We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 16 April 2014
The purpose of this paper is to examine the variations in Cicero's treatment of Clodius in his speeches and to suggest reasons why these variations occur. The treatment of five principal themes will be considered: (1) Clodius' relationship with Gabinius and Piso; (2) Clodius’ alleged link with Catiline and/or surviving Catilinarians; (3) the Bona Dea affair; (4) Clodius’ alleged incest with one or more of his sisters; (5) Clodius’ supposed insanity, which clearly exceeded the tribunician norm.
A section of this paper was read at a Cicero Awayday at UCL on 30 May 2012; I am grateful to all who took part in the discussion for their comments, to CQ's referee for some helpful suggestions and to Bruce Gibson for technical assistance. All translations are my own.
2 Against the notion that Clodius was the political or paramilitary heir of Catiline, cf. Tatum, W.J., The Patrician Tribune (Chapel Hill, 1999), 59–60Google Scholar, 78, 142–5.
3 For an inconclusive discussion of Clodius’ alleged incest, cf. Kaster, R.A., Cicero's Speech on behalf of Publius Sestius (Oxford, 2006), 409–11.Google Scholar
4 For madness as characteristic of popularis tribunes, cf. Seager, R., ‘“Populares” in Livy and the Livian tradition’, CQ 27 (1977), 377–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 385.
5 On the question of naming or not naming the targets of invective in these speeches, cf. Steel, C., ‘Name and shame? Invective against Clodius and others in the post-exile speeches’, in Booth, J. (ed.), Cicero on the Attack (Swansea, 2007), 105–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6 Cf. Steel (n. 5), 115–16, who notes that Gabinius and Piso were both away from Rome and so safer to attack.
7 In general on the strategy of claiming that an opponent's actions were detrimental to the state, cf. Craig, C., ‘Audience expectations, invective, and proof’, in Powell, J. and Paterson, J. (edd.), Cicero the Advocate (Oxford, 2004), 187–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 197–9.
8 As is natural in a speech before the senate, it is always the behaviour of Gabinius and Piso as consuls that is in point, as noted by Steel (n. 5), 108.
9 On the attack on Gabinius and Piso, cf. Steel (n. 5), 111–13, who argues that Piso is treated more harshly than Gabinius because of his greater distinction and his relationship with Cicero.
10 For Cicero's identification of himself with the republic, cf. e.g. May, J.M., Trials of Character: The Eloquence of Ciceronian Ethos (Chapel Hill, 1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 94.
11 Lintott, A.W., Cicero as Evidence (Oxford, 2008), 8–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 183–4, argues that the speech was never delivered, but cf. R. Seager, JRS 99 (2009)Google Scholar, 226. Morstein-Marx, R., Mass Oratory and Political Power (Cambridge, 2004)Google Scholar, 25 n. 92, suggests a probable delivery date of 5 September.
12 Again he is not named, but in this speech neither are the consuls; cf. Steel (n. 5), 114.
13 Cf. Morstein-Marx (n. 11), 216–17.
14 Cf. Steel (n. 5), 117–19. Here Clodius is named, though still infrequently.
15 For a more rational explanation of Clodius’ behaviour, cf. Seager, R., Pompey the Great (Oxford, 2002 2), 104–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16 On this sobriquet, cf. A.W. Lintott, ‘P. Clodius Pulcher – felix Catilina?’, G&R 14 (1967), 157–69Google Scholar; Tatum (n. 2), 145.
17 On dolor, cf. Tatum (n. 2), index, s.v.; ‘Faking it: dolor in Horace, Epode 15’, QUCC 63 (1999), 131–7Google Scholar, at 133 and further bibliography there cited.
18 For libertas as a popularis slogan, cf. Wirszubski, C., Libertas as a Political Idea at Rome in the Late Republic and Early Principate (Cambridge, 1960), 31–65Google Scholar; Hellegouarc'h, J., Le vocabulaire latin des relations et des partis politiques sous la république (Paris, 1963), 555–6Google Scholar; Seager, R., ‘Cicero and the word popularis’, CQ 22 (1972), 328–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 331, 335, 337–8.
19 Steel (n. 5), 121–2 regards Clodius as the principal target, even though he is not directly named in the speech. Kaster (n. 3), 12–13, calls Gabinius and Piso villains ‘on a par with Clodius’, but speaks of their passivity, which is in fact much less marked in this speech than elsewhere.
20 Cf. Kaster (n. 3), 184.
21 On tribunician furor and the passivity of the consuls here, cf. Kaster (n. 3), 193, 196.
22 The strongest assertion in the speech of the primacy of the consuls over Clodius; cf. Kaster (n. 3), 239.
23 It also causes Clodius to occupy centre stage in the sections that follow, as noted by Kaster (n. 3), 239.
24 On Clodius as a foil for Milo here, cf. Kaster (n. 3), 311–12.
25 Aptly described by Craig (n. 7) as ‘invective grace notes’.
26 Cf. Seager (n. 18), at 333–8.
27 Clodius is named in the first section and thus established as the major target; however, his name still occurs only rarely. Cf. Steel (n. 5), 122–3.
28 Against the veracity of the charge of praeuaricatio, cf. Tatum (n. 2), 54–5.
29 Cf. Steel (n. 5), 108. For Cicero's practice in the context of invective of presenting a virtuous person (wherever possible himself) to serve as a foil to the villain(s) of the piece, cf. R. Seager, ‘Ciceronian invective: themes and variations’, in Booth, J. (ed.), Cicero on the Attack (Swansea, 2007), 25–46Google Scholar, at 31–8.
30 Cf. Steel (n. 5), 115–16.
31 Cf. R. Seager, ‘Cicero and the “false dilemma”’, in Smith, C.J. and Covino, R. (edd.), Praise and Blame in Roman Republican Rhetoric (Swansea, 2011), 99–109Google Scholar, at 106.
32 Cf. Kaster (n. 3), 217–18, with references, noting the much more systematic treatment of the theme in the speeches and rightly denying the existence of any real political or personal connection.
33 On the theme of incest in the Miloniana, cf. Craig (n. 7), 210–11.
34 The comment of Steel (n. 5), 123–4, that the treatment of Clodius, Gabinius and Piso changes with Cicero's changing situation nicely illustrates this point.
