De Lacy - Cicero's Invective Against Piso

8/14/2019 De Lacy - Cicero's Invective Against Piso

1/12

Cicero's Invective against Piso

Phillip DeLacy

Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association, Vol. 72. (1941), pp.49-58.

Stable URL:

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0065-9711%281941%2972%3C49%3ACIAP%3E2.0.CO%3B2-I

Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association is currently published by The Johns HopkinsUniversity Press.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available athttp://www.jstor.org/about/terms.html. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtainedprior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content inthe JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained athttp://www.jstor.org/journals/jhup.html.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printedpage of such transmission.

The JSTOR Archive is a trusted digital repository providing for long-term preservation and access to leading academicjournals and scholarly literature from around the world. The Archive is supported by libraries, scholarly societies, publishers,and foundations. It is an initiative of JSTOR, a not-for-profit organization with a mission to help the scholarly community takeadvantage of advances in technology. For more information regarding JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

http://www.jstor.orgFri Feb 8 04:41:15 2008
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0065-9711%281941%2972%3C49%3ACIAP%3E2.0.CO%3B2-Ihttp://www.jstor.org/about/terms.htmlhttp://www.jstor.org/journals/jhup.htmlhttp://www.jstor.org/journals/jhup.htmlhttp://www.jstor.org/about/terms.htmlhttp://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0065-9711%281941%2972%3C49%3ACIAP%3E2.0.CO%3B2-I


2/12

Vol. Ixxii] Cicero s Invective Against Piso

1V.-Cicero s Invective Against PisoPHILLIP DELACY

THE UNIVERSITY O F CHICAGO

Thi s article is summarized in th e first paragraph.

In the years immediately following his return from exile Ciceromade a number of at tacks on Lucius Calpurnius Piso Caesoninus.The most violent of these attacks was the oration I n Pisonem, de-livered before the senate in 55 B.C. The fact that Piso was anEpicurean was used by Cicero as one of the principal grounds of hisinvective. I t is the purpose of this paper to show that the at tack onPiso as an Epicurean is derived from the anti-Epicurean polemiccurrent in the popular philosophical li terature of Cicero s time.Cicero directed the general anti-Epicurean arguments against thesingle Epicurean Piso, without submitting specific evidence to proveth at the arguments were appropriate to this particular case.That Cicero consciously recognized the device of using generalarguments in particular cases is clear from the e Oratore, where hestates that i t is impossible for an orator t o separate general questions(inJinita or theseis) from specific questions (Jini ta or hypotheseis).He argues that all specific cases can be classed under some generalproblem, and that the arguments appropriate to the latter areapplicable to the former. I t is quite natural to suppose, therefore,that when attacking the Epicurean Piso Cicero did not hesitate touse against him the anti-Epicurean arguments which he had en-countered in his philosophical studies. A comparison of his invec-tive with the popular polemic against the Epicureans will show thatthe same arguments appear in both.

For the sake of convenience the par ts of Cicero s at tack whichdeal with the Epicureanism of Piso may be discussed under fourheads: 1. the pursuit of pleasure; 2 the denial of divine providence;3. the withdrawal from public life; 4. the cultivation of friendship.

e Orat . 2 .133-35 especially the words: Nulla denique est causa in qua id quod


3/12

5 Phillip DeLacy [I

One of the oldest charges made against Epicurus and his followerswas that they cultivated the most vulgar and coarse physicalpleasures. Within the lifetime of Epicurus himself a certain'I'imocrates, the brother of Metrodorus and a renegade from theEpicurean school, wrote a work in which he charged that Epicurusspent a mina a day on food, and that i s airr6v rijs pipas i p ~ i v ~ b~pu4ijs. He also claimed that Epicurus and Metrodorus consortedwith the courtesans R4ammarion, Hedeia, Erotion, and Nicidion.?Later writers made similar accusations, emphasizing particularlyEpicurus' love of food. Timon in his Silloi ridiculed Epicurus' lackof culture and love of the pleasures of the belly.3 The StoicChrysippus said that the spiritual godfather of Epicuru.~wasArchestratus, the man who travelled all over the world with theavowed purpose of making an inventory of the choicest foods hecould find.' Carneades,j D i o t i m ~ s , ~ and inosidonius,7 C i c e r ~ , ~later times Plutarch and many others carried on the attack.

Cicero's description of the riotous living of Piso has a markedsimilarity with these at tacks on the Epicureans. In the n PisonemCicero describes in detail the feasts and revels of Piso and his Greekfriends.1 He stresses particularly the pleasures of food and drink,as opposed to the more refined pleasures of eyes and ears." Piso'sstupra are also mentioned.12 Cicero calls Piso a monster, a beast, a

D. L. 10.6-7; Cic. N a t . D e o r . 1.1 13; cf. E . Bignone, L 'Ar i s to t e l e Pe rdu to e laF o r m a z i o n e F i l o s o j c a d i E p i c u r o (Florence, 1936) 2.48, 2261.

3 At h. 7.11 (279 F ) ; 13.53 (588 A-B); D.L. 10.3.At h. 3.63 (104 B ) ; 7.8 (278 E ) : Bignone, L ' A r i s t . P e rd . 2.244-47.Plu. N o n P os se S u a vi te r V i v i S e c u n d u m E p i c u r u m 4 (1089 C ) ; see Usener, E p i c u r e a

287.6 D. L. 10.3, cf. Ath. 13.92 (611 B) ; W. Cronert, Kolo te s und ~Vle ne de mos Leipzig,

1906) 22.7 D.L. 10.4; cf. Ath . 7.10 (279 D-E).8E.g. F i n . 1.23-25; 2.7, 21-23, 98, 107; N a t . D e o r . 1.111-13, T u s c . 3.41f.; 5.94.9 Especially in th e essay N o n P o ss e S u a vi te r V i v i S e c u nd u m E p i c u r u m . Cicero's

philosophical works and Plutarch's essays are of course subsequent t o th e I n P i s o n e m ;yet ther e is little doubt t ha t th ey b oth embody earlier material tha t would have beenavailable to Cicero at the time that he wrote the I n P is on em . Bignone, "StudiPlutarchei." R F I C 44 (1916) 269-75 suggests Antiochus a s th e common source of Cic.F i n . 2 and Plu. N o n P o s se .

l o P i s . 22. 66f.


4/12

Vol. lxxii] Cicero s Invective Ag ain st Pi so 1horse, and a pig,13 just as in the anti-Epicurean polemic cheEpicureans are said to reduce men t o the level of animals.14

There is a particularly close parallel in the popular parody ofEpicurean education and Cicero's description of Piso's philo-sophical studies. The comic poet Damoxenus portrayed in hisBivrpo+or a cook who claimed to have learned the a r t of compoundingculinary pleasures in Epicurus' school, where he spent four talents,presumably for food, over a period of scarcely two years and tenmonths.15 Baton, another comic poet, in his 2vve{aaarBv, referred toEpicurus as a teacher of wastrels,16 and the same theme seems tohave appeared in Alexis' l and in Hegesippus'haw~o6i6dra~aXos@ i X k ~ a i ~ o i . ~O n the oration C u m Sen atui Grat ias Egit Cicero saysthat Piso's Epicurean teachers taught not the pursuit of virtue butthe cultivation of the pleasures of the body: His utitur quasipraefectis libidinum suarum, hi voluptates omnes vestigant atqueodorantur, hi sunt conditores instructoresque convivii, idemexpendunt atque aestimant voluptates, sententiamque dicunt etiudicant, quantum cuique libidini tribuendum esse videatur.lg Theantithesis between virtue and pleasure is itself a commonplace of theanti-Epicurean polemic. The Epicureans, according to their op-ponents, paid lip service to virtue but ignored it in their conduct.20So Piso is represented as ignoring the Epicurean precept that virtueis a guarantee of h a p p i n e s ~ . ~ ~hese passages show clearly thatCicero described Piso's alleged debauchery after the model of thepopular anti-Epicurean polemic.

Because they denied that the gods watched over the lives of menthe Epicureans were accused of impiety. This charge was probablymade a t a very early date, perhaps even by T i m ~ c r a t e s . ~ ~n any

13P Red. in Sen. 14; Pis. 31, 37, 69, 72.l Fin. 2.31, 111; Acad. Post. 1.6; Non Posse 7 (1091 C).15Ath. 3.60 (101 F-103 B CAF 3.349); cf. Bignone. L Arist. Perd. 2.211-14.16Ath. 3.61 (103 C-E); 7.9 (279 A CAF 3.328); cf. Ath. 7.9 (279 C, CAF 3.327).l Ath. 8.15 (336 D-F, CAF 2.306f.); see below p. 52.l 8 Ath. 7.9 (279 D, CAF 3.314).

P. Red. in Sen. 15.2 Fin. 2.44. 70; Tusc. 2.15-18; Non Posse 2 (1087 C);cf. D.L. 10.138.
mailto:@iXk~ai~oi.'~mailto:@iXk~ai~oi.'~


5/12

5 Phillip DeLacy [I94case Cicero knew i t from the works of Posidonius, as may be seenfrom the following passage of the De Natura Deorum: Verius estigitur nimirum illud quod familiaris omnium nostrum Posidoniusdisseruit in libro quinto de natura deorum, nullos esse deos Epicurovideri, quaeque is de deis immortalibus dixerit invidiae detestandaegratia d i x i s ~e . ~~special development of this argument appears inAelian, who says that Epicurus impiety brought down upon him theanger of the g o d ~ . ~ V nhe same way Cicero puts in Piso s mouththe words: (Di) ut noster divinus ille dixit Epicurus neque propitiicuiquam esse solent neque irati. T o this Cicero adds the comment:Non facies fidem scilicet cum haec disputabis; tibi enim et esse etfuisse videbit (Caesar) iratos The phrase divinus illed e o ~ ) . ~ ~Epicurus has the sarcastic implication that Epicurus, having barredthe real gods from the world, has set himself up in their stead. SoPlutarch ridicules the way in which the Epicureans deified theirleader.26 Aelian and Plutarch, of course, lived a fte r the time ofCicero, and he could not have derived from them any of the argu-ments of the In Pisonem; yet the very fact that there is some simi-larity between the In Pisonem and these later writers makes i t proba-ble that the anti-Epicurean arguments in question had already beenformulated before Cicero s time. Other parallels between Ciceroand Plutarch, which will be subsequently ~o in t ed ut , will furtherstrengthen this supposition.

The Epicurean precept, Xh9e fl~huas, as frequently attacked bythe opponents of the Epicurean school. I t was pointed out tha tEpicurus preferred the life of pleasure to the life of public service.The comic poet Alexis in his Aowro6~6hu~ahosresented a characterXanthias who parodied the Epicurean point of view:

23 Cic. Nut. Deor. 1.123; cf. Plu Adversus Colotem 22 1119 D-E ; 27 1123 A ;30 1124 E).


6/12

Vol. Ixxii] Cicero's Invective Against Piso

The charge was also made that if the heroes of Greece and Rome,such as Themistocles and Camillus, had been guided by Epicurus'teaching they would not have accomplished their great tasks.As Plutarch says, ~ a i ) v il ye ro is xpquro is ~ a v ~ h v e t v hyvoeiuOata ia a p a tv e is , 'E aa pe tv hv Ga Xkyets a r p a r $ y e t l ' ~ a iv~oirpyq vopoOCrecl'~ a i@paavfioOXq p ~ u ~ a v v 0 ~ r 6 v e ~ . 'AOqvaiovs BXhv-e i O e ~ i u r o ~ X i j sOavev, o ir ~&v I 'EXXds ciaehuaro ZCpEqv. ei 'Pwpaiovs KhptXXos, o t ~iv rj'P hp q ai)X~ s peivev. ei Aiwva IIXhrwv, o ir ~ v .rjXevOephOq Z t ~ e X i a . ~ ~These charges appear in sections 5 3 to 6 3 of Cicero's I n Pisonem.After describing Piso's unheralded return from his province ( 5 3 - 5 5 ) ,Cicero remarks: At audistis patres conscripti philosophi vocem.Negavit se triumphi cupidum umquam fuisse. Cicero then pro-ceeds to attack Piso's statement that he did not want a triumph.According to Cicero no upright person would refuse the glory of atriumph. He contrasts Piso's atti tude in this matter with tha t ofPompey: Ter iam homo stultus triumphavit ; and he points out thatall the great Roman heroes must have been very stupid and mis-guided men, from Piso's point of view.29 He then composes animaginary letter which Piso might write to Caesar, dissuading himfrom celebrating a triumph. Piso is represented as saying, amongother things: Inania sunt ista-mihi crede-delectamenta paenepuerorum, captare plausus, vehi per urbem, conspici velle. Quibusex rebus nihil est quod solidum tenere, nihil quod referre advoluptatem corporis po~sis.~OIn amplifying this discussion of Piso's lack of interest in publicrecognition, Cicero says: Est animi lucem splendoremque fugientisiustam gloriam qui est fructus verae virtutis honestissimus re-

7 Ath. 8.15 (336 F) . Fo r variant readings see CAF 2.306f. an d H. van Herwerden,Collectanea Critica 121. Alexis' autho rsh ip of the passage was questioned by Meineke,FCC 1.397f. Th e name of Epicurus is not mentioned in this passage, bu t the referenceto him is quite certain. See Bignone, L Arist. Perd. 2.228-32.

De Latenter Vioendo 3f. (1128 ff. . Cf. Cic. Fin. 2.60-68. The antiquit y ofthis charge appears from Metrodorus' disparaging references to the saviours ofGreece, Plu. Non Posse 16 (1098 C); Adu. Col. 33 (1127 B-C). Metrodorus wasapparently answering such charges as those made by Plutarch. See Bignone, L Arist.Perd. 2.248.


7/12

5 P h i l l i p D e L a c y [I941p ~ d i a r e . ~ ~e means by this that Piso avoids public recognition be-cause Piso lacks Vera v ir tus ; Piso flees from the light in order to hidehis crimes. Cicero proceeds to enumerate some of these crimes inthe following sentence. The contrast here expressed between lightand virtue and glory on the one hand, and darkness and vice andobscurity on the other , is again a con~monplacef the anti-Epicureanpolemic. Plutarch says that the Epicureans' desire to live in ob-scurity is itself an indication of their depraved life; for deeds of evilneed darkness, but virtue seeks light and fame.3

In developing the analogy between vice and darkness Cicerostates that Piso's vices have brought down on him the hatred of thesenate and the Roman people. He says that Piso lives in seclusionbecause he is afraid to expose himself to the fury of the people.Cicero dares him to appear at the games soon to be ~elebrated.~~Piso's seclusion, then, is not merely a cover for vice; it is an escapefrom the righteous anger of the people. I t is Piso's punishment forhis crimes, for he is marked with i g n o m i n i a and the conscientiascelerum. Discoursing a t length on the nature of punishment Ciceropoints out that not even the Epicureans regard mere physicalsuffering as punishment. For Cicero the real punishment of vice isthe lacerat io famae; hence Piso's disgrace affords Cicero morepleasure than any corporeal punishment could possibly do.34

In these passages Cicero has once more employed a philosophicalcommonplace as a means of expressing his malice toward Piso.Plutarch uses practically the same doctrine of reward and punish-ment in his at tack on the Epicureans. Llccording o Plutarch theEpicureans were hated by the common people. The xXwv vpoiwere among the hazards with which the Epicureans had to contend.j5Even Epicurus admitted, according to Plutarch, that fame is asource of pleasure.36 But if good reputation is pleasant, bad repu-tation must be painful. Hence the Epicureans, suffering from a badreputation, must live a painful life.37 In another part of his at tackPlutarch says that obscurity and darkness are themselves the

3 Pis. 57; cf. the cont rast between gloria and turpiludo in 63f.3 De Lnt. Viv. 4 (1129 A-C). Bignone (L Ari st. Perd. 2.599) believes that Plu-

tarch's source was Heraclides Ponticus.3 3 Pis. 641.; c f . 33.34PP. 42-45; cf. 98f.35 Non Posse 6 (1090 E) 21 (1102 B).


8/12

Vol. Ixxii] Cicero s Invective Ag ain st Pi sopunishment of impiety and lawlessness. Evildoers are punished inthe lower world not by corporeal suffering, for they no longer havebodies which can suffer, bu t by tt6otia ~ a iiyvo~a ~ a iravrehijs& $ a v ~ u ~ 6 s . ~ ~

The remarkable similarity between Plutarch's iWoralia andCicero's In Pisonem on this whole theme of seclusion, darkness, vice,ill repute, and punishment on the one hand, as opposed to publicservice, light, virtue, fame, and reward on the other, leads to the con-clusion that both authors used a common source; for it is not likelythat Plutarch used Cicero's In Pisonem as a source for a philosophicessay. Though the history of these arguments is difficult to trace,39it is quite probable that they had appeared in the anti-Epicureanliterature before Cicero's time, and th at Cicero adapted them to hisattack on Piso.

IV. THECULTIVATION FRIENDSHIPThe cultivation of friendship, one of the most distinctive features

of Epicurean society, was attacked on the ground tha t the Epicureanscultivated friendship for the sole purpose of increasing the amount ofpleasure in their lives. They knew nothing of true friendship, whichrests not on the pursuit of pleasure but on virtue.40 Their smallintimate groups afforded the opportunity for a more intensive pur-suit of vice. The fact tha t the Epicureans admitted courtesans intotheir societies was cited as evidence for this ~h a r g e . ~ 'Cicero uses asimilar line of attack in his description of Piso's sordidissimi greges,who spent their time drinking, dancing, and fea~ting.~

In amplifying the at tack on Epicurean friendship, the opponentsof the school argued that as friendship of powerful and wealthy menwas found by the Epicureans to be a source of rather considerablepleasure, they indulged in flattery and all other forms of servility.Epicurus flattered Mithras and Idomeneus, that by so doing he

D e L a l . Viu 7 1130 D-E). The charge of insanity, which Cicero uses agains tPiso in P i s . 46f . , is a Stoic commonplace sometimes used against the Epicureans; cf.Arr. Ep i c t 2.23.20-22.

9 See above, note 32.4 0 F i n 2.82. This charge was probably made in Theophrastus' E tp i @rXlasSee Bignone, L A r i s l . P e r d . 2.287ff.41 Non Posse 16 1097 D-E .4 2 P i s . 22; cf. grex noviciorum, 13 illo ganearum tuar um nidore atque fumo; fo r the


9/12

56 Phillip DeLacy [I94might increase his store of pleasures; 43 and concerning the wise manhe made the statement ~ a ib v a p x o v i v K Q L P + E ~ c L T E ~ ) T L V . ~ ~picureanmeetings were represented as assemblies of flatterers, with everyonepraising everyone else without limit.45 In Cicero s account of Pisoservility appears in the person of the Greek Epicureans who culti-vated Piso s friendship, especially in Philodemus: Graecus facilis etvalde venustus nimis pugnax contra senatorem populi Romani essenoluit. Philodemus was not by nature vicious, bu t only a Graeculusassentutor poeta who was importuned by his patron to describe hisvices in poetry.46

The many similarities, both generic and specific, between Cicero sinvective against Piso and the ancient anti-Epicurean polemic indi-cate clearly that Cicero adapted the general arguments to his par-ticular case, in conformity with his rhetorical theory of the relationof thesis and hypothesis. I t is beyond the scope of this paper to ex-amine the merits of the general anti-Epicurean polemic; bu t it isclear from the material presented tha t Cicero s statements about theEpicurean Piso deserve lit tle credence. The mere fact that Ciceroused these general arguments suggests that he lacked direct evidenceabout Piso s conduct and his relation to his Epicurean friends.Cicero gives very little substantiation for his charges. He mentionsonly one visit to Piso, on which occasion Piso said that he was sick,though Cicero tries to insinuate that his illness was merely a coverfor his d e b a ~ c h e r y . ~ ~is other evidence is indirect and inferential,as for example his co~nparison f Piso with the Epicurean r i l b u ~ i u s . ~ ~At a very crucial point in his argument Cicero introduces the poemsof Philodemus a s evidence of the conduct of pis^.^^ Now the epi-grams of Philodemus that have been preserved in the Palatine

4 Ath. 7.11 (279 F );D.L. 10.4f. The antiquity of this charge is indicated by t hefac t that Epicurus himself, apparently as a counter-charge, called Pla to a Arovuuo~bXa~,D.L. 10.8. See Bignone, L Ari st. Perd. 2.131.

44 D.L. 10.120.45Ath. 5.12 (182 A); cf. Non Posse 18 (1100 B ) .6 Pis. 70. Cicero does no t mention Philodemus by name, b ut Asconius identifies

him in the scholium to Pis . 68 (Stangl 20) .b7 Pis. 13. The words inooluto capite, soleaturn, suggest the xtXi6cov, which is

used as a mark of the pursuit of pleasure in Ada. Col. 33 (1127 B ) .Pi s. 92 ; Pron. 15. In another place (Pis . 66) Cicero refers to Piso s discourses


10/12

Vol. Ixxii] Cicero s Invective Against PisoAnthology do not exhibit a high moral standard; but they are quitein the literary tradition of the Greek epigram, and they certainlyreveal nothing about the conduct of pis^.^^ Even if we assume thatCicero knew of epigrams now lost which professed to be describingPiso s vices, such epigrams would provide only indirect evidence ofquestionable value.

Another indication of Cicero s lack of knowledge about Piso ap-pears in the inconsistencies of Cicero s description of him. In sec-tions 42 and 69 of the In Pisonem he tells us that Piso had only asuperficial and inaccurate knowledge of the Epicurean philosophy; insection 59 Piso is a finished and polished Epicurean, and in 66 Ciceroalludes to his philosophical discourses. Again, according to sections66 and 67 Piso lives in such vulgar luxury that he doesn t even havefine dinner service. There is nothing in his house which is choice orelegant, and nothing very expensive except his lust. Yet elsewhereCicero tells us that this same man emptied all the Greek temples oftheir statues, paintings, and ornament^ ^^ In one place Cicero saysthat Piso concealed his vices behind a vultum inportunum; 62 inanother place he tells us that Piso persuaded Philodemus to celebratethese same vices in his verses.63Cicero s explanation that Piso had been able to conceal his vicesfrom everyone but Cicero himself is another indication of the weak-ness of Cicero s case. For it implies th at Piso did not generallysuffer from that ill repute that Cicero elsewhere attributed to him,when he challenged him to appear in public. Since Piso did nothave a bad reputation, Cicero could not make his slanderous chargessound plausible without explaining why Piso s vices had not beenpreviously known.S4Cicero s failure to substantiate the general anti-Epicureancharges that he has used against Piso and his Epicurean associates

50Anth.Pal. 11.44 is the only extant epigram of Philodemus tha t mentions Piso.I t contains an invitation t o a dinner a t the Epicurean school: and far from depictinga luxurious feast, it says that the simplicity of the food will be more than made upfor by the excellent company.

5 Sest. 94;cf. Prou. 75 P. Red. n Sen. 15;cf. Pis. 1.a Pis. 70.

54The charge of hypocrisy was itself a commonplace of the at ta ck on shamphilosophy. I t probably underlies the supercilium and the barbato Epicuro (barbarois a variant reading) of Pis. 20, for beard and eyebrows were recognized marks of


11/12

8 Phillip DeLacy [I94should warn us not to accept without careful examination hispicture of Epicurean society. In particular his statements aboutPhilodemus relation to Piso do not merit the credence that has fre-quently been put in them.55 Some of his statements are undoubtedlycorrect, for they can be confirmed from other sources. FromPhilodemus own works it is known that, as Cicero says, he was afriend of Piso, that he was a poet, and t hat his interests were broaderthan those of the average Epicurean. Yet Cicero makes in additioncertain remarks about Philodemus character. He says in sections68-70 of the In Pisonem that Philodemus was a flatterer who soughtPiso s patronage in such a way that he never departed from Piso spresence; and that being unable to teach Piso the intricacies of theEpicurean philosophy, Philodemus permitted himself to be draggeddown to the level of his patron. Cicero s purpose here is to heapfurther abuse on Piso and to give a plausible reason for usingPhilodemus epigrams as evidence of Piso s character. The chargesof servility and moral degradation were, as we have seen, elements ofthe anti-Epicurean polemic; and as long as they lack specific confir-mation they do not constitute a reliable source of information aboutP h i l o d e m ~ s . ~ ~In conclusion, I have maintained that Cicero s invective againstPiso as an Epicurean exemplifies the rhetorical theory that argu-ments applicable to a general question may be used concretely of anyspecific case falling under the general class. Cicero has embodied inhis invective popular anti-Epicurean arguments regarding the pur-sui t of pleasure, the denial of divine providence, the withdrawal frompublic life, and the cultivation of friendship. Cicero s failure tosubstantiate these arguments by specific evidence arouses the sus-picion that they do not give an accurate picture of Piso s conductand character.

s S e e RE s v P h i l o d e m o s 2 4 4 4 f . ( P h i l i p p s o n ) H e r b e r t B l o c h , L C a l p u r n i u sP i so C a e s o n i n u s i n S a m o t h r a c e a n d H e r c u l a n e u m , J 4 4 ( 1 9 4 0 ) 4 8 5 -9 3 ; M a r i o nT a i t , P h i lo d e m u s' I nf Zu en c e o n th e L a t i n P o e ts ( D i s s . B r y n M a w r , 1 9 4 1 ) .

6 C f . W, A l le n , J r . a n d P . D e L a c y , T h e P at ro n s o f P h il o de m u s, C P h 34( 1 9 3 9 ) 5 9 -6 5 .


12/12

You have printed the following article:

Cicero's Invective against Piso

Phillip DeLacy

Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association, Vol. 72. (1941), pp.49-58.

Stable URL:

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0065-9711%281941%2972%3C49%3ACIAP%3E2.0.CO%3B2-I

This article references the following linked citations. If you are trying to access articles from anoff-campus location, you may be required to first logon via your library web site to access JSTOR. Pleasevisit your library's website or contact a librarian to learn about options for remote access to JSTOR.

[Footnotes]

55 L. Calpurnius Piso Caesoninus in Samothrace and Herculaneum

Herbert Bloch

American Journal of Archaeology, Vol. 44, No. 4. (Oct. - Dec., 1940), pp. 485-493.

Stable URL:

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-9114%28194010%2F12%2944%3A4%3C485%3ALCPCIS%3E2.0.CO%3B2-V

56 The Patrons of Philodemus

Walter Allen, Jr.; Phillip H. Delacy

Classical Philology, Vol. 34, No. 1. (Jan., 1939), pp. 59-65.

Stable URL:

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0009-837X%28193901%2934%3A1%3C59%3ATPOP%3E2.0.CO%3B2-Q

http://www.jstor.org

LINKED CITATIONS- Page 1 of 1 -

NOTE:The reference numbering from the original has been maintained in this citation list.
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0065-9711%281941%2972%3C49%3ACIAP%3E2.0.CO%3B2-I&origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-9114%28194010%2F12%2944%3A4%3C485%3ALCPCIS%3E2.0.CO%3B2-V&origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0009-837X%28193901%2934%3A1%3C59%3ATPOP%3E2.0.CO%3B2-Q&origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0009-837X%28193901%2934%3A1%3C59%3ATPOP%3E2.0.CO%3B2-Q&origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-9114%28194010%2F12%2944%3A4%3C485%3ALCPCIS%3E2.0.CO%3B2-V&origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0065-9711%281941%2972%3C49%3ACIAP%3E2.0.CO%3B2-I&origin=JSTOR-pdf

Documents

De Lacy - Cicero's Invective Against Piso