Pompey the Orator
Yüklə 303,66 Kb. Pdf görüntüsü
|
27
is in such assemblies ...‟ 61 The change in Cicero‟s judgement of Pompey‟s contional speaking powers is related to the change in Pompey‟s political stance and, especially, his support of Cicero‟s recall from exile. Yet, it may also suggest a fluctuation in Pompey‟s popularity with the people and, as a result, his ability to perform persuasively in the contio. Pompey himself was keenly aware of his dependence on the good will of the people. In February 56 B.C., Cicero tells Quintus that Pompey worries that the contional audience is alienated, the nobility hostile to him, the senate ill-disposed, and the young men critical of him. 62 We know moreover that the consul of 56 B.C., Cn. Lentulus Marcellinus, and Clodius on several occasions tried to incite the contio against Pompey. 63 Fluctuations in Pompey‟s popularity were exploited for political purposes which illustrates, first, how important was Pompey‟s relationship with the people for his political influence (real and perceived) and, second, how others knew this too and took it into account in their political activities. We have evidence of a public meeting during Milo‟s trial de vi in 56 B.C. where Clodius‟ gangs tried to shout down Pompey‟s speech, so as to make him unable to deliver his defence and connect with the people. However, Pompey refused to be shouted down and spoke through the clamour and
61 Cic. Sest. 107 with transl. by Kaster (n. 1). See also Cic. Red. pop. 16; Pis. 80 for praise of Pompey‟s performance. 62 Cic. Q Fr. 2.3.4. 63 Lentulus Marcellinus: Val. Max. 6.2.6; Plut. Pomp. 51.5-6. (Dio 39.30.1-2 places this discussion in the senate). Clodius: Cic. Q.Fr. 2.3.2; Plut. Pomp. 48.7; Dio 39.19.1. See Morstein-Marx (n. 2), 122, 134, and Tan (n. 2), 167-8 for further discussion and context.
28
even acquired silence at times owing to his auctoritas. 64 Pompey was, in other words, capable of speaking to a hostile audience intent on quelling him, and that at a time when he worried about the people being alienated, as we saw above. He could perhaps have found strength in the view that Clodius‟ gangs did not represent the real populus or else he was simply made of tougher material than what is suggested by Cicero‟s judgements of a faint-hearted Pompey in front of an antagonistic audience.
Further insights into Pompey‟s ability in exploiting vague expressions as a tactical move may be found in Cicero‟s paraphrase of Pompey‟s speech in the senate on the first of January 57 B.C. where Cicero‟s exile was, again, debated. Cicero relates:
Hunc nemo erat quin verissime sentire diceret. Sed post eum rogatus Cn. Pompeius, adprobata laudataque Cottae sententia, dixit sese oti mei causa, ut omni populari concitatione defungerer, censere ut ad senatus auctoritatem populi quoque Romani beneficium erga me adiungeretur. Cum omnes certatim aliusque alio gravius atque ornatius de mea salute dixisset fieretque sine ulla varietate discessio, ...‟ „Everyone thought that this was the plainest truth; but when Gnaeus Pompeius was called upon for his opinion after Cotta, he said that though he could approve and praise Cotta‟s view, he himself judged that for the sake of my tranquillity, to be certain that I would be rid of harassment from „popular‟ quarters, the Roman people‟s beneficence toward me ought to be joined to the senate‟s authority. When all had spoken for my restoration, with each speaker
64 Cic. Q Fr. 2.3.2. Morstein-Marx (n. 2), 169 n. 40 argues that the „setting was either one of the three required contiones (anquisitiones) before the vote in a trial before the People (iudicium populi) or a public meeting preceding a trial in the quaestio de vi ...‟
29
trying to outbid the last in terms of solemn honor, and unanimous support had been expressed in a vote, …‟ 65
To this, Kaster remarks that Pompey‟s speech is full of euphemisms. For example, the phrase that Cicero needs tranquillity (otium) and not that he actually needed protection from being killed, or his talk of the people‟s beneficium towards Cicero to be joined to senatorial authority rather than saying directly that the senatorial decree recalling Cicero ought to be accompanied by a law ratified by the people. Kaster concludes: „Whether the brief turn owes more to Pompey‟s idiom or to C.[icero]‟s, it is plump, grave, and complacent.‟ 66 If these are indeed words chosen by Pompey, Cicero‟s praise of his eloquence may be thought to reflect Cicero‟s need to publicise his gratitude to Pompey post eventum rather than an objective evaluation of Pompey‟s oratory. And if so, Pompey‟s choice of words may again be regarded as unaccomplished in terms of style and vague in terms of meaning, intended to blur rather than clarify his stance on the past events and his own position within them. Yet, this may have been precisely Pompey‟s intention.
Another convenient way of avoiding taking sides in public was to let others sound opinion in the senate before coming out in the open, as when Pompey had one of the tribunes of 56 B.C., P. Rutilius Lupus, raise the question of the Campanian land in the senate in December 57. This tactic proved self-defeating, however, in that the senators refused to discuss the matter
65 Cic. Sest. 74. Transl. Kaster (n. 1). See also Cic. Red. sen. 5; Dom. 69; Pis. 34 for Pompey‟s speech. 66 Kaster (n. 1) comm. ad Cic. Sest. 74. Yüklə 303,66 Kb. Dostları ilə paylaş:
|