vol. XIII p.428-435
He was a phenomenon that lit up the sky of Roman literature like a meteor, and left behind a strong general impact, though only a few traces of the details.The many quotes from newer special analyses, <60> which are dragged up in reference books (Teuffel-Kroll Gesch. d. röm. Lit. I6 518-520 and Schanz Gesch. d. röm. Lit. 23, 63f. 216-219), cannot be misleading about the lack of ancient accounts and remains, and will therefore not be taken into account here. The most recent [as of 1926] monograph about Calvus as an orator (M. Krüher C. Licinius Calvus. An article in Geschichte der röm. Beredsamkeit, Gymn.-Progr. Bresl. 1913) republishes the accounts (p. 32ff.) and the fragments (p. 39f.), which amount to no more than 10, <pager break 428/429> it registers (p. 5f.) and evaluates the previous works, but doesn’t really bring anything new. Also, there are only 21 poetic fragments, which are most conveniently at hand in Baehren’s Fragmenta poetarum Rom. 320-322. Not only the number, but also the scope of the fragments is so small; a whole sentence or a whole line would already make up the most important ones. <10>
For his contemporaries Cicero (Brut. 280: C. Licinius Calvus; fam. VII 24, 1: Calvus Licinius, ibid. XV 21, 4; Brut. 283f.: Calvus), Catullus (50, 1. 8: Licinius. 14, 2. 53, 3. 96, 2: Calvus), as well as everyone who comes later, Calvus only had this one cognomen; only at the beginning of his career did Cicero ad Q. fr. II 4, 1, or actually L. Aemilius Lepidus Paullus introduced by Cicero (vol. I p.564 nr. 81), refer to him as Macer Licinius. <20> His father was C. Licinius Macer nr. 112, who was very proud about being descended from the Licinii of the early 4th century (Val. Max. IX 12, 7); according to the custom at the time of taking up the forgotten cognomina of nobility, his son was named Calvus after the first consul of his family (nr. 42), and was differentiated from his father using this cognomen, although he also inherited his cognomen too; <30> it was certainly unusual to have two cognomina stemming from physical attributes. According to Plin. n. h. VII 165, the two orators M. Caelius Rufus and Calvus were born on the same day, on 28th May 672 = 82. This account makes it impossible for Caelius to have become aedile in the year 704 = 50, or praetor in 706 = 48 as a favour from Caesar; accordingly, Caelius was born in an earlier year, perhaps 666 = 88 (vol. III p.1266. Suppl. III p.269, 25; in contrast now Heinze Herm. LX 194f., 3 not entirely convincing). <40> It isn’t very likely that Calvus only shared his birthday and not his birth year with him; such a coincidence would hardly be worth much attention. If you’re not inclined to cast aside the entire comment or arbitrarily change it (eg. according to Teuffel-Kroll p.501: “Instead of Caelius, perhaps Pliny meant to name Curio”, whose birth vol. II A p.868 must also be placed before 672 = 82, at any rate), <50> then you must move Calvus’ birth just as far back as Caelius’. Putting it in 666 = 88 is certainly compatible with the age of his father - he was praetor around 686 = 68, so he was born in 646 = 108 at the latest; he himself didn’t take on any positions in office, because he had definitely not reached the age he needed to do that; <60> the fact that in Cic. Brut. 279f. he is placed a little bit behind Caelius (ibid. 273), only separated from him by M. Calidius, and is put together with Curio, is because of the length of his life, and not the year he was born. The accounts in Tac. dial. 34, which say that at 21 Caesar charged Dolabella in a famous speech, at 22 C. Asinius Pollio charged C. Cato, and Calvus non multum aetate antecedens charged P. Vatinius, <page break 429/430> and the fact that Quintil. inst. or. XII 6, 1 suggests that Calvus, Caesar, and Pollio lead famous trials long before they were old enough to become quaestor, are not definite enough or reliable enough (cf. on Caesar vol. IV p.1297 nr. 134. X p. 188, 8ff. 260, 41ff.) to suggest anything further for Calvus. Also, the fact that Catullus was connected with him as well as Caelius in friendship, as well as probably in age, doesn’t help us, <10> because Catullus’ own birth year is not known for certain either.
In 688 = 66 BCE, Calvus lost his father Macer under circumstances which, at the very least, spared him losing his property (Val. Max. IX 12, 7). The two reports about Macer’s death (loc. cit. and Plut. Cic. 9, 2), which disagree with each other about everything but this, agree that his house was near the court-place, the forum; <20> it is certainly the same house iuxta Romanum forum supra Scalas anularias which belonged to Calvus, and which was lived in by the later emperor Augustus afterwards (Suet. Aug. 72, 1; cf. Jordan-Hülsen Topogr. d. Stadt Rom. I 3, 63 note). Calvus developed himself as an orator using his father as a model, and according to Tac. dial. 21 he left behind 21 books of published speeches he had written down and worked on, though most of them weren’t very important, whether on account of their context or their size (oratiunculae). <30> All his activity is contained within the short time-frame of 698 = 56 to 700 = 54. The insignificant speech against Asitius (Tac. loc. cit.) can only have been the one named in Cic. Cael. 23f., according to which the charge was raised at the beginning of 698 = 56 BCE against a P. Asicius because he had a hand in murdering the Alexandrian embassy, which Cicero successfully defended the accused party against (vol. II p.1579). <40> Calvus established his fame as an orator through his attacks against P. Vatinius, Caesar’s guard of ill repute. He had charged him through the praetor C. Memmius immediately after he completed his tribunate of the plebs which he had begun in 695 = 59 under Caesar’s consulship, on account of the way in which he had spent his time in office in the year 696 = 58, but the trial was violently prevented (Cic. Sest. 33f. with Schol. Bob. 322f. Or. = 150 St.). <50> He prepared a new charge, while the trial of P. Sestius was underway at the beginning of March 698 = 56 (Cic. ad Q. fr. II 4, 1 [see above]; Vatin. 10 with Schol. Bob. 310 = 145), which he took part in himself as a defender alongside Cicero, Hortensius, and Crassus, the noble patron of his father Macer (Schol. Bob. Sest. 292 = 125; on the other view of his participation arisen from Cic. ad Q. fr. II 4, 1, cf. vol. II A p.1887f.). The number and dates of the speeches Calvus made against Vatinius have in no way been determined for certain. <60> The fact that there were multiple is shown by Tac. dial. 21: in omnium studiosorum manibus versantur accusationes, quae in Vatinium inscribuntur, ac praecipue secunda ex his oratio; and the fact that Calvus was the prosecutor at the trial of 700 = 54, where Cicero was forced to become Vatinius’ lawyer (fam. I 9, 19. Schol. Bob. 317 = 146. 262 = 160 etc.), hasn’t been handed down to us, <page break 430/431> although this is usually assumed (et. al. by Ed. Meyer Caesars Monarchie 197f.). The sentence cited by Quintil. VI 1, 13, and rather less precisely in the idea in Sen. ep. 94, 25, probably comes from his most famous speech: factum ambitum scitis omnes et hoc vos scire omnes sciunt. It is probably the first sentence of a speech which was very effective because of his astounding frankness. Similarly blunt and straightforward is this quote from Charis. I 14 (GL I 229, 9): <10> Licinius Calvus in P. Vatinium ambitus <reum>: ad (= at) ita mihi Iovem deosque immortales velim bene fecisse, iudices, ut ego pro certo habeo, si parvuli pueri de ambitu iudicarent, …; because of such impactful truths, the speech was sententiis auribus iudicum accommodata (Tac. dial. 21). The fragment brought up in Il. Severian. 20 (Halm Rhet. Lat. min. 366, 55) probably comes from the beginning of the speech, <20> and it turns up three times, though partially with just the author’s name (Quintil. IX 3, 56 = Diomed. II GL I 448, 21 = Aquila Rom. 40 Halm loc. cit. 35, 4: Licinius Calvus in Vatinium); two words from Calvus in Vatinium are found in Charis. II 13 GL I 224, 19. The charge of ambitus was finally permitted by the victory which Vatinius had achieved at the beginning of 699 = 55 during the praetorial elections over his rival M. Cato with the help of the newly elected consuls Pompey and Crassus; <30> it is, of course, difficult to say when it was handled. The following two sources refer to just one event from it: Quintil. IX 2, 25 (hence Isid. orig. II 21, 30): Calvus Vatinio: ‘Perfrica frontem et dic te digniorem qui praetor fieres quam Catonem’ (on this, cf. Sen. ep. 118, 4. Plut. Pomp. 52, 3; Cato min. 42, 4) and VI 3, 60: Vatinius dixit hoc dictum, cum reus agente in eum Calvo frontem candido sudario tergeret idque ipsum accusator in invidiam vocaret: Quamvis reus sum, inquit, et parem item candidum edo; <40> only the first half of what Calvus said is extant. A related event is given in Sen. controv. VII 4, 6: Calvus …. usque eo violentus actor et concitatus fuit, ut in media eius actione surgeret Vatinius reus et exclamaret: Rogo vos, iudices, si iste disertus est, ideo me damnari oportet? <50> Cicero’s general and somewhat ambiguous account (Brut. 283): eius oratio …. a multitudine et a foro …. devorabatur (entirely different 289: isti Attici …. a corona …. relinquuntur) is given its explanation and charming confirmation by Catull. 53: risi nescio quem modo e corona, qui cum mirifice Vatiniana meus crimina Calvus explicasset, admirans ait haec manusque tollens: dii magni, salaputium disertum (on Calvus’ short stature, cf. Sen. loc. cit. 7. Ovid. trist. II 431). <60> Just as famous and telling for both his platonic love and his amazement at the speech is Catull. 14, 1ff.: ni te plus oculis meis amarem, iocundissime Calve, munere isto odissem te odio Vatiniano. The fact that the powerful speaker’s brilliant success in his charge did nothing to change the facts for the public prompted Catullus to make a heartfelt sigh at the time, and write 52, 3: per consulatum perierat Vatinius. Calvus enthusiastically participated in the attacks against those in power in the year 700 = 54. <page break 431/432> Sen. controv. VII 4, 8 cites a sentence from his epilogus quem pro Messio tunc tertio causam dicente habuit, and Tac. dial. 21, alongside the speech against Asitius, names a second weak speech against Drusus. At the end of June, Cic. ad Att. VI 15, 9 mentions charges against both men: Messius defendebatur a nobis de legatione revocatus …. deinde me expedio ad Drusum, inde ad Scaurum. <10> Around the same time, he touches upon the legal proceedings against Druses in ibid. 16, 5. 17, 5; ad Q. fr. II 15, 3, without any further details being mentioned about it. C. Messius had been tribune of the plebs in 697 = 57 and aedile in 699 = 55 (Val. Max. II 10, 8; cf. bell. Afr. 33, 2), and if he was aedile curulis, it would have been during the chaotic and bloody elections which followed Vatinius’ election to praetor (Dio XXXIX 32, 2) and which could likely have offered a basis to charge one of the candidates elected while they were going on. <20> In the case of Drusus, Cicero and Calvus were opponents like in the case of Asitius, and in the case of Messius they were on the same side, as in the case of Sestius. In July, Calvus acted in support of C. Asinius Pollio - who had also belonged to Catullus’ circle of friends (cf. 12, 6ff.) - when he earnt his recognition with C. Cato’s charge, a tribune of 698 = 56 and one of the supporters of the triumvirs (Sen. controv. VII 4, 7; see above and Groebe vol. II p.1590, 5ff. 1594, 19ff.). <30> The legal success of those in power’s creatures throughout these years went hand in hand with the success gained through invective poetry. Ascon. tog. cand. 84 K.-S. cites endecasyllabus Calvi elegans: et talos curius pereruditus (frg. 1 Baehr.) and ascribes this to the notissimus aleator Q. Curius, the show-off Catilinarian comrade (vol. IV p.1840 nr. 7); the questions must be raised as to whether this interpretation might be wrong, whether this Q. Curius might seem to be too old to be the object of one of Calvus’ attacks, and whether it might not have been a younger M’. Curius who was also an infamous gambler and was later a supporter of Antony (Quintil. VI 3, 72. Cic. Phil. V 13f., vol. IV p.1839 nr. 3 suppl. III p.265, 54ff.), and who may have been asking for mockery as a supporter of Caesar at this time. <50> Tigellius was undoubtedly one of the Caesariani; about him, Cic. fam. VII 24, 1 in 709 = 45 says: eumque addictum iam totum puto esse Calvi Licini Hipponacteo praeconio, and Porphyrio on Hor. sat. I 3, 1 has preserved his words: Sardi Tigelli putidum caput venit (= frg. 3 B.; cf. on Sardi venales Cic. loc. cit. 2. Fest. 322 etc.; on putidus Catull. 42, 10f. 19f. 98, 1). Like Catullus, Calvus did also direct his mockery against Caesar himself (Suet. Caes. 49, 1: omitto Calvi Licini notissimos versus: Bithynia quidquid et pedicator Caesaris unquam habuit [= frg. 17 B]. Perhaps related to Catull. 29, 3f., cf. 18?), <60> and his most venomous attack against Pompey: Magnus quem metuunt omnes, digito caput uno scalpit: quid credas hunc sibi velle? virum (complete under Martial’s name Schol. Lucan. VII 726, incomplete as an epigram of Calvus Sen. controv. VII 4, 7. X 1, 8 = frg. 18 B. On the obscene innuendo, cf. Iuvenal. 9, 133 with Friedländer’s note Plut. Pomp. 48, 7; Caes. 4, 4). <page break 432/433> Caesar valued the talent and importance of this young hothead highly, and wanted to win him over just like Catullus, Caelius, Curio, and other geniuses of their craft (Suet. Caes. 73): Gaio Calvo post famosa epigrammata de reconciliatione per amicos agenti ultro et prior scripsit. <10> However, Calvus must have died before his time at around the same time as Catullus, because a man with his skill, passion, success, and potential wouldn’t have completely disappeared from the public stage in the coming years rich in events and known about in detail, if he survived much longer beyond 700 = 54. When Cicero fam. XV 21, 4 at the end of 707 = 47 and Brut. 283 at the beginning of 708 = 46 gives his opinion about him, he hadn’t died recently, but had been dead for a long time. <20> His death at a young age is attested by Cic. Brut. 279; citing him (283), Quintilian (X 1, 115) probably had an account of the particular circumstances (cf. properata mors) just as Ovid (am. III 9, 61f. of Tibullus in Elysium: obvius huic venias hedera iuvenalia cinctus tempora cum Calvo, docte Catulle, tuo) and perhaps Pliny (n. h. VII 165: Caelius and Calvus, though they were very similar in other ways, tam dispari eventu). <30> Before his own death, Calvus had lost his wife Quintilia and mourned her in a grief-elegy (Propert. II 34, 89: docti …. pagina Calvi, cum caneret miserae funera Quintiliae); Catullus considers the only pentameter extant from it (Charis. I GL I 101, 13 = frg. 16 B.) at the end of his beautiful comforting poem to his pained friend (96, 5f.): certe non tanto mors immatura dolorist Quintiliae quantum gaudet amore tuo. <40> Quintilia’s name suggests that she was a woman of noble heritage, and should therefore be taken as Calvus’ wife and not his mistress; she could have been the quaestor of 705 = 49 Sex. Quintilius’ sister, whose son was the P. Quintilius Varus who died in the Teutoburg forest. On the matter of Quintilia’s status, the citation in Diomed. I GL I 376, 1, which according to one source comes from Cicero ad filum and according to another from Varro for the participial form delitus, is not conclusive: <50> Calvus alibi ad uxorem [corrected from uxorum]: prima epistula videtur in via delita; Keil ad loc. compares it to Priscian IX 54 GL II 490, 12: Cicero epistolarum ad Calvum primo: tuli moleste, quod litterae delitae mihi a te redditae sunt; indeed, it is striking that two works to do with Calvus, which are otherwise mentioned nowhere, are cited because of the same word used in the same context, <60> and it is probably possible that Diomedes didn’t find Calvus ad uxorem, but Cicero ad filium, Cicero ad Calvum, Cicero alibi ad uxorem in front of him.
The exchange in letters between Cicero and Calvus mentioned above had already been published in 707 = 47 without Cicero’s involvement, and prompted his discussion in fam. VI 21, 4; <page break 433/434> it contained accounts from both writers about the nature, tools, and functions of rhetoric, and because of this, it was still read by notable people later on (Tac. dial. 18. 25. Cicero ad Calvum still cited in Non. 469). A prose fragment from Calvus: quorum praedulcem cibum stomachus ferre non potest (Charis. I GL I 81, 24), if this statement is used metaphorically, could certainly have come from this discussion about rhetoric; <10> otherwise, people have also related it to the poem Calvi de aquae frigidae usu (Martial. XIV 196), or considered it to be another poem (placed behind 195: Catullus), and according to its content it could have been linked to a hygienic measure, according to which Calvus orator cohibuisse se traditur viresque corporis studiorum labori custodisse (Plin. n. h. XXXIV 166). <20> All of this, as well as the commentarii Calvi arguments mentioned in Tac. dial. 23, is rather hopeless guesswork. Calvus is judged and characterised as an orator by Cic. fam. XV 21. 4; Brut. 283f. Sen. controv. VII 4, 6-8. Val. Max. IX 12, 7. Tac. dial. 17. 18. 21. 25. 28. Quintil. X 1, 115. 2, 25. XII 10, 1. Plin. ep. I 2, 2. Fronto ad Ver. I 114 Naber. Apul. apol. 95: in chronological order, these accounts show a constantly decreasing amount of actual knowledge, replaced by buzzwords. <30> The general impression is one of a highly talented, very promising young man who didn’t reach maturity, and who strived to contain his chaotic and overflowing passion with strict self-discipline and diligent work. For this, and specifically for his language use, he took the simplicity and clarity of the older Attic orators as his example: Atticum se Calvus noster dici oratorem volebat, says M. Brutus in Cic. 284, <40> and with it he gives the keyword for Cicero’s own stance on what Calvus was trying to achieve, for the discussion between followers of the old and of the new in Tacitus’ dialogus, and for the discussions of modern people which are almost only based on this kind of evidence, and are therefore often broader than they are useful (eg. Krüger 16-38). But Calvus wasn’t only an orator who had a significant impact on the greatest despite his youth (cf. especially Sen. and Quintil. about Calvus and Cicero), <50> but also a poet who raised spirits most beautifully (Plin. ep. 3, 5). He belonged to the circle of the νεώτεροι (Cic. ad Att. VII 2, 1 = poetae novi orat. 161 = cantores Euphorionis Tusc. III 45) and among them, he was on the same level as Catullus: comparing him to this poet, whose legacy has been preserved, despite how sparse the remnants of Calvus as a poet are, gives us at the very least some kind of idea of what he was like. No other friend or associate is mentioned as often as Calvus is by Catullus; <60> the poems 14. 50. 96 are addressed to him, 53 is about him (see above); all show a close friendship, similar mindset, heartfelt sympathy, love, amazement: the active exchange of their own poetry and poems by others is shown in particular by 14 and 50. For the following, who still read both of them, Calvus and Catullus also belonged very closely together: <page break 434/435> Hor. sat. I 10, 19 (with Porphyr. and comm. Cruq.). Propert. II 25, 4. 34, 87-90 (see above). Ovid. am. III 9, 62f.; trist. II 427-432. Plin. ep. I 16, 5. IV 27, 4. Gell. XIX 9, 7. His readership was, of course, not big, although he was even read by Greeks who didn’t otherwise look at Latin poetry (Gell.); it even encompassed the grammarians and scholiasts who quote his poetry, or rather their predecessors, eg. ancient research into Vergil’s inspirations. <10> Of the types of poetry Calvus and Catullus enjoyed, the invective poems in iambs and epigrams are referenced in the account of his life. His love poetry is only known from the references in Propertius and Ovid, and from the lament over Quintilia (see above); perhaps they formed a whole cycle; the idea that they were for other women as well as Quintilia can only be concluded from Ovid. trist. II 431. <20> Calvus in epithalamio (Priscian. V 44 GL II 170, 10 = frg. 5 B.) is similar to Catull. 62, 1 both in content and in metre, another fragment (4 B.) in glyconics is similar to the hymenaea of Catullus (61) and of Ticidas (Priscian. V 77 GL II 189, 2 = Baehren’s Frg. poet. Rom. 325). The Io was a longer poem; four quotes have been preserved in scholia to Vergil (frg. 9f. 12f. B.); two without titles preserved by grammarians doubtless belong to it (frg. 11 and 14). <30> Vergil studied the poem, as well as the author of Ciris, and Ovid used it for his own depiction of the story of Io (cf. frg. 9 B. with metam. I 632). Even the less well preserved lines show that he preferred visual descriptions, artistic form, and a lyrical voice. It was an epyllion in hexameters in the Alexandrian style, perhaps following the example of Callimachus Ἰοῦς ἄφιξις (vol. IX p.1737f.), <40> and was most similar to Catullus’ epyllia, particularly 64. The fact that the various poems by Calvus, again similar to Catullus’, were combined into one complete edition, can be concluded from statements like C. Calvis in poematis (Gell. IX 12, 10 = frg. 2 B.) and Calvus in carminibus (Charis. I GL I 101, 10 = frg. 14). Like Catullus, Calvus also had a huge variety of genres, metres, tones, and themes; <50> subjecting himself to the Alexandrine rules would have calmed the poet’s own firey temperament, like it did for him as an orator under the fine simplicity of classic orators of Athens. Recently, what Nepos Att. 12, 4 seems to say of a L. Iulius Calidus (vol. X p.537 nr. 158): quem post Lucreti Catullique mortem multo elegantissimum poetam nostram tulisse aetatem vere videor posse contendere, <60> has been considered to be very probably a contemporary judgement of him (Cichorius Röm. Stud. 88-91 with the limitation Neue Jahrb. f. d. klass. Altert. LI 38).
[Münzer.]
Previous article: Licinii Crassi (50ff.)
Next article: C. Licinius Murena (119)