if dreams free the companies of Asclepius from the art of medicine, and the Bacchants of Dionysus transform the gifts of the Nymphs, whenever they become inspired, why is it shameful or beyond the realm of nature to accept the idea of men inspired in oratory, and to believe that they can refer to the Gods as patrons? (In Defense of Oratory 75)
Many examples of divine testimony through auspices are found in the speeches of Cicero. Most of these examples center on the lex Aelia Fufia, a law, or laws,180 which were enacted in order to curtail political assemblies when the auspices were unfavorable.181 The examples cited below are relatively tangential, but they do involve the testimony of the gods through signs and portents in the sky and illustrate how an orator could use (and perhaps abuse) this practice to discredit his opponent, albeit somewhat indirectly.
One example of Cicero’s use of this concept can be found in his speech against M. Antonius in the Philippic orations. Specifically, Cicero accuses Antonius of violating the lex Aelia Fufia by allowing decisions to be made in opposition to the auspices. He writes:
Our augur [Antonius] is too bashful to interpret the auspices without his colleagues. And yet those auspices need no interpretation; for who does not know that, when Jupiter is thundering, no transaction can legally be carried out? (Phil. 5.7)182
Here, Jupiter’s thundering is considered by Cicero as an ill omen, through which Jupiter displays his displeasure with the proceedings. According to Cicero, it is common knowledge that the gods testify in this fashion and that such a testimony should not be ignored.
A second example comes from Cicero’s speech against Vatinius. Cicero begins this particular line of questioning with the statement, “And, since all important things have their beginning with the Immortal Gods [Et quoniam omnium rerum magnarum ab dis immortalibus princiia ducuntur]” (Vat. 5.13). Next, he accuses Vatinius of being a Pythagorean, therefore demonstrating “contempt for the auspices under which this city has been founded, upon which the whole State and its authority depend” (Vat. 6.14). The accusation that Cicero brings against him in this regard is couched in terms of rhetorical questions and explanatory comments183 preceded by a strong string of invectives.184 Specifically, Cicero’s charge against Vatinius is that he disregarded the laws governing the use of augury, indirectly accusing Vatinius of being impious towards the gods and their testimony, and thereby discrediting him.185
Another example of divine testimony comes from Cicero’s defense of Milo. In the speech, Cicero does not argue that Milo is not responsible for the death of Clodius. Rather, his defense is that because Clodius was actually conspiring to kill Milo, the death of Clodius at the hands of Milo’s slaves was justified (see, e.g., Cicero, Mil. 11). Also, Cicero portrays Clodius as one who desired to rule over Rome as a dictator, claiming rights to the property of the Roman citizens (Mil. 77–78).186 Therefore, Cicero presents Clodius’s death as a benefit to Rome for which Milo should be praised, not punished. In fact, Cicero argues that it is actually by the gods’ favor that this act has occurred:
But for this blessing [the death of Clodius], gentlemen, the fortune of the Roman people, your own happy star, and the immortal gods claim your gratitude. Nor indeed can any man think otherwise, unless there be any who thinks that there is no such thing as divine power and control, who is not stirred by the greatness of our empire or by yonder sun or the march of the constellated heaven or by nature’s round of ordered change or (last and greatest) by the wisdom of our ancestors, who themselves paid strict observance to worship and rites and auspices, and have handed them on to us their descendants . . . Wherefore it is this very power, which has often shed upon this city wealth and blessing beyond all thought, that now has uprooted and abolished this scourge, having first roused such a mood in him that he dared to prove with violence and challenge with the sword the bravest of men, and so was vanquished by one over whom, had he won the victory, he stood fair to enjoy impunity and licence for all time. (Mil. 83–84)187
Cicero argues that it was the gods, whose favor for Rome is as evident as the order of universe, who incited Clodius to attempt to murder Milo, which in turn resulted in Milo’s slaves killing Clodius.188 Thus the gods testify, in a sense, against Clodius by provoking him to attempt a crime for which he was (justly) murdered.
Cicero also employs the locus of divine testimony in a more general fashion. An example cited by Quintilian (Inst. 5.12.42) is Cicero’s defense of Ligarius, in which Cicero references the judgment of the gods. Quintus Tubero has accused Ligarius of consorting with the enemy; it seems, however, that in actuality Ligarius’s offense amounted to something of a more personal nature rather than a crime (cf. Lig. 2–17). In remarks addressed to Caesar, who is judge over the case being argued, Cicero draws an analogy between Caesar and Ligarius (who was serving in Africa) during the onset of the civil war. Cicero reminds Caesar that in the beginning Caesar “held that that movement was a secession, not a war, not an outburst of hatred between foes, but of dissension between citizens, a dissension in which either party had the welfare of the state at heart, but in which each . . . swerved from the interest of the general body” (Lig. 19). Cicero continues:
Between the two causes it was at the time difficult to decide, for the reason that on either side there was something to approve; to-day that cause must be adjudged the better, whereto the gods added their assistance. (Lig. 19)
Thus, Cicero argues that only in retrospect is it possible to see which cause was the “right” cause, and only because the gods have given their testimony. In the greater argument of Ligarius’s innocence, Cicero is maintaining that because it was difficult to ascertain which side was the “enemy,” Ligarius is guilty perhaps of bad judgment, but certainly not a crime.
The final example of divine testimony cited by Quintilian is Cicero’s speech against Clodius now known as De haruspicum responso. This speech includes a plethora of examples of divine testimony, beginning with Cicero’s explanation of the event that triggered the speech. An odd sound was heard and interpreted by the seers as being from the gods and that “sacred and hallowed sites were being turned to secular purposes” (Har. resp. 9). Cicero claims that Clodius is behind this interpretation, and that specifically what is in view is Cicero’s own home, built for him by the State (Har. resp. 9–10; 16). Cicero, in rebuttal, interprets the ominous noise differently:
I am glad to have been given an opportunity . . . of speaking on the general theme of this prodigy, which I am inclined to believe is the most solemn that has been announced to this order for many years past; for you will find that this prodigy [toto prodigio] and the response occasioned thereby are nothing but a warning to us, uttered almost by the voice of Jupiter Best and Greatest, concerning Clodius’ mad wickedness and the terrible dangers that threaten us. (Har. resp. 10)
Cicero understands the noise which was heard to be a warning from the gods, and attributes this warning to various misdeeds of his opponent Clodius. Thus the noise itself, according to Cicero, is a divine testimony, and Cicero uses divine testimony to further implicate Clodius.189
A few further examples of Cicero’s use of divine testimony will suffice to provide a sense of its application in this speech. In arguing that the prodigy is evidence of the gods’ anger over Clodius’s desecration of the Megalesian games,190 Cicero calls out to the gods: “Ye immortal
