Cicero and Licinius Calvus

8/14/2019 Cicero and Licinius Calvus

1/20

Department of the Classics, Harvard University

Cicero and Licinius CalvusAuthor(s): Erich S. GruenSource: Harvard Studies in Classical Philology, Vol. 71 (1967), pp. 215-233Published by: Department of the Classics, Harvard UniversityStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/310765

Accessed: 04/10/2008 06:19

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless

you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you

may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=dchu.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the

scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that

promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Department of the Classics, Harvard Universityis collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend

access toHarvard Studies in Classical Philology.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/stable/310765?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=dchuhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=dchuhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/310765?origin=JSTOR-pdf


2/20

CICERO AND LICINIUS CALVUSERICHS. GRUEN

CICERO'S tastes in literature and rhetoric were generally con-servative.On such mattershe did not alwayspersuade he youngergeneration.It is recorded that Cicero had his differencesof opinionwith C. Licinius Calvuson the subjectof oratory,and,as a criticof the"new poetry," he may not have found Calvus'verses entirely to hisliking.Divergenttastes in literary orm andstyle areattested. Does thisimplythatCicerowasalsounhappywith Calvus'politics?The questionis not an irrelevant one. Unlike his compatriot and bosom friendValeriusCatullus,Calvuswas absorbed n the politicalas well as in theintellectualsphere. That is to be expected; for, againunlike Catullus,Calvuswas bornto politics. His familycould boast a consul as earlyasthe mid-fourthcenturyB.C.And, more pertinent,his fatherhad beena vocal andconspicuous ribuneof the plebs, had reacheda praetorshipandgoverneda provincebeforea prematuredeathended his career(seebelow). Calvushimself enjoyeda brief but intense life on the politicalstage, concentrated n the mid-5o's B.C.No public office was secured,perhapsnone sought, but Calvus madehis presencefelt with decisive-ness in the forum and at the bar. The mid-5o's compriseda periodofhigh excitement and politicalcrisis in which Cicero was intimatelyin-volved.The careersof the two men touched at several mportantpoints,andthe relationsbetweenthem meritcarefulconsideration.Personaland politicalanimositybetween Cicero and Calvus, it hasbeen alleged,can be dated as earlyas 66.1In thatyearthe poet's fatherC. Licinius Macerperishedas the resultof a prosecutionderepetundis.The praetorwho presided and conducted the trial was M. TulliusCicero. Was Cicero responsiblefor the outcome? A letter to AtticusrepresentsCicero'sdifficultand ambiguousposition:Nos hic incredibiliac singularipopuli uoluntatede C. Macro transegimus.ui cum aequifuissemus, tamen multo maiorem ructum ex populi existimatione llodamnatocepimusquamex ipsius,si absolutus sset,gratia cepissimus.AdAtt. 1.4.2.) Cicero won applausefrom the populace but not, surely,because he engineeredthe conviction of Licinius Macer. On the con-trary,cui cumaequifuissemuslearlyindicatesCicero'sinnersympathy


3/20

ErichS. Gruenfor the defendant.2The praise which he earned was for impartialconductof the hearingand a scrupulousconcern forjustice.3

Macerwas a figureof note and notoriety.He had been prominent nthe literaryworld as well as in publicoffice. He was an historianof earlyRomewhoseworksarewell known to havebeenutilized,amongothers,by Livy.4 The latter remarked hat Macer had a penchantfor exag-gerating the exploits of his family, a not uncommon trait amongannalists(Livy 7.9.5). The prevailingview that Livy's pro-plebeianpassagesin the earlybooks derive from Macer, however,must remainan hypothesis.In the politicalarena,Maceris best remembered or thefiery tribunician speech of 73 put in his mouth by Sallust.5 It is anappeal for the full restorationof tribuniciapotestasand an attack onSulla and the Sullani. In that year also should probablybe placed hisprosecutionof C. Rabirius, he slayerof Saturninus.6One mayconnectwith his anti-Sullansentimentsa speechPro Tuscis,probablyon behalfof Etruscansettlers dispossessed by Sulla's veterans.7Of his politicalactivities after his tribunate nothing is known except that, at somepoint, he reachedthe praetorshipand governeda province,thus pro-voking the extortion charge (Val. Max. 9.I2.7). To assume that heremained a consistent popularis goes beyond the evidence. He wasfriendly with at least one Sullan adherent, the historian CorneliusSisenna (Cic. De Leg. 1.7). Their common interests may, of course,have been intellectualratherthan political. But more pertinentis thefact that Macer'sleading spokesmanat the trial of 66 was M. LiciniusCrassus Plut. Cicero9.2), who had led Sulla'sright wing at the CollineGate and had made his fortune in the Sullan proscriptions.In 70,Crassusand Pompey presidedover the restitutionof tribunicianpowerwhich Macer had advocatedthree years earlier.8But times changedandso did men. The convictionof LiciniusMacerpleasedthe populace.

The accounts of Macer's death differ. Valerius Maximus (9.12.7)reportsthe storythat he took his own life beforea verdictwas reached,in order to preservehis propertyfor his family. That does not seemlikely. Valeriusis apparentlysmugglingin the motives for suicides ofhis own day, the principateof Tiberius, and he is certainlywrong instating that the trial concluded with no verdict, as Cicero's lettershows.9Plutarchoffersan alternativeversionthat the shockof convic-tion precipitateda sudden seizureand death.Macerhad been sure thecase was going his way (Plut. Cicero9.2). That in itself suggests thatCicerohad takenno actionto prejudice he jury againstthe defendant.There seems to be no reasonto assumethat Licinius Calvusbore anyenmity toward Cicero for this affair. To be sure, Cicero, in works

2I6


4/20

CiceroandLiciniusCalvuswritten much later, expressed criticism of Macer's gifts as a writerand orator,and even hints at deficiencies n his characterand habits.10That is hindsightand a judgmentof personaltaste and preference.Ithardly makes Cicero an "awersario politico.""l The contemporaryletter to Atticus remains decisive. Licinius Calvus had nothing tocomplainof in Cicero's meticuloushandlingof his father'scase.In antiquity Calvus' forensic reputationrested primarily upon hispublic attackson P. Vatinius. Rhetoriciansand grammarians,as wellashistorians,readthem,especially he "secondspeech"(Tac. Dial. 2I).Severalfragmentsof his orationsagainstVatinius survive. How manyspeeches there were, how often Vatinius was prosecuted,and whichfragmentsbelong to which speech are questions often discussed andwill probablynever admit of definitive solution. Since it is known,however,that Vatinius was among Cicero's most bitter enemiesin theearly 5o's and that Cicero was finally induced to reversehimself anddefend Vatinius in 54, it will be useful to set forth the evidence onCalvus' assaults against that individual. No reconstruction will finduniversalacceptance,but if all the testimony is set forth a basis forjudgment can be more solidly groundedthan it often has been in thepast.

Vatinius'tribunateof 59 was devotedlargelyto assistingthe projectsand promulgating he legislationof Caesarand Pompey.12The steam-roller fashion in which the bills of the dynastswere rammedthroughwas bound to have its repercussions. t was probablynot long afterhelaid downhis tribunatethat Vatinius was indicted. The precisechargeis unrecordedbut the offense relatedto a violation of the lex LiciniaIunia (Cic. In Vat. I4.33). Since that measure,a consularbill of 62,dealt with the orderly passageof legislation,13t appears hat Vatinius'bustling activity in 59 was under scrutiny.14Vatinius had alreadyaccepted a legatio, presumablyunder Caesarin Gaul, but returnedvoluntarily n orderto clearhimself.That the indictmentcame in 58 isestablishedby the name of the presiding praetor,C. Memmius, whoheld officein thatyear.15Cicero describes he lengthsto whichVatiniuswent in underminingthe prosecution:an appealto the tribunes,mostparticularly o P. Clodius, violence and threats, praetor,jurors, andaccusers driven from the tribunal,benches upset and balloting urnsoverturned.16The trialwas canceled.The Bobbio scholiast, in commenting on Cicero's In Vatinium,affirmsthat the accuser in this case was C. Licinius Calvus.17This isthe only piece of evidence on Calvus'involvement in the affair.Thecommentator'sauthorityought not to standvery high. The passageis

8+H.S.C.P. 71

217


5/20

otherwise hopelessly erroneous. In stating that the charge was desodaliciis, he scholiast has confused the lex Licinia Iunia with the lexLicinia desodaliciiswhich was not passeduntil 55.18This error s com-poundedby the reference o a trial deui, whereas he violenceoccurredonly after the chargeshad been brought; a prosecutionfor violencewould, in any case,havehad to comeunder the lex Plautiade ui.19Onecannotthereforeexcludethe possibilitythat the commentatorhas madeanothererror n insertingCalvus'name here as the prosecutor,especi-ally as Calvus did later prosecuteVatinius under the lex Licinia desodaliciis (see below). Tacitus affirms that Calvus' earliest publicoration,deliveredagainstVatinius,camewhen he was not much olderthan twenty-one, and Pliny dates his birth to 82 B.C.20That may sup-port a prosecution n 58, but it should be pointedout that in the samepassageTacitusmisdates Caesar'saccusationof Dolabellato his twenty-firstyear,whereasthat casewas not hearduntil 77.21Consequently,aninvolvement of Calvus in the proceedingsof 58, assumed by mostscholars, rests on shaky ground. It is not, of course, to be deniedcategoricallyhat Calvusdeliveredsomehostilepublicremarksdirectedat Vatinius n 58. An anti-Vatinian tanceby the budding young oratorwould have been approvedby Cicero. It was in this very year thatVatiniuswas cooperatingclosely with Clodius and rejoiced openly atCicero'senforcedexile (Cic. Pro Sest. 64.I33).A secondindictmentof Vatiniusby Calvushasalsofoundits wayin-to modernaccounts:an allegedtrial in 56. This rests on even shakierground. It is certainthat in 56 Ciceroand Calvus were united in thepoliticalsphere.When ClodiusandVatiniusmountedajudicialassaulton P. Sestius,who had been instrumental n Cicero'srecallfrom exile,counsel for the defense included both Ciceroand Calvus.22That wasno ordinarycase. Sestius was a pretext,but Cicerowas the real target,as he well knew. The Pro Sestiois devotedalmostentirelyto a defenseof Cicero'sown career.The exile had been restored,but the executionof the Catilinarianswasstill a live issue. That Calvuslent his assistancehereagainstCicero'smost bitterenemiesis a fact of realimportance orhis politicalsympathies.23As is well known, Cicerocappedhis success-ful defenseof Sestiuswith a bitinginvectiveagainstVatinius,a witnessfor the prosecution(Cic. In Vat. passim).In a letter to his brother,describingthe results of the case, Cicero remarksthat L. AemiliusPaullus,future consulof 50, threatenedto initiateproceedingsagainstVatiniusif Licinius Calvusfailed to do so, whereuponCalvusrose toinsist thathe wouldnot be foundwanting.24But this hardlyprovesthatsuch a prosecutionwas actuallyundertakenn 56.25

218 ErichS. Gruen


6/20

Ciceroand LiciniusCalvusOn what charge would this indictment proceed? The obviousanswer is de ambitu,for Vatinius, after having failed to secure the

aedileship n 57,26 was neverthelesscampaigning or the praetorshipn56, and employing unsavory if not illegal methods. In his invectiveagainstVatinius, Cicero asserted that his use of gladiators o promotehis candidacyviolated Cicero'sown law againstambitusand laid himopen to prosecution.27There is no questionthat the threatof a criminaltrialfor electoral amperinghung over Vatinius'head, and it is not un-likely that Calvus, carryingout his promise, was alreadypreparingadossierto use againsthim. But there is nothingto show that a casewasheardin 56.28Prosecutionsfor ambitusdid not normallycome in thecourseof an electioncampaign, hough threats of prosecutionnaturallywere frequent.29A defeatedcandidatewas not worthprosecuting,andVatinius' election was far from a sure thing. His chief rival was M.PorciusCato,recentlyreturnedfrom his commissionto annexCyprus,and backedby powerful support. The elections were delayed by vio-lence and disorder into the year 55. Pompey and Crassusoverboreopposition to their election as consuls, and both were concernedtosecure the victory of Vatinius at the expense of Cato.30Throughintimidation,corruption,and open force the aim seemedachieved.ButVatinius'enemies stillhopedto eliminatehimin the courts.In Februaryof 55 a proposalwas mooted in the senate to have the newly chosenpraetorsremainprivatecitizens for sixty days aftertheir election. Themotive was transparentlyto produce an interval in which Vatiniusmight be condemnedfor electoraltransgression.Crassusand Pompey,already nstalledas consuls, quashedthe motion.31It is clearthen thatVatinius assumed office immediately after his election; hence nojudicialproceedingscould have been brought againsthim until 54.Calvus,we may be sure,kept his dossierup to date. There will havebeen much to add from the shamelessactivities n late 56 and early55.But M. Ciceroin 54 was no longerthe fieryandindependentoratorof56. The conference of Luca had intervenedand the unhappy Cicerohad alreadygone on recordfor an extension of Caesar'scommandinthe De ProuinciisConsularibusnd had appearedn defenseof CorneliusBalbus, a protege of the dynasts. The oratorstill felt free enough toopposeVatinius' candidature or the praetorshipand to supportCato'sclaims, but after Vatinius' election, Pompey appliedpressuredirectlyand enforced a reconciliationbetween the embitteredenemies(Cic. AdFam. 1.9.19). In 54, after public officeno longer affordedprotection,the prosecution, long delayed, was at last put into operation.It wasCicero who suffered the greatest embarrassment.Julius Caesarsent

219


7/20

word that he regarded t as urgent that Ciceroundertake he defense.The orator had no recourse but to comply.32 As might be expected, itwas a venturefor which he was to receivemuch criticism.33Vatinius,it may be assumed,was acquitted,for he appearslater as a legate ofCaesar in Gaul (Caes. B.G. 8.46.4). Cicero regarded a successfuldefense in this case as no problemat all.34The Caesariangeneralex-pressedgratitudeaterandwe possessaninterchangeof letters n 45 B.C.,in which the two men expressmutualadmiration.35 ut one need haveno doubts that Cicero's real feelings about Vatinius remained un-altered. An anecdote reveals them. After Cicero had heard a falsereportof Vatinius'death he met one of the latter's freedmen. "Is allwell?" he inquired.The freedmanrepliedthat it was. "So Vatiniusisdeadthen?" was the orator'sretort(Quintilian6.3.84).Was the case of Vatinius in 54 that in which Calvus brought theaccusation?It would be perverse to deny it.36 The charge againstVatinius, it appears,was de sodaliciis.In his speech for Cn. Plancius,who was definitely prosecutedon this groundin 54, Cicerostates thatthe rightto challenge ivejurorswasgranted o the last defendantunderthis charge(Pro Plancio I6.40). The Bobbio scholiaston this passageidentifies hat defendantas Vatiniusandhis counselas Cicerohimself.37There is no reasonto doubt this statement,whereasthe errorsof thatcommentatorarereadilyexplicableon the assumption hat this remarkis accurate. The scholiast, as has been noted, links the charge desodaliciiswith a prosecutionby Calvus,althoughhe wrongly retrojectedit to 58 when that crimehad not yet even been defined.38A trial in 54would naturallycome under the purviewof the lex Liciniadesodaliciispassed in 55.39That Calvus attacked Vatinius for ambitus is evident from the frag-ments of his oration.40These ought not to be ascribed to a separate trialde ambitu. The lex Licinia de sodaliciis of 55 dealt with a wide range ofabuses including the activities of political clubs in electoral corruption.When Plancius was charged under this law, the prosecutors were re-ferring primarily to bribery and intimidation in the elections.41 Thecase of Vatinius was no different.42 Another quotation from Calvus'speech puts it beyond question that he attacked Vatinius on the groundsof his electoral campaign for the praetorship: perfrica frontem et dic tedignioremquipraetorfieres quam Catonem.43Since a prosecution beforethe election would have been pointless and one after the election wasforeclosed, Calvus' accusation is obviously to be associated withVatinius' trial in 54.44The conclusion seems inescapable that Licinius Calvus and M.

ErichS. Gruen20


8/20

CiceroandLiciniusCalvusCicero crossedswords in the trial of Vatinius.A remarkof Seneca alsowarrantsmention in this connection: Caluus, qui diu cum Ciceroneiniquissimamitem de principatueloquentiaehabuit, usqueeo uiolentusactor et concitatusuit, ut in mediaeiusactionesurgeretVatiniusreusetexclamaret:"rogouos,iudices,num si iste disertus st, ideo me daminarioportet?"(Controu.7.4.6). The young orator impressed his listenersand even challengedCicero for the primacyof the bar,but was still nomatch for the old master. The illustration from the trial of Vatiniusmay not be coincidental. Cicero won his case and Calvus, eloquentthough he was, ended on the losing side.Only just prior to the trial of Vatinius a similar confrontationhadtaken place and with similar results. M. Livius Drusus Claudianus,chargedwithpraeuaricatio,.e. collusiveprosecution,was defendedbyCicero,and acquittedon the very daythat the Vatinius case was aboutto be heard.45The prosecutionhad been set in motion two monthsearlierby a certainLucretius(Cic. Ad Att. 4. 6.5). But Lucretiusneednot have been the only speakeragainst Drusus Claudianus. Tacitusreportsthat among the little-read orations of C. Calvus was a speechagainst Drusus.46It seems not unreasonable o associatethat attackwith the trial in 54. The parallelswith the case of Vatinius are un-mistakable.Livius Drusus Claudianus,as is obviousfrom the name,was born aClaudiusbut adoptedby the familyof the Livii Drusi, possiblyindeedby the famoustribune of 9I. His pedigreewas illustrious,his progenyeven more illustrious. His daughterLivia was to be the wife of oneprincepsandthe motherof a second.47Of his own career ittle is known,but a referenceto his politicalstance in 59 is revealingand pertinent.Cicerodepictshim as a loyaladherentof Caesarandthe triumvirsand,significantly,couples him in this connectionwith P. Vatinius.48Thishelps to explain the individualsinvolved in his prosecutionfive yearslater. The Lucretius is most plausiblyidentified with Q. Lucretius,asenator and commanderof PompeiantroopsagainstCaesar n the civilwar.49In 54 he did not miss the opportunityto attacka creature ofCaesar.Nor would Calvushave missed it. Livius Drusus wasjust thetype of Caesarianhanger-onwhom Calvusenjoyedpiercingwith poeticbarbs.Once moreDrusus was coupledwith P. Vatinius;both men wereassaulted before the bar by Licinius Calvus, both defended by M.Tullius Cicero.The defense of Drusus doubtlesswas anotherof thoseunhappytasks extortedfrom Ciceroby his new "friends." It was notso painfulas his appearanceorVatinius,but Cicero'sheart was clearlynot in thejob.50The outcomewas alsoidenticalwith the Vatiniuscase;

221


9/20

Erich S. GruenCicero reports the acquittal laconically: Drusus, Scaurus non fecisseuidentur (Ad Att. 4. I7.5)

Twice now, it appears, the young poet and the veteran patronus hadclashed in the courts. Had a political breach opened between them?That thesis has its advocates.51 Calvus, it is claimed, showed consistencyand courage, while Cicero's voice was captured by the triumvirs.52That may be a hasty conclusion. Another prosecution in 54 showsLicinius Calvus in a different light.In July of that year, an ex-aedile C. Messius faced trial on chargesunspecified in the evidence (Cic. Ad Att. 4.15.9). Messius was re-membered for his actions as tribune in 57 on Pompey's behalf. Aconsular bill in that year gave Pompey supervision of the grain supplyfor a five year period. This was not good enough for Messius, whoproposed that there be added a control over finances, a fleet, an army,and maius imperium (Cic. Ad Att. 4.1.7). In 54 Messius reaped hisreward: a legatio on the staff of Caesar in Gaul (Cic. Ad Att. 4.I5.9).Here, if ever, there was an adherent of the dynasts; here another likelytarget for Calvus' barbs, if that young orator were truly "consistent."Yet the elder Seneca quotes a passage from one of Calvus' speechesdesignated as Pro Messio in which he pled, it seems, for pity on behalfof the defendant: credite mihi, non est turpe misereri (Seneca Controu.7.4.8). No context is provided, but Calvus' appearance here was prob-ably at the trial of 54, his busiest forensic year.53 The charge is un-known, but Messius, like Vatinius, was elected to office in the turbulentand riotous campaigns of 55.54 Hence possibly he too was subject to aprosecution for ambitusunder the terms of the lex Licinia de sodaliciis.55There must have been strong reasons indeed to induce LiciniusCalvus to come to the defense of C. Messius, especially if this was, infact, the same year in which he lambasted P. Vatinius for the sameoffense. What those reasons were eludes conjecture. But it is knownthat Cicero also appeared in court on Messius' behalf (Cic. Ad Att.4.-5.9). Nor was this just another unwelcome task assigned by Caesarand Pompey. Cicero had an obligation towards Messius, who, in 57,had proposed a measure to secure the orator's recall from exile and whojustified his action on the grounds of amicitia as well as of the respublica.56That Calvus appeared for Messius out of deference to Cicerowould be a risky inference. But obviously the two advocates were co-operating here, in a case which was much more meaningful to Cicerothan his half-hearted defense of Vatinius and of Drusus Claudianus.Calvus is connected with still another case in 54. Adherents andhangers-on of men in power were always numerous. Among them was

222


10/20

CiceroandLiciniusCalvusa young, excitable,and aggressive ndividualnamedC. PorciusCato.57As tribune in 56 he took the lead in delayingthe consularelectionsuntil the followingyear,therebypromotingdirectly he aims of Pompeyand Crassus.58 t had not alwaysbeen that way with Cato. Earlierhehad shown an independent streak and was most conspicuous as avirulent and sharp-tonguedcritic of Pompeyand Pompey'sfriendslikeGabinius and Milo.59 In late 57 he was to be seen acting in Clodius'interests,andPompey allegedin Februaryof 56 that Cato was an agentof Crassus.60Attacks on Pompey continued, and Cato also took theleadershipduringhis tribunate n the move to block LentulusSpintherfrom restoringPtolemy Auletes.6l Yet the conference of Luca, as sooften, was a turningpoint. Cato was a differentman in late 56. WhenPompeyand Crassuscooperated,Catocollaborated, nd it was not longbeforehe was to come into the good gracesof Milo andCiceroaswell.62With Ciceroreconciliationwas perhapsnot so difficult. Even in early56, at the heightof his attackson Pompey,Cato had lofty praisefor therecentlyreturnedexile,praisewhichCicerogrudginglyacknowledged.63In 54 Catohad to answerfor his actions.A chargewas leveled underthe lex LiciniaIunia obviouslyinvolvinghis actions as a tribunein 56.That trial was ended by the beginning of July in 54, and a secondprosecutionwas addedunderthe lexFufia,alsodoubtlesswith referenceto his tribunicianactivitiesandperhapshis effortsto delaythe electionson behalfof the dynasts.64He securedacquittal n both instances(Cic.Ad Att. 4.I 5.4). The young intellectualAsinius Pollio madehis debuthere as prosecutor at the tender age of twenty-one, according toTacitus.65Polliowasin the circleof Catullus(CatullusI2) and was alsoa friend of LiciniusCalvus(seebelow). SurelyCalvusshould havebeenexpectedto welcomePollio'saction.Yet here, as in the case of Messius, the poet was on the other side;Cato,it appears,was his client.66The testimonyis a strangepassageofSeneca which has received little attention: idem (Calvus)postea cumuidereta clientibusCatonis ei suiPollionemAsinium ircumuentumnforocaedi,inponise supracippumussit... et iurauit,si quam niuriamCatoPollioniAsinio accusatori uofecisset, se in eumiuraturum alumniam;nec umquam ostea Pollio a Catoneaduocatisqueius aut re aut uerbouiolatusest.67Reus suus s a rareconstruction,but in the contextof thispassage,it cannot mean "the man whom Calvuswas prosecuting."68When Cato's retainersmenaced Pollio with violence in the streets,Calvusdenounced their tacticsand threatened o prosecuteCato him-self. The phrase n eumcalumniamurarepossessesa technicalmeaning.It was an action taken by an accusatorat the outset of a trial: the

223


11/20

ErichS. Gruenforswearing of any malicious intent in bringing the charge.69 Senecauses the phrase here as a short-hand expression for the initiation of anaccusatio.70 Since, therefore, Calvus was issuing a threat to undertakeproceedings, it follows that he was not already engaged in prosecutingCato. Moreover, it is otherwise very difficult to see how such a threatwould have frightened off Pollio's assailants.71 Catonis rei sui mustmean that Cato was represented by Calvus.As Seneca reveals, however, Calvus' appearance on Cato's behalf didnot involve any severance of ties with his friend Pollio. Again it is ap-parent that Calvus' heart was not in the task of defense attorney, andthis could explain Cicero's otherwise obscure remark that, if Cato isacquitted, his counsel will be even less pleased than his prosecutors.That reference may well be to Calvus.72 It might be added that M.Aemilius Scaurus also contributed to the defense of Cato (Asconius 18,Clark) and that Cato returned the favor later in the same year inScaurus' trial de repetundis (Asconius 28, Clark). Scaurus, as is wellknown, was represented by a glittering array of distinguished andpowerful members of the aristocracy who appeared as advocates orcharacter witnesses, climaxed by the speech of Cicero himself.73It seems clear then that Licinius Calvus, in at least two instances,spoke before the bar in behalf of men who were known supporters ofthe regime. He can hardly have broken off relations with Cicero fordoing the same. Advocates might have many reasons for taking a case,and political disagreement with the opposing counsel was not the onlyor even a frequent motive. One need reflect only on the many instancesin which Cicero and Hortensius found themselves on the same or onopposite sides of a legal or political contest. In the trial of Sestius,when Cicero himself was truly under heavy attack, Calvus had lent hisservices in Cicero's cause. That was the real test. For all we know, itmay have been on Cicero's request that Calvus acted as patronus forMessius and Cato. In any event, Cicero could certainly have felt nopersonal offense if Calvus stuck to his principles in the cases of Vatiniusand Drusus. Cicero held no brief for these individuals himself, exceptin the most literal sense.Calvus is customarily listed among the "anti-triumviral" poets. Hisvicious lampoons of Caesar were known to Suetonius (lul. 49.1). Heused the pen also to abuse Pompey,74 and at least one adherent ofCaesar, Tigellius, felt the sting aswell.75 This political posture, of course,is all of a piece with Calvus' attacks on Vatinius. But labels can be mis-leading and political allegiances in late Republican Rome were seldomstable. It was probably some time after the conference of Luca that

224


12/20

CiceroandLiciniusCalvusCaesarmade overturesto Catulluswhich, althoughat first snubbed,eventuallyresultedin reconciliation.76 imilar overtureswere madetoCalvus,and here the initiative seems to have been on the part of thepoet himself.77It ought not to be assumedthat Calvus, in any sense,became a "Caesarian."78A personal burying of the hatchet withCaesarprobablyforeclosed any anti-Caesarianverses, but that is asmuch as can be said. It certainlydid not prevent the recurrenceofCalvus' embittered feud with P. Vatinius. The volatile and excitableLicinius Calvus was nobody's stooge.Reconciliationwith Julius Caesarwas one more experiencesharedby Calvus and Ciceroin the mid-5o's. It should by now be apparentthat political animosity between these two oratorsis unattested andunlikely. Differencesin literaryopinions ought not to color any viewof relationsbetween them, especiallyas so little survives. Of Calvus'work no poem is preserved, and practicallyno fragments. Cicero'stastes in verse, to be sure, were conservative.A few casual remarksreveal indifference,if not scorn, for the men whom he terms nouipoetae(Orat. I6I), or cantoresEuphorionisTusc.Disp. 3.45), or, moreflippantly, ot VEwTEpOLAd Att. 7.2.I). That Calvus is among the targetsof thesejibes is perhaps ikelybut should not be taken for granted.Hewas, it is true, an intimate friend of Catullus and shared his poeticpredilections(Catullus I4; 50; 96). The two men are often cited bylateradmirersn combination.79Yet it is sobering o recallthat Cicero'ssingle specific referenceto the verses of Calvus is not unflattering.Neither man had any use for the foul Caesarian upporterTigellius,andCicero udgedthatthat individualhadbeenadmirably haracterizedby a poem of Calvus.80As for Catullus,the famouspoem addressed oCicero (49) showers praise upon the orator. Excessive praise, somehave argued, and perhapsthe optimusomniumpatronus s deliberateirony,referringeven to Cicero'svolte-face on Vatinius.81But Catullus'purposeis not subject to demonstration.Cicerohad, it appears,per-formed a service for the poet for which gratitudeis here extended.82The verses may reflect sincere and genuine admiration, or, at least,good-humoredbantering.83RelationsbetweenCicero andthese leadersof the nouipoetae, whatevertheir artistic tastes, were cordial if notintimate.Yet surely Ciceroexpressedstrongdislikeof Calvus'oratorical tyleand powers, it is said. Such, at least, Tacitus would have us believe.He reportsan exchangeof correspondencebetweenthe two men, eachharshlycriticaland allegedlyspurredby envy and ill humor.84But thatis the historian'sudgmentandperhapsahastyone. The correspondence8*

225


13/20

Erich S. Gruendoes not survive, but the fact that it was carried on at all may suggestmore than a nodding acquaintance.85 Calvus worked laboriously andmeticulously on pruning his style in the tight, terse, "Attic" fashion.Such a technique, of course, did not suit the more flamboyant anddemonstrative style of Cicero. But the testimony from Cicero's own penhardly amounts to a denunciation of Calvus. The primary criticism ofthe "Attic school" rests on its loose usage of the word "Attic." SurelyLysias, Cicero argues, was no more "Attic" than Demosthenes orAeschines. Those who choose to follow a particular model do not havethe right to appropriate for themselves the titles of genuine heirsof Athenian oratory (Cic. Brutus 284-9I). As for Calvus specifically,Cicero criticizes his approach but the verdict on his talent and promiseis highly flattering. Death, he says, tragically cut short a forensiccareer which would certainly have earned Calvus a great reputation foreloquence.86 Calvus was a man of much learning and discrimination;his fault, in Cicero's eyes, was simply overmeticulousness. So muchdiligence and energy was spent on polishing and honing his orationsthat they lacked the fire to move his audience. Scholars and expertswould appreciate the finer points, but the average man missed themaltogether.87 Quintilian, more accurately perhaps than Tacitus, under-stood Cicero's judgment of Calvus as a favorable one with the abovereservations. Calvus suffered only from excessive caution and self-criticism, a drawback which might have been overcome if fate hadvouchsafed him a longer life.88 That Cicero thought highly of Calvus'oratorical talents is proved by a letter in 47 to Trebonius who had justcome upon a Ciceronian epistle praising Calvus and who questioned itssincerity. Cicero assured Trebonius that he had meant every word.Calvus' sparse style was not to Cicero's taste since it lacked compellingforce, but the young orator was erudite, talented, and showed greatpromise. Cicero had written to encourage and exhort him to greaterheights (Ad Fam. I5.21.4). These are not the sentiments of a rival oran inimicus.It is unlikely that these two men were close intimates. They were ofdifferent generations. Nor was Calvus a protege of Cicero like Caeliusor Trebatius. He was too independent and self-sufficient for that. Butthe evidence suggests cordial relations and mutual respect. Neitherliterary tastes nor political allegiances drove any wedge between M.Cicero and C. Calvus.89HARVARDUNIVERSITY

226


14/20

Ciceroand LiciniusCalvusNOTES

I. E. Castorina, Licinio Calvo (Catania 1946) 23-24, 69; J. H. Collins,"Cicero and Catullus," CJ 48 (I952) I4-15; L. Trencsenyi-Waldapfel, "Calvusex Nanneianis," Athenaeum 52 (I954) 45.2. So, rightly, R. Y. Tyrell and L. C. Purser, The Correspondenceof M.Tullius Cicero3 (Dublin and London I904) I I43, and now D. R. ShackletonBailey, Cicero's Letters to Atticus (Cambridge I965) I 288, who translates:"Though I had been favorable to him (and so should have liked to see himacquitted)."3. Cf. Plut. Cicero 9.2: To Se vrp&yt/ar) KtLKpo)L 'Oav qjVEyKaVUoSerTILEAtCs3Ppapev(avr76LTO&Kaacr1ptov.

4. H. Peter, Historicorum RomanorumReliquiae (Leipzig 1914) I cccli-ccclxv;R. M. Ogilvie, Livy: Books I-5 (Oxford I965) 7-I2.5. Historiae 3.48 Maurenbrecher.6. Cic. Pro Rab. Perd. 2.7; a passage which need not imply that the murderof Saturninus was the actual charge against Rabirius, as is assumed, e.g., byE. Ciaceri, Cicerone e i suoi tempi2 (Rome 1939-41) I 129.7. Cf. F. Miinzer, RE 25.420 "Licinius" no. I12. A single fragment ofthe speech is preserved: quos oportuit amissa restituere, hisce etiam reliquiasauerrerunt; H. Malcovati, Oratorum Romanorum Fragmenta2 (Turin 1955)358. Cf. also Macer's remarks in the Sallustian speech: arcem habent ex spoliisuostris; 3.48.6 Maur.8. If Sallust is to be believed, Macer had predicted the support of Pompeyfor tribunician reform; 3.48.23 Maur.9. Cf. Miinzer, "Die Todesstrafe in der R6mischen Republik," Hermes 47

(1912) 181-82.io. De Leg. I.7; Brutus 238. At some point, it appears, Macer had to defendhis career and conduct in a letter to the senate; Nonius 259, Mueller (=395,Lindsay). Cicero's opinion of him, of course, need not have remained static.It might be mentioned that between Macer's death and the writing of the DeLegibus Cicero had been the defense counsel for C. Rabirius, a man once pros-ecuted by Macer.II. So Ciaceri, Cicerone I I30; also Castorina, Licinio Calvo 23-24. Cicero,in fact, has some praise for Macer's diligence in invention and arrangement;Brutus 238.

12. T. R. S. Broughton, The Magistrates of the Roman Republic (New York1952) II 190.13. G. Rotondi, Leges Publicae populi romani (Milan 1912, repr. HildesheimI961) 383; Broughton, MRR II 173.14. L. G. Pocock, A Commentary on Cicero In Vatinium (London I926)I69-75, suggests that Vatinius promoted the laws confirming Pompey's actaand that these formed the basis of the charge.15. Broughton, MRR II 194. But Broughton wrongly states that Memmius"attempted to prosecute Vatinius." Cicero, In Vat. 14.33, says simply edixeritneC. Memmius praetor ex ea lege, ut adesses die tricensimo, and explicitly distin-guishes Memmius from the accusatores: sciasne tumfugisse Memmium, accusatoresesse tuos de tuis tuorumquemanibus ereptos (In Vat. 14.34).

227


15/20

ErichS. GruenI6. In Vat. 14.33-34; cf. H. Gundel, RE (2) 15.503-4 "Vatinius" no. 3.17. Schol. Bob. 150, Stangl: Crimine de sodaliciis Vatinius coeperat accusari,de quo puniendo iis legibus cauebatur (on In Vat. 33)... Haec facta sunt cumreus esset de ui P. Vatinius accusante C. Licinio (on In Vat. 34).i8. Broughton, MRR II 215; cf. Pocock, Comm. Cic. Vat. i86.19. Cf. Broughton, MRR II I28; I30 n.4.20. Tac. Dial. 34.7; Pliny NH 7.165; cf. Quint. 12.6.1.21. On this case, cf. E. S. Gruen, "The Dolabellae and Sulla," AJP 87(1966) 386-89. Tacitus is wrong also on the age of L. Crassus, which he givesas nineteen in his maiden prosecution. Crassus, in fact, was twenty-one; Cic.De Orat. 3.74.22. See Cic. Pro Sest. passim; for Calvus' role, see Schol. Bob. 125, Stangl.23. It has been argued that Cicero and Calvus were opposing advocates in

another trial of 56. P. Asicius, an agent of Ptolemy Auletes, was tried for themurder of the Alexandrine philosopher and envoy Dio and successfully defendedby Cicero; Cic. Pro Cael. 10.23-24. Tacitus records a little-read speech ofCalvus In Asitium; Dial. 21. Emendation to Asicium is easy; the identificationwas made by Klebs, RE 2.1579 "Asicius," and has found favor; cf. Malcovati,ORF 499; R. G. Austin, Cicero, Pro Caelio3 (Oxford 1960) 75. Even if correct,however, it hardly suggests political opposition between Cicero and Calvus.The case was not of great consequence and, so far as we know, Cicero neverbothered to write up and publish his speech. It carries no weight beside Calvus'defense of Sestius and, by implication, of the recall of Cicero.24. Cic. Ad Q. Frat. 2.4.1: Quin etiam Paullus noster cum testis productus

esset in Sestium, confirmauit se nomen Vatini delaturum, si Macer Licinius cunc-taretur, et Macer ab Sesti subsellis surrexit ac se illi non defuturumadfirmauit.25. As maintained by H. Meyer, Oratorum Romanorum Fragmenta (TurinI842) 475, Castorina, Licinio Calvo 45-46, and Malcovati, ORF 495.26. Cic. In Vat. 7.16; 15.36; I6.39.

27. Cic. In Vat. 15.37: cum mea lex dilucide uetet 'Biennio quo quis petatpetiturusve sit gladiatores dare nisi ex testamentopraestituta die,' quae tanta in tesit amentia ut in ipsa petitione gladiatores audeas dare? Similarly also Cic. ProSest. 64. 35: Quem non tam admiror, quod meam legem contemnit hominis inimici,quam quod sic statuit, omnino consularemlegem nullam putare.28. It is sometimes asserted that the remark of Schol. Bob. I45, Stangl (onIn Vat. io) Reus postulatus erat accusatore C. Licinio Caluo, refers to a trial of56; e.g., by Meyer ORF 475; Ciaceri, Cicerone II 121. Yet that is to take theremark entirely out of context. In fact, the scholiast is speaking of Vatinius'candidature for the quaestorship in 64, in which he was returned at the bottomof the list and was still insecure because of a possible judicial condemnation:uero huic Vatinio et honorem quaesturae post omnes nouissimo loco datum etdamnationis eius nutare fortunam. Thus, even if this statement is accurate, itmakes no reference to the situation in 56. But it merits no credence in any event.Calvus was only eighteen in 64, if Pliny's date for his birth is correct; NH7.165. To be sure, Mtinzer, on other grounds, puts Calvus' birth in 88; RE25.429 "Licinius" no. 113. But, whatever the real date, if Pliny put it in 82,Tacitus, who of course knew and used his works, probably accepted that date.It is impossible to believe that Tacitus, Dial. 34.7, refers to a prosecution byCalvus as early as 64; see above. On the date of Calvus' birth, see Castorina,


16/20

CiceroandLiciniusCalvusLicinio Calvo 12-19. Castorina's view, however, that Calvus prosecuted Vatiniusin 62 after the latter's quaestorship (p. 40) is entirely without foundation. Thepassage in the scholiast is probably worthless, and certainly does not buttressany argument for a trial of Vatinius in 56. H. Comfort, "The Date of CatullusLIII," CP 30 (I935) 75, is rightly skeptical about any judicial proceedings inthat year, but for none of the right reasons. He maintains that Calvus wouldnot have carried on an accusation after Cicero had ceased to attack the trium-virate. But in 54, while Cicero was openly defending the adherents of the dynasts,Calvus was still launching attacks upon them; see below.29. Cf. [Q. Cic.] Petit. Cons. I4.55; Cic. Pro Mur. 2I.43ff.30. Plut. Cato 42; Pomp. 52; Dio 39.27; 39.30-32.

31. Cic. Ad Q. Frat. 2.7.3: Sed magno cum gemitu senatus consules non suntpersecuti eorum sententias qui, Afranio cum essent adsensi addiderunt ut praetoresita crearentur ut dies sexaginta priuati essent. Eo die Catonem plane repudiarunt;Plut. Cato Min. 42: ot [Crassus and Pompey] e Kal 70oio SelaayreS, co T77SaTpaTr'lya a LtO,L&Xov Kdrwva ,7rpOs rr7vvTarecav yev7rao) ev7lsrpoV TOvppivfeaclqvr)s KcalTZV 7roAAwXvyvooivrwv BovAv avvayayOvres, cr77llaavTroTovsalpeOevras arpaT7ryovs evOgs apXctv KactuL77 ataAXrvras rv vo Lt,Llov pOvov, ev4


17/20

4I. Cic. Pro Planc. passim, especially 14.36: in qua tu nomine legis Liciniae,quae est de sodaliciis, omnis ambitus leges complexus es. Cf. Cic. Pro. Cael. 7.16;J. Linderski, "Two Speeches of Q. Hortensius," La Parola del Passato 79(I961) 304-II; idem, "Ciceros Rede Pro Caelio und die Ambitus-und Vereins-gesetzgebung der ausgehenden Republik," Hermes 89 (1961) I06-I9; Gundel,RE (2) 15.508 "Vatinius" no. 3.42. It might be objected that a prosecution of Vatinius under the lex Liciniafor offenses committed before that law was passed is unlikely. Certainly retro-active pieces of legislation were not common and were frowned upon. That,however, is not an insuperable objection. These were troubled times and aprecedent was near at hand. Cicero himself had been exiled in 58 through alaw of Clodius passed more than four years after the alleged offense.43. Quint. 9.2.25. The same in Isidor. Etym. 2.21.30; Malcovati, ORF 397.

44. It is uncertain to which of Calvus' speeches the remaining preservedfragments should be assigned. It seems likely, however, that Quint. 6.3.60should be associated with Quint. 9.2.25, in which case the former will alsohave come out of the trial of 54. Catullus 53 does appear to refer to acriminal trial. Hence it too is probably a reflection of Calvus' performance in54; cf. C. J. Fordyce, Catullus, A Commentary (Oxford I96I) 223-25. Tacitus,Dial. 34.7, affirms that it was the secunda of Calvus' accusationes against Vatiniuswhich was most widely read and studied. That implies there were at least threespeeches published and available in Tacitus' day. But it need not follow thatthese were three separate and independent formal prosecutions of Vatinius byCalvus. If the poet was not a prosecutor in 58, he might still have delivered adamaging speech against Vatinius in that year, or, much more likely, in 56 toundermine the latter's campaign for the praetorship. In March of 56, Calvuswas already looked to as the prospective accusator of Vatinius; Cic. Ad Q. Frat.2.4.1; see above. Clearly he was a known inimicus by that time and had prob--ably already delivered a public denunciation of Vatinius.45. Cic. Ad Q. Frat. 2.16.3: Quo die haec scripsi, Drusus erat depraeuaricationea tribunis aerariis absolutus in summa quattuor sententiis, cum senatores et equitesdamnassent. Ego eodem die post meridiem Vatinium eram defensurus.46. Dial. 2I.2: quotus enim quisque Calui in Asitium aut in Drusum legit?Calvus and Cicero may have appeared against one another in both casesmentioned here by Tacitus. On "Asitius," see above.

47. Miinzer, RE 25.881-84 "Livius" no. I9.48. Cic. Ad Att. 2.7.3: illa opima ad exigendas pecunias Druso, ut opinor,Pisaurensi an epuloni Vatinio reseruatur.49. Caes. B.C. i.i8.i; Orosius 6.15.4; cf. Caes. B.C. 3.7. . The identificationwas made by Drumann-Groebe, Gesch. Roms VI 29; see also Miinzer, RE26.I657-58 "Lucretius" no. 12; Shackleton Bailey, Cicero's Letters II 202.50. Cic. Ad Att. 4.I5.9: deinde me expedio ad Drusum, inde ad Scaurum.parantur orationibus indices gloriosi. fortasse accedent etiam consules designati.51. Collins, CJ 48 (1952) 15; Trencsenyi-Waldapfel, Athenaeum 52 (I964)46. Neither of these scholars mentions the trial of Drusus, although that casewould, on the surface at least, support their conclusions. Tenney Frank,"Cicero and the Poetae Novi," AJP 40 (1919) 404-Il, who argues vigorouslyfor friendship between Calvus and Cicero, similarly makes no mention of thetrial of Drusus, an item which would be embarrassing for his argument.

Erich S. Gruen230


18/20

CiceroandLiciniusCalvus52. Trenscenyi-Waldapfel (above, n.5I) 46.53. Messius, to be sure, was facing trial for the third time, as Seneca says: hic

(Calvus) tamen in epilogo quem pro Messio tunc tertio causam dicente habuit.It is possible that Calvus' defense came on another occasion. But Messiusresumed his legatio after the trial of 54 and Calvus did not live much longer; cf.Castorina, Licinio Calvo 33-37. The defense could have come earlier, of course,but in that event Messius' case in 54 was at least his fourth appearance as adefendant, not the most likely assumption. Be that as it may, for those who arguefor Calvus' consistency, the association of these two men is no easier to explainif Calvus came to Messius' aid in, say, 56.54. Dio 39.32.2; cf. Broughton, MRR II 216.55. Miinzer, RE 29.I243 "Messius" no. 2; Shackleton Bailey, Cicero'sLetters II 211-12.56. Cic. Post red. in sen. 8.21: Multa de me C. Messius et amicitiae et reipublicae causa dixit; legem separatim initio de salute mea promulgauit.57. Fenestella, Frag. 21, Peter: turbulentusadulescens et audax nec imparatusad dicendum.58. Livy Per. Io5; Dio 39.27.3.59. For his attacks on Gabinius and Pompey in 59, see Cic. Ad Q. Frat.1.2.I5; for the enmity with Milo, also associated with Pompey, see Cic. AdFam. I.5b.i; Ad Q. Frat. 2.4.5.60. Cic. Ad Q. Frat. 2.1.2; 2.3.3.61. Cic. Ad Fam. 1.2.4; 1.4.2; 1.5.2; Ad Q. Frat. 2.3.1; Dio 39.I5.3-4.62. Cic. Ad Att. 4.16.5: is tamen et mecum et cum Milone in gratiam rediit

(summer of 54).63. Cic. Ad Q. Frat. 2.3.3: De me multa me inuito cum mea summa laude dixit.On Cato generally, see Drumann-Groebe, Gesch. Roms V (I912) 215-I7; Fr.Miltner RE 43.I05-7 "Porcius" no. 6.64. Cic. Ad Att. 4.16.5; on the lex Fufia, cf. W. F. McDonald, "Clodiusand the lex Aelia Fufia," JRS I9 (1929) I79; G. V. Sumner "Lex Aelia,Lex Fufia," AJP 84 (I963) 338-39; A.E. Astin, "Leges Aelia et Fufia," Latomus23 (I964) 421-45, esp. 444.65. Dial. 34.7; also Quint. I2.6.I.66. It is uncertain whether Calvus represented the defendant in the first trialor in the second or both.67. Seneca Controu. 7.4.7; Malcovati, ORF 498-99.68. A similar phrase appears in Cicero's actio prima against Verres: utperspicuum cuiuis esse posset hominem ab isto quaesitum esse, non qui reum suumadduceret, sed qui meum tempus obsideret; Verr. 1.2.6. The antecedent of suumhere is the prosecutor. Shackleton Bailey, Cicero's Letters II 208, takes thestatement of Seneca in a similar sense, and asserts that Calvus was the co-prosecutor with Asinius Pollio rather than counsel for Cato. Cf. also Miinzer,RE 25.432 "Licinius" no. II3. But the remainder of the passage shows, asindicated in the text, that the phrase will not bear that meaning in this instance.69. This is clear from Cic. Ad Fam. 8.8.3: postulante rursus Appio cum L.Lollio transegit et se relaturum dixit. Sic nunc neque absolutus neque damnatus de

repetundis saucius Pilio traditus. Nam de diuinatione Appius, cum calumniamiurasset, contendereausus non est Pilioque cessit. Apparently, then, the calumniamiurare followed the postulatio but preceded even the diuinatio in which the formal

231


19/20

accusator was chosen; cf. Lex Repetundarum, line I9: sei deiurauerit calumniaecausa non po(stulare); S. Riccobono, Fontes iuris romani anteiustiniani (Florence1940-43) I go90;lso Digest 39.2.7; 39.2.I3. The phrase recurs in Asconius 64,Clark: cum in Curionem calumniam iurauit, in a case which was never completed.Livy's statement, 33.37.5, nec satis habere bello uicisse Hannibalem, nisi uelutaccusatores calumniam in eum iurarent ac nomen deferrent, may suggest that theoath preceded the nominis delatio. It obviously came very early in the proceed-ings; cf. T. Mommsen, Romisches Strafrecht (Leipzig I899) 386; A. H. J.Greenidge, The Legal Procedure of Cicero's Time (Oxford 1901) 459.70. On the one other occasion in which Seneca employs the constructionit is used in precisely the way suggested in the text; Controu. 2.I.34: itaquememini optimi illum dicere prof hac rene adulteri rea in quam Syriacus Vallius,homo disertus, calumniam iurauerat.

71. It should be noted also that Seneca's reference to Pollioni Asinio accusatorisuo is very awkward if Calvus were a co-prosecutor. There could, of course, bemore than one spokesman for the prosecution, but one would then have expectedsomething like accusatori alteri.72. Cic. Ad Att. 4.16.5: lege lunia et Licinia scis absolutum; Fufia ego tibinuntio absolutum iri, neque patronis suis tam libentibus quam accusatoribus.Shackleton Bailey, Cicero's Letters II 201-2, suggests that Cicero alludes hereto Drusus Claudianus, who is mentioned two sentences later (Drusus reus estfactus a Lucretio), and that Drusus' trial for praeuaricatio grew out of a collusiveprosecution of Cato. But Cicero is here speaking of the prospective trial of Catounder the lex Fufia, not yet heard, whereas Drusus was already under indictmentfor praeuaricatio.73. See Cic. Pro Scaur. passim, and, on the trial generally, cf. the account ofDrumann-Groebe, Gesch. Roms VI 31-34.74. Seneca, Controu. 7.4.7; io.i.8; Schol. Lucan 7.726.75. Cic. Ad Fam. 7.24.1; Porphyrio on Horace, Sat. 1.3.1. Asconius (93,Clark) mentions a verse directed against a certain Curius. But that this man wasa Caesarian must remain conjectural; cf. Miinzer, RE 25.432 "Licinius"no. 113.76. Suet. lul. 73; cf. Catullus I 1.10: Caesaris uisens monimenta magni. Theearlier rejection of Caesar's overtures is recorded in Catullus 93.77. Suet. Iul. 73: Gaio Caluo post famosa epigrammata de reconciliatione peramicos agenti ultro ac prior scripsit.78. As is inferred by Tenney Frank, AJP 40 (19I9) 409-10, and Castorina,Licinio Calvo 49-50, 69, 75-77.79. Horace, Sat. 1.10 and Porphyrio on Sat. i.io; Pliny, Epist. 1.16.5;4.27.4; Propertius 2.25.4; 2.34.87-90; Ovid, Tristia 2.427-482; Amores 3.9.62;Gellius 19.9.7.80. Cic. Ad Fam. 7.24.1. It might be mentioned also that Asconius (93,Clark) quotes a line of Calvus with praise.81. Advocates of this view have been many. Among the more recent areCollins, CJ 48 (1952) 39-4I; J. Martin, "Cicero und die zeitgenossischenDichter," Atti Cong. Int. Stud. Cic. II (I96I) I89-90; D. E. W. Wormell,"Catullus 49," Phoenix I7 (I963) 59-60.82. Catullus 49: gratias tibi maximas Catullus / agit pessimus omniumpoeta.The nature of this beneficiummust remain a matter for speculation.

Erich S. Gruen232


20/20

CiceroandLiciniusCalvus 23383. Cf., e.g., R. Ellis, A Commentaryon Catullus (Oxford 1876) 134; Fordyce,

Catullus, 2 3-14.84. Dial. I8.5; 25.4: Nam quod inuicem se obtrectauerunt, et sunt aliquaepistulis eorum inserta ex quibus mutua malignitas detegitur, non est oratorumuitium, sed hominum.85. Cicero himself attests directly to the correspondence; Ad Fam. I5.21.4.It was still known to later grammarians: Priscian in H. Keil, Grammatici Latini(Leipzig I857) II 490; Nonius 469, Mueller.86. Cic. Brutus 279-80: duorumadulescentium,qui si diutius uixissent magnamessent eloquentiae laudem consecuti. C. Curionem te, inquit Brutus, et C. LiciniumCaluum arbitror dicere.87. Cic. Brutus 283: Itaque eius oratio nimia religione attenuata doctis etattente audientibus erat illustris, multitudine autem et a foro, cui nata eloquentia est

deuorabatur. For the lengths to which Calvus would go just to keep his mind onhis labors, cf. Pliny NH 34.166.88. Quint. IO..II.5. Other later writers had much admiration for Calvus'orations; Val. Max. 9.I2.7; Pliny Epist. I.2.2; Quint. 10.2.35; I2.1o.1;Apuleius Apol. 95.5. Seneca Controu. 7.4.7-8, actually indicates another line ofthought on Calvus' oratory: Calvus was often carried away with his ownenthusiasm; he was forceful, violent, and agitated, on the model of Demosthenes89. Some of the merits (but none of the defects) in this paper may be ascribedto generous suggestions by colleagues G. W. Bowersock and Mason Hammond.

Cicero and Licinius Calvus

Documents

Transcript of Cicero and Licinius Calvus