Gayatri Gogoi
Examine the role of the speeches of Caesar and Cato in Sallust’s Catiline and consider Sallust’s emphasis on the importance of this pair of speeches in contrast to Cicero’s insistence on his own leadership in Catilinarian 4.
Catiline explores the history of the Catilinarian Conspiracy of from 66 - 63BC. In Sallust’s monograph Catiline explores this he compares the speeches of Caesar and Cato in the debate following the capture of five conspirators, which concerns the punishment they ought to receive, imprisonment or death. The th
event Sallust records took place on the 5 of December, Evidently, chapters 51-54 are of importance to the historian, as they comprise around two thousand words in a monograph around ten thousand words long, which is almost a fifth of the whole work. This seemingly disproportionate length of the two speeches means we must examine them all the more thoroughly to discover the role ro le which Sallust intends for them to play. Sallust uses these speeches not only to how they in reality affected the course of history, but also to hint at his own ideas about morality, to subtly express judgement on the historical course of events. It is also interesting to note how Sallust's own comments in chapters 53-4 following the speeches themselves contrast with the Cicero's Fourth Catilinarian, in terms of how each man emphasises the importance of on the one hand the speeches of Cato and Caesar and on the other Cicero’s own. We must explore why this difference exists, and how it interlinks with Sallust's overall intentions for these speeches and the monograph as a whole. Caesar’s argument argument is made up of three main points by which he argues against the punishment of death: that reason, not passion, should inform decisions of great importance; that the senate’s dignity and importance mean that deciding to kill the conspirators would remind people of such punishment rather than the conspirators crimes; and that such a decision for the death penalty would set a dangerous precedent for the future, if more unstable leaders were in power. Interspersed with these arguments are examples of historical events and illustrious figures, which Caesar uses to illustrate his points, harking back to “a better time” using the tradition of one’s ancestors to lend weight to his arguments. Cato on the other hand sets out his argument in direct opposition to Caesar's (Longe alia mihi mens est), and he urges the senate to take precautions to protect the city and their homes, emphasising the danger and threat of the situation they are in, encouraging the senate to be firm and make a decision promptly, and outlines the problems in Caesar's plans, such as potential rescue attempts, as well as the positive consequences of executing them, by sending a hard message to Catiline's army. Cato too recalls the custom of ancestors, those distinguished Romans who have killed men for far less. The principles of mos maiorum were upheld by Cato the Elder as censor, whose style Sallust emulated, through his archaic style of prose, therefore allying himself with the traditions of “the good old days”, and giving himself leave to comment on the state of contemporaneous Roman moral affairs. As such, the concept of mos maiorum is maiorum is integral to Sallust's vision in each conception of morality, but each example conflicts with another, showing the gradual corruption and institution of vices. Each argument at first holds sway with the senate sena te and they are convinced; however, Cato’s speech wins out. While there is an obvious historical motive for these speeches, in terms of depicting the events which led to the eventual execution of the prisoners as they happened, Sallust also has other
Gayatri Gogoi
more subtle nuances at play in these chapters. One explanation for the purpose of these speeches could be because of Sallust being a partisan of Julius Caesar, who helped Sallust advance politically. Therefore, it could be argued that Sallust uses the speech to portray his Caesar as a symbol of upstanding morals in order to paint him in a more flattering light, in a display of personal loyalty. Sallust may have used this opportunity to help shake off rumours of his Caesar’s involvement in the conspiracy. However, that cannot be the full extent of Sallust’s purpose; the speech of Cato, of a similar length, shows that Sallust was not expressing merely partiality for Caesar, but making a balanced comparison between the two opposing arguments. Caesar is to a certain extent portrayed in a flattering light, but no more than his rival, whose argument ultimately prevails. Indeed, Caesar's very words about forming impartial decisions, based on reason, not passion, echo Sallust's sentiments of history free from partisan bias. It has been well-documented that the two speeches are Sallustian in form and tone, in which Sallust’s particular style dominates those of the two historical figures. One effect of this Sklenar notes is “to contribute to the stylistic cohesiveness of t he individual monographs”1, as well as emulating Sallust's forerunner Thucidides. However, it may also show that the Sallustian force o f the argument comes to the fore, rather than the historical accuracy of the speech, and the consistency of style means that the differences between the speeches become all the more apparent . It is Sallust’s voice who controls, using Cato and Caesar as his mouthpieces, and it his agenda of comparison which will be in the background. This Sallustian aspect is evident for example from the opening of Caesar's speech, which resembles the opening of Bellum Catilinae itself, as outlined by 2
Sklenar , both beginning with “omnis homines”, the earlier saying “qui sese student praestare ceteris animalibus” and the later “qui de rebus dubiis consultant”, in which the former deals with men being better than beast, and the latter shows how one can do that, by exercising the intelligence which separates man and animal by debating. This is also important in that the exercise of good judgement and prudence when making Therefore we can be clear from the outset that Caesar will echo Sallust in some way for the remainder of his speech, through Sallust's views shining out through Caesar's words. However, although t he speech is essentially Sallustian, hints of Caesar are also felt, in the implicit clementia of his words and actions, for which Caesar was renowned. Elements of Cato’s speech also have corresponding parts within the Bellum Catilinae, which may help further explain Sallust’s deliberate parallelism in both speeches. He begins his speech by saying he had complained often in the senate about “luxury and avarice”, “luxuria atque avaritia”, which is exactly the phrase used earlier in chapter 5, as part of the “corrupt morals of the state” which prompted Catiline's actions. The deliberate usage of this phrase suggests that Sallust wishes us to think about the condition of morality in Rome at this time, linking the beginning and cause of the conspiracy with its eventual outcome. In this way, we can see that the speeches reflect the wider purpose of the Bellum Catilinae, to portray the deterioration of an empire, through stages o f 3
ambitio, then avaritia and luxuria, according to Conley, and the final outcome of such decline. The deeper meanings of speeches of Cato and Caesar showcase those of the entire monograph in miniature, in which the problems of morality within the Bellum Catilinae are concentrated within the speeches.
1
Sklenar Sklenar 3 Conley 2
Gayatri Gogoi
Sklenar offer his views, based on those of Batsone, as to what role Sallust intends these chapters to play, as a comparison of two differing conceptions of morality, which rather than fragmented pieces of a larger moral code, as Syme thinks, are antithetical yet interlinked, but all the same incompatible. In the synkrisis which immediately follows the speeches themselves, Sallust directly compares the virtues of the men, such as Caesar's “beneficia ac munificentia”, opposed to Cato's “integritas vitae”. Both are integral to the running of the state, but as Batstone notes “ integritas” is the quality of intention and sincerity which allows beneficia to be properly termed bona and so to remain beneficia”, meaning beneficia without integritas are not in fact beneficia, and the practise of integritas is beneficia. This shows that the virtues are interlinked andHowever, if we consider that in the direct and antithetical comparison, the presence of a virtue in one, implies the lack of that virtue in the other, then we can see there is a problem. Caesar cannot have beneficia without integritas, and as such we doubt the meaning of beneficia. In turn, we doubt that the good of Cato’s integritas without action. This example shows us the main problem with morality in Rome, “vera vocabula amissus”, the true meaning of moral words is lost, and Sallust places the reader in doubt as to what “true” morality is, just as the politicians of the late Roman republic were. While we might wish for Sallust to be forthcoming about his final judgement on the state of morals in the late Roman republic, the halves are not and seemingly cannot be reconciled. If we consider that Sallust uses Catiline to symbolise the decline and corruption of the late Roman Republic, we might also take note of how he seems to use Cato and Caesar as foils of Catiline, as symbols of morality, or rather in this case, differing moralities, which are conflicting, dissonant and ultimately irreconcilable. It is this irreconcilability, caused by the loss of the true meaning of words, which ultimately led to such corruption among the nobility in Rome. If virtue opposes virtue, how can one remain virtuous? Both Cato and Caesar are virtuous, but the virtues of one highlight the flaws of the other, and the idea of one man’s virtue is first introduced, then the idea is shattered by the introduction of the other’s virtue, which throws the first into doubt, and then itself. Sallust creates a complex idea of morality which functioned in the late Roman Republic with both we as readers and those who strive to be virtuous cannot fully become or even comprehend. Sallust places great importance on these two speeches and these two men while om itting any mention of Cicero's contribution to the debate about the fate of the conspirators. This may be for 4
many reasons. Robert Cape Jr. argues that Cicero's contribution to the debate was not recorded by Sallust because “Caesar's and Cato's speeches were remarkable and noteworthy; Cicero's oration was politics as usual”, as a” part of the political transactions that did not require explanation.” Indeed, this explanation has some merit, given that Brutus too neglected to give importance Cicero’s th
5
part in the discussion on the 5 of December , showing that such a speech was merely part of everyday routine politics. It could also be perhaps that Sallust held some animosity towards Cicero; for example, Sallust supported the prosecution of Mi lo whom Cicero defended in 52 BC following the death of Clodius. 6
Batstone describes synkrisis as “essentially agonistic” and “used for competitive comparison”. In its present form, the speeches follow almost immediately on from each other, meaning that the speech of Caesar is fresh in our minds as we read that of Cato; the comparisons of co ntent and style are 4
Cape Jr. Att. 12.21.1. 6 Batstone 5
Gayatri Gogoi
rendered all the more obvious and direct. Given the synkrisis of 53- 4, Sallust may neglect to mention Cicero's speech so as to ma ke a more direct comparison between the two men, their views, and the underlying opposing moralities they embody. Furthermore, Cicero's speech would no doubt plac e him at the centre of the debate, and would have no doubt been heavily edited, meaning that we may give Cicero too much importance, at least in terms of how much he contributed to the debate about the conspirators. Indeed, even Cicero asks the historian Lucius Lucceius the monograph writer to describe Cicero in a panegyric about him and the Catlinarian Conspiracy in a more flattering light. This might show Sallust may not be wholly unfair in neglecting Cicero's contribution in this case. However, what is most important to note is that while Sallust emphasises the virtue of the two men, they themselves are only important so far as the morality they display, and it is for this reason that Sallust gives them and their speeches so much prominence. Cicero may have been the o ne who thwarted the conspiracy, but the problems with morality in the late Republic nevertheless continued within men, society, and the senate. Even if there is no direct mention of Cicero’s importance in the Conspiracy, his influence is nevertheless felt throughout the monograph, and especially in the speech of Cato. The Fourth Catilinarian took place between the speeches of Cato and Caesar, and although Cicero is on the face neutral, he implicitly suggests his preference for the death penalty. He outlines the problems with Caesar's suggestion of imprisonment, as they may be rescued, that imprisonment without hope of freedom is crueller than death and highlights the necessity of their deaths because of the danger the conspirators pose. Evidently, Cato’s speech drew heavily on Cicero's speech, or at least Sallust represented the ideas of Cicero within that speech. A direct reference to Cicero has no bearing on the ultimate goal and role of the speeches, which is to explore morality. Therefore, in conclusion the role of the speeches in Sallust's Bellum Catilinae is to mirror the sentiments felt throughout the monograph, about the gradual decline and corruption of the morals among the nobility. He does this by pitting one idea of morality against another, which are both essential to the running of the state but their interlinking and opposition at the same time mean that idea and practise cannot function together. This exploration of morality supersedes the historica l element, although it is present, but accounts for Sallust's emphasis on the speeches and speaker, rather than Cicero’s efforts as shown in the Forth Catilinarian speech. The loss of the “vera vocabula” and the meaning of virtue caused this crisis of morals, which has led to the corruption of Catiline, the decline of the senate in general, the Catilinarian Crisis, and the fall of Rome itself. References Batsone, William B. ‘The Antithesis of Virtue and Sallust’s Synkrisis and the Crisis of the Late Republic’, Classical Antiquity 7
(1988): 1-30. Skenář, R. ‘La République des Signes: Caesar, Cato, and the Language of Sallustian Morality’, Tr ansactions of the American
Philological Association 128 (1998): 205-220. Duane F. Conley The Stages of Rome's Decline in Sallust's Historical Theory Source: Hermes, 109. Bd., H. 3 (1981) Robert W. Cape, The Rhetoric of Politics in Cicero's Fourth Catilinarian The American Journal of Philology, Vol. 116, No. 2 (Summer, 1995),
