Jan Gurba, Tadeusz Łoposzko
Dwadzieścia pięć lat działalności
Wydziału Humanistycznego UMCS
Annales Universitatis Mariae Curie-Skłodowska. Sectio F, Humaniora 32, 1-23
U N I V E R S I T A T I S M A R I A E C U R I E L U B L I N — P O L O N I A VOL. Х Х Х И , 1 SECTIO F I n s t y t u t H i s t o r i i W y d z i a ł u H u m a n i s t y c z n e g o U M C S T a d e u s z Ł O P O S Z K O
Attem pts at Rescinding Caesar’s B ills of 59 B. C.
A tak i na u sta w o d a w stw o C ezara z 59 roku p.n.e. .К ри ти к а закон одательств а Ц езар я и з 59 г. д.н.э.
ł
On e of t he im m ediate re su lts of th e form ation of th e firs t triu m v ira te was C aesar’s consulship d u rin g w hich h e b ro u g h t fo rw ard and got passed law s concerning v e ry d iffe re n t sp h eres of life. T he m ost im p o rta n t am ong th em w e re tw o a g ra ria n bills. A n o th er step of im portance w as th e bill passed by th e Com itia a n d confirm ing a ll th e acts issued by Pom pey in th e O rient. A special le x Iulia g ran te d considerable privileges to p u b li cans farm in g ta x e s in Asia. L e x de pecuniis repetu n d is re stric te d abuses com m itted b y g overnors of provinces. As consul C aesar probably also in itia te d o th e r law s of w hich little is know n.1
W hat is re m a rk a b le is th e vigorous opposition of th e nobility against th e leg islative activ ity of th e consul, c le a rly observable alread y during the passing of th e firs t le x agraria. As a resu lt, a fte r some fu tile a ttem p ts to m ak e th e senate u n d e rsta n d his objectives and to let it discuss his p rojects d u rin g its sessions, C aesar reso lv ed to go ahead w ithout the se n a te or even ag ain st its w ill a n d got passed both th e first law and all th e la te r ones d ire c tly a t p o p u lar assem bly w ith th e exclusion of th e senate.*
B ut in th is he did n o t proceed unopposed, either. The a g ra ria n bills, in p a rtic u la r, m e t w ith stro n g resistance. The optim ates succeeded in
1 T h e te x t o f th e a cts to geth er w ith a co m p lete list o f source accou n ts can b e fo u n d in: G. R o t o n d i : L e g e s p u b lic a e p o p u li R om an i, H ild esh eim 1962 2, p. 387 ff.; T. R. S. B r o u g h t o n : T h e M a g istr a te s of th e R om an R ep u b lic, vol. II, N e w Y ork 1952, p. 187 it.; F. D e M a r t i n o : S to ria d ella c o stitu zio n e rom an a, vol. I l l, N a p o li 1958, p. 144 ff.
2 C a s s i u s D i o , X X X V III, 3, 4; A p p i a n u s: De bellis c iv ilib u s, II, 10.
2 T ad eu sz Ł oposzko
rallying those who opposed C aesar a n d trie d to co u n teract his m easures. A fellow -consul of Caesar, M arcus B ibulus, spoke ab o u t bad auguries, which — in accordance w ith th e law — w as to b rea k th e session a t once. Finally, the lead er of th e nobility, Cato th e Y ounger, a tte m p te d to speak a t th e assem bly attack in g th e bills proposed by C aesar and using th e tactics em ployed com m only on such occasions, i.e. continuing a speech u n til late in th e evening in o rd er to p rev e n t tak in g th e vote on th e p ro posed bill. If th e existing proced ure had been respected, no legislative a ctiv ity of th e consul w ould h av e been possible.
B ut tim es had alread y changed. The triu m v irs could do nothing b u t have recourse to ex traleg al m eans a n d th e y had no scruples in applying those. They b ro u g h t to Rome large n u m b ers of P om pey’s v e te ran s and — co n tra ry to th e law — se n t to th e assem bly a n u m b e r of m en from th e provinces, m any of w hom tu rn e d u p arm ed. C aesar took no heed of th e trib u n e s’ veto, nor of th e declarations of his fellow consul B ibulus. The adversaries of th e triu m v irs w ere attacked, th e trib u n e s of th e plebs w ere beaten up an d th re e of th em su ffered injuries; th e fasces of B ib u lu s’ lictors w ere broken a n d Cato was tw ice dragged off th e ro stru m b y force an d rem oved from th e forum . T rue, B ibulus a tte m p te d to m ake th e se n a te convene again n e x t day an d get passed sen atu s consultu m w hich w ould ov erru le th e resolutions of th e e a rlie r assem bly but, u n d e r th e im pact of th e events, th e sen ato rs could n o t m aster enough courage to oppose C aesar’s bills.
The o th er tw o triu m v irs len t th e consul th e ir w h o le-h earted support. Pom pey declared in public th a t if an y b od y d rew sw ord again st th e bills he him self w ould use his shield. C rassus m ade a sim ilar statem en t. These w ere clearly th re a ts th a t force w ould be used an d a rm e d m en sen t against opponents.
U nder th e circum stances th e sen ato rs gave in. T he bills w ere passed. W hat was m ore, w hen C aesar h a d th e Com itia accept th e resolu tion m ak ing th e senators tak e an o ath to obey th e new laws, a ll th e sen ato rs — including C ato and B ibulus — took th e oath a fte r a long period of hesi tatio n .3
3 The situ ation in R om e in 59 B. C. and th e stru g g le o ver th e carrying th rou gh o f C aesar’s acts are presen ted in d etail in: E. M e y e r: C a esa rs M on arch ie und. das P rin c ip a t d es P o m p eiu s, S tu ttgart 1918, p. 62 ff.; М. С а г у : N o te s o f th e L e g isla tio n o f Ju liu s C aesar, ’’Jou rn al o f R om an S tu d ie s”, X IX , 1929, p. 113 ff. ; M. G e l z e r : C a esa r d e r P o litik e r u n d S ta a tsm a n , M ünchen 1942, p. 93 ff.; L. R o s s T a y l o r : C a e sa r an d th e R om an N o b ility , ’’T ransactions and P roceed in gs o f A m erican P h ilo lo g ica l A sso cia tio n ”, L X II, 1942, p. 16 ff.; L. R o s s T a y l o r : P a r ty P o litic s in th e A g e o f C aesar, B erk eley 1949, p. 113 ff.; L. R o s s T a y l o r : On th e C h ro n o lo g y o f C a esa r’s f ir s t C o n su lsh ip , ’’A m erican Jou rn al o f P h ilo lo g y ”, L X X II, 1951, p. 254 ff.; J. v a n O o t e g h e m : P o m p é e le G ra n d B â tisse u r d ’E m p ire, N am ur 1954,
Bibulus, how ever, continued his resistance. A fter th e events th a t had occurred a t th e beginning of th e y e a r he s h u t him self in his house and did not tu rn u p e ith e r a t th e sen ate or a t th e assem bly u n til the expi ratio n of his consulship. B u t he rep e a te d ly issued th e fam ous edicts in w hich he declared th a t he w ould w atch th e sky till th e end of th e year and th a t on account of th is an y legislative a c tiv ity conducted a t th e tim e w ould be illegal.4
It seem s th a t th e resistan ce of th e nobility ag ain st th e triu m v irs has been p rese n ted r a th e r one-sidedly, both in th e sources a n d in m uch h i storical research. M any histo rians follow th e opinion of M omm sen 5 and ch aracterize Cato as a n arro w -m in d ed an d foolish statesm an, unrealistic an d capable o n ly of opposing th e new , a kind of Don Q uixote figh ting th e w indm ills in a th o ugh tless a n d fu tile m anner. An equally negativ e view has been tak en of th e a c tiv ity of Bibulus, th e consul, who w as in fact ridiculed a lre a d y in th e y e a r 59 by his enem ies. They coined a saying, w hich acq u ired w ide circu rlation in Rome, th a t in th a t y e a r th e pow er w as in th e h an d s of tw o consuls: Ju liu s an d C aesar 6 (because B ibulus was a com plete n on -en tity). Som e m odern and p rese n t-d a y h isto rians criticize sh a rp ly th e w ay in w hich th e nobles acted: th e ir passive resistance w hich could not possibly yield a n y resu lts, th e ir indecision, th e ir w ithd raw al into th e p rivacy of th e ir own houses an d th e ir unw illingness to fight openly, w hich m ade th e situatio n easier for th e ir enemies. They a re also criticized for th e ir rigid a ttitu d e s in politics a n d th e ir stu b b o rn loyalty to obsolete repu b lican ideals. M any histo rian s reg a rd Cato and Bibulus sim ply as ridiculous figures arousing am u sem en t r a th e r th a n sym path y or resp ect.7
p. 301 ff.; Ch. M e i e r : Z u r C h ron ologie u n d P o litik im C a esa rs e r s te n K o n su la t, „H istoria”, X , 1961, p. 68 ff.; S. U t c h e n k o : K o n su la t C eza ria — tr ib u n a t K lo d ia , „ V estnik D revn ey Isto rii”, 1963/3, p. 42 ff.; S. U t c z e n k o : K r y z y s i u p a d e k r e p u b lik i w s ta r o ż y tn y m R zy m ie , W arszaw a 1973, p. 95 ff.
4 C a s s i u s D i o , X X X V III, 6; P l u t a r c h u s : C aesar, 14.
5 Th. M o m m s e n : R ö m isch e G e sc h ic h te , vol. III, B erlin 18572, p. 155 ff.; 198 f. 6 S v e t o n i u s : C aesar, 20; C assiu s D io, X X X V III, 8.
7 W. D r u m a n n : G esch ich te R om s in sein em Ü b erg a n g e v o n d e r r e p u b lik a n isch en z u r m o n a rch isch en V erfa ssu n g , vol. IV, K önigsberg 1838, p. 489 ff. The author q u otes w ith u n q u a lified ap p roval C icero’s sen ten ce sayin g th at C ato acts ”a s if th e liv e d in P la to ’s id ea l rep u b lic and not am ong th e d escen d an ts o f R om ulus” ( C i c e r o : A d A ttic u m , II, 1, 6); v ol. V. K önigsberg 1841, p. 160 ff.; M e y e r : op. cit., p. 43 f., 62 ff.; H. C a r y : C a m b rid g e A n c ie n t H isto ry , vol. IX , C am bridge 1932, p. 509 ff.; J. C a r c o p i n o : C ésa r, La R é p u b liq u e R om ain e de 144 à 33 a v a n t J. C., „H istoire G en era le” (par G. G lotz) vol. III, P a ris 19504, p. 700 IL, 719; G e l z e r : op. cit., p. 92; M. G e l z e r : M. P. C ato U ticen sis, „D ie A n tik e ”, X , 1934, p. 59 ff.; R. S y m e : T h e R om an R e v o lu tio n , O xford 1939, p. 26, 34; R. E. S m i t h : T hß F ailu re o f th e R om an R ep u b lic, C am bridge 1955, p. 118 f.; U t c z e n k o : K ry zy s ...,
4 T adeusz Ł oposzko
One m ay ask, how ever: is th is the rig h t view ? Should th e lead ers of th e nobility in those days be reg ard ed as inept, undecided, tim id m en, to tally devoid of political realism an d m ore th a n th a t — foolish an d even ridiculous?
I t seem s th a t such a v iew w ould be a serious m istake. U ndoubtedly, those m en w ere presen ted as fools b y th e ir political enem ies, in p a rtic u la r by Caesar, b u t th e re is no reason w hatsoev er w h y a p rese n t-d a y h isto rian should echo these opinions or u n critically re p e a t insinuation of th is kind.
For if one exam ines closely th e situ a tio n in Rom e a t th e beginning of 59 B.C. one w ill come to th e conclusion th a t th e triu m v irs w ere u n questionably th e stro n g e r side. A ny arm ed resistance against th em w ould have been doom ed from th e sta rt. It m u st also be stressed th a t th e leaders of th e nobility w ere n ot plagued by indecision. N either Cato n o r Bibulus lacked personal courage. They trie d a ll th e m eans of resistan ce open to th em w ith th e exclusion of force w hich did not hold a n y prom ise of a sa tisfacto ry solution. Does this indicate th a t th e y did n ot possess a sense of reality ? A fter all, th e o ptim ates succeeded in m aking th e ir enem ies use physical violence and b ru te force du rin g th e sessions of th e assem bly. Considering th e balance of pow er th a t existed a t th e tim e it w as n ot a failu re on th e ir p a rt, b u t r a th e r an achievem ent. They proved beyond doubt th a t w ithou t th e use of force and w ith o u t violating th e law th e triu m v irs could not reach th e ir objectives. T hus th e trib u n e s ’ intercession and in p a rtic u la r th e o b n u n tiatio of B ibulus as w ell as his seem ingly r i diculous w ith d ra w a l to his villa an d issuing fro m th e re th e edicts th a t questioned th e legality of C aesar’s legislation played th e ir role effectively. B ibulus w as not m erely piling u p obstacles in th e p a th of th e triu m v irs. W hat w as of fa r g re a te r im portance w as th a t th e edicts w ere to serve in th e fu tu re as ground for an a tta ck ag ain st acta Caesaris, offering an excuse w hich could be of use in re-e x a m in in g th e w hole a ffa ir and, pos sibly, in invalid atin g th e w hole legislative activ ity of th e consul in the ye a r 59. T he optim ates realized fully th a t — for th e tim e being — th e y w ere th e w eak er p a rty and had no chance in a d irect co n fro n tatio n w ith the trium v irs. B ut th e ir activ ity h elped th em to achieve a postponem ent of such an event. T hus w as cre a te d a situ atio n in w hich th e y could bide th e ir tim e. T h at tim e w ould come w ith th e w eakening of th e triu m v irs ’
D. 99. 101: H ow ever, som e sch olars h a v e attem p ted to defend C ato an d h is p olicy, e.g. A. A fzeliu s criticized vig o ro u sly th e op inion o f M om m sen, w h ich is in. his v ie w both w ron g and u n ju st, and concluded his argu m en t w ith a sta tem en t th at th e only righ t and reason ab le stra teg y in th e stru ggle a g a in st th e triu m v irs w as th at adopted by Cato and th e lea d ers o f th e n ob ility. L. R o s s - T a y l o r : (P a rty P olitics... p. 133 if), h as an eq u ally high opinion about Cato.
position, w ith th e ir loss of influence and, possibly, w ith th e grow th of differences a n d conflicts am ong them .
If th is poin t of view is adopted it w ill have to be ad m itted th a t the whole a c tiv ity of th e optim ates to g eth er w ith th e ir seem ingly hopeless, ill-calculated, ineffectual resistan ce ap p ears as th e only sensible proce dure, in fac t — as p a rt of v e ry clever tactics w hich could b rin g resu lts in th e fu tu re . In view of this a revision of opinions on th e sub ject discuss ed h e re w ould seem necessary.
Som e signs of d an ger th a t w as la te r to beset C aesar’s legislation ap peared alre ad y in 59 B.C. W hen he enco u n tered stu b b o rn resistance t r y ing to get his bills passed an d w h en he consequently imposed th e oath, C aesar p ro b ably realized th a t a th re a te n in g shadow w as hanging from th e s ta r t over his legislation an d th is was th e w ay in w hich he trie d to a v e rt th e danger.
D uring his consulship, s ta rtin g w ith A pril 59, he could not have over looked th e change in th e public opinion. It' w as a t th a t tim e th a t a si tu atio n developed th a t w as not v e ry fav o urab le fo r th e trium virs. H isto rical sources m ention th e loss of p o p u larity su ffered by all th e m em bers of th e triu m v ira te an d in p a rtic u la r by C aesar a n d Pom pey. The mood of th e public found its best expression in incidents a t gam es and dram atic p erform ances organized by C aesar in A ugust of th a t year. In a lively ac count of th e incidents, included in a le tte r to A tticus, Cicero w ro te of how th e public h ad ap p lauded all th e m alicious allusions to th e triu m virs. T heir enem ies w ere g reeted w ith sto rm y clapping th a t ceased a b ru p tly w hen C aesar appeared. H eavy ap plause w as given to th e actor saying th e sentence: N ostra m iseria tu es M agnus (Pom pey, it w ill be rem em bered, w as nick nam ed M agnus), or: S i n eque leges nequ e m ores cogunt. The p lay w as rep e a te d ly in te rru p te d and th e acto r encouraged by shouts from th e audience to re p e a t th ese w ords.8
It w as n ot m erely a m a tte r of th e grudge th a t th e optim ates bore th e triu m virs. T h eir dislike w as understand ab le. B ut th e hostile dem on stra tions against th e triu m v irs w ere n o t all in spired by them . H. S trassb u rg er suggests th a t those dem onstrations w ere equally, if no t m ainly, th e w ork
8 C i c e r o : Ad. A ttic u m , II, 19, 2 ff.; C oncerning th e a n ti-C aesarian d em on stra tion s a t th e th ea trica l p erform an ces in 59 see: R. E. S m i t h : T he S ign ifican ce of C a esa r’s C o n su lsh ip in 59 В. C., ’’P h o e n ix ”, X V III, 1964, p. 308; U t c z e n k o : K ry zy s ... p. 105 f.; R. S e a g e r : C lodiu s, P o m p eiu s a n d th e E xile o f C icero, ’’L ato m us”, X X V , 1965, p. 523 f.; L. R. S h a c k l e t o n B a i l e y : C icero ’s L e tte r s to A ttic u s, vol. I, C am bridge 1965, p. 389 f.
6 T adeusz Ł oposzko
of th e Rom an equites.9 This opinion is shared by L epore.10 W ithout q u e stioning the v alid ity of th e ir conclusions one can point o ut th a t those who particip ated in th e d em onstrations w ere not all m em bers of th e up p er classes. Some frag m en ts of Cicero’s le tte rs seem to suggest th a t th e triu m v irs w ere also tre a te d w ith hostility by th e Rom an plebeians: ’’Scito
nihil un q u a m fuisse tam infam e, ta m turpe, tam peraeque om nibus g e neribus, ordinibus, aetatibus o ffen su m , quam hunc sta tu m , qui n unc est... Populares isti iam etia m m odestos hom ines sibilare docuerunt. B ibulus in caelo est, nec, quare scio; sed ita laudatur, quasi: ’Unus homo nobis cunctando re stitu it re m ’ [...] S u n t en im illi apud hom ines invidiosi”.11
Those w ho a re p resen ted h e re as th e enem ies of th e triu m v irs, iro nically called by Cicero isti populares, a re said to be m en of all sorts, also
’’m odesti hom ines”. M aking a referen ce to th e d em o nstrations in th e th e a tre
and a t games, dem onstrations hostile tow ards th e triu m v irs, Cicero w rites:
Populi sensus m a xim e theatro et spectaculis perspectus est. He also m en
tions th a t th e m em bers of th e triu m v ira te m et w ith a hostile reception of ’’the w hole th e a tre ”.12 We learn f u rth e r th a t in reta lia tio n for th e hostile shouts C aesar th re a te n e d he w ould abolish no t only le x Roscia (which g ran ted th e equites privileged seats in th e th ea tre ) b u t also le x
frum entaria — th e g rain act. ’’T u lit Caesar graviter. L itterae Capuam ad P o m peium volare dicebantur. Inim ici erant equitibus, qui C urioni stantes plauserant; hostes om nibus. Rosciae legi, etia m fru m en tariae, m in ita b a n tu r”.13 The possibility of abolishing th e d istrib u tio n of g rain w as undo
ubtedly m ean t as a rep ressiv e m easure for th e poorest plebeians, who, as can be concluded from th e passage q u o ted above, had a hostile a ttitu d e tow ards th e triu m v irs. W hat should also be no ted is th e statem en t: ’’th ey a re th e enem ies of a ll” (hostes om nibus), w hich suggests th a t th e triu m virs m et w ith dislike all a ro u n d and hence tre a te d everybody as an enem y. Instances of sim ilar behavio u r of th e plebs could be observed a t th e tim e also a t the contiones. Cicero w rote to A tticus in J u ly of 59: ’’B ibulus
ho m inum adm iratione et benevolentia in caelo est”.1* B ibulus’ edicts w ere
rea d at th e plebeian assem bly an d even copied a n d p u t in to circulation; th e ir a u th o r was p raised en thusiastically, n a tu ra lly , because of his r e sistance to th e triu m v irs. It w as precisely ow ing to th e change in th e
9 H. S t r a s s b u r g e r : C on cordia O rd in u m , E ine U n tersu ch u n g z u r P o litik C iceros, L eip zig 1931, p. 51.
10 E. L e p o r e : II p rin c e p s Ciceroniano e g li id e a li d e lla ta rd a re p u b b lic a , N apoli 1954, p. 128.
11 C i c e r o : A d A ttic u m , II, 19, 2. 12 Ib id ., II, 19, 3.
12 Ibid., II, 19, 4. 14 Ib id ., II, 20, 4.
public mood th a t n othing w as ”so po pu lar as h a tre d of the popular”, i.e. of C aesar and his tw o political p artn ers. T hat h a tre d w as felt by m any of th e low est m em bers of society, w ho co n stitu ted th e m ajo rity a t the contiones.
It w as a t th a t tim e th a t a w ell-know n tre a tise by M. V arro, ’’T rik ara- nos”, directed against th e trium v irs, won g rea t renow n. S hort, satirical poems ridiculing C aesar w ere handed ro u n d the city; th ey w ere w ritten , am ong others, b y Licinius Calvus, C atullus, Laberius, V oltacilius Pitolaus and o th ers.15
The g en eral dislike of th e triu m v irs w as revealed, am ong others, in th e election of m ag istrates for th e follow ing year. T rue, th e triu m v irs succeeded in g ettin g th eir su p p orters, G abinius an d Piso, elected consuls b u t th ey su ffered d efeat in th e election of th e praetors: C aesar’s candidate, G. Alfius, lost th e election, w h ile G. M em m ius an d L. D om itius Aheno- barbus, both re p re sen ta tiv e s of th e o ptim ates and enem ies of th e triu m virs, w ere elected praetors. Sim ilarly, m o st of th e new trib u n e s of th e plebs tu rn e d out to side w ith th e sen ate.16
As e a rly as in A pril of 59 th e re w ere tem p o rary disagreem ents be tw een th e triu m v irs on one side an d on th e o th e r — P u b liu s Clodius, a can did ate for th e office of trib u n e of th e plebs an d a m an strongly sup p o rted by th e low er classes. H aving helped him to becom e a plebeian th e th re e m en in tended to send him on a m ission to A rm enia. How ever, th is solution e v id en tly did not suit Clodius. He p re fe rre d to s ta rt try in g at once to g et elected trib u n e of th e plebs w hich th re a te n e d to ru in th e plans of th e triu m v irs. It w as th en th a t th e firs t open tre a ts w ere ex p ressed again st C aesar’s legislation. Cicero offered A tticus th e following account of his conversation w ith Curio th e Y ounger ab o u t th e political situ atio n in Rom e a t th a t tim e: ’’Publius, in q uit, trib u n a tu m pi. p e tit” —
Quid ais? — ”E t inim icissim u s q u id em Caesaris, et u t omnia, inquit, ista rescindat.” — Q uid Caesar?, inquam . — ’’N egat se quidquam de illius adoptione tulisse.” This exchange of w ords is follow ed by C urio’s rem ark s
to Cicero ab o u t th e w ide-sp read h a tre d of th e triu m v irs and also about Clodius’s p rep a ra tio n s to tu rn ag ain st th e m .17
O bviously, w hen Curio says th a t Clodius om nia ista rescindat — he will rescind it a ll — his w ords re fe r to C aesar’s legislation. Clodius th re a
15 T he m atter is d iscu ssed a t greater len gth by M. St. P o p ł a w s k i : P o li ty c z n a p u b lic y s ty k a w d o b ie C eza ra i A u g u sta , L ublin 1935, p. 19, 29 f., 48 f.
16 C i c e r o : A d Q u in tu m F ra tre m , I, 2, 16. C oncerning th e resu lts o f th e e le c tio n s for 58 see: B roughton: op. cit., vol. II, p. 193 ff.
17 C i c e r o : A d A ttic u m , II, 12, 1 f.; Cf. also: R. I. T y r r e i , L. C. P u r s e r : T h e C o rresp o n d en ce o f M. T u lliu s C icero, v ol. I, D ublin—London 1904, p. 289; S h a c k e l t o n B a i ï e y : op. cit., vol. I, p. 375.
8 T ad eu sz Ł oposzko
tens C aesar w ith rescinding his laws, a fte r w hich C aesar announces th a t he has nev er adopted Clodius, th a t is, h e h as n e v e r m ade him th e son of a plebeian w hich w as an indispensable condition of obtaining trib u n esh ip . T hus Caesar, on his p a rt, w arn s Clodius th a t his own change from a p a t rician to a plebeian m ay also be m ade illegal an d he m ay th e re fo re be b a rre d from tribu neship .
It should be stressed th a t th e fra g m en t of Cicero’s le tte r to A tticus analyzed above has been v ario u sly in te rp re te d ane evaluated. Som e in vestigators, in p a rtic u la r J. Carcopino, m ain tain th a t th e disagreem ents w hich Clodius and C urio had w ith th e triu m v irs in 59 as w ell as th e fo rm e r’s th re a ts ag ain st acta C aesaris w ere m erely a tric k m ea n t to de ceive th e public opinion. B oth Curio an d Clodius, it is argued, rem ain ed in th e service of th e triu m v irs a n d only p rete n d ed en m ity fo r tactical reasons.18
In th e ligh t of th e sources, how ever, it seem s beyond do ub t th a t th e en m ity show n by Clodius and C urio to th e triu m v irs, w as n o t m erely p re tended, a t least for a sh o rt period in th e firs t h a lf of th e y e a r 59.19 The m ajo rity of histo rians a re in ag reem en t ab o u t th a t; this is tru e in p a rti cu lar about such con tem porary scholars as M. G elzer, E. M anni, R. Seager, E. Sm ith, L. R. Shackleton Bailey, L. Ross Taylor, J. van O oteghem R. H ol liday, A. W. L in to tt an d others.20
If th e view s proposed in rec e n t h isto riog raph y on th e su b ject a re ac cepted, Clodius’s th re a ts again st C aesar’s legislation in A pril 59 w ill have to be reg a rd e d as real. This tallies q u ite w ell w ith th e in te rn a l situ atio n of Rome a t th e tim e. W hat ,is significant, besides, is th e im m ediate de crease of tension b etw een Clodius a n d th e optim ates w hich is also r e flected in source m aterial. The optim ates expected th a t th e fu tu re trib u n e w ould a tta c k th e triu m v irs a n d perfo rm for th em a d ifficult a n d dan g e rous task. They w ere hopefully aw aitin g an a tta c k on leges Iu liae.21
Y et obviously Clodius w as n ot in te re ste d in th e a n n u lm e n t of those laws. H e m erely used th e th re a t as p a rt of his tactics. He recognized w ith
18 C a r c o p i n o : op. cit., p. 691 ff.
19 T h e problem is d iscu ssed at greater len g th in m y paper: T r y b u n a t P u b liu sza K lo d iu sza w ś w ie tle źr ó d e ł i h isto rio g ra fii, W arszaw a 1974, p. 199 ff.
20 M. G e l z e r : P o m p e iu s, M ünchen 1949, p. 131; E. M a n n i : L ’u to p ia di C lodio, p. 169; V a n O o t e g h e m : op. cit., p. 324, n ote 3; S m i t h : S ign ifican ce..., p. 308 ff.; S h a c k l e t o n B a i l e y : op. c it., v ol. I, p. 375 ff.; S e a g e r : op. cit., p. 533; L. H o l i d a y : P o m p e y in C icero ’s C o rre sp o n d e n c e a n d L u ca n ’s C iv il W ar, M outon 1969, p. 31; U t c z e n k o : K r y z y s ..., p. 105; A. W. L i n t o t t : P. C lo d iu s P u lch er — fe lix C atilina?, ’’G reece and R om e”, X IV , 1967, p. 162.
21 For further d iscussion o f th e prob lem see: M a n n i : op. cit., p. 168 ff.; T h e v ie w s o f th is in v estig a to r w e r e adopted by E. S. G ruen, P. C lodius: I n s tr u m e n t or In d e p e n d e n t A g e n t? , ’’P h o e n ix ”, X X , 1966, p. 124; R. J. R o w l a n d : C rossu s, C lo d iu s an d C u rio in th e Y e a r 59 В. C., ’’H isto ria ”, X V , 1966, p. 233.
acum en th e w eak point in th e triu m v irs’ position and aim ed his attack th ere. H ence th e sud d en in te re st of th e optim ates in him and th e som e w h a t u n ex p ected ly fla tte rin g rem a rk s of his enem y, Cicero, about him. T he hopes th a t th e nobles cam e to cherish in connection w ith Clodius’s activ ity in th e firs t h alf of 59 w ere soon w holly disappointed. Some sort of ag reem en t w as p robably reach ed betw een h im an d th e triu m v irs who finally consented to let him try to get th e trib u n e sh ip for th e following y e a r.22 P e rh ap s his th re a ts had b ro u g h t th e desired resu lt.
The o ptim ates could only ado p t a n o th e r conception and devise diffe re n t tactics. F irst, th ey had to w ait w ith th e ir atta ck till C aesar’s consul ship w as over, w h en th e y w ould have fa r g re a te r chances of success. None of th e triu m v irs w as try in g to get elected to any office for th e following y e a r — 58, so th e y w ould th e n be p riv a te citizens.
It is believed th a t a lre ad y w hen th e tw o consuls w ere giving up th e ir office B ibulus in tend ed to m ake a speech v e h e m e n tly charging Caesar w ith law lessness a n d acts of violence com nlitted d u rin g his te rm in office. Clodius, how ever, did not g ra n t him th e rig h t to speak and th en used force to k eep h im silen t.23
T he n e x t m en to plan an a tta ck on C aesar’s acts w ere th e tw o new ly elected p raeto rs, G. M em m ius a n d L. D om itius. They w ere avowed ene m ies of C aesar a n d th e ir election w as in itself a th re a t to his legislation. This w as precisely w hy C aesar had trie d to p rev e n t it a n d had supported th e candidacy of C. A lfius. B u t his can d idate h ad lost the election an d th e p rae to rsh ip w en t to th e tw o enem ies of th e triu m v irs.24 It is probable th a t G. M em m ius and L. D om itius had not k ep t th e ir intentio n s secret from th e sta rt. B u t th e y officially expressed th e ir criticism of C aesar’s legislation only a t th e beginning of th e y e a r 58. A m ore precise indication of th is d ate is difficu lt because source inform ation on th e subject is very
scanty. ‘
L et us see w h a t ancient a u th o rs say abo u t it. S uetonius w rites in his
L ife of Caesar: ’’F unctus consulatu Gaio M em m io Lucioque Domitio prae toribus de superioris anni actis referen tib u s cognitionem senatui detulit; nec illo suscipiente triduoque per inritas altercationes absum pto in pro vinciam a b iit”.25 Again, in his L ife of E m peror Nero he w rites: ’’H uius filiu s (Cn. D om itii — T.Ł.) praetor C. Caesarem a b eu n tem consulatu, quem
22 T h e problem is d iscussed at greater len g th in m y paper: T r y b u n a t P u b liu sza K lo d iu sza ..., p. 216 ff.
23 C a s s i u s D i o , X X X V III, 12; See: Van O oteghem : op. cit., p. 335. 24 C i c e r o : In V a tin iu m , 16; S c h o l i a B o b i e n s i a : In V a tin iu m , 16; See: B r o u g h t o n : op. cit., vol. II, p. 194.
10 T adeusz Ł oposzko
adversus auspicia legesque gessisse existim a b atur, ad disquisitionem vo cavit.”26
Cicero, in his speech Pro Sestio, m ain tain s th a t th e triu m v irs w ere fearfu l a t th e tim e because th ey th o u g h t quod acta illa atqu e om nes res
anni superioris labefactori a praetoribus, in firm a ri a senatu atqu e a p rin cipibus civitatis putabant. A nd th e scholiast adds h e re th e follow ing e x
planation: De actis loquitur, quae habuit in consulatu С. Caesar inauspi
cato, u t videbatur: qua de re adversus eu m egerant in sen atu C. M em m iu s et L. D om itius praetores, et ipsius Caesaris orationes contra hos e x ta n t, quibus et sua causa d efen d it, et illos insecatur.21
R em arks on th e d an ger besetting C aesar’s bills can also be found in th e subsequent portion of th e Pro Sestio speech. Cicero explains th e re w hy th e triu m v irs offered him no h elp a t th e tim e of his distress, w hen Clodius was p rep arin g th e ground fo r his expulsion. H e m ain tain s th at, as th ey w ere expecting an a tta ck on leges lulvae, th e y did no t w a n t to in cur additionally th e hostility of th e trib u n e: trib u n u m popularem a se
alienare nolebant suaque sibi propriora esse pericula quam m ea loque b a n tu r 28 And in a n o th e r speech he says: S i non su m adiutus, non debut.28
A sim ilar ex plan ation of th is event is offered in th e com m ent of in scholia Bobiensia, w h ere th e a u th o r suggests th a t C aesar probably gave his consent to th e m easures tak e n by Clodius against Cicero u t ea, quae
in consulatu gesserat, p e rm a n eren t.30
The possibility th a t th e triu m v irs did h av e a sh a re in Cicero’s ex pulsion need n o t be discussed here. Suffice it to say th a t according to several sources th e triu m v irs found them selves in a difficu lt situatio n then. If th ey them selves did not collaborate w ith Clodius — a n d on th is point historical opinion is divided — th e ir defence of Cicero w ould have been an aw kw ard an d a t th e sam e tim e a risk y step indeed. If th e y had incu rred on them selves an a tta ck of th e nobility, th e y m ig ht h av e also aroused the ill-w ill of an influ en tial tribu n e.
The sources q uoted above indicate th a t a n a tta c k ag ain st leges Iuliae did not come u n til a fte r C aesar’s consulship h a d expired. S till, it occurred before he set off for G aul (fu n ctu s consulatu, a b eu n tem consulatu, su
perioris anni acta, res anni superioris). T he p rae to rs m erely dem anded
th a t th e senate should open an investigation into th e m a tte r and no t th a t
26 S v e t o n i u s : N ero 2.
27 C i c e r o : P ro S e stio 40; S c h o l i a B o b i e n s i a : P ro S e stio , X V III, 2. 28 C i c e r o : P ro S estio , 40.
29 C i c e r o : De p r o v in c iis c o n su la rib u s, 43.
30 S c h o l i a B o b i e n s i a : P ro S e stio , X V III, 2 (С. C aesar) " v id e a tu r ea p r o p te r e t C lodio tr ib u n o e t co n su lib u s P iso n i e t G abin io in p e rn ic ie m M. T u lli con sen sisse, u t ea, q u a e in co n su la tu g e ss e ra t, p e r m a n e r e n t”.
it should rescind th e bills. B u t it w as clear to everybody th a t th e real objective of th e cam paign w as to m ake th e sen ate rep eal all of C aesar’s law s.31 It w as probably q u ite u n ex p ected th a t C aesar him self consented to have th e m a tte r discussed in th e senate an d th e n in th re e speeches
(triduoque per inritas altercationes; ipsius Caesaris orationes contra hos (M em m iu m et D om itium — T.Ł.) exta n t) sh arp ly atta ck e d th e m overs,
w hereu p o n the sen ate could n o t resolve in a th re e -d a y debate w h eth er an y m easures should be tak en against leges luliae.
G elzer’s supposition th a t C aesar escaped danger only because he quick ly received proconsulship an d crossed th e pom erium 32 does n o t seem ju sti fied. If any dan g er had existed, C aesar w ould have h a rd ly subm itted his affair to th e discussion in th e senate, w hereas th e sources suggest th a t he him self had consented to a p relim in ary discussion of th e p rae to rs’ m ove.33 M oreover, source accounts do no t indicate by an y m eans th a t C aesar was defeated by his opponents in a v erb al clash. On th e co n trary , everyth ing indicates th a t he em erged out of it victorious.
H ence one is m ore read ily convinced by th e opinion of M eyer th a t a fte r th e discussion, d u rin g w hich th re a ts m ay have been expressed (such p robab ly is th e m eaning of th e p h rase describing C aesar’s addresses as
inritae altercationes), th e senate w as u nable to a rriv e at any decision, the
m ore so th a t th e th re a ts w ere m erely v erbal. O utside th e Rom an walls C aesar’s a rm y w as alread y w aitin g read y to m arch for G aul.34
It w as precisely th is arm y, statio ned a t th e gates of th e city, th a t p e r m itted its lead er to exercise som e pressu re on his opponents by creating a v e ry real th re a t th a t arm ed force m ight be used if circum stances m ade it necessary. The exam ple of S ulla was v e ry telling. T hus it is h ig hly p ro bable th a t in view of C aesar’s stro n g reactio n against th e m ove of th e
31 For d iscu ssion of th e problem see: R. A. B a u m a n : T h e C rim en M a iesta tis in th e R om an R e p u b lic a n d A u g u sta n P rin c ip a te , Joh an n esb u rg 1967, p. 94- f f .; E. J. W e i n r i b: T h e P ro secu tio n o j R om an M a g istr a te s, ’’P h o e n ix ”, X X II, 1968, p. 43
ff.; E. B a d i a n : T w o R o m a n n o n -e n titie s, ’’C lassical Q u arterly”, X IX , 1969, p. 200 ff.; E. S. G r u e n: S o m e C rim in a l T ria ls o f th e L a te R ep u b lic: P o litic a l an d P ro so p o -
g ra p h ica l P ro b le m s, ’’A th en a eu m ”, X L IX , 1971, p. 62 ff.; E. S. G r u e n : T h e L a st G e n e ra tio n of th e R om an R ep u b lic, B erk eley 1974, p. 291 f.; C oncerning th e pow er o f th e R om an sen a te to rescin d la w s and its p ractical a c tiv ity in th is resp ect during th e d eclin e o f th e rep u b lic see: C. N i с о 1 e t: L e sé n a t e t les a m e n d e m e n ts a u x lois d la fin d e la r é p u b liq u e , „R evue H istoriq u e de D roit F rançais et E tranger”, S. IV, X X X V I, 1958, p. 260 ff.
32 G e 1 z e r: C aesar..., p. 109; G r u e n : C rim in a l T rials..., p. 62.
33 S v e t o n i u s : C aesar, 23 "C aesar p ra e to r ib u s d e su p e r io ris anni a c tis r e fe r e n tib u s c o g n itio n e m se n a tu i d e tu lit" ; cf. C i c e r o : In V a tin iu m , 15 ”P rim u m q u a re, n u m tu se n a tu i cau sam tu a m p e r m itta s , q u o d fe c it Caesar?".
34 For a fu ller d iscu ssion o f th e problem see M e i e r : Zur C hronologie..., p. 79 ff.; B a u m a n : op. cit., p. 94 ff.; G r u e n : L a s t G en eration ..., p. 291 f.
12 T ad eu sz Ł oposzko
p raeto rs th e o p tim ates — fearin g th a t he m igh t use a rm e d force — did not w ant to ru n an y risk an d th e m ove fell.
The question th a t arises h e re is this: was th a t th e reason w hy his m arch for G aul was delayed so long, even th o ugh th e re w e re u rg e n t m a t te rs th a t called fo r his presence th e re an d even th ough he had ”to m arch th ere speedily” la te r on? 35 The keeping of C aesar’s a rm y outside Rome a t th e beginning of 58 has been v ariously in te rp re te d in historio grap h y. The thesis th a t has for a long tim e been resp e c tfu lly accepted suggests th at C aesar w aited u n til Cicero h ad been expelled out of Rom e an d th e n calm ly set off for G aul.36 This thesis, how ever, w ill n o t su rv iv e a critical exam ination. T he ten d en cy to explain all ev ents by re fe rrin g th e m to th e person of Cicero is u n d e rsta n d ab le in th e g rea t o rato r him self. In con tem p o rary h isto riograp h y th e above thesis is p robably connected w ith fairly w id e-sp read ’’C icerocentrism ”, i.e. view ing all m a tte rs in such a way, as if Cicero an d his affairs w ere alw ays in th e c e n tre of Rom an po litics. How ever, th e person of Cicero, w ho had by th a t tim e lost all im portance an d a ll influence, could not be dangerous to C aesar or th e t r i um virs in an y w ay w h atsoev er.37 If C aesar w ere a fra id a t th a t tim e of any p a rticu la r lead er of th e senate, it w ould su re ly not be Cicero, b u t r a th e r Cato, w ho rem ain ed in Rome a fte r th e p roconsul’s d e p a rtu re to G aul and who only la te r set off on a special m ission to C yprus.38
E. M anni expressed th e opinion th a t C aesar h a d been w aiting w ith his arm y outside Rome, because he w an ted to fin d o u t w h a t could be e x pected of P u b liu s Clodius, an ex trem ely energetic trib u n e of th e plebs, w ho had earlier spoken th re a te n in g ly abo ut his laws. F inally, he set off for G aul only w h en th e firs t p a rt of C lodius’s te rm in office h ad passed w itho ut an y dam age to th e triu m v irs ’ in te re sts.39
This view need n o t be shared, how ever. A t th e beginning of 58 th e relations betw een Clodius a n d th e triu m v irs w e re correct. T h ere is no evidence th a t any slig h test m isu n d erstan din g betw een th em existed a t th e tim e. It should also be rem em b ered th a t P u b liu s C lodius h a d become a trib u n e n ot w ith o ut th e h elp of C aesar an d Pom pey.
35 C a e s a r : De b ello G allico, I, 6 f.; P 1 u t a r c h u s: C a esa r, 17. C oncerning th e chronology o f th e ev e n ts d iscu ssed here see: M e i e r : Z u r C h ronologie..., p. 79 ff.; P. G r i m a i : É tu d es de ch ron ologie cicé ro n ien n e (an n ées 58 e t 57 a v. J. C.), P aris
1967, p. 48.
36 M e y e r : op. cit., p. 100 f.; G e l z e r : C aesar..., p. I l l ; J. W. H e a t o n : Mob V iolen ce in th e L a te R o m a n R e p u b lic 133— 44 В. С., U rbana 1939, p. 68, W. H u g o : C icero u n d C a esa r, G öttin gen 1944, p. 100.
37 S om e p ercep tiv e rem ark s on th e su b ject are o ffe r e d by: U t c z e n k o : K r y zy s ..., p. 113 f.
33 C a s s i u s D i o , X X X V III, 30; A ppianus: D e b e llis c iv ilib u s , И, 23; C i с e r o: P ro S estio , 60; 62; De d o m o sua, 65.
It w o u ld pro b ab ly be difficult to fin d an y single reason w hy th e p ro consul p u t off his m arch to th e province. The best guess seem s th a t w hat k e p t him in Rom e w as not an y single a ffa ir b u t th e w hole political si tu atio n in th e capital, w hich developed a fte r he h a d finished his te rm as consul, w hen th e triu m v irs becam e m ere ’’p riv a te citizens” an d w hen th e optim ates got th e ir lo ng-aw aited chance to stre n g th e n th e ir un certain position. It can p ro b ab ly be assum ed w ith o u t stretch in g facts too m uch th a t one of th e m ost im p o rta n t reasons for C aesar’s p ro tra c te d stay in Ita ly w as precisely th e m a tte r th a t is th e subject of th e p rese n t paper.
This is ind icated by th e circum stance th a t th e optim ates did indeed launch an a tta ck on leges Iuliae and th a t C aesar h a d to defend them vigorously no few e r th a n th re e tim es. It was c e rtain ly only th e fear of arm ed force, i.e. of th e troops statio ned outside th e city w alls, th a t p re v e n te d th e sen ate from tak in g m ore decisive action. As can be concluded from Cicero’s w ords, th e triu m v irs feared m ost th a t th e resu lt of th e ir action in th e preceding y e a r w ould be a lto g e th e r ru in e d .40 Such, then, could be th e p rincip al reason w hy C aesar rem ain ed in Rome.
A dditional su p p o rt is len t to this supposition by th e account of Sue tonius w ho w ro te th a t as soon as C aesar had d efeated th e efforts of th e p rae to rs in th e senate, he set off to th e province a t once (nec illo susci-
p ien te triduoque per inritas altercationes absum pto in provinciam abiit).41
The jo int referen ce of th e a u th o r to tw o affairs in a single sentence m ay suggest th a t th ey w ere m u tu a lly connected. C aesar had to rem ain outside th e city w alls as long as th e re w as an y re a l dan g er th a t his law s of 59 could be attacked.
No sooner had th e proconsul m arch ed off to his province th a n th e o ptim ates — p rob ab ly seeking rev en g e for th e ir defeat — b ro u g h t to co u rt C aesar’s q uaesto r charging him w ith financial offenses.42
They also m ade a n o th e r a tte m p t to a tta c k th e proconsul directly. Im m ediately (m ox) a fte r Caesar had left Ita ly th e trib u n e of th e plebs, L. A ntistius, accused him fo rm ally of having p erform ed illegal acts durin g his consulship. B u t C aesar’s friends w ere on th e ir guard. The o th er t r i b unes p ro te ste d quoting th e bill th a t fo rb ad e bringing to law a n y citizen rem ainin g outside Rome engaged in th e execution of public duties. As C aesar h ad alread y s ta rte d his proconsulship, he escaped d ang er.43
40 S ee a b ove, n ote 27.
41 S v e t o n i u s : C aesar, 23; G r u e n : C rim in a l T rials..., p. 62. 43 Ibid.
43 ib id ., "M ox e t ip s e a L u cio A n tis tio tr. pi. p o s tu la tu s a p p e lla to d e m u m c o l leg io o p tin u it, cu m r e i p u b lic a e cau sa ab esset, reu s n e jie re t" . Cf. also: G. N i c- c o l i n i : I ja s ti d e i tr ib u n i d e lla p le b e , M ilano 1934, p. 293, 298; B r o u g h t o n : op. c it., v ol. II, p. 195 ff.; G r u e n : C rim in a l T rials..., p. 63; W e i n г 1 b: op. cit., p. 44; B a u m a n : op. cit., p. 103 f.
14 T adeusz Ł oposzko
W hat strik es one is S ueton iu s’s p h rase collegio optin u it indicating th a t C aesar w as su p p o rted by all th e o th er trib u nes. M oreover, it is curious th a t S uetonius does not m ention h ere th e nam e of P. Clodius who u n doubtedly played a m ajor role in th e college of trib u n e s in 58. One m ay guess, how ever, th a t Caesar owed th e su p p o rt of th e college of trib u n e s to no o th er person th an Clodius. It is highly p robable th a t in re tu r n th e triu m v irs allow ed Clodius to score off his enem y, Cicero, by bring ing about th e la tte r ’s expulsion.
S u eto n ius’s account clearly suggests th a t though dan ger h ad been tem porarily av erted , C aesar w as still anxious ab o u t th e fu tu re fa te of his laws. T hat was the reason — as S uetonius w rites — w hy he ”ad securi
ta tem ergo posteri tem poris in m agno negotio habuit obligare sem per annuos m agistratus et a praetoribus non alios adiuvare au t ad honorem pati pervenire quam qui sibi recepissent propugnatores absentiam suam ; cuius pacti non d u b ita vit a quibusdam ius iu ra n d u m atque etiam s y n grapham exigere.” 44
As th e sta te m e n t im plies th a t C aesar rep e a te d his stra te g y a t th e tim e of th e elections held ev ery y ear (in magno negotio habuit obligare
sem per annuos m agistratus), it m ay be reg ard ed as evidence th a t the
proconsul had his m isgivings for q u ite some tim e, a t least for th e n e x t few years.
Y et a t first his fears ap p eared unfounded. A fter th e a tte m p ts of th e p raeto rs and of th e trib u n e of th e plebs h ad com e to nothing, th e o p ti m ates did n o t take a n y m easures hostile to Caesar.
No o th er a tta ck ag ain st leges lu lia e w as laun ched u n til a few y ears late r, w hen th e p o litic a l'situ a tio n in Rom e h a d a lre ad y changed. In th e course of 58 a stron g tension developed betw een Clodius a n d Pom pey which soon tu rn e d into an open conflict. A hope d aw ned th a t th e re m ig ht be discord in th e triu m v ira te an d th a t Pom pey and th e senate m igh t become closer.
It w as in th is situatio n th a t P. Clodius som ew hat un ex p ected ly d ire c t ed his a tta c k again st C aesar’s law s of 59. His action has been th e sub ject of a lively discussion am ong scholars who hold d iffe re n t opinions on th e m atte r. This is w hy it seem s w o rth w hile to exam ine closely all those sources w hich m ention it.
In his speech ”De dom o sua” Cicero said: ’’N egant (augures — T. Ł.)
fas esse agi cum populo cum de caelo se rv a tu m sit. Quo die de te le x curiata lata esse dicatur, audes negare de caelo esse servatum ? A dest prae sens vir singulari v irtu te , constantia g ravitate praeditus, M. Bibulus: hunc consulum illo ipse die contendo servasse de caelo. — ’’In firm a s ig itu r
tu acta Caesaris, v iri fortissim i?” — M inim e, neque enim m e iam quic- quam in terest, excep tis iis telis quae e x illius actionis in m e u m corpus im m issa sun t. Se haec de suspiciis quae ego n unc per breviter attingo, acta su n t a te. T u tuo praecipitante iam et debilitate trib u n a tu suscipio- ru m patronus subito e x titisti; tu M. B ib u lu m in contionem , tu augures produxissi; tib i interroganti augures responderunt, cum de caelo servatu m sit, cum populo agi non posse; tib i M. B ib ulu s quaerenti se de caelo servasse respondit; idem que in contione d ixit, ab A ppio tuo fra tre, pro
ductus, te om nis, quod contra auspicia adoptatus esses trib u n u m non fuisse. Tua denique om nis actio posterioribus m ensibus fu it, quod omnia quae C. Caesar egisset, quod contra auspicia essent acta, per senatum rescindi oportere; quod si fie re t, dicebas tu tuis um eris m e custodem urbis in u rb em rela turum . V id e te hom inis a m en tia m per su u m trib u n a tu m Caesaris actis inligatus te n e re tu r.” 45
In ”De haruspicum responso” can be found a sim ilar passage on th e sam e subject: ’’Turn leges Iuliae contra auspicias latas et hic in contioni
bus dicere, in quibus legibus inerat curiata illa lex, quae to tu m eius tr i bunatus continebat, quam caecus am entia non videbat: producebat fo rtis sim u m v ir u m M. B ibulum : quaerebat e x eo, C. Caesare leges ferente de caelo sem perne servasset, sem per se ille servasse dicebat. A ugures interrogabat, quae ita lata essent, rectene lata essent? Illi vitio lata esse dicebant. F erebant in oculis h o m in em qu id em boni viri et de m e optim e m eriti, sed illius u t ego orbitror, furoris ignari.” 46
In his speech ’’Pro S estio” Cicero m entioned C aesar’s le x de pecuniis
repetu n d is w hich Clodius announced to be invalid to g eth e r w ith o ther
law s,47 an d in a n o th e r of his speeches, ”De provinciis consularibus”, he m entioned C aesar’s an x ie ty ab o u t th e fate of his law s of 59 an d th a t in a contex t unam biguously suggesting th a t th e d anger to th em w as caused by P u bliu s Clodius in 5 8 .48
45 C i c e r o : D e dom o sua, 39 f.
46 C i c e r o : De h a ru sp icu m resp o n so , 48.
47 C i c e r o : Pro S e stio , 135. "C. C a esa ris le g e m de p ecu n iis r e p e tu n d is non p u ta t esse leg em ? e t a iu n t alios esse, q u i a cta C a esa ris re sc in d a n t, cu m haec o p tim a le x e t a b illo socero eiu s e t ab hoc a d secu la n eg leg a tu r!” T h e fragm en t of th e sen ten ce d eserv in g a tten tio n is th at m en tion in g som e m en w h o a cta C aesaris r e sc in d a n t, i t probably refers to th e o p tim ates w h o m issed no opportunity a llow in g th em to tak e up th e m a tter again.
48 C i c e r o : De p ro v in c iis co n su la rib u s, 44 "Ecce illa te m p e s ta s , caligo bon o ru m e t su b ita a tq u e im p r o v is a fo r m id o , te n e b r a e re i p u b lica e, ru in a a tq u e in cen d iu m c iv ita tis , te r r o r in ie c tu s C a esa ri de eiu s a ctis, m e tu s c a ed is bon is om n ibu s, consulum scelu s, c u p id ita s , e g e sta s, a u d a cia ”. It can on ly be a rem ark referrin g to C lodius’s th reats a g a in st C aesar, b ecau se he, togeth er w ith th e con su ls o f 58, w a s blam ed by th e orator for h a v in g created such a dangerous situation.
16 T ad eu sz Ł oposzko
E vidently, C lodius’s a tta ck on th e law s of 59 w ould not fit w ith th e image of th e trib u n e as C aesar’s tool in 58. This is w h y L. G. Pocock, one of th e m ost outspoken defen ders of th is idea, suggested th a t th e w hole cam paign of Clodius against C aesar was nothing b u t a m isu n d e r standing resu ltin g from th e w rong in te rp re ta tio n of th e te x t. In te rp re tin g in his ow n w ay th e frag m en t of ”De domo sua” quoted above (39— 40) Pocock concluded th a t Clodius h ad only defended him self ag ain st th e charge th a t his ow n activ ity a t th e tim e of his trib u n e sh ip was illegal in the follow ing m anner: ”if m y ow n activ ity is illegal having been conduct ed against th e auspices (or else if th e trib u n esh ip w as obtain ed against th e auspices), th en it w ould also be necessary to rescind th e law s of Caesar, for — as everybody know s — th ey too, w ere passed against th e auspices.” N atu rally — Pocock argues — these w ere b u t em p ty w ords. Clodius knew th a t rescinding C aesar’s law s w as im possible. He only w an ted to d em on strate th a t it w ould be equally im possible to question th e legality of his tribuneship. Clodius had not th e slig h test in tentio n to a tta c k leges
Iuliae a n d th e re was in fact no attack . Pocock adds th a t in th e situatio n
th a t existed a t th e end of 58 no a tta c k could h ave been m ade.49
This in te rp re ta tio n , how ever, has serious gaps a n d has consequently been sharply critized, especially by F. B. M arsh, w ho has accused Po cock of im precise reasoning. Clodius, he points out, atta ck e d C aesar’s law s m ore th a n once and th a t not only w hen th e leg ality of his ow n trib u n esh ip was questioned. Now, Pocock considers chiefly a fra g m en t from ’’De domo sua” w hich in itself could possibly give some su p p o rt to such an in te rp re ta tio n , b u t h e leaves out of account a fra g m e n t of
”De haruspicum responso’1, w hich m akes th is in te rp re ta tio n impossible.
M arsh m aintains, w ith a good deal of justification, th a t it w as w ell know n in Rome w h eth er C lodius’s a tta ck was re a l or only a p p a re n t. If, as P o cock argues, Clodius m erely com pared th e a ttack s on his trib u n e sh ip to th e th re a ts d irected against C aesar’s acts, all of C icero’s charges against Clodius a n d his statem en ts th a t th e la tte r said C aesar’s acts h a d no v a li d ity w ould not only be nonsensical b u t dow nright ridiculous. If Pocock’s in te rp re ta tio n w ere tru e , th e re could no t possibly exist Cicero’s s ta te m ents quoted above from ”De domo sua” an d ”De haruspicum responso”
<9 L. G. P o c o c k : P u b liu s C lodiu s a n d th e A c ts o f C aesar, ’’C la ssica l Q uar te r ly ”, X X I, 1927, p. 52 ff.; Id.: A N o te o f th e P o lic y o f C lodiu s, ’’C la ssica l Q u arterly”, X IX , 1925, p. 182 ff; In h is la ter stu d ies — A C o m m e n ta ry on C icero ’s In V a ti n iu m , London 1926, p. 19, 152; and: P o m p e iu sv e p a re m , ’’C lassical P h ilo lo g y ”, 1927. X X II, p. 301 ff. — P ocock d evelop ed th e th esis th at h e had proposed earlier, m a in tain in g th a t C aesar clo sely collab orated w ith C rassus a t th e tim e and th a t C lodius w as an agen t o f both triu m virs. P o co ck ’s v ie w w a s ad op ted by: C a r c o p i n o : op. cit., p. 796; V a n O o t e g h e m : op. c it., p. 353.
about Clodius’s a ttack s on C aesar’s acts, because a ll th e Rom ans w ould im m ediately see th a t th e o ra to r’s w ords lacked sense. U ndoubtedly Cicero regarded C lodius’s a tta ck s as real, not ap p aren t, if he used this affair as a basis fo r political accusation fo rm u lated in a direct a n d unequivocal m anner. 50
In rec e n t tim e Pocock’s thesis has been vigorously a tta ck e d by P. G ri m ai w ho reg ard s C lodius’s a tta c k on C aesar’s acts as rea l a n d who sees it as re la te d to th e m ission of P. Sestius in G aul u n d e rta k en to pave the w ay fo r Cicero’s re tu r n from exile. According to G rim ai Clodius th re a te n ed th a t he w ould rescind C aesar’s acts of 59 in o rd er to exercise p ressure on him a n d p re v e n t him from consenting to Cicero’s re tu rn . G rim ai assum es — rig h tly , it seem s — th a t Clodius did not rea lly intend to res cind C aesar’s law s. This w ould have h a rd ly been possible in th e situ a tion th a t existed in Rome a t th e tim e. U p to this po int one can agree w ith Pocock’s inference, b u t th e re is no n eed to follow him all along th e course of his reasoning. C lodius’s a tta c k w as indeed directed against Caesar. P e rh ap s he did n ot in te n d to rescind C aesar’s legislation, b ut his action was v e ry probably a clever political m anoeuvre, or an a tte m p t to blackm ail Caesar. In any event, C lodius’s th re a ts against th e acts of 59, an d in p a rtic u la r his w hole a c tiv ity in th e m atte r, described by Cicero, w ere c e rtain ly not a fig m e n t.51
T he arg u m e n ts of th e scholars re fe rre d to above m ay be am plified by som e conclusions suggested by an analysis of th e frag m en ts of Cicero’s speeches quoted above. Cicero m aintains th a t Clodius argued, n o t once b ut rep eated ly , both in th e senate and in th e contiones (in plural) th a t C aesar’s acts w ere illegal because th ey had been bro u g h t fo rw ard un d er
u n favo u rab le auspices. 52
T he sta te m e n t th a t an y charges against C lodius’s trib u n e sh ip should be tre a te d in th e sam e w ay as a tta ck s on C aesar’s acts could have only been m ade once. It w ould have been pointless to re p e a t th e statem en t In th e sen ate and a t contiones a t a tim e w hen nobody h ad an y inten tion of
m F. B. M a r c h : T h e P o lic y o f C lo d iu s from. 58 to 56 В. C., ’’C lassical Q uar te r ly ”, X X I, 1927, p. 30 ff.
51 P. G r i m a i : L e co n ten u e h isto riq u e d u ”C o n tre P iso n ”, ’’C om ptes R endus d’A cad ém ie des In scrip tion s et B e lle s-L e ttr e s”, 1966, p. 103; Id.: E tu d es de ch ro nologie..., p. 112 ff. D iscussing G rim al’s su ggestion s C arcopino tried to reconcile th em w ith th e th e se s o f P ocock m ain tain in g th at C lodius m ay h a v e in d eed w a n t ed to e x e r c ise som e p ressu re on C aesar in con n ection w ith S e stiu s’ m ission but th at he could not h a v e w an ted by any m ean s to attack h is p rin cip al (’’C om ptes R en dus d’A cad em ie des In scrip tion s et B e lle s-L e ttr e s”, 1966, p. 196 ff.). In th is w ay C arcopino argued in d efen ce o f P ocock ’s interpretation.
52 C i c e r o : De h a ru sp icu m resp o n so , 48 ’’Turn leg es Iu liae co n tra au spicia la ta s e t hic tn co n tio n ib u s dicere".
18 T ad eu sz Ł oposzko
attackin g Clodius. Besides, th e sources unam biguously m ention th e trib u n e ’s atta ck on C aesar’s acts w ith o ut rela tin g it in an y w ay to questioning th e legality of his tribu n eship . It is ju st an a tta ck on C aesar’s acts and one rep eated m any tim es both in th e se n ate a n d a t th e contiones.
Cicero m aintain s in "De dom o sua” th a t in th e last m onths of his trib u n esh ip Clodius did nothing b u t w ork to achieve th e a n n u lm e n t of C aesar’s la w s .53 This certain ly does n o t look like a p rete n d ed attack. T here is no m ention h e re of com paring C aesar’s acts and th e situ ation of Clodius. For m onths Clodius rep e a te d ly atta ck e d C aesar’s law s a n d attacked them in a v e ry consistent m anner. It is especially th e trib u n e ’s statem en t th a t th e senate ought to rescind om nia quod Caesar egisset th a t contrad icts Pocock’s thesis directly.
A nother thin g th a t m akes th is thesis d o u b tful is th e description of th e m ethods used by Clodius in his attack s in C aesar’s legislation: his b rin g ing B ibulus an d th e au g u rs to th e contio, his questioning th e m in a p ro vocative m anner, a detailed discussion of th e m a tte r in public. This so rt of procedure m ust have been in itself v e ry dam aging to Caesar. He could not have relished th ese co n stan t rem in d ers th a t his acts h ad been c a rrie d out c o n tra ry to th e auspices. It w as clearly a political dem on stratio n against C aesar an d not ju st a p rete n d ed attack. It is also tellin g th a t Clodius becam e allied to Bibulus, an in v ete ra te enem y of C aesar, and th a t he also took the o p p o rtu n ity to re tu rn to th e a ffa ir of his ob n u n tia
tiones. B ibulus’s p articip ation clinches th e m atter: h e w ould h av e n ev er
joined in had it n ot been a re a l a tta c k on Caesar. T he fig u re of B ibulus is a final a rg u m e n t against? Pocock’s in terp retatio n .
W hat also m erits a tte n tio n is th e saying, q uoted by Cicero, th a t som e respectable citizens (boni viri) ’’u n aw are of Clodius’s follies praised him to high h eav en .” 54 Those ’’respectab le m en ” w ere — as th e te x t m akes clear — th e leaders of th e optim ates (Cicero calls th em his friends) w ho w ere only too pleased w ith C lodius’s a tta c k on C aesar. C aesar w rites fu rth e r abo ut ”a difference of opinions am ong th e boni v iri’’ an d ’’dis sent am ong th e o p tim ates”; finally, he m ain tain s th a t a fte r his trib u n e sh ip Clodius was defended by som e o p tim ates ”so th a t he should n o t be b ro u g h t to law and th a t he should not rem ain a p riv ate citizen” (he needed su p p o rt w hen try in g to obtain aedileship); also, ’’th e y w a n te d to have
53 C i c e r o : D e d o m o sua, 40 "Tua d en iq u e om n is a ctio p o s te rio r ib u s m e n sib u s fu it, q u a d om n ia q u a e C. C aesar egisset... p e r se n a tu m re s c in d i oportere" . G r i m a i : E tu d es d e ch ronologie..., p. 114 f. a ssu m es that through th e autum n o f 58 C lodius m ade co n sisten t a ttem p ts to h a v e C aesar’s la w s rescinded.
54 C i c e r o : De h a ru sp icu m resp o n so , 48 ”F e re b a n t in ca elis h o m in em boni v ir i e t d e m e o p tim e m e r iti, se d illiu s u t ego a r b itr o r fu r o ris ignari".
