P. Clodius Pulcher—Felix Catilina?

A. W. Lintott

doi:10.1017/S0017383500017204

P. Clodius Pulcher—Felix Catilina?

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 January 2009

A. W. Lintott

Article contents

Extract
References

Get access

Rights & Permissions

Extract

This paper is an investigation of the rise to power of P. Clodius in the last years of the Roman Republic. Its purpose is to form a judgement on Clodius' own policies and to estimate the political significance of his career. This involves many detailed historical problems. Though I shall suggest solutions to some of these, my main aim is to seek a general interpretation of Clodius' political persona.

Type: Research Article
Information: Greece & Rome , Volume 14 , Issue 2 , October 1967 , pp. 157 - 169

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0017383500017204 [Opens in a new window]
Copyright: Copyright © The Classical Association 1967

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

^{page 157 note 1} This paper was originally delivered to the Oxford Philological Society in October 1966. In preparing it for publication I have been assisted by the appearance of an article by Gruen, E. S. in Phoenix (1966), 120 ff.Google Scholar, which discusses and rejects earlier interpretations of Clodius as an ‘instrument’, and provides a useful bibliography—though Gruen's thesis has, unknown to him, been anticipated by de Martino, F. in Storia della Costituzione Romana, iii. 151 ff.Google Scholar Two other recent articles by Rowland, R. Jnr., Historia (1966), 217 ff.Google Scholar, and by Seager, R., Latomus (1965), 519 ff.Google Scholar, seem to me to press the evidence too hard to explain Clodius' behaviour in 59. In order to limit the source references I have excluded material easily discoverable in T. R. S. Broughton's Magistrates of the Roman Republic.

^{page 157 note 2} Plut. Luc. 30–34; Dio, xxxi. 14–18.

^{page 158 note 1} Cic. Att. i. 2. 1.

^{page 158 note 2} Mil. 55; cf. Asc. 50 c.

^{page 158 note 3} Cic. 29.

^{page 158 note 4} Att. ii. 19. 4, ii. i. 7, cf. Red. Sen. 12. 32, Phil. ii. 16.

^{page 159 note 1} Sall. Cat. 14, 16.

^{page 159 note 2} Cic. Cat. iv. 16–17; cf. Yavetz, Z., Historia (1963), 485 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 159 note 3} Cic. Leg. Agr. ii. 71.

^{page 159 note 4} Id. Har. Resp. 42, Att. i. 16. 13.

^{page 160 note 1} Cic. Att. i. 14. 5.

^{page 160 note 2} Id., Phil. ii. 45–46.

^{page 160 note 3} Id., Att. i. 18. 4, 19. 5, ii. 1. 4–5, Har. Kesp. 45.

^{page 160 note 4} Étude historique sur les corporations professionelles chez les romains, i (Louvain, 1895), 40 ff.; cf. Accame, S., Bullettino del Museo dell'Impero Romano (1942), 13 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 161 note 1} Degrassi, ILLRP 101 ff.Google Scholar; cf. 696 ff. for other collegial inscriptions. Further evidence in the works cited p. 160 n. 4, above.

^{page 161 note 2} If we can judge from the situation under Augustus, their patron deities were not only the Lares Compitales but divinities presiding over a particular profession.

^{page 161 note 3} Ant. Rom. iv. 14.

^{page 161 note 4} Asc. 7 c, 65 C.

^{page 162 note 1} See esp. Cic. Dom. 41, Har. Resp. 45, Att. ii. 12. 1, viii. 13. 5.

^{page 162 note 2} Id. Cael. 23; Schol. Bob. 115 St.; cf. Cic. Q.F. ii. 3. 4.

^{page 162 note 3} Id. Att. i. 16. 5.

^{page 162 note 4} Ibid. ii. 4. 2, 7. 2–3, 8. 1.

^{page 162 note 5} Ibid. ii. 12. 2, cf. 18. 1, 24. 2 ff.

^{page 163 note 1} Cit. Att. ii. 121. 6, 22.1, 23. 3; 24. 5.

^{page 163 note 2} Dio, xxxviii. 14. 1–3; Asc. 7 c for the date.

^{page 163 note 3} Cic. Pis. 8.

^{page 163 note 4} Asc. 33 c.

^{page 163 note 5} Dom. 25.

^{page 163 note 6} Cic. Dom. 6, 54, 79, 89, Sest. 34, Att. iv. 3. 2.

^{page 164 note 1} Cic. Rob. Perd. 12; Plut. C. Gracch. 4.

^{page 164 note 2} Nor need Clodius have stopped there. Might not the same argument apply to Pompey, the executioner of Carbo and M. Brutus?

^{page 164 note 3} Cic. Sest. 25.

^{page 164 note 4} Id. Red. Sen. 12. 32, Dom. 55, Sest. 28; Dio, xxxviii. 16.

^{page 164 note 5} Dio, xxxviii. 17. 4.

^{page 164 note 6} Cic. Att. ii. 19. 4, Q.F. i. 2. 5, 16.

^{page 164 note 7} Id. Sest. 53.

^{page 165 note 1} Cic. Dom. 47.

^{page 165 note 2} Suet. Jul. 23. 1.

^{page 165 note 3} Cic. Sest. 40, Har. Resp. 47; cf. Caes. BG. i. 7–10.

^{page 165 note 4} Cic. Pis. 77, Att. iii. 15. 4, x. 4. 3; Dio, xxxviii. 17. 2.

^{page 165 note 5} Ibid. 17. 3.

^{page 165 note 6} Ibid. 17. 1–2; cf. Cic. Red. Sen. 32, Sest. 40.

^{page 166 note 1} Att. i. 16. 11.

^{page 166 note 2} Cf. ibid. iii. 4 and 5. There was a lack of dies comitiales (or fasti) at the beginning of April, and therefore little opportunity for assembly business.

^{page 166 note 3} Ibid. iii. 8. 3, cf. 2; Asc. 47 c.

^{page 166 note 4} Cic. Pis. 28.

^{page 166 note 5} Before 1 June (id. Sest. 68).

^{page 166 note 6} Id. Dom. 40; Har. Resp. 48.

^{page 167 note 1} CQ (1925), 182 ff.

^{page 167 note 2} See, e.g., Cic. Dom. 54 ff., Sest. 35, 75–76, 109.

^{page 167 note 3} Leg. Agr. ii. 71.

^{page 167 note 4} Cic. Mil. 87; Asc. 52 c.

^{page 167 note 5} Cic. Har. Resp. 22 ff.

^{page 168 note 1} Cic. Att. iv. 3. 3; Plut. Pomp. 48.

^{page 168 note 2} Rhein. Mus. (1900), i ff. = Kleine Schriften, iv. 356 ff.

^{page 168 note 3} Cic. Dam. 14.

^{page 168 note 4} Id. Q.F. ii. 3. 4.

^{page 168 note 5} Caesars Monarchie und das Prinzipat des Pompeius (Stuttgart, 1922), 207 ff.

^{page 168 note 6} Cic. Fam. i. 9. 19.

^{page 169 note 1} Cic. Dom. 72.

^{page 169 note 2} Plut. Cic. 22. 2.

Article contents

P. Clodius Pulcher—Felix Catilina?

Extract

Access options

References

Save article to Kindle

Save article to Dropbox

Save article to Google Drive

Reply to: Submit a response

Your details

You have entered the maximum number of contributors

Conflicting interests