Volume 16, Issue 2 - Special Issue: Reading Roman Reconciliation Issue Editor: Martin Dinter/Gabriel Evangelou

This paper examines in how far modern conceptualisations of peace and reconciliation map onto ancient Roman ideas of pax Romana and Roman reconciliation. Some modern definitions of reconciliation insist on mercy and forgiveness as part of reconciliation; comparing modern with ancient ideas of reconciliation as showcased in this special issue the author suggests to consider Roman reconciliation as coexistence rather than reconciliation in the modern sense.

This chapter considers the intense negotiations around the meaning of friendship, or rather the Latin concept of amicitia , Essential discussions of amicitia in Roman society are Brunt 1988, Konstan 1997, Williams 2012. In connection with Amic ., see also Götter 1996, Habinek 1990 on candor. Verboven 2011 provides an excellent overview, including a concise history of scholarship on the subject. I use the two terms somewhat interchangeably in this paper, opting for amicitia when emphasizing the Roman institutional sense and friendship when discussing individual relationships and when affection is more prominent. in the aftermath of the assassination of Julius Caesar in March 44 BCE. Among the many consequences of this event, the fact that among the assassins were several close and long-standing associates of the dictator occasioned discussions of amicitia and, in particular, when it was appropriate to discontinue an existing relationship and when to reconcile after a rupture. We have partial, and no doubt skewed, access to these discussions through a number of treatments in the contemporary texts in different genres composed by Marcus Tullius Cicero, who himself participated in such relationships with a number of the main players. The challenges to the rather superficial amicitia between Cicero and Marc Antony are apparent in the First Philippic , a speech in which Cicero addresses Antony’s accusation that his behavior constituted a breach of amicitia between the two men, as the well as in the letters they exchanged. The correspondence between Cicero and the Caesarian Gaius Matius, who was apparently widely criticized for his continuing adherence to Caesar’s memory, tackles the limits of the obligations of amicitia where they come into conflict with the interests of the state. Finally, the short ethical treatise Laelius, On Friendship explores many of the same issues on a number of different levels, from the pragmatic to the philosophical. The treatise might appear at first glance to be of universal, rather than topical interest, and that is certainly the way in which many later readers generally received it. The undeniable appeal of Cicero’s treatment is well attested by the work’s influence and lasting popularity. The dedication of the work to Cicero’s closest friend Atticus seems to mark it as a work arising out of personal rather than political concerns. The work’s formal similarity to Cato, De Senectute , also dedicated to Atticus, is in this sense misleading, as the death of Caesar is a crucial dividing line between the two texts and their relationship to current concerns; cf. Zetzel 1972, 177–178. On the date of Sen. see also Powell 1988, 267–268. My goal in this chapter is to read the exchange between Cicero and Matius as a window onto contemporary issues and contemporary debates and then use what we learn from the letters to understand how Cicero treats the same questions in the more generalized context of the treatise, No clear relative chronology can be established for the letters and the treatise. The Matius correspondence used to be dated to August, following Cicero’s absence from Rome, but Kytzler’s suggestion of mid-October (1960, 102 n.1), after a time back in the city, has been accepted by many, including Shackleton Bailey in his commentary on the letters (1977, 486). The composition of Amic. itself can only be located by placing it between Caesar’s death on the Ides of March and the mention of it in the second book of Off. , finished by November (Hellmann 1976, 72–74 offers a summary of a scholarly back-and-forth proposing a series of rewrites and additions to account for the internal inconsistences, on which see below; see also Zetzel’s 1972, 178–179 argument for a summer date). It is tempting to see the treatise as a response to Matius’ complaint (cf. Lintott 2008, 359, Schofield 2021, 213; Hellmann 1976 reads the exchange to argue that Cicero revised the treatise in response), but arguments can be made for either sequence and, ultimately, it is more important to see the two texts as part of the same intellectual and social space, also broadly shared with the securely dated Phil . 1, delivered in September. Cf. Powell 1990, 5–6, Griffin 1997, 89. and how the topical concerns affects his literary, rhetorical, and philosophical choices.

This paper examines the role of bathutēs (“verbal self-restraint” or “forbearance”) in Cicero’s handling of personal disputes and grievances. In a letter to Atticus ( Att . 5.10.3), Cicero suggests that such restraint can help to ease the minor tensions that often arise in a provincial governor’s day-to-day business. Linguistic caution can also defuse disputes between acquaintances and family members, as evident in Cicero’s dealings with Hortensius Hortalus ( Att . 4.6.3) and estranged nephew Quintus ( Att . 13.42). In both cases Cicero overlooks valid grievances in order to facilitate reconciliation in the future.

The intricacies of the relationships between Roman aristocrats in the age of Cicero has been one of the most popular topics of discussion in modern scholarship. Cicero’s letters have drawn considerable attention as an invaluable source for the study of amicitiae in the late Roman republic. Nevertheless, the methods that Cicero and his contemporaries used to reconcile with their former enemies is an area that remains rather unexplored. This paper aims to shed light on the significance of letter writing as a medium for the reconciliation between Romans with an active public life and to underscore the role that mediators played in the conciliatory efforts that both parties made to restore their relationship chiefly in the public eye. The investigation focuses on Cicero’s well-attested reconciliation with Appius Claudius Pulcher. It argues that, while it was not the first instance in which Pompey instigated a reconciliation between two of his allies, its uniqueness lies in the ingenious and complex use of letter writing to effect and maintain their renewed relationship as well as in the combination of frankness and tactful manoeuvring in Cicero’s letters to him.

Romans appreciated reconciliation and even celebrated and advertised it by dedicating temples and coins to Concordia . Accordingly, Caesar’s Commentarii value reconciliation as well. Indeed, I will argue that, in spite of the war-bulletin tone that often pervades the Commentarii , reconciliation plays a key-role in Caesar’s accounts both of the Gallic and of the Civil War. In particular, in the first part of my paper I consider some narrative strategies whereby Caesar advertises his openness toward reconciliation in BG. Caesar’s self-fashioning in his dealings with Dumnorix and Ariovistus in BG 1 exemplifies a typical script: Caesar (says he) is willing to extend his gratia , but some enemies refuse it, and Caesar’s biased narrative presents such refusal as highly unreasonable; but their stubbornness voids any attempt at reconciliation, and war ensues. Other episodes from the BG confirm this pattern. In part two, through an analysis of the siege at Brundisium ( BC 1.26) and of the blockade at Oricum (3.15), I suggest that, in the BC , Caesar follows the same script as in the BG ; but the BC presents a more rich and technical vocabulary of reconciliation along with some exceptional narratological devices. I try to show how the artful narrator sharpens his tools to deal with the thorny topic of reconciliation in a civil war. In the third and last part of my paper, I place Caesar’s representation against two contemporary letters found in Cicero’s correspondence with Atticus; briefly, I consider some contemporary responses to Caesar’s narratives of reconciliation.

Reconciliation is a central theme in Plutarch’s political reflections, prominently discussed in his treatise Praecepta gerendae reipublicae . In this work, Plutarch criticizes the competitive nature of the aristocrats of his own time, which often led to factional conflicts (στάσεις) necessitating Roman intervention. Thus, he advocates for reconciliation as a proactive strategy to prevent warfare and maintain state harmony (ὁμόνοια). These considerations are crucial for interpreting certain passages in the Life of Pompey , where Plutarch reflects in depth on the dynamics that led to the Civil War of 49 BCE. In this biography, Pompey is criticized for rejecting Caesar’s proposals for reconciliation, viewing this refusal as the direct cause of the civil war’s outbreak. However, the deeper reason for the conflict is identified in the rivalry among Pompey, Caesar, and Crassus, which had been skilfully masked by their apparent friendship, achieved in part through the reconciliation between Pompey and Crassus. The Life of Pompey thus adds a layer of complexity to the explicit lessons of the Praecepta ; nevertheless, it does not contradict them, since Plutarch’s ultimate concern, both in the Moralia and the Lives , is the preservation of concord within the state.

In an anecdote written by Suetonius to emphasize Tiberius’ extreme cruelty, the emperor is said to have been so vindictive as to not only inflict death upon multitudes of people, but also keep death from others wishing to die. These people were imprisoned and sustained by the smallest rations of food, just enough to keep them alive and suffering. When one such victim begged to be put to death, the emperor replied that he had not yet made his peace with him. Unbelievable as this anecdote may be, it raises the question of whether, and on what terms, reconciliation with this seemingly unforgiving emperor would have been possible. Most ancient authors presented Tiberius as a cruel tyrant. This is especially so in their depiction of his so-called “reign of terror” following the death of his all-powerful praetorian prefect Sejanus in 31 CE, which saw the persecution of many of the latter’s followers. Nonetheless, some notable individuals escaped the fate of their comrades. Did Tiberius simply forgive the likes of Lentulus Gaetulicus and M. Terentius for their support of Sejanus, or did he rather compromise and come to terms with them, and if so, how, and why? In this article, I argue that despite Tiberius’ traditional image and the reality of his “reign of terror”, he was perfectly capable of making pragmatic and reasonable compromises to maintain relative peace with some of Sejanus’ most powerful adherents. I will also suggest that these compromises were hardly perceived as such, not just because of the prejudice of the sources against Tiberius, but perhaps also due to a semantic and conceptual gap, which made it difficult for the ancient Romans to accept compromise as a fact.

The action on board Lichas’s ship in Petronius’s Satyrica presents a rich, repetitive, and multilayered parody of mediation, treaty-making, and the role of emotion in conflict and its aftermath, played out on the most personal level. When Encolpius and Giton are discovered, having accidentally taken passage with Lichas and Tryphaena whom they have egregiously betrayed, the poet Eumolpus seizes the role of mediator and attempts to defend them with an entirely fictitious account of their actions and motivations. His rhetoric only enrages Lichas and produces open warfare on shipboard. Ingenious role-playing by Giton (staging an attempted self-castration) drives Tryphaena to desperate pity and epic parody in appealing for peace, allowing Eumolpus to dictate and conclude a formal treaty among the parties. Initial performances of the actions and emotions of peacemaking amidst a halcyon calm at sea seem successful, but jealousies quickly reemerge, requiring further efforts by Eumolpus to restore harmony. His poetic efforts during the banquet failing, Eumolpus then narrates the story of the Widow of Ephesus, whose misogynistic comedy elicits laughter from all – except for Lichas and Tryphaena. Crosscurrents of jealousy reemerge, and Eumolpus seems to resort to new diplomacy and oaths ( iurat Eumolpus verbis conceptissimis , 113) as the text becomes more fragmentary – and the ship is suddenly overwhelmed and wrecked by storm. Prospects for reconciliation founder with the ship (of state?) and its captain, while the perpetually inventive manipulators of language survive to perform again.

This paper examines the tension between Cyrus and Cyaxares in Xenophon’s Cyropaedia , and the ways in which Cyrus succeeds in mollifying the Median king (and his maternal uncle), who is angry because Cyrus has usurped his authority. It argues that, although Cyrus has been charged with deceit in his effort to conciliate Cyaxares, in fact such dissembling is ineliminable where there is a genuine offense to another’s honor. It suggests further that the episode is a deliberate rejoinder to the conflict between Achilles and Agamemnon, as described in the Iliad , and is intended to show how properly to resolve a clash between a king and his more warlike subordinate.