Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-22dnz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T14:31:59.524Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Ideal Benefactor and the Father Analogy in Greek and Roman Thought

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

T. R. Stevenson
T. R. Stevenson
Affiliation:
University of Auckland
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

When Cicero uncovered and suppressed the Catilinarian Conspiracy as consul in 63 B.c., supporters hailed him ‘father of his country’ (pater patriae) and proposed that he be awarded the oak crown normally given to a soldier who had saved the life of a comrade in battle (corona civica). Our sources connect these honours with earlier heroes such as Romulus, Camillus and Marius, but the Elder Pliny writes as if Cicero was the first before Caesar and the Emperors to be given the title pater patriae. Pliny's point may revolve around Senatorial initiative, and assuming this to be the case he really should have stressed that Cicero received the informal support of a limited number of Senators only, whereas Caesar and the Emperors were honoured by formal vote of the entire Senate. Perhaps Pliny was fooled by the prominence of those who spoke on Cicero's behalf, such as Cato, Catulus and Gellius Publicola. Opponents, on the other hand, angrily rejected calls that Cicero be recognised as the saviour of the state. In their eyes his execution of the Catilinarians marked him as a cruel tyrant. Metellus Nepos proposed Pompey's recall from the East in order to free Rome from Cicero's tyranny. Aside from echoes of patria potestas, it seems obvious that the Romans were thinking in terms of the conventional Greek antithesis between the good king who is like a father to his people and the selfish tyrant who treats his subjects as slaves. The Younger Pliny employs the same basic ideas in his Panegyricus: the cruel tyrant Domitian suppressed freedom (libertas) and desired honour as a god (deus, numen); the gentle Trajan is a citizen and father not a tyrant and master (dominus). Tacitus has this basic distinction in mind too. Nevertheless, as is well known, Pliny regularly addresses Trajan not as ‘father’ but as ‘master’ (domine) in Book 10 of his Letters. This was plainly an acceptable practice on the social plane, if not quite yet on the political. Augustus, Tiberius and Claudius indicated their opposition to dominus as a title for themselves, evidently for its connotations of autocracy and servitude. Domitian, damned as a tyrant, was accused of demanding to be addressed as dominus et deus. The title dominus existed from at least the first century A.d. as a common form of polite address between inferiors and superiors of free birth, not only between masters and slaves. It gradually gained acceptance as an official title of the Emperor through the second century and was advertised widely by the Severi. And yet its tone throughout this period could also be critical when understood in terms of the good king/tyrant antithesis.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 42 , Issue 2 , December 1992 , pp. 421 - 436
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1992

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 See Weinstock, S., Divus Julius (Oxford, 1971), pp. 200ffGoogle Scholar. for full discussion and references. The standard work in this field is Alföldi, A., Der Vater des Vaterlandes im romischen Denken (Darmstadt, 1971)Google Scholar, reprinting a series of articles first published in Museum Helveticum 7–11, 1950–4; cf. Skard, E., ‘Pater patriae: zum Ursprung einer religiöspolitischen Idee’, Festskrift til Halvdan Koht (Oslo, 1933), pp. 42–70Google Scholar. Weinstock's harsh criticism of Alföldi for failure to achieve synthesis (p. 200 n. 4) merely points to the limitations of his own handbook-style work. For Alföldi's muted response, see his review of Weinstock, in Gnomon 47 (1975), 166.Google Scholar

2 Romulus: Cic. Rep. 1.64 (Enn. Ann. 110–14 V); cf. Cic. Div. 1.3; Liv. 1.16.3; 1.16.6; 4.3.12. Camillus: Liv. 5.49.7. Marius: Cic. Rab. perd. 27. Plin. N.H. 7.117; cf. App. B.C. 2.7.25; Juv. 8.243.

3 Plut. Cic. 23.2; cf. Broughton, , MRR ii. 174–5Google Scholar for full refs. (including Cato's opposition to Nepos and activities as tribune).

4 Ordinary Romans would have been quite familiar with this antithesis from the stage: see Dunkle, J., ‘The Greek Tyrant and Roman Political Invective of the Late Republic’, TAPA 98 (1967), 151–71Google Scholar. Kloft, H., Liberalitas Principis (Koln, 1970)Google Scholar, repeatedly mentions the influence of Xenophon's Cyropaedia in this regard.

5 Plin. Pan. 2.3; cf. Pan. 21.4, 94.4 (Trajan as parens); 4.2, 29.2, 53.1, 87.3 (parens noster); 26.3, 67.1, 87.1 (parens publicus); 39.6 (communis omnium parens). As parens publicus Trajan does not use force and respects libertas (Pan. 87.1).

6 Note, for example, Tacitus' explicit damning of Tiberius as a tyrant: Ann. 6.6.2.

7 Augustus: Suet. Aug. 53.1; Dio 55.12.2; Tiberius: Vell. 2.124.2; Suet. Tib. 27; Tac. Ann. 2.87.2; Dio 57.8.1–2; Claudius: Tac. Ann. 12.11. Contrast Suet. Tib. 29 (Tiberius calls the Senators domini); cf. Suet. Claud. 21.5.

8 See Thompson, L., ‘Domitianus Dominus: A Gloss on Statius, Silvae 1.6.84’, AJP 105 (1984), 469–75.Google Scholar

9 Compare the Greek practice of addressing the Emperor as kyrios. Further on the address domine, see Alföldi, A., Die monarchische Repräsentation im romischen Kaiserreiche (Darmstadt, 1970), pp. 91–2Google Scholar; Sherwin-White, A., The Letters of Pliny (Oxford, 1966), pp. 557–8.Google Scholar

10 Nock, A., ‘Soter and Euergetes’, in Stewart, Z. (ed.), Essays on Religion and the Ancient World, ii (Oxford, 1972), pp. 720–35.Google Scholar

11 Born, L., ‘The Perfect Prince According to the Latin Panegyrists’, AJP 55 (1934), 20–35 (esp. pp. 29ff.)Google Scholar; MacCormack, S., ‘Latin Prose Panegyrics’, in Dorey, T. (ed.), Empire and Aftermath: Silver Latin II (London/Boston, 1975), pp. 143–205Google Scholar; Stertz, S., ‘Marcus Aurelius as Ideal Emperor in Late Antique Greek Thought’, CW 70 (1977), 433–9 (esp. p. 436).Google Scholar

12 For a religious perspective, see my ‘Social and Psychological Interpretations of Graeco-Roman Religion: Some Thoughts on the Ideal Benefactor’, Antichthon (forthcoming), which discusses the common focus upon procreative/tutelary power.

13 Wallace-Hadrill, A., ‘Civilis Princeps: Between Citizen and King’, JRS 72 (1982), 32–48 (esp. p. 32)Google Scholar. Note the acceptance of ambivalence by Price, S., ‘From Noble Funerals to Divine Cult: the Consecration of Roman Emperors’, in Cannadine, D. and Price, S. (eds.), Rituals of Royalty: Power and Ceremonial in Traditional Societies (Cambridge, 1987), pp. 56–105, esp. pp. 57–8.Google Scholar

14 JRS 72 (1982), 41–4.Google Scholar

15 The term used by Wallace-Hadrill with reference to the Greek system of honours which was gradually assimilated by the Romans, : ‘Roman Arches and Greek Honours: The Language of Power at Rome’, PCPhS 36 (1990), 143–81, p. 147.Google Scholar

16 On fundamental similarities in outlook, see the comments of M. Charlesworth about ‘certain common fundamental elements which are constant throughout ancient civilization’: ‘Some Observations on Ruler Cult, Especially in Rome’, HTR 28 (1935), 8.Google Scholar

17 Thuc. 5.89 (Melian Dialogue), cf. 3.37.

18 Brunt, P., ‘Divine Elements in the Imperial Office’Google Scholar (review of Fears, J., Princeps A Diis Electus), JRS 69 (1979), 168–75, p. 174.Google Scholar

19 Nicely expressed by a character of Plautus (Rud. 4.8.2; cf. Capt. 444): ‘mi patrone, immo potius mi pater.’ cf. Arist. N.E. 1162a4–7, 1165a22–7.

20 See my article (n. 12 above).

21 Horn. Od. 7.28, 7.48, 18.122, 20.199.

22 Od. 2.47, 2.234, 5.12. For his extraordinary justice: 4.689ff.

23 Wallace-Hadrill, A., JRS 72 (1982), p. 36 on voluntary self-deceit.Google Scholar

24 Tac. Ann. 6.18; Curt. 8.5.7–8; cf. the revulsion embodied in Polyb. 30.18.5 and Liv. 45.44.20 when King Prusias addresses the senators as ‘saviour gods’.

25 See Thompson (above n. 8) on Domitian's characterisation as the direct antithesis to that of Trajan.

26 On political relevance, see Griffin, M., ‘Philosophy for Statesmen: Cicero and Seneca’, in Schmidt, H. (ed.), Antikes Denken – Moderne Schüle (1982), pp. 133–50.Google Scholar

27 Thus I cannot agree that Seneca has rejected an ‘earlier’ meaning (with overtones of founding or saving) in favour of a ‘later’ meaning (with juristic overtones), as argued by Weidauer, F., Der Prinzipät in Senecas Schrift de dementia (Diss. Marburg, 1950), pp. 39–40Google Scholar (cited without comment by Griffin, M., Seneca [Oxford, 1976], p. 146 n. 4)Google Scholar. These meanings had always been possible; Seneca has just chosen to highlight potestas in a way that is not the norm.

28 See the evidence collected in Lambert, G., Rhetoric Rampant: The Family Under Siege in the Early Western Tradition (London/Ontario, 1982), pp. 11–22.Google Scholar

29 E.g. Soph. El. 770–1; Eur. H.F. 280–1; Phoen. 355–6, 965–6; fragment of Dictys (346 Nauck2, in Stob. Floril. 83.17 [Hense]); Men. fr. 763 Kock; D.L. 3.81 (Plato); Arist. N.E. 1155a3ff.

30 Democritus in Stob. Floril. 76.33 (Hense), and fr. 278 DK; transl. Freeman, K., Ancilla to the Pre-Socratic Philosophers (Oxford, 1956), p. 117.Google Scholar

31 Plut. Amor. Prol. 496f–497a (Loeb trans.).

32 G. Lambert (above n. 28), p. 14.

33 Cf. Weidemann, T., Adults and Children in the Roman Empire (London, 1989), pp. 39ff., 143–75.Google Scholar

34 Rep. 538b–c; Laws 930e–931a; Symp. 207a–209e.

35 For the ‘debt of rearing’ idea in Homer, see Il. 17.301–3. cf. 17.477–9; Od. 2.113–14, 130–1; cf. Hes. Op. 182, 185–8.

36 E.g. Xen. Oec. 7.12, cf. 7.18–19, 7.30–1; Simonides or Simias in the Pal. Anth. 7.647; Eur. Andr. 24–8; Lucr. 4.1254–6.

37 Soph. O.C. 441–9; Eur. I.A. 1220–30, Suppl. 1098–1103, Phoen. 834–7, Hec. 277–81, H.F. 1419–21; cf. Sen. Ira 3.16.3–4, and Plut. Mul. Virt. 263a–b, for fathers' requests that one of several sons be spared from military service as a comfort for the fathers' old age; Plut. Frat. Amor. 480a–c.

38 See G. Lambert (above n. 28), pp. 17ff.

39 J. Wight, Duff and Duff, A., Minor Latin Poets (Loeb), pp. 3ff., 585ff.Google Scholar

40 Plut. Liber. Educ. 7e; cf. Sen. Contr. 1.1, 1.7, 7.4.

41 Cic. Off. 3.7. On the influence of Panaetius, see the new edition of De Officiis by Atkins, E. M. and Griffin, M. (Cambridge, 1991).Google Scholar

42 Off. 1.12, cf. 1.54, 3.28. Note also Fin. 5.65, where Cicero puts parental love and family ties at the heart of human society.

43 Hierocles in Stob. Floril. 79.53 (Hense); cf. Phil. Decal. 120.

44 Hierocles in Stob. Floril. 75.14; cf. Sen. Ad Marc. 16.6.

45 Epict. 2.10; cf. Garnsey, P. and Saller, R., The Roman Empire: Economy, Society and Culture (London, 1987), p. 148.Google Scholar

46 See the refs. collected in Liddell–Scott9, s.v. π⋯τρα, πατρ⋯ς, OLD s.v. patria; cf. Arist. Pol. 1253b–1255a; 1259a; 1278b20–1279a20; 1285b30; N.E. 1060b20–61a10.

47 Plat. Crito 50d–51c.

48 See the evidence collected in A. Alföldi (above n. 1), pp. 49, 110ff.; cf. E. Skard (above n. 1), pp. 49ff.

49 E.g. Pind. fr. 94 Bowra; Pyth. 3.70; Eurip. fr. 72 Nauck; Dem. 19.280; Xen. Anab. 7.6.38; Diod. Sic. 9.24; Plut. Pelop. 33; Arat. 42; Cic. Flacc. 60; ad Q.fr. 1.1. 31. Further refs. in the works cited above in n. 48.

50 See the discussion in my article (above n. 12).

51 Lacey, W. K., The Family in Classical Greece (London, 1968).Google Scholar

52 Plato, , Rep. 451b–464bGoogle Scholar; Arist. Pol. 2; Barker, E., The Political Thought of Plato and Aristotle (new edn, New York, 1959), p. 398.Google Scholar

53 Cic. Fam. 9.21.

54 Tac. Ann. 6.27; Val. Max. 4.1.5, where gens and familia are used interchangeably in the same passage, as they are in 5.2.4, 5.6.4, and Liv. 6.40.3; cf. Paul. Fest. p. 94. Similar examples appear in Val. Max. 1.1.17 and Suet. Iul. 6.1; Nero 1.1; Galba 3.1.

55 Cic. Top. 29; cf. Cic. Leg. 2.55, Cincius ap. Fest. 83 L.

56 Saller, R., ‘Familia, Domus, and the Roman Conception of the Family’, Phoenix 38 (1984), 336–55, p. 341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

57 Ibid., pp. 348–9.

58 Ibid., p. 355.

59 Saller, R., Personal Patronage Under the Early Empire (Cambridge, 1982).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

60 Lacey, W. K., ‘Patria Potestas’, in Rawson, B. (ed.), The Family in Ancient Rome: New Perspectives (London/Sydney, 1986), pp. 121–44.Google Scholar

61 G. Clark, review of B. Rawson (n. 60), LCM 11.7 (July 1986), 106–7.

62 Lacey (above n. 60), p. 132.

63 Ibid., p. 131.

64 S. Martin, review of Talbert, R., The Senate of Imperial Rome, JRS 75 (1985), 224.Google Scholar

65 See the cases assembled by Seneca in De Clementia which show Augustus operating as a paterfamilias in this way and even as an amicus on the consilium of a peer.

66 Cic. Rep. 2.48; cf. 1.54–5.

67 Cic. Rep. 1.64 (Enn. Ann. 111ff. V).

68 See Charlesworth (above n. 16).

69 For patria potestas as a poor indication of social reality, see Crook, J., CQ 17 (1967), 113–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

70 Cic. Rep. 1.64; 2.48. Note the provocative article by Erskine, A., ‘Hellenistic Monarchy and Roman Political Invective’, CQ 41 (1991), 106–20 (esp. p. 111 n. 20).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

71 See A. Wallace-Hadrill (above n. 15).

72 E.g. Horn. Il. 22.167; Od. 13.128; 17.137; Hes. Theog. 47; Burkert, W., Greek Religion (Oxford, 1985), pp. 125–31, 398–400.Google Scholar

73 Cf. Solmsen, F., Hesiod and Aeschylus (Ithaca, 1949), pp. 124–77Google Scholar; Lloyd-Jones, H., The Justice of Zeus (Berkeley, 1971), esp. pp. 79–103.Google Scholar

74 W. Burkert (above n. 72), p. 127.

75 Ibid., p. 128.

76 Diod. Sic. 3.61.4.

77 Strab. 8.353–4; Paus. 5.11.1.

78 In addition to the works cited in n. 48 above, see S. Weinstock (above n. 1), p. 201 n. 1; Aalders, G., Political Thought in Hellenistic Times (Amsterdam, 1975), see index.Google Scholar

79 Cf. Dio Chrys. 3.47.

80 Hdt. 3.82.

81 O'Neil, J., ‘The Semantic Usage of “tyrannos” and Related Words’, Antichthon 20 (1986), 26–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar; cf. Ferrill, A., ‘Herodotos on Tyranny’, Historia 27.3 (1978), 385–98Google Scholar. Both writers are basically reacting against Andrewes, A., The Greek Tyrants (London, 1956), pp. 20ff.Google Scholar

82 E.g. Plat. Rep. 9.587d–e.

83 Plat. Rep. 5.473c.

84 Plat. Rep. 6.502b.

85 Plat. Crito, esp. 50d–51c; 51a8–9; 51e. See Kraut, R., Socrates and the State (Princeton, 1984), esp. pp. 48–52Google Scholar; 91–114; 143–8; cf. Rep. 548b.

86 Plat. Laws 859a.

87 Arist. N.E. 1160b1.

88 Murray, O., Peri Basileias: Studies in the Justification of Monarchic Power in the Hellenistic World (D.Phil. Oxford, 1970), pp. 78ff.Google Scholar

89 Goodenough, E., ‘The Political Philosophy of Hellenistic Kingship’, YCS 1 (1928), 58ff.Google Scholar

90 Murray, O., ‘Aristeas and Ptolemaic Kingship’, JTS 18 (1967), 353.Google Scholar

91 Murray, O., JTS 19 (1968), 677Google Scholar. Note the king's megalopsychia: Knoche, U., ‘Magnitudo Animi’, Philol. Suppl. 37, 3 (1935).Google Scholar

92 G. Aalders (above n. 78), p. 21.

93 Ibid., p. 26.

94 Musonius: Stob. 4.7, p. 283 Hense; Dio Chrys. 3.82; Plin. Pan. 80.3.

95 O. Murray (above n. 91), p. 677.

96 E. Goodenough (above n. 89).

97 O. Murray (above n. 88), pp. 247ff.

98 A. Wallace-Hadrill (above n. 13), p. 46.

99 Aug. RG 35.1; Ov. F. 2.127ff.; Suet. Aug. 58; CIL i (2), 133.

100 Lacey, W., ‘2 BC and Julia's Adultery’, Antichthon 14 (1980), 127–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar