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: 24 September 2012
‘Audax venali comitatur Curio lingua’ wrote Lucan in a familiar line of his Bellum Civile, at a time when C. Scribonius Curio the younger had been a hundred years in his grave. Lucan was not the first to describe Curio as audax; Velleius Paterculus did so before him: ‘bello autem civili … non alius maiorem flagrantioremque quam C. Curio tribunus plebis subiecit facem, vir nobilis, eloquens, audax,’, 11, 48, 3. It seems, indeed, that the attribute audax was traditional for Curio and, if this is so, the tradition may well have originated in Curio's own time. His title to a place in Roman history rested on the fact that he changed sides at a critical juncture—‘momentumque fuit mutatus Curio rerum’ (Lucan IV, 819). And what earned him, whether in his lifetime or posthumously, the derogatory attribute audax was, I think, his political career, notably the record of his tribuneship, no less, if not more, than his character. Audax, as originally applied to Curio, was very probably a conventional partisan appellation which classified him more effectively as a political type than it characterized him as an individual. For the derogatory audax, as I shall presently try to show, belongs in the late Republican period to the current phraseology of political backbiting and it carries a distinctly political connotation. It is the purpose of this paper to consider what audax denotes in the vocabulary of Roman political life in the late Republic as well as who are regarded as audaces in Roman politics.
1 I, 269. See also IV, 583–4.
2 cf. II, 45, 1: ‘P. Clodius, homo nobilis, disertus, audax’.
3 Suet., Jul. 29, 1: ‘Curionem violentissimum tribunorum’.
4 ‘Improbi et audaces’ seems to be a set phrase, see In Verr. II, III, 176, and Pro Mur. 17. cf. also Phil, V, 13; Pro Cael. 14; Pro Sulla 81. It may be of interest to observe in this connection that πονηρός (or πονηρία) sometimes goes together with θρασύς (or θρασύτης), see Demosth., Meid. 132, Timocr. 170; Isocr., Anttd. 316, Panath. 133.
5 cf. Pro Quinct. 56: ‘Quo te nomine appellemus ? improbum? …malitiosum? … fraudulentum? … audacem? cupidum? perfidiosum? vulgaria et obsoleta sunt’.
6 For the interpretation of Philippic XIV see M. Gelzer, P-W VII A, 1073 ff.; and Remy, E., Trois Philippiques de Cicéron, Louvain, 1941, vol. 11, 245 ff.Google Scholar
7 See Remy, o.c. (n 6), p. 271; Kroll, W., ‘Die römische Gesellschaft in der Zeit Ciceros,’ Neue Jahrb. IV (1928), 308Google Scholar (= Die Kultur der ciceronischen Zeit 1, 15).
8 The third instance adduced in the Thes. LL is Tac., Ann. XIV, 58, 2.
9 See especially Ad Att. VII, 7, 5–7.
10 For detailed references to the sources see Sinko, T., ‘De Romanorum viro bono,’ Rozprawy Akademii Umiejetności, wydzial filologiczny, ser. 11, vol. XXI, Kraków, 1903, esp. 268–275Google Scholar; and Thes. LL II, 2081, 74 ff., and 2082, 30 ff. See also Strasburger, H., Concordia Ordinum, Diss. Frankfurt, 1931Google Scholar) passim; and the present writer's ‘Cicero's Cum Dignitate Otium’, JRS XLIV (1954), 1 ff.
11 See H. Strasburger, P-W XVIII, s.v. ‘Optimates’; M. Gelzer, P-W VII A, 864, 868, 871; R. Syme, The Roman Revolution 154; W. Kroll, l.c. (n. 7).
12 Hist. 1, 12 (M.): ‘bonique et mali cives appellati non ob merita in rem publicam omnibus pariter corruptis, set uti quisque locupletissimus et iniuria validior, quia praesentia defendebat, pro bono ducebatur.’
13 Pro Sest. 86: ‘oportere hominum audacium, eversorum rei publicae, sceleri legibus et iudiciis resistere; si leges non valerent, iudicia non essent, si res publica vi consensuque audacium armis oppressa teneretur, praesidio et copiis defendi vitam et libertatem necesse esse.’ Also ibid. 51: ‘Domesticis malis et audacium civium consiliis saepe est resistendum.…’ Pro Flac. 95: ‘Oppressus est C. Antonius … cuius damnatione sepulcrum L. Catilinae floribus ornatum audacissimorum ac domesticorum hostium conventu epulisque celebratum est.’ Post Red. ad Quir. I … ‘ut quod odium scelerati homines et audaces in rem publicam et in omnes bonos conceptum iam diu continerent, id in me uno potius quam in optimo quoque et universa civitate defigerent’. See also Pro Sest. 139.
14 When they approved of the attempt, their attitude was of course different, as, for example, ‘cum occisus dictator Caesar aliis pessimum, aliis pulcherrimum facinus videretur’ (Tac., Ann. 1, 8, 6).
15 See Pro Sest. 100; 139; Phil. VIII, 16; XII, 15; XIV, 7; Post Red. ad Quir. 1; In Cat. 111, 27; Pro Mur. 17. cf. also Ad Att. VII, 13, 1.
16 Cic., In Vat. 18: ‘num quem ex omnibus tribunis plebis, quicumque seditiosi fuerunt, tam audacem audieris fuisse ut umquam contra legem Aeliam et Fufiam concilium advocaret?’ De Dom. 63: … ‘vim improborum, quae inveterata compresso odio atque tacito iam erumpebat nancta tam audacis duces’, etc. Pro Quinct. 69: … ‘omnium denique illorum [namely the faction of Marius and Cinna] qui turn et poterant per vim et scelus plurimum et, quod poterant, id audebant’. See also Pro Sest. 100, quoted above, p. 13; and Phil. VI, 6: ‘Passurumne censetis Antonium introire Mutinam legatos, exire inde tuto? Numquam patietur, mihi credite. Novi violentiam, novi impudentiam, novi audaciam.’
17 The vicissitudes of Cicero's own application of the term boni are very illuminating in this respect. In the year 59, at the first signs of imminent danger from Clodius, Cicero was still confident in his ‘famous consular army of all the boni’ (Ad Att. 11, 19, 4). But when they failed him in 57 he doubted if the boni still existed at all (Ad Att. IV, 3, 2). Similarly, in the year 50, when he disapproved of their attitude to Caesar, he denied the existence of boni (ibid, VII, 7, 5 f.). At about that time he was sometimes careful to distinguish between boni and ‘the so-called boni’ see, e.g., ibid, VIII, 1, 3 (February 49).
18 Cic. Pro Sest. 20; De Dom. 130; Pro Mil. 32; Phil. VIII, 16; Vell. Paterc. 11, 45, 1; Plut. Ant. 2, 6; Cato Min. 31, 2; Cic. 28, 1; Pomp. 48, 8. App., Bell. Civ. 11, 22, 81, is very interesting: καὶ Μίλων μὲν οὐ βουλεῦσαι τὸ ἔργον (the murder of Clodius) εἰπών…τὸν λοιπὸν λόγον κατὰ τοῦ Κλωδίου διετίθετο ὡς θρασυτάτου δὴ καὶ φίλου θρασυτάτων.
19 App., Bell. Civ. 11, 16, 59.
20 lug. 31, 15: ‘sed haec inter bonos amicitia, inter malos factio est.’
21 See Laches 197 b. Compare the melancholy, but pertinent, remark which Sallust, Cat. 52, 11, put into Cato's mouth: ‘iam pridem quidem nos vera vocabula rerum amisimus: quia bona aliena largiri liberalitas, malarum rerum audacia fortitude vocatur’, etc. cf. Thucyd. 111, 82, 4. Audacia by itself can be applied both for appreciation and for reproach, as the case may be, according to its motive and objective, cf. Thes. LL 11, 1240, 55 ff. As regards Cicero's own application of this word, it is noteworthy that in his De Inv. 11, 165, he defined audacia as a ‘vitium’. It is also to be borne in mind that the vituperative connotation of audax preponderates in the extant evidence from the very beginning, see Thes. LL 11, 1245, 1 ff.
22 Ad Att. X, 1, 4: ‘Aut nos temeritatem bonorum sequamur aut audaciam improborum insectemur. Utrumque periculosum est,’ etc.
23 cf. G. Lodge, Lexicon Plautinum, s.v. audax and Thes. LL II, 1245, 18 ff.
24 II, i, I; 20. cf. Pro Sex. Rosc. Amer. 87.
25 1, 7; II, iii, 40; 126. Also ‘sceleratissimus atque audacissimus’, II, iv, 111.
26 See P-W VIII, 2514 f. s.v. ‘Hostilius’ no. 26, and T. R. S. Broughton, The Magistrates of the Roman Republic, 1, 475.
27 To the evidence quoted above, p. 12, add Phil. 11, 1 and 19; VI, 2; VIII, 21.
28 See In Cat. 1, 1; 4; 11, 1; 111, 17; Pro Mur. 17.
29 In Cat. 111, 27; Pro Sul. 92; Pro Flac. 95; De Off. 1, 77.
30 Cicero, it is true, describes here Autronius' vita ac natura, but he maintains that the latter's character and way of life argue his complicity in the conspiracy. For Autronius' political attitude as described by Cicero see ibid. 15–16.
31 See Münzer, P-W VI, 2599 f., s.v. ‘Flavius’ no. 88, and Broughton, o.c. 11, 56, 59.
32 See below, pp. 18, 20.
33 Noteworthy is also ‘audacia decemviralis’ used by Cicero with regard to the ten commissioners envisaged in the Land Bill of Rullus, De Leg. Agr. 11, 37.
34 See Tac., Dialog. 34, 7.
35 See, e.g., Bell. Afr. 63, 2, and Vell. Pat. 11, 47, 1.
36 It is of course well known that the wealthy had no less, and perhaps even more, to fear from the Pompeians, see Cic., Ad Att. IX, 11, 4; XI, 6, 2 and 6; Ad Fam. VII, 3, 2. cf. R. Syme, The Roman Revolution, 73.
37 Ad Att. VIII, 1, 3 (February, 49): ‘Eundum, ut, quemcumque fors tulerit casum, sub eam potius cum iis, qui dicuntur esse boni, quam videar a bonis dissentire. Etsi prope diem video bonorum, id est lautorum et locupletum, urbem refertam fore. …’ The remark is ironical, but there is truth in its irony. See also Pro Sest. 97; Sall. Hist. 1, 12 M. cf. Sinko, o.c. (n. 10) p. 255; M. Gelzer, Vom römischen Staat, 11, 50 (= Neue Jahrb. 45 (1920), 25); R. Syme, o.c. 154.
38 See, e.g., Tac., Hist. 11, 92, 2.
38 See, e.g., Cic., Pro Cluent. 70. Even a king can be egens, see Ad Att. VI, 1, 4.
40 cf. Ad Att. VII, 3, 5: ‘omnes qui aere alieno premuntur’. The entire passage is quoted above, p. 17. See also Phil. 11, 78: ‘Habebat hoc omnino Caesar: quem plane perditum aere alieno egentemque, si eundem nequam hominem audacemque cognoverat, hunc in familiaritatem libentissime recipiebat.’ In its context, this remark was intended to spite Antony rather than to describe Caesar. Nevertheless it is interesting and valuable for the present purpose. Compare with it Sallust's remark about Marius, Iug. 86, 3: ‘homini potentiam quaerenti egentissimus quisque opportunissimus, quoi neque sua cara, quippe quae nulla sunt, et omnia cum pretio honesta videntur.’
41 cf. De Prov. Cons. 43: ‘Ecce illa tempestas … tenebrae r.p. … metus caedis bonis omnibus, consulum [sc. Pisonis et Gabini] scelus, cupiditas, egestas, audacia.’
42 cf. Plut., Caes. 8, 6: Διὸ καὶ Κάτων φοβηθεὶς μάλιστα τὸν ἐκ τῶν ἀπόρων νεωτερισμόν, οῖ τοῦ παντὸς ὑπέκκαυμα πλήθους ἦσαν, κτλ.
43 See also App., BC 1, 59, εἰσηγοῦντό τε (viz. Sulla and Q. Pompeius Rufus) μηδὲν ἔτι ἀπροβούλευτον ἐς τὸν δῆμον ἐσφέρεσθαι…καὶ τὰς χειροτονίας μὴ κατὰ φυλάς, ἀλλὰ κατὰ λόχους, ὡς Τύλλιος βασιλεὺς ἔταξε, γίνεσθαι, νομίσαντες διὰ δυοῖν τοῖνδε οὔτε νόμον οὐδένα πρὸ τῆς βουλῆς ἐς τὸ πλῆθος ἐσφερόμενον οὔτε τὰς χειροτονίας ἐν τοῖς πένησι καὶ θρασυτάτοις ἀντὶ τῶν ἐν περιουσίᾳ καὶ εὐβουλίᾳ γιγνουένας δώσειν ἔτι στάσεων ἀφορμάς.
44 For the typology, cf. Livy XXIV, 23, 9: ‘abire enim duces regios cum peritos militiae, turn egentes eosdem atque audaces cupiebant.’ And Tac., Ann. XIV, 57: ‘Sullam inopem, unde praecipuam audaciam.’
45 See M. Gelzer P-W 11 A, 1698. cf. P-W VII A, 863, 37 f.; 873, 65 f.; 875, 3 f.; Manni, E., Lucio Sergio Catilina, Firenze, 1939Google Scholar; and Henderson, M. I., JRS XXXI (1941), 177.Google Scholar
46 For, besides the fact that he was believed to have the support of noted Populares, Catilina inveighed against the ruling oligarchy, proclaimed himself the leader of the poor and the wretched and promised cancellation of debts.
47 Cic., Pro Mil. 22. cf. Brut. 273.
48 Cic., De Prov. Cons. 38; Pro Cluent. 95; De Har. Resp. 43.
49 Cic., Ad Att. 11, 1, 6; In Cat. IV, 9; Pro Sest. 141; Phil. V, 49; VII, 4. cf. De Amic. 95; Brut. 103.
50 Cic., Ad Att., 1, 19, 8.
51 Cic., Phil. XI, 17.
52 Cic., De Rep. IV, 11, is very illuminating in this respect: Cleon, Cleophon and Hyperbolus are described as ‘populares homines improbi in re publica seditiosi’. For the close connection between popularis and seditiosus see also Pro Cluent. 93 (cf. 77) and 113.
53 See Cat. 52, 11; Hist. 1, 12; Oratio Lepidi (Hist. 1, 55), 24.
54 I have observed elsewhere (JRS XLIV (1954), 5) that Sallust may have deliberately recalled and countered Cicero's Optimate cum dignitate otium in his own phrase otium cum servitio which he put into the mouth of the popularis Lepidus.
55 For recent studies of this invective see Jachmann, Günther, ‘Die Invektive gegen Cicero,’ Miscellanea Academica Berolinensia 11/1, 1950, 235–275Google Scholar; Oertel, Friedrich, ‘Sallusts Invektive gegen Cicero,’ Rh. Mus. N.F. 94 (1951), 46–68Google Scholar; Kurfess, A. M., ‘Die Invektive gegen Cicero,’ Aevum 28 (1954), 230–8Google Scholar; Hejnic, J., ‘Clodius Auctor: ein Beitrag zur sog. Sallusts Invektive,’ Rh. Mus. N.F. 99 (1956), 255–277Google Scholar; Gabba, Emilio, ‘Note Sulla Polemica Anticiceroniana di Asinio Pollione,’ Riv. Stor. Ital. LXIX (1957), 317–339Google Scholar; Syme, Ronald, ‘Pseudo-Sallust,’ Mus. Helv. XV (1958), 47Google Scholar, and JRS XXXVII (1947), 200–1; Nisbet, R. G. M., ‘The Invectiva in Ciceronem and Epistula Secunda of Pseudo-Sallust,’ JRS XLVIII (1958), 30–2.Google Scholar
56 To what extent Livy's own account of the Struggle of the Orders shows traces of the phraseology of the late Republican period (including audacia), is a question that cannot and need not be discussed here.
57 For Saturninus, see also Plut., Mar. 30, 1.
58 See also Mar. 35, 1, where τὸ Σουλπικίου θράσος (cf. audacia Saturnini, above, pp. 16, 18) is said to have been the instrument with which Marius brought ruin upon Rome.
59 In view of the affinity between seditiosus and audax (θρασύς) it may be of interest to compare two versions of a certain incident during the mutiny of the Pannonian legions in the reign of Tiberius. Dio Cass. LVII, 5, 7: καὶ ἐς τοσαύτην γε μεταβολὴν ἦλθον ὦστε καὶ αὐτοὶ τοὺς θρασυτάτους σφῶν αὐτοκέλευστοι συλλαβεῖν, etc.; and Tac., Ann. 1, 44, 2: ‘discurrunt mutati et seditiosissimum quemque vinctos trahunt.’.
60 What Plutarch has in mind may be seen from Pomp. 47, 5. For the juxtaposition of tribune and consul, cf. Cic., Pro Sest. 20, … ‘contra tr. pl. furiosum et audacem, fortem et gravem consulem’.
61 See also Plut., Caes. 7, 3.
62 Plut., Pomp. 48, 4; Cat. Min. 33, 7.
63 See also Cic. 28, 1; Pomp. 48, 8.
64 See also BC 11, 22, 79.
65 I do not think that it can be inferred from Cic., Ad Att. IX, 14, 2, ‘queri de Milone per vim expulso’, that Caesar disapproved of Milo's condemnation, see Klebs, P-W 1, 2276, 1 f. Surely Tyrrell and Purser, ad loc., are right when they paraphrase: ‘that he resents the violence used by Pompey to secure the banishment of Milo.’ In the spring of 49 Caesar had no apparent reason to disapprove of the fact that Milo was condemned, but had very cogent reasons to be apprehensive of the example set by the manner in which Milo was tried, see Suet., Iul. 30, 3. cf. also Lucan 1, 319–323.
66 Plutarch, Mar. 5, 3, says that Marius failed in the elections for the aedileship δόξας θρασὺς εἴναι καὶ αὐθάδης. But in its context this means no more than that he was regarded as arrogant because he put forward his candidature twice the same day. Nor can I see any political connotation in Plut., Ti. Grac. 14, 9, πρὸς ταύτην λέγεται τὴν ἐρώτησιν (of the tribune Annius) οὖτως διαπορηθῆναι τὸν Τιβέριον, ὥστε πάντων ὄντα καὶ τῷ λέγειν ἑτοιμότατον καὶ τῷ θαρρεῖν ἰταμώτατον ἀποσιωπῆσαι. Plutarch also tells that Q. Metellus taunted Tiberius with the fact that τούτῳ δὲ παραφαίνουσι νυκτὸς οἱ θρασύτατοι καὶ ἀπορώτατοι τῶν δημοτῶν (Grac. 14, 4). Even if we assumed, and it is not an easy thing to assume, that Plutarch, by way of the Annals of Fannius, presents Metellus' ipsissima verba, it would not follow that Metellus called Tiberius himself θρασύτατος (audacissimus), let alone that the term has here a political connotation. Lucan's ‘ausosque ingentia Gracchos’ (VI, 796) is too vague to admit of any conclusion as regards the application of the term audaces to the Gracchi.
67 See Naevius com. 118 (Ribbeck): ‘pessimorum pessime, audax, ganeo lustro aleo!’
68 A notable example is Cleon's θράσος, for which see Ar., Eq. 303 ff., and Plut., Nic. 8, 3; cf. also Jacoby, F Gr Hist. 115, 92. Other instructive examples are Eur., Suppl. 506–510; Isoc., Panath. 133. Θρασύς and θρασὑτης are frequently applied in a derogatory sense by Demosthenes, e.g., Meid. 132, Timocr. 170. For the meaning and application of θράσος see Wilamowitz on Eur., Herc. 624, and Neil on Ar., Eq. 303.
69 My thanks are due to Professor Sir Frank Adcock and Professor Arnaldo Momigliano, who kindly read the manuscript and made valuable suggestions for improvements of expression and substance.
