Gayatri GogoiExamine 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. Sallust’s monograph Catiline explores the history of the Catilinarian Conspiracy of from 66 - 63BC. In 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 event Sallust records took place on the 5th 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 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 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 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 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 The deliberate usage of this phrase suggests that Sallust wishes us to think about the condition of morality in Rome at this time. as well as emulating Sallust's forerunner Thucidides. in a display of personal loyalty. although the speech is essentially Sallustian. using Cato and Caesar as his mouthpieces. the speech of Cato. not passion. as outlined by Sklenar2.3 The deeper meanings of speeches of Cato and Caesar showcase those of the entire monograph in miniature. who helped Sallust advance politically. It has been well-documented that the two speeches are Sallustian in form and tone. However. echo Sallust's sentiments of history free from partisan bias. it may also show that the Sallustian force of the argument comes to the fore. Elements of Cato’s speech also have corresponding parts within the Bellum Catilinae. He begins his speech by saying he had complained often in the senate about “luxury and avarice”. and the latter shows how one can do that. and the final outcome of such decline. 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. hints of Caesar are also felt. we can see that the speeches reflect the wider purpose of the Bellum Catilinae. which is exactly the phrase used earlier in chapter 5. whose argument ultimately prevails. Sallust may have used this opportunity to help shake off rumours of his Caesar’s involvement in the conspiracy. then avaritia and luxuria. “luxuria atque avaritia”. in which the problems of morality within the Bellum Catilinae are concentrated within the speeches. as part of the “corrupt morals of the state” which prompted Catiline's actions. to portray the deterioration of an empire. the earlier saying “qui sese student praestare ceteris animalibus” and the later “qui de rebus dubiis consultant”. In this way. One explanation for the purpose of these speeches could be because of Sallust being a partisan of Julius Caesar. Caesar is to a certain extent portrayed in a flattering light. according to Conley. for which Caesar was renowned. One effect of this Sklenar notes is “to contribute to the stylistic cohesiveness of the individual monographs”1. It is Sallust’s voice who controls. 1 2 Sklenar Sklenar 3 Conley . both beginning with “omnis homines”. linking the beginning and cause of the conspiracy with its eventual outcome. based on reason. through stages of ambitio. Caesar's very words about forming impartial decisions. which resembles the opening of Bellum Catilinae itself. by exercising the intelligence which separates man and animal by debating. but making a balanced comparison between the two opposing arguments. in which the former deals with men being better than beast. Therefore. However. which may help further explain Sallust’s deliberate parallelism in both speeches. Indeed. 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. However. in which Sallust’s particular style dominates those of the two historical figures. and it his agenda of comparison which will be in the background. shows that Sallust was not expressing merely partiality for Caesar. through Sallust's views shining out through Caesar's words. and the consistency of style means that the differences between the speeches become all the more apparent . but no more than his rival.Gayatri Gogoi more subtle nuances at play in these chapters. of a similar length. rather than the historical accuracy of the speech. that cannot be the full extent of Sallust’s purpose. in the implicit clementia of his words and actions. This Sallustian aspect is evident for example from the opening of Caesar's speech. Att. 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”.6 In its present form. as Syme thinks. and as such we doubt the meaning of beneficia. Robert Cape Jr. but the virtues of one highlight the flaws of the other. opposed to Cato's “integritas vitae”. the comparisons of content and style are 4 5 Cape Jr. as symbols of morality. caused by the loss of the true meaning of words. are antithetical yet interlinked. we doubt that the good of Cato’s integritas without action. this explanation has some merit. how can one remain virtuous? Both Cato and Caesar are virtuous. but all the same incompatible. meaning that the speech of Caesar is fresh in our minds as we read that of Cato. If virtue opposes virtue. Sallust directly compares the virtues of the men. It could also be perhaps that Sallust held some animosity towards Cicero. Caesar cannot have beneficia without integritas. and the idea of one man’s virtue is first introduced. This example shows us the main problem with morality in Rome. such as Caesar's “beneficia ac munificentia”. It is this irreconcilability. implies the lack of that virtue in the other. 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. In turn.4 argues that Cicero's contribution to the debate was not recorded by Sallust because “Caesar's and Cato's speeches were remarkable and noteworthy.Gayatri Gogoi Sklenar offer his views. the halves are not and seemingly cannot be reconciled. or rather in this case. showing that such a speech was merely part of everyday routine politics. This may be for many reasons. and then itself. While we might wish for Sallust to be forthcoming about his final judgement on the state of morals in the late Roman republic. In the synkrisis which immediately follows the speeches themselves. Sallust supported the prosecution of Milo whom Cicero defended in 52 BC following the death of Clodius. then we can see there is a problem. meaning beneficia without integritas are not in fact beneficia. Batstone describes synkrisis as “essentially agonistic” and “used for competitive comparison”. This shows that the virtues are interlinked andHowever. just as the politicians of the late Roman republic were. Cicero's oration was politics as usual”. given that Brutus too neglected to give importance Cicero’s part in the discussion on the 5th of December5. dissonant and ultimately irreconcilable. as a comparison of two differing conceptions of morality. the true meaning of moral words is lost. then the idea is shattered by the introduction of the other’s virtue. If we consider that Sallust uses Catiline to symbolise the decline and corruption of the late Roman Republic. if we consider that in the direct and antithetical comparison.21. which are conflicting. we might also take note of how he seems to use Cato and Caesar as foils of Catiline. “vera vocabula amissus”. for example. differing moralities. 12. which throws the first into doubt.” Indeed. the speeches follow almost immediately on from each other. as to what role Sallust intends these chapters to play. which rather than fragmented pieces of a larger moral code. 6 Batstone . as a” part of the political transactions that did not require explanation. and the practise of integritas is beneficia. which ultimately led to such corruption among the nobility in Rome. the presence of a virtue in one. based on those of Batsone. Both are integral to the running of the state.1. and Sallust places the reader in doubt as to what “true” morality is. Sallust places great importance on these two speeches and these two men while omitting any mention of Cicero's contribution to the debate about the fate of the conspirators. which is to explore morality.Gayatri Gogoi rendered all the more obvious and direct. The Rhetoric of Politics in Cicero's Fourth Catilinarian The American Journal of Philology. Cicero may have been the one who thwarted the conspiracy. The Fourth Catilinarian took place between the speeches of Cato and Caesar. society. Therefore. Cicero's speech would no doubt place him at the centre of the debate. and the fall of Rome itself. Classical Antiquity 7 (1988): 1-30. Cato’s speech drew heavily on Cicero's speech. This might show Sallust may not be wholly unfair in neglecting Cicero's contribution in this case. in conclusion the role of the speeches in Sallust's Bellum Catilinae is to mirror the sentiments felt throughout the monograph. as they may be rescued. A direct reference to Cicero has no bearing on the ultimate goal and role of the speeches. but accounts for Sallust's emphasis on the speeches and speaker. Duane F. Furthermore. Indeed. The loss of the “vera vocabula” and the meaning of virtue caused this crisis of morals. and although Cicero is on the face neutral. but the problems with morality in the late Republic nevertheless continued within men. and would have no doubt been heavily edited. the Catilinarian Crisis. 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. 109. and especially in the speech of Cato. they themselves are only important so far as the morality they display. that imprisonment without hope of freedom is crueller than death and highlights the necessity of their deaths because of the danger the conspirators pose. H. Even if there is no direct mention of Cicero’s importance in the Conspiracy. Cato. Sallust may neglect to mention Cicero's speech so as to make a more direct comparison between the two men. Conley The Stages of Rome's Decline in Sallust's Historical Theory Source: Hermes. which has led to the corruption of Catiline. 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. about the gradual decline and corruption of the morals among the nobility. 2 (Summer. References Batsone. Transactions of the American Philological Association 128 (1998): 205-220. their views. 3 (1981) Robert W. Evidently. at least in terms of how much he contributed to the debate about the conspirators. However. 116. William B. Cape. He does this by pitting one idea of morality against another. . the decline of the senate in general. he implicitly suggests his preference for the death penalty. Skenář. meaning that we may give Cicero too much importance.4. and the underlying opposing moralities they embody. what is most important to note is that while Sallust emphasises the virtue of the two men. He outlines the problems with Caesar's suggestion of imprisonment. R. and it is for this reason that Sallust gives them and their speeches so much prominence. rather than Cicero’s efforts as shown in the Forth Catilinarian speech. and the senate. Vol. This exploration of morality supersedes the historical element. although it is present. Bd. No. ‘The Antithesis of Virtue and Sallust’s Synkrisis and the Crisis of the Late Republic’.. his influence is nevertheless felt throughout the monograph. ‘La République des Signes: Caesar. Given the synkrisis of 53. 1995). or at least Sallust represented the ideas of Cicero within that speech. and the Language of Sallustian Morality’.
Report "Examine the Role of the Speeches of Caesar and Cato in Sallust"