Steel C.E.W. Сicero, Rhetoric, and Empire. Oxford Up
Подождите немного. Документ загружается.
winked because he is cupidus gloriae (75); an admirable Roman
trait is, in Decianus’ case, expressed in a derisory ambition.
Cicero, however, has the wit to appreciate the Pergamenes’
uenustas and facetiae, those two fashionable terms: thus he
manages to claim the cultural high ground as well as the moral.
At this point, ethnic stereotypes are not being used simply to
arouse ill-feeling against the prosecution, but also to under-
mine their competence.
1.3.2. Laelius
The elements in the portrayal of Laelius which link him to the
Greeks are much less obtrusive, and this is hardly surprising:
while we do not know anything of his earlier career there is no
reason to think that this case was not an example of an aristo-
cratic young Roman making his name with a high-profile
prosecution. Crude jibes about dirty clothes and sexual pecca-
dilloes would be out of place: instead Cicero follows his
standard practice with aristocratic young prosecutors of
employing extreme politeness while subtly attacking them.
118
The first mention of Laelius illustrates this (2):
If it was going to be the case that someone would plot the destruction
of Lucius Flaccus, I never thought, gentlemen of the jury, that it
would be Decimus Laelius: that the son of an excellent man and him-
self possessing excellent prospects of the highest honours, would take
up a prosecution which was more suited to the hatred and madness of
the criminal classes than to his own good qualities and the standards
of a well-brought-up young man.
119
On the one hand, Cicero makes polite reference to Laelius’ dis-
tinguished father and his own glorious prospects and present
character: on the other, his prosecution is described as some-
thing which is appropriate to the madness and hatred of the
criminal classes. Cicero thus reduces the impact of Laelius’
advantages as a prosecutor, that is the auctoritas he derives
66 Romans in the provinces
118
Cf. his treatment of Torquatus in the pro Sulla, Laterensis in the pro
Plancio, or Atratinus in the pro Caelio.
119
quod si esset aliquando futurum ut aliquis de L. Flacci pernicie
cogitaret, numquam tamen existimaui, iudices, D. Laelium, optimi uiri
filium, optima ipsum spe praeditum summae dignitatis, eam suscepturum
accusationem quae sceleratorum ciuium potius odio et furori quam ipsius
uirtuti atque institutae adulescentiae conueniret.
01_Steel chapters 19/12/2001 11:43 am Page 66
from distinguished ancestors and his own talents.
120
Indeed, he
turns Laelius’ good qualities into marks of disapprobration by
his hostile description of Laelius’ motives. Despite having all
the advantages which should have taught him how to behave,
he has strayed; and although Cicero, in keeping with his
generally polite tone, does not make his point explicit, there is a
very clear implication that Laelius’ actions are made worse by
his failure to live up to the standards imposed on him by his
ancestry.
Since Cicero has, in the first sentence of the speech, linked
the prosecution of Flaccus with the peril that the state is in,
there is certainly an implication that Laelius, through his
prosecution of Flaccus, is a threat to the state as well as to
Flaccus. In this case Laelius is dangerous because he has
aligned himself with the internal enemies of the state. Later
Cicero describes how he has, if not aligned himself with, at
least exploited the hostility of the external enemies of Rome
(18–19). Cicero describes in great detail the effort that Laelius
made to gather his evidence: here (18):
A fine young man, of noble family, eloquent, arrives in a Greek town
with a big elaborate escort and calls a public meeting; he stops
prosperous and respectable citizens from opposing him with the
threat of being summoned as a witness to Rome and he wins over the
poor and irresponsible with hopes of handouts and travelling expenses
and even by private generosity.
121
This picks up the description of Laelius’ activities in general in
13–15. Laelius is said to have deliberately gone about his task in
such a way as to get evidence that is misleadingly hostile to
Flaccus. This involved playing on the hatred of ‘the dregs of
cities’ (faex ciuitatum, 18) for the Roman empire, and offering
these people ‘the opportunity to do damage’ (facultas laedendi,
19) to it. This description of Laelius’ researches picks up and
reinforces the doubts about him that Cicero created in the
Romans in the provinces 67
120
On the importance of the auctoritas of advocates during trials see May,
Character; Berry, Pro Sulla, 293–4.
121
adulescens bonus, honesto loco natus, disertus cum maximo ornatissi-
moque comitatu uenit in oppidum Graecorum, postulat contionem,
locupletis homines et grauis ne sibi aduersentur testimoni denuntiatione
deterret, egentis et leuis spe largitionis et uiatico publico, priuata etiam
benignitate prolectat.
01_Steel chapters 19/12/2001 11:43 am Page 67
opening paragraphs with his suggestion that he is at the very
least unwittingly colluding with the remnants of those who
sympathized with Catiline.
Laelius is not, therefore, a good Roman. He is certainly not
like a Roman of the past. After Cicero’s first description of
Laelius’ evidence-gathering tactics, he exclaims (15): ‘if only
we had held to the excellent habits and self-discipline that we
got from our ancestors! But somehow they are slipping away
from us’,
122
and then proceeds to explain how wisely an earlier
generation of Romans controlled popular gatherings. The
current loss of that ability must refer to the disturbances due to
the clashes between the consuls of 59, Caesar and Bibulus, and
to the operations of the Caesarian tribune Vatinius. But instead
of developing the contrast between past and present at Rome,
he turns to Greek habits of popular assembly (16): ‘the whole of
Greek politics is run by reckless public assemblies which meet
sitting down’.
123
The key word here is sedentis: it indicates both
their slackness and their willingness to spend large amounts of
time on the dangerous activity of holding public assemblies.
And, as Cicero explains, the results have been disastrous: the
achievements of Greece have been swept away hoc uno malo
(16). It is clear that Cicero is in fact referring to Athens: and
having given the impression that rowdy assemblies happened
all over Greece, and therefore suggested that they are a perma-
nent ethnic characteristic, he acknowledges explicitly that he is
thinking about Athens (17). He can then use Athens’ specific
cultural prestige to make the behaviour of contemporary Asian
Greeks seem even worse (17): ‘if at Athens this sort of thing
tended to happen . . . what restraint do you think there was in a
public meeting in Phrygia or Mysia?’
124
The benefits for Cicero of discussing the faults of the Greek
democratic processes are obvious in the context of the whole
speech: he can devalue any votes of assemblies which criticize
Flaccus. By bringing in Roman practice he appeals to his
68 Romans in the provinces
122
‘o morem praeclarum disciplinamque quam a maioribus accepimus, si
quidem teneremus! sed nescio quo pacto iam de manibus elabitur.’
123
‘Graecorum autem totae res publicae sedentis contionis temeritate
administrantur.’ Roman assemblies stood.
124
‘quod si haec Athenis . . . accidere sunt solita, quam moderationem
putatis in Phrygia aut in Mysia contionum fuisse?’ Cf. the discussion above of
62–6.
01_Steel chapters 19/12/2001 11:43 am Page 68
audience’s sense of the superiority of Rome in order to increase
their disapproval for the Greek system as he describes it. But he
risks undermining that feeling with his tacit acknowledgement
that Rome at the moment is also foolish in its use of popular
assemblies. However, the reference to current problems works
to make Laelius seem dangerous. The exclamation about the
decline in Roman standards comes immediately after a descrip-
tion of how Laelius dealt with Greek assemblies. The listener,
who does not of course have time to unravel the argument, is
given a strong though illogical impression that Laelius’ activi-
ties in Greece are a manifestation of the disastrous abandon-
ment of the wisdom of the maiores, and even that he is somehow
responsible for fomenting the disturbances in Rome or at least
in sympathy with those who do. In the wider context of the
whole speech, Laelius becomes part of the pericula (1) facing
the Roman state. After all, says Cicero, Athens possessed
wealth, an empire, and glory (16) and lost them all through
democracy: it seems clear that he is trying to line up Rome with
Athens and Laelius with the forces of disastrous democracy.
This impression is also given when Cicero describes Laelius’
tactics in gathering evidence (13). He draws attention to the
size of his retinue: ‘what an escort he had when he was conduct-
ing his investigations! I say “escort”: I should rather say
“army”!’
125
The figure of correctio draws attention to the
sinister idea of military force. He returns to this with a request
that the jury bear Laelius’ tactics in mind if they hear anything
‘about violence, force, weapons or troops’,
126
and a reminder
that a limit has been set to the number of investigators by the
lex Iulia de repetundis. This must be a hint that Laelius could be
prosecuted under this law. This adds to the impression that all
Laelius’ evidence must be disregarded, because it has been
extracted by force.
Against this general picture of Laelius as a potential danger
to the entire state, Cicero ascribes to him two particular
traits which, in the context of the speech, perhaps characterize
his un-Romanness as Greek. These are his greed and his
eloquence.
Romans in the provinces 69
125
‘qui comitatus in inquirendo! comitatum dico; immo uero quantus
exercitus!’
126
‘de ui, de manu, de armis, de copiis’ (13).
01_Steel chapters 19/12/2001 11:43 am Page 69
When Cicero returns to the issue of Laelius’ motivation and
behaviour (after the lacuna, and the first attack on Greek
witnesses in 6–12) he describes him as having taken up the
prosecution ‘fired by an incredible desire’.
127
This picks up one
of his charges against the Greeks, that their evidence is
irretrievably compromised because it has been bought: they are
people ‘for whom all prospects of honour, profit, influence and
favour depend on a shameless lie’.
128
Greek desire is thus for
money. Cicero does not specify what Laelius’ desire is for, and
there is an obvious, and innocent, object: that is to advance his
political career by a successful and high-profile prosecution.
129
None the less, in this close juxtaposition with undesirable
cupiditas, unsavoury conclusions can be drawn. And it is
certainly the case that Laelius’ researches, whatever their moti-
vation, and Greek greed are in a symbiotic relationship: Laelius
is providing the opportunity, in this particular case, for the
Greeks to indulge their desire for gain.
The other characteristic is eloquence. In 18 Laelius is
described as disertus: in itself, a complimentary term; but in
context, damning. Laelius uses this skill to get the votes he
wants from the assemblies of Asia Minor. The audience has
already been told that the concern of a Greek witness is not
with justice, but with avoiding being trapped verbally (11).
This means that the people who are chosen as witnesses are not
the best men, but ‘impudentissimus loquacissimusque’ (11).
Charges of excessive cleverness and ease in speaking were a
standard part of Roman characterizations of the Greeks,
130
and
the success of Cicero’s ethnic stereotyping depends here on his
70 Romans in the provinces
127
‘inflammatus incredibili cupiditate’ (13).
128
‘quibus . . . laus, merces, gratia, gratulatio proposita est omnis in
impudenti mendacio’ (12). In the previous sentence, where Cicero makes the
distinction between Roman and Greek absolutely clear by offering, as a con-
trast, his laudatory description of how a Roman gives evidence, one of the
ways in which a Roman does not act is cupide. Compare also 66 where, at the
very end of his discussion of the Asian Greek witnesses, Cicero summarizes
their unreliability with the three vices of leuitas, inconstantia, and—in final
position—cupiditas.
129
It is of course true that cupiditas is not inevitably a bad quality: e.g. pro
Sulla 40, ‘animum meum tum conseruandae patriae cupiditate incendistis.’
But the word does usually imply disapprobation, and this is almost invariably
the case when it is not modified by a genitive expressing the object of desire.
130
Petrochilos, Attitudes, 35–7.
01_Steel chapters 19/12/2001 11:43 am Page 70
audience adopting a suspicious attitude towards rhetoric. Then
to describe the chief prosecutor as ‘eloquent’ is a barbed
remark: while disertus is a positive term, and loquacissimus dis-
tinctly not, Laelius and his witnesses are at different ends of the
same scale. His eloquence is a sinister and effective counterpart
to their gabbiness.
It should be stressed that both cupiditas and eloquence can
be and usually are admirable qualities for a Roman to possess
and display. However, both are expressed in relation to certain
ends, and when the ends are undesirable and even dangerous,
as in this case, the qualities become tarnished by association. It
is quite clear that Cicero is using them to build up his picture of
Laelius as a figure who is a threat to Rome. It is more debatable
whether they suffice to give Greek colouring to Laelius. It is,
however, a line of interpretation open to a listener or reader to
pursue, precisely because Laelius is displaying these qualities
in the same arena as the Greeks are displaying them. His
eloquence and cupiditas are closely intertwined with theirs. The
fact that Cicero attacks Laelius’ Roman-ness much more subtly
than he does Decianus’ is a reflection of Laelius’ higher social
standing and greater importance. It would both be more
dangerous for Cicero to alienate him completely and might well
backfire by offending the sensibilities of the jury. Moreover,
Laelius’ Roman identity is more pronounced, and more
dangerous, than Decianus’: he comes before the court as a
member of the elite and a potential senator and magistrate,
aspirations which Decianus cannot share, and which are an
essential part of his claim to authority, and, unlike Decianus, he
is domiciled in Rome. And of course there is a rhetorical advan-
tage to be gained from making the prosecutors distinct in
character in terms of variety and interest.
Despite the smoothness and absence of overt hostility in
Cicero’s expression of Laelius’ character and behaviour, the
consequence of his tactics is to make Laelius a more sinister
figure than Decianus. Whereas the overriding tone of Cicero’s
remarks about Decianus is humorous, and thus leaves the
audience feeling that Decianus is a risible and thus not very
dangerous figure, Laelius is presented, without the use of
ridicule, as someone extremely competent and thus dangerous.
This approach does not just protect Cicero from the anger of a
Romans in the provinces 71
01_Steel chapters 19/12/2001 11:43 am Page 71
potentially distinguished Roman: it is an appropriate response
to the rhetorical situation which Cicero faced, since Laelius was
the chief prosecutor and possessed a great deal more auctoritas
than Decianus did. The danger to Flaccus is far more serious
than that posed by provincials alone.
1.4. CONCLUSIONS
The five men whose characterizations are explored in this
chapter were all opponents of Cicero for reasons other than
ideological: that is, he was not attacking them simply because
they had behaved badly overseas, but because forensic or polit-
ical circumstances made them his opponents. Consequently, it
would be a mistake to look to these speeches for a coherent or
systematic analysis of imperial problems: Cicero’s aims are to
get Syria and Thrace named as consular provinces, to secure
the acquittal of Flaccus, and to display to a reading audience
his oratorical brilliance in driving Verres into exile. Piso and
Gabinius were not enemies of Cicero’s choosing, but their
failure to help him respond to the threat from Clodius made
them so; and a quarrel which was based entirely in politics at
Rome is expressed in de prouinciis consularibus in terms of pro-
consular misconduct because that is, in the particular circum-
stances of the speech, the most effective way of damaging the
pair. Laelius and Decianus made themselves targets by
prosecuting a man Cicero was defending: again, it was the
forensic situation and the nature of the alleged crime which
made the behaviour of Laelius and Decianus in Asia relevant,
rather than any outrage Cicero might have felt independently.
In the case of Verres alone is there, possibly, a principle at
stake. Cicero had personal connections with Sicily as the result
of his own period there, and despite the potential advantages to
his career—actual by the time he wrote the speeches of the
second hearing—of the prosecution, it is perhaps overly cynical
entirely to dismiss the concern for the Sicilians’ suffering, as
well as for the damage to Rome’s interests, which he claims was
motivating him. Certainly his stance shows such a motive could
be viewed as credible and admirable. Yet, even in this case, the
characterization of Verres takes place within a forensic context.
None the less, the ways in which Cicero presents these five as
72 Romans in the provinces
01_Steel chapters 19/12/2001 11:43 am Page 72
unsatisfactory imperial figures are highly indicative of how
Rome’s empire was conceptualized towards the end of the
Republic and how these concepts could be manipulated in an
oratorical context. Two features stand out in particular. One
is the focus on the individual magistrate and the elision of
supporting imperial structures. Verres, Piso, and Gabinius
each appear in a vacuum, autonomous and morally corrupt.
This raises a crucial issue for the entire study. Imperial
administration under the Republic did indeed involve very few
people, and placed the governor in a position of absolute,
though temporally and spatially limited, power, and so it is
natural and easy to think that imperial problems are the result
of individual failings. But this is not only a natural analysis, but
also a very convenient one, inasmuch as it presents a complex
situation very simply and in a way that is unlikely to disturb the
audience. If the only thing wrong with the empire is the mis-
behaviour of individuals, then there is no need to feel concern
about the system of imperial administration more generally; no
need to consider whether the relationship between Senate and
individual magistrate involves a satisfactory distribution of
power, or whether governors are under irreconcilable pressures
from provincials and Roman citizens in their provinces.
The second feature worth noting is the variety of ways in
which Romans in the provinces can be presented as unsatis-
factory. Cicero constructs his five bogeys in specific and
different ways, both to exploit the perceived characters of the
men he is attacking—hence, for example, the differences
between the hypocritical Piso and the effeminate Gabinius—
and to fit with the roles they are to play in the world he con-
structs in each speech. The very autonomy of the magistrate is
a fruitful source of anxiety about what a magistrate should do.
The terms in which Cicero attacks his opponents demonstrate
that there is a wide, and contested, range of appropriate
conduct: magistrates, quite literally, made it up as they went
along. And it is against this background that the anxieties about
maintaining one’s Roman identity make sense. Without an
institutional structure and a continuous and stable Roman
official presence throughout the empire it is particularly
difficult for magistrates to be sure they are presenting them-
selves to provincials, and to the unseen audience in Rome, in
Romans in the provinces 73
01_Steel chapters 19/12/2001 11:43 am Page 73
the right way; and it is a fruitful and effective tactic for an
opponent to play on the corresponding fears of the audience at
Rome that their representatives abroad are in fact not maintain-
ing a reliable Roman identity. Decianus and Laelius, moreover,
demonstrate that these concerns need not be restricted to
magistrates; any Roman who acts in the provinces risks having
his identity and behaviour as a Roman scrutinized.
I return to these fears and their particularly acute expression
in relation to the extraordinary commands of the late Republic
in Chapter 4; but first I shall look at another aspect of the
creation of Roman identity in an imperial context, which is the
acquisition of Roman citizenship by provincials.
74 Romans in the provinces
01_Steel chapters 19/12/2001 11:43 am Page 74
2
How to become a Roman:
the cases of Archias and Balbus
I the previous chapter I looked at the oratorical presentation
of Romans outside Rome, and at the ways in which Cicero
attempts to convince his audience of the goodness or badness of
particular individuals in imperial contexts. In this chapter I
turn to a phenomenon which is in some senses the reverse: non-
Romans at Rome. In particular, I examine a pair of speeches in
which Cicero argues that a particular (non-slave) individual
who had acquired Roman citizenship during the course of his
adult life had acquired it legally: pro Archia and pro Balbo. It is
here that one might expect a stereotype of the good Roman to
be spelt out, since an obvious tactic, it might seem, in such
cases would be to argue that Archias or Balbus had assimilated
themselves to some putative ‘Roman way of life’ and had as a
result become worthy citizens.
The reality is rather different. In place of a rhetoric of
assimilation, there is a rhetoric of service to Rome and to
particular Romans which sidesteps the whole issue of cultural
change. Acquiring the citizenship is not the natural result of
absorbing Roman patterns of behaviour, but is a specific
reward for particular services. Cicero’s failure to use arguments
based on assimilation can be seen as a sign that his jury, and
readers, felt uneasy at the prospect of non-Romans becoming
Roman. Furthermore, the model that he does set up, of
foreigners serving the Roman state with enthusiasm, confirms
Rome’s dominance over its subjects. The Romans do not
simply conquer: they make their subjects glad to have been
conquered.
1
1
Cf. prou. cons. 31, Cicero’s upbeat summary of the state of Rome’s empire
in 56: ‘possum de omni regione, de omni genere hostium dicere: nulla gens est
quae non aut ita sublata sit ut uix exstet, aut ita domita ut quiescat, aut ita
pacata ut uictoria nostra imperioque laetetur.’
01_Steel chapters 19/12/2001 11:43 am Page 75