Steel C.E.W. Сicero, Rhetoric, and Empire. Oxford Up

Подождите немного. Документ загружается.

2.1. BACKGROUND

2.1.1. How to become a Roman citizen

The Roman state was unique among the major political powers

of the ancient world in its willingness to give others its citizen-

ship, and projected this part of its self-image right back to its

origins.

Yet the vast majority of new citizens were freedmen,

enfranchised automatically at the time at which they were

manumitted.

Grants of citizenship to particular free, non-

Roman individuals were extremely uncommon during the

Republic, and the incorporation of large numbers of freedmen

into the citizen body was matched by anxiety about alien

groups within the city, which expressed itself on occasion in

expulsions.

The theoretical possibilities of enfranchisement

were not in practice exploited.

The great exception to the very cautious enfranchisement of

free non-Romans is the extension of the citizenship to the

whole of Italy south of the Po in the aftermath of the Social

War. But in a sense this episode merely conﬁrms the point,

since the citizenship was extended only after a bitter and

destructive war, which was the culmination of serious Italian

grievances at their status in relation to Rome which went back

well over thirty years.

76 How to become a Roman

Sherwin-White, Citizenship; C. Nicolet, The World of the Citizen in

Republican Rome, trans. P. S. Falla (London: Batsford, 1980), 17. For an

earlier perception of Rome’s exceptional generosity with its citizenship, see

Philip V’s letter to Larissa of 214 (SIG, 3rd edn. 543).

See e.g. J. A. Crook, Law and Life of Rome (London: Thames and

Hudson, 1967), 41.

Grants of citizenship to individuals: see E. Badian, Foreign Clientelae

(Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 1958), 152 ﬀ .; Sherwin-White, Citizenship,

291–5; expulsions: N. Purcell, ‘The City of Rome and the plebs urbana in the

Late Republic’, CAH 9, 2nd edn. (1994), 652–3. For a discussion of these

tensions in a religious context, see M. Beard, ‘The Roman and the Foreign:

The Cult of the “Great Mother” in Imperial Rome’, in N. Thomas and

C. Humphrey (eds.), Shamanism, History and the State (Ann Arbor: Univ. of

Michigan Press, 1994).

E. Gabba, Republican Rome, the Army and the Allies, trans. P. J. Cuﬀ

(Oxford: Blackwell, 1976), 70–130; P. A. Brunt, ‘Italian Aims at the Time of

the Social War’, in The Fall of the Roman Republic (Oxford: Oxford Univ.

Press, 1988); Mouritsen, Italian Uniﬁcation, 87–99, argues that, by 91,

citizenship on its own was not what the Italians were seeking: by then they

desired freedom from Roman political control.

01_Steel chapters 19/12/2001 11:43 am Page 76

One of the factors in the Italian agitation in 91 was the

increasing Romanization of the peninsula, and cultural con-

vergence made political integration a natural next step. A

model of citizenship as a response to assimilation was clearly

developing at this period, with the clear expectation that for at

least some of the Italians Roman citizenship would lead to

active participation in Rome’s political life; as indeed political

integration of Latin communities earlier in the republican

period had rapidly been followed by oﬃce-holding at Rome by

the new citizens.

Outside Italy, however, enfranchisement was rare. Pompeius

Strabo gave the citizenship to a troop of Spanish horsemen

during the Social war under the provisions of the lex Iulia, to

reward them for their services: they became Roman citizens

uirtutis causa. Other cases are conﬁned to individuals.

2.1.2. The cases

Archias was prosecuted in 62, Balbus in 56: both cases were

brought under the lex Papia of 65, which demanded the expul-

sion of non-citizens from Rome.

Despite this similarity, the

speeches have seldom been considered together (outside dis-

cussions of citizenship law), and scholars have used them for

rather diﬀerent purposes.

The pro Balbo has been compara-

tively neglected, and such interest as has been shown has been

How to become a Roman 77

See in general Sherwin-White, Citizenship, 38–95; P. A. Brunt, ‘The

Romanization of the Local Ruling Classes in the Roman Empire’, in D. M.

Pippidi (ed.), Assimilation et résistance à la culture gréco-romaine dans le monde

ancien (Bucharest: Editura Academiei, 1976), 161–73, repr. in P. A. Brunt,

Roman Imperial Themes (Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 1990), 267–81; M. H.

Crawford, ‘Italy and Rome from Sulla to Augustus’, CAH 10, 2nd edn.

(1996), 414–33.

Pompeius Strabo: ILS 8888 (ILLRP 515); the speech for Balbus,

unfortunately, provides most of the evidence for other enfranchisements

(50–5); see also Sherwin-White, Citizenship, 291–311.

D. Cloud, ‘The Constitution and Public Criminal Law’, CAH 9, 2nd edn.

(1994), 491–530, esp. 526; Gruen, Last Generation, 410–11. For the circum-

stances of Archias’ trial, see H. Vretska and K. Vretska, Marcus Tullius Cicero:

Pro Archia Poeta: ein Zeugnis für den Kampf des Geistes um seine Anerkennung

(Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1979), 3–9, and for Balbus’,

P. A. Brunt, ‘The Legal Issue in Cicero pro Balbo’, CQ 32 (1982), 136–47.

For the issues of citizenship raised by these cases, see Sherwin-White,

Citizenship, 291–311.

01_Steel chapters 19/12/2001 11:43 am Page 77

directed largely towards the legal problems it raises.

The pro

Archia is, in contrast, one of the most studied of Cicero’s

speeches.

This is in part due to its pedagogically convenient

brevity, but, more importantly, because of the defence of

poetry which takes up well over half of the whole speech.

It is

not surprising that classicists should be attracted by such an

eloquent defence of the value and usefulness of humane letters,

and the attention that has been devoted to this speech has done

much to clarify Cicero’s rhetorical practice and methods of

argumentation. However, an undesirable consequence of the

pro Archia’s status as a supremely ‘literary’ text has been the

neglect of the context in which such a defence was made. The

oddity of a digression on poetry in a forensic speech has often

been noted: but few people have approached the speech from

the perspective of how to argue that a Greek poet should keep

his Roman citizenship.

In both speeches Cicero argues that his client has performed

valuable services for the Roman state, although this is not the

legal point of dispute in either case. It is worth considering

brieﬂy what were the legal situations with which he was faced,

78 How to become a Roman

Loutsch, L’Exorde, 357 n.1, gathers together the scant bibliography, and

see also J. Spielvogel, Amicitia und res publica (Stuttgart: Franz Steiner

Verlag, 1993), 137–41.

The speech has the rare distinction of two modern commentaries, those

by H. C. Gotoﬀ, Cicero’s Elegant Style: An Analysis of the pro Archia (Urbana:

Univ. of Illinois Press, 1979) and Vretska and Vretska; other substantial treat-

ments are M. von Albrecht, ‘Das Prooemium von Ciceros Rede pro Archia

poeta und das Problem der Zweckmässigkeit der argumentio extra causam’,

Gymnasium, 76 (1969), 419–29; H. Eisenberger, ‘Die Funktion des zweiten

Hauptteils von Ciceros Rede für den Dichter Archias’, WS 92,  13 (1979),

88–98; C. Damon, The Mask of the Parasite: A Pathology of Roman Patronage

(Ann Arbor: Univ. of Michigan Press, 1997), 268–76; E. Narducci, Cicerone e

l’eloquenza romana (Rome and Bari: Editori Laterza, 1997), 3–18.

12–31: see J. H. Taylor, ‘Political Motives in Cicero’s Defense of

Archias’, AJPh 73 (1952), 62. This factor is ignored in Porter’s strictures on

the inability of scholars to justify their interest in this speech (W. M. Porter,

‘Cicero’s Pro Archia and the Responsibilities of Reading’, Rhetorica, 8 (1990),

137–52, esp. 137–8).

A striking indication of the way that these speeches have not been con-

sidered as documents on Roman attitudes to ethnicity and identity is their

absence from Vasaly’s recent book on Cicero’s manipulation of ideas about the

world, Representations: no mention at all of the pro Archia; one mention of the

pro Balbo in a note (134 n. 9), for its use of the idea of a world empire.

01_Steel chapters 19/12/2001 11:43 am Page 78

with the proviso that it is of course extremely diﬃcult to assess

the strength of Cicero’s case in the absence of other evidence

about the trial. One is restricted to ‘common-sense’ judgements

about the limits of knowledge and belief on the part of the

jurors within which Cicero’s manipulations could operate.

In the Balbus case, there seems to have been no dispute

about how he acquired the citizenship, that is as a gift from

Pompeius Magnus in recognition of his services during the

Sertorian War. The prosecutor’s case was that this grant of

citizenship was illegal, since Balbus’ original state, the town of

Gades, had not agreed to such an enfranchisement. A number

of scholars have argued that the case against Balbus was well

founded; I am inclined to accept the contention of Brunt, that

this argument, insofar as we can reconstruct it, was ﬂawed, but

also irrelevant, since the point in question concerns actions

under Roman law.

The key point is that the link between

Pompeius and Balbus was clear to all, which allows Cicero to

support the long and complex legal arguments of the speech

with Balbus’ acknowledged relationship to his patron.

In Archias’ case, the issue is more complex, since what is in

dispute is not a question of law, as in the Balbus case, but a

question of fact, that is whether he had indeed obtained citizen-

ship at Heraclea and then converted that into Roman citizen-

ship under the provisions of the lex Plautia Papiria.

It is

ultimately impossible to be certain, as we cannot check Cicero’s

assertions.

The key point is the absence of much of the

written proof of Archias’ citizenship that one would expect. His

name is not in the archives of Heraclea, nor does it appear in

any census lists, though Cicero has explanations for both

absences. What he can cite is the list that Metellus compiled of

How to become a Roman 79

H. Galsterer, Herrschaft und Verwaltung im republikanischen Italien

(Munich: Beck, 1976), 162–4; V. Angelini, ‘Riﬂessioni sull’orazione pro

L. Cornelio Balbo’, Athenaeum, 68 (1980), 360–70; contra Brunt (‘Legal

Issue’, 143), ‘To impugn Balbus’ Roman citizenship, it was necessary to show

that it had been conferred on him in contravention of Roman law’.

von Albrecht, ‘Prooemium’; Vretska and Vretska, Pro Archia, 6–9 for a

discussion of the likely arguments used by the prosecution.

Pace E. Badian, ‘Marius’ Villas: The Testimony of the Slave and the

Knave’, JRS 63 (1973), 121–32, 129: ‘For once there can be no doubt that the

prosecution was a piece of mere chicanery, and that Cicero’s client was as

innocent as his counsel claimed.’

01_Steel chapters 19/12/2001 11:43 am Page 79

new citizens under the provisions of the lex Plautia Papiria (9);

he can also produce Marcus Lucullus as a witness to the grant

of citizenship at Heraclea, as well as a delegation from Heraclea

to say the same thing.

In addition to this evidence, there is the further argument,

which Cicero uses later in the speech (25–6), that it is far from

clear why Archias should have had to make a false claim to the

citizenship. There were of course practical beneﬁts; but it was

also an honour, whose value to him over the previous twenty-

ﬁve years would have been much reduced had he not in fact

been entitled to have it. There seems to have been no question

that he could have been made a citizen of Heraclea and on that

basis claimed the Roman citizenship: the issue was whether he

did. In such circumstances, it would seem more probable that

Archias was the victim of paperwork rather than that he had

been practising an unnecessary deception for a quarter of a

century.

However, there are some odd aspects to the case. In the ﬁrst

place, as the prosecution presumably pointed out, the evidence

available depends on Archias’ patrons, as in the evidence of

Marcus Lucullus and the records of the late Quintus Metellus,

or could have been set up by them (it would not have been diﬃ-

cult for Lucullus to apply pressure on Heraclea).

Secondly,

while the explanation for Archias’ absence from the census lists

seems reasonable,

one might ask why he does not appear on

any lists of citizens of Heraclea subsequent to their destruction

by ﬁre during the Social War.

However, the shortness of the

80 How to become a Roman

The fact that Cicero employs this argument himself (25–6) does not mean

that it should be dismissed out of hand.

For their connections with Archias, see 6. 13–18.

One might also query how well informed the current generation of

Heraclean notables would be of an enfranchisement which took place some 30

years earlier—particularly if the records were missing.

Though it is worth noting that registration of those absent from Italy at

the time of the census was possible: P. A. Brunt, Italian Manpower (Oxford:

Oxford Univ. Press, 1971), 38–9.

pro Archia 8: ‘quas [sc. tabulas] Italico bello incenso tabulario interisse

scimus omnes’. For the ‘everybody knows’ topos, and the need for caution in

assessing it, see D. M. Macdowell, Andokides: On the Mysteries (Oxford:

Oxford Univ. Press, 1962), 79–80, and J. Ober, Mass and Elite in Democratic

Athens (Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press, 1989), 149–50. As there does not

seem to have been Social War campaigning near Heraclea, Italico bello must

01_Steel chapters 19/12/2001 11:43 am Page 80

discussion of the evidence cannot be used either for or against

Archias’ position, despite attempts to do so.

The point at

issue was extremely simple: whether or not Cicero’s argument

was true, there was no further evidence he could cite that might

make it any more convincing. In particular, one can see why he

might not wish to introduce commonplaces on the reliability of

witnesses when two of his key witnesses, M. Lucullus and

Q. Metellus, were or had been distinguished consulars.

One

should not even have to raise the issue of their veracity.

The digressions away from legal argument in both these

speeches cannot be explained simply in terms of the strength or

weakness of each case. In part, digressiveness is, as so often in

Cicero’s oratory, a response to political implications of the

trial. Neither speech is concerned simply with Balbus’ and

Archias’ citizenship. There is fairly general agreement that the

prosecution of Archias is an attempt to embarrass L. Lucullus,

in the context of continuing ill-feeling between him (and

more generally, the ‘Optimates’) and Pompeius; and that

the prosecution of Balbus should be seen as an attempt to

embarrass the ‘ﬁrst triumvirate’ in the aftermath of their re-

formation at Luca.

But the position Cicero puts forward in his

digressions, justifying citizenship in ethical terms, as a reward

for services rendered, as well as by legal argument, is also a

powerful rhetorical device, which sets up the grant of citizen-

ship as a way of conﬁrming Roman domination over its empire.

How to become a Roman 81

refer simply to time rather than cause; the implication that the records were

lost on active service, as it were, gives a heroic pardon to what was probably

administrative incompetence.

von Albrecht, ‘Prooemium’, 427, oﬀers a summary of these.

Quintus Caecilius Metellus Pius, cos. 80, pontifex maximus (81–63), held

a triumph on the basis of his campaigns in Spain against Sertorius;

M. Terentius Varro Lucullus, cos. 73, held a triumph on the basis of his

campaigns in Thrace.

For the political background to Archias’ trial, see Taylor, ‘Political

Motives’, and Gruen, Last Generation, 267–8; for Balbus’, Gruen, Last

Generation, 312–13.

01_Steel chapters 19/12/2001 11:43 am Page 81

2.2. ARCHIAS

2.2.1. Singing for the Romans

The legal argumentation of the pro Archia is complete by the

end of 11; what follows is usually termed a digression, in which

Cicero considers why poetry is valuable. The digression clearly

falls into two parts: one, 12–16, in which Cicero explains why

he personally takes such pleasure in literature; the other, 17–30,

in which he argues that honour should be shown to those, such

as Archias, who produce literature because of the value which

he and other statesmen have found in it.

Cicero concludes the

second part by discussing the value which poetry has as a spur

to glorious action through its capacity to preserve the memory

of such action, with particular reference to his own recent

achievement in suppressing the Catilinarian conspiracy, which

enables him to bring the two parts of the digression together as

he brings it to a close.

Why does Cicero place such emphasis on the praise of

poetry? One place to begin an analysis is with the issue of

what precisely the doctrina and litterae upon which Cicero

apparently places such high value consist in. What were

Archias’ literary productions? The question has to be answered

almost entirely from the evidence of the pro Archia, since

the poet is only mentioned twice elsewhere (as opposed to a

reference to this speech).

Nor does any of his poetry deﬁnitely

survive, although it is possible that some of the epigrams trans-

mitted in the Greek Anthology under this name are by him.

In the pro Archia, Cicero ascribes the following works to

Archias. He was an extemporizer of great ﬂuency and facility,

who could produce diﬀerent poems on the same subject;

82 How to become a Roman

Vretska and Vretska, Pro Archia, 17–18, though I would not put as much

emphasis as they on Archias’ importance in the second part of the digression.

On the connections between the main argument of the speech and the digres-

sion, see von Albrecht, ‘Prooemium’, and Eisenberger, ‘Funktion’.

Cicero, ad Att. 1. 16. 15 (Archias is not yet writing the hoped-for poem

on Cicero’s consulship); de diu. 1. 79 (Archias’ poem on the actor Roscius).

A. S. F. Gow and D. L. Page, The Greek Anthology: The Garland of

Philip, and Some Contemporary Epigrams, vol. 2 (Cambridge: Cambridge

Univ. Press, 1968), 432–5.

18. Gow and Page, Garland, 435 n. 4, suggest on the basis of this passage

01_Steel chapters 19/12/2001 11:43 am Page 82

wrote on the Cimbric War as a young man (19); he wrote, in

more than one book, on the Mithradatic War (21, and note

libri); and he had begun an epic on Cicero’s achievements

during his consulship (28). This list has been used to construct

a picture of a dependent poet, diligently writing at the behest of

his Roman patrons.

However, it is worth considering quite

how impressive a bibliography this really was.

The extempore poems were probably not recorded, and

despite Cicero’s claim for ‘a great number of excellent verses’

the improvisatory format means that it is most likely that these

were short epigrams, such as those under the name of Archias

in the Greek Anthology, whether or not those are indeed by

this Archias. This was not an impressive genre: practised by

aristocrats such as the elder Catulus, certainly, but as an intel-

lectual diversion and no more.

It is signiﬁcant, I think, that

Cicero prefaces his glowing description of Archias’ extempo-

rizing skills with an appeal for the jurors’ attention: ‘I shall take

advantage of your goodwill, since you are listening to me so

carefully despite the unfamiliarity of my subject matter’.

This

may just be an encouragement to the jurors to maintain their

concentration despite the general oddity of the subject matter.

But if we allow it a speciﬁc relevance, then it suggests that the

jury would not naturally consider a skill in poetic improvisation

to be grounds for a claim to Roman citizenship, and so need

particular reassurance about the relevance of what Cicero is

saying.

There are good grounds for doubting that Archias ﬁnished

the epic on the Cimbrian Wars.

Cicero’s words are ‘Cimbricas

How to become a Roman 83

that a collection of artfully varied epigrams about the same subject which are

transmitted under the name ‘Archias’ might belong to this Archias.

T. P. Wiseman, ‘Pete nobiles amicos: Poets and Patrons in Late Republi-

can Rome’, in B. K. Gold (ed.), Literary and Artistic Patronage in Ancient

Rome (Austin: Univ. of Texas Press, 1982), 28–34, 31–4; B. K. Gold, Literary

Patronage in Greece and Rome (Chapel Hill: Univ. of North Carolina Press,

1987), 73–86, with due scepticism as to Archias’ productivity; Rawson,

Intellectual Life, 221 n. 33, ‘Archias did eulogise a number of great Romans,

including Lucullus.’

Cf. Eisenberger, ‘Funktion’, 94.

Gellius, NA 19. 9.

18. 22–3: ‘iudices—utar enim uestra benignitate, quoniam me in hoc

nouo genere dicendi tam diligenter attenditis’.

So Vretska and Vretska, Pro Archia, 150, though their doubts could be

more strongly expressed.

01_Steel chapters 19/12/2001 11:43 am Page 83

res adulescens attigit’ (19). Attingo, when used of writing,

means ‘I take up’ or ‘I engage in’: it does not carry any implica-

tion of bringing such work to completion, and there are cases of

its being used with adverbs which make clear the activity was

not taken too seriously.

Given that Cicero is arguing at this

point for the importance and scale of Archias’ contribution to

Roman glory, we would expect him, if anything, to exaggerate

what Archias had done. This epic was probably no more than

some scattered fragments.

Archias’ work on the Mithradatic War was, it seems, more

substantial: as mentioned above, Cicero refers to more than one

book on the subject. He describes Archias’ achievement as

follows: ‘the Mithradatic war, which was long, diﬃcult and

fought out over a wide variety of theatres both on land and at

sea, has been treated in its entirety by this man: books which

glorify not only Lucius Lucullus, that brave and distinguished

man, but also the name of the Roman people.’

It is worth

noting, however, that the attributes belong to the war and to

Lucullus and not to the poem. This paragraph continues with

a long, elegantly constructed account of the war as an accom-

plishment of the Roman people, which concludes by stating

that the triumphs of this war will be a constant subject of

remembrance and praise as Roman achievements. The para-

graph ends with his saying that whoever treats of these subjects

is increasing the reputation of the Romans. That is, Cicero does

not say anything about the content of the poem.

This silence need not be a cause for concern: it is rhetorically

eﬀective to remind the jurors of a recent and ultimately

successful military campaign and then let Archias be aﬀected

by the goodwill that this engenders, whereas concentrating on a

poem, and one in Greek at that, might serve rather to alienate

84 How to become a Roman

Cicero, de or. 1. 82: ‘egomet, qui sero ac leuiter Graecas litteras

attigissem’; cf. ad fam. 13. 29. 3 (not on writing): ‘sed oppressus tantum attigit

negoti quantum recusare non potuit’; also suggestive, Catullus 22. 14–15:

‘idem infaceto est infacetior rure | simul poemata attigit . . .’; Nepos, Life

of Atticus 18. 5: ‘attigit poeticen quoque, credimus, ne eius expers esset

suauitatis’.

21: ‘Mithridaticum uero bellum magnum atque diﬃcile et in multa

uarietate terra marique uersatum totum ab hoc expressum est; qui libri non

modo L. Lucullum, fortissimum et clarissimum uirum, uerum etiam populi

Romani nomen inlustrant.’

01_Steel chapters 19/12/2001 11:43 am Page 84

the jury by seeming to trivialize Roman military accomplish-

ments. And if the focus of the poem was the achievements of

Lucullus himself, it is understandable that Cicero would not

want to commit himself to an account of the Mithradatic War

that ignored the achievements of Pompeius, given his own

expectations of a useful political partnership with Pompeius.

So Cicero’s failure to talk in any detail about Archias’

Mithradatic epic cannot safely be interpreted as a sign that

there was not, yet, much epic to talk about. However, in a letter

to Atticus of the following year Cicero indicates that Archias is

only just thinking of starting the next project: ‘Archias has

written nothing about me; and I’m afraid that now that he has

ﬁnished his Greek poem for the Lucullus brothers he is con-

sidering a Caecilian drama.’

This letter also indicates that the

epic which Cicero allowed himself to hope for in public (pro

Archia 28) about his own achievements came to nothing.

Cicero would only, in this context, refer to poems which he

could make appear to be contributions to Rome’s glory, and

there may have been any amount of poetry which Archias wrote

and which could not be made to seem a valid reason for his

holding Roman citizenship.

None the less, on the basis of the

surviving evidence, Archias’ completed poetic works amount to

two or more books on the Mithradatic War and, possibly, some

epigrams. This is not an overwhelming output over the space of

forty years.

More interesting perhaps is the way in which Cicero presents

this exiguous productivity: it is central to the glory of the

Roman state. In part, Cicero achieves this simply by stating it,

as when he summarizes the eﬀects of Archias’ epic on Lucullus

(passage quoted above). But he also tries to enhance Archias’

status by comparing him with poets who have been regarded as

central to their states’ reputation. Most striking is his use of a

comparison of Archias to Homer, having given a brief descrip-

tion of the struggles among cities of the coast of Asia Minor to

claim him as their own: ‘And so they sought out a foreigner

How to become a Roman 85

ad Att. 1. 16. 15: ‘et Archias nihil de me scripserit; ac uereor ne, Lucullis

quoniam Graecum poema condidit, nunc ad Caeciliam fabulam spectet.’

Here too he uses attigit (28) of Archias’ poetic activity.

Though the fact that Cicero does so much with Archias’ extemporizing

suggests that he could have made something out of short, written, non-

patriotic poems.

01_Steel chapters 19/12/2001 11:43 am Page 85