|
C. Iulius Caesar Strabo has been ill-served by his wit.[1] No doubt excellent in its time, it survives in various examples of repartee. But it has left one of the most gifted and active Roman politicians, a statesman who could take his cause to the streets, languishing under the dispiriting label of “humour”; it was already his pigeon-hole in Cicero’s time, as we still see in De oratore 2.216-290. And yet his introduction into the company of participants in the fictitious dialogue at De oratore 2.12ff. repays some consideration: the cultured half-brothers Q. Catulus (consul 102) and Caesar Strabo arrive at L. Crassus’ villa unannounced, exchange wonted greetings amicissime and are eagerly quizzed for the latest political news. At 2.16 in a context of urbane banter Caesar makes mock-protest against his familiaris Sulpicius’ being closer to or counting more with their revered Crassus than he does. This is to be taken with the just mentioned notice (2.12) that Catulus and Caesar arrived to find the ailing Crassus still in bed and Sulpicius sitting by his side. Of course, Cicero is not reporting a historical scene but applying the resources of art to a problem: how to convey the hierarchy of affection in this group of friends? It is done with psychological brilliance. Caesar and Sulpicius are rivals in their love of the dying Crassus. Caesar in this way is represented as a contender for the most serious consideration, Crassus serving here as central figure not only in oratory but in statesmanship.[2] His martyrdom to res publica is a known and awaited event in the dialogue, which is a fiction constructed, after all, around history.[3] With the death of Crassus, the murder of Drusus and the outbreak of the Bellum Italicum their paths diverge. Sulpicius is not heard of during 90 BC, a year that would have demanded the attendance of Rome’s first orator in his generation, had he been available. In 88 he was legatus,[4] It can be accepted that he was on military service from the end of 91 to well on in 89 when he was elected tribune of the plebs for 88. Caesar was detained in Rome during 90 by his duties as curule aedile, to which office he was elected before the fighting broke out. But cur a urbis and liberal munera fell beneath the real needs of the time. The most significant notice of his activity is the almost daily contiones he addressed with carefully prepared speeches.[5] On what subject? There are two that would demand the talents of an engaged man of politics: the question of enfranchising the Italian allies; and the devastating operations of the Quaestio Variana as friend after friend of the absent Sulpicius and the present Caesar were hauled into a court manned by equestrian juries on charges of treasonable negotiations with the Italian allies leading to the current bitter, bloody war.[6] On both issues, which are of course really aspects of one issue, Caesar Strabo is known to have had views. [1] On wit as Caesar’s mark, E. Malcovati Oratcrrum Romanorum Fragmenta, 3rd edn. (1966), no. 73; ‘Iulius’ RE No. 135 (Diehl); and commonly at any casual mention. [2] L. Crassus is made to assert the supremacy of oratory among social and political arts (De oratore 1.29—34); Q. Mucius Scaevola the Augur (consul 117), father of Crassus’ late wife, offers rebuttal on behalf of philosophy, religion, tradition, and other arts (ibid. 35-44). Crassus’ larger development of the theme is responded to by M. Antonius. When Cicero (via Antonius) conceives a hypothetical intervention by the finest statesmen of them all, M. Scaurus princeps senatus, on behalf of grauitas and consilium as the bases of auctoritas, he characteristically subverts Crassus’ (i.e. his own) line by having the imaginary Scaurus crush the loquacity of the orators by the look on his face (ibid. 214)! But, of course, it is the nature of oratory to keep talking, and that is what the company do. [3] 3.1-12. [4] Brutus 304; Cicero’s argument for the dearth of orators in the Social War is enforced by C. Cotta’s exile (ibid. 303), Hortensius’ military service (ibid. 304), Antonius’ absence (ibid), C. Curio’s silence (ibid. 305). If Sulpicius had been present and available at any time in 90-89, the fact would have to be registered as modifying the tenor of Cicero’s argument; the reference to him as legatus may cover 90 as well. [5] Brutus 305: “C. etiam Iulius aedilis curulis cotidie fere accuratas contiones habebat.” We have been alerted by Fergus Millar’s work to the importance of contiones in Roman public life, above all in The Crowd in Rome in the Late Republic (1998). Caesar’s presence in Rome does not negate the dearth of orators in Cicero’s memory; cf. Caesar’s damning lack of vehemence (ibid. 177), which is perhaps to be set against Cicero’s betrayal of his youthful taste for strong meat: note his high enthusiasm for the admittedly rude genius of Q. Varius, C. Carbo, Cn. Pomponius (ibid. 305; cf. 207, 221 on Pomponius; 221 on Varius; Orator 213-4 on Carbo). The mediocrity of P. Antistius (ibid. 226) is modified by improvement (ibid. 308), and on one occasion clear superiority in argument to the mighty Sulpicius himself (226). Cicero’s teeming brain and rich coverage are only unevenly disciplined by discrimination in this work. [6] The prime case is that of C. Cotta, friend of both Caesar and Sulpicius; the relationship with Sulpicius (and Drusus) seems to amount to conjunction (De oratore 1.25); cf. n. 22 above. On Cotta’s exile, balanced against Sulpicius’ turnaround, De oratore 3.11; on its effect on the young Cicero’s studious zeal, Brutus 305. More information please go to reporting
Related Articles -
C., Iulius, Caesar, Strabo,
|
