Connolly Disticha Catonis Uticensis

Disticha Catonis Uticensis Author(s): Serena Connolly Source: Classical Philology, Vol. 107, No. 2 (April 2012), pp. 119-130 Published by: University of Chicago Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/664027 Accessed: 22-02-2016 22:16 UTC Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/ info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org. University of Chicago Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Classical Philology. http://www.jstor.org This content downloaded from 128.6.37.110 on Mon, 22 Feb 2016 22:16:05 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Disticha catonis Uticensis serena connolly s CHOLARSHIP ON THE DATE and authorship of the Disticha Catonis has stalled. While scholars now believe that a date sometime around 100 C.E. is likely, the signiicance of that date has not been explored; and while there has long been a consensus that “Cato” was not the author (i.e., the actual writer) of the Disticha, but was rather their auctor (or authorizing source), the identity of that Cato has not been properly considered. in both cases, an opportunity for a deeper understanding of the collection is being missed. There is good reason to suggest that the Disticha Catonis date to sometime in the irst century C.E. and that the Cato of the collection’s title is not Cato Censorius, as is usually assumed, but Cato Uticensis. The latter was one of the most signiicant political and cultural igures of that century— more so than his grandfather—and attribution of the collection to him helps to explain why it is broadly stoic in content. The attribution also provides additional support for dating the collection in the irst century C.E., which is suggested by external epigraphic evidence. This paper is divided into two parts: the irst concerns the possible connection between the Disticha and Cato Uticensis; the second is an examination of a particular maxim that may ofer support for composition in the irst century. i dates for the Disticha have ranged over the second and third centuries, and even into the fourth. Joseph Justus scaliger, for example, suggested that a date in the reigns of Commodus and severus was likely, while Marcus Boas, the preeminent authority on the Disticha in the twentieth century, proposed a date around 300 C.E. Yet during the last century, the tendency has been to suggest a rough date or terminus ante quem usually of 200 C.E., though a few scholars still prefer to push it later by a century. 1 Most attempts at dating have i am delighted to acknowledge the support of the institute for Advanced study, where i began work on this article, and the Mellon Foundation for a Fellowship for Assistant professors. i am also grateful to the editor for her patience and many suggestions, which have improved the piece considerably, and to the anonymous referees for their constructive comments. Any remaining errors are entirely my own. 1. scholars proposing a terminus ante quem of 200 C.E. include skutsch (RE, s.v. Dicta Catonis, col. 358) and Hazelton (1956, viii). Boas (1932, 178–79) proposes a date around 300 C.E. on the basis of the so-called Allia potestas inscription (CIL Vi 37965 = Carm. epigr. 1988) (though the lexical sharing that Boas perceives is now disputed by Horsfall 1985, 272); two other inscriptions, Carm. epigr. 857 and Carm. epigr. 1567 (though recent studies rule out any precise dating); and a reminiscence in lactantius. Most recently, Morgan (2007, 87) believes that the collection dates to the third century. Classical Philology 107 (2012): 119–30 [© 2012 by The University of Chicago. All rights reserved] 0009-837X/12/10702-0002$10.00 119 This content downloaded from 128.6.37.110 on Mon, 22 Feb 2016 22:16:05 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 120 SERENA CONNOLLY been based on a series of quotations from the Disticha found in Commodian and a funerary inscription. Though Commodian’s dates have themselves been subject to debate, the current consensus is the middle of the third century, which gives the Disticha a possible terminus ante quem of approximately 250 C.E. The funerary inscription, CIL Vi 11252 (= Carm. epigr. 756 adn. = Carm. epigr. 1567), is also of unknown date, though the opinions of recent scholars are converging on a date of roughly 100 C.E., which would then push the Disticha into the irst century. Further support may come from meter. A comparison of the metrical patterns used in the Disticha with those employed in a range of other hexameter texts dating as late as the sixth century reveals that the predilections of the collection’s author in this regard are most similar to Cicero’s and Germanicus’ Aratea and their fragments, Manilius’ Astronomica, Vergil’s Georgics, and, in particular, the Aeneid. The fact that most of these works cluster around the start of the irst century C.E. might point to a contemporary date for the Disticha also. 2 While ancient titles are notoriously diicult, it is highly likely that Catonis (vel sim.) was in the collection’s title when it irst circulated: quoting one of the collection’s maxims, a fourth-century letter describes it as illud Catonis. 3 There are, of course, two Catos, and from the Accessus ad auctores of the twelfth century to John and Arnold duf’s loeb in the twentieth, a connection has been made to Cato Censorius, usually to deny his authorship, while crediting his inluence as the writer of didactic and moralizing texts—though not to Cato Uticensis. 4 A connection to Cato Censorius has no ancient authority, but as author of the Ad ilium, most likely a collection of sayings and advice, and the De moribus, Cato Censorius was a source of wisdom—like the Disticha. 5 The Ad ilium, in particular, as a founding text in the Roman moralistic and didactic tradition, may have acted as a model for the Disticha, though not on the level of form. Moreover, Cato Censorius’ reputation for wisdom was well established, thanks especially to texts such as Cicero’s De senectute, and his association with the Disticha therefore had good grounds. His familial relationship with Cato Uticensis was another contributing factor, given the importance to Romans of kinship traditions. so, for example, sallust, being circumspect in his praise of Cato Uticensis, compares him and Julius Caesar with Cato Censorius in order to demonstrate that the virtue of the earlier Republic had “fragmented” by the time of the Civil Wars; yet the fact that Cato 2. on the signiicance of Commodian and the epigraphical evidence for dating the Disticha, see Boas 1952, lxxii–lxxiii; poinsotte 2009, xv. on the dating of CIL Vi 11252, see, e.g., newman 1972, 1495, who suggests the reign of Hadrian as a terminus ante quem on the basis of an unelaborated personal communication, and more recently Massaro 2007, 279, who dates the inscription to the end of the irst century—though frustratingly also without an explanation. (The entry in CIL does not venture a date.) 3. The letter was written by the physician-writer Vindicianus to the emperor Valentinian ii and is preserved in the preface to Marcellus empiricus’ (or Burdigalensis’) De medicamentis. 4. Valerius Cato, the poet and grammarian of the late irst century B.C.E., was not related to the Catos Censorius and Uticensis and is probably unconnected with the Disticha: the favored metrical patterns of the Disticha are quite diferent from those of the Dirae and Lydia, poems that have been ascribed to him. scholars’ attempts to ascribe the Disticha to an otherwise unknown dionysius Cato are thoroughly rebufed in Boas 1930. 5. on the Ad ilium, see especially Astin 1978, 183. The Carmen de moribus was another moralizing text in prose, of which three fragments survive in Gell. NA 11.2 (on which see, e.g., Astin 1978, 186). This content downloaded from 128.6.37.110 on Mon, 22 Feb 2016 22:16:05 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions DISTICHA CATONIS UTICENSIS 121 Uticensis’ speech (Cat. 52) is couched in the language and sentiments of his grandfather perhaps demonstrates that his reputation for virtue was built not only on his own actions, but those of his ancestor too. 6 Finally, the maxims’ simple and straightforward wisdom is more reminiscent of Cato Censorius than of his grandson, who may have been associated with paradoxical views thanks to Cicero’s Pro Murena and the Paradoxa Stoicorum, for example. But the connection should not be pushed further. While the Epistula that precedes the maxims dedicates the collection to a son in an echo of the Ad ilium, ilial dedications are common in the epistolary prefaces to works of paraenesis or philosophy, and so the Epistula—if it is genuine—does not necessitate a connection with Cato Censorius. if the letter is a later addition, its author may have wrongly associated the collection with Cato Censorius. Moreover, the verse couplet form of the maxims is unlike anything he wrote, and their stoic bent is anachronistic. They have no advice on politics, military or foreign afairs, or the inluence of Hellenism—all stereotypical concerns of Cato Censorius—and only one maxim warns against luxury; instead, they ofer advice that centers on oneself, family, friends, and the wider community. As Thomas Habinek notes, while republican notions of virtue emphasized military conduct, virtue in the principate became more focused on the civilian sphere and especially the role of the individual in it. 7 Cato Censorius, the renowned statesman and soldier, was a paragon of republican virtue, but was less suitable as model for the principate or as the supposed author for the Disticha. More suitable would be an exemplar closer in time to the principate with a virtue less rooted in earlier republican ideals. i suggest that the collection was connected with Cato Uticensis instead. While this possibility has not been seriously explored by scholars, Cato Uticensis was also a igure of moral authority and he was in the social consciousness during the irst century more so than was his grandfather. soon after his death at Utica, he became a touchstone in the political struggles of the late Republic and continued to loom large in the literature of the early principate. The end of the Republic saw Cicero’s Laus Catonis and Julius Caesar’s two Anti Catones in reply, and an important role for Cato in sallust’s Bellum Catilinae. if, as has been suggested, the speeches that sallust puts into the mouths of Cato and Caesar are not so much relections of their views as of sallust’s own internal conlicts, Cato was becoming a igure who was good to think with. 8 With the establishment of the principate and emergence of an opposition to it, Munatius Rufus and Thrasea paetus’ biographies (both lost) and lucan’s heroizing depiction contributed to and prolonged Cato’s political afterlife; seneca even proclaimed, neque . . . Cato post libertatem vixit nec libertas post Catonem. 9 Cato’s signiicance in the irst century is 6. on this episode, see levene 2000, 182–90. 7. Habinek 2000, 265–66, 288–92, and 297–300. 8. on posthumous depictions of and references to Cato and their uses, see especially pecchiura 1965 and Goar 1987. on Cicero’s Cato and Caesar’s Anticatones, see, e.g., Tschiedel 1981. Hirtius also wrote a work disparaging Cato (RE, s.v. M. porcius Cato Uticensis, col. 206). on Cato in sallust, see sklenár 1998. 9. on the treatment and use of Cato in Munatius Rufus and Thrasea paetus’ biographies, see Geiger 1979; in lucan’s Pharsalia, see (among many others) leigh 2000; and in seneca, see Alexander 1946. The quotation comes from sen. Constant. 2.2; seneca also praised Cato as ille virtutum viva imago (Tranq. 16.1). This content downloaded from 128.6.37.110 on Mon, 22 Feb 2016 22:16:05 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 122 SERENA CONNOLLY further illustrated by the fact that Tacitus sets his Dialogus in the aftermath of senator Curiatius Maternus’ public reading of his tragedy Cato in about 75 C.E. 10 According to Tacitus, his Cato’s thinly veiled criticism of the principate so aroused the displeasure of the imperial court that Maternus’ friends M. Aper and Julius secundus visited him asking him to write an expurgated version. Maternus refused and went on to compose further politically motivated plays—his output included Domitius, Thyestes, Medea, and perhaps even a Nero—that may have resulted in his death. 11 Admiration of Cato was also one factor in the banishments and eventual death of Helvidius priscus, son-in-law of paetus and another prominent opposition igure. 12 The Disticha ofer uncontroversial advice on family relationships, friends, reputation, money, and death, all topics typical in ancient paraenesis. But a common thread runs through them: that the reader needs to protect himself in a world illed with potential enemies. such paranoia would be well placed in the late Republic and early empire, and Cato Uticensis would be an apt guide. Given the continued controversy surrounding Cato through the irst century, it is no wonder that the collection is anonymous. But while Cato Uticensis was a hero of the Republic, his connection need not make this a pro-republican collection. Augustus praised Cato, perhaps in his Rescripta Bruto de Catone; their content and tenor are unknown, though Ronald syme believes that they were “a sermon on stable government,” with Cato as the paragon of constancy. 13 Velleius paterculus and Valerius Maximus joined in the praise. 14 Cato’s virtue derived in part from his defense of liberty—freedom from another’s control—which transcended Republicanism and, as even Augustus’ support demonstrates, attracted wide admiration. Moreover, while prominent stoics joined the opposition to the principate, stoicism was apolitical. so, as Andrew Gallia claims, for stoics “Cato was more likely to be revered as an exemplum of personal integrity and stoic resolve than for the intransigence of his political principles,” and Gallia posits that it was neither the title nor subject matter of Curiatius Maternus’ play that caused ofense, but rather passages that criticized particular members of the imperial court. 15 peter Brunt emphasizes stoics’ admiration for Cato’s “rectitude and consistency” rather than his political position, and downplays the conlation of stoicism and Republicanism in the irst century; rather, “stoics as such had 10. on the date, see Gallia 2009, 177 n. 23. 11. Tac. Dial. 2.1: Nam postero die quam Curiatius Maternus Catonem recitaverat, cum ofendisse potentium animos diceretur, tamquam in eo tragoediae argumento sui oblitus tantum Catonem cogitasset. Maternus’ identity and fate are unclear: some believe he perished as a result of his writing (e.g., Cameron 1967), while others (including syme 1982–83, 255–56) counter that this conlates two separate individuals. on the political signiicance of the Cato, see Gallia 2009. 12. Tac. Hist. 4.8.3: denique constantia fortitudine Catonibus et Brutis aequaretur Helvidius: se unum esse ex illo senatu, qui simul servierit (a statement that Tacitus puts into the mouth of Marcellus). on his banishments by nero, see Tac. Ann. 16.33.2; on his banishment and execution by Vespasian, see suet. Vesp. 15 and Cass. dio 65.12.2–3. 13. Macrob. Sat. 2.4.18 records that Augustus praised Cato. The Rescripta Bruto de Catone are referenced only in suet. Aug. 85.1; the quotation is from syme 1979, 210. 14. Velleius paterculus’ description is at 2.35.2; on his depiction of Cato, see pecchiura 1965, 53–58. petronius also lauded Cato in Sat. 119.45–50. on Cato as a igure lauded by supporters of the principate, as well as its opponents, see, e.g., pecchiura 1965, 38 and 40–44. 15. Gallia 2009, 194–97 (quotation on 196). This content downloaded from 128.6.37.110 on Mon, 22 Feb 2016 22:16:05 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions DISTICHA CATONIS UTICENSIS 123 no theoretical preference for any particular form of government, monarchical or Republican.” 16 John percival reminds us that though being an admirer of Cato and other heroes of the Republic did not necessarily signal support of Republicanism, the accusation was leveled at Thrasea paetus and others by their political opponents; what admiration they did have for these igures tended to be “vague, partial, and above all sentimental.” 17 so to Valerius Maximus, Cato was simply a igure of virtue, whose death was clarissimus; to Manilius, a stoic himself, Cato is the fortunae victor, a stoic hero; for both writers, he is divorced from his political context. 18 Moreover, even works by non-stoic authors were imbued with notions that seem stoic, and whether such notions were deliberately or coincidentally stoic is not always clear. if they are not part of a sustained philosophical argument, these notions may not obviously belong to one school rather than another: witness, for example, the disagreements of Michael putnam and Karl Galinsky over the philosophies that may have inluenced the ending of the Aeneid. 19 so the attribution to Cato may be coincidental with the apparent stoicism of the collection and independent of it. Cato was not only a igure of virtue in the world of politics, but also more widely a source of courage and wisdom. illustrious deaths, a source of great interest to Romans, were the inal act of illustrious men, and Cato, whose posthumous reputation rested largely on the exemplarity of his suicide, was counted among them. 20 At the same time, the sayings of illustrious men were also highly prized (witness Valerius Maximus’ collection), and it is no surprise to ind several collections of sayings attributed to great men who sufered noble deaths, including Cicero and seneca. 21 Cato was a natural addition to the group. There are sententiae scattered throughout plutarch’s life of Cato, as beits an ancient biography, though we know of no (other) collection that belonged or was ascribed to him. 22 He was a speaker of divine words: when lucan’s Brutus refers to Cato as his guide, Cato responds with sacras . . . voces, and he is later described as deo plenus, tacita quem mente 16. Brunt 1975, 9–31. 17. percival 1980, 122–24. 18. Val. Max. 3.2.14; he also discusses Cato at 2.10.8, 6.2.5, and 7.5.6. Manilius, Astronomica 1.797; at Astronomica 4.87 he is invictum devicta morte Catonem. According to Gowing (2005, 76–79), seneca also viewed Cato outside of his political context. 19. on accidental stoicism, see Gill 2003, 57–58. on the Aeneid, see putnam 1990 and Galinsky 1994. 20. on Cato’s exemplary death, see most recently edwards 2007, 1–5 and 154–59. 21. Gaius Fannius and Titinius Capito are known to have written collections of exitus virorum illustrium. on the interrelation of such collections and accounts of Cato’s and seneca’s deaths, see especially Ker 2009, 53–57. The witticisms of Cicero were apparently collected by Tiro (Quint. Inst. 6.3.5; Macrob. Sat. 2.1.12), Trebonius (Cic. Fam. 15.21.1–3), and Furius Bibaculus. The pseudepigraphical Liber Senecae (or Proverbia Senecae) comprises sententiae of publilius syrus followed by brief statements from the De moribus, a text attributed to seneca. 22. All we know of Cato’s writings are a single speech that still existed in plutarch’s time (plut. Vit. Cat. Min. 23) and some Archilochian iambics that he apparently directed at Metellus scipio for marrying his iancée (plut. Vit. Cat. Min. 7). Cic. Att. 12.4.2 mentions sententiis eius dictis, but inclusion of the participle and the closeness in time of the letter to Cato’s death may indicate that Cicero is referring to opinions as well as phrases from Cato’s speeches, as opposed to a written and circulating collection of apophthegmata culled from various sources. on the use of dicere to denote delivery of a speech, see TLL, s.v. dico i.B.1–2. This content downloaded from 128.6.37.110 on Mon, 22 Feb 2016 22:16:05 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 124 SERENA CONNOLLY gerebat. 23 He was accorded divinity by Cicero (divino ac singulari viro) in the De inibus, probably for his strong defense of his philosophical beliefs— Cato even promises at the close of Book 4 to refute Cicero’s arguments when they next meet—and therefore more widely for his unwillingness to compromise his ideals. Velleius paterculus joined Cicero in his admiration (per omnia ingenio diis quam hominibus propior), and lucan equated him with the gods: 24 . . . per quem numquam iurare pudebit, et quem, si steteris umquam cervice soluta, tunc, olim, factura deum. You will never be ashamed to ofer a vow in his name, and if ever you stand with neck unshackled, at that time then you will make him a god. He was a lawgiver, too: Vergil included dantem iura Catonem on Aeneas’ shield. 25 And inally, as we know from several extant comparisons made with socrates, some also regarded Cato as a philosopher. 26 it is unsurprising, then, that Cato, a igure of authority and wisdom, became a ixture in rhetorical school declamations. He was, according to seneca, maximum vivendi moriendique exemplum, and school pupils learned by heart his dying words. 27 A collection of easily memorable maxims attributed to the same Cato would be a useful and popular educational aid. Toward the end of the irst century, Cato appears in a number of Martial’s epigrams, including 1.8, whose reference to magni Thraseae consummatique Catonis / dogmata (lines 1–2) might refer to the collection of Thrasea paetus’ dicta and to the Disticha Catonis. 28 in 6.32.5–6, otho’s death is compared to that of Cato (sit Cato, dum vivit, sane vel Caesare maior: / dum moritur, numquid maior Othone fuit?), leading Robert Goar to posit that otho followed Cato’s model in death. 29 Martial’s treatment of Cato, by turns ironic and laudatory—yet in comparisons with otho meant to aggrandize the em23. Cato as Brutus’ guide: luc. 2.242–45; Cato’s response: 2.285; the description of Cato is from 9.564. lucretius called democritus’ words divine (5.622: Democriti quod sancta viri sententia ponit) and lucilius (frag. 1316) described an utterance of fellow satirist Valerius Valentinus as a sententia dia. Horace (Sat. 1.2.32) called one of Cato Censorius’ sayings a dia sententia, albeit parodically, perhaps in imitation of lucilius. The interrelationship between wisdom, virtue, and divine words is also pointed out by philo, Quaestiones in Genesim 4.99 (SVF 3.592). plutarch (Vit. Cat. Min. 4.2) describes Cato Uticensis as a man of few words and modest in his rhetoric. 24. luc. 9.602–4; see also 1.128. Cic. Fin. 3.6; Vell. pat. 2.35. 25. Verg. Aen 8.670; Gurval (1995, 229) notes that Cato Uticensis is meant here, though the reader was probably meant also to think of his grandfather. 26. The similarities between the deaths of socrates and Cato are discussed by Cic. Tusc. 1.74 and alluded to in plut. Vit. Cat. Min., on which see Geiger 1999, 357–60. An inscription (AE 1927, 121 = paribeni 1926, 284) directs the viewer to the Socratis os (habitumque) et vivida corda Catonis depicted on the double bust that presumably accompanied it. on this inscription, see especially Geiger 1999, 360–64. 27. The quotation is from sen. Suas. 6.2. in one example, from seneca’s Controversiae, students of declamation are posed with the following: Servus tortus Catonem conscium furti dixit. quid agitis? utrum plus creditis tormentis an Catoni? (sen. Controv. 9.6.7). According to Quintilian, an uxor . . . Catoni ducenda was a potential topic for a suasoria (Inst. 3.5.8). For further examples of the use of Cato in education, see, e.g., pecchiura 1965, 39–40, 47–48. persius mocks the practice of reciting Cato’s dying words (3.44–47). 28. on Thrasea’s dicta, see plin. Ep. 6.29.1 and 8.22.3; Cass. dio 62.15; Arr. Epict. diss. 1.1.26. 29. Martial 1.praef., 8, 42, 78; 2.89; 9.27; 11.5. on Cato’s and otho’s deaths, see Goar 1987, 59–60. on Titinius Capito, see plin. Ep. 1.17.3; Goar 1987, 65. This content downloaded from 128.6.37.110 on Mon, 22 Feb 2016 22:16:05 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions DISTICHA CATONIS UTICENSIS 125 peror—underscores his ubiquity during that century. 30 in the second century, however, Cato’s star began to wane. pliny tells of Titinius Capito, who sometime in the 90s displayed busts of Cato and other republican igures in his house; Tacitus (Hist. 4.8) likens Helvidius priscus to Cato in his Histories, and plutarch wrote about his life. But Cato’s importance for Tacitus was in the context of his irst-century reputation, and plutarch’s Roman Lives are a who’s who of republican Rome; Cato was not singled out for special treatment. 31 Though our corpus of classical texts is incomplete, there is less evidence of his importance among authors of the second century than of the irst, as this paper’s roll call of names suggests, in which Cato is a signiicant igure in the work of twelve writers of the irst century, but only three of the second (Tacitus, pliny, and plutarch). 32 For later Christian authors, Cato’s suicide made him a problematic igure, though some still acknowledged his virtues; as a result, Cato Censorius may have become a more obvious and palatable inluence on the Disticha to its Christian readers. 33 if the collection is indeed connected with Cato Uticensis, support for a later date and also Christian authorship is further undermined, and even a date in the second century looks less likely—which tallies nicely with the terminus ante quem imposed by dating CIL Vi 11252 to circa 100 C.E. 34 ii A suggestion made in the nineteenth century that DC 3.4 alludes to contemporary igures might ofer yet further support for a irst-century date. That maxim reads as follows: sermones blandos blaesosque cavere memento; simplicitas veri fama est, fraus icta loquendi. Remember to steer clear of talk, both smooth and lisping; The truthful man is known for his simple speech; the man who tells lies gains a reputation for deceit. 35 The maxim warns against smooth talkers, who are shifty dissemblers and not to be trusted. Blaesus, as lisping or whispering, suggests speech that is soothing and beguiling, and Jerome’s claim that some people afected speech impediments because they were thought to be attractive supports the maxim’s 30. on Martial’s treatment of Cato, see Fitzgerald 2007, 71–74, 77–81. 31. Moreover, plutarch’s depiction of Cato’s suicide was, according to Zadorojnyi (2007), less than adulatory, being motivated by his anti-stoic platonism. 32. on the decline in evidence of Cato’s importance, see further pecchiura 1965, 91–101. 33. see especially Goar 1987, 77–100. 34. While most scholarship has assumed that the author was not Christian, concern over the singular deus in Disticha Catonis (hereafter DC) 1.1, for example, has led some scholars to believe him to be Christian (see the discussion by Boas 1952, 35). others take this maxim, along with DC 2.12 and 4.34, to be evidence of Christian interpolation: so, e.g., Morgan 2007, 87. Yet “pagan” authors might write of a singular deity too, and Roman gods appear in the collection (Venus in DC 4.10, Venus and Bacchus in DC 4.30, and Janus in DC 2.27), 35. This translation is my own (as are those that follow), though i owe the graceful rendering of the inal clause to one of the anonymous referees. This content downloaded from 128.6.37.110 on Mon, 22 Feb 2016 22:16:05 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 126 SERENA CONNOLLY point. 36 Most uses of the word, however, point to speech disorders such as stammering and mumbling, and the only deinition that points speciically to lisping is that of Ausonius popma, who deines the man who is blaesus as cui litterae sibilantes (s, z) molestae sunt vitioseque pronunciantur, though he does not share the source(s) of his information. Yet smooth talking and stammering are opposites, and the maxim’s second line, which refers to people who tell a convincing, but ictitious story, follows on naturally from blandus, but would not from blaesus, if it denotes stammering. lisping, then, must be the meaning here. The alliteration, homoeoteleuton, and close pairing of blandos blaesosque is striking and led R. ellis, in his review of Ferdinand Hauthal’s 1869 edition of the Disticha, to wonder whether the phrase might be an allusion to the Blandi and Blaesi, noble families mentioned, as ellis notes, by statius, Juvenal, and pliny. 37 The allusion would work best under the following conditions: the persons in question were familiar to readers, roughly contemporary with each other, known for their rhetorical skills, and untrustworthy. Happily, there are two such individuals from the families, and they date to the irst century: Q. Junius Blaesus and C. Rubellius Blandus. 38 Q. Junius Blaesus had an illustrious, though sometimes notorious, career: while governor in pannonia in 14 C.E., his soldiers mutinied, and his indulgence was (perhaps unfairly) blamed, though he managed to restore order. during his governorship in Africa, he defeated Tacfarinas in 22 C.E. (though the signiicance of his role is debated), and became the last individual outside the imperial family to be titled imperator. He was then made governor of spain, and consul sufect in 28 C.E. But with the fall of sejanus, his nephew, he committed suicide in 36 C.E. 39 Blaesus’ rhetorical skills were irst demonstrated in his quelling of the pannonian mutiny: according to Tacitus, he addressed the soldiers with great skill. Velleius paterculus also praises his skills in speaking. 40 When Tiberius nominated Blaesus to the governorship of Africa, along with Manius lepidus, the latter excused himself, knowing that sejanus’ uncle was the preferred candidate; Blaesus too refused the position, though disingenuously, as Tacitus records: respondit Blaesus specie recusantis. 41 According to Tacitus, in Africa Blaesus was singled out for his oratory skills once more to win over (proliceret) other African leaders. 42 Yet 36. Jer. Ep. 22.29.6. Blaesus denotes stammering and mumbling in, e.g., ov. Ars am. 1.597–600, 2.6.23– 24, and 3.293–94; Mart. 10.65.10; Dig. 21.1.10; Juv. 15.47–48; isid. Etym. 10.29. Ausonius popma’s deinition is found in his De diferentiis verborum (lewis and short, s.v. blaesus). 37. ellis 1871, 322. 38. The only (other) instance of their names appearing together is degrassi, Inscr. Ital. Xiii 1.24 (pp. 296–301) (together with AE 1991, 307) §§ 18 and 26, an inscription of the Arval Fasti, though they do not appear contiguously. 39. For his cursus, see PIR2 i739. on the mutiny, Tac. Ann. 1.16–30; on the victory, Ann. 3.72. According to Tac. Ann. 3.74, after his victory Blaesus left the province without quashing all of the rebels. 40. Tac. Ann. 1.18; Vell. pat. 2.125. Cass. dio 57.4 reports that Blaesus won the soldiers over with some diiculty, further testament to his powers as an orator. 41. Tac. Ann. 3.35, which continues, sed neque eadem adseveratione et consensu adulantium †haut iustus† est. Haut iustus is seen in manuscript M, though Mmg prefers auditus est; adiutus est, which is found in many modern editions, is Gronovius’ emendation and makes the most sense: that he was supported unanimously by imperial toadies. 42. Tac. Ann. 3.73: ceteros quidem ad spem proliceret arma sine noxa ponendi. This content downloaded from 128.6.37.110 on Mon, 22 Feb 2016 22:16:05 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions DISTICHA CATONIS UTICENSIS 127 for all his skills in speaking, Blaesus found few supporters in the senate: it was unenthusiastic about appointing him to lead the campaign in Africa, and his closeness to sejanus (and by extension to Tiberius) must have made him a controversial igure. C. Rubellius Blandus, his contemporary, was best known for his marriage in 33 C.E., at age sixty, to Julia, granddaughter of Tiberius. 43 The match was controversial: thirty years older than his bride, Blandus was from a family only recently grand—Tacitus waspishly notes that Blandus’ rhetorician and historian grandfather was an equestrian from outside Rome—though he enjoyed a sufect consulship in 18 C.E. (as Blaesus would ten years later) and, following his marriage, became proconsul of Africa in 35/36 C.E. (the same position Blaesus had held fourteen years earlier). 44 even before he joined the imperial family, Blandus had twice courted controversy. First, in 20 C.E. he raised the motion to banish Aemilia lepida, who had been accused of poisoning, adultery, and consulting astrologers, among other charges, and he found support from drusus and Tiberius, though Tacitus (Ann. 3.23) suggests that the majority supported lepida. The following year Blandus joined Marcus lepidus in advocating banishment for Gaius Clutorius priscus, while others of consular rank voted for his death; with his usual dissembling, Tiberius castigated the senators, though he did not censure them, and still praised lepidus (Ann. 3.49–51). Though there is no record of Blandus’ rhetorical skills, his descent from a well-known and respected rhetorician may have created the impression that he possessed them. 45 Yet Blandus, like Blaesus, found himself outside the senatorial consensus. of a later Blandus, who appears in Juvenal as a dissolute noble (and of whom ellis was thinking), susanna Braund notes that “Blandus, an unusual cognomen . . . seems appropriate here: the conceited noble considers himself ‘sweet’ or ‘agreeable,’ but the name may conceal its opposite,” and points out that the adjective was often used to describe men in public life. 46 Juvenal’s Blandus, then, may be a type that itted well with a fashionable characterization: according to syme, for those writing under Hadrian and Trajan, “the antithesis between virtus and pedigree . . . was a theme of contemporary moment.” 47 Tacitus may have thought similarly about the earlier Blandus; so may Blandus’ contemporaries and the author of the Disticha. 48 These two men, roughly contemporaries, held high oice in Tiberius’ reign, during which they were alienated from the majority senate opinion; one was 43. Tac. Ann. 6.45. on Blandus, see PIR2 R111 and especially syme 1982. 44. Tac. Ann. 6.27: tot luctibus funesta civitate pars maeroris fuit quod Iulia Drusi ilia, quondam Neronis uxor, denupsit in domum Rubellii Blandi, cuius avum Tiburtem equitem Romanum plerique meminerant. on his consulship, see Tac. Ann. 3.51. 45. on the grandfather Rubellius Blandus, who appears in seneca’s Suasoriae and Controversiae (Suas. 2.5 and Controv. 2.praef., p. 136 Bip.), see syme 1982, 65–66. syme (p. 74) notes that servius refers to Rubellius Blandus et Quadrigarius historici, and believes that the grandfather is meant. He also claims that Blandus the grandson was “something of an orator, although not in the irst rank for eloquence among the consulars,” though i can ind no ancient evidence for his skills. 46. Juv. 8.40; Braund 1988, 232. 47. syme 1982, 81–82. 48. Yet fashions change: Blandus’ son Rubellius plautus was a victim of nero (see syme 1982, 79–81, for the details)—perhaps father and son difered in their views and reputations. This content downloaded from 128.6.37.110 on Mon, 22 Feb 2016 22:16:05 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 128 SERENA CONNOLLY praised for his skills at speaking, while the other may have beneited from association with his rhetorician ancestor. And as Tacitus tells it, both were shifty characters. Cato Uticensis would not have approved. These individuals are the best it for the maxim’s allusion, and for that allusion to have the greatest impact, the collection would probably date to the irst century C.E. Both men had descendants who were also well known: ellis refers to the Blandi and Blaesi named in statius, Juvenal, and pliny. Juvenal mentions a later Rubellius Blandus, as discussed above. The Blaesus in statius’ Silvae, who also appears in Martial, may be Junius Blaesus, son or brother of our man, whose support for Vitellius made him a victim of Vespasian, or Velleius Blaesus. According to pliny the Younger, Velleius Blaesus was a wealthy consular who fell prey to Regulus, the notorious legacy hunter. 49 none of these individuals its the maxim as well as their Tiberian ancestors, but an argument for the collection’s date cannot rest on the Tiberian association alone. The tentative suggestions from epigraphy and meter that the collection was authored in the irst century are now joined by the allusion to the perhaps Tiberian Blaesus and Blandus. none of these alone constitutes proof, but together they are strongly suggestive, more so than any of the claims for a later date. 50 The stoic lavor of the Disticha points to a connection to Cato Uticensis, rather than his grandfather, and his renown as a igure of wisdom and virtue in political, cultural, and educational circles strengthens the connection. That renown grew over the irst century, when he was also established as a source of wise pronouncements and as a model of correct behavior, but declined in the second century; all of this adds further weight to irst-century composition. if my dating is correct, we inally have a social and literary context for one of our most enigmatic texts and an opportunity for a richer reading of its maxims. Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey 49. stat. Silv. 2.1, 2.3; Mart. 8.38. Junius’ death under Vespasian: Tac. Hist. 3.38; on the identiication, see Hardie 1983, 66–67. on the identiication with Velleius Blaesus, see, e.g., van dam 1986, 2747; on his fall: plin. Ep. 2.20. 50. Herrmann (1950, 117–18) also claims a irst-century date on the basis of several allusions to the Disticha in phaedrus and Martial. But none is suiciently striking thematically or lexically to stand as an intertextual reference—with perhaps one exception. Herrmann claims to see a comment in Mart. 8.29: disticha qui scribit, puto, vult brevitate placere. Quid prodest brevitas, dic mihi, si liber est? Anyone who writes two-liners wants to please by keeping them short. But tell me, what’s the point of keeping them short if there’s a book of them? on DC 4.49: Miraris verbis nudis me scribere versus? Hoc brevitas fecit, sensus coniungere binos. You’re surprised that i write verse in prosaic words? it’s keeping it short that does it, joining two lines with one idea. it is tempting to see a link, though aiming for brevity is a topos that appears, as Herrmann admits, in phaedrus, along with many others. This content downloaded from 128.6.37.110 on Mon, 22 Feb 2016 22:16:05 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions DISTICHA CATONIS UTICENSIS 129 liTeRATURe CiTed Alexander, William H. 1946. Cato of Utica in the Works of seneca philosophus. Trans. of the Royal Soc. of Canada 40: 59–74. Astin, Alan e. 1978. Cato the Censor. oxford. Boas, Marcus. 1930. Woher stammt der name dionysius Cato? PhilWoch 21: 649–56. . 1932. Cato und die Grabschrift der Allia potestas. RhM 81: 178–86. . 1952. Disticha Catonis. Amsterdam. Braund, s. H. 1988. Beyond Anger: A Study of Juvenal’s Third Book of Satires. Cambridge. Brunt, peter. 1975. stoicism and the principate. PBSR 43: 6–35. Cameron, Alan. 1967. Tacitus and the date of Curiatius Maternus’ death. CR 17: 258–61. dam, Harm-Jan van. 1986. statius, Silvae: Forschungsbericht 1974–1984. ANRW ii.32.5: 2727– 53. edwards, Catharine. 2007. Death in Ancient Rome. new Haven, Conn. ellis, R. 1871. Review of Ferdinand Hauthal, Catonis Philosophi Liber. The Academy 2: 321–22. Fitzgerald, William. 2007. Martial: The World of the Epigram. Chicago. Galinsky, Karl. 1994. How to Be philosophical about the end of the Aeneid. BICS 19: 191–201. Gallia, Andrew. 2009. Potentes and Potentia in Tacitus’s Dialogus de oratoribus. TAPA 139: 169–206. Geiger, Joseph. 1979. Munatius Rufus and Thrasea paetus on Cato the Younger. Athenaeum 57: 48–72. . 1999. plato, plutarch and the death of socrates and of Cato. in Plutarco, Platón y Aristóteles: Actas del V Congreso Internacional de la I.P.S. (Madrid-Cuenca, 4–7 de mayo de 1999), ed. Aurelio peréz Jiménez, José Garća lópez, and Rosa M. Aguilar, 357–64. Madrid. Gill, Christopher. 2003. The school in the Roman period. in The Cambridge Companion to the Stoics, ed. Brad inwood, 33–58. Cambridge. Goar, Robert J. 1987. The Legend of Cato Uticensis from the First Century B.C. to the Fifth Century A.D. Brussels. Gowing, Alain M. 2005. Empire and Memory: The Representation of the Roman Republic in Imperial Culture. Cambridge. Gurval, Robert A. 1995. Actium and Augustus: The Politics and Emotions of Civil War. Ann Arbor, Mich. Habinek, Thomas. 2000. seneca’s Renown: Gloria, Claritudo, and the Replication of the Roman elite. ClAnt 19: 264–303. Hardie, Alex. 1983. Statius and the “Silvae”: Poets, Patrons, and Epideixis in the Graeco-Roman World. liverpool. Hazelton, Richard. 1956. Two Texts of the “Disticha Catonis” and Its Commentary, with Special Reference to Chaucer, Langland and Gower. new Brunswick, n.J. Herrmann, léon. 1950. Phèdre et ses fables. leiden. Horsfall, nicholas. 1985. CIL Vi 37965 = CLE 1988 (epitaph of Allia potestas): A Commentary. ZPE 61: 251–72. Ker, James. 2009. The Deaths of Seneca. new York. leigh, Matthew. 2000. lucan and the libyan Tale. JRS 90: 95–109. levene, david s. 2000. sallust’s Catiline and Cato the Censor. CQ 50: 170–91. Massaro, Matteo. 2007. Una coppia aiatata: Cle 959. in Metric Inscriptions of the Roman Republic/Die metrischen Inschriften der römischen Republik, ed. peter Kruschwitz, 271–98. Berlin. Morgan, Teresa. 2007. Popular Morality in the Early Roman Empire. Cambridge. newman, Robert J. 1972. Cotidie meditare: Theory and practice of the Meditatio in imperial stoicism. ANRW ii.36.3: 1473–517. paribeni, Roberto. 1926. Roma: scoperte nel suburbio in seguito a lavori agricoli. NSA: 278–306. pecchiura, piero. 1965. La igura di Catone Uticense nella letteratura latina. Turin. This content downloaded from 128.6.37.110 on Mon, 22 Feb 2016 22:16:05 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 130 SERENA CONNOLLY percival, John. 1980. Tacitus and the principate. GaR 26: 119–33. poinsotte, Jean Michel, ed. 2009. Commodien, Instructions. paris. putnam, Michael C. J. 1990. Anger, Blindness and insight in Virgil’s Aeneid. Apeiron 23: 7–40. sklenár, Robert J. 1998. La république des signes: Caesar, Cato, and the language of sallustian Morality. TAPA 128: 205–20. syme, Ronald. 1979. A Roman post-Mortem. in Roman Papers, vol. 1, ed. ernst Badian, 205–17. oxford. . 1982. The Marriage of Rubellius Blandus. AJP 103: 62–85. . 1982–83. spaniards at Tivoli. AncSoc 13–14: 241–63. Tschiedel, Hans J. 1981. Caesars “Anticato”: Eine Untersuchung der Testimonien und Fragmente. darmstadt. Zadorojnyi, Alexei V. 2007. Cato’s suicide in plutarch. CQ, n.s., 57: 216–30. This content downloaded from 128.6.37.110 on Mon, 22 Feb 2016 22:16:05 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions