We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 February 2009
In March 59 Caesar and Pompey presided over the adoption of P. Clodius Pulcher into a plebeian family, thereby rendering the former patrician eligible for the tribunate. The immediate purpose of the dynasts' action was to silence the contumacious criticism of Cicero, whose Pro Antonio had gravely offended Caesar. And the gesture was effective: for a time at least, Cicero withdrew to his country estates. For Cicero – like everyone else in Rome – anticipated that, once tribune, Clodius would move to exact revenge for the dishonour done him during and after the Bona Dea trial. For the remainder of the year Cicero made preparations to fend off his enemy, and principal among his resources was the personal guarantee of his friend Pompey the Great. Pompey, who regarded Clodius as his creature, took it to be a point of honour that he should shield Cicero from harm's way. But the Vettius affair changed everything. Regardless of who masterminded the scandal and despite all protestations to the contrary, the Vettius affair left Pompey estranged from Cicero, a reality that Cicero could not fail to recognize. After the Vettius affair Cicero could not prudently rely solely on the dynasts' promises – if ever he did. Yet the means by which Cicero endeavoured to secure his own safety – independent of his relationship with Pompey or Caesar – have not been adequately appreciated by modern scholars. They incline, quite naturally in view of the events of 58 which followed Cicero's exile, to see the contest over Cicero's fate primarily as a struggle between the dynasts, especially Pompey, and Clodius. Such an attitude, however, tends to cause one to overlook an often cited but infrequently discussed stratagem of Cicero: according to Cassius Dio, Cicero induced L. Ninnius Quadratus, a tribune of 58, to stand up against the legislation which Clodius promulgated upon his entering the tribunate. This arrangement indicates that Cicero was trying with considerable energy to look after his own interests. It is the purpose of this paper to attempt to explain the means by which Cicero hoped to thwart Clodius as well as the machinations by which the erstwhile patrician outwitted his opponent.
1 Sources for Clodius' adoption: Cic. Dom. 34–42Google Scholar; Sest. 15–16Google Scholar; Prov. Cons. 45–6Google Scholar; Appian, BC 2.14; Plut. Caes. 14.9; Dio 38.12.1–2; 39.11.2; 39.21.4 and numerous obiter dicta.
2 Cic. Dom. 41Google Scholar; Sest. 16Google Scholar; Prov. Cons. 42Google Scholar; Suet. lul. 20.4; Appian, BC 2.14; Dio 38.10.1.
3 Cic. Att. 2.4–17 were written from various estates.
4 Bona Dea scandal: Moreau, Ph., Clodiana Religio. Un procès politique en 61 av. J.-C. (Paris, 1982).Google Scholar The expectation of revenge: Epstein, D. F., Personal Enmity in Roman Politics 218–43 b.c. (London, 1987), pp. 23f.Google Scholar
5 Cic. Att. 2.22.2 (cf. 2.20.2).
6 Here it is not necessary to enter into the controversy surrounding the Vettius affair. Important, recent bibliography includes: Greenhalgh, P., Pompey: the Roman Alexander (London, 1980), pp. 224–6Google Scholar; Ward, A. M., Marcus Crassus and the Late Roman Republic (Columbia, 1977), pp. 236–42Google Scholar; Taylor, L. R., Historia 1 (1950), 45–51Google Scholar; Seager, R., Latomus 24 (1965), 525–9Google Scholar; McDermott, W. C., TAPA 80 (1949), 531–67.Google Scholar
7 e.g. Seager, R., Pompey: a Political Biography (Berkeley, 1979), pp. 92–102Google Scholar; Stockton, D., Cicero: a Political Biography (Oxford, 1971), pp. 176–87Google Scholar; Gelzer, M., Cicero, ein biographischer Versuch (Wiesbaden, 1969), pp. 125–34.Google Scholar
8 Dio 38.14.
9 Previous discussions of Ninnius' opposition to Clodius' legislation are very brief: e.g. Gelzer, , Cicero 134Google Scholar; Münzer, F., RE 17 (Stuttgart, 1937), 632–3Google Scholar; Meyer, E., Caesars Monarchie 3. (Stuttgart, 1922), pp. 96–7Google Scholar; Drumann, W. and Groebe, P., Geschichte Roms, vol. 2 (Leipzig, 1902), p. 208.Google Scholar Most accounts of 59–58 are too succinct to mention the episode.
10 Lacey, W. K., ‘Clodius and Cicero: a Question of Dignitas’, Antichthon 8 (1974), 85–92.CrossRefGoogle ScholarGruen, E. S., The Last Generation of the Roman Republic (Berkeley, 1974), p. 275, less plausibly takes the contrary view.Google Scholar
11 Dolor: Badian, E., ANRW 1.1 (Berlin, 1972), p. 692.Google Scholar Cicero makes a special effort to deny dolor to Clodius in the aftermath of the Bona Dea scandal (Har. Resp. 43–4Google Scholar). The opinion of ancient sources was that Clodius sought the tribunate to revenge himself on Cicero (Vell. 2.45.1; Suet. Tib. 2Google Scholar; Plut. Caes. 14.9; Cat. Min. 33.3–4), a view followed by some modern authorities (e.g. Gruen, E. S., Phoenix 20 [1966], 124–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar). But this is not the complete explanation (see below).
12 Clodius' efforts to be transferred: Cic. Att. 1.18.4; 1.19.5 (Herennius' bill); 1.18.5 (Metellus Celer's rogatio); Dio 37.51.5. Dolor combined with extreme methods (and transitio ad plebem must be regarded as drastic) inevitably inspired suspicion: cf. Morgan, M. G. and Walsh, J. A., CP 73 (1978), 200–10.Google Scholar Celer's alienation: Cic. Att. 2.1.4–5; Cael. 60; Dio 37.51.2.Google Scholar
13 Plut. Pomp. 46.4–47.1; Cato Min. 31.2. A man in Clodius' position would be presumed to be tractable: cf. Morgan, and Walsh, , CP 73 (1978), 204.Google Scholar
14 Seager, , Pompey, pp. 72–84, provides a concise yet thorough account.Google Scholar
15 Pompey and Clodius established their link before Caesar's return: Plut. Pomp. 47.1.
16 Cic. Dom. 41. On the Pro Antonio see Crawford, J., M. Tullius Cicero: the Lost and Unpublished Orations (Göttingen, 1984), pp. 124–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17 On the triumvirate's unpopularity see Seager, , Pompey, pp. 93–9Google Scholar, with references. For Clodius' attitude see Cic. Att. 2.22.1.
18 Clodius' relationship with the dynasts was strained by April (Cic. Att. 2.7.3.). Clodius and the boni: Rundell, W. M. F., Historia 29 (1979), 309Google Scholar; Gruen, E. S., Phoenix 20 (1966), 124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Cicero hoped that Clodius would falter as he attempted to play both ends against the middle: Cic. Att. 2.9.1.
19 Sources collected in Broughton, T. R. S., MRR 2.196.Google Scholar
20 Tatum, W. J., ‘The Lex Clodia de Censoria Notione’, CP 85 (1990) [forthcoming].Google Scholar
21 ibid.
22 Mitchell, T. N., ‘The Leges Clodiae and Obnuntiatio’, CQ 36 (1986), 172–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Gruen, , LGRR 255–7Google Scholar; Sumner, G. V., ‘Lex Aelia, Lex Fufia’, AJP 84 (1963), 337–58Google Scholar; Balsdon, J. P. V. D., ‘Three Ciceronian Problems: I. Clodius' “Repeal” of the Lex Aelia Fufia’, JRS 47 (1957), 15–16Google Scholar; Weinstock, S., ‘Clodius and the Lex Aelia Fufia’, JRS 27 (1937), 212–22Google Scholar; Greenidge, A. H. J., ‘The Repeal of the Lex Aelia Fufia’, CR 7 (1893), 158–61.Google Scholar
23 Weinstock, art. cit. (n. 22), argued that the Lex Clodia did in fact abrograte the Leges Aelia et Fufia.
24 cf. the prohibition on obnuntiatio resorted to by the senate when recalling Cicero (Cic. Sest. 129Google Scholar) and the potential obstruction cited by Cicero at Sest. 78Google Scholar (for a defence of the text see Weinstock, art. cit. [n. 22], 219). Obnuntiatio could be used to postpone elections (e.g. Cic. Att. 4.9.1; Phil. 2.80; 2.99) and to threaten the completion of the census (Cic. Att. 4.9.1).
25 Mitchell, , art. cit. (n. 22), 175.Google Scholar Mitchell's thesis was nearly anticipated by Meier, C., Res Publica Amissa (Wiesbaden, 1966), p. 192Google Scholar n. 437. Cf., however, Linderski, J., ANRW 2.16.3 (Berlin, 1986), 2155, 2165–7, 2198–2205.Google Scholar
26 The Lex de censoria notione was abrogated in 52 (Dio 40.57); as dictator Caesar reduced the number of recipients of public grain (Suet. Iul. 41.3) and modified severely the Lex de collegiis (Suet. Iul. 42.3).
27 Gruen, , LGRR, 257.Google Scholar
28 Dio 38.12.8. Cf. Plut. Cic. 30.Google Scholar
29 On the importance of the collegia: Flambard, J. M., ‘Clodius, les collèges, le plèbe et les esclaves. Recherches sur la politique populaire au milieu du ler siècle’, MEFR, Antiquité 89 (1977), 115–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar; MacMullen, R., Roman Social Relations 50 b.c. to a.d. 284 (New Haven, 1974), pp. 73–87.Google Scholar
30 Cic. Sest. 34, 55Google Scholar; Post Red. Sen. 33Google Scholar; Dom. 54Google Scholar; Pis. 8Google Scholar; Asc. 7C. Since Clodius' legislation came before the people on 4 January (Cic. Pis. 9Google Scholar) the celebration of the ludi would be a very fresh memory.
31 Cic. Pis. 8; Asc. 7C.Google Scholar
32 Cic. Pis. 8.Google Scholar
33 On Ninnius see Wiseman, T. P., Roman Studies (Liverpool, 1987), pp. 12, 20, 373Google Scholar, with earlier bibliography.
34 Asc. 7C.
35 Dio 38.14.1–2. Gelzer, , Cicero, p. 134Google Scholar, who believes that Cicero continued to rely on Pompey and Caesar, states that Cicero restrained Ninnius for fear of inciting Clodius unnecessarily. But Cicero was no longer relying on the dynasts and was confident of his own resources when he wrote to his brother at the end of 59 (Cic. QF 1.2.16).
36 Nippel, W., JRS 74 (1984), 128–9Google Scholar; Lintott, A. W., Violence in Republican Rome (Oxford, 1968), p. 193.Google Scholar
37 Sources: MRR 2.196.
38 A point recognized in Drumann, and Groebe, , Geschichte Roms, p. 203Google Scholar, though it is then concluded that Cicero could not have opposed any of Clodius' legislation.
39 Collegia: Cic. Sest. 34Google Scholar; Dom. 54 and 129.Google Scholar Grain distribution: Cic. Dom. 25Google Scholar; Rickman, G., The Corn Supply of Ancient Rome (Oxford, 1980), pp. 52–3.Google Scholar Cicero's criticism that Clodius placed Cloelius in sole charge of such matters may be dismissed; reliance upon subordinates was a common smear among the Romans: cf. Cic. Verr. 2.187 (Verres' and his scribe) and Cic. QF 1.1.17 (Q. Cicero and his freedman). Moreover, there was a tradition of Claudian dependence upon scribes which Cicero could exploit; cf. Ranouil, P.-C., Recherches sur le patriciat (509–366 av. J.-C.) (Paris, 1975) pp. 168–9.Google Scholar
40 It must be underlined that benefactions bestowed upon the plebs were no guarantee of popularitas: cf. Yavetz, Z., Plebs and Princeps (Oxford, 1969), pp. 49–54.Google Scholar
41 Cic. Sest. 78.Google Scholar
42 A connection made already by Meyer, , Caesars Monarchie, p. 97Google Scholar n. 1 and Drumann, and Groebe, , Geschichte Roms, p. 208 n. 6.Google Scholar
43 Dio's attitude toward Cicero: Millar, F., A Study of Cassius Dio (Oxford, 1964), pp. 46–55.Google Scholar
44 e.g. Cic. Att. 2.19.4; 2.22.2; QF 1.2.16.
45 Plut. Cic. 30.3 is accepted by Epstein, D. F., CP 81 (1986), 235Google Scholar and Grimal, P., Cicéron (Paris, 1984), p. 75.Google Scholar But the passage is clearly based on Plutarch's belief that Terentia was responsible for Cicero's testimony at the Bona Dea trial (Plut. Cic. 29.2–3), a view which may safely be rejected; cf. Tatum, W. J., ‘Cicero and the Bona Dea Scandal’, CP [forthcoming].Google Scholar
46 Compare the hostility which existed between Bibulus and Caesar in 48 (Caesar BC 3.16) when L. Scribonius Libo had to act as intermediary. Of course the actual circumstances were quite different.
47 Gruen, , LGRR 57Google Scholar, discusses the necessary qualifications which must attend the modern use of this term.
48 See above, n. 19.
49 Cicero's exclusion: e.g. Cic. Att. 1.16.10; Fam. 1.7.8; 3.7; Sulla 21–5Google Scholar; Planc. 58.Google Scholar
50 Demonstrations for Cicero: Gelzer, , Cicero, pp. 136–9, with references.Google Scholar
51 Cic. Att. 3.9.2; 3.15.2; Fam. 1.9.13; 14.1.2; QF 1.3.8; Plut. Cic. 31.4; Dio 38.17.4. Cato: Plut. Cato Min. 35.1; Dio 38.17.1. Hortensius: Dio 38.17.4.
52 Dio 38.14.5. Cf. Vell. 2.45.1.
53 Popular hostility to Cicero: Dio 38.16.5. Sources for the Lex de provinciis consularibus: MRR 2.196.
54 Sources for the Lex de imperio Catonis: MRR 2.196. Interpretation: Badian, E., JRS 55 (1965), 110–21Google Scholar; Balsdon, J. P. V. D., JRS 52 (1962), 135Google Scholar; Oost, S. I., CP 50 (1955), 98–112.Google Scholar
55 Rundell, W. M. F., Historia 28 (1979), 301–28.Google Scholar Which is not to say that this was the only motive behind Clodius' bill: cf. Seager, , Pompey, p. 105.Google Scholar Whether Caesar actually congratulated Clodius on this shrewd device is doubtful; cf. Cic. Dom. 22.Google Scholar
56 I am grateful to M. Gwyn Morgan, who read an early draft of this paper – which is not to say that he shares my views.
