that R om an masks exaggerate grotesque features to a greater extent than their Greek models. 50 See G arton 11-12. Dozens o f examples o f this extended use o f persona occur in Cic­ ero’s w ritings; see m ost conveniently O L D , s.v. 4; M erguet, s.v. 51 B arton 86-90, 168, to which I owe the following reference to Q uint. Inst. 2.5.11.

m o ral b re a k d o w n w ith the collapse o f C iceronian rhetorical standards is n o t p eculiar to th e rh eto rician Q uintilian. N u m e ro u s texts fro m the first ce n tu ry C E see th e d eterio ratio n o f oratorical style n o t only as sy m p to m ­ atic o f m o ral decay b u t often as being one o f the causes o f this decay.52 Seneca encapsulates th e p o sitio n w ith characteristic b rev ity in his discus­ sion o f h o w th e im p ro p e r speaking style o f A u g u stu s’ advisor M aecenas m atches his effem inate behavior: “o u r w ay o f speaking m irro rs o u r w ay o f life” {Epist. 114.1). In all these discussions o f oratorical decline, C icero lo o m s as the stan­ d ard fro m w h ich co n te m p o ra ry speakers have degenerated. F or as w e have seen, in C ic e ro ’s rh e to ric the beau ty o f the physical fo rm and a tru st in n a tu re coincide. T h is equation, as Q u in tilian attests, has as its neces­ sary c o m p le m e n t a certain p u rity o f ex p ressio n .53 T h e deform ed Lam ia clearly d em o n strates h o w a lack in any o n e o f these areas im plies a lack in an o th er: th e iro n ic references to his ugliness (pulchellus puer) and lack o f elo q u en ce (disertus) b o th evoked co m p licit peals o f laughter. T h e su p erio r R o m a n citizen speaks w ell an d has an attractive physique. T h e co m b in a­ tio n p ro v id es p r o o f th at n atu re has n o t erred. Jo k es em p lo y ed ou tsid e the courts, the senate house, and public g ather­ ings p ro v id e fu rth e r indications o f the p o p u lar attitu d e to w a rd physical appearance. A lth o u g h teasingly few, these ap p aren tly everyday jo k es fu rth e r indicate th at th e abuse found in late R epublican rh e to ric w ould n o t have been co nsidered u nusual b y a co n te m p o ra ry audience. As was th e case in co u rt w ith the u n fo rtu n ate Lucius Lam ia, deform ities also p ro m p te d w itticism s in daily life. O n one occasion a din n er gu est o f the great p ain ter Lucius M allius rem ark ed on the inconsistency o f M allius’ creative genius: alth o u g h he p ro d u c ed beautiful paintings, his children w ere excep tio n ally ug ly (deforme). M allius replied: “I procreate at n ig h t, I create in lig h t” ( “tenebris enim jin g o ,” inquit, “luce pingo”: M acr. Sat. 2.2.10; o th e r jo k e s o n ugliness occu r at Cic. Scaur. 6; C ic. A u . 1.13.2 = SB 13, 12.11 = SB 249; P lut. Cic. 27.4 [cf. Mor. 205c]). E xam ples o f the m o c k e ry o f sm all statu re indicate th at o u r sh o rt j u r o r A urifex w ould n o t have w alk ed th e streets unassailed (M acr. Sat. 2.3.3, 4; perhaps Q u in t. Inst. 6.3.67). T w o rem ain in g categories o f jo k e s th at seem to have had cu rren cy o u tsid e public life pro v id e a convenient segue into the final sec­ tio n o f this chapter: loss o f hair and b o d ily sw ellings. B o th insufficiency and excess in v ite laughter. Julius C aesar, as he m arched triu m p h a n tly th ro u g h the city streets after defeating the Gauls, w as chided by his sol­ diers as “th e bald -headed ad u lterer” (moechum calvum, Suet. Iul. 51; for 52 T h e a p p ro p ria te te x ts are assem bled and discussed b y W illiam s 1978: 6—51; see also E d w a rd s 137—72. 53 D a v id 1983: 315 discusses th e w ays in w h ic h o ra to rs fro m th e m unicipalities w ere d isc rim in ated again st o n account o f th eir m eans o f expression.

m o re jo k e s o n baldness see C ic. D e orat. 2.250, A tt. 14.2.3 = SB 356; cf. Tusc. 3.62). T h e p la y w rig h t P ublilius Syrus, hap p en in g u p o n a h y d ro ­ cephalic slave ly in g in th e sun, explained to his co m p an io n that the boy w as “b o ilin g w a te r” (aquam calefacit, M acr. Sat. 2.7.6; fu n n y sw ellings are also m en tio n ed at Suet. Gramm. 9.3, Rhet. 29.1; M acr. Sat. 2.3.5; Q u in t. Inst. 6.3.77 [cf. M acr. Sat. 2.6.4]). All these instances o f abuse do m o re th a n en tertain : th e y stren g th en the already p resen t bias concerning the m o ra l significance o f a physical failing. T h e m en w h o laughed at these jo k e s and p reserv ed th e m for p o ste rity are the sam e m en w h o listened to C icero as h e to o k co n tro l o f th eir lau g h ter and m o ld e d it in to the reco g ­ nized d efin itio n o f the p ro p e r citizen o f R om e. F a n n iu s

and

Va t i n i u s : C

ic e r o

T

eaches

H

is

A

u d ie n c e t o

R

ea d

C ic e ro ’s defense o f Q u in tu s R oscius, one o f his earliest e x ta n t orations, reveals th e sam e strategies for the tre a tm e n t o f physical peculiarities th at his early rh eto rical h an d b o o k , O n Rhetorical Invention, prescribed. C icero w ishes to d em o n stra te th at his client, the fam ous actor Q u in tu s R oscius, co uld n o t have defrauded the accusing party, G aius Fannius. P ro o flie s in F an n iu s’ p hysical appearance: o ro atq u e obsecro v os, qui nostis, v ita m in te r se u triu sq u e conferte. q u i n o n nostis, faciem u triu sq u e considerate, n o n n e ip su m cap u t et supercilia ilia pen itu s abrasa o lere m alitiam et clam itare calliditatem v id en tu r? n o n n e ab im is u n g u ib u s u sq u e ad v erticem su m m u m (si q u a m co n iectu ram affert h o m in ib u s tacita co rp o ris figura) ex fraude, fallaciis, m endaciis co n stare to tu s vid etu r? qui idcirco capite et superciliis se m p er est rasis, ne u llu m p ilu m v iri b o n i hab ere dicatur. (Q . Rose. 20) I b eg an d beseech th o se o f y ou w h o k n o w th e m to co m p are th e ir w ay o f life. A s fo r th o se o f you w h o d o n o t k n o w th e m , p o n d e r each o f th e ir faces. S urely F annius’ (ilia) v ery h ead and eyebrow s, so closely shaven, seem to stin k o f evil an d p ro cla im his sh rew d n atu re. S urely [this m an ] (if physical appearance does in fact allow o n e to m ak e inferences even th o u g h it ca n n o t speak) fro m th e tips o f his toenails to th e very to p o f his head, is en tirely m ad e u p o f fraud, deceit, and lies. H e re ’s w h y h e ’s alw ays g o t his head and ey eb ro w s close-cropped: h e ’s afraid so m e b o d y w ill say h e ’s g o t a sin g le h air o f a g o o d m an.

C icero caps his c o m p ariso n b etw een F annius’ physical ex terio r an d spiri­ tu al in te rio r w ith a verbal play, a technique c o m m o n in the exam ples o f w it already cited fro m O n the Orator. T h e closing w ittic ism rests o n an allusion to th e id io m aliquid pili habere, “to have a h a ir’s w o r th ”— th at is, to possess a n eg ligible a m o u n t o f som e quality. Fannius, in his state o f

depilation, can n o t even be considered w o rth a hair o f an y th in g , m u ch less th e h a ir o f a g o o d m an. T his play on the do u b le m eaning o f pilus, “h a ir” o r “s h re d ,” m ad e conspicuous b y a favored rh y th m ic clausula, un d ersco res th e ab su rd ity o f th e nearly hairless Fannius b y su pplying an even m o re ab su rd m o tiv e fo r his self-depilation. C icero m akes F annius’ in n er c o rru p tio n ap p aren t to all b y equating the m a n ’s o u tw a rd appear­ ance w ith th e v ery id io m th at describes his evil n atu re— “w ith o u t a single hair o f a g o o d m an. ” T h e audience can n o w tru ly “re ad ” F annius’ appear­ ance. T h e cap p in g w ittic ism tran sfo rm s h im in to a verbalized expression o f his o w n in tern al character. We shall n ev er k n o w h o w h u m o ro u s C ic e ro ’s audience w o u ld have fo u n d this w o rd p la y — did his re p u ta tio n as the funniest m an in R om e rest o n w itticism s such as this? F ortu n ately for m y purposes, m o re signif­ icant th an th e jo k e itse lf are the prem ises in fo rm in g it. T h e o ra to r m akes clear to his audience the ethical bias fro m w h ich his rem arks w ill stem : i f th ey do n o t already realize th e decadence o f F annius’ lifestyle w h en com ­ p ared to R o sciu s’, this w ill b ecom e ap p aren t fro m a com parison o f their facial features (qui [vitam utriusque] non nostis, faciem utriusque considerate). A sch o lar o f this ce n tu ry w h o has stu d ied C ic e ro ’s h u m o r accuses the y o u n g o ra to r here o f th e “ex aggeration o f an im ag in atio n that is still too co n triv ed . ”54 Such an accusation, how ever, ignores the fact that Fannius stands before ev e ry o n e’s eyes as this description proceeds. C icero relies u p o n th e accuracy o f his w o rd s ju s t as m u ch as their art in achieving the full effect o f this h u m iliatio n . F or C ic e ro ’s rem arks do n o t reflect the excesses o f an artful im ag in atio n b u t rather recognize the predispositions o f his audience. D esp ite w h a t he says, how ever, C icero does n o t lim it his p o rtra it to F an n iu s’ face and m y sterio u s p redilection for sh o rt head and facial hair; rather, he h ints at h o w F annius’ entire p hysique indicates his foul na­ tu re .55 In this way, h e extrapolates o n the beliefs given in O n the Laws, as he m oves b ey o n d the countenance (vultus) to p o in t o u t the c o rru p t n atu re o f F an n iu s’ en tire physical and m o ral being. A sim ilar m o v em en t fro m d escrib in g th e p articu lar aspects o f a face to criticizing the entire b o d y 54 H a u ry 1955: 101 (“o n critiq u era sans d o u te ce que Ie tra d u c te u r appelle Γ ‘exag eratio n d ’u n e im a g in atio n en co re tro p artificielle’”). T h e “ tra d u c te u r” is J. B ayet, Litterature latine (Paris 1934) 191-92. 55 C ic e ro ’s re m a rk s h e re closely resem ble S cipio A em ilian u s’ attack o n th e homo delicatus Pub liu s Sulpicius G alus (Gell. 6 .12.5 = O R F 21.17). In th at instance, how ever, G alus p lu ck s h air o n n o t o n ly his face b u t his th ig h s. I shall discuss fu rth e r the force o f A e­ m ilia n u s’ sta te m en ts in c h ap ter 4. F o r n o w I sim p ly n o te th at w h ereas A em ilianus uses his re m a rk s to a ttrib u te to G alus a single, p riv ate fault (that h e is a cinaedus), C icero here uses F a n n iu s’ lack o f h a ir as an in d ic a to r o f faults m o re d irectly con n ected to p u b lic concerns (olere malitiam et clamitare. . . . ex fraude fallaciis mendaciis constare totus videtur).

and its associated character occurs in C icero’s portrait o f Vatinius, w hich I shall discuss below. Before leaving the passage from On B eh a ifo f Quintus Roscius, however, I w ould like to note how Cicero facilitates this transition from the traits for w hich Fannius bears direct responsibility— nam ely his “closecropped head and eyebrow s” (ipsum caput et supercilia ilia penitus abrasa)— to those w ith w hich he has been endow ed by nature— that is, his phy­ sique “from the tips o f his toenails to the very top o f his head” (ab imis unguibus usque ad verticem summum). Cicero provides a link through the aside “if physical appearance does in fact allow m en to m ake inferences even though it cannot speak” (si quam coniecturam affert hominibus tacita corporis figura). T he phrase recalls the statem ent from On Rhetorical Inven­ tion that personal attributes are relevant for m aking inferences about char­ acter (In v . 2.29). This parenthetical expression in the oration does not, as m ay seem at first glance, represent C icero’s apology for adm itting this kind o f evidence in his speech. Rather, the incom plete conditional con­ veys to his audience a rem inder o f the connection betw een the physical and spiritual. T w o factors strongly favor such a reading. T he first is gram m atical: the indicative affert in the protasis (hence m y translation “does in fact allow ”) indicates that C icero’s trust in nature represents a fact about internal and external correspondence and not sim ply an hy­ pothesis. Second and m ore significantly, it is highly unlikely that Cicero w ould in terru p t his carefully prepared clim ax (constare totus videtur) w ith a point that w ould undercut the course o f his entire argum ent up to that m om ent. Hence C icero’s parenthesis provides valuable evidence for how a R om an audience w ould have received the aside. R ather than causing them to d oubt the prem ise o f the o rato r’s w hole narrative (as, one w ould expect, such an offhand “i f ’ clause w ould lead a m odern audience to do), the rem ark instead recalls to their attention their ow n already existing understanding o f the connotations behind an individual’s physical pecu­ liarities. O ne look inform s the astute observer that Fannius cannot be believed. B y pointing explicitly to the preconceived notions o f his audi­ ence, Cicero ensures that his description will attain its intended and antic­ ipated effect: the identification o f his opponent as an evil character w ho m ust not be trusted. Fannius should be thankful for the relatively gentle treatm ent he re­ ceived fro m the young Cicero. By the tim e o f the speech against Vatinius tw en ty years later, Cicero has developed a disarm ingly direct technique for exposing an oppo n en t’s physical peculiarities. T he orator no longer contents him self w ith the single com pact portrait one finds in O n B ehalf o f Q uintus Roscius. Instead, Vatinius’ deform ities constitute a recurrent m o tif that grow s steadily throughout the oration.

P u b liu s V a tin iu s ’ v a rio u s p h y sic a l d e fo rm itie s — in c lu d in g facial sw e l­ lin g s a n d a se v e re case o f g o u t— re a c h e d le g e n d a ry p ro p o rtio n s b e y o n d th e s p h e re o f rh e to ric a l in v e c tiv e .56 T h e strumae th a t re ceiv ed su c h close a tte n tio n f r o m his e n e m ie s are d e s c rib e d b y th e m e d ic al w rite r C e lsu s as “ g la n d u la r s w e llin g s o f p u s a n d b lo o d ” th a t ta k e an u n u s u a lly lo n g tim e to h e a l (5 .2 8 .7 ; le a v in g th is p le a sa n t im a g e in th e r e a d e r’s m in d , I shall sim p ly re fe r to th e m as “s w e llin g s ”). A n o to r io u s d e m a g o g u e , V atin iu s s p e n t a life tim e d e fle c tin g th e ab u se a im e d at th e se d efects. O n e o f th e fin a l re c o rd e d e v e n ts o f h is life re p re se n ts th e c u lm in a tio n o f this abuse. A s g o v e r n o r o f Illy ria in 43 b c e , V atin iu s a tte m p te d to k e e p B ru tu s o u t o f D y r r a c h iu m d e s p ite th e c o u n te rd e m a n d s o f his o w n so ld ie rs. V elleius ex p la in s th e s o ld ie rs ’ re fu sa l to c o o p e ra te : et B rutus cuilibet ducum praeferendus videretur et Vatinius nulli hom ini non esset postferendus, in quo deform itas corporis cum turpitudine certabat ingeni, adeo u t anim us eius dignissim o dom icilio inclusus videretur. (Veil. 2 .6 9 .3 )

T hey thou g h t both that B rutus was to be preferred to any other leader and that there was n o one w hom they w ouldn’t prefer over Vatinius, in w hom physical deform ity carried on such a struggle w ith foulness o f character that his soul seemed trapped in a m ost fitting residence. D io ’s a c c o u n t ascrib es s im ila r m o tiv e s to th e a rm y .57 S ince th e tw o h isto ­ ria n s d o n o t d o u b t th e p la u s ib ility o f th e s o ld ie rs’ m o tiv a tio n s , th e ir te x ts m o s t lik e ly re v e a l th e ir a u d ie n c e ’s ac c e p tan c e o f th e c o rre la tio n b e tw e e n th e p h y s ic a l a n d sp iritu a l. T h a t V elleius a n d D io c o u ld ev en su g g e st th a t su c h m o tiv e s u n d e rlie th e s o ld ie rs ’ d e se rtio n a ttests to th e p o w e r in h e re n t in th e e q u a tio n o f e x te rn a l u g lin e ss a n d in te rn a l c o rru p tio n . Seneca d e sc rib e s V atin iu s as “ a m a n b o r n fo r b o th la u g h te r a n d s c o r n ” 56 Γη a d d itio n to th e references discussed b e lo w in the text, cf. R E 8A. 1 :515-16 (H . G undel). 57 D io 47.21.6: “ F o r his soldiers revolted, a n g ry at h im and despising his disease” (ol γ ά ρ σ τ ρ α τ ιώ τ α ι ά χ θ ό μ ε ν ο ί τε α ΰ τ ώ κ α ί π ρ ο σ κ α τ α φ ρ ο ν ή σ α ν τ ε ς α ύ τ ο ϋ δ ιά ν ό σ ο ν μ ετέσ τη σ α ν). I u n d e rsta n d D io ’s “disease” to be equivalent to V elleius’ deformitas, a lth o u g h G u n d e l 516 (see p re v io u s n o te) expresses u n c ertain ty as to w h ic h deformitas Velleius refers. It seem s m o st likely, h o w e v er, th a t V elleius has in m in d h ere (or th e soldiers do) th e fam ous struma(e) th a t lo o m so larg e in th e speech Against Vatinius. C elsus (5.28.7) reco rd s that strumae leave scars a n d tend to re cu r th ro u g h o u t o n e ’s lifetim e, regardless o f w h e th e r one treats th e m w ith su rg e ry {ferrum) o r salves (medicamenta). H ence it is q u ite likely that V atinius w o u ld have had scars (if n o t re c u rre n t sw ellings) th a t w o u ld have been visible to all. In a d d itio n , I suspect th at th e o n ly o th e r certain affliction o f V atinius, his g o u t (podagra), w o u ld n o t b e referred to as a deformitas, a lth o u g h I suppose this is n o t im possible. C ic e ro (Phil. 10.13) a n d A ppian (B C 4.75) say th a t V atinius w illin g ly su rre n d ere d D y rra ch iu m to B ru tu s. T h e ir accounts are n o t necessarily in co m p atib le w ith th o se o f Velleius and D io.

(hominem natum et ad risum et ad odium; Dial. 2.17.3). T h is characterization su g g ests th at th e episode at D y rra c h iu m does n o t rep resen t an isolated instance o f V atinius’ appearance bein g used publicly against him . Seneca chose to m e n tio n V atinius in his essay O n the Constancy o f the Philosopher to illu strate a ty p e o f s tre n g th in the face o f adversity: one w h o m ocks h im s e lf w ill avoid being m o cked. T h e p h ilo so p h er adm ires V atinius’ re­ spo n se to his m an y attackers: in pedes suos ipse plurim a dicebat et in fauces concisas. sic inim icorum , quos plures habebat quam m orbos, et in primis C iceronis urbanitatem effugit. si hoc potuit ille duritia oris, qui assiduis conviciis pudere dedidicerat, cur is non possit qui studiis liberalibus et sapientiae cultu ad aliquem profectum pervenerit? (Sen. D ial. 2.17.3) H e w ould voluntarily m ake m any remarks about his feet and scarred throat. In this w ay he escaped the w it o f his enem ies— o f w hich he possessed a greater num ber than o f diseases— and especially C icero’s. I fh e w as able [to accom plish this] through brazenness (duritia oris), a man w h o had learned h o w not to feel sham e before constant abuse, w h y shouldn’t one w h o has reached an advanced state through liberal studies and the pursuit o f p hiloso­ phy be able to [do the same]?

O n ly o n e an ecd ote survives in w hich V atinius practices th e kin d o f selfd ep recatio n in th e face o f abuse Seneca describes here. U n fo rtu n ately , the jo k e does n o t d irectly concern his physical appearance and, in addition, lies concealed w ith in yet a n o th er jo k e directed against him . It appears th at V atinius’ u n p o p u la rity h ad b eco m e so g reat that, d u rin g a set o f gam es th at he had sp o n so red , the people in attendance pelted h im w ith stones. P resu m ab ly in the sp irit o f genial self-effacem ent th at Seneca ad­ m ires, V atinius succeeded in hav in g the aediles pass an edict allow ing the sp ectato rs at his gam es to th ro w on ly fruit. T his w itty gesture did not, h o w ev er, quell th e abuse. D u rin g this sam e perio d , so m eo n e hap p en ed to ask th e legal ex p e rt C ascellius w h e th e r a pin eco n e (nux pinea) qualified as a fru it. C ascellius replied, “i f y o u ’re g o in g to th ro w it at V atinius, it’s a fru it” ("si in Vatinium missurus es, pomum e s t M acr. Sat. 2.6.1). Seneca in terp rets such actions o n V atinius’ p a rt as exem plifying the Stoic reso lv e o f a h u m a n being secure in the possession o f virtue: the w o u n d e d p o litician does n o t lash o u t b u t tu rn s th e o th er cheek, even m o ck in g h im se lf.58 A n u n d ersta n d in g o f jo k e s on physical deform ities p ro v id es an ex p lan atio n m o re in keeping w ith late R epublican values. 58 Sen. D ial. 2 .1 6 .1 -3 . R ichlin 1992a: 103, 284 cites m an y o th e r exam ples fro m Seneca a n d e lsew h ere o f h o w “a m an in p u b lic life has to be able to bear insults w ith e q u a n im ity .” V atinius, h o w ev er, is c ertain ly u n iq u e in the sheer v o lu m e o f abuse h e received for his physical appearance.

C o n tra ry to Seneca’s view , V atinius does n o t act o u t the role o f a selfeffacing Stoic. R ather, his actions represent a tactic, h o w ev er im perfect, fo r self-preservation. O n e need o n ly recall the L am ia/C rassu s exchange fro m O n the Orator b o o k 2: to co n fro n t h u m o r directed tow ards o n e’s defects w as to in v ite even harsher laughter. Vatinius fought fire w ith its fuel. O n ly b y su b scrib in g to the po p u lar b elief th at caused the legendary sco rn ag ain st h im did he have any chance o f fending o ff th at scorn. C icero ’s o w n attacks on Vatinius w ere o f far m o re serious im p o rt th an th e legal d efin itio n o f the pinecone. T h e earliest datable ja b at V atinius o ccu rred d u rin g C ic e ro ’s p raeto rsh ip in 6 6 b c e : έπεΐ δέ Ούατίνιος, άνήρ έχω ν τι τραχύ και πρός τούς άρχοντας όλίγωρον έν ταΐς συνηγορίαις, χοιράδω ν δέ τόν τράχηλον περίπλεως, ήτειτό τι καταστάς παρά τού Κικέρωνος, καί μή διδόντος, άλλα βουλευομένου πολύν χρόνον, είπεν ώς ούκ άν αυτός διστάσειε περί τούτου στρατηγών, έπιστραφείς ό Κικέρων, “ ’Α λλ’ έγώ, ” είπεν, “ούκ έχω τηλικοΰτον τράχη­ λ ο ν .” (Plut. Cic. 9.3) Vatinius was a man w ho had a somewhat rough and contemptuous attitude toward the officials presiding over the courts. He also had a neck covered with swellings. O ne time, in the court o f {the praetor] Cicero, he made a request that Cicero did not grant immediately, but pondered over for a long time. Whereupon Vatinius said that he him self would not waver (διστάσειε) about this if he were in charge. Cicero, turning to him, replied, “But I don’t have a neck like yours.”

T h e in te rp re ta tio n o f C icero ’s reply is controversial. S om e scholars be­ lieve th at P lu ta rc h ’s δ ισ τά σ ε ιε represents an original fo rm o f the Latin v erb nutare (“to n o d ” o r “w a v e r”). T h ro u g h a careless ren d erin g , it is arg u ed , P lu ta rch has destroyed an original p u n o n th e literal m eaning o f nutare o n C ic e ro ’s p a r t.59 O n this in terp retatio n , C icero m ocks V atinius fo r his sw o llen neck, w hich, h e ironically pretends, gives th e illusion o f stre n g th and so, b y m etaphorical extension, reveals an u n w avering attitude. A n u n d ersta n d in g o f th e R o m an attitu d e to w ard physical peculiarities offers an alternative explanation th at b o th redeem s P lu tarch and provides a m o re co m p lex an d effective jo k e. A t R om e, a large o r thick neck could neg ativ ely co n n o te defiance in the face o f legitim ate au th o rity .60 T h ree 59 Erbse 190-91, follow ing Sickinger 66-67. For the m etaphorical use o f nutare, Erbse cites N at. deor. 1.120 and Fin. 2.6. 60 Cic. Verr. 2.3.135; Sen. Contr. 3.p raef.l6 , w here Seneca describes him self after m ak­ ing an outrageous jo k e as one “w ho has such a thick neck” (qui tam crassas cervices haberem). C f. Persius 1.98, in w hich the phrase Iaxa cervice (“w ith a slack neck”) accompanies the adjective tenerum (“tender”).

separate considerations dem and that one interpret Plutarch’s “B ut I d o n ’t have a neck like yours” (“ Ά λ λ ’ έγώ ο ν κ έχω τηλικοΰτον τρ ά χ η λ ο ν ”) along these lines, that is, as referring to Vatinius’ contum acity. First, Plu­ tarch’s introductory description o f Vatinius as “a m an w ho had a som e­ w hat rough and contem ptuous attitude tow ard the officials presiding over the courts” (άνήρ εχω ν τ ι τρ α χ ύ κ α ι π ρ ο ς το ύ ς ά ρ χο ν τα ς όλίγω ρον έν τα ΐς συνηγορ(αις) then provides inform ation necessary for Cic­ ero’s subsequent w itticism . If the intended pun is on the notion o f nod­ ding (nutare), however, this introductory description has little point. Indeed, it m ay n o t be accidental— and m ay in fact reflect Plutarch’s R o­ m an source— that this description o f Vatinius’ obstinate character im m e­ diately precedes the gram m atically parallel clause describing his physical qualities: “he also had a neck covered w ith sw ellings” (χοιρ ά δω ν δ ε τον τρ ά χη λο ν π ερ ίπ λ εω ς [εχων]). Second, m y proposed interpretation m akes it unnecessary to suppose that Plutarch has here m isunderstood and so m istranslated his source; in fact, Plutarch may even be attem pting to preserve C icero’s pun through the sim ilar-sounding w ords τρ α χύ (“harsh”) and τρ ά χη λον (“neck”). T h ird and m ost significantly, C icero’s w itticism then possesses the same structure as his laterjo k es against the unfortunate Vatinius and accords w ith the findings o f this chapter: the use o f h u m o r in describing an o p p onent’s physical faults can provide the R om an w ith a m eans o f revealing a negative internal trait. Vatinius’ bold behavior before the praetor Cicero could have been predicted by his physical appearance. Ten years after his praetorship, in the Interrogatio in Vatinium o f 56 b c e , C icero questions Vatinius as the chief w itness in a charge o f violence (de iή) that has been b ro u g h t against Publius Sestius. O stensibly the orator intends to im pugn the form er tribune’s testim ony. As the extant speech shows, how ever, Cicero also takes the opportunity to m align Vatinius’ character in m atters that seem unrelated to the charges brought against Sestius.61 T his abuse encompasses the entire range o f the subject’s life and includes references to Vatinius’ physical defects. As the speech pro­ gresses, these physical peculiarities gradually assume an independent ex­ istence until they have m etam orphosed into a visible extension o f V atinius’ corruption. C icero begins his interrogation by questioning its necessity: Vatinius’ w ay o f life m akes him too trivial a witness for his charges to be treated seriously and too suspect a one for his testim ony to be believed (Vat. I). T he orator can m ake these statem ents on account o f the popular hatred o f 61 O n ly sections 1 -3 and 40-41 treat the charges directly. O n the extent to w hich Against Vatinius represents an original speech o r a version substantially revised for publication, see Pocock's com m entary 4—5, 134-45 (= appendix I).

his subject, a h atred later attested by Seneca and V elleius.62 C icero p o r­ trays this h atred as felt stro n g ly b y his entire audience: “alth o u g h because o f y o u r crim e against m e I should surpass all in m y hatred o f you, I am n evertheless exceeded b y nearly ev ery o n e” (in quo [odio tui] etsi omttis propter tuum in me scelus superare debeo, tamen ab omnibus paene vincor; Vat. I). T h is sim u ltan eous re m in d e r and verification o f V atinius’ u n p o p u larity facilitates C ic e ro ’s final step in separating his v ictim fro m all else present. V atinius b ecom es a true o utcast— “n o one deem s h im w o rth y o f m eet­ ing, o f ap p ro ach in g , o f a vote, o f citizenship, even o f the lig h t o f d ay ” (quern nemo Congressuj nemo aditu, nemo suffragio, nemo civitate, nemo luce dignum putet; Vat. 2). Each successive phrase m akes Vatinius less o f a m e m b e r o f his im m ed iate co m m u n ity , less a citizen, until finally he does n o t even deserve to live. In the opening address to Vatinius, C icero has isolated his su b ject and sh o w n h o w his u n p o p u larity m akes h im u n fit for h u m a n society. V atinius’ u n p o p u larity , C icero w ill argue, stem s in part fro m th o se physical defects that cause h im to stand ou t as an individual. A fte r hav in g quickly dispensed w ith so m e m atters pertain in g to the Sestius case (Vat. 2 —3), C icero re tu rn s em phatically to V atinius’ person­ ality: “you are b y n atu re excessively violent and h ea d stro n g ” (nimium es vehemens Jeroxque natura; Vat. 4). T h is vio len t n atu re has n o t lain hidden, ho w ev er; C icero proceeds to in fo rm his audience h ow he w as able to foresee it o n an earlier occasion. T h e o ra to r’s language stresses his fore­ k n o w led g e th ro u g h the use o f fo u r different verbs in the course o f one sh o rt sentence: “as soon as I saw you, before you started speaking, . . . I felt and fo resaw ” (simul ac te aspexi, prius quam loqui coepisti, . . . sensi atque providv, Vat. 4). O n this earlier occasion V atinius’ personal appearance p resaged his p o ten tial for d o in g harm : rep en te en im te ta m q u a m serpens e latibulis oculis em in en tib u s, inflato collo, tum id is cervicibus intulisti. ( Vat. 4) F o r su d d e n ly you cam e o n like a serp en t fro m its lair— eyes ju ttin g out, th ro a t sw ollen, neck bulging.

V atinius m etam o rp h o ses in to a snake poised to strike C icero .63 As in his p o rtra it o f Fannius, the o ra to r describes a co m b in atio n o f V atinius’ p e r62 H a tre d o f V atinius, w h ic h I w o n ’t p re te n d to a ttrib u te entirely to his looks, is well attested; in a d d itio n to th e passages cited, see C atull. 14.3, 52; O R F 165.26 (C alvus). C icero also gets m u c h m ileage o u t o f th e related jo k e s o n V atinius’ claim to be a popularis, w hich in clu d e the p articu larly cruel re m a rk s o n V atinius’ (reported) death (Q u in t. Inst. 6.3.68, 84). 63 See P o c o c k 7 8 - 8 0 a n d 1 3 4 -4 5 (appendix I), for the specific occasion C icero here de­ scribes and its relation to th e p ro se cu tio n o f Sestius. T h e passage cited continues w ith ut mihi renovatus ille tuus in to. . ■ a n d th en trails o f f in to a lacuna (P eterson in the O C T esti­ m ates a gap o f a p p ro x im ate ly fo rty lines). P o c o c k pro v id es in his ap p en d ix I (especially at

P H Y S IC A L P E C U L IA R IT IE S

51

manent and tem porary appearance: the inflated neck and throat allude to his notorious facial sw ellings, whereas the protruding eyes seem to derive from the excitem ent o f the m om en t.64 Such a description serves tw o ends. First, the grotesque portrait o f Vatinius’ features temporarily roused to excitem ent anticipates the final state o f despair the orator w ishes to reduce h im to before ending his interrogation. I quoted at the beginning o f this chapter Cicero using similar tactics in his invective against Piso, in w hich pow erful language reduces Piso to a tim id and quivering beast (cf. Vat. I: vexatum potius quam despectum vellem dimittere — “I preferred to send [you] o ff harassed rather than hated”). Second, the allusion to Vatinius’ permanent deform ities demonstrates C icero’s ability to anticipate Vatinius’ violent reaction from his appearance. Sw ollen like an angry serpent, he is bound to act the w ay he does. C icero’s listeners should now , in turn, have no problem interpreting Vatinius’ physique as a reflec­ tion o f his internal turpitude. In a later passage o f the speech, Vatinius’ sw ollen countenance again betrays an em otional reaction. Cicero, having occasion to compare his ow n political career w ith that o f Vatinius, asks the former tribune to tell him w h o se actions have reaped m ore benefits for the state. H e continues: cu m m ih i h o c resp o n d eris, aut ita im p u d e n te r u t m an u s a te h o m in es v ix abstinere p o ssin t, au t ita d o le n te r u t aliq u an d o ista q u ae su n t inflata ru m p a n tur, tu rn m e m o rite r re sp o n d e to ad ea quae te de te ipso ro g aro . ( Vat. 10) W hen y ou have an sw e re d this eith er w ith such im p u d e n ce th a t p eo p le w ill scarcely be able to keep th e ir h an d s o f f y ou o r w ith such distress th a t th o se 137—38) an attrac tiv e re c o n stru c tio n o f w h a t V atin iu s’ c o u n te rattac k , n o w lo st in th e lacuna, m ay have included. T h e Rhetorica ad Herennium gives as an e x am p le o f “sim ile fo r the sake o f ab u se ” a d e­ sc rip tio n o f a snake th a t resem bles C ic e ro ’s sim ile h e re (R h et. Her. 4.62). T h e ad Herennium co m p a riso n , h o w e v er, relies solely u p o n sim ilarities o f te m p e ra m e n t, n o t phy siq u e. T h is va riation m ay in d icate fu rth e r w ays in w h ic h H ellenistic treatises differ fro m R o m a n p ra c ­ tice in th e tre a tm e n t o f p hysical peculiarities. 64 T h e re m ay b e a n o th e r reference to V atinius h a v in g a visible eye p ro b le m at Vat. 25, w h ic h w o u ld a cc o u n t fo r th e iro n ic use o f credo in th at passage: “ [you w ish ed to check] L ucius D o m itiu s, w h o s e d ig n ity a n d sp len d o r, I hear, dazzled th e eyes o f V atin iu s” (L . D om itium , cuius dignitas et splendor praestringehat, credo, oculos Vatini (opprimere voluisti)). N o o th e r e vidence ex ists, h o w e v er, for V atinius h av in g an eye p ro b le m — P o co ck 79 argues ag ain st o n e p o ssib ility — a n d a ttrib u tin g th e reference h e re at Vat. 25 (if th ere is any) to te m p o ra ry e x c ite m e n t w o u ld fit th e con tex t, w h e re C ice ro lists a n u m b e r o f p ro m in e n t citizens w h o m V atinius w ish e d to d o aw ay w ith in his c o -co n sp iracy w ith V ettius. O n e scholiast recognizes th e references to V atinius’ physical d efo rm ities at Vat. 10 (Schol. B o b . p. 145, 13 [Stangl]); cf. his re m a rk s o n Sest. 135 (p. 141, 10—12 [Stangl]). O th e r specific references to V atinius’ neck o r strumae in clude P lu t. Cic. 9.3, 26.3; C ic. A tt. 2 .9 .2 .

52

C HA PTER I p u ffe d u p th in g s o f y o u rs (ista . . . inflata) w ill e v e n tu a lly b u rs t, th e n re ­ s p o n d a c c u ra te ly to w h a t I ’ll a sk y o u a b o u t y o u rself.

Vatinius’ facial sw ellings are clearly alluded to through the deictic pro­ noun ista (“those things o f yours”) and the adjective inflata (“puffed u p ,” w hich recalls the “puffed up neck” described at Vat. 4 — inflato collo, tumidis cervicibus). Cicero puns on the literal m eaning o f inflata (“puffed u p ”) and rumpere (“to burst”): literally, they refer to the visible swellings on Vatinius’ face; metaphorically, they can describe a person’s reaction to excessive distress— he “bursts w ith em o tio n .”65 The rhetorical hand­ b ooks advise the defendant to display intense grief and distress as a ploy to w in the audience’s sym pathy.66 T he hum or behind C icero’s m ockery Hes in the difficulty Vatinius’ physique presents in allowing him to dis­ play such grief— i f he were to attempt to do so, his already sw ollen coun­ tenance w ou ld n ot endure the strain. As a result, ju st as Fannius em bod­ ied the expression o f “not having the single hair o f a good m an ,” so too w ou ld Vatinius literalize the expression “bursting w ith grief.”67 As Cicero reaches the speech’s close, he recalls his opening them es, through w hich he represented Vatinius as unfit for human society (Vat. I —2 ).68 Since the intervening portions o f the speech marshaled evidence for Vatinius’ unsociability, Cicero can n o w use even m ore vehem ence and specificity in his concluding remarks. T he long period at section 39 begins w ith Cicero describing h ow Julius Caesar rejected Vatinius, a for­ mer ally. Caesar does not, as it turns out, stand alone in his judgm ent: 65 Inflo: see Petronius 74.13, w here Trim alchio says o f the w eeping Fortunata, “she blows herself up like a fro g ” (inflat se tamquam rana). For rumpere and its com pounds in C icero, see Vat. 16; Dom. 99 (concerning Clodius); A d Q . f l . 3.7(9).1 (SB 27). For other puns on “bursting” from em otion see Plaut. Bacch. 603, Cas. 325-26. Juvenal calls overly bom bastic orators "cheeks” (buccae, 11.34; cf. the scholiast’s explanation ad loc. [Wessner]: “they ju s t blow up their cheeks and say noth in g ”). 66 E .g ., (A rist.] Rh. A l. 1445a; Cic. Inv. 1.109; Rhet. Her. 2.50. 67 A dictum preserved by Plutarch depends upon a similar relationship betw een Vatinius’ appearance and his attem pts at rhetorical deception: α ύτόν δέ τόν B a tm o v έχο ν τα χ ο ιρ ά δ α ς έν τ φ τρ α χή λψ κ α ι λέγοντα δίκ η ν ο ίδο ϋ ντα φήτορα π ρ ο σ εϊπ εν (Cic. 26.2)— “Vatinius him self had swellings on his neck, and once when he was pleading a case C icero called him a tumid o rato r” (Perrin trans. and emphasis). A n anecdote preserved at Q uint. Inst. 6.3.60, how ever, paints a picture o f Vatinius as a m ore direct and less deceptive character in the courtroom . Gundel (see n. 56 above) understands Vatinius’ neck swellings as distinct from his strumae; but cf. C elsus’ testim ony that strumae "usually occur on the neck” (nascuntur maxime in cervice; 5.28.7). I see n o good reason to doubt that Plutarch is translating struma by χ ο ιρ ά ς both in this passage and at Cic. 9.3. 68 I take Vat. 39 to be the formal peroratio; the final tw o sections, 40-41, revert to con­ cluding questions on specific aspects o f Sestius’ case, a concern that is not, in spite o f the title interrogatio, an aspect o f the speech itself (see n. 61 above).

P H Y S IC A L P E C U L IA R IT IE S

53

si te vicini, si adfines, si tribules ita o d e ru n t u t rep u lsam tu a m triu m p h u m su u m d u x e rin t, si n em o aspicit q u in ingem escat, n em o m e n tio n e m facit q u in exsecretur, si vitant, fu g iu n t, audire de te n o lu n t, cum v id e ru n t, ta m q u a m ausp iciu m m a lu m d e testan tu r, si co g n ati resp u u n t, trib u les ex secran tu r, vicini m e tu u n t, adfines eru b e scu n t . . . ( Vat. 39) I f y o u r n eig h b o rs, in-law s, and fello w -trib esm en hate you so m u c h th a t th ey co n sid ered y o u r defeat th eir triu m p h , i f n o o n e lo o k s at you w ith o u t g ro a n ­ ing, n o o n e m e n tio n s you w ith o u t cursing, i f th ey avoid you, flee fro m you, d o n ’t w a n t to hear a b o u t you, [and], w h e n th e y have seen yo u , th ey curse you like so m e bad o m e n , i f relatives reject you, fellow trib e sm en curse you, n e ig h b o rs fear you, in -law s feel ash am ed . . .

Through his public invective, C icero becom es the society’s moral spokesperson, inveighing against the outrage Vatinius em bodies.69 The list above presents a specific facet o f Vatinius’ despicable nature: his un­ popularity w ith m en at every rank o f state and relation to him . T he cu­ m ulative technique used recalls passages from other speeches in w hich Cicero represents all o f Rom an society as hostile to his opponent.70 Yet the isolation o f Vatinius differs from these other occasions in one im portant respect. T he enumeration concludes by isolating the m o tif that I have been tracing throughout the speech— Vatinius’ physical appearance:71 [si] stru m a e d en iq u e ab o re im p ro b o d e m ig ra ru n t et aliis iam se locis co n lo c aru n t, . . . q u id est q u a m o b re m p ra e tu ra m p o tiu s ex o p tes q u a m m o r­ tem ? (Vat. 39) [if], finally, y o u r sw ellings have m oved aw ay fro m th e w ick ed area aro u n d y o u r m o u th an d have already located them selves in o th e r p arts, . . . w h a t reason could you have for p referrin g th e praeto rsh ip to death?

Cicero figures his invective as the extension o f an outcry from the entire com m unity. As the vocabulary o f this passage seem s to indicate (ex­ secretur, detestantur), those near Vatinius have had recourse not sim ply to public defam ation o f him but even to rites that involved curses and m agi­ cal spells. And yet it is not only society that refuses to have any contact 69 E llio tt 285—92, follo w in g Ja n e H a rriso n , discusses th e n o tio n th a t th e tw o c o m m o n e st m eans o f m a in ta in in g social sta b ility — p rayer a n d legal codes— u ltim ately d eriv e fro m curse practice. P o litical invective sh o u ld b e ad d ed to this list. 70 E .g ., Catil. 1.17; Dom. 48; Pis. 99. 71 In his o th e rw is e th o ro u g h analysis o f h o w C ice ro m akes V atinius in to a political o u t­ cast in th is speech, A lbini fails to m e n tio n th is p o rtio n o f section 39. H e does n o t see the relevance o f V atinius’ de fo rm itie s in th e creation o f this p ictu re o f a social m o n ste r (see esp. 1 81-82).

w ith Vatinius; his o w n b o d y parts recoil from fu rth er contagion. In the earlier p o rtio n s o f the speech, the sw ellings (strumae) covering V atinius’ face co n stitu ted a signifier by w hich C icero and his audience could read in tern al character. B y the speech’s close, V atinius’ internal evil has now escaped th ro u g h his “w icked m o u th ” (os improbum). As a result, even his facial sw ellings— the o u tw ard representations o f that evil— cannot en­ d u re its presence as they flee the source from w hich the evil em anates. In ch ap ter 31 shall exam ine w h y C icero chooses the m o u th as his sy m b o l o f w ickedness and perversity. F or now , I sim ply observe the effect the ora­ to r pro d u ces here. Vatinius, C icero ’s paradigm for the correlation be­ tw een physical and spiritual ugliness, has transcended even this basic concept. H is evil in terio r refuses to be content w ith m ere external repre­ sentation; in stru g g lin g to em erge in full force, it leaves the b o d y that is its container. Vatinius has becom e a P an d o ra’s box. T h e invective against V atinius ends; Vatinius has n o t escaped. T he trial th at p ro v id ed the occasion for this in terro g a tio n also p roduced C icero ’s defense speech on b eh alf o f Sestius. N ear the end o f this oration, C icero tu rn s to criticize the w ay V atinius b o th condem ned elite politicians (optimates ) and voiced disapproval o f C icero ’s deeds w hile consul (Sest. 132— 35). T h e o ra to r alludes ironically to V atinius’ fam ous looks: am ong his h ired th u g s, V atinius stands out as the m o st beautiful (ipse pulcherrimus; Sest. 134). T h e audience recalls V atinius’ unpopularity, for C icero ’s h u ­ m o ro u s rh e to ric has m ade it inseparable fro m V atinius’ appearance. C ic­ ero has set the stage for exploiting the association once again. V atinius has ig n o red n o t on ly C icero ’s ow n laws, the o ra to r m aintains, b u t also o th e r co n sular legislation— even th at o f C aesar, his supposed friend. T h e o ra to r th en recalls the w ords o f A lbinovanus, Sestius’ prosecutor: he dared to encourage the ju d g es to be stern at last and provide a rem edy ( medicina) for the republic (Sest. 135). T his m edical im agery appeals to C icero, w h o b o rro w s it fro m the o p p osing counsel in o rd e r to tu rn it back o n the ch ief w itness: n o n ea est m edicina, cum sanae parti corporis scalpellum ad h ib etu r atque integrae, carnificina est ista et crudelitas: ei m e d en tu r rei publicae qui exse­ cant pestem aliquam ta m q u a m stru m a m civitatis. (Sest. 135) It’s n o t a rem e d y w h en som eo n e applies a lancet to a h ealthy and w h o le p art o f the b o d y — it’s b u tc h ery and cruelty o n y o u r p a rt.72 T h e ones w h o cure th e republic are th o se w h o cut o u t a sore as if it w ere a p u stu la r sw elling (struma) in th e state. 12 I in te rp re t ista w ith H o ld en ad Ioc.: “sc. id q u o d vos, iudices, accusator c o h o rtatu s est de S e stio .”

T h e allusion w o u ld be u n m istakable for the audience. R eferences to V atinius as a “p u stu lar sw elling” (struma) w ere n o t restricted to C ic e ro ’s corresp o n d en ce w ith A tticus (A t t . 2 .9 .2 = SB 29). O n e scholiast, w ritin g centuries after the speech’s delivery, recognizes th e im plications: “ this applies to V atinius him self, w h o re p o rted ly had a face covered w ith sw el­ lings and a b o d y covered w ith blem ishes” (pertinet. . . ad ip sum Vatinium, qui traditur Juisse strumosa facie et maculoso corpore; Schol. B ob. p. 141, ΙΟ­ Ι 2 [Stangl]). C atullus to o parodies this distinguishing characteristic w h en he encapsulates the relationship betw een Vatinius and one o f his h en ch m en in the single phrase “that sw elling N o n iu s” (struma Nonius', C atull. 52.2)— N o n iu s is an ug ly appendage living o ff its carrier, ju s t like V atinius’ o th e r g ro w th s .73 B u t here in his speech for Sestius C icero ex­ ploits th e established associations o f these sw ellings in o rd e r to achieve a n ew effect. Instead o f the sw ellings fleeing fro m V atinius’ evil, as oc­ cu rred at th e close o f Against Vatinius, the o p p o site m etam o rp h o sis n ow takes place. V atinius h im self becom es a parasitic g ro w th , one that plagues th e state. M o re than an outcast, Vatinius is perceived as a cling­ ing, scrofulous sw elling. Such a co n d itio n requires obvious and im m e d i­ ate treatm en t: radical surgery. We are fo rtu n a te in this case n o t to have to re so rt to guessing w h eth er C ic e ro ’s attack co n stitu ted p a rt o f a successful defense. T h e o ra to r tells his b ro th e r Q u in tu s that Sestius w as acquitted b y a unanim ous vote and that he h im self co ncluded his attack on V atinius “to the applause o f g ods and m e n ” (dis hominibusque plaudentibus). As for V atinius’ tem p eram en t after the trial: “W hat do you think? T h e im p u d en t and audacious m an, [feeling] v ery d istra u g h t and crushed, w e n t aw ay” (quid quaeris? homo petulans et audax valde perturbatus debilitatusque discessit; A d Q-Jr- 2.4.1 = SB 8).

P

h y s ic a l

P e c u l ia r it ie s

As

S ig n s

C ic e ro ’s tre a tm e n t o f his o p p o n en ts Fannius and Vatinius confirm s w h at I have arg u ed th ro u g h o u t this chapter. In R o m an society o f the late R e­ p ublic, a physical peculiarity indicated otherness, b ecom ing a m ark that 7:5 T h is attrac tiv e in te rp re ta tio n (fro m P ocock 129) explains the o th erw ise o d d ly coinci­ d en tal o c cu rre n ce o f struma and Vatinius in consecutive lines (C atull. 52.2—3; I d o n o t think th a t Struma is N o n iu s ’ c o g n o m e n , as C o rn ish and Forcellini co n stru e it, ap p aren tly th ro u g h a m isrea d in g o f Plin. Nat. 37.81). C atullus had h im s e lf w itnessed his friend C a lv u s’ speech against V atinius (C atull. 53— cf. 14.3; o th e r p o em s attestin g to this frien d sh ip include 50 and 96; testim o n ia and frag m e n ts o f C a lv u s’ speech are in O if F pp. 492-98). T h e poet was n o t o n e to o v e rlo o k a n o th e r’s physical defo rm ities (see n. 17 above). It is hard to believe he w o u ld have passed o ver V atinius, w h o p ro v id ed such excellent m aterial on this score, in c o m p o sin g p o e m 52.

d istin g u ish ed the p erso n affected fro m his peers. C icero, relying o n the n o tio n th at n atu re does n o t deceive and that hence all creations o f n ature p resen t h u m an view ers w ith legible and in terp retab le signs, m anipulated this co n te m p o ra ry bias in his speeches in ord er to isolate and expel o p p o ­ n en ts he fo u n d undesirable. In the cases o f Fannius and V atinius, the o ra to r focuses u p o n a specific feature o f an o p p o n e n t to elicit his audi­ ence’s assent to p articular claims: th at the m an standing before th em has a flaw ed ch aracter and th at external appearance affords access to that char­ acter. C icero elaborates physical “faults”— F annius’ sh o rt hair and V atinius’ sw ellings— u n til these characteristics find expression in the en­ tire p h y siq u e and character o f the subject. Fannius becom es the em b o d i­ m e n t o f frau d and deceit; V atinius m etam orphoses in to a parasitic g ro w th . B o th threaten society at large. T h e o ra to r em ploys the abuse o f b o d ily peculiarities to conciliate the audience to his p o in t o f view . B u t the m eans do n o t sim ply involve laughter; they also involve an im plicit a g reem en t ab o u t the con n o tatio n s conveyed b y an in d iv id u al’s physical peculiarities.

Chapter 2

NAM ES A N D C O G N O M IN A A nd i f I have a son, I think I’m gonna nam e him . . . b i l l ! or g e o r c e ! anything b u t s u e ! —Johnny Cash, “A B oy N am ed Sue”

I n h i s Third Philippic against M arcus A nto n iu s, C icero invokes the nam e o f his o p p o n e n t’s father-in-law , M arcus Fulvius B am balio (“T h e S tu t­ te re r”) . 1 T h e m a n ’s o d d th ird nam e provides p r o o f o f his ignoble character:

nihil iilo contem ptius qui propter haesitantiam linguae stuporem que cordis cogn om en ex contum elia traxerat. {Phil. 3.16) N o th in g is m ore contem ptible than that man, w h o had received his name (cognomen) in abuse for the clinging nature o f his tongue and the dullness o f his soul.

C icero links F u lv iu s’ c o g n o m en to traits th at are b o th physical (haesitantia linguae) and m ental (stupor cordis). T h e designation Bambalio directly de­ scribes th e disability o f stam m erin g speech, and this physical b lem ish in tu rn reflects in tern al m o ral failings. T h is technique o f abuse and th e bi­ ases u n d erly in g it are fam iliar fro m the previous chapter. T h e Third Phil­ ippic, how ever, reveals a n ew dim en sio n in the abuse o f an o p p o n e n t’s physical peculiarities. C icero has exploited the ety m o lo g y o f a nam e; the co g n o m en Bambalio allow s h im to conjure F ulvius’ disability for the au­ dience. O n c e the faults in h eren t in the n am e have been exposed to view, the o ra to r uses the n a m e ’s connotations to ju stify his ju d g m e n t o f Ful­ v iu s’ character. 1 B am b alio also appears in th e alleged speech o f C ice ro at D io 4 5 .4 7 .4 (w h ere h e receives in fam y “o n account o f his su rn a m e ”) and at Phil. 2 .90— “ w e w o u ld have the peace, w hich arose o n acco u n t o f a ho stag e, th at w e ll-b o rn boy, th e g ra n d so n o f M arcus B a m b a lio ” (pacem haberemus, quae erat facta per obsidem puerum nobilem, M . Bambalionis nepotem)— w h ere the m ere so u n d o f his n a m e m ju x ta p o sitio n to nobilem appears to be a source for h u m o r (ap p ro p riately so, co n sid erin g Bambalio applies o n o m ato p o e tica lly to th e physical defect it describes·, cf. H e sy c h ., s.v. β α μ β α λ ύ ζ ε ιν ; LSJ, s.v. β α μ β α ίν ω ). F o r an aw areness o f o n o m ato p o e tic e ty m o lo g ie s a m o n g th e R o m an s, see V arro Ling. 5.75. In the w id e r c o n te x t o f th e Phil. 3 passage cited in the text, C icero unfavorably c ontrasts B am b alio w ith M arcu s A tius B albus. C icero conven ien tly o verlooks th e fact th at Balbus also m eans “s ta m m e rin g ,” a m ea n in g o f w h ic h he is w ell aw are in o th e r co n tex ts (see n. 90).

B am b alio ’s fate highlights a p h en o m en o n o f R om an n am ing practice th at has yet to receive satisfactory explanation. In the late R om an R epub­ lic, all free R o m an m ales had at least tw o nam es: a nomen, the nam e that m ark ed a p e rso n ’s fam ily o r gens (M arcus Antonius), and a praenomen, a n am e used to d istinguish am o n g siblings and m o re o r less equivalent to o u r o w n first o r given nam e (Marcus A ntonius). W hen a m ale belonged to a fam ily th at had held an im p o rta n t m agistracy in R om e, how ever, he o ften possessed a cognomen, an additional nam e or, occasionally, nam es, th at set h im o ff fro m o th er classes o f persons in the city— plebeians, w o m en , freedm en, and slaves. T h e cognom en, then, w ould seem to be a m a rk o f h o n o r, a badge o f distinction. Yet w hen the cognom ina that su rv iv e fro m th e period are exam ined, the distinction becom es a dubious one: in alm o st h a lf the cases, the co g n o m en describes, as w ith the b u m ­ b lin g Bambalio, a peculiarity o f the body, m ind, o r b o th .2 A nd w ith in this p articu lar class, the nam e w ith m u ch greater frequency refers to these physical and m en tal traits pejo rativ ely :3 one readily recalls figures such as S trab o “ th e C ro ss-ey e d ,” “ W arty” V errucosus, and “S tu p id ” B rutus. In ch ap ter I, w e saw one m an ridiculed before his peers because o f his sm all statu re and an o th er co n stru cted as an ov erw h elm in g threat to political stability because o f his un sig h tly pustules. It should com e as little su r­ prise, then, to learn th at the pejorative co g n o m en also receives atten tio n in political o ra to ry as a sym bol o f otherness. T h e cognom en acted as signifier, m ark in g character in m u ch the sam e w ay as did V atinius’ facial sores. A n ad d itional nam e b o th elevated and isolated. T

he

N

ature of th e

R

oman

C

ognom en

T h e ad o p tio n and application o f this o d d third n am e raises provocative questions for an analysis o f R om an political h u m o r. O n the one hand, the cu sto m ow es n o th in g to G reek influence, the source all to o often sought b y scholars w h en attem p tin g to explain R o m an attitu d e s.4 O n the o ther 2 T h e exact figure is 44 p e rce n t (K ajanto 131). T h e n e x t tw o largest categories are g e o ­ graphical (13.6 percent) and p raen o m in al (9 percent). K ajanto conjectures fro m the di­ achronic d ispersion o f n am e g ro u p s th at th e “ cog n o m in a reco rd in g traits o f character cam e in use m u ch later th an the co g n o m in a re co rd in g physical peculiarities” (67). 3 K ajan to 63—67. It w o u ld be m isleading to give a percentage here since so m an y o f these na m e s are susceptible to conflicting in terp retatio n s. It is possible, in fact, to m ake the already com p arativ ely sh o rt list o f positive co gnom ina even sh o rte r. See M arx o n L ucilius 24 (Pnlrher); V arro Ling. I . 97 {Scaevola denotes a phallic am ulet); PHn. N at. 33.133 (th e original Crassus D ives w as a ban k ru p t); PSut. Cor. 13.3 (D iadematus and Celer w ere originally given in m ockery); Schulze 503 n. 3 (M axim us m eans “ E ld e st”); A lfoldi, esp. 717 (nam es deriv in g fro m professions), 721 (Poplicola). B adian has conv in cin g ly d e m o n stra ted th at Catus w as n o t an actual co g n o m e n in the late R epublic and has su g g ested th a t the sam e m ay be tru e o f Sapiens (6-12). 4 C f. especially Siiss 2 4 5 -6 0 , w h o is follow ed by N isb e t 1961 (esp. 192-97). T h e discussion o f M ay 1—13 goes a long w ay to w a rd c o rrectin g this view . T h ro u g h a

han d , these n icknam es arose fro m an array o f different situations over the course o f at least three centuries, th ereb y in v o lv in g politicians and th eir audience fro m d ifferent periods o f the R epublic. A n analysis o f the co g ­ n o m en , then, p rovides a rare o p p o rtu n ity for assessing R o m an cultural practice, since this n am in g sy stem seem s to have o riginated a m o n g the R o m an s an d its e m p lo y m e n t involved a large n u m b e r o f citizens. T h e o rig in s o f the c o g n o m en are o b sc u re .5 A few certain facts can, how ever, be gleaned fro m observation. T h e earliest reco rd o f a c o n te m p o ­ rary c o g n o m e n — th at o f Lucius C o rn eliu s Scipio B arbatus (“b ea rd ed ”)— dates back to 298 b c e (C I L 6 . 1284/5 = D essau I), b u t the trad itio n al lists o f m agistrates (fasti) reg ister th eir presence fro m as far back as the fifth ce n tu ry .6 In th e R epublican p erio d these nam es possess three characteris­ tics o f p artic u la r interest. F irst, they w ere applied alm o st exclusively a m o n g m ales o f the senatorial class, w ith the practice n o t b eco m in g w id esp read a m o n g plebs o r w o m e n u n til the A u g u stan age.7 Second, co g n o m in a o f the n o b ility w ere usually passed o n to all m ale descen­ dants, w h ereas the few exam ples attested for freedm en and low er-class free perso n s w ere, so far as o u r sources tell us, n o t h ered itary .8 T hese tw o features o f the c o g n o m en seem to d em o n strate that the p erm a n en t acqui­ sition o f a th ird n am e served to distinguish individuals a m o n g the p o liti­ cal aristocracy. T h e lik elih o o d o f this inference increases u p o n consider­ ation o f the th ird and m o st peculiar characteristic o f the R epublican c o g n o m en , w h ich I have n o ted above: nam es w ith negative o r pejorative co n n o tatio n s enjoyed the w id est p o p u la rity .9 T his R o m an tendency runs c o n tra ry to p revious In d o -E u ro p ea n n am in g practice, according to c o n sid era tio n o f R o m e ’s “so ciopolitical a n d . . . ju d ic ial clim ate” (10), M ay a tte m p ts to reconcile the differences betw een A risto telian th e o ry and C ice ro n ian practice. 5 T h e m o st concise d iscussion is b y A . M au ( R E 4:225—30). In E n g lish , B a lsd o n 1979: 1 4 6 -6 0 offers an e n te rta in in g survey. T h e “ th ree n a m e s” o f th e R o m an s baffled ancient c o m m e n ta to rs as well; see P lu t. M arius I; Pausam as 7.7.8; C o u rtn e y o n Ju v e n a l 5.127. 6 K ajan to 19. M y e n su in g d iscussion ow es m u c h o f its b a c k g ro u n d m aterial to K a jan to ’s w o rk , w h ic h consists p rim a rily o f a c o m p e n d iu m a n d ta x o n o m y o f all e x ta n t L atin c o g ­ n o m in a (e xcluding fictional nam es fro m p o e try ) u p u n til a p p ro x im a te ly 600 C E . B o o k I o f L ivy includes c o g n o m in a fro m as far back as R o m e ’s regal p e rio d , w ith the T a rq u in ii P risc u s a n d S u p erb u s; O g iIv ie 145 su g g ests reasons for d o u b tin g th e a u th en ticity o f these n ick n a m es. O g ilv ie does n o t, h ow ever, q u e stio n the a u th e n tic ity o f th e legend s u rro u n d in g th e c o g n o m e n B rutus (ad 1.56.7); cf. contra B ro u g h to n l:x ii, and K a jan to ’s re m a rk th at th e sto ry o f B ru tu s ’ n a m in g is “n a tu ra lly w o rth le s s” (69). 7 K a jan to 19, 132. 8 T h y Ia n d e r 100. 9 K ajan to 132, w h o a p p ro x im ate s th a t 24 p ercen t o f c o g n o m in a fro m the late R epublic have clear p ejo rativ e c o n n o ta tio n s, as o p p o se d to 4 p e rce n t in his total sam p le fro m all p e rio d s (I w o u ld p u t the late R epublican percentage m u c h hig h er; see n. 3 above). Q u in ­ tilian also attests to this ten d e n cy w h e n he says th at the best ty p e o f p u n on a n am e occurs “i f o n e refers to so m e th in g ra th e r lo w ly a n d insignificant; th o se [R om ans] o f old used to m ak e jo k e s o f this so rt w h e n th ey said th a t L entulus w as a ‘S p in th e r’ and Scipio a ‘S erap io ’”

w h ich nam es c o n n o tin g rep ro ach did n o t occur; rath er there p re d o m i­ n ated “appellations su g g estin g divine favor and good will, o r descriptive o f . . . co n cep tio ns o f ideal m en and w o m e n .”10 A t A thens could be found m en w h o w e re “th e P eople’s S tre n g th ” (Demosthenes) or “ Z eu sb o rn ” (Diogenes), w h ile on the streets o f R o m e w alked "B o w leg s” ( Varus) and “F ath ead” (Capito). It also appears th at the practice does n o t derive fro m th e E truscans, as m o st scholars once b eliev ed .11 H ence, the c o g n o m en seem s to represent a distinctly L atin n am in g system that, in R o m e at least, serves to distinguish the political elite fro m the low er classes b y th e stran g e practice o f applying o p p ro b rio u s sobriquets to the politically m o st p o w erfu l fam ilies. A buse, in o th er w o rd s, m ark ed privilege. Yet it is unlikely th at this abuse parallels the hazing co m m o n ly found in m o d ern , elite m ale in stitu ­ tions, w h e re en d u rin g abuse fro m peers constitutes a condition o f m e m ­ bership. R o m an invective is n o t the equivalent o f p rep-school bonding. N a m e s at R o m e derive fro m a d ifferent p h en o m en o n , b u t one equally w ell-attested in o th e r cultures: nam es as a m eans o f social control. A m o n g th e Iroquois, for exam ple, an inherited nam e w as “replete w ith expectations ab o u t the behavior o f any person so n a m e d ”; as a result, nam es offered th e entire co m m u n ity in sig h t in to the character o f each m e m b e r o f th e g ro u p .12 Sim ilarly, in R o m an politics nam es are openly available signifiers, labels used to m ark publicly the characteristics o f an in d iv id u al and his ancestry— fo r b etter o r for w orse. T

he

R

oman

C

ognom en and

A

r is t o c r a t ic

C

o m p e t it io n

Scholars w h o discuss the origins o f the Latin co g n o m en generally agree th at th e n am e arose o u t o f a native Italic sp irit o f “gibe an d c riticism .” 13 T h e m ajo rity o f co g n o m in a are observed to describe u n co m p lim e n tary traits o r characteristics, and these features still invited derisive lau g h ter in (si . . . ad aliquid inferius leviusque referatur; quae iam veteres illi iocabantur qui Lentulum "Spintherem” et Scipionem “Serapionem” esse dixerunt; Inst. 6.3.57). Spinther w as allegedly th e n am e o f a slave (cf. spintria, a m ale p ro stitu te , fro m G reek sphigktes), Serapio o f an a cto r (Plin. N at. 7.54; Val. M ax. 9 .1 4 .3 -4 ). 10 C h a se 106; u sin g as his database all co g n o m in a fro m L ivy and C I L I , C hase concludes th a t “ w ith re g a rd to th e ir signification alone, h a rd ly a single n a m e fro m o u r lists o f cog­ n o m in a co u ld b e d eriv ed fro m the original [In d o -E u ro p ean ] sy ste m ” (116). " K ajan to 1 9 -2 0 ; A lfoldi 7 10-11. 12 F o r th e general b e lie f th at nam es im p ly character, see the cross-cultural stu d y o f n a m ­ in g practices in A lfo rd 74—78; fo r the q u o tatio n o n th e Iriquois, see A lford 4. 13 C hase 116. See also P aoli 2 7 3 -7 4 ; M c C a rtn e y 343; K ajanto 63—64. T h ese a u thors agree w ith ancient sources th at attest to occasions w h e n co g n o m in a w ere given in m ockery, e .g ., Plin. N a t. 7.54 (S pinther), 8.213 (H ybrida); Val. M ax. 9 .1 4 .3 -4 (Serapio); P lu t. Cor. 11 (D iadem atus, C eler).

C ic e ro ’s tim e. Yet n o scholar has, as far as I have discovered, considered the rep ercussions o f this o n o m astic p h e n o m e n o n . 14 It seem s o d d th a t a n am in g practice th at originates as a type o f m o ck ery w as, in the R epubli­ can p erio d , restricted p rim arily to th e aristocracy (nobiles)·, m oreo v er, for th o se w h o possessed such a nam e, the c o g n o m en appears to have consti­ tu ted an im p o rta n t p a rt o f a R o m an m ale’s political definition. F o r b eg in ­ nin g fro m th e tim e o f Sulla, the c o g n o m en ten d s to replace th e tribal d esig n atio n o n law s an d senatorial decrees. 15 O n e po ssib le explanation for the practice o f p ejorative n am in g is that the c o g n o m e n orig in ally served an ap o tro p aic function: i f one nam es a so n Verrucosus (“full o f w a rts ”), then the child w ill avoid divine en m ity and w ill th ere b y n o t g ro w u p to develop w arts, o r so m e even w o rse affliction. A recen t cro ss-cu ltu ral stu d y o f n am in g practices in six ty con­ te m p o ra ry societies has sh o w n th at a b elief in ap o tro p aic n am in g u n d e r­ lies all su rv iv in g instances o f d e ro g a to ry n am es. 16 H o w ev er, tw o signifi­ can t o b jectio n s p re v e n t o n e fro m app ly in g this hyp o th esis to the R o m an co g n o m en . First, I find no traces in the ancient evidence o f a b elief in the ap o tro p a ic n am in g o f children; o n the contrary, n u m ero u s texts p resu p ­ pose th at th e c o g n o m en describes its o rig in al bearer literally. 17 Second, and m o re concretely, a n ew c o g n o m en appears to have been b estow ed at th e earliest in y o u n g a d u lth o o d and w as n o t, as is n o rm ally th e case w ith ap o tro p a ic nam es, given to a ch ild . 18 B efore I advance m y o w n th e o ry re g ard in g th e o rig in o f the co g n o ­ m en, it w ill be h elpful to rev iew the generally accepted re co n stru ctio n o f th e n a m e ’s d ev e lo p m e n t as a social an d political designation. M o m m se n advanced tw o explanations o f w h y the c o g n o m en originally arose as a 14 T h e fin d in g s o f C h ase 108 th a t th e R o m a n d e v ia tio n fro m th e In d o -E u ro p e a n n a m in g sy ste m is d u e to a “ fu n d a m e n ta l a b h o rre n c e o f the L atin lan g u ag e for lo n g c o m p o u n d s” explains o n ly th e letter, a n d n o t th e sp irit, o f th e change. K ajanto, w h o d evotes an e n tire m o n o g ra p h to the L atin c o g n o m in a , is su rp risin g ly silent o n th e q u e stio n o f th e ir o rig in ; cf. th e re v ie w s o f Jo n e s 208 and B. R a w so n 154. P lu ta rc h su g g ests th a t th e R o m an s a d o p te d na m e s describing b o d ily m isfo rtu n e in o rd e r th a t su c h disabilities w o u ld n o t b e considered disgraceful (Cor. 11; h e is n o t re fe rrin g in this passage to th e n o tio n o f a p o tro p a ic n a m in g ). T h is explan atio n is unsatisfacto ry o n tw o co u n ts. F irst, it does n o t account fo r o th e r ty p es o f pe jo ra tiv e nam es. Second, as I d e m o n ­ stra te d in c h a p te r I, th e R o m an s did in fact ju d g e physical peculiarities q u ite harshly. 15 M o m m se n 1864: 6 2 -6 3 . A s early a s 122 B C E , in the lex Acilia (C IL 12.2.583), c o g ­ n o m in a are used to id en tify fu tu re ju ro rs . 16 A lfo rd 6 3 -6 4 . T h e practice w as still c u rre n t in th irte e n o f th e six ty societies surveyed. 17 In a d d itio n to th e passages cited th ro u g h o u t this c h ap ter th a t testify to a c o g n o m e n ’s literal a p p licatio n , o n e can c o m p a re P lu ta rc h ’s assessm ent at Marius 1.1—5. A p o tro p a ic n a m in g occurs in m an y cultures. F o r exam ple, in A m oy, a d istric t o f C h in a, nam es such as “ S tu p id D o g ” and “ S w ine P iss” w ere still reg u larly g iv en at the tu rn o f this c e n tu ry to avoid th e je a lo u sy o f th e gods; see de G ro o t 6:1128—34. 18 M o m m se n 1864: 4 3 -4 4 .

su p p lem en t to th e n o m e n and praenom en. First, he conjectures th at a th ird n am e w as necessary to d istinguish betw een respective fam ilies w h e n a given fam ily u n it {gens) had g ro w n too large— the d eterm in a n t o f size being, he suggests, the am o u n t o f ro o m in the clan’s burial p lo t.19 T his th e o ry has gained general acceptance even th o u g h no ex tan t evi­ dence su p p o rts it. Its v irtu e rests in its ability to explain w h y a new c o g n o m en seem s to have been applied only in ad u lth o o d , a practice at variance w ith th e conditions u n d e r w hich the n o m e n and p raenom en w ere b esto w e d .20 Second, M o m m se n po in ts to the social and political adv an tag e th e nobiles saw in d istinguishing their o w n nam es fro m those b elo n g in g to o th e r p o rtio n s o f the population; this w o u ld have been an especially im p o rta n t d esideratum since a freedm an n o rm ally ad o p ted his m a ste r’s n o m e n and praenom en. In such cases, then, the cognom en w o u ld co n stitu te th e on ly o n om astic feature unique to the aristo crat.21 B o th M o m m se n ’s p o in ts seem plausible and m u tu ally reconcilable. T h ey d o n o t, h o w ev er, explain w h y particular cognom ina, especially p ejora­ tive co g n o m in a, w ere chosen. B eg in n in g fro m aro u n d the tim e o f Sulla, the co g n o m en seem s to oc­ cu r w ith m o re frequency o n p u b lic d o c u m e n ts.22 It is uncertain w h eth er o r n o t this m o v e w as accom panied by any so rt o f legal en a ctm en t.23 A lth o u g h th e c o g n o m en does n o t regularly appear in official inscriptions earlier, it does surface in unofficial sources, such as the epitaph o f Lucius C o rn eliu s Scipio B arbatus o f 298 BCE (cited above). As for the choice o f each p articu lar n am e, it has alw ays been assum ed that the cog n o m en 19 Ibid. 49. 20 Ibid. 4 3 -4 4 . 21 Ibid. 5 9 -6 0 . E rich G ru en has p o in te d o u t to m e that M o m m se n ’s second co n ten tio n has little force in ex p la in in g the c o g n o m e n ’s origin, since th e R o m an s did n o t o w n slaves in g re at n u m b e rs before the th ird , o r even th e second, century. M o m m se n ’s th e o ry may, how ever, help explain w h y the c o g n o m e n eventually becam e officially recognized at the b e g in n in g o f th e first century. I d o n o t consider th e p h e n o m e n o n o f the aristocratic c o g n o m e n to be equivalent to the p ractice o f freed slaves retain in g th eir slave n a m e as su rn am e, especially since these nam es seem , d u rin g th e late R epublic, to be easily recognizable as slave nam es (A. M au, R E 4 :2 2 8 .6 -1 2 ). F or a list o f p eople in th e late R epublic w h o b o re co g n o m in a b u t did n o t be lo n g to th e nobiles, see T reg g iari 7 n. I. 22 M o m m se n 1864: 47, follow ed b y B alsdon 1979: 150, B adian 6; Schulze 503—4 reserves ju d g m e n t. A dm itted ly , the scarcity o f d o c u m e n ts before the Sullan p e rio d p revents any c ertain ty o n this issue. B u t C hase 132 proves th at co g n o m in a have been aro u n d at som e level o f usage for a lo n g tim e, since 10—40 p ercen t o f p raen o m in a seem to derive fro m an orig in al c o g n o m e n . 23 B adian 6 th in k s “ actual e n a c tm e n t” is “m o re likely.” M o m m se n 1864: 59 gives no o p in io n b u t does believe th a t an official decree so m e tim e aro u n d 100 b c e enabled a plebeian nobilis to a d o p t a c o g n o m e n , th ere b y m ak in g plebeian and patrician nam es form ally in d istinguishable.

g iven to a n ew b ran ch o f the fam ily w as selected b y a free decision w ith in th e g e n s .24 Yet this assu m p tio n , a plausible one a prio ri, rests o n little evidence and, again, does n o t explain w h y th e m ajo rity o f co g n o m in a describe th eir bearers pejoratively. As a w ay o f p ro v id in g a h istorical co n tex t fo r m y discussion o f nam e p uns in th e late R epublic, I w o u ld like to offer a tentative explanation for th e d ev e lo p m e n t o f the p ejo rativ e co g n o m en at R om e. T h e follow ing su g g estio n s ap p ly on ly to the situation in the capital d u rin g the last tw o centuries o f the R epublic. It is clear th at a variety o f factors influenced the L atin co g n o m in a in general, and I am certain one explanation cannot acco u n t for th e m an y d ifferen t kinds o f co g n o m in a p reserved fro m th ro u g h o u t Italy and th e p ro v in ce s.25 Yet th e exclusive features o f the n am e at R o m e, co existing w ith abusive m eanings, su g g est th at here the co g n o m e n did m o re than sim p ly signify. In th e second ce n tu ry b c e , political co m p etitio n prevailed am o n g the p ro m in e n t fam ilies in R om e. T h e co m b in atio n o f h ig h in fan t m o rtality rates and lo w life expectan cy — in a p erio d o f co n stan t w arfare— ensured th a t a great p a rt o f a fa m ily ’s stre n g th depended u p o n its ability to re p ro ­ d u c e .26 It follow s, then, th at a large fam ily threatened eq u ilib riu m w ith in th e o ligarchy. It is w ith in such a historical situation th at I envision the c o g n o m e n receiving its im petus: the application o f a pejorative n am e— p re su m a b ly d escribing a characteristic o f its original o w n e r— p ro v id ed a label b y w h ich political p ro g ress w as felt to b e h indered. T h e derisive sp irit in fo rm in g the m eaning o f m o st co g n o m in a represents n o t the ex­ p ressio n o f jo v ial h u m o r, therefore, b u t the co m p etitiv e spirit o f the R o ­ m an nobiles. T h ese nam es, I suggest, acquired th eir im p o rtan ce as a result o f aristo cratic co m p etitio n , w h e reb y a fam ily u n it th at had b eco m e too larg e— and, consequently, to o th rea ten in g — w as labeled w ith a descrip24 M o m m se n 1864: 49. T h e o n ly e vidence h e cites fo r this claim is Suet. Tib. 1.1—2: “T h e patrician gens o f the C laudii . . . rejected by consensus the p ra en o m en Lucius. . . . M o re o v er, it to o k u p also Nero a m o n g its c o g n o m in a ” (patricia gens Claudia . . . Luci praeno­ men consensu repudiavit. . . . inter cognomina autem et Neronis assumpsit). In this passage, h o w ­ ever, o n e need n o t u n d e rsta n d consensu w ith assumpsit. In any event, the p a rticu la r case o f th e c o g n o m e n Nero co u ld easily re p re se n t an excep tio n to the rule since, as S u eto n iu s h im ­ se lf tells us (T ib. 1.2), Nero is n o t a L atin w o rd and does n o t have p e jo ra tiv e c o n n o ta tio n s (it m eans “s tr o n g ” in th e S abine dialect). 25 Schulze 504 discusses the m a n y com p lex ities o f th e early h isto ry o f the c o g n o m e n — e .g ., E tru sca n influence, m a n u m issio n , v ic to ry n am es, C eltic ro o ts — and concludes th a t a single ex p la n atio n o f o rig in s is irrecoverable, i f n o t e n tirely m isg u id ed . 26 H o p k in s 7 0 -7 4 estim ates th a t in th e last tw o centuries o f th e R epublic o n e -th ird o f all fam ilies w o u ld have had o n e son a n d o n e -th ird n o son su rv iv in g to age forty; in less th an o n e -th ird o f th e fam ilies w o u ld th e re b e tw o o r m o re sons su rv iv in g to fo rty , w h o th u s m ig h t be e x p ected to acquire c o g n o m in a . T h e e n tire second c h ap ter o f H o p k in s’s b o o k (“Political Succession in th e L ate R e p u b lic ,” c o w ritte n w ith G. B u rto n ) is relevant here.

tiv e appellation th at exposed its bearers to the scorn o f peers and h u m ili­ ated th e m before the R o m an populace. As I shall argue th ro u g h o u t this chapter, nam es could be hig h ly m eaningful w h en p ro p erly exploited. O fte n , I assum e, the co g n o m en applied w ould have already had som e currency, for ex am ple as a nicknam e acquired o n cam paign o r as a result o f legal battles. A social apparatus th en em erged to m aintain this practice. P erhaps th e apparatus arose fro m a legal enactm ent; references in our tex ts su g g est th at the senate could regulate the nam es allow ed to R o m an citizens.27 A lternatively, and m o re likely, the practice represented an in­ form al ag reem en t a m o n g th e nobiles, the im p lem en tatio n o f w h ich varied acco rd in g to th e political situation; a passage fro m P lu ta rch ’s Life o f Cic­ ero th at I shall discuss below describes one w ay in w h ich pejorative nam es co u ld have been bestow ed. Such a scenario w o u ld also explain the cre­ atio n o f p ositive co g n o m in a d u rin g this p erio d such as Pius o r M a x ­ imus.28 T h o se nam es th at seem to pertain to agriculture, such as Cicero (“ch ick p ea”) o r Scrofa (“so w ”), m o st likely found their origin in the rural co m m u n ities o f Italy, w here there exists a difference in kin d fro m those co g n o m in a h eld by th e urb an aristocracy.29 M o st o f the in terlocutors in V a rro ’s treatise O n Agriculture, for exam ple, b ear cognom ina relating to farm in g and ru ral life.30 T h e pejorative co g n o m en , it seem s, h ad special p ro m in en ce in th e capital. A d m ittedly, this th eo ry has its o w n problem s. I can find no concrete exam ple o f a negative nam e effectively hin d erin g a fam ily’s political ad­ van cem en t. Yet C icero ’s rhetorical practice certainly indicates th at d ep re­ catory nam es h ad the po ten tial for such em ploym ent. In fact, m o d ern studies o f n am e giving and social labeling have clearly d em o n strated that a label can have a p ro fo u n d psychological effect on the person receiving th e designation, as w ell as o n o th e rs’ evaluation o f that p e rso n .31 Finally, 27 In a d d itio n to th e decree o f 240 BCE m en tio n e d belo w in the tex t, I have found the follo w in g exam ples: A n to n ii p ro h ib ite d fro m using th e p ra en o m en Marcus (30 b c e : P lut. Cic. 49.6; D io 51.19.3); c o g n o m e n Drusus tak en fro m Scribonii (16 CE: T ac. A n n . 2.32.2); C n . P iso forced to change p ra en o m en (20 CE: Tac. A n n . 3.17.8). 28 See, h o w ev er, n. 3 above. 29 M o m m se n 1864: 5 5 -5 6 n o tes th a t municipes w h o w ere o n ly freedm en could have c o g ­ n o m in a in the late R epublic (cf. A . M au, R E 4 .2 2 6 .2 5 -2 9 ). 30 In a d d itio n to th e nam es listed b e lo w in n. 97, V arro includes a m o n g his in terlo cu to rs his fa th e r-in -la w G aius F undanius (fro m fitndus, “fa rm ”), as w ell as a G aius A g ra riu s and P ublius A g rasiu s (cf. ager, “field”), and G aius L icinius S tolo (“p lan t sh o o t;” see th e anec­ d o te at Rust. 1.2.9). P lin y b elieved th at th e earliest co g n o m in a derived fro m a g ric u ltu re (N at. 18.10). 31 “T h e d e v ia n t is one to w h o m th a t label has successfully been a pplied” (B ecker 9, cited in S c h u r 7). F or exam ples, see A lford 62—63 (the A sh an ti in G hana) and M arcus 75, w h o surveys h o w c o n te m p o ra ry p sy c h o lo g ists and e ducators have sh o w n th at nam es “ can help o r h in d e r th e d e v elo p m en t o f a g o o d self-im age, friendships, and even affect success in school and o n th e j o b . ”

this hypothesis is able to explain m any o f the peculiarities surrounding the cognom en. In spite o f the problem s m y theory raises, I have com e across no better solution in the scholarly literature. T he theory I am proposing also provides an interesting context for a senatorial decree from , apparently, 240 BCE: “in the consulship o f M arcus Claudius and T itus Sem pronius, the Rom ans decreed that only the eldest son could share his father’s cognom en” (επί Μ άρκου Κ λαυδίου κ α ί Τ ίτου Σ εμ π ρ ω νίο υ ύ π α τω ν μ όνφ τή ς το ν π α τρ ό ς έπω νυμ ία ς τ φ πρεσβ υ τέρ φ τώ ν π α ίδ ω ν μετέχειν 'Ρ ω μ α ίο ι πα ρεκελεύσ α ντο).32 T he facts dem onstrate that this decree m ust refer to a special type o f cognom en (έπω νυμία), one bestow ed in h onor o f m ilitary success— and accom ­ panied by som e type o f official sanction— such as Asiaticus or Macedonicus.33 N o such restrictions on inheritance applied to pejorative cog­ nom ina. T he exceptional nature o f victory nam es m ay be attributed, then, to a recognition o f the privileged status o f these honorific titles: since cognom ina denoting m ilitary success did n o t hinder a fam ily’s po­ litical fortunes, lim itations had to be placed on how m any heirs could accept such a nam e. A n incident from the early first century b c e provides our only evidence for how the application o f cognom ina may originally have operated. Plu­ tarch describes the occasion upon w hich Publius Cornelius Lentulus Sura acquired his second cognom en. T he anecdote supports m y theory that som e cognom ina were designed to advertise negative characteristics o f the person named: λέγεται δέ καί την έπίκλησιν αύτφ γενέσθαι τον Σούραν εξ αίτιας τοιαύτης. έν τοΐς κατά Σύλλαν χρόνοις ταμιεύων συχνά τών δημοσίων χρημάτων άπώλεσε καί διέφθειρεν. άγανακτοϋντος δε τοϋ Σύλλα καί λόγον άπαιτοϋντος έν τή σύγκλητοι, προελθών όλιγώρως πάνυ καί καταφρονητικώς λόγον μεν ούκ έφη διδόναι, παρέχειν δέ την κνήμην, ώσπερ είώθεισαν οί παίδες όταν έν τώ σφαιρίζειν άμάρτωσιν. έκ τούτου Σούρας παρωνομάσθη· σούραν γάρ οί 'Ρωμαίοι την κνήμην λέγουσι. (Plut. Cu. 17.2-3) 32 D io frag. 44 (B ekker). T h e consulship referred to is a p p are n tly th a t o f Gaius C laudius a n d Marcus S e m p ro n iu s in 240 b c e ; see M o m m se n 1864; 53 n. 82, w h o se discussion here a n d at 1 8 8 7 -8 8 3:213 I follow in th e text. 33 M o m m se n 1864: 52—53. T h e re is e vidence th a t this decree w as still in effect in th e late R epublic. A cco rd in g to D io 4 3 .4 4 .2 —3, w h e n th e senate decreed th a t Ju liu s C aesar m ig h t a d o p t th e title imperator as p a rt o f his n a m e (cf. Suet. IuL 76.1, w h o an achronistically calls it a praenomen), it w as necessary to a d d th a t h is descen d an ts to o co u ld b e a r th e nam e. T h e “ excessive flattery ” (τοσ α ύτη υ π ερ β ο λ ή ) th a t D io deno u n ces in this latter g ra n t m ay include th e fact th a t the senate al­ lo w ed m o re th an o n e h e ir to receive th e h o n o rific n am e. S y m e 1979: 3 6 5 -6 6 d o u b ts D io ’s reliability.

It’s said that he received the nickname Sura for the following reason. As quaestor in the time o f Sulla, he lost and squandered a great amount of public money. After Sulla angrily summoned him to give an account in the senate, Lentulus came forward with great coolness and contempt, saying that he had no account to give, but that he offers his calf, just as children are accustomed to do when they make an error in a ball game. For this reason he was given the name Sura, sura being the Roman word for the calf of the leg. T h ere seem s to b e n o reason to d o u b t the authenticity o f this episode, w h ich occu rred soon after S ura’s quaestorship in 81 b c e . 34 L entulus re­ ceives the n am e Su ra as an apt w ay o f designating the h au g h ty co n tem p t he displayed before his peers in the senate. T h e appellation preserves for p u b lic consideration an instance w h en L entulus attem p ted to place h im ­ self in a privileged p o sitio n a m o n g his peers in the aristocracy, as one no lo n g er liable for crim es co m m itte d w hile quaestor. T h e n am e stuck. P lu ­ tarch does n o t m en tio n any official m ove to ensure that Publius and his heirs should be k n o w n fro m this p o in t on as “L egs” Lentulus; w e can only su p p o se th at usage— including m o ck ery — caused this nicknam e to be p reserved. S uetonius records a second exam ple fro m 'the late R epublic in w h ich a co g n o m en seem s clearly in ten d ed to provide its b earer w ith a continual source o f reproach. D u rin g the civil w ars, Julius C aesar k ept in his cam p a C o rn eliu s “w h o had the co g n o m en ‘Salvito ’ to m ark his sham eful w ay o f life” (cut ad opprobium vitae S a lv ito n i cognom en era t).35 T h e nam e S a lv ito p ro v id ed a pejorative label that an outsider w as expected to read and in terp re t accordingly. C ornelius apparently did n o t have the pow er to change his n ick n am e— co m m u n al pressure again seem s to be operating to ensure th at he keeps his label. T hese passages fro m P lu tarch and Sue­ to n iu s p resen t co g n o m in a th at w ere clearly intended to designate, and w ere co n stru ed as designating, negative traits o f their bearers. T h e th eo ry I am p ro p o sin g ab o u t the fu n ctio n o f the co g n o m en as a to o l fo r political stability need n o t replace M o m m se n ’s th eo ry that the co g n o m en served a u tilitarian p u rp o se by distinguishing am o n g families 34 B ro u g h to n 2:76. A Sura fro m th e B ru ttia n gens w as legate fro m 93 to 86 b c e (B ro u g h to n 2:15). T h e circum stances o f his n a m in g are u n k n o w n , b u t the difference in gens w o u ld lead o n e to expect th at its occasion w as e n tirely u n c o n n ected w ith the ev en t narrated h e re b y P lutarch. A lth o u g h this in cid en t o c cu rre d at a special tim e — nam ely, u n d e r the d ictatorship o f Sulla— nevertheless th e fact th at the n am e Sura stu ck w o u ld indicate th at factors b e y o n d the a u th o rity o f a d ic ta to r w ere in o p e ratio n here. 35 Suet. Iu l. 59. P lin y calls him Salvitto (N a l. 7.54, 35.8) and says he w as n a m e d after an a cto r in a m im e. P lu t. Caes. 52.2 and D io 42.58.1 give th e n am e as Salutio w ith o u t m e n tio n ­ in g w h at the n a m e m eans. B illow s discusses this m a n ’s relationship to the fam ous Scipios.

w ith in th e u p p e r class and b y m a rk in g the mobiles as separate fro m o th er seg m en ts o f th e po p u latio n . C o m p arativ e parallels su p p o rt th e dual exis­ tence o f w h a t a n am in g system m ay have intended and w h a t eventually d ev elo p ed separately o u t o f th at system . A recent stu d y o f n ick n am in g in A n d alu sian cu ltu re has sh o w n h o w a n ick n am in g practice originally ad o p ted sim p ly to d istin g u ish a m o n g fam ily m em bers w ith the sam e su rn a m e ev entually evolved in to a m eans o f creating social d istin ctio n s.36 T h is n a m in g practice in co n te m p o ra ry Spain and m y th eo ry o f R o m an n am in g ex h ib it rem ark ab le sim ilarities. T h e A ndalusian n icknam es— w h ic h feature such un flatterin g so b riq u ets as “Jo ey S h its-o n -th e-flo o r” an d “T o n y B ig -tw a t”— are originally applied as a resu lt o f a p ro m in e n t tra it o f th e b earer o r because o f a single socially em barrassing situation. E ventually, ho w ever, th e n am e com es to be co n stru e d b y th e co m m u n ity as “actually th e aural equivalent o f the p e rso n . ”37 A ndalusian practice also recognizes the con n ectio n for w h ich I have argued in the case o f R o m e, w h e re a son in h erits fro m his father a m o ral character as w ell as a nam e: th e Spanish nam es can be passed do w n fro m g eneration to genera­ tio n and y et still co n n o te serious re p ro ac h — even w h e n the original m o ­ tiv atio n fo r th e n a m e ’s bestow al has been fo rg o tte n .38 M oreover, those A n d alu sian nam es th at are sem antically n eu tra l o r am biguous often p ro ­ voke th e g reatest em b arrassm en t an d an g er in th eir h o ld ers.39 T h e an­ th ro p o lo g ist co n d u c tin g this stu d y concludes th at the u ltim ate fu n ctio n o f these n am es resides in “ p u n ish in g deviance th ro u g h the fiercest fo rm o f d estru ctiv e m ockery. ”40 B y ap plying em barrassing labels th at allude to antisocial acts, th e c o m m u n ity attem p ts to discourage such acts. T h e nam es keep ev eryone continually aw are o f a n e ig h b o r’s p o ten tial for de­ v ian t b ehavior. O n e im p o rta n t difference b etw een A ndalusian and R o­ m an n a m in g sh o uld be n oted, how ever. In the A ndalusian case, p ejora­ tiv e n ick n am es are on ly u tte re d w h e n th eir o w n ers are n o t present; in R o m an society, as w e shall see in exam ples fro m oratory, p ublic speakers rep eated ly p resen t an o p p o n e n t’s n am e to the c o m m u n ity to indicate his p o ten tial for tran sg ressin g social b o u n d aries.41 D esp ite these differences, 36 G ilm o re , esp. chap. 5, “N ic k n a m e s” (77—95). H e discusses the d e v elo p m en t o f the n a m in g p ractice p a rticu la rly at 8 0 -8 1 . 33 Ibid. 91. M Ibid. 82. Ibid. 8 1 -8 4 . 40 Ibid. 91. A n o th e r parallel exists a m o n g th e Z inacan teco s o f M ex ico , w h o se in h erita ­ ble n ick n a m es largely c o n stitu te h u m o ro u s epithets used to “ ridicule a nyone w h o se appear­ ance o r b e h av io r deviates fro m n o r m s ” (C ollier and B rick er 291). A s in the A ndalusian exam ple, h o w e v er, these n am es are used o n ly in reference a n d nev er for direct address. 41 T h e d ifference b etw ee n R o m an a n d Spanish p ractice is significant in this respect. In A ndalusia, to u tte r a n ick n a m e in the presence o f the referen t w as considered th e gravest insult, and o ften resu lted in physical violence a n d even m u rd e r (G ilm o re 77, 8 6 -8 7 ).

ho w ev er, in b o th cultures a society applies nam es to regulate individual behavior. T h e ty pe o f checks-and-balance system th at I envision fo r the R o m an c o g n o m en can be inferred fro m this m o d e rn exam ple once the A ndalusian m o d el has been transferred in to an explicitly political realm . O n e can also find a parallel fro m w ith in R o m an society for the th eo ry I am p ro p o sin g co n cern in g the rise o f cognom ina. T h e carmina triumphalia — th e songs su n g b y triu m p h in g soldiers— often contain direct abuse o f th e v icto rio u s general at the very m o m e n t w h en he is enjoying the hig h ­ lig h t o f a R o m an m ilitary career. M u ch as a p ro m in e n t nobilis receives an o p p ro b rio u s n am e to h in d er his political success, so to o the triu m p h in g general, at th e celebration o f his greatest glory, is exposed to taunts ab o u t ev e ry th in g fro m baldness to the m u rd e r o f his o w n b ro th e r.42 In a sim ilar vein, th e general is accom panied in th e triu m p h al chariot b y a public slave w h o repeatedly w hispers a re m in d e r that, in spite o f his successes, he rem ains a h u m a n b ein g .43 T o preserve stability a m o n g the R om an aristocracy, tau n ts and w arnings are given to those w h o threaten to b e­ com e to o p ro m in e n t. T h e pejorative co g n o m en represented a sim ilar check. F u rth er s u p p o rt for m y claim th at the co g n o m en could be em ­ ployed as a fo rm o f social co n tro l lies in the m echanics o f the n am in g process in R epublican R om e. A n exam ination o f the overall im p o rtan ce o f a n am e provides a b etter appreciation o f the co n tex t w ith in w hich political figures such as C icero could use n am e puns as a m eans o f rh e to r­ ical p ersuasion. In R epublican R o m e nam es could denote, in the stro n g est sense o f this verb. T h a t is, nam es could be elicited n o t sim ply as em p ty signifiers b u t as labels that provide direct access to internal content. T

he

P ow er

of a

N

ame

T h e fo rm o f p u b lic prayer attests to the p o w er and im p o rtan ce o f w o rd s an d w o rd in g in R epublican R om e. Prayers consisted o f set form ulae that a p riest o r m ag istrate had to read (or repeat) w ith o u t th e slightest varia­ tio n fro m his p rescribed te x t.44 In fact, the R om ans considered the form o f th e prayer so sacred th at they adhered to its precise w o rd in g even w h en th e tex t w as n o lo n g e r com pletely in telligible.45 In his gram m atical 42 F o r baldness, see Suet. Iul. 51; for th e carmen triumphale referring to the m u rd e r o f b ro th ers, see n. 95 below . I discuss the carmina triumphalia preserved at Suet. Iul. 49, 80, and D io 4 3 .2 0 .2 in m y c h ap ter 5 (for a full selection see F P L ). R ichlin 1992a: 10 w ith n. 9 p u ts these so n g s in the c o n te x t o f o th e r events “ p ro m o tin g license and reversed values” (10). B a rto n 107—44 discusses h o w “ [ejxcessive differentiation o f status . . . creates th e intense desire o n th e p a rt o f th e d ep en d e n t to d eg rad e th e p a tro n ” (143). 43 T ertu llian preserves th e slave’s w o rd s as “respicepost te! hominem te memento!" (“ L ook b e h in d you! R e m e m b e r th at you are a h u m a n b eing!”— A pol. 33.4; cf. D io 6.21 = Z o n aras 7.21). 44 P lin. N at. 28.11; cf. W issow a 394, 397 (esp. n. 7). 45 W issow a 37.

N A M E S A N D C O G N O M IN A

69

tre a tise o n th e L atin la n g u a g e (D e lingua L a tin a ), th e a n tiq u a ria n V arro g iv e s an e x a m p le o f th is ty p e o f se t fo rm u la (quibusdam conceptis verbis). In e x p la in in g h o w an a u g u r d e lim its his field o f v isio n fo r o b s e rv in g b ird sig n s, V a rro cites th e fo llo w in g a rc h a ic p ra y e r:46 tem (pla) tescaque m e ita sunto, quoad ego ea rite lingua nuncupavero. Olla ver(a) arbos quirquir est, quam me sentio dixisse, tem plum ternim que me esto in sinistrum . O lla ver(a) arbos quirquir est, quam m e sentio dixisse, te(m )plum tescumque me esto (in) dextrum . Inter ea conregione conspicione cortum ione, utique ea (rit)e dixisse me sensi. (Varro Ling. 7.8) Tem ples and w ild lands be m ine in this m anner, up to where I have nam ed (nuncupavero) them w ith m y tongue in proper fashion. O f w hatever kind that truthful tree is, w hich I consider that I have m en­ tioned, tem ple and w ild land be mine to that point on the left. O f whatever kind that truthful tree is, w hich I consider that I have m en­ tioned, tem ple and w ild land be m ine to that point on the right. B etw een these points, temples and w ild lands be mine for direction, for view ing, and for interpreting, and ju s t as I have felt assured that I have m entioned them in proper fashion. (Kent trans.) In th is p ra y e r, la n g u a g e alters p h y sic a l re a lity b y c re a tin g b o u n d a rie s b e ­ tw e e n th e se c u la r a n d th e sacred . B y a ffix in g a n a m e to an area (nuncupare d eriv e s f r o m nomen capere, “ to ta k e a n a m e ”), th e a u g u r defines its p a ­ ra m e te rs . T h e v e rb nuncupare p e rfo rm s a s im ila r d e lin e a tin g fu n c tio n in a p a ssag e f r o m th e T w e lv e T a b le s, w h e r e o ra l n a m in g e n su re s th e le g a h ty o f a b u sin e ss tr a n s a c tio n .47 In th e leg al re a lm as w ell, to p ro n o u n c e th e n a m e o f an o b je c t o r p e rs o n c re a te d a b o n d b e tw e e n n a m e r a n d n a m e d . T h e c o n v e rs e also h e ld tru e : th e m a in p rie s t o f J u p ite r, th e fla m en dialis, m a in ta in e d his p u r ity b y a v o id in g c o n ta c t w ith d o g s a n d g o a ts, an av o id ­ ance th a t e v en in c lu d e d th e v e ry m e n tio n o f th e w o rd s “ d o g ” o r “g o a t .”48 In R o m a n re lig io u s p ra c tic e b e fo re th e tim e o f C ic e ro th e re 46 Serv. A e n . 1.466 and V arro L ing. 6.53 indicate th a t th e p rayer com es fro m th e college o f a ugurs. L inderski (esp. 2256—96) offers a th o ro u g h discussion o f its religious context. 47 “W h en [so m eo n e] en ters in to a d e b t o r m akes a sale, let it b e b in d in g in accordance as he has p ro n o u n c e d w ith his to n g u e ” (cum nexum Jaciet mancipiumque, uti lingua nuncupassit, ita ius esto: Fest. p. 173 [M ueller]; I translate lingua as an ablative in lig h t o f C ic. O ff. 3.65). W hen the w o rd is n o t sim p ly used as an o rn a te sy n o n y m o f nominate (C ic. De orat. 3.153; Q u in t. Inst. 8.3.27), the c o m m o n e st uses o f nuncupare and its n o u n nuncupatio in o u r e x ta n t texts refer to the m ak in g o f vow s to a d eity (vota) and to the in stitu tin g o f heirs. I assum e th at a form al n a m in g process u n derlay each practice: in w ills, th e heredes w ere n a m e d in nuncupatio (lust. D ig. 28.5.1; Paul. D ig. 28.5.59); in vow s, the g ods affected w ere n a m e d (cf. Liv. 8.9.8). 48 P lut. M o t . 290a. R ose 114 explains th a t n a m in g “ is a k ind o f to u ch in g , for the n a m e is part o f th e th in g .”

existed the strictest respect for w ords and for th e particular designation o f ite m s .49 A b elief in th e p o w e r o f the w o rd extends, as one w ould expect, in to th e realm o f p ro p e r nam es. T h e correct n am in g o f the gods in prayer p ro v id es the clearest exam ple. W hen addressing a particular deity, it was deem ed essential to include the ep ith et o f the g o d ap propriate to the p ra y er’s specific goal. C om prehensiveness in the m atter w as ensured by ap p en d in g to th e d irect address o f the g o d som e such fo rm u la as “ o r w ith w h a te v er n am e you w a n t to be ad d ressed .” 50 If the deity appropriate to a g iven p ray er w ere u n k n o w n , the p etitio n er tried to app ro x im ate a direct address by em p lo y in g a sw eeping form ula— “and all the rem ain in g gods and goddesses as w ell. ”51 A sim ilar need to k n o w a g o d ’s “tru e n a m e ” (to ό ν ο μ α α λ η θ ιν ό ν ) has n u m ero u s parallels in c o n tem p o rary m agical p a­ p y ri and is co n sid ered essential to a spell’s success.52 T h e sam e em phasis on p ro p e r k n o w led g e w o u ld seem to underlie the m ysterious m ilitary practice o f th e “calling o u t” (evocatio ), by w h ich a co m m an d er su m m o n s fo rth an en e m y city ’s tu telary divinities before co m p letin g a siege: the success o f the evocation is co n tin g en t u p o n the co m m an d e r k n o w in g h o w p ro p e rly to address by nam e the foreign gods. F or this reason, the R o m an s w ere them selves careful to keep secret the nam e o f R o m e’s o w n tu telary d eity .53 In m edicine, R o m an doctors practiced incantations that in th eir p h ra sin g b ea r strik in g resem blance to an evocatio. M arcellus pre­ serves th e fo llo w ing form ula: exi, si hodie nata, si ante nata, si hodie creata, si ante creata, hanc pestem, hanc pestilentiam, hunc dolorem, hunc tumorem, hunc ruborem, has toles, has tosillas, hunc panum, has panuclas, hanc strumam, hanc strumellam, hac religione evoco educo excanto de istis membris medullis. (Marcell. Med. 15.11) Be gone, whether born today or earlier, whether created today or earlier: w ith this formula I call out, lead out, and sing out 49 L atte 6 2 -6 3 relates this reliance o n the w o rd in religion to the overall political and social stru c tu re o f th e R om ans. 50 E .g ., sive quo alio nomine te appellari volueris (Serv. A en. 2.351); A ppel 75—79 gives o th e r exam ples. 51 E .g ., di ieaeque omnes; cf. W issow a 38. 52 P G M 8.41, 13.621, passim ; cf. the discussion o f this m aterial in G ra f 1991. H irzel 17— 24 p ro v id es ex am p les fro m early G reek lite ratu re and B ach to ld -S tau b li 6:9 5 6 -5 9 supplies, w ith b ib lio g rap h y , parallels fro m n o n -W estern societies. 53 M acr. Sat. 3.9; Plin. N at. 28.18; co m p lete references are collected b y B asanoff. Cf. D u m e zil 1970: 4 2 4 -2 7 a n d Stanley, w h o argues th at the m y ste ry n am e is the p a lin d ro m ic amor. Frazer 3:387—91 offers c o m p a rativ e exam ples fro m o th er cultures; for early C h in a, see de G ro o t 6:1 1 2 5 -2 8 .

from the lim bs and m arrow o f this person here this disease, plague, pain, polyp, redness, goiters, tonsils, inflammation, grow ths, tum or, and sw elling.

Ju s t as th e R o m an p riest attem pts to address every applicable deity and the m ilitary co m m an d er m u st k n o w the p ro p e r w ay to su m m o n the en­ em y gods, ancient doctors to o k care to m en tio n every possible disease afflicting the patient. In religious, m ilitary, and m edical practice, then, nam es and n am ing p erfo rm a function beyond hu m an com m unication. P ro p erly em ployed, they can provide the R om ans contact w ith super­ n atural elem ents. T his care fo r p ro p e r m odes o f address is m eant to ensure a correct response fro m the numen, o r divine spirit, o f the deity. It seems hardly a coincidence, then, that o u r earliest extant occurrences o f the w o rd numen are found in paronom asia w ith nomen .54 T h e p u n points u p w h at one scholar has called the “ritualistic equivalence o f the w o rd s. ”55 T h e nam e (nomen) plays a crucial role in obtaining the favor o f a divine p ow er (nu­ men). P o p u lar ety m o lo g y reflects this connection betw een a nam e and an o b ject’s in n er essence. A ccording to V arro, the w o rd nomen stem s fro m the verb nosco (“to recognize”): res N O V A E in usum quom additae erant, quibus ea(s) N O V I S S E N T , N O M I N A ponebant (“w hen N E W things had com e in to use, they added N A M E S by w h ich they m ig h t K N O W th e m ”) .56 A k n o w led g e o f the p ro p e r nam es o f the gods, then, show ed th at th e p etitio n er had au th o rity to address the deity. 57 T h u s the k n o w l­ edge o f h o w p ro p e rly to nam e the deity ensured the acquisition o f divine favor. As one w o u ld expect, the nam es o f hu m an beings operate along princi­ ples sim ilar to those o f the gods. In the m agical papyri surviving fro m this perio d , an effective spell w ill norm ally include the nam e o f the p er­ son at w h o m the incantation is directed.58 T he sam e practice applies to the charm s found o n curse tablets and in Latin literatu re.59 In the m edical incantations preserved in his Natural History, P h n y regularly prescribes including the n am e o f the p atien t.60 In the R om an w orld, those w ho 54 A ccius 646, 691 (R ibbeck). 55 L ind 249 (cf. W agenvoort 78) sum m arizes previous a rg u m en ts a bout the role o f the numen in R o m an th o u g h t. 56 V arro Ling. 6.60; cf. Isid. O rig. 1.7.1. 57 G r a f 1991 discusses th e role o f voces magicae in ancient incantations. T hese w ords, w hich seem g ibberish to us, w ere u n d e rsto o d to be secret nam es o f th e gods, the privileged possession o f a skilled m agician. For the p ractitio n er o f m agic, such nam es “take the place of, and serve as, th e credentials, an am ple display o f k n o w le d g e ” (192). 58 P G M 5.311, 7.521, passim . 59 C u rse tablets: A u d o llen t xlix-1; cf. C IL 11.4639 (1st c. C E ) . R o m an literature: e.g., Verg. Eel. 8.68; O v. A m . 3.7.29; T ac. A n n . 2.30.2, 2.69.5. 60 E .g ., Plin. N at. 21.143, 176; cf. R E 1:89.19-27 (E. Riess). F or com parative parallels and b ib lio g ra p h y see B ach to ld -S tau b h 6:960-61.

appealed to th e su p ern atu ral elem ents recognized the significance a nam e possessed for th e efficacy o f their actions. A passage fro m C ic e ro ’s treatise o n divination brings us to late R ep u b ­ lican co n cep tio n s o f n am in g and expands fu rth e r the areas in to w h ich R o m an b e lie f in the p o w er o f nam es m ig h t reach. A fter discussing the set phrases th e earlier R om ans had em ployed for g o o d om en , C icero con­ tinues as follow s: itemque in lustranda colonia ab eo qui earn deduceret, et cum imperator exercitum, censor populum Iustraret1 bonis nominibus qui hostias ducerent eligebantur. quod idem in dilectu consules observant, ut primus miles fiat bono nomine. (D iv. 1.102) Similarly, in the ceremonial purification (Iustro) of a colony by its founder, and when a general reviewed his army and a censor the people, the men who led the sacrificial victims were chosen according to their auspicious names (bonis nominibus). The consuls observe the same practice in military levies, so that the first soldier chosen has a good name (bono nomine). P ro p e r p ro c ed u re in religious ritu al entails using nam es o f g o o d om en. A n d w ith in the spheres C icero m entions in this treatise— the establish­ m e n t o f colonies, the census, the m ilitary rev iew — o th er texts reveal that a concern fo r auspicious nam es extended beyond lustration cerem onies. F or exam ple, the R om ans changed the nam e o f a colony w h en its origi­ nal ap p ellatio n contained a p otentially bad om en; hence, M aleventum becam e B en ev en tu m , E p id am n u s D y rrach iu m , and E gesta S egesta.61 B y a sim ilar k in d o f sym pathetic m agic, the R om ans n am ed their spirits o f th e d ead M anes , “the g o o d o n es” ( T L L 8:293.35—41). O n c e again, the R o m an invests nam es w ith the potential fo r affecting reality. T h e b elief in nam es o f g o o d o m en seem s to survive especially am o n g th e R o m an soldiers. M en w ith auspicious nam es participated in ritual activities n o t o n ly d u rin g the late R epublic, as C icero m entions. T acitus to o reco rd s th at the rebuilding o f the C ap ito liu m after the civil w ars o f 69 CE in clu d ed a cerem o n y in w h ich soldiers w ith “favorable-sounding n am es” p articip ated (fausta nomina; H ist. 4.53.2). L ivy m entions an in­ stance o f h o w nam es o f g o o d o m en w ere considered im p o rta n t in the field. In an address to som e rebellious tro o p s, Scipio A fricanus derided his soldiers fo r n o t recognizing the inauspicious significance o f th eir in­ s tig a to r’s nam e, the U m b ria n A trius, “a leader w h o even has a nam e o f ill o m e n ” (A triu m U mbrum . . . nom inis etiam abominandi ducem\ 28.28.4). T h e ill o m en p resu m ab ly derives fro m the resem blance betw een the 61 M a lev e n tu m (“b a d arriv al”): Plin. N at. 3.105. E p id am n u s (“for a lo ss” — έ π ΐ damnum): Plin. N at. 3.145; cf. Plaut. M en. 263—64. E gesta (cf. egere, “ to be in n e e d ”): Fest. p. 340 (M ueller).

n am e Atrius and the Latin w o rd ater, “b lack ,” a resem blance felt in the U m b ria n dialect as w ell— there is perhaps also a pun on umbra, “sh ad o w .” C icero also appeals to the “o m en o f a n am e” {omen nominis) in tw o o f his orations ( Verr. 2.2.18—19, Scaur. 30). N am es o f g o o d om en, then, su pplied at the very least a sense o f security b o th inside and outside the R o m an co m m u n ity , and an unseem ly nam e could p o rten d bad fortune. A c o n tem p o rary scholar o f language offers in trig u in g insight into the sem antic value a R o m an o f the R epublic m ay have attached to a nam e. In his treatise O n the Latin Language, V arro describes a certain group o f ad­ jectives as “those w o rd s th at are ju s t like co g n o m in a” (ea verba quae erant proinde ac cognomina; Ling. 8.17). T his assessm ent o f the gram m atical cat­ eg o ry o f co g n o m ina is reasonably accurate— the adjectival type o f nam e com prises an “en o rm o u s m ajo rity ” o f the ex tan t exam ples.62 B u t it is the w ay in w h ich V arro fram es his analogy th at is particularly striking. V arro clearly conceived o f cognom ina n o t only as gram m atically equivalent to adjectives, b u t as operating u p o n the sam e sem antic principles: th at is, b o th types o f w o rd s describe the qualities o f the th in g — o r p erson— to w h ich they are attached. M oreover his phrasing seem s to indicate that V arro believed cog n o m in a to have preceded adjectives in the develop­ m en t o f the Latin language.63 I f this is true, he perceived o f nam es as being am o n g th e earliest constituents o f vocabulary. As labels, then, cog­ n o m in a w o u ld n o t lack sem antic value. T h ey w o u ld reveal to an observer im p o rta n t features o f the person so nam ed. N am es and n am ing played a p ro m in en t role in the early religious and social practices o f the R o m an c o m m u n ity .64 F ro m early tim es, nam es and n am in g seem to have possessed significance in d eterm in in g the w o rk in g s o f the divine. To the R om ans, appellatives contained the p o ­ tential for affecting external reality. B ut every nam e necessarily presup­ poses a referent, and hence m u st also reflect inw ard, to w ard its signified. W hen applied to h u m an beings in particular, the nam e, like a physical 62 K ajanto 20. 63 V arro does, for exam ple, seem to believe th at abstract n o u n s existed before th eir cor­ resp o n d in g adjectives (L tng. 8.15) and, sim ilarly, th at w ords for concepts preceded w o rd s relating to th e application o f those concepts (e .g ., the phrase an medicine existed before medicus: Ling. 5.93; cf. 5.129). H e also w illingly allow s o n e w o rd to have tw o equally viable ety m o lo g ies (e.g ., Ling. 6.13: Feralia derives from inferi and ferre: cf. th e rem arks o f A hl 22— 25). 64 I shall pass over the vast subject o f the significant n am e in R o m an (and G reek) litera­ ture. M o st recent discussions treat the p h e n o m e n o n n o t sim ply as a literary device b u t as reflecting cultural biases in the w rite r’s audience. F or an extensive bibliography, see H ijm ans, particu larly nn. 9 (on G reek literature; for H o m e r, add th e recent w o rk by P eradotto, especially chap. 4), 10 (on L atin literature; H ijm an s asserts here, w ith o u t discussion, that “ the a ttitu d e to nam es u n d e rly in g [the puns in C icero and in fiction] is m uch the sa m e ”).

peculiarity, provides external evidence for internal traits. C o u ld Gaius A nnius “th e A ss” (Asellus) o r T ib eriu s M inucius “the P ansy” (Molliculus) be considered an y th in g b u t internally flawed? T h is bias— th at the nam e o f a h u m a n b eing allow ed access to that p e rso n ’s m oral character— in fo rm s th e p u b lic attacks orators em ployed against an o p p o n e n t’s nam e. N

am es

A

s

In d ic a t o r s

of

C

haracter

In late R epublican orato ry , the abuse o f nam es, a practice n o t confined to C icero, occurs w ith rem arkable frequency. Yet b y the first century o f the E m p ire, th e rh eto rician Q u in tilian advises discretion in the practice: only nam es w ith p o sitiv e connotations provide suitable p r o o f o f character (Inst. 5.10.30; cf. 6.3.53, 55). M o re recent scholars echo Q u in tilian ’s cen­ su re and a ttrib u te the m o ck ery o f nam es to the outrageous liberties a R o m an o ra to r allow ed h im self in the p u rsu it o f an a rg u m e n t.65 In lig h t o f m y discussion o f the im p o rtan ce attached to nam es in o th er aspects o f R o m an society, I w o u ld like to p ro p o se a different u n d erstanding o f this m o d e o f invective. T h e p o w e r o f the w o rd , I suggest, sim ultaneously reflected and co n trib u ted to the R o m a n ’s bias to w ard believing in a la­ b e l’s literal d en o tatio n . T h is bias in re g ard to a n am e’s “m e a n in g ,” like th at reg ard in g physical peculiarities, legitim ated the verbal evidence a political fig u re could deploy in indicating to his audience an o p p o n e n t’s tru e character. C ic e ro ’s o p p o n e n t B am balio, w ith w h o m I began this chapter, need n o t open his m o u th for his character to be revealed. H is n am e speaks fo r him . C ic e ro ’s o w n rhetorical advice offers a suggestive co n trast to Q u in ­ tilian ’s reserve. In his early treatise O n Rhetorical Invention, C icero dis­ cusses h o w the o ra to r m ay discredit his o p p o n en t th ro u g h reference to negative attrib u tes (Inv. 1.34—36). In the previous chapter I cited the p o r­ tio n o f this passage in w h ich C icero m entions peculiarities o f the body. H e ad in g this list o f p otentially negative evidence is a p erso n ’s nam e: ex persona autem coniectura capietur, si eae res quae personis attributae sunt diligenter considerabuntur. . . . nam et de nom ine nonnunquam aliquid suspicionis nascitur— n om en autem cum dicim us, cognom en quoque intellegatur oportet; de hom inis enim certo et proprio vocabulo agitur— ut si dicamus idcirco aliquem C aldum vocari quod temerario et repentino consilio sit; aut si ea re hom inibus Graecis imperitis verba dederit quod Clodius aut Caecilius aut M utius vocaretur. (Inv. 2.28) A n inference w ill be made from o n e’s person, if those qualities that have been attributed to persons w ill be carefully considered. . . . For exam ple, a 65 F o r the n egative reactions o f m o re recent critics, see H a u ry 1955: 113; M itchell 213. A hl cites o th e r areas in w h ic h Q u in tilia n ’s standards differ fro m th o se o f the R epublic (24, 29).

degree o f suspicion sometimes arises even from a name— when I say “nam e,” one should also understand “cognomen,” for this is a matter of a person’s fixed and particular (proprio) designation— for instance, if we should remark that a m an’s name is “H ot” (Caldus) because he has a rash and fiery temperament; or if inexperienced Greeks have been deceived because people are named “Gimpy” (Clodius) or “Blind Man” (Caecilius) or “the M ute” (Mutius). T his passage m arks one o f the few occasions w hen the young C icero em phasizes a difference betw een G reek and R om an rhetorical practice. A t R om e, children learned fro m an early p o in t in their rhetorical educa­ tio n h o w to analyze the literal denotation o f cognom ina (Q uint. Inst. 1.4.25). G reek orators, in contrast, m u st alter nam es to m o ck an o p p o ­ n en t since, unlike the R om ans, they cannot rely on a pejorative connota­ tio n already present; w h e n D em osthenes (“the P eople’s S tren g th ”) w ishes to m o ck a certain A trom es (“the Fearless”), he m u st allege iro n ­ ically th at the m a n ’s nam e is in fact T ro m es (“T re m b le r”) .66 T h e R o­ m ans, as th e C iceronian passage m akes clear, did n o t need to resort to such tran sp aren t tactics. T h e very fact that R om an culture adm its pejora­ tive nam es attests that the orato r can exploit his audience’s bias regarding them . F o r as C icero notes, the G reeks, w h o are n o t accustom ed to this type o f n am in g practice, becom e confused w hen a R om an o ra to r refers to th e literal m eaning o f a nam e. T h e G reeks do n o t recognize that M utius (“ the M u te”), for exam ple, denotes a “ fixed and particular designation” th at can raise suspicion in a h ea rer’s m ind regarding its b earer’s physical (and therefo re m oral) character.67 Flence the h u m o ro u s m o ck ery o f nam es represents a peculiarly R o m an p h enom enon, allow ing the orato r to degrade his o p p o n en t in a w ay th at was unavailable to the Greeks. T w en ty -fiv e years later in his career, C icero still advises the public speaker to exploit a n am e’s m eaning. In the analysis o f w it found in the second b o o k o f O n the Orator, the in terlo cu to r Julius C aesar S trabo dis­ cusses the rh etorical use o f an o p p o n e n t’s nam e: “the in terp retatio n o f a nam e has p o in t w h en you m ake a jo k e o f w h y som eone is so called” (interpretatio nominis habet acumen, cum ad ridiculum convertas, quam ob rem 66 D e m o sth en e s 18.130; cf. A risto tle R h et. 1400b, w h ere o ne finds n am e puns being used prim arily for praise. I shall discuss below ho w e x ta n t evidence indicates th at R epublican orato rs rarely altered a nam e to m ake a pun. 67 I agree w ith D ouglas 65—66, in his critique o f H u b b e ll’s n o te o n the “inexperienced” G reeks, b u t I can n o t accept his conclusion th at C icero refers here to G reeks w h o can be fooled “b y the b e lie f that the ancient nomina o f C lodius, Caecilius, and M u tiu s alluded to the lam eness, blindness, o r dum b n ess o f th eir b earers” (65). D ouglas assum es w ith o u t fou n d atio n th a t th e G reeks w o u ld have autom atically m ad e a connection b etw ee n a nam e and physical appearance. I thin k , rather, th at C icero intends by this confusing reference to “inexperienced G reek s” to acknow ledge th at the rhetorical tactic is distinctly R om an; see n. 66 above.

ita quis vocetur). S trabo presents th e follow ing anecdote as his sole exam ple: ut ego nuper N u m m iu m divisorem , ut N eop tolem u m ad Troiam, sic ilium in cam po M artio nom en invenisse; atque haec om nia verbo continentur. (D e orat. 2.257) A s w h en I recently [remarked] that the distributing agent {divisor) N u m m ius had received his name in the Cam pus Martius in the sam e w ay N e o ptolem us had received his at Troy; all these things are contained in the w ord.

P y rrh u s, th e son o f A chilles, received th e n am e Neoptolemus because he cam e to T ro y as a very y o u n g m an (νέος, “y o u n g ,” π τό λ εμ ο ς, “b attle”). N u m m iu s, S trabo jo k e s, also received his n am e o n a “field o f M a rs.” T h e Campus Martius at R om e, how ever, does n o t contain battles, b u t fraud: N u m m iu s , as a divisor, d istrib u ted bribes in o rd er to fix elections and so o ne finds a R o m an coin, th e nummus, bu ried in his nam e. Strabo p re su m ­ ably m ad e this p u n in a public speech at a tim e w h e n N u m m iu s w as b ein g tried for frau d .68 T h e evidence for N u m m iu s ’ g uilt becom es clear to th e p eople in attendance once they consider his nam e: “all these things are co n tain ed in the w o rd ” (haec omnia verbo continentur). C ic e ro ’s advice in his treatises O n Rhetorical Invention and O n the Orator co n trib u tes to u n d erstan d in g the biases the R o m an audience felt concern­ in g th e relationship b etw een a nam e and its bearer. For the abuse o f an in d iv id u a l’s nam e n o t to be dism issed as sophistry, the audience m u st believe th at th e subject’s n am e designates its b earer’s internal state— even i f he is n o t the first to bear the n a m e .69 As no ted earlier, once an individ­ ual received such an appellation, it usually passed on to his descendants, regardless o f the original reason beh in d the n a m e ’s b esto w al.70 A n d yet this tem p o ra l distance did n o t p ro te c t a descendant fro m any potential abuse d irected to w ard his cognom en. F or the R om ans w ere disposed to believe th at an heir received fro m his ancestors n o t only a nam e b u t a m o ral character as well. A n entire fam ily could becom e m arked by an in cid en t fro m its ancestral past. In his speech o n b e h a lf o f Q u in tu s R oscius, C icero w ishes to d em o n ­ strate th at the slave P anurgus, alth o u g h ow ned by the accuser Fannius, 68 R ab b ie ad loc. 69 D o u g la s 64—66 observes th at so m e R om ans in the late R epublic w ill have b een th e first h o ld ers o f th e ir c o g n o m e n and, as a result, in these p a rticu la r cases th e d escriptive ep ith e t o f th e n am e could have actual relevance. T h is w o u ld certainly n o t be true, how ever, in the m a jo rity o f cases w h e re a c o g n o m e n is m ocked. F o r such abuse to have m eaning, therefore, one m u st assum e a ten d en cy am o n g th e R om ans to believe th a t character w as inherited to g e th e r w ith o n e ’s nam e. 70 K ajan to 64. W h at co n d itio n s p ro m p te d (or allow ed?) a son n o t to accept his fa th e r’s c o g n o m e n are e n tirely u n k n o w n .

nevertheless o w es his fam e to an education from the great actor R oscius. C icero, to prove his claim , offers the fo llo w in g com parison: n e m o e n im , s ic u t e x im p r o b o p a tre p r o b u m filiu m n asci, sic a p e ss im o h is tr io n e b o n u m c o m o e d u m fieri p o sse e x is tim a re t. (Q . Rose. 30) F o r n o o n e w o u ld th in k th a t a g o o d c o m ic a c to r c o u ld be crea te d b y a v e ry b a d a c to r a n y m o r e th a n th a t a m o ra l s o n c o u ld b e b o rn o f a n im m o r a l fath er.

It is significan t that here C icero is n o t trying to prove that the character o f a father is visited u p o n the son; i f so, I could n ot cite this passage as indicating a c o m m o n belief. Rather, he uses this statem ent as a given to prove a slig h tly different p o in t concerning teach er/p u p il relationships for w h ich other n egative com paranda w o u ld certainly seem equally suitable (such as the training o f orators or the discipline o f sold iers).71 In order for C icero ’s claim to be effective, his audience m ust agree on the unlikeli­ h o o d o f an im m oral father p rodu cin g a m oral so n .72 T h e elder C ato ap­ peals to a related bias w h e n he im p lies that th ose born o f a g o o d fam ily w o rk o n ly for g o o d .73 In a n onp olitical con text, Varro uses an analogy sim ilar to C ic e r o ’s: w h ile d iscussin g n ou n d eclensions, Varro remarks that o n e can derive a n o m in ative from an ob lique case— and vice versa— in the sam e w ay o n e can predict a s o n ’s qualities from his father’s (Ling. 10.59). Each o f these texts presupposes a co m m o n b e lie f that a m an ’s character is d erived fro m that o f his ancestors. T h is ten d en cy to equate the m oral integrity o f a son and father inform s a jo k e from the secon d century b c e . C icero ’s retelling, in the h u m or section o f O n the Orator b o o k 2, dem onstrates that the prejudices under­ ly in g the jo k e still had persuasive force in the late Republic: c e n s o r L e p id u s, c u m M . A n tis tio P y rg e n s i e q u u m a d e m isse t a m ic iq u e c u m v o c ife ra re n tu r et q u a e re re n t q u id ille p a tri su o re s p o n d e re t, c u r a d e m p tu m sibi e q u u m d ic e re t, c u m o p tim u s c o lo n u s , p a rc issim u s, m o d e s tissim u s, fr u g a lissim u s esset, “ m e is to r u m ” in q u it “ n ih il c re d e r e .” (D e orat. 2.287) 71 Cicero som etim es takes exception to the “rule” o f inherited character im plied here in Q. Rose.; see Verr. 2.3.162 and Plane. 31. For the father/son pairs m entioned in those pas­ sages, however, Cicero elsewhere argues the opposite, that the son has in fact inherited his father’s m oral character (I/err. 2.1.32; Plane. 32). 72 U nfortunately, the com position o f the audience at this time is unknow n, as the speech can be dated only betw een the years 76 and 66 b c e . A belief in inherited m orality occurs in m any cultures and can perhaps be attributed to an early conception that an ancestor lives on in the body o f a child. See Bachtold-Staubli 6:952—54, w here this belief is traced in a num ber o f societies, including that o f the early Greeks. For Rome, see the story o f Hortensia, daughter o f Hortensius (Val. Max. 8.3.3) and H or. Carm. 4.4.29: fortes creantur Jortibus et bonis (“the strong are made from the strong and good”). 73 May 6 discusses O R F 8.58 and 8.173 in this context.

W hen the censor Lepidus had dem oted Marcus Antistius o f Pyrgi by taking away his horse, [M arcus’] friends shouted out, asking what he should say to his father [w hen asked] w h y he had lost his horse; [for they said his father] was the best type o f farmer— very thrifty, unassum ing, and frugal. [Lepidus] replied, “[Tell him] I believe nothing o f what yo u ’re sayin g.”

T h e censor L epidus clearly does n o t k n o w the farm er personally. T he lack o f acquaintance does no t, how ever, p re v en t the censor fro m m aking conjectures ab o u t the m a n ’s character. T h e actions o f the son M arcus p rev en t L epidus fro m believing that the father is w o rth y o f the superla­ tives w ith w h ich he has been described. F or the h u m o r o f the ce n so r’s rem ark s rely o n a bias he shares w ith his audience: an im m o ral son can­ n o t be b o rn o f a m oral father.

L iv in g Y

our

N

ame

R o m an s living u n d e r the E m p ire w ere uncertain w h e th e r the co g n o m en Cicero (from cicer, “ chickpea”) referred to a physical peculiarity o f its original b earer— a m isshapen nose?— o r to an exceptional capacity for g ro w in g g arbanzo b ean s.74 A ccording to P lutarch, C icero ’s friends had advised h im to change his nam e i f he w ished to succeed in politics ( C ic . 1.5). H e did n o t, o f course. Yet the only su rv iv in g c o n tem p o rary jo k e on the n am e b elongs to C icero him self: τα μ ιεύω ν δ ’ έν Σ ικελία κ α ί τοις θ εοίς α νά θη μα π ο ιο ύ μ ενο ς ά ρ γυ ρ οϋν, τά μέν πρώ τα δύο τών ονομ ά τω ν επέγρα ψ ε, τόν τε Μ ά ρκ ον κ α ί το ν Τ ύλλιον, α ντί δέ τού τρίτου σκώπτων ερ έβ ινθ ο ν έκέλευσε π α ρ ά τά γρά μ μα τα τόν τεχνίτην έντορ εύσα ι. (Plut. Cic. 1.6 = Mor. 204f) W hen he was presenting a silver offering to the gods during his quaestorship in Sicily, he had his first tw o names inscribed upon it— Marcus and Tullius— but instead o f his third name, he jo k in g ly had the engraver sketch out alongside these letters a chickpea.

A n o d d anecdote;75 one can only w o n d e r w h e th e r the young C icero is here displaying p rid e over his b ac k g ro u n d o r aw k w ard ly confessing his fa m ily ’s ru ral o rigins, origins he had to defend th ro u g h o u t his political 74 P lu t. Cic. 1.4 (cf. Priscianus Gramm. 2.58.11 [Keil]); Plin. N at. 18.10. A m y R ichlin has d ra w n m y a tte n tio n to cicer at Iuv. 6.373b, w h ere th e w o rd d enotes an erect penis, and to th e parallel use o f the G reek erebinthos (see H en d erso n , s.v.). 75 B u t n o t w ith o u t parallel: fro m the im perial age, R itti has collected over one h u n d re d exam ples o f to m b m o n u m e n ts th at contain an illustration o f the nam e o f the deceased. She c oncludes th at in m an y cases the figures are inten d ed to preserve an aspect o f the dead p e rso n ’s character (375). F or living persons, I have fo und a political graffito fro m P om peii, p ro c la im in g th at the B albi en d o rse th eir candidate “w ith a sta m m e r” (balbe\ C lL 4.935i).

career. I am disposed to believe the latter. C icero was w ell aw are o f the ex ten t to w h ich an inherited nam e could w o rk to its b earer’s disadvantage. Five years after the incident recorded by P lutarch, C icero com posed a series o f invective-filled speeches against Gaius Verres, a fo rm er gover­ n o r o f Sicily. In these orations, C icero puns frequently on the nam e Verres— “an u n castrated b o a r.” A t one point, the o ra to r com pares V erres’ ad m in istrativ e rapacity to the m oderate rule o f a fo rm er g overnor o f Spain, Lucius C alpurnius Piso Frugi: n im iru m u t hie [Verres] n o m e n su u m co m p ro b av it, sic ille [Frugi] co g n o ­ m en. ( Verr. 2 A . 57) A n d clearly, ju s t as [Verres] has lived up to his n am e (nomen), so to o has [Frugi] lived up to his c o g n o m e n .76

Verres “ the P ig ” w as, predictably, a b ru tish governor; P iso ’s co g n o m en Frugi (“ S o b er”), on the o th er hand, betokened an honest adm inistration. T h e concept “to live up to o n e’s n a m e ” survives in the E nglish id io m and denotes an in d iv id u al’s ability to m atch the achievem ents— physical, in­ tellectual, o r b o th — o f a parent o r ancestor. In C icero ’s rem arks, h ow ­ ever, th e n am e o f an individual prophesied th at ability. N o t every situation provided as clear a case as those o f Verres and Frugi. O ccasionally nam e and behavior do n o t coincide. Since cog­ n o m in a d en o tin g positive characteristics appear to be relatively infre­ qu en t, th e failure to live up to a positive nam e often b ro u g h t special censure. A n oratorical frag m en t o f C icero yields a p u n o n Pulcher (“B eau­ tifu l”), th e co g n o m en o f P ublius C lodius. T his speech included a detailed d escription b y C icero o f C lodius dressing up as a w o m an in o rd e r to p enetrate the rites o f the B ona Dea, rites traditionally restricted to R o­ m an m atrons. T h e follow ing frag m en t seem s to have constituted the cli­ m ax o f th at description: sed, credo, p o stq u a m speculum tibi adlatum est lo n g e te a pulchris abesse sensisti. (In Clod. 25) B u t I’ll bet that after the m irro r w as h anded over you realized you w ere far fro m bein g am o n g the beautiful {pulchri).77 76 F or this m ea n in g o f comprobo, see O L D , s.v. 2. L. C alp u rn iu s Piso Frugi (consul 133), the father o f this P iso and, apparently, the first b earer o f the co g n o m e n Frugi, receives praise for the aptness o f his n am e at Tusc. 3.16. N o te th at Frugi is a second cog n o m en ; the earlier, Piso (“P e a ”), ap p aren tly derives fro m ag riculture. 77 A s one w o u ld expect, C icero did n o t in v en t this p un. In P lautus (M il. 1037-38) P y rg o polynices answ ers the greetin g Pulcher, salve— “ H ello, b e a u tifu l/P u lc h e r”— w ith meum cognometitum commemoravit— “ H e re m em b ered m y nicknam e!” (for a different in te rp reta ­ tion, see M o n teil 78). A cco rd in g to the Scholia B obiensia (p. 90, 1 - 8 [Stangl]), th e line o f

T h is p u n o n pulcher fu n c tio n s o n tw o levels. F irst, th e a d je c tiv e ’s literal m e a n in g m o c k s C lo d iu s as a “ p r e tty b o y ” w h o striv e s to b e c o m e so m e ­ th in g h e is n o t — a w o m a n .78 B u t at th e sa m e tim e , the p u n fo re g ro u n d s th e e x te n t to w h ic h C lo d iu s differs f ro m his a n c e sto rs, th e illu strio u s P u lc h r i: in p e rv e rse ly in te rp re tin g w h a t c o n stitu te s a P u lch er, C lo d iu s m isses th e p o in t. C ic e r o ’s h u m o r serves as a co rre ctiv e. W h ile C lo d iu s in h e rite d his c o g n o m e n , o th e r fig u res w e re th e first to b e a r th e irs. T h e g re a t s tro n g m e n o f th e late R e p u b lic b o re n a m e s th a t w e re th e ir p a rtic u la r p o sse ssio n — S ulla F elix (“ th e L u c k y ”), P o m p e iu s M agnus (“ th e G re a t”). U n lik e h o n o rific c o g n o m in a su ch as Asiaticus o r A fricanust th e s e n a m e s w e re n o t b e sto w e d b y an official sta te act b u t w e re a d o p te d in d e p e n d e n tly , as a b o a s t o f p e rso n a l a c h ie v e m e n t.79 T h e se spe­ cial lab els e x p o s e d th e ir o w n e rs to special risk; th e p u b lic fla u n tin g o f a la u d a to ry n a m e c o u ld re s u lt in p u b lic rid icu le. U p u n til n o w , m y e x a m p le s o f th e m o c k e ry o f n am e s have co n c e n ­ tra te d o n th e ir m a n ip u la tio n b y p o litic a l fig u res, w h o a tte m p t to p ro v id e th e ir au d ie n c e w ith in s ig h t in to an o p p o n e n t’s ch a ra cter. A le tte r o f C ic­ e ro f ro m 59 b c e , h o w e v e r, p ro v id e s a rare in sta n c e o f th e p e o p le th e m ­ selves m o c k in g a c o g n o m e n . T h e o cc a sio n in v o lv es n e ith e r a c o u r tro o m n o r th e sen ate b u t a p u b lic stage: populi sensus m axim e theatro et spectaculis perspectus est; . . . ludis A pollinaribus D iphilus tragoedus in nostrum Pom peium petulanter invectus est: “nostra miseria tu es m agnus” miliens coactus est dicere; “eandem virtutem istam veniet tem pus cum graviter gem es” totius theatri clamore dixit, item que cetera. (A t t . 2.19.3 = SB 39) The sentim ents o f the people were felt m ost o f all in the theater and at the games; . . . at the games in honor o f Apollo, the tragic actor Diphilus in­ veighed im pudently against our friend Pompeius; a thousand times he was compelled to say “You are great (magnus) to our m isery”; he said to shouts the Pulchri began w ith P. C laudius P ulcher, consul in 249 BCE, and had attained p rom inence b y P la u tu s’ day. 78 H ence the nick n am e Pulchellus, w h ich C icero uses to refer to C lo d iu s in his private c o rre sp o n d e n c e w ith A tticus (Ate. 1.16.10 = SB 16; 2 .1 .4 = SB 21; 2.22.1 = SB 42). T h e c o g n o m e n Pulcher, in fact, m ay have originally c o n n o ted effem inacy; see M arx o n L ucilius 24 and m y discussion o f D e orat. 2.262 in ch ap ter I. F o r m o re exam ples o f this p u n in the late R epublic, see C atull. 79.1, 86,5, and the discussion b y Skinner; also, perhaps, C IL

l 2.2.12tt. 79 P lu tarch says P om peius received his co g n o m en Magnus aro u n d 80 b c e , eith e r by direct a ction fro m Sulla o r th ro u g h the acclam ation o f his tro o p s (Pomp. 13.4—5); Livy, o n the o th e r h and, says it arose From th e flattery o f close friends (30.45.6). F o r Sulla Felix, see P lut. Sm //. 34.2.

o f the w h o le theater, “T h e tim e w ill c o m e w h e n yo u w ill m ou rn h eavily for this sam e courage o f y o u r s,” and oth er th in g s as w e ll.80

T h e populace is so sensitive to the value o f a nam e that it clam ors for an encore w h en D ip h ilu s’ verses contain a double m eaning. T he fictional w o rld o f the stage spills in to the real w o rld o f politics. Pom peius ’ lauda­ to ry co g n o m en Magnus (“G reat”) becom es a vehicle for his ridicule since, like C lo d iu s’, his n am e is a label w hose applicability he m u st continually prove. T h is sam e audience includes, presum ably, those w h o laughed ab o u t the b ab b lin g B am balio and the p re tty boy Pulcher. A nam e bears w ith it a resp o n sibility n o t only to o n e’s fam ily b u t to the co m m u n ity at large. Magnus also p ro m p ts sarcasm in the personal rem arks C icero addresses to A tticus. In fact, it appears th at C icero “perhaps never uses [Magnus] as a m ere n am e except in letter h ead in g s.”81 W henever C icero does use this h o n orific title, he frequently qualifies it w ith adjectives such as “o u r” (;noster) o r “th is” (hie), and em ploys it in contexts that clearly signal that th e w rite r intends his rem arks to co m m en t ironically u p o n the co g n o ­ m e n ’s m eaning. C icero o n one occasion even becom es explicit in his feelings to w ard the m ilitary leader in a passage w here he also m ocks a certain C rassus: quanto in o d io n oster am icus M agnus! cuius c o g n o m e n una cu m Crassi D iv itis c o g n o m in e co n sen escit. {Att. 2 .1 3 .2 = SB 33) In h o w great a hatred is our friend M agn u s held! H is n ick n am e is g r o w in g o ld alo n g w ith that o f “R ich ” C ra ssu s.82

T his passage seem s to p o in t to occasions o f public m o ck ery o f Magnus akin to the D iphilus episode. T h e people continued to express disap80 Val. M ax. 6.2.9 reco rd s th at the actor said miseria nostra magnus est and p ointed to Po m p eiu s as he sp o k e the lines. B u t the general w as at C apua, as C icero m akes clear later in this sam e letter: “ th ey w ere said to fly to P o m p eiu s at C a p u a ” (Capuam ad Pompeium volare dicebantur). F or sim ilar instances o f verse being applied o n stage to c o n te m p o ra ry issues o f the late R epublic, cf. Sest. 1 17-26, Phil. 1.36, A tt. 14.3.2 (SB 357); Suet. Iul. 84.2; and, m o re explicitly, the m o v in g address to necessitas b y the m im e L aberius (M acr. Sat. 2 .7 .2 -3 ). 81 Shackleton B ailey o n A tt. 1.16.11 (SB 16). 82 T h is C rassus is n o t, apparently, the triu m v ir; see Shackleton Bailey ad loc. F or m o re p uns o n Magnus see A tt. 1.16.11—13 (SB 16), 6 .1.22 (SB 115), and C aelius at Fam. 8.13.2 (SB 94); P lu t. Crass. 7.1; Veil. 2.32.6; and L ucan passim . In C icero, the iro n y ranges fro m the pathetic to the pejorative, d ep en d in g u p o n his relations w ith P o m p eiu s at each particular tim e. N o n iro n ic instances o f the n am e occu r prim arily in w o rk s in te n d e d for the public, e .g ., Arch. 24, M anil. 67, a n d Leg. 2.6; in the letters, it is used at A tt. 6.1.25 (SB 115) to distin g u ish M agnus fro m P o m p eiu s V indillus.

82

CHA PTER 2

p o in tm e n t o v e r th e failed p ro m is e in h e re n t in th e n a m e o f P o m p e iu s “ th e G rea t. ” C lo d iu s a c q u ire d th e e p ith e t Pulcher f r o m his a n ce sto rs; P o m p e iu s b e ­ ca m e M agnus f r o m h is a c h ie v e m e n ts . L esser fig u re s also e n te rta in e d h o p e s o f im p r o v in g th e ir r e p u ta tio n b y a d o p tin g flatte rin g labels. In his S ix th Philippic, C ic e ro deflates th e p re te n s io n s o f o n e su c h p e rs o n — T re b e lliu s “ th e H o n e s t” (Fides): audisse enim vos arbitror, Q uirites, quod etiam videre potuistis, cotidie sponsores et creditores L. TrebelIi convenire. o Fides!— hoc enim opinor Trebellium sumpsisse cognom en— quae potest esse m aior fides quam fraudare creditores, dom o profugere, propter aes alienum ire ad arma? (Phil. 6 . 11) N o w I believe you have heard, citizens, som ething that you could even see, that the sponsors and creditors o f Lucius Trebellius are gathering together every day. O T rust (Fides)I— for I think Trebellius has adopted this cognom en— w hat greater tru st can there be than to defraud creditors, run away from hom e, and take up w eapons because o f your debt? C ic e ro p re te n d s to re je c t th e v a lid ity o f T re b e lliu s’ fides; a d e b to r lik e T re b e lliu s can h a rd ly b e tru s tw o r th y . T h e n a m e allow s C ic e ro to ch id e his o p p o n e n t f o r b a n k ru p tc y , a c o m m o n to p ic o f R o m a n h u m o r . T h e v e rb “ to a d o p t” (sumpsisse) im p lie s th a t T re b e lliu s has d ish o n e stly a d o p te d th is fla tte rin g s o b riq u e t in o rd e r to p re se n t a false im a g e .83. T h e m a n ip u la tiv e u se o f p r o p e r n a m e s a p p e a rs to have b e en a c o m m o n p ra c ­ tice in th e late R e p u b lic . In a le tte r to T re b o n iu s o f A p ril 44, C ic e ro m e n tio n s th e c a n d id a te s fo r p o litic a l o ffice w h o a d o p t an u n in h e rite d n a m e (cognomen) fo r th e e lectio n s in an a tte m p t to sec u re p o p u la r fav o r (Fam. 1 5.20.1 = SB 208). T h is ty p e o f n a m e c h a n g e fu r th e r a tte sts to th e in flu e n c e th a t th e c o n n o ta tio n o f ce rta in n a m e s c o u ld have o v er th e g e n ­ eral p o p u la c e .84 C ic e ro refers to a s im ila r p ra c tic e in his sp e ec h fo r C lu e n tiu s w h e n h e says S ta ie n u s c h o se th e c o g n o m e n P a etu s o v e r L ig u s “ so th a t, i f h e h a d m a d e h im s e lf a Ligus, h e w o u ld n ’t se e m to u se th e c o g n o 83 It is u n certain w h e th e r the c o g n o m e n Fides derives fro m the idea o f loyalty; the o nly tw o parallels e x ta n t fro m th e R epublic o f co g n o m in a taken fro m such abstracts are Pietas and Sermo (K ajanto 97). A lternatively, the n am e m ay derive fro m th e m usical in stru m e n t (cf. Bucina and Fistula). K ajanto solves the p ro b le m by in cluding th e n am e u n d e r b o th h eadings (254, 343). N evertheless, the passage cited in the tex t fro m Phil. 6 leaves n o d o u b t as to h o w T reb elliu s and C ice ro did, and the p eople w o u ld , in te rp re t its m eaning. 84 F o r o th e r a p p are n t exam ples o f deliberate n am e change d u rin g the R epublic “to cap­ italize o n . . . distin g u ish ed ancestry, real o r Active, ” see H o p k in s 51. B y th e tim e o f the triu m v ira l civil w ars, th e practice o f a d o p tin g n ew c o g n o m in a had b e co m e especially im p o rta n t. S extus P o m p eiu s, for exam ple, beg an calling h im se lf Magnus Pius. A cco rd in g to Sym e, O ctavian eventually secured the ultim ate nam e w ith the p ra e n o m e n -n o m e n c o m b in a tio n Imperator Caesar; see S ym e 1979 1:361-99.

m en o f his trib e rather than his fam ily” (ne, si se Ligurem fecisset, nationis magis suae quam generis uti cognomine videretur, C lu . 72).85 In addition to ex plaining the significance o f C icero ’s rem arks about T rebellius’ nam e change, these tw o passages fu rth er d em o n strate that descriptive nam es h ad p o ten tial appeal to prejudices latent am o n g the R om an people. C h an g in g a n am e changes o n e’s im age. T rebellius in tentionally m anipulated his nam e as an advertisem ent to the populace. C icero treats the use o f nam es as popular labels o n tw o o th er occasions. In his defense o f Sestius, the o ra to r has occasion to re­ p ro v e th e d em ag o g u ery o f Lucius Gellius Poplicola: “H e m arried a freedw o m a n n o t o u t o f desire, I think, b u t so that he m ig h t seem a ‘devotee o f the p eo p le’ [plebicola]" (qui, ut credo, non libidinis causa, sed ut plebicola videretur, libertinam d u xit uxorem\ Sest. 110). Gellius absurdly lives even his p rivate life in accordance w ith his fam ous nam e. T ry in g to ou td o the w ell-k n o w n fifth -cen tu ry politician Publius Valerius Publicola, Gellius sim p ly d em o n strates th at he does n o t k n o w w h a t “serving the p eople” m eans: it is n o t, C icero asserts, to m arry a w o m an o f low ly b irth .86 A passage fro m C ic e ro ’s treatise O n the Republic show s, o n the contrary, the type o f citizen w h o truly w orks for the populace. In passing laws to p ro tec t the rig h ts o f the co m m o n people, Publius Valerius “w as publicola to the hig h est degree” (Juit Publicola maxime·, Rep. 2.53). B y m isusing a n am e, Gellius abuses an im p o rta n t R om an tradition. T o a R om an, a king (rex) m u st have provided the antithesis to p u b ­ licola. T h e charge o f being a rex im plied disdain for the offices and institu­ tions o f the R epublic, the g o v ern m en t established after the R om ans drove o u t th eir o w n kings in the late sixth century b c e . 87 C icero was h im self accused o f aim ing at kingship as a result o f his actions in the C atilinarian conspiracy (S u ll. 21, C atil. 1.30). O n e such accusation occurred in 61 d u rin g a vicious debate in the senate w ith his o p p o n en t C lodius. C icero, in relating the episode verbatim to A tticus, includes the follow ing exchange: “quousque” inquit [Clodius] “hunc regem feremus?” “regem appellas” inquam “cum Rex tui mentionem nullam fecerit?”; ille autem Regis hereditatem spe devorarat. (Att. 1.16.10 = SB 16) 85 O n S taienus’ a d o p tio n o f his co g n o m e n , see n o w B adian 9—10. 86 C icero p ro b a b ly alludes to this co g n o m e n a few sentences earlier in the speech w h en he q u o tes a possible o bjection to his criticism o fG e lliu s: “For he is a person devoted to the R o m an p e o p le ” (est ertim homo iste populo Rom ano deditus). T h e o ra to r then proceeds to d e m o n stra te the opposite: non fiiit popularis. N e u d lin g 75 discusses w h e th er this is the G elIius o f C a tu llu s’ epigram s. F or o th er exam ples o f the co g n o m e n Publicola being used for p ro p a g an d a , see Liv. 2.8.1; cf. P lu t. Puhl. 1.1, 10.4. 87 O p e lt 129—30; R aw son analyzes th e com p lex attitu d e o f R om ans to w a rd king sh ip in the p erio d before C a esar’s death.

[C lodius] said, “H o w lo n g shall w e endure this king?” “You call [m e] a k in g ,” I said, “w h en K in g m ade no m en tion o f you [in his w ill]?” That m an had squandered (devorarat) K in g’s inheritance in his expectation o f it.

C icero em p lo y s the c o g n o m e n R e x (“K in g ”) in o rd e r to evade C lo d iu s ’ accusation. T h e w ittic ism p ro b a b ly does n o t strik e m an y m o d e rn readers as funny. C icero , h o w e v er, n o t o n ly m ade the jo k e b u t even co n sid ered it w o rth sh arin g w ith A tticus. Q u in tu s M arcius R ex w as C lo d iu s’ w e alth y b ro th e r-in -la w , w h o left a legacy to C lo d iu s ’ elder b ro th e r b u t n o t to C lo d iu s h im se lf.88 C ic e ro ’s jo k e tu rn s the tables o n his o p p o n e n t’s accu­ satio n b y assertin g th at C lo d iu s is the o n e acting like a “k in g .” C lo d iu s is cast as a financially profligate feaster (devorarat), w h o proves his u n ­ w o rth in e ss to in h e rit th ro u g h his p re m a tu re ac tio n s.89 S uetonius relates h o w Ju liu s C aesar also learned the art o f o n e -u p m a n sh ip in this context: neque . . . infam iam affectati etiam regii nom in is discutere valuit, quanquam et plebei regem se salutanti, Caesarem se, non R egem esse respon­ dent. (Suet. Iul. 79.2) A nd he w as unable to shake o f f even the rum ors that he w ish ed to be called a king, even thou gh w hen the plebs saluted him as king he replied his nam e was Caesar, n ot K ing.

T h ese ru m o rs o f the plebs w o u ld have special iro n y i f th e ir au th o rs w ere recallin g a th e m e fro m C a e sa r’s funeral speech fo r his a u n t Julia, in w h ic h he traced th e lineage o f his fam ily back to the early R o m an k in g A ncus M arciu s (Suet. Iul. 6.1). I f this is so, the plebs are d o in g m o re th an at­ te m p tin g to b e sto w th e k in g sh ip o n C aesar. T h ey are appealing to the n a m e R e x in Ju liu s C aesa r’s fam ily line. T h e n am e is its h is to ry and th at h is to ry includes A ncus M arcius. Ju liu s C aesar earns the title R e x n o t sim ­ p ly th ro u g h his actions b u t th ro u g h fam ily rig h t. N a m e s re p re se n t a sta n d a rd th a t th e n a m e d m u s t co n tin u ally observe. I f a p erso n does n o t m eet th e ex p ectatio n s o f society he can be attack ed verbally, his n am e p ro v id in g th e c o rro b o ra tin g evidence for w ro n g d o ­ in g . Q u in tilia n , as I have already m e n tio n ed , censures this ty p e o f abuse, su g g e stin g th at o n ly p o sitiv e n am es such as Pius (“P io u s”) o r Sapiens (“W ise”) p ro v id e valid in d icatio n o f ch aracter (Inst. 5.10.30). In a few passages C icero does p u n o n n am es in a c o m p lim e n ta ry fashion, yet the c o n te x t o f th ese jo k e s o n ly serves to u n d e rsc o re the discrep an cy b etw e en o ra to ric al p ractice d u rin g th e R epublic a n d rh eto rical th e o ry u n d e r th e E m p ire . In o n e o f his letters, th e phrase “L atin A ttic ism ” {Latinus ’A t88 S h ack leto n B ailey ad loc.

89 I discu ss th e connection, b e tw e e n feastin g a n d im p ro p e r civic b e h av io r in c h ap ter 4. See f u rth e r E d w a rd s chap. 5.

τικ ισ μ ό ς) conceals a co m p lim en t to A tticu s’ learning (A tt. 4.19.1 = SB 93; cf. A tt. 1.13.5 = SB 13). In an o th er letter, S abinus’ “unassum ing countenance and steady speech” bespeak the aptness o f his nam e— he has in h erited the qualities co m m o n ly attrib u ted to the Sabine people (modestus . . . vultus strmoque constans; Fam. 15.20.1 = SB 208). W hen w ritin g to Publius V olum nius E utrapelus, C icero rem arks ab o u t an unsigned let­ ter he had received that “the w itty tone [ευ τρ α π ελ ία ] o f the epistle m ade m e realize it w as y o u rs” (ε υ τρ α π ε λ ία litterarum fecit ut intellegerem tuas esse; Fam. 7.32.1 = SB 113). In a less straig h tfo rw ard m anner, C icero com pli­ m en ts the B ru ti b y denying the im plications o f their nam e. H e is com ­ plaining to A tticus o f the inaction o f Julius C aesar’s assassins after the Ides o f M arch: ista culpa Brutorum? minime illorum quidem, sed aliorum brutorum, qui se cautos ac sapientis putant. (Att. 14.14.2 = SB 368) Is this the fault o f the Bruti? No, it’s hardly theirs, but it’s the fault o f other stupid brutes (brutorum) who consider themselves cautious and wise. T hese fo u r exam ples constitute all the com p lim en tary puns o n nam es I have fo u n d in the C iceronian corpus. T h e ir relationship is clear— and telling. E ach instance occurs n o t in the orations, w h ere nam es can carry special polem ical force, b u t in the o ra to r’s private co rrespondence.90 This p h en o m en o n reintroduces an earlier them e: the public speaker o f the late R epublic em ploys political h u m o r n o t for flattery, as Q uintilian w ill later advise, b u t to m ake his o p p o n en t sm all. R

e a d in g

N

am es

T h e R om ans could conceive o f nam es as representing a desired standard o f character. T o be called Frugi , Pulcher, o r M agnus m eant accepting the responsibility for possessing honesty, beauty, o r courage. Yet m o st cog­ n o m in a, the class o f nam es generating the m ajo rity o f n am e puns from this perio d , describe unattractive features o r actions. In o rato ry o f the late R epublic, the p ro p e r in terp retatio n o f these pejorative nam es facilitates 90 T h e follow ing n a m e p uns fro m th e letters, m o re in keeping w ith C ice ro ’s hostile w it, are n o t discussed in th e text. Balbus: Fam. 9 .19.2 (SB 194), A tt. 12.2.2 (SB 238); L epidus and B rutus: A tt. 6.1.25 (SB 115); L entulus (lens): A tt. 1.19.2 (SB 19); Pulcher: A tt. 1.16.10 (SB 16), 2 .1 .4 (SB 21), 2.22.1 (SB 42); Pollex: A tt. 13.46.1 (SB 338); C aiidius: Fam. 8.9.5 (SB 82). T h e pun o n Caiidius is m y o w n conjecture. I have already cited the sim ilar p u n at In v . 2.28. A dm ittedly, the dissim ilar quantities o f the i in Caiidius and calidus a rgue against this in te rp reta tio n , b u t see Shackleton B ailey ad A tt. 1.16.5 (SB 16), to w hich one can a d d the follow ing possible exceptions: Fam. 9.20.1 = SB 193 (malum; cf. P laut. A m ph. 723), De orat. 2.284 (liberum/libet), Clu. 71 (conditor), and Veil. 2.108.2 (natione/ratione)\ see also A hl 56.

th e ex clu sio n o f th e b e a re r o f th a t n a m e fro m active p artic ip a tio n in soci­ ety. In th e ex am ples cited in this section, nam es reveal o th e rn e ss— a n o th e r n atio n ality, a n o th e r heritage, a n d even, w h e n it com es to an im al n am es, a n o th e r species. T h e exam ples th at follow fin d C icero e x p o u n d ­ in g o n th e a rt o f in te rp re tin g these p ejo ra tiv e labels. T h e o ra to r show s h o w n am es sp eak a n d explains to his audience w h a t th e y are saying. A t th e sam e tim e , C icero show s th at w h e n his o p p o n e n ts a tte m p t to use n am es in th e ir favor, th e y do so im p ro p e rly an d ineptly. C o g n o m in a re fe rrin g to eth n ic o r g eo g rap h ical o rig in w ere c o m m o n ly e x p lo ite d b y o ra to rs as a neg ativ e label, in te n d e d to separate a n a m e ’s b ea rer fro m tru e R o m a n so ciety .91 I b eg in w ith a su b tle ex am p le to sh o w th e sen sitiv ity th a t ex isted re g a rd in g this ty p e o f abuse. N u m e riu s Q u in tius R u fu s, as trib u n e o f the plebs, h ad o p p o sed th e recall o f C icero fro m exile. In th e o ra tio n fo r Sestius, his n am es co m e u n d e r scrutiny: ex iis princeps em itur ab inimicis meis is quem homines in luctu inridentes Gracchum vocabant, quoniam id etiam fatum civitatis fuit ut ilia ex vepreculis extracta nitedula rem publicam conaretur adrodere. (S e s t . 72) And o f these [witnesses against me], the main one to be bought by m y opponents was the m an w hom people, joking in their misery, were w ont to call Gracchus, because it has been the fate o f our state in this case too for that little red rat (nitedula), [who was] taken from the bramble bushes, to attem pt to nibble away at the state. C icero sim u lta n e o u sly tw ists tw o o f his o p p o n e n t’s n am es. F irst, he c o m m e n ts o n th e ap p ro p riaten ess o f th e n ick n am e Gracchus b y im p ly in g th a t R u fu s w ill p re se n t as g reat a d a n g e r to the state as th e p o p u la r tri­ b u n es T ib e riu s a n d G aius G racchus h ad in th e p rev io u s century. H e th en fu rth e r belittles R ufus th ro u g h a co m p licated e ty m o lo g ic a l gam e: C icero co m p ares h im to a nitedula, th e n am e fo r a red (rufiis) field m ouse. A n an cien t sch o liast o n this passage recognizes th e significance o f R u fu s’ m o u selik e qualities: “he called h im nitedula because h e w as n o t o n ly sh o rt in statu re, b u t red in c o lo r” (quod esset non tantum statura depressus, verum etiam colore rubidus, nitedulam nominauit; Schol. B ob. p. 134, 28—29 [S tangl]). T h e c o g n o m e n Rufois, ancient sources seem to indicate, is likely to h ave o rig in a te d as a label fo r a “ re d ”-h a ire d n o n -R o m a n .92 B y p u n ­ n in g o n th is n am e, C icero indicates th at his o p p o n e n t n o t o n ly is o f for­ eig n d escen t b u t is in fact an anim al th a t w ishes to o v erw h elm the state. T h e d im in u tiv e e n d in g o f nitedula, h o w ev er, h ig h lig h ts th e iro n y o f C ic91 In a d d itio n to the jo k e s tre a te d b e lo w in the te x t, see m y d isc u ssio n o f Semiplacentinus (P is. 14) at th e e n d o f c h a p te r 4. 92 Q u in t. Inst. 1.4.25 a n d P lu t. Cor. 11.6 b o th sta te th a t th e n a m e Rufiis o rig in a te d as p h y sic al d e sc rip tio n . R ufa, m o reo v e r, w as a c o m m o n slave n a m e , a fact th a t fu rth e r in d i­ cates th e a n cien t association b e tw e e n red h a ir a n d fo reig n d escen t (K ajan to 134).

e ro ’s fo rm ulation: Q u in tiu s is sim ply an im p o te n t m ouse. A gain, this jo k e m ay strike us as slight, b u t the associations involved are distinctly R om an. As in the case o f the stu tte rer B am balio, a nam e (Rufits) in tro ­ duces a physical peculiarity (red hair), thereby allow ing C icero to p o rtra y the bearer o f the nam e as a likely outcast. In his E leventh Philippic, C icero sim ilarly appeals to biases against p er­ sons o f n o n -R o m an o rig in .93 T h e co g n o m en o f T itus A nnius C im b e r indicates descent fro m the G erm anic tribes o f the C im bri. In this instance o f w ordplay, m oreover, to take effective advantage o f R om an xeno­ ph o b ia the o ra to r also exploits the belief in in h erited m oral character: lu m en et decus illiu s exercitu s paene praeterii, T. A n n iu m C im b ru m , L ysid ici filiu m , L y sid icu m ip su m G raeco verb o, q u o n ia m o m n ia iura d isso lv it, nisi forte iure G erm an u m C im b er o ccid it. (Phil. 11.14; cf. Q u in t. Inst. 8 .3 .2 9 )

I a lm o st fo rg o t the pride and j o y o f A n to n iu s’ arm y, T itu s A n n iu s C im b er, the son o fL y s id ic u s . In fact, h e ’s a “L y sid icu s” h im se lf in the G reek sen se since he has “d isso lv ed all ju s tic e ”— or m a y b e it ’s ju stic e for a C im b er to kill a G erm a n /h is o w n broth er (germanus ) . 94

A co m p lex co m b in atio n o f nam e puns occurs here. First, C icero explains th at C im b e r fulfills the prediction concealed in the nam e o f his father Lysidicus (λύω , “to dissolve,” δ ίκ η , “ju stic e ”): by m u rd erin g his o w n b ro th er, C im b e r violates the basic principles o f justice. T hen, alm ost in m o ck ery o f th e tenuous connection he has m ade, the o ra to r offers C im ­ b er a p o ten tial defense, a defense th at is also based u p o n the belief in the relation b etw een nam e and character: “ o r m aybe it’s ju stic e for a C im b er to kill a G e rm a n .” T h ro u g h this pretended defense, C icero in fact in­ crim inates his o p p o n en t further, tran sfo rm in g h im in to a T eutonic savage— the n am e Cim ber literally denotes a n o n -R o m an heritage. A t the sam e tim e, b y p u n n in g on germanus (“ G erm an ” and “b ro th e r”), the ora­ to r recalls C im b e r’s act o f m u rd er. H is opponent, C icero dem onstrates th ro u g h these puns, em bodies a true Cimber, a savage w h o has violently p erv erted fam ilial d u ty .95 93 O p e lt 149-51 catalogues o th er instances in late R epublican authors w h e re m unicipal o r provincial orig in s are referred to disparagingly. 94 C icero often uses the phrase nisi forte (as w ell as nisi vero o r ju s t nisi) to signal an ironic c o m m e n t; see H a u ry 1955: 8 1 -8 2 . In ad dition to the passages H a u ry cites, cf. Har. resp. 5 (q u o ted belo w in the text); A tt 13.40.1 (SB 343). 95 C ice ro later gives C im b e r th e m o ck ep ith e t Philadelphus (“ b ro th e r lo v er” ; Phil. 13.26). F or a sim ilar p u n on germanus see the song o f the triu m p h a n t soldiers o f L epidus and P lancus, b o th o f w h o m included b ro th ers in the p ro sc rip tio n lists o f 43 b c e : “ the tw o consuls are celebrating a triu m p h over G e rm a n s/b ro th e rs , n o t G auls” (de Germanis, non de Gallis, duo triumphant consules; Veil. 2.67.4); cf. also H ist. A ug. Caracalla 10.6 (Caracalla “ G eticus”).

C u ltu ra l p re ju d ic e in fo rm s tw o o th e r n a m e p u n s fo u n d in C ic e ro ’s o rato ry . B o th th ese instances fin d the o ra to r e x p lo itin g th e cu ltu ral c o n ­ n o ta tio n s, as o p p o se d to th e literal d e n o tatio n , o f an o p p o n e n t’s n am e. In o n e o f th e speeches h e d elivered u p o n re tu rn in g fro m exile, C icero attri­ b u tes his p ast re lu c tan ce to p ro se c u te P ublius C lo d iu s to th e m a n ’s status as a p u b lic en em y, n o t a p riv ate one. H e continues: itaque eu m [C lodiu m ] n um quam a tne esse accusandum putavi, n on plus quam stipitem ilium qui quorum h om in u m esset nescirem us, nisi se L igurem ip se esse diceret. (H a r . resp. 5) A nd so I never thou ght I should accuse [C lodius] any m ore than that stum p [A elius], w h o se heritage w e w ou ld be ignorant o f — i f he d idn ’t h im self claim he w as a Ligurian.

Ligus, th e c o g n o m e n o f A elius, ad v ertised his fa m ily ’s ancestral origins. Yet a R o m a n p ro v e rb p ro c la im e d th e L igurians to be p ro v e rb ial de­ ceivers: “all L ig u rian s are lia rs” dates back as early as the elder C ato (L ig ures . . . omnes fallaces sunt', Orig. 32 [LLRf?]). H ence, C icero argues, A e­ liu s ’ c o g n o m e n indicates a d ecep tiv e n atu re . T h e o ra to r aim s his appeal o n ce again to th e R o m a n d istru st o f a n y th in g alien o r n o n -R o m a n . A sim ilar bias equips the fo llo w in g jo k e w ith its barb: [dixit] argentarius Sex. C lod ius, cui n om en est P horm io, nec m inus niger nec m inus confidens, quam ille Terentianus est P horm io. ( C a ecin . 27; Q u in t. Inst. 6.3.56) T h e banker Sextus C lodius [has spoken]. H is nam e is P horm io, and he is no less black nor less bold than T erence’s P horm io.

T h e h u m o r o f th is passage resides in the c o n n o tatio n s C lo d iu s ’ n ick n am e Phormio has fo r the audience; here, specifically, C icero relies o n th e ir fa­ m ilia rity w ith th e parasite o f T e re n c e ’s co m ed y o f th e sam e nam e. U g ly a n d d isto rte d , th e m ask o f th e parasite in dicates b o th m o ra l and physical d ev ian c e.96 T h e se sto ck com ic characters, o f lo w ly o rig in an d co n cern ed o n ly w ith ap p easin g th e ir appetites, play n o active role in th e u n ited soci­ ety th a t fo rm s at a c o m e d y ’s conclusion. T h e n am e P h o rm io , C icero im p lies, labels S extus C lo d iu s as a social m isfit, an o u tcast o f th e ty p e k n o w n to an y m e m b e r o f th e R o m an audience. Erich G ruen suggests to m e that the nam e Lysidicus m ay represent a distortion o f Luseus, a co g nom en found am o n g the Anii. For m ore puns o n G reek nam es in C icero, see 5 . Rose. 124, w here C h ry so g o n u s is taunted for th e th eft o f R oscius’ land w ith the sim ple pun “I com e now to that golden nam e o f C h ry so g o n u s” (venio nunc ad illud nomen aureum Chrysogoni). T his is an old type o fjo k e : see Plaut. Bacch. 240; Ter. Ad. 168-70; and A tt. 6.9.2 (SB 123), w here T erentia’s freedm an P hilotim us is accused o f philotimia (“ am b itio n ”). C icero puns on the foreign nam e Sardanapallus at Rep. 3 frag. 4 (see Adam s 64). 96 Plates and discussion are in B ieber 100.

A n o th e r class o f puns centers on those puzzling cognom ina obtained fro m the nam es o f anim als. A lth o u g h one cannot always discern the original co n n o tatio n o f appellations o f this type, it seem s plausible that, as w ith adjectival cognom ina, the original n am in g m ust often have had the in ten tio n o f h ig h lig h tin g “unw elcom e traits o f character”— it is diffi­ cult to account for co g n o m in a such as Musca (“Fly”) o r Asinus (“A ss”) o th erw ise.97 Indeed, in colloquial Latin and R o m an com edy, anim al nam es are o ften em ployed as term s o f abuse.98 H ence, as w ith the cog­ n o m in a describing n o n -R o m an heritage, an anim al nam e can present its bearer as an u n fit m em b er o f the com m unity. T h e type o f m ockery w as im p o rta n t en o u gh for C icero to include exam ples o f in the h u m o r section o f O n the Orator. A n analysis o f these instances dem onstrates that, as w as th e case w ith physical peculiarities, nam es offer fine m aterial for degrad­ ing an o p p o n en t. T h e restrictions to be observed in their em p lo y m en t are p u rely rhetorical, the in terlocutors o f the dialogue indicate, and have n o th in g to do w ith any potential inefficacy o f a nam e jo k e p er se. W hile discussing the use o f h u m o r as a m eans o f gaining rhetorical advantage (ut proficiamus aliquid), th e speaker S trabo presents the follow ing as a neg­ ative exam ple: quid enim est Vargula adsecutus, cum eum candidatus A. Sem pronius cum M arco suo fratre com plexus esset, “puer, abige m uscas”? (De orat. 2.247) For what did Vargula achieve w hen [he remarked], after the candidate Aulus Sem pronius [Musca] and his brother Marcus had embraced him, “Boy, drive away the flies (muscae )”?

T hese tw o S em pronii bore the co g n o m en Musca (“F ly”). T h e w it does n o t strike one as m arkedly different fro m o th er R epublican nam e puns, and yet C icero p o rtray s S trabo as disapproving o f V argula’s rem ark. S trab o ’s expressed objection— that V argula “w e n t for the la u g h ” (risum quaesivit)— only provides h a lf an explanation, for, as S trabo h im self ad­ m its, this offers on ly a subjective ju d g m e n t (mea sentenda). I f his dis­ course intends to instruct, he m u st provide m o re objective criteria. A n o th e r exam ple from this section o f On the Orator clarifies S tra b o ’s inten tio n s. U sin g a ju s tly fam ous jo k e about the n am e C atulus that Q u in tilian later chose to include in his o w n discussion o f rhetorical 97 K ajan to 85; C hase 112 com pares the G erm an “zoological Schimpfivorter.” R ose 174—75 rejects the p o ssibility th at th e nam es co u ld have orig in ally been to tem ic. A nim al nam es related to farm ing seem to p ro v id e an exception. V arro’s O n Agriculture abounds in such appellations, m o st o f w hich V arro, so o n er o r later, p u n s upo n : Scrofa (2.4.1—2), Vaccius (2.5.2), E quiculus (2.7.1), O ra ta and M urena (3.3.10), Parra (3.5.18), and, finally, M erula, Pavo, Pica, and Passer m ake u p the “ aviary” o f an augur (3.2.2). In fact, th e o n e clearly p ejorative n a m e in the dialogue— Varro (“ K n o c k -k n e e d ,” or, perhaps, “B lo ck h e ad ”)— is, interestingly, nev er m ocked. 98 C o llo q u ial Latin: H o fm a n n 88, 194; R o m an com edy: Lilja 3 0 -3 5 .

h u m o r, S trab o ex plains h o w w it can be em p lo y ed p ro fita b ly in th e c o u rt­ ro o m (D e orat. 2.219). T h e skill, h ow ever, ca n n o t easily b e tau g h t: quid enim hie meus frater [Catulus] ab arte adiuvari potuit cum a Philippo interrogatus quid latraret, furem se videre respondit? (De orat. 2.220; cf. Q uint. Inst. 6.3.81) For how could m y brother [Catulus] here have been helped by training on the occasion when he was asked by Philippus w hy he was barking and he responded, “Because I see a th ie f’? P h ilip p u s alludes derisively to th e co g n o m e n o f C atu lu s (“ P u p p y ”), an d co m p ares his o p p o n e n t’s rh e to ric al p lead in g to the b a rk in g o f a d o g . " C atu lu s tu rn s th e jo k e a ro u n d b y tra n sfo rm in g h im se lf fro m a y ap p in g p u p p y in to an astu te w a tc h d o g . P art o f th e effectiveness o f C a tu lu s’ re­ m a rk rests in th e fact th a t he has re sp o n d e d to a d irec t insult: Q u in tilia n categ o rizes th e jo k e as an effective ty p e o f c o u n terattack (genus repercudendi) an d S trab o later refers to it as a fine ex am p le o f a w itty re jo in d e r (D e orat. 2.255). B u t it is im p o rta n t to recognize th at S trab o initially labels th e re m a rk as an ex a m p le o f th e p ro fitab le use o f w it in orato ry . In fact, it is th e first anecdote he relates in a len g th y d ig ressio n d ev o ted to h o w an o ra to r can m o st effectively em p lo y w it, w h e re it is n o t charac­ terized as an ex a m p le o f h u m o r g iv en in response. T h e attack o n P h ilip p u s, th ere fo re , is sh o w cased n o t sim p ly for its verbal cleverness b u t for its ap p licab ility to th e situ atio n in th e c o u rtro o m . T h e se o b serv atio n s o n th e jo k e o f C atu lu s help explain S tra b o ’s objec­ tio n to V arg u la’s failed jo k e “B oy, d riv e aw ay th e flies” ( “puer, abige m uscas”). T h e re m a rk ’s “ uselessness” (sine causa ; 2.247) does n o t in v o lv e its q u a lity as h u m o r b u t ra th e r its g ra tu ito u s n atu re . It aim s only for la u g h te r (if n o t m ere ly a clever insult) an d as su ch has no rh e to ric al value. As S trab o asserts later, “it m u st also be n o te d th at n o t e v e ry th in g lau g h ­ able is clev e r” (hoc etiam anim advertendum est, non esse omnia ridicula faceta\ 2.251). In fact, i f a jo k e m akes n o rh e to ric al p o in t, it m ay even p ro v o k e th e cen su re o f an audience. S trab o teaches n o t o n ly th at o n e can effec­ tiv ely em p lo y w it in o ra to ry b u t th at its m isuse can be c o u n te rp ro d u c ­ tive. T h e re seem s, th en , to have existed guidelines for th e public em p lo y ­ m e n t o f n a m e jo k e s , an d these guidelines attest to the efficacy o f n am es in rev ealin g c h a rac te r faults. C ic e ro h a d bestial foes as w ell. In a scath in g attack o n the co m p an io n s o f M arcu s A n to n iu s , C icero gets in a dig at D ecius M u s (“ th e M o u se ”): 99 Strabo and Q u in tu s Lutatius Catulus shared the sam e m other, hence frater. Kajanto 24, 326, and C hase 112 b oth derive C atulus from the Latin w ord for “p u p p y,” and n o t from catus, “ w is e .” Varro L ittg 5 .9 9 seem s to derive the nam e from b oth w ords. P h ilip p u s’ initial remark itse lf contains a g o o d pun: latrare w as a c o m m o n term o f abuse applied to sh rill-soun ding orators (Rabbie ad Ioc.; cf. E nglish “ yap”).

est etiam ibi Decius, ab illis, ut opinor, Muribus Deciis; itaque Caesaris munera erosit. (Phil. 13.27) He also has in his presence a Decius, descended, I believe, from the Mures (“mice”) Decii; that’s why he’s devoured Caesar’s gifts. T h e re m ark recalls the p u n on Rufus already discussed (Sest. 72): a cogno­ m en reveals the n o n h u m an , destructive tendencies o f its bearer and at the sam e tim e belittles the o p p o n en t b y figuring h im as a rodent. T his partic­ ular exam ple stresses the im p o rtan ce placed on the ridicule o f a nam e since C icero m ay in fact be in v en tin g — as he hints at w ith his parentheti­ cal “I believe” (ut opinor)— the familial connection o f this D ecius to the M us b ran ch o f the fam ily.100 T his anim al m etam o rp h o sis also enables C icero to describe vividly D ecius’ profligacy. Like C lodius, w h o “de­ v o u re d ” an inheritance he never received, the rodentlike D ecius has helped A n to n iu s eat aw ay (erosit) C aesar’s legacy.

P

u n n in g

w it h

the

P eople

O n e anim al in particular fascinated C icero — a certain uncastrated m ale pig th at p ro v id ed the o ra to r w ith his first m ajor v icto ry in the political courts. In a series o f speeches w ritten in 70 b c e , C icero show cases the n am e G aius Verres (“the B o a r”) as a w ay o f expressing his o w n affinity w ith no tio n s o f nam es and nam in g that w ere co m m o n am o n g the general R o m an populace. I opened this chapter b y considering the m agical ef­ fects nam es w ere considered to have o n external reality. O ra to rs exploit this b elief b y m ak in g jo k es that assum e a connection betw een the m ean­ ing o f a nam e and the internal character o f the person nam ed. C lam o r for encores in the theater and choruses o f approving laughter in the co u rt­ ro o m d em o n strate p o p u lar appreciation o f this h u m o r. In the Verrines, C icero h ig h lig h ts h o w the p eople them selves em ploy these beliefs in crit­ icizing th eir superiors. In this way, he is able to po rtray h im self as an ex tension o f the people’s voice. V erres’ p iggish persona first appears in th e prelim inary hearings to the m ain trial. W hile n arratin g the early p o rtio n o f V erres’ praetorship, C ic­ ero relates th at for a sh o rt tim e it seem ed as i f the g o v ern o r m ig h t de­ velop in to an honest adm inistrator. C icero quickly checks him self; Verres had n o t in fact been his true self at this tim e, he m aintains, b u t was in reality Q u in tu s M ucius, his predecessor in Sicily and an ho n est m an (Dip. in Caec. 57). Soon, how ever, V erres’ true character em erges; he once again “com es to h im self,” a self that had always been know able th ro u g h his nam e: 100 C f. Shackleton B ailey ad loc.

se d re p e n te e v estig io ex h o m in e ta m q u a m aliq u o C irc ae o p o c u lo factu s est V erres; re d it ad Se a tq u e ad m o res suos. (D iv . in Caec. 57) B u t su d d e n ly , as i f th r o u g h so m e p o tio n o f C irce, h e w as tra n sfo rm e d fro m a h u m a n b ein g in to a b o a r (verres); h e re tu rn e d to h im s e lf an d to his p ro p e r ch aracter.

Verres reacquires his nam e as i f through m agic. UnJike O d y sseu s’ m en, w h o becam e their true selves w h en Circe transform ed them back into hum an b eings, Verres exhibited hum an qualities on ly w h en masquerad­ in g as an honest m an. T he m etam orphosis, w h ich Cicero represents as a supernatural feat, is activated by the pow er o f a nam e— “Verres” is n ot sim p ly a label but an expression o f the m an’s o w n self.101 C on sidering both the em phasis placed on Verres’ nam e in the prelim i­ nary hearing and the frequency o f nam e jo k es elsew here in oratory, it com es as a surprise w h en , during the actual prosecution o f his opponent, C icero apologizes for quoting som e puns on Verres’ name. T h e orator records the com plaints people had about Verres’ urban praetorship in Rom e: h in c illi h o m in e s e ra n t q u i e tia m rid icu li in v e n ie b a n tu r ex d o lo re; q u o ru m alii, id q u o d saepe audistis, n e g a b a n t m ira-ndum esse ius ta rn n e q u a m esse v e rrin u m ; alii e tia m frig id io res erant, sed q uia s to m a c h a b a n tu r rid icu li v id e b a n tu r esse, cu m S ace rd o tem e x s e c ra b a n tu r qui v errem tam n e q u a m reliq u isset. q u ae eg o n o n c o m m e m o ra re m — n eq u e en im p erfacete dicta n e q u e p o r ro hac se v eritate d ig n a s u n t— nisi vos illud v ellem rec o rd a ri, istiu s n e q u itia m et in iq u ita te m tu rn in o re v u lg i atq u e in c o m m u n ib u s p ro v erb iis esse v ersatam . ( Verr. 2.1.121) A n d so th e re w ere th o se p eo p le w h o w e re fo u n d to be e v e n rid ic u lo u s in th e ir grief. S o m e o f th e m , as y o u ’ve o ften h ea rd , u sed to say th a t it w as n o w o n d e r th a t th e p o rk g ra v y /ju stic e o f V erres (ius verrinum) w as so bad. O th e rs w e re even m o re ted io u s, b u t because th e y w e re a n g ry th ey seem ed la u g h ab le as th e y cu rse d S a c e rd o s/th e p riest fo r h av in g n eg lected [to sacri­ fice] su c h a foul b o a r/V e rre s . I w o u ld n ’t b e re c o u n tin g th ese sto ries, since th e y ’re n o t p a rtic u la rly w itty an d , in ad d itio n , are u n w o rth y o f th e serious n a tu re o f this place, i f it w e re n ’t th a t I’d like y o u to re m e m b e r th a t a t th is tim e th is m a n ’s evil a n d foul n a tu re w as alw ays o n th e lips o f th e m asses an d in th e c o m m o n p ro v erb s. 101 A one-lin er from Plutarch pu nn in g on the nam e Verres also dates from the tim e o f this speech. T h e Κ εκ ίλ ιο ς o f the anecdote is m ost lik ely the Caecilius o f C icero ’s Speech against Caecilius: “A nd w h en a freedm an by the nam e o f Caecilius, an adherent o fju d a ism , w ish ed in a slight to the Sicilians to accuse Verres, C icero remarked, ‘W hat [business can a] Jew have w ith a pig?” ’ (ώ ς ο ύ ν ά π ελ ευ θ ερ ικ ό ς ά ν θ ρ ω π ο ς, έ ν ο χ ο ς τ φ ίο υ δ α ίζ ε ιν , ό ν ο μ α Κ εκ ίλιος, έβ ο ύ λ ετο π α ρ ω σ ά μ εν ο ς τ ο ύ ς Σ ικ ελ ιώ τα ς κ α τ η γ ο ρ εϊν το ύ Β έρ ρ ου “τί Ί ο υ δ α ίω π ρ ό ς χ ο ίρ ο ν ;” Ιφ η ό Κ ίκερω ν; Cic. 7.6).

C icero , in his stance as a representative o f the seriousness (severitas) o f the c o u rtro o m , pretends to disapprove o f these w itticism s, yet the ascription o f one o f these p uns (the ius verrinum ) to C icero h im self b y a later stu d en t o f rh e to ric attests to th eir C iceronian flavor.102 In fact, C ic e ro ’s false hesi­ tatio n , ra th e r th an detractin g atten tio n fro m these instances o f p o p u lar h u m o r, allow s h im to h ig h lig h t them . As in o th er exam ples o f this rh e­ to rical device o f praeteritio, b y w h ich an o ra to r preten d s to “pass b y ” an item o f in fo rm atio n th ro u g h a feigned sense o f m o d esty o r propriety, the em p h atic lack o f em phasis on ly underscores the p o in t the o ra to r is al­ legedly try in g to e v a d e .103 In this particular case, the actions o f Verres have had a telling effect on the au th o rs o f these jo k es: the R o m an people do n o t ap p ear as w itty (faced ), b u t as ridiculous (Hdiculi)Pm the jo k e s em erg e n o t fro m gaiety, b u t fro m g rie f (ex dolore) and anger (stomachabantur). T h ese sam e em o tio n s are represented as inspiring o th e r nam e puns fro m the political arena: people m o ck ed R ufus in th eir g rie f (in luctu; Sest. 72); C ic e ro ’s h u m o ro u s abuse o f B am balio springs fro m c o n te m p t (nihil Mo contemptius; P hil. 3.16). In the Verrines, C icero includes these w itti­ cism s because, in the reality o f R o m an rhetoric, they serve a pow erful fu n ctio n . E v en in th e talk o f the c o m m o n people, the evil o f Verres finds a p t ex p ressio n in jo k e s o n his nam e. T h e c o rru p t politician stands ex­ p o sed b y p o p u lar sen tim en t, a sen tim en t conveyed th ro u g h the voice o f C icero, the u p rig h t and p ro p e r orator. T h e citizens o f R o m e to o k n o tice o f V erres’ n am e on an o th er occasion. B efore leaving for his year in Sicily, Verres had busily studied and p lo tte d in advance h o w m o st effectively to p lu n d e r his n ew province. T h e p repa­ ratio n s w ere n o t lost on the R om ans, w h o had suffered th ro u g h the sam e m a n ’s p raeto rsh ip . C icero praises the astuteness o f the u rb a n populace: o praeclare coniectum a vulgo in illam provinciam omen communis famae atque sermonis, cum ex nomine istius quid iste in provincia facturus esset perridicule homines augurabantur! . . . videte satisne paratus ex illo omine urbano ad everrendam provinciam venerit. ( Verr. 2.2.18-19; cf. Quint. Inst. 6.3.55) What a wondrous omen about that province the masses have spread about in their rumors and everyday gossip; for people were laughably prophesying from this man’s name what he would do in his province! . . . Ask yourself whether that omen in the city had prepared him well enough to come sweep out (everrendam) the province. T h e p o p u lar o rig in s o f the o m en d em o n strate the ex ten t o f V erres’ g u ilt— th e R o m a n people, C icero alleges, anticipated th at g uilt even be102 T ac. D ia l. 23.1; cf. Q u in t. Inst. 6 .3 .4 , 55. i°3 R h e t' H er. 4.37; Q u in t. Inst. 9 .2.75 104 F o r th e negative c o n n o ta tio n s o f ridiculus w h e n used o f a p e rso n , see R abbie 218.

fore V erres h ad left Italy. H is n am e p ro v id e d a k in d o f o m e n fo r his fu tu re actio n s, an o m e n th a t C icero claim s w as k n o w n th ro u g h o u t the city. V erres ’ v o racio u s ap p e tite m u st m anifest its e lf in the ac tio n o f sw eep in g (everrere), a v e rb p h o n etica lly sim ilar to V erres ’ n a m e . 105 W hile in R om e, th e p o p u lace p ro v id es evidence fo r C icero o f V e rres’ u n m itig a te d cruelty. H is nomen (“n a m e ”) p ro v id es an omen; as in religious a n d m edical texts, n am es are re p re se n te d as p ro v id in g access to the su p ern atu ral. W h en th e n arrativ e o f th e speeches m oves to Sicily, V e rres’ d esignated p ro v in ce, C ic e ro co n tin u es to voice p o p u la r se n tim e n t b y q u o tin g the jo k e s o f th e peo ple. T h e Sicilians w e re re n o w n e d for th eir g reat w i t .106 A s p ro s e c u to r o f V erres, C ic e ro ’s task w as to speak o n b e h a lf o f these p ro v in cials, an d he uses this re p u ta tio n to d e m o n stra te th eir resilient ch aracter. A s w ith th e jo k e s fro m V erres’ u rb a n p ra e to rsh ip th at C icero q u o te d earlier in the speeches, th e o ra to r sym pathizes b o th w ith h o w the Sicilians have su ffered an d w ith h o w th e y have used h u m o r to alleviate th a t su fferin g . V erres— “th at p lu n d e re r o f religious scru p le s” (iste praedo religionum)— has ju s t failed to steal a statu e o f H ercules fro m th e p eo p le o f A g rig e n tu m . C ic e ro concludes his n arra tio n o f th e episode as follow s: n um quam tarn m ale est Siculis quin aliquid facete et co m m o d e dicant, velut in hac re aiebant in labores H erculis n on m inus hunc im m an issim u m verrem quam ilium aprum Erym anthium referri oportere. ( Verr. 2.4.95; cf. Q uint. Inst. 6.3.55) T h e Sicilians have never had it so bad that they d o n ’t m ake so m e apt jo k e. Just as in this case, w hen they w ere saying that this gigantic boar ( verres) deserves to be counted am ong the labors o f H ercules no less than the fam ous Erym anthian boar does.

B e y o n d th e ir value in en te rta in in g the ju ry , the jo k e s o n V erres’ n am e serv e tw o ad d itio n al ends. F irst, on a rh eto rical level, th ey ally th e vic­ tim s o f V erres w ith th e ir legal sp o k esm an , C icero , w h o w ill c o n tin u e in th ese speeches to m o c k V erres’ n am e in o rd e r to d ra w inferences ab o u t his b e h a v io r. 107 S econd, th e h u m o r derives persuasive s tre n g th fro m the 105 A d d itio n a l plays o n V erres as a g re e d y “ s w e e p e r” o c cu r at Verr. 2 .2 .5 2 (quare appellentur sane ista Verria, quae non ex nomine sed ex manibus naturaque tua constituta esse videantur— ■ “ S ure, let th e [festival] be called th e V erria; it does n o t seem to have arisen fro m y o u r n a m e , b u t fro m y o u r h an d s a n d n a tu re ”); Verr. 2 .4 .5 3 (quod umquam, iudices, huiusce modi everriculum ulla in provincia Ju it?— “W as th ere ever, g e n tle m e n o f the ju ry , a d ra g n e t [everriculum] o f th is k in d in a n y p ro v in ce ? ”). O th e r passages w h e re e m e n d a tio n c o u ld yield a p u n include D iv. in Caec. 57 (u e rtit> uerrit)·, Verr. 2 .2 .1 9 (evertendam > everrendam)\ 2 .3 .1 3 7 (avertentem > averrentem); 2 .4 .5 3 (avertere > auerrere); do es th e eversum at 2 .2 .5 2 d e riv e fro m everto o r everro? 106 D e oral. 2.217; Q u in t. Inst. 6.3.41 (C aelius speaking). i°7 Verr. 2.2.191 (videtis V E R R X J C IU M ? videtis primas Htteras integras? videtis extremam partem nominis, codam illam Verrinam tamquam in Iuto demersam esse in litura?— “ See th e n am e

bias re g ard in g a n a m e ’s m eaning in R o m an culture. V erres’ n am e can act o n ly to reaffirm his boarish nature. T h ro u g h o u t the re m a in d er o f his career as a public speaker, C icero co n tinues to believe w h at h e asserted in his early treatise O n Rhetorical Invention: n am e puns are “ a m atter o f a p erso n ’s fixed and particular des­ ig n a tio n ” (de hom inis . . . certo et proprio vocabulo; Inv. 2.28). T h e n am e o f an o p p o n e n t could be em ployed as co rro b o rativ e p ro o f o f his guilt. O th e r exam ples d e m o n strate the w ide range o f these w itticism s, a range th at can be paralleled in o th er co n te m p o ra ry literary genres w here, it has recen tly been argued, ety m o lo g iz in g and differing form s o f soundplay and w o rd p lay are central to the m eaning o f a te x t.108 O rato ry , how ever, ex h ib its traits peculiar to its genre. T h e relationship betw een o ra to ry and w o rd p la y resem bles that betw een the o ra to r and theater. J u s t as the p u b ­ lic speaker sh o u ld tem p er his im itatio n o f the actor, avoiding excessive m im icry and gesticulation, so to o he had observable lim itations in his use o f n am e p u n s .109 R hetorical precepts are n o t intended, asserts the o ra to r A n to n iu s in O n the Orator, to “lead us to discover w h a t to say th ro u g h artistry, b u t to m ake us confident th at those things w e p u rsu e th ro u g h rational talent, study, and practice are co rrec t” (non ut ad reperiendum quid dicamus, arte ducamur sed ut ea, quae natura, quae studio, quae exercitatione consequimur . . . recta esse confidamus; D e orat. 2.232). C ertain jo k e s on

nam es, I shall argue, w ere n o t correct.

D

is t o r t in g

N

am es

I n o te d earlier h o w the G reek o ra to r D em osthenes, w ishing to deride a m an n am ed A tro m es (“Fearless”), ironically p reten d ed his nam e w as ac­ tually T ro m es (“T re m b le r”). T h e R o m an rhetorician Q u in tilian censures this practice as “feeble” (Jrigida) and provides the follow ing exam ples: V E R R U C IU S ? See h o w the first letters have n o t been tam p e re d w ith? See th e last p a rt o f th e nam e, th at p ig ’s tail [codam itlam Verrinam], stu c k in the erasure ju s t as if it w ere im ­ m ersed in m u d ? ”); Verr. 2 .4.53 (nam nos quidem quid facimus in Verre, quem in Iuto volutatum totius corporis vestigiis invenimus?— “F or w h a t are we d o in g in the case o f V erres, w h o m w e d isc o v ere d fro m the traces o f his e n tire b o d y after he ro lled a ro u n d in th e m u d ? ”). 108 A hl, esp. 1 -6 3 . I a p p en d a list o f o th e r n a m e p uns I have co m e across in m y reading: (I) Verr. 2.1.104: Chelido; (2) Verr. 2.3.23: Apronius/aper, (3) C lu. 7 1 -7 2 : Gutta, Bulbus: (4) Catil. 3.6: Lentulus/tardissime; (5) Flacc. 41: fiu g i/P h ry g i; (6) Vat. 6: Vatinius/ vaticinando: (7) Sest. 135: Leo (cf. Schol. B o b . p. 140, 1 1 -1 7 [Stangl]); (8) S h ackleton B ailey’s conjectures at A d Q . f i . 2.1 1 .3 . M c C a rtn e y has located m an y m o re exam ples, th e existence o f w h ic h I d o u b t: Leg. agr. 2 .59 (luba); M ur. 19 (Servius); D om . 116 (Scato); Balb. 45 (A quilius); Sest. 132 (C aesar); Plane. 34 (Plancius) and 58 (Iuventius); Phil. 2.106 (Laco), 12.14 (T iro), 12.20 (A q u ila). 109 O f th e m an y passages c o m p a rin g o ra to rs to actors, see D e orat. 2.242, O ff. 1.130; Q u in t. Inst. 6.3.29; and the discussions in G ra f 1992: 48 -5 1 and E d w a rd s 117-19.

ut A ciscu lum , quia esset pactus, “P aciscu lum ,” et Placidum n om in e, quod is acerbus natura esset, “A cid u m ,” et T ullium cum fur esset, “T o lliu m ” dictos in ven io. (Q uint. Inst. 6.3.53) I find that A cisculus, for exam ple, w as called “Pacisculus” because he m ade a pact and Placidus “A cid u s” because he had a sharp nature, and Tullius, since he w as a thief, w as called “T olliu s” [i.e ., “Lifter”].

N o n e o f th e p erso n s cited h ere b y Q u in tilia n can be accurately id en tified and, co n se q u en tly , it is u n ce rtain w h e th e r these p u n s b e lo n g to R epublic o r E m p ir e .110 S eneca th e elder also seem s to d isap p ro v e o f this practice, lab elin g o n e in stan ce as “far fro m e lo q u e n t.” 111 In the sectio n o f C ic e ro ’s treatise O n the Orator th at covers th e alteratio n o f a w o r d ’s m e an in g th ro u g h th e ch an g e o f o n e le tte r (parua immutatio, o r p aro n o m a sia ), S trab o seem s to o ffer fro m th e eld er C a to a n o th e r ex a m p le o f a n am e b e in g d is to rte d fo r the sake o f h u m o r: Nobiliorem mobiliorem— “ the m o b ile -e r N o b ilio r” (De orat. 2.256 = O R F 8.151). A n a p p a re n t echo in th e g ra m m a ria n R u tiliu s L u p u s seem s to indicate, h o w ev er, th at C a to is lik ely to have used the tw o w o rd s to g e th e r in rh y m in g m o c k e ry an d n o t to h ave sim p ly u sed Mobilior as a feig n ed p ro p e r n a m e .112 Q u in tilia n , th e n , m ay n o t h ave b een d istu rb e d b y C a to ’s w it o n this occasion. In C ic e ro ’s speeches, o n ly o n e ex a m p le o f a d isto rte d n am e occurs. C ic e ro does n o t claim cred it fo r th e jo k e ; it is, predictably, a n o th e r p ro d ­ u c t o f Sicilian w it. W hile g ath erin g evidence fo r th e p ro se c u tio n o f V erres, C icero a tte m p te d to ex a m in e th e p erso n al copies o f senatorial decrees th at V erres h ad m ad e d u rin g his tenure. A friend o f the g o v ern o r in terv en es: retinere incipit tabulas T h eom nastus quidam , h o m o ridicule insanus, quem Syracusani T heoractum vocant. ( Verr. 2.4.148) A certain T heom n astu s began to h old on to the records. T h e m an is ridicu­ lou sly insane; the Syracusans call him Theoractus.

In stead o f b ein g “re m e m b e re d b y the g o d s ,” (θ έ ο ς + μ ιμ νή σ κ ω ), th e S yracu san s have m o re ap tly re n am ed th e ir m a d m a n “beaten b y th e g o d s ” (θ έ ο ς + ρ ά σ σ ω ). T h is ty p e o f n ic k n a m in g , re ly in g o n sim ilarity o f so u n d ra th e r th a n ety m o lo g y , occurs elsew h ere as a fo rm o f p o p u la r m o c k e ry : th e so ldiers o f th e fu tu re e m p e ro r T ib eriu s c o m m e n te d on th e ir c o m m a n d e r’s g reat love o f d rin k in g b y ch a n g in g his n am e fro m T ib e riu s C lau d iu s N e ro to B iberius C ald iu s M ero (ap p ro x im a tely ' !0 M o n a c o 1970: 126. 111 Sen. Contr. lO .praef. 11. Seneca o n ly m e n tio n s th a t so m e o n e a lte re d th e n a m e Passienus in to a G re ek o b scen ity . M o st likely th e c h an g e im p lie d passive h o m o se x u a lity (per­ haps P aschianus o r P athianus?). 112 R u tiliu s L u p u s 1.3; cf. C a rm . D e fig . 110.

“D rin k e r o f w a rm u n d ilu ted w in e ”; Suet. Tib. 42.1); Labienus, a partic­ u larly vicious o ra to r u n d e r A u g u stu s, w as red u b b ed R abienus, “T h e F ren zied ” (Sen. Contr. 10.praef.5). Such puns also occur frequently in G reek and R o m an c o m e d y .113 N o w h e re , how ever, does C icero em ploy this device in his ex tan t speeches. T h e practice w o u ld appear to be a literary “tric k ” the o ra to r d eem ed u n w o rth y o f th e d ig n ity o f the c o u rtro o m o r senate. T h e absence o f such w o rd p la y provides an o th er indication o f his reg ard for the super­ n atu ral association o f nam es: he eschew s nam e p uns th at are n o t etym o lo g ically sig n ifican t.114 In his letters, C icero also does n o t d isto rt nam es. Yet he does in v en t nicknam es th at do n o t p ro p e rly belong to their bearer. All exam ples o f this device occu r in th e collection addressed to A tticus and all fall into th e pejorative category. T h ere is n o need to dis­ cuss th e m at len g th since they are n o t directly related to the present sub­ je c t o fjo k e s o n nam es in th e public arena. C rassus is called Calvenna (A t t . 14.5.1 = SB 359) and, perhaps, Calvus ex Nanneianis (A tt. 1.16.5 = SB16), p re su m a b ly as a jo k e o n his being bald (calvus); the epithet m ay also rep resen t a nick n am e that the co rresp o n d en ts had ad o p ted w h en seeking to avoid direct m en tio n o f C rassus in th eir letters. P om peius re­ ceives th e titles o f Sampsiceramus (A t t . 2.14.1 = SB 34) and Hierosolymarius (A tt. 2.9.1 = SB 29, p ro b ab ly a p u n o n M arius; see S hackleton B ailey ad Ioc.). T h e m o st antagonistic exam ple refers, predictably, to C lo d iu s, deem ed ilia populi Appuleia, A ppuleius being the n o m en o f Satu rn in u s, a fam ous trib u n e o f the people (A tt. 4 .11.2 = SB 86). T h e fem i­ n in e term in atio n im plies that C lodius plays the subm issive role in a h o ­ m o ero tic re la tio n sh ip .115 T

he

N

ame

Is

the

N

am ed

T h e R o m an co g n o m en possessed peculiar status in the late R epublic. In society, the n am e m arks o ff the m o re p ro m in e n t political fam ilies fro m the rest o f th e co m m u n ity ; yet the descriptive m eanings o f these cog113 See the b ib lio g ra p h y in H ijm an s 119 nn. 9, 10. T h e fact th at Sicily w as th e h o m e o f E p ic h arm u s, a fifth -c en tu ry w rite r often associated w ith th e rise o f O ld C o m ed y , m ay c o n trib u te to th e re p u ta tio n o f th e Sicilians. 114 B y th e p h rase “ety m o lo g ic ally sig n ifican t” I refer to associations th a t o n e finds cor­ ro b o ra te d in n o n o ra to rica l evidence fro m th e R o m an w o rld . A lth o u g h I largely agree w ith A hl 1—63 a b o u t th e elasticity o f ancient ety m o lo g ic al practice (w hich can include m ultip le deriv atio n s, as w ith the tw o “ e ty m o lo g ie s” o f Verres, fro m b o th verres and everrere) and its p o ten tial relevance to a p ro p e r a ppreciation o f R o m an po etry , I believe th at in p u b lic ora­ to ry the d eg ree o f w o rd p la y th a t A hl claim s for lite ratu re does n o t occupy nearly so p ro m i­ n e n t a role, at least in th e area o f n a m e puns. 115 C f. ducefiliola Curionis as a slu r o n Curiofiliu s (A t t . 1.14.5 = SB 14) and th e a p p are n t references to th e fu tu re A u g u stu s as Octauia o n the P erusine sling bullets (H allett 1977: 1 5 2 53, 1 5 7 -60). F u rth e r references in R ichlin 1992a: 97, 283.

n o m in a are usu ally less th a n c o m p lim e n tary . In o ra to ry , h a n d b o o k s ad­ vise th e p u b lic sp eak er to m o c k these n am es as a w ay o f p e rsu ad in g an audience; and, indeed, in C icero o n e finds this device em p lo y ed fre­ q u en tly . I have p ro p o s e d th at an ex p lan a tio n o f th ese p h e n o m e n a can be fo u n d in th e im p o rta n c e th a t the R o m an s placed in nam es and n am in g , an im p o rta n c e o b serv ab le in m an y aspects o f society. N a m e p u n s are n o t s im p ly a n o th e r aspect o f s o p h istry th a t has b e c o m e san ctio n ed b y the special arena o f R o m a n rh eto ric: it w as th o u g h t th a t nam es, in bein g p assed d o w n fro m ancestors, also tra n sm itte d m o ra l ch aracter to descen­ d an ts. A n ecd o tes d e m o n stra te th a t th e R o m a n p eo p le w e re sensitive to th e c o n n o ta tio n s o f a n am e. In fact, politicians w ere k n o w n to change th e ir n am es as a m eans o f p e rsu ad in g th e p o p u lace o f th eir sincere charac­ ter. A fin al— an d p erh ap s th e m o s t im p o rta n t— in d icatio n th at nam es c o n stitu te d serio us evidence fo r ch aracter is offered in th e p re v io u s chap­ ter, o n th e p u b lic m o c k e ry o f physical peculiarities. M o s t c o g n o m in a describ e b o d ily p eculiarities in a p ejo ra tiv e m an n er. T h e u n d en iab le rh e­ to rical p o w e r in m o c k in g these d efo rm ities causes fu rth e r d o u b t th at a R o m a n o f th e late R ep u b lic w o u ld have chosen, o f his o w n v o litio n , to a d o p t a n a m e th a t d escrib ed such features. A t R o m e a nam e, n o less th an a p h y siq u e, c o n stitu te d p a rt o f th e d efin itio n o f th e p u b lic self. A final p o in t to b e co n sid ered concerns th e eventual fate o f the R o m a n c o g n o m e n . T h e c o g n o m in a o f the late R ep u b lic beg an as a p ec u lia rity o f th e aristo cracy . T h e n , a ro u n d 100 b c e , freed m en b e g a n to b ear such n am es; b e g in n in g w ith th e A u g u sta n era, all d istin c tio n ra p id ly breaks d o w n , as c o g n o m in a are applied to th e plebs an d w o m e n .'116 A t th e sam e tim e, n am es d esc rib in g ph y sical peculiarities sh o w a m ark e d decrease a m o n g sen ato rial fam ilies, as d o p ejo rativ e nam es in g e n e ra l.117 It is a tru is m o f b o th an cien t an d m o d e rn scholarship th a t the en d o f the R ep u b ­ lic b ro u g h t w ith it an en d to classical rh e to ric as C icero k n e w a n d p ra c ­ ticed it. T h e ag o n istic a tm o sp h e re o f th e R epublic dissipates, it is arg u ed , as th e g o v e rn m e n t com es u n d e r the c o n tro l o f a single m an. Sim ilarly, as th e n eed to m a in ta in balance w ith in an o lig arch y dim in ish es, th e c o g n o ­ m e n loses significance as an effective rh e to ric al device and so becom es m ean in g less as a check u p o n political success. Its o rig in al fu n c tio n lost, th e n a m e sp re ad q u ick ly across th e sp e c tru m o f R o m a n society. 116 H ow ever, the cognom ina o f slaves and freedm en less co m m only carried pejorative connotations in the early first century b c e (Kajanto 64). O n their later application to plebs and w om en, see K ajanto 19. 117K ajanto 133; the percentage o f total pejorative cognom ina declines from approx­ im ately 24 percent in the late R epublic (a conservative estim ate; see n. 3 above) to 11.5 percent in the E m pire (132).

Chapter 3

M ORAL APPEARANCE IN ACTION: M O U TH S quem adm odum quis ambulet, sedeat, qui ductus oris, qui vu ltu s in quoque sit — nihilne est in his rebus, quod

dignum libero aut indignum esse ducamus? nonne odio m ultos dignos putam us, qui quodam m otu aut statu videntur naturae legem et m odu m contempsisse? (And as for h ow som eon e walks and sits, or the typ e o f facial featu res and expression each person has — is there nothing in these matters that w e consider either w orthy or unw orthy o f a freeborn person? Isn’t it true that w e consider m any people w orthy o f our contem pt w h o, through a certain kind o f m ovem ent or posture, seem to have scorned the law and lim it o f nature?) — C icero, D e fin ib u s 5.47

fro m C ic e ro ’s m o ral treatise O n the Lim its o f Good and E vil could n o t b e m o re clear. D u rin g the late R o m an R epublic, physical appearance p ro v id ed evidence fo r m o ral character. In chapter I, I an­ alyzed h o w C icero exploits this bias in his public ridicule o f an o p p o ­ n e n t’s physical peculiarities. N e v er far rem oved fro m C ic e ro ’s h u m o r lu rk ed the n o tio n th at bod ily deform ities reflect a deviance fro m n atu re and h ence signal to the o n lo o k er an in h eren tly evil character. In th e n ex t tw o chapters I exam ine a sim ilar p h en o m en o n . A n o ra to r can use less p e rm a n e n t aspects o f an o p p o n e n t’s p h y siq u e— his physical expressions, affectations, and p o stu re— as evidence th at the o p p o n e n t w ill exhibit ty p es o f b eh av io r th at stan d o p p o sed to accepted R o m an concepts o f p ro p riety . Each p e rso n ’s appearance has the po ten tial fo r in terp retatio n . T o th e in fo rm ed o rator, specific sets o f externalized characteristics can offer effective m aterial for public m o ck ery and ridicule. In co n trast to physical peculiarities, these signs do m o re than sim ply indicate deviance; th ey also p ro v id e th e o ra to r w ith evidence for predicting illicit behavior. T h a t is, these physical characteristics n o t on ly result fro m illicit activity, b u t they also indicate a likelihood for such activity in the future. In the ep ig rap h cited above, facial expression— ductus oris— ranks a m o n g th e external indicators o f freeb o rn status: persons having an im ­ p ro p e r lo o k , the speaker asserts, “seem to have scorned the law and lim it

T h is q u o t a t i o n

o f n atu re. ” In this c h a p te r I analyze so m e R o m a n m o u th s to sh o w h o w lin g u istic categories shed lig h t o n m o ra l an d political categories. T h e essen tializin g claim th a t certain facial expressions are m o re “n a tu ra l” th an o th ers finds co n firm a tio n in the invective C icero uses in his p u b lic speeches. T h e o ra to r re p eated ly em phasizes an o p p o n e n t’s os impurum— th e im p u re m o u th ta in te d b y “u n sp ea k ab le” activities ra n g in g fro m d rin k in g a n d eatin g to fellatio an d cu n n ilin g u s— u n til th e o p p o n e n t b e­ co m es c a u g h t in a d o u b le b in d , an inescapable circle o f ex cess.1 T h e ac­ tiv ities o f th e m o u th are re p resen te d as effecting certain types o f evil w h ile at th e sam e tim e tra n sfo rm in g th e m o u th in to a sign o f c o rru p tio n visible to th e p ro p e rly d iscern in g view er. In particu lar, I discuss h o w C icero , in th e o ra tio n s Against Verres (In Verrem 2.3) and O n B eh a lf o f H is H om e (D e domo sua), exploits th e oral activ ity o f an o p p o n e n t b o th to create an d to re in fo rce class d istin ctio n s in R o m e. A s w e shall see, the sh ap e an d ap p earan ce o f the m o u th co n stitu te d an im p o rta n t p a rt o f the elite R o m a n ’s elo c u tio n a ry style. T h e p h y sical appearance o f P u b liu s V atinius o ccupied o u r a tte n tio n in c h a p te r I. T h e ev idence for his evil, C ic e ro d e m o n stra te d , w as visib le to all, o n a face a n d n eck co v ered w ith sw ellings and pustules. U n fo r­ tu n ately for V atinius, a n o th e r p a rt o f his b o d y also sp o k e o u t in c o n d e m ­ n atio n . C icero takes leave o f his o p p o n e n t as follow s: q u o d si ipse, q u i te suae dignitatis au g en d ae causa, p ericu lo tu o , n u llo su o d elicto , ferri p ra e c ip ite m est facile passus, ta m e n te o m n i h o n o re in d ig n iss im u m iu d icat, si te vicin i, si adfines, si trib u le s ita o d e ru n t u t rep u lsa m tu a m tr iu m p h u m s u u m d u x e rin t, si n e m o aspicit q u in in g em escat, n e m o m e n tio n e m facit q u in ex sec re tu r, si v ita n t, fu g iu n t, au d ire de te n o lu n t, cu m v id e ru n t, ta m q u a m au sp iciu m m a lu m d etestan tu r, si co g n ati resp u u n t, trib ­ ules ex sec ra n tu r, vicini m e tu u n t, adfm es eru b e scu n t, strumae denique ab ore improbo demigrarunt et aliis iam se locis conlocarunt, si es o d iu m p u b lic u m p o p uli, senatus, u n iv e rso ru m h o m in u m ru s tic a n o ru m ,— q u id est q u a m o b re m p ra e tu ra m p o tiu s e x o p tes q u a m m o rte m ? (Vat. 39) B u t i f th e v e ry m a n [C aesar] w h o read ily allow ed y o u to be carried h ea d lo n g in o rd e r to increase his o w n im p o rta n c e — at y o u r o w n risk an d w ith n o p ro b le m s fo r h im s e lf— i f even he considers you m o s t u n w o rth y o f an y o f­ fice; i f y o u r n e ig h b o rs, in -law s, an d fellow trib e sm e n h ate y o u so m u c h th at th e y co n sid ered y o u r defeat th e ir triu m p h ; if n o o n e lo o k s at y o u w ith o u t g ro a n in g , n o o n e m e n tio n s yo u w ith o u t cu rsin g , i f th e y avoid y ou, flee fro m yo u , d o n ’t w a n t to h ear a b o u t y o u , [and], w h e n th e y have seen you, th e y cu rse y o u lik e s o m e b ad o m e n ; i f relatives reject y o u , fellow trib e sm e n 1 R ichlin 1992a: 26—30 discusses how in R om an invective various parts o f the body, including the m o u th , are perceived o f as “staining” the character o f their ow ner. References to the im pure m o u th (os impurum) recur th ro u g h o u t her study; see especially 99 (Cicero) and 149-51 (Catullus).

curse you, neig h b o rs fear you, in-law s feel asham ed; [if], finally, your swel­ lings have moved away from the wicked area around your mouth (os) and have already located themselves in other parts, i f you are th e c o m m o n object o f hatred fro m the people, senate, fro m all th e m en o f the co u n try sid e— w h at reason could you have for preferrin g the p raeto rsh ip to death?

As V atinius’ physical blem ishes (strumae ) flee the area su rro u n d in g his m o u th (05), th em atic details and gram m atical syntax share a crescendo. O n a syntactic level, the clause form s the final co m p o n en t (denique ) o f a protasis th at lists the several arenas o f life in w hich V atinius is despised, and th ereb y in tro d u ces the final expression o f his p o p u lar hatred— h e is reviled by all residents o f b o th city and country (odium publicum populi, senatus, universorum hom inum rusticanom m ). T hem atically, the passage unites tw o p ro m in e n t m otifs o f the speech; the trib u n e’s ugly exterior and his universal unpopularity. T h e equation o f in terio r and exterior feeds in to p o p u lar biases concerning the orig in o f an in d iv id u al’s evil and the effect this evil has on physical appearance. In addition, how ever, this passage in tro d u ces a new , b u t associated, n e tw o rk o f ideas suggesting th at th e m o u th area serves as the locus o f im p ro p e r behavior. U n lik e the o th e r physical peculiarities I exam ined, V atinius’ “ w icked m o u th ” is not, strictly speaking, a static d efo rm ity th at represents its b ea rer’s inner evil. T o be sure, it includes this function; the evil em erges fro m w ithin V atinius’ b o d y to escape th ro u g h the m o u th , thereby causing his sores to flee fro m his face. T h ro u g h this description, the o ra to r directs attention to w ard th e m o u th as a p articipant in an evil that, in tu rn , can be read by the view er. B u t in spite o f this attention, the nature o f these em anations o f evil rem ains unspecified. For, as o th er portrayals o f the os in C icero d em o n strate, the m o u th does n o t sim ply represent inner depravity, as did, for exam ple, V atinius’ facial sw ellings (strumae ); rather the os, be­ cause o f its continual interaction w ith the w orld external to the body, acts as a k ind o f tw o -w a y m echanism for evil. W hile as a physical feature the os stands as a sy m b o l o f an inner m oral tu rp itu d e, the m o u th at the sam e tim e has created this im m o ral character th ro u g h its external actions, w h ic h in clude eating, drin k in g , and various types o f sexual activity. By co n trast, th e co m m o n est Latin w o rd for “facial expression”— vultus — since it does n o t describe a specific p art o f the body, never plays an active role in creating its b earer’s im m orality. T he m o u th , then, leads a dual existence b o th as sy m b o l (externally representing to the view er internal evil) and as vehicle (creating that evil th ro u g h its actions).

O s As M

etaph or

A lexical stu d y o f the w o rd os su p p o rts a m odel in w hich the R om an m o u th acts as b o th sym bol and source o f m oral turpitude. A n exam ina-

tio n o f th e w o r d ’s occurrences u p to the tim e o f C ic e ro su g g ests th a t th e R o m an s re g a rd e d th e os as th e m o s t p ro m in e n t p a rt o f the h u m a n head. Its o rig in al, literal m e a n in g en co m p assed th e ph y sical m an ifestatio n s o f th e m o u th — m o u th b o th as facial feature and as o rg a n in v o lv ed in sp eak ­ in g , ch e w in g , sw allo w in g , an d o th e r oral activities. O u ts id e th e re alm o f h u m a n actio n os can, like th e E n g lish w o rd “m o u th ,” describe a link b e tw e e n e x te rio r an d in terio r: an anim al, fo r exam ple, has an os ( T L L 9.2:1088—89), as d o in an im ate objects such as vases, bodies o f w ater, an d to m b s ( T L L 9.2:1090—91). In re latio n to h u m a n anatom y, h o w ev er, th e w o rd acquires a p a rtic u la r m ean in g . U n lik e any o th e r p a rt o f the b o d y , os can refer b y sy n ec d o ch e to th e en tire face o r head: w h e n o n e cries, for e x am p le, th e os fills w ith tears; o r tu rn in g th e head can be d escrib ed as tu rn in g th e os ( T L L 9.2:1082—87). T h is e x ten d e d m e an in g o f os d e m o n ­ strates th e m o u th ’s significance fo r ascertaining th e characteristics o f a face. T h e m o u th can d o m in a te an d define its bearer. T h e w o rk s o f C icero, th e o ra tio n s in particular, reveal an in tere stin g co n seq u en ce o f th e p re d o m in a n c e o f os as a facial feature. Since th e w o rd can sig n ify th e en tire face, the o ra to r o ften refers to the oi to indicate character. Yet in o n ly tw o passages fro m his o ratio n s does C icero tell the au d ien ce to co n sid er a p e rs o n ’s os to discover a m o rally po sitiv e character (Sull. 74; Marc. 10). H o w e v er, m o re th an a d o zen exam ples fig u re th e os as reflectin g a p o te n tia l fo r d ev ian c e.2 T h is ten d en c y for a p e rs o n ’s m o u th to signify p re d o m in a te ly neg ativ e in tern al qualities ex ten d s to every occa­ sio n C ic e ro uses th e w o rd in his o ratio n s to refer to an o p p o n e n t. A n d a m o n g th o se cases w h e re C icero fixes o n an a d v e rsa ry ’s m o u th , tw o d istin c t levels o f reference are discernible. W ith o u t adjectival o r adverbial m o d ifiers, os o ften occurs in a c o n te x t w h e re the feature clearly indicates au d acity o r c o n tu m a c y ( Verr. 2.4.66: os hominis insignemque impudentiam cognoscite— “ co n sid er th e os an d th e o u tsta n d in g sham elessness o f the m a n ” ; R ab. Post. 34: quod habent os, quam audaciam!— “w h a t an os th ey have, w h a t b o ld n ess!”) .3 B u t w h e n acco m p an ied b y a m o d ifier os re­ ceives an ad d ed d im en sio n and ten d s to refer m o re specifically to vices o r re p reh e n sib le actio n s— p erh ap s th e y are actions th at w ere o rig in ally c o n ­ sid ered th e re su lt o f b o ld b eh a v io r (cf. Phil. 2.68, 5.16). T h e activ atio n o f 2 In addition to the passages I cite in this chapter, see Sest. 17, Phil. 13.4 (cf. Verr. 2.5.161). I have n o t found parallels for the use o f os as an indicator o f character in the plays o f Plautus o r Terence. 3 T he follow ing com pletes the list o f C iceronian passages: Quinct. 77; S . Rose. 87, 95; Verr. 2.2.48, 2.3.5, 2.3.41; Font. 29; Vat. 5; Pis. 63 (cf. O R F 66.37 [L. Crassus]; Catull. 42.16—17). B oldness is im plied in the interrogative collocation quo ore at Verr. 2.1.127, 2.4.26; Clu. 65; Phil. 2.103, 7.21. B o th associations o f os occur th ro u g h o u t all periods o f classical Latin prose and poetry; cf. T L L 9.2:1085.29-37, 1086.21-46. C icero occasionally uses the w o rd os w hen referring to a face in neutral term s (Verr. 2.1.1; Catil. 1.1, 4.1).

im m o ra lity occurs, m oreover, regardless o f the specific m odifier used. T h e added w o rd seem s to em phasize the o ra to r’s reference to his o p p o ­ n e n t’s m o u th : q ualifying the 05 brings it to the audience’s attention and activates it as an agent o f im m o ral action. T h e m odifier indicates that the os n o lo n g er sim p ly signifies b u t n o w actively participates in the w o rld ex tern al to itself.4 T h ese passages in w h ich a m odifier accom panies os often include a w o rd p la y o r w ittic ism by w h ich the o ra to r fu rth e r brings an o p p o n e n t’s appearance to his audience’s attention. T h e evil behavior im plied by os plus a m o d ifier is alw ays, how ever, generic and am biguous, as in the passage o f invective against Vatinius cited above, w h ere the “w ick ed ” {;im probum ) n atu re o f the os receives n o fu rth er clarification. C icero never specifies in these instances w h a t precisely the m o u th has done to cause it to be reprehensible. H e is n o t sim ply m akin g the os a m etap h o r for evil, fo r in every case w h e re C icero attaches a m odifier to os, he continues to em phasize its physicality. In fact, w h en C icero begins to direct his atten­ tio n to an o p p o n e n t’s os, it is precisely because he w ishes to ex p lo it the relationship b etw een the physical and the m oral. T h e m etap h o rical applications o f the w o rd os have largely pejorative im p licatio n s in C ic e ro ’s orations. As the follow ing discussion w ill d em ­ o n strate, these negative connotations attach to th e m o u th in its pu rely physical capacity (eating, d rin k in g , oral sex). T h is m ay com e as a sur­ p rise w h e n one considers that a n o th er physical function o f the m o u th — sp eak in g — occupies a po sitio n o f p ro m in en ce for C icero as orator. In fact in his rh eto rical w ritin g s, unlike in the orations, C icero uses os in its ex ten d ed m eanings p red o m in ately to describe the act o f public speaking. N eg ativ e im p lications o f the w o rd rarely appear; one o f the few instances occurs in O n the Orator, w h e n A n tonius outlines the basic requirem ents o f the aspiring orator. s e d q u ia t a m e n h o c t o t u m ,

q u i c q u i d e s t, s iv e a r ti f i c i u m

s iv e s t u d i u m

d i c e n d i, n is i a c c e s s it o s, n u l l u m p o t e s t e sse . . . (D e orat. 2 .2 9 ) 4 O s o ccu rs w ith an adjectival m o d ifie r (o th er than d em o n strativ es o r possessives) in a n o n p e jo ra tiv e c o n te x t at o n ly tw o places in C ic e ro ’s speeches. O n e instance, w h e re C icero refers to “ th e m o st beautiful m o u th o f the G o rg o n ,” actually su p p o rts m y a rg u m e n t since th e adjective is em ployed w ith clear iro n y (Gorgonis os pulcherrimum; Verr. 2.4.124). T h e o th e r occurs at Rab. perd. 36, w h ere R abirius is described as h aving received his scars ore adverse (i.e., “facin g ” his o p p o n e n t). O n e m ay c o n tra st the tw elv e tim es w h e n the w o rd is m o d ifie d b y a de sc rip tiv e adjective o r ad v erb h av in g a p ejorative sense (Quinct. 77; Verr. 2.5.161; D om . 26, 104; Har. resp. 11; Pis. 13, 63; Vat. 39; Phil. 2.68, 5.20, 11.5, 11.7). T h is to ta l does n o t include th o se instances w h e re a d e m o n stra tiv e o r possessive adjective m o d ­ ifies os in a pejo rativ e c o n te x t (e.g ., Verr. 2.3.62, suum; Sest. I l l , Mo; Phil. 5.16, illud) and th o se w h e re negative associations are clearly signaled b y a nearb y w o rd (e.g ., Sest. 118, in ore impuri hominis— “in th e m o u th o f a foul m a n ” ; Cael. 78, ore . . . inquinatum— “ stained by th e m o u th ”).

B u t seein g that this w h o le business— w hatever it is, w hether a system o f speaking or a pursuit— can be nothing unless so m e “cheek” (os) is added

T he effective orator uses both aspects o f his os: the physical organ and the daring that is its m etaphorical com panion. In the philosophical w orks and Lucretius as w ell, os occurs on ly in physical descriptions, w h ile in the letters the m etaphorical use appears but occasionally, in cases o f excite­ m en t.5 It w o u ld seem , then, that it is the public and com petitive nature o f oratory that causes a speaker to m anipulate his hearers’ conception o f os in a pejorative way. T he high visibility o f the 0 5 prom pted its em ploy­ m ent in political invective as a channel b etw een an individual’s internal m akeup and external activity. Sexual Language

in

R

oman

O

ratory

B efore I exam ine the m ouths o f C icero’s opponents, it w ill be helpful to review the nature and function o f sexual language in R om an oratory. For in one o f the speeches I analyze b elow — O n B e h a lfo fH is Home — the role o f the os in illicit sexual activity receives particular attention. To properly assess C icero ’s technique in this case, it is necessary to recognize the pa­ rameters and restrictions that orators o f his day seem generally to have observed w h en m entioning, and then ridiculing, sexual practices. There often arises a discrepancy betw een theory and practice in C ic­ ero’s rhetoric, and his attitude toward sexual obscenity is apparently no exception. In O n the Orator, C icero’s primary spokesperson on w it, Cae­ sar Strabo, remarks that “obscen ity is n ot o n ly inappropriate for the pub­ lic speaker, but scarcely [is appropriate] even for a banquet o f free citi­ zens” (obscenitas, non solum non foro digna, sed v ix convivio liberorum; D e orat. 2.252). T he sentim ent is echoed by R om an teachers o f rhetoric else­ w h ere.6 Yet a m odern reader soon realizes that, in spite o f these asser­ tions to the contrary, C icero violates his o w n rule, at least in regard to the “o b scen ity” (obscenitas ) that refers to sexual behavior. T h e “speeches o f Cicero are full o f references to sexual practices, unnatural and otherw ise, and o f sexual in v ectiv e.”7 O ne may perhaps m inim ize this discrepancy by distinguishing b etw een explicit verbal obscenities and euphem istic 5 O s in L u cre tiu s a n d in C ic e ro ’s p h ilo so p h ic a l w ritin g s alw ays m eans “ m o u th ” o r “ fa c e /h e a d ” ; o ris u se d p e jo ra tiv e ly in C ic e ro ’s c o rre sp o n d e n c e for “d a rin g ” at Fam. 5 . 10a.2 (V atinius to C ic e ro ), 9 .8 .1 ; A tt. 12.5.1. L ax m o rals are im p lie d in th e w o r d ’s a p p lic atio n at A tt. 1 5.29.2 a n d p e rh a p s 1 .18.5 (see S h a c k le to n B ailey ad Ioc.). 6 E .g ., D e orat. 2.242; O ff. 1.144; Sen. Contr. 1.2.23; Q u in t. Inst. 6 .3 .2 9 . 7 A d a m s 222; cf. R ichlin 1992a: 9 6 -1 0 4 .

references to sexual activity. E x ta n t R o m an o ra to ry clearly dem onstrates th at th e latter w ere perm issible in certain c o n te x ts.8 C ic e ro ’s practice con cern in g the os o f his o p p o n en ts illustrates w ell the o ra to r’s caution ab o u t the b o u n d ary betw een euphem istic and direct o b ­ scenities. In ad d itio n to having this verbal constraint, the o ra to r felt h im ­ self lim ited in w h o m he could choose as the object o f his attacks. It has been n o te d th at th e accusation o f an “im p u re m o u th ” (os im p u m m ), “p ar­ ticu larly vile to a R o m an , C icero reserves for the low ly, less pow erful v ic tim s .”9 I shall speculate at th e end o f this chapter ab o u t h o w this re­ strain t o n C ic e ro ’s p a rt b o th stem s fro m and co n trib u tes to an “ideology o f th e m o u th , ” a set o f beliefs and practices that distinguishes am o n g people o f different social g ro u p s— such as those b o rn free and those n o t— and in so do in g enforces social and political categories. F or now , I sim p ly em phasize the tw o principal rhetorical considerations th at charac­ terize R o m an invective invo lv in g sexual practices and the os: First, the o ra to r m u st lim it h im self to double entendres, vague references th at al­ lo w h im to cast aspersions on an o p p o n e n t w hile m aintaining his o w n d ig n ity as a p ublic speaker. Second, the o ra to r cannot directly accuse his m o re p ro m in e n t o p p o n en ts o f im p ro p e r social and sexual activity. T hese restrictio n s do n o t, how ever, p rev en t C icero fro m m an ip u latin g con­ tex t in o rd e r to d isam biguate his in n u en d o . A clear exam ple o f C ic e ro ’s care at en su rin g deniability for h im self occurs in his invective against M arcus A n to n iu s. A fter relating h o w A n tonius had been sexually subser­ v ien t to the y o u n g er C u rio , C icero preten d s to sto p before b eco m in g to o explicit: sed iam stupra et flagitia omittamus; sunt quaedam quae honeste non pos­ sum dicere, tu autem eo liberior quod ea in te admisisti quae a verecundo inimico audire non posses. (Phil. 2.47) But let’s forget about his acts o f sexual misconduct. There are certain things that I cannot honorably mention. And for this reason you are allowed more license, since you can’t hear from a discreet enemy the kinds o f things you’ve allowed to be done to yourself. 8 A dam s 222: “ th e o ra to r (and declaim er) h a d to be e u p h em istic. L exical obscenities and m ild ly risque w o rd s are absent fro m the speeches o f C icero, and th ere is n o evidence that th e y w e re a d m itte d b y o th e r o ra to rs in fo rm al sp eech es.” F or C ic e ro ’s aw areness o f th e d iffere n t levels o f o bscene language, see Fam. 9.22 and the analysis in R ichlin 1992a: 18—26. 9 R ichlin 1992a: 99. M arcu s A n to n iu s pro v id es a n o tab le exception to this ten d en cy (cf. Phil. 2.68). M y e x am in atio n o f the os impurum is in m a n y w ays an e x p an sio n o f th e view s th at R ichlin is here a d m irab ly able to confine to o n e parag rap h . M y discussion differs in th at it sh o w s th e w ays in w h ic h C ice ro th em atizes this conceit, eliciting th e co o p eratio n o f his audience to reinforce p o litical categories.

T h e p h ra se “ allo w ed to be d o n e to y o u rs e lf’ (in te admisisti), w ith its ap p a re n tly n e u tra l o v erto n e s, seem s to c o n tin u e C ic e ro ’s pose o f discreet reticence. B u t o th e r o ccu rren ces o f the v erb admitto indicate th a t C icero is fu rth e r in c rim in a tin g A n to n iu s at th e v ery m o m e n t he claim s to be ex e r­ cising d iscretio n . T h is v erb “w as the technical te rm for the b rin g in g o f o n e an im al to th e o th e r (usually th e m ale to th e fem ale)” ; m o re signifi­ cantly, admitto can refer eu p h em istically to a p im p allo w in g his p ro stitu te access to a m a n .10 T h e p o rtra y al o f A n to n iu s p im p in g fo r h im se lf as a y o u n g m ale w h o re coincides w ith im a g e ry C icero em p lo y ed earlier in th e speech (2.44—45). T h is tech n iq u e o f C icero , b y w h ich he enables in­ n u e n d o to say m o re th an his o w n p o sitio n as d ignified o ra to r can allow , re cu rs th ro u g h o u t his o ra tio n s Against Verres (2.3) and O n B e h a lfo fH is Hom e. In th ese speeches, th e o b ject o f C ic e ro ’s m o s t v io len t attacks are th e relativ ely u n im p o rta n t fig u res o f A p ro n iu s a n d S extus C loelius. Yet b y th e e n d o f each speech, th e o ra to r has caused th e m o u th s o f th e leaders V erres an d C lo d iu s to b ec o m e as tain ted as th o se o f th eir assistants. C

ic e r o

B

ad-

M

ouths

H

is

O

ppo n en ts

Against Verres 2.3 I sh o w e d in c h a p te r I h o w th e p h y siq u es o f'F an n iu s C haerea and P ublius V atinius en ab led C icero to reveal to his audience th eir in h e re n t evil n a­ tu re. T h e p h y sical appearance o f G aius V erres ap p a ren tly d id n o t ac co m ­ m o d a te su ch abuse; o r at least C icero did n o t feel co m p elled in this case to re so rt to tactics th a t w e re q u ite so direct. Yet in th e th ird p a rt o f the seco n d set o f speeches ag ain st V erres (In Verrem 2.3 [De re frumentaria]), th e b o d y and, in particu lar, th e m o u th an d its associations d o play a sig­ n ifican t ro le in th e re p re se n ta tio n o f V erres’ character. I do n o t in te n d to su g g est th a t C ic e ro ’s m o c k e ry o f th e os o f his o p p o n e n t rep resen ts the p rim a ry m o d e o f in v ectiv e em p lo y ed in this speech; m an y kinds o f abuse o cc u r th ro u g h o u t th e o ra tio n . R ather, I w ish to sh o w n o t th at C ic e ro is creatin g this m o tif o f th e os b u t th a t h e is e x p lo itin g biases already p resen t in his au d ience against certain types o f oral activity. F o r since these activ­ ities are fig u re d as sh ap in g n o t o n ly m o ra l ch aracter b u t also physical ap p earan ce, C icero offers in th e o ra tio n s em p irical p r o o f fo r his p h ilo ­ so p h ical claim th at facial ex p ressio n s (ductus oris) reflect freeb o rn status. V erres w e n t in to v o lu n ta ry exile after C ic e ro ’s first speech against h im an d th e re b y p re v e n te d th e o ra to r fro m actually d elivering any p a rt o f the seco n d set o f speeches (the so-called actio secunda). C icero nevertheless p ro c eed e d to co m p lete a n d p u b lish its five p arts, w h ic h w ere w ritte n as i f th e ir d eliv ery h ad o ccu rred . W h en v iew in g th e speech fro m this persp ec10 A d a m s 206—7. F o r p ro stitu te s, s e e P la u t. A sin . 236; cf. P ro p . 3.2 1 .7 , Sen. N at. 1.16.5.

tive, as a w ritte n tex t th at co n trib u ted to C ic e ro ’s successful bid fo r p ri­ m acy a m o n g his fellow advocates, one w o u ld expect the o ra to r to be especially conscious o f the im age he projects to his readers. T h e legal­ ities, after all, have been resolved; in p ublishing m o re speeches against Verres C icero p rim arily w ishes to advance his forensic and political standing. In this respect, A ga in st Verres 2.3 sheds an interesting lig h t on the m atu re C ic e ro ’s later use o f the m o u th in his invective against C lodius. F o r in this speech, the physique that receives the o ra to r’s atten­ tion b elongs n o t to Verres h im se lf b u t to his h en ch m an A pronius, a m i­ n o r m ag istrate in charge o f collecting tithes fro m th e Sicilian farm ers. B y m an ip u latin g them es related to o rality and b y e x ten d in g to m oral action the boun d aries o f agency recognized in R o m an law, C icero fashions his o p p o n e n t’s political representative in to his m oral re p resen ta tiv e .11 As a result, V erres em erges as equally culpable o f any accusations— either le­ gal o r m o ra l— raised against his assistant. C icero begins th e speech b y considering his o w n situation, that o f a m an w h o takes o n the role o f p ro se cu to r for the sake o f his country. Such an in d iv id u al, he observes, m u st forever after ru n the risk o f bein g ac­ cused o f the v ery vices he has publicly rep reh en d ed ( Verr . 2 .3 .1 —5). In the p ro se cu tio n o f V erres, how ever, such a restrictio n produces positive re­ sults: it provides C icero w ith a negative exam ple b y w h ich he m ay con­ d u ct his life. erg o in isto reo le g e m hanc m ih i, iu d ices, statuo, v iv e n d u m ita esse ut isti n o n m o d o factis d ictisq u e o m n ib u s, sed etiam oris o c u lo ru m q u e ilia c o n tu m acia ac superbia q u am v id etis, d issim illim u s esse ac sem p er fuisse videar. ( Verr . 2 .3 .5 ) A n d s o in th e case o f this d efen d an t here, ju d g e s , I am settin g up this co n d i­ tion for m y self: I m u st liv e in su ch a w a y that I w ill se em to be (and w ill seem alw ays to have b een) very u n lik e th is m an n o t o n ly in all h is actions and w o rd s, b u t ev en in that defiant and h a u g h ty b eh avior that yo u see in his m o u th (os) and eyes.

B y ex p lo itin g th e m etaphorical resonance o f the m o u th th at I have dis­ cussed earlier, b y w h ich the m o u th constitutes the o u tw a rd reflection o f its b e a re r’s audacity, C icero encourages the ju ro rs to assay V erres’ darin g th ro u g h th eir o w n pow ers o f o bservation. T h e coexistence o f the m eta­ ph o rical aspects o f the m o u th and eyes (contumacia ac superbia) and their physical m an ifestation (quam videtis) provides th e m eans for discovering V erres’ character. C icero represents his second m ain character as also physically present 11 In R o m an law , a principal w as liable in full for any business co n d u cted b y his agent (N icholas 2 0 1 -4 ).

in th e c o u rtro o m . T h e o ra to r describes Q u in tu s A p ro n iu s as th e c h ief ag e n t (princeps) o f V e rres’ “ aides an d m in isters o f desires” (ministros ac satellites cupiditatum suarum; 2.3.21). C icero p o in ts to A p ro n iu s’ presence th ro u g h th e ap p o sitio n al quern videtis (2.3.22)— “w h o m you see [before y o u ]”— an d th e re b y achieves a d o u b le p u rp o se . F irst, he strikes an air o f v e risim ilitu d e fo r his read ers— a n d perh ap s also iro n y , since the em p h asis o n seeing re p resen ts an a tte m p t to create a c o u rt settin g th at n e v e r in fact ex isted . A t th e sam e tim e, th e p h ra se re m in d s the h y p o th e tic a l j u r y m e m b e rs o f th e o n ly o th e r p e rso n in c o u rt th a t h ad been referred to so specifically— V erres— an d th u s recalls th e ir earlier re c o g n itio n o f V erres’ defiance as e x h ib ite d b y his physical appearance (contumacia . . . quam videtis; 2 .3 .5 ). T h e o ra to r h ere directs a tte n tio n to A p ro n iu s in the sam e w ay he had d o n e w ith V erres, b y stra ig h tw a y b id d in g th e ju d g e s to exam in e his sub­ j e c t ’s facial features: aspicite, iudices, vultum hominis et aspectum, et ex ea contumacia quam hie in perditis rebus retinet illos eius spiritus Siciliensis quos fuisse putetis [cogi­ tate ac] recordamini. (Terr. 2.3.22) Look at the expression and look o f this man, judges, and from the defiance which he retains now, in a desperate cause, recall those gusts o f rage (spiri­ tus) that you would imagine to have occurred in Sicily. W ith th is e x h o rta tio n re g a rd in g A p ro n iu s, C ic e ro recalls fu rth e r his ear­ lier d e sc rip tio n o f Verres: even w h e n co n fro n te d w ith a crim in al p ro se cu ­ tio n , b o th m e n e x h ib it defiance (contumacia) in th eir faces. T h ro u g h th e p a ro n o m a sia aspicite . . . aspectum (“lo o k at th e . . . lo o k ”), C icero again u n d ersco res th e in sid e /o u tsid e ex ch an g e o f th e m o rally b a n k ru p t: th eir “ lo o k ” (aspectus) reflects th e ir in n e r spirit, w h ich can be “ lo o k ed a t” (aspi­ cite), an d th e re b y critiq u ed , b y o th ers. O n e can c o m p are the less e m ­ p h atic c o n tra st at 2.3.5 (q u o te d above), w h e re “ the defiance an d h a u g h ti­ ness in V e rres’ ey es” (ocularum . . . ilia contumacia ac superbia) m eets the in sp e c tin g g lance o f th e ju d g e s (quam videtis). Yet this e x a m in a tio n o f asp ect does n o t lead m ere ly to an ap p reciatio n o f th e su b ject’s character. B y p lacin g recordamini (“recall”) in this c o n te x t— w h e re n o n e o f the ju d g e s co u ld b e ex p ected to have actually seen A p ro n iu s’ actions first­ h a n d (as in d eed quos fitisse putetis testifies)— C ic e ro su g g ests th at b y ex ­ am in in g p h y sical appearance, th e ju d g e s can v irtu ally see p ast actions at w h ic h th e y w e re n o t physically p re s e n t.12 T h is e x h o rta tio n is especially 12 I have fo u n d n o o th e r e x a m p le in th e o ra tio n s w h e re recordor m eans “ re m e m b e r so m e ­ th in g you h ave not w itn e s s e d .” Forcellini d o e s re c o rd tw o instances w h e re recordor refers to th e fu tu re — O v . E pist. 10.79 a n d J u s tin 5 .7 .9 — b u t in b o th passages recordor m eans to p re ­ d ic t a fu tu re e v en t b y re co lle c tin g sim ila r p ast ev en ts. L ater scribes seem to h ave been c o n fu sed b y C ic e ro ’s use o f recordor, as e v id en ced b y th e su p p le m e n t cogitate ac th a t has c rep t in to th e trad itio n .

o d d fro m a legal stan d p o in t since, in n o rm a l co u rt proceedings, a w itness w as ex p ected to re p o rt even firsth an d testim o n y as only personal o p in ­ io n .13 In this case the converse happens: A p ro n iu s’ silent presence has the p o w er to restage his past as visible fact. C icero continues to equate Verres and A p ro n iu s th ro u g h an interesting variatio n o n his o p en in g rem arks. W hereas the p ro se cu to r w ill consider it a pleasure to live a life as unlike V erres’ as possible (dissimillimus ; 2.3.5), the g o v ern o r conversely had chosen A p ro n iu s as his rig h t-h an d m an on account o f th eir sim ilarly base characters: “ V erres ju d g e d [A pronius] to be m o st like h im se lf (sim illim um ) in evil, profligacy, and co n tu m ac y ” (Verr. 2 .3 .2 2 ).14 T h e m o ck -leg al language o f “ju d g e d ” ( iudicavit ) plays o ff the vocative “ju d g e s ” (iudices ) in the previous sentence: Verres has em ­ ployed fo r his o w n lo w ends th e very skills C icero w ishes his fictional audience o f ju ro rs to use in convicting the fo rm e r governor. In this w ay V erres h im se lf has sh o w n the ju d g e s h o w to co n stru e his and A p ro n iu s’ m o ral relationship: th e tw o m en are as close as Verres h im se lf could en­ sure th ro u g h his o w n ju d g m e n t. C icero co n tinues b y refo rm u latin g yet again his observations o n the sim ilarity b etw een V erres and A pronius. H e n o w encourages the ju d g e s to take an active role and use th eir o w n fam iliarity w ith reading charac­ ter. C icero bids th em to create in th eir m inds, i f they can, a m an w ho could m atch th e n o to rio u s character and w icked lusts o f Verres (2.3.23). T h e o ra to r th en describes for th e ju ro rs the inevitable result o f this m en­ tal exercise: is erit Apronius ille, qui, ut ipse non solum vita sed corpore atque ore significat, immensa aliqua vorago est aut gurges vitiorum turpitudinumque om ­ nium. (Verr. 2.3.23) That man will be Apronius, the one who is, as he himself shows not only by his way o f life but by his body and mouth (or), a measureless abyss or whirlpool (vorago . . . aut gurges) of all vices and indecencies. T h e m ean in g rem ains the sam e as before— Verres and A p ro n iu s are equals in sin. T h e m o u th resurfaces, coupled w ith the b o d y (corpore atque ore), to rep resen t n o t ju s t defiant and h au g h ty behavior b u t a m orally base ch aracter and action. T h e m e ta p h o r o f th e w h irlp o o l w as still very m u ch alive in C ic e ro ’s day: the w o rd s vorago and gurges could describe the insatiable oral activity o f g lu tto n o u s sp en d th rifts o r o f “b lo o d th irsty ” 13 C ic. A c. 2.146, Font. 29; G reen id g e 274. 14 H ic est Apronius quem . . . Verres. . . nequitia, luxuria, audacia sui simillimum iudicavit; cf. 2.3.60: a Q . Apronio . . . ad Verris flagitia Ubidinesque accommodato (“b y Q u in tu s A p ro n iu s . . . w h o w as w ell-fitted fo r V erres’ disgraces a n d lu sts”). M c C a rtn e y 353 n. I su g g ests th at a n o th e r aspect o f the sim ilarity b e tw ee n these tw o m en resides in th eir “p ig g ish n ess” (verres m eans “u n castrated b o a r,” w h ile Apronius su g ­ gests aper, a “ w ild p ig ”).

110

CHA PTER 3

crim in a ls. 15 A p p lied to A p ro n iu s 1 th e im ag e in v erts C ic e ro ’s ch aracteri­ za tio n o f V atinius ’ re v o ltin g face: the m o u th , a “w h irlp o o l o f all vices and in d ece n cies,” b o th sw allo w s ex tern al vices and b ecom es a k in d o f re p o si­ to ry o f d e p ra v ity as it w h irls in endless, insatiable m o tio n . C icero fram es th e m e ta p h o r to sh o w th a t h e is n o t alone in re co g n izin g this facet o f A p ro n iu s ’ ch aracter, fo r h e has also g u id ed his audience to m ake this n ew co n n e c tio n th ro u g h th e ir m en tal exercise. B y his m ere physical appear­ ance (corpore atque ore), A p ro n iu s p ro v id es the signifiers (significat) th at allo w a v ie w e r to in te rp re t his character. O n e ce rtain ly c a n n o t accuse C icero o f u n d e rstre ssin g his p o in t here. H a v in g first read A p ro n iu s ’ ch aracter b efo re his audience an d th e n having led th e m th ro u g h th eir o w n read in g , he n o w steps b ack a n d explains in a le n g th y p e rio d th a t in fact everyone — w ith o n e significant ex c ep tio n — has b een able to reco g n ize, an d u n ab le to tolerate, A p ro n iu s’ evil: ta n ta m q u e h a b e t m o ru m sim ilitu d o c o n iu n c tio n e m atq u e c o n c o rd ia m u t A p ro n iu s, q u i aliis in h u m a n u s ac b arb a ru s, isti u ni c o m m o d u s ac d isertu s v id e re tu r; u t q u e m o m n e s o d isse n t n e q u e v id e re v ellen t, sin e eo iste esse n o n p o sset; u t c u m alii ne co n v iv iis q u id e m isd e m q u ib u s A p ro n iu s, hie isd em etia m p o cu lis u te re tu r; p o stre m o u t o d o r A p ro n i ta ete rrim u s o ris et c o rp o ris ,— q u e m , u t aiu n t, ne bestiae q u id e m ferre p o s s e n t,— u n i isti suavis et iu c u n d u s v id e re tu r. ( Verr. 2.3.23) A n d th e sim ila rity o f th e ir ch a racter has so g reat a u n io n and h a rm o n y th a t A p ro n iu s, w h o seem s to o th e rs in h u m a n an d u n cu ltiv a ted (barbarus), seem s to th is [V erres] alone agreeab le an d e lo q u e n t (disertus); th a t th is m a n w h o m all h a te an d d o n o t w ish to see, V erres c a n n o t be w ith o u t; th a t w h e n o th e r m e n d o n o t en jo y even th e sam e b an q u e ts as A p ro n iu s, th is fellow uses th e v e ry sam e d rin k in g cups; finally, th a t th e ex tre m e ly foul sm ell o f A p ro n iu s ’ m o u th (os) a n d b o d y — w h ich , th e y say, n o t even beasts can sta n d — seem s to this m a n alo n e fine and pleasurable.

T h is d e sc rip tio n o f A p ro n iu s focuses o n aspects o f his m o u th th at re n d e r h im u n fit fo r h u m a n society: his in ab ility to speak p ro p e rly (barbarus ; cf. th e a p p a re n t c o n tra st in disertus), his u n a ttra c tiv e b eh a v io r at b an q u e ts (as fig u re d in th e o ral c o n n e ctio n he and V erres have in sh arin g d rin k in g cups), an d finally the o d o r th at reeks fro m his m o u th and b o d y . 16 15 Sest. 111: gurges ac norago patrim onii ( o f G ellius); Phil. 11.10: quem gurgitem, quam voraginem! quid eum non sorbere animo, quid non haurire cogitatione, cuius sanguinem non bibere censetis? (“W h a t a w h irlp o o l! W h a t an abyss! W h at d o y o u im a g in e th at h e isn ’t p la n n in g to su c k u p a n d g u lp d o w n ? W h o se b lo o d d o you th in k h e isn ’t d rin k in g ? ”); Phil. 2.67; M acr. Sat. 3 .1 3 .6 . 16 K re n k e l 1981: 4 2 - 4 3 th in k s th a t C ic e ro refers h e re specifically to A p ro n iu s ’ re p u ta tio n as a cunnilinctor. H e cites m a n y passages to s u p p o rt th is th eo ry , in c lu d in g a n u m b e r th a t re fe r to h o w cunmlinctores w e re th o u g h t to ta in t cups. F o r th e use o f os to re fe r elliptically to o ra l sex, see T L L 9 .2 :1 0 7 5 .3 1 -5 0 .

T h ro u g h these o p positions, C icero com pletes the alienation o f his tw o prin cip al o p p o n en ts. T h e p ro se cu to r has sh o w n the ju r y that it is united in its ju d g m e n t w ith all m em b ers o f the co m m u n ity — all, th at is, b u t Verres. As the o ra tio n continues after the m e n tio n o f A p ro n iu s’ b odily and oral sm ells, it becom es clear w h y C icero has equated Verres and his h en ch m an in th e speech’s op en in g sections. A fte r in tro d u cin g A pronius, the o ra to r proceeds w ith his n arratio n o f the m an y crim es this tax collec­ to r has c o m m itte d against the Sicilian farm ers. Since Verres and A p ro n iu s have been linked so closely in the speech’s in tro d u ctio n , the tw o m en can n o w freely interchange as actors in th e abuse o f duties that, strictly, w ere A p ro n iu s ’ alone. As a result, Verres n o t on ly becom es re­ sp onsible fo r e n tru stin g to A p ro n iu s the p o w er o f harassing the farm ers unjustly, b u t he also, in his p o sitio n as his aide’s ideological ally in vice, n o w shares d irect resp o n sib ility for all A p ro n iu s’ o w n ac tio n s.17 It w as a reading o f th eir external features, especially th e m o u th , that forged A p ro n iu s’ role as n o t on ly a political b u t also a m oral representative o f Verres. P art o f th e tain t attached to A p ro n iu s’ m o u th stem s fro m drink: “ he w o u ld have filled ev ery th in g w ith his breath [and] the sm ell o f w in e ” (spiritu suo vini . . . odore complessef, Verr. 2.3.31). It is, significantly, in this c o m p ro m isin g po sitio n th at C icero has A pronius, V erres’ political representative, den y his o w n id e n tity and claim h im se lf to be a “second V erres” ( Verrem alterum; Verr. 2.3.31). W ith o u te x p lic itly b rin g in g V e rre s in to the pictu re, and w ith o u t having to m arshal any evidence, C icero m akes V erres share w ith the m an m o st like h im se lf (sui simiUimum) the tain t attached to illicit feasting. In a later co n tex t in w h ich the sim ilarities b etw een A p ro n iu s and V erres are again em phasized, an o th er reference to A p ro n iu s’ m o u th occurs. H e w as “the so rt o f m an w h o could n o t only n o t keep his sp irit pure, b u t n o t even his re sp iratio n ” (qui non modo animum integrum sed ne animam quidem puram conservare potuisset·, 2.3.134). T h e p u n on animus/anima (“sp irit/re sp ira tio n ”) stem s fro m A p ro n iu s’ (and b y ex ten sio n V erres’) tendencies to drunkenness and the bad breath associated w ith this action. As w ith V atinius ( Vat. 39), the inside em erges th ro u g h th e m o u th to indicate o n the ex terio r a p erso n ’s previous base a c tiv ities.18 17 Several tim es in th e speech C icero a ttrib u te s to V erres actions for w h ic h only A p ro n iu s is strictly accountable; cf. especially sections 110, 121, 129, 133, 135—37, 153, as w ell as th e passages discussed in the te x t below . 18 I f o n e can assum e kiscas does n o t re fe r to an affectation o f speech (see N e u d lin g 186), th en oral o d o rs play a role in C a tu llu s’ m o ck e ry o f V ictius at p o e m 98. H o w ev er, in abusing V ic tiu s’ bad b reath C atu llu s does n o t seem to be attacking his m o ral character in th e m a n n e r o f p o p u la r m o ck e ry o f b o d y o d o rs. C atullus ra th e r plays o n reifying a m etap h o rical p ro v e rb (p u tid c m oves fro m the realm o f th e figural to th e literal).

C ic e ro ’s tre a tm e n t o f th e m o u th in Against Verres 2.3 anticipates the sim ilar b u t m o re d ev e lo p e d tactics h e ad o p ts in th e speech O n B eh a lf o f H is Home. In th e p re se n t speech, h e uses th e os in d esc rib in g V erres o n ly to in d icate co n tu m ac y , a u sag e th at is n o t fo reig n to C icero even in his n o n in v e c tiv e tex ts. W h en os bears s tro n g e r c o n n o ta tio n s, eith er o f exces­ sive b ib u lo u sn ess o r v ag u e b u t intense w a n to n n e ss, V erres’ h e n c h m a n A p ro n iu s carries th e d irec t guilt. B u t C icero early in th e speech h ad trip ly stresse d (and allo w ed the ju d g e s to c o n c u r actively in this assessm ent) th a t th e c h a rac te r o f these tw o m e n is identical. In this w ay th e o ra to r, a lth o u g h h e avoids d ire c tly attack in g V erres, n ev erth eless in crim in ates h im in d ire c tly in tw o w ays: F irst, C icero show s his o p p o n e n t to be an im p ro p e r ju d g e o f ch a rac te r— u n iq u ely im p ro p e r in fact, as h e is th e o n ly h u m a n b e in g to co n v e rse w ith A p ro n iu s . Second, an d m o re im p o rta n tly , V erres’ sim ila rity an d close c o n ta c t w ith A p ro n iu s c o n firm th a t h e to o is g u ilty o f a n y c o n ta g io n th a t m ay attach to th e m o u th . B y m a n ip u la tin g th e m o u th , C ic e ro also preserves d eniability: he im plicates V erres in a v ast array o f crim es w h ile avoiding an y charges o f in tro d u c in g false evi­ d ence. T h is sam e stru c tu ra l re latio n sh ip recurs in th e n e x t speech I an­ alyze: th e os serves to lin k a p ro m in e n t o p p o n e n t (P ublius C lo d iu s) w ith a p e rso n o f lo w e r social sta n d in g (Sextus C loelius), a p erso n w h o can be d irec tly attac k ed w ith allegations o f o ral im m o rality . O n c e C lo d iu s is im p lic a te d in n o n elite behavior, th ere b y b ec o m in g the social e q u iv ale n t o f C lo eliu s, th e o ra to r easily severs th e p air fro m the rest o f th e co m m u n ity . O n B eh a lf o f H is Home In 62 B C E , P u b liu s C lo d iu s in tru d e d u p o n th e rites o f th e B o n a D ea, a c e re m o n y re stric te d to R o m a n m atro n s. Five years later, in th e final p o r­ tio n o f th e speech O n B eh a lfo fH is Hom e (D e domo sua), C icero m o ck s the in a p p ro p ria te n e ss o f a situ a tio n in w h ic h C lo d iu s d eem s h im s e lf capable o f san c tify in g th e site o f C ic e ro ’s fo rm e r residence. T h e o ra to r tu rn s to ad d ress his au d ience, w h ic h consists en tire ly o f m e m b e rs o f th e college o f priests: hie non illudit auctoritati horum om n iu m , qui adsunt, su m m oru m v irorum ? n on vestra, pontifices, gravitate abutitur? ex isto ore religionis verb u m excidere aut elabi potest? quam tu eod em ore accusando senatum , q uod severe de religione decerneret, im purissim e taeterrim eque violasti.

(.Dom. 104) D o e sn ’t this m an m ock the authority o f all these m en w h o are present, m en [w h o are] o f the h ighest stature? D o e sn ’t he m isuse your dignity, priests? C an any w ord o f religious scruple fall or slip from this m outh o f yours

[C lo d iu s] (ex isto ore)? W ith the sa m e I io u th (eodem ore) y ou h ave violated th ese scru ples m o s t u n clea n ly and m o st fo u lly by accu sin g the senate b e­ cause it m ade a severe decree co n cern in g religion .

This is the first and only m ention o f C lod iu s’ m outh (0 5 ) in the speech. T he taint o f his m outh renders Clodius inappropriate to utter a w ord o f religion and, in its attempts to convey religious piety, his m outh even violates religion. C lod iu s’ speaking ability is not, however, the only ele­ ment used to characterize the im purity o f his m outh. The oral activity o f others besides Clodius has received detailed attention in earlier passages o f this speech, passages that the audience o f priests surely recalled upon hearing the remarks o f C iceroju st quoted. For in the speech O n B ehalf o f H is H om e Cicero em ploys rhetorical techniques similar to those I have already noted in the speech against Verres and Apronius. As part o f his diatribe against Clodius, the orator highlights many o f the unsavory as­ pects o f his opponent by em phasizing the relationship he has w ith his assistant, Sextus Cloelius. W hen Cicero returned from exile in 57 b c e , he found his land on the Palatine confiscated and his hom e dem olished. The damage had been done by his neighbor, Publius Clodius, the tribune o f the plebs w h o had contrived the orator’s banishment in the previous year. Cicero could not easily reclaim the property: Clodius, anticipating his opponent’s eventual recall, had erected on the site a shrine to Libertas, the goddess o f freedom, thereby consecrating the property and preventing its former inhabitant from resum ing residence. The subsequent conflict betw een the tw o m en produced C icero’s speech O n B ehalf o f H is Home, in w hich the orator argues before m em bers o f the Rom an priestly college that C lodius had conducted a technically im proper consecration and that, as a result, C ic­ ero should regain his property. These technical points make up less than one-third o f the entire speech (chiefly sections 104-41); the remainder contains C icero’s self-justification— and self-laudation— o f his actions before, during, and after exile, a subject that necessarily accompanies an attack on C lodius not only as a tribune but as a human b ein g .19 T he speech opens w ith Cicero defending his m ost recent actions: he has proposed that the senate accord Pom peius an extraordinary com m is­ sion in charge o f the grain supply not, as C lodius has alleged, sim ply to conciliate the people, but to m eet a real and severe food shortage (Dorn. 4). H is position taken and the merits o f Pom peius reviewed (cf. especially 18—19), Cicero underscores the contrast he has created betw een h im self and C lodius by presenting the former tribune— “the pirate ch ief h im self w ith his totally despicable band o f thieves” (ipse archipirata cum grege prae19 For the historical details o f this speech and a discussion o f its order o f argum entation, see the com m entary o f N isbet 1939: vii-x x ix .

114

CHA PTER 3

donum im purissim o; 2 4 )— w i th a p a r tn e r to r e p re s e n t, in a sen se , C lo d iu s ’ “ P o m p e iu s .” E n te r S e x tu s C lo e liu s , th e m a n w h o m C lo d iu s ’ g ra in law s o f 58 B C E h a d p u t in c h a rg e o f g ra in d is tr ib u tio n :20 hie vir [Pom peius] extra ordinem rei frum entariae praeficiendus n o n fuit? scilicet tu helluoni spurcatissim o, praegustatori libidinum tuarum , hom ini egentissim o et facinerosissim o, Sex. Cloelio, socio tui sanguinis, qui sua lingua etiam so ro rem tuam a te abalienavit, o m n e fru m en tu m privatum et publicum , om nis provincias frum entarias, om nis m ancipes, om nis h o rre o ru m clavis lege tua tradidisti. (Dotn. 25) Was a m an such as this [i.e., Pom peius] n o t to be entrusted w ith an excep­ tional co m m an d o f the grain situation? W hile you yourself, o f course, have th ro u g h y o u r ow n law given over to a totally despicable glutton (helluoni), th e taste-tester (praegustatori) o f y our lusts, a person com pletely im pov­ erished and w icked— Sextus Cloelius, the sharer o f your blood, w h o has used his o w n tongue to alienate even y our sister from you— [to this m an you have given] all the grain b o th public and private, all the grain-producing provinces, all the contractors, and all the keys to the granaries. O r a l im a g e s d o m in a te th e d e s c r ip tio n o f C lo e liu s . H elluo in tr o d u c e s th e s to c k c h a rg e o f g lu tto n y — a n o b v io u s ly o ra l a c tiv ity a n d , as I sh a ll d is­ cu ss in th e n e x t c h a p te r, o n e th a t in R o m a n in v e c tiv e c a rries im p lic itly th e a s s o c ia tio n s o f th e b a n q u e t a n d its n e c e ssa ry a c c o m p a n im e n ts : d a n c ­ in g , th e e x c e ssiv e u se o f d r in k a n d p e rfu m e s , a n d d is g ra c e fu l (a lth o u g h v a g u e ly e x p re s s e d ) s e x u a l a c tiv ity . A b a n q u e t n e e d s g u e sts. C ic e r o h a d in c r im in a te d V e rre s b y m a k in g h im n o t o n ly a fe llo w b a n q u e te r w ith A p r o n iu s b u t a lso a s h a r e r o f h is c u p s ( Verr. 2 .3 .2 3 ). T h r o u g h th e w o r d “ ta s te - te s te r ” (praegustator) C ic e ro c re a te s a sim ila r lin k a g e b e tw e e n C lo d iu s a n d C lo e liu s . A g a in th e a c tiv ity is o ra l a n d m o v e s f r o m th e o s­ te n s ib le re a lm o f e a tin g (gustare m e a n s lite ra lly “ to ta s te ” ) to o n e o f m o r e g e n e ra l p h y s ic a l p le a s u re s — C lo e liu s te sts o u t in a d v a n c e C lo d iu s ’ lu sts. C ic e r o th u s m a k e s e x p lic it th e s e x u a l c o n n o ta tio n s o n ly im p lie d b y helluo. T h e e p ith e t “ a p e r s o n c o m p le te ly im p o v e ris h e d a n d w ic k e d ” (hom ini egentissimo et facinerosissimo) a n d th e n a m in g o f C lo e liu s in te rv e n e b e fo re th e o r a to r p ro v id e s f u r th e r d e ta ils. T h e d e s c rip tio n se e m s to tease th e a u d ie n c e o f p rie s ts , w h o a w a it e x p lic a tio n o f h o w p re c ise ly C lo e liu s p r e - ta s te s h is f r ie n d ’s lu sts. 20 E v id e n c e fo r this c o m m is s io n rests so lely o n th e passage cited. F o r th e n a m e S extus C lo e liu s see S h a c k le to n B ailey I960: 41—42 (m isp rin t: o n p. 41, read Har. resp. 11 fo r H ar. resp. 6), a n d his late r a d d e n d u m in 1981: 383. B efo re S h ack leto n B a ile y ’s c o rre c tio n , th e m a n ’s n a m e w as believ ed to have been S extus C lo d iu s. AU m y su b se q u e n t q u o ta tio n s take in to a c c o u n t th is e m e n d a tio n , w h ic h has been g e n era lly accepted; see, h o w e v er, F la m b a rd 2 3 5 -4 5 a n d L o p o sz k o 4 9 8 -5 0 3 (esp. nn. 3 0 -3 1 ).

A n ap p o sitio n links th e tw o m en further: C loelius is called “the sharer o f C lo d iu s’ b lo o d ” (socio tui sanguinis). T h e expression is strange; scholars have lo n g assu m ed C icero refers to som e kin d o f otherw ise u n k n o w n b lo o d relationship. T h e revelation th at Sextus in fact has the n o m en C loelius and n o t C lodius (see n. 20) has m ade scholars less secure o f this in terp re tatio n . H ow ever, a n o th er is available. T h e ancients believed se­ m en to have arisen fro m th e altered physical state o f blood. W hen P ro p ­ ertius co m plains o f being o f “sm all b lo o d ” (parvum sanguen), then, he re m a rk s on his excessive sexual activity and resu ltan t w eakness.21 A sim ­ ilar p u n relating C lo d iu s’ physical condition to his sexual w antonness occurs in th e speech O n B ehalf o f Sestius: qui trib u n u s plebis felix in evertenda re publica fuit, nullis suis n erv is— qui enim in eius m o d i vita nerv i esse p o tu e ru n t h o m in is fraternis flagitiis, so roriis stu p ris, o m n i inaudita libidine insani [or exsanguis]? (S est. 16) A trib u n e o f th e plebs w h o w as fo rtu n ate in his d estru ctio n o f th e state, w ith n o m uscles (n ervi ) o f his o w n — for w h a t m uscles co uld a p erso n have in a life o f th is k in d , w h en h e is insane ( insani , o r exsanguis, “b lo o d less”) fro m repeatedly abusing his b ro th er[s], h aving sex w ith his sister[s], and every [other] u n h ea rd o f lust?

T h e play o n nervi— literally m eaning “m u scles,” b u t also a slang for “p e n is”22— w o rk s like the b lo o d and m o u th in revealing to an observer excessive sexual indulgence. C lo d iu s’ observable state o f w eakness indi­ cates a depraved m o ral character. In additio n to the p u n o n nervi, som e w ish to find fu rth e r reference to sexual excess b y reading exsanguis here, rath er th an th e codices’ insani, in lig h t o f C icero ’s later reference to G abinius and Piso as “enervated and blo o d less” (hominibus enervatis atque exsanguibus; Sest. 24).23 M y in terp re tatio n o f O n B ehalf o f His Home 25 w o u ld s u p p o rt such an em endation. In any event, the passage cited p ro ­ vides a parallel for the n o tio n that excessive sexual activity w as portrayed in invective as enervating. 21 S hack leto n B ailey first offered this in te rp re ta tio n in a L atin fo o tn o te (1960: 41 n. 2), w h e re he refers to his o w n Propertiana (1956: 188), w h ic h co n tain s an explan atio n o f parvum sanguen (P rop. 3.16.19) and th e passages fro m ancient a u th o rs he uses for su p p o rt. F or an ex h au stiv e acco u n t o f th e h a em o to g en ic th e o ry o f sem en a m o n g th e ancient G reeks and R o m an s, see L esky 1344—417, w h o traces the d e v elo p m en t o f this th eo ry fro m its o rig in in th e fo u rth c e n tu ry b c e o n th ro u g h G alen. H e ritier-A u g e offers co m p arativ e m aterial. C a tu llu s 80 (on G ellius’ pale com plexion) also exploits this association betw een “ b lo o d ” a n d sexual activity. K renkel 1981: 4 7 -4 8 argues th a t C icero im plies by socio tui sanguinis that C lo d iu s a n d C lo eliu s p e rfo rm c u nnilingus o n C lo d ia w h ile she is m en stru atin g . 22 A d am s 38, w h o cites G rassm an n 66 w ith n. 154. 23 F irst p ro p o se d by K och 384, and accepted b y C la rk in th e O C T . T. M asIow ski retains insani in the m o st recent T e u b n e r editio n o f Pro Sestio (1986).

I f o n e g ra n ts th a t th e p h ra se “sh arer o f y o u r b lo o d ” (socio tui sanguinis) has sex u al co n n o ta tio n s, h o w th en is th e p h ra se to be in te rp re te d ? C learly th e ep ith ets im p ly in g C lo e liu s’ excessive sexual ac tiv ity (helluoni, praegustatori tuarum libidinum) sh o w th at C lo eliu s suffers fro m a lack— n o t an o v e ra b u n d a n c e — o f sanguen. B y m ak in g C lo d iu s an “ a lly ” (socius) o f this p h y sical state, C ic e ro p o in ts to th e excessive sexual tendencies o f b o th his o p p o n e n ts .24 N o th in g u n u su al so far; m a n y passages, in clu d in g O n Be­ h a lf o f Sestius 16 ju s t cited, d e m o n stra te th at C icero felt n o c o m p u n c tio n in im p u g n in g C lo d iu s w ith this charge. It is in th e relative clause th at he levies th e m o re serious accusation. “ W h o has used his o w n to n g u e to alienate even y o u r sister fro m y o u ”— qui sua lingua etiam sororem tuam a te abalienavit. H as C lo eliu s been tellin g C lo d ia b ad th in g s ab o u t h er b ro th e r? C icero does in p a rt in te n d his au d ien ce to c o n stru e th e ph rase “w ith his o w n to n g u e ” (sua lingua) as a referen ce to sp eaking; in fact it is p recisely th e a m b ig u ity o f th e w o rd s th a t allow s h im to m ak e this sta te m e n t in the first place. F o r the p re v io u s d iscu ssio n has sh o w n th a t C icero depicts C loelius as a w a n to n p a rta k e r o f sex an d as a p a rtn e r o f C lo d iu s in this p u rsu it. T h e relative clause in d i­ cates a b re a c h in this relatio n sh ip ; C loelius excels over C lo d iu s in th e art o f c u n n ilin g u s an d so has caused C lo d ia to re q u ire h e r b ro th e r’s services n o lo n g er. T h e tw o m e n ’s sh arin g o f b lo o d takes o n a n o th e r d im ension: th e “b lo o d ” re p resen ts C lo d ia, C lo d iu s’ b lo o d sister. O n c e again it is th e ac tio n o f th e m o u th th at u n ites (praegustatori) and, conversely, divides (sua lingua abalienavit) th e tw o m en. B u t C ic e ro ’s la n g u ag e does n o t refer h ere o n ly to S ex tu s’ sexual activities; th e c o n te x t o f the charge also im p li­ cates C lo d iu s. In lig h t o f the relatio n sh ip established b e tw e e n the tw o m e n p rio r to th e relative clause, th e adjective lim itin g th e to n g u e — sua (his o w n )— is n o t otiose; it im plies a n o th e r to n g u e, a tua lingua— C lo d iu s ’— th a t has been active at so m e tim e in th e past. T h e particle etiam also takes on a n e w d im ension: “e v e n ” his sister, w ith w h o m C lo d iu s has so close an “ a tta c h m e n t,” has been severed fro m h im . R ecol­ lectio n o f C lo e liu s’ p o sitio n as C lo d iu s ’ taste-te ste r co n firm s o u r suspi­ cio n o f C lo d iu s ’ p artic ip a tio n in this affair: O n e o f C lo e liu s’ fu n ctio n s is to use his to n g u e to sam p le sex fo r C lodius. A s n o te d in m y earlier section o n sexual lan g u ag e in R o m a n o ra to ry , th e “im p u re m o u th ” (oi im purum)— here as em p lo y ed in cu n n ilin g u s— c o n stitu te s a ch arg e th a t th e o ra to r refrain ed fro m lev y in g p u b licly a g ain st p ro m in e n t in dividuals. T h ro u g h a m an ip u latio n o f w o rd associa­ tio n (helluo) and d o u b le en ten d res (praegustator, sanguen, lingua), C icero succeeds in o v e rc o m in g this re stric tio n . A s in his sim ilar tre a tm e n t o f 24 F o r socius m e a n in g “a sh a re r in a specific ty p e o f s ta te ,” cf. Catil. 1.8, w h e re th e C a tilin a rian c o n sp ira to rs are d escrib ed as amentiae socii (“allies in m ad n e ss” ).

V erres and A p ro n iu s, C ic e ro ’s technique consists o f equating in m o rality a less p o w erfu l (and hence m o re assailable) assistant w ith his p ro m in e n t leader. A n d th e bodily p art that w as conspicuous in m aking these equa­ tions stands visible to all: the m o u th , w h o se physical activities— eating (helluo), tastin g (praegustator), licking (lingua)— tain t its bearer. In accor­ dance w ith th e m o d el o f the m o u th I sketched at the beg in n in g o f this chapter, th e os becom es tain ted in tu rn as a result o f direct participation in the extern al w o rld . It is n o t su rp risin g th en th at C icero refers to the m o u th , th e p hysical m anifestation b y w h ich one can read its b e a re r’s guilt, w h e n n e x t he m en tio n s Sextus C lo eliu s. In th e section th at follow s C lo d ia ’s sexually induced alienation fro m h er b ro th e r, C icero describes C lodius as com plaining that C loelius has been d ep riv ed o f c o n tro l over grain supplies: the grain ad m in istratio n has been snatched “fro m the v ery im p u re m o u th o f Sextus C lo eliu s” (ex ore impurissimo S exti Cloelii; Dom. 26). C icero identifies C loelius for his audi­ ence o f priests b y referring to th at part o f h im m o st conspicuous in his im m o ra l dealings: his im p u re m o u th . T h e equation apparently m ade a great im p ressio n . In the year follow ing his delivery o f O n B ehalf o f His Home, C icero can speak o f th e pen C lodius used to w rite the bills o f his trib u n ate as “ dip ped in /sta in e d by the im p u re m o u th o f C lo eliu s” (stilo illo impuro S ex. Cloelii ore tincto; Har. resp. 11); again Sextus becom es id entified w ith his m o u th as a result o f the actions described at O n B ehalf o f H is Home 25. As w e have seen, for a R o m an os could o ften refer by sy n ecd o ch e to the entire face o r head. In a sim ilar m anner, the m o u th o f C loelius has b y itself becom e a sufficient representative o f C loelius and his character. H av in g used C loelius to sever C lodia fro m C lodius, C icero im m e ­ diately em p lo y s a series o f risque p uns to reunite the siblings. T h e ep ith ets he directs at C lo d iu s— patricida, fratricida, sororicida (Dom. 26) “fa­ th e r killer [or traito r], b ro th e r killer, sister k iller”— rep resen t neither e m p ty slan d er n o r literal descriptions fro m w h ich to reco n stru ct h isto ri­ cal events, as so m e have attem p ted . R ather, b eg in n in g w ith the co m m o n rh eto rical slander patricida, “traito r, ” C icero exploits the p o p u lar e ty m o l­ o g y o f this w o rd — “father k ille r”— and the slang m eaning o f caedo— “to cu t d o w n (w ith o n e ’s penis)”— to suggest w ith th e follow ing tw o w o rd s (fratricida, sororicida) th at C lodius engages in incest w ith b o th his b ro th e r and sister (cf. Sest. 16, cited above: fratem isflagitiis, sororiis stupris).25 T h e 25 O n th e p o p u la r e ty m o lo g y o f parricida see Priscianus Gramm. 2.26.7 (Keil) a n d O L D , s.v. parricida la . F o r the o bscene use o f caedo see C atu ll. 5 6 .6 -7 {hunc . . . rigida mea cecidi— “ I c u t h im d o w n w ith m y rig id m e m b e r”) and A dam s 145-46. N isb e t 1939 appears to be th e first to give the in te rp re ta tio n offered in th e te x t for fiatricida and sororicida, and he cites as histo rical s u p p o rt th e B obiensia scholiast o n Sest. 16 (p. 127, 2 6 -2 7 [Stangl]). T h e in te r­ p re ta tio n o f patricida given in th e te x t represents m y ow n c o n trib u tio n .

in sin u atio n s m ay n o t sto p here; patricida seem s to conceal a sim ilar refer­ ence. In d eed , th e presence o f a sexual p u n in fratricida an d sororicida alm o st d em an d s su ch an allusion. W hen C icero has occasion later in th e speech to im p u g n C lo d iu s ’ a d o p tio n in to th e plebs b y F onteius, a m a n y o u n g e r th an C lo d iu s, h e refers to th eir pecu liar fa th e r/s o n re la tio n sh ip as follow s: dico apud pontifices: n eg o istam ad optionem p ontificio iure esse factam: prim um , quod eae vestrae sint aetates, ut is, qui te adoptavit, vel filii tibi lo co per aetatem esse potuerit vel eo, quo fuit. (D o tn . 36) I am speaking before the priests: I say, [C lodiu s,] that that adoption o f yours w as n o t conducted in accordance w ith pontifical law: first, because the ages o f the tw o o f you are such that the m an w h o adopted you could, by dint o f his age, either occu p y for you the p osition o f a son o r that [position] in w h ich he used to be ( eo, quo fiiit).

C ic e ro im p lies w ith th e ph rase eo, quo Juit (“in th at p o sitio n in w h ic h he used to b e ”) th a t C lo d iu s ’ a d o p tiv e father has already served C lo d iu s as an o b ject o f th e m a n ’s lusts. A s the y o u n g e r m an, F onteius co u ld fill the ro le e ith er o f C lo d iu s ’ so n or, as C ic e ro asserts has in fact b een th e case, o f his b o y lover. T h e ep ith ets patricida, fiatricida, sororicida, th en , in d icate C lo d iu s ’ sex u al a g g ressio n to w a rd all m e m b e rs o f his fam ily. T h e m o st im p o rta n t fu n c tio n o f these vocatives for o u r p u rp o ses, h o w ev er, is th eir ab ility to re u n ite sex u ally b ro th e r an d sister. C icero reco g n ized in the su b ject o f in cest an im p o rta n t elem e n t o f the th e m e o f the os th at he w o u ld co n tin u e fu rth e r to e x p lo it in this speech. O ra l sex an d incest serve to u n ite th e th re e p rim a ry a n ta g o n ists— C lo d iu s, C lodia, an d C loelius. C icero re su m e s th e n arrativ e b y g iv in g his reaso n s fo r e n tru stin g the g ra in c o m m issio n to P o m p e iu s (26—31). In this w ay the o ra to r u n d e r­ sco res th e c o n tra st h e has set up b e tw e e n th e p airs o f h im s e lf/P o m p e iu s a n d C lo d iu s /C lo eliu s. B y d eg ra d in g his p a ir o f o p p o n e n ts, C icero fu r­ th e r ju stifie s th e p ro g r a m th a t h e an d P o m p e iu s have ad o p ted . T h e “ fo u l-m o u th e d ” C lo eliu s m akes his n e x t appearance in C ic e ro ’s a rg u m e n t fo r th e illegality o f his o w n exile. C lo eliu s, th e d ra ftsm a n o f C lo d iu s ’ o rig in al bill, is tak en to task fo r the im p rec isio n o f his language: n on tulit

a q u a e t i g n i ] i n t e r d i c a t u r . quid ergo? u t i n t e r ­ o caenum , o portentum , o scelus! hanc tibi legem C loelius scripsit spurciorem lingua sua, ut interdictum sit cui non sit interdictum? Sexte noster, bona venia, quoniam iam dialecticus es et haec quoque liguris . . . (Dorn. 47)

d ic tu m

u t [m . t u l l i o

s it.

H e did n ot propose “that [Cicero] be denied [fire and w a ter].” T h en w hat [did he write]? “That he has been d en ied .” A filthy and unnatural crime! D id

C l o e l i u s w r i t e f o r y o u th is la w , d i r ti e r t h a n h is o w n to n g u e , so t h a t a m a n s h a ll h a v e b e e n d e n ie d w h o h a s n o t b e e n d e n ie d ? S e x tu s m y f r i e n d , I b e g y o u r p a r d o n , s in c e y o u a re n o w a m a s te r o f lo g ic a n d y o u a r e l a p p i n g u p (Iiguris) th e s e m a t t e r s t o o . . .

T h e o ra to r reso rts to h u m o ro u s abuse at the crucial p o in t in w h ich his o w n a rg u m e n t becom es m o st sophistic: the gram m atical “e rro r” for w h ich he reproaches C loelius— using a perfect subjunctive (interdictum sit) for a p resen t (interdicatur) — is n o t on ly perm issible Latin, b u t it is used by C icero h im self later in this sam e speech.26 T h e m etaphorical co nnota­ tions o f eagerness expressed in ligurio (“lap p in g u p ”) appear to have been colloquial. S uetonius preserves a passage fro m an A tellan farce that em ­ ploys th e sam e p u n in m o ck in g the “oral o b sce n ity ” (obscaenitas oris) o f th e e m p e ro r T ib e riu s.27 C icero u n q u estio n ab ly refers h ere to S extus’ ap­ p etite for cunnilingus: earlier references to C lo eliu s’ im p u re m o u th had set a p reced en t (D om . 25—26), the phrase “d irtier than his o w n to n g u e ” (spurciorem lingua sua) arouses expectations here (w hich, as w ith sua lingua at D om. 25, can be alternatively in terp re ted as referring to C lo eliu s’ speech, as h ere opposed to his w ritin g ), and quoque (“ to o ”) p o in ts to a m ean in g o f ligurire b ey o n d the ostensive m e ta p h o r for eagerness.28 In spite o f the clear references here, it is nevertheless w o rth y o f n o te that, ju s t as at O n B ehalf o f H is Home 25—26, C icero ’s w o rd s are capable o f a surface ex p lan ation th at w o u ld n o t require his audience to pick up o b ­ scene co n n o tatio n s, o r at least w o u ld allow h im to deny th at any such co n n o tatio n s w ere intended. C icero once again seem s to h o n o r oratorical p ro p rie ty at th e very m o m e n t he violates it. H a v in g o nce again exposed C loelius’ in d ecen t behavior, C icero re­ unites C lo eliu s and C lodius as he has reu n ited b ro th e r and sister. It is im p o rta n t th at all his op p o n en ts be excluded fro m society; b u t it is equally im p o rta n t th at they be excluded together. H is description o f the relatio n sh ip b etw een m aster and u n d erlin g th at follow s— th at C loelius is 26 See th e a p p e n d ix to N is b e t’s c o m m e n ta ry (1939: 2 0 4 -5 ), w h e re he d e m o n stra tes th at th e use o f a p erfect su b ju n ctiv e to d e n o te a fu tu re w ish, w h e re b y ut M . Tullio interdictum sit m eans “ th at M . T ullius shall be d eem ed to have been o u tla w e d ,” is perfectly acceptable L atin. C ice ro uses an analogous c o n stru ctio n at Dom . 106. 27 M e tap h o rica l o ccurrences o f Iigurio in the C ice ro n ian corpus: Verr. 2.3.177, Fam. 11.21.5 = SB 411 (b o th arise, m o reo v er, in figurative c o n tex ts, indicatin g th at th e w o rd w as n o t y et a d ead m eta p h o r); Suet. Tib. 45: hircum vetulum capreis naturam ligurire (“ th e old g o a t lo n g s for n a tu re at C a p ri/lic k s the cunts o f th e ro e d e e r”). 28 N isb e t 1939 ad loc. also notes Im m isc h ’s su g g e stio n o f a p u n dialecticus/δ ία λ ε ιχ ε ιν (“ to lic k th o ro u g h ly ”), b u t re m a rk s th at it is “d o u b tfu l.” I have been u n ab le to find a sim ilar p u n o n dialecticus o r its cognates to su p p o rt Im m isc h ’s claim (the difference in vow el q u a n ­ tities p e rh ap s argues again st it), a n d A d a m s’s p o in t th at quoque “sh o w s th a t th e referent w as a ‘lic k e r u p ’ o f so m e th in g else a p art fro m w h at is im plied in dialecticus” fu rth e r indicates that o n e sh o u ld read dialecticus as sim p le irony, w ith o u t obscene co n n o ta tio n s (140).

120

CHA PTER 3

“an assistan t m o s t im p u re , n o t o n ly o f all tw o -fo o te d b u t also o f all fo u rfo o ted creatu res” (ministro omnium non bipedum solum, sed etiam quadrupedum impurissimo; Dom. 48)— recalls C ic e ro ’s verbal exclusion o f A p ro n iu s fro m , successively, th e realm o f h u m an s an d th e n o f anim als (Verr. 2 .3 .2 3 ). T h e a m b ig u o u s sy n tax o f th e genitive c o n stru c tio n “o f all . . . tw o -fo o te d . . . [and] fo u r-fo o te d ” (omnium . . . bipedum . . . quadrupedum ) also calls in to q u estio n C lo d iu s’ h u m a n status. Initially these w o rd s w o u ld have been co n stru e d b y C ic e ro ’s audience as possessive g en itiv es— “ an assistant fo r”— a c o m m o n co n stru c tio n in C icero. O n ly w ith th e ad jectiv e impurissimo (“m o st im p u re ”)— an in tere stin g w o rd in itself, h a v in g b een used thus far o n ly in d escrib in g C lo d iu s’ g an g (24) and C lo e liu s ’ m o u th (26; cf. Sest. 16, Har. resp. 11)— does the “in te n d e d ” sy n ta x b e c o m e clear (viz., “w h o is th e m o st im p u re o f . . . ”) .29 B y using an adjectiv e h av in g associations w ith th e im p u re m o u th , C icero p o rtra y s C lo d iu s an d C lo eliu s as u n fit for h u m a n society. A fte r re u n itin g m aster an d m in io n , C icero co n tin u es to follow th e fa­ m iliar stra ta g e m o f ex clu d in g b o th indiv id u als fro m h u m a n (R om an) so­ ciety. H is tactics resem b le th o se em p lo y ed in the oratio n s against V erres, w h e re p aratax is a n d p erio d ic ity c o m b in e in listin g the facets o f h u m a n ity fro m w h ic h V erres an d A p ro n iu s are excluded ( Verr. 2.3.23). C lo d iu s’ p o o r ju d g m e n t in ch o o sin g C loelius ex ten d s to all the assistants w ith w h o m he su rro u n d s him self: n e q u e tu eras ta m excors ta m q u e d em en s u t nescires C lo e liu m esse q u i co n ­ tra leges faceret, alios qui leges scribere soleren t; sed n e q u e e o ru m n eq u e c e te ro ru m , in q u ib u s esset aliq u id m od estiae, c u iu sq u am tibi p o te sta s fuit; n e q u e tu le g u m sc rip to rib u s isd e m p o tu isti u ti q u ib u s ceteri, n eq u e o p e ru m architectis, n eq u e p o n tific em ad h ib ere q uern velles, p o stre m o n e in p raed ae q u id e m so cietate m a n cip e m au t p rae d em e x tra tu o ru m g la d ia to ru m n u m e ru m a u t d en iq u e su ffragi la to re m in ista tu a p ro sc rip tio n e q u e m q u a m nisi fu re m ac sicariu m rep e rire p o tu isti. (Dom. 48) A n d y ou w ere n e ith e r so senseless n o r so in san e as to b e u n aw a re th a t C lo eliu s is a m an w h o acts c o n tra ry to th e law s, [w hile it is] o th e rs w h o u sually w rite th e law s; b u t y o u have n o p o w e r eith er o v er th e se m e n o r o v er th e rest o f m e n w h o have so m e deg ree o f sham e; and you w ere also u n ab le to use th e sam e scribes as ev ery o n e else, and th e sam e arch itects, an d to e m p lo y th e p rie st th a t y ou w an te d ; finally, n o t even in th e sh arin g o f y o u r lo o t could yo u find an ag en t o r rep resen tativ e, ex cep t fo r y o u r g ro u p o f 29 M e rg u e t gives six ex am p les in th e speeches o f minister w ith a possessive g en itiv e; fo r th e “ a c tu a l” c o n stru c tio n o f impurissimo, N is b e t 1939 ad loc. cites K iih n e r-S te g m a n n 2 .1:425, n o n e o f w h o s e e x am p les allow s the ro o m fo r a m b ig u ity C ice ro does here. R ichlin believes it “p ro b a b le . . . th a t impurus alw ays carried at least the su g g e stio n o f th e m ea n in g ‘c o n ta m in a te d b y o ra l-g e n ita l c o n ta c t’” (1992a: 29).

gladiators, or, last o f all, anyone to put the law to a vote in this proscription o f yours except for a th ie f and assassin.

C lo d iu s stands apart fro m the rest o f the civilized R o m an com m unity, w h ich follow s recognized rules o f state (lex) and society (modestia). H is o n ly co m p an io n s are C lo eliu s, w h o stands outside o f these law s (qui con­ tra leges faceret), and o th e r nam eless persons, p resu m ab ly the m em bers o f th e impurissimus b an d o f gladiators over w h o m he lords as pirate chief (tuorum gladiatorum numerum\ cf. Dom. 24). C icero has occasion soon after this passage to m en tio n specifically one o f C lo d iu s’ gladiators, in o rd e r to sh o w h o w society has prejudged this m an for his friendship w ith C lodius. It appears th at this person had de­ clined to p u rsu e a co u rt action for fear o f losing o n account o f his rela­ tio n sh ip w ith C lodius. C icero does n o t use a nam e, b u t cryptically refers to h im as “ th at n ew k in d o f L ig u rian ” (ille novicius Ligus\ Dom. 49). T h e m ean in g o f novicius rem ains unclear in this context. A p p aren tly Ligus, b o th a R o m an c o g n o m en and the nam e o f an Italian tribe, contains a slig h t o n recen t citizenship. T h e ethnic bias— “all Ligurians are liars”— is also surely p re se n t.30 B u t th e em phasis C icero places on the o rality o f C lo d iu s’ atten d ants points to yet a n o th er c o n n o tatio n — novicius Ligus hides a p u n o n the v erb ligurio (“to lick”). T h is unidentified b ro th e r o f M arcus P apirius is a “n ew licker” w h o has been im p o rte d like a n ew “citizen ” (novicius) in to C lo d iu s’ private society. T h is in terp re tatio n o f novicius receives som e su p p o rt fro m a later m en tio n b y C icero o f this L ig u s. In O n B ehalf o f Sestius the o ra to r describes h im again as a n ew elem en t o f C lo d iu s’ society: “th at so m eo n e o f yours [i.e., o f C lodius], a su p p lem en t to m y enem ies” (iste nescio qui, additamentum inimicorum meorum\ Sest. 68). In O n B ehalf o f H is Home, C icero show ed th e im plica­ tions o f his jo in in g this n ew g ro u p . A tainted m o u th characterizes even m ere association w ith C lodius. T h e rift b etw een C lodius and C lodia over C lo eliu s’ su p erio r sexual tech n iq u e has been m en d ed verbally b y th eir u n io n against society. T h e tain t attached to the m o u th , how ever, has n o t been fo rg o tten . In his final m en tio n o f C loelius in the speech O n B ehalf o f H is Home, C icero resum es this early m o tif. T h e co n tex t is again the su p p o sed ly prejudiced w o rd in g o f C lo eliu s’ d raft o f th e bill co nfirm ing C ic e ro ’s exile, U T M . T U L L I O 30 F or the tro p e o f th e “L igurian lia r,” see c h ap ter 2. N isb e t 1939 ad loc. discusses the u n c e rta in ty o f in te rp re ta tio n re g ard in g Ligus here: “ C icero g enerally h in ts th a t he had in­ tru d e d h im s e lf in to th e A elian gens, and th at th o u g h n o t a L igurian, he shared th e treach­ ero u s character o f th e L ig u ria n s.” I do n o t reject this in te rp re ta tio n (Sest. 69, q u o te d in ch ap ter 2, w o u ld seem to co n firm it). I f b o t h N is b e t’s c onjecture and th e o n e I offer in the te x t w e re true, this w o u ld m erely be a fu rth e r instance o f C icero su p p ly in g a surface insult th at can also b e c o n stru e d m o re d a m n in g ly b y the audience (w hile capable o f being denied by him self).

I N T E R D I C T U M S I T . T h e o ra to r asks C lo d iu s w h y he h ad n o t m e n ­ tio n e d in th e bill C ic e ro ’s o w n rem o v al fro m th e senate, a c o m m o n clause in serted in th e case o f exiles. H e th e n supplies C lo d iu s w ith the m ean s o f fin d in g th e answ er: quaere h o c ex C lo elio , scriptore legu m tuarum: iube adesse: latitat om nin o, sed si requiri iusseris, invenient h om in em apud sororem tuam occultantem se capite d em isso. (D om . 83) Find ou t w h y from C loelius, w h o w rites up your law s. O rder h im to appear here: h e ’s n o doubt in hiding, but i f you have him sou gh t out, th ey ’ll find the m an w ith your sister, concealing h im self, face d o w n (capite demisso).

B y u sin g q u asi-leg al language, C icero m o ck s C lo d iu s ’ p re s u m p tio n in c o m p o sin g his bill. T h e p h ra se iube adesse (“o rd e r h im to ap p e a r”) is the n o rm a l e x p re ssio n b y w h ic h a m ag istrate o rd e rs so m eo n e to ap p ear in c o u rt, a n d th e legal to n e co n tin u es as th e o ra to r in tim ate s C lo e liu s’ g u ilt th ro u g h his ch o ice o f the w o rd latito (“in h id in g ”), a technical te rm d e­ s c rib in g so m e o n e w h o avoids a s u m m o n s to tria l.31 T h is air o f fo rm a lity deflates slo w ly as sen ten ce e n d ap p ro ach es. F irst C lo eliu s is called a homo, a te rm o fte n u sed to co n v ey sarcasm o r iro n y .32 T h e n his w h e reab o u ts are rev ealed — h e is at C lo d ia ’s house. I f th e audience has n o t yet guessed th e im p lic a tio n s o f this h id in g place, th e y b ec o m e clear w ith th e final d esc rip tiv e ablative ab so lu te capite demisso (“ face d o w n ”). T h e ph rase ex ­ h ib its an a m b ig u ity su ch as I have o ften h ad occasion to n o te in m y dis­ cussion. L iterally m e a n in g “ w ith h ead lo w e re d ” and c o n n o tin g dejection o r h u m ility , th e w o rd s are q u ite capable o f yielding an in n o c e n t in te r­ p re ta tio n .33 B u t at th e sam e tim e a passage fro m C atu llu s, in w h ich G elIius is im a g in e d in self-fellation, indicates th a t th e p h ra se also h ad cu r­ re n cy in th e e ro tic sense th a t C ic e ro has led his h earers to anticipate here (C atu ll. 88 .7 —8: nam nihil est quicquam sceleris, quo prodeat ultra, / non si demisso se ipse voret capite— “ fo r th e re ’s n o m o re vices h e could c o m m it, n o t i f he ate h im s e lf w ith his h ead lo w e re d ”). Sim ilarly, Seneca d isd ain ­ fu lly d escrib es th e act o f o n e m a n fellating a n o th e r as “ sin k in g th e h e a d ” (caput merserat; Sen. N a t. 1.16.4). T h ese passages fro m C atu llu s an d S eneca p ro v id e d o u b le evidence. T h e y n o t o n ly reveal w h y C lo d iu s is ly in g “ face d o w n ” at C lo d ia ’s house, b u t th e y also sh o w th at an allusion 31 lube adesse: see D o m . 54 a n d 62, w h e re th e p h ra se refers to C lo d iu s ’ actions as trib u n e ; Verr. 2 .2 .4 1 . Latito: C ic e ro alw ays uses th e w o r d in a legal sense (K insey 141). F o r th e c o m b in a tio n latitare/ occultare cf. C ic. Frg. or. inc. 24: ("latitare") turpis occultatio sui. 32 F o r homo in a d e ro g a to ry sense, see S h a c k le to n B ailey o n Fam. 12.22.1 (SB 346); L a n d g r a f o n S . Rose. 8. 33 C f. C lu . 58; C aes. G all. 1.32.2; Sen. Contr. 1.3.1, 9.2.7; Sen. Epist. 65.20. A sim ila r d o u b le e n te n d re im p ly in g c u n n ilin g u s o c cu rs at P hil. 13.24.

to o ral-g en ital contact could be used to publicly degrade an o p p o n e n t.34 O n c e again, b y im p ly in g sexual activity o f the m o u th , C icero ridicules C loelius (and, by association, C lodius) and th ere b y renders b o th o f th em incapable o f co u n terin g C ic e ro ’s assertion that he w as exiled illegally. T h is discussion o f O n B e h a lf o f H is H om e opened w ith C icero ’s on ly di­ rect references to C lo d iu s’ os (D o m . 104). T h e criticism o f C lo d iu s’ legit­ im acy as a representative o f the public religion occupies the final p o rtio n o f th e speech. A lth o u g h C lo d iu s’ m o u th does n o t receive direct m en tio n p rio r to this passage, oral activity has nevertheless played a p ro m in e n t role in co lo rin g C ic e ro ’s invective o f his o p p o n en t. T h e first q u estio n directed at C lo d iu s in this passage concerns the p ro ­ p riety o f h im even speaking o n religious m atters: “ C an any w o rd o f re­ ligious scruple fall o r slip fro m th at m o u th (os) o f yo u rs?” (ex isto ore religionis verhum excidere aut elabi potest?). T h e deictic adjective accom ­ p an y in g os, iste (“ th at m o u th o f y o u rs”), b rin g s C lo d iu s’ m o u th to the atten tio n o f th e ju ro rs and signals the cathexis in the relationship am o n g C loelius, C lodius, and C lo d ia th at C icero has w oven th ro u g h o u t the ear­ lier p o rtio n s o f the speech. T h e fo rm er tribune shares the tain t o f the m o u th by association, a tain t th at affects even his ability to com m unicate. C icero also m en tio n s the m o u th in the sentence im m ediately follow ing: “W ith the sam e m o u th you have violated these scruples m o st uncleanly and m o st foully b y accusing the senate because it m ade a severe decree co n cern in g re lig io n ” (quam tu eodem ore accusando senatum, quod severe de religione decerneret, impurissime taeterrimeque violasti). T h e m o d ifier at­ tached to os here, idem (“sam e”), em phasizes C lo d iu s’ im p ro p rie ty in usin g th e sam e m o u th for engaging in sexual activity, for carry in g ou t a religious cerem ony, and for p ro testin g th e p u n ish m en t o f his involve­ m e n t in th e B o na D ea incident. T hese three realm s o f C lo d iu s’ activities h ad already been in terlin k ed earlier in the speech th ro u g h C ic e ro ’s jo k es co n cern in g C loelius as th e im p u re “taste-te ste r” and th ro u g h th e un io n o f b o th these m en to C lodia th ro u g h th e m otifs o f incest and oral sex. Im purissim e (“ m o st uncleanly”), lastly, fu rth e r recalls th e dirtiness o f C lo eliu s’ “im p u re m o u th ” (os im purum ; D om . 26). T h e w o rd impurus had been used earlier to describe C lo d iu s’ gan g (D om . 24) and to describe C lo eliu s again, “the m o st im p u re assistant” (minister impurissimus\ D om . 34 F or th e n egative term s w ith w h ic h the fem ale genitalia are described in Latin litera­ tu re , see R ichlin 1992a: 6 7 -6 9 , 1 15-16, 122-23. A possible allusion to C lo d iu s as a c unn ilin c to r occurs in C a tu llu s p o e m 79; see S kinner, esp. 197—200. I discuss in the n e x t chap­ te r a d d itio n al reasons for the und esirab ility o f a m an p e rfo rm in g fellatio o r cunnilingus: it w as conceived as p u ttin g the m an in th e su b m issiv e role, as the o n e p ro v id in g p leasure to a n o th e r w ith o u t receiving pleasure him self.

48). O th e r passages o u tsid e o f O n B e h a lfo fH is Hom e also attest to th e associations th a t w o u ld have b een su g g ested by th e p ro x im ity o f os an d impurus (P is. 8; Sest. 118; Phil. 2.68, 5.16, 5.20, 11.7). B y u sin g v o ca b u la ry th a t recalls o th e r co n tex ts o f oral activity, C icero co lo rs th e o n ly passage in O n B eh a lf o f H is H om e in w h ich h e d irectly to u ch es u p o n C lo d iu s ’ m o u th . A t th e b e g in n in g o f this ch a p te r I h y p o ­ th esized th at, fo r a R o m an , th e m o u th acts as a channel b etw e en th e o u ter w o rld an d o n e ’s in n e r being; I fu rth e r su g g ested th at th e m o u th can be ta in te d b y th e w o rld ly activ ity th at it to u ch es u p o n as w ell as b y the in te rn a l ev il th a t rises u p fro m w ith in . In his tre a tm e n t o f C lo d iu s in O n B eh a lf o f H is Home, C icero translates this c o n c ep tio n o f th e os in to a lin­ g u istic realm . T h e re p reh e n sib le o ral ac tiv ity attach ed to his assistant C lo eliu s b eco m es associated b y th e e n d o f th e speech w ith C lo d iu s ’ o w n m o u th . O n c e C lo d iu s ’ os has been id en tified as evil, his m o u th pro ceed s to a ttra c t th e m o d ifiers th a t p o in t u p the n atu re o f th a t evil (ex isto ore; eodem ore). H is m o u th speaks w ith o u t w o rd s, revealing its in ab ility to c o m m u n ic a te w ith th e o u tsid e w o rld .

T h e M o u t h a n d P o l it ic a l Id e o l o g y

C ic e ro ’s p e rfo rm a n c e in O n B e h a lfo fH is H om e su g g ests th a t d escrip tio n s of, a n d resp o n ses to , p artic u la r m o u th s assisted in fo rm in g a R o m a n ide­ o lo g y o f b o d y p a rts. A s n o te d already, th e os impurum— the m o u th ta in te d b y sex a n d d rin k — is a charge th a t hinges o n class. O n ly b y co n ­ n e c tin g C lo d iu s w ith a m e m b e r outside the elite— C lo eliu s— can C icero ev e n tu a lly im p licate C lo d iu s h im se lf in th e lo w ly ac tiv ity o f c u n n ilin g u s .35 H a v in g analyzed h o w C icero ex p lo its th e c o n n o ta tio n s o f m o u th s , I can n o w re tu rn to th e sta te m e n t fro m O n the Lim its o f Good and E vil th a t is th e e p ig ra p h to this chapter. C o u ld th e edu cated R o m a n o f C ic e ro ’s day tell s im p ly b y lo o k in g at a p e rs o n ’s face w h e th e r th at p erso n has in fact “sco rn ed th e law an d lim it o f n a tu re ” ? R o m a n so ciety w as stru c tu re d in a n u m b e r o f w ays to c o n tro l access to th e elite. Je a n -M ic h e l D a v id has stu d ied th e elo cu tio n ary style th at cam e 35 A w all painting depicting m ale-fem ale cunnilingus w as found recently in the su b u r­ ban baths at Pom peii. Previously the depiction o f this subject had been k n o w n only from gem s and lam ps (Jacobelli 4 5 -4 6 cites the relevant literary and artistic evidence). T he “ro u g h -an d -read y ” style o f the Pom peian paintings may provide further evidence for the low er-class connotations o f this sexual practice (C larke 286-87). H allett 1978 argues th at a wall painting especially prized b y T iberius o f A talanta and a m ale lover depicts the sexual position “sixty-nine” (Suet. Tib. 44.2; cf. O v. Ars 3.775, A m . 3.2.2 9-30).

to be d esignated as eloquentia popularis — the “p o p u lar w ay o f sp eak in g ” th at arose in co n tra st to the m o re u rb an e elite style.36 D avid has sh o w n th at this “p o p u la r elo q u en ce” w as n o rm ally associated w ith political n ew co m ers, p eople w h o m ay have been im p o rta n t in their native co m ­ m u n ities b u t w h o , u p o n arriv in g in the big city, sto o d o u t because o f th eir n o n -R o m a n style o f p ro n u n ciatio n , use o f vocabulary, and even sense o f h u m o r. T h e p a tro n /c lie n t sy stem established at R om e also often m ark e d these m en. L acking th e connections necessary to speak in defense o f p ro m in e n t R om ans, they w ere o ften forced early in their careers to p ro secu te im p o rta n t aristocrats, th ereb y being fu rth e r labeled as a g ro u p o f m alco n ten t challengers to th e status quo. M oreover, C iceronian invec­ tive indicates th at so m e “p o p u lar speakers” w ere o ften m ark ed by an extern al appearance d eterm in ed in co n trad istin ctio n to the elite— they w o re b ag g y clothes, sp o rted foppish hairstyles and skinny beards, and even seem to have h ad th eir o w n style o f w a lk in g .37 W hat w e w o u ld call “a c q u ired ” characteristics becam e co n stru cted b y invective as a fu n ctio n o f a p e rs o n ’s in n er n atu re and, b y extension, political affiliation. It w o u ld n o t th en be so unusual for these individuals to have distinct m o u th s. Parallels exist in o th er cultures for w h a t m ig h t be term e d “ classspecific” m o u th s. P ierre B ourdieu, a F rench sociologist concerned w ith h o w d ifferen t social and political situations affect o u r bod ily dispositions, has n o ted th at in co n te m p o ra ry France the m o u th b o th reflects and helps define in h ere n t differences b etw een the b ourgeoisie and the lo w er class. T h e b o u rg eo is m o u th (la bouche) “is m o re closed, pinched, i.e. tense and cen so red ” w hereas the w o rk in g class m o u th (la gueule) is “unasham edly w id e open, . . . i.e. relaxed and free. ”38 T h is contrast m anifests itself th ro u g h o u t th e entire ran g e o f each class’s lifestyle. In diet, low er-class m en reject th e upper-class love o f fish— a food th at m u st b e chew ed w ith a sm all m o u th , w ith the fro n t teeth— p referrin g instead the v igorously ch o m p ed steak. T h ese differences find expression in daily m etaphor: p o p u lar phrases describing fastidiousness and u p tig h tn ess utilize the b o u rg eo is bouche, w hereas the low er-class gueule is used in m etaphorical phrases describ ing outspokenness, verbal stren g th , and even physical vi­ o lence.39 T h e F rench m o u th , like the R om an, draw s atten tio n to itse lf 36 D a v id 1980 and especially 1983. 37 I discuss th e c lo th in g a n d appearance o f the n o n e lite in m y n e x t chapter. F o r indica­ tions th a t d iffere n t politicians had differen t and identifiable w alks, see In Clod. 22; Sest. 17, 105; Brut. 225; Phil. 13.4. 38 B o u rd ie u 1991; 86. 39 D ie t: B o u rd ieu 1984: 1 90-91; m eta p h o r: B o u rd ieu 1991; 86—87. S im ilar observations have been m ad e b y L abov c o n ce rn in g the m o u th s o f m ale speakers in N e w Y ork C ity (cited in B o u rd ieu 1991: 86).

b o th v erb ally and visually, u n til it d o m in ates the h ead an d allow s conclu­ sions to b e d ra w n a b o u t social p o sitio n and in tern a l character. A t R o m e, th e n , a n a tu ra l s tru c tu re — th e m o u th — becom es c o n stitu ­ tive o f social stru c tu re s. A s w ith th e ir tre a tm e n t o f p h y sical peculiarities, R o m a n s ap p ealed to th e n a tu ra l w o rld fo r evidence th a t the ac tiv ity o f th e m o u th is in d icativ e o f in tern a l states o f b eing. As a resu lt, the physical m o u th , an a p p a re n tly o b jectiv e e n tity th a t alw ays existed, com es to act as a s tru c tu rin g s tru c tu re — a c o n stru c te d , o b jectiv e p a rt o f reality th at si­ m u lta n e o u sly creates a n d reinforces d istin ctio n s b o th b etw e en and w ith in classes.40 T h e situ a tio n o f th e m o u th can be c o m p ared to a m o re c o m m o n ly re c o g n iz e d p h e n o m e n o n . P ro p e r speech is an aspect o f p ro p e r R o m a n (u rb an ) e d u c atio n , a n d im p ro p e r speech w as readily detectab le an d re ad ily m o c k e d — readers o f C atu llu s w ill recall A rrius and th e “H io n ia n Sea. ”41 A lth o u g h h e a rin g w h e n th e p ro p e r n o rm s o f speech w e re v io ­ lated w as an easy m an n er, d efin in g precisely w h a t c o n stitu te d such speech w as n o t. “B u t w h a t is this ‘u rb a n e ’ flavor (urbanitatis color) y o u ’re ta lk in g a b o u t? ” B ru tu s asks in one o f C ic e ro ’s rh e to ric al dialogues. “ I d o n ’t k n o w ,” C ic e ro replies, “ I o n ly k n o w i t ’s something. ”42 T h e essence escapes d e sc rip tio n b u t n o t d etec tio n . In rh e to ric al train in g , th e u p p e r classes u se th e ir e c o n o m ic capital (the m o n e y to educate them selves) to create sy m b o lic capital (the p ro p e r e tiq u e tte o f th e R o m a n elite). Romanitas can b e b o u g h t: an o b v io u s p o in t, o f w h ich H o ra c e ’s father w as w ell a w a re .43 T h is sy m b o lic capital serves, in tu rn , to m ask the im p o r­ tan ce o f e c o n o m ic capital. T h e w ays o n e acts, speaks, and m o v es— n o t financial reso u rces— b ec o m e p erceived as the n atu ra l d e te rm in a n ts o f a p e rs o n ’s social an d po litical p o sitio n . T h e o ra to rs fro m th e provinces, w ith th e ir u n n a tu ra l gestures and speech p attern s, e m b o d y w h a t is im ­ p ro p e r fo r th e elite R o m an . A s a result, th e social h iera rch y b ecom es leg itim a te d , a n d o n ly th o se w ith access to a p ro p e r tra in in g rem a in in po w er. T h is scenario, I su g g est, also applies to th e m o u th . Passages such as the o n e I q u o te d fro m O n the Lim its o f Good and E vil p ro v e th at social strati­ ficatio n was p racticed b y app ealin g to n a tu re (natura). P eople are this w ay becau se this is th e w a y th ey are. A n y o n e w h o is n o t this w a y is n o t like us 40 I b o r ro w th e n o tio n o f a “stru c tu rin g s tru c tu r e ” fro m B o u rd ie u 1990: 53. 41 C a tu ll. 84; cf. L ucilius H irru s , w h o m C ic e ro m o c k in g ly calls “ H illu s” in allu sio n to H ir r u s ’ sp eech d efect (F am . 2.10.1 = SB 8). 42 Brut. 171: E t Brutus: "Q u i est,” inquit, " iste tandem urbanitatis color?” "N escio," inquam; “tantum esse quendam scio.” R a m a g e offers a th o ro u g h d iscu ssio n o f w h a t c o n stitu te d this elu siv e urbanitas. 43 H o r. Sat. 1 .6 .7 6 —78; fo rtu n ately , H o ra c e ’s fa th e r h a d su fficien t e c o n o m ic capital.

and th erefo re should n o t presum e to take over o u r roles. T h e issue at stake for th e elite R o m an is n o t one o f class b u t o f w h o is a p ro p e r repre­ sentative o f th e natu ral order. A n d every tim e C icero opens his m o u th to talk ab o u t an o th er p e rso n ’s m o u th , he uses a public context to fu rth er legislate and reinforce political and social categories.

Chapter 4 MORAL APPEARANCE IN ACTION: EFFEMINACY

OVEREATING, naked dancing, telling jokes-three activities guaranteed to curtail any young Roman's political aspirations. The connection between moral profligacy and extravagant feasting constitutes a stock charge in invective texts from the late Republic, a charge that frequently surfaced in chapter 3 when Cicero took to scrutinizing the mouths of Apronius and Cloelius (Verr. 2.3.23, 31, 62, 134; Dom. 25). This chapter explores the foreboding environment of the banquet room and examines those features recurring most frequently in Roman representations of perverted feasters. The discussion will of necessity be very schematic and the conclusions will apply only to a particular area within this type of invective: many elements inform the illicit character of convivial excess and any single explanation for all these elements would necessarily oversimplify. I shall not, therefore, consider the standard explanation for the danger represented by excessive banqueting, namely that banquets reflect a Greek or Eastern way oflife that will slowly infiltrate and destroy Romangravitas. Without doubt this account contributes much to understanding why banqueting themes are so prevalent in moral critiques written by Roman authors from the late Republic.! In fact, Greek loan words dominate the very vocabulary of the banquet, thus creating the impression of "a way of life imported as a package."2 Yet these alleged origins fail to explain fully the Romans' perverse fascination with banqueting practices. The power in the rhetoric of banqueting lies not simply in a clever manipulation of xenophobia but in Roman concerns about the nature of the masculine self. The effeminate male actively participates in the banquet's debauchery. In the invective directed at the feast, the Roman orator consistently fastens upon specific, externally visible traits to indicate to his audience the effeminate character of an opponent. Thus a double phenomenon occurs similar to that which I observed in analyzing the mockery of the mouth (os): physical traits or affectations of a person not only reveal past involvement in an immoderate feast, but they also presage future afftliation with a convivial setting. An analysis of these external indicators of feasting reveals their distinctly Roman significance: the stigma of

1

2

See, for example, the texts dIscussed by Edwards 186-88. MacMullen 486-87.

convivial excess stem s fro m anxiety over w h a t constitutes— and w h a t d ec o n stitu tes— R o m an m asculinity. T h e effem inate b an q u eter does n o t in h ab it on ly rhetorical invective; th e co m b in atio n o f food, dance, and effem inate o r sexually subm issive b eh av io r o ccurs in co m ed y and ep ig ram as w e ll.3 T h e generic character o f these effem inate feasters tem p ts m o d e rn readers to attrib u te to th em a p u rely literary existence, one th at the R om ans have sim ply b o rro w ed fro m G reek antecedents. T his scholarly tendency, originating fro m a co m p u lsio n to rid R o m an society o f the slightest traces o f m ale h o m o ­ ero ticism , is b est exem plified b y certain m o d e rn attitudes to w ard the h o m o e ro tic po em s o f C atullus and H orace: th eir expressions o f love fo r y o u n g boys derive n o t fro m real affection, som e scholars claim , b u t fro m literary influence.4 Such assertions p ro m ise to be replaced by m o re bal­ anced assessm ents; ra th e r than reflecting a debt to literary ancestors, the poets seem instead to be resp o n d in g to the v ery real H ellenization o f their so ciety.5 O n e m ig h t even arg u e w h a t in tu itiv ely seem s probable, th at the ap p aren t G reek legacy o f the b an q u et sim p ly cam e to occupy a space already presen t in R o m an society and that the process o f assim ilation o b scu red traces o f original R o m an attitudes and practices.6 A n d the pos­ sibility th a t life, at least in part, im itates art should n o t be ig n o red o u t o f hand. R ecent research in to the role o f spectacle in R o m an society reveals h o w th e R o m an s tended to b lu r rath er than h ig h lig h t this distinction b etw een life and a r t.7 Such practices stren g th en the possibility th at the v ery stig m a o f th e b an q u e t as p erp etu ated in invective helped shape the id en tity o f an already existing su b cu ltu re .8 H ence a process o f cultural 3 E .g ., P laut. M en. 19 7 -9 8 , M il. 6 6 6 -6 8 , Poen. 1298, 1317-18, Stick. 7 69-72; C atull. 2 9 .1 -5 , 4 7 .3 -6 (cf. th e chart in R ichlin 1988: 362). 4 H orace: W illiam s 1962: 39—42; C atullus: A rk in s 106—7. 5 G riffin offers an excellent su rv ey o f h o w “ R o m an life, and p articu larly the life o f lu x ­ u ry and pleasure, w as so stro n g ly H ellenistic in c o lo u rin g and m aterial th a t n o sim ple division in to ‘G re ek ’ and ‘R o m a n ’ elem ents is p o ssib le ” (88). R ecent h a n d b o o k s and c o m ­ m en taries follow G riffin ’s assessm ent in at least allow ing the po ssib ility o f g en u in e h o m o ­ e ro tic passion a m o n g the p oets, e .g ., The Cambridge History o f Latin Literature 409 (Luck). A lth o u g h G riffin focuses o n the A u g u sta n period, his discussion includes texts fro m the late R epublic, a n d his conclusions w o u ld seem valid for this earlier p erio d as well. 6 See E d w a rd s 9 4 -9 7 , w h o m aintains th at “the ‘a n ti-G re e k ’ rh e to ric th a t has co m e to be associated w ith effem inacy w as grafted o n an established R o m an p ractice” (94). 7 D u p o n t 1 1 9 -2 3 c o m m e n ts o n the fine line betw een theatrical and oratorical p e rfo r­ m ances. B a rto n 5 4 -6 5 discusses th e intersection o r b lu rrin g o f theatrical violence and real­ ity in th e early E m p ire . See also V ersnel 3 7 1 -9 7 o n th e R o m an triu m p h . F or m o d e rn parallels, see R og in , especially chap. I, “Ronald Reagan: T h e M o v ie ” (1 -4 3 ), and the re ­ m ark s o f G re en b la tt 2 6 3 -7 2 . 8 W eeks discusses the effects th at social rep resen tatio n s o f h o m o sex u als have had on actual p ra ctitio n ers o f h o m o e ro tic behavior. See especially his discussion o f the d istin c tio n b etw ee n “p rim a ry ” and “se c o n d a ry ” d eviation (107-10). R ichlin 1993 offers a detailed anal­ ysis o f w h e th e r a h o m o se x u al su b c u ltu re could have existed in ancient R om e.

tra n sm issio n is o p e ra tiv e h ere th at is m o re c o m p le x th an a sim p le m a tte r o f lite ra ry influence. A s I shall d e m o n stra te b e lo w in m o re detail, the effem in ate b a n q u e te r re p resen ts n o t sim p ly a lite ra ry in h eritan c e b u t the h y b rid p ro d u c t o f social realities a n d im ag in ativ e fo reb o d in g s. A fu rth e r co n sid e ra tio n encourages th e use o f in v ectiv e texts as a gauge o f actual R o m a n b ehavior. As w e have seen, o ra to rs use the process o f in v ectiv e to c o n s tru c t an id e o lo g y th a t necessarily entails a certain level o f c o m p lic ity o n th e h e a re rs ’ p art. In th e p a rtic u la r p rocess o f d efin in g an d e n fo rc in g th e im p o rta n c e o f m ascu lin ity in R o m a n cu ltu re, p u b lic sp eak ers fo u n d an easy ta rg e t for th e ir insecurities in the p erso n o f th e effem in ate m a le .9 Since th e effectiveness o f an o ra to r’s persuasive ab ility d e p e n d e d in larg e p a rt u p o n his credibility, o n e w o u ld ex p e ct the o ra to r to fo rm in his in v ectiv e as c o h e ren t and realistic a p ic tu re as possible. T h u s w e w o u ld be ex tre m e ly cred u lo u s to believe th at a R o m a n audience w o u ld allo w c o n sta n t references to practices en tirely alien to its ex p e ri­ ence, especially w h e n these practices are m e n tio n e d o n ly in o rd e r to be cen su red . H e n ce th e rh e to ric al p o w e r o f in v ectiv e ag ain st b an q u e ts an d effem inacy, a p o w e r attested to b y its freq u en c y — i f by n o th in g else— v irtu a lly en su res th a t so m e re ality su p p o rts these h o stile accusations. R e­ cen t sch o larsh ip has b e g u n to clarify th e relatio n sh ip at R o m e b etw e en p o litical id e o lo g y a n d actual sexual practices, c o n fro n tin g th e evidence at face v alue ra th e r th a n sim p ly ex p lain in g it aw ay. 10 If o n e applies this a p p ro a c h to th e effem in ate b an q u eter, h e is fo u n d to o ccu p y a lim in al w o rld b e tw e e n lite ra tu re a n d reality: the lite rary aspect allow s the o ra to r to em p lo y caricature, th ere b y e n su rin g th at his audience w ill reco g n ize th e fig u re h e describes, w h ile th e elem e n t o f reality allow s, I believe, the real th re a t o f this fig u re to be felt. In the fo llo w in g d iscussion, I recreate a c o n te x t w ith in w h ic h this p a rtic u la r m o d e o f invective altern ately ap­ pealed to a n d ap p alled its hearers. I b e g in b y b ra c k e tin g qu estio n s o f h isto ricity , fo cu sin g in stead o n h o w th e b a n q u e t an d its a tte n d a n t vices are c o n stitu te d in o u r e x ta n t tex ts as a reality d irec tly o p p o se d to p ro p e r R o m a n beh av io r. T h ese o b serv atio n s w ill th e n allow m e to co n c en trate o n w h y th is co u n te rre a lity w as c o n stru e d as an already p re sen t th re a t to society. Finally, th e qualities associated w ith th e effem in ate m ale lead to a co n sid e ra tio n o f th e n a tu re o f m ale h o m o e ro tic b eh a v io r at R om e. E x ta n t 9 I d isa g ree w ith th e claim s o f B o sw ell 1990: 7 0 -7 2 th a t ‘“ sexual id e n tity ’ h a d little to do w ith e x p e c te d social roles in th e c o m m u n ity ” (71). T h is a sse rtio n is said to a p p ly b ro a d ly to “ M e d ite rra n e a n c ity -states o f th e a n cien t w o rld (ca. 400 B e —400 a d ) ” (70). 10 See m o s t re c e n tly R ich lin 1993; C a n ta rella 1 2 0 -4 1 . M a c M u lle n ’s d iscu ssio n covers th e “ e x c e p tio n s, c o n tra d ic tio n s , a n d te n s io n s” (485) in try in g to p o s it a “ R o m a n a ttitu d e ” to ­ w a rd m ale h o m o se x u a lity , u n c o v e rin g a lo n g th e w ay “ v a rio u s p re ssu re s to c o n fo rm a n d c o u n te r-p re s su re s w h ic h o b lig e d p e o p le to conceal a p a rt o f th e m se lv e s” (496).

evidence stro n g ly su p p o rts the n o tio n th at o u r co n stru cted effem inate m ale co n stitu tes a real category o f p erson to w h o m d istinguishing and distin ctiv e codes o f beh av io r can be ascribed.

F e a s t in g W

ords

O n b o th a m o ral and a sem antic level, R om ans linked g lu tto n y w ith ineffective self-m anagem ent. T h e p o p u lar vocabulary o f b a n k ru p tc y and financial p ro fligacy derives fro m w o rd s th at describe excessive in d u l­ gence in fo o d and drink: a perso n w h o squanders w ealth “d ev o u rs” it (icomedo o r devoro ); to declare o n eself b a n k ru p t is to “ o v erco o k ” o r “boil aw ay ” (decoquo), and so a b a n k ru p t person is an “o v erco o k er” (decoctor) .11 It is n o t difficult to discover the relationship b etw een the financial and co n v iv ial dom ains: w astin g aw ay tim e and m o n ey in the sensual plea­ sures o f fo o d p rev en ts a person fro m m aintaining co n tro l o f an estate. T h is equivalence provides a p arad ig m for h u m o ro u s invective. T h e elder C ato , for exam ple, ex p lo ited the sim ilar sem antics o f g lu tto n y and finan­ cial m ism an ag em en t. M acrobius preserves o n e instance: sacrificium ap u d veteres fu it q u o d v ocabatur p ro p te r v iam . in eo m o s erat ut, siquid ex epulis superfuisset, igne co n su m eretu r. hinc C ato n is iocus est. n am q u e A lb id iu m q u en d a m , q u i bo n a sua com ed isset et n o v issim e d o m u m quae ei reliqua erat incendio perdidisset, p ro p te r v iam fecisse dicebat: “q u o d com esse n o n p o tu e rit, id co m b u ssisse.” (M acr. Sat. 2.2.4) A m o n g the ancients there w as a sacrifice called “beside th e ro a d .” In this ty p e o f sacrifice it w as th e cu sto m to con su m e b y fire a n y th in g left over fro m feasting. F ro m this practice com es C a to ’s jo k e . W hen a certain A lb idius had sq u an d ered his o w n goods and had recently lo st in a fire his o nly rem a in in g house, C a to said A lbidius had con d u cted a “sacrifice beside the ro a d ” : w h a t he co u ld n ’t sq u a n d e r/d e v o u r (comedo), h e b u rn ed up.

C ato literalizes the b an k ru p tc y m etap h o r: since A lbidius could n o t “eat aw ay ” his w h o le estate, he conducts the sacrifice appropriate for one set­ tin g o u t o n a jo u rn e y (propter viam fecisse·, c f. Fest. p. 229 [M ueller])— w h a t can n o t be eaten is set o n fire. A sim ilar connection betw een the 11 comedo: P laut. Pseud. 1107; C atu ll. 29.14; C ic. Phil. 11.37; H o r. Epist. 1.15.40; M artial 5.70.5; T L L 3:17 6 7 .2 5 -7 2 . devoro: C atull. 29.22; C ic. Phil. 2.67, Verr. 2.3.177, [C ic.] Inv. in Sail. 20; Q u in t. Inst. 8.6.25; M acr. Sat. 3.13.6: Gurgitem a devorato patrimonio cognominatum (G urges received his n a m e fro m his d ev o u red p a trim o n y ); T L L 5 .1 :8 7 6 .2 1 -5 0 . decoctor: T L L 5 .1:197.65—198.7; C ro o k 375—76 agrees th at in situ atio n s o f d e b t decoquere m u s t m ean “ to s q u a n d e r,” in spite o f th e scholiast to Catil. 2.5 (Schol. G ro n . p. 281, 7—10 [Stangl]), w h o claim s th a t a decoctor is o n e w h o “ cooks aw ay” a d eb t, as o p p o se d to a patrim o n y .

g lu tto n a n d th e sp e n d th rift u n derlies a jo k e o f C ato p reserv ed b y P lu tarch : τον δέ πεπ ρα κ ότα τούς πατρώ ους άγρούς παραλίους όντας έπιδεικνύμενος προσεποιειτο θαυμάζειν ώς ΐσχυρότερον τής θαλάττης, “α γάρ έκείνη μόλις έκλυζεν, ούτος,” έφη, “φρδίως καταπέπω κεν. ” (Plut. Cato Μα. 8.7) Pointing to a man w ho had sold the seaside estates o f his ancestors, [Cato] pretended to marvel that the m an was stronger than the sea. “For what the sea washed away w ith difficulty,” he said, “this man has easily drunk d o w n .” Κ α τ α π ίν ω (“ d rin k d o w n ”) p re su m a b ly translates th e L atin v erb ebibo, a n o th e r w o rd fro m th e d o m a in o f th e feast th a t th e R o m a n s m e ta ­ p h o rica lly ap p lied to financial p ro flig ac y .12 T h ese tw o dicta o f C ato do n o t re p re se n t m e re ly cheap jo k e s. In fact, th e a ttrib u tio n to C a to attests to th e ir p ro fo u n d ly R o m a n c h a ra c te r.13 A n o th e r pair o f anecdotes p re­ serv ed b y P lu ta rc h conveys the fo rm e r ce n so r’s feelings ab o u t p re serv in g p a trim o n y : h e o nce re m a rk e d th a t o n e o f his th ree re g re ts in life w as to have b een in testate fo r an e n tire day (P lut. Cato M a. 9.6); o n an o th e r o ccasio n h e n o tes th a t to lessen p a trim o n y befits n o t a m an b u t a w id ­ o w e d w o m a n , w h e reas to increase p a trim o n y reveals a “ g o d lik e p ara­ g o n ” (θ α υ μ α σ τ ό ν ά ν δ ρ α κ α ί θ ε ιο ν ; Cato Μ α. 21.8). T h e im p o rta n c e C a to placed o n th e p ro p e r m a n a g e m e n t o f finances helps to explain his h u m o ro u s ab u se o f g lu tto n o u s sp e n d th rifts .14 C a to ’s c o n c ep tu al m a trix o f g lu tto n y , financial profligacy, a n d the p ro p e r ro le o f a m a n (as o p p o se d to a w o m an ) reem erg es in th e tim e o f C icero w ith ex p licitly political co n n o tatio n s. T h e activities o f th e im ­ m o d e ra te feast c o m e to o ccu p y a p o sitio n o p p o se d to th a t o f a p ro p e r R o m a n statesm an . In his speech O n B e h a lfo f Sestius, the o ra to r h ig h lig h ts 12 ebibo: P la u t. Trin. 250; H o r. Sat. 2.3 .1 2 2 ; U lp . D ig. 5 .3 .2 5 .1 6 . E d w a rd s 175 cites the sim ila r u se o f effitndo a n d profundo (“p o u r o u t ”). 13 T h e e ld e r Seneca speaks o f C a to as an o racle o f m o ra lity (Sen. Contr. l.p ra e f.9 ); see fu rth e r E d w a rd s 1—2, 139, 177. 14 A n o th e r e x a m p le o f an o ra to r e x p lo itin g th e c o n n e c tio n b e tw e e n g lu tto n y a n d p o v ­ e rty b e fo re C ic e ro ’s day is p re se rv e d at D e orat. 2.265: ille Gallus olim testis in Pisoneml cum innumerabilem Magio praefecto pecuniam dixisset datam idque Scaurus tenuitate M agi redargueret, “erras, ’’ inquit "Scaure; ego enim M agium non conservasse dico, sed tamquam nudus nuces legeret, in ventre abstulisse’’ (“ A m a n n a m e d G allus o n c e testified a g ain st P iso. A fte r h e h a d said th a t an in e stim a b le su m o f m o n e y h a d b e en giv en to th e p re fe c t M ag iu s, and Scaurus w as a tte m p t­ in g to re fu te th is b y p o in tin g to M a g iu s’ financial stra its, G allus rep lied , ‘Y ou d o n ’t u n d e r­ sta n d , S cau ru s; I’m n o t say in g M a g iu s has saved it b u t ra th e r, j u s t like a m a n in a tu n ic [nudus] g a th e rs n u ts , h e has sto re d it a w ay in his s to m a c h ’” ).

the questio n ab le m o rality o f the fo rm e r consul G abinius b y referrin g to his p en ch an t for feasting and sex: me ipsum ut contempsit helluo patriae! nam quid ego patrimoni dicam, quod ille turn cum quaestum faceret amisit? (Sest. 26) H ow this consumer o f the fatherland (patriae) spurned even me! For why should I say [consumer] “o f his patrimony” (patrimoni), something he lost when he was out selling his favors (quaestum faceret)? T h e abuse reveals an in terestin g th o u g h t progression. A fter alluding to G ab in iu s’ in ab ility to govern the state (helluopatriae), C icero segues in to rem ark s o n th e inability to co n tro l financial affairs. T h e relationship be­ com es m o re co ncrete th ro u g h th e etym ological link C icero exploits w ith his play o n patriae and patrim oni. A b an d o n in g the fatherland and squan­ derin g a fa th e r’s estate expose sim ilar faults o f character. C atu llu s’ lam ­ p o o n o f M a m u rra in p o em 29 depends o n sim ilar associations. M a m u rra ’s tre a tm e n t o f his inheritance anticipated his exploits as gover­ n or: “first his fa th e r’s p ro p e rty w as rip p ed to sh re d s” (paterna prim a Iancinata sunt bona; 29.17). A fter en u m eratin g M a m u rra ’s p lu n d erin g o f the provinces, C atu llus encapsulates all these exploits in one phrase: “w h a t can this m an d o o th e r th an d ev o u r a w ell-oiled p a trim o n y ? ” (aut quid hie potest / nisi uncta devorare patrimonia?·, 29.21—22). Like G abinius, M am u rra recapitulates in a c o rru p t p ublic career his incapacity in private affairs. T h ese sh o rt o u tb u rsts o f C icero and C atullus against th eir political o p ­ p o n en ts reveal a close co rrespondence betw een representations o f the p u b lic and th e private, a concern reflected in legal texts th at treat financial p ro d ig a lity .15 As has been no ted , C icero translates the charge o f g lu tto n y in to a d a n g e r to the state (helluo patriae); C atullus uses the corresp o n d in g v erb fo rm to characterize M a m u rra ’s actions (elluatus est; 29.16). A sim i­ lar association b etw een G abinius’ im m o d e rate p riv ate life and his neglect o f state m atters occurs elsew here: C icero describes h im in A gainst Piso as “th at w h irlp o o l and g lu tto n , b o rn for his belly, n o t fo r praise and g lo ry ” (ille gurges atque helluo, natus abdomini suo, non laudi et gloriae; Pis. 41)— praise and g lo ry co n stitu tin g , o f course, traditional goals o f th e R o m an aristo c ra t,16 T h e passage fro m O n B e h a lfo f Sestius also show s the o ra to r rid icu lin g G abinius for w ag e earning, an activity deem ed beneath the d ig n ity o f a sta te sm a n .17 T h e phrase he uses, how ever, contains a double 15 E d w a rd s 180-83. 16 E arl 1 1 -4 3 discusses th e im p o rta n c e o f the values Iaus a n d gloria in th e late R epublic. 17 O ff. 1.15 0 -5 1 provides th e locus classicus for this view . T h e reasons b e h in d the d istinc­ tions C ice ro m akes in this passage are ex am in ed b y Finley 3 5 -6 1 . T h e R o m an s did n o t,

134

CHA PTER 4

e n te n d re a n d th e re b y adds a n o th e r d im e n sio n to th e c o m p le x o f charges levied: quaestum facere (“ to p ro fit”) can sta n d as an ab b rev iated fo rm o f quaestum [corpore] facere (“to p ro fit fro m o n e ’s b o d y ”). H en ce C icero im ­ plies n o t o n ly th a t G ab in iu s h ad to s u p p o rt h im se lf financially b u t th at he d id so th ro u g h p ro s titu tio n .18 T h e co n n e ctio n in in v ectiv e b etw e en fi­ nan cial an d sexual p ro flig acy also occurs in C a tu llu s’ attack (29.7, 13—14, 16). O n e m ay trace this m o tif in R o m a n political d iscourse b ack to at least th e m id d le o f th e seco n d ce n tu ry .19 Y et a n o th e r ele m e n t o f C ic e ro ’s attack h e re w ill re c u r in the in v ectiv e co n n ected w ith feasting: G a b in iu s’ re p u ta tio n as a ca tam ite p o in ts to th e sex o f his clientele, th e re b y fu rth e r d e g ra d in g th e fo rm e r consul as b ein g s o m e th in g less th a n a m a n .20 AU th ese ch arg es characteristic o f political in v ectiv e— g lu tto n y , financial m ism a n a g e m e n t, political in e p titu d e , a n d sexual (especially h o m o sex u al) p ro flig ac y — in tersec t in th e d a rk and m y sterio u s arena o f th e b an q u e t. T

he

A

c t iv it ie s o f t h e

F ea st

C ic e ro a n d o th e r R o m a n o ra to rs re p eated ly fin d in th e feasting m o tif fertile m aterial fo r invective. Y et it o ften b ecom es difficult to d istin g u ish a m o n g th e p recise activities to w h ic h the sp eak er co u ld refer in these situ atio n s. T h e d e sc rip tio n o f these activities is o ften as o b scu re as the s h a d o w y settin g s in w h ic h th e activities allegedly o c c u r.21 T h e co n fu sio n stem s in p a rt fro m th e o ra to r’s stance as an u p rig h t m a n (vir bonus): w e re h e able to d escrib e in detail w h a t h ap p e n s at these p riv ate feasts, he co u ld p o te n tia lly im p lica te h im s e lf in the activity. T h e o b sc u rity re su ltin g fro m h o w e v e r, d isd a in th e a c c u m u la tio n o f w e a lth so m u c h as th e m ea n s o f a cc u m u la tio n : see O ff. 1.92, 2.87; D ’A rm s 2 0 -2 4 . 18 C ic e ro fo rm u la te s th is ch arg e a g ain st G ab in iu s m o re e x p lic itly at P. red. in sen. 11 — cum suam rem non m inus strenue quam postea publicam confecisset, egestatem et luxuriem domestico lenocinio sustentavit (“ A fte r h e h a d sq u a n d e re d his o w n w e alth w ith n o less v ig o r th a n h e h a d late r sq u a n d e re d th e p u b lic ’s, h e su p p o rte d his p o v e rty a n d lu x u ry w ith a b ro th e l at h o m e ”). F o r th e p h ra se quaestum facere sig n ify in g p ro s titu tio n , see U lp . D ig. 2 3 .2 .4 3 (C JL I2.5 9 3 .1 2 2 -2 3 [tabula Heracleensis] refers specifically to m ale p ro stitu tio n ). C f. P la u t. Poen. 1140; T er. H au. 640; a n d p e rh a p s C ic. Quinct. 3.12. 19 O R F 2 1 .1 9 = G ell. 6.11.9: si tu plus tertia parte pecuniae paternae perdidisti atque absumpsisti in flagitiis, si hoc ita est: qui spondet mille numm um? (“ I f you have lo st m o re th a n o n e th ird o f y o u r fa th e r’s m o n e y a n d have sq u a n d e re d it in d isg racefu l actions, i f this is true: w h o p ro m is e s a th o u s a n d silv er pieces in su re ty ? ”). In this, th e th ird o f fo u r sim ilarly c o n stru c te d rh e to ric a l q u e stio n s S cipio A e m ilian u s ad d resses to A sellus, lo sin g p a trim o n y an d b e in g w a n to n n o t o n ly are g iv en equal em p h a sis b u t are also each p re d ic ate d u p o n each o th e r. See also Sail. Cat. 14.2. 20 C ic e ro allu d es to G a b in iu s’ re p u ta tio n at, e .g ., P. red. in sen. 11—12; Sest. 18; Pis. 20. 21 F o r th e d a rk s u rro u n d in g s o f th e im m o d e s t b a n q u e t, see e .g . S. Rose. 134; C atil. 2.22; Sest. 20; Pis. 18, 53, 67; Prov. 8. It is a c o m m o n m o ti f th a t o n e w h o fre q u e n ts the b a n q u e t is u n a c c u sto m e d to d a y lig h t (see C ic. Fin. 2 .23 a n d O t t o n. 1662).

this necessary ig n o ran ce increases th e e ffic a c y o f the m o tif: the ah u siv eness o f m an y o f these descriptions titillates the listeners’ im aginations and encourages th em to envision the precise details o f the occasion th at the o ra to r p resents in bare outline. In this w ay th e speaker allow s his audi­ ence to play th e voyeur, to satisfy its fascination w ith the forbidden: “the speaker sh o u ld m anipulate the d escrip tio n o f reality so th at the audience im agines m o re th an it sees” (orator surripiat oportet imitationem ut is qui audiet cogitet p Iura quam videaf, D e orat. 2.242 ).22 N evertheless, in spite o f this m an n ered a m b ig u ity certain them es em erge w ith consistency. Five basic areas o f activity c o m m o n ly surface in association w ith the im m o d e ra te feast: excessive eating, d runkenness, the telling o f jo k es, d an cin g an d sin ging (including p o e try recitation), and various form s o f sexual in te rc o u rse .23 C o n stru c te d as vices, these activities frequently oc­ cur in co m b in atio n : C icero describes his enem y G abinius in a largely asyndetic series as “done in b y w ine, eating houses, p im p in g , and adul­ te ry ” (v in o ganeis lenociniis adulteriisque confectum\ Sest. 20). O fte n th e prac­ tices are alluded to even m o re elliptically: P iso ’s teachers o f p h ilo so p h y — w h o also arran g e his b anquets (conditores instructoresque convivi) — in stru ct th eir stu d e n t th at “every p a rt o f the b o d y should alw ays be involved in so m e so rt o f pleasure o r sensual stim u latio n ” (in omni parte corporis semper oportere aliquod gaudium delectationemque versarv, P. red. in sen. 14—15). V ague lists o f in te rtw in in g vices ab o u n d in invective o f this ty p e .24 Yet despite the freq uency o f these sorts o f allegation, any a ttem p t to differen­ tiate b etw e en th e activities o f th e feast proves n o t on ly im possible b u t m isg u id ed , since th eir confusion and conflation are precisely the point: the rh eto rical h an d b o o k s in stru c t th at i f an o p p o n e n t can be sh o w n to be g u ilty o f one vice, it is th en possible to im plicate h im in an y .25 T herefore, ra th e r th an atte m p tin g to distinguish artificially betw een these activities, I shall b e con sidering th eir co m m o n features. In particular, I shall con­ cen trate o n th e m o st p ro m in e n t guest figured in the C iceronian represen­ tatio n o f th e feast: the dancing, effem inate m ale.

T

he

D

ancer

Is

the

D

ance

T h e dance characterizes the feast so w ell th at it is m en tio n ed in R o m an invective o nly in a b an q u etin g context. Yet the abuse directed at dancing 22 See B a rto n , chap. 3, “ F ascination” (85—106). 23 T h ese p o in ts are also covered in R ichlin 1992a: 8 6 -9 3 . E d w a rd s 173-206 analyzes b a n q u e tin g m o tifs in R o m a n m oralizin g texts. 24 E x am p les n o t discussed elsew here in the tex t o r notes and inv o lv in g th e different e lem en ts o f th e b a n q u e t in various c o m b in a tio n s include Verr. 2 .5 .9 2 -9 4 , 137; Pis. 42; Phil. 2.104—5; Sal. Cat. 13.3; Liv. 39.15.9; Suet. Gramm. 15. 25 In v . 2.33; cf. 2.50 and R het. Her. 2.5.

feasters co u ld n o t sim p ly be w ield ed at ra n d o m . T h e o ra to r n eed ed to p ro v id e a su b stan tial an d verifiable fo u n d a tio n to his accusations. T o be effective in accu sing an o p p o n e n t o f co n n ectio n s w ith the im m o d e ra te feast, th e sp ea k er h ad to p re se n t evidence v isible to his audience. B eliev­ in g re q u ires seeing. In th e m id st o f a typical ac co u n t o f th e b re a k d o w n o f m o ra lity in th e R ep u b lic, C ic e ro in O n the Law s a ttrib u te s m o ra l decline in p a rt to th e sed u c tiv e ten d en cies o f m u sic an d dancing: illu d q u id e m v id e o , quae so le b an t q u o n d a m co m p leri sev eritate iu c u n d a L ivianis e t N ae v ian is m o d is, n u n c u t ead em e x u lte n t et cervices o cu lo sq u e p a rite r c u m m o d o r u m flexionibus to rq u e a n t. g ra v ite r o lim ista v in d ic ab a t v etu s ilia G raecia, lo n g e p ro v id e n s q u a m sen sim p ernicies in lap sa in civ iu m a n im o s m alis stu d iis m a lisq u e d o c trin is rep e n te to ta s civ itates ev e rteret.

(.Leg. 2.39) I d o see o n e th in g in p articu la r: th a t th o se sam e p e o p le 26 w h o at o n e tim e w e re a c c u sto m e d to b e filled u p w ith a pleasu rab le feeling o f a u s te rity a t th e m e asu res o f L ivius a n d N a e v iu s are n o w ad ay s ju m p in g a ro u n d an d tw istin g th e ir n eck s an d eyes in tim e w ith th e ch a n g in g m easu res. In th e past, an cien t G reece p u n ish e d severely th a t k in d o f b eh a v io r, fo r it fo resaw w ell in ad­ v an ce h o w th is so u rce o f d e s tru c tio n , g rad u a lly creep in g in to th e m in d s o f citizens, w o u ld su d d e n ly o v e rtu rn e n tire states th ro u g h its evil p u rsu its an d teach in g s.

A s R o m a n civ ilization declines fro m th e p e rio d w h e n its o ldest poets, L ivius a n d N a ev iu s, w e re w ritin g , C icero recognizes in d an c in g a vice th a t co n sp ires w ith o th e r base activities fo r th e p o te n tia l d e stru c tio n o f th e state. T h is m o ralizin g o p in io n o f dance also in fo rm s invective fro m th e c e n tu ry p re ced in g C icero . In a fra g m e n ta ry piece o f in v ectiv e w ritte n b y th e se c o n d -c e n tu ry b c e satirist L ucilius, d an cin g an d effem inacy ap ­ p e a r to b e associated: “like a fo o l y o u w e n t d an cin g w ith th e cinaedi” (L ucilius 33 [W arm in g to n ]). A later g ra m m a ria n , c o m m e n tin g o n this p assag e fro m L ucilius, re m a rk s th a t “ a m o n g th e ancients, dancers o r p a n to m im e s w e re called cinaedi” ( “cinaedi” died sunt apud veteres saltatores vel pantomimi; N o n iu s p. 5 [M ercerus]). Indeed, this g ra m m a ria n ’s state­ m e n t is c o n firm e d b y a c o n te m p o ra ry o f Lucilius, Scipio A em ilianus. 26 T h e m a n u s c rip ts are fau lty at th is p o in t, b u t th e general m ea n in g is clear. I cite K eyes’ te x t. M y in te rp re ta tio n follow s D av isiu s e t al. in c o n stru in g quae as m o d ify in g an u n d e r­ s to o d theatra, w h ic h th e n b e co m es p e rso n alize d in to spectatores o r a sim ila r n o u n w ith th e v e rb exultent. F o r a d d itio n a l m o ra l ju d g m e n ts o n d a n c in g fro m th e late R e p u b lic , see O ff. 1.150, 3.75 (w h e re d a n c in g in th e fo ru m is d e sc rib e d as th e u ltim a te act o f sham elessness; cf. 3.93); N e p o s Epam. 1.2; m y d isc u ssio n o f effem in acy co n clu d es w ith a re co n sid e ratio n o f th e in v ec tiv e a g ain st d a n cin g .

Scipio co m p lain ed h o w the freeb o rn y oung R om ans o f his day “are learn­ in g to sing, so m eth in g o u r ancestors w a n te d to be considered disgraceful to th e freeb o rn ; th ey go, I say, to dancing school, freeb o rn girls and boys am o n g th e cinaedi” (discunt cantare, quae maiores nostri ingenuis probro ducier voluerunt: eunt, inquam, in ludum saltatorium inter cinaedos virgines puerique ingenui; M acr. Sat. 3.14.7 = O R F 21.30). P art o f the stig m a o f the dance

derives fro m its associations w ith the passive ro le in m ale-m ale sexual en co u n ters; in ancient G reece and R om e, m ale-m ale h o m o ero tic behav­ io r w as fig u red as nonreciprocal, consisting o f a virile p en e trato r and a passive, p en etrated p a rtn e r.27 Cinaedus, in fact, eventually becam e a stan­ d ard w o rd to describe the m an w h o is the penetrated p artn e r in a h o m o ­ ero tic re la tio n sh ip .28 T h e dance, it seem s, indicated a c o m m itm e n t to a specific, p re d eterm in ed lifestyle. Scipio seem s to have been unaw are o f a previous graduate o f this sch o o l o f ab o m in atio n . E arlier in the sam e century, the elder C ato insti­ tu te d pro ceed in gs against a certain trib u n e o f the plebs, M arcus C aeliu s. C ato m o ck s his o p p o n en t for dancing in p ublic and associates the activity w ith singing, th e recitation o f G reek poetry, and jo k e telling (M acr. Sat. 3.14.9 = O R F 8.114—15). E ven in the elder C a to ’s day, the charge o f dan cin g carried w ith it a b o d y o f negative associations.29 A d escendant o f C ato, w hile pro secu tin g the consul designate Lucius M u re n a in 63 b c e , follow ed a tack sim ilar to that o f his ancestor. In a speech accusing M u ren a o f electoral c o rru p tio n , the y ounger C ato al­ leged th at th e defendant w as a dancer (saltator). In defending M urena fro m this accusation, C icero m aintains that dancing constitutes a vice incapable o f ex isting in isolation, “ for alm ost n o one dances w hile so b er— unless p erhaps he is insane— n eith er w hile alone n o r in a m o d e r­ ate and h o n o ra b le banquet. T h e dance is the final acco m p an im en t to an early b a n q u e t,30 a pleasant locale, and m an y luxurious activities” (nemo enim fere saltat sobrius, nisi fo rte insanit, neque in solitudine neque in convivio moderate atque honesto. tem pestivi convivi, amoeni loci, m ultarum deliciarum comes est extrema saltatio; M ur. 13). C ato has n o t accused M u ren a o f any o f 27 I discuss this n o tio n , citin g relevant bibliography, in the section b e lo w e n titled “T h e C a te g o ry o f th e E ffem in ate M ale”; see esp. n. 55. 28 U s in g archaeological and lite rary evidence, C o lin explores the sem antic d ev elo p m en t o f cinaedus to c o n n o te a sexually passive h o m o se x u al (1952-53: 3 2 9 -3 5 ). O n the w o rd ’s m ea n in g in classical A thens, see W in k le r 4 5 -7 0 ; fo r the second c en tu ry CE, see G leason 1991: 3 9 6 -9 9 . 29 O n e m ay add to this list an a p p are n t piece o f invective against th e elder C u rio , w h o w as n a m e d after th e d an cer B u rb u leiu s because he w as “ qu ick and restless in b o d y and to n g u e ” (Sail. H ist. frag. 2.25. C f. Val. M ax. 9.14.5; Plin. N at. 7.55). 30 A n d , as a result, scandalous; for th e o p p ro b rio u s associations o f a conuivium tempestivum , see, e .g ., Verr. 2.3.62; C atull. 4 7 .5 -6 . C a tilin e ’s m en p ro v id e a special case; they begin th e ir feasts before d a w n (C atil. 2.22).

138

CHA PTER 4

d a n c in g ’s a tte n d a n t vices. T h erefo re, C icero m ain tain s, the accuser can o n ly be in c o rre c t in calling M u re n a a dancer. C ic e ro ’s rh e to ric a l stra te g y here reveals his au d ien ce’s assu m p tio n s. B o th o ra to rs p re su m e th e ir audience w ill agree th a t im p lica tin g M u re n a in th e d ance w ill im p licate h im in th e atte n d a n t vices C icero later lists— d isg racefu l b a n q u e tin g , sex, revelry, lust, and excessive ex p e n d itu re (turpe co n viviu m , . . . amor, . . . comissatio, . . . libido, . . . sum ptus). A n d i f C a to can succeed in estab lish in g his o p p o n e n t’s associations w ith the feast, h e w ill all th e m o re easily p ro v e M u re n a g u ilty o f electoral c o rru p ­ tio n , as this ch arge w ill be c o n stru e d as co n sisten t w ith M u re n a ’s im ­ m o ra l ch aracter. Such a b e lie f in the association b etw e en p erso n al im m o ­ ra lity an d p o litical c o rru p tio n in fo rm s th e h isto rian S allust’s fam ous d e sc rip tio n o f th e co n sp ira to r S em p ro n ia: h er skills in th e dance, p o etry , a n d w itty co n v e rsatio n clearly fo resh ad o w h er even tu al disservices to the state (Sail. C at. 25). B u t th e y o u n g e r C a to ’s single accusation o f d an cin g do es n o t suffice here. T h e dance p resu p p o ses a b ro a d e r c o n te x t o f co r­ ru p tio n , a c o n te x t th a t C ato has failed to delineate. T o b e sure, in his o w n in v ectiv e C icero also relies u p o n th e m u ltip le n eg a tiv e asso ciations th e d ance co n ju res in his au d ien ce’s m in d .31 Yet the o ra to r is n o t sim p ly h y p o critica lly o r o p p o rtu n istic ally u sin g a w e a p o n h e h im s e lf has c o n d e m n e d . R ather, his use o f th e ch arg e is q u ite d ifferen t fro m C a to ’s attack, as C icero rep resen ts it in his speech O n B e h a lf o f M u ren a .

In his seco n d o ra tio n against C atiline, C icero m uses o n th e m ilitary efficacy o f th e m o re lu x u ria n t m e m b e rs o f C a tilin e ’s g ro u p o f re v o lu tio n arie s: quo autem pacto illi Appeninum atque illas pruinas ac nives perferent? nisi idcirco se facilius hiemem toleraturos putant, quod nudi in conviviis saltare didicerunt. (CuiiZ. 2.23) B ut how will they stand that frost and snow in the Appenines? Maybe they think they’ll tolerate winter m ore easily since they’ve learned to dance naked at banquets. E arlie r in th e speech, C ic e ro in v ested a g reat a m o u n t o f e n e rg y in p r o ­ v in g th a t C a tilin e ’s m en, w h e n n o t stirrin g u p political u n re st, d ev o te th e ir lives to feasting (see especially C atil. 2.22, cited later in this ch ap ­ ter). D a n cin g , th en , serves to cap an already w ell-delineated characteriza­ tio n . T h e n ak e d d an cin g o f th e C atilinarians, an activ ity th rea ten in g to o v e rth ro w R o m a n m orality, has been falsely c o n stru e d b y th e rebels, C icero h u m o ro u s ly co njectures, as a ty p e o f tra in in g d esig n ed to o v er31 In a d d itio n to Catil. 2.23 cited in th e tex t, see Verr. 2 .3 .2 3 (V erres’ son); Platte. 87, Pis. 22 (b o th o f G ab in iu s).

th ro w th e R o m an m ilitary. In light o f C icero ’s o w n use o f the charge o f dancing in the C atilinarian orations, the inadequacy o f the attack on M u ren a becom es clear. C ato has n o t verified his accusations o f dancing, as C icero does, b y p o in tin g to any o th er signs o f M u ren a’s connection w ith im m o d e rate feasting. H ence C icero needs sim ply to question the tru th o f C a to ’s charge o f dancing to show th at it represents slanderous abuse (M ur, 13). C ic e ro ’s re b u ttal o f C ato in O n B eh a lfo f Murena recalls the factors that in fo rm th e m o ckery o f physical peculiarities and, to a lesser extent, the os. E x tern al indicators m ake these tw o m odes o f invective persuasive. A t th e v ery m o m e n t o f a speech’s delivery, the o ra to r can p o in t to those features o f the accused th at his audience w ould have associated w ith im ­ m orality. F or exam ple, w ere an audience m em b er to d o u b t the accuracy o f C ic e ro ’s censure o f Vatinius, a perusal o f the d efendant’s pustules w o u ld serve to legitim ate the o ra to r’s invective. To be effective, there­ fore, the to p o s o f the im m o d erate feast requires a type o f external signal th at can indicate, even w hen the accused is separate fro m the activity, the im p licit p ro b ab ility o f his involvem ent. Such a signal w o u ld provide a p o w erfu l rh etorical tool, for the passages discussed above have d em o n ­ strated th at p r o o f o f involvem ent in m erely one vice can im plicate an in d ividual in all the sordid com ponents o f the feast. Indeed, these signals w ere available. T h e y derive fro m the w ays in w hich the luxurious atm o ­ sphere o f th e b anquet was th o u g h t to alter the physical appearance and affectations o f its m ale participants. P o l it ic a l H

e a v ie s

I begin w ith a negative conclusion. A n overw eight appearance, sur­ prisingly, does n o t seem to have pro v id ed a sufficient cause for accusing an o p p o n e n t o f im m o d erate feasting. T h o u g h this m ay ru n co u n ter to o u r expectations o f invective, the absence can be explained b y the public p ercep tio n o f w ealth in the R om an Republic. A cco rd in g to the second-century CE antiquarian A ulus Gellius, a speech o f th e elder C ato fro m 184 b c e m arks the first instance o f a censor attaching a badge o f d ish o n o r (ignominia) to a R o m an citizen’s corpu­ lence. T his p articular instance involved the censure o f a R om an k n ig h t (ieques), a m em b er o f the class that originally form ed the cavalry o f the R o m an arm y b u t that, b y the tim e o f the late R epublic, com prised p ri­ m arily w ealth y businessm en. A ccording to n o rm al procedure, Gellius states, censors relieved an overw eight eques o f his duties w ith o u t effecting a lo w erin g o f census class (Gell. 6.22 = O R F 8.78). W ith C ato, then, the co rpulence o f an eques expands fro m being sim ply a pragm atic issue— an o v erw eig h t m an can n o t p ro p e rly co n tro l a h orse (cf. O R F 8.80: “he can’t

sit o n his q u ak in g h o rs e ”— sedere non potest in equo trepidante)— to b ein g a m o ra l an d p o litical issue: th e p erso n al n eg lect ev idenced b y a m a n ’s o v er­ w e ig h t ap p earan ce reflects p o te n tia l n eg lect o f his civic d uties. E x p licit te s tim o n y o f C a to ’s feelings o n th e su b ject su rv iv es in an an ecd o te th at P lu ta rc h p reserv es, w h ic h seem s to derive fro m th e sam e censorial speech m e n tio n e d b y G ellius:32 τον δέ ύ π έρ π α χυν κακίζω ν [ό Κάτων] “ποϋ δ’ α ν” εφη “σώμα το ιούτον τή πόλει γένοιτο χρήσιμον, ου τό μεταξύ λαιμού και βουβώνων παν ύπό τής γαστρός κ ατέχεται;” (Plut. Cat. Μα. 9.5) In reproaching a fat man [Cato] remarked, “H ow would a body such as this be beneficial to the state, when the part between throat and groin is entirely taken up by the stomach?” T h is fo rm u la tio n recalls C a to ’s w itticism s o n financial m ism a n ag e­ m e n t, w h e re h e co n stru es p erso n al an d p riv ate profligacy as m an ifestin g an a lo g o u s faults o f character. T h u s, fo r C ato , b ein g o v erw eig h t re p re ­ sen ted a p o litically re p reh e n sib le co n d itio n . Yet as I have n o ted , G ellius v iew s C a to ’s stern n ess in this situ atio n as un u su al for a c e n so r.33 C a to ’s w ittic is m recalls C ic e ro ’s censure o f G abinius in the speech O n B eh a lf o f Sestius (section 20, q u o te d above), w h e re th e o ra to r p resu m es a lin k b e tw e e n th e fo rm e r co n su l’s ab ility to c o n tro l his p a trim o n y and the state. Y et in sp ite o f this sim ilarity, C icero does n o t follow C ato in d ee m ­ in g co rp u le n ce an o b ject w o rth y o f p u b lic reproach. In fact, in th e en tire C ic e ro n ia n co rp u s I have fo u n d o n ly o n e w ittic ism based o n an o p p o ­ n e n t’s o v e rw e ig h t appearance. In th e speech O n B eh a lf o f Caecina, C icero im p u g n s th e te s tim o n y o f P u b liu s C aesennius, a w itn ess fo r th e o p p o si­ tio n , b y d esc rib in g h im as “possessing n o t so m u ch w e ig h ty a u th o rity as a w e ig h ty b o d y ” (non tam auctoritate gravi quam corpore; Caecin. 21). T h is u n iq u e ex a m p le occurs in a speech d atin g fro m a relatively early stage o f C ic e ro ’s p u b lic career— 69 b c e , w h e n he h ad n o t yet held th e office o f p ra e to r. T h e situ atio n , m o reo v e r, seem s to have h ad little political conse­ qu ence: th e issue co n cern ed a civil su it over a lan d d isp u te th a t w as h ea rd b y a sm all g ro u p o f m in o r ju d g e s (recup eratores). A n d in fact, o n a rh e to ri32 T h is is th e g e n era lly received o p in io n ; th e c o n te n ts o f th e w ittic ism in P lu ta rc h a cc o rd w ell w ith G e lliu s’ ev alu atio n o f C a to 's censorial o ra tio n (G ell. 6 .2 2 .4 ). C u g u si 502, h o w ­ ever, fo llo w s J o rd a n in q u e stio n in g th is a ttrib u tio n o n th e g ro u n d s th a t P lu ta rc h ’s a n ec d o te p ro b a b ly deriv es f ro m C a to ’s liber dictorum. W hile it d o e s seem po ssib le th a t C a to ’s jo k e b o o k su p p lie d P lu ta rc h w ith th is a n ec d o te (a lth o u g h it is d isp u te d w h e th e r C a to in clu d e d his o w n w ittic is m s in th is collection; see A stin 1 8 6 -8 8 ), I n e v erth ele ss d o n o t see w h y th at pre clu d es th e p o ssib ility o f th e d ic tu m c o m in g fro m an o ra tio n ; F u riu s B ib a c u lu s’ collection o f C ic e r o ’s facete dicta in clu d es ex ce rp ts fro m th e o r a to r ’s speeches (M acr. Sat. 2.1.13). 33 A s does M a rac h e 80 n. I . A t G ell. 4 .2 0 .1 1 , a n o th e r o v e rw e ig h t m e m b e r o f th e eques­ tria n class is re le g ate d to a lo w e r census ra n k in g . T h e reaso n s c ited are n e g le ct o f his h o rse a n d d isre sp e ct for th e censors; h is w e ig h t is n o t m e n tio n e d .

cal level th e p u n receives little em phasis fro m the orator. It precedes a slig h tly m o re ex ten d ed w ittic ism o n the co g n o m en o f a certain Sextus C lo d iu s P h o rm io , a second w itness, w h ich in tu rn introduces a m ore elab o rate an ecdote re g ard in g the ju d icial b rib ery o f yet an o th er w itness, Fidiculanius Falcula. T h e sole ex tan t exam ple o f C icero publicly m o ck ­ in g an o p p o n e n t for his w eig h t, therefore, provides little evidence that such an appearance co n stitu ted , in an oratorical context, a seriously rep ­ reh ensible o ffense.34 T h e h y p o th esis th at corpulence does n o t invite political reproach d u r­ ing th e late R epublic receives fu rth er su p p o rt fro m a lexical stu d y o f the th ree w o rd s m o st c o m m o n ly used to d en o te it— crassus, obesus, pinguis— and th eir cognates. Indeed, the last adjective tends to describe corpulence chiefly “as a sign o f p ro sp e rity o r w e ll-b e in g .”35 C icero uses the w o rd in ju x ta p o s itio n w ith valentes (“h a rd y ”; Fat. 7), w hile H orace describes h im ­ se lf as “sleek and pinguis, w ith a nice c o m p lex io n ” (pinguem et nitidum bene curata cute; Epist. 1.4.15). Obesus, w h ich describes a greater degree o f corp u len ce th an pinguis (cf. Isid. D iff. 1.114), occurs five tim es in the im p erial m edical w rite r C elsus to describe a state that can h in d er health. T h e w o rd does n o t, how ever, co nnote reproach; it usually occurs in con­ ju n c tio n w ith th e equally risky state o f ex trem e thinness (described by gracilis; cf. 1.3.13, 2.1.5 [bis], 2.1.23, 2.10.5). T h e adjective crassus, a w o rd w ith co n n o tatio n s o f sluggishness and stupidity in n o n b o d ily con­ texts, also does n o t have clearly p ejorative overtones in any o f the ex tan t R epublican tex ts in w h ich it describes a p e rso n ’s appearance.36 In fact, w h e n C icero w ishes to m o ck so m eo n e n am ed C rassus, he does n o t ex­ p lo it any p o ten tial co n n o tatio n s o f the nam e b u t invents h u m o ro u s p se u d o n y m s .37 I f Crassus did have an o bviously negative m eaning in a political co n tex t, one w o u ld have expected C ic e ro ’s jo k e s to reflect this. A sim ilar a rg u m e n t can be m ade fo r the one R epublican figure w h o seem s to have been identifiable b y his fleshy appearance. T h e abusive rem ark s ag ain st P om peius M agnus never refer to the corpulence evi­ den ced in depictions o f him ; in fact, th e double chin so characteristic o f 34 O u tsid e th e c o n te x t o f internal R o m an politics, P lu tarc h preserves a jo k e m ade by S cipio A em ilian u s o n the lack o f care P to le m y P h y sco n (“P o tb e lly ” ) to o k reg ard in g his b o d y (Mor. 201a). Im perial w rite rs p e rm it this fo rm o f abuse: Juvenal 1.139-43, 8.147; P ersius 6.74; and p erh ap s L ucan’s “e n c o m iu m ” o f N e ro (1 .5 3 -5 9 ). 35 O L D , s.v. pinguis lb ; sim ilarly, Forcellini restricts th e w o rd to persons “ in g o o d c o n d itio n .” 36 M y search in clu d e d th e texts o f P lautus, T erence, C a to , Lucilius, C aesar, L ucretius, C ice ro , a n d C atu llu s. T h e passages at P laut. Pseud. 659, 1218, and Ter. H er. 440 seem p u re ly descrip tiv e, w ith n o n egative co n n o ta tio n s clearly in te n d e d . T h e m ean in g “ slo w w itte d ” o r “ ru stic ,” as fo u n d in th e id io m crassa Minerva, b est derives fro m th e ro o t m ean ­ in g o f the w o rd (“ th ic k ” and th erefo re “slow m o v in g ”) ra th e r th an fro m its use to describe th e h u m a n p h y siq u e. 37 A tt. 1.16.5, 2.1 3 .2 , 14.5.1, all o f w h ic h I discuss in ch ap ter 2.

th e g e n e ra l’s p u b lic p o rtra its w o u ld seem to p ro v id e a fu rth e r in d icatio n th a t co rp u le n ce w as an u n o b jectio n ab le feature o f th e R o m a n a risto c ra t.38 It is alw ays d a n g e ro u s to arg u e fro m the silence o f o u r lim ite d (b u t, in th e case o f th e late R epublic, h a rd ly m eager) sources. Yet this silence does d eserv e special m e n tio n o n acco u n t o f th e generic ch aracter o f b a n q u e t­ in g in v ectiv e a n d th e m a n y d ifferen t factors to w h ic h an o ra to r appealed to in d icate his o p p o n e n t’s in v o lv e m e n t in b an q u ets. T h is area o f ab sen t w it b ec o m e s especially in te re stin g in lig h t o f the differences I o b serv ed in ch a p te r I b e tw e e n H ellen istic rh e to ric a l a n d ethical treatises and R o m a n o ra to ric a l p ractice. I a ttrib u te d th e R o m a n p ro c liv ity for ab u sin g physical p ecu liarities to the p re v ailin g bias th at a h u m a n b ein g bears p erso n al re­ sp o n sib ility fo r all b o d ily faults, regardless o f w h e th e r th ey are co n g e n i­ tal o r a c q u ired fro m acts c o m m itte d d u rin g a p e rs o n ’s lifetim e. A s a re­ su lt, a d e fo rm ity such as V atin iu s’ facial sw ellings w o u ld have been re g a rd e d b y th e G reek treatises as a characteristic for w h ich th e b earer co u ld n o t be h eld responsible; w e saw in C ic e ro ’s speech against V atinius th e o p p o site a ssu m p tio n s w ith in w h ich R o m a n invective o perated. In the case o f an o v e rw e ig h t appearance, G reek th e o ry an d R o m a n p ractice w o u ld again ap p ear to sta n d at odds. A s discussed above, R o m an s seem to av oid th e m o c k e ry o f co rpulence, w h ile H ellenistic treatises w o u ld d ee m su ch abuse a p p ro p riate, since co rpulen ce results fro m p erso n al n e­ g lect an d h en ce co n stitu te s an ethically re p reh en sib le state o f b e in g .39 In this p a rtic u la r case, h o w e v er, th e difference b etw e en G reek an d R o m a n co n c ep tio n s does n o t seem attrib u ta b le to d ifferin g n o tio n s o f p erso n al re sp o n sib ility so m u c h as to a d ifferen t set o f values th a t the R o m an s attac h ed to social p o sitio n . It has fre q u e n tly been o b serv ed th at, to a R o m a n aristocrat, ab u n d a n t w e a lth c o n stitu te d an ad m ira b le p o ssession— p ro v id e d th a t it has b een p ro p e rly a c q u ire d .40 T h is social value, I p ro p o se , accounts fo r th e d e a rth o f p u b lic m o c k e ry o f a p e rs o n ’s w e ig h t. A g ra m m a ria n preserves fo r us an e p ig ra m th at testifies to the id en tificatio n o f co rp u len ce and w e alth in th e late R e p u b lic :41 38 F o r the d o u b le ch in in d e p ic tio n s o f P o m p e iu s, see m o s t re ce n tly B e n tz 231. A s I shall discuss in c h a p te r 5, P o m p e iu s w as c ertain ly the o b je c t o f m o c k e ry fo r o th e r aspects o f his a p p earan ce: h is dress, his ru d d y c o m p le x io n , a n d certain o f h is gestures. 39 [A rist.] R h . A L 1 4 2 6 a 3 - ll a d m its in v ectiv e a g ain st so m e o n e w h o is feeble fro m lack o f exercise; cf. 1 4 4 0 b l6 -2 3 ; R het. Her. 3.10; C ic. In v . 2.177. F o r th e ethical basis u n d e rly in g this ty p e o f in v ectiv e, see A risto tle E N 1 114a23-31. In th e case o f w o m e n , H ip p o c ra te s asserts th a t o b e sity h in d e rs c o n c e p tio n (A irs 21). 40 See for e x a m p le O R F 6 .2 ( = P lin . N a t. 7 .1 3 9 -4 0 ); O R F 31.3 ( = G ell. 1.13.10); Finley 3 5 -4 1 . 4’ T h e C a rb o m e n tio n e d is a p p a re n tly G aius P a p iriu s C a rb o A rv in a , p ra e to r 83 B CE, w h o C ic e ro tells us w as an e n e m y o f th e o ra to r L ucius C ra ssu s (D e orat. 3.10; cf. Val. M ax. 3 .7 .6 ). T h e e p ig ra m can th en b e d a te d to so o n a fte r 91 b c e , th e year o f C ra ssu s’ death.

dictum est de C arbone, qui, m ortuo C rasso, h om in e felice, in im ico suo, ante obscurus florere coepit: “postquam Crassus carbo factus est, . . . C arbo crassus factus e s t.” (O R F 87.3) [T he fo llow in g] w as said o f Carbo, w h o w as once unim portant, [but] began to flourish upon the death o f his en em y Crassus, a rich man: “A fter Crassus becam e carbo (coal), . . . Carbo becam e crassus (fat).”

T h e p u n o n Crassus indicates th a t a R o m a n w o u ld readily identify a fat m an as w e alth y a n d p ro sp e ro u s. C o n v ersely , tenuis (“ th in ”) c o m m o n ly de­ scribes a m an in desperate financial stra its.42 It seem s reasonable, then, that this association b e tw e e n w e alth an d an o v erw eig h t appearance explains w h y po litical in v ectiv e fro m the p erio d co n tain s little m o c k e ry o f c o rp u ­ lence. I d o n o t w ish to claim th a t this source o f invective w as nev er u sed — th e p assage cited above fro m C ic e ro ’s speech O n BehalfoJCaecina indicates th a t it w as— b u t sim p ly to su g g est th at such claim s did n o t have the g reatest po litical efficacy. C o rp u le n c e w o u ld have re p resen te d w e alth and its co ro llary , political an d social esteem . T o have p o in te d to a riv al’s g irth w o u ld n o t have effectively b ro u g h t ab o u t his exclusion fro m society; o n th e c o n tra ry , it co u ld have served as an in d icato r o f his social im p o rtan ce. In p u b lic in v ective, th e R o m an s did n o t use an o p p o n e n t’s o v erw eig h t ap p earan ce to affix th e stig m a o f th e im m o d e ra te feast. O n e can re aso n ­ ably a ttrib u te this o m issio n to th e associations b etw e en co rp u len ce and w ealth . H e n ce an ab sen t categ o ry o f invective co n firm s the ju d g m e n t o n e finds ex p ressed in m o re d irect sources co n c ern in g th e value placed o n w e a lth in R o m a n society. We sh o u ld n o w lo o k th ro u g h the eyes o f this p lu m p aristo crat as h e gazes o n — o r co n ju res— his political o p p o n en t: th e d ru n k e n , n ak ed , effem inate dancer, d re n ch ed in p erfu m es as he jo k e s an d sings songs. T

he

C

o n c e p t io n

of th e

R

om an

M

ale

O ra to rs o f th e late R epublic conflate the p h e n o m e n a o f the im m o d e st b a n q u e t an d th e effem inate m ale. E ach situ atio n n o rm a lly suggests the o th er, an d b o th e m b o d y a p o te n tia l th rea t to the state. A tten d an ce at a feast, I have n o te d , anticipates political inefficacy. T h e R o m an s speak o f effem in acy in sim ilar term s. In late 44, Q u in tu s C icero w rites de­ sp airin g ly to T iro o f the consuls designate, H irtiu s a n d Pansa: “I k n o w th e m th o ro u g h ly — full o f lu stin g an d lo u n g in g o f the m o st effem inate n atu re . I f th e y d o n ’t y ield the h elm , th e re ’s th e greatest d an g er o f every­ th in g b ein g sh ip w re c k e d ” (quos ego penitus novi, libidinum et languoris effem inatissim i animi plenos. qui nisi a gubernaculis recesserint, maxim um ab uni42 E .g ., Verr. 1.1.46; Catil. 2.20; Sest. 103; O L D , s.v. tenuis 10b.

verso naufragio periculum est; Fam. 16.27.1 = SB 352). T h is p ic tu re o f the effem in ate fcaster o f th e late R epublic, a stran g e ly a n d ro g y n o u s g lu tto n o f fo o d a n d sex, co n trib u te s to the m o d e rn re a d e r’s despair o v er w h e th e r o n e can g lean an y tru th fro m R o m a n in v ectiv e.43 Yet this u n stab le fig u re can b e u sed to advantage: th e d an g e r it rep resen ts co n trib u tes to an u n ­ d e rsta n d in g o f R o m a n m asculine self-definition. A n effem in ate m a n th rea ten ed the R o m a n m ale. A s su g g ested earlier, th e fear o f H ellen ic o r E astern influence m ay explain in p a rt what the R o m a n s o f th is tim e w e re w a ry o f — nam ely, th e in fu sio n o f d ifferen t w ays o f th in k in g a b o u t g o v e rn m e n t an d society. M o d es o f th in k in g th at th e R o m a n s p erceiv ed as b ein g at o d d s w ith th e ir o w n becam e associated w ith an E astern w a y o f m an n ers a n d dress. Yet this fo rm u la tio n does n o t a n sw e r w hy R o m a n society fixated o n th e fear o f effem inacy. O n e pos­ sible ex p lan a tio n lies in th e R o m a n m a le ’s co n c ep tio n o f s e lf an d o f the n a tu ra l features h e felt separated h im fro m a w o m a n . M ed ical w rite rs o f th e seco n d ce n tu ry CE reiterate theories o f sex dif­ fe ren tiatio n th a t date b ack seven h u n d re d years to th e w o rk s o f E m p e d o ­ cles. A c c o rd in g to these w rite rs, co n cep tio n in v o lv ed th e in te rm in g lin g o f w a rm m ale sem en and cool fem ale s e m e n .44 T h e n e t te m p e ra tu re re­ su ltin g fro m th is in te ra c tio n d e te rm in e d th e sex o f th e child: “m ales w e re th o se fetuses w h o h ad realized th e ir full p o te n tia l” b y am assing th e great­ est a m o u n t o f heat w h ile still in the w o m b ; insufficient ac cu m u latio n o f heat, o n th e o th e r h a n d , p ro d u c e d a fem ale.45 T h e th e o ry found s u p p o rt in em p irica l o b serv atio n : as a resu lt o f h e r co o ler b o d y tem p eratu re, a w o m a n has a so fter, m o iste r physical m ak eu p th a n a m an. T h is th e o ry o f th e d ifferin g a m o u n t o f heat in the sexes seem s to have h ad cu rren c y in th e late R ep u b lic; V arro , for ex am p le, affirm s in his treatise on agricul­ tu re th at d ry p lants are relatively infertile, as o p p o sed to th o se th a t are “ lo o ser a n d [th erefore] m o re fertile, as th e fem ale is [looser a n d m o re fertile] th a n th e m ale. ”46 T h e fo rm u la tio n o f this assertion, in w h ic h the s ta te m e n t th a t th e fem ale is lo o ser (Iaxiora) th a n th e m ale is su p p lied as a 43 See, fo r e x am p le, S y m e 1939: 149—50; N isb e t 1961: 192; R ich lin 1992a: 102. 44 A lth o u g h n e v e r accep ted b y A risto tle , th e b e lie f in fem ale se m en p re v aile d a m o n g th e an cien ts fro m th e p re -S o cra tic s o n w a rd (B layney 230). 45 T h e q u o ta tio n c o m es fro m P. B ro w n 9—10, w h o cites A re tae u s 2.5 in s u p p o rt; cf. also G alen D e u su partium 14.6—7, D esem in e 2.5. G alen appears to follow E m p e d o cle s (A risto tle G A 7 6 4 a l- 6 ; cf. 7 2 3 a 2 4 -2 5 , A etiu s 5 .7 .1 ). B ro w n ’s d isc u ssio n o f se x u a lity in L ate A n tiq ­ u ity first p r o m p te d m a n y o f the c o n n ec tio n s I m a k e in m y o w n a rg u m e n t b e tw e e n m ale a n x ie ty a n d th e in v ec tiv e o f effem inacy. A calo ric d istin c tio n b e tw e e n the sexes seem s to be c o rro b o ra te d b y m o d e rn science: fe m a le -to -m a le tran sse x u als re m a rk o n h o w te s to s te ro n e raises th e b o d y te m p e ra tu re (B lo o m 48). 46 V arro Rust. 1.41.4: omnia enim minuta et arida ad crescendum tarda, ea quae laxiora, et fecundiora, ut Jemina quam mas et pro portione in virgultis item; I u n d e rsta n d fem ina and mas to re fe r to m ale a n d fe m a le a n im a ls (o r h u m a n b e ings) as o p p o se d to p lan ts. A sim ila r d ic h o t­ o m y o c cu rs in P o le m o ’s treatise o n p h y sio g n o m y ; 1.194.11—16 (Foerster).

given, im plies a consensus am o n g V arro ’s readers concerning w h at p ro p ­ erties co n stitu te the m ale as opp o sed to the female. F u rth er evidence for the w id esp read application o f this idea can be found in the rhetorician Q u in tilian , w h o conjectures that the voices o f young boys are w eaker than those o f m en because boys still retain “d am pness” (propter umorem; Inst. 11.3.28). A side fro m the ap p aren t parallelism o f th o u g h t in V arro and Q u in ­ tilian, th ere are additional reasons for supposing th at the caloric th e o ry o f sex d ifferentiation preserved b y G alen w as p a rt o f the collective k n o w l­ edge o f a R o m an o f this period. First, G alen w as a com piler w hose w o rk “su m m arized all th at was w o rth y in the m edical trad itio n o f the classical w o rld . ”47 T h a t he does n o t indicate that this th eo ry o f sex differentiation had been recently contested indicates its acceptance in the late R epublic. Second, L u cretius’ account o f conception in b o o k 4 o f O n the Nature o f Things harm o n izes w ith the th eo ry p ro p o u n d e d by G alen.48 Finally, the philosophical conceptualization o f pleasure (and hence vice) as fluid, w hereas v irtu e is d ry and hard, also accords w ith this split in the charac­ terization o f the sexes.49 T h e w a rm , d ry m ale and the cool, m oist female o f R epublican invective offered a fam iliar dichotom y. A n in terestin g consequence arises fro m the perceived role o f heat in a h u m a n b ein g ’s conception: according to Galen, i f the heat o f a m ale w ere to subside at any p o in t d u rin g the course o f his lifetim e, he m ay risk b lu rrin g his sexual identity. “N o n o rm al m an m ig h t actually becom e a w o m an ; b u t each m an trem b led forever on the brink o f becom ing ‘w o m ­ a n is h .’”50 T hese w ords, describing R o m an m ale anxieties d u rin g Late A n tiq u ity , apply equally w ell to the late R epublic. For behind the h u ­ m o ro u s invective o f effem inacy there continually lurks the possibility o f a m an u n d e rg o in g a behavioral transform ation. T his potential threat to the socially co n stru cted natural order, w hereby the biological m ale is expected to ex h ib it specific m asculine traits, becom es translated via pub­ lic h u m o r in to a th reat to political order. I f G alenic theories o f sex differentiation had legitim acy for these R o m an s— and V arro indicates h o w farm ing techniques w ere one w ay such theories m ay have found a w ider, and even practical, application— 47 S c a rb o ro u g h 49. 48 L ucretius does n o t, how ever, deal specifically w ith th e p ro b le m o f sex differentiation: R. B ro w n 322—23. 49 E d w a rd s 1 7 3 -7 4 discusses this c o n ce p tio n o f vice a n d v irtue, citing in p articular Sen. Dial. 7.7.3. 50 P. B ro w n 11, citin g G alen D e semine 1.16; G leason has a sim ilar discussion o f sex types in the seco n d c en tu ry CE (see especially 3 9 0 -9 2 ). Q u in tilian advises the o ra to r to m aintain b o d ily stre n g th {firmitas corporis), lest “ the voice be th in n e d o u t to the frailness o f a eunuch, w o m a n , o r sick p e rso n ” (tie ad spadonum et mulierum et aegrorum exilitatem vox nostra tenuetur, Inst. 11.3.19). L aqueur 12 6 -2 7 describes Renaissance accounts o f h o w a sudden increase m heat could change w o m e n in to m en.

th e n in v ectiv e ag a in st effem inacy em erg es as s o m e th in g m o re th a n m ere slander. T h e o ra to r w h o accuses an o p p o n e n t o f fem in in e characteristics — o r in d eed alleges th a t his ad v ersary has actually u n d e rg o n e so m e fo rm o f sex u al tra n s fo rm a tio n — n o w can b e c o n stru e d as n o t m ere ly d e g ra d ­ in g a p e rs o n ’s social stan d in g : th a t is, in c o m p a rin g a m an to a w o m a n th e a ttac k er d o es n o t sim p ly su g g est th at his o p p o n e n t has th e social value o f a w o m a n . R ath er, a p re p o n d e ra n c e o f effem in ate qualities in an ad v e rsary w o u ld allo w an o p p o sin g speaker to assert th at an o p p o n e n t n o t o n ly v io lates th e b o u n d arie s o f social p ro p rie ty b u t rep resen ts a fail­ u re w ith in n a tu re itself. A re cen t s tu d y o f effem inacy in R o m a n c u ltu re claim s th a t “ w e ca n n o t assum e th at such b eh a v io r [i.e., effem inacy] w as seen as im m o ra l on ly because it w as associated w ith certain sexual p rac­ tic e s .”51 P erh ap s in a n o n p o litic a l c o n te x t effem in acy an d a specific sex­ ual stan ce co u ld b e separated. T h e re is n o q u estio n , h o w ev er, th at in late R ep u b lican o ra to ry effem in ate qualities im p ly passive h o m o e ro tic activ­ ity a n d th at this c o n stru c t becam e re p resen te d as a m a rk e d failure in a m a n w ith p o litica l p re te n sio n s. T h e in v ectiv e ag ain st p h y sical peculiarities discussed in ch a p te r I also d ep en d s o n a n o tio n th a t h u m a n beings have deviated fro m th eir n atu ra l state, or, to fo llo w C ic e ro ’s fo rm u la tio n in O n the Law s, fro m th e w o rk ­ in g s o f iustitia. T h is b e lie f th a t a lapse fro m the n atu ra l o rd e r in fo rm s the social d a n g e r o f effem inacy finds d irec t ex p ressio n in a te x t fro m 142 b c e , w h e re in Scipio A e m ilian u s in v eig h s ag ain st P u b liu s Sulpicius G alus: n am qui cotid ie unguentatus adversus speculum ornetur, cuius supercilia radantur, qui barba vulsa fem inibusque subvulsis am bulet, qui in con viviis adulescentulus cum am atore cum chiridota tunica inferior accubuerit, qui non m o d o vinosus, sed virosus q uoq ue sit, eu m n e quisquam dubitet, quin id em fecerit, quod cinaedi facere solent? (Gell. 6 .1 2 .5 = O RF 21.17) For i f so m eon e, drenched daily in perfum es, adorns h im self before a mirror, shaves his eyebrow s, w alks about w ith his beard plucked and thigh hairs pulled out; w h o , as a you ng boy w ith his lover, w earing a lon g -sleev ed tunic, w as accustom ed to lie in the lo w sp ot at banquets, w h o is n ot only fond o f w in e, but fond o f m en also, then w ou ld anyone doubt that h e has done the sam e thing that pathics usually do?

G alus o p e n ly flaunts effem in ate traits; h e w ears p erfu m es, depilates face an d b o d y , o n ce b a n q u e te d w ith o ld er lovers, a n d as an ad u lt b etray s a fo n d n ess fo r o th e r m en. A em ilian u s d epicts G a lu s’ n atu ra l sex s tru g g lin g ag a in st th e socially co n stru c te d n o rm s o f R o m a n m asculinity. In A em ilia n u s ’ fo rm u la tio n , a p ro p e r R o m a n o b se rv e r can co n stru e this beh av ­ io r as n o th in g else th a n a p e rv e rsio n o f nature. G alus, o n e m u s t conclude, is pathic. 51 E d w a rd s 77.

147

A P P E A R A N C E IN A C T IO N : E F F E M IN A C Y

A

M

a n for

E

very

W

om an

,

A

W

o m a n for

E

very

M

an

N o man in the late Republic ever actually becam e a w om an — at least so far as w e k n o w .52 A man could, how ever, approach this transformation w h en certain characteristics co m m o n ly identified as effem inate began to affect his behavior. In hum orous invective, an orator m ost frequently associates the m anifestation o f effem inate traits in an opponent w ith a presum ed role as the penetrated m ale in a h om oerotic relationship; the dom inant partner, on the other hand, does not ever seem to have been the direct object o f abuse for playing the active role. 53 Rhetorical invective against the sexually subm issive m ale finds a parallel in the threats o f anal rape (p edicare) and oral rape (irrum are ) that recur in graffiti and invective poetry. 54 T hese tw o sexual threats serve similar purposes o f degradation. A t their m ost basic level, they m ake the opponent into an object o f sexual violen ce, or at least into the plaything o f another’s sexual w h im s, and so ex p o se the op pon en t as on e w h o does n ot have control over his ow n b o d y .55 T his rigid distinction betw een active and passive roles accounts for part o f the repugnance to cunnilingus I describe in the previous chap52 P lin . N a t. 7 .36 does, h o w e v e r, c o n sid er cases in w h ic h w o m e n tu rn e d in to m en . F o r a m o d e rn d isc u ssio n , see B lo o m ’s acc o u n t o f fe m a le -to -m a le tran ssex u als, w h ic h con tain s m a n y fascin atin g in sig h ts in to the n a tu re o f a p e rs o n ’s in h e re n t g ender. 53 T h e o n ly po ssib le e x c e p tio n I k n o w o f d e p en d s u p o n an o b sc u re p u n o n A n to n iu s ’ sex u al p ro c liv ities: accessit ut, Caesare ignaro, cum esset ille Alexandreael beneficio amicorum eius [A ntonius] magister equitum constitueretur. turn existim avit se suo iure cum H ippia vivere et equos uectigalis Sergio mimo tradere— “m o re o v e r, w ith C a e sa r ig n o ra n t since he w as a t A le x an d ria, A n to n iu s w as m ad e ‘m a s te r o f th e h o rs e ’ th ro u g h th e k in d n ess o f [C aesar’s] friends. A t th a t p o in t h e d ecid ed it w as his rig h t to live w ith H ip p ias a n d give o v e r to th e a c to r Sergius p ro fita b le [?] h o rse s” (P h il. 2.62). IfH ip p ia s is th e male m im e m e n tio n e d at P lu t. A n f. 9.6 (th o u g h S h a c k le to n B ailey q u e stio n s H ip p ia s’ sex in his Philippics tran sla tio n ad Ioc.), th en C ic e r o jo k e s th a t A n to n iu s ’ p o sitio n as “ m a s te r o f th e h o rs e ” (magister equitum) gives h im th e rig h t (suo iure) to liv e w ith H ip p ia s (fro m the G re ek hippos, “ h o rs e ”) in a re la tio n sh ip in w h ic h A n to n iu s p re su m a b ly has the d o m in a n t role b y d in t o f his office. A c tiv e lo v ers can b e d e rid e d fo r th e ir excessive p re o c c u p a tio n w ith b oys (a lth o u g h I k n o w o f n o c ertain e x a m p le fro m the late R epublic). F o r th e evidence, see M acM u llen , esp. 488, 490 n. 21, 498; a n d R ich lin 1992a, esp. 2 2 1 -2 2 , 224—25, 291, and in d e x , s.v. “ P e d ­ erasty. ” In th is case, h o w e v e r, it seem s to be n o t th e sex o f th e p a rtn e r th a t is fau lted b u t the lo v e r’s e n slav e m e n t to p h y sic al pleasure. 54 See th e d isc u ssio n in R ichlin 1981 a n d 1992a passim ; A d am s 1 2 4 -3 0 . K re n k el 1980: 77—80 p ro v id e s a c o m p e n d iu m o f th e vario u s m ea n in g s o f irrumatio th ro u g h o u t R o m a n life, c o n c lu d in g w ith a list o f ex am p les fro m th e g raffiti at P o m p e ii. 55 T h e an cien ts g e n e ra lly — and in invective a p p a re n tly alw ay s— perceiv ed o f m ale h o ­ m o e ro tic s as n o n re cip ro ca l: th e b elo v ed (eromenos) in a re la tio n sh ip w o u ld alw ays play the passive ro le w ith in th a t re la tio n sh ip a n d w as p o rtra y e d as receiv in g little o r n o physical p lea su re fro m th e a rra n g e m e n t; cf. D o v e r 16, 10 0 -1 0 9 , p assim , a n d m o re re ce n tly H a lp erin 30—38, w h o c o m p a re s th is p o lariza tio n o f sex roles to th e la rg e r social s tru c tu re in A th en s. O n R o m e , see G o n fro y , w h o traces lin k s b e tw ee n sexual su b m issio n and servile status; V eyne 2 9 -3 0 , 33; R ichlin 1992a, esp. 55—56; a n d E d w a rd s 74—75, w h o discusses h o w “ ac­ c u satio n s o f e ffem in acy m ay be seen as d ilu te d th rea ts o f ra p e .”

ter. F o r a R o m an , su b serv ien ce to a w o m a n ’s desires im plies sexual p a ssiv ity — and even a m b ig u ity — in the m ale. A c cu satio n s o f w o m a n lik e b eh a v io r o cc u r in a w e ll-k n o w n passage fr o m C ic e r o ’s Second Philippic. In an earlier speech, A n to n iu s, it seem s, claim ed th a t C ic e ro h ad o n ce b een his teacher. C icero replies th a t in fact th e y o u n g A n to n iu s h a d n ev e r availed h im s e lf o f th e o ra to r’s in stru ctio n : ne tu, si id fecisses, m elius famae, m elius pudicitiae tuae consuluisses. sed neque fecisd nec, si cuperes, tibi id per C . C urionem facere licuisset. (P h i l .

2.3) I f you had in fact done that, you w ou ld have served your reputation and chastity better. B u t you didn’t do it and, even i f you w anted to, Gaius C urio w o u ld n ’t have let you.

C ic e ro im p lies th a t A n to n iu s ’ role as C u rio ’s beloved, a role he refers to elsew h ere in th e speech (Phil. 2.44—45), explains in p a rt his p re sen t m o ra l profligacy. A n to n iu s ’ passive sexual p o sitio n co rresp o n d s to an in ab ility to c o n tro l his o w n m o ra l u p b rin g in g . T h is fo rm u la tio n fro m 43 b c e ex ­ p lains th e p o in t o f a jo k e d atin g fro m th e p re v io u s century. C o rn elia, the m o th e r o f th e G racchi, h ad b een slan d ered fo r h av in g ad u ltero u s rela­ tio n s. H e r so n G aius d efen d ed h er fro m one attac k as follow s: έπεί δέ διαβεβλημένος ήν είς μαλαχίαν ό λοιδορηθείς, [ό Γράγχος] “τίνα δ ε,” ειπεν, “εχων παρρησίαν συγκρίνεις Κ ορνηλία σεαυτόν; έτεκες γά ρ ώς εκείνη; καί μήν πάντες ίσασι 'Ρω μαίοι πλείω χρόνον έκείνην ά π ’ ά νδρός ούσαν ή σέ τον άνδρα. ” (Plut. C G 4.4) A nd w h en a m an w as hurling in vective w h o w as custom arily accused o f effem inacy, [Gracchus replied]: “W hat b oldness o f speech allow s you to com pare y o u rself w ith Cornelia? D id you g iv e birth as she did? A nd besides, everyon e in R om e k n ow s that she spends m ore tim e in the absence o f a m an than you do, [although you are] a m a n .”

G ra c c h u s’ b a rb im p lies th a t his u n n a m e d o p p o n e n t a b a n d o n s features o f his m ascu lin ity b y p re fe rrin g to a d o p t th e fem ale role in his in terc o u rse w ith m en . A s a re su lt o f this denial o f his tru e n a tu re , he is less w o rth y o f re sp ect th a n a w o m a n . O th e r passages fro m th e late R ep u b lic also sh o w a sp eak er re le g atin g an o p p o n e n t to a su b serv ie n t status b y allu d in g to his su b m issiv e ro le in sexual situ a tio n s.56 56 T hese include a passage fro m Strabo’s discussion o f rhetorical w it in Cic. D e orat. 2.265: cum Sextus Titius se Cassandram esse diceret, “multos” inquit Antonius “possum tuos Aiaces Oileos nominare"— “W hen Sextus T itius kept calling h im self a C assandra, A ntonius replied ‘I can nam e a n u m b er o f your A jaxes.’” See also Verr. 2.3.159, 2.4.143, Plut. Cic. 7.7 = Mor. 204f (all o f V erres’ son), and the rem arks against Julius C aesar m ade by C alvus, Cic­ ero, and the triu m p h in g soldiers (Suet. Iul. 49; sim ilar accusations appear at Aug. 68, Otho

T h e in v ectiv e ag ain st effem inacy strives to equate an o p p o n e n t’s status w ith th a t o f a w o m a n o r even, as in the ex am p le j u s t cited, w ith th at o f a failed w o m a n . T h e abuse co u ld go still fu rth er: h u m o r o ften arises fro m d ep ictin g th e o p p o n e n t as th rea ten in g to b ec o m e literally tran sfo rm ed in to th e o p p o site sex. F o r exam ple, C icero p o rtra y s th e relationship b e­ tw e e n A n to n iu s an d C u rio as a k in d o f m arriag e w h erein A n to n iu s re­ je c ts his m aleness: sum psisti virilem , quam statim m uliebrem togam reddidisti. prim o vulgare scortum ; certa flagiti m erces nec ea parva; sed cito C urio intervenit, qui te a m eretricio quaestu abduxit et, tam quam stolam dedisset, in m atrim onio stabili et certo collocavit. (Phil. 2.44) You donned the toga o f an adult m ale, w hich you im m ediately turned into a w o m a n ’s. A t first [you w ere] a co m m o n w hore; there w as a fixed price for a trick— and n o t a sm all one; but C urio sw iftly intervened and took you away from the prostitute’s trade, settling you in a calm and stable m arriage ju st as i f h e ’d given you a w ed d in g g ow n .

T h e u ltim a te d eg rad atio n o f th e passive p a rtn e r lies in eq u atin g n o t on ly his b eh a v io r b u t also his sex to th a t o f a w o m a n ; later in th e sam e speech, C u rio is d escrib ed as A n to n iu s ’ h u sb a n d (vir; Phil. 2.50). O th e r p ro m i­ n e n t R o m an s are d escrib ed as w o m e n o n acco u n t o f th eir alleged in ter­ course w ith m en: B ib u lu s p u b licly d u b b e d Ju liu s C aesar the “B ith y n ian q u e e n ” fo r his relatio n s w ith N ic o m e d e s (Suet. Iul. 49), C icero called C u rio th e y o u n g e r “th e little d a u g h te r o f C u rio ” {filiola Curionis', A tt. 1 .14.5 = SB 14), and C lo d iu s b ecam e “ the p e o p le ’s fem ale A p p u leiu s” (ilia populi Appuleia; A tt. 4 .1 1 .2 = SB 86). P u b lic charges o f effem inacy never, h ow ever, en tirely negate th e m as­ culine vices o f th e accused: this ty p e o f invective o ften charges th e o p p o ­ n e n t w ith th e seem in g ly o x y m o ro n ic co m b in atio n o f passive, effem inate su b serv ien ce an d vio len t, m ale lust. T h e a m b ig u o u s h alfw ay p o in t b e­ tw e e n m ale an d fem ale p ro v id es the accuser w ith th e u n iq u e o p p o rtu n ity o f ch a rg in g his o p p o n e n t w ith th e w o rs t vices o f b o th “ sex e s.” In this case th e d a n g e r is th at th e accused’s physical m ak eu p confuses d istinc­ tio n s th at m u st re m a in clear. T h e effem inate m ale ca n n o t recognize th at th e b io lo g ical an d social co n stru c tio n o f m aleness m u st coincide. A c co rd in g to S u eto n iu s, th e elder C u rio w ish ed to sh o w C aesa r’s re p ­ u ta tio n fo r b o th a d u lte ry and so d o m y w h e n he described C aesar in a 2.2). O c c a sio n a lly — a lth o u g h n o t as o ften as is so m e tim e s cla im e d — accu satio n s o f b e in g a catam ite d o n o t seem to c arry a literal force. See for e x a m p le Phil. 2.77, w h e re C ic e ro calls A n to n iu s a catamitus in th e m id d le o f a n a rra tiv e in w h ic h the o ra to r tells o f A n to n iu s ’ secret v isit to his w ife. E v en h ere, h o w e v er, th e re o c cu r references to A n to n iu s ’ effem inate dress (P M . 2.76).

150

CHA PTER 4

public speech as “a m an for all w o m en and a w om an for all m en ” (om­ nium mulierum virum et omnium virorum mulierem; Suet. Iu l. 52.3). C icero sim ilarly scorns Verres as being a “man am on g w o m e n and a w an ton little w o m a n am on g m en ” (uir inter mulieres, impura inter viros muliercula; Verr. 2 .2 .1 9 2 ).57 Parallel exam ples depict m en en gaging in b oth d om i­ nant and subservient sexual roles w ith ou t any n otion on the accuser’s part that the charge seem s to raise logical p rob lem s.58 T his realm o f an­ d ro g y n y does not, how ever, sim p ly indicate that there is “no con­ sisten cy ” o n the part o f the accuser.59 Rather, the theoretical possibility that a m an could lose his gender has opened up a legitim ate space for invective. T h e “androgynous m an ” does n ot represent a breach o f logic so m uch as a potential threat alw ays inherent for the male. It n o w remains to consider h o w the orator attem pted to con vey to his audience the truth behind these charges o f effem inacy. We have repeat­ ed ly seen the need in invective for external, visible m eans o f verification. A nd in fact, the extant texts from the Republic and other periods, includ­ in g th ose w ritin gs outside oratory, reveal an awareness o f a consistent set o f features that w ere thought to characterize a dissipating m asculinity. 57 F o r th e sarca stic use o f vir, a w o rd usu ally a pplied to R o m a n nobiles, a n d the w o r d ’s sta rk c o n tra s t w ith mulier, n o rm a lly re serv e d b y C ic e ro fo r w o m e n o f lo w social status, see S a n to ro L ’H o ir, chaps. I, 2. T h e sa m e c o n tra st o ccu rs in virilem . . . muliebrem fro m P hil. 2 .4 4 , q u o te d in th e te x t above. 58 Sest. 20 (th e effe m in a te G a b in iu s is a fre q u e n t a d u lte re r), Har. resp. 42 (C lo d iu s; cf. also Pis. 65, Har. resp. 59), P hil. 14.9; [C ic.] In v . in Sail. 9 (Sallust c a n n o t refrain fro m m en; cf. 5.15, w h e re all h u sb a n d s are a n g ry at S a llu st’s a d u lte ry ); C a tu ll. 5 7 .1 —2, 8 - 9 ; Liv. 3 9 .1 5 .9 (d e scrib in g m ale c eleb ra n ts a t B acchanalia); Sen. Contr. l.p ra e f.9 ; and, p e rh ap s, th e ta n ta liz in g ly b r ie f L ucilius 1048 (W a rm in g to n ): inberbi androgyni, barbati tnoechocinaedi. C a r­ so n 154 n. 39 cites G re ek te x ts w h e re m ale a d u lte re rs are d e p ic te d as p o ssessin g effem in ate tra its. Sen. Contr. 2 .1 .6 offers an in te re s tin g p o ssib ility : y o u n g m e n act effe m in a te to a ttra c t w om en. T h e n o tio n o f m a le /fe m a le flux m a y also e x p la in a m y ste rio u s jo k e at D e orat. 2.274: “quid est tibi ista m ulier?" “u x o r." “similis me dius fid iu s" — “D o y o u k n o w th a t w o m a n ? ” “ [S he’s m y ] w if e .” “W h a t a re sem b lan c e !” W ilk in s ad loc. believes th a t “ th e re is n o need to fin d in [this re m a rk ] m o re th a n a jo k e para prosdokian·. ‘A h , I th o u g h t she w as so m e relation: sh e is so like y o u .’” T h e d isc u ssio n in th e te x t sh o w s th a t th e jo k e c o u ld b e m o re b a rb e d , im p ly in g e ffem in acy o f th e su b ject. 59 T h e q u o te d p h ra se is fro m R ich lin 1992a: 98, w h o s e b r ie f b u t w e ll-d o c u m e n te d ac­ c o u n t o f rh e to ric a l in v ec tiv e has b e en v e ry h e lp fu l in sh a p in g m y o w n discu ssio n , w h ic h I see as re fin in g ra th e r th a n su b sta n tia lly d isa g re e in g w ith h e r o b se rv a tio n s. E d w a rd s has p ro p o s e d an a lte rn a tiv e a n d in trig u in g e x p la n a tio n fo r this lu stfu l m a n /w o m a n : th e effem i­ n a te m ale in h e rits all th e n e g ativ e q u alities associated w ith w o m e n , in c lu d in g incontinentia (81—84). H e n c e he lu sts a fte r a n y th in g th a t w ill q u e n c h his desires. T h is h y p o th e sis, h o w ­ ever, se e m s to b e c o n tra d ic te d b y th e passage fro m th e e ld e r Seneca w ith w h ic h E d w a rd s o p e n s h e r d isc u ssio n , w h e re th e lu st o f th e effe m in a te is d e sc rib e d as a d istin c tly male trait (“ in n o w a y m e n e x c e p t in lu s t”— nusquam nisi in libidine viris\ Contr. l.p ra e f. 10, q u o te d in te x t b elo w ).

T h e C a t e g o r y o f t h e E f f e m in a t e M a l e

E ffem in acy does n o t re p resen t, as m ay first appear, a charge available at th e w h im o f a n y accuser. C ic e ro ’s co rp u s co n tain s n o evidence th a t he h im s e lf w as so charged, n o r does the accusation e n ter th e Ust o f Vatinius0 m a n y v ices.60 In th e case o f P iso, it is applied on ly vaguely, chiefly th ro u g h his affiliation w ith G a b in iu s. Yet in C ic e ro ’s treatise o n h u m o r in O n the Orator b o o k 2 th e o ra to r offers a m o c k e ry o f effem inacy fro m the m id -se c o n d c e n tu ry b c e th a t at first sig h t appears to advise w ith o u t reser­ v a tio n th e u se o f such abuse: c u m Q . O p im iu s consularis, qui aduiescentulus m ale audisset, festivo h o m ini E gilio, qui videretur m ollior nec esset, dixisset “quid tu, Egilia mea? quando ad m e venis cum tua colu et lana?” “n on p o l” inquit “audeo, nam m e ad fam osas vetuit mater accedere.” (D e orat. 2.277)

T h e form er consul Q uintus O pim ius, a m an w h o ’d had a bad reputation as a you n g boy, on ce had said to the w itty E gilius— since he seem ed rather effem inate (mollior ) and [yet] w as n ot— “W hat do you say, E gilia m y girl? W hen are you com in g over to m y h ouse w ith your d istaff and w o o l? ” E gilius replied, “I d o n ’t dare, by P ollux, since m y m other has forbidden m e to g o near w o m e n w ith bad reputations.”

C icero relates this ep iso d e to d e m o n stra te th e attra ctio n s o f w ittily tu rn ­ in g a ch arg e b ack o n an o p p o n e n t (est bellum illud quoque, ex quo is, qui dixit, inridetur in eo ipso genere, quo d ix it). It is significant, h ow ever, th at th e n a rra to r has tak en care to p ro v id e his read er w ith b a c k g ro u n d o n each o f th e p artic ip a n ts in th e anecdote. T h is b a c k g ro u n d is essential fo r u n ­ d e rsta n d in g th e rh e to ric al advice b ein g offered. T h e anecdote requires th a t th e j o k e ’s audience k n o w in advance ab o u t O p im iu s ’ n o to rio u s y o u th (qui aduiescentulus male audisset). T h e hearers, th en , m u st have so m e sen sitiv ity to th e tru th o f th e charges bein g b ro u g h t b efo re th em . H ence O p im iu s does n o t fail because his re m a rk w as n o t fu n n y — this is n o t a re lev an t facto r for C ic e ro ’s discussion. R ather, th e h u m ilia tio n o f O p im iu s offers a clear w a rn in g to the p o te n tia l o ra to r th at the substance o f a ch arg e m u s t be verifiable. O p im iu s relied to o m u c h u p o n the signs o f E g iliu s’ effem inacy, signs th at the j o k e ’s in tro d u c tio n reveals to be d ecep tiv e— E g iliu s o n ly seem ed effem inate (qui videretur mollior nec esset). E g iliu s, b ein g accused b y a speaker w h o lacks a p ro p e r re g ard for h o w to 60 A ccording to Plutarch, how ever, Verres accused C icero o f malakia (effeminacy) and im plied that he was a passive hom osexual (Cic. 7.7; Mor. 204f). Yet C icero’s reply to this charge seem s to indicate th at Verres did n o t address the o rato r by name.

152

C H A PTER 4

use visible evidence, can then overcom e the insult by referring to O p im iu s’ infam ous past. O pim ius cannot be faulted for thinking that E gilius’ external appear­ ance w ould incrim inate him . In the late Republic, orators repeatedly ap­ peal to specific external indicators— o r groups o f indicators— to dem on­ strate a m ale o p p o n en t’s internal, effem inate character. For exam ple, C icero preserves the follow ing “slight play on w o rd s” (parva verhi immutatio) that the elder C ato m ade in response to an anonym ous opponent: si tu et adversus et aversus im pudicus es. (D e orat. 2.256) I f both from the front and from behind you are a sham elessly effem inate m ale (impudicus) . 61

C ato m ocks his oppo n en t as a subm issive hom osexual w ith this charge o f being “sham eless from beh in d ” (aversus impudicus). Adversus (“from the fro n t”), in contrast, is usually taken to refer to the adversary’s shameless w ay o f speaking.62 A passage fro m Gellius supplies a m ore satisfactory explanation: Plutarchus refert A rcesilaum p hilosoph um vehem ent! verbo usum esse de quod am n im is delicato divite, qui incorruptus tam en et a stupro integer dicebatur, nam cum vocem eius infractam capillum que arte com p o situ m et o cu los ludibundos atque inlecebrae voluptatisque plenos videret: “nihil in­ terest,” inquit, “quibus m em bris cinaedi sitis, posterioribus an p riorib u s.” (G ell. 3 .5 .1 -2 ; cf. Plut. M or. 126a, 705e) Plutarch relates that the philosopher Arcesilaus used strong language con ­ cerning a rich m an [w h o w as] exceedingly effem inate, but w as said to be untainted and free from vice. For w h en [Arcesilaus] perceived his broken speech and artfully arranged hair and his playful eyes filled w ith charm and desire, he said, “It d oesn ’t matter w ith w hat parts y o u ’re a su bm issive h o ­ m osexu al (cinaedi), those in back or those in fro n t.”

For Arcesilaus, the reputation o f the rich m an had no relevance; his exte­ rior betrayed his true nature. T h e sim ilarity betw een the w itticism s o f C ato and Arcesilaus m ay n o t be accidental; other passages from C a to ’s w ritings show the censor’s fam iliarity w ith G reek aphorism s.63 T he “fro n t p a rts” (membra priora) o f the Arcesilaus episode and the “ frontal 61 A s O L D notes s. v., impudicus (literally, “sham eless”) often refers explicitly to a passive hom osexual (cf. T L L 7.1:711.37); that this is C ato ’s m eaning here is clear from the parallel jo k e o f A rcesilaus cited below in the text. N o te that impudicus is also the w o rd Seneca the younger uses o f the pathic hom osexual in Epist. 52.12 (quoted in the n ex t paragraph o f the text). 62 So M onaco 1968 ad Ioc., follow ing T urnebus. 63 A stin 187-88.

sh am elessn ess” (adversus) o f C a to m o st likely refer, th en , to the sam e feature: th e use o f th e m o u th in fellatio. A t th e sam e tim e, how ever, C ato , like A rcesilaus, m u s t have fo u n d p r o o f fo r these charges o f effem i­ nate b eh av io r in his o p p o n e n t’s v ery appearance: the m a n ’s e x te rio r in d i­ cates to an o n lo o k e r his h id d e n vice. T h e voice, hair, and eyes o f th e rich ' m an n ecessarily m ark his effem inacy. T h is pair o f anecdotes teaches an im p o rta n t lesson. It does n o t m a tte r h o w w ell im m o ra lity lies co n cealed — o n e ’s tru e ch aracter w ill in ev itab ly em erg e in ex tern al signs. A w rite r fro m the early E m p ire offers explicit te stim o n y to a R o m an b e lie f in th e v alid ity o f ex tern al indicators. In one o f Seneca’s Moral Epis­ tles, th e p h ilo s o p h e r teaches Lucilius h o w to d istin g u ish u n ex am in ed ad­ u latio n fro m tru e an d co n sid ered praise. T h e re is a difference, Seneca affirm s, b etw e en ap p ro v al gained in the th eater and at school. A n d h o w does o n e d e te rm in e th e ch aracter o f a critic? A s in all areas o f life, a clear estim ate o f an in d iv id u a l’s character arises fro m ex tern al factors: omnia rerum om nium , si observentur, indicia sunt, et argumentum m orum ex minimis quoque licet capere: im pudicum et incessus ostendit et manus m ota et unum interdum responsum et relatus ad caput digitus et flexus oculorum ; im probum risus, insanum vultus habitusque demonstrat. ilia enim in apertum per notas exeunt. (Sen. Epist. 52.12) There are all types o f indicators for all things, provided they are attended to, and one may obtain evidence for character from even the smallest details: you can tell an effeminate man (im p u d icu s) from his walk, from [the way] he moves his hands, from sometimes [even] a short reply, from [the way] he brings his finger up to his head, and from his eye movement. Laughter betrays the wicked man, expression and bearing the insane one. For those [qualities] come out into the open through signs. W h e n p ro p e rly scrutinized, appearances d o n o t deceive. Seneca seem s h ere to pass o n a lesson he learn ed fro m his father, w h o se Controoersiae— collected in a h a n d b o o k b y th e elder Seneca fo r his th re e sons— include a d iatrib e ag ain st th e y o u th o f his day th a t shares all th e sam e features o f the effem in ate m ale, ex cep t fo r th e reference to peculiar eye m o v e m e n t.64 64 E y e m o v e m e n t is discussed b y C ic e ro in his rh e to rica l w o rk s as an in d ic a to r o f te m p o ­ rary, n o t p e rm a n e n t, ch aracter, a n d seem s to b e e m p lo y e d th a t w ay in his speeches (Oral. 60; D e orat. 3.221-23). I fin d th e fo llo w in g links b e tw ee n th e re m a rk s o f th e tw o Senecas (th e re la tio n sh ip w ith in these p airs w ill b e ela b o rate d in th e te x t th ro u g h parallels fro m th e late R epublic): (I) incessus . . . et manus mota (E pist.) = saltandi . . . studia (Contr.), (2) unum interdum responsum (E pist.) = ad muliebres blanditias extenuate uocem (C ontr.), (3) relatus ad caput digitus (E pist.) = capillum frangere a n d immundissimis Se excolere munditiis (C ontr.). I shall also discuss a fo u rth e le m e n t in th e eld e r Seneca’s te x t— d e p ila tio n (in istis vulsis atque expolttis)— a p ractice th at th e so n , b e in g c o n c e rn e d o n ly w ith ge stu re a n d m o v e m e n t, does n o t in clu d e in his o w n list.

154

CHA PTER 4

som n u s languorque ac so m n o et languore turpior m alarum rerum industria invasit anim os: cantandi saltandique obscena studia effem inatos tenent, [et] capillum frangere et ad m uliebres blanditias extenuare vocem , m ollitia cor­ poris certare cu m fem inis et im m u n dissim is se excolere m unditiis n o strorum adulescentum sp ecim en est. quis aequalium vestrorum quid dicam satis in gen iosu s satis studiosus, im m o quis satis vir est? . . . ite nunc et in istis vu lsis atque exp olitis et nusquam nisi in libidine viris quaerite oratores. (Sen. Contr. l.p r a e f.8 —9, 10) Sleep and laziness and som eth in g m ore disgraceful than sleep and laziness— a passion for w ick ed deeds— have attacked their souls: obscene passion for sin gin g and dancing has a hold on these effem inates. T h e m odel for our you th s is in curling the hair, ligh ten ing the voice to the caressing sounds o f a w o m a n , com p etin g w ith w o m e n in physical delicacy, and adorning them ­ selves w ith unrefined finery. W hich o f your contem poraries is— h o w shall I say?— talented or studious enough? N o ; w h ich is m an enough? . . . G o on, lo o k for orators am on g those [w h o are] depilated and sm ooth , in n o w ay m en except in lust.

T h is p assag e fro m th e m o ralizin g a n d co n servative elder Seneca p ro v id es an im p o rta n t lin k b e tw e e n his so n a n d th e in v ectiv e tex ts I have b een co n sid erin g . AU th e features th a t h e describes as associated w ith effem ­ in acy are fo u n d in re p resen ta tio n s o f th e late R ep u b lican b a n q u e t— sin g in g , d an c in g , cu rled hair, w o m a n ly voices. As I p ro p o se d at th e o u t­ set, late R ep u b lican in v ectiv e against effem inacy te n d e d to be conflated w ith fears o f th e im m o d e ra te feast. I h ave a rg u ed th a t the effem inate b an q u e te r is n o t sim p ly a literary fiction, a c o m p o site fig u re p atch e d to g e th e r fro m th e g ro u n d less anxi­ eties o f th e o ra to r’s audience. In stead I p re su m e th a t in v ectiv e’s efficacy req u ires at least so m e d eg ree o f c o rrelatio n b etw e en th e charges raised p u b licly an d th e realities o f c o n te m p o ra ry society. It is n o w tim e to co n ­ sid er th e co ro lla ry to th is claim : to w h a t e x te n t can the effem inate m ale be said to c o n stitu te a specific c a te g o ry o f person? D u rin g th e p ast tw o decades scholars co n c ern e d w ith G reek an tiq u ity have b een a tte m p tin g to clarify G reek attitu d e s to w a rd m a le -to -m a le sex­ ual c o n d u c t. 65 R ecen t d eb ate has ce n te red in p a rtic u la r o n the d istin ctio n s Q u in tilia n (Inst. 5.9.14) also a ck n o w le d g es th e p o ssib ility o f a p p ea lin g to e x te rn al signs o f th e e ffe m in a te m ale; h e specifically m e n tio n s d e p ila tio n (corpus vulsum ), a m in c in g gait (Jractus incessus), a n d fe m in in e dress (uestis muliebris). In th e a n o n y m o u s L atin w o rk O n Physiognom y, th e sig n s o f th e effeminatus c o rre sp o n d w ell w ith th e categ o ries m e n tio n e d b y th e y o u n g e r S eneca (2 .7 5 -7 6 [F oerster]; cf. also 1.276, 1.415, 2.123; A risto tle Phgn. 808a 1 2 -1 6 ). 65 S erio u s c o n sid e ra tio n o f th e su b je ct b e g a n w ith D o v e r 1978. T h e w id e -ra n g in g su rv e y o f B o sw ell 1980 th a t fo llo w ed has received m u c h c riticism for its c o n te n tio n th a t “ gay p e o p le ” h a v e e x iste d th r o u g h o u t th e h isto ry o f W estern so ciety; see th e b ib lio g ra p h y cited

betw een ancient and m o d e rn n o tio n s o f hom o sex u ality for, according to p ro m in e n t researchers on sexuality, especially M ichel Foucault, it is only since th e late nineteenth century that m ale ho m o ero tic behavior has played an in teg ral role in the social definition o f an individual. T h e soci­ eties o f ancient G reece and R om e did n o t, they argue, attrib u te the sam e degree o f im p o rtan ce to an ind iv id u al’s sexual orientation as does m o d ­ ern society. Preference for one type o f erotic experience over another w as “n o t a m atter o f ty p o lo g y involving the ind iv id u al’s very nature, the tru th o f his desire, o r the natural legitim acy o f his p red ilectio n .”66 H ence for th e G reeks, at least, it is claim ed th at activity w e in the tw en tieth cen tu ry w o u ld label “h o m o sex u al” w as sim ply a “set o f acts” in w hich the sex o f the p erson penetrated is irrelevant. T h u s for th em the sex o f o n e ’s sexual p artn er did n o t occupy the sam e privileged position th at it has in o u r cu lture in defining an individual’s essence: “it is n o t im m e­ d iately ev id en t th at differences in sexual preference are by th eir very na­ tu re m o re revealing about the tem p eram en t o f individual h u m an beings, m o re significant determ in an ts o f personal identification, than, for exam ­ ple, differences in dietary preference. ”67 A n in d iv id u al’s choice o f sexual p artn e r w as n o t, according to this line o f reasoning, considered an inte­ gral p art o f th at p erso n ’s character. T h is F oucauldian m o d el does n o t lack opponents. A careful reevalua­ tio n o f legal evidence, biological w ritings, and social codes fro m classical A thens has cast considerable d o u b t o n the n o tio n that the A thenians view ed m ale-m ale sexual activity as b o th socially and m orally equivalent to m ale-fem ale in terco u rse.68 L iterary sources also provide obstacles to this claim . O n e central tex t is the speech o f A ristophanes in P lato ’s S ym ­ posium (189c—193d), w h ich p u rp o rts to explain w h y h u m an beings differ a m o n g each o th er in their choice o f sexual p artn e r— som e m en prefer m en, so m e w o m e n prefer w o m en , and the th ird g roup includes m em ­ bers o f b o th sexes. In A risto p h an es’ speech, the desire o f m ales for males represents n o t casual choice b u t “a w h o le w ay o r ten o r o f life” that springs fro m sexuality.69 A ristophanes clearly im agines m ale h o m o ero ti­ cism as a recognized p art o f a m a n ’s social identity. T his debate over the in H a lp crin 161 n. 32 and B o sw ell’s o w n re statem e n t o f his view s (1990). P atzer’s stu d y a tte m p ts to trace pederastic behavior to m ilitary ritual; see H a lp erin ’s critique (54—61). 66 Foucault 1985: 190; see his entire discussion 187-203 and H alp erin 15-40. 67 H a lp erin 26, follow ing Foucault; cf. W in k ler 4. In a review o f H alp erin and W inkler, T h o rn to n argues th a t th eir w o rk has “seriously oversim plified F oucault’s ideas” (182). R ichlin 1993: 524—28 offers a detailed and convincing critique o f the p ositions o f H alperin and W inkler. 68 C o h e n 171-20 2; see esp. his assessm ent o f legal attitudes to w a rd p e d era sty in the c o n te x t o f the law o f hubris (175-82). 69 T h o rp 58, w h o is re sp o n d in g to H alperin 18—21. C f. B osw ell 1990: 77; G olden 338; C o h e n 1 90-92. E ven W in k ler ad m its th a t “kinaidos w as a category o f person, n o t ju s t o f acts, ” at least in so far as the kinaidos displayed d eviant b ehavior (46).

eth ical statu s o f m ale h o m o e ro tic passion is b y no m eans settled for G reek an tiq u ity . In th e R o m a n R epublic, h o w e v er, I arg u e th at a m a le ’s choice o f sex u al p a rtn e r w as conceived o f as an im p o rta n t c o m p o n e n t o f h is social d efin itio n . R h eto rica l in v ectiv e fro m th e p e rio d clearly d e m o n ­ strates h o w p u b lic speakers u sed effem inate characteristics in th e ir o p p o ­ n e n ts to c o n s tru c t th e m as reco g n izab le arch ety p es o f a sexual “ o th e r .” T h e re d id e x ist a d escribable c a te g o ry o f m ale, a p erso n fro m w h o se sex u ality a n d sex -lin k e d b e h a v io r th e R o m a n o ra to r stro v e to d ifferen ti­ ate h im self. F o u cau lt d id n o t tre a t th e R o m a n R ep u b lic— and, arguably, h ard ly treats R o m a n cu ltu re at all— in his su rv e y o f sex u ality in th e ancient M e d ite rra n e a n .70 C e rta in ly his assertio n th at, u n til re cen t centuries, th e “s o d o m ite ” w as n o t defined b y “ a k in d o f in te rio r a n d ro g y n y , a h e rm a p h ro d is m o f th e s o u l,” finds a clear re fu ta tio n in th e exegesis o f th e y o u n g e r S eneca q u o te d above, as w ell as in m an y o f th e tex ts I have cited th ro u g h o u t th is c h a p te r.71 F o r b o th S eneca’s ac co u n t a n d in v ectiv e texts fro m th e late R ep u b lic are p re d ic ated o n th e n o tio n th a t th e signs b y w h ic h an o b se rv e r m ay ju d g e a n o th e r p e rso n o rig in ate fro m th e su b je c t’s in te rn a l m a k e u p — th e id en tifiab le traits, says Seneca, “co m e o u t in to the o p e n ” (in apertum . . . exeunt). T h is n o tio n parallels th e m o d el fo r p h y si­ cal p ec u liarities discussed in c h a p te r I, b y w h ich ex tern al appearance fu n c tio n s as a d ecip h erab le re p resen ta tio n o f in tern a l m orality. A n u m b e r o f facto rs co m p licate th e analysis o f R o m a n sexual m o res. A s I n o te d earlier, th e influence o f G reek p ro to ty p e s is h a rd to disen­ tan g le. M o re o v er, in c o n tra st to th o se scholars w h o stu d y th e G reeks, the cu ltu ra l h isto ria n o f R ep u b lican R o m e m u s t rely fo r evidence alm o st so lely o n lite ra ry te x ts— n o vase p ain tin g s o r o th e r m o d es o f p o p u la r ex p ressio n ex ist in q u a n tity sufficient to p ro v id e a m e an in g fu l c o u n te r­ p o in t to th e lite ra ry m a te ria l.72 T h e re is, finally, th e p ro b le m th a t c o m p li70 Cf. Richlin 1992a: x v -x v i on Foucault’s neglect o f R om an sources. 71 Foucault 1980: 43; cf. 1985: 19, w here, after discussing stereotypes o f effem inacy in the ancient w o rld , Foucault asserts that it is “com pletely incorrect to interpret [these traits] as a condem nation o f . . . w h at we generally refer to as hom osexual relations.” A lthough Foucault claims that he is only concerned w ith theoretical n o rm s o f behavior and n o t actual practice (e.g., 1985: 12—13), statem ents such as these show him apparently violating his ow n proscription. Foucault’s contentio n th at the ancients had no conception o f an “in terio r an d ro g y n y ” is also belied by R om an attitudes to w ard lesbians (a subject he neglects), to w h o m the extant references “attrib u te m ale activities and apparatus” (H allett 1989a: 221). 72 For an exception, see C larke, w h o analyzes m ale-m ale sexual acts depicted on R om an drinking vessels o f the early E m pire. H is observation that “all o f the artists present the act o f lovem aking betw een males in a rom antic, elevated m an n er” (284) certainly stands in opposition to extant verbal descriptions that date to the Republic. In a parallel exam ple, G olden 332 notes h o w hom oerotic acts are represented differently on the G reek com ic stage and in vase painting; Cf. H alperin’s ad dendum on how new

cates all studies o f po p u lar values in the ancient w orld: the bulk o f the ex tan t texts w ere pro d u ced by and for an elite m inority. B u t careful anal­ ysis enables us to negotiate these apparent obstacles, as I have sh o w n in m y discussion o f C ic e ro ’s attack o n the peculiar physique o f Gaius Fannius (chapter I). In this passage, C icero ’s appeal to his audience’s predis­ p o sitio n against physical peculiarities revealed the im portance R om ans attached to physical appearance in determ ining an individual’s m oral character. In th e case o f invective against effem inacy it is also possible to recover at least in p a rt the audience’s presum ed biases and predisposi­ tions. I f a certain m ode o f life is represented publicly— even if only to be rejected— th en the charges likely gain th eir force fro m som e underlying reality.73 O n e m ay argue to the co n trary that since Latin apparently does n o t have a single w o rd corresp o n d in g to o u r “h o m o sex u al,” the speakers o f Latin placed n o im p o rtan ce on the role o f m ale-to -m ale sexual encoun­ ters in a citizen’s social definition— an interesting b u t by n o m eans con­ clusive o b jectio n .74 T h ere m ay n o t have existed a particular w o rd for such an individual, b u t he did possess a discrete set o f signs. T his set necessarily presupposes a specific category o f m en k n o w n for their plea­ sure, o r at least com plicity, in being sexually penetrated b y o th er m en. A lth o u g h I w illingly concede the Foucauldian p o in t th at this act m ay n o t co n stitu te th eir sole defining m o m e n t as individuals, nevertheless their sexual role plays an in teg ral p art in their definition as responsible citizens. 75 A recent stu d y o f the R o m an co n stru ctio n o f m o rality argues that since sexual invective was deployed for nonsexual ends— nam ely, the degrada­ tio n o f a p ro m in e n t o r potentially dangerous o p p o n en t— the g ro u p tar­ g eted b y this type o f abuse does n o t necessarily constitute a distinct, p reex istin g g ro u p o f persons labeled as sexually deviant. T h e language o f political abuse, it is claim ed, is n o t w h at it appears: “in m any cases to accuse a m an o f being susceptible to sexual p enetration b y o th er m en was m o re a v ivid m e to n y m y for a generalised and pejorative claim that he research in to vase p a in tin g b y K eith D eV ries has forced h im “to qualify o r to m o d erate even fu rth e r so m e o f the already tentative general claim s a bout th e n a tu re o f G reek ped erasty ” (225). 73 B eg in n in g fro m passages in the p ra e to r’s edict o n infamia (U lp. Dig. 3.1.1), R ichlin 1993 forcefully argues “first, th at m en identified as hom o sex u als really existed at R om e and, second, that th eir existence was m ark e d b o th b y h o m o p h o b ia w ith in the culture and b y social and civil re stric tio n s” (530; see also 555—61). T h o rn to n rem ark s o n F oucault’s neg lect o f th e “p ro b lem atic relationship b etw een actual practice and p ublic discourses” (183). 74 F or a critiq u e o f this line o f a rg u m e n t see B osw ell 1990: 6 9 -7 0 and the rem arks o f D . K ennedy 29—30. 75 R ichlin 1993: 555—61 assesses w h e th er, in the R epublic, passive ho m o sex u ality could result in the c u rta ilm en t o f civil rights.

w as effem in ate ra th e r th a n an accusation th at co u ld b e d irec tly related to th e sex u al p referen ces o f th e v ic tim o f th e in su lt. ”76 T h e a s su m p tio n u n ­ d e rly in g th is fo rm u la tio n is th a t it w o u ld b e possible, h a d w e m o re in fo r­ m a tio n , to d istin g u ish b e tw e e n a set o f R o m a n attitu d e s re g a rd in g “e f ­ fe m in a c y ” an d a set re g a rd in g “sexual p re fe re n c e .” Y et th e gestures, m o v e m e n ts, a n d dress o f th e effem inate m ale o f late R ep u b lican in v ectiv e ca n n o t, as I have sh o w n , b e separated fro m an a tte n d a n t sexuality. O n th e co n tra ry , th e m ale b elo v ed is d elim ite d b y these v ery characteristics. E f­ fe m in a cy co n n o te s a specific sexuality. T h e p recisio n w ith w h ich the R o ­ m an s d efin e d th e sexually passive m ale m ay b e st b e sh o w n b y re tu rn in g o n ce ag ain to th e le tte r o f Seneca q u o te d above. T h e p o ly s y n d e to n o f S en eca’s fo rm u la tio n (et . . . et . . . et . . . et . . . et) m akes it clear th a t he en v isag es all th e d iffe ren t elem en ts o f his list as jo in tly ch a racterizin g th e effem in ate m ale (impudicus). Seneca p ro v id es a sy stem atic fo rm u la tio n o f th e d iffe re n t features th a t co h e re in th e p rocess o f defin in g th e passive m ale. It is su re ly n o accid en t th a t these characteristics co rre sp o n d to ele­ m e n ts fo u n d in C ic e ro n ia n invective. O f course, it w o u ld be m isg u id e d to use th ese o u tw a rd signs to define th e precise n a tu re o f this g ro u p ’s sexuality. Y et o u r in ab ility to su p p ly su ch a d efin itio n does n o t th e re b y erase th e g ro u p ’s ex isten c e.77 S im ilarly, I do n o t w ish to claim th a t fre­ q u e n t v ictim s o f th is fo rm o f abuse, su ch as M arcu s A n to n iu s o r P ublius C lo d iu s, w e re necessarily consciously alig n ed w ith a specific g ro u p o f effem in ate m en . Yet th e rh e to ric al p o w e r o f th e in v ectiv e w o u ld seem to d e p e n d o n th e th eo re tic al p o ssib ility th a t these p eo p le ex ist as a categ o ry o f h u m a n bein g s. O n c e this is accepted, th e n e x t step, th a t th e re are actual p e rso n s w h o b e lo n g to this category, does n o t seem so difficult to take. T h e re is a p o in t to be m ad e b efo re w e re tu rn to p rim a ry tex ts fro m the R ep u b lic. A s I have n o te d in p re v io u s ch ap ters, stan d ard s o f d iscre tio n an d a d esire fo r d en iab ility affect th e o ra to r’s choice o f ex p ressio n . I f the o ra to r uses to o m u c h detail in d esc rib in g th e sexual escapades o f an o p ­ p o n e n t, he w ill risk lo sin g his o w n re sp ectab ility .78 H e n ce th ere arose an altern ativ e to th e ex p licit d e sc rip tio n o f h o m o e ro tic acts, an altern ativ e th at, as w e have seen, w as already w id e ly accepted in th e seco n d ce n tu ry b c e : w o u ld an y o n e d o u b t b u t th a t a m a n disp lay in g th e ty p ical charac­ teristics “has d o n e th e sam e th in g th at pathics u su ally d o ” (Scipio A e76 E d w a rd s 66—68. E d w a rd s d o es, h o w e v e r, allo w e lsew h ere fo r the re ality o f th e sexual life o f th e accused: “T h is is n o t to say th a t th e re w as n o re la tio n sh ip b e tw e e n accu satio n s o f mollitia a n d certain sex u al p ra ctic e s” (68); “ sexual p re fe re n ce is tak e n to be th e final te st o f w h e th e r o r n o t [th e h y p o c ritic a l p h ilo so p h ers] are e ffe m in a te ” (74). 77 A s a ssu m e d b y E d w a rd s 66: “T h e re is little to su g g e st th a t R o m a n s e v er saw p e o p le w ith e x clu siv ely h o m o se x u a l p referen ces as a d istin c t social g r o u p .” She cites V eyne, M a c M u llen , a n d w ritin g s o f F o u c a u lt in s u p p o rt o f this a sse rtio n . 78 See th e d isc u ssio n o f R ich lin 1992a: 13—26.

m ilianus in Gell. 6.12.5)? T h e speaker has access to a set o f signs that allow h im to raise specific charges, b u t to do so indirectly. R eference to these signs does n o t co n stitu te m indless abuse; rather, the signs provide the audience w ith recognizable indications o f im m orality. T he use o f sex­ ual discourse for political ends does n o t erase the fact that the discourse depends o n physical and sexual relations.79 We m ay never learn w hat precisely m ale-m ale sexual contact m eant in R om an society; b u t unless, as w as the case w ith physical peculiarities, w e sim ply assum e a gullible audience w illin g to be du p ed b y a skillful orator, w e m u st expect there to b e som e tru th behind these constructions o f effem inacy. I have consis­ ten tly claim ed that the R om an o ra to r constructs beliefs n o t ou t o f w hole cloth b u t o u t o f prejudices and biases already present in his society. A re co g n itio n o f this process revives a read er’s confidence in the relation betw een R o m an beliefs and the o ra to r’s constructed reality, thereby in­ creasing respect for the ju d g m e n t o f the R om an audience. In the rem ain­ der o f m y discussion, I shall concentrate o n public invective texts— texts th at refer to real persons— using others only to su p p o rt m y conclusions. In these o ratorical passages the depictions o f the effem inate m ale are m ean t to persuade. A re w e to believe th at an artistic construct entirely abstracted fro m reality could be so convincing? E

f f e m in a t e

S ig n s

T h e indicators o f effem inacy that the R om an o ra to r em ploys fall into three basic categories: dress, ad ornm ent, and physical m ovem ent and gestures. T hese categories w ill o f course overlap; as I observed in discuss­ ing b an q u etin g them es, such fluid boundaries enable the o ra to r to in­ crim inate his o p p o n en t in seem ingly different vices, w hile at the sam e tim e allow ing deniability. E ach individual item o f visual evidence p ro ­ vides sufficient p ro o f o f deviance. T h e m o ck ery o f effem inate dress at R om e has a heritage dating back to o u r earliest ex tant texts. In P lautus’ Menaechmi, m en w h o cross-dress change th eir sexual id en tity w ith their clothing. M enaechm us I, for ex­ am ple, identifies h im self as G anym ede, Ju p ite r’s boy lover, w hile w ear­ ing a w o m a n ’s palla (Men. 143). Later in the sam e play, the parasite P eniculus accuses M en aech m u s’ tw in o f being the one w h o had sported w o m a n ’s clothing. M enaechm us II responds threateningly: vae capiti tuo. omnis cinaedos esse censes, tu quia es? tun med indutum fuisse pallam praedicas? ( Me n. 5 1 3 - 1 5 ) 79 Foucault 1985: 12 en co u n ters the sam e p ro b le m in his d istinction b etw een “discourses ab o u t sex u ality " and “sex u ality .”

W atch w h a t y o u say. D o y o u th in k e v e ry o n e is a passive h o m o se x u a l (cinaedos) becau se y o u are? D o y o u claim th a t I p u t o n a w o m a n ’s cloak?

T h e n o tio n b e in g m o c k e d in this ep iso d e— th a t i f a m a n p u ts o n w o m e n ’s clo th in g it m ean s h e has fem in in e tendencies in sexual m a tte rs — has G re ek p re ced e n ts in b o th O ld C o m e d y a n d o ra to ry .80 B y th e tim e o f th e late R epublic, a lth o u g h this ty p e o f jo k e still occu rs in th e rid icu le o f effem in ate m en , it dep en d s n o lo n g e r u p o n a m a n w e arin g w o m e n ’s c lo th in g p e r se b u t u p o n his w e arin g a ty p e o f c lo th in g n o t n o rm a lly w o rn b y a R o m a n m ale. L o n g , flo w in g tunics, reaching to th e ankles (talaris tunica) an d w rists (manicata tunica), m a rk e d th e effem inate m ale. In fact, th e state o f b ein g “lo o sely b e lte d ” (discinctus) becam e the m e ta p h o ric a l eq u iv ale n t to h a v in g an effem in ate lifesty le.81 A s a re su lt o f th ese asso ciatio n s, H o ra c e n eed m ere ly describe a m a n as w e arin g “ lo w h a n g in g tu n ic s ” fo r his re ad er to u n d e rsta n d th e im p lie d sexual c o n n o ta ­ tio n .82 In choice o f dress, th e o ra to r fo u n d a read ily available— a n d so ­ cially re c o g n iz e d — sig n o f deviance. S u ch c u m b e rs o m e g arb m u s t have h in d e re d a p e rso n ’s n o rm a l ran g e o f m o v e m e n t. In th e Philippics, C icero couples th e ph y sical helplessness o f a m a n in w o m a n is h c lo th in g w ith the su b serv ie n t ro le o f a passive h o m o ­ sexual. T h e o ra to r, after re c o u n tin g th e m a n y G re ek to w n s G aius A n to n iu s has succeeded in o cc u p y in g , does n o t w ish th e senate to dw ell to o lo n g o n his e n e m y ’s p ro w ess. C o n seq u en tly , h e adds th e fo llo w in g d isclaim er: q u a m q u a m m ir o r ta m diu m o ra ri A n to n iu m ; so let e n im ip se accipere m a n icas n ec d iu tiu s o b sid io n is m e tu m su stin ere. (Phil. 11.26) Y et I’m su rp rise d th a t A n to n iu s is w a itin g a ro u n d fo r so lo n g , since he u su a lly w elc o m e s w ris t restra in ts (manicas) an d d o es n o t e n d u re fo r v ery lo n g th e fear o f siege.

T h e d o u b le e n te n d re refers o sten sib ly to A n to n iu s ’ p h y sical cow ardice, to his n o rm a l w illin g n e ss to accept h andcuffs (manica) and to su rre n d e r w h e n th re a te n e d w ith assault. A t th e sam e tim e , h o w e v er, th e p h ra se “ to w e lc o m e w ris t re stra in ts ” (accipere manicas) su g g ests A n to n iu s ’ p red ilec80 A ristophanes: GefFcken 83 -8 4 ; oratory: D over 75-76. 81 Discinctus seem s to have com e to indicate loose m orals by contrast to the “w ell-g irt” soldier (praecinctus): see T L L 5.1:1316.59-66; R ichlin 1992a: 92, 1993: 542 n. 45. 82 H o r. Sat. 1.2.25 (tunicis demissis)', see R udd 143. Sim ilarly, after describing M aecenas strolling th ro u g h R om e "in loosened tu n ics” (solutis tunicis), Seneca rem arks h o w the m a n ’s eunuchs are “m o re m asculine than th eir m aster” (magis tamen viri quam ipse, Sen. Epist. 114.6; cf. 92.35). Q uin tilian explicitly states that a tunic w o rn below the knees is fem inine (Inst. 11.3.138). B rem m er 19 and n. 11 catalogues sim ilar associations for the G reek w orld.

tio n for th e effem inate, w rist-len g th tunic (tunica manicata), w hile the siege m etap h o r describes his sexual subservience to o th er m ales.83 T he collocation o f the m o ck ery o f clothing and sexual orientation recalls Scipio A em ilianus’ critique o f Galus, w h o as a young boy lay at banquets cum amatore cum chiridota tunica— “w ith a lover [and] a tunic reaching to ' th e h a n d s.” N o te that b o th features o f Galus are described by a phrase th at begins w ith the preposition cum and are em phasized by asyndeton; as in th e Philippics passage, w h ere infinitives are syntactically parallel (accipere . . . nec . . . sustinere), a gram m atical con stru ctio n reinforces the sem an tic connection: w ay o f dress and its attendant sexual passivity call in to qu estio n the legitim acy o f A n to n iu s’ apparent m ilitary success. T h e lo n g tu nic offered an indicator to w hich an o ra to r could p o in t w h e n he w ished to ridicule an o p p o n en t publicly. A n opposite ten d en cy — to g ird up the toga, presum ably to allow greater freedom o f m o v em en t— also conveyed effem inacy. A lth o u g h seem ingly contradic­ tory, these tw o restrictions in fact align u p o n the sam e axis o f belief. B o th extrem es o f dress indicate that no explicit com parison is intended either w ith fem inine o r w ith G reek o r E astern w ays o f dress. T h e m anner o f dress o f th e effem inate R o m an draw s its im portance, rather, fro m w h a t it is n o t: that is, its difference fro m standard and acceptable m as­ culine appearance. For, according to C icero, b o th a leisurely w alk and h u rried m o v em en t betray the sam e fault: a lack o f firm resolution (constantia; O f f 1.131). C icero concludes his second o ration against C atiline w ith a list o f six d ifferent g ro u p s o f people at R om e out o f w hich the conspirator has co m p o sed his forces (C atil. 2.17—23). A t the b o tto m o f the o ra to r’s cata­ lo gue resides the low est fo rm o f hum anity: postrem um autem genus est, non solum num ero, verum etiam genere ipso atque vita; quod proprium est Catilinae, de eius dilectu, im m o vero de com plexu eius ac sinu; quos pexo capillo nitidos aut imberbis aut bene barbatos videtis, manicatis et talaribus tunicis, velis am ictos, non togis; quorum o m nis industria vitae et vigilandi labor in antelucanis cenis expromitur. (CafiV.

2 . 22) A nd finally there is the group [that is] last not only in m y enumeration but also in its very character and way o f life. It’s Catiline’s ow n group, com ing 83 Shackleton B ailey 1982: 2 2 5 -2 6 in terp rets th e siege m eta p h o r as I d o and cites possible parallels. H e believes, how ever, that th e co n n ectio n o f manicae w ith effem inacy “has no relevance h e re ” because a parallel use at Verg. A e n . 9.616 refers to “sleeveless tu n ic s” (225; h e appears to follow S erv iu s’ in te rp reta tio n here). It seem s m u ch m o re likely to m e, h o w ­ ever, th a t b o th the infinitive phrases follow ing solet sh o u ld have a double m eaning; hence I u n d e rstan d , to g e th e r w ith O L D , th at manicae b o th here and in the Aeneid passage refer n o t to a k in d o f g love b u t to the “ shackling” o f the w rist b y th e long-sleeved tunic.

from his le v y — or sh ould I say from his close em brace. You see them , g lis­ ten in g w ith their coifed hair, either w ith ou t beards or w ith lo n g ones, w ear­ in g ankle- and w rist-len gth tunics, and cloaked in sails, n ot togas. T h e en­ tire drive o f their life and sleepless labor is used up in predaw n feasting.

T h e p h ra se “ fro m his close e m b ra c e ” (de complexu eius ac sinu), c o m b in ed w ith th e m e n tio n o f th e lo n g -flo w in g clo th in g , alludes to the effem inate ten d en cies o f th is last g ro u p . T h ese follow ers o f C atilin e h a rd ly th rea ten p h y sical v io len ce; it is th e ir w a y o f life th a t en d a n g ers th e sta te .84 T h e d e sc rip tio n c o n tin u e s b y d elin eatin g still fu rth e r th e ir a n d ro g y n o u s c h a rac te r— “in these packs ro a m all ad u lterers, all th e u n ch a ste a n d p athic. T h e s e b o y s, so sleek an d delicate, have learn ed to love an d to be lo v e d ” (in his gregibus . . . omnes adulteri, omnes impuri impudicique versantur. hi pueri tarn lepidi ac delicati . . . amare et amari . . . didicerunt; Catil. 2 .2 3 )— a n d finally concludes w ith th e p re v io u sly cited jo k e ab o u t th e ir in fa tu a tio n w ith d an c in g . T h e fam iliar a m a lg a m a tio n o f feasting, as­ so rte d sex u al activity, a n d th e dance resurfaces. C ic e ro p o in ts explicitly to th e v isu al cues o f th ese vices w ith th e d irec t address to th e audience, videtis (“ y o u see”). M o st p ro m in e n t a m o n g these visual m ark e rs is clo th in g . T h e c o n sp ira to rs w e a r clothes th a t can o n ly b e c o m p a re d to so m e th in g n o t b e lo n g in g to a p ro p e r w a rd ro b e — a sh ip ’s sail; th e y do n o t w e a r th e p ro p e r m a rk o f th e R o m a n m ale, th e to g a .85 E x te rn a l g arb b etray s in te rn a l in te n tio n . D is tin c tio n in dress also in fo rm s C ic e ro ’s iro n ic re b u tta l to C lo d iu s ’ ch a rg e th a t th e o ra to r, b ein g b o rn in A rp in u m , is a n o n -R o m a n : rusticos ei [C lod io] nos videri m inus est m irandum , qui m anicatam tunicam et m itram et purpureas fascias habere non p ossum u s. (In Clod. 22) I sh ou ld n ’t be surprised that I seem rustic to C lod ius, since I can’t w ear a tunic that reaches to the w rist and a headband and purple garlands.

C icero tu rn s C lo d iu s ’ accu satio n b ack u p o n his o p p o n e n t. T h e o ra to r claim s b efo re th e senate th a t C lo d iu s th in k s th at to be R o m an m eans to s p o rt ex o tic an d effem in ate c lo th in g .86 T h ro u g h o b v io u s irony, C icero 84 T h e d e sc rip tio n o f C a tilin e ’s g ro u p b y th e h isto ria n S allu st co n ta in s th e sam e e le m en ts o f c en su re . H is g ro u p in clu d e s “w h a te v e r p a th ic , g lu tto n , a n d g a m b le r h a d d e stro y e d his p a trim o n y w ith h is h a n d , s to m a c h , a n d p e n is” (quicumque impudicus ganeo aleator manu ventre pene bona patria laceraverat; C at. 14.2). M ay 51—58 e x am in es h o w su c h d e sc rip tio n s c o n trib ­ u te to C ic e ro ’s ov erall p o rtra y a l o f th e c o n sp ira to rs. 85 F o r th e lo o se to g a as a m a rk o f excessive re fin e m e n t, see S m ith ad T ib u ll. 1.6.40; T ra c y 60. F o r th e c o n v e r s e case o f th e ste rn R o m a n in a sc a n ty to g a, see H o r. E pist. 1.18.30, 1.19.13. 86 T h e w e a rin g o f p u rp le o c cu rs as an e le m e n t o f in v ec tiv e at C lu. I l l , C atil. 2 .5 , a n d Cael. 77 (w h e re th e p ro s e c u tio n a p p a re n tly u se d th is c h arg e a g ain st C aelius). T ra c y 60 lists o th e r d isre p u ta b le co lo rs.

im plies that anyone w ith such a skew ed n o tio n o f appearance represents a less acceptable R o m an than a provincial such as him self. C ic e ro ’s abuse o f C lo d iu s’ clothing presents a special case on account o f the B o n a D ea affair o f 62 b c e , in w h ich the future tribune m asquer­ aded as a w o m a n to penetrate religious rites traditionally restricted to R o m an m atro n s. T he disguise allow ed C icero to call in to d o u b t his o p ­ p o n e n t’s m asculinity o n n u m ero u s later occasions: in the speech O n Be­ h a lf o f His Home, C icero applies a fam iliar form ulation to C lodius, calling h im “ co n tra ry to w h a t is right, o ften b o th a w o m an am o n g m en and a m an am o n g w o m e n ” (contra fas et inter viros saepe mulier et inter mulieres vir; D om . 139); he w as m u rd ered n o t because M ilo had am bushed him bu t because “ a w o m an had fallen u p o n m e n ” (mulier inciderat in viros; M il. 55). O n this sam e occasion, C ic e ro jo k e s that C lodius w as acquitted o f im p i­ ety because th e ju ry had decided a m an (vir) had n o t w itnessed the rites (In Clod. 4; cf. Schol. B ob. p. 86, 23—27 [Stangl]). B y the tim e o f C ic­ e ro ’s later invective, C lodius has becom e a m ale prostitute, pim p in g h im se lf for th e m o st p ro m in e n t politicians o f the day.87 E ffem inacy did n ot, how ever, prev en t C lo d iu s’ still-m ale physique fro m practicing the w o rst m anifestations o f lust: C icero ’s m an y jo k es ab o u t C lo d iu s’ inces­ tu o u s cravings for his sister are w ell-know n, and the o ra to r tw ice refers to a double vice o f C lodius, w h o engages in sex w ith m atrons at the B ona D ea rites w hile dressed as a w o m an (Har. resp. 8; In Clod. 23).88 As I shall d em o n strate in the n ex t chapter w hen discussing Julius C aesar, C lo d iu s’ character exposes h im to a tw o fo ld attack that reveals his double threat. A m a n ’s taking on effem inate dress can do m o re than provide an indica­ tio n o f sexual character; it can also, w h e n the occasion dem ands, create th at ch aracter.89 C losely allied to dress as an indicator o f effem inacy is cosm etic ad o rn ­ m ent, w h ich can include depilation, the w earing o f perfum es, and fastid­ ious co n cern for the h air.90 AU three features occur in b o th Scipio’s abuse 87 S e st. 39, 46, 48, 52; H ar. resp. I . Skinner 2 0 2 -3 discusses these passages in th e c o n te x t o f C atull. 79. 88 G effcken 82 discusses at g reater len g th the significance o f C lo d iu s’ apparel. A lth o u g h h e r discussion p rim a rily concentrates o n the festive and com ic elem ents o f C ic e ro ’s tech­ n ique, she also m akes interesting observations on the c onnection b etw een cross-dressing and h om osexuality. 89 V erres pro v id es a notable exception; h e is described as w earin g fem inine apparel w hile “leaning o n a w o m a n on the seashore" (mutiercula n ix u s in litore; Verr. 2.5.86). R ichlin 1992a: 101 re m a rk s th a t V erres p ro b a b ly could escape charges o f h o m o se x u ality because o f “ the n o to rie ty o f his excessive heterosexuality. ” As n o te d above, how ever, C icero does at one p o in t call V erres im pura muliercula ( Verr. 2.2.192). O n legislation th at curtails w h a t clothes a R o m an m an m ig h t w ear, see M anfredini 2 60-71; D alla 18—23. T h e n o tio n th a t c hanging dress can alter sexual desire has been a c o m m o n belief th ro u g h o u t th e h isto ry o f W estern culture; see G a rb er passim . 90 C o lin 1955: 1 0 -1 3 provides a lo n g list o f passages fro m the late R epublic concerning p e rfu m e d m en; for additio n al exam ples, see G riffin 93.

o f G alus (cotidie unguentatus, . . . supercilia radantur, . . . barba vulsa fem inibusque subvulsis) a n d C ic e ro ’s d e sc rip tio n o f C a tilin e ’s “lo w e st class o f h u m a n ity ” [pexo capillo, nitidos). Sim ilarly, th e eld er Seneca re b u k es the te n d e n c y a m o n g th e y o u th o f his day “to p rim p th em selv es w ith u n re ­ fin ed fin e ry ” (immundissimis se excolere munditiis; C ontr. l.p ra e f.9 ). T h e c o n n e c tio n s b e tw e e n su ch a d o rn m e n t a n d th e fe m in iza tio n o f th e m ale are clear. In th e Third Philippic, C ic e ro ju stifie s D e cim u s B ru tu s ’ attack o n th e co n su l A n to n iu s o n th e g ro u n d s th a t “ o n e c a n n o t to lera te serv in g an im p u re , u n ch a ste , effem in ate w h o is nev er, n o t even w h ile afraid, s o b e r” (intolerable est servire impuro, impudico, ejfeminato; numquam, ne in metu quidem, sobrio; Phil. 3.12). T h e o ra to r th e n beg in s his n a rra tio n o f the a tte m p te d c ro w n in g o f C aesar at th e L upercal b y d esc rib in g A n to n iu s h o ld in g a p u b lic assem b ly w h ile “n ak ed , p e rfu m e d , [and] d r u n k ” (nudus unctus ebrius). T h e adjectives all recall th e feast, to g e th e r le g itim a tin g the ea rlier ch a rg e o f effem inacy. A d o rn m e n t o f the h a ir leads to effem in ate g estu re. T h e y o u n g e r Seneca in c lu d e d a m o n g th e in d icatio n s o f sexual su b m issio n “b rin g in g th e fin g e r to th e h e a d ” (relatus ad caput digitus', Epist. 52.12). P u b lic figures in th e late R ep u b lic also appeal to this m y ste rio u s sig n in o rd e r to d eg rad e an o p p o n e n t. P o m p e iu s p ro v id e d an especially a ttra ctiv e ta rg e t. P lu ta rc h relates h o w in th e year 56 b c e P o m p e iu s n eg lected p u b lic affairs to spend tim e w ith his n ew , y o u n g w ife. H is ev e n tu a l reap p ea ran c e in the fo ru m p ro m p te d C lo d iu s to lead a g ro u p o f s u p p o rte rs in th e fo llo w in g tau n t: “τ ίς έστιν αύτοκράτω ρ Ακόλαστος; τις Ανήρ Ανδρα ζητεί; τις ένΐ δακτύλω κνάται την κεφαλήν;” οί δέ [πολλοί], ώσπερ χορός εις Αμοιβαία συγκεκροτημένος, έκείνου την τήβεννον ανασείοντος έφ’ έκάστψ μέγα βοώ ντες Απεκρίναντο “Π ομ π ήιος.” (Plut. Pomp. 48.7) “W ho is the licentious general? What man is looking for a man? Who scratches his head w ith one finger?” As Clodius pulled up his toga and T h e indicators I list in the tex t are those I have found em ployed in the extan t w orks o f C icero and in o th er late R epublican authors. T h e list is n o t, how ever, necessarily com plete: Isidorus cites a passage fro m a speech o f Gaius G racchus to show that in the second century the w earing o f m o re th an one ring b etokened effem inacy: considerate, Quirites, sinistram eius; en, quoius auctoritatem sequimini, qui propter mulierum cupiditatem ut tnulier est omatus (“E x am ­ ine his left hand, citizens; do you see? T his m an w h o se a u th o rity you follow has, on account o f his desire for w om en , adorned h im self like a w o m a n ”; O R F 48.58). I k n o w o f n o sim ilar exam ple fro m the late R epublic o f the use o f this sign, b u t see H o r. Sat. 2.7.9; Q u in t. Inst. 11.3.142. T h e younger Seneca echoes G racchus’ concern w hen he lam ents a co n tem p o rary g lu t o f effem inacy: exomamus anulis digitos, in omni articulo gemma disponitur (“We adorn our fingers w ith rings; o n every jo in t a je w e l is o n display” ; Nat. 7.31.2). T h is passage from Seneca also contains references to males em ploying depilation and fem inine adornm ents: levitate et politura corporum muliebres munditias antecessimus (“In the sm oothness and slickness o f o u r bodies w e ’ve surpassed th e finery o f w o m e n ”).

shook it, the mob, ju st like a chorus well-trained in responsion, answered each time with a loud shout: “Pompeius!” C lo d iu s, it seem s, p ro m p ts the c ro w d ’s response b y im p ro v isin g his o w n d rag show : h e pulls up his toga to m atch the stereo ty p ic dress o f the effem inate m an (εκ είνο υ τη ν τή β ε ν ν ο ν ά ν α σ ε ίο ν τ ο ς ). T h e added conceit o f scratch in g th e head w ith o n e fm g er enjoyed w id e p o p u larity .91 A c­ c o rd in g to o n e fun ctio n alist in te rp re ta tio n o f the gesture, the effem inate m an scratches w ith a single fm ger so as n o t to d istu rb his carefully p re­ p ared h airsty le .92 O th e r sources s u p p o rt this hypothesis. A letter o f C ic­ ero reveals th a t he to o had concerns ab o u t P om peius ad opting a foppish d em ean o r, an d co n tem p o ran eo u s im ages o f the general sh o w his desire to em u late th e w in d -b lo w n hairstyle o f A lexander the G reat.93 A rem ark b y C icero p reserv ed in P lu tarch fu rth e r su p p o rts this connection b etw een gestu re and fastidious appearance: th e o ra to r once rem ark ed th at he had n o t th o u g h t Ju liu s C aesar capable o f o v erth ro w in g the R o m an state, since he used to see C aesar “hav in g such exquisitely arran g ed hair and scratch­ ing h im s e lf w ith o n e fin g e r” (C aes. 4.9). T h e sam e collocation o f an ef­ fem inate m a le ’s nice h airstyle and h ab it o f head scratching occurs in L u­ cian (R h e t. praec. 11). T h is association o f ad o rn ed hair and effem inacy also accords w ith an observation th at has been m ade th ro u g h o u t these pages: th e elem ents o f feasting and effem inacy, w ith their shared u n ­ g u en ts and a d o rn m e n t, continually in te rtw in e as a topic for invective. A fastidious co n cern for th e hair h arm o n izes w ell w ith the R o m an stereo­ ty p e o f th e effem inately ad o rn ed m ale. T h e w o m an lik e w a lk constitutes an o th er physical affectation th at in­ v ited ridicule in th e late R epublic. A jo k e o f C icero dem onstrates th at the R o m an s iden tified w ith each sex a certain style o f stride: Cicero . . . cum Piso gener eius mollius incederet, filia autem concitatius, ait filiae “ambula tamquam vir. ” (Macr. Sat. 2.3.16) 91 F o r th e a pplication o f this abuse to P o m p eiu s, see also C alv u s F P L 18 (M orel): M ag­ nus, quem metuunt omnes, digito caput uno / scalpit: quid credis hunc sibi velle? virutn (“M agnus, w h o m e v e ry b o d y fears, itches his head w ith o n e finger. W h at d o you th in k he w ants? A m a n ” ); P lu t. Mor. 89e, 800e, Pomp. 48.7; A m m ia n u s 17.11.4. A general reference to pathici usin g this g e stu re occurs at Iuv. 9.133. 92 So C o u rtn e y , o n Iuv. 9.133; cf. Suet. A ug. 68. O n ia n s 138, o n the o th e r h and, attri­ b u tes th is b e lie f to an ancient n o tio n th at the head c o n ta in ed “ the g enerative so u l,” w hich had an “ itc h in g ” w h e n e v e r sex w as desired. O n ia n s’s exp lan atio n , h ow ever, fails to account for w h y em p h a sis is placed in all o u r sources o n th e use o f o n ly one fin g er (Seneca does n o t specify “o n e ,” b u t does use th e sin g u lar digitus), a n d w h y this gestu re indicates o n ly h o m o ­ sexual tendencies and n o t sim p ly general sexual desire. 93 A tt. 2.3.1 (SB 23); C icero does n o t m e n tio n specifically P o m p e iu s’ hairstyle. I discuss P o m p e iu s’ alleged effem inacy in m o re detail in c h ap ter 5.

Since his so n -in -la w P iso w a lk e d ra th e r dain tily , w h e re as his d a u g h te r w a lk e d w ith to o m u c h b u stle , C ic e ro said to his d a u g h te r, “W alk lik e a m a n — your m a n . ”

W om en w ere expected to w alk slow ly and softly, w hereas m en should m ove w ith quick determ ination.94 T he jo k e centers on the unexpected force o f vir, “h u sb an d ” ; the w o rd ’s norm al m eaning, “m a n ,” cannot ap­ ply to P iso’s unvirile delicacy. O th e r R om an authors explicitly associate effem inate males w ith a specific m anner o f m ovem ent and carriage o f the b o d y th at they describe w ith form s o f the verb incedere. Juvenal, for ex­ am ple, notes o f the cinaedus Peribom ius that “he adm its his perversity w ith his expression and his gait” (vultu morbum incessuque fatetur; 2.17), and Seneca includes incessus as one o f the m arks o f the impudicus (E p ist. 52.12; cf. N a t. 7.31.2: tenero et molli ingressu suspendimus gradum; non ambulamus sed incedimus— “w e suspend our step in a dainty and soft stride; we d o n ’t w alk, w e glide”). In the case o f this indicator, the long flow ing tunics w o rn b y the alleged effem inate m ay have forced him to affect a slow, sw aying gait in the m anner o f a w om an (see H or. Sat. 1.2.25), bu t it is m o re likely that, as was the case w ith a person’s physical appearance, a w o m an ly stride supplied physiological evidence that a m an was under­ going an internal transform ation. T his transform ation, conversely, re­ vealed itself in external traits. In his speech O n B e h a lf o f Sestius, C icero encourages his audience to observe an o p p o n en t’s gait (incessus) in order to determ ine m oral charac­ ter. A n ex h o rtatio n to the ju r y finds C icero com m enting on the differing strides o f the form er consuls Piso and Gabinius: q u o ru m , p e r d eo s im m o rta le s! si n o n d u m scelera v u ln e ra q u e in u sta rei p u b licae v u ltis re c o rd a ri, v u ltu m a tq u e in c e ssu m a n im is in tu e m in i. (Sest. 17) B y th e im m o r ta l g ods! i f y o u d o n ’t w a n t to recall so s o o n th e crim es a n d w o u n d s th a t th e y have b ra n d e d o n th e state, th e n c o n sid e r in y o u r m in d s th e ir e x p re ssio n an d g a it (incessus).

O th e r passages fro m his orations show that C icero refers in the case o f Piso to a stately stride, by w hich Piso allegedly im personates a stern and noble R o m an .95 B ut for Gabinius, incessus surely refers to his notorious effem inacy, w hich C icero im m ediately recalls in the p o rtra it o f the for­ m er consul th at follows the quoted injunction to the ju ry (Sest. 18). In the passage cited, then, C icero pretends to allay the pain o f recollecting the 94 H ousm an 163 believes there is a lacuna after vir, which he fills w ith atgenero "ambula tamquam fem ina" (“B ut he said to his son-in-law, ‘Walk like a w om an— your w om an’”). Gleason 1991: 392—93 describes perceptions o f walking in later antiquity. 95 I shall discuss Piso’s hypocritical appearance in detail at the end o f this chapter. For his feigned gait, see Pis. 24-25 and Sest. 19.

w ro n g s Piso and Gabinius have done the state by prefacing the account o f these w ro n g s w ith a portrait o f the tw o m en. This portrait w ill dem on­ strate h o w th eir evil natures could have been foreshadow ed by, am ong o th er things, the w ay they w alked. A n o th er passage in w hich C icero derides an o p p o n en t’s w alk brings us back to the dance. A fter m ocking C lodius’ dress in the invective speech A gainst Clodius and Curio (22, quoted above), C icero continues his abuse as follows: tu v e ro festiv u s, tu eleg an s, tu so lu s u rb a n u s, q u e m d e c e t m u lieb ris o rn a tu s, q u e m in cessu s p saltriae, q u i e ffem in are v u ltu m , a tte n u a re v o c e m , laevare c o rp u s p o te s. (In C lo d . 22) B u t y o u alo n e a re p lea sa n t c o m p a n y , c h a rm in g a n d w itty . A w o m a n ’s d ress an d a m u sic g irl’s w a lk b e c o m e y o u , a m a n w h o can a d o p t a w o m a n ish e x p re ssio n , sp eak in a h ig h voice, a n d lig h tly lift th e b o d y .

W om anly garb fits C lodius, w ho puts on a new sex together w ith his n ew clothing. T he m ention o f the “m usic girl” (psaltria ) and the phrase “to lift lightly the b o d y ” (laevare corpus) recall dancing, w hich further im plicates the n ow effem inate C lodius in im m orality by associating him w ith the im m oderate feast.96 Gabinius participates in the sam e figural banquet as C lodius. In the speech A gainst Piso , C icero describes Piso as em erging from a shadow y drinking hall w ith Gabinius, “ that coifed dancing g irl” (cum ilia saltatrice tonsa; Pis. 18).97 I have already presented a n u m b er o f passages in w hich C icero alerts his audience to G abinius’ pas­ sion for m en; the reference to his love o f dancing reaffirm s this characterization. T h e charge also lay at hand for attacking an opposing speaker. C icero tells us h o w Sextus T itius, tribune o f the plebs for 99 b c e , was a fine orator, b u t his “gestures w ere so loose and delicate that a dance, the ‘T itiu s ,’ w as nam ed after h im ” {tarn [erat] solutus et mollis in gestu, ut saltatio quaedam nasceretur, cui saltationi Titius nomen esset\ Brut. 225). It seems likely th at C icero derives his inform ation from a speech in w hich an op­ posing speaker derided T itius for his effem inacy and, in so doing, used the trib u n e’s external gestures as evidence for internal character. This tactic w as certainly used publicly against the o rato r H ortensius. Aulus Gellius relates h ow this fam ous speaker often received abuse for his ef­ fem inate dress and gestures, rep o rtin g that Lucius T orquatus called him a “fem ale m im e” and “addressed him as D ionysia, using the nam e o f a 96 T hrough references to passages from N ew Comedy, Geffcken 86 connects the psaltria and the dance in Cicero’s accusation here. 97 N isbet 1961 ad loc. thinks tonsa refers to Gabinius’ fastidiously well-trimmed hair, w hich is elsewhere described as being unusually long. As I have noted, such a concern for hairstyle does indeed constitute the character o f a Roman ejfeminatus.

n o to rio u s fem ale d a n c e r” {gesticulariam Dionysiamque eum notissimae saltatriculae nomine appellaret; G ell. 1 .5 .2 —3). A g a in an o ra to r takes adv an tag e o f e x te rn a l in d ic a to rs in an a tte m p t to reveal to his audience th e “ tru e n a tu re ” o f an ad v e rsary and to s h o w th at th e te s tim o n y o f his o p p o n e n t, a failed m ale, is n o t to b e c re d ite d .98 T h e R o m a n o ra to r co u ld use a n u m b e r o f e x tern al in d icato rs to im p li­ cate his o p p o n e n t in effem inacy. T w o signs listed b y Seneca in his letter to LuciHus re m a in : th e p itc h o f th e voice (unum interdum responsum) and eye m o v e m e n t (flexus oculorum). V oice quality, a sig n th a t b etray s th e e ffem in ate m ale in th e p h y s io g n o m ic w rite rs as w ell, is occasionally al­ lu d e d to in th e late R ep u b lic as a sig n o f effem in acy .99 I have already m e n tio n e d h o w C lo d iu s ’ “ m e ta m o rp h o s is ” in to a d an c in g girl includes th e th in n in g o u t o f his voice (In Clod. 22). T h e o ra to r H o rte n siu s, in his c o m e b a c k to th e slan d er o f T o rq u a tu s j u s t m e n tio n e d , alters th e to n e o f his voice as a w a y o f im p e rso n a tin g an effem inate, d an cin g m ale (voce molli atque demissa; Gell. 1.5.3). T h is fo rm o f m im esis seem s to have b een a p ra ctice c o m m o n a m o n g o th e r p u b lic speakers o f th e p e rio d . Q u in ­ tilian re c o rd s h o w voice inflection played a ro le in prosopopoeia, a rh e to ri­ cal te c h n iq u e in w h ic h th e o ra to r im p e rso n a te s an a b se n t o r im a g in a ry sp e a k e r (Inst. 11.1.39). O ra to rs u n d o u b te d ly e m p lo y ed still m o re vocal trick s th a t are d ifficult, i f n o t im p o ssib le, to d etec t in o u r w ritte n texts. E y e m o v e m e n t, so far as I can discover, is n o t th e su b ject o f m o c k e ry in o u r e x ta n t c o u rt speeches. C icero does, h o w ev er, fre q u e n tly b id his audi­ en ce to co n sid er th e eyes (oculi) o f his o p p o n e n t, b u t w ith o u t specifying w h a t ty p e o f eyes signifies w h a t ty p e o f character. F o r th is in fo rm a tio n , o n e can tu rn to th e w rite rs o n p h y sio g n o m y , w h o se fin d in g s o ften co rre­ s p o n d w ith th e categories o f C icero n ia n in v e c tiv e .100 T h e illicit b a n q u e ts decried in R o m a n in v ectiv e p ro v id e an effective c o u n te rp o in t to th e activities o f a p ro p e r R o m a n citizen. T h e v erisim ili98 In T o rq u atu s’ case, it seem s, his jo k e backfired. Gellius notes H o rten siu s’ response: turn voce molli atque demissa Hortensius “Dionysia" inquit ''Dionysia malo equidem esse quam quod tu, Torquate, ά μ ο υ σ ο ς ά ν α φ ρ ό δ ιτο ς ά π ροσ δι,όνυσ ος” (“T h e n H ortensius responded w ith a soft and gentle voice, ‘D ionysia? I m uch prefer to be a D ionysia than w h at you are, T o rq u atu s— w ith o u t a m use, w ith o u t A phrodite, w ith o u t D io n y su s’”). 99 For the p hysiogn o m ic treatises see 1.162.4, 2.135.3 (Foerster). Gleason 1995: 82—121 provides a full survey o f th e im portance o f the voice b o th in rhetorical treatises and in a R o m an ’s daily regim e and self-presentation. 100 For references to the eyes in C icero ’s rhetorical w orks, see n. 64 above. T h e anony­ m ous Latin com piler o f physiognom y, follow ing P olem o (for w h o m see G leason 1995: 32), spends tw en ty -fo u r T eu b n er paragraphs discussing the m eaning o f various kinds o f eyes, calling it “the m o st im p o rta n t p art o f all physiognom ical science” (summa omnis physiognomoniae; 2.31 [Foerster]). N evertheless, he still claim s to have hardly exhausted the subject (2.61). F or o th er correspondences betw een the physiognom ical treatises and C iceronian invective, see chapter I, n. 37; above, nn. 46, 64; below , nn. 101, 102.

tu d e o f these descriptions sh o u ld n o t concern us any m o re than they did the R o m a n o rator. In o rd e r n o t to im plicate h im self in the very vices he intends to attach to his o p p o n en t, the speaker m u st stan d at a safe dis­ tance, certain o f the b a n q u e t’s co rru p tio n b u t unclear o n any details that m ay b etray personal involvem ent. T h is precarious po sitio n p artly ex ­ plains th e rh eto rical convergence o f the effem inate m ale and convivial excess. T h e effem inate m ale displayed an easily defined appearance; his in tern al ch aracter em erg ed th ro u g h his dress, ad o rn m e n t, and physical m o v em en t. B y latching o n to these available signs, the speaker conjured up an illicit w o rld w ith in w h ich his o p p o n e n t operated, a w o rld o f fluctu­ atin g g en d er and am b ig u o u s sexuality. T h e realm o f the b an q u et m ay escape precise d escrip tio n b u t its ch ief participant, u n d e r th e scrutiny o f a p ro p e rly in fo rm ed ju ry , stands ready to be exposed. C o d a : P is o T ests t h e R ul es

A nd had I the scourging o f sinners, I should deal hardest w ith those w h o belie and betray the prom ises that nature has planted on their brows. — M ontaigne, “O n P h ysiogn o m y ” 338

In th e political sp h ere o f the late R o m an R epublic, the external charac­ teristics o f an in dividual carried great representational m eaning. Physical appearance, n am e, gestures, and dress could all co n trib u te to an o u t­ sid er’s assessm ent o f o n e ’s in tern al m o ral character. In these first four chapters I have sh o w n h o w R o m an political h u m o r depended u p o n these co n stru cted categories in m ain tain in g social stability. B y em phasizing an in d iv id u a l’s p ro jected persona, a R o m an political figure could b o th ex­ clude his o p p o n en ts fro m society and at the sam e tim e display confidence in th e w o rk in g s o f nature: i f one can ju d g e a p erso n ’s m oral character sim p ly b y visual scru tin y — and give p ro o f o f that character to o th ers— th en all b odes w ell for the state. For C icero as orator, the stem figure o f L ucius C alp u rn iu s Piso, consul o f 58 b c e , em bodied a th reat to this sense o f security. Piso p resen ted C ic e ro ’s invective w ith a difficult rhetorical problem : in every aspect o f P iso ’s o u tw ard appearance— in body, nam e, w alk, and dress— he appeared to convey the qualities o f a sincere, stem -faced Ro­ m an o f old. As a result, the p rim a ry th ru st o f C ic e ro ’s attack on Piso is th at his o p p o n e n t’s physical appearance in fact belies his true, m orally re p u g n an t n atu re. In devising this attack, the o ra to r follow s a fam iliar stratagem : th e rhetorical h an d b o o k s advise that i f an accuser faces an up­ rig h t and m o rally so und defendant, he should claim that the accused has

up u n til this p o in t been h ypocritically concealing his o w n fa u lts.101 P iso ’s political p ro m in en ce allow s C icero to go even further: n o t only has his o p p o n e n t concealed faults in o rd er to avoid in cu rrin g guilt, b u t he has in fact hid d en his v ery n ature in o rd e r to secure personal political advance­ m en t to th e d e trim e n t o f the state. Yet C icero ’s invective against Piso does n o t dep en d sim ply u p o n rh eto ric for its persuasive pow er. E ven if one recognizes a rhetorical debt in C ic e ro ’s presentation here, this does n o t m ean th at th e o ra to r does n o t appeal to ethical biases already present in his audience. R ather, one m ay best un d erstan d C icero ’s attack o n Piso in th e co n tex t o f R o m an attitudes to w ard w h a t constitutes a socially and politically co rrect m ale. In discussing C icero ’s invective against Piso, I w ill follow th e o rd e r o f m y first four chapters: physical peculiarities, nam e, m o v em en t and dress. Each aspect o f Piso that the o ra to r chooses to focus on represents the obverse o f nearly every negative feature o f R o m an self-definition th at I have analyzed. If one w ere to use the ethical criteria o f R o m an invective, Piso w o u ld appear unassailable. P iso ’s physical appearance, w rites C icero, un ju stly effected his p o liti­ cal ad v an cem en t— “your eyes, brow s, forehead, in sum your entire ex­ p ressio n (w hich is a k in d o f silent speech o f the m ind), this caused m en to b e deceived, this confused, beguiled, and m isled those w h o w ere n o t fa­ m iliar w ith y o u ” {oculi, supercilia, frons, voltus denique totus, qui sermo quidam tacitus mentis est, hie in fraudem homines impulit, hie eos quibus eras ignotus decepit, fefellit, induxit; Pis. I). Indeed, his stem eyebrow s alone rep resen ted “ a pledge to the state” (pignus rei publicae; Sest. 19).102 P iso’s appearance deceives alm ost everyone, fro m G reek philosophers (Pis. 68, 70) to th e citizens o f C apua, w h o , C icero jests, actually wanted Piso to be an im m o ra l m ag istrate (Pis. 24). T h e frequency w ith w hich C icero em ­ ploys this m o tif o f P iso ’s physical h y pocrisy attests to the seriousness o f th e ch a rg e.103 Like C atu llu s’ hirsute E gnatius, “w hose dark beard m akes h im a g o o d m a n ” (opaca quem bonumfaeit barba\ 37.19), Piso affects a stern physical appearance as cam ouflage for his m orally co rru p t character. N am es, to o , h elped Piso m anipulate the expectations o f the R om an populace. T h e n o ble connotations o f the nam e Piso presaged its b earer’s 101 Rhet. Her. 2.5; cf. ln v. 2.34 and Sen. Ben. 5.15.1 (“ w h o e v er has one fault has th em all” ). T h e treatises o n p h y sio g n o m y also w arn o f individuals w h o are able to dissim ulate th ro u g h th e ir dress, m o v em e n t, and gesture; see G leason 1991: 40 6 -1 1 . 102 P is o ’s ey eb ro w s also appear at Pis. 14, 20; Prou. 8 (H ughes argues th at the description at Pis. 16 alludes to th e m ask w o rn b y the stern father— senex iratus— in R o m an com edy). T h e e yebrow s w ere o ften considered an in d icato r o f stro n g m o ral character in a n tiquity; see Plin. N at. 11.138; G ell. 19.7.16; Q u in t. Inst. 11.3.74, 79; Sittl 9 2 -9 4 ; F o e rste r’s index Latinus, s.v .; and the m e ta p h o r pone supercilium (R ichlin 1992a: 10—11). 103 See also Pis. frag. 17 (= 18 N isbet) and, apparently, frag. 6 ( = 7 N isbet) w ith N isb et 1961 n ote; P. red. in sen. 15; Sest. 20, 22.

fu tu re glory, and its appeal to the people co n stitu ted a m ajo r source o f his initial political success. V oters elected the name Piso, n o t the p e rs o n .104 C icero claim s th at his o p p o n e n t also used this n am e to connect h im se lf to th e F ru g i b ran ch o f the clan. In this way, says C icero, Piso could p reten d “ th at ‘fru g a lity ’ seem ed in h ere n t to his fa m ily ” (ut ingenerata familiae fiu galitas videretur; Sest. 2 1 ).105 P iso ’s character, how ever, belied the p ro m ise o f his nam e: “ you sp u rn y o u r n am e th ro u g h y o u r character” (moribus nomen [aspernaris]; Pis. frag. 8). C icero, in o rd e r to uncover for his audi­ ence this p articu lar aspect o f his o p p o n e n t’s hypocrisy, reveals P iso ’s “real” n am e, Caesoninus Semiplacentinus Calventius. Each elem ent o f this m o ck -g lo rio u s appellation po u rs scorn o n P iso ’s provincial background; th e n ew n am e th us provides a m o re accurate indication o f the m a n ’s char­ acter th an d id th e deceptive Piso .106 T h ro u g h the m isuse o f a noble nam e, Piso a ttem p ted to acquire a re p u ta tio n that, according to C icero, does n o t acco rd w ith his character. C icero alone o f the R o m an people and senate had the m eans o f pene­ tratin g the fo rm e r co n su l’s false exterior. B u t on ly b y chance— his close ties w ith o th e r Pisones in fo rm ed h im that his o p p o n e n t’s ancestry did n o t place this Piso squarely w ith in th at distinguished fam ily (P. red. in sen. 15). T h is ad m ission o n C icero ’s p art is significant: w ith o u t ind ep en d en t in fo rm atio n , th e o ra to r too w o u ld have been deceived b y external ap­ pearance. A n d o ne w o u ld expect as m uch; after all, th ro u g h o u t his career th e b u lk o f C ic e ro ’s invective against o th er o p p o n en ts has been predi­ cated u p o n a b elief in the identification o f external characteristics and in tern al character. H erein, th en , Hes P iso ’s greatest th reat to the state: he pro v id es an ex ception to the R o m an bias th at appearances should n o t deceive. P iso m isleads th ro u g h his gestures and a d o rn m e n t as well. In his w alk, th e stern m an occupied the op p o site ex trem e o f the effem inate incessus: an o b serv er w o u ld th in k fro m his stride that he w as view in g “one o f the b eard ed m e n o f old, an exam ple o f ancient rule, a vision o f antiquity, a s u p p o rt to the re p u b lic” (unum aliquem . . . ex barbatis illis, exemplum im104 p is 2: nam tu cum quaestor es factus, etiam qui te numquam viderant, tamen ilium honorem nomini mandabant tuo. aedilis es factus; Piso est a populo Romano factus, non iste Piso (“ F o r w h e n you becam e q u aesto r, even th o se w h o had n e v e r seen you w ere e n tru s tin g the o ffic e to y our nam e. Y ou becam e aedile; a P iso w as elected b y the R o m an people, [but] n o t th e P iso w h o you a re ”). 105 S y m e 1956: 21 d o u b ts th at this P iso h a d in fact any direct ties to th e F ru g i branch. 106 Pis. 14 (cf. 53; P. red. in sen. 13; Prov. 7). As N isb e t 1961 suggests in his n o te o n Pis. 14, th e significance o f Caesoninus seem s to lie in th e fact th at Piso “m ay n o t have w elco m ed a re m in d e r th a t his ancestors cam e in to th e Pisones b y a d o p tio n .” C alventius w as P iso ’s m ate rn a l g ra n d fa th er and a native o f th e L atin c o lo n y P lacentia (hence Semiplacentinus). A lo n g th e sam e lines, C icero p o rtray s P iso in th e early p o rtio n s o f Against Piso as an In su b rian (frag. 9) a n d T ran salp in e (frag. 11; cf. P. red. in sen. 15) Gaul.

peri veteris, imaginem antiquitatis, columen rei publicae\ Sest. 19). H is dress to o w o u ld n ev er have h in ted at his hidden, u n b rid led lust for pleasure (Sest. 19; P. red. in sen. 13). T h e ap parent frugality he displayed in his b an q u ets also seem ed to accord w ith the best R o m an tradition. C icero preten d s to ap prove o f this p arsim o n y — “I’ll praise an e n e m y ” (laudabo inimicum)— b u t his ironic description o f P iso’s table dem onstrates that this ap p a ren t v irtu e reflected in reality a m ean and selfish n ature (Pis. 67). In these elem ents o f his public persona as well, Piso reeks o f hypocrisy. P erhaps th e m o st d am n in g aspect o f P iso ’s dual nature involves his inab ility to discern the obvious signs o f degeneracy in his consular col­ league G abinius. C icero reproaches Piso for this oversight: non te illius [Gabini] unguentorum odor, non vini anhelitus, non frons calam istri notata vestigiis in earn cogitationem adducebat ut, cum illius re sim ilis fuisses, frontis tibi integim ento ad occultanda tanta flagitia diutius non uti liceret? (P. red. in sen. 16) D id n ’t the sm ell o f [Gabinius’] perfumes, the w ine on his breath, and the forehead scarred w ith the traces o f his curling iron lead you to think that, since you had in fact been ju st like him , you could no longer use the cam ou­ flage o f your forehead to conceal so m any shameful actions?

C ic e ro ’s p o in t is clear: any observer should have been able to recognize th e ex tern al signs o f G abinius’ effem inacy. T h e perfum es and curled hair an ticipated an in n er n atu re that w o u ld inevitably lead to disgraceful be­ h av io r (flagitia). As C icero rem arks in an o th er context, Piso “ does n o t even k n o w v irtu e [w hen he sees it] face-to-face” (virtus, quam tu ne de facie quidem nostv, Pis. 81). Piso refuses to attend to clearly visible signs o f im m o rality . T h is failure reveals his unw illingness to heed n o rm al R om an conceptions o f th e relationship betw een ex terio r and interior. N o t only does his appearance provide the R o m an audience w ith a forged text, b u t Piso h im se lf has n o t even learned h ow to read. In ch ap ter I, I discussed the n atu re o f invective in the orations O n B ehalf o f Q uintus Roscius and Against Vatinius. C icero ’s relationship w ith his au­ dience in th o se tw o speeches em bodies a kin d o f reading lesson, w ith the o ra to r as teacher. B y p o in tin g to the p ro p e r indicators exhibited o n the bodies o f his o p p o n en ts Fannius and Vatinius, C icero provides the vocab­ u lary th at allow s his audience to in terp re t p ro p e rly the internal evil n ature o f these tw o m en. C icero ’s lesson in reg ard to Piso is the opposite: in this case he m u st teach his audience to see past the n o rm al external signs o f im m o rality . “I am afraid ,” he says in his invective Against Piso, “that th ere m ay be so m eone w h o does n o t yet discern this m a n ’s p ro fo u n d evil, w ra p p e d up in the layers o f his b ro w ” (vereor ne qui sit qui istius

insignem nequitiam fiontis involutam integumentis nondum cemat; Pis. 12). C ic e ro ’s m ission, then, involves strip p in g aw ay these layers o f conceal­ m en t in o rd e r th at his audience can m o re easily m ake the requisite ju d g ­ m en t. 107 C icero has confidence that, eventually, P iso ’s success w ill betray his in n er ch aracter (Pis. 24). O n c e this has happened, all w ill be w ell w ith R o m e again. In his p ero ratio n to the speech Against Piso, C icero repre­ sents Piso as a scapegoat for all the confusion he has caused: omnes memoriam consulatus tui, facta, mores, faciem denique ac nomen a re publica detestantur. (Pis. 96) Everyone is praying to cast out from the state any memory o f your consul­ ship, your deeds, your character, and, finally, your face and name. T h e en u m eratio n o f w h a t constitutes this particu lar R o m a n ’s career is telling. O n c e P iso ’s face and nam e are ou t o f sight, the p ro p e r determ ina­ tio n o f ch aracter can co n tin u e to operate as before, u n h am p ered by d o u b t. 107 C f. Sest. 22: sed haec obstructio nec diuturna est neque obducta ita ut curiosis oculis perspici non possit (" B u t this covering is n e ith e r so lo n g -la stin g n o r so thick th at it cannot be p ene­ tra te d b y careful eyes”).

Chapter 5

A POLITICAL HISTORY OF WIT N o th in g bothers m e m ore in these troubled times than not being able to laugh w ith you w hen there’s som ething to be laughed at. A nd there’s a lot; Iju st don’t dare w rite about it. — Cicero, June, 50 b c e (F am . 2.12.1)

You ask m e “Are you laughing in tim es like these?” Well, what should I do? I’m tired o f m ourning. — C icero, June, 44 b c e (A t t . 15.9.1)

Effective history, . . . i f it chances upon lofty epochs, it is w ith the suspicion— not vindictive but joyou s— o f finding a barbarous and shameful confusion. — Foucault, “N ietzsche, Genealogy, and H istory,” 155

chapters have explored the m o st co m m o n types o f h u ­ m o ro u s abuse practiced d u rin g the late R epublic; m alform ed bodies, p ro p e r nam es, indecent m ouths, and effem inate m annerism s w ere fre­ q u en t objects o f derision. F or each o f these particular categories, I as­ sessed evidence fro m nonpolitical co n tex ts— including religious, scien­ tific, and p h ilosophical treatises— to show that the efficacy o f the abuse lay in specific biases circulating th ro u g h all levels o f R om an society. H u m o r, by co n stru ctin g these biases in to self-evident tru th s, has em erg ed as a p o w erful m eans o f public denigration and social exclusion. T o close this study, I step back fro m the system s and categories o f w it p rev io u sly discussed, placing m y findings w ith in a historical co n tex t as a w ay o f ex p lo rin g the explicitly political dim ensions o f h u m o ro u s dis­ course d u rin g th e late R epublic. C icero, w h o se w it p u rp o rts to represent the prevailing values o f his day— values th at seek to isolate individuality as a th rea t to th e state— clashes w ith tw o n o te w o rth y individuals, Julius C aesar and G naeus P om peius, w h o se o w n h u m o r reveals an em phasis on in d iv id u al w o rth . Such an em phasis rests uneasily w ith trad itio n al— C icero n ian — categories o f h u m o ro u s abuse. T h e p re c e d in g

A P O L IT IC A L H IS T O R Y O F W IT

R

e l iq u u m

175

e s t io c a r i

Cicero found little reason to jok e in the final days o f 50 b c e . C ivil war loom ed; Pom peius had sent w ord that he saw little hope for a reconcilia­ tion w ith Caesar {Att. 7 .4 .2 = SB 127). In this unfavorable climate Cicero com poses a short, chatty letter to his friend Atticus {Att. 7.5 = SB 128). H e inquires into the health o f A tticus’ fam ily and o f his ow n freedman Tiro, then turns, as often, to business matters (7 .5 .1 -3 ). Political events receive short shrift, m entioned primarily in connection w ith the orator’s fears for the future (7.5.4). Cicero then begins his closing remarks w ith a conventional sentiment; in an appended protasis, however, the current political situation breaks grim ly through the convention:1 iam plane m ih i deest q u o d ad te scribam ; nec en im de re publica, q u o d u te rq u e n o s tru m scit eadem , et d om estica n o ta su n t am b o b u s. reliq u u m est iocari, si hie sinat. {Att. 7 .5 .4 = SB 128) N o w I really have n o th in g to w rite to you. [I can ’t w rite] ab o u t th e republic, since w e each k n o w the sam e things, and o u r d o m estic affairs are k n o w n to us b o th . T h e o nly th in g left is to jo k e — i f he (hie) sh o u ld allow it.

A s war begins to threaten the state, Cicero envisions a situation in w hich free hum orous expression could m eet w ith disapproval. O pinions differ concerning the referent o f hie.2 We need not enter into the controversy, for the obvious alternatives— Caesar and Pom peius— provide equally provocative backdrops for the follow ing discussion. If hie 1 C ice ro discusses th e differen t form s o f letter w ritin g at Fam. 2.4.1 (SB 48), w h ere he d istin g u ish es a m o n g th e follo w in g th ree types: the in fo rm ativ e (Ut certiores faceremus absentis), the pleasant (familiare et iocosum), a n d th e serious (severum et grave)·, see also A tt. 5.5.1 (SB 98), 6 .5 .4 (SB 119). T h is th reefo ld d ivision appears to rep resen t m o re a literary conven­ tio n th a n a rig id sy ste m o f e p isto lo g ra p h y ; see H . R abe, q u o te d b y Shackleton B ailey ad loc. 2 T y rrell and P u rser ad loc. (3:310) assert w ith o u t a rg u m e n t th a t “hie is P o m p e y ,” w hile S h ack leto n B ailey ad loc. follow s M a n u tiu s in glossing si hie sinat w ith si per Caesarem liceat (“ i f C aesar sh o u ld allow it”), c o m m e n tin g o n ly th at “to take hie as P o m p e y spoils the p o in t.” C ic e ro ’s n e x t sentence, h ow ever, seem s to su p p o rt Shackleton B ailey’s c o n clu sio n — nam ego is sum qui illi eoncedi putem utilius esse quod postulat quam signa conferri; sero enim resistimus ei quem per annos decem aluimus eontra nos (“ F or I am such th at I th in k it’s m o re useful to give in to his d em an d s th an to b eg in battle; for it’s to o late to resist the m an w h o m w e have sp en t ten years h elping to p re p are against u s”)·— w h e re illi, ei, and the su b ject o f postulat m u st all refer to C aesar. I f th e hie in questio n did in fact refer to P o m peius, o n e w o u ld have expected C icero at least to allude to him in w h a t follow s. T h e sequence hie . . . illi . . . ei does n o t argue against id entification o f all th ree p ro n o u n s w ith C aesar; C ice ro is o ften im precise in his use o f d em o n strativ es in the c o rresp o n d en ce (A tt. 7 .4 .2 = SB 127; see S hackleton B ailey o n A tt. 2 .1 .5 = SB 21).

rep resen ts P o m p eius, then the general’s “p erm issio n ” presu m ab ly refers to his p o w e r to resto re a political equ ilib riu m in w hich jo k e s m ay once again b e allow ed. I f one chooses C aesar as the referent, a sim ilar, albeit darker, in terp re tatio n em erges: “ C icero affects to regard C aesar as al­ read y o m n ip o te n t.”3 E ith er reading produces the sam e conclusion. In C ic e ro ’s eyes, P o m p eiu s/Ju liu s C aesar regards the o ra to r’s h u m o r as so m eth in g to b e controlled, as a potential th reat to individual authority. A n d after th e civil w a r and the death o f P om peius, the acquisition o f this co n tro l w ill in fact co n stitu te one o f C aesar’s great successes. I have arg u ed in the preceding chapters th at m any o f the categories o f abuse em ployed in R o m an political h u m o r arise fro m the rhetorical m a­ n ip u latio n o f social conventions. T h e dynam ics o f w it in relation to P o m p eiu s and C aesar also rely o n these conventions. T h e particular b ra n d o f h u m o r o f these tw o m en and, conversely, the w itty attacks that th eir b eh av io r provokes alike attest to the m o st co m m o n characteristic o f R o m an h u m o r: its stress o n co m m u n al n o rm s rather than individual needs. B y analyzing separately the h u m o r relating to P om peius and C ae­ sar, I shall sh o w h o w the w it em ployed b o th b y and against th em con­ trib u tes to th e political tensions resulting in th eir u ltim ate clash. T h e conflict culm inates, o f course, in C aesar’s victory. T h e fruits o f this vic­ to ry include th e p o w e r to co n tro l C icero ’s public display o f w it.

P o m p e iu s

im p e r a t o r

P lu tarch reco rd s an anecdote fro m P o m p e iu s’ first consulship in 70 b c e th at clearly establishes the character o f P o m p eiu s’ pride in his o w n achievem ents. U p o n co m p letio n o f service in the arm y, it w as cu sto m ary fo r th e m em b ers o f the R om an cavalry (equites) to parade into the fo ru m for an in te rro g a tio n b y the censors concerning h o w w ell they h ad per­ fo rm ed th eir m ilitary duties. P om peius, although serving as consul for th e year, w as still technically an eques follow ing his recent v icto ry over th e S ertorians in Spain. T h e y oung general takes full advantage o f this u n u su al situation. D escending into the fo ru m “in full consular regalia” (τά . . . ά λ λ α π α ρ ά σ η μ α τή ς α ρ χ ή ς εχω ν) and su rro u n d e d by a b o d y ­ g u ard o f licto rs, the fo rm e r general presents h im self before the censors: εΐτα ό μέν πρεσβύτερος [τιμητής] ήρώτησε· “πυνθάνομαί σου, ω Πομπήιε Μάγνε, εί πάσας έστράτευσαι τάς κατά νόμον στρατείας;” Πομπήιος δέ μεγάλη φωνή, “π άσ ας,” είπεν, “έστράτευμαι, και πάσας ύ π ’ έμαυτφ αύτοκράτορι.” (Plut. Pomp. 22.6; cf. Mor. 204a) 3 S hackleton B ailey ad loc.

Thereupon the senior censor asked: “Pompeius Magnus, I ask you: have you completed all your military duties in accordance with the law?” Pompeius responded in a loud voice: “I have completed them all, and all under myself as general. ” T h e cro w d sh o u ted o u t approval— in spite o f attem pts by the authorities to co n tro l its enthusiasm (P om p . 22.6). T h e pageantry o f his entrance allow s the general to accentuate the difference betw een h im self and a n o rm a l eques, an em phasis that continues in his response to the censor’s query. T h e set phrase κ α τ ά ν ό μ ο ν (“in accordance w ith the law ”), added to en su re th at the re sp o n d en t has acted in accordance w ith R om an tradi­ tion , finds its syntactical p artn e r in P o m p e iu s’ response ύ π ’ έμ α υ τφ α ύ τ ο κ ρ ά τ ο ρ ι (“u n d e r m y se lf as general”). B y this phrase P om peius show s th at his m ilitary service has been far fro m traditional; rather, it shared th e features o f his consulship b y being, in b o th senses o f the w o rd , e x tra o rd in ary .4 T h e u n settlin g ju x ta p o sitio n o f trad itio n al responsibility and in d iv id u al prow ess created by P o m p e iu s’ re m a rk anticipates the con­ trasts th at w ill d o m in ate th e g en e ral’s later career as a statesm an at R om e. In th e political sphere, G naeus P om peius does n o t appear alw ays to have succeeded ad m irab ly at public speaking. In 61 b c e , u p o n com ple­ tio n o f his E astern conquests, his first tw o addresses to the assem bled p eo p le failed, according to C icero, to please anyone. A subsequent ap­ pearance before the senate resulted in C rassus taking the o p p o rtu n ity to o u tsp eak P o m p eius in a contest to o b tain C ic e ro ’s favor.5 Five years later C rassus again d em o n strate d his su p erio r rh e to ric in a public assem bly. W hen th e consul M arcellinus asked in anger w h e th e r the ru m o rs w ere tru e th at P o m p eius and C rassus in tended to stand for the consulship o f 55, the general replied, “M ay b e”; C rassus, in his tu rn , gave the m ore p o litic resp o n se th at he w o u ld do w h atev er he th o u g h t w o u ld benefit the re p u b lic .6 P om p eius did n o t escape criticism for his n o n co m m itta l atti­ tu d e. H e retaliates w ith disdain: έπιφυομένου δέ Πομπηία) Μαρκελλίνου και σφοδρώς λέγειν δοκοΰντος, ό Πομπή ιος έφη πάντων άδικώτατον εΐναι τον Μαρκελλΐνον, δς χάριν ούκ έχει λόγιος μεν έξ άφωνου δ ι’ αυτόν, έμετικός δέ εκ πεινατικού γενόμενος. (Plut. Pomp. 51.6) And when Marcellinus kept attacking Pompeius and seemed to be speaking forcefully, Pompeius remarked that Marcellinus was the most unjust o f all 4 S eager 2 6 -2 7 sees this episode as in ten tio n ally staged by th e censors, w h o “p an d ere d to [P o m p e iu s’] v a n ity .” 5 B o th fact and in te rp re ta tio n d e p en d o n C icero (A tt. 1.14.1 = SB 14). 6 P lu t. Pomp. 51.6—7 (cf. Crass. 15.2, Mor. 204c; D io 3 9 .3 0 .1 -2 ).

m en, since he w as n ot grateful that on account o f h im self [i.e., Pom peius, δ ι’ α ύτόν] he had becom e eloquent instead o f speechless, and full to vom it­ ing instead o f starving.

P o m p eiu s m eets M arcellinus ’ attack w ith a double dose o f sarcasm : M arcellinus sh o u ld be th an k fu l that P o m p eiu s’ m ilitary conquests have al­ lo w ed h im th e freed o m to express him self, and he should likew ise be th an k fu l th at P o m p e iu s’ recent ten u re as grain com m issioner had low ­ ered th e price o f food at R om e (the allusion to v o m itin g p ro b ab ly also refers to M arcellinus’ vehem ent speaking style).7 A lth o u g h P om peius follow s trad itio n al categories in inveighing against M arcellinus’ o ra to ri­ cal techniques, a telling difference is m arked b y the phrase δ ι’ α ύ τό ν (“on account o f h im s e lf’). It is b y the general’s ow n actions, P om peius asserts, th at M arcellinus is enabled n o t only to speak b u t to subsist. T h e republic does n o t en ter in to the relationship, for it w as P o m p eiu s’ actions as an ex tra o rd in ary co m m issioner that relieved the food shortage at R o m e .8 T h is self-conception o f P om peius as an individual w h o transcends n o r­ m al R o m an practice can be traced back to his early career as a m ilitary co m m an d er. T h ese tw o anecdotes reveal a P om peius w h o is concerned w ith using w it to u n d ersco re his o w n u n iq u e standing at R om e as b o th a m ilitary and a political leader. P o m p eiu s’ n o n trad itio n al status inform s the h u m o r— b o th favorable and unfavorable— directed against the general as w ell. As a y o u n g m an, for exam ple, P om peius appears to have cultivated a resem blance to A lexander the G reat, w ith the result th at so m e detrac­ tors began to call h im “A lex an d er” in derision (Plut. Pomp. 2 .2 ).9 Sim 7 I ow e to E rich G ru en this explan atio n o f P o m p e iu s’ first rem ark , w h ich resem bles Scipio A frica n u s’ b o ast th at his accusers have the freedom to speak o n ly on account o f his o w n actions (P olybius 23.14.3). P o m p eiu s perhaps m akes a sim ilar claim here, in reference to his h aving saved R o m e fro m the th rea t o f M ithridates. M arcus A n to n iu s p ro v id ed a freq u e n t targ e t for C ic e ro ’s jo k e s o n a sp eak er’s “ vo m i­ to ry ” sty le — in p a rt because A n to n iu s had had the m isfo rtu n e, o n at least one occasion, o f literally v o m itin g in public (Phil. 2.63; P lu t. A n t. 9.6); see Phil. 5.20; Pam. 12.2.1 (SB 344), 12.25.4 (SB 373); cf. M il. 78. F or P o m p e iu s’ e x tra o rd in a ry ten u re as g rain com m issioner, see D om . 25 and Seager 110-12. 8 I can th in k o f n o parallel for such b o ld assertions o f p o w er over a n o th e r individual in th e jo k e s o f C ice ro , a m an c o m m o n ly reb u k ed for b o a stin g o f his o w n achievem ents. It has been n o ted , h ow ever, th at C icero is m o st self-glorifying o n ly at those m o m e n ts w h e n he m u st defend his actions in q u elling the C atilinarian conspiracy (Allen, esp. 129-30; M ay 76, 8 6 -8 7 ). H ence C icero, unlike P om peius, seem s to tak e care alw ays to have th e salvation o f the republic as a b a c k g ro u n d to his boasts. 9 C f. also P lut. Pomp. 13.5; Sail. Hist. 3.88 (M au ren b rech er). T h e A lexandrian hairstyle m en tio n e d b y P lu tarc h (anastole) is n o ted b y Poulsen in coin depictions o f P o m p eiu s that w ere m in te d b y his sons in Spain (18) and o n P o m p e iu s’ b u st in the N y C a rlsb erg G ly p to te k , w h ic h P oulsen dates to the Flavian era (42).

ilarly, w h e n L ucius M arcius P hilippus defended P om peius o n charges o f e x to rtio n in 86 b c e , he said there w as n o th in g unusual in a P hilippus b eing an “A lex ander lo v er”— Philip, o f course, w as the nam e o f A lex­ an d er th e G re at’s father (Plut. Pomp. 2.2 = O R F 70.13). A t this stage in P o m p e iu s’ career, th e h u m o r appears harm less. As the y o ung m an con­ tinues to acquire m ilitary pow er, how ever, the ideas info rm in g P hilip p u s’ jo k e co m e to rep resen t m o re th an ad m iratio n o f P o m p eiu s’ abili­ ties as a general. In 77 b c e R o m e needed to provide m ilitary in terv en tio n against the forces o f th e rebel S ertorius in Spain. W hen the consuls chose n o t to go, a m o tio n w as m ade in the senate to send P om peius as p ro c o n su l.10 P hilippus, th e “A lexander lo v e r,” to o k this o p p o rtu n ity to m ock the unex­ p ected refusal o f th e consuls: P om peius should n o t be sent pro consule (“as a co n su l”), he explained, b u t pro consulibus (“instead o f the consuls”) .11 A lth o u g h P h ilip pus clearly approved o f the choice, the p o in t o f his w itti­ cism does n o t appear to have been praise o f P o m p eiu s’ ability, b u t deni­ g ra tio n o f th e co n su ls.12 T h e h u m o r lies in replacing the fam iliar designa­ tio n for th e office o f p ro co n su l w ith the u nfam iliar plural form . P h ilip p u s’ invective, therefore, perform s a fun ctio n typical o f R om an h u m o r: th e deb asem ent o f a political op p o n en t. A decade later, how ever, P o m p e iu s’ skills are needed for an even m ore u n trad itio n al ap p o in tm en t. C onsequently, P h ilip p u s’ play o n w o rd s takes o n n ew m eaning. In 66 b c e C icero pleads in the speech O n the Manilian L aw th at P om peius be g ranted an ex tra o rd in ary m ilitary com ­ m an d ov er th e eastern k in g M ithridates. In answ er to C atu lu s’ objections th at n o th in g u n p reced en ted (novi nihil; M anil. 60) should be given to P om p eiu s, C icero argues forcefully, i f n o t quite in response to C atu lu s’ o b jection, th at P om peius has already been given a n u m b e r o f unprece­ d en ted responsibilities, each o f w h ich he has fulfilled successfully. C icero includes in th e list o f P o m p e iu s’ successes his co m m an d against Ser10 Seager 17 n. 34 cites, w ith relevant bibliography, the various theories concerning w hy the consuls chose n o t to go. 11 T he anecdote occurs at Manil. 62 (quoted in the text below); Phil. 11.18; Plut. Pomp. 17.4; and, elliptically, at Vir. III. 77.4. 12 For this interpretation I rely on Plutarch’s version, w hich does n o t seem to derive from C icero’s On the Manilian Law. The w itticism has a familiar resonance w ith w hat Plutarch records L. Aemilius Paulus as saying after being chosen to his second consulship in 168 b c e , also as a result o f the m ilitary incom petence o f the consuls in office. A ccording to Plutarch (Mor. 197f), Paulus had n o t sought the consulship, and so did no t need to thank the people, “for he was n o t seeking the com m and as m uch as they were seeking a com ­ m ander” (συ γ ά ρ α υτό ς ά ρ χ ή ς δεόμενος, ώ ς έκείνω ν α ρχοντος; if Plutarch translates a Latin original consulatum . . . consulem, then the sim ilarity is so m uch the greater). O n the historicity o f this incident, see G ruen 1984: 212 n. 43.

to riu s, th e occasion th at a decade earlier had p ro m p te d P hilippus’ w itti­ cism ab o u t the consuls o f 77. C icero takes the o p p o rtu n ity to m en tio n n o t o nly P o m p e iu s’ c o m m an d at that tim e b u t the jo k e as well: quid tarn in u sitatu m , q u am ut, cu m d u o co n su les clarissim i fortissim iq u e essen t, eq u es R om a n u s ad b ellu m m a x im u m fo r m id o lo sissim u m q u e pro co n su le m itteretur? m issu s est. q u o q u id em tem p o re, cu m esset n o n n e m o in senatu qui diceret “n o n o p o rtere m itti h o m in e m privatu m pro c o n su le ,” L. P h ilip p u s d ix isse dicitur, “n o n se iliu m sua sententia pro co n su le, sed pro co n su lib u s m ittere. ” tanta in eo rei publicae bene gerendae spes co n stitu ebatur u t d u o ru m c o n su lu m m u n u s u n iu s adulescentis v irtu ti c o m m itteretur. {M a n il. 62) Is a n y th in g so strange as sen d in g a R o m a n k n ig h t as p ro co n su l to a very great and fearful w ar, w h e n there are tw o m o st g lo rio u s and brave consuls? H e w a s sent. A n d at that very tim e, w h e n there w ere several senators w h o w ere sayin g it w as im p ro p er to sen d a private citizen in place o f a con su l (pro consule), L ucius P h ilip p u s is said to have rem arked that he v o ted for sen d in g

P o m p eiu s n o t as a co n su l (pro consule), b u t instead o f b o th con su ls (pro consulibus). S uch great h o p e rested in [P om p eiu s] for co n d u ctin g the repub­ lic ’s affairs w e ll that the d u ty o f tw o co n su ls w as entrusted to the bravery o f o n e y o u n g m an.

C icero has changed the force o f P h ilip p u s’jo k e. First, he does n o t m en­ tio n the refusal o f the consuls to be sent; instead he praises their abilities as “ tw o m o st glorious and brave consuls” (duo consules clarissimi fortissi­ mique). In this w ay the o ra to r sets u p the m atter as a choice betw een P om p eiu s and the consuls, w h ich does n o t seem to have been the case historically. B y altering the historical context, he alters the p u rp o rt o f the w itticism : it no lo n g er sim p ly derides the consuls b u t com pares th em w ith P o m p eiu s. T h e im plication follow s that P hilippus believed P o m ­ p eiu s’ ability to be superior to the consuls’. In case C icero ’s audience in 66 BCE has difficulty in draw ing this conclusion fro m the new ly revised anecdote, C icero does it for them : “the d u ty o f tw o consuls w as en­ tru sted to th e bravery o f one y o ung m a n .” T h e jo k e, originally spoken b y P hilippus as a w ry co m m en tary o n the deterioration o f consular au­ th ority, has been u su rp ed to argue precedent for en tru stin g ex trao rd in ary co m m an d s to an in d iv id u a l.13 T h ro u g h this speech, C icero helps obtain th e ex tra o rd in ary ap p o in tm en t o f P om peius. T his w ill prove to have been an ill-advised m ove on the o ra to r’s part. B y concentrating p o w er in 13 Schol. G ro n . p. 322, 7 - 8 (Stangl) also recognizes C iceronian rh e to ric at w o rk here: “C ic e ro has seized u p o n this as i f P h ilip p u s said it in praise o f P o m p eiu s, n o t in sc o rn o f the c o n su ls” (Cicero hoc rapuit, quasi [Philippus] hoc dixerit laude Pompei, non consulum vituperatione).

an in d iv id u al, C icero helps create precisely those threats to th e republic th at b o th his o w n h u m o r and the h u m o r o f others w ill later strive to co m bat. T h ese th reats include kingship. In D ecem ber 60, P om peius sp o rted m ilitary b o o ts and w h ite fillets (caligae . . . et fasciae cretatae), attire th at p o rte n d e d to C icero the trap p in g s o f a fop (lascivus\ A tt. 2.3.1 = SB 23). A trib u n e o f th e plebs for this year, Favonius, seizes the o p p o rtu n ity to criticize P o m p eius for the associations suggested b y his dress:14 cui [i.e ., P o m p eio ] Candida fascia crus alligatu m hab en ti Favonius: “n o n refe r t,” in q u it “qua in parte sit corp oris d ia d em a ,” e x ig u i panni cavillatione regias ei vires exp rob ran s. (Val. M a x . 6 .2 .7 ) W h en P o m p eiu s had his sh in b ou n d w ith a w h ite band, Favonius said to him : “It is n ’t im p o rta n t w h a t part o f the b o d y w ears the c r o w n .” H e w as rep roach in g h im for h is royal p o w er b y m o c k in g his sm all clo th w rap p in g.

T h e w h ite fillet m arks a kin g (Suet. I u l. 79.1), w hereas the boots are typical o f th e R o m an soldier. T o g eth e r the ensem ble p o rten d s a desire for m ilitary co n q u est. E ven in his attire P om peius distinguishes h im self fro m his fellow citizens; as an assertion o f individuality, his appearance invites h o stile w it. S im ilar co m p laints reg ard in g P om peius ’ self-serving behavior em erge in th e taunts o f the populace in the follow ing year. I have already dis­ cussed a different aspect o f this jo k e , as it relates to nam es, in chapter 2. C icero relates to A tticus the positive cro w d reaction to som e lines o f D ip h ilu s sp o k en at th e A pollonian gam es o f 59: D ip h ilu s tragoed u s in n o stru m P o m p e iu m petulanter in vectu s est: “nostra m iseria tu es m a g n u s” m ilien s coactu s est dicere; “ean d em v irtu tem istam v en iet tem p u s cu m graviter g e m e s ” to tiu s theatri clam ore d ix it, item q u e cetera. (A tt. 2 .1 9 .3 = S B 39; cf. Val. M ax. 6 .2 .9 ) T h e tragedian D ip h ilu s in v e ig h e d im p u d e n tly against o u r friend P om p eiu s; h e w as c o m p elle d to say a th ou san d tim es, “Y ou are great (Magnus) to ou r m ise r y .” H e said to sh o u ts o f th e w h o le theater, “T h e tim e w ill c o m e w h e n y o u ’ll la m en t gra v ely this sam e cou rage o f y o u r s,” and oth er th in g s as w ell.

T h e assem bled people recognize th e skew ed values o f P om peius, w ho favors his o w n w elfare over that o f th e state. T h e characteristic that P o m ­ peius h ad p resen ted as a v irtu e in his o w n w itticism s— his ability to func14 F. Miinzer (RE 6:2074.52-59) puts Favonius’ barb in the year 60 because o f the passage cited from Cicero’s correspondence with Atticus. Ammianus 17.11.4 also preserves the remark, without mentioning the name o f the speaker, and says Pompeius wore the ban­ dages to cover a wound.

tion successfully as an individual outside the arena o f normal Republican practice— begins to be recognized as the vice that w ill cause his downfall. T he m ost telling criticism o f P om peius’ om nipotent behavior, h o w ­ ever, occurs four years later in 55 b c e , the tim e o f his second consulship. D uring an exam ination o f Lucius Scribonius Libo before the censors, the old man H elvius Mancia appears as a w itness against the accused. P om ­ peius, speaking in L ibo’s defense, makes the w itticism that the old man “w as called back from the dead to make his accusations” (ab inferis ilium ad accusandum remissum\ Val. M ax. 6.2.8). This reproach, a topic o f hu­ m orous invective also found in Cicero, elicits a volatile response from M ancia:15 n o n m en tiris . . . P om pei: venio en im ab inferis; in L. L ib o n e m accusator v enio. sed, d u m illic m o ro r, v idi cru e n tu m C n . D o m itiu m A h e n o b a rb u m d eflentem , q u o d su m m o genere natus, in te g errim a e vitae, am an tissim u s pa­ triae, in ipso iu v en tae flore tu o iussu esset occisus. vidi pari claritate co n sp ic u u m M . B ru tu m ferro laceratum , q u ere n tem id sibi p riu s perfidia, dein d e etiam crudelitate tu a accidisse. vidi C n. C a rb o n e m ac errim u m p u eritiae tu a e b o n o ru m q u e p atris tu i d efen so rem in te rtio co nsulatu catenis, quas tu ei inici iusseras, v in c tu m , o b te sta n te m se adversus o m n e fas ac nefas, cu m in su m m o esset im p e rio , a te equite R o m an o tru cid atu m . v id i eo d em h ab itu et q u irita tu p ra e to riu m v iru m P erp en n am saev itiam tu a m ex ecrantem ; o m n e sq u e eos una voce in d ig n an tes, q u o d in d e m n ati sub te adulescentulo carnifice occidissent. (Val. M ax. 6.2.8) Y ou’re n o t lying , P om peius: I d o co m e fro m th e u n d erw o rld ; I co m e to accuse L ucius Libo. B u t w h ile I w as dallying d o w n there, I saw G naeus D o m itiu s A h e n o b a rb u s, b lo o d ie d and w eeping because, alth o u g h b o rn in th e h ig h e st statio n , o f u n ta in te d rep u ta tio n , and m o st d ev o ted to his father­ land, he w as slain in th e very flow er o f y o u th b y y o u r o rd ers. I saw M arcus B ru tu s, co n sp icu o u s fo r co m p arab le fam e, to rn b y th e s w o rd and co m p lain ­ in g th a t this had h ap p e n ed to h im at first b y y o u r treachery, and th e n later b y y o u r cruelty. I saw a very b itte r G naeus C a rb o , th e p ro te c to r o f y o u r y o u th and o f y o u r fath e r’s p ro p erty , b o u n d b y chains w h ile serv in g his th ird consulship, chains th a t you y o u rse lf had o rd ered to be applied, an d sw earin g before all th a t is g o o d an d evil th at, w h ile h o ld in g th e h ig h est office, h e h ad been slain b y you, a R o m an k n ig h t. I saw w ith th e sam e attire and cries o f p ro te st P erp en n a, a m a n o f p ra e to r’s rank, cursin g y o u r savagery; an d all 15 C ice ro m o ck s th e e x tre m e o ld age o f L ucius G ellius at P lut. C ic. 26.4. M ancia’s reply, a lth o u g h n o t q u ite a jo k e , falls u n d e r th e c ateg o ry o f w it in respondenda (see c h ap ter I , n. 31). M ancia m u st have been fairly old. H e w as o ld a n d im p o rta n t e n o u g h b y 91 CE to be m e n tio n e d in S tra b o ’s d iscussion o f w it at D e oral. 2.274 (w here he tells a jo k e) a n d 2.266 (w h ere he is the o b ject o f abuse).

these m en w ere expressing th e ir an g er w ith one voice, because th ey h ad died u n co n d e m n e d , at th e h an d s o f you, a p rep u b escen t executioner.

M ancia uses P o m p e iu s’ w itticism as an occasion to detail the co n su l’s crim es ag ain st R om e. T h e dark iro n y o f M ancia’s description receives m u ch o f its p o w e r fro m bein g spontaneou s, a rejoinder to P o m p e iu s’ feeble a tte m p t at a jo k e . T h e “p rep u b escen t ex ecu tio n er” (adulescentulus ca rnifex), a m ere R o m an eques, n o w serves as consul for the second tim e. M ancia’s list becom es m o re tragic as he details h o w each o f P o m p e iu s’ v ictim s h ad served the state in his lifetim e (am antissim us patriae, . . . p a ri claritate conspicuum , . . . in tertio consulatu, . . . cum in su m m o esset im perio, . . . praetorium v iru m ). As the catalogue grow s m o re full, the individual

m en m erg e in to the larger n o tio n o f the R o m an state. P om peius has n o t on ly tran sg ressed the b o u n d s o fju stic e in his trea tm e n t o f R o m an s— they died u n co n d e m n e d (in d em n a ti ) — but, equally im p o rtan t, he has slain, as a single m an o f the no n aristo cratic class, recent benefactors to R om e. T he in d iv id u a lity in w h ich P om peius takes p ride has been tu rn ed against him . It n o w allow s his enem ies to find fault w ith h im as one w hose singular a u th o rity threatens the w ell-being o f R o m e and its people. F or M ancia’s rh e to ric stresses that, before P om peius, R om e and its best citizens consti­ tu te d a unity. P

o m p e iu s a n d

C

iv il

War

T h e late m o n th s o f 50 b c e b ro u g h t un certain ty to m any R o m an political figures: sh ould th ey assent to Julius C aesar’s dem ands to ru n for consul in absentia o r stan d firm and su p p o rt P om peius in o p p o sitio n to these de­ m ands? C ic e ro ’s co rrespondence o ften reflects w ittily u p o n the uncer­ tain ty o f th e tim es. In a letter to A tticus o f O c to b e r 50, C icero im agines h im s e lf b ein g asked in the senate to give his opin io n o f C aesar’s request: “d ic , m. t u l l i . ” q uid dicam ? “exspecta, am ab o te, d u m A ttic u m co n veniam ?” n o n est locus ad te rg iv ersan d u m . (Att. 7 .1 .4 = SB 124) “Y our o p in io n , M arcus T u lliu s.” W hat sh o u ld I say?— “W ait a second please, u n til I m eet w ith A tticus?” T his is n o t th e tim e for sh illy -sh ally in g .16

P o m p eiu s to o felt pressure to p resen t publicly a definite decision in re­ g ard to C aesar. In O c to b e r 51, w h en o p p o sitio n fro m C aesar in Gaul was ju s t b eg in n in g to be anticipated, C aelius records a re m a rk P om peius m ad e d u rin g a discussion in th e senate. T h e general has ju s t affirm ed that 16 C ice ro eventually settles this d ile m m a w ith a n o th e r jo k e : adsentior C n. Pompeio, id est T. Pomponio— “ I agree w ith P o m p e iu s (i.e., w ith P o m p o n iu s [A tticus])” (A tt. 1 .7 .7 = SB 130). A fter th e civil w a r has b e g u n , jo k e s resum e over the u n c ertain ty o f w h at to do; see, e .g ., A tt. 7.17.1 (SB 141).

i f C aesar chooses to use a trib u n e to blo ck senatorial proceedings o n the d istrib u tio n o f p rovinces, then P om peius w ill consider such actions as ta n ta m o u n t to d irect disobedience o f the senate. A qu estio n arises: “quid si” inquit alius “et consul esse et exercitum habere volet?” at ille [Pom peius] quam clementer: “quid si filius m eus fustem m ihi im pingere volet?” his vocibus ut existim arent hom ines P om peio cum Caesare esse n eg otiu m effecit. (Fatn. 8.8.9 = SB 84) A nother m an asked, “What i f [Caesar] wants both to becom e consul and to keep his arm y?” L ook h ow calm ly Pom peius [replied]: “What i f m y son w ants to beat m e w ith a club?” W ith these w ords he made sure m en w ould think that Pom peius m eans business w ith Caesar.

A s in his attack o n M arcellinus’ in ep t oratory, P om peius again uses a trad itio n al p a ra d ig m o f h u m o r to m ake his point. B y em p lo y in g th e vio­ len t im ag e o f a son cud g elin g a father, the speaker recalls th e im p o rta n t R o m a n co n cep t o f pietas, th e respect sh o w n b o th to w ard th e state and to w a rd o n e ’s p a re n ts.17 R egardless o f w h a t P om peius w as attem p tin g to express d irectly th ro u g h this h arsh im age, he does effectively cast C ae­ sa r’s h y p o th etical dem ands as co n tra ry to state v alu es.18 B u t this analogy has fu rth e r connotations.. T h ro u g h the phrases “on account o f m y s e lf’ ( δ ι’ α υ τό ν ; P lu t. Pomp. 51.6) and “u n d er m y s e lf as general” (ύ π ’ έ μ α υ τ φ α ύ τ ο κ ρ ά τ ο ρ ι; P lut. Pomp. 22.6), P om peius had fo reg ro u n d ed h im self b efo re th e state as a p ro m in e n t individual: he does the sam e here. In m a k in g Julius C aesar the son, P om peius o f necessity becom es th e father. It is n o t, then, a m a tte r o f C aesar attacking the state th ro u g h his de­ m an d s, b u t attacking the “fa th e r,” P om peius. O n c e again P o m p eiu s uses an im ag e th at recalls trad itio n al values: violence to th e state and violence to a p a re n t co n stitu te equally heinous offenses. Yet in expressing this im ag e he p o in ts to his o w n status as a R o m an w h o stands before all 17 Parallels fo r a so n th rea te n in g to h u rt— a n d even kill— his fa th e r a b o u n d in th e plays o f P la u tu s, a w rite r w h o d elig h ts in the in v ersio n o f trad itio n a l R o m an standards. T erence, b y c o n tra st, pro v id es n o su c h reference; see Segal 15—21. In fact, Sailer 1 5 1 -6 5 a rg u es th a t th e p u n ish m e n t even o f a so n b y a father w as p ro b a b ly a ra rity in R o m an society. It certainly offered a to p ic o f h u m iliatio n for th e son w h e n g ro w n (Q u in t. Inst. 6.3.25, 48). T h is social reality w o u ld m ak e P o m p e iu s’ in v ersio n all the m o re strik in g to his audience. 18 I can o ffe r n o o rig in a l c o n trib u tio n to th e d ebate o ver w h e th e r in C aeliu s’ assessm ent o f P o m p e iu s’ re m a rk — Pompeio cum Caesare esse negotium (“P o m p e iu s m eans business w ith C a e s a r”)— negotium m eans “d eal” o r “ q u a rre l.” F o r th e fo rm e r p o sitio n , see Stevens 178; B alsd o n 1939: 176—77; W . G ra n t 10—11; and G ru en 1974: 4 6 0 -7 0 . T h e c o n c lu sio n s o f these scholars, w h ic h arise p rim a rily fro m h istorical a rg u m e n ts, seem to m e to be challenged effectively b y the g ra m m atica l parallels S hackleton B ailey adduces ad loc. for negotium cum aliquo esse m ea n in g “h ave tro u b le w ith so m e o n e .” M y a rg u m e n t rem ains valid o n eith er in te rp re ta tio n .

o th ers— in clu d in g C aesar. T h is im agined fa th e r/so n relationship be­ com es all th e m o re strik in g w h en one recognizes in it an inversion o f reality: P o m p eius had previously been C aesar’s son-in-law . P o m p e iu s’ to u g h language did n o t pass unnoticed. D u rin g a situation in th e senate sim ilar to th at n arrated b y C aelius, concern arose over P o m ­ p eiu s’ ap p a ren t lack o f preparedness in the event th at C aesar should m arch o n R om e. P lu tarch records the g en eral’s attem p t to allay th e sen­ ate’s w orries: [Π ομπή ιος] μειδιώ ν τ φ π ρ ο σ ώ π φ καί δ ια κ εχυ μ ένο ς άμελεΐν έκέλευσεν· “ό π ο υ γ ά ρ ά ν ,” έφη, “τής ’Ιταλίας έγώ κροΰσω τφ ποδ'ι την γην, ά να δύσ οντα ι και π εζικ ά ! και ιπ π ικ ά ! δ υ ν ά μ εις .” (Plut. Pomp. 57.5) W ith a sm iling and calm expression [Pom peius] told them n ot to worry: “F or,” he said, “in w hatever part o f Italy I stamp the ground w ith m y foot, there w ill rise up troops o f infantry and cavalry.”19

T h is im ag e o f P om peius as a kin d o f m ythical h ero creating arm ies fro m th e earth lin g ered in th e m in d s o f his audience. Favonius, the m an w h o h ad m o ck ed P o m p e iu s’ “royal g a rb ” ten years earlier (Val. M ax. 6.2.7), held th e office o f trib u n e o f the plebs for 49. As C aesar’s tro o p s m arched th ro u g h Italy, Favonius derided the general’s boast: “he o rd ered P o m ­ peius to stam p his fo o t and su m m o n th e arm ies he had p ro m ise d ” (έκέλευε το ν Π ο μ π ή ιο ν τώ π ο δ ! τ ύ π τ ε ιν τη ν γην, α ς ύ π ισ χ ν ε ΐτ ο δ υ ν ­ ά μ ε ις α ν α κ α λ ο ύ μ ε ν ο ν ; P lu t. Pomp. 60.4). T h e trib u n e calls P om peius to acco u n t for p o stu rin g as the single savior o f the R o m an state. T h is d isap p o in tm e n t over P o m p e iu s’ inability to su p p o rt his claim s in fo rm s th e m an y jo k e s C icero m akes in P o m p e iu s’ cam p at Pharsalus, site o f th e final battles o f the civil w ar. M arcus A n tonius w as later to co n d e m n C icero for his u n tim e ly w it o n th at occasion; C icero attem pts to defen d h im se lf in the Second Philippic: ne iocis quidem respondebo quibus m e in castris usum esse dixisti: erant quidem ilia castra plena curae; verum tamen hom ines, quam vis in turbidis rebus sint, tam en, si m odo hom ines sunt, interdum animis relaxantur. (Phil. 2.39) 19 C f. P lu t. Caes. 33.5; A p p ia n B C 2.37. F or the im age o f m en being created fro m the earth , o n e can recall D eu calio n and P y rrh a creating th eir c hildren fro m stones o r Jason so w in g th e d ra g o n ’s teeth. A c co rd in g to M a n z o 119, C ice ro depicts P o m p e iu s as jo k in g ab o u t his losses in early 49 as follow s: “C ingulum ” inquit “nos tenemus, Anconem amisimus” (“ W e have C in g u lu m /th e belt, [but] w e ’ve lo st A n c o n a /th e e lb o w ”; A lt. 7.11.1 = SB 134). Shackleton B ailey ad Ioc., h ow ever, argues co n v in c in g ly th at th e su b ject o f inquit in this passage is m o st likely n o t P o m p eiu s; th e w ittic ism is certainly n o t in k eeping w ith P o m p e iu s’ h u m o r as no ted elsew here.

I w o n ’t even respond about the jo k es you said that I m ade in the camp. That w as indeed a cam p filled w ith care. Yet even though people may be in a troubled situation, nevertheless— provided they are hum an— their spirits can on occasion be lifted.

D espite this eloquent defense, those jo k es preserved by Plutarch and M acrobius— i f their authenticity can be trusted— reveal a hum or far from upliftin g.20 A w itticism in M acrobius is typical o f C icero’s cynical tone at the tim e o f Pharsalus: cum [Cicero] ad P om peium venisset, dicentibus sero eum venisse respondit: “m inim e sero veni, nam nihil hie paratum v id e o .” (Macr. S a t. 2.3.7) W hen [Cicero] had arrived at P om peius’ camp, and som e w ere saying that he had com e late (sero ), he replied, “I’ve hardly com e to o late (sero ), since I d o n ’t see anything ready here.”

T h e jo k e seem s to depend in part on the double m eaning o f sero as both “late” and “too late.”21 A nother w itticism echoes Favonius’ frustration that Pom peius claims absolute authority for h im self and yet cannot de­ liver at the crucial m om ent. In contrast to that occasion, however, this tim e P om p eiu s’ prom ises have extended beyond the senate chambers: et cum donasset P om peius transfugam civitate Romana, “o h om in em bellum !” [Cicero] inquit, “Gallis civitatem prom ittit alienam, qui nobis n o stram non potest reddere.” (Macr. Sat. 2.3.8) A nd after Pom peius had given R om an citizenship to a deserter, [Cicero] said, “What a great guy! H e prom ises the Gauls citizenship in a state that is n o t theirs w hen he can’t restore our ow n to u s.”

I shall cite b elow a similar jo k e Cicero makes against Caesar (Macr. S a t . 2.3.12), w here the historical situation com pletely transforms the intent behind the w itticism . In these tw o anecdotes from Pharsalus, Cicero questions the validity o f Pom peius’ claims to individual authority. As w e 20 T h e re a re s tro n g reaso n s to tru s t th e evidence o f P lu tarc h and M acrobius: th ere ex­ isted a collectio n o f C ic e ro ’s jo k e s m ad e b y T iro — o r p e rh ap s b y C icero o r even so m e o n e else— th a t is a ttested b y Q u in tilia n (Inst. 6.3.5), Schol. B o b . p. 140, 17 (Stangl), and M a c ro ­ biu s (Sat. 2.1.12). It does n o t seem un lik ely th at P lu tarc h also had access to this collection, since th re e o f his jo k e s are the sam e as M a c ro b iu s’, w h o im plies that C ic e ro ’s collection is his source. In this p a rticu la r instance o f C ic e ro ’s jo k e s before P harsalus, h o w ev er, o n e can­ n o t d isc o u n t th e p o ssib ility th a t jo k e s p ro life rate d in the early E m p ire in o rd e r to create a c o n te x t for the P hil. 2 passage cited (Sen. Suas. I and Q u in t. Inst. 3 .8 .4 6 attest to the p o p u la rity o f d eclam atio n s re g a rd in g th e Philippics after C ic e ro ’s death). 21 T h is is m y e ffo rt to m ak e th e jo k e m o re w itty th an it m ay appear (B ru g n o la 3 3 -3 4 th in k s C ic e ro plays o n th e n o tio n o f a rriv in g late fo r lu n ch ). C o m p a re the jo k e at Q u in t. Inst. 6.3 .4 9 : a fte r M ilo ’s accuser repeatedly ask ed for th e tim e w h e n C lo d iu s w as killed, C ice ro replied “sero” (i.e., “late in the d a y ” o r “ to o late”).

have seen, th e o ra to r earlier h ad helped raise P om peius to an ex trao rd in ­ ary co m m an d , in p art by h u m o ro u sly equating the general’s prow ess w ith th at o f th e tw o R o m an consuls. A t Pharsalus the situation is re­ versed. P o m p eius n o w stands as th e targ e t o f a traditional R o m an h u m o r th at strives to isolate and m o ck his p resu m ed individuality. P lu tarch preserves six m o re jo k es fro m P harsalus, w h ich reg ister a b len d o f disdain and despair sim ilar to the tw o fro m M a c ro b iu sju st m en­ tio n e d .22 A w ittic ism shared b y b o th P lu tarch and M acrobius is o f partic­ u lar interest, since it show s P om peius once again d raw in g u p o n the paral­ lel b etw een filial and national loyalty to m ake his point: deinde interroganti Pom peio ubi gener eius D olabella esset, [Cicero] respondit: “cum socero tu o .” (Macr. Sat. 2.3.8) T hen, w hen P om peius asked [Cicero] w here his son-in-law Dolabella was, [the orator] replied, “W ith your father-in-law .”23

P om p eiu s ’ initial q u ery represents an attem p t to d isarm C icero b y show ­ in g th at the o ra to r does n o t c o m m an d respect fro m his o w n “son. ” C ic­ ero tu rn s the p arad ig m aro u n d and consequently show s h o w cursorily P o m p eiu s has exam ined his o w n situation. P om peius had earlier set h im ­ se lf up as fath er in o p p o sitio n to the clu b -w ield in g son, C aesar. C ic e ro ’s jo k e , how ever, show s that, as the fo rm e r husb an d o f C aesar’s dau g h ter Julia, P o m p eiu s to o has ig n o red the su m m o n s o f filial p iety .24 As the R ep u b lic reaches its crisis, b o th m en are unable to m aintain o n e o f the fo re m o st R o m an values. C icero ’s w itticism highlights the effect civil w ar has o n fam ily stru ctu re: the ties b etw een C aesar and P om peius, on the o n e han d , and C icero and D olabella, o n the other, have lo st th eir sy m ­ bolic value. T h e trad itio n al conflation o f loyalties to fam ily and to state, a p lu t. C U . 3 8 .3 , 4, 5 (cf. M or. 20 5 d ), 6, 7 (cf. M o r. 2 05e), 8. 23 P lu t. M or. 2 0 5 d g iv e s C ic e r o ’s so n -in -la w as P iso , n o t D o la b ella . 24 T h e im p o r ta n ce o f so n s -in -la w in R om an so c ie ty is attested b y C a tu llu s’ claim to have o n c e lo v e d his m istress L esbia “as a father d o e s h is so n s and s o n s -in -la w ” (pater ut gnatos d iligit et generos; 7 2 .4 ). T h e e v id e n c e o f S u et. IuL 8 3 .1 — Q . Tubero tradit heredem ab eo [sc. Caesare] scribi solitum ex consulatu ip siu sp rim o usque ad initium civilis belli C u . Pompeium , idque m ilitib u spro contione recitatum (“ Q u in tu s T u b ero relates that P o m p e iu s w a s a ccu sto m ed to b e recorded as [C ae­ sar’s] heir fro m th e tim e o f his first co n su lsh ip to th e b e g in n in g o f the civil w ar, and that th is fact w a s read a lou d to the sold iers at a p u b lic a sse m b ly ”)— sh o w s that C aesar p u b licly r e c o g n iz e d P o m p e iu s as an heir ev en after the death o f Julia. T h is fact takes o n special im p o r ta n c e sin c e it appears that P o m p e iu s w o u ld n o lo n g er have b een leg a lly con sid ered C a esa r’s so n -in -la w u p o n Ju lia’s death (P o llu x O nom . 3 .6 - 7 ; cf. Sest. 6, C lu . 190). P erhaps C aesar’s ch a n g e in h is w ill, w h ic h T u b ero dates to the b e g in n in g o f the c iv il w ar, w as rep resen ted b y C aesar as a ren u n ciation o f the m an h e had con sid ered his so n -in -la w for the p r e v io u s decade. T u b e r o ’s co n tem p o ra r y acco u n t im p lie s that Caesar m a d e a p u b lic display o f r e m o v in g P o m p e iu s from h is w ill; th is w o u ld len d cu rren cy to C ic e r o ’s barb here. 22

conflation rep resen ted b y the single w o rd pietas, has b ecom e a vexed p ro b lem . P o m p eiu s seem s to have had the final w o rd in this exchange. As I have already n o ted , C icero vacillated b etw een C aesar and P om peius b o th be­ fore an d d u rin g th e early days o f the civil w ar. In F ebruary 49, a letter to A tticu s finds C icero ex pressing his despair at m ak in g a decision: “I have so m eo n e to flee, b u t n o o n e to fo llo w ” (ego vero quem fitgiam habeo, quem sequar non habeo; A tt. 8 .7 .2 = SB 155). T h e ep ig ram w as to b ecom e very p o p u la r,25 and it w as to receive an o m in o u s reply fro m P om peius at P harsalus. A c co rd in g to Q u in tilian an d M acrobius, P om peius did n o t h an d le w ell C ic e ro ’s h u m o ro u s critique. T h e general, sensing in the ora­ t o r ’s h u m o r a lack o f confidence in his o w n chances at success, tu rn s to C icero a n d says: “G o over to C aesar; [then] y o u ’ll fear m e ” (transi ad Caesarem, me timebis; Q u in t. Inst. 6.3.1 1 1 ).26 P om peius recognizes that C icero w ill resp ect his m ilitary m ig h t on ly as an o p p o n e n t in battle. F or th e o ra to r refuses to su rre n d er his rig h t to free expression, a rig h t that enables h im to p resen t his o w n view s in the face o f one m o re p ow erful an d to d o so w ith o u t fear. As a result, P o m p eiu s m u st use force to defend his preem in en ce, expelling the o ra to r fro m his presence. P o m p e iu s’ re­ m a rk recalls the fears v o iced b y C icero in the letter q u o ted at the beg in ­ n in g o f this chapter: w h e n tro u b les beset th e republic, the only thing re m a in in g is to m ak e jo k e s — p ro v id ed it is allow ed. E arly in C ic e ro ’s career, th e d ep ictio n o f P om peius as a un iq u e in d iv id ­ ual w as m ean t to be co n stru ed as a positive m ark e r o f th e y oung m a n ’s p o ten tial. As P o m p e iu s’ p o w er consolidated, how ever, the threat inher­ en t in this in d iv id u a lity em erges. As a result, he becom es open to h u ­ m o ro u s abuse fro m figures such as Favonius, M arcellinus, and eventually C icero him self. P o m p e iu s’ o w n w itticism s consistently fo reg ro u n d ed h im b efo re th e state as a un iq u e citizen, m ag istrate, and general; his critics em p lo y ed h u m o r to illu strate the negative aspects o f this sam e p o sitio n . T h is technique o f abuse follow s the sam e principles I have o u t­ lined in th e p rev ious chapters: the o p p o n e n t notes and th en attacks those elem en ts th at set his ta rg e t ap art fro m th e rem ain d er o f society. L et’s take 25 Q u in t. Inst. 6.3.109, w h o cites as his so u rce D o m itiu s M a rsu s’ w o rk o n urbanitas; cf. also P lu t. Cic. 37.3, Mor. 205c; M acr. Sat. 3.3.7. 26 Q u in tilia n again cites D o m itiu s M arsu s as his source, a n d says this would be a jo k e , “if it h a d b e en u tte re d a b o u t a less im p o rta n t e v en t o r in a n o th e r fram e o f m in d , o r even by so m e b o d y else” (si de re minore aut alio animo, aut denique non ab ipso dictum fiiisset). It’s to o bad th a t Q u in tilia n d o e sn ’t fin d P o m p e iu s’ m o st clever (and p erh ap s last) j o k e funny. M a c ro b iu s’ v ersio n m akes P o m p e iu s’ m ea n in g clearer, and c o n se q u en tly less pow erful: “ I w a n t C ice ro to cross o v e r to th e e n em y so th a t h e ’ll be afraid o f u s” (cupio ad hostes Cicero transeat, ut nos timeaf, Sat. 2.3.8). G naeus filiu s seem s to have in h erited his fath er’s (lack of) h u m o r; see C assius at Fam. 15.19.4 (SB 216).

P o m p e iu s’ advice n o w and go over to C aesar, to see h o w the u ltim ate v icto r in th e civil w a r finds his o w n m eans to cope w ith C ic e ro ’s w it. It w ill n o t in v o lv e sim p ly expulsion.

J u liu s C a e s a r, r e r u m s u a r u m a u c to r

I analyze th e h u m o r relating to Ju liu s C aesar in tw o stages. T h e first su rv ey s C aesar’s political and m ilitary career before the civil w ar. In the second section I exam ine public h u m o r fro m approxim ately the tim e o f th e battles at P harsalus u n til C aesar’s assassination. U n lik e the discussion o f P o m p eiu s and h u m o r, h ere special caution m u st be used in in terp re t­ in g th o se sources th at are n o t co n tem p o ran eo u s w ith th e first p a rt o f C aesar’s b io g raphy, for there lurks a stro n g e r danger th at these sources p ro jec t back u p o n C aesar’s earlier career their o w n p erception o f h im as dictato r. As a w ay o f co n tro llin g the discussion, then, I shall begin w ith th e secure evidence p ro v id ed by C aesar him self: his w a r com m entaries o n his cam paigns in G aul (De bello Gallico) and o n the civil w ar (De bello civili). As a m ilitary leader tu rn ed author, C aesar uses h u m o r in a w ay that seem s to co n tra st w ith P o m p e iu s’ early portrayals o f h im se lf as an indi­ v idual to w h o m R o m e exclusively ow es its w ell-being. F o rJu liu s C aesar reco rd s in his w ritin g s n o t his o w n jo k e s b u t rather those o f his co m m o n , nam eless soldiers. T h is practice aligns w ell w ith his political p latfo rm to p ro te c t th e rig h ts o f the people: the jo k es reveal the g o o d -n a tu red confi­ dence th at his soldiers have in their o w n ability. Yet th ro u g h his privi­ leged p o sitio n as an a u th o r w h o is presen tin g these jo k es to a w ide audi­ ence, C aesar necessarily separates h im se lf fro m the people he celebrates. A s a result, the h u m o r p resen t in th e w a r com m entaries reflects the para­ d o x in h eren t in C aesar’s o w n political position: being a representative o f th e p eo p le m u st entail stan d in g b o th above and apart fro m the very p eo p le he represents. A few passages fro m C aesar’s Gallic War contain w h a t appear to be jo k e s and p u n s th at circulated aro u n d C aesar’s cam p and that presum ably reflect co m m o n m ilitary parlance. It is significant th at C aesar has chosen to in clude these w itticism s in his narrative, for they reveal a m ilitary leader sensitive to the language and psych o lo g y o f the co m m o n soldier. In C aesar’s account o f the capture o f Alesia, for exam ple, the n arrato r pauses in his description o f the siege w o rk s to in fo rm the reader o f the nicknam es th e R o m an soldiers have given the various m ilitary devices. O n e o f th e defense w o rk s used to p revent sallies fro m the to w n consists o f a q uincuncial sy stem o f trenches filled w ith stakes that have been cut to

a p o in t and cam ouflaged w ith tree branches. C aesar explains their fu n ctio n : quo qui intraverant se ipsi acutissimis vallis induebant. hos cippos appellabant. (Gal. 1.73.4) In this way, those who had fallen in impaled themselves on very sharp stakes. [The soldiers] called these stakes cippi. C ippi w e re sto n e m arkers used to designate b o th p ro p e rty boundaries and b u rial sites.27 T h e te rm in o lo g y o f th e soldiers (the p resu m ed subject o f appellabant) plays o n b o th senses o f the w o rd . First, the designation toys w ith th e n o tio n o f arm ed m ig h t m ark in g p ro p e rty distinction (cippi as “ b o u n d a ry sto n e s”). A lternatively, w h e n co n stru ed as “to m b sto n e s,” th e cippi co n v ey a self-fulfilling threat, m ark in g the b o u n d ary betw een life and death. C aesar credits o th er w itty appellations to his soldiers, in each case em p lo y in g sim p ly a verb in the unspecified th ird -p e rso n plural. A p it sim ilar to the cippi, b u t containing only one stake, w as called a “lily, fro m its resem b lance to th e flow er” (id ex similitudine floris lilium appella­ bant; Gal. 7.73.8); stakes forced in to the g ro u n d w ith h o o k ed ends p ro ­ tru d in g receive th e n am e “ g o ad s” (stimulus nominabant; Gal. 7.73.9). Each o f th e above th ree nicknam es represents an ironic type o f hostile h u m o r th at does n o t seem o u t o f place in a siege. B y crediting these nam es to his tro o p s, C aesar reveals the relaxed attitu d e o f his m en and hence, b y im ­ p lication, h is o w n success at b u ild in g th eir confidence. C aesar seem s aw are o f th e p o w e r h u m o r has in creating bo n d s a m o n g his soldiers. E arlier in th e Gallic War, how ever, C aesar records a sim ilarly stru c­ tu re d jo k e th at his soldiers apply to m o re com plex circum stances. A cam p g u ard ed b y Q u in tu s C icero falls u n d e r th e siege o f the enem y. C icero , u n d e r o rd ers fro m C aesar, aw aits his c o m m a n d e r’s arrival before p u ttin g u p active resistance. E ventually, how ever, he m u st yield to his so ld iers’ d em an d s to fight. C aesar p o rtray s th e soldiers’ dem ands as a k in d o f jo k e : simul eorum [Cicero] permotus vocibus, qui illius patientiam paene obsessionem appellabant, siquidem ex castris egredi non Iiceret. (Gal. 6.36.2) [Cicero was] at the same time disturbed by the words o f those who kept calling his decision to wait a kind o f “siege” (obsessio), since they couldn’t leave the camp.28 27 B oth m eanings o f cippus abound in inscriptions from boundary markers and grave­ stones, a fact that w ou ld support a m ultiple pun on the w ord by Caesar’s soldiers ( T L L 3 :1 0 7 8 .6 -2 9 , 3 0 -5 6 ). Heraeus 260—61 interprets cippus here as “foot shackles,” a m eaning found in a Latin-Greek glossary (2.100.53 [Goetz]: cippus . . . π ο δ ο κ α κ η ). H eraeus cites other exam ples o f m ilitary hu m or from sources besides Caesar. 28 Seel notes in the apparatus criticus o f his 1977 Teubner text that siquidem is a hapax in

C icero ev en tu ally yields to this pressure, w ith disastrous consequences. I shall n o t co n jecture here o n the in terestin g question o f w h y C aesar chose to re p resen t a jo k e by the soldiers as C ic e ro ’s p re d o m in a n t m o tiv e for d iso b ey in g his orders. R ather, this b rie f overview show s h o w C aesar ascribes all th e clearly indicated w itticism s in his com m entaries to the c o m m o n soldiers and so creates a k in d o f social leveling in the narrative, as he allow s voices o th e r th an his o w n to be heard. It w o u ld be difficult for readers o f C aesar’s tex t to p ictu re this general p ro u d ly asserting, as P o m p eiu s h ad, his m ilitary service “u n d er h im se lf as gen eral.” O th e r features o f C aesar’s style seem in ten d ed to fu rth e r this im pression that the general and his m en are u n ited in a co m m o n cause: his a ttrib u tio n to co m m o n soldiers o f speeches q u o te d in direct statem ent, his plain style o f narrative, as w ell as, perhaps, th e avoidance o f references to h im self in th e first p e rs o n .29 A t o n ly one p o in t in his com m entaries does C aesar clearly identify an an ecdote as a j o k e .30 As in the previous exam ples, a c o m m o n soldier receives cred it for the w itticism . In th e first b o o k o f the Gallic War, C ae­ sar prepares a b o d y g u a rd to accom pany h im to a colloquy w ith the G er­ m an ch ief A rio v istu s. N o t w ish in g to e n tru st h im se lf to the regular cav­ alry, w h ich w as co m p o sed entirely o f n o n -R o m an s, he takes fo o t soldiers fro m his tru s tw o rth y T e n th L egion and m o u n ts th em on horses. quod cum fieret, non inridicule quidam ex militibus decimae legionis dixit plus quam pollicitus esset Caesarem ei facere: pollicitum se in cohortis praetoriae loco decimam legionem habiturum ad equum rescribere. (Gal. 1. 42 . 6 ) C a e sa r’s c o rp u s, b u t he defends it fro m deletion b y M eusel and oth ers w ith th e attractive su g g e stio n th a t C aesar in te n d s the w o rd to reflect cam p parlance. 29 D ire ct speech o f c o m m o n soldiers in Gallic War. aquilifer (4.25.3), legatus (5.30.2—3), centurio (5.44.3), centurio (7.50.4, 6); cf. also captivus (6.35.8) a n d Haeduus (7 .3 8 .2 -3 , 6 - 8 ). It has been arg u ed th at these exam ples o f direct speech, all o c cu rrin g in th e later books, indicate th at C aesar did n o t have tim e to co m p lete revisions. Plain style: C ic. Brut. 262; H irtiu s Gal. 8 .p ra e f.6 —9; cf. the re m a rk s o f C aesar h im s e lf as p re serv e d at Gell. 1.10.4. T h ird -p e rs o n narrative: C aesar clearly follow s a tra d itio n in avoiding the use o f the first p e rso n for h im s e lf (as does, fo r exam ple, T h u cy d id es, as w ell as X e n o p h o n in Anabasis), b u t th is does n o t m ean th a t a leveling effect is still n o t created, and even intended, as a result (see also n. 28 above). 30 T h e re o c cu r m an y instances o f n arrativ e iro n y th at could be classified as h u m o ro u s b u t th a t fall o u tsid e th e scope o f the p re sen t discussion. M o st o f these o c cu r in th e Ciuil War. F o r exam ple, at Civ. 3 .3 0 .6 C aesar describes in detail P o m p e iu s’ careful p reparations so th at his forces w ill n o t be d etected b y th e foe A n to n iu s. T h e sentence follow ing this d e sc rip tio n is haec ad A ntonium statim per Graecos dejeruntur (“ this n ew s w a s im m ediately re p o rte d to A n to n iu s th ro u g h so m e G re ek s”); see also C iv. 3.31.1, w ith M alcovati’s co m ­ m en ts in O R F p. 455.

After this happened, one o f the soldiers from the Tenth Legion said rather w ittily that Caesar was d oing m ore for him than he had promised: for after prom ising that he w ou ld have the Tenth Legion as a general’s bodyguard, h e’s n ow registering them am ong the equites (ad equum rescribere).

A s in th e o th e r jo k e s fro m C aesar I have cited, the h u m o r here depends u p o n sim p le w o rdplay. In this co n tex t, the phrase ad equum rescribere lite r­ ally m eans “tran sfer to the cavalry” ; b u t the ph rase can also describe the technical pro cess b y w h ich a censor transfers a citizen to the class o f the equites, th e h ig h est census ra n k in g for a R o m an w h o does n o t belo n g to th e p o litical aristocracy. A p a rt fro m its singularity as the on ly w o rd p lay labeled as a jo k e in th e ex tan t C aesarian corpus, the passage strikes the read er as even m o re curious because, b y using the litotes non inridicule (literally “n o t u n la u g h a b ly ”), C aesar appears to apologize for in tro d u c ­ in g th e jo k e in to his h istorical narrative. T h e anecdote becom es even m o re sig n ifican t w h e n o n e recalls fro m S uetonius that, as a general, C ae­ sar o ften sh o w ed o f f his w it.31 Yet, as I have n o ted , C aesar has chosen in his co m m en taries n o t to a ttrib u te w itticism s to him self. T h e re are tw o explanations, n o t necessarily m u tu ally exclusive, for w h y C aesar relates this jo k e and chooses to attrib u te it to an an o n y m o u s soldier. T h e first has already received consideration. Ju s t as o th er aspects o f C aesa r’s n arrativ e indicate a m an concerned w ith leveling social b o u n d aries, w ith p resen tin g h im se lf as a su p p o rte r o f p o p u lar causes, so h ere to o th e an ecdote h u m o ro u sly toys w ith the n o tio n o f a c o m m o n fo o t soldier b ec o m in g an im p o rta n t figure in R o m an society. T h is liberal stance has o f course o ften been recognized as an im p o rta n t co m p o n en t o f C aesar’s p o p u la r im ag e.32 T h e jo k e o f the soldier, then, depicts C aesar v alo rizin g in d iv idual m erit in o p p o sitio n to the m o re trad itio n al m eans o f ad v an cem en t in R om e, th at is, th ro u g h affiliation w ith p ro m in e n t fam ilies. C icero recognized C aesar’s p ro m o tio n o f individual w o rth re­ gardless o f b irth as an effective m eans for the general to gain p o p u larity at th e b e g in n in g o f the civil w ar, as farm ers and provincials rushed to jo in C aesar’s tro o p s (A t t . 8.13 = SB 163). T h is fo reg ro u n d in g o f individual m e rit recalls th e discussion o f P o m p e iu s’ w it. A n im p o rta n t difference, h o w ev er, sh o u ld be n o ted : before th e civil w a r at least, C aesar positions h im se lf in th e co m p an y o f his equally deserving soldiers, n o t alone. 31 F or th e h u m o r o f th e general C aesar in S uetonius, see th e e p ig ra m m a tic sta te m en t at IuL 34.2, th e h y p e rb o lic h a ran g u e to his tro o p s at IuL 66, a n d the m eans o f avoiding b a d o m en s d escrib ed at IuL 59 (one o f w h ic h , th e a p o tro p a ic re m a rk terteo te, Africa, is praised for its stra te g y at F ro n tin . Strut. 1 .12.2 a n d D io 4 2 .5 8 .2 -3 ). P olyaenus also re co rd s h o w C aesar used his w it to q uell a p o ten tial re v o lt (8.23.15). 32 See Y avetz passim . F or m o c k e ry o f C a e sa r’s lib erality b y co n te m p o ra ries, see C aeliu s’ c o m p lica te d puns at Fam. 8 .1 .4 (SB 77): Plancus . . . magno congiario donatus a Caesare nec beatus nec bene instructus est (“ a lth o u g h C aesar has given P lancus a large b o n u s, Plancus h a sn ’t b e co m e a n y b e tte r o ff [ = b e tte r educated]” ).

Yet th e jo k e reveals m o re ab o u t C aesar’s self-conception: a second ex­ p lan atio n o f th e h u m o ro u s reg istratio n am o n g the equites approaches the an ecd o te fro m the p o in t o f view n o t o f the so ld iers’ change in status but o f C aesa r’s. T h e jo k e ’s figural re stru ctu rin g o f society transform s the general in to a censor, a m agistrate w h o is em p o w ered to m ake decisions o v er th e status o f R o m an citizens. H ere the parallel w ith the full signifi­ cance o f P o m p e iu s’ h u m o r becom es apparent. F or this jo k e, w h ile pre­ sen tin g an ap p arently egalitarian C aesar, at th e sam e tim e underscores his o w n p ro m in en c e b y p o rtra y in g h im as possessing the pow er to m ake u n ilateral decisions re g ard in g citizenship. O n e can com pare P o m p eiu s’ less su b tle claim th at it w as th ro u g h his o w n actions, and n o t those o f the republic, th at th e consul M arcellinus h ad the p o w e r o f free speech. T h e in clu sio n o f the jo k e o n C aesar th e censor has d isru p ted the to n e created b y C aesar th e n arrato r. T h e general w h o und erstan d s his c o m m o n sol­ diers m u st at th e sam e tim e have en o u g h p o w e r to co n tro l them . T his p arad o x ical b u t inevitable ro le o f Ju liu s C aesar, as a p o p u list w h o tow ers o v er th e people, w as to p ro v id e a focus for the political invective directed ag ain st h im as a statesm an.

J u liu s C a e s a r A s S ta te s m a n

C aesar’s self-ap p o in tm e n t as figural censor in the Gallic War w as fore­ sh ad o w ed b y th e m o ck ery o f his actions as consul in 59. A ccording to S u eto n iu s’ account o f this year, C aesar instilled fear in th e senate by forci­ b ly expelling fro m the fo ru m his consular colleague B ibulus (Iu l. 20.1). As in th e case o f P om peius, th e th o u g h t o f o n e-m an ru le spurs the R o­ m an w it: unus ex eo tem pore om nia in re publica et ad arbitrium administravit, ut n onnulli urbanorum , cum quid per iocum testandi gratia signarent, non Caesare et B ibulo, sed Iulio et Caesare consulibus actum scriberent bis eundem praeponentes n om in e atque cognom ine, utque vu lgo m o x ferrentur hi versus: “n on B ibulo quiddam nuper sed Caesare factum est: nam B ibulo fieri consule nil m em in i.“ (Suet. I u l. 20.2) From that m om en t on one man controlled all state affairs, and did so at his ow n discretion, so that there w ere several w its w h o , w hen sealing som e­ thing as a w itness, used to w rite out the date in jest not as taking place in the consulship o f Bibulus and Caesar, but o f Julius and Caesar (they were re­ cording the sam e m an tw ice, using his fam ily name and cognom en). In addition, the fo llow in g verses were soon widespread: “N o t a thing hap-

pened recently in B ib u lu s’ term, but in Caesar’s. / For I d on ’t rem em ber anything happening w hen Bibulus was consul. ”

S u eto n iu s’ in tro d u c to ry rem ark s o n o n e -m a n rule indicate th at he be­ lieved these lam p o o n s to originate as m u ch fro m fear o f C aesar as fro m m o c k e ry o f B ib ulus. E ven i f S u eto n iu s’ o w n co m m en ts derive fro m h in d sig h t, th e anecdotes he cites clearly d em o n strate p o p u lar reco g n itio n th a t C aesar’s acts w ere unusual, affecting, it is jo k in g ly claim ed, even the w ay th e R o m an s dated th eir business transactions. Such co n tra ry behav­ io r o n C aesa r’s p a rt did n o t beg in w ith his consulship. A n aw areness o f C a e sa r’s u n iq u e p o ten tial survives in the m o ck ery o f his behavior fro m th e earliest stages o f his political career. I have h ad m an y occasions to re m a rk o n h o w the R om ans valued w it sp o k en in defense against h u m o ro u s abuse, a technique the rhetoricians call h u m o r in respondendo. Seneca notes that V atinius did n o t condescend to this technique, b u t rather, in the spirit o f a tru e p h ilo so p h er (sapiens), accepted th e abuse o f his physical deform ities and even directed such ab u se ag ain st h im self.33 U n fo rtu n ately , n o co n tem p o ran eo u s exam ple su rv iv es illu stratin g h o w V atinius follow ed this practice. H ow ever, so m e exchanges fro m the early career o f o n e o f his principal political allies, Ju liu s C aesar, p ro v id e so m e n o tio n o f h o w this self-effacing rh e to ric m ay have operated . F or w h e n C aesar is co n fro n ted w ith abuse th at follow s the tra d itio n a l lines o f R o m a n h u m o r as I have outlined th e m in th e p reced­ in g ch ap ters, he does n o t atte m p t refutations in respondendo. Instead, he em braces th e charges levied. T h e w ay a m an chose to dress o r ad o rn h im se lf frequently affords a p o litical o p p o n e n t the o p p o rtu n ity fo r verbal ab u se.34 T h e y o u n g C aesar p ro v id ed ju s t such a targ et. H is dress indicated to Sulla the dan g er he w o u ld re p resen t to the aristocratic class o f the optimates: etiam cultu notabilem ferunt [Caesarem]: usum enim Iato clavo ad manus fim briato nec um quam aliter quam ut super eum cingeretur, et quidem fluxiore cinctura; unde em anasse Sullae dictum optim ates saepius adm onentis, ut m ale praecinctum puerum caverent. (Suet. IuL 45.3; cf. Macr. S a t. 2.3.9) T h ey say Caesar too w as notable for his dress: for he w ore a senatorial tunic that had fringes at the hands and w as always belted so that it hung loosely. A s a result came the anecdote that Sulla w as continually w arning the o p ti­ m ates to w atch out for the p oorly girded boy (m ale praecinctum p u e ru m ).

T h e th ird -c e n tu ry CE h isto rian D io C assius adds th at the looseness o f C aesa r’s dress d ro v e Sulla to desire the y oung m a n ’s death (43.43.4). A t 33 Sen. Dial. 2.1 7 .3 , q u o te d in c h ap ter I. 34 I discuss the c o d in g o f d ifferen t fo rm s o f R o m a n m ale dress in c h ap ter 4.

th e en d o f C aesar’s career, C icero to o n o ted the m a n ’s unusual style o f clo th in g :35 p o s t v ic to r ia m C a e sa ris [C ic e ro ] in te rro g a tu s c u r in e le c d o n e p a rtis erra sse t: r e s p o n d it “ p ra e c in c tu ra m e d e c e p it.” (M acr. Sa t. 2 .3 .9 ) A f te r C a e s a r’s v ic to ry , C ic e ro , w h e n a sk e d w h y h e h a d e rre d in h is c h o ic e o f sid es, re p lie d , “T h e s tra n g e g ir d in g (praecinctura) d ec e iv e d m e .”

C icero m o ck s the sam e ty p e o f dress w ith w h ich Sulla earlier had found fault (praecinctum , praecinctura). C hoice o f clothing, it seem s, had a cor­ relation w ith political choice. P lu tarch records that C icero later ad m itted th at he n ever th o u g h t a m an w h o looked and acted as C aesar did could o v e rth ro w the republic (C aes. 4.9). D io m ay be using the sam e source as P lu tarch w h e n he qu o tes C icero, deceived by C aesar’s dress, as saying he n ever w o u ld have suspected th at one w h o g ird ed h im self so p o o rly could defeat P o m p eiu s (“ο ύ κ α ν π ο τ ε π ρ ο σ ε δ ό κ η σ α το ν κ α κ ώ ς ο ϋ τω ζω νν ύ μ ε ν ο ν Π ο μ π η ίο υ κ ρ α τ ή σ ε ιν ”; 43.43.5). A ccording to these later sources, then, Ju liu s C aesar co nsistently ad opted an unusual w ay o f dress, o n e th at h e retains fro m the days o f Sulla up until at least the civil w ar. T h e fact th at Sulla is said to have used C aesar’s appearance to w arn th e optimates indicates th at a m o d e o f dress could be read as a statem en t o f o p p o sitio n to th e aristocracy. It w o u ld n o t have been o u t o f character for C aesar consciously to ad o p t an appearance th at w as so coded. H is rh e to r­ ical and stylistic m aneuvers in th e w a r co m m en taries also serve to align h im w ith th e n o n aristo cratic elem ent. C aesar used his dress to distin­ gu ish h im se lf fro m the elite. C aesar’s o w n w itticism s fro m th e p erio d can be used to test the hy­ po thesis th at his dress represents a statem en t o f o p p o sitio n to elite stan­ dards o f appearance. In these jo k e s, C aesar questions m o re directly the trad itio n al values p ro p a g ated in R o m an h u m o ro u s abuse. T h e p rev io u s chapter surveyed the m o ck ery o f C aesar’s an d ro g y n o u s character: as a m an for all w o m e n and a w o m a n for all m en (Suet. Iul. 52.3), he w as o p en to charges o f being N ico m ed e s’ catam ite (e.g., Iul. 49). A t th e sam e tim e — in an ap p aren t p arad o x — he posed a th reat to the ch astity o f R o m an m atro n s (e.g., Iu l. 51). T h e subject o f C aesar’s dual 35 I assum e that the w o rd victoriam refers to a military, and n o t electoral, victory and hence the anecdote depicts C icero’s w ell-know n hesitation in choosing sides at the begin­ ning o f the civil war. T here are three good reasons to believe that the anecdote given here by M acrobius repre­ sents an actual statem ent o f Cicero: it is reported together w ith Sulla’s sim ilar rem ark, rendering it less likely that one has here simply a m isattribution o f speaker; the rem ark resembles the statem ent Plutarch ascribes to Cicero at Cacs. 4.9 (m entioned below in the text); and, m ost im portant, M acrobius’ apparent access to “T iro ’s” edition o f C icero’s jokes (see n. 20 above) makes it likely that M acrobius used this w ork as his source here.

sex u ality reappears in S u eto n iu s’ account o f an exchange in the senate in th e year 59 b c e . C aesar has ju s t acquired Gallia C isalpina and C o m ata as his p ro c o n su la r p ro v in ce s.36 quo gaudio elatus non temperavit, quin paucos post dies frequenti curia iactaret invitis et gementibus adversaris adeptum se quae concupisset, proinde ex eo insultaturum omnium capitibus; ac negante quodam per contumeliam facile hoc ulli feminae fore, respondent quasi adludens: in Suria quoque regnasse Sameramin magnamque Asiae partem Amazonas tenuisse quondam. {Suet. Iu l. 22.2) Overjoyed by this, he didn’t refrain from boasting in a crowded senate house a few days later that he had gotten what he wanted, in spite o f unwill­ ing and complaining opponents. As a result, [he said] he would pounce on all their heads (insultaturum omnium capitibus). When someone said in abuse that that would be a difficult thing for a woman to do, [Caesar] answered as if he were making an allusion: “In Syria too Semiramis was queen and the Amazons once held sway over a great part o f Asia. ” In re p ly to C aesar’s tau n t th at h e w ill force the en tire senate to fellate h im (insultaturum omnium capitibus) ,37 o n e o f those p resen t alludes abusively to C aesar’s re p u ta tio n as a passive p artn e r in sexual relations w ith m en. T his re p u ta tio n h ad assuredly been stren g th en e d by C aesar’s refusal to alter the le n g th o f his n o to rio u s tunic. In rep ly in g to the accusation o f effem ­ inacy, C aesar ad o pts an u n c o m m o n stance. In the su rv iv in g exam ples o f R epublican abuse it is rare for the p erso n u n d er attack to accept openly, and th en agree w ith , the criticism o f an o p p o n e n t.38 C aesar em braces the charge o f effem inacy b y co m p arin g h im se lf to “o th e r” fam ous w o m e n o f g reat m ilitary prow ess, including S em iram is, a queen w h o provides C ic­ ero w ith an abusive appellation for the effem inate G abinius (Prov. 9). 36 B u tle r a n d C a ry n o te cautiously o n this passage th a t th ere is n o valid reason to reject its h isto ric ity : “T h e sto ry seem s a lm o st incredible. T ru cu len c e w as n o t a characteristic o f C aesar. B u t th e acc o u n t is explicit, and th e in cid en t is alleged to have tak e n place frequenti senatu, w h ic h tells ag ain st its being p u re fiction. ” O n e m ig h t a d d th a t C a e sa r’s “ tru cu len c e ” beco m es c o n sid erab ly m itig ate d w h e n it is n o te d th at S uetonius im plies w ith invitis et gem­ entibus adversaris th a t C a e sa r’s initial b o a st w as a p ro m p te d response (i.e., o f the valued ty p e in respondendo). 37 R ichlin 1992a: 14 9 -5 0 ; A dam s 200. C o m p a re th e fre q u e n t th reats o f irrumatio (“o ral ra p e ”) as an in stru m e n t o f d e g rad a tio n in the invective p o e try o f C a tu llu s, M artial, a n d the corpus Priapeum (R ichlin 1992a passim ). 38 V atinius, as already m en tio n ed , seem s to be an ex ceptional case (Sen. D ial. 2.17.3; cf. also th e re to rt o f H o rte n siu s at G ell. 1.5.2—3, q u o te d in c h ap ter 4). C onversely, there are m a n y ex am p les o f an o p p o n e n t accepting criticism and th en so m e h o w altering th at criti­ cism e ith e r in to a tra d itio n a l v irtu e (the C ic e ro /C Io d iu s debate at Au. 1.16.10 = SB 16) o r in to a criticism o f his o p p o n e n t (M ancia’s tira d e ag ain st P o m p eiu s). C a esar’s re p ly here falls in to n e ith e r category.

T h is an ecdote fro m S uetonius exem plifies w ell h o w C aesar em bodies a th reat to th e stability created and m aintained b y political invective. B y em b racin g the charges th at have been leveled against him , C aesar o p en ly asserts his p o w e r o v er the traditional, elite standards th at this type o f h u m o ro u s m o ck ery su p p o rts. A final ex am ple o f C aesar’s w it before Pharsalus concerns th e usd o f p erfum es, w h o se associations w ith excessive banqueting, dancing, and sexual activ ity w ere sh o w n in chapter 4. A fter discussing C aesar’s rela­ tive gentleness as a m ilitary co m m an d er, S uetonius adds the follow ing note: ac nonnum quam post m agnam pugnam atque victoriam rem isso officiorum m unere licentiam om nem passim lasciviendi permittebat, iactare solitus “m ilites suos edam unguentatos bene pugnare p o sse.” (Suet. I u l. 67.1) And often after a great m ilitary victory he relaxed the burden o f [his sol­ diers’] duties and perm itted everyw here every type o f license. H is custom ­ ary boast w as “M y soldiers can fight w ell even w hen w earing perfume (etiam unguentatos)."

C aesar o nce again o p en ly defies the co m m o n ethical standards o f R o m an h u m o ro u s invective, in w h ich p erfu m ed banqueting never receives praise. T h is is n o t to say, o f course, that C aesar w o u ld necessarily have allow ed his m en to fig h t w hile w earin g perfum e. Yet his re m a rk points to an aw areness o f certain n o rm s th at R o m an h u m o r represented. T h ro u g h his conscious o p p o sitio n to these n o rm s (as im plied b y etiam, “ev en ”), th e general acknow ledges the value o f his m en as individuals capable o f b attlin g successfully, regardless o f any p re su m e d standards p ro p a g ated in political invective. T h is com pletes the su rv ey o f w it em ployed b o th b y and against C aesar before the civil w ar. I f the e x tan t sources are reliable— one can certainly tru st th e passages fro m th e Gallic War and there seem s little reason n o t to tru st S u eto n iu s— then a provocative picture o f C aesar em erges. T he jo k es related b y C aesar the au th o r indicate his concern to be seen as a sy m p ath etic sp o k esm an for the c o m m o n soldier; yet in the one jo k e in w h ich th e general h im se lf appears, C aesar figures h im se lf as a p ro m in en t political m ag istrate, m ak in g unilateral decisions regarding the status o f o th er citizens. T h is stance resem bles his p o sitio n as a statesm an at R om e in th e years p reced in g his p ro co n su lsh ip in Gaul. T h e w it directed against h im at this tim e p o rtray s C aesar as an individual standing in open o pposi­ tion to trad itio n al standards o f R o m an h u m o ro u s abuse. Indeed, that p o rtray al is verified by th e type o f invective w ielded b y C aesar him self, w h o o ften chooses th o se traditional standards as his target. In dress and in speech, C aesar p ro m o te s an un trad itio n al individuality. As was the

case w ith Pom peius, h u m o r reveals a preem inent individual presenting a distinct alternative to the norm s o f the traditional aristocracy. T he situa­ tion does not change in the period following the civil war. J u l i u s C a e s a r d ic t a t o r

For the post—civil w ar period the extant sources provide a greater am ount o f m aterial from w hich to evaluate Caesar’s ow n use o f hum or. In 47 b c e , B rutus was am ong those w orking to preserve the kingdom o f the Gala­ tian ruler D eiotarus. Caesar, upon hearing his vehem ent entreaties, re­ m arked: “I d o n ’t know w hat this young m an w ants, but everything he wants he w ants badly” (οϋτος ό ν εα ν ία ς ούκ ο ιδ α μεν δ βούλεται, π α ν δ ’ δ βούλεται σ φ όδρ α βούλεται; Plut. Brut. 6.4). Caesar follows the same tradition Pom peius had w hen he m ocked M arcellinus’ excessively passionate delivery.39 Yet Caesar’s seem ingly innocent jo k e takes on sin­ ister overtones if one considers the historical context o f B rutus’ speech. B rutus does not, as w ould have been the case in the prew ar Republic, plead for D eiotarus before the senate, b ut before the single authority o f Caesar as dictator. Cicero rem arks in his ow n speech on behalf o f De­ iotarus how this situation calls for a new type o f oratory (Deiot. 40; cf. Lig. 30, quoted below). It is no longer necessary to voice appeals to pity, Cicero argues, since Caesar’s famous “clem ency” (misericordia) arises spontaneously and does not require rhetorical argum ents for its em ploy­ m ent. B rutus’ unclear appeals, then, may reflect n o t an inept speaking m ethod but an uncertainty o f how his plea will be understood by the dictator, now the sole dispenser o f justice. It appears that others w ere m ocked by Caesar as well for their uncer­ tainty about how to behave before him. Cicero notes that Atticus was kidded by Julius Caesar for excessive use o f “ please” (quaeso) in a letter Atticus w rote to ask the dictator for a favor (A tt. 12.6a.2 = SB 243). A letter o f Cicero to Caesar from 54 also points to Caesar’s dislike o f exces­ sive deference. Cicero records how he was “justly m ocked” by Caesar (iure lusisti) for a breach o f im propriety— perhaps a joke (Fam. 7.5.3 = SB 26). These three examples— from B rutus, Atticus, and C icero— point to a Caesar w hose unique position o f superiority befuddles those w ho are attem pting to address him. 39 C om pare, for exam ple, the jokes o n the vehem ent speaking style o f C urio pater at Brut. 216—17 (cf. Q uin t. Inst. 11.3.129) and Val. Max. 9.14.5. Cf. also Brut. 225 (Sextus Titius); Q uint. Inst. 11.3.126. For other exam ples o f C aesar em ploying jokes that accord w ith “traditional” categories, see Plut. Caes. 62.5 (w here he m ocks the effeminate appearance o f Dolabella and A ntonius), 52.9 (m ocking a soldier’s cowardice, for w hich one can com pare De orat. 2.272 [Africanus]); Q uint. Inst. 6.3.75 [Caesar Strabo]).

T u rn in g n o w to C aesar’s w itticism s in a m o re public co n tex t, one finds th at, like P o m p e iu s’ o r C aesar’s o w n p re w a r jo k e s, the h u m o ro u s ad hominem attacks C aesar em ploys do n o t em erge fro m the trad itio n al R o m an values p ro p o u n d e d in h u m o r. R ather, as the above rem ark s to B ru tu s, A tticu s, and C icero d em o n strate— alth o u g h there the w itticism s are less b arb ed — C aesar’s p u b lic invective springs fro m the d ic ta to r’s feelings o f su p erio rity and condescension. S uetonius devotes a section o f C aesar’s b io g rap h y to explaining th e u n p o p u la rity th at led to th e d ic ta to r’s assassination. First he cites C aesar’s failure to rise w h e n approached b y a d ep u tatio n o f senators bearing h im h o n o rs (Iu l. 78.1). T h e second explanation advanced by the biographer, d atin g fro m O c to b e r 45, conveys C aesar’s sense o f h u m o r: idque factum eius tanto intolerabilius est visum , quod ipse triumphant! et subsellia tribunicia praetervehenti sibi unum e collegio Pontium Aquilam non assurrexisse adeo indignatus sit, ut proclamaverit: “repete ergo a me, A quila, rem publicam tribunus!” (Suet. Iul. 78.2) A nd this action o f his seem ed all the m ore intolerable because he had h im self b ecom e angry w hen Pontius A quila, a m em ber o f his ow n augural college, did n o t rise w hen Caesar w as passing in triumph by the seats o f the tribunes. A s a result [the general] shouted out: “Go ahead, Aquila, take back the republic from m e— Mr. Tribune!”

T h e m ean in g is clear. In his final triu m p h o f the civil w ar, C aesar rep re­ sents the state as his o w n personal possession. T h e attack does n o t rep re­ sent sim p ly disdain for A quila. T h ro u g h the scornful w o rd tribunus, placed em p hatically in final p o sitio n to h eig h ten the iro n y betw een his o w n p o w e r an d A q u ila’s relative im potence, C aesar underscores his lack o f co n cern for th e pow ers o f the im p o rta n t office o f the tribunate. A c­ co rd in g to S uetonius, C aesar’s iro n ic abuse o f A quila’s actions did n o t sto p here: et nec destiterit per continuos dies quicquam cuiquam nisi sub exceptione polliceri: “si tamen per Pontium A quilam licuerit.” (Suet. Iul. 78.2) A nd over the course o f the days that follow ed he did not refrain from prom ­ ising anything to anyone w ithou t adding the follow in g proviso: “O n ly w ith the perm ission o f Pontius A quila.”

A gain C aesa r’s b arb em erges fro m the p o in t o f view o f one secure in his o w n u n iq u e p o sitio n o f pow er, a po sitio n gained at the expense o f o th er trad itio n al R epublican offices. A quila, how ever, did eventually w ith h o ld his perm issio n . H isto ry n e x t finds his nam e in a list o f th e assassins on the Ides o f M arch (A ppian B C 2.113; cf. D io 46.38.3). In th e b eg in n in g o f 44, co ntroversy reig ned in R o m e over w h e th e r

C aesar w as p lan n in g a k in g sh ip fo r him self. A ccording to P lu ta rc h ’s ac­ co u n t, in th e days fo llo w in g an attem p ted co ro n atio n o f the d ictato r at th e festival o f th e Lupercalia, statues o f C aesar w ere found w ith crow ns o n th e ir heads. T w o trib u n es o f that year, Flavius and M arullus, im m e ­ d iately rem o v ed th e crow ns and arrested those suspected o f w a n tin g C ae­ sar to b ec o m e k in g (Plut. Caes. 61.8).40 As a resu lt o f th e trib u n e s’ ac­ tio n s, th e p eo p le gave these tw o m en the n icknam e Brutus, in reference to th e leg en d ary regicide w h o ended th e k in g sh ip in 509 b c e . C aesar did n o t, acco rd in g to P lu tarch , w elco m e this praise: έπΐ τούτα) Καισαρ παροξυνθεις τήν μέν άρχήν άφείλετο τών περί τόν Μάρυλλον, έν δε τφ κατηγορεΐν αύτών αμα κα'ι τόν δήμον έφυβρίζων πολλάκις Βρούτους τε και Κυμαίους άπεκάλει τούς άνδρας. (Plut. Caes. 61 . 10)

And Caesar, angered at this, deposed from office Marullus and his hench­ man, and in his accusations o f them he upbraided the people as well, by repeatedly referring to the tribunes as “Brutes” and “Cumaeans.” P art o f th e h u m o r here derives fro m a p u n o n the literal m eaning o f Brutus (“dull w itte d ”): C aesar m ocks the tribunes for their stupidity. B u t w h e n o n e considers C aesar’s role in the jo k e , the re m a rk becom es a selffulfilling statem en t, m u ch as had his “cen so r” jo k e in the Gallic War. A s C aesar ridicules th e peo p le for using th e nam e Brutus b y h im se lf p u n n in g u p o n its validity, th e v ery p o w e r the dictato r w ields in allow ing h im to d ep o se these trib u n es attests to his o w n role as a k in d o f auth o ritarian king. E v en i f it is true, as the h istorians A ppian (B C 2.108) and N icolaus (frag. 130.69) suggest, th at M arullus and Flavius engineered this entire affair— in clu d in g the cro w n in g o f the statues— in o rd e r to discredit C ae­ sar, this conclusion still rem ains valid. B y this account, C aesar’s reaction to th e ruse— his im m e d ia te dism issal o f the m en fro m th eir rig h tfu l office— co n firm s the very p o in t that the trib u n es w ere attem p tin g to ex­ press th ro u g h th eir alleged deception. T h e e p ith et “ C u m aea n s” (Ku μ α Coi) m ay also be revealing o f C aesar’s character. T h e adjective is usually explained b y referring to a passage in w h ich th e g eo g rap h er S trabo co m m en ts o n th e proverbial stu p id ity o f th e in h ab itan ts o f C u m ae (13.622). C o m m e n ta to rs, how ever, have n o ted th at such an ex p lanation does n o t yield a do u b le sense— as the n am e B ru tu s d o es— in any reference to k in g sh ip .41 T h a t P lu tarch does n o t gloss th e p u n suggests th at a clue can be found in his text. Such a clue occurs in th e p revious ch ap ter o f C aesar’s b io g rap h y (Caes. 60.1). T h e re 40 T he incident also appears in Liv. Perioch. 116; Plut. Caes. 60.2—3; D io 44.9-10; Appian B C 2.108. 41 See, for exam ple, Garzetti ad loc.

A P O L IT IC A L H IS T O R Y O F W IT

201

Plutarch recounts that those w h o w ished Caesar to becom e king had spread an oracle from the Sibylline books prophesying that the Romans could conquer Parthia only under the aegis o f a king. Legend had it that Tarquin received the original Sibylline books from Cumae. W ith the epithet “C um aeans,” then, Caesar m ocks the tribunes as “Sibyls” be­ cause they have referred to this prophecy o f the Sibylline books as p ro o f that Caesar plans to make h im self k in g.42 Such m ockery o f the trappings o f Rom an religion characterizes other w itticism s told by the dictator.43 O n this reading, Caesar’s w it has dual force: Marullus and Flavius be­ com e “stupid regicides” w h o have arrived from Cum ae spreading unbe­ lievable prophesies. In the case o f hum or directed against the dictator, one finds a general awareness o f h o w im proper it was felt to invest one figure w ith control over the various powers o f the Republic that had form erly belonged to the senate and people. Since many o f the jokes concerning Caesar’s ma­ nipulation o f political institutions are familiar and require little exegesis, I shall pass through them quickly; they clearly portray Caesar as a prom i­ nent and dangerous individual. In May 49, Cicero reports to Caelius the recent political advancement o f tw o Rom an equites, O ppius and Curtius, at the hands o f Caesar: togam praetextam texi O ppio puto te audisse; nam Curtius noster dibaphum cogitat, sed eum infector moratur. hoc aspersi ut scires m e tamen in stom acho solere ridere. (Fam. 2.16.7 = SB 154) 42 T h e e x ta n t sources fo r the S ibylline p ro p h e sy are all late (alth o u g h see D iv . 2.110, w ith P ease’s f 1963] note), and speak o f it as a r u m o r th at circulated in the days p rio r to C a e sa r’s assassination (Suet. Iu l. 79.3; varia fama percrebuit; P lu t. Coes. 60.2: λ ό γ ο ν ι ι ν α κ α τ έ σ π ε ιρ α ν ; A p p ian B C 2.110: λ ό γ ο ς . . . έφ ο ίτα ; D io 44.15.3: λ ό γο υ . . . τ ίν ο ς . . . δ ιε λ θ ό ν τ ο ς). T h e lan g u ag e o f th e sources ren d ers it p ossible th at this ru m o r h ad c urrency in early 44, w h e n th e trib u n es w ere deposed. O n C a esar’s plans for a cam paign against P arthia, see G elzer 322. 43 I have already h a d occasion to m e n tio n tw o o th e r instances o f C a esar’s m o ck e ry o f religious p ractice, n a m e ly S u e to n iu s’ re co rd o f C a esar’s a tte m p ts to avert o m en s (/«/. 59 in n. 31). S uetonius also records C a esar’s re m a rk u p o n fin d in g a sacrificial v ictim w ith o u t a h e art— “nec pro ostento ducendum si pecudi cor deJUisset"— “it sh o u ld n o t be considered a p o r­ te n t i f a cow d o e sn ’t have a cor” (Iul. 77; cor m eans b o th " h e a rt” and “b ra in ” o r “sense”). T h e b io g ra p h e r in te rp rets th e re m a rk as indicative o f C a esar’s arrogance in desiring o n e m an rule. C ice ro , h o w ev er, also m o ck s this ty p e o f d iv in atio n at Dit>. 2.37 and w as skepti­ cal th a t th e Sibylline b o o k s contained a n y th in g o th e r th an vague riddles (D iv. 2.110—11). Poly aen u s (8.23.33) reco rd s a sim ila r in cid en t c o n ce rn in g C aesar and says his quick w it en co u rag ed th e soldiers. It is difficult to evaluate the h isto ric ity o f such anecdotes. L ucan’s epic attests to a tra d itio n th at reg ard ed C aesar as im p io u s (cf. his v iolation o f a sacred grove at 3.399—439; o n th e d e b t C a esar’s d e p ic tio n has here to prev io u s literature, see Phillips). T h ese and o th e r c o m plexities su rro u n d in g th e politics o f R o m an religion at this period, to g e th e r w ith C a e sa r’s silence ab o u t g o d s, om ens, o r divin atio n in his w ritin g s, m ak e it v irtu a lly im p o ssib le to assess th ese jo k e s w ith any confidence.

I th in k y o u ’ve h ea rd th a t a b o rd ered p rie st’s to g a is b ein g w o v en fo r O p p iu s; o u r friend C u rtiu s is plan n in g o n a d o u b le-d y ed on e [as w o rn by th e au­ g urs], b u t th e dy er is m a k in g h im w ait. I’ve sprin k led this in so y o u ’ll k n o w th a t— a lth o u g h I’m u p se t— I can nevertheless usually la u g h .44

T he hum or o f C icero’s remarks derives from the unusual situation o f equites adopting priestly roles, a situation recalling the com m on soldiers w h o were “transferred to the cavalry” in the only jok e o f the G a llic War. Additional hum or com es from Cicero m aking the bestowal o f these of­ fices into a sim ple matter o f providing the appropriate garb— only a slow dyer keeps Curtius from practicing augury.45 Behind all this lurks the puppet master Julius Caesar, w h o is made conspicuous by his absence; the lack o f an agent to w h om the political gifts can be attributed only underscores the arbitrary nature o f their bestowal. T he abuse Caesar received for enlisting non-R om an elem ents into the senate is w ell-k n ow n . Again the jok es derive their hum or from the un­ precedented and therefore shocking nature o f Caesar’s actions. Suetonius records a pair o f popular lam poons current during the last tw o years o f Caesar’s life: p ereg rin is in se n atu m allectis. Iibellus p ro p o situ s est: “B o n u m factum : ne quis senatori novo cu ria m m o n stra re v e lit.” et ilia v u lg o canebantur: “G allos C aesar in triu m p h u m ducit, id em in curiam : Galli bracas d ep o su eru n t, la tu m clavum su m p s e ru n t.” (Suet. Iul. 80.2) W h en foreigners w ere ad m itte d in to the senate a placard w as p u t up read in g “G o o d deed:46 m ay n o o n e w ish to sh o w a n ew se n ato r th e w ay to th e senate house. ” T h e follow ing to o w as c o m m o n ly sung: “C aesar leads th e G auls in triu m p h — and likew ise in to the senate house: / th e G auls have pulled d o w n th e ir tro u sers, and p u t o n the se n ato r’s p u rp le s trip e .”

M acrobius preserves tw o jok es in w hich Cicero com plains o f the size o f the senate: ait C ice ro p rae tereu n ti L aberio et sedile quaerenti: “recepissem te nisi ang u ste s e d e re m .” (M acr. Sat. 2.3.10; cf. Sen. Contr. 7.3.9) 44 For praetexta as a priest’s robe, see Shackleton Bailey ad loc. 45 See T yrrell and Purser ad loc. for an interesting interpretation o f the injector as Julius Caesar. M anzo 127 asserts w ith o ut argum ent that injector refers “w ithout a doubt [to] C aesar.” 46 Bonum Jactum [sit] was apparently a formula used to provide an auspicious beginning to an edict; cf. Suet. Vitellius 14.4, Plaut. Poen. 16. T he second lam poon resembles C icero’s jo k e at Phil. 13.28.

C icero said to Laberius as he was passing b y [in the theater] in search o f his seat: “I’d have m ade room for you i f the seating [in the senatorial section] w eren’t so tig h t.”47 [Cicero] cum ab hospite suo P. M allio rogaretur ut decurionatum privigno eius expediret adsistente frequentia dixit: “R om ae, si vis, habebit; Pom peis difficile e st.” (Macr. Sat. 2.3.11) W hen C icero was asked by his friend Publius M allius to secure a provincial office for his step-son, because o f excessive crow ding [in the Roman senate Cicero] replied: “H e’ll get one at R om e, if you want; at Pom peii it’s difficult. ”

S uetonius reco rds C aesar’s reaction to criticism o f this type: “i f he had secured th e help o f vagabonds and assassins in safeguarding his reputa­ tion, these m en to o w o u ld have received the sam e so rt o f th an k s” as the n ew senators (si grassatorum et sicariorum ope in tuenda sua dignitate usus esset, talibus quoque se parem gratiam relaturum; IuL 72). T h e re m ark recalls C aesar’s w itticism s before Pharsalus. F or C aesar now , after having gained a p o sitio n o f great pow er, continues to m ock the conventional m eth o d s for facilitating political advancem ent: the loyal service o f even th e low est m em b ers o f society, C aesar im plies, w o u ld take precedence o v er trad itio n al qualities such as b irth and w ealth. T h e barbs against for­ eign senators also recall Sulla’s w a rn in g to the optimates about the young C aesa r’s stran g e choice o f clothing: bew are the m an w h o does n o t follow trad itio n . C aesar also m et w ith scorn for taking steps to co n tro l the electoral sphere. In late 46, C icero rem ark s to A tticus th at the dictator has the p o w e r to select candidates for R o m e ’s m agistracies w hile still in Spain. T h e o ra to r’s w ittic ism dem onstrates his feelings that the elections w ere b eco m in g m eaningless. scribe, quaeso, quid referat Celer egisse Caesarem cum candidatis, utrum ipse in Fenicularium an in Martium cam pum cogitet. et scire sane velim num quid necesse sit com itiis esse Romae. (Au. 12.8 = SB 245) Please w rite [to tell me] what Celer says Caesar has done in regard to the candidates, and w hether he h im self plans [to enter] the Campus Martius or 47 Shaw ad Ioc., follow ing S ch w artz 2 6 5 -6 6 , in te rp rets this jo k e as referring specifically to the fo reig n elem ents th at have been a d m itte d in to the senate. T h e a rg u m e n t ru n s as follow s: i f this a n ecd o te dates to th e gam es o f 47, th en L aberius h a d ju s t been p laying a S yrian slave o n stag e (M acr. Sat. 2.7.4) and is passing th ro u g h th e senatorial seating to his o w n place a m o n g the equites. Jo sep h u s says th at C aesar h a d p e rm itte d certain Syrians to sit in senatorial sections at th e gam es {Jewish Antiquities 14.210). H ence C ic e ro ’s je s t includes a reference to th ere bein g n o ro o m a m o n g th e senators for a n o th e r “ S y ria n .”

the Fenicularian field [in Spain]. I should very m uch like to k now w hether I have to be in R om e for the elections.

W hile a m ilitary leader in Gaul, C aesar had figurally u surped the pow ers o f censor. In a sim ilar fashion C icero envisions the co m m an d e r in Spain allo w in g th e c u rre n t field o f battle (Fenicularius . . . campus) to take prece­ d ence o v er th e trad itio n al field o f elections, the Campus Martius. Finally th ere are the m an y jo k e s ab o u t C aesar ap p o in tin g m en late in th e year to fill consular vacancies. T h e sh o rt ten u re o f these a p p o in tm e n ts— V atinius w as consul for on ly a few days, w h ile C aninius R ebilus held office for on ly o n e— resulted in criticism s th at the dictato r w as d en ig ratin g th e m o st im p o rta n t office o f the free R epublic (for ex­ am ple, Fam. 7.30.1 = SB 265; Suet. Iul. 76.2—3). C ic e ro ’s jo k e s on these occasions ra n k a m o n g his m o st clever. A fter V atinius’ sh o rt tenure the o ra to r re m a rk s o n h o w his consular term m ark ed a great p o rte n t— for d u rin g V atinius’ consulship th ere w as n eith er w in ter, spring, su m m er, n o r au tu m n (M acr. Sat. 2.3.5); w h e n V atinius upbraids C icero for n o t v isitin g h im w hile sick, the o ra to r responds: “I w a n ted to com e d u rin g y o u r co n sulship, b u t nightfall p revented m e ” (M acr. Sat. 2.3.5). C an in iu s R eb ilu s’ te rm w as even m o re rem arkable, says C icero, fo r at that tim e n o o n e ate lunch; n o crim es w ere c o m m itte d either, for the consul w as so v ig ilan t th at d u rin g his entire term he did n o t sleep (Fam. 7.30.1 = SB 265). M an y sim ilar jo k es su rv iv e.48 T h ey are o f particular interest here because o f th eir em phasis u p o n the irreg u lar n ature o f these events, an irre g u la rity that, as C icero points out, is really only laughable at a distance; to o n e w h o is present, the in co n g ru ity p o rten d s the end o f so m eth in g . A fte r settin g d o w n his jo k e s ab o u t C aninius in a letter to C u riu s, C icero rem ark s, “You th in k these things are fu n n y — th a t’s be­ cause y o u ’re n o t here. I f you w ere able to see this, you w o u ld n ’t hold b ack y o u r tears” (haec tibi ridicula videntur; non enim ades. quae si videres, lacrimas non teneres; Fam. 7 .30.2 = SB 265). C aesar’s d etracto rs easily m ake th e tran sitio n fro m jo k in g ab o u t the d ic ta to r’s absolute co n tro l over the consulship to attacking his alleged desire to b eco m e king. A q u ila’s refusal to stand as C aesar passed in tri­ u m p h p ro m p te d a response fro m the co n q u erin g general th at seem s to fig u re th e rep u b lic as his o w n h ard -earn ed possession. In a triu m p h fro m th e p rev io u s year, the m o ck in g song o f the soldiers anticipates C aesar’s fo rm u latio n : 48 M acr. Sat. 2 .3 .6 (C an in iu s as a “ h y p o th e tic a l” consul; th e riddle o ver in w h a t co n su l­ ship C a n in iu s w as co n su l— quaereretur quibus consulibus consul fiierit·, a n o th e r version o f C a­ nin iu s as th e consul w h o did n o t sleep, for w h ich see also D io 43.46.4, M acr. Sat. 7.3.10); M acr. Sat. 2 .2 .1 3 (cf. 7.3.10: in a d d itio n to fiam ines diales, th ere are n o w consules diales)·, M acr. Sat. 7 .3 .1 0 and P lu t. Caes. 58.3 (C icero p lan n ed to visit R ebilus w h e n consul, b u t n ig h t o v e rto o k h im ; the sam e jo k e is q u o te d in the te x t a b o u t V atinius).

ά θ ρ ό ο ι ά να β οή σ α ντες ειπ ο ν ότι, ά ν μέν καλώ ς ποιήσης, κολασθήση, ά ν δέ κακώ ς, βασιλεύ σεις. (D io 43.20.3) Shouting out altogether they said, “I f you behave well, you w ill be pun­ ished; i f you behave badly, you w ill be king. ”49

T he soldiers m ock Caesar’s desire to becom e king as w ell as the means by w h ich he intends to accom plish this desire— “by behaving badly.” Their chant in fact parodies a line from a child’s song— “w hoever be­ haves correctly w ill be king; w hoever doesn’t, w o n ’t” (rex erit qui recte faciet; qui non faciet non erit: Porphyrio on Hor. Epist. 1.1.62; cf. O tto n. 1537). T he w orld has turned upside down. A proverb— a repository for a culture’s values, as w ell as a com m on touchstone for Romans o f this period m ocking their opponents— no longer has any validity in the poli­ tics o f Caesar’s dictatorship.50 H um or could also turn to hyperbolic m ockery w h en it portrayed Cae­ sar conceiving o f h im self not merely as a king but as som ething more than human. Cicero remarks to Atticus in July 45 o f Caesar’s plans to enlarge the city: 0 rem indignam ! gentilis tuus urbem auget quam hoc biennio prim um vidit, et ei parum magna visa est quae etiam ipsum capere potuerit. (Att. 13.35.1 = SB 334) A shocking affair! Your namesake [an architect] is increasing a city that he saw for the first tim e only in the past couple o f years, and [Caesar] thought it w asn ’t big enough— even though it could hold him.51

T he hyperbole follow s the pattern o f a similar barb against Scipio Africanus’ am bitions that Cicero had recorded in O n the O rator.52 Caesar’s 49 A j o k e p re serv e d at Q u in t. Inst. 6.3.61 seem s to date fro m this sam e event. A fter w itn essin g the w o o d e n to w n s carried in Fabius M a x im u s’ triu m p h , follow ed b y th e iv o ry ones in C a e sa r’s, a certain C h ry sip p u s re m a rk e d th a t F abius’ trap p in g s w ere sim ply “ boxes for h o ld in g C a e sa r’s to w n s” (thecas esse oppidorum Caesaris dixit; cf. D io 43.42.1). 50 I k n o w o f n o e x am p le o f a speaker h u m o ro u sly in v ertin g a p ro v e rb for his o w n advan­ tage. B u t for th e c onverse— a speaker appealing to th e “universal t r u th ” o f a p roverb in o rd e r to su p p o rt his c o n d em n atio n o f an o p p o n e n t— see D e oral. 2.258, 261. 51 T y rre ll a n d P u rse r believe ad loc. th at C icero here playfully uses gentilis (“n am esake”) to in fo rm A tticu s th at th e arch itect is an A thenian. Shackleton B ailey ad loc. disagrees, a rg u in g th a t gentilis tuus m eans th e architect w as n a m e d C aecilius o r P o m p o n iu s (A ttic u s’ tw o n o m in a ), since h e m ain tain s th a t gentilis can n o t refer to th e co g n o m e n Atticus. B u t cf. V arro Rust. 3 .6 .1 , w h e re Fircellius Pavo is im ag in ed to o b jec t to an im p ro p e r discussion o f th e peafow l (pavo ) fo r th e sake o f his gens (gentilitatis causa). 1 agree w ith S hackIeton B ailey ad loc. th at ei refers to C aesar, and n o t to the architect (pace T y rre ll a n d P urser). 52 D e orat. 2.250: “W h en th e eld e r A fricanus k e p t try in g to fit a garlan d to his head at a b a n q u e t, b u t it k e p t break in g , P u b liu s L icinius V arus rem ark ed , ‘D o n ’t be surprised th at it d o e sn ’t fit— h e has a sw elled h e ad ’” (Africano illi superiori coronam sibi in convivio ad caput

plans for h im s e lf have g ro w n so great th at th e city o f R o m e no lo n g er has ro o m fo r his am b itions. As a result, C aesar m u st change R o m e so th a t it can ac co m m o d ate h im . C icero finds sim ilar evidence for C aesar’s m ega­ lo m an ia in his attem p ts at calendar re fo rm :53 Κ ικέρω ν γ ο ϋ ν ό φήτωρ, ώς Ιοικ ε, φ ή σ α ντός τ ίν ο ς α ΰ ρ ιο ν έπιτέλλειν Λ ύραν; “ν α ί ,” είπ εν, “έκ δ ια τά γ μ α το ς.” ώ ς κ α ι τούτο π ρ ο ς α νά γκ η ν τών ά νθ ρώ πω ν δεχόμ ενω ν. (Plut. Caes. 59.6) W hen som eon e happened to say that the constellation Lyra w as rising the next day, the orator C icero remarked, “Yes it is; by decree, ” as i f m en were being forced to accept even this.

In b o th these jo k e s, C aesar’s in tro d u ctio n s o f in n o v atio n are fig u red as u n w e lc o m e aspects o f his pow er: a n ew architect changes the shape o f the city, n e w reg u lations are chan g in g the shape o f th e sky. A n o th e r ev en t allow s C icero to m o ck C aesar’s pretensions to equal statu s w ith th e divine. A fter C aesar’s re tu rn fro m the fig h tin g in Spain, th e senate h o n o re d the co m m an d e r by installing in the tem p le o f Q u irin u s a statue o f C aesar inscribed “ to the u n co n q u ered g o d ” (D io 43.45.3). A tticu s o w n ed p ro p e rty nearby. T h e coincidence p ro m p ts C icero to rem ark : d om u m tuam pluris vid eo futuram vicino Caesare. (Λίί. 12.48.1 = SB 289) I see that your h om e w ill be w orth m ore n ow that Caesar is your neighbor.

C icero recalls th e w ittic ism in th e n ex t letter to his friend. T h is tim e the jo k e has m o re chilling overtones: de Caesare vicin o scripseram ad te, quia cognoram ex tuis litteris. eum σύνν α ο ν Q uirino m alo quam Saluti. (Att. 12.45.2 = SB 290) I w rote to you about your neighbor Caesar because I learned about it from your letter. I prefer him to be a tem ple-m ate w ith Quirinus than w ith W ellB ein g (Salus).

S o m e scholars believe th at C icero alludes here to a h o p e th at C aesar w ill share th e fate o f Q u irin u s (R om ulus): according to one version o f the m y th , R o m e ’s fo u n d e r had been m u rd ered by the senate an d cut to pieces.54 B u t a n o th er in terp re tatio n — o n e n o t necessarily u n co m p lem en accommodanti, cum ea saepius rumperetur, P. Licinius VarUs “noli mirari, " inquit “si non convenit, caput enim magnum est"). S trab o presents th e jo k e as h av in g o n ly p ositive co n n o ta tio n s (“it is o n a head o f vast c ap a city ”); b u t c o m p a re th e jo k e o n “M e m m iu s the G re a t” (magnus M emmius) at D e orat. 2.267. 53 F or th e po ssib le political im p lica tio n s o f this re fo rm , see Y avetz 1 11-14. 54 Liv. 1.16.4; D H 2 .56.4; Val. M ax. 5.3.1; P lu t. Rom. 27.5. T h is in te rp reta tio n , ad o p ted b y T y rre ll a n d P u rser, is d o u b te d b y Shackleton B ailey ad loc. M a n z o 131 offers y et a n o th e r possib ility : C icero alludes to th e fire th at destroyed the tem p le o f Q u irin u s in 49.

tary w ith th e first— is b o th less allusive and m o re in keeping w ith the discussion th u s far. AU the jo k es th at have been discussed th ro u g h o u t this ch ap ter have been based on criticizing a p erson w h o m akes h im se lf an individual o f p ro m in en ce in the state. T h ro u g h C icero’s w itticism , the d an g er sy m bolized b y such individuality becom es concrete. Julius C ae­ sar, b y his p ro x im ity to the divinity Salus, w o u ld have posed a th reat to the very w ell-being (salus) o f the state. H e w ill do less h arm sharing his q u arters w ith Q u irin u s. A t ab o u t th e sam e tim e C icero w as w ritin g these letters to A tticus, he expressed m o re directly the repercussions o f C aesar’s supposed om n ip o ten ce: quippe ab Androne quodam Laodiceno salutatus [Cicero], cum causam adventus requisisset com perissetque— nam ille se legatum de libertate patriae ad Caesarem venisse respondit— ita expressit publicam servitutem: “έάν επ ιτυχή ς καί π ερί ημών πρέσβευσον. ” (Macr. Sat. 2.3.12) A nd in fact, after having been greeted by a certain Andron from Laodicea, [Cicero] inquired o f his reasons for com ing [to Rom e]. W hen he found out— for Andron answered that he had com e as an ambassador to Caesar concerning the freedom o f his hom eland— Cicero represented the public servitude as follow s: “If you succeed, send an em bassy for us too. ”

T h e iro n y is clear— the only person w h o can directly g ran t the R om ans freed o m is, in C ic e ro ’s m ind, the very in stru m en t o f the loss o f that freedom . O th e r R o m ans h ad a different solution. S om e sources th at narrate the d ep o sitio n o f the tribunes M arullus and Flavius allege th at the affair o f C aesar’s cro w n ed statues w as arranged by his enem ies in o rd er to dis­ cred it th e dictator. In discussing the incident earlier in this chapter, I chose to su spend ju d g m e n t on its historicity, preferring rather to focus o n C aesar’s reaction and h o w it sheds lig h t o n the m a n ’s self-conception. T h ere does exist in d ep en d en t evidence, how ever, th at C aesar’s o p p o ­ nents latched o n to the ru m o rs o f kingship to underscore the threat C ae­ sar p osed to th e free R epublic. In the days preceding the Ides o f M arch, placards appeared on the statues o f C aesar and o f the tyrannicide Lucius B ru tu s.55 S uetonius in­ cludes a m o n g th em the follow ing couplet, affixed to C aesar’s statue: Brutus, quia reges eiecit, consul primus factus est: hic, quia consules eiecit, rex postrem o factus est. (.Iul. 80.3)

Brutus, because he drove out the kings, became the first consul: this man, because he drove out the consuls, has finally becom e king. 55 Suet. Iu t. 80.3; P lu t. Brut. 9 .5 -7 , Caes. 62.7; A ppian B C 2.112; D io 44.12.3.

T h e sim ilar rh y th m o f th e tw o halves o f the in scrip tio n underscores the in ev itab ility o f th eir contents. C aesar’s o p p o n en ts rep resen t kingship as th e n atu ra l histo rical consequence o f the d ic ta to r’s actions. A fter elim ­ in atin g th e consulship, kingship m u st be the culm ination (postremo) o f C aesa r’s plans. In th e days fo llo w in g C aesa r’s assassination, C icero uses a discussion o f d iv in atio n to criticize C aesar’s desire for pow er: tu vero quid habes quare putes, si paulo ante cor fuerit in tauro op im o, subito id in ipsa im m olatione interisse? an quod aspexit vestitu purpureo excordem Caesarem ipse corde privatus est? (Cic. D iv . 2.37) B ut w hat reason do you have for thinking that, i f there were a heart (cor) in a choice bull o n ly a m om en t before, it w ould have suddenly disappeared in the act o f sacrifice? O r w as [the animal] deprived o f the seat o f its senses (cor) upon look in g at Caesar, senseless (excors) in his purple robes?

T h e p u n d ep en d s u p o n th e co nception th at the h eart (cor) is the center o f re aso n .56 T h e n o tio n th a t an anim al can spontaneously lose an o rg a n is m atch ed in its ab su rd ity b y th e am bitions o f C aesar, am bitions recogniz­ able fro m th e royal co lo rin g o f his clothing. C icero finds in the p h e n o m ­ enal w o rld p o ten tial ju stific atio n for C aesar’s m u rd e r— his appearance, w h ich is his character, does n o t accord w ith the natu ral w o rk in g s o f R o­ m an politics. T h e abusive h u m o r directed against C aesar defines h im as an individ­ ual w h o attem p ts to stand alongside the gods and in o p p o sitio n to the senate, th e elected officials, and eventually the entire trad itio n and w ell­ b ein g o f th e R o m an state. T h ese m odes o f alienation used against C aesar, w h ich o p erate along lines sim ilar to th o se exam ined in earlier chapters, describe an elite-centered ethos th at C aesar opposes n o t on ly w ith his w it b u t w ith his v ery appearance. T his op en defiance m e t w ith co n stan t re­ sistance. C aesar’s o p p o n en ts resp o n d ed to his co n fro n tatio n al stance w ith a p ro p a g an d ist cam paign to discredit the dictator, a cam paign that in clu d ed h u m o ro u s invective an d culm inated in C aesar’s assassination. T h e success o f C aesar’s d etracto rs is confirm ed b y confusion in the an­ cient sources as w ell as b y centuries o f scholarly debate over w h a t p re­ cisely C aesar’s political fu tu re w o u ld have in clu d ed .57 In closing, I shall 56 For the pun, cf. Suet. Iul. 77 (quoted in n. 43 above) and Plaut. Cist. 63-66. For the date o f com position o f On Divination, see the com m entary o f Pease (1963: 13—15), w ho cites this anecdote as evidence that the w o rk was not published until after C aesar’s assassination. 57 For the uncertainty over C aesar’s plans in the extant ancient sources, see m ost recently Yavetz 185-213; he discusses m o d em scholarly ju d g m en ts o f Caesar in his first chapter, “C aesar and Caesarism in the H istorical W riting o f the N ineteenth and T w entieth C entu­ ries” (10-57).

atte m p t to lend perspective to this debate by d em o n stratin g n o t o n ly th at C aesar could em p lo y h u m o r as a p o w erfu l political w eapon, b u t also that he to o k steps d u rin g his lifetim e to co n tro l its use b y others. C

i c e r o ’s

Sto m

ach

In th e m id d le o f the year 45, A tticus inform s C icero that M arcus B rutus, a fo rm e r P o m p eian (and fu tu re assassin), has decided to reconcile w ith C aesar. B ru tu sju stifie s his actions, A tticus rep o rts, by insisting th at C ae­ sar n o w su p p o rts th e m o re trad itio n al m em bers o f the state, the boni (literally, “the g o o d m e n ”). C ic e ro ’s response betrays little sym pathy: itane? nuntiat Brutus ilium ad bonos viros? ευα γγέλια , sed ubi eos? nisi forte se suspendit. (Ait. 13.40.1 = SB 343) Is that so? Brutus proclaim s that Caesar [has gon e over] to the boni? Great n ew s. B ut w here [will he find] them? Perhaps h e’s hung himself.

C icero clearly im plies th at C aesar’s alleged change o f heart has occurred to o late. AU the m o st p ro m in e n t R om ans have died in the civil w a r and its afterm ath , and the o n ly w ay to effect a reconciliation is to follow them b ey o n d d e a th .58 C icero leaves open th e question o f h o w he has h im self su rv iv ed . F o r this one m u st tu rn to a letter he sent in response to C aerellia’s q u ery o f w h y he en d u red C aesar’s rule so subm issively. C icero replies w ith w h a t Q u in tilian calls “so rt o f a jo k e ” (aliquid ioco simile): “these affairs m u st be en d u red eith er w ith C a to ’s spirit o r C icero ’s sto m ­ ach ” (haec aut animo Catonis ferenda sunt aut Ciceronis stomacho; Q u in t. Inst. 6.3.112). C ato , like all g o o d boni, co m m itte d suicide. C icero relies on his stomachus. T h e L atin stomachus reacts in tw o different w ays w h e n it has sw allow ed so m eth in g disagreeable: it can either rise up in annoyance (“he raged w ith an g er an d s to m a c h ” ; Verr. 2.2.48) o r accept w ith forbearance (“to have a g o o d s to m a c h ”; M artial 12.prae£). Ju liu s C aesar helps gloss w h a t C icero m eans b y the w o rd in this letter to C aerellia. Soon after the Ides o f M arch , C icero learned o f a re m a rk that C aesar once m ade o n an occasion w h e n th e o ra to r had been w a itin g to be invited in to C aesar’s presence. In a letter to A tticus, C icero relays the d ictato r’s w o rd s in direct speech: ego dubitem quin sum m o in od io sim , cum M . C icero sedeat, nec suo com m od o m e convenire possit? atqui si quisquam est facilis, hie est. tamen non dubito, quin m e male oderit. (A u . 14.1.2 = SB 355) 58 T h e j o k e p e rh ap s contains an additio n al n o te o f iro n y in a p u n o n the w o rd boni: the o n ly w ay C aesar can b e co m e a “g o o d m a n ” is b y p e rfo rm in g th e g o o d deed o f suicide (Sen. D ial. 5 .2 3 .2 has a sim ilar jo k e ab o u t P h ilippus, th e father o f A lexander). C icero also puns o n th e literal m ean in g o f boni (and th e related optimates) at A tt . 2.5.1 (SB 25), 14.10.1 (SB 364); Fam. 4 .3 .2 (SB 202).

Can I doubt I am m ost greatly despised, w hen Marcus Cicero sits [waiting] and he cannot m eet w ith m e at his ow n convenience? A nd yet i f anyone is easygoing (Jhcilis), it is he. Still, I don’t doubt that he despises m e.59

T h is ab ility to “w a it” constitutes the greater p art o f C icero ’s stomachus. W hen one tu rn s to C ic e ro ’s orations fro m this period, it is possible to discern a n o th er aspect o f this stomachus: C icero refrains fro m his n o r­ m ally sharp h u m o r. T h is sh o u ld occasion no surprise. In the three orations C icero ad­ dresses to th e d ictato r C aesar in o rd e r to o b tain p ard o n for his friends— O n B eh a lf o f Marcellus, O n B ehalf o f Ligarius, and O n B ehalf o f King Deiotarus— th e o ne person w h o could possibly qualify for C icero ’s n o r­ m al b ra n d o f abuse is C aesar and, to use C aesar’s generous assessm ent, C icero was to o “ea sy g o in g ” for th a t.60 In one o f these speeches, in fact, C icero adm its th at h u m o ro u s invective no lo n g er has a place in public o rato ry . I have already m en tio n ed , in the context o f B ru tu s’ ow n speech for D eio taru s, th e passage fro m C icero ’s On B ehalf o f K ing Deiotarus in w h ich th e o ra to r describes the n ew style o f speaking one m u st em ploy before th e n ew audience— the one m an, C aesar (Deiot. 40). In his speech O n B ehalf o f Ligarius, h e clarifies w h a t this n ew rh eto ric entails: causas, Caesar, egi multas equidem tecum , dum te in foro tenuit ratio h onorum tuorum , certe num quam hoc m odo: “ignoscite, iudices; erravit, lapsus est, non putavit; si um quam posthac.” ad parentem sic agi solet. ( L ig . 30)

I have for m y part pleaded m any cases w ith you, Caesar, w hile the demands o f your public positions kept you in the forum, but certainly never like this: “Forgive [m y client], gentlem en o f the jury; he made a mistake, he slipped up, he w asn ’t thinking; if ever again . . . ” That’s h ow one pleads before a parent.

It is difficult n o t to see b itte r h u m o r behind C icero ’s w o rd s. H aving lost his “reig n in th e fo ru m ” (amisso regno forensi; Fam. 9.18.1 = SB 191), the o ra to r n o lo n g er needs to persuade an audience, b u t to plead w ith a single autocrat. C icero has in fact cast C aesar in the very role in w h ich the trad itio n al h u m o ro u s attacks o n the dictato r have tried to po rtray h im — 59 In a later letter to A td c u s (A t t . 1 4 .2 .2 = S B 3 56), C icero phrases C aesar’s w o rd s so m e w h a t d ifferen tly: ego nunc tam sim stultus ut hunc ipsum facilem hominem putem mihi esse atnicum, cum tamdiu sedens meum commodum expectet? (“C o u ld I be so stu p id as to thin k this e a s y g o in g [facilis] m an is frien d ly to m e after h e ’s b een sittin g arou n d so lo n g w a itin g at m y c o n v e n ie n c e ? ”). 60 C ic e r o d o e s, h o w ev er, have sly w a y s o f in sertin g criticism o f the dictator; see the u n n ecessa rily d etailed critiq u e o f C aesar as a tyrant (tyrannus) that the orator p u ts in the m o u th o f B lesa m iu s at D eiot. 3 3 - 3 4 .

in th e role o f a p a re n t deciding w h e th e r to punish a child. T h ro u g h the self-iro n y o f this passage fro m O n B ehalf o f Ligarius, the o ra to r tries to reg ister a co m p lain t th at can hard ly be heard. H is p rivate rem ark s fro m this p erio d echo this bitterness m o re loudly. U p o n learn in g th at his n ep h e w Q u in tu s had w a rn ed C aesar a b o u t the o ra to r’s p o ten tial dan g er to the dictator, C icero tells A tticus: “T his w o u ld be frig h ten in g i f I d id n ’t see th at the kin g know s I have n o sp irit” (φ ο β ερ ό ν α ν ή ν nisi viderem scire regem me animi nihil habere; A u . 13.37.2 = SB 346). C icero accepts his spiritless situation a little m o re cheerfully in a letter to Fabius G allus fro m S ep tem b er 45. D u rin g this period a fad seem s to have developed am o n g anti-C aesarians, including C icero, for w ritin g encom ia o f C ato, w h o had preferred suicide to co ntinuing his life u n d e r C aesar’s ru le.61 C icero had asked G allus to send o ff a copy o f his o w n Cato for the o ra to r’s perusal (Fam. 7.24.2 = SB 260). In C ic e ro ’s n e x t letter, C aesar, h im se lf the au th o r o f a treatise w ith the selfd escriptive title Anticato, su d d en ly in tru d es u p o n the correspondence: sed heus tu, m anum de tabula! m agister adest citius quam putaramus; vereor ne in catom um Catonianos. (Fam. 7.25.1 = SB 261) Watch out! take your hand from your w riting tablet! Teacher is here sooner than w e ’d thought. I’m afraid h e’ll give us Catonians a flogging (in catomum).

Catomum derives fro m the G reek phrase κ α τ ’ ώ μ ο ν (“over the sh o u ld er”) and here describes the p o sitio n o f a flogged m an su p p o rted over the sh o ulders o f an o th er as he is beaten. C aesar’s o p p o n en ts are schoolboys co w erin g in co n stan t fear o f p u n ish m en t. T his portrayal recalls C ic e ro ’s d escrip tio n o f C aesar as a p aren t before w h o m one begs forgiveness. Fear o f repressio n b y C aesar has threatened C ic e ro ’s ability to speak— and jo k e — freely.62 F or C icero k n ew fro m experience h o w quickly these fears could be realized. T h e im ag in ary scenario o f C aesar suddenly entering th e ro o m to silence th e o ra to r has o m in o u s parallels w ith C ic e ro ’s situa­ tio n d u rin g th e previous year. 61 C ice ro m en tio n s his Cato (and th e p ro b le m s o f w ritin g it w ith o u t offen d in g Caesar) at Orat. 35; A u . 1 2.4.2 (SB 240), 12.5.2 (SB 242), 12.40.1 (SB 281), 12.44.1 (SB 285), 13.27.1 (SB 298), 13.46.2 (SB 338). F o r C aesar’s Anticato, see A tt. 12.41.4 (SB 283), 13.50.1 (SB 348), 13.51.1 (SB 349); Suet. I u l. 56.5; T ac. A n n . 4.34.7; Iuv. 6.338; P lu t. Cic. 39.6, Cat. M i. 36.3; A p p ia n B C 2.99. 62 C ic e ro ’s fears w o u ld seem v indicated b y the fact that O p p iu s and B albus felt the need to censor th e o r a to r ’s p h ilo so p h ic “L etter o f A dvice” to th e ru ler C aesar (see especially A tt. 13.27.1 = SB 298, 13.28.2 = SB 299; also A tt. 12.40.2 = SB 281, 12.51.2 = SB 293, 12.52.2 = SB 294, 13.1.3 = SB 296, 13.26.2 = SB 286, 13.31.3 = SB 302, and cf. 13.19.2 = SB 326). In the su m m e r o f 46 C icero com plains to P aetus th at C aesar is signing the o ra to r’s n a m e to senatorial decrees th a t C icero has nev er even seen, m u ch less a p proved (Fam. 9.15.4 = SB 196).

212

CHA PTER 5

In the sum m er o f 46, Lucius Papirius Paetus sent his friend Cicero tw o letters expressing concern over the orator’s safety.63 It seems that Caesar had received a report o f som e statements, allegedly made by Cicero, that Paetus feared m ight arouse Caesar’s displeasure. Cicero’s response— Epistula ad familiares 9.16— represents an attempt to allay Paetus’ fears. There is no need to w orry about Caesar hearing statements that have been falsely ascribed to me, the orator writes, for Caesar receives infor­ m ation about everything I say. Cicero begins his letter by reassuring Paetus o f his ow n good standing am ong Caesar’s friends. Their open respect for him m ust represent actual feelings, he argues, since their superior position gives them no reason to present a false front.64 H e then proceeds to explain his relationship with Caesar himself; their stable converse stems from the easygoing attitude (Jbcilitas) that characterized C icero’s dealings w ith Caesar between 46 and 4 4 BCE: de illo au tem qu em penes est o m n is potestas, nihil vid eo q u o d tim eam , nisi q u o d o m n ia su n t incerta cu m a iure discessum est nec praestari q u icq u am p o te st quale fu tu ru m sit q u o d p o situ m est in alterius voluntate, n e dicam libidine. sed ta m en eius ipsius nulla re a m e offensus est anim us; est enim adhibita in ea re ipsa su m m a a nobis m oderatio . u t en im o lim arb itra b ar esse m e u m libere loqui, cuius opera esset in civitate libertas, sic ea n unc am issa nihil loqui q u o d offendat aut illius aut e o ru m qui ab illo d ilig u n tu r v o lu n tatem . (Fam. 9.16.3 = SB 190) A s fo r th e m an in w h o se hands all pow er resides— I see no reason to be afraid, unless [w e consider] that n o th in g is certain w h en rig h t n o lo n g er prevails, an d th a t n o th in g in th e fu tu re can be g u aran teed w h en it has been placed at an o th e r’s w ill, m u c h less w h im . A n d yet his o w n feelings have n o t been h u rt b y any act o f m ine, since I have em ployed in this v ery area th e g reatest a m o u n t o f m o d e ra tio n (summa . . . moderatio). F or ju s t as once I considered it m y task to speak freely (libere loqui) (since b y m y help th ere w as fre ed o m in th e state), in th e sam e w ay, n o w th at freed o m is lost, [m y task is] to say n o th in g that m ig h t offend eith er his w ill o r the w ill o f those w h o se friendship he values.

In order for Cicero to keep his easygoing demeanor— w hich he calls here summa . . . moderatio — the orator m ust make sacrifices. H e m ust give up

his position as spokesm an for the state; he can no longer speak as a free 63 I follow D e m m e is (33-35) re co n stru c tio n o f these tw o lost letters, w h ic h derives a lm o st e n tirely fro m th e te x t o f th e su rv iv in g Fam. 9.16. 64 Fam. 9 .1 6 .2 (SB 190): ego uno utor argumento quam ob rem me ex animo vereque arbitrer diligi, quia et nostra fortuna ea est et illorum ut simulandi causa non sit (“I have o n e in dication w h y I th in k th ey really and tru ly like m e; because b o th th e ir fortune and m in e are such [ea] that th e re ’s n o reason to p re te n d ”). I follow Shackleton B ailey’s in te rp reta tio n o f ea: “ for I am d o w n in th e w o rld a n d th ey are u p .”

citizen (libere loqui). T h e preceding chapters have exam ined at len g th h o w C ic e ro ’s role as a spokesm an for R o m an values and free speech includes his use o f h u m o r. It is n o t surprising, then, to see h im tu rn n ex t in this letter to his re p u ta tio n as a w it: e ffu g e re a u te m si v e lim n o n n u llo r u m a c u te a u t facete d ic to r u m o p in io n e m , fa m a in g e n i m ih i e st a b ic ie n d a ; q u o d , si id p o ss e m , n o n re c u s a re m . (F am .

9.16.3 = SB 190) M o r e o v e r, i f I w e re to refu se c re d it fo r th e m a n y sh a rp a n d w itty re m a rk s I h a v e m a d e , I s h o u ld h a v e to re je c t m y re p u ta tio n as a w it (Jama ingeni): I w o u ld n o t re fra in fr o m d o in g so, i f it w e re p o ss ib le [to re fu se c re d it] .65

T h e price o f C ic e ro ’s subservience to C aesar, o f his o u tw ard facilitas, is th e loss o f his re p u ta tio n as a w it. W ith the end o f freed o m ([libertate] nunc amissa) com es the end o f C icero ’s un restricted em p lo y m en t o f h u m o r. C icero cannot, how ever, shed his re p u tatio n quite so readily. T h ro u g h o u t his career he has co n fro n ted the p ro b lem o f o th er people w h o w o u ld m ake h u m o ro u s rem ark s and attrib u te th em to his o w n au­ th o rity .66 I f such false a ttrib u tio n w ere to continue now , it w ould m ark a clear th rea t to C icero ’s safety, w h ich is precisely P aetus’ concern. A solu­ tio n is offered for securing C ic e ro ’s p ro tec tio n — b y C aesar. Ju s t as the learned scholar Servius C laudius could distinguish a true verse o f Plautus fro m a fo rg ed one o n account o f his close stu d y o f the p la y w rig h t’s w o rk s, so to o has C aesar, h im se lf a com piler o f o th er p eo p le’s jo k es, train e d his ear to discern C icero ’s tru e w itticism s fro m those falsely attri­ b u ted to h im (Fam. 9 .16.4 = SB 190).67 T h e p ro b lem appears alm ost to b e solved. I f C icero can tru st C aesar’s abilities, th en he can rest assured th at C aesar w ill n o t u n ju stly be angered at so m eth in g C icero did n o t actually say. C ic e ro ’s en tire explanation depends u p o n the u n d erly in g assum ption th at he w ill n o t, in fact, attem p t to criticize C aesar.68 If C aesar hears 65 So Shackleton Bailey ad Ioc., follow ing T yrrell and Purser: quod = famam abicere, id = ejfugere opinionem. 66 In 54 B C E Cicero complains about jokes being attributed to him that he has n o t in fact m ade (Plane. 35). T h e com plaint recurs in 50 in a letter to Volumnius Eutrapelus (Fam. 7.32.1 = SB 113). In 58 B C E the opposite phenom enon occurred. Cicero w ro te to Atticus urging him to pass o ff his invective speech Against Clodius and Curio as a forgery (Att. 3.12.2 = SB 57; I cannot agree w ith H aury 1989: 137 n. 2, w ho thinks the rem ark a joke). I shall discuss below a particular case w here a jo k e ascribed to Cicero creates considerable problem s for its alleged author (Fam. 11.20.1 = SB 401). 67 Suetonius praises the learning o f Claudius at Gramm. 3.1. 68 Cicero clearly recognizes the difficulties w ith this assum ption, but appears to sub­ scribe to it in order n o t to w orry Paetus. For in 50 b c e , the orator uses rem arkably similar language about the verity o f his ow n w ords in an obvious jest w ith Appius Claudius.

criticism , C icero assures Paetus, th en the d ictato r’s discerning ear w ill be su re to conclude that it did n o t com e fro m the orator. C aesar, how ever, does n o t ap p ear to have shared these assum ptions, as the n ext p art o f C ic e ro ’s letter indicates. T h e dictato r w ill take steps to guarantee the o ra to r’s co o p eration in the co n tro l o f subversive rem arks. T h e situation C icero depicts here displays C aesar’s p o w er at its m o st insidious: audio C aesarem . . . si q u o d adferatur ad e u m pro m e o q u od m eu m n o n sit reicere solere. q u o d e o n u n c m agis facit quia v iv u n t m ec u m fere cottid ie illius fam iliares; in cid u n t au tem in serm o n e vario m u lta quae fortasse illis, cu m d ix i, n ec inlitterata n ec insulsa esse videantur. haec ad iliu m cu m reliquis actis perferuntur; ita en im ip se m andavit. sic fit ut, si q uid praeterea de m e audiat, n o n au d ien d u m p u tet. (Fam. 9 .1 6 .4 = SB 190) I hear that . . . i f an y th in g is b ro u g h t to C aesar that is claim ed to be m in e b u t is n o t, h e usu ally rejects it: he d oes this n o w all the m ore because I have liv in g w ith m e a lm o st ev ery day his co m p a n io n s. In our various con versa­ tio n s m a n y rem arks drop that m a y appear, w h en I have said th em , to lack neither learning n or w it in their eyes. T h ese rem arks are delivered to C aesar alo n g w ith the rest o f th e d ay’s n ew s: th o se are his o w n orders. In th is w a y it happens that i f h e hears an yth in g about m e oth er than th ese th in g s, he thinks he sh ou ld n o t h eed th em .

A cco rd in g to C icero, C aesar places the o ra to r’s opin io n o n a par w ith the daily events o f th e city and senate.69 T o show the sincerity behind this flattery, the dictator sends m en to w rite d o w n any rem arks o f C icero that m ig h t seem the least b it intelligent o r h u m o ro u s. In doing so, C aesar w ields the u ltim ate control over C icero ’s h u m o r. In a m ove th at C icero represents to Paetus as C aesar’s attem p t to p ro tec t the o ra to r— “I am so respected, so w atched over b y all those w h o m C aesar loves that I th in k I am loved b y th e m ” (sic enim color, sic observor ab omnibus Hs qui a Caesare diliguntur ut ab Hs me amari putem \ Fam. 9.16.2)— the dictato r in fact stifles A p p iu s h a d taken offense w ith so m e th in g C icero h a d w ritte n him ; th e o ra to r replied iro n ­ ically: si, ut scribis, eae litterae non fite ru n t disertae, scito meas non fitisse; ut enim Aristarchus H o m eri uersum negat quern non probat, sic tu (libet enim m ihi iocari), quod disertum non erit, ne p u ta ris m eum (“If, as you w rite, this letter w as n o t w ell-expressed, th en consider th at it w as

n o t m ine; for ju s t as A ristarchus denies to H o m e r a verse he does n o t like, so sh o u ld y o u — I like to m ak e jo k e s — consider a n y th in g th a t is n o t w ell-expressed n o t to be m in e ” : Fam. 3 .11.5 = SB 74; cf. Fam 7 .3 2 .2 = SB 113). 69 F o r this m ean in g o f acta, see T y rrell and P u rser ad loc. D e m m e l 43 regards this claim as characteristic o f C ic e ro ’s bravado. T h is m ay be tru e in p art, a lth o u g h C icero seem s u n ch aracteristically self-effacing in this letter (an exception occurs in section 3, cuius [sc. m ea] opera esset in civitate libertas, an app aren t reference to his consulship; b u t see n . 8 above). In any event, i f D e m m e l is rig h t, such h y p erb o le w o u ld n o t invalidate the facts o f C ic e ro ’s letter: nam ely, th at C aesar’s friends m eet w ith the o ra to r daily to re p o rt back w h a t he says.

any fu rth e r o p p o rtu n ity fo r free h u m o ro u s expression.70 D espite C ic­ e ro ’s ap p aren t tru st in C aesar’s inten tio n s beh in d this “espionage”— a tru s t h e p erhaps ad o p ts so as n o t to w o rry the already tro u b led P aetus— th e w rite r so o n slips back in to d o u b tin g the tru e in ten t b o th o f his visi­ to rs and o f th eir friend C aesar: he concludes th at the w ise thing to do is to say n o th in g stu p id o r rash; “as for the rest, I can’t guarantee w h a t anyone m ig h t claim I have said, o r h o w C aesar w ill take it, o r h o w tru s tw o rth y are these live-in com panions w h o continually com e and w atch over m e ” (cetera vero, quid quisque me dixisse dicat aut quo modo ille accipiat aut qua fid e mecum vivant ii qui me adsidue colunt et observant, praestare non possum-, Fam.

9.16.5). C icero has been effectively silenced; b u t even in this state he c a n n o t be assu red o f his dignitas — o r even his safety (Fam. 9.16.6). T h e p o w e r o f political h u m o r to defend the traditions o f the state has been repressed and, as a result, its im p o rtan ce to freed o m at R o m e receives the u ltim ate p ro o f. T h e situ atio n im ag in ed in the letter to A tticus w ith w h ich this ch ap ter o p en ed has n o w been realized. “T h e only th in g left is to jo k e — i f he sh ould let u s .” C aesar has w ith d raw n his perm ission. E

p il o g u e :

C

ic e r o a f t e r t h e

Ides

A fter the d eath o f C aesar, C icero n o lo n g er recognizes a need to m aintain his easy g o in g dem eanor. In a letter to A tticus fro m A pril 44, he rem arks th a t the n ew political clim ate m akes his o w n fo rm er tolerance unneces­ sary (A t t . 14.12.2 = SB 366). S ubsequently, in late 43, C icero published th e Second Philippic, a scathing in d ictm en t o f the political career o f M arcus A n to n iu s, C aesar’s political heir. T h is speech, filled w ith h u ­ m o ro u s abuse re d o le n t o f the p erio d before the civil w ar, attests to C ic­ e ro ’s attem p ts to reestablish h im self as a public representative o f trad i­ tio n al R epublican values. H is b itte r private jests about A n tonius n o t b ein g slain o n th e Ides resem ble earlier jo k es in w h ich he desires the death o f a political fo e .71 O n e o f th e final jests reco rd ed in C ic e ro ’s letters dates to N o v e m b e r 44 and bears o n th e reception o f his Second Philippic. T h e w rite r fears that 70 I w o n d e r i f sim ilar m o tiv es o f in tim id a tio n lie b e h in d th e visit o f C aesar a n d his a rm y to C ic e ro ’s villa at P u te o li (A tt. 13.52 = SB 353). C icero deflates the ten sio n in this letter w ith a jo k e : quid multa? homines visi sumus. hospes tamen non is cui diceres “amabo te, eodem ad me cum revertere. " seme! satis est (“ N e e d I g o on? W e acted like h u m a n beings. B u t h e ’s n o t the k in d o f g u e st to w h o m y o u ’d say, ‘If y o u ’re in th e n e ig h b o rh o o d again, please sto p b y .’ O n c e is e n o u g h ” ; A u . 13.52.2). A n d w h a t ab o u t the re p u te d “ reconciliation d in n e r” the general h a d w ith C a tu llu s after th e p o e t’s scandalous p o em s ab o u t M a m u rra (Suet. Iu l. 73)? 71 Jo k e s o n o v e rlo o k in g th e assassination o f A nto n iu s: Fam 10 28.1 (SB 364), 12.4.1 (SB 363; cf. M acr. Sat. 2.3.13); A tt. 14.12.1 (SB 366); Phil. 2.34. F o rjo k e s before th e civil w a r e x p ressin g desire for an o p p o n e n t’s death, see C aelius in Fam. 8.15.2 (SB 149); Q u in t. Inst. 6.3 .4 9 , 68, 84; a n d P lu t. CU. 26.3, 4.

216

CH A PTER 5

certain passages o f the speech m ay offend his friend Sicca. C icero follow s up this ex p ression o f concern w ith an obscure jo k e in w hich either he o r A tticus seem s to allude to the freedom to publish slanderous orations that existed w h e n R o m e w as u n d er the sw ay o f the triu m v irs.72 W hatever the m ean in g o f the jo k e , it excited C icero ’s adm iration. H e exclaim s moriar nisi facete! (“M ay I die i f th at w a sn ’t fu n n y !”). T his w ish w as to becom e dark ly ironic. A n to n iu s eventually gave C icero ’s Philippics as the reason for p ro sc rib in g th e o ra to r and nailing his head and hands to the speaker’s ro s tru m in th e fo ru m .73 B y d ro p p in g his facilitas, C icero hastens his o w n death. A few m o n th s after this letter on the Second Philippic, C icero ’s jests b rin g h im in to conflict w ith an o th er p ro m in en t figure in R om e. Iro n ­ ically, th e fears C icero h ad attem p ted to allay in his letter to Paetus appear to have been realized, for the controversy arises over a jo k e that C icero h im self m ay n o t even have uttered . A ccord ing to D ecim us B ru tu s a certain Labeo Segulius, an apparent enem y o f the o rator, attrib u ted the re m a rk to C icero in o rd e r to arouse displeasure against h im (Fant. 11.20.1 = SB 401).74 B ru tu s inform s C icero that this jo k e constitutes the on ly com p lain t ab o u t C icero that has been registered b y the young O ctav ian — th e fu tu re A ugustus: quod pro m e non facio, id pro te facere amor meus in te tuaque officia cogunt, ut timeam . . . . Labeo Segulius, h om o sui sim illim us, narrat mihi apud Caesarem se fuisse m ultum que serm onem de te habitum esse; ipsum Caesarem nihil sane de te questum nisi dictum quod diceret te dixisse, Iaudandum adulescentem, ornandum, tollendum; se non esse com m issurum ut tolli possit. (F a m . 11.20.1 = SB 401) M y love for you and your good favors toward m e com pel m e to do for you w hat I d o not do for myself: I am afraid. . . . Labeo Segulius, a man always true to his nature, tells m e that he w as w ith Caesar [Octavian] and that there was m uch discussion about you. Caesar h im self had no complaints at all about you except for the remark that he says you said, that “the young man 72 Sed Mo tempore opus est quod fitit Mis triumviris (“B u t w e need the tim e th at th ere w as w h e n they w ere triu m v irs” ; A l t . 16.11.1 = SB 420). See Shackleton B ailey ad loc. for possible explanations, to g e th e r w ith Frank 275, w h ich he cites. 73 Liv. Perioch. 120; Sen. Suas. 6.17, 19, 21; Plut. A n t. 2 0 .3 -4 , Cic. 48.6; A ppian B C 4.20; D io 4 7 .8 .3 -4 . 74 Velleius 2 .6 2 .6 credits C icero w ith the w itticism ; Suet. A ug. 12.1 o nly cites anony­ m o u s alii. O n the q u e stio n o f w h e th e r tollendum contains a p u n on the m eanings “elevate [to the skies]” a n d “e lim in a te,” I believe th at Velleius’ b e lie f that a p u n does exist (cum aliud diceret, aliud intellegi vellet) sh o u ld take precedence over T y rrell and P u rs e r’s o b jections and Shackleton B ailey ’s d o u b ts. B ell’s discussion o f tollo (246-49), cited w ith approval by W o o d m an in his c o m m e n ta ry o n Velleius ad loc., does no t, so far as I can tell, c o n trib u te in any w ay to reso lv in g this p ro b lem .

m u st be praised, h on o red , and lifted up— and aw ay (tollendum ) . ” H e said he w o u ld n o t a llo w h im se lf to be “lifted up and aw ay.”

S uetonius lists this re m a rk as one o f the reasons O ctavian eventually abandoned the aristocratic cause su p p o rted by C icero and allied h im self w ith M arcus A n to n iu s.75 T h e proscriptions that resulted in C icero ’s d eath w ere soon to follow. I f S uetonius can be trusted, he provides con­ v incing evidence for the close relationship betw een the free R om an state and C icero n ian w it. In w h a t w ere to be the final days o f the R epublic, a jo k e eventually cost the o ra to r his life. 75 Suet. A ug. 12.1. A possible reason to d o u b t S u eto n iu s’ testim o n y occurs in B ru tu s’ n e x t letter to C icero: quae tibi superioribus Iilteris mea manu scripsi terrendi tui causa homines Ioquuntur ("A s for w h a t I w ro te to you w ith m y o w n hand in m y previous letter, people are saying these things to frig h ten y o u ”; Fam. 11.23.2 = SB 402).

W O RK S C IT E D

P r im a r y T

exts

T h e fo llo w in g lists co n tain all abbreviations o f all ancient au th o rs and tex ts I cite; citations o f G reek and R o m an tex ts follow the guidelines o f either Liddell an d S c o tt’s Greek-English Lexicon (LSJ) o r th e Thesaurus linguae Latinae ( T L L ) , except in certain cases w h ere I have div erg ed for th e sake o f g reater clarity. In m y te x t and notes, C ice ro sho u ld be p resu m e d to be th e a u th o r w h ere n o n e is indicated. T ran slatio n s are m ine unless indicated o therw ise. Works o f Cicero O R A T IO N S

Arch. (O n B ehalf o f Archias) Balb. (O n B ehalfofB albus) Caecin. (O n B eh a lf o f Caecina) Cael. (O n B eh a lf o f Caelius) C a til. (Against Catiline) C lu . (O n B ehalf o f Cluentius) Deiot. (O n B eh a lf o f King Deiotarus) D iv. in Caec. (Interrogation o f Caecilius) D om . (O n B ehalf o f H is Home) Flacc. (O n B ehalf o f Flaccus) Font. (O n B eh a lf o f Fonteius) Har. resp. (O n the Response o f the Soothsayers) In Clod. (Invective against Clodius and Curio) Inv. in Sail. (Invective against Sallust·, spurious) Leg. agr. (O n the Agrarian Law ) Lig. (O n B eh a lf o f Ligarius) M anil. (O n the M anilian Law ) M il. (O n B e h a lfo fM ilo ) Mur. (O n B ehalf o f Murena) P. red. in sen. (To the Senate on H is Return from Exile) Phil. (Philippics against Marcus Antonius) Pis. (Against Piso) Plane. (O n B eh a lf o f Plancius) Prov. (O n the Consular Provinces) Q . Rose. (O n B eh a lf o f Q uintus Roscius) Quinct. (O n B eh a lf o f Quinctius) Rab. perd. (O n B e h a lfo f Gaius Rabirius on a Charge o f Treason) Rab. post. (O n B e h a lfo f Gaius Rabirius Postumus) S . Rose. (O n B eh a lf o f Sextus Roscius) Scaur. (O n B eh a lf o f Scaurus)

220

WORKS CITED

Sest. (O n B eh a lf o f Sestius) Sull. (O n B eh a lf o f Sulla) Vat. (Against Vatinius) Verr. (Against Verres) OTHER PROSE W ORKS

A c. (Academics) A d Brut. (Letters to Brutus) A d Q . fr. (Letters to H is Brother Quintus) A tt. (Letters to Atticus) Brut. (Brutus) De orat. (O n the Orator) D iv. (O n D ivination) Epist. fr. (Fragments fro m letters) Fam. (Letters to H is Friends) Fat. (O n Fate) Fin. (O n the Lim its o f Good and Evil) Fr. or. inc. (Fragments fro m u ncertain orations) Inv. (O n Rhetorical Invention) Leg. (O n the Laws) N at. deor. (O n the Nature o f the Gods) O ff. (O n Moral Duties) Orat. (T he Orator) Part. (O n the Classification o f Oratory) Rep. (O n the Republic) Tusc. ( Tusculan Disputations) COM M ENTARIES

(cited in te x t o r n otes by m o d e rn a u th o r’s n a m e o n ly ) A u stin, R . 1960. M . Tulli Ciceronis Pro M . Caelio oratio. O x fo rd . C avarzere, A. 1983. Lettere [Cic. Fam. 8]: Marco Celio Rufo. Brescia. D avisius, J ., et al. 1824. M . Tulli Ciceronis D e legibus libri tres. F ran k fu rt. D en n isto n , J. 1926. M . Tulli Ciceronis In M . A ntonium orationes Philippicae prima et secunda. O x fo rd . Fausset, W. 1887. M . Tullii Ciceronis Pro A . Cluentio Oratio. L o ndon. H aury, A. 1969. Orationes in Catilinam. Paris. H o ld en , H . 1903. M . T ulli Ciceronis Pro Publio Sestio oratio ad iudices. L o ndon. K enter, L. 1971. M . Tullius Cicero, D e Legibus: A Commentary on Book I. A m ste rd a m . K insey, T. E. 1971. Pro P. Quinctio oratio. Sydney. L andgraf, G. 1882. Ciceros Rede fu r Sex. Roscius aus Ameria. E rlangen. L o ng, G. 1851-58. Orationes. L ondon. 4 vols. M itchell, T. 1986. Verrines I I . l . W arm inster, E ngland. N isb e t, R . G. 1939. M . Tulli Ciceronis D e domo sua ad pontifices oratio. O x fo rd . N isb e t, R. G. M . 1961. In L . Calpurnium Pisonem oratio. O x fo rd . Pease, A. 1955. D e natura deorum. 2 vols. C am b rid g e, M ass. ---------- 1963. M . Tulli Ciceronis D e divinatione: Libri duo. D arm stad t.

WORKS CITED

221

P ocock, L. 1926. A Commentary on Cicero in Vatinium. L o ndon. R abbie, E. 1989. In M . Tullius Cicero, D e oratore Libri III, ed. A. L eem an, H P in k ster, an d E. R abbie. 3 vols. H eidelberg. S andys, J. 1885. A d Marcum Brutum Orator. C a m b rid g e. S hackleton Bailey, D . R. 1965-1970. Cicero’s Letters to Atticus. 7 vols. C a m b rid g e. _______ 1977. Cicero, Epistulae ad Familiares. I vols. C a m b rid g e. ----------- 1980. Cicero, Epistulae ad Q uintum fratrem et M . Brutum. C a m b rid g e. [AU th ree w o rk s o n th e letters cited as “ S hackleton B ailey ”] T y rre ll, R ., and L. P urser. 1904. The Correspondence o fM . Tullius Cicero. I vols. D u b lin . W ilkins, A . 1892. M . Tulli Ciceronis D e oratore libri tres. O x fo rd . Z u m p t, C . 1831. M . Tulli Ciceronis Verrinarum libri septem. B erlin. O ther Greek and Roman Texts A ppian: B C (C ivil Wars), Reg. (Concerning the Kings) A ristotle: E N (Nicomachean Ethics), G A (O n the Generation o f A nim als), Phgn. (O n Physiognomy), Pol. (Politics), Rhet. (Rhetoric), R h . A l. (Rhetoric to Alexander) C aes. (Julius C aesar): C iv. (C ivil War), Gal. (Gallic War) C a rm . de fig . (Carmen de figuris vel schematibus) C atu ll.: C a tu llu s (Poetry) D H : D io n y siu s o f H alicarnassus (Roman Antiquities) D io: D io C assius (Roman History) Fest.: S extus P o m p eiu s Festus (De verborum significatu) F ro n tin . (F ro n tin u s): Strat. (Strategemata) F ro n to : M arcus C o rn eliu s F ro n to (Correspondence) G ell.: A ulus G ellius (Attic Nights) H irtiu s: Gal. (Gallic War [b o o k 8 only]) H ist. A ug.: Historia Augusta H o r. (H orace): Carm. (Odes), E pist. (Epistles), Sat. (Satires) Isid. (Isidore o f Seville): D iff. (Differentiae), O rig. (Origines) lust. (Justinian): Cod. (Codex), D ig. (Digest) Iuv.: Ju v e n al (Satires) Ju stin : Epitome o f the Philippic History o f Pompeius Trogus Liv.: L ivy (History o f Rome); Perioch. (Epitomes) L ucian: Rhet. praec. (A Professor o f Public Speaking) M acr. (M acrobius): Sat. (Saturnalia) M arcell. (M arcellus E m pericus): Med. (De Medicamentis) N epos: E pam . (Epaminondas) O v . (O vid): A m . (Amores), A rs (T he A rt o f Love), Epist. (Letters from Pontus) Paul. (Julius Paulus): D ig. (F ragm ents in Ju stin ia n ’s Digest) Plato: Phil. (Philebus), Rep. (Republic) P laut. (Plautus): A m p h . (Am phitruo), A sin. (Asinaria), A u L (Aulularia), Bacch. (Bacchides), Cas. (C asina), Cist. (Cistellaria), M en. (Menaechmi), M il. (M ilesgloriosus), Poen. (Poenulus), Pseud. (Pseudolus), Stick. (Stichus), Trin. (Trinummus) Plin. (P liny th e E lder): N a t. (Natural History)

222

WORKS CfTED

Plut. (Plutarch): M or. (Moralia) and the follow ing Lives: A nt. (Marcus Antonius), Brut. (Brutus), C G (Gaius Gracchus), Caes. (Julius Caesar), Cat. Ma. (Cato the Elder), Cat. M i. (Cato the Younger), Cic. (Cicero), Cor. (Coriolanus), Crass. (Crassus), Publ. (Publicola), Pomp. (Gnaeus Pompeius), Rom. (Romulus), Sull. (Sulla) Pollux: O nom. (Onomasticon) Priscianus: Gramm. (Institutiones Grammaticae) Q u in t. (Q uintilian): Inst. (On the Training o f the Orator) Rhet. Her.: Rhetorica ad Herennium (Rhetoric to Gaius Herennius) Sail. (Sallust): Cat. (On the Conspiracy o f Catiline), Hist. (Histories) Sen. (Seneca the Elder): Contr. (Controversiae), Suas. (Suasoriae) Sen. (Seneca the Younger): Ben. (On Benefits), Dial. (Dialogues), Epist. (Moral Epistles), Nat. (Natural Questions) Serv. (Servius): co m m entary on V ergil’s Aeneid Suet. (Suetonius): I cite the follow ing biographical w orks: Aug. (Augustus), Gramm. (Grammarians), Iu l. (Julius Caesar), Rhet. (Rhetoricians), Tib. (Tiberius) Tac. (Tacitus): A nn. (Annals), Dial. (Dialogue on Orators), Hist. (Histories) Ter. (Terence): Ad. (The Brothers), Hau. (The Self-Tormentor), Hec. (The Motherin-Law) Tertullian: Apol. (Apologeticus) U lp. (U lpian): Dig. (Fragm ents in Justinian’s Digest) Val. M ax.: Valerius M axim us (Facta et dicta memorabilia) Varro: Ling. (On the Latin Language), Rust. (On Agriculture) Veil.: Velleius Paterculus Verg. (Vergil): Eel. (Eclogues) Vir. III.: A nonym ous biography De Viris Illustribus (OfFamous Men) O

ther

W

orks

C

it e d

A dam s, J. N . 1982. The Latin Sexual Vocabulary. Baltim ore. A hl, F. 1985. Metaformations. Ithaca. A lbini, U . 1959. “L’orazione contro V atinio.” Parola del passato 14: 172—84. Alfoldi, A. 1966. “Les cognomina des m agistrats de la Republique rom aine. ” In Melanges d’arckeologie et d ’histoire offerts a Andre Piganiol, 2:709-22. Paris. A lford, R. 1988. Naming and Identity: A Cross-Cultural Study o f Personal Naming Practices. N e w Haven. Allen, W. 1954. “C icero’s C onceit. ” Transactions and Proceedings o f the American Philological Association 85: 121—44. A lthusser, L. 1990. “T heory, Theoretical Practice and Theoretical Form ation: Ideology and Ideological S truggle.” In Philosophy and the Spontaneous Philoso­ phy o f the Scientists and Other Essays, ed. G. Elliot, 1—42. London and N ew York. A ppel, G. 1909. De Romanorum precationibus. Giessen. A rkins, B. 1982. Sexuality in Catullus. A ltertum sw issenschaftliche Texte und Studien 8. H ildesheim . A rndt, E. 1904. “D e ridiculi doctrina rh eto rica.” D iss., Kirchain.

WORKS CITED

223

A stin, A . 1978. Cato the Censor. O x fo rd . A u d o lle n t, A . 1904. D efixionum tabellae. Paris. A u stin , J. C . 1923. The Significant Nam e in Terence. Illinois S tudies in L anguage and L iteratu re 7.4. U rb a n a , 111. B a ch to ld -S tau b li, H ., ed. 1934—35. Handworterbuch des deutschen Aberglaubens. 10 vols. H a n d w o rte rb u c h e r z u r deutschen V olk sk u n d e A bt. I. B erlin and Leipzig. B adian, E . 1988. “T h e C lever and th e W ise: T w o R o m an Cognomina in C o n te x t.” In Vir Bonus Discendi Peritus: Studies in Celebration o f Otto Skutsch’s Eightieth Birthday, ed. N . H orsfall. 6 -1 2 . Bulletin o f the Institute o f Classical Studies, suppl. 51. L ondon. B alsdon, J. 1939. “C o n su lar P rovinces u n d er th e Late R epublic: II. C aesar’s G allic C o m m a n d .” Journal o f Roman Studies 29: 167-83. _______ 1979. Romans and Aliens. L on d o n . B a rto n , C . 1993. The Sorrows o f the Ancient Romans. P rinceton. B asanoff, V. 1947. Evocatio. Paris. B ecker, H . 1963. T he Outsiders. G lencoe, N .J. Bell, A. J. 1923. T he Latin D ual and Poetic Diction. O x fo rd . B entz, M . 1992. “Z u m P o rtra t des P o m p e iu s.” Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archaologischen Instituts, Romische Abteilung 99: 2 2 9 -4 6 . B erg so n , H . 1956. “L a u g h te r.” In Comedy, ed. W. S ypher, 59—190. G ard en C ity, N .Y . B ieber, M . 1961. T he History o f the Greek and Roman Theater. P rin ceto n . B illow s, R. 1982. “T h e L ast o f the Scipios. ” American Journal o f Ancient History I: 5 3 -6 8 . B layney, j . 1986. “T h eo ries o f C o n c e p tio n in th e A n cien t R o m an W o rld .” In T he Family in Ancient Rome: N ew Perspectives, ed. B . R aw son, 2 3 0 -3 6 . Ithaca. B lo o m , A. 1994. “T h e B o d y Lies. ” N e w Yorker, 18 Ju ly, 38—49. B o sw ell, J. 1980. Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality. C hicago. _______ 1990. “C o n cep ts, E xperience, an d S exuality .” differences 2 .1 : 67—87. B o u rd ieu , P. 1984. Distinction: A Social Critique o f the Judgement o f Taste, tran s. R. N ice. C a m b rid g e , M ass. _______ 1990. T he Logic o f Practice, trans. R. N ice. S tanford. _______ 1991. “T h e E c o n o m y o f L inguistic E x c h a n g e s.” In his Language and S ym ­ bolic Power, ed. J. B. T h o m p so n , trans. G. R ay m o n d and M . A dam so n , 37—89. C a m b rid g e , M ass. B re m m e r, J. 1992. “W alking, S tanding, and S ittin g in A n cien t G reek C u ltu re .” In A Cultural History o f Gesture, ed. J. B re m m e r an d H . R o o d e n b u rg , 15—35. Ithaca. B ro u g h to n , T. R. S. 1951. Magistrates o f the Roman Republic. 3 vols. C leveland. B ro w n , P. 1988. The Body and Society. N e w Y ork. B ro w n , R. 1987. Lucretius on Love and Sex. N e w Y ork. B ru g n o la, V. 1896. L e facezie di Cicerone. C astello. B u tler, H ., an d M . C ary, eds. 1927. C . Suetoni Tranquilli D ivus Iulius. O x fo rd . C antarella, E. 1992. Bisexuality in the Ancient World, tran s. C . 6 C uillenain. N e w H aven.

Caplan, H ., trans. 1954. Rhetorica ad Herenniutn. LCL. Cam bridge, Mass. C arandini, A. 1986. “Domus e insulae sulla pendice settentrionale del Palatino.” Bullettino della Commissione Archeologica Communale in Roma 91: 263—65. C arson, A . “Putting H er in H er Place: W oman, D irt, and D esire.” In D . H alperin, J. W inkler, and F. Zeitlin 135—69. Cebe, J.-P. 1967. “Catulle et la physiognom onie. ” Annales de la Faculte des Lettres d’A i x 43: 174-78. Chase, G. 1897. “T h e O rigin o f R om an Praenomina . ” Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 8: 103-84. Clarke, Jo h n R. 1993. “T he W arren C up and the C ontexts for Representations o f M ale-to-M ale Lovem aking in A ugustan and Early Julio-C laudian A rt. ” A rt Bulletin 75: 275-94. Coarelli, F. 1980. Roma. Rome. C ohen, David. 1991. Law, Sexuality, and Society: The Enforcement o f Morals in Classical Athens. C am bridge. C olin, J. 1952—53. “Juvenal, Ies baladins et Ies retiaires d ’apres Ie MS d ’O x fo rd .” A tti dell’Accademia delle Scienze di Torino 87—88: 315—86. ______ 1955. “Luxe oriental et parfum s masculins dans la Rom e alexandrine.” Revue beige de philologie et d’histoire 33: 5—19. Collier, G ., and V. Bricker. 1970. “N icknam es and SocialStructure in Zinacanta n .” American Anthropologist 72: 289-302. C ornish, F., et al., trans. 1912. Catullus, Tibullus, and Pervigilium Veneris. LCL. C am bridge, Mass. C ourtney, E. 1980. A Commentary on the Satires o f Juvenal. London. C raw ford, J. 1984. M . Tullius Cicero: The Lost and Unpublished Orations. H ypom nemata 80. G ottingen. C rook, J. 1967. “A Study in D ecoction.” Latomus 26: 363—76. C ugusi, M . S. 1982. Marci Porci Catonis orationum reliquiae. Turin. Dalla, D . 1987. “Ubi Venus mutatur": Omosessualita e diritto nel mondo Romano. Milan. D ’A rm s, J. 1981. Commerce and Social Standing in Ancient Rome. Cam bridge, Mass. D avid, J.-M . 1980. “Eloquentia popularis et conduites sym boliques des orateurs de la fin de la Republique: problem es d ’efficacite.” Quaderni di storia 12: 171—211. ----------- 1983. “ Les orateurs des m unicipes a Rome: integration, reticences et snobism es.” In Les “bourgeoisies" municipales italiennes aux I I e et Ir siecles a v .J .C ., 309—23. Paris and Naples. D em m el, M . 1962. “Cicero u nd Paetus.” D iss., Koln. Dessau, H . 1906. Inscriptiones Latinae selectae. Berlin. D ouglas, A. 1958. “R om an C o g n o m in a.” Greece and Rome 27: 62-66. D over, K. 1978. Greek Homosexuality. N ew York. Dum ezil, G. 1970. Archaic Roman Religion, trans. P. Krapp. Chicago. _______ 1943. Servius et la fortune. Paris. D upont, F. 1985. L ’A cteur-roi, ou, L e Theatre dans la Rome antique. Paris. Earl, D . 1967. The Moral and Political Tradition o f Rome. Ithaca. Edw ards, C. 1993. T he Politics o f Immorality in Ancient Rome. Cam bridge.

WORKS CITED

225

E llio tt, R. 1960. The Power o f Satire: Magic, Ritual, A rt. P rin ceto n . E rbse, H . 1957. “T ex tk ritisch e B eitrage zu d en B io g rap h ien P lu tarc h s.” Rheinisches Museum, 3rd ser., 100: 271 -9 4 . E vans, E. 1935. “ R o m an D escrip tio n s o f P ersonal A ppearan ce in H isto ry and B io g ra p h y .” Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 46: 4 3 -8 4 . _______ 1969. P hysiognom icsintheA ncient World. Transactions o f the American Philo­ sophical Society 59.5. Philadelphia. Feher, M ., e t al., eds. 1989. Fragments fo r a History o f the H uman Body. 3 vols. Zone 3—5. N e w Y ork and C a m b rid g e, M ass. Finley, M . 1985. T he Ancient Economy. L on d o n . F lam bard, J .-M . 1978. “N o u v e l ex am en d ’u n dossier p ro so p o g rap h iq u e: Ie cas de Sex. C lo d iu s/C lo e liu s. ” Melanges d ’A rcheologie et d ’Histoire de PEcole Frangaise de Rome, Antiquite 90: 235 -4 5 . F ordyce, C . 1961. Catullus: A Commentary. O x fo rd . F oucault, M . 1977. “N ietzsche, G enealogy, an d H isto ry .” In his Language, Counter-Memory, Practice: Selected Essays and Interviews, ed. D . B o u ch ard , trans. D . B o u c h ard and S. S im on, 139—64. Ithaca. _______ 1980. T he History o f Sexuality, trans. R. H urley. N e w Y ork. _______ 1985. The Use o f Pleasure, trans. R. H urley . N e w Y ork. F raenkel, E. 1925. R eview o f F. B eckm ann, “Z au b erei u n d R echt in R om s F riih zeit” (diss., M u n ste r 1923). Gnomon I: 186—200. ________ 1961. “T w o P o em s o f C a tu llu s." Journal o f Roman Studies 51: 4 6 -5 3 . F rank, T . 1920. “ Tulliana.” American Journal o f Philology 41: 275—82. Frazer, J. 1911. T he Golden Bough. 3rd ed. 12 vols. L ondon. F reese1J ., trans. 1926. Aristotle: The “A r t” o f Rhetoric. LC L . C a m b rid g e, M ass. F reud, S. 1960. Jokes and Their Relation to the Unconscious, tran s. J. Strachey. In vol. 8 o f The Complete Psychological Works o f Sigm und Freud, ed. J. Strachey. L on d o n . Frye, N . 1957. Anatom y o f Criticism. P rinceton. Fuss, D . 1989. Essentially Speaking: Feminism, Nature, and Difference. N e w Y o rk and L o n d o n . G arber, M . 1991. Vested Interests: Cross-dressing and Cultural A n xiety. N e w Y ork. G a rto n , C . 1972. Personal Aspects o f the Roman Theatre. T o ro n to . G arzetti, A. 1954. Plutarchi vita Caesaris. Florence. G eertz, C . 1984. “A n ti A n ti-R e lativ ism .” American Anthropologist 86: 263—78. G effcken, K . 1973. Comedy in the “pro C aelio.” Mnemosyne, suppl. 30. Leiden. G elzer, M . 1968. Caesar: Politician and Statesman, trans. P. N ee d h am . C am b rid g e, M ass. G ilm o re , D . 1987. Aggression and Community: Paradoxes o f Andalusian Culture. N e w H aven. G leason, M . 1991. “T h e Sem iotics o f G ender: P h y sio g n o m y and S elf-F ashioning in th e S econd C e n tu ry C E .” In D . H alperin, J. W inkler, an d F. Z eitlin 389— 415. In co rp o ra ted in to G leason 1995, chap. 3. _______ 1995. M aking M en: Sophists and Self-Presentation in Ancient Rome. P rinceton. G o etz, G. 1888—1923. Corpus glossariorum latinorum. 5 vols. Leipzig.

226

WORKS CITED

G olden, M . 1991. “T h irte e n Years o f H o m o se x u ality (and O th e r R ecent W orks o n Sex, G ender, an d th e B o d y in A ncient G reece).” Echos du monde classique 35: 3 2 7 -4 0 . G o m b rich , E. 1982. “T h e M a sk an d th e F ace.” In The Image and the Eye: Further Studies in the Psychology o f Pictorial Representation, 105—36. O x fo rd . G o nfroy, F. 1978. “H o m o se x u alite et ideologic esclavagiste chez C ic e ro n .” D ia­ logues d ’histoire ancienne 4: 219—62. G raf, F. 1991. “P rayer in M agic and R eligious R itu a l.” In M agika Hiera, ed. C. F araone an d D . O b b in k , 188-213. O x fo rd . _______ 1992. “G estures and C o n v e n tio n s: T h e G estures o f R o m an A cto rs and O ra to r s .” In A Cultural History o f Gesture, ed. J. B rem m er an d H . R o o d e n b u rg , 36—58. Ithaca. G ran t, M . 1924. T he Ancient Rhetorical Theories o f the Laughable. U n iv ersity o f W isconsin Studies in L anguage and L iterature 21. M ad iso n , Wise. G ra n t, W. 1947. “ C icero, ad Fam. v iii.8 .9 .” Classical Review 61: 10-11. G rassm ann, V. 1966. D ie erotischen Epoden des H oraz. Z etem ata 39. M unich. G reenblatt, S. 1987. “C ap italist C u ltu re an d the C irc u lato ry S y stem .” In The A im s o f Representation, ed. M . K rieger, 257—73. N e w Y ork. G reen id g e, A . H . J. 1901. The Legal Procedure o f Cicero's Tim e. O x fo rd . G riffin, J. 1976. “A u g u sta n P o etry an d th e Life o f L uxury. ” fo u m a l o f Roman Studies 66: 87—105. G ro o t, J. de. 1910. The Religious System o f China. 6 vols. Leyden. G ru e n , E. 1974. The Last Generation o f the Roman Republic. Berkeley. _______ 1984. The Hellenistic World and the Coming o f Rome. Berkeley. H aines, C ., trans. 1957. The Correspondence o f Marcus Cornelius Fronto. 2 vols. L C L . C a m b rid g e, M ass. H allett, J. 1977. “Perusinaeglandes and th e C h a n g in g Im ag e o f A u g u stu s.” A m eri­ can Journal o f Ancient History 2: 151—71. _______ 1978. “Morigerari·. Suet. Tib. 4 4 .” Antiquite classique 47: 196—200. _______ 1984. Fathers and Daughters in Roman Society: Women and the Elite Family. P rin ceto n . ----------- 1989a. “ Fem ale H o m o e ro tic ism and th e D enial o f R o m an R eality in Latin L iterature. ” Yale Journal o f Criticism 3: 209—27. ----------- 1989b. “W om an as Same and O ther in th e C lassical R o m an E lite .” Helios 16: 5 9 -7 8 . H alp erin , D . 1990. O ne Hundred Years o f Hom osexuality. N e w Y ork. H alp erin , D ., J. W inkler, and F. Z eitlin, eds. 1991. Before Sexuality. P rinceton. H an d s, A. 1962. “H u m o u r and V anity in C ic e ro .” In Collana di Studi Ciceroniani, ed. E . P aratore, 2:115—25. R om e. H au ry , A. 1955. L ’ironie et Vhumour chez Ciceron. Leiden. H en d e rso n , J. 1991. The Maculate Muse. Rev. ed. N e w Y ork. H eraeus, W. 1902. “D ie rom isch e S oldatensprache. ” Archiv fu r lateinische L exikographie und Grammatik 12: 255—80. H eritier-A u g e, F. 1989. “S em en an d B lood: S om e A n cien t T h eo ries concerning th eir G enesis and R ela tio n sh ip .” In M . F eher et al. 3:158-75. H erte r, H . 1927. R ev iew o f M . G rant, T he Ancient Rhetorical Theories o f the Laughable (M adison, W ise., 1924). Gnomon 3: 721-27.

WORKS CITED

227

H ijm a n s, B . 1978. “ S ignificant N am e s and T h e ir F u n ctio n in A p u leiu s’ M eta­ morphoses." In Aspects o f A puleius’ "Golden A ss," ed. B. H ijm an s an d R. van der P aard t, 107—22. G ro n in g en . H irzel, R. 1962. D er Name: Ein Beitrag z u seiner Geschichte im Altertum und besonders bei den Griechen. A m ste rd a m . O rig in ally p u b lish ed as Abhandlungen der Sachsischen Akadem ie der Wissenschaften. Philologisch-historischen Klasse 36 (1927). H o fm a n n , J. B. 1951. Lateinische Umgangssprache. H eidelberg. H o lst, H . 1925. D ie Wortspiele in Ciceros Reden. S ym b o lae O sloenses I . O slo . H o p k in s, K . 1983. Death and Renewal. C a m b rid g e. H o u sm a n , A . E. 1918. “Je sts o f Plautus, C icero, an d T rim alch io . ” Classical R e­ view 32: 162—64. H u b b ell, H ., ed. and trans. 1949. Cicero: D e inventione. L C L . C a m b rid g e, M ass. H u g h es, Jo se p h J. 1992. “P iso ’s E y e b ro w s.” Mnemosyne 45: 234—37. Jacobelli, L. 1995. L e pitture erotiche delle Terme Suburbane di Pompei. R om e. Ja n k o , R. 1984. Aristotle on Comedy. L ondon. Je ro m e , T h o m a s. 1923. Aspects o f the Study o f Roman History. N e w Y o rk and L ondon. Jo n e s, D . 1970. R ev iew o f I. K ajanto, The Latin Cognomina (H elsinki, 1965). Classical Review 84: 208. Jo rd a n , H . 1860 M . Catonis praeter librum de re rustica quae exstant. S tu ttg art. K ajanto, I. 1965. T he Latin Cognomina. H elsinki. Kelly, J. M . 1966. Roman Litigation. O x fo rd . _______ 1976. Studies in the C ivil Judicature o f the Roman Republic. O x fo rd . K ennedy, D . 1993. The A rts o f Love: Five Studies in the Discourse o f Roman Love Elegy. C a m b rid g e. K ennedy, G . 1972. T he A rt o f Rhetoric in the Roman World. P rin ceto n . K ent, R ., tran s. 1938. Varro: D e Lingua Latina. 2 vols. L C L . C a m b rid g e, M ass. Keyes, C ., tran s. 1928. Cicero: D e Re Publica, D e Legibus. LC L . C am b rid g e, M ass. K iefer, O . 1934. Sexual Life in Ancient Rome, trans. G. an d H . H ig h et. L ondon. K irk , G. 1985. T he Iliad: A Commentary. Vol. I, Books 1—4. C a m b rid g e. K och, H . 1861. “Z u C ic e ro ’s R ede pro Sestio.” Sokrates 15: 384. K renkel, W. 1980. “Fellatio and irrumatio.” Wissenschaftliche Zeitschriftder WilhelmPieck-Universitat, Rostock 29: 77—88. _______ 1981. “T o n g u in g .” Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift der Wilhelm-PieckUniversitat, Rostock 30: 37—54. L aqueur, T. 1990. M aking Sex: Body and Gender from the Greeks to Freud. C a m ­ b rid g e, M ass. L atte, K . 1960. Romische Religionsgeschickte. M unich. L eem an, A . D . 1982. “T h e T ech n iq u e o f P ersuasion in C ic e ro ’s pro M urena.” In Eloquence et rhetorique chez Ciceron, ed. W. S tro h an d W. L u d w ig , 193-236. E n tretien s su r l’an tiq u ite classique 28. V andoeuveres-G eneve. Lesky, E. 1950. D ie Zeugungs- und Vererbungslehren der A n tike und ihr Nachwirken. A b h an d lu n g e n der A k ad em ie d er W issenschaften u n d d er L iteratur, M ainz. G eistes- u n d sozialw issenschaftliche K lasse 19. W iesbaden. Lilja, S. 1965. Terms o f Abuse in Roman Comedy. H elsinki.

228

WORKS CITED

L ind, L. R. 1976. “P rim itiv ity and R o m an Ideas: T h e S u rv iv als.” Latomus 35: 2 4 5 -6 8 . L in d ersk i1J. 1986. “T h e A u g u ra l L aw .” Aufstieg und Niedergang der romischen Welt II 16.3: 2146-312. L o p oszko, T. 1989. “ S extus C lo d iu s D am io ?” Historia 38: 49 8 -5 0 3 . L uck, G. 1982. “L ove E le g y .” In The Cambridge History o f Classical Literature. Vol. 2, Latin Literature, ed. E. J. K enney, 405—19. C am b rid g e. M a cM u llen 1 R. 1982. “R o m an A ttitu d es to G reek L o v e.” Historia 31: 484—502. M agli, P. 1989. “T h e Face and th e S o u l,” trans. U . L ubin. In M . F eher et al. 2:87-127. M a g n in o , D . 1963. Plutarchi vita Ciceronis. Florence. M alcovati, E . 1976. Oratorum Romanorum fiagmenta. T u rin . M anfredini, A . 1985. “Q u i c o m m u ta n t cu m fem inis vestem . ” Revueinternationale des droits de VAntiquiti 32: 257—71. M an zo, A . 1969. Facete dicta Tulliana. B iblioteca della R ivista di S tudi Classici, S aggi Vari 5. T urin. M arache, R. 1978. Aulu-G elle: Les Nuits Attiques. Vol. 2. Paris. M arcu s, M . 1976. “P o w er o f a N a m e .” Psychology Today, O cto b e r, 75—80. M a rro u , H . 1956. A History o f Education in A ntiquity, trans. G. L am b. L o n d o n . M a rx , F. 1904—5. C . Lucilii carminum reliquiae. 2 vols. Leipzig. M aslakov, G . 1984. “V alerius M ax im u s and R o m an H isto rio g rap h y : A S tu d y in th e exempla T ra d itio n .” Aufstieg und Niedergang der romischen Welt II 32.1: 437— 96. M ay, J. M . 1988. Trials o f Character: The Eloquence o f Ciceronian Ethos. C hapel H ill, N .C . M c C artn e y , E. 1918—19. “P uns and Plays o n P ro p e r N a m e s .” Classical Journal 14: 3 4 3 -5 8 . M e rg u e t, H . 1962. L exikon z u den Reden des Cicero. H ildesheim . M eusel, H ., F. K ram er, and W. D itten b erg er, eds. 1968. C . Iulii Caesariscommentarii de bello Gallico. D ublin. M o m m se n , T. 1864. Romische Forschungen. B erlin. _______ 1887-88. Romisches Staatsrecht. 3 vols. Leipzig. M o n aco , G . 1968. Cicerone: L ’excursus “de ridiculis.” P alu m b o . _______ 1970. Quintiliano: Il capitolo “de risu. ” P alum bo. M o n ta ig n e , M . de. 1958. Essays, trans. J. M . C o h en . N e w Y ork. M o n teil, P. 1964. Beau et laid en Latin. Paris. N eu d lin g , C . 1955. A Prosopography to Catullus. O x fo rd . N ich o las, B. 1962. A n Introduction to Roman Law . O x fo rd . N ico let, C . 1980. The World o f the C itizen in Republican Rome, trans. P. Falla. B erkeley. N ietzsche, F. 1956. The Genealogy o f Morals, trans. F. GolfFing. G ard en C ity, N .Y . N isb e t, R. G. M . 1958. “T h e invectiva in Ciceronem and epistula secunda o f P seu d o Sallust. ” Journal o f Roman Studies 48: 30—32. O g ilv ie, R. 1965. Commentary on L iv y 1 -5 . O x fo rd . O n ian s, R. 1951. The Origins o f European Thought. C am b rid g e. O p elt, I. 1965. D ie lateinischen Schimpfworter und verwandte sprachliche Erscheinungen. H eidelberg.

WORKS CITED

229

O tto , A. 1890. D ie Sprichworter undsprichwdrtlichen Redensarten der Romer. Leipzig. Pack, R. 1938. “E rro rs as Subjects o f C o m ic M irth .” Classical Philology 33: 4 0 5 10 .

Paoli, U . 1963. Rome: Its People, Life, and Customs, trans. R. M acnaghten. N ew Y ork. Patzer, H . 1982. D ie griechische Knabenliebe. W iesbaden. P eradotto, J. 1990. M an in the Middle Voice: Name and Narration in the “Odyssey." P rinceton. Perl, G. 1982. “D er R edner H elvius M ancia und der pictus Gallus: C ic. de orat. 2 .2 6 6 .” Philologus 126: 59-67. Perrin, B ., trans. 1919. Plutarch: The Parallel Lives. 11 vols. LCL. C am bridge, M ass. Peter, H . 1897. “D ie L itteratur der W itzw orte in R o m u n d die gefliigelten W orte im M u n d e C aesars.” Neue Jahrbiicher Jur Philologie und Paedagogik 155: 853—60. Phillips, O . 1968. “L ucan’s G ro v e .” Classical Philology 63: 296-300. Plass, P. 1988. Wit and the Writing o f History. M adison, Wise. P otter, D . 1986. The Singing Detective. L ondon and B oston. Poulsen, F. 1936. “Les p o rtraits de P om peius M a g n u s.” Revue archeologique, 6th se r., 7: 16-52. R ackham , H ., trans. 1931. Cicero: D e finibus bonorum et malorum. LCL. C am ­ bridge, M ass. , trans. 1944. Aristotle: Politics. LCL. C am b rid g e, Mass. R am age, E. 1973. “Urbanitas": Ancient Sophistication and Refinement. N o rm an , O kla. R aw son, B. 1968. R eview o f I. K ajanto, The Latin Cognomina (H elsinki, 1965). Classical Philology 63: 154. R aw son, E. 1975. “C aesar’s H eritage: H ellenistic K ings and T h eir R om an E q u als.” Journal o f Roman Studies 65: 148—59. Richlin, A. 1981. “T h e M eaning o f irrumare in C atullus and M a rtial.” Classical Philology 76: 4 0 -4 6 . _______ 1988. “ System s o f F ood Im agery in C atu llu s.” Classical World 81: 355— 63. _______ 1992a. The Garden ofPriapus. Rev. ed. O x fo rd . _______ 1992b. “R o m an O rato ry , P ornography, and the Silencing o f A nita H ill.” Southern Califemia Law Review 65: 1321—32. _______ 1993. “N o t before H om osexuality. ” Journal o f the History o f Sexuality 3: 523-73. R itti, T. 1977. “Im m agini onom astiche sui m o n u m en ti sepolcrali di eta im p eriale.” Memorie della Classe di Scienze morali e storiche dell’Accademia dei Lincei 21: 257-397. R ogin, M . 1987. “Ronald Reagan,” the Movie: A n d Other Episodes in Political Demonology. Berkeley. Rose, H . J. 1926. Primitive Culture in Italy. L ondon. Rossi, O . 1924. “D e M . C atonis dictis et ap o p h th eg m atis.” Athenaeum, n .s., 2: 174-82. R udd, N . 1966. The Satires o f Horace. L ondon. Saint-D enis, E. 1965. Essais surle rire et Ie sourire des Latins. Publications de l’u n iversite de D ijon 32. Paris.

Sailer, R. 1991. “C orporal Punishm ent, A uthority, and O bedience in the Rom an H ousehold.” In Marriage, Divorce, and Children in Ancient Rome, ed. B. Rawson, 144—65. O xford. Salm on, E. T. 1982. The M aking o f Roman Italy. London. Santoro L’H oir, F. 1992. The Rhetoric o f Gender Terms. Mnemosyne, suppl. 120. Leiden. Scarborough, J. 1969. Roman Medicine. Ithaca. Schrader, G. 1989. “D er unschuldige Verbrecher. Z u r Geschichte der K rim inalanthropologie. ” In N atur nach Mass: Physiognomik zwischen Wissenschaft und Asthetik, ed. R. Fischer, 59-75. M arburg. Schulze, W. 1966. Z u r Geschichte lateinischer Eigennamen. Berlin. O riginally pub­ lished as Abhandlungen der koniglich Geschichte der Wissenschaften z u Gottingen. Philosophisch-historische Klasse, N eue Folge V, 5 (Berlin 1933). Schur, E. 1971. Labeling Deviant Behavior: Its Sociological Implications. N ew York. Schw artz, J. 1948. “Sur quelques anecdotes concernant Cesar et C iceron.” Revue des etudes anciennes 50: 264—71. Seager, R. 1976. Pompey: A Political Biography. O xford. Segal, E. 1968. Roman Laughter. N ew York. Shackleton Bailey, D. R. 1956. Propertiana. Cam bridge. ______ 1960. “Sex. C lodius— Sex. C loelius.” Classical Quarterly 54: 41—42. ______ 1981. ''Ecce iterum Cloelius." Historia 30: 383. ______ 1982. “N otes on C icero’s Philippics.” Philologus 126: 217—26. ______ , trans. 1988a. Cicero: Philippics. Chapel Hill, N .C . ______ 1988b. Onomasticon to Cicero’s Speeches. N orm an, Okla. Shaw, A. 1955. “A Historical C om m entary on the Second B ook o f M acrobius’ Saturnalia.” Diss., Pennsylvania. Sickinger, J. 1883. “D e linguae Latinae apud Plutarchum et reliquiis et vestigiis.” D iss., H eidelberg. Sittl, C. 1890. D ie Gebdrden der Griechen und Rdmer. Leipzig. Skinner, M . 1982. “P retty Lesbius.” Transactions and Proceedings o f the American Philological Association 112: 197—208. Smith, K. 1913. The Elegies o f Albius Tibullus. N ew York. Stanley, K. 1963. “Rom e, eras, and the versus Rom ae.” Greek, Roman and B yzantine Studies 4: 237-49. Stevens, C. 1938. “T he Term inal D ate o f Caesar’s C o m m an d .” American Journal o f Philology 59: 169-208. Stroh, W. 1975. Taxis und Taktik. Stuttgart. Siiss, W. 1910. Ethos. Leipzig and Berlin. Syme, R. 1939. T he Roman Revolution. O xford. ______ 1956. “ Some Pisones in Tacitus. ” Journal o f Roman Studies 46: 17—21. ______ 1979. Roman Papers. Vol. I. O xford. Tarrant, R. 1976. Seneca: Agamemnon. Cam bridge. Thalm ann, W. 1988. “Thersites: Com edy, Scapegoats, and H eroic Ideology in the Iliad.” Transactions and Proceedings o f the American Philological Association 118: 1-28. T hornton, B. 1991. “C onstructionism and A ncient Greek Sex.” Helios 18: 181— 93.

WORKS CITED

231

T h o rp , J. 1992. “T h e Social C o n stru c tio n o f H om o sex u ality .” Phoenix 46: 54-61. T hylander, H . 1952. Etude sur Vipigraphie latine. Lund. Tracy, V. 1976. “R om an D andies and T ransvestites.” Echos du monde classique 20: 60-63. T reggiari, S. 1969. Roman Freedmen during the Late Republic. O x fo rd . U sener, H . 1901. “Italische V olksjustiz.” Rheinisches Museum 56: 1-28. Vasaly, A. 1993. Representations: Images o f the World in Ciceronian Oratory. Berkeley. V eyne, P. 1985. “H om osexuality in A ncient R o m e .” In Western Sexuality: Practice and Precept in Past and Present Times, ed. P. Aries an d A. Bejin, trans. A. Fors­ ter, 26—35. O x fo rd . Versnel, H . 1970. Triumphus: A n Inquiry into the Origin, Development, and Meaning o f the Roman Triumph. Leiden. W agenvoort, H . 1947. Roman Dynamism. O xford . W arm ington, E ., trans. 1979. Remains o f O ld Latin. 4 vols. LCL. C am bridge, M ass. W eeks1J. 1981. “D iscourse, D esire, and Sexual D eviance: Som e Problem s in a H isto ry o f H om osexuality. ” In The M aking o f the Modern Homosexual, ed. R. P lu m m er, 76—111. L ondon. W einstock, S. 1971. D ivus Iulius. O x fo rd . W essner, P., ed. 1931. Scholia in Juvenalem vetustiora. Leipzig. W illiam s, G. 1962. “P oetry in the M oral C lim ate o f A ugustan R o m e .” Journal o f Roman Studies 52: 28-46. _______ 1978. Change and Decline: Roman Literature in the Early Empire. Berkeley. W inkler, J. 1990. The Constraints o f Desire: The Anthropology o f Sex and Gender in Ancient Greece. N e w York. W isem an, T. P. 1971. N ew M en in the Roman Senate, 139 b . c .—a . d . 14. L ondon. W issow a, G. 1912. Religion und Kultus der Romer. M unich. W oodm an, A. J. 1983. Velleius Paterculus: The Caesarian and Augustan Narrative (2 .4 1 -9 3 ). C am bridge. Yavetz, Z . 1983. Julius Caesar and H is Public Image. Ithaca.

IN D E X L O C O R U M E T IO C O R U M

T his index includes all passages from ancient authors cited in the text or notes. Page num ­ bers in italics m ark passages I think would have provoked laughter in the Roman audience. T he listing hardly claims to be definitive but represents the range o f Republican invective, from gentle irony to simple w ordplay to savage abuse. Aetius: 5.7.1, 144n Ammianus Marcellinus: 17.11.4, 165n, 181n A nonym ous Latin Physiognom ist (in Foerster): 2.31, 168n 2.75-76, 154n 2.123, 154n 2.135.3, 168n Appian: B C (Civil Wars) 2.37, 185n 2.99, 21 In 2.108, 200 and n 2 . 110, 201 n 2.112, 207n 2.113, 199 4.20, 216n 4.75, 46n Reg. (Concerning the Kings) I frag. 10, 25n Archilochus: Frag.79a, 19n Aretaeus: 2.5, 144n Aristotle: E N (Nichomachean Ethics) 3.5.1114a23-31, 142n 3.5.1114a24-27, 29n 4.8.1128a, 30n G A (On the Generation o f Animals) 723a24-25, 144n 7 6 4 a l-6 , 144n Phgn. (On Physiognomy) 808al2-16, 154n Poetics 5.1449a32-34, 21n, 30n 5.1449a34-37, 21n

Pol. (Politics) 1.2.14, 31n Rh. A l. (Rhetoric to Alexander, spurious) 1426a3-10, 26n, 142n 1440bl6-23, 26n, 142n 1445a, 52n Rhet. (Rhetoric) 1.9.32-33, 26n 2.2.12, 30n 2.3.12, 30n 2.4.13, 30n 2.12.16, 30n 2.23.29, 75n Augustine: City o f God 22.19, 32n

Caes. (Julius Caesar): Civ. (Civil War) 3.30.6, 19in 3.31.1, 191n Gal. (Gallic War) 1.32.2, 122n 1.42.6, 191 4.25.3, 19ln 5.30.2-3, 19ln 5.44.3, 191n 6.35.8, 191n 6.36.2, 190 7.38.2-3, 19ln 7.38.6-8, 191n 7.50.4, 191n 7.50.6, 191n 7.73.4, 190 7.73.8, 190 7.73.9, 190 Calvus: Frag. 18, 165n

234

INDEX LOCORUM ET IOCORUM

Carm. de fig. (Carmen de figuris vel schematibus) 110, 96n Cato: Origines 32, 88 Catull. (Catullus): 14.3, 50n, 55n 29, 1 3 3 - 3 4 2 9 . 1 - 5 , 129n 29.14, 131n 29.22, 131n 37.19, 170 4 2 . 1 6 - 1 7 , 102n 4 7 . 3 - 6 , 129n, 137n 52, 50n 52.2, 55 5 2 . 2 - 3 , 55n 53, 55n 53.5, 39n 56.7, 117n 57, 150n 72.4, 187n 79, 80n, 123a, 163n 80, J J 7m 84, 126n 86.5, 80n 8 8 . 7 - 8 , 122 98, 11 In Celsus: 1.3.13, 141 2.1.5, 141 2.1.23, 141 2.10.5, 141 5.28.7, 46 and n, 52n Cic. (Cicero): 1. Speeches Arch. (On Behalf of Archias) 24, 81 n Balb. (On Behalf of Balbus) 45, 95n? Caecin. (On Behalf of Caecina) 27, 88, 140 Cael. (On Behalf of Caelius) 6, 17 77, 162n 78, 103n Catil. (Against Catiline) 1.1, 102n 1.8, 116n 1.17, 53n 1.30, 83

1.32, 14 2.5, 138, 162n 2 . 1 7 - 2 3 , 161 2.20, 143n 2.22, 134n, 137n, 138, 161 2.23, 138 and n 3.6, 95n 4.1, 102n Clu. (On Behalf of Cluentius) 46, 15n 58, 122n 65, 102n 71, 85n 7 1 - 7 2 , 95n 72, 83 111, 162n 119, 18n 130, 18n 190, 187n 200, 15n Deiot. (On Behalf of King Deiolarus) 3 3 - 3 4 , 21 On 40, 198, 210 Div. in Caec. (Interrogation of Caecilius) 57, 91, 92, 94n? Dom. (On Behalf of His Home) 4, 113 18-19, 113 24, 114, 121, 123 25, 114, 128, 178n 26, 103n, 117, 120, 123 36, 118 47, 118 48, 53n, 120, 124 49, 121 54, 122n 62, 122n 83, 122 99, 52n 104, 103n, 123 104-41, 113 106, 119n 116, 95n? 139, 163 Flacc. (On Behalf of Flaccus) 41, 95n Font. (On Behalf of Fonteius) 29, 102n, 109n Fr. or. inc. (Fragments from uncertain orations) 24, 122n

235 INDEX LOCORUM ET IOCORUM Har. resp. (On the Response of the Soothsayers) 1, 163n 5, 87n, 88 8, 163 11, 103n, 117, 120 42, 150n 59, 150n In Clod. (Invective against Clodius and Curio) 4, 163 22, 125n, 162, 167-68 23, 163 25, 79 /hia in Sail. (Invective against Sallust; spurious) 5.15, 150n 9, 150n 20, 131n Leg. a^r. (On the Agrarian Laws) 2.59, 95n? Lig. (On Behalf of Ligarius) 30, 198, 210 38, 15n Manil. (On the Manilian Law) 60, 179 62, 179n, 180 67, 81n Marc. (On Behalf of Marcellus) 10, 102 Mil. (On Behalf of Milo) 31, 18n 55, 163 78, 178n Mur. (On Behalf of Murena) 11, 17 13, 18n, 137, 139 19, 95n? P. red. in sen. (To the Senate on His Return from Exile) 11, 134n 11-12, 134n 13, 171n, 172 14-15, 135 15, 170n, 171, 171n 16, 172 Phil. (Philippics against Marcus Antonius) 1.36, 81n 2, 215 2.3, 148 2.34, 215n

2.39, 7n, 185 2.44, 149, 150n 2.44-45, 105, 148 2.47, 105 2.50, 149 2.62, 147n 2.63, 178n 2.67, 11 On, 131n 2.68, 102, 103n, 105n, 124 2.76, 149n 2.77, 149n 2.90, 57M 2.103, 102n 2.104-5, 135n 2.106, 95n? 3.12, 164 3.16, 57, 93 5.16, 102, 103n, 124 5.20, 103n, 124, 178n 6.11, 82 7.21, 102n 10.13, 46n 11.5, 103n 11.7, 103n, 124 11.10, 11 On 11.14, 87 11.18, 179n 11.26, 161 11.37, 131n 12.1, 95n? 12.20, 95n? 13.4, 102n, 125n 13.24, 122n 13.26, 87n 13.27, 91 13.28, 202n 14.9, 150n Pis. (Against Piso) Frag.6, 170n Frag.8, 171 Frag.9, 171 n F r a g . l l , 171n Frag. 17, 170n 1, 31n, 170 2, 171n 8, 124 12, 173 13, 103n 14, 86n, 170n, 171n 16, 170n 18, 134n, 167

236

INDEX LOCORUM ET IOCORUM

Cic. (Cicero) (cont.) 1. Speeches (cont.) 20, 134n, 170n 22, 138n 24, 170, 173 2 4 - 2 5 , 165n 27, 15n 41, 133 42, 135n 53, 134n, 171n 63, 102n, 103n 65, 150n 67, 134n, J 72 68, 170 70, 170 81, 172 96, 173 99, 19, 53n Plane. (On Behalf of Plancius) 31, 77n 32, 77n 34, 95n? 35, 7n 58, 95n? 85, In 87, 138n Prou. (On the Consular Provinces) 7, 171n 8, 134n, 170n 9, 196 Q. Rose. (On Behalf of Quintus Roscius) 20, 43 30, 77 Quinct. (On Behalf of Quinctius) 12, 134n 77, 102n, 103n Rah. perd. (On Behalf of Gaius Rabirius on a Charge of Treason) 36, 103n Rab. post. (On Behalf of Gaius Rabirius Postumus) 34, 102 S. Rose. (On Behalf of Sextus Roscius) 8, 122n 87, 102n 95, 102n 124, 88n 134, 134n 154, 15 Scaur. (On Behalf of Scaurus) 6, 42 30, 73

Sest. (On Behalf of Sestius) 6, 187n 16, 115, 111, 120 17, 102n, 125n, 166 18, 134n, 166 19, 165n, 170, 172 20, 134n, 135, 140, 150n, 17 In 21, 171 22, 171n, 173n 24, 115 26, 133 39, 163n 46, 163n 48, 163n 52, 163n 68, 121 72, 86, 91, 93 101, 18n 103, 144n 105, 125n 110, 83 111, 103n, llOn 117-26, 81n 118, 103n, 124 132, 95n? 132-35, 5 2 - 5 3 134, 54 135, 23n, 51 n, 54, 95n Sull. (On Behalf of Sulla) 21, 83 71, 15n 73, 15n 74, 102 Vat. (Against Vatinius) 1 - 2 , 52 1 - 3 , 49n, 50 4, 50, 52 5, 102n 6, 95n 10, 51 16, 52n 25, 51n 39, 52-53, 100, 103n, 111 3 9 - 4 1 , 52n Verr. (Against Verres) 1.1.46, 143n

2.1.1, 102n

2.1.32, 77n 2.1.40, 15 2.1.104, 95n 2.1.121, 92 2.1.127, 102n

237 INDEX LOCORUM ET IOCORUM 2.2.18-19, 73, 93 2.2.19, 94n? 2.2.41, 122n 2.2.48, 102n, 209 2.2.52, 2.2.191, 2.2.192, 150, 163n 2.3.1-5, 107 2.3.5, 102n, 107, 108 2.3.21, 108 2.3.22, 108 2.3.23, 95n, 110, 114, 120, 128, 138n 2.3.31, 111, 128 2.3.41, 102n 2.3.60, 109n 2.3.62, 103n, 128, 137n 2.3.110, 11 In 2.3.121, 11 In 2.3.129, l l l n 2.3.133, l l l n 2.3.134, 111, 128 2.3.135, 48n 2.3.135-37, l l l n 2.3.137, 94n? 2.3.153, l l l n 2.3.159, 148n 2.3.162, 77n 2.3.177, 119n, 131n 2.4.26, 102n 2.4.53, 94n?, 95n 2.4.57, 19 2.4.66, 102 2.4.95, 94 2.4.124, 103n 2.4.143, 148n 2.4.148, 96 2.5.86, 163n 2.5.92-94, 135n 2.5.137, 135n 2.5.161, 102n, 103n 2. Other Prose Works Ac. (Academics) 2.146, 109n Ad Q. jr. (Letters to His Brother Quintus) 2.4.1, 55 2.11.3, 95n 3.1.11, 7n 3.7(9).1, 52n Att. (Letters to Atticus) 1.13.2, 42 1.13.5, 85 1.14.1, 177n

1.14.4, 149 1.14.5, 97n 1.16.5, 91, 141n 1.16.10, 80n, 83, 85n, 196n 1.16.11, 81n 1.16.11-13, 81n 1.16.13, 25n 1.18.5, 104n 1.19.2, 85n 2.1.4, 80n, 85n 2.1.5, 175n 2.3.1, 165n, 181 2.5.1, 209n 2.9.1, 91 2.9.2, 25n, 51n, 55 2.13.2, 81, 141n 2.14.1, 91 2.19.3, 80, 181 2.22.1, 80n, 85n 3.12.2, 213n 4.11.2, 97, 149 4.19.1, 85 5.5.1, 175n 6.1.22, 81n 6.1.25, 81n, 85n 6.5.4, 175n 6.9.2, 88n 7.1.4, 183 7.4.2, 175 and n 7.5.1-4, 175 7.7.7, 183n 7.11.1, 185n 7.17.1, 183n 8.7.2, 188 8.13, 192 12.2.2, 85n 12.4.2, 21 In 12.5.1, 104n 12.5.2, 21 In 12.6a.2, 198 12.8, 203 12.11, 42 12.40.1, 21 In 12.40.2, 21 In 12.41.4, 21 In 12.44.1, 21 In 12.45.2, 206 12.48.1, 206 12.51.2, 21 In 12.52.2, 21 In 13.1.3, 21 In 13.19.2, 21 In

238

IN D E X L O C O R U M E T IO C O R U M

Cic. (Cicero) (com.) 2. O ther Prose W orks (com.) 13.26.2, 21 In 13.27.1, 21 In 13.28.2, 21 In 13.31.3, 21 In 13.35.1, 205 13.37.2, 21I 13.40.1, 87n, 209 13.46.1, 85n 13.46.2, 21 In 13.50.1, 211n 13.51.1, 211n 13.52, 215n 14.1.2, 209 14.2.2, 210n 14.2.3, 43 14.3.2, 81n 14.5.1, 91, 141n 14.10.1, 209n 14.12.1, 215n 14.12.2, 215 14.14.2, 85 15.9.1, 174 15.29.2, 104n 16.11.1, 216n Brut. (Brutus) 75, 6n 143, 20 170-72, 12n 171, 126n 172, 6n 186, 20 207, 20 216-17, 198n 225, 125n, 167, 198n 262, 191n De orat. (On the Orator) 1.5, 20n 1 . 20 , 20 1.23, 20, 20n 1.127, 31 n 2.29, 103 2.117, 20n 2.182, 16 2.183, 17 2.216-90, 7n, 8, 21 n 2.217, 20, 94n 2.218, 27n 2.219, 90 2.220, 90

2.222, 18n 2.225, 90 2.230, 28n 2.232, 94 2.236, 28n 2.237, 22 2.237-46, 29n 2.239, 21 n, 22, 22n, 23, 26, 36 2.242, 27 and η, 95n, 104n, 135 2.244, 27 and n 2.245-46, 28 2.247, 28n, 29n, 89, 90 2.250, 43, 205n 2.251, 9, 90 2.252, 104 2.256 , 96, 152 2.257, 76 2.258, 205n 2.261, 205n 2.262, 37, 80n 2.265, 132n, 148n 2.266, 40, 182n 2.267, 206n 2.271, 7n, 21, 21n, 24 2.272, 198n 2.274, 150n, 182n 2.277, 151 2.284, 85n 2.287, 77 3.10, 142n 3.153, 69n 3.197, 6n 3.221-22, 31n, 153n Div. (On Divination) 1.102, 72 2.37, 201n, 208 2.110-11, 201n Epist. fi. (Fragments from Letters) 2.1, 27n Fam. (Letters to His Friends) 2.4.1, 175n 2. 10.1, 126n 2.12.1, 174 2.16.7, 201 3.11.5, 214n 4.3.2, 209n 5 .10a.2, 104n 7.5.3, 6n, 198 7.24.2, 211 7.25.1, 211 7.30.1, 204

239 INDEX LOCORUM ET IOCORUM 7.30.2, 204 7.32, In 7.32.1, 85, 213n 7.32.2, 214n 8.1.4, 192n 8.8.9, i84 8.9.5, Sin 8.13.2, 81n 8.15.2, 215n 9.8.1, 104n 9.15.2, 6n 9.15.4, 21 In 9.16, 212 9.16.2, 212n, 214 9.16.3, 212, 213 and n 9.16.4, 7n, 213, 214 9.16.5, 215 9.16.6, 215 9.18.1, 210 9.19.2, 85n 9.20.1, 85n? 9.22, t05n 10.28.1, 215n 11.20.1, 213n, 216 11.21.5, 119n 11.23.2, 217n 12.2.1, 178n 12.4.1, 2t5n 12.22.1, 122n 12.25.4, 178n 15.19.4, 188n 15.20.1, 82, 85 15.21.2, In 16.27.1, 144 Fat. (On Fate) 7, 141 10-11, 37 Fin. (On the Limits of Good and Evil) 2.6, 48n 2.23, 134n 5.46-47, 34 5.47, 31n, 99 Inv. (On Rhetorical Invention) 1.34-36, 74 1.35, 35 1.109, 52n 2.28, 74, 85n, 95 2.28-29, 35 2.29, 45 2.33, 135n 2.34, 170n

2.50, 135n 2.177, 26n, 142n Leg. (On the Laws) 1.18-34, 33 1.26-30, 15n 1.27, 30, 34 1.29, 33, 36 2.6, 81n 2.39, 136 3.19, 25 Nat. dear. (On the Nature of the Cods) 1.120, 48n Off. (On Moral Duties) 1.92, 134n 1.104, 7n 1.130, 95n 1.131, 161 1.144, 104n 1.150, 136n 1.150-51, 133n 2.87, 134n 3.26, 3 3.29-32, 4 3.65, 69n 3.75, 136n 3.93, 136n Orat. (The Orator) 35, 21 In 60, 31n, 153n 88, 22n, 29n 89, 28n Part. (On the Classification of Oratory) 70, 36 71, 36 74, 36 Rep. (On the Republic) 2.53, 83 3 frag.4, 88n Tusc. (Tusculan Disputations) 1.3, 6n 2.3, 8 3.16, 79n 3.62, 43 4.3, 6n 4.80, 37 C1L (Corpus lnscriptionum Latinarum): 1 2 .7, 32 l 2 .593.122-23, 134n 1 2 .2.583, 61n 1 2 .2.1211, 80n 4.935i, 78n

CIL (Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum) (cont.) 6.1284/5 , 59 6.10129, 27n 11.4639, 71n Demosthenes: 18.130, 75n D H (Dionysius o f Halicarnassus): Roman Antiquities

2.21.3, 25 and n 2.56.4, 206n 5.25.3, 25n 9.13.4, 25n D io (Dio Cassius): Roman History

Frag.44, 65n 6.21, 68n 39.30.1-2, 177n 42.58.1, 66n 42.58.2-3, 192n 43.20.2, 68n 43.20.3, 205 43.42.1, 205n 43.43.4, 194 43.43.5, 195 43.44.2-3, 65n 43.45.3, 206 43.46.4, 204n 44.9-10, 200n 44.12.3, 207n 45.47.4, 57n 46.38.3, 199 47.8.3-4, 216n 47.21.6, 46n 51.19.3, 64n 54.26.8-9, 25 Fest. (Sextus Pompeius Festus): D e verborum significatu

p . 173, 69n p . 229, 131 p . 340, 72n Frontin. (Frontinus): Strat. (Strategemata)

1.12.2, 192n Fronto (Marcus Cornelius Fronto): Correspondence

2.73, 25

D e usu partium

14.6-7, 144n Gell. (Aulus Gellius): A ttic Nights

1.3.10, 142n 1.5.2-3, 168, 196n 1.10.4, 191n 1.12.3, 25 3 .5 .1 -2 , 152 4.20.11, 140n 6.11.9, 134n 6.12.5, 44n, 146, 159 6.22, 139 6.22.4, 140n 19.7.16, 170n Hippocrates: Airs, Waters, Places

21, 142n Hirtius: C a l. (Gallic War)

8 .p ra e f.6 -9 , 191n H ist. A ug. (Historia Augusta): 13.10.6, 87n

Hor. (Horace): Carm. (Odes)

4.4.29, 77n 4.15.29-32, 6n Bpist. (Epistles ) 1.4.15, 141 1.15.40, 131n 1.18.30, 162n 1.19.13, 162n Sat. (Satires)

1.2.25, 160n, 166 1.6.76-78, 126n 1.7.32, 6n 2.3.122, 132n 2.7.9, 164n Isid. (Isidore o f Seville): D ijf. (Differentiae ) 1.114, 141 O rig. (Origines)

1.7.1, 71n 19.32.4, 164n lust. (Justinian): Cod. (Codex)

Galen: D e semine

1.16, 145n 2.5, 144n

10.32(31).8, 25 Dig. (Digest)

28.5.1, 69n 28.5.59, 69n

241 INDEX LOCORUM ET IOCORUM Iuv. (Juvenal): I . 1 3 9 - 4 3 , 141 n 2.17, 166 6.338, 21 In 6.373b, 78n 8.147, 141n 9.133, 165n II.35, 52n Josephus: Jewish Antiquities 14.210, 203n Justin: Epitome 5.7.9, 108n Liv. (Livy): History 1.16.4, 206n 2.8.1, 83n 8.9.8, 69n 28.28.4, 72 30.45.6, 80n 39.15.9, 135n, 150n Perioch. (Epitomes) 116, 200n 120, 216n Lucan: I . 5 3 - 5 9 , 141 n 3.399-439, 201n Lucian: Rhet. praec. (A Professor of Public Speaking) II, 165 Lucilius: 24, 58n, 80n 33, 136 1048, 150n Lucretius: 5.1110-12, 32n Macr. (Macrobius): Sat. (Saturnalia) 2 . 1 - 7 , 8n 2.1.12, 7n, 186n 2.1.13, In, 140n 2.1.14, 27n 2.2.4, 131 2.2.10, 42 2.2.13, 204n 2.3.3, 42 2.3.4, 42

2.3.5, 43, 204 2.3.6, 204n 2.3.7, 186 2.3.8, 186, 187, 188n 2.3.9, 194, 195 2.3.10, 202 2.3.11, 201 2.3.12, 186, 207 2.3.13, 215n 2.3.16, 165 2.6.1, 47 2.6.4, 43 2 . 7 . 2 - 3 , 81n 2.7.4, 203n 2.7.6, 43 3.3.7, 188n 3.9, 70n 3.13.6, 11 On, 131n 3.14.7, 137 3.14.9, 137 7.3, 8n 7.3.10, 204n 7.3.15, 28n Marcell. (Marcellus Empericus): Med. (De Medicameniis) 15.11, 70 Martial: 5.70.5, 131n 12.praef., 209 Nepos: Epam. (Epaminondas) 1.2, 135n Nonius: p. 5, 136 Ov. (Ovid): Am. (Amores) 3.2.29-30, 124n 3.7.29, 71 n Ars (The Art of Love) 3.775, 124n Epist. (Letters from Pontus) 10.80, 108n Pausanias: 7.7.8, 59n Pcrsius: 1.98, 48n 1.128, 29n 6.74, 141n

242

INDEX LOCORUM ET IOCORUM

Petronius: 74.13, 52n Plato: Phil. (Phi/ehus)

48-50,21n Rep. (Republir)

5.452d-e, 21n Symposium

189c-193d, 154 Plaut. (Plautus): Amph. (Amphitruo)

723, 85n Asin. (Asinaria)

236, 106n Aul. (Aulularia)

717,31n Bacch. (Bacchides)

24O,88n 603,52n Cas. (Casina)

325-26,52n Cist. (Cistellaria)

63-66,208n Men. (Menaechmi)

143, 159 197-98, 129n 263-64,72n 513-15, 159 Mil. (Miles j1loriosus)

666-68, 129n 1037-38, 78n Poen. (Poenulus)

16,202n 1140, 134n 1298, 129n 1317-18, 129n Pseudo (Pseudolus)

659, 141n 1107, 131n 1218, 141n Stich. (Stichus)

769-72, 129n Trin. (Trinummus)

250, 132n Plin. (Pliny the Elder): Nat. (Natural History)

3.105,72n 3.145, 72n 7.36, 147n 7.54, 60nn, 66n 7.55, 137n

7.139-40, 142n 8.213, 60n 11.138, 170n 18.10, 64n, 78n 21.143, 71n 21.176,71n 28.11,68n 28.18, 70n 33.133,58n 35.8, 66n 35.25, 40 37.81, 55n Plotius Sacerdos: 6.461.27-30, 143 Plut. (Plutarch): Ant. (Marcus Antonius)

9.6, 178n 20.3-4, 216n Brut. (Brutus)

6.4, 198 9.5-7,207n Caes. (Julius Caesar) 4.9, 165, 195 and n

33.5, 185n 52.2,66n 52.9, 198n 58.3,204n 59.6, 206 60.1,200 6O.2,201n 60.2-3, 200n 61.8,200 61.10,200 62.5, 198n 62.7,207n Cat. Ma. (Cato the Elder)

2.4,7n 8.7, 132 9.5, 140 9.6, 132 21.8, 132 Cat. Mi. (Cato the Younj1er)

36.3,211n CG (Gaius Gracchus) 4.4, 148 Cic. (Cicero)

1.4,78n 1.5, 78 1.6, 78 5.6,7n 7.6, 92n

243 INDEX LOCORUM ET IOCORUM 7.7, 148n, 151n 9.3, 48, 51n 17.2-3, 65 2 5 - 2 7 , 8n 26.2, 52n 26.3, 51n, 215n 26.4, 182n, 215n 27.4, 42 37.3, 188n 38.3, 187n 38.4, 187n 38.5, 187n 38.6, 187n 38.7, 187n 38.8, 187n 39.6, 21 In 48.6, 216n 49.6, 64n Cor. (Coriolanus) 11.3, JSn, 60«, 6?n 11.6, 86n Crais. (Crassus) 7.1, Sin 15.2, 177n Marius 1, 66n, 59n 1.1-5, 61 n Mor. (Moralia) 89e, 165n 126a, 152 197f, 179n 201a, 141n 204a, 176 204c, 177n 204f, 78, 148n, 151n 205c, 42, 188n 205d, 187n 205e, 187n 281c, 25 290a, 69n 612c-748d, 21 n 614d-615c, 28n 705e, 152 800e, 165n 803c, 7n Pomp. (Gnaeus Pompeius) 2.2, 179 13.4-5, 80n 13.5, 178n 17.4, 179n 22.6, 176, 177, 184

48.7, 164, 165n 51.6, 178, 184 5 1 . 6 - 7 , 177n 57.5, 185 60.4, 185 Publ. (Publicola) 1.1, 83n 10.4, 83n Rom. (Romulus) 27.5, 206n Suit. (Sulla) 34.2, 80n Polemo (in Foerster): 1.162.4, 168n 1.194.11, 144n 1.276, 154n 1.415, 154n Pollux: Onom. (Onomasticon) 3 . 6 - 7 , 187n Polyaenus: 8.23.15, 192n 8.23.33, 201n Polybius: 23.14.3, 178n Porphyrio: Commentary on Horace's Epistles 1.1.62, 205 Priscianus: Gramm. (Institutiones Grammaticae) 2.26.7, 117n 2.58.11, 78n Propertius: 3.16.19, 115n 3.21.7, 106n Quint. (Quintilian): Inst. (On the Training of the Orator) 1.4.25, 75, 86n 2.5.11, 41 and n 3.5.15, 20n 3.8.46, 186n 5.9.14, 154n 5.10.30, 74, 84 6.3, 8n 6 . 3 . 2 - 5 , 7n 6.3.4, 93n 6.3.5, 7n, 186n 6.3.25, 184n 6.3.29, 95n, 104n

244

INDEX LOCORUM ET IOCORUM

Quint. (Quintilian) (cont.) 6.3.31, 22n 6.3.38, 40 6.3.41, 94n 6.3.48, 184n 6.3.49, 286n, 215n 6.3.53, 74, 96 6.3.55, 74, 93, 93n, 94 6.3.56, 88 6.3.57, 60n 6.3.60, 52n 6.3.61, 205n 6.3.67, 42 6.3.68, SOn, 215n 6.3.75, 198n 6.3.77, 43 6.3.81, 90 6.3.84, SOn, 215n 6.3.109, 188n 6.3.111, 190 6.3.112, 209 8.3.27, 69n 8.3.29, 87 8.6.25, 131n 8.6.73, 7n 9.2.75, 93n 11.1.39, 168 11.3.19, 145n 11.3.28, 145 11.3.74, 170n 11.3.79, 170n 11.3.126, 198n 11.3.129, 198n 11.3.138, 160n 11.3.142, 164n 12.2.30, 6n 12.10.2, 7n Rhet. Her.: Rhetorica ad Herennium 2.5, 135n, 170n 2.50, 52n 3.10, 26n, 142n 4.37, 93n 4.62, 5In Rutilius Lupus: 1.3, 96n Sail. (Sallust): Cat. {On the Conspiracy of Catiline) 10.5-6, 32n

13.3, 135n 14.2, 134n, 162n Hist. (Histories) 2.25, 137n 3.88, 178n Schol. Bob. (Scholia Bobiensia [Stangl]): p. 86, 2 3 - 2 7 , 163 p. 90, 1 - 8 , 79n p. 127, 2 6 - 2 7 , 117n p. 134, 2 8 - 2 9 , 86 p. 140, 11-17, 95n p. 140, 16-17, 7n p. 140, 17, 186n p. 141, 10-12, 5In, 55 p. 145, 13, 51 n Schol. Gron. (Scholia Gronoviana [Stangl]): p. 281, 7 - 1 0 , 131n p. 322, 7 - 8 , 180n Sen. (Seneca the Elder): Contr. (Controversiae) l . p r a e f . 8 - 1 0 , 154 l.praef.9, 132n, 150n, 164 l.praef.10, 150n 1.2.23, 104n 1.3.1, 122n 2.1.6, 150n 3.praef.l6, 48n 4.2, 25 7.3.9, 7n, 202 7.4.7, 39n 9.2.7, 122n 10.praef.5, 97 10.praef.ll, 96n Suas. (Suasoriae) 6.17-21, 216n 7, 186n Sen. (Seneca the Younger): Ben. (On Benefits) 4.7.1, 15n 5.15.1, 170n Dial. (Dialogues) 2 . 1 6 . 1 - 3 , 47n 2.17.3, 47, 194n, 196n 3.15.2, 25 5.23.2, 209n 7.7.3, 145n Epist. (Moral Epistles) 52.12, 152n, 153, 156, 158, 164, 166 65.20, 122n 92.35, 160n

245 INDEX LOCORUM ET IOCORUM 94, 6 114.1, 42 114.6, 160n Nat. (Natural Questions) 1.16.4, 122 1.16.5, 106n 7.31.2, 164n, 166 Serv. (Servius): Aen. (Commentary on Vergil's Aeneid) 1.466, 69n 2.351, 70n Strabo: 13.622, 200 Suet. (Suetonius): Aug. (Augustus) 12.1, 216n, 217n 68, 148n, 165n Cramm. (Grammarians) 3.1, 213n 9.3, 43 15, 135n Iul. (Julius Caesar) 6.1, 84 20.2, 193 22.2, 196 27.1, 7n 34.2, 192n 45.3, 194 49, 68n, 148n, 149, 195 50.5, 7n 51, 42, 68n, 195 52.3, 150, 195 56.5, 21 In 56.7, 7n 59, 66n, 192n 66, 192n 67.1, 197 72, 203 73, 215n 76.1, 65n 7 6 . 2 - 3 , 204 77, 201n, 208n 78.1, 199 78.2, 199 79.1, 181 79.2, 84 79.3, 201n 80, 68n 80.2, 202 80.3, 207 and n

83.1, 187n 84.2, 81 n Otho 2.2, 148n Rhet. (Rhetoricians) 29.1, 43 Tib. (Tiberius) 1.1-2, 63n 42.1, 97 44.2, 124n 45, 119n Vitellius 14, 202n Tac. (Tacitus): Ann. (Annals) 2.32.2, 64n, 71 n 2.69.5, 71n 3.17.8, 64n 4.34.7, 21 In Dial. (Dialogue on Orators) 23.1, 7n, 93n Hist. (Histories) 4.53.2, 72 Ter. (Terence): Ad. (The Brothers) 168-70, 88n Hau. (The Self-Tormentor) 640, 134n Hec. (The Mother-in-Law) 440, 141n Tertullian: Apol. (Apologeticus) 33.4, 68n Tibull. (Tibullus): 1.6.40, 162n Tractatus Coislinianus: (5) V n i , 22n Ulp. (Ulpian): Dig. (Fragments in Justinian's Digest) 3.1.1, 157n 3.1.1.5, 25 5.3.25.16, 132n 23.2.43, 134n Val. Max. (Valerius Maximus): 2.1.10, 6n 3.7.6, 142n 5.3.1, 206n 6.2.7, 181, 185

246

INDEX LOCORUM ET IOCORUM

Val. Max. (Valerius Maximus) (cont.) 6.2.8, 182 6.2.9, 81n, 181 8.3.3,77n 9.14.3-4, 60nn 9.14.5, 137n, 198n Varro: Fragments in Nonius pp. 77-78, 6n Ling. (On the Latin Language) 5.75,57n 5.93,73n 5.99,9On 5.129,73n 6.13,73n 6.53,69n 6.60, 71n 7.8,69 7.97, 58n 8.15,73n 8.17, 73 10.59,77 Rust. (On Agriculture) 1.2.9,64n

1.41.4, 144n 2.4.1-2, 89n 2.5.2, 89n 2.7.1, 89n 3.2.2, 89n 3.3.10, 89n 3.5.18,89n 3.6.1,205n Vell. (Velleius PatercuJus): 2.32.6, 81n 2.62.6, 216n

2.67.4,87n 2.69.3,46 2.108.2, 85n Verg. (Vergil): Aeneid 9.616, 161n Ecl. (Eclogues) 8.68,71n

Vir. Ill. (De Viris Illustribus [OJ Famous Men]): 77.4, 179n

GENERAL IN DEX

R om an nam es are listed either u n d e r the form in general use o r b y the nam e that occurs in the ancient texts I cite. For a listing o f G reek and L atin passages cited, see the Index Locorum et Iocorum. actors. See o ra to r A lbidius, 131 A ndalusia, 67 A ntistius, M arcus, 78 A ntonius, G aius, 160-61 A ntonius, M arcus (orator), 95, 103—4 A ntonius, M arcus, 18, 57, 105-6, 148-49, 164, 185, 2 1 5 -1 7 A p ro n iu s, G aius, 106-12, 113-14, 117, 120, 128 A quila, P ontius, 199, 204 Arcesilaus, 152-53 A ristophanes, 155 A ristotle, 20, 26, 31 Asiaticus, 64, 80 A sinus, 89 A tratinus, Lucius S em pronius, 17 A trius, 72 -7 3 A tticus, T itu s P o m p o n iu s, 25, 8 3 -8 5 , 175, 183-84, 188, 198-99, 203, 2 0 6 -7 , 209, 211, 21 5 -1 6 audience reactions, 3 7 -4 1 , 80 -8 1 , 177, 181-82. See also orators A u gustus (O ctavian), 7, 21 6 -1 7 A urifex, Lucius, 2 8 -2 9 B am balio, M arcus Fulvius, 5 7 -5 8 , 74, 93 B eneventum , 72 B ibulus, M arcus C alpurnius, 149, 193-94 body: and false signs, 169-73; ideology of, 12, 33, 94 -1 0 1 , 105, 124-27, 139— 43; and internal m orality, 30—32, 36, 4 0 -4 1 , 4 3 -5 6 , 57, 74, 115, 139, 156, 169. See also m ou th ; os; physical peculiarities boni, 209 and n B ourdieu, Pierre, 125 brutus, 58, 85, 200-201 B rutus, D ecim us, 216 B rutus, Lucius Ju n iu s, 200, 207 B rutus, M arcus J u n iu s, 46, 126, 198-99, 209, 210

Caecilius, 7 4 -7 5 C aelius R ufus, M arcus, 17-18 Caesar, G aius Julius, 6—7, 42, 52, 54, 66, 7 5 -7 6 , 84, 149-50, 163-65, 174-76, 183-86, 189-215; as autocrat, 198-215; w ritin g s of, 7n, 189-93, 202 C aesar Strabo, G aius Julius, 9, 2 0 -2 1 , 2 5 30, 34, 3 7 -4 0 , 104 C aesennius, Publius, 140 Caldus, 7 4 -7 5 C aninius R ebilus, Gaius, 204 C ascellius, A ulus, 47 C ash, Jo h n n y , 57 C atiline (Lucius Sergius C atilina), 138-39, 161-62, 164 C ato, M arcus Porcius (the elder), 6—7, 77, 88, 96, 131-32, 137, 139-40, 152-53 C ato , M arcus Porcius (the younger), 137, 209, 211 C atullus, G aius Valerius, 22, 55, 122, 126, 129, 133-34, 170 C atulus, Q u in tu s L utatius, 90 C elsus, A ulus C ornelius, 46, 141 C icero, M arcus T ullius, passim ; cogno­ m en of, 64, 78—79; and h u m o r during decline o f R epublic, 174-76, 183, 2 0 1 4, 205, 211, 212, 215-17; and reputa­ tio n as w it, 6 - 7 , 213 and n; and rh eto ri­ cal w ritin g s o n h u m o r, 20—30; o n role o f individual in c om m unity, 3 -6 . See also orators C icero, Q u in tu s Tullius, 55, 143, 190-91 C im b e r, T itu s A nnius, 87 cinaedus, 136—37 cippus, 190 and n C irce, 92 C lodia (sister o f Publius C lodius), 116-19, 121-23 Clodius, 7 4 -7 5 C lo d iu s, Publius, 7 9 -8 0 , 81, 8 3 -8 4 , 88, 97, 112-24, 149, 162-65, 167 C lodius P h o rm io , Sextus, 88

248

G E N E R A L IN D E X

C loelius, Sextus, 112-24, 128 c ognom en, 5 7 -6 8 , 73, 8 2 -8 3 as adjectives, 73 application of, 6 2 -6 3 , 6 5 -6 6 and com parative parallels, 67 and n in describing physical peculiarities, 58 different types of, 63 and n, 64 -6 5 , 78, 80 m o ck ery of, 5 7 -5 8 , 74, 200 in describing anim als, 8 9 -9 5 and ethnic origin, 8 6 -8 8 , 121, 171 as positive names, 79-83, 84—85, 170-71 b y public, 8 0 -8 1 , 87n, 91-95 origins and develo p m en t of, 59—68, 76, 98 as peculiar to urb an aristocracy, 58, 59, 61, 62, 6 3 -6 8 pejorative connotations of, 5 9 -6 0 and regulations regarding, 62 -6 3 , 64n, 65 and n, 76n See also nam es, R om an com edy, 97, 129 contumelia, 18 C ornelia (m o th e r o f G racchi), 148 C o tta , G aius A urelius, 34 crassus, 141-43 C rassus, Lucius Licinius, 20, 3 7 -3 9 , 48 C rassus, M arcus Licinius, 97, 177 C u rio , G aius Scribonius, 148-49 D avid, Jean-M ichel, 124-25 D em osthenes, 75, 95 deviance, 6, 9, 15, 36, 67. See also individuality D io Cassius, 46, 194-95 D ionysius o f H alicarnassus, 25 D iphilus, 8 0 -8 1 , 181 double bind, 100, 110, 128 double entendre. See orators: and deniability D y rra ch iu m , 72 education, R om an: and h u m o r, 12; use o f m axim s in, 6; use o f nam es in, 75; and role o f rhetoric, 7, 12, 41, 126 effem inacy, 128-73 as ancient category, 154—59 as biologically d eterm ined, 144—46, 148-50, 153-54, 163, 166, 169 as expression o f m ale anxieties, 130, 159-60

and m asculinity, 149-50, 195-97 and political inefficacy, 143-44 signs of, 151-69 th ro u g h cosm etic a d o rn m e n t, 1 6 3 64, 197 th ro u g h dress, 159-63, 165, 194-95 th ro u g h eye m ovem ent, 153n, 168 th ro u g h gesture, 164-65 by voice, 168 by w alk, 161, 165-67 b y w earing rings, 164n and subm issive p a rtn e r in m ale-m ale relations, 38, 97, 118, 137, 146-50, 152, 154-57 See also cinaedus; feasting; pulcher E gilius, 151-52 E gnatius, G naeus, 170 E m pedocles, 144 E m pire, R om an: and decline o f rhetoric, 4 1 -4 2 , 98; and h u m o r, 12-13, 41 -4 2 , 74, 84, 9 5 -9 6 evocatio, 70 Fannius Chaerea, Gaius, 4 3 -4 5 , 52, 5 5 56, 106, 157, 172 Favonius, M arcus, 181, 185, 186, 188 feasting: and bankruptcy, 131-34; and dancing, 135-39, 167-68; and effem ­ inacy, 128-30, 143-44, 154; and fear o f foreign, 128, 144; and G reek influence, 128-29; invective against, 84, 128, 129— 30; location of, 134, 137; and the m o u th , 103, 110-11, 114, 117; signs of, 128, 134-35, 137, 139, 142, 197; vocab­ u lary of, 84, 91, 128, 131-34, 141 Felix, 80 flagitium , 19 Foucault, M ichel, 155-56, 174 Freud, S igm und, 4—5 Frugit 79, 171 G abinius, A ulus, 133-34, 135, 140, 151, 166-67, 172, 196 G alen, 145 G alus, P ublius Sulpicius, 146 G ellius, A ulus, 139-40, 167 G racchus, G aius, 148 H irtius, A ulus, 143 H o m er, 31 hom osexuality, m ale. See effem inacy

G E N E R A L IN D E X H orace (Q u in tu s H oratius Flaccus), 126, 129, 141, 160 H o rten siu s H o rtalu s, Q u in tu s, 167—68 h u m o r, R om an: in ancient jo k e collec­ tions, 6 - 7 , 140n, 195n; censorship of, 7, 175-76, 188-89, 211-15; in daily life, 2 1 -2 2 , 4 2 -4 3 ; and easing tensions, 18 5 86; and elite ideology, 11-12; ethics of, 5, 8, 11-13; foreign influence upon, 6; rejoinders in (in respondendo), 28n, 29n, 194; and rep u tatio n o f Sicilians, 94, 96; and role in invective, 4—6, 8; o f sol­ diers, 189-93. See also cognom en; in­ vective, public; jokes; physical peculiarities individuality: and role o f invective, 3 -6 , 9, 3 4 -3 5 , 3 7 -3 9 , 5 2 -5 4 , 9 4 -9 5 , 120-21, 173, 174-217. See also body; invective, public infamia, 24—25 invective, public: and acceptance by vic­ tim , 47, 196-97; as distinct from h u m o r, 8; ethical basis of, 16-20, 15758, 174; as gauge o f real behavior, 24— 25, 130-131; and hypocrisy, 169-70; and infamia, 2 4 -2 5 ; and law, 19-20, 2 4 25, 51, 106-7, 108-9, 121-22, 133; and R om anness, 15; scholarly explanations of, 6, 2 3 -2 4 ; and slander, 17-18, 145— 46, 151—52. See also h u m o r, R om an; in ­ dividuality; jokes; orators Iroquois, 60 jokes: o n death o f enem y, 190, 215n; o n fat person, 140-41; o n incest, 117-18; o n kingship, 8 3 -8 4 , 181, 199-201, 204—5, 207—8; on non-Romans, 11-12, 86—88, 171; o n old age, 182—83; on pietas, 184—85, 187-88; on proverbs, 205; on religion, 192n, 201 and n, 208; on social class, 11-12; o n vom iting, 178 and n. See also cognom en; feasting; h u m o r, R om an; m o u th ; physical peculiarities Ju v en al (D ecim us Iunius luvenalis), 166 L abienus, T itu s, 97 Lam ia, L ucius Aelius, 3 7 -3 9 , 42, 48 law. See invective, public Lepidus, M arcus A em ilius, 7 7 -7 8

249

Ligus, 88, 121 L ivy (T itus Livius), 72 L ucian, 165 Lucilius, Gaius, 136 L ucretius, 104, 145 Lysidicus, 87 Macedonicus, 64 M a cro b iu s, 131, 186-88, 202 m agical papyri, 70, 71 M allius, L ucius, 42 M am u rra, 133 M ancia, H elvius, 40, 182-83 manes, 72 M arcellinus, G naeus C ornelius L entulus, 177-78, 184, 188, 193, 198 M arcellus E m p ericu s, 70 m asks, theatrical, 41, 88 M axim us, 64 M o m m sen , T h eo d o r, 6 1 -6 2 , 6 6 -6 7 M o n ty P y th o n , 3—4 m orality, inherited, 7 6 -7 8 , 87 m o u th , 54, 99-127, 128; in cunnilingus, 100, 116, 118-19, 121-23, 124, 147-48; in feasting, 103, 110-11, 114, 117; in fellatio, 100, 122, 152-53, 196; in France, 125-26; as sign, 108-9, 139; and social categories, 100-1, 124—27; in speaking, 103, 110, 113. See also os M urena, Lucius, 17, 137 M us, D ecius, 90-91 Musca, 89 Mutius, 7 4 -7 5 nam es, R om an, 57 -9 8 ; in altering physical reality, 68 -6 9 ; as n o t apotropaic, 61 and n; changing of, 72; and com m unity, 60, 64, 66—68, 81, 89; and G reek nam ing practice, 58, 60, 7 4 -7 5 , 95; inheritance of, 59, 67, 171; and internal m orality, 76; lim its to m o ck ery of, 8 9 -9 0 , 95; in m agic, 7 0 -7 1 , 92; in m edical incanta­ tions, 70 -7 1 ; and nam in g system , 58; as o m en, 72—73, 79, 93—94; as personal at­ tribute, 74—75; in prayer and ritual, 7 0 71, 72; and rhetorical w ritings, 74-76, 95. See also cognom en; individuality nature, conceptions of: in classical A thens, 32; and facial expressions, 9 9-101, 124; in late R om an R epublic, 15; and m oral­ ity, 15-16, 32—35, 56, 146; and physical

250

G E N E R A L IN D E X

n a tu r e (font.)

peculiarities, 22, 126; as source o f bodily attributes, 35. See also body; e f ­ fem inacy; feasting; m o u th ; physical peculiarities N eoptolem us, 76 N icom edes (king o f B ithynia), 149 N ietzsche, Friedrich, 9, 14 nomen, 71 N o n iu s “S tru m a ,” 55 and n numen, 71 N u m m iu s, 76 nuncupate, 69 O pim ius, Q u in tu s, 151-52 oral sex. See m o u th orators; and actors, 27, 95; and audience reaction, 37-39, 4 3 -4 5 , 50, 77, 87-91, 99, 109-10, 135, 138-39, 150-54, 15759, 169-73; and deniability, 93, 106-7, 112, 116, 135, 158-59, 168-69; from m unicipalities, 125; role of, in R om an society, 20, 53 -5 4 ; and sexual lan g u a g e,. 104-6; and verisim ilitude, 95, 108, 13435, 1 54-59. See also C icero; invective, public os, 101-4, 106-7, 109-11, 112-13; and Impurum, 100, 105, 116-17, 123-24 overw eight appearance, 139—43 Paetus, Lucius Papirius, 21 2 -1 4 Pansa, G aius V ibius, 143 personal responsibility. See physical peculiarities Pharsalus, 185-88 Philippus, Lucius M arcius, 2 8 -2 9 , 90, 179-80 physical peculiarities, 14-56 as deviation from ideal, 33 -3 5 , 36 and elite ideology, 33 m E m pire, 4 1 -42 eye p roblem s as, 25, 2 8 -2 9 G reek conceptions of, 14, 21 n, 25-26, 29n, 30 and n, 31-32, 142 and intellectual ability, 39, 42 legal status of, 25 m ockery of, baldness, 4 2 -43 depilation, 4 3 -4 5 ethical basis of, 2 6 -3 0 eyebrow s, 170 and n

lim its and exceptions to, 2 5 -3 0 , 3 6 37, 140-41 and pictorial caricature, 40—41 p ro tru d in g eyes, 50-51 scholarly view s of, 2 2 -2 4 , 44 sh o rt stature, 28-29, 39n, 42 stuttering, 5 7 -5 8 , 75n, 85n sw ellings, 4 2 -4 3 , 4 8 -4 9 , 50 ugliness, 42, 46 personal responsibility for, 3 5 -3 7 , 38, 45, 140 and p hysiognom ic treatises, 31 and n, 144n, 153n, 168, 170nn predicting behavior from , 5 0 -5 1 , 139 in R om an philosophical texts, 30 -3 5 in R om an rhetorical w ritings, 3 5 -3 7 vague definition of, 25, 29, 34, 3 7 -39 See also body; cognom en; m outh; overw eight appearance physio g n o m ic w ritings, 31 and n, 144n, 153n, 168, 170nn pietas, 184-85, 187-88 Piso, Lucius C alpurnius, 18-19, 37, 51, 135, 151, 166-67, 169-73 Piso Frugi, Lucius C alpurnius, 79 Pius, 64 Plato, 20, 155 Plautus, 159-60 Pliny, G aius (the elder), 71 Plutarch, 48-49, 6 4 -6 6 , 79, 132, 140, 152, 176-78, 185, 186-87, 195, 200-201 Pom peius, G naeus (Pom pey the G reat), 97, 113-14, 118, 141-42, 164-65, 17 4 89, 191-93, 195, 198; and A lexander the G reat, 165, 178-79; cognom en of, 8 0 -8 2 praeteritio, 93 prayer, sacrosanct w o rd in g of, 68-69, 7 0 71, 72 Propertius, Sextus, 115 publicola, 83 Publilius S yrus, 43 pulcher, 38, 80 and n P ythagoras, 31 Q uin tilian (M arcus Fabius Q uintilianus), 4 1 -4 2 , 74, 75, 8 4 -8 5 , 8 9 -9 0 , 95 -9 6 , 145, 168, 188, 209 recorder, 108 and n rex, 84

G E N E R A L IN D E X Roscius, Q u in tu s, 43, 76—77 Rufiis , 8 6 -8 7 , 91, 93 R utilius L upus, 96 Sallust (Gaius Sallustius C rispus), 138 Salvito, C ornelius, 66 Scipio A em ilianus, Publius C ornelius, 136-37, 146, 158-59, 161, 163-64 Scipio A fricanus, Publius C ornelius, 72, 205 Scipio B arbatus, Lucius C ornelius, 59, 62 Scrofa, 64 Segesta, 72 S em pronia, 138 S em prom us M usca, A ulus and M arcus, 89 Seneca, Lucius A nnaeus (the elder), 96, 153-54, 164 Seneca, Lucius A nnaeus (the younger), 6, 42, 4 6 -4 7 , 50, 122, 153, 156, 158, 164, 166, 168, 194 Sestius, Publius, 49, 55 Sextius, G aius, 2 8 -29 Sibyl, C um aean, 200-201 Socrates, 37 Staienus, G aius A elius, 8 2 -8 3 stomachus, 20 9 -1 0 strabo, 58 Suetonius, G aius, 66, 119, 192-94, 1 9697, 199, 20 2 -3 , 217

251

Sulla, Lucius C ornelius, 6 5 -6 6 , 194-95, 203 Sura, P ublius C ornelius Lentulus, 6 5 -6 6

T acitus, Publius C ornelius, 72 T erence (Publius T erentius Afer), 88 T heom nastus, 96 T hersites, 31 T iberius (the em peror), 9 6 -9 7 , 119 T itius, Sextus, 167 T rebellius, Lucius, 82 triu m p h al songs, 68, 87n, 2 0 4 -5 T w elve Tables, 25, 69

Vargula, 8 9 -9 0 V arro, M arcus T erentius, 64, 68-69, 71, 73, 77, 144-45 Vatinius, Publius, 8 -9 , 18, 23, 45-56, 100-101, 106, 111, 139, 142, 151, 172, 194, 204 Velleius Paterculus, 50 Verres, Gaius, 18, 79, 91 -9 5 , 106-12, 113-14, 117, 120, 150 verrucosus, 58, 61 vultus, 3 0 -3 2 , 31n, 101, 170 w ealth, conceptions of, 142-43

A b o u t th e A u th o r A

nthony

o f K ansas.

C

o r b e il l

is A ssista n t P ro fe ss o r o f C lasssics at th e U n iv e rs ity