Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T00:15:24.016Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Cicero and Milo*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 September 2012

A. W. Lintott
A. W. Lintott
Affiliation:
University of Aberdeen
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The battle of Bovillae on 18th January, 52 B.C., which led to Clodius' death, was literally treated by Cicero in a letter to Atticus as the beginning of a new era—he dated the letter by it, although over a year had elapsed. It is difficult to exaggerate the relief it afforded him from fear and humiliation for a few precious years before civil war put him once more in jeopardy. At one stroke Cicero lost his chief inimicus and the Republic lost a hostis and pestis. Moreover, the turmoil led to a political realignment for which Cicero had been striving for the last ten years—a reconciliation between the boni and Pompey, as a result of which Pompey was commissioned to put the state to rights. Cicero's behaviour in this context, especially his return to the centre of the political scene, is, one would have thought, of capital importance to the biographer of Cicero. Yet two recent English biographies have but briefly touched on the topic. It is true that, in the background of Cicero's personal drama, Caesar and Pompey were taking up positions which, as events turned out, would lead to the collapse of the Republic. However, Cicero and Milo were not to know this, nor were their opponents; friendly cooperation between the two super-politicians apparently was continuing. Politicians on all sides were still aiming to secure power and honour through the traditional Republican magistracies, and in this pursuit were prepared to use the odd mixture of violence, bribery and insistence on the strict letter of the constitution, which was becoming a popular recipe. In retrospect their obsession with the customary organs of power has a certain irony. Yet it is a testimony to the political atmosphere then. Their manoeuvres are also important because both the instability caused by the violence of Clodius and Milo, and the eventual confidence in the rule of law established under Pompey's protection, helped to determine the political position of the boni associated with Pompey in 49 B.C. Cicero's relationship with Milo is at first sight one of the more puzzling aspects of his career. What had they in common, except that Milo, like most late Republican politicians, was at one time associated with Pompey? Properly interpreted, however, this relationship may not only illuminate Cicero's own attitudes but illustrate the character of the last years of Republican politics.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Roman Studies , Volume 64 , November 1974 , pp. 62 - 78
Copyright
Copyright © A. W. Lintott 1974. Exclusive Licence to Publish: The Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies

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

1 Att. v, 13, 1: 22 July, 51 B.C. = 560th day after Bovillae (with quinto emended to quingentesimo).

2 Mil. 78; 88.

3 D. L. Stockton Cicero 224–5; D. R. Shackleton-Bailey, Cicero 97–8. Relatively fuller treatment is given by R. E. Smith, Cicero the Statesman 195–7, and a careful survey of the evidence is now available as part of a book by M. Gelzer, M. Tullius Cicero 206 ff.

4 See my Violence in Republican Rome 4, 91, 199 ff.

5 53 C; Clu. 78; 182; Mil. 64 (cf. Wiseman, T. P., New Men in the Roman Senate 195, and 50Google Scholar, n. 1.).

6 ND i, 79; Fin. ii, 63; Div. i, 79; Brut. 207; Mur. 86; 90.

7 Att. ix, 9, 4; 13, 6. Cf. Att. xii, 41, 1; 43, 2, etc.

8 First promulgated on 29th October, 58 B.C. (Att. iii, 23, 1) but perhaps revised, before being presented again by the new college of tribunes (cf. Sest. 72).

9 Sest. 71; Att. iii, 17, 1; 18, 1.

10 Sest. 75–8.

11 Sest. 78; 85.

12 Sest. 85. Milo as yet had no effective force of his own. Compare what happened when Sestius used obnuntiatio (Sest. 79).

13 Red. Sen. 19; Sest. 89; 95; cf. Red. Sen. 6; Sest. 85; Ed. Meyer, Caesars Monarchie 109, n. 3.

14 Sest. 84 ff.; 127; cf. Vat. 40; Off. ii, 58; Caes, BC, iii, 21.

15 Dio xxxix, 8, 2–3. However, this may be inference and Dio's account can be misleading through compression; cf. xxxix, 7, where two separate accusations by Milo of Clodius are treated as one. Red. Sen. 30 is vague and probably a reference to earlier events in 58 B.C. Plutarch (Pomp. 49, 3) talks of Pompey himself protecting Cicero's brother against Clodius when he was appealing for Cicero's return in the forum.

16 Red. Sen. 27; Sest. 129.

17 Dom. 11–14; Asc. 48C; Att. iv, 1, 6; Dio xxxix, 9, 2.

18 Dom. 14. Cf. Red. Sen. 26; Sest. 129.

19 Red. Sen. 29; Mil. 39; Asc. 3C.

20 Att. iv, 3, 2–3. Earlier, on 5th Sept., Clodius' men who were on the Capitol were allegedly dispersed by a larger crowd looking for bread and so Cicero reached the senate safely (Dom. 6).

21 Att. iv, 3, 3–4.

22 Att. iv, 3, 5.

23 After QF ii, 1, written after 10th Dec., 57, and probably before the feriae and dies comitiales at the end of the month. Dio deliberately dates the election in 56 (xxxix, 18, 1).

24 In QF ii, 3, 1 Cicero says that he had asked M. Marcellus to speak for Milo and goes on ‘honeste discessimus’.

25 QF ii, 3, 2.

26 ibid, and QF ii, 6, 4. Dio's statement (xxxix, 19, 2) that Milo was ‘in theory condemned, in fact convicted without even making his defence’ seems to be a false inference from the events of 7th February, in view of the silence of the other sources and the disqualification from being a senator attendant on condemnation by the people, even if the charge was non-capital (Asc. 78C.)

27 QF ii, 3, 4. Cf. Att. iv, 3, 3; Sest. 86–7; 90–2.

28 Att. iv, 7, 3; Dio xxxix 20, 3. Cf. Har. Resp. 15 for a s.c. of 56 as well as of 57 protecting the reconstruction; ibid., 8 ff. for Clodius' arguments. See Courtney, Philologus 1963, 155 f.

29 Already detectable in Har. Resp. 51 (‘reconciliatio gratiae’). Dio (xxxix, 29, 1) makes this too dramatic and puts it too late—after C. Cato's obstruction to the elections. In the preceding chapters Dio ignores Luca and assumes that Pompey and Crassus made an agreement to topple Caesar from power!

30 Mil. 68.

31 Dio xxxix, 31. See Plut., Cato min. 42, 3 ff. (cf. Pomp. 52, 2; Crass. 15, 7) on the subsequent praetorian elections where Pompey and Crassus got their own candidates elected by manipulating the omens, bribery and force.

32 Att. iv, 12. The second day of a month was regularly a dies fastus, not comitialis.

33 Att. iv, 13, 1, cf. Asc. 28 and 31C, Att. v, 8, 2.

34 Att. iv, 16, 6; 15, 7; 17, 2–3.

35 28C.

36 19 and 28C; QF iii, 6, 3. Cf. App., Syr. 51, 255; Jos., AJ xiv, 29 ff.; 74. Faustus Sulla was married to Pompey's daughter, probably since about 59 B.C. (RE iv, 1510; xxi, 2, 2263–4). Earlier Pompey had been himself married to Scaurus' sister.

37 20C—a few days after charges had been laid against Scaurus.

38 28C.

39 Att. iv, 16, 5; 17, 3; QF iii, 3, 2; 6, 3.

40 Att. iv, 15, 4; Asc. 28C. The election was expected on July 27 at the time Att. iv, 15 was written (see § 8).

41 Fam. vii, 5, 3; QF iii, 1, 11 and 13, cf. Att. iv, 15, 6; QF ii, 15, 2.

42 QF iii, 2, 2; 6, 6; 7, 2.

43 Att. iv, 17, 4; QF iii, 2, 3; 3, 2.

44 QF iii, 6, 4 and 6, cf. 7, 3; Att. iv, 18, 3; 19, 1.

45 JRS lvi, 1966, 108 ffGoogle Scholar. See especially QF ii, 16, 1; iii, 1, 12; 6, 1.

46 QF iii, 6, 6; Asc. 31C. The gladiatorial show would have violated Cicero's own bribery law, unless it had been given ex testamento (Sest. 133; Vat. 37). Granted that it was, Milo's praetorship would have been a convenient opportunity.

47 I follow Watt's O.C.T. in secluding vel quia magister, but it would not affect the argument if these words were retained.

48 If Milo was in fact aedile, his preparation of a festival could not be criticized as unnecessary. Moreover, any aedileship in this period would have violated the biennium which had to elapse between regular offices in the cursus.

49 Correspondence of Cicero ii, 224; Cicero: Select Letters ii, 240.

50 This is the point of Font. 10 = Quint, vi, 3, 51:—‘Plaetori matrem dum vixisset ludum, postquam mortua esset magistros habuisse.’ See my Appendix, p. 77 below.

51 See QF ii, 6, 2 and my Violence in Republican Rome 77 ff. for further references and discussion.

52 Comm. Pet. 30.

53 The de aere alieno Milonis. See the argumentum in Schol. Bob. 169 St. fr. XVI (172 St.) ‘tuamque praeturam non tuo more differas’ is interpreted by the scholiast as a reference to Clodius' postponing his candidature ‘etiam praesenti anno’, i.e. for the second time, cf. Mil. 24. The first time was 53, so the scholiast thought the speech belonged to 52.

54 Dio xl, 45, 1; App., BC ii, 19.

55 App., BC ii, 19–20; Plut., Pomp. 54, 2–3; Cato min. 45, 7. Cf. Dio xl, 45, 5.

56 Dio xl, 45, 2; Plut., Pomp. 54, 3. Dio associates this with the imprisonment of Pompeius Rufus while tribune by the senate. This can hardly be. The imprisonment of a tribune was unprecedented. At best it would have required a magistrate with imperium in the city and cooperation from the other tribunes. Pompeius Rufus was tribune in 52, and an immediately preceding tribunate in 53, is unlikely; nor does Dio himself comment on the phenomenon (xl, 55, 1). It is conceivable that Rufus was imprisoned as a privatus in 53 or tribune-elect (Meyer, Caes. Mon. 210, n. 2) (in which case much of the point of the story disappears). Pompeius Rufus' counter, the imprisonment of Favonius as aedile (Dio xl, 45, 4), should fall in 52 (see MRR ii, 240). In view of a possible confusion with 52, Dio's account of Pompey's security measures at the election in 53 is suspect, but Plut., Pomp. 54, 3 hints at the same thing. In Violence in Republican Rome (199, n. 5; 215, n. 1) I was for rejecting Dio's statement, on the ground that the continuation of disorder was difficult to explain if the statement was true. It now seems to me acceptable if it is taken strictly to refer to a decree relative to the elections alone. I cannot believe with Meyer (Caesars Monarchic 210, n. 2) and Gelzer (Pompeius 181) that this was a s.c.u. Nor can I believe Dio's (xl, 46, 1) unsupported allegation that Pompey refused a dictatorship in 53 (accepted by Meyer, loc. cit.) in view of the opposition to this proposal in the senate in 52.

57 48C; Schol. Bob. 172 St. on ‘lapidibus duo consules ceciderunt’.

58 He was to accuse Milo the next year (Asc. 41C). I doubt whether he eventually stood for the quaestorship of 52 (as assumed in MRR) when the elections were eventually held in July-August of that year (Plut., Pomp. 54, 7, cf. ILLRP 786a). About the middle of the year he was acting as Caesar's legate in Gaul (Caes., BG vii, 31, 1) and is not called quaestor in the commentaries until 51 (BG viii, 2, 1). He would have returned from Gaul in late 52 to stand for election then, and immediately returned to Gaul, chosen by Caesar without the lot (Phil, ii, 50; Att. vi, 6, 4).

59 Phil. ii, 49; Mil. 40 (where ‘iudici laqueos declinantem’ need not imply that Antonius himself was accusing Clodius and ‘iam inretitam’ seems to mean that Clodius was physically trapped).

60 Mil. 24; Asc. 30, cf. 31 and 35C; Schol. Bob. 172 St., on which see note 53above. Since Cicero made this allegation in de aere alieno Milonis, while Clodius was still alive, it cannot be easily discounted, as Badian suggests, Studies in Greek and Roman History 150. The last five months of 53 (with all the interruptions to public business) would not have been ideal for legislation.

61 Fam. ii, 6, 3 ff.

62 41C, cf. Phil, ii, 4 and 45.

63 19; 32; 41. It appears later in Val. Max. iv, 2, 4 and Dio (see below).

64 xxxix, 62 ff. Cicero's defence of Gabinius (xxxix, 63, 5) is selected as a reason for a further deterioration of Cicero's repute, because he was an automolos. Dio believed that he originally got his bad name from his defence of Manilius in 66 (xxxvi, 44, 2), though his explanation of this is not very convincing. It was not difficult to denounce Cicero as a transfuga on account of his later behaviour, as the invective attributed to Sallust shows (ps. Sall., in Cic. 4, 7). However, Dio completely ignores the palinode of 56. Cicero's defence of Gabinius is also maliciously described (in company with his defence of Milo) in the invective Dio assigns to Fufius Calenus (xlvi, 8, 1). Dio's information on ‘Cicero the deserter’ may derive from a previous invective (cf. p. 74 below). His preoccupation with Cicero's failings and the preceding account of Gabinius' proconsulate may explain why the trials of Gabinius (with Julia's death and Pomptinus' triumph) are the only domestic events narrated between xxxix, 40 and xl, 45 (55 B.C. to mid-53).

65 Groebe (Drumann-Groebe, Gesch. Roms iii, 54 ff.) assumed that Gabinius' maiestas trial was over well before 24th Oct., 54 (the date of QF iii, 4) and thus the repetundae trial could start mid-October. 1 think this unlikely in view of Cicero's eagerness to pass on news to his brother. But, even if it were, one could not hope to complete a repetundae trial in the time remaining in 54 after c. Oct. 17 (cf. QF iii, 2 and 3). Groebe's view is supported, e.g., in Rice-Holmes, Roman Republic ii, 157 and RE vii, 428. Meyer (Caesars Monarchie 206–7) more shrewdly placed the commencement of the repetundae trial after the last letter of 54 (c. mid-December), thus explaining why Cicero's change of attitude is not manifested in his correspondence and why Cicero could expect to be Pompey's legate (Att. iv, 19, 2), but he was not more precise.

66 QF iii, 1, 15 and 24.

67 QF iii, 2, 1; 3, 2; 4, 1–2; cf. for chronology 4, 6 and 3, 3; Att. iv, 18, 3.

68 Verr. i, 31. Cf. Fam. viii, 10, 3 for 17th Nov. being exitus anni.

69 Fam. vii, 11, 1.

70 Asc. 19C; Verr. i, 6; II Verr. i, 30.

71 Att. xi, 20, 1.

72 QF iii, 2, 2; 4, 1–2; 5, 5; 7, 1, cf. 3, 3.

73 There is a further point in favour of this view, but it depends on Appian whose account of 53–2 B.C. (surely not taken in detail from Pollio) is full of careless inaccuracy. He says (BC ii, 24) that the first people convicted under Pompey's laws of 52 were absentees, Milo for murdering Clodius, Gabinius for maiestas. If this is in fact a reference to Gabinius (like Milo) being tried in absence for ambitus in 52, then it suggests that there was no chance for P. Sulla's accusation of Oct. 54 to take place beforehand.

74 At the end of 54 Cicero expected to be Pompey's legate from the Ides of January 53 (Att. iv, 19, 2). This suggests that at that time Pompey had little hope of him becoming Gabinius' defence counsel. In fact he does not seem to have gone (cf. Fam. vii, 11–3) though the legatio was apparently still a possibility in early 52 (Schol. Bob. 173 St.).

75 Pro Rabirio Postumo was also intended to preserve Cicero's good relationship with Caesar (41 ff.). Note especially the praise of Caesar's winter campaigns, presumably those of 54—3 B.C.

76 31C, suggesting that the marriage had already taken place by the beginning of 52. However, Plutarch (Pomp. 55, 1) relates that Pompey was criticized for marrying Cornelia immediately after his appointment as consul, on grounds of levitas and because this led to improper practice at Scipio's trial.

77 Asc., loc. cit.

78 See the discussion of Staveley, Historia iii, 1954, 193Google Scholar ff. (esp. 201 ff.), on this point based on Dion. Hal. iv, 75, 2; 80, 2; 84, 5. However, his view is in conflict with Livy's description of the consular elections for 216 (xxii, 34–5 ) and Dio's of those of 55 B.C. (xxxix, 31). See now Jahn, J., Interregnum und Wahldiktatur (Frankf. althist. Stud. 3, 1970), esp. 25 ff., 124 ff, 167 ff.Google Scholar and cf. JRS lxii, 1972, 187 fGoogle Scholar.

79 Mil. 45; 49C.

80 34–5C.

81 Mil. 27–8, cf. 46. Though Asconius (31C) states that the installation of the flamen was to be the following day (postera die), Cicero states explicitly in Mil. 46 that the flamen had to be installed ‘illo ipso die’ and there is no other day in question but that of the journey. On this point, which is in fact not entirely favourable to him, Cicero's statement should be respected.

82 31C; Mil. 51; 54. Cicero alleges that Clodius finally left his Alban villa after the tenth hour on the news of the death of the architect Cyrus (48).

83 Quint, vi, 3, 49—from the speech of Milo's accuser, but not refuted by Cicero and implicitly accepted by Asconius.

84 31C; Mil. 29.

85 31–2C; 35C; Mil. 28–9.

86 31C; Mil. 53; 86.

87 32; 35C.

88 The allegations of Metellus Scipio (35C) about Clodius' slaves seem to be accepted by Asconius himself (32C). The allegation about Milo's slaves seems to be in conflict with Cicero's direct statement that Milo's coach-driver was killed (Mil. 29), but the latter could have been a libertus (cf. ILLRP 130) and Metellus' allegation literally true but misleading. Cicero's vague assertion about other deaths among Milo's men should be treated with suspicion.

89 See Lugli's map in BCAR 42, 1914, tav. ix–x, cf. 251 ff.

90 Mil. 29; 53–4.

91 32; 41C. For explicit references to the Acta see 31, 44, 47, 49C, cf. 19C, but they must have been the source of much other material in Asconius and, as the extracts show, were verbatim reports, cf. Tac., Dial. 37, 2 ff. (clear evidence that forensic speeches were so reported, against the view of Settle, TAPA xciv, 1963, 274 ffGoogle Scholar.).

92 32–3C. Dio xl, 49; App., BC ii, 21 (Appian here as in neighbouring chapters has added circumstantial detail to the story of Milo which seems to derive from his own imagination).

93 Dio xl, 49, 3.

94 The more detailed account in 43C must be preferred to the compressed passage in 33C which seems to imply that the attack on the house of Lepidus, as interrex, occurred on 19th Jan. ‘Post biduum medium quam Clodius occisus erat interrex primus proditus est M. Aemilius Lepidus’ must mean that Lepidus was installed on the second day after Clodius' murder and perhaps in the afternoon (cf. Dio 40, 49, s for an echo of this). Conrad has shown decisively (CP ix, 1914, 78 ff.Google Scholar) that ‘biduo post’ means ‘two days afterwards’ and is not equivalent to ‘postridie’. Asconius' phrase seems to be equivalent to ‘biduo post quam Cl. occ. erat post meridiem’. The facts, moreover, point to Lepidus taking office on the 20th. The turmoil in the forum on the 19th, which lasted till supper-time, hardly provided an atmosphere conducive to the solemn installation of the interrex by the patricians. Nor was the Palatine (where Dio says that the meeting of patricians was held) any calmer, since the homes of both Clodius and Milo were there. See Tamm, Auditorium and Palatium 27 ff. for a new reconstruction of their relative position on the Cermalus plateau.

95 43C.

96 33C; 43C. On the horti Pompeiani see also Plut. Pomp. 44, 3 (used in early 62 B.C.); Cic., Phil. ii, 109; Vell, ii, 60, 3; App., BC iii, 14 (presented by Caesar to M. Antonius); CIL vi, 6299. Grimal, Jardins Remains 129 ff., argues that they extended over the line of the via Flaminia.

97 50—1C. Some citizens and their families were granted the right of burial within the city boundary as a special privilege—Valerius Poplicola, Postumius Tubertus and Luscinus, C. Fabricius (Cic., Leg. ii, 58Google Scholar). Poplicola was in fact buried near the forum under the Velia (Dion. Hal. v, 48, 3). This is similar to the hero-cult of founders and benefactors in Greek cities, cf. e.g. Fustel de Coulanges, Cité Antique 168 ff.; Nilsson, , Geschichte der Griechischen Religion i, 677 ff.Google Scholar; ii, 128 ff.; Gomme's Commentary on Thucydides v, 11, 1; Robert, L., L'Antiquité Classique xxxv, 1966, 420 ffGoogle Scholar.

98 See below pp. 71, 73. Milo's continued bribery (33C) suggests that He foresaw an election being held by a dictator.

99 36–7; 50–1C. Cf. Mil. 63–4 for allegations that Milo would try a coup d'état.

100 Caelius had not only been accused de vi by Clodius in 56 but also brought to court by the gens Clodia on some unknown charge in 54 (QF ii, 12, 2). See also Caes., BC iii, 21–2.

101 33C; Mil. 91. The conjecture ‘ac Cicero ipse’ printed in Clark's text of Asconius is doubtful in view of Cicero's silence on this in Mil. 91.

102 See my Violence in Republican Rome 54 ff.

103 41C; Mil. 72 ff.

104 Mil. 8.

105 34C. This is misleadingly placed by Dio xl, 49, 5 in close conjunction with the nomination of the first interrex, apparently as a second instance of senatorial reaction to the riots of 19th Jan. For the formula see Violence in Republican Rome 151 f.

106 Asc., loc. cit.; Caes., BG vii, 1, 1—‘Caesar … in Italiam … proficiscitur. Ibi cognoscit de Clodi caede deque senatus consulto certior factus, ut omnes iuniores Italiae coniurarent, dilectus tota provincia habere instituit.’ Cf. Dio xl, 50, i, who also mentions a change of clothing by the senate, possibly the assumption of saga rather than of mourning, as measures were being taken similar to those after a tumultus declaration, on which see Viol. Rep. Rome 19 f.; 153 ff.

107 36C; 51C.

108 Sons of C. Claudius Pulcher (pr. 56), on whom see now Wiseman, , HSCP lxxiv, 1968, 207 ffGoogle Scholar.

109 34C. Cf. Dig. x, 4, 3. 7; 4, 61 and 20. This action existed during the time of Aquilius Gallus (Dig. xix, 1, 17, 6). See Watson, Law of Property 107–9, who does not, however, mention the present instance.

110 Fam. vii, 11, 1.

111 34C.

112 This, since 23 days were inserted into the calendar (calculated from Att. v, 13, 1, see n. 1), would have begun on the second day after Terminalia (25th Feb.). Cf. CQ n.s. xviii, 1968, 189Google Scholar, with n. 2. I have taken ‘haec agebantur mense intercalari’ in Asc. 34C to refer simply to the actiones ad exhibendum. If it is taken to refer to the s.c.u. as well, then this, Pompey's recruiting tour and the legal actions have to be fitted into the first twenty three days of the intercalary month. Moreover, it would be difficult then to explain why Asconius' account of Scipio's speech (c. Feb. 20) is placed after the section, ‘itaque primo factum erat … mense intercalari.’

113 34–5C.

114 Mil. 65; 51C.

115 35C.

116 35–6c; Plut., Pomp. 54, 3–5; Cato min. 47, 2–3; Dio xl, 50, 3–4; App., BC ii, 23 (unfortunately combining this with the story of Cato's mission to Cyprus). Dio is our only source for the suggestion that this was done in order that they might not have to make Caesar his colleague. There is no sign that Caesar was yet planning to return from Gaul, which was not yet pacified. The suggestion looks like later conjecture, perhaps Dio's own. The stiffer penalty under Pompey's bills was almost certainly exile combined with confiscation of the condemned man's property (see Appendix, p. 77 below). Linderski, (HSCP lxxvi, 1972, 181 ff.Google Scholar, esp. 190 ff.), has argued from the existence of a IIIvir capitalis in March (37C) that the elections, including that of Cicero to the augurate, took place as soon as Pompey was created consul. It would be remarkable if Asconius had missed this fact. It would also have been odd if Pompey had conducted the praetorian elections without electing a fellow consul (not elected before July, cf. ILLRP 786a).

117 Mil. 13–14; 43–4C.

118 Viol. Rep. Rome 116 ff.

119 Cicero in Mil. 13–4 is disingenuous over the meaning of the decree. The law did not yet regard all violence between citizens as a public matter, nor was insidiae a legal criterion for denning vis or indeed any other charge. The true significance of the decree was understood by Fufius Calenus and the tribunes.

120 36C.

121 For his later condemnation de vi see Fam. vii, 2, 2–3; Phil. vi, 10; xiii, 27; Dio xl, 55. Cf. 37–38C for his continued hostility to Cicero, whom he threatened with prosecution before the people (cf. Mil. 100), in contrast with the apparent change of heart of Pompeius Rufus and Sallust. Plancus must have had assurances of Pompey's continuing support (cf. Dio xl, 55, 1). He was not to know that it would be ineffective.

122 36C. Viewed objectively Caelius' arguments were questionable. Swifter procedure was necessary in view of the backlog of cases. At least the procedure had been laid down by law, as for example under the Mamilian and Varian laws, but not during the quaestio of Popillius Laenas. The basic meaning of privilegium was a bill about an individual person (Gell. x, 20, 3–4). These had been forbidden by the Twelve Tables in a judicial context (ix, 1), though the exact force of the clause is disputed and may not have been understood in Cicero's day. However, since the second century, tribunals had been set up by lex as well as by s.c. to deal with specific instances of crime and therefore specific offenders (cf. Cic., Brut. 89 on L. Scribonius Libo's rogationem in Galbam privilegi similem), and thus Pompey's bill had many precedents. For evidence of these tribunals see, e.g., Mommsen, Strafr. 256 ff.; Kunkel, Kriminalverfahren 45 ff.; for a discussion of privilegium see Bleicken, , ZSS lxxvi, 1959, 352 ffGoogle Scholar.

123 Plut., Pomp. 47, 4–5.

124 On the position of tribunes after the s.c.u. see Viol. Rep. Rome 172.

125 See CQ n.s. xviii, 1968, 193Google Scholar, and for my interpretation of trinundinum CQ n.s. xv, 1965, 281 ffGoogle Scholar. I still believe that it was a promulgation over three market-days. A. K. Michels, The Calendar of the Roman Republic 191 ff. has accepted one of the points I made against Mommsen while herself arguing for a 25-day trinundinum. However, her view depends on taking ‘triduo post’ in Pis. 9 to refer to 5th January, when the date last mentioned (Pis. 8) is 1st January.

126 Att. vii, 1, 4; 3, 4; 6, 2; viii, 3, 3—said to have occurred in Pompey's third consulship. Cf. Dio xl, 49, 1; Plut., Pomp. 56, 2–3; Suet., Caes. 26, 1; App., BC ii, 23.

127 BG vii, 6, 1. Caesar later crossed the Cevennes into Arvernian territory ‘durissimo tempore anni’ when the road was blocked by deep snowdrifts. Cf. Meyer, Caesars Monarchic 227, 233–4.

128 For Pompey's continuing hostility to Milo, see Mil. 67; 36–8C.

129 37–8C.

130 Mil. 12; 38C; 40C.

131 39–40C. Cicero must be referring to these security measures at the trial in Fam. iii, 10, 10 (‘cum armis denique texit suis’). In 49 (Att. ix, 7B, 2) Balbus argued that, as Cicero sought protection of Pompey with his own approval then, so he should seek protection of Caesar, without prejudice to his obligations to the other side.

132 We must assume that the procedure laid down by the lex Pompeia, as detailed by Asconius (39C), was in fact followed, even though the text of 40C gives a different impression. Asconius there moves straight on from the evidence of Sempronia and Fulvia to ‘Dimisso circa horam decimam iudicio T. Munatius pro contione populum adhortatus est ut postero die frequens adesset…' This contio was in fact held the day before Milo's condemnation (Mil. 3). However, the MSS of 30C give the final day of Milo's trial as a.d. VI Id. April (April 8) and this, though unsupported by the MSS of 40C, which have variously corrupt readings of a.d. II and III, is confirmed by a calculation based on Mil. 98—Cicero's statement that it was the 102nd day from Clodius' murder— given that there were 23 days added by intercalation (see nn. 1 and 114). Plancus' contio must then fall on the 7th, the day after the evidence of Sempronia. Either Asconius has slipped or else a further postero die was originally in his text between iudicio and adhortatus est.

133 Mil. 3; 40C; 42C.

134 41C, cf. 39C.

135 Dio xl, 54, 2, cf. xlvi, 7, 2–3. Plutarch (Cic. 35, 2–5) tells a similar story in a more friendly tone. Milo, afraid that Cicero might get an attack of nerves at the sight of Pompey's troops, especially as he was always a nervous starter, urged Cicero to wait in a lectica until the court convened, but he was still shaken when he finally emerged and spoke. The inadequacies of this story are patent. No mention of the barracking and interruptions. Cicero's nerves are attributed to the sight of Pompey's troops when he had already spent two days in court examining witnesses with them present, and had just spent two hours listening to the prosecution under the same conditions. The troops may have had some effect, but it was of small account compared with the effect of the Clodiani. See n. 131 above for later references by Cicero and Balbus to the protection Cicero received. In general cf. Settle, , TAPA xciv, 1963, 268 ffGoogle Scholar. (although I cannot accept his view of the oratio excepta, see n. 91).

136 41–2C.

137 QF ii, 3, 2. See above p. 63.

138 iv, 3, 16–17. Cf. Schol. Bob. 112 St.

139 42C. On the Acta see note 93, and cf. Vat. 3 and Fam. viii, 1, 2 on the operarii who reported public proceedings. Settle (274 ff.) is excessively sceptical on this point.

140 Cicero later talked of his performance with equanimity (Opt. Gen. Or. 10).

141 41C. Cf. Mil. 72–83. The rest of the discussion in 41—2C implies that Cicero's case on the day was fundamentally that of the rewritten speech.

142 Mil. 8–11; 29–31. Technically it was a constitutio iuridicalis involving relatio critninis (Inv. ii, 78 ff.). For the principle, vim vi repellere licet, see Dig. xliii 16, 1, 27. On the application of this principle in pro Milone see Cahen, , REA xxv, 1923, 119 ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar. and my Viol. Rep. Rome. 23.

143 41C; Mil. 46 ff.

144 35C.

145 Tull. 7; 24 ff. cf. Viol. Rep. Rome 127 ff.

146 cf. Dig. xlviii, 6, 10; ibid. 3 for ‘qui consilium inierint’.

147 FIRA i, p. 13 (Festus 247 L). Cf. Dig. xlviii, 8, 16–‘qui caedem admiserunt sponte dolove malo …’. On parricidium see Cloud, , ZSS lxxxviii, 1971, 1 ff.Google Scholar, who has extensive references to previous discussions.

148 Kunkel, Untersuchungen zur Entwicklung des römischen Kriminalverfahrens 65 ff.; Cloud, , ZSS lxxxvi, 1969, 258 ffGoogle Scholar.

149 Mil. 10, 11, 14, 23, 28, 30, 31. On Cicero's treatment of the opposition case see the recent article of Wellesley, , Acta Classica Univ. Scient. Debrecen. vii, 1971, 27 ffGoogle Scholar.

150 23; 31 ff.

151 7–11

152 12–14.

153 28–9.

154 Sest. 88 ff.

155 Dio xl, 54, 3. He had been condemned by 38 votes to 13 (53C).

156 This was not a private case in which the plaintiff had to prove his intentio.

157 Mil. 100.

158 Mil. 87; 52C, for the proposal to redistribute the freedmen's votes. Cicero's remark (Att. ix, 7, 3), ‘Beneficium sequor, mihi crede, non causam, ut in Milone…', has a kernel of truth but, especially when taken in context, is an over-simplification. Cicero must have had private scruples about Milo's causa as he did about Pompey's in the civil war, but this did not mean that his attachment to both was merely a matter of personal allegiance. Politically, for Cicero they both represented the lesser evil.

159 Att. vii, i, 4.

160 This is clear from the tone of his letters. He had had a long and reassuring interview with Pompey himself and even recommended to Caelius that he should make up his previous differences with him (Att. v, 6 and 7; Fam. ii, 8, 2). On the trials see Phil. vi, 10; xiii, 27; Font, vii, 2, 2–3; viii, 1, 4; Asc. 54–6C; Dioxl, 55; Val. Max. iv, 2, 7.

161 38C.

page 76 note 1 Secrets de la Correspondance de Cicéron i, 183 ff.

page 76 note 2 Cicero, 98. Cf. Cicero's Letters to Atticus iii, 21 and 202.

page 77 note 3 See Mommsen, Strafr. 1005 ff., esp. 1009; and on parricide Cloud, , ZSS lxxxviii, 1971, 60 ffGoogle Scholar.

page 77 note 4 cf. e.g. Livy, xxv, 4, 9; xxix, 19, 5; Cic., Rab. Perd. 16; Cat. iv, 8 and 10; Dom. 44; Planc. 97; Plut, C. Gr. 17.

page 77 note 5 Sulla 89; Sest. 146, cf. Phil. i, 23 on Caesar's law.

page 77 note 6 As under Lex Acilia, 57, Lex Lat. Bant. 11.

page 77 note 7 II Verr. i, 52 and Ps. Asc. ad loc; Phil. ii, 64–5. Cf. Rosc. Am. 80–1; 102–3; Fam. xv, 19, 3. On the difference between sectio and venditio bonorum see Solazzi, Il Concorso dei Creditori nel Diritto Romano i, 5 ff.

page 77 note 8 See esp. Quinct. 30; 50; 73; Gai. iii, 79 ff.; Dig. xlii, 5; Solazzi, op. cit.; Wenger, Procedura civile romana 227 ff. (= Ziyilprozessrecht 222 ff.).

page 77 note 9 Lex agrar. 56; Dig. xlii, 5, 5; 7, 1 ff.; 8, 1.

page 78 note 10 He rightly argued against Carcopino that Cicero's reasoning in the letter is senseless, if he himself was a socius in bonis too.

page 78 note 11 Rosc. Am. 99 ff.; Phil. ii, 64 ff.; Fam. xv, 19, 3.

page 78 note 12 The rare nomen Duronius is later attested in Arician territory near the Via Appia (CIL xiv, 2188).