Chapter Six
Ethnic Personae

To paraphrase a cynical maxim of our own day, no Roman orator ever came to grief overestimating his audience's prejudices towards ethnic minorities. Not only Latin rhetoric but Latin literature of various genres is replete with allusions to the treachery of the Carthaginians, the debility of the Asians, the barbarism of the Gauls, the cruelty of the Spaniards, the duplicity of the Greeks.^[1] In forensic rhetoric—that is, the rhetoric of the law courts—appeal to these stereotypes was constant when cases involved the defense of provincial governors accused of malfeasance in office. The permanent court dealing with these cases (de repetundis ) dated back to 149 B.C. and was the first standing court instituted in Rome. The orators who defended ex-magistrates in cases heard before this court would have expended much time and energy on attempts to impeach the credibility of the witnesses for the prosecution. In the case of witnesses who were not Roman citizens doing business abroad but members of a subject people, the most obvious strategy pursued by the defense would have been to impugn the character of the entire race to which the witnesses belonged. The provinces from which these complainants came had, for the most part, entered the imperium Romanum through force of arms. Therefore, the same prejudices that had helped stir the Roman people to wage war against Carthaginians, Asians, Gauls, Spaniards, or Greeks could later be fanned in order to discredit

[1] See Balsdon, Romans and Aliens, 30–76; Haarhoff, Stranger at the Gate, 189–221. See also above, p. 137 n. 13.

the character of representatives of these peoples when they came to Rome to complain of the abuses suffered under Roman rule.^[2]

As many of his speeches bear witness, Cicero was not above pursuing such strategies. Three speeches can be usefully singled out for study. Two, the Pro Flacco and the Verrines, offer a special opportunity for comparison. Cicero's defense of the former provincial governor L. Valerius Flaccus and the approach he used in prosecuting Gaius Verres, a man accused of similar misconduct, illustrate yet again his ability to argue forcibly in utramque partem, since in the speech for Flaccus Cicero provided counterarguments to the same sort of attack he had himself launched earlier in the speech against Verres. In the third speech, the De lege agraria 2, a deliberative oration that was delivered in the year of his consulship, Cicero spoke against passage of a popular bill for land distribution. The oration is of particular interest here because of the somewhat surprising tack Cicero decided upon to persuade the Roman people to reject the proposal—that is, the exploitation of a centuries-old ethnic stereotype concerning the dangerous character of the Campanians in general and of the Capuans in particular. Although this strategy depends on a timeworn topos, Cicero's handling of it is strikingly effective. A closer look at the three speeches, therefore, has much to reveal concerning Cicero's methods of manipulating stereotypes connected with geographical locations.

Good Greeks and Bad Greeks

In his capacity as attacker of provincials Cicero appears in an unfavorable light, exploiting the vulnerabilities of those who could be made to appear outside the pale of what continued to be, at least in its upper echelons, a narrow, conservative society.^[3] It is particularly fortunate for

[2] While the establishment in 149 B.C. of the Quaestio de rebus repetundis (known as the "extortion court") demonstrated Roman willingness to provide an opportunity for provincials to seek redress for ill treatment received at the hands of their governors (whose authority during the period of magistracy abroad was all but absolute), nevertheless the long history of this court points as well to the severity and continuity of Roman abuse of provincials. For a political and legal analysis of the functioning of such courts, see Gruen, Roman Politics . (Gruen, App. E, 304–10, gives a summary of trials between 149 and 78 B.C. , including de repetundis cases.)

[3] On the composition of society in Cicero's day, see Wood, Cicero's Thought, 14–41.

our study of Cicero's manipulation of arguments relating to ethnic character (if not for our belief in Cicero's unwavering high-mindedness) that among the orator's extant works there is one, the Verrines, in which the orator assumed the role of defender of the rights of Greek provincials, while in the Pro Flacco we see him defending a Roman governor accused of trampling on those same rights. A comparison of these works is also of special interest here because in them Cicero used geographical determinants to distinguish Greeks whose character was supposedly consonant with the prevailing negative stereotype from those whose admirable traits made them exceptions to the rule. Before embarking on an analysis of these speeches, however, let us turn briefly to two other orations in which, as in the Pro Flacco, Cicero was asked to defend the former governor of a province. Although the Pro Fonteio and the Pro Scauro were concerned with impeaching the credibility of the Gauls and Sardinians rather than the Greeks, these speeches provide a revealing introduction to the general strategies used by Cicero in attacking non-Romans—strategies that could be adapted for use against a variety of ethnic opponents.

In the Pro Fonteio, dated 69 B.C. , Cicero defended Marcus Fonteius, who was accused of misconduct during his two-year praetorship in Gaul. Cicero praises Fonteius as a military man of outstanding talents, one of an increasingly rare breed on whom the Republic depended for its safety, a worthy heir to the seasoned campaigners of previous generations (42–43). Against the valiant Fonteius stand the Gauls, ranged before him now in court as once they had been on Gallic battlefields. These barbarian witnesses, according to Cicero, are incapable of providing trustworthy evidence, since they have no sense of the enormous burden of giving sworn testimony. One has only to compare the behavior on the witness stand of even the lowliest Roman to the most honorable of Gauls to realize the truth of this statement. The Roman is filled with anxiety lest he seem to betray the modesty and good faith (28: pudoris ac religionis ) required of him; the Gaul, on the other hand, is unconcerned with his reputation and speaks with a boldness that betrays his unreliability. This willingness to disregard the sanctity of the oath is hardly surprising, Cicero points out, as the Gauls are a race distinct from all others, feeling neither fear of nor respect for the immortal gods. Cicero supports this contention by reminding his listeners of the attack on Delphi by Gallic raiders in the third century and of the Gallic sack of Rome at the beginning of the fourth century, and by referring to the Gauls' "savage and barbaric custom" (31: immanem ac barbaram

consuetudinem ) of sacrificing human beings to placate their angry gods (30–31).

While claiming that no scruples restrained the Gauls from violating their oath and giving false testimony against Fonteius, Cicero at the same time imputes to the foreigners a compelling motive for committing perjury: their implacable hostility to Roman rule. According to the orator, the Gauls harbor the resentment of the recently conquered and begrudge the money, men, and grain they are forced to render to their new masters (12–14, 17). This resentment is expressed with a ferocity that sets them apart from all other peoples. They are "most hostile and most savage" (41: inimicissimis atque immanissimis ) and "the most implacable and most cruel enemies of the Roman people" (43: inimicissimis populo Romano nationibus et crudelissimis ). The repetition in different forms of the words iracundia (15), iratus (18, 21, 36), cupidus (21, 29, 32), temere (29), libido (4, 36, 49), immanis (31, 33, 41, 44), and crudelis (43) in connection with the Gauls further reinforces this image of a wild and threatening race, awed by neither men nor gods, consumed with a desire for revenge against their conquerors. And because the prosecution apparently had presented no hostile witnesses from among the Roman citizens resident or doing business in Gaul, Cicero is able to claim that the case could be seen as a battle between all those loyal to the state and the barbarian hordes. On one side are the Gauls, traditional enemies of Rome, once more to be seen parading about Rome in their absurd garb, uttering threats against the Republic in the very Forum of the Roman people (33). Ranged on Fonteius's side—that is, on the Roman side—are all the Roman citizens of Gaul, the Roman colony of Narbo Martius, and the friendly Greek city-state of Massilia (14–15, 45–46). Even the other provinces oppose this Gallic attack on the homeland, for protecting Fonteius on one wing, says Cicero, stands Macedonia, which owes a debt of gratitude to the accused for his successful campaigns against its Thracian enemies; on the other wing is Further Spain, which "is able to resist the passion (cupiditati ) of these [Gauls] not only by its loyalty (religione ) but is able to refute the perjury of these wicked men by its testimony and praises" (45) .^[4]

A somewhat different, but no less damning, picture of provincial wit-

[4] For Roman stereotypes of Gauls see Balsdon, Romans and Aliens, 65–66, 214–15.

nesses can be found in the Pro Scauro .^[5] Although the speech is preserved only in two large fragments, enough of the oration is extant for us to trace the orator's plan of attack in dealing with the Sardinian witnesses whose testimony formed the mainstay of the prosecution's case. Cicero prefaces his remarks on the Sardinians with a commonplace elevating the importance of argument over the evidence of witnesses (15–16).^[6] He then declares that in this case in which the witnesses are all of "one complexion, one voice, and one nation" (19: unus color, una vox, una natio ), he will not attempt to take them on individually but will confront the whole army in a single great encounter. This he proceeds to do, after revealing that the impetus for the case had actually been supplied by the consul, Appius Claudius Pulcher. According to Cicero, ApPius had hoped that by encouraging the prosecution he could undermine the consular campaign of Scaurus and thereby secure the election of his brother Gaius (31–37).

The attack on the testimony of the Sardinians occupies sections 38 through 45, which was, presumably, the central portion of the argument. Cicero begins by alleging that the unanimity of the Sardinian responses proved their testimony to be a fabrication, created out of greed for the rewards promised them by Appius and the prosecution (38). He then expands upon the failings of the race that would make these charges of conspiracy and perjury believable. While disavowing any prejudice against the Sardinians, Cicero remarks that even if they were to come as honest witnesses, the "reputation of the race" (41: gentis . . . famam ) was such that they ought to be amazed whenever they were taken at their word.^[7] Cicero's audience is then presented with the orator's account of the history of racial degeneration that had produced the Sardinian people. He declares:

All the memorials and all the historical records of antiquity have revealed to us that the Phoenician race is the most deceptive of all (42: fallacissimum );

[5] On Scaurus and the political background to the speech, see Henderson, "The Career of Scaurus"; Courtney, "The Prosecution of Scaurus."

[6] Quint. 5.7.3: In actionibus primum generaliter pro testibus atque in testis dici solet. Est hic communis locus, cum pars altera nullam firmiorem probationem esse contendit quam quae sit hominum scientia nixa, altera ad detrahendam illis fidem omnia per quae fieri soleant falsa testimonia enumerat. Cf. Lausberg, Handbuch, 1:192–93 (§354).

[7] For the negative stereotype of Sardinians, see Cic. Fam. 7.24.1; Tac. Ann. 2.85; Mart. 4.60.6; Paus. 10.17.1–7. See also Rowland, "Sardinians in the Roman Empire."

the Poeni, who sprang from them, proved by the many revolts of the Carthaginians and the many treaties they violated and broke that they had in no way declined from their ancestors; after elements of the African race were mixed in with this stock, the resulting Sardi were not led forth and settled in Sardinia but were rather marooned and exiled there by the Poeni. Wherefore, since there was nothing healthy in the pure stock of this race, how greatly corrupted should we judge it after so many such racial interminglings?

(42–43)

The orator hastens to note that there were certain Sardinians—notably those who were his own friends and those who were supporters of Scaurus—who, by their personal excellence, had overcome the shortcomings of their heritage; these men, however, were only exceptions to the generally recognized rule that the majority of Sardi were "without loyalty and without any bond or tie" (44: sine fide, sine societate et coniunctione ) that connected them to the Roman people.

In the Pro Fonteio and the Pro Scauro Cicero has varied the type of ethnic attack with the peoples who are the target of the attack. The Gauls are made to seem by far the more formidable of the two races. They are a savage, cruel, and angry lot who believe they can intimidate the Roman judicial system with their fierce threats. Towards the Sardinians Cicero assumes a more contemptuous tone, speaking of their slavishness, sordidness, and moral worthlessness. In both cases, however, the final judgment is identical: neither race is capable of observing the fides and religio that guarantee the weight and credibility of their testimony.

These two terms, which appear several times in the two speeches, are of broad significance and are difficult of exact definition. Fides was used to describe the quality that produced the conviction that an individual could be trusted—whether as family member, friend, patron, client, business associate, magistrate, or witness—as well as to describe the conviction itself (thus it meant both "trustworthiness" and "trust"). A breach of fides between citizens was an offense on several levels: such an action could be grounds for social stigma and political attack; it could constitute the basis for an action at law; and it was a religious offense, a sin against the gods, even in cases where fides was not guaranteed by an explicit oath (although the close relationship between fides and oath was surely the basis for its religious aspect).^[8]Fides was also a trait as-

[8] See Rosc. Am. 116 for fides between partners. For a philosophical definition of fides, see Cic. Off. 1.23: Fundamentum autem est iustitiae fides, id est dictorum conventorumque constantia et veritas. Ex quo, quamquam hoc videbitur fortasse cuipiam durius, tamen audeamus imitari Stoicos, qui studiose exquirunt, unde verba sint ducta, credamusque, quia fiat, quod dictum est, appellatam fidem. See also Heinze, "Fides"; Fraenkel, "Zur Geschichte des Wortes fides "; Earl, Moral and Political Tradition, 33; Latte, Römische Religions-geschichte, 237, 273.

signed to states as well as individuals: in the case of provinces and allies it signified the loyalty, trustworthiness, respect, and obedience the conquered owed their masters, at least in Roman eyes.^[9] In the case of the Gauls, it is Cicero's contention that their fierce hostility to Rome in general and to its representative, Fonteius, in particular rendered them incapable of giving honest testimony.^[10] Cicero thus ties their lack of fides —in the sense of attachment and loyalty to Rome—to their lack of fides or trustworthiness as sworn witnesses. The Sardi, who are likewise without fides, both in the sense of loyalty to Rome and credibility as witnesses, are not so because of anger or hostility at their lot but because they are a frivolous and contemptible race, motivated by greed. According to Cicero they believe that the difference between freedom and slavery is simply the opportunity to lie with impunity (38).^[11]

The second term, religio, is perhaps even more difficult to define. It may be described in general as a scrupulousness derived from a sense of religious piety. Religio placed constraints on the actions of an individual towards people and things thought to be sacred or of concern to the gods. Religio guaranteed, for instance, the strict and solemn observance both of religious festivals and of honors to the deities; it also required that objects of public and private veneration be treated with respect; and it restrained the individual from lying under oath. The term is of particular importance in Cicero's attack on the Gauls. As noted, the orator attempts to create a picture of the race as a terrifying people who knew no fear, even of the gods. While other races fought for their divinities, declares Cicero, the Gauls alone "waged war against the immortal gods themselves" (Font. 30). No awe of divine prohibitions, therefore,

[9] On the application of the concept to international relations, see Badian, Foreign Clientelae .

[10] Julius Victor Ars rhet. 15 (in Halm, Rhetores Latini minores, 423): Licet etiam principales quaestiones in principio praecerpere, sed praecursu solo atque tactu, non ut de his quaeri videatur, quomodo pro Flacco et pro Fonteio Marcus Tullius, nihil agi illo iudicio, nisi ut magistratus in provinciis non audeant imperare sociis, quod ex usu rei publicae sit.

[11] Slaves could give testimony only under torture.

could restrain them from exercising their hostility and anger against Fonteius by perjuring themselves under oath.

The Defense of Flaccus

The trial of L. Valerius Flaccus took place four years after Cicero's suppression of the Catilinarian conspiracy. The great swell of popularity that had carried him through the year of his consulship had ebbed during the following years, and by the time of Flaccus's trial in 59 B.C. Cicero and others who had been instrumental in bringing about the executions of the conspirators were being hard pressed by the attacks of the popular party. Flaccus could be numbered among this group, for, as praetor in 63 B.C. , he had been responsible for the apprehension of Volturcius and the Gauls at the Milvian Bridge. The sealed messages seized at this time and later read before the Senate had provided the damning evidence that ultimately led to the conviction and death of the leading conspirators who had remained in Rome after Catiline's departure.

It is Cicero's allusions to Flaccus's participation in these earlier events that bind the speech together.^[12] The Pro Fonteio makes clear that a common feature of the defense of provincial governors was an appeal to the military record of the accused. This appeal might focus on past campaigns that demonstrated the indispensable service the accused had rendered to the Republic and would again render if acquitted of the charges against him. Alternately, an orator might choose to praise his client's military record during the actual period of his provincial government in an attempt to convince a jury that disregard of the interests of their former enemies could be excused in one zealously devoted to maintaining the security of the state. In the case of Flaccus, this appeal to the military service of the accused does not focus primarily on Flaccus's foreign campaigns. Rather, the speech begins and ends with references to the role Flaccus played during the Catilinarian crisis (1–5, 101–6). This emphasis on Flaccus's actions in 63 B.C. serves an important purpose in

[12] Humbert, Les plaidoyers écrits, 222–35, argued that the extant work represents a mélange. Contra, see Webster, Pro Flacco, App. A. The extant speech does not include a famous witticism that supposedly saved the guilty defendant: Macrob. Sat. 2.1.13 ([Cicero ] in quibus causis, cum nocentissimos reos tueretur, victoriam iocis adeptus est: ut ecce Pro L. Flacco, quem repetundarum reum ioci opportunitate de manifestissimis criminibus exemit. Is iocus in oratione non extat, mihi ex libro Furii Bibaculi notus est ). On Cicero's overall strategy in the speech, see Classen, "La difesa di Valerio Flacco."

addition to that of highlighting his martial prowess: in these passages Cicero draws on his auctoritas by reminding his audience once again of his role in saving the state. His listeners are led to recall that in the domestic campaign in which the accused had served so gloriously he had played the role of lieutenant to Cicero himself, the dux togatus .^[13] At the same time, this tactic shows Cicero once more wedding himself to the character, career, and fate of his client. The jury who heard the case was asked to pass judgment not simply on Flaccus and his provincial command but also on Cicero and his conduct of the consulship of 63 B.C.

If the strategy pursued at the beginning and end of the speech is easily identifiable, the appeal made within the body of the speech is equally familiar from the Pro Fonteio and the Pro Scauro, for much of the oration is occupied with Cicero's attempt to undermine the credibility of the prosecution's evidence by an ethnic attack on the provincials who had supplied this evidence. Just as he had in the Pro Scauro, he argues that in the case of unknown foreign witnesses he has been compelled to discredit them as a group rather than individually (23); and, as in the Pro Scauro, he contends that in this case the evidence against his client has been provided by a race "least trustworthy of all in giving testimony" (23: natio minime in testimoniis dicendis religiosa ). The orator begins his discussion of the testimony of the witnesses by asking his audience to recall that the one factor that was common among them was that they were Greeks (9). Declaring that there was no one less likely to be hostile to the Greeks than he, Cicero goes on to admit the excellence of the race in "literature, the knowledge of many arts, the charm of their discourse, the sharpness of their wits, and the copiousness of their speech" (9: tribuo illis litteras, do multarum artium disciplinam, non adimo sermonis leporem, ingeniorum acumen, dicendi copiam ). He then states that for all their talents they were conspicuously lacking in one respect: they had no understanding of the religious scruples (religionem ) or good faith (fidem ) required of one giving testimony (9). In his attack on the Gallic witnesses in the Pro Fonteio Cicero had attempted to prove the unreliability of the witnesses by comparing the behavior of the Roman and the Gaul. Here, the same technique has been used in describing Greek witnesses. Whereas the Roman, says Cicero, schooled in traditional customs and discipline, is scrupulously honest

[13] See Cat. 2.28 (uno togato duce et imperatore ); 3.15, 23; Sull. 85; Har. resp. 49 (togatum domestici belli exstinctorem ); and Nicolet, "Consul togatus," 240–45.

under oath and can hardly be induced to make hostile statements even against his enemies, the Greeks are concerned only with advancing their own interests and winning the verbal contest between themselves and their questioner. They choose as their representatives, therefore, neither the finest men nor the most respected but those who are the best talkers. To them, says the orator, "a sworn oath is a joke, giving testimony is a game, and their reputation before you but a shadow" (12). Cicero adds that his oration would indeed be without end if he were to dilate further upon the inconstancy (12: levitatem ) of the whole Greek race in giving evidence.

In these remarks, and in similar passages made in reference to individual Greek witnesses, Cicero drew on the Roman stereotype of the Greeks and, indeed, of many of the inhabitants of the eastern Mediterranean. While the Gauls of the Pro Fonteio were pictured as savage and half-civilized, the Greeks were commonly attacked as overcivilized. They were said to be a people without scruples, a race of actors, ready to adapt their behavior to their ends. According to this stereotype, their failings were not of intellect but of character, so that even the talents for which Cicero had praised them at the beginning of the speech—cleverness, loquacity, verbal facility—formed part of the indictment against them. At several points Cicero hints that the motivation for the perjured testimony of the Greeks went beyond their inability to understand the sanctity of the oath; it expressed the "barbarian cruelty" and hostility towards Roman rule that had led them in 88 B.C. to embark on the mass slaughter of Roman citizens at the beginning of the First Mithridatic War (60–61). This line of argument, however—crucial to the Pro Fonteio —is soft-pedalled in this speech, and it is the levitas of the Greeks that becomes the theme repeated throughout, a levitas that is implicitly contrasted with the gravitas of the Romans.^[14]

Cicero not only had to contend with the Greeks who journeyed to Rome to testify in person against Flaccus; he also had to undermine the effect of the resolutions against the defendant that had been passed by various towns within the province and introduced in evidence by the prosecution. Again, Cicero's strategy was to attack the entire race. As

[14] See 12 (levitatem ), 19 (levissimi; levissimae nationis ), 24 (levitate ), 36 (nullam gravitatem ), 37 (levitatem ), 38 (leves ), 57 (levitas ), 61 (levitate ), 63 (contrasting the gravitas of the Massilians), and 71 (levitate ). The word signifies untrustworthiness, mental mobility, lack of steadfastness, and infidelity. Levitas is a characteristic of all barbarians.

he had earlier in the speech compared the behavior of Roman witnesses when giving testimony with that of the Greeks, he also contrasts the wise arrangements for the debate and passage of public resolutions the Romans had inherited from their ancestors with those that prevailed in the Greek world. Whereas the Romans debated political questions on one day and voted on these same resolutions only three days later in orderly assemblies (comitia ) in which the people were strictly divided according to rank, the Greeks allowed debate and voting to go on at the same meeting. Worse, they remained seated at such meetings and allowed the most crude and ignorant individuals to express their opinions. How was it surprising, then, if the prosecutor had been able to persuade the assemblies of the various states to pass rash and misleading resolutions against his client?^[15]

Cicero supports this attack with several arguments that make use of the rhetorical figure called "the less and the more."^[16] If Athens at its acme suffered from the effects of this disastrous system, he asks, how much more the Asian Greek states of Phrygia and Mysia (17)? And if political meetings had frequently been lashed by popular storms in Rome, "this most serious and restrained of states," a place in which the Curia, "the punisher of rashness and governor of our sense of duty," keeps watch upon the Rostra, how could one put any faith in the resolutions of the Greeks (57)? Alluding with disdain to the cobblers, belt makers, shopkeepers, and other "dregs of society" allowed to make public policy in these lands, Cicero declares to his audience that "when you hear these resolutions you are not hearing sworn testimony, but rather the rashness of the crowd, the voice of the most contemptible of citizens, the roaring of the ignorant, the impassioned assembly of the least trustworthy of races" (19).

The philosophical sources of this virulent attack on the Greek democratic system can be traced back to Greece itself. Cicero's condemnation of the fickle masses who are swayed by the oratory of the imperiti echoes Plato's attacks on rhetoric in the Gorgias and the Phaedrus, in which Socrates warns of the perilous condition of a state in which paid educators taught the tricks of persuasion without considering how those tricks might be used, and in which neither those who led nor those who were led understood the true nature of justice. The Platonic ideal

[15] On the resolutions of the Greeks, see Flac. 15–19, 23, 57–58.

[16] This is a form of the locus a comparatione, used in the argumentum . See Lausberg, Handbuch, 1:218–20 (§§395–97).

found in the Republic —of a state in which the governors were a special class, distinguished from the governed by birth, training, and education—was not realized in the Roman constitution, but Cicero indicates in the Pro Flacco that the superiority of the Roman system to that of the Greeks lay in the degree to which it repressed the whims of the ignorant masses and strengthened the control of the superior few. Thus the basic questions at issue in the passages dealing with the validity of the resolutions passed by the Greek assemblies had a long history in ancient political philosophy. Cicero's tone in these passages, however, is anything but philosophical. Fear and hostility are equally evident, a fact that reminds us that we are here reading not a single but a twofold indictment: in Cicero's view the seditious assemblies of the Greeks found their counterpart in the "great tempests" (57: quantos fluctus ) aroused at the political rallies at Rome.^[17] This attitude might at first seem surprising in a man who had risen to prominence through his skill in persuading these very masses. It should be remembered, however, that the Pro Flacco was delivered only a few months before Cicero was driven into exile, and perhaps we may detect within it the heartfelt sentiments of a man who was at the time feeling increasingly imperiled by the frequent displays of mass disorder and violence orchestrated by his enemies.

The section of the speech that treats the evidence both of individual witnesses and of the Greeks as a people ends with a broad condemnation of the race as untrustworthy (57: levitas propria Graecorum ) and their political institutions as corrupt (57: in contione seditiosa valeat oratio ). Cicero could hardly abandon the argument here, however, since a number of Greek communities had sent documents and witnesses supporting Flaccus. Some strategy had to be found that would induce the audience, on the one hand, to dismiss the evidence of the Greeks presented by the prosecution as the expression of the duplicity of the race, while, on the other, to accept the defense's evidence, which likewise had been furnished by a number of Greek states. Cicero's solution to the problem was to make distinctions between the trustworthy Greeks who supported the defense and the lying Greeks on whom the prosecution

[17] For further discussion of Cicero's characterizations of Athenian democracy, see Soós, "Ciceros Betrachtungen über die Institutionen der athenischen Demokratie." Cicero also implies that it was the presence of Jews and other foreigners that was turning the Roman assemblies into a mirror of those of the Greeks (66). On the negative characterization of Jews and Judaism, see also 67 (barbarae superstitioni ) and 69.

relied. He had also made distinctions in the case of the Sardinians in the Pro Scauro by stating that through a personal achievement of character certain Sardinians had overcome the debased heritage of their people. Here, however, it is chiefly geography that matters. In sections 62–66 Cicero attempts to oppose the character and habits of the Asian Greeks to those of the European Greeks. He begins with several laudes urbium, praising Athens for its invention of "civilization, learning, religion, agriculture, justice, and law" (62: humanitas, doctrina, religio, fruges, iura, leges ), Sparta for the bravery of its citizens and the antiquity of its laws and customs, and Massilia (Marseille), which, in spite of being cut off from other civilized states and surrounded by the barbaric tribes of Gaul, was so well governed by the wisdom of its best citizens (63: optimatium consilio ) that it surpassed not only Greece but all other places on earth in its customs and eminence (63: disciplinam atque gravitatem non solum Graeciae, sed haud sciam an cunctis gentibus anteponendam ).^[18] He then goes on to prove the "worthlessness, unreliability, and greed" (66) of the Asians by quoting a number of Greek proverbs that expressed contempt for Phrygians, Carians, Mysians, and Lydians.^[19]

Cicero's elevation of the mainland and western Greeks over Asian Greeks stands in sharp contrast to passages in other speeches where praise of Greece is scanty and nearly always restricted to the glories of the past. Here, however, it is implied that the inhabitants of the mainland have not degenerated greatly from the nobility of their ancestors. Although in the case of Athens allusions to contemporary achievements are conspicuously absent, nevertheless it is the differences in character between "European" Greeks (64: locum . . . Europae tenet ) and Asian Greeks on which the argument turns, not the difference between the Greeks of the past and those of the present. This ethnographical opposition between Europe and Asia is one that was common in Greek literature and that probably arose first in the period of the Persian wars, as the Greeks, and especially the Athenians, attempted to articulate the grounds for their moral and military superiority over their Asian enemies.^[20] We have noted how stereotypes contrasting the bravery of the Greeks and the slavish weakness of the Asians were supported by pseu-

[18] On laudes urbium, see Classen, Die Stadt, esp. 4–5. For similar praises of Athens, cf. Isoc. Paneg. and Panath.

[19] For an objective account of early interactions between Greeks, Lydians, and Carians, see Carratelli, "Europa ed Asia," 7.

[20] See Carratelli, "Europa ed Asia," 5–9.

doscientific theories within the corpus of the Hippocratic writings.^[21] What makes Cicero's adoption of this distinction striking is that to the Roman the world was commonly divided in ethnological terms between East and West, with Greece often seen as part of the corrupt East, where weakness, dishonesty, and chicanery prevailed; within the Pro Flacco, however, Cicero has resuscitated the ancient Greek point of view, focusing on the ethical contrasts between Europe (which included Greece) and Asia. It is to be remembered as well that the topos as it appears in ancient Greek literature (including the proverbs quoted by Cicero) generally depended on a contrast between the non-Greek and the Greek, while Cicero has used the same topos to posit an ethical distinction between Greek and Greek.

Having pronounced a blanket condemnation upon Asian Greeks, Cicero was faced with the necessity of giving his listeners a reason to believe the testimony of the people of the Lydian town of Apollonis who had sent depositions in support of Flaccus. He describes the inhabitants of Apollonis as the people who are "in all Asia the most thrifty, the most pious, and the most removed from the luxury and unreliability of the Greeks" (71: tota ex Asia frugalissimi, sanctissimi, a Graecorum luxuna et levitate remotissimi ). They are further described as "fathers of families who are satisfied with what they have, farmers, and rustics" (71: patres familias suo contenti, aratores, rusticani ). While the Apollonians' land is indeed rich, it is through "hard work and cultivation" (71: diligentia culturaque ) that it is made better. This description of the Apollonians as stereotypically virtuous farmers exempts them from the racial attack that Cicero has launched against their neighbors. The contrast with the stereotype of the Asian Greek he has played on in the rest of the speech could not be greater. While the ordinary Greek is untrustworthy because of his quick and deceptive mind and tongue, the Apollonians, who seem to inhabit a kind of isolated, Golden Age land where justice prevails, have no share in such negative traits.

Both the distinction between European and Asian Greeks and that between the Apollonians and the majority of Asian Greeks are reiter-

[21] See above, pp. 142–45. For Roman attitudes towards Greeks (and further bibliography), see Balsdon, Romans and Aliens, 30–54. For Cicero's attitude, see Clavel, De Cicerone Graecorum interprete; Trouard, Cicero's Attitude towards the Greeks; Guite, "Cicero's Attitude to the Greeks." In some sources the division between East and West was cast as a division between Asia and Europe; see Varro LL 5.4; cf. Luc. Phars. 9.411.

ated in the peroration. As in the Pro Fonteio, Cicero depicts state ranged against state, province against province. On one side are Flaccus's enemies, the majority of the Greek city-states in Asia, whose faithlessness has been amply demonstrated. On the other side are the good Asians (that is, the farmers of Apollonis); the provinces of Gaul, Cilicia, Spain, and Crete; the Massilians, Rhodians, Spartans, and Athenians; as well as Achaea, Thessaly, and Boeotia—all of whom, says Cicero, stand in opposition to the Lydian, Phrygian, and Mysian Greeks (100).

The Prosecution of Verres

Speeches like the Pro Flacco, the Pro Fonteio, and the Pro Scauro make clear that attacks on foreign ethnic groups were a staple of Ciceronian and presumably Latin rhetoric. It is with a certain sense of relief that we turn from the barrage of ethnic bigotry that played such an important part in these speeches to a further consideration of the strategy of persuasion found in the Verrines . Here the results of my earlier analysis of Cicero's indictment of Verres for his theft of statues and precious works of art—an analysis that focused almost exclusively on the fourth part of the Second Action—can be incorporated into a consideration of Cicero's exploitation in the work as a whole of certain commonplaces, especially those that depended on ethical and ethnic stereotypes.

The prosecution of Verres occurred in 70 B.C. , early in Cicero's career but not nearly so early as, for instance, the prosecution of Caelius was in the career of young Atratinus. At the time of the trial Cicero was thirty-six years old, a mature and experienced orator, well prepared to prosecute the case that would establish his preeminence in forensic oratory and launch his political career. The Verrines represents the only extant speech in which Cicero's powers of persuasion were brought to bear on the side of provincials seeking redress for the abuse they had suffered under Roman rule, and the orator himself was justifiably proud of his handling of the case.^[22] Even in the midst of an attack on the

[22] Even in the case of the execrable Verres, there have been modern attempts at rehabilitation. See Martorana, "La Venus di Verre." Dilke, "Divided Loyalties in Eastern Sicily," argues that Cicero's rhetorical exaggeration has hidden the degree of support enjoyed by Verres in certain parts of Sicily. Contra, see Pritchard, "Gaius Verres." For the identities of those who aided Verres' crimes in Sicily, see Classen, "Verres' Gehilfen in Sizilien." For the importance of the case in establishing Cicero's dominance in forensic oratory, see Smallwood, "The Trial of Verres."

Fig. 4.
The Roman World, 63 B.C. At this time the imperium Romanum included the provinces of Sicily, Sardinia and Corsica, Cisalpine Gaul, Narbonese Gaul, Nearer Spain, Further Spain, Africa, Asia, Macedonia and Achaea, Illyricum, Bithynia, Cyrenaica and Crete, and Cilicia (probably including Pamphylia). At the conclusion of the Third Mithridatic War (62 B.C. ), Pompey organized the new provinces of Bithynia-Pontus (including Paphlagonia) and Syria. Gaul from the Rhine to the Pyrenees became a Roman province as the result of Julius Caesar's campaigns of 58–50 B.C. In 63 B.C. Mauretania, Numidia, Egypt, Cappadocia, and Galatia were nominally independent client kingdoms.

evidence of Sardinian provincials in the Pro Scauro he refers proudly to the events preceding Verres' trial, recalling how he had made his way in harsh winter through the valleys and hills of Agrigentum and how he had "visited the cottages of the Sicilian farmers" and had even spoken with the men in the fields as they stood sweating at the plough (25).

The Verrines is a massive work, comprising, together with the preliminary Divinatio in Caecilium, over 450 pages in the Oxford Classical Text edition. It is divided into two parts: the First Action, at which Verres had actually been present and which had preceded the introduction of evidence at the trial; and the Second Action, a much longer work, whose five parts summarized the charges and evidence against the accused. The Second Action was one of the speeches (like the Pro Milone or the second Philippic ) that Cicero published but never delivered, since prior to its delivery the defendant had gone into exile, forced by the mountain of evidence presented in the first part of the trial to realize his conviction would be inevitable if he were to remain in Rome.^[23] The Second Action maintained the illusion, however, that it was delivered orally and that Verres was present to hear it. This pretense was in no way an attempt on Cicero's part to mislead his readers. In fact, so far from trying to deceive them, he has capitalized on their knowledge that what he states as fact within the speech was patently untrue. For instance, when Cicero declared that many were surprised to see the defendant in court since it was assumed Verres would flee the city after the damning evidence presented in the first part of the trial (II.1.1), he was making use of irony: irony of the same sort as that employed by a playwright whose audience is allowed to know more than the characters in the play. Again, when the orator stated that he was grateful that Verres' presence had necessitated the continuation of the trial, since it would allow him the opportunity to exhibit the fruit of his long labors on the case (II.1.2), Cicero's ancient readers clearly understood the statement as an explanation both for the pretense within the speech that the trial had actually gone forward and for Cicero's publication of the work.

The Verrines as published, then, depended on a fiction, and my analysis, both here and in chapter 3, has acquiesced in this fiction. Cicero would have his readers believe that the Second Action was a continuous oration similar to what he would have given if the trial had actually continued, and my discussion of it accepts this premise and goes on to

[23] On events subsequent to the First Action, see Venturini, "La conclusione del processo di Verre."

consider how Cicero went about persuading his hypothetical audience. My confidence that this is a sensible way of reading the speech grows out of the observation that its rhetorical strategy is closely related to that found in the Pro Scauro, Pro Fonteio, and Pro Flacco, speeches that actually were delivered. This does not mean, of course, that one finds the same arguments in the Verrines as those advanced in the speeches in which Cicero defended provincial governors; rather, it is the opposite side of the coin, the counter arguments to those discussed above, that Cicero exploits in the prosecution of Verres.^[24]

While arguments relating to ethnic stereotypes will be the focus of my discussion, it is instructive to note that a number of other commonplace arguments, which figure prominently in the speeches on behalf of provincial governors, have also been treated from an opposite viewpoint in the Verrines . In his speeches in defense of provincial governors, for instance, Cicero not only attempts to discount the evidence of individual witnesses; he also makes use of commonplaces questioning the importance of witnesses in general by elevating the relative position of argument through probabilities as a means of proof.^[25] In the Pro Fonteio (21–27) Cicero devotes a long passage to the need for jurors to assess critically, rather than simply to credit without question, the testimony of witnesses; in the Pro Scauro he calls argument "the voice of

[24] It is argued that the unusual length and literary elaboration of the Second Action of the Verrines reveals its artificiality. But many of the orations that Cicero actually delivered represented only part of the case for the defense or the prosecution, since several defenders or accusers frequently spoke in sequence during a case. If the Verrines had gone forward, Cicero's would have been the sole prosecuting speech, and perhaps its length and elaboration are, in fact, much closer to what would have been delivered than hitherto imagined. Contra, see, among others, Fuhrmann, "Tecniche narrative," 41–42. Fuhrmann also argues that Cicero's narrative technique, in which he chooses to turn the oration into a series of exemplary and representative stories, reveals the literary, rather than the forensic, nature of the Second Action. It seems to me, however, that what Fuhrmann is describing is the only possible manner in which Cicero could have effectively organized such an extensive mass of evidence. Fuhrmann's objection that Cicero repeats in exposition material that would have been familiar to the jury from the First Action lacks force, unless we assume the jurors (who would have heard the Second Action only after an extended recess) possessed powers of memory and organization as prodigious as Cicero's own.

[25] Quintilian mentions the commonplace concerning the relative value of witnesses and argument in his criticism of orators who simply memorized such topoi and used them unaltered in numerous cases (2.4.27).

reality, the token of nature, the imprint of truth" (16) and demeans the reliability of witnesses, who may easily be "driven, swayed, formed and diverted" (15). In rhetorical theory, evidence from witnesses, documents, legal precedents, tortures, and the like was termed "inartificial proof." While such proofs were simply "found" by the orator, the arguments that constituted "artificial proofs" were "invented" by him. Somewhat surprisingly to the modern, ancient rhetoricians often maintained the superiority of argument over evidence. Aristotle in particular gave short shrift to the subject of inartificial proof, reflecting the belief that such proofs were an adjunct rather than an integral part of rhetoric and that the handling of them was self-evident.^[26] Even in Aristotle's time, however, it was realized that the impact of inartificial proofs could be strengthened or undermined by rhetorical argument, and as early as the fifth century B.C. a number of commonplaces had been evolved to aid the orator in inventing ways to deal with them.

Cicero was well prepared to adopt the Aristotelian point of view—that argument from probabilities was superior to direct evidence—when it suited him. He subscribed to the view that "witnesses could bend the truth, documents could be altered, slaves might lie under torture, but the rational force of argument from probability was irrefutable" in speeches such as the Pro Fonteio and Pro Scauro, in which the bulk of the inartificial proof told against his client.^[27] In the prosecution of Verres, however, we see Cicero arguing the opposite side of the question. The orator had proved his case in the First Action by forgoing the customary extended opening speech and instead proceeding quickly to the presentation of direct evidence. In spite of the fact that the Second Action is the script for a highly elaborated performance, making use of the entire panoply of rhetorical weapons to rouse the passions of the audience, the orator wished to make it appear that he continued to rely primarily on objective, rather than subjective, proof. He therefore bypassed the usual inquiry into the private life and habits of the accused, a standard strategy of proof through probability, and restricted himself to

[26] Aristotle's disdain for the subject would have stemmed from the philosopher's desire to found the art of rhetoric on the basis of rational predictability. According to this point of view, the proof through argument that an event should have occurred was superior to proof by direct evidence that it did (Arist. Rhet. 1.2.2 (1355b35–39), 1.15.1–33 (1375a22–1377b12); Kennedy, Aristotle, 108–18). See above, p. 25.

[27] Cf. Flac. 23.

the discussion of specific crimes committed in public office, making frequent references to the witnesses and documents he had introduced to prove his contentions.^[28] Cicero's attitude here, so different from that found in the trials in which he defended provincial governors, is summarized in his remark to Verres' advocate, Hortensius: "In this kind of trial, when someone is said to have stolen or appropriated something, who in the world pays attention to us? Is not the entire attention of the judges focused on either the documents or the witnesses?" (II.1.27).

A similar attempt to anticipate the arguments of the defense also appears when Cicero treats the topic of the interest of the state vis-à-vis that of the accused. As has been shown, a key element in the defense of Roman governors accused under the de repetundis laws was the presentation of the case as one that pitted the interests of the Roman state, represented by the accused, against the supposed interests of an isolated group of provincials who claimed to have suffered abuse at the hands of the accused. This tactic, which represents a variation on commonplaces concerning expediency and justice and which was traditionally assigned by ancient rhetoric to the province of deliberative oratory, is of great importance in forensic speeches of this kind.^[29] While no ancient orator would have claimed outright to favor injustice towards conquered peoples, he may well, as in Cicero's defenses of Fonteius and Flaccus, have argued the patriotic necessity of the actions of the accused, whatever the complaints of the resentful provincials. In the Verrines Cicero employs a variety of tactics to prevent his opponents from exploiting this strategy.^[30] He points out to anyone who might claim that Verres should be acquitted because the Roman citizens of Sicily supported him that the extortion court had been instituted specifically for the purpose of hearing the complaints of Rome's allies, not its citizens (II.2.15). He

[28] Quintilian states that it required the greatest force of eloquence to refute inartificial proofs, and goes on to give general advice to the orator faced with the need to deny or mitigate such material (5.1.1–2).

[29] Quint. 3.8.1–3, 30; cf. Cic. Off. 3.40.

[30] The second speech of the Second Action even includes Cicero's ironic reference to the commonplace of the defendant's counsel, "Save this man for the Republic" (II.2.76: Retinete, retinete hominem in civitate, iudices; parcite et conservate ut sit qui vobiscum res iudicet qui in senatu sine ulla cupiditate de bello et pace sententiam ferat ). For a general analysis of Cicero's exploitation (in the Divinatio in Caecilium and In Verrem I) of the political circumstances that surrounded this trial, see Neumeister, Grundsätze der forensischen Rhetorik, 35–46.

then hastens to add that, in fact, it was not the provincials alone who complained of Verres' conduct but a large number of Roman citizens residing and doing business in Sicily. The orator then declares that if Verres' administration had been satisfactory to any race, whether Sicilian or Roman, or to any order, whether farmer, stockbreeder, or merchant, he would be content to see the defendant freed.

Perhaps most important to Cicero's efforts to prevent the case from turning into a matter of "us versus them" was his refusal to base his demand for Verres' conviction simply on the sympathy and pity owed the abused Sicilians; at every point he connects the idea of justice for the Sicilians with the larger issue of the interests of the Roman state. At the very outset of the First Action he warns the jury that a corrupt verdict in the case would bring about the final discredit of senatorial juries and the transfer of the extortion court to the equites (I.3). He introduces numerous witnesses and documents to prove that Verres had committed crimes not only against provincials but also against Roman citizens throughout his career as legate in Asia, praetor in Rome, and propraetor in Sicily.^[31] In the third part of the Second Action, Cicero complains as much about the harm done to Rome by the disruption of the Sicilian grain supply and the collection of taxes as about the sufferings of the Sicilians.^[32] In the fourth part, as has been shown, he constantly attempts to transform the artworks stolen by Verres into symbols of the just, stable, and profitable Roman rule that had existed before Verres' tenure of power. Finally, to prevent the prosecution from implying that Verres' assault on human rights in Sicily was justified by the exigencies of the military situation there, Cicero charges in the fifth part of the Second Action that Verres has been criminally incompetent in his attempts to secure the island from piratical activity and even suggests that the former governor had colluded with the pirates.^[33]

The Character of Verres and of the Sicilians

One sees from the above how adroitly Cicero as prosecutor anticipated and undermined the strategies that his opponent Hortensius might have used to defend Verres and that Cicero himself would later call on in

[31] II.1.9, 14, 90–94, 104–14; 2.17, 30, 166; 3.6, 93–96; 4.26, 37, 42, 46, 58; 5.69, 72–75, 77, 136–37, 139–73.

[32] II.3.11, 43, 48, 82–83, 120, 122, 127, 137, 201, 226.

[33] II.5.60–79, 82. On pirates, cf. II.1.9.

defending clients like Fonteius, Scaurus, and Flaccus. But of all the strategies he could have anticipated from the defense, the most predictable and potentially the most dangerous was a racial attack against the Greeks in Sicily along the same lines as that which he would himself launch against the Asian Greeks in the Pro Flacco . How did Cicero forestall such an attack? One method was to anticipate the thrust of the defense's attack and to turn it back against his opponents. We have seen that in the speeches on behalf of provincial governors Cicero focused on the lack of fides and religio to be expected from foreign witnesses. In the Verrines Cicero counters this anticipated tactic from his opponents by attacking Verres on just these issues: throughout the First and Second Actions Cicero depicts Verres as a tyrant to whom human and divine laws were without force and whose entire public career represented a series of outrages against the obligations he owed to both.

Cicero's indictment of Verres for his violations of fides operates on a number of levels. In the first speech of the Second Action (devoted to Verres' career before his governorship of Sicily) he speaks of the defendant's betrayal of the trust placed in him by his superiors, describing his embezzlement of money when serving as quaestor in Gaul under the consul Cn. Carbo and of his later abandonment of this post (II.1.34–40). He refers as well to Verres' betrayal of the man whom he then served under as legate and proquaestor, Cn. Dolabella (II.1.41–102). Since the assignment of the quaestors to their provinces was made by lot, and since the lot was believed to be divinely guided, the orator presents the betrayal of the relationship between Verres and his superiors as both moral and religious corruption. Verres is, in addition, stigmatized for his violations of fides towards those under his magisterial power. Cicero implies, in fact, that Verres was at his worst in his treatment of those who were most dependent on his good faith. In the course of the account of Verres' career in the East Cicero frequently chooses to expand upon those crimes that show the accused preying upon provincials, especially women and children. The story of the affair at Lampsacus, in which Verres' lust for a young woman leads to the death of the father and brother who try to protect her, and the account of the legacy of the boy Junius fit into this pattern of exploitation of the vulnerable.^[34] Such incidents also form a prelude to the revelation in parts 2 through 5 of the Second Action of Verres' greatest betrayal of fides: his abuse dur-

[34] Lampsacus affair: II.1.63–85; story of Junius: II.1.129–54.

ing his provincial governorship of the Sicilians, whose well-being had been entrusted to him by the state.

In chapter 3 I noted Cicero's attempt to paint Verres in the colors of the rhetorical tyrant. This strategy overlaps with the orator's attacks on Verres as a man without religious scruples, for the tyrant is a despiser not only of human beings but of the gods as well. Throughout the Verrines Cicero accuses Verres of a veritable war against the gods, repeatedly making use of the term religio in doing so.^[35] One crucial part of this attack turns on the defendant's appropriation of statues and works of art in the eastern Mediterranean and in Sicily. Since most of these were objects of veneration taken from temples or from shrines within private homes, their theft could be characterized as a religious offense. This strategy is introduced in the Divinatio in Caecilium, a speech in which Cicero argued his own claims to represent the Sicilians in the prosecution of Verres over the claims of a certain Caecilius. He begins the oration with the statement that the Sicilians could hardly appeal to their gods for help, as they had already been stolen by Verres. According to Cicero, the defendant had removed "the holiest images from the most sacred shrines" (Div. Caec. 3: simulacra sanctissima . . . ex delubris religiosissimis ). The idea is prominent as well in the First Action, a summary of the crimes of the accused, in which Cicero alludes to Verres' plundering of the holy places of Asia and Pamphylia, as well as of Sicily. In the prooemium of the Second Action, Cicero voices the theme that will resound throughout all five parts of the work: that it is the gods themselves who seek justice in the trial of Verres. He declares:

[35] Verr. II.1.6: multa enim et in deos et in homines impie nefarieque commisit; 4.72: ita sese in ea provincia per triennium gessit ut ab isto non solum hominibus verum etiam dis immortalibus bellum indictum putaretur; 5.188: ceteros item deos deasque omnis . . . quorum templis et religionibus iste . . . bellum sacrilegum semper impiumque habuit indictum. Cf. Font. 30. In his indictment of the defendant's offenses against various divinities, Cicero had to deal with the fact that Verres had fostered a close connection between himself and the powerful shrine of Venus Erycina in northwestern Sicily. Cicero solves this problem by focusing on the Sicilian cult of Ceres at Henna and by depicting Verres' devotion to Venus and Cupid as a mask for his greed and an expression of his libidinousness. See della Corte, "Conflitto di culti"; von Albrecht, "Cicero und die Götter Siziliens"; Martorana, "La Venus di Verre." Martorana, unlike della Corte and von Albrecht, sees Verres' support of the cult of Venus Erycina as a patriotic attempt to maintain and strengthen the link between the island and Roman imperium .

The gods of our fathers are taking him away for punishment because he was a man who could tear sons from the embrace of their parents in order to execute them and even demand that the parents pay him a price in order to bury their children. The holy rites and ceremonies of all the violated shrines and temples, the images of the gods, which were not only taken away from their temples but even allowed to lie hidden and neglected in the shadows, do not allow his mind any rest from madness and insanity. . . . We not only seek that this man be condemned so that property might be restored to those from whom it was stolen; the violated sanctity of the immortal gods must also be expiated.

(II.1.7–8)

Cicero then presents within the Second Action a seemingly unending catalogue of outrages against religious sensibilities.

At the same time that he was attempting to create for his audience a vivid picture of Verres as a man devoid of any sense of duty to men or to the gods, Cicero hoped to characterize the Sicilians as a race especially distinguished by such sensibilities, praising in particular their trustworthiness as allies and their pious respect for what they conceived of as their religious obligations. The introduction to the entire excursus on the crimes committed by Verres in Sicily begins with a passage devoted to the island's special bonds to Rome. Sicily is praised as the first province to be acquired by the Republic, the "jewel of the empire" (II.2.2: ornamentum imperi ). Once the island had been reduced, says Cicero, it never wavered in its loyalty (fides ) and goodwill (benevolentia ) towards the Roman people. For this reason Africanus had adorned its cities after the fall of Carthage, and Marcellus had allowed even hostile Syracuse to remain standing. This "storehouse of the Republic" had long fed and equipped the Romans and their armies, even during the dark days of the Social War. Cicero refers also to the fact that Sicily had proved a source of extensive profits both to those who exploited its riches from afar and to the many Roman citizens who had settled there. It is a great advantage to many citizens, he states, that they may repair to this province, which is "close at hand, loyal, and rich in resources" (II.2.6: propinquam fidelem fructuosamque provinciam ). The source of Sicily's outstanding loyalty to Rome is then revealed to be the character of its inhabitants. Cicero claims that the Sicilians are nothing like other Greeks, whose vices include laziness and excess (II.2.7: desidia . . . luxuries ); rather, they possess the virtues of endurance, bravery, and frugality (II.2.7: patientia virtus frugalitasque ), traits that remind the orator not of the Romans of the present but of those of the past. He goes on to

praise the great industriousness, thrift, and diligence of the Sicilians (II.2.7: summus labor . . . summa parsimonia summa diligentia ). They also are unassuming individuals who bear injustice and oppression without murmur (II.2.8–10). Only the outrages perpetrated by Verres have forced them to seek legal redress, and if this desperate plea for justice fails, they will simply abandon their homes. The diction and thought of such passages are clear enough: as with the Apollonians of the Pro Flacco, the virtues of the Sicilians are the stereotypical virtues of farmers, a class that Cicero says constitutes the heart both of the Republic as a whole and of the island of Sicily in particular (II.2.149). Although it is true that within the corpus of the Verrines Cicero characterizes the inhabitants of Sicily in various ways, depending on shifts in emphasis and changes in rhetorical goals, this attribution of stereotypical rustic virtues to the Sicilians recurs throughout. In one passage we even discover the scene, familiar from the Pro Roscio, of the innocent and confused countryman in the city. When Cicero is challenging the intent of a clause in a tax law allowing farmers to sue in disputes with tithe collectors he accuses Verres of "dragging men from the field to the forum, from cultivating the earth to the benches of the law courts, from the familiarity of rustic affairs to the unknown milieu of litigations and legal judgments" (II.3.26: Ex agro homines traducis in forum, ab aratro ad subsellia, ab usu rerum rusticarum ad insolitam litem atque iudicium ).

Cicero's strategy in the Second Action, then, was to forestall the defense's anticipated attack on the witnesses as untrustworthy foreigners by characterizing the Sicilians as typical farmers rather than typical Greeks. This strategy was surely an obvious one, since Sicily was blessed with an abundance of rich farmland and was renowned in antiquity for its rich agricultural produce. As Cicero remarks, "The entire utility and advantage of the province of Sicily insofar as it relates to the interests of the Roman people consists chiefly in the matter of grain" (II.3.11). The strategy was also one that could be easily exploited in the third part of the Second Action, an extensive part of the speech dealing with the crimes committed by Verres against Sicilian farmers (divided by the orator into sections dealing with the tithe on grain, the purchase of grain, and grain commutation).

When Cicero came to the fourth part of the Second Action he faced a more difficult task, since he was compelled to speak at length about the various statues and works of art stolen or extorted by Verres from Sicil-

ian city-states and individuals. As previously noted, the accusations of Verres' appropriation of cult statues from the very temples of the gods added great force to Cicero's depiction of the defendant as an impious tyrant. The difficulty such material raised, however, was that the complainants here could not be portrayed as simple farmers but were clearly men of means and sophistication. The Sicilian witnesses who accused Verres of removing precious works of art belonging to them or their cities might therefore have served to reinforce the negative stereotype of all Greeks as a race characterized by luxuria and vanitas . Cicero solves this problem by depicting the desire of the Sicilians for the return of their property as an expression not of luxuria but of a special sort of religio . As has been demonstrated, the passages dealing with particular objects removed by Verres emphasize their value as religious or patriotic symbols rather than as precious works of art. The strategy is best articulated in a passage in which Cicero speaks in general of the attachment of the Greeks to statues, paintings, and works of this sort, objects that he and his audience deemed of little worth (II.4.124, 132–34). He states:

All [the Greeks] are affected by religious scruples (religione ) and believe that the [statues of] their ancestral gods, handed down from their ancestors, should be carefully kept and worshipped by them. And further, these ornaments, these works and artistic objects, statues, and pictures, afford the Greeks an unusual degree of pleasure. Therefore, when we hear their complaints we can understand why these events seem so bitter to them while we, perhaps, view them as insignificant trifles.

(II.4.132)

The tone throughout the passage is unmistakably condescending. Yet it should be seen that Cicero has effectively stolen the defense attorney's thunder. He has agreed to the proposition that the Sicilians, like all Greeks, placed an inordinate value on ornamental objects, statues, paintings, and the like. But he converts this attachment to such "trifles" into the non-Roman expression of one of the most Roman of virtues, religio .

Capua and the Threat to Rome

The speeches surveyed show Cicero's cleverness in adapting and manipulating stereotypes of other races and cultures, whether he was intent on attacking provincial witnesses or defending them. The creativity of

the orator in handling the connection between ethos and locus resided in his intelligent choice, deft arrangement, and subtle manipulation of the commonplaces that were the inheritance of Latin rhetoric in this period. The De lege agraria 2 is a work that has been criticized for its recourse to well-worn ethnic stereotypes. At first blush, Cicero's dependence in the speech on a topos dating from the third century B.C. concerning the treachery of the Capuans appears to give the criticism force. But a closer study of the orator's strategy demonstrates that in the oration familiar commonplaces have been refashioned and adapted to carry new meanings.

In the discussion that follows I have employed a slightly different approach to the material in the speech. In the introduction to this work I argued that real understanding of particular parts of a Ciceronian oration—such as those that exploit ethnic prejudice—can be won only through constant reference to the role played by such passages within the overall strategy of persuasion found in the speech in which they occur. Perhaps no speech illustrates this point better than the De lege agraria 2. Cicero has constructed this particular work so tightly and coherently that if we hope to understand the intended effect of the references to the character of the Capuans and Campanians that occur at the end of the oration (and the methods that have been employed to achieve that effect), then it is absolutely necessary that we "hear" this part of the speech in the way it was meant to be heard: first, as the end point in a linearly developed structure of representation of the world and, second, as the culmination of certain crucial themes developed throughout the course of the speech. Thus before we consider passages dealing explicitly with ethos and locus we will analyze the progression of arguments leading up to these passages.^[36]

The Art of Arrangement

The De lege agraria 2 was delivered in 63 B.C. from the Rostra to the assembled people. By it Cicero hoped to induce his audience to abandon their support of a bill proposed by the tribune Rullus that would distribute land to a proportion of the urban citizens, and in this he was suc-

[36] For a reconstruction of the provisions of the bill, see Jonkers, De Lege Agraria . For a political analysis and recent bibliography, see Mitchell, Cicero, 184–205. Most historians see the bill as an attempt by Caesar and, perhaps, Crassus to strengthen their position at the expense of Pompey.

cessful.^[37] Cicero was, of course, in control of the material he would treat and the way in which he would treat it. In the speech, however, one of Cicero's tactics was to mask the degree to which the presentation of Rullus's bill was being rhetorically manipulated. He therefore gives his listeners the impression that the topics he discusses and the order in which he discusses them are simply determined by the content and arrangement of Rullus's bill. He says that he has found, after examining the document "from the very first to the very last provision" (15), that its only aim is tyrannical power for its inceptors. After declaring that he will make known the reality that lies behind this seemingly popular legislation (16), the orator discusses in order the first four articles of the law (16: primum caput; 18: capite altero; 29: tertio capite . . . quarto ). At this point his audience is led to assume that, just as Cicero himself had studied the provisions of the law from beginning to end, he will go through the law with them in sequence, revealing the true meaning of each article from first to last. This impression is reinforced by the use of words such as consequuntur (38) and sequitur (47, 56), which suggest that the topic dealt with occurs next in sequence among the provisions of the bill.

There is no reason for us to accept without question the impression Cicero gives. It seems clear that the framers of the bill left the content vague in order to allow themselves the widest latitude in exercising their powers. Cicero complains often that the articles of the law were ambiguous.^[38] This ambiguity can be seen, first, in the sections of the proposal dealing with the land to be sold by the decemvirs to procure money. Cicero says that the law orders (38: iubet ) the decemvirs to sell the ager

[37] Cf. Classen, Recht, Rhetorik, Politik, 304–67, who provides an exhaustive comparison of the De lege agraria 2 with the first agrarian speech (delivered before the Senate). I believe that my own conclusions concerning invention and arrangement complement and expand upon Classen's exploration of the subtle interrelation of inventio and elocutio .

[38] See 35, 36, 38, 39, 41, 55, 56, 57, 66, 67, 73, 74. The idea that Cicero must expose the hidden intentions of Rullus is repeated often: 7 (insidiosas . . . simulationes ), 10 (quiddam obscure moliuntur ), 12 (clam . . . privatos quosdam . . . coetus occultos noctem adiungere et solitudinem ), 15 (ego . . . reperio ), 28 (ita malitiosum ut obscurum ), 36 (obscurum atque caecum ), 41 (ut occulte latet, ut recondita est, ut furtim ), 44 (caecis tenebris et caligine ), 49 (patefacio vobis quas isti penitus abstrusas insidias ), 55 (in Paphlagoniae tenebris atque in Cappadociae solitudine ), 66 (obscura spe et caeca exspectatione ), 68 (hoc carmen . . . non vobis, sed sibi intus canit ), 75 (obscure ), 100 (insidiisque ). Cf. Leg. agr. 1.1 (occulte cuniculis ) and 3.12 (sub hoc verbo furtum . . . latet ).

publicus outside Italy that had been acquired during or after 88 B.C. This reference to a chronological formula to determine ager publicus indicates that the framers of the bill were unwilling to tie themselves down to the sale of particular lands. Since there was hardly a Roman province during this period that had not been involved in sedition or war, Cicero was free to argue that a great number of lands might be liable to such sale. When he suggests that Pergamum, Smyrna, Tralles, Ephesus, Miletus, Cyzicus, and all Asia might be sold (39), the choice of places named is surely made by him, not dictated by Rullus's bill.^[39] The same may be said of the references to Bithynia (40), Mytilenae (40), Alexandria, and all of Egypt (41, 43–44), since the phrasing used by Cicero makes clear that these places were not explicitly named in the proposal.^[40]

Cicero also speaks of the tax lands—vectigalia —to be sold. He directs the herald to read a list of specific places in Italy and Sicily that had been named by Rullus (47: vendant nominatim ) and that, he says, the law "demands and requires" (47: cogit atque imperat ) the decemvirs to sell. The orator then states that Rullus orders (50: iubet ) a great number of other lands to be sold, mentioning Attalia, Phaselis, Olympus, Apera, Oroanda, Gedusa, royal lands in Bithynia, the Chersonese, Macedonia, Corinth, Cyrene, Paphlagonia, Pontus, and Cappadocia, as well as New Carthage and Carthage (50–51). Since the herald had been told to read the vectigalia to be sold within Italy and Sicily, the listener would naturally assume that the lands next named by Cicero were the vectigalia outside Italy and Sicily that the bill explicitly required the decemvirs to sell. There is little real basis for this assumption. A statement introducing the section of the speech dealing with vectigalia outside of Italy indicates that Rullus had not specified any of them in the bill: Cicero had here stated that he would make his listeners see and understand what he himself had already understood, thereby implying that what followed was a revelation of specifics disguised by the language of the bill.^[41] It is probable that Rullus had not explicitly named any of the

[39] Cicero states that it will be "convenient" (39: commodum ) for Rullus to say that these lands are the property of the Roman people.

[40] The orator asks what would prevent Rullus from saying that these places should be sold (40–41).

[41] He makes a similar statement later in the speech: after saying that the law empowered the decemvirs to buy land but did not specify where those lands would be located, Cicero declares that he does not want the people to remain in ambiguous hope and blind expectation (66). He then suggests specific areas where land might be bought, none of them named by Rullus.

vectigalia outside Italy to be sold and that the choice of places mentioned was Cicero's own.

The bill must also have been ambiguous in those sections dealing with the acquisition of land on which colonists would be settled. Although Rullus had limited these allotments to Italy (66), no sites were actually named. Cicero complains that Rullus would not specify the lands on which he intended to settle colonists either because these lands were barren and unhealthy (66–70) or because they would be used as seats of opposition to Rome (73–74). When the orator suggests that land will be bought at certain specific sites in central Italy (66), the choice of places reflects nothing found in the Rullan bill. Similarly, when Cicero states that colonies might be implanted at Sipontum or Salapia (71) or that an armed praesidium might be located on the Janiculum (74), he is making a rhetorical choice based on the persuasive force of the material.

One should also view with scepticism the impression Cicero gives that the arrangement of topics within the speech follows the order of provisions in the law. After citing the first four articles of the bill, Cicero quotes from the document six times (31, 38, 56, 59, 67, 74), but in none of these passages does he specify exactly which article of the law he is referring to. It is logical to assume that the bill moved from sections dealing with (a ) the election of the decemvirs to (b ) the procurement of money to (c ) the purchase of land for colonization. In general this is also the order of subjects in the speech. It should not be assumed, however, that Cicero would have tied himself to a fixed sequence of specific topics dictated by the order in which they occur in the bill.

The section dealing with Capua and Campania (76–97), for instance, constitutes the climax of the speech, but it is most unlikely that all the provisions concerning this area occurred at the end of the agrarian bill. These provisions would have involved two subjects: the sale of Campanian public lands and the establishment of a new colony at Capua. Mention of the sale of the Campanian ager publicus would have come under those articles at the beginning of the bill dealing with the acquisition of money. As for the creation of a colony at Capua, Cicero's complaint that Rullus had refused to name potential sites for colonies

(66) makes it unlikely that Capua was specifically mentioned in the bill as the site of a new colony.^[42] There is little reason to suppose that the topic that would provide a vehicle for Cicero's most strenuous objections to Rullus's plan coincided with the provision named last in the measure. Rather, Cicero places his treatment of Capua and Campania, as he does the other topics of the oration, in that part of the speech where it will be most persuasive.

The choice of places mentioned in the De lege agraria 2 and the sequence in which they occur are not the result of a strict adherence by Cicero to the content and arrangement of the measure proposed by Rullus, even though Cicero gives his audience that impression. Although he wishes to disguise the fact, the orator has profited from the ambiguity and inexactitude of the articles of the law to mention only those places he wishes and to mention them at exactly those points in the speech where he judges their impact will be greatest. A careful examination of the choice and arrangement of this material, therefore, reveals much about the strategy of the speech.

Orbis Terrarum

A study of the references to places in the De lege agraria 2 indicates that Cicero has attempted in the speech to control his listeners' conception of geographical space—which, in turn, forms the backdrop to the actions attributed to the decemvirs. In the early sections of the speech the orator induces his audience to envision the power of the decemvirs operating throughout "the whole world" (orbis terrarum ).^[43] In section 15, for instance, Cicero declares that the purpose of the Rullan bill is to create "ten kings of the treasury, of the revenue-producing lands, of all the provinces, of the whole Republic, of the kingdoms, of free peoples, and of the whole world" (decem reges aerari, vectigalium, provinciarum omnium, totius rei publicae, regnorum, liberorum populorum, orbis denique terrarum ). This idea of the all-embracing power of the decemvirs is then reiterated several times. The power of the decemvirs is termed

[42] The idea of a Campanian colony had been discussed at the January 1 meeting of the Senate, for it was there that Rullus said he would begin distribution of these lands with the rural tribes (79). It was perhaps also at this meeting that the figure of five thousand colonists had been suggested (76).

[43] For the phrase orbis terrarum, see 15, 26, 37, 45, 64, 98. Cf. 1.2 (orbis terrae ), 9, 15.

"unlimited" (33: infinita ) like that of kings or tyrants, and it operates over "the world and all its peoples" (33: orbis terrarum gentiumque omnium ). Cicero complains that the land commissioners will be able to remain at Rome or "wander wherever they wish" (34: vagari ut liceat ), and, in assessing the harm that they will bring to foreign nations, he predicts that they will leave the city and bring disgrace on the Roman name as they "wander throughout the entire world" (45: cum hinc egressi sunt . . . per totum orbem terrarum vagabuntur ).

This power, derived from the assembly at Rome and exercised throughout the world, is also pictured turning back upon the city. Cicero says in section 47: "When they have gorged themselves on the blood of the allies, of foreign nations, and of kings, they would cut the sinews of the Roman people, lay violent hands on the revenue-producing lands, and break into the treasury" (cum se sociorum, cum exterarum nationum, cum regum sanguine implerint, incidant nervos populi Romani, adhibeant manus vectigalibus vestris, inrumpant in aerarium ). The sequence of places in this list reverses the order of that found in section 15, which progressed from the aerarium to the orbis terrarum . Here, the sentence is divided into two parts that move in the opposite direction. The first three phrases in the sentence, connected by anaphora, culminate in the verb implerint and contain the idea that the exercise of decemviral power will first burden the world at large. The second tricolon, using three striking verbs that ascend in violence, moves the attention of the listeners from a focus on the outside world to Rome and its financial revenues. The vectigalia, the "sinews of the Roman people," are made to appear so crucial to the financial health of the city that the decemvirs' action is likened to an attack on the treasury itself.^[44]

In addition to these, six other passages contain lists composed of parts of the Roman world (34, 39, 62, 71, 72, 98).^[45] All of these serve

[44] Cf. Cic. Imp. Pomp. 19 for the connection between vectigalia and Roman finances.

[45] 34 (omnis provincias . . . liberos populos . . . regnorum ), 39 (see below, p. 224), 62 (omnes urbes, agri, regna denique, postremo etiam vectigalia vestra ), 71 (omnis urbis, agros, vectigalia, regna ), 72 (vectigalibus abalienatis, sociis vexatis, regibus atque omnibus gentibus exinanitis ), 98 (urbis, nationes, provincias, liberos populos, reges, terrarum denique orbem ). Cf. 1.2 (urbes pacatae, agri sociorum, regum status ), 8 (provinciis, regnis, liberis populis ), 11 (provincias, civitates liberas, socios, amicos, reges ), 15 (orbem terrarum . . . vectigalia . . . aerarium ), and Imp. Pomp. 31 (omnes orae atque omnes terrae gentes nationes, maria denique omnia cum universa tum in singulis oris omnes sinus atque portus ).

to reinforce the audience's image of the decemvirs' insidious power let loose upon a defenseless imperium . A study of the content and arrangement of the lists shows a strong preoccupation with style, for in each the orator chooses a number of elements from a set vocabulary (urbes, agri, gentes, nationes, liberi populi, regna, reges, vectigalia, provinciae, socii ) and arranges them in a careful sequence determined as much by sound as by meaning.^[46] A good example of this emphasis on style can be seen in a passage in which Cicero declares of one of the articles of the bill: "By this article, citizens, I say that all peoples, nations, provinces, and realms are entrusted and handed over to the dominion, judgment, and power of the decemvirs" (39: hoc capite, Quirites, omnis gentis, nationes, provincias, regna decemvirum dicioni, iudicio potestatique permissa et condonata esse dico ). The sentence is carefully modeled. After Quirites four nouns follow, and after decemvirum, three nouns and then two verbs follow, giving the sequence of coordinated elements the shape of an inverted pyramid. The selection of gentis, nationes, provincias, and regna is chiefly determined by the weight and sound of the words, just as is the use of three synonyms for power (dicio, iudicium, potestas ) and two for entrusting (permitto, condono ). Although certain elements are marked by special emphasis, in general, lists such as this depend less on the specific meaning of their constituent parts than on an overall weightiness of diction and the general sense given that every part of the world will come under the sway of the land commissioners. The use of the adjective omnis at the beginning of four of these lists (34, 39, 62, 71) reinforces this impression.

The repetition of the types of places in which the decemvirs will hold power is interspersed with the mention of a great number of specific places. In section 39 Cicero speaks of Pergamum, Smyrna, Tralles, Ephesus, Miletus, and Cyzicus.^[47] A little later he mentions Bithynia and Mytilenae (40) and speaks in detail of Alexandria (41–44). This is followed by references to Attalia, Phaselis, Olympus, Apera, Oroanda, and

[46] Such pleonasm and alliterative effects were also characteristic of early Latin; see, for example, prayers quoted by Cato Agr. 141.

[47] Jonkers, De Lege Agraria, 81–82 (ad 2.39), names these as "the wealthiest cities in Asia."

Gedusa (50);^[48] to the lands of Attalus in the Chersonese, of Philip and Perses in Macedonia, and of Apion in Corinth and Cyrene; to the cities of New Carthage and Carthage and to the lands of Mithridates in Paphlagonia, Pontus, and Cappadocia (50–51).

Cicero had various reasons for naming these places. It is unlikely that his listeners had a clear idea of the location and nature of any but the most famous of these sites. Much of the eastern imperium had, in fact, been won by Pompey and others only in the decade and a half before this speech. Cicero's audience would, perhaps, have known of Pergamum, Miletus, Alexandria, and Carthage but could hardly have been acquainted with places such as Apera, Oroanda, and Gedusa. References to many strange and foreign lands would simply have left the listener with the sense that the scope of the power granted by the bill would be limitless. Further, such a multiplicity of references would have promoted confusion as to the exact contents of the measure. At the end of this part of the speech the ancient (like the modern) audience would have only the dimmest idea of which lands were going to be sold, which might be sold, and which were outside the jurisdiction of the decemvirs. This confusion is surely intentional, for the orator uses no such tactics in his Senate speech opposing the bill. There, speaking before an audience with much wider knowledge and experience, Cicero limits mention of specific places to a discrete number, carefully connecting each with the name of its heroic Roman conqueror (1.5–6).^[49]

The mention of the lands dominated by Philip and Mithridates and of Corinth and Carthage is significant, since each of these summoned up the memory of formidable opponents to Roman rule. In fact, at the time of the speech Mithridates was still alive and, as long as he was, still viewed as a threat to Roman security (52). The idea that the decemvirs would exercise power in these places would have suggested to Cicero's audience that decemviral power might well be linked to military opposition to the state. This is particularly clear in the references to Carthage. Here Cicero states that Scipio Aemilianus was not as "conscien-

[48] Attalia was in Pamphylia, Phaselis and Olympus in Lycia. Apera (emended from [agrum ] Agerensem ) and Oroanda (emended from [agrum ] Orindicum ) are uncertain readings. Zumpt, De lege agraria, 88 (ad 2.50), substitutes Eleusa (an island off the coast of Cilicia) for Gedusa, which is unknown.

[49] See the discussion of this technique in Classen, Recht, Rhetorik, Politik, 323–24, 361, 364. For exaggeration in the speech before the people, see also Dilke, "Cicero's Attitude to the Allocation of Land."

tious" (51: diligens ) as Rullus, for Scipio had consecrated the site of Carthage to serve as a reminder of an unsuccessful attempt by a city to contend in power with Rome, while Rullus would sell the site and allow resettlement. The passage foreshadows the extensive section near the end of the speech dealing with the colonization of Capua. In the case of Capua, as with Carthage, Rullus intended (according to Cicero) to disregard the wise provisions made by the maiores for the security of the state by reviving the site of its former enemy; the result will be that in the future, as in the past, that city will become a seat of opposition to Rome.

In addition to the practical arguments Cicero advances concerning the danger that would be posed if the decemvirs were to exercise power over certain strategic areas, or the loss in taxes that would result from divestiture, Cicero applies to these places a symbolic value. The lands possessed by the populus Romanus were not only a source of revenue and a guarantee of security, they were a source of dignitas .^[50] Describing the public land of Sicily, Cicero speaks of the farmland and cities that their ancestors had left to the people of Rome (48: maiores nostri proprium nobis reliquerint ). He speaks as well of the places that had come into the possession of the people through the victorious campaigns of P. Servilius Vatia Isauricus (50: imperio et victoria . . . vestra facta sunt ). Since Servilius's campaigns had taken place only in the preceding decade, it may be assumed that the obscure locations in the East mentioned in this passage would have been unfamiliar to Cicero's audience. The diction of the passage (vestra facta sunt ) points to the fact that the significance of these places lay chiefly in the Roman sense of pride in their possession. All the lands mentioned, whether known or unknown, whether of great or little value, were a common inheritance handed down to the people of Rome by the maiores of the past and the principes of the present. Their retention was a source of honor, for every Roman citizen derived dignitas through the imperium of the state as a whole and, conversely, could be disgraced by the loss of these lands. Rullus, therefore, could be pictured as a spendthrift son (48: luxuriosus . . . nepos ) who would rob his family of their patrimony.

[50] For the elevation of dignitas over utilitas in a public address, see Cic. De or. 2.334: Ergo in suadendo nihil est optabilius quam dignitas; nam qui utilitatem petit, non quid maxime velit suasor, sed quid interdum magis sequatur, videt . This appeal is also used (albeit to a limited extent) in the case of the Campanian lands (see Leg. agr. 1.21; 2.84).

Tota Italia

While the first part of the oration concentrates on the harm that the decemvirs will do if they are allowed to exercise power outside of Italy, the middle of the speech encourages its audience to focus their attention on Italy and the actions of the land commissioners there. The idea that the decemvirs would "fill all Italy with their colonies" (34: totam Italiam suis coloniis ut complere ) is introduced early in the speech,^[51] but it is the pattern of topography Cicero creates later that gives the idea a concrete topographical form in the listener's mind.

Rullus had not explicitly named the lands on which he would settle colonies (66), and Cicero capitalizes on this fact to suggest a number of possibilities that will be certain to alarm his audience. Moving down the Appian Way, he mentions the "Alban, Setian, Privernian, Fundian, Vescian, Falernian, Liternian, Cumaean, and Nucerian lands."^[52] Proceeding from the "other gate" (66), he refers to the "Capenan, Faliscian, Sabine, Reatine, Venafran, Allifaean, and Trebulan lands." The decemvirs, according to the orator, will possess wealth so great that they will be able to purchase all these lands as well as others. With this list Cicero has named the sites of some of the richest farmland in central Italy.^[53] When the orator mentions these fertile agricultural areas around Rome, he encourages his audience to believe that such lands could not be destined for them but were intended by the framers of the proposal to be kept for themselves. Cicero reinforces this impression by telling his audience that Rullus saw them as the "sewage" of the republic (70: sentina ) and that for them Rullus planned settlements in the dry lands of Sipontum or the

[51] For the phrase tota Italia see also 75 (totam Italiam suis praesidiis obsidere atque occupare; in omnia municipia, in omnis colonias totius Italiae; totam Italiam suis opibus obsidebunt ), 98 (omnia municipia coloniasque Italiae ). Cf. 1.16 (totam Italiam inermem tradituros existimasti ), 17 (totam Italiam vestris coloniis complere voluisti; totam Italiam militibus suis occuparint ).

[52] Nuceria (an emendation proposed by A. C. Clark) replaces the codices' [ager ] Ancasianas, which is clearly in error. Zumpt, De lege agraria, 106 (ad 2.66), has Acerranus .

[53] The ager Capenas was perhaps allotted in part to Caesar's veterans (Cic. Fam. 9.17.2). For the settlement of veterans under Vespasian at Reate, see CIL IX.4682–85. Venafrum was the site of a colony under Augustus (CIL XI.4894). There also seems to have been a colony founded at Allifae under the triumvirs (CIL IX.2354). Jonkers, De Lege Agraria, 104 (ad 2.66), calls the list of towns "the most attractive lands in the proximity of Rome."

swamplands of Salapia in Apulia (71, 98). He even suggests the possibility that no lands whatsoever would be given them (72).

Both the identity of the towns and cities Cicero mentions in this part of the speech and the order in which they are named are significant. The first list includes the centers of the most important farming districts as one proceeds south from Rome. The first four sites—Ager Albanus, Setia, Privernum, and Fundi—are encountered as one travels south on the Via Appia, while the sequence Ager Vescinus, Ager Falernus, Liternum, Cumae, Nuceria represents a movement along the Campanian coast to a region just south of Capua. The omission of Capua itself would have been noted, since it was the terminus of the earliest construction of the Appian Way and the chief city of Campania and would thus have been a fitting end point in a list of fertile and strategic areas south of Rome.

The second list of towns mentioned for possible purchase by the decemvirs contains a peculiar feature. Cicero says that these towns are reached "from the other gate" (66). By this he must mean the Porta Flaminia, for the first places mentioned, Capena and the Faliscan territory (associated with the town of Falerii), were reached by exiting the city north and traveling up the Via Flaminia. The Sabine land was to the east of this region, and in this district, on a high, well-watered plain, stood Reate. Although the reference to Reate represents a departure from the implied directional guidepost of the Flaminian Way, it is nevertheless an important agricultural area to the north of Rome. But the next area mentioned on Cicero's list, Venafrum, is a complete departure from the implied organization of the whole, for it lies on a branch of the Via Latina in Samnium, south of Rome.^[54] Allifae is situated even farther south in a fertile valley of Samnium, while Trebula, in Campania, lies less than five Roman miles from Capua.

Two spatial patterns have been created here. First, each time Cicero names a sequence of places ending in Campanian sites close to Capua without mentioning Capua itself he makes the city conspicuous by its absence, for it was the most important agricultural area in all Italy and the location of the last extensive holdings of ager publicus near Rome. Through the creation in both lists of a topographical pattern that points to Capua but suspends mention of it, Cicero subtly prepares his listeners for the long section at the end of the speech in which Capua is made to

[54] The Oxford Classical Text attempts to solve the directional problem by adding the words ab alia [i.e., porta ] before Venafranus.

Fig. 5.
Italy and Sicily. The map illustrates in proper sequence the two list
of places mentioned by Cicero in De lege agraria 2.66.

appear the culmination of all the dangers posed by the settlement of decemviral colonies in Italy. Second, by naming important sites in an arc to the north, east, and south of Rome, Cicero touches on a potent and continuing Roman fear, that of encirclement by hostile forces. Rullus's new settlements are depicted not as peaceful colonies to be filled with the dispossessed poor of the city but as armed camps that will provide their commanders with strategic positions from which to launch an attack on Rome.

The fear that Rullus's plans for colonization might endanger the city of Rome is further aroused by Cicero's suggestion that the bill would allow the creation of a settlement even on the Janiculum. He asks what would prevent Rullus from settling a colony there, "a garrison upon our head and necks" (74: praesidium in capite atque cervicibus nostris ). The ridge of the Janiculum was the most crucial point in the western defenses of the city. Livy states that it had been fortified by Ancus Marcius not because the city required more space but because he realized that this area must never be controlled by an enemy (1.33.6: ne quando ea arx hostium esset ). During meetings of the Comitia Centuriata in the Campus Martius a red flag was displayed on the heights as a sign that the area was secure and the city therefore not endangered.^[55] Cicero's suggestion of the possibility that a praesidium might be located here would surely have been a frightening thought for his audience.^[56]

The central section of the speech, then, uses the arrangement of references to places in order to create a topographical image of the danger posed by the agrarian bill. While at the beginning of the speech Cicero pictures the whole world at the mercy of the decemvirs, here he predicts that all Italy will be filled with Rullus's coloniae and municipia . By mentioning areas for these settlements to the north, east, and south of Rome and by picturing a praesidium on the western heights of the city, the orator graphically suggests to his audience the direct military threat to the city posed by the bill. Cicero has thus moved his listeners from concern for the status of allies and dependent nations (a concern based for the most part on financial interests) to anxiety for their own security.

[55] Cassius Dio reports that the trial of Rabirius was stopped when the red flag on the Janiculum was lowered (37.27–28).

[56] The passage would also have summoned up the image of Lars Porsenna, whose encampment on the Janiculum represented one of the great military crises in Rome's early history (Livy 2.10–14).

Only one element is lacking to exploit this anxiety fully: a focal point of opposition to Rome.

Altera Roma

In the final section of the speech before the peroration (76–97) Cicero takes up the question of the sale and allotment of Campanian land and the establishment of a colony at Capua. He begins by speaking of utility and honor (76: de commodo/ ad amplitudinem et dignitatem ), topics we should expect to appear in a deliberative oration. Yet, in spite of his promise to address himself to "those who are upset by the indignity of the matter" (76), the orator devotes scant attention to honestas;^[57] it is, rather, the self-interests (commoda ) of his audience to which he chiefly appeals. Allusions are made to these interests in a number of areas: for instance, much is made of the reliability of Campanian tax revenues, of the security of its grain export, and of the military resource represented by the area.^[58] Such arguments, however, are secondary to one that concerns the actual distribution of the land: Cicero contends that no gain can be realized by the people through passage of Rullus's bill because they will never actually possess any of the Campanian land (77, 78, 79, 82, 85–97). Both the land and the colony at Capua will instead fall to

[57] The people are reminded that the Campanian holdings constitute a patrimony inherited from their ancestors and that it would be dishonorable therefore to lose such lands (see 81–82, 84–85); the injustice of depriving the present holders of their farms is alluded to in section 84. The latter passage, while ostensibly focusing on the issue of iustitia, is not entirely divorced from that of self-interest, since Cicero also reminds his audience of the vital role played by the present inhabitants of Campania in their feeding and protection.

[58] See, for example, 80: unumne fundum pulcherrimum populi Romani, caput vestrae pecuniae, pacis ornamentum, subsidium belli, fundamentum vectigalium, horreum legionum, solacium annonae disperire patemini? The approach is very similar to that found in the De imperio Cn. Pompei, in which the argument from self-interest centers on the vectigalia from Asia. See esp. Imp. Pomp. 6: aguntur certissima populi Romani vectigalia et maxima, quibus amissis et pacis ornamenta et subsidia belli requiretis; 14: de maximis vestris vectigalibus agatur and Asia vero tam opima est ac fertilis ut et ubertate agrorum et varietate fructuum et magnitudine pastionis et multitudine earum rerum quae exportantur facile omnibus terris antecellat . (In the Verrines, of course, it had been Sicily, rather than Campania or Asia, that had been pictured as the granary of the Republic.)

the control of the rich (78, 82) and of those who will use it as a base of operations from which to overthrow the Republic.^[59]

In sections 77–84 the orator makes frequent references to the seditious and violent men destined to settle the new foundation at Capua.^[60] These references prepare the listeners for the long subsequent section (85–97) in which Capua is depicted as the focal point of opposition to the state, the "anti-Rome."^[61] Here Cicero elaborates on the threat to Rome of the proposed colony at Capua both by referring to the dangerous individuals whom he expects to receive allotments if Rullus's bill passes and by equating this future colony with the independent Capua of the third century B.C. The present holders of Campanian lands, he argues, are good and loyal farmers, dedicated to their rural occupa-

[59] A detailed political analysis of the results of passage of the bill is beyond the scope of the present study, but this much is clear: that Campania was a strategic area in Italy, that patronship of a large number of colonists there would represent a potent political tool, and that decemviral control of the allotment of the Campanian ager publicus would have weakened Pompey's ability to provide land for his veterans. Gabba, Republican Rome, 56–59, argues that Capua was at this time a hotbed of Marian and Italian opposition to the state. But Hardy, "Rullan Proposal," 254–55, claims that there was no threat of sedition. For Capua as the seat of hegemony over Italy, see Heurgon, Capoue préromaine, 3. Inscriptional evidence is treated by Frederiksen, Campania, 285–318. See also Hülsen, "Capua"; Beloch, Campanien, 295–374; Stillwell, Princeton Encyclopedia, s.v. "Capua," 195–96.

[60] See 77 (sed si quinque hominum milibus ad vim, facinus caedemque delectis locus atque urbs quae bellum facere atque instruere possit quaeritur, tamenne patiemini vestro nomine contra vos firmari opes, armari praesidia, urbis, agros, copias comparari? ), 82 (Primo quidem acres, ad vim prompti, ad seditionem parati qui, simul ac decemviri concrepuerint, armati in civis et expediti ad caedem esse possint ), 84 (his robustis et valentibus et audacibus decemvirum satellitibus agri Campani possessio tota tradetur ).

[61] The phrase altera Roma ("the other Rome") occurs at Leg. agr. 1.24 and 2.86 and Phil. 12.7, the latter passage referring to the colony later founded at Capua by Caesar. For a historical overview of the topos, see Ceausescu, "Altera Roma." Cf. Leg. agr. 1, in which the colony at Capua is depicted as a danger as great as that posed by the creation of a praesidium on the Janiculum. In this speech Cicero had asked how Rullus would be prevented from placing a colony on the Janiculum and thereby "pressing and harassing this city with another" (1.16: ne urbem hanc urbe alia premere atque urgere ). A similar phrase appears a little later when the orator describes the colonization of Capua. He states that "that city will again stand against this city" (1.18: illam urbem huic urbi rursus opponere ).

tions and devoid of political ambition (84). The new colonists, on the other hand, will resemble the arrogant and treacherous Capuans of old, who, like the Carthaginians and Corinthians, contended with Rome for world empire. But whereas Rome had destroyed Carthage and Corinth, Capua continued to exist, ready to rise again if political power were restored to its citizens.

Cicero supports his arguments concerning the dangerous ambitions of the Capua of the past and, if Rullus has his way, of the Capua of the future by drawing on a theory of environmental determinism similar to that exploited in his account in the Pro Roscio Amerino of the differences in temperament between country and city dwellers.^[62] He here asserts that the character of each people is determined by the means nature provides them to sustain life (95). The Carthaginians, he says, became a duplicitous, greedy, and crafty race because the site of their coastal city exposed them to the influence of merchants and strangers.^[63] The harsh and unforgiving geography of Liguria, on the other hand, had made its people hardy rustics. Cicero then recounts why in the case of the Campanians "the place itself [had given rise] to haughtiness" (92: locus ipse adferat superbiam ). The fertility of their land, the abundance of their crops, and the excellence of their chief city, he asserts, had led the Campanians to become affluent, and this affluence, in turn, had inevitably given birth to overweening pride and dangerous ambition (95–97). The section ends with Cicero's contention that any new colonists would not only share in the characteristics of the Capuans of old, but, because of their unfamiliarity with luxury, they would become even more corrupt (97).^[64]

[62] Rosc. Am. 75.

[63] Cf. similar sentiments in Rep. 2.7–10.

[64] Cicero's explanation for the temperament of the Campanians reflects theories found in contemporary authors, such as Caesar and Strabo (see above, pp. 148–51). Diodorus Siculus, drawing on earlier sources, several times observes that nature teaches human beings to adapt to whatever opportunities are at hand for sustaining life (see above, pp. 146–47 nn. 30 and 31). More specifically, Cicero's and Diodorus's accounts of the Ligurians are similar (Diod. Sic. 5.39.1–8), and Cicero's account of the growth of decadence in a place blessed with agricultural fertility is paralleled by Diodorus's comments on the land of the Etruscans (5.40.1–5). Connections between fertility and decadence, on the one hand, and scarcity and virtue, on the other, can be traced back to fifth-century commonplaces about the differences between Europe (i.e., Greece) and Asia (usually focusing on the Persians).

Clearly Cicero intends that these references to Capua should serve as the logical end point of the topographical sequence he has created, moving from the orbis terrarum to Italia to the altera Roma . In the following pages I shall indicate briefly how Cicero has also made his handling of the topic the culmination of the major themes of the oration. These themes were introduced in the very first lines, in which Cicero had stated that as a novus homo he owed his elevation not to the nobility but to the people and would therefore be a truly popularis consul by making his chief concerns the true interests of the people. These he had defined as otium, libertas, and pax (9). All three are said to be an inheritance from the maiores: it was by the labor of their forefathers, says Cicero, that the Roman people were able to live in peace without danger (9: impune in otio ); liberty also had been handed down to the Roman people by their ancestors, who had won it "with much sweat and blood" (16: plurimo sudore et sanguine maiorum vestrorum partam vobisque traditam libertatem ); that pax was also an inheritance can be seen in the references to Roman heroes such as Africanus, who, by their bravery (51: virtute ), had brought the Mediterranean world under Roman rule. Cicero, as consul, defines his own role as preserver of what had been given by these men into his safekeeping (9: in patrocinium mei consulatus ), and his constant objections throughout the speech that the provisions of Rullus's bill would depart from precedent are therefore made to appear an expression of his desire to safeguard the blessings of pax, libertas, and otium .

Of the three concepts named above, pax plays a less important role than either otium or libertas . The term is defined by the orator as externa, as opposed to otium, which is domesticum (9). External peace was the province of men such as Pompey, but it was the consul who had to deal with civil strife. Although the speech contains praise for the maiores, who had acquired the far-flung imperium of Rome (50–51), and for Pompey, who had extended and protected it (25, 46, 52), its chief concern is not with the disturbance of regna, socii, provinciae, or amici but with the danger decemviral power posed to otium or internal peace. In Cicero's mind this danger constituted the real threat to the continued existence of the Republic, a view that he would repeat in several other orations of his consular year.^[65]

[65] Cat. 2.11; Mur. 84; also Rab. per. 33.

Otium

In his thematic development of the idea of otium Cicero plays on a number of different meanings of the word.^[66] The term can signify a wide range of ideas, including private idleness, retirement from official duties, and civic peace. In the proem, Cicero asks: "What is so popular as otium, a thing so pleasant that you and your ancestors and the bravest men think that great exertions (9: maximos labores ) should be undertaken to be able, at some time, to live in peace (9: in otio ), especially with authority and dignity (9: imperio ac dignitate )?" In this section the orator alludes to both a private and a public ideal. Not only can the goal of certain individuals be defined as retirement with the influence and respect won through service to the state, but the state as a whole looks to the possession of civic peace, won through great sacrifices and bringing as its reward rule (imperium ) and honor (dignitas ). Although Cicero says that his listeners believe that great labor should be exerted to secure this otium, he also makes clear that the present generation has not, in fact, been responsible for the tranquillity they enjoy. As mentioned, it was due to the labor of the maiores that the Roman people live impune in otio (9). The ideal of private otium to which Cicero alludes is one to which only the ruling classes could aspire; the common people, however, may at least possess this public otium as an inheritance from their ancestors, and by this inheritance they also possess a share in the imperium and dignitas of the state.

The introduction of the concept of otium in the first part of the speech prepares the audience for Cicero's crucial manipulation of the idea in his discussion of Rullus's plans for Capua. Cicero states that the maiores had transformed Campanian pride and fierceness (91: adrogantiam atque intolerandam ferociam ) into lassitude and inactivity (91: inertissimum ac desidiosissimum otium ) by removing contention for political power. These two traits (arrogance and sloth) were integral parts of a stereotypical view of Capua and Campania that had existed for many generations before Cicero's time.^[67] The Roman perception

[66] See the discussion of otium in Mitchell, Cicero, 198–99; and Wirszubski, "Cicero's cum dignitate otium ."

[67] For praise of the natural environment, see Polyb. 3.91; Strabo 5.4.3, chap. 242; Pliny HN 3.60; Flor. 1.16.3; Livy 7.30.16, 7.31.1. For connection of the Campanian character with the natural environment, see Strabo 5.4.13, chap. 250; Polyb. in Ath. 12.528a. It is probable that the connection of Carthage, Corinth, and Capua was also a commonplace (Flor. 33.18.1), as was the comparison of the site of Rome with the sites of those cities that contended with Rome (Cic. Rep. 2.5–7, 10–11).

that the city had betrayed its alliance with Rome by opening its gates to Hannibal gave rise to the tradition that the Campanians were arrogant and treacherous, while the productivity of the land and the sophistication of the town, coupled with the story that Hannibal's troops had been corrupted by their stay there, must have been the source of the topos concerning the debilitating effects of Capuan riches.^[68]

Although both arrogance and sloth were stereotypical traits, Cicero's separation of the two represents a clever manipulation of the tradition. In other ancient sources the two traits go hand in hand, but here Cicero claims that pride was changed to lassitude by the removal of Capua's political rights after 211 B.C. This can be viewed as a logical improvement upon the topos, since Campanian treachery and arrogance would have appeared less dangerous if accompanied by weakness and inactivity. By presenting his argument in this way, the orator could expand upon the dangerous propensities of the Campanian character of old while arguing that the present occupants of the land were virtuous farmers and not to be feared.^[69] Only a Capua with revived political power could corrupt its inhabitants; without that power, the natural abundance and beauty of the place led to otium rather than superbia .

It is also clear that Cicero's reference to Campanian otium in this section (91) has a double significance. Because of the adjectives used (inertissimum ac desidiosissimum otium ) and because of their familiarity with the commonplaces about Campania, his listeners would at first understand this use of otium as referring only to sloth, a personal and moral trait. The passage, however, carefully attributes the creation of this otium to the "plan and thought" (91) of the maiores, and Cicero later asks if they should not be venerated as gods for this action (95). This ties the concept directly to the remarks on otium made earlier in the speech, in which Cicero had said that it was by the labor of the maiores that otium (i.e., domestic peace) had been secured for the Roman people, and for this the maiores were owed the greatest praise and thanks (9). The listener would thus be led to see Campanian otium not

[68] Livy 7.31.6; 23.45.4; see also Cic. Red. sen. 17 and Cicero's reluctance to connect Pompey explicitly with the Caesarian colony in Red. sen. 29.

[69] Leg. agr. 2.84: Totus enim ager Campanus colitur et possidetur a plebe, et a plebe optima et modestissima; quo genus hominum optime moratum optimorum et aratorum et militum ab hoc plebicola tribuno plebis funditus eicitur.

just as an ethnic characteristic of the inhabitants of the area but as a description of the political stability enforced on Capua after 211. Cicero has, then, subtly conflated two meanings of the term: the slothful inactivity (inertissimum ac desidiosissimum otium ) imposed on the area by the actions of the maiores has guaranteed its political quiescence (otium ). The orator goes on to suggest that if this condition were to be changed, the otium of the Republic as a whole would also be destroyed.

In the peroration Cicero creates an astonishing summary of variations on the theme of otium, repeating again and again the terms that—along with libertas —function as the political catchwords of the oration:

There can be nothing so "popular" as that which I, the "popular consul (consul popularis )," bestow on you for this year: external peace, tranquillity, and domestic peace (pacem, tranquillitatem, otium ). . . . Not only will you, who have always desired it, be at peace (in otio ), but I shall also render most calm and most peaceful those to whom domestic peace is hateful (quietissimos atque otiosissimos quibus odio est otium ). For there are those who are accustomed to obtaining offices, power, and riches from anarchy and civil discord; you, whose influence depends upon your votes, whose liberty upon the laws, whose rights upon the law courts and the fairness of the magistrates, and whose property depends on external peace (pace ), you must at all costs hold on to domestic peace (omne ratione otium retinere debetis ). For if those who live in peace on account of their inactivity (propter disidiam in otio vivunt ), even in their disgraceful indolence (in sua turpi inertia ), yet derive pleasure from peace itself (ex ipso otio ); how blessed will you be if, in this status which you possess, you hold on to a tranquillity (otium ) that has not been acquired by your indolence (ignavia ) but won through bravery (virtute ), my fellow citizens!

(102–3)

Here Cicero reiterates the changing nuances of the concept, and in so doing he ascribes to sections of the Roman population exactly those types of otium implied by his discussion of the Capuans. In the first lines of the passage he refers to the idea of otium as inactivity that is forced on seditious citizens by the exercise of the power of the state. Cicero promises to force tranquillity on those whose interests reside in civil discord, just as the maiores had tamed the treacherous Capuans through the power of the Roman prefect sent to govern the city. Attempting to disassociate the majority of the audience from such political anarchists, Cicero reminds his listeners that their voting, judicial, and property rights depended upon the peaceful functioning of the political machine.

He goes on to refer to otium as sloth or laziness. He states that even those whose tranquillity was the result of their idleness have benefited

from peace, as did his audience, who had won it through their bravery. This attempt to exclude his audience from the despised ranks of the inactive should not obscure the fact that he had earlier reminded them that bravery had not been required of the present generation (16: partam . . . libertatem nullo vestro labore ); it was not due to their own efforts but to those of their ancestors that they were allowed to live in peace (9). Further, an earlier reference to the games and amusements enjoyed by his audience (71) suggests that inactivity and lassitude were in the orator's view as characteristic of the city populace of his own time as of the Capuans after 211. And, as in the case of the Capuans, this inertia helped to guarantee the internal security of the state.

Through the development of this theme, then, Cicero—a novus homo lacking consular forebears—presents himself as a direct link with the semidivine Roman politicians of the past. These men had guaranteed the security of Rome by "pacifying" the proud and treacherous Capuans; Cicero, by his opposition to Rullus's bill, ensures that this salutary condition will continue and forces a similar tranquillity on seditious Romans of his own time. The maiores had, through great exertions and sacrifice, secured peace for the Republic, transforming the arrogance of the Campanians into inactivity and sloth; Cicero, whose consulship can be carried on only by means of summus labor ac difficillima ratio (6), declares that he will retain the blessings of domestic peace for the slothful and energetic alike.^[70] Cicero is at some pains to avoid insulting his listeners, but it is clear that through his development of the theme of otium he has likened sections of the city population to the Capuans of old, and he has done so in order to cast himself in the same role as that of the maiores —guardian of peace.

Libertas

Like those who listened to Rullus's first contio and thought that his speech had something to do with an agrarian bill but were not sure exactly what (13), any Roman in Cicero's audience would have thought that what he had to say concerned libertas, for by sheer repetition the concept would have impinged on the minds of the audience. In discussing the election of the land commissioners at the beginning of the speech the orator returns again and again to the idea that passage of the bill would destroy Roman freedom by giving the commissioners unlimited power, and in the speech as a whole the word libertas is repeated

[70] Cf. his self-description in section 100: vigilanti homini, non timido, diligenti, non ignavo .

some twenty-one times, in nine occurrences qualified by the adjective vestra .^[71] Cicero clearly wished to convince his audience that the ultimate threat posed by the disturbance of otium was the loss of their freedom, and his strategy involved an attempt to present this danger as one that could strike from within as well as from without.

In order to make the agrarian bill appear to be a threat to libertas from within the state, Cicero draws on a well-worn strategy. In the late Republic the term libertas was a political catchword, used by optimates and populares alike.^[72] While popular leaders publicly dedicated themselves to defending the freedom of the people from the danger posed to it by the actions of an oligarchic faction, conservatives from the days of the Gracchi onward branded popular leaders as potential despots who were setting plots to take over the government and enslave the people.^[73] Cicero has used numerous elements of the latter topos: Rullus and his backers are would-be tyrants who, while seeming to espouse the interests of the masses, are aiming at absolute power; their sacrilegious disregard of precedent and of the manifest will of the gods can bring only disaster to the state; once they have secured power—a power that is described as regal—the commissioners will be free to resort to violence and intimidation.^[74] In addition, Cicero's references to the future land commissioners as "ten kings" would surely have reminded the audience of the notorious story of the tyranny exercised by the second decemvirate under Appius Claudius, when Roman libertas was lost through the actions of a board of ten that had at first seemed popular in character.^[75]

Cicero also depicts the bill as an external threat to Roman freedom. He does so, first of all, by identifying Rome as the embodiment of libertas . This idea is introduced in a passage in the middle of the speech in

[71] For warnings against the potential power of the commissioners, see 15, 16, 20, 22, 24, 25, 29, 32. For libertas, see 9, 15, 16, 17, 20, 24, 25, 29, 71, 75 (libertas vestra; libertas vestra; vestram libertatem; vestrae libertatis ), 86, 102. Cf. Leg. agr. 1.21, 22. Note that in the passage that precedes the long section on Capua and Campania (75), Cicero uses the phrase libertas vestra four times.

[72] See, among others, Wirszubski, Libertas; Syme, Roman Revolution, 154–55; Weinstock, Divus Julius, 133–35; Hellegouarc'h, Le vocabulaire latin, 542–65. Cf. Hellegouarc'h's discussion of popularis, 518–44.

[73] Caes. B.Civ. 22.5; SaIl. Cat. 20, 28, 33, 52, 58.

[74] For references to the kingly ambitions of Rullus and the future decemvirs, see 15 (reges ), 20 (regia potestas ), 21 (dominos ), 22 (dominis ), 24 (regnum ), 25 (dominationem ), 29 (reges ), 32 (regiam ), 33 (regum ), 35 (potestatem regiam ), 43 (dominus, rex . . . regni ), 57 (iudicium . . . regium ), 61 (dominos ).

[75] Livy 3.33–58.

which Cicero states that in addition to the other benefits that the people will lose if they leave the city they will lose their freedom (71: libertas ). The city, then, is the locus of freedom. A little later Cicero identifies the danger to the city posed by Rullus as a threat to libertas . As has been shown, he creates an image of the city surrounded on all sides by the forces of the decemvirs: all the strategic sites around Rome will be adapted to the violent ends of the decemvirs, even the heights of the Janiculum; from these bases they will surround and oppress the Roman people (74); all Italy will ultimately be occupied and beset by their garrisons (75: totam Italiam suis praesidiis obsidere atque occupare cogitet ). What hope or chance will remain for recovering liberty, asks Cicero, "once they hold your freedom shut in by their garrisons and colonies" (75: vestram libertatem suis praesidiis et coloniis interclusam tenebunt )? It can be seen in the quote above that libertas has replaced Rome in the military metaphor and has become the conceptual equivalent of Rome, for when the city is shut in and surrounded by the forces of the decemvirs, libertas is likewise hemmed in and surrounded.^[76]

If Rome is made to appear the embodiment of libertas, then the spearhead of future opposition to Rome, Capua, is necessarily transformed in the listeners' minds into the greatest external threat to Roman freedom. As mentioned, Cicero draws on a centuries-old stereotype in order to paint in the minds of his audience a frightening picture of a revived Capua, controlled by the forces of the decemvirs: the city will be the seat of a new regnum (8, 75), from which Rullus and his cohorts will prepare to wage their war against the state (77: locus atque urbs quae bellum facere atque instruere possit ); the new colonists will be soldiers rather than farmers (77), and like their masters they will be men of violence and greed, ready for crime and murder (77); once these men have formed an army, ready to attack whenever the decemvirs give the signal (82), then the Capuan standard will once more be lifted, and the altera Roma will rise against hanc Romam (86).

The strategy employed here is not without precedent. The opposition mounted against Gaius Gracchus's planned resettlement near ruined Carthage must have provided the blueprint for the orator's attack.

[76] A similar metaphor is repeated in the peroration, where Cicero says that Rullus will surround the Republic with his soldiers, cities, and garrisons (99: omnem rem publicam vestris militibus, vestris urbibus, vestris praesidiis cingeretis ).

Gracchus's enemies had alarmed the plebs with stories of the unfavorable omens reported from the site of Junonia, and they doubtlessly predicted that the new colony would rise to challenge Rome's supremacy.^[77] Even as Cicero praises Gracchus in the speech (10) he employs the scare tactics that had been used so effectively by Gaius's opponents. This line of attack was to be used as well against Caesar and, with even more effect, by Octavian in his propaganda against Antony, who was accused of planning to raise up Alexandria as an imperial capital.^[78]

Although in the De lege agraria 2 Cicero has employed a predictable conservative strategy to undermine a land distribution bill, his mastery of its structure and themes has made this an unusually persuasive and effective speech. In it the orator has set out to create in the minds of his listeners a psychological map of the Roman world; but unlike the map of the imperium Romanum that Agrippa would later erect in the Campus Martius, Cicero's verbal map is able to order—even to control—its audience's images of the world temporally through a carefully controlled sequence of representation.^[79] He begins with a roll call of names of far-removed places—in most cases with no specific connotations for his listeners but simply intended to create a sense of the enormity and complexity of a far-flung empire and of the danger of decemviral intervention in this system. Although Cicero did not invent the idea of the "whole world" as the stage upon which Roman power was now exercised, its development here before a popular audience is a significant

[77] Plut. C. Gracch. 10.3, 11.1.

[78] Suet. Iul. Caes. 79.3; Nic. Dam. F 130.68 (Jacoby FGrH, 2A.404); Plut. Ant. 54.3–55.1. See the discussion by Ceausescu, "Altera Roma," 81–90, who notes the important part played by Cleopatra in making credible to the Roman people the rumors of the transfer of the capital to the East.

[79] On the question of linear sequence in description, see Fowler, "The Problem of Ekphrasis," 29–30 (responding to Levelt's discussion, "The Speaker's Linearization Problem"). On Agrippa's map and its explanation through commentarii, see Nicolet, Space, Geography, and Politics, 95–114. As Nicolet explains, this map would also have manipulated its audience's image of the world, but the degree to which the artist can depend on controlled sequence and progression to carry out this manipulation is of necessity smaller in the visual than in the literary text. (Even if the images representing the imperium were meant to be viewed in a particular sequence, what would have prevented people from viewing it in some other way? We cannot, however, when listening to a speech, take in the end before the beginning; and even when reading, especially from a papyrus roll, it would be difficult to start, say, at the middle of the text.)

step towards what would become an Augustan commonplace.^[80] In enlarging on this theme the orator could draw on his audience's pride in their share in the Roman imperium, on their concern for the maintenance of just and profitable foreign relations, and on their fears that unreasonable power might accompany the decemvirs' activity in the Mediterranean world.

In the central part of the speech, Cicero moves his listeners' attention to Italy, and here the emotional impact of the material would have increased along with the audience's familiarity with the places mentioned. In these sections of the speech the mere mention of each place would have stimulated in the Roman listener a complex web of remembered experience and current feeling, and to these images and emotions Cicero links a sense of imminent danger arising from his prediction that all the districts surrounding Rome would ultimately be controlled by the decemvirs. At the same time, he carefully exploits his audience's emotional attachment to Rome itself, reminding them of the pleasures they enjoyed and the influence they wielded by living in the center of power, and suggesting that Rullus's bill would ultimately remove them from the city.

The last part of the speech provides the culmination of a pattern of representation in which Cicero has described three spheres of decemviral power in succession: the orbis terrarum, Italy, and, finally, Capua. Here Rullus's bill is made to appear particularly threatening, as the Campanian city is verbally transformed into the seat of a future insurrection against Rome directed by Rullus and his powerful supporters. Cicero accomplishes this transformation of Capua not only by placing his treatment of it at the end point of a carefully developed geographical sequence but also by vividly depicting the future occupants of the city. The Capuans of Cicero's day appear in the speech to be the direct heirs of the ethnic characteristics possessed by the Capuans of old. While the orator draws on the familiar traits of a generations-old stereotype of the Campanians as arrogant, treacherous, luxurious, and indolent, at the same time he subtly alters this traditional stereotype by specifically

[80] Nicolet, Space, Geography, and Politics, 29–56, has an excellent discussion of the development of this conception, although he surely slights Cicero's contribution in the De imperio Pompei and here. It seems to me probable that Pompey's and Caesar's exploitation of these ideas after their successful campaigns in the East and the West owed much to Cicero's previous popularization of them.

connecting the military threat inherent in the Campanian character with the political status of the region. Indolence and inactivity are thus linked to a politically emasculated Capua, while treachery and arrogance are associated only with a politically potent Capua. Cicero is then able to argue that if Rullus renews Campanian power and independence, the new inhabitants of the region will inevitably exhibit the vices that had made the Campanians of the third century B.C. so dangerous to Rome. Violent and seditious, they will be used as an army to upset the otium forced on this dangerous city by the maiores and, ultimately, to destroy the otium and libertas of the Roman people. Thus Cicero leads his audience to believe that all the dangers to be feared from passage of Rullus's proposal will culminate in a military threat to the state posed by a revived Capua, the altera Roma .