Killing Romans: Legitimizing Violence in Cicero and Caesar by Jacqueline J. Stimson A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy (Classical Studies) in The University of Michigan 2017 Doctoral Committee: Professor David S. Potter, Chair Professor Jane Chaplin, Middlebury College Professor Arlene W. Saxonhouse Professor Celia E. Schultz Jacqueline J. Stimson [email protected] ORCID iD: 0000-0002-6443-5236 © Jacqueline J. Stimson 2017 Meis Parentibus ii Acknowledgements As overwhelming as the dissertation process is, I am extremely lucky to have had the help of so many wonderful and thoughtful people. First, I owe the greatest debt of gratitude to my adviser, David Potter, for his time, energy, and constant encouragement. In the beginning, he knew when to let me find my way in the darkness, even when it seemed like all I was finding were dead ends, and when to gently nudge me in a productive direction. Throughout, he has been an endless fount of knowledge and scholarship, and unfailingly supportive of my ideas. I have learned so much from him, not only about Roman history, but also the art of articulating and refining arguments. I am also thankful for my other committee members, Celia Schultz, Arlene Saxonhouse, and Jane Chaplin. My dissertation as a whole is stronger because of my meetings with them and their attentive feedback on chapters. They have helped me go outside my comfort zone into new areas of research and exploration, and I am grateful for their support. The resources at the University of Michigan that are free and open to all graduate students are unparalleled. I am grateful for the many workshops and opportunities offered by the Rackham Graduate School, Sweetland Writing Center, and the Center for Research on Learning and Teaching, for they have helped me to define my goals as a writer and a thinker. I particularly want to thank Louis Cicciarelli from the Sweetland Writing Center, who was my writing consultant during the wonderful bootcamp known as the Sweetland Dissertation Writing Institute. He taught me the value of separating content from rhetoric, which was enormously helpful in evaluating the clarity of my writing. His moral support, along with Kelly Slay and my iii DWI workshop group, gave me the push I needed to blaze through the rest of my dissertation and to revise it with a new understanding of what I wanted to accomplish. I would not have survived graduate school without the community of graduate students in the Department of Classical Studies. First, to my cohort, the Third Triumvirate, Amy Pistone and Nick Geller, as well as to my fellow IPGRH cohort, Tim Hart and Tiggy McLaughlin. I am so lucky to have known all of them, and to have spent the past seven years commiserating about classes, exams, and dissertating, as well as celebrating with them the completion of the above. In addition, I want to thank Ellen Lee, Evan Lee, Clara Bosak-Schroeder, and Michael Leese for filling the role of “wise older graduate student” and “older sibling” countless times, and more importantly for being dear friends throughout my time here in Ann Arbor. I will treasure the memories I have made with these wonderful people, and look forward to making more. Living in Michigan, far from my home in Washington, has been an adventure. My parents, siblings, and friends from home have been an invaluable support network. They have been patient of my less-frequent phone calls and Skype sessions, when I have been too busy to talk, and understanding, when I come home only briefly for the holidays and have to spend much of my free time working. Their unwavering belief in me propelled me through many difficult times and I am so thankful for all of them. Finally, I have only love and appreciation for my husband, Drew. Navigating a relationship during graduate school can be tricky, to say the least, but he has made my life infinitely happier and his steadfast support has enabled me to succeed far beyond what I had hoped. This is just the beginning. iv Table of Contents Dedication ii Acknowledgements iii List of Tables vi Abstract vii Introduction 1 CHAPTER I: Cicero in 63 23 CHAPTER II: Cicero and Civil Strife 68 CHAPTER III: Caesar in Gaul 110 CHAPTER IV: Caesar and Civil War 154 CHAPTER V: Rationalizing Violence and Politics 211 Works Cited 240 v List of Tables Table 1. Violent and Graphic Language in the De Bello Gallico 113 Table 2. Violent and Graphic Language in Livy’s Ab Urbe Condita 21-27 116 Table 3. Violent and Graphic Language in the De Bello Civili 159 vi Abstract In this dissertation, I examine Cicero and Caesar’s attitudes towards the legality of executing Roman citizens in the name of the state, with a particular focus on the senatus consultum ultimum (s.c.u.). I argue that their stance on this issue directly corresponded to their political ideology and conception of the Republican government. Moreover, I show that their positions were consistent over the course of their political careers—with Cicero supporting and Caesar condemning such acts of violence—but that they adapted their rhetoric to the changing political situation. The structure of my dissertation highlights this diachronic perspective. In Chapter 1, I explore Cicero’s justification of the s.c.u. in his political speeches of 63 BCE, the height of his career. I argue that his attitude fits his vision of the res publica as a mixed constitution. In Chapter 2, I illustrate that Cicero maintained the same defense of the s.c.u. in speeches from 52 and at the end of his career in 44-43, but his justifications and rhetoric shifted. In Chapter 3, I show that Caesar’s rhetorical strategy of suppressing violence in his account of the Gallic wars (58-52) was consistent with his general condemnation of decrees like the s.c.u. and the image he creates of himself as the ideal leader of Rome. I argue that his attitude aligned with his view of the res publica as the Roman people, whose rights must be protected above all. In Chapter 4, I examine his account of the civil war with Pompey (49-48), and show that his strategy of placing blame for Roman deaths on the Pompeians was integral to his political ideology and constructed image as a champion of the people. Chapter 5 concludes the Roman period and looks forward at the reception of these ideas in Machiavelli, Locke, and the Federalists. vii Introduction The last century of the Roman Republic can be characterized as a series of extreme or extraordinary circumstances, a time when there were an unusual number of powerful individuals at Rome, unprecedented powers granted to those men, and a marked increase in civil violence. The inability of the Republican government to adequately control any of these elements hastened its decline and eventual transformation into an Empire under Augustus. One particular phenomenon of the Late Republic that encapsulated each of these elements was the so-called senatus consultum ultimum (s.c.u.), a decree of the senate which almost always preceded the killing of prominent Romans.1 This “final” or “last” decree of the senate was purportedly created to protect the state from domestic threats. Its use was hotly debated, however, for subsequent actions done in the name of this decree frequently violated the right to a trial guaranteed to all Roman citizens. Precariously perched at the intersection of violence and politics, the s.c.u. illustrates a major division in Roman politics. In this dissertation, I examine how the killing of Romans was both condoned and condemned by two Romans who were at the center of this debate: Marcus Tullius Cicero and Gaius Julius Caesar. I argue that their stance towards this controversial measure directly corresponded to their political ideology and conception of the Republican government. Moreover, I show that their positions were consistent over the course of their political careers—with Cicero supporting and Caesar condemning such acts of violence— but that they adapted their rhetoric to the changing political situation. In highlighting this 1 Although it was Caesar who dubbed it the senatus consultum ultimum in reference to the decree passed against him in 49 (BC 1.5.3), the title has nevertheless stuck because it represents the last resort measure for the senate, and one that heralded the end of the Republic. 1 connection between violence and politics, I hope to illustrate how this pattern is not only intrinsic to our understanding of the end of the Republic, but is also an enduring and inevitable facet of non-authoritarian governments. Violence and the Late Republic Certain legal measures existed for emergency situations in the Republic: tumultus, an emergency levy raised to meet immediate attacks on the city, and iustitium, the suspension of all business not pertaining to war.2 In both cases, these declarations had been historically used for external enemies (hostes) whose armies were directly threatening Rome. The dictatorship, which in its original form lasted from 501 to 202 BCE,3 was the final measure in protecting the welfare of the state and its job was quite specific: once appointed, the dictator would pick a magister equitum, lead the army out to meet the enemy, and upon successful completion of the war, abdicate his powers. In other cases, dictators would be called to fulfill the duties of a consul, such as holding elections, choosing senators, and occasionally dealing with internal strife.4 Despite the extraordinary powers conferred onto this individual, which separated them from the usual Roman magistrates, the dictatorship in the early and mid-Republic was a highly regularized and unproblematic institution.5 The murders of first Tiberius Gracchus in 133 and then Gaius Gracchus in 121 set into 2 G.