By saying that "no man appeared to have gone, where he went", he suggests that the jurors who
acquitted
him with their votes meant to say, not that the charge of sacrilege could not be proved, but that they did not consider Clodius to be a man.
Roman Translations
.
and so they should [leave as quickly as possible].
A few sensible men, with [free and] noble minds, [approved of the plan] that they should escape in this way .
.
.
and praised [what he directed them to do].
But some of [the slaves] stupidly trusted in the forces which were coming to join them and in their own fierce courage; others [dishonourably] neglected their country of origin; and most, with [the true character] of slaves, [sought nothing] but plundering and savagery .
.
.
[ 2 lines missing ] .
.
.
seemed to be the best plan.
Then he advised them to go off into more open countryside, richer in cattle, where they could increase their numbers with picked men, before Varinius returned with a new army.
He soon found a suitable guide, one of the prisoners from Picentia, and then he went over the Eburine heights to Nares Lucanae, from where he advanced at dawn to Forum Anni, before the inhabitants realised.
Immediately the slaves, contrary to the orders of their leader, turned to raping the young girls and mothers, and others .
.
.
[ 2 lines missing ] .
.
.
now and tormented those who remained in a shocking way with horrible wounds, and sometimes left their mutilated bodies still half alive.
Others set fire to the buildings, and many of the slaves from the district, whose character inclined them to be their allies, brought out the possessions which their masters had hidden, or dragged out their masters themselves.
Nothing was sacred or inviolable to these men, who had the savagery of barbarians and the temperament of slaves.
Since Spartacus could not stop these [outrages], he earnestly begged them to forestall the news of what they had done, and quickly .
.
.
[ 3 lines missing ] .
.
.
that they would [earn the hatred of the inhabitants], who had been cruelly attacked [and slaughtered] .
.
.
heavy mostly .
.
.
after staying there for that day [and the following] night, with the number of [slaves in his army] now doubled, he [moved camp] at first light and [halted] in a fairly wide plain, [where he saw] that the farmers had come out of their buildings.
By that time, the autumn crops were already ripe [in the fields].
But when it was already fully daytime, the residents learnt from their [fleeing] neighbours that the slaves were heading [in their direction], and [hurried away to the nearby mountains] with all [their families].
[3. 79] {3. 83M} L # And so they reclined to eat. Sertorius was lower down, on the middle couch. Above him was L. Fabius Hispaniensis, a senator who had been proscribed. On the top couch was Antonius, and Versius, the secetary of Sertorius, was below him. Maecenas, the other secretary, was on the bottom couch, in between Tarquitius and Perperna, who was the host.
[3. 84] {3. 88M} L From his earliest youth, Pompeius had been persuaded by the flattery of his supporters to believe that he was the equal of king Alexander. Therefore he tried to rival Alexander's achievements and plans.
[3. 90] {3. 106M} L # And at the same time Lentulus [(? ) abandoned] the elevated place which he had defended with a double battle-line, after his soldiers suffered many casualties. When military cloaks appeared out of the baggage, and select cohorts began to be recognised . . .
BOOK 4
[4. 1] {4. 1M} L # It is uncertain whether his colleague Cn. Lentulus, a patrician whose surname was Clodianus, was more stupid or arrogant. He proposed a law to reclaim the money, which Sulla had remitted to those who bought the possessions {of proscribed men}.
[4. 50] {4. 16M} L # There was almost equal haste and great terror within the town, because they were afraid that the new fortifications, which were built of brick, would be weakened by the damp. Every part of the town had been flooded, when the adverse swell of the sea had forced the drains to overflow.
[4. 60] {4. 59M} L # {Lucullus} proceeded by forced marches through the territory of king Ariobarzanes up to the river Euphrates, where it forms the border between Cappadocia and Armenia. And although he had some barges, which had been constructed secretly during the winter . . .
[4. 67] {4. 69M} { The letter of Mithridates to Arsaces: } L # King Mithridates, to King Arsaces, Greeting. All those who in the time of their prosperity are asked to form an offensive alliance ought to consider, first, whether it is possible for them to keep peace at that time; and secondly, whether what is asked of them is wholly right and safe, honourable or dishonourable. 2 If it were possible for you to enjoy lasting peace, if no treacherous foes were near your borders, if to crush the Roman power would not bring you glorious fame, I should not venture to sue for your alliance, and it would be vain for me to hope to unite my misfortunes with your prosperity. 3 But the considerations which might seem to give you pause, such as the anger against Tigranes inspired in you by the recent war, and my lack of success, if you but consent to regard them in the right light, will be special incentives. 4 For Tigranes is at your mercy and will accept an alliance on any terms which you may desire, while so far as I am concerned, although Fortune has deprived me of much, she has bestowed upon me the experience necessary for giving good advice; and since I am no longer at the height of my power, I shall serve as an example of how you may conduct your own affairs with more prudence, a lesson highly advantageous to the prosperous.
5 In fact, the Romans have one inveterate motive for making war upon all nations, peoples and kings; namely, a deep-seated desire for dominion and for riches. Therefore they first began a war with Philippus, king of Macedonia, having pretended to be his friends as long as they were hard pressed by the Carthaginians. 6 When Antiochus came to his aid, they craftily diverted him from his purpose by the surrender of Asia, and then, after Philippus' power had been broken, Antiochus was robbed of all the territory this side Taurus, and of ten thousand talents. 7 Next Perseus, the son of Philippus, after many battles with varying results, was formally taken under their protection before the gods of Samothrace; and then those masters of craft and artists in treachery caused his death from want of sleep, since they had made a compact not to kill him. 8 Eumenes, whose friendship they boastfully parade, they first betrayed to Antiochus as the price of peace; later, having made him the guardian of a captured territory, they transformed him by means of imposts and insults from a king into the most wretched of slaves. Then, having forged an unnatural will, they led his son Aristonicus in triumph like an enemy, because he had tried to recover his father's realm. 9 They took possession of Asia, and finally, on the death of Nicomedes, they seized upon all Bithynia, although Nysa, whom Nicomedes had called queen, unquestionably had a son.
10 Why should I mention my own case? Although I was separated from their empire on every side by kingdoms and tetrarchies, yet because it was reported that I was rich and that I would not be a slave, they provoked me to war through Nicomedes. And I was not unaware of their design, but I had previously given warning of what afterwards happened, both to the Cretans, who alone retained their freedom at that time, and to king Ptolemy. 11 But I took vengeance for the wrongs inflicted upon me; I drove Nicomedes from Bithynia, recovered Asia, the spoil taken from king Antiochus, and delivered Greece from cruel servitude. 12 Further progress was frustrated by Archelaus, basest of slaves, who betrayed my army; and those whom cowardice or misplaced cunning kept from taking up arms, since they hoped to find safety in my misfortunes, are suffering most cruel punishment. For Ptolemy is averting hostilities from day to day by the payment of money, while the Cretans have already been attacked once and will find no respite from war until they are destroyed. 13 As for me, I soon learned that the peace afforded by civil dissensions at Rome was really only a postponement of the struggle, and although Tigranes refused to join with me (he now admits the truth of my prediction when it is too late), though you were far away, and all the rest had submitted, I nevertheless renewed the war and routed Marcus Cotta, the Roman general, on land at Chalcedon, while on the sea I stripped him of a fine fleet. 14 During the delay caused by my siege of Cyzicus with a great army provisions failed me, since no one in the neighbourhood rendered me aid and at the same time winter kept me off the sea. When I, therefore, without compulsion from the enemy, attempted to return into my kingdom, I lost the best of my soldiers and my fleets by shipwrecks at Parium and at Heracleia. 15 Then when I had raised a new army at Cabeira and engaged with Lucullus with varying success, scarcity once more attacked us both. He had at his command the kingdom of Ariobarzanes, unravaged by war, while I, since all the country about me had been devastated, withdrew into Armenia. Thereupon the Romans followed me, or rather followed their custom of overthrowing all monarchies, and because they were able to keep from action a huge force hemmed in by narrow defiles, boasted of the results of Tigranes' imprudence as if they had won a victory.
16 I pray you, then, to consider whether you believe that when we have been crushed you will be better able to resist the Romans, or that there will be an end to the war. I know well that you have great numbers of men and large amounts of arms and gold, and it is for that reason that I seek your alliance and the Romans your spoils. Yet my advice is, while the kingdom of Tigranes is entire, and while I still have soldiers who have been trained in warfare with the Romans, to finish far from your homes and with little labour, at the expense of our bodies, a war in which we cannot conquer or be conquered without danger to you. 17 Do you not know that the Romans turned their arms in this direction only after Ocean had blocked their westward progress? That they have possessed nothing since the beginning of their existence except what they have stolen: their home, their wives, their lands, their empire? Once vagabonds without fatherland, without parents, created to be the scourge of the whole world, no laws, human or divine, prevent them from seizing and destroying allies and friends, those near them and those afar off, weak or powerful, and from considering every government which does not serve them, especially monarchies, as their enemies.
18 Of a truth, few men desire freedom, the greater part are content with just masters; we are suspected of being rivals of the Romans and future avengers. 19 But you, who possess Seleuceia, greatest of cities, and the realm of Persis famed for its riches, what can you expect from them other than guile in the present and war in the future? 20 The Romans have weapons against all men, the sharpest where victory yields the greatest spoils; it is by audacity, by deceit, and by joining war to war that they have grown great. 21 Following their usual custom, they will destroy everything or perish in the attempt . . . and this is not difficult if you on the side of Mesopotamia and we on that of Armenia surround their army, which is without supplies and without allies, and has been saved so far only by its good fortune or by our own errors. 22 You will gain the glory of having rendered aid to great kings and of having crushed the plunderers of all the nations. 23 This is my advice and this course I urge you to follow; do not prefer by our ruin to put off your own for a time rather than by our alliance to conquer.
FRAGMENTS OF UNCERTAIN REFERENCE
[X. 12] L He was full of anger and grief at the loss of such allies. The armed men rushed out of the ships in skiffs or by swimming, and some of them were carried by their boats onto the shore, which was full of sea-weed. The enemy, a cowardly race of poorly-armed Greeks and Africans, did not resist them any further. Then, after burying their allies as well as they could and carrying off anything of use which was nearby, they went off to Spain, because there was no chance of achieving their current objective.
Attalus' home page | 20. 03. 14 | Any comments?
back
Scholia Bobiensia, a commentary on the speeches of Cicero
The Scholia Bobiensia is an anonymous ancient commentary on the speeches of Cicero. It has been preserved on a palimpsest that was written at the famous monastery of Bobbio. Only a fraction of the commentary has survived, and like most palimpsests, there are frequent gaps in the text. Some of the gaps are there because the commentator was fond of quoting technical terms in Greek, which puzzled the Latin-speaking scribe. However, the commentary is valuable because it has preserved fragments of three speeches, which otherwise have been lost. The complete Latin text of the Scholia is available on this site.
Excerpts from the Scholia are translated here, including all the surviving introductions to the speeches. The numbers in red are the page numbers from the edition by T. Stangl (1912). Quotations from Cicero are in italics, and Greek phrases are shown in dark red. See key to translations for an explanation of the format of the translation.
Contents:
In defence of Sulla
Against P. Clodius and Curio
About the king of Alexandria
In defence of Flaccus
When he gave thanks to the senate
When he gave thanks to the people
In defence of Milo
In defence of Sestius
In defence of Plancius
About the debts of Milo
In defence of Archias
IN DEFENCE OF SULLA
* * *
[78] {Sull_17} L On the contrary, this man was so inactive that he spent the whole time at Neapolis.
It might have appeared that P. Sulla withdrew from everyone's sight and left the city of Rome, because he acknowledged his guilt after his wrongdoing had been detected. Therefore the orator changes it into a proof of {Sulla's} sense of honour, by saying that he wanted to be out of the sight of his fellow-citizens, because he was ashamed that in any part of his life his honour should be stained and his dignity should be impaired. It does not worry us that Cicero speaks about Sulla, as if he was free to remain at Rome even after being convicted of bribery; because he was allowed to do so by the Lex Calpurnia. In earlier times, men who were convicted of this crime under the Lex Cornelia were punished by a ban on holding magistracies for ten years. Somewhat later, the Lex Calpurnia imposed a stricter punishment, of a fine and life-time ban from holding office; [79] L but those who were convicted were still allowed to remain at Rome. Later again, after the conviction of Sulla and Autronius, the consuls C. Antonius and Cicero introduced an even stricter punishment for bribery, that on top of the penalties stipulated by previous laws, {those who were convicted} should be sent into exile.
* * *
[80] {Sull_23} L M. Cato the censor and Tiberius Coruncanius came from the town of Tusculum; also Manius Curius, who triumphed over the Samnites, seems to have been born in the Sabine region. While he was sitting there by his stove, [81] L he rejected the gold, which the enemy offered to him. He said that it was his particular desire, not that he should have abundant riches, but that he should rule over his wealthy enemies.
* * *
[81] {Sull_26} L The orator launches into this topic wonderfully, as he stresses his own good repute and the many benefits he has conferred on the state, saying that after enduring so many dangers he could have honourably withdrawn from all toils, but his spirit was so devoted to his country that he could never grow old in idleness. And here, in my opinion, he has imitated C. Gracchus; for Gracchus said about the laws that he proposed, to quote his own words: "I was born into a distinguished family, but I lost my brother on your account, and now no-one survives from the family of P. Africanus and Ti. Gracchus except myself and my son. Therefore, if I spoke to you and asked you to permit me to take a rest for the time being, so that our family would not be utterly destroyed and at least some offspring of our family would survive, perhaps you would willingly allow me to do so. "
* * *
AGAINST P. CLODIUS [AND CURIO]
[85] L The Greeks call [this kind of speech praising and blaming], because it consists mainly of praise and censure. Cicero is not accusing C. Curio or P. Clodius of a crime, but because they had been involved in an ill-tempered dispute in the senate, Cicero decided to write this speech. It is clearly full of sarcasm and wit, by which he defames their characters and condemns their vices in the strongest possible terms.
The beginning of this dispute is said to have arisen from the trial of P. Clodius. Clodius was accused, with Pompeia the wife of C. Caesar, of committing sacrilege in the house of Caesar, who at that time was both pontifex maximus and praetor, during the religious rites of the Bona Dea, which are performed by the Vestal virgins and the the most respected matrons in secret, when no men are allowed to be present. Clodius escaped from the house, but the affair became very notorious and brought the religious rites into disrepute, so that the senate was forced to pass a decree, that the consuls should investigate most thoroughly, whether any offence had been committed against the religion of the state. And also C. Caesar, the pontifex maximus, seemed to have made a judgement on the affair, by divorcing his wife as a result of it. Afterwards, P. Clodius was brought to trial on a charge of sacrilege; he was accused by L. Lentulus and defended by C. Curio, the father. For at that time there were three men of the Curio family, who all achieved distinction, and they are still mentioned in {history} books. Curio, the grandfather, defended Servius Fulvius on a charge of sacrilege; this C. Curio, the father, defended P. Clodius; and thirdly Curio, the tribune of the plebs, died in the Pompeian civil war in Africa, when he was fighting on behalf of Caesar, but was cut down by the cavalry of king Juba. But that is enough about the Curio family.
There were many lengthy disputes before the trial took place, and a turbulent mob helped Clodius to resist coming to court, with violence and rioting. The instigator of this trouble was Q. Fufius Calenus, a tribune of the plebs, who is frequently mentioned by Cicero in his Philippic speeches. But almost the entire senate stood in defence of the sanctity of religion against the threat of sacrilege, and in the end a jury was chosen. At first, the jurors asked the senate for protection, so that they could safely pass judgement on Clodius, who was a very powerful man. But in fact many witnesses gave damaging evidence against Clodius, and among them was Cicero himself. When he was asked, he said that Clodius had come to greet him on the same day that Clodius maintained that he had been staying at Interamna, which is a distance of 90 miles away from Rome; and this was Clodius' alibi to prove that he could not have committed the crime of sacrilege in Rome.
At the end of the trial, Clodius was found guilty by 25 jurors; however, the vote turned out to be in his favour, because 31 of the jurors voted that he should be acquitted. From that time onwards, Clodius began to be a deadly enemy of Cicero; and during the same year, while he held the office [86] L of quaestor, he spoke against Cicero in many assemblies of the people. He even announced threateningly that he would seek to be transferred to a plebeian family, so that he could become tribune of the plebs. Cicero replied to these threats in this outspoken and vigorous speech [by disparaging the characters] of both Clodius and Curio.
Commentary
I decided, senators, not to say anything about Clodius, either amongst you or in any other place, for as long as he was under trial.
He seems to make [this introduction] as a sign of his dignity and moderation, but he bitterly insists that, although Clodius was acquitted, he really did commit sacrilege. By stating that he gently and patiently showed forbearance to P. Clodius while Clodius was under trial, he undoubtedly confirms the reliability of his own evidence, and shows that everything he said about him was true, because he refused to criticise him during the time of the trial.
And he alleged in crazy harangues.
He deliberately and pointedly calls Clodius crazy, in order to increase the suspicion that Clodius committed sacrilege, because he was deranged by nature.
He denounced both me and the republic.
This enhances Cicero's reputation and strongly condemns Clodius. It increases Cicero's glory, because he cannot be separated from the republic; and it adds to the infamy of Clodius, because by becoming an enemy of Cicero he has become an enemy of the state.
That I was doing nothing to increase the other's risk.
He ensures that he is not considered to have lied, when he gave evidence.
But if they decided that no man appeared to have gone, where he went.
There is a depth of bitterness in this phrase, in which he censures the shameless character of P. Clodius.
By saying that "no man appeared to have gone, where he went", he suggests that the jurors who acquitted him with their votes meant to say, not that the charge of sacrilege could not be proved, but that they did not consider Clodius to be a man.
So that he escaped naked from the trial, as if from a shipwreck.
In this passage he denounces the disgraceful behaviour of the jurors, who acquitted {Clodius} with their votes. According to some, they received {a bribe} of 300,000 {sestertii}; according to others, it was 400,000 {sestertii}.
That we promise him a special {command} in Syria.
[87] L As we said in the introduction, at that time Clodius was quaestor. Therefore he says that Clodius, giving way to greed, intended to take for himself the wealthiest provinces, as if he could obtain from the senate {a country} that he hoped to ransack.
He should seem to offer his creditors the promise of a province.
In this passage, he suggests that {Clodius} was heavily in debt.
They add to a great pile of debt.
. . . which could not be paid off, except by ransacking all the provinces.
A rather timid creditor {of Clodius} groaned deeply.
Do not ask what is the name of the man, whom Cicero seems to mention here. Cicero is imagining, without referring to anyone in particular, how the difficulty of recovering their money would alarm {Clodius'} creditors, who were worried that it would be a long time before he returned.
He states that he will be present in Rome for the consular elections.
This is extremely sarcastic, because Cicero says on many occasions that the candidates' money had been purloined by Clodius.
He arrived at the treasury {aerarium} so early, that there were not even any scribes there.
Provinces used to be allotted to the quaestors and the scribes at the treasury, so that everyone knew which province they were going to, and with which governor. Cicero suggests that {Clodius} was prompted by greed to rush to the treasury so early, that he arrived there even before the scribes.
Who is an expert on all the sacrifices.
In order to hint at sacrilege, he makes the sense ambiguous, and changes it from a comment on religion to an accusation.
When he said that he wanted to cross over to the plebs, but in fact he desperately wanted to cross over the straits.
Because patricians were not allowed to become tribunes of the plebs, Clodius announced that he would move over to a plebeian family, so that by using the power of a tribune he could take revenge on his enemies. However, when Cicero says "straits", he means the straits between Sicily and Italy; it was in Sicily that Clodius was hoping to serve as quaestor, under C. Vergilius.
He did not despise talkative Sicily.
He seems to call Sicily talkative, because the Sicilians had accused many {of their governors} of extortion, and in particular, as we know, C. Verres.
[88] L There were so few there, that you would have thought that he had summoned them, not to an assembly, but as sponsors.
As Cicero said earlier, Clodius was deeply in debt. Anyone who took out a loan used to name sponsors as a guarantee that the debt would be repaid. But here Cicero wishes to show how untrustworthy Clodius was, and therefore he says that such a small number had come to the rostra, that it was as if he had called together those who were acting as his sponsors. {Clodius} had deceived many people, when he persuaded them to risk being his sponsors.
Whose guarantees are always said to be revoked.
He says that his guarantees are cancelled by the judgement of the praetor. In this passage, he refers to men who are unreasonably afraid to offer themselves as security for Clodius when he takes out loans, although they have observed often enough that his sponsors are freed from their liability, when they prove that that they have been tricked by his deceptions.
Firstly, this strict and old-fashioned man criticises those who stay at Baiae in the month of April.
At the beginning of spring, many people used to gather at the waters in Campania, in order to restore their health. Therefore Cicero [ironically] depicts the character of Clodius, as if he was a man of old-fashioned strictness and self-restraint, who disapproved not only of pleasure and luxury, but also of health cures; although Clodius was in fact unrestrained in his pursuit of all kinds of wantonness. And this would be a reference to Cicero's own estate at Puteoli, in which he used to stay for leisure. Therefore he rebuts Clodius' shameless criticism of his morals, without appearing arrogant or excessively prone to luxury.
He would not permit elderly men to stay even on their own estates, in order to restore their health, when there was no business at Rome.
This is a multi-layered and abundant defence, on the proposition that no blame should be attached to the behaviour of those who visit the health-giving waters at a certain time of year:
because they are elderly, at which age health is generally poor
because they stay on their own estates, which is perfectly proper
because they go out at a time, when everything is very quiet at Rome, and so they cannot be accused of avoiding the toil of public business
because they all should take care of their health, which is beneficial not only to the senators themselves, but also to the republic, so that they can energetically undertake everything that needs to be done.
He was so blind, that it was obvious that he had seen, what he was not supposed to see.
This is [playing on a name], because Clodius was descended from the family of Appius Caecus {"the blind"}. In order to show how headstrong and reckless Clodius was, Cicero recalls the infamous story of how he desecrated [89] L the secret rites of the Bona Dea, which men were not allowed to see, and suggests that he is beginning to pay the penalty for his crime, by foreseeing nothing of what he should say.
The patron of his lusts.
{He means} C. Curio, who during Sulla's proscription had bought an estate in Campania, which had previously belonged to C. Marius, who came from Arpinum, like Cicero. By this example, Cicero easily clears himself from the accusation, that he should be blamed for doing something, which was never thought improper in his fellow townsman and ex-consul, C. Marius.
It is not surprising that we seem rustic to him, who {wears} a long-sleeved tunic, etc.
This reply is a mixture of clever wit and harsh sarcasm, with a [comparison by definitions]. He defines country and city manners in such a way, that he endows himself with a character of upright virtue, and Clodius with evidence of decadence and disgrace.
You, who wore a woman's dress.
Clodius was said to have disguised himself in a woman's dress, in order to gain entry to the house of C. Caesar, where he desecrated the rites of the goddess. This is described [as a depiction of character], to reveal all the facets of his immorality.
Since he wore a calautica.
'Calautica' is the name of a kind of [decoration], with which women covered their heads. Afranius mentions it in his Cousins: "with head-bands and calauticae". Therefore a certain kind of shameful decadence is indicated by this disgraceful costume. In the histories of the period, the incident is related as follows. In the house of C. Caesar, the pontifex maximus, who was also praetor at the time, a solemn sacrifice was made for the public welfare. Because a man dressed as a woman had entered {the building}, the sacrifice was repeated. The matter was referred to the senate, and the senators decreed that there should be an investigation into the incident, which amounted to sacrilege. P. Clodius Pulcher was charged with the crime by L. Lentulus, who was afterwards consul with C. Marcellus; and the accusation was supported by C. and L. Lentulus. Aurelia, the mother of Caesar, appeared as a witness at the trial. In her evidence, she said that she had ordered Clodius to leave the house; and this was confirmed by Julia, the sister of Caesar. However, Clodius was later acquitted.
I think that, when you were given a mirror, you realised that you were far from beautiful.
Cicero amusingly reveals both how Clodius had disgraced his whole family, and the effeminacy of his character, as he looks in the mirror, which is most often used by women to take care of their appearance. Therefore he both condemns his decadence, and shows how inferior he is to his ancestors. Pulcher {"beautiful"} was a famous cognomen of the Claudian family. [90] L In ancient times, the first of the family to be called Pulcher was P. Claudius, the son of Appius Caecus. This P. Claudius, when he was consul, fought against the Carthaginian fleet at Drepana despite adverse omens, and in the battle 120 Roman ships were lost. As a result, he was charged with treason by Pullius and Fundanius, tribunes of the plebs. When an assembly was held to vote on the case, and the centuries were summoned, there was a sudden storm and the assembly was abandoned. Afterwards the tribunes intervened to prevent the same accusers from charging the same man with treason twice during that one year of office. Therefore the charge was changed, and the same accusers proposed that he should be fined; the people found him guilty, and he was fined 120,000 asses.
'But I was acquitted', he says. Yes, but in a novel way, because damages were awarded against him, even though he was acquitted.
[Disparagement]. The orator turns {Clodius'} victory in the trial into a cause of dishonour, by making this unexpected kind of reply. Damages were reckoned against convicted men, when the size of their fine was calculated. Because Clodius was acquitted, not by proving his innocence, but by bribing the jurors, therefore Cicero says that damages were reckoned against him even though he was acquitted. In other words, he was not given a fine, but he did have to pay out the money, which he gave to the jurors to secure his acquittal.
As if I am unhappy that 25 jurors believed me, when the 31 other jurors did not believe you, but were given wealthy agents by you.
Notice how elegantly the orator plays on the ambivalence of the words. Clodius prided himself on his victory, because he seemed to have been acquitted by the majority of the jurors, but Cicero, in order to support the trustworthiness of his own evidence, says that 25 of the jurors believed him - those jurors, that is, who voted to condemn the defendant. However even the others, who voted in favour of the defendant, did not really believe Clodius. They sought protection from the senate, and demanded that suitable agents should be appointed to hold the sum of money, so that they would not be cheated of the expected reward, which the defendant had promised to them. In this way, even the votes of those jurors who seemed to uphold Clodius' honour, are turned into discredit by Cicero. He says that some of the jurors found Clodius guilty of sacrilege; but the other jurors were more concerned with their private gain than with public religion. And here he says, [against expectation], that the jurors demanded protection from the senate, not in order to pass judgement resolutely and without interference, but to ensure that the defendant did not cheat them of the money, which he had promised if he was acquitted.
The divorce of the pontifex maximus.
He furnishes arguments, by which it could easily be proved that P. Clodius was guilty of sacrilege:
during those days, C. Caesar the pontifex maximus had divorced his wife
the women, who were present at the sacrifice, had given evidence about the presence of a man {at the ceremony}
the slaves, who were sought for interrogation, had been removed by their master, and sent off to various different provinces
the five slaves, who were most under suspicion, [91] L were sent by Clodius either to his brother Appius Claudius, who was then in Greece, or to his steward Diogenes, who was staying on the other side of the Alps
some of the slave girls, who attended Pompeia, the wife of Caesar, were sought {for questioning} under torture
one of these slaves was called Habra; it was claimed that P. Clodius had hidden in her room.
When Cicero talks about illicit sexual intercourse, he seems to mean incest, which was notoriously rumoured to have taken place between {Clodius and} his sister Clodia.
You were only four votes short of being ruined.
To prevent Clodius from putting on a show of innocence because he had been acquitted, {Cicero} compares the numbers and shows that almost the same proportion {of jurors} had found him guilty of sacrilege. He had been saved, not by his own virtue, but by good luck and a tiny number of votes.
For L. Cotta . . .
He proposed the Lex Aurelia, a judicial law that deprived the senators of their control of the law courts, and divided the juries between them and the Roman [equites and] tribuni aerarii in such a way, that the senators were outnumbered by the other jurors.
That afterwards he could not be a juror, under the terms of the Lex Aurelia.
What Cicero says is almost incredible, that Clodius should openly declare that he would recover the money, which he had used to buy the jurors' votes and avoid conviction. What could be more stupid than to admit by this declaration that he would have been convicted, if he had not bribed the jurors? But it is possible that Clodius did say it, with this meaning: he wished to suggest that he was innocent, but he had been victimised by the ruling elite and his powerful opponents, so that he had to give money to the jurors, as the only way of escaping from the clutches of those who wanted to see him destroyed. Therefore, [in anticipation], Cicero says that the jurors would refuse to return the money, because if they did, they could no longer be appointed as jurors under the terms of the Lex Aurelia. They would be barred, either because by returning the money they admitted that they had been bribed, or because, after being deprived of the three or four hundred {sestertii} that they had received from the defendant, they would be reduced to poverty, and no longer [have enough property to qualify as jurors . . . ]
[An unknown number of pages are missing here]
ABOUT THE KING OF ALEXANDRIA
. . . that would be embarrassing for private citizens.
To seize, to rob.
{Cicero} uses strong and derogatory words. He does not say, "to demand his inheritance, to obtain his rights. " Instead, to arouse the greatest sense of shame in his audience, [92] L he says, "to seize, to rob;" these words speak not of law, but of crime, which should deter them from rapacity.
If indeed we have become so eager for money, so watchful, so greedy.
He seems to be speaking in general terms, saying that even if we are greedy in our personal financial affairs, we ought not to show such a lust for money in public business. But in fact there is no doubt that he is describing the character of M. Crassus. Apart from the references to him in histories, and apart from the manner of his death - into which he almost rushed headlong, when he crossed the Euphrates in his desire to loot the wealthiest cities of Parthia - Cicero also writes about him in the third book of his 'De Officiis'. I will repeat Cicero's words here, so as to make it clear exactly what he thought about the character of Crassus. This is what he says, as I recall {Off_3'75}: Suppose, then, that a good man had such power that at a snap of his fingers his name could steal into rich men's wills, he would not avail himself of that power - no, not even though he could be perfectly sure that no one would ever suspect it. Then he adds: Suppose, on the other hand, that one were to offer a Marcus Crassus the power, by the mere snapping of his fingers, to get himself named as heir, when he was not really an heir, he would, I warrant you, dance in the forum.
But which are our decisions.
This was not the first time that Crassus had tried to get a decision about the inheritance of Egypt; it had been debated many times before. The first time that the question was raised, was when the money seems to have been demanded from the Tyrians, and brought to Rome, soon after it had been deposited there by king Alexas. {Cicero} therefore has to confront this claim, and refute it. In setting out his argument, Cicero makes an excellent [compound distinction], which he begins to develop with these words:
{Our decisions} ought to be very restrained, because this is the height of power, to be able to decide ourselves about our own affairs.
The orator means that is was almost shameless, for the senate to want to decide about its own interests, because it is only natural, that no-one can judge fairly when they are thinking about their own profit, which most men strive to gain even by dishonest means.
Out of so great an inheritance, we only recognised the name.
He quickly makes the argument in his favour, that somehow it had been decided . . .
[12 pages missing]
. . . that the man, who mentioned the money, should think that war ought to be waged.
So there is a just cause for war, in the same way that, as Crassus mentioned, there was in the war against Jugurtha.
It is well known that, after the death of Micipsa king of Numidia, his kingdom was divided into three, between Adherbal, Hiempsal and Jugurtha; but Jugurtha killed the other two, [93] L partly by violence and partly by treachery. This was the main cause of the outbreak of war between him and the Roman people. After he had heavily defeated many of their generals, he was eventually conquered by the general C. Marius.
I will not permit our empire to proclaim, 'If you do not give me anything, I will regard you as an enemy; but if you do give me something, I will regard you as a friend and ally. '
He continues to call for decency, and asserts that the Roman people ought not to trade in royal titles; so that by warning the senate that it might appear to be behaving disgracefully, he could suggest that the best course of action was the one that was most honourable.
When that king was killed, this boy was in Egypt.
[Conjecture from a summary of appearances]. This is deduced from a discussion of probability, which depends first of all on a division of this type, {into the topics} of free will and ability [intention and capability]. He mentions that he was a boy, which refers to his will: Ptolemy could not have been guilty of such deadly hatred, because his youth and immaturity would have prevented him from persisting in such a course of action. And he mentions that he was in Syria, which refers to his ability: because he was abroad, he did not have the opportunity to kill the man, whom he was alleged to have slain.
And I see that it is generally agreed, that the king with his own hands murdered his sister the queen, who was loved and welcomed by the people; then he was killed in a riot by a mob.
He makes a convincing case by a strong accumulation of proofs [overwhelming proof]. He proves that this murder was committed by the people of Alexandria, rather than by order of Ptolemy. Note how he gradually increases the evidence, which reinforces the suspicion that the cause was an uprising of the people. He begins in this way: "And I see that it is generally agreed," so that there should be no doubt about the truth, if it was generally agreed. Then he continues: "his sister the queen," so that the crime of murdering a sister should be made even more shocking to everyone by causing the death of a queen. After this he adds: "who was loved . . . "
[The rest of the commentary on this speech is lost. ]
IN DEFENCE OF FLACCUS
* * *
[94] {4} L You, the fifty leaders of that rank, will judge what is your joint opinion.
The Lex Aurelia stipulated that a third of the jurors should be selected from senators, and two-thirds from tribuni aerarii and equites, who were men of the same rank.
* * *
[95] L He preferred to call them strangled.
Cicero suggests that the prosecutor, Decimus Laelius, had chosen to use this word {strangled} in a deliberate and rhetorical way, in order to renew memories of the men, who had been condemned to die with Lentulus in prison, on the evidence of the letter.
What did my friend Caetra intend?
He was one of the supporters of the prosecutor, Decimus Laelius.
And what did Decianus . . ?
Another supporter of the prosecution. He was the son of Apuleius Decianus, who had recently been condemned. When the elder Decianus was tribune of the plebs, he tried to avenge {the deaths of} Apuleius Saturninus and C. Servilius Glaucia, and was guilty of many wicked and violent actions. Afterwards he was prosecuted and condemned. Then he went to Pontus, and joined to Mithridates. Therefore the orator refers to the family's disgrace, in order to suggest that the son was imitating his father, and was acting in the interests of {his country's} enemies.
Would that it was all my own doing! So mostly the senate . . .
[3. 79] {3. 83M} L # And so they reclined to eat. Sertorius was lower down, on the middle couch. Above him was L. Fabius Hispaniensis, a senator who had been proscribed. On the top couch was Antonius, and Versius, the secetary of Sertorius, was below him. Maecenas, the other secretary, was on the bottom couch, in between Tarquitius and Perperna, who was the host.
[3. 84] {3. 88M} L From his earliest youth, Pompeius had been persuaded by the flattery of his supporters to believe that he was the equal of king Alexander. Therefore he tried to rival Alexander's achievements and plans.
[3. 90] {3. 106M} L # And at the same time Lentulus [(? ) abandoned] the elevated place which he had defended with a double battle-line, after his soldiers suffered many casualties. When military cloaks appeared out of the baggage, and select cohorts began to be recognised . . .
BOOK 4
[4. 1] {4. 1M} L # It is uncertain whether his colleague Cn. Lentulus, a patrician whose surname was Clodianus, was more stupid or arrogant. He proposed a law to reclaim the money, which Sulla had remitted to those who bought the possessions {of proscribed men}.
[4. 50] {4. 16M} L # There was almost equal haste and great terror within the town, because they were afraid that the new fortifications, which were built of brick, would be weakened by the damp. Every part of the town had been flooded, when the adverse swell of the sea had forced the drains to overflow.
[4. 60] {4. 59M} L # {Lucullus} proceeded by forced marches through the territory of king Ariobarzanes up to the river Euphrates, where it forms the border between Cappadocia and Armenia. And although he had some barges, which had been constructed secretly during the winter . . .
[4. 67] {4. 69M} { The letter of Mithridates to Arsaces: } L # King Mithridates, to King Arsaces, Greeting. All those who in the time of their prosperity are asked to form an offensive alliance ought to consider, first, whether it is possible for them to keep peace at that time; and secondly, whether what is asked of them is wholly right and safe, honourable or dishonourable. 2 If it were possible for you to enjoy lasting peace, if no treacherous foes were near your borders, if to crush the Roman power would not bring you glorious fame, I should not venture to sue for your alliance, and it would be vain for me to hope to unite my misfortunes with your prosperity. 3 But the considerations which might seem to give you pause, such as the anger against Tigranes inspired in you by the recent war, and my lack of success, if you but consent to regard them in the right light, will be special incentives. 4 For Tigranes is at your mercy and will accept an alliance on any terms which you may desire, while so far as I am concerned, although Fortune has deprived me of much, she has bestowed upon me the experience necessary for giving good advice; and since I am no longer at the height of my power, I shall serve as an example of how you may conduct your own affairs with more prudence, a lesson highly advantageous to the prosperous.
5 In fact, the Romans have one inveterate motive for making war upon all nations, peoples and kings; namely, a deep-seated desire for dominion and for riches. Therefore they first began a war with Philippus, king of Macedonia, having pretended to be his friends as long as they were hard pressed by the Carthaginians. 6 When Antiochus came to his aid, they craftily diverted him from his purpose by the surrender of Asia, and then, after Philippus' power had been broken, Antiochus was robbed of all the territory this side Taurus, and of ten thousand talents. 7 Next Perseus, the son of Philippus, after many battles with varying results, was formally taken under their protection before the gods of Samothrace; and then those masters of craft and artists in treachery caused his death from want of sleep, since they had made a compact not to kill him. 8 Eumenes, whose friendship they boastfully parade, they first betrayed to Antiochus as the price of peace; later, having made him the guardian of a captured territory, they transformed him by means of imposts and insults from a king into the most wretched of slaves. Then, having forged an unnatural will, they led his son Aristonicus in triumph like an enemy, because he had tried to recover his father's realm. 9 They took possession of Asia, and finally, on the death of Nicomedes, they seized upon all Bithynia, although Nysa, whom Nicomedes had called queen, unquestionably had a son.
10 Why should I mention my own case? Although I was separated from their empire on every side by kingdoms and tetrarchies, yet because it was reported that I was rich and that I would not be a slave, they provoked me to war through Nicomedes. And I was not unaware of their design, but I had previously given warning of what afterwards happened, both to the Cretans, who alone retained their freedom at that time, and to king Ptolemy. 11 But I took vengeance for the wrongs inflicted upon me; I drove Nicomedes from Bithynia, recovered Asia, the spoil taken from king Antiochus, and delivered Greece from cruel servitude. 12 Further progress was frustrated by Archelaus, basest of slaves, who betrayed my army; and those whom cowardice or misplaced cunning kept from taking up arms, since they hoped to find safety in my misfortunes, are suffering most cruel punishment. For Ptolemy is averting hostilities from day to day by the payment of money, while the Cretans have already been attacked once and will find no respite from war until they are destroyed. 13 As for me, I soon learned that the peace afforded by civil dissensions at Rome was really only a postponement of the struggle, and although Tigranes refused to join with me (he now admits the truth of my prediction when it is too late), though you were far away, and all the rest had submitted, I nevertheless renewed the war and routed Marcus Cotta, the Roman general, on land at Chalcedon, while on the sea I stripped him of a fine fleet. 14 During the delay caused by my siege of Cyzicus with a great army provisions failed me, since no one in the neighbourhood rendered me aid and at the same time winter kept me off the sea. When I, therefore, without compulsion from the enemy, attempted to return into my kingdom, I lost the best of my soldiers and my fleets by shipwrecks at Parium and at Heracleia. 15 Then when I had raised a new army at Cabeira and engaged with Lucullus with varying success, scarcity once more attacked us both. He had at his command the kingdom of Ariobarzanes, unravaged by war, while I, since all the country about me had been devastated, withdrew into Armenia. Thereupon the Romans followed me, or rather followed their custom of overthrowing all monarchies, and because they were able to keep from action a huge force hemmed in by narrow defiles, boasted of the results of Tigranes' imprudence as if they had won a victory.
16 I pray you, then, to consider whether you believe that when we have been crushed you will be better able to resist the Romans, or that there will be an end to the war. I know well that you have great numbers of men and large amounts of arms and gold, and it is for that reason that I seek your alliance and the Romans your spoils. Yet my advice is, while the kingdom of Tigranes is entire, and while I still have soldiers who have been trained in warfare with the Romans, to finish far from your homes and with little labour, at the expense of our bodies, a war in which we cannot conquer or be conquered without danger to you. 17 Do you not know that the Romans turned their arms in this direction only after Ocean had blocked their westward progress? That they have possessed nothing since the beginning of their existence except what they have stolen: their home, their wives, their lands, their empire? Once vagabonds without fatherland, without parents, created to be the scourge of the whole world, no laws, human or divine, prevent them from seizing and destroying allies and friends, those near them and those afar off, weak or powerful, and from considering every government which does not serve them, especially monarchies, as their enemies.
18 Of a truth, few men desire freedom, the greater part are content with just masters; we are suspected of being rivals of the Romans and future avengers. 19 But you, who possess Seleuceia, greatest of cities, and the realm of Persis famed for its riches, what can you expect from them other than guile in the present and war in the future? 20 The Romans have weapons against all men, the sharpest where victory yields the greatest spoils; it is by audacity, by deceit, and by joining war to war that they have grown great. 21 Following their usual custom, they will destroy everything or perish in the attempt . . . and this is not difficult if you on the side of Mesopotamia and we on that of Armenia surround their army, which is without supplies and without allies, and has been saved so far only by its good fortune or by our own errors. 22 You will gain the glory of having rendered aid to great kings and of having crushed the plunderers of all the nations. 23 This is my advice and this course I urge you to follow; do not prefer by our ruin to put off your own for a time rather than by our alliance to conquer.
FRAGMENTS OF UNCERTAIN REFERENCE
[X. 12] L He was full of anger and grief at the loss of such allies. The armed men rushed out of the ships in skiffs or by swimming, and some of them were carried by their boats onto the shore, which was full of sea-weed. The enemy, a cowardly race of poorly-armed Greeks and Africans, did not resist them any further. Then, after burying their allies as well as they could and carrying off anything of use which was nearby, they went off to Spain, because there was no chance of achieving their current objective.
Attalus' home page | 20. 03. 14 | Any comments?
back
Scholia Bobiensia, a commentary on the speeches of Cicero
The Scholia Bobiensia is an anonymous ancient commentary on the speeches of Cicero. It has been preserved on a palimpsest that was written at the famous monastery of Bobbio. Only a fraction of the commentary has survived, and like most palimpsests, there are frequent gaps in the text. Some of the gaps are there because the commentator was fond of quoting technical terms in Greek, which puzzled the Latin-speaking scribe. However, the commentary is valuable because it has preserved fragments of three speeches, which otherwise have been lost. The complete Latin text of the Scholia is available on this site.
Excerpts from the Scholia are translated here, including all the surviving introductions to the speeches. The numbers in red are the page numbers from the edition by T. Stangl (1912). Quotations from Cicero are in italics, and Greek phrases are shown in dark red. See key to translations for an explanation of the format of the translation.
Contents:
In defence of Sulla
Against P. Clodius and Curio
About the king of Alexandria
In defence of Flaccus
When he gave thanks to the senate
When he gave thanks to the people
In defence of Milo
In defence of Sestius
In defence of Plancius
About the debts of Milo
In defence of Archias
IN DEFENCE OF SULLA
* * *
[78] {Sull_17} L On the contrary, this man was so inactive that he spent the whole time at Neapolis.
It might have appeared that P. Sulla withdrew from everyone's sight and left the city of Rome, because he acknowledged his guilt after his wrongdoing had been detected. Therefore the orator changes it into a proof of {Sulla's} sense of honour, by saying that he wanted to be out of the sight of his fellow-citizens, because he was ashamed that in any part of his life his honour should be stained and his dignity should be impaired. It does not worry us that Cicero speaks about Sulla, as if he was free to remain at Rome even after being convicted of bribery; because he was allowed to do so by the Lex Calpurnia. In earlier times, men who were convicted of this crime under the Lex Cornelia were punished by a ban on holding magistracies for ten years. Somewhat later, the Lex Calpurnia imposed a stricter punishment, of a fine and life-time ban from holding office; [79] L but those who were convicted were still allowed to remain at Rome. Later again, after the conviction of Sulla and Autronius, the consuls C. Antonius and Cicero introduced an even stricter punishment for bribery, that on top of the penalties stipulated by previous laws, {those who were convicted} should be sent into exile.
* * *
[80] {Sull_23} L M. Cato the censor and Tiberius Coruncanius came from the town of Tusculum; also Manius Curius, who triumphed over the Samnites, seems to have been born in the Sabine region. While he was sitting there by his stove, [81] L he rejected the gold, which the enemy offered to him. He said that it was his particular desire, not that he should have abundant riches, but that he should rule over his wealthy enemies.
* * *
[81] {Sull_26} L The orator launches into this topic wonderfully, as he stresses his own good repute and the many benefits he has conferred on the state, saying that after enduring so many dangers he could have honourably withdrawn from all toils, but his spirit was so devoted to his country that he could never grow old in idleness. And here, in my opinion, he has imitated C. Gracchus; for Gracchus said about the laws that he proposed, to quote his own words: "I was born into a distinguished family, but I lost my brother on your account, and now no-one survives from the family of P. Africanus and Ti. Gracchus except myself and my son. Therefore, if I spoke to you and asked you to permit me to take a rest for the time being, so that our family would not be utterly destroyed and at least some offspring of our family would survive, perhaps you would willingly allow me to do so. "
* * *
AGAINST P. CLODIUS [AND CURIO]
[85] L The Greeks call [this kind of speech praising and blaming], because it consists mainly of praise and censure. Cicero is not accusing C. Curio or P. Clodius of a crime, but because they had been involved in an ill-tempered dispute in the senate, Cicero decided to write this speech. It is clearly full of sarcasm and wit, by which he defames their characters and condemns their vices in the strongest possible terms.
The beginning of this dispute is said to have arisen from the trial of P. Clodius. Clodius was accused, with Pompeia the wife of C. Caesar, of committing sacrilege in the house of Caesar, who at that time was both pontifex maximus and praetor, during the religious rites of the Bona Dea, which are performed by the Vestal virgins and the the most respected matrons in secret, when no men are allowed to be present. Clodius escaped from the house, but the affair became very notorious and brought the religious rites into disrepute, so that the senate was forced to pass a decree, that the consuls should investigate most thoroughly, whether any offence had been committed against the religion of the state. And also C. Caesar, the pontifex maximus, seemed to have made a judgement on the affair, by divorcing his wife as a result of it. Afterwards, P. Clodius was brought to trial on a charge of sacrilege; he was accused by L. Lentulus and defended by C. Curio, the father. For at that time there were three men of the Curio family, who all achieved distinction, and they are still mentioned in {history} books. Curio, the grandfather, defended Servius Fulvius on a charge of sacrilege; this C. Curio, the father, defended P. Clodius; and thirdly Curio, the tribune of the plebs, died in the Pompeian civil war in Africa, when he was fighting on behalf of Caesar, but was cut down by the cavalry of king Juba. But that is enough about the Curio family.
There were many lengthy disputes before the trial took place, and a turbulent mob helped Clodius to resist coming to court, with violence and rioting. The instigator of this trouble was Q. Fufius Calenus, a tribune of the plebs, who is frequently mentioned by Cicero in his Philippic speeches. But almost the entire senate stood in defence of the sanctity of religion against the threat of sacrilege, and in the end a jury was chosen. At first, the jurors asked the senate for protection, so that they could safely pass judgement on Clodius, who was a very powerful man. But in fact many witnesses gave damaging evidence against Clodius, and among them was Cicero himself. When he was asked, he said that Clodius had come to greet him on the same day that Clodius maintained that he had been staying at Interamna, which is a distance of 90 miles away from Rome; and this was Clodius' alibi to prove that he could not have committed the crime of sacrilege in Rome.
At the end of the trial, Clodius was found guilty by 25 jurors; however, the vote turned out to be in his favour, because 31 of the jurors voted that he should be acquitted. From that time onwards, Clodius began to be a deadly enemy of Cicero; and during the same year, while he held the office [86] L of quaestor, he spoke against Cicero in many assemblies of the people. He even announced threateningly that he would seek to be transferred to a plebeian family, so that he could become tribune of the plebs. Cicero replied to these threats in this outspoken and vigorous speech [by disparaging the characters] of both Clodius and Curio.
Commentary
I decided, senators, not to say anything about Clodius, either amongst you or in any other place, for as long as he was under trial.
He seems to make [this introduction] as a sign of his dignity and moderation, but he bitterly insists that, although Clodius was acquitted, he really did commit sacrilege. By stating that he gently and patiently showed forbearance to P. Clodius while Clodius was under trial, he undoubtedly confirms the reliability of his own evidence, and shows that everything he said about him was true, because he refused to criticise him during the time of the trial.
And he alleged in crazy harangues.
He deliberately and pointedly calls Clodius crazy, in order to increase the suspicion that Clodius committed sacrilege, because he was deranged by nature.
He denounced both me and the republic.
This enhances Cicero's reputation and strongly condemns Clodius. It increases Cicero's glory, because he cannot be separated from the republic; and it adds to the infamy of Clodius, because by becoming an enemy of Cicero he has become an enemy of the state.
That I was doing nothing to increase the other's risk.
He ensures that he is not considered to have lied, when he gave evidence.
But if they decided that no man appeared to have gone, where he went.
There is a depth of bitterness in this phrase, in which he censures the shameless character of P. Clodius.
By saying that "no man appeared to have gone, where he went", he suggests that the jurors who acquitted him with their votes meant to say, not that the charge of sacrilege could not be proved, but that they did not consider Clodius to be a man.
So that he escaped naked from the trial, as if from a shipwreck.
In this passage he denounces the disgraceful behaviour of the jurors, who acquitted {Clodius} with their votes. According to some, they received {a bribe} of 300,000 {sestertii}; according to others, it was 400,000 {sestertii}.
That we promise him a special {command} in Syria.
[87] L As we said in the introduction, at that time Clodius was quaestor. Therefore he says that Clodius, giving way to greed, intended to take for himself the wealthiest provinces, as if he could obtain from the senate {a country} that he hoped to ransack.
He should seem to offer his creditors the promise of a province.
In this passage, he suggests that {Clodius} was heavily in debt.
They add to a great pile of debt.
. . . which could not be paid off, except by ransacking all the provinces.
A rather timid creditor {of Clodius} groaned deeply.
Do not ask what is the name of the man, whom Cicero seems to mention here. Cicero is imagining, without referring to anyone in particular, how the difficulty of recovering their money would alarm {Clodius'} creditors, who were worried that it would be a long time before he returned.
He states that he will be present in Rome for the consular elections.
This is extremely sarcastic, because Cicero says on many occasions that the candidates' money had been purloined by Clodius.
He arrived at the treasury {aerarium} so early, that there were not even any scribes there.
Provinces used to be allotted to the quaestors and the scribes at the treasury, so that everyone knew which province they were going to, and with which governor. Cicero suggests that {Clodius} was prompted by greed to rush to the treasury so early, that he arrived there even before the scribes.
Who is an expert on all the sacrifices.
In order to hint at sacrilege, he makes the sense ambiguous, and changes it from a comment on religion to an accusation.
When he said that he wanted to cross over to the plebs, but in fact he desperately wanted to cross over the straits.
Because patricians were not allowed to become tribunes of the plebs, Clodius announced that he would move over to a plebeian family, so that by using the power of a tribune he could take revenge on his enemies. However, when Cicero says "straits", he means the straits between Sicily and Italy; it was in Sicily that Clodius was hoping to serve as quaestor, under C. Vergilius.
He did not despise talkative Sicily.
He seems to call Sicily talkative, because the Sicilians had accused many {of their governors} of extortion, and in particular, as we know, C. Verres.
[88] L There were so few there, that you would have thought that he had summoned them, not to an assembly, but as sponsors.
As Cicero said earlier, Clodius was deeply in debt. Anyone who took out a loan used to name sponsors as a guarantee that the debt would be repaid. But here Cicero wishes to show how untrustworthy Clodius was, and therefore he says that such a small number had come to the rostra, that it was as if he had called together those who were acting as his sponsors. {Clodius} had deceived many people, when he persuaded them to risk being his sponsors.
Whose guarantees are always said to be revoked.
He says that his guarantees are cancelled by the judgement of the praetor. In this passage, he refers to men who are unreasonably afraid to offer themselves as security for Clodius when he takes out loans, although they have observed often enough that his sponsors are freed from their liability, when they prove that that they have been tricked by his deceptions.
Firstly, this strict and old-fashioned man criticises those who stay at Baiae in the month of April.
At the beginning of spring, many people used to gather at the waters in Campania, in order to restore their health. Therefore Cicero [ironically] depicts the character of Clodius, as if he was a man of old-fashioned strictness and self-restraint, who disapproved not only of pleasure and luxury, but also of health cures; although Clodius was in fact unrestrained in his pursuit of all kinds of wantonness. And this would be a reference to Cicero's own estate at Puteoli, in which he used to stay for leisure. Therefore he rebuts Clodius' shameless criticism of his morals, without appearing arrogant or excessively prone to luxury.
He would not permit elderly men to stay even on their own estates, in order to restore their health, when there was no business at Rome.
This is a multi-layered and abundant defence, on the proposition that no blame should be attached to the behaviour of those who visit the health-giving waters at a certain time of year:
because they are elderly, at which age health is generally poor
because they stay on their own estates, which is perfectly proper
because they go out at a time, when everything is very quiet at Rome, and so they cannot be accused of avoiding the toil of public business
because they all should take care of their health, which is beneficial not only to the senators themselves, but also to the republic, so that they can energetically undertake everything that needs to be done.
He was so blind, that it was obvious that he had seen, what he was not supposed to see.
This is [playing on a name], because Clodius was descended from the family of Appius Caecus {"the blind"}. In order to show how headstrong and reckless Clodius was, Cicero recalls the infamous story of how he desecrated [89] L the secret rites of the Bona Dea, which men were not allowed to see, and suggests that he is beginning to pay the penalty for his crime, by foreseeing nothing of what he should say.
The patron of his lusts.
{He means} C. Curio, who during Sulla's proscription had bought an estate in Campania, which had previously belonged to C. Marius, who came from Arpinum, like Cicero. By this example, Cicero easily clears himself from the accusation, that he should be blamed for doing something, which was never thought improper in his fellow townsman and ex-consul, C. Marius.
It is not surprising that we seem rustic to him, who {wears} a long-sleeved tunic, etc.
This reply is a mixture of clever wit and harsh sarcasm, with a [comparison by definitions]. He defines country and city manners in such a way, that he endows himself with a character of upright virtue, and Clodius with evidence of decadence and disgrace.
You, who wore a woman's dress.
Clodius was said to have disguised himself in a woman's dress, in order to gain entry to the house of C. Caesar, where he desecrated the rites of the goddess. This is described [as a depiction of character], to reveal all the facets of his immorality.
Since he wore a calautica.
'Calautica' is the name of a kind of [decoration], with which women covered their heads. Afranius mentions it in his Cousins: "with head-bands and calauticae". Therefore a certain kind of shameful decadence is indicated by this disgraceful costume. In the histories of the period, the incident is related as follows. In the house of C. Caesar, the pontifex maximus, who was also praetor at the time, a solemn sacrifice was made for the public welfare. Because a man dressed as a woman had entered {the building}, the sacrifice was repeated. The matter was referred to the senate, and the senators decreed that there should be an investigation into the incident, which amounted to sacrilege. P. Clodius Pulcher was charged with the crime by L. Lentulus, who was afterwards consul with C. Marcellus; and the accusation was supported by C. and L. Lentulus. Aurelia, the mother of Caesar, appeared as a witness at the trial. In her evidence, she said that she had ordered Clodius to leave the house; and this was confirmed by Julia, the sister of Caesar. However, Clodius was later acquitted.
I think that, when you were given a mirror, you realised that you were far from beautiful.
Cicero amusingly reveals both how Clodius had disgraced his whole family, and the effeminacy of his character, as he looks in the mirror, which is most often used by women to take care of their appearance. Therefore he both condemns his decadence, and shows how inferior he is to his ancestors. Pulcher {"beautiful"} was a famous cognomen of the Claudian family. [90] L In ancient times, the first of the family to be called Pulcher was P. Claudius, the son of Appius Caecus. This P. Claudius, when he was consul, fought against the Carthaginian fleet at Drepana despite adverse omens, and in the battle 120 Roman ships were lost. As a result, he was charged with treason by Pullius and Fundanius, tribunes of the plebs. When an assembly was held to vote on the case, and the centuries were summoned, there was a sudden storm and the assembly was abandoned. Afterwards the tribunes intervened to prevent the same accusers from charging the same man with treason twice during that one year of office. Therefore the charge was changed, and the same accusers proposed that he should be fined; the people found him guilty, and he was fined 120,000 asses.
'But I was acquitted', he says. Yes, but in a novel way, because damages were awarded against him, even though he was acquitted.
[Disparagement]. The orator turns {Clodius'} victory in the trial into a cause of dishonour, by making this unexpected kind of reply. Damages were reckoned against convicted men, when the size of their fine was calculated. Because Clodius was acquitted, not by proving his innocence, but by bribing the jurors, therefore Cicero says that damages were reckoned against him even though he was acquitted. In other words, he was not given a fine, but he did have to pay out the money, which he gave to the jurors to secure his acquittal.
As if I am unhappy that 25 jurors believed me, when the 31 other jurors did not believe you, but were given wealthy agents by you.
Notice how elegantly the orator plays on the ambivalence of the words. Clodius prided himself on his victory, because he seemed to have been acquitted by the majority of the jurors, but Cicero, in order to support the trustworthiness of his own evidence, says that 25 of the jurors believed him - those jurors, that is, who voted to condemn the defendant. However even the others, who voted in favour of the defendant, did not really believe Clodius. They sought protection from the senate, and demanded that suitable agents should be appointed to hold the sum of money, so that they would not be cheated of the expected reward, which the defendant had promised to them. In this way, even the votes of those jurors who seemed to uphold Clodius' honour, are turned into discredit by Cicero. He says that some of the jurors found Clodius guilty of sacrilege; but the other jurors were more concerned with their private gain than with public religion. And here he says, [against expectation], that the jurors demanded protection from the senate, not in order to pass judgement resolutely and without interference, but to ensure that the defendant did not cheat them of the money, which he had promised if he was acquitted.
The divorce of the pontifex maximus.
He furnishes arguments, by which it could easily be proved that P. Clodius was guilty of sacrilege:
during those days, C. Caesar the pontifex maximus had divorced his wife
the women, who were present at the sacrifice, had given evidence about the presence of a man {at the ceremony}
the slaves, who were sought for interrogation, had been removed by their master, and sent off to various different provinces
the five slaves, who were most under suspicion, [91] L were sent by Clodius either to his brother Appius Claudius, who was then in Greece, or to his steward Diogenes, who was staying on the other side of the Alps
some of the slave girls, who attended Pompeia, the wife of Caesar, were sought {for questioning} under torture
one of these slaves was called Habra; it was claimed that P. Clodius had hidden in her room.
When Cicero talks about illicit sexual intercourse, he seems to mean incest, which was notoriously rumoured to have taken place between {Clodius and} his sister Clodia.
You were only four votes short of being ruined.
To prevent Clodius from putting on a show of innocence because he had been acquitted, {Cicero} compares the numbers and shows that almost the same proportion {of jurors} had found him guilty of sacrilege. He had been saved, not by his own virtue, but by good luck and a tiny number of votes.
For L. Cotta . . .
He proposed the Lex Aurelia, a judicial law that deprived the senators of their control of the law courts, and divided the juries between them and the Roman [equites and] tribuni aerarii in such a way, that the senators were outnumbered by the other jurors.
That afterwards he could not be a juror, under the terms of the Lex Aurelia.
What Cicero says is almost incredible, that Clodius should openly declare that he would recover the money, which he had used to buy the jurors' votes and avoid conviction. What could be more stupid than to admit by this declaration that he would have been convicted, if he had not bribed the jurors? But it is possible that Clodius did say it, with this meaning: he wished to suggest that he was innocent, but he had been victimised by the ruling elite and his powerful opponents, so that he had to give money to the jurors, as the only way of escaping from the clutches of those who wanted to see him destroyed. Therefore, [in anticipation], Cicero says that the jurors would refuse to return the money, because if they did, they could no longer be appointed as jurors under the terms of the Lex Aurelia. They would be barred, either because by returning the money they admitted that they had been bribed, or because, after being deprived of the three or four hundred {sestertii} that they had received from the defendant, they would be reduced to poverty, and no longer [have enough property to qualify as jurors . . . ]
[An unknown number of pages are missing here]
ABOUT THE KING OF ALEXANDRIA
. . . that would be embarrassing for private citizens.
To seize, to rob.
{Cicero} uses strong and derogatory words. He does not say, "to demand his inheritance, to obtain his rights. " Instead, to arouse the greatest sense of shame in his audience, [92] L he says, "to seize, to rob;" these words speak not of law, but of crime, which should deter them from rapacity.
If indeed we have become so eager for money, so watchful, so greedy.
He seems to be speaking in general terms, saying that even if we are greedy in our personal financial affairs, we ought not to show such a lust for money in public business. But in fact there is no doubt that he is describing the character of M. Crassus. Apart from the references to him in histories, and apart from the manner of his death - into which he almost rushed headlong, when he crossed the Euphrates in his desire to loot the wealthiest cities of Parthia - Cicero also writes about him in the third book of his 'De Officiis'. I will repeat Cicero's words here, so as to make it clear exactly what he thought about the character of Crassus. This is what he says, as I recall {Off_3'75}: Suppose, then, that a good man had such power that at a snap of his fingers his name could steal into rich men's wills, he would not avail himself of that power - no, not even though he could be perfectly sure that no one would ever suspect it. Then he adds: Suppose, on the other hand, that one were to offer a Marcus Crassus the power, by the mere snapping of his fingers, to get himself named as heir, when he was not really an heir, he would, I warrant you, dance in the forum.
But which are our decisions.
This was not the first time that Crassus had tried to get a decision about the inheritance of Egypt; it had been debated many times before. The first time that the question was raised, was when the money seems to have been demanded from the Tyrians, and brought to Rome, soon after it had been deposited there by king Alexas. {Cicero} therefore has to confront this claim, and refute it. In setting out his argument, Cicero makes an excellent [compound distinction], which he begins to develop with these words:
{Our decisions} ought to be very restrained, because this is the height of power, to be able to decide ourselves about our own affairs.
The orator means that is was almost shameless, for the senate to want to decide about its own interests, because it is only natural, that no-one can judge fairly when they are thinking about their own profit, which most men strive to gain even by dishonest means.
Out of so great an inheritance, we only recognised the name.
He quickly makes the argument in his favour, that somehow it had been decided . . .
[12 pages missing]
. . . that the man, who mentioned the money, should think that war ought to be waged.
So there is a just cause for war, in the same way that, as Crassus mentioned, there was in the war against Jugurtha.
It is well known that, after the death of Micipsa king of Numidia, his kingdom was divided into three, between Adherbal, Hiempsal and Jugurtha; but Jugurtha killed the other two, [93] L partly by violence and partly by treachery. This was the main cause of the outbreak of war between him and the Roman people. After he had heavily defeated many of their generals, he was eventually conquered by the general C. Marius.
I will not permit our empire to proclaim, 'If you do not give me anything, I will regard you as an enemy; but if you do give me something, I will regard you as a friend and ally. '
He continues to call for decency, and asserts that the Roman people ought not to trade in royal titles; so that by warning the senate that it might appear to be behaving disgracefully, he could suggest that the best course of action was the one that was most honourable.
When that king was killed, this boy was in Egypt.
[Conjecture from a summary of appearances]. This is deduced from a discussion of probability, which depends first of all on a division of this type, {into the topics} of free will and ability [intention and capability]. He mentions that he was a boy, which refers to his will: Ptolemy could not have been guilty of such deadly hatred, because his youth and immaturity would have prevented him from persisting in such a course of action. And he mentions that he was in Syria, which refers to his ability: because he was abroad, he did not have the opportunity to kill the man, whom he was alleged to have slain.
And I see that it is generally agreed, that the king with his own hands murdered his sister the queen, who was loved and welcomed by the people; then he was killed in a riot by a mob.
He makes a convincing case by a strong accumulation of proofs [overwhelming proof]. He proves that this murder was committed by the people of Alexandria, rather than by order of Ptolemy. Note how he gradually increases the evidence, which reinforces the suspicion that the cause was an uprising of the people. He begins in this way: "And I see that it is generally agreed," so that there should be no doubt about the truth, if it was generally agreed. Then he continues: "his sister the queen," so that the crime of murdering a sister should be made even more shocking to everyone by causing the death of a queen. After this he adds: "who was loved . . . "
[The rest of the commentary on this speech is lost. ]
IN DEFENCE OF FLACCUS
* * *
[94] {4} L You, the fifty leaders of that rank, will judge what is your joint opinion.
The Lex Aurelia stipulated that a third of the jurors should be selected from senators, and two-thirds from tribuni aerarii and equites, who were men of the same rank.
* * *
[95] L He preferred to call them strangled.
Cicero suggests that the prosecutor, Decimus Laelius, had chosen to use this word {strangled} in a deliberate and rhetorical way, in order to renew memories of the men, who had been condemned to die with Lentulus in prison, on the evidence of the letter.
What did my friend Caetra intend?
He was one of the supporters of the prosecutor, Decimus Laelius.
And what did Decianus . . ?
Another supporter of the prosecution. He was the son of Apuleius Decianus, who had recently been condemned. When the elder Decianus was tribune of the plebs, he tried to avenge {the deaths of} Apuleius Saturninus and C. Servilius Glaucia, and was guilty of many wicked and violent actions. Afterwards he was prosecuted and condemned. Then he went to Pontus, and joined to Mithridates. Therefore the orator refers to the family's disgrace, in order to suggest that the son was imitating his father, and was acting in the interests of {his country's} enemies.
Would that it was all my own doing! So mostly the senate . . .
