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 has an excellent explanation of the lex Aelia Fufia and the subsequent repeal of this law by Clodius. See Gardner, “The Lex Aelia Fufia in the Late Republic,” in Cicero, Volume XIII, 309–22. See also works cited by Gardner, including Greenridge, “Repeal,” 158–61; W. McDonald, “Clodius,” 164–79; and Weinstock, “Clodius,” 215–22. More recent studies, which have appeared since Gardner’s summary, include: Mitchell, “Leges Clodiae,” 172–76; Linderski, “Römischer Staat und Götterzeichen,” 444–57; and Tatum, “Cicero’s Opposition,” 187–94. All of these essays grapple with the question of exactly what aspect of the Lex Aelia Fufia did Clodius’s law repeal.
Cicero attributes great significance to this practice. In De legibus, he sheds light on this tradition when he states: “But the highest and most important authority in the State is that of the augurs, to whom is accorded a great influence” (Leg. 2.12.31). He then continues by asking a series of rhetorical questions: “What is of graver import than the abandonment of any business already begun, if a single augur says, ‘On another day?’ What power is more impressive than that of forcing the consuls to resign their offices? What right is more sacred than that of giving or refusing permission to hold an assembly of the people or of the plebeians, or that of abrogating laws illegally passed?” (Leg. 2.12.31).
182. It is possible, however, that here Cicero is invoking Jupiter somewhat ironically.
183. “Do you know of any tribune of the commons since the foundation of Rome who transacted business with the commons, when it was well known that an announcement had been made that the heavens had been watched? I should like you to answer this. During your tribunate of the commons, the Aelian and Fufian Laws still existed in the State, those laws which often checked and crippled revolutionary tribunes, those laws which on one except yourself has ever ventured to resist . . . I ask you, did you ever hesitate, contrary to those laws, to transact business with the commons and summon a Meeting? Have you ever heard that any of the most seditious tribunes of the commons was so audacious as to summon a Meeting in defiance of the Aelian or the Fufian Law?” (Vat. 7.17–18).
184. “What audacity was yours, what violence! What your nine colleagues held should be regarded with awe, you alone, one sprung from the mud, the lowest of the land in every way, regarded as contemptible, trivial, ridiculous!” (Vat. 7.17). Craig studies Cicero’s use of and the audience’s reception of invective in his speech Pro Milone in “Audience Expectations,” 187–213.
185. A similar accusation is found in Cicero’s speech against Clodius. Here, Cicero argues that Clodius’s tribunate is actually invalid, in that it was established while the augurs were searching for omens in the skies. See Dom. 14.39–41.
186. Concerning Clodius, Cicero states, “It is impossible to express in words or even to form a conception of all the guilt, all the capacity for destruction, that were in him” (Mil. 78).
187. A. R. Dyck argues that Cicero is attempting to “situate the event [Clodius’s murder] rather in a larger cosmic context.” See Dyck, “Narrative Obfuscation,” 219–41, esp. 233.
188. Later in the speech, Cicero will state: “Then it was that the immortal gods, as I remarked a while ago, instilled into [Clodius’s] reckless and desperate brain the thought of laying a plot against my client” (Mil. 88). Here, Dyck’s comments are appropriate: “Milo, on trial de vi, is reduced to a tool of the divine vis, which holds in check the vis of Clodius by infatuating him and leading him to his destruction” (“Narrative Obfuscation,” 235).
189. In stating that he will first dispense with Clodius’s case against his home, but then further accuse Clodius, Cicero says: “I shall even be delighted, to comply with the portents of the immortal gods [portentis deorum immortalium] and the obligations which they impose” (Har. resp. 11).
190. Cicero accuses Clodius of inviting a rabble of slaves to the games: “So these games, the sanctity whereof is so deep that it has been summoned from distant lands and planted in this city . . . were performed by slaves, viewed by slaves, and were indeed converted under Clodius’ aedileship into a Megalesia of slaves” (Har. resp. 24). This last part of this statement (hos ludos servi fecerunt, servi spectatverunt, tota deniue hoc aedile servorum Megalesia fuerunt) is an example of conduplicatio (i.e., reduplication), a figure of speech described in Rhet. Her. 4.28.38: “Reduplication is the repetition of one or more words for the purpose of Amplification or Appeal to Pity.”
191. Cicero vehemently
