Cicero's Death

[theilian]

Hi, I got interested in Roman history thanks to HBO series Rome (sigh, I know), and I am still learning. I've been focusing on Cicero especially. Recently with his death on the series, I've been paying attention to the ancient accounts of his death and reception by the later Romans, and noticed a few things that might illustrate how 'fact's of history may change over time. So here is my rather inadequate thought:

 

When Cicero's head and hand(s) were nailed on the rostra, this was witnessed by tens of thousands of people. But for some reason, there is a great deal of confusion as to how many hands were nailed. Why?

 

There are at least 6 surviving accounts of Cicero's death. According to Livy, Cicero lost both hands, but according to Appian, Dio(see bottom of Livy page), and V. Maximus(middle of Livy page), they cut off 1 hand. Plutarch(lower part of Livy page) has it both ways, saying 2 hands in Cicero biography but 1 hand in Antony biography. In a poem (Latin) by C. Severus, it's 2 hands.

What's interesting is that if you look at them chronologically, in the earliest versions(Severus and Livy), it's 2 hands. In the next earliest (Maximus), it's 1 hand. In Plutarch, it's both 1 and 2 hands, and then in later histories(Appian and Dio), they all become one right hand.

 

What's more interesting is that in the earliest version, Severus' poem, hands may not have been even associated with oratory. I don't know Latin, but hands are described as "servants of such great deeds", that is the opposition to Antony, oration being subjugated to the 'act'. But by the time of Livy, which is 30-40 years later (I think), two hands come to mean writing against Antony. In Plutarch, both 2 hand (with oratorical connotaton) and 1 hand (literary connation) are maintained, and in later stories, they become the right hand that wrote Philippic and loses oratical connotation altogheter.

 

My thesis is that as image of Cicero is changed from that of statesman against Antony, to performing orator, and then to literary writer, in the process of molding these images, one certain detail of historical fact is changed. (So, it seems that two hands being nailed was the historical fact)

 

But furthermore, the account of Cicero's death seems to have been further corrupted by rhetorical exercises at Roman oratory schools. From Seneca the Elder, we learn that Cicero's death was very popular topic for oratorical declamation. And it seems that the declaimers in their enthusiasm for praising Cicero and denouncing his killers, added stories which later may have been picked up by historians. (In case of Vellieus' account, described right below Livy, the author even breaks off from his historical narrative to adopt declamatory tone condemning Antony personally.)

 

For instance, I read that Seneca the Elder criticized declaimers for assuming that Popilius was the assassin, having previously defended by Cicero on a charge of parricide. By the time of Plutarch, it's an established fact that Popillius is one of the assassins along with Herennius, who is the actual killer. By the time of Appian, Popilius is the sole assassin who saws off Cicero's head.

And maybe such declaiming is the source of other dubious details such as betrayal of ex-slave of Cicero's brother, which is rejected even by Plutarch. This reappears in another form in Appian, where Cicero is betrayed by Clodius' client.

 

And I think that the popular story that Fulvia stabbed Cicero's tongue with hairpin is same type of fiction because Cassius Dio (chronologically the last) is the only writer who mentions this. Surely, if it really happend, considering the prominence of Fulvia and symbolism of tongue, earlier authors would have mentoned the story.

 

Also seeing Antony's reaction in these accounts is interesting. In Livy, his reaction is not described at all. In Plutarch, Antony is shown to be much pleased saying: "Now let our proscriptions have an end."

Then in Appian, "It is said that even at his meals Antony placed the head of Cicero before his table, until he became satiated with the horrid sight." By the time of Dio, Antony is not enough, so Fulvia appears with her hairpin.

 

So Livy's account is probably the least corrupted. Livy even mentions that Cicero had it coming to him because he would have destroyed Antony if he could. In all later accounts, Cicero's death is divorced from political situation and he is basically depicted as an innocent victim, which he became as Cicero the politician was forgotten and Cicero the writer is remembered. Dio, even though hostile to Cicero, seems to reflect this by adopting 1 hand theory.

 

Sorry for long post, I hope I didn't waste your time, but I think it raises question about how much we can trust our ancient sources. So learned friends, what's your opinion on this?

 

If anyone knows some other account of Cicero's death that I am not aware of, please let me know.

 

For the reference, timeline of the authors

 

Cicero's death - Dec. 7, 43BC

Cornelius Severus fl. 38BC

Livy 59BC - 17AD

Seneca Elder 54BC - 39AD

Valerius Maximus c. 20BC - c. 50AD

Velleius Paterculus c. 19BC - c. AD31

Plutarch 46AD - 127 AD

Appian 95AD - 165AD

Cassius Dio 155AD - 229AD

[M. Porcius Cato]

Nice post. Details on the death of Cicero have always been problematic, and your suggestion that an interest in oratory might explain some of these discrepancies is an interesting (and, I think, original) idea.

 

Another view is that later writers (e.g., Livy and Plutarch) depended on three lost sources: a Vita by Cicero's secretary Tiro, another by Nepos, and the histories of Pollio, who was a partisan of Antony. As you might expect, Pollio's histories were often regarded with suspicion (see esp Seneca's criticism of Pollio's claims about Cicero). It's also noteworthy that Cicero's defense of Popillius is attested to at least in six different sources, yet all mentions of the case appear in the context of Cicero's death and they are not consistent about the background of this shadowy figure (suggesting that it might have been added for color). In any case, differences between Pollio and Tiro may be the source of later discrepancies.

 

For further material on Cicero's death, there are also the declamations of Capito, Haterius, Murredius, and the histories of Cremutius Cordus and Bruttedius Niger.

[theilian]

Thank you for kind words.

 

I find the story of Cicero's death and subsequent retelling interesting because I feel like I can see the process of fiction entering history. How accurate this view woluld be, I don't know.

 

I also find the story of Popillius interesting. He's said to be a parricide, then exactly how many parricide case did Cicero defend?! I think it's possible that this detail was added to Popilius from famous parricide case which made Cicero famous, Roscio of Ameria .

Also I have no idea in what context Seneca disputes him being assassin, and would like to know more about that. I heard of the declamations of Cremutius Cordus and Bruttedius Niger.

 

In any case, I doubt I can go much farther into this amateur 'research' because I don't know no Latin.

[Primus Pilus]

Forgive a bit of a tangent away from the history of the events and a general commentary on the historians in question. The written word is always influenced in some small part by politics and sentiments of an era. The ancients were no different in this regard, and may have been much more susceptible in certain cases due to the lack of professional historical study as we understand it today. The writing of history was not considered to be an exact science, and in addition to the presentation of the past, it could also be an influential tool.

 

I hope I didn't waste your time, but I think it raises question about how much we can trust our ancient sources.

 

It's not a waste of time in the slightest and what you've done in this analysis is really answer your own question. Yes, we can trust the basic idea presented, but we often have to try to decipher the actual truth from embellishment for effect, symbolism for political safety, and outright falsehoods to drive an agenda.

 

Notice that the story of Cicero's death doesn't really change, only the details and dramatics. In many cases the writers listed use the previous authors as resources in their own accounts. Compare the death of Caesar to the death of Cicero. The base account of who, why, when and where is largely the same throughout the sources, but there are several differences in the details based perhaps on the author's agenda, or the simple idea that he trusted one source over another.

 

The late republic was as volatile a topic to the ancient sources as it remains today. Each had a different perspective or used a source with differing perspectives. It's not fair to discount the truth of any particular source because it differs from others, but it is fair to compare and evaluate all the evidence to find a reasonable concept of what the complete truth may be, just as you've done with your analysis.

 

Consider this simple modern analogy. There will be literally thousands of books written about GW Bush, the Iraq War, Terrorism etc. Each will have it's own agenda or perspective from support to condemnation and everything in between including even possible objectivity. In 2,000 years, historians will struggle to find the real truth when in actuality, each may have been telling the truth as they knew it. Perhaps all are wrong, perhaps all are right, or perhaps truth lies somewhere in a middle commonality. For me, it's part of what makes studying history so much fun.

[theilian]

Pilus, I agree with you. The main part of Cicero's death remains same throught the stories. It's really small parts where embellisment (I think) seem to appear.

But I think it's remarkable that 2 hands become 1 hand in the history of narrative. And I think the perspective of the time has influenced this change.

 

Perhaps all are wrong, perhaps all are right, or perhaps truth lies somewhere in a middle commonality. For me, it's part of what makes studying history so much fun.

Totally agree. It amazes me how many of us have so different interpretation of the events. And it's really fun to try truth behind all the polemics and prejudices. Here, in small ways, I feel somewhat like a detective trying to find what really happened on that Dec. 7, 43BC even though these are admittedly only a minor detail.

 

So on the light topic, do you think that Fulvia really hacked Cicero's tongue wiht hairpin?

[theilian]

Another view is that later writers (e.g., Livy and Plutarch) depended on three lost sources: a Vita by Cicero's secretary Tiro, another by Nepos, and the histories of Pollio, who was a partisan of Antony. As you might expect, Pollio's histories were often regarded with suspicion (see esp Seneca's criticism of Pollio's claims about Cicero).

Yes, this complicates the narrative. Especially, I find it interesting that Plutarch discounts a story that Cicero was betrayed by freed slave of Quintus Cicero by saying that Tiro does not mention it. So how much of Plutarch's story is from Tiro? Is Popilius story attested by Tiro? I guess there is no way to know. (There is very dubious story of crows helping Cicero in Plutarch - and repeated by Appian - this is probably from Tiro, I'd imagine.)

 

It's also noteworthy that Cicero's defense of Popillius is attested to at least in six different sources

MPC, do you know which of those sources are other than Maximus, Plutarch, and Appian? I'd be very interested to know.

Edited February 23, 2007 by theilian

[Primus Pilus]

So on the light topic, do you think that Fulvia really hacked Cicero's tongue with hairpin?

 

I suppose it's entirely possible though unlikely considering the absence of earlier confirmation. However Dio does have a certain flair in expressing the brutality of Antony and his wife. (I love Dio's work, though I can generally do without the long winded monologues he conjured up.)

[M. Porcius Cato]

It's also noteworthy that Cicero's defense of Popillius is attested to at least in six different sources

MPC, do you know which of those sources are other than Maximus, Plutarch, and Appian? I'd be very interested to know.

 

Best I recall, both Seneca and Dio mention Popillius.

[theilian]

Since posting this, I came across an article 'Color-Blindness: Cicero's Death, Declamation, and the Production of History' by Matthew B. Roller

 

So not so original idea, but hand theory is still mine

In fact, I was thrilled to be vindicated in my little detective work.

 

Anyway, Roller believes that declamation tradition on the theme of Cicero's death started at least in early Augustan era if not triumviral period. This puts declamatory tradtion much earlier than I thought - contemporary if not earlier than historical accounts by Tiro, Nepos, and Pollio. If so, one would imagine that influence of declamation on subsequent historical account (Plutarch and since) on Cicero's death would be even more pervasive. According to Roller, imperial imaging of Cicero was being shaped within at most a generation of the event itself.

 

Also particularly interesting is declamation about Cicero's killer, Popillius, which became a separate theme of its own from death-of-Cicero themes.

Popillius appears in various (at least 7) accounts of history and is thoroughly co-opted into history. In Plutarch, we learn that Popillius was a parricide who was successfully defended by Cicero, and we know from Seneca the Elder, Popillius the parricide was already current in declamaton.

But Seneca, after checking declamation traditon against historiographical accounts, surmised that the charge of parricide is declamatory fabrication.

Roller goes further and suggests that entire tradition that Cicero defended Popillius at all, on any charge, is a fabrication created in declamation noting that his name appears only in connection with death-of-Cicero tradition.

 

As Roller notes, for instance, in Livy and Bruttedius's accounts, Popillius is a legionary soldier and Bassus calls him a veteran. All these suggest a humble origin of Cicero's killer. However, by Plutarch's time, he becomes a military tribune, an aristocratic position. In later accounts (Appian, Dio, Maximus), Popillius gains a cognomen 'Laenas', also suggesting aristocratic origin (though Appian says he's a centurion, which is unlikely to be held by an aristocrat). In either case, it is unlikely that a humble legionary would have been defended by Cicero and if the killer was significant enough to be defended by Cicero, there would be more reference to the trial outside the death-of-Cicero tradition.

 

Roller doesn't mention this, but I'd like to note: His actions (like Antony's reaction to Cicero's head) also become more outrageous with each retelling. In Maximus, he is described to carry out Antony's order with joy and gladness. In Appian, he becomes even incompetent "drew his head out of the litter and cut it off, striking it three times, or rather sawing it off by reason of his inexperience". (Gory details for the sake of pathos is also one of hallmarks of declamation.)

In Dio's narration, he even builds "a statue of himself "a statue of himself sitting crowned beside his victim's head, with an inscription that recorded his name and his deed."

This progression in Popillus' villany is mirrored likewise in Antony's reaction to Cicero's head as I mentioned before.

 

I find all this fascinating because it allows us to see the probable process by which a historical fact is embellished further and further and becomes more of a stuff of legend.

[caldrail]

One thing to be aware of is that roman historians were storytellers first and historians second. If they wanted to emphasise a particular point its not unusual for them to twist or invent an anecdote to fit. For the romans history is sometimes seen as a dry dull subject just as is today, so the roman historian wants to have his work read and therefore injects some measure of entertainment or interesting prose. On the other hand, its also possible they're relating verbal tales ad verbatim which were embellished by someone else.

[theilian]

One thing to be aware of is that roman historians were storytellers first and historians second. If they wanted to emphasise a particular point its not unusual for them to twist or invent an anecdote to fit. For the romans history is sometimes seen as a dry dull subject just as is today, so the roman historian wants to have his work read and therefore injects some measure of entertainment or interesting prose. On the other hand, its also possible they're relating verbal tales ad verbatim which were embellished by someone else.

 

I guess we just have to accept that. But what I find interesting about Cicero's death is that I think it shows us the process in which embellishments were added. I'm yet divided as to how applicable this would be to other historical accounts.

 

About history being dull subject, I wouldn't think so, but apparently it was so in Seneca the Elder's time. He uses metaphor of needing to feed medicine by couching it with honey, medicine being history and honey being declamation. So declamation was possibly bigger part of history that we'd usually imagine.