Sata est enim ingenio: Historical Memory and Self-Representation in Cicero’s Written Marius

Eleanor W. Leach (Indiana University)

With the words sata est ingenio (Leg. 1.1) Quintus Cicero posits immortality for the “Marian oak tree” that had figured in his brother’s epic poem on the Arpinate leader. Correspondingly the abundant mentions of this ambivalent leader in Cicero’s writings offer an interesting study in memory construction combined with self-representation. In her recent book about Roman memory sanctions, H.Flower (2007) situates positive commemorations against a background of anticipated oblivion. In fact C Marius in the time since his death, or at least since the desecration of his ashes by Sulla, would seem to have been in tenebris preceding the revival in 68 B.C. of his dignitas by Julius Caesar, a revival that, as will be seen, played a part in Cicero’s own multi-dimensional reinvention of Marius.

As a novus homo who succeeded beyond probable expectation, an innovating popularist related by marriage to Caesar popularis, an exile narrowly escaping death at the hands of his enemies, and finally a murderous invader responsible for the deaths of some of Cicero’s own heroes, the many faces of C. Marius figured in Cicero’s writings throughout his career. In view of his own pacific persona, Cicero might even have been expected to repudiate M., but a much more complex and even conflicted mixture of tribute and censure coincides with various moves in Cicero’s political strategies making his constructions of M. paradigmatic of the intrinsic flexiblity of exempla. In a paper of 1960, T.F. Carney enlisted Cicero’s 82 Marian allusions to counter Plutarch’s negative presentation of M. By assembling these scattered references within a context of Marius’ political biography he argued for the analytical consistency of Cicero’s more tolerant estimation. Contrastingly my paper will consider the inconsistencies of Cicero’s characterizations within categorical headings based upon Cicero’s contextual employment and then examine these in the light of what Cicero himself says in the de Legibus concerning history and truth.

1. The Arpinate Marius: a young Cicero had first hand acquaintance with his aged fellow townsman who was not only his direct predecessor in Roman politics, but also a kinsman within the network of Arpinate marriage relationships. The epic poem witnesses his fascination with the man’s history. As we see in pro Archia a reputation for rusticity clings to the Arpinate military figure, but Cicero frequently calls him fellow countryman even in contexts of censure.
2. The Caesarian Marius is a political icon whom Caesar had promoted to declare his popular policies, and whom Cicero himself highlighted when he took to promoting Caesarian policies in such orations as de provinciis consularibus and pro Balbo. As a victorious commander with a broad minded concept of citizenship this M. is wholly positive.
3. Marius crudelissimus impinges upon Cicero’s personal experience in having caused the deaths of revered figures; de Oratore laments orators Antonius and Lutatius Catulus among others. Although sanctioned by an SCU, the situation in which M. pursued Saturninus to death could be called betrayal. Cicero’s post-reditum speeches call up Marius’s violent return from exile as a foil to his own pacific reentry.
4. Prophetic Marius & Marius of the dream works is the figure who makes all the others most interesting. Added to the story of Marius’ oak as mentioned in de Legibus, two stories in de Divinatione are involved: the one Marius’ own augural interpretation of the struggle of an eagle and serpent as a prediction of his triumph over exile and the other Cicero’s own exilic dream in which M. leads him to restoration within his Temple of Honos and Virtus. This dream, mentioned by Quintus in Book I as proof positive of divination, is rationalized in the second book. One cannot doubt its veracity, but the degree of conscious or unconscious fabrication is highlighted by the Bobian scholiast’s testimony that the restoration decree was actually passed elsewhere. To which can be added the parallel that Cicero’s own exile had been caused, not only by enemies, but also by his execution of Roman citizens

All these allusions occur in one or another species of public communication. Have they a chronology? Characterizations of the evil Marius seem to appear closer to the beginning and end of Cicero’s rhetorical career; the praises are thickest in the triumviral period after Luca, but the dream recounted in the late essay de Div reflects an earlier Ciceronian moment. Although we will scarcely discover what Cicero genuinely thought of his Arpinate predecessor, his career-long negotiation with the memory of Marius is, like the oak tree of de Legibus, rooted in his ingenium.