Kari CEAICOVSCHI
(MIS)READING CATO: Tiro, Gellius, and Changing
Conceptions of Empire
Cato the Elder's speech Pro Rhodiensibus,
delivered to the Roman senate in 167 B.C.E., addressed a
contemporary issue of empire, yet subsequent imperial
authors interpret the speech within the frame of their
own experience of empire. The Antonine miscellanist,
Aulus Gellius, writing far from the imperial circle of
the 2nd century C.E., has preserved the speech in
fragmentary form in his Attic Nights when he
responds to M. Tullius Tiro's criticisms of Cato's speech
from the late first century B.C.E. Thus, the speech comes
to us via two readings at two very different imperial
moments: the second-century B.C.E. Cato is framed by the
comments of the late republican Tiro who in turn is
framed by the second-century C.E. Gellius. I demonstrate
that these comments reveal misinterpretations of Cato's
arguments in light of their own understandings of empire,
tempered by their respective historical moments.
After Rome defeated Perseus in 168 B.C.E., the
Rhodians, concerned that their prior involvement, however
innocuous, with Perseus could be misinterpreted as an act
of hostility towards Rome, went there to plead their
case. The senate was divided on the matter with some
senators urging war and others moderation (Gellius,
6.3.7). At this point Cato rose and delivered a speech in
which he urged the senate to be cautious in its actions
towards Rhodes. During Cato's lifetime, the period of
Roman conquest, relationships between Rome and her
eastern neighbors were still being negotiated. This
speech shows Cato trying to keep the integrity of Roman
power intact all the while develping the idea of
clementia towards the weaker states. Tiro who was
living in a tributary state was indignant that a
prominent member of the senate such as Cato would dare to
advocate on the Rhodians's behalf and vehemently objects
(6.3.15). Rhodes was guilty and should reap the
punishment o! f a misbehaving tributary state. Gellius
disagrees, Rhodes is a faithful ally and as such Cato was
acting in the best interest of the state in defending her
from the men who desired to plunder her and possess her
wealth (6.3.17-18).
The
misunderstanding of Rhodes's status described above
illustrates how the Romans defined themselves in terms of
their perceptions of the acquisition, rule, and shape of
empire in the three moments of the Roman empire
represented by Cato, Tiro, and Gellius. Close
consideration of Gellius' commentary on Tiro's letter
critiquing Cato's speech provides a unique insight into
this process and is important for our overall knowledge
of Roman History.
Abstracts
Index