In L. Calpurnium Pisonem
In L. Calpurnium Pisonem (completely in Latin: IN L. CALPVRNIVM PISONEM ORATIO; German "Speech against Lucius Calpurnius Piso") is an invective speech by the Roman politician and speaker Cicero , which is directed against Lucius Calpurnius Piso Caesoninus . In it, Cicero compares himself with strong self-praise with Piso and criticizes his consulate in 58 BC. And his governorship in Macedonia sharp. This happens in the ancient tradition of the so-called invective. The speech was given in 55 BC. BC held by Cicero before the Senate , probably written down and published in an elaborated form the following year.
prehistory
L. Calpurnius Piso was 58 BC. Chr. Consul. In the same year Clodius , Cicero's political adversary, was a tribune of the people . Since Piso refused to support Cicero against his enemy Clodius, he incurred Cicero's personal enmity. According to his consulate, Piso held a post until 55 BC. The governorship of the province of Macedonia, which Clodius had given him. In this way Clodius thanked Piso for not supporting Cicero. In order to avoid the hostility of Clodius, Cicero himself was there from March 58 BC. Until August 57 BC Went into exile.
After Pisus returned to Rome in 55 BC. There were direct encounters between the two opponents again in the Senate. On the one hand, Piso attacked Cicero, claiming that he was to blame for his premature dismissal as governor of Macedonia because he had defamed him in his speech De provinciis consularibus . On the other hand, in his speech In Pisonem , Cicero strikes back: He not only criticizes his political activities, but his whole person in a sometimes very harsh tone.
Cicero gave the speech in the Senate, but did not draft the speech until a year later. A lecture along the lines of today's text would have taken about two hours, an unusually long window of time for an oral response to the senators.
The invective In Pisonem is therefore not an invective in absentem that Cicero had already written, such as the speech Post reditum in senatu . In this speech he deals with Gabinius and Piso equally and makes them responsible for his exile; he speaks directly to Piso, even though he is out of the country - in his province of Macedonia.
The invective In Pisonem joins Cicero's speeches against his political opponents after his return from exile. He wrote the speeches Post reditum in senatu , De domo sua , Pro Sestio , De haruspicum responso , De provinciis consularibus and Pro Plancio .
Speech: state of preservation, structure and content
The speech against Piso is not entirely preserved. So the beginning is missing, which remains in the dark. The content can be roughly understood through quotations; Cicero explains that Piso has returned from his province, is of bad character and, as the son of a Gauls, of barbaric descent.
The speech received was structured by Cicero by dealing with points of criticism.
Comparison of Cicero and Piso (1–63)
In each section of the speech, Cicero first portrays himself in a good light. This acts as a contrast film against the misdeeds of Piso, which are described on it. In contrasting this, Cicero addresses her cursus honorum , her consulate, her stay abroad and her return.
Office career ( cursus honorum ) (1–3)
Cicero thinks that as a knight and homo novus he only completed his official career thanks to his high skills as a politician, while Piso - for lack of his own qualities - was dependent on his high descent from the gens Calpurnia .
Consulate (4–30)
Cicero celebrates himself as the savior of the republic from the Catilinians .
He then accuses Piso of measures that, in his opinion, stand for the decline of the republic: First, he repealed the Aelic and Fufi Law ( leges Aelia et Fufia ) (these were laws that made it possible to prevent or retrospectively proceedings in popular assemblies void.). Second, he “dug up” slaves at the Aurelian tribunal. He also misused and desecrated the temple of the Castors as an arsenal. Fourth, Piso had organized a meeting in the Flaminian circus .
Absence abroad (33-50)
After a short section (31–33) about her departure abroad, Cicero gets lost in general slander of Pisos without any concrete reference to anything.
Return (51-63)
Cicero describes Piso's return as pathetic and ridiculous, and then denigrates Piso as a philosopher. As an Epicurean living for himself, he does not care about the honor of triumph, in complete contrast to his own son-in-law Caesar , who pursues military and political honors in the spirit of the politically-minded, rather stoic-thinking Cicero.
Attacks against Pisos Epicureanism (64–72)
According to Cicero, Piso is a man indulging in sensuality, for whom the joys of the belly are above everything (64–67). He knew exactly about his revealing feasts and feasts in his magnificent villa (this house may mean the Villa dei Papiri in Herculaneum ). There a teacher (this teacher probably means Philodemos of Gadara ) instructed him in Epicureanism. However, he did not understand the Epicurean doctrine of moderate pleasure, but misinterpreted it as an approval for the grossest form of licentiousness (68–72).
Refutation of two accusations by Pisos (72-94)
In the final part, Cicero goes into two allegations by Pisos and tries to refute them. The first accusation is that it was not Piso and Clodius who were actually to blame for Cicero's exile, but rather Caesar and Pompey . It was only out of cowardice and opportunity that he did not turn against the main culprits, but against the comparatively minor politicians, in this case Piso, because he knew that this could not cause him any greater harm (72–82). Second, Piso argued that if he had anything against him, he should bring charges against him and not use the Senate stage to speak against him. Cicero responds by producing evidence to prove the greed and cruelty of Pisos in Macedonia and threatening that he will actually face a lawsuit every day.
Closing words (95–99)
Cicero ends his speech with a verdict on Piso, which is supposed to crush him: Even before a trial has been brought against him, he has been prejudiced, because his reputation is already so damaged that a possible court judgment could no longer punish him more.
Text examples
"Qui latrones igitur, si quidem vos consules, qui praedones, qui hostes, qui proditores, qui tyranni nominabuntur? Magnum nomen est, magna species, magna dignitas, magna maiestas consulis; non capiunt angustiae pectoris tui, non recipit levgestitas ista, animi; non infirmitas ingeni sustinet, non insolentia rerum secundarum tantam personam, tam gravem, tam severam. " (Cic. Pis. 24)
"Who can still be considered a robber when you are called consuls, who is a pirate, an enemy, a traitor, a tyrant? The name is great, the sight great, the dignity great, the consul's majesty great: that transcends them The narrow limits of your understanding are beyond your nothingness; not the poverty of your spirit, not the weakness of your character, not your arrogance in happiness can master a role of such weight, of such severity. "
"O tenebrae, o lutum, o sordes, o paterni generis oblite, materni vix memor! Ita nescio quid istuc fractum, humile, demissum, sordidum, inferius etiam est quam ut Mediolanensi praecone, avo tuo, dignum esse videatur." (Cic. Pis. 62)
"You eyesore, you filth, you shit: you forget your paternal origin, you can hardly remember your maternal origin! Something is so mean about you, so low, so shabby and dirty that it stays below the level of which might have been worthy of the crier of Milan, your grandfather. "
(Translations after Fuhrmann, 2013)
Cicero's possible sources about Piso's life as an Epicurean
When speaking about the way of life of Piso, Cicero refers to a source which he does not name. According to the Cicero commentator Asconius Pedianus , this source is likely to be Philodemos of Gadara. Cicero uses the information in Philodemos' poems. In fact, Piso is mentioned in the epigrams of Philodemus, for example in the epigram Invitation to the Memory of Epicurus . It makes it clear that Piso was an Epicurean, but nothing further is said about his life in the epigram.
aftermath
Piso responded with an invective speech against Cicero. The latter did not reply - probably in order not to draw public interest to Piso's invective. Cicero's invective, however, is unlikely to have done any damage to Piso's reputation - in 50 BC. He became a censor . In literary terms, Cicero influenced the genre of the invective through his tirade of hatred.
Editions and translations
expenditure
- Robin GM Nisbet : M. Tulli Ciceronis in L. Calpurnium Pisonem oratio . Edited with Text, Introduction, and Commentary. Oxford 1961.
- M. Tullius Cicero. M. Tulli Ciceronis Orationes: Recognovit brevique adnotatione critica instruxit Albertus Curtis Clark. Albert Clark. Oxonii. e Typographeo Clarendoniano. 1909. Scriptorum Classicorum Bibliotheca Oxoniensis. (available online on Perseus : Link, with English translation )
Translations
- Manfred Fuhrmann (Ed.): Marcus Tullius Cicero: All speeches . 4th edition. Akademie-Verlag, Berlin 2013, book 6
literature
- Wilhelm Suess : Ethos . Leipzig, Berlin 1910, 245ff., Esp. 259ff.
- BA Marshall: The Date of Delivery of Cicero's In Pisonem . In: Classical Quarterly 69, 1975, pp. 88-93.
- Severin Koster : The invective in Greek and Roman literature . A. Hain, Meisenheim am Glan 1980, ISBN 3-445-11853-1 , pp. 210-281.
Remarks
- ↑ Emanuele Narducci: Introduzione a Cicerone . Laterza, Rome 2005, pp. 120f.
- ^ Karl-Ludwig Elvers: Calpurnius I 19. In: Der Neue Pauly (DNP). Volume 2, Metzler, Stuttgart 1997, ISBN 3-476-01472-X ..
- ↑ Manfred Fuhrmann (Ed.): Marcus Tullius Cicero, all speeches . 4th edition. Akademie-Verlag, Berlin 2013. Book 6, Introduction to the speech against L. Piso, pp. 137–144.
- ↑ ibid, p. 139.
- ↑ ibid. (The structure here is based on Fuhrmann.)
- ↑ Michael Crawford : The Roman Republic . Deutscher Taschenbuch-Verlag, Munich 1984, p. 93.
- ↑ See Anthologia Graeca , Book 11, Poem 44.
- ↑ See Emanuele Narducci : Introduzione a Cicerone . Laterza, Rome 2005, p. 121.
- ↑ Michael von Albrecht : History of Roman literature from Andronicus to Boëthius: with consideration of its importance for the modern age . 4th edition. Deutscher Taschenbuch Verlag, Munich 1997. Volume 1, p. 421.