169. The author of the declamation references an attack made by Alexander against Athens.
170. See, e.g., Cicero, who quotes a verse from Ennius’s Annales and then states, “Our poet seems to have obtained these words, so brief and true, from an oracle” (Resp. 5.1). See also Aeschines (Ctes. 135–36), who quotes Hesiod and then states, “If you disregard the poet’s meter and examine only his thought, I think this will seem to you to be, not a poem of Hesiod, but an oracle directed against the politics of Demosthenes [ἀλλὰ χρησμὸν εἰς τὴν Δημοσθένους πολιτείαν]” (Ctes. 136); Lycurgus (Against Leocrates 92), who prefaces a quotation of poetry by stating, “For the first step taken by the gods in the case of wicked men is to unhinge their reason; and personally I value as the utterance of an oracle these lines, composed by ancient poets and handed down to posterity [καὶ μοι δοκοῦσι τῶν ἀρχαίων τινὲς ποιητῶν ὧσπερ χρησμοὺς γράψαντες τοῖς ἐπιγινομένοις τάδε τὰ ἰαμβεῖα καταλιπεῖν].” Here, however, one must exert caution, as the various terms translated “oracle” can carry a wide range of meanings, not unlike the term topos.
171. See Quintilian, Inst. 5.12.42. The other examples that Quintilian cites in this passage are discussed below.
172. The significance of this is that this speech is therefore technically not a species of forensic rhetoric in that it is not a formal accusation of Catiline. It is, rather, Cicero’s report to the people of what has taken place, and in places sounds much like a self-encomium (cf. Dio Cassius’s statement: “[Cicero] was the greatest boaster alive and regarded no one as equal to himself” (Hist. Rom. 38.12.7; see also Plutarch, Comp. Dem. Cic. 2.1: “[W]hereas Cicero’s immoderate boasting of himself in his speeches proves that he had an intemperate desire for fame”). Heibges argues that while this speech is deliberative in nature, the citation of the direction of the gods is nonetheless employed by Cicero in order to persuade his audience more effectively that he has taken the correct course of action; see Heibges, “Religion and Rhetoric,” 833–49.
173. Cicero employs the same strategy in a forensic speech, through which he defends Sulla against the accusation that he was a part of this same conspiracy. In that speech, Cicero states: “Thwarted on this charge, Torquatus returns to the attack and makes another accusation against me. He says that I falsified the entry in the public records of what was said. Immortal gods!—for I grant you your due and cannot with honesty claim for myself the sole credit for distinguishing unaided the number, variety and speed of the dangers in that storm which burst so furiously upon the State—it was surely you who then kindled in my mind the desire to preserve my country, you who turned me from all other considerations to the single thought of delivering the Republic, you in short who amid the deep shadow of uncertainty and ignorance illumined my thoughts with the brightness of your light” (Sull. 40).
174. Pliny the Elder also records a lightning strike which he interprets to be an omen with respect to Catiline; see Nat. 2.52.137.
Cicero’s statement recorded here is an excellent example of the rhetorical figure of speech known as paralipsis (occultatio), as described in Rhet. Her. 4.27.37: “Paralipsis [occultatio] occurs when we say that we are passing by, or do not know, or refuse to say that which precisely now we are saying.”
175. “You remember, of course, that in the consulship of Cotta and Torquatus a large number of objects on the Capitol were struck by lightning, images of the gods were overthrown and statues of men of old overturned and the bronze tablets of our laws melted; even the statue of Romulus, the founder of Rome, was struck . . . On that occasion the soothsayers assembled from the whole of Etruria and said that murder and arson, the end of the rule of law, rebellion and civil war, the destruction of the whole city and of our empire were upon us, unless the immortal gods were placated by every means and used their power virtually to alter the path of destiny” (Cat. 3.19).
176. “Who here can be so blind to the truth, so impetuous, so deranged in his mind as to deny that, more than any other city in the whole world that we see about us, Rome is governed by the will and the power of the immortal gods?” (Cat. 3.21) Heibges expresses some doubt as to the timing concerning the erection of the statue and the coup being averted. She intimates that this confluence of events may have been manipulated in order to bring about the desired results; see Heibges, “Religion and Rhetoric,” 844.
177. Another speech falsely attributed to Dio Chrysostom, which includes multiple instances of the topos of divine testimony, is the oration to the Corinthians. The central issue with which the speech is concerned is a bronze statue of the speaker which has ostensibly been removed. The speaker begins by relating the story of Arion, a passenger on a ship sailing to Corinth, whom the ship’s crew threatened to throw overboard. Arion began to sing, and dolphins, which heard the song, surrounded the ship. He jumped overboard and was carried by a dolphin to safety. The sailors were put on trial and executed; Arion erected a bronze statue in Taenarum (where the dolphin delivered him), the statue depicting himself on the dolphin. He then relates the story of Periander, “whom the Greeks were wont to call tyrant, though the gods called him king” (37.5). He then provides evidence of this by quoting an oracle (37.5). But even though Periander was held in so high regard by the gods, no statue was erected to him in Corinth. Herodotus also visited the city, but the city did not provide remuneration for him. The speaker uses these examples as evidence that the Corinthians do not value what is truly valuable; what is truly valuable, in the case of Arion and Periander, is that for which the gods show high regard and to which they testify through the miraculous deed and oracle mentioned. Not content to rest his case, the speaker continues his accusations by claiming that Daedalus himself crafted the statue (37.9), and that it was erected in a place that belongs to both Helius and Poseidon (37.12), to which the Sibyl sang praises (37.13). The speaker uses all of these varied (somewhat indirect) methods of divine testimony to bolster his case that his statue was wrongfully removed.
178. Laelius continues by saying: “If the truth really is that the souls of all good men after death make the easiest escape from what may be termed the imprisonment and fetters of the flesh, whom can we think of as having had an easier journey to the gods than Scipio?”
179. Quite possibly Aristides was one of these; cf. the discussion of the Asclepius cult at Pergamum and Aristides’s involvement with it in Behr, Aelius Aristides, 23–90.
180. Cicero mentions this in several different contexts; see, e.g., Vat. 7.18; Har. resp. 48; Phil. 2.32.81–34.84.
181. A passage from Dio Cassius is helpful for understanding this practice; in Hist. Rom. 38.13.3–6, Dio explains that, although he does not know the exact origins of the practice, at some time the Romans began searching the heavens for omens in conjunction with significant political decisions. According to Dio, if one consulted the heavens and saw some type of ominous portent, the assembly was by law not allowed to consider any legislation on that day. He adds that this practice was certainly abused by some in order to prevent legislation they opposed to be enacted. Gardner