The Exile of Marcus Tullius Cicero:

From Savior to Shame

Michael Bento

HIST 791: Introduction to Historical Research

December 18, 2014

Bento 1

Contents

I. Introduction

II. Background Information

a. Social Class Distinction

b. The Catilinarian Conspiracy

c. Consul Cicero’s Trial and Execution of the 5 Conspirators

III. Clodius Pulcher and the Bona Dea Scandal

IV. The Formation of the First Triumvirate

V. Clodius’s Revenge

VI. Cicero in Exile

a. The Journey

b. Evidence of Behavioral Shift

VII. Return from Exile

a. Pro-Milone

b. Post Exile Writings

VIII. Conclusion

Bento 2

Marcus Tullius Cicero was a Roman politician known for his skillful use of rhetoric

that is often claimed to be the foundation of modern political discourse. He was a powerful

figure who held the consulship more than once and managed to save the Republic from an

overthrow by a conspiracy orchestrated by another senator known as Cataline. This

moment of triumph would soon prove to be the cause of one of the most painful and

humbling experience Cicero would ever experience, exile.

From the overthrow of the seven kings of Rome to the birth of the Principate, the

Senate played an integral role in the roman state. Typically it was dominated by patricians1

who made up the body of the senate. But after much civil strife between the plebeians2 and

patricians new laws were enacted that allowed plebs to hold the position of tribune within

the senate. The tribune was a particularly powerful individual since they had the ability to

veto any legislation passed by the senators and consuls on the behalf of the plebian masses.

However, in the Roman Republic, corrupt politicians were commonplace, and the noble

cause of representing those who really had no voice became a means to power and

achieving one’s own personal ambitions at the cost of the masses. This will prove to be

very important to explaining why Marcus Tullius Cicero was exiled.

This paper aims to analyze a great turning point in the Roman Republic where the

power of the Senate would begin to wane at the actions of a few powerful men, thereby

leaving it vulnerable to conspiracy and treasonous acts aimed at one thing, taking over the

1 These were men who could trace their lineage to the founding families of Rome. It later refers to

simply highborn individuals.

2 commoners

Bento 3

Roman State. Marcus Tullius Cicero is widely regarded as the protector of Roman rule of

law as he was an influential voice in the senate. This would prove to make him a target

when he thwarted the attempt of the Catilinarian conspiracy and summarily sent the five

conspirators to death without trial (which was against Roman law). The paper will describe

how this event leads to the exile of Cicero. Most importantly a description of Cicero in

exile, followed by a detailed analysis of the effect the exile had on Cicero will be given.

The question that this paper aims to address is, did the exile of Marcus Tullius Cicero have

a negative impact on his mental wellbeing?3

We begin where the trouble started, the trial of the five arrested senators in the

Catilinarian Conspiracy in 63 BCE. One of the most important aspects of this occurrence

when attempting to analyze the hypothesis this paper puts forth, is to examine the cunning

and prowess of Cicero as the Consul during this time. Rome required strong leadership at

this very moment. Cicero’s co-Consul, the great general Gnaeus Pomponius Magnus had

departed the city to deal with the Illyrian pirates as well as the King of Pontus, Mithradates.

In addition, the Republic was still reeling from the tyranny of Sulla that ended less than

twenty years before. Out of Sulla’s proscriptions many patrician men were executed or

3 See E.J Barnes, Cicero and Sallust: On the Conspiracy od Catiline, (London: Longman, 1988); Mary

Beard, “Lucky City.” London Review of Books 23, no. 16 (2001); Andrew Dyck, “Cicero’s ‘Devotio’: The

Roles of Dux and Scape-Goat in His ‘Post-Reditum’ Rhetoric.” Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 102

(2004); David Epstein, “Cicero’s Testimony at the Bona Dea Trial.” Classical Philology 81, no. 3 (1986);

Anthony Everitt, Cicero: The Life and Times of Rome’s Greatest Politician, (New York, Random House,

2003); Aislinn Melchior, “Twinned Fortunes and the Publication of Cicero’s ‘Pro Milone,’” Classical

Philology 103, no. 3 (2008); Emanuele Narducci, “Perceptions of Exile in Cicero: The Philosphical

Interpretation of a Real Experience,” America Journal of Philology 118, no. 1 (1997); H.C. Nutting, “Cicero

in Exile,” The Classical Weekly 23, no. 22 (1930); J.T. Ramsay, Sallust’s Bellum Catilinae, (Oxford:

American Philological Association Book, 2007); Elizabeth Rawson, Cicero: A Portrait, (Ithaca: Cornell

Unveristy Press, 1983); Arthur Robinson, “Cicero’s References to His Banishment,” The Classical World 87,

no. 6, (2014); Clement Lawrence Smith, “Cicero’s Journey into Exile.” Harvard Studies in Classical

Philology 7 (2014).

Bento 4

murdered, most of them elder statesmen. This left a gap in the status quo whereby the

younger members of the senate would have to step up to the leadership. Sallust writes that

there were two distinct groups, those who were in favor of the nobility and that status quo

and those who maintained stations in patrician life that required them to be brash and cause

populist uproar in order to advance their own careers.4 The latter group of which Cataline

and his co-conspirators belonged to decided to plot a rebellion in order to take charge of

the city.5 The plan was to set numerous arsons at six strategic points in the city. This action

would in turn create mass hysteria and give Cataline and his co-conspirators the moment of

opportunity to sweep into the city under arms and kill all those who stood their way.

Obviously they could not raise an army of Roman citizens like Caesar would have later on,

this being because they were not consuls and therefore did not have a legion at their

disposal like Gaius Julius Caesar did during his consulship. This forced them to turn to

mercenaries, but again, the issue of lack of funding proved to be a hindrance on their plans.

South Eastern Gaul had just recently been totally subjugated by Rome, so the idea was to

find leading tribesmen who were particularly disaffected by the Roman conquest and offer

them a seat at the table if the conspiracy against Rome succeeded. This allowed them and

their armies to essentially be bought at a very cheap price. However, this proved to be one

of the fundamental weaknesses of their plan, and attempting to rally men from the

Cisalpine Gallic tribe the Allobroges would backfire substantially leaving Cataline and his

men in a quandary of sorts. Their fear of the vast amount of resources available to the

5 Sallust, Trans., J.T. Ramsey, Sallust's Bellum Catilinae, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), 65 – 8.

Bento 5

Senate for waging war got the better of them and they confessed the entire ordeal to the

senators loyal to Cicero and the Republic.

A trap was set the Mulvian Bridge on the advice of Cicero and conspirators were

arrested. Amidst the chaos that ensued one of the men who was supposed to be a

messenger by the name of Tarquinius, who was to operate between Rome and Cataline,

confessed to be dispatched by none other than Marcus Licinius Crassus, the richest man in

the Roman Republic. Evidently, Cicero had coerced the messenger to stretch the truth by

saying that Crassus was his dispatcher in order to put public pressure on Crassus so that he

would not join Cataline’s cause. Although Cicero did not openly admit to doing so, he also

did not deny doing so when it leaked out that he was involved. Of course Crassus was

furious with Cicero as a result.6 For Cicero to essentially publically call out the one of the

two most wealthy and powerful men in the Republic (the other being Pompey)

demonstrates that at this point he was fearless in his defense and would challenge men

more powerful than him, with the capabilities to assassinate him in order to fulfill that

commitment to holding the Republic together.

The five were charged with attempting to overthrow the Republic and imprisoned

in the jail adjacent to the forum known as the Tullianum. This is where high profile

prisoners of war were kept awaiting their trial or execution (other notable prisoners who

were kept there were Juba the King of Numidia and Vercingetorix of Alessia). It was

tradition that Roman citizens be given due process, but on the urge of Cato in the senate,

the then consul Cicero had the five conspirators summarily executed sans trial. Cicero was

6 Sallust, 83 – 85.

Bento 6

heralded as the savior of the Republic, and afterwards Cataline’s troops outside the city

seemed to melt away.7 For the time being it seemed that all would be well and Cicero

remained unscathed by this emergency decision to disregard Roman custom. However, it

would prove to give ammunition to his enemies in the future.

Clodius Pulcher was a young patrician and an accurate representation of the youth

generation in 62 BCE. He was one of the new generation of patricians mentioned earlier,

whom used populist fervor not to help the people, but rather to help himself advance in his

career. Consumed with debauchery and living for the moment, a stark departure from the

generation of Cicero where public duty and maintaining a moral and decent outlook was

essential. It was known that young Clodius was having an affair with the wife of Gaius

Julius Caesar, Pompeia. That year the Bona Dea8 ceremonies were to be held at Caesars

house as he was the Pontifex Maximus. Clodius decided that he would dress in drag and

attempt to infiltrate the gathering so that he may see Pompeia and hopefully have an illicit

rendezvous with her. Unfortunately for him, he was caught and charged with the crime of

sacrilege.9 This is a particularly serious charge, because religion held a place in pretty

much every aspect of Roman life, from the smallest most menial task to the proceedings of

the senate itself, so it is a particularly dire situation Clodius had gotten himself into.

Though because he was from the influential Claudii patrician family, the charge of

7 Sallust, 20-21. 8 The festival of the Bona Dea or “Good Goddess” is a ceremony that takes place in the winter and is hosted by a senior official’s wife. Only women are allowed to attend, not even the Pontifex Maximus himself. Rites of blood sacrifice are performed to ensure the protection of Rome. Little is known about them since men wrote the histories and were not allowed to witness the ceremony. 9 Anthony Everitt, Cicero: The Life and Times of Rome’s Greatest Politician (New York: Random House, 2003),

120 – 21.

Bento 7

sacrilege was dropped. However, this would not be the end of the trouble, a rumor was

spread around that he and his sister had intimate relations with one another (one should not

be surprised), which was illegal and considered indecent. He was to be put on trial the

following year once again for the Bona Dea scandal with the addition of the charge of

incest. Ironically, Clodius had accused Cataline of that back in 73 BCE. Although incest

was relatively commonplace amongst Patricians, it was kept quite due to the social taboos

attached to it. Rumors such as this were known to ruin a young politician’s reputation

beyond repair, but unfortunately for Clodius evidence proving his guilt materialized and he

soon found himself to be quite an unlucky individual. This evidence came in the form of

Cicero’s wife Terentia finding out through one of the house slaves of the sister of Clodius.

She proceeded to inform her husband which put him in a very awkward position. Since the

charges of sacrilege were dropped in the bona dea scandal, this has become in effect a very

petty attempt to smear the reputation of Clodius. Cicero needed to maintain an image of his

own, being a novus homo10 it could be damaging to involve himself in a petty matter. On

the other hand he had the honor of the Republic to look after.

Clodius knew that the situation was dire and attached himself to a rich and corrupt

beneficiary, Marcus Licinius Crassus. Crassus made his wealth through tax farming of the

newly acquired eastern provinces which were immensely flush with wealth. Of the

powerful individuals of that time, Crassus was one of the most corrupt, and he used this

corruption to get the eastern provinces which would eventually make him the richest man

10 “New Man”, this refers to the first of a patrician family name to serve in the Roman Senate. Cicero was the

first of the Tullii to do so. This meant extra special attention had to be paid to the upkeep of the reputation of

one’s family name in order to retain ones prestige. The older Patrician names such as the Junii, Julii, Claudii,

etc., did not need to regularly maintain their reputation for little faux pax since they had hundreds of years of

prestige preceding them.

Bento 8

in the entire history of the Roman Republic (He was essentially the Koch Brothers of the

First Century BCE). Crassus set out to bribe all of the jurors to ensure acquittal. It just

about seemed as if Clodius was going to be acquitted, that is until Cicero reluctantly

testified against Clodius. Up until this point, Clodius had the alibi that he was not in the

city at the time of the incident, however Cicero testified that he was and cited his wife’s

“eye witness” testimony. Terentia supposedly had an ulterior motive though, she harbored

hostile feelings toward Clodius Pulcher’s sister, Clodia, who evidently had “designs to

marry” Cicero, and then to inject more controversy she added the part in which Clodia

bedded her brother.11 If that actually happened, it was most likely aimed more at Clodia

rather than her brother. As fantastic a story as it is, according to Epstein this premise is

rejected among modern scholars as nothing more than gossip propagated by Plutarch,

which explains why he is the only contemporary to write about it as a primary source.

However, her disdain for Clodius was widely known, and this likely had an influence on

Cicero’s decision to reluctantly testify. The commonly known motivation for Cicero to

testify at the trial was that he was essentially drawn in against his better judgment.

Even though Cicero did not like Clodius Pulcher and often chastised him, he was

very much against this trial. Since the end of the Catilinarian conspiracy Cicero had been

working very hard to depolarize the Roman senate. Cicero would have been satisfied with

the judgment of sacrilege the pontiffs bestowed on Clodius. But the legal trial to prosecute

him under the law for the very same charge (keep in mind religion and politics are

11 David Epstein, “Cicero’s Testimony at the Bona Dea Trial”, Classical Philology, Vol. 81 (July 1986), 232.

Bento 9

intertwined in the Roman Republic) he saw as something that would polarize the senate

again and lead to the same partisan conflict that led to Catiline.12

Even though there was overwhelming evidence against Clodius complete with a

corroborating testimony, Crassus and his money won the day and an acquittal was issued.

Unfortunately, Clodius was known to be vindictive and pledged from that moment that he

would exact revenge against Cicero for testifying against him.13 But the question remains,

how he would do it? For some time it seemed as if Cicero had the upper hand and that

Clodius was nothing more than a young brash blowhard making idle threats of which he

did not have the means to carry out. The two would often exchange insults in the Senate,

with Cicero typically outwitting him and subsequently embarrassing him. It seemed like

once again Cicero would come out of a difficult legal situation intact and unharmed, or so

he thought.

In 60 BCE, Gaius Julius Caesar had begun to work on a political alliance that

would ensure the domination of the Senate and Roman State. Caesar was another one from

the generation of populist opportunists created in the wake of Sulla’s murderous spree. The

only difference was, he actually took the opportunity to serve under Sulla as one of his

legates. This experience from Julius Caesar’s youth was most likely the driving force

behind his desire to consolidate power in the Roman State. Though he could not do it

alone, so he sought to forge an alliance with the most powerful men in the Roman Senate.

This was in response to Marcus Porcius Cato (or “Cato the Younger”) leading the

12 Epstein, 231. 13 Everitt, 123 – 26.

Bento 10

Optimates14 in a spree of political obstruction against various Popularis15 sponsored bills.

Caesar had a secret emissary go approach three other leading figures to negotiate entry into

this alliance, Marcus Licinius Crassus, Gnaeus Pompieus Magnus, and Marcus Tullius

Cicero were the three Caesar had determined to be the most powerful and influential

figures of the senate aside from himself. Demonstration of agreement was arranged around

the support of a land bill which would distribute land to the soldiers from the recent

military campaign in Iberia that Caesar wanted passed as his first action as Consul. Crassus

and Pompey both saw this as an opportunity to greatly enhance their power and wealth and

agreed, Cicero on the other hand at first was planning on supporting the bill and the

alliance in an attempt to get closer to Pompey, but at the last minute he decided against it

as his conscience got the better of him.16 This was a turning point in the Republic, one that

would set it on a future course to ultimate destruction and the establishment of the

Principate. It is interesting to think that if Cicero had not had second thoughts that the First

Triumvirate might have been called something like the First Quadumvirate17. This was bad

news for Cicero though, with the combined money and power of these three figures,

Cicero’s skill for rhetoric, political maneuvering, and influence would not be enough to

drive the political process any longer and to go against this alliance would mean certain

ruin for Cicero, and that is exactly what would happen next.

14 The closest present day equivalent to interpreting this political faction would be

“Conservatives.” 15 The Populist Faction of the Senate. 16 Everitt, 136 – 38. 17 Rule of four men.

Bento 11

In 59 BCE, the year of Julius Caesar’s first consulship there were many

controversial rulings made. The one that impacted Cicero most and set him on a path to

political destruction was when his friend Antonius was tried and convicted on trumped up

corruption charges. As a result Cicero on an impulse publically spoke out against the First

Triumvirate18, which was a borderline suicidal move, as he may well have been

assassinated with the vitriol of his speech. Despite Cicero’s defense, Antonius was

convicted of the charges laid before him. Unfortunately for present day scholars, the

contents of that speech have been lost since Cicero had a policy of not publishing losing

speeches. This caused the benefactors of Clodius Pulcher to use him as a weapon of sorts

to get to Cicero and punish him for his impudence. Later on this move would come back to

bite the members of the First Triumvirate as Clodius would prove impossible to control,

but for the time being it was a move to their advantage. Arrangements were made by

Caesar to change the social status of Clodius from Patrician to Plebeian by way of

adoption. The impetus behind this move was to gain control of the People’s Assembly so

that they could bypass the Optimate obstructionists in the senate, as well as Cicero’s

influence over the moderate vote. Using adoption as a means for political advancement was

commonplace in the Roman Republic and Empire. It enabled an individual to inherit

wealth, gain prestige, or bid for power. In fact one of the most famous political adoptions

was when Julius Caesar adopted his great-nephew Octavius in his last will and testament.

The lust for power was the motive of both Caesar and Clodius. This would enable the

Clodius to run for the position of Tribune of the Plebs, which would not only fulfill the

aforementioned control of the People’s Assembly but it would also allow Clodius to

18 Everitt. 141 – 46.

Bento 12

introduce legislation against Cicero to the Assembly without prior consent of the Senate,

thereby exacting his long awaited revenge. With the wealth and money of the First

Triumvirate behind him this was a certainty.

As Tribune, Clodius used his position as a Popularis to curry popular favor by

means of legislation that gave substantial relief to the poor urban masses of Rome, one bill

which for the first time ever gave free grain distribution to the Plebs, something that was

unheard of due to the monopoly of the Collegia19 on the distribution of grain in the city.

Clodius also used the money from his beneficiaries to fund street gangs of his own to do

his bidding by gaining control of the Forum.

With the urban mob supporting him and street gangs to prevent any naysayers from

reaching the Forum, Clodius introduced a bill in 58 BCE that mandated the denial “fire and

water to any public official that executed or had executed a citizen without due process of

law.” This meant that Cicero was essentially to be exiled from Rome since he had done this

with the Catilinarian conspirators and the legislation carried with it a retroactive clause, no

doubt so it could be aimed at Cicero. It seems that Clodius got his revenge, since upon the

passing of this bill, the end of public life for Cicero had essentially been signaled. Almost

immediately we see the first signs of trauma induced mental instability. “Cicero responded

by going into mourning, wearing torn clothes and letting his beard and hair grow, and he

presented himself in public as a suppliant.”20 This was not typical behavior of Cicero, sure

he was an excitable person whom was prone to speak without thinking at times (precisely

19 A Collegium was a form of trade guild in the Roman Republic. They were often associated with gang

violence. 20 Everitt, 140 – 46.

Bento 13

what got him to this point in the first place), but he has not been known to have any sort of

emotional breakdown as such of this magnitude. The growing of a mourning beard in

Roman custom was typically reserved for when a loved one had died. Cicero loved politics

and the prestige that came along with it. The wealth resulting from it allowed him to

purchase and enjoy countless villas around the Italian Peninsula. So perhaps one could

interpret this as a metaphor being that it was the so called death of his political career.

However that is entirely circumstantial by nature as there is no written evidence to support

of refute that claim, but it is a valid inference non-the-less.

Before the law had gone into effect Cicero was faced with a difficult decision, he

could either take up arms or openly oppose Clodius and his street gangs (and the First

Triumvirate) or he could depart the city. On the advisement of Cato he chose the latter.

Cato had warned that he risked civil war if he were to take up arms, a fate the city was still

feeling the effects from when Sulla started his civil war in 84 BCE. If looked at from the

point of view of Cato the Younger, it can be seen that he played an integral role in keeping

Cicero from being exiled by Clodius as long as possible. Clodius knew this and arranged

for him to be assigned to a governorship in Cyprus where he was required to negotiate the

surrender of the Ptolemy’s in Egypt. Plutarch writes that initially Clodius made it seem that

he was giving a great gift to Cato. He sensed Clodius’s trickery from the beginning and

angrily turned him down to which Clodius then said, “Well, then, if you don't think it a

favour, you shall make the voyage as a punishment.”21 Reluctantly, Cicero voluntarily

went into exile. According to Cassius Dio, before he left the city “he ascended the Capitol

21 Plutarch, trans. Bernadotte Perrin, Plutarch's lives. Volume VIII, Sertorius and Eumenes ; Phocion and

Cato the Younger, (London: Heinemann, 1919), 317 – 21.

Bento 14

[Capitoline Hill] and dedicated a little image of Minerva, whom he styled the

Protectress.”22 It is likely the meaning of this was that Cicero was acknowledging that he

was no longer the “protector of the Republic” as he saw himself as well as many others,

and that now the fate of the city was in the hands of the gods, ironically so was his own.

Roman law stipulates that one who is denied fire and water must not come within 3750

stades23 of the City of Rome.

Cicero’s journey south was a gamble, because if all the citizens complied with the

law, he would have no place to stay and no place to eat. Fortunately for him, his patronage

of many small villages as well as his overall influence made it so most of the citizenry

outside the city of Rome ignored the law and happily took him in. The only problem he

experienced was he had to change his original destination or Sicily (where he previously

held a Quaestorship and subsequently a governorship) because he received notice he had

been barred from the province under the terms of his “exile”. He made for Brundisium, the

major port city at the heel of the boot on the Italian Peninsula, and from there he made his

way to Greece. He spent the remainder of his exile in Thessalonica with a friendly Roman

Quaestor.24

Any normal person experiences some form of minor depression when tragedy

strikes, especially when it involves them losing their home. There is undoubtedly going to

be some kind of outward expression of sorrow, such as crying, but in the case of Cicero‟s

22 Earnest Cary, Dio’s Roman History, Vol. III (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1914), 235 – 37. 23 A “stade” is a Roman unit of measuring distance. It is commonly thought to be anywhere from 7 ½ - 8

stades to a mile. For the purpose of simplicity this paper go by what the Roman historian Cassius Dio writes,

a present day “mile” is 7 ½ stades in distance. 24 The closest present day equivalent would be a City Controller. Quaestors were responsible for keeping

the books and most importantly regulating the grain shipments from their province to be sent to Rome.

Bento 15

exile the evidence was more indicative of a complete mental breakdown. According to

Everitt, “if we are to believe what he writes in his letters, he may have suffered something

like a complete mental breakdown, and seems to have attempted, or at least considered,

suicide.”25 Cicero described in his letters to his confidante Atticus that he had been crying a

lot and lost a considerable amount of weight.26 All of these factors point to a complete and

total breakdown of Cicero’s mental wellbeing. He was a very intelligent man, highly

educated, and extremely resourceful, and above all else he was quite full of himself. In

most situations where it seems like there may not be a solution his arrogance would kick in

and he would go on the attack. But not this time, for him to even contemplate suicide is

evidence enough of his mind altering trauma. The fact is that all of this was brought on by

his political ruin. He had to leave his wife and children behind in Rome where the ever

vindictive Clodius not only had his house on the Palatine Hill burned to the ground, but

also had the site in which it previously stood consecrated and commissioned the new

Temple of Liberty to be built on that site, that way Cicero could never get his land in the

city back. Quite a few of his countryside villas were also razed, although not all, since

Cicero had a flair for collecting villas, it would have been too big a task to locate and raze

them all, especially considering some of them were a great distance from Rome. All of

these horrible personal tragedies would cause anyone to have a mental breakdown, why

should Cicero be any different?

25 Everitt, 148. 26 Everitt, 149.

Bento 16

Throughout Cicero’s journey during his exile, he can be seen travelling from Rome

down to Vibo27 and from there to Brundisium and ultimately to Thessalonica in Greece

where he remained for the most of the duration of his exile. The most important part of this

journey when it comes to ascertaining Cicero’s overall situation as well as assessing his

mental wellbeing, are the letters he writes to Atticus, Terentia (his wife), and Quintus (his

Brother), but most importantly so his letters to Atticus. As was mentioned before, he had

contemplated suicide while still in Rome, now he mentions his regret for not going through

with it when writing to Atticus from Vibo in April of 58 BCE. “I hope I may see the day

when I shall thank you for having compelled me to remain alive! At present I thoroughly

repent it.”28Already he is once again reverting back to contemplating suicide even after

Atticus talked him out of it once before. As far as Cicero is concerned it might as well be

the end of the world. Over the course of the month of April he writes six letters to Atticus

whom is currently in Rome. The letters are often very short, no more than a paragraph or

two which is odd for Cicero since when he writes letters they are usually long and drawn

out. The letter origins span a few different towns on his way from Vibo to Brundisum.

Most importantly that all contain essentially the same material, they explain that Cicero is

sad, depressed, or upset in some way, and they always end with him pleading for Atticus to

travel south and meet up with him. To a person who scantly knows about Cicero and reads

this series of letters for the first time, they would likely get the impression that Cicero and

Atticus where lovers from Cicero’s desperate pleas to see him in person. It is entirely

27 A city on the northwestern part of the toe of the boot of Italy in the region of Calabria. 28 Marcus Tullius Cicero, Trans. Evelyn Shuckburgh, The Letters of Cicero: The Whole Extant

Correspondence in Chronological Order, Vol. 1 (London: George Bell and Sons, 1899), 137.

Bento 17

possible that Cicero just needed to see the face of someone he trusted completely, a friend

in his hour of need. If he was as inconsolable as he lets on then perhaps this friendship is

all that he thought he had left to live for. The pattern of regretting not committing suicide

continued for quite some time.

On the 29th of April when he arrived at Brundisium, Cicero wrote a rather lengthy

letter to his wife and children who were still in Rome. The first half of the letter details that

he misses his family and that he wishes that he could just “die in his wife’s arms” instead

of enduring the sadness of his untimely departure from Rome. The second half of the letter

almost resembles a makeshift last will and testament, where he explains to his wife what to

do with his property upon his death, and if their property was confiscated or to be

confiscated that all of their slaves were to be freed. He also gave instructions on how she

could go about fighting to keep his reputation alive and to fight for his return, which he

quickly dismisses as futile anyway. Then at the end of the letter he tells Terentia, “Our life

is over: we have had our day: it is not any fault of ours that has ruined us, but our virtue. I

have made no false step, except in not losing my life when I lost my honors.” This clear

admission of defeat is nothing like the Cicero before exile who always fought back even

when the odds were against him. He may not have been a man of arms, but he always

should strength with his words, he was able to argue his way out of anything (just about).

For him to essentially roll over and die like this not just to his best friend, but also to his

wife and children was not typical behavior of Cicero. For a man that was obsessed with

maintaining his appearance, it is a bit out of the ordinary that he would tell so many people

all of these melodramatic statements, which under normal circumstances would make him

Bento 18

look foolish. This was clear evidence of stress induced trauma to his mental state, and the

beginning of a behavioral shift in his personality.

Using the negative events and emotional responses during his exile are only half of

the evidence when it comes to describing Cicero and assessing whether or not he had a

trauma induced change in mental state, or even a minor case of post-traumatic stress

disorder at the very least. His actions upon his return must also be assessed, that is where

one will find out if there has truly been a permanent mental scarring. Orchestrating the

return was no small feat either, in the time that Cicero had been in exile, the Senate had

tried numerous times to put forth bills to absolve Cicero of any guilt and each time been

blocked by Clodius using the Tribune’s veto. There was also Chaos in the streets of Rome

instigated and sustained by the street gangs employed by Clodius. It was not until 56 BCE

when the tribunes of that year, Milo and Sestius, both of whom were long time supporters

of Cicero and Optimates, recruited their own street gangs and promptly went to “war” with

the gangs of Clodius. This uptick in violent chaos put enough pressure in the First

Triumvirate to secure their blessing for Cicero’s return as well as keep Clodius occupied so

he may not interfere with the legislation. The recall of Cicero would be approved through

the Senate, but it would come at a high price. Cicero had to promise Pompey that he would

no longer attack the First Triumvirate, and he made that promise.29 This is a shocking turn

of events, because the pre-exile Cicero who was regarded as the “protector of the

Republic” would have never agreed to such terms, chiefly because he would never support

a person or group who were subverting the constitution, at least not openly like he did here.

29 Everitt, 152-53.

Bento 19

This concession is the first of its kind and would not be the last. Over the coming decade or

so, Cicero would bend to the will of Pompey more than once. One of the most well-known

examples of which are when Pompey and his supporters in the senate flee to the south or

Rome just before Caesar arrives to take the city, and Cicero is one of the Senators who

flees with Pompey.

Another piece of evidence supporting a trauma induced mental change is the

delusional nature of Cicero’s post-exile writings and speeches. According to Arthur

Robinson the specific Latin word for exile30 is not found to be used in any of Cicero’s

writings on that period, but rather a smattering of different euphemisms carefully crafted

into the writing so as to project an illusion of heroism in his actions, for instance that he

left to “spare the Roman people more bloodshed.”31 It is almost as if he is trying to erase

the memory of this incident where he was cast aside by those he opposed for the first time

in his life, through a self-deluding attempt to spin the incident in his favor. Although this

does not really change how everyone else views his exile. The fact that he cannot even

bring himself to mention the word exsilium even in the private letters to his confidant

Atticus (which he has divulged matters of personal shame before) shows that it is an active

suppression of what happened and therefore an altered mental state.

Another indication that Cicero had changed drastically since his exile was when he

issued his Pro Milone speech in defense of the very tribune who killed Clodius on the Via

Appia when the two street gangs met. Pompey Magnus had since declared himself sole

30 exsilium 31 Arthur Robinson, "Cicero's References to His Banishment." The Classical World 87, no. 6 (2014): pp. 479

Bento 20

Consul given the chaos that was ravaging the streets as a result of the death of Clodius. The

trouble with populists like Cataline and Clodius is precisely this, they are loved by the

people so much that the people in effect riot in support of them. Regardless of the situation

that Clodius had caused in the city, Milo was brought to trial for the murder of Clodius.

Since Milo was a friend to Cicero, and one of the tribunes that made his return from exile

possible, Cicero chose to defend him at trial. The speech was not as good as Cicero’s

orations were known to be. He was apparently nervous as well, which was another red flag.

Strangely though, this speech was similar to Cicero’s speeches against Cataline, and it

drew some parallels between the two in which Clodius was like Cataline, and Milo was

like Cicero. One would assume the reason for this was that Cicero was attempting to

vindicate himself and erase the shame of his exile by attempting to use the same argument

to win the case for Milo. Of course, this failed to convince Pompey and the rest of the

Tribunal that Milo was justified in his actions and a conviction was decreed. Milo was to

be exiled just as Cicero was; quite an ironic situation. The most peculiar part of all of this

was that Cicero had chosen to publish his revised version after the conviction. Cicero had

the habit of publishing all of his winning orations, but his vanity caused him to employ a

strict policy of not publishing losing orations. Even worse was that the revised version was

full of added material that was full well known not to be in his verbal delivery at the trial.

A lot of that material would have likely caused him to actually win the case had he said it

at the time.32 Whether it was seen as an attempt at personal redemption or a political

32 Aislinn Melchior, “Twinned fortunes and the Publication of Cicero’s Pro Milone”, Classical Philology,

Vol. 103 (July 2008), 282 – 89.

Bento 21

statement, Cicero would have never done something like this in the past. There was almost

a sense of desperation attached to this action. This publication of a failed speech, coupled

with the fact that there were eye witness accounts of Cicero being nervous during the

delivery, definitely points to a behavioral change that coincides with the return from exile.

In conclusion, this paper has examined the events that led up to the exile of Cicero

and the contributing factors. There is a clear change in his behavior when comparing pre-

exile Cicero and post-exile Cicero. Before exile Cicero had the courage and prowess to

stand up to the most powerful and dangerous public figures of the time, ranging from

Cataline to the First Triumvirate, the latter of which was the cause of his demise. As can be

inferred from his letters during exile he was particularly distraught and exhibited the signs

of a major behavioral change brought on by the stress and shame of his exile. Certainly

Cicero returned to politics after his recall, but from then on out he was no longer a pillar of

political strength, but rather a follower of Pompey. His pledge to stay out of Pompey’s way

was the only way Cicero would have been allowed to return to Rome, and tired of the

shame and sadness Cicero sold out his principles to Pompey for a seat back at the table. To

further deepen his delusion he actively avoids using the word exile in his letters and

orations. Using a variety of euphemisms he attempt to fool others and likely himself into

thinking it was a noble action to leave the city instead of a great shame. And finally the

attempted suicide and / or suicidal tendencies during the height of his exile are indicative

of severe depression. It is safe then to assert the claim that Marcus Tullius Cicero suffered

a major behavioral change induced by the trauma of his exile from Rome at the hands of

Clodius Pulcher.

Bento 22

Bibliography

Primary Sources

Cary, Earnest. Dio's Roman History. Vol. III. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard

University Press;, 1914.

Cicero, Marcus Tullius. Back from Exile: Six Speeches Upon his Return. Edited and

Translated by D. R. Shackleton Bailey. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1991.

Cicero, Marcus Tullius, and Evelyn Shucksburgh. The Letters of Cicero: The Whole Extant

Correspodence in Chronological Order. Vol. 1. London: George Bell and Sons

1899.

Cicero, Marcus Tullius, and Titus Pomponius Atticus. Cicero's Letters to Atticus.

Harmondsworth, Eng.: Penguin Books, 1978.

Perrin, Bernadotte. Plutarch's Lives. Vol. VII. London: W. Heinemann ;, 1914.

Plutarch. Trans, Warner, Rex. Fall of the Roman Republic. Rev. and Expanded ed.

London: Penguin Books, 2005.

Plutarch, and Bernadotte Perrin. Plutarch's Lives., Sertorius and Eumenes ; Phocion and

Cato the Younger. Vol. VIII. London: Heinemann, 1919.

Secondary Sources

Barnes, E. J. Cicero and Sallust: On the Consipacy of Catiline. New York London:

Longman, 1988.

Beard, Mary. "Lucky City." London Review of Books 23, no. 16 (2001): 3-6. .

Dyck, Andrew. "Cicero's "Devotio": The Roles of Dux and Scape-Goat in His "Post

Reditum" Rhetoric." Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 102 (2004): 299-314.

Epstein, David. "Cicero’s Testimony at the Bona Dea Trial." Classical Philology 81, no. 3

(1986): 229-35.

Everitt, Anthony. Cicero: The Life and times of Rome's Greatest Politician,

New York: Random House, 2003.

Melchior, Aislinn. "Twinned Fortunes and the Publication of Cicero‟s Pro Milone."

Classical Philology 103, no. 3 (2008): 282-97.

Bento 23

Narducci, Emanuele. "Perceptions of Exile in Cicero: The Philosophical Interpretation of a

Real Experience." American Journal of Philology 118, no. 1 (1997): 55-73.

Nutting, H.C. "Cicero in Exile." The Classical Weekly 23, no. 22 (1930).

Ramsey, J. T. Sallust's Bellum Catilinae. Oxford: American Philological Association

Book, 2007.

Rawson, Elizabeth. Cicero: A Portrait. Rev. ed. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1983.

Robinson, Arthur. "Cicero's References to His Banishment." The Classical World 87,

no. 6 (2014): 475-80.

Smith, Clement Lawrence. "Cicero's Journey into Exile." Harvard Studies in Classical

Philology 7 (2014): 65-84.