The topos of Divine Testimony in Luke-Acts. James R. McConnell

183 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 gods! How could ye speak with us more clearly, if ye were with us and moving in our midst? Ye have signified and ye openly declare that the games have been desecrated” (Har. resp. 25). A second example is found in Cicero’s charge that the prodigy is a warning that the gods are angry over the neglect of sacrificial rites. He quotes the soothsayers’ report in this regard: “Ancient and secret sacrifices have been performed with laxity, and have been desecrated” (Har. resp. 37). His comment on this is in the form of a rhetorical question which links this statement to testimony from the gods themselves: “Is it the soothsayers who utter these words, or the gods of our ancestors and of our households?” (Har. resp. 37). He then goes on to associate Clodius with this matter. In this same section, Cicero claims that Clodius is deranged, and that this is so due to the punishment of the gods.191

Finally, in the conclusion of this speech, Cicero calls for Clodius to be punished, reiterating his position that the noise was a warning from the gods (Har. resp. 61). He reinforces this by asking another rhetorical question: “And if other manifestations, less impressive, perhaps, though more widely bruited, have not failed to move us, shall not the feelings of all of us be stirred by the actual voice of the immortal gods? (Har. resp. 62; emphasis mine). Cicero then makes reference to an earthquake, which occurred in a nearby town at approximately the same time. This, too, he deems a “portent,” which is “as a voice, nay, an eloquent appeal, of the immortal gods that this must be viewed, when the world with its seas and lands shudders with a weird motion, and by a sound beyond experience and beyond belief conveys to us tidings of the future” (Har. resp. 62–63).192

      A final example from Cicero comes from De legibus, his treatise on the law. Here Cicero is arguing for the divine origin of Rome’s laws. In an argument quite similar to the one already seen above in his defense of Milo, Cicero argues that the people must understand that “the gods are the lords and rulers of all things, and that what is done, is done by their will and authority; that they are likewise great benefactors of man” (Leg. 2.7.15). He goes on to say that the observation of nature should motivate humanity to thank the gods for their goodness and that nature gives evidence of a greater reason which governs it (Leg. 2.7.16). Finally, this same reason is the basis for Rome’s legal system. Cicero concludes this section by stating:

      Who will deny that such beliefs are useful when he remembers how often oaths are used to confirm agreements, how important